Feasibility Study - City of Grand Terrace Incorporation December 8, 1977
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
and
Municipal Advisory Council of Grand Terrace
Dear Members:
With the transmittal of this report, we conclude a comprehensive and
professionally satisfying assignment. This extensive exploration of
alternate ways to deliver expanded local governmental services should
encourage informed discussion and community determination of its local
governmental structure.
The majority of the project work was conducted by project supervisor
Lee Weber and Douglas Ayres of our Western staff. However, a specialist
in public works, Harold Rothbart, and another in fire, Joe Miller, were
also brought in for review in their specific areas of expertise.
We must express our appreciation for the remarkably good cooperation
extended to us by the Municipal Advisory Council and the Special
Districts Department of San Bernardino County. Numerous. other County
departments offered information and advice and reviewed segments of the
report as they became available.
Finally, without the cooperation and continuing input of the nearby cities
of Colton and Loma Linda, this study would be neither as comprehensive
nor complete.
cerely
liam J. Hilty
Associate Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
History of the Grand Terrace Community. . , . . , 1
-- MAP #1--GRAND TERRACE VICINITY
Physical Attributes of Grand Terrace. . . . . . . 2
Background of this Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CHAPTER II. GRAND TERRACE--PRESENT AND FUTURE GROWTH
Methodology , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 8
Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Assessed Valuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CHAPTER III. EXISTING SERVICES & TRENDS
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Public Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
-- MAP #2--SEPARATELY DEFINED AREAS
Public Works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Leisure Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Land Use Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
-- MAP #3--PROJECTED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES
Tax Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVE SERVICE LEVELS
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Municipal Advisory Council Input. . . . . . . . . 30
Public Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Public Works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Leisure Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Land Use Contracts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Cost Calculations/Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 46
CHAPTER V. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Storm Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
-- MAP #4--MAJOR STORM DRAINS
Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
-- MAP #5--MAJOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Parks < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Civic Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Summary of Capital Improvement Funding. . . . . . 54
CHAPTER VI. SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
County Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Community Services District . . . . . . . . . . 59
Discussions of CSA and CSD. . . . . . . . . . . 59
Reorganization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Annexation to Colton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Discussion of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . 69
Reviews of Alternatives with Affected Parties 70
CHAPTER VII. RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Revenue Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Expenditure Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Ranking of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
General Revenue Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . 76
General Expenditure Comparisons . . . . . . . . 77
Summary of Financial Effects of Alternatives. 78
CHAPTER VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Reconciliation of "Preferences" with "Costs". 80
City of Grand Terrace Financial Projections . 81
General Law vs. Chartered City. . . . . . . . . 86
Charter City Financial Projections. . . . . . . 86
Procedure for Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . 88
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Implementation of Recommended Alternative . . . 92
APPENDICES
I. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION REVENUE ESTIMATES
Letter of September 23, 1977 to Local Agency
Formation Commission.
II. BASIC REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Five-year projections with accompanying comments.
III. BASIC EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
Five-year projections with accompanying comments.
IV. PLANS FOR COLTON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW
LAFCO letter of October 18, 1977 to Grand Terrace
Municipal Advisory Council.
V. DRAFT REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS--CITY OF COLTON
Colton letter of November 9, 1977 to Public
Administration Service; City Manager report
of November 9, 1977 to Colton Mayor and
City Council.
VI. DRAFT REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS--CITY OF LOMA LINDA
Loma Linda letter of November 21, 1977 to
Public Administration Service.
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The study reported by this volume encompasses the unincorporated Grand
Terrace area of San Bernardino County. The relationship of this area
to nearby San Bernardino County communities and the Riverside County
line is shown by Map #1. The purpose of the study is to explore all
possible alternatives for providing local government services to the area
and to assess the economics and organizational possibilities of each.
History of Grand Terrace
Grand Terrace is named for the high bluff which comprises much of the
5.9 square mile unincorporated island lying in the southwest portion of
San Bernardino County. The Grand Terrace--several hundred feet above the
Santa Ana River plain, but dominated to the east by the 2,428 foot Blue
Mountain--slopes slightly in a general east to west direction until the
nearly vertical cliffs drop off on the north and La Loma Hills rise on
the west.
The area lies between the historical Lugo Rancho San Bernardino and the
Jurupa Rancho. With the formation of San Bernardino County in 1853
Grand Terrace's present sourtherly boundary was set as the Riverside-
San Beranrdino County boundary line.
Citrus Groves. Land sales records for the area now called Grand Terrace
go back to the 1870s, with citrus plantings beginning on the well-drained
land around the turn of the century. Agriculture--especially citrus--
remained the dominant force into the 1920s. A flurry of real estate
sub-division had taken place in the 1880s in the general area, but Grand
Terrace remained basically unaffected.
World War II had a major effect on Grand Terrace, with the beginning of
housing development in support of Norton Air Force Base and its employees.
Post-World War II development was steady, especially as those who had
been stationed at Norton or March Air Force Bases began to retire in the
desirable Southern California climate. With the rapid expansion of Loma
Linda University persons affiliated with that complex of medical facili-
ties also began to congregate in Grand Terrace. Growth was fairly steady
from 1950 to 1975, with three factors being dominant:
1. Norton and March Air Force Bases
2. Loma Linda University
3. Central location between San Bernardino and Riverside
Impact of the Interstates. Location adjacent to Interstate 10 and bisec-
tion by Interstate 15E provided Grand Terrace residents quick and easy
1
access to the remainder of the region. Even more importantly the semi-
rural citrus grove-sprinkled nature of the area made Grand Terrace a
highly desirable living environment and, with the freeway access, both
residences and businesses grew apace.
The Southern California housing boom of 1976-77, coupled with newly
available sanitary sewers, and the relatively inexpensive large chunks
of open land on the Grand Terrace, has now caused the most rapid period
of housing and population growth in local history.
Growth Potential. Plentiful water, lots of open land, a homogeneous- and
higher income population, ready access to and from two major freeways,
service by two major railroad lines, a desirable mid-location between
Riverside and San Bernardino, and a semi-isolation afforded by the topo-
graphy all seem to combine to make Grand Terrace a potentially "hot"
growth area. Growth seems to be coming in housing and population, with
added commercial construction probably not far behind. The railroad,
freeway and mid-point advantages of Grand Terrace also seem to indicate
additional potential importance as a distribution center.
Physical Attributes of Grand Terrace
The boundaries of the present area known as "Grand Terrace" for the pur-
poses of this study are set by the San Bernardino-Riverside County line
on the south, the Reche Canyon annexation to the City of Colton on the
east, the La Loma Hills annexation to Colton on the west, and the main
body of Colton on the north. Thus legally Grand Terrace--as herein
defined--is completely surrounded by the City of Colton. The California
Constitution does not permit a city to exist in two counties, thus the
establishment of a legal enclave.
Blue Mountain. Although a large part of this 5.9 square mile Grand
Terrace island lies east of the Southern Pacific Railroad and Interstate
15E, a significant portion of that area consists of Blue Mountain. Only
the lower portion of this 2,428 foot rocky outcropping is built on, and
the balance would be extremely difficult to develop. The mountain is
split with the City of Colton, the latter having encompassed about half
the mountain within its Reche Canyon annexation. To the west, the
slightly more buildable La Loma Hills are similarly more or less split
between incorporated Colton and unincorporated Grand Terrace.
Railroads, Freeways and Annexation. Existence of the Southern Pacific
Railroad, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, and Interstate 15--from east
to west--on the western boundary of Grand Terrace more or less tends to
isolate the La Loma Hills area from the balance of the Grand Terrace.
In fact, the City of Colton, through gradual annexation, has nearly
isolated the area lying west of the Southern Pacific at Burns and
Vivienda Avenues. Only several hundred feet of unincorporated strip
2
prevent the legal isolation of the La Loma Hills-La Cadena area.
Topography. Slopes of around 50 percent exist on the sides of Blue
Mountain, almost vertical cliffs on the north and west edges of the
main body of Grand Terrace, but a gentle slope of only around four
percent prevails in the center of the unincorporated island.
Climate. The mild inland temperatures are ideal for citrus, but the
warm, dry summers, combined with the prevailing westerly winds, cause
considerable air pollution in all of the Inland Empire of the Riverside-
San Bernardino area, including Grand Terrace. Average annual rainfall
is some 13 inches, concentrated from December through March. Irriga-
tion water being readily available, plus the existence of the Foothill
Pipeline of the California Aqueduct through Grand Terrace, combine to
cause the area to have bright development prospects. Addition of the
sanitary sewer system in 1975-76 completed the necessary utility infra-
structure to enable developers to exploit the climate, location and land
economics of Grand Terrace.
Land Use. Much of Grand Terrace other than Blue Mountain remains in
citrus orchards. These are rapidly being developed or allowed to come
under less intense cultivation as land values for development soar. As
the Kinnard, Delahousie and Gault "Grand Terrace General Plan" study of
February, 1975 states:
Even now growers are being faced with pressures to urbanize
and develop their holdings. The result of this has been the
accelerated conversion of orchards into more intensified land
uses. Though this seems undesirable from an open space objec-
tive, the present realities of agricultural production and
land values makes it nearly unavoidable. . . . 1
Thus open space definition and preservation may well become one of the
major problems facing the Grand Terrace area in the not-too-distant
future. For, as the same report states:
A large area of Grand Terrace is used for citrus orchards
and there is a feeling that these orchards are part of the
natural open space resource of the community and should be
retained. In terms of land use, however, they are a visual
resource and are not suitable for general recreation. . . .2
Much of the balance of Grand Terrace is a mixture of older single family
residences on large lots, strip and isolated commercial, newer tract
single family homes on quite small lots, high value custom built homes
on the lower slopes of Blue Mountain, light industrial-distribution, and
1Background Summary Report--Grand Terrace General Plan: Kennard,
Delahousie and Gault and the San Bernardino County Planning Department,
February 3, 1975, p. 13.
2Ibid. , p. 13.
3
some new quite high-density apartments. The adopted General Plan allows
a solid mixture of land uses which seem conducive to developing a solid
tax base. The only two imponderables are speed of development and a
solution to the "open space problem."
Background of this Study
Provision of local governmental services to the Grand Terrace area was
steady, uncomplicated and unemotional until a series of events in 1975
and 1976, as outlined below.
Annexations. First, the San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) granted permission to the City of Colton to annex major portions
of La Loma Hills, Reche Canyon and Blue Mountain, and the industrial-
commercial area astride La Cadena Avenue. Thus the bulk of what was
known as Grand Terrace was surrounded.
Next, the LAFCO determination of the statutorily encouraged "sphere of
influence" for Colton was held up pending a study of local government
services in the unincorporated area now surrounded by the City limit lines
of Colton.
Sewers. In the meantime Improvement Zone "H" of County Service Area 70
was formed to provide sanitary sewer service to the unincorporated
Grand Terrace island. Such was accomplished after studies, debates and
much sensitization of the citizens of Grand Terrace as to local government
services and the way they are or can be organized. As a part of this
process the County Board of Supervisors created the Municipal Advisory
Council (MAC) .
MAC Actions. The Municipal Advisory Council, prompted by the community
acceptance of the necessity for sewers, Colton's annexations and the
LAFCO-Colton feeling of necessity for action on a "sphere of influence,"
sought assistance. The decision to examine the future governmental service
delivery system for Grand Terrace was--in the expressed opinion of many--
made a necessity by the prospect of being submerged into the City of
Colton without any orderly examination of the impacts of such a decision.
A "nibbling" process of piecemeal annexation would be possible and
probable once the Colton sphere of influence was created containing
Grand Terrace. The obvious result would be submerging of any possible
City of Grand Terrace, or other local district arrangement, into the
greater City of Colton. But even more importantly it was felt, all
decisions would be piecemeal and without significant local input.
Thus the MAC prevailed on the Special Districts Department and the San
Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to commission a "Grand Terrace
Feasibility Study for Governance" request for proposal for consultant
services.
Granting of Study Contract. A competitive process, designed in such a
way that responsiveness and capability were given equal standing with
4
price, was devised by the County Special Districts Department Staff in
the late spring of 1977. Several local government consultant firms
submitted responses to the RFP and were interviewed during early July.
Later that month Public Administration Service was selected, a revised
scope of work and study methodology was negotiated, and a contract let
by the Board of Supervisors.
Work began in earnest on the study on August 1, 1977.
Basic Scope of the Study. The basic purpose of the study, as stated in
the "Request for Proposal" is:
To provide a feasibility study regarding the expansion
of services and alternative means for providing such services
by Governmental Agency or Agencies to meet the needs and
desires of the Grand Terrace community.
A plan of study was to be prepared to:
A. Inspect existing facilities and services to analyze and
project intermediate and long-range feasibility regarding
current and future services and current (and) future
methods for providing these services through alternative
forms of government. . . .
C. Develop a five-year budget projection based on alternative
levels of community service. This projection would include,
but not be limited to:
1. Requirements for service needs to include police,
fire, sanitation, street maintenance, parks and
recreation, street lighting, animal control, and
water.
2. Requirements for new construction (including a time
frame) .
3. Estimates of costs . . .
4. Source of anticipated funding.
5. Projection of manpower needs for current and proposed
services and facilities.
D. Analyze alternative forms of government to provide the
services required. This analysis would include as a
minimum an analysis of various forms of Districts (CSA's,
CSD's, etc) , city incorporation, annexation to nearby
cities, the effect on these cities and potential re-
organizations.
5
Study Procedure per RFP. The contract procedure calls for a Draft
Feasibility Report to be prepared and presented to the MAC and the
Special Districts Department (SDD) , comments and feedback on that
Draft Report, and then, upon written approval by the Special Districts
Department, preparation and submission of a "final feasibility report"
to the Board of Supervisors.
A nine-element study procedure was prepared and submitted by Public
Administration Service, and was accepted by the MAC and SDD, as follows:
1. Establish Growth Assumptions
2. Define Existing Basic Services
3. Project Alternative Service Levels
4. Define Capital Construction Requirements
5. Assess Annexation Implications
6. Develop Independent Agency Models
7. Project Five-year Comprehensive Budgets
8. Draft Feasibility Study
9. Prepare and Present Final Feasibility Study.
The "Proposed Study Methodology" described each element in detail. All
were accepted by both the SDD and MAC and includedin the final study
methodology, except that elements 5 and 6 essentially were merged into
an assessment of alternative organizational means for providing local
government services. Further, element 7 was limited to a detailed bud-
get for the most feasible and desirable organizational alternative, with
less detailed budgets provided for other alternative arrangements which
seemed to be possible of achievement.
Adopted Procedure. On August 2 this final "Study Plan" was presented
to and adopted by the Municipal Advisory Council, pursuant to the consul-
tant agreement's provisions that policy and procedural guidance and
approvals be provided by that body and by the SDD. To keep all involved
and interested parties informed, and in a position to make constructive
comments, two devices have been used in the process of developing this
report.
A series of interim reports was used to provide the MAC, adjacent cities,
the SDD and other County agencies, SANBAG, LAFCO and the press informed
as the study progressed. The following interim reports were issued:
DATE REPORT NO. TITLE
August 10 1 Tentative Project Report Outline
and Reporting Procedures
August 12 2 Population Estimates
August 24 3 Assessed Valuation Projections
September 12 4 Existing Services and Trends
September 28 4A Existing Services and Trends
September 30 5 Alternate Service Levels
October 4 6 Capital Construction Requirements
October 20 7 Background of the Study
6
DATE REPORT NO. TITLE
October 26 8 Basic Revenue Projections
November 15 9 Basic Expenditure Projections
November 22 -- Draft Feasibility Report
A series of MAC meetings were held at which times the interim reports
were discussed, MAC and general public input sought and received, and
appropriate notations and/or corrections and modifications made.
Consultant Procedure. Public Administration Service has followed an
uncomplicated procedure in accomplishing the agreed-on duties required
by the study contract.
First, all written material regarding Grand Terrace was gathered and
digested. Included among these were the several sewer studies, the
general plan study, a municipal incorporation feasibility report, and
other pertinent documents. Private and state governmental sources also
were utilized, including Security Pacific Bank, Southern California
Edison, and revenue figures prepared by the State Board of Equalization.
Second, numerous county, city, regional, MAC, district and local govern-
ment officials were interviewed and data gathered from their files and
records. Also an extensive tour of the area was made and talks had
with various "opinion leaders." The latter conversations in no way
could be considered a valid survey--just an orientation.
Third, PAS staff specialists in engineering and public works, finance
and organization, fire service and communications were brought in for
varying periods of time to supplement the assigned staff. Their written
report gathering and interviews with counterpart specialists were quite
detailed and extensive.
Fourth, added materials were discovered, requested to be developed, or
gleaned verbally from a wide variety of governmental and local sources.
Last, and certainly not least, the series of informal, formal and public
meetings with the MAC, SDD and other officials as the study has progressed
has developed added "feel" and materials to be added to the informed,
unbiased and objective outlook inherent in any "outside consultant."
The result, Public Administration Service believes, is an economically
feasible and politically achievable plan of procedure to provide Grand
Terrace with local government services. The balance of this report out-
lines the step-by-step information and data development which culminates
in the suggestions outlined in some detail in the last chapter hereof.
7
CHAPTER II
PRESENT AND FUTURE GROWTH
The need for and cost of governmental services in the Grand Terrace
will be impacted by the type and rate of growth the area may expect to
experience.
Methodology
The basic approach taken in this study involved establishing a set of
growth assumptions to be reviewed by all interested parties early in
the study. These assumptions would then serve as the. common base upon
which to build, experiment and project revenues and expenditures for
various alternate local government organization patterns.
