Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - Agenda Packets - Regular Meeting 4/3/2003
REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #: 3a 1 SUBJECT: T , i DATE: 1l IN FAVOR: ❑ Name: 1;/u,1i✓k' g>t, iG//N Representing: AA ysct NEUTRAL: ❑ IN OPPOSITION: t Address: 4//32i Yh.rs/4 r 'cz( City: / (' Telephone No.: gori- rs a 67 Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START. OF THE MEETING. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM-#: ZO SUBJECT: DATE: IN FAVOR: Name: 4, 1 r NEUTRAL: 0 N OPPOSITION: ❑ Representing: Address: / ,,2,. City: =5 , Telephone No.: t- 1' Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER. SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #: SUBJECT; AP DATE: Iv' -,% -s- ' ;5- IN FAVOR: © NEUTRAL: CI Name: f 1/J Representing: IN OPPOSITION: Address: City: L p Telephone No.: =- Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. i REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM ##: .. 2 SUBJECT: DATE: ,' Name: IN FAVOR: ❑ c4 E,2 NEUTRAL: ❑ IN. OPPOSITION: Representing: 5FIF Address: b E/114>V City: 54-)V ,T 1 fJ ]`() Telephone No.: / ra.5 Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. RICHARD ZAKS MICHAEL P. BARNARD ROBERT R. DICKINSON DANIEL M. DAILEY MICHAEL T.C. FALOTICO GERALD L. HOFFMAN STAFFORD R. LELAND KENNETH C. McINTYRE DONALD L. CLARK LYNN M. HULL Hearing Representative ZAKS & BARNARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 13, 2003 Lona Rose HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 14275 Pipeline Avenue Chino, CA 91710 RE: CRAIG A. KASPER v. CITY OF SAN JACINTO WCAB NO.: SBR 0313562 CLAIM NO.: 03-29866 2596 MISSION STREET SUITE 200 SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA 91108 (626) 441-3407 FACSIMILE: (626) 441-3692 EmaiC www.zaksbarnard.corn PAMELA A. GOGGINS Office Administrator C FO ♦/r,� �01�1VL■RrVGlfH..,Ta�f'F 800 334-5000 Account Number 64127 Trraa+ckkiinngNuumbern Date March 2" 69750243° Call For A Pickup! On Time Delivery For Less — Online Tracking at www.calover.com FCIT.rth- SA1N JACIhITO* 22202 201 EAST MAIN STREET Service Options 'd no box is checked, suuee wo be appMed. bearma dmge weigh wa0Dby, -Delmxy by 5:00 pit No dam), times for as aemres may be OW M some areas. I:heck Berme wtle ormit ourwebsiu For datah. Billing Information Weight It none a selected, shopper wehe maced. SAN JACINTO CA 92583 d SUNRISE - BY 10:30 AM' ElSUNRISE GOLD - BY 8:00 AM El HEAVYWEIGHT** ❑ Declared Value $ xQ Bill shippers Account ❑ Bill Recipient Ace I Speclty' ❑800z.Letter r TO (Company) Best, Best & Krieger LLP 3750 University AVE or=mm Mmn ❑ aturdaavivery-Extra Charge 0 Bill Third Party pai q Weight lbs. (Subject to verification) Riverside CA 92501 ❑ C.O.D. Amount $ 0 ❑ (aft COO w, a„d.,,i HOLD FOR PICKUP This shipment requires a delivery signature Dim weight charge if greater than actual weight L x W x H +225 = John 'RmseF DdswrN I 49Tlma i-..I;ippers Signatt re B own, Esq. DdveresgnWire - Tii Name Dorothy L. Chouinard CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT COPY ASSESSMENT BALLOT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 FOR ANNEXATION NO. 4 (ZONE 1A) OF LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2 OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO To be voted, this ballot must be returned to the City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto prior to the conclusion of the public hearing which is to be held at 7:00 p.m. on April 3, 2003, in the San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room located at 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California. In order to vote this ballot, you must indicate your support for or opposition to the following proposition by placing a "+" in the appropriate box, insert the name(s) of the property owner(s) and the street address or County Assessor's parcel number of your property in the appropriate blanks, and sign the ballot. PROPOSITION: Shall assessments be levied on the parcels of property in Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto identified as Annexation No. 4 and Zone 1A for fiscal year 2003-04 in the amount of $461.99 per parcel, and shall the amount of such assessments to be levied in future fiscal years be subject to increase by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside area provided that such annual increase does not exceed seven and one-half percent (7 Y2%) in any fiscal year? SUPPORT OPPOSE PROPERTY 0 ER: CAMB I E H!MES, LLC, a / li ed liability company By: Don Newell Manager DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Assessor's Parcel Number 433-030-025 ORANGEUR14219 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1500 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 Dorothy Chouinard, City Clerk City of San Jacinto 201 East Main Street San Jacinto, CA 92583 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAYOR'S SCRIPT PUBLIC HEARING ANNEXATION NO. 3 TO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO.2 March 6, 2003 1. Mayor opens public hearing on proposed annexation of territory to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 and the levy of assessments on property proposed to be annexed to the District. 2. Mayor calls on Assessment Engineer or City Staff for summary of engineer's report. 3. Mayor asks City Clerk whether any written objections or protests have been received. 4. Mayor calls for questions, comments, protests or objections from any persons wishing to speak with respect to the annexation of property to the District and the levy of assessments on such property. 5. Mayor closes public hearing. 6. Mayor asks City Clerk if ballots have been received from owners of property proposed to be annexed to the District and asks City Clerk to tabulate the ballots. [**IT MAY BE NECESSARY AT THIS POINT TO CALL A SHORT RECESS TO ENABLE THE CITY CLERK TO TABULATE THE BALLOTS. ALTERNATIVELY, THIS ITEM COULD BE CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE AGENDA.**] 7. Mayor announces that a majority of the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, are in favor of the annexation and the levy of assessments. 8. City Council considers adoption of Resolution Ordering Annexation of Territory to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 and levying the assessments on assessable lots and parcels annexed to said District for fiscal year 2003-04. ORANGE/JR /3988 L S A N JACINTO MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City ClerkT4-.(. DATE: April 4, 2003 SUBJECT: March 20, 2003 Minutes The March 20, 2003 Minutes are not finished due to the length of the minutes. Since I taped the TUMF Ordinance discussion, I used the tape to transcribe that portion of the minutes. This draft is available for your information tonight. The complete 3/20/03 Minutes will be provided to Council Members early next week. City Clerk LL Q MINUTES REGULAR and SPECIAL MEETING - SAN JACINTO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 20, 2003, 7:00 p.m. San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California 1. ORGANIZATION 1.1 Call to Order Mayor Ayres called the Regular Meeting of the San Jacinto City Council to order at 7:05 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Present: Jim Ayres, Jim Conner, Chris Carlson-Buydos, Ken Shaw, Dale Stubblefield Absent: None 1.3 Invocation — Chaplain Bob Sauder, Faith Tabernacle, San Jacinto Police Chaplain Sauder gave the invocation. 1.4 Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Ayres led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1.5 Special Presentations 1.5.1 Proclamation presented to Museum Curator Phil Brigandi Mayor Ayres read the proclamation and thanked Mr. Brigandi for his outstanding service to the San Jacinto Museum. Mr. Brigandi thanked the City and Council and expects to continue being involved with the San Jacinto Valley. 1.5.2 Proclamation (1.5.4 on the Agenda) declaring April Child Abuse Prevention Month Nancy Maich was present from Supervisor Venable's office to accept the proclamation. Ms Maich introduced the Executive Director, Bob Brunson, of Prevent Child Abuse for Riverside County. Mr. Brunson spoke briefly and left brochures, encouraging people to get involved in preventing child abuse. City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 2 of 17 After reading the proclamation, Mayor Ayres presented the proclamation to Ms Maich and Mr. Brunson, proclaiming April 2003 Child Abuse Prevention Month. Mr. Brunson made available handouts about how everyone can get involved to prevent child abuse. 1.5.3 Business Spotlight of the Month The program was not available and will return to its regular time (2nd meeting of the month). 1.5.4 Proclamation declaring April 2003 Sexual Assault Prevention Month. After reading the proclamation, Mayor Ayres presented the proclamation to Jeannette Casillas from the Center Against Sexual Assault otherwise known as CASA. Ms Casillas thanked the Council for their continued support. 1.5.3 Recognition of Estudillo Mansion Committee Volunteers / Redevelopment Operation Manager Redevelopment Operations Manager Mary Lanier informed the Council of their continued efforts to improve and restore the mansion, including grant applications with EMWD and MWD. They also, worked with the Valley Beautiful organization. While they received the $25,000 grant from EMWD they are optimistic about receiving the MWD grant also. Mayor Ayres presented certificates of appreciation to Lisa Garcia-Gleissner, Bill Stephens and Rebecca Schlosser and Mr. & Mrs. Dale Kroker with plaques for their past and continued efforts to restore the Estudillo Mansion. Recipients Tom Laughlin and Nancy Austin were not present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Len Souza, 1305 Freemark Court, San Jacinto, explained his frustration with not receiving an answer from the Planning Department in regards to the development on Park Hill. There appears to be grading going on in a section that is not part of Tract 29971 that was approved. The grading has not been permitted. He has been waiting eight weeks since he was at the January 30, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. There is another proposal up for review in the area and it doesn't appear to be on it either, according to Mr. Souza. He further expressed frustration with the people at City Hall not being aware of the grading. In his opinion, it is obvious if a person drives by it. Mayor Ayres advised Mr. Souza that the City Manager will be contacting him. City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 3 of 17 Del Kroker, 2230 = 235 Lake Park Drive, San Jacinto, reported that the Estudillo Committee of Nine — the Estudillo Mansion Project, noted they have received two grants for the mansion and are hopeful for a third. In seeking "earmarked" federal funding she read the last paragraph of the letters being sent to Congresswoman Bono, Congressman Lewis; and Senator Boxer others: "The Estudillo Mansion will become the focal point of the community and provide a cultural, educational and social center, a unique historical tie to one of the oldest cities in Riverside County. The San Jacinto City Council and the Estudillo Mansion Committee share an unswayable determination to complete and present this gem of history to the citizens of the San Jacinto Valley. To that end the committee supports the City's request for and Appropriations Earmark for the Estudillo Mansion." 2.1 City Manager's Public Comments Report City Manager Harding reported that he and the City Engineer, Habib Motlagh, had met with Carl Reul regarding the Soboba Springs Golf Course flooding. The options are being researched and reviewed. 3.0 PUBLIC HEARING 3.1 Ordinance No. 03-03 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program / Introduce and Approve first reading of Ordinance No. 03-03 and by motion move to read by title only: Ordinance No. 03-03 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program / Community Development Director Community Development Director Tim Hults presented the background of the TUMF Ordinance before the Council. The population of western Riverside County is expected to increase by on million people by the year 2025. He then explained that the TUMF (Transportation Mitigation Fee) is designed to provide funding for the expected regional transportation shortfall. TUMF is a uniform funding strategy to mitigate impacts from new development on the regional transportation system; TUMF applies to all new development; and monies to be used on the City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 4 of 17 Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA). The TUMF fee allocation is scheduled to be RTA 2.8%; Backbone 48.1%, Local Tier 48.1 and Administration 1%. He then reviewed in detail how the program will work: The TUMF program is part of a regional system to carry 25,000 vehicles daily over four to six lanes. A10 year strategic plan and 5 year capital improvement plan. The plans will be developed by members of WRCOG through the participating local elected officials, city managers, and public work directors. Once the plan is established, it has to be reviewed every five years: The first review is scheduled for 2005. Any amendments have to be approved by WRCOG Executive Committee, which is composed of city council representatives from the different participating jurisdictions. The Nexus study was completed in October 2002. The full complete copy is available at the City Clerk's Office The costs were determined to be: ❖ $ 6,650 / unit - Single Family Residence ❖ $ 4,607 / unit - Multi -Family Residence d• $1.45 / sq ft — Industrial • $7.81 / sq ft — Retail • $7.84 / sq ft -- Service The non-residential will be phased in beginning in 2004 and at full fee by June 2006. The San Jacinto backbone improvement projects are the Ramona Expressway and Highway 79 $34,800,000 has been allocated to these projects. The local tier funded back to use will actually fund $24,000,000 in improvements, including Esplanade Avenue, Sanderson Avenue, and Warren Road. The development communities total estimated contribution in San Jacinto will make is $137,016,449.coming primarily from single family residential — over $70,000,000; over $7,000,000 multi -family residential; almost $12,000,000 Industrial; almost $40,000,000 retail; and almost $8,000,00. $137,000,000 will be generated in fees with $59,000,000 is to be returned to the City along with $20,000,000 in Measure A maintenance funds, as well as close to $50,000,000 in Measure A construction projects. Fees are based on best guesses what development will look like over the next 25 years. Staff recommends approving first reading of said ordinance to protect the City's Measure A funds. Director Hults noted the introduction and first reading is scheduled for tonight, followed by a second reading on April 3, 2003 and goes into effect 61 days later — June 3, 2003 the City would begin collecting fees. It is scheduled to sunset in 2025. 50% of the funding is City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Pane 5 of 17 supposed to be returned to source. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos noted that only $58,000,000 of funding is identified but 50% as described in the staff report would be $68,000,000. Director Hults responded that the$58 million is based on what they can identify now. Because it is a dynamic process the difference is anticipated to be made up as more projects can be expected. According to Director Hults about $50,000,000 is the bulk of the Measure A projects. City Engineer Motlagh noted that the total presented is only about 80% of the potential funding because it is all done on estimated numbers. City Engineer Motlagh continued that there were two exchanges, one at the Ramona Expressway and one at Esplanade Avenue and Sanderson in the City limits proposed. Council Member Conner questioned the growth figures used. Director Hults explained how the projects were arrived at. Council Member Conner noted that the City could be giving all the money collected to WRCOG (Western Riverside Council of Governments) while getting $48,100,000 back but is shared with Hemet and the County. City Engineer Motlagh explained how he believes the voting will work for project selection — the subregion, which includes the member agencies will decide on a project and that project or projects will be presented to the entire WRCOG for information only. . Executive Director Rick Bishop commented the region will prioritize the projects. WRCOG will not be doing the prioritization but only reviewing for the comprehensive overview in identifying the growth patterns — a check against the TUMF network. A new road can't appear until the comprehensive five year review process is underway. Council Member Conner questioned what the maintenance money from Measure A has been used for the past. Engineer Motlagh explained that Measure A expires in 2009. It goes to improvements and minor repairs. From the current Measure A funding San Jacinto will receive about $9,000,000. The new Measure A comes on line in 2009, the funding going back to San Jacinto will be 30% (currently 40%). Only new projects can be done at that point. Council Member Conner explained that the $9,000,000 is over a 20 year period. San Jacinto has $22,000,000 worth of repair needs today. According to the 1999 RCTC report, San Jacinto receives $223,000 and Hemet receives $1,600,000. At 11 years into the program San Jacinto has only received $223,000. Therefore, the top the City can receive is $4,000.000. He questioned how they say it will be $9,000,000. City Engineer obtained the current numbers from RCTC just prior to the meeting: He read them for the benefit of the Council. The numbers are gradually going up as they are based on sales tax City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 6 of 17 and population; and includes a current loan of $1,300,000. City Engineer will verify the numbers with RCTC. The numbers are increased based on population and sales tax. Council Member Conner reiterated that Hemet's population is approximately 60,000 and San Jacinto's is 25,000 in 26 square miles. If they are a little over double the population how can they be getting so much more funding: Hemet received $1.3 million and San Jacinto $223,000. The loan started in 1999 but didn't show up on the books until the following year. Mayor Ayres question section 6. No one addressed how staff time was to be compensated for collecting the permit fees According to Director Hults the City will be expected to absorb that at this point and time. The entire fee is passed on to WRCOG. City Engineer Motlagh noted a similar discussion took place in Perris and their Council added that WRCOG share the local administration cost by at least 50% to their ordinance. Mayor Ayres commented that he would like to see something similar be included in the adoption so that the staff is not further burdened without compensation. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos questioned if WRCOG will do the implementation. City Engineer Motlagh explained that they will not. Director Hults commented that that the staff is currently providing WRCOG with a permit report and this report would probably be generated off of the permit report. Mayor Ayres opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Chris Canaday, Canaday & Company, 17480 E 17th Street, Tustin, as a homebuilder, he wants to build homes along Cottonwood. He expressed concerned fees like this slow down building. He doesn't understand why only $58,000,000 goes to the City when $130,000,000 is going to be generated — less is being gained than what is be being contributed. He wanted to verify the fee is not due until the building permit is pulled and verified the initial date is June 3, 2003 for single family homes. Don Kartchner, Bellflower but has property in San Jacinto - 436 7th Street, San Jacinto, is against this fee. He believes this is another county generated tax. He believes it is county assessment on real estate people; it is a big fee. The total fees for building permits is $10,000 to $12,000. This fee would add almost another 50% to the cost of the permit. He believes this fee is not a transportation tax and is another general fund tax increase for the county. He explained that City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 7 of 17 he is pro development and why it is good for the community. No development produces negative effects on the community. Randy Record, 890 Lyon, San Jacinto, noted that the county had not presented the ballot issue to continue Measure A the way it is, especially the language that TUMF has to be adopted to be able to keep the Measure A funding. Mr. Record suggested the Council adopt but to have the fees adjusted. Mayor Ayres closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mayor Ayres noted that the Nexus Study established the fee. Council Member Stubblefield noted his primary concern the potentially large impact to the City in regards to the how the money we collect goes to our roads He would like clarification of how the moneys will go to our roads and additional concerns that San Jacinto will be just a donor city. City Engineer Motlagh noted that if the City takes the lead then they receive the money even if they have finished before the five year review. Council Member Stubblefield question if other cities had negotiated a lower fee. Mr. Bishop responded that all the cities that have had the introduction or adopted have not received any special deals or negotiated fees. In regards to the administration of fees or the allocation — if one city falls out of the uniformity of the program he will do a comparison to evaluate the impact and present to the city managers technical committee. Council Member Stubblefield questioned if communities didn't adopt and participate would their projects not being built cause a reduction in the fees. Mr. Bishop noted that it that does not cause a fee reduction: Less guaranteed funding doesn't make the need go away. Such a stance causes the remainder of the pot to be funded to have even higher fees. He further reminded the Council that not adopting causes the loss of Measure A funds. Council Member Stubblefield commented that he does not understand why it doesn't take into account that a uniform subregional fee needs to appropriate to area, i.e. the differences in needs of the various cities in the region and specifically in the sub region. Mr. Bishop explained grouping of jurisdictions and developed the Nexus Study based on the infrastructure needs between the adjoining areas. Council Member Stubblefield questioned if they looked into other funding sources. Mr. Bishop explained the public work directors developed the infrastructure needs over an 18 month period at a cost of $3.2 billion and the Nexus Study establishes what part of that City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 8 of 17 infrastructure needed is based on the impact of growth. The TUMF will not entirely fund the needs. Even with Measure A and TUMF the short fall is $200-$300 million. However, Mr. Bishop believes that federal dollars on a match basis should be available and therefore able to secure federal money. Council Member Conner noted that the letters from Barratt and the Paladin Group were strong letters attacking Measure A and TUMF. They both brought up good questions and would have liked to have had more time to consider some of the points made in the letters. Mr. Bishop explained that if people understood what they were passing the Measure A ballot issue would not have passed according to the Paladin Group. In regards to the $400 million — that is not true, as that which pertains to the first $400 million goes to RCTC. The issue raised about the TUMF and the change in the dollar amount is that RCTC approved language for the ballot measure was done in April 2002 and then the measure was passed much later — November 2002, shortly after the Nexus information was available. The drafting of the TUMF programs was based on what the Cochella Valley did with a uniform transportation fee. TUMF was designed to provide uniformity in the fee structure, timing, allocation, and how it will be applied to land development. Council Member Conner noted the fee in Cochella Valley is $830 versus the current fee in San Jacinto is $300 and asking to make it over $6,000. He further expressed concern about the MSHCP coming along behind this, with a potentially large fee. Mr. Bishop explained that the BIA did participate and made comments. However, their comments were based on what they thought the fee to be, which was $4,500 and that with each subsequent development the fee would go down. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos commented that she participated in several workshops regarding the amount of the fee. While it covers the bigger areas it doesn't address the subregion arterials. Lots of cities in western Riverside County are built out or will reach their build out before San Jacinto does. That causes San Jacinto to be a doner city. She noted she agreed with Mr. Record that the City Council was painted into a corner. She noted she would like to see a breakout of the regional versus the arterial infrastructure. Ruth Ann Taylor -Berger explained what is zonal and what is regional — it was brought back to be more local even if it only reflects a few percent. City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 9 of 17 Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos expressed her dismay at how much different the results of the Nexus Study were as opposed to what they were lead to believe. She commented that it was a lack of good faith. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos asked where the Administration Plan was. Mr. Bishop responded that the Administration Plan in a final draft format had just been presented to the city managers technical committee. He believes it is about 99% complete as planners and a developers task force is also having their input. It will be presented to the WRCOG Executive Committee shortly. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos noted that she was uncomfortable approving something that they did not have clearly defined how it was going to be administered. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos expressed concern about the non residential fees and who implements the actual backbone system. Mr. Bishop responded the decision on the backbone system would be up to those jurisdictions affected. The 1% administration is to reimburse RCTC. Mr. Bishop responded that the project selection and provisions will be decided upon by local planning and public works. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos commented that she would like an analysis back because of the apparent inequity between the built out cities and San Jacinto. While she understands the time sensitivity, she suggested the funds collected not be deposited with WRCOG until the Council has more answers. San Jacinto can't afford to not pass it: If a 100 homes were permitted without collecting the fee it would wipe out San Jacinto's reserve. She again voiced her displeasure with WRCOG. Mayor Ayres noted that adopting this ordinance impacts the city for 22 years. He then went through the campaign propaganda to get the voters to pass Measure A. Nothing was advertised about losing Measure A funding if TUMF and MSCHP was not adopted. Even their summaries read far differently than what the ordinance says. Mayor Ayres commented that WRCOG dong the administration adds another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy at the county level. The WRCOG presentation to RTA was incomplete, as there was only one slide. In the Paladin letter San Jacinto is ranked 12th on the list and questioned why San Jacinto should give such large amounts to the regional development when such a limited amount is given to help local needs. City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 10 of 17 Mayor Ayres noted the importance of developing retail business in San Jacinto: It makes it harder to bring retail businesses with the ever increasing fees. He would like to see it zero for retail businesses. Staff recommended a fiscal impact study on San Jacinto. There won't be time to do a study. Mayor Ayres further commented that he believes San Jacinto will be a donor city and the others that have or are nearly built out won't come to San Jacinto's aide when San Jacinto's needs arise. Mayor Ayres expressed concern about the support San Jacinto receives from the County on other projects could be withdrawn if the Council does not support TUMF. Council Member Conner explained how he sees San Jacinto as a donor city. According to his calculations $250,000,000 with go to WRCOG and San Jacinto will only get $8,000,000 instead of the $20,000,000 they are saying San Jacinto will get. He further noted the City only receives 14% of the 1% tax and 14% of the 1% property tax. San Jacinto residents pay twice the tax of those in Corona. There are $22,000,000 worth of street improvements already identified to bring San Jacinto's streets to a fair condition. Council Member Conner suggested a Nexus Study be done as it might be in the City's best interest to not participate in Measure A and keep all those monies locally that are sent to WRCOG. Council Member Shaw commented that he agreed with the developers that spoke. It makes it especially more difficult for first time new home owners. He explained that he was one of those that voted for Measure A and did not anything about TUMF being connected to it. He believes the Board of Supervisors should run the county and the council should run the city. He explained that is easy to be envious of the neighbors to the south that have the large sales tax base; is excited about the growth that is currently on the books; but is also fearful about what is going to happen at the state and county levels over the next 25 years. Council Member Shaw expressed that it felt like the Council was having to roll over but the residents need to be protected and he will not like it but will vote to pass TUMF. M/S/C (Carlson-Buydos / Stubblefield) moved to approve introduction of Ordinance 03-03 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program / by further motion moved to read by title only: Ordinance No. 03-03 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 11 of 17 Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee With the following two amendments: 1) Delete Section K 2) In order to implement the Ordinance the Council will review the Administrative Plan that is being developed prior to agreeing to forward the funds to WRCOG. Roll Call Vote Carlson-Buydos Aye Conner Aye Shaw Aye Stubblefield Aye Ayres Aye Motion carries 5/0. Mayor Ayres recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. for a short break. He reconvened the meeting at 9:34 p.m. 3.2 Planning Amendment 3-02 / Ordinance No. 03-04 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, adding Section 13.04 (16), Pet/Small Animal Crematory, to the San Jacinto Zoning Ordinance No. 340 / Adopt Negative Declaration / Introduce Ordinance No. 03-04 for First Reading of Ordinance 03- 04 and by motion read by title only: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, adding Section 13.04 (16), Pet/Small Animal Crematory, to the San Jacinto Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 340 I Community Development Director Community Development Director Hults gave the Staff Report 3.3 Planning Zone Change 4-02 / Ordinance No. 03-05 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, Approving Change of Zone 4-02, Re -Zoning Certain Properties located generally on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue between Seventh Street and the Riverside4 County Flood Control Channel from "A" (Agriculture and "R-1" (One -Family Residential) to "R-1 (One -Family Residential / Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration I City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 12 of 17 Introduce Ordinance No. 03-05 for First Reading and by motion read by title only: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, approving change of Zone 4-02, Re -Zoning Certain Properties Located Generally on the West Side of Santa Fe Avenue between Seventh Street and the Riverside County Flood Control Channel from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-1" (One - Family Residential to "R-1" (One -Family Residential) / Community Development Director M/S/C 4. CITY DEPARTMENTS 4.1 Resolution No. 2317 / A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, Approving the Applicant to Apply for Grant Funds for the Per Capita Grant Program Under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 / Approve / Community Development Director Community Development Director Tim Hults noted these are funds authorized by Proposition 12 Park Funding. The application is for $37,000. Executive Director Sam Goepp of Valley Wide Recreation will assist with the grant application and submittal. M/S/C (Carlson-Buydos / Ayres) moved to approve Resolution No. 2317 / approving the applicant to apply for grand funds for the Per Capita Grant Program Under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. Motion carried 5/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Stubblefield, Ayres Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 13 of 17 4.2 Resolution No. 2318 / A Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' of San Jacinto and the City Council of the City of San Jacinto / Approve / Human Resource Coordinator In the absence of the Human Resource Coordinator, Finance Director Bernie Simon gave the Staff Report. Under the current MOU with the local safety personnel the third and final step is implementation to make effective July 1, 2003 a two percent at age 50 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at level 4. The language of single highest year and survivor benefits at level 4 is not currently implemented. This is the beginning of the process to adopt the ordinance that will eventually make the change. This is a resolution of intention to set the course, so that the change will be effective by 7/1/03, as required by the June 2001 Memorandum of Understanding with public safety personnel. M/S/C (Carlson-Buydos I Conner) moved to approve Resolution No. 2318 / A Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' of San Jacinto and the City Council of the City of San Jacinto. Motion carries 5/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Stubblefield, Ayres Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5.1 Warrant Register for Warrants, Prepaid Checks, and Payroll Checks Period Ending 03/20/03 / Approve / Finance Director 5.2 February 27, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes / Approve / City Clerk 5.3 March 6, 2003 Regular Minutes / Approve / City Clerk 5.4 Implementation Plan II / Receive and File / City Manager 5.5 Final Tract Map 30688 / Osborne Development Corporation West of Las Rosas Drive between Shaver and Evans Street / Approve and Authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement and Final Map / City Engineer City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 14 of 17 M/S/C (Conner / Shaw) moved to approve Consent Calendar items 5.1, 5.4, 5.5 as presented. Motion carried 5/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Stubblefield, Ayres Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None M/S/C (Conner / Carlson-Buydos) moved to approve Consent Calendar item 5.2 not the correction that Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos opened the meeting. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Conner, Shaw, Stubblefield, Carlson-Buydos Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: Ayres (not present at 2/27/03 meeting) M/S/C (Carlson-Buydos / Conner) moved to approve Consent Calendar item 5.3 as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Carlson-Buydos, Conner, Shaw, Ayres Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: Stubblefield (not present at 3/6/03 meeting) Mayor Ayres recessed the Regular Meeting at 10:11 p.m. to consider the Redevelopment Agency Agenda. Mayor Ayres reconvened the Regular Meeting following the Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 10:13 p.m. 6. MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS / DISCUSSIONS Council Member Shaw reported that he attended the Board of Directors meeting for the Ramona Pageant. The Pageant begins the end of April and runs for 3 weeks. Many improvements have been accomplished with the $400,000 received from County funding. Early ticket sales are down. Council Member Shaw explained his involvement in local schools and the police interaction that took place while he was there. He commended the Police Department. He is leaving for a land use workshop with two of the Planning Commissioners presented by the League of California Cities. City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 15 of 17 Council Member Shaw invited the Council to the Prayer Breakfast March 28, 2003 at 6:15 am at the Anchor Restaurant. There is a meeting that he will be attending at the Community Center to honor the volunteers that work in the Senior Nutrition Program. Council Member Conner and Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos met with two members of Hemet's City Council to discuss VEDC. He missed the last monthly VEDC meeting but he has been informed the director has resigned. He met with the City Engineer regarding Esplanade and Warren Road that has the drainage problem for Hemet. Council Member Stubblefield suggested the April clean up day be reconsidered. After noting some potential problems and with the Vietnam Wall coming it might be best left for May. Ms Lanier informed the Council about the clean up activities proposed to be completed by the time "the Wall" arrives. Many people are volunteering in their neighborhoods and for larger projects. Vice Mayor Carlson-Buydos commented that she attended the VEDC (Valley Economic Development Council) meeting with Hemet Council representatives. She noted that they agreed economic development needs to be looked at regionally. She met with the local action group today. She has the video on sustainable. Mayor Ayres reported on: 1) The time capsule is going to be buried at Hofmann Park on Wednesday April 9, 2003, the 115th Anniversary of San Jacinto's incorporation. The time capsule will be opened in 35 years when the City is 150 years old. 2) The San Jacinto Levee Tour is scheduled for April 19, 2003 3) The Vietnam Moving Wall Memorial plans are progressing. A volunteer meeting and a City clean up are planned. 