HomeMy WebLinkAbout091096 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to
a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting
128 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - 7:00 PM
6:30 PM -@@Closed Session. of the@ Ciiy@'@@C 6n6il@@pursuant@to Government:Code Section 54956 8
Conferencelwith@@Real Propertv Negotiator. Prop,6rt W6st@@side of @Froiit@@street,:West ,of @ll.
:15/FrontStreet,APN'922-@110-006:and@@9221@10-047;@Negotiatina@Parties-.Ci "bf@Teme661aand.
ty
Margarita ':Canyon LLC,@
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining
agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue
all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All
meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 96-18
Resolutions No. 96-112
CALL TO ORDER:Mayor Karel Lindemans presiding
Invocation:Pastor Dave Belcher, Sunrise Community Church
Flag Salute:Councilmember Stone
ROLL CALL:Birdsall, Ford, Roberts, Stone, Lindemans
PRESENTATIONS/Certificates of Appreciation - Commander Joseph Wasek, Jr.
PROCLAMATIONSand Commander George R. Farmer, Jr.
Pollution Prevention Week
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an
R:\Age@\091096 1
item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter = listed on the Agenda, a pink
'Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a 'Request to Speak'
form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five
(5)minute time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPOM
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at
this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (1 0) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PU@
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of
the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
action.
1Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
2Resolution A12prov@na List of Dem@
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
R:\Agenda\091096 2
3City Treasurer's Report
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1996.
4Purchase of City Vehicles
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1Approve the purchase of four City Vehicles, which were appropriated in the 1996/97
Annual Operating Budget.
5Overland Drive Overcross*na Improvements, Construction Cool2erative Aareement witb State
Department of Transl2ortatoon
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-931, BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
OVERLAND DRIVE OVERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
6Accel2t Public Improvements in Tract No. 23267-F (Located Southwesterly of Margarita
Road at Highway 79 South)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-F;
6.2Authorize reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond for street, water and sewer
improvements to the ten percent (10%) warranty level, and initiation of the one-year
warranty period;
6.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety.
R:@ertda\091098 3
7Acceptance of Public Streets into the C'ty-Maintained Street System (With*n Tract No.
23267-F) (Located southwesterly of the intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79
South)
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET
SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23267-F)
8Release Subdivision Monumentatoon and Traffic Sianalizat*on Mitiaation Securities in Tract
No. 24133--a (Located at the northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1Authorize release of the Subdivision Monument and Traffic Signalization Mitigation
securities in Tract No. 24133-3;
8.2Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
9Release Subdivision Monument and Traffic Signalozation Mitiaation Securities in Tract No.
241 34-3 (Located northeasterly of the intersection of Santiago Road at Margarita Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1Authorize the release of subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation
securities in Tract No. 24134-3;
9.2Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
10Release the Subdivision Monument and Traffic Sianalization Mitiaation Securities in Tract
No. 24134-F (Located at the northeasterly corner of Santiago Road at Margarita Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1Authorize the release of the subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation
securities in Tract No. 24134-F;
10.2Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
R:@erwds\091096 4
1 1"No Parking" Zone on Via La V*da between Maraarita Road and Via Renate
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING
A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN
MARGARITA ROAD AND VIA RENATE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 'Bw
1 2"No Parking" Zone on Ynez Road Between Rancho Hichiands Drive and Rancho Vista Road
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING
A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN RANCHO
HIGHLANDS DRIVE AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A"
1 3Contract Agreement for Street Address Numberina
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1Approve a contract agreement with Bruce Stewart, which renews an existing
contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis.
1 4Old Town Temecula Logo License Aareement
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1Authorize the City Manager to enter into license agreements for use of the City's Old
Town Logo.
14.2Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING
THE USE OF THE OLD TOWN LOGO FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES WITHIN THE OLD
TOWN AREA
R:@anda\091096
14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING
AFEE FOR THE OLD TOWN LICENSING AGREEMENT
1 5The First Amendment to Aareement for Law Enforcement Services Between the County of
Riverside and the City of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services
between County of Riverside and City of Temecula and authorize the Mayor to
execute the agreement.
16Resolution Desianating the Arts Council of the Temecula Valle)t as the Lead Art Organization
an Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING
THE ARTS COUNCIL OF TEMECULA VALLEY AS THE LEAD ART ORGANIZATION IN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING,
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT MEETING,
OLD TOWN[WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANC ING AUTHORITY MEETING
R:@e@\091096 a
TEMECULA:COMMUNITY SERVICES:DISTRICT MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 96-01
Resolutwona No. CSD 96-10
CALL TO ORDER: President Ron Roberts
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Stone, Roberts
PUBLIC COMMENT:
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers
are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Board of Directors on an
item = listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink 'Request to Speak' form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a 'Request to Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Board of Directors gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for
individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink 'Request to
Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name
and address for the re@
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of August 27, 1996.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:kAgendaNO91096 7
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT@@AGENCY@@MEETING
Next in 0 ders
Ordinance:No. RDA 96-01
Resolution:No. RDA 96-16
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Patricia H. Birdsall presiding
ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall
PUBLIC COMMENT:
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Redevelopment
Agency on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers
are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Agency on an item n=
listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink 'Request to Speak' form should
be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a 'Request to Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1Approve the minutes of August 27, 1996.
2Residential Rehabilitation Program
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM TO ASSIST PROPERTY
OWNERS TO REHABILITATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING, IMPROVING AND PRESERVING THE SUPPLY OF LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND
THE CITY
R:@rid&\OSIO96 8
2.2Authorize the expenditures of up to $200,000. from RDA Housing Set-aside Accour,
No. 165-199-813-5804, to establish the Residential Rehabilitation Program.
3Purchase Aareement for APN 922-OF;9-090 and Portions of APN's 922-260-01 5. 024, and
= (Located along the west side of Pujol Street at the extension of First Street)
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "AGREEMENT FOR
ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE
OF PUJOL STREET AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET IN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND PORTIONS OF APN'S 922-260-015, 024, AND
027)
3.2Authorize the expenditures of up to $560,916 from RDA Capital Improvement
Program to cover acquisition, escrow, soil testing, and closing costs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:@enda\091096 9
@@,OLD TOWN WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY
Next Ordere
Resolution No.: No. FA 96-12
CALL TO ORDER: President Patricia H. Birdsall
ROLL CALL: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Council about an item E= listed on the Agenda a pink 'Request
To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address,
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of August 27, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:@erwda\OSIOOS 1 0
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing
or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the
project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
1 7Temecula Valley School D4str*ct's Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitiaation Plan
(PA96-0047)
RECOMMENDATION:
1 7.1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND SETTING THE APPROPRIATE
MITIGATION FEE CAP
COUNCIL BUSINESS
18Request for Direction on the Process for Making Findinas of Public Necessity or Convenience
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1Provide direction to staff regarding the need to develop an ordinance/resolution to
guide the process of making findings of public necessity or convenience.
19TEAM Community Pantry Salaries
(Continued from the meeting of 8/27/96)
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1Review and provide direction to staff regarding funding to the TEAM Community
Pantry.
R:@ands%O9lOg6
20Temecula Library Service Alternatives Feasibility Study
(Continued from the meeting of 8/27/96)
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1Approve the proposal submitted by David M. Griffith and Associates to conduct a
study to determine the future fiscal viability of the Temecula Library.
20.2Appropriate a maximum of $39,000 from Development Impact Fees - Library to fund
the City's portion of the Library Study.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: September 24, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
R:\.Age@\091096 12
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
Ciiy of Temecula
CeA&cate of Appreciation
Pre@@ in &pp on an(I gr&ifiiude on behalf of the
ciiizeuo of the C@ of TemecuL
To:
This expre@on Of the comitnunity's "est appreciation serves to aclmowledge the effo@s
of & diiiiinguishea ciiizen, @ gain worldwide name recognition for the City of Temecula
in & unique ana creative wa-y. Co@anaer W&sc]L acting with Commanaer George
Farmer, Jr., also & Temecula resident, was ins@enw in the recent naming of & U.S.
N&val Air Squadmn VR-57, DC-9 AircraR the "City of Temecula". This aircrar
wiff join widi the "CitT of Corona4lo- ana the "City of San Diego" in global @is proudl3,
bearing our Yi@me.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto affixed
MY' hana and official seal this 10th day, of
September, 1996
F. Lindemans, Mayor
@June S. Gree.1, CMC
CiiT Cler]L
City of Temecula
Ce calee of Appreciaiion
Presented in appreciation and gratitude on bchx of the
citizens of the Ciiy of Teinecula
To:
This expre@on of the community'ii "est appreciation serves to ac]Lnowledge the efforiii
of & dis@quishe(I citizeu, to gain worldwide n-c recognition for the CitT of Temecula
in a unique and creative way. Commander Farmer acting with Commander Joseph
W@ Jr., @ a resident of Temecula, was ins@enij in the nam;ng of a U.S. Naval
Air Squadmn VR-57, DC-9 @aft the "City of Temecula". This aircraft wdl join
with the -CiiT of Coronado- and the -CitT of San Diego" in global flights proudly be@g
our name.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto affixed
m-y hand and official seal this 10th day, of
September,,1996
I F. Lindemans, Maylor
@une S. Gree.1, CM7C
Ciiy Clerl
The Cify of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
NMEREAS, Temecula is in favor of a clean and safe environment; and
@EREAS, pollution prevention focuses on waste prevention, and is therefore
the most favorable and progressive strategy for protecting our environment; and
@EREAS, pollution prevention can increase efficiency and save businesses
money; and
V*IIHEREAS, pollution prevention offers both environmental protection and
increased competitiveness; and
NMEREAS, by, focusing attention on pollution prevention, Temecula win meet
the challenges of the 90s for economic competitiveness and environmental protection; and
V*THEREAS, Pollution Prevention Week is an oppo@nitt for government,
industry, and ci@ens to work together to plan for a prosperous and sustainable future;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, @l F. Lindemanr,, on behalf of the CifT Counca
of the CitT of Temecula, hereby, proclaim the week of September 16th, 1996 to be,
"Pollution Prevention Week"
IN VATNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my, hand and caused the Seal
of the CifT of Temecula to be effied this 10th day of September, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
ITEIN4 1
ITEI\4 2
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMIECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLABB AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHMIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby
allowed in the amount of $1,030,474.71.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 10th day of September, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 108
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 96- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the 10th day of September, 1996 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
Resos 108 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
08/22/96 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $115,515.82
08/29/96 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 245,753.53
09110/96 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 522,199.94
08/22/96 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 147,005.42
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 09/10196 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 1,030,474.71
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERALFUND $488,177.51
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 2,321.06
165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 5,046.38
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 68,492.69
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 5,120.49
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 60.71
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 10,727.14
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 417.71
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND 148,634.00
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP 127,904.96
300 INSURANCE FUND 4,853.98
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3,504.30
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 1,034.80
340 FACILITIES 17,173.56 $883,469.29
PAYROLL:
001 GENERAL 97,378.89
165 RDA-LOW/MOD 1,611.03
190 TCSD 34,813.38
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 70.34
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 175.02
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 2,465.99
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,038.77
280 RDA-CIP 2,754.16
300 INSURANCE 619.75
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2,918.19
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 791.07
340 FACILITIES 2,368.83 147,005.42
TOTAL BY FUND: $ 1,030,474.71
PREPARED BY RE
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT-
Ti ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
DLEY, CITY MANAGE
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA s
08/21/96 14:03 VOLJCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
001 GENERAL FUND 63,618.13
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 2,321.06
165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 613.88
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 24,457.19
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 633.96
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 8 60.71
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 3,668.56
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 417.71
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 8,072.67
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 6,322.25
300 INSURANCE FUND 428.31
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3,504.30
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 505.62
340 FACILITIES 891.47
TOTAL 115,515.82
'E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
/96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 16,338.16
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 174.23
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 4,481.40
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 191-2070 9.01
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 22.15
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 486.10
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 158.57
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 321.81
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 137.01
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 709.72
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 118.81
708559 08/22196 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 200.44
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 3,670.55
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 56.44
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 1,245.65
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 191-2070 2.38
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 5.97
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 91.31
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 36.87
7ng559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 96.87
19 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 23.64
39 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 124.68
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 25.90
708559 08/22/96 000283 WELLSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 78.90 28,616.57
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 001-2070 94.57
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 165-2070 2.01
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 158.35
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070 2.23
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 11.84
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 16.00
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 4,462.58
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 47.73
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 891.38
794519 08/22196 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 191-2070 1.69
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 192-2070 3.90
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 115.26
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 29.01
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 75.16
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 41.70
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 205.45
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 23.61
794519 08/22/96 000444 WELLSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 23.87 6,206.34
30715 08/22/96 000534 A F JOHNSON CO., INC. RAIN GEAR - PUBLIC WORKS 001-164-601-5218 309.92
30715 08/22/96 000534 A F JOHNSON CO., INC. FREIGHT 001-164-601-5218 6.71
30715 08/22/96 000534 A F JOHNSON CO., INC. TAX 001-164-601-5218 24.02 340.65
'6 08/22/96 001910 AMERITECH COMMUNICATION AUG 5535 COPIER MONTHLY LEASE 330-199-999-5217 220.77 220.77
30717 08/22/96 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 8/3 WILLIAMS 001-161-999-5118 216.72 216.72
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 2
08/21/96 14:03 VOLJCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30718 08/22/96 000427 ARTESIA IMPLEMENT, INC. REPAIR/SERVICE TCSD TRACTOR 190-180-999-5214 455.47
30718 08/22/96 000427 ARTESIA IMPLEMENT, INC. TRACTOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 190-180-999-5214 139.04 594.51
30719 08/22/96 002448 B C N LIGHTING & SIGNS INSTALL 36 BANNERS-LIGHT POLES 280-199-999-5270 1,629.00 1,629.00
30720 08/22/96 002143 BALL PARK MAINTENANCE BASEBALL EQUIPMENT 190-183-999-5380 372.90
30720 08/22/96 002143 BALL PARK MAINTENANCE FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 20.00
30720 08/22/96 002143 BALL PARK MAINTENANCE TAX 190-183-999-5380 28.90 421.80
30721 08/22/96 001950 BECHTEL MAINTENANCE SER CRC WINDOW CLEANING 190-182-999-5250 975.00 975.00
30722 08/22/96 002411 BUSINESS BOARDS OF AMER CUSTOM DRY ERASE BOARDS 190-182-999-5301 160.00
30722 08/22/96 002411 BUSINESS BOARDS OF AMER TAX 190-182-999-5301 12.40 172.40
30723 08/22/96 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE #8953 300-199-999-5200 117.00 117.00
30724 08/22/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA INSTALL SAND TOT LOT ROTARY PK 190-2030 2,173.50 2,173.50
30725 08/22/96 000486 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL BU CF:CMBTA 10/30-11/2 Z.SMITH 001-140-999-5261 125.00 125.00
30726 08/22/96 001655 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY MISC WELDING SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 144.76 s
30727 08/22/96 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER MISC. HARDWARE & MATERIALS 001-164-601-5244 252.36 252.36
30728 08/22/96 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 190-180-999-5263 15.27
30728 08/22/96 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC. FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-161-999-5262 16.11 31.38
30729 08/22/96 002387 COMMONWEALTH FILMS, INC RECORDS MGMT VIDEOS 001-120-999-5277 590.00 590.00
30730 08/22/96 002106 DA FAMILY SUPPORT 002106 SUPPORT 190-2140 100.00 100.00
30731 08/22/96 000155 DAVLIN TAPING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS 001-100-999-5250 805.44 805.44
30732 08/22/96 DOYLE, LABECCA REFUND:CHILDRENIS ART CLASS 190-183-4982 40.00 40.00
30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 7/26 LAUFER 001-162-999-5118 248.56
30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC INSP SRVCS (2)W/E 8/2 NICHOLS 280-199-602-5801 2,376.00
30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC INSP SRVCS W/E 8/7 NICHOLS 280-199-602-5801 801.90
30733 08/22/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC INSP SRVCS (2)W/E 8/2 MAGNERA 210-199-650-5804 2,320.00 5,746.46
30734 08/22/96 000478 FAST SIGNS SIGNS:HOCKEY ARENA 190-180-999-5244 135.00
30734 08/22/96 000478 FAST SIGNS TAX 190-180-999-5244 10.46 145.46
30735 08/22/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 210-199-650-5804 31.45
30735 08/22/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 280-199-999-5230 9.50
30735 08/22/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-110-999-5230 24.75 65.70
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0180/KL/JUL 001-100-999-5258 177.06
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0222/RR/JUL 001-100-999-5258 560.00
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0198/MJM/JUL 001-110-999-5258 220.00
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0198/MJM/JUL 001-110-999-5226 14.63
E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
/96 14:03 VC)UCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0198/MJM/JUL 001-110-999-5226 .03
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0172/RB/JUL 001-110-999-5260 23.00
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0172/RB/JUL 001-150-999-5260 88.00
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0123/GT/JUL 001-161-999-5260 70.15
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0131/AE/JUL 001-162-999-5258 325.00
30736 08/22/96 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C 5473-6664-0391-0131/AE/JUL 001-1170 7.70 1,485.57
30737 08/22/96 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN - DAY PLANNERS 001-161-999-5220 27.96 27.96
30738 08/22/96 FULLY PERSUADED CHURCH REFUND:SEC. DEPOSIT/ROOM RENTL 190-2900 100.00
30738 08/22/96 FULLY PERSUADED CHURCH REFUND:SEC. DEPOSIT/ROOM RENTL 190-183-4990 60.00 160.00
30739 08/22/96 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-699-8632/GENERAL USAGE/AUG 320-199-999-5208 27.35 27.35
30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-120-999-5220 59.73
30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FINANCE DEPT. 001-140-999-5220 29.36
30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC 190-182-999-5220 13.74
30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5220 185.31
30740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FINANCE DEPT. 001-140-999-5220 43.05
-n740 08/22/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-110-999-5220 84.51 415.70
41 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE CAMPACTAPE CARTRIDGES 320-199-999-5221 404.91
30741 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE ANTI STATIC TOWELETTES 320-199-999-5221 15.16
30741 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE FREIGHT 320-199-999-5221 13.30
30741 08/22/96 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE TAX 320-199-999-5221 33.20 466.57
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN ELECTRONIC COMPUTER WORKCENTER 210-199-650-5610 3,008.86
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN FREIGHT 210-199-650-5610 32.93
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN TAX 210-199-650-5610 233.34
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN ELECTRONIC COMPUTER WORKCENTER 210-199-650-5610 198.66
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN FREIGHT 210-199-650-5610 7.03
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN TAX 210-199-650-5610 15.40
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 180.36
30742 08/22/96 000180 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPAN MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 438.69 4,115.27
30743 08/22/96 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY, OTR 1 ALARM MONITORING-SK PARK 190-180-999-5250 87.25
30743 08/22/96 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY, SEPT ALARM MONITORING-STORAGE 340-199-701-5250 35.00 122.25
30744 08/22/96 002053 HARKER GROUP, THE PROF SRVCS ECON DEV PACKETS 280-199-999-5270 425.00
30744 08/22/96 002053 HARKER GROUP, THE CREDIT:WORK NOT APPROVED 280-199-999-5270 212.50- 212.50
30745 08/22/96 001060 HYATT HTL:CMBTA CF 10/31/11/2 Z.SMTH 001-140-999-5261 158.00 158.00
30746 08/22/96 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 001-2080 11462.80
30746 08/22/96 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 190-2080 426.87
30746 08/22196 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 193-2080 7.14 1,896.81
@n747 08/22/96 000199 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC 000199 IRS GARN 001-2140 309.85 309.85
,8 08/22/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/11 EVANS 001-164-604-5118 83.19
30748 08/22/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/11 EVANS 001-163-999-5118 83.19
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 4
08/21/96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30748 08/22/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/11 EVANS 001-165-999-5118 83.22 249.60
30749 08/22/96 KELLY, ANN REFUND:SWIM LESSONS 190-183-4975 85.00 85.00
30750 08/22/96 000206 KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE, I STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220 20.11 20.11
30751 08/22/96 001973 LA SALLE LIGHTING SERVI LIGHTING SERVICES -SPORTS PARK 190-180-999-5212 47.00 47.00
30752 08/22/96 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. SEA WORLD DAY CAMP TRIP 190-183-999-5340 30.23
30752 08/22/96 000380 LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. SEA WORLD DAY CAMP TRIP 190-183-999-5340 403.50 433.73
30753 08/22/96 002187 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR JUL ANIMAL CONTROL SRVCS 001-172-999-5255 3,546.45 3,546.45
30754 08/22/96 001870 MENK, HELGA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 57.60 57.60
30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR INTERIM STATION AUG RENT 001-171-999-5470 905.00
30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR TAX 001-171-999-5470 70.14
30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR INTERIM STATION AUG RENT 001-171-999-5470 685.00
30755 08/22/96 001892 MOBILE MODULAR TAX 001-171-999-5470 53.09 1,713.23
30756 08/22/96 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING MOVE TRFFC SIGNALS-NICH/WINCH 001-164-604-5250 500.00
30757 08/22/96 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM 1200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS 001-140-999-5222 702.00
30757 08/22/96 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM FREIGHT 001-140-999-5222 20.00
30757 08/22/96 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM TAX 001-140-999-5222 54.41 776.41
30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0140 001-161-999-5256 31.95
30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0040 001-161-999-5256 32.63
30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES INVITE TO SUBMIT - 4 VEHICLES 001-120-999-5256 17.38
30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING DESIGN GUIDE 001-161-999-5256 34.93
30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH CCXJNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0043 001-161-999-5256 75.15
30758 08/22/96 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES PUBLIC HEARING PA96-0128 001-120-999-5256 28.88 220.92
30759 08/22/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS LAND DEVELOPMN 001-163-999-5214 63.85
30759 08/22/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE TIRES FOR B&S VEHICLES 001-162-999-5214 101.27
30759 08/22/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIRS CIP DIVISION 001-165-999-5214 75.11 240.23
30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, 12 DOZ SOFTBALLS FOR CRC 190-183-999-5380 491.40
30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 12.56
30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, TAX 190-183-999-5380 38.08
30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, 8 DOZ SOFTBALLS FOR CRC 190-183-999-5380 327.60
30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 10.98
30760 08/22/96 000241 ORANGE SPORTING GOODS, TAX 190-183-999-5380 25.38 906.00
30761 08/22/96 001354 P C MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION IS FOR ONE YR 320-199-999-5228 29.97 29.97
30762 08/22/96 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. REVIEWING CITY'S COMPUTER SERV 320-199-999-5250 550.00 550.00
30763 08/22/96 002422 PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY L.A. CENTRAL BUSINESS GUIDE 001-140-999-5228 31.75
30763 08/22/96 002422 PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY FREIGHT 001-140-999-5228 2.86
30763 08/22/96 002422 PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY TAX 001-140-999-5228 3.02 37.63
'E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30764 08/22/96 PATEL, KAUSHIK REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 190-183-4975 25.00 25.00
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PER REDE 001-2130 278.98
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 001-2390 14,960.50
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 165-2390 240.14
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 3,101.24
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 191-2390 11.02
30765 08/22196 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 27.30
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 193-2390 366.54
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 194-2390 169.79
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 263.24
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 300-2390 103.50
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 320-2390 292.08
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 330-2390 115.60
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 340-2390 367.75
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2390 60.09
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 .84
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 13.58
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 .05
@0765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 .14
15 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 1.77
j5 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 194-2390 .97
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 .92
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 .46
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 .93
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 .93
30765 08/22/96 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 2.09 20,380.45
30766 08/22/96 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 40.62 40.62
30767 08/22/96 000249 PETTY CASH INCREASE:CDUNCIL RESOL 96-10 001-1030 700.00 700.00
30768 08/22/96 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM & PHOTO DEVELOPING 190-180-999-5301 35.32 35.32
30769 08/22/96 PRESBYTERY OF RVSD-TEME REFUND-SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00
30770 08/22/96 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN CITY MANAGER SUBSCRIPT: 1 YR 001-110-999-5228 124.80
30770 08/22/96 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN REPUBLICAN NAT'L AD-6/6/96 280-199-999-5270 43.00 167.80
30771 08/22/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WTR METERS 190-180-999-5240 692.55
30771 08/22/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WTR METERS 191-180-999-5240 107.50
30771 08/22/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VAR WTR METERS 193-180-999-5240 2,432.52 3,232.57
30772 08/22/96 002400 REBEL TEMECULA TEMP OLD TOWN LIGHTING RENTAL 280-199-999-5250 198.00
30772 08/22/96 002400 REBEL TEMECULA CREDIT:OLD TOWN LGHTS DAMAGE W 280-199-999-5250 18.00- 180.00
30773 08/22/96 001675 RIVERSIDE CO./GSA BUILD JUL SERV-WINCH RGT-OF-WAY 280-199-602-5700 116.00 116.00
'4 08/22/96 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 700.00 700.00
5u775 08/22/96 000277 S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS, CRC ACTIVITIES SUPPLIES 190-183-999-5320 92.20 92.20
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA F
08/21/96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
3OT76 08/22/96 002384 SECURE BUSINESS CC)MMUNI ENG SERVS-COUNCIL CHMBR VIDEO 210-199-650-5804 2,225.00 2,225.00
30777 08/22/96 001919 SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICE EMERG FOOD & AID CDEG REIMB. 140-2030 2,770.03
30777 08/22/96 001919 SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICE EMERG FOOD & AID CDBG REIMB. 140-1290 448.97- 2,321.06
30778 08/22/96 000405 SMITH, PHILLIP REIMB:COMB DWELL INSPECT CERT 001-162-999-5261 45.00 45.00
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON VAR METERS 4433 4615 5596 191-180-999-5319 258.68
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON VAR METERS 7154 8053 1010 7222 193-180-999-5240 54.38
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-341-4215 NICOLAS RD IRR 190-180-999-5240 23.91
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-6685 YNEZ RD 191-180-999-5240 13.44
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7345 - 7/11 TO 8/12 193-180-999-5240 15.50
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7345 06/14/96 STMNT 193-180-999-5240 15.48
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-03-761-8410 PALA PARK 190-180-999-5240 1,469.14
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 53-77-850-0106-01 000-0 YMEZ 191-180-999-5319 230.19
30779 08/22/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59-77-820-1003-02 000-5 CRT AN 193-180-999-5240 45.64 2,126.36
30780 08/22/96 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 021-725-0700 SR CENTER 190-181-999-5240 22.16
30780 08/22/96 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 091-024-9300 CRC 190-182-999-5240 380.66 402.82
30781 08/22/96 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4759 TE 001-162-999-5208 35.24
30781 08/22/96 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-3800 MW 190-180-999-5208 46.19
30781 08/22/96 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4752 SN 190-180-999-5208 69.85 151.28
30782 08/22/96 SPINELLI, ALLISON REFUND-NEWTON'S PUZZLE CLASS 190-183-4982 19.00 19.00
30783 08/22/96 000465 STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 476.00 476.00
30784 08/22/96 002150 SUMMIT SAFETY PRODUCTS LARGE ICE PACKS FOR SKATE PARK 190-180-999-5301 72.00
30784 08/22/96 002150 SUMMIT SAFETY PRODUCTS P.T.P. C.P.R. VALVES 190-180-999-5301 107.70
30784 08/22/96 002150 SUMMIT SAFETY PRODUCTS TAX 190-180-999-5301 13.93 193.63
30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. PLAQUE FOR CRC FOUNDATION 190-180-999-5301 117.00
30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. ENGRAVING 190-180-999-5301 106.44
30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. TAX 190-180-999-5301 17.32
30785 08/22/96 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO. SPORTS PRGM AWARDS 190-183-999-5380 161.63 402.39
30786 08/22/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5220 81.27
30786 08/22/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5220 20.89 102.16
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 001-2080 2,860.95
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 165-2080 72.39
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 190-2080 750.85
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 192-2080 1.25
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 193-2080 13.75
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 194-2080 22.50
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 280-2080 72.39
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 300-2080 5.00
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 320-2080 312.50
30787 08/22/96 001065 U S C M /PESSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CC)MP 340-2080 87.50 4,1,,
'E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7
/96 14:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160 886.60
30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (ORRA) 000389 PT RETIR 165-2160 18.90
30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PESSCO (ORRA) 000389 PT RETIR 190-2160 1,484.26
30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 193-2160 20.94
30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 280-2160 110.92
30788 08/22/96 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 320-2160 150.00 2,671.62
30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 001-2120 76.10
30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 165-2120 1.20
30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 190-2120 15.00
30789 08/22/96 000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 uw 280-2120 1.20 93.50
30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNIFORMS RENTAL-PW MAINT CREWS 001-164-601-5243 140.69
30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNIFORM MAINT FOR TCSD PERSONN 190-180-999-5243 90.84
30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, FLOOR MAT RENTAL FOR CITY HALL 340-199-701-5250 95.92
30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, FLOOR MAT RENTAL @ CRC 190-182-999-5250 86.80
30790 08/22/96 000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, FLOOR MAT RENTAL @ SR CENTER 190-181-999-5250 44.52 458.77
30791 08/22/96 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI JUL PLAN CK SERVS FOR B&S 001-162-999-5248 4,964.04 4,964.04
12 08/22/96 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, BLDG MAINT SUPPLIES FOR CRC 190-182-999-5212 232.52
)2 08/22/96 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, BLDG MAINT SUPPLIES FOR CRC 190-182-999-5212 52.25 284.77
30793 08/22/96 002109 WHITE CAP MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 16.85 16.85
30794 08/22/96 ZELDIN, MARVIN DONATION-MEMORY OF MR. ZELDIN 001-100-999-5285 50.00 50.00
TOTAL CHECKS 115,515.82
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 7
08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
001 GENERAL FUND 54,013.56
165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 4,432.50
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 21,223.93
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 3,560.53
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 7,058.58
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 65,341.78
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 69,382.08
300 INSURANCE FUND 4,425.67
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 529.18
340 FACILITIES 15,785.72
TOTAL 245,753.53
E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
L 96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30795 08/22/96 002281 LASSIG CONSTRUCTION REISSUE-CONST(2) COLUMN STRUCT 190-180-999-5244 1,350.00 1,350.00
30797 08/29/96 001104 A R M A INTERNATIONAL PUB:INFO MGR'S TOOLKIT 001-120-999-5228 75.00 75.00
30798 08/29/96 002158 A S A P SERVICES INC. STREET STRIPING PROGRAM 001-164-602-5410 2,902.13 2,902.13
30799 08/29/96 001515 A S A P TRUCK TRACTOR & DRAIN PIPE REPAIR 190-180-999-5212 75.00
30799 08/29/96 001515 A S A P TRUCK TRACTOR & INSTALL DUCK POND AERATION 190-180-999-5212 207.50 282.50
30800 08/29/96 002410 A WOMAN'S TOUCH BUILDIN AUG JANITORIAL SRVCS-PARKS 190-180-999-5250 1,020.00 1,020.00
30801 08/29/96 002038 ACTION POOL & SPA SUPPL CRC POOL SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212 6.45 6.45
30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-SAM HICKS PRK 280-199-805-5802 60.00
30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-DUCK POND 210-190-143-5802 1,280.00
30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-WINCH. CRK PK 210-190-149-5802 2,900.00
30802 08/29/96 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP JUL DESIGN SRVCS-ADA PARK IMPR 210-190-148-5802 650.00 4,890.00
30803 08/29/96 000100 ALLIED BARRICADE COMPAN TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 001-164-601-5218 1,467.50
7n@03 08/29/96 000100 ALLIED BARRICADE COMPAN TAX 001-164-601-5218 113.73 1,581.23
j4 08/29/96 001912 ALLMON, VYLANI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 720.00 720.00
30805 08/29/96 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 8/10 WILLAIMS 001-161-999-5118 216.72 216.72
30806 08/29/96 001943 8 R W, INC. SIGNAL DESIGN FOR RANCHO CAL 210-165-664-5802 1,306.31 1,306.31
30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 132.50
30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECT LINE -SENIOR CENTER 190-181-999-5212 280.00
30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 45.00
30807 08/29/96 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 328.25 785.75
30808 08/29/96 BARCLAYS LAW PUBLISHERS PUB:TITLE 25 DIV 1 CH 2 AMENDS 001-162-999-5228 35.00 35.00
30809 08/29/96 BAYDALA, DAVID REFUND:SPRING BASKETBALL 190-183-999-5380 40.00 40.00
30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA REPAIR BROKEN MAINLINE 190-180-999-5212 635.00
30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA VANDALISM REPAIR - VOORBURG 190-180-999-5212 480.00
30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA LDSC IMPROVEMENTS-SENIOR CENTR 190-181-999-5212 761.65
30810 08/29/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA VANDALISM REPAIR - VOORBURG 190-180-999-5212 102.50 1,979.15
30811 08/29/96 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M SEM:BUS WRITING-C.KEIRSEY 10/2 001-162-999-5261 145.00
30811 08/29/96 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M SEM:BUS WRITING-P.SMITH 10/2 001-162-999-5261 145.00 290.00
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. HODSON, JACK 10/17/95 300-2030 306.65
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MILLER, CHARLES 01/06/95 300-2030 32.38
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. HEMME, ROBERT 07124/95 300-2030 277.50
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. INMAN, JENNIFER 12/02/94 300-2030 272.88
? 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. ORTEGA, KAREN 11/16/95 300-2030 580.68
2 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. HUMPHRIES, DONNA 06/02/95 300-2030 236.88
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MATTHEWS, MICHAEL 06/25/95 300-2030 601.40
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 2
08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. LORD, ROBERT 08/15/95 300-2030 181.38
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. KINCAID, DARLENE 12/03/95 300-2030 116.63
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. SEGOVIA, WILLIAM 08/14/95 300-2030 223.00
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. PETCH, LISA 02/08/96 300-2030 23.13
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. GROVE, BETTE 02/28/96 300-2030 149.00
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MORENO, EXPERANZA 03/15/96 300-2030 351.15
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. GAY, GREG 03/25/96 300-2030 130.50
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BADDEN, SHEILA 04/06/96 300-2030 26.25
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BADDEN, SHEILA 04/06/96 300-2030 440.38
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. LOCKHEED 03/21/96 300-2030 107.38
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. BROWN, PATRICIA 04/12/95 300-199-999-5205 149.75
30812 08/29/96 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC. TANNYHILL, ROGER 05/05/95 300-199-999-5205 203.75 4,410.67
30813 08/29/96 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER MISC. HARDWARE & MATERIALS 001-164-601-5244 32.33 32.33
30814 08/29/96 002358 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLA CERT. FOLDER DISPLAY BROCHURES 280-199-999-5270 3,554.88 3,554.88
30815 08/29/96 COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESOU REFUND-MENIS BASKETBALL LEAGUE 190-183-4994 25.00 25.00
30816 08/29/96 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS (2) 1811 CITY SEALS-PARKVIEW 210-190-626-5802 1,191.18
30816 08/29/96 001014 COUNTRY SIGNS & DESIGNS 14" CITY SEAL-SAM HICKS PARK 280-199-805-5802 469.52 1,
30817 08/29/96 CRAMER, AMY REIMB: REFRESHMENTS FOR STAFF 190-180-999-5260 65.00 65.00
30818 08/29/96 CRAMER-TERRY, REGINA REFUND:SEC DEPOSIT/RM RENTAL 190-2900 100.00
30818 08/29/96 CRAMER-TERRY, REGINA REFUND:SEC DEPOSIT/RM RENTAL 190-183-4988 49.00 149.00
30819 08/29/96 001873 CROBARGER, RICHARD TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 60.00
30819 08/29/96 001873 CROBARGER, RICHARD TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 80.00 140.00
30820 08/29/96 000155 DAVLIN TAPING OF PLANNING COMM MTGS 001-161-999-5250 156.68 156.68
30821 08/29/96 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 8/16 KAPRYN,L. 001-110-999-5118 216.72
30821 08/29/96 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 8/11/96 KAPRYN 001-161-999-5118 144.48
30821 08/29/96 001673 DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY S TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 KAPRYN,L. 001-161-999-5118 205.43 566.63
30822 08/29/96 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 7/19 LAUFER 001-162-999-5118 333.50 333.50
30823 08/29/96 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER WKSHP:TOPICS TODAY LEADER:9/20 001-100-999-5260 25.00 25.00
30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE CREDIT-PREV INV S/B $77,243.37 210-190-138-5804 267.60-
30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE CREDIT-RETENTION CORRECTION 210-2035 26.76
30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE JUL PRGSS-SPTS PRK CREEK REST 210-190-138-5804 63,176.50
30824 08/29/96 002326 ESCROW FUNDING SERVICE JULY PRGSS-SPT PRK -RETENTION- 210-2035 6,317.64- 56,618.02
30825 08/29/96 002060 EUROPEAN DELI & CATERIN CATERING FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS 001-100-999-5260 103.00 103.00
30826 08/29/96 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE R.C. SPORTS PARK MAINTENANCE 190-180-999-5212 194.58 191--;8
30827 08/29/96 FALLBROOK NATIONAL BANK REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 1
E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30828 08/29/96 000478 FAST SIGNS PUBLIC RESTROOM SIGNS 0. TOWN 280-199-999-5212 174.26
30828 08/29/96 000478 FAST SIGNS INSTALLATION OF RESTROOM SIGNS 280-199-999-5212 50.00
30828 08/29/96 000478 FAST SIGNS TAX 280-199-999-5212 13.51 237.77
30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230 89.39
30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-120-999-5277 12.00
30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-140-999-5230 8.75
30829 08/29/96 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-161-999-5230 15.25 125.39
30830 08/29/96 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-694-1211/POLICE/AUG 001-170-999-5208 266.86
30830 08/29/96 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909-699-2475/PUBLIC WORKS/AUG 001-164-601-5208 46.98 313.84
30831 08/29/96 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT RENT CITY MAINT YARD 001-164-601-5234 440.00
30831 08/29/96 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT RENT CITY MAINT YARD 190-180-999-5234 352.00
30831 08/29/96 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT RENT CITY MAINT YARD 001-162-999-5234 88.00 880.00
30832 08/29/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-TEM. P.D 001-170-999-5220 86.91
30832 08/29/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES-TEM. P.D 001-170-999-5220 46.77
30832 08/29/96 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR COPY ROOM 330-199-999-5220 118.00 251.68
13 08/29/96 001976 GUEST INFORMANT ADVERTISING IN SAN DIEGO 96/97 280-199-999-5270 3,862.08 3,862.08
30834 08/29/96 002418 HAZPAK, INC HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REMOVAL 165-199-812-5804 4,432.50 4,432.50
30835 08/29/96 000388 I C B 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 2 BLDG CODE 001-162-999-5228 55.00
30835 08/29/96 000388 I C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 4.26
30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 3 ELECT CODE 001-162-999-5228 30.00
30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 2.33
30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C 8 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 4 MECH CODE 001-162-999-5228 30.00
30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 2.33
30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. PUB:TITLE 24 PRT 5 PLUMB CODE 001-162-999-5228 30.00
30835 08/29/96 000388 1 C B 0, INC. TAX 001-162-999-5228 @.33 156.25
30836 08/29/96 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 190-182-999-5212 189.64 189.64
30837 08/29/96 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 246.40
30837 08/29/96 001186 IRWIN, JOHN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 190.40 436.80
30838 08/29/96 000203 JOBS AVAILABLE, INC. RECRUITMENT ADS 001-150-999-5254 115.20 115.20
30839 08/29/96 JORDAN, DEAN REFUND:SPRING BASKETBALL 190-183-999-5380 40.00 40.00
30840 08/29/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 EVANS 001-164-604-5118 110.92
30840 08/29/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 EVANS 001-163-999-5118 110.92
30840 08/29/96 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE TEMP HELP W/E 8/18 EVANS 001-165-999-5118 110.96 332.80
30841 08/29/96 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING 5000 BLDG PERMIT FORMS 3 PART 001-162-999-5222 1,510.42
30841 08/29/96 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING TAX 001-162-999-5222 117.06 1,627.48
+2 08/29/96 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE MISC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 765.55
30842 08/29/96 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE TAX 001-164-601-5218 59.33 824.88
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 4
08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30843 08/29/96 001982 L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I TREE TRIMMING & ROOT PRUNING 001-164-601-5402 705.00 705.00
30844 08/29/96 LANGHAM, NANETTE REFUND-PAID TWICE 001-1190 5.25 5.25
30845 08/29/96 LAURITSEN, TERESA REFUND:SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00
30846 08/29/96 002282 LIEBER, CARON TCSD INSTURCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 416.00 416.00
30847 08/29196 001891 LINFIELD SCHOOL TEMP FIRE STATION SEPT RENT 001-171-999-5470 600.00 600.00
30848 08/29/96 000553 MAGIC MOUNTAIN PMT FOR"TEM DAY" TICKET SALES 190-183-4992 4,020.80 4,020.80
30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. OPERATNG BDGT COVER/COMBS/PAPE 001-140-999-5222 1,831.75
30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. CIP COVERS,COMBS AND PAPER 001-140-999-5222 1,831.75
30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. CIP DIVIDER TABS 001-140-999-5222 527.98
30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. OPERATING BUDGET DIVIDER TABS 001-140-999-5222 613.10
30849 08/29/96 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. CREDIT-O.BUDGET TABS WERE LATE 001-140-999-5222 56.90- 4,747.68
30850 08/29/96 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS LETTERHEAD STATIONARY/POLICE D 001-170-999-5222 47.81
30850 08/29/96 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS TAX 001-170-999-5222 3.71 51.92
30851 08/29/96 001394 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPL BUILDING MAINT SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212 31.72
30852 08/29/96 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-164-601-5214 46.62 46.62
30853 08/29/96 000733 PARTY PZAZZ GOP CONVENTION DECORATIONS 280-199-999-5270 147.83 147.83
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260 26.61
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-100-999-5260 50.00
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5261 5.66
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 35.00
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5265 28.35
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 7.20
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5265 23.94
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-199-4070 .25
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5261 24.78
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 5.00
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260 25.14
30854 08/29/96 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5250 25.86 257.79
30855 08/29/96 POFF, DOUGLAS J.,D.C. ORTEGA, KAREN 11/16/95 300-199-999-5207 15.00 15.00
30856 08/29/96 002354 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS BOOKS "SAY NO TO STRANGERS" 001-170-999-5292 525.95
30856 08/29/96 002354 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS FREIGHT 001-170-999-5292 51.80 577.75
30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-120-999-5230 30.15
30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-161-999-5230 15.00
30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-165-999-5230 15.00
30857 08/29/96 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-164-604-5230 15.00
30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 48.60
RE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
//96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY
30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY
30858 08/29/96 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY
30859 08/29/96 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C
30860 08/29/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
30860 08/29/96 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER
30861 08/29196 RICHMOND AMERICA
30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY
30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY
30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY
30862 08/29/96 000266 RIGHTWAY
30863 08/29/96 000418 RIVERSIDE CO. CLERK & R
30864 08/29196 000268 RIVERSIDE CO. HABITAT
6508/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
-)65 08/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
30865 08/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
30865 08/29/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S
30866 08/29/96 000815 ROWLEY, CATHERINE
30866 08/29/96 000815 ROWLEY, CATHERINE
30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
30867 08/29/96 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
30868 08/29/96 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
30869 08/29/96 002034 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF
30870 08/29/96 002460 SAURUS SPORT, INC.