Establishing this "common base" proved to be somewhat more involved
than originally expected. The process began with the establishment of
the current population and anticipated growth. These growth projections
were required before any growth in total assessed valuation could be
estimated. The methodology involved in each set of projections is more
fully described in the following sections on population and assessed
valuation.
Population
Several problems arise in attempting to establish the present and project
the future population of the Grand Terrace area. First among these
difficulties is the underlying problem of agreeing upon what constitutes
the boundaries of the area. For the purposes of this report the total
unincorporated area bounded by Colton on the north, east and west and
Riverside County on the south is assumed to be the Grand Terrace area
except when otherwise specified. This 5.9 square-mile area corresponds
with the planning study area involved in the June, 1976 Community General
Plan.
Establishing the Base
In order to project population, current population first had to be esti-
mated. Detailed data from the 1970 and special 1975 census was examined.
Census data provides exact figures for the defined Grand Terrace area
showing the following fifteen-year growth pattern:
1960 . . . . . . . 2,120
1970 . . . . . . . 5,901
1975 . . . . . . . 6,608
Other Population Estimates. A variety of sources were contacted and data
examined to help establish current and projected estimated population for
the Grand Terrace area. Among these sources were:
8
Department of Building and Safety
General Plan Study Files -- 1974-75
Department of Planning -- Population Section
Riverside Highland Water Company
Sanitary Sewer Engineering Reports
San Bernardino Associated Governments
Southern California Edison Company
Security Pacific National Bank
Census Tract Relationships. From April, 1975 onward all estimated popu-
lation projections were carefully analyzed and modified to reflect only
the total included in the defined Grand Terrace area. The most frequent
mistake appearing in some references to community population relate to
treating Census Tract #71 data interchangeably with the Grand Terrace
area. In both the 1970 and 1975 special census, the area contained only
approximately 90% of the population included in Census Tract #71. Some
of this population actually resides in Census Tract #40, only a very
small portion of which is in the defined Grand Terrace area. The use of
Census Tract #71 data interchangeably with that of the defined Grand
Terrace area automatically inflates the area estimate more than 10%. The
overwhelming majority of persons living in Tract #71 reside in the Grand
Terrace area making that demographic data essentially transferable to
provide a profile of the community characteristics. However, whenever
using census tract projections for population estimates, this report
reduces those estimates to 90% of the tract total to obtain the area
population estimate.
Current Population Estimate. Most estimates of Grand Terrace area have
not been updated in the past two years. However, both the County Planning
Department and Security Pacific National Bank have prepared current popu-
lation data for the first half of 1977.
County Planning Department estimates the April, 1977 population of Census
Tract #71 to be 7,441. Applying the 1.8% growth for Census Tract #71 to
the 1975 special census population in the Grand Terrace area results in a
Grand Terrace area estimate of 6,721.
Security Pacific National Bank recently completed a study in connection
with a proposed Grand Terrace branch expansion. Their estimated Census
Tract #71 population is 7,400. Based on the 90% factor for Grand Terrace,
this estimate would indicate an area population of 6,660.
The basic current estimate, upon which all future area, population projec-
tions are based, is 6,750. This estimate was arrived at by adding popu-
lation for the 51 dwelling units constructed since the 1975 special census,
less a vacancy factor of 3.62% and multiplying the 3.02 persons per unit
average found in 1975 (49 x 3.02 - 148 + 6,602 = 6,750) .
Registered Voter Population Estimate. Should the Grand Terrace area incor-
porate the population basis for state subventions paid the city government
will be arrived at by multiplying the number of registered voters by three.
The County Registrar of Voters reports that as of August 1, 1977, there
9
were 2,878 persons registered to vote in the defined Grand Terrace area.
This means that, regardless of current population estimates or projec-
tions, a population estimate of 8,634 can be utilized in estimating
state subventions which might be paid to an incorporated Grand Terrace
local government. This figure would be adjusted to reflect the latest
voter registration at the time of an incorporation election and then
could be used until official results of another census were available.
Projecting Population Growth
The few figures available seem to point in the same direction concerning
the approximate 6,750 current Grand Terrace area population. However,
estimates for future population vary so substantially as to be of little
value. After analyzing all of these sources it was essentially necessary
to start over and project the next five years on the basis of quickly
changing current building and subdividing situations. These figures and
the growth they foretold were not available to others who have consistently
projected more conservative growth estimates than those in this report.
Trends Affecting Growth. At least three broad trends can be identified
which have had or will have significant impact on the population growth
of the Grand Terrace area. The three broad trends can be identified as:
1) Past and present sanitary sewer problems; 2) Orange County housing
speculation; and, 3) Future environmental concerns. Each trend is
briefly described below.
Past and present sanitary sewer problems have had the most impact in
causing wildly fluctuating growth trends in Grand Terrace. In recent
years the lack of sanitary sewers in the Grand Terrace area has caused
a virtual absence of new construction. The fact that only 51 building
permits were issued for new dwelling in a two-year period account for
the virtual lack of any growth between 1975 and 1977. With the comple-
tion of the $6,000,000 sanitary sewer collection system, its tie-in with
and purchase of capacity in the Colton Treatment Plant, a resumption of
healthy growth could be expected. The fact that this has occurred at
virtuaily the same time the east valley treatment facilities have become
overloaded, thus limiting that rapid growth, is resulting in far more
rapid development than would have otherwise occurred.
Orange County housing speculation, resulting in the nationally noted
new home price spiral during the past three years, is beginning to drive
many new home buyers into the competitively lower priced Riverside-San
Bernardino County home market. The extra driving time begins to look
reasonable measured against a monthly payment of a $20,000 to $25,000
larger mortgage. The maintenance of this differential could make the
Riverside-San Bernardino area the "next boom housing market" as predicted
in a recent New West magazine article. A sudden drop in Orange County
home prices, expected by some observers as speculators attempt to unload
their investments, could result in sharply reducing the growth of new
housing in that market.
10
Future environmental concerns which might affect Grand Terrace growth
involve air quality. The Grand Terrace sanitary sewer collection and
treatment capacity is fully adequate for the five-year period of growth
projected in this report. At least for a portion of this period growth
will be sharply restricted in some other areas of the valley because of
a lack of such facilities. Given this situation it is assumed that
growth will be permitted to continue in Grand Terrace during the next
five years.
Current Construction. A search of County Building and Safety Department
recordsreveals that construction is currently underway in the Grand
Terrace area for 375 dwelling units. All of these permits have been
taken out since March 1, 1977 and are not included in the county popula-
tion April 1, 1977 update. When fully occupied at the 1975 average per
dwelling unit, the current construction will add 1,090 residents--or 550
more than in the five years preceding 1975. This only marks the beginning
of the growth picture.
Current Subdivision Activity. In the past twelve months tentative sub-
division plats have been filed which will create lots for 645 dwelling
units. Only 147 of these units are included in the 375 building permits
issued since March 1, 1977 since 228 of these units are contained in a
single apartment complex. Thus, in addition to the 1,090 residents that
can be housed by current construction, enough lots have been tentatively
platted within the past year to house an additional 1,504 persons when
fully built.
Other Population Projections. A number of other private and public agency
population projections and other indications of growth as previously list-
ed were analyzed. Several projections of Grand Terrace area population
were available including those contained in those previously mentioned
studies and sources.
It was determined that these projections were currently usable for only
the most general guidance. The majority of these projections were made
before the effects of the current rush in development were known. Further,
only two of the estimates, those for the sanitary sewer engineering report
and the general plan study, coincide with study area boundaries. The
Southern California Edison projections covered such a large area as to be
of little direct value in the annual estimates required for the specific
Grand Terrace area. The major areas of agreement among most projections
concern the approximate total population (14,000-16,000) and the probable
time (late 1980s to early 1990s) .
Only two projections have been revised in the current year. Both of these
are based on the projected population of Census Tract #71 where population
exceeds that of the Grand Terrace area. Interpreting that data indicates
that the Security Pacific National Bank projects only 9,180 people in the
area in 1988. The County Planning Department, Population Section appears
to project 7,632 in 1980 and 8,147 in 1985 based on interpretation of
their larger census tract data. Thus it would appear that even the most
11
recent estimates of population have not yet taken into account the sudden
growth developments already underway in Grand Terrace.
It became necessary to project an entirely new set of growth assumptions
as a basis for this study.
Projected Grand Terrace Growth. Beginning with an estimated Grand Terrace
community population of 6,750 as of July 1, 1977 projections for the next
five years are clearly divided into three stages as described briefly
below.
July 1977 to July 1978 projections are based on occupying the dwelling
units for which construction permits have been issued through July, 1977.
A small vacancy factor is included in the calculations. No occupancy of
any units for which permits might be issued after July 31, 1977 is pro-
vided for in this estimate. As previously described, this current con-
struction provides for 1,090 more residents bringing the July 1, 1978
projected population to 7,840.
July 1978 to July 1979 projections envision the construction and occupancy
of dwelling units on the tentatively platted lots filed prior to August 1,
1977. This estimate provides a maximum of three years and a minimum of
two years from the date of tentative platting to the completion of con-
struction. Not every one of the lots tentatively platted will have been
built upon and some possibly dropped before the final subdivision is
approved. Since no allowance is included for subdivisions which may be
platted after August 1, 1977, this estimate is nonetheless considered to
be conservative. As previously outlined, this tentative platted property
would add an additional 1,504 persons bringing the July 1, 1979 estimated
population to 9,344.
July 1979 to July 1982 projections must be based on considerably less
hard data. Some of the trends previously outlined could sharply acceler-
ate or curb growth during this period. In view of the possibilities, a
middle course of continued, though somewhat more normal slower growth, has
been charted at a 5% annual increase resulting in the following estimates:
July 1, 1980 . . . . . . . . 9,811
July 1, 1981 . . . . . . . . 10,302
July 1, 1982 . . . . . . . . 10,817
A steady 5% growth rate would bring the Grand Terrace community to its
maximum 14,000-16,000 population by the end of the decade.
12
In summary past, present and future Grand Terrace area population
is presented below:
1960 Census . . . . . . . . . . 2,120
1970 Census . . . . . . . . . . 5,901
1975 Special Census . . . . . . 6,608
1977 Current Estimate . . . . . 6,750
1978 Projected Estimate . . . . 7,840
1979 Projected Estimate . . . . 9,344
1980 Projected Estimate . . . . 9,811
1981 Projected Estimate . . . . 10,302
1982 Projected Estimate . . . . 10,817
p LO n aD M O N
I,. CO 00 CO
rn rn on rn as rn a;
I
10,000 do
8,000
OF
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Assessed Valuations
The boundaries of the Grand Terrace area do not correspond directly with
any established taxing jurisdiction so directly historical assessed valua-
tion data is not available. However, Improvement Zone H of County Service
Area #70 most nearly corresponds to the area boundaries.
Establishing the Base
In order to establish the current assessed valuation of the Grand Terrace
area a review of the history of Improvement Zone H was conducted, values
obtained from the State Board of Equalization and others hand-tabulated
by the San Bernardino County Assessor' s office.
Improvement Zone H Boundaries. Improvement Zone H of County Service Area
#70 includes virtually all of the Grand Terrace area except for the portion
west of La Cadena. Values for this area were tabulated separately from
existing assessor records and added to Improvement Zone H totals to pro-
vide the current approximately assessed valuation. However, before arriving at
13
this total, the history of Improvement Zone H assessed valuations was
reviewed to determine any significant trends or factors which might
affect future projections.
Improvement Zone H Growth. The following inconsistent pattern of assessed
valuation growth is partly influenced by both the sanitary sewer problem
and assessor re-evaluation practices.
Total Assessed % of
Valuation Increase
1972-73 $14,644,440 --
1973-74 14,925,930 1.9
1974-75 15,950,155 6.9
1975-76 17,281,180 8.3
1976-77 19,022,820 10. 1
1977-78 26,612,375 39.9
Sanitary sewers, or the lack of them as pointed out in the discussion of
population trends, virtually halted growth in the most recent period prior
to 1977.
Assessor re-evaluation practices have more influence on the annual rate
of growth than general market conditions. This effect is clearly demon-
strated in the most recent year's 39.9% growth rate. The 1977 surge in
construction had barely begun at the date of assessment. Thus, the over-
whelming majority of the growth is the result of a re-evaluation of pro-
perty in the area to reflect the inflationary increases of recent years.
The Assessor's office reports that these increases will be reflected
annually by 1980. This revised program will tend to even out the growth
rate and eliminate these occasional jumps in the growth pattern.
Grand Terrace Valuations. The 1977-78 assessed valuation estimate for
Grand Terrace consists of the total Zone H valuation plus the area west
of La Cadena. This is a conservative estimate since there is actually a
small strip in the north area which is not included in this total.
Improvement Zone H assessed valuations in 1977-78 break down as follows:
Net Secured $19,083,280
Net Utility 3,114,710
Net Unsecured 1,454,590
State Reimbursed
Exemptions 2,959,795
Total Tax Base $26,612,375
West of La Cadena net secured values of $791,070 were hand-tabulated from
County assessment records. This total includes utility company land, but
not facilities assessed by the State Board of Equalization and not broken
down in this manner. Unsecured and state reimbursed exemptions are also
not available for this specific area. Since most of the property in ques-
tion is vacant, the omission of these figures should not substantially
14
change the total and provides a conservative base upon which to project
the community total assessed valuations.
1977-78 Grand Terrace Assessed Valuations can be conservatively estimated
to be 27,403,445, the total of all Zone H value plus the secured value
of land and improvements in the area west of La Cadena.
Projecting Assessed Valuations
In projecting future assessed valuations for the Grand Terrace area the
nature of probable construction and inflationary trends need to be care-
fully considered.
Population As a Basis for Projections. More than in most areas, the
use of future estimated population growth serves quite adequately as the
basis for projecting assessed valuation growth. This approach is possible
because of the overwhelmingly residential character of the area. While
some utility, commercial or minor industrial growth may be expected to
occur, the application of the projected population growth rates provides
the soundest basis for projecting assessed valuations. Application-of
these rates, not allowing for inflation, produces the following totals:
1977-78 $27,4031455
1978-79 31,829,112
1979-80 37,933,935
1980-81 39,830,631
1981-82 41,822,162
1982-83 43,913,270
Inflationary Allowances. The market value of real estate has appreciated
considerably faster than the general inflation rate over the past three
years. There are indications that, at least in the Riverside-San Bernar-
dino real estate market, this trend can be expected to continue due to the
fact that Los Angeles and Orange County prices have moved far ahead of
this market. Still, it would be unwise to anticipate revenues on the
basis of projecting a highly inflationary real estate market. The infla-
tionary factor used in this report is 4% which might seem high by standards
other than the past several years. For a five-year period in this market
it will likely prove to be conservative. However, if that assumption is
incorrect, an off-setting inflationary factor of 6%, applied to projected
expenditures, would negate much of the effect of any possible incorrect
projection. In summary it would take an unlikely combination of almost
no growth in property values at the same time as an extremely rapid gener-
al price index to negatively affect these assumptions.
15
1977-1982 assessed valuation projections using population as the primary
basis and providing for a 4% annual increase in property values are
summarized below:
1977-78 $27,403,445
1978-79 33,101,696
1979-80 41,030,002
1980-81 44,804,762
1981-82 48,926,800
1982-83 53,428,065
1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 '982-83
$ 50,000,000
100,
00,
$ 40,000,000
$ 30,000.000 /
000,
$ 20.000,000
$ 10,000,000
0
16
CHAPTER III
EXISTING SERVICES AND TRENDS
This chapter reviews the various basic public services now offered in the
Grand Terrace area. When appropriate the current levels of service and
delivery systems are defined as a basis for projecting future services.
Except for community planning and land use controls only direct services
are reviewed. Such support services as finance, legal and engineering are
not considered in this chapter.
Methodology
Consultant staff contacted all providers of public services in the Grand
Terrace area. The current services of each were .reviewed. Trends which
might affect the nature or level of services were identified. Costs and
the nature of financing, and the services provided were reviewed and the
potential effect of any change in governmental structure was briefly re-
viewed.
To permit maximum flexibility in planning future services, whenever feasible
services and/or revenues and expenditures were identified by three separate
subareas as shown on Map #2 included in this report. The three subareas
when combined constitute all of the unincorporated 5.9 square miles pre-
viously defined as the Grand Terrace area. Within that overall 5.9 square
miles the three separate subareas can be generally defined as follows:
Area #1 - all of the unincorporated area of Grand Terrace lying east
of Interstate Highway 1SE.
Area #2 - The major portion of the area lying between Interstate
Highway 15E and La Cadena Avenue.
Area #3 - The area situated west of La Cadena Avenue (La Loma Hills)
plus a small section to the east of La Cadena Avenue south of Barton
Road, but lying between La Cadena and I—ISE.
Public Utilities
Public utilities in the Grand Terrace area include telephone, gas, electric,
refuse, water and sanitary sewer. Each is briefly identified and further
comments offered whenever a change in governmental organization might affect
the delivery or cost of the service. When the service is provided by pri-
vate enterprise the gross revenues generated is estimated. When that ser-
vice is provided by government, the basis of its financing is outlined.
17
Telephone
Telephone services are provided to Grand Terrace by Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company. The basic service is served by a 783 (Riverside) prefix.
Because of the location of Grand Terrace midway between downtown Riverside
and San Bernardino, many business and residence accounts use foreign ex-
change lines (824 $ 825) from adjacent Colton to increase their free calling
area. Even though Colton surrounds Grand Terrace on three sides, annexa-
tion into the City of Colton would not automatically affect the exchange
status. The Grand Terrace area would continue to be a part of the Riverside
exchange with Colton service available only on an optional extra-cost basis.
