Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
121791 CC Agenda
AGENDA I ' TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE DECEMBER 17, 1991 - 7:00 PM . EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:30 PM Main Conference Room - Temecula City Hell, 43174 Business Park Ddve, Closed session, pursuant to Government Code Section No. 54956.9(b) to discuss potential litigation Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-45 Resolution: No. 91-127 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor Deacon Scholz, St. Catherine's Church Flag Salute Councilmember Moore ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Swearing in of Ron Perry, Public Safety Commissioner 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 or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not; 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 and address. Calendar for separate action. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution AD~rovine List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Comorehensive Annual Financial Reoort for Fiscal Year Ended June 30.1991 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and File Report 4 Authorization of Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract No. 21675-5 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water Faithful Performance Bond amounts in Tract No. 21675-5 4.2 Approve the subdivision agreements and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Authorization of Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract 21675-6 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water Faithful Performance Bond amounts in Tract No. 21675-6 5.2 Approve the subdivision agreements and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 2 12/12/91 2/egend~/121791 6 7 8 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No, 21674-F RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21674-F and authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds. 6.2 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Acceptance of Public improvements in Tract No. 21820 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21820 and authorize the reduction of street and water bonds. 7.2 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Trade in of Xerox 1090 Copier RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve replacement of Xerox 1090 Model Copier with Xerox 5100 Model Copier. 9 10 Establishment of Retirement System for Project Employees RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR PROJECT EMPLOYEES Solicitation of Bids - Construction of Rancho California Road WideninQ from Ynez to Marqarita Road RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for street drains and traffic signal improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. 11 Solicitation of Bids for Rancho California Road 0vercrossina Improvements RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the construction of traffic signals, ramp widenings, median modifications, lane reconfigurations and landscape improvements at the I-15/Rancho California Road interchange. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 12 Adult Business Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 9144 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE NON-CODIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE'S AND ADDING CHAPTER 5.05 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF ADULT BUSINESS COUNCIL BUSINESS 13 Consideration of City Promotional Prooram RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Receive report and direct staff as to Council's interest to develop program. 14 Selection of City Council Committee Assianments RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Select and appoint members of the City Council to act as liaison to various City Commissions and to serve on various committees for calendar year 1992. 15 ADoointment of Councilmembers to VariOus General Plan and Soecific Plan Committees RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Appoint a member to serve on the following committees: 15.1.1 General Plan Technical Subcommittee Selection Committee 15.1.2 Old Town Advisory Committee 16 Consideration of Enhancino RTA Route 23 Service (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mur~oz) 17 Status Report on French Valley Airoort RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Receive, discuss and file report. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: January 14, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENT: President J. Sal Mu~oz DIRECTORS: Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-02 Resolution: No. 91-13 Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz 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 record. DISTRICT BUSINESS Interim Community Recreation Center RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 1.2 Approve recommended location of interim Community Recreation Center. Authorize budget appropriation to execute recreation programs and activities. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting January 14, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Resolution: No. 91- CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Peg Moore presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mur~oz, Parks, Moore PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. AGENCY BUSINESS 1 MinUtes 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of December 10, 1991. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting January 14, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $672,528.98 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 17th day of December, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] CiTY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 12/09/91 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 12/05/91 TOTAL PAYROLL: $571,987.91 $100,541.07 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR THE 12/17/91 COUNCIL MEETING: $672,528,98 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL 019 TCSD 029 TCSD (CIP) PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL (PAYROLL) 019 TCSD (PAYROLL) TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE I, M~Y, FINANC O FICE~E I, MARK OCHEN~2 ' R $542,355.58 $22,081.33 $7,551.00 $571,987.91 $80,229.76 $20,311.31 $100,541.07 $672,528.98 ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Invoice Data P/C Date Destrlotion Grog Discount Net 0000862° !127ii !I/27/9i i:.'27/91GRADIN~ RELEASE/REInS. 2,500.00 0.00 2.500.00 OOOO86Zi 12/G2/91 ASSESSOR COUNTY ASSESSCR I~27! 12/02/91 Check Totals: 2,500.00 O.OO 2,500.00 12/02/91CAFR INFD. 215.50 O.OO 215,50 Check Totais: 0000S635 !2/05/91ASODF!S ASSOCIATE FISHERIES DIOLOGIST 120491 12/04/91 .2i03/~! PERMIT FEES EMPIRE CREEK 215.50 0.00 215.50 53.00 0.00 53.0¢ Check Totals: 00008635 12/06/91SRISHTWO BRIGHTWORK DEVELOPMENT 121091 12110191 12/10/91 SOFTWARE UPSRADE 53.00 0.00 ~c. O0 0.00 59.0C Check Totals: 000086~7 12/05/91 CITY/DES CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS !2/0a/91 12/0~91 12/05/9! CONFERENCE 59.00 0.00 59.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 Cheek Totaie: 20.00 0.00 20.(<, 000(,8~58 !2/0a/91CSMFO CA GO OF MUNi FIN OFFICERS 120691 12/06/91 12/05/91 REGISTRATION FRO 1992 CONP. !80.00 O.O0 18O.OC ,~.'!~oi_~ !~/,3~,o! 12/05/91 REGISTRATION FOR Pe~,n CONF. I80.00 O.O0 18~.05 Check Totals: 360,00 0.00 360.00 O(lO08SSq 12.'0~/91 DRIVERS DRIVERS SAFETY REVIEW UNIT llyl~/ol .i/13/% 11/I~/91 REGISTRATION FEE FOR PULL PRO 385.0(I 0.00 3S[..¢~ Check 7otais: 375.0.,q 0.{!0 .... ............... ,:. : 12i0~!91 12/,'j3/91 13C -~';'Ri)i5 E,]r. VEhTig:i 205.(i(, ('.0~ ': v .;': Check Totais: C:':"_-::! 11 :: _j-Z=;:' .!j!;C:' i'm.:: i/i::l 1'..'2='~1 L: 25:'. hli;E ;.~lh!iSF'E :5: CCj','= Check Date Venaor Name Invoice Date P/0 Date Desoriptiun Sroes Discount 00008647 12/06/91MSASECRE M S A SECRETARY 112791 11127R1 Check lotals: i1/27/91 ENROLLMENT TO MSA 00008648 12106/91 ~ULTI~ED MULTIMEDIA GROUP 120691 12i06/9! Check Totats: 12/06/91ENTERTN~T BREAKFAST W/SANTA Check Totals: 00005&47 12/06/910RANGEE~ ORANGE EMPIRE CHAPTER OF !COD 12C591 I2/05/91 12/05/91 MEMBERSHIP ORANGE EMPIRE (KI008650 12/06/9! PANUZZO PANUZZO, FRANE !?r,,o! 12/03/9! .,,~,, 12/03/91 Check Totals: REFUND SPECIAL EV. FER~iT I'jOOOG6~5 12/06~91 RANCHWTR RANCHO WATER 01074>0009d 0106272000 !0/14/9! vl.,l.:I.~ I0/1!/91 010404015D 10/1!/91 0!0760078D 10/15/~I 0!0760077D 10/I5/gi C!0627700[' !0/I~/9! ::I~1740<.2D I0/i~ 1ii:T:::: l' 2~°_ ,:::"'2~(: : L: .'( '1 ':'~11 .: .' 17 i':~1215,:~IC !0/I~1~i 912TO:C;SD 10/17/~! C:!2446000[, "'=" :11:(~;;57 ':il~1~ :('5 i(/2! :Z ll::4Z.:cl i :11 ::1 i~:Z': :'; i'. '11:1 Check Totals: .0,'15/~! 01-07-6000%2.91!>.0/!5 10/k4/91 01-06-27200-3/9/!2-10i14 !0/11/91 01-0FO40!5-1/W!!-10/II !0/15/91 01-07-6007E-i/9/15-!Oz!B !0/!5/91 01-07-90077-I/W!>10/!5 10/i4191 0!-06-27900-2IW12-I0/!~ 10/10/91 0!-02-45000-2/9/0%10/10 IO/2A/E'I 01-2:-00600-2:'i!2>i(!'2i !0/24/91 4 ..... I0/2~/91 0i-2~-4600(--!/W25-10/2~ 10/2!/9! 01-15-0010i-219/2G-I0/21 ...... ~' 0 1,28S.65 40.00 40.00 ZO0.O0 300.00 25.00 I00.00 100.00 367.64 77.65 51.42 6t7.57 745.81 55j-' 792.10 13~.~5 ii%'27 1: ~. :: Z 12L24 244.4Z 74.::i C.!( 49::. 19 2:2.7E 156,~$ 44!.2E: 81Lh z97.6~ :T9,4S 14~..E' !!i.% 120.74' 0.00 0,00 0.00 COO 0.00 (!. 0 (! O. 0 {; 0.00 40.00 2=..00 2LO(. 100.00 567.64 77.65 25.16 7~2,, 11%2' 1:~ .2(= 2ii.i: ?i.Cl ..: 212.7E I'_'t.T': ql .2E 12&.7C: ~=:,:.: i: .': 012400020D IO/Ol/?1 i0,'01/71 C'i-21-"J(!j2:'-2,'5/15-5,'."i 2.24- OL99013gOD lf/ii(!?: i.:j!6/Q_ (11-~:-¢,!370-0~9 01117040% i02011~i I'YCl/ol 01-Ii-70405-i!Wl~-W!~ 27.33 0110505858 10/01/YI 10/01/91CI-l(,-5058B-2/%'2E-6/2; 0!!05038BA 10/01191 10/(;I!71 0!-I0-5038~-2 0110~0385C 10/01/~1 10/01/~1 01-10-503B5-2 8!19-g/1~ 0110505850 10/01/~! 10/01/9! (~I-10-50385-? 011520000~ 10/18/91 iO/l~/gi 01-15-20000-2 WIE-iOZlG 0115200001 10/01!?I IO/ON?I 0!-I>20000-2 8!19-9/i8 52.85- Cl1520000A 10/01/91 10/0!!?I 01-13-20000-2 7/22-8/lg 54.5!- 011520000~ 10/01/91 i0/0!/?i 01-15-20000-2 &Z2~-7Z22 0113200002 10/01/7! I0/01/91 01-I>20000-2 5/28-~/!4 !00.52- 0970 I 67.55 OI2&OO970D 10/2~/9~ I0!24/91 0!-24-0 - ?/2>10/24 0124009~0C !0/01/?1 !0/0i/91 01-24-00970-i 012~00~70~ 10/0!/?i i0/0!/71 0>24-00970-i 7'~-°/% II.55- 0124¢1897D 10/24/91 10/24/91 01-24-018~7-i W25-10/24 ~2401897C I0/01/9! I0/01/~1 01-24-018~7-1 8!26-W25 lI.82- 0124018979 10/01/~1 I0/01/~1 01;24-01897-1 7/2~'812& 25.85- ~12401877A 10/~iI91 !0/0!/~I 0!-2b01897-I 8/2~-7!25 1~.27- 0124018971 10/01/91 10/01/91 01-24-018~7-i 5/51'~/27 %52- 0124000201 10/01/71 i0/01/91 01-24-00020-2 5/3!-~/27 55.17- C124~0202 I0/01/~1 !0/0!/91 01-2~-00C20-2 ~!27-7/25 ~2.80- 0124000205 10/01/9! I0/0~/91 0!-2~-0002~-2 7/25-B/20 7%22- C~12~(10020C 10101/91 I0/01/91 01-24-00020'2 8/2~-W25 012~000205 10/24/91 10/24/91 01-2;-00020-2 ?/25'10/24 12.4~ [iI~20203D i0/18/~! 10/i8/% 01-13-20200-2 W18-10/I~ ~i!T~nO- i'vrll'o~ r,'-~-~OoO;'~-" 8.'1c-9/tS 2,3!9.53 ~ ~ 10/0!!9L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 O.O0 t,OO 0~00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0(' 0.00 2.2i- 2T.T: 5t.!4- 1.7!- 5.70 54.5!- 4L85- 10C.Z2- 11.82- 25.85- 12.4~ ::::E:=,: :Z: :. ::ELEZ -':.EF:.]ZE "" ~l,,r.i;:;~;, ~F;3iEEE>,~ FEE 11.51 (..CiC ...:, Check Total-.-: _-iiEZ 1¢/~!'51 0186 .7. C19. COI;57FzUZT SC~EZ._E. CCi 5E;',',. 1.4:::.61 ?CUT I'.:'/7i c'i n".;' {'5!70'c1 E'.i5 PLAN,WEEFV. ~£;'-'. :-l(,:~i ~""' " "'0'; i(;/08"i z,< SER',:iWIDE., ~=,-~,,,,,.~ 4.275.25 C .(:'( ;1'. % """"~ 12/06/71 ....... r , ,- EDISON t..~,~,~b!.! SOUTEED auuI~F,N ~L r "T'T~',"~ .', 10/3!/91 %' .......6~ 10/31/~1 ','.c,'?-:~' 11/05/71 ~ 'F.~ol ............ = ZCE3Yi',425E ll/Ol/~; li..'Ci,'?i 5~7722~6104:Z"X;;Z ~" .... :C;?:VX~';'4E ::'0>'% ii/0E.'~: 5;7777~ZZ;EC3:':C~ ];LS35[,5:l~E 11!(~8/5'1 ii/OS/?i 59778(:2542253{C>>1 '.%/E-i!/E Tlt34to[ ii/08/~1 11/08!91 5977~r'25414030002 t,',~;.., .: ::E'z'iS,6?l ii'tE'q'l 11,'0%'~I 5c77S:~51'11Z:7}'}'11 ~".':-'~.': [ZiOL?lTE 11/08/c'I !l:O[;,'?l 5~777:94'Z'EE5>(:,: 57:T:251 E~:E~%5 ll/C~/cl t~42~ZZ'E ~5:~1~74E il/Oi/~i ..,;:!if NT?5;SC32:ZZ)!L:~ ;i,"('5.~l NT?78C248K:Z,':C,C" ..'0~,'Si N777S¢:S?40tT:X::: E,47; .1. i.l': 1..1T invoice Date P/O Date Description ~^,~n,,~-r ~ /9 !1t06/~! 57775656701020002 10/4-11/6 508517680E I1/09/91 i!/0919I 85674508D I0/21/91 I0/21191 8576{790E 11108/91 11/08/91 20844698~E 11/08/91 Ii/08/91 857647900 i0/08/91 10108191 857478120 10129/91 I0/29/9! 508545275E 11/06/~! !I/06/9I 308517215E 11/09/91 11/09/91 0826002930 10/30/9! i0130/7I 7170SO731a 10/01/91 10/01/9! 717-0507gi 10/01/91 !0/0!/91 717050781C 10/01/91 10/01/91 7170507310 I0/I9/9i 10/19/91 717050731 10/01/91 ?!7050SOE Ii/20/91 717044950E 11/20/7! 717017614E 11/20/91 717050833E I!/20/91 2030072751 Dross DiscDun~ Net O000S=E! 12/0e/9i Ui'PPY LAUREN~E STUPPY 120691 12/06/91 60774110011020001 I0/9-11/9 47778439414~20002 9119-10121 597741600~0~2~Q~3 10/~-I1/8 59774162307020006 lO/B-ll/B 5V77416~08~2~Q) 5177905~200~200~7 8/28-10/29 57775469900020004 10/7-11/6 60774~17449~20~5 10/1-1i/9 53778131120030004 9/30-10/30 667758500000~00 6/2t-7/23 4677585805901~004 7/2~-8/17 66775858059010004 8/19-9/18 66778588059010004 9/18-10/19 000086.12 !2/0~/9! SYSTE~ i0/01/91 667758580590100(~ 5!5!-6/21 I1/20/91 717050830 10119-11/20 11/20/91 66775858055010008 10/19-11/20 i!/20/91 66775855056010003 10119-11/20 I1/20/9! Y717050833 10/19-1!/20 Ii/08/91 597779~408~020007 10/8-11/08 Check Totals: i2/06/91 80% CDNTRAUT DLASR Check Totals: SYSTE~ SOURCE! iNC. 12/2T/?I 90357 r"'~r/~' .=.~.,,~: BYETENS FURNiTURE:E~ CITYHAL Check Totals: Check Totals: 2:":'::~:> 22'{~ c: TE~EHE TE~ECSLc ','~LLE= HI> SCHC~C': '*'-:' 12:'C~±'% 22,':~=.'S': A[ "q' ...........' ......... T!, Check Totals: 12/06/91 .....~ CLAS~ZS EYM, Cne:+. Toiais: 11/22'9i KILEAGE :'j.::2 I: :2 ~Z : 3::/':: E';L;E;CEE 9.90 0.00 9.30 0.00 267.45 0.00 267.4~ 185,43 O.OO 195,4; 203,39 0.00 166.17 O.OO 166.17 360.10 0.00 368.18 19.22 0.00 I%22 11.70 O,O0 11.70 1,641.02 0.00 1!641.02 360,63 0,00 337.56 0.00 ~37,3: 480.26 0.00 400.2= 506,59 0,00 5{+6,~: 240.34 O.OO 2~8.34 60.BB 0.00 66,88 779.48 0.00 77%4S 705.0~ 0.00 703.04 407.30 0.00 407.3~ 9.30 0.00 10,957.50 0,00 t0,957.50 144.00 0,00 14LO0 i44.00 0.00 144.00 ?)0.01 0 {(; ~C+C .::1 300,01 0.00 !2,51 O,O0 t" :s 235,20 0.00 23~ .2C C,GC= 2: ,2: 62,0(:' O.OC' Check Date Vendor inYoice 118~7t-00 ~1897!-0~ I1115/9! 11033 i0130/91 RENTAL:LIGHT TOWERS:T;;C.GRD 21{>.07 0.0{ 2:,. I1115/~1 10900 I0/16/~I SIGNS & ~ATERIRLS AS NEEDE~ 7%09 0.0~ .,.: 00008676 12109/9! ARTESIA Check lotale: ARTESIA I~PLE~ENT 11/13/91 I10)4 10/28/91 ~AINT.SERV,TPJ~,TO~|CG) 210.ii 11/22/91 11062 11114191 BRACING MACHINE~SPDRTG PARK 0.00 0,00 21C.11 0,00 65G.05 00008677 12/0919! CHEVRON Check lotale: CHEVRON U.S.A, INC. 10/31/~1 10/31/91 7920772253/SEPT1D~T CHBS. 00008878 12/09/71DAVL!N E~-25:134 Check Totals: 272.57 0,00 272,E7 DAVL!N 11127/91 11001 10/00/9I TAPE TRAFFIC CD~INDV, 19 130.00 0.00 150.0~ 11127191 10~43 09/27i71 TAPE PARK COmmISSION/NOV. 25 130.00 0,00 130.0~ II/26/~! 10991 10t08/~1 VIDEO CITY COUNGIL/11/26 600.06 C.O0 60~.05 Check Totals: 00008679 12/08/~1SRAFF!TI GRAFFITI RE~DVAL SERVICES 4258 10131i91 0305 10/01/91BRAFFiTi RENGVALIOCTO)ER ~156 10101/~1 0503 I0/01/91GRAFFITI RE~OVAL/AUSUST 40c0 10/01/91 0303 I0/01/~1GRAFFITi RE~DVAL/JULY 860.00 0.00 860,00 2~5.00 O.O0 2A5.0c 90.00 0.00 7%00 C,O0 77.00 00008580 12/09/9! HANKSHAR HANKS HARDWARE iOSoli 10/02/9i 10856 10~"j!2 !0102/9! 10356 Check Totals: 09/23/~I TOOLS & EDU!F. 0~/23!~! TOn'~ & EDUF. lgSO ~22.00 O.O0 ~22.0C !~:.'5 0.00 :)'<:9Ei: i: ::/:2 FE"ETCq~ qE,ME7 :A~EF: ~ ': ': :2:S'~1 ::;):: L:.:=:":: ~,;,:~,~-::.:- :-,::,-:,,:- 595.2 0.0C' ]S:.1: TEE.z: :.C: 2!%:2 ..... : ...... HO~ARI 12 '!:.c,'71 8%1 CE!!;TF:A:' 4:~. 9: :. 32 4::.:. (!OOz:;'.',.~: 12.:'.-:,":: ~'A'''r'n'' ~% ....REGENCY LCN~ :.2,::~_?71 12/06/~I 12/,:,6,,'9~ CSMFG CDNFEF:-D::S Check Totals: 00008~Si 12/c?,i~1 ~CTiGHEj JOHN MCT!GHE & ASSOCIATES 122591 tr'/~S/gl 0296 ....... l:,<:.'~: .:.'~:r'.,.- ~. S A SECFzETA,? ic- ~iE,%ERSRi? -, r,r r, ,'u' %.2: ~ == : r:r invo:cs Date F'/D Dais Description Gross Discount Net . ~. Y CASH 12:591 12/05/91 "5/9' REtMB PETTYCASH i91.58 0,00 191,,,~ .2C, 501-! ~,Ou/.~ i>05/91 CASH REIM8 2~0.a2 O.O0 00008688 i2/09/91 PHDTOTRO PHOTO TROPHY 0::i6043 11/I4/91 it(170 il/!3/9t C=;T~F;CA~ FRAMES; CITY HALL 135.44 0.00 432.2¢ 0,00 135.44 Check Totals: 135.44 0,00 135,44 0000868Y 12/09/9i POLL ANDRE' VAN QER POEL "~ol 1~Y~7/91 ~/9' MILEAGE ~ ~' ,i~ 30.54 0.00 '~ U Check Totals: 30.54 0.00 30.5~ 000086~i:, r.k~o.c! RADIO ...... .. ~ SHAD 6?470 1!/15/9! 11045 I1/01/9! MICRO CASSETTE DrRF"Fo r~:,~ 107.70 0,00 107.7r~ Check Totals: 107.70 0.00 !C7 ~0 00008691 12/09/91 SMiTH,P PHILLIP O. SMITH 112791 11/27i91 il/2719I ICBO DINNER/RE!MS. 10.00 0.00 lO.OO Check Totals: 00008692 12/0~/:1 SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 345-60058 XiS!/Si !0/I!/91 714-345-6))5/0CT CHGS. 10.00 0.00 I0.00 Check Totals: 308.&2 0.00 ~"= ~:' 03038693 i2/09/9! SDUTHCED SOUTHERN CALF ESISON 7170508508 IO/19/Yi !0/!9/91 66775858063010008 9/18-!C/!? 66.09 0.00 66, '170538338 10/19/91 iO/19M! a67759580aO910001 9/18-!0q° 528.12 0.03 7N0449508 I0,'I!/91 iO/l~/~l 66775858055010008 9/!~-10/I~ 1.091.42 0.00 1.091.43 ~17:,175142 10/!9/91 10/!9/9! 6~77585505~01000~ 9'18-10/19 1,159.51 0.0~ 1,159,~ :~:'5~'j~l 1123/9! ll,'2>cl ::"~SE~)~CZO(::' :C Is-if:2: ~i~.f7 (,C: '.'6~:E?SE Ll.::cl ;i/2,'~: ~c775858¢i~(2Z:Z::=i 1~'i~-1112L 4ZC,iL ~,U: ZcT~iOOllE !1/2.)/~I 11/20,51 6~775858067¢i0004 I0/16-11/20 423.78 0.09 'i'~37917E iI/20/91 Ii/20/91 66775858068020302 i0/i~-ii/2~ ilS.4G 0.00 !l:.IS 0::':.{,8595 !2/(!9,'~: ~F'S:]GF'OR yn~n CnoDoRA=,? .~K~ PERFECT ...... ...... !'..ql ~,.=~. 12/15/91 .... .,., SOFTWARE GUBGCRIPTIO): 200.00 12/17/7! CAL!FO~N CALIFORNIAN ::Ti=i-DiS !0/3!/91 !0~61 1921~'91 ADS FCF CC'::EF: !~5,62 0.0( I°:.E2 1:3171818 10/3!/9! I062i 0>01/91 ADS FOR OCT. :,25~.87 0.00 1.26<Sc :?2271-DIE 10/22/9i iO?OS 10/22/9! 2 ADVERT!SEHENTS:HAUNTED HSE 216.S! 0.00 216.81 invo;ce De~e PIO 5ate Descriution Groae ~ ....... ~=- Check Totals: 0000869? !2/17i~i ~AHRCONS MAHR CONSTRUCTION CO 120591 12/05/91 0289 10/01/91 SPORTS PRK.CONSEBSION ' 4=~ 70 0.00 7.41_' ,. ~... 7,551.00 0.00 Check Totals: 00008700 I2/!7/91MALONEYS MALONEY SPECIALTIES, INC. 10/~1/91 028! 10/091~1 INSTALL;RSTR~ DDORS:SPURTS PK 7.551.00 1,020.00 LOG 7,551.0~ 0.00 1.02' Check Totals: OOOOSTOl 12/17/91 ~ARSARIT MARaARITA OFFICIALS ASSOC, n,'O92 ii 25191 0253 / 07/01/9! UMPiRE/NOVEMBER !!020.00 0.00 1,02S.0C~ !.684.80 O.OO !.SSLR(: Check Totals: 00008702 tu.,,?~ ~OTIBHEJ JOHN MCT!BHE & RSSOCIATES i12791 11/27/91 0296 10/2~/9i STUDY FOR COST E:OVERY ~ROD. Check TOtals: 0000870~ I2/17/91 ONESTEP ONE STEP MAINT. & CLEANINS CO -~t¢, 11/3i/91 C214 07/01/9! JANITORIAL SER'~IE/NS'. 1.684.80 G.O0 12,28~.00 0.00 12~3j.0~ 12,280.00 0.00 12.25~.00 !,87~.00 O,O0 0000870a 1'2,119'91 ORANSE ~5!$241 Check Totals: 1,875.00 OR~NSE COUNTv STRIPING SERV!C 11/15/91 028~ i0/14/9i PAINT SPEED LImiT LEDEND 2JT7.0~ 11/21/9i 028~ I0/IU91 PAINT SPEED LIMIT LSSEN}~ 675.0~ 0,00 I.S75.00 0.00 2.WT.tC 0,00 '675.0C 12/17/% RAHTD ~E'~ !i/21.~9! Totals: ; '52.00 10/14/91 STREET ~AINTIII;i>ii/i~ 2,12L59 10/14/91 STREET ~AINT/I:,'I: IJ5L95 0,00 0.0(! 2.111,5' ,:,-,::.E~.:: ::,:,,c: Fi\E::iF' FTVEF:~EEE COLff~T¥ FIRE DEF'~F:T ... >.',:.-, 19,::'% ~',L~ i, l::i-EE:', 11, 1:% 1,091.2 .:.C': 15!.1': S.tC! i.':::.:T ?.0057>: :2,'I'U:i :jREF:IFF !::191-: Cheuk Totals: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE !('/31/91 · ,~ ,,, ,< ........J ....~:,,- ,.- .... 11/2i/91 !!C39 40¢4102CF: 4~120 4004128 lO/OU~I ~7~R ~010~/~i ~!~ 10101I~1 !0/51/?I BUILBING & SAcElY/AUL SERV, 10/~/91 ~E1]T I'IE~D/~BUSI/~ & B 10!04191BUIL~IN~ & S~ETY/SEPT./TE 1¢10i191 CREDIT ~E~OI~Y S~'~,tB & ~ 270.~4- L8!2.91 4,1~.~2 454.1!- 154.97- Discount 5%~24.75 0.00 19.524.% Re~ort Totals: 57!!9B7.9! 0.00 UI,987.71 ')0: r<!C:)Oi% 12,'~;2/~I 0,::: C): Of)OOSgO© 12/0~/9! OOl O(~OO8:40 12/06/91 0)1 O(:O088( 2/08/9i ,',r,,00098~4~ :2/e5/9i 001 0(I $CQ08645 i2/06/91 OOi 0(~(~0S~4.~ 12i08/~! 00! 0000~4~. 12/06!~1 ('01 0000885(~ 12/081gi (81 00008~55 ~2/06/9! O(U 000086% !2/0~/91 001 00')08~57 I2/08/91 .'Ci ::,00(8~~ ii '('~'91 OOl )q~'~08657 12/08~9! 001 00008657 12/06/91 O~ll 00C'b868(= 11/0~:91 0(:! ;::('l :::l ' .1 :,: (('i {(:0'::88~:' 12/('b'91 ~' .... :1 :: Ill: 501 F:Or'0887~ I:/0~/9~ :):Ug~CVV 1_ ,1:11::7: 2 0:'91 '1:1 1::1 (,:i "iT ',)EEEi :l :.:_ : ':i '::'S:P: ii :: ': _ : :::St _l .: :' ": '.':::7 120':'~2 :: VENDC:: NA~E PEOHNER, LENN~ COUNTY A AGSOCIATE F:SRER!EG BIOLOGIST BRIGHI~Ok!, DEVELOPbENT CITY OF n'"q=RT HOT SPRINGS CA S9 OF MUNI FIN OFFICERS ORIVERS SAFET~ ~E9IEW UNiT FLOWER CORRAL HYATT REGENCY LONG BEACH INTERNATiOnAL COUNCIL OF KAUFMAN~ ~ANES A, - LUNCH & S:UFF CATERIRG MOBIL MOBIL MQBtL M S A SECRETAR~ ORANGE EMPIRE CHAPTER OF ICBO FANUZZQ, FRANK RANCHD WATER R!VERSI~E LOCAL ~5CY FOR~ATIO RQ~EF, T REIN. WN, FROST & F:gERi ~;~'~ ~, ~'OST ~- ROBERT SIN. ~. FROST ~ SOUTHERN C~LiF E~!SON SOUTHERN r~, :: EDISON SOUTHERN .... ' GSUiNERh CAuiF EDISON 'BD2TFER'. C;L:: EllSO?: SOUTHER~ CALl: ED!SSr; SOUTHERN [~:" cF~r'K E':'BTEr SObPCE, YATES, GPAKT ~DA~S. ~ ..... ~'F:RIC~DE CHEVRON U,%A. <5.73:' :::-E :::' ',E~:l:' ,1~ DESCRIPTION GRADING RELEASE/REIMB. CAFR INFO. · PERMIT FEES EMPIRE CREEK SOFTWARE OF'GRADE CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR CSFMO CDNF. REGiSTRATION FRO I992 CDNF. REGISTRATION FEE FOR PULL PRO ARANGEMENT CSMFO CONFERENCE !CSC SPRING CONVENTION MEMBERSHIP DUES VIDEO TAPES NINE DINNERS FOB: COUNCIL 930379J2 AUG/SEPT 930379K2 SEPTtOCI CHG5 910379j2 AUG/SEPT ENROLLMENT TO MSA MEMBERSHIP ORANGE EMPIRE REFUND SPECIAL EV, PERMIT 0!-g9-01390-0/9/05-I0/10 CIM~.ISSION PROCESSING FEE ENG SERV/WIBE MARGARITA/OCT CONSTRUCT SCHEDULE/OCI SERV. ENG. SERViNiDEN .~ARG/GEPT. SE ENS PLANE/SEBi. SERV. 66775855056010005 IO/l~-~ ~"' 667785889590!0(~04 9/iF!0/!S Y,~iT(!5083Z 10/1~-I!/20 6~775~58(59,]!Afi0~ 66775858,D590i0004 6E~7555(i(i000000.,: ~ ..... . ;: CO~}GRATULATD~} :2373~,_ T~ EXFENSE SIGNS ~ ~TERIAL5 AS RENT~L:LI~HT SIGNS & MATERIA;S AE 7S29"72253/SEPT/O[T C~8~. :A~E ........ COMH/NO,'. 3R~FF:': n SFAF::': :ECSjA_;OCTDEE: ~c:~F~ITE PE~OVAL/~LQjE' C~ER~, C~E. 9ATTERi :"':: FOR :,DE: ~ECO,qF;' :'::: :U:_~:E :: 777: l&:~ 1.5(', :1 iil.h 51: IP. 0 I E i. ,1,: 41.92 2:2 4( 4:. C:,:E :.7: .ST 2 f...: 1 :)(, ':, 1,44E .l_ (~ .2: : ,~E : l , ': l ~: .: :: 1. ,1,7 S::. ,:: .1 2: .: FdND CHSD NOMBSF [HE:!, DATE ..... n.'v~rlO~.S~ 12i99/91 0:::'_(1000S690 D:'I (i(!00569& O(l OOOgS~92 00! DDOOS89: 12/09/9I O(:Z (Q$OS6?'- 12/09/91 OOl 00098695 i2/09/9i 0(!1 00008695 12/09/9i 001 O000SS~3 12/09i9i OCl nrr'r'869' ,~ 00008~93 12i09/91 001 r'nr'nO~95 12/09/9i fir,, 00068694 00i 00008695 i2/09191 001 00008696 ~2/~7/9~ 06i 000086% 12.'N/91 00! 00008897 ~2/!7/9! 00i 000086'N !2/i7/9~ DO1 00008898 12/i7/91 001 00008702 12/i7/91 qr., 00008705 !Z/17z'9i 001 00008704 12/1~/91 001 00008705 ~2/N/91 001 00008705 12/17/9! 001 00008705 i2,'17/9~ 00~ 00008706 12/17/9~ 001 00008707 ~2.'~7/9~ D(i 'jO00STC'~ (<'! C"Y87!(= !2/17/91 =:~'1 O(~(K:S7!( 12'1Uc'1 .:=.:.t5::" 'c~,_ 22 '1= "11 051 ()(,(x)871(~ 12/N/9! :::_ <':':::N'_~ ('(;I <;0! 0('! 0:<":'37i:' 12;17/~i 051 ~X~OD871D i2z17791 DO1 00(~0871(~ 12/N/91 <i9 0C0',)G646 12,'06/9! r.i? .)O<,::%t.~ :7,',..'-7i ,:Io '.)(<i(iS647 ..... ' ?,!"ZA (!? 00(<!S655 12/06/S'i .:1: ('(!){=E65=_ (!? rl,,.!!c,~== 121%,9i 5!: '>('>.L::_z".T zZ.'(,:/5. 011 i.: ,: !1! (: 3 5 ~ EI: ': ', '51 2!; !:<<(S5[:' " (I'> (~:":~:~5:~5," !'2/):';i ::!5 (' ,:,:'8,-,5~ !2/:3o'91 VENDOF: NAME ANDRE' VAN DER POEL RADIO SHACK F'HILLiP O. SMITH SO.CALIFORNiA TELEPHONE CO. GOUTBERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALF EDISON SOUTHERN CALiF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EOISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON TEMECULA CREEK INN WORD PERFECT CORPORATION CALIFORNIAN CALIFORNIAN CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SERVICE CENTRAL CiTiES SiGN SERVICE llDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~OHN MCTIGHE & ASSOCIATES ONE STEP MAINT. & CLEANING CO ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC RAMTEK RAHTEK RAMTEK RANTEK RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPART ROBERT DEIN, WN. FROST & ASSO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SIP SREEDi' NiLEDAN ASSOCIATES ~!LLDAN ~SSD[IATES NILLOAN ASSOCIATES WILLDAN ASSOCIATES MiLLDA~i ASSOC!~TES NiLLDA~ AESOC!ATEE ......... ASSOS!ATES N'LLPN A~OCIAT=S WiLLDAN ASSOCIATES NILLOAN ASSOCIATES WILLDAN ASSOCIATES MOBIL ilOSlL RANCHO .,. :, ..... "'~ATE:: RANCHO RANCH: FATE: ;:Ar,:Y5 .... RAf~CHO ~TE~ ....... ' gA~EP DESCRIPTION MILEAGE 11/t5-11/27 MICRO CASSETTE RCRDR;FR.DEPT. ICBO DINNER/REINS. 7i4-545-6005/0CT CHGS. 6E775858067010004 10/19-!1/20 66775858065010008 ?/18-10/19 68775858055010008 9/).8-10/19 667758580~0010001 9/18-10i!9 66775858066020004 10119-11/20 66775858064010007 10/19-11/20 66775858068020002 10/19-11/20 66775855056010005 9/18-10/19 ECONOMIC SUMMIT/BREAKFAST SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION ADS FOR DOT. ADS FOR OCTOBER SIGNS & POSTS; TRAFFIC ENGIN. SIGNS & PDSTS;TRFFC.ENG. ANIMAL CONTROL/OCT.SERV. STUDY FOR COST RECOVERY PROS. JANITORIAL SERVICE/NOV. PAINT SPEED LIMIT LEGENDS STREET NA!NT/I1/I9 STREET MAINT/It/12-1L'I5 STREET MAINT/NOV. STREET MAINT/11/20/91 JULY t !991-SEPT. 30, 1oe CONOTRUCT. SCHEDULE LAN ENFORCEMENT/OCT. RR!NTiNG OF BUSINESS LICENSES BUiLD!NO ~. SAFETY/SEPT./TE SNiLDiNS ~- r f SERV. ' . MEMG~AUG]ST/G ~. S CREDIT MENO/OUNE SERU/B&S BOiLDiNS ~ SAFETYtPRiL BUILDING & SAFETY/OULY GUiLDiNS & SAFETY/aUNE SERV ~.~ , ME~O/OULY BUILDING ~ SAFETY/MAY SERV. .~]r~wc.r~. SEPT/OCT CHeS %%79j2 "'" ',r.:r,~,," BEAKFAST N/SANTA 0!-24-00002-2/9/25-i0/24 (::-N-2(u)O>Z' ;/25-.~2~, .-.i-7(4/'-i'q. iS-'.;' "_7 A~DUNT ~07.':: ~2~.77 66. 'Y 528.12 423.L1 1.21)4.Sc 4!952.41 7,451.7( 12,280.00 I.OT:.DG 5,652.00 1,556.9~ 10.80(.00 .27 1.475.65 2.7iS.S~ !~.':' 17;: .% 22 :.7 Z 0 (. :! !: 12 '::, ? (' ri.', 0n008655 12/06/91 RANCHO WATEF' f"-2-'-'!rl~Tr~-: "2>8:'2~. 017 00008655 12/06/91 RANCHO ~ATER .:,:-i>2000,)-2 8!i-:/!E ~' E' D!