The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About040897 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APRIL 8, 1997- 7:00 PM 5:30 PM - Closed Session of the' City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. §5495'6..9(b), Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation, two matters. 2. §549.56.8, Conference with Real' Property Negotiator, Property: Approximately 4.5 acres located north east of Margarita Road. and Rustic Glen (Winchester Creek Park); Negotiating parties: Winchester. LLC, Steve Bieri and City of Temecula; Under negotiation: Price and terms of acquisition. At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10'.00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 97-05 Resolution: No. 97-32 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding Prelude Music: Jordan Bellino Invocation: Minister Doug Cole, Church of Christ Flag Salute: Councilmember Stone ROLL CALL: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Presentation to the City from United Way - Kari Hollis Spencer Certificate of Appreciation to City of Temecula and the Community Services Department - Temecula Valley Pop Warner Certificate of Appreciation to Steve Sander Proclamation - Crime Victims' Rights Week Presentation to Police Dog "Tango" R:\Agenda\040897 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of March 18, 1997. 2.2 Approve the minutes of March 25, 1997. R:\Agenda~040897 2 3 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 5 6 7 City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1997. Records Destruction Approval RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. Sale of Police Canine RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Authorize sale of Temecula Police Department canine "Tango" to Charles Mungle for the sum of one dollar. Accept Public Improvements in Parcel Map 28122 (Located east of Meadows Parkway, between Rancho California Road and Rancho Vista Road) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 7.2 7.3 Accept the public improvements; Authorize reduction of the Faithful Performance Bond amount, initiation of the one- year warranty period and release of the Monument Bond for Parcel Map 28122; Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. R:\Agenda\040897 3 8 9 10 11 R:\Agenda\040897 Acceptance of Public Street into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tract No. 26861-1) (Located Southwesterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79S) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM {WITHIN TRACT NO. ;26861-1) Accept Public Improvements and Acknowledge Private Improvements in Tract No. 26861-1 (Located Southwesterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79S) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the public improvements and acknowledge private improvements; 9.2 Authorize reduction of the faithful performance bond amounts for streets, drainage, and water improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and release of the subdivision monument bond for Tract No. 26861-1; 9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Acknowledge Completion of Certain Improvements in Tract No. 26861-F (Located Southwesterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79 S) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Acknowledge completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26867-F; 10.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of private street, water, and sewer system improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and release of the subdivision monument bond; 10.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. Temecula Creek Channel - Campanula Way Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0047 Tracts No. 24182 through 24186 and 24188 Cooperative Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Temecula Creek Channel - Campanula Way Storm Drain Project No. 7-0- 0047 Tracts No. 24182 through 24186 and 24188 Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Newland Associates, Inc.; 4 12 13 14 11.2 Authorize the execution and attestation of such agreement in its final form by the City Manager and City Clerk. Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of FY96-97 Slurry Seal Program, Project No. PW96-11 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the construction of the FY96-97 Slurry Seal Program, Project No. PW96-11. 12.2 File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of completion if no liens have been filed. Walker Basin Specific Plan RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE NEED FOR A CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS NECESSARY TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF THE WALKER BASIN SPECIFIC PLAN Extension of City Manager's Employment Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the "First Amendment to Employment Agreement" between the City and City Manager Ronald Bradley. R:\Agenda\040897 5 15 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97-04 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO 97-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 2.08.060 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR ELECTIONS TO CITY OFFICES AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1996 (PROPOSITION 208) RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING, TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT MEETING, OLD TOWN/VVESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING AND THE OLD TOWN/WESTSIDE IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY MEETING R:~Agenda\040897 6 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 97-01 Resolution: No. CSD 97-03 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Board of Directors on an item 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 for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Board of Directors gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 25, 1997. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: April 22, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\040897 7 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 97-01 Resolution: No. RDA 97-01 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Steven J. Ford presiding ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Ford PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Agency on an item 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 for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Agency gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 25, 1997. AGENCY BUSINESS 2 Consideration of Sponsorship Requests RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Consider the sponsorship requests for the Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo and the Great Temecula Tractor Race events to be held in 1997. R:\Agenda\040897 8 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: April 22, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda~040897 9 OLD TOWN. WESTSIDE. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY Next in Order: Resolution No.: No. FA 97-01 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Karel F. Lindemans ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Ford, Roberts, Stone, Lindemans PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the agenda a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 25, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: April 22, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\040897 10 OLD TOWN WESTS!DE IM'PROVEMENT AUTHORITY Next in Order: Resolution No.: No. IA 97-01 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Karel F. Lindemans ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Ford, Roberts, Stone, Lindemans PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 25, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: April 22, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\040897 11 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 16 Development Impact Fees RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Review the options provided for the adoption of Development Impact Fees to be effective in the City of Temecula, and select the appropriate option for which a resolution will be presented. 16.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: 16.3 ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED "PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE" Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S PUBLIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO BE ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 97- · AND ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA AND FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN NEGOTIATING FEE REDUCTIONS THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS R:\Agenda~040897 12 COUNCIL BUSINESS 17 18 Disposition of Surplus Computer Inventory RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Provide direction to staff as to the disposition of surplus computers in the City's Inventory. Consideration of an Ordinance Prohibiting the Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Places and Prohibiting Engaging in Certain Bodily Functions in Public Places RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.14 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINERS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES, AND SECTION 9.02.010, PROHIBITING ENGAGING IN CERTAIN BODILY FUNCTIONS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLACES, AND AMENDING SECTION 12.04.210 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CITY PARKS AND FACILITIES CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: April 22, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\040897 13 PROCLAMATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, one violent crime is committed in America every 18 seconds 36.9 million Amerie_~tns al~ victilni~l ill lf~le United 8faaf~s each ye_a~ and of those, 9.9 million are victims of violent crixne; and WHEREAS, crime victims play an indispensable role in bringing often&rs to justice and law-abiding citizens are no less &serving of justice, rights, resources, restoration and rehabilitation than the violent offenders who victimize them; and WHEREAS, crime victims and their advocates over the past two decades have made unparalleled progress toward balancing the scales of justice in our criminal justice system and WHEREAS, the bells of liber6g and justice are ringing across America in support of the millions of survivors of crime, their families and advocates who deserve justice as a nation devoted to liberty and justice for all. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim April 13 to April 19, 1997 to be, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temeoula to be affixed this 8th day of April, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk City of Temecula CerttJ~cate of Appreciation In heartfelt gratitude from the City Council and the Citizens of Temecula presented to: For his tireless efforts on behalf of the City of Temecula while serving as an inaugural member of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission from October, 1990 to October, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this 8th day of April, 1997 Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD MARCH 18, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION A meeting of the City of Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:30 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Lindemarts to adjourn to Executive Session at 5:42 PM, pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. §54945.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 42136 Avertida Alvarado; Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and Molding International Engineering; Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment for acquisition of certain real property interests/restrictions through an Owner Participation Agreement. 2. §54956.9(a), Claim of Craig Heiserman. 3. §54956.9(a), Claim of Katy Burrow. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Ford absent. Councilmember Ford joined Executive Session at 5:51 PM. The Executive Session was adjourned at 6:50 PM. A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:04 PM at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Ronald Bradley, City Attorney Peter M. Thorson, and City Clerk June S. Greek. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude and intermission music was provided by Bethanie Schrock. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Councilmember Lindemans. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the flag salute by Councilmember Linderoans. Minutes\031897 -1 - 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATIONS Mayor Birdsall proclaimed March 16-22, 1997 as "California Mediation Week." CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson stated in accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act, he had nothing to report from Closed Session. PUBLIC COMMENTS David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of Villages Homeowners Association, thanked McMillin and Companies, City Attorney Peter Thorson, City Manager Ron Bradley and the City Council, for their cooperative efforts in making sure the Long Valley Wash is maintained on a yearly basis. He reported that the maintenance has occurred this year. Scotty McDowell, 42600 Pradera Way, spoke regarding the development of the Ridgeline that the County of Riverside is allowing, and requested the City Council review videos he has prepared. Mr. McDowell introduced his attorney James DeAguilar. Mr. DeAguilar spoke regarding the procedure used by the County of Riverside for approval of this project. He stated the EIR used by the County of Riverside is out-dated and development should not proceed until a new EIR is prepared. Bonnie Reed, 42050 Main Street, representing the Old Town Temecula Mainstreet Association, introduced the newly appointed Executive Director, Debbie Chiniaeff. She also introduced Don Frate who will be producing the Antique Faire on May 11th. Audrey Hicks, 42031 Main Street, thanked the Temecula Police Department for their assistance during the Rod Run Events. Don Jenkins, District Commissioner of the Boy Scouts of America, addressed the City Council regarding the recent accident suffered by Assistant Scout Master Sean McClintock. He reported that the Assistant Scout Master suffered severe injuries to his face and has incurred extreme medical expenses. He announced a trust fund has been set up at Fallbrook National Bank, and anyone wishing to make a donation should contact Louis Randall at 693-5253. Louis Randall. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ford requested staff look into identifying flood right-of-way below Rancho California Bridge. Council concurrence was received. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts reminded the Council that the library system will be defunct as of July 1, 1997. He requested that this item be placed on the agenda in the next month for further consideration. Minutes\031897 -2- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 Councilmember Stone stated he attended the National League of Cities this past week and gained useful information regarding FEMA Mitigation Funds that can be used for local issues. He also reported that the ISTEA Program was renewed, which is an important funding source for roads, bridges and infrastructure. He thanked Public Works Director Joe Kicak, for putting up temporary reflective barriers on Pauba Road. Mayor Birdsall reported she also attended the National League of California Cities in Washington D.C., and reported on recent changes in earthquake insurance. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Ford requested the removal of Item No. 17 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. City Clerk June Greek announced there were two requests to speak on Item No. 15. Mayor Birdsall removed Item No. 15 from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Stone stated he would abstain on Items 8 and 12 and registered a "no" vote on Items 13, 15and 17. Mayor Birdsall removed Item No. 5 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Stone to approve Consent Calendar Items 1,4, 6-14, 16 and 18, with Councilmember Stone abstaining on Items 8 and 12 and voting in opposition on Item No. 13. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of February 5, 1997. Minutes\031897 -3- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 Resolution Approving List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 1997 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 1997. Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 2291 5-F (Located at the Southwesterly corner of Rancho Vista Road at Meadows Parkway) 6.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 22915-F; 6.2 Authorize the initiation of the one-year warranty period, reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water, and Sewer Bond amounts, and release of the Subdivision Monumentation Bond; 6.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety. Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tract No. 22915-F) (Located at the Southwesterly corner of Rancho Vista Road at Meadows Parkway) 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 22915-F} Minutes\031897 -4- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Old Town Antique Faire Event in Old Town (Located at Front Street and Main Street) 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR OLD TOWN ANTIQUE FAIR ON MAY 11, 1997, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone 9 10 Award of Contract for FY95-96 Annual Pavement Management Project, PW95-28 9.1 Award a contract for the construction of the FY95-96 Annual Pavement Management Project, Project No. PW95-28 to Laird Construction Co., Inc. for $306,675.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. 9.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $30,667.50 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Solicitation of Construction Bids for the FY96-97 Street Striping Program, Project No. PW97-01 10.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the annual FY96-97 Street Striping Program, Project No. PW97-01. Minutes\031897 -5- 04~02~97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 11 12 13 Completion and Acceptance of the City Hall Modifications and Tenant Improvements, Project No. PW95-22 11.1 Accept the construction of the City Hall Modifications and Tenant Improvements, Project No. PW95-22, as complete; 11.2 11.3 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Request to Designate Certain Private Property as "No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 28581 FRONT STREET AS A "NO SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY AREA" PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone Amendment to Agreement for Claims Administration Services 13.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the contract with Carl Warren and Company to increase the hourly rate from $37 to 540 per hour for claim administration services. Minutes\031897 -6- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18. 1997 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts Birdsall NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14 Changes to the Schedule of Authorized Positions 14.1 Approve the adoption of two new regular full-time positions, which are included on the Schedule of Authorized Positions. 16 City Maintenance Facility 16.1 Approve contract of $30,781 with Delmar Enterprises, Inc. to provide a security access system for the new City Maintenance Facility. 16.2 Appropriate $50,000 from Public Facilities Development Impact Fees to the Capital Projects Account to cover costs of security access system and project administration. 18 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97-03 18.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE CHANGES TO TABLE 17.08(a) OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Interim Traffic Signal Installation at the Intersection of Bedford Court and SR-79(S) - Project No. PW96-17 Mayor Birdsall asked if the timing of the lights will be addressed in conjunction with this installation. Public Works Director Joe Kicak responded that ultimately all three traffic signals (La Paz, Pala and Bedford Court), will be interconnected and this will be done in conjunction with completion of ultimate improvements. It was moved by Councilmember Linderoans, seconded by Councilmember Stone to approve staff recommendation as follows: Minutes\031897 -7- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 15 5.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids for Project No. PW96-17, Interim Traffic Signal installation at the intersection of Bedford Court and SR-79(S). The motion was unanimously carried. Request for Withdrawal of Demands Halting Class III Gaming Unless a Tribal/State Compact is Signed Joan Sparkman, 30554 San Pasqual Road, spoke in support of staff recommendation, and spoke in favor of Native Americans being allowed to earn a living and to provide jobs and gainful employment to their people. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena, spoke in favor of staff recommendation. Councilmember Stone stated the reason he will vote "no" on this issue, is because of his belief that Federal Law should be upheld. He said the way the Federal Law is written at this time, requires Indian Tribes to have Compacts with the States to have Class III Gaming, and this has not taken place. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemarts, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts to approve staff recommendation as follows: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-26 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TO WITHDRAW DEMANDS HALTING CLASS III GAMING UNLESS A TRIBAL/STATE COMPACT IS SIGNED The motion carried as follows: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Minutes\031897 -8- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 17. Amendment No. 02 to Professional Services Agreement with RJM Design Group, Inc. for the Parkview Fire Station No. 84, Project No. PW95-09 Councilmember Ford stated he does not have a problem paying the negotiated reduced amount of $12,703.00, however due to the many delays, he feels the City should seek to recover these funds from the contractor. Councilmember Stone stated he is concerned that this cost overrun occurred five months ago and it is just now coming before the Council. It was moved by Councilmember Ford, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation with the understanding that the City will seek to recover these funds from the contractor. 17.1 Approve Amendment No. 02 to the agreement with RJM Design Group, Inc. To provide additional construction administration services for the Parkview Fire Station No. 84, Project No. PW95-09, in an amount not to exceed $12,703.00. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Birdsall NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Roberts, Stone ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 8:00 PM to accommodate the scheduled Community Services District, Redevelopment Agency, Old Town/Westside Community Facilities District Financing Authority and Old Town/Westside Improvement Authority Meetings. The meeting was reconvened at 8:20 PM. PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Development Impact Fees Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:20 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Ford, seconded by Councilmember Stone to continue the public hearing to the meeting of April 8, 1997. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\031897 -9- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 20. Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation from Vacant Lots or Parcels per Ordinance 91-18, Chapter 6.16 Chief Building Official Tony Elmo presented the staff report and recognized Code Enforcement Officers Maryann Salazar and Cindy Keirsey for their time and effort in getting these properties posted, in addition to their regular code enforcement duties. Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:25 PM. Hearing no requests to speak, Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:25 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation as follows: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION The motion was unanimously carried. COUNCIL BUSINESS 21. Implementation of Provisions of Proposition 208 Enacted by the Voters on November 5, 1996 Allowing Establishment of Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Limits and Increased Campaign Contribution Limits for City Elections City Attorney Peter Thorson presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Ford to approve staff recommendation 21.1 as follows: 21.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 2.08.060 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR ELECTIONS TO CITY OFFICES AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1996 (PROPOSITION 208) Minutes\031897 -10- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 22. 23. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Ford to approve staff recommendation 21.2 as follows: 21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS, AS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 2.08.060 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE The motion was unanimously carried. Budget Line Item for the Arts (Continued from the meeting of 2/11/97) Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts to direct staff to create line items in the FY 97-98 Annual Budget for the Temecula Valley Arts Council and the Temecula Valley Playhouse. The motion was unanimously carried. Status Report on County Projects (Change of Zone 6278 and Walker Basin Specific Plan) Community Development Director Gary Thornhill reported on the Walker Basin Specific Plan, stating the City has sent a letter expressing concern about the environmental review. He stated that a number of citizens living in the DeLuz area have concerns regarding the impacts of the projects and their attorney Jim De Aguilar is present to address the Council. Mr. De Aguilar reported that the Walker Basin Specific Plan was approved in the 1980's, with an EIR prepared and certified in September of 1984. He stated this EIR has never been updated. He noted major traffic concerns, and stated the Planning Commission appeal of this issue will be heard April 16, 1997 at 3:00 PM. He asked the City Council consider a resolution, stating a supplemental EIR needs to be prepared. It was moved by Councilmember Linderoans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts to direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council consideration on April 8, 1997 to address the impacts of this development on the City and the need for preparation of a current EIR. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\031897 -11- 04~02/97 City Council Minutes March 18, 1997 Community Development Director Gary Thornhill reported on the Change of Zone 6278, regarding the allowance of billboards along I-15. It was moved by Councilmember Linderoans, seconded by Councilmember Stone to direct staff to investigate the status of the scenic highway designation for the Temecula Valley Freeway and to prepare a resolution requesting a "Billboard Free" zoning for the property included in Zone Change 6278. The motion was unanimously carried. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Roberts to adjourn at 9:02 PM to a meeting on March 25, 1997, 7:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk Minutes\031897 -12- 04/02/97 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD MARCH 25, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION A meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:32 PM with Councilmember Stone absent. It was moved by Councilmember Linderoans, seconded by Councilmember Ford, to adjourn to Executive Session at 6:33 PM, pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. §54945.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Portions of APN 922-010- 017, First Street, Temecula; Negotiating Parties: City of Temecula and Richard and Marilyn Gabriel; Under negotiation: Price and terms of purchase. 2. §54956.9(a), Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation, Strachota Insurance v. City of Temecula, et. al. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Stone absent. The Executive Session was adjourned at 6:55 PM. A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:03 PM at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone Also present were Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney, City Attorney Peter M. Thorson, and City Clerk June S. Greek. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude and intermission music was provided by John Langdon, Jr. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Reverend John R. Chambers of Grace Presbyterian Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the flag salute by Councilmember Roberts. PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATIONS Mayor Birdsall proclaimed March 30 - April 5, 1997 as "National Records and Information Management Week." Minutes\03/25/97 -1 - 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 2,5. 1997 Mayor Birdsall proclaimed April 11, 1997 as "California First Legislative Leadership Summit Day." Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilmember Stone presented Special Achievement Awards and travel funds to student representatives who will be visiting Voorburg, Holland and Nakayama, Japan, Temecula's sister cities. Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 7:15 PM to allow photographs of the students. The meeting was reconvened at 7:21 PM. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson stated in accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act, there was nothing to report from Closed Session. PUBLIC COMMENTS Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena, representing the American Red Cross, reported the Red Cross will be giving CPR, Heimlich maneuver, and first aid classes to all interested citizens. Councilmember Lindemarts asked the City Council to send a letter to the Temecula Valley Unified School District requesting CPR and the Heimlich maneuver be taught to students. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, suggested a joint venture to construct the Old Town Opera House along with the necessary infrastructure. Ed Dool, Temecula Stage Stop, gave an update on the proposed commuter service to San Diego and introduced Mark Hopkins, new terminal manager for Greyhound Bus Lines. Darryl Drott, 31907 Leigh Lane, urged citizens to attend the public hearing for the proposed development at the Margarita and Pauba Roads intersection, to be held at the April 22, 1997 City Council meeting; or to make their concerns known by calling the City of Temecula's hotline number - (909) 694-6465. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ford reported the Murrieta Creek Advisory Committee's next meeting is Thursday, April 24, 1997, 10:00 AM, at the Murrieta City Council Chambers and the Corps of Engineers will give a presentation regarding their reconnaissance study. Councilmember Ford requested the proposed Western Bypass Phase 2 be placed on a future agenda to establish policy for the various City departments. Councilmember Ford stated the Riverside County and RCTC proposed requests for federal funding do not contain any appropriations for the Cities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta or Temecula Minutes\03/25/97 -2- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 25, 1997 and requested the matter of RCTC grants be placed on a future agenda. Councilmember Roberts stated part of the problem is the under representation of cities on the RCTC. Councilmember Roberts reported the California League of Cities Public Safety Policy Committee supports AB900 which will require fines for ABC violations to be deposited into a Community Alcohol Fund instead of the General Fund, and then allocated to cities and counties for enforcement of illegal alcohol sales. He also mentioned Assemblyman Olberg's bill to allow 35 MPH speed limits in defined rural residential areas. Councilmember Roberts recommended the City support the bills and the Council agreed unanimously with Councilmember Stone absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of Items No. 3 and 9 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Ford, seconded by Councilmember Roberts to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-2, 4-8 and 10. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of February 25, 1997. Minutes\03/25/97 -3- 04102/97 City Council Minutes March 25, 1997 4 7 Release Faithful Performance Warranty, Labor and Materials, and Monument Bonds in Tract No. 26861-2 (Located Southwesterly of Intersection of Highway 79S at Margarita Road) 4.1 Authorize release of Faithful Performance Warranty, Labor and Material, and Subdivision Monumentation bonds for Tract No. 26861-2; 4.2 Direct the City Clerk to release the bonds and so notify the developer and security. Acknowledge completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26861-3; (Located Southwesterly of Intersection of Highway 79S at Margarita Road) 5.1 Acknowledge completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26861-3; 5.2 Authorize reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of private streets and drainage, and water and sewer systems, initiate the one- year warranty period, release the subdivision monument bond; 5.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the developer and surety. Completion and Acceptance of the Community Recreation Center Emergency Generator Project - Project No. PW95-02CSD 6.1 Accept the Construction of the Community Recreation Center Emergency Generator, Project No. PW95-O2CSD, as complete; 6.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 6.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. Temecula Duck Pond Park Property: Correction of Property Line, Grant of Easements and Agreements Between the City of Temecula and Oscar's Restaurant 7.1 Correct the property line and legal descriptions for the Temecula Duck Pond and Oscar's Restaurant by recording a Corrective Quitclaim Deed; 7.2 Approve the Agreement between Oscar's Restaurant and the City of Temecula to provide park access, reciprocal parking, and use of flag poles; Minutes\03/25/97 -4- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 25, 1997 10 7.3 Approve the Agreement between Oscar's Restaurant and the City of Temecula to grant a water line easement to Oscar's Restaurant; and accept a utility easement from Oscar's Restaurant providing electrical service to the Temecula Duck Pond; 7.4 Upon recordation of the Corrective Quitclaim Deed, authorize the City Clerk to record the utility easements and agreement documents in the order set forth above. Purchase of City Manager Vehicle 8.1 Approve the purchase of a 1997 Ford Explorer XLT in the amount of $27,851.14, and appropriate $1,400 to the Vehicle Internal Service Fund to cover the vehicle depreciation expense for this fiscal year. Declaration of Results of March 4, 1997 Election 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW Resolution Approving List of Demands Councilmember Linderoans requested clarification of payments to Moreland & Associates, The Resource Group, and Oscar's Restaurant which Assistant City Manager Mary Jane McLarney and Community Services Director Shawn Nelson provided explanations. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by/Councilman Ford to approve staff recommendation. 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A The motion was carried unanimously with Councilmember Stone absent. Minutes\03/25/97 -5- 04/02/97 Citv Council Minutes March 25, 1997 9 I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Improvements, Work Authorization Agreement with GTE California for the cost of relocating/under grounding of GTE California's Facilities at Rancho California Road and Interstate Route 15, Project No. PW95-12 Councilmember Ford questioned the City having to pay the income tax component of $191,065.00. Public Works Director Joseph Kicak stated the income tax amount is not included in the revised agreement. Mayor Birdsall questioned the rational for full payment up front and suggested a staged payment program - possibly 40-40-10-10. City Attorney Thorson stated GTE has been adamant about payment in advance. It was moved by Councilmember Ford, seconded by Councilmember Roberts, that staff pursue negotiation of a staged payment program (i.e., 40-40-10-10) and obtain a written guarantee that the income tax component (ITC) is not included in the final construction cost of $598,950.00. The motion was carried unanimously with Councilmember Stone absent. RECESS Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 8:41 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:52 PM. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11 First Street Realignment and Extension Project City Attorney Thorson presented the staff report. Richard Gabriel, 16229 Sunset Trail, Riverside, stated his objections to the eminent domain proceedings for his property and presented his remarks in writing to the City Clerk. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Roberts, to approved staff's recommendation. 11.1 Open and conduct a hearing on the adoption of a proposed Resolution of Necessity, receive from the staff the evidence stated and referred to herein, take testimony from the property owners or their representatives if they ask to be heard on issues A, B, C, and D as set forth below, and consider all the evidence. Minutes\03/25/97 -6- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 25, 1997 12 11.2 If the City Council finds, based on its consideration of the evidence contained and referred to in this staff report, the testimony and comments received during the public review and planning process, all testimony that may be presented, and all other evidence and records pertaining to this matter, that the evidence warrants the necessary findings as to the proposed Resolution of Necessity and authorize and direct that eminent domain proceedings be filed to acquire the subject property: RESOLUTION NO. 97-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (FIRST STREET REALIGNMENT AND EXTENSION PROJECT, GABRIEL 922-010-017) 11.3 Direct the City Attorney to file the action expeditiously; 11.4 If the Resolution is approved, approve a warrant payable to Arthur Sims, Executive Officer, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, for the deposit required to be made with the Court to obtain an Order of Possession in the amount of Five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-three Dollars ($5,473) on behalf of Richard G. and Marilyn F. Gabriel. 11.5 Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. 11.6 Appropriate $5,473 from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember stone absent. Appointment to the Selection Committee for Southside Specific Plan It was moved by Councilmember Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans, to appoint Councilmember Steven Ford to the Selection Committee for the Southside Specific Plan. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Stone absent. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None given. Minutes\03/25/97 -7- 04/02/97 City Council Minutes March 25, 1997 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Ford, to adjourn at 9:03 PM to a meeting on April 8, 1997, 7:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Stone absent. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk Minutes\03/25/97 -8- 04/02/97 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97- 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 DONS RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $1,283,591.40. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 8th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 130 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of April, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC/AAE City Clerk Resos 130 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 03/20/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03/27/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/08/97 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 03/20/97 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 04/08/97 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 120 165 190 191 192 193 194 195 210 280 300 320 330 340 390 GENERAL FUND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP INSURANCE FUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TCSD - DEBT SERVICE PAYROLL: 001 165 190 191 192 193 194 280 30O 32O 33O 34O GENERAL RDA-LOW/MOD TCSD TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D RDA-CIP INSURANCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ~CC _O. UNTING SPECIALIST TIM McDER~ OTT, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR , RON BRADLEY, CITY MANAGER $ 534,327.49 386,520.65 226,264.98 336,478.28 $ 1,283,591.40 176,307.63 15,295.00 19,678.65 55,315.78 12,514.92 23,510.88 36,240.62 448.55 768.00 451,273.34 186,041.17 3,298.98 19,051.63 750.34 3,802.66 142,814.97 1,147,113.12 96,234.13 1,536.31 25,845.41 70.34 175.94 3,154.54 1,053.21 2,516.43 609.26 1,429.93 841.44 3,011.34 136,478.28 1,283,591.40 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOUCHRE2 03/20/97 13:16 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 13 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 73,595.30 1,644.00 27,734.32 12,178.33 23,510.88 2,445.67 448.55 244,846.90 125,983.61 959.23 17,829.47 473.09 2,678.14 TOTAL 534,327.49 VOUCHRE2 PAGE 1 03/20/97 13:16 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42356 03/19/97 OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS RELOCATION ASSIST:DICKINSON,D. 280-199-807-5804 7°020.00 7,020.00 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 661114 03/20/97 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 14,776.68 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 141.68 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 3,448.29 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 191-2070 8.92 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 22.15 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 372.68 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 158.87 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 318.98 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 130.27 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 415.63 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 101.15 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 193.16 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 3,601.03 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 52.36 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 931.64 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 191-2070 2.38 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 5.98 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 107.76 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 37.30 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 87.41 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 23.50 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 66.56 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 28.42 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 99.42 25,132.22 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 678105 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20f97 03/20f97 03/20~97 03/20 ~97 03/20 ~97 03/20 ~97 03/20 '97 03/20 ~97 03/20 ~97 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SD~ 001-2070 37.49 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SD! 165-2070 4.01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 44.26 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070 3.86 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 2.18 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SD! 340-2070 3.64 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 3,958.56 000444 ]NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 52.13 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 767.97 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 191-2070 1.63 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 192-2070 3.80 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 71.24 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 28.78 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 106.41 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 39.46 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 103.63 000444 ]NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 23.29 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 23.74 5,276.08 970318 03/18/97 002159 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE IN NORMANDIN PROPERTY 280-199-807-5804 89~889.94 89,889.94 42359 03/20/97 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRI BASEBALL PROGRAM ANARDS 190-183-999-5380 213.32 213.32 42360 03/20/97 002348 A-PARK AVENUE BUILDERS STRIPING - JEFFERSON AVE 001-164-601-5402 175.00 175.00 VOUCHRE2 03/20/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42361 42362 42363 42364 42365 42365 42366 42366 42366 42367 42368 42368 42369 42369 42369 42369 42370 42371 42372 42372 42373 42374 42375 42376 42377 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 13:16 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 03/20/97 AANESTAD, CAMERON 03/20/97 001538 ALBERT 6ROVER & ASSOCIA 03/20/97 002729 ALLEN CONSTRUCTION COMP 03/20/97 000102 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C 03/20/97 001947 AMERIGAS 03/20/97 001947 AMERIGAS 03/20/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 03/20/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 03/20/97 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 03/20/97 ARZINGERo KENDRAH 03/20/97 002085 BARNEY & BARNEY 03/20/97 002085 BARNEY & BARNEY 03/20/97 BEAN, DEBORAH 03/20/97 BEAN, DEBORAH 03/20/97 BEAN, DEBORAN 03/20/97 BEAN, DEBORAH 03/20/97 000402 BERG, MARK 03/20/97 001998 BONETTI~ PATRICIA 03/20/97 000586 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY 03/20/97 000586 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY 03/20/97 BOTELLO, RAFAEL 03/20/97 BREATH OF LIFE FELLOWSH 03/20/97 BROWN, TIFFANY 03/20/97 BURKE-SCHEUERELL, VIVIA 03/20/97 002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES 03/20/97 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE FEB PROF SVC-AREAWIDE ITMS DEPOSIT: RES.IMPROVEMENT PROG TEMPORARY FENCING 28747 PUJOL PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES PROPANE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES TEMP HELP W/E 2.22 J.YONKER TEMP HELP W/E 2/15 J.BARNETT TEMP HELP W/E 2/15 J.BARNETT SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE PROPERTY INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCE REFUND- RENTAL CANCELLED REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLED REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLED CERTIFICATION RENEWAL TCSD DANCE INSTRUCTOR MUNICIPAL CODE BOOK SERVICE MUNICIPAL CODE BOOK SERVICE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE OLD TOWN RESTROOM LEASE-MAR FEBRUARY WORKER'S COHP. FEBRUARY NORKERfS COHP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERIS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERdS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERdS COMP. ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-100-999-5280 210-165-640-5802 165-199-813-5804 280-199-807-5804 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 001-140-999-5118 001-150-999-5118 001-120-999-5118 001-100-999-5280 300-199-999-5204 300-199-999-5204 190-183-4990 190-2900 190-183-4990 190-183-4990 001-162-999-5261 190-183-999-5330 001-120-999-5250 001-120-999-5250 280-199-807-5804 190-2900 001-100-999-5280 001-100-999-5280 280-199-999-5212 001-2370 165-2370 190-2370 191-2370 192-2370 193-2370 194-2370 280-2370 300-2370 ITEM AMOUNT 100.00 1,650.00 1,120.00 245.00 232.98 30.71 412.80 108.36 72.24 100.00 585.00 35.00 118.00 100.00 5.00- 110.00 175.00 320.00 1,505.51 3,261.71 2,400.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 826.00 3,684.89 44.46 1,323.14 .81 2.04 209.54 25.43 63.95 7.96 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 100.00 1,650.00 1,120.00 245.00 263.69 593.40 100.00 620.00 323.00 175.00 320.00 4~767.22 2,400.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 826.00 VOUCHRE2 03/20/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 42378 42379 42380 42380 42380 42381 42382 42382 42383 42384 42385 42386 42386 42387 42388 42389 42389 42389 42389 42389 42390 42391 42392 42393 42394 42394 42395 13:16 CHECK DATE 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 VENDOR NUMBER 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000128 000484 000126 000126 000126 000832 000137 000137 000462 002147 002147 000442 002450 002450 002450 002450 002450 000146 000155 000155 002551 VENDOR NAME CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES CALIFORNIA ASSN. FOR LO CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MA CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PRKG CHEVRON U S A INC. CHEVRON U S A INC. CHITHAVONG, TERRI CHRISTENSEN, NICK CLUB, THE COMPLIMENTS, COMPLAINTS COMPLIMENTS, COMPLAINTS COMPTON, JACQUELINE COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST COOKE, GREG COUNTS UNLIMITED CRUZ, THOMAS CUNNINGHAM, LISA DAVLIN DAVLIN DICKINSON, DIANNE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKER~S COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. FEBRUARY WORKER~S COMP. FEBRUARY WORKERrS COMP. SEM: J.MEYER - 3/25/97 LANDSCAPE MAINT SERV-EWA# 6568 TEM COMM CTR-FESCUE SOD LDSC MAINT-MARGARITA RD MEDIAN MB: G.ROBERTS - FOR 1997 FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES REFUND: SPECIAL EVENTS SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS BUNNY SUITS FOR SPRING EASTER TAX SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE ALARM MONITORING - T.C.C. BROADCAST SYSTEM NEW CITY HALL TAX BROADCAST SYSTEM NEW CITY HALL BROADCAST SYSTEM NEW CITY HALL BROADCAST SYSTEM NEW CITY HALL SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE TRAFFIC COUNT CENSUS PROGRAM SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE VIDEO DUP-KABC-TV:STORY ON TEM VIDEO DUP-CA TRAVEL & TOURISM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-2370 330-2370 340-2370 001-1182 001-162-999-5112 190-180-999-5112 190-181-999-5112 280-199-999-5261 191-180-999-5415 193-180-999-5415 191-180-999-5415 001-140-999-5226 001-161-999-5263 001-164-604-5263 190-183-4992 001-100-999-5280 190-183-999-5330 190-180-999-5301 190-180-999-5301 001-100-999-5280 190-184-999-5250 210-199-650-5804 210-199-650-5804 210-199-650-5804 210-199-650-5804 210-199-650-5804 001-100-999-5280 001-164-602-5406 001-100-999-5280 001-100-999-5280 280-199-999-5250 280-199-999-5270 280-199-807-5804 ITEM AMOUNT 21.38 9.29 317.29 33.08 .10 .37 1.16 100.00 85.00 144.00 1,000.00 75.00 26.86 13.57 45.00 100.00 561.60 195.00 15.11 100.00 210.00 779.00 60.37 428.85 31.74 50.26 100.00 1,323.00 100.00 100.00 296.31 16.16 4,862.00 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 5,744.89 100.00 1,229.00 75.00 40.43 45.00 100.00 561.60 210.11 100.00 210.00 1,350.22 100.00 1,323.00 100.00 100.00 312.47 4,862.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/20/97 13:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42396 03/20/97 DIVAN, LAURA SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42397 03/20/97 DORSO~ JANICE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42398 03/20/97 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO RE-CYCLE PAINT & MISC SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 80.38 80.38 42399 03/20/97 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 WATER METER USAGE 193-180-999-5240 90.76 90.76 42400 03/20/97 002712 ECONOMIC & POLITICAL AN JAN PROF CONSULTING SERVICES 280-199-999-5248 1,000.00 42400 03/20/97 002712 ECONOMIC & POLITICAL AN FEB PROF CONSULTING SERVICES 280-199-999-5248 1wOO0.00 2,000.00 42401 03/20/97 ELSINORE UNION HIGH SCH REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-183-4990 100.00 100.00 42402 03/20/97 002577 ENGINEERING RESOURCES O.T UTILITY UNDERGROUND STUDY 280-199-999-5248 3,487.36 3,487.36 42403 03/20/97 000517 ENTENMANN-ROVIN & CO BADGE~CASE 001-100-999-5220 31.00 42403 03/20/97 000517 ENTENMANN-ROVIN & CO FREIGHT 001-100-999-5220 3.00 42403 03/20/97 000517 ENTENMANN-ROVlN & CO TAX 001-100-999-5220 2.40 36.40 42404 03/20/97 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE IRRIG REPAIRS @ MEADOWS PRKWY 193-180-999-5415 155.44 155.44 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 42405 03/20/97 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230 INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 300-199-999-5207 INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-150-999-5230 INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-140-999-5230 INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-120-999-5230 INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-110-999-5230 INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 280-199-999-5230 INC. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230 14.80 8.93 9.69 18.62 9.69 25.25 90.95 33.81 211.74 42406 03/20/97 000643 FORTNER HARDWARE, INC. TCSD MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 42406 03/20/97 000643 FORTNER HARDWARE~ INC. MISC. SUPPLIES-STREET MAINT. 190-180-999-5212 001-164-601-5218 56.54 5.86 62.40 42407 03/20/97 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY~ DAY PLANNER BINDERS & REFILLS 001-161-999-5220 42407 03/20/97 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, FRANKLIN - DAY PLANNERS 001-161-999-5220 42407 03/20/97 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY~ OFFICE SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220 42407 03/20/97 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, OFFICE SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220 42407 03/20/97 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY, RETURNED DUPLICATED SHIPMENT 001-161-999-5220 83.02 81.24 17.24 17.24 81.24- 117.50 42408 03/20/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 197-5072:GENERAL USAGE:MAR 320-199-999-5208 42408 03/20/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 506-1941:PTA CD TTACSD:MAR 320-199-999-5208 42408 03/20/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-1370 SVC FOR COP 001-110-999-5223 42408 03/20/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-2811:GENERAL USAGE:MAR 320-199-999-5208 42408 03/20/97 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 699-8632:GENERAL USAGE:MAR 320-199-999-5208 9,079.41 55.09 230.74 1,202.25 56.86 10,624.35 42409 03/20/97 001355 G T E CALIFORNIA, INC. MAR ACCESS-RVSD CO. OPEN LINE 320-199-999-5208 42409 03/20/97 001355 G T E CALIFORNIA~ INC. MAR ACCESS-RVSD CO. OPEN LINE 320-199-999-5208 350.00 305.00 655.00 42410 03/20/97 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CITY MGR 001-110-999-5220 42410 03/20/97 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-184-999-5220 42410 03/20/97 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-184-999-5220 1.00 21.50 2.84 VOUCHRE2 03/20/97 13:16 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 0]/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 42410 03/20/97 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC PARKVIEW STATION #84 EASEL WITH BOARD ITEM #685K TAX OVERHEAD PROJECTOR ITEM #44091 TAX OFFICE SUPPLIES / FINANCE DEPT MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY CLERK OFFICE SUPPLIES / FINANCE DEPT OFFICE SUPPLIES - TCSD OFFICE SUPPLIES - TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES / FINANCE DEPT CREDIT:RETURNED SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5220 210-190-626-5610 210-190-626-5610 210-190-626-5610 210-190-626-5610 210-190-626-5610 001-140-999-5220 330-199-999-5220 001-120-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 190-180-999-5220 190-184-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5242 69.69 539.00 89.95 48.74 169.00 13.10 9.51 75.87 87.77 167.38 15.72 6.45 39.27 263.99- 1,092.80 42411 03/20/97 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE COMPUTER SOFTWARE - SUPPLIES 42411 03/20/97 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE TAX 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 379.00 29.37 408.37 42412 03/20/97 GORAN, CHERI SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42413 0]/20/97 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI SUB: G. ROBERTS 001-140-999-5228 50.00 50.00 42414 0]/20/97 002129 42414 03/20/97 002129 42414 03/20/97 002129 42414 03/20/97 002129 42414 03/20/97 002129 42414 03/20/97 002129 42414 03/20/97 002129 GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS PRG PMT #12-PARKVIEW FIRE ST. C/O PMT #12-PARKVIEW FIRE ST. RETENTION W/H PMT#12-PARKVIEW RELEASE STOP NOTICE:PARKVIEW PARTIAL RELEASE:PARKVIEW STOP NOTICE:PARKVIEW FIRE ST. STOP NOTICE:PARKVIEW FIRE ST. 210-190-626-5804 210-190-626-5804 210-2035 210-2038 210-2038 210-2038 210-2038 259,719.78 14,382.72 27,410.25- 16,657.00 6,843.80 24,150.00- 17,407.89- 228,635.16 42415 03/20/97 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY, ALARM MONITORING - CABOOSE 001-110-999-5223 75.00 75. O0 42416 03/20/97 HAMILTON, NINA SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42417 03/20/97 002689 HANDS LABOR SERVICES TEMP HELP W/E 2/23 L.WILBUR 001-161-999-5118 356.07 356.07 42418 03/20/97 000186 HANKS HARDWARE, INC. MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5212 5.88 5.88 42419 03/20/97 HASTY, DEBRA SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42420 03/20/97 00101] HINDERLITER de LLAMAS A QTRLY CONSULTING SERVICES 42420 03/20/97 001013 HINDERLITER de LLAMAS A QTRLY CONSULTING SERVICES 001-140-999-5248 001-140-999-5248 900.00 2,449.49 3,349.49 42421 03/20/97 002098 HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES MOTORCYCLE REPAIR TEMECULA PD 001-170-999-5214 166.56 166.56 42422 03/20/97 HUDLER, BRANDON SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42423 03/20/97 HUELSON, GESENE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42424 03/20/97 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 001-2080 2,051.95 42424 03/20/97 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 165-2080 12.50 VOUCHRE2 03/20/97 13:16 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 42424 03/20/97 000194 42424 03/20/97 000194 42424 03/20/97 000194 42425 03/20/97 002726 42426 03/20/97 000199 42427 03/20/97 42428 03/20/97 001420 42429 03/20/97 42430 03/20/97 001667 42430 03/20/97 001667 42431 03/20/97 42432 03/20/97 000205 42433 03/20/97 002023 42433 03/20/97 002023 42433 03/20/97 002023 42434 03/20/97 42435 03/20/97 001534 42435 03/20/97 001534 42435 03/20/97 001534 42436 03/20/97 002187 42437 03/20/97 002362 42438 03/20/97 42439 03/20/97 002700 42440 03/20/97 42441 03/20/97 42442 03/20/97 42443 03/20/97 000394 42443 03/20/97 000394 42444 03/20/97 002052 42445 03/20/97 002011 VENDOR NAME i C M A RETIREMENT TRUS i C M A RETIREMENT TRUS i C M A RETIREMENT TRUS iNLAND EMPIRE BUSINESS INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC JEFFRIES, NICHOLE JOLLY JUMPS KELLER~ PAJ4 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KENDALL, JUDY KIDS PARTIES, ETC. KING, WENDE KING, WENDE KING, WENDE KINGMAN~ TROY LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV LA MASTERS OF FINE TRAV LA MASTERS OF'FINE TRAV LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR LEGGETTo MARK LEWIS, AUSTIN LIBERTY PAINT & BODY LIEBERG, KATIE LIES, LINDA LUCIER, PETER MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND MAINTENANCE SUPERINTEND MAPLES & ASSOCIATES MARTIN, KATHARINA E. CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP 000194 DEF COMP SUB: R.BRADLEY 1997 & 1998 000199 iRS GARN SISTER CiTY STUDENT EXCHANGE JOLLY JUMP W/SUPERVISION SISTER CiTY STUDENT EXCHANGE TEMP HELP W/E 3/2 J.EVANS TEMP HELP W/E 3/2 J.EVANS SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE CLOWN/BALLOONS FOR SPRING FAIR TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE CF:MCLARNEY:IEEP:2/18/97 CONFERENCE:J.MEYER:3/24-26/97 CF:R.ROBERTS:3/19-20/97 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INSTALL/REPAIR-LIGHT BARS-PW SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - TCSD SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE SISTER CiTY STUDENT EXCHANGE SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE TRAINING:WEST~REED,& LIPOSCHAK TRAIN;STERLXNG~MUNOZ,HARRINGTO REPAIR POT HOLES - AREAWIDE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-2080 193-2080 280-2080 001-110-999-5228 001-2140 001-100-999-5280 190-180-999-5301 001-100-999-5280 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-100-999-5280 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 001-100-999-5280 001-110-999-5258 280-199-999-5261 001-100-999-5258 001-172-999-5255 001-164-601-5215 001-100-999-5280 190-180-999-5214 001-100-999-5280 001-100-999-5280 001-100-999-5280 001-164-601-5261 190-180-999-5261 001-164-601-5402 190-183-999-5330 iTEM AMOUNT 420.03 9.64 12.50 48.00 310.10 100.00 125.00 100.00 141.44 100.00 105.00 102.00 187.00 51.00 100.00 169.00 101.00 164.00 2,826.82 243.00 100.00 250.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 100.00 709.88 416.00 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 2,506.62 48.00 310.10 100.00 125.00 100o00 166o40 100.00 105.00 340.00 100.00 434.00 2,826.82 243.00 100.00 250.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 175.00 709.88 416.00 VOUCHRE2 CXTY OF TEMECULA 03/20/97 13:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42446 03/20/97 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. MARKETING SUPPLIES 280-199-999-5270 58.18 58.18 42447 03/20/97 MCLAUGHLIN, DAWN REFUND: BUSINESS LICENSE FEE 001-199-4056 20.00 20.00 42448 03/20/97 001290 MEYER, JOHN REIMB:FOR CRA STATE CONFERENCE 280-199-999-5261 78.16 78.16 42449 03/20/97 000226 MICRO AGE COMPUTER CENT TOSHIBA COMPUTER PENT 100 320-1970 2,620.00 42449 03/20/97 000226 MICRO AGE COMPUTER CENT TAX 320-1970 203.05 42449 03/20/97 000226 MICRO AGE COMPUTER CENT TOSHIBA SATELLITE PRO 420CDT 210-190-626-5610 2,530.00 42449 03/20/97 000226 MICRO AGE COMPUTER CENT TAX 210-190-626-5610 196.08 5,549.13 42450 03/20/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUS CARDS ZUNA/RODRIQUEZ/SMITH 001-162-999-5222 114.75 42450 03/20/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS TAX 001-162-999-5222 8.89 42450 03/20/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING PAPER SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5222 30.48 42450 03/20/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING PAPER SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5222 176.82 42450 03/20/97 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS TAX 001-161-999-5222 16.07 347.01 42451 03/20/97 MORALES, ALFREDO RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 280-199-807-5804 1,200.00 1,200.00 42452 03/20/97 002727 MUNICIPAL MGMT. ASSISTA MEMBERSHIP: G.YATES 001-150-999-5226 40.00 40.00 42453 03/20/97 000775 MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP ANNUAL MAINT - CI-BASE SYSTEM 320-199-999-5211 42453 03/20/97 000775 MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP ANNUAL MAINT - CI REC MNGT 320-199-999-5211 300.00 180.00 480.00 42454 03/20/97 NELSON, JACOB SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42455 03/20/97 NEWMANN~ SHERYLYNN SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 42456 03/20/97 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM PRINTING BUSINESS LICENSE CERT 001-140-999-5222 658.37 42456 03/20/97 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM PRINTING BUSINESS LICENSE CERT 001-140-999-5222 40.00 42456 03/20/97 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM FREIGHT 001-140-999-5222 37.39 42456 03/20/97 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM TAX 001-140-999-5222 54.12 100.00 789.88 42457 03/20/97 001713 NORRIS-REPKE, INC. NOV-JAN PROF SVC-1ST ST BRIDGE 280-199-807-5802 1,725.00 1,725.00 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT DISP. ADS-ROADWAY CONST UPDATE 001-165-999-5256 169.06 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS-CTY CLERK 001-120-999-5256 28.10 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS-CTY CLERK 001-120-999-5256 29.83 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT PUBLIC NOTICES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5256 98.00 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT PUBLIC NOTICES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5256 108.00 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS-CTY CLERK 001-120-999-5256 163.54 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS-CTY CLERK 001-120-999-5256 34.69 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT PUBLIC NOTICES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5256 45.21 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT CREDIT: INCORRECT BILL RATE 001-161-999-5256 53.29- 42458 03/20/97 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT INCORRECT BILLING RATE 001-161-999-5256 60.66- 562.48 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 190-180-999-5214 15.95 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 190-180-999-5214 30.00 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 190-180-999-5214 47.50 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 190-180-999-5214 323.15 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - B&S 001-162-999-5214 169.74 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/20/97 13:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - B&S 001-162-999-5214 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - B&S 001-162-999-5214 42459 03/20/97 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MA[NT/REPA[R-TCSD 001-110-999-5214 25.95 72.50 21.23 706~02 42460 03/20/97 002088 OLD TOWN TYPEWRITER EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE-FINANCE 001-140-999-5250 65.00 65.00 42461 03/20/97 002668 OMEGA LAKE SERVICES MAR WATER QUALITY MGMT-DUCK PD 190-180-999-5250 800.00 800.00 42462 03/20/97 002652 OSCAR'S CATERING SERV-OFF SITE MTG 190-180-999-5260 42462 03/20/97 002652 OSCAR'S CATERING SERV-OFF SITE MTGS 190-180-999-5260 61.20 9.16 70.36 42463 03/20/97 002297 PACIFIC RELOCATION CONS JAN PROF SVC-ENTERTAINMENT CTR 280-1279 1,465.00 42463 03/20/97 002297 PACIFIC RELOCATION CONS FEB PROF SVC-ENTERTAINMENT CTR 280-1279 1,525.00 2~990.00 42464 03/20/97 000359 PARKER, HERMAN REIMB:CPRS CF:3/12-16:PARKER 190-180-999-5258 60.71 60.71 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PER REDE 001-2130 185.15 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 001-2390 15,834.73 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 165-2390 153.81 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 3,064.73 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 191-2390 11.02 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 27.69 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 193-2390 379.26 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 194-2390 174.70 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 391.35 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 300-2390 108.67 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 320-2390 292.08 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 330-2390 128.39 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 340-2390 353.77 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 001-2130 150.20 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2390 70.69 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 13.58 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 .05 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 .14 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 1.7/ 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 194-2390 .97 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 1.48 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 .46 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 .93 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 .93 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 2.09 42465 03/20/97 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIRE MISC SURPLUS ASSET ACCT/ 94-95 001-1990 7,111.00- 14~238oll 42466 03/20/97 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 40.62 40.62 42467 03/20/97 000247 PESTMASTER LDSCP MAINT-AVENIDA BUENA SUER 001-164-601-5402 1,500.00 1,500.00 42468 03/20/97 001707 PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, TEMECULA PD K-9 FOOD & SUPPLY 001-170-999-5327 86.46 86.46 42469 03/20/97 PETERSON, BRETT SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/20/97 13:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42470 03/20/97 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-165-999-5230 40.75 42470 03/20/97 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-120-999-5230 34.50 42470 03/20/97 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-161-999-5230 45.15 42470 03/20/97 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVS 001-140-999-5230 15.00 42470 03/20/97 000253 POSTMASTER CREDIT: LACK OF DOCUMENTATION 001-140-999-5230 15.00- 120.40 42471 03/20/97 PRATO, CHRIS SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.OO 42472 03/20/97 002019 PRECISION INTERCONNECT INSTALL EQUIP/MATERIAL-PARKVW 210-190-626-5804 1,506.87 1,506.87 42473 03/20/97 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING 001-150-999-5254 250.08 250.08 42474 03/20/97 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY LOCKSMITH SVCS FOR CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 473.86 42474 03/20/97 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY LOCKSMITH SERVICES - TCSD 340-199-701-5212 85.00 558.86 42475 03/20/97 002612 RADIO SHACK, INC. MISC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 241.06 241.06 42476 03/20/97 000879 RADISSON HOTEL - VISALI CF: T.HAFELI - 4/29-5/2 1997 320-199-999-5258 240.00 240.00 42477 03/20/97 000260 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF MARKETING SUPPLIES 280-199-999-5270 225.00 42477 03/20/97 000260 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF TAX 280-199-999-5270 17.44 242.44 42478 03/20/97 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C PRINTING SERVICES/SUPPLIES 001-161-999-5222 3.23 3.23 42479 03/20/97 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A BUSINESS PARK ASSOC. DUES 340-199-701-5226 722.75- 42479 03/20/97 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PARK A BUSINESS PARK ASSOCo DUES 340-199-701-5226 919.00 196.25 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 01-06-84860-4:PUJOL ST:FEB 280-199-807-5804 267.76 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 001-171-999-5240 56.34 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-181-999-5240 80.79 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-182-999-5240 193.42 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-184-999-5240 89.98 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240 240.65 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 191-180-999-5240 54.19 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240 358.96 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 340-199-701-5240 298.21 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 01-06-84300-1 WATER METER 001-164-601-5240 10.67 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240 1~023.64 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 191-180-999-5240 80.14 42480 03/20/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240 449.23 3,203.98 42481 03/20/97 001500 REGIONAL TRAINING CENTE SUPERVISOR TRAINING:BERG,MARK 001-162-999-5261 425.00 42481 03/20/97 001500 REGIONAL TRAINING CENTE SUPERVISOR TRAINING-LORRI ANN 190-180-999-5261 425.00 42481 03/20/97 001500 REGIONAL TRAINING CENTE SUPERVISOR TRAINING-IRENE ROGE 190-180-999-5261 425.00 1,275.00 42482 03/20/97 001046 REXON, FREEDMAN~ KLEPET FEBRUARY 97 PROF LEGAL SVCS 001-130-999-5247 297.50 297.50 42483 03/20/97 001592 RIVERSIDE CO. INFORMATI OCT EMERG. RADIO RENTAL 001-162-999-5238 141.41 42483 03/20/97 001592 RIVERSIDE CO. INFORMATI NOV EMERG. RADIO RENTAL 001-162-999-5238 141.41 42483 03/20/97 001592 RIVERSIDE CO. INFORMATI DEC. EMERG. RADIO RENTAL 001-162-999-5238 141.41 424.23 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/20/97 13:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 10 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42484 03/20/97 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5218 112.35 42484 03/20/97 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS, INC. FREIGNT 001-164-601-5218 15.00 42484 03/20/97 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS, INC. TAX 001-164-601-5218 8.71 136.06 42485 03/20/97 002469 ROHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. PRG PMT#4-EMERG GENERATOR-CRC 210-190-139-5804 4,115.89 42485 03/20/97 002469 ROHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. RET W/N PMT#4-EMERG GENERATOR 210-2035 411.59- 3,704.30 42486 03/20/97 002191 SAN DIEGAN ADVERTISEMENT/MARKETING 280-199-999-5270 4,800.00 4,800.00 42487 03/20/97 SHAKIR, KENJ[ SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE 001-100-999-5280 100.00 100.00 42488 03/20/97 SHEPHERD~S FOOTSTEPS IN REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 100.00 100.00 42489 03/20/97 000434 SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS CF: T. HAFELI 4/30-5/2 1997 320-199-999-5258 250.00 250.00 42490 03/20/97 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES FOR COMMUNITY CENTER 190-184-999-5301 43.06 42490 03/20/97 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES FOR ACTIVITIES AT CRC 190-183-999-5320 49.46 92.52 42491 03/20/97 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CNTRL SERV-CRC MAR 190-182-999-5250 42.00 42491 03/20/97 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CNTRL SERV-SR CTR-MAR 190-181-999-5250 29.00 71.00 42492 03/20/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-06-105-0654 VARIOUS METERS 191-180-999-5319 2~972.41 42492 03/20/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-03-464-4989 MEADOWS PRK ]RRG 193-180-999-5240 14.98 42492 03/20/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-5281 RANCHO VISTA A 190-182-999-5240 3,210.32 42492 03/20/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-06-562-5295 RANCHO CALF TC1 191-180-999-5319 105.63 42492 03/20/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-01-202-7330 VARIOUS METERS 192-180-999-5319 23,447.83 42492 03/20/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-01-202-7603 VARIOUS METERS 191-180-999-5319 7,070.90 42492 03/20/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON VARIOUS ELECT METERS 191-180-999-5319 785.25 37,607.32 42493 03/20/97 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 091 024 9300 CRC GAS METER 190-182-999-5240 1,660.00 42493 03/20/97 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 021 725 0775 SR CTR GAS METER 190-181-999-5240 203.65 42493 03/20/97 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS COMP 101 525 0950 TCC GAS METER 190-184-999-5240 102.15 1,965.80 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4769:JS:FEBRUARY 001-100-999-5208 62.34 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4204:KL:FEBRUARY 001-100-999-5208 70.75 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4763:PB:FEBRUARY 001-100-999-5208 35.77 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4758:RR:FEBRUARY 001-100-999-5208 41.31 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 205-4070:MJM:FEBRUARY 001-110-999-5208 117.33 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 205-7826:GR:FEBRUARY 001-140-999-5208 36.90 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-5153:GY:FEBRUARY 001-150-999-5208 138.39 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4767:GT:FEBRUARY 001-161-999-5208 37.32 42494 03/20/97 0003~5 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4760:JH:FEBRUARY 001-163-999-5208 133.57 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 203-9994:BB:FEBRUARY 001-164-601-5208 56.65 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4754:BB/PB:FEBRUARY 001-164-601-5208 66.81 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 205-8688: PW MAINT FEB 001-164-604-5208 94.14 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4765:PW MAINT:FEBRUARY 001-164-601-5208 59.02 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4756:SM:FEBRUARY 001-164-604-5208 48.68 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 206-0992 BH 190-180-999-5208 29.14 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4755 CITY VAN 190-180-999-5208 27.73 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-9876:HP:FEBRUARY 190-180-999-5208 37.84 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4764 KH 190-180-999-5208 43.71 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/20/97 13:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 11 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER iTEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42494 03/20/97 000375 42494 03/20/97 000375 42494 03/20/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 217-5464:SN:FEBRUARY 909 239-7049 SR VAN 909 519-2136:TH:FEBRUARY 190-180-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 222.48 42.16 37.55 1,439.59 42495 03/20/97 001576 STEWARD COMPANY, THE SMALL TOOLS & EQUXPMENT 42495 03/20/97 001576 STEWARD COMPANY, THE SMALL TCX)LS & EQUIPMENT 42495 03/20/97 001576 STEWARD COMPANY~ THE SMALL T(X)LS & EQUIPMENT 42495 03/20/97 001576 STEWARD COMPANY, THE TAX 330-199-999-5242 330-199-999-5242 330-199-999-5242 330-199-999-5242 74.00 11.55 12.95 7.25 105.75 42496 03/20/97 000465 STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 42496 03/20/97 000465 STRADLEY, MARY KATHLEEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 252.00 284.00 536.00 42497 03/20/97 SUZUKI, MIWAKO REFUND:PUPPET THEATER/STORYTIM 190-183-4982 30.00 30.00 42498 03/20/97 000305 TARGET STORE SUPPLIES FOR COMM CENTER 190-184-999-5301 77.63 77.63 42499 03/20/97 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P PLUMBING SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 42499 03/20/97 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P PLUMBING SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 42499 03/20/97 001672 TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P PLUMBING SERVICES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5212 102.00 133.00 62.00 297.00 42500 03/20/97 000905 TEMECULA SHUTTLE SERVIC SHUTTLE SRVC-R.ROBERTS/J.STONE 001-100-999-5258 90.85 90.85 42501 03/20/97 000319 TOMARK SPORTS, XNC. SAFETY BASES 190-183-999-5380 42501 03/20/97 000319 TOMARK SPORTS, INC. HOME PLATE 190-183-999-5380 42501 03/20/97 000319 TOMARK SPORTS, INC. ANCHOR GROUND STAKE 190-183-999-5380 42501 03/20/97 000319 TOMARK SPORTS, INC. MALE GROUND ANCHOR 190-183-999-5380 42501 03/20/97 000319 TOMARK SPORTS, INC. FREIGHT 190-183-999-5380 42501 03/20/97 000319 TOMARK SPORTS, INC. TAX 190-183-999-5380 525.00 237.00 50.85 252.00 95.09 82.53 1,242.47 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 001-2080 3,123.98 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 190-2080 866.27 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 192-2080 1.25 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 193-2080 18.75 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 194-2080 22.50 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 280-2080 5.00 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEFD C 001065 DEF COMP 300-2080 19.98 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEFD C 001065 DEF COMP 320-2080 312.50 42502 03/20/97 001065 U S C M /PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF COMP 340-2080 112.50 4,482.73 42503 03/20/97 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160 42503 03/20/97 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 165-2160 42503 03/20/97 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 190-2160 42503 03/20/97 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 193-2160 42503 03/20/97 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 280-2160 42503 03/20/97 000389 U S C M /PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 340-2160 562.20 60.08 663.58 57.80 32.70 54.58 1,430.94 42504 03/20/97 002396 U.S. LONG DISTANCE, INC LONG DISTANCE TELECOM PROVIDER 320-199-999-5208 1,088.12 1,088.12 42505 03/20/97 002492 U.S. TOY COMPANY, INC. SUPPLIES FOR ACTIVITIES AT CRC 190-182-999-5301 223.11 223.11 42506 03/20/97 002621 UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. 5305001995928:MJM:JANUARY 001-110-999-5260 40.55 VOUCHRE2 03/20/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42506 42506 42506 42506 42507 42507 42507 42507 42508 42508 42509 42510 42510 42511 42511 42511 42512 42513 42514 42515 42515 42516 13:16 CHECK DATE 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 03/20/97 VENDOR NUMBER 002621 002621 002621 002621 000325 000325 000325 000325 002566 002566 000332 001890 001890 001342 001342 001342 002097 002657 002092 002092 000347 VENDOR NAME UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNION BANK OF CALIF, N. UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN VALLEY MICRO COMPUTERS VALLEY MICRO COMPUTERS VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI VORTEX DOORS VORTEX DOORS WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCT WHEATLEY ASSOCIATES WILLIAMS, STACY WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH WINTER GRAPHICS SOUTH ZEE SERVICE COMPANY, IN CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 5305001995993:JG:FEBRUARY 5305001995928:MJM:JANUARY 5305001995928:MJM:FEBRUARY 5305001995928:MJM:FEBRUARY 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW EQUIP-FIRE STATION-PAUBA RD TAX FEB PROF PLAN CHECK SERVICES DOOR MAINTENANCE REPAIR DOOR MAINT/REPAIR AT CRC BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES BUILDING MAXNT. SUPPLIES-TCC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - PW MAR PROFESSIONAL SVCS-PARKVIEW SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE PUBLIC SIGNS DESIGN 6TH STREET QUALITY OF LIFE AD MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-120-999-5260 001-150-999-5220 001-2930 280-199-999-5270 001-2120 165-2120 190-2120 280-2120 210-190-626-5610 210-190-626-5610 001-162-999-5248 340-199-701-5212 190-182-999-5212 340-199-701-5212 340-199-701-5212 190-184-999-5212 001-164-601-5218 210-190-626-5801 001-100-999-5280 280-199-804-5804 280-199-999-5270 340-199-701-5250 ITEM AMOUNT 63.00 3.23 1,480~00 112.60 101.79 2.50 17.00 2.71 1,898.00 147.10 2,452.32 210.84 264.07 90.99 95.89 204.81 2,225.44 2,369.38 100.00 1,131.37 1,018.71 66.91 PAGE 12 CHECK AMOUNT 1,699.38 124=00 2,045.10 2,452.32 474.91 391.69 2,225.44 2,369.38 100.00 2,150.08 66.91 TOTAL CHECKS 534,327.49 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 13:57 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOI4/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT 51,017.95 15,413.42 17,926.95 336.59 4,620.93 768.00 150,255.24 462.17 280.50 1,222.16 277.25 1,124.52 142,814.97 TOTAL 386,520.65 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 13:57 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER 42517 03/21/97 000596 42518 03/24/97 001290 42519 03/24/97 42521 03/25/97 000824 310033 03/25/97 970324 03/24/97 002265 42522 03/27/97 002410 42523 03/27/97 000104 42523 03/27/97 000104 42524 03/27/97 002662 42525 03/27/97 001281 42525 03/27/97 001281 42525 03/27/97 001281 42525 03/27/97 001281 42526 03/27/97 42527 03/27/97 000102 42528 03/27/97 000101 42528 03/27/97 000101 42528 03/27/97 000101 42528 03/27/97 000101 42528 03/27/97 000101 42528 03/27/97 000101 42529 03/27/97 000195 42529 03/27/97 000195 42530 03/27/97 002377 42531 03/27/97 42532 03/27/97 001054 42533 03/27/97 42534 03/27/97 001555 42534 03/27/97 001555 42535 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR NAME LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES MEYERs JOHN A ! I M -SAN DIEGO CHAP SOUTHERN CALIF ASSOC OF CARRIAGE ESCRO~4/TEMECUL FIRST TRUST OF CALIFORN A ~K)MANtS TOUCH BUILDIN ABSOLUTE ASPHALT, INC. ABSOLUTE ASPHALT, INC. AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTR ALHANBRA GROUP ALHANBRA GROUP ALHAMBRA GROUP ALHAMBRA GROUP ALLAN CHEM-DRY AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE, INC. APPLE ONE~ iNC. APPLE ONE, INC. ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER CF:NELSON~BIRDSALL~CS COMMISSN 190-180-999-5258 AOVANCE:CALED CF:3/25:MEYER 280-199-999-5261 MAR LEGAL SEM:DiMEGLIO,SARGENT 001-120-999-5277 SCAG 97 MTG:3/27/97:PARKS,RON 001-163-999-5258 1ST HOME BYER PGM:BRADLY,SCOTT 165-199-999-5449 DEBT SVC PMT:TCSD COPS 390-1040 MAR JANITORIAL SVCS-CITY PARKS 190-180-999-5250 PALLETS FOR PW MAINT TAX 001-164-601-5218 001-164-601-5218 PEST CONTROL SVC-TEM.DUCK POND 190-180-999-5250 DESIGN SERVS-DUCK POND PRK LDSC DESIGN SVCS-WINCH.CREEK LDSC DESIGN SVCS-A.DoA. PARK LDSC DESIGN SVCS-SPORTS PARK 210-190-143-5802 210-190-149-5802 210-190-148-5802 210-190-137-5802 REFUND: WITHDRAWED FROM CLASS 190-183-4980 SECURITY FENCE FOR PUJOL ST 165-199-812-5804 TEMP HELP W/E 3/1 J.YONKER TEMP HELP W/E 3/1J.YONKER TEMP HELP W/E 3/1 JoBARNETT TEMP HELP W/E 3/8 J.YONKER TEMP HELP W/E 3/15 J.YONKER TEMP HELP W/E 3/15 J.BARNETT 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-110-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-110-999-5118 ASCOM HASLER MAILING SY QTR RENTAL/RESET-POSTAGE METER 330-199-999-5239 ASCOM HASLER'MAILING SY QTR RENTAL/RESET-POSTAGE METER 330-199-999-5239 BEST BUY COMPANY, INC. CAJKA, CELIA CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFF CASSIERE, ROBERT CHRISTOPHERSON FIRE PRO CHRISTOPHERSON FIRE PRO 03/27/97 002037 COM-AID, INCo OFFICE EQUIPMENT-TEM.P.D. REFUND: CLASS CANCELED MB: AoELMO:4/1/97-3/31/98 REFUND: CLASS CANCELED FIRE SYSTEM INSPECTION - T.C.C FIRE SYSTEM INSPECTION-T.C.C. MISC REPAIR & MAINT OF EQUIP 001-170-999-5610 190-183-4982 001-162-999-5226 190-183-4982 190-184-999-5250 190-184-999-5250 320-199-999-5215 ITEM AMOUNT 1,440o00 200°00 50.00 90.00 15,300.00 142,814.97 1,374.00 800.80 62.06 2,000.00 400.00 1~450.00 850.00 2~450.00 13.42 44.00 135.45 277~35 133.21 412.80 412.80 72.24 170.25 30.00 430.94 40.00 150.00 20.00 70.02 8.99 190.00 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 1,440o00 200.00 50.00 90.00 15,300.00 142,814.97 1,374.00 862.86 2,000.00 5,150.00 13.42 44.00 ~,443.85 200.25 430.94 40.00 150.00 20.00 79.01 190.00 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42536 42536 42537 42537 42537 42538 42539 42539 42540 42541 42541 42541 42541 42542 42543 42544 42544 42544 42544 42544 42544 42545 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42546 42547 13:57 CHECK DATE 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03127/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 VENDOR NUMBER 000442 000442 002450 002450 002450 002182 000155 000155 001454 000754 000754 000754 000754 002060 002196 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 000165 001135 00018/* 000184 000184 000184 000184 000184 00018~ 000184 000184 00018/, 000184 000184 VENDOR NAME COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYST D K S ASSOCIATES DAVLIN DAVLIN DISNEYLAND HOTEL ELLIOTT GROUP, THE ELLIOTT GROUP, THE ELLIOTT GROUP, THE ELLIOTT GROUP, THE EUROPEAN DELl & CATERIN EXCEL PHOTO LAB FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. FEOERAL EXPRESS, INC. FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM GETTY, DEBORAH CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PER!00S ITEM DESCRIPTION QTR ALARM SYS.NONITOR-CITY HAL QTR ALARM SYS.MONITOR-CITY HAL BROADCAST SYSTEM NEW CITY HALL BROADCAST SYSTEM NEW CITY HALL BROADCAST SYSTEM NEW CITY HALL DEC PROF SVC-I-15 CORRIDOR STD TAPING OF PLANNING COMM. MTG TAPING OF COUNCIL MTG -3/18/97 SW CO. ALLIANCE PROGRAM 4/4/97 FEB TCSD PLAN CHECK SERVS LDSC PLAN CHECK SVCS-PLANN1NG LDSC PLAN CHECK SVCS-PLANNING LDSC PLAN CHECK SVCS-PLANNING REFRESHMENT FOR COUNCIL MTG VISITOR GUIDE REPRINT EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS HAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES PRE'EMPLOYMENT EXPENSES 909 676-0783 GENERAL USAGE 909 676-3526 FIRE ALARM 909 676-6243 PALA COMM PARK 909 693-0956 GENERAL USAGE 909 694-4354 PALA COMM PRK 909 694-4356 KENT HINTERGAROT 909 694-892?:GENERAL USAGE-JAN 909 695-3564 ALARM 909 699-2475 PUBLIC WORKS 909 699-2475 PUBLIC WORKS 909 699-7945 CRC FIRE ALARM 909 699-7945 CRC FIRE ALARM REFUND:CLASS CANCEL ACCOUNT NUMBER 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 210-199-650-5804 210-199-650-5804 210-199-650-5804 210-165-633-5802 001-161-999-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-2930 193-180-999-5248 001-161-999-5250 001-161-999-5250 001-161-999-5250 001-100-999-5260 280-199-999-5270 001-150-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 001-120-999-5230 280-199-999-5230 001-140-999-5230 001-110-999-5230 001-150-999-5250 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-164-601-5208 001-164-601-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 190-183-4982 ITEM AMOUNT 150.00 60.00 7,727.73 10,807.33 13,712.56 1,754.93 156.68 810.88 1,990.14 925.00 3,865.00 5,300.00 825.00 141.79 165.29 9.69 92.58 17.60 9.69 8.93 ~52.08 120.00 56.36 78.48 55.98 26.09 61.23 28.47 25.68 107.84 38.05 96.35 51.23 108.90 59.00 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 210.00 32,247.62 1,754.93 967.56 1,990.14 10,915.00 141.79 165.29 170.57 120.00 734.66 59.00 42548 03/27/97 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220 24.72 42548 03/27/97 000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220 16.32 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42548 42549 42549 42549 42549 42549 42549 42549 42549 42550 42550 42551 42552 42553 42554 42555 42556 42557 42557 42558 42559 42560 42560 42560 42561 42561 42562 42563 42563 42563 42564 42564 42565 13:57 CHECK DATE 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/2?/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 VENDOR NUMBER 000177 000192 000192 000192 000192 000192 000192 000192 000192 001609 001609 002689 001517 001407 001407 002299 001652 002717 002717 002717 001667 001667 001982 001982 001982 002685 002685 002632 VENDOR NAME GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE GREATER ALARM COMPANY, GREATER ALARM COMPANY, GREER, SUSIE HAEFNER, LIZ HANDS LABOR SERVICES HAHBERT, JOHN HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE HOWARD, DEBRA INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL INTERNATIONAL RISK MANA JERRY KELLETT PAINTING dO DAN FARMS JO DAN FARMS JO DAN FARMS KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE KITCHELL, CHERYL L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I L WILLIAMS LANDSCAPE, I LAAN~S TREE SERVICE LAAN'S TREE SERVICE MAIL BOXES ETC. CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION OFFICE SUPPLIES - PLANNING COMPUTER SOFTWARE-SUPPLIES COMPUTER SOFTWARE-SUPPLIES COMPUTER SOFTWARE-SUPPLIES FREIGHT TAX COMPUTER SOFTWARE FREIGHT TAX APR ALARM MONITORING-STORAGE QTRLY ALARM SYSTEM-SKATE PARK REFUND: CLASS CANCELED REFUND: CLASS CANCELED TEMP HELP W/E 3/2 L.WILBUR REFUND: CLASS CANCELED EAP PROGRAM REFUND: DIFFERENT SPONSORSHIP POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS THE RISK REPORT 6/97-5/98 PAINTING SERVICES - C.R.C. LDSC MAINTENANCE/R.C.SPORTS PK LDSC MAINTENANCE/R.C.SPORTS PK TAX TEMP HELP W/E 3/9 EVANS TEMP HELP W/E 3/9 EVANS REFUND: CLASS CANCEL R-O-W TREE TRIMMING SERVICES R-O-W STREET TREE TRIMMING R-O-W TREE TRIM & ROOT PRUNE LDSC MAINTENANCE-RANCHO CA RD LDSC MAINTENANCE-RANCHO CA RD MAIL DELIVERY FOR FEBRUARY ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-161-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 340-199-701-5250 190-180-999-5250 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 001-161-999-5118 190-183-4982 001-150-999-5250 190-183-4994 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 300-199-999-5228 190-182-999-5212 190-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 001-163-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 190-183-4982 001-164-601-5402 001-164-601-5402 001-164-601-5402 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 330-199-999-5230 ITEM AMOUNT 152.96 7.95 12.99 119.00 9.99 11.23 39.95 6.03 3.33 35.00 105.00 20.00 20.00 365.20 20.00 355.35 365.00 66.00 247.44 154.00 1~395.00 300.00 150.00 34.88 62.40 353.60 46.00 4,860.00 4,950.00 4,775.00 2,400.00 130.00 77.00 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 194.00 210.47 140.00 20.00 20.00 365.20 20.00 355.35 365.00 313.44 154.00 1,395.00 484.88 416.00 46.00 14,585.00 2,530.00 ??.00 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42566 42567 42567 42568 42568 42569 42570 42571 42571 42572 42573 42574 42575 42576 42577 4257-/ 4257-/ 42578 42578 42578 42578 42579 42580 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 42581 13:57 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 001653 MAILER~S SOFTWARE 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV 002052 MAPLES & ASSOCIATES 002052 MAPLES & ASSOCIATES 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC. 