A change in the long standing exchange boundries would require study and
hearings before the State Public Utilities Commission. Such changes can and
have been made because of a change in community status, but the instances
are comparatively rare.
Gross revenue generated in the area is estimated by Pacific Telephone to be
approximately $800,000. This total does not include interstate long dis-
tance revenues specifically excluded from local taxation by law. Records
do not show gross revenues by subareas. However, based on the registered
voter count, rough totals can be estimated as follows:
Area #1 . . . . . . . . $684,800 (85.6%)
Area #2 . . . . . . . . 90,400 (11.3%)
Area #3 . . . . . . . . 24,800 ( 3.1%)
TOTAL . . . . . . . 800,000
Gas
Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service in the area.
Gross revenues are estimated by the company to be $693,000. It should be
noted that approximately one-half($342,000) of this gross is represented
by sales to Southern California Edison Company for use in their Grand
Terrace generating facility. The present shortage of natural gas could
seriously impact gross revenues if deliveries for electrical generation were
to be sharply reduced or curtailed. Within the overall area gross revenues
break down as follows:
Area #1 . . . . . . . . $656,000
Area #2 . . . . . . . . 22,000
Area #3 . . . . . . . . 15,000
TOTAL . . . . . . . . $693,000
Electric
Southern California Edison Company supplies electric utility service for
Grand Terrace and has a generating plant and substantial transmission facil-
ities physically located in the community.
18
The City of Colton owns and operates its own electric distribution system.
In the past when areas served by Southern California Edison have been
annexed by Colton, the private system has been allowed to continue to oper-
ate until the city was able and willing to purchase the system and incor-
porate it into its public utility system. The length of time has varied
according to the interest and financial condition of the city.
Current gross revenues which would be subject to local taxation in the event
of Grand Terrace incorporation are estimated by Southern California Edison
Company to be $1,269,462. Within the overall area gross revenues break
down as follows:
Area #1 . . . . . . . . $1,064,291
Area #2 . . . . . . . . 183,883
Area #3 . . . . . . . . 21,288
TOTAL . . . . . . . . f1,269,462
Refuse
San Bernardino County regulates private refuse haulers and their rates for
all unincorporated areas. All services in the Grand Terrace area are pro-
vided by four private haulers, one of which--Loma Linda Disposal--is by far
the largest. Current records do not indicate the number of houses or busi-
nesses which subscribe to refuse service. Because of the semi-rural nature
of much of the community and its nearness to the Colton disposal site, only
slightly over one-half of the dwellings are estimated to be service sub-
scribers. Based on this estimate the approximate gross revenue generated
is $53,000 annually. Records do not show the gross revenue by subareas
since even the $53,000 total is an estimate. However, based on the regis-
tered voter count rough totals can be estimated as follows:
Area #1 . . . . . . . . $45,368 (85.6%)
Area #2 . . . . . . . . 5,989 (11.3%)
Area #3 . . . . . . . . 1,643 ( 3. 1%)
TOTAL . . . . . . . . $53,000
Water
Water for the Grand Terrace Community is provided by the Riverside-Highland
Water Company (R.H.W.C.) , which is a privately owned mutual water company
in business since 1898. Ownership is maintained by the distribution and
issue of stock by the company. At present there are 5,325 shares of stock
outstanding among the company's shareholders. Whenever a new home or sub-
division (or any other type of use) is constructed, shares of stock must be
purchased from the R.H.W.C. before water supply will be provided. The shares
of stock are a function of the estimated water consumption by the new custo-
mer(s) requesting service based on lot size. For example, lots less than
15,000 square feet require 1/2 share; lots larger than 15,000 square feet
require a full share. Currently a 1/2 share sells for $375. A full share
costs $750.
19
The company is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of nine people.
The company has nine employees including a General Manager, maintenance per-
sonnel, meter readers and staff performing billing, secretarial and engineer-
ing services.
Water is provided to the Grand Terrace area from sub-surface supplies. There
are four wells which supply the system. They are driven to a depth varying
from two to four-hundred feet. Additional water is available if needed from
the San Bernardino Municipal Valley Water District.
Four reservoirs are used as storage areas for water supply. Anticipating
further growth in the area, the R.H.W.C. has applied to the San Bernardino
Planning Commission for approval to construct a fifth reservoir. The planned
capacity for the new reservoir would be 500,000 gallons. It is estimated
that the reservoir can be operational about three to four months after
initial construction is commenced.
The service area of the R.H.W.C. includes all of Grand Terrace. 'There are
about 2,000 domestic customers and approximately 1,900 acres of citrus agri-
cultural land served in Grand Terrace. A few customers are served in River-
side County and elsewhere outside Grand Terrace.
The R.H.W.C. has stated that there is adequate water and piping to supply
customer needs. The size of water lines extend from six inches as the
smallest size pipe up to 30 inches for domestic lines and 36 inches for
irrigation lines. The General Manager of the R.H.W.C. estimates the volume
of water supply available is 8,500 acre feet capacity. Each water service
provided to customers is metered. The only type of treatment provided is
chlorination. Quality of water supplied is monitored by the California State
Board of Health which performs inspections approximately every two years.
The estimated quantity of water consumed is 275 to 300 gallons per day for
each person obtaining water service. Costs to customers average $11 every
two months for the meter charge and a flat rate of $8 charged every two
months. Total revenue from customers was $375,000 in 1976. Based on the
registered voter count, the approximate gross revenues can be broken into
subareas as follows:
Area #1 . . . . . . . . $321,000 (85.6%)
Area #2 . . . . . . . . 42,375 (11.3%)
Area #3 . . . . . . . . 11,625 ( 3.1%)
TOTAL . . . . . . . $3751000
Sanitary Sewer
At a total cost of approximately $6,000,000 the Grand Terrace area has recent-
ly completed the installation of sanitary sewer laterals, and the purchase of
present and future treatment capacity in the Colton Regional Treatment Plant.
Property assessments and matching grants financed the construction of the
sanitary sewer installation which includes County Service Area #70, Improvement
Zone 11 and a portion of the La Loma Hills area west of La Cadena.
20
With minor exceptions the sewered area almost exactly coincides with that
defined in this report as the Grand Terrace Community. Sewer assessments
were payable immediately or in ten annual increments plus interest. The
operational cost of the system is financed by a monthly service charge pay-
able to the City of Colton. The City contracts to maintain all lines and
treat the raw sewage for a monthly fee which must by contract be equal to
that charged Colton residents for the same service.
Public Works
For the purposes of this inventory public works services will be defined as
storm drainage, streets, transportation, street sweeping and street lighting.
Storm Drainage
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District's boundaries are County-wide.
This agency was created by the State of California. It is not a county agency
but is a quasi-state public agency. The District is responsible for pro-
tection, development and conservation with regard to flood control. The
District is organized into six flood control zones within the County of San
Bernardino. Each of the six zones is represented by a Citizen's Advisory
Committee. The purpose of each Citizen's Advisory Committee is to make
recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors regarding tax rates, bud-
gets, and flood control programs, including priority of projects for each
Zone. Grand Terrace is located in Zone Z of the Flood Control District.
The taxing limit capability of the District is 30� per $100 of assessed
valuation. Monies raised by taxation within a zone must be spent in that
zone. The purposes, organization and financing of this function would not
be affected by annexation or incorporation.
At the present time, there are several storm drains within the Grand Terrace
area. These include the DeBerry storm drain, the Grand Terrace storm drain
and the Barton storm drain.
The DeBerry storm drain runs on DeBerry Street originating just west of
Mt. Vernon Avenue. At this point it consists of a 48-inch line. It continues
west on DeBerry Street and becomes a 60-inch line near Michigan Avenue. It
then connects into the Barton storm drain. The Grand Terrace storm drain
originates as a 48-inch line on Barton Road and ties into the Barton drain.
The Barton drain originates as a 48-inch line and expands to 60 inches with-
in the Grand Terrace area. Total past expenditures for the storm drains
presently within Grand Terrace have been estimated by the Flood Control Dis-
trict to be approximately one million dollars.
21
Streets
The major function of the road division of the Transportation Department
within the County Public Works Agency is the administration, planning,
design, construction, maintenance, and land development coordination for
the County road system. There are approximately 5,000 miles of road with-
in the county. In Grand Terrace there are 31. 16 miles of county-maintained
roadway for which a city would assume responsibility in the event of annex-
ation or incorporation.
The estimated cost of routinely maintaining the roads in Grand Terrace during
fiscal 1976-77 was $41,183. The county also recently expended about $150,000
during fiscal year 1976-77 for a major program in Grand Terrace to resurface
the streets along the route of the storm sewer installation completed in 1976.
The resurfacing consisted of a one-inch thick plant mix paving grade asphalt
cover.
All streets in Grand Terrace carry almost exclusively residential traffic
except for Barton Road and Mt. Vernon. The estimated average daily traffic
for Barton Road, the major street, is 10,000 vehicles.
The county maintains two traffic signals in Grand Terrace on contract basis
with a private company. The annual cost for all contract maintenance is
$3,700 per signal per year for a total of $7,400 within Grand Terrace.
Street Sweeping
At this time no program of regular street cleaning exists in Grand Terrace.
Because of the semi-rural character of the generally curbless well-drained
streets, there has been no apparent urgent need for such a program. The
current and projected level of subdivision activity including new curb con-
struction may raise the question of need in the near future.
Street Lighting
Southern California Edison conducted a field survey count of all street
lights in the Grand Terrace area currently paid for through a tax rate im-
posed by County Service Area SL1.
The current annual cost of maintaining the 94 street lights is $8,248. By
subareas the cost breaks down as follows:
Area #1 . . . . . . . . $7,536
Area #2 . . . . . . . . -0-
Area #3 . . . . . . . . 712
TOTAL . . . . . . . 8,248
Additional lights can be added or the area expanded by petition to and action
by the Board of Supervisors.
22
Transportation
The county supports the costs associated with the bus route which traverses
Grand Terrace. This route is designated as Grand Terrace Route 19. The
locations covered are Loma Linda Medical Center and Anderson on the east;
Pico and Michigan to the south; and Grand Terrace Avenue to the west. The
county share of the cost which is in addition to federal and state grants,
is $30,000. The county share becomes a local responsibility in the case of
incorporation or annexation. However, State monies are available for at
least a part of this purpose. The Transportation Development Act (SB 325)
enacted in 1971, and as amended in 1977, provides operating grants for a
public transportation system(s) and related uses within counties and cities.
The average amount available in San Bernardino County for 1977-78 from this
source is $9.20 per capita.
Based on Grand Terrace's voter registration population estimate of 8,634,
the amount available would be $79,433, were it incorporated or annexed. The
following table shows the distribution of grant monies for fiscal year
1977-78.
CITY POPULATION OR PER CENT OF COUNTY MAXIMUM
GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION TOTAL POPULATION ALLOCATION
San Bernardino County
Unincorporated areas 279,329 39.52% $2,570 402
Adelanto 2,403 .34 22,114
Barstow - 18,600 2.63 1713057
Chino 28,300 4.00 260,162
Colton 20,706 2.93 190,569
Fontana 23,850 3.38 219,837
Loma Linda 11,679 1.65 107,317
Montclair 22,651 3.21 208,780
Needles 4,175 .59 38,374
Ontario 65,630 9.29 604,227
Redlands 37,800 5.35 347,967
Rialto 32,250 4.56 296,585
San Bernardino 108,877 15.40 1,001,624
Upland 37,900 5.36 348,617
Victorville 12,650 1.79 116,423
Ridership levels for the bus serving Grand Terrace is relatively low.
Information provided by the State Department of Transportation for route 19
indicates that the average operating cost is $292.95 per day. The average
number of passengers is 36 a day. The total number of route miles covered
in a day is 217 miles. The average total hours of bus operation per day
is 12.65 hours. The net result is an extremely high operating cost of
$8. 14 per capita as compared to $.87 within Colton on Lines 13, 15 and 16.
The opening of the new Veteran's Hospital in Loma Linda, combined with
current construction in Grand Terrace, may increase the ridership on Route 19.
In any case Grand Terrace, if incorporated or annexed, could not alter the
23
bus service currently in operation in the community without approval of the
San Bernardino County Transportation Commission and Southern California
Association of Governments.
Public Safety
Public safety services provided in Grand Terrace include law enforcement,
fire and animal regulation.
Fire Services
Fire protection and rescue service in the unincorporated area of Grand
Terrace is currently being provided by the San Bernardino County Forestry
and Fire Warden Department. At the present time, the nearest fire station
is in Loma Linda. The closer Highgrove Station of the Riverside County Fire
Department also responds to alarms in Grand Terrace when requested pursuant
to a verbal agreement entered into by the two departments.
Fire prevention inspections are being made by engine company personnel
assigned to the Loma Linda Station under the direction of the County Fire
Marshal using the Uniform Fire Code. Arson Investigations are conducted
by trained personnel from the County Headquarters Station located at 3800
Sierra Way, San Bernardino.
All regular fire personnel have been trained in Emergency Medical Service,
but no trained paramedics at this time serve the Grand Terrace area.
A proposal has been submitted through California Department of Forestry
budget channels eventually to replace the Loma Linda Station when state
monies are available. The recommendation is to relocate in the general
area of Barton Road and Reche Canyon Road. At best this move will not take
place for at least another six to eight years. Also, there is no assurance
that the proposal will be approved at all levels of the budget process.
Present manning levels, equipment, and distances to the intersection of
Barton Road and Mount Vernon Avenue from the above referred to fire stations,
and proposed sites are as follows:
Loma Linda Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 miles
One pumper engine (one captain, one engineer, two firemen
during peak fire season, balance are call personnel)
Highgrove Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 miles
One pumper engine, one squad (one man on duty, balance are
call personnel)
Barton Road $ Reche Canyon Road . . . . . . . . 1.9 miles
(Proposed site to replace Loma Linda Station)
24
Law Enforcement
At the present time law enforcement service provided by the Sheriff's
Office in the Grand Terrace area is almost totally limited to responding to
called-for services, with very little actual patrol time. When a unit is
available for patrol, that unit is assigned to an area designated as "area 6,"
which encompasses West Colton, Slover Mountain, county unincorporated terri-
tory of La Loma Hills west to Riverside Avenue and extending to the Riverside
County line, Grand Terrace, county area of Reche Canyon, and the county area
south of Norton Air Force Base and west of Tippecanoe. This 14-1/2 square
miles is more than twice the size of Grand Terrace.
As a basis for determining the desirable level of law enforcement service,
misdemeanor and felony crimes were hand-tabulated by Sheriff's Office per-
sonnel for the most recent fiscal year. The following table provides a
summary of all 1,632 incidents reported within the Grand Terrace Community
from July 1, 1976 through June 30, 1977.
FELONY CRIMES MISDEMEANOR CRIMES
1. Homicide. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Battery . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Rape. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Petty Theft . . . . . . . . . 115
3. Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Disturbing the Peace. . . . . 332
4. Assault . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Exhibiting Deadly Weapon. . . 0
5. Kidnapping. . . . . . . . . . 1 5. Prowler . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6. Sex Violations. . . . . . . . 1 6. Annoying Phone Calls. . . . . 25
7. Burglary. . . . . . . . . . . 275 7. Indecent Exposure . . . . . . 2
8. Grand Theft . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Carrying Concealed Weapon . . 0
9. Check Violations. . . . . . . 6 9. Malicious Mischief. . . . . . 79
10. Grand Theft Autos . . . . . . 18 10. Drunk . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Conspiracy & Fraud. . . . . . 0 11. Breaking $ Entering . . . . . 0
12. Embezzlement. . . . . . . . . 2 12. Trespassing . . . . . . . . . 0
13. Receiving Stolen Property 1 13. Vice. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
14. Arson . . . . . . 1 14. Check Offenses. . . . . . . . 0
15. Narcotics $ Drug Violations 12 15. Driving Under Influence . . . 11
16. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
TOTAL FELONIES . . . . . . . 362 TOTAL MISDEMEANORS. . . . 1,270
Animal Regulation
Animal regulation service becomes the responsibility of a city upon annexa-
tion or incorporation. Colton has its own animal regulation services and
would assume this responsibility were Grand Terrace to become a part of that
city. Should the Grand Terrace area incorporate the existing level of ser-
vices could be continued through negotiation of a city-county contract. The
county also would continue the licensing function. Through dog tag and other
revenues it collected and would keep, the service would be provided a Grand
Terrace city for no additional cash outlay.
25
Leisure Services
Leisure services in Grand Terrace consist of library and parks and recrea-
tion services, neither of which are currently provided directly in the un-
incorporated Grand Terrace.
Library
Library service is provided throughout the county through a library district
covering areas which do not have a locally provided municipal library. The
service is financed through a tax levy of $1.524 per $100 of assessed valua-
tion.
Bookmobile services are provided within Grand Terrace, but the two nearest
branches are in Loma Linda and Rialto. Colton has its own city financed
and operated library. However, Colton is the only city in San Bernardino
County having its own library system for which the county library district
tax is also collected. The total collected within the City of Colton,
approximately $80,000 is then reimbursed to the City for the operation of
its library. Given this unique tax and reimbursement arrangement, neither
incorporation nor annexation would affect the existing library tax rate.