~ '>000~5~ 12/06191 RANCH8 WATER (:-1:-2,:'2:X-2 ~, i~-~'~18 el~ 00508655 12/0~i9! RANCHO WATER .3:-i,>-5::3~5-2 ~.,2~-7/22 0~ 00008655 ~2/06f'~I RANgNO ~ATER ~,~ n:~O08~ ~?c,6zo RANCHO ~ATER 0!-10-5<;585-2 0i9 00008655 12/0b/91 RANCHO WATER (!-3!-5O!11-1/W2:-!(I/2S 019 00008~55 12/06i9~ RANCHO ~ATER O>21-~500-L~W25-'O/~ ('I9 00008655 12/06/9! RANCNO ~ATER 0i-2~-),~752-2'W2='-i0/24 019 00008~55 12/06/91 RANCHO ~ATER 0i9 00008655 12/06191 RANgNO WATER 0i-06-27900-2/~/!2-10/I~ C!c 00008~5~ !2/0~/~I RANCNO WATER (;i-i:-20000-2 7/22-~/19 ~ .~: 0!? 00008655 12/~6i~1 RANCNO ~ATER r,~-~4-~. ~-', ~ "~-"'~?~ 0!~ rA{>08655 !2/0~/9~ RANCHO WATER (!--l-7r>OOI-2, Wl>!O~l~ ,:' rJ!9 00008855 12/D6/~i RANCHO ~ATER 01-10-50:85-2/5/28-6/24 5: 0~9 0~008~55 12/0~/~ RANCH0 ~ATER 0!-04-04015-t/~/I~-I0/II 0!~ 0500865~ ~2/0~/91 RANCNO ~ATER Oi-$2-45DOO-2[~l(~>l(b'lO 0I~ 00008655 12/06/~i RANCHO WATER Oi-II-TDOO>2/W!~-iO/17 32: OI~ 09008655 12/06/91 RANSHO WATER 0!-Ie.-0364>I/9/25-10/23 5.2- {'!~ 09008~55 12/06P~I RANSHO WATEP 0!-2~-01~7-I ~/2~-I0/24 i 0i~ 00008655 12/06/~i RANCHO WATER $!-07-g0077-i/%~13-I0/i5 7:' .E Oi9 00008~55 !2/06/~I RANCNO WATER 01-1(>-50385-2 9/!8-10/17 9!~ 000DS65E i2/O~/e! RANgNO WATER 01-07-79:;7~-2/~/I>i0/15 . .3: 01~ 00008655 12~D6/~i RANCHO WATER 0!-07-6000g-2/9/13-i0/15 :: ,:- , r~Hu ""=' O!-04-OlO~g'2/9/li-!{b'll ':'I? :.~X~0865~ 12/06/91 RANCHO WATER 0!-0i-!45!I-0/~/Ii-19/iI :: .l: ':.I~ 00008855 ~2~0.5~9! RANCHO WATER 0>2~-0039(~-2/9/25-i0/24 :: .:' ~:ic >C~08~.55 12~0E~91 RANCHO WATP r~!-l:-2000r'-: 9'!8-!0,'I? 29 050~8t55 :2,'06/°i RANCHC WATER 0i-24-0(:970-i O? {t<mg~5~ 12.'06/91 RANCHO WATER Oi-:I-iX, DS-2,'~'/26-1t'/28 4: '.:!~ ~tL>:S,~5 12<,6'91 RANCHS W;TS~ "i-2i-::iSS'~-! 6.'27-7,'2~ : . !: "; ,:,B::.: '.2 0~,'~i ~ ~,.. ~- :- ,i-.:--:,: ,-. c~ ~ - ,_, :1: ",:""R:f=. I:')~'9: P4NCHD W~:E; "' ~ '-~'"~=-' .... ~' "~' ' ~ (<<F:~8655 ~2/06/9i RANCHO WATER ,"-2~-00~25-2 ~ ~ ' ~ 'Tit :::?:<B~ 12/06/91 RANCHO ~ATER .:'>ll-700D:-2/S/Ic-iOzl: :: ,~il: ii':'~-~:' :i~Cw[ ~::E:' <>2:-.l~:'-i ~ '!: ..'~:~e ,1:~' ::':::hE ~:TZ~ 'i-!!-',:2~::"2': !~-I<"1: 1- .1 ':<~c: 12 .: -i ~:L:P{::' :-1:: ~ :~2 :'T:~::i!!<2::;:: :,!:-:: :: 2: .- 019 00008660 i2/0'./9! ('19 ,0%086~0 ',Y.~ 0000866,'~ 12/06/9i 019 (~00086617 i2/(!6/91 0t9 00008660 12/06/OI 0!9 00008660 I2/06/91 019 OI:~O08~GC~ 12;C.c,'9: 0t9 00008680 12t061~I 019 00008660 12/06/91 019 000086~0 I~/06/91 0!~ 000086~0 0i9 00008~60 12/06i91 019 00008~60 0i9 00008660 12/06/91 019 00008~60 !2/06/91 {:19 00008660 iY06/91 019 00008660 ~2/06/9! 019 00008660 12i06t91 0!9 00008~0 i2/0~/91 019 00008660 12/06/91 019 00008660 !2/06/91 019 00008660 12/06/91 0~9 00008660 12/D6/91 019 00008660 12/06/91 019 00008661 0IS 00008665 12/06/9! 019 00008686 12106/91 019 D000867~ !2/0%'91 0!9 00008676 !2/09/9I 019 00008877 r.~ 00(,08678 0i~ 00C'.('8684 019 00008687 22/09/9! ('2? 00008699 12/17/9i SOUTHERN CALiF EDISON SOUTHERN CALiF EOiSDN SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EOISGN SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUIHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EGiSDN SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON LAURENCE STUPPY TAYLOR, BOB TUMBLE JUNGLE ARTESIA I~PLEMENT ARTESIA IMPLEMENT CHEVRO)4 .... BAVLiN NANKS ~ARDWARE rc~i; ~ASH NALO~? SPECIALTIES! ~';~"""' OFFiCiALS MAHR CONSTRUCTION CO DESCRIPTION 59774160080020005 10/8-11/G 57777802489030007 10/5-!I/5 59774160080020003 9/I0-t0/8 59778025422030000 iO/G-1!/B 53778131120030004 9/50-10t30 60774110011020001 10/9-1I/9 59777994083020009 9/I0-10/8 59777994085030006 10/R-11/B 59774162307020006 10/8-11/8 60774117649020005 10/1-11/9 54778286404020002 10/1-11/1 5977799233B030005 10/B-II/B 57775669900020004 I0/7-11/6 59777994083020009 10/B-11/08 57775683324020005 10/7-11/6 ~5771269901050005 10/2-1i/4 57777808742030007 10/5-1!/05 517~9053200020007 8/28-10/29 457707756000!/7/2-i0/31 577?5650934020004 10/4-11/6 5977R051021~30001 10/8-1!/8 59778025414030002 10/B-11/8 57777809740050009 10/5-ti/5 57775656701020002 10/4-!1/6 ~, CONTRACT ~ '~ SANTA 80% CONTRACT CLASSES GYM. GRADING MACHINE:SPORTS RAR[ MAINT.SERV.TRACTOR:CSD ?920772253/SEPT/OCT CHGS. TAPE PARK COMMISSION/NOV. 25 TOOLS & EQUI~, TCSD o-.~ C']~TRA7 :LADE: REIMB PETTY(ASH 2 , ~ ~ H HOE i~;STALL~RSTR~ DOORS;SPORTS ='! UhPiRE,'~4VEMSER SPORTS RF:K.CONSESSIOr: F'ROJECT 571,987,:; ITEM NO. 3 APPROVAL~~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manger/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer December 17, 1991 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1991. DISCUSSION: Enclosed in your agenda packet is the City's Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991, including the independent auditor's report. As a result of the hard work of the City's Finance staff, we are pleased to note that no adjustments were proposed in the course of the audit. CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1991 MAYOR Ronald J. Parks MAYOR PRO TEM Patricia H. Birdsall COUNCILMEMBERS Karel F. Lindemans Peg Moore J. Sal Mu~oz CITY MANAGER David F. Dixon ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Mark J. Ochenduszko Prepared by the Finance Department Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer (This page intentionally left blank) Introductory Section CITY OF TEMECULA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Page Table of Contents .......................................... iii Letter of Transmittat ........................................ vi CSMFO Certificate of Award for Outstanding Financial Reporting .............................. xiii Organizational Chart ....................................... xiv List of Principal Officers ...................................... xv FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report .................................... 1 Combined Statements - Overview ................................. 3 General Purpose Financial Statements: Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups ............ 4 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Governmental Fund Types ................... 7 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) General and Special Revenue Funds ............................ 8 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Retained Earnings - Proprietary Fund Type ...................... 10 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Fund Type .................... 1 i Notes to the Combined Financial Statements ........................ 12 iii CITY OF TEMECULA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) General Fund: Comparative Balance Sheets ............................... 28 Comparative Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance ............................... 29 Schedule of Expenditures by Department - Budgetary Level of Control - Budget/Actual Comparison (Budgetary Basis) ........... 30 Special Revenue Funds: Combining Balance Sheet ............................. '.'.. . 32 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .................................... 34 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) ...................... 36 Capital Projects Funds: Combining Balance Sheet ................................. 42 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .............................. 43 Agency Fund: Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities .................... 46 General Fixed Asset Account Group: Comparative Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Source ............. 48 Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity ............ 49 Schedule of Changes in General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity ..... 50 CITY OF TEMECULA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) STATISTICAL SECTION (unaudited) General Governmental Revenues by Source .......................... 51 General Governmental Expenditures by Function ....................... 52 Assessed and Actual Value of Taxable Property ........................ 53 Principal Taxpayers ......................................... 54 Construction, Bank Deposits, and Property Value ...................... 55 Computation of Direct and Ove~apping Bonded Debt .................... 56 Largest Employers by Number of Employees ......................... 58 Miscellaneous Statistics ....................................... 59 The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 15, 1991 is responsible for providing parks and recreation services to the citizens Temecula, as well as street lighting and slope maintenance in certain areas of the district. The activities of the TCSD are included with the activities of the City for financial reporting purposes, because the City Council serving as the Board of Directors, has oversight responsibility for the TCSD. Other governmental entities, such as the State of California, the County of Riverside and various school, water and other districts, also provide various levels of service within the City of Temecula. However, the Temecula City Council does not have a continuing oversight responsibility over these other governmental entities. Therefore, financial data for these governmental entities is not included in the accompanying financial statements. ECONOMIC CONDITION AND OUTLOOK Located on Interstate 15, the City of Temecula is 45 miles south of Riverside and 60 miles north of San Diego. The City's 35,650 residents are offered a broad range of housing options from apartments to luxury custom homes with the median housing price at $192,000. Temecula's economic base is anchored by a number of firms specializing in biomedical technology and supplies, high technology controllers and semi-conductors, among others. The City's retail base is aise experiencing growth in spite of the nationwide recession. During fiscal year 1990-91, a 429,175 square foot regional center successfully opened and another 273,584 square feet is expected to be occupied in fiscal year 1991-92. Temecula is also home to twelve auto dealers including Honda, Toyota and Nissan. MAJOR INITIATIVES During the year the City brought the community development functions in-house that had been performed by outside consultants. The City also began to tackle traffic circulation issues inherited at incorporation, including the signalization and widening of Ynez and Rancho California Roads. Although police and fire services are contracted with the County of Riverside, during the fiscal year 1990-91, the City Council elected to supplement the basic level of County service to achieve optimum response times and service levels. For the Future Fiscal. Year 1991-92 will see the birth of Temecula's Redevelopment Agency, as well as significant progress on the City's General Plan and Parks Master Plan. vii Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 15, 1991 The Community Services District will break ground on a community recreation center and a senior center. A multi-hazard functional plan for disaster preparedness will also be developed. FINANCIAL INFORMATION The City's financial records for general governmental operations are maintained on a modified acerust basis, with revenues recorded when available and measurable and expenditures recorded when the services or goods are received and the liability incurred. Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the government are protected from loss, theft or misuse and to ensure that adequate accounting data are compiled to allow the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of the control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. Budgetary Policy and Control Budgets are adopted annually by the City Council by resolution and are prepared for each fund in accordance with its basis of accounting. As provided by City ordinance, the Finance Officer is responsible for preparing the budget and for its implementation after adoption. All appropriations lapse at year-end. The City Manager has the legal authority to transfer operating budget appropriations within a budgetary department provided that total appropriations for a department are not changed. Changes to total departmental appropriations require the majority approval of the City Council. The City maintains budgetary controls to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the annual budget adopted by the City Council. The level of budgetary control (that is, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exc_,~- the appropriated amount) is established by department. viii Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 15, 1991 General G0vemment Functions Revenues: The following schedule presents a summary of revenues for the General, Special Revenue and Capital Project Funds for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991. Total Ta~a $ 7,9317203 37.4% Licens~ and l~rmit~ 1,470,~52 6.9% Intermental 3,~,~2 14.2% Chrg~ for ~ 8,~,4~ 37.~ Hnm and foffeitu~ 145,813 0,7% U~ of mon~ and p~y 511~ ~nmtion fm 8,~ 0.~ Oth~ I1~159 Total revenues S 21721)5.,~87 Bxpenditures: The following schedule presents a summary of expenditures for the General, Special Revenue and Capital Project Funds for the fiscal year ended Iunc 30, 1991. Total To~I expenditures Comparatives to the previous period not shown due to the inconsistent length of periods. The prior year was only a seven month period. Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 15, 1991 General Fund Balance In the process of developing the City's Mission Statement this year, the City Council stated two budgetary goals to accomplish sound fiscal policy for the City. These goals are (i) establish a reserve for economic uncertainty equal to ten percent of General Fund annual appropriations for operations and maintenance; and (2) annually allocate only current revenue. From lune 30, 1990 to June 30, 1991 unreserved General Fund balance increased from S566,054 to $3,134,066. The reserve tbr economic uncertainty at June 30, 1991 is $I,099,267. Debt Administration There is no bonded debt authorized or outstanding as of June 30, 1991. Nevertheless, as a result of indebtedness issued by other governmental agencies operating within the City, net bonded debt (i.e., bonds are not supported by user charges) per City assessed valuation was 7.79% as of June 30, 1991. The mount of net bonded debt issued by the other entities per each City of Temecula resident, as of hne 30, 1991 was approximately $4,217. Property tax rates for all oreflapping governments varied significantly in the City, depending on the water district serving the property. For fiscal year 1990-91, the highest tax rate area of property within the Rancho California Water District, the Rancho Division, was subject to an approximate 1. i3 % combined tax rate, whereas a sample tax rate area within the Rancho California Water District had an approximate .36% combined tax rate. Cash Management The City Council adopts annually an investment policy which is intended to minimize credit and market risks while maintaining a competitive yield on its portfolio. During the 1990-91 fiscal year, idle funds were deposited in accordance with this policy in demand deposits and a pooled investment account administered by the State of California. investment interest totaled $511,522 for the fiscal year ended lune 30, 1991 or about 2.4% of the total City revenues. The City's portfolio earned monthly rates of return ranging from 4.75 % to 8.52% during the 1990-91 fiscal year. At all times, the investment policy was adhered to, and safety and liquidity objectives were . placed above rates of return considerations in making deposits and investments. All deposits during the year were either insured oy the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or collateralized. The preponderance of the City's investments were in the State investment pool. X Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 15, 1991 This pool is not able to be categorized in terms of credit risk in accordance with the guidelines of the Goi, ernmental Accounting Standards Board. Nevertheless, given the size and liquidity of this pool and the investment expertise of the management, it is believed that these investments clearly conformed with the City's investment policy. Risk Management The City is insured for worker's compensation and employer' s liability through policies written with the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and Insurance Company of the West, respectively. The liability policy includes a $50,000 self insured retention for each claim. In the coming year, the City plans to. expand its risk management activities: (1) to proactively identify and advise City management of liabilitSz and property risk exposure; (2) to develop appropriate means of avoiding risk; (3) to effectively design and efficiently monitor the transfer of liability exposures to the City's contract service providers. OTHER INFORMATION Independent Audit It is the policy of the City of Temecula to have an audit performed annually by an independent certified public accountant. The independent audit of the June 30, 1991 fmanciai statements was performed by K.PMG Peat Marwick. Their opinion is included with the general purpose tinancial statements. Award~ This report has been prepared following the guidelines recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada, and by the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO). Both organizations award certificates to those entities whose annual financial reports are judged to conform substantially with high standards of public financial reporting including generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. It is my belief that the accompanying fiscal year 1990-91 report meets the high standards of both programs and it will be submitted to both award programs for review. The Cky received a Certificate of Award for Outstanding Financial Reporting from the CSMFO for the Fiscal Year 1989-90 report. Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 15, 1991 Acknowlextgement The preparation of this report is a result of the hard work of the entire Finance Department, most notably, Genie Roberts, Chief Accountant. I would like to express my appreciation to the City Council, particularly the Finance Committee for their support throughout the year. Sincerely, Finance Officer xii .I xiii CITY OF TEMECULA Organizational Chart Citizens Of Temecula Council City ,~anager City Attorney Landscape __Services ! Park ~--Plsnniug & Development : Recreation ---Services Administrative, Developmental Services Services City Planning ,Clerk __ Finance I Building __ --&Safety Engineering ! Public ',_Works Public Safety Animal __Control Fire __Services Police ~Servicel xiv CITY OF TEMECULA List of Principal Officers City Manager ..................................... David F. Dixon Assistant City Manager ........................... Mark J. Ochenduszko City Clerk ........................................ June S. Greek City Attorney ........................................ Scott Field Finance Officer .................................. Mary Jane Henry Director of Planning ................................ Gary Thornhill Chief Building and Safety Official ........................ Anthony Elmo Director of Public Works .............................. Tim D. Serlet Chief of Police ....................................... Rick Sayre Fire Chief .............................. Mark Brodowski/John Wintier Director of Community Services ....................... Shawn D. Nelson (This page intentionally left blank) xvi Financial Section KPMG : Peat Marwick Ce~ifiea PuOlic Accountants 750 8 Street San D~ego, CA 92101 Telephone 619 233 9000 Telecoo~er 619 696 012 ~ Independent Auditors ' Report The Honorable Members of City Council City of Temecula, California: we have audited the 6eneral purpose financial statements of the City of Temecula, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 1991, as listed in the accompanyin8 table of contents. These 6eneral purpose financial statements are the responsibility of the City's mana6ement. Our responsibility is :o express an opinion on these 6eneral purpose financial statements based on our audit. we conducted our audit in accordance with 69nerally accepted auditin~ standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the 8enersl purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes exaninin2, on a test basis, evidence supportin& the amounts and disclosures in the 8eneral purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assassin& the accountin& principles used and siSniflcant estimates made by manaSement, as well as evaluatin& the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the 6eneral purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Temecula, California, as of June 30, 1991, and the results of its operations and the cash flows of its proprietal7 fund type for the year then ended in conformity with Sanerally accepted accountin& principles. Our audit was made for the purpose of formin& an opinion on the 6eneral purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The combinin&, individual fund, and individual account &roup financial statements and schedules listed in the accompan~in& table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the &eneral purpose financial statemerits of the City of Temecula, California. Such information has bean subjected to the auditin2 procedures applied in the audit of the 2eneral purpose financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation =o =he 6eneral purpose financial statements taken as a whole. October 15, 1991 (This page intentionally left blank) CITY OF TEMECULA Combined Statements - Overview The tollowing general purpose financial statements present an overview of the City's financial position for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991. Individual funds and account groups utilized by the City are grouped on these statements into four categories. Governmental Fund Types These funds (General, Special Revenue and Capital Projects) are those through which governmental functions are typically tinanced. The governmental fund measurement focus is on "financial flow", the accounting for sources and uses of available spendable resources, not on net income determination. Proprieta~ Fund Type This fund type is used to account for the financing of services provided by one department on a cost-reimbursement basis. Fiduciary Fund Type This fund type (Agency) is used to account for assets held by the City as an agent for individuals. Account Groups Account groups are used to establish accounting control for the City's general fixed assets and unmatured principal of it's general long-term debt. Because these assets and liabilities are long- term, they are neither spendable resources nor require current appropriation. They are therefore accounted for separately from governmental fund types. 3 Account Groups General Genenl Long-te~n Fixed A~ts Debt Totals (Memorandum Only) 199l 1990 12,451,807 $ 1,328.506 189,074 10,637 58,176 7,475 1,017,41tl 54,64~ 911.605 850,849 21,200 13,045314 7.591,793 S 98~16 98.316 S 13.(}45314 $ 98316 S 27,792.973 S 9,865.108 $ 98,316 3.299,50~ $ 414,616 75,929 18,301 56,481 9,794 73,766 100,627 19,0~0 9~,316 21200 21,200 ~8j16 3.7'2.5.827 482,931 13.045.314 13,045314 7,591,7~3 lO0,OOO (1~42) 432_,344 1,099,267 9391,563 1_~82,00e 13.045,314 24.067,146 9.387,177 $ 13,045.314 $ 98316 $ 27,791973 $ 9,865,10~ (This page intentionally left blank) CITY OF TEMECULA Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Governmental Fund Types For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 Special Capital Totale (Memorandum OnJy) Revenue Proiects 1991 Taxe~ S 6,000,587 $ 1,930,616 $ 7,9312'03 $ 1,741,086 Lic~n.s~s and permits 1,470,197 355 L470.552 45,661 Intergovernmental 1,073,786 1,926,656 3,000,442 1.040,796 Chargc~ for service 4,701~38 3,324,158 8,02~,496 185.055 Fines and forfeitures 145,813 145,813 7,~21) Use of money and property 319,712 191,741 S 69 511,522 48,873 &nnexation fe~ 8,400 8,400 9,600 Other 54,769 57,390 112.159 57.078 Total revenues 13,7662'02 7,439,316 69 21,205J87 3.135,369 Community development 4,2932'52 4293,252 195,590 Community set-viols 1,139,293 1,132,293 346330 (under) exl~nditures 3288,9(a6 62,19,856 (376,221) 9,132,601 1,790,384 Other Financing sources (uses): Operating tranders out (1,174,138) (1,174,1~) (6,500) sources (use=) 547,442 (1,142~638) 695_~15 100.189 Residual equity tnnlf~n (100.000) 7he accompanying notes to the combined financial satemenu are an integral pan of thin (Continued) CITY OF TEMECULA Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) General and Special Revenue Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 General Fund Variance Favorable Unfavorable) Taxes S 5,721.110 $ 6,000.587 $ 279,477 Licensel and permits 1,029,18l 1,470.197 441,015 intergovernmental 1.135374 1.073,786 (61,58~) Charges for services 3,539,928 4,701.33~ L161,410 Fines and forfciturc~ 69,6~7 145,813 76.116 Use of money and property 80,000 319,712 ?,39,712 A~nexation fee Other 57,0110 54.769 (~23D Total revenues 11,632,291 13,766,2,02 ~,133.911 E,Tpenditures: Current: General government 2,089,0tl2 1,962,969 126.113 Public ~afety 3.938,840 2,944.422 994,418 Public works 656,636 524,147 132,4~9 Community development 431~,11~ 4318.263 (10,148) Other financing sourc~ (u~en): Operating trat~fer in 1398,681 478,753 (919.928) sources (u.s~s) 1.398.6~1 547,442 (851.239) financing s~urc~ over(under) Fund Balance, June 30 $ 1.037,806 $ 4233333 $ 3,195_~27 The accompanying notes to the combine~ financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 8 (Continued) Budget Special Revenue Funds Variance Favorable Actual (Unfavorable 2,163,411 1,533,97I 6.569 1,930,616 $ (232.795) 355 355 1,926,656 392,685 3,324,158 2,498,852 191,741 185.172 8.4O0 57390 57,390 4,546,057 7.439316 ~89'3,2~9 1,698,911 1.?~0,809 478,102 244,76~ 116,062 128.703 1,943,676 L336,8'/1 606,805 2,602381 6,102.445 3,500,064 3L~O0 31./00 (1.169,261) (1,174,138) 395,123 (1.569.261) (1,14~.63~) 426,62t 1,033.120 4359,807 3,926,6~7 1,026,5~0 1.026.