30870 08/29/96 002460 SAURUS SPORT, INC.
30871 08/29/96 SELVA, HELEN
30872 08/29/96 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC.
30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
-10873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
73 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
,73 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD
LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD
LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TCSD
BLUEPRINTS-TRFFC SIGNAL INTERC
VARIOUS WTR METERS
VARIOUS WTR METERS
REFUND-OVERPMT ON BLDG PERMIT
TEMP PWR VOORBURG PARK
TOILET RENTAL @ CITY YARD
TOILET RENTAL @ RIVERTON PRK
TOILET RENTAL @ THE DUCK POND
WALCOTT CORR PRJT-DETRMNTN NOT
JULY COLLECTED FEES FOR K-RAT
PATROL-4th OF JULY EVENTS
PATROL-4th OF JULY EVENTS
OLD TWN SUMMER NGTS-BIKE PATRL
CREDIT-CHRGED MILEAGE-BIKE PAT
TCSDINSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TCSDINSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
FUELFOR VEHICLES
FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES
FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES
FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES
FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES
FUELFOR CITY VEHICLES
JOBRECRUITMENT ADS/PRIN ENG
REPAIR RADAR FOR POLICE DEPT
SUNSCREEN FOR PW MAINT CREW
TAX
REFUND-MAKEUP AND MODELING
SUPPLIES FOR THE SENIOR CENTER
2-03-786-1606 DE PORTOLA
2-00-397-5026 VARIOUS METERS
2-00-397-5042 VARIOUS METERS
2-00-397-5059 VARIOUS METERS
2-00-397-5067 VARIOUS METERS
ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
190-180-999-5212 43.64
340-199-701-5212 56.50
190-180-999-5212 45.00 193.74
210-165-640-5804 68.27 68.27
190-180-999-5240 3,03@.01
193-180-999-5240 6,354.25 9,393.26
001-2660 47.94 47.94
190-180-999-5212 729.00
001-164-601-5238 57.39
190-180-999-5238 62.89
190-180-999-5238 172.50 1,021.78
210-165-637-5802 1,328.00 1,328.00
001-2300 29,879.50 29,879.50
001-170-999-5288 3,242.14
001-170-999-5281 313.88
001-170-999-5326 1,328.72
001-170-999-5326 34.00- 4,850.74
190-183-999-5330 120.00
190-183-999-5330 420.00 540.00
001-164-601-5263 511.04
001-165-999-5263 52.73
001-163-999-5263 193.14
001-110-999-5263 51.63
001-162-999-5263 144.90
190-180-999-5263 236.53 1,189.97
001-150-999-5254 237.40 237.40
001-170-999-5215 18.31 18.31
001-164-601-5218 96.00
001-164-601-5218 7.44 103.44
190-183-4982 35.00 35.00
190-181-999-5301 131.66 131.66
190-180-999-5240 13.92
191-180-999-5319 3,533.30
340-199-701-5240 3,835.00
190-180-999-5240 2,465.71
193-180-999-5240 659.58
VDLJCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 6
08/29/96 13:27 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30873 08/29/96 000537 S(XJTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-284-5252 VIA SABINO 193-180-999-5240 14.03
30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-284-5435 DEL PORTOLA IRR 193-180-999-5240 15.a4
30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-05-284-7571 BUTTERFIELD STAG 191-180-999-5240 13.79
30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7584 CALLE MEDUSA SPR 193-180-999-5240 14.88
30873 08/29/96 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-7790 RANCHO VISTA SPR 191-180-999-5319 13.44 10,579.49
30874 08/29/96 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 021-725-0700 SR CENTER 190-181-999-5240 4.53 4.53
30875 08/29/96 000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T TCSD VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR 190-180-999-5214 25.94 25.94
30876 08/29/96 STEFFENS, NATALIE REFUND-NEWTON'S PUZZLE 190-183-4982 19.00 19.00
30877 08/29/96 002430 STRICKLAND, KATIE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 160.00 160.00
30878 08/29/96 STROUD, SHAWN REFUND-FOREFEIT FEE/SPRG BSKBL 190-183-999-5380 40.00 40.00
30879 08/29/96 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER INTERIM FUNDING-APPROVED 8/27 280-199-999-5264 25,000.00 25,000.00
30880 08/29/96 001633 TEMECULA VALLEY ECONOMI INTERIM FUNDING-APPROVED 8/27 280-199-999-5264 25,000.00 25,000.00
30881 08/29/96 000957 TEMECULA VALLEY FILM INTERIM FUNDING-APPROVED 8/27 280-199-999-5264 10,000.00 10,
30882 08/29/96 002474 TEMEKU INC. REMOVAL OF ROOF & POLE SIGNS 280-199-813-5804 1,000.00 1,000.00
30883 08/29/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-164-604-5220 188.85
30883 08/29/96 000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-1(>4-604-5220 25.05 213.90
30884 08/29/96 001078 U I E C RECORDS/INFO MG CF:RECORDS INFO-K.DIMEGLIO 9/3 001-120-999-5261 70.00
30884 08/29/96 001078 U I E C RECORDS/INFO MG CF:RECORDS INFO-P.SARGENT 9/3 001-120-999-5261 80.00 150.00
30885 08/29/96 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI JUL PLAN CHECK SERVS-OLD TOWN 280-199-804-5802 50.00 50.00
30886 08/29/96 001437 VIRACK, MARYANN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 80.00
30886 08/29/96 001437 VIRACK, MARYANN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 32.00 112.00
30887 08/29/96 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, BLDG MAINT SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 198.81 198.81
30888 08/29/96 002212 WHITEHEAD, STEVE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 224.00 224.00
30889 08/29/96 001939 WINDSOR PROJECTS, INC. SEPT RENT/AUGUST CAM 340-199-701-5234 11,695.41 11,695.41
30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILL] CRC COPIER SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5220 127.15
30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI CRC COPIER SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5220 423.46
30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI STAPLE CARTRIDGES FOR XEROX 330-199-999-5220 129.00
30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI DRY INK FOR XEROX 5343C 330-199-999-5220 160.00
30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI COLOR TRANSPARENCIES 330-199-999-5220 92.60
30890 08/29/96 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI TAX 330-199-999-5220 29.58 961.79
30891 08/29/96 YENDES, JOHN REFUND-FOREFIET FEES/SRPG BSKB 190-183-999-5380 40.00
TOTAL CHECKS 245,753.53
E2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
/96 14:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
001 GENERAL FUND 370,545.82
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 22,811.57
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 926.00
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 75,219.55
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 52,200.63
340 FACILITIES 496.37
TOTAL 522,199.94
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA
08/29/96 14:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA R-O-W TREE TRIMMING MAINT 001-164-601-5402 5,990.00
30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - PARKS 190-180-999-5415 19,651.37
30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - SENIOR CENTER 190-181-999-5415 245.67
30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - CRC 190-182-999-5415 1,692.53
30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - CITY HALL 340-199-701-5415 496.37
30893 09/10/96 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA JUL LDSC MAINT - MEDIANS 191-180-999-5415 926.00 29,001.94
30894 09/10/96 002197 CLOVIS PAVING & SEALING RELEASE RETENTION-PW95-06 210-2035 67,502.35 67,502.35
30895 09/10/96 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY, INC (40)STOCK AMERICAN FLAG BANNRS 280-199-999-5270 6,282.67 6,282.67
30896 09/10/96 000928 LEKOS ELECTRIC, INC. INSTALL BANNER POLES 95/96-31 001-164-601-5402 13,000.00 13,000.00
30897 09/10/96 000843 MCDANIEL ENGINEERING CO JUL SERVS-CONSULT WINCH & 1-15 280-199-602-5804 5,170.00 5,170.00
30898 09/10/96 001713 NORRIS-REPKE, INC. JUL PRGSS-DESIGN Ist ST BRIDGE 280-199-807-5802 4,547.88
30898 09/10/96 001713 NORRIS-REPKE, INC. JUL PRGSS-DESIGN lst ST BRIDGE 280-199-807-5802 21,354.87 25,902.75
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 8,323.72
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 69.00
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 1,962.00
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 11,136.25
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY 96 LEGAL SERVS-TCSD 190-180-999-5246 1,222.00
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 477.50
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-RDA 280-199-999-5246 5,153.33
30899 09/10196 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 722.15
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-GENERAL 001-130-999-5246 919.18
30899 09/10/96 002412 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS JULY LEGAL SERVS-RDA 280-199-999-5246 275.88 30,261.01
30900 09/10/96 000267 RIVERSIDE CO. FIRE DEPT APRIL-JUNE FIRE SERVICES 001-2030 283,837.04 283,837.04
30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S MARCH 95 BOOKING FEES 001-2030 7,065.60
30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S APRIL 96 BOOKING FEES 001-2030 9,715.20
30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFF'S JUNE BOOKING FEES INV 97-11983 001-2030 9,936.00
30901 09/10/96 000406 RIVERSIDE CO. SHERIFFIS MAY BOOKING FEES 001-2030 11,592.00 38,308.80
30902 09/10/96 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS, INC. PAINT SHAKER FOR TRFFC MARKING 001-164-601-5610 5,383.00
30902 09/10/96 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS, INC. TAX 001-164-601-5610 417.18 5,800.18
30903 09/10/96 000271 ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST & JUL PRGSS-PRJT STUDY I-15/79 S 210-165-662-5804 7,717.20 7,717.20
30904 09/10/96 002198 WEST CONSULTANTS, INC SCOUR STUDY FOR WESTN BYPASS 280-199-807-5802 9,416.00 9,416.00
TOTAL CHECKS 522,199.94
ITEI\4 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY A _,l
DIRECTOR OF FI E@
CITY MANAGERI
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1 996
PREPARED BY:Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director
Steve Oakley, Accountant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report
as of July 31, 1996.
DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and
receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646
and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code
Sections as of July 31, 1 996.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:1 . City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1 996
2.Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of July 31,
1996
City of Temecula
City Treasurees Report
As of July 31, 1996
Cash Activity for the Month of July
Cash and Investments as of July 1, 1996 $ 54,971,530
Cash Receipts 3,996,201
Cash Disbursements (3,545,966)
Cash and Investments as of July 31, 1996 $ 55,421,765
Cash and Investments Portfolio:
Contractual/
Maturity Market Par/Book
Type of Investment Institution Yield Date (2) Value Balance
Petty Cash City Hall $ 800 $800
General Checking First Interstate 245,116 245,116 (1)
Benefit Demand Deposits First Interstate 2,725 2,725 (1)
Local Agency Investment Fund State Treasurer 5.587% 39,881,493 39,881,493 (3)
Retention Escrow Account Landmark/California State Bank N/A 59,667 59,667
Deferred Compensation Fund ICMA 317,826 317,826
Deferred Compensation Fund PEBSCO 502,896 502,896
Defined Contribution Fund PEBSCO 39,275 39,275
Trust Accounts-TCSO COPs First Trust (Fidelity Treasury 11) 5.160 12,575 12,575
(Money Market Account)
Reserve Account-TCSD COPs Bayerische Landesbank 6.870 502,690 502,690
(Guaranteed Investment Contract)
Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds First Trust (Fidelity Treasury 11) 5.160 1,521,782 1,521,782
(Money Market Account)
Construction Fund-RDA Bonds Bayerische Landesbank @.000 10,886,000 10,886,000
(Guaranteed Investment Contract)
Reserve Account-RDA Bonds Bayerische Landesbank 7.400 1,448,920 1,448,920
(Guaranteed Investment Contract)
$ 55,421,765
(l)-This amount is net of outstanding checks.
(2)-All investments are liquid and currently available.
(3)-At July 31, 1996 total market value for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAI F) was $27,262,799,537. The City's
proportionate share of that value is $40,145,099.
The City of Temecula's portfolio is in compliance vath the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet
budgeted and actual expenditures of the City of Temecula for the next six months.
Co of Temecula
Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balances
As of July 31, 1996
Community
Services Redevelopment
city (1) District Agency Total
Assets:
Cash and investments $32,801,970 $ 2,238,600 $ 20,381,195 $55,421,765
Receivables 4,479,670 681,348 797,225 5,958,243
Due from other funds 773,766 4,996 778,762
Land held for resale 2,103,053 2,103,053
Prepaid assets 336,937 336,937
Fixed assets-net 669,010 669,010
Total assets $ 39,061,353 $2,924,944 $ 23,281,473 65,267,770
Liabilities and fund equity
Liabilities:
Due to other funds $ 740,966 $ 4,996 $ 32,800 $778,762
Other liabilities 5,047,476 168,817 508,568 51724,861
Total liabilities 5,788,442 173,813 541,368 6,503,623
Fund equity :
Contributed capital 1,055,344 1,055,344
Retained earnings 743,324 743,324
Fund balances:
Reserved (2) 7,563,340 1,190,096 9,892,691 18,646,127
Designated (3) 19,229,821 1,561,035 12,847,414 33,638,270
Undesignated 4,681,082 4,681,082
Total fund equity 33,272,911 2,751,131 22,740,105 58,764,147
Total liabilities and fund equity $39,061,353 $2,924,944 $23,281,473 $65,267,770
(1) Includes General Fund, CIP Fund, Gas Tax Fund, other special revenue funds, and deferred comp agency funds.
(2) Includes amounts reserved for encumbrances, land held for resale, long-term notes receivable, low/mod housing,
and debt service.
(3) Includes amounts designated for economic uncertainty, future capital projects, debt service, and continuing appropriations.
ITEN4 4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR. OF FINAN4;E,
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Manager/City Council
FROM:Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
DATE:September 10, 1 996
SUBJECT:Purchase of City Vehicles
PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst a/
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase of four City Vehicles,
which were appropriated in the 1 996-97 Annual Operating Budget, as follows:
1 .Public Works Department: 1997 GMC Sierra TK30903 Full Size 4-WD Pick-up Truck
fromPlaza Motors of Palm Springs in the amount of $24,902.
2.TCSD: 1997 Ford F25OHD Supercab Pick-up Truck from Fuller Ford of Chula Vista in the
amount of $23,481.
3. Fire Department: 1 997 Ford Fl 50 S/C Pick-up Truck from Ted Jones Ford of Buena
Park in the amount of $18,801.
4. Citywide use: 1997 GMC Savana Cargo Van from Plaza Motors of Palm Springs
in the amount of $20,796.
DISCUSSION:During the June 11, 1996 meeting, the City Council adopted the
FY1996/97 AnnualOperating Budget, which allocated vehicles for the Public Works,
Community Services,and Fire Departments; and a utility vehicle for staff use citywide. In order
to fill these requirements, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was distributed on August 7, 1 996,
with a closing date of August 1 9th.
On Monday August 19, 1996, the City received five responses to the RFP which was
distributed to eighteen car dealers, including ten Temecula Autopark dealers (see attachment
1).Out of the five proposals received, a combination of three vendors was selected to provide
thefour vehicles based on the vendors submitting the lowest priced and qualified vehicles for
theparticular category. A pricing summary of the five proposals received is provided as
attachment 2.
In evaluating the proposals, a one percent (1 %) credit for sales tax received by the City was
applied to the one local vendor proposal from Paradise Chevrolet. However, even with the one
percent credit applied, the prices for both vehicles were well above the successful proposals.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is available in the appropriate accounts to purchase the
vehicles for each respective department.
Attachments:
1 . Vehicle Vendor List
2.Pricing Summary of Vehicle Proposals
Vendor Name/Address
Griffin GMC Truck
41872 Motor Car Parkway
Temecula, California 92591
Temecula Dodge Chrysler
26755 Ynez Road
Temecula, California 92591
Quality Chevrolet
1550 Auto Park Way
Escondido, California 92029
Nissan of Temecula
41895 Motor Car Park-way
Temecula, California 92591
Temecula Valley Toyota
26631 Ynez Road
Temecula, California 92591
Temecula Mazda
26799 Ynez Road
Temecula, California 92591
Norm Reeves
Super Group
26755 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA. 92591
Paradise Chevrolet
26845 Ynez Road
Temecula, California 92591
Folsom Lake Ford
9479 Madison Avenue
Folsom, California 95630
Griffin Acura
41872 Motor Car Parkway
Temecula, California 92591
Vehicle Vendor List
Phone Number
694-6060
676-0010
619-745-7221
676-6601
694-0575
699-4444
676-0010
699-2699
cannot locate listing
694-6060
Fax Number
694-6069
676-2888
619-745-0652
694-9697
694-0404
699-1232
676-2888 (same as Dodge)
694-0809
cannot locate listing
694-6060 (same as GMC)
ATRA
Vendor Name/Address Phone Number Fax Number
El Cajon NEtsubishi 619-588-2922 619-579-2409
Fleet Division
247 El Cajon Boulevard
El Cajon, California 92020
Dick Dickenson City Chevrolet 619-276-6171 619-276-6194
Fleet Sales/Leasing
P.O. Box 85345
San Diego, California 92186
Fuller Fleet Center 619-656-2500 619-656-6259
560 Auto Park Drive
Chula Vista, California 91911
Plaza Motors 619-325-2571 619-320-1506
290 N. Indian Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, California 92262
Ted Jones Ford 714-521-3110 714-739-0120
Attn: Fleet Sales
6211 Beach Blvd.
Buena Park, California 90621
Schmacher Auto Sales & 699-6633 699-4665
Leasing
28733 Via Montezuma
Temecula, California 92591
Heller Ford 619-745-3361 619-745-4981
1717 Auto Park Way
Escondido, California 92029
Rancho Ford 800-997-3725 699-6917
26895 Ynez Rd.
Temecula, California 92591
NRICE SUMMARY FOR CITY VEHICLE PURCHASES
1= PUBLIC WORKS
ù= TCSD
3= FIRE DEPARTMENT
4= UTILITY VAN
TOTAL TOTAL
UNIT DEALER SELECTED
DEALER MAKE MODEL PRICE PRICE PRICE
FULLER FORD
1 FORD F350 26,561
2 FORD F25OHD 23,481 23,481
3 FORD F150 19,774
4 FORD E350 21,676
TOTAL 91,493
TED JONES FORD
1 FORD F350 25,677
2 FORD F35OS/C 25,030
3 FORD F15OS/C 18,800 18,800
4 FORD E350 21,173
'DTAL 90,680
PLAZA MOTORS
1 GMC SIERRA TK30903 24,902 24,902
2 GMC SIERRA TC30953 25,278
3 GMC SIERRA TC 1 0953 20,721
4 GMC SAVANA 20,796 20,796
TOTAL 91,698
SCHUMACHER AUTO
1 CHEVROLET CK20903 25,118
2 CHEVROLET CC30953 26,153
3 CHEVROLET CC10753 20,783
4 CHEVROLET CG31405 22,198
TOTAL 94,252
PARADISE CHEVROLET
1 CHEVROLET CK30903 25,983
2 CHEVROLET 3500 25,837
3 NO PROPOSAL 0
4 NO PROPOSAL 0
TOTAL 51,820
TOTAL COST TO CITY: $87,979
ATTACHMENT 2
i,-i,,EA4 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIREC'
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements, Construction Cooperative
Agreement with State Department of Transportation
PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-931,
BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
OVERLAND DRIVE OVERCROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND:
The City is in the process of finalizing the plans and specifications for the Overland Drive
Overcrossing Improvements that includes the construction of a four lane overcrossing structure
at Overland Drive and Interstate Route 1 5. This work will be performed over the State highway
system and requires the approval of the State Department of Transportation.
The State has provided a Cooperative Agreement for Construction of the Overland Drive
Overcrossing Improvements, which give a detailed account of the responsibilities of the City
and State and what will be mutually agreed by both the City and State. The City shall prepare
the contract documents and then advertise, award, and administer the construction contract
in accordance with the requirement of the State Contract Act and the California Labor Code,
including its prevailing wage provisions.
This agreement defines the terms and conditions under which the project will be constructed,
financed, and maintained. The City will provide a resident engineer along with support staff
necessary to assure construction is being performed in accordance with the approved plans,
specifications, and applicable State Standards. The project is intended to be funded through
CFD88-12 and SB300 funds. When the construction is completed, and accepted by the State,
the State will control and maintain improvements within their right-of-way and the City will
control and maintain improvements lying outside of the State's right-of-way.
R:kAGORPT\96\0910\OVERLAND.IMP rh
In summary, the City will provide the contract documents; advertise, award, and administer the
construction contract; fund 100% of all construction and staffing costs, except those of the
State. The State Department of Transportation will provide oversight of construction activities.
The agreement has been approved as to form by the City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact is anticipated from approving Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931.
Attachments:
1 . Resolution 96-
2.Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931
R:\AGDRPT\96\0910\OVERLAND.IMP rh
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMEECULA APPROVING COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT NO. 8-931, BETWEEN THE STATE
DEPAR OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CrrY OF
TEMIECULA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE OVERLAND
DRI[VE OVERCROSSING U"ROVFAIENTS
WHEREAS, Construction Plans and Specification have been prepared for the Overland
Drive Overcrossing Improvements which outline the individual project components identified in
the approved Project Study Report.
MMEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931 establishes the general conditions,
methods and procedures of construction, responsibilities of each agency and what areas will be
performed mutually by each agency.
NOW, .t@R, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula,
as follows:
Section 1.The City Council approves and authorizes the Mayor to sign the
Cooperative Agreement No. 8-931 between State Department of
Transportation and the City of Temecula.
Section 2.The City Clerk shall ce@ the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\AGORPT\gMglOkOVERLAND.IMP rh
[SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OFSIDE ss
CITY OFULA
I, June S. Greek,City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following
vote:
AYES: - COUNCELMEMBERS:
NOES: - COUNC]ILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: - COUNCIILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN - COUNC]ILMEMBERS:
R:\AGDRPT\96\OOIONOVERLAND.IMP rh
08-Riv-15-6.2/6-3
overland Drive
Construct Overcrossing
08303 - 354601
District Agreement No. 8-931
CONSTRUCTION
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT, entered into on is
between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its
Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and
CITY OF TEMECULA, a body politic
and a municipal corporation of the
State of California, referred to
herein as CITY.
RECITALS
(1)STATE and CITY, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code
Section 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative
Agreement for improvements to State highways within CITY.
(2)CITY desires to construct State highway improvements
consisting of construction of a four-lane overcrossing
structure at Overland Drive and Interstate Route 15 in the
City of Temecula, referred to herein as PROJECT, and is
willing to fund one hundred percent (100%) of all capital
outlay and staffing costs, except that costs of STATE's
oversight of construction activities will be borne by STATE.
(3)CITY desires to prepare the contract documents and
advertise, award, and administer the construction contract
for PROJECT in order to bring about the earliest possible
completion of PROJECT.
(4)STATE is agreeable to CITY's proposal to prepare the
contract documents and advertise, award, and administer the
construction contract for PROJECT.
(5)The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and
conditions under which PROJECT is to be constructed,
financed and maintained.
1
District Agreement No. 8-931
(6)Project development responsibilities for PROJECT were
covered in a prior Cooperative Agreement executed by STATE
and CITY on May 31, 1994, (District Agreement No. 8-793,
Document No. 9479).
SECTION I
CITY AGREES:
(1)To advertise, award and administer the construction contract
for PROJECT in accordance with requirements of the Local
Agency Public Construction Act and the California Labor
Code, including its prevailing wage provisions. Workers
employed in the performance of work contracted for by CITY,
and/or performed under Encroachment Permit, are covered by
provisions of the Labor Code in the same manner as are
workers employed by STATE's Contractors. CITY shall obtain
applicable wage rates from the State Department of
Industrial Relations and shall adhere to the applicable
provisions of the State Labor Code. Violations shall be
reported to the State Department of Industrial Relations.
(2)To apply for necessary Encroachment Permits for required
work within State highway rights of way, in accordance with
STATE's standard permit procedures, as more specifically
defined in Articles (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section
III, of this Agreement.
(3)To require that the construction contractor furnish both a
payment and performance bond in CITY name, with both bonds
complying with the requirements set forth in Section 3-1.02
of STATE's current Standard Specifications.
(4)To construct PROJECT in accordance with plans and
specifications of CITY to the satisfaction of and subject to
the approval of STATE.
(5)Contract Administration procedures shall conform to the
requirements set forth in STATE's Construction Manual, Local
Programs Manual and the Encroachment Permit for construction
of PROJECT.
(6)Construction within the existing or ultimate STATE right of
way shall comply with the requirements in STATE's Standard
Specifications and PROJECT Special Provisions, and in
conformance with methods and practices specified in STATE's
Construction Manual.
2
District Agreement No. 8-931
(7)If CITY uses own staff to perform surveys, such surveys
shall conform to the methods, procedures, and requirements
of STATE's Surveys Manual.
(8)Material testing and quality control shall conform to the
State Construction Manual and the State Material Testing
Manual, and be performed, at CITY expense, by a certified
material tester acceptable to STATE. Independent assurance
testing, specialty testing, and off-site source inspection
and testing shall be performed by STATE, at no cost to CITY
except as noted herein. CITY shall reimburse STATE for any
additional travel expenses incurred by STATE for off-site
inspection and testing performed by STATE which is more than
300 airline miles from both Sacramento and Los Angeles.
Approval of the type of asphalt and concrete plants shall be
by STATE, at STATE expense.
(9)To furnish, at CITY expense and subject to approval of
STATE, a field site representative who is a licensed Civil
Engineer in the State of California, to perform the
functions of a Resident Engineer. If the PROJECT plans and
specifications were prepared by a private engineering
company, the Resident Engineer shall not be an employee of
that company. The Resident Engineer shall also be
independent of the construction contractor.
(10)To pay one hundred percent (100%) of the actual costs of
construction required for satisfactory completion of
PROJECT, including changes pursuant to contract change
orders concurred with by the STATE representative and any
"State-furnished material".
(11)At CITY expense, to furnish qualified support staff, subject
to approval of STATE, to assist the Resident Engineer in,
but not limited to, construction surveys, soils and
foundation tests, measurement and computation of quantities,
testing of construction materials, checking shop drawings,
preparation of estimates and reports, preparation of As-
Built drawings, and other inspection and staff services
necessary to assure that the construction is being performed
in accordance with the plans and specifications. Said
qualified support staff shall be independent of the design
engineering company and construction contractor, except that
the PROJECT designer may check the shop drawings, do soils
foundation tests, test construction materials, and do
construction surveys.
3
District Agreement No. 8-931
(12)To make progress payments to the contractor using CITY funds
and pay all costs for required staff services as described
in Articles (9) and (11) of this Section I. The STATE
representative shall review all contract progress pay
schedules. STATE does not assume responsibility for
accuracy of itemization on progress pay schedules.
(13)Within sixty (60) days following the completion and
acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract, to furnish
STATE a complete set of acceptable full-sized film positive
reproducible As-Built plans and all contract records,
including survey documents and microfilm copy of all
structure plans.
(14)Upon completion of work under this Agreement, CITY will
assume maintenance and the expense thereof for any part of
PROJECT located outside of current STATE right of way until
acceptance of any such part of PROJECT into the State
highway system by STATE, approval by the Federal Highway
Administration, if required, and conveyance of acceptable
title to STATE.
(15)If CITY terminates PROJECT prior to completion of the
construction contract for PROJECT, STATE may require CITY,
at CITY's expense, to return right of way to its original
condition or to a condition of acceptable permanent
operation. If CITY fails to do so, STATE reserves the right
to finish PROJECT or place PROJECT in satisfactory permanent
operation condition. STATE will bill CITY for all actual
expenses incurred and CITY agrees to pay said expenses
within thirty (30) days or STATE, acting through the State
Controller, may withhold an equal amount from future
apportionments due CITY from the Highway User Tax Fund.
SECTION II
STATE AGREES:
(1)To issue, at no cost to CITY and CITY's contractor, upon
proper application by CITY and by CITY's contractor, the
necessary Encroachment Permits for required work within
State highway right of way, as more specifically defined in
Articles (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section III, of this
Agreement.
4
District Agreement No. 8-931
(2)To provide, at no cost to CITY, a qualified STATE
representative who shall have authority to accept or reject
work and materials or to order any actions needed for public
safety or the preservation of property and to assure
compliance with all provisions of the Encroachment Permit(s)
issued to CITY and CITY's contractor.
(3)To provide, at CITY expense, any "State-furnished material"
as shown on the plans for PROJECT and as provided in the
Special Provisions for PROJECT.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
(1)All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement
are subject to the appropriation of resources by the
Legislature and the allocation of resources by the
California Transportation commission.
(2)Construction by CITY of improvements referred to herein
which lie within STATE highway rights of way or affect STATE
facilities, shall not be commenced until CITY's original
contract plans involving such work and plan for utility
relocations have been reviewed and accepted by signature of
STATE's District Director of Transportation, or the District
Director's delegated agent, and until an Encroachment Permit
to CITY authorizing such work has been issued by STATE.
(3)CITY shall obtain aforesaid Encroachment Permit through the
office of State District Permit Engineer and CITY's
application shall be accompanied by five (5) sets of reduced
construction plans of aforesaid STATE approved contract
plans. Receipt by CITY of the approved Encroachment Permit
shall constitute CITY's authorization from STATE to proceed
with work to be performed by CITY or CITY's representatives
within proposed STATE rights of way or which affects STATE
facilities, pursuant to work covered by this Agreement.
CITY's authorization to proceed with said work shall be
contingent upon CITY's compliance with all provisions set
forth in this Agreement and said Encroachment Permit.
(4)CITY's construction contractor shall also be required to
obtain an Encroachment Permit from STATE prior to commencing
any work within STATE rights of way or which affects STATE
facilities. The application by CITY's contractor for said
Encroachment Permit shall be made through the office of
5
District Agreement No. 8-931
State District Permit Engineer and shall include proof said
contractor has payment and performance surety bonds covering
construction of PROJECT.
(5)CITY shall provide a right of way certification prior to the
granting of said Encroachment Permit by STATE, to certify
that legal and physical control of rights of way were
acquired in accordance with applicable State and Federal
laws and regulations.
(6)CITY shall not advertise for bids to construct PROJECT until
after an Encroachment Permit has been issued to CITY by
STATE.
(7)CITY's construction contractor shall maintain in force,
until completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction
contract, a policy of Contractual Liability Insurance,
including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property
Damage Liability in accordance with Section 7-1.12 of State
Standard Specifications. Such policy shall contain an
additional insured endorsement naming STATE, its officers,
agents and employees as additional insureds. Coverage shall
be evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance in a form
satisfactory to STATE which shall be delivered to STATE
before the issuance of an Encroachment Permit to CITY
contractor.
(8)Prior to award of the construction contract for PROJECT,
CITY may terminate this Agreement by written notice.
(9)In construction of said PROJECT, representatives of CITY and
STATE will cooperate and consult, and all work pursuant to
PROJECT shall be accomplished according to approved plans,
specifications and applicable STATE standards. Satisfaction
of these requirements shall be verified by the STATE
representative. The STATE representative is authorized to
enter CITY's property during construction for the purpose of
monitoring and coordinating construction activities.
(10)Changes to PROJECT plans and specifications shall be
implemented by contract change orders reviewed and concurred
with by the STATE representative. All changes affecting
public safety or public convenience, all design and
specification changes, and all major changes as defined in
STATE's Construction Manual shall be approved by STATE in
advance of performing the work. Unless otherwise directed
by the STATE representative, changes authorized as provided
herein will not require an Encroachment Permit rider. All
changes shall be shown on the As-Built plans referred to in
Section I, Article (13) of this Agreement.
6
District Agreement No. 8-931
(11)CITY shall provide a claims process acceptable to STATE and
shall process any and all claims through CITY's claim
process. The STATE representative will be made available to
CITY to provide advice and technical input in any claim
process.
(12)If any existing public and/or private utility facilities
conflict with PROJECT construction or violate STATE's
encroachment policy, CITY shall make all necessary
arrangements with the owners of such facilities for their
protection, relocation or removal in accordance with STATE
policy and procedure for those facilities located within the
limits of work providing for the improvement of the State
highway and in accordance with CITY policy for those
facilities located outside of the limits of work for the
State highway. Total costs of such protection, relocation
or removal shall be determined in accordance with STATE
policy and procedure. CITY shall require any utility owner
and/or its contractors performing relocation work in STATE's
right of way to obtain a STATE Encroachment Permit prior to
the performance of said relocation work. Any relocated or
new facilities shall be correctly shown and identified on
the As-Built plans referred to in Section I, Article (13),
of this Agreement.
(13)If any unforeseen potential hazardous waste sites are
encountered during construction of PROJECT, STATE and CITY
shall meet and confer on a course of action. The
responsibilities and costs for any action shall be covered
by amendment to this Agreement.
(14)Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the
Vehicle Code, STATE has determined that within such areas as
are within the limits of PROJECT and are open to public
traffic, CITY shall comply with all of the requirements set
forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle
Code. CITY shall take all necessary precautions for safe
operation of CITY's vehicles, the construction contractor's
equipment and vehicles and/or vehicles of personnel retained
by CITY and for the protection of the traveling public from
injury and damage from such vehicles or equipment.
(15)Upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction
contract by CITY to the satisfaction of the STATE
representative and subsequent to the execution of a
maintenance agreement, STATE will accept control and
maintain, at its own cost and expense, those portions of
PROJECT lying within STATE's right of way, except local
7
District Agreement No. B-931
roads delegated t o CITY for maintenance. STATE will
maintain at STATE expense, the entire structure below the
deck surface of any CITY local road overcrossings.
(16)CITY will accept control and maintain, at its own cost and
expense, the portions of PROJECT lying outside STATE's
right of way. Also, CITY will maintain, at CITY expense,
local roads within STATE'S right of way delegated to CITY
for maintenance and remaining portions of any local road
overcrossing structures, including the deck surface and
above, as well as traffic service facilities that may be
required for the benefit or control of CITY local road
traffic.
(17)Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership
and title to materials, equipment and appurtenances
installed within STATE's right of way will automatically be
vested in STATE, and materials, equipment and appurtenances
installed outside of STATE's right of way will automatically
be vested in CITY. No further agreement will be necessary
to transfer ownership as hereinabove stated.
(18)Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to
create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties
not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability
of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of
care with respect to the maintenance of State highways
different from the standard of care imposed by law.