Parks and Recreation
Neither parks nor community-oriented recreation services are currently pro-
vided within the Grand Terrace area. Though there is now considerable sub-
division activity there is no method for systematically acquiring park land
through dedication or purchase monies. Such a procedure is authorized
through the "Quimby Act" and could be enacted by the County for County Ser-
vice Area #70, Improvement Zone H, or applied by Colton in the case of
annexation, or by a new city when incorporated.
A review of the plans of the San Bernardino Regional Parks Department indi-
cated no development which would directly affect Grand Terrace. The only
planned nearby regional park facility, near the intersection of Interstate
Highways 10 and 15, was removed from the plan in July, 1977 by the Board of
Supervisors. A possibility exists for a 200 to 300 acre regional park,
Agua Mansa, on the Santa Ana River west of Grand Terrace. However, the
facility is not contained in an adopted plan at this time.
Social Services
A variety of social services are provided for Grand Terrace through the
San Bernardino County Environmental Improvement Agency, Health Care Services
Agency, and the Law and. Justice Agency. Services of the latter agency would
be unaffected by annexation or incorporation of the Grand Terrace area.
26
Environmental Improvement Agency Services
Services provided by this Agency, which need not be affected by the local
governmental organization in Grand Terrace, include mosquito and vector
control and the licensing and inspection of food establishments. Continua-
tion of these basic services would require the execution of a City-County
contract in the event of incorporation.
Additional services for licensing and inspecting trailer parks and providing
housing code regulation and inspection can be provided by the Agency to an
incorporated area at the request of a city. Both these services are pro-
vided only after adoption of the appropriate regulatory codes. Fees collect-
ed by the County support the services.
No general nuisance, housing deterioration, or abandoned vehicle inspections
or enforcement efforts are presently provided to Grand Terrace.
Health Care Agency Services
As is the case with the Law and Justice Agency, most services provided by
this Agency are unaffected by local governmental structure. However, con-
tinuation of these existing County services within an incorporated city does
require the execution of a City-County contract since each city technically
has the option of providing all or any part of the services through its own
organization.
Services provided include public health nursing, well-baby clinics, communi-
cable disease control, and child health programs handled through the Colton
office and the Colton School District. County hospital and mental health
programs also are available.
Land Use Controls
Control of the use of land in Grand Terrace occurs through the application
of planning, zoning, subdivision and building regulations.
General Plan
The San Bernardino County Planning Department recently completed a general
plan for Grand Terrace following the area boundaries described in this report
and prepared with active community involvement. No major revisions of zon-
ing were required following the plan's adoption, since the proposed future
land use generally followed existing usage patterns. Map #3 shows projected
commercial and industrial land use within the Grand Terracd area.
Proposed subdivisions are reviewed in detail by the County Subdivision
Committee representing all interested services prior to their review by the
Planning Commission. In the event of annexation or incorporation these
functions normally become the responsibility of the City government.
27
Building Regulation
The County Building and Safety Department currently provides plan checks,
inspection of all new construction, and enforcement of the land use plan
to assure compliance with zoning regulations.
These services would become the responsibility of a city in the event of
annexation or incorporation. However, a city may contract with the county
to continue to provide the same level of service, with payment consisting
of inspection and filing fees collected by the county.
Tax Structure
Following the determination of 1977-78 total assessed valuation all tax
rates were adopted by September 1, 1977.
Grand Terrace Combined Tax Rates
Four tax code areas and portions of two others exist in the Grand Terrace
area. Each of these areas could have a different combined tax rate. How-
ever, there are actually only three separate but very slightly differing
combined rates. The combined rates vary from a rate of $10.0657 to $10.28
per hundred dollars of assessed valuation. The exact composition of the
three different combined rates is shown below:
6401 6447-48 6449
$ 6413 & 6750
Basic County Rate . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2.8356 $ 2.8356 $ 2.8356
Colton School District. . . . . . . . . 5.6217 5.6620 5.6217
Flood Zone 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2866 .2866 .2866
S.B.Valley Municipal Water District . . .9500 .9500 .9500
Riverside-Corona Conservation District .0220 .0220 .0220
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
(Fire Protection) -38 .1820 . 1820 . 1820
(Fire Protection) -38G .1500 . 1500 .1500
(Administration) -70 .0009 .0009 .0009
(Weed Abatement) -70A .0169 .0169 .0169
(Street Lighting) -SL I -- -- . 1740
COMBINED TAX RATES . . . . . . . . $10.0657 $10. 1060 $10.2800
Effect of Annexation or Incorporation
Upon annexation to another city or incorporation as a new city the tax rates
established for the County Service Areas would automatically be abolished.
Such action would result in a tax rate reduction of $.3498 per $100 of
28
assessed valuation for much of the area and a reduction of $.5238 for the
area covered by the County Street Lighting tax. The City Council of the
annexing or newly-created city could, if it chose, create a new street
lighting district and essentially restore the existing method of financing
street lighting, or it could finance these lights from general city revenues
or special assessments.
This tax rate reduction of $.3498 to $.5238 would be deducted from the city
tax rate imposed by the annexing or newly-created city to determine the
net tax rate increase or decrease.
29
CHAPTER IV
ALTERNATE SERVICE LEVELS
Each of the public services defined in Chapter III is reviewed and pro-
jected at alternate levels of service. The cost implications of each
service level are examined whenever that data is available.
Methodology
Each public service is reviewed in the same sequence as in Chapter III.
The level of service most nearly corresponding to the existing previously
defined level is identified as "level 1." Each additional alternative
identified is labeled "level 2," "level 3," and so forth for as many
levels as is necessary. Some services have no alternates to the existing
level 1. However, others have up to five additional levels of service
identified with a potential for still other combinations. The level
number does not represent a ranking of the various alternatives.
Whenever feasible service levels are defined independently of the govern-
mental structure which might deliver that service. Thus either a County
Service Area (CSA) , Community Services District (CSD) , or a newly incor-
porated city might contract for a clearly defined level of street mainten-
ance. However, the possibility of annexation to an existing city requires
a separate level definition. This separate level was provided so that
the annexing city could define its own level of service equal to that
already provided its citizens. The annexing city is legally required to
provide equal service throughout its residential and commercial areas.
Comments relating to levels of service for annexed areas are taken from
a November 9, 1977 City of Colton response to this draft report material.
The response was reviewed and approved by the Colton City Council and
the complete text of that response has been reproduced in Appendix V
of this report.
Municipal Advisory Council Input
The service levels defined are the combined result of extensive agency
interviews, consultant analysis and input from a public meeting of the
Grand Terrace Municipal Advisory Council held September 12, 1977. At
that meeting each service previously defined by the consultant was re-
viewed and comments sought as to the level of service desired by resi-
dents of the Grand Terrace area. Comments offered at the meeting which
might impact service levels are briefly summarized by service area.
Refuse. Any decisions regarding contracting or sole franchises should
be the decision of a future city council in the event of incorporation.
Storm Drainage. A better organized effort to obtain storm drainage
30
improvements through Zone 2 of the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District was considered to be desirable in order to obtain improvements
proportional to taxes paid. It was pointed out that the mayors of
incorporated cities automatically become members of the Zone 2 Advisory
Board. Strictly localized drainage, however, was discussed separately.
Street Maintenance. Very little major maintenance work was done on Grand
Terrace Streets from 1972 through 1976 because of the scheduled sanitary
sewer construction. A major "catch up" program is currently being dis-
cussed with the County which would affect future expenditure requirements.
Street Sweeping. Municipal Advisory Council members requested alternate
costs for street sweeping services on an every-six-months and a monthly
basis.
Street Lighting. The decision on methods of financing current and addi-
tional street lights would be made later by the appropriate officials
in the event of a change in governmental structure.
Fire Service. As a minimum the cost of continuing the existing level of
service and another with a station in Grand Terrace constantly manned
by one employee and backed by volunteers should be provided. Other
levels found to be practical should also be defined.
Parks and Recreation. Emphasis should be placed on joint use with school
grounds with future plans to light ball parks.
Public Utilities
Four of the six utility services provided Grand Terrace residents would
potentially be affected by a change in the legal status of delivery systems.
The breadth of effect, and the consequent level of service of each of
telephone, gas, electric, refuse, water and sewer is covered in this sec-
tion.
Telephone
As a privately owned utility regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission, there would be no impact on or ability to affect telephone
service levels whether Grand Terrace incorporated, annexed or reorganized.
Were the area to be annexed to Colton, however, unless extended area
service was subscribed to by the telephone user, a call for city services
could result in toll charges. In the event of annexation the City of
Colton indicated that it would petition the PUC to change Grand Terrace
from the Riverside to the Colton exchange. An equally acceptable solution
would be to add Riverside exchange numbers to its city telephone numbers
through which Grand Terrace residents and businesses could call into
Colton.
A franchise would have to be negotiated with Pacific Telehpone Company by
a new city.
31
Gas
No change in or impact on natural gas service would be caused by a
change in legal status by Grand Terrace. In the event of incorporation
a franchise would have to be negotiated with the Southern California Gas
Company. Annexation would automatically extend the existing franchise.
Electric
Two potential levels of service could be the result of a change in the
status of Grand Terrace. Since the City of Colton owns and operates its
own electric distribution system, and has the legal right to acquire the
facilities of Southern California Edison Company, the potential of two
levels of service is discussed below. While annexation to Colton would
not necessarily cause any change--upward or downward--in level of service,
the fact of a potential change in ownership has caused some discussion.
Level 1. In the event of remaining as a County Service Area, or reorgan-
izing as a Community Services District, or separately incorporating as a
city, there would be no change in service provider and no revision of
service level. A reorganization of the area, to enable Loma Linda to
include a part of Grand Terrace also would present the same result.
Level 2. Were Grand Terrace in part through reorganization, or partially
or wholly through annexation, to be incorporated into the City of Colton,
the City then could legally acquire the Southern California Edison
distribution system in Grand Terrace.
In the recent past Colton has acquired only isolated pieces of the SCE
system varying lengths of time after small annexations. There is no
experience on larger scale annexation-acquisition actions.
Refuse
Four service level potentials exist for provision of refuse service.
Each is intertwined with the legal entity chosen by the citizens of
Grand Terrace to provide services, although several modifications also
exist.
Level 1. The existing multiple collection permits could be continued
under any legal arrangement. Not all houses and businesses are required
to subscribe to a refuse removal service and only about 500 of them do.
Level 2. One exclusive permit could be granted by a CSA, CSD or a City
of Grand Terrace. Reorganization into Loma Linda could have the same
result. Based on standard municipal practice and experience, better con-
trol over cleanliness, traffic and rates could be achieved, as well as
possibly slightly lower rates, were the exclusive permit alternative
selected.
Level 3. An alternate to Level 2, securing the same results but with
32
somewhat tighter control and revenue potentials for a city-,but with
enforcement difficulties--is assumption of the legal responsibility by
a City of Grand Terrace and contracting the service to a single contrac-
tor. This device is often used to enforce the desire to have universal
pick-up service.
Level 4. Annexation to the City of Colton would result in an appreciable
change in level of service. Under existing refuse ordinances and regu-
lations all homes and businesses would be required to suscribe to the
City-operated refuse service to provide a healthy and esthetic environ-
ment. The service is available for residential areas for $4 per month
with twice weekly pickup. Upon annexation, existing private haulers
would be notified that they would have three years to discontinue
service, at which time the City would provide mandatory refuse collection
for all residences and businesses in the annexed area. Residential charges
in Colton are currently $4 monthly for twice-weekly mandatory service
compared to $2.50 monthly for once a week optional service in the Grand
Terrace area.
Water
Two alternatives are available for the level of service provided for water
distribution.
Level 1. This level would continue service being provided by the River-
side-Highland Water Company. No change in either cost or service level
should be encountered. Such an arrangement would prevail under any dis-
trict arrangement, or incorporation.
Level 2. Annexation to the City of Colton would require a later
determination as to long run benefits for provision of coordinated ser-
vices and planned orderly development according to the need of the city
and possible acquisition of Riverside-Highland Water Company's services
in these areas.
The City of Colton states that it presently has more than adequate water
capacity to serve these areas.
A City of Grand Terrace also would possess the legal authority to acquire,
absorb and directly operate the R.H.W.C. were it to so desire, setting
its own rate structure. Such is not considered herein as being a short-
range possibility.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing long-term contract between County Service Area 70, Improve-
ment Zone H for sanitary sewer line maintenance and effluent disposal
probably precludes any short-range revision.
Level 1. Maintenance of the current level of service, provided by exist-
ing long-term contract by the City of Colton, would require or permit no
33
changes.
Level 2. Extensions of existing sewer trunk lines, and providing ade-
quately sized lines could cause either a City of Grand Terrace, City of
Colton, or Improvement Zone H to adjust charges, assessments or rates in
the medium term future, depending on rapidity and pattern of growth.
These realities will have to be faced under whatever organizational
arrangement results. But builder-driven improvements can be financed by
direct charges such that no significant general financial or service
impact should be felt.
Expansion of the capacity of the Colton regional sewage treatment plant,
or addition of tertiary treatment requirements, also may eventually have
to be faced, thus driving up both operating and capital costs, and thus
in effect increasing services to level 2.
A City of Colton letter response to draft report copies circulated for
comment stated, when referring to the report projections:
Considering Colton's growth and resultant demands
on treatment capacity at the Water Quality Control
Plant, the projected [Grand Terrace] growth may not
be achievable.
This statement raises questions about interpretation of the terms of the
contract relating to the capacity of treatment capacity which has been
purchased by present and future Grand Terrace area residents.
Public Works
The public works functions of storm drainage, streets, street sweeping,
street lighting and transportation are considered as to levels of service
and cost in this section.
Storm Drainage
Three potential levels of service can be fairly clearly discerned. In no
event would the major drainage projects or maintenance be affected, i.e. ,
those facilities and potential projects of sufficient size to be included
within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District program would
remain in force as a responsibility of that agency. Thus, all levels of
service contain this constant.
Level 1. With the probability of continued mixing of curbed and uncurbed
streets, hopscotch development and varying levels of newly developed
and extant residential lots, significant local drainage problems will
develop. Such are not within S.B.C.F.C.D. responsibilities. At present
the County Road Department expends only incidental, and minor, effort and
expense on these. These minor drainage problems predictably will increase
in the near-term future. Developers will solve only some of these local
drainage problems, in turn causing others. Level 1 contemplates maintenance
34
of the status quo, with, in effect, no expense. This probability is un-
likely.
Level 2. An estimated $15,375 for the first year would be required for
the alleviation of "nuisance"--type minor local drainage problems as above
described. These monies would be in addition to that expended under a
street maintenance contract which would include only such minor attention
as unclogging drains, diverting overflows, repairing drainage-related
street culverts and curb/gutter repair and modification for drainage
purposes. The detail of these additional costs are described in level 3,
Street Maintenance.
Level 3. A City of Grand Terrace also could provide its own storm drain-
age maintenance in conjunction with its own closely allied street main-
tenance. The base cost, excluding administrative costs, would be $14,375.
Such an arrangement is described in level 40 Street Maintenance.
Level 4. Annexation of the area to the City of Colton would transfer
the responsibility for this program to that City to provide the same
level of service it provides other similar areas. The alternative of
utilizing redevelopment agency authority to solve existing storm drainage
problems would also become available. City General Fund revenues would
finance this service.
Street Maintenance
Street capital requirements are contained in Chapter V hereof. This dis-
cussion of three possible levels of service is thus restricted to mainten-
ance. Allied storm drainage is as discussed in the immediately preceding
section.
The level of capital construction undertaken will, of course, have an up-
ward or downward pull on the cost of both storm drainage and street main-
tenance. The amount of "catch up" major maintenance street work under-
taken by the County prior to any local governmental structure change will
have an even greater effect on future street maintenance budgets.
Level 1. Present service levels being provided by the County Road Depart-
ment appear to be inadequate. However, this condition is largely the
result of planned neglect prior to the recent major construction of sani-
tary sewer lines. Some increase in the level of maintenance should now be
expected regardless of what direction the area moves in restructuring
local government.
Level 2. An estimate has been prepared based on the assumption that the
County of another city might contract to provide street maintenance ser-
vice to an incorporated Grand Terrace. The City of Loma LInda has ex-
pressed an interest in providing mutually advantageous contract services
when feasible. Estimated current costs follow:
35
2 Maintenance Workers @ $850--3/4 time . . . . . $15,300
Fringe Benefits @ 25 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,825
Administrative and Supervision Salaries. . . . . 4,000
Total Personnel Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$23,125
1-3/4 ton truck--12 mos. @ $185. . . . . . . . . $ 2,250
Misc. Patching Materials, Supplies 4 Signs . . . 6,500
Total Other Operating Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . 8,750
Sub-total Operating Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$31,875
Contract Traffic Signals . . . . . . . . . . 7,400
Contract Road Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33,510
Total Contract Road Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,910
Total Operating Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$72,785
*Contract work assumes an average pavement width of 34' and a
15-year cycle of slurry, chip seal, overlay and re-striping with more
heavily traveled streets more often. Street striping and curb painting,
in the limited areas where such would be needed and not covered by the
re-striping as part of re-paving, is included in the basic $31,875 cost.
Level 3. This estimate provides the same basic service as level 2, but
with the addition of resources for also providing the drainage program
described as level 2 storm drainage. The operation budget adds to the
level 2 street maintenance budget:
2 Maintenance workers @ $850--1/4 time . . . . . $ 5,100
Fringe Benefits @ 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,275
Administrative and Supervision . . . . . . . . . 1,000
Added Personnel Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 7,375
Additional Pipe, Concrete and Materials. . . . . $ 8,000
Added Material Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000
Total Added Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15,375
Level 2 Street Maintenance Operating Budget. . . . . . . . 72,785
Total Street and Drainage Operating Budget . . . . . . . .$88,160
Level 4. Level 4 service anticipates annexation to the City of Colton
which would extend its existing level of street maintenance services to
include the Grand Terrace area. The City of Colton indicated that this
standard will be above that currently provided or identified in other
levels, especially in the area of street striping and signing. Cost would
be paid through the City's General Fund.