~50 S 2,059.670 $ 5,986357 S 3.926.687 CITY OF TEMECULA Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Proprietary Fund Type For the Year Ended June 30. 1991 Se~vic~ Fund Operating expenses - claims expense Operating loss 1.342 (1,342) Retained earninp, July 1 1990 Retained earnings, June 31), 1991 s The accompan~ng notes to the combined f'mancial sUitmenU ar~ an integral pan of this statement. lO CITY OF TEMECULA Statement of Cash Flows Proprietary Fund Type For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 Service Fund Net cash ttsed in operating activities 277 (1,06~ Cash flows from capital and related financing activities - proceeds from capital contributions Net increase in c~sh and cash equivalerst.s and balanc~ at end of year The accompanying notes to the combined financial statements are an integnl pan of this statement. CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements June 30. 1991 NOTE 1: REPORTING ENTITY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Description of the Reporting Entitv: Two public agencies, the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) are treated as one reporting entity (City). The City of Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989 under the laws of the State of California and enjoys all the rights and privileges pertaining to "General Law" cities. The City operates under a council-manager form of government and currently provides public safety, planning, building, code enli~rcement, engineering, street maintenance and general administrative services. The TCSD was also formed at this time. Operating under a board of directors, which is the City Council, the TCSD currently provides street lighting, parks, recreation and slope maintenance services. As the City Council exercises oversight responsibility over the TCSD, it is included in the reporting entity. The oversight responsibility is determined on the bases of budget adoptions, taxing authority, funding and appointment of the governing board. Other governmental entities, such as the State of California, the County of Riverside, and various school, water and other districts, also provide various levels of service within the City of Temecula. However, the Temecula City Council does not have a continuing oversight responsibility over these other governmental entities. Therefore, financial data for these governmental entities is not included in the accompanying financial statements. B. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies: The accounting policies of the City conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to governments. The following is a summary of the more significant policies. 1. Fund Accounting: The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The various funds are grouped, in the financial statements in this report, into generic fund types and broad fund categories as tbllows: 12 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 Governmental Funds General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Funds - The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. Capital Projects Funds - The Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources used for the acquisition and improvement of capital facilities. Proprietary Fund Internal Service Fund - The Internal Service Fund is utilized to finance and account for activities involved in rendering services to departments within the City. Fiduciary Fund Agency Fund - The Agency Fund is used to account for deferred compensation funds held for City employees. This fund is custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and does not involve measurement of results of operations. Account Groups Fixed Assets and Long-Term Liabilities: Fixed assets used in governmental fund type operations (general fixed assets) are accounted for in the General Fixed Assets Account Group, rather than in a governmental fund. Public domain ("infrastructure") general fixed assets consisting of certain improvements other than buildings, including roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems, and lighting systems are not capitalized along with other general fixed assets. No depreciation has been provided on general fixed assets. All fLXed assets are valued at historical cost. Donated fixed assets are valued at their estimated fair market value on the date donated. The City capitalizes its fixed assets acquized under lease-purchases or similar contracts. 13 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 Long-term liabilities expected to be financed from governmental funds are accounted for in the General Long-Term Debt Account Group, not in the governmental funds other than those accounted for in the proprietary funds. The two account groups are not "funds". They are concerned only with the measurement of financial position. They are not involved with measurement of results of operations. 2. Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting: The accounting and reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or "financial flow" measurement focus. This means that only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on the balance sheets. The reported fund balance (net current assets) is considered a measure of "available spendable resources". Governmental fund operating statements present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Accordingly, they are said to present a summary of resources and uses of "available spendable resoumes" during a period. The proprietary fund types are accounted for on an "income determination" or "cost of services" measurement focus. Accordingly, all assets and liabilities are included on the balance sheet, and the reported fund equity provides an indication of the financial net worth of the fund. Operating statements for proprietary fund types report increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total economic net worth. The fiduciary fund type is custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and does involve measurement of results of operations. Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. All governmental and fiduciary fund types use the modified accrual basis of accounting. Their revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available as net current assets. The primary revenue sources susceptible to accrual are property, sales and cigarette taxes, investment income, frees and fo~eitures collected by County courts, and gas tax subventions. Sources not susceptible to accrual are licenses, permits, transient occupancy taxes and franchise fees. CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fund liability is incurred. An exception to this general rule is principal and interest on general long-term debt which is recognized when due. Proprietary funds use the accrual basis of accounting, i.e., revenues are recognized in the period earned and expenses are recognized in the period incurred. 3. Budgetar~ Policy and Control: General Budget Policy The City Council approves each year' s budget submitted by the City Manager prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. All appropriations lapse at year end. The City Council has the legal authority to amend the budget at any time during the fiscal year. The City Manager has the authority to make adjustments to the budget within departments. Adjustments between departments require the approval of the City Council. The City maintains budgetary controls to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the appropriated budget approved by the City Council. As of June 30. 1991 the level of budgeta.t7 control (that is, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated mount) was within a department. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device for the Governmental Fund Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of funds are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is employed in the governmental funds. Open encumbrances are recorded as reservations of fund balance since the commitments will be paid by subsequent years' budget appropriations. Encumbrances do not constitute expenditures or liabilities. The unexpended and unencumbered appropriations that are available and recommended for continuation to the following fiscal year are approved by the City Council for carryover. These commitments are reported as designation of fund balance. Budgets for the Governmental Fund Types (which include encumbrances) are adopted on a basis which differs from generally accepted accounting principles. The Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual - General and Special Revenue Funds presents comparisons of the legally adopted budget and actual data on the budgetary basis. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted and as further mended by the City Council. The difference between the budgetary basis and GAAP fund balances are as follows: 15 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 Special General Revenue Fund Funds Fund balance-budgetary basis $4,233.333 $ 5,986,357 Encumbrances outstanding at year-end 265.829 117,411 Fund balance-GAAP basis $4~4991162 $ 6.103,768 Annual budgets are not adopted tbr the capital projects funds, therefore, budget basis financial statements have not been prepared because a comparison of such budgetary. amounts to annual revenues and expenditures is not meaningful. Investments: Investments are valued at cost or amortized cost which approximates market (see notes 2 and 8), except for investments of the deferred compensation plan which are stated at market. 5. Property Taxes: Property tax revenue is recognized on the basis of NCGA Interpretation No. 3 (adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board); that is, in the fiscal year for which the taxes have been levied providing they become available. Available means then due, or past due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (not to exceed 60 days) to be used to pay liabilities in the curr~nt period. The County of Riverside collects property taxes for the City. Tax liens attach annually as of 12:01 a.m. on the first day of March preceding the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied. The tax levy covers the fiscal period July 1 to June 30. All secured personal property taxes and one half of the taxes on real property are due November 1; the second installment is due February 1. All taxes are delinquent, if unpaid, on December 10 and April 10, respectively. Unsecured personal property taxes become due on March 1 each year, and are delinquent, if unpaid on August 31. 6. Compensated Absences: The City provides to its employees a comprehensive annual leave program. Leave pay is payable at the time it is taken or upon termination. An employee cannot accrue more than two times Ms/her annual entitlement. 16 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 The City accounts for compensated absences in accordance with NCGA Statement No. 4 (adopted by Government Accounting Standards Board). The amount due to employees for future absences which is attributable to services already rendered and which is expected to be paid with expendable available financial resources is recorded in the governmental funds. Amounts that are not expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources (if any) are reported in the General Long-Ten Debt account group. As of June 30, 1991 the entire liability is treated as short-ten and is recorded in the General Fund. 7. Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Fund For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Proprietary Funds consider all highly liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased and all amounts invested in a cash and investment pool to be cash equivalents. 8. Total Columns on Combined Statements: Total columns on the Combined Statements are captioned Memorandum Only to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position or results of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Also, certain of the prior year mounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year financial statement presentations. NOTE 2: CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investments as of June 30, 1991 consisted of the following: Pooled Deposits: Demand cash account (bank balance) Less outstanding waxrants Book cash balance Certificate of Deposit $ 2,005,731 ( 1..783.928 ) 221,803 100,000 Pooled Investments: Local Agency Investment Fund Investment Deferred Compensation Plan 12,055,000 73.766 Total Cash and Investments $12.450.569 17 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds. Each fund type's portion of the pool is displayed on the combined balance sheet as "Cash and Investments". Interest income earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated monthly to the funds based on average monthly cash and investment balances. Authorized investments: Under the provision of the City's investment policy, and in accordance with Section 53601 of the California Government Code, the City may invest in the following types of investments: Securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies; Banker' s acceptances; Commercial paper of prime quality; Negotiable certificates of deposit; Repurchase agreements; Local Agency Investment Fund (State pool); and Riverside County Treasurer's Investment Pool Credit Risk, Carrying Amount and Market Value: The Califorma Government Code requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure a City's deposits by pledging government securities as collateral. The market value of pledged securities must equal at least 110% of a City's deposits. California law also allows financial institutions to secure City deposits by pledging fi. rst umst deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of a City's total deposits. The City may waive and has waived collateral requirements for deposits which are fully insured up to $100,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In accordance with GASB Statement No. 3, deposits are classified as to credit risk by three categories as follows: Category 1 -insured or collateralized with securities held by the City or by its agent in the City's name; Category 2 -collaterallied with securities held by the pledging financial institution's trust department or agent in the City's name; Category 3 -uncollateralized. 18 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 Category 1 2 Bank CalTyin2 Balance Amount Pooled Deposits: Demand cash accounts S 100,000 S 1,905,731 $ ~005,731 $ 221.803 Carti~e~te of Dclx~it 100,000 100,000 100,000 Tolal Pooled Delx~its $ 200,000 $ 1.905,731 $ ~,I05.731 $ 321,803 rnvestments that are represented by specific identifiable investment securities are classified as to credit risk by three categories as follows: Category i -insured or registered with securities held by the City or its agent in the City's name; Category 2 -uninsured and unregistered with securities held by the pledging financial institution's or counterparty's trust department or agent in the City's name: Category 3 -uninsured and unregistered with securities held by the counterparty, or by its trust department or agent, but not in the City's name. Investments in pools managed by other governments are not required to be categorized. Certain investments cannot be categorized because securities are not used as evidence of the investment. These uncategorized investments include ownership interests in pooled funds and mutual funds. All of the City's investments arc of this nature and, therefore, not subject to categorization. NOTE 3: GENERAL FIXED ASSETS Changes in general fLxed assets for the year ended June 30, 1991 were as follows: Balance Balance July 1, 1990 Additions lune 30, 1991 Land $7,296,800 $4,558,488 $11,855,288 Buildings 82,964 82.964 Machinery and equipment 83,822 398,581 482,403 Furniture and fLxtures 128.207 496.452 624.659 ' Total $7.591.799 $~L453.521 $13,045,314 19 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) 1une 30, 1991 NOTE 4: INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Interfund receivables and payables result from interfund loans to be settled within the subsequent fiscal year by the related funds. The following table summarizes interfund receivables and payables as of June 30, 1991: Due From Due To Other Funds Other Funds General Fund $ 21,200 Special Revenue Funds: Development Impact Fund Community Services District Fund $ 6,500 14.700 Total Interfund Balances $ 21.200 $ 21.200 NOTE 5: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RECEIVABLES Intergovernmental receivables as of hne 30, 1991 were due from the County of Riverside and consisted of Community Service Area funds and local transportation funds. The TCSD portion of the County Services Area's (CSA) July i, 1990 fund balance and the excess of revenues over expenditures attributable to the TCSD for the year ended June 30, 1991 in the mount of $617,076 are due from the County witkin the 1992 fiscal year. NOTE 6: OPERATING LEASES The City is committed under an operating leases for a copier and City Hall. These leases are considered for accounting purposes to be operating leases. Lease expenditures for the year ended lune 30, 1991 anaount~:l to $8,183. Future minimum lease payments for these leases are as follows: Fist'al y~nr Amount 1992 $167,172 1993 167,172 1994 167,172 1995 14,029 1996 5.845 Total $521.390 2o CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 NOTE 7: GENERAL LONG TERM DEBT: A. Changes in general long-term debt: The following is a summary of the changes in the General Long-Term Debt Account Group for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991: Balance Balance July 1. 1990 Additions Deletions June 30, 1991 Capitalized Lease Obligations $100.189 $ 1.873 $ 98,~16 B. Capitalized Lease Obligations: The City has entered into noncancellable long-term leases for financing the acquisition of a new telephone system for City offices and a tractor for the Community Services District. The lease payments are made from governmental funds. The interest rates range between 9.50% to 9.73%. These leases qualify as capital leases for accounting purposes as defined under Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 13, "Accounting for Leases" and therefore have been recorded at the present value of the future minimum lease payments at the date of inception of the lease. Future miramum lease payments under these capital leases are as follows: Fiscal Year Amount 1992 $ 27,980 1993 26,553 1994 26,553 1995 24,198 1996 15.703 Total minimumleasepayment 120,987 Less mount representing interest ( 22.671 Present value of future minimum lease payments $ 98.316 21 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 NOTE 8: DEFERRED COMPENSATION The City offers its employees a deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plan, available to all employees, permits them to defer annually up to 25% of their annual salary, but no more than $7,500, until future years. The deterred compensation is not available to employees until termination, retirement, death or unforeseeable emergency. Amounts accumulated by the City under the plan have been invested in several investment options administered by the City at the direction of the employee. The plan assets are stated at market value. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plan, all property and rights purchased with those amounts. and all income attributable to those amounts, property, or fights are (until paid or made available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the City (without being restricted to the provisions of the benefits under the plan), subject only to the claims of the City's general creditors. Participants' rights under the plan are equal to those of general creditors of the City in an amount equal to the fair market value of the deterred account for each participant. It is the opinion of legal counsel that the City has no liability for losses under the plan but does have the duty of due care that would be required of an ordinary prudent investor. The City believes that it is unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy claims of general creditors in the future. NOTE 9: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN A. Plan Description: The City contributes to the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), an agent multiple employer public employee retirement system that acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the state of California. For the year ended June 30, 1991, the City's payroll for employees covered by PEPS was $692,281. Total payroll for the same period was $1,003,582. All full-time City employees are eligible to participate as members of the PERS. Benefits vest after an employee has been a member of the plan for five years. Employees who retire at or after age 60 with five years of credited service are entitled to an annual retirement benefit based on age at retirement, the length of membership service and the amount of earnings based on the highest twelve consecutive months average. The PERS also provides for death and disability benefits. These benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by state statute and City ordinance. 22 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 City employees contribute 7% of their annual salary to PERS. This is paid by the City for the benefit of the employees in lieu of salary. The City is required to contribute the remaining amounts necessary to fund the benefits for its members, using the actuarial basis recommended by the PERS actuaries and actuarial consultants and adopted by the PERS Board of Administration. B. Funding Status and Progress: The "pension benefit obligation" is a standardized disclosure measure of the present value of pension benefits, adjusted for the effects of projected salary. increases and step-rate benefits. estimated to be payable in the future as a result of employee service to date. The measure is intended to help users assess the funding status of the PERS on a going-concern basis, assess progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due and make comparisons among employers. The measure is the actuarial present value of credited projected benefits and is independent of the funding method used to determine contributions to the PERS. An actuarial valuation has not been performed for the City as of June 30, 1991 as they have not been a member of PERS for more than I year. Therefore, the pension benefit obligation is not available. C. Actuarially Determined Contribution Requirements and Contribution Made: PERS uses the Entry Age Normal Actuarial Cost Method which is a projected benefit cost method. It takes into account those benefits that are expected to be earned in the future as well as those already accrued. According to this cost method, the normal cost for an employee is the level mount which would fund the projected benefit if it were paid annually from the date of employment until retirement. PEltS uses a modification of the Entry Age Cost Method in which the employer's total normal costs is expressed as a level percentage of payroll. The actuarially determined employer and employee contributions were based on an initial actuarial valuation. Significant assumptions used in the valuation include (a) a rate of return on the investment of future assets of 8.5 percent a year compounded annually, (b) projected salary increases of 5.5% a year compounded annually, attributable to inflation, (c) additional salary increases of 1.5 percent a year, atmbutable to seniority/merit, and (d) no post-retirement benefit increases. The actuarially determined employer and employee contributions applicable to the City at June 30, 1991 were as follows: 23 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 Required normal cost contribution Amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability Total required contributions Contributions $97,037 Covered Payroli i4.0 % 1.558 0.2 $98.595 14.2 Covered Contributions Pay~Qll Contributions made by the City $50,634 7.3 % Contributions made by the City on behalf of the employees 48.275 7.0 % Total actual contributions $98.909 i4.~3 % Trend information gives an indication of the progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. As the City joined the PERS in fiscal year 1991, such trend information is not applicable. NOTE 10: INSURANCE PROGRAMS The City is a member of the State Compensation Insurance Fund which insures all workers' compensation claims. Them is no self-insurance retention requirement for this coverage. The City was insured for general and automobile liability up to $5,000,000. The policy had a self- insured retention up to $50,000 for each loss. The City had previously accounted for its risk management activities in the General fund. During fiscal year 1991, an internal service fund was created which will collect premiums from other City funds and departments, pay premiums to outside insurers and pay claims settlements when due. As of ZIune 30, 1991, them is no accrued liability for estimated reported or incurred but unreponed claims as the mount is considered to be immaterial. 2~ CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1991 NOTE 11: FUND EQUITY Reserves tbr encumbrances represent commitments related to unperformed contracts for services and undelivered goods. The fund balances designated for subsequent years expenditures axe to earraaxk fund balances for carryover appropriations from fiscal year 1990-91 for unfinished capital projects and, in the General Fund only, for set-asides by the City Council for unspecified future capital projects, insurance costs and other services needing contingencies. As of June 30, 1991, the funds with deficits in fund balances/retained earnings were: Fund Deficit Special revenue - Community Development Block Grant 13,198 Internal service: General Liability Self-Insurance $ 1,342 The City expects that the deficit in the Community Development Block Grant Fund will be funded through future grant monies or transfers from the General Fund. The deficit in the General Liability Self-Insurance Fund is expected to be eliminated through administrative charges to other funds. The reserve for economic uncertainty was established by the City Council as a measure to ensure the fiscal health of the City. 25 (This page intentionally left blank) 26 Supplementary Information General Fund The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. 