(19)Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is understood
and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4,
CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the
State of California, all officers and employees from all
claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description
brought for or on account of injury (as defined in
Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to CITY under this Agreement.
(20)Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood
and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4,
a
District Agreement No. 8-931
STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY
from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought for or on account of injury (as defined
in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to STATE under this Agreement.
(21)No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement
shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the
parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not
incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties
hereto.
9
District Agreement No. 8-931
(22)Those portions of this Agreement pertaining to the
construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and
acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT by CITY
with concurrence of STATE, or on September 29, 1999,
whichever is earlier in time; however, the ownership,
operation, maintenance, liability, and claims clauses shall
remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by
mutual agreement.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF TEMECULA
Department of Transportation
JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS
Director of Transportation By
Mayor
By
KEN STEELE, District Director
Attest:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE:
Attorney, Department of Transportation
CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS:
District Resource Manager
CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE:
Accounting Administrator
10
ETA 6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORI
FINANCE DIR
CITY MANAC
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 10, 1 996
SUBJECT:Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 23267-F
(Southwesterly of Margarita Road at Highway 79 (S))
PREPARED BY: Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the public improvements in Tract No. 23267-F, AUTHORIZE
reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond for street, water, and sewer improvements to the
ten-percent (10%) warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period, and DIRECT
the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On May 26, 1992, the City Council entered into Subdivision Improvement Agreement with:
The Presley Companies, a California Corporation
1 501 0 Avenue of Science, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92128
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation in Tract No. 23267-F. Accompanying the subdivision agreement were bonds
posted by The American Motorists Insurance Company as follows:
1 .Bond No. 11 1 4145 9187 in the amount of $2,286,000 ($1,837,500, $249,500,
and $199,000, respectively) for street, water, and sewer improvements for
faithful performance.
2.Bond No. 11 1 4145 9187 in the amount of $1,143,500 ($919,000, $125,000,
and $99,500, respectively) for street, water, and sewer improvements labor and
materials.
3.Bond No. 111 4145 9195 in the amount of $36,190 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
R: \AGDRPT\96\09 I O\TR23267F. ACC
Staff has inspected and verified the public improvements. Eastern Municipal and Rancho
California Water Districts have accepted their items of work. Public Works Staff therefore
recommends acceptance of the public improvements, reduction in Faithful Performance Bond
amounts to the ten-percent warranty level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period.
Therefore it Is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows:
Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements $2,057,400
The Faithful Performance Bond amount will be retained in the following amount for warranty
purposes:
Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements: Bond No. 1 1 1 4145 91 87 $228,600
The subdivision monumentation requirements have not been completed.
The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council
Resolution No. 96- at this time. The streets within the subdivision to be accepted are Via
Santa Ines, Via Lucido, Corte San Gabriel, Corte Capistrano, Corte Taquito, and portions of
Calle Los Padres, Corte Veranos, Avenida de Missions, and Via Rio Temecula.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENT:
Location Map
R: \AGDRPT\96\09 I O\TR23267F.ACC
STATE 7%
12 L3
E LOS PADRES
to
74
7
NTA INES
CD
SITE
VICINIl'Y MAP
TRACT NO. 23267-1
Location MaD
NOTE:NTAPS NOT TO SCALE
ITEIA 7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECT
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Acceptance of Public Streets into the City Maintained-Street System
(Within Tract No. 23267-F). (Southwesterly of the intersection of
Margarita Road at Highway 79 (S)).
PREPARED BY: @KR Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96--
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS
INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT
NO. 23267-F)
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved Tract No. 23267-F on May 26, 1992, and entered into Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for construction of street, water and sewer improvements with The
Presley Companies, .
The City Council accepted the public improvements for this tract on September 10, 1 996, and
initiated the faithful performance warranty period.,
The public streets now being accepted by this action are as follows:
Via Santa Ines, Corte Capistrano, Corte San Gabriel, Corte Taquito, Via Lucido, and
portions of Via Rio Temecula, Avenida De Missions, Corte Veranos, and Calle Los
Padres.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Periodic surface and/or structural maintenance will be required every 5 to 8 years.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 96- with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive.
R:\agdrpt\96\09 I O\tr23267f.mst
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN
PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTA -STREET
SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 23267-F)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted offer of dedication of certain lots
for public road and public utility purposes made by The Presley Companies, a California
Corporation, with the recordation of Tract Map No. 23267-F; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula accepted the improvements within Tract No 23267-F
on September 10, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Temecula hereby accepts into the City Maintained-Street System those streets or portions of streets
offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached
hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a recyular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek
City Clerk
R:\agdrpt\96\09 IO\tr23267f.mst
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following
vote:
AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCLLMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
R: @agdrpt\96\09 I O\tr23267f.mst
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 96-
Accepting the public streets offered to and accepted by the City
of Temecula as indicated on Tract Map No. 23267-F, and
accepting subject public streets into the City Maintained-Street
System as described below:
Those lots described as L4ots "A" through "I" inclusive, as shown
on Tract Map No. 23267-F, filed 11 August 1992, in Book 240
of Maps, Pgs 29-35 Incl., further described as follows:
Lot "A"Portion of Via Rio Temecula
Lot "B"Portion of Avenida De Missions
Lot "C"Via Santa Ines
Lot "D"Portion of Corte Veranos
Lot "E"Corte Capistrano
Lot "FlfCorte San Gabriel
Lot ,G,Corte Taquito
Lot "H'Via Lucido
Lot 'I"Portion of Calle Los Padres
R:\agdrpt\96\09 1 O\tr23267f.mst
EXHIBIT "S" TO RESOLUTION NO. 96-
SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE- PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY
MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW:
STATE 79 >
<IA7V@%7' L >
13 114
IAO.EL
iz
29 of a Jr 66 63
3 o
32
14
42
El No
34
1-1231.1i. L. 134.lz. T-2.7S,
LF,GEND E
OR PORTIONS OF
TO BE ACCEPTED WM Crry-
AWM SYSTEM
NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE
L-T
SITE
VICIN17'Y MAP
ITEN4 8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTOF
FINANCE DII
CITY MANA
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Release Subdivision Monumentation and Traffic Signalization Mitigation
Securities in Tract No. 24133-3. (Northeasterly corner of Santiago Road
at Margarita Road)
PREPARED BY: 4.0 Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council AUTHORIZE release of the Subdivision Monument and Traffic Signalization
Mitigation securities in Tract No 24133-3, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer
and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On March 27, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24133-3, and entered into
subdivision agreements with:
Bedford Development Company, a California Corporation
for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and
subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of
Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the following amounts:
1 $1,296,500 ($899,000, $134,500, and $263,000, respectively) to cover faithful
performance for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements.
2.$648,000 ($449,500, $67,000, and $131,500, respectively) to cover labor and
materials for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements.
3. $30,000 to cover subdivision monumentation.
On August 1 3, 1996, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year
warranty period, and accepted substitute securities for Faithful Performance Warranty and
Labor and Material assurance.
r:@agdrpt\96\091 O\tr241 333.mon
The developer posted securities for subdivision monumentation and traffic signalization
mitigation fees at the time of map approval. The developer having now met all requirements for
the release of both of the securities, Staff recommends release as follows:
Instrument of Credit in the amount of $30,000 to cover subdivision monumentation.
Instrument of Credit in the amount of $1 5,600 to cover traffic signalization mitigation
fees.
The affected streetswere accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council
Resolution No. 96-on August 1 3, 1 996. The streets within the subdivision are Via Ricci,
Camino Casillas, ViaRami, Corte Landeros, and a portion of Amarita Way and Corte Cabrera.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
r:\agdrpt\96\091 O\tr241 333.man
i,, C) 0,
age Ss
?60
2 ' US4
TO CORCI@@ 7i
9 Plf Z4/ 7'
4NO 06
RACT NO. 24133-3
7C S@4 DIEC;C
VICINITY MAP
To
,4,3
O@"V
AREA06
3-a4 ACRES
Tract No. 24133-3.
Location MaD,
,,@-OTE:-[N/fips not to sc.,ile
I
EI\4 9
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECT@
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: August 27, 1996
SUBJECT:Release subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation
securities in Tract No. 24134-3. (Northeasterly of the intersection of
Santiago Road at Margarita Road)
PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council AUTHORIZE the release of subdivision monument and traffic signalization
mitigation securities in Tract No 24134-3, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer
and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On March 27, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24134-3, and entered into
subdivision agreements with:
Bedford Development Company, a California Corporation
for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and
subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of
Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the following amounts:
1 $1,026,500 ($812,000, $1 1 1,000, and $103,500, respectively) to cover faithful
performance for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements.
2.$513,500 ($406,000, $55,500, and $52,000, respectively) to cover labor and materials
for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements.
3. $21,500 to cover subdivision monumentation.
On August 13, 1996, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year
warranty period, and accepted substitute securities for Faithful Performance Warranty and
Labor and Material assurance.
R: \agdrpt\96\09 I O\tr241343. mon
The developer posted securities for subdivision monumentation and traffic signalization
mitigation fees at the time of final tract map approval. The developer having now met all
requirements for the release of both of the securities, Staff recommends release as follows:
Instrument of Credit in the amount of $21,500 to cover subdivision monumentation.
Instrument of Credit in the amount of $9,000 to cover traffic signalization mitigation
fees
The affected streets were accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council
Resolution No. 96- on August 13, 1996. The streets within the subdivision are Corte
Tolosa, Corte Colanda, Calle Espirito, and a portion of Calle Barcaldo, Amarita Way, and
Santiago Road.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
R:@agdrpt\96\09 I O@tr241343.mon
A c
tfAggARI
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
Tr
Location Tqap
.,NOTE:i@,f,,ips not to sc,,ile
ITEIA 1 0
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTO-R
CITY MANAGER',,I'@@ 7-
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Release the subdivision monument and traffic signalization mitigation
securities in Tract No. 241 34-F. (Northeasterly corner of Santiago Road
at Margarita Road)
PREPARED BY: A*Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the subdivision monument and traffic signaliztion
mitigation securities in Tract No 24134-F, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the
Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On May 15, 1991, the City Council approved Tract Map No. 24134-F, and entered into
subdivision agreements with:
Bedford Development Company, a California Corporation
for the improvement of streets and drainage, installation of sewer and water systems, and
subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were Instruments of
Credit posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the following amounts:
1$773,000 ($515,000, $128,000, and $130,000, respectively) to cover faithful
performance for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements.
2.$386,500 ($257,500, $64,000, and $65,000, respectively) to cover labor and materials
for streets, drainage, water and sewer improvements.
3. $24,000 to cover subdivision monumentation.
On August 1 3, 1996, the City Council accepted the public improvements, initiated the one-year
warranty period, and accepted substitute securities for Faithful Performance Warranty and
Labor and Material assurance.
r:\agdrpt\96\091 O\tr24134F.mon
The developer posted securities for subdivision monumentation and traffic signalization
mitigation fees at the time of tract map approval. The developer having now met all
requirements for the release of both of the securities, Staff recommends release as follows:
Instrument of Credit in the amount of $24,000 to cover subdivision monumentation.
Instrument of Credit in the amount of $12,000 to cover traffic signalization mitigation
fees.
The affected streets were accepted into the City Maintained-Street System by City Council
Resolution No. 96- on August 1 3, 1 996. The streets within the subdivision are Corte
Almonte, Corte Montilla, and portions of Calle Veronica, Calle Barcalda, Santiago Road, and
Margarita Road. Margarita Road was a part of the County Maintained-Road System prior to
incorporation and became part of the City Maintained-Street System by succession on
December 1, 1 989.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
r:\agdrptN96\091 O\tr241 34F.mon
p
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
Tract No. 24134-F.
Location AlaD
JL
NOTE- -i s not to sc,,ile
ITEA4 11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTO
FINANCE DI
ITY MANA
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:"No Parking" Zone on Via la Vida between Margarita Road and Via Renate
PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Assistant Engineer-Capital Projects/Traffic fl^
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF VIA LA VIDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND
VIA RENATE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B".
BACKGROUND:
At the August 22, 1996, meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, the Commission
reviewed a request to establish a "No Parking" zone on a segment of Via la Vida between
Margarita Road and Via Renate.
The request for "No Parking" on this segment of Via la Vida was due to the narrow roadway
width (approximately 32 feet), parked vehicles on the south side of this roadway and a
relatively sharp horizontal curve which limits the visibility of the oncoming traffic. Although
parking was not observed on the north side of this street, the proposed 'No Parking" zone will
allow centerline striping which will guide the motorists around the existing curve.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the Department of Public Works Striping/Stenciling Account No. 001-
164-601-5410.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution No. 96-
2.Exhibit 'A" - Location Map
3.Exhibit "B" - Proposed Parking Restriction and Striping
R:kAGDRPT%96\0910\NOPARK-V.IDA rh
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC]IL OF THE CITY
OF TEM[ECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE
ON THE NORTH SI]DE OF VIA LA VH)A BETWEEN
MARGARITA ROAD AND VIA RENATE AS SHO"N ON
EXHIBIT "B".
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100, of the Temecula Municipal Code, 'No
Parking' zone is hereby established in the City of Temecula on the northside of Via la Vida
between Margarita Road and Via Renate as shown on Exhibit 'B'.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall ce@ to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
A=T:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution
No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: - COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: - COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: - COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN - COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\AGDRPT'\96\0910\NOPAFtK-V.IDA rh
PVEN
mw
ooo CIR
20 CIR
wA@o DR
PROPOSED 6@6NO PA
CIUA
I saw
2 PASEO
,3 PASO
4
I
Sycamore Terrace Apartments
EXHIBIT'4A"
LOCATION MAP
1%
N
I
VACANT PROPERTY
PROPOSED "NO PARKINU'
i4
w
@,4
4
w
;g
C) @
:9 SYCAMOIM TERRACE APARTMENTS 00
-1
;g
u
:4
EXHIBIT "B"
PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTION AND STRIPING
ITEI\4 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECT
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:"NO PARKING" Zone on Ynez Road between Rancho Highlands Drive and
Rancho Vista Road
PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Assistant Engineer-Capital Projects/Traffic
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE
WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN RANCHO HIGHLANDS
DRIVE AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A".
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request to establish a "NO PARKING" zone on the west side of Ynez Road
between Rancho Highlands Drive and Rancho Vista Road. Ynez Road between Rancho
California Road and Pauba Road is designated as a major four-lane roadway on the City of
Temecula Circulation Element of the General Plan. The posted speed limit is 45 mph on this
segment of Ynez Road.
Currently, parking is restricted on the west side of Ynez Road between Rancho California Road
and Rancho Highlands Drive. Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and the newly
widened segment north of Rancho Vista Road is a narrow roadway which provides only one (1)
southbound travel lane. Due to the narrow roadway width, parked vehicles on this segment of
Rancho California road impede the flow of traffic and therefore, parking should be restricted
on the west side of Ynez Road between Rancho Highlands Drive and the existing "NO PARKING-
BIKE LANE' area north of Rancho Vista Road (Exhibit "A").
R:\AGDRPT\96@0910\NOPARK-Y.NEZ rh
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the Department of Public Works Striping/Stenciling Account No. 001-
164-601-5410.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution No. 96-
2.Exhibit 'A" - Location Map
R:%AGDRPT\96\0910\NOPARK-Y.NEZ rh
RIESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON THE
WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD BETWEEN RANCHO HIGHLANDS
DRIVE AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A".
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 10. 12. 100, of the Temecula Municipal Code, 'NO
PARKING' zones are hereby established in the City of Temecula on the west side of Ynez Road
between Rancho Highlands Drive and Rancho Vista Road as shown on Exhibit 'A'.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall ce@ to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATI'EST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution
No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: - COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: - COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: - COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN - COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\AGDRPTA96\0910\NOPARK-Y.NEZ rh
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD.
c
z
C)
9
RANCHOJUG S DR.
TIEERRA VISTA RD.
z
0
z
EXHIBIT 66A99
cn
LOCATION MAP
CHO VISTA RD.
ITEI\4 13
7
APPROVAL:
CITY ATTORNEY A
FINANCE OFFICER
MANAGER
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Contract Agreement for Street Address Numbering
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve a contract agreement with Mr. Bruce Stewart,
3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (909) 784-8484, which renews an existing
contract to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis.
DISCUSSION:
The Building and Safety Department has utilized the services of a consultant to provide the City
with the service of assigning street address numbers for new development projects. Staff has
utilized Mr. Bruce Stewart to perform these services for the past three (3) years and
recommends this contract be renewed for Fiscal Year 1996-1997. Mr. Bruce Stewart has
agreed to provide this supplemental service on an as-needed basis for compensation at the rate
of twenty-five ($25) dollars per hour. This is an increase of five ($5) dollars per hour over the
previous contract agreement. Mr. Bruce Stewart has had experience with the addressing
program established by the County of Riverside and has provided street addressing under the
program which has been established in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Monies have already been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1996-1 997 budget in Account #001 -
162-999-5250, Other Outside Services, for this service. Sufficient funds exist to complete this
project within this existing account.
V:\.AGENDA.Agenda.Rcp Strwart.96a
CITY OF TEMEECLTLA
AGRE
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGRF, , is made and effective as of July I 199fL, between the
City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Bruce Stew= ("Consultant"). In
consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July I , 1996 and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than June 30, 1927, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant
shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in
Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently
and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices ut@ed by
persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in
meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4.PAYMIENT.
a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment
rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in fun, based upon actual time spent
on the above tasks. This airnount shall not exceed Twenty-Five Hundred dollars ($
for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this
Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in
connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth
herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City
Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in
the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written
authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager
may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (1 0 %) of the amount of the
LAX2:136829.2 -I- Revised 9/18195
Agreement, but in no event shall such sum exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Any
additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council.
C. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of
each invoice as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall
give written notice toConsultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set
forth on the invoice.
5.SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGRE T WITHOUT
CAUSE.
a.The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause,
suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at
least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the
City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall
not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the
City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of
the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City
pursuant to Section 3.
6.DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement
shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for
any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by
written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the
performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and
without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in theperformance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve
the Consultantwith written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after
service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory
performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of
time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to
LAX.2:136829.2 -2- Revised 9/19/95
terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to
which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
7. OWNERSHIEP OF DOC S.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. AR such records shall
be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly
identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of
City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to
examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as
necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities
related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be
maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of fmal payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys,
notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed
pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused
or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to
computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by
the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling,
transferring and printing computer files.
C. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall
not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a
location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. IND CATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify,
protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and
against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind
or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may
be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under
the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the
City.
9. INSURANCE EM NTS. Consultant shall procure and
maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or
damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
LAX--:-@36829.2 -3- Rcvised 9/18/95
a.Minimum Scol2e of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1)Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
(occurrence form CG 0001).
(2)Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87)
covering Automobile Liability, code I (any auto).
(3)Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
(4)Errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to the
consultant's profession.
b.Minimum Idmits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less
than:
(1)General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General
Liability Insurance or other fon-n with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to
this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice
the required occurrence limit.
(2)Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
and property damage.
(3)Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
or disease.
(4)Effors and omissions liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-
insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the
City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured
retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations,
claim administration and defense expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provi@. The general liability and automobile
liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1 3 6 8 2 9. 2 -4- Revised 9118/95
(1)The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to
be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products
and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned,
occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall
contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(2)For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or
self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(3)Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage
provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
(4)The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect to the ]Limits of the insurer's liability.
(5)Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City.
e. Acc=tability of Insuren. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VH, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
f. Verification of Cover-agrI. Consultant shall furnish the City with original
endorsements effecting cover-age required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed
by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to
be on forms provided by the City. AU endorsements are to be received and approved by the
City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer
may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including
endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
LA-N','-:136829.2 Revised 9/18/95
1
10.INDEPENDENI CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly
independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control.
Neither City nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its
officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City.
Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever
against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with
the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIEBI]LITEES. The Consultant shall keep itself
informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed
by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City,
and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of
the Consultant to comply with this section.
IL2. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. AR information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement
shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior
written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not
without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney,
voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to
interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or
relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court
order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court
order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
perfon-ned thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City
LA;K--, 136829.2 -6- Revi@ 9118/95
retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any
deposition, hearing or similar proceedings Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and
to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by
Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the
right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the
other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal
service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to,
Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in
the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to
the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later
designate by Notice:
To City: City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention:City Manager
To Consultant: Bruce Stewart
3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
14. ASSIG The Consultant shall not assign the performance of
this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written
consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to
this Agreement, only Bruce Stewart Rhall perform the services described in this
Agreement.
Bruce Stewart may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the
services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior
to the departure of Bruce Stewart from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave
Consultant's employ, the city shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement,
within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement,
Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and
including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City
Council and the Consultant.
15. LICENSES.. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant
shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the
services described in this Agreement.
1,AX2:136829.2 -7- Revisc-d 9/19/95
16. GOVFRNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree
that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities
of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any
litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal
district court with jurisdiction over the City of Temecula.
17. ENTIRE AGRFFWNT. This Agreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this
Agreement. AR prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and
statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or
effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set
forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such
party deems material.
18. AUTHORITY TO FNFCXJTF, THIS AGR The person or
persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or
she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the
authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMEECULA
By
Karel Lindemans
Mayor
Attest:
June S. Greek
City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
L.@-' '@36829. 2 -8- Revised 9/19/95
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
CONSLTLTANT
By
BY:
!,,4.X.2: 136629.2 -9- Revisrd 9/18/95
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart wiR provide address numbering on an as-needed basis for
residential and commercial development throughout the City of Temecula.
LAY,?-:136829.2 -10- Rovised 9/18/95
EXHI]BIT B
PA SCHFDIJTF-
It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (714)
784-8484, will provide address numbering on an as-needed basis for residential and
commercial development throughout the City of Temecula at the rate of twenty-five ($25.00)
dollars per hour.
LAX@-:136829.2 -11- Revised 9/18/95
ITE14 14
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY A 17
DIRECTOR OF Fl
it CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Council/City Manager
FROM:Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
DATE:September 10,1996
SUBJECT: Old Town Temecula Logo License Agreement
Prepared by: John R. Meyer, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:The City Council:
(1)Authorize the City Manager to Enter into License Agreements for use of
the City's Old Town Logo.
(2)Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING USE OF THE OLD TOWN LOGO FOR
CERTAIN PURPOSES WITHIN THE OLD TOWN AREA
(3)Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE OLD TOWN
LICENSING AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 1996, the City Council continued this item to allow the Old Town Main Street
Association (Association) the opportunity to review the draft License Agreement. The
Association has declined to enter into an agreement which would have provided them with the
authority to administer the license. The Association's letter has been attached for your review.
Staff has discussed different options with the City Attorney. In order to protect the City from
liability, the Attorney recommended we use the same agreement with each interested party
who wishes to use the Logo. Under this scenario, the administration and product review would
become the responsibility of staff.
lit:\STA LIC.CC3 9/4/96 jnn 1
The Council may, however, allow the use of the logo for signage by adoption of the attached
resolution. This resolution would provide a blanket consent to businesses in the Old Town Area
(as defined in the Specific Plan) to use the logo as signage. The resolution only requires that
an Old Town merchant add the copy right protection notice to the logo when it is used.
FISCAL IMPACT
The logo has the potential to provide revenue to the City and/or the Old Town Temecula
Mainstreet Association. However, as directed by the Council, there will be no royalty payments
for the use of the Logo. The City will incur a costs to administer the license. While staff is
unable to estimate these costs at this time, the costs are not anticipated to be significant.
Therefore staff recommends a nominal licensing fee of $35.00.
Attachments:
1 . Resolution No. 96- - Page 3
2. Resolution No. 96- - Page 6
3.Old Town Main Street Letter of August 16, 1996 - Page 9
4. Draft Logo Agreement - Page 10
R:\STA LJC.CC3 9/4/% jnn 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4/% jnn 3
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC]IL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING USE
OF THE OLD TOWN LOGO FOR CERTAIN
PURPOSES THE OII) TOWN AREA
THE CITY COUNCIIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Council finds and determines the following:
a. In December 1995, the City Council selected a design for the Old Town
Logo ("Logo"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
b. As stated in the Old Town Specific Plan, the Logo is intended to be used
on various stree@ elements within the Old Town Area, such as the gateway sign, street signs,
and intersection paving.
C. The use of the Logo by businesses within the Old Town Area on signs
identifying the businessis an appropriate use of the @go, consistent with the Old Town Specific
Plan, and will assist inthe promotion of the Old Town Area and the City as a whole.
Section 2.The City Council hereby consents to the use of the Logo by
businesses located withm theOld Town Area on the signs identifying the business or on a separate
logo sign in connection withthe business, provided, however, that at all times the user includes
the notice "CopyrightP by City of Temecula--All Rights Reserved' on the Logo each time it is
used. The Old Town Area shall be defined as the area which is subject to the Old Town Specific
Plan as approved by the City Council and businesses shall be defmed as those businesses holding
valid City of Temecula business licenses.
Section 3. Use of the Logo pursuant to the consent given by this Resolution is
intended only to generally promote businesses in the Old Town Area and the City and is not
intended to endorse any business or activity. By giving its consent to the use of the Logo to
businesses in the Old Town Area by this Resolution, the City does not authorized, endorse or
otherwise approve of any particular business using the Logo nor any of the activities conducted
by the business using the Logo.
Section 4. The consent granted by this Resolution may be revoked by the City
Council at any time, for any reason, provided not less that sixty (60) days prior written notice is
given to persons with business licenses within the Old Town Area.
R:\STAFFRMLOOOLJC.CC3 914196jrm 4
Section 5.
The City Clerk shall ce@ the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO
on September 10, 1996.
by the City Council of the City of Temecula
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I Y CERTIIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September, 1996
by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:CrrY COUNCIILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:CITY COUNCIIL ERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4/% jrm 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:NST LIC.CC3 914/% jrm 6
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTTON OF THE CITY COUNC]IL OF THE CITY OF
TEMIECULA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE OLD TOWN
LICENSING AGREEMENT
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Temecula orders as follows:
WHEREAS, there is an administrative cost to process the Old Town Logo Licensing
Agreement.
Section 1. There is hereby established a $35.00 fee schedule for the Old Town Logo
Licensing Agreement.
Section 2. The funds collected for these shall be deposited in the Receiving Account of
the General Fund.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
AT=T:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\STA LJC.CC3 9/4/% jrm 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SIDE ss
CrrY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, Citv Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the Resolution
No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting thereof, held on September 10, 1996, the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIIL ERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:COUNCIILMEM13ERS:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
R:\STA LlC.CC3 9/4t% jrm 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
OLD TOWN MAIN STREET LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 1996
R:\STA LIC.CC3 9/41% jnn 9
August 16, 1996
Mr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43106 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Re:Old Town Temecula Logo License Agreement
Dear Mr.Meyer,
TheBoard of Directors of the Old Town Temecula Main Street
Association met today and addressed the issue of the above
mentioned license agreement.
Although the Board was pleased with the Council's offer to
make the licensing available to the Association, at this @-ime the
Board respectfully declines the offer.
The decision was based in nart on the following issues:
I . Proper implementation would require staffing that, at this
time, we do not have.
2.The license was a non-exclusive acreement which could
resuIL-in several parties licensing products.
3.The enforcement provisions anticipate legal action, -f
necessary, to be borne bv our Association. The Board did not --Feel
comfortable entering into a potential legal arena.
We fully support the logo and anxiously await
implementation. Further, vlease convey t o the Council our
appreciation for their efforts on our behalf.
And, as always, thank vou John for your ongoina assistance +--o
our organization.
Sincerely,
Old Town Temecula Mainstreet Association
t. John- t
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
DRAFT LOGO AGREEMENT
R:\STA LIC.CC3 914/96 jrm 1 0
01,D TOWN IOGO LICENSE AGRE
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of July 23, 1996, by
and between the CITY OF TEMECULA ("City") and
("Licensee"). In consideration of their mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1 . Grant of License.
1.1 On the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement, City hereby grants
to Licensee and Licensee hereby accepts from City the right, license and privilege ("the License")
during the Term to u@ the Old Town Temecula Logo ("Logo," a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein) upon and in connection with the manufacture, sale
and distribution of the articles of merchandise ("Goods") approved by the City pursuant to Section
3 of this Agreement.
1.2 If Licensee decides to allow others to u@ the Logo, as permitted by
Section 1. 1, such permission shall only be granted by written agreement which incorporates the
terms of this Agreement and makes the obligations applicable to the sub-hcensee. Licensee agrees
to protect the Logo and enforce the terms of this License Agreement if the Logo is allowed to be
used by others.
1.3 City shall retain the right to grant any other licenses which authorize the
manufacture or sale of the Goods or any other goods or products during the Term of this
Agreement.
2. I=
2.1 Duration. The "Term' of this Agreement shall be one (1) year,
commencing on the date of this Agreement.
2.2 Notice of De!;ire to F-xtend Term. At least two (2) months prior to the
scheduled expiration of the Term, Licensee -.haU give written notice to City of Licensee's desire
either to @er extend the Term or to allow the Term to expire in accordance with the terms of
this Agreement; if Licensee desires to extend the Term, the parties shall meet to discuss an
extension of the Term. However, notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, nothing in this
paragraph @ be construed as an obligation of City to extend the Term, nor shall it be construed
as granting Licensee any option to extend the Term, regardless of whether or not Licensee
provides the notice described herein.
3.Quality Control.
3.1. Licensee @ not distribute or sell any Goods nor allow the use of the Logo
on a sign nor shall it issue a sublicense for the distribution or sale of Goods unless and until the
R:\STAFFRPT\LOOOLIC.CC3 9/4/%jrm 1 1
nature, quality and style of the Goods as well as any carton, container, packing or wrapping
material have been specifically approved by the City in writing, nor shall Licensee use any tag,
label or similar item or any advertising, promotional or display material in connection with any
Goods or bearing the Logo, unless and until such items and materials have been specifically
approved by City in writing. After samples have been approved pursuant to this section, no
changes shall be made without the prior written consent of City. The City Council hereby
delegates this approval authority to the City Manager, who may delegate this authority further to
a City employee or committee composed of members of the Licensee.
3.2 Licensee acknowledges that the image of the Logo requires that any Goods
must be in good taste and meet high standards of quality. Because judgments of taste and quality
may be subjective, Licensee agrees that City may grant or withhold any approval or consent
required under this Section in its sole and absolute discretion.
3.3 Licensee shall cause all Goods to be manufactured, sold and distributed in
accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws.
4.Tabeling.
Licensee will cause to appear on each item of Goods and on or within all
advertising, promotional or display material bearing the Logo the notice 'Copyright cl by City of
Temecula - AU Rights Reserved" and any other notice requested by City; and, where such item
or advertising, promotional or display material bears a trademark or serviceman, appropriate
statutory notice of registration or application for registration thereof. Should any items of Goods
be marketed in a carton, container, packaging or wrapping material bearing the Logo, such notice
shall also appear on the carton, container, packaging or wrapping material. All tags, labels,
imprints or other devices containing any such notice and all advertising, promotional or display
materials bearing the Logo shall be submitted to City for its written approval prior to use by
Licensee. Approval by City shall not constitute waiver of City's rights or Licensee's duties under
any provision of this Agreement.
5.City's Title and Protec@.
5.1 Goodwill. Licensee acknowledges the value of the goodwill associated with
the Logo and acknowledges that the Logo and all rights therein belong exclusively to City, and
that the Logo has a secondary meaning in the mind of the public. Licensee shall not during the
Term or thereafter attack the title or any rights of City in and to the Logo or attack the validity
of the License.
5.2 Protection of Logo. At the option of City, Licensee shall (I) assist City
in the procurement of any protection or defense of any of City's rights in the Logo, or (ii) on
behalf of City cause to be filed all appropriate registration applications to protect the Logo and
the Merchandising Rights. Licensee shall take all actions necessary or appropriate to protect the
Logo and City's interests in the Logo.
R:\STA LW.CC3 9/4/% jm 1 2
5.3 'Fmforeement of Rights. Licensee shall use its best efforts to detect and abate
any unautho@ use of the Logo by other parties. Unless otherwise directed by City, Licensee
shall take all reasonable measures on behalf of itself and City to abate such unauthorized use,
mcluding without @tation, @g a civil suit in the courts or an opposition or cancellation action
in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Unless otherwise directed by City, Licensee shall
undertake and control the prosecution of such actions. City shall provide reasonable cooperation
to Licensee in any such actions, but all legal fees and costs shall be bome by Licensee and
included in Permitted Expenses. No@g herein shall preclude City from taking such other or
additional actions as City may deem appropriate to protect the Logo.
5.4 A.-qqipnment of Rights by City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall
be cons@ as an assigm-nent or grant to Licensee of any right, title or interest in or to the Logo;
all rights relating to the Logo are reserved by City except for the License to use the Merchandising
Rights only as specifically and expressly provided in this Agreement. Upon expiration or
termination of the Term Licensee will be deemed to have assigned, transferred and conveyed to
City any @e rights, equities, goodwill or other rights in and to the Logo which may have been
obtained by Licensee in pursuance of any endeavors under this Agreement (without consideration
other dm the mutual covenants and consideration of this Agreement); although such assignment,
transfer and conveyance shall be deemed effective without the need for any action by Licensee,
Licensee shall exer-ute any instruments requested by City to evidence or confirm such assignment,
transfer and conveyance. Licensee agrees that use of the Logo by Licensee shall inure to the
benefit of City and ffia Licensee shall not at any time acquire any rights in the Logo by virtue of
any use Licensee may make of the Logo.
6.Indemnification of City.
Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless City, the City Council and each
member thereof, and City's officers, employees and agents (all collectively refeffed to as
"Indemnitees') from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses,
liabilities and expenses (mcluding attorneys' fees and costs of defense) incurred in connection with
or resulting from the Goods or the use of the Logo by Licensee. If any action or proceeding is
brought against Indemnitees by reason of any such claim, Licensee upon notice from Indemnitees
shall defend Indemnitees at Licensee's expen&e, by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Indemnitees.
7.Product Liability Insurance-.
If Licensee engages in the manufacture or distribution of merchandise pursuant to
this License, Licensee and any sub-licensee engaged in the manufacture or distribution of
merchandise, @ obtain and maintain at its sole cost and expense, throughout the Term and for
a period of at least four years after expiration or termination of the License, customary product
liability insurance from a qualified and recognized insurance company, naming City and the other
Indemnitees and Licensee as 'additional insureds'. The amount of coverage shall be a minimum
of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence of bodily injury, and one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000) for each occurrence of property damage. The policy shall provide
for thirty (30) days' written notice to City and Licensee from the insurer by Registered or
R:'SRA 11C.CM 9/4/% jfm 1 3
Certified mail, Return Receipt Requested, prior to any modification, cancellation or termination
of such insurance coverage. Licensee shall furnish City with a certified copy of the policy
providing such coverage, or other suitable evidence thereof, within @ (30) days after the
commencement of the Term, but in no event shall Licensee distribute or sell any Goods prior to
receipt by City of such evidence of insurance.
8.Default; Termination.
8.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute
a default and breach of this Agreement by Licensee: (A) The failure by Licensee to observe or
perform any of the other covenants, conditions or provisions of this Agreement to be observed or
performed by Licensee, where such failure shall continue for a period of 30 days after written
notice thereof by City to Licensee; provided, however, that if the nature of Licensee's default is
such that more than 30 days are reasonably required for its cure, then Licensee shall not be
deemed to be in default if Licensee commences such cure within the 30-day period and thereafter
diligently prosecutes such cure to completion; or (B) the making by Licensee of any general
assignment or general arrangement for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Licensee
of a petition to have Licensee adjudged a bankrupt, or a petition or reorganization or arrangement
under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Licensee, the
petition is dismissed within 60 days); or the appointment of a trustee or a receiver to take
possession of substantially all of Licensee's assets or of Licensee's interest in this Agreement,
where possession is not restored to Licensee within 30 days; or the attachment, execution or other
judicial sea= of substantially all of Licensee's assets or of Licensee's interest in this Agreement,
where such seizure is not discharged within 30 days.
8.2 In the event of any such default or breach by Licensee, City may terminate
this Agreement at any time thereafter, in its sole discretion, with or without notice or demand and
without limiting City in the exercise of any other right or remedy which City may have by reason
of such default or breach.
9.No City Warranties.
City has made and makes no warranties or representations on which Licensee has
relied in entering into this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing sentence,
City specifically has made and makes no warranties or representations regarding the amount of
expenses licensee will incur in performing its obligations under this Agreement, and the amounts
of Gross Revenues and Net Revenues that Licensee will derive under this Agreement.
10.Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval or communication that either party
desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and shall be deemed given as
R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4196 jfm 1 4
of the time of hand delivery to the addresses set forth below, or three days after deposit into the
United States mail, postage prepaid, by Registered or Certified mail, Return Receipt Requested.
Unless notice of a different address has been given in accordance with tius section, all such notices
shall be addressed as follows:
If to City, to:City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
TemeC,ila, CA 92590
Attn:City Manager
With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon
333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Attn: Peter Thorson
If to Licensee, to:
11.Integrated Agreement: Modification.
This Agreement contains all agreements of the parties relating to the Logo, the
Merchandising Rights and the License, and cannot be amended or modified except by a written
agreement.
12.Waiver.
No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of City on any default
by Licensee shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by City
of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the
same or any other provision of this Agreement.
13.Governing @.
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the State of California.
14.Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement
shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
R:\ST LIC.CC3 9/4/96 jnn 1 5
15.Re].qtinn-,hip of Parties.
City @ not become or be deemed a partner or a joint venturer with Licensee by
reason of the provisions of this Agreement, nor shall either party have any authority to obligate
or bind the other in any respect, it being intended that each party shall remain an independent
contractor responsible for its own actions.
16.Captions.
The captions of this Agreement shall have no effect on its interpretation.
R:\ST IIC.CC3 9/4/% jfm 1 6
IN WrrNESS F, time parties have executed dus Agreement as of the date
first written above.
CITY OF LTLA ('City")
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
A=T:
June S. Greek 9 City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
LICENSEE
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
R:\ST LIC.CC3 914/96 jim 1 7
EXHIBIT A
COPY OF LOGO
R:\STAFFRPT\LOGOLIC.CC3 9141%jrm 18
EXHIBIT A
I
COPY OF LOGO
TEMECULA, CA. i
I1-@-
ù,4A
- - -
TEMECULA, CA.
R:\STAFFRMLOC,OLIC,CC3 8/29/96 iiiii
ITEI\4 15
,e
APPROVA
CITY ATTO
FINANCE DI
CITY MAN,4
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Mary Jane McLarney, Assistant City Manager
DATE: September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:The First Amendment to Agreement for Law Enforcement Services
Between the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Law Enforcement
Services between County of Riverside and City of Temecula and authorize the Mayor to execute
the agreement.