Street Sweeping
Street sweeping service is desirable as growth intensifies. Four levels
36
can be discerned.
Level 1. No street sweeping services are currently provided by San
Bernardino County in unincorporated areas.
Level 2. Sweeping of every street in Grand Terrace every six months
under a contract .between a City of Grand Terrace and a private contractor
would cost approximately $700 the initial year. Each year would escalate,
as shown in Chapter VII.
Level 3. Raising the frequency of the city contract to once a month would
increase the cost by $3,300 the first year to a total annual charge of
$4,000.
Level 4. Based on a twice-monthly sweeping of all streets, the annual
contract cost would be $8,000.
Level 5. In the event of annexation the annexing city would provide the
same residential and commercial area sweeping cycle in force for the
balance of the city--every other week in residential areas. Cost would
be covered by the basic City General Fund tax rate.
Street Lighting
Street lighting service is limited currently in the Grand Terrace area.
Three service levels seem to be reasonably discernible.
Level 1. Presently there are 94 street lights financed by County Service
Area SL1 within Grand Terrace. This area can be expanded, new ones formed
that are non-contiguous, and lights added, all under established SCE tariffs
and District tax procedures.
Level 2. Street lighting could be extended by a City of Grand Terrace
through either per-lot assessment or property tax procedures. Each pro-
perty owner would thus pay a set annual fee. A city has some flexibility
of procedure which a County Service Area does not. No direct costs would
be incurred and lighting could be included as desired by petition.
Level 3. Upon annexation to Colton its municipally-owned electric utility
could acquire the Edison system and install street lights. Street lights
are financed as a part of the Electric Department budget and electric
charges. It would be an integral part of the acquisition process to pro-
vide such a service, or the city would have to make alternate--and possib-
ly interim--arrangements with SCE.
Transportation
Bus transportation is restricted to one current route traversing Grand
Terrace.
37
Level 1. The present service seems to be more than adequate under present
circumstances. It could not be materially affected by another local organ-
izational arrangement without considerable procedural and political effort
being expended and time consumed. The current $30,000 annual subsidy
cost would be paid by a city in the event of incorporation from SB325
revenues available to incorporated cities.
Level 2. Annexation to the City of Colton would make that City's
Dial-a-Ride Program available to Grand Terrace residents. The program
funded through SB325 charges only 50� per ride. Official representation
on the regional bonds which plan transportation service would also become
immediately available to the area.
Public Safety
The public safety functions of fire and emergency medical services, law
enforcement and animal regulation are reviewed in this section.
Fire Service
Fire protection and rescue service in the unincorporated area of Grand
Terrace is currently provided by the San Bernardino County Forestry and
Fire Warden Department. A wide variety of levels of service reflecting
differing governmental structures, varying agencies potentially providing
varying services and different physical facility requirements have been
analyzed. The following six levels have been selected as the most repre-
sentative of feasible cost effective alternatives.
Level 1. Should the Grand Terrace area remain essentially the same, unin-
corporated and unannexed while continuing to grow rapidly, the San Bernar-
dino Forestry and Fire Warden Department would plan to upgrade fire pro-
tection by proposing a fire station in Grand Terrace "in the next two (2)
or three (3) years."1
The new station, its equipment, personnel and operations would be funded
through the County Service Area 38 tax rate. This rate is currently set
at 33. 2� of its 38¢ legal permitted maximum per $100 of assessed valuation.
The Grand Terrace area would incur no additional operating costs or
contract changes. Service provided would continue to include medical
aids, resuscitator calls, vehicle accident extrications, and the like.
Paramedic service would not be included in this cost. The exact operation-
al cost of the Grand Terrace station would be dependent on the budgeting
process of San Bernardino County and other CSA 38 requirements.
Level 2. If the Grand Terrace area were to incorporate and then desired
to contract with the County Forestry and Fire Warden Department to operate
1Fire Protection and Rescue Service Alternatives for Grand Terrace;
September, 1977; San Bernardino County Firestry and Fire Warden Department.
38
from within the new city it would be necessary to build and furnish a new
fire station. Station fire equipment and personnel would be furnished
through the County contract. According to figures provided by the County
Department this service level would provide two firemen on each shift,
backed up by paid-call fire fighters. Annual operations charges, based
on current costs, break down as follows:
1/2 Battalion Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . $15,000
3 Fire Captains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,000
3 Fire Fighters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000
Paid-call Fire Fighters . . . . . . . . . . 12,000
Overhead and Administrative (15%) . . . . . 26,250
Total Personnel Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$179,250
Fire Apparatus & Equipment. . . . . . . . . $10,000
Operating Expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000
Total Other Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,000
Total Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$201,250*
In addition to the annual costs, there would be a start-up cost to acquire
land, construct, furnish and improve the property around a new fire sta-
tion. Fire capital costs are reviewed in Chapter V.
Level 3. Level 3 expands the service outlined in level 2 to also include
a fully trained and equipped paramedic unit for which the additional costs
are shown below:
3 Fire Apparatus Engineers. . . . . . . . . $70,000
3 Fire Fighters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000
Overhead and Administration (15%) . . . . . 21,000
Total Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$151,000
Paramedic Mobile Unit and Equipment . . . . $ 5,000
Operating Expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000
Total Other Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000
Total Added Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$161,000*
Level 2 Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201,250
Total Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 362,250
Level 4. Should Grand Terrace desire the exact same level of fire protec-
tion and paramedic services provided in level 3, but without incorporation
into a city, it could be provided through a combination of the base CSA 38
tax rate and a new CSA 38 improvement zone.
The improvement zone would establish a separate tax rate to fund the con-
struction, furnishing and equipping of the fire station in Grand Terrace
including all fire and paramedic equipment. The improvement zone would
Fire Protection and Rescue Alternatives for Grand Terrace, San
Bernardino County Forestry and Fire Warden Department, September, 1977.
39
also pay the $161,000 paramedic cost identified in level 3. The CSA 38
$.332 tax rate would continue to fund the existing level of fire protec-
tion. The first year capital costs to the new improvement zone would be
the same as identified in level 2 for the provision of a completely con-
structed and furnished fire station. Fire and paramedic apparatus and
equipment could be furnished for an additional $140,000. Capital costs
and financing alternatives are reviewed in Chapter V.
Level S. Level 5 service envisions incorporation and the furnishing of
complete fire and paramedic service through contract with the City of
Colton. Colton already has plans to construct a fire station at Washing-
ton and Barton at the northeast corner of Grand Terrace. It is conceivable
that should a long term agreement be feasible, a site just up the hill on
Barton Road might provide better coverage for the total affected area, in-
cluding portions of Colton. The location of the station would clearly
have to be based on the best interests of Colton residents. Should these
interests not be incompatible with Grand Terrace needs the possibility for
significant savings for both areas appears probable.
Level 6. In the event of annexation to Colton, Grand Terrace fire protec-
tion and paramedic service would be provided by the Colton Fire Department.
Though the City of Colton did not furnish an anticipated date for construc-
tion of the planned nearby Washington and Barton Road fire station, the
following service level data was furnished. The City stated:
The level of fire protection would include: 1) residential
areas--response by two engine companies and a paramedic
unit; 2) commercial areas--response by three engine companies
and a paramedic unit; 3) paramedic and rescue responses
would be provided through the paramedic unit with an engine
company back up. The department also has a second paramedic
equipped as a back up unit. This unit would respond to
additional calls should the primary unit be on call. A
chief officer would respond to all structural fires or any
incident requiring two or more engine company response.
Outside of the construction cost of the third fire station
for which land has already been purchased and is available,
all costs could be assumed under the general tax rate.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement service is currently provided by the San Bernardino Sher-
iff's Department as described in Chapter III. All alternatives, except
for annexation to an existing city, envision that the service will continue
to be provided through the Sheriff's Department whatever level of service
is decided upon.
Level 1. The existing service is described in Chapter III and provides
one car "when a unit is available" to patrol an area more than twice the
size of Grand Terrace. In the absence of any change in governmental
structure the level of service can be expected to continue until the growth
40
of Grand Terrace or an increase in the budget demands or permits an
increase in patrol coverage.
Level 2. This service level provides one marked patrol unit and one
officer in the Grand Terrace area,, 24 hours a day. In addition, all back-
up investigative and support personnel and equipment would be made avail-
able as required. This level is identical to that contained in the County
contract with the City of Loma Linda and could be provided an incorporated
city, CSA or CSD. Exact costs are recalculated annually in great detail.
This data has been reviewed, but is not reproduced in, this report due to
its detailed nature. Total costs for the provision of personnel and all
services and equipment is estimated by the Sheriff's Department to be
$151,851 for the 1977-78 year. An additional charge of $5,012 is made
for the optional helicopter service, bringing the total current cost for
this level including helicopter service to $156,863.*
Level 3. An optimum level of service for the area to be served would be
to provide two marked patrol units 16 hours a day and one for eight hours.
Having two units on duty during certain times of the day would allow the
Department to adjust hours and patrol when and where needed, while still
having one unit free to handle traffic and called-for services. All back-
up investigative and support personnel and equipment would be made avail-
able as required. Current annual costs for this level are estimated to be
$204,743. When the $5,012 helicopter option is added the total current
cost for this level of service is $209,755.
Level 4. Comments furnished by the City of Colton indicate law enforcement
services roughly equivalent to level 2 would be furnished by the Colton
Police Department in the event of annexation. Specifically, the City of
Colton response of November 9 stated:
If the unincorporated areas south of Colton were to annex
to the City of Colton, Colton would provide the same total
police services for all citizens and businesses presently
provided within the City of Colton. This would include
patrol services, calls for [sic] services and inspection
of commercial establishments. This would be accomplished
by placing one police unit in the unincorporated areas
south of Colton on a 24-hour basis. Helicopter back up
patrol services would also be provided. Animal control
services, detective services and back up administrative
costs would also be provided as a part of the basic tax
rate. In the opinion of the police chief of the City of
Colton, these provisions would provide a much higher
level of police service than the residents and business-
men of the unincorporated areas south of Colton present-
ly receive.
Service levels defined in Memorandum of August 26, 1977 from
Sheriff Frank Bland to Special Districts Department and costs provided in
Memorandum of September 15, 1977 from Patrol Captain P. L. Pounders to PAS.
41
Animal Regulation
Regulation of dogs and other non-feline animals would fall in two levels.
Level 1. In the event of incorporation the current arrangement and ser-
vice level could be continued. The County provides tag collection and
animal pickup as needed for collected fees.
Level 2. Upon annexation Colton's animal regulation program would be
extended to Grand Terrace. Basic fees and services are similar to that
provided by the County.
Leisure Services
The three leisure services of library, parks and recreation are discussed
below.
Library
Three possible service levels exist for this service.
Level 1. Continuation of the current bookmobile and County library use
can continue with or without incorporation. No added services or costs
are involved. Annexation to Loma Linda would also not likely result in
any change in the current service.
Level 2. The City of Grand Terrace could probably effectively press for
a County library branch were it to create a civic center complex and pro-
vide land upon which a branch could be built by San Bernardino County.
Costs would be funded through the existing County-wide library tax rate,
but service would be materially improved.
Level 3. Annexation into the City of Colton would effectively exclude
the County from building a branch in Grand Terrace since the city has its
own library system. The service level in the Grand Terrace area would be
determined by policies of the City of Colton. The same County tax rate
would apply in all circumstances. City of Colton comments concerning
library service are included in their November 9, 1977 response and
reproduced as Appendix V.
Parks
Four discernible levels of service can be seen for parks acquisition and
development.
Level 1. No parks are currently provided in the Grand Terrace area and
there are no existing methods established for acquiring and developing
parkland.
Level 2. Through a CSA, CSD Improvement Zone H, or a newly incorporated
city the area could locally adopt the provisions of the "Quimby Act"
42
requiring subdividers to dedicate parkland or provide an equivalent cash
contribution toward a fund to be used for parkland acquisition and develop-
ment. Using recently adopted County Ordinance No. 2126 as the model for
enacting this procedure, it is estimated that the Grand Terrace area could
acquire and reasonably develop 25 acres of parkland from land yet to be
developed--provided the procedures are legally established very soon.
Operating costs are defined in Level 3.
Level 3. This level anticipates enactment of legal procedures to obtain
and develop 25 acres of parkland as in level 2, and to enlarge the total
system through the purchase and development of an additional J.5 acres to
provide a future park system of 40 acres.
The following breakdown of operating costs is based on current budgeting
estimates. It would have to be adjusted upward for inflation allowances
until the first year it would be introduced into the new city's budget.
The maintenance budget below would permit adequate maintenance of 10 to
15 acres of developed parkland and should be sufficient to carry through
the remaining two years of the projected five-year Grand Terrace budget and
would be applicable during this period for either level 2 or level 3
service. Administrative costs would have to be added when the full extent
and nature of all city operations become apparent.
2 Maintenance Workers @ $850 . . . . . . . . . . $20,400
Fringe Benefits @ 25%. . . . . • . . . . . . . . 5,100
Total Personnel Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$25,500
1-3/4 ton truck--12 mos. @ $185. . . . . . . . . $ 2,250
Supplies & Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000
Total Other Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,250
Total Operating Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$32,750
v
Level 4. Insofar as discernible, it appears that annexation to the City
of Colton would provide parks service roughly equivalent to Level 2; that
is acquisition and development of parklands funded from developers' land
and cash donations under the Quimby Act.
Capital outlay and development costs related to the purchase and develop-
ment of additional land as defined in level 3 are reviewed in Chapter V.
Recreation
Three levels of community recreation services have been defined.
Level 1. There currently is no centrally organized and conducted communi-
ty recreation program in the Grand Terrace area.
Level 2. This level contemplates a modest level designed to centralize
recreation planning, the formation of teams, scheduling of events, pro-
vision of supervision and coordination of the use of grounds with the
43
school system. Little direct cost for materials and recreation supplies
would be possible at this level. The primary expense would be for hiring
a coordinator for a four-month period each year at $1,000 monthly. Indi-
rect fringe costs, transportation and miscellaneous supplies would bring
the first year cost of this program to $7,500.
Level 3. Indications are that annexation to the City of Colton would
result in a service similar to level 2. Regular city revenues, tax rate
and nominal service charges would finance the service. Added comments by
the City of Colton are contained in Appendix V.
Social Services
Most social services are the responsibility of San Bernardino County and
the local governmental structure normally has little practical affect on
their delivery system. However, some possible exceptions are noted below.
Environmental Services
Existing services include mosquito and vector control and the licensing
and inspection of food establishments.
Level 1. Existing services can continue to be performed under each
possible local government structure through the County at no change in
cost. In the event of incorporation a contract would need to be executed
with the County to assure continued service.
Level 2. Basic level 1 services would be provided, but supplemented by
the licensing and inspection of trailer parks and housing code regulation
and inspection. These services would require the local adoption of addi-
tional regulations and appropriate fee schedules. Inspection services
could be provided by County contract with the County collecting and retain-
ing the fees as payment for the services.
Level 3. Upon annexation to the City of Colton the level of services and
costs would continue to be furnished through San Bernardino County.
Health Care Services
Health care services include public health nursing, well-baby clinics,
communicable disease control, and child health programs.
Level 1. These existing services would continue under any local govern-
mental structure, though a city-county contract would need be executed in
the event of incorporation.
Land Use Controls
Control of land use is provided through San Bernardino County departments
concerned with the application of planning, zoning, subdivision and build-
ing regulations.
44
General Plan
The Grand Terrace area has a recently adopted general plan and subdivision
review is the responsibility of San Bernardino County.
Level 1. This level anticipates continuing the same services through the
County.
Level 2. This level anticipates the employment of a planning consultant
on a monthly retainer fee basis to provide technical staff expertise to
the Grand Terrace City government. The planning consultant would review
and make recommendations on zoning matters and all proposed subdivisions.
A first year retainer cost for these services is estimated to be $9,000.
Major special studies, such as updates or revisions for general plan ele-
ments, would be extra cost requirements. For the latter reason an addi-
tional allowance is provided with a projected total $12,000 cost.
Level 3. Colton would make all services the responsibility of the Colton
Planning Commission and City Countil, upon both of which the nearby
annexed residents would be eligible to serve. These services would be
funded from the City's General Fund.
Building Regulation
This service currently provides plan checking, complete inspections of
new construction and policing of the area to assure land use and zoning
compliance. The level 2 option broadens the service somewhat to include
some environmental service areas.
Level 1. This level anticipates continuation of the existing services as
provided by the County of San Bernardino whether to the area as it now
exists, a CSA or CSD, or through contract to an incorporated city. Fees
collected by the County would finance the service in all cases.
Level 2. While continuing to contract for technical building inspection
services this level anticipates the addition of an Environmental Coordina-
tor. Duties for this position would include assisting in the coordination
of zone change and subdivision plat processing in the planning process.