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING 002548 MORRIS SR., STEWART M. NAY, LLOYD NEAL, DARCY 000233 NELSON, SHAWN 002558 002558 002558 NEWS/SPORTS MICROWAVE R NEWS/SPORTS MICROWAVE R NEWS/SPORTS MICROWAVE R 002105 002105 002105 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE OLD TC)WN TIRE & SERVICE 002088 OLD TOWN TYPEWRITER 002652 OSCAR'S 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCUMAIL AUTO UPDATE TEMP HELP W/E 3/9 CASTILLO TEMP HELP W/E 3-16 CASTILLO A.C.REPAIRS-AREA WIDE A.C.REPAIRS-AREA WIDE LOGO COPIED TO DISK TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES EMERGENCY DIRT ROAD GRADING TCSD I'NSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT REIMB:CPRS C0NF:3/13-3/16/97 RENTAL-TRANSMITTER-COUNCIL MTG TAX TAX REIMBURSEMENT TIRES STENCIL TRUCK W/ALIGNMNT TAX CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT REPAIR 2 TYPEWRITERS FOR TCSD REFRESHMENTS-EMPL.APPRECIATION ADDT'L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT'L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT'L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT'L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT'L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5211 001-164-604-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-164-601-5402 001-164-601-5402 280-199-999-5250 190-183-999-5330 001-170-999-5262 001-164-602-5262 195-180-999-5402 190-183-999-5330 190-2900 190-2900 190-180-999-5258 001-100-999-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-100-999-5250 001-164-601-5214 001-164-601-5214 001-162-999-5214 001-164-601-5214 190-180-999-5242 001-150-999-5265 001-164-604-5242 001-161-999-5242 190-180-999-5242 001-162-999-5242 001-120-999-5242 001-140-999-5242 210-199-650-5804 210-199-650-5804 001-164-604-5242 001-161-999-5242 190-180-999-5242 001-162-999-5242 001-120-999-5242 ITEM AMOUNT 221.43 229.60 574.00 2,250.00 2,250.00 10.78 352.00 104.06 13.35 768.00 432.00 100.00 100.00 16.75 500.00 38.75 38.75 783.55 52.06 87.30 88.41 130.00 946.57 305.82 115.92 398.54 845.02 841.59 1,188.63 517.37 44.46 161.16 61.09 210.01 445.29 443.49 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 221.43 803.60 4,500.00 10.78 352.00 117.41 768.00 432.00 100.00 100o00 16.75 577.50 1,011.32 130.00 946.57 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/27/97 13:57 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI ADDT'L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL 001-140-999-5242 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL 210-199-650-5804 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL 210-199-650-5804 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI ADDT'L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL 001-120-999-5242 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL 001-164-604-5242 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL 001-140-999-5242 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI ADDT~L FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL 001-140-999-5242 42581 03/27/97 002406 PACIFIC BUSINESS INTERI CREDIT= CHRGED TAX ON LABOR 001-140-999-5242 626.37 272.64 23.42 144.00 381.05 53.87 46.03 27.90- 7,097.87 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5263 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5220 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5258 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5220 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5242 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5218 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5215 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5258 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5263 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5220 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-171-999-5261 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 280-199-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5212 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-184-999-5301 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5218 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5214 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5222 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 340-199-701-5212 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5262 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 42582 03/27/97 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 5.00 19.13 17.23 4.47 20.00 19.74 26.50 9.99 4°53 15.10 28.23 25.00 4.62 18.00 50.00 6.98 5.00 40.41 28.00 3.40 4.00 28.19 5.00 12.00 21.54 15.84 33.00 12.06 46.59 36.00 59.67 41.46 666.68 42584 03/27/97 000580 PHOTO WORKS PHOTO DEVELOPMENT - B&S 001-162-999-5250 42584 03/27/97 000580 PHOTO WORKS PHOTO DEVELOPMENT/FILM-TCSD 190-180-999-5301 42584 03/27/97 000580 PHOTO WORKS RDA PHOTO PROCESSING 280-199-999-5250 42584 03/27/97 000580 PHOTO WORKS RDA PHOTO PROCESSING 165-199-999-5250 11.57 12.41 69.43 69.42 162.83 42585 03/27/97 000728 RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMB BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE 190-180-999-5212 50.00 50.00 42586 03/27/97 000836 RANCH MUFFLER SPECIALIS CONTINENTAL CROSS BOX. 2 LID. 001-171-999-5608 365.00 42586 03/27/97 000836 RANCH MUFFLER SPECIALIS TAX 001-171-999-5608 28.29 393.29 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 03/27/g7 13:57 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 42587 03/27/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 01-07-60005-1 WILLOW RUN CT 193-180-999-5240 42587 03/27/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240 42587 03/27/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240 42587 03/27/97 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 01-23-00178-3 BUTTERFIELD STAG 191-180-999-5240 32.25 484.25 1,133o68 11.16 1,661.34 42588 03/27/97 002739 RICK ALBA APRRAISAL SER BURROW, KATY 2/5/97 300-199-999-5205 126.50 126o50 42589 03/27/97 000268 RIVERSIDE CO. HABITAT K-RAT:JANUARY 1997 001-2300 250.00 250.00 42590 03/27/97 001592 RIVERSIDE CO. INFORMATI EMERG RADIO RENTAL-FEB 97 42590 03/27/97 001592 RIVERSIDE CO. INFORMATI EMERG RADIO RENTAL-JAN 97 001-162-999-5238 001-162-999-5238 141.41 141.41 282.82 42591 03/27/97 001092 RIVERSIDE CO. SUPERIOR DEPOSIT-GABRIEL PROPERTY 210-1652 5,473.00 5,473.00 42592 03/27/97 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 469.00 469.00 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-601-5263 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S~ INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-165-999-5263 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S~ INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-163-999-5263 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-604-5263 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-110-999-5263 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S~ INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 190-180-999-5263 42593 03/27/97 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 340-199-701-5263 368.44 77.05 131.67 30.31 69.81 97.21 306.98 67.18 1,148.65 42594 03/27/97 002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH LOCKSMITH SERVICES FOR TEM.PD 001-170-999-5610 53.98 53.98 42595 03/27/97 SAWREY= LINDA REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION 190-183-4990 65.00 65.00 42596 03/27/97 SCHEEL~ SHERRI REFUND~ CONTRACT CLASS 190-183-4982 20.00 20.00 42597 03/27/97 002451 SKYTEC PRG PMT#6-CITY MAINTENANCE FAC 210-190-144-5804 42597 03/27/97 002451 SKYTEC C/O PMT#6-CITY MAINTENANCE FAC 210-190-144-5804 42597 03/27/97 002451 SKYTEC RET W/H PMT#6-CITY MAINT. FAC 210-2035 42597 03/27/97 002451 SKYTEC RELEASE STOP NOTICE:CTY MAINT. 210-2038 42597 03/27/97 002451 SKYTEC STOP NOTICE:CITY MAINT. FAC. 210-2038 60,701.60 55,711.51 11,641.31- 2,167.21 2,167.21- 104,771.80 42598 03/27/97 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES-SPRING EGG HUNT 1997 190-180-999-5301 42598 03/27/97 000645 SMART & FINAL, INC. SUPPLIES-SPRING EGG HUNT 1997 190-180-999-5301 42598 03/27/97 000645 SMART & FINAL~ INC. SUPPLIES-SPRING EGG HUNT 1997 190-180-999-5301 880.00 421.20 471.70 1,772.90 42599 03/27/97 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR MAR PEST CONTROL SVCS-T.C.C. 190-184-999-5250 36.00 36.00 42600 03/27/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-06-562-3183 MARGARITA TC1 191-180-999-5319 42600 03/27/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-02-351-6800 VARIOUS METERS 191-180-999-5240 42600 03/27/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 2-04-792-9005 RANCHO SPT PRK 190-180-999-5240 42600 03/27/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 56-77-816-6613-01 NICOLAS IRR 190-180-999-5240 42600 03/27/97 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 65-77-804-0230-01 191-180-999-5319 10.85 39.96 1,438.55 15.12 274.62 1,779.10 42601 03/27/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4770:RB:FEBRUARY 001-110-999-5208 8.60 42601 03/27/97 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4770:RB:FEBRUARY 001-110-999-5208 34.57 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42601 42601 42601 42601 42602 42603 42604 42605 42605 42605 42605 42605 42606 42607 42608 42609 42610 42611 42611 42611 42612 42612 42612 42612 42612 42613 42614 42615 42616 42616 42616 42616 42616 42617 13:57 CHECK DATE 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 VENDOR NUMBER 0003~ 0003~ 0003~ 0003~ 000282 002366 001672 001672 001672 001672 001672 000905 000319 000319 000319 000320 000320 000320 000320 000320 002621 002740 000326 000326 000326 000326 000326 001209 VENDOR NAME SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON SOUTHERN CALIF. MUNICIP SOUTHWEST CHRISTIAN CHU STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA DRAIN SERV & P TEMECULA SHUTTLE SERVIC TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH SC THACKER, NANCY THELIN, JOHN THONAS, RICHARD TOMARK SPORTS, INCo TOMARK SPORTS, INC~ TOMARK SPORTS, INC. TOt4NE CENTER STATIONERS TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS TOYOTA OF TEMECULA VALL UNION BANK OF CALIF. N. UNITED STATES WATER FIT UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE, VAULT INC., THE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION RB: CELLULAR EQUIPMENT 909 202-4759 TE 909 202-3800 MW 909 202-4752 SN ADULT SOFTBALL REG:69 TEAMS OVER PAYMENT OF FEES CARPET CLEANING PLUMBING SERVICES FOR TCSD PLUMBING SERVICES FOR CRC PLUMBING SERVICES FOR TCSD. PLUMBING SERVICES FOR TCSD PLUMBING SERVICES FOR CRC SHUTTLE SVC:J.STONE:R.ROBERT REFUND: FACILITY ROOM RENTAL REFUND: CLASS CANCELED REFUND: CLASS CANCELED REFUND: CLASS CANCELED SPORTS EQUIPMENT FREIGHT TAX OFFICE SUPPLIES TAX OFFICE SUPPLIES TAX CREDIT: RETURNED 25-2 COL LEDG REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 5305001995944 TE:HOTL-RED LION AQUATICS MANUAL-SWIM PROGRAM UNIFORMS FOR PUBLIC WORKS UNIFORM MAINT. FOR TCSO RENTAL/CLEANING - FLOOR MATS FLOOR MAT-RENT/CLEAN-C.R.C. FLOOR MAT RENT/CLEAN-SR CTR DATA STORAGE - CARTRIDGE CTR ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-110-999-5208 001-162-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 190-183-999-5380 001-162-4285 340-199-701-5250 190-180-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 001-100-999-5258 190-183-4990 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 190-183-999-5380 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 001-140-999-5220 190-2900 001-162-999-5258 190-183-999-5310 001-164-601-5243 190-180-999-5243 340-199-701-5250 190-182-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 001-120-999-5277 ITEM AMOUNT 173.48 41.44 147080 85.76 483.00 22.50 55.00 195.00 65.00 16,00 49.00 102.00 90.85 134.50 20.00 14.00 20.00 240.00 17.46 18.60 39.96 3.10 96.67 7,49 121.87- 100.00 489.00 108.00 324.35 111.44 342.08 229.00 123.31 481.50 PAGE 7 CHECK AMOUNT 491.65 483.00 22.50 55,00 427.00 90.85 134,50 20.00 14.00 20,00 276.06 25,35 100.00 489.00 108.00 1,130.18 481.50 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42618 42619 42619 42619 42619 42620 42620 42620 42620 42620 42620 42620 42621 42622 42623 42624 !3:57 CHECK DATE 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 03/27/97 VENDOR NUMBER 001437 001342 001342 001342 001342 000~7 002212 VENDOR NAME VIRACK, MARYANN WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY~ WEAVER, JOHN WEAVER JOHN WEAVER JOHN WEAVER JOHN WEAVER JOHN WEAVER JOHN WEAVER JOHN WEHRUNG, RENEE WESTIN HOTEL WHITEHEAD, STEVE ZAMORA, MARTHA CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS CRC-BUILDING MAINT.SUPPLIES CRC-BUILDING MAINT.SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES REFUND: BUILD PERMIT B96-2331 REFUND: BUILD PERMIT B96-2331 REFUND: BUILD PERMIT B96-2331 REFUND: BUILD PERMIT B96-2331 REFUND: BUILD PERMIT B96-2331 REFUND: BUILD PERMIT B96-2331 REFUND: BUILD PERMIT B96-2331 REFUND:S30 MINUS $5 SERV CHGE CF:COMERCHERO:MILLER:EDWARDS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND: CLASS CANCEL ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-183-999-5330 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 340-199-701-5212 340-199-701-5212 001-2280 001-161-4200 001-162-4200 001-162-4285 001-171-4036 001-171-4037 001-171-4037 190-183-4982 190-180-999-5258 190-183-999-5330 190-183-4982 ITEM AMOUNT 220.00 115.22 6.68 188.13 215.07 11.76 30.00 331.13 545.75 21.90 21.90 122.10 25.00 722.70 110.40 35.00 PAGE 8 CHECK AMOUNT 220.00 525.10 1,084.54 25.00 722.70 110.40 35.00 TOTAL CHECKS 386,520.65 VOUCHRE2 03/2?/97 14:21 CITY OF TENECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/HOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND AMOUNT 51,694.38 15,295.00 2,621.23 9,654.51 29,174.02 56~171.20 59,595.39 2,059.25 TOTAL 226,264.98 VOUCHRE2 03/27/97 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 42625 42625 42626 42627 42628 42629 42630 42630 42630 42631 42632 42632 42633 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42634 42635 42636 42636 42637 42638 42639 14:21 CHECK DATE 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 04/08/97 VENDOR NUMBER 000135 000135 001009 002182 001924 001408 001056 001056 001056 001713 001383 001383 000247 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002181 002181 000271 000818 000420 VENDOR NAME CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER D B X, INC. D K S ASSOCIATES DMG/DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL S EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE EXCEL LANDSCAPE NORRIS-REPKE= INC. P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. P M W ASSOCIATES, INC. PESTMASTER RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS RICHARDS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS NATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS WATSON & GERS RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS RIDGEVIEW RC HOMEOWNERt RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION ROBERT BEIN, WM FROST & SIGNAL MAINTENANCE, INC TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTAN CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION SIGNS FOR CITY YARD INVENTORY SIGNS & HARDWARE/CITY YARD RELEASE RETENTION:LA PAZ/SR79S JAN PROF SRVCS-CORRIDOR STUDY TEM LIBRARY STUDY PRGSS PMT DEMOLITION PROJECT - PUJOL ST MAR LANDSCAPE MAINT-SLOPE AREA MAR LANDSCAPE MAINT-RC SPT PRK MAR LANDSCAPE MAINT-SPT PRK PR NOV-JAN PROF SVC-IST ST BRIDGE FEB CONSULTING SVC-M.WHISENAND FEB CONSULTING SVC-M.WHISENAND RENEWAL OF R-O-W WEED CONTROL FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 97 LEGAL SERVICES REIMBURSE: PMTS - RANCHO WATER PRG PMT#13-WINCH/I-15 BRIDGE RETENTION W/H PMT#13-WINCH/I15 JAN PROF SVCS-I-15/79(S) PROd RETENTION-RANCHO CAL & COSMIC JAN PROF SVCS-WESTERN BY-PASS ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-164-601-5244 001-164-601-5244 210-2035 210-165-633-5802 120-199-999-5248 280-199-807-5804 193-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 280-199-807-5802 280-199-999-5248 165-199-999-5248 001-164-601-5402 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 280-199-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 300-199-999-5246 300-199-999-5246 165-199-999-5246 280-199-999-5246 193-180-999-5240 280-199-602-5804 280-2035 210-165-662-5804 210-2035 210-165-612-5802 ITEM AMOUNT 9,483.80 665.51 8,638.60 6,746.40 15,295.00 24,980.00 20,080.77 7,704.51 1,950o00 15,880.39 2,572.24 2~572.23 19~391.83 7,249.57 69.00 6,055.38 4,699.37 921.75 155.00 634.00 746.00 1,380.20 1,136.50 486.67 1,050.50 1,008.75 49.00 1~697.87 9,093.25 14,538.55 1,453.86- 17,986.09 7,444.25 15,355.86 PAGE I CHECK AMOUNT 10,149.31 8,638.60 6,746.40 15,295.00 24,980.00 29~7'35.28 15,880.39 5,144.47 19,391.83 27,339.56 9:093o25 13,084.69 17,986.09 7,444.25 15,355.86 TOTAL CHECKS 226,264.98 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director April 8, 1997 City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1997 PREPARED BY: Jesse Diaz, Accounting Aide RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1997. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of February 28, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 1997 2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of February 28, 1997 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of February 28, 1997 Cash Activity for the Month of February Cash and Investments as of February 1, 1997 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of February 28, 1997 $ 49,881,843 1,907,110 (3,500,982) $ 48,287,971 Cash and Investments Portfolio: Type of Investment Petty Cash General Checking Sweep Account (Money Market Account) Beneft Demand Deposits Local Agency Investment Fund Retention Escrow Account Retention Escrow Account Checking Accounts (Sherwood/Pujol Apartments) Deferred Compensation Fund Deferred Compensation Fund Defined Contribution Fund Trust Accounts-TCSD COPs (Money Market Account) Reserve Account-TCSD COPs (Guaranteed investment Contract) Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds (Money Market Account) Reserve Account-R DA Bonds (Guaranteed Investment Contract) Institution City Hall Union Bank Union Bank (Stepstone Treasury) Union Bank State Treasurer Landmark/California State Bank First Pacific National Bank Home Savings of America ICMA PEBSCO PEBSCO First Trust (First Am. Treasury) Bayerische Landesbank First Trust (First Am. Treasury) BayerischeLandesbank Yield 4.890 % Maturity Date (2) Contractual/ Market Value 1,500 133,064 130,000 5,274 5.575 % 32,156,258 5.100 % 157,540 5.250 % 121,185 8,178 357,873 577,701 58,563 4.741% 17,753 6.870 % 502,690 4.741% 12,611,472 7.400 % 1,448,920 Pa#Book Balance 133,064 (1) 130,000 5,274 (1) 32,156,258 (3) 157,540 121,185 8,178 357,873 577,701 58,563 17,753 502,690 12,611,472 1,448,920 $ 48,287,971 (1)-This amount is net of outstanding checks. (2)-All investments are liquid and currently available. (3)-At February 28, 1997 total market value for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) was $29,039,821,700.30. The City's proportionate share of that value is $32,358,287. The City of Temecula's portfolio is in compliance with the investment policy. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City of Temecula for the next six months. City of Temecula Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Balances As of February 28, 1997 Assets: Cash and investments Receivables Due from other funds Land held for resale Prepaid assets Deposits Fixed assets-net City (1) 28,954,400 4,192,349 1,238,327 176,275 539,116 934,7.70 Total assets $ 36,035,237 Community Services District $ 2,302,044 132,331 16,723 Redevelopment Agency Totai 17,031,527 $ 48,287,971 666,199 4,990,879 1,255,050 2,103,053 2,103,053 176,275 561,040 1,100,156 934,770 $ 2,451,098 $ 20,361,819 $ 58,848,154 Liabilities and fund equity: Liabilities: Due to other funds $ 1,205,527 Other liabilities 5,260,931 $ 16,723 $ 32,800 $ 1,255,050 203,294 627,149 6,091,374 Total liabilities 6,466,458 220,017 659,949 7,346,424 Fund equity: Contributed capital 1,055,344 Retained earnings 777,205 Fund balances: Reserved (2) 3,482,599 Designated (3) 19,190,766 U n design ated 5,062,865 1,055,344 777,205 837,807 8,284,085 12,604,491 1,425,272 11,417,785 32,033,823 (31,998) 5,030,867 Total fund equity 29,568,779 2,231,081 19,701,870 51,501,730 $ 36,035,237 $ 2,451,098 $ 20,361,819 $ 58,848,154 Total liabilities and fund equity (1) Includes General Fund, CIP Fund, Gas Tax Fund, other special revenue funds, and deferred comp agency funds. (2) Includes amounts reserved for encumbrances, land held for resale, long-term notes receivable, Iow/mod housing, and debt service. (3) Includes amounts designated for economic uncertainty, future capital projects, debt service, and continuing appropriations. ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIREC~O R~,~-'~,~ CITY MANAGER ¥~/~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council June Greek, City Clerk April 8, 1997 Records Destruction Approval PREPARED BY: Kathy Di Meglio, Records Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy. BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 92-17 which authorizes the destruction of certain City records which have become outdated, obsolete or are excess documents, in compliance with State of California Government Code, Sections 34090 through 34090.7. Attached Exhibit "A," lists records from the Finance Department, Daily Cash Receipts, from June 1991, through July 1992, Tuffs Index number 402-02. These records have been identified within Group IV of the retention schedule, and have been microfilmed in duplicate with a copy distributed to the City Clerk's Records Vault, and a copy to the Vault in San Diego. The microfilming of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. The City Attorney has reviewed this request and has signed the Exhibit, as provided for in Resolution No. 92-17. ATTACHMENTS: Destruction of Records Request, Finance Department Exhibit "A", List of Records recommended for destruction v:\wp.destroy.ar 031997 304-03 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Clerk Kathy DiMeglio Records Coordinator April 8, 1997 Destruction of Records Request Attached is a print out of: Daily Cash Receipts 6/91 to 7/92 (Retention Code 40202). These records have been microfilmed in duplicate with a copy distributed to the City Clerk's Records Vault, and a copy to the Vault in San Diego. The microfilming of these records complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5. The undersigned have reviewed and approved this destruction request. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090.5, I hereby give my consent to the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to the City of Temecula's adopted Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy. APPROVED: Department Head: APPROVED:: City Attorney: Tim Mc Dermott, Finance Department Date Pete/Thorson, City Attorney R: \fo rms\destruct. rqs EXHIBIT "A" RRDESTY...RR061 City of Temecula Doc. Ref ......... 140 Page 1 03/19/1997 Files Ready for Destruction Retention Code... 40202 11:16:25 Destruction Date. 04/08/1997 Doc. Item Ret. File Reference # Storage Media Ref. Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security Class Storage Location Location Reference 140 06/01/1991 CASHR DAILY CASH RECEIPTS 40202 0116 Film 3821M1A0003 Group IV 140/120/The Vault 140 08/01/1991 CASHR Daily Cash Receipts 40202 0117 Film 3821M1A0003 Group IV 140/120/The Vault 140 11/01/1991 CASHR Daily Cash Receipts 40202 0118 Film 3821M1A0003 Group IV 140/120/The Vault 140 02/01/1992 CAS~R Daily Cash Receipts 40202 0119 Film 3821M1A0003 Group IV 140/120/The Vault 140 05/01/1992 CASHR Daily Cash Receipts 40202 0120 Film 3821M1A0001 Group IV 140/120/The Vault 5 Records Processed APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIREC'T~ ~C~..~ CITY MANAGER ~' .,~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Pete Labahn, Chief of Police April 8, 1997 Sale of Police Canine RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize sale of Temecula Police Department canine "Tango" to Charles Mungle for the sum of one dollar. DISCUSSION: Temecula Police Department canine "Tango" was purchased and entered service in July of 1993. He has served the City of Temecula since then, participating in twenty four suspect apprehensions, ninety four narcotics seizures valued at 4.2 million dollars, and increasing officer safety in a variety of high risk operations. As a Czechoslovakian Shepherd, Tango has an expected service life of four to six years. He is currently over seven years old. Veterinary evaluations conducted in the past two months indicate that Tango suffers from spondylosis and a degenerated disk. These medical conditions will result in Tango's retirement in May of this year. Due to their training and disposition, police canines are frequently destroyed at the conclusion of their service careers. Absent an appropriate placement for him, it would be my direction that Tango be destroyed. Tango's first handler, Temecula Police Officer Chuck Mungle, is willing to provide him a safe and appropriate home. Officer Mungle is a skilled handler, has an established relationship with Tango, and can provide an appropriate physical setting for a large, active animal. Sale of Tango to Officer Mungle would provide the dog a safe and humane retirement. Attached is a purchase agreement and waiver of liability to be utilized in the proposed transaction. This document has been reviewed by the City Attorney, and approved as to format and content. PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY , (hereafter "buyer"), on behalf of himself, his agents, representatives, heirs and conservators, and the City of Temecula, each knowingly and voluntarily enter into this agreement under the following conditions and terms: Buyer agrees to pay the City ofTemecula a total of $1.00 (one dollar) for a Czechoslovakian Shepherd dog known as "Tango." Such payment is entirely non-refundable and the dog may not be returned to the City of Temecula for any reason. Buyer agrees to accept "Tango .... as-is" and understands that the City of Temecula makes no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the health, training or demeanor or any other condition or characteristic of the dog. Buyer expressly releases the City of Temecula, its agents, employees and representatives, from any and all liability, including, but not limited to negligence, resulting from any injury, death or property damage caused directly or indirectly by "Tango." Buyer agrees to accept all responsibility for the care and maintenance of "Tango," including, but not limited to all feeding, grooming and veterinary costs for the dog. Date City of Temecula Buyer i'i'EM 7 APPROVAl CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DI R ECT~O,~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 8, 1997 SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ~ Accept public improvements in Parcel Map 28122 (located east of Meadows Parkway, between Rancho California Road and Rancho Vista Road) Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the public improvements, AUTHORIZE reduction of the faithful performance bond amount, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and release of the monument bond for Parcel Map 28122, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Parcel Map No. 28122 on September 12, 1995, and entered into subdivision improvement agreement with: Van Daele 79 Venture, a California Limited Partnership The improvements were secured by the following bonds as posted by American Motorists Insurance Co.: Bond No. 3SM 882 864 00 in the amount of $1,568 for demolition and replacement of driveway and related improvements in Meadows Parkway for Faithful Performance. Bond No. 3SM 882 864 00 in the amount of $748 for demolition and replacement of driveway and related improvements in Meadows Parkway for labor and materials. 3. Bond No. 3SM 882 863 00 In the amount of $400 for subdivision monumentation. Public Works staff has inspected the required demolition and replacement of driveway and related improvements along Meadows Parkway which had been the access point to the model homes, sales office and offstreet parking area prior to completion of public street access to the several developments in this area. Staff recommends the acceptance of the subject improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and reduction in faithful performance bond amount as follows: R:~AGDRPT~97\O408\PM28122.ACC Faithful Performance $1,411.20 The following amount will be retained for the one-year warranty period: Faithful Performance Warranty Bond No. 3SM 882 864 00 $156.80 The labor and material bond will be retained for the contractual six-month lien/claim period. The subdivision monuments have been set as shown on Parcel Map No. 28122, and staff recommends release of the following bond: Subdivision Monument Bond No. 3SM 882 863 00 $400.00 The affected street for this project is Corte La Puenta. The three parcels in Parcel Map 28122 are a resubdivision of Lot 13 in Tract No. 22716-2 and front on Corte La Puenta, but did not offer the street for dedication. Therefore, acceptance of this portion of the street into the City Maintained-Street System will be processed through City Council at the time that the public improvements are accepted in Tract No. 22716-2. FISCAL IMPACT: None. AttAchment: Location Map R:\AGDRPT~97~O4OS\PM28122.ACC ~o :OS. YjPROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Parcel Map No. 281~.2 l,ocation Map NOTE,: MAPS NOT TO $CAI,F, I~I'EM 8 APPROVAl CITY ATTORNEY r~,v~. FINANCE DIRECT~'R~ ._~ CITY OF TEMECU~ AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Street into the City Maintained-Street System (Within Tract No. 26861-1) (Southwesterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79 S) PREPARED BY: ~ Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 26861- 1) BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Tract No. 26861-1 on December 10, 1991, and entered into Subdivision Agreements for construction of street/drainage and water system improvements with The Presley Companies. On April 8, 1997, the City Council accepted the public improvements for this tract. The public street now being accepted by this action is a portion of Country Glen Way. FISCAL IMPACT: Periodic surface and/or structural maintenance will be required every 5 to 8 years. Attachments: Resolution No. 97- with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive. R:\agdrpt\97\O408\tr268611 .sts RESOLUTION NO. 9% A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TENIECLR~, ACCEFrING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACT NO. 26861-1) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: ~, The City Council accepted offer of dedication of a certain lot for public road and public utility purposes made by The Presley Companies with the recordation of Tract Map No. 26861-1; and, ~, The City of Temecula accepted the improvements within Tract No 26861-1 on April 8, 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby accepts into the City Maintained-Street System that portion of street offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of April, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek City Clerk R:\agdrpt\97\O408\tr268611 .ats [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 97- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regolar meeting thereof held on the 8th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: R:\agdrpt\97\O408\tr268611 .~t. EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 97- Accepting the public street offered to and accepted by the City of Temecula as indicated on Tract Map No.26861-1, and accepting subject public street into the City Maintained-Street System as described below: That lot described as Lot "A", as shown on Tract Map No. 26861-1, f'ded 18 Decemher 1991, in Book 236 of Maps, Pgs 25- 27 Incl., further described as follows: Portion of Country Glen Way R:\agdrpt\97\O408~tr268611 .sts EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 97- SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE -PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED-STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW: 0 NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE LEGEND STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS TO BE ACCEPTED INTO CITY MAINTA/NED-STREET SYSTEM I'I'EM 9 APPROVAl CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT~)I~~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: DATE: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Accept Public Improvements and Acknowledge private improvements in Tract No. 26861-1. (Southwesterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79 S) PREPARED BY: ~ Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the public improvements and acknowledge private improvements, AUTHORIZE reduction of the faithful performance bond amounts for streets, drainage, and water improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and release of the subdivision monument bond for Tract No. 26861-1, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 1991, the City Council approved Final Vesting Tract Map No. 26861-1 and entered into subdivision agreements with: The Presley Companies 15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92128 for the improvement of streets and drainage and water systems, and survey monuments. The original bonds on file were furnished by American Motorists Insurance Company. Substitute bonds were later furnished by The American Insurance Company and accepted by City Council on February 23, 1993. The new bonds posted were as follows: Bond No. 111 1925 7209 in the amount of $41,000 for streets/drainage for faithful performance. Bond No. 111 1925 7209 in the amount of $63,000 for water system for faithful performance. Bond No. 111 1925 7209 in the amounts of $20,500 and $31,500 for streets/drainage and water improvements, respectively, for labor and materials. R:~AGDRPT~97~0408\TR268611 .ACC 4. Bond No. 111 1925 7191 in the amount of $9,500 for subdivision monuments. Public Works Staff has inspected and approved the public and private improvements. The Eastern Municipal and Rancho California Water Districts have, respectively, approved these privately maintained sewer systems, and both public and privately maintained water systems. Therefore staff recommends reduction in the faithful performance bond amounts to the ten- percent (10%) warranty amounts as follows: Streets/Drainage Water System Bond No. 111 1925 7209 $4,100 Bond No. 111 1925 7209 6.300 Total= $10,400 Staff has reviewed and approved the subdivision monumentation and therefore recommends the release of the following security: Subdivision Monuments Bond No. 111 1925 7191 $9,500 The affected public street within the subdivision, a portion of Country Glen Way, will be accepted into the City Maintained-Street System at this time by Resolution No. 97- . The private streets; portions of "Chelsea Way", "Asbury Place", "Clover Lane", and "Briarwood Place"; will not be accepted into the City Street-Maintained System. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Location Map R:\AGDRPT~)7\0408~TR268611 .ACC VICIId IT"/ M~P Tract No. ~6861-1 Location Map NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE I'I'P_iM 10 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager APPROVAl CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIREC~O,~,~ CITY MANAGER ~v~,~_l~' Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 8, 1997 Acknowledge Completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26861-F (Southwesterly of intersection of Margarita Road at Highway 79 S) PREPARED BY:/~ Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: The City Council ACKNOWLEDGE completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26867-F, AUTHORIZE reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of private street, water, and sewer system improvements, initiation of the one-year warranty period, and release of the subdivision monument bond, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety. BACKGROUND: On September 28, 1993, the City Council approved Final Vesting Tract Map No. 26861-F, and entered into subdivision agreements with: The Presley Companies 15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92128 for the improvement of private street and sewer and water systems, and survey monuments. Bonds assuring this work were posted by The American Insurance Company as follows: 1. Bond No. 111 3301 9510 in the amount of $65,500 for the improvement of private streets. 2. Bond No. 111 3301 9502 in the amount of $28,000 for the improvement of private water system. 3. Bond No. 111 3301 9494 in the amount of $18,000 for the improvement of private sewer system. 4. Bond No's 111 3301 9510, 111 3301, 9502, and 111 3301 9494 in the amounts of $33,000, $14,000, and $9,000, respectively, for labor and materials for private streets, and water and sewer systems. R:~A GDRPT~97\O408\TR26861F.ACC 5. Bond No. 111 2720 0480 in the amount of $1,056 for subdivision monumentation. Public Works staff has inspected and verified the several improvements. The water districts have confirmed that the water and sewer systems are complete and privately maintained. It is recommended that the faithful performance bond amounts be reduced to the ten-percent (10%) level for the one-year warranty period as follows: Private street Private water system Private sewer system Bond No. 111 3301 9510 Bond No. 111 3301 9502 Bond No. 111 3301 9494 $6,550 2,800 1.800 Total = $11,150 The subdivision monumentation has been completed and it is recommended that the following bond be released: Subdivision Monumentation Bond No. 111 2722 6725 $1,056 The affected streets are private streets and will not be accepted into the City Maintained-Street System. The private streets within this condominium subdivision are "Heather Way" and portions of 'Clover Lane" and "Arbor Lane". FISCAL IMPACT: None AttAchment: Location Map R:~AGDRPT~97\O40~TR26861 F.ACC I VICI kl IT"/ Tract No. ~6861-F Location Map NOTE: MAPS NOT TO SCALE APPROVAL i~,~. ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~'/NA.~,, FINANCE DIRECTOR ~~ CITY MANAGER ~ ~.'~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 8, 1997 Temecula Creek Channel - Campanula Way Storm Drain Project No. 7-0- 0047 Tracts No. 24182 through 24186 and 24188 Cooperative Agreement PREPARED BY: ~Ronald J. Parks, Principal Engineer - Land Development J~i~Gerald L. Alegria, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE Temecula Creek Channel - Campanula Way Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0047 Tracts No. 24182 through 24186 and 24188 Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Newland Associates, Inc.; and authorize the execution and attestation of such agreement in its final form by the City Manager and City Clerk. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182, Amendment No. 3 on December 8, 1992; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24183 on October 22, 1991; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184, Amendment No. 3 on December 8, 1992; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24185, Amendment No. 3 on December 8, 1992; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186, Amendment No. 5 on December 8, 1992; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 3 on January 2, 1997. As a condition of developing the subdivisions, the developer was required to construct improvements for flood control storm drain facilities in conjunction with the Temecula Creek Channel (Assessment District 159), that is adjacent to the site. The required facilities to be constructed include approximately 9000 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe, illustrated on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B". Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the developer will construct said facilities, and the County Flood Control District will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility of mainline storm drain improvements. In conjunction with the cooperative agreement, the County Flood Control District will review and approve all construction plans associated with the storm drain improvements. Participation by the City includes the acceptance and holding of Faithful Performance and Labor and Material bonds for the storm drain improvements, granting of rights to the County Flood Control District to operate and maintain flood control facilities within City right-of-way, and City operation and maintenance of inlets/connector pipes within City right-of- way. r:\ag d rpt\97\0408\24188-1. map Following City Council adoption of the Cooperative Agreement, it will be sent to the County Flood Control District for their approval and for County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval. FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: 1. Location Map ( Exhibit "A" ) 2. Flood Control Improvements ( Exhibit "B" ) 3. Cooperative Agreement r:\agd rpt\97\0408\24188-1 .map ,/ END PROJECT 24'184., BEGIN PROJECT STATE I'"I(~AY 79 .... LOCATION MAP EXHI BIT A ee Exhibit "B" 4 of 4 P14ASE 1 -- RECR~.ATK)~I~ FaCLITY See Exhibit "B" 3 of 4 See Exhibit "B" 2 of 4 STATE I..IGHWAY 79 -- EXHIBIT B I r~f 6 EXHIBIT 2 of 4 B EXHIBIT B 3 of 4 ? ? EXHIBIT B 4 of 4 AGREEMENT 2 (Tract Nos. 24182 through 24186 and 24188) 3 The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 4 DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the CITY OF TEMECULA, 6 hereinafter called "CITY", and NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INCORPOR3tTED, 7 hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", hereby agree as follows: RECITALS 9 A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract Nos. 24182 through 24186 and 24188 in the City of Temecula, and as a condition for approval DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in order to provide flood protection for DEVELOPER'S planned development; and B. The required facilities include approximately 9,000 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe hereinafter called "STORM DRAIN", as shown in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a 19 part hereof, along with appurtenant inlets and connector pipes to STORM DRAIN, hereinafter called "INLETS", as shown in green on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. STORM DRAIN and INLETS are hereinafter altogether called "PROJECT"; and C. The functional operation and integrity of STORM DRAIN 24 will be dependent upon the functional operation and integrity of 26 INLETS, some of which will be constructed outside of CITY rights of 27 way, within drainage easements; and ! D. DEVELOPER desires DISTRICT to assume ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of STORM DRAIN. Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and specifi- cations and subsequently inspect the construction of PROJECT; and E. DISTRICT is willing to review and approve plans and 7 specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, and is willing to inspect the construction of PROJECT; and F. DISTRICT is willing to assume ownership and responsi- bility for the operation and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, provided (i) DEVELOPER complies with this agreement, (ii) DEVELOPER pays DISTRICT the amount as specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S costs [4 to prepare, process, and administer this agreement, (iii) DEVELOPER pays DISTRICT the amount as specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S construction inspection costs for PROJECT, (iv) DEVELOPER pays DISTRICT the amount as specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S estimated operation and maintenance costs through 1998 for STORM DRAIN, (v) PROJECT is constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY, (vi) CITY and 22 DEVELOPER assume ownership and responsibility for the operation and 23 maJ~mtem~nce of INLETS as set forth bo~n; and (vii) DEVELOPER 24 obtains and conveys to DISTRICT and CITY all rights of way 26 necessary for the inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT 27 as set forth herein; and 2~ G. CITY is willing (i) to accept and hold faithful 2 performance and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, 3 (ii) to grant DISTRICT the right to operate and maintain STORM 4 DRAIN within CITY rights of way, (iii) to accept responsibility for $ 6 the operation and maintenance of STORM DRAIN inlets and connector 7 pipes within CITY rights of way, and (iv) to monitor and ensure 8 DEVELOPER'S operation and maintenance of INLETS as set forth 9 herein, provided DEVELOPER conveys all necessary rights of way and rights of entry to CITY as set forth herein, provided PROJECT is constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by 13 DISTRICT and CITY. 14 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as 15 16 17 18 19 follows: SECTION I DEVELOPER shall: 1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in 20 accordance with DISTRICT standards, and submit the plans and 21 specifications to DISTRICT for its review and approval. 22 2. Pay DISTRICT, for DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the 23 plan review and approval of PROJECT, the applicable amount(s) as 24 provided for under Ordinance No. 671, including any amendments 25 26 thereto, of the County of Riverside relating to such plan review 27 and approval fees, as determined and approved by DISTRICT. 28 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 1 3. Pay DISTRICT, upon execution of this agreement, the 2 amount of $2,500.00, the agreed upon amount necessary to cover 3 DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the preparation, processing and 4 administration of this agreement. 5 6 4. Pay DISTRICT upon execution of this agreement (Zone 7 7 Maintenance Trust Fund), the one time cash sum of $1,450.00, the 8 agreed upon DISTRICT estimated cost for operation and maintenance of STORM DRAIN through the year 1998. 5. Pay DISTRICT for the cost of providing construction inspection for PROJECT, at the time of providing written notifica- tion to DISTRICT of the start of PROJECT construction as set forth in Section 1.7. herein, in an amount as determined and approved by DISTRICT in accordance with Ordinances 671 and 749, including any amendments thereto, of the County of Riverside, based upon the bonded value of PROJECT facilities to be inspected, operated and maintained by DISTRICT. 6. Secure all necessary licenses, agreements, permits and rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall furnish ~rSTRICT, at ~be tJ~e of providi~ wr~t~ notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7 herein, or not less than twenty (20) days prior to recordation of the final map for Tract Nos. 24182, 24183, 24184, 24185, 24186, or 24188, or -4- any phase thereof, whichever occurs first, with sufficient evidence 2 3 4 5 6 of DEVELOPER having secured such necessary licenses, agreements, permits and rights of entry, DISTRICT. as determined and approved by Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention: Steve Thomas) 7 at least twenty (20) days prior to the start of construction of 8 PROJECT. Construction shall not begin on any element of PROJECT 9 for any reason whatsoever, until after DISTRICT has issued to DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to initiate construction. 12 8. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth 15 in Section 1.7., with faithful performance and payment bonds, each in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of 17 PROJECT as determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of the bonds shall be subject to the approval of DISTRICT and CITY. 20 The bonds shall remain in full force and effect until PROJECT is 21 accepted by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the bond amount may 22 be reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any 23 defective work, labor or materials. 