4) The next Mayor's meeting will be at American Village next Saturday. He invited one Council Member to join him and Treasurer Potts. Mayor Ayres recessed the regular meeting to move into the RDA Closed Session at 7:43 p.m. 7. CLOSED SESSION 7.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 16 of 17 Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Number of cases: Two Cases No reportable action 7.2 Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager No reportable action. 7.3 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS California Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Vacant Land — Assessor's Parcel No 431-040-027-9 Agency Negotiator: Habib Motlagh Negotiating Parties: Ming Cheung Wong Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment No reportable action. 7.4 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS California Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Vacant Land — Assessor's Parcel No 431-040-052 Agency Negotiator: Habib Motlagh Negotiating Parties: Calvin L. and Deborah F. Smith Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment No reportable action. 7.5 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS California Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Vacant Land — Assessor's Parcel No 431-040-032-3 Agency Negotiator: Habib Motlagh Negotiating Parties: Two Pac Company Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment No reportable action. 8. ADJOURNMENT Following the motion, second and vote, Mayor Ayres adjourned the meeting at 12:47a.m.. City Council Minutes March 20, 2003 Page 17 of 17 City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk MSN Hotmail - Message Page 1 of 1 MSN Home I My MSN I Hotmall I Search I Shopping I Money I People & Chat AMERITRADE A Home TInbox Compose Contacts ] Options Help sa njacintocityclerk@ hotmai I.com Save Address(es)II Block From : "Marco Martinez" <MAMartinez@bbklaw.com> To : <sanjacintocityclerk@hotmail.com> CC: "Deborah Gilson" <DKGilson@bbklaw.com>, "John Brown" <JEBrown@bbklaw.com>, "Jeff Ballinger" <JSBallinger@bbklaw.com>, <thults@msn.com> Subject : Attorney -Client Privielge: Possible Closed Session ItemAddition Date : Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:38:50 -0800 Reply I Reply All I Forward I Delete I'Put in Folder... Dorothy: Sign Out earrchthh Free Newsletters I MSN Featured Offers I Find Message Let good Previous Next I Close Printer Friendly Version Set up a j have jobs Explore I MSN Hot I understand that Jim Ayres may be in receipt of a letter from a Autos property/business owner threatening to sue the city over a development Business issue (Blodgett Road). If this is the case, can we place on the agenda Buy Ticke for next week under "Anticipated Litigation" - 1 potential case? What Careers is your print deadline? City Guide Download I don't have a copy of the letter yet. I am supposed to receive it Entertainr tomorrow morning and will evaluate at that time. Find Friers Games Marco A. Martinez, AICP Greeting t Best Best & Krieger LLP Health 3750 University Avenue Horoscop' P.O. Box 1028 House & I Riverside, CA 92502 Instant M (909) 686-1450 Internet. (909) 686-3083 Fax Kids Learning : MAMartinez@bbklaw.com Love & Re Maps & D MSN 8 Inl News Send Mor Shop AT& Shopping Sports by Travel Women MSN - More Useful Everyday MSN Home I My MSN I Hotma€l arch I Shopping I Money People & Chat rc; 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TERMS OI` U Advertise [RUSre Approved Frwacy Statement Gett•letWise http://by 1 fd.bay 1.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=F000000001 &a=7fc23 5165... 3/28/2003 Dorothy Chouinard - Re: Annexation No. LLPD No. 2 (Tract No. 30262) Page 1 From: Bernie Simon To: Dorothy Chouinard; Jamie Raymond Date: 3/19/03 2:21PM Subject: Re: Annexation No. 4 to LLPD No. 2 (Tract No. 30262) Hi Jamie... Thanks! If you have any questions give me a call on Ext. 340. Bernie »> "Jamie Raymond" <JLRaymond@bbklaw.com> 03/19/03 02:16PM »> Attached please find the following documents for your use in connection with Annexation No. 4 to LLPD No. 2: 1. Staff Report for April 3rd City Council meeting 2. Resolution Initiating Proceedings. 3. Resolution Approving Engineer's Report. 4. Resolution of Intent. 5. Resolution Ordering Annexation. 6. Mayor's Script for public hearing. The waiver and ballot have been sent to Cambridge Homes and Don Newell has indicated that he will sign and return them this week as he is in his San Jacinto office until Saturday. I will forward the waiver when I receive it. Please let me know if you do not receive the executed ballot. If you have any questions, please let me know. Jamie L. Raymond Best Best & Krieger LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 263-2602 (949) 260-0972 (fax) JLRavmond(a)bbk!aw.com C 6529 RIVERSIDE AVENUE • SUITE 230 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 909) 781-0811 • FAX (909) 781-8435 TO t 7 4 D /1—(5;/ (4e/if /! GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC. ONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS -/fig/J ,5 r'.L s rJ CJi1 I,, e4 92233 WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached O Under separate cover via Shop drawings 2 Copy of letter O Prints Change order Plans LSnnE ur � rEi -� F ll Jmi.AlIVSMIl'L L DATE ATTENTION RE' uos n5/,yfak L7 Samples the following items: Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION i --7./ s72P_ rS p r7.- - 5 �4" / /, J, - ../.,,,_,--- Zi rz5o4/O%'7 /i'177 ��y//-s/ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ;For your use ❑ As requested O For review and comment REMARKS _Clr Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections Resubmit copies for approval Submit copies for distribution Return corrected prints FOR BIDS DUE - - 19 O PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US P , 72,4 ./ /14, '4./' 1*,l �S�P s,o4(/,, a/✓i)/ /47 5�7.( COPY TO d6f'//dam/ SIGNED: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS RIVERSIDE LAWYERS ONTARIO 1809) 686- 1450 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1500 (9091 989-8584 INDIAN WELLS IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 SAN DIEGO 17801 568-26 I I (949) 263-2600 (6 19) 525- 1300 (9491 260-0972 FAX BBKLAW.COM SACRAMENTO (9 1 6) 325-4000 JAME L. RAYMOND JLRAYMOND(0)6BKLAW.00M March 18, 2003 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Don Newell Cambridge Homes, LLC 462 Scovell Drive, #A-1 San Jacinto, CA 92583 Re: Annexation No. 4 to City of San Jacinto's Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 (Tract No. 30262) Dear Mr. Newell: Best Best & Krieger LLP serves as the City Attorney to the City of San Jacinto. In that capacity, and on behalf of the City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto, we are enclosing a notice of the hearing regarding the annexation of parcels of property identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 433-030-025 to City of San Jacinto Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 and the assessments which are proposed to be levied theron for fiscal year 2003-04 to pay the costs of the maintenance, servicing and operation of public lighting facilities and landscaping which are of benefit to those parcels. Also enclosed is a form of ballot to be voted on behalf of the Cambridge Homes, LLC. the owner of the property. Finally, we are also enclosing an envelope which is to be utilized for returning the voted ballot. As you will note, the hearing is to be held at 7:00 p.m. on April 3, 2003. In order to properly vote the enclosed ballot, a cross (+) must be inserted in one of the voting squares on the ballot and the ballot must then be signed on behalf of the property owner. The ballot must then be enclosed and sealed in the envelope and returned to the City Clerk as follows: Dorothy Chouinard, City Clerk, City of San Jacinto, 201 East Main Street, San Jacinto, California 92583. In the alternative, the envelope and ballot can be delivered to the City Clerk at the time and place of the hearing. ORANGE'JR142 18 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Mr. Don Newell March 18, 2003 Page 2 Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, • Raffitta Jamie L. Raymond for BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP City Attorney City of San Jacinto Enclosures cc: Bernie Simon, Finance Director (w/ enclosures) John Friedrich, Engineer of Record (w/ enclosures) ORANGEVR 4218 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SAN JACINTO CITY COUNCIL April 3, 2003, 7:00 p.m. San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room 2045 South San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California ORGANIZATION 1.1 Call to Order 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Invocation — Pastor Randy Leeper, Faith Tabernacle, San Jacinto 1.4 Pledge of Allegiance 1.5 Special Presentations 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Now is the time for the public to address the Council on any subject within the jurisdiction of the City Council not listed on the agenda. A recap of the nonagendized comments will be addressed under item number 2.1 during the City's second regular meeting of the month. 3.0 PUBLIC HEARING 3.1 Ordinance No. 03-03 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program / Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 03-03 and by motion move to read by title only: Ordinance No. 03-03 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto Authorizing Participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program / Community Development Director 3.2 Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto — Annexation No. 4 (Tract 30262) A. Resolution No. / A Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park City Council Agenda April 3, 2003 Page 2 of 4 District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 4") Approve / City Attorney B. Resolution No. / A Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report for the Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 4") / Approve / City Attorney C. Resolution No. / A Resolution Declaring Intention to Annex Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 4") / Adopt / City Attorney D. PUBLIC HEARING At the conclusion of the public hearing - If the City Council determines that a majority protest does not exist, Adopt Resolution No. / A Resolution Ordering Annexation of Territory to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 and Levying Assessments (Annexation No. 4 into LLPD No 2) / City Attorney 4. CITY DEPARTMENTS 4.1 Ordinance No. 03-06 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City of San Jacinto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees Retirement System / Approve and Introduce first reading of Ordinance 03-06 and by motion authorize to read by title only: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract between the City of San Jacinto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees Retirement System / Human Resource Coordinator 4.2 Agenda Production Software / Approve / City Clerk 4.3 Resolution No. _ / A Resolution Accepting the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Grant Process for the San Jacinto Police Department in the amount of $51,422 / Approve / Acting Police Chief City Council Agenda April 3, 2003 Page 3 of 4 5. CONSENT CALENDAR The matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion by City Council Members in the form listed. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the motion unless members of the City Council, staff or the public requests a specified item be removed and/or discussed. Anyone wishing to discuss a consent calendar item should come forward upon invitation of the Mayor; state their name, address and the consent calendar item number. Speakers should limit comments to three (3) minutes. 5.1 Warrant Register for Warrants, Prepaid Checks, and Payroll Checks Period Ending April 3, 2003 / Approve / Finance Director 5.2 March 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes / Approve / City Clerk 5.3 Treasurer's Report at February 28, 2003 Meeting recesses to consider the Redevelopment Agency Agenda. Regular Meeting resumes following the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. 6. MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS / DISCUSSIONS 7. CLOSED SESSION 7.1 Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager 7.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government code Section 54956.9(a) Case Number: 03-29866 WCAB No. SBR0313562 7.3 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government code Section 54956.9(b) Number of Cases: One Case 8. ADJOURNMENT City Council Agenda April 3, 2003 Page 4 of 4 CHALLENGE TO LAND USE DECISIONS: Any person seeking to challenge a decision regarding land use made by the City Council as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and the discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City Council, shall be required to commence that action 90 days following the date on which the decision of the City Council becomes final as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Please refer to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 to determine how to calculate when a decision becomes final. It is the intention of the City of San Jacinto to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, or in meetings on a regular basis, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact City Hall at (909) 487- 7330, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. I, Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Cterkof the City of San Jacinto, do hereby certini that I caused to 6e posted the foregoing agenda this 28th day of March, 2003 as required 6y law. April 3, 2003 TO: FROM: Tim Hults, Community Development Director'Y AGENDA ITEM 3.1 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council SUBJECT: Ordinance Adoption Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance authorizing the participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. BACKGROUND: On March 20, 2003 the City Council introduced the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance. The Ordinance establishes a uniform funding strategy to mitigate the effects of the projected growth on the existing circulation network. The TUMF program would apply to all new development and would fund specific arterial improvements throughout the west County region. When introducing the Ordinance, the City Council made modifications to the Ordinance that was presented. The Council deleted a statement which indicated that the Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing the funds, and also deleted a provision whereby the funds would be sent to WRCOG within 30 days of payment. In order to implement the Ordinance, the Council wanted to review the Administrative Plan that is being developed prior to agreeing to forward the funds to WRCOG. The final draft of the Administrative Plan is attached for your review. Approvals City Manager: Finance Director: Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, with related Exhibits Regional System of Highways and Arterials Nexus Study — Executive Summary Backbone Network Final Draft Administrative Plan dated March 24, 2003 Page 2 of 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ORDINANCE NO: 03-03 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance." The City Council of the City of San Jacinto hereby finds and determines: A. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that future development within Western Riverside County and the cities therein will result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials (the "Regional System") as it presently exists. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the system is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. B. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable levels of service throughout Western Riverside County by 2025. C. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that funds will be inadequate to construct the Regional System needed to avoid the unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts. Absent a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), existing and known future funding sources will be inadequate to provide the necessary improvements to the Regional System, resulting in an unacceptably high level of traffic congestion within and around Western Riverside County. D. The City of San Jacinto is a Member Agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), a joint powers agency consisting of the County of Riverside, and the thirteen other cities situated in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the Member Agencies of WRCOG developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to expand the capacity of the Regional System could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee on future residential and non-residential development. As a Member Agency of WRCOG, the City of San Jacinto participated in the preparation of that certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study", dated October 18, 2002, prepared pursuant to California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq., the Mitigation Fee Act (the "Nexus Study"). E. The City of San Jacinto has reviewed the Nexus Study, and hereby finds that future development within the County and Cities will substantially adversely affect the Regional System, and that unless such development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the System will operate at unacceptable levels of service. F. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto hereby finds and determines that the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System within Western Riverside County will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond. The failure to mitigate impacts on the Regional System will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. G. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development projects on which the TUMF will be levied. H. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional System. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such development will be mitigated in part by the payment of the TUMF. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto further finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. Section 3. J. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the construction and acquisition of the Regional System improvements identified in the Nexus Study. The need for the improvements is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic thus creating the demand for the improvements. K. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto hereby adopts the Nexus Study, the Executive Summary of such Study is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and incorporates it herein as though set forth in full. Nexus Study with all appendices is on file with the City Clerk. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development including the issuance of a permit for construction. B. "Gross Acre" means the total property area as shown on a land division map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. C. "Industrial Project" means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in the following Ordinance No. 340 zoning classifications: C-M, M- 1-P, M-1 or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. D. "Low Income Residential Housing" means residential units constructed as housing for low-income households as such households are defined pursuant to section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. E. "Multi Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. F. "Non -Residential Project" means a retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non -dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. G. "Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi -family dwellings. "Residential Dwelling Unit" shall not include hotels or motels. H. "Retail Commercial Project" means any development project that proposes any commercial use not defined as a service commercial project, allowed in the following Ordinance No. 340 zoning classifications: C-1, C-2, C-M, M- 1 or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. "Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices. J. "Single Family Residential Unit" means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of 8 units to the gross acre or less. Section 4. Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee: A. Adoption. There is hereby adopted the following schedule of fees: $6650 per Single Family Residential Unit $4607 per Multi Family Residential Unit $1.45 per square foot of an Industrial Project $7.81 per square foot of a Retail Commercial Project $4.84 per square foot of a Service Commercial Project B. Fee Calculation. For non-residential projects, the fee rate utilized shall be based upon the predominate use of the building or structure identified in the building permit as further specified in the TUMF Administration Plan. ii. For non-residential projects, the fee shall be calculated on the total square footage of the building or structure identified in the building permit and as further specified in the TUMF Administration Plan. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to this Ordinance, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF program within two (2) years of the effective date of this Ordinance and no less than every five (5) years thereafter. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System depicted on Exhibit "A" and identified in the Nexus Study, Exhibit "B". E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the County, as identified by Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following new development shall be exempt from the TUMF: Low income residential housing. ii. Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities. iii. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing dwelling unit. iv. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any non- residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the current applicable rate. v. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code, Section 65864 et seq. prior to the effective date of this ordinance, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided, however that, if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended after the effective date of this Ordinance, the TUMF shall be imposed. vi. Guest House, as defined in Article 2 of Ordinance No. 340. vii. Additional single family residential units located on the same parcel pursuant to the provisions of any agricultural zoning classifications set forth in Ordinance No. 340. viii. Second Dwelling Units pursuant to Article 5 of Ordinance No. 340. ix. The sanctuary building of a church or other house of worship, eligible for a property tax exemption. x. Residential projects that have been issued a building permit prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. xi. Non -Residential projects that have been issued a building permit prior to June 30, 2004. G. Credits. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administration Plan and the following: Regional Tier i. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for the all costs associated with the arterial component based on approved unit cost assumptions for the Regional System. ii. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off -site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the local jurisdiction in consultation with the developer. iii. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the most current unit cost assumptions for the Regional System or actual costs, whichever is less. Local Tier The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a recognized benefit district established. ii. If there is a recognized benefit district established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF. Should the developer construct network improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved unit cost assumptions, whichever is less at the time of the agreement. Reimbursements shall be enacted through a three party agreement including the developer, WRCOG and the local jurisdiction, contingent on funds being available. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five-year Capital Improvement Program adopted annually by WRCOG. Section 6. Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees: A. Authority of the Building Department. The Building Official, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF and make all determinations required by this Ordinance. B. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever come first. However this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the Fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit. ii. For non-residential projects the fees shall be phased in as follows: From July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005, the fee schedule shall be: $0.48 per square foot of an Industrial Project $2.60 per square foot of a Retail Commercial Project $1.61 per square foot of a Service Commercial Project From July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, the fee schedule shall be: $0.96 per square foot of an Industrial Project $5.20 per square foot of a Retail Commercial Project $3.23 per square foot of a Service Commercial Project iii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment. iv. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee, accordingly, the fees shall run with the land. v. Fees shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder, that are required to be transferred, shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act, only upon the City Council approval of the TUMF Administration Plan. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administration Plan. Appealable issues shall be application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemptions. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Community Development Director, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 8 of this ordinance. Section 7. Effect of Legal Actions on Non -Residential Projects. If a legal action, or referendum is filed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance or during the phase in period of the fee program, and the legal action seeks to set aside, void or annul the City's approval of a non-residential project, the phasing schedule set forth in Section 6 shall be stayed. The stay shall only remain in effect for a period of 18 months from the time the legal action was filed, or until a final, non -appealable order is issued by the court or a settlement agreement is executed, whichever occurs first. Once the stay is no longer in effect, the period remaining in the phasing schedule shall again commence to run. Section 8. Appointment of TUMF Fund Administrator. WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the County, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. Detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this ordinance shall be set forth in a resolution adopted by WRCOG. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1%) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by the TUMF. Section 9. Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 10. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Riverside, State of California. Section 11. This ordinance shall take effect on the 61st day after the date of adoption. Introduced at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 20th day of March, 2003. MOVED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 3rd day of April, 2003 by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: City of San Jacinto By Jim Ayres, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk EXHIBIT A LEGEND Ultimate Number of Lanes 2 Lanes 448i Inirchanges 1-0020$20,000,000 2 - 810,000,000 3-82,000,000 Railroad Crossings 1-$4,500,000 per lane O 2 - $2,260,000 per lane • Bridges Freeways arissiwde Railroad lines 4 Lanes 6 Lanes e Lanes City Boundaries WRCOG Boundary EXHIBIT B TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared for The Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimesa The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Hemet The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrietta The City of Norco The City of Perris The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The County of Riverside Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Revised October 18, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 4 2.1 Recent Historical Trend 4 2.2 Available Demographic Data 4 2.3 Future Growth Trends 5 2.4 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis 6 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF 7 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels 8 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels 9 3.3 The TUMF Concept 10 4.0 THE TUMF SYSTEM 12 4.1 Identification of TUMF Roadway Network 12 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network 14 4.3 Future Transportation Needs 17 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System 20 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding 21 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs 21 5.0 NEXUS ANALYSIS 23 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements 23 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components 24 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments 26 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION 28 6.1 Residential Fees 28 6.2 Non -Residential Fees 29 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 31 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J List of TUMF Committees. Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth, 2000 — 2025 (SCAG 2001 RTP, CETAP). Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2000 — 2025 (SCAG CTP Model). Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials Western Riverside County "Backbone" and "Secondary" Network of Regional System of Highways and Arterials. Western Riverside County Network Cost Assumptions. Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution. Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose. Residential Fee Calculation Non -Residential Fee Calculation and Land Use Density Conversion Factors WRCOG Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 WRCOG Regional Socioeconomic Data by Source 5 Table 2.2 Comparative Demographic Change from SCAG 2000 5 Table 2.3 Population and Employment Estimates 6 Table 3.1 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2000-2025) 8 Table 4.1 Unit Costs for Roadway Construction 18 Table 4.2 Unit Cost for Transit Capital Expenditures 21 Table 5.1 2025 Forecast - Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone 25 Table 5.2 2025 Forecast - Percentage Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone 25 Table 5.3 Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation 26 Table 5.4 Person Trip Production - Residential vs. Non -Residential 27 Table 6.1 Residential Fee Calculation 29 Table 6.2 Non -Residential Fee Calculation 30 Table 6.3 Non -Residential Fee Conversion 30 Table 7.1 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County . 32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Regional System of Highways and Arterials 13 Figure 4.2 Backbone Network of Regional System of Highways and Arterials 15 Figure 4.3 WRCOG Area Planning Districts 16 WRCOG ii Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY Western Riverside County has 14 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. This portion of Riverside County is growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (doubling the population in 25 years) can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements, development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued rapid future growth projected in Riverside County, several county wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2025. While localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are disparate for meeting the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF program before applying the concept county wide. From February 1999 to September 2000 the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement. The SATISFY 2020 program was guided by three committees: a Policy Committee made up of elected officials and private industry representatives, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) made up of public and private sector representatives, and a Legal Committee made up of the attorneys from the four jurisdictions and WRCOG. The Policy Committee met monthly to discuss the policy and procedural implication of the SATISFY 2020 program. Participation at the Policy Committee meeting included a wide variety of attendants including the press who reported on the meetings in the local section of the area WRCOG 1 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 newspaper. The TAC that formed in June 1999 and initially met monthly and later met bi- monthly focused on the technical aspects of the SATISFY 2020 program including the identification of prospective projects and the development of cost estimates. Over 50 open meetings were held throughout the SATISFY 2020 process in addition to council workshops and meetings. In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. A TUMF Technical Advisory Committee (TUMF TAC) consisting of the regional Public Works Directors, WRCOG, RCTC and other interested parties was established by the TUMF Policy Committee. The TUMF TAC has met on at least a bi-monthly basis for the past two years to consider the technical aspects of the TUMF program including the definition of a Regional System of Highways and Arterials and the development of cost estimates for the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. A City Managers Subcommittee began meeting in December of 2001 and has met at least monthly since this time. The City Managers Subcommittee meets to prepare, review and recommend policies to the TUMF Policy Committee, the WRCOG City Managers TAC and the WRCOG Executive Committee. A list of the representatives on all TUMF (and SATISFY 2020) Committees is included in Appendix A. Between May 2002 and July 2002 there have been 10 specific workshops with the BIA and the development community to discuss TUMF related issues. WRCOG has provided monthly staff reports on all the TUMF activities since 1999 to the WRCOG City Mangers TAC and the WRCOG Executive Committee. There have been over fifteen public meetings with city councils, regional agencies and boards, and civic groups regarding the TUMF process. Further, regional information briefs, weekly status reports and postings on the web site have served to communicate the progress of the TUMF program development. The TUMF program is intended to be implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying WRCOG 2 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: 1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. The purpose of this study is therefore to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that will be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It will also identify the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development. WRCOG 3 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 2.1 Recent Historical Trend Despite the recession of the 1990s, Western Riverside County has experienced robust growth in recent years. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to be 371,000 representing a 42% increase (or 3.6% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data A variety of alternate demographic information is available for Western Riverside County quantifying future population, household and employment growth. The primary source of consolidated demographic information for Southern California is SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. The most recently available SCAG demographic projections were developed in 2000 to support the preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan titled Community Link 21. Adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on April 12, 2001, Community Link 21 "presents an assessment of the overall growth and economic trends in the SCAG Region for the years 2001 - 2025.1" The adopted SCAG demographic projections are typically used by sub -regional agencies in Southern California as a basis for developing their own demographic forecasts. For the Western Riverside County sub -region, WRCOG has adopted growth forecasts based on SCAG data. Western Riverside County forecasts have also been developed for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) and the associated Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). The CETAP 2025 and Buildout (Year 2037) forecasts were developed by the project consultants (Transcore) and are consistent with the adopted SCAG projections. Detailed results of Census 2000 for the State of California were released by the U.S. Census Bureau on August 27, 2002. This detailed information was not available during the preparation of the TUMF Nexus Study. ' Southern California Association of Governments, RTP Community Link 21 - Executive Summary, April 2001 WRCOG 4 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 Table 2.1 provides a summary of the available socioeconomic data for Western Riverside County, including existing conditions and future growth forecasts. A detailed breakdown of the available socioeconomic data is included in Appendix B. Source SCAG (1) SCAG (1a) WRCOG (2) Census 2000 (3) RCIP (4) Scenario 2 (4a) Scenario 3 (4b) CETAP 2025 (5) CETAP buildout (6) TABLE 2.1 WRCOG REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC DATA BY SOURCE Base Year 1997 2000 2000 1994 1994 1,090,133 1,199,004 1,187,346 1,376,877 1,376,877 Base Year 349,078 403,739 not avail 303,805 371,318 not avail. 