Environmental field duties would include investigation of nuisance com-
plaints regarding the maintenance of property and unsightly conditions,
inspection of minor drainage or flooding problems, and enforcement of
appropriate general nuisance ordinances. Supplemental service would be
provided in the area of more thorough zoning and land use enforcement
through more frequent field inspections by this individual, who would be
thoroughly familiar with permitted land use in. Grand Terrace. First year
costs follow:
45
Environmental Coordinator Salary . . , . . . .$15,000
Clerical Support Salary (1/4 time) . . . . . . 1,800
Total Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$165800
Fringe Benefits @ 250. . . . . . . . . 4,200
Total Personnel Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$21,000
Automobile--8,000 miles @ 17¢. . . . . . . .$ 11-360
Maint. and Office Supplies . . . . . . . . 1,000
Total Other Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,360
Total Operating Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$23,360
Level 3. Level 3 anticipates annexation to the City of Colton, in which
case the handling of permits and inspections would become a responsibility
of that City's Department of Building and Safety funded through permit fees.
Cost Calculations/Conclusions
Appendix III presents the basic expenditure projections for a potential
incorporated city. Much of the data is drawn from information presented
in this chapter. That summary also serves as the basic set of expendi-
ture figures from which various levels of service are matched to
appropriate organizational alternatives to determine the total potential
cost of each model.
46
CHAPTER V
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
This chapter provides information on the public capital construction needs
for the Grand Terrace area over the next five years. The primary focus of
the capital needs review concerns the direct costwhich must become the
responsibility of any local government, city, CSA or CSD. However, needs
such as major storm drainage are also reviewed even when no direct local
financial responsibility is involved because of their importance to the
quality of life in the area.
Methodology
Consultant personnel have personally contacted and interviewed agency of-
ficials concerned with all of the areas covered in this review. Numerous
reports and budget documents were also reviewed and analyzed. The follow-
ing five areas were identified for additional comments relating to capital
construction or purchase requirements:
1. Storm Drainage
2. Street
3. Fire
4. Parks
S. Civic Center
Storm Drainage
Zone 2 of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District has projected
several storm sewer projects that were indicated as being required for the
Grand Terrace area. These projects are designated as:
The Van Buren Storm Drain
The DeBerry Storm Drain Extension
The Grand Terrace Storm Drain Extension
The 8th Street Storm Drain
The Barton Drain Improvements
The estimated current total cost of these projects, all of which would be
borne by the District, are shown following Map #4, which illustrates the
location of existing and proposed major storm drains.
47
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR STORM
DESCRIPTION DRAIN PROJECTS (August 1977)
1. Van Buren Storm Drain (Pipe sizes 48, 60, 66, 6911) $ 829,775
2. DeBerry Storm Drain (Pipe sizes 30 and 4811) 74,320
3. Grand Terrace Storm Drain (Lined channel) 319,730
4. 8th Street Storm Drain (Pipe sizes 30, 51, 6311) 390,270
5. Barton Storm Drain (Pipe sizes 30, 3911) 104,970
Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,719,065
Utility relocation, construction contingency @ 15% . . . . . . 257,860
Construction total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,976,925
Administration, engineering, inspection @ 15%. . . . . . . . . 296,540
ESTIMATED TOTAL FOR ALL PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . $2,273,465
The timing for installation of the above major storm drainage facilities
would be a function of when future development occurs, as well as the
community's attitude about potential run-off problems. Direct community
representation on the Zone 2 Advisory Board might make the District more
aware of the Grand Terrace storm drainage needs. In any case, Grand Terrace
can minimize direct expenditures to the community for storm drain costs by
requiring developers to install these lines as a prior condition to obtain-
ing construction permits.
Additional local drainage work might be included in a local operating bud-
get as fully described in alternate storm drainage and street maintenance
service levels identified in Chapter IV. However, that work is designed
to meet smaller problems on a routine annual basis and thus is not summar-
ized in this listing of needed capital construction. All costs hereinabove
are obligations of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. While
it may not be able to finance the projects, the obligation remains regard-
less of organizational status of Grand Terrace.
Streets
The projected growth of the Grand Terrace area clearly indicates the need
for future major street system reconstruction to adequately serve the
coming increase in traffic. The Transportation Division within the County
Department of Public Works has recently initiated a multi-year plan for
major road projects that will be required for new construction, repair and
rehabilitation.
There are five projects in the Grand Terrace area that are of sufficient
importance to have been considered as major projects scheduled over the
next six years. These projects are:
Barton Road--La Cadena Avenue/I-15; Barton Road at Southern Pacific RR;
Barton Road Overcrossing at I-15; Barton Road--Mt. Vernon Avenue/I-15;
Vivienda Avenue at Southern Pacific Railroad
It should be noted that the six-year planning process is relatively new
within the Department of Public Works. Therefore, all information with
48
regard to these projects should be considered current and accurate but
subject to change in accordance with future modifications in the planning,
budgeting or finance processes.
If Grand Terrace were incorporated, many of the projected projects could
be provided by the City, financed from revenues to the City secured from
the fuel tax and vehicular registration fees. In addition, state law re-
quires that any road projects planned and funded for any particular fis-
cal year by the County must be completed without cost to any cities that
may have incorporated during that fiscal year. Although these projects
are priorities of the Department of Public Works, they are not yet
budgeted, are subject to change and Grand Terrace, if incorporated as a
city, could alter the schedule to fit its desires and financial capacity.
The street improvement projects are shown on the following page on Map #5,
and listed below together with the total costs allowing for anticipated
inflation. The footnote for each project shows the "local share"--that
amount that an incorporated City of Grand Terrace would be required to fund.
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST BY FISCAL YEAR TOTAL
PROJECT NAME 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 ALL YEARS
Barton Rd.-La Cadena/
I-15. . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 $110,0001 $110,000
Barton Rd. at
So. Pacific RR. . . 0 0 $ 50,0002$ 70,0002 0 120,000
Barton Rd. Over-
crossing/I-15 . . . 0 $ 3,0003 0 0 0 3,000
Barton Rd, Mt. Vernon
Ave./I-15 . . . . . $51,0004 $40,0004 $333,0004 0 0 424,000
Vivienda Ave. at
So. Pacific RR. . . 0 0 0 $300,0005 0 300,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $51,000 $43,000 $383,000 $370,000 $110,000 $957,000
TOTAL LOCAL SHARE $ 8,670 $ 9,800 $ 61,610 $ 37,000 $110,000 $227,080
1Local Share 100% ($110,000) ; 2Local Share 10% ($5,000+$7,000)
3Local Share 100% ($3,000) ; 4Local Share 17% ($8,670-$6,800-$56,610)
5Local Share 10% ($30,000)
Fire
Fire service capital requirements vary widely depending upon the choice
of local governmental structure and the type of contract or other method-
ology by which service is provided. These alternatives are discussed in
Chapter IV and the capital costs associated with each identified there.
The construction and furnishing . of a fire station is estimated to cost
$200,000, based on current similar stations just designed for San Bernardino
County. Allowing for a 20% inflationary increase prior to construction
time, a total of $250,000 is allowed. This cost does not include fire
apparatus and equipment or site acquisition. Should the station be built
by a newly incorporated city the site would be on the civic center land
49
separately budgeted for in this chapter, If the station were to be built
by a CSA or CSD an additional $50,000 should be budgeted for the separate
site acquisition. The purchase of complete fire equipment and paramedic
equipment is estimated to cost $140,000.
Parks
Through a CSA, CSD Improvement Zone H, or a newly incorporated city the
area could locally adopt the provisions of the "Quimby Act" requiring
subdividers to dedicate parkland or provide an equivalent cash contribu-
tion toward a fund to be used for parkland acquisition and development.
Using recently adopted County Ordinance No. 2126 as the model for enact-
ing this procedure, it is estimated that the Grand Terrace area could
acquire and reasonably develop 25 acres of parkland from land yet to be
developed--provided the procedures are legally established very soon.
This constitutes a modest level of service compared to a nationally recog-
nized community goal of 5 acres per 1,000 population. Using this admitted-
ly high national goal indicates a "need" for 75 acres of parkland for the
fully developed area of 15,000 people. However, 25 acres represents the
absolute maximum parkland which could be acquired and developed without
additional tax supported financing.
The alternate service level defined in Chapter IV as "level 2" envisions
the enactment of legal procedures to obtain and develop 25 acres of park-
land through the Quimby Act and then to enlarge the total system through
the purchase and development of an additional 15 acres to provide a future
park system of 40 acres. This total, still well below the national goal
of 75 acres, could provide an adequate diversified local park system
especially if planned in conjunction with area schools and other open
areas. Based on current estimated purchase costs of $12,000 and develop-
ment costs of $16,000 per acre this supplement to the entire system would
cost $180,000 to purchase and another $240,000 to fully develop for a
total expenditure of $420,000.
Such a major capital cost would almost certainly have to be financed by
the issuance of general obligation bonds, approval of which requires a
favorable two-thirds vote. Proceeds from the early authorization and sale
of such bonds could be used to establish a park acquisition and develop-
ment fund from which the entire program could be financed over the next
several years of active subdivision development. Monies collected from
subdividers in lieu of parkland would also accrue to this fund. This
type of financing would assure a new city the ability to purchase land in
advance of its parkland development, allowing savings and permitting a
better choice of park sites. For the purposes of calculating the cost
of meeting annual debt service created by the issuance of bonds, the pro-
jection calculates a 6% interest rate, 20-year maturity annual level
amortized bond issue. Annual debt service requirements for this $420,000
bond issue would be $36,620.
50
Civic Center
The creation of a civic center of public buildings and community meeting
facilities in a park-like setting is increasingly being utilized as a
method of building community identity and pride. This type of comprehen-
sive civic center would become a consideration only in the event of the
incorporation of a City of Grand Terrace. Nevertheless, because incor-
poration is one of the alternative local government structure possibili-
ties, the consideration and costs involved in the creation of a civic
center are reviewed in this section.
Elements which might be included in a community civic center include a city
hall with city council meeting facilities, public safety facilities,
library, post office, justice courts and county offices, and a park area.
Each of these elements as they might apply to an incorporated Grand
Terrace is discussed below. Following these comments there is a total
review of all land, building and financing requirements to accomplish such
a Civic Center.
City Hall
The community's city hall would house the administrative staff of the
municipal government and provide city council and community meeting facili-
ties. The total floor space required for these facilities can only be
accurately determined when the exact nature of the potential city's opera-
tions are defined. The nature and extent of contract operations versus
those operated directly by the new city government would significantly
impact the space requirements. Loma Linda, in the early stages of civic
center planning, provides an indication of what a new city of Grand Terrace
might require. Loma Linda is similar in size and population to the poten-
tial City of Grand Terrace, though the potential for future population
growth is considerably greater for Grand Terrace.
First estimates for the combined Loma Linda City Hall/Fire Station esti-
mate building requirements of 15,000 square feet, of which 7,500 is for
city hall and city council meeting facilities. These gross figures are
expected to be revised upward, especially for the fire facility. The final
total gross square footage will likely be between 20,000 and 23,000 square
feet with 8,000 to 10,000 devoted to city hall and city council meeting
facilities. For the purposes of projection this report assumes a future
gross total space of 10,000 square feet for a Grand Terrace City Hall and
City Council meeting space requirements. The total would have to be
adjusted upward or downward following the final determination of govern-
mental service contract alternatives and staffing requirements. Current
building costs of $50 per square foot indicate a facility construction
cost of $500,000 before allowing for inflation.
Public Safety Facilities
In the forseeable future the "public safety facilities" mentioned above
would likely consist of a fire station. Whether the new city provided
51
the facility and site for direct or contract operations, the size of the
facility should be sufficient to accomodate future growth. If constructed
in a civic center_, the station should be planned to allow for future expan-
sion to house local police operations. Police facilities, while included
in the preliminary design of a public safety building, could remain un-
built indefinitely if the city were to continue to contract for law en-
forcement services.
The preceding chapter outlines a number of fire station construction and
equipment cost alternatives. The final cost would depend upon the alter-
native level of service selected.
Post Office
The creation of a community post office is one of the most effective
ways to establish community identity. The provision of a central site in
a civic center is among the most effective strategies for persuading the
Postal Service to construct such a facility. Other than the land purchase,
no additional cost would accrue to the community.
Library
By providing a central civic center site location, a City of Grand Terrace
should be able to attract a county community library branch. The provision
of such a central community facility would be financed from the county-wide
library tax. Buildingsof such a type and size to serve Grand Terrace
usually contain a 100-seat auditorium, thus reducing the type of community
meeting facilities which might otherwise have been required in a city hall
building.
Examination of the County Library standards indicate that future Grand
Terrace growth would justify a "medium" branch as opposed to the "small"
branch planned for the Loma Linda Civic Center. This assumption is based
on the future Grand Terrace population estimate of 15,000. Comparative
standards for small and medium library branches in San Bernardino County
are shown following:
52
COUNTY BRANCH COUNTY BRANCH
STANDARD (SMALL) (MEDIUM)
Population 5,000-10,000 10-20,000
Annual circulation 20,000-40,000 40-60,000
Hours Open 50-60 50-60
Reference Questions 3,000-5,000 5,000-7,000
Staff--FTE
Sr. Librarian
Librarian 1.00 1.00
Lib. Assistant 1.00 1.50
Clerk 1.00 1.50
Page .75 1.00
Total 3.75 5.00
Book Stock 7,000-15,000 15-25,000
Reader seating 30-40 40-60
persons persons
Parking 15-25 cars 25-30 cars
Auditorium 100 seats 100 seats
Existing Branch Locations:
Adelanto Apple Valley
Joshua Tree Big Bear
Lake Arrowhead Bloomington
Loma Linda Herperia
Trona Yucca Valley
Needles
Justice Courts and County Offices
Due to the proximity of the Grand Terrace area to San Bernardino and to
the existing Colton and Mission Justice Courts it is not expected that
additional facilities would have to be provided in a Grand Terrace civic
center. Should any such court facilities be located in the community civic
center in the future, they could be housed in a planned general county
building through slight modifications and additions.
Park Area
The amount of open space provided will impact both the cost and the
attractiveness of any Grand Terrace civic center. The planned Loma Linda
Civic Center contains six acres, including park space. Such an arrange-
ment is desirable. A portion of the monies designated previously herein
for park acquisition could be used to pui0h ase and develop that part of
the civic center site which would function as a park.
Based on the construction of a City Hall, Public Safety Facility designed
for possible future expansion for police facilities, a post office and a
medium size county library branch in a park-like setting, it is estimated
that a seven-acre site should be acquired. This site, due to its necessary
proximity to major streets, will cost more than the $12,000 per acre esti-
mated for park land in Chapter IV. A current cost of $17,000 per acre is
utilized for the acquisition. Thus the seven acres would cost around
$119,000. Site development would occur in stages in conformance with
an over-all plan executed with the construction of each separate building.
53
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING
The following data is summarized as it would apply to a newly incorporated city. If annexed to an existing
city certain expenses such as a civic center would be reduced or eliminated but a separate site would have
to be acquired for a fire station. Local street capital costs would be borne by San Bernardino County if the
area were to continue as a County Service Area or become a Community Service District. In summary, these
costs represent the greatest possible costs for the related levels of service. Some adjustments are made
in the report as required to reflect the type of local government organization and level of service under
discussion.
PROJECTED ANNUAL COSTS
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
STORM DRAINAGE
Major capital costs to be
borne by S.B.County Flood
Control District
STREETS (Gas Tax Funds)
Barton Rd.Overcrossing/I-15 -- $ 3,000 -- -- __
Barton Rd.-Mt. Vernon/I-15 $ 8,670 $ 6,800 $ 56,610 -- --
Barton Rd. at SPRR -- -- 5,000 $ 7,000 --
Vivienda at SPRR -- -- -- 30,000 --
Barton Rd.-LaCadena/I-15 -- -- -- -- $110,000
TOTAL STREETS 8,670 9,800 61,610 37,000 110,000
FIRE
Station $ Furnishings $250,000
-20 year bonds -- $ 21,798 $ 21,798 $ 21,798 $ 21,798
Fire $ Paramedic Apparatus $
Equipment $140,000
-15 year bonds -- 14,415 14,415 14,415 14,415
PARKS
Level 1 - Funded thru subdivider
dedicating only - 25 acres
Level 2 - Supplemented by 15
developed add. acres $420,000
-20 year bonds -- $ 36,620 $ 36,620 $ 36,620 $ 36,620
CIVIC CENTER PURCHASE AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT
7 acres - $300,000
-20 year bonds -- $ 26,157 $ 26,157 $ 26,157 $ 26,157
CITY HALL
Including contingencies $600,000
-20 year bonds -- $ 52,314 $ 52,314 $ 52,314 $ 52,314
SUMMARY OF TOTAL BOND FINANCING 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
LEVEL 1-Civic Center,City Hall, Fire Stn.
and Level 1 Parks
-20 year bonds -- $ 100,269 $ 100,269 $ 100,269 $100,269
LEVEL 2 - Civic Center, City Hall, Fire Stn.
and Level 2 parks
- Total Bond Requirements -- $ 136,889 $ 136,889 $ 136,889 $136,889
LEVEL 3 - Civic Center, City Hall, Fire Stn.
Fire $ Paramedic apparatus $ equip.
and Level 1 Parks
- Total Bond Requirements -- $ 114,684 $ 114,684 $ 114,684 $114,684
LEVEL 4 - Civic Center, City Hall, Fire Stn.
Fire $ Paramedic apparatus 8 equip.
and Level 2 Parks
- Total Bond Requirements -- $ 151,304 $ 151,304 $ 151,304 $151,304
54
CHAPTER VI
SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES
United States-style democracy operates generally under the precept of
majority rule. To decide which way any major decision will go also
generally requires a ballot measure. To develop such clear-cut decisions,
by majority vote, compels identification of, discussion about, and ulti-
mate decision among alternatives. This chapter will attempt both to
identify and explore the alternatives which are available to the people
of Grand Terrace for providing local government services.