27 CITY OF TEMECULA Comparative Balance Sheets - General Fund June 30, 1991 and 1990 Cuh and investmen~ Receivables: Intergovernmental |nter[und Liabilitint equity and other crNiL$: AccounL! payable Aceruexl paytoll Intergovernmental payable $ 6,2~,~9~ $ 1,091,2fi9 102,105 8,435 58,176 7,475 92~,'379 54,648 66,648 212130 212200 7,440,106 $ 1.183,02'7 S 2,736,92~ S 373,158 58.165 18,301 45~2~ 9,794 100,6Z7 19.020 Equity and other credits: Fund balaneen: Reserved: Encumbrances Economic uncertainty Um"enemed: Desired for subeque~t yea~' e~penditures Total equity and othe~ c~dits Total liabilities, eqmty and other c~dit~ 2,940,944 420,273 265,829 196,700 1,099,267 3,134,0(~ 566,054 4,4~9,162 762.754 $ 7,440,106 $ 1,183,027 28 CITY OF TEMECULA Comparative Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - General Fund For the Years Ended June 30, 1991 and 1990 month o~ly) Tax~ S 6,1100.587 $ 839,010 Licermea and permit~ 1,470,1~T 45,6~1 Inteqove~en~l i.~,7~ 6~ Ch~g~ for ~ 4,7012~ 143,~ ~n~ and fodeitu~ 145,813 3.769 U~ of mon~ and pm~y 319,712 18~Y Other 54,7~ 56,078 To~l r~enu~ 13.7~.~ 1,727~ Current: General government 1,919,700 615,152 Public aafety 2.927,974 97,414 Public works 515~47 Community development 4,2~t,2.J2 169,72~ Capital outlay 8~1,0~3 79,988 Total elllenditur~ 10,4T'/.2.~.. Exce~ of r~venue~ over (under) expenditur~ 3,2,88,9(~ 762'754 Other financing soureel (uses): Proceeds from tea~ financinI 68,ft9 Op,mting trander in Total other finalling ~oum (ta~) 547,442 financing sour~a exlx'nditure~ and other Ftmm~ing riga 3,836,408 762'754 Fund balanct July 1 762,754 Reaidual e~luity traaafm Fund balanct June 30 $ 4,499,162 $ 762.754 29 Special Revenue Funds Gas Tax Fund - The Gas Tax Fund is used to account for the proceeds of state gas tax sources legally restricted for the maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement of public streets. Development Impact Fund - The Development Impact Fund is used to account tbr the proceeds of developmental impact fees restricted for capital improvement projects. Measure "A' Fund - The Measure "A" Fund is used to account tbr the City's share of the County of Riverside's additional 1/2% sales tax allocation which is restricted for use on local streets and roads. Local Transportation Fund - The Local Transportation (Section 99400(a)) Fund is used to account for the City 's share of Transportation Development Act, Article 8(a) allocations which are restricted for use on local streets and roads, including facilities provided for exclusive use by pedestrians and bicycles. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - The CDBG Fund is used to account for the federal block grant for community development. Community Services District Fund - The Community Services District Fund is used to account for assessment proceeds restricted for parks, recreation, street lighting and slope maintenance. 31 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Balance Sheet - Special Revenues Funds June 30, 1991 Development Local Oas T~x Impact Measure A Transportation Cash and inve~tment~ $ 243,621 $ 3,357,836 $ 77~,890 $ 749.907 Receivables: Interest 5,177 3~,869 11,290 11,616 [ntergovernment.al 4,784 51.763 171334 Tout a.~eta S ~,53,582 S 3.396.705 S 791.943 $ 93~S57 S CDBG Liabilitie~ and equiP~ Liabilities: Accounts payable Accrued payr~ll Compensated ab~ena~, payable Total liabilities Equity: Fund bahnc~(de~cit): R~erved for cncumbranom Unre~et,~d: Designated for sub~quent ye~n' exl~ditur~s Toul ~quity Total liabilities sed eRuiry s 6~00 6,~00 $ 253~82 3390,205 $ 791,943 253.~82 3,39~.205 791,943 $ 253.582 $ 3396,705 $ 791,943 $ 932.~57 rr~7 $ 932~7 $ $ 13,198 13,198 (13.198) (13.198) (Continued~ 32 505.409 $ 5.58f663 $ 236, I57 19.999 86,951 2,202 617.076 ~..957 850,849 S 1.~_~4.586 S 6.609,673 S 1,089.208 S 442,488 S 455,686 S 41,458 17,764 17.764 11,255 11,2,55 14.700 21,200 217200 486,207 505,9Q5 62,658 117,411 117,411 10,596 630,968 5,9~6,357 1,015.954 748.379 6,103,768 1,026.550 $ 1,234.586 $ 6,609,673 $ 1,089,208 33 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Special Revenues Funds For the Year Ended June 30. 1991 Finn and forfeitures E,xl~nditut~a: Current: Community development Community Capital outlay Total expenditun~ (under) e..xl~nditare~ Other f'mancinI ~ourea (usa): prr--.,A., from I~ financing Operating trl~fer out To~al other t'manean soutz, (~) Eleess of rrtv~nua aml other financing soutea ove~-r) expenditur~a and other Ftnan{ing Fund balances, July Residual equity transfers Fund balanc~s, 2une30 Development Local Gas Tax Impact Me~,ure A Transportation S 481,5:t2 $ $ 3,317,969 759,788 $ 68S~36 21.790 69.479 32,155 503222 3387,44~ 791,943 . :13.7M 50].322 3J87.448 791,943 (478,75]) (478,753) 7.4,569 3,387,448 791,943 448,~6 2,757 (219,0'r3) S 2S3,~82 $ 3,3903.05 $ 791,943 713.784 71],784 219.1r/3 $ 932,857 CDBG 13,198 13.198 (13,198) $ (13,198) (Continued) 34 Community Totals 1.930,616 $ 1.930,616 $ 90'2,076 1,926,656 420,216 6,189 3.324,1~8 41,I~3 3,451 39,869 191.741 30,339 8,400 8,400 9,600 57,390 57390 1.000 ~042,819 7,439.316 1.407,835 1,132.293 1,132.29) 346330 73.969 87,167 2.591 1.206.262 1.219,460 374.785 836j57 6,219,856 1,0'33,0~0 31500 31JOO (~3,88,~) {1,141538) (6JO0) 172.672 5,077,218 1,026,5f0 575,707 1.026,~0 S 748,3?9 S 6,103,768 S 1,026,550 35 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances-Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) Special Revenue Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 199 l Exl~enditutem Commumty set~ce~ Capital outlay Total e,~enditure~ (under) ~dit~ Other financing ~u~ (~): P~ f~m 1~ F~I O~nting t~ ~t ~u~ (~) Fund ~lan~, July 1 R~i~ ~uity ~m Fund balance~, June 30 Oa~ Tax Budget Actual 423,081 $ Favorable (Unfavorable) 481.532 $ 58,451 21,790 21,790 423.0~1 SO3J22 80,141 423,G61 503~ 80,,141 (1J69,,251) (478,7~3) 1,09~,506 (1,,~9.2~1) (478,753) 1,090JO~ (1,146,z80) 448,~ 2A.J(~ 1,170.749 (219.01'3) (219,073) $ (696,O94) S 2~3J82 S 9Sl.S76 (Con~.~) 36 Devlopment Impact Me~ure A Bud{{t Actual Budget Actual Favorable (Unfavorable 825,306 S 3,317,969 $ ~49'L663 6~69 69,479 62.910 375~54 S 759,78~ $ 384,?~34 3~155 32,155 831,8'75 831.875 3387,44~ 375.554 79L943 416.389 375,554 791,943 416389 ~75,5~4 791,943 416389 834,632 $ 3~305 $ 791,943 ~ 416389 37 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances-Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) Special Revenue Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 (Continued) Local Transportadon CDBG Taxe~ Licerises and permiU Intergoveramental Charge~ for servjce~ Use of money. and property Variance Variance Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual (UnEavonble) S 685.336 S 685.336 685"3_~ 713.784 28.448 50.000 (50.0~) Capital outlay Total exp~nditurea (under) expenditur~ Other financing ProcK. da from lea~ financing ~ur~ (~) financing ~nditu~ Fund balan~, July 1 120,000 $ 13,198 106,802 120,11130 13,198 I06.802 685,336 713,784 2&448 (70,1100) (13.198/ 56.802 685336 713,784 28,448 (70,0130) (13.198) 56.802 219,0T3 219,073 Fund balan~:~.June30 $ 685,336 $ 932.857 $ 247,~21 $ (70.000) $ (13,198} S 56.802 (Continuet) 38 Variance Variance Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual CUnfavornble) 2,163,411 S 1.930,616 $ (232,795) $ 2,163,411 $ 1.930,616 $ (232,795) 35~ 355 355 355 1,533,971 1,926,656 39?,685 6,189 6,189 82~_~06 3324.158 2,498.8~2 39,869 39,869 6~69 191,741 185,172 16,~00 8,4430 (8,400) 16,800 8,4~e (8,400) 57.390 57390 57.390 57,390 2,180.211 2,042,819 (137.392) 4-<46,057 7,439.316 2,893.259 1,698.911 1.220.809 478.102 1,698,911 1,220,809 478,102 124.765 10'/.~4 21,901 244.765 116,062 12~.703 1,823.676 1,.~3,573 500,003 1,943,676 1.336,871 6~6~05 356.535 719,146 362,611 2,602,381 6,102,44,q 3,<00.0(34 31,500 31~00 31,500 31_~00 (695.385) 695,..*~5 (1,.,~9,2~1) (1,174.138) 395,123 (663,8~) 726,885 (1,569.7.61) (1,142,638) 42~,623 356,535 55,251 1,e89.496 1,033.120 4,9~9.807 3,~26,6~7 575,707 575,707 1,02~,550 1.02~j50 $ 932,242 $ 630,968 $ 1,0~9.496 S 2,059,670 $ ~,9~6"3~7 S 3,~26,~7 39 (This page intentionally left blank) 4o Capital Projects Funds Community Services District Fund - The Community Services District Fund is us~ to account for the acquisition, construction and improvements of parks and recreation facilities within the City. Capita/Outlay Fund - The Capital Outlay Fund is used to account for financial resources used for the acquisition and improvement of capital facilities. CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Balance Sheet - Capital Projects Funds June 30, 1991 Liabilitiea and equit~ Liabilities - accounts payable Community SerVers Capital Totals District OUtlay 1991 1990 42~,714 $ 1,131 $ 426,8,$5 $ 1,080 18 18 425,714 S 1,149 S 426,~3 S LOS0 I06,619 $ 106.619 Equity and other credi~ Fund balance: Designited for sub~quem Total liabilities and equity 49,104 49,104 $ 1.080 269.991 $ 1.149 271.140 319,095 1,149 320,244 1.080 425,714 $ L149 S 426,863 S 1,080 42 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Capital Projects Funds For the Year Ended June 30. 1991 Exl~nditures: Public works Capital outlay (under) expenditures Other fmancing sources- Operating transfer in financing sourcs over(under) expenditurm and other financing uMm Fund balances, July 1 Fund balancs, June $ 376,290 376,290 5,420 376.2~ ~6.2~ 5,4] (376290) 69 (376.221) (5,420) 695,385 695~385 6_~00 319.1395 69 319,164 1,080 1.080 1.080 $ 319,095 $ 1,149 $ 320,244 $ 1,0~O 43 (This page intentionally left blank) Agency Fund Deferred Compensation Fund - The Deferred Compensation Fund is used to account for assets held by the City in a fiduciary capacity for individuals. This fund is custodial in nature and does not involve measurement of results of operations. CITY OF TEMECULA Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities Agency Fund For the Year Ended June 30. 1991 July 1, 1~0 Additions Bahnee June 30, 1991 Auets - cash and inve~tmenl.s $ 73.766 $ 73.766 Liabilities - defen'ed competktation bendits payable S 73,766 73.766 46 Account Group General Fixed Assets - The Genera/Fixed Assets Account Group is used to account for the cost of fixed assets that are used in the performance of general government functions and that are not accounted for in the Internal Service Fund of the City. 47 CITY OF TEMECULA Comparative Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Source June 30, 1991 and 1990 1991 1990 Land $ I1.8~5.288 $ 7,296.800 Buildings 82,964 82,964 Machinery and equipment 482,403 83.822 Furniture and fixtur~ 624.659 128.207 1t045.314 $ 7.59L793 General fund $ g~)l,051 CDBG 13,19e Community services district 452,8~1 $ 8L579 7~09,~14 S 13,045~14 S 7,~91,793 48 CITY OF TEMECULA Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity June 30, 1991 City Manager City Clerk Total general government Land Buildings Machinery Furniture and and Equipment FR'~UZ'ES Total 33.222 S $ 33.2Z2 17,078 1,089 18.167 19.275 19.275 274.810 495,950 "70.760 344,385 497.039 841,47A Public Safety Community Development Community Servicea Totalgeneralfixedasaeta 53,528 53J2.8 13.198 6.0~9 19.297 11,842~0~0 $ 82.964 78391 127.620 1~131.065 11.855288 $ 82,9~ $ 482.403 $ 624.659 $ 13,045,314 49 CITY OF TEMECULA Schedule of Changes in General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity For the Year Ended June 30. 1991 General F, xecl General Fix,~l Assets A.uets July 1 1990 Additions June 30. 1991 City Manager $ 12,737 $ 20.4~ $ 33,222 City Clerk 17.078 1.089 I8.167 Finance 18,274 1,001 19,275 Other-uncla..~ified ~.507 750,253 770.760 Totalgeneralgovernment 68,~96 772,828 841,424 PubLic Safety 5,794 47,734 53,52,~ Community development 5,598 13,699 19,297 Community sen'ices 7.~11.805 4.619.260 12.131.065 Total gene~l Fixed asRis $ 7,591,79'3 S 5,453,521 $ 13,04~,314. 50 Statistical Section CITY OF TEMECULA General Governmental Revenues by Source From Incorporation 1991 1~90 (Seven months only) Licenses and permits [nterlovernmental Charges for sendee Fines and fodeiturea Use of mon~/and property Annration feea Other 1.470~52 3,000.442 8.02&496 145,813 111159 21.2~5.587 1,741.086 45.661 1.040.796 185.055 7,220 48.873 9.600 57.078 t135.369 Note: Includes all governmental fund tylns Source: City Financ~ Department 51 CITY OF TEMECULA General Governmental Expenditures by Function From Incorporation 1991 (Se~en month only) Curt~nt: General government PubLic aafety Public ,vorks Community d~eloD ment Community services Capill outlay Total ex~adicm'q~ 1.919,700 ~27,974 515,247 4.293,252 1,1YL2~a 1.284,510 615,152 97,414 7,92,0 195~90 346.330 82,579 1,,~44,985 52 CITY OF TEMECULA Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property (values in thousands) For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 Total Exemptior~ Net Net Total F~timnted Fm~l year S~a~ and Vet~n ~ iptio~ ~ Act~l T~m U~u~ Ch~h. e~ Value Hom~ Value Value 1991 $ 2,~228,686 $ (8.10~)' $ 2.220,578 $ (27,927) $ 2,192.651 $ L1.92,651 Source: Rivehide County AL__~r's Office 53 (This page intentionally left blank) 60 CITY OF TEMECULA Construction, Bank Deposits, and Property Value (values in thousands) For the Year Ended June 30, 1991 Hscal Year Commercial Conslruction Residential Conslruction (1) Number of Number of Units Value Units Value Commercial Residential 181 S 17.346 387 S 6.407 S 1,270,735 S 1.353,396 (1) City Building and Safety Department (2) 1991 data unavailable (3) County Land Use Statistical Recap Report 55 CITY OF TEMECULA Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt (continued) June 30, 1991 Share of Authorized and Unsold General Obligation Bonds: Metropolitan Water District ............................... $ 139,000 Rancho California Water District, Rancho Division ................ S 14.266,325 Eastern Municipal Water District, I.D. #US ..................... S 4,790,240 Temecula Unified School District ........................... $25,777,440 STATE SCHOOL BUILDING AID REPAYABLE AS OF 6/30/91:$0 1990-91 TYPICAL TOTAL TAX RATE (13-00~.): 1.14571 (Special Assessment Rate .36000) Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. 57 CITY OF TEMECULA Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt June 30, 1991 Fiscal 1990-91 Assessed Valuation: Sl.928.788.566 Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt: Applicable Riverside County Building Authorities 3.972 % Riverside County Board of Education 3.972 Metropolitan Water District 0.278 Eastern Municipal Water District Certificates of Participation 13.690 l:~stem Municipal Water District, I.D. 's #25 & U8 100. & Murietta Valley Joint Unified School Dismet Certificates of Participation 0.462 Temecula Unified School District and Certifications of Participation 71.604 City of Temecula 1130. Rancho California Water District Certificates of Participation 44.232 Rancho California Water District, Rancho Division 66.355 Rancho California Water District, Santa Rosa Division 5.203 Rancho California Water District, Community Facilities District #88-3 100. Riverside County Community Facilities District #88-4 35J.25 County and Special District 1915 Act Bonds (Estimated) Various Other Special Districts Various Total Gross Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt Less: Rancho California Water District Certificates of Participation (100% self-suppomng) Total Net Direct and Direct Overlapping Bonded Debt Ratios to Assessed Valuation: Debt 6/30/91 21,556,282 366,814 1,946,055 I3,204,689 92. 120 9, i23,276 129,411 22,477,878 40,839,405 9,721,007 1,753,150 8.305,000 10,627,500 51,003,129 117.921 $191,171,517 40.839.405 150.332,112 Direct Debt - % Total Gross Debt 9.91% Total Net Debt 7.79% 56 CITY OF TEMECULA Largest Employers by Number of Employees June 30, 1991 Employer Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Temecula Valley Unified School District International Rectifier (Hexfet America) Hudson Respiratory Care, Inc. Prot~ssional Hospital Supply Bianchi Leather Products Banks and Savings and Loans Target Temecula Creek Inn Golf Resort Borg Wa.rner Corporation Opto 22 Ranpac Engineering General Dynamics Rancho California Water District Lucky Stores Rancon Financial Albertsons Staler Brothers Milgard Mfg. Doubletree Suites Vons Companies, Inc. Number of Employees 950 675 600 400 250 225 223 220 197 I83 180 150 140 127 120 i10 i00 100 87 70 60 Source: Temecula Chamber of Commerce 58 CITY OF TEMECULA Miscellaneous Statistics Date incorporated Form of government City Area Streets City Maintained Streets Libraries Number of Libraries Number of Volumes Police Protection Number of Stations Number of Sworn Officers Fire Protection Number of Stations Number of Fixemen Parks Employees Number of registered voters Population: 1970 1980 1990 1991 December 1, 1989 Council/Manager 26 Square Miles 200 Miles 82 Miles Provided by the County of Riverside 1 51,590 Provided by the County of Riverside 1 31 Provided by the County of Riverside 2 31 7 ParBites, 123.53 acres (55 acres developed) 80 11,077 2,773 8,324 27,099 35,650 Source: City Departments * According to U.S. Census ** According to Land Use Inventory prepared by Lightfoot Planing Group 59 ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY MANAGER'~A~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ,./~'De artment of Public Works December 17, 1991 Authorize Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract No. 21675-5 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water Faithful Performance Bond amounts in Tract No. 21675-5, APPROVE the Subdivision Agreements, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On September 19, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with Mesa Homes 28765 Single Oak Dr., Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvements of streets and sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows: I. Bond No. 3S 687 501 00 in the amount of $581,000.00 to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. 3S 687 502 00 in the amount of $137,000.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 3S 687 503 00 in the amount of $101,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bond Nos. 3S 687 501 00, 3S 687 502 00, and 3S 687 503 00 in the amounts of $290,500.00, $68,500.00, and $50,500.00, respectively, to cover materials and labor. Page 1 of 2 pwO1\agdrpt\1217\21675-5 120691 The current real estate market remains soft and the developer requests a partial reduction in the Faithful Performance Bonds to reduce operating costs (including bond premiums) until the housing market improves. Accordingly, City Staff has estimated the costs for the remaining street improvements and discussed appropriate sewer and water bond reductions with the Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts. City Staff has augmented these remaining work estimates with the requisite ten percent warranty amounts and recommends the street bonds be reduced by $430,000.00, and the water and sewer bonds be reduced by 80%. These reduced bonds will be retained until all work is satisfactorily completed, the City Council accepts these improvements, and authorizes the initiation of the one-year warranty period. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows: Streets: $430,000.00 Water: $109,600.00 Sewer: $80,800.00 The Faithful Performance Bond amounts to be retained in effect are as follows: Streets: $151,000.00 Water: $27,400.00 Sewer: $20,200.00 The developer has submitted a subdivision agreement which converts the language in previous agreements and any bonds remaining with the County of Riverside from "County of Riverside" to "City of Temecula", and a new subdivision agreement between the developer and the City of Temecula which replaces County agreements which have expired or where the bonding amounts have been or are being reduced. The Material and Labor Bonds will be retained until final acceptance of each category of improvements and the appropriate lien period has been completed. The affected streets, although not being accepted into the City-maintained street system at this time are Corte Padrera, and a portion of Rancho Vista Road, and Paseo Goleta. AC:cch Attachments: · Location Map Subdivision Agreements Page 2 of 2 pwOl\agdrpt\1217\21675-5 120691 Project TRACT A/'o. ZIG 75 - 5 -- Location Map ICI~ 1' · ITEM NO. 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Dep rtment of Public Works December 17, 1991 Authorize Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract No. 21675-6 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water Faithful Performance Bond amounts in Tract No. 21675-6, APPROVE the Subdivision Agreements, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the Map for Tract No. 21675-6 on July 11, 1990, and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa Homes 28765 Single Oak Dr., Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvements of streets and sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows: 1. Bond No. 3S 687 505 00 in the amount of $241,000.00 to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. 3S 687 506 00 in the amount of $38,000.00 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. 3S 687 507 00 in the amount of $46,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. 4. Bond Nos. 3S 687 505 00, 3S 687 506 00, and 3S 687 507 00 in the amounts of $120,500.00, $19,000.00, and $23,000.00, respectively, to cover materials and labor. Page 1 of 2 pw01%agdrpt\1217\21675-6 120691 The current real estate market remains soft and the developer requests a partial reduction in the Faithful Performance Bonds to reduce operating costs (including bond premiums) until the housing market improves. Accordingly, City Staff has estimated the costs for the remaining street improvements and discussed appropriate sewer and water bond reductions with the Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts. City Staff has augmented these remaining work estimates with the requisite ten percent warranty amounts and recommends the street bonds be reduced by $143,000.00, and the water and sewer bonds be reduced by 80%. These reduced bonds will be retained until all work is satisfactorily completed, the City Council accepts these improvements, and authorizes the initiation of the one-year warranty period. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows: Streets: $143,000.00 Water: $30,400.00 Sewer: $36,800.00 The Faithful Performance Bond amounts to be retained in effect are as follows: Streets: $98,000.00 Water: $7,600.00 Sewer: $9,200.00 The developer has submitted a subdivision agreement which converts the language in previous agreements and any bonds remaining with the County of Riverside from "County of Riverside" to "City of Temecula", and a new subdivision agreement between the developer and the City of Temecula which replaces County agreements which have expired or where the bonding amounts have been or are being reduced. The Material and Labor Bonds will be retained until final acceptance of each category of improvements and the appropriate lien period has been completed. The affected streets, although not being accepted into the City-maintained street system at this time, are Corte Rosario and Calle Santa Ana, and a portion of Rancho Vista Road. AC:cch Attachments: Location Map Subdivision Agreements Page 2 of 2 pwO1\agdrpt\1217\21675-6 120691 To C;oro~ Project Site 7~ACr A/_~. Z/G 75-6 TO Sa~ D,ego ~IIV ~E'~VA2DIAIQ Location Map Kale ITEM NO. 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager /,. ~ De artment of Public Works December 17, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 21674-F PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 21674-F, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the map for Tract No. 21674-F on January 12, 1990 and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with Mesa Homes 28765 Single Oak Dr., Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvements of streets and installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows: 1. Bond No. 3S 687 485 00 in the amount of $259,000.00 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 3S 687 486 00 in the amount of $32,000.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 3S 687 487 00 in the amount of $41,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bond Nos. 3S 687 485 00, 3S 687 486 00, and 3S 687 487 00 in the amounts of $129,500.00, $16,000.00, and $20,500.00, respectively, to cover materials and labor. Page 1 of 2 pwO1\agdrpt\1217\21674-F 120691 The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: 1. Required street and water improvements. The affected street is Corte Salinas. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff, and the Department of Public Works agrees with the recommendation to reduce the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce/release these bond amounts as follows: Streets: $233,100.00 Water: $28,800.00 Sewer: $36,900.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one (1) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $25,900.00 Water: $3,200.00 Sewer: $4,100.00 The Material and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:cch Attachments: Location Map Subdivision Agreement Page 2 of 2 pw01\agdrpt\1217\21674*F 120691 To C~e~ To IbvefBde Project TRACT ~f~ /,/YI:t;TT'R~"77C.,4/ TOWIVSI41P 75, g-AM~E' 2)F, ~'7'IOAI~ ,c,~ ~', 4000' ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~IV9~--4--""" TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager rtment of Public Works December 17, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 21820 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 21820, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street and water bonds, and the release of Monument Bonds, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the map for Tract No. 21820 on June 13, 1990 and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with Mesa Homes 28765 Single Oak Dr., Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvements of streets and installation of sewer and water systems, and installation of subdivision monuments. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows: 1. Bond No. 3S 741 681 00 in the amount of $153,500.00 to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. 3S 741 784 00 in the amount of $44,500.00 to cover water improvements. Bond Noso 3S 741 681 00 and 3S 741 784 00 in the amounts of $56,750.00 and $22,250.00, respectively, to cover materials and labor. Page 1 of 2 pw01\agdrpt\1217\21820 120591 4. Bond No. 3S 741 682 00 in the amount of $11,000.00 to cover subdivision Monumentation. The developer constructed on-site sanitary septic systems for each dwelling. Therefore, no sewer bond was required to be posted. The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: 1. Required street and water improvements. 2. Required subdivision Monumentation. The affected streets are a portion of Via Norte and a portion of Kahwea Road. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff, and the Department of Public Works agrees with the recommendation to reduce the subdivision improvement bonds and to release the subdivision Monument Bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce/release these bond amounts as follows: Streets: Water: Monuments: $138,150.00 $40,050.00 $11,000.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one (1) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $15,350.00 Water: $4,450.00 The Material and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exonerationo AC:cch Attachments: Location Map Subdivision Agreement Page 2 of 2 pwO1\agdrpt\1217\21820 120591 Project Site T~Ac7" /,,/9 I / / ! LOCATION MAP N .T .S. SEC. 29. T O..IYPOTHETICAL) ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer DATE: December 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Trade in of Xerox 1090 Copier RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve replacement of Xerox 1090 Model Copier with Xerox 51OO Model Copier. DISCUSSION: The City is currently in the second year of a 'five year municipal lease with Xerox Corporation for a model 1090 copier. Recently, Xerox introduced a new and improved product, the model 5100. To promote this product, Xerox has offered to upgrade the City's 1090 model to the model 5100. This trade-in would not only provide the City with a more advanced copier, but would also save the City several thousands of dollars, during the first year of the lease. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City trade in the model 1090 for the model 5100. FISCAL IMPACT: Xerox is offering the City a five year municipal lease program for the model 5100 copier. This offer would include trading-in the City's model 1090 copier. The terms of the lease for the model 51OO would save the City approximately $15,000 during the first year of the lease, are due to the fact that there would not be any copy maintenance charge during this time. The payments for the remaining four years on the lease would be slightly higher than the payments currently being made on the 1090 copier. However, over the life of the lease, the total payments on the 5100 copier would be comparable to total payments made on the 1090 copier. ITEM NO. 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Luci Romero Senior Management Analyst December 17, 1991 Establishment of a qualifying retirement system for Project Employees RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 91 - __, entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Establishing a Deferred Compensation Plan for Project Employees. BACKGROUND: Under a new Social Security tax law effective July 1, 1991, all state and local government employees who are not members of a retirement system (such as PERS), must be enrolled under Social Security (FICA), or a qualified alternative retirement plan. Employers have until December 31, 1991 to establish and implement private retirement plans as alternatives to Social Security. This legislative change directly affects the City's Project Employees (i.e., part-time, seasonal, temporary). A "qualifying alternative plan" must meet the following guidelines: It must provide retirement-type benefits (and not, for example provide only retiree health insurance or other deferred welfare benefits); and The benefits it provides must, in general, be comparable to the benefits provided under the Old-Age portion of the Old-Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance Program of Social Security. Qualifying plans include: 1) Tax Deferred Annuity Plans (403(b) Plans); 2) Defined Benefit Plans; 3) Defined Contribution Plans; and 4) Deferred Compensation Plans (457 Plans). In an effort to fully evaluate the City's options, staff conducted an analysis of the various "qualifying retirement plans." PERS is a non-qualifying system for Project Employees. Based on staff's review of the various qualifying plans, a 457 Plan is recommended as an alternative to FICA. A 457 Plan is recommended for the following reasons: 0 0 0 0 Ease of administration Little or no direct administrative cost to the City Minimizes the fiscal impact to the City Minimizes the fiscal impact on employees' take-home pay However, participation in a Section 457 Plan cannot be mandatory. Should an employee prefer to participate in Social Security, that option is available. For some employees it may be advantageous to participate in Social Security. This would be true if the employee's current earnings represent a significant portion of his/her highest 40 quarters and they are less than 20 years from normal retirement age. The minimum contribution to a participants account must be equal to 7.5% of the employee's salary. The City may either elect to have the contributions deducted entirely from employee wages or pay a portion of the contributions. Given that the contributions will reduce employee take home pay, staff recommends that the City and employee pay 3.75% each toward the minimum 7.5% contribution. Contributions to the participant's account would be via payroll deduction. As required by the regulations, these contributions must be immediately and fully vested. Any employee electing nO1; to participate in the 457 Plan will be subject to FICA. Participants in the 457 Plan may always elect to participate in FICA at a later date. Provider companies were evaluated to determine their ability to, and interest in, administrating a Section 457 Plan as an alternative to FICA. Companies evaluated included ICMA (the City's current deferred compensation plan company), Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (Lincoln), Great Western Bank (Great Western) and Public Employees Benefit Services Corporation (PEBSCO). In selecting the 457 plan option that would be offered to employees, staff considered various factors, such as cost. Exhibit A provides a comparison of the costs. As you will note, Lincoln National and PEBSCO do not have an administrative cost. The additional factors which were considered included: background and financial viability of each company, administration of the plan, types of funds offered to employees and company reference checks. Based upon this review, PEBSCO emerged as the recommended provider. PEBSCO is the deferred compensation plan administrator under the United States Conference of Mayors. Thus, staff's recommendation is to Adopt Resolution No. 91 - __, establishing a deferred compensation plan for Project Employees and authorizing execution of all necessary documents. FISCAL IMPACT: Based upon an estimated payroll of $230,000 for Project Employees for the remainder of this fiscal year, the total cost would be $17,250, if all Project employees participated in a Section 457 Plan, to $28,520, if the employees were covered by FICA. The ultimate cost will depend on the choices made by the employees on an individual basis. Sufficient funding for this expense is available in the Fiscal Year 1991-92 operating budget. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A DEFFERED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR PROJECT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, under a new Social Security tax law effective July 1, 1991, all state and local government employees who are not members of a retirement system (such as PERS), must be enrolled under Social Security or a qualified alternative retirement plan. WHEREAS, employers have until December 31, 1991 to establish and implement private retirement plans as alternatives to Social Security. WHEREAS, the establishment of a deferred compensation plan qualifies as an alternative plan to Social Security WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors has established a master prototype deferred compensation program for cities and political subdivisions permitting its member cities and their employees to enjoy the advantages of this program; WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, as Plan Administrator, agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City, its appointed and elected officers and participating employees from any loss resulting from The U.S. Conference of Mayors or its Agent's failure to perform its duties and services pursuant to The U.S. Conference of Mayors Program; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the U.S. Conference of Mayors Deferred Compensation Program and its attendant investment options and hereby establishes the City of Temecula Deferred Compensation Plan for the voluntary participation of all eligible Project Employees. 3/Resos 209 SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute execute all agreements and contracts as are necessary to implement the Program and to act as the City's "Administrator" of the Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of December, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of August, 1991, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk ESTIMATED PST PAYROLL: 1. FICA - FICA @ 6.20% CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FY 1991-92 230,000 ( 6 months) Exhibit A CITY'S EMPLOYEE TOTAL COST COST COST 14,260 14,260 28,520 PARS Contribution @ 3.75% Administration fee TOTAL ICMA Contribution @ 3.75% Administration fee TOTAL Great Western Contribution @ 3.75% - Administration fee TOTAL Lincoln National - Contribution @ 3.75% - Administration fee TOTAL PEBSCO Contribution @ 3.75% Administration fee TOTAL 8,625 8,625 17,250 1550 0 1,550 10,175 8,625 18,800 8,625 8,625 17,250 4500 0 4,500 13 125 8,625 21,750 8 625 8,625 17,250 550 0 550 9 175 8,625 17,800 8 625 8,625 17,250 0 0 0 8 625 8,625 17,250 8,625 8,625 17,250 0 0 0 8,625 8,625 17,250 ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works DATE: December 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Solicitation of Bids for the Construction of Street, Storm Drain and Traffic Signal Improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road (CIP No. 605) PREPARED BY:~Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the construction of street, storm drain and traffic signal improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved an agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (Bedford Properties, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village Development Company, and TAYCO) to reimburse the City of Temecula for construction of certain improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. The plans, specifications, and estimates have been completed and approved by the City. The project is ready to advertise for construction bids. The improvements to be constructed with this project include: 1. Street widening at various locations, including curb and gutter (no sidewalk); 2. Installation of storm drain improvements; and 3. Traffic signal modification at Moraga Road. The engineer's opinion of probable construction cost for this project (minus the improvements adjacent to TR-23304) is $770,200.00. The engineer's estimate for additional services to be provided include surveying, soils and inspection. These services will be provided by the City or separate contract and will be brought back to the Council for separate approval prior to award of the construction contract. Costs for these services are included in the Margarita Village Reimbursement Agreement, therefore no additional cost to the City will be incurred. -1- pwOl~tldrpt\121~rncho~al,lmp 120991 The project will be inspected by City forces. It will be necessary to obtain slope easements from the affected property owners along the south side of Rancho California Road prior to starting work. Staff has initiated discussions with all the affected property owners. The contract documents have been prepared with two bid schedules to allow for a separate bid price for the work adjacent to TR-23304 (Club Valencia) located on the north side of Rancho California Road just west of Margarita. The owners of TR-23304, IDM Corporation, have requested that their frontage street and storm drain improvements be added to this project. (IDM will reimburse the City for the entire cost of these improvements before a one- year period has elapsed or surety funds in place for TR-23304 may be used to reimburse the City.) A reimbursement agreement is being prepared by the City Attorney for approval by the City Council on January 14, 1992. The engineer's opinion of probable cost for these additive improvements is ~ 109,400.00. The engineer's estimate of probable cost for the entire project is $879,600.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project is from the Development Impact Fund and will be reimbursed to the City by the Margarita Village Specific Plan developers and IDM Corporation. ATTACHMENT: Engineer's Estimate SEN' Bv:W:LLDAN S. 8, ;12- 9-91; ~:~OPM; WiWWDAN S,D.~ ~:LLDAN t,V.:# 2 12/6/91 T.A.M. Rancho California Roatt Benefit Distact l~ngineer's ~timate Base Bid Cos~ of Construction 109~ Contingency Base Bid Total: 700,210.27 $ 70,021.03 $770,231.343 Addidve Bta Cog of Construction 10% Contingency Addifive Bid Total: $ 99,415.68 $9.941.57 $ 109,357,2~ $ 879,588.55 Total Bstimat~l Co~ of Construction $880,000.00 TM:mpI1 02150/3141/041 CE/IVilSC030 ITEM NO. 11 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER' CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Council/City Manager ,/~ 4 De /f~'~' partment of Public Works DATE: December 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Solicitation of Bids for the Construction of Traffic Signals, Ramp Widenings, Median Modifications, Lane Reconfigurations, and Landscaping Improvements at the 1-15/Rancho California Road Interchange (CIP No. 622) PREPARED BY: ~Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the construction of traffic signals, ramp widenings, median modifications, lane reconfigurations, and landscaping improvements at the I-15/Rancho California Road interchange. BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved an agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (Bedford Development Corporation, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village Development Company, and TAYCO) to reimburse the City of Temecula for construction of certain improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road interchange. The plans, specifications, and estimates have been completed and approved by the City, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Encroachment Permit for the construction has also been issued by Caltrans (District 8). Improvements to be constructed with this project include: Widening the northbound and southbound off-ramps; installing traffic signals at the on and off-ramp intersections; 3. Repaving and restriping the approach ramps to the bridge on Rancho California Road; Median modifications on Rancho California Road to provide for increased turning lanes at Ynez and Front Street; 5. Widening and installation of a free right turn lane from Rancho California Road to southbound Ynez Road; Modification of the traffic signals at Front Street and Ynez Road to accommodate connection with the newly installed signals on the bridge; and 7. Landscaping of the shoulders and medians within the project limits. Staff anticipates awarding the contract tot he successful bidder at the January 28, 1992 Council Meeting with the Notice to Proceed issued shortly thereafter. It is planned that construction will be completed within 90 working days after the Notice to Proceed is issued. The engineer's opinion of probable construction cost for the project is $698,200.00. Staff is anticipating issuing Request for Qualifications in the next few weeks to provide for construction management, Caltrans coordination, soils testing, and construction staking for this project. As oversight is being provided by Caltrans on this project, Caltrans will be involved in approving the consultant to perform this work. Staff anticipates recommending award of a contract on the January 28, 1992 Council Meeting, coincident with award of the construction contract. One note, since this project is being constructed in State right-of-way, and partially with Federal funding, all applicable State and Federal contracting and construction reporting requirements must be adhered to. This will add significantly tO the time and cost of performing this work over a standard City project. The funding for this work is included in the reimbursement ceiling in the Margarita Village Reimbursement Agreement and will be performed at no eventual cost to the City. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project is from appropriated monies within the Development Impact Fund, and will be reimbursed to the City by developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The traffic signal construction is not a part of the Reimbursement Agreement and will be 100% funded with Federal Aid Interstate (FAI) funds in the amount of $287,000.00. Fund approval of the disbursement of the FAI funds through Caltrans was received from FHWA on December 2, 1991. Attachments: Engineer's Estimate ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Summary Sheet I-15 / Rancho California Road Improvement Quantities Street Improvements Signing and Striping Grading Improvements Signal Improvements Planting Irrigation System $196,028.00 $ 69,029.50 $ 48,oOo.oo $193,600.OO $ 88,925.00 $ 11,511.70 Subtotal X 15% Contingency Grand Total $607,094.20 $ 91,064.13 $698,158.33 JN 24255 10/91 Street Improvement Quantities Item NO. 1 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Item Code Item Const. 0.50 ac. Const. 1.10 CL 2 base Const Type E asphalt dike per Caltrans standard plan no. NSA Unit of Estimated Unit Price Item Measure Quantity (in figures) Total TON 1,408 $40.00 $56,320 C.Y. 1,592 $20.00 $31,840 L.F. 1,027 $3.00 $3,081 Const. AC overside drain per EA. 2 $2,000.00 $4,000 Caltrans std. plan no. D87-B Type A Const A2-6 curb & 24" gutter per LF. 0 $9.00 $0 Cahrans standard plan no. N8A Const. A2-8 curb & 24" gutter per L.F. 454 $10.00 $4,540 Caltrans standard plan no. N8A Remove debris from existing drainage LS. 3 $1,000.00 $1,000 structures as shown on plans Const. sidewalk access ramps per EA. 6 $500.00 $3,000 R.C.T.D. std. no. 403 Const. concrete sidewalk (w=6') per S.F. 9,131 $2.50 R.CT.D. std. no. 400 Const. A1-6 to A2-8 curb & 24" gutter L.F. 192 $10.00 $1,920 per Caltrans std. plan no. NS-A Const. type A1-6 curb per Caltrans std. L.F. 1,234 $7.00 $8,638 plan no. NSA (curb only) Const. catch basin per R.C. std. no. 300 [A. 1 $3,000.00 $3,000 Const. A.C. overlay 1" min. TON 730 $40.00 $29,200 Remove exist. A.C. berm drain channel EA. 2 $500.00 $1,000 Remove existing A.C. dike L.F. 699 $1.50 $1,048.50 Sawcut (2' min.) ex. A.C L.F. 3,962 $1.00 $3,962 Remove existing curb & gutter L.F. 635 $1.50 $952.50 Remove existing curb L.F. 867 $1.50 $1,300.50 Remove ex. A.C. S.F. 16,988 $1.00 $16,988 Install 24" R.C.P. L.F. 11 $60.00 $660 Protect in place Remove existing catch basin EA. 1 $750.00 JN 24255 10/91 $22,827.50 $750 Page 1 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item Code Signing and Striping Quantities Item Unit of Estimated Unit Price Item Measure Quantity (in figures) Total Construction Area Signs LS Lump Sum $6,300 Traffic Control System LS Lump Sum $22,509.75 Remv Paintd Trffc Stripe &Pvmt mkng Sq. Ft. 720 $5.25 $3,780 Remove Roadside Sign EA 23 $30.00 $690 Reset Roadside Sign EA 5 $125.00 $625 Roadside Sign - One Post EA 13 $230.00 $2,990 Roadside Sign - Two Post EA 7 $450.00 $3,150 Paint Traffic Stripe LF 16,965 $0.75 $12,723.75 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Sq. Ft. 2,940 $4.75 $13,965 Pavement Marker (Reflective) EA 352 $4.25 $1,496 Pavement Marker (Non-Reflective) EA 80 $2.50 $200 Delineators (Type G) EA 12 $50.00 $600 item No. 1 2 3 Item Code Grading Improvement Quantities Item Unit of Estimated Unit Price Item Measure Quantity (in figures) Total Clear &Grub AC. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500 Excavation & Compaction C.Y. 4200 $3.00 $12,600 Import C.Y. 4700 $7.00 $32,900 C~~,..~,,w',p,~,-,R~ ,~.,~,o~i,t,, Page 2 JN 24255 10/91 Item No. Signal Improvement Quantities Item Item Unit of Estimated Code Measure Quantity Offramp Signals Lump Sum Unit Price (in figures) Item Total $193,600 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Item Item Code Planting Quantities Unit of Measure Transplant Existing Trees EA Plant 5 Gallon Size Trees EA Plant 1 Gallon Size Shrubs EA Existing Planting Demolition LS Plan Work (Sheets EP-1 and EP-2) Existing Irrigation Demolition LS Plan Work (Sheets E1-1 and E1-2) Planting Plan Work LS (Sheets P-1 and P-2) Irrigation Plan Work LS (Sheets I-1 and i-2) Maintain Existing Plants LS Plant Establishment Work Month Roadside Clearing LS Estimated Quantity 24 1 86 Unit Price (in figures) $1,000 $25 $10 Item Total 24,000 25 860 S,535 5,535 31,195 18,575 1,000 1,200 1,000 Item NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Item Code Irrigation System Quantities Item Install A-1 Sprinklers Reinstall Salvaged A-1 Sprinklers Install Irrigation Common and Remote Control Wire Test Existing Backflow Device Extend Existing CMP Crossovers Reinstall 11/4" Remote Control Valve Reinstall 11/2" Remote Control Valve Reinstall 3/4" Quick Coupler Install 3/4" Lateral PR200 Plastic Supply Line Install 1" Lateral PR200 Plastic Supply Line Install 11/4" Lateral PR 200 Plastic Supply Line Install 11/2" Lateral PR 200 Plastic 5uppiy Line Install 2" Lateral PR200 Plastic Supply Line Install 2 1/2" Lateral PR200 Plastic Supply Line Install 11/2" Main PR315 Plastic Supply Line Install 2" Main PR315 Plastic Supply Line Install 2 1/2" Main PR315 Plastic Supply Line Install 3" Main PR 315 Plastic Supply Line Unitof Estimated UnitPrice Item Measure Quantity (in figures) Total EA 4 $20.00 $80 EA 36 $50.00 $1,800 LF 7,800 $0.13 $1,014 EA 2 $100.00 $200 LF 22 $50.00 $1,100 EA 2 $150.00 $300 EA 9 $150.00 $1,350 EA 6 $60.00 $360 LF 615 $0.70 ' $430.50 LF 210 $0.70 $147 LF 335 $0.70 $234.50 LF 100 $0.70 $70 LF 96 $0.70 $67.20 LF 55 $0.70 $38.50 LF 20 $3.00 $60 LF 480 $3.00 $1,440 LF 260 $3.00 $780 LF 680 $3.00 $2,040 ITEM NO. 12 ORDINANCE NO. 91-44 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE NON-CODIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE'S AND ADDING CHAPTER 5.05 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF ADULT BUSINESS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FindingS. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30~month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: 1. There is reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general land proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time; 2. There is little or nor probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan; 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this tim,e the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: 1. There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 91-44 will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. 2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. WHEREAS, studies conducted in various communities in other jurisdictions have demonstrated that the proximity and concentration of adult businesses adjacent to residential, religious, educational, or other adult businesses can cause other businesses and residents to move elsewhere. Adult businesses are linked to increases in crime rates in areas surrounding such businesses and such businesses may adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens; and WHEREAS, adult uses are recognized as having serious objectionable operational characteristics, particularly when several of them are concentrated under certain circumstances or located in direct proximity to residential neighborhoods, thereby having a deleterious effect upon the adjacent area. Special regulation of these area is necessary to ensure that these adverse effected will not contribute to the blighting or downgrading of the surrounding neighborhood. The primary control or regulation is for the purpose of preventing the concentration or location of these uses in a manner that would create such adverse effects; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance provides a sufficient number of locations within the City in which all of the types of businesses regulated by this Ordinance be conducted. The location and design standards established by this Ordinance do not unreasonably restrict the development of adult-oriented businesses; and WHEREAS, permitting and/or licensing is a legitimate and reasonable means of accountability to ensure that operators of sexually oriented business comply with reasonable regulations and to ensure that operators do not knowingly allow their establishments to be used as places of illegal sexual activity or solicitation. 