368,048 368,048 1,993,154 2,024,250 2,573,785 2,573,785 2020 hhd emp 667,105 734,331 656,103 757,277 985,663 881,998 Pop 2,232,983 2,232,983 2,897,074 2025 / 2037 Hhd 721,427 721,427 962,483 emp 801,806 801,806 1,246,312 Notes: 1. Base year and forecast data used in 2001 RTP (adopted by SCAG CEHD Committee) la. Year 2000 data are SCAG estimates; year 2000 hhds based on occupied units; 2020 data were used in developing 2001 RTP. Included in Appendix B. 2. Data approved by WRCOG in June 2000. 3. Households and employment not available. 4. Riverside. Co. pop. & employment data prepared by Stanley Hoffman & Assoc. for the RCIP (includes Coachella Valley) 4a. Population based on city input, employment based on SCAG projections 4b. Population based on city input, employment reflects historic trend analysis (2.91% annual growth rate) 5. 2025 Data used for CETAP, provided by Transcore. Included in Appendix B. 6. 2037 Data used for CETAP Buildout, provided by Transcore. Included in Appendix B. 2.3 Future Growth Trends Despite the various demographic data sources that are available, all forecasts agree that the trend for population and employment growth in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a high rate. The resulting annual (compounded) growth rates derived from the SCAG and CETAP forecasts are displayed in Table 2.2. TABLE 2.2 COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES FROM SCAG 2000 Source Forecast Year Total Change Annual Change pop hhd emp pop hhd emp SCAG 2020 66.2% 65.1% 97.8% 2.6% 2.5% 3.5% SCAG RTP 2025 86.2% 78.7% 115.9% 2.5% 2.3% 3.1% CETAP 2025 86.2% 78.7% 115.9% 2.5% 2.3% 3.1% CETAP Buildout (2037) 141.6% 149.7% 235.6% 2.4% 2.5% 3.3% Based on the adopted regional growth forecasts (which have been used as the bas's for the SCAG RTP and the CETAP study), the population of Western Riverside County is pro'ected to increase by 86% in the period between 2000 and 2025, a compounded rate of approximately WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 5 Revised October 18, 2002 2.5% annually. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 116% or 3.1% annually. 2.4 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis Having reviewed a variety of alternative demographic data for the purpose of quantifying population and household growth in Western Riverside County, it was determined that the data developed and adopted to support the SCAG 2001 RTP represented the most widely accepted data available. For this reason, the SCAG 2001 RTP demographic information was used as the basis for quantifying the Comparative Demographic Changes referenced in the Nexus Study analysis The SCAG 2001 RTP 2000 and 2020 data were factored to represent alternate years (2010, 2015 and 2025) at the city level (and for the unincorporated county) for Western Riverside County in support of CETAP evaluation efforts. CETAP Buildout (2037) demographic data were also prepared. These data are previously provided for comparative reference in Table 2.1. SCAG 2001 RTP employment data for 2000 and 2020 was divided into ten employment sectors consistent with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Major Groups including Agricultural, Mining, Construction, Manufacturing, Transport/Utility, Wholesale, Retail, Financial/Insurance/Real Estate, Service and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Analysis, the employment by NAICS Major Groups was aggregated to Industrial (Agricultural, Mining, Construction, Transport/Utility, Manufacturing, Wholesale), Retail (Retail), Service (Financial/Insurance/Real Estate, Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government) that were used as the basis for calculating the fee for each aggregated sector type (as described in Section 6.2). A correspondence table detailing the various employment groupings and categories for each non-residential TUMF sector type is included in Appendix B. The demographic data used as the basis for completing the Nexus Study analysis is summarized in Table 2.3. TABLE 2.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES 2000 2020 Sector Share 2025 Change Population 1,199,004 2,232,983 1,033,979 Households 403,739 721,427 317,688 Employees Industrial 135,545 214,144 29.2% 233,821 98,276 Retail 66,822 145,054 19.8% 158,382 91,560 Service 124,323 294,675 40.1% 321,752 197,429 Government/Public Sector 44,628 80,458 11.0% 87,851 43,223 Totals 371,318 734,331 100.0% 801,806 430,488 Notes: - Population, Household and Employment data from the SCAG 2001 RTP/CETAP - 2025 Employees by Sector based on 2020 Employees by Sector WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 6 Revised October 18, 2002 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)2. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (doubling the population in 25 years) can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development, development exactions generally only provide a fraction of the improvements, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then presents the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2025 travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County, developed for the CETAP study using the SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) travel demand forecasting model of the Inland Empire. Because of the model's area of coverage and level of detail in roadway network and traffic analysis zones, this model is the most appropriate tool for forecasting future traffic volumes on the arterial roadways in Western Riverside County. Furthermore, the SCAG CTP model is based on SCAG demographic forecasts that are consistent with the socioeconomic data described in Section 2.0 and used as a basis for calculating the TUMF fee. The 2025 CETAP forecasts are the most current comprehensive forecasts available with this model. Use of the CETAP 2025 forecasts ensures a conservative estimate of future congestion, since a Year 2025 forecast will have less traffic than a buildout forecast, and since the CETAP 2025 scenario likely has less traffic on the regional arterials than a new SCAG 2025 regional growth scenario that forecasts more of the trips remaining within Western Riverside County. 2 The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp 2-2, 2-3) describes LOS as a "quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F), with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG 7 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the transportation system in Western Riverside County, existing (2000) and future (2025) traffic data were derived from the SCAG CTP Travel Demand Forecast Model networks developed by Transcore to support the ongoing Western Riverside County CETAP study. The CTP Model 2000 and 2025 CETAP trip tables and loaded base (No -Build) network files were obtained from Transcore for the purpose of evaluating future traffic growth (and trip distribution) in Western Riverside County. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for each of the two scenarios using the layer information link calculation capabilities of Citilabs Viper Software. The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional CTP model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel (VMT), total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT exceeding unacceptable level of service (LOS E) thresholds. These results were recorded from the Viper layer information results dialog box and were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents and screen shots of the respective results dialog boxes are attached in Appendix C. TABLE 3.1 REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE (2000-2025)* WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Measure of Performance (Daily) 2000 2025 % Change % Annual VMT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 23,962,100 61,630,700 157% 3.8% VMT-FREEWAYS 14,549,200 37,261,100 156% 3.8% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT 9,412,900 24,369,600 159% 3.9% VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 528,798 1,943,400 268% 5.3% VHT - FREEWAYS 257,011 883,400 244% 5.1% TOTAL ARTERIAL VHT 271,787 1,060,000 290% 5.6% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 31,733 666,900 2002% 13.0% VHD - FREEWAYS 17,268 270,600 1467% 11.6% TOTAL ARTERIAL VHD 14,465 396,300 2640% 14.2% VMTLOSE - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 8,524,100 47,119,600 453% 7.1% VMTLOSE - FRWY 6,840,100 34,573,900 405% 6.7% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,684,000 12,545,700 645% 8.4% % of ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 18% 51% 'Based on SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. NOTES: VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free -flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios) Total VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to exclude Assignment Groups 1, 5, and 6 being all freeways, carpool lanes and centroid connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were also calculated excluding only the centroid connectors (Assignment Group 6). WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 8 Revised October 18, 2002 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values. VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT — (Freeflow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMTLOSE = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.82) LOS Thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2000 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 21-2, Chapter 21, Page 21-3). The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2000 and 2025, and the average annual change between 2000 and 2025. As can be seen from the SCAG CTP Model outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development in the region will cause congestion on the arterial highway system to increase almost exponentially in the absence of additional highway infrastructure investments. Many facilities will experience a significant deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users." LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceptable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the Western Riverside County system of arterial roadways estimated to increase by 159% or 3.9% compounded annually. . As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by 645% or 8.4% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2000 and 2025. By 2025, over 50% of the total VMT on the regional highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists will increase over 14% per year as the combined influences of increased travel and worsened LOS manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay, highlighting the need to complete substantial highway improvements. The SCAG CTP Model outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and WRCOG 9 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 particularly for those who do not have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. For the purpose of quantifying existing and future transit trips in Western Riverside County, the SCAG RTP Model3 trip table outputs for transit trips between each of the 6 Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) in Western Riverside County were summarized for 1997 and 2025. The aggregated transit person trips internal to Western Riverside County were increased proportionately to reflect the estimated transit trips in 2000, and were then compared with the 2025 forecast to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The SCAG RTP Model trip table outputs indicate that regional transit services currently accommodate approximately 13,300 trips per day in Western Riverside County. By 2025, regional transit services are forecast to provide approximately 43,000 trips per day, an increase of 32,300 trips per day or 223%. SCAG RTP Model trip table outputs for transit person trips in the WRCOG region are summarized in Appendix C. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all transportation infrastructure. The need to provide additional transit services to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip -making extends beyond the local community, and contributes to the need for transportation improvements in other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve longer - distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer -distance trips (using TUMF revenues from the entire region), a second portion for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter -community trips (using TUMF revenues from the communities served by these roads — in effect, a return -to -source of that portion of the funds), and a final portion for improvements to the public transportation infrastructure (using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip -making is generated by residential development — when people move into new homes, they add trips to the transportation system. Some of the new trips are generated by activities associated with businesses — other than commute trips, these travel demands are not attributable to residential development. The different sources of new 3 The SCAG CTP Model is a highway only model and does not account for transit trips. The SCAG RTP Model incorporates both highway and transit modes and was used as the basis for determining existing and future transit trips. The SCAG CTP Model is derived from the SCAG RTP Model. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 10 Revised travel demand led to the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: • A uniform fee will be levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. • A fee will be assessed on new residential and non-residential development. • A portion of the fee will be used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer -distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee will be returned to the area in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee will be used to fund improvements to the public transportation infrastructure within the region. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 11 Revised 4.0 THE TUMF SYSTEM 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system, and represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials does NOT include the freeways of Western Riverside County. The TUMF roadway network is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and that would be eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County (also referred to as the TUMF Network) was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines, specifically the following: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build - out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day by 2025. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.82 (LOS E) or greater in 2025. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix D includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that satisfied the respective guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by the TUMF Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials is illustrated in Figure 4.1 and Appendix D. WRCOG 12 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 Ultimate Number of Lanes 2 Lane. 40malh.I 4 Lanes eaNno 6 Lane. af.kmI s In rohanges 1 1.520.000.000 2-510.000,000 1 3 -S2.000.000 Railroad Crossings ® 1-64,600000 per lane ® 2- 42,250,000 per We 1S Bridges Freeways .,y Railroad Lines City Boundaries WRCOG Boundary IuuL—J LJMiles 0 1 2 4 6 8 Regional System of Highways & Arterials Figure 4.1 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network The TUMF roadway network was further refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at ultimate build- out4, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts (APD — the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area) or zones, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2025. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee would be specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The Backbone Network is illustrated in Figure 4.2 and in Appendix E. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF fee would be specifically designated for improvements projects on the secondary network in the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3 and Appendix E. 4 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at ultimate buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF program (2025). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF program. WRCOG 14 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 Backbone Network 1 • Alt Route Regional TUMF Networ4 Freeways Streets & Roads 'Z+ Zone Boundaries SCity Boundaries WRCOG Boundary IUULJ LJ Miles 0 1 2 4 6 8 Backbone Network Recommended Networt Backbone Network • Alt Route 0%0 Zone Boundaries '1"-`11,4,sv Freeways Streets & Roads WRCOG Boundary Lakes & Rivers 4.3 Future Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the Network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)5, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates6 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. Using the RACE cost estimates, initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF Network were developed and inflated to reflect an increase of 2.7%, which is the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the year 2000. A copy of the RACE cost estimate methodology and the ENR Construction Cost Index are included in Appendix F. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates (included in Appendix F) and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF program. A peer review workshop meeting was held to review the unit cost estimates. The workshop was held at the RCTC offices on June 19, 2002 with representatives of WRCOG, local jurisdictions and the BIA in attendance. The explicit purpose of this peer review workshop was the review of the unit cost estimates, leading to the evaluation of recently completed or recently bid road projects in Western Riverside County and consideration of a unit cost sensitivity analysis completed by the Keith Companies. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. A table detailing the initial unit cost estimates and the recommended revisions from the peer review workshop is included in Appendix F. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs (which includes consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs) were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses — code 1), suburban (developed residential uses — code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses — code 3) land uses, 5 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 6 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 17 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 respectively. Similarly, interchange improvement costs were varied to account for differing levels of improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development at interchange locations on the TUMF network. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were varied to account for variations in cost associated with new (or fully reconstructed - code 1), major (or partially reconstructed - code 2) or minor (individual ramp improvements - code 3) interchange improvements. Table 4.1 summarizes the cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate. Cost estimates are provided in Year 2000 values. TABLE 4.1 UNIT COSTS FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION Improvement Types (Code) Estimated Unit Cost Description Construction Terrain - Level (1) $550,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Construction Terrain - Rolling (2) $850,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Construction Terrain - Mountainous (3) $1,150,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain ROW LandUse - Urban (1) $900,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas ROW LandUse - Suburban (2) $420,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas ROW LandUse - Undeveloped (3) $240,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile -undeveloped areas Interchange- New (1) $20,000,000 New Interchange/Interchange modification total cost Existing Interchange - Major (2) $10,000,000 Interchange improvement total cost Existing Interchange - Minor (3) $2,000,000 Minor interchange improvement cost Bridge (1) $2,000 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot Railroad Grade Separation - New (1) $4,500,000 New Rail Grade Separation per lane Railroad Grade Separation Existing (2) $2,250,000 Existing Rail Grade Separation per lane Intersection (1) $300,000 Upgrade existing network -to -network intersection Planning 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs Engineering 25% Project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs Contingency 10% Contingency costs, including TUMF program administration To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. The consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 18 Revised October 18, 2002 The consolidated list of proposed improvements and associated initial cost estimates established the baseline of improvements for further development of the TUMF program. A comprehensive review process involving WRCOG, regional Public Works Directors, local developers, The Keith Companies and Urban Crossroads (retained by the BIA) was established to review the proposed network of improvements and unit costs assumptions used to estimate the cost of the system. This process was completed in nine workshops, including the unit cost assumption workshop described previously. An initial workshop was held on June 6, 2002 to discuss the proposed improvements. At this meeting it was agreed that a series of five peer review workshop meetings would be held to simplify the review of the consolidated list of improvements and associated costs. One peer review workshop meeting was held for each of the five zones in the WRCOG region, with meetings held at the Riverside County Assessors Office between June 27, 2002 and July 18, 2002. The peer review workshop meetings involved representatives from WRCOG, the respective zone jurisdictions, local developers and BIA consultants. Model plots identifying levels of service, volume to capacity ratios and total daily volumes for both 2025 and build -out, were used by the group to specifically review each segment of roadway identified within the zone and the associated improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development. Any recommendation to change the proposed network required affirmation by consensus of the group. The series of five peer review workshop meetings culminated in the development of a revised list of proposed network improvements and associated cost more accurately reflecting the improvements necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. The revisions recommended through the five peer review workshops were confirmed at a follow-up workshop meeting held on July 18, 2002 and were forwarded to the TUMF TAC for endorsement. Some of the recommended changes applying to all workshops were: 1) those facilities that were either currently under construction or known to be under construction within six months, were reduced by the known improvement being made; 2) a third category for interchange improvements was applied; 3) a second category for at -grade rail crossing separations was applied; and 4) bridges were calculated by linear feet. A final workshop was held for all City and County representatives, local developers and BIA consultants in conjunction with the TUMF TAC to review and endorse the network and unit cost recommendations from the preceding workshops. The full TUMF TAC, which includes private sector representatives, subsequently endorsed the recommended changes at the workshop meeting held on August 8, 2002. The peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. The BIA consultants have continued to participate in the process of developing the TUMF program as full members of the TUMF TAC. Eligible improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; WRCOG 19 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at -grade railroad crossings; 8. Expansion of existing Network -to -Network intersections. All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. The estimated total cost to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the TUMF network is approximately $3.07 billion with this cost including all planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs. The cost of improvements in each component of the TUMF Network is as follows: Backbone system: $1.27 billion (39.1%) Secondary system: $1.73 billion (53.4%) Intersection Improvements: $0.07 billion (2.1%) The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Appendix F, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF program. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter -community trips is generally provided in the form of public transit bus services and in particular express bus services between strategically located community transit centers. Transit needs to serve future travel in Western Riverside County via public transit bus were provided by the Riverside County Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) based on the RTA Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Legislative Program and the RTA Connections Long Range Strategic Plan (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, November 17, 1999). The identified public transit needs include transit centers, bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements to develop express bus service within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF program as they typically serve longer inter -regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter -regional highway system. Cost estimates were developed for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers, bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus service within the region. The transit unit cost data derived from the RTA Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Legislative Program, the SCAG Draft 2001 RTP Cost Estimation Methodology, the RTA Connections Long Range Strategic Plan (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, November 17, 1999), and RTA Transit Capital Costs: Regional Benefits (September 2002) are shown in Table 4.2. The same percentage factors used for the TUMF network cost estimate were added for planning, engineering, and contingency costs associated with transit capital improvement projects. WRCOG 20 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 4.2 UNIT COSTS FOR TRANSIT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Improvement Types Estimated Unit Cost Description Transit Center $6,000,000 Construct transit center. Bus stop upgrade $10,000 Upgrade amenities at bus stops. Regional transit capital expenditure. $540,000 Capital costs per mile for express bus service. Express bus vehicle acquisition $325,125 Cost per vehicle for regional express bus service vehicle fleet. The estimated total cost for future transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $173 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Appendix F. 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County was asked to review their current multi -year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix F. A total of $108.8 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter - community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter -community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. The cost of unfunded existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that currently operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F, with a volume/capacity ratio greater than 0.82) and do not have sufficient obligated funds available to complete necessary improvements. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the same method applied to estimate the WRCOG 21 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 overall system improvement cost, estimating the share of the roadway segment that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and adjusting the estimated cost to reflect the relative share and the availability of obligated funding, where appropriate. The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs totals $259.9 million. Appendix F includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $66.3 million representing 38.3% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix F includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. The total cost of the unfunded existing improvement needs is $326.2 million. Since these improvements are needed to provide for existing needs, their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. WRCOG 22 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 5.0 NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for improvements on the TUMF system, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system that will serve these future inter -community travel demands. The following points bring together this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. > Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Under current plans, the population is projected to grow from a current level of 1.2 million to a future level of over 2.2 million in 2025, while employment is projected to grow from a current level of 371,000 to a future level of over 800,000. (as shown in Table 2.3) ➢ Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since long-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade separation of at -grade rail crossings, or expansion of intersections where two network roads intersect. The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined in the future as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. WRCOG 23 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 D Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter -community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an option to automobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and public transportation infrastructure. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones, to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the forecast year 2025 trip tables from the SCAG CTP Model created for CETAP and provided by Transcore. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the traffic analysis zones in the model and the cities located with in the WRCOG Region. The TAZs for each city were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix G includes the detailed SCAG CTP model outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 24 Revised TABLE 5.1 2025 FORECAST -- VEHICLE TRIPS BY WRCOG ZONE TO DISTRICT FROM DISTRICT Northwest Central Pass Area Hemet / San Jacinto Southwest Outside Western Riverside County TOTAL Northwest 1,488,439 116,556 6,862 8,027 31,488 407,206 2,058,578 Central 116,055 688,697 18,340 40,801 66,593 87,789 1,018,275 Pass Area 7,030 18,557 341,060 15,527 2,993 61,942 447,109 Hemet / San Jacinto 8,313 41,239 15,828 486,309 24,455 27,992 604,136 Southwest 32,483 67,463 3,095 24,479 871,107 111,325 1,109,952 Outside Western Riverside County 413,311 90,019 61,381 27,951 111,328 703,990 TOTAL 2,065,631 1,022,531 446,566 603,094 1,107,964 696,254 5,942,040 *Based on SCAG Comprehensive T ansportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. TABLE 5.2 2025 FORECAST -- PERCENT VEHICLE TRIPS BY WRCOG ZONE TO DISTRICT TOTAL FROM DISTRICT Northwest Central Pass Area Hemet / San Jacinto Southwest Outside Western Riverside County Northwest 72.3% 5.7% 0.3% 0.4% 1.5% 19.8% 100.0% Central 11.4% 67.6% 1.8% 4.0% 6.5% 8.6% 100.0% Pass Area 1.6% 4.2% 76.3% 3.5% 0.7% 13.9% 100.0% JacHeet San 1.4% 6.8% 2.6% 80.5% 4.0% 4.6% 100.0% Southwest 2.9% 6.1% 0.3% 2.2% 78.5% 10.0% 100.0% 'Based on SCAG Comprehensive T ansportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the Backbone and Secondary highway networks. Vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter -regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane -miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The Backbone network includes approximately 41% of the lane -miles on the future TUMF system, and the Secondary network includes approximately 59% of the lane -miles. The Backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter -zonal trips plus 41% of the intra- zonal trips. The Secondary network is assigned 59% of the intra-zonal trips and none of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 25 Revised inter -zonal trips. The overall result is that 49.9% of the regional travel is assigned to the Backbone network and 50.1% is assigned to the Secondary network. TABLE 5.3 NE -SECONDARY NETWORK SHARE CALCULATION CALCULATION VALUE DESCRIPTION INPUT VALUES BACKBONE VALUE BACKBONE SHARE SECONDARY VALUE SECONDARY SHARE Total Western Riverside County Vehicle Trips 5,942,040 • Less Internal/External Vehicle Trips - 1,400,244 Total Vehicle Trips Internal to Western Riverside County 4,541,796 Vehicle Trips Between Area Planning Districts (from Table 6) 666,184 Vehicle Trips Within Area Planning Districts (from Table 6) 3,875,612 Network Lane -Miles 3,612 1,492 41.3% 2,120 58.7% Vehicle Trips within APDs (as share of intra-APD trips) 3,875,612 1,600,889 41.3% 2,274,723 58.7% Vehicle Trips between APDs 666,184 666,184 100.0% 0 0.0% Total Vehicle Trips Assigned 4,541,796 2,267,073 49.9% 2,274,723 50.1% 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments In order to establish the rough proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, SCAG CTP model 2025 person trip productions were reported by trip purpose. The SCAG CTP model produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes including home -to - work (H-W), home -to -shop (H-S), home -to -other (H-0), other -to -work (O-W), and other -to -other (0-0). Person trip productions were aggregated into home -based person trips (combining the first three purposes) and non -home -based person trips (combining the last two purposes). The home -based person trips represent 69.8% of the total future person trips, and the non - home -based person trips represent 30.2% of the total future person trips as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix H includes the SCAG CTP model outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. WRCOG 26 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 5.4 PERSON TRIP PRODUCTION: RESIDENTIAL VS. NON-RESIDENTIAL PERSON TRIP PURPOSE PERSON TRIP PRODUCTION VOLUME PERSON TRIP PRODUCTION SHARE Home -Work 901,457 13.9% Home -Shop 624,998 9.7% Home -Other 2,988,849 46.2% Other -Work 619,362 9.6% Other -Other 1,334,156 20.6% TOTAL 6,468,822 100.0% Home -Based Trips (Residential Uses) 4,515,304 69.8% Non -Home -Based Trips (Non -Residential Uses) 1,953,518 30.2% Based on SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. WRCOG 27 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.24 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $108.8 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $326.2 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs ($2.81 billion) is attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users can be assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.81 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 69.8% ($1.96 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 30.2% ($848.1 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $1.96 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2025, the fee must be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between now and 2025. The projected residential growth from year 2000 to 2025 is approximately 317,700 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.1. Clearly, different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between single-family and multi -family dwelling units, the TUMF fee was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. According to the SCAG 2020 Socioeconomic Data for Western Riverside County included in Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 76.5% of the residential dwelling units in the region in 2020. This reflects a very slight increase in the single-family unit share from the SCAG 2000 Socioeconomic Data, also included in Appendix B, which indicates single-family dwelling units currently constitute 76.3% of all residential dwelling units in the region. Based on a continuation of the trend between the SCAG 2000 and 2020 Socioeconomic Data, it is estimated that single-family dwelling units will constitute 76.5% of the residential dwelling units in Western Riverside County in 2025. This means that by 2025 approximately 243,030 units of future new residential development in the region will be single-family dwelling units, and approximately 74,660 will be multi -family dwelling units. Data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE Trio Generation Manual, Sixth Edition) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.57 vehicle trips per WRCOG 28 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments generate 6.63 vehicle trips per unit per day7. If the fees are to be weighted in proportion to the trip generation characteristics of the units, single- family residential units should be assigned a fee level that is 1.44 times the level of the fee assigned to each multi -family unit to levy the necessary $1.96 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi -family dwelling units. Appendix 1 includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. TABLE 6.1 RESIDENTIAL FEE CALCULATION RESIDENTIAL SECTOR 2000 Dwelling Units 2025 Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit Change Trip Generation Rate Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Fee/DU Single -Family 308,860 551,892 243,031 9.57 2,325,810 82.5% $6,650 Multi -Family 94,879 169,535 74,657 6.63 494,974 17.5% $4,607 TOTAL 403,739 721,427 317,688 2,820,784 100.0% Household data based on SCAG 2001RTP and CETAP; Trip Generation based on ITE (1997). 6.2 Non -Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $848.1 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2000 and 2020 Socioeconomic Data included in Appendix B. The relative allocation between sectors in 2020 was then applied to the 2025 CETAP forecasts to estimate 2025 employment by sector. From the 2025 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee developed by SCAG in its Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, August 20, 1990) and OCTA in its Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual (June 2001). Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non- residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix J. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non-residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, and were assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial — 3.0 trips per employee, Retail — 13.0 trips per employee, Service — 5.5 trips per employee, and Public — 12.0 trips per employee. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip -making, and the $848.1 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non- residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new Based on the ITE Trio Generation Handbook other types of multi -family residential development have trip generation characteristics similar to apartments. WRCOG 29 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.2. TABLE 6.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE CALCULATION NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Employment Change Trip Generation Rate per Employee Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Change in Square Feet of Gross Floor Area Fee/SF Industrial 98,276 , 3.0 294,828 9.5% 55,867,287 $1.45 Retail 91,560 13.0 1,190,286 38.5% 41,859,539 $7.81 Service 197,429 5.5 1,085,857 35.1% 61,559,537 $4.84 Government/Public Sector 43,223 12.0 518,676 16.8% 19,210,219 $7.41 TOTAL 430,488 3,089,647 100.0% 178,496,582 Employment Change data based on SCAG 2001RTP and CETAP; Trip Generation based on ITE (1997); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990) and OCTA (2001). Although mitigation fees for non-residential uses are typically established on a per square foot basis, it is recognized that some participating jurisdictions currently impose mitigation fees on a per acre basis for non-residential uses. In order to provide jurisdictions with an alternative fee structure to ensure consistency with the collection of mitigation fees through pre-existing fee programs, the fee per square foot for each sector was converted to a fee per acre using floor area ratio (FAR) conversion factors derived from the Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, August 20, 1990). A worksheet showing the development of the FAR conversion factors for each non-residential use is included in Appendix J. Table 6.3 summarizes the conversion of the non-residential fee per square foot to a fee per acre for each use sector. TABLE 6.3 NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE CONVERSION NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Average FAR Average SF/Acre Fee/SF Fee/Acre Industrial 0.23 9,840 $1.45 $14,255 Retail 0.33 14,506 $7.81 $113,227 Service 0.50 21,775 $4.84 $105,436 Government/Public Sector n/a n/a $7.41 $112,191 FAR conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990); Employment per acre conversion factors not available for Government/Public Sector category. The fee per ac e for Government/Public Sec or is based proportionately on the relational value of fee per acre and fee per square foot for Retail and Service categories. Appendix I includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the non-residential (and residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 30 Revised October 18, 2002 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an option to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1. WRCOG 31 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 7.1 TRANSPORTION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL SECTOR FUTURE CHANGE (Dwelling Units) FEE PER DWELLING UNIT SECTOR TOTAL (in millions) Single -Family Residential 243,031 $6,650 $1,616.2 Multi -Family Residential 74,657 $4,607 $344.0 RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 317,688 $1,960.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR FUTURE CHANGE (Square Feet) FEE PER SQUARE FOOT FEE PER ACRE SECTOR TOTAL Industrial 55,867,287 $1.45 $14,255 $80.9 Retail 41,859,539 $7.81 $113,227 $326.7 Service 61,559,537 $4.84 $105,436 $298.1 GovernmenUPublic Sector 19,210,219 $7.41 $112,191 $142.4 NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 178,496,582 $848.1 TUMF TOTAL $2,808.3 WRCOG 32 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 EXHIBIT C LEG E N D Saddpone Network 0 • et Saute '-%..+ Regional IUBF Network ."W Freeways - Rtaet. & Rear ^'i' - Zane BoundariesS City RosedWeo WRCRR e®welary (U1jj O t Y 4 6 6 6 Backbone Network EXHIBIT Backbone Network Alt Route Regional TUMF Network Freeways - Streets & Roads �� Zone Boundaries City Boundaries WRCOG Boundary o..iw January s xb] Nr....p ] Mu A.... .WwmI II 204 Mal 00 l.1W. 1k witae Backbone N twork Figure 4.2 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 t Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) 2 3 Administrative Plan for the 4 Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 5 (TUMF) Program 6 7 8 Table of Contents 9 10 11 Preamble 12 13 I. Purpose 14 15 II. Authority 16 17 III. Participation and Imposition of TUMF Program Fee 18 19 IV. Allocation of Funds 20 21 V. Administration of Plans 22 23 VI. Administration of Credits 24 25 VII. Administration of Reimbursements 26 27 VIII. Administrative Responsibilities 28 29 IX. Administrative Costs 30 31 X. Appeals 32 33 Xl. Arbitration 34 35 XII. TUMF Program Amendments 36 37 XIII. CEQA 38 39 40 S:\City Clerk\CC RPT 03\040303FinalDrftAdminTUMF032403.doc FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) 2 3 Administrative Plan for the 4 Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 5 (TUMF) Program 6 7 8 9 Preamble 10 11 Future development within Western Riverside County will result in traffic volumes exceeding the 12 capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) as it presently exists. The 13 Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth; current 14 funds are inadequate to construct the Regional System needed to avoid the unacceptable levels 15 of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts. 16 17 The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program will provide significant additional 18 funds from new development for making improvements to the Regional System, complementing 19 funds generated by Measure A and the Reauthorized Measure A, local transportation fee 20 programs, and other potential funding sources. By establishing a fee on new development in 21 the sub region, local agencies can establish a mechanism by which developers and in turn new 22 county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the 23 regional transportation system. This is a twenty-year program and will be influenced by a 24 variety of market factors that could cause a shortfall or increase in the revenue projections. The 25 TUMF shall be reviewed at fewer than five-year intervals to ensure the integrity of the program. 26 The program is not designed to be the only source of revenue to construct the identified 27 facilities, and it will be necessary for matching funds from a variety of available sources to be 28 provided. 29 30 It is the intent that TUMF requirements may be met by paying cash, building eligible facilities or 31 through public financing, such as Community Facility Districts and Assessment Districts, or 32 private financing vehicles consistent with local jurisdiction policies. 33 34 General TUMF Program parameters, definitions and procedures are described in the TUMF 35 Program Ordinance adopted by participating Western Riverside County jurisdictions. The 36 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is designated as the TUMF Program 37 Administrator, and as such will work closely with member jurisdictions, the Riverside County 38 Transportation Commission, and the Riverside Transit Agency to coordinate transportation 39 expenditure programs to maximize the effectiveness of future transportation investments. This 40 Administrative Plan serves as the guidelines to implement the TUMF Program and will be 41 amended as needed to address changing conditions over the life of the program. 42 43 I. Purpose. The Purpose of this Administrative Plan is to provide those jurisdictions that 44 are participants in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 45 Program (hereinafter referred to as the "TUMF Program") with guidelines and policies for 46 implementation of the TUMF Program as adopted. This Administrative Plan specifies 47 implementation and responsibilities for the TUMF Program. 48 S:\City Clerk\CC RPT 03\040303FinnlDrfAdminTUMF032403.doc 2 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 TUMF Program funds may only be used for capital expenditures associated with the 2 Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) and for capital expenditures for 3 transit system improvements consistent with the TUMF Nexus Study. These purposes 4 include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design 5 costs, right of way acquisition, and administrative costs. 6 7 II. Authority. The TUMF Program applies to those jurisdictions in Western Riverside 8 County (County of Riverside and the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon 9 Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, 10 San Jacinto, Temecula and the March JPA) that have adopted and are implementing the 11 TUMF Program Ordinance. The TUMF Program has been developed pursuant to and 12 consistent with authority provided in the requirements of California Government Code 13 Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as 14 California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs the 15 assessment of development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires 16 that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow 17 two basic rules when instituting impact fees as follows: 18 19 A. Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact 20 fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required; 21 22 B. The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed 23 improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make 24 improvements for existing development. 25 26 III. Imposition of and Participation in TUMF Program. Participating jurisdictions in 27 Western Riverside County are responsible for collecting the fees on new development 28 within their jurisdictions. To be considered a participant in the TUMF Program a 29 jurisdiction must have an effective date for the TUMF Ordinance no later than June 1, 30 2003. Further, in order to be considered a participating jurisdiction, the local jurisdictions 31 must adopt the TUMF Ordinance as prepared by the WRCOG and County Counsel and 32 modified only to meet local municipal codes and references; collect the full fee, and 33 transmit the fee to WRCOG. Those jurisdictions that have an effective date after June 1, 34 2003 or opt out of the program, and want to participate at a later date, must remit to 35 WRCOG the amount of TUMF program fees for new development that were not 36 collected by the jurisdiction; in order to verify the amount of revenue that would have 37 been collected during the period in which a jurisdiction did not participate, that 38 jurisdiction shall provide an annual report of building permit activity by the land uses 39 identified in the Nexus Study. The remittance of the fee can be accomplished either in a 40 lump sum or through a separate MOU with WRCOG for a repayment schedule. Those 41 jurisdictions that are not considered participants in the TUMF Program are not eligible to 42 participate in the TUMF Program or the decision -making processes as more fully 43 described in this document. 44 45 Non -participating jurisdictions will be ineligible to vote on any TUMF Program item and to 46 receive their share of an estimated $970 million in road maintenance funds that will be 47 allocated from the Reauthorized Measure A. 48 49 A. Expiration Of Building Permits - If a building permit should expire, is revoked, 50 or is voluntarily surrendered and is, therefore voided and no construction or 51 improvement of land or construction has commenced, then the applicant is S\City Clerk\CC RPT 031040303FinalDrrtAdminTUMF032403.doc FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 entitled to a refund of the TUMF (Fees) collected which was paid as a condition 2 of approval, less administrative costs. The administrative cost shall be used to 3 offset the cost of collection, accounting, and refund. The fee payer shall submit 4 an application for a refund to the local jurisdiction who will forward it to WRCOG 5 for processing. 6 7 The applicant must pay the appropriate TUMF in full if he reapplies for the permit. 8 9 If a development project is partially under construction at the time of the effective 10 date of the TUMF Ordinance, the TUMF shall be paid only on that portion of the 11 development for which a building permit is next issued. 12 13 B. Calculation of Fee - Each participating jurisdiction shall calculate and collect the 14 TUMF for projects as outlined in the Fee Calculation Handbook. For single 15 family, the fee is based on units and for non-residential the fee is based on 16 square footage. This may be different from how the local development impact fee 17 is determined. 18 19 C. March Joint Powers Authority - The March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) has 20 land use authority and will need to adopt the TUMF Program in the same manner 21 as the cities and county. The March JPA will not have a separate vote at the 22 Executive Committee as it has representation by elected officials from the County 23 of Riverside and cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley and Perris. The Executive 24 Director of the March JPA shall be a voting member of the WRCOG TAC for 25 TUMF Program items only. 26 27 IV. Allocation of Funds. Funds shall be allocated pursuant to the findings contained in the 28 Nexus Study and any future Nexus Study amendments. 29 30 A. Allocation to Regional Transit Improvements - Of the total Fees received by 31 WRCOG, 3.8% shall be allocated to the Riverside Transit Agency for making 32 regional transit improvements. 33 34 B. Allocation to Regionally Significant Transportation Improvements - Of the 35 total Fees received by WRCOG, 48.1% shall be allocated for making 36 improvements to the arterials of regional significance on the Regional System of 37 Highways and Arterials. 38 39 C. Allocation to Zones - Of the total Fees received by WRCOG, 48.1% shall be 40 allocated to the 5 Zones for making improvements to the Regional System of 41 Highways and Arterials as determined by the respective Zone Committees. The 42 zone allocation shall be the proportional share of the total TUMF revenue 43 generated. 44 45 V. Administration of Plans. WRCOG shall administer the TUMF Program as described 46 in the enabling Ordinance adopted by participating jurisdictions and further defined in 47 this Administrative Plan. 48 49 VI. Administration of Credits. Each jurisdiction shall be responsible for the administration 50 of credit agreements. WRCOG may administer credit agreements upon written request S:1City Clerk\CC RPT 031040303FinalDrftAdminTUMF032403.doc 4 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 from that jurisdiction. The credit agreements shall be and in accordance with the 2 following: 3 4 A. Developer Credits - If a developer constructs improvements identified on the 5 RSHA, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated with the 6 improvements based on approved unit cost assumptions for the RSHA. Typically, 7 major infrastructure, such as rail grade separations, interchanges, transit projects 8 etc., is constructed by the local jurisdiction rather than the developer, and 9 involves multiple parties, as such; this section makes the distinction between 10 credit agreements for major infrastructure and the standard arterial 11 improvements. 12 13 The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount 14 determined by the most current unit cost assumptions for the RSHA, or actual 15 costs, whichever is less. This shall be known as the maximum TUMF credit. 16 17 The maximum TUMF credit shall be determined based on an approved 18 Improvement Plan and after Conditions of Approval have been determined. The 19 maximum TUMF credit shall identify, at a minimum, the facility, the length of the 20 facility, the number of lanes, and applicable unit costs components as identified 21 in Appendix F in the adopted Nexus Study. 22 23 Any improvement made to the RSHA that is obligated through an existing fee 24 district shall not be eligible for TUMF credit. 25 26 Should it be determined that a jurisdiction granted credits exceeding the 27 maximum TUMF credit, that jurisdiction shall provide WRCOG payment in the 28 amount equal to the excess credit amount. 29 30 Follow the steps outlined in Exhibit B. 31 32 1. Arterial Credits - Prior to receiving any credit, a written credit 33 agreement shall be entered into between the jurisdiction or WRCOG and 34 the developer. 35 36 2. Major Improvement Agreements - If a developer constructs 37 major improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade 38 separation, prior to receiving any credit a three party written credit 39 agreement shall be entered into with WRCOG, the jurisdiction and the 40 developer. 41 42 B. Local Development Impact Fees and other funding programs - The local 43 jurisdiction shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the RSHA and 44 eliminate any overlap in its local fee program. 45 46 Where there is an existing benefit district or an existing fee program with bonded 47 indebtedness established prior to June 1, 2003 then the local jurisdiction may 48 credit the TUMF for that portion of the facility identified in both programs. 49 S:1City Cler ACC RPT 031040303FinalDrfAdminTUMF032403,doc 5 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 If a local jurisdiction proposes to credit the TUMF, then the jurisdiction shall 2 provide WRCOG reasonable information to account for the credit and shall 3 receive WRCOG approval in advance of applying the credit. 4 5 If a credit is granted and applied to the TUMF for specific improvements the local 6 jurisdiction shall be responsible for construction of the improvements and those 7 improvements shall not be eligible for TUMF prioritization or funding. 8 9 C. Use of Credit by Developer - Any TUMF credit shall be used first by the 10 developer to offset any obligation of the developer to pay TUMF impact fees of 11 the same development project. 12 13 Credits may not be transferred or sold to other development projects. 14 15 Developers must exhaust all credits before they are eligible for reimbursements. 16 17 Credits shall run with the sale of the land. 18 19 VII. Administration of Reimbursements. Each jurisdiction shall be responsible for the 20 administration of reimbursement agreements. WRCOG may administer reimbursement 21 agreements upon written request from the jurisdiction. 22 Should the developer construct network improvements in excess of the TUMF fee 23 obligation the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved unit 24 cost assumptions, whichever is less at the time of the agreement. A development that is 25 exempt from paying the TUMF is not eligible for a reimbursement. Reimbursements 26 shall be enacted through a three party agreement including the developer, WRCOG and 27 the local jurisdiction, and contingent upon funds being available. In all cases, however, 28 reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the 29 transportation improvements as scheduled in the five year Transportation Improvement 30 Program (TIP) adopted annually by WRCOG. 31 32 The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the jurisdiction and 33 WRCOG to reimburse the developer/owner for the direct and verifiable costs of 34 constructing improvements to the RSHA when all of the following conditions are met: 35 36 All available credits are exhausted; 37 The improvements received prior approval from the jurisdiction and WRCOG 38 based on the review of the TUMF project priority list; 39 The jurisdiction and WRCOG have reviewed and approved the scope of the 40 project to be constructed. 41 42 In no event shall the developer be reimbursed for improvements to the RSHA in excess 43 of the most current approved unit cost assumptions for the TUMF at the time of the 44 agreement. 45 46 VIII. Administrative Responsibilities. 47 48 A. Regional Administration - As set forth in Section II above, the Western 49 Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is designated as the TUMF 50 Program Administrator. As Administrator, WRCOG will receive all fees 51 generated from the TUMF as collected by local jurisdictions and invest, account S:1Ciry Clerk\CC RPT 031040303FinalDrftAdminTUMF032403.dac 6 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 for and expend such fees in accordance with the TUMF Ordinance and 2 applicable state laws. 3 4 1. The WRCOG Executive Director - Reporting to the WRCOG Executive 5 Committee, the Executive Director shall be responsible for the following 6 TUMF Program activities: 7 8 a. Administration of the TUMF Program, including development of 9 credit and reimbursement agreements, fee collection process and 10 processing Program appeals; 11 b. An independent fiscal audit shall be conducted to report on the 12 evidence that the expenditure of funds collected is in accordance 13 with the Mitigation Fee Act. The audit shall be presented to the 14 Executive Committee and made available to the public. The audit 15 shall also insure that no more than 1 (one) percent of the total 16 expenditures are used for administrative implementation of the 17 TUMF Program; 18 c. Establishment and management of the "TUMF Program Trust 19 Fund" for the purposes of depositing TUMF revenues and income 20 interest earned on Trust Fund deposits; 21 d. Preparation of an Annual Report for consideration by the 22 Executive Committee detailing the status of the TUMF Program 23 including but not limited to fees collected and disseminated, 24 capital projects planned for, prioritized, and built, reimbursement 25 and credit agreements, appeals, and recommendations for TUMF 26 Program adjustments; 27 e. Preparation of periodic comprehensive TUMF program review 28 reports that provide, in concert with requirements of the California 29 Mitigation Fee Act, an analysis of the TUMF Program, including 30 review of the various Nexus Study inputs and assumptions, and 31 preparation of recommendations on potential TUMF Program 32 revisions for consideration by the Executive Committee. Such 33 reports may include, but are not limited to recommended fee 34 adjustments based on changes in the facilities required to be 35 constructed, and revenues received pursuant to the Ordinance; 36 f. Provide technical studies/analysis required to select and prioritize 37 Regionally Significant Arterial projects; 38 g. Development of a 10-year strategic Plan that identifies long term 39 planning goals and objectives for implementation of the TUMF 40 program; 41 h. Development of a five year TIP that identifies projects that are 42 scheduled and funded for construction over a specified period of 43 time and is reviewed on an annual basis; 44 i. Staff support to and coordination with each of the TUMF Zone 45 Committees as necessary; 46 j. Other related activities as directed by the Executive Committee. 47 48 2. The WRCOG Executive Committee - The Executive Committee shall be 49 responsible for reviewing and acting on recommendations for project 50 selection and prioritization of the Regionally Significant Arterials, 10-year 51 Strategic Plan, and the TIP. The Executive Committee shall review and S:\City Clerk\CC RPT 031040303FinalDrflAdminTUMF032403.doc 7 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 consider recommendations on projects from the Public Works Committee 2 and WRCOG TAC. The Executive Committee shall also be responsible 3 for approval of the TUMF Program Administrative Plan, subsequent 4 amendments and for recommending changes to the Ordinance for 5 consideration by participating jurisdictions. 6 7 In developing recommendations on Regionally Significant Arterials for 8 consideration by the Executive Committee, WRCOG staff and the 9 Committee structure shall work with RCTC to coordinate compatibility 10 with Measure A project priorities and schedules of area transportation 11 improvements. WRCOG staff and the Committee structure shall also 12 work with WRCOG jurisdictions and each Zone Committee for the same 13 purposes. 14 15 For jurisdictions that are not participating in the TUMF Program, the 16 WRCOG Executive Committee representative for that jurisdiction shall not 17 be eligible to vote on any matter related to the TUMF that goes before the 18 Executive Committee. 19 20 3. The WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The TAC shall 21 review the products and recommendations for Regionally Significant 22 Arterials developed by the Public Works Committee and other committees 23 that may be convened by the Executive Committee, and forward 24 recommendations to the Executive Committee for its consideration. The 25 TAC shall also provide additional assistance to the TUMF Program as 26 requested by the Executive Committee. For jurisdictions that are not 27 participating in the TUMF Program, the WRCOG TAC representative for 28 that jurisdiction shall not be eligible to vote on any matter related to the 29 TUMF that goes before the Executive Committee. 30 31 4. The Public Works Committee (PWC) - The PWC shall be comprised of 32 the Public Works Director or designee from each member jurisdiction of 33 WRCOG, a representative of the Building Community, RCTC, RTA and 34 WRCOG and shall be responsible for the following: 35 36 a. Developing objective criteria for project selection and prioritization 37 including but not limited to the following factors: traffic safety 38 issues potentially created by growth, regional significance, 39 availability of matching funds, mitigation of congestion created by 40 new development, system continuity, geographic balance, project 41 readiness, and completed projects with reimbursement 42 agreements; 43 b. Providing additional assistance to the TUMF Program as 44 requested by the Executive Committee and/or the WRCOG TAC; 45 c. Preparing the 10 year Strategic Plan; 46 d. Preparing the five year TIP which will be reviewed annually; 47 e. Review and recommend a Regionally Significant Arterials project 48 priority list to the WRCOG TAC and Executive Committee; 49 f. Select a lead agency for each of the Regionally Significant Arterial 50 projects in the TIP; 51 g. Review Annual Report prepared by WRCOG; S:\Cify Clerk\CC RPT 03\040303FinaJDrRAdminTUMF032403.doc 8 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 h. Review and revise the RSHA as may be necessary (at a minimum 2 every 5 years); 3 i. Review and revise Unit Cost Assumptions to the RSHA as may be 4 necessary (at a minimum every 5 years); 5 6 For jurisdictions that are not participating in the TUMF Program, the 7 representative for that jurisdiction shall not be eligible to vote on any 8 matter related to the TUMF that goes before the TAC and Executive 9 Committee. 10 11 B. Zone Administration - Each Zone shall establish a committee structure, similar 12 to the one outlined in A 2-4 above (see Exhibit A.), for the purpose of developing 13 a Transportation Improvement Plan consistent with the Strategic Plan for the 14 project prioritization scheduling, and construction of zonal RSHA projects using 15 TUMF funds returned to each zone. Each zone shall also be responsible for 16 selecting a lead agency for projects listed in the TIP. All zones shall approve 17 their TIP by consensus and forward their recommendations to WRCOG for 18 review and approval to ensure compatibility with the intent of the 10 year 19 Strategic Plan. 20 21 The Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan approved by Riverside 22 County voters on November 5, 2002 states " Funding which is not allocated to a 23 city or county because it is not a participant in the TUMF program in the 24 Coachella Valley area and the TUMF and MSHCP in the Western County area 25 shall be allocated to the Regional Arterial Program in the geographic area in 26 which the city or portion of the county is located". 27 28 Each City and a portion of the unincorporated area of Riverside County is 29 assigned to each of the zones. The five Zones are as follows: 30 31 Northwest Zone — The Cities of Riverside, Corona, Norco, and the County of 32 Riverside; 33 34 Southwest Zone — The Cities of Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Canyon Lake 35 and the County of Riverside; 36 37 Central Zone — The Cities of Moreno Valley and Perris, and the County of 38 Riverside; 39 40 Pass Zone — The Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, and the County of 41 Riverside; 42 43 Hemet/San Jacinto Zone — The Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and the County 44 of Riverside. 45 46 C. Local Administration - As described in the TUMF Ordinance, participating local 47 jurisdictions are responsible for collecting the TUMF. Fees collected are 48 required to be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG within thirty days 49 of the month in which the fee was collected for deposit, investment, accounting 50 and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Ordinance and 51 the Mitigation Fee Act. Participating jurisdictions are required to transmit periodic S:'\City Clcrk\CC RPT 031040303FinalDrftAdminTUM1=032403.doc 9 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 reports as set forth below to WRCOG including (but not limited to) the following 2 information regarding the TUMF Program status: 3 4 1. Quarterly Reports - Within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year 5 quarter, the jurisdiction shall submit a report to WRCOG containing 6 information necessary for WRCOG to determine the total amount of fees 7 collected within each fee category as it relates to the number of building 8 permits, Certificates of Occupancy, or final inspections issued during the 9 same period of time. Additional information may be requested such as 10 the name of the developer or payee, project address, APN, total square 11 feet, credits issued, etc., with the intent to provide WRCOG with the 12 necessary information to track new development, total revenue received 13 and revenue projections for purposes of program audits and program 14 updates. 15 16 D. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) - 3.8% of funds received will be made 17 available to the Riverside Transit Agency to make capital facilities improvements 18 for transit purposes as identified in the Nexus Study. The RTA shall provide a 19 report to the WRCOG Executive Committee each year, which has been reviewed 20 by the City Managers/County Executives and the technical committees, detailing 21 its expenditures of TUMF Program Funds received, as well as future 22 commitments for transit facilities using TUMF Program revenues as determined 23 by the RTA Board of Directors. 24 25 IX. Administrative Costs. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated 26 from the TUMF Program for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract 27 services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to 28 the TUMF Program, and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits 29 exceed one percent (1%) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by the TUMF 30 Program. 31 32 X. Appeals. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, 33 application of reimbursement and application of the legal action stay. In some cases the 34 issue may be a case of interpretation or clarification of the Ordinance and/or 35 Administrative Plan. 36 37 Appeals, and clarifications/interpretations of the TUMF Program Ordinance and/or 38 Administrative Plan, shall to the extent possible, be addressed at the staff level among 39 the appellant, staff from the local jurisdiction, and staff from WRCOG. After a written 40 request is submitted by the applicant detailing the issue; a meeting will be held to 41 discuss and attempt to resolve the issue within 30 days. 42 43 For appeals that are not resolved at the staff level, the matter shall be referred to the 44 Board of Supervisors/City Council. The Board/City shall forward its action to the 45 WRCOG Executive Committee for review and concurrence. 46 47 Should the WRCOG Executive Committee determine that the action taken by the 48 jurisdiction is not consistent with the TUMF Program the Executive Committee shall 49 determine that jurisdiction's participation in the TUMF Program. 50 51 S:\City Clerk\CC RPT 031040303FinalDrftAdminTUMF032403.doc 10 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 Xl. Arbitration. When there is a dispute among the Zone members that can not be 2 resolved and prevents the adoption of a project prioritization schedule the matter shall 3 be forwarded to the WRCOG TAC and Executive Committee for a determination. Once 4 the Executive Committee takes action on the issue the decision is final. 5 6 If there is a dispute at the Executive Committee regarding project prioritization of a 7 specific project(s) and a consensus cannot be reached that project shall be tabled until 8 such time as new information is presented and the matter can be resolved. 9 10 XII. TUMF Program Amendments. WRCOG shall undertake a review of all components of 11 the TUMF Program and, if necessary, recommend Program amendments and/or 12 adjustments. Amendments to the Administrative Plan will be subject to the approval of 13 the WRCOG Executive Committee. Amendments required to the TUMF Program 14 Ordinance shall be approved by each participating jurisdiction, acting on 15 recommendations provided by the Executive Committee. 16 17 XIII. CEQA. The TUMF Program currently is a financing mechanism dependent on future 18 actions of the WRCOG Executive Committee for improvements to the RSHA. WRCOG 19 and its associated committees will be prioritizing and scheduling improvements on the 20 RSHA, as such, the appropriate environmental documentation, shall be completed 21 before a project can commence construction. 22 23 The TUMF Program was developed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of future growth 24 on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. It was not developed to mitigate 25 project -specific traffic impacts. Accordingly the program does not relieve any 26 development project of the responsibility to mitigate project -specific impacts identified in 27 the environmental analysis prepared for the project. When a development project is 28 required to construct RSHA facilities as project -specific mitigation, it shall be eligible for 29 credit and or reimbursement. 30 31 32 S:\City Clerk\CC RPT 03\040303FinaIDrRAdminTUMF032403.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 EXHIBIT A TUMF Decision Making WRCOG WRCOG Executive Committee ♦ WRCOG TAC PWC Arterials of Regional Significance ZONE (Example of a single zone) Elected Officials Management • Technical Zone Improvements S:\City Clerk CC RPT 031040303FinalDrftAdminTUMF032403.doc FINAL DRAFT March 24, 2003 1 2 EXHIBIT B 3 4 5 INTERIM 6 Construction Credit/Reimbursement Eligibility Process 7 8 If a project is on the network and or part of a larger project the following steps apply: 9 10 1. Prepare a separate bid package for the TUMF segments. 11 12 The PS&E shall exhibit: 13 • Prevailing wage statement; 14 • Bid as a formal public works project; 15 • A copy of the list of contractors; 16 • Notice of Contract award — lowest and most responsive bidder; 17 • Awarded bid amount. 18 19 2. The jurisdiction and WRCOG review and assign the maximum credit or 20 reimbursement. 21 22 3. These steps are processed concurrently. 23 • A separate bond or Letter of Credit for TUMF improvements is posted for the full 24 value of the construction cost; 25 • Draft Agreement prepared. 26 27 4. The credit shall be prorated over the entire project, for residential projects it will 28 be by units and for non residential it will be on a square footage basis. 29 30 5. Credit shall be issued once the agreement is adopted by all parties. 31 32 6. Prior to the release of bonds or Letter of Credit the developer shall submit. 33 • The project shall be completed (100%); 34 • A Notice of Completion filed; 35 • Acceptance by all necessary jurisdictions/agencies. 36 37 * NOTE: This is an interim process pending additional review by the WRCOG committee 38 structure and upon completion will be included in the Fee Calculation Handbook 39 40 S:1City Clerk\CC RPT 031040303FinalDrilAdminTUMF032403.doe 13 AGENDA ITEM 3•a- April 3, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto — Annexation No. 4 (Tract No. 30262) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt the following resolutions: a. Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 4") b. Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report for the Annexation of Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 4"). c. Resolution Declaring Intention to Annex Property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Annexation No. 4"). 