24 9. Obtain and provide DISTRICT, at the time of providing 25 26 written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as 27 set forth in Section 1.7. with duly executed Irrevocable Offers of 28 Dedication to the public for flood control purposes, including ingress and egress, for the rights of way deemed necessary by DISTRICT for the construction, inspection, operation and mainte- nance of STORM DRAIN as shown in concept cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Irrevoca- 7 ble Offers of Dedication shall be in a form approved by DISTRICT and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners described in the offer(s). 10. Obtain and provide CITY, at the time of providing written notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction of PROJECT as set forth in Section 1.7., with duly executed Irrevoca- 14 ble Offers of Dedication of easements to the public for flood 15 16 17 18 19 20 hereto and made a part hereof. control and drainage purposes, including ingress and egress, for the rights of way deemed necessary by CITY and DISTRICT for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of INLETS, as shown in concept cross-hatched in green on Exhibit "B" attached The Irrevocable Offers of Dedica- 21 tion shall be in a form approved by CITY and shall be executed by 22 all legal and equitable owners of the property described in the 23 offers. 24 11. Furnish DISTRICT and CITY, when submitting the 26 Irrevocable Offers of Dedication as set forth in Sections 1.9. and 27 1.10. respectively, with Preliminary Reports on Title, dated not 28 -6- more than thirty (30) days prior to date of submission, for all property described in the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication. 12. Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY. 13. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior 8 to DISTRICT acceptance of STORM DRAIN for operation and mainte- 9 nance, convey, or cause to be conveyed to DISTRICT flood control easement(s), including ingress and egress, in a form approved by DISTRICT, for the rights of way shown in concept cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B". 14. At the time of recordation of the conveyancing document(s) set forth in Section 1.13., furnish DISTRICT with policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for each parcel to be conveyed to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said property as 20 being free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, taxes and leases (recorded and unrecorded), and except 22 those which, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT are acceptable. 23 15. Assume ownership and responsibility for the operation 24 and maintenance of INLETS. Such operation and maintenance shall be 25 26 performed in such a manner as to ensure the safe and normal 27 functional operation of INLETS in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY 2~ -7- standards and regulations, subject to the provisions of Section 2 IV.8. herein. 3 16. Pay where DISTRICT or CITY is successful in any suit 4 under this agreement or any action to enforce any bond guaranteeing 6 the completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and 7 fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such costs, expenses and fees shall be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. 17. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for PROJECT and assign their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start ]3 of construction on any element of PROJECT. SECTION II DISTRICT shall: 16 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared ~7 by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, prior to the start of construction. 2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design plans prior to DISTRICT final approval. 2! 3. Upon execution of this agreement, record or cause to 22 be recorded, a copy of this agreement in the Official Records of 23 the Riverside County Recorder. 24 4. Inspect the construction of PROJECT. 5. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation 27 and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of -8- PROJECT construction as being complete, (ii) recordation of all conveyancing documents described in Section 1.13., and (iii) acceptance by CITY of all street rights of way as deemed necessary by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT. 6. Furnish CITY with final reproducible "as-built" mylar 7 plans for all PROJECT facilities, upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete. CITY shall: 1. by DEVELOPER for INLETS, SECTION I!I Review and approve plans and specifications prepared and for those portions of STORM DRAIN within CITY rights of way, prior to the start of construction of PROJECT. 2. Accept CITY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance ~7 and payments bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section 1.8., and hold said bonds as provided herein. 3. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this agreement, the right to construct, inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way as set forth herein. 23 4. Consent to the recording of any Irrevocable Offers of 24 Dedication furnished by DEVELOPER pursuant to this agreement. 5. If requested by DISTRICT, accept the Irrevocable 27 Offers of Dedication as set forth herein, and any other outstanding offers of dedication necessary for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and convey sufficient rights of way to DISTRICT to allow DISTRICT to construct, operate and maintain STORM DRAIN as provided herein. 6. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, 7 accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and mainte- 8 nance of all PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of way. CITY shall further accept the added responsibilities associated with the continued operation and maintenance of INLETS as set forth in Section IV.7. herein. 7. Not grant any occupancy permits for any unit within any portion of Tract Nos. 24182, 24183, 24184, 24185, 24186 or 24188, or any phase thereof, until construction of PROJECT is complete, unless otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT. 8. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept sole responsibility for the adjustment of all STORM DRAIN manhole rings and covers located within CITY streets and rights of way, at no cost to DISTRICT, which shall be performed at such a time that the finished grade along and above STORM DRAIN is 23 improved, repaired, replaced or changed. 24 SECTION IV It is further mutually agreed: 27 1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by -10- DISTRICT and shall not be deemed complete until approved and 2 accepted as complete by DISTRICT. 3 2. CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect 4 all work being done on PROJECT, but shall provide any comments to DISTRICT personnel who shall be responsible for all quality control 6 7 communications with the contractor during the construction of PROJECT. calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT. 9 3. Construction of PROJECT shall be completed by DEVELOPER within twelve (12) consecutive months after execution of this agreement and within one hundred eighty (180) consecutive It is expressly understood that since time is of the essence in this agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the agreed upon time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the remaining work and require DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to CITY the penal sum of any and all bonds. In such case, CITY shall subse- 20 quently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily, 22 waive the provisions of Government Code Section 65913.8, relating 23 to fees and charges. Such waiver is accomplished with the 24 understanding that DISTRICT is voluntarily undertaking the 25 26 obligation to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation 27 and maintenance of STORM DRAIN, and DEVELOPER is not required by -11- 2 3 4 5 6 7 Section 1.7. I DISTRICT to enter into this agreement. 5. DEVELOPER shall during the construction period provide Workers' Compensation Insurance in an amount required by law. A certificate of said insurance policy shall be provided to DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursuant to 6. DEVELOPER shall, commencing on the date notice is 9 given pursuant to Section 1.7., and continuing until DISTRICT accepts PROJECT as complete, and accepts STORM DRAIN for operation and maintenance: 12 13 (a) Provide and maintain comprehensive liability 14 insurance coverage which shall protect DEVELOPER 15 from claim from damages for personal injury, including accidental and wrongful death, as well 17 as from claims for property damage which may 19 arise from DEVELOPER'S construction of PROJECT 20 or the performance of its obligations hereunder, 21 whether such construction or performance be by 22 DEVELOPER, by any of its contractors, subcon- 23 tractors, or by anyone employed directly or 24 indirectly by any of them. Such insurance shall 26 name DISTRICT, CITY and County of Riverside as 27 additional insureds with respect to this agree- 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 (b) ment and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for limits of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence. Cause its insurance carrier(s) which shall be authorized to transact business of insurance in 8 9 10 11 12 13 the State of California to furnish DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notifica- tion to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7., with certificate(s) of insurance showing that such insurance is in 14 15 16 17 18 19 full force and effect and that DISTRICT, CITY and County of Riverside are named as additional insureds with respect to this agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Further, said certificate(s) shall provide that the 20 issuing company shall give DISTRICT and CITY 21 22 23 24 25 26 sixty (60) days written notice in the event of any cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduction in coverage of the policies evidenced by the certificate(s). In the event of any such cancellation, termination, non-renewal or reduc- 27 tion in coverage, DEVELOPER shall, forthwith, 28 -13- secure replacement insurance meeting the provi- sion of this paragraph. Failure to maintain the insurance required by this paragraph shall be deemed a material breach of this agreement and shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, at its sole 7 discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to Section IV.3. 9 7. CITY, pursuant to Section III.6., shall have the legal right and responsibility to monitor DEVELOPER'S operation and maintenance of INLETS, including, but not limited to, the right and responsibility to periodically enter upon DEVELOPER'S property for the purpose of inspecting the functional operation and integrity of ]5 INLETS. DEVELOPER, by execution of this agreement, grants CITY all ~6 rights necessary to perform such onsite inspection of INLETS, including ingress and egress. CITY agrees to provide reasonable notice to DEVELOPER as to its intent to enter upon DEVELOPER'S property for the purpose of such periodic inspection and to defend, 2! indemnify and hold harmless DEVELOPER, its officers, agents and 22 employees from and against liability for injury or damages 23 occurring as a direct result of such periodic inspection. DEVELOPER shall perform all corrective work within 26 INLET areas as may be deemed necessary by CITY to ensure the 27 continued functional operation and integrity of INLETS and STORM -14- 1 DRAIN. 2 In the event of a flood emergency, if it should be 3 deemed necessary by CITY that certain emergency actions must be 4 taken to ensure the functional operation of any or all portions of 5 6 INLET AREAS, and DEVELOPER is unable to timely perform such 7 necessary work, CITY shall have the right to enter upon DEVELOPER'S 8 property to perform such emergency work as deemed necessary by 9 CITY, at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense. Should CITY, at any time in the future, determine that ]! DEVELOPER'S performance of operation and maintenance responsibili- 12 ties as set forth herein be insufficient to ensure the functional operation and integrity of INLETS and PROJECT, or should CITY at 15 any time determine DEVELOPER'S continued operation and maintenance of INLETS not to be in the best interest of the public, then CITY 17 shall accept the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication provided by 19 DEVELOPER for INLETS pursuant to Section 1.10., and assume 20 ownership and responsibility for their operation and maintenance. 21 8. DISTRICT shall assume no responsibility, whatsoever, 22 for surface drainage, including inlets and connector pipes, within 23 DEVELOPER'S property, nor within the easement parcels shown in 24 concept cross-hatched in green or cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit 25 27 9. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought 28 -15- against DISTRICT or CITY in connection with this agreement because of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT, and CITY harmless therefrom, without cost to DISTRICT or CITY. Upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled to recover 7 from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees. 10. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT and CITY, their respective officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or legal action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT or from the diversion of the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except claims and litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of DISTRICT or CITY. DEVELOPER shall defend 22 DISTRICT and CITY without cost to DISTRICT or CITY, and upon 23 DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled 24 to recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenditures, 25 26 including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees. 27 11. DEVELOPER for itself, its successors and assigns hereby releases DISTRICT and CITY, their respective officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of 7 the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to 9 impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT, or the discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT. Nothing contained herein shall constitute 12 release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT or CITY, their officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits of 15 any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, for the negligent maintenance of PROJECT, after the 17 acceptance of PROJECT by DISTRICT. 19 12. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of any 20 one or more of the terms of this agreement shall not be construed 21 to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or of 22 any other term hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to 23 require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the 25 26 terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY from enforcement 27 hereof. -17- 1 2 3 4 5 6 invalidated in any way. 13. If any provision in this agreement (with the exception of Section IV.4.) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or Should it be held by a court of competent 7 jurisdiction that any portion of Section IV.4. is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of Government Code 65913.8(b) shall 9 apply. It shall, therefore, be determined that this fee is extended through the year 1998. 14. This agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 14 15. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the 15 16 parties of this agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses: 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 18 AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 Market Street 19 Riverside, CA 92501 20 NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. 21 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 230 La Jolla, CA 92037 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY HALL 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 23 16. Any action at law or inequity, brought by any of the 24 parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights 25 26 27 provided for by the agreement, shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of 28 -18- California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law 2 providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other 3 county. 4 17. This agreement is the result of negotiations between 6 the parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their 7 respective counsel. The fact that this agreement was prepared as matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared this agreement in its final form. 18. The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to and be binding upon all heirs, successors and assignees. ~6 ~7 ~9 being first obtained. 19. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto In the event of any such transfer or assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and agrees that it shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the obligations 22 and duties contained in this agreement. 23 20. This agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a 24 final expression of their understanding with respect to the subject 26 matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the 27 terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and -19- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. This agreement may be changed or modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto. // // -20 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on (to be filled in by Clerk of the Board) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel Joe S. Rank Assistant County Counsel RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By City Engineer, Joseph Kicak APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney Peter M. Thorson Dated SCT:sct:mcv rcfc~10809 3/5/97 By Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) CITY OF TEMECULA By City Manager, Ronald E. Bradley ATTEST: By City Clerk June S. Greek (SEAL) SR. VICE PRES'IDENI Lat)ONNA K. MONSEES Title ~XfCUTtVE VP ( NOTARY ) -21- JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO } [] See Attached Document (Cross out lines 1-11 below) See Statement below (Lines 1-11 to be completed by document signers only - NOT NOTARY) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Signature of ;ocument~Si er Signature of Document Signer No. 2 (if any) Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me j ~.~~ ELIZABETH C. GROMAN I COMM. ~ 992753 ~ NO]'ARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA c~ SAN DIEGO COUNTY '"' ~ '~°~ My Comm. Exp. Apr. 25, 1997 ~ this 13th day of March, 1997_,_by (1) James M. Delhamer Printed Name of Signer(s) (2) LaDonna K. Monsees . Printed Nasa. e of ';.Slgn~~. Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Further Description of Any Attached Document Right Thumbprint Title or Type of Document: Campanula Way Storm Drain Proj. #7-0-0047; Tracts 24182-24186 & 24188; Cooperative Agr. Document Date: "to be filled in by Clerk of Board" Pgs: 21 Other Signers: City of Temecula officials & RCFCWCD Signer #1 Signer #2 END pROJECT 24184, BEGIN PROJECT STAI'~ ~(~-IWAY 79 --- - LOCATION MAP EXHI B! T A J DE. ee Exhibit "B" 4 of 4 Pt'~A SEt -- RECREATIONS. FACILJTY ELEMEHT~ See Exhibit "B" 3 of 4 See Exhibit "B" 2 of 4 STATE I"~.~HWAY 79 -- EXHIBIT B I nf 4 EXHIBIT 2 of 4 B EXHIBIT B 3 of 4 EXHIBIT B 4 of 4 TO'. FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECT~~ CITY MANAGER Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer April 8, 1997 Completion and Acceptance of the Construction of FY96-97 Slurry Seal Program, Project No. PW96-11 PREPARED BY: (~ Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the construction of FY96-97 Slurry Seal Program, Project No. PW96-11. File Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract, and; Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract for construction of the FY96-97 Slurry Seal Program, Project No. PW96-11, to California Pavement Maintenance Company in the amount of $240,985.06. The work included application of slurry seal on 18.5 miles of City streets. The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Public Works Annual Maintenance Project and is being funded from Account No. 001-164-601-5402, Routine Street Maintenance. Attachments: Notice of Completion Maintenance Bond Contractor's Affidavit - 1 - r: ~agd rpt\97\ 0408 \pw96-11. acc/ajp RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CiTY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temacula, CA 92689-9033 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. 3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to California Pavement Maintenance Company to perform the following work of improvement: FY96-97 Citywide Slurry Seal Program - Project No. PW96-11 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on April 8, 1997. That upon said contract the Reliance Insurance Company was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on vvhich said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT PW 96-11. 6. The street address of said property is: Various City Streets within the City of Temecula. Dated at Temecula, California, this . day of ,1997. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this __ day of ,1997. JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk R:\cip\proiects\pw 9(~\pw9 6-11 \completn.noUejp CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW96- 11 FY96-97 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT r E( ,, FEI 8 t997' CITY Oi:' ";.¢ ~L{:CLII_A ENGINEERIN(:', k)i:.: P/~ flTMFN]' This is to certify that ~i~N~cP.^vEMENT f4^INTEI~^NCE ., (hereinafter the "CONTRAC¥OR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/it has paid in full for all materials, suooiies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contributicn to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW..C;.;%1'; FY 96-97 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT situated in the City of Temecula, State of Californi;', particularly described as follows: PRf/,1FC..T Nf/. PW 96-11 - FY96-97 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT INSERT TITLE OF WORK HERE The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description TNV~TCF 9649303 R~TFNTInN Dollar Amount to Dispute $97,233.09 Pursuant to Public Contracts Code §7200, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contact amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: FFRRIIARY 2.5, 1997 By: CONTRACTOR CALIFORNIA P~VEHENT HAINTENANCE COHPANY INC. Signature ROBERT A¢~t~KAKEY, ¥ICE PRESIDENT Print Name and Title RELEASE R-1 Bond Number: B2658635 Premium Included In Performance CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BOND PROJECT NO. PW96-11 FY96-97 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT Bond KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: California Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. 9390 Elder Creek Road, Sacramento, California 95829 NAME ANO AOORE$$ OF CONTRACTOR a Corpora. tion , hereinafter called Principal, and R (EII i~ wh~rher a Co~ra#/3e~P. ar~e/~hip or ind/vtduall eAlance Ansuranc~~Olll~[[t~/ 10989 Trade Center Drive, Rancho Cordova, California 95670 NAME AND ADORE$$ OF SURETY hereinafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called OWNER. in the penal sum of Two Hundred Forty Thousand t;i~.<~ tl,.m~:d gighty Five DOLLARS and .06 CENTS {$ _ } in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten percent (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract, for the payment of which. we bind ourselves, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereasr the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the OWNER. dated the 24th day of .Septemt~er , 19 TM , a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT NO. PVV9$-I 1 FY96-97 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT. WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the. Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of ~ year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during saldperiod; and WHEREAS, the ~aid Contract has been completed, and was approved on NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the said Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carrying out of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. Signed and sealed thi~ $th _ day of October 96 (Sea, SURETY By: Joseph H, (Name) Reliance Insurance Company Attorney-In-Fact PRINCIPAL California Pavement (Name) ELIZABETH AIROSO CORPORATE SECRETARY Maintenance STATE OF CALIFORNIA c OU~TY OF ..................s...a...c.5~..e.."..~..°. ..................................................... On JO .-~'-- c~C,~ before me, Cind.y. Sap. i~...o , f person~Ily appeared ........ .E..1..~...z..a..b..e..1;.b..Air. omo ..........................................., personally __~__ -known to me (or proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the per- .......... son(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed in the within instrument and ~!l~f~~!~1~1~ t acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their ~"~_*~'T.A~ COMM. 1O4O524 ~ Not~yPublh~,atifomia = author/zeal capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their siguature(s) on the ~ Principal Office in ~ instrument the person(s)yor~che entity upon behalf of which the person(s) · ,~.~ sacramento County '"'~ My Commission Exp Oct 2 ~9!~!~ . acted, executed the instrument. ........ .................................................................. w"~r an~. e~e*' *~c~'e zs or impGed. as to t~",e k,g~l v~r.c~y of any 1:.'3 v~;on ~' the su;< a~,iF4~' ol I~,o s.e for'n~ in i~7 $~cif'c trlnsa:tion. Cowder7's F=r= ~'a, tO~ -- AC ~Z~OWLE DCM~N? ~ C~=er~J (Ci ~'i.[ Code t 1.~9(=) ) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA I ss County of .~r r~monra October 8, 1996 On · before me, date Mary E. A. Mcl,augh] in here insert name and title of the officer personally appeared .~nn~ph R. Weber name(s) of signer(s) ' personally known to me (orxl~a~-~ck~x~ramm~k~~t~~~d~. to be the person(~) whose name(tO is/!~lOk subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he~/4im~ executed the same in his~l~x~author~d capacity(j~e~ and that by his&~signature(a) on the instrument the person{frO, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~k acted, executed the instrument. WIT1NrESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) (The balance of this page is intentionally left blank.) RELIANCE S-URETY COMPANY i: : : RELIANCEINSURANCE COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA ~ POWER OF ATTORNEY ~ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that RELIANCE "SURETY COMPANY is a corporation duty organized under the laws of the State of Del- aware, and that RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, are corporations duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of PennsvIvania and that RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the StaTe of Wisconsin (heraid collectively called "the Companies";[ and that the Companies by virtue of signature and seals do hereby make, constitute and appoir~ Joseph H.'Weber, of Sacramento, California their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on their behalf, and as their act and deed any and all bonds and undertakings of suretyship and to bind the Companies thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such.bonds and undertakings and .other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of the Companies and sealed and attested by one other of such officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that their said Attomey(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof. This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of Article Viiof the By-Laws of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED PACIFIC iNSURANCE COMPANY, arid RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY which provisions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows'. : : ARTiCI.~ Vlt- E~ECtJ~lON (3F BONDS AND UNDERTFA~ING~ 1. The Board of Directors, the President. the Chairman o! the Board, My Senior Vice Pree;d~t, any Vice:Pre~le~t ~' Assist~ Vice PreP. dent or other offi~r des)geared b~f the aoard~ Directors shall have power and authority to (a) appo nt Attorney{s)-In-Fact and to ~thorize them to execute on behalf of ~he Company, bml~s and un($e~tekings, recognizances, contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and(b) to remove any such A~'o~ney(sJ-in-Fec~ at' any time and revoke ~te power end authority given to them. : 2. Attnrney(sl-in-Fact shall have power arid authority. subtact to the-terms and 3lmitatJO~S of the POwe~ of Attorney iss~ed to them, to execute deliver O~ behalf of the Company, bor~s arx~l undertakings, reoognizan~s. roll,flirts of indemnity and Other writings 0bilgetory in the nature thereof. The co~pOrate sea~ is nc~t necessary f~ the v~ldi~y of any bonds ar~ undertakings, recognizances, contracts of indemnity '~nd other w~'iti~tgs obligatory i~ the datura thereof. : 3. Attorney(a}-tn-Fact shaft have I~wcr and eu['hotity to execute affidavits required to be attached to bonds~ recogni2ance~, contracts of indemnity or other cund~tioml~ or o~igatory undertaki~s and they shall also have power end authority to certify the financial ata,~em4~lt of the Company and to co¢ies ~ the By-Laws of th~ Company or say article or sacboa the~'eof. This Pow~' of A~orney i$ algr~ed and assled by: f~$11~ite u~e~ and bY autho~W o~ the ~11owmg res0~tto~ adof3ted {W tn~ E~ect~ve en~ Fi~an¢~ Committees of the Boards of Directors of Retia~a Insurance Company, UniterJ Pacific ~naureace Company and Reliance Nation~: Indemnit¥::Compeny by Unanimous C;nee~ dated as of February 28, 1994 ~d by tt~ Executive and Fiaancia~ Committee ~ the ~rd of DifeCthrs of Reliance Surety Company by Unanimo~il C~nsent d~ed as of Mercl!~ ,3 t, 1994; "Resolve~ the[ the s~gnatu~: o! such direprofs an~ officers and the ~eal ~ the Company rn~ ~e affixed [o any ~ch Power of Attorney or any certificates releting:~he~eto by facsimile, and any such Power o! Attorney or. csrfif~:em basting auc~ facsimile signat~ or fa~:~imlle seal sh~ b~ valid and binding upon the Company end any auc~ Power sO executed and certified by facalrntl~ signatures end fad)mile seal shall be valid ~nd birding upon the Company. ~ the future with res{3ect to any bond or undertaldmg to which it is attached." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused these presents to be signed and thai[ corporate seals to be hereto affixed, this July 19, 1996. STATE OF Washington } COUNTY OF King } as. RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED PACIFIC 1NSU~CE COMPANY RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY On this, July 19, 1996, before me, Janet Blanklay, personally appeared Mark W. Alsup, who acknowledged himself to be the Vice President o~ the Reliance Surety Company, and the Vice President of Reliance Insurance Company, United Pacific Insurance Company, and Reliance National Indemniw Company and that as such, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing ~nstrument for the purpose therein cordia)ned by signing the name of the corporation by himself as its duly authorized officer. i ,, Robyrt Layng, Assistant Secretary of RELIANCE SURETY COMPANY; RELIANCE ,NSURANcRN~g~AbtliN~:I~J~U~I!::~;:~'I:IUWR~:Egtt~OMP' ANY, and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is still in fua force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Cornpan}es this 8th day of October 19 96 Assistant Secretar~ ITEM 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROV ,,,~,, CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN, A~d'E CITY MANAGER ~/~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director April 8, 1997 Walker Basin Specific Plan Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE NEED FOR A CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS NECESSARY TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF THE WALKER BASIN SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND On February 24, 1997, Plot Plan 14772 was approved by the Riverside County Planning Director. This plot plan calls for development of an 18-hole golf course. Subsequent to this approval, the City Council became concerned that the environmental documentation, approved in 1988, was inadequate. At the March 18, 1997 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution requesting that the County address the impacts of this development on the City and the need for preparation of a current Environmental Impact Report. FISCAL IMPACT N\A Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 97- __- Page 2 R:\$TAFFRPT\WALKER.CC 3/31/97 klb 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\STAFFRPT\WALKER.CC 3/31/97 idb 2 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE NEED FOR A CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS NECESSARY TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF THE WALKER BASIN SPECIFIC PLAN The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: WHEREAS, the Walker Basin Specific Plan (Specific Plan 172) was approved by the County of Riverside on May 2, 1984 and Environmental Impact Report 162; and WHEREAS, on or about September 27, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan 172 at which time environmental issues were reconsidered; and WHEREAS, in 1990, Plot Plan 11480 was approved by the County of Riverside for the development of an 18-hole, championship golf course at Walker Basin; and WHEREAS, due to a downturn in the economy, Plot Plan 11480 was unable to be financed and was allowed to expire; and WHEREAS, Plot Plan 14772 was subsequently filed, in substantially the same form as the original Plot Plan 11480, and approved by the Riverside County Planning Director on February 24, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Temecula has concerns about the adequacy of the original environmental documentation approved on May 2, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Temecula believes that the environmental documentation for Plot Plan 14772 is inadequate in addressing the impacts of the Walker Basin development on the City of Temecula and requests that the County of Riverside require additional environmental review of this project to adequately address all impacts on the City of Temecula. R:\STAFFRPT\WALKER.CC 3/31/97 idb 3 this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula day of ,1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC 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 Resolution No. 97-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 199__ by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk R:\STAFFRPT\WALKER.CC 3/31/97 idb 4 ITEM 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY y FINANCE DIREC'F,01~ - CITY MANAGER ~~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney April 8, 1997 Extension of City Manager's Employment Agreement RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the "First Amendment to Employment Agreement" between the City and City Manager Ronald Bradley. DISCUSSION: On June 14, 1994, the City and Ronald Bradley entered into an Employment Agreement. The Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of Mr. Bradley's employment with the City as City Manager. The Agreement is due to expire on July 1, 1997. The Council reviewed Mr. Bradley's performance in Closed Session and requested a Council Subcommittee composed of Councilmembers Stone and Roberts negotiate the terms of an amendment to the Employment Agreement. The terms of the proposed amendment, which are acceptable to Mr. Bradley, include: Mr. Bradley's employment as City Manager with the City would be extended to July 1, 1998; The Council would review the performance of Mr. Bradley in January, 1998 and evaluate his salary at that time as well; 3. Language clarifying the termination provisions would be added to the Agreement; Maximum accrual of leaves would now be set at an amount equal to three times the annual amount of the leaves; and r :\¢ityatty\l~erncmrl)t 1 o Unused leave balances as of July 1, 1998 could be taken as leave time or as a lump-sum payment at the option of Mr. Bradley. All other terms of the June 14, 1994 Employment Agreement would remain the same. r:\cityatt y\tern cmrpt 2 HRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made, entered into, and effective as of April 8, 1997 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and Ronald E. Bradley, an individual, ("Employee"). In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which the parties hereto agree are true and correct: a. On June 14, 1994 the City and Employee entered into that certain "Employment Agreement" describing the terms and conditions of Employee's employment with the City as its City Manager. b. The parties now wish to amend the Agreement in order to extend the term of the Agreement and modify certain terms thereof. 2. Section 2.D. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "D. Employee's employment with the City shall remain in effect until July 1, 1998, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of City for a period to and including July 1, 1998, and shall not accept other employment nor become employed by any other employer prior to that date except as provided in Section 3., paragraph C. of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, Employee shall be permitted to instruct, write, teach, and lecture on Employee's time off." follows: Sections 3.C. and 3.D. of the Agreement are hereby amended to read as "C. In the event Employee voluntarily resigns his position as City Manager, he shall give the City at least sixty (60) days prior written notice of his intention to resign. Employee may solicit other employment at any time after giving or receiving written notice of termination or after July 1, 1998." "D. In the event City, at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduces Employee's salary or any other financial benefits in a greater percentage than an applicable across-the-board reduction for executive management employees of the City, or fails to increase Employee's salary or any other financial benefits consistent with increases granted executive management employees, or in the event City refuses, following reasonable written notice, to 970321 11086-00013 mt 1480399 R:\cityatty\cmcntrt.amd comply with any other provision benefiting Employee herein, or Employee resigns following a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by a City Councilmember that he resign, then, in that event, Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" effective as of the date of such resignation or reduction." 4. Section 4. of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "4. SALARY "City agrees to pay Employee a base salary of $103,870.00 as set forth in the City salary resolution, salary additives as set forth in this Agreement and benefits as set forth in this Agreement, for his services rendered pursuant hereto in installments at the same time as other employees of the City are paid. "Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Agreement, the City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of the Employee in January, 1998 and shall determine, in its discretion, whether Employee shall be granted a salary increase and, if so, shall designate the amount of the increase which shall be effective as of January 1, 1998." 5. Sections 8.E. and 8.F. are hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "E. The maximum accrual of the leaves described in this Section and Section 15.8 shall be an amount equal to three (3) times the annual amount of the leaves. "F. Unused balances of the leaves described in this Section and Section 15.B. as of July 1, 1998 may be exercised as leave time by the Employee or taken as a lump-sum payment, at the option of the Employee. Employee shall remain an employee of the City until such time as the accrued leave described herein has been exhausted." 6. Employee acknowledges that he has had the opportunity and has conducted an independent review of the financial and legal effects of this First Amendment to the Agreement. Employee acknowledges that he has made an independent judgment upon the financial and legal effects of this First Amendment to the Agreement and has not relied upon any representations of the City, its officers, agents, or employees other than those expressly set forth herein. 7. Except as explicitly set forth in this First Amendment, all other terms of the Employment Agreement between the City and the Employee, dated as of June 14, 1994 shall remain in full force and effect. 970321 11086-00013 mt 1480399 R:\cityatty\cmcntrt.amd - 2 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA EMPLOYEE BY: Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor Ronald E. Bradley City Manager Attest: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 970321 11086-00013 mt 1480399 R:\cityatty\cmcntrt.amd 3 ORDINANCE NO. 9%04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 2.08.060 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR ELECTIONS TO CITY OFFICES AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1996 (PROPOSITION 208) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. "The California Political Reform Act of 1996" passed by the voters as Proposition 208 on November 5, 1996, permits cities to establish voluntary expenditure ceilings for candidates for elective office and the controlled committees of such candidates. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 85400(c), effective January 1, 1997, such a local voluntary expenditure ceiling may be established in any amount not to exceed one dollar ($1) per resident of the jurisdiction. Section 2. as follows: Section 2.08.060 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read Article III. Election Campaign "Section 2.08.060. Election campaigns. Ceiling. Voluntary Expenditure (a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 85400(c), a voluntary expenditure ceiling is hereby established for each candidate in each election to City elective office in an amount equal to one dollar ($1) per resident of the City. As used in this Section, the term "City elective office" shall mean the offices of Member of the City Council. (b) The City Council shall determine the number of residents in the City for the purposes of this Section by resolution adopted not less than seven (7) months prior to each regular City election. Ords\97-04 I (c) Prior to accepting any contributions, each candidate for City elective office shall file with the City Clerk a statement of acceptance or rejection of the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein. (d) No candidate for City elective office who accepts the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein and no controlled campaign committee of such a candidate shall make campaign expenditures cumulatively in excess of the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein. (e) Each candidate who rejects the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein shall be subject to the contribution limit set forth in Government Code Section 85301, as the same may be amended from time to time. (f) Each candidate who accepts the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein shall be subject to the contribution limit set forth in Government Code Section 85402, and not the contribution limit set forth in Government Code Section 85301, as either section may be amended from time to time. In addition, as to each such candidate the City Clerk shall provide notification to voters that the candidate has accepted the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein, as required by Government Code Section 85602 and any applicable regulations. (g) Except as provided herein, the provisions of the California Political Reform Acts of 1974 and 1996, Government Code Sections 81000, e, Lae, q. (collectively, "the Acts"), and applicable regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as the same may be amended from time to time, shall govern the interpretation and application of this Section. (h) The penalties and remedies for violations of this Section shall be those set forth in the Acts." Section 3. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 4. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Ords\97-04 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDED ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 97-04 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 18th day of March, 1997, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of April, 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk 0rds\97-04 3 TEMECULA CO'MMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD MARCH 25, 1997 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:04 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Vice-President Ron Roberts presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts 1 DIRECTORS: Stone Also present were Assistant General Manager Mary Jane McLarney, City Attorney Peter Thorson and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Director Linderoans, seconded by Director Birdsall, to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-3. AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Ford, Lindemans, Roberts, NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Stone 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 18, 1997. 2 Conveyance of Easement and Acceptance of Faithful Performance Bond/Veteran's Park (Located at the Northeast Corner of La Serena Way and South General Kearny Road) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 97-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, GRANTING AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF TCI CABLEVISION OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ACROSS VETERAN'S PARK, WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA r:\minutes.csd\032597 -1 - 2.2 Direct the Secretary/City Clerk to obtain the necessary signatures and record the Grant of Easement Deed. 2.3 Accept the Faithful Performance Bond provided by TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. as security for the restoration of any park facilities damaged by the cable installation. Landscape Maintenance Improvement - TCSD Parks, Slopes and Medians RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve a contract amendment in the amount of 920,000 to California Landscape Maintenance Inc. to provide repairs and improvements to City parks and medians currently under contract for maintenance through the end of FY 1996-97; 3.2 Approve contract amendment in the amount of 920,000 to Excel Landscape, Inc., to provide repairs and improvements to City-Maintained slope areas currently under contract for maintenance through the end of FY 1996-97. DISTRICT BUSINESS 4 Proposed Landscape Maintenance Fee - Rancho Highlands Community Services Director Shawn Nelson presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, CSD 97-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED INCREASE IN SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 22761 (RANCHO HIGHLANDS) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Linderoans, to approve staff recommendation. The motion passed unanimously with President Stone absent. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT None given. r:\minutes.csd\032597 -2- GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT None given. BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Lindemarts, to adjourn at 8:11 PM to a meeting on April $, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Stone absent. Ron Roberts, Vice-President ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/ District Secretary r:\minutes.csd\032597 -3- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD MARCH 25, 1997 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:11 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairperson Steven J. Ford presiding. PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Roberts, Ford ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Stone Also present were Assistant Executive Director Mary Jane McLarney, General Counsel Peter Thorson and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dana Ballard, 41653 Corte Higuera inquired into the status of the Blind Pig Brewery's RDA loan and how he might seek restitution for money owed him by the Brewery. Assistant Executive Director Mary Jane McLarney responded she and the General Counsel were looking into all aspects of the loan and will have a report at the next meeting. Chairperson Ford suggested Mr. Ballard meet with City staff to determine his options. CONSENT CALENDAR. It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Roberts, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1 as follows: 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 18, 1997. The motion passed unanimously with Agency Member Stone absent. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Webb and Associates to Prepare Construction Drawings for the Old Town Streetscape Improvement Project Chairperson Ford expressed concern about on-going maintenance costs for the project and who will ultimately be responsible to maintain the final streetscape improvements. He said he would like a determination of this issue before the construction document phase. Agency Member Linderoans stated his objection to the word "demonstration" block throughout the document. City Attorney Thorson replied "demonstration" would be eliminated from the text. Minutes.rda\032597 -1 - It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Linderoans, to approve staff's recommendation, with the elimination of the word "demonstration" in the document and the addition of Recommendation 2.3. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Award a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $209,875 to Webb and Associates to prepare construction drawings for the Old Town Streetscape Improvement Project. 2.2 Authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement and the City Clerk to attest. 2.3 Prior to the construction document phase, the City will determine the method of payment for on-going maintenance before authorizing completion of the project. The motion was passed unanimously with Agency Member Stone absent. First Time Home Buyer Program Agency Member Birdsall cautioned that this is not the normal procedure for processing these types of loans, and staff should make certain all the required special documentation is filed. It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall. seconded by Agency Member Lindemans, to approve staff recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Authorize $100,000 from the RDA Housing set-aside to continue funding the First Time Home Buyer Program through the end of the fiscal year. The motion was passed unanimously with Agency Member Stone absent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS None given. Minutes.rda\032597 -2- ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Birdsall, to adjourn at 8:40 PM to a meeting on April 8, 1997, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Stone absent. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Chairperson June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/ Agency Secretary Minutes.rda\032597 -3- ITEM 2 APPROVAl CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE 01REC~01~~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members FROM: Mary Jane McLamey, Assistant City Manager DATE: April 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Consideration of Sponsorships Requests Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members consider the sponsorship requests for the Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo and the Great Temecula Tractor Race events to be held in 1997. DISCUSSION: Staff has received the annual sponsorsNp requests for the Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo and the Great Temecula Tractor Race events. The City of Temecula has been noted to host a kaleidoscope of exciting events year-round all adding to its supreme quality of life. Residents and visitors alike look forward to attending these events each year. The activities have become more popular as the events are improved each year. Both events will increase tourism revenue for the City's restaurants, hotels, shopping centers, wineries and merchants in Old Town. The events will also bring into the community additional dollars to local merchants for goods and services generated by each event. Due to the fact that the events promote tourism in Temecula, funding would come from the Redevelopment Agency Economic Development budget. There will be no commissions paid to any party for the City of Temecula's sponsorships. Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo Staff has received the sponsorship request in the amount of $10,000 for the Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo, which is attached for your review. The Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo is one of the longest standing rodeos in Southwest Riverside County. Staged during Memorial Day weekend, May 24th & 25th, this rodeo has traditionally had audiences exceeding 5,000 rodeo enthusiasts. Frontier Days Rodeo, sponsored by the Temecula Town Association, will be held at the Temecula Showgrounds at Diaz and Winchester Roads. The last PRCA Temecula Rodeo held in Temecula was in 1994. In 1936 the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) was formed for the purpose of controlling the quality of their events and improving the safety of the performers as well as sanctioning national events. Rodeo performance events as bull riding, team roping, calf tying and barrel racing have made rodeos a special event for the whole family to experience. Professional Rodeos are one of the fastest growing spectator sports in America. Attendance at the 739 rodeos the PRCA sanctioned in 1995 reached nearly 22 million. Last year, the Council approved sponsorship for the Temecula Pro Rodeo for $2,500 and the event was sponsored by Western Pro Rodeo Productions, Inc. The '96 Temecula Pro Rodeo was sanctioned by PRCA and the Women's Professional Rodeo Association (WPRA) which are the national governing bodies for the sport of Professional Rodeo. The rodeo's publicity campaign will include press releases sent to regional equestrian/horsemanship publications, sports writers and entertainment writers and local publications. Radio promotions, a media day scheduled for May 7th and television coverage will also be included in the campaign. Temecula Tractor Race Staff has received the annual sponsorship request in the amount of $10,000 for the T emecula Tractor Race, which is attached for your review. The 20th Annual Great Temecula Tractor Race, sponsored by the Temecula Town Association, will be held at the Temecula Showgrounds on October 4, 5, and 6th. The Tractor Race reached new heights last year in providing unique and attractive events for the media to notice. This in conjunction with new advertising and sponsor partnerships as well as offering exciting new events helped to extend the visibility of the Tractor Race. The event encountered approximately 23,000 in attendance in 1996 with the attendance expected to increase by 5% this year. Last year the City of Temecula received wide spread media exposure from the Tractor Race through newspaper, magazine, radio and television coverage on local and national levels. Newspaper impressions exceeded 2.5 million circulation in press releases alone appearing in major papers as the Los Angeles Times, North County Times, Orange County Register, San Diego Union Tribune and The Press Enterprise. A sampling of magazine coverage the Tractor Race event received included Coast to Coast Magazine, RV West, BnTJ. Magazine, Motorhome Magazine, Inland and Orange Coast Magazine. Television event coverage included entertainment reporter Gayle Anderson of KTLA morning news broadcasting the event on Friday morning with the footage replayed in the evening and OCN Cable News aired the event on October 4 - 6. Major network stations KFMB, KABC and KNBC also provided coverage. FISCAL IMPACT: An additional appropriation to account #280-199-999-5264 would be necessary if the Council desires to sponsor the Rodeo which was not budget. The Tractor Race sponsorship was budget in the amount of $10,000. ATTACHMENTS: Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo Attachment A - Sponsorship Package Attachment B - Budget and Media Plan Great Temecula Tractor Race Attachment C - Sponsorship Package Attachment D - Budget and Media Plan TEMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATION SPONSORSHIP PROPOSAL, 1997 1997 Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo $ o,ooo and 1997 Great Temecula Tractor Race Premier Sponsorship $10~000 As the Premier Sponsor of the Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo and the 21st Great Temecula Tractor Race, the City of Temecula will assist the Temecula Town Association in preserving the rich heritage of Temecula. From the beginning Temecula has been known for it's pioneer spirit, farms and cattle ranches. A significant part of Temecula's Old Town district, the walking tour, and buildings are tied directly to old west charm. No event more exemplifies this great American spirit than a PRCA Rodeo, and the world's most unique event - the Great Temecula Tractor Race. The Temecula Town Association is proposing a sponsorship which will tie the marketing benefits of the two events into one powerful marketing and publicity tool for the City of Temecula. This proposal includes marketing plans for both events, and a demographic profile of the typical "rodeo" attendee for the City's consideration. TEMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATION SPONSORSHIP PROPOSAL, 1997 ATTACHMENT A 1997 Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo $10,000 As the "Premier Sponsor" for the PRCA Rodeo the City of Temecula will receive: · City name on all advertisements for the PRCA Frontier Days Rodeo. · City name in all press releases for the PRCA Frontier Days Rodeo. · City Flag carried in during the Grand Entry Rodeo Parade · City name and recognkion as a sponsor in sponsor-related press releases. · City banner displayed at PRCA Frontier Days Rodeo recognizing the City. · City name on PRCA Frontier Days Rodeo t-shirts · Advertisement (tbd) in the Frontier Days Rodeo official program. · Licensing rights to use the event logo, for City marketing program. · 12 VIP Tickets/Passes to the Great Temecula Tractor Race · 12 VIP Tickets/Passes to the PRCA Rodeo · 15 PRCA Frontier Days Rodeo t-Shirts ATTACHMENT B 1997 ~ I:I~T.2 (RrTR~) $ 65,000.00 15,000.00 25,000.00 5,000.00 110,000.00 $ 1,500.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 14,400.00 15,950.00 Frontior S onsorskil l*rofile The 1995 UNLV Survey revealed that rodeo fans are fiercely loyal to PRCA sponsors' products, with 54.6 percent indicating they are inclined to purchase a product endorsed by the PRCA. EDUCATION OF RODEO FANS Some College Completed College Completed Graduate School Completed High School 35.1% 19.9% 9% 26.6% OTHER PSYCHOGRAPHICS AND DEMOGRAPHICS 50% 51% of fans purchased a program at each rodeo attended. anticipated purchasing western apparel during the coming year. intended to purchase a new car or truck within the year. Masterca d and Visa were the preferred credit cards. r Other actively used cards by rodeo fans are Telephone, Gasoline and Department Store Credit Cards. ,!~Western apparel, tires and furniture are the three most anticipated purchase during the coming year. Tmenla Town lsa~tio~ * P.O. Box t35 Tem~la, CA 0Z593 * (909) 676-4718 ' ' ~ !i~/i ,iSa~day and Sunday-Memorial Day Weokond! · , Ma , 24th and May lll th Ilpon8or !ti' Profile ;_. When a vast majority of the nation's population has never even seen a working ranch or farm, let alone spent time on one, a sport rooted in the ranching skills from the 1800s may seem like a quaint anachronism. To the contrary, professional rodeo is booming. Total prize money has increased every year since 1971. It reached 425.4 million in 1995, more than double the 49.9 million paid out in 1980. Membership in the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) HAS SURPASSED 11.000. Atten- dance at the 739 rodeos the PRCA sanctioned in 1995 was nearly 22 million. A ticket to the National Finals Rodeo, held annually in Las Vegas, remains among the toughest busy of any major sports event. A 1995 fan survey conducted by UNLV for the PRCA, found that 80.7 percent of the rodeo fan base watches rodeo on television, while 79 percent attends more than one rodeo per year. This fan base is diverse, breaking through traditional-thought demographic barriers. The UNLV survey discovered hat nearly 57 percent of fans live in cities with populations more than 10,000. That fan base is almost equally divided between men and women, with 82 percent owning their own homes. The average age of the rodeo fan is 43 years, with 50% of those fans in the 31 to 50 year range. 19.6 percent are 18 to 30 years. RODEO FAN HOUSEHOLD ANNUAL 1NCOMES $50,000 TO $99,999 35.5% $100,000+ 8.5% $35,000-$49,999 23.1% OVER 67% of RODEO FANS EARN A HOUSEHOLD 1NCOME EXCEEDING $35,000.* Tmnla Town K~ociatiou · P.O. Box '~35 Temmla, CA 01593 · (909) 6764718 19 97 Frontier Days Rodeo The Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo is one of the longest standing rodeos in Southwest Riverside County. Staged during Memorial Day weekend, this rodeo has traditionally had audiences exceeding 5,000 rodeo enthusiasts. Marketing for the Frontier Days Rodeo has already begun, with proposals sent to national corporate rodeo sponsors, press releases and psas for Rodeo Queen applicants, and initial announcements about the event in local publications. The following pages outline the marketing campaign planned for the 1997 Frontier Days Rodeo and the audience demographic profile of rodeos, as produced by the PRCA. I~F',RKETING 8~ PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN Advertising: Through advertising sponsors advertising will begin May 1, 1997 Proposed Sponsors: The Californian The Bargain Bulletin The Rancho News The Press Enterprise KATY FM Radio KFROG - Sun City Flyer/Placemats: Posters: Program: Tickets: Radio/Ticket Promotions Proposed 10,000 Flyer Distribution Beginning April 23, 1997 Cooperative posters with Budweiser - throughout southern Califomia. TFA Produced Posters distributed in southwest Riverside County cities. Distributed prior Balloon and Wine Festival Week Souvenir program, to be distributed at the event. 5,000 copies printed $8.00 general admission tickets to be on sale at the TFA, selected Temecula Outlets A limited number of tickets will be distributed for radio on-air ticket giveaways in exchange for radio promotions of the Frontier Days Rodeo. Publicity: Marketing and public relations is being conducted by Melody's Ad Works. Publicity has already begun with announcements of the Rodeo, Rodeo Queen Contest, and Sponsorship press release. Press releases will be sent to regional equestrian/horsemanship publications, as well as sports writers and entertainment writers. MARCH: PRESS RELEASES DISTRIBUTED TO SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY Rodeo Queen competition Sponsorship availability Regional event calendar notices for magazines Establish media sponsors Announce sponsors APRIL: Announce events in Regional Publications PSAs to all Radio Stations Announce special entertainment, ie down, dance PSAs to Cable/Local Television Stations Proposals to ESPN, ESPNil and other television Announce Rodeo Queen Contestants Media Day Invitations Media Day is May 7, 1997 Feature on rodeo contestants/records Feature on history of Frontier Days rodeo and relationship to rodeo history. Feature on rodeo circuit/life on the "road-e-o" Spedal section on Rodeo inserted into local paper Feature on activities and booths at Rodeo Feature on Rodeo chairman and committee Follow-up on rodeo results TEMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATION SPONSORSHIP PROPOSAL, 1997 1997 Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo $10~000 and 19~7 Great Temecula Tractor Race Premier Sponsorship $10,000 As the Premier Sponsor of the Frontier Days PRCA Rodeo and the 21st Great Temecula Tractor Race, the City of Temecula will assist the Temecula Town Association in preserving the rich heritage of Temecula. From the beginning Temecula has been known for it's pioneer spirit, farms and cattle ranches. A significant part of Temecula's Old Town district, the walking tour, and buildings are tied directly to old west charm. No event more exemplifies this great American spirit than a PRCA Rodeo, and the world's most unique event - the Great Temecula Tractor Race. The Temecula Town Association is proposing a sponsorship which will tie the marketing benefits of the two events into one powerful marketing and publicity tool for the City of Temecula. This proposal includes marketing plans for both events, and a demographic profile of the typical "rodeo" attendee for the City's consideration. TEMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATION SPONSORSHIP PROPOSAL, 1997 ATTACHMENT C 199? Great Temecula Tractor Race Premier Sponsorship $10~000 As the "Premier Sponsor" for the Great Temecula Tractor Race the City of Temecula will receive: City name on all advertisements for the Great Temecula Tractor Race. · City name in all press releases for the Great Temecula Tractor Race. · City Flag carried in during the Grand Entry Great Temecula Tractor Race Parade. · City name and recognition as a sponsor in sponsor-related press releases. · City banner displayed at Great Temecula Tractor Race recognizing the City. · Full page, color ad in Great Temecula Tractor Race official program. (40,000 distributed) · City name on PRCA Great Temecula Tractor Race t-shirts · Advertisement in the Great Temecula Tractor Race official program. · Licensing rights to use the event logo, for City marketing program. · 12 VIP Tickets/Passes to the Great Temecula Tractor Race · 15 Great Temecula Tractor Race t-shirts · 12 Admission Passes to Tractor Race Casino Night (Chips not included) ATTACHMENT D TEMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATION 1997 BUDGET DEPT. 3 (TRACTOR RACE) ! NCOME ADMISSIONS ,m EER/BAR CASINO NIGHT ENTRIES EVENT PARKING KiDS FAIRE SOUVENIRS M! SCELLANEOUS SPONSORS VENDORS TOTAL INCOME EXPENSES ADVERTISING AWARDS BEER/BAR CASINO NIGHT CONTINGENCIES · m~ONS - DONA~ ~ SERVICE ELECTRIC POWER ENTERTA I NMENT =OU ~PMENT RENTAL EVENT COORDINATOR ...... GENERAL KIDS FAIRE LICENSES & PERMITS MEDZA DAY RV PARKING SECUR i TY S ! GNS SiTE PREP SOUVENIRS SUPPLIES TRASH/CLEAN UP ~rLr~ES V!P TOTAL EXPENSES $ 50,000 O0 25,000 O0 5,000 O0 5,500 O0 3,000 O0 3,000 O0 5,000 00 1,000 O0 35,000 O0 20,000 O0 $152,500 00 $ 3,000 O0 2,000 O0 7,500 O0 3,000 O0 3,000 O0 2,500 O0 12,000 O0 i0,000 00 15,000 00 !0,000 00 2,400 00 2;500 O0 300 00 !:000 00 3,000 O0 3,000 00 !$,000 00 50O 00 3,000 O0 4,000 00 2,000 00 3,000 00 i,000 O0 i,OO0 O0 !,%CO.00 I!4,200.00 38.300.00 HRR--28--97 FR! 1~1 I'EMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATION, P.O. BOX 435, INCOME STAI'EMENT DEPARTMENT 3 DATE POSTED : DECEMBER 31, PERIOD ENDING: DECEMBER 31, CURRENT INCOME MISCELLANEOUS ,00 ADMISSIONS .00 BEER/BAR .00 *** EVENT PARKING .00 RV PARKING .00 SOUVENIRS .00 SPONSORS .00 VENDORS .00 *** ENTRIES T/R .00 CHILI COOK OFF .00 TOTAL INCOME .00 TEMECULA, CA. 92593 1996 1996 YEAR--TO-~ATE 2,739.00 38,540.63 22,035.53 2,800.95 2,837.00 8,696.24 30,099.50 18,647.00 5,468.00 583.41 132,447.26 2,1 29.1 16.6 2.1 2.1 6.6 22, ? 14. L 4.1 .4 100.0 EXPENSES ADYERTISING & PROMOTION .00 AWARDS .00 BAD DEBTS .00 BEER/BAR .00 CASH OVER/SHORT .00 CHILI COOK OFF .00 DONATIONS-SERVICES .00 ENTERTAINMENT .00 EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 KIDS FAIRE LICENSES & PERMITS .00 MEDIA DAY .00 MISCELLANEOUS .00 OFFICE SUPPLIES .00 PORTA POTTIES 15,383.75 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE .00 SECURITY 11,562.40 SIGNS T/R .00 SITE PREPARATION .00 SOUVENIRS .00 SUPPL I ES ,00 WORK PARTIES .00 TOTAL ~XPENSES 2~,~4~.15 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (26,~46.15) NET INCOME (LOSS) (26,946.15) 4:** 12,613.45 1,797.01 36.00 8,398.58 .25 450.00 ~00.00 22,982.19 12,044.01 3,600.00 110.00 238.96 2,435.05 19.88 19,399.2I 3,000.00 16,917,40 $19.0~ 6,276.2'7 7,201.50 1, ~96.48 1, 183. ~7 122,018.97 10,428.29 10,428.29 9.5 1.4 .0 6.3 .0 .3 .4 17.4 9.1 2.7 .1 .2 1.8 .0 14.6 2.3 12.8 4.7 5.4 1.5 .9 92. 1 7.9 7.9 PF~EPARED BY: BIRDSALL'S BOOKKEEPIN~i SERVICES The 21st Annual Great Temecula Tractor Race IGI~',RKETING ~ PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN Advertising: Through advertising sponsors advertising will begin August 15, 1997 Proposed Sponsors: The Californian The Bargain Bulletin The Press Enterprise KATY F!q Radio KFROG - Sun City Pennysaver Flyer/Placemats: Posters: Program: Radio/Ticket Promotions Radio/Product Promotions Publicity: Proposed 60,000 Flyer Distribution Beginning September 1, 1997 Cooperative posters with Budweiser - throughout southern California. ]TA Produced Posters distributed in southwest Riverside County cities. Distributed prior to Labor Day Weekend Souvenir program, to be distributed at the event. and inserted into local newspaper (tba - Press Enterprise has first right of refusal) 36,000 inserted, 4,000 distributed at event. A limited number of tickets will be distributed for radio on-air ticket giveaways in exchange for radio promotions of the Frontier Days Rodeo. Corporate sponsors will be pursued for radio partnership marketing and product sponsored on-air advertising. Marketing and public relations is being conducted by Melody's Ad Works. Publicity begins in April with calendar notices being mailed to long lead publications, sports writers and entertainment writers. This year the publicity and marketing will be increased to include race enthusiasts and possible cross promotions with Pettis Race Track. ESPN II and Extreme Sports programs/media will be pursued heavily beginning in July for coverage of the event. 20th Annual Great Temecula Tractor Race October 4, 5 and 6, 1996 Marketins~ & Publicity Report Melody's Ad Works (909) 676-7875 March 5, 1997 OVERVIEW In its 20~h year, the Great Temecula Tractor Race reached new heights in providing unique and media attractive events. This, combined with some new advertising/sponsor partnerships helped to extend the visibility of the Tractor Race. Events which were added: Mud Volleyball Mud Tug Of War all in the Mud Olympic Arena; and the inflatable camival with laser tag and a variety of inflated/party jump type rides. Marketing and Publicity for the event began in April with calendar notices sent to 60 regional magazines including travel entertainment and recreational vehicle magazines. Regional publicity also began in April with information about sponsors and various contests published regularly. Radio advertising on KOLA, KO-O] HOT COUNTRY, KOW FM in San Diego - Country, KATY FM, KRTM FM, and KSPA radio in San Diego. KABC and KLOS' radio's Todd Donaho featured the Tractor Race on his morning and evening broadcasts on Friday, October 4th and Gayle Anderson/KTLA morning news entertainment reporter broadcast from the Tractor Race throughout Friday morning with her segment replayed on evening news. OCN in Orange County aired tractor race footage and information October 4th, 5th and 6th The following report details the marketing, advertising and promotional campaign for the 1996 Great Temecula Tractor Race: [~"e~,,Z IN E COVERAG E: GOOD SAM MAGAZINE 99,000 circulation RV WEST - 75,000 Circulation COAST TO COAST MAGAZINE - 300,000 Circulation MOTORHOME MAGAZINE TRAVEL IDEAS COUNTRY REVIEW 5,000 circulation L.A. CONVENTION BUREAU NEWS CALIFORNIA EVENTS - CALIFORNIA TOURISM PUBLICATION BUZZ MAGAZINE 110,000 circulation FAMILY FOCUS MAGAZINE INLAND EMPIRE MAGAZINE INLAND EMPIRE BUSINESS JOURNAL INSIDE ENTERTAINMENT NORTH COUNTY ENTERTAINER PALM SPRINGS LIFE ORANGE COAST MAGAZINE 40,000 circulation SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE SAN DIEGO HOME AND GARDEN SENIOR WORLD MAGAZINE Melody's Ad Works (909) 676-7875 March 5, 1997 [~'~A P E g COVERAGE ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN NEWS THE CALIFORNIAN - 14,000 Circulation CHINO HILLS NEWS - 10,000 Circulation FALLBROOK ENTERPRISE HEMET NEWS 14,798 Circulation LAKE ELSINORE SUN TRIBUNE - 13,000 Circulation LOS ANGELES TIMES 1,411,000 Circulation ORANGE COUNTY EDITION - 4 CONSECUTIVE WEEKS MARY FRANCIS SMITH - Festival Fairs Best Bets - September 29 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - 49,000 circulation ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER - 4-15,500 drculation THE PRESS ENTERPRISE 166,000 circulation, program inserted into 30,000 THE RANCHO NEWS - :30,000 circulation SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE - 467,287 SUN CITY NEWS 8,000 Total newspaper impressions over 2.5 million circulation in press releases alone. Melody's Ad Works (909) 676-7875 March 5, 1997 F.~'9~:~:I ¥~¥NG e~ MARKETING PRINT · Pennysaver - all zones, Los Angeles to Temecula - 6 weeks prior to the event 10,000 Inserts in !qurrieta - $15,674 value · Bargain Bulletin - all zones, 8 weeks prior to the event - $5,000 value · The Californian - 3xl 6' ads from August 30 to October 4-th - $2500 value · The Press Enterprise - September 11, 19, 20, 26, 27 and October 3,4 $5,000 value · The Press Enterprise Program $7,000 value POSTERS: · Offidal posters were distributed from Temecula to Corona · Budweiser produced posters were distributed at merchants and bars in the Inland Empire FLYERS · 10,000 Inserted in lqurrieta Pennysaver · 50,000 distributed through VoWs, Lucky, Stater Bros and Albertsons in Temecula. RADIO Kola - paid by Budweiser Ko-oj - Paid by Boot Barn KOW- Paid by Boot Barn KRT!q - sponsorship KATY- sponsorship Total value of advertising $51,674 Melody's Ad Works (909) 676-7875 March 5, 1997 RADIO ADVERTISING eZ PRO!qOTIONS PSA's · A!Vll Network - over 60 California Radio Stations with PSAs PROMOTIONS · KPSI - Palm SpringsTicket Giveaways/40 commercials · KSPA - San Diego Ticket Giveaways/40 commercials · KOW - San Diego Ticket Giveaways/40 commercials Plus Radio Time for two weeks purchased by Boot Barn · KOLA - Inland Empire Ticket Giveaways/40 commercials · Plus Radio Time purchased by Budweiser at $2,500 value · KO-O] - Inland Empire Ticket Giveaway 30 commercials · Plus Radio Time purchased by Boot Barn · KRT!vl --Temecula $2500 worth of air time 3 weeks prior · KATY - Temecula $2500 worth of air time - 3 weeks prior TELEVISION COVERAGE B-rolls of the event were sent to all television scafions in Southern California. The following stations aired the b-rolls and pertinent info: · KNBC Christopher Nance · KABC Todd Donaho Sports (also on-air mention KLOS - Mark and Brian Show) · KFMB Channel 8/CBS San Diego EVENT COVERAGE: · KTLA Gayle Anderson 3 hour remote broadcast, rebroadcast on 1 1 a.m., 10 p.m. · OCN Cable News all weekend long OLD TOWN WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN WESTSIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY HELD MARCH 25, 1997 A regular meeting of the Old Town Westside Community Facilities District Financing Authority was called to order at 8:40 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairperson Karel F. Lindemans presiding. PRESENT: 4 BOARD MEMBERS: Birdsall, Ford, Roberts, Lindemans ABSENT: 1 BOARD MEMBERS: Stone Also present were Assistant Executive Director Mary Jane McLarney, City Attorney Peter Thorson and Authority Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. FINANCING AUTHORITY BUSINESS 1 Minutes It was moved by Board Member Birdsall, seconded by Board Member Ford, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1 as follows: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of March 18, 1997. The motion was unanimously carried with Board Member Stone absent. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member Ford, seconded by Board Member Birdsall, to adjourn at 8:40 PM to a meeting on April 8, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Board Member Stone absent. ATTEST: Karel F. Linderoans, Chairperson June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/Authority Secretary Minutes.fa\032597 - 1 - OLD TOWN WESTSIDE IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN WESTSIDE IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY HELD MARCH 25, 1997 A regular meeting of the Old Town Westside Improvement Authority was called to order at 8:41 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairperson Karel F. Lindemans presiding. PRESENT: 4 BOARD MEMBERS: Ford, Roberts, Linderoans, Birdsall ABSENT: 1 BOARD MEMBERS: Stone Also present were Assistant Executive Director Mary Jane McLarney, City Attorney Peter Thorson and Authority Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Board Member Roberts, seconded by Board Member Ford, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of March 18, 1997. The motion was unanimously carried with Board Member Stone absent. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member Ford, seconded by Board Member Birdsall, to adjourn at 8:41 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Board Member Stone absent. ATTEST: Karel F. Linderoans, Chairperson June S. Greek, CMC, City Clerk/ Authority Secretary Minutes.ia\032597 -1 - ITEM 16 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT 'APPROVAI. CITY ATTORNEY DIR. OF FINAN~.,~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager April 8, 1997 Development Impact Fees PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst4~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Review the options provided for the adoption of Development Impact Fees to be effective in the City of Temecula, and select the appropriate option for which a resolution will be presented. 2. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED 'PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE' 3. Adopt the following resolution pertaining to the DIF Ordinance: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S PUBLIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO BE ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 97-~, AND ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA AND FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN NEGOTIATING FEE REDUCTIONS THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS DISCUSSION: PART I: ~V!=RVIFW In April, 1995, the City of Temecula (uCity") entered into a professional services agreement with David M. Griffith & Associates (UDMG") to conduct a comprehensive study on the establishment of Development Impact Fees (DIF). The intent of this Study is to determine the maximum, legally defensible fee required to construct facilities which are necessitated by development. DMG calculated the DIF for only those improvements which have not been constructed. and for which no funding sources have been identified. DMG presented a draft Study to the City in January, 1996. In the Study, fees have been calculated for six different types of development, since each type of development results in its own specific impacts to the City. The differences are based on a number of factors, including the amount of traffic generated by the development. For example, residential development does not generate the traffic that retail commercial development would generate. Likewise, the fees reflect this difference in demand upon infrastructure. As far as examples of each type of development are concerned, the two residential categories (attached and detached) are self-explanatory. Examples of the other four categories used, taken from the City's Development Code, are as follows: Office Legal, design, engineering, medical, and governmental offices Retail Commercial Retail shopping centers, theaters, restaurants. end department stores Service Commercial Auto dealerships. day care facilities, auto repair stores, end salons Business Park Research/development laboratories, industrial, and wholesale facilities On March 6, 1996, Staff sent letters notifying the development community of a workshop which the City was holding to present the draft DMG Study. Notices were sent to 121 developers/builders who had interests in Temecula. On March 14, 1996, Staff presented the draft Study to the Development Community in the Rancho California Water District Board Room. Thirty-eight attendees signed in for the workshop. During that Workshop, over 40 questions were raised by developers, and were responded to by either DMG or Staff. These questions and answers were distributed on March 21st with the minutes of the workshop. Because the Development Community had several issues with the fees provided in the Study, the Development Community and Staff set up a Committee comprised of seven representatives from the Development Community, who were selected by the developers, and seven Staff members. The purpose of this Committee was to review the methodology of the Study, and to address specific areas concerning the fees themselves. Additionally, acknowledging the importance of input from the Development Community, Staff set up sub-committees on Street Improvements and Credits to allow for even closer review of those areas. 2 Overall, the specific issues which were discussed in the more than ten subsequent meetings included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Street Improvement Fee Methodology Sphere of Influence Inventory Assessment Districts/Credits for Regional Improvements Library Fee Park Fee Credits for Private Parks Fee Reductions for Churches and Non-Profit Organizations Based on these meetings, DMG revised the January, 1996 Study to incorporate changes recommended by the Committee (see Attachment A). PART I1: nr:v!::! ~'IPMFNT IMPACT F!=F IRRII!::R ANn RFSO! UTIONS ISSUES I & 2: STREET IMPROVEMENT FEE METHODOLOGY & SPHERE OF INFLUENCE In the DMG draft Study, the street improvement fee was based on a calculation which included assumptions for trip generation rates based on various development types. These rates were based on information obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publication Traffic Generators. These rates resulted in a 'weighting" of the calculations with respect to trip lengths, which are generally longer for residential, office and business park than they are for retail and service commercial activities. During the May 30, 1996 meeting, the Developers questioned the methodology used to determine the street improvement costs, and requested that an actual inventory of streets be used in the cost estimate calculation. The Committee agreed to set up a sub-committee comprised of City/Developer engineers to identify the inventory of all of the lane miles to be constructed. The basic guidelines which the Developers strongly emphasized were that the inventory should include roads within the City Limits only, and should not include the Sphere of Influence; and, the inventory should include improvements identified in the City's Circulation Plan, even if they had been constructed by Assessment Districts (AD's). This methodology eliminated the need for weighting the calculations by trip lengths. Although the developers committed to providing an inventory to Staff, they were unable to provide adequate information to conclusively identify the inventory. Consequently, the Public Works Department produced the final inventory for DMG to incorporate into the Study. This inventory was discussed at the December meeting of the Traffic Subcommittee, during which meeting Staff was requested to add road infrastructure costs from Assessment Districts (AD's) 159 and 161 to the inventory. In the weeks that followed, Staff analyzed the inclusion of these two AD's, which resulted in an increase in the DMG recommended fees of approximately 22%. Using this finding as a starting point, Staff could not substantiate the fairness in adding on/y these AD's, since other AD's as well as former developers had paid for 'backbone" infrastructure improvements throughout the City. At the subsequent Subcommittee meeting on January 15, 1997, removal of the AD infrastructure cost was discussed. Developers representing the AD's in question, which developers would directly benefit from these additions and the resulting increased fees across the board, adamantly objected to deleting the AD's from the Study inventory. Although the subcommittee strongly recommended that AD's be included and the Sphere be excluded, Staff concluded that the purpose of the fee is to fund improvements which are not funded through any other source; and, by adding AD improvements to the inventory for potential credits or reimbursements, Staff would be creating an accounting structure which would be difficult, if not impossible, to administer, manage, and control. Thus, the final inventory provided to DMG does not include assessment district street improvements, but does include improvements in the Sphere of Influence. Staff made this recommendation to DMG for the following reasons: Adopted DIF will apply only to those improvements within City limits. However, by including the Sphere of Influence, the City is establishing the nexus to those areas so that when annexation occurs, the fees can be extended to the annexed area without having to perform an additional study. When a 'City only/City plus Sphere" comparison of fees for street improvements was performed, the results showed only a 7% decrease in the fee, which Staff determined was not substantial enough to exclude the Sphere from the Study area (see Attachment B). AD funded improvements were determined to be inappropriate for inclusion in the Study area because DIF is designed to fund unconstructed/unfunded improvements resulting from demands caused by development. Since AD's were established specifically to fund regional facilities, they do not fit into the DIF structure for street improvements. Any inequities created in Assessment Districts can be addressed in individual development agreements, where development impact fees can be adjusted on a case-by- case basis. ISSUE 3: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS/CREDITS FOR REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Developers representing AD's were perhaps the most emphatic in their opinions as to what should or should not be included in the City's overall DIF policy. Their issues revolved around receiving some form of "DIF credits" for regional improvements which they, as members of an AD, were conditioned to fund. This issue was raised during the initial presentation to the Development Community on March 14, 1996, and was specifically addressed by the 'Credit Subcommittee," which was formed after the May 30, 1996 Committee meeting. The Credit Subcommittee was comprised of three developers and four Staff members. The goal of this Subcommittee was to look at, discuss, and analyze the possibility of including a mechanism for applying credits to regional improvements which had already been constructed. The Developers wanted the DIF structure to include credits for the following reasons: By building the AD-constructed regional improvements into the Study inventory, AD's can receive some form of reimbursement for those regional improvements which would have otherwise been funded by DIF. "Parity" could be achieved by spreading the costs of the AD regional improvements throughout the City, since AD developers are contributing to a DIF fund which will fund regional improvements throughout the City. Developers contributed to the City's regional infrastructure improvements, and should be compensated for these contributions. 4 On the contrary, Staff recommended that credits for AD-constructed regional improvements not be implemented under the DIF umbrella for these reasons: The only way to build in a mechanism for credits is to include improvements which have already been constructed into the DIF inventory. This contradicts the purpose of DIF, which is to fund those improvements which are unfunded/unconstructed and are necessary to mitigate the impacts of future growth. If Staff were to include AD regional improvements in the inventory, then, in order to establish true "parity," Staff would have to identify all improvements throughout the City which had actually been constructed by developers, but which improvements otherwise might have been constructed using DIF. In determining an inventory which included improvements which have already been constructed, each improvement would have to be divided into "existing" or "future" impacts, so that credits would not be applied towards those improvements which were constructed to meet existing needs. This methodology for establishing an inventory results in an artificial increase in total fees, thus conflicting with the developers' "parity" argument. The ~credit" program may ignore the initial/actual payer of the assessment, and instead compensates the developer at the time of construction. There is a legal issue in administering the 'credit" program, specifically in the area of transferring credits between developers within and outside of the AD, inasmuch as developers who are part of an AD do not "control" the credits applied to development within the AD. It would be virtually impossible to apply 'credits" to all entities who would be entitled to them. For example, credits are only useful to developers who are currently building, or who will be building in the future. They cannot benefit homeowners, who have paid for the improvements either through the purchase price of their homes or through annual debt service charges on previously confirmed assessments; or developers, who constructed improvements in the past and have now moved on to other cities. Other assessment funding structures (i.e., CFD 88-12) have existing reimbursement programs designed to compensate the property owners for constructing regional improvements. By applying "credits" to these Districts, they would be 'double dipping" the City. The 'credit" program is difficult to understand, and would be difficult to attempt to explain to future developers in promoting economic development. The "credit" program would create an unacceptable burden on City Staff to administer, due to the specific nature and issues associated with each development and the need to address each on a 'case by case basis." There are too many potential issues involved in this type of program to set an overall policy to deal with applying credits across the board. 5 Although Staff attempted to accommodate the developers with establishing a program to apply credits for AD regional improvements, after careful consideration Staff has concluded that a "credit" program contains too many inadequacies and parity issues for such a program to be applied across the board. However, provisions have been made in the Ordinance to allow developers who believe that they are entitled to a fee reduction to apply to the Director of Community Development to negotiate a reduction through a Development Agreement. ISSUE 4: LIBRARY FEE During Committee meeting discussions, two issues were raised concerning the library fee proposed. The first was that developers believed the fee should be applied to other than residential development, and the second was that the fee was too high. Staff requested that DMG provide an explanation of the library fee. In response to this request, DMG reviewed and revised the service area for Temecula Library from City population only to the total service area, which includes the sphere of influence and portions of Murrieta. This brought the population served from approximately 42,000 to over 85,000, based on numbers received from Riverside City and County Public Library System. These revisions reduced the proposed fee from $398 to $217. Additionally, DMG reported that since the library fee is a population-based fee, and a City's population is based on residential units, it is appropriate to apply the fee only to the residential portion of development. The Committee was satisfied with this methodology, particularly since the fee decreased significantly. ISSUE 5: PARK FEE CREDITS FOR PRIVATE PARKS This issue was raised by a residential developer during Committee meeting discussions. The developer's concern was that if residential builders construct private parks within a development, then they should be given fee credits towards the park component of the DIF. Since the park component of the DIF is intended to construct community and neighborhood parks, the Committee agreed to consider credits up to 50% of the park DIF, negotiated in a Development Agreement (DA) on a case-by-case basis. ISSUE 6: FEE REDUCTIONS FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS This issue was raised during the March 14, 1996 presentation to the Development Community, and was addressed by Joe Colgan of DMG through the DIF Study. According to the Study, churches and other non-profit organizations do not clearly fit into any of the development categories in the Study, but most closely fit into the retail commercial category based on the average trips to those facilities. In Section 8 of the Study, DMG recommends that the City apply the SANDAG traffic manual multiplier of .7 to the retail commercial fee to recognize the fact that churches and other non-profit organizations tend to consolidate their activities to specific times (peak traffic hours and/or weekends), and do not generate traffic impacts as consistently as retail commercial activities. 