BACKGROUND:
Each year it is necessary to amend the agreement with the County of Riverside for law
enforcement services based upon budgeted staffing levels. The attached amendment provides
for the FY 97 budgeted levels of service which include: Twenty-three (23) Patrol Deputy
positions; Two (2) Target Team Deputy Sheriff positions; Four (4) Motorcycle Team Deputy
Sheriff positions; One (1) K-9 Deputy Sheriff position; Two (2) School Resource Officers Deputy
Sheriff positions; Eleven (1 1) Sheriff's Service Officer positions and the necessary managment
staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate funds are budgeted for the attached positions.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES BETWEEN COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND
CITY OF TEMECULA
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services between the
County of Riverside and the City of Temecula, effective July 1, 1995 through June 30, 2000,
is hereby amended in the following respects only:
1Attachment A is amended to read as follows:
CITY OF TEMECULA
1,FVET, OFIRFRVTCF,
AveraTraffic Services
112 supported hours per day. (Approximate equivalent of twenty-three (23) Deputy
Sheriff positions a 1,780 annual productive hours standard.)
Dedicated Positions
Two (2) Deputy Sheriff (fully supported) positions-Target Team
Four (4) Deputy Sheriff (fully supported) positions-Motorcycle Team
One (1) Deputy Sheriff (fully supported) position-K-9 Deputy
One (1) Deputy Sheriff (unsupported) position-Connnunity Oriented Policing Officer
Two (2) Deputy Sheriff (unsupported) positions-School Resource Officers (academic year)
Eleven (1 1) Sheriff's Service Officer positions
One (1) Office Assistant III position
IN WITNESS @EREOF, the City of Temecula, by resolution or minute order duly
adopted by its City Council, has caused this Agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested
and sealed by its Clerk, and the County of Riverside, by order of its Board
H
H
of Supervisors has caused this Agreement to be signed by the Chairman of said Board and
attested and sealed by the Clerk of said Board, all on the dates indicated below.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Date: By:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Gerald A. Maloney
Clerk of the Board
FORM APPROVED
i COUNTY COUNSEL
By:
Deputy ivL 0 5 199
BY
2
ITEN4 16
APPROVAL
CITY ATTO
FINANCE 0
MAN,A
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Manager/City Council
FROM:Mary Jane McLarney, Assistant City Manager
DATE:September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Resolution Designating the Arts Council of Temecula Valley as the Lead
Organization to Represent the Arts in Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE
ARTS COUNCIL OF TEMECULA VALLEY AS THE LEAD ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT
THE ARTS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
BACKGROUND:
In the past year, the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley has been actively working to establish
itself as the umbrella organization to coordinate arts activities in Temecula. As outlined on the
attached Presidential Goals and Objectives for 1996, these activities would include a master
calendar of arts events, development of a long range cultural plan, and facilitating
communication among art groups. According to President Jerry Novotney, one of the most
important reasons to make this designation is to make the Arts Council eligible for various
State, Federal and private funding.
It is important to note that this designation would not preclude any art organization from
applying for the City's Community Service Funding Program. The Arts Council has also
indicated that there is no requirement to pay dues to be included in the organization.
FISCAL IMPACT:
By taking this action, there is no cost to the City, but it may provide opportunities to the arts
organization for additional funding opportunities.
ATTACHMENTS:Resolution
Presidential Goals and Objectives for 1 996
The Arts Council in 1996
Statements of Support
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE ARTS COUNCIIL OF
VALLEY AS THE LEAD ORGANIZATION TO
REPRESENT THE ARTS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
WHEREAS, The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts; and
, The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley is seeking to establish a statewide
communication network to encompass present and future local art groups; and
S, The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley can, if so designated, serve as lead
agency for all of the arts organization in the Temecula area in applying for State and Federal
grants for the Arts.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Temecula
supports the efforts of the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley as the lead art organization in the
City of Temecula.
Section 1. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
on September 10, 1996.
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos@
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSI]DE ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
Resolution No. 96- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on September 10, 1996, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk
Reso&\Arts 2
PRESIDENTIAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 1996
Revised 2-9-96
1.To establish the Arts Council office as the center for
arts activities with a master calendar of community
arts events.
2.To implement the Arts Council's 1995 long range plan
by furthering the establishment of the Council as an
umbrella organization serving other arts groups.
3.To create and strengthen communications with and
between arts organizations in the community.
4.To create an Arts Council Advisory group and
establish a meeting schedule for such a group.
5.To strengthen the Temecula Arts Council's relationship
with CALAA, CAC, and the Riverside Arts Foundation.
6.To explore new funding sources e.g. Foundations, City
of Temecula and expansion of "Friends of the Arts."
7.To have the Arts Council proclaimed by City Council
Resolution as the lead arts organization in Temecula.
8.To strengthen the Arts Council's relationship with the
local press, C.O.C., E.D.C., and the school system.
9.To present a viable program of quality events for
community consumption.
10.To establish a two year plan and time line for the
creation of a cultural plan for the Temecula Valley.
THE ARTS COUNCIL IN 1996
The founders of the Arts Council believed that it is a mistake to allow any person to
serve too long a time on the Board of Trustees. The bylaws therefore specify that a
board member shall serve a three year term, and if reelected, may serve a second term.
Thereafter, the board member must wait for at least a year to be eligible to return.
Thus, all the original board members are now retired from the Arts Council Board of
Trustees, with the exception of Dorothy Meyler, who, in her capacity of Secretary is
serving one additional year.
Bylaws limit the board to 19 members. However, if a board member is married, his/her
spouse may attend and if both spouses attend, they are each entitled to one-half vote.
Board meetings are held monthly, on the second Monday from 5:30 to 7:00 PM.
Executive board meetings are held the first Monday of each month. The current
Executive Board consists of President Jerry Novotney, Vice President Marti Treckman,
Secretary Dorothy Meyler, Treasurer Carol Stiff and Past President Jim Meyler. The
Executive Board serves as an advisory group to the President. It has no legal status.
The Arts Council Board has 19 active members. A current listing is attached. Members
who have three or more unexcused absences in a 12 month period will be replaced from
a waiting list.
Offices of the Arts Council are located upstairs in what used to be the "Honda of
Temecula" building, on Jefferson Avenue in Temecula. The offices have been made
available at no cost to the Arts Council by Donna Reeves and the Norm Reeves Super
Group. Conference tables, chairs, a copying machine, two computers, a Fax machine
and other office furniture have been donated to the Arts Council office.
Barbara Keen, formerly volunteer coordinator for Sharp Healthcare, Murrieta, has offered
her services as a volunteer coordinator for the Arts Council and the office is currently
staffed to operate Monday through Thursday from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Currently, Jerry
Novotney spends most of the day Tuesday and Thursday at the Arts Council Office.
Although the Council has determined that it will convert from a "performing" to a
itsupport" organization over the next three to five years, there is no desire to discontinue
the performing activities. Rather they can be taken over by other organizations, or other
groups can be formed to take over the performance activities. For example, the 1996
Arts Festival will have three events provided by other arts organizations - Fine Arts
Network will provide Children's Art-in-the-Park, the Temecula Valley Playhouse will
provide the closing benefit performance of "Death Trap", and Taste of the Valley will tie
in with the final day of the Arts Festival. Flyers and descriptive information for Arts Fest
'96 are attached. It is expected that Art Fest '97 will incorporate 20 or more different
performing and visual arts organizations in a much larger Arts Festival which will be
coordinated by the Arts Council.
ESOPA (Emerging Stars of Performing Arts) is a division of the Arts Council which has
provided about two performances a year. ESOPA contracts with highly talented young
artists to perform in Temecula. This year's Valentine Love Songs concert, featuring the
U. C. Irvine Concert Choir sold out every seat at the Community Recreation Center. A
symphony concert is planned later this year by ldylwyld School of Music and the Arts
concert orchestra.
The sixth annual Concert on the Green, featuring the Riverside Philharmonic Orchestra,
is scheduled for fall of 1996. The five previous concerts have been held on the grounds
of the Embassy Suites Hotel and this is the site hoped for this year, but availability is not
certain. Eventually, the new city park at the Duck Pond may be available for this activity.
In line with its mission as a "support" organization, the Arts Council organized a meeting
of 27 visual and performing arts groups located in Temecula and Murrieta, with one
representative from Falibrook. The meeting stressed that the principal purpose of the
Arts Council is to assist artists and other arts organizations in the Temecula Valley.
President Novotney said that the Council can provide office facilities, telephone
answering, ticket sales, credit card acceptance, publicity, bulk mailing and insurance to
other art organizations who have need of these services.
Representatives of most organizations stressed the need for a Community Arts Calendar
and the ability to coordinate the scheduling of activities. Novotney offered the Arts
Council's newsletter "ARTifacts", to provide this calendar as well as publicity for arts
activities.
The group voted their support for the formation of an Arts Advisory Board to meet
periodically and further develop efforts to coordinate and unify artistic activities in the
Temecula/Murrieta area. Minutes of the meeting and names and organizations attending
are attached.
President Jerry Novotney has prepared a rather ambitious list of objectives for 1996.
The listing is attached. It is hoped that these objectives will be the subject of one of our
first meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee.
\wpdocs\present.art
May 9, 1996
THE ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY
The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley was formally incorporated as a 50 1 (C)3
corporation in 1989. It grew from a small group of Tei-necula citizens who, when the
town had only 4000 residents, sought to take part in cultural activities being presented in
.neighboring larger cities such as San Diego and Los Angeles. The group called itself
"The Temecula Cultural Society". Local residents, James and Dorothy Meyler, were part
of the original group. Activities of the Cultural Society included seeking out, organizing a
group and driving or chartering a bus to attend events out of the area.
Gradually the group came to the conclusion that as Temecula grew it would have
to provide 'in tow@,i' cultural events foi- its citizens. To foster a movement in this direction
The Arts Council was incorporated with a mission statement that stated five purposes:
1.To stimulate the growth of visual and performing arts in the comi-nunity
2.To promote and facilitate arts education
3.To assist individual artists and art organizations
4.To create a network for coordination and sharing of resources
5.To encourage construction of facilities for the performing arts.
Since this activity took place before the incorporation of Temecula as a city, it may be said
that the rounding members, led by Mary Jo Heimcke (no longer a resident), were people
of vision and dedication. So concerned were they that when the city was about to be
incorporated and a number of citizens were running for new city council positions, all
candidates were invited to an Arts Council sponsored forum to be questioned publicly
about their position in regard to supporting the cultural side of community life. All
candidates stated unequivocal support for the arts. Therefore the City Council, from
its inception, has given funds to various community groups and some $120,000 to The
Arts Council to provide a multitude of cultural events in Temecula. With such financial
help from' the city and the contributions from a community support group known as "The
Friends of the Arts", The Arts Council has become financially stable and continues to
advocate the presentation of all visual and performing arts, the development of arts
organizations and the education of both adults and children in tile various segments of
cultural life.
As Temecula looks to its future, The Arts Council of the Temecula Valley will
use its resources to support and coordinate, where possible, the efforts of individuals and
groups interested in enhancing tile cultural life of our valley. As new talent comes
into the area as a result of the Old Town revivification project, the Council will strive to
identify and incorporate these new elements into the educational and entertainmen
segments of community life. The Council will be involved in a continuing effort to act
as the communication vehicle for sharing expertise, funding sources and scheduling
information with all interested parties.
Date: February 1, 1996
COUNCIL OF 7-HE TF-AfE('IILA [,ALLEY
P.0 BOX 2337
TENIECULA, CA 92593
(1)09)6()S-ARTS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Ste% c and Susan Art
Albert and Grace Ball STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
John and Tberesa Bell
Bob and Jo Di to
Z.cN und Viima Buffman
TO WHOM IT @Y CONCERN:
Mar-% ann and Tom Edward,,.
Jti Aurw Flowers Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
RandN and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts,
and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present
Jeff and Marc%. Horton
and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the
DorothN Min.ler
resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated
Heten and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula.
Iton
Jem and Pat No%otnc%
I)tiris, and C.J. Ro-t.er
Carol and Duane Stiff
Z-Z,
Date Name of Organization
Janet and Jfic T(mch"
Marti Tm-ckman
Rich2rd and Pe= Wile%
COUNCFL OF THE, TEAIEC(@ VALLEY
P 0. BOX 2337
TE,N4ECULA, CA 92593
(909)695-ARTS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
SteN c and Susan Art
Albert and Grace ftil STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
John and Thervia Bell
@ and Jo Biro
&N iind'v'ilma Buffman
TO @OM IT @Y CONCERN:
Marvann and Tom EdAards
Jo Anne Flowen Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
Rand% and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts,
Jcff and f*lam@ Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present
and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the
MrothN fkle%ier
resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated
H@n and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula.
Jo Moulton
Jem- and Put No%,otne%
Doris and C.J. Ro%er
Vat,,eey Wind,6
Carol and Duane Stiff f)ate Name of Organization
Janet and Joe T4A@
Marti Treckman
tt)
Richard and PeM- Wile-. Signature Title
COLJNCFL OF THILTEML--C(ILA F"ALLEY
P@0, BOX 2337
TEMECULA, CA 92593
(909)695-ARTS
BOARD OF TRUSREES
Scei-c and Susan Art
Albert mad Grace Ball STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
John and Theresa Bdi
Bob and Jo Biro
Z,ei and Vilma Buffman
TO @OM IT MAY CONCEM:
MarNann and Tom Edwards
Jo Anne Fk),Acn Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
Rand% and Diane Holl3ind needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts,
and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present
Jcff and Mar@. Horton
and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the
Mr%jth% M"Ilcr resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated
Hekn and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula.
)ton
Jem@ antl Pat Nfi@-otnc%
Doris and C.J. Ro%er
-1?6
Carol and Duane Stiff 7&tneavlt, Vcniw@e
Date Name ot Organizatioly
Janet and Joe Ttnchei
Marti Treckman
Richard and Ptg* Wilev Title'
COUNCIL OF THE TFAFFC(ILA IALLEI'
P@0. BOX 2337
TEN4ECLJLA, CA 92593
(909)695-ARTS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Ste@-e and Susan Art
Albert and Grace Ball STATE@NT OF SUPPORT
John and Theresa Bell
&k and Jo Biro
and Vilma Buffman
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Marvano and Tom Edvv2rds
Jo Anne Flovtcrs Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
Rand@ and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts,
Jeff and Mm rcv Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present
and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the
@rothn . M@.ier resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated
Helen and Paul Mikier lead art organization in the City of Temecula.
Jo Moulton
Jerr% I and Pat NoA-otn@
Dori-, and C.J. Ro%. er
Can)l and Duane Stiff
Date Name of Organization
Janet and Joe Totche%
Marti Treckman
Richard and PeW Wife-. Signatur6,-,j Title
COUNCIL 01- THE TFAIF-CIII-A FALLET'
P 0. BOX 2337
TENIECULA, CA 92593
(909)6c)5-ARTS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Steic and @an Art
Albert and Grace Ball STATEMENT OF S@PORT
John and Therf-sai Bell
B" and Jo Biro
ZA-% and Vilms Buffman
TO Vv'HOM IT MAY CONCE@:
MarN,ann and Tom Edvvards
Jo Anne FloAen Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
Rand-% and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts,
Jeff and Mskm Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present
and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the
Truth% . Me,,Ier resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated
Helen and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula.
lton
Jerr%. and Put Noi,-otnev
DD@ and C.J. Roir er
Carol and Duane Stiff
Janet and Joe T(Ache- Date Name f, anization
M2rti'l'reckman
Title-
Richard and Pcgf,_% Wile,.
COUNCIL 01- THF-- TEAfECtILA 1,7ALLEY
P.O. BOX 2337
TENIECULA, CA 92593
(909)695-ARTS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Stine and Susan Art
Albert and Grace BWI STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
John and Theresa BO)
Bob and Jo Biro
Zc% and Vilms Beffman
161arv2nn anduom Edwards TO @OM IT MAY CONCERN:
Jo Anne Flov%ers Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
RandN and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts,
and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present
Jeff and Mar4.%. Horton
and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the
M"hN Me%.Ier resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated
Helen and Paul Miller lead @ organization in the City of Temecula.
Jo Moulton
Jerr-v and Pat Noiotncn
Dori,, and C7-J. Rt)N.er
Carol and Duane Stiff @ate N@e of Organization
Janet and Joe Toschtm
Mitrti Tr#-clman
Title'
Richard anti PeW WileN
COUNCIL OF- THF, TI-@-NEC(ILA P"ALLEY
P@0, BOX 2337
TENLECULA, CA 92593
(909)695-,kRTS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Stc%-e and Su&an Art
Albert and Grace Ball STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
John and Theresa Bell
ha) and Jo Biro
ZA-% and Vilma Buffman
M3ir%-unn and Tom EEN-ards TO @OM IT MAY CONCERN:
Jo Anne FloAen Because The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley is attempting to play a much
Ranci.% and Diane Holland needed coordinating role among the many community groups dedicated to the arts,
Jeff and Mam Horton and is seeking to establish a statewide communication network to encompass present
and future local art groups, we the undersigned, wish to state our support for the
Dorothx . Mc%.Icr resolution declaring The Arts Council Of The Temecula Valley as the designated
H@n and Paul Miller lead art organization in the City of Temecula.
lion
Jem and Pat No%,otnc%
Doris and C.J. Ro% er
Carol and Duane Stiff
Date Name'of Organization
Janet and Joe Tosche%
Marti Trc-ckmstn
Title
RichariJ and P@- Wiln
TEN4ECULA COIMN4UNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEI\4 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD AUGUST 27, 1996
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at
7:35 P.M. at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula,
California. Vice President Jeff Stone presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone
ASSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were General Manager Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and City
Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Ford requested that Item 3 be amended to add a notice of service to the contract.
It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Stone to approve Consent
Calendar Items No. 1-3, including amendment made by Director Ford on Item No. 3. The
motion was unanimously carried.
1 Minutes
1.1Approve the minutes of the meeting of August 13, 1996.
2Amendment to TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contract
2.1Approve contract amendment of $19,600 with Excel Landscape, Inc. To
provide landscape maintenance services for the sports Park Improvement
Project for FY 1996-97.
3Aareement for Softball Officiating Services
3.1Approve agreement between the City of Temecula and the Margarita Officials
Association for providing City softball officiating services.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
None given.
r:\minutes.csd\082796
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT
None given.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Stone to adjourn at 7:36 PM to
a meeting on September 10, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho
Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried.
Ron Roberts, President
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/
District Secretary
r:\minutes.csd\08 27 9 6 -2-
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ITEI\4 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
HELD AUGUST 27, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at
7:36 P.M. at the Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula,
California. Chairperson Patricia H. Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone,
Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and
City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CONSENT CALENDAR.
General Manager Ron Bradley asked that Item No. 6 be continued to the meeting of
September 10, 1996.
City Clerk June Greek stated she had requests to speak on Item No. 2.
Agency Member Stone stated he would abstain on Items 3, 4, and 5.
It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Ford to approve
Consent Calendar Items No. 1 and 3-5, with Agency Member Stone abstaining on Items 3-5
and continue Item No. 6. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Stone
abstaining on Items 3-5.
1 Minutes
1.1Approve the minutes of August 13, 1996.
3Contract Amendment No. 1. Professional Services with Tom Dodson & Associates
for Environmental Consulting Services for the First Street and Western BY12ass
Corridor Bridaes over Murrieta Creek and Phases I and 11 of the Western Byl2ass
Corridor - PW 95-08
3.1Approve the Contract Amendment No. 1 for Professional Services for
Environmental Consulting Services for the First Street and Western Bypass
Corridor Bridges over Murrieta Creek and Phases I and 11 of the Western
Bypass Corridor to Tom Dodson & Associates for $1 0,000.00 and authorize
the Chairperson to execute the contract.
Minutes.rda\082796 -1-
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone
4Award of Construction Contract for Project No. PW95-26, The Sixth Street Parkina
4.1Award a contract for Project No. PW95-26, the Sixth Street Parking Project,
to General Consolidated Constructors, Inc., for $593,000.00 and authorize
the Executive Director to execute the contract.
4.2Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $59,300.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone
5Amendment to Ground Lease with Dual Development Inc. (Sixth and Front Streets)
5.1Approve the First Amendment to Ground Lease by and between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Dual Development Inc.
5.2Authorize the City Clerk to record the original lease agreement and this
amendment.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone
Minutes.rda\082796 -2-
6Residential Rehabilitation Program
6.1Continued to the meeting of September 10, 1996.
2Interim Funding for the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Temecula Vallex
Economic Development Corooratoon and the Temecula Valley Film Couwl
Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report.
Joan Sparkman, 30554 San Pasquel Road, representing the Temecula Valley
Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation and gave a brief
report on activities and benefits the Chamber of Commerce brings to the City of
Temecula.
Mark Evans, 32278 Cour Pomeroi, representing the Temecula Valley Film Council,
spoke in favor of staff's recommendation and announced the Film Festival is
scheduled for September 18-22, 1996. He asked for clarification of what kind of
funding should be accepted in the future. Assistant City Manager McLarney stated
that funding for the upcoming year is scheduled for discussion on the September
10, 1996 Redevelopment Agency Meeting.
Jo Moulton, representing the Temecula Valley Film Council, thanked the City Council
for their support and spoke in support of the staff recommendation.
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Ford to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
2.1Approve an interim funding request for the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce, the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation and the
Temecula Valley Film Council.
The motion was unanimously carried.
AGENCY BUSINESS
7Temecula Pro Rodeo
Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report.
George Skalsky, representing the Temecula Pro Rodeo Committee, requested that the
City Council approve funding a sponsorship package for the Temecula Rodeo in the
amount of $2,500.
RECESS
Chairperson Birdsall called a brief recess at 7:55 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 7:56 PM.
Agency Member Stone stated he is not in favor of this request because this is not a
non-profit organization.
Minutes.rda\082796 -3-
Agency Member Lindemans stated he feels this is advertisement for the City and
does not have a problem with this request.
It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Ford to
approve a $2,500 sponsorship package.
Chairperson Birdsall suggested removing all elements which are not for advertising
and reducing the amount to $2,000.
Agency Member Lindemans amended his motion, Agency Member Ford amended his
second to approve a $2,000 sponsorship package excluding all of the sponsor
award elements which are not for advertising.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:3 AGENCY MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Birdsall
NOES:2 AGENCY MEMBERS: Roberts, Stone
ABSENT:0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBER's REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Ford to adjourn at
8:10 PM to a meeting on September 10, 1996, 7:00 P.M., Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/
Agency Secretary
Minutes.rda\082796 -4-
I
ITEI\4 2
CITY ATTOR
DIRECTOR 0
CITY MANA(
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:Redevelopment Agency
FROM:Ronald E. Bradley, Executive Director
DATE:September 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Residential Rehabilitation Program
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:The Redevelopment Agency:
1Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA TO ESTABLISH THE RESIDENTIAL REHABILITAION
PROGRAM TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS TO REHABILITATE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING,
IMPROVING AND PRESERVING THE SUPPLY OF LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA AND THE CITY
2.Authorize the expenditure of up to $200,000 from RDA Housing Set-aside,
Account No. 165-199-813-5804, to establish the Residential Rehabilitation
Program.
BACKGROUND
The City Council, through the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan, has established goals and
policies for the purpose of providing affordable housing for existing and future residents of
Temecula. As a first step in meeting these goals, the Agency adopted the First Time
Homebuyer Program to assist low and moderate income families in the purchase of single-family
homes. As a second step, staff is proposing programs that will provide for the rehabilitation
of rental and owner-occupied housing units to assist low and moderate income households.
At this time, staff is recommending Board approval of the Multi-family Residential Rehabilitation
Program (MFRRP). This program will provide assistance to eligible multi-family property owners
to rehabilitate renter occupied housing units. Property owners will be allowed to borrow up to
$3,000 per dwelling unit to rehabilitate rental properties. Eligible improvements include
painting, landscaping, tot lots, interior and exterior improvements necessary to meet current
Uniform Building Code requirement. As a condition of the loan, property owners will be
required to record an affordability agreement insuring that the assisted units are guaranteed as
affordable units for a minimum 30 year period. Other programs that will be brought to the
R:\ST CC2 @ jm 1
Board at a subsequent meeting include a Senior Housing Repair Program, and a Single Family
Home Repair Program.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The 1996-97 CIP budget contains $200,000 for the Residential Rehabilitation Program (Account
No. 165-199-813-5804).
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. RDA 96- - Page 3
2.Program Parameters - Page 6
R:IST CC7, 9/3196jrm
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
R:\ST CC2 9/.V96jnn 3
ATRACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELAD AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ESTABLISH THE
RF-IFARI]LrrATION PROGRAM TO ASSIST
PROPERTY 0TO RERABI]LrrATE RES]IDENTI[AL
PROPERTY FORTHE PURPOSE OF INCREASING,
OVING ANDPRESERVING THE SUPPLY OF LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WMIIN THE
REDEVELO PROJECT AREA AND THE CITY
THE REDEVELOP AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section1. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare
that:
A.Ile Agency is currently implementing the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment ProjectNo. 1-1988, originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 12,
1988 prior to the incorporation of the City and subsequently approved and transferred to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on April 9, 1991 (the "Plan").
B. The Agency has established a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
pursuant to the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33433 for the purposes of increasing,
improving and preserving the supply of low and moderate income housing within the Project Area
and the City.
C. The Agency proposes to establish the Residential Rehabilitation Program
to provide financial assistance to low and moderate income persons in the rehabilitation of
residential housing for the purposes of increasing, improving and preserving the supply of low and
moderate income housing within the Project Area and the City.
D. The rehabilitation of properties for low and moderate income housing
purposes is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and with the Implementation Plan adopted by
the Agency. Additionally, rehabilitation of properties and the improvement and preservation of
low and moderate income housing thereon will assist in the elimination of blight in the Project
Area.
E. The rehabilitation of properties and the units thereon is exempt from the
provisions of the Califon-iia Envirommental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Cal. Admin. Code 15326.
Moreover, the EIR approving the Plan addressed the impacts of housing development in the area
of the Properties.
Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Temecula hereby approves the Residentiat Rehabilitation Program, authorizes the expenditure
R:\ST CC2 913196jnn 4
of $200,000.00 from account number 165-199-813-5804, and authorizes the Chairperson to
execute agreements with individuals in substantially conformance with the parameters of the
program set forth hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 3. The Secretary shall ce@ the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 4. PASSED, APFROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Temecula on September 10, 1996.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson
A=T:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/
Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SIDE Ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
1, June S. Greek, City Clerk/Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Temecula, do hereby ce@ that the Resolution No. RDA 96- was duly and regularly
adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on September 10, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AM: AGENCY ERS:
NOES:AGENCY MIEUMERS:
ABSENT:AGENCY MEEM13ERS:
ABSTAIN: AGENCY ERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
R:IST CC2 @jm 5
I
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROGRAM PARAMETERS
R:\.ST CC2 @/96jrm 6
City of Temecula
Multi-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program
Property TypeMulti-family residences.
Property LocationWi@ Assigned Communities (Old Town, Rancho Meadows, La
Serena, Ynez Road, Winchester Creek)
@imijm Loan Amount$3,000 per unit
Loan TermsNo payments or interest accrual for years 1-5, fully amo@ for
years 6 through 15. Payment of entire loan is due if property is
reftmced or sold during the term of the loan. The interest rate is
the prime interest rate at the time the agreement is signed.
RequirementsProperty owners wiR be allowed to borrow up to $3,000 per
dwelling unit to rehabilitate rental properties. Eligible
improvements include painting, landscaping, tot lots, interior
improvements necessary to meet current Uniform Building Code
requirement. As a condition of the loan, property owners will be
required to record an affordability agreement insuring that the all
units within the property are guaranteed as affordable units for 30
years., with 75 % of the units to be for low income and 25 % very
low income. A second condition of the loan will require the
property owner to record a maintenance agreement insurance the
upkeep of the property. Failure to maintain the property can result
in the calling of the loan.
R:\STAFFRPT\REHAB.CC2 WV96jrm 7
ITEI\4 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF F114ANCE
CITY MANAGER
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:Redevelopment Agency Members
FROM:Ronald E. Bradley, Executive Director
DATE:September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Purchase Agreement for APN 922-062-020 and portions of APN's 922-260-015,
024, and 027. Located along the west side of Pujol Street at the extension of
First Street.
Prepared By: John Meyer, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
1 .Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED ' AGREEMENT
FOR ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG THE
WEST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET. IN THE
CITY OF TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND PORTIONS OF APN'S 922-260-
015, 024, AND 027).
2.That the Agency authorize the expenditures of up to $560,916 from RDA Capital
Improvement Program to cover acquisition, escrow, soil testing, and closing costs
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to implement the Old Town Specific Plan and the Capital Improvement Program
staff has pursued the acquisition of real property for the First Street Bridge and Extension
Project. Based on fair market appraisals, staff has negotiated the following purchase prices for
the subject properties.
28747 Pujol Street (APN 922-062-020)
12 unit Olde Towne Apartments $ 460,000
Portions of APN 922-260-015, 024, 027
Temecula Villas (no units taken) $ 80.El
Total $ 540,916
R:XHOUSING\NORAeURC.CC 9/3/% kb 1
Both purchases are all cash transactions with the Agency paying all closing costs. Additional
fund authorization in the amount of $20,000 is requested to cover escrow, closing costs, and
soils testing fees, bringing the total fund authorization request to $560,916.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The $560,916 acquisition cost will be fumded by the RDA CIP First Street Bridge and Road
Extension Project which includes $3,500,000 for acquisition and construction (Line Item 280-
199-807-5804).
Attachments:
1 . Resolution No. RDA 96- - Page 3
2.Agreement for Acquisition - Page 6
R:\HOUSIKG\NORMPURC.CC 9/3/96 klb
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
R:\HOIUSING\NORMPURC.CC 9/31% k% 3
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELO AGENCY OF
TIE[E CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN
AG "AG FOR
ACQUISMON OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERT.UES
LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SI]DE OF PUJOL STREET
AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET IN THE CrrY OF
TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND PORTIONS OF APN'S
922-260-015, 024, AND 027)."
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CULA DOES
RESOLVIE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and declare
that:
a. The Agency is currently implementing the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1--1988, originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 12,
1988 prior to the incorporation of the City and subsequently approved and transferred to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula on April 9, 1991 (the "Plan").
b. The Agency is currently implementing the Old Town Specific Plan and the
Capital Improvement Program First Street Bridge and Road Extension Project ('Project').
C. The Agency proposes to purchase the properties described in the attached
"Agreement for Acquisition of Certain Real Properties" ("Property") for the purposes of
implementing the Capital Improvement Program First Street Bridge and Extension Program.
d.The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review
as part of the OldTown Redevelopment Project EIR certified by the City Council and Agency on
June 13, 1995. Thisportion of the Project is exempt from further environmental review as stated
in the findings and as set forth in California Public Resources Code Section and 16 California
Code Regulation 15160.
Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Temecula hereby approves that certain agreement entitled 'Agreement for Acquisition of
Certain Real Property located along the west side of Pujol Street at the extension of First Street
in the City of Temecula (APN 922-062-020 and portions of APN's 922-260-015, 024, and 027)'
and authofim the Chairperson to execute the Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
Secti@ The Secretary shO ce@ the adoption of this Resolution.
R:kHOUSING\NO@URC.CC 9/3/% kk 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Temecula on September 10, 1996.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson
ATMT:
June S. Greek, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALEFORNIA
COUNTY OF SI]DE Ss
CITY OF ULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk/SecreLuy of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Temecula, do hereby @ that the Resolution No. RDA 96- was duly and regularly adopted
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on
September 10, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: AGENCY ERS:
NOES:AGENCY MEMBERS:
ABSENT: AGENCY ERS:
ABSTAIN:AGENCY MEMBERS:
June S. Greek, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
R:XHOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9131% kb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION
R:UIOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/31% kl 6
AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISMON OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTIUES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SI]DE OF
PUJOL STREET AT THE EXTENSION OF FIRST STREET
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA (APN 922-062-020 AND
PORTIONS OF AFNIS 922-260-015, 024, AND 027) AND
ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AG
AND ESCROW INSTRUCNONS
("Agreement") is dated and entered into as of September 10, 1996 by and between RAYMOND
A. NORMANDIN AND CELESTINE E. NORMANDIN, husband and wife as joint tenants
("Seller"), and THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CrrY OF TEMECULA, a public
body corporate and politic ("Buyer'), and constitutes both an agreement to purchase and sell real
property between the parties and the parties' escrow instructions directed to First American Title
Insurance Company ('Escrow Holder").
RF,rrrAT,S
A. On 1996 the Buyer delivered Seller an offer (the "Offer") to
purchase the real property interests described in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and made a part
hereof (the "Property") pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter I of the Government Code of the
State of California (Section 7260, et seq.).
B.Buyer intends to use the Property for public purposes.
C. Seller to sell and Buyer desires to buy, the Property on the terms and
conditions set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises operative
provisions and the Recitals which are incorporated herein by this reference, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1 . Purchase sknd Snie. On the Close of Escrow (as herein defmed), Seller
agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy the Property from Seller, on the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
2. Piirrhitge Ptice. The total purchase price for the Property to be paid by
Buyer is the sum of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($540,916.00)
(the "Purchase Price"), which sum shall be paid in fun in cash on the Close of Escrow. The
Purchase Pnce consists of two components: nw first is the compensation for Parcel 1 (as defined
in Exhibit A) in the sum of Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen Thousand Dollars
($80,916.00); and the second is the compensation for Parcel 2 (as defined in Exhibit A) in the sum
of Four Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($460,000.00).
3. Tltle find TU]e'tnsiirance. Upon the Opening of Escrow, Escrow Holder
shall order from First American Title Company ('Title Com@y') a title commitment for the
R:\HOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/3/96 kb 7
Property. Escrow Holder shall also request two copies each of all instruments identified as
exceptions on said title commitment. Upon receipt of the foregoing, Escrow Holder shall deliver
these instruments and the title commitment to Buyer and Seller. Buyer's fee title to the Property
shall be insured at the Close of Escrow by a CLTA Owner's Standard Coverage Policy of Title
Insurance in the amount of the Purchase Price (the 'Policy'). The Policy of title insurance
provided for pursuant to this Section @ insure Buyer's fee interest in the Property free and clear
of all hens, encumbrances, restrictions, and rights-of-way of record, subject only to the following
permitted conditions of title ('Permitted Title Exceptions'):
(a) The applicable zoning, building and development regulations of any
municipality, county, state or federal jurisdiction affecting the Property; and
(b)Those non-monetary exceptions approved by Buyer within fifteen
(15) business days after the date Buyer receives the title commitment and legible copies of all
instruments noted as exceptions therein. If Buyer unconditionally disapproves any such excep-
tions, Escrow shall thereupon terminate, all funds deposited therein shall be refunded to Buyer
(less Buyer's share of escrow cancellation charges), and this Agreement shall be of no further
force or effect. If Buyer conditionally disapproves any such exceptions, then Seller shall use
Seller's best efforts to cause such exceptions to be removed by the Close of Escrow. If such
conditionally disapproved non-monetary exceptions are not removed by the Close of Escrow,
Buyer may, at Buyer's option, either accept the Property subject to such encumbrances, or
terminate the Escrow and receive a refund of all funds deposited into Escrow Oess Buyer's share
of escrow cancellation charges), if any, and this Agreement shall thereupon be of no further force
or effect. At the Close of Escrow, Buyer's fee title to the Property shall be free and clear of all
monetary encumbrances.
4. Grant Deed. Seller covenants and agrees to deposit with Escrow Holder
prior to the Close of Escrow a Grant Deed duly executed and acknowledged by Seller, granting
and conveying to Buyer the Property. The Grant Deed shall be in a form satisfactory to Buyer
and Buyer's counsel and shall be accepted by Buyer prior to recording.
5. Aiithori7ation to Record Documents and Disburse Ftintle.. Escrow
Holder is hereby author to record the documents and disburse the funds and documents called
for hereunder upon the Close of Escrow, provided each of the following conditions has then been
fulfilled:
(a) Title Company can issue in favor of Buyer the Policy, showing the
Property vested in Buyer subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions. Escrow Holder shall use
the proceeds of the Purchase Pnce to obtam partial reconveyance, if necessary, of any monetary
hens encumbering the Property, so @ the Property shall be free and clear of monetary liens and
encumbrances at the Close of Escrow.
(b) Escrow Holder shall have received Buyer's notice of approval or
satisfaction or waiver of all of the contingencies to Buyer's obligations hereunder, as provided for
in Section 11; and
R:UIOUSING\NO@URC.CC 9/3/96 Ub 8
(c) Seller shall have deposited in Escrow the Grant Deed required by
Section 4.
Unless otherwise ins in writing, Escrow Holder is autho@
to record at the Close of Escrow any instrument delivered through this Escrow if necessary or
proper for issuance of the Policy, including the Grant Deed.
6. F-ccrow. The parties hereby establish an escrow ("Escrow") to
accommodate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement,
Opening of Escrow shall mean the date on which Escrow Holder shall have received a fully
executed original of this Agreement from Buyer and Seller. Close of Escrow shall be the date
upon which the Grant Deed to Buyer is delivered and recorded in the Official Records of the
County of Riverside. The Close of Escrow shall be on the date which is not later than the first
business day occurring sixty (60) days after the date of this Agreement. Before the Close of
Escrow, all risk of loss and damage to the Property from any source whatsoever shall be solely
that of Seller. Buyer shall pay all escrow costs.
7. Escrow Charges find Prorations. Buyer shall pay for the cost of the
CLTA Owner's Standard Coverage Policy of Title Insurance, the Escrow fees and Escrow
Holder's customary out-of-pocket expenses for messenger services, long distance telephone, etc.
Buyer shall pay for recording the Grant Deed and any documentary or other local transfer taxes,
and any other recording fees. If the Escrow shall fail to close through no fault of either party,
Buyer shall pay all Escrow cancellation charges.
8. License to Enter. Seller hereby grants to Buyer and Buyer's authorized
agents, contractors, consultants, assigns, attorneys, accountants and other representatives an
irrevocable license to enter upon the Property for the purpose of making inspections and other
examinations of the Property, including, but not limited to, the right to perform soil and geo-
logical tests of the Property and an environmental site assessment thereof. Buyer shall give Seller
reasonable notice before going on the Property. Buyer does hereby indemnify and forever save
Seller, Seller's heirs, successors and assigns, and the Property, ftee and harmless from and against
any and all liability, loss, damages and costs and expenses, demands, causes of action, claims or
judgments, whether or not arising from or occurring out of any damage to the Property as a result
of any accident or other occurrence at the Property which is in any way connected with Buyer's
inspections or nonpermanent improvements involving entrance onto the Property pursuant to this
Section. If Buyer fails to acquire the Property due to Buyer's default, this license shall terminate
upon the termination of Buyer's right to purchase the Property. In such event, Buyer shall remove
or cause to be removed all Buyer's personal property, facilities, tools and equipment from the
Property.