2. Conduct Public Hearing 3. At the conclusion of the public hearing if the City Council determines that a majority protest does not exist, adopt Resolution Ordering Annexation of Territory to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 and Levying Assessments. BACKGROUND: In connection with the development of Tract No. 30688, which is generally located on the northwest corner of State Street and Sagecrest Drive, the City has required that the property be annexed to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 to finance the cost of maintaining and servicing various improvements that will benefit the property within that development. The property proposed to be annexed to the district will receive the special benefit of the improvements and will be assessed to pay the costs of maintenance of street lights, traffic signals, landscaping, drainage facilities and incidental expenses of the assessment district. Page 1 of 2 Staff is recommending that the City Council take all action that is necessary to annex the property in Tract No. 30262 during the City Council meeting on April 3, 2003. The first step is to adopt the Resolution Initiating Proceedings, which initiates the annexation process by ordering the Engineer of Record, GFB- Friedrich & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Engineer's Report, which describes in detail the improvements to be financed by the assessment district, the estimated cost of such improvements and the special benefits that the property within the assessment district will receive. The next step in the annexation proceedings is to adopt a resolution approving the Engineer's Report and a resolution declaring the City Council's intention to annex the property in Tract No. 30262 to Landscape, Lighting and Park District No. 2. The resolution of intention also schedules the public hearing on the annexation and the levy of the assessments upon the property proposed to be annexed to the District for April 3, 2003. The purpose of the public hearing is to hear testimony from any interested persons and to consider objections or protests, if any, to the proposed assessments. As required by the Act, notices and assessment ballots have been mailed to the record owners of all property proposed to be annexed to the District with instructions to vote and return the ballot to the City before the conclusion of the public hearing on April 3, 2003. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council should direct the City Clerk to tally the assessment ballots submitted and to determine whether a majority protest exists. A majority protest exists if assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments exceed assessment ballots submitted in favor of the proposed assessments. If a majority protest exists, the City may not annex the property to the District or levy the assessments and many of the services and improvements that would have been financed by the District probably will not be provided in the area proposed to be annexed to the District. If a majority protest does not exist, the City Council may proceed with the recommended action described above. If formed, the District would finance the cost of maintaining and servicing various improvements that will benefit the property located within the area proposed to be annexed to the District, including street lights, traffic signals, landscaping and drainage facilities. BUDGETARY IMPACT: No cost is attributed to this action. Page 2 of 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO INITIATING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY TO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2 (ANNEXATION NO. 4) AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Council ("City Council") of the City of San Jacinto ("City") that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, street trees, parkways, median islands, landscaping, parks, and any improvements appurtenant thereto, as set forth in Section 22525 of the California Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that, to finance such facilities and the maintenance and servicing thereof, certain property that will receive benefit from the maintenance and servicing of such facilities should be annexed to existing Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto ("District"); and WHEREAS, the proceedings for the annexation of such property to the District are authorized by and will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also determined that proceedings for the levy of assessments on such property to pay the costs of the maintenance and servicing of such facilities during fiscal year 2003-04 should also be conducted pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 22620) of Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, determined and ordered by the City Council of the City of San Jacinto as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council proposes to annex certain property to the District pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 (commencing with Section 25000) of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. SECTION 2. The Improvements shall include the following: Page 1 of 5 0RANGE JR • 4220 (a) the installation or construction of public lighting, facilities, including, but not limited to, street lights and traffic signals; (b) the installation or planting of landscaping, including, but not limited to, street trees, parkways, and median islands; (c) the installation or construction of park or recreational facilities; (d) the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any improvements listed in (a) through (d) or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof including, but not limited to, irrigation, drainage, and electrical facilities; and (e) the maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing. SECTION 3. The property to be specifically charged for the maintenance and servicing of such improvements shall include all of the land in Tract No. 30262 in the County of Riverside, which is generally located on the northwest corner of State Street and Sagecrest Drive in the City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside, and shall be designated "Annexation No. 4 to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2". SECTION 4. The property described in Exhibit "A" which is proposed to be included within the proposed boundaries of Annexation No. 4 to the District is presently included in Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 1 of the City of San Jacinto. Upon the completion of proceedings for the annexation of such property to the District it shall be detached from such other district. SECTION 5. GM -Friedrich and Associates, Inc., the District's engineer ("Engineer"), is ordered to prepare and file a report in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with Section 22565) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code with respect to the annexation of the property described in Section 3 hereof to the District and the levy of assessments on such property to pay the costs of the maintenance and servicing of the improvements described in Section 2 hereof during fiscal year 2003-04. Upon completion, the Engineer shall file said report with the City Clerk of the City Council for submission to the City Council. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2003, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: ORANGE JR•4220 Page 2 of 5 Abstain: City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of San Jacinto Best Best & Krieger, LLP ORANGE\JR\422o EXHIBIT A Annexation No. 4 to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 Legal Description The land situated in the State of California, County of Riverside, City of San Jacinto described as follows: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 30262 BEING A DIVISION OF THE FOLLOWING: PARCEL 1: BEING THAT PORTION OF LOT 114 OF THE LANDS OF THE SAN JACINTO LAND ASSOCIATION, IN THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGE 357 OF MAPS RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 40 ACRES OF SAID LOT 114; SAID NORTHEAST CORNER ALSO BEING A POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45' 07" WEST 55.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 40 ACRES TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 55.00 FEET WESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM SAID CENTERLINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79; SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, SOUTH 0 DEGREES 15' 03" EAST 308.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 44' 57" WEST 150.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 15' 03" WEST 94.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40 DEGREES 32' 09" AN ARC LENGTH OF 35.38 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE WITH A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET; A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVES THROUGH SAID POINT OF REVERSE BEARS NORTH 49 DEGREES 42' 54" WEST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 106 DEGREES 56' 26" AN ARC LENGTH OF 93.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 49' 38" EAST 115.98 FEET TO A POINT IN SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 40 ACRES, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45' 07" WEST 105.00 FEET FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 45' 07" EAST 105.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ORANGE\JR\4220 Page 4 of 5 PARCEL 2: LOT 67 OF TRACT NO. 29341-1 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 306 PAGES 24 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Assessor's Parcel Number: 433-030-025 ORANGE \JR\422o Page 5 of 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY TO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2 OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO (ANNEXATION NO. 4) WHEREAS, on April 3, 2003, the City Council of the City of San Jacinto ("City Council"), adopted Resolution No. initiating proceedings for the annexation of property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto ("District") and ordered GFB - Friedrich and Associates Inc., the Engineer of Record, to prepare and file a report in accordance with Section 22565 of the California Streets and Highways Code ("Code"); and WHEREAS, the Engineer of Record has filed with the City Clerk its report ("Engineer's Report") containing the matters specified in Section 22565 through 22574 of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report has been duly presented by the City Clerk to the City Council for consideration and has been fully considered by the City Council, and this City Council finds that each and every part of the Engineer's Report is sufficient, and that no portion of the report requires or should be modified in any respect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED determined and ordered by the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, as follows: SECTION 1. The Engineer's estimate of the itemized costs and expenses of the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, street trees, parkways, median islands, landscaping, drainage facilities, parks and any improvements appurtenant thereto and the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in the Engineer's Report shall be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 2.The diagrams showing the property proposed to be annexed to the District referred to and described in the Engineer's Report and the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed to said District as the same existed at the time of passage of Resolution No. are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 3. The proposed assessments upon the property proposed to be annexed to the District are in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said property, respectively, from said improvements Page 1 of 2 ORANGE/JRJ422I and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in the Engineer's Report. SECTION 4. Said Report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings for Annexation No. 4 to the District. SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. APPROVED and ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of April, 2003 by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of San Jacinto Best Best & Krieger LLP City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor Page 2 of 2 ORANGEJJR:4221 ENGINEER'S REPORT Annexation No. 4: CITY OF SAN JACINTO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2 Preliminary Date: April 3, 2003 Confirmed Date: April 3, 2003 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, this report is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. This report presents the engineering analysis for the Annexation No. 4 to the district known as LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2 in the CITY OF SAN JACINTO (hereinafter referred to as "District"). This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lights and traffic signals; the installation, maintenance and servicing of landscaped areas (parkways, medians, open space, detention/retention basins, etc.); the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of municipal parks; the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of drainage facilities; and graffiti removal from horizontal and vertical surfaces which are appurtenant to the above items; all of which are located in public rights -of -way or easements in the District. Reference is hereby made to the: ENGINEER'S REPORT Formation of CITY OF SAN JACINTO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2 Fiscal Year 2003-2004, that was confirmed on April 4, 2002, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Master Engineer's Report," which is hereby incorporated herein as though set forth in full. BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT The proposed boundary of Annexation No. 4 to the District is completely within the City Limits of the City of San Jacinto and is shown on the Boundary Map (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference and on file in the office of the City Clerk at the San Jacinto City Hall). Exhibit "A" serves as the Assessment Diagram for Zone lA of the District and a copy of said Exhibit "A" may be found in the Appendix to this Report. The LLPD No. 2 - Engineer's Report Annexation No. 4 boundary includes the parcels of land that are located in the vicinity of street lighting, landscaping, drainage and/or park improvements that were, or soon will be, installed as a condition of approval of a land development project; the operation and maintenance of which will be funded by this assessment district. All parcels of real property included within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Riverside County Assessor's office or by a tract and parcel number legal description. Zones The 1972 Act provides for areas within a district to be classified into different zones. Annexation No. 4 to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 is comprised of a single zone. The costs of the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of the various improvements and facilities within this zone, will be separately determined, and incidental costs will be prorated and added to determine the total cost. This zone is Tract No. 30262 and is designated as Zone 1A. Future annexations will be assigned Zone designations; e.g. Zone 6, Zone 7, Zone 7A, Zone 8, etc., as appropriate. IMPROVEMENTS The authorized facilities and items of servicing and maintenance are described in the "Master Engineer's Report." Said description is included within this report by reference. A copy of said "Master Engineer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto and may be reviewed, or a copy obtained, at City Hall during normal business hours. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Zone lA Improvements The improvements included in Zone 1A to be installed, operated, serviced, and maintained are street lighting; traffic signals; parkway landscaping; a neighborhood park, and drainage facilities (pipe, catch basins and temporary retention basin). Also included is graffiti removal. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plans and Specifications The plans and specifications showing and describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be operated and maintained within Annexation No. 4 are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are incorporated herein by reference. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The estimated annual cost requirements for Zone 1A, for the improvements described in the "Improvements" section of this report, are summarized in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, in the Appendix to this report. Estimated costs are shown for each improvement or facility, and for incidental costs to be funded by the District. LLPD No. 2 - Engineer's Report 2 Annexation No. 4 Notes: 1. Incidental Costs are prorated in proportion to the respective servicing and maintenance costs for each facility or improvement. Future annexations will be treated in a similar manner. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the total assessments among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefit to be received by each lot or parcel from the improvements. Said method is described in the "Master Engineer's Report" and is included within this report by reference. A copy of said "Master Engineer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto and may be reviewed, or a copy obtained, at City Hall during normal business hours. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tract No. 30262 (Zone 1A - 6 AU's) is adjacent to, and related to, previously assessed Tract No. 29341 (Zone 1 - 253.84 AU's), therefore the "per lot" assessment for Traffic Signals, Park Maintenance, and Storm Drain Maintenance in Zone lA is pro -rated from the amounts previously determined in Zone 1. The special benefit calculation utilizes the ratio of 6 AU's 253.84 AU's (0.02364) to determine the monthly and yearly assessed amounts in Zone 1A. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ASSESSMENT FORMULA The basic formula used to calculate the amount allocated to each lot or parcel within the District for each type of improvement or facility is described in the "Master Engineer's Report." Said formula, including but not limited to, the table entitled "ASSESSMENT FORMULA USING ASSESSMENT UNIT (AU) METHOD," and subsections entitled Special Benefit Analysis, Street Classification and corresponding General Benefit (%), and Assessment of Public Property is included within this report by reference. LIMITATION ON INCREASE OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT The City Council intends to increase assessments, on an annual basis when necessary, in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles - Anaheim -Riverside area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; provided however, that any such annual increase shall not exceed seven and one-half percent (7.5%). The current Southern California telephone number for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) Hotline is (310) 235-6884. LLPD No. 2 - Engineer's Report Annexation No. 4 ASSESSMENT SPREAD The individual Zone 1A assessments, tabulated by Assessor's Parcel Number or other form of identification, are shown on the Assessment Spread on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto and attached hereto as Exhibit "C." The total cost of the improvements described in the "Improvements" section of the report for Annexation No. 4 for fiscal year 2003-3004 is estimated to be $2,771.93. The maximum annual assessment per Assessment Unit (AU — also equivalent to one single-family dwelling unit) for the 2003-2004 fiscal year is $461.99. B- $DRTCH & ASSOC., INC. JOHN A. FRIEDRICH, P.E. Date: 3-J2-D.3 LLPD No. 2 - Engineers Report 4 Annexation No. 4 APPENDIX EXHIBITS Exhibit "A" - Boundary Map Exhibit "B" - Cost Estimate Exhibit "C" - Assessment Spread SHEET 1 OF 1 i TUSTIN CT I r SCALE a 0 s .70 G CC.) a 92' 110 1 T0' N 0 raa t 11J' 26' 26° 6 105' ty� 5 4 3 u 2 55.00' 1 100' X n SA GE CREST DR PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE ZONE 1A { COMMUNITY COLLEGE DRIVE' VICINITY MAP NTS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS_DAY OF 20_. CITY CLERK FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, COUNTY RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS -DAY OF 20 CITY CLERK THE ASSESSMENT NUMBER FOR EACH LOT OR PARCEL WITHIN THE DISTRICT S THE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUM9ER AS ASSIGNED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. THE LINES AND DIMENSIONS FOR EACH LOT OR PARCEL OF LAID WITHIN THE DISTRICT ARE SHOWN ON THE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL IMPS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ASSESSOR. LEGEND --0 NaQM STREET LICHT INDICATES LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY EXHIBIT "A" BOUNDARY MAP LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO.2 for the CITY OF SAN JACINTO FISCAL YEAR 2002-2008 (INFEET ) 1 Inch s 30 ft ANNEXATION NO. 4 HOWL ZONEIaIWL OIL BATE MOW 0.1. 2093 111.1i BIG AM CITY OF SAN JACINTO LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND PARK DISTRICT NO.2 Annexation No. 4 (Zone 1A) COST ESTIMATE Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost/ Month Street Lights/Traffic Signals Park Maintenance Landscape Maintenance Storm Drain Maint. Graffiti Removal TOTALS Cost/Mo. Cost/Yr. Cost/Mo. CostNr. Cost/Mo. Cos/Yr. Cost/Mo. Costar. CosUMo. Cost/Yr. Par Month Per Year Tract No. 30262 (6 Residential Lots) Street Lights and Traffic Morals Street Lights 22,000 lumen Less General Benefit i$.14.08- 59,6 1.5 2JILjght Xi _ Ea. $ Ugh(>; _ $14.08 $21.12 '..., $253.44 $21.12 $253.44 __ 9,500 lumen Because Tract No. 30262 (6 AU's) Is adjacent previously determined In Tract No. 29341 (Zone Traffic Signal (Chase St. and Ramona F_xpwy.) Maintenance Cost Energy Cost ($55/LIght/Mont) Traffic Signal (Slate St. and Mt. San Jacinto Maintenance Cost (Caltrans Maintained) Energy Cost ($55/Llght/Month) r,Less GettedaLBenkiOil'6for Pass Tra(licand Cl +osite'**OftheStreet-2SEgrutis). Park Maintenance (4 acres) 0.7-9 to, and related 1). The 1 I 4 College) I 4 -A a in Ea. to, special L.S./Mo. Lights Lights $9.62 Tract No. 29341 benefit calculation $5.24 $1.32 $1.32 _(Sg,. $7.22 (253.64 AU's), utilizes $5.24 $5.28 $0.00 $5.2B (51264) $86.58 the "per lot" the ratio of 6 $82.88 $63.36 $0.00 $63.36 '.($151.813) assessment AU's f 253.84 . for Traffic Signals, AU's (0.02364) Park to determine Maintenance the monthly ...._ end Storm and yearly .... Drain Maintenance assessment In Tract amounts. ..- No. 30262 $722 will be the same 55.24 $5.28 $5.28 ($12.64 $86.58 as $62.88 $63.36 563.36 ($151-* Park Landscaping Maintenance and Clean-up Water Usage Lighting Energy (9,500 lumen lights) Landscape Maintenance 1 1 10 L.S. L.S. Ea. $469.56/yr $401.88/yr $0.23 $39.13 $33.49 $227 $469.56 $401.89 $2729 $39.13 $33.49 $2.27 $469.56 $401.89 $27.29 State Street Sagecrest Drive Chase Street Lot 'J' Storm Drain Maintenance 7,885 1,810 16,370 2,772 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 50.0002 50.0002 50.0002 $0.0002 $1.49 $0.34 ! $3.09 $0.52 $17.88 $4.11 $37.13 $6.29 '.. '. $1.49 $0.34 $3.09 $0.52 $17.88 $4.11 $37.13 $6.29 Storm Drain & Catch Basins Detention Basins 0.6 1 1 Man-hrs. L.S. L.S. S50 $29.55 $0.00 530 $30 $354 $355 530 $30 $354.00 5354.50 ,S',raRti.Removal Subtotal, Maintenance and Servicing Contingency (10%) TOTAL, Maintenance and Servicing ,..'Incidental Costs $24.81 $2.48 $27.29 $297.66 $29.77 $327.43 $74.89 $7.49 $82.38 $898.73 $89.87 $988.61 $5.45 $0.55 $6.00 $65.40 $6.54 571.94 $59.05 $5.91 ', $64.96 '....,. $708.60 $70.86 $779.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $164.20 516.42 $180.82 0.00 $1,970.40 $197.04 $2,167.43 Assessment Engineer Legal Counsel '..... City Administration County Collection Fees Miscellaneous Reserve Fund 1 1 1 1 1 1 L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. $150/yr $142/yr $118/yr 54/yr $61/yr $129.60/yr $1.89 $1.79 $1.49 $0.05 $0.77 $1.63 $22.68 $21.45 $17.83 50.60 $9.22 519.56 $5.70 $5.40 $4.49 $0.15 $2.32 $4.92 $68.42 $84.77 $53.82 $1.82 $27.82 $59.07 $0.41 $0.39 $0.33 $0.01 '.. $0.17 $0.36 $4.98 $4.71 $3.92 $0.13 52.02 $4.30 '... 54.50 $4.26 $3.54 $0.12 $1.83 $3.88 $53.94 551.07 $42.44 $1.44 $21.94 $46.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $12.50 $11.83 $9.83 $0.33 $5.08 $10.79 $150.00 $142.00 $116.00 $4.00 $61.00 $129.50 TOTAL, incidental Costs Contributions to. ihe District $604.50/yr $7.61 0.00 $91.32 0.00 $22.98 0.00 $275.72 0.00 $1.67 0.00 $20.06 0.00 $18.12 $217.39 0.00 0.00 $50.36 $604.50 TOTAL AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENT $34.90 $418.75 $105.36 $1,264.33 $7.67 $92.01 0.00 $83.07 0.00 $996.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 , $230.99 0.00 $2,771.93 Assessment per Lot = $461.99 February 10, 2003 B-1 Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" CITY OF SAN JACINTO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO.2 Annexation No. 4 (Zone 1A) ASSESSMENT SPREAD Parcel Identification (Lot Number) Property Owner Name Proposed Land Use Code Assessable Acreage (acres) Asmt. Units (AU) Street Lights and Traffic Signals Park Maint. Landscape Maint. Storm Drain Maint. Graffiti Removal Dollars per AU ($) Assessment per Parcel ($) TRACT No. 30262 (Not Recorded) Lot 1 Cambridge Homes, Inc. R1 n/a 1.00 $69.79 $210.72 $15.34 $166.14 $0.00 $461.99 $461.99 Lot 2 Cambridge Homes, Inc. R1 n/a 1.00 $69.79 $210.72 $15.34 $166.14 $0.00 $461.99 $451.99 Lot 3 Cambridge Homes, Inc. R1 n/a 1.00 $69.79 $210.72 $15.34 $166.14 $0.00 $461.99 $461.99 Lot 4 Cambridge Homes, Inc. R1 n/a 1.00 $69.79 $210.72 $15.34 $166.14 $0.00 $461.99 $461.99 Lot 5 Cambridge Homes, Inc. R1 n/a 1.00 $69.79 $210.72 $15.34 $166.14 $0.00 $461.99 $461.99 Lot 6 Cambridge Homes, Inc. R1 n/a 1.00 $69.79 $210.72 $15.34 $166.14 $0.00 $461.99 $461.99 TOTALS 6.00 $418.75 $1,264.33 $92.01 $996.85 $0.00 $2,771.93 Current Ownership: Cambridge Homes, Inc. Address: 586 Fine Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84115-4244 C-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO DECLARING INTENTION TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS ON SUCH PROPERTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND PROVIDING NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS, DETERMINING DURATION OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS AND ANNUAL INCREASES IN AMOUNTS THEREOF AND PROVIDING FOR ELECTION THEREON (ANNEXATION NO.4) WHEREAS, the City Council ("City Council") of the City of San Jacinto ("City") has initiated proceedings for the annexation of certain property to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto ("District"), pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code ("Act"), for the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, street trees, parkways, median islands, landscaping, parks, and any improvements appurtenant thereto as provided in Section 22525 of the California Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, as ordered by the City Council, GFB - Friedrich and Associates, Inc. has filed with the City Clerk a report regarding the assessments which are proposed to be levied and collected from the owners of assessable property within the District to pay the costs of the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lighting, street trees, parkways, median islands, city parks and improvements appurtenant thereto, and that report has been presented to and considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, upon the annexation of such property to the District, and to the extent such property is included within Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 1 and the assessments levied thereby finance the same Improvements provided by the District, it should be detached from Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No.1. WHEREAS, it is necessary that the City Council adopt a resolution of intention pursuant to Section 22587 of the Streets and Highways Code to, among other things, fix and give notice of the time and place of a public hearing on said report, the proposed annexation of such property to the District and the proposed assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, determined and ordered by the City Council of the City of San Jacinto as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of San Jacinto finds that: (a) The foregoing recitals are true and correct; PAGE 1 OF 6 ORANGE/IR/4222 (b) The report of GFB - Friedrich and Associates, Inc. (the "Report") contains all matters required by Sections 22565 through 22574 of the Streets and Highways Code and may, therefore, be approved by the City Council; (c) The assessments, which are proposed to be levied for fiscal year 2003-2004 on all parcels of assessable property that are proposed to be annexed to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2, are based on special benefit conferred upon each such parcel from the payment of the cost of the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lighting, traffic signals, street trees, parkways, median islands, landscaping, parks and appurtenant improvements; (d) The proportionate special benefit derived by each such parcel has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lighting, traffic signals, street trees, parkways, median islands, landscaping, parks and appurtenant improvements; and (e) The amount of the assessment which is proposed to be assessed on each such parcel is based upon and will not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. SECTION 2. Intention. The City Council declares that it intends to annex the property described in Section 4 to the District, to detach such property from Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 1, and to levy assessments on all lots and parcels of assessable property which are proposed to be annexed to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto for fiscal year 2003- 2004 in the amount set forth in the Report. Such assessments will be collected at the same time and in the same manner as county taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of county taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. SECTION 3. Improvements. The Improvements which shall be provided for the property proposed to be annexed to the District by and through the assessments levied annually thereon shall include the following: (a) the installation or construction of public lighting, facilities, including, but not limited to, street lights and traffic signals; (b) the installation or planting of landscaping, including, but not limited to, street trees, parkways, and median islands; PAGE 2 OF 6 oRAN( 'J U4222 (c) the installation or construction of park or recreational facilities; (d) the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any improvements listed in (a) through (d) or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof including, but not limited to, irrigation, drainage, and electrical facilities; and (e) the maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing. SECTION 4. Annexation to Assessment District. The distinctive designation of the annexation is "Annexation No. 4 to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto." The property which is proposed to be annexed to the District and which comprises Annexation No. 4 is all the property which is within and subject to Tract No. 30262 in the County of Riverside and which is identified by Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Number 433-030-025. Upon the completion of the annexation proceedings, the property which comprises Annexation No. 4 will be designated as Zone 1A of the District ("Zone 1A"). The boundaries of Annexation No. 4 or Zone 1A are further described and shown in the Report. The territory included within Zone 1A is generally located on the northwest corner of State Street and Sagecrest Drive in the City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside. Upon completion of the annexation proceedings, such territory shall be detached from existing Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 1. SECTION 5. Report and Assessments. The Report, which is on file with the City Clerk of the City Council, and which has been presented to the City Council at the meeting at which this resolution is adopted, is approved. Reference is made to the Report for a full and detailed description of the Improvements, the boundaries of Annexation No. 4 and the assessments which are proposed to be levied on the assessable lots and parcels of property within Zone 1A for fiscal year 2003-2004. SECTION 6. Duration of Assessments and Inflation Increases and Election Thereon. The assessments shall be levied on all parcels of assessable property within Annexation No. 4 or Zone 1A of the District, as identified in the Report, so long as the assessments are necessary to finance the Improvements specified in Section 3 and the maintenance and servicing thereof. The assessment amounts contained in the Report shall be subject to an annual adjustment or increase in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index — All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles — Anaheim — Riverside Area; provided however that the amount of the assessment to be levied on any assessable parcel in any fiscal year shall not be increased by more than seven and one—half percent PAGE 3 OF 6 ORANGE/JR/4222 (7.5%), and the amount of the assessment to be levied on any parcel in any fiscal year shall not in any event exceed the actual total cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. The assessment ballots, which are to be mailed to the owners of assessable parcels of property in Annexation No. 4 or Zone 1A, as provided in Section 8 hereof, shall clearly indicate that the property owners are voting on the duration of and annual increases in the amount of the assessments as specified above. SECTION 7. Hearing. The time and place of the hearing required by Section 22587 through 22594 of the Streets and Highways Code concerning the proposed annexation of the property described in Section 4 hereof to the District, the proposed detachment from Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No.1, and the assessments which are proposed to be levied for fiscal year 2003-2004 is set for 7:00 p.m. on April 3, 2003, at the San Jacinto Unified School District Board Room, located at 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California. SECTION 8.Notice of Hearing and Ballots. The City Clerk of the City Council shall mail notice of the proposed annexation and the proposed assessments and of the time and place of the public hearing, as specified in Section 7 hereof, to the record owner of each assessable parcel of property identified in the Report. Such notice shall specify the total amount of the assessment chargeable to all the property within Annexation No. 4 or Zone 1A to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2, the amount chargeable to each owner's particular parcel, the duration of the assessments, the reason for the assessments and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessments was calculated, together with the date, time and location of the public hearing on the proposed assessments as specified in Section 7 hereof. The notice shall include, in a conspicuous place, thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return and tabulation of the assessment ballots, which will accompany the notice and shall include a statement that the existence of a majority protest will result in the assessments not being levied, and that a majority protest will exist if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessments exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessments. Each such notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within Annexation No. 4 or Zone 1A to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 shall contain a ballot which includes the City's address for receipt of any ballot when completed by any owner receiving such notice whereby each such owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel and support or opposition to the proposed assessments. PAGE 4 OF 6 ORANGE/BR/4222 SECTION 9. That the Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 3rd day of April, 2003 by the following vote. Ayres: Nays: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of San Jacinto Best Best & Krieger, LLP City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor PAGE 5 OF 5 ORAF1GFAR/4222 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND PARK DISTRICT NO. 2 AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS (ANNEXATION NO.4) WHEREAS, on April 3, 2003, the City Council ("City Council") of the City of San Jacinto ("City") adopted Resolution No. declaring its intention to annex certain territory to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 ("Assessment District"), which was designated for purposes of such proceedings as "Annexation No. 4" and "Zone 1A,"and scheduling a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. , the City Council approved the report of GFB-Friedrich and Associates, Inc., the Engineer of Record ("Report") which contained, among other matters, the proposed assessments to be levied for fiscal year 2003-04 upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the territory which comprises Annexation No. 4 to and Zone 1A of the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53753 of the Government Code, by Resolution No. , the City Council directed the City Clerk ("City Clerk") to cause notice of the proposed annexation and the proposed assessments and of the time and place of the public hearing thereon to be mailed to the record owner of each parcel of property identified in the Report and further directed that each such mailed notice contain an assessment ballot upon which the property owner could indicate his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted the public hearing with respect to the annexation of the territory proposed to be annexed to the Assessment District and has received a report from the City Clerk regarding the tabulation of the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in support of or opposition to the proposed assessments advising that the ballots which were received were voted in favor of the proposed assessments and that a majority protest does not therefore exist; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. , the City Council determined that upon the annexation of such property to the Assessment District it should be detached from Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 1 to the extent the assessments levied thereby finance the same improvements provided for by the Assessment District. Page 1 of 4 ORA.NGEJJ W3223 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, determined and ordered by the City Council of the City of San Jacinto as follows: SECTION 1. SECTION 2. Assessment Findings. The findings recited in the preceding paragraphs are true and correct. District. The Assessment District is Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto. The territory which is proposed to be annexed to the Assessment District and which comprises Annexation No. 4 is described in the Report and includes all of the property which is within and subject to Tract No. 30262 in the County of Riverside and generally located on the northwest corner of State Street and Sagecrest Drive in the City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside. SECTION 3. Improvements. The improvements within and for the Assessment District and which shall be provided for Zone 1A of the Assessment District through the assessments levied annually on property therein shall include the following: (a) the installation or construction of public lighting, facilities, including, but not limited to, street lights and traffic signals; (b) the installation or planting of landscaping, including, but not limited to, street trees, parkways, and median islands; (c) the installation or construction of park or recreational facilities; (d) the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any improvements listed in (a) through (d) or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof including, but not limited to, irrigation, drainage, and electrical facilities; and (e) the maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing. SECTION 4. Annexation; Designation of Zone; Detachment. The territory comprising Annexation No. 4, as described in Section 2 hereof, is annexed to Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 2 of the City of San Jacinto. The diagram of the Assessment District, as modified to include Annexation No. 4 and as contained in the Report, is confirmed. Such annexed territory is designated as Zone 1A of the Assessment District. The territory comprising Annexation No. 4 and Zone 1A of the Assessment District shall be and is detached from Landscaping, Lighting and Park District No. 1 of the City of San Jacinto. ORANGE/JR/4223 Page 2 of 4 SECTION 5. Levy of Assessments; Annual Increases; Duration. The assessments proposed to be levied on the lots and parcels within Zone 1A of the Assessment District for fiscal year 2003-04 in the amounts set forth in the Report and in the assessment ballot mailed to and returned by the owners of the property comprising Annexation No. 4 shall be and are confirmed and levied. Pursuant to Section 6 of Resolution No. , and as specified in such ballot, the annual amount of the assessment to be levied on each parcel of property in Zone 1A of the Assessment District shall be subject to an annual adjustment or increase in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index -All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles - Anaheim - Riverside Area; provided, however, that the amount of the assessment to be levied on any parcel in any fiscal year shall not be increased by more than seven and one-half percent (7.5%) and the amount of the assessment to be leved on any parcel in any fiscal year shall not, in any event, exceed the actual total cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. The assessments shall be levied annually on assessable lots and parcels of property in Zone 1A so long as the assessments are necessary to finance the cost of the operation, maintenance and servicing of the improvements specified in Section 3 within and for Zone 1A. SECTION 6. Filing With the County Auditor. The City Clerk shall cause the diagram and assessment as confirmed and levied hereby to be filed with the County Auditor of the County of Riverside as required by Section 22641 of the Streets and Highways Code. SECTION 7. That the Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. vote: APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2003 by the following Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor Page 3 of 4 ORANG U1R/4 223 Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of San Jacinto Best Best & Krieger LLP oiuvae/JPJ4223 Page 4 of 4 AGENDA ITEM 4.1 April 3, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Carolyn Durden, Human Resources Coordinator / SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance to amend contract between the Board of Administration of the California Pubic Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and the City of San Jacinto regarding local safety personnel RECOMMENDATION: By motion introduce and approve first reading of Ordinance 03-06 / An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City of San Jacinto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees Retirement System and by motion authorize to read by title only: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract between the City of San Jacinto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees Retirement System BACKGROUND: At the March 20, 2003 City Council adopted Resolution No. 2418 / A Resolution of Intention to amend the PERS contract for the local safety personnel. The only way the contract can be amended is by Ordinance. The Ordinance becomes effective 30 days after the April 17, 2003 adoption. The effective date of the amendment is July 1, 2003 which is the beginning of the new fiscal year. As noted in the March 20, 2003 staff report, the City Council agreed during the June 2001 negotiations with Police Officer Association to do a three part adjustment of their retirement plan. The first two phases have been completed and this is the third and final phase of said MOU. Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding Page 8, Item 5.6 "Retirement:" Page 1 of 2 Approvals City Manager. Finance Director: 1) Completed - 55, average Level 4. 2) Completed — 50, average Level 4. July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: Two percent at age of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at July 1 2002 through June 30, 2003: Two percent at age of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at 3) Action to be implemented by proposed ordinance — July 1, 2003 and on : Two percent at age 50 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. JUSTIFICATION: Adoption of Ordinance No.03-06 completes the June 2001 MOU as agreed with Police Officers BUDGETARY IMPACT: The estimated costs associated with this plan amendment are as follows: 1) Change in the present value of benefits $293,350 2) Change in the accrued liability $154,384 3) Change in the total employer rate 2.133% The estimated budget impact for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 is between $35,000 to $40,000 based on our estimated annual payroll for FY 03/04 $1,641,255. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Page 8, Section 5.6 "Retirement" — MOU between the City of San Jacinto and the San Jacinto Police Officers Association Exhibit B — Disclosure of cost of amendment presented by California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS aka PERS): Cost of the plan amendment Change in the accrued liability Change in the plan's employer contribution rate Exhibit C — Ordinance 03-06 page 1 page 2 page 3 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A *** the position. An Example of this would be job -related college or university courses when the specification for the classification calls for high school graduation. b) Employees shall be reimbursed 100% of the first $500, and 50% of all spent in excess of $500 for tuition, registration fees, parking fees, and texts required for the eligible courses during any fiscal year.. Expenses for parking, travel, lodging, meals, processing fees, transcript fees, materials and any other costs are not reimbursable. c) Employees shall be reimbursed up to the dollar amount charged for the same number of units per term by California State University, except that those enrolled in University of California courses shall be reimbursed up to the dollar amount charged for the same number of units by the UC campus attended. d) Course work must be related to the employee's current occupation or to a City classification to which the employee may be eligible for promotion within the city employee's current job series within the next five years. e) Courses must be for courses provided at college or universities and approved by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. f) Course work should not be duplicate training which the employee has already had or which is to be provided in-house or previously taken courses unless special approval has been granted by the department head and the Personnel Department. g) Courses may be approved which are required for the completion of the pre - approved job -related major. An example would be general education or elective requirements for the major as stated in the school catalog. Remedial courses or those taken as required for a non -approved major shall not be eligible. h) Classes related to the use of purchased City -approved computer equipment may be authorized under the tuition reimbursement program if pre -approval is granted before commencement of a non -accredited class. i) Employees who terminate their employment with the City of San Jacinto shall reimburse the CITY for all tuition reimbursed by the CITY under this Section within the 24 months immediately prior to employee's termination date. 5.6 Retirement. As a member of the Public Employees' Retirement System ("CaIPERS"), CITY will contribute the normal employer's full share of CaIPERS retirement for each Police Unit employee. CITY's program shall be as follows for sworn members: July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: Two percent at age 55, average of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4 July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 Two percent at age 50, average of highest three years and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. July 1, 2003 and on: Two percent at age 50 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. For non -sworn members, CITY's program is 2% at age 60 for single highest year and 1959 Survivor's Benefits at Level 4. -8- EXHIBIT B CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS - VALUATION BASIS: JUNE 30, 2001 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF SAN JACINTO EMPLOYER NUMBER 839 Benefit Description: Section 20042, One -Year Final Average Compensation Present Value of Projected Benefits The table below shows the change in the total present value of benefits for the proposed plan amendment. The present value of benefits represents the total dollars needed today to fund all future benefits for current members of the plan, i.e. without regard to future employees. The difference between this amount and current plan assets must be paid by future employee and employer contributions. As such, the change in the present value of benefits due to the plan amendment represents the "cost" of the plan amendment. However, for plans with excess assets some or all of this "cost" may already be covered by current excess assets. As of June 30, 2001 Current Plan Post -Amendment Total Assets at Market Value (MVA) $ 6,416,813 $ 6,416,813 Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 6,775,158 6,775,158 AVA/MVA 105.6% 105.6% Present Value of Projected Benefits (PVB) $ 10,641,308 $ 10,934,658 Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 6,775.158 6,775,158 Present Value of Future Employer and Employee Contributions (PVB — AVA) $ 3,866,150 $ 4,159,500 Change to PVB 293,350 Accrued Liability It is not required, nor necessarily desirable, to have accumulated assets sufficient to cover the total present value of benefits until every member has left employment. Instead, the actuarial funding process calculates a regular contribution schedule of employee contributions and employer contributions (called normal costs) which are designed to accumulate with interest to equal the total present value of benefits by the time every member has left employment. As of each June 30, the actuary calculates the "desirable" level of plan assets as of that point in time by subtracting the present value of scheduled future employee contributions and future employer normal costs from the total present value of benefits. The resulting "desirable" level of assets is called the accrued liability. A plan with assets exactly equal to the plan's accrued liability is simply "on schedule" in funding that plan, and only future employee contributions and future employer normal costs are needed. A plan with assets below the accrued liability is "behind schedule", or is said to have an unfunded liability, and must temporarily increase contributions to get back on schedule. A plan with assets in excess of the plan's accrued liability is "ahead of schedule", or is said to have excess assets, and can temporarily reduce future contributions. A plan with assets(AVA) in excess of the total present value of benefits is called super - funded, and neither future employer nor employee contributions are required. Of course, events such as plan amendments and investment or demographic gains or losses can change a plan's condition from year to year. For example, a plan amendment could cause a plan to move all the way from being super -funded to being in an unfunded position. nee ,t e.1-7 71.1m Page 1 of 7 CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS - VALUATION BASIS: JUNE 30, 2001 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF SAN JACINTO EMPLOYER NUMBER 839 Benefit Description: Section 20042, One -Year Final Average Compensation The changes in your plan's accrued liability, unfunded accrued liability, and the funded ratio as of June 30, 2001 due to the plan amendment are shown in the table below. As of June 30, 2001 Current Plan Post -Amendment Entry Age Normal Accrued Liability (AL) $ 7,763,733 $ 7,918,117 Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 6,775.158 6,775,158 Unfunded Liability/(Excess Assets) (UAL = AL - AVA) $ 988,575 $ 1,142,959 Funded Ratio (AVA / AL) 87.3% 85.6% Change to AL 154,384 Total Employer Contribution Rate While the tables above give the changes in the accrued liability and funded status of the plan due to the amendment, there remains the question of what will happen to the employer contribution rate because of the change in plan provisions. CaIPERS policy is to implement rate changes due to plan amendments immediately on the effective date of the change in plan benefits. This change is displayed as the "Change to Total Employer Rate" on the following page. If the contract amendment effective date is on or before June 30, 2003, the change in the employer contribution rate should be added to the employer's current rate. In general, the policy also provides that the change in unfunded liability due to the plan amendment will be separately amortized over a period of 20 years from the effective date of the amendment and all other components of the plan's unfunded liability/excess assets will continue to be amortized separately. However, your actuary may choose to apply different rules to plans with a current employer contribution rate of zero. The pre -amendment excess assets in these plans were sufficient to cover the employer's normal cost for one or more years into the future. A plan amendment will use up some or all of the pre - amendment excess assets. In order to maintain our goal of providing rates that are relatively stable, while taking into account known or expected future events, your actuary may decide to spread any remaining excess assets over a single number of years. This is known as a "fresh start" and will generally be for a period not less than 15 years, and in no case less than 5 years. You may call your actuary to discuss further alternative financing options. If the amendment uses up all excess assets and creates an unfunded liability (i.e. from being ahead of schedule to behind schedule), the total post -amendment unfunded liability may be amortized over 20 years. In no case may the annual contribution with regard to a positive unfunded liability be less than the amount which would be required to amortize that unfunded liability, as a level percent of pay, over 30 years. The table on the following page shows the change in your plan's employer contribution rate due to the plan amendment for fiscal 2003-2004. December 27, 2002 Page 2 of 7 CONTRACT AMENDMENT COST ANALYSIS - VALUATION BASIS: JUNE 30, 2001 SAFETY PLAN FOR CITY OF SAN JACINTO EMPLOYER NUMBER 839 Benefit Description: Section 20042, One -Year Final Average Compensation As of June 30, 2001 Current Plan Post -Amendment 2003-2004 Employer Rate Payment for Normal Cost 12.559% 13.591% Payment on Amortization Bases 6.446% 7.547% Payment for 1959 Survivor Benefit Program 0.000% 0.000% Total Employer Rate 19.005% 21.138% Change to Normal Cost 1.032% Change to Total Employer Rate 2.133% Current Amortization Base' Multiple Base Amendment Amortization Base -Fresh Start 2 N/A -Multiple Base 3 20-year 2003-2004 Employee Rate Total Employee Rate 9.000% 9.000% Change to Total Employee Rate 0.000% 2004-2005 Estimated Employer Rate '(recognizing-6% investment return for 2001-2002) 24.6% 26.7% Projection Amortization Base Multiple Base Multiple Base 1 — Details of the current amortization base are shown on page 7 of June 30, 2001 annual valuation report. If you have adopted any other subsequent amendments, the current amortization base is the schedule after these adopted amendments. 2 - If a fixed number of years is shown. it means that the current unfunded actuarial liability is projected and amortized over this fixed number of years. This amortization replaces the amortization schedule shown in your June 30, 2001 annual valuation and any other subsequent amendments you have adopted. 3 - If 20-year is shown, it means that the change in liability due to plan amendments is amortized separately over a 20-year period. This amortization schedule is in addition to the amortization schedule shown in the June 30, 2001 annual valuation and any other subsequent amendments you have adopted. 4 - Excludes 1959 Survivor Benefit Program rale. In the above table, the information shown in the 2003-2004 box represents the actual initial contribution rate that will apply during fiscal 2003-2004 if you adopt the amendment. However, these figures do not incorporate the —6% investment return in 2001-2002. The estimated employer rates shown in the 2004- 2005 box do take the negative return into consideration and will give you a better estimate of what to expect in 2004-2005. Note that the change in normal cost in the table above may be much more indicative of the long term change in the employer contribution rate due to the plan amendment. The plan's payment on amortization bases shown in the table above is a temporary adjustment to the employer contribution to "get the plan back on schedule". This temporary adjustment to the employer rate varies in duration from plan to plan. For example, a plan with initial excess assets being amortized over a short period of time will typically experience a large rate increase when excess assets are fully amortized. While a plan amendment for such a plan may produce little or no increase in the employer contribution rate now, the change in normal cost due to the plan amendment will become fully reflected in the employer contribution rate as soon as initial excess assets are fully amortized. December 27, 2002 Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT C STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) ORDINANCE NO. 03-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM The City Council of the City of San Jacinto does ordain as follows: Section 1: That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of San Jacinto and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though therein set out in full. Section 2: The Mayor of the City of San Jacinto is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency. Section 3: Ordinance No. 03-06 shall take effect thirty (30 days) after its adoption (2nd reading), and published within 15 days after the adoption in the The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San Jacinto and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. Introduced, at a Regular Meeting of the San Jacinto City Council on the 3rd day of April, 2003. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 17th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, San Jacinto Best Best & Krieger LLP STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) I, Dorothy L. Chouinard, duly appointed City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto on the 17th day of April, 2003, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Abstain: Witness my hand and official seal this 18th day of April, 2003. Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk Page 2 of 2 • CalPERS California Public Employees' Retirement System EXHIBIT AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of San Jacinto 4, The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective December 31, 1970, and witnessed November 17, 1970, and as amended effective September 28, 1973, October 7, 1976, January 13, 1983, January 21, 1988, May 2, 1999, October 21, 2001 and June 24, 2002 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective June 24, 2002, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members, age 55 for local fire members and age 50 for local police members. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ON ' 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after December 31, 1970 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); c. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service for local miscellaneous members shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service prior to December 31, 1982, termination of Social Security, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Full and Modified). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local fire member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21369 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full). The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local police member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full). 8. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1974 for local miscellaneous members and local police members only. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT b. Section 20425 ("Local Police Officer" shall include employees of a police department who were employed to perform identification or communication duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local safety members). c. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). d. Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation). 9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on October 7, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members and local safety members. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. c. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF SAN JACINTO BY �y�C�' BY KENNETH W. MARZION, GritEV PRESIDING OFFICER ACTUARIAL & EMPLOX SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE TIREMENT SYSTEM Witness Date `�j� Attest: OO� Clerk AMENDMENT ER# 0839 PERS-CON-702A (Rev. 8102) AGENDA ITEM LI. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 3, 2003 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk Agenda production software RECOMMENDATION: By motion approve the purchase of electronic software for agenda production and retrieval upon verification of compatibility with current systems. BACKGROUND: The research completed by the City Clerk in evaluating the equipment that best suits the City of San Jacinto's needs and the respective staff. e-Agenda and AgendaWorks by SouthTech Systems Inc was reviewed with live demonstrations on 3 separate occasions by the City Clerk and others. Legistar and NovusAGENDA were reviewed utilizing the computer and the internet. Vender Name Cost — includes 1st yr maintenance Sales Tax Total Cost Pros Cons User SouthTech Systems Inc Santa Ana, California based $51,734.00 $ 3,880.07 $ 55,614.07 All the necessary features Price includes $10,500 savings Only good for CC and RDA Orange County, Dane Point, Cost Mesa, Inglewood, Artesia, Hemet Legistar Chicago, IL based $ 46,250 $ 3,584.38 $ 49,834.38 Most of the bells and whistles Useable for all departments. Adjustable annual mainten- ance cost. System rigid in some areas Indian Wells (agenda pkg only); Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Barbara Count LA County Novusolutions FL based $ 9,800 (20 hrs customization) $ 759.50 $ 10,559.50 Compatible with existing document imaging system Useable for all departments New program 01/03 Approvals City Manager: Page 1 of 3 Finance Director: Wave Imaging, Costa Mesa, CA, was not priced as they did not have a turn key solution, as was several other that were queried. AccuSoft Corporation, Westborough, MA; Advanced Technologies International, Milpitas, CA and Axtel, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA did not respond to the City Clerk's inquiries. A snap shot view: The building of the staff report is simplified (content can be focused on instead of formatting). The software produces the staff report so that Council, Planning Commission, or RDA Directors have a consistent format. The process is then automated for the City Clerk, from the building of the agenda: 1) to adding and deleting staff reports 2) to meeting last minute, critical deadlines 3) to the next day production of conformed agendas, minutes and legislative history (reduces double, and triple data entry), and 4) all the information is made available to the public and staff on the internet (enormous time savings for staff for research and retrieval). With the SouthTech system the regional savings is at risk, as Hemet's implementation is underway. JUSTIFICATION: The agenda process is a labor intensive process that consumes many resources from personnel time to paper. It is inefficient, especially in terms of what technology can do to assist employees in being more productive and reduce other costs. Every department is doing more with fewer personnel than they need. Besides making more time for the person producing the staff report, it speeds the process through the review process. This process consists of being reviewed by the Department Head, the Finance Director, the City Attorney, the City Clerk, and the City Attorney. BUDGETARY IMPACT: SouthTech Systems Inc — if SouthTech system purchased — suggestion is to finance the cost over 5 years with purchase of other capital machine/equipment as line item adjusted at midyear. The annual payments would be more than what was included in the mid year budget adjustment, as the annual maintenance cost for both programs is $6,744. Legistar - less expensive than SouthTech Systems Inc — appears to do the same work. More affordable annual maintenance cost if able to absorb some of the Page 2 of 3 administration ($6,000 vs $2,500). Financing would be a similar approach as if purchasing from SouthTech. Novusolutions — purchase out right from 010-1110-411-4045 Capital Machine and Equipment. Then the annual maintenance, $1,200 has to be budgeted after the first year. ATTACHMENTS: Handouts from venders: 1) e-Agenda & AgendaWorks from SouthTech Systems Inc 2) Cost savings to Legistar users from Daystar 3) NovusAgenda — e-mail 4) City of San Jacinto's Mid Year Budget Recommendations to conserve cash flow. Page 3 of 3 e-AgendaTM e-Agenda is an enterprise -wide, browser -based software solution for counties, cities, schools and special districts that utilizes AgendaQuestionnaireTM technology to prepare Staff Reports, Filing Instructions, and Reviewing Information for organizational departments and agencies. Automated Agenda Management Solution e-Agenda is comprised of three distinct components: AgendaPlannerTM, AgendaQuestionnaireT'A' and AgendaWorkshareTM. AgendaPlannerTM AgendaPlanner includes a fully customizable "Back -into -Date" Calendar mechanism, providing staff with a quick reference tool for planning future agenda items. AgendaQuestionnai reT'" A fully customizable question and answer mechanism whereby staff members are presented with a series of questions that when answered result in the creation of Staff Reports and their related agenda item documents. AgendaWorkshareTM This enterprise wide collaborative tool within e-Agenda allows authors of Staff Reports to request review of their documents at any stage in the lifecycle of the agenda item. Reviewers receive an e-mail alert that the Staff Report is ready for review. Two -tiered Administration Within e-Agenda, there are two levels of Administration, an overall System's Administration where enterprise -wide functionality is maintained, and a department -level coordination where specific departmental functionality is maintained. Exports to AgendaWorksTM e-Agenda exports agenda item information directly into AgendaWorks, making Agenda creation faster and more accurate. Department Agenda Staff Reports are hyperlinked to each agenda item. SouthTech Systems E-Gov Solutions * Software Development Electronic Document Management Solutions Proven Turn -Key Solution • Browser Intranet System • MS Windows 98/2000/NT • Uses database technology for fast storage and retrieval • Tag -Template Technology to generate automated Agenda Staff Reports • Includes imaging and upload of exhibits • Easy to configure to meet individual department needs • Configurable Workshare Queues and Workshare Groups for collaborative review and approval process • e-filing to management Et Agenda Clerk • 90 day maintenance and technical support included • Annual software subscription and maintenance agreement available Author answers Staff Report Questionnaire and sends Workshare request(s) 7 Reviewer(s)` provide comments back to Author through Workshare Staff Report, Filing Instructions, Reviewing Information, Department Questions 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 114 • Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: (714) 972-8589 ♦ FAX (714) 972-8157 • info@southtechsystems.com AgendaWorks'" AgendaWorks provides an automated system to prepare, publish, store, and retrieve agendas and all related documents. Agen daBui lderTM • The AgendaWorks "Builder" uses database, imaging and tag -template technology. • Staff reports can be electronically filed by departments. • AgendaWorks streamlines production by automatically placing items in category, departments' sequence, and automatically numbering agenda items. • AgendaWorks automatically processes the agenda, corrections, deletions, and edits, and produces a revised agenda in seconds. AgendaDOCSTM Imaging & Upload • Automated tools to import department agenda staff reports and scanning of exhibits to build the agenda. • Agenda Staff Reports and exhibits are hyperlinked to each agenda item. AgendaPublisherTM • Automates the recording of attendance and voting. • Automates the production of draft and final agendas. • Produces summary action minutes, ordinances, resolutions and minute orders. AgendaCDTM / Web Publishing • Agenda CD Publisher and Agenda Web Publisher allow the agenda and related staff reports to be distributed quickly and electronically to elected officials, the public and staff. AgendaRetrievalTM • Automatic indexing based on document content. • Provides search engine to search and retrieve historical documents. SouthTech Systems E-Gov Solutions • Software Development Electronic Document Management Solutions Proven Turn -Key Solution . Client server multi-user system • MS Windows 98/2000/NT/XP Uses database technology for fast storage and retrieval of documents Tag -Template Technology to generate Agendas Agenda templates gallery to improve format and consistency Includes imaging and upload of exhibits . Easy to use table -based configuration to meet each organization's unique agenda format requirements . Configuration and training services available . Annual software subscription and maintenance agreement provides on -going technical support * Voting •Piinutes •ActionDOCS 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 114 ♦ Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: (714) 972-8589 ♦ FAX (714) 972-8157 • info@southtechsystems.com AGENDA, MINUTES AND LFr SLATION WORKFLOW AND DOCL Tw 4ENT MAN... Page 1 of 1 COMPANY INFO tCONTRROIL ... _. y' MEIN MEMO Q WISH UST °PRESS RELEASES NAROWARE AVE WHAT'S NEW .,..ti LEGISLATIVE _._._..� ''._. PROCTSfl PLOW_..._........, CUSTOME!1 UPPORT� )INTTRNOT DEMO ,FEATURES LEGISTAR 'GRAPHIC OVERVIEW.: Download Acrobat Reader prANGel Acrobat, Adobe Reader LEGISTAR Installations List Quotes 1 Quotes 2 "The project was designed to convert all legislative tracking systems to a single database and to increase the amount of information available to staff and the public." King County Council Clerk, Anne Noris "Before the installation of Legistar, it took about twenty person -hours per week to produce the Council's weekly agenda. Legistar cut the agenda production time down to two person -hours per week. In addition to saving Council agenda creation time, each committee previously spent two person -hours per week in their agenda creation. That time has been cut to one half-hour. Similarly, production of minutes has gone from five hours per week to two hours. At the Council meetings, we are using Legistar to record votes directly into the system, so that preparation of minutes after the meeting is focused on reporting votes on amendments and discussions." Council Clerk Anne Noris "This system has resulted in approximately $160,000 annual savings to city taxpayers through reduced personnel and printing costs. Simultaneously, it has improved the quality of staff services and information provided to elected city officials, city agencies and the general public." Ald. John R. Kalwitz, Common Council President, Milwaukee, Wisconsin "...we have now taken the next step in our development plan -placing workstations in each of the 16 Common Council member's offices. The reliability of the software, its proven adaptability to changing needs and its ease of use have assured us that we can make it available to a wide base of 'information retrieval' users." Ronald D. Leonhardt, City Clerk, Milwaukee, Wisconsin http://www.daystarnet.com/Quotes_References.htm 3/19/2003 Listen to what our LEGISTAR clients are saying about... Saving Time "I do not even like to think about my hectic schedule prior to LEGISTAR! Everything I need now is in the system, and 1 can prepare Minutes and Agendas using drop -boxes and the mouse in as little as one hour, sometimes less. Before LEG/STAR it would take sometimes two and a half days just to complete my minutes and prepare an Agenda. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of anything about LEGISTAR that I dislike, and I can't imagine not having it!" Patricia Paris Simmons, CMC/AAE, City Clerk High Point, North Carolina — pop. 35,000 Saving Money "This system has resulted in approximately $160,000 annual savings to city taxpayers through reduced personnel and printing costs. Simultaneously, it has improved the quality of staff services and information provided to elected city officials, city agencies and the general public." Ald. John R. Kalwitz, Common Council President Milwaukee, Wisconsin — pop. 1,300,000 Automation "in city government, we always seem to be the last to get new technology. With this system, in one fell swoop I think we'll be taking care of just about everything." Catherine Rocha, City Clerk Kansas City, Missouri — pop. 450,000 Flexibility "For the past several years, i have been looking for a legislative tracking program that will make sure reports and documents don't fall through the cracks, that referrals don't get dropped inadvertently. This is the most complete, encompassing system. it's the only one i've seen anywhere that can handle the different levels of government we have." Barbara Tarbox, Town Clerk Town of Groton, Connecticut — pop. 45,000 Training "it is true that all municipalities do things a little bit differently and since the training exercises were actually prepared from our recent documents, it was obvious to our trainees that Daystar understands our business. Helen is a very thorough trainer, very knowledgeable about your product and presents the material in a clear way. Many have commented that this is the best training that the Village has ever had for any of our software applications." Barbara Johnson, Deputy Clerk Lombard, Illinois — pop. 40,000 Support "Legistar is an excellent tool in tracking legislation and invaluable in our weekly work routine, but maintenance is also important. Working with you has made it a fun and challenging learning experience." Mary Jo Brogoto, County Clerk Jackson County, Missouri — pop. 600,000 Expandability "...we have now taken the next step in our development plan —placing workstations in each of the 16 Common Council member's offices. The reliability of the software, its proven adaptability to changing needs and its ease of use have assured us that we can make it available to a wide base of 'information retrieval' users." Ronald D. Leonhardt, City Clerk Milwaukee, Wisconsin — pop. 1,300,000 (312) 559-0900 Daystar Computer systems, Inc. fax: (312) 559-0929 Legistar On -Line Survey Results During early December of 2002, Daystar's clients had the opportunity to quantify the annual cost savings that they were realizing by using the Legistar system. Approximately 40% of the cities using Legistar responded. For most respondents, the figures provided on hours and dollars saved were best estimates rather than carefully documented or audited figures. Nevertheless, the estimates were made by those who are most intimately involved with the day-to-day use of the system, and who know the costs and labor effort required to accomplish their tasks both with and without the Legistar system. These are the results of that on-line survey. Summary Statistics o Legistar saved cities and counties an average of 1,735 hours per year. Those who have responded to the survey claim to be saving anywhere from 208 staff hours per year for a small town to almost 4,000 for one medium sized city. Using the standard 2080 available hours per year for each staff person, this amounts to about seven staff hours a day or almost one full time position. At least one respondent pointed out that savings actually increase over the years as users become more familiar with the multiple capabilities of the Legistar system (increased staff time savings) and as staff salaries rise (increased cost savings). ❑ Legistar cities and counties report annual savings from $4,200 to over $175,000. In addition to staff time saved, respondents claimed significant savings in direct costs for printing, overtime, contract work and other expenses. So, Legistar seems to have saved the average city or county an additional $32,100 per year in direct expenses. Total savings included both staff time, converted to dollars, plus all other expenses together. ❑ The average total savings using Legistar is approximately $64,000 per year. Total dollar savings that include staff time were made using a conservative estimate of $20 per hour including wages, benefits, taxes, and all administrative overhead costs. For any city that really spends more than that for the average city clerk staff (including the city clerk), then the expected savings could be substantially higher. For example, using an estimate of $25 per hour would mean an average annual savings of $72,600. ❑ The average payback on investment in Legistar is less than 24 months. There are very many factors that can affect this return on investment period. However, when we factor in the size of the municipality and the average cost by size and the average savings by size, then the average return on investment is less than two years. And, during those two years and for many years after that, in addition to the cost savings, the city is also enjoying the immeasurable benefits of greater information sharing, data accuracy and security, report format standardization, reduced technical administration, and significantly improved responsiveness to information requests from staff and citizens. Noteworthy Quotes: John Mascio, Chief Clerk, Allegheny County, PA: Legistar has made looking up information and tracking legislation a breeze. The information is not only easily accessed but also extremely accurate and informative. Ron Leonhardt, City Clerk, Milwaukee, WI: The City of Milwaukee has been using Legistar since 1987, so our savings over the last 15 years have been substantial. Vanessa Koster, Department of City Development, Milwaukee, WI: I just wanted to commend the Clerk's Office on the implementation of Legistar. It is a wonderful tool and greatly assists me in my daily job responsibilities. Thanks! Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, King County, WA: Legistar has continued to save time as we have become more adept at using it. The addition of the Web module has also increased our timesavings, as people are now able to find the information for themselves. While I have not quantified the dollar savings, we are not filling a soon -to -be vacant position, because with Legistar, we have substantially cut our need for staff. Isobel Sherwood, Clerk of the Council, Gahanna, OH: The biggest saving to us is in our research projects. We can put in a word and do a search and go right to something as opposed to having to guess what year something was done, and start there with paper records and work our way back. The longer we are on Legistar the more we are seeing the timesavings in doing research. This is our 6th year and we are very pleased with this function. in fact, if we have an odd meeting [that] we don't have in our Legistar system, it's an effort for us now to think about how to create the agenda and do the minutes in Word. it has become second nature to us to use Legistar and it is our first choice for most meetings. Anonymous City Clerk: The major impact has been accessing information. [We have] eliminated overtime and eliminated 2 staff positions. Anonymous Deputy City Clerk: The software is reliable. We find it very useful in our day-to-day operations. On -Line Survey Legistar On -Line Survey Results During early December of 2002, Daystar's clients had the opportunity to quantify the annual cost savings that they were realizing by using the Legistar system. Approximately 40% of the cities using Legistar responded. For most respondents, the figures provided on hours and dollars saved were best estimates rather than carefully documented or audited figures. Nevertheless, the estimates were made by those who are most intimately involved with the day-to-day use of the system, and who know the costs and labor effort required to accomplish their tasks both with and without the Legistar system. These are the results of that on-line survey. Summary Statistics ❑ Legistar saved cities and counties an average of 1,735 hours per year. Those who have responded to the survey claim to be saving anywhere from 208 staff hours per year for a small town to almost 4,000 for one medium sized city. Using the standard 2080 available hours per year for each staff person, this amounts to about seven staff hours a day or almost one full time position. At least one respondent pointed out that savings actually increase over the years as users become more familiar with the multiple capabilities of the Legistar system (increased staff time savings) and as staff salaries rise (increased cost savings). ❑ Legistar cities and counties report annual savings from $4,200 to over $175,000. In addition to staff time saved, respondents claimed significant savings in direct costs for printing, overtime, contract work and other expenses. So, Legistar seems to have saved the average city or county an additional $32,100 per year in direct expenses. Total savings included both staff time, converted to dollars, plus all other expenses together. ❑ The average total savings using Legistar is approximately $64,000 per year. Total dollar savings that include staff time were made using a conservative estimate of $20 per hour including wages, benefits, taxes, and all administrative overhead costs. For any city that really spends more than that for the average city clerk staff (including the city clerk), then the expected savings could be substantially higher. For example, using an estimate of $25 per hour would mean an average annual savings of $72,600. ❑ The average payback on investment in Legistar is Tess than 24 months. There are very many factors that can affect this return on investment period. However, when we factor in the size of the municipality and the average cost by size and the average savings by size, then the average return on investment is less than two years. And, during those two years and for many years after that, in addition to the cost savings, the city is also enjoying the immeasurable benefits of greater information sharing, data accuracy and security, report format standardization, reduced technical administration, and significantly improved responsiveness to information requests from staff and citizens. Daystar Computer Systems, Inc. (312) 559-0900 On -Line Survey Noteworthy Quotes: John Mascio, Chief Clerk, Allegheny County, PA: Legistar has made looking up information and tracking legislation a breeze. The information is not only easily accessed but also extremely accurate and informative. Ron Leonhardt, City Clerk, Milwaukee, WI: The City of Milwaukee has been using Legistar since 1987, so our savings over the last 15 years have been substantial. Vanessa Koster, Department of City Development, Milwaukee, WI: I just wanted to commend the Clerk's Office on the implementation of Legistar. It is a wonderful tool and greatly assists me in my daily job responsibilities. Thanks! Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, King County, WA: Legistar has continued to .save time as we have become more adept at using it. The addition of the Web module has also increased our timesavings, as people are now able to find the information for themselves. While i have not quantified the dollar savings, we are not filling a soon -to -be vacant position, because with Legistar, we have substantially cut our need for staff. Isobel Sherwood, Clerk of the Council, Gahanna, OH: The biggest saving to us is in our research projects. We can put in a word and do a search and go right to something as opposed to having to guess what year something was done, and start there with paper records and work our way back. The longer we are on Legistar the more we are seeing the timesavings in doing research. This is our 6th year and we are very pleased with this function. In fact, if we have an odd meeting [that] we don't have in our Legistar system, it's an effort for us now to think about how to create the agenda and do the minutes in Word. it has become second nature to us to use Legistar and it is our first choice for most meetings. Anonymous City Clerk: The major impact has been accessing information. [We have] eliminated overtime and eliminated 2 staff positions. Anonymous Deputy City Clerk: The software is reliable. We find it very useful in our day-to-day operations. Daystar Computer Systems, Inc. (312) 559-0900 CURRENT LEGISTAR INSTALLATIONS... The following is a list of Legistar and/or ConTrack installations as well as new projects currently contracted for. For homepages of clients utilizing the Legistar HTML features click on: htto://www.daystamet.com/lint homepaq.html ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO Contact: Doreen Jaramillo, Council Clerk 505-768-3107 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Contact: Karen Randle, 410-396-4800 DOWNERS GROVE, ILLINOIS Contact: April Holden, Village Clerk 630-434-5567 DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK Contact: Pat Hohmann, Clerk of the Legislature 914-486-2100 FLINT, MICHIGAN Contact.: Debbie Cherwinski, Records Manager 313-766-7418 GAHANNA, OHIO Contact: Rebecca Stinchcomb, Council Clerk 614-471-8517 GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA Contact.' Kurt Lannon, Council Clerk 352-334-5000 ext. 5670 GROTON, CONNECTICUT Contact: Barbara Tarbox, Town Clerk 860-441-6640 HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA Contact: Richard Nifong, Project Manager 910-883-3213 HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA Contact, Annie Romano, City Clerk 804-541-2249 INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA Contact, Linda Furbee, City Clerk 760-346-2489 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI Contact: Mary Jo Brogoto, County Clerk 816-881-3242 KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN Contact: Robert Reibeling, IT Director 616-337-8839 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI Contact: Catherine Rocha, City Clerk 816-274-2533 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Contact: Anne Noris, Clerk of the County 206-296-0364 LOMBARD, ILLINOIS Contact: Barbara Johnson, Village Clerk 630-620-5700 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Contact: Debra Davis, 213-893-0230 MARIETTA, GEORGIA Contact: Sheila Hill, City Clerk 770-794-5524 MIAMI•DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Contact: Orlando Suarez, System Administrator 305-596-8997 MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN Contact: Ronald Leonhardt, City Clerk 414-286-3781 MILWAUKEE METRO SEWERAGE DISTRICT, WISCONSIN Contact: David Gruber, Project Manager 414-277-6379 NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT Contact: Stanley Roders, City Clerk 203-946-8339 NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS Contact: Shawna Sullivan, 617-552-7033 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA Contact: Norm Chang 510-238-6758 OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA Contact: Edgar Rakestraw 510-879-8658 ORLAND PARK, ILLINOIS Contact. Dorothy Fiene, System Administrator 708-403-6157 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA Contact: Denise Osborne, System Administrator 215-686-2813 PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA Contact: Mary Beth Doheny, Deputy Clerk 412-255-2132 ROMEOVILLE, ILLINOIS Contact: Dawn Erickson, Village Clerk 845-886-7200 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA Contact Sally Nagy, Chief Information Officer 916-264-8600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Contact: Mo Vasquez 415-554-5184 SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA Contact: Mike Allen, Clerk of the Board 805-568-2245 ST. CHARLES PARISH, LOUISIANA Contact: Calli Madere, System Manager 504-783-5000 PENDING INSTALLATIONS ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WEST ALLIS, WISCONSIN MIAMI, FLORIDA ...AND OTHERS EVERY MONTH Dorothy houinard - NovusAGENDA Corr'son to Legistar and SouthTech Systems Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Hello Dorothy, "Byron Gillin" <bgillin@novusolutions.com> <dchouinard@sanjacintoca.us> 3/24/03 12:18PM NovusAGENDA Comparison to Legistar and SouthTech Systems Thank you for your time today. As promised, you will find a quick recap of Legistar's functionality as described on the website compared to NovusAGENDA. You will find minimal differences and a tremendous cost and administrative advantage for NovusAGENDA. Legistar is a client side software application with licensing fees where NovusAGENDA is all web based and will only require a browser for your users. NovusAGENDA is also a fraction of the cost of Legistar with 98% of the functionality. Here is the quick comparison recap: 1) Legistar tracks all legislation from drafting through publication. NovusAGENDA does this as well as demonstrated (History). 2) Legistar creates agendas for all council and committee meetings. Novus AGENDA does this as well as demonstrated (entire process). 3) Legistar tracks referrals to departments and committees. NovusAGENDA does this as well as demonstrated (Review List). 4) Legistar prints meeting notices with dynamic mailing lists. NovusAGENDA has a NovusNEWS module that can handle this functionality. See www.novusgov.com for more information on On-line News. This is not a standard feature as many cities do not wish to pay for this as it is not a requirement. 5) Legistar recipients get an e mail when a meeting is created. NovusAGENDA does not have this functionality. This can be added easily. Currently, all users can search for any meetings that are created by you, the clerk. When an Item is created or voted on all individuals assigned to that item are notified via e-mail. 6) Legistar automatically generate minutes for all meetings. NovusAGENDA does this via a Resolution Tab by the Agenda Administrator as demonstrated (Meetings Resolutions). 7) Legistar keeps voting records and meeting attendance. NovusAGENDA takes attendance in a text box in the Resolution of an item and all voting is recorded. 8) Legistar cross-index all legislative documents. NovusAGENDA has a dynamic search functionality that will find any legislative items. 9) Legistar prints certified copies of ordinances. Can you please clarify this for me if this is important to you. Ordinances can be printed but I am not sure what is meant by the application printing certified copies. 10) Legistar claims to find anything... anywhere... anytime. NovusAGENDA will not be able to find your coffee in the morning but will be able to find all items as it relates to your agenda via the dynamic search capability. Dorothy__Chouinard - NovusAGENDA Com 'son to Legistar and SouthTech Systems Page 2 11) Legistar automatically creates the agenda. NovusAGENDA does this as well as demonstrated (Public button) 12) Legistar utilizes hot keys and drop downs for easy data entry. NovusAGENDA uses drop downs whenever possible and the Resolution Tab will allow users the ability to type the resolution of an item and immediately post it to the minutes page to be printed out as soon as the meeting is adjourned. NovusAGENDA is web based so may not have the hot keys functionality but will be much easier to administer since only a browser is needed. 13) Legistar eliminates duplicate data entry. NovusAGENDA automatically posts the agenda and minutes as well as demonstrated (Closed and Public button). 14) Legistar can search text of the agendas to reference quickly. NovusAGENDA dynamic searches only search on attributes, not text, for accuracy purposes. 15) Legistar has multiple reports. As discussed, all data for NovusAGENDA is stored in a Microsoft SQL database. Reports that are not included in NovusAGENDA can easily be created by us with your 20 hours of customization, by you, or outsourced to any vendor that knows Microsoft SQL. 16) Legistar has a set workflow. NovusAGENDA has a flexible workflow that can be set at the item level! The most important and glaring difference is Legistar is a client side application where NovusAGENDA is web based. This is a HUGE difference as NovusAGENDA has no licensing fees and virtually no on -going maintenance and administration. Based on the functionality on the website, the applications accomplish the same thing with minor differences. The next step would be to evaluate these 16 items and weigh the 1 or 2 features to see if they are worth the extra investment and administration of Legistar in comparison to NovusAGENDA. As for SouthTech Systems, there solution is also a client side application with user fees, etc. The web site for this company is not very informative. All of the concepts described on-line are solved with NovusAGENDA and Legistar. Please let me know if there are any specific features I should be aware of. To conclude, NovusAGENDA would customize your Staff Report fields to be the first screen when entering an item to be requested for an upcoming meeting. This form will match exactly what your Staff Report Word Template looks like today. Please reply if you would like to see how this would work. I appreciate the opportunity and look forward to your feedback! Have a great day, Byron Gillin NovuSolutions 800-274-5624 (fax) 425-944-7972 bgillin@novusolutions.com www.novusolutions.com www.novusedu.com for today's Educators! www.novusgov.com for today's Government! City of San Jacinto Mid Year Budget Review FY 2002-03 Items Recommended for Financing to Conserve Cash Flow Personnel & Prolects on Hold for Green Light Personnel Funding Total 010 021 022 029 050 Costs General Fund ;as Tax/Street MeasureA CDBG Water N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 055 Year One Sewer Financing N/A Capital Costs on Hold Telemetry System Public Works $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ - Move to FY 2003-04 Utility Billing System Finance Depart $ 60,000 $ - $ $ $ - $ 60,000 $ $ 10,050 Finance over 5 years System Upgrades Finance Depart $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ $ $ - $ - $ $ 20,230 Finance over 5 years E Agenda (tle into Clerk OSS) City Clerk $ 56,500 $ 56,500 $ $ $ $ - $ $ 11,650 Finance over 5 years (not Curr. Budgeted) Total Capital Costs $ 206,500 $ 146,500 $ - $ $ $ 60,000 $ - $ 41,930 Utility Billing System is required as soon as possible due to the elimination of maintenance for the current system (TAABS). Lead time for conversion, set up and training Is at least six months. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain it now. Cost of project will be funded from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds. System upgrades to Accounting System. Current system needs upgrades and has been used for over ten years. Requested system upgrades include Work Order/ Purchasing and Payroll/HR. Costs include installation and training. Finance is not recommending upgrade beyond originally budgeted amount and financing over 5 years. Approximately 50% of the cost will be cost allocated to the other funds. E Agenda - See Expenditure detail item 25 AGENDA ITEMS April 3, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Carl E. Simmons, Interim Chief of Police SUBJECT: Approval of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Grant Application RECOMMENDATION: By motion approve, a resolution accepting the application process and program for an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Grant for the San Jacinto Police Department in the amount of $51,422, to be utilized on an ABC licensee compliance project; and authorize the Chief of Police to submit the application, execute the contract, and any extensions or amendments to said grant contract. BACKGROUND: According to current California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) statistics, forty two (42) businesses hold licenses that were issued by ABC. Of that number, twenty one (21) are off -sale and twenty one (21) are on -sale type licenses. The twenty one on -sale licensed establishments require a fair amount of the Police Department's attention. When compared to other cities in Riverside County, it appears that a municipality of our size has a vast amount of ABC licensed businesses. Due to limited law enforcement resources, these nightclubs, bars and taverns can and have created an enforcement problem for the Police Department and the City. A recent statistical investigation revealed that during the 2002 calendar year, a total of one hundred -seventy one (171) enforcement activities (including calls for service and observation activities) occurred at on -sale locations. Driving under the influence related accidents, fights in and around the ABC licensed establishments, sales of alcohol to minors and other alcohol related incidents have an adverse effect on the community and the Police Department's resources. Time exhausted by the San Jacinto Police Department in dealing with the alcohol related problems occurring at these locations could be better spent in other areas of the community. Approvals City Manager: Finance Director: Page 1 of 2 JUSTIFICATION: This grant will provide the Police Department with the necessary funds to train officers in the education and enforcement of Alcoholic Beverage Control laws. These officers will become liaison between the business community and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. They will assist in conducting Licensee Education on Alcohol & Drugs (LEAD) training. And provide advice to the business owners on a continuing basis. Our intended strategies to obtain ABC licensee compliance shall consist of decoy operations, licensee training and education, youth education, a "Cops in Shops" component and the implementation of sanctions for those licensed establishments that are unresponsive to LEAD training and compliance. The grant funds shall be used on overtime for San Jacinto Police personnel who're engaged in the program and for the purchase of specific equipment that will be utilized for the program. BUDGETARY IMPACT: This is a grant funded program. There are no required matching funds. No General Fund monies will be spent on this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant application and project proposal. 2) Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 Cf r State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant Assistance to Local Law Enforcement Agencies Project PROPOSAL COVER SHEET (TOBECOMPLL. hDBYAPPLICANTAGENCY) 1. Name of Applicant Agency: San Jacinto Police Department ABC Control # (ABC use only) 2. Description of Applicant Agency: (Provide a brief summary including history, size, staffing and structure of the organization in no more than 100 words.) The City of San Jacinto was incorporated 1888. The city has a population of about 26,125 living in a 26.81 square mile area and is projected to reach 45,000 by the year 2010. The San Jacinto Police Department has 27 sworn officers with two vacancies. The department is a full service agency, including administration, patrol, investigation, traffic, DARE, Community policing and a school resourse officer. 3- City or County Served: City of San Jacinto 4. Population of Service Area: 26,125 5. Project Description: (Summarize the proposed project plan covering the objectives, method of procedure, evaluation, and end product in approximately 100 words.) The project will endevor to train officers in the education and enforcement of ABC laws. These officers will become liaison between the business community and ABC. They will assist in conducting LEAD training and provide advice to the business owners on a continuing basis. The main objective is to reduce all alcohol related incidents. 6. Funds Requested: $51,422.00 7. Project Period: July 2003 - June 2004 8. Acceptance of Conditions: By submitting this proposal, the applicant signifies acceptance of the responsibility to comply with all requirements stated in the Request for Proposals. The applicant understands that ABC is not obligated to fund the project until the applicant submits correctly completed documents required for the contract. A. PROJECT DIRECTOR (person having day-to-day responsibility -for the project) B. CHIEF OF POLICE OR SHERIFF (authorizing official) Name: Howard Ballard Address: 160 W. 6th Street, San Jacinto Ca. 92583 Phone: (909) 654-2702 Fax: E. Mail Addres's; - Signature: -k- , ? fi D-- Name: Carl Simmons Address: 160 W. 6th Street, San Jacinto Ca. 92583 Phone: (909) 654-2702 Fax: ` E. Mail Address: Signature: V - Title: Police Sergeant Title: Chief of Police C. FISCAL OR ACCOUNTING OFFICIAL D. ABC USE ONLY Name: BERNARD sIMON Address: Phone: (909) 654-2702 Fax: E. Mail Address: Signature: Title: Finance Director ABC-800-A (1 /03) L Project Narrative 1 BACKGROUND: The City of San Jacinto is located approximately 80 miles east of Los Angeles. The city has a population of approximately 26,125 and has experienced a 62% in population growth since 1990 and is expected to increase to over 45,000 by the year 2010. The city prides itself as a full service comri'wnity that includes a police department committed to providing the community the highest level of service. The San Jacinto Police Department is a municipal police department normally staffed by 29 but has 27 currently on staff due to budget constraints. These sworn officers are assigned to two distinct divisions. Both divisions are ultimately supervised by the Chief of Police. The patrol division is comprised of a Police Commander and four Watch Commanders at the rank of Sergeant. Also assigned to the Patrol Division are four Corporals, eight Patrol Officers and two Traffic Motorcycle Officers. The patrol division is currently short two officers. The patrol division is responsible for all street level, general enforcement activities. These activities are guided by a proactive enforcement strategy, and a community policing philosophy. The Support Services Division is supervised by one commander and a Sergeant. Four investigators are assigned to this division. One of these investigators is assigned to a Califomia Department of Justice task force, (ARCNET). The other two are assigned to the Investigate all other criminal acts in the city. Two Uniformed officers are assigned to the San Jacinto Unified School District, one as a School Resource Officer and the other in the D.A.R.E. program. Additional Non Swom personnel are assigned to various support services including community policing and public safety dispatch. The San Jacinto Police Department's primary mission is: "We are committed to providing the highest degree of service by upholding the personal and professional standards embodied in the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Our mission is to maintain peace and order through provisions of police services that are the highest quality and responsive to the needs of the community. We will contribute to the safety and security of the community by apprehending those who commit criminal acts, by developing partnerships to prevent, reduce or eliminate neighborhood problems, and providing police services that are fair, unbiased, judicious, and respectful of the dignity of all individuals. PROBLEM STATEMENT: The City of San Jacinto's population, including the surrounding communities, is comprised of migratory and/or undocumented workers. The demographics of the city are approximately 70% white, 22% Hispanic, 6% other, 1 % black, and 1 % Asian, Pacific Islander. The city is mostly a bedroom community, with a mixture of light industrial and retail -commercial properties that provide shopping and employment within the community. According to current A.B.C. statistics 42 businesses hold A.B.C. licenses. Of that number 21, are off - sale type and 21 are on -sale type licenses. Our enforcement experience with the off -sale establishments has historically focused on sales of alcohol to minors. The 21 on -sale licensed establishments require the bulk of the police department's attention. When compared to other cities in Riverside County, it appears that a municipality of our size has numerous licenses in our community. ABC-800-B (1/03) Project Narrative Due to limited law enforcement resources, these nightclubs, bars and taverns can create a police prob lem for the department. A recent statistical investigation revealed that during the year 2002, a total of 171 enforcement activities (calls for service, and observation activities) occurred at on -sale locations. Time spent by the San Jacinto Police Officers dealing with the alcohol -related problems occurring at these locations could be better spent in other areas of the community. Driving under the influence (DUI) related accidents, fights in and around the ABC licensed establishments, sales of alcohol to minors and other alcohol related disturbances to name a few, have an adverse effect on the community. The reported problems occurring at these ABC licensed establishments come from a variety of sources. The San Jacinto Police Department receives complaints from citizens and neighboring businesses that see or hear, or are otherwise affected by alcohol related offenses occurring in or around ABC licensed establishments. Additionally, San Jacinto Officers make a substantial amount of arrests for alcohol related offenses occurring on or around ABC licensed establishments. Arrests for fights, public intoxication, vehicle burglary, vehicle theft, robbery, shootings are all examples of problems directly related to local bars, tavems, and night clubs in the City of San Jacinto. In keeping with a progressive, proactive problem oriented policing philosophy, the department embarked upon an A.B.C. enforcement program. On Friday January 4, 2002 the San Jacinto Police Department hosted an ABC compliance inspection. The team consisted of eight ABC Investigators from the Riverside district office, seven Members of the San Jacinto Police Department. six members of the Allied Riverside Cities Narcotic Enforcement Team, (ARCNET), four inspectors from the San Jacinto Building and Code Enforcement, and a Deputy Fire Marshal from the Riverside County Fire Department. This program was the first time that all of the agencies had the opportunity to work together to achieve similar goals of compliance and education. Each agency became familiar with each others' area of concern and expertise. A total of five nightclubs were visited during this inspection. The program resulted in numerous citations and arrests for a multitude of violations, including an administrative accusation against an ABC license. Upon debriefing, it became apparent during this inspection that there was a significant lack of education that contributed to many of the problems that we faced. Although much enforcement action has been taken against patrons of the ABC licensed establishments, a critical program in our grant proposal would focus on the education of the owners, operators, and clerks of local businesses. During the above -mentioned compliance check, it was apparent that many establishments do not train their employees properly. Additionally, proper legal notices regarding the sales and consumption of alcohol were also missing from several establishments. Lastly, simple issues involving Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design were recognized as obstacles to business and the safety of employees as well as patrons The San Jacinto Police Department has had much success in the proactive approach taken against ABC patrons. Unfortunately, our success has often been only temporary as problems continue once law enforcement attention is diverted elsewhere. Programs like L.E.A.D. (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs), and I.M.P.A.C.T. (Informed Merchants Preventing Alcohol -Related Crime ABC-800-B (I r03) Project Narrative Tendencies), would help bridge the gap between enforcement and education. Through the implementation of these programs, the goals of our grant proposal are to educate the owners, operators, and clerks of ABC licensed establishments as to the requirements and regulations placed on them. It would also serve to create a closer working relationship with ABC, the San Jacinto Police Department and the owners and operators. We believe that a combination of education and proactive enforcement is the key to success. Despite our enforcement efforts, violations and problem locations continue to exist for a variety of reasons. The most noteworthy reason is that the City of San Jacinto has experienced a Toss of tax revenues over the past several years. Being that the Police Department is spread thin and is without a team specifically assigned to Community -Oriented Policing, we rely heavily upon a large portion of manpower to be compensated through the use of officer overtime. As a result of budgetary constraints, many directed enforcement activities have been severely cutback. This issue has curtailed much of our A.B.C. enforcement/inspection program. The funding provided by this grant would create an environment where enforcement could continue and where education would be instituted. PROJECT GOALS Our overall goal is to gain compliance through a coordinated plan integrating education, enforcement and community involvement. Through the implementation of that plan, we hope to reduce access to alcohol by minors throughout the city, reduce crimes and arrests directly -related to alcohol and ABC licensed premises, and promote the city as a healthy environment for compliant ABC businesses. As a result, we hope to specifically target youthful offenders consuming alcohol. Those violations include drunkenness, assaults, burglaries, property damage, vandalism, disorderly conduct and driving under the influence. The following are the strategies that we intend to implement to obtain our goals. Strategy 1- Decoy operations: Conduct four minor decoy operations during the grant year, in cooperation with ABC personnel. Volunteers under the age 21 enter retail alcohol establishments and attempt to purchase alcohol. Enforcement and education actions will be initiated immediately against establishments which fail to check identification, and/or sell alcohol to minors. Strategy 2- LEAD training education: Provide LEAD training in cooperation with ABC to all for owners, managers and employees of establishments which sell alcohol. ABC-800-B (1/03) Project Narrative Strategy 3- License Sanctions: Implement fast -track sanctions, including license restrictions and/or revocation, for establishments whose personnel have a history of chronic violation, and/or are unresponsive to LEAD training and compliance. Strategy 4 — Youth Education: Develop and conduct 2 "Youth Alcohol Education and Awareness" educational presentations for the 11th and 12th grade students. The City of San Jacinto has one High School and one continuation school. Make available to both schools. Training will be conducted by the assigned school resource officer along with ABC and/or DMV personnel when feasible. Class content will include the effects of alcohol, including disorderly conduct and DUI; laws relating to underage alcohol use, possession, purchase or attempt to purchase; ABC operations to detect juvenile attempts to purchase alcohol; and enforcement and legal sanctions imposed for youthful violators. Strategy 5 — COPS IN SHOPS: Establish working relationships with the retail establishments within the city. Conduct 4 operations at problem establishments throughout the city, with emphasis on target areas. Plain clothes law enforcement officers will pose as clerks or customers in retail beverage stores. Persons under 21 attempting to purchase alcohol, and those purchasing for minors, will be cited and prosecuted. Strategy 6 — SITE PUBLICITY: Display posters, stickers and fliers in and around retail alcohol establishments, nightclubs, schools, recreation centers and other appropriate locations advising of the dangers and legal consequences of youth alcohol use, describing undercover detection operations, waming adults of legal sanctions against purchasing alcohol for youth, and similar messages. Strategy 7 — MEDIA PUBLICITY: Coordinate with local radio stations and new publications to provide public service messages advising the dangers and legal consequences of youth alcohol use, describing undercover detection operations, waming adults of legal sanctions against purchasing alcohol for youth and similar messages. METHOD OF PROCEDURE: 1. Staffing will consist of a Grant Director (Sergeant) responsible for the administration of the grant funds, as well as the central repository for raw data. This sergeant will also be responsible for the supervision of the field operations. Four officers will be trained and assigned to enforcement activities related to the grant program. The sergeant and the assigned officers will participate in the program on an overtime basis, so as not to impact normal field operations. 2. Officers who have not received the appropriate A.B.C. enforcement training will be trained. This training will be provided by our senior officers and also the assistance of A.B.C. personnel. ABC-800-B (1/03) Project Narrative 3. Additional L.E.A.D. type training will be conducted to further inform licensees and their employees of their duties, and responsibilities under the A.B.C. law. Local media will be informed, and invited to attend. 4. Officers will then be assigned certain businesses within their beat area. They will be responsible for forming a liaison between the department and the business owner. These officers will determine the need, and type of enforcement necessary at each location. They will also determine which business constitutes a "disruptive or disorderly house". Officers will enforce A.B.C. code violations, other alcohol and drug violations, altered identification and driver's license violation, and provide advice to the business community about these violations. After the initial enforcement has occurred these officers will continue to monitor the business to ensure future compliance. 5. Officer's enforcement responses will include outside resources including but not limited to city code enforcement, planning and building, A.B.C. agents, county fire department and health department personnel. 6. Additional enforcement may be utilized to conduct local, holiday DUI checkpoints. Additional resources would include liaison with adjacent jurisdictions, and the California Highway Patrol. The Department has a past practice of inviting, and utilizing these resources for this checkpoint. 