Methodology
A review of six alternative approaches that are available under state
law and the advantages and disadvantages of each follow. The six pat-
terns identified are: 1) Maintenance of the status quo as a County Ser-
vice Area with no added services or changed service levels; 2) continua-
tion of a County Service Area (CSA) with expanded services; 3) creation
of a Community Service District (CSD) ; 4) governmental reorganization;
5) annexation to Colton and, 6) incorporation of a City of Grand Terrace.
County Service Area
This section presents and considers the present situation, the County
Service Area.
Maintenance of the Status Quo
This first alternative is retention of that which presently exists,
both as to level of service and organizationally. In essence, retention
of the combination of several types of districts, generally advised on
by the Municipal Advisory Council, but operated by the County, would be
maintaining the status quo. No changes in financing or services would
be made.
Maintenance of everything in a static condition is very probably next
to impossible. The Local Agency Formation Commission staff on October 18
wrote, in calling a LAFCO hearing for December 14 on the status of Grand
Terrace:
Staff feels that on this issue the Community has the following
options:
1. It can recommend that the Grand Terrace
Community be included within the City of
Colton Sphere of Influence, and this would
mean that in the long range the urban
services for Grand Terrace would be supplied
by the City of Colton.
55
2. It can recommend that on the basis that
Grand Terrace is or wishes to be an in-
dependent community that it be left out
of the Sphere of Influence of Colton and
be given its own Community Sphere.
In this event, the Community must define
what it perceives to be the Grand Terrace
Community, and explain to the Commission
the public entity or source from which
it expects to receive needed present and
future urban services.
It shall be the position of the Staff that as a Community
becomes an "urban" area, it should become (in its own self
interest) more than a combination of county and special dis-
trict urban services.
It should either become a multi-purpose special district, or
incorporate into a city, or annex to a city capable of supply-
ing urban services needs.
The full text of the LAFCO staff letter from which the above is extracted
is reproduced herein as Appendix IV. From the above statements it becomes
eminently clear that the Grand Terrace area will not likely continue as a
CSA. In fact, due to annexation capabilities of a city, Grand Terrace may
only have two alternatives available: annexation into Colton or incorpora-
tion. However, all other alternatives need to be discussed and considered,
especially in view of the fact that the LAFCO is charged with the responsi-
bility of assessing all information. The County Service Area is thus dis-
cussed on the next several pages.
Advantages. Maintenance of the CSA unchanged would probably act to hold
down costs, and services. Nothing else favorable can be said for this
alternative.
Disadvantages. Added services to meet problems bring added costs, even
though such a procedure may save significant expense in the long run. The
major disadvantage, however, is that no immunity to piecemeal annexation is
available to a CSA. Thus the fact that the City of Colton surrounds Grand
Terrace makes piecemeal annexation highly likely once the moratorium on
such small annexations is lifted. Such very probably will occur at the
conclusion of the January 11 Grand Terrace-Colton sphere of influence hear-
ing continuation.
Another disadvantage of the current status is a diversion of what would be
local monies derived from state subventions and local taxes into the County
General and Road Funds. Also, there are only limited possibilities for
home rule under a CSA.
Expanded Services Through the County Services Area
In the event the community of Grand Terrace chooses to remain an
unincorporated territory and form a County Service Area to
56
provide the services desired, it could accomplish this requirement in
one of two ways: 1) Form a new County Service Area or, 2) remain
as County Service Area 70-"H".Both entities could provide the same
services in the same manner under the power and authority of the County
Board of Supervisors as the CSA Board of Directors.
Formation Process. In the event that the community chose to form a new
County Service Area, the general procedures would be as follows:
1. The initiation of the formation of a County Service
Area would first have to be met by application to
the Local Agency Formation Commission. Such appli-
cation may be made by a petition signed by 10% of
the registered voters or property owners within the
area in consideration or by resolution by the
Board of Supervisors filed with the Local Agency
Formation Commission. In the event that all review
processes find the proposal favorable and LAFCO approves
of the formation of the County Service Area, the
matter is then filed with the Board of Supervisors
for a formation of the County Service Area.
2. The formation process to the Board of Supervisors
may be initiated by the following: a) By written
request signed by two members of the Board or,
b) a resolution adopted by majority vote of a
governing body of any city in the County of less
than 4,000 population or c) a petition signed by
not less than 10% of the registered voters resid-
ing within the area. After receipt of the written
request or petition the Board of Supervisors would
then fix the time and place for a public hearing
on the establishment of the service area.
3. At the hearing, the Board of Supervisors may alter
the service area boundaries as proposed to
exclude any areas which may not be benefitted.
After the hearing, if a written protest has not
been initiated by at least 60% or more of the
registered voters or 50% of the owners of the
land within the proposed service area, the Board
may then form the service area by resolution
without calling for an election. However, within
60 days from the adoption of such resolution if any
petition signed by 10% or more of the registered voters
is filed with the Board, the Board, after reconsider-
ing the resolution, must either rescind the resolu-
tion or call for an election of voters residing within
the proposed service area. At this election the
majority of the qualified voters must vote in
favor of the issue in order for the service area
to be formed.
57
A County Service Area or Improvement Zone within the Grand Terrace
Community could provide all those services provided by the Government
Code Statute, including police protection, fire protection, park and
recreation facilities and services, library facilities and services,
television translator facilities and services, and any other government
services which the County is authorized by law to perform and which the
County does not also perform to the same extent on a County-wide basis.
Also included is water service, sewer service, pest or rodent control,
street and highway lighting, street and highway sweeping, refuse and
garbage collection, animal control and ambulance service. Within this
form of government the community would continue to receive those ser-
vices provided by the County and may choose to augment the services
under the authorized services listed above. Generally speaking, those
services which the County would continue to provide are mental health
services, library services, transportation services, flood control ser-
vices, law enforcement, street services, health care services, services
provided by the Courts, and other services provided by the Environmental
Improvement Agency.
The issue, of course, is what credit, if any, a CSA would get for "basic"
services provided it as part of a "County-wide service" as listed above,
if that service is augmented by the CSA.
CSA Administration
A County Service Area (CSA) is administered by the Board of Supervisors
as the governing body and normally has a locally established Advisory
Commission or Council appointed by the Board to advise it on the matters
concerning the operation of the CSA. Types and levels of service are
generally established by the Board of Supervisors for a community through
recommendations of the Local Advisory Commission and the County Staff,
after reviewing the needs of the area involved and its ability to
finance those services desired. The Grand Terrace area currently is a
CSA with a Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) .
The CSA can include a series of Improvement Zones and special assessment
districts to supplement service levels normally provided by the County
or to add services not provided.
Advantages. The major advantage of the CSA is an ability to pick and
choose, with considerable specificity, services to be provided. The
advantages of County staff, with all its specialized expertise being
available, is a significant one.
Disadvantages. Complaints are often heard of non-responsiveness to
highly localized issues because of the County providing the staff for
such selected services. Obviously, little home rule is possible. Costs
generally are high, as will be seen later in this report in Chapter VII.
Too, state subventions and local taxes are not necessarily "kept at
home."
58
But the biggest disadvantage remains--no possibility for retention of
the CSA--for piecemeal annexation to Colton would be probable. Thus
a total solution to local governance and services would not be arrived
at.
Community Services District
The third alternative is the Community Services District available
under State law. The Community Services District (CSD) is a legal pub-
lic entity governed by a Board of Directors elected by the voters of
the community served by the District. This type of district and its
Board of Directors has no relationship to the County Board of Super-
visors, and exercises complete local control.
Advantages. A fairly complete range of services can be provided by a
CSD. A major degree of home rule also is possible.
Disadvantages. No state subventions can be gained by a CSD. But
probably more importantly, while a CSD can have a sphere of influence
provided it by a LAFCO, the actual protection it would afford would be
minimal. Thus the prospect, again, of dismemberment of any CSD created,
by piecemeal annexation to the City of Colton would be a distinct proba-
bility.
Discussion of CSA and CSD
Since these two formats for providing local government services are
similar in many ways the discussion of the services provided, the way
in which each would be delivered, and the way in which each would be
financed is contained in the next several sections. The material herein
is drawn liberally, and many times literally, from a very comprehensive
memo prepared by Dale Bailey, Administrative Analyst in the Special
Districts Department.
Financing Generally
Sources of revenue for both the CSA and the CSD are generally limited
to local taxes. For certain services user fees may be charged. Also,
certain types of grants are available to CSA's and CSD's; however, when
available, the area may not be successful in obtaining such grants due
to the high level of competition for such monies.
Specific Services
The format followed in Chapter IV hereof generally is followed in the
following sections. The memo utilized herein was the County Special
District Department response to the MAC request for service delivery
alternatives sent to each of Colton, Loma Linda and the SDD of the County.
Public Utilities. The public utilities of gas, telephone, electric, and
sewer would remain unchanged under a CSA. It is possible for a County
59
Service Area to assume responsibility for domestic water service. How-
ever, this usually only occurs if service is substandard or incapable of
being performed under the existing circumstances, and the serving company
wishes to dispose of the system. Such is not indicated by the present
Grand Terrace circumstances. Thus water service would remain the same as
currently provided by the Riverside-Highland Water Company. Both the
CSA and the CSD could exercise authority to provide water service, if the
R.H.W.C. wished to dispose of its system.
Sanitary Sewers. The County Service Area would continue to maintain the
existing long term contract between CSA 70, Improvement Zone "H" and the
City of Colton, to provide for sewer line maintenance and effluent dis-
posal. Periodic discussions with the City will be required to maintain
and insure adequate mutual capacity for the future. Contract revisions
may be required from time to time. Contract administration would be
provided by Special Districts Department staff.
A Community Services District would probably assume control of the exist-
ing contract that CSA 70, Zone "H" has with the City of Colton for sewer
line maintenance and treatment. The administration of this contract then
would become the responsibility of the CSD staff.
Refuse. This service could remain as currently provided by several pri-
vate haulers who obtain permits through the County to operate within
Grand Terrace. In the event that the County Service Area chose to change
this arrangement, it could enact a legal change to require collection per-
mits, or to establish an exclusive permit for more standardized and
controlled refuse pick-up service.
The cost to administer any change in program of this nature would be
minimal and could be handled by the Special Districts Department. The
policy guidelines under such an arrangement would be subject to review
by the MAC.
A Community Services District, through its local Board of Directors, also
could establish a legal change in permits, by exercising its legal author-
ity to administer matters relating to the collection and disposal of
garbage or refuse. Costs of administering this type of program would be
the responsibility of the CSD and its staff.
Storm Drainage. Problems which are generally identified as "nuisance"
situations could be addressed in accordance with the service needs of the
area and be provided, at increased cost, by the County Service Area.
Alleviation of such "nuisance-type" minor local drainage problems could
be handled by the County Service Area by contract administered by the
Special Districts Department fot the express purposes of unclogging drains
diverting overflows, repairing drains, culverts, curbs and gutters. A
sufficient property tax would be required to fund the contract at the
requested level.
For the CSD similar services could be provided at similar taxes, but the
contract would have to be drawn by the CSD attorney and administered by
60
the CSD staff.
Street Maintenance. If desired, a County Service Area could undertake
to provide any extended level of maintenance and street improvement work
beyond that which the County presently provides. The levels of service
identified in Chapter IV could be made available under a Service Area
concept, and costs would vary according to the level of service and
whether services would be provided by contract or by County Service Area
employees. If the Service Area chose to contract for the services to be
provided, the contract could be monitored by the Special Districts Depart-
ment, with minimal review through a local district advisory commission.
The costs would be funded through a local property tax in accordance with
appropriate budgets.
A Community Services District also may provide street improvements, main-
tenance, and repair to the streets within its jurisdiction, subject to
the consent of the Board of Supervisors. Those levels of service identi-
fied in Chapter IV hereof could be provided by a CSD. The costs to fund
the desired level of service would be raised from a CSD property tax, as
established by appropriate budgets. Any work performed by a CSD staff
also would have to be similarly financed.
Street Sweeping. This service could be provided by the County Service
Area under contract with a private contractor at the costs indicated in
levels two or three of Chapter IV. The contract would be monitored by
the County Special Districts Department. These costs would be funded
through a local property tax.
Street sweeping may be provided by a CSD in the same manner as stated
for the Service Area above, with expenses also paid from property taxes.
Street Lighting. This service would continue to be provided by County
Service Area SL-1. Generally, Area SL-1 covers those tracts with street
lights. Other developed areas are not included. This Service Area is
administered by the County Special Districts Department. The street
lighting district is expanded when new developments are made within Grand
Terrace. The property tax rate for CSA SL-1 then pays for those street
lights provided. Additional lighting could be recommended through the
MAC to the Special Districts Department and, if found appropriate, added
lights installed at no additional charge to the Community. Tax revenues
would, of course, have to be adequate to so finance and necessary tax rate
increases applied.to meet all costs, whether caused by energy costs, added
lights or other expenses.
A Community Services District has the legal authority to provide street
lighting services to that area within its boundaries. Presently installed
street lights and any additional ones would be under the administrative con-
trol of the CSD staff, who would contract with the Southern California Edi-
son Company for installation, operation and maintenance of the lights. The
cost of this service would be funded by the CSD tax. The existing 94 lights
would cost approximately $8,250 per year. These costs and the tax rate
probably would increase rapidly as currently developing subdivisions are
completed and new street lights added.
61
Transportation. Bus transportation would generally be restricted to the
services provided by Omnitrans operated out of San Bernardino. No
change would be caused by a CSA or CSD.
Fire Service. Fire protection of Grand Terrace could be maintained at
the current level provided by CSA 38. Any increase in service could be
provided through a contractual arrangement with CSA 38 and additional
property taxes levied sufficient to pay for increased levels of service.
Any increases in service could approximate the same levels identified
in Chapter IV hereof, or any combination thereof. There would be no
additional cost in terms of personnel provided or monitoring of this
contract, which would be done by the Special Districts Department.
A CSD could choose to assume total responsibility for fire protection
services or allow fire protection to continue to be provided by County
Service Area 38. Increases in levels of service could be provided by
separate contract with CSA 38. Such contractual arrangements would have
to be funded by local property tax dollars levied in the CSD.
Law Enforcement. The County Service Area could contract with the County
Sheriff to provide an extended level of police protection to Grand
Terrace in excess of that already provided. Such added services would be
funded from a local property tax of a rate appropriate to cover such ser-
vice. The cost involved in the implementation of such a program would
generally be identical to those costs established in Chapter IV hereof
by the Sheriff's Office. There would be no additional costs in terms of
administering this contract, which would be handled through the Special
Districts Department of the County.
Extended law enforcement services could be contracted through the County
Sheriff in the same manner as described for a County Service Area for a
CSD. The costs for such services would be funded by a local property
tax. Thus the two are identical, except that local administration by a
locally controlled CSD staff would be possible. Added costs would be
incurred to finance the administrative staff to administer the contract.
Animal Regulation. Animal control services would generally remain the
same through a CSA as currently provided by the County animal control
program. If the community chose to increase its level of service such
would generally require a part-time person qualified as an animal control
officer with the ability to issue citations to violators. Costs of such
a program would generally run around $5,000 per year with an additional
cost the first year of approximately $3,000 for a used vehicle for the
enforcement officer.
The Community Services District would retain the existing County animal
control program as a CSD does not have the legal authority to provide ani-
mal control services.
Library. Through the CSA arrangement library services would generally
remain as currently provided through the County Library. Grand Terrace
62
could request that the County establish a County library branch in the
community, but such an action would be up to the Library Department and
the Board of Supervisors as to whether or not such expanded service could
be provided.
A CSD could choose to continue the services provided through the County
library program. If deemed desirable, the CSD could extend its library
services through its legal authority to build and maintain library
buildings, and operate library service. Any such increase in facilities
and services would have to be funded by local property taxes.
Parks. A system of parks could be established through a County Service
Area or through the existing Improvement Zone "H", much the same as
outlined in Chapter IV hereof. The utilization of the Quimby Act, which
would require subdividers to dedicate park land or provide equivalent
cash contributions, would be a recommended method for establishing a
minimal park system within the Grand Terrace community. In the event
that the community chose to establish one or more parks such normally
would require additional park maintenance personnel. However, maintenance
could be provided by contract and would generally incur the same level
of costs as the maintenance services provided by a County Service Area
staff. Annual maintenance of park property would typically cost $2,000
per acre.
A system of parks could be established by a Community Services District
in the same manner as mentioned above for the County Service Area. Costs
would be the same as those identified for the CSA. These monies would
come from a special district property tax.
Recreation. If the community chose to establish a recreation program in
the community such could then be provided through a County Service Area
or a Community Services District. Appropriate personnel would be needed
to develop and provide those services desired. A combination of parks
and recreation services generally would then require that a park and
recreation manager be hired at a rate sufficient to provide such services.
The SDD staff feels that the capital costs presented in Chapter IV hereof
appear proper. Recreation personnel would cost approximately $13,500 per
year per person through either a CSA or CSD.
Additional Services. The added services categorized in Chapter IV as
social services, environmental services, health care services and land use
controls of general plan maintenance, and building regulation under either
a CSA or CSD would continue to be provided through the County as they are
currently, with no additional cost to the community.
Summary--CSA/CSD. The aforecited report by the Special District Depart-
ment staff summarizes the CSA and CSD appropriately as follows:
A County Service Area designed to implement the above
mentioned services would then generally require that
the Service Area hire and provide for staff necessary
to establish the contractual services stated above.