9. W ties and Representnt*ong of Seller. Seller hereby represents and
warrants to Buyer the following, it being expressly understood and agreed that all such
representations and warranties are to be true and correct as of the Close of Escrow and shall
survive the Close of Escrow:
R:\IiOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/3/% M 9
(a) That (i) on the Close of Escrow the Property shall be free and clear
of any and all hazardous or toxic substances, materials, and waste, including, but not limited to,
asbestos; (ii) the Property is in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations, including
environmental, health and safety requirements; (iii) all businesses on the Property have disposed
of their waste in accordance with all applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations; and (iv)
Seller has no notice of any pending or ed action or proceeding arising out of the condition
of the Property or alleged violation of environmental, health or safety statutes, ordinance or
regulations To this end, it is agreed dw notwithstanding the conveyance of the Property to Buyer,
Seller shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Buyer from and against any and all
claims, liabilities, suits, losses, costs, expenses and damages, including but not limited to
attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of any claim for loss or damage to any property, including
the Property, injuries to or death of persons, or for the cost of cleaning up the Property and
removing hazardous or toxic substances, materials and waste therefrom, by reason of con-
tion or adverse effects on the environment, or by reason of any statutes, ordinances, orders,
rules or regulations of any governmental entity or agency requiring the clean-up of the Property,
caused by or resulting from any hazardous material, substance or waste existing on, under or
about the Property on the Close of Escrow.
(b) That Seller is the sole owner of the Property free and clear of all
hens, claims, encumbrances, mwments, encroachments from adjacent properties, encroachments
by improvements or vegetation on the Property onto adjacent property, or rights of way of any
nature, other than those that may appear on the title commitment. Seller shall not further
encumber the Property or allow the Property or to be further encumbered prior to the Close of
Escrow.
(c) Neither this Agreement nor anything provided to be done hereunder
including the transfer of the Property to Buyer, violates or shall violate any contract, agreement
or instrument to which Seller is a party, or which affects the Property, and the sale of the Property
herein contemplated does not require the consent of any party not a signatory hereto.
(d) There are no mechanics', materialmen's or similar claims or liens
presently claimed or which will be claimed against the Property for work performed or
commenced prior to the date of this Agreement. Seller agrees to hold Buyer harmless from all
costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, charges, fees, including attorney fees, arising from or relating
to any such hen or anyhen claimed against the Property and arising from work performed
or commenced prior to the Close of Escrow.
(e) There are no written or oral leases or contractual right or option to
lease, purchase, or otherwise enjoy possession, rights or interest of any nature in and to the
Property or any part thereof, and no persons have any right of possession to the Property or any
part thereof.
R:\HOUSING\NORAeURC.CC 913/% iS 1 0
(f) Seller has no knowledge of any pending, ffi=tened or potential
litigation, action or proceeding against Seller or any other Party before any court or administrative
tribunal which is in any way related to the Property.
10. FIJII, PAYW@NT OF ATI, OBLIGATIONS OF CM. it is
understood and agreed between Seller and Buyer that the payments made to Seller as set forth in
this Agreement represent an all inclusive settlement and is full and complete payment for just
compensation for the acquisition of all property interests pertaining to the Property and includes
and satisfies any and all other payments, if any, winch may be reqtnred by law to be paid to Seller
arising out of the acquisition and displacement of the Seller and persons residing on the Property,
and specifically includes, but is not limited to, claims for severance and other damages, attomey's
fees, interest, expenses of litigation, expert's fees, precondemnation damages, inverse
condemnation, owner participation rights under the Redevelopment Plan, relocation assistance
and/or benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (42 U.S. C. 4601, et seq.), if applicable, or under Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 1 of
the Government Code of the State of California (Section 7260, et seq.), and loss of business
goodwill under the Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510, and all
costs and expenses whatever in connection therewith. Seller hereby acknowledges that Buyer has
advised Seller of the possible availability of such relocation assistance rights to Seller and that the
waiver of all rights by Seller herein set forth as free and voluntary.
11. Buyer's Continvencies. For the benefit of Buyer, the Closing of Escrow
and the Buyer's obligation to consummate the purchase of the Property shall be contingent upon
and subject to the occurrence of all of the following (or Buyer's written waiver thereof, it being
agreed that Buyer can waive any or all such contingencies) on or before the Close of Escrow:
(a) That as of the Close of Escrow the representations and warranties
of Seller contained in this Agreement are all true and correct.
(b)The delivery of all documents pursuant to Section 4 hereof.
(c) Title Company's commitment to issue in favor of Buyer of a CLTA
Standard Coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance with liability equal to the Purchase Price
showing Buyer's fee interest in the Property subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions.
(d)Buyer's approval prior to the Close of Escrow of any environmental
site assessment, soils or geological reports, or other physical inspections of the Property or the
underlying real property that Buyer might perform prior to the Close of Escrow.
12. Cer-tirication of Non-Foreign Seller covenants to deliver to Escrow
a certification of Non-Foreign Status in accordance with I.R.C. Section 1445, and a similar notice
pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 18805 and 2613 1, prior to the Close
of Escrow.
R:KHOUSING\NO C.CC 9/3/% kk
13. Default. In the event of a breach or default under this Agreement by either
Buyer or Seller, the non-defaulting party shall have, in addition to all rights available at law or
equity, the right to terminate this Agreement and the Escrow for the purchase and sale of the
Property, by delivering written notice thereof to the defaulting party and to Escrow Holder, and
if Buyer is the non-defaulting party, Buyer @ thereupon promptly receive a refund of all prior
deposits, if any. Such termination of the Escrow by a non-defaulting party shall be without
prejudice to the non-defaulting party's rights and remedies at law or equity.
14. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by certified
mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by personal delivery. Notices shall be
considered given upon the earlier of (a) personal delivery, (b) two (2) business days following
deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, @ed or registered, return receipt requested,
or (c) one (1) business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. A copy of all
notices shall be sent to Escrow Holder. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for the
respective party; provided Ow if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or address,
notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice:
BU@:City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attn:City Manager
COPY TO:Richards, Watson & Gershon
333 So. Hope St., 38th Fl.
Los Angeles, California 90071
Attn:Peter M. Thorson, Esq.
SELLER:Raymond A. Normandin
Celestine E. Normandin
Post Office Box No. 731
Bonsall, California 92003
ESCROWFirst American Title Company
HOLDER3625 Fourteenth Street
Riverside, CA 92502
R:\HOUSINGXNORWURC.CC 9/31% M 1 2
15. Broker's Commi-@oYL-g. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that Seller
has used no broker, agent, finder or other person in connection with the transaction contemplated
hereby to whom a brokerage or other commission or fee may be payable. Buyer represents and
warrants to Seller ffig Buyer has used no broker, agent, finder or other person in connection with
the transaction contemplated hereby to whom a brokerage or other commission or fee may be
payable. Each party mdemnifies and agrees to defend, protect and hold the other harmless from
any claims resulting from any breach by the indemnifying party of the warranties, representations
and covenants in this Section.
16. Further In@iction-g. Each party agrees to execute such other and further
escrow instructions as may be necessary or proper in order to consummate the transaction
contemplated by this Agreement.
17. Amendment--.. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be effective only
when duly executed by Buyer and Seller and deposited with Escrow Holder.
18.Mi-.;celinneoiv.,;
(a) ApWicable Liw. This Agreement @ be cons@ and interpreted
under, and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California.
(b) F-ntire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior
agreement, oral or written, and together with the Exhibits hereto and any agreements delivered
pursuant hereto, contains the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller on the subject matter
hereol No subsequent agreement, representation or promise made by either party hereto, or by
or to any employee, officer, agent or representative of either party, shall be of any effect unless
it is in writing and executed by the party to be bound thereby. No person is authorized to make,
and by execution hereof Seller and Buyer acknowledge that no person has made, any
representation, warranty, guaranty or promise except as set forth herein; and no agreement,
statement, representation or promise made by any such person which is not contained herein shall
be valid or binding on Seller or Buyer.
(c) Successors and Assigus. @ Agreement @ be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties
hereto.
(d) Time of Essence. The parties acknowledge that time is of the
essence in this Agreement, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Escrow company's
general Escrow instructions.
(e) Remedies Not Exclusive and Waivers. No remedy conferred by
any of the specific provisions of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy
and each and every remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy
given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The
R:\HOUSING\NO C.CC 9/3/% kk 1 3
election of any one or more remedies shall. not constitute a waiver of the right to pursue other
available remedies.
(f) Int tion and Conviction. nm parties @ that each party
has reviewed and revised this Agreement and have had the opportunity to have their counsel and
real estate advisors review and mm tius agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect
that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation
of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. In this Agreement the neuter gender
includes the feminine and masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words
"person" and "party' include corporation, partnership, f=, trust, or association where ever the
context so requires. The recitals and captions of the sections and subsections of this Agreement
are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held
to expwn, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions
of this Agreement.
(g) Citi ManaLer Auth@ The City Manager is hereby directed
and autho@ to execute such other documents, including without hmitation, escrow instructions
and amendments thereto, certificates of acceptance, agreements for payments of lost rent, or
certifications, as may be necessary or convenient to implement the terms of this Agreement.
19.Attorney .sl Fees. If either party hereto incurs attorneys' fees in order to
enforce, defend orinterpret any of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement or
because of a breachof this Agreement by the other party, the prevailing party, whether by suit,
negotiation, arbitration or settlement shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from
the other party.
20. Aqqigom@. Buyer may assign its rights under this Agreement or may
designate a nominee to acquire title to the Property, provided, however, that any such assignment
or designation shall not relieve Buyer of any of its obligations under this Agreement.
21.Escrow Holder Need Not Be Concerned. Escrow Holder is not to be
concerned with Section8, 9, 10, and 15 hereof, and Buyer and Seller release Escrow Holder from
liability or obligationas to Section 8, 9, 10, and 15 hereof.
R: U40USING\NORWtIRC.CC 9/3/96 kk 1 4
IN WrrNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the day and year first written above.
SF,I,I[,ER
Raymond A. Normandin
Celestine E. Normandin
BUYER
REDEVELOP AGENCY:
Patncia Birdsall, Chairperson
AYMT:
By
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey
R:\HOUSING\NORWURC.CC 9/3/% Wb 1 5
EXEnrr "An
@gal Description of the Property
APN 922-062-020
PORTIONS OF APN's 922-260-015, 922-260-024, 922-260-027
1 6
OLD TOWN V;ESTSIDE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
FINANCING AUTHORITY
ITEI\4 1
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN WESTSIDE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY
HELD AUGUST 13, 1996
A regular meeting of the Old Town Westside Community Facilities District Financing
Authority was called to order at 8:1 0 P.M. at the Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Patricia H. Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT:5 BOARD MEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall
ABSENT:0 BOARD MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson and
Authority Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
FINANCING AUTHORITY BUSINESS
1Minutes
It was moved by Board Member Lindemans, seconded by Board Member Roberts to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of August 13, 1996.
The motion was unanimously carried.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Board Member Lindemans, seconded by Board Member Ford to adjourn at
8:11 PM to a meeting on September 10, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/Authority Secretary
Minutes.fa\072396 -1-
ITEI\4 17
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM:Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning;@
DATE:September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:Temecula Valley School District's Residential Development Facilities Impact
Mitigation Plan (PA95-0047)
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 96- entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT
MITIGATION PLAN AND SETTING THE APPROPRIATE
MITIGATION FEE CAP
BACKGROUND
During the development of the City's General Plan, the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(District) requested that the City of Temecula require residential developers to fully mitigate the
impact of new development on school facilities. In response to their request, the City Council
included language in the Growth Management and Public Facilities Element stating that if
Proposition 1 70 failed to win voter approval in the November 1 993 Election, the City would
establish a school mitigation resolution. With the failure of Proposition 1 70, the City Council
approved Resolution No. 95-36 on April 1 1, 1 995 establishing the School Mitigation Program.
A copy of Resolution 95-36 is included as Attachment No. 5. The Resolution did the following:
0Authorized the School District to prepare and submit a Mitigation Plan that
addresses the impacts on school facilities;
0Set standards for the contents of the School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans;
0Established procedures for the City's review and approval of a proposed
Mitigation Plan; and,
Stated how the approved Mitigation Plan will be carried out.
The District's Plan contains all of the required elements with the exception that TVUSD has not
included any costs for central administration and support facilities that may be associated with
new development. The District's Mitigation Plan is included with this Agenda Report as
Attachment No. 1.
R:@SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh
To ensure the technical appropriateness and accuracy of the Plan, the City Council retained
David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG) to undertake a technical review of the Plan. According
to DMG, the methodology and results of the proposed Mitigation Plan are technically sound and
reasonable. As a result, DMG is recommending only minor changes be to the Districts proposed
mitigation plan. These changes are included in the Commission's recommendation. A copy
of DMG's evaluation is included in Attachment No. 6. In addition, staff prepared a simple
computer model to predict the need for future school facility funding. A copy of the results of
this modeling effort are included in Attachment No. 7 and discussed later in this report.
Throughout this process there have been several meetings on this issue between TVUSD, City
staff, and representatives of the local development industry, including the Riverside County
Building Industry Association. In these meetings, the District and development industry
representatives have been unable to arrive at any agreement on the mitigation issue.
The City Council and School Board have held two Joint meetings to talk about school mitigation.
Following the second joint School Board and City Council meeting, a decision was made to
present the Mitigation Plan to the Planning Commission. The Commission considered the
Mitigation Plan on July 1 5, 1 996 and August 5, 1 996. A draft of the Planning Commission
Resolution is included in Attachment No. 3. A detailed discussion of the District's proposed
Mitigation Plan and DMG's Evaluation are contained in the July 1 5, 1 996 Planning Commission
Staff Report which is included in Attachment No. 4.
DISCUSSION
Page 15 of the DMG evaluation report noted that there are two non-technical policy areas
where the City has some flexibility. The two policy areas are: (1) the future Student
Generation Factor (SGF), and the assumption that there will be no future school bond funding.
These two issues are addressed below. A complete copy of the DMG Study is included in
Attachment No. 6.
Student Generation Factor
The City's Resolution establishes a specific methodology for determining the appropriate
student generation factors for the various types of residential development. According to DMG,
there is no correct way to calculate a SGF. Any approach which attempts to fairly estimate the
future generation factor is reasonable. According to the Resolution 95-36, the SGF shall be
based upon a random sample of at least 250 dwellings constructed in the preceding three
years. The District's methodology uses the peak year approach. From their study, the District
could have chosen both lower and higher SGF for their calculation. According to DMG, the
District's preferred SGF (ie. the SGF for Years Four, Five and Six) is reasonable. The Student
Generation Factor for Year Six SGFs is 0.88 students per detached household and 0.64
students per attached household.
Future School Bond Fundina
The availability of future funding from outside sources is the second non-technical policy issue
that affects the net cost of providing future schools funding is the second issue. In the
Mitigation Plan, the District assumes that no additional outside funding sources will be available
to build new schools. This assumption has raised a concern that with the Mitigation Fee Cap,
TVUSD would not aggressively pursue future funding sources.
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 2
The validity of this assumption is challenged by the recent passage of Proposition 203 which
will make an estimated $1 1,000,000 available locally to build schools. However, the
conservative (intentionally underestimated) school facility impact modeling done by City Staff,
that included the additional Proposition 203 funds, suggests that the higher mitigation fee may
still not eliminate the significant future school funding deficit the District is facing. According
to staff's model, including Proposition 203 funds and a higher fee on new residential units, the
cumulative 2006 school construction deficit is expected to be at least $37 million.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Proposed Mitigation Plan was prepared pursuant to, and submitted under, the School
Mitigation Program addressed in Implementation Program C.3 of the Growth Management/
Public Facilities Element of the City's adopted General Plan. As a result, the proposed
Mitigation Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed Mitigation Plan does not have the potential to cause an alteration or have a
significant impact on the physical environment. Future specific school projects that may result
from the funds raised under this Plan will undergo the appropriate level of environmental review
by the School District when specific sites and designs are known. Therefore, the Community
Development Director has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental
Quality Act, pursuant to Section 1 5061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
CONCLUSION
The decision to address the mitigation of the impacts on schools from new development was
made by the City Council in 1993 with the adoption of the City's General Plan. One of the
ways to address the issue of constructing adequate schools is to require full mitigation from
new resi 'dential units.
The recommended per unit fees were considered to be technically justifiable by DMG. If the
City Council approves the fee cap, it would apply only to those projects that receive a
legislative approval after the Mitigation Fee Cap is approved. Typical legislative approvals
include general plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, development and pre-
annexation agreements. Many of the large specific plans that have been recently approved in
the County already have a similar mitigation requirement applied to them. The Resolution
approving the Plan and setting the fee are included in Attachment No. 2. The Planning
Commission's recommended per unit School Facility Cost for detached and attached dwelling
units are shown below:
SchoolType
SCHOOL FEE CAP Elementary Middle High
Net Detached Unit Impact $2,990 $2,383 $3,84 $9,213
Net Attached Unit Impact $2,1 45 $ 1,887 $2,612 $6,644
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8130/96 dwh 3
FISCAL IMPACT
There is not expected to be a direct fiscal impact on the City.
Attachments:
1.Proposed Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan - Page 5
2.Draft Resolution No. 96-- - Page 6
3.Draft of Approved Planning Commission Resolution - Page 1 1
4.July 15, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 12
5.Resolution 95-36 - Page 13
6.DMG's Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fee - Page 14
7. Results of School Facility Impact Modeling - Page 1 5
R:\SCHOOLS@SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8130/96 dwh 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE TEMECULA VALLEY
SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES IMPACT NIITIGATION PLAN AND SETTING
THE APPROI"RIATE MITIGATION FEE CAP
WHEREAS, rapid Population -rowtli in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City") has
resulted in large increases in tile numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified School
District ("District") is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge existing school
facilities and construct new facilities to house tile Students in accordance with the policies of the
District and standards specified by state law; and
WHEREAS, new Students iiiip-,ictlil- existliic, school facilities are due primarily to
L- --
residential uses (except senior citizen development); and
WHEREAS, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both new developi-nent and the
community at lar-e, and are a necessary component of the City's social and infrastructure systems;
and
WHEREAS, the State Le-islatLire has declared that finaiiciii- the construction of school
facilities is the responsibility of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation for
fundin- Such additional school facilities and has shifted tile primary responsibility for financing
of school facilities to local school districts, Which, Linder Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, ("School
Facilities Law of 1986"), may establish developer initiation fees for residential, commercial and
industrial uses, and may establish Mello-Roos CoilllllLilllty Facilities Districts to provide for school
plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond iiioiiies, school district imposed
developer fees, local school bond measures, and other Sources of financin- have generally been
inadequate to provide for tile eiiiaroeiiieiit and coiistrLiCtiOll of school plant facilities sufficient to
adequately house new Students In accordance with the lllill'IlllLllll standards set forth by the State
of California; and
WHEREAS, SC11001 fllild'lllc' Sources Linder Current state laws and available funding are
oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a need exists to fund permanent K-
12 school facilities, InC]Lidiii(y facilities for tile special education needs of special or disadvantage
students; and
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN-CCI 8/30/96 dwh 7
WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to tile California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
has the authority to review development proposals for impacts on School Facilities; and
'vA'HEREAS, pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Develoi2ment CoMoration v. City of
San DiegQ, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988), William S., Hart Hic..,h School District v. Rec,,,ional
Plannin,-, Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta Valley Unified School
District v. County of Riverside, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facilities
Law of 1986, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts includin- -eneral plan
ai-nendi-nents, specific plans and amendments thereto, and changes of zone, if it finds that the
impacts on school facilities have not been iiilti(,ated to a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the provision of a quality school systei-n to educate the residents of the City
of Temecula is it-nportant to the City's future; and
WHEREAS, the TellIeCLI)a Va)IeN@ Unified School District requested that the City of
Temecula adopt a resolution providiii,- a I)rooraiii to provide full funding for school facilities froi-n
some types of development, and
WHEREAS, tile City COL111CII Included laiiouace in tile Growth Managei-nent and Public
Facility Elei-nent of General Plan coiiceriiiiic,, tile iiiltlgation of school facility impacts; and
WHEREAS, tile City Council adopted Resolution 95-36 which established a Program to
mitic,ate the impact of new residential development oil the public school facilities within the City;
zn
and
WHEREAS, the TellIeCLIla Valley Unified School District prepared and subi-nitted a
Miti-ation Plan in conformance with the provision of Resolution 95-36; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has had an independent analysis prepared to evaluate
the District's submitted Mitioatioii Plan, and,
WHEREAS, the independent evaluation confirmed that the reasonableness of the District's
proposed Mitioatioii Plan and tile COSTS Ot' COIlStrLICtliio new school facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the District's SLIbIllitted Mltlc,yatioii Plan iiieets the provisions of Resolution
95-36; and,
WHEREAS. noticed public liearlil-'s before the Plaiiiiljic, Conii-nission were conducted
on July 15, 1996 and ALI-Llst 5, 1996, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
C,
testify either in Support or opposition; and
WHEREAS, the Plaiiiiljic, Commission approved the Mitigation Plan and recommended
that the City Council establish a iiilticatioii fee of $9,1. 13 for each new detached residential unit
and $6,644 for each new attached residential unit; and
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 8
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed initiation plan was posted at City Hall, County
Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce; and
WHEREAS, a public lieariiic, were conducted oil Septei-nber 10, 1996, at which time
L-
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either '111 Support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Sectioii 1. Eiivii-oiiiiiei)tal Revieis, The City Council has determined that the Residential
Developi-nent li-npact Mitigation Plan Submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District
does not have the potential to cause an alteration, or have a significant impact on the physical
environment. Because all ftitiire specific school projects, that may result from the funds raised
under the Mitigation Plan, Will Lliiderco the appropriate level of environi-nental review when
specific sites and desiciis are known. As a result, the project is exempt from California
Enviroiii-nental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. Plan Ai)i)i- The Residential Development Facilities Impact Miti-ation
tn
Plan Submitted by the Temecula Vallev Unified School District is approved subject the provisions
of Section '-'. Tills approval sliall remain in effect until Such time as it is ai-nended or repealed by
the City Council.
Section 3. Miti,-,atioii Fee Cti) The School Facility Impact Mitigation Fee for detached
'dent'al units sliall be S9,213. The School Facility Impact Mitigation Fee for attached
resi I I I I
'deiit'al units sliall be S6,644. These fees sliall be in effect until Such time as the fee
resi I I I I is
increased, decreased, or rescinded by the City Council.
Section 4. Cei-tificatioll The City Clerk sliall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dvvli 9
Dr. P B. Novanmy Dam
D p FA
IWACT MMGATION
FOR
v u
@OOLDBMCT
Prepared For:
CULA V@EY U SCHOOL DisTRICT
31350 Rancho Vista Roaci
Temecula, Califomia 92592
Prepared By:
DAviD TAusSIG AND AssociATm. INc.
1301 Dove Street, Suite 600
Newport Beach, Califomia 92660
(714) 752-1554
April 24, 1996
i'a-v'le of Contents
Section Pa@e
Executive Summary i
L intmduction 1
II. City of Temecula Resolution 2
III.Optimum Facility U On 3
A. Class Size 3
B. Multi-Track YearRound 4
rV. Bond Issues and Other Alte@ve Funding Sources 6
A. Fundin- Sources Pursued By TVUSD 6
B. Certification By TVUSD 10
V. Cen@ Administmdon, Suppoyl Facilities and Interim Facilities 11
V7. Coordination of Planning Review For School Site Development 12
'V7I. Methodolo&y of FaciMes Impact Mitigation Plan 13
A. Overview of Methodology 13
B. Student Generation Factors 13
C. Facility Cost Impacts 14
VIII. TVUSD Existing School Facilities Capacity and EnmUment Data 16
IX. Impact of ResidentW Development On School Fac@s Needs 17
A. Student Generation Factors Per Residential Unit 17
B. 1995-96 TVUSD School Facility Costs 18
C. Facility Cost Impacts Per Residential Umt 19
X.Mechanisms Availabk for New ResidentW Development to Mitigate School
FaciMes Impacts 21
F,xhibits
Exhibit A: Student Generation Factor Study
Exhibit B: School Fac@ Costs
Executive Summaa
This Residential Development Facilities Impact )&tigation Plan ('Plan") is intended to meet the
requirements which are set forth by City of Temecula Resolution No. 95-36, adopted April I 1,
1995, by the City Couneil. The parameters set forth in Resolution No. 95-36 include facilities
uantion, TVUSD alternative facilities funding sources, and TVUSD coordination of planning
with the City of Temecula ('City').
TVUSD current school facilities capacity has been evaluated to determine if excess capacity is
available to house new students generated by residential development. The District's phvsical
plant includes seven elementary schools, d= middle schools, and two high schools (one regular
education and one continuation high school). Collectively, TVUSD's educational facilities in
the 1995-96 school year have a capacity of 10,477 students. Of these seats, 5,292 are at the
elementary school level, 2,932 are at the middle school level, and 2,253 are at the hieh school
level. The enrollment as of September 7, 1995, was 12,185 students. A comparison of the
District's enrollment and facility capacity for the 1995-96 school year indicates that enrollment
exceeds capacity at the elementary and high school levels and is approaching capacity at the
middle school level. In fact, TVUSD projects that all surplus seats at the middle school level
will be occupied by the end of calendar year 1995.
The Plan evaluates student generation rates and school facilities costs including administrative
and support facilities cost impacts for residential development g within TVUSD. Student
Generation rates and cost data for school facilities used in the Plan established gross total school
facilities costs per dwelling unit ranging from $7,360 to $10,210 per dwelling unit, depending
on the type of housing product. Credits based on funding from the State School Building
Program and unspent General Obligation bonds were established, with dwelling units receiving
..........
credits ranging from $501 to $698, depending on the type of housing product. :.addWoii.@
............ ..
..:On
ipprov
Ile net school facilities costs per dwelling unit are $ depending on the type of
housing product, as shown in Table F-S-1. 7b@e facility costs are in 1995-96 school year
dollars and are to'be adjusted annually for inflation. TVUSD currently collects the maximum
residential school fee authorized by AB 2926 and approved by the State Allocation Board on
January 24, 1996. The maximum school fee of $ per square foot provides for
..........
approximately 22...5 % to :-@3 % of the net school faciliii 'costs, depending on the type of
housing product. To satisfy the City's school mitigation requirements, as promulgated by
Resolution No. 95-36, it win be necessary for all new residential development, except for
PrOjects PmNsed under Senior Citizen Developments zoning, to provide the funding necessary
to mitigate 100% of the net school facilities costs.
TVUSD must be contacted by a developer at least 120 days prior to the review of the project
by the Planning Commission, to permit sufficient time tc) negotiate a hfitigation Agreement. In
mitigating a project's school impacts, the Developer and TVUSD may agree to utilize one or
more of the following fmancina mechanisms:
1.Payment of school fees
2.Dedication of land
.3Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
4.Levying of a Special Tax
5.Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and TVUSD
TABLE ES-1
NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
School Level
CateL High
Land Use Yorv Elementary Nflddle Total*
Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $.4,272 $10.210
Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) S(203) $(254)
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126) $(444)
Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(105) $0 so $(105)_
Net Detached Unit School Facility $3,041 $2,423 $3,943 $9,407
Impact
Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7.3t,
Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138) $(178)
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86) $(323)
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(76) $0 so $(76)
Net Attached Unit School Facility $2,183 $1,918 $2,681 $6,783
Impact
Numbers mav not sum due to rounding.
In&oduction
Throughout the State of California, school districts are seeking to fmance the construction of
school facilities required by growing student enrollments. @ is also the case in TVUSD,
where student enrollment has grown by 1,100 students over the last year. Combined with
growth from past years, enrollment has and will continue to exceed the capacity of existing
school facilities within TVUSD.
A school district in California has several options available to fmance the construction of school
facilities, including the State School Building Program ("State Pro, local debt fmancinc,
(such as General Obligation Bonds, MeUo-Roos Bonds, and Certificates of Participation based
on tax increment revenues related to an existing project of a local redevelopment a-ency, and
statutory school fees ("School Fees"). Unfoitunately, the State Program obtains a majority of
its fundin- throuch statewide school bond elections which are proving inadequate for the State's
school facilities needs. EV, of
..Of'California
in March
er-. $7... 0 @. billion.
Furthermore, with the defeat of Proposition 170 by the State's voters, local general bond
measures will still require a two-thirds approval rather than the proposed simple majority
approval. Local debt fmancinc, programs are proving inadequate in many cases, in part due to
the difficulty of obtainin- the two-thirds voter approval required for such programs. The only
exception to this voter approval requirement is Certificates of Participation, but the sale of this
facilities financing instrument is co ed by the need for a stream of revenues to cover lease
payments.
For these and other reasons, many school districts rely on School Fees as a primary fundinc,
source for school facilities required by new development. However, School Fees only provide
a portion of the school facilities funding required by new development. This Plan is intended
to satisfy the requirements which have been set forth by City Resolution No. 95-36. 'nose
requirements include the optimal u@tion of school buildings and administration facilities, the
use of bond issues and all other alternative funding sources, and the coordination of planning
review for school site development.
Temecula Vafiey Un@d School Dis@
City - Residendal Fac@ Impact Miti@n Plan
Page I
Aprg 24, 1996
II. City of Temecula Resolution
On April 11, 1995, the City Council for the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted Resolution
No. 95-36. @ resolution states that TVUSD may present a request to the City for mitigation
of the impact on schools of a development proposal ("b&tigation Payments"). It specifies that
a Mitigation Plan must be prepared by TVUSD and adopted by the City.
'rbe NUtiganon Plan shall contain documentation of the need for any level of Nfitication Pavment
that exceeds the total revenue anticipated to be received by TVUSD from the School Fee
established pursuant to applicable law, plus any other source of funding available or anticipated
to be available to TVUSD for the provision of school facilities. In addition, the Mitigation Plan
shall contain a review of the following issues:
1 . Student Generation Factors
2.Typical School Facilities
3.Optimum Facility Utfflmtion
4.Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources
5.Central Administration and Support Facilities and Interim Facilities
6.Level of Support From New Development
7. Coordination of Planning Review for School Site Development
Temecula VaUey Unified School
City - Residen@ Facil@s impact Midg@n Plan
Page 2
April 24, 7996
III. Opdmum Facility Udlization
TVUSD is currently optimizing the use of its existin.- educational facilities. Efficient use of
classroom resources is being implemented in the following manner:
A.Class Size
The TVUSD Board of Trustees has adopted a policy to utilize its facilities in accordance
with the loading standards recommended by the Office of Public School Construction
("OPSC"). As shown in Table I below, TVUSD meets the loading standards established
by the OPSC at every grade level.
TABLE I
TVUSD A.LND STATE LOADING
STANDARDS
Loading Standards
Grade Level IWSD' OpSC2
Kindergarten
(double session) 55 55
Grades 1 - 3 29 29
Grades 4 - 6 33 33
Grades 7 - 8 30 30
Grades 9 -12 1 28 28
1 Tem=Wa Valley Unified School District
2Office of Local Assistance Applicant Handbook
(The Office of Public School Construction was
formerly the Office of @ Amismnce)
The OPSC also fixes a square'footage allowance, by student, for new construction
projects. According to a 1987 study by the American Institute of Architects ("AIA"), 15
states besides California mamtam maxunum. per pupil square footage standards. The AIA
survey found that California provides the lowest amount of space per student, and that the
average maximum square footage provided by the 15 other states is 65 percent higher
than the Cahforma standards.
TemecuLa VaUey Unoa School
City - Residendat Facilities ]mpad Mitigadon plan
Page 3
Aprif 24, 1996
B.Multi-Track Year Round
Uss than 10 percent of all school @cts in the State are u@g multi-track year-round
educational programs to maximize facility capacity. In 1989, TVUSD formed a
committee to examine the pros and cons of instituting a year round educational program.
In 1993, communities within TVUSD were surveyed regarding the options of providing
adequate facilities for all students. The three options included in the survey were year-
round education, double sessions, and the placement of additional relocatable buildings.
After receiving over 650 responses (see Table 2) and having four public hearinls, the
T'VUSD Board of Trustees approved the establishment of a K-12 year-round calendar with
a single-track plan at eight schools. Two schools, Red Hawk and Sparlanan Elementary
Schools, were approved to be placed on a year-round calendar with a four-track plan in
July 1994 and one@scb -.-!.V... ..@El ol.:&:,@f6@r-track @plan
.....
In addition, all new elementary and middle schools constructed in TVUSD
will be placed on a year-round calendar with a four-track plan.
TABLE 2
TVUSD SURVEY RESPONSES
Number of
Option Responses Percentage
Double Sessions 14 2%
Relocatables 233 34%
Year-Round Education 405 59%
Anti-Year-Round Education 25 4%
Questions Only 5 1%
Total Surveyed 682 100%
As for the high school level, u@tion of a year round educational program is very
difficult. First, some of the classes offered as pan of a departmentalized program are
specialized in nature and may only be taught by one or two teachers. Such classes would
be unavailable to students who are attending a track when these teachers are off-cycle.
Also, it may not be possible to place ail athletes on a @ which corresponds to the sport
in which they are participating. As a result, these students could be forced to either give
up their participation in favor of family vacations during the off-cycle or participate in
sports when the rest of their track peers are on a between-cycles break.
According to Resolution No. 95-36, TVUSD is requested to comment on the u@tion
of double school sessions as part of its effort to justify @tigation Payments in excess of
School Fees presently levied at the amount of 1)er square foot. Based on the results
Temecuia VaUty Unified School Page 4
Cify - Residendd Fac@s impact Mitigation PLan Aurz7 24. 1996
of the survey, both the education community and the in TVUSD consider double
sessions to be an unacceptable means of educating students. In order to implement such
a program, some students must arrive at school in the early morning while other students
begin classes in the middle of the day and leave in the late afternoon. In other words,
students come and go before and after daylight hours. @ places an artificial @t on
the number of instruction minutes which each student may receive. In addition to the
limitations on 'instruction time, there are obvious safety hazards which this situation
creates. Double sessions also make it difficult to resolve labor disputes caused by the
prolonged work day and increase child care responsibilities for parents whose children
will be out of school either all morning or all afternoon on a daily basis. For the reasons
described above, the Board of Trustees has determined double sessions to be
inappropriate.
Temecula Vaney U@ Schod
Cdy - Re@en@ Fac@s l@ct M@n Pi=
page 5
Aprd 24, 1996
IV. Bond Issues and Other Alternadve Fun&ng Sources
Resolution No. 95-36 states that "TVUSD shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the
mitigation plan that it is pursuing State and alternative facilities fumcing." Listed below are
the various State and alternative facilities fmancing sources that TVUSD has or is pursuina. In
addition, in accordance with Resolution No. 95-36, TVUSD has provided a certification that it
is pursuing alternative funding sources.
A.Funding Sources Pursued Bv TVUSD-
1.Certificates Of Participation
Certificates of Participation ("COP"s) are a means of borrowing funds, as opposed
to a new revenue source. In other words, principal and interest costs associated with
a COPs issuance must be repaid by TVUSD. The repayment would come from
TVUSD's general fund, which obtains funding from the State, or School Fees. As
a result of diminishing State fmancial support and School Fee income, COPS are
a financial tool which should be used very prudently by school districts in
today's economic climate. To the extent that TVUSD needs its General Fund for
operations and maintenance, and School Fees for construction of facilities, these
funds can not be used to support the issuance of COPS.
State School Building Program
The State Program obtains its funding through statewide school bond elections which
are not providing sufficient revenue for the State's school facilities needs. Even
though"..
b@n:
. ..... ...... ..
. ...... ...
-h -.16
9..9 :$7
bilh'ori 'befoii...
'a
stat,6:.
.measure
............ .....
TVUSD has been very active in pursuing funds from the State Program. From the
1992 bond measures, TVUSD has received approximately $14,200,000 from the
State Program for 50 percent of the costs of Temecula and Vail Ranch Nfiddle
Schools. The facilities were open for the 1992-93 school year and the 1994-95
school.year, respectively, and have,a combined capacity of 2,092 students on a
traditional calendar. In the future, both middle schools may serve students year-
round and have a combined capacity of 2,510 students. TVUSD has also received
$18,300,000 from the State Pro,-= for Chaparral High School. The high school
is scheduled to open for the 1997-98 school year and planned to house 2,094
students.
Temecula Valley Un@d School
Citv - Residen@ Facil@s Impact Mitigation Plan
Page 6
Acril 24. 7096
As Temecula and Vail Ranch Mddle Schools and Chaparral E[igh School facilities
will serve students generated from future homes, a credit for a share of the State
Program funds must be allocated to new dwelling units. Based on school enrollment
and capacity for the 1995-96 school year, assuming Temecula and Vail Ranch Nfiddle
Schools are placed on a multi-track year-round calendar, 445 middle school seats
(2,932 + 418 - 2,905 = 445) and 1, 1 18 high school seats (2,094 - 976 = 1, 1 1 8) are
available for students generated from new development. Apportioning the
$32,500,000 based on the number of seats available for students generated from new
dwelling units, creates a credit of $2,517,530 at the middle school level (SI4,200,000
x (445 / 2,510) and $9,770,487 at the high school level ($18,300,000 x (1,118
2,094)).
These credits must then be apportioned between new development in the City and
new development in the County. A total of 18,000 new detached dwellina units and
7,800 new attached dwelling units are pmjected in the City and 21,000 new detached
dwelling units and 5,500 new attached dwelling units in the County. These will
generate 20,832 new students in the City and 22,000 new students in the County.
Based on the number of students to be generated in the City versus the County, the
credit for new development in the City is $1,228,797 at the middle school level and
$4,739,227 at the high school level.
.................
.,,Verv
... ..........
1996@..
.. ... ......
........ ....... .
...............
...........
. . .... .... . .... .
.... .
......
:Measl
new.@.d
...
p
. . . . ... ....
..............
...............
As for any additional State ftlnding, should future referendiimq be passed by the
voters of the State, TVUSD will continue to pursue funding. However, because
of the uncertainty, any additional State funds beyond the amounts listed above
cannot be considered a reliable alternative funding source.
Temecula Vailley U4&d School Page 7
City - Residendal Fac@s Impact Midgation Plan April 24, 1996
3.General Obligation Bond
On November 7, 1989, two-thirds of the electorate authorized TVUSD to issue
$65,000,000 of General Obligations ("GO') bonds. In essence, this aranted TVUSD
the right to levy an ad valorem tax on all taxable property located within its
jurisdiction. The upper tax rate disclosed to the voters was $0.10 per SIOO.00 of
taxable property valuation.