3/Ords 9144 -2- SECTION 2. City Ordinance No.. 90-04 adopted by reference portions of the non- cedified Riverside County Ordinance. On the effective date of this Ordinance, the following provisions of the non-codi~ed Riverside County Ordinances, which City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted, are hereby repealed: (A) Ordinance No. 627 relating to picture arcades. SECTION 3. Chapter 5.05 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code, which shall read as follows: "CHAPTER 5.05 ADULT BUSINESSES 5,05.002 Purpose and Intent. It is purpose and intent of this Ordinance to provide for the comprehensive and orderly regulation of adult businesses. It is recognized that these establishments by their very nature may have serious objectionable operational characteristics which, when concentrated, can have a deleterious effect upon areas. In order to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the citizenry 5.05.004 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be defined as follows, unless it is clearly apparent from the context that another meaning is intended. (a) "Adult Bookstore" means a commercial establishment which, as one of its principal business purposes, offers for sale or rental for any form of consideration any one or more of the following: 1. Books, magazines, periodicals, or other printed matter, or photographs, films, motion picture, video cassettes or video reproductions, slides, or other visual representations which depict or describe "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas"; instruments, devices, or paraphernalia which are designed for use is connection with "specified sexual activities" a commercial establishment may have other principal business purposes that do not involve the offering for sale or rental material depicting or describing "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical ares" still be categorized as Adult Book store or Adult Video Store. Such other business purposes will not serve to exempt to serve such commercial establishments from being categorized as an Adult Bookstore or Adult Video Store so long as one of its principal purposes is the offering for sale or rental for consideration the specified materials which depict or describe "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (b) "Adult business" means a business which is conducted exclusively for the patronage ~f adults and as to which minors are specifically excluded from patronage, either by law and/or by the operators of such businesses. "Adult business" also means and includes any adult arcade, adult bookstore, adult cabaret, adult hotel or motel, adult theater, adult model studio, body painting studio, massage parlor and any other business involving "specified sexual activities" or 3/Ords 9144 -3- display or "specified anatomical areas." (c) "Adult cabaret" means any nightclub, bar, restaurant, or similar establishment which is distinguished or characterized by its emphasis in the entertainment presented on: 1. Live performances which is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or specified anatomical area; and/or 2. Films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides or other photographic reproductions whose dominant or predominant character and theme is the depiction of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas for the observation by patrons. (d) "Adult hotel/motel" means a hotel, or similar commercial establishment which: 1. Offers accommodations to the public for any form of consideration; 2. Provides patrons with close circuit television transmissions, films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides, or other photographic reproductions which are characterized by the depiction or description of "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas;" and has a sign visible for the public right of way which advertises the availability of this adult type of photographic reproductions; or 3. Offers a sleeping room for rent for a period of time that is less than ten (I0) hours; or 4. Allows a tenant or occupant of a sleeping room to sub-rent the room for a period of time that is less than ten (10) hours. (e) "Adult model studio" means any establishment open to the public where for any form of consideration of gratuity, human models who display specified anatomical areas are provided to be observed, sketched, drawn, painted, sculpted, photographed, or otherwise depicted by persons other than the proprietor paying such consideration or gratuity. This provision shall not apply to any school of art, a firm which operated by an individual, firm association, partnership, corporation or institution which meats the requirements established in the Education Code of the State of California of the issuance or conferring of a diploma. (f) "Adult picture arcade" means any place to which the public is permitted or invited wherein coin or token-operated, or electronically, electrically, or mechanically controlled still or motion picture machines, projectors, or other image producing devices are maintained to show images to five or fewer persons per machine, at any one time, and where the emphasis of 'the images so displayed is on depiction of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical arcaso (g) "Adult theater" means a theater, concert hall, auditorium or similar establishment, 3/Ords 9144 either indoor or outdoor in nature, which presents live entertainment, films, motion pictures, slide photographs, video cassettes or similar photographic reproductions which are distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to specified sexual activity or specified anatomical areas. (h) "Body painting studio" means any establishment or business which provides the service of applying paint or any other substance, whether transparent nor not, to or on the human body when such body ius wholly or partially nude in terms of specified anatomical areas. (i) "Escort" means a person who, for consideration, agrees or offers to act as a companion, guide or date for another person, or who agrees or offers to privately model lingerie or to privately perform a strip tease for another person. (j) "Escort Agency" means any person or business association who furnishes, offers to furnish, or advertises to furnish escorts as one of its primary business purposes for a fee, tip, or other consideration. (k) "Establishment" means and includes any of the following: 1. The opening or commencement of any sexually oriented business; 2. The conversion of an existing business, whether or not a sexually oriented business, to any sexually oriented business; 3. The additions of any sexually oriented business to any other existing sexually business; or 4. The relocation of any sexually oriented business. (1) "Massage parlor" means any place where for any form of consideration or gratuity, massage, alcohol rub, administration of fomentations, electric or magnetic treatments, or any other treatment of manipulation of the human body occurs. (m) "Material relative to adult businesses" means and includes but is not limited to accessories, books, magazines, photographs, prints, drawings, paintings, motion pictures and pamphlets or any combination thereof. (n) "Permittee" means a person in whose name a permit to operate an adult business has been issued as well as the individuals listed as an applicant on the application for a permit. (o) "Persons" means an individual, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity. (p) "Sexual Encounter/Rap Center" means any business or commercial enterprise that, 3/Orda 9144 -5- as one of its primary business purposes, offers any form of consideration: 1) physical contact in the form of wrestling or tumbling between persons of the opposite sex; or 2) activities between male and female persons and/or persons of the same sex when one or more of the persons is in a state of nudity or semi-nudity. (q) "Specified anatomical areas" means and includes any of the following: 1. Less than complete and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus or female breasts below a point above the tope of the areola; or 2. Human male genitals in a discernible turgid state, even if completely or opaquely covered. (r) "Specified sexual activities" means and includes any of the following: 1. The fondling or touching of human genitals, pubic regions, buttocks, anus or female breasts, or 2. Sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including intercourse, oral copulation, or sodomy; or 3. Masturbation, actual or simulated; or 4. Excretory functions as part of, or in connection with, any of the activities set forth in subsections 1 through 3 of this section; or 5. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal. (s) "Transfer of ownership or control" of an adult business means and includes any of the following: 1. The sale, lease, or sub-lease of a business; 2. The transfer of securities which constitute a controlling interest in the business, whether by sale, exchange or other similar means; or 3. The establishment of a trust, gift or other similar legal device which transfers the ownership or control of the business, except for transfer by bequest or other operation oa law upon the death of the person possessing the ownership or control. 5.05.006 Restricted to Commercial Zones. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Chapter, no adult business shall be established, expanded or conducted except in a C-I/CP zone and then shall conform to all regulations contained in this Chapter. 3/Ord~ 9144 5.05.008 Conditional Use Permit. No adult business shall be opened, established or relocated except upon the granting of a conditional use permit therefore in accordance with Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 of the Non-Cedified Cedes of the County of Riverside as adopted by the City of Temecula pursuant to Ordinance No.90-04 and Section 1 therefore, in addition to an Adult Business Permit required by this Chapter. The requirements of Ordinance 348 and of this Chapter first shall be construed in a manner to make them compatible. Where there is a conflict in provisions between the two, the provisions of this Chapter shall control. 5.05.010 Operational Criteria. In additional to the base zone requirements governing use pursuant to Section 5.05.006 the following additional requirements shall be satisfied by adult businesses. Such additional requirements shall be included in any approved Conditional Use Permit. a Locationa Standards. 1. No adult business shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of: City limits; a. Any residential use, whether inside or outside of the Temecula b. Any church, chapel, or similar regular place of worship, whether inside or outside of the Temecula City limits; c. Any school or day care establishment, public or private, park or playground, whether inside or outside of the Temecula City limits; d. Any retirement home or convalescent hospital, whether inside or outside of the Temecula City limits; e. Any recreational facility, such as game arcade, bowling alley, skateboard rink, skating rink, or similar area where minors regularly congregate, whether inside of outside of the Temecula City limits. f. City Hall, City Offices, and other public buildings; g. Libraries, whether inside or outside of the Temecula City limits. 2. An adult business may not be operated within two hundred (200') feet of another adult business, whether within or outside of the Temecula City limits. 3. An adult business may not be operated in the same building, structure, or portion thereof, containing another adult business. 4. For purposes of this Ordinance, all distance shall be measured in a straight 3/Ord$ 9144 -7- line, without regard for intervening structures, from the nearest property line for which the adult business will be located to the nearest property line of a use or district listed above. 5. For purposes of subsection (2) of this section, the distance between any two adult businesses shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the closest exterior wall of the structure in which each business is located. a. A person may not operate an adult business without a valid permit, issued by the City for the particular type of business. required parking area. necessary by the City. b. Said use shall have a separate business entrance adjacent to the Additional off-street parking facilities may be required if deemed c. The City Planning Commission shall review and approve all signing and architectural graphics. d. Maximum occupancy load, fire exits, aisles and fire equipment shall be regulated, designed and provided in accordance with the Fire Department and building regulations and standards adopted by the City of Temecula. e. No adult business shall be operated in any manner that permits the observation of any material depicting, describing or relating to specified sexual activities specified anatomical areas from any public way or from any location outside the building or area of such establishment. This provision shall apply to any display, decoration, sign, show window or other opening. f. Lighting in Parking Lots. Lighting shall be required which is designed to illuminate all off street parking areas serving such use for the purpose of increasing the personal safety of store patrons and reducing the incidents of vandalism and theft. Said lighting shall be shown on the required plot plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. g. Amplified Sound. No loudspeakers or sound equipment shall be used by an adult business for the amplification of sound to a level discernible by the public beyond the walls of the building in which such use is conducted or which violates any noise restrictions as may be adopted by the City of Temecula. h. The building entrance to an adult business shall be clearly and legibly posted by a notice indicating that minors are precluded from entering the premises. Said notice shall be constructed and posted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. i. Picture Arcades. 3/Ords 9144 -8- 1. No picture arcade shall be maintained or operated unless the complete interior of the picture arcade is visible upon entrance to such picture arcade. No partially or fully enclosed booths or partially or fully concealed booths shall be maintained. Notwithstanding this Ordinance, any picture arcade lawfully in existence prior to the adoption of this subsection shall conform to the provision of this subsection within three (3) months of the effective date of this Section. This subsection shall also be applicable to any picture arcade which is not open for business prior to the date that this section takes effect. 2. Minimum Lighting. No person shall operate a picture arcade unless a light level of not less than two (2) foot candles at floor level is maintained in every portion of said establishment to which the public is admitted. 3. Wall and Partition Construction. No person shall operate a picture arcade unless any wall or partition which is situated so as to create a room or enclosure in which any image producing device is located is constructed of not less than 1-hour fire resistive material. 4. Minimum Aisle Width. No person shall operate a picture arcade in which the width of the aisles in any room where an image producing device is located is less than forty-two (42) inches. 5. Minimum Doorways. No person shall operate a picture arcade unless there are no fewer than two (2) doorways of a width no less than thirty-six (36) inches which provide ingress or egress from any room from which an image producing device is located; provided, however, that one(l) doorway shall be sufficient in the event the fire marshal should so determine. The doorway or doorways shall be unlocked during business hours. 6. Lighted Exit Signs. No person shall operate a picture arcade unless over every doorway which provides egress from any room in which an image producing device is located, an internally illuminated exit sign with letters at least five (5) inches in height is maintained. 7. Maximum, Occupancy Load. No person shall operate a picture arcade in which the number of persons in any room or partitioned portion of a room where an image producing device is located exceeds one (1) person per thirty (30) square feet. The maximum occupancy permitted in any room or panitioned portion of a room in which an image producing device is located shall be conspicuously posted by the operator and shall remain posted at the entrance to said room. 8. Maximum Number of Devices. No person shall operate a picture arcade in which the number of image producing devices exceeds the maximum occupancy load permitted in any room or partitioned portion of a room in which an image producing device is located. 3/Ord~ 91-44 -9- k. Adult Motels 1. Evidence that a sleeping room is in a hotel, motel or a similar commercial establishment has been rented and vacated two (2) or more times in a period of time that is less than ten (10) hours creates a rebuttable presumption that the establishment is an adult motel as that term is defined in this Chapter. 2. A person is in violation of the provisions of this Chapter if, as a person in control of a sleeping room in a hotel, motel, or similar commercial establishment that does not have an adult business permit, he/she rents or sub-rents a sleeping room to that person and, within ten (10) hours from the time the room is rented, he/she rents or sub-rents the same sleeping room again. 3. For purposes of sub-section (2) of this section,m the term "rent" or "sub-rent" means the act of permitting a room to be occupied. 5.05.012 Adult Business Conditional Use Permit. Application for conditional use permit for an adult business shall be accompanied by: 1. A statement that the site of the proposed business is not located: a. Within one thousand (1,000) feet of any district, structure or boundary as defined in Section 5.05.010; b. Within two hundred (200) feet of another adult businesses, whether within or outside of the Temecula City limits. 2. A scale map or drawing accurately depicting land uses within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property on which the adult business is proposed to be operated. 5.05.014 Issuance of Adult Business Permit. An applicant for the operation of an adult businesses must obtain an adult business permit in addition to a conditional use permit. Such adult business permit shall be non-transferable and must be renewed on an annual basis on the anniversal'y date of the original application. The permit obtained is not transferable and a new permit must be obtained if the business is leased, sold or otherwise transferred for any reason. Applicants for such permits shall file a written, signed and verified application or renewal application on a form provided by the Community Development Department. 1. The name and permanent address of applicant. 2. The name and business address of the applicant. If the applicant is a corporation, the name shall be exactly as set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and the 3/Ords 91~.4 -10- applicant shall show the name and residence address of each of the officers, directors and each stockholder owning no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the stock of the corporation. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shall show the name and residence address of each of the members, including limited partners; 3. A detailed description of the manner of providing proposed entertainment, including type of entertainment and the number of persons engaged in the entertainment; 4. Hours of operation; 5. A location, address and floor plan showing where the specific entertainment uses are proposed to be conducted within the building; 6. The name or names of the person or persons having the management or supervision of applicant's business and of any entertainment; 7. statement of the nature and character of applicant's business if any, to be carried on in conjunction with such entertainment; and 8. For a renewal application, applicant in addition shall indicate any changes since the filing of the initial application. c. All applications for a permit or renewal shall be filed with the City Police Department on forms prescribed by the Police Department. Each application determined by resolution of the City Council shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee for filing or renewal determined by resolution of the City Council, which fees will be used to defray the coasts of investigation, inspection and processing of such applicants. d. After an investigation, the Police Chief shall approve the issuance of a permit or renewal unless he finds one or more of the following to be true: 1. That the building, structure, equipment and location used by the business for which a permit is required herein does not comply with the requirements and standards of the health, zoning, fire and safety laws of the State of California and of the City of Temecula; 2. That the applicant, his or her employee, agent, partner, director, officer, stockholder or manager has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application for a permit, or in any report or record required to be filed with the Police Department, Sheriff or other department of the City. 3. That the applicant has had any type of adult business permit revoked by any public entity within two (2) years of the date of the application; 4. That on the date that the business for which a permit is required herein 3/Ords 9144 -11- commences, and thereafter, there will be no responsible person on the premises to act as mange at all times during which the business is open; 5. That the applicant has not shown how the on premises manager will prevent the business from being used as a place where prostitution, assignation or any lewd act could occur; 6. That a conditional use permit has not been granted for the use; or 7. That an applicant is under eighteen (18)_ years of age. 5,05.016 Decision of Police Chief. The decision of the Police Chief regarding a permit application shall be issued within 45 days of the date of the filing of the application unless he has set the matter for hearing before the City Council. Such hearing must be held and a decision rendered within sixty (60) days from the date of the application, unless the matter is continued at the request of the applicant. No application for a permit shall be denied without giving the applicant an opportunity for a hearing before the City Council. 5,05.018 Inspection. An applicant, or permittee shall permit representatives of the Sheriff's Department, Health Department, Fire Department, Code Enforcement, Planning Department, or other City Departments or Agencies to inspect the premises of an adult business for the purpose of insuring compliance with the law, at any time it is occupied or opened for business. A person who operates an adult business or his agent or employee is in violation of the provisions of this section if he/she refuses to permit such lawful inspection of the premises at any time it is occupied or opened for business. 5.05,020 Suspension or Revocation of Permit. After an investigation, notice and hearing, the Police Chief shall suspend or revoke and existing adult business permit, as shall be found necessary to assure the preservation of the public health and safety, if the evidence presented establishes that one or more of the following conditions exist: (1) The building, structure, equipment and location used by the business fails to comply with the requirements or fails to meet the standards of the health, zoning, fire and safety laws of the State of California, or of the ordinances of the City of Temecula; (2) The permittee, his or her employee, agent, partner, director, officer, stockholder or manager has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material facts in the application for a permit, or in any report or record required to be filed with the Police, Sheriff or other department of the City; (3) The permittee has had any type of adult business permit revoked by any public entity within two (2) years of the date the permit was issued; (4) There was not a responsible person on the premises to act as a manager at all times which the business was opened; (5) That the permittee, manager or any agent or employee of the permittee or manager has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction in conjunction with or as a result of the operation of the subject adult business and after the date of issuance of the conditional use permit for said business; (6) A picture arcade has been used as a place where sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, masturbation, prostitution, assignation or other lewd acts occur or have occurred; (7) The permittee, his or her employee, agent, partner, director, officer, stockholder or manager has violated any provision of this Ordinance; or (8) The conditional use permit for the use has been suspended or revoked. 5.05,022 Transfer of Permit. A permittee shall not transfer an Adult Business Permit to another, nor shall a permittee operate an adult business sunder the authority of a permit at any place other than the address designated in the application. 5.05.024 Time Limits for Action of a Conditional Use Permit. An application for a conditional use permit shall be reviewed and acted upon in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 348 and the California Government Code. 5.05.026 Suspension and Revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition to the grounds set forth at Section 18.31 of Ordinance No. 348, the City Council may suspend or revoke any conditional use permit if it is found that any of the following conditions exist in addition to the criteria set forth in this Ordinance: (a) The operations conducted by the permittee does not comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the City's building, health, zoning and fire ordinances and this Ordinance; (b) That the approved use has been expanded without City Council approval; that the approved use has been partially or wholly converted to another adult business without City Council approval; that the conditional use permit has not been utilized within six months of its issuance; or (c) The Adult Business Permit has been suspended or revoked. 