6 PART II1: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information provided above, Staff recommends the following for Council's consideration. A. RESIDENTIAL FEES 1. Adopt residential fees as proposed in the Study. The residential fee in the DIF Study is calculated at $2,934 for detached homes, and $2,114 for attached residences. The $2,934 is significantly less than development fees and agreements which are currently in place, which range from $3,417 to $5,984. CONS None noted. B. NON-RESIDENTIAL FEES Adopt non-residential fees at e percentage of the maximum fees recommended in the Study. Reduced fees will encourage development in Temecula. Passage of Measure "C" allows for continued funding support from the General Fund for improvements necessitated by development. Recommended percentage of 60% is based on Capital Improvement Program Budget 5- year revenue projections for funding from other sources. Fees would be: Development Type Study Fee Proposed Fee (60% of Study Fee) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park/Industrial $2.31 per sq ft $7.00 per sq ft $3.53 per sq ft $1.71 per sq ft $1.39 per sq ft $4.20 per sq ft $2.12 per sq ft $1.03 per sq ft Other funding sources, including the General Fund, will be required to subsidize improvements necessitated by development. Other funding sources which are currently projected may not be available in the future, resulting in improvements not being funded. 7 Establish Development Agreements for Each Project Development Agreements are negotiated on a case-by-case basis, with each project being evaluated on its own merit. Likewise, the overall project benefits can be weighed against the impacts to determine a fair fee. Developers who are part of an Assessment District will have the opportunity to offset the DIF based on the positive impacts which their projects bring to Temecula. Council will not have to determine an overall policy which attempts to address all issues associated with development impacts. Developers will have to obtain City Council approval for an agreement each time a project is brought forward. Adopt both residential and non-residential fees at the levels recommended by the DIF Study. All infrastructure identified in the DIF inventory will be funded. Fees are legally defensible. Feedback from the development community indicates that developers believe the fees are excessive and discourage development in Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: According to the Development Impact Fee Study conducted by David M. Griffith & Associates, $210 million will be required to construct the City's capital improvements necessitated by new development. Any fees adopted at less than 100% of the DMG maximum calculated fees will result in the need to identify other funding sources for these improvements. Attachments: B. C. D. E. City of Temecula Development Impact Fee Study Comparison of City/Sphere Fees Price Comparison Matrix Ordinance No. 97- Resolution No. 97- 8 ORDINANCE NO. ~7- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TFAVIECULA AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAVFF_R ENTITLED '*PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEEs THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 15.06 to read as follows: "Cha$ter 15.06 Public Facilities Development Impact Fee 15.06.010 Findings and Intent. A. The City Council finds that Temecula is a rapidly growing City. The City's population has the potential to grow from a current population of about 40,000 to over 200,000 at build out. This increase in population is reasonably expected to create a substantial increase in the demand placed upon public facilities. The City's existing public facilities will soon become inadequate to handle the projected population growth at existing levels of service. In order to serve the projected population growth, public facilities must be expanded. B. It is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the City's public facilities. The City will therefore require developers to pay a public facilities development impact fee that will be used to meet the demand for public facilities caused by development. The public facilities will be constructed in accordance with a capital improvement plan adopted by resolution of the City Council. C. The mount of the public facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be limited to the cost of public facilities expansion attributable to new development. The amount of the public facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of public facility expansion made necessary by existing development. 15.06.090 Residential Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Required. A. Except as provided in Section 15.06.040, the required public facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid, in an amount established by resolution of the City Council, upon final inspection for that building, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first; provided, however, that if the residential development contains more than one dwelling, the Director of Community Development may determine whether the fees or charges shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first; on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first; or on a lump-sum basis when the first dwelling in the development receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. If the required fee is not fully paid prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any portion of the residential development encumbered thereby, the Director of Community Development may require the property owner, or lessee if the lessee's interest appears of record, as a condition of issuance of the building permit, to execute a contract to pay the fee or charge, or applicable portion thereof, within the time specified above. If the required fee is prorated, the obligation under the contract shall be similarly prorated. B. For the purposes of this Section, Urinal inspection' or "certificate of occupancy, ~ as used in this section, shall be defined as that term is defined in Government Code Section 66007, as amended. 15.06.030 Non-Residential Public Facilities Development Inlpact Fee Required. Except as provided in Section 15.06.040, no building permit shall be issued for any building that is part of a non-residential development, unless the developer has paid a public facilities development impact fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. 15.06.040 F. xelRptions from, and Reduction of, Public Facilities Development Inlpact Fees. A. A developer shall be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the public facilities development impact fee required by Sections 15.06.020 and 15.06.030, if the developer constructs public facilities pursuant to the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The public facilities development impact fee shall be reduced by the amount of engineering and construction costs that would be reasonably incurred by the City in building those same public facilities. The amount of the reduction in the public facilities development impact fee shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to construction of the development. B. If a developer constructs public facilities pursuant to the City's Capital Improvement Plan, and if the City's engineering and construction costs to construct those same public facilities would have been more than the public facilities development impact fee assessed to that developer pursuant to Sections 15.06.020 and 15.06.030, then nothing in this Section shall prevent the City from entering into a reimbursement agreement with that developer, subject to the availability of funds. 15.06.050 Fee Adjustment. A. Application for Fee Adjustment 1. Any developer whose development is subject to the public facilities development impact fee required by this Chapter may apply to the Director of Community Development for a reduction in that fee based upon the demonstrable absence of a reasonable relationship between the impact of that development on the City's public facilities and either the amount of public facilities development impact fee charged, or the type of public facilities improvements to be constructed. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the Director of Community R: IK UHN.~A IDI F~ 11016~9. ORD 2 04/01/97 Development no later than ninety days after an application for site plan review is filed. If no application for site plan review is required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed within ninety days after the City issues a building permit for the development. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction. The Director shall make a decision on the application for reduction within thirty calendar days after the application has been filed. Notice of the Director's decision shall be mailed to the applicant, postage paid. 2. Any developer whose development is subject to the public facih'ties development impact fee required by this Chapter may apply to the Director of Community Development for a reduction in that fee, if the developer, in connection with the development, has constructed or financed regional or regionally significant public facilities substantially similar to those facilities that are listed or otherwise identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan, either through participation in a special district (e.g., a community facilities district or a special assessment district) or as a result of conditions of approval for the development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the Director of Community Development no later than ninety days after the effective date of this Section, or ninety days after the City issues a building permit for the development, whichever is later. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction. The City shall consider entering into a development agreement, or modifying an existing development agreement, with any developer applying for a reduction pursuant to this paragraph. B. Appeal from Director's Decision 1. The decision of the Director of Community Development under Section 15.060.050.A. 1 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by filing an application for appeal with the Director of Community Development. The application must be filed within fifteen calendar days after notice of the Director's decision has been mailed to the applicant; provided, however, that if the fifteen days expire on a day when Temecula City Hall is not open for business, then the appeal period shall be extended to the next business day. 2. Failure to file a timely appeal application deprives the Planning Commission of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 3. The Planning Commission shall consider the appeal at a public hearing to be held within forty-five calendar days after the appeal application is filed. C. AOl~l from Commission's Decision 1. The decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 15.06.050.B may be appealed to the City Council by filing an application for appeal with the City Clerk. The application must be filed within fifteen calendar days after the Commission has made a final decision on the aptn~; provided, however, that if the fifteen days expire on a day when Temecula City Hall is not open for business, then the appeal period shall be extended to the next business day. R:IKUHNSA lDIFl l I OI 69& ORD 3 04/01/97 2. Failure to file a timely appeal application deprives the City Council of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 3. The City Council shall consider the appeal at a public hearing to be held within forty-five calendar days after the appeal application is filed. The decision of the City Council shall be final. D. Invalidation of Fee Reduction if a reduction is granted pursuant to this Section, any subsequent change in the use of the subject development, or any increase in the square footage of the development, shall invalidate the reduction. E. Processing of Protests The procedure set forth in this Section shall implement Government Code Section 66020, or its successor, and shall serve as the City's method for processing protests filed pursuant to that section. Prior to the effective date of site plan approval, or, if no site plan approval is required, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a developer that is subject to this Chapter shall sign a statement acknowledging the imposition of a public facilities development impact fee upon that developer's development. Such acknowledgment shall not be deemed a waiver of the developer's right to protest the imposition and to request a fee adjustment pursuant to this Section. 15.06.060 Use of Fnnds. All public facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be placed in one or more funds and used solely for the purpose of constructing, expanding, or rehabilitating public facih'ties pursuant to the City's Capital Improvement Plan. If the Director of Community Development authorizes minor alterations to such plan, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the City to use public facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter for the purpose of constructing public facilities in accordance with the Capital Improvement Plan, as altered or amended. 15.06.070 Calculation of Fees. A developer subject to the public facilities development impact fee required by Sections 15.06.020 and 15.06.030 shall pay the amount of the fee in effect at the time that the fee becomes due." Section 2. Development projects for which a development entitlement application was deemed complete prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance; provided, however, that this exemption shall not override any condition of approval for a project which specifically requires payment of fees for the purposes of mitigating impacts on capital improvement projects. R:IKUHNSA IDIFI 1101699. ORD 4 04/01/97 Section 3. Ordinance 659 of the County of Riverside establishing a Development Mitigation Fee for residential development as adopted by reference by the City of Temecula is hereby repealed. Seelion 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVEI~ AND ADOFrED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of April, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATrEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:IKUHN~AIDIFI 110I ~9.0RD 5 04/01/97 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, DO I-IEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. 97-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of April, 1997, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of April, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: R:[KUf'INSAtDI~ 1101699. ORD ~ 04/01/~7 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING A PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT THEREOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINF~ AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Short Title. This resolution may be referred to as the "Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Resolution" of the City of Temecula. Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to establish the amount of the public facilities development impact fee and to establish certain standards for the administration of such fees. Section 3. Findings. The City Council, after review of the City of Temecula Development Impact Fee Study (the "DIF Study") dated January 8, 1996 and prepared by David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd., and after review of additional staff reports, and testimony and information received at a noticed public hearing on this matter, makes the following findings: A. Based upon the land uses permitted by the City's General Plan and growth trends of actual development within the City, the City anticipates that 54,422 dwelling units and 55.526 million square feet of non-residential development will be developed in the City between January 1, 1995 and buildout. B. The DIF Study analyzes the demand expected to be generated by future development for street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities. Based on this analysis, the DIF Study contains estimated levels of service for street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities that are necessary to serve anticipated development within the City of Temecula through buildout. C. Present and future sources of Federal, State, County and City revenues are insufficient to fund construction of the street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities needed to accommodate the demands of anticipated residential and non-residential development. D. The only fair and equitable method of securing adequate revenue necessary to fund the construction of these facilities is through a fee based on the extent to which new development generates additional demand for street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities. The fee amounts established in this resolution pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code are based on the DIF Study. E. The purpose of the public facilities development impact fee will be to provide street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities in an amount sufficient to meet the estimated demand created by residential and non-residential development constructed in the City through buildout. F. The public facilities development impact fee will be used to finance the public facilities listed in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. G. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for a public facilities development impact fee and the construction of residential and non-residential development projects because the construction of these development projects creates a demand for street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities to serve the needs of the residents and occupants of these development projects. Such facilities are necessary to protect the structures constructed as part of each development project and the health, safety and welfare of the residents and occupants of the development project. H. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the public facilities development impact fee and the construction of residential and non-residential development projects because, as a result of the fees' use as described in subsection F, residents and occupants of such development projects will be served by the street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities that will be financed by the fees. I. There is a reasonable relationship between the mount of the public facilities development impact fee and the portion of the total cost of street system, park and recreation, corporate, fire protection, and library facilities attributed to each development project because the amount of the public facilities development impact fee was carefully calculated so that the estimated share of the total cost of the facilities assessed to a development project would equal the estimated share of the total demand for the facilities generated by that development project. The general methodology for apportioning the total cost of facilities, and the method for calculating the portion of the total cost of facilities attributed to each development project is described in the DIF Study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. Amount of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee. The public facilities development impact fee is hereby established and imposed in the amounts set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution. Section 5. Inflation Adjustment. Commencing on January 1, 1998, the fees as established and imposed by this resolution shall be adjusted on January 1 of each year based upon the Dodge Building Cost Index (the "BCI') for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (BCI) unless the fees are otherwise adjusted as part of an update of the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The Director of Finance shall compute the percentage difference between the BCI on July 1 of each year and the BCI for the previous July 1. The Director of Finance shall then adjust by such percentage the fees established and imposed by this resolution. The adjusted amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar, and shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. Upon adoption by the City Council, the adjusted amounts shall become effective R:IKUHNS~IDIFI 1101700. RES 2 04/I/97 on the following January 1. These amounts shall constitute the fees authorized by Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and established and imposed by this resolution. Should the BCI be revised or discontinued, the Director of Finance shall use the revised index or a comparable index, as approved by the City Council, for determining fluctuations in the cost of development. Section 6. Fee Adjustments -- Guidelines. The City shall follow the following guidelines in considering reductions in the fee amount pursuant to Section 15.06.050.A.2 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. Reductions shall be calculated and applied on a case by case basis; B. Reductions may not exceed the fee amount payable by the developer; C. Reductions for a specific fee component may not be applied against a different fee component (e.g., a reduction in the Traffic Signal component of the fee may not be applied to reduce the Street Improvement component of the fee); D. Reductions shall be applied at the time the fee is required to be paid; E. Reductions will not accumulate interest; and F. Reductions are not transferable. Section 7. Fee Adjustments -- Factors. The City shall consider the following factors when determining the amount of a fee reduction pursuant to Section 15.06.050.A.2 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The cost of public facilities previously constructed or financed by the developer which were attributable to mitigating impacts of the proposed development; B. Positive economic impacts of proposed development (including enhanced tax revenues which may be used to finance public facilities to mitigate impacts of the proposed development); and C. The demonstrable absence of a reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed development on the City's public facilities and either the amount of DIF charged, or the type of public facilities to be constructed. Section 8. Effective Date. The fees established pursuant to Section 4 of this Resolution shall become effective 60 days following the adoption of Ordinance No. 97-_. Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of the resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution, and R:IKUHN~A ~DIF~ 1101700.R£$ 3 04/I/97 each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one of more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula ~ day of ,1997. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk R:IKUHN,.~4 IOlR 110~ 700. RES 4 04/I/97 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-~ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of April, 1997, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:IKUHNSA ~DIFI ~ 10~ 700.RES 5 04/1/97 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Corrkoonent Type of l.and Useu Amount of Fee Per Unit~ Street System Improvements Residential (Attached) Residential (Detached) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park $729 $511 $1,895 $5,830 $2,915 $1,384 Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems Residential (Attached) Residential (Detached) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park $109 $77 $286 $878 $439 $209 Park and Recreation Improvements Residential (Attached) Residential (Detached) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park $1,611 $1,209 $0 $o $0 $0 Corporate Facilities Residential (Attached) Residential (Detached) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park $222 $118 $98 $245 $137 $81 FireProtection Facilities Residential (Attached) Residential (Detached) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park $55 $42 $29 $46 $39 $33 1/ Land use is determined based on the categories in the Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan. 2/ Fees for residential development are calculated per dwelling unit. Fees for residential development are calculated per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. R: IKUHNSA IDIF11101700.RES 6 04/I/97 Conlponent Type of l.and Use Amount of Fee Per Unit Libraries TOTAL DEVEII)Pl~ENT IMPACT FEE PER Residential (Attached) Residential (Detached) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park Residential (Attached) Residential (Detached) Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park $208 $156 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,934 $2,114 $2,3O8 $6,999 $3,531 $1,707 R:IKUHNSAIDII~ 1101700. RES 7 o4/1/97 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY Prepared by: David M. Griffith & Associates, Lid 4320 Aubttrn Blvd. Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 (916) 485-8~02 A CKNO WLEDGEMENT$ CITY COUNCIL Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor Ronald H. Roberts, Mayor Pro Tempore Steven J. Ford, Councilmember Karel F. Lindemarts, Councilmember Jeffrey E. Stone, Councilmember CITY MANAGER Ronald E. Bradley ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Mary Jane McLarney CITY STAFF Building and Safety Department Tony Ehno, Chief Building Official Heida Osvold, Community Development Technician Community Development Department Gary Thomhill~ Community Development Director Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer, Senior Planner Community Services Department Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services Finance Department Genie Roberts, Director of Finance Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst Public Works Department Ioe Kicalq Director of Public Works/City Engineer Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Engineer Ron Parks, Principal Engineer, Land Development Ci.ty of Temecula - Development Impact Fee $tud. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary C. D. E. Organization of the Report Facilities Addressed in this Report Development Projections Impact Fee Analysis Implementation Section 1 - Introduction B. C. D. E. F. G. Legal Background Purpose of the Fees Use of the Fees Reasonable Relationship Requirement Impact Fee Methodology Facilities to be Addressed Relationship to the General Plan Section 2 - Land Use and Development Potential B. C. D. Background and Setting Study Area and Time Frame Measures of Development Existing and Forecasted Development Section 3 - Street System Impact Fees B. C. D. E. Service Area and Time Frame Level of Service Demand Variable Facility Needs Impact Fee Calculation Section 4 - Park and Recreation Impact Fees B. C. D. E. Service Area and Time Frame Level of Service Demand Variable Facility Needs Impact Fee Calculation ES-i ES-1 ES-2 ES-2 ES-4 1-1 1-3 I-3 1-4 1-5 1-8 1-8 2-t 2-2 2-2 2-3 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-4 4-1 4-1 4-3 4-4 4-4 danuao' 8, 1996 David 31. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page i City ofTemecula - Development Impact Fee Siu .dv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section 5 - Corporate Facilities Impact Fees B. C. D. E. Service Area and Time Frame Level of Service Demand Variable Facility Needs Impact Fee Calculation Section 6 - Fire Protection Impact Fees B. C. D. E. Service Area and Time Frame Level of Service Demand Variable Facility Needs Impact Fee Calculation Section 7 - Library Impact Fees B. C. D. E. Service Area and Time Frame Level of Service Demand Variable Facility Needs Impact Fee Calculation Section 8 - Summary of Recommended Impact Fees Section 9 - Implementation A. Adoption B Administration C. Reporting and Updates D. Training 5-1 5ol 5-2 5-5 5-6 6-I 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-4 7-1 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-2 9-1 9-1 9-4 9-5 .farotar. l/8. 1996 David~[l. Griffith & ,4ssociates, Ltd. Page ii City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE S UMMAR Y This report was prepared for the City of Temecula by David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. It is intended to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (commonly known as "AB 1600"), as well as other legal requirements bearing on the establishment and impo- sition of development impact fees. A. ORGANIZATION OF TItE REPORT Section 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses methods of calculating the fees and legal requirements for establishing and imposing them. Section 2 contains informa- tion on existing and projected land use and development in Temecula, in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Sections 3 through 7 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify facilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 8 summarizes the impact fees calcu- lated in previous sections, and Section 9 recommends procedures for implementing an impact fee program, and addresses administration, reporting and updates, and training. B. FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT Five types of public facilities are covered by this report. with the report sections in which they are addressed. Those facilities are listed below, along Section 3 - Street System Improvements Section 4 - Parks and Recreation Improvements Section 5 - Corporate Facilities Section 6 - Fire Protection Facilities Section 7 - Libraries Revised Janua .ry 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page ES-I City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development expected to occur in Temecula from 1995 to build out of the City and its sphere of influence, un- der the current General Plan. Estimated development potential of the study area is based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. As shown in Section 2 of the report, Temecula has the potential to grow from a population of about 40,000 currently, to over 200,000 at build out. Em- ployment could grow by an even larger factor if all land in the study area is developed according to current plans. D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS Each type of facility addressed in this report was analyzed individually. The relationship between development and the need for additional facilities was quantified in a way that allows impact fees to be calculated for various categories of development. In each case, a specific, measurable at- tribute of development was used to represent the demand for additional capital facilities. Street System Improvements. The impact fee for transportation improvements was based on estimated costs for street improvements, interchanges, and overcrossings. A separate impact fee for traffic signals was also calculated. The estimated cost of all street system improvements re- lated to future development exceeds $155,000,000. The recommended impact fee rate was calcu- lated as a cost per peak hour vehicle trip. Recommended street system impact fees are shown in Table ES-l, and in Sections 3 and 8 of this report. Park and Recreation Improvements. The impact fee for park and recreation improvements was based on the cost of facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service in terms of devel- oped acres of park land, and investment in recreation facilities, per capita. The proposed impact fees, as shown in Table ES-1 and Sections 4 and 8, are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee-in-lieu requirements under the Quimby Act. Land costs were not included in the fee calculations. Revised January 17, 1997 David.~. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page ES-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Corporate Facilities. Corporate facilities include City Hall and the maintenance facility. New facilities for which money is currently budgeted were treated as existing for purposes of the im- pact fee analysis. Recommended fees were based on the estimated cost of facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service. Those fees are shown in Table ES-1 and Sections 5 and 8. Fire Protection Facilities. The impact fee for fire protection facilities was calculated by allocat- ing the cost of two future fire stations to all future development in the study area on a per acre ba- sis. Cost allocations were weighted by development type to reflect the difference in service levels for "heavy urban" and "urban" classes of development as shown in the Fire Protection Master Plan. The analysis shows that future development creates a need for 4.8 fire stations. However, since all but two of the necessary fire stations have akeady been constructed, only those two sta- tions were considered in calculating the impact fees. Recommended impact fees for fire protec- tion facilities are shown in Table ES-l, and in Sections 6 and 8 of this report. Libraries. The impact fee for libraries was based on the cost of facilities needed to maintain the existing service level provided by the Riverside County Library District. The proposed impact fees are shown in Table ES-1 and Sections 7 and 8. Table ES-1 Impact Fee Summary i.:'con, ::i" I" .: Xyp~ .' !'..IJn:i.~.' ":--" .~'iii~r."....$.ign.a[. R~r. ;.( .Viiell F~¢il. !" l~ati!'. 1~i4 lJnit i. ' Residential. Detached DU: ! $729 ~ $109 Sl.611 i $222 $55 ' $208 . $2,934 ' Residential, Attached DU $511 $77 $1,209 $ I 18 $42 $156 $2,114 Office KSF 2 $1,895 $286 -- $ 98 $29 -- $2,308 Retail Commercial KSF $5,830 $878 -- $245 $46 -- $6,999 Service Commercial KSF $2,915 $439 -- $137 $39 -- $3,531 Business Park KSF $1,384 $209 - $ 81 $33 - $1,707 1 DU = Dwelling Unit 2 KSF = 1,000 goss square feet of building area. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page ES-3 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table ES-1 on the previous page is identical to Table 8-2 in Section 8 of this report. It summa- rizes the impact fees recommended in this report by facility type and development category. The fees shown in that table have been adjusted slightly to include the cost of preparing this study. Additional detail is provided in the sections of the report dealing with individual facility types. E. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues. Section 9 of this report points out many. practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact 'fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding require- ments, updating of fees, and staff training. From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made regarding the share of facility costs to be funded by impact fees, and other sources of funding to be used for those facilities not funded by the fees. The fees calculated in this report are intended to recover the full cost of providing these five types of facilities to future development in the City. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. In that event, the City should identify the specific facilities that will by funded by impact fees, and the share of cost to be recovered through the fees. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page ES-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee St~ .dv SECTION 1 INTR OD UCTION The City of Temecula has retained David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. (DMG) to analyze the capital cost of providing certain public facilities needed to support future development in the City, and to recommend a schedule of development impact fees based on that analysis. The results of our study are contained in this report. The methods used to calculate fees in this study are based on relevant requirements of the U.S. Constitution, as well as California Government Code Sec- tions 66000 et seq. Impact fees are charges imposed by government on development projects to mitigate the addi- tional demands they place on infrastructure and public facilities. The use of development impact fees has become widespread in California over the past ten years. Local government budgets have increasingly been squeezed by tax limitations and a loss of federal and state financial assistance, and many communities are requiring developers to pay a larger share of the capital cost for development-related public facilities. California law does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees can be charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or operating costs (see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently, the fees recommended in this report are based on facility costs only. A. LEGAL BACKGROUND The legal authority to impose fees on development may be specifically granted by statute, or it may be found in the broad police power exercised by local governments under most state consti- tutions. California's impact fee statutes do not contain specific enabling language, so cities and counties in this state depend on the police power for their authority to levy such fees. 1. Constitutional Considerations. Like all exactions on development, impact fees are subject to constitutional limitations. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of Janua .ry 8, 1996 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 1-I City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee StUdy development impact fees as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided they meet certain standards. Those standards are intended to insure, among other things, that impact fees do not violate Fitih Amendment limitations on the taking of private property. To be constitutionally valid, development regulations must advance a legitimate governmental in- terest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the provision of adequate public facilities so that development does not cause deterioration in the quality of essential public services. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demon- strate an "essential nexus" between such an exaction and the govemment's legitimate interest. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a recent case (Dolan v. City of Ti- gard 1994), the Court made clear that an agency also must show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. It should be noted that Dolan is less signifi- cant for impact fees than for other types of exactions (e.g. mandatory dedication of land) because proportionality is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees, and legal scholars are debating the application of Dolan to fee payments. 2. California Law. In 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment, in- crease and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project ap- proval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ...."Public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public improve- ments, public services and community amenities." These requirements are found in the Govern- ment Code, beginning with Section 66000, and are commonly known as "AB 1600" requirements, after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated. The statute establishes procedures for adopting and justifying impact fees. It also includes restric- tions on the collection and expenditure of fees, and a provision requiring the refund of fees which remain unspent after five years, unless a finding of continued need can be made. Annual reporting of activity in impact fee accounts is also required. Janua .rv 8, 1996 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 1-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study To satisfy the requirements of Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing im- pact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Those requirements are discussed in detail below. B. PURPOSE OF THE FEES The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees recommended in this study is to fund the construction of certain capital improvements which are identified in this re- port. Those improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in Teme- cula, and to prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional develop- ment if impact fee revenues were not available to fund those improvements. C. USE OF TIlE FEES If a fee subject to Government Code Section 66001 is used to finance public facilkies, those facili- ties must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not man- datory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. This report is intended to fulfill that requirement. Specific facilities used to calcu- late impact fees in this study are identified in subsequent sections of the report. January 8, 1996 David 3/l. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 1-3 Ci.ty of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Stu' .dv D. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT As discussed above, Government Code Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provi- sions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between: [ 1 ] the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; [2] the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, [3] the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements closely resemble the "benefit," "impact," and "proportionality" elements, respectively, of the nexus standard which has evolved in the courts to test the validity of development exactions. In our opinion, "reasonable relationship" as defined by these requirements is identical to "nexus" as a practical matter. We will use the nexus terminol- ogy in this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methods used to calculate im- pact fees in this study are intended to satisfy either formulation. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. 1. Impact Relationship. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government If the supply of facilities is not in- creased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality of public services for the entire community deteriorates. The improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in Temecula are identified in subsequent sections of this report. The need for those improvements is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between development and the demand for various type of fa- cilities, based on applicable level of service standards. 2. Benefit Relationship. A reasonable benefit relationship requires that fee revenues are ex- pended to provide the facilities for which they are collected, and that those facilities are available Janua.rv 8, 1996 Dayid MS. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 1-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee StUdy to serve the development on which the fees are imposed. Nothing in the law requires that facili- ties paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees. However, the location of facilities relative to the developments they are intended to serve has been an issue in some cases. Statutory procedures governing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues and the requirement for refunding of fees not expended within certain time limits, are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. 3. Proportionality Relationship. A reasonable proportionality relationship must be established through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various types of facilities and catego- ries of development. As a practical matter, compliance with both statute and case law requires an agency to show that impact fees will be used to pay for capital facilities needed to serve new de- velopment, and that the amount charged to different types of development is fairly related to the demands placed on public facilities. It is well-established that impact fees may not be used to mitigate pre-existing deficiencies in pub- lic facilities, to subsidize level-of-service improvements for the existing community or to solve problems not created by the development paying the fee. The Nollan decision reinforced the prin- ciple that development exactions, including impact fees, may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. Methods of allocating facility costs and calculating fees which meet the proportionality requirement are discussed below. E. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY In general, any one of sever~ approaches may be used in calculating impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends on the service characteristics of the facility being addressed and the availability of information on facility plans and future development. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable. Reduced to its simplest elements, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of needed improvements, and allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. But in practice, impact fee studies must deal with imperfect information danuary 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 1-5 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study and uncertainty about future events, and that introduces a variety of complications. Below we discuss three approaches to calculating impact fees, and their applicability to certain situations. 1. Plan-based Impact Fees. This method is used where the estimated costs for a specified set of improvements (facility plan) are being allocated to all development represented by a specified land use plan. Costs are allocated in proportion to the relative intensity of demand represented by each type of development. This method assumes that the entire service capacity of the planned fa- cilities will be absorbed by projected development, or that excess capacity is necessarily related to serving future development. For example, it may be necessary to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but some capacity may remain unused after that devel- opment occurs. The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where it is difficult to measure the actual service consumed by development--for example, with respect to administra- tive and law enforcement facilities. It is also useful for facilities such as streets, where capacity cannot be matched closely to demand. The plan-based approach is inflexible in the sense that it is based on the relationship between a particular facility plan and a particular land use plan. Consequently, if the land use plan changes significantly, the fees may have to be recalculated. Plan-based fee calculations can be done in two ways. The basic method results directly in fees per unit of development. However, it is also pos- sible to produce fees per unit of demand, which can then be converted to fees per unit ofdevelop- menr When stated in terms of demand units, plan-based fees take the same form as capacity-based fees. 2. Capacity-based Impact Fees. This method is used where the cost and capacity of a facility or system are known, and the amount of capacity used by a particular quantity of development can be measured or estimated. The amount of development to be served is not used to calculate the fee, so this method is not dependent on a land use plan or development projections. This type of fee is established as a rate, or cost per unit of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development--provided that adequate capacity remains uncommitted. Using this January 8, 1996 David~ Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 1-6 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. most commonly used for water and wastewater systems. Capacity-based fees are To calculate a capacity-based impact fee rate per unit of demand, facility cost is divided by facility capacity. To apply the rate to a development project, or to produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of capacity needed to serve some quantity of development. 