As a result of TVUSD's current taxable property valuation, the District has issued
and spent $43,400,000 of GO bonds to date. The remaining $21,600,000 of unspent
GO bonds are planned to be issued for the construction of facilities to serve students
generated in TVUSD by new development. Therefore, a credit must be calculated
for new homes.
Similar to the State Program, the credit for unspent GO bonds must be apportioned
by the number of elementary, middle, and high school students generated from new
development in the City and new development in the County. The numbers of
elementary, middle, and high school students projected from new development in the
City are 9,204, 5,802, and 5,826, respectively. The numbers of students by grade
level for the County are 9,730, 6,085, and 6,185. Based on these numbers, the
credit is S4,641,539 at the elementary school level, $2,925,925 at the middle school
level, and $2,938,028 at the hich school level for new development in the City.
9:
As for additional authorization of GO bonds, it is very unlikely that the
electorate would grant TVUSD the right to levy any additional taxes in the
foreseeable future.
4.Redevelopment Pass-Through
California redevelopment law presently allows school districts to share in tax
increment income via pass-through agreements with local redevelopment aeencies.
However, because school districts cannot unilaterally establish redevelopment project
areas and because recently approved legislation (AB 1290) limits school district
revenues from redevelopment, the availability and amount of these monies is subject
to events outside of the control of the district. These events include the following:
the number and scope of project areas which may be formed by the local city or
county; the amount of tax increment which the district is able to receive under AB
1290; and future development activity within the project area. Additionally, the
availability of pass-through proceeds for school districts may be affected by future
actions:of the Governor and Legislature. The transfer of redevelopment funds from
local agencies to the State sets a dangerous precedent as far as the future of
redevelopment in California is concerned. Hence, this is not a probable source of
future revenues, except as to any existing pass-through agreements.
Currently, TVUSD receives approximately $500,000 per year of redevelopment pass-
through. The District has and plans to continue to use the redevelopment funds for
the construction of administrative and support facilities. Since redevelopment pass-
Temecula VaUey Unifted School
City - Residen@ Fac@s Impact M@ation Plan
Page 8
Aprd 24, 1996
through is contingent on development within the project area, TVUSD's amount
of redevelopment funds may increase or decrease in any given year. As stated
above, the availability of additional tax increment is out of the control of the
District. Therefore, these funds cannot be considered a reliable alternative
funding source.
5.Community Facilities District
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act provides a method for local -ovenu-nents.
like school districts, to fund public facilities and certain services. The Community
Facilities District ("CFD") is a special fuiancing entity through which a local
government is authorized to levy special taxes either to pay debt service on issued
bonds or to pay for the direct construction of facilities or services. A two-thirds vote
of the qualified electors of such district is required to form the CFD. The qualified
electors are comprised of (i) the registered voters, if at least 12 persons have been
registered to vote within the territory of the proposed CFD for each of the 90 days
preceding the close of the protest hearing, or (ii) the landowners of the proposed
district.
TVUSD has established two CFDs by landowner vote including approximately 6.200
proposed residential units. However, these special = proceeds are intended to
replace School Fees which would have been paid on those units. In the case of other
new residential developments, TVUSD may be willing to establish a third CFD for
the purpose of mitigatin- adequate school facilities. This CFD would be annexable
and may include the following features (i) a single payment special tax equal to the
impact, which would be levied at the time a building permit is issued, (ii) an annual
special tax, which would be equal to the impact amortized over 25 years, or (iii) a
combination of a single payment special = and an annual special tax. If the CFD
includes an annual special tax, TVUSD will coordinate with the City to assure that
the overall tax burden does not exceed 2% of the assessed valuation.
As outlined above, two Community Facilities Districts have been established by
TVUSD, and a third is possible. Ibis source of income is only available to
TVUSD in lieu of School Fees for units within those CFDS. TVUSD intends to
continue to utilize CFDs when appropriate for new residential development.
6.Developer Loan Funds
With respect to developer loan funds, TVUSD will consider the possible fair-share
reduction in future mitigation payments for a particular project based on the receipt
of State Program funds, which together with the amount of mitigation payment for
that particular project, are greater than the developer's proportionate share of school
facilities costs. With to GO bonds and CFDS, new development has already
been given a credit for its proportionate share of the unissued GO bonds which have
been previously autho@, and it is unlikely that the electorate would grant TVUSD
the right to levy any additional taxes in the future.
Temecula Vafley Un@d School Dis@
City - Residenfid Facit@s impact Mitigation PLan
Page 9
April 24, 1996
B.Certification By TVUSD
1, Dr. Novotney, as Superintendent of Temecula Vallev Unified Sc-.hool District, do
I
hereby certify that TVUSD has or is in the process of pursuing the above-mentioned
alternative funding sources where appropriate and within the constraints described above.
Temecula VaUey UnOed School
City - Residential Facz7L*s ]*act Mitigadon Plan
Dr. Patricia B. Novotney
Superintendent
Page 10
A ryril 24. 7996
V. Central Administration, Support Fa@es and Intenm Faciliftes
TVUSD has gained over 3,900 students during the last four years, an annual increase in excess
of ten percent. The new residential development which generated this rapid enrollment --rowth
has impacted TVUSD -administration, support, and interim facilities.
The District's central atirnini.@tion, maintenance, operations, and transportation facilities have
been overcrowded and inadequate for some time. For example, central administration functions
are housed in several buildings, including portables and =Hers. TVUSD estimates that
provision of ad@ central a tion and support facilities will cost approximately S12.1
million. These facilities will serve a projected 25,000 students in ten years. 'ne State Pro--mm
does not normally fund administration and support facilities.
Due to the inadequacy of existing fiindin- sources for permanent facility construction. TVUSD
is currently utilizing relocatable/portabie facilities on an interim basis. OPSC projects that
TVUSD's enrollment will grow at an annual rate of 1,260 students through the 2000-01 school
year. This equates to over 6,300 new students in the next five years. It is reasonable to assume
that at least a portion of these new pupils will need to be housed in interim classrooms. The
lease payments for a single portable classroom over the next ten years will total approximately
$70,000.
Resolution No. 95-36 states that a school district may include central administration. support,
and interim facilities as part of its Nfitigation Payment; however, TVUSD has decided to utilize
other revenue funds to cover these facility costs, so these costs are not included in our analysis.
Temecula V@ Unified School
Cify - Residendd Faca*s Impact MjW@n Pi=
Page 11
April 24, 7996
VI. Coordination of Planning ReWew For School Site Development
TVUSD has developed and maintained an effective working relationship with the City. This
relationship stems from the desire of both the School Board of TVUSD and the City Council to
work together to coordinate community-wide goals.
Currently, the City notifies TVUSD of each new development application prior to their review
by the Development Review Committee ('DRC") of the City. This committee reviews all
development agreements, general plan amendments, specific plans, plot plans and other pl@!z
issues. This allows the District to coordinate with developers and comment on school matters
in the early stages of development.
Additionally, TVUSD participates in various meetings of the City Council and Plannin-
Commission when an item of interest or concern to TVUSD is on the agenda. This also allows
TVUSD to give valuable input at an early stage of development proposals.
TVUSD participated in the formation of SAGE 2 (Sustaining A Great Envimmnent and
Economy). The purpose of this group is to establish a common infrastructure plannine model
for all goverrunent entities and utilities within the Temecula and Murrieta Valleys. This
planning organization enables entities that develop cture to coordinate their activities in
an attempt to avoid costly expenditures that come from lack of coordination amongst Government
entities and utilities.
Lastly, Section 65402 of the Government Code and Section 21151.2 of the Public Resources
Code require school districts to notify the local p g commission regarding a proposed
school site acquisition prior to acquiring title to the property. Within 30 days after receipt of
this notice, the planning commission is to investigate the proposed site and present a written
report to the school board which includes a summary of the investigation and recommendations
for acquiring the site in a manner which is consistent with the general plan. School districts also
currently coordinate planning activities for new schools with the local fire marshal.
Temecula VaUey Unified School
City - ResidentW Facif@s Impact Mitigation Plan
Page 12
Aprd 24, 1996
VII. Methodology of Facilities Impact Plan
TVUSD has experienced rapid enrollment growth in recent yt:ars. 7-nis growth has created an
increased demand for new school facilities within TVUSD, and the need to incur significant costs
to meet that demand. As a result, TVUSD has determined that the herein described Miti!zation
Payments should be required of all new development to the extent authorized by Resolution No.
95-36. The objective of this Plan is to provide a basis for such findings pursuant to the
requirements of applicable law, including Section 66001 and following of the Government Code
and the provisions of Resolution No. 95-36.
A.Overview of Methodology
In order to evaluate the existence of a nexus, this Plan identifies and analyzes the various
connections or linkages between residential development and (i) the need for school
facilities, (ii) the cost of school facilities, and (iii) the amount of the Mitigation Pavments
that can justifiably be imposed by TVUSD. The primary linkages identified include the
following:
I . Student generation, i.e., household formation within TVUSD generates new students
2.Facility requirements, i.e., student generation within TVUSD leads to the need to
incur costs for new school facilities
3.Mitigation Payment requirements, i.e., additional costs for new school facilities within
TVUSD lead to the need to levy development fees
The above linkages result in a series of impacts which (i) connect new residential
development with increased school facilities costs, and (ii) connect fees per residential unit
with increased facilities costs.
These impacts are identified for two residential land use classes, namely Single Family
Detached Units and Multi-family Attached/Mobile Home Units. These "linkage impacts"
include two major types:
1 - Student Generation Impacts
2.School Facilities Impacts
B.Student Generation Factors
Student Generation Factors were calculated by a consultant retained by TVUSD in
accordance with the methodology and parameters set fordi in Resolution No. 95-36. This
included phone surveying ?'90 residents who occupy dwelling units which (i) are in the
District's area, (ii) were constructed in the last three years, and (iii) represent current and
anticipated development.
TemecWa Vafley Umfied Sch@
Page 13
Cfty - Residen@ F@es Im@ Midgxio, Aprg 24, 19%
C.FaciHtv Cost bnpacts
Facility Cost Impacts are calculated by dividing the gross facilities cost associated with
each grade level by the corresponding category of Student Generation l@-lpa@-ts. Separatc
facility cost estimates were prepared for each grade level by TVUSD. The cost data
include the costs of site acquisition, school construction and other on-site improvements,
and school @hings.
Temecula VaUcy Unified SchcW Dis@
City - Residennd Fac@es impact Mitagatwn plan
Page 14
Apdl 24, 1996
VIII. TVUSD Exisfing School Facilities Capacity and Enrollment Data
In o rder to determine whether TVUSD's existing school facilities contain excess capacity to
house students generated by new residential development, cur-rent facilities and projected
enrollment data for the- District have been evaluated.
At the present time, TVUSD's physical plant includes seven elementary schools. three middle
schools, and two high schools (one regular education and one continuation hi-h school).
Collectively, these facilities in the 1995-96 school year have a permanent capacity of 10.477
students. Tne District's enrollment as of September 7, 1995, was 12,185 students. As shown
in Table 3 below, TVUSD's 1995-96 school year enrollment at the elementary and hieh school
levels exceed capacity and is approaching capacity at the middle school level. In fact, TVUSD
projects that all surplus seats at the midcfie school level will be occupied by the end of calendar
year 1995.
TABLE 3
EXISTING SCHOOL FAC
CAPACM AND ENRO
JL995/96 Total 1995/96 Excess Capacity
School Level Capacity' Enrollment' (Shorta.-,e)
Elementary School (K - 5) 5,292 6,051 (759)
Middle School (6 - 8) 2,932 2,905 27
High School (9 - 12) 2,253 1 3,229 1 (976)
Total 10,477 1 12,185 -F (1,708)
'Source:Temecula Valley Unified School District. TVUSD currently owns two @s of
portables/relocatables: permanent and non-permanent. Table 3 includes permanent
portablesjrelocatables.
"Source:Temecula Vallev Unified School District.
Temecula Valley Un@d School Dis@
City - Res@ndd Faci7ifies impact Mitigation Plan
Page 15
April 24, 1996
IX. Impact of Residendal Development On School FaciUdes Needs
As discussed in Section VI[, the objective of this Plan is to determine the impact of new
residential development on TVUSD's school facilities. Section VII outlined the methodology
which was employed-in this Plan to meet that objective. What follows is a step by step
presentation of the results of the analysis.
A.';tudent Generation Factors Per Residential Unit
In order to analyze the impact of new residential development on TVUSD's student
enrollment, TVUSD retained a consultant to calculate student generation factors
("SGFs") by land use for each grade level. The methodology employed by the consultant
to calculate the SGFs for TVUSD was identical to the methodology depicted in
Resolution No. 95-36. The consultant surveyed by phone a minimum of 250 units based
on (i) the units being constructed within the last three years, (ii) the units represent the
current and anticipated future characteristics of the communities in TVUSD, and (iii) the
units not being senior citizen housing.
Of the 250 units surveyed, 203 were Detached Units (single family detached). Based on
these surveys, there are 89 elementary school students, 36 middle school students, and
26 high school students residing in the 203 units. In order to calculate the cur-rent SGFs
by each school level for Detached Units, the number of students in each school level
were divided by the number of units surveyed. However, in accordance with Resolution
No. 95-36, "the SGFs shall be based on an assessment of student pass-through from new
homes over at least a five year period." Using this methodology for each school level
resulted in the following SGFS:
TABLE 4
TVUSD STLTD@ GENE2RAnON RATES
DETACEIED UNITS
School Level Student Generation Rates
F-lementary School 0.39
Nfiddle School 0.24
High School 0.25
Total 0.88
The identical procedure for calculating the SGFs for Detached Units was used in the
rates for Attached Units (multi-family attached and mobile home units). Based on the
remaining 47 surveys (250 - 203 = 47), there are 13 elementary school students, 4
middle school students, and 2 hieh school students residing in the 47 units. Based on
student pass-through over a five year period of time, the SGFs for Attached Units are
shown in Table 5.
TemecuLa VaUey UnoUd School Dis@
City - Residenad Fac@s Impact Mitzgadon Plan
Page 16
Avril 24, 1996
TABLE 5
TVUSD STUDENT GENERANON RATES
ATTACEOED UNITS
School Level Student Genemtion tes
Elementary School 0.28
@ddle School 0.19
legh School 0.17
Total @0.64
The Student Generation Factor Study prepared for TVUSD is shown in @bit A.
B..1995-96 TVUSD School Facilill Costs
TVUSD's school facility costs have been estimated for each school level. At the
elementary and middle school levels, the capacity of the facility has been increased by
20 percent to reflect the loading of a facility on a multi-track year-round calendar. The
school facility costs represent the full cost of land, construction and furnishings for new
elementary, middle, and high schools. These costs reflect TVUSD's recent experience
in constructing new facilities. It must be noted, however, that these facility costs per
student do not include leased interim facilities costs or interest costs associated with debt
incurred to fmance facilities prior to receiving sufficient fee revenues to construct such
facilities. In addition, the facility costs are in 1995-96 school year dollars and are to be
adjusted annually for inflation. The construction costs by school level are shown in
Table 6, while the construction costs by item for each school level are shown in @bit
B.
TABLE 6
DISTRICT FACH= COSTS PER STUDENT (1995-96 $)
School Level School FacRity Costs
Elementary School S 8,572
Nfiddle School $10,812
High School $17,090
Temecula VaUty Ung%d School
City - Residende Facgi*s impact miagadon plan
Page 17
April 24, 1996
C.Facilitv Cost Impacts Per Residential Unit
By multiplying the information in Tables 4 and 5 by that in Table 6, we arrive at the per
unit gross school facility cost impact for each land use type. These impacts are shown
by school level and by land use type in Table 7. Table 8 shows the per unit State
Program 1992 bonds, GO bond. and
level and land use type. By subtracting the info
...bond credits for each school
m Table 8 from that in Table
7, we arrive at the per unit net school facility impact for each school level and land use
type. These impacts are shown in Table 9.
The total net school facility cost for a Detached dwelling unit in 1995-96 school vear
dollars is therefore $9 while the total net school facility cost for an Attached
dwellin- unit in 1995-96 school year do@ is $ To fuuy mitigate its school
impacts, a residential project must provide fundini or facilities equivalent to these
fi-ures.
TABLE 7
GROSS FACI]LITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
School Level
Land Use Category Elementary I Mddle I High Total-
Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $4,272 $10,210
Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7.360
Numbers mav not sum due to rounciing.
TABLE 8
CREDITS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96 $)
School Level
Land Use Category E3emen@, MdcUe High Total
Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) $(203) $(254)
Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138) $(178)
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126) $(444)
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86) $(323)
Detached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(loz
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit s $(76)
TemecuLa VaUcy Un&d School
City - Residentied Facilities impact Mitigation Plan
Page 18
Aprd 24, 7996
TABLE 9
NET FACILITY COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE (1995-96
School Level
Land Use Cateeorv Elementary NfidcUe High Totad*
Detached Unit School Facility Impact $3,343 $2,595 $4,272 SIO.210
Detached Unit State Program Credit NA $(51) $(203) $(254)
Detached Unit GO Bond Credit $(197) $(121) $(126) $(44-4)
Detached Unit n oU. 203 Credit $(105) $0 $0 $(105)
Net Detached Unit School Facility $3,041 $2,423 $3,943 $9,407
ITgact
Attached Unit School Facility Impact $2,400 $2,054 $2,905 $7,360
Attached Unit State Program Credit NA $(40) $(138) $(178)
Attached Unit GO Bond Credit $(141) $(96) $(86) $(323)_
Attached Unit Prop. 203 Credit $(76) $0 $0 $(76)
Net Attached Unit School Facility $2,183 $1,918 $2,681 $6,783
Impact
N,-mtrs mav not sum due to roundiniz.
Temecula VaUty Unified SchoW
City - Reside@ FacMdes im@ midgatwn Pi=
Page 19
April 24, 1996
X.Mechanisms Available for New Residential Development to
Mitigate School Facilides Impacts
All residential development proposals submitted to the City of Temecula for final le--islative
action related to entitlements require review by Temecula Valley Unified School District
("TVUSD"), except for residential proposals within the Senior C@ Development Zone. which
are regulated under Section 65995.1 of the Government Code. Prior to residential project
review by the City Planning Commission, TVUSD must either (1) enter into a Nliti-ation
Agreement with the developer, or (2) if Agreement can not be reached. submit to the City a
request for certain mitigation procedures permitted under Section 65996 of the Gover=ent
Code.
In meetin- its school facilities needs, TVUSD shall evaluate both the costs of constructing new
facilities to serve the needs of new development, and the phasing of these new facilities. The
school construction costs per Detached or Attached dwelling unit shall be based on the impact
estimates listed under Table 9 of this Plan. For 1995-96 school year, these costs are $9.407 per
Detached dwelling unit and $6.@ -Der Attached dwelling unit. Phasing of new facilities shall
be based on current enrollment, existing school capacities, and projected enrollment based on
the proposed development and the student Generation rates listed in Tables 4 and 5 of this Plan.
IV
In determining the commitment required of a developer to mitigate his school facilities impacts,
T'VUSD and the developer may consider one or more of the alternatives listed below:
1.Payment of school fees as required under Section 65995 of the Government Code
2.Dedication of land as sites for schools and administrative facilities
3.Formation of or annexation to a MeUo-Roos Community Facilities District
4.Levying of a Special Tax to fund school facilities
5.Other alternatives as proposed and agreed upon by the developer and TVUSD
In order to avoid a delay in City processing, TVUSD and the developer must execute a
Miti-ation Agreement prior to review of the project by the City Planning Commission. To
facilitate reaching such an Agreement, TVUSD must be contacted by the developer at least 120
days prior to review of the project by the City Planning Commission.
J:\CLI]ENTSkTF-MECULA.USD\MMGATEXMM6.Mrr
Temecula VaUcy Unified School
City - Residenfial Facilities impact Midgation Plan
Page 20
ADrd 24, 1996
EXHIBIT A
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Student Generation Factor Study
PRIMARY DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH NEW HOMES
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
For the purposes of this study, School Planning Services (SPS) has conducted a
random telephone survey for the Te-,iecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSO")
of residents living in new housing in the District's area, with the .primary
objective being the determination of the relevant student generation Reactors.
The research approach utilized in this effort has been developed and refined by
SPS over several years through its involvement as a consultant for school
districts throughout California; additionally, it is specified as the approved
methodology for determining student generation factors for new homes by Riverside
County in its recently adopted Resolutions No. 92-164 and 93-131.
For purposes of the survey, new homes are defined as those constructed within the
past three years. Only occupants cl@ non-age-restricted developments were polled;
because of the randomization of the telephone calls, single-family detached and
attached dwellings as well as mobile homes were surveyed in a proportion similar
to recent construction activity in the area. A total of 250 completed surveys
were obtained in the course of the project, with the final tally at 81,'o detached
units, 17% attached units, and 2,'o mobile homes.
Respondents were also queried on such topics as number of children in the
household by age and grade (if applicable), family size, family description, the
age of the head of household and ethnicity. As a result, in addition to
providing ancillary empirical support for the student generation data, the survey
also produced some interesting demographics for the District which may be useful
for planning purposes.
DESCRTPTION OF HOUSEHOLD
Figure 1 illustrates that the predominant family structure found in the new homes
in TVUSD consists of the "traditional' family of two adults with children; this
segment comprises 460/. of all the surveyed households.
HOUSEHOLD DESCRIPTION
NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Temecula Valley Unified School District
2, Adults/NC - 3-'%
Single/NC - 11%
Single/WC - 4%
3- Adults/WC - 5%
WC - with Children
NC - No Children
2 Acults/WC - 46%
(Non-age Restricted Housing)
Source:School Planning Services. 1194
Figure 1
Ranking second in incidence is the category of two (or more) adults who have no
children present in the household. representing 34% of the sample, followed by
households containing childless single adults which accounted for llY. of those
surveyed. The remaining two categories, those of single adults with children and
of three or more adults with children, constituted only 4% and 5% of the sample
respectively.
2
Grouping the responding households by the presence (or absence) of children
indicates that over half (550ila) of @Lhe surveyed households have children present
in the home (Figure 2).
HOUSEHOLDS BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN
NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Temecula Valley Unified School District
With Children - 55%
Without Children - 45%
(Non-age Restrlctoo Housing)
Source:School Planning Services, 1194
Figure 2
3
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
When the number of people HOUSEHOLD SIZE
residing in the surveyed NEW HOME RESIDENTS
households is examined, Temecula Valley Unified School District
the most prevalent size C"e - e%
of household is found to Five 8%
Average HH Size
be the two-person house-
hold (31%), followed by
the household with four
Two - 31% Four
persons at 25"".. The av-
erage household size
found in the new homes
was 3.1, identical to the Three - 19%
average household size (Non-age Restrtctec @cu3it7g)
for the City of Temecula I "cures: school P$Anndng Sorvkos, 1194
as published by the De- Figure 3
partment of Finance for
1993. (It is also mar-
ginally higher than the MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD SIZE
County average of 3.0.) NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Temecula Valley Unified School Di3trict
As shown in Figure 4, the 100 %@ I
median household size of so %I
the sample, i.e., the
point below which half of ao
the sample falls, calcu- Median 2.4 4
la4k,.e.s to 2.4 This is 40 %I 3
2
attributable to the rela-
tively large number of 20 %
one and two-person house-
0
holds, although 14% of
the households reported sodtree: 3cneal Plannine Services. 1104
at least five residents. Figure 4
4
AGE )F HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
In surveying the residents of new housino in Temecula, a relatively young segment
I
of the population was discovered with just over half of the heads of household
in this new housing-less than 40 years of age (Figure 5). In fact, the median
AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
'NEW HOME RESIDENTS
Temecula valley Unified School District
60 and over
u
Median Age 36 60-59
16%
0-39
33% 0-49
20%
(Non-age Restricted housing)
saume.- 3chool Planning Services. 1194
Figure 5
age of the sample was 36 years. Additionally, the predominant age category,
claiming one-third of the hea@-s of household, was 30-39 years of age.
Respondents aged 60 and over, representing persons of retirement age not living
in age-restricted communities, ecjalled 12% of the sample.
ETHNICITY
Respondents were also invited to s@@ate their ethnicity; 86% identified themselves
as (non-Hispanic) White. Hispanics comprised 8% of the respondents, with all
other categories amounting to a c:mbined total of 6%.
5
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS
As stated above, the survey respondents were queried with respect to the number
of children in thehousehold attending public school by specific grade as well
Table I
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS OVER TIME
PEAK LOAD FROM NEW HOUSING
Temecula Valley Unified School District
1994
Current
Grades Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 ear 5 1
Pre-K 0.32
.......
K-5 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.37
6-8 1 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.23
0.57 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.60
0.11 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.23
K-12 0.68 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.83
Note: Columns may not total because of rounding.
ource: School Planning Services, 1194
as detailing the age and number of any pre-school children. The results o,-- these
questions are displayed as average student generation factors ("SGF") for grades
K-5, 6-8, K-8, 9-12 and K-12 on Table 1 and Figure 7.
6
The matrix displayed on Table I and illustrated in Figure 7 is the produc'6 of a
student generation methodology which is characterized by the aging and
progression of the pre-school population discovered in new housing into a K-12
enrollment scenario as the older students matriculate through and out oi-- the
elementary grades; -this produces a student generation factor reflecting the
measurable peak student load generated by a new unit.
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS OVER TIME
PEAK LOAD FROM NEW HOUSING
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Students/Now Home
1.00 1.00
0.78 0.82 0.82 0.83
0.80 - 0.77 - 0.80
0.68
0.60 - - 0.60
0.40 - - 0.40
0.20 - - 0.20
0.00 - 0.00
Current Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
= K-5 M 6-8 EM 9-12
SOUPCO:SChOOt Planning SerViC@S. 1194
Figure 7
The five-year time span which is presented (current year through year is
determined and indeed constrained by the age limit factor of the pre-schoolers;
that is, all of the children of pre-school age will have reached the school age
for kindergarten within five years. (It should be noted that this approach
articulates the-SGF over time from the average number of children in an average
new housing unit; consequently, cohort survival data is not applicable.)
The survey data reveals that TVUSD must be prepared for the eventual i ty that each
new housing unit may, on the average, produce a peak load of 0.83 students in
7
grades K-12 within a five-year period. As explained above, this figure is a
melded function of the number of children of pre-school age found in the survey
sample (the average household reports .32 pre-kindergartners) and school-age
children attending public school.
This methodology represents an attempt to estimate the real potential impact on
facilities generated by the average new home, rather than the simple reliance on
a one-time 'snapshot" evaluation. This approach is especially important no,6, only
because it results in a more accurate assessment of the impact of new develop-
ment, but also because it can be another valuable tool for facility planning
purposes. Given the lag time associated with the process of the construction and
funding of facilities, this information, when reviewed in conjunction with
residential construction activity, can serve as an advanced warning mechanism of
enrollment growth.
8
EXHIBIT B
Temecula Valley Unified School District
School Facility Costs
TEMECULA VALIEY
SCHOOL D CT
SCHOOL FACELM COSTS FOR
RESEDENTL4,L FACELRMS @ACT MnGAnON PLAN
(ELEM[E.NTARY SCHOOL,L
A. SM $1,087,%3
NUMBER OF ACRES 10.00
COST PER ACRE SIOE,796
B. P@S $470,831
ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $409,286
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $32,294
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA'NON, PLA.N CHECK FEE $2,713
PRELIMINARY TESTS $10,731
OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYSIS $15,817
C. CONSTRUCTION $5,437,069
UTILITY SERVICE $49,998
OFF-S= DEVELOPMENT $13,"6
SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT $230,009
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT $521,289
NEW CONSTRUCTION $4,348,021
UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES $263,608
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS $11,708
D. TESTS $81,343
E. INSPECTIONS $72,436
F. & MOVABIE EQUIIPMENT $272,155
G. CONTINGENCY $104,047
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $7,525,844
MAJOR CONCLUqION,q
NUMBER OF STUDENTS 732
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT 20.00%
TOTAL CAPACITY 379
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 45,394
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT 51.70
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT $119.79
.TOTAL COST PER STUDENT SI.S71.St.
TEMECULA VALIEY UNEFM SCHOOL DLSMCT
SCHOOL FACILITY COSTS FOR
RES]IDENTL4,L FACELRMS DOACT NMGANON PLAN
DLE SCHOOL)
A. SnT $2,175,926
NUMBER OF ACRES 20.00
COST PER ACRE $109,796
B. P@S $641,114
ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS $552,414
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $52,941
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $4,759
PRELIMINARY TESTS $5,400
OTHER COSTS - ENERGY A4NALYSIS $25,700
C. CON@UCTION $9,700,OW
UTILITY SERVICE $31,618
OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT so
SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT $195,293
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT $1,177,940
NEW CONSTRUCTION $7,939,286
UNCONVEN71ONAL ENERGY SOURCES so
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS $355,863
D. TESTS $142,800
E. INSPECTIONS $104,400
F. & MOVABLE EQLTIPMENT $586,710
G. CONTINGENCY $218,247
H. TOTAL ESTE\IATED COSTS $13,569,197
i@fOR CONCLU.VlOiV.'q
NUMBER OF STUDENTS 1,046
YEAR-ROUND CREDIT 20.00%
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 79,500
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT 6335
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT
,TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $10,912.11,
TEMCLTIA VALIEY LTNEFM SCHOOL DEMCT
SCHOOL FACELITY COSTS FOR
RESI]DENTIAL FACILRMS @ACT MNGATION PLAN
(HIGH SCHOOL.,)
A. SrM $4,895,833
NUMBER OF ACRES 45.00
COST PER ACRE $109,796
B. PIANS $1,497,007
ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS Sl,208,000
OSA STRUCTURE \ ACCESS COMPLIANCE PLANS CHECK FEES $147,454
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PLAN CHECK FEE $14,035
PRELIMINARY TESTS $35,000
OTHER COSTS - ENERGY ANALYSIS $911,518
C. CONSTRUCNON $27,000,ON
UTILITY SERVICE $113,020
OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT $296,456
SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT $3,399,414
GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT Sl,893.583
NEW CONSTRUCTION SIB,742,311
UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES $1,278,181
OTHER \ DEFERRED ITEMS Sl,278,035
D. TESTS $421,000
E. INSPECNONS $259,000
F. & MOVABLE EQLIPNEENT $1,712,916
G. CONTINGENCY so
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $35,785,756
U&IOR CONCLUQIONS
ER OF STUDENTS 2,094
YEA]T-ROUND CREDIT 0.00%
TOTAL CAPACITY 2,094
TOTAL SQUARIE FOOTAGE 199,945
SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT 95.01
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT $135.72
ITOTAL COST PER STEJDEN'T $17,099.66,
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 96-_
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8;30/96 dwh 6
Sectioii 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _ day of
1996.
Karel F. Liiideiiians, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the fore-olii,- Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a reOLIlar meeting thereof, held on tile 10th day of September, 1996
by the followin- vote of the City Council:
AYES: COUNCILMENIBERS
NOES: COUNCILMENIBERS
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwki I 0
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN-CC1 8/30/96dwh 11
AP T
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TEMECULA VALLEY
SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN AND SET THE
APPROPRIATE MITIGATION FEE CAP
WHEREAS, rapid population growth in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City") has
resulted in large increases in the numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified School
District ("District") is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge existin- school
facilities and construct new facilities to house the students in accordance with the policies of the
District and standards specified by state law; and
WHEREAS, new students iiilpactincy existing school facilities are due primarily to
residential uses (except senior citizen development); and
WHEREAS, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both new development and the
community at large, and are a necessary coi-nponent of the City's social and infrastructure systems;
and
WHEREAS, the State Le-islature has declared that financing the construction of school
facilities is the responsibility of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation for
fundin- such additional school facilities and has shifted the primary responsibility for financing
of school facilities to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, ("School
Facilities Law of 1986"), i-nay establish developer initiation fees for residential, commercial and
industrial uses, and may establish Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts to provide for school
plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond monies, school district imposed
developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of financing have -enerally been
inadequate to provide for the enlarceiiieiit and construction of school plant facilities sufficient to
adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the State
of California; and
WHEREAS, school funding sources under current state laws and available funding are
oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a need exists to fund permanent K-
12 school facilities, including facilities for the special education needs of special or disadvantage
zn
students; and
WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
has the authority to review development proposals for ii-npacts on School Facilities; and
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLI'LAN.IIC2 8/19/96 kib
WHEREAS, pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Develoi2ment Corporation v. City of
San Die , 205 Cal. App. 3d I'@101 (1988), William S., Hart Hic.,h -ict v. Re-.i@
Plannin.c., Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta Valley Unified School
District v. County of Riverside, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting, the School Facilities
Law of 1986, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts including general plan
amendments, specific plans and amendments thereto, and changes of zone, if it finds that the
impacts on school facilities have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the provision of a quality school system to educate the residents of the City
of Temecula is important to the City's future; and
WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested that the City of
Temecula adopt a resolution providing creating a program to provide full funding for school
im
facilities from some types of development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council included languace in the Growth Manacement and Public
Facility Element of General Plan concernin- the mitigation of school facility impacts; and
ZD
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 95-36 which established a Program to
mitigate the impact of new residential development on the public school facilities within the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District has prepared and submitted a
Mitigation Plan in conformance with the provision of Resolution 95-36; and,
'WHEREAS, the District's Submitted Miti-ation Plan meets the provisions of Resolution
iz
95-36; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Tet-necula has had an independent analysis prepared to evaluate
the District's submitted Mitication Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the independent evaluation confirmed that the reasonableness of the District's
proposed Mitication Plan and the costs of constructin- new school facilities; and,
in C)
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed mitigation plan was posted at City Hall, County
C,
Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce; and
WHEREAS, public hearincs were conducted on July 15 and August 5, 1996, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.PC2 8/16196 kib
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
THE MITIGATION PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND APPROVE A SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CEILING ON FUTURE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF $9,213 FOR DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND $6,644 FOR ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1996.
LINDA FAHEY, CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the fore-oin- Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
im @
Commission of the City of Temecula at a re-ular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of Au-ust,
ID c
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: FAHEY, MILLER, SLAVEN,
SOLTYSIAK, WEBSTER
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
DEBBIE UBNOSKE, SECRETARY
R:\SCHOO@SCHLPLAN.PC2 8116/96 kib
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
JULY 15, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8,130196 dwh 1 2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commis
FROM: Debbie Ubnoskei g Manager
DATE:July 1 5, 1 996
SUBJECT:TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:APPROVE Resolution No. PC 96- entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE TEMECULA VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES IMPACT
MITIGATION PLAN AND SET THE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION
FEE CAP'
BACKGROUND
During development of the City's General Plan, the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(District) requested that the City of Temecula require residential developers to fully mitigate
the impact of new development on school facilities. In response to their request, the City
Council included language in the Growth Management and Public Facilities Element stating that
if Proposition 1 70 failed to win voter approval in the November 1993 Election, the City would
establish a school mitigation resolution.
With the failure of Proposition 170, the City Council approved Resolution No. 95-36 on April
1 1, 1 995 establishing the School Mitigation Program. The Resolution did the following:
0Authorized the School District to prepare and submit a Mitigation Plan that
addresses the impacts on school facilities;
0Set standards for the contents of the School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans;
0Established procedures for the City's review and approval of a proposed
Mitigation Plan; and,
0 Stated how the approved Mitigation Plan will be carried out.
Resolution 95-36 states that a Mitigation Plan must documentthe need for additional financial
mitigation in excess of the revenues that would be received from Statutory School Fees or
other sources of funding available to the District. Specifically, the Mitigation Plan must
contain information on the following items:
R:\HOGAND\.SCHLP@.PM 7/101% dwh
0The number of students generated by new development;
0Typical school site and construction costs;
0Optimum Facility Utilization;
0Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources; and
0 Level of Support for New Development.
The District's Plan contains all of the required elements with the exception that TVUSD has
not including any costs for central administration and support facilities that may be associated
with new development. A copy of the Resolution 95-36 is attached to this Staff Report as
Attachment 3.
DISCUSSION
The School Facility Mitigation Plan submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District
calculated the cost of providing school facilities for an average household. The most recent
version of the District's Mitigation Plan is included in Attachment No. 1 - The proposed
changes to the Mitigation Plan are highlighted for easy reference. The process for identifying
the per unit costs for school facilities are summarized below.
STEP 1.The costs of constructing new elementary, middle and high school facilities are
determined using the State of California's standard costs.
STEP 2.A Student Generation Factor (SGF), for attached and detached residential units,
by school type, is calculated using a survey of new homes within the District.
STEP 3.The total cost of providing schools for each household is calculated.
STEP 4.General Obligation Bond and State School Funding Program credits are calculated.
STEP 5.The actual (net) cost of providing schools for each household is determined.
The SchoolMitigation Plan submitted by the Temecula Valley Unified School District was
reviewed by David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG), the City's impact fee consultant. A
copy of DMG's review is included in Attachment No. 4. The DMG concludes that while much
of District's Mitigation Plan is based upon direct verifiable numbers, there are two non-
technical policy issues that could affect the net cost of providing future schools funding. The
first is the future Student Generation Factor, and the other issue is the assumption that there
will be no future school bond funding.
School Facility Acauisition and Construction Cost
Resolution 95-36 requires that typical facility construction costs be consistent with State
standards. The costs of constructing new school facilities used by TVUSD in their mitigation
plan are consistent with the State Standards and are less than the actual construction costs
forrecentlybuiltschools. Shownbelowarecomparativeactualcostsfortheconstructionfor
Redhawk Elementary, Vail Ranch Middle, and Chaparral High Schools and the State approved
R:\HOGAND\SCHLP@.PCI 7/9/% dwh 2
acquisition and construction costs that are used in the District's Mitigation Plan.
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
AND THE PROPOSED TVUSD MITIGATION PLAN
Actual TVUSD Construction Costs used in Facility
Schoo[Type Costs (including school name) Mitigation Plan Capacity*_
Elementary School (Redhawk ES) $7,551,948 $7,525,844 660
Middle School (Vail Ranch MS) $14,404,484 $13,569,197 850
High School (Chaparral HS) $37,790,4671 35,785,757 12,100
, - School capacities assume single tracks; 4-track capacities are 825 and 1063, respectively, for elementary
and middle schools.
According to DMG, the school capacity figures used by TVUSD exceed state guidelines. As
a result, DMG is recommending that the District's proposed fees be reduced by $675 and
$51 9, respectively, for detached and attached units. This reduction will be accounted for in
the final step of this process.
Student Generation Factor
The City's Resolution establishes a specific methodology for determining the appropriate
student generation factors for the various types of residential development. The Student
Generation Factor shall be based upon a random sample of at least 250 dwellings constructed
in the preceding three years.