5.05.028 Regulations Non-Exclusive. The regulations set forth in this Chapter are not intended to be exclusive and compliance therewith shall not excuse noncompliance with any other regulations pertaining to the operation of adult business as adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula. 5.05.030 Violations/Penalties. Any firm, corporation or person, whether as principal, agent, employee or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment. Any violation of the provisions of this Chapter which is committed and continues from day-to- day, constitutes a separate offense for each and every date during which such violations is committed or continued. 5.05,032 Public Nuisance. In addition to the penalties set forth at Section 5.05.030 above, any adult business which is operating in violation of this chapter or any provision thereof shall constitute a public nuisance and, as such, may be abated or enjoined from further operation. 5.05.034 Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. All ordinances or parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason held to be invalid, or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, work or portion thereof regardless of whether such other sections, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or portion thereof regardless of whether such other section, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b) (3). SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. 3/Orda 91-44 -14- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor 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 foregoing Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGE~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager December 17, 1991 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CITY PROMOTIONAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: Receive this report and direct staff as to Council's interest in continuing to develop a City Promotional Program. DISCUSSION: City Staff has worked with selected Councilmembers, an AD HOC Committee and the economic development corporation to discuss City needs and opportunities for developing a City Promotional Program. Representatives from the advertising firm of Final Touch Marketing will be present at this evening's Council Meeting to introduce ideas related to the development of a promotional program. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Financial Impact of this program is dependent upon the extent the Council ~uthorizes the use of City funds. a:promot ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk December 17, 1991 Selection of City Council Committee Assignments RECOMMENDATION: Select and appoint members of the City Council to act as liaison to various City Commissions and to serve on various committees for calendar year 1992. BACKGROUND: The City Council has established the policy of appointing one of its members to serve as liaison to each of the four City Commissions. This policy also included appointing Councilmembers to a number of Council Committees. Attached, for your convenience, is a list of the Committee Assignments for 1991. ATTACHMENTS: Committee Assignments List TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL Committee Assignments Commission Liaison (One member) Planning Commission: Ron Parks Parks and Recreation Commission: Pat Birdsall Traffic and Transportation Commission: Sal Mu~oz Public Safety Commission: Karel Lindemans Committee Assignments (One or two members) General Plan Committee: Ron Parks, Sal Mu~oz (Peg Moore - Alternate) Legislative Committee: Peg Moore Finance Committee: Karel Lindemans, Pat Birdsall RDA/Economic Development Committee: Karel Lindemans, Peg Moore Public Works/Facilities Committee: Peg Moore, Ron Parks Cultural Preservation Committee: Pat Birdsall Design Standards Committee: Peg Moore Regional Transit Authority: Sal Mu~oz, Ron Parks WRCOG: Ron Parks, Peg Moore RCTC: Sal Mu~oz K-RAT, JPA: Ron Parks Integrated Waste Management: Karel Lindemans, Peg Moore JPIA: Peg Moore Sphere of Influence: Ron Parks, Sal Mu~oz Administration Committee: Ron Parks, Peg Moore Sister City: Pat Birdsall, Karel Lindemans ITEM NO. 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department December 17, 1991 Appointment of Councilmembers to serve on Committees PREPARED BY: John R. Meyer RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council appoint a member to serve on the following committees: 1. General Plan Technical Subcommittee Selection Committee, 2. Old Town Advisory Committee DISCUSSION The following is a brief description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the proposed assignments. GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE SELECTION COMMITTEE Together with a Planning Commissioner and Staff, the Councilmember will recommend to the City Council appointments to the five Technical Subcommittees. The subcommittees will focus on Land Use, Circulation, Economic Development, Growth Management, and Urban Design. The Technical Committees will meet twice at key points in the General Plan's preparation to provide direction and expertise in the subcommittee's area of focus as well as review and critique the draft General Plan elements and EIR. The City Council will be requested to submit one nominee for each subcommittee to be evaluated by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee will then make a final recommendation to the Council for its consideration. The nominees should have expertise and interest in the area of focus and be a resident, property owner or business representative within the Community. The nominees should be given to the Selection Committee no later than December 17th, 1991. OLD TOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Old Town Advisory Committee will provide direction and input to the Consultant in the preparation of the Old Town Specific Plan. A meeting schedule has not yet been established. Other members of this committee will include representatives from the Planning Commission, Local Review Board, Temecula Town Association, Old Town Merchants Association, Economic Development Corporation, and a citizen-at-large. MEYERJR\SELECT ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~1~3~'~-- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Clerk December 17, 1991 Status Report on French Valley Airport Susan W. Jones RECOMMENDATION: Receive, discuss and file report. BACKGROUND: The attached staff report was prepared for the meeting of December 10, 1991 and continued by the City Council to this date. swj TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~,~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department December 10, 1991 Status Report on French Valley Airport PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning Receive and discuss INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Agenda Report is to provide the City Council with information concerning the French Valley Airport, the agencies which regulate the airport and surrounding areas, to identify the role of the City in land use decisions within the Influence Area of the French Valley Airport, and to address some of the safety issues raised by the City Council at it's October 8, 1991 meeting. AIRPORT FACILITIES The French Valley Airport, which is a general aviation facility with no control tower, is located east of Winchester Road north of the City of Temecula. The existing runway is 4,600 feet long and 75 feet wide and handles approximately 80,000 operations (landings and take-offs) per year. The airport has lighted runways that enable 24-hour operation. There are currently about 120 fixed wing aircraft based at the airport. The runway surface is capable of supporting aircraft operations for most small private propeller-driven and jet aircraft. The existing runway can also accommodate the operation of commercial aircraft up to the size of the propeller-driven DASH 7's and DASH 8'so The DASH 7 and DASH 8 have a capacity of 35 and 50 passengers, respectively. According to County staff, there are currently no plans to lengthen or expand the runway or apron areas at the French Valley Airport. However, the Riverside County Aviation Commission (RCAC) is planning to enhance the operation of the facility by upgrading the airport from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to basic Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The County has applied to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the equipment to enhance airport operations. In addition to the LUP being prepared for the Airport Land Use Commission, the RCAC has applied to the FAA for a grant to prepare a Master Plan for the French Valley Airport. In addition, the County Aviation Commission has applied to the FAA for 9137,000 to prepare a master plan for the facility. AIRPORT MANAGEMENT In addition to the local government that conducts general planning and zoning for the airport; four governmental agencies have some form of legal jurisdiction over the airport proper or areas of influence. One federal, one state, and two county agencies are involved in the management and operation of the facility. The Federal Aviation Administration is concerned with the flight safety and manages the airspace over the airport. The Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) issues operating permits, conducts inspections, provides technical assistance to County airport agencies, and reviews airport land use plans for consistency with State Law. The safety concerns expressed by Councilman Mu~oz at the October 8th City Council meeting, were addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration. City Staff contacted the local area office of the FAA. The Councilman's airport safety concerns were discussed with Mr. Carl Christopher, the Manager of the Accident Prevention Program. It was the opinion of Mr. Christopher, that there are no significant safety problems at French Valley Airport. His opinion is based upon his experience in general aviation and his contacts with the safety counselors at the French Valley Airport. The safety counselors are local volunteers who monitor flight operations and safety at the airport. Although the Federal Aviation Administration representative believes that there are no significant safety hazards at the airport, the City Airport Committee will meet with the FAA, the Friends of French Valley Airport, and airport safety experts to identify what they perceive to be potential safety problems around the French Valley Airport. The solutions to these problems will be forwarded to the appropriate regulatory agencies for consideration. The Riverside County Aviation Commission operates the airport facilities at the French Valley Airport and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is concerned with the use of the non-airport property within the Area of Influence of the airport. The Aviation Division of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) provides staff to both the RCAC and ALUC. At present time, the ALUC regulates the area of influence of the French Valley Airport under the 1984, Riverside County Land Use Plan which establishes general policies to management airport influence areas in Riverside County. Exhibit 1 shows the Interim Area of Influence for the French Valley Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission has seven members and is responsible for land use planning around the airport. Five members represent the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and two members represent Riverside County Cities. The County representatives are: William Harker (1 st District), Peggy Zopf (2nd District), Ron Karge (3rd District), Frank Wilson (4th District), and Ed Butler (5th District). The City representatives are Gillar Boyd (Palm Springs) and John Wingate (Riverside). Both were appointed in 1982 by the City Selection Committee. The City Selection Committee is composed of all the City Mayors in the County. According HOGAND~AIR1 .AR 2 to EDA staff, recent changes in State Law concerning the terms of office for the members of the Airport Land Use Commission, will require that the current City representatives on the ALUC be reappointed or replaced by the City Selection Committee. The City of Temecula is a member of the City Selection Committee and will be involved in this process. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission operates pursuant to the provisions of the State Aeronautics Act, Sections 21670 through 21679 of the Public Utilities Code. According to Section 21670, the purpose of the LUP is to protect the public health, safety and welfare, ensure the continued orderly use and development of airports in California, and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. Section 21675, requires that an Airport Land Use Plan (LUP) be prepared for all commercial and general aviation airports to ensure the orderly growth and expansion of these airports and to address the unique land use, noise, and public safety concerns associated with airports. The Influence Area around the French Valley Airport is currently managed pursuant to the 1984 Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. The Plan established interim policies to control development within airport influence areas in Riverside County. The Plan established three specific management areas. Area I is the area near the imaginary approach paths into and out of the facility. Area II is the area around the airport with potentially significant safety concerns. The entire Area of Influence around the airport is Management Area III. Exhibit 2 shows the location of interim Management Areas I and II at the French Valley Airport. The current Airport Land Use Plan allows only residential development on lots larger than 2.5 acres in Area I if the development does not interfere with the approach zones of the airport runway. In Area II, in addition to the uses allowed in Area I, agricultural, industrial and commercial uses are also acceptable. In Area III, height limits and aviation easements are required for all uses, and special sound proofing requirements are required to reduce interior noise levels in all residential uses. To prepare the land use plan for the French Valley Airport, the ALUC has received a $50,000 grant from CALTRANS. The firm of Aries Consultants has been hired to prepare the Land Use Plan. To facilitate the preparation of the LUP, the Airport Land Use Commission has created an advisory committee that includes local agencies and airport users. The French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee consists of representatives of CALTRANS, the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Riverside County, and the Friends of French Valley Airport. The first meeting was held in Hemet on November 27, 1991; a representative from the City Planning staff was in attendance at the meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the ALUC's LUP consultant to the French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee and to solicit their issues and concerns. The next meeting has been scheduled for the end of January, 1992. The current plans for the French Valley Airport assume that the facility will continue to be a general aviation airport. As a result, new FAA regulation controlling the noise from .commercial aircraft, will not affect noise levels at French Valley. As a result, it will be necessary for local governments to carefully plan future land use around the airport in order to prevent future noise and safety problems. The General Plan Guidelines for the State of California require that city general plans address both existing and projected noise levels from a wide range of noise sources, including roadways, industrial facilities, and general aviation airports. The City will have the opportunity to address these noise, safety, and land use compatibility issues as part of the City's first General Plan that is currently being prepared. THE ROLE OF THE CITY IN AIRPORT AREA LAND USE DECISIONS According to State law, the airport land use plan was intended to take precedence over a City or County general plan within the airport's area of influence. The legislature intended that all development and land use proposals within the area of influence be consistent with the airport land use plan, All land use development entitlemerits within the influence area of the airport, must be approved by the Airport Land Use Commission. If a land use or development proposal is denied by the ALUC, the City or County (whichever has jurisdiction of the area) may overrule the decision and approve the development. To overrule a decision of the ALUC, the City or County must, with a 2/3's vote of it's legislative body make specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the legislative intent as defined in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. The action of a City or County to overrule the decision of the ALUC makes the operator of the airport immune liability for all damages to property and personal injury that results from the decision to overrule a project denial by the Airport Land Use Commission (Section 21675.1 (f) Public Utilities Code). RECOMMENDATIONS It is Staff's recommendation that the City Council pursue the following goals and objectives relating to the French Valley Airport: The City Airport Committee should coordinate airport concerns and issues with the Friends of French Valley Airport, the FAA, the Airport Land Use Commission, and other airport experts. The Committee should evaluate safety issues around the airport, determine if feasible solutions are available, and forward any solutions to the appropriate regulatory agency for consideration. A specific Work Program that identifies the objectives and activities should be prepared to assist the City Airport Committee in it's efforts to reduce safety hazards and address local airport concerns. The City should continue to actively monitor and provide input into the development of the Airport Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport. The City Council contact Supervisor Walt Abraham and request that the City be allowed to provide input into the selection of any future First District representative to the Airport Land Use Commission. The Mayor should be actively involved with the City Selection Committee to improve local representation on the Airport Land Use Commission. The City should encourage the City of Murrieta to identify and implement possible solutions to airport issues and concerns. HOGAND~AIR1 .AR 4' 6. The City should incorporate airport related issues into the Land Use, Noise, and Safety Elements of the City's General Plan. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 - French Valley Airport Management Areas Article entitled: "Mayday, Mayday - No Place to Land", Planning, November, 1991. HOGAND~AiRI .AR 5 VICINITY MAP , ~ ,.') ~...j,.L: 7 // of Temecula Mile EXHIBIT 2 AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AREAS AREA AREA II k\\\'q Mayday, Mayday-- No Place to Land All over the country, general aviation arports are feeling the suburban squeeze. By Ruth Eckdish Knack F, or a first-time passenger, circling around northern New Jersey's High Point Monument in a tiny Piper Cherokee gives new meaning to the term "bird's eye view." It also gives fresh insight into the devotion many small plane pilots feel toward their craft and toward their air- field--and v.,hy they're so distressed at the rapidly diminishing number of gen- eral aviation facilities in the U,S. Since 1970 according to the Federal Aviation Administration. we have lost some 1,500 "public use" general aviation airports lair- ports with little or no commercial service and that ma.v be prlvatei.v owned but that are open to the publicl, leaving us with some 5000. During the first half of this year alone FAA figures show, 13 public- use aviation facilities were closed for good. Both the airports and the aircraft that use them vary wideh.'-- from single-seat crop dusters, vintage 19~0. to the biggest Grumman jet and from a grass strip on a former sheep farm in Lagrange, Ohio, to Meachan~ Airport in Fort Worth, with almost 500000 takeoffs and landings a ,,,'ear reputed to be the busiest general avianonairportinthe U.S. Most are little guys--with maybe 10 to 20 operations a day--but manya.resobstantial with so- phisticated instru- ment landing facilities and run,.xavs long enough to accom. nlodate th~ largest business jets. And many are endangered particu!arb' those in tile pri- vately owned publicly used categor':.' ior POPU the acro- oym coined bF Douglas Nichols. ,.;Iho owns that grass strip in Ohio!. 2000 ASL Jose EasT-A Ci8q56 In the Pittsburgh area, to cite one ex- ample, half of the eight general aviation facilities are up for sale and may not survive as airports. according to H, Alan Speak, program manager for the South- western Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. "We are losing a national resource when we lose our general avia- tion airports," says Speak. "But if the current trend continuesl in 20 years we could lose them all." Under fire [t's the airport owners, a quirky group dominated by ex-milita~' pilots who feel the pressure most. At New Jersey's Princeton Airport, owner Richard Nie- renberg volunteers a 'tale of woe' about his longstanding battle with neighboring residents who complain that planes from the airport are buzzing their expensive houses (not true, he says), and with Mont- gomery Township officials, who, he says, routinely side with the residents even though "all the complaints come from three people." Nierenberg, with his wife and son. bought the field on Route 206, just outside Princeton, in 1984 and proceeded to drum up new business, including a thriving air taxi service, while complaints about noise increased. A year ago, the township zon- ing administrator ruled that the airport's helicopter school violated the local zoning ordinance, a decision subsequently upheld by the zoning board. Robert Marmion the township's director of community de- velopment, notes that the airport overlaps three zoning districts: research and office; highway commercial; and single-family residential. In all three, it's a nonconforming use. As required by state law, the town- ship has also created an airport hazard overlay zone. The family's decision to challenge the zoning board's decision in court set off a year-long debate, stirred up recently by the neighbors' contention that the airport was allowing jets to land and refuel, and even offering training for jet pilots. This September, the township committee voted, as it has before, to consider acquiring the airport, either through outright purchase or through eminent domain. "They've got us in an economic stranglehold." says the feisty Nierenberg, "They say they value the airport, but they When California's Reid-Hillview Airport was built, it was surrounded by orchards, Today. a major shopping center lies within its runway protecffon keep approving development right next door They tend to think of general avid- non as a bunch of rich doctors with their own planes. But a lot of people use this field for lots of things, including MedEvac, and a lot of people make a living from it." The airport employs 4-5 people, says Nierenberg s son Ken, the airport man- ager. In California, a similar controversy caused the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors last year to vote to consider closing a county-owned general aviation airport that has drawn numerous com- plaints about noise and possible safety hazards. The 50-year-old Reid-Hitlview Airport eight miles southeast of downtown San Jose, is completely surrounded by development including a regional shopping center at one end of the parallel runways. The mall dates from the early 1970s, about the time when the state legislature passed a law establishing an airport com- patibility land-use commission in every county with an airport lall but San Fran- ciscol. The law sets compatibility standards for development around airports, but in this case it was too late. 'We've done what we can," saysJaunell Waldo, the county planning and develop- m.ent department starfor who works with the airport compatibili~- commission. That means, for exampie requiring pilots to enter the airport at a d, 5-degree angle, and comn~issionlng studies by experts. The most re:cent ot these a land-use sa/ety compatibiiity study prepared by the Santa Rosa aviation planning firm of Hodges & Shutt recommends the creation of tv:o supplemental safety zones that would ex- clude such uses as hospitals and schools. it also suggests that the count.,:' consider acquiring any open space south of the airport and buying and demolishing a small number of residences to the north. The supervisors' next step, says county aviation director Donald Ftynn. will be to hire a consultant to prepare the environ- mental assessment required for any rede- velopmerit of the airport site. Favored status Both Princeton and Reid-Hillview have been designated by the FAA as "reliev- ors" --a status much sought after by airport operators because it automatically makes the facilities eligible for federal funding of capital improvements. The agency be- gan applying the reliever label in the early 1970s as a way to ease the overload at commercial facilities. Since then, it has designated 285 general aviation airports-- all of them close enough to the big air- ports to attract a substantial portion of the small plane traffic--and provided them with funds for new runways, lighting, instrumertts, and other improvements. The 10-year airport plan released by the FAA last spring assumes the construction of 71 additional relievers--at a cost to the fed- eral government of 550 million. In the Chicago area, the major reliever for O'Hare International Airport is Palwaukee Airport eight miles to the north. Its location has helped it attract a large number of corporate aircraft, including jets, and its 5,000-foot main runway can accommodate them. Palwaukee is a success story, A few years ago the 45-year-old privately owned airport seemed likely to be swallowed up by the suburban development surround- ing it. But in late 1987, r, vo adjacent suburbs l Wheeling and Prospect Heights, signed an intergovernmental agreement to buy the 253-acre facility. An eight- member commission (four from each town l now runs the airport. "Palwaukee is a significant example of how things can work right in the aviation industry,' says Much of the continuing debate about the Princeton Airport has been carried out in tbe pages of tbe local newspaper. the Princeton Packet. The cartoon accompanied one of the stories. 