3. Standard-based Impact Fees. This approach is related to the capacity-based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit of demand. With the standard-based approach, costs are initially determined on a generic unit-cost basis, and then applied to development ac- cording to a standard that sets the amount of capacity to be made available per unit of develop- ment. This approach differs from the capacity-based approach which typically determines unit cost by dividing the cost of a planned or actual facility by its capacity. The standard-driven method is useful where facility need is defined in terms of a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description. It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. Also, the cost per acre for a certain type of park can usually be estimated without knowing the size of a particular park or the total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for buildings such as libraries or ad- ministrative offices, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a build- ing is actually designed. One advantage of this approach is that a fee can be established withodt committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can be adjusted based on the amount of de- velopment that actually occurs, avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that this method is not well suited to specialized recreation facilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements. January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 1-7 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 2 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Land use, demographics and development potential, both existing and projected, must be analyzed in the course of preparing an impact fee program. This section of the report organizes and corre- lates information on existing and projected development to provide a basis for the impact fee analysis in subsequent sections of the report. That information will be used to define levels of service, to project public facilities needs, and to allocate the cost of new capital facilities between existing and future development, and among various types of new development. Information on existing residential land use in Temecula is taken from a January, 1995 Keport (E-5) prepared by the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. Information on existing non-residential land use, is based on the Land Use Element of the 1993 City of Teme- cula General Plan, which was updated using data from building permit records provided by the City. Projections ofbuildout development were taken from the Land Use Element. A. BACKGROUND AND SETTING The City of Temecula was incorporated in 1989. It is located in the fast-developing Southwestern corner of Riverside County along the 1-15 Freeway, midway between Riverside and San Diego. Nearby communities are Murrieta and Lake Elsinore. The City's boundaries encompass the his- torical town of Temecula, and much of the 87,000-acre planned community of Rancho California which began development in the late 1960's. Temecula's population has grown rapidly in recent years, averaging 8.5% per year since the 1990 Census. The January, 1995, population is approximately 40,000. During the same time frame, al- most 1.5 million square feet of new commercial, office, and business park space has been con- structed in the City, bringing the total to more than nine million square feet. Development anticipated in the General Plan for the City and its Sphere of Influence is expected to support a Janua.ry 8, 1996 DavidM. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 2-1 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee StUdy total population of 200,000, and over 60 million square feet of commercial, office, and business park development. B. STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME The analysis in this study addresses all development expected from the present time to buildout of future development contemplated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City and its Sphere of Influence. Development projections used in this study do not include the Environ- mental Study Area defined in the Land Use Element. No rate of development or buildout date is assumed in this study. C. MEASURES OF DEVELOPMENT To calculate impact fees for a particular type of public facility, the amount of development to be served must be measured in a way that reasonably reflects the impact that development will have on that type of facility. Attributes of development such as population and trip generation will be used in the impact fee analysis to represent demand for certain facilities, and as a yardstick to de- termine service levels for various types of facilities. This section of the report establishes the amount of existing and projected development in Temecula in terms of certain basic attributes in- cluding dwelling units and population (for residential land uses), building area and employment (for non-residential land uses), and acreage and peak hour trip generation for all land uses. The use of those attributes in the impact fee analysis is discussed briefly below. 1. Dwelling Units and Population. Residential development is normally measured in terms of acreage, dwelling units, and population. The average number of dwelling units per acre for a par- ticular type of residential development is referred to as its "density." For future development, population is estimated by applying a persons-per-unit factor to the number of additional dwelling units expected in each residential land use category. For certain public facilities, such as parks and libraries, population alone is a useful measure of service demand, and can be used in setting service levels and allocating facility costs. But for January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 2-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study many public facilities, resident population accounts for only a portion of demand, and does not, by itself, represent the impact of all development on those facilities. Since population is directly re- lated to housing, impact fees based on population alone apply to residential development only. 2. Building Area and Employment. Non-residential (commercial and industrial) development is typically measured in terms of acreage, building area, and employment. The relationship be- tween acreage and building area is defined by an average "floor area ratio" which varies by land use category. The number of employees related to non-residential development is estimated by applying an employment density factor to either acreage or building area. Where employment is used in impact fee calculations, it is usually combined with resident population to construct a "service population" for certain types of facilities. That method is not used in this study. 3. Trip Generation. The number of vehicle trips generated by development is commonly used as the basis for allocating road improvement costs to various types of development. This measure applies to all types of development. In this study, we use peak hour trips, rather than average daily trips, for allocating road improvement costs. Peak hour trips relate more directly to the need for street capacity. The number of peak hour trips related to a particular development is esti- mated by applying standard trip generation factors to ~nits of development, such as acres, dwell- ing units, or square feet of building area. D. EXISTING AND FORECASTED DEVELOPMENT Summaries of existing and forecasted development by land use type are presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-3. Residential development is tabulated in two categories: "detached" and "attached." The detached residential category includes development classified as hillside, very low density, low density, and low-medium density in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The at- tached residential category includes development classified as medium density and high density. Existing residential development in Table 2-1 is based on January, 1995 Department of Finance estimates. Build out totals in Table 2-3 are from the General Plan, and Table 2-2 shows potential new development from 1995 through buildout of the current City and its sphere of influence. January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 2-3 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-1 Existing Development January, 1995 !.amt Devlpd No. of Unit PoplEmpl] Popu- Employ-i Pk T~p' Pe~ lit Residen~, A~ched 310 3,718 DU: 2.40 8,923 0.70 2,603 O~ce 147 2,556 KSF: 3.50 8,946 2.60 6,646 Re~l Co~erci~ 246 2,675 KSF s 2.00 5,349 8.00 21,397 Semce Co~erci~ 37 485 KSF ~ 1.50 727 4.00 1,939 B~iness P~k 250 3,818 KSF: 3.00 11,453 1.90 7,253 9.534 KSF : . Notes: Totals may not equal the sum of the column entries due to rounding. i Existing dwelling umts based on Department of Finance 1995 estimates. Existing non-residential development is based on a 1991 land use survey updated by the City using building permit data. Future development is based on the Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan. 2 Population forecasts assume 100% occupancy and are based on personsflDU from 1990 census: 3 Employment estimates based on estimated employment densities provided by SCAG. n Peak hour trip rates based on San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) TraJfic Generators manual. 5 DU = Dwelling Unit; KSF = 1,000 Square Feet Gross Bldg. Area Existing population, as shown in Table 2-1, is also based on Department of Finance estimates for January, 1995. Projections of future population are derived by applying a persons-per-dwelling unit factor from the 1990 census to buildout dwelling unit projections in each of the two residen- tial development categories. It is important to note that the population projections used in this study assume full occupancy (i.e., a zero vacancy rate) for all dwelling units. That assumption re- flects the fact that once a dwelling unit is approved, the City is committed to provide public serv- ices to its occupants. Non-residential development is tabulated in four categories: "office," "retail commercial," "service commercial," and "business park." The retail commercial category incorporates the neighborhood commercial, community commercial, and highway/tourist commercial uses from the Land Use Element. Other non-residential categories correspond to those in the Land Use Element. January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 2-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-2 Additional Development Potential 1995 to Build Out .......................................................................... ~'~ ~t,'"". ........~ .......':'"'"'.:: ..............~'"' ':'""~"'"~ .........' .........':'' o,' ' . t, ,d -.. .~ei'~'.': ,lhiits~ "..'Type ~ ,Faetm. s ': '!atton~'~; merit~ ,:' Feetors ~ 'Trigs~ , :.' ,2',.. :. · · '. .... ,', '., ..' '., ~ . 2- . Residential, Detached 15,501 35,162 DU ~ 3.20 112,518 1.00 Residential, Attached 1,618 19,260 DU ~ 2.40 46,224 0.70 Office 394 6,870 KSF ~ 3.50 24,046 2.60 Retail Commercial 665 7,246 KSF ~ 2.00 14,492 8.00 Service Commercial 409 5,344 KSF ~ 1.50 8,015 4.00 Business Park 2,366 36,066 KSF ~ 3.00 108,198 1.90 'I'()T~,I.S I ' ,n . 54,422! I}l i ': 158.7421 154.=51 l ~0.).,4 i : · . .. 5.n.526 KSF ~ 35,162 13,482 17,863 57,970 21,374 68,525 214.3-6 I Note: For footnotes, see Table 2-1. Estimates of currein employmere, and projections of future employment, related to non-residential land use categories, are based on average employment density factors (e.g. employees per thou- sand square feet of building area) provided by the Southern California Association of Govern- ments (SCAG). Current and projected employmere in Temecula have been estimated by applying estimated floor area ratios, along with the SCAG employment density factors, to current and pro- jected acres of non-residemial developmere in the study area by land use category. Table 2-3 Projected Total Development Residential, Detached 20,111' 45,534 DU ~ Residential, Attached 1,928 22,978 DU ~ Office 541 9,426 KSF ~ Retail Commercial 911 9,921 KSF ~ Senrice Commercial 446 5,828 KSF ~ Business Park 2,616 39,884 KSF ~ I'()T ~.I.S I 26.453 68.51-~ i I11' , 65.0.~9 [ K~F at Build Out i ;IJntt' : "' ~ '~ ~ "' : .... - .... , ,~.': ..... ,. , ,= , 3.20 145,709 2.40 55,147 3.50 32,992 2.00 19,842 1.50 8,742 3.00 ! 19,651 181 .=42' '= 1.00 45,534 0.70 16,085 2.60 24,509 8.00 79,366 4.00 23,313 1.90 75,779 264.5~: Note: For footnotes, see Table 2-1. January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 2-5 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee St'udy Trip generation figures shown in Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 are for the p.m. peak hour rather than for a 24-hour period. Rates shown in those tables are adapted from the San Diego Association of Govern- ments (SANDAG) publication "Traffic Generators." The rates used in this study are intended to represent average trip generation for all uses in a particular land use category. Rates for commercial land uses have been adjusted to reflect pass-by trips as recommended in "Traffic Generators." Residential Units ....... ~1 50 ~ 40 ~-.,. la Existing [] Added ........... _2o o Detached Attached Development Type Figure 2-A Charts on this page illustrate existing and planned development as shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Figure 2-A shows existing and planned residential development in terms of dwelling units by type of development. Figure 2-B shows existing and planned non-residential development in terms of millions of square feet for each type of development. The sum of the existing and planned devel- Non-Residential Building Area 40 32 .................t [] Existing E4 Added ..... ,, ,,~,~ ~, 0 ~ .... Offi~ Retail Seroice Bus Park ~velopmentType opment is indicated by the total heights of the bars on the charts, and represents the full buildout poten- tial of the City and its sphere of influence as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The information on existing and potential develop- ment in Temecula will be used in subsequent sections of this report as a basis for establishing service levels and allocating costs to calculate impact fees. Figure 2-B danuar. v 8, 1996 David ~[.l. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 2-6 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 3 STREET SYSTEM IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for streets and related improvements required to serve future development in Temecula. The City is served by a hierarchy of highways including the 1-15 freeway, two segments of State Route 79, and a network of roads ranging from urban arterial highways to local streets. As the City grows, that network must be expanded to carry additional traffic. The Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan indicates the backbone street system that ultimately will be required to serve the study area, i.e., the City and its sphere of influence. A. SERVICE AREA AND T1ME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section include all urban arterial, arterial, major, and secondary highways, as well as principal collector streets. Local and collector streets are not included, on the assumption that they are typically constructed as part of a development project and need not be funded by impact fees. Because the types of streets considered in this section serve large areas of development, and also because much of the City's traffic flows to and from the I-15 freeway and adjacent commercial and business park development, the entire study area is considered a single service area for purposes of calculating impact fees. Consequently, the fees calculated in this section of the report should be applied to all new development in the study area. The time frame for this analysis is the period needed to complete build out of undeveloped land in the study area. A more specific time frame is not required, because the method used to calculate these impact fees does not depend on the timing of development. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service for streets and intersections is described in terms of traffic flow characteristics. Level of service (LOS) categories range from A to F. LOS A is characterized by freely flowing traffic and no delays, while LOS F is characterized by severe congestion and long delays. The standard adopted in Temecula's Circulation Element is LOS D, which means that the system Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 3-1 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee study should be designed with adequate capacity to accommodate peak period traffic without falling below that level of service. At LOS D, roadways reach the upper limit of stable flow conditions, and traffic volumes approach 90% of capacity. Intersections experience significant congestion, and vehicles may have to wait through more than one cycle at signaliT. ed intersections. C DEMAND VARIABLE Peak hour trip generation is used as the demand variable for calculating impact fees for roadway improvements, traffic sign.als, bridges and interchanges. Trip generation rates for various development types are based the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publication Traj~qc Generators. The rates used here are averages for categories of development. Rates for specific development types within a category may vary from those averages. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The overall street system planned for the study area is described in the Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan. Based on the Circulation Element, the Public Works Department has identified future roadway improvements needed within the City and its sphere of influence, and has determined the share of costfor each project that is related to new development. F,,rility Description Roadways (Sphere) Winchester Rd Interchg Rancho Calif Rd Interchg SR79 / 1-15 Interchg (I) SR79 / 1-15 Interchg (II) Overland Drive Overcross Pala Bridge Total Table 3-1 Street System Improvement Needs ,,' 'l:ncili~ :',~iUnfunded ,i,% l:uture ""~"' ' ""' ' .._' Inspect" ,~,Cora, ' 'C'~'a ~' ~' '"~ $8~' 2q).(,I I $.~: 25;) 61l $60,032,100 $60,032,100 100% $4,562,752 $0 50% $5,730,000 $5,130,000 22% $1,200,000 $1,200,000 0% $9,600,000 $9,600,000 100% $13,131,000 $588,441 100% $11,540,911 $10,911 100% $190,047,374 $160,812,063 ' Fee Cost (e)' $60,032,100 $o $1,272,000 $o $9,600,000 $588,441 $155,754,063 ] Cost estimates by City of Temecula Public Works Department. 2 Cost not funded from identified sources. 3 Estimated % of cost attributable to future development. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. ]" lit Trips i !!r Trip if}: : (tO* 214,376 $726.55 4 (e) = (c) x (d) 5 See Table 2-2 6 (g): (e) / (f) Page 3-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee study Costs for street system improvement needs, including roadway improvements, bridges, and interchange improvements are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 also shows costs to be funded by development impact fees, and an average cost per peak hour trip based on the DIF costs and projected additional peak hour trips related to future development in the study area. The costs to be funded by development impact fees, as calculated in Table 3-1, reflect deductions for available funding. That adjustment is made before the percentage attributable to future development is calculated. For that reason, the Winchester Road Interchange will not receive any funding from impact fees, even though 50% of the need is estimated to relate to future development. In other cases, where projects are already funded, the new development share was not determined and is shown as 0%, even though future development will clearly contribute to the need for the improvement. In addition to the street system improvements shown in Table 3-1, additional traffic control systems and traffic signals will be required as a result of expected future development. Table 3-2 lists those improvements, with their costs, and calculates an average cost per peak hour trip using total additional peak hour trips related to future development in the study area. Table 3-2 Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems ,FaeiliLv Total Pk Cost / i'k O~sb-riimtipn "" ~, ' ....'Cost,"'~,'i'": Hour T'riims H'our Trip (a) ,' ¢b) i (e) ' (a) '' ............................................................................................................ .. (..:l:;i,q!ci ',, [:~::;la:'.~ i9, ( .::::::l.':,c:' e~ I:,:ur,,l: 'T'.'alli-" S,!:n;i.s, '. Relocate Existing Traffic Signal (1) Traffic Signal Interconnect System New Traffic Signals (146) Total $ I.W,' $80,000 $1,000,000 $21,900,000 $23,460,000 214~76 $109.43 Cost estimates by City of Temecula Public Works Department. See Table 2-2. (d) = (b) / (c) Revised January 17, 1997 David M;. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 3-3 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study E. 1MPACT FEE CALCULATION Table 3-3 shows the calculation of a basic street system impact fee per unit of development for each land use type. That calculation is based on the cost per peak hour trip from Table 3-1 and the estimated peak hour trips per unit of development from Table 2-2. Table 3-3 Standardized Impact Fees for Street System Improvements i Land Use ;, ,, ,,, :Devl ,, ..i.i'~t~.!~k i l)k.llour [ Cost I Pk Type "i ' ':.Units ![~i~Td~)"':i;!"iips/Uniiiltour Trip '. .................'"". ......,(_9...:i,! IL:q::.len::::l I)e:~c!:ec! :)l, $726 nn '. ":0 .%-;- I~.'~::J'~':,l';:l A.:I:?!I(:O :')[.' $'2(': 44 :l-'.i %4 ..,,; Office KSF $726.55 2.60 $1,889 Retail Commercial KSF $726.55 8.00 $5,812 Service Commercial KSF $726.55 4.00 $2,906 Business Park KSF $726.55 1.90 $1,380 See Table 3-1. 2 See Table 2.2 3 (e) = (c) x (d) Table 3-4 shows the calculation of a traffic signal impact fee per unit of development for each land use type. That calculation is based on the cost per peak hour trip from Table 3-2 and the es- timated peak hour trips per unit of development from Table 2-2. Table 3-4 Standardized Impact Fees for Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems " '[,and [Yse" ] 'De¥1'" : Type j U-nits .......... 9) ...................,', ........!b). Rcs::Ja:;t:::l Dc::-.; her Residential, Attached DU Office KSF Retail Commercial KSF Sentice Commercial KSF Business Park KSF · ' Devl Unit , ':.. 27!..I ....... 0.70 2.60 8.00 4.00 1.90 (';ost / Pk [ Fee/ ]four Trip i I)evl Unit .t.d!~. .... !... (..o."'.. $I(~')4~ $1~;9 4'~ $109.43 $76.60 $109.43 $284.52 $109.43 $875.44 $109.43 $437.72 $109.43 $207.92 See Table 2-2. 2 See Table 3°3 3 (e) = (c) x (d) Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 3-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study The City has chosen not to combine the street system impact fees in Table 3-3 and the traffic signal impact fees in Table 3-4. When implemented, they will be treated as separate impact fees. In Section 8, the impact fees calculated in this section will be combined with impact fees for other types of facilities to establish a total impact fee per development unit by land use category. Because of the range of possible land uses within certain development categories used in calculating fees, and the po.ssibility that certain types of development will not fit easily into any category, it may be useful in the administration of impact fees to apply the cost per peak hour trip to specific uses to determine 'the appropriate street impact fee. For example, churches and other non-profit activities do not clearly fit within any of the categories defined here. The SANDAG traffic manual estimates that churches generate 0.7 peak hour trips per thousand square feet. If we multiply 0.7 by the cost per peak hour trip for street system improvements, that calculation (0.7 x $726.55) results in a street improvement impact fee of $509 per thousand square feet of building area. The traffic signal impact fee for a church would be calculated in a similar fashion, multiplying 0.7 by $109.43, resulting in a fee of $77 per thousand square feet. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 3-5 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 4 PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for park and recreation improvements required to serve future development in Temecula. Land for future parks is not covered by these impact fees. The City has already acquired considerable land for future parks, and additional park land will be acquired through required dedication, or fees in lieu of dedication, pursuant to the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477), Impact fees for park and recreation improvements, as calculated in this section, are intended to be imposed in addition to park land dedication, or fee-in-lieu, requirements imposed under 'the provisions of the Quimby Act. A. SERVICE AREA AND T1ME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section include both neighborhood and community parks as well as specialized recreation facilities. Functionally, neighborhood parks are intended to serve a specific part of the City while community parks and specialized facilities serve the entire City. However, because the impact fees calculated in this section are based on citywide level-of-service standards for parks and recreation facilities, the impact fees will be calculated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of the City. Service area standards contained in Temecula's Parks and Recreation Master Plan should be followed to ensure that all areas of the City benefit from the parks developed using those impact fees. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate these impact fees does not depend on the timing of development. Furthermore, since the fees are calculated in terms of per capita costs, it is not necessary in this analysis to establish the total amount of development to be served. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees for park and recreation improvements is based on existing levels of service in Temecula. Table 4-1 lists the City's existing parks and specialized recreation facilities. It should be noted that some parks currently under development January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 4-1 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study are treated as existing facilities because funds have already been appropriated to improve those facilities. Table 4-1 Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities ,, Facility , ~',:'. ,,;-- Ae,reage or ............ .... 22'.....L %eighlmrhoo(I;Mini Parks Sam ;ixcks .Mor,u:ne:c C;'..i~e Ara!:on Park !1.:1111;I VI:Ifi ?:Irk !);:.;.mu: del Sol ?:ilk .K.':11 i[tf:l~:~.'l.'dl %!c;~:;.~r~.'I~ P;'..rh John Magee ?ark Riverton Park Loma Linda Pazk Nicolas Road Park Butterfield Stage Park Voorbttrg Park Nakayama Park Iaformation Center Duck Pond Subtotal Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Raacho California Sports Park Pala Commumty Park ]V~rgarita Community Park Temectfia Middle School Site Subtotal Community Parks Recreation Facilities Community Recreation Center Subtotal Recreation Facilities ',' 25 ". '.' 25 9 5O 1.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.25 0.25 5.00 46.50 68.00 10.00 10.00 2.67 90.67 $1,770,000 4 $1,770,000 Portion currently under development. Currently under development. Acreage adjuste~t because the City is funding only a portion of improvements. Actual size = 14 acres. Amount shown is City's equity m the facility, defined as cost less outstanding debt. The existing level of service for both neighborhood and community parks in Temecula will be defined in terms of acres of existing developed park land per capita. That standard will then be converted into a cost per capita using an average development cost of $125,000 per acre for January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 4-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study neighborhood parks and $150,000 per acre for community parks. Level of service for recreation facilities will be defined directly in terms of the City's equity per capita for existing facilities. Table 4-2 Existing Level of Service - Parks ~,:, ", ".'.~d ,. ~:'~. ':,' ' ·,, ::-": ."! ..... ':.. '.~ .',~.~, .?": · ~'~¢~.~' ~x ~. '/'" 'i (a) ~ .....~ r~ ~,,.~.. ~. ~T~. ]e~'. ..... Neighborhood Parks ' 46.-~0 42,114 I I 4a, ]4 See Table 4-1. 2 See Table 2-1. Cost estimates by City of Temecula Community Services District. Table 4-2, above, shows how the existing level of service for parks in Temecula is established in terms of cost per capita. Table 4-3, below, presents a similar calculation for recreation facilities. It can be seen from these tables that the total cost per capita for all existing park and recreation improvements comes to $502.03. Table 4-3 Existing Level of Service - Recreation Facilities See Table 4-1. 2 See Table 2-I. C. DEMAND VARIABLE Population is used in this section to represent development in establishing the level of service for parks. Thus, in effect, it has already been selected as the demand variable for calculating park impact fees. danua .rv 8, 1996 David,S. Griffith & Associates, Ltd Page 4-3 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee StUdy D. FACILITYNEEDS The cost for park and recreation facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service has been established above on a per capita basis. Impact fees can be based on that per-capita cost, without projecting the total quantity of development to be served, or the total cost of facilities to be provided. E. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The per-capita facility cost established above is, in reality, an impact fee rate. In Table 4-4, that rate will be converted into standardized impact fees by applying per capita costs to each type of residential development, based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit. Impact fees for park and recreation improvements will not be charged to non-residential development. Although the standardized fees shown in Table 4-4 are administratively convenient, and can be used for most development projects, we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per capita as shown in Table 4-4. That rate provides a basis for tailoring impact fees to fit individual development projects, if they vary significantly from the typical project characteristics used to standardize the fees. Table 4-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Park and Recreation Improvements T.'pe I Residential, Attached I D~ve!!ing unit ' 'per Capita' I Dwelling, Unit 2.40 I $502.03 $1a04.87 See Table 2-1. 2 See Tables 4-2 and 4-3. January 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 4-4 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 5 CORPORA TE FACILITIES IMPACT FEES As is the case with other City facilities, Temecula's City Hall and Maintenance Yard will have to be expanded to accommodate increases in service demand as the City grows. This section of the report calculates impact fees for additional corporate facilities that will be needed to serve new development. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The costs to be recovered through impact fees are for corporate facilities needed to serve all fu- ture development contemplated in the Land Use Element. Since City Hall and the maintenance yard serve all of Temecula, the entire City will be treated as a single service area for those facilities. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE It is self-evident that the need for administrative facilities, as with other kinds of public facilities, generally increases as a City grows. However, the relationship between specific types of develop- ment and the need for space in administrative facilities is complex and cannot be measured di- rectly. Consequently, no single attribute of development neatly represents the need for space in such facilities. Temecula's existing City Hall houses all City departments, and supports virtually every service provided by the City. For purposes of this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of space in Temecula's existing City Hall (approximately 20,000 square feet) represents the City's current need for administrative space. That assumption is reinforced by the fact that the City is currently purchasing a larger building (approximately 28,000 square feet) to meet space require- ments that are increasing as a result of rapid development. Jat?tta.rv 8, 1996 Dm,id,[l. Griffith & .4ssociates. Ltd. Page 5-1 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study In this study, projections of future City Hall space needs related to new development will be based on the relationship between existing development and existing facilities. In other words, the cur- rent level of service will be used as the standard for determining future needs. At present, the City leases a maintenance facility. However, a new maintenance yard is scheduled for construction in the current fiscal year, and funds have been budgeted for that purpose. This study will treat that facility as existing. As in the case of City Hall, projections of future mainte- nance facility needs related to new development will be based on the relationship between existing development and the facility.which is about to be constructed. The City estimates that 25% of the new maintenance facility will represent oversizing to meet the needs of future development. Con- sequently, 75% of the facility cost will be attributed to existing development. C. DEMAND VARIABLES Because of the variety of services housed in City Hall, no single demand variable is very useful in representing the relationship between development and the need for space in City Hall. Conse- quently, this study will use multiple demand variables to allocate City Hall facility costs to devel- opment. Costs will be apportioned to several major functions, and the share attributed to each function will be allocated to development using an appropriate demand variable. A similar ap- proach will be used in allocating maintenance facility costs. City departments can be divided into line functions and support functions, according to their pri- mary purpose. Line departments, such as Public Works, serve development directly. Support de- partments, such as Finance, 'support development indirectly, by providing internal services to line departments. The approach used here is to segment City Hall facility costs according to the per- centage of existing City Hall space occupied by major line functions, and then to allocate shares of total facility cost based on the relationship of those functions to existing development. Costs for the Maintenance Facility will be allocated in two segments representing shares of the facility de- voted to street maintenance and to landscape maintenance. January 8. 1996 Dm,idM. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 5-2 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study City Hall. Table 5-1 shows the City Hall space occupied by various departments in terms of square feet, and as a percentage of total space. It also shows the percentage occupied by each line department as a percentage of' the space occupied by all line departments. The latter break- down, which is shown in the right hand column, represents the share of overall building area at- tributable to each of the major line functions, if' all unassigned and support department space is allocated to the line departments in proportion to the space they occupy. When impact fees are calculated, City Hall costs will be segmented according to those percentages, and each segment will be allocated to development in a way that reasonably represents the relationship between de- velopment and a particular line function. Table 5-1 City Hall Space Analysis i % of Department SqFt i Total Supptnl F'unctimls Cid, Clerk 1,383 6.9% Financ~o~ation Systems/Suppo~ Svcs 2,083 10.4% Subtotal 5,702 28.4% Line Functions Planning 2.355 l 1.8% Building and S~eW~ire D~panment 1,765 8.8% Public Work~nginee~ng 2,816 14.1% CommuniW Se~ices 2.648 13.3% Subtotal 9~84 48.0% Unassigned Space 4,700 23.5% City Hall Total 19,986 100.0% 'Line Depts i Line 'Depts ]. 24.6% 4,917 18.4% 3,677 29.4% 5,876 27.6% 5,516 100.0% 19,986 0% 0 100.0% 19,986 Source: City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Note: Due to rounding, some columns may not add precisely to indicated total. In order to quantify the relationship between development and the line functions listed in Table 5-1, an appropriate demand variable must be selected for each function. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development used in allocation formulas to represent facility needs cre- ated by development. danuar. v 8. 1996 David A¥. Griffith & .4ssociates, Ltd. Page 5-3 City ofTemecula - Development Impact Fee Stu .dv For some public facilities such as water and sewer systems, users are physically connected to the system, and the service provided to a particular development can be measured. As a result, the relationship between development and the need for additional facilities can be measured directly. However, the nature and variety of the services provided by departments located in City Hall mean they cannot be measured or attributed so readily. As a result, the demand variables used to allocate City Hall costs are based on a qualitative assessment of the relative impacts of various types of development on the primary services provided by each line function. For example, since much of the work performed by Public Works and Engineering is related to streets and traffic control, the demand variable selected to represent that function is trip generation. Thus, the share of City Hall facility costs assigned to Public Works and Engineering is allocated to various types of development as a function of their trip generation rates. Similar logic applies to the selection of demand variables for the other functions addressed here. The Community Services function is primarily involved in the provision of parks and recreation services. Since the need for those services is largely determined by resident population, projec- tions of space needs for Community Services are based on population growth. For Building and Safety, and Planning, we have projected City Hall space needs based on square feet of new con- struction, and newly developed acreage, respectively. Table 5-2 Demand Variables - Corporate Facility Segments Function Cm [l:lll ~Platmmg. 24 Ci.ty Hall (Building and SafebTFire, 18.4%) City Hall (Public Works/Engineering,29.4%) Ci.ty Hall (Community. Services. 27.6%) Maint Facility. Yard (Street Maint., 60%) Maint Facili .ty (Landscape Maint., 40%) Demand Variable .~crea~ Building Area t Trip Generation Resident Population Trip Generation Resident Population Building area for residential development assumes an average of 1,800 sq. tl. per detached dwelling and 1,000 sq. tt. per attached dwelling. Resident population estimates assume 0% vacancy rate. ~lanua .rv 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 5-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study The demand variable selected for each major line function in City Hall is shown in Table 5-2, along with the percentage of facility cost attributed to that function. Table 5-2 also shows the shares of maintenance facility space occupied by street maintenance and by landscape mainte- nance, and the demand variable to be used in allocating those shares of' maintenance facility costs. Maintenance Facility. The maintenance facility is used primarily to support street and landscape maintenance activities. As shown in Table 5-2, the City estimates that 60% of the space is used for streets and 40% for landscape services. That table also lists the demand variables for each segment of the facility. For obvious reasons, trip generation is used for the street maintenance portion. Because landscape maintenance relates mostly to parks, resident population is used as the demand variable for that segment of the facility, as it is for park and recreation impact fees and for the Community Services portion of City Hall costs. D. FACILITY NEEDS The next step is to quantify the relationship between existing development and existing facilities, using the selected demand variables. That relationship is then used to project future facility needs. Existing and projected City Hall space needs are shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 City Hall Space Needs Major Existing Existing ]Sq *Ft/Unit Added Line Functions Sq FI Demand of Demand 'Demand Phm:un~ 4.9 I- 5.499 Acr=s 0 894 20.954 Acres Building and S~eW~ire 3.677 31.927 KSF n 0.115 138.077 KSF Public Work~ngineenng 5.876 50,210 Thps 0.117 214,376 T~ps Communi~' Se~ices 5,516 42.114 Pop 0.131 158,742 Pop Totals 19,986 See Table 5-1. See Tables 2-1 & 2-2. (d) = (b) / (c) Note that KSF (1,000s of Sq Ft) in this table includes residential buildings, so it differs from the KSF total shown in Table 2-2. (0 = (d) x (e) ~ Required New Sq F! 18.-~3 15.879 25.082 20,795 80,489 January 8, 1996 David g,L Griffith & Associates. Ltd. Page 5-5 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study The cost of maintenance facilities cannot be summarized conveniently in terms of building square footage, because buildings represent a smaller share of total cost than is the case for City Hall. For that reason, the cost of the maintenance facility will be related directly to demand, in a manner similar to that used for recreation facilities in Section 4. The total cost of the maintenance build- ing to be constructed this fiscal year by the City is estimated to be $550,000. Since only 75% of the facility is needed to serve existing development, we will use 75% of that amount, or $412,500 as the cost of existing facilities. Table 5-4 shows the relationship between existing development and the maintenance facility, in terms of cost per unit of demand for street maintenance and land- scape maintenance. Table 5-4 Maintenance Facility Cost Allocation Major Existing Functions % (b) .~ I I'CCl .N,I;I::IIdH;IIlCC (B'J'! ~, Landscape Maintenance 40% Totals 100% Share of i Existing CosL/Unit :' Cost ] Dentand of Demand!. ........ (e)_I(d) (e) ~ -~' . $~4... ~.,0 50 2 lo '['nl~s S4.9Y $165,000 42,114 Pop ~ $3.92 $412~00 Estimate by City of Temecula Community Facilities District. See Table 2-1. 3 (e) = (c) / (d) E. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Table 5-3 projects a need for approximately 80,000 square feet of additional City Hall space at buildout--assuming that all available land in the City and the sphere of influence is actually devel- oped. Of that total, 8,000 'square feet of additional space can be accommodated in the existing building currently being acquired by the City for use as its City Hall. That building is being pur- chased at an extremely favorable price, which amounts to approximately $75 per square foot of building area, including land--less than half the cost of developing a new facility. This study assumes that future facilities will cost $150.00 per square foot in 1995 dollars, plus 20% for design and contract administration. Assuming a land cost of $3.00 per square foot and a Januar. v 8. 1996 Dm,id 3,t. Griffith & Associates. Ltd. Page 5-6 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Stu .dv floor area ratio of 0.25, land would add $12.00 per square foot of building area. The total cost per square foot, then, would be $192.00 at current price levels, and the additional 72,000 square feet of future City Hall space would cost $13.8 million. For purposes of calculating the City Hall portion of the impact fees for corporate facilities, a weighted average facility cost has been used. That average is based on 8,000 square feet costing $75.00 per square foot, and 72,000 square feet costing $192.00 per square foot. The weighted average cost is $180.30 per square foot. In order to establish the City Hall portion of the corporate facilities impact fee for a particular type of development, the space requirement attributable to that development would be determined using the "square feet per unit of demand" factors from Table 5-3. Then the facility cost per square foot would be applied. Taking a detached residence as an example, the fee would be com- puted as shown below. (A detached residence is assumed to be 1,800 square feet (1.8 KSF) in size, occupy 0.435 acres, generate 1 peak hour trip and house 3.2 residents.) City Hall Space per Detached DU = (0.435 Acres x 0.894 SF/Ac) + (1.8 KSF x 0.115 SF/KSF) + (1.0 Peak Hr Trips x 0.117 SFFl'rip) + (3.2 residents x 0.131 SF/resident) = 1.132 square feet. The square footage requirement is converted to an impact fee using the weighted average facility cost per square foot, as follows: City Hall Impact Fee = 1.132 square feet x $180.30 = $204.10 The fee for maintenance facilities is computed using costs per unit of demand from Table 5-4. Maint Facility Impact Fee = (1.0 Peak Hr Trips x $4.93/Trip) + (3.2 Residents x $3.92/Resident) = S17.47 As shown below, the total corporate facilities impact fee for a detached residence is the sum of the two components calculated above. Corporate Facilities Impact Fee = $204.10 + $17.47 = $221.57 per Detached DU ,]anuarv 8, 1996 David 3f. Griffith & Associates. Ltd. Page 5-7 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Corporate facilities impact fees for other types of development are calculated using the same pro- cedure using demand factors and costs from previous tables. The resulting impact fees by land use category are shown in Table 5-5. Table Corporate Facilities Impact Fees Land Use . Devl }City. Hall Cost / Maint Fac Cost t- Total Impact Type ~ Units ~ Devl Unit Devl Unit ~ Fee / Devl Unit (a) ; (b) = (c) (d) (e)I · Rcs~dcmml, Detached DU S204. I0 S17 4' S221 4= Residential, Attached DU $105.62 $12.86 $118.48 Office KSF $ 84.83 $12.82 $ 97.65 Retail Commercial KSF $204.30 $39.44 $243.74 Service Commercial KSF $117.45 $19.72 $137.17 Business Park KSF $ 71.39 $ 9.37 $ 80.76 ! (e) = (c) + (d) In most cases, we recommend that impact fees be formally adopted as a fee per service unit rather than as a fee per development unit. However, in the case of corporate facilities, that is not possi- ble because several types of service units are used in calculating the fees. Consequently, these fees should be adopted in the form shown in Column (e) of Table 5-5. In Section 8, the corporate facilities impact fees calculated in this section will be combined with impact fees for other types of facilities to establish a total impact fee per development unit by land use category. danuarv 8, 1996 David 3,f Griffith & ,4ssociates, Ltd. Page 5-8 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Stud. v SECTION 6 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for new fire protection facilities required to serve future development in Temecula. The City of Temecula contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection services. That arrangement covers fire service operations, but the City is responsible for funding new fire stations needed to serve development in Temecula. Prior to Temecula's incorporation, Riverside County collected an impact fee for fire facilities. Temecula has continued to collect that fee. The purpose of this section is to update that fee. At present, the study area is served by four fire stations. Two of those stations (//12 and//73) were constructed prior to the City's incorporation. Station //83 was recently completed, and Station //84 is now under construction. Two additional stations will be needed to provide adequate coverage of the study area at buildout. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The overall study area addressed by this analysis encompasses the City of Temecula and its sphere of influence. It would be possible to define specific service areas for individual fire stations, since operationally, each station has primary responsibility for a certain geographic area. However, we believe that calculating separate impact fees for individual fire station service areas is undesirable, because that approach may result in a fee structure that imposes significantly different charges on similar development projects for essentially the same level of service. Consequently, this analysis will treat fire protection facilities serving Temecula as an integrated system, and will allocate facility costs city-wide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be the same, regardless of its location in the study area. The time frame for this study is not defined as a certain number of years, but as the time required to build out all additional development contemplated in the City of Temecula General Plan. The method used to calculate these impact fees does not depend on the timing of development. January 8. 1996 David,['l. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 6-1 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study B. LEVEL OF SERVICE In its Master Plan, the PJverside County Fire Department has adopted response time and distance standards for four categories of development. By applying the standards for allowable distance, the Department can determine where fire stations should be sited to serve a particular geographic area. Table 6-1 summarizes the standards relating to distance between development and the nearest fire station for each category of development. Owing to the nature of existing and planned development in Temecula, two of those categories, "heavy urban" and "urban" apply · within the study area. Table 6-1 Fire Protection Standards Dc,.ndopment , Descripthm . Fir'-~t Alarm A!fi]~':~'~'~e'] Categnu' [ of lJ.~'s Full O~'ration . Distance ! Hc;,~ Urban Imm',sc Contm..hld. 8-2u DU.:Ac : 10 Minulcs ~ 1.5 Nh II. Urban Broad mix Com~nd; 2-8 DU/Ac 15 ~nutes 3.0 ~. III. Rural Fexv public facilities; 0.2-1 DU/Ac 20 ~nutes 5.0 Mi. IV. Outlying < I DU/Ac 30 ~nutes 8.0 ~. Source: Riverside County Fire Department Master Plan Table 6-2 shows the theoretical coverage area for each category of development, based on the allowable distance from development to the nearest fire station. The coverage areas shown in that table for various development categories are based on a hypothetical square service area with a fire station at the center of the square. The distance from the station to each comer of the square would equal the allowable running distance for the relevant development category. Table 6-2 Theoretical Fire Station Coverage De~:!opmeut ] nlhmable i Area L__..~at_._e.~o~:__i,Distance j Covered' I t-le:lx.x Urb;m I 5 Mi. 4 5 Sq. M: ; 2.880 Acres II. Urban 3.0 Mi. 18.0 Sq. Mi. 11.520 Acres Ill. Rural 5.0 Mi. 50.0 Sq. Mi. 32.000 Acres IV. Outlying 8.0 Mi. 128,0 Sq. Mi. 81.920 Acres Area of square xvith one-half the diagonal equal to alloxvable running distance. Januarv 8, 1996 Dayidyll. Grtffith& Associates, Ltd. Page 6-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study If fire service coverage in the study area were perfectly efficient, only one fire station would be needed to serve currently existing development in Temecula, and a total of four stations would be needed at buildout to serve the amount and type o£ development contemplated in the Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan. But the real world is far from perfect in terms of the developed area that actually can be covered from a particular fire station location. The efficiency of that coverage is influenced by the street system, development patterns, topography, undeveloped land, open space, site availability and other factors. Thus the City has four stations at present, and plans call for a total of six fire stations in the study area at buildout. Of course, it is important to note that the four existing stations are intended to serve considerable future development, as well as the existing development in the study area. Because of the standards used to determine the need for fire stations in Temecula, different types of development contribute differently to the need for fire stations. The effect of those standards is that a fire station can cover less area if it serves "heavy urban" development as opposed to low-density residential uses. That being the case, the proportionality principle requires that "heavy urban" development pay a proportionately larger share of costs for fire protection facilities than "urban" development. C. DEMAND VARIABLE As indicated in the foregoing discussion of service levels, the number of fire stations needed to serve the study area is determined by the size of the area that can be covered by each fire station, given the type of development it serves. Thus, the allocation of fire protection facility costs in this section is based on developed acreage, stated in terms of gross acres. However, the cost allocation must also take account of the fact that fire station coverage depends on the type of development served. Since two categories of development are represented in the study area, two different coverage rates will be used in the fee calculations. The theoretical coverage areas from Table 6-2, in acres, will be used as a starting point for the cost allocation. As defined in the Fire Department Master Plan, detached residential development in Temecula equates to the "urban" category, and all other development in the City is considered "heavy urban." January $. 1996 David.Y1. Griffith & .dssociates. Ltd. Page 6-3 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS If the theoretical coverage areas from Table 6-2, are applied to all development contemplated in the Land Use Element at build out, 3.97 fire stations would be required to serve the entire study area, assuming perfectly efficient coverage. The fact that six stations are planned, reflects the inevitability of some inefficiencies in coverage (for reasons discussed previously), and implies that the actual coverage will achieve only 67% efficiency. If we adjust the coverage figures accordingly, and calculate the number of fire stations attributable to all remaining development in the study area, we find that the demand created by future development is responsible for 4.8 of the six stations. (That is not a surprise, considering that the City, at build out, will be approximately five times its current size.) But the fact remains that only two of the six fire stations needed at buildout remain to be funded. Consequently, we will calculate the impact fee for fire facilities by allocating the estimated cost of those two stations to all future development in the study area. E. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Each of the two future fire stations, including equipment, is expected to cost $2.35 million in current dollars, so the total cost of future facilities is $4.7 million. The area theoretically covered by a single station is 11,520 acres for "urban" development, and 2,880 for "heaw urban" development. So, in effect, an acre of heavy urban development creates exactly four times as much demand for fire stations as does an acre of urban development. Table 6-3 shows the allocation of future fire facilities costs, based on that ratio of demand. Table 6-3 Cost Allocation - Fire Facilities Development [ Future [Demand · __Calego~_' ....i Der Acreage ~ Weight l.'rl,;m 15.5111 ,Xzres 10 Hea~ Urban: 5.453 Acres 4.0 Total 20,954 Acres Equiv:dent ] ] Allocated [ Cost peri Urban Acres.i % I Cost Der Acre ] 15.501 Acres 41 5% $1.9511.500 $126 21,812 Acres 58.5% $2.749,500 $504 37,313 Acres 100.0% $4,700,000 Equates to Detached Residential development. See Table 2-1. h~cludes all land use types except Detached Residential. See Table 2-1. danua.rv 8. 1996 David 3.'I. Griffith & Associates. Ltd. Page 6-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Studv The allocated cost per acre from Table 6-3, can be converted to standardized impact fees per unit of development as shown in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Fire Facilities Land Use Type Residcnlml. Detached Residential, Attached Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park Units of Acres,' Cost/ i FeelUnit of ~ Develop_!.n.e_n.t- Unit of Dev: Acre ~ ] De.?..!..opme. t_} DU ~ 0.435 ~ $126 $54.8 I DU 0.083 $504 $41.83 KSF: 0.058 $504 $29.32 KSF 0.092 $504 $46.37 KSF 0.077 $504 $38.81 KSF 0.066 $504 $33.26 DU = D~velling Unit; KSF = 1,000 Gross Square Feet. Based on densities or floor area ratios t¥om'Table 2-3. See Table 6-3. The standardized impact fees shown in Table 6-4 are based on average residential densities and commercial/industrial floor area ratios, as shown in Tables 2-1 through 2-3. We recommend that impact fees be formally adopted as per-acre charges for the "urban" and "heavy urban" development categories, as shown in Table 6-3. That approach allows the fees to be adjusted for projects that differ significantly from the average characteristics used in calculating standardized fees. January 8. 1996 DavidAl. Griffith & .4ssociates. Ltd. Page 6-5 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Stu .dv SECTION 7 LIBRARY IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future development in Temecula. The City is a member of the Riverside County Library District, which provides library service in both cities and unincorporated portions of the County. Prior to Temecula's incorporation, Riverside County collected a public facilities impact fee which was used to fund new libraries, as well as other types of public facilities. Temecula has continued to charge that fee. The purpose of this section is to update the impact fee for library facilities. At present, there is one 15,000 square foot branch library in Temecula. That facility was constructed by the Library District, and was underway before Temecula was incorporated. It is located within the City limits, and serves residents of Temecula and Murietta, as well as unincorporated portions of southwest Riverside County. A. $ER VICE AREA AND T1ME FRAME Branch libraries do not have well defined service areas. It is not unreasonable to assume that library users most often patronize the branch closest to where they live. However, they may also use other branches, because of differences in services or materials, or because they stop at the library while traveling to or from work, shopping, or other destinations. For that reason, and because the facility needs addressed in this section are based on city-wide level-of-service standards, library impact fees are calculated here on a city-wide basis, and would apply to new residential development in all pans of the City. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate these impact fees is based on current dollar costs. The rate and timing of development do not affect the fee calculations. Furthermore, since the fees are calculated in terms of per capita costs, it is not necessary in this analysis to establish the total amount of development to be served. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith &Associates. Ltd. Page 7-1 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Stu .dv B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level-of-service standard established by the Riverside County Library District calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita. That standard is referenced in the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element of the Temecula General Plan. However, the actual current level of service is used in this study as a basis for the impact fee calculations. At present the library in Temecula has 0.177 square feet of space and 0.94 volumes for each resident of its service area..In addition, the City has approximately $408,000 set aside to pay for additional library facilities. Those funds include library impact fees collected since incorporation. Assuming a total cost of $200 per square foot, that money equates to an additional 2,038 square feet of library space and increases the current level of service for facilities to 0.23 square feet per capita. That level of service along with the actual level of service for library materials will be used in the impact fee calculations. C DEMAND VARIABLE The level-of-service standard for libraries is stated in terms of facilities and materials per capita, so population is the attribute of development that determines the need for additional libraries. Thus, population will be used to represent demand in the impact fee calculations. Since the fees are based on population, they will apply only to residential development. Later in this section, per capita costs will be converted into impact fees per dwelling unit. D. FACILITY NEEDS As stated previously, the applicable level of service standard for libraries is 0.23 square feet of library space and 0.94 volumes per capita. Since it is possible to determine the per capita cost of facilities needed to maintain that standard, there is no need in this section to project the total quantity of development to be served, or the total cost of facilities to be provided. Impact fees can be based on the per-capita cost of facilities. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 7-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study E. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Table 7-1 shows the per capita cost of library facilities and materials, based on the applicable level of service standard as determined previously. Also shown is the total cost of library facilities and materials needed to serve the additional population projected to build out. Table 7-1 Library Facilities - Cost per Capita :.Eim::: .<.~:;!c.' (; ~..q. qu:,re I' '," '"' · ' . . ... c,., S ,,) (',;; i rig.'4 2 q-.':O=' ' ': ' Materials 1.0.94 Volumes $18.80: 158,742 $2,984,350 Total $64.80 158,742 $10,286,482 Based on total current dollar cost of $200 per Sq. Ft., estimated by the Riverside County Library District. Based on average cost of $20.00 per volume, estimated by the Riverside County Library District. See Table 2-2. Table 7-2 converts the total per capita cost from Table 7-1 into impact fees per dwelling unit for detached and attached residential development. That conversion is based on the average number of persons per dwelling unit from Section 2 of this report. Table 7-2 Standardized Impact Fees - Library Facilities Land Use Perso-~.]" i '61,;t' .....'"[ .....-~'~e p'ir '" ...................u ?i.t R,'.qde::~:al D~':a~'ned ", 2" $6.1 8? %20'.36 I Residcntial, Attached I 2.40 I $64.80 I $155.52 See Table 2-1. 2 See Table 7-1. Although the standardized fees shown in Table 7-2 are administratively convenient, and can be used for most development projects, we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per capita as shown in Table 7-1. That per capita rate provides a basis for tailoring impact fees to fit projects that may vary significantly from the typical project characteristics used to standardize the fees. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates. Ltd. Page 7-3 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 8 SUMMAR Y OF RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES This section of the report summarizes the recommended impact fees from the previous five sections. In it, we also make a minor adjustment to incorporate the cost of this study into the impact fees. Table 8-1 shows the development impact fees per unit of development as calculated in Sections 3 - 7 of this report. Fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. Table 8-1 Summary of Calculated Development Impact Fees __ Ty~ . Unl$ {' Imp/'.' $!~al ' m~;., Fa~ ~. :Fa~t h~ ~vl Unit Res~dcnnal, Detached DU: ] $727 $109 ~ Sl,606 ' $221 $55 $207 $2,925 Residena~, A~ched DU $509 $77 $1,205 $118 $42 $156 $2,107 Office KSF: $1,889 $285 -- $ 98 $29 -- $2,301 Re~l Co~emi~ KSF $5,812 $875 -- $244 $46 -- $6,977 Semce Co~emi~ KSF $2,906 $438 -- $137 $39 -- $3,520 B~iness P~k KSF $1,380 $208 -- $ 81 $33 - $1,702 ~ DU = Dwelling Unit 2 KSF = 1,000 Gross Square Feet of Building Area The cost of preparing this impact fee study is similar to other "sof~ costs" of facility development (e.g., design, contract administration, financing costs) which are commonly capitalized as project costs. The total amount impact fees from Table 8-1 will be adjusted here to include the cost of this study. In making this adjustment, we have assumed that the impact fee study must be updated every five years. Consequently, the fees will be increased by the percentage required to recover the study cost from fees expected to be collected in the next five years. The projection of development for that period is based on 1990-1994 building permit data provided by the Temecula Building and Safety Department. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 8-1 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee study If development in Temecula over the next five years proceeds at the average pace recorded for the 1990-1994 period, the development impact fees shown in Table 8-1 would produce revenue of approximately $14 million. The $42,000 cost of this study increases that amount by 0.32%, or $0.32 per hundred dollars. Table 8-2 shows the fees from Table 8-1 adjusted by that amount. Table 8-2 Summary of Adjusted Development Impact Fees Total Fee/i ,Devl Unit Restdenlml. Dclaci~ed DU: $729 $109 ' Sl.611 S222 S55 ! S208 : S2.934 Residential, Attached DU $511 $77 $1,209 $118 $42 $156 $2,114 Office KSF 2 $1,895 $286 - $ 98 $29 -- $2,308 Retail Commercial KSF $5,830 $878 -- $245 $46 - $6,999 Service Commercial KSF $2,915 $439 - $137 $39 - $3,531 Business Park KSF $1,384 $209 -- $ 81 $33 -- $1,707 t DU = Dwelling Unit 2 KSF = 1,000 Gross Square Feet of Building Area Table 8-2 is reproduced in the Executive Summary of this report. In the event that the City chooses to impose impact fees lower that those shown in this report, the adjustment needed to cover the cost of this study would have to be recalculated. Revised January 17, 1997 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 8-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 9 IMPL EMEN TA TI ON This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a devel- opment impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of im- pact fees recommended herein. A. ADOPTION The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. As a practical matter, we recommend that the actual fee amounts be specified in a resolution so that adjustments are less cumbersome. In general, we also recommend that the fees be formally adopted as a fee rate per service unit, rather than as a schedule of fees per unit of development for each land use type. For example, im- pact fees for street improvements would be adopted as a fee rate per peak hour trip rather than as a schedule of fees per dwelling unit for residential land use categories, and per thousand square feet of building area for non-residential land use categories. However, there is an exception with respect to the fees recommended in this study. The method used to calculate the impact fees for corporate facilities (City Hall and the maintenance facility) involves several types of service units. Defining an impact fee rate for those facilities would involve a somewhat cumbersome formula, and the City may prefer to adopt a schedule for that particular fee. B. ADMINISTRATION Several requirements of the California Government Code address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. Refer- ences to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the Government Code. .4pril 21, 1996 David.~[. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 9-I Ci.ty of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Stu .dy Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condi- tion of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project, for that type of facility, should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or improvements. If the reim- bursement would exceed the amount of the fee for that type of facility, the City may wish to exe- cute a reimbursement agreement with the developer, stating that the additional cost will be reimbursed when impact fees are available from other development projects to cover the amount due. The agreement should specify the amount due, an approximate schedule for reimbursement, and other terms of the agreement. We recommend that reimbursement be based on cost estimates used to calculate the fees, rather than on the developer's actual cost of construction which may be lower than the City's. In cases where developers pay for such facilities through assessment districts or community facili- ties districts, the problem is somewhat more complicated. Assessments involve interest costs, so the City should not base credits on the actual amount paid through assessments, but rather on the facilities to be paid for by assessments. By committing to the assessments, property owners, in ef- fect, buy into facilities at a fixed cost. If that cost escalates later, they should get the benefit of that escalation in their fee credits because they carry the interest on the assessment district debt. Therefore it is appropriate to use current cost estimates in establishing credits for facilities cov- ered by both impact fees and assessments. Thus the credit for a particular development project would be established by apportioning the current estimated cost of qualifying facilities based on the percentage of total assessments borne by that developer or land owner. Application of Impact Fee Rates. In general, impact fees recommended in this report are calcu- lated initially in terms of cost per service unit, and then converted into fees per unit of develop- ment. Service units are attributes of development, such as population and trip generation, which are used to measure demand for certain types of facilities. To implement impact fees, it is neces- sary to estimate how many units of service are required by a certain development project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and to facilitate cost estimating by builders and develop- ers, it is useful to have the impact fee rates converted into standardized fees for common units of .4pril 21, 1996 Dm,id~l. Griffith & .4ssociates, Ltd. Page 9-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study development--e.g., dwelling units for residential development, or building area for commercial or business park development. All impact fee rates calculated in this study have been converted to standardized fees for six categories of development. As discussed above, we recommend that, whenever possible, impact fees be formally adopted as rates per service unit. That approach provides a basis for adjusting fees in cases where a develop- ment project has demand characteristics that vary significantly from the norm. It should be noted, however, that the use of c6mmercial and industrial buildings can change over time, and we believe that the City is justified in applying fees based on reasonable average demand characteristics for various categories of development. The fact that the initial user of a new building may have be- low average demand for certain services does not ensure that future users will have similarly low demand. An example from Section 3 of the report is repeated here to illustrate the usefuless of impact fee rates based on units of service. With respect to fees for street improvements, churches and other non-profit activities do not clearly fit within any of the development categories used in this report. The SANDAG traffic manual estimates that chuches generate 0.7 peak hour trips per thousand square feet. If we assume that churches are similar to retail commercial uses in terms of their trip len~h characteristics, we would multiply 0.7 by the cost per peak hour trip from the retail commercial category. That calculation (0.7 x $564) results in a street improvement impact fee of $395 per thousand square feet--much different from the fee of $4,512 per thousand square feet that would be applied if the commercial impact fee were applied directly to the floor area of the church. Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensifi- cation of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities as measured by the demand vari- ables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of de- mand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically would not be subject to an impact fee, assuming it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure. If a .-tpril 2 l, 1996 David.¥[. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 9-3 Citv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Stud. v dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development. Collection of Fees. Section 66007 provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occu- pancy, whichever occurs first. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases, upon final in- spection, or for the entire lfiroject upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reim- burse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. In any case, utility service fees may be collected at the time an applica- tion for service is received. These restrictions do not apply to non-residential development. Accountability. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited "with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected." Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The law does not specify any requirement to segregate funds for individual projects. The most com- mon practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues collected for each type of facility but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach. Expenditure Time Limits and Refunds. Section 66001 requires, for any fee revenue remaining unexpended five years after it is collected, that the local agency make findings once each fiscal year to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, and to demonstrate a reasonable rela- tionship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. This requirement applies only to money in the possession of the local agency, and not to letters of credit, bonds, or similar in- struments. Any unexpended funds for which a continued need cannot be demonstrated must be April 21, 1996 David.\l. Griffith & .4ssociates, £td. Page 9-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study refunded, to the then current owners of lots or units in the development from which it was col- lected. The procedures for such refunds are provided in Government Code Section 66001. Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not in- cluded in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in ap- plying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees, and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those 'costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing de- velopment applications. The cost of preparing this study has been included in the impact fees. (See Section 8 of this report.) C. REPORTING AND UPDATES Reporting. Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public an income and expenditure statement for each separate account established to receive fee revenues. The governing body is required to re- view those statements at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the statements are made public. Annual Update of Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alter- native is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations in this study include costs for futu?e facilities not covered by the City's CIP, we believe that this report, rather than the CIP, should be designated as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. If that is done, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to satisfy Section 66002. Annual Update of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in cur- rent dollars, and the fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. .4pril 21, 1996 David ,~ 1. Griffith & .4 ssociates, Ltd. Poge 9-5 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study The Engineering News Record Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing construction costs. D. TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We rec- ommend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and be made responsible for training all staff who are responsible for fee-related activities. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to give close attention to handouts which provide information to the public re- garding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as applica- tion and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fee should be made clear. Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgeting and project management must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recom- mended in this report are tied to specific uses and specific cost estimates. Fees must be allocated accordingly. AB 1600 limits an agency's flexibility to reprogram fee proceeds without revising the fees and making necessary accounting adjustments. .-tpri/ 21, 1996 David ;~f. Griffith & .4ssociates, Ltd. Page 9-6 COMPARISON OF CITY/SPHERE FEES LAND USE TYPE Residential, Detached Residential, Attached Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park CITY PLUS SPHERE CITY ONLY $2,934 $2,846 2,114 2,056 2,308 2,146 6,999 6,510 3,531 3,284 1,707 1,588 % REDUCTION FOR CITY ONlY 3.0% 2.7% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% ATTACHMENT B a.~o .-- 0 LLI ATTACHMENT C ITEM 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER ~. CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Mayor and City Council City Manager City Clerk-Director of Support Services April 8, 1997 Disposition of Surplus Computer Inventory RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff as to the disposition of surplus computers in the City's Inventory. BACKGROUND: When the City of Temecula upgraded its computer systems to the Windows environment, a number of computer workstations became out dated because they were no longer able to perform at the speed required. DISCUSSION: off-site facility: Currently the City of Temecula has the following equipment stored in an Number: Computer Model Monitors Keyboards Miscellaneous Two 84 83 67 One One One One One One 286 AT-GST 386 SX-XA 386 SX-GST 14 inch Regulation HP Graphics Plotter HP Scanjet ALPS P2100 Printer ALPS P2101 Printer ALPS P2000 Printer Inoperable Toshiba Lap Top Computer R:\agenda,rpt\sur plus.cmp I Agenda Report - Surplus Computer Equipment April 8, 1997 Page 2 Several options are available to the Council regarding the disposition of this equipment. 1. It can be donated to another institution or non-profit organization. 2. It can be declared unusable surplus and disposed of as scrap. 3. It can be made available at a public surplus auction in "as is" condition. It has been suggested that the City might wish to donate some or all of this equipment to various schools in the area for use by students and/or to nonprofit organizations. PROS During the past year the City has received requests for surplus computers from Alternatives to Domestic Violence, Linfield School, Temecula Friends of the Library, the Riverside County Fire Department, Rancho Vista Academy and the Boys and Girls Club. The donation of this equipment could provide for substantial cost savings to these groups. Secondly, this method of distribution would certainly be recognized as a "good will" gesture on the City's part. The third benefit might be in the form of providing these groups with a pool of computer parts. CONS. It is very important to note that none of the computer models listed, are presently useable as standalone computer workstations. This equipment was purchased by the City to operate as disc-less workstations. That means they were purchased to be used as part of the City's computer network and, as such, they have very limited or no hard drive storage capacity. I have been advised that the hard drives could be upgraded to work as DOS standalone units at a cost of approximately $300.00 per unit. The models designated for surplus however, are not capable of being upgraded to operate the newer software programs like the Windows series. The monitors and keyboards have not been tested since being placed in storage. Short of having staff hook each piece of equipment up to the network and individually test it, we do not have a method to determine which components are in good working order. Testing of all the surplus equipment is anticipated to require the assignment of two trained staff members for 60-70 hours apeice. This information is provided to underscore the importance to anyone wishing to receive this equipment as a donation, that it would be donated in "as is" condition with no guarantees regarding its future useability under different applications. R:~agenda.rpt\surplus.cm p 2 Agenda Report - Surplus Computer Equipment April 8, 1997 Page 3 The City of Hemet recently held an auction to dispose of similar equipment and we have been cautioned by their Information Systems personnel that this was not viewed as beneficial to the City from a Public Relations viewpoint. While the City of Hemet did provide disclaimers, with the equipment that was sold at auction, they nevertheless received many irate complaints when the computers did not perform as the purchasers felt they should. The other frequent complaint they reported was that after adding upgrades to make the equipment function as stand alone home or small office units, the purchasers felt they had spent almost as much as a new computer system might have cost. SUMMARY Option one is the most appealing of the options when viewed from the City's desire to aid nonprofit organizations and local schools whenever possible. The staff has attempted to give the Council a clear analysis of both the advantages and disadvantages of this option. Option two offers the least complicated alternative to the City for disposition of the surplus computers and is the only method recommended for disposition of the one Toshiba laptop computer. The laptop is inoperable but still has some information stored in its hard drive. Since the exact nature of the material stored is not known and is not recoverable without incurring excessive repair costs, it is necessary to destroy the hard drive and dispose of it. Option three is an option provided for by the government code, however, based on the experiences of other Cities who have used this method, we would recommend caution in considering this approach. In conclusion, the Council may wish to take a combined approach and direct staff to make all of the factors known, in writing, to organizations who have indicated an interest in acquiring outdated City computer equipment; make donations as requested on that basis; and destroy and dispose, as scrap, the remaining surplus equipment. FISCAL IMPACTS: All of the equipment identified as surplus has been fully depreciated and has little value or no real value to the City. Should City Council decide to dispose of this equipment by public auction (Option three) it is estimated that the revenue generated would be not more than $8,000.00 and this would be partially offset by the administrative expense ofconducting such an auction. This fiscal impact of each of the other options is minimal. R:\agenda,rpt\sur plus.cm p 3 ITEM 18 FINANCE OFFICEI~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Ronald Bradley, City Manager April 8, 1997 Consideration of an Ordinance Prohibiting the Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Places and Prohibiting Engaging in Certain Bodily Functions in Public Places PREPARED BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.14 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINERS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES, AND SECTION 9.02.010, PROHIBITING ENGAGING IN CERTAIN BODILY FUNCTIONS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLACES, AND AMENDING SECTION 12.04.210 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CITY PARKS AND FACILITIES DISCUSSION: If enacted, this Ordinance would prohibit people from drinking alcoholic beverages in public places and would also prohibit people from having an open container of alcoholic beverages in public places. The public places in which this conduct would be prohibited are: (a) On any public street, roadway, boulevard, alley, parking lot, sidewalk, or any other property owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County or any public agency; (b) In the public parking, loading, access, and common areas of any commercial shopping center; except on the premises of a commercial establishment holding a valid on-sale license or permit from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; or (c) Within any public park, recreational area, or recreation facility owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County, or any public agency. This Ordinance would retain the current provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code which allow the Community Services Commission to issue a special permit to allow the drinking of alcoholic beverages in City parks and which allow the Director of Community Services to issue a similar special permit for other City facilities. The provisions allow the Commission or Director to impose conditions to control the events at which alcoholic beverages would be consumed. The Ordinance would also extend the prohibitions on drinking of alcoholic beverages to the common areas of homeowner associations, but only upon the request of the association and approval of the City Council. This provision has been useful in other cities to assist in controlling drinking on the common areas of associations near streets or parks. Additionally, the Ordinance does not prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages on the premises of any commercial establishment having a valid on-sale license or permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Ordinance would also prohibit urinating or defecating in public places. These activities are not addressed by state law and violations of this type of ordinance often occur in connection with the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Penal Code Section 647(f) currently prohibits a person from being intoxicated and disorderly in public and certain diversion programs are utilized for chronic inebriates. Section 12.04.210 of the Temecula Municipal Code currently prohibits the drinking of alcoholic beverages in City parks. R:\agenda,rpt\alcohol 2 ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.14 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINERS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES, AND SECTION 9.02.010, PROHIBITING ENGAGING IN CERTAIN BODILY FUNCTIONS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLACES, AND AMENDING SECTION 12.04.210 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CITY PARKS AND FACILITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. read as follows: Chapter 9.14 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to "Chapter 9.14 "CONSUMPTION AND POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES 9.14.010 9.14.020 9.14.030 Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Places Prohibited. Possession of Open Containers of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Places Prohibited. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages on Homeowner Association Properties Prohibited. "9.14.010 Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Prohibited "The drinking of beer, wine, liquor, fermented malt beverage, intoxicating liquor, or other alcoholic beverage shall be prohibited at the following locations, unless specifically permitted by the prior written approval of the City: 970321 11086-00001 mt 1480417 "(a) On any public street, roadway, boulevard, alley, parking lot, sidewalk, or any other property owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County or any public agency; "(b) In the public parking, loading, access, and common areas of any commercial shopping center; except on the premises of a commercial establishment holding a valid on-sale license or permit from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; or "(c) Within any public park, recreational area, or recreation facility owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County, or any public agency. "9.14.020 Possession of Open containers of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Places Prohibited. "No person shall have in his or her possession, with intent to consume any part of the contents thereof, any bottle, can or other receptacle containing beer, wine, liquor, fermented malt beverage, intoxicating liquor, or other alcoholic beverage, which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, at the following locations, unless specifically permitted by the prior written approval of the City: "(a) On any public street, roadway, boulevard, alley, parking lot, sidewalk, or any other property owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County or any public agency; "(b) In the public parking, loading, access, and common areas of any commercial shopping center; except on the premises of a commercial establishment holding a valid on-sale license or permit from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; or "(c) Within any public park, recreational area, or recreation facility owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County, or any public agency. "9.14.030 Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages on Homeowner Association Properties Prohibited. "No person shall drink any beer, wine, liquor, fermented malt beverage, intoxicating liquor, or other alcoholic beverage, upon property, including greenbelt areas, common walkways, and common driveways, owned or controlled by a homeowner's association where: "(a) The homeowner's association has requested in writing that the City extend its drinking prohibition upon the homeowner's association property and the City Council has adopted a resolution approving such request; and 970321 110864X)001 mt 1480417 2 "(b) The homeowner's association has posted on the property a notice in substantially the following form: "Drinking of liquors, beers, wine or other intoxicating beverages on this property, including greenbelt areas, common walkways, and common driveways, in prohibited by Chapter 9.14 of the Temecula Municipal Code and violators are subject to criminal prosecution which could result in imprisonment and a fine." Section 2. Chapter 9.02, General, and Section 9.02.010 are hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 9.02 GENERAL "9.02.010 Bodily Functions Prohibited in Certain Public Areas "9.02.010 Bodily Functions Prohibited in Certain Public Areas "No person shall urinate or defecate on private property in any area exposed to the public view, or on any public street, roadway, boulevard, alley, parking lot, sidewalk, or any other property owned, controlled and/or operated by the City, County or any public agency, except in a public or private restroom" Section 3. Section 12.04.210 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "12.04.210 Alcoholic Beverages. "a. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.14, Consumption and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited in Certain Public Places, the Commission is hereby designated as the body to approve, conditionally approve or deny requests to consume or possess alcoholic beverages in City parks. "b. 1. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.14, Consumption and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited in Certain Public Places, the Director, or his or her designee, is hereby designated as the person to approve, conditionally approve or deny requests to consume or possess alcoholic beverages at any indoor city public facility. A temporary license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and proof of one million dollars liquor liability insurance coverage and liability insurance coverage identifying the city of Temecula as additional insured, is also required for any such permit. 970321 11086-00001 mt 1480417 3 "2. No person under the age of twenty-one is permitted to consume alcoholic beverages in any city park or facility. "3. Security may be required for events in which alcohol is served, depending upon the type of event at the discretion of the Director. Sale and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Special Use Parks. "1. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.14, Consumption and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited in Certain Public Places, the Director, or his or her designee, is hereby designated as the person to approve, conditionally approve or deny requests to consume or possess alcoholic beverages at a special use park. "2. Alcoholic beverages must be consumed in designated areas. "3. A temporary license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, one million dollars liquor liability insurance and liability insurance identifying the city of Temecula as additional insured is also required for any such permit. "4. No person under the age of twenty-one is permitted to consume alcoholic beverages in any special use park. "5. Security will be required for events in which alcohol is sold, as well as events where alcohol is not served." Section 2. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. 970321 11086-00001 mt 1480417 - 4 - of PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ,1997. day Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC/AAE City Clerk 970321 11086-00001 mt 1480417 - 5 - 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. 97-__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1997, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC/AAE City Clerk 970321 11086-00001 mt 1480417 - 6 -