The District's Student Generation Factor survey indicated that the SGF for detached dwelling
units varied over the six-year life of the survey from 0.74 students per household in the
Survey Year to 0.88 students per household in Years Four, Five and Six. The attached unit
SGF varied from 0.40 in the Survey year to 0.64 in Year Six. The District proposes to use
the Year Six figures for their Mitigation Plan. The Detached and Attached SGFs by year and
school type are shown below.
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(Students per Typical Household)
Survey
Grade Level Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Pre-Kindergarten .33 n/a n/a nla n/a n/a
K through 5 .44 .48 .46 .45 .41 .39
t rough 8 .18 .18 .21 .20 .22 .24
9 through 1 2 .13 .18 .18 .23 .25 .25
TOTAL .74 .84 .88
.85 .88 .88
Column and row totals may not add up bar-ause of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF.
R:\HOGAND\SCHLP@.PCI 7/9/% dwh 3
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(Students per Typical Household)
Survey
Grade Level Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Pre-Kindergarten .28 n/a n/a n/a n/a nia
K through 5 .28 .34 .32 .34 .32 .29
6 through 8 .09 .11 .13 .13 .17 .19
9 through 1 2 .04 .02 .04 1 .09 1 .11 .17
TOTAL .40 .47 .49 1 .55 1 .60 .64
Column and row totals may not add up because of rounding; BOLD numbers are TVUSD's recommended SGF.
According to DMG, the methodology used to calculate the new home Student Generation
Factor in the District's Plan is technically supportable. (The issue discussed on Pages 9
through 1 2 of the DMG Study.) DMG, in their study, also added that a SGF is highly volatile
and is difficult to predict with accuracy over the long-term. City Resolution 95-36 provides
for the periodic review and evaluation of the approved Mitigation Plan and its components.
Facility Cost per Residential Unit
The costs of school facilities for attached and detached residential units are calculated using
the per student facility cost estimates and the Student Generation Factor. The unadjusted
school facility cost proposed by the District was $10,21 0 for detached units and $7,360 for
attached units.
DMG in their analysis determined that the gross, unadjusted, costs for residential units were
a little less than originally described in TVUSD's Mitigation Plan. The actual amounts are
$10,207.11 and $7,357.31 for detached and attached residences, respectively. DMG's
unadjusted per unit costs for providing school facilities are included in the following table.
Net Cost per Residential Unit for New School Facilities
A portion of the cost of providing new schools is from outside funding sources. The major
funding sources are the State School Building Program and General Obligation (GO) bonds.
To accurately reflect the per residence cost for new schools, these credits need to be
calculated and subtracted from the Total Cost described above. The District's Plan identified
that detached units should receive a credit of $698 and attached units should receive a credit
of $501 for State. Building Fund and general obligation credits. DMG reviewed the District's
proposed per unit cost and recommends that an additional $191 for detached units and $138
for attached units will be credited to (deducted from) the total per unit costs.
Since the preparation of the DMG Study, Proposition 203 was approved in the 1 995 election.
As a result, the District has further modified the proposed Plan to provide an additional credit
toward future elementary school construction. This additional credit is $105 for detached
residential units and $76 for attached residential units. The additional credit has been
incorporated into DMG's technically justified school facility mitigation costs described in the
following table.
R:\HOGAND\SCHLPLAN.PCI 7/91% dwh 4
RECOMMENDED PER UNIT SCHOOL FACILITY COST
SchoolType
Elementary Middle High TOTAL
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT $3,341 $2,594 $4,272 $10,207
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT
School Funding Credits ($351) ($211) ($432) ($994)
Net Detached Unit Impact $2,990 $2,383 $3,840 $9,213
ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT $2,398 $2,054 $2,905 $7,357
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT
School Funding Credits ($253) ($167) ($293) ($713)
Net Attached Unit Impact $2,145 $1,887 $2,612 $6,644
Column and row totals may not add up because of rounding.
Future School Bond Fundinci
The final issue is the assumption that no additional outside funding sources will be available
to build new schools. The availability, or lack of future funding, from outside sources is the
second non-technical policy issue that affects the net cost of providing future schools funding.
There is a concern, that because of this school mitigation cap, TVUSD will not aggressively
pursue future funding sources if the fee cap was approved by the City. The validity of this
assumption is challenged by the recent passage of Proposition 203. (According to TVUSD,
an estimated $1 1,000,000 will be available locally to build schools.)
However, the conservative (intentionally underestimated) school facility impact modeling done
by City Staff, which included additional Proposition 203 funds, suggests that the additional
fundswillnoteliminatethesignificantschoolfundingdeficittheDistrictisfacing. According
to the modeling, the passage of Proposition 203 and the fee cap will reduce the cumulative
2006 school construction deficit from $65 million to $37 million. A copy of the results of this
modeling effort-are included in Attachment No. 5.
CONCLUSION
The decision to address the mitigation of the impacts on schools from new development was
made by the City Council in 1993. The recommended per unit fees are considered to be
technicallyjustifiablebyDMG. lfthePlanningCommissionbelievesthatthefeeisappropriate
and reasonable, the Commission should recommend the proposed fee cap to the City Council.
If the City Council approves the fee cap, it would apply only to those projects that receive a
legislative approval after that date. Typical legislative approvals include general plan
amendments, specific plans, zone changes, development and pre-annexation agreements.
Many of the large specific plans that have been recently approved in the County already have
a similar mitigation requirement applied to them.
R:\HOGAND\S@P@.PCI 719/% dwh 5
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Proposed Mitigation Plan was prepared pursuant to, and submitted under, the School
Mitigation Program addressed in implementation Program C.3 of the Growth Management/
Public Facilities Element of the City's adopted General Plan. As a result, the proposed
Mitigation Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed Mitigation Plan does not have the potential to cause an alteration or have a
significant impact on the physical environment. Future specific school projects that may result
from the funds raised under this Plan will undergo the appropriate level of environmental review
when specific sites and designs are known. Therefore, the Community Development Director
has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant
to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Attachments:
1 . Proposed Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan - Blue Page 7
2.Draft PC Resolution No. 96-(next) - Blue Page 8
3.Resolution 95-36 - Page 12
4.DMG's Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitigation Fee - Blue Page 13
5. Results of School Facility Impact Modeling - Blue Page 14
R:@OOLS\S LAN.PM 7/101% vgw 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 95-36
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN-CC1 8/30/96 dwli 1 3
'DVCOLUTION NO. 9S-36
A RESOL'EMON OF TBE CITY COUNC-EL OF THE C=
OF APIYROVING THE SCHOOL FACE=
@ACT NMGATION PROGRAM
Wm i-3tr.AS, @ pap@on growth in ye= in the City of Temecula ("Cityo)
has resulted in Lup in the numbers of stiltientc that the Tem@ Valley Unified
School Dis@ ("D@") is required to educate, and has resdtod in the need to enluge
existing school famlities and cons== new facilities to house the stiltientt in accordance with the
policies of the @ct and s=dards by state law; and
new on school @fles are due y to
residential ilgeg (except senior cif= development); and
, unpacts from co and ind development are I= significant
dm those of residential development and are y offset by the contributions of comm=W
and indus=ial uses toward a strong = base in the City which supports public @ces, including
schools; and
WHF-lRIF,A.q, adequate school @ties arr. a benefit to both new development and the
component of the @'s @ and
, dw State has d that @cing the construction of school
facffities is the of the State of Californ* and
, the State of Calif@ has been unable to adequately fall its obligation
for funding suchadditional.school facilifm and has the =Wnsibffity for
financing of school to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986,.
('School Facilities Law of 1986*), =y estab@ developer mitigation fees for residential,
commercial and ind ilses, and may establish M@Roos Community Facilifm Districts
to provide for school plant facilities fi=cing as auth and limited by ft laws of dw State
of California; and
, the combmatlon of s= school bond monies, school district imposed
developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of @cing have generally been
inadequate to provide for the enlargement and of school plant @ties sufficient
to adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the
State of Calffornia; and
,, school funding sources under current state laws and available funding are
oriented toward the provwon of interim school @ties, and a need @ to fund permanent
K-12 school facilities, including @fm for the education @ of or
disadvantaged students; and
community at L-irge, and are a
systems; and
Rews%95-36
the City, pummnt w the California Enviro==tal ty
@ Act ("CEQAII),
has the authority to @ew development proposals for impacts on School F@f=; and
pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Develg=ent C City of
San Die2o, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988), Vrilliam S., Hart frilh S ' ' ' 'ct v. Regional
Plannint, Comrnissi=, 226 CaL App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta VaIlCy Unified School
District v. Counly of Riversidr. 228 CaL App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facilities
Law of 1986, the City has the auth@ to acts including general plan
amendments, sperific pl-ms and amendments th==, and d=ges of zme, if it finds d= the
impacts an school facilities have not been mi to a @ of @gaifi=ce; and
,, the on of a quality school system to educate the residents of the City
of Temecula is important to the City's @; and
VVELEREAS, the Tem@ Valley U@ School District requested that the City of
Temecula adopt a resolution providing g a program to provide full funding for school
facilities from some Mm of ment; and
w H FRIP-AR, the City Council included languagr- in the Growth Management and Public
Facility Element of the Gen=Z Plan con=ning the mitigation of school @ty impacts; and
, @ Resolution is being adapted at the requ@ of the District which has
agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the City from claims resulting from the adoption,
enforcement, or implemen@ of the Resolution; and
, the P g Co on has considered the Program at its November 7,
1994 meeting and recommends that the Council approve this @lution; and
, notice of the proposed resolution was posted at City Hall, County Lfl)rary,
Rancho Califoniia Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce..
NOW, MMRE, TBE CITY COUNCIL FX)R TBE C= OF CUI[A
DOES RESOLVE, D AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. NEtigation of School Facility Impacts
A. F-xcept as provided below, all development projects and applications that are
submitted to the City of Temecula and that require a GeneW Plan amendment, zone change,
development agreement, pre- on agreement or S Plan approval or amendment.
shall be reviewed for their potential school facility impacts and mitigation of such impacts-
B. No conditions of on a Gcncml Plan amendment, zone change,
development agreement, pre- on ent or S plm approval or ammdment
shall requ= any applicant or developer to provide mitigation in =cm of the amounts
autho@ by Government Code Section 65995, as it now @ or may be amended from time
to time, unless a School District Nfitigation Plan ('hfitiption Plan') has be= prepared by or
on behalf of the District and approved by the City Council.
R@W5-36 2
of the
C. Any following shau be to be adecp,2te mitigation of school
facility impacts with approvals by the City for Plan amendments, Specific
Plans and Specific Plan Amendments, development agreements, pre-annex=on agreements and
zone changes:
1. A lepuy CnfOrceablc IF@ Impact NfitigatiOn Agreement
(-Nfitigatic)n Agreement-) the and developer that specifm the exact nature,
amount, process and conditions of mitigation to be by the applicant/developer or other
appropriate doeu
2. A finding pursuant to CEQA by the City @w body that no
significant lmpa= cm school es shau occur as a result of the development.
Provided @er, @gs may also be made Pum=t to CEQA dw ffic unpacts on school
facilities have be= mitigated to a level of cance.
Section 2. School Fa@ @ct Mitigation
A. Any sr-how Partly Or totally vnthm the C'tY may Prepare and
submit a School F@ Impact Mdgatic)n Plan to the City to 2titiress the impacts on school
within the school submitting the Miti@n Plan.
B.The following development projects @ be exempt from the requirements of an
approved Nfiti@ Plan. These Proje= @ be to pay only the statutory school fees
authorized by Govm=ent Code Section 65995, as it now @ or may be amended from time
to time, or any other amount Previously agreed to by the District and the owner/developer of
the proposed development Project:
1. Residential projects which have been approved by a hearing body (P g
Commission or City Council) prior to the cffectivc date of this Resolution.
2. -Quasi-judicial- land use approvals, including but not @ted to
subdivision maps, use permits, plot plans and variances.
3 . Subsequent approvals for the components of a larger project which has
already met the requirements of this R=Iution (e.g. a tentative tract map within a specific plan
which has :ilreatiy mitigated school @tY impacts).
4. Comm@ or in projects.
5.Senior cif=n housing as defined in Govm=ent Code Section 65995. 1 (a)
6. Any r=dentmi development proposal for wtuch a NfitLgation Agreement
has @y been executed between the @opcr and the @CL
@%95-36 3
facilities whch may result from new tW
City shall review and may consider, at its sole
if the Plan adequately ad the impacts
t projects WW= that dL=Ct. The
oz4 g a proposed Nfitigation Plan
gfrom inc=ses in the number of students
7. Any or all changes of zone needed to makr. dw Of&W City Map
consistent with the Land Use Designations con@ in the City's f= adopted General Plan as
required by Government Code Section 65860, as it now @ or may be amended from time
to time, of the State P 9 and Zo@g Law.
8. Any am= ments to a ely approved land use entitlement (including
a general plan amendment, zme Chang'-'. t, pre-annexation agreement,
c plan approval or amendment) that does not i=rcm the total number of residential
housing units within the area of the entitlement
Section 3. Preparation of School F LnPact tion
A. Tne hfitigation Plan shau contain docun= of the need for any level of
mitigation that exceeds the total of revenue anticipated to be @ved by the District from
Statutory School Fees authorized by Government Code Section 65995, as it now exists or may
be amended from time to time, and any other sources of fimding available to or anticipated by
the District. 'ne Nfitigation Plan shall be adopted by the Distdct Board of Trustees. At a
minimum, all Nfitiption Plan, shall contain the following information:
1.Student @emtion Factors,
a.The District S@t Generation Factor (S GF) shall be based. upon
a household survey. Tne SGF shall include peak t loading for all elementary, middle and
high school grades.
b.The SGF Household Survey shall be based upon and consist of the
following:
(1)A minimum random sample of 250 occupied dwelling units
that were constructed in the g @ years.
(2) A tative sample of the current or anticipated future
characteristics of the community, including consideration for any resort or second home
characteristics of the community.
(3)The survey shall exclude senior cid=n housing.
(4) A representative sample of the housing product @s within
the district (i.e. single family detached, single family attached, or nmlti-fmfly rental properties and
mobile homes).
(5) Tne SGF be based on an assessment of student 'pass
through' from new homes over at least a:five-year period.
C. Distdct and any other in The party may propose additional
survey factors and conditions to be included in the survey. The use of any additional survey
factors and conditions (that could affect the SGF) must be approved by dm @ Council prior
to doing the survey.
@%95-36 4
2.LMical School Land Cost'FactM
a. The Typical School Land Costs Factor be based on the
state's standard cost and shall be based upon a finished and @ved, construction ready school
site, including the on of in
b.Deveiapmem of school ntes shall be based on Califm=
Department of Educatinn standards for i , and acreage.
C. schoolco costs shau be as auth by dm State Office
of Local Assistance (OLA), or as req@ by local and state codes.
. d. All costs for pl-ins, =4 fumitm-e and equipment, and
contingencies shall be in a=ordance with OLA requirements.
3Qptimum Facility Utilimtion
a. This D@ shau demons=m, in the I&tigation Plan, optimum
Utili7nfion of its fneilities.
b. The Mdgafim Plan shau of a year-m=d,
multi-track education program, double school sessions, and al ve t loading progm=.
4 . Bond Issues and Other FundinL, Sources
a. The shau , and provide supporting evidence in the
Nfitigation Plan that the @ct has used, or committed for use, all its availablr- funding sources.
b . Mz Di=ct and provide supporting evidence in the
Nfitigation Plan that the D@ct is p@g state and alternate @ties fi=cing.
C. If the D@ct is not pursuing, or does not anticipate pursuing
alternate financing, it shall @ude an explanation and rationale in the Nfitigation Plan for not
doing so.
d.The Nfitigation Plan @ include considerations of methods of
financing the payment for and construction of School Facffities, to ensure the on of
adequate facilities and to minimize actual costs to future mddents, including the use of developer
loan funds based on an@ted state bond fund @ursement and community @ties divficts.
5 . Cen@ Administration and Su= Facilities and Interim Fam'lities
7be shall have dw ty, through the Mfigatim Plan, to
present an argument j g mitigation for impacts an 2dministration and support facffif= and
interim facilities. 'Tbe justification shall include informatim on g, work loads, and other
data to demons=te that the is using its 2timin e funding in a manner which
max=zes productivity and mmmuzes costs. In additm, if the Da= ele= to present
@k95-36 5
justification, the Nfitigation Plan demo that the mitigation req is proportional
to the impacts directly attributable to new development.
6.Level of SM=rt From New Deveigyment
ne Plan =y for total mitigation of school @ties
impacts that are shown to result from new tial @opments from all potential funding
sources. The Nfiti Plan shall not be used to for mitigation of impacts attributable
to existing deveIC)PMCnL
7.Coordination of Planning Review for School Site Devel2pment.
'Tbe Wtigatim Plan shall include ons for consultations between the
District, the City, and/or the applicant on future school @ty location and site development
plans in order to promote compatibility with City land -use, tion, and other plans, and
coordination on public improvements, including si and @ic control
mechanisms.
B. Tne D== shall sub=t = adopted on Plan to the City for its review and
approval as to whether it conforms to @ requirements and wiR reasonably and equitably
mitigate, in the best interest of ffie City and its @ents, the additional impacts on the District
school facilities. Upon submittal of the @gation Plan to um City the following procedures
shall be followed:
1 . The District shall submit the adopted 3&tiption Plan to the Director of
Planning. 'Tbe submittal shall be accom by the fw to cover the City's Cost
of reviewing the District's Plan.
2. NVithin 30 days following receipt of the District's Nfitigation Plan, the
Director of Planning shall review the plan to determine whether it conforms to the requirements
of this Section. The Planning Dire= shall inform the Building Industry Association for
Riverside County of its receipt of the District's hfitigation plan, and invite them to provide
written comments or objections. After reviewing the hfitigation Plan, the Director shall take
one of the following actions:
a. No@, by written notice to the superintendent of the District, that
the Mitigation Plan conforms to the requirements of this Pmlution. 7be notice @ also
contain the anticipated meeting date for the Planning Com@on's consideration of the
Mitigation Plan.
b. Notify, in @g, dz superintendent of the District that the
District's Mitigation Plan does not conform to the requirements of this Section and describing
the deficiencies that need to be - Any major changes in the District's Nfltigation Plan
must be approved by the District's Board of Trustees.
3. 'Within 60 days following the of Planning's notification of the
completeness of the D@'s Nfitigation plan, the p 9 Commission shall review and
ResoSX95-36 6
of the
t with
an ==ted devel@D@ct
D. The may or the City Council may initi2t#-,. the proceSS of
amending the previously approved Nfitigatim plan at any time. Any a to the Plan
shau follow the approval procedures in this Resolu@.
Section 4.Review of Resitiential Projects
A.For all residential proje=, the Director of Planning @ no@ the District, by
means of writtennotice, as to any proposed development located within said District prior to the
first Development @ew Committee meeting.
1 . The NotLce to the include the following informaticm:
a.The location of the proj@
b.The name of the owner and developer,
C.The number and @ of dwelling units proposed;
d. A site or development plan; and,
e.The date of the DRC meetlng.
2. The Dis=t @ provide written comments on any projea submitted for
their review and comment prior to the date of dz Development @ew Committee meeting.
3. 7be failure of the to a written response to the Director of
ResasWS-36 7
consider the plan to whether it conforms to the requircmc= of ti" S@ and will
reasonably mitig= the impa= of new development on school Mw g the
Nfitigation Plan, the Commission shau recommend that the City Council deny,
condition, or continue the approval of the Distdct's hfitigation Plan.
. . 9
4. Vtrithm 30 days following dw P g I s recomm on
the District's Plan, the City Council shall and the Plan to de
whether it coffm'ms to the of this S@ and win ly and equitably, in the
best interests of the City and its ts, mitizatth the impacts of new development on school
facilities. After 9 the bfitiPEM Plan, the Cotmcil she approve-, deny, condition,
modify, or continue consid of the D@'s Plan.
C. Upon of the City Council, the hfitigation Plan shall th be
regarded as the basis for the by the Di=ict of mn@ attributable to
individual @dential development proposals, and mitigation measures which may be appropriate
to eliminate or reduce to a lwd of..... the impa= attributable to such @dential
development proposals. The City shall not adopt any fin2nci:tl m in
District's recommended development mitigation measme, imics-t it is found to be
the provisions of a @ously approved
agreement, or any @tted by St= law.
Planning shall constitute dm equivalent of 'No CommcnL' In this case, the City will requi=
only the State mandated school impact mitigation fm authorized by G t Code Section
65995, as it now @ or may be amended from time w time.
B. All m"ential development proposals dw do not require a General Plan
amendment, zone change, development agreement, PrL-ann@on agreement, or Specific Plan
approval or amendment by dm City shau be for thmr potential imp= on school
facilitiesaspartaftheTniti2lEnvirommental@pir,ii-ig-c N@ginthisresolution@cts
the ability of the Dirw= of Planning to that an o c=mpt @ project
may have a significant impact on the environment and dw an Environmental Impact Report
should be pr . No mitigation of school impacts beyond dz mitigation identified in State
law will be required for the= projects.
C. All residential development proposals that requ= General Plan amendments,
Specific Plans, S@c Plan amendments, development agreements, pre-annexation agreements,
and changes of zone shall be @ewed for their potential impact on school facilities and the
environment and the mitigation of those impacts in ce with the requirements of State
and Local law.
1. If a School Facility Impact Nflti Agreement is required and an
Agreement has not been submitted, the Director of Planning shall no@ the applicant that the
application is incomplete and that addi@ information (i.e. study or environmental
impact report) is required to :1--ses-, the impacts on and mitigation of the effects of the
development project on the D@ct's school @f=.
2. Within 30 days of submission of an app@on, the Director of P g
shall notify the applicant that either.
a.The proposed development project will not ' have a significant
adverse impact on the District's school facilities or the nment, and t= no additional.
special studies or supplemental mitigation agreement is required.
b. Ile proposed development project will not have a significant
adverse impact on theDistrict's school facilities, but may have an adverse impact on the
environment and that aspecial study or environmental impact report is required.
C. Ile proposed development project could have an adverse impact
on the District's school facilities and that a detailed impact q-.ses--,ment and mitigation study must
be prepared and/or a School Facility Impact Mtigation Agreement must be obtained.
d.Ile proposed development project could have an adverse impact
on the Dis@'s school facilifm and/or the r. and that a special study or an
environmental impact report must be and/or an Impact Nfitigatim Agreement is
required.
e. The proposed development project wiU have an adverse impact on
the District's school facilities and the environment and that a special study or an environmental
\95-36 9
impact report must be
3.If the appu=t and/or developer disagr=s with the Dire=,s
de on of the project's po=tial impact on the environment or the District's school
faciuf=, they may appeal the decision to the P@g within 10 calendar days of
r=6pt of the Director's lie appeal shall be m2ric and Med in accordance with
the requirements of the P 9 Co , ,
4. '%rithin 30 days of @g an appeal of the Dire='s decision, the Director
of Planning shall schedule the appeal for the P@g Commission's consideration.
5. If the apphcant, developer, or with the Planning
Commission's of the project's potmtial impact on the environment or the-District's
school facffities, they may appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days of
receipt of the Commission's detm-mination. Tne appeal @ be made and filed in accordance
with the requirements of the City Clerk.
6.NVithin 30 days of @g an appml of the Planning Commission's
the City C'lcrk shau schedule the appeal for the City Council's c The City Council's
decisions on these shall be @.
D. The evidence of adequate mitigation of any significant adverse impacts on the
District's school facilif= shall be @@ed by a b&tigation AgreemenL The terms of the
Nfitigation Agreement, @ be incorporated by reference in the conditions of CF-QA Appmval,
and on the Conditions of Approval of any S Plan, the Resolution of Approval of any
general plan amendment, and in the terms of any development or @ann@on agre=enl
Section 5.Implen=tation of @ ResoluUon
A.Nothing in this Resolution shall be interpreted as limiting or restricting the ability
of the Directorof Planning, Planning Commission, or Council to require additional information
orstudies on any rmdentlg projects subnutted to the City for approval
B. It is the intent of the Council that this Resolution be in force and effect untu
amended, rescinded, suspended, superseded or until a subsequent resolution or ordinance is
enacted which supersedes this Resolution.
C.This Resolution is adopted at the behest of and for the benefit of the Temecula
Valley Unified School District and other school within the @ts of the City of
Temecula. It is agreed that should any claim, action, challenge, or si@ p g 'be'
instituted against the City for the adoption, @sitim, or on of the school mitigation
requirements under the ons of this Rewlution, shall be the fuU and complete responsibility
of the District. To that end, the District shall ind pro@, defend, and hold harml= the
City against any loss, cost, , cWm, damage, ent, or judgment, resulting from a
lawsuit or any part thereof g to this Rmlution.
@\9S-36 9
D. This Rmlution not become effective imiest and =til the D@c
acknowledges, in writing, and any and all action related to its
obligations as set forth in this Section.
Section 6. CertW=atiomL. Mm City Clerk shau the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPM this llth day of April, 1995.
E.
A=T:
Jun@S iG@ City Cler C
Is@]
STATE OF CAL-EFORNIA)
COUNTY OFI]DE) SS
C= OFCULA
IY CERT7:FY that the foregmng RewlutLon was duly adopted by the City
Council of theCity of Tem@ at a regular meeting thereof, held on the llth day of April,
1995 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES: 3 COLTN ERS: Iindemans, Roberts, Stone
NOF-S: 0 COUN ERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUN ERS: None
ABSTAINED: 2 COUN ERS: Mufioz, Parks
lune S. G Cl@ CMC
Resos%95-36 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
DMG'S REVIEW OF PROPOSED TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 14
Poszj-j."..
L@ -A CT
;,,DE. ER,':,1.4 -995:-,.,
-ZF '7
@idAt-Gri@'&Associat" -Ltd.. (199@)'..
432OAutw@Bl@d.@ui te,2000.,!
-Sa iyito, CA 94841
Review ofproposed MM School impact Afthvation Fees
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
A. Summary of Methodology 4
B. Analysis of Proposed Fees 5
I. Facility Cost 5
2. School Capacity 7
3.Students per Dwelling Unit (Student
Generation Factors) 9
4. Funds Available from Other Sources 12
C. Recommendations 14
1 - Technical Corrections 14
2. Policy Issues 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. ]Facility Costs 6
Table 2. OPSC Standards - Square Footace per Student 7
Table 3. School Capacity 8
Table 4. Student Generation Factors for New-Single
Family Detached Dwelling Units 10
Table 5. Student Generation Factors for New Single
Family Attached Dwelling Units 10
Table 6. Current Student Generation Factors 11
Table 7. Recalculated Nfitigation Fees Using Corrected
Student Space Allocation 15
Appendix A
Table A- I Breakdown of School Development Costs A-1
Table A-2 Recalculation of Mtigation Fees A-2
December 14, 1995 David M Griffith &Associates Page i
Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mitijzation Fees
EXECUY:F VE SUMMARY
David U Griffith & Associates (DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review mitiga-
tion fees proposed in the Temecula Valley Unified School District Impact Nfitigation Plan. Our
review focused on four factors that- affect the outcome of the fee calculations: (1) facility cost, (2)
facility capacity, (3) student generation factors, and (4) availability of funds from other sources.
Each of those fi=ors is ed in detail to determine whether the methodology, data, and as-
sumptions used in the fee calculations can be supported. Our conclusions regarding each of those
factors is summarized below. In addition, this summary and the body of the report identify impor-
tant policy issues. Those issues cannot be resolved on technical izrounds, but they affect the
amount of the mitigation fees in a major way and should be considered by the Citv Council in
evaluating the proposed fees.
1. Facility Cost Our review of facility cost estimates used by TVUSD in the calculation of miti-
gation fees shows that they are consistent with facflity costs standards used by the State Alloca-
tion Board (SAB) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) for approval of state
school construction funding.
2. Facility Capacity. Our review of facility capacity figures used by TVUSD to calculate @ti-
gation fees shows that, for elementary and middle schools, square footage per student exceeds
OPSC guidelines. The effect is that school capacity is understated and cost per student is over-
stated. To correct for the TVUSD's use of facility capacity figures that exceed OPSC guidelines,
DMG has recalculated the mitigation fees for elementary and middle schools using OPSC ap-
proved square footage per student. The recalculated fees, as shown in Table 7 of the report, are
lower than the proposed TVUSD fees by $675 for Single-Family Detached dwelling units and
$519 for Single-Family Attached dwelling units. Those figures do not reflect any adjustment for
possible policy decisions with respect to student generation factors or future availability of state
school construction funds.
Deceniber 14,1995 David.,%d. Griffith &Associates Page I
Revie,w ofprqposed 7TVSD School Imyact Afitivation Fees
3. Student Generation Factors. Our review of student generation factors (SGFS) used to calcu-
late TVUSD's proposed mitigation fees shows that the methods used to derive them are techni-
cauy supportable. We note, however, that the projected SGFs would be valid only for the
projection period, and may vary in either direction thereafter. Furthermore, the choice of peak
year- factors as the basis for mitigation fees is a policy choice that is not dictated by the technical
analysis. In addition, a recent District analysis of current student generation factors (November,
1995) supports the projected factors for detached dwellings in the mitigation plan, but indicates
that projected factors for attached dwellings (and resulting fees) may be as much as @5% too hiszh.
4. Funds Availablefrom Other Source-L Our review shows that the calculation of proposed
mitigation fees reflects a credit for the District's currently authorized bonding capacity and com-
mitted state school construction funding. Some other possible sources of fundiniz for future
school construction were discussed in the mitigation plan and assumed to have no potential for
funding of future TVUSD school facilities. For the most part we concur. However, the assurr
tion that no state school construction funds will be available for any future TVUSD schools seems
very pessimistic, despite the fact that the most recent statewide school bond issue was rejected by
the voters. Since there is no technical basis for estimating the availability of future funding from
this source, any allowance for such funding must be based on a policy judgment.
5. Summary of Key Policy Issue-t
As indicated previously, some of the factors bearing on the amount of the proposed mitigation
fees cannot be evaluated technically. We recommend that the City Council carefully consider the
following policy issues when evaluating the mitigation fees:
Student Generation Factors. -Projected student generation factors for attached
units, as shown in the mitigation plan, are high compared with recently obtained data
on current rates. In addition, the factors for both detached and attached dwellings can
be expected to change over time in ways that cannot be predicted with confidence.
a result, some policy judgment must be applied to the choice of these factors. A
detailed discussion of the factors is contained in the attached report.
December 14, 1995 DavidM. Griffith &.4ssociares Page 2
Review ofprovosed @D School Impact Afitieation Fees
Future School Bond Funds. The mitilation fees assume that no state or local school
bond funds will be available for any future TVUSD school construction. Neither the
District nor the City can know how voters will respond to future proposals for school
bond issues, but the assumption used in the mitigation plan is very pessimistic and
should be evaluated by the City Council.
AV
December.14,1995 DavidM. Griffith &.Associates Page 3
Review of Proposed 7TVSD School impact Miligation.Fees
REVIEW OF PROPOSED
TVUSD SCHOOL IMPACT
MITIGATION FEES
David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) was engaged by the City of Temecula to review school
mitigation fees proposed by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). This report
summarizes the approach used to establish those fees, and evaluates key data and assumptions
which influence the outcome of the calculations. DMG's review is based on the Residential De-
velopment Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan (April 22, 1994) by David Taussig and Associates.
That plan incorporates student generation factors projected by School Planning Services and facil-
ity cost estimates prepared by the TVUSD Facilities Development Department.
A. SU Y OF MMT'HODOLOGY
The proposed mitigation fees are intended to represent an averaze cost per dwelling unit (DU)
for school Facilities required to accommodate students residing in new developments. The mitiga-
tion plan calculates fees for two categories of residential development (sinp-le-family detached and
single-family attached), and three types of school facilities (elementary [K-5], middle [6-8], and
high [9-12] schools). Student generation factors vary by development category, and costs vary by
facility type, so fees are computed separately for each of the six combinations of development
categories and facility types.
It is important to note that the fee calculation method used in the Impact Mitigation Plan is not
dependent on the amount of development projected for a particular period of time. Development
projections are used by TVUSD to schedule facility construction, but do not affect the calculation
of the proposed mitigation fees. It should also be noted that a considerable amount of future de-
velopment in Temecula will occur in vested subdivisions which would not be subject to any new
mitigation fee.
December 14, 1995 DavidjVI. Griffith &.4.zociates Page 4
Revie,w ofpmyosed 7TWD School Inivact Mitteation Fees
The fee calculation method can be broken down into three steps, as shown in the following for-
mulas. The result from each of the first two steps is used in the subsequent step.
(1)Facility Cost @ Facility Capacity = Cost per Student
(2)Cost per Student x Students per DU = Cost per DU
(3) Cost per DU - Credits for Other Funds = Fee per DU
Four variables are used in these formulas: (1) facility cost; (2) facility capacity- (3) students per
I
dwelling unit (a.k.a. student generation factor); and, (4) funds available from other sources. The
value inserted for each of these variables affects the result of the fee calculation. Those effects
will be addressed in the following section.
B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FEES
The methodology, data and assumptions used at each stage of the fee calculations are evaluated
below.
I. Facility Cost. Facility costs used in calculating the school mitigation fees are based on
TVUSD estimates for prototype elementary, middle, and high schools. Those estimates are
shown in attachments to the Impact Nfitigation Plan and are summarized in Table I on the follow-
ing page.
The State Allocation Board (SAB) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) evaluate
school development costs for purposes of allocating state school construction funds, and OPSC
has developed square foot cost standards for school construction. Application of those standards
requires a project-specific breakdown of building area by function, and a detailed analysis of site
development costs. Since that type of review is not possible for hypothetical future projects, the
best available yardstick for evaluating facility cost estimates in the Impact NEtigation Plan is the
cost of similar TVUSD projects approved by OPSC.
December 14, 1995 DavidM. Griffith& Associates Page i
Review of Proposed TVUSD School Impact Mittization Fees
Table I
Facility Costs
Cost Elementary Middle High
Component School School School
Site Acquisition ' 1,087,9632 2,175,926' 4,895,8334
Plans/Compliance . 470,8-31 641,114 1,487,007
Construction 5,347,069 9,700,000 27,000,000
Testin@ection 15-),779 247,200 680,000
Fumiture/Equipment 272,155 586,710 1,712,916
Contingency 104,047 218,247 0
Totals $7,525,844 $13,569,197 $35,785,756
Total Square Footage 45,394 79,500 198,945
Total Cost/Sq.Ft. (TVUSD) $165.79 $170.68 $179.88
Total Cost/Sq. Ft. (OPSC) sigo.50 s $186.026 $192.336
Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. (TVUSD) $119.78 $122.01 $135.72
iconstruction Cost/Sq. Ft. (OPSC) $119-505 $121,896 $135.536
Source: TVUSD Impact Ntiption Plan and SAB-approved project budgets.
I F-stunated site cost = S 109,7%.30 per aae.
2Assumes I @ site. 3 es site. Assumes 4@cre
Includes I 0% escalation from 1990 construction cost of S 108.64 and total cost of S 1 73.2 1.
6B@ on SAB ammved b@cts for ==I @SD projects.
TVUSD has provided DMG with detailed breakdowns of SAB approved project budgets for three
school projects: Redhawk Elementary School (1990), Vail Ranch Nfiddle School (1993), and
Chapparal I-ligh School (1994). In Table 1, the average construction cost per square foot for
those projects is compared with the costs used to calculate proposed mitigation fees. Because the
costs for Redhawk Elementary School go back to 1990, we have escalated them by 10%, the in-
crease in the OPSC cost index since that year. It should be noted that the cost figures shown in
Table I for Vail Ranch Mddle School and Chaparral High School are based on the SAB ap-
proved budget and do not include additional costs funded by TVUSD. Those additional costs in-
creased the project budgets by about I.-'i% for Vail Ranch and about 4.5% for Chaparral.
As shown by the comparisons in Table 1, square foot construction costs used to calculate the
mitigation fees are very close to the OPSC approved costs for similar projects, and total cost per
December 14, 1995 DavidVf Griffith &.4ssocjaies Page 6
Review of Proposed 7TVSD School Impact Afiti_vation Fees
square foot is lower than for the OPSC approved projects. One reason for the lower total cost is
a lower cost for land.
our conclusion based on this review of the facility cost estimates is that TVUSD has used reason-
able costs to calculate the mitigation fees.
2. School Capacity. For purposes of calculating mitigation fees, TVUSD has estimated the ca-
pacity of each prototype facility (elementary, middle and high school) in terms total students ac-
commodated. The Impact Mtigation Plan states that TVUSD meets standards set by OLA (now
OPSC) for student loadin& in terms of class size and maximum square footage per student.
The OPSC square footage per student standards, as shown in Table 1, are for a normal, nine-
month school calendar. Since the mitigation plan assumes that all new elementary and middle
schools will be on a year round schedule, the allocation of space per student must be adjusted to
reflect the fact that a year round schedule allows more students to be accommodated in a given
A amount of space.
Table 2
OPSC Standards - Square Footage per Student
Elementary Jr. High Middle High
Component School (K-6) School (7-8) School (6-8) School
Base Allowance 55 Sq. Ft. 75 Sq. Ft.
Increase for new schools 4 Sq. Ft. 5 Sq. Ft.
Increase for 30% portables 3 Sq. Ft. ) Sq. Ft.
Totals 1 62 Sq. Ft. 83 Sq. Ft.
Sou=:TVUSD and the Office of Public School Consuuction
68 Sq. Ft. 86 Sq. Ft.
5 Sq. Ft. 6 Sq. Ft.
3 Sq. Ft. 3 Sq. Ft.
76 Sq. Ft. 95 Sq. FL
kkddle school equ2ls 1/3 k-6 grade s=dard plus 213 7-8 gmde smndard.
2 legh school standard as shown is for toW of 2 1 00 @ts.
Changing from a nine-month schedule to a year round schedule can theoretically increase the ca-
pacity of a school by 33%. However, OPSC assumes that a 201/o increase is realistic. TVUSD
used a 25% increase in the mitigation plan. Table 3 shows the capacities of the TVUSD
Decepnber 14, 1995 DavidAI. Grfftth &.Associates Page 7
Review ofproposed 7TVSD School ItripactMitieation Fees
prototype schools for both nine-month and year round schedules, using the OPSC space alloca-
tion standards. The table also shows the capacities as presented in the niiti2ation plan.