'l'~n tired of all the figIt ting,' says owner Richard ,Vierenberg. "l just want to be able to run my business." Quonset but hangars at Progress Field in Frenmnt, Ohio. Residential development adjacent to suburban Chicago s Palwaukee Airport makes expansion difficult. Real Estate 10% Finance 6% signation to privately owned public-use airports. Last year, a task force Manton chaired. with representatives from other regional agencies, the state transportation depart- ment, and the Ne,,v York district office of Services the FAA. worked out a new way of men- 35% i ~uringtheimpo_rtLnce--includingeconomic ~ importance--or a region's small airports. ; As a result of the process. which assigns a Education 5% ~ numerical rating to each facilityI six of the Agriculture I% ~ region's private airports were declared Construction 3~', eligible for reliever status, and three have Retail Miscellaneous Trade 1% Manufacturing 7% Wholesale Machinery Trade 6% Manufacturing Utilities gleeIronic 2% Transpor- Equipment tation Manufacturing Services 9% A survey by Cambridge Systemaries showed the wide range of businesses in Afassachusetts using general aviation airports. More than a tilird are from the service sector. its manager, Fred Stewart. But, Stewart notes, a public airport must meet a higher standard than a private one. And that's difficult in a crowded suburban area like Palwaukee's. The fo- cus now is on finding a way to smooth approaches by relocating an adjacent in- tersection, as well as the drainage ditch that separates the main runway from the site picked out for new hangars. With the FAA kicking in for 90 percent of such improvements, it's clear that reliever status is a benefit. The trick is to get the designation. Few private airports are re- lievers, says Benjamin D. Manton III, AICP, who is the aviation program manager for the four-county Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board in Syracuse. Manton has mounted a sort of crusade to 'level the playing field"--to get the FAA to apply the retiever de- completed the master plans needed for funding. 'These are airports that didn't have the money to improve their facilities to allow business aircraft to land/' says Manton. "Now they ll be able to make those im- provements. The entire focus of our ef- forts is to enhance local economic devel- opment opportunities by providing better services to businesses." Manton notes that not all fields that are designated wiil necessariiy be devel- oped. "Some may be near wetlands. for instance, and some aren t suitable for other reasons. Plus, we may not need that many relievers. Nevertheless," he concludes. "the tellever designation can be seen as a sensible way of banking airport sites for the future.' Where to get help For nonreliever small airports. the FAA does not offer a great deal of guidance except for some general recommendations that development be limited in runway protection zones and that height limits be set in approach zones. Every two years, however, the Office of Airport Planning and Programming does prepare a long- range national plan of integrated airport systems tNPIASt, which provides an in- formative overview of the entire network. The 1990-99 plan proposes 319 new loca- tions for general aviatDn airports. To fill the gap state and local planners have been taking an increastngly active role. inPrinceGeorge'sCoun~ Maryland. for example, Tom Lockard AICP. a senior 12 Planning November 1991 planner in the zoning division. reports that the planning departmenUs new sub- regional plans will offer guidelines for dealing with some of the legal, economic political, and land-use issues involved when a general aviation airport and residential development must coexist in a crowded suburban setting. The planning depart- ment is particularly interested in the issue in the wake of two recently filed suits challenging its decisions in airport expan- sion cases. One was filed by an airport, one by a residents' group. On the state level, the Tennessee De- partment of Aviation has hired a consult- ing firm to prepare action plans for 12 publicly owned general aviation airports. Stacey Morris, assistant director of the Mid-South Division of Buckhart Horn in Memphis, says the pilot program is intended to produce ~community-specific," five-year development plans to bridge the gap be- tween day-to-day decisions and the tradi- tional, 20-year airport master plans. "Hindsight analysis shows that there was often a gap between the recommendations of those long-range plans and the financial realities of community budgets," Morris says. California has done more--although a recent brouhaha makes it clear that having a law on the books is no panacea. A provision of the state's public utilities code requires counties to establish airport land-use commissions like the one in Santa Clara County and to prepare airport com- patibility land-use plans. The plans were due June 30. About half of the 57 counties involved have complied or are in the process of doing sol says Theresa Ishikawa, coordinator for policy and public awareness for the California Division of Aeronautics in Sacramento. The holdout is Los Angeles County. A bill passed by the legislature and, as of early October, awaiting Gov. Pete Wilson's signature, would exempt the county, with its 17 airports 113 of them general avia- tion!, from the state's planning require- ments The exemption is appropriate, argue count.,,, officials because airports are covered by local general plans and by the ~tate s stringent environmental qualit.,,' law. A similar measure was vetoed last year by former governor George Deukme,iian. The aviation division opposes the ex- emption says ishikawa, noting that exist- ing state laws do not adequately address the issue of compatible land uses around airports. Even stronger opposition is voiced by Jay White, a lawyer and former airline pilot who is president of the California Airport Alliance a coalition of groups that support general aviation. He observes that airports in the count.v have benefited from millions in federal grants, making them a kind of public trust that should be preserved White contends that the ex- emption is being pushed by local develop- ers who resent an.,,' restrictions on their rights. Plannersl take note "For some reason" says Katherine Houk, 'we as planners have failed miserably in most cases to make communities realize that their airport, whether publicly or privately owned. must be protected. It has never been politically popular to tell on guidelines to help local governments with such issues. Another Texas planner, Christopher Basham, AICP, a consultant with Charles Willis & Associates in Arlington land a captain in the Air Force Reserve), advises taking a broad view. "Planners should be looking at the overall benefits of a genera:, aviation airport," he says, "and asking for instance, whether the land around it could have a multipurpose use, maybe for cor- porate headquarters.' They should also be honest enough, he adds. to say when a new airport is nor needed. That s what his firm concluded in a just-finished plan for a west-central In the early 1950s, the Los O IFvine Angeles Basin had 38 airports. ~ Today there are 20. A red X people they can't build a 500-foot radio tower in the approach to a runway, or that they can't use their land for its high- est and best use because that use is in- compatible with low-flying aircraft." Houk is an aviation planner for the Houston- Galveston Area Council, a 13-county re- gional planning agency in southeast Texas. (She also holds a pilot's license.i Houk says she is concerned that plan- ners are often ill-equipped to advise com- munities that are considering acquiring a local privately owned airport. Too often, she says, community officials are told by airport owners and their consultants that the only choice is between buying an airport or losing it. In fact, the community may be able to keep the airport in service-- as a private facility--by suggesting man- agement changes and alternative funding sources. Houk s agency is now working about 14000 aircraft and 900000 show is set for July 31 to August ~. Texas agency. In the process of working on an avia- tion systems plan for southeast :vlichigan over the last two years, Robert Davis, AICP came to some similar conclusions. Now a senior planner for the Detroit city p~annlng commission, Davis was formerly Ihe airport planner for the Southeast Airport in New Jersey attracts its own tbllowing. Budding acrobatic pilots can also take lessons there. AERQIATIC CHAMP*ION AND A HOST OF Leo Leadensinger OTHER STARSt , USSEX, N.J. Fri., Sat. & Sun. AUG. 23, 24 & 25 Michigan Council of Governments. The council picked one airport in each of the seven counties covered by the plan for expansxon, necessarily disappointing the Iosers. he says. The plan was expected to be adopted in late October. Working on the plan also turned Davis into something of an advocate for general aviation, 'If people could understand the benefits of having a small airport nearby, they would be more tolerant of it," he suggests. He notes, for instance that as an expanding field, aviation offers all sorts of job opportunities, with particular pos- sibilities for minorities. The economic value of general aviation airports has been documented by Glenn Weisbrod of the Massachusetts consult- ing firm, Cambridge Systemstics. "Contrary. to the popular view 'flying private planes' is far from iusta recreational activity." he wrote in the January. issue of TransVorta- non Quarteriy. Weisbrod estimates that nationally some 26 percent of general aviation flights are made exclusively for business pu~oses and another 60 per- cent partly for business purposes. And 23 percent of the 250 respondents to his firms survey said they considered the proximity of a general aviation airport a major factor in selecting a location for their business. Roots But for all the emphasis on increasing business use, the mainstay of general aviation is still the hobbyist whose flying is limited to short hops in a little Cessna or Piper Cub. That plane, by the way, is likely to be an old one because aircraft manufacturers have all but stopped pro- ducing new models, in part because of the soaring price of liability insurance. It's at the air shows that dot the sum- mer calendar in places like Dayton, Ohio: Muskegon, Michigan; and Sussex, New Jersey, that the recreational flyors come out in force. At the biggest air show of all--in Oshkosh, Wisconsin--they also provide a major economic benefit to the town. According to Ben Owen, director of information services for the Experimen- tal Aircraft Association, which runs the annual Oshkosh Fly-in Convention and Airshow. the annual weeklong event draws some 900,000 visitors. The association, which started in 1953, has i30.000 mem- bers and 700 chapters around the world and maintains a staff of 130 in Oshkosh. 'That's a major business in a town of 50,000," Owen notes. "Pan of the reason we re here,' he adds, "is that both the town and the state have been so support- ive.' The association is based at city- owned Wittman Field. Help needed 'The POPU airport is the alpha and omega of aviation in the U, S.' says airport owner Dour Nichols. And it's the POPU owners who seem most in need of help if the airports are to survive. Some like Gone Damschroder, a former Navy, pilot who owns the Progress Airport in Fromant, Ohio say they re almost buried under mounting taxes and e:cpenses, Damschroder recently lost a long battle to get Sandusky County to buy and improve his 56-acre field, This fall. an engineering firm hired by the county, to conduct a feasibiliry study of several sitesl including his recom- mended an alternative several miles away. Damschroder says politics were involved and that the site chosen is too far off the main road to be profitable. 'But we 11 show them,' he says. 'It'll be a white elephant. When it comes to private enter- prise competing with government, thoro's no question who'll win.' [t's those airports that Alan Speak of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission is struggling to keep alive. Speak, who has been involved in regional aviation planning for over 10 years, says he's proud of the record in his region, where eight public-use airports are still open for business--despite peri- odic threats. "I like to think that part of the reason is our airport systems planning program," he says. IronicallyI one of those eight fields was about to be sold for a housing development--until it was found to be built atop a played-out mine and thus subject to subsidence. It's an airport again. Speak argues that general aviation air- ports are a threatened resource that deserves to be saved but that only a targeted pres- ervation approach makes sense. 'We cant save them all," he says. His "preservation guide for privately owned, public-use airports" includes these recommendations: · The FAA should establish a fund for endangered airports. · The state should establish a strike force to step in when closure is imminent, and it should increase the aid available for privately owned airports, with fund- ing to come from the jet fuel tax. · On the local side, airport owners. managers, and users should form airport action groups to publicize the airport's needs, win community. support, and work with regional planning agencies on a solution. Ruth Knack is the senior editor of P!annmg DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER x TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER DECEMBER 17, 1991 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR DISCUSSION: The Community Services Department is planning a Christmas Snow Frolic and Breakfast with Santa program on Saturday, December 14 at Sam Hicks Monument Park from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Activities will include free carriage rides, pancake breakfast with Santa, 14 tons of snow for children, and Christmas caroling. Two (2) youth Christmas Craft Workshops have been scheduled for December 16 and 17, from 3:30 p,m. at Temecula Elementary School. The workshop will allow kids to work on five different craft projects, as well as receive candy gifts. A Youth Christmas Dance Show is also scheduled at Temecula Middle School on Thursday, December 19, at 7:00 p.m. The entertainment will be provided by students in our Ballet and Tap program, and all ages are encouraged to attend. Admission for this event is Free! A second community workshop concerning the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was held on December 5, with a turnout of approximately 40 people. The information from both workshops, plus a telephone survey will be used to develop the first draft of the master plan. This first draft is scheduled to be completed by the end of January. The Restroom/Snack Bar Project at the Rancho California Sports Park is proceeding according to plan. The project should be completed by the mid part of January. We are still in the process of selecting a firm to provide design services for the Community Recreation Center Project. This item is scheduled for consideration by the City Council on January 14, 1992. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~"' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works December 17, 1991 Public Works Monthly Activity Report (November) PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Monthly Activity Report (November) for the Del~artment of Public Works. pwOl~agd~t\1217~mo~c~t.t! 120691 APPROVAL: CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ' )'-. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official December 17, 1991 Building and Safety November Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: The Building and Safety Department activity for the month of November saw 183 building-related permits issued representing $3,426,540 in building construction valuation. Building valuation for this calendar year to date is approximately $96.5 million. This type of valuation for a City of Temecula's size is a good representation of the large volume of construction activity the City has experienced. This activity was concentrated primarily during the first nine months of this calendar year. Our inspection staff has now completed training and certification in post earthquake safety evaluations of buildings. This month saw the completion of the Costco and K-Mart stores along with the General Dynamics building. Code enforcement staff has prepared a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the implementation of a Directional Sign (kiosk) Program. All interested firms have been invited to an informational meeting to be held December 13, 1991, with all RFQ's to be submitted for consideration by December 20, 1991. Building and Safety November Activity Report December 17, 1991 Page 2 The following is an update of projects of special note that staff is currently involved with: NEW CONSTRUCTION Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Paradise Chevrolet General Dynamics Commerce National Bank Primadonna's Restaurant Main Street Emporium Soup Exchange K-Mart Jefferson Creek Costco 85% Complete 45% Complete 100% Complete 60% Complete 95% Complete 100% Complete 90% Complete 100% Complete 100% Complete 100% Complete v:\wp\egenda,rep\cccml 21 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY Monthly Activity Report For: NOVEMBER This Last Month This Last Month Fiscal Fiscal Year Yr/Da=e PLANS CHECF~ED: Residential 9 4 Commercial 9 1 Industrial/Warehouse 0 0 Others 5 0 TOTAL: 23 5 PERMITS ISSUED: BUILDING 90 87 Value 3,426,540 8,I71,809 Fees I9,565 31,103 ELECTRICAL 46 52 Fees 3,623 7,095 PLUMBING 32 34 Fees 4,046 3,613 MECHANICAL 15 28 Fees 1 , 119 i ,326 TOTAL PERMITS: 183 201 TOTAL FEES: 28,353 43,137 THIS MONTHS PERMITS: NO. OF NO/UNITE PERMITS YR/D~.TE SINGLE FAMILy 4 66 DUPLEX 0 0 MULTI-FAMILY 5 5 COMMERCIAL 1 13 INDUSTRIAL 0 0 RELOCATE/DEMO 0 5 SWIMHING POOLS 6 40 SIGNS 13 44 OTHER 55 160 ALTER/ADD TO DWELLING 16 131 TO COMMERCIAL 7 77 TO INDUSTRIAL 0 0 TOTAL: 107 541 UILDING VALUATION This Fiscal Year to Date:S25,588,172 Last Fiscal Year to Date:S25,896,725 27 57 26 83 0 1 15 59 68 200 504 717 25,588,172 25,896,725 137,524 157,306 324 37I 28,712 35,867 232 231 28,222 19,952 167 137 12,532 9,042 1,227 1,456 206,990 222,I67 PLAN CHECK PERMIT FEES FEES 2,071 3,951 0 0 0 12,060 538 2,918 0 0 0 0 570 1,280 453 1,023 631 2,873 Last Calend ar Yr/Dat e TOTAL FEES 6,022 0.00 12,060 3,456 0 0 1,850 1,476 3,504 969 1,589 3,627 538 2,659 3,456 0 0 0 5,770 28,353 35,451 This Calendar Year to Date:S96,465,891 Last Calendar Year to Date: This Calandar Yr/Date 42 87 5 45 179 1,350 96,465,89l 464,284 933 81,826 705 82,985 565 37,260 3,553 666,355 VALUATION 410,373 0 1,724,922 777,I45 0 0 78,077 31,010 79,947 88,588 236,478 0 3,426,540 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Planning Department December 11, 1991 Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Discussion: The following is a summary of Planning Department's caseload and project activity for the month of November: Caseload Activity: The department received applications for 21 administrative cases and 6 public hearing cases; following is a breakdown of case type for public hearing items: * Plot Plans (2) * Lot Line Adjustment (1) * Conditional Use Permit (1) * Change of Zone (1) * Appeals (1) Ongoing Projects: General Plan: The Planning Center and the sub-consultants continue to work on the Issue Papers. In mid-December a Design Charette will be conducted with staff, the Planning Center and the sub-consultants. The goal of the charette is to generate ideas with respect to urban form of the community and various land uses. The charette provides an opportunity to be creative and visionary. Input received during the charette will provide a background for generating the preferred land use and circulation plans. WIMBERVG~PLAN\MTHYRPT.DEC City Manager/City Council Monthly Report November 26, 1991 Page 2 Old Town Boundary Exoansion: Staff will notify all property owners within the proposed expansion area for a public hearing before the Council in at it's January 14, 1991 meeting. Included in the public noticing, is the opportunity to protest the proposed expansion. Directional Sign Ordinance: Statement of qualifications will be sent out to firms interested in managing the City's Kiosk program. Submittal will be due at the end of December. Selection of a qualified firm should follow in January. Antenna Ordinance: The City Attorney has completed his review of the proposed Ordinance, which will be heard by the Commission at it's December 16, 1991 meeting. Billboard Ordinance: City Staff has scheduled this item for the January 6, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Noise Ordinance: City Staff is currently reviewing the draft ordinance. Old Town Master Plan: Staff has received 18 statements of qualification (SOQ's) from interested consulting firms. Staff has finalized recruitment process and will begin the selection process shortly. Staff has selected six forms to participate in the final selection process for the Old Town Specific Plan. Written proposal will be received before christmas and interviews will be scheduled after the new year. French Valley Airport: Staff is monitoring the development of the Airport Land Use plan being prepared by Aries consulting firms for the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Reoor~: The Regional Center is a Specific Plan proposing a mixed-use commercial development on 201.3 acres located at the corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. Concurrently with this Specific Plan, the applicant (Bedford Properties) has filed a Plot Plan for a Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart site plan is proposing a 125,584 square foot WaI-Mart, a 32,000 Circuit City and 116,000 square feet of retail uses. WIMBERVG\PLAN\MTHYRPT,DEC City Manager/City Council Monthly Report November 26, 1991 Page 3 Winchester Hills Specific Plan and Environmental Imoacl; Report: The Winchester Hills Specific Plan is proposing a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, and a school and park sites on 570 acres. The project site is located east of Interstate 15 and north of Winchester Road. CamDos Verdes Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan is proposing a mixed-use development of commercial and residential, as well as, park sites. The project site is comprised of 132 acres and is located east of Margarita Road and south of Winchester Road. vgw WIMBERVG\PLAN\MTHYRPT.DEC TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Clerk December 17, 1991 Interim Community Recreation Center Susan W. Jones Approve recommended location of interim Community Recreation Center and authorize budget appropriate to execute recreation programs and activities. BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff report on this item and forward it to you under separate cover. swj TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD DECEMBER 10, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 9:29 PM. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Minutqt It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Lindemans to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 26, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mur~oz, Parks, Moore None None Cancellation of Regular MeetinQ of December 24. 1991 It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Parks to cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of December 24, 1991 and reschedule the meeting totake place on December 17, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore None None Temecula Re, development Agency Minutes 3. December 10. 1991 Election of Chairperson of the Temecula RedeveloDment Aaencv It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Parks to elect Sal Muf~oz as Chairperson of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mur~oz, Parks, Moore None None Election of Vice Chairperson of the Temecula Redevelooment Aaencv It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Parks to nominate Peg Moore as Vice Chairperson of the Temecula Redevelopmerit Agency. Chairperson Moore declined the nomination. It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Birdsall to nominate Ronald J. Parks as Vice Chairperson of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore NOES: O MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Dixon stated that staff will be looking closely at the first year's tax increment that has been received and a report will be forthcoming. GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. 4\RDAMIN\I21091 -2- 12/11/91 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes December 10, 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Lindemans to adjourn at 9:34 PM to a meeting on December 17, 1991 at 8:00 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously carried. Peg Moore, Chairperson ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary ITEM NO. 17