7. Both uniformed and undercover operations, where appropriate, will be utilized as enforcement strategies to accomplish the objectives of the program. 8. Data gathering, analysis and final reporting will be accomplished by utilizing all involved personnel in gathering and maintaining data during the grant period. This data will be utilized by the program director, (Sergeant), who will prepare quarterly reports, as well as a final report on the success of the entire operation. PHASES OF OPERATION Phase I- Preparation — July 2003: Assign officers to project activities. Receive training by ABC in ABC law, enforcement strategies and tactics, community resources and the administrative accusation process, as needed. Set up planning meetings with local ABC staff to review project goals and objectives. Assemble baseline data for project targets. Set timeline for project strategies and enforcement activities. Initiate media involvement to publicize project. Phase II — Preliminary Training August/September 2003: Conduct ABC training for officers. Develop training for minor decoys and cops in shops. Develop syllabus and visual aids for high school classes. Identify primary target establishments. Phase III — Implementation — September/October 2003: Implement strategies. Begin publicity activities. Contact the San Jacinto Unified School District Office and schedule classes. Select licensees for LEAD seminars training. Phase IV — Community involvement November through June 2004: Begin conducting educational presentations for high school students. Develop liaisons to encourage input and ABC-800-13 (1/03) Project Narrative cooperation in troublesome locations. Provide media coverage of activities as appropriate for both dete rrence and publicity purposes. Phase V — Final report: Consolidate project information from standard reporting systems, staff activities, strategies and outcomes, and other available information into a comprehensive report for the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. METHOD OF EVALUATION Statistical information will be obtained for the two years preceding the implementation of the grant funded program to determine the types of activities previously investigated and enforced, and the level of enforcement that was possible prior to the grant implementation Identify and target problematic ABC licensed establishments. This statistical information will be compared (year for year) against the data obtained during the grant period to determine the effectiveness of the enforcement activities. Additionally the goals of 25-50% reduction in police responses, to identify problem businesses, will be compared and evaluated to the previous enforcement period. To determine the cost effectiveness of the grant monies spent for the program, the preceding two years enforcement activity will be the baseline for determining this fact. ABC LIAISON The San Jacinto Police Department has maintained an excellent working relationship the Riverside district office of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. As previously noted, Officers from this department, in conjunction with other officials and ABC investigators conducted a successful ABC compliance inspection. This project was a great success, as it continued a strong working relationship with ABC. Since then, investigators have provided assistance in a variety of investigations, whether licensing, administrative, or criminal. With the lasting impression of the grant, we hope to continue a strong relationship with ABC so that future licensing and enforcement investigations will adhere to the missions of the San Jacinto Police Department and the ABC. STATEMENT OF INTENT The San Jacinto Police Department has experienced severe personnel and resource reductions over the past few years, resulting in many areas of investigation. These cuts have impacted our ability to focus on ABC and alcohol related offences. Enhancements made possible by this grant, such as ABC training, in-service and community educational programs, coordinated detection and enforcement activities and cooperative joint activities developed with local ABC agents, communities and businesses. Will sustain project goals ABC-800-B (1/03) Project Narrative and objectives far beyond the funded period. Most importantly, the youth in our community with the education will have a long lasting impact. In anticipation of the city's growth within the next seven years along with the increased amount of new business that will have ABC licenses, an established educational program, (LEAD) will benefit both the city and ABC. ABC-800-0 (1/03) BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET CATEGORY AND LINE -ITEM DETAIL COST (Round all budget amounts to nearest dollar) _ A. Personnel Services (salaries, overtime, and benefits) Enforcement - Two 10 hour operations per month X 12 months. Four officers @ $34.24 O/T an hour X 960 hours = $32,870 One Sergeant @ $46.05 O/T an hour X 240 hours = $11,052 Total $32,870.00 $11,052.00 $43,922.00 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES B. Operating Expenses (maximum $2,500) Decoy operations, shoulder tap operations and Cops in Shops operations. $2,500.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES C. Equipment (maximum $2,500) One lap top computer, used for tracking grant statistics $1,200.00 One PASS Device $500.00 One undercover body wire $800.00 $2,500.00 TOTAL EQUIPMENT D. Travel Expense/Registration Fees (maximum $2,500) Travel, registration fees, lodging for the summer and winter ABC Seminars, TBA. $2,500 TOTAL TRAVEL EXPENSE TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE, ALL CATEGORIES $51,422.00 ABC-800-C(1/03) OTHERFUNDINGSOURCES Complete the following to report the total funds available to support the activities related to accomplishing the goals and objectives of the contract. In the "Grant Funds" column, report the ABC funds requested by category. In the "Other Funds" column, report all other funds available to support the project by category. Then calculate the totals by category in the "Program Total" column. Total each column down to arrive at the total program funds available. (Round all budget amounts to the nearest dollar.) BUDGET CATEGORY Personnel Services Operating Expenses Travel/Registration Fees Equipment TOTALS GRANT FUNDS $43,922.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $51,422.00 OTHER FUNDS $2,200.00 $1,000.00 $3,200.00 PROGRAM TOTAL $46,122.00 $3,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $54,622.00 (This form does not become part of the contract.) ABC-800-D (1 /03) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) RESOLUTION NO: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL GRANT FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. WHEREAS, the San Jacinto Police Department, desires to undertake a certain project designated as "The ABC Grant" to be funded in part from funds made available through the Grant Assistance to Local Law Enforcement Agencies Project administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (hereinafter referred to as ABC) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Jacinto that the Chief of Police of the City Of San Jacinto is authorized, on its behalf to submit the attached proposal to ABC and is authorized to execute on behalf of The San Jacinto City Council the attached contract, including any extensions or amendments thereof and any subsequent contract with the State in relation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, agreed and determined: 1) That any liability arising out of the performance of this contract, including civil court actions for damages, shall be the responsibility of the grant recipient and the authorizing agency. The state of California and ABC disclaim responsibility for any such liability. 2) Grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body. 3) that this award is not subject to local hiring freezes. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2003. ATTEST: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk City of San Jacinto by Jim Ayres, Mayor Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM 5.1 APRIL 03, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Bernie SimorY'Z Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve Warrant Register for Warrants, Prepaid Checks, and Payroll Checks RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve the warrant register for the warrants and prepaid items and payroll checks issued since the last Council meeting, for the period ending April 03, 2003 BACKGROUND: The following are the warrant and check numbers for this cycle: Warrant/Prepaid # s Cycle Dates Payroll Checks Cycle Date 63572-63729 April 03,2003 15431-15455 April 03,2003 Payroll information is available for Council review in the Finance Department. JUSTIFICATION: All warrants, pre -paid checks and payroll checks require Council approval. BUDGETARY IMPACT: Adequate funds have been budgeted to cover the subject expenses. ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Detailed listing of invoices paid and warrant register. Approvals City Manager: Finance Director: Page 1 of 1 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63572 3/13/03 Union bank REQUEST 3/13/03 Transfer to trustee-604ms 050-0000-101.11-80 200,386.23 200,386.23 63573 3/18/03 So. california edison co. REQUEST 3/18/03 Utilities 050-9000-450.35-40 20,486.40 20,486.40 63574 3/18/03 Community pantry REQUEST 3/18/03 Donation 010-1100-411.21-10 75.00 75.00 63575 3/26/03 Genesis constuction escrow accoui REQUEST 3/03/03 Renenttion prog pmt # 4 054-9000-450.40-01 13,478.68 13,478.68 63576 3/26/03 Genesis construction REQUEST 3/03/03 Progress payment # 4 054-9000-450.40-01 121,308.16 121,308.16 63579 3/27/03 Aflac REQUEST 3/26/03 Premium for march 2003 085-0000-202.21-27 1,986.92 1,986.92 63580 3/27/03 Calpers REQUEST 3/25/03 Per ret 3/20/03 type 4 0B5-0000-202.21-28 18,733.38 18,733.38 63581 3/27/03 Eye care of america REQUEST 3/26/03 REQUEST 3/26/03 REQUEST 3/26/03 Vision ins prem 4/03/2003 Vision ins prem 4/03/2003 Vision ins prem 4/03/2003 085-0000-202.21-35 085-0000-202.21-36 065-0000-201.08-64 679.20 77.97 18.95 776.12 63582 3/27/03 Hartford life insurance companies REQUEST 3/26/03 Def comp cont grp #109947 085-0000-202.21-29 3,537.08 3,537.08 63583 3/27/03 Icma retirement trust REQUEST 3/26/03 Def comp cont march 20,03 085-0000-202.21-29 125.00 125.00 63584 3/27/03 Lincoln fife REQUEST 3/26/03 Def comp cont march 20,03 085-0000-202.21-29 921.54 921.54 63585 3/27/03 Pacificare of california REQUEST 3/26/03 REQUEST 3/26/03 REQUEST 3/26/03 Premium for april 2003 Premium for april 2003 Premium for april 2003 085-0000-202.21-39 085-0000-202.21-40 065-0000-201.08-64 27,931.05 3,852.88 1,169.64 32,953.57 63586 3/27/03 Pre -paid legal services, inc. REQUEST 3/26/03 March 2003 085-0000-202.21-87 254.32 254.32 63587 3/27/03 Preferred benefit insurance admin. REQUEST 3/26/03 REQUEST 3/26/03 Dental ins prem 4/3/2003 Dental ins prem 4/3/2003 085-0000-202.21-32 065-0000-201.08-64 3,334.95 88.00 3,422.95 63588 3/27/03 S.j. police association REQUEST 3/26/03 Sjpoa dues march 2003 085-0000-202.21-42 1,410.00 1,410.00 63589 3/27/03 Service employees international REQUEST 3/26/03 Seiu dues march 2003 085-0000-202.21-43 315.40 315.40 63590 3/27/03 Standard insurance, the REQUEST 3/26/03 Insurance prem april 03 085-0000-202.21-46 5,137.58 5,137.58 63591 3/27/03 United way of hemet REQUEST 3/26/03 Contributions march 03 085-0000-202.21-80 140.38 140.38 63604 4/3/03 A-1 lock & key service 29024 29150 29023 Supplies Supplies Supplies 025-7100-410.33-10 050-9000-450.33-50 021-4150-410.33-30 83.98 6.47 87.23 177.68 63605 4/3/03 Al's kubota tractor 141651 141653 Supplies Supplies 025-7100-410.21-80 025-7250-410.33-30 115.77 36.53 152.30 Page 1 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63606 4/3/03 Allen tire company 157306 Auto repair 021-4150-410.33-50 62.38 62.38 63607 4/3/03 American forensic nurses 14756 14573 Blood draw Blood draw 010-3100-431.34-05 010-3100-431.34-05 360.00 240.00 600.00 63608 4/3/03 Anady's trophies 38980 Supplies 096-1700-417.21-10 15.09 15.09 63609 4/3/03 Andre landscaping service, inc. 16301 16301 16301 16301 210736 210743 210740 March 2003 March 2003 March 2003 March 2003 Weed abatement Weed abatement Weed abatement 025-7100-410.34-05 025-7250-410.34-05 025-7251-410.34-05 025-7252-410.34-05 105-3320-431.34-05 105-3320-431.34-05 105-3320-431.34-05 4,155.41 5,194.26 2,077.71 14,543.94 211.75 120.00 732.55. 27,035.62 63610 4/3/03 Angela's glass and mirror 28532 Service rendered 096-1700-417.30-90 104.12 104.12 63611 4/3/03 Armor holdings forensics, inc. FO3-034801 Supplies 010-3100-431.21-19 205.91 205.91 63612 4/3/03 Arrow printing 3156 3142 3142 3142 3142 Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies 010-2500-425.21-10 010-1400-414.21-10 010-1210-412.21-10 010-1110-411.21-10 010-4100-410.21-10 41.48 198.26 211.23 198.76 154.08 803.81 63613 4/3/03 Asphalt & concrete recycling 10234 10225 10237 Supplies Supplies Supplies 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 175.00 50.00 100.00 325.00 63614 4/3/03 At & t 3/9/03 6779 Telephone 010-2500-425.35-16 65.01 65.011 63615 4/3/03 B & w pipe & supply 56262 55675 57052 Supplies Supplies Supplies 021-4150-410.33-30 025-7250-410.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 -26.53 11.64 69.40 54.51 63616 4/3/03 Best best & krieger Ilp 3/19/03 3/19/03 3/19/03 3/19/03 Professional service Professional service Professional service Professional service 010-1111-411.30-90 050-1111-411.30-90 096-1111-411.30-90 026-7506-410.30-91 10,273.99 4,403.00 6,692.58 1,440.76 22,810.33 Page 2 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63617 4/3/03 Blue ribbon plumbing 91008 Service at police dept 010-3100-431.21-80 60.00 60.00 63618 4/3/03 Breezer equipment & supply 6334 006382 Supplies Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 836.14 -92.67 743.47 63619 4/3/03 Brithinee electric 130706 Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 3,344.96 3,344.96 63620 4/3/03 Building permits bulletin 2/01/03 Subscription 12 issues 010-3300-431.31-20 86.78 86.78 63621 4/3/03 C r & r incorporated 7385 3713 REQUEST 3/14/03 REQUEST 3/14/03 REQUEST 3/14/03 7618 Weed abatement 143 victor Sweeper waste Proceeds trash/rec 2/2003 Proceeds trash/rec 2/2003 Proceeds trash/rec 2/2003 Disposal fees Corp yard 105-3320-431.34-05 056-4150-410.35-18 059-8052-450.34-05 010-0000-301.01-41 059-0000-103.12-13 021-4150-410.33-30 3,631.07 532.95 97,533.47 -12,532.76 -6,037.31 1,185.90 84,313.32 63622 4/3/03 C.a.c.e. california association of REQUEST 3/10/03 Seminar code enforsment 099-1700-417.31-20 55.00 55.00 63623 4/3/03 Calbo REQUEST 3/18/03 Memebership dues calbo 010-3300-431.31-20 215.00 215.00 63624 4/3/03 Callaway motorsports 99073104 99076171 Auto repairs Auto repairs 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 96.27 59.95 156.22 63625 4/3/03 Car wash depot 3/1/2003 Car maint feb 2003 010-3100-431.33-50 15.85 15.85 63626 4/3/03 Ced consolidated electrical 2983-417645 2983-41736 2983-417618 2983-417928 Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies 025-7260-410.21-30 025-7260-410.21-30 025-7260-410.21-30 025-7260-410.21-30 50.98 12.78 109.39 24.21 197.36 63627 4/3/03 Chevron 3/7/03 STMT STMT 1/4/2003 Gasoline Gasoline 010-3100-431.21-70 010-3100-431.21-70 129.93 18.16 148.09 63628 4/3/03 Chouinard, dorothy I. REQUEST 3/24/03 Mileage reimbursment 010-1110-411.31-15 106.98 106.98 63629 4/3/03 Comserco 01-03788-000-00 1-037539-000-00 Supplies Radio supplies 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 244.05 239.04 483.09 63630 4/3/03 Comtronixofhemet 38908 38918 39137 Supplies Supplies Radio supplies 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 2,264.74 2,264.74 186.68 4,696.98 Page 3 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63630... 4/3/03... Comtronix of hemet... 38853 Raido supplies 010-3100-431.33-11 -19.18 4,696.98... 63631 4/3/03 Cotton/bridges/association 481712219 Professional services 010-1700-417.30-90 1,453.75 1,453.75 63632 4/3/03 Cutting edge staffing 13660 13660 13699 13699 13773 13773 13738 13738 Temp employees Temp employees Temp employee Temp employee Temp employee Temp employee Temp employee Temp employee 010-3300-431.30-90 010-1700-417.30-90 010-3300-431.30-90 010-1700-417.30-90 010-3300-431.30-90 010-1700-417.30-90 010-3300-431.30-90 010-1700-417.30-90 1,018.08 609.15 336.00 551.50 856.96 613.80 1,050.64 553.35 5,589.48 63633 4/3/03 Dac digital assurance certification 031103001 Professional fees 043-8501-450.30-90 1,400.00 1,400.00 63634 4/3/03 Db backflow service 022003A 022803A Backflows Backflow testing 025-7250-410.33-30 025-7250-410.33-30 185.86 177.04 362.90 63635 4/3/03 Dewey services,inc. 1154797 1154794 Pest control Pest control 010-2500-425.34-05 010-2500-425.34-05 40.00 30.00 70.00 63636 4/3/03 Dewey's electric 2/20/03 Services rendered 010-2500-425.34-05 275.20 275.20 63637 4/3/03 Dictaphone corporation SR020449672 Office supplies 010-3100-431.21-10 443.20 443.20 63638 4/3/03 E.s. babcock & sons, inc. 49971 49737 AB31185-278 AC30591-278 Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 48.00 60.00 30.00 60.00 198.00 63639 4/3/03 Eastern municipal water district 7615-226 7628-226 2/28/031490420 3/06/03 4379602 2/21/03 9539902 Equipment rental Supplies Utilities Utilities Utilities 021-4150-410.33-30 055-4170-450.33-30 025-7250-410.35-10 025-7250-410.35-10 025-7250-410.35-10 646.41 2,448.10 10.24 5.94 23.44 3,134.13 63640 4/3/03 Empire tractor company 745360 Supplies 025-7100-410.21-80 271.53 271.53 63641 4/3/03 Environmental project services inc. REQUEST 3/21/03 Progress payment# 1 022-4150-410.40-01 41,847.86 41,847.86 Page 4 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63642 4/3/03 Esgil corporation 2/1/03 Professional services 010-3300-431.30-90 6,214.52 6,214.52 63643 4/3/03 Federal express 4-605-86043 4-605-86043 4-605-46332 Postage fees Postage fees Postage 043-8501-450.30-90 010-2500-425.21-10 099-1700-417.21-10 30.83 13.85 18.35 63.03 63644 4/3/03 Fleet services NOV 2002 NOV 2002 NOV 2002 NOV 2002 NOV 2002 NOV 2002 NOV 2002 NOV 2002 DEC 2002 DEC 2002 DEC 2002 DEC 2002 DEC 2002 DEC 2002 DEC 2002 DEC 2002 Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline 010-1400-414.21-10 010-3100-431.21-70 096-1700-417.21-70 010-1700-417.21-70 021-4150-410.21-70 025-7100-410.21-70 050-9000-450.21-70 099-9700-470.21-10 010-1400-414.21-10 096-1700-417.21-70 010-1700-417.21-70 021-4150-410.21-70 025-7100-410.21-70 050-9000-450.21-70 099-9700-470.21-10 010-3100-431.21-70 52.81 2,502.55 73.77 23.66 337.36 190.27 600.23 26.53 50.50 65.62 43.00 359.23 258.33 606.41 50.02 2,909.92 8,150.21 63646 4/3/03 Gaudet design group 610 Professional fees 010-1700-417.30-90 2,200.00 2,200.00 63647 4/3/03 Gfb-friedrich & assoc., inc. 0303-34 0303-31 0303-29 Services rendered 2/2003 Services rendered 2/2003 Services rendered 2/2003 026-7506-410.30-92 026-7507-410.30-92 025-1400-414.30-90 1,217.28 1,570.00 2,306.00 5,093.28 63648 4/3/03 Gosch ford 235369 Supplies 010-3100-431.33-50 48.30 48.30 63649 4/3/03 Haines & co. 34142 Supplies 010-3100-431.34-05 398.98 398.98 63650 4/3/03 Hawaiian popcorn, inc. 7392 Supplies 010-1700-417.21-10 23.76 23.76 63651 4/3/03 Hdl software, Ilc 5592 License fee/software 010-1701-417.40-45 4,900.00 4,900.00 63652 4/3/03 Hemet valley pipe & supply 73845 Supplies 025-7100-410.33-10 130.56 130.56 Page 5 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63653 4/3/03 Hemet valley tool & supply 64726 64834 Supplies Supplies 025-7100-410.21-80 055-4170-450.21-35 58.18 23.71 81.89 63654 413/03 Higgins, harris-sherman & rohr 4775 Attorney fees 020-2200-419.30-90 3,020.95 3,020.95 63655 4/3/03 Home depot credit services 5020073 2610998 0055703 Supplies Supplies Supplies 025-7250-410.33-30 010-2500-425.21-10 010-2500-425.21-10 144.13 266.83 -117.05 293.91 63656 4/3/03 Horizon water 3/1/03 VIRGINA 3/1/03 CITY Water Water 010-2500-425.34-05 010-2500-425.21-10 34.60 20.80 55.40 63657 4/3/03 Inland foundation eng. inc. SO26:096 Engineering fees 054-9000-450.40-01 9,995.00 9,995.00 63658 4/3/03 Inland water works supply co. 123056 Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 382.52 382.52 63659 4/3/03 International code council 666608156 Subscription caldag 2003 099-1700-417.21-10 53.48 53.48 63660 4/3/03 International code council 57817339 66645962 Office supplies Office supplies 010-1700-417.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 23.31 146.99 170.30 63661 4/3/03 International institute of 2/14/2003 Memembership dues 2003 010-1110-411.30-16 105.00 105.00 63662 4/3/03 Invensys metering systems ZZ30028095 Software support 050-9000-450.30-90 1,077.50 1,077.50 63663 4/3/03 J & m air conditioning 75720 Professional fees 010-7400-425.33-10 138.00 138.00 63664 4/3/03 J & r concrete prod. inc. 15121 15142 15032 Supplies Supplies Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 122.84 147.40 405.36 675.60 63665 4/3/03 Jesse's auto glass & upholstery 1751 Auto repairs 010-3100-431.34-05 169.00 169.00 63666 4/3/03 Johnson machinery 1684866 Supplies 021-4150-410.33-50 790.87 790.87 63667 4/3/03 Jon's flag shop F29189 Supplies 010-2500-425.33-10 150.85 150.85 63668 4/3/03 La chemcial 231024 230217 231797 Supplies Analysis Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 1,373.25 1,551.59 1,371.88 4,296.72 63669 4/3/03 Lancaster contract survey company 03-21 Professional fees 054-9000-450.40-01 2,075.00 2,075.00 63670 4/3/03 Lancaster inspection services 03-06 Profesional services 010-3300-431.10-04 2,812.00 2,812.00 63671 4/3/03 Lanier, mary REQUEST 3/12/03 Mileage reimbursment 096-1700-417.31-20 115.00 235.46 Page 6 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63671... 4/3/03... Lanier, mary... REQUEST 3/12/03 REQUEST 3/12/03 Mileage reimbursment Mileage reimbursment 096-1700-417.21-10 096-1700-417.31-20 38.91 81.55 235.46... 63672 4/3/03 Malcolm smith motorsports 5020433 Auto repairs 010-3100-431.33-50 229.18 229.18 63673 4/3/03 Mazariegos, santos REQUEST 3/21/03 Settlement of claim 020-2200-419.30-90 225.00 225.00 63674 4/3/03 Mickey ibarra & associates, inc. 68 Washington representaion 010-2500-425.30-90 3,500.00 3,500.00 63675 4/3/03 Mission uniform services, inc. 17930627 17930626 17931779 17932912 17928352 17932916 17932910 17932909 17934056 17932911 17929493 17935189 17935191 17935190 17935192 S 14338 S 55623 17934055 S 54063 17934057 17934054 Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Unifrom supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies Uniform supplies 025-7100-410.21-35 025-7100-410.33-10 025-7100-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 010-7400-425.33-10 010-7400-425.33-10 050-9000-450.21-35 050-9000-450.21-35 025-7100-410.21-35 025-7100-410.21-35 025-7100-410.21-35 050-9000-450.21-35 025-7100-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 021-4150-410.21-35 050-9000-450.21-35 15.35 5.30 15.35 38.85 16.96 16.96 5.30 41.34 16.57 15.35 15.35 44.37 16.57 5.67 47.90 8.10 48.00 5.67 8.00 47.90 51.24 486.10 63677 4/3/03 New world systems 18893 Data analysis mapping msp 058-3100-431.40-45 3,663.50 3,663.50 63678 4/3/03 Nextel communications 3/19/03 STMT Cellular phones 010-3100-431.35-17 746.51 746.51 63679 4/3/03 Overnight industrial 18754 Supplies 055-4170-450.21-35 30.17 164.75 Page 7 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63679... 4/3/03... Overnight industrial... 18821 18937 Supplies Supplies 010-3100-431.21-30 021-4150-410.21-14 128.05 6.53 164.75... 63680 4/3/03 Pacific alarm svc., inc. 31272 32030 32030 32030 32030 Alarm fees Alarm fees Alarm fees Alarm fees Alarm fees 010-3100-431.21-19 010-2500-425.34-05 050-9000-450.34-05 025-7100-410.34-05 021-4150-410.34-05 26.00 87.00 148.16 45.67 29.67 336.50 63681 4/3/03 Perma 3/10/03 Parma conference attnd: 010-1400-414.31-20 235.00 235.00 63682 4/3/03 Pesticide applicators professional REQUEST 3/18/03 Seminar herbicide 021-4150-410.31-20 110.00 110.00 63683 4/3/03 Pierce plumbing 29748 29762 29760 29785 29770 29757 Supplies Supplies Supplies Utilities Supplies Supplies 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 025-7100-410.33-30 010-7400-425.33-10 025-7100-410.33-30 050-9000-450.33-30 20.24 36.21 66.78 19.23 10.79 43.53 196.78 63684 4/3/03 Pip printing 62161 62147 62468 Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies 010-1200-412.21-10 010-1200-412.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 184.19 340.02 198.52 722.73 63685 4/3/03 Power bound electrical inc. 10281 Supplies 050-9000-450.33-30 85.00 85.00 63686 4/3/03 Press enterprise 184290 1835554 1840155 1838260 Advertising ordinance Advertisment Advertisment Advertisment 010-1700-417.36-25 010-1700-417.36-25 010-1700-417.36-25 010-1700-417.36-25 4,181.10 63.70 96.70 165.00 4,506.50 63687 4/3/03 Providian REQUEST 3/25/03 Computer purchase 074-0000-103.12-25 1,327.00 1,327.00 63688 4/3/03 Purchase power 3/3/03 STMT Postage fees 010-2500-425.21-10 36.01 36.01 63689 4/3/03 Quality auto parts D575160 D575097 D576524 D571775 Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies 021-4150-410.33-50 055-4170-450.33-30 050-9000-450.33-50 025-7100-410.21-70 4.07 4.30 6.03 35.31 74.40 Page 8 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63689... 4/3/03... Quality auto parts... D579245 D565180 D572984 Supplies Supplies Supplies 025-7100-410.21-70 025-7100-410.21-70 025-7100-410.21-70 1.28 -62.40 85.81 74.40... 63690 4/3/03 Ramona floors 8225 Repair damaged carpet 010-3100-431.21-50 160.00 160.00 63691 4/3/03 Reliable PY880700 PY880700 YG49000 PZH96000 PYQ88800 PZD24100 PZY74900 PZY74900 PZY74900 PZY74901 PSJ30200 CJT35198 YG931800 CJ493898 PZH64200 Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies 010-1400-414.21-10 050-1400-414.21-10 010-1200-412.21-10 010-3100-431.21-10 010-1200-412.21-10 010-1200-412.21-10 099-1700-417.21-10 096-1700-417.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 010-1110-411.21-10 010-1400-414.21-10 021-4150-410.21-10 010-2500-425.21-10 010-2500-425.21-10 30.25 9.08 132.73 343.59 56.51 51.04 48.21 48.21 48.21 6.97 61.53 -7.63 62.18 -140.05 140.05 890.88 63693 4/3/03 Riverside county sheriffs SH000000372 SH00000510 Bookings dec 2002 Booking jan 2003 010-3100-431.30-19 010-3100-431.30-19 2,649.60 2,980.80 5,630.40 63694 4/3/03 Riverside county, REQUEST 3/17/03 Gis data 010-3300-431.40-45 5,000.00 5,000.00 63695 4/3/03 Riverside, county of 3090 Assessor maps 010-1700-417.21-10 11.50 11.50 63696 4/3/03 Rod's automotive performance 130310008 130310007 130311005 130303005 130205004 130131003 Auto repairs Auto repair Auto repair Auto repair Auto repair Auto repair 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 287.03 130.02 166.11 33.47 173.36 73.41 1,131.53 Page 9 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63696... 4/3/03... Rod's automotive performance... 130210006 130226008 130304003 Auto repair Auto repair Auto repairs 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 73.41 131.36 63.36 1,131.53... 63697 4/3/03 Rosenow spevacek group inc. 126929 Professional services 010-1200-412.10-04 15,930.00 15,930.00 63698 4/3/03 Roto-rooter service 242023 242101 Service at police dept Service preformed @ 560 010-3100-431.33-10 056-4150-410.35-18 210.00 1,157.93 1,367.93 63699 4/3/03 Schaaf, phil REQUEST 3/24/03 Reimbursment plumbing 050-9000-450.33-30 108.44 108.44 63700 4/3/03 Sid spradling automotive 3441 3407 3385 Auto repair Auto repair Auto repair 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 010-3100-431.33-50 45.00 10.00 10.00 65.00 63701 4/3/03 Sjhs asb REQUEST 3/19/03 Refund security cancelled 010-3100-431.10-02 160.00 160.00 63702 4/3/03 So. california gas co. 2/20/03 1031862 Utilities 010-2500-425.35-12 20.06 20.06 63703 4/3/03 Somers pest control 16183 Pest control service 021-4150-410.33-30 125.00 125.00 63704 4/3/03 Staples credit plan 96911 96911 96911 96344 95894 95894 3205 3205 Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies 010-2500-425.21-10 010-1700-417.21-10 096-1700-417.21-10 010-1200-412.21-10 099-1700-417.21-10 010-2500-425.21-10 010-1110-411.21-10 010-1100-411.21-10 85.25 64.93 64.93 25.59 16.14 27.99 121.61 58.12 464.56 63705 4/3/03 Stater bras 1210312 Groceries 010-1100-411.31-20 8.98 8.98 63706 4/3/03 Stericycle 2138988 2072190 Analysis Analysis 010-3100-431.34-05 010-3100-431.34-05 65.54 65.54 131.08 63707 4/3/03 Stirdivants shoes 433 Boot allowance-tony mora 050-9000-450.21-35 150.00 150.00 63708 4/3/03 Strattons janitorial service 146403 Cleaning fees virginia le 010-2500-425.34-05 600.00 600.00 63709 4/3/03 Stull, pamela REQUEST 3/12/03 REQUEST 3/12/03 Mileage reimbursment Mileage reimbursment 021-4150-410.31-20 050-9000-450.31-15 8.04 8.04 24.12 Page 10 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63709... 4/3/03... Stull, pamela... REQUEST 3/12/03 Mileage reimbursment 025-7100-410.31-20 8.04 24.12... 63710 4/3/03 Sunrise air conditioning 13747 Services rendered 010-2500-425.34-05 298.09 298.09 63711 4/3/03 Texaco fleet management STMT 3/2/2003 STMT 3/2/2003 STMT 3/2/2003 STMT 3/2/2003 Diesel 021-4150-410.21-70 056-4150-410.21-70 050-9000-450.21-70 025-7100-410.21-70 452.74 415.42 36.06 18.00 922.22 Diesel Diesel Diesel 63712 4/3/03 Trans union Ilc 2048911 Credit report fees 050-9000-450.34-10 112.80 112.80 63713 4/3/03 Tri buick pontiac gmc BUCS54820 Auto repair 010-1400-414.33-50 331.20 331.20 63714 4/3/03 Tri-lake consultants, inc. 1384 1383 1379 1368 1380 1381 1382 1385 1387 1387 1387 Professional services Professional services Professional services Professional services Professional services Professional services Professional services Professional services Professional services 029-8662-417.30-90 010-1700-417.30-90 010-1700-417.30-90 065-0000-201.06-47 022-4150-410.40-01 054-9000-450.40-01 054-9000-450.40-01 039-4155-410.40-01 021-4150-410.30-90 010-4100-410.30-90 050-9000-450.30-90 5,493.60 1,330.00 3,620.00 10,129.87 530.56 2,945.00 4,708.24 160.00 760.00 5,256.10 1,785.50 36,718.87 Professional services Professional services 63715 4/3/03 Underground service alert 03020666 Population fees 050-9000-450.33-30 145.50 145.50 63716 4/3/03 United parcel service TT8707093 TT8707103 Postage Postage 021-4150-410.21-10 050-9000-450.21-10 30.20 20.81 51.01 63717 4/3/03 Valley chronicle, the 2/28/03 Advertisment 010-1100-411.21-10 126.00 126.00 63718 4/3/03 Valley party equipment rental 10/03/02 Rental equipment chairs 010-1100-411.21-10 83.78 83.78 63719 4/3/03 Valley service connection 1425 1424 Cleaning fees feb 2003 010-2500-425.33-10 025-7100-410.34-05 400.00 480.00 880.00 Main street clean up 63720 4/3/03 Valley steel and welding 9510 Supplies 021-4150-410.33-30 60.78 60.78 63721 4/3/03 Valley towing & recovery 4289 Towing fees 010-3100-431.34-11 200.00 200.00 Page 11 City of San Jacinto Warrant Register Date:04/03/03 Check Number Check Date VendorName Invoice Number Description Account Number Transaction Amount Check Total 63722 4/3/03 Valley wide recreation 1129 Graffiti removal 025-7250-410.34-05 637.63 637.63 63723', 4/3/03 Vulcan materials company 1100400 1099834 1101050 1104161 1105483 Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 021-4150-410.33-30 154.64 156.15 190.75 180.13 182.00 863.67 63724 4/3/03 Water education foundation 10968 Subscription dues 050-9000-450.21-10 40.00 40.00 63725 4/3/03 West group 894954 Subscription dues 099-1700-417.21-10 122.00 122.00 63726 4/3/03 Western fire co. 27464 Services rendered 010-2500-425.30-90 454.64 454.64 63727 4/3/03 Wetworks pool care 3/10/03 Feb 2003 010-8400-425.33-10 542.75 542.75 63728 4/3/03 Xerox corporation 94160528 93989454 93989453 94160525 94160525 94160525 92293726 93989435 93989435 93989435 92293717 Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier Lease on copier 010-2500-425.34-05 010-2500-425.34-05 010-7400-425.34-05 021-4150-410.21-10 050-9000-450.21-10 025-7100-410.21-10 010-3100-431.34-05 050-9000-450.21-10 021-4150-410.21-10 025-7100-410.21-10 010-3100-431.34-05 867.94 684.09 174.56 75.30 75.30 75.30 180.91 58.18 58.19 58.19 365.48 2,673.44 63729 4/3/03 Zimmerman consulting engineers 1045 Profesional services 065-0000-201.06-45 800.00 800.00 Total Checks 776,020.53 Page 12 MEMORANDUM AGENDA 52 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Dorothy L. Chouinard, City Clerk DATE: March 28, 2003 SUBJECT: March 20, 2003 Regular Minutes Please accept my apology that the March 20, 2003 Minutes are not finished. Said minutes will be delivered to you early next week. City Clerk TO: FROM: AGENDA ITEM 5,3 March 24, 2003 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Bernie Simon, Finance Director Jack Templeton, Interim Accountant SUBJECT: Treasurer's Report at February 28, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Treasurer's Report for February 28, 2003. BACKGROUND: Total Cash and City Investments increased approximately 0.86% during the month. This includes cash, cash in bank and cash with trustee. At February 28, 2003, $568,926 remains from the original $1.3 Million Loan from RCTC in 1998. On Friday January 31 $1.89 million in tax payments was received from Riverside County. Staff moved $1.9 million to our interest bearing LAIF account from The Bank of Hemet on the first business day in February. Some of the large expenditures during the month included items such as $45,000 to Inland Chevrolet for purchase of three police detective vehicles, $140,700 to New World Systems for police CAD/RMS software, $38,200 for to Riverside County for traffic light maintenance, and $116,400 to Genesis Construction in progress payments for the De Anza Lift Station and Water Main Project. A disbursement in the amount of $14,478 was made from trustee funds relating to additional issuance costs for CFD NO 2002-1. A deposit in the amount of $435,416 was made to trustee funds relating to tax revenues for CFD NO 2. The City of San Jacinto made deposits of $19,664 and $26,409 to trustee funds relating to debt service requirements for Assessment District 94-1 and Soboba RDA Bonds respectively. The Treasurers' report is a "snapshot" report of our cash position on the last day of the month in all of our accounts. Approvals City Manager: Finance Director: .i Page 1 of 1 Page 1 INVESTMENT TYPE INSTITUTION SERIAL # CITY OF SAN TREASURERS FOR THE MONTH ENDING INTEREST PURCHASE RATE YIELD DATE JACINTO REPORT FEBRUARY 28, MATURITY DATE 2003 1/31/2003 PREV. MONTH BALANCE 2/28/2003 CURRENT BALANCE % change from prior month 2/28/2003 COMPUTED MARKET ACCRUED VALUE INTEREST STATE POOL Money Market DEMAND Account PAYROLL Account L.A.I.F. Bank of Hemet Bank of Hemet Bank of Hemet Cash on Hand TOTAL CITY INVESTMENTS & FUNDS CFD NO 2 Mutual Fund Mutual Fund Corporate Obligations CFD NO 2002-1 Mutual Fund Trustee 1.945% 2.080% n/a nla nla 1.945% 2.080% n/a n/a n/a RESTRICTED CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT (BOND FUNDS1 Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund Union Bnk Bayerische Lankbk GIC TOTAL CFD NO 2 7-11361 1.150% 6711695201 1.150% 6711695204 4.050% Various 11 /1 /2001 Various Various Various 1.150% Various 1.150% Various 4.050% 10/10/2002 Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund 711695202/06 1.150% 1.150% Various TOTAL CFD NO 2 REFINANCE RDA SAN JACINTO TAX ALLOCATION BONDS Mutual Fund Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-1 U.S. Treasury Notes Union Bnk Alamo Capital U.S. Govt. MM Union Bnk Alamo Capital Money Market Union Bnk Alamo Capital Cash 7-15639 1.150% 1.150% Various 678544857 678544857 678544857 Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund 7-15777 TOTAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-1 1997 WATER IMPROV. Mutual Fund Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund Mutual Fund Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund TOTAL 1997 WATER IMPROV. 2002 WATER REVENUE BONDS Mutual Fund Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund SOBOBA RDA BONDS Mutual Fund Union Bnk Blkrock Prov. T-Fund 4.750% 0.000% 7.640% 0.000% 4.750% 0.000% 7.640% 0.000% Various Various Various Various 7-15980 1.150% 1.150% Various 7-15980-06 1.150% 1.150% Various 6-7116829 1.150% 1.150% Various 7-16274 1.150% 1.150% Various Open Open Open Open nla Open Open 9/1/2014 Open Open 02/15/04 Open Open Open Open Open Open Open $9,955,043 S821,762 $2,137,450 $4,976 $600 $11,855.043 $472,640 $251,114 $5,206 $600 19.09% -42.48% -88.25% 4.62% 0.00% $11,889,724 $34,681 $472,640 n/a $251,114 n/a $5,206 n/a $600 n/a $12,919,831 $12,584,603 -2.59% $12,619,284 $34,681 $964 $0 $748,800 $749,764 $964 $435,416 $760,257 $1,196,637 0.00% 100.00% 1.53% $964 $435,416 $760.257 59.60% $1,196,637 n/a nla n/a nla $857,535 $843,708 -1.61% $843,708 n/a $857,535 $843,708 -1.61% $843,708 nla $334,208 $334,463 0.08% $334,463 n/a $62,138 $0 $4,335 $0 $66,473 $62,025 $0 $5,762 $19,664 -0.18% n/a 32.92% 100.00% $87,451 31.56% $62,025 $0 $5,762 $19,664 $87,451 n/a nla n/a n/a n/a $1,342,352 $202,840 $1,545,192 $1,343,378 $202,995 $1,546,373 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% $1,343,378 $202,995 $1,546,373 $41 $41 0.00% $41 n/a n/a n/a n/a $90,489 $116,967 29.26% $116,967 n/a 3/24/2003 Prepared By: JT Page 2 CITY OF SAN JACINTO TREASURERS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2003 1/31/2003 2/28/2003 % change 2/28/2003 COMPUTED INVESTMENT INSTITUTION INTEREST PURCHASE MATURITY PREV. MONTH CURRENT from prior MARKET ACCRUED TYPE SERIAL # RATE YIELD DATE DATE BALANCE BALANCE month VALUE INTEREST ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 87-1 Money Market BNY Bank of New York RCTC LOAN Money Market USB US Bank TOTAL CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT TOTAL ALL FUNDS 411795 0.000% 0.000% Various Open $21,785 $21,785 0.00% $21,785 n/a 95-444672 1.150% 1.150% Various Open $568,545 $568,926 0.07% $568,926 n/a I CERTIFY THAT THESE INVESTMENTS COMPLY WITH ALL STATE LAWS PERTAINING TO THE INVESTMENT OF LOCAL AGENCY FUNDS AND THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO'S INVESTMENT POLICIES. CITY OF SAN JACINTO MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SIX MONTH CASH FLOW REQUIREMENTS AS PER GOVERNMENT CODE 53646(b)(3). � &) JAMBES W. POTTS, TREASURER City Of San Jacinto $4,234,032 $4,716,351 11.39% $4,716,351 n/a $17,153,863 $17,300,954 0.86% $17,335,635 $34,681 3/24/2003 Prepared By: JT