Table 3
School Capacity
Elementary Middle High
School (K-6) School (6-8) School
Square Feet - TVUSD Prototype School 45,394 Sq Ft 79,500 Sq Ft 198,945 Sq Ft
OPSC Standard
Square Feet per Student (9 Mo. Sched) 62.0 Sq Ft 76.0 Sq Ft 95.0 Sq Ft
Capacity of Prototype School (9 Mo. Sched) 7' )2 Students 1,046 Students 2,094 Students
Capacity of Prototype School (Year Round)' 878 Students 1,255 Students N/A
Square Feet per Student (Year Round) 51.7 Sq Ft 6' ).4 Sq Ft N/A
TVUSD Mitigation Plan
Square Feet per Student (9 Mo. Sched) 68.8 Sq Ft 9-'I.5 Sq Ft 94.7 Sq Ft
% of OPSC Standard (9 Mo. Sched) 111% 12@)% 100%
Capacity of Prototype School (9 Mo. Sched) 660 Students 850 Students 2,100 Students
Capacity of Prototype School (Year Round)2 825 Students 1,06@@ Students N/A
Square Feet per Student (Year Round) 55.0 Sq Ft 75.4 Sq Ft N/A
% of OPSC Standard (Year Round) 106%1 119% N/A
Year round adjustment based on a 20% increase. 2Yew round adjustment @d on a 25% in@.
It is clear from Table 3 that the facility capacities used by TVUSD to calculate the mitigation fees
for elementary and middle schools are based on a per-student space allocation significantly higher
(I 1% for elementary schools and 23% for middle schools) than the OPSC standard. That overal-
location is offset to a degree by the District's use of a 25% increase rather than a 20% increase in
capacity for year round scheduling. However, after accounting for that offset, the mitigation fees
reflect an allocation of 6% more elementary school space per student and 19% more middle
school space per student than the OPSC standards would allow. The cost per student would in-
crease proportionately. TVUSD has expwned that its capacity estimates were based on students
per classroom rather than a square footage allocation, and were based on the District's anticipated
space needs for successfw first implementation of the multi-track, year round program which be-
gan in July 1994.
December 14, 1995 DavidM Griffith &.Associates Page 8
Review ofproposed TnrSD School Imv,7cr MilirahonFees
our conclusion regarding school capacitv estimates is that the mitintion ffts are based on Iguue
footage 12er student space allocations that exceed OPSC guidelines. The effect is to undm=te
ol caraciiy and overstate the cost Rer student. Later in this rerort, the fees are recalculated
using the OPSC coa@ Guidelines.
3. Studentsper Dwelling Unit (Student Generadon Factors). In order to forecast the number
of students that will be produced by anticipated development in the District, TVUSD engaged
School Planning Services to establish the student generation factors which are used in the impact
Mtigation Plan. A student generation factor (SGF) represents the number of students at a par-
ticular grade level produced by one dwelling unit of a particular type. The SGFs used to calculate
TVUSD school mitigation fees were estimated for two types of residential development- s' pje-
in -
farnfly detached and single-family attached-and for the elementary, middle and high school levels.
Those SGFs are based on a telephone survey of households in the District. The survey was
ited to residents of dwellings constructed in the three years prior to the survey. The intent of that
limitation was to isolate the impact of new housing on the TVUSD student population. The sur-
vey identified the number and ages of pre-school and school-age children living in the surveyed
households. The District staff reports that children attending private schools were not included.
Using information from the survey, the average number of students per dwelling, in each age
group, was determined for the detached and attached development types. By projecting the aging
of those children over a five year period, School Planning Services forecasted the number of chil-
dren per dwelling urut at the elementary, middle and high school grade levels for each of those
years. Tables 4 and 5 show the projected student generation factors for each year, for the two
types of residential development.
The student generation factors used to calculate the fees in the Impact Mtigation Plan are those
for Year 6-the peak year for total students, and for two of the three grade levels. The K-5 factor
for detached units peaks in Year 2, and declines sharply thereafter. Peak values and the mean fac-
tor for each grade level in the tables have been added by DMG.
December 14, 1995
DavidAf Griffith &.Associates
Page 9
Review ofprovosed 7TVSD School lifidact Mil@eation Fees
Table 4
Student Generation Factors for New Single Family Detached Dwelling Units
Grade Survey YearJ Year Year Year Year Peak
Level Year 2 3 4 5 6 Values Mean
Pre-K 0.'@3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
K-5 0.44 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.41 0.39 0.48 0.44
6-8 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.20- 0.22 0.24 .0.24 0.21
9-12 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20
0.74 0.84 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.85
Source: School Pla=ing S@ices, 1994. Peak- values and mean afiied bv DMG.
The method used to develop these factors appears technically supportable. DMG has not re-
viewed the actual survey data, but assuming that the survey year values accurately reflect the sur-
vey results, the projections appear mathematically correct. Of course, that does not necessarily
mean that those projections accurately reflect the real world situation.
Table 5
Student Generation Factors for New Sin- e Family Attached Dwelling Units
ei
Grade Survey Year Year Year Year Year
Level Year 2 3 4 5 6 Peak Mean
Pre-K 0.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
K-5 0.28 0.34 0."32 O.'@4 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.31
6-8 0.09 0.11 0. 1.@) 0. Ili 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.14
9-12 1 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.17 1 0.17 1 O..08
tals 1 0.40 0.47 0.49 _0.55 0.60 0.64 1 0.70 O@
Source: School Planning Services, 1994. Peak- values aiid me= added b%, DMG.
One usefw way to evaluate the projected student generation factors from the Nfitigation Plan
would be to compare them with the number of students actually generated by existing dwellings.
Unfortunately, the required information is hard to come by. Student enrollment is tracked for th@
entire District, but dwelling unit counts are not. Conversely, dwelling unit counts are available for
December 14, 199S Daviditf. Griffilh &.4ssociaies Page 10
Review ofprovosed 77,T,SD School ItyiDact Afitiq,7tion FL-es
the City, but TVUSD enrollment figures do not distinguish consistently between City residents
and residents of unincorporated portions of the District.
However, TVUSD recently completed estimates of current student generation factors based on
November, 1995 enrollment and a count of current dwelling units from aerial photos. The dwell-
in_g unit count was performed by the District staff, and covered only the urbanized portion of the
District. The Temecula Planning Department has indicated that the dwelling unit counts seem
consistent with other available information. Below, the current student generation factors are
compared with projected factors from the Mtigation Plan. The Year 2 (1995) projections from
the NEtigation Plan would be most comparable with the District's current SGF estimates. The
Year 6 (1999) projections were used to calculate mitigation fees.
Table 6
Current Student Generation Factors
Unit Student Generation
Type Factors K-5 6-8 9-12 Total
Detached Actual (November, 1995) 0.41 0.20 0.'72 0.83
Projected Year 2 (1995) 0.48 0.18 0.18 0.84
Projected Year 6 (1999) 0.@)9 0.24 0.25 0.88
Attached Actual (November, 1995) 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.38
Projected Year 2 (1995) 0.'@4 0.11 0.02 0.47
'Projected Year 6 (19 0.29 0.19 0.17 0.64
Soume: TVUSD
The actual 1995 factors for detached units are reasonably close to 1995 projections--lower in K-5
and higher for the other grade levels, but almost identical overall. For attached units, though, the
projected 1995 factors are significantly (24%) higher overall than the actual factors. Of course,
the number of attached units is much smaller than the number of detached units so the projections
may have suffered from a small sample size in the survey. Changes in the SGF used to calculate
mitigation fees will result in directly proportional changes in the fees. In other words, if the SGF
is reduced by IO%, the fees would be reduced by IO%.
December 14, 1995 Davidjil. Griffith &.Associates Page II
Review ofproposed TVLISD School Impact Afltlgation Fees
Another important consideration is that student generation factors change significantly during the
projection period, and may continue to change in either direction thereafter. It does seems clear
from the numbers in Tables 4 and 5 that, as the younger children in the survey sample progress
through successive grade levels, the factors for middle and high school students will decline alain,
at least for single-famhy detached dwellings, which make up the bulk of households in the Dis-
tnct. The data from the survey do not offer any clue as to longer term trends that depend on
numbers of children not yet bom at the time of the survey. Thus, the choice of factors to be used
as the basis for mitigation fees depends on interpretation and judgment. LJltimately that choice
depends on a policy decision.
To improve the accuracy of student generation factors in the future, we recommend that the City
ask TVUSD to keep student enrollment data in a manner that allows for easier identification of
City residents and facilitates computerized address matching. Those changes would provide a
better basis for evaluating the impacts of development, and making future policy decisions with
respect to developer funding of school facilities.
Our conclusion regarding student Lyeneration factors is that the survey results are valid o@v for
the projection Reriod, and indicate that SGFs for middle and hiLTh school mav decline after a few
years. TVUSD estimates of current student generation rates indicate that the factors for used in
the mitigation Rlan for attached units may be too high bv a significant margin- Use of Reak vear
factors to proiect facilitv needs is not the oniv reasonable policv choice. In the future, it would be
desirable for the District to keep enrollment records in a form that would allow easier analysis of
the impacts of new development.
4. Funds Availablefrom Other Sources. The Impact Mitication Plan discusses other funding
sources for school development, and applies credits to the mitigation fees for funds available from
certain sources-specificafly, the state school building program and TVUSD general obligation
bonds approved by voters in 1989. Fund sources which appear to have potential to provide new
money for school development by TVUSD are discussed below.
December 14, 1995 DavidM. Griffith &.Associates Page 12
Review ofproposed TV= School ligpact AritigationFees
a St uildiniz Proum. The mitigation plan assumes that no additional funds will be
available from this source for any Facilities that have not already been funded. Unexpended funds
approved for TVUSD from the State School Building Program amount to S25.4 affion, of which
approximately S20 million will benefit future development. Roughly $8.5 million of that amount
was credited the City's mitigation fees. The remainder was credited to the County portion
of the District. That split is based on projections of total numbers of future students to be izener-
ated in the City, as opposed to currently unincorporated areas. The time frame and method used
to forecast the number of students generated in the City and County portions of the District are
not clear from the Mtigation Plan.
b. General Obligation Bonds. Of $65 million in authorized G.O. bond funding, $31.2 million has
been expended and $33.8 million remains to be issued. According to TVUSD, all bonds that can
be supported by the current assessed valuation in the District have been, or soon will be, issued.
The remaining authorization reflects future increases in assessed valuation which are expected to
result from additional development. Of the S'3 3.8 million, approximately 5 14 million, or 4 1 %, is
credited against the City's mitigation fees. As with the State school construction funds, the re-
mainder was credited to the County portion of the District based on projections of total numbers
of future students to be generated in the City, as opposed to currently unincorporated areas.
c. Redevelopment Pass-through, TVUSD currently receives approximately $460,000 per year in
redevelopment pass-through funds. The amount that will be available in the future is uncertain for
a number of reasons. The District has established a policy of using redevelopment funds for ad-
ministrative and support facilities, and indicates that cur-rent revenue from this source is fully com-
@tted to repay bonds issued to construct a maintenance, operations and transportation facility.
The mitigation fees do not include the cost of such facilities, nor do they reflect any credit for re-
development funds.
d. School ImRact Fees. TVUSD is authorized by statute to levy school impact fees. Fees on
residential development (Sl.72/Sq. Ft) would be treated as an offset to the proposed @tigation
fees, so there is no need to credit them in the fee calculations. However, school impact fees
December 14.1995 DavidM. Grffith &.Associates Page 13
Review of PrODosed 7TVSD School Ityipact Afir@eation Fees
imposed on commercial and industrial development (SO.28/Sq. Ft.) do represent another source of
funding for school development which is not addressed in the Impact Mtigation Plan. According
to the TVUSD @ only about S",OOO in commerciavindu@ school impact fees has been col-
lected during the current @ year, and the amount typically does not exceed $I 00,000 for an
entire year. As long as the amounts are in that range, they would not be significant relative to the
proposed mitigation fees. In addition, the District argues that work-related transfers of children
from other Districts into TVUSD schools justifies excluding that revenue from the mitigation fee
anaivsis. At present, 177 of the District's 1 1,400 students are on work-related transfers. The
number of students transferring out of the District at present is 28.
Our conclusion reizarding the District's assumptions on future availability of other funds is that
thev are generally supportable, except for the assumption that no state school construction funds
or local bond monev will be available for anv future TVUSD facilities. That assumption seems
quite Ressimistic. Adminedly, the District has no basis for estimating when, or to what extent
such funding milht be available, but the Citv Council should consider that validitv of this 12olicv
judmnent.
C. RECOMMMNDATIONS
In the foregoing analysis, we have recommended one techn@cal correction in the calculation of
TVUSD's proposed mitigation fees. We have also pointed out some important policy questions
that cannot be resolved on technical grounds, but which should be considered by the City.
1. Technical Correctiotm The proposed mitigation fees are based on per-student space alloca-
tions that exceed OPSC standards. D@ has-recalculated the mitigation fees usin OPSC ap-
proved space allocations. Table 7, on the following page, shows the corrected mitigation fees, and
compares them with the fees proposed in the mitigation plan. Details of the recalculation are in-
cluded in Appendix A. The recalculation reduces the fee for detached dwellings by $675. It aisr
reduces the fee for attached units by $519. In both cases that represents a reduction of about 7%.
December 14, 1995 David M. Griffith &Associates Page 14
Review ofprovosed 7TVSD School Impact Mitjration Fees
Table 7
Recalculated Mitigation Fees Using Corrected Student Space Allocation
Fee Element2ry Middle High
Type School School School Total
Sin.ale-family Detached
Fees from Nfitigation Plan $2,85i S@),828 S9,993
Fees Recalculated b DMG S3,09.5 S2.383 S3,840 S9,318
Single-Family Attached
Fees from Mtigation Plan S 2,--) 7 7 $2,'-)59 $1-1603 S7,239
Fees Recalculated by DMG S2,221 SI,887 S2,612 S6,720
See Table 9, TVUSD Impact Nfitiption Plan
Z Policy Issu@ As indicated in our analysis, certain assumptions used in calculating the pro-
posed mitigation fees are open to question. We recommend that the City Council carefully con-
'der the following policy issues when evaluating the mitigation fees:
si
Student Generation Factors. Projected student generation factors for attached
units, as shown in the mitigation p@ are hieh compared with recently obtained data
on current rates. In addition, the factors for both detached and attached dwellings can
be expected to change over time in ways that cannot be predicted with confidence. As
a result, some policy judgment must be applied to the choice of these factors. A
detailed discussion of the factors is contained in the attached report.
Future School Bond Funds. The mitigation fees assume that no state or local school
bond funds will be available for any future TVUSD school construction. Neither the
District nor the City can know how voters oil] respond to future proposals for school
bond issues, but the assumption used in the mitigation plan is very pessimistic and
should be evaluated by the City Council.
Deceniber 14, 1995 Davidtf. Griffilh &-.Associates Page 15
APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDO(A
Table A-1. Bmakdown of TVUSD School Development Costs
ACTUAL COSTS (SA@ KPPROVED BUDGET)
Redhawk E.S. (I 990) Vail Ranch M.S. (1993) Chapparal H.S. (1994)
Site Acres 11.95 Site Acres 21.62 Site Acres 50.00
Bldg So Ft 43,600 Bldq So Ft 77,437 Bido So Ft 196,490
units Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost
A. Site Acres $ 1,945,000 $ 162,762 $3,223,500 $149,098 $ 7,505,200 $150,104
S. Plans Sq Ft $ 410,820 $9.42 $675,651 $8.73 $1,489,830 $7.58
C. Construction [1] Sq Ft $ 4,736,626 $108.64 $9,439,110 $121.89 $26,630,004 $135.53
D. Tests Sq Ft $79,900 $1.83 $134,274 $1.73 $410,907 $2.09
E. Inspection Sq Ft $72,000 $1.65 $100,850 $1.30 $264,811 $1.35
F. Fumiture/Equipm Sq Ft $ 258,396 $5.93 $620,913 $8.02 $935,794 $4.76
Subtotal A. thru F Sq Ft $ 7,502,742 $172.08 $14,194,298 $183.30 $37,236,546 $189.51
G. Contingencies Sq Ft $49,206 $1.13 $210,186 $2.71 $553,921 $2.82
Tc-;31 r2l So Ft $ 7.551,948 $173.21 1 $14,404,494 $186.02 1 $37,790,467$192.33
[1) lnci@ separate fummg for s@l oducabon ms (Vail Ranch and Chamrral)
121 Does not include D@ funded @@ in excess of stat@roved @ budget for 50/W match.
PROJECTED COSTS FROM MITIGATION PLAN
Elementary School Middle School High School
Site Acres 10.00 Site Acres 20.00 Site Acres 45.00
Bldg So Ft 45,394 Bldq So Ft 79,500 Bido So Ft 198,945
Item Units Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost Cost Unit Cost
A. Site Acres $ 1,087,963 $ 108,796 $2,175,926 $108,796 S 4,895,834 $108,796
B. Plans Sq Ft $ 470,831 $10.37 $641,114 $8.06 $ 1,497,007 $7.52
C. Construction Sq Ft $ 5,437,069 $119.78 $9,700,000 $122.01 $27,000,000 $135.72
D. Tests Sq Ft $81,343 $1.79 $142,800 $1.80 $421,000 $2.12
E. Inspection Sq Ft $72,436 $1.60 $104,400 $1.31 $259,000 $1.30
F. Fumiture/Equipm Sq Ft $ 272,155 $6.00 $586,710 $7.38 $ 1,712,916 $8.61
Subtotal A. thru F. Sq Ft $ 7,421,797 $163.50 $13,350,950 $167.94 $35,785,757 $179.88
G. Contingencies Sq Ft $ 104,047 $2.29 $218,247 $2.75 $ $ -
Total Sq Ft $ 7,525,8" $165.79 $13,569,197 $170.68 $35,785,757 $ .179.88
Page A-1
APPENDIXA
Table A-2. RECALCULATION OF MITIGATION FEES
Mitigation Fees Based on Actual Costs
Facility Costs K-5 64 9-12 Totals
Facility -cost per Square Foot [1 ) $173.21 $186.02 $192.33
Square Feet per Student (Noffnal Schedule) 62.00 76.00 95.00
Adjustment. for Year Round Schedule 20% 20% N/A
Adjusted Square Feet per Student (Sq. Ft. / 1.2) 51.67 63.33 95.00
Facility Cost per Student 1$8.949.17 $11.780.981 $18-271.13
mitigation Fee - Single Family Detached (SFD) K-5 64 1 9-12 Totals
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFD) 0.39 0.24 0.25 o.i8-
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $3,490.18 S 2,827.44 $4,567.78 $ 10,885.40
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $246.00 $211.00 $432.00 $889.00
Net Mitioation Fee per Dwellinq Unit 1 $ 3.2". 1 8 S 2,616." $4,135.78 $9,996.40
Mitigation Fee - Single Family Attached (SFA) K-5 6-8 9-12 Totals
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFA) 0.28 0.19 0.17 o.R-
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $2,505.77 $ 2,238.39 $3,106.09 37,850.25
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $177.00 $167.00 $293.00 $637.00
Net Mitigation Fee per Dwellinq Unit S 2.328.77 1 S 2.071.39 1 $2,813.09 $ 7,213.25
Mitigation Fees Based on Pr:)jected Costs from Mitiqation Plan
Facility Costs K-5 6-8 9-12 Totals-
Facility Cost per Square Foot [1] $165.79 $ 170.68 $179.88
Square Feet per Student (Normal Schedule) 62.00 76.00 95.00
Adjustment for Year Round Schedule 20% 20% N/A
Adjusted Square Feet per Student (Sq. Ft. / 1.2) 51.67 63.33 95.00
Facility Cost Per Student $8,565.79 $10.809.84 $17.088.38
Mitigation Fee - Single Family Detached (SFD) K-5 64 9-12 Totals
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFD) 0.39 0.24 0.25 0.88
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $3,340.66 $2,594.36 $ 4,27@.09 $ 10,207.11
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFD) $246.00 $211.00 $432.00 $889.00
i Net Mitiqation Fee per Dwellina Unit $3,094.66 $2,383.36 $'3,840.09 $9,318.11
Mitigation Fee --Single Family Attached (SFA) K-6 6-8 9-12 Totals
Students per Dwelling Unit (SFA) 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.64
Facility Cost per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $2,398.42 $2,053.87 $2,905.02 $7,357.31
Other Funds Credit per Dwelling Unit (SFA) $177.00 $167.00 293.00 $637.00
I Net Mitioation Fee Per Dwellinq Unit $2,221.42 1 $1,886.87 $ $2,612.02 $6,720.31
Ill See Table A-1.
Page A-2
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
RESULTS OF SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING
R:\SCHOOLS\SCHLPLAN.CC1 8/30/96 dwh 1 5
'LDRSULTS OF
SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT MODELING
April 3, 1996
Prepared by:
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
R:ILSCHOOLSXLMODEL.MMO 4/3/96 dwh
PLTRPOSE:
The purpose of this Report is to document the City of Temecula's School Facility Impact Model.
The model was developed by City Staff as a diagnostic tool to evaluate the overall impacts of
residential development on school facilities within the Temecula Valley Unif-ied School District
(TVUSD). The model is a districtwide simulation; it is not based upon, nor intended to predict,
specific developments or their impacts on school facilities.
HOW THE MODEL WORKS:
The model evaluates the demand for new school funding based upon new home construction.
In summary, the model works like this:
0A predetermined number of new homes is added to the existing housing stock each year
and school enrollment for the year is calculated;
cThe total enrollment is compared to the number of existing schools and the need for
additional schools is determined;
0If the model decides that a new school is necessary, it also identifies the need for
funding to build the new facility several years before it is needed;
0Any school impact fees to be received are calculated using the number new homes built
during the year; and,
0A cumulative balance is kept of the difference between school construction funding needs
and available resources.
MODEL ASS ONS:
For any simulation or modeling of reality, certain assumptions must be made. One of the
fundamental assumption of this model is that intentionally underestimates the costs to the District
to provide new schools. Listed below are the other major assumptions upon which the model
is based.
I .The Student Generation Factor (SGF) in the model is based upon average dwelling units
and current enrollment. As a result, the modeled SGF is less than the District's
projected future Student Generation Factor.
2.Moderate-to-high levels of school overcrowding (districtwide) are assumed. The
following school overcrowding rates are assumed:
025 percent over enrollment per high school facility;
020 percent over enrollment per middle school facility; and,
015 percent over enrollment per elemen@ school facility.
R:\SCHOOLS\IMODEL.MMO 4/31% @
3.The school capacity for all middle and elementary schools is calculated assuming that
some schools will be one track and others will be on four-tracks. Future capacity is
assumed to be the midpoint between the one-track and four-track capacities. AU high
schools are single track facilities.
4.The cost of providing the portable facilities needed to support the assumed levels of
overcrowding are not included in the model.
5.No future increases in the costs of site acquisition, materials, or labor are assumed.
6.Future construction costs are based upon the District's proposed Mitigation Plan and the
City's independent evaluation.
7.The model assumes that needed construction funding must be available before facility
construction can begin. According to the District, the design and construction period for
a high school is three years, and the design and construction period for middle and
elementary schools is two years.
8.If approved by mid 1996, higher school fees will not be collected until the sixth year.
In year 6, it is assumed that 25 % of all school fees collected will be the higher fee. In
years 7 through IO, the model assumes that 50 % of all school fees will be the higher fee.
Beginning in year I 1, the model assumes that 75 % of all school fees each year will be
the higher fee.
9The model assumes that Temecula Valley Unified School District will receive $11
million in Proposition 203 funds. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that these funds
will arrive in three annual installments. According to the District, these funds are
targeted to reimburse and offset some of the costs associated with the construction of the
Paloma, Pauba Valley, and Vintage Hills Elementary Schools.
10.Because the model attempts to mtegrate the current and proposed school funding system,
the District's proposed per unit fee has been @culated on a square foot basis. This
recalculation consists of dividing the recommended per unit fee of $9,318, by the
average size of a new home, 1,812 square feet. This means an equivalent per square
foot cost of $5.14 per square foot.
11.For the initial years of the model, the District's existing school construction schedule has
been incorporated in the model, overriding the model's facility calculation formulas.
R:kSCHOOLS\IMODEL.MMO 4/31% dwb 2
DESCRIMON OF THE S NONS:
For this analysis, two different simulations were prepared. Both simulations use the current
$1.84 per square foot for residential construction and include the anticipated $11 million from
Proposition 203. The two simulations are as follows.
Simulation Number 1 assumes no increase in the $1.84 square foot fee for new
residential construction.
Simulation Number 2 assumes a City approved increase for all residential development
approved after mid-1996. The District's proposed $9,318 per unit fee has been
converted to a square foot charge to make it compatible with model format.
RESLTLTS:
According to these simulations, the estimated cumulative impact for new school construction for
the Temecula Valley Unified School District in School Year 2006-07 are shown in Table I
below. The annual subtotals for each simulation are included in Tables 2 and 3.
TABLE I
c
S nON SURPLUS OR (DEFICM
Number 1. No Increase in School b&tigation Fees
for newly approved residential units. The fee ($65,378,934)
remains at $1.84 per square foot.
Number 2. Higher School Mitiption Fees for
residential units that receive their legislative ($37,349,559)
approvals after the new fee is required. The new
higher ee is presumed to be $5.14 per square foot.
R:kSCHOOLS\IMOD@.MMO 4/3/% dwh 3
TABL.E 2
SUMMARY
OF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FUNDING AS $,,.54 PER SCUAR=- =CC7 V;;--
AN INCREASE TO $1.84 FOR APPLICABI -- HOMES APPROVEE) FROM NOW ON@
SEGINNING OF YEAR BONL- FUNIDS,' 7:',;
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANC;: CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION =J N D A @' A.%-
S--HCOL YEAR SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FUNDS NEEDED FEES ='A::) S'@ PI p @ S. ' -- =- = -- -
S-@FOR=- 1995-96 $28.812.000 $24,675,000 [INCLUDED] S.;,137,CCC
1 REMAINDER 1995-96 S4.137.000 $6.445,8" SI,733.722 (S=;75.1
2 1996-97 ($575.122) $13,569,197 $7,834,600 (S6.309.719)
3 1997-96 ($6.309.719) $7,525,844 $7,834,600 (SE.OCC.9e3,@
4 1998-99 ($6.000,963) $0 $7,834,600 SI.333.637
5 1999-00 $1,833.637 $7.525,8" $4,167,600 (SI.524 607',
6 2000-01 ($1,524,607) $35,785,757 $4,167,600 (S33.142.7641)
7 2OCl-02 ($33.142.764) $21,095,041 $4,167,600 (S50,070.205)
8 2002-03 ($50.070.205) $7,525,844 $4,167,600 (SE3,425,449)
9 2003-04 ($53,428,449) so $4,167,600 (S49.250.849)
10 2004-05 (S49.260.849) $7,525,844 $4,167,600 (SB2.519.093)
11 2005-06 (S52.619.093) $0 $4,167,600 ($48,451,493)
12 2006-C7 (S48,451.493) $2l.Og5.D41 $4,167,600 (S@.378,934)
R:\SCHOOLSXIMODEL-MMO 413/% dwb
TABLE 3
SUMMARY
0--7HEANNUALSCHOOLCONSTRUCTIONCOSTSANDFUNDINGAS Sl.84 P=RSOUA;Z.=-F--Z:-'@A;17-
ANINC:REAS@-TO S5.14 FORAPPLICABLEHOMESAPPROVEE)FROMNOWON-
BEGINNING OF YEAR BOND =UN'-IS,'
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE CONSTRUCTION MITIGAT!ON J N:: =- A'- -,%C
SCHOOL YEAR SURPLUS/(DEFiCIT) FUNDS NEEDED ==--=S C)AI@
=-==Optr- 1995-96 S28.812,000 $24,675,000 [INCLLJC--=@@l S-:
1 REMAINDER 1995-96 S4,137.000 SS,445.844 S,,.733.722 (S57-=.-.22,%
2 1996-97 (SS75.122) $13,569,197 $7.834.600 (SE.309.7i9)
3 1997-98 ($6,309,719) $7,525,844 S7.P-34.600 (SE.OCC).ge:3)
4 1998-99 (S6.000.963) so $7.834.600 Sl.333,637
5 1999-00 $1.833,637 $7,525,544 $-4.167.600 (SI.524.607)
6 2000-01 ($1.524.607) $35,785,757 $6.036,225 (S31.274.139)
2001-02 ($31.274.139) $21,095,041 $7.904.850 ($44 464.330)
8 2002-03 (S44,464.330) $7,525,844 $7.9()4.850 (S4-.08=-.324)
9 2003-04 (S44,085.324) so $7.904.850 (S36.180.474)
10 2004-05 ($36,180,474) $7,525,844 $7.904.850 (S35.801.468)
11 2005-06 ($35,801,468) so $9.773.475 (S26.027.993)
12 2006-07 ($26.027.993) $21,095,041 $9.773.47=; (S37.349.559)
R:TSCHOOLSXIMODWT MMO 4/3/% "b
ITEI\4 18
APPRO
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF Fl
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM:Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning"@
DATE:September 10, 1 996
SUBJECT:Request for Direction on the Process for Making Findings of Public Necessity or
Convenience
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:It is requested that the City Council provide direction to staff
regarding the need to develop an ordinance/resolution to guide the
process of making findings of public necessity or convenience.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission's decision to make the Finding of Public Necessity or Convenience
for the ARCO AM/PM at the corner of Winchester and Nicolas Roads, raised a number of
questions and concerns about the criteria used to make this decision. In addition, much of the
Planning Commission's discussion on this item included efforts to come to grips with the
State's vague criteria for making these findings. The Commission has already discussed the
need for some criteria in this area, and continues to struggle with this issue.
As a result, staff is requesting direction from the City Council on the following:
Should staff prepare special criteria and /or procedures to guide the decision making
body (currently the Planning Commission) in making their decision: and
If the City Council feels that some ordinance/resolution is necessary; does the Council
have any preliminary ideas, concerns or approaches they would like to see investigated?
Staff is requesting that the City Council provide guidance and direction on this matter to staff.
R:\STAFFRPT\BEERWINE.CC1 8/29/96 dwh 1
ITEI\4 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Manager/City Council
FROM:Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
DATE:September 10, 1996
SUBJECT:TEAM Community Pantry Salaries
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR. OF FINANCE,
CITY MANAGER
That the City Council review and provide direction to staff
regarding funding to the TEAM Community Pantry.
DISCUSSION: At the Council meeting of June 25, 1996 staff was requested to provide
information regarding previous funding to the TEAM Community Pantry. The Pantry has
received funding from the Community Service Funding program to support their efforts to
provide a food program to the needy and homeless, as well as other services to the community.
Funding levels for the previous five (5) years are identified below.
1991/92 $15,990
1992/93 10,000
1 993/94 3,500
1994/95 10,000
1995/96 10,000
Total $4
Since the inception of the Community Service Funding program in 1990-91 City policy has
required that City funds are to be used for "funding of projects which occur during the fiscal
year, excluding normal operating expenses and deficit funding." The City Community Service
Funding committee has established that the Community Service Funding program will provide
funding @l for services and materials provided to the community. The committee has
specifically refrained from funding salaries. Mayor Lindemans has requested funding salaries for
the pantry in an amount of $6,000 in the form of a matching grant, which requires a change
in Council policy. At the August 27th Council meeting, a subcommittee consisting of Mayor
Lindemans and Councilmember Ford, to meet with the TEAM Community Pantry Board to
discuss the funding allocation. The subcommittee will provide an oral report to Council as to
the outcome of that meeting.
R: INORTOIVL IA GENDA SIPNTR YSAL. A GN 07116196
TEAM Community Pantry Salaries - Page 2
It should also be noted that TEAM Community Pantry will be directly impacted by the Old Town
Entertainment Center project. The relocation of the pantry facility will be required. The
proponent of the project will be required to pay all relocation costs with no fiscal impact to the
City operating budget.
FISCAL IMPACT: The 1996/97 Operating Budget has identified $100,000 for Community
Service Funding programs.
Attachments: City of Temecula 1996-97 Community Service Funding Program/Policy
R:INORTONLIAGENDASIPNTRYSAL.AGN 07116196
of Temecula
PaX Drive - Temecula, CA 92590 , wiling Adore=: P. 0 Box 9033 T@- la, CA 92589-9033
(909)694-6444 - Fax (909) 694-1999
CITY OF TEMECULA
1996-97
Community Services Funding Program/Policy
The City of Temecula, in its Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget, has allocated funds for
community service programs within the community.
Purpose
To establish a process and evaluation criteria for funding requests received by the
City from community based organizations (CBO's) throughout the year.
General P@
The City receives requests throughout the year for financial assistance from various
organizations which provide a variety of services within the community. It is the
City's policy to channel such requests through an annual review, thereby ensuring
that all requests are evaluated equitably and consistently; to enter into agreements
for specific measurable services; and, to ensure that recipients are held accountable
for providing the agreed upon services within the appropriate time frame.
Funding Philosophy
Requests for funding received from CBO's will be considered annually. Due to limited
resources, not all requests received can be funded. Therefore, it is not the City
Council's intention to fund each CBO request received; but rather, to evaluate each
proposal and, based on available funds, provide money and other forms of financial
assistance to those organizations which most effectively serve the needs and improve
the well-being of the residents of Temecula. Special consideration will be given to
proposals which replace or enhance services the City is responsible for providing.
The City Council encourages a goal of self-sufficiency for all local CBO'S. The City
Council supports-providing.-seed =ney-to-ne-w programs-that-will provide needed
services to the community, but discourages an over-reliance on City financial
assistance to maintain such programs on an on-going basis. Therefore, all CBO's
requesting funding from the City should continue efforts to develop stable private
funding sources.
A:196CSFICSF9697.APP 7116196
k@ciciej apt,
Community Services Funding Program/Policy (Continued) Page 2
ELIGIBILITY
Applications are accepted from tax exempt, nonprofit organizations and
individuals for the funding of projects which occur during the fiscal year,
excluding normal operating expenses and deficit funding.
Services should benefit the City of Temecula.
A written report should be presented to the City Council thirty days after the
completion of the project. In the case of an extended project, interim reports
may be required.
DEADLINES
July 22, 1996 - Applications available from the City of Temecula.
Auaust 22, 1996 - Deadline for submittal of application for funding period.
Award recipients will be announced in October 1996.
CRITEBIA
In making its recommendations to the City Council for funding, the Adhoc
Community Services Funding Committee will consider the following criteria:
a.Does the organization provide Community service excellence?
b.What is the size and make-up of the community service organization?
C.What is the public and critic reaction to the group?
d.Does the organization have a high quality of fiscal management?
e.Will the organization have longevity in the City of Temecula?
f.Has the organization been granted non-profit status?
9.Is there evidence of satisfactory service provided to City's citizens?
h.That the organization does not discriminate based on race, color, creed,
nationality, sex, marital status, disability, religion, or political affiliation.
1.That the organization does not require attendance or participation in any
political, religious or social activity.
A:196CSFICSF9697.APP 7115196
Community Services Funding Program/Policy (Continued)
Page 3
That the organization provide financial statements prepared (using an
appropriate method of accounting) to demonstrate sound financial
management.
k.That the organization provide a budget for the fiscal year of request
demonstrating cost-effectiveness.
1. That the organization provide high level of access to services offered.
M.That the organization possess ongoing program evaluation tools.
A:196CSFICSF9697.APP 7IF5196
ITEIN4 20
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR. OF FINANCE-_
CITY MANAGER @ct
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Manager/City Council
FROM:Ron Bradley, City Manager
DATE:September 10, 1 996
SUBJECT:Temecula Library Service Alternatives Feasibility Study
PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:That the City Council:
1 .Approve the proposal submitted by David M. Griffith & Associates to conduct a study
to determine the future fiscal viability of the Temecula Library.
2. Appropriate a maximum of $39,000 from Development Impact Fees - Library to fund the
City's portion of the Library Study.
DISCUSSION: In September 1 995, the cities of Temecula and Murrieta set up the
Temecula-Murrieta Library Committee to explore all resources available to fund the Temecula
Library at a service level of 48 hours per week. Library options which have been discussed, in
detail, include formation of a library district; formation of a community services district;
establishing the library as a municipal library; and augmenting the 32 hours per week basic
service level provided by the County by contracting additional services. Although feasibility of
these options has been touched upon during the meetings, dedicated resources from the
Committee are not available to obtain comprehensive information to determine which course
of action the Library should take. Consequently, the Committee has unanimously determined
that the next step in the process will require an independent, comprehensive study to be
conducted to analyze and evaluate all options available to the Temecula Library.
The Committee also unanimously agreed that David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) be selected
to conduct such a study. DMG has performed extensive library research in the State of
California, and has a highly qualified staff to collect the information and perform the analysis.
Selection of this consulting firm without competitively soliciting these services is consistent
with the City of Temecula's purchasing procedures.
On July 10, 1 996, DMG was requested to provide a proposal to conduct a feasibility study of
the governance options available to the Temecula Library. Specifically, DMG was requested
to consider the following options:
1.Continuing to operate as part of the Riverside City and County Public Library System
(RCCPL), with no augmented services
II.Continuing to operate as part of the RCCPL, with augmented services
III.Continuing to operate under the RCCPL, with a Library Board to provide more local
control
IV.Establishing a Library District to include the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake
Elsinore
V.Establishing a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to include Riverside County, and the cities of
Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore
VI.Establishing the Temecula Library as a Municipal Library operated by the cities of
Temecula and Murrieta, with a JPA in place
VII.Establishing the Temecula Library as a Municipal Library operated by the City of
Temecula
DMG was also requested to provide the following information, at a minimum:
1.Requirements to set up governance option
2."Pros" for going with particular option
3."Cons" against going with particular option
4. Bottom line cost, including back-up documentation
Attached is a copy of the DMG proposal to conduct the study. The total proposed cost is a not
to exceed amount of $42,200, bdsed on a time and materials billing structure. The rates
proposed have been reduced from DMG's standard billing rates through initial negotiations, and
have been determined to be fair and reasonable based on the level of work required. Some cost
savings may be achieved through different methodology in collecting information (e.g.,
telephone calls in lieu of face-to-face contact). However, unanticipated costs may also be
incurred. Likewise, staff proposes that the contract be awarded for the maximum amount of
$42,200.
The Committee has requested funding support from the State; County; Cities of Murrieta and
Lake Elsinore; and School Districts of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore. To date, the
Temecula Valley Unified School District has approved the $1,000 contribution for which they
were asked, and the Friends of the Library has provided a check for the $2,200 requested from
them. Additionally, the cities of Murrieta and Lake Elsinore have agendized this item for their
first Council meetings in September. However, even if funding cannot be secured from these
other sources, it is still imperative that this Study be conducted to identify the best course of
action for the Committee to ensure the Temecula Library continues to support the community
to the maximum extent possible.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this Study is available in the Development Impact Fee - Library
fund. This funding source must be used specifically for Library capital improvement related
purposes. Since this Study will serve as a tool for future library planning, it is appropriate to
use DIF-Library to fund this Study.
Attachment - DMG Proposal