63
Again, depending upon the level of service, all of these
could be handled generally by contract to be monitored
by the Special Districts Department within the County.
Any capital construction requirements incurred as the
result of the increase of additional levels of service
would be handled by the construction division within
the Special Districts Department and would generally be
covered through the normal administrative overhead
charged against such services by this division.
A Community Services District would be able to provide
all those services listed providing an appropriate tax
rate were established to cover the incurred costs.
These costs would include additional items not neces-
sarily stated above, such as:
1. Professional legal services;
2. Accounting and fiscal control;
3. Architectural and engineering services;
4. Insurance and other miscellaneous expenses.
Additionally, both the County Service Area and the
Community Services District in their formation process
would incur the costs of an election. This election
would be necessary to establish the tax rate for the
former and necessary to establish the district and
elect the Board of Directors for the latter.
Conclusion--CSA/CSD
A rapidly urbanizing area such as Grand Terrace will almost certainly
demand a variety of local government services. A CSD providing those
services incurs most of the same expenses as an incorporated city, but
without substantial state subventions available to a city. If the exist-
ing level of County-provided major services as fire, police and street
maintenance is considered acceptable for the Grand Terrace area then a
CSD would provide a vehicle for greater local control and the ability to
increase certain types of services. However, when the costs for increasing
major services are the same or greater for a CSD as to an incorporated city,
but with the city having significantly greater potential financial resources,
there is little advantage in not incorporating. Finally, only incorpora-
tion provides total protection from small partial annexations which might
eventually effectively eliminate incorporation of the remaining area as a
viable alternative.
The above review summarizes the CSA/CSD alternatives. Costs are estimated
and summarized for these alternatives in Chapter VII. The next alternative
--reorganization--is discussed in the following section.
Reorganization
It has been suggested by some persons and officials that Grand Terrace
be divided between Colton and Loma Linda. To do so would require the
approval of each of the City Councils of the cities of Loma Linda and
64
Colton, and of the Board of Supervisors. The division would require the
City of Colton to de-annex Reche Canyon lying between the Grand Terrace
area and the City of Loma Linda. Then a mutually agreeable north-south
boundary in the Grand Terrace area would have to be decided on. All un-
incorporated land lying west of that boundary would then become part of
the City of Colton, while unincorporated land to the east of that boundary
would become a part of the City of Lama Linda.
Were this alternative to be considered seriously it would be highly
desirable for the City of San Bernardino to enter into the arrangement
by withdrawing from and restricting its south boundary to Interstate Route
10. Such an agreement would require San Bernardino to agree to de-annex
that part of its current city limits extending just south of I-10 near its
intersection with I-15. San Bernardino would, in return, secure an agree-
ment that Loma Linda would not seek to change its sphere of influence to I-10.
Advantages. Division of the area along these general lines would provide
logical service access. Expansion of both Colton and Loma Linda would
provide each some economics of scale. Recognition of the urbanization of
the area and inclusion in a city would enable all to "get about their
business" of fully developing their respective service systems within
relatively permanently fixed and stable boundaries and planning areas.
That is the purpose of the "sphere of influence" legislation. And the
overhead of a fourth city in the area would be obviated. Other access-
service advantages on a function-by-function basis can be readily seen
by re-reading Chapter III hereof with this alternative in mind.
Disadvantages. Unanimous consent of three, and preferably four, political
governing bodies is necessary. Such decisions are rare in government.
Further, the apparent lack of any real consultation with the residents
of Grand Terrace, not to speak of the de-annexed areas of Colton and
possibly San Bernardino City, undoubtedly would raise cries of "star
chamber proceedings," Munich-like partition agreements, and undemocratic
procedures. Lawsuits and petitions for referenda undoubtedly would
abound. At best the procedure could take years, at worst it could be
stalemated or thwarted entirely.
Such a procedure, while legally permissible under a recently enacted
state governmental reorganization statute, has seldom been successfully
implemented in California under a preceding less liberal law or elsewhere
in the U.S. The procedure requires no elections but does require the con-
currence of each of the existing City Councils and the County Board of
Supervisors. The failure of any of the three--and in this case preferably
four--bodies to approve the identical specific plan automatically results
in rejection.
This plan has been brought to the attention of some affected officials.
There is an apparent lack of interest on the part of all governments,
making this alternative somewhat academic. The City Council of Loma
Linda has, at least initially, expressed disinterest in such an approach,
as illustrated by its letter of response to service system requests made by
the Grand Terrace MAC, provided as Appendix VI.
65
Commentary. The probability of the reorganization alternative is
probably as politically remote as it is logical. For the long term
solution to problems and economic viability of each of Loma Linda and
Colton this alternative is quite desirable. But short-term achievability
can be considered most problematical.
Annexation to Colton
Under current law the City of Loma Linda cannot annex any of Grand Terrace
due to an intervening strip of Colton--Reche Canyon. Since the City of
Colton completely surrounds Grand Terrace, save the Riverside County
boundary line, annexation to that City would be a relatively simple legal
procedure. Securing a favorable vote at referendum and extending services
expeditiously may, however, be another matter. Under the California Con-
stitution annexation cannot take place across a county line, since no
city may encompass parts of two or more counties. Thus, Colton cannot
surround Grand Terrace, nor can the City of Riverside intercede.
Colton thus potentially is in an all or nothing situation. However, in
Chapter III hereof this study divided Grand Terrace into Areas 1, 2 and
3 (See Map #2) generally defined as follows:
Area #1--all of the unincorporated area of Grand
Terrace lying east of Interstate Highway 15-E.
Area #2--the major portion of the area lying between
Interstate Highway 15-E and La Cadena Avenue.
Area #3--the area situated west of La Cadena Avenue
(La Loma Hills) plus a small section to the
east of La Cadena Avenue south of Barton Road,
but lying between La Cadena and I-15E.
Partial Annexation
It is thus conceivable that Colton could annex only Area #2, only Area #3,
both Areas #2 and #3, or all of Areas #1, 2 and 3. It has to so desire,
petition LAFCO to so do, secure the approval of that body, and then
secure a majority vote in the area. Once annexed the area is co-equal
with the pre-existing areas of Colton and, by law and court decision,
must be provided services equal to all pre-existing Colton. A reasonable
time must be provided, with "reasonable" varying from instantaneous in
the case of electoral representation, to years for utility service.
Colton already almost surrounds Area #3 and has made significant inroads
to the same end on Area #2. It is possible that some combination of
annexation, either in stages or in combination with incorporation of the
City of Grand Terrace, could be considered. Such a division of tax base
would, however, be disadvantageous for any City of Grand Terrace, as it
would also be for the City of Colton.
66
Advantages. The advantages of annexing all of Grand Terrace to the City
of Colton should be obvious. Grand Terrace is basically surrounded by
Colton. Major parts of Grand Terrace (Areas #1 and 2) are essentially
geographically isolated by Colton from the balance of the study area.
Colton has its administrative infrastructure already in place; its
ordinances, systems and regulations are established and understood.
Colton's tax rate and structure are clear and decided. Expenses of
extending services to Grand Terrace, while significant, would be manage-
able except for two--electric and water--discussed later and in Chapters
III and IV as well. And the City has indicated its willingness to
absorb Grand Terrace.
Disadvantages. There seems to be little political compatability between
Grand Terrace and Colton. Much antagonism and fear of Colton--for
highly personalized reasons it seems in some cases--make the outcome of
the probable annexation referendum or referenda chancy. The contrast
between the two areas seem major--as they have been described repeatedly
to the study team.
Grand Terrace enjoys higher income and economic levels than Colton.
Colton has a large proportion of its population as minority and of the
Catholic faith. Many residents of Grand Terrace are of the majority
racial-ethnic extraction and of non-Catholic background.
Then there is the major geographic feature separating Grand Terrace from
the major part of Colton and resulting in the area on a natural high
shelf above the valley floor and Colton.
Commentary. The question, then, is: Are the economics of scale, operational
and long-range advantages of annexation of Grand Terrace to Colton signifi-
cant enough to overcome all the emotional intangibles recited above? They
are not original with the study team--just passed on from a drumming of
sources. While difficult to raise, such issues are the stuff from which
ballot issues are decided.
In its response to the Grand Terrace Municipal Advisory Council's request
for inputs to this study the City of Colton did not--and probably could
not or could not be expected to--provide time frames for service exten-
sion. Such responses probably are critical, however, for an informed
elector,.te should such an annexation referendum come to pass. Removal
of doubt would be especially critical for fire station construction,
parks land acquisition, major street reconstruction and building regula-
tion. Some nagging questions also seem to exist, even though baseless
in fact, as to the impact annexation would have on electric distribution
system acquisition and rates, ultimate water supply, and schools. In
all three cases the answer is clearly 11-Ule or none, but such an answer should
and would have to come from the City of Colton loudly and clearly to
provide a positive atmosphere at any election on annexation of Grand
Terrace to Colton.
67
Additional Commentary. Annexation to the City of Colton is
feasible, both for Colton and Grand Terrace. Absorption of an area
nearing 8,000 in population by a City of around 20,000 is not an easy
administrative task. Nor is it politically ideal. Grand Terrace would
demand representation, which would take some time to secure within
Colton's at-large Council elections. Yet by voting as a bloc, Grand
Terrace voters easily could become the major Colton political force.
Last, and by far the major question is: Would Grand Terrace voters choose
at referendum to be included within a much larger and vastly different
Colton?
Incorporation
The California Government Code provides that an unincorporated area may
choose to become a separately incorporated city after following certain
procedures. The Local Agency Formation Commission and Board of Super-
visors would have to approve of such an election. There is little
evidence that petitions to bring the issue to a vote could not be secured.
Advantages. Separate identification, local responsiveness, community of
interest, locally-determined levels of service, and political separate-
ness are real advantages of Grand Terrace incorporating as a city. The
area would gain "political clout" in dealings with San Bernardino County,
could well secure better treatment in the financing of county-wide ser-
vices like flood control and transportation, and would more nearly preserve
the status quo--in the short run.
Disadvantages. In the long run it is a serious matter to incorporate as
a fixed-boundary city. A relatively stagnant tax base in 15 to 20 years
can be predicted. The costs are very high for providing initial facili-
ties and services, start-up expenses, support of a separate overhead
operation, and the intense activity that would be required to establish
initial policies and procedures.
A strong case can be made that a new city could command the loyalty and
dedicated public service to hold down initial expenses. But contention
in virginal situations has a way of eating away such loyalty. An effec-
tive network of service arrangements could be put together for a City
of Grand Terrace. The question is, however, whether in the long run those
services would be both effective and inexpensive, not to speak of viable.
Commentary. The potential long run problems of a City of Grand Terrace
would require an initial voter commitment that would have to be solid and
profound. Anything less would be inviting trouble in the long haul.
Suggestions will be made later--in Chapter VIII--whfeh could have the
potential of providing such commitment--if the incorporation alternative
is ultimately selected.
68
Discussion of Alternatives
The following sections discuss each of the available alternatives, gener-
ally in the order of their preference. In this case "preference" is
based on the empirical research garnered from throughout the United
States by students and practitioners of municipal government. Of course,
such "preference" ofttimes does not pass the muster of local referenda.
Governmental Reorganization
From an idealistic, long-range area wide general public benefit standpoint
the Reorganization alternative seems to be both the most desirable and
least possible.
Total Annexation
Next on a long-range desirability scale seems to be the total annexation
of Grand Terrace by Colton. Several issues--mentioned earlier--should
be addressed by Colton prior to any real decision.
Partial Annexation
Third in "preference" is the separate incorporation of Grand Terrace as
a city, but excluding Areas #2 and #3, which would be added to Colton.
However, annexation of only a portion of the study area creates both real
and potential financial and service problems for the remaining area.
Incorporation
If incorporation is to succeed economically in the long haul, Areas #2,
and #3 must be included in any City of Grand Terrace. The industrial,
commercial and multiple residential potential--especially in defined
Area #2--seems too great to deny a new city that tax base potential.
So this alternative starts out as four and rapidly rises to third after
considering incorporation from the cost and tax standpoint.
Community Services District
Creation of a Community Services District runs a poor fifth because such
a District assumes most of the responsibilities of an incorporated city
without many of the state subvention revenues which would accrue to a
city. The CSD is more appropriately suited to providing specific upgrad-
ed services thru to the full range of municipal services.
County Service Area
Maintenance of the status quo as a County Service Area runs a distant
sixth because of the piecemeal annexation argument put forth earlier,
plus lack of both capability and desirability to provide adequate service
levels.
Both the CSA and CSD would be subject to probable piecemeal annexation
69
into Colton, thus resolution of local service problems could only be
delayed and aggravated, .not resolved---just expensively delayed.
Conclusion
The above discussion is strictly from a long-range financial, service level
and broad long-term governmental well-being standpoint. Unfortunately, what
may be for the total good of the greater area may not be to strictly local
benefit, or acceptable to the citizens.
Further, what is possible at the ballot box, or that which would be
politically acceptable many times appears to be widely divergent from what
makes "good governmental sense."
More will be said about these six alternatives in the next section of
this chapter, and in Chapter VIII. Specific cost effects on the citizens
of the Grand Terrace area will be examined in Chapter VII, as opposed to this
general look at the entire area.
Reviews of Alternatives by Affected Parties
The factual information contained in Chapters I, II, III, IV and V hereof
was provided to each of the City Council of Loma Linda, the City Council
of Colton, and to the Special District Department of San Bernardino
County. The question was put this way, in essential part:
Attached is a complete set of all relevant interim draft
reports submitted so far by Public Administration Service
(PAS) in connection with our study of public service
delivery systems for the Grand Terrace area.
A significant aspect of this study procedure involves the
input of other governmental units which might have an
interest in area local governmental organization or the
delivery of public services. We seek written input
from your agency based on your review of this draft
material. Your complete written comments will be made
available to all interested parties and, when bearing
on the delivery or cost of a Grand Terrace public
service under discussion, may be utilized as a basis
for discussion in the report text. . . .
We request written comments concerning any concerns
you may have relating to this study area such as a desire
to establish joint services, furnish contract services
or absorb a portion of the area through governmental
reorganization. The absence of any such concerns would
also be significant to this study effort. . . We
welcome your comments, corrections and constructive
criticism.
We would sincerely appreciate the receipt of all of your
70
written comments no later than November 2, 1977. This
date will insure your views and concerns are considered
in an expanded and reworked draft report due to be
submitted to the Grand Terrace Municipal Advisory Council
in mid-November.
The responses thereto are reproduced herein as Appendices V (Colton) and
VI (Loma Linda) . The latter is The County Special Districts Department
response for CSA and CSD purposes and is contained as a major portion of
the earlier portion of this Chapter.
Conclusion
The next chapter hereof revises materially the seeming conclusions and
"preferences" reached in this chapter. There revenues and expenditures
are brought together, and "costs" to the taxpaying citizen detailed and
summarized.
71
CHAPTER VII
RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES
The preceding chapter discussed alternate methods of organizing govern-
mental services from the broad perspectives of commonly accepted public ad-
ministration assumptions regarding the economies of scale. Those assump-
tions relate to the greatest benefit for the greatest number of residents
in the region. This chapter reduces the costs to specific figures as they
apply to the residents of the unincorporated Grand Terrace area only. Based
on the cost effects for only that limited area a present "cost" ranking of
the alternate types of governmental organization is presented. Long term
considerations propounded in the preceding chapter should be considered in
viewing these financial rankings.
Methodology
All financial rankings are based on current 1977-78 revenue and expenditure
calculations applicable to each different governmental alternative.. Each
is calculated so as to provide as nearly as possible the same approximate
levels of service. Exceptions, where there is a distinct difference in the
level of service that would be available under different organizational
structures, are pointed out in the discussion of expenditure comparisons.
Governmental reorganization--altering city boundaries to realign Loma Linda,
Colton and San Bernardino and absorb the unincorporated Grand Terrace area--
has not been considered in these financial rankings. The requirement for
unanimous agreement among affected agencies and the apparent lack of
official interest excludes this arrangement from consideration as a viable
alternative at this time.
Financial effects of the remaining alternatives: Incorporation of a City
of Grand Terrace, annexation to the City of Colton, creation of a Community
Services District, and continuation of a County Service Area are compared.
First the revenues that would accrue to each are totalled, excluding all
property taxes. Second, comparative expenditures for each alternate are
totalled. The Summary of Financial Effects then presents the total tax rate
required to deliver services under each organizational arrangement, and
subtracts any county district taxes which would be eliminated, to show a
net tax increase for each alternate. All of these should be quite conser-
vative due to the assessed valuation growth expected in the next two years.
The rates actually required by the time any of these options would actually
begin operation should be lower than shown in this summary.
Revenue Comparisons
Revenues, excluding property taxes that would accrue to each alternate
form of governmental organization, are shown on the page headed "General
Revenue Comparison," page 76.
72
Incorporation is the first alternative listed since it has the greatest
number of potential revenue sources drawn from Appendix II. In the
event of annexation each revenue would accrue to the City of Colton to
help it finance the Grand Terrace area services. The only major exception
to this rule would be the construction tax shown for an incorporated city
but not currently in effect in the City of Colton. While this source is
a "one time tax" financing on-going expenditures -in the general fund, its
gradual loss as development wanes would be mitigated by increased assessed
valuations accruing to the City every year thereafter by virtue of the new
construction.
The next two columns show to which agency or agencies each revenue would
accrue in the event services were to be provided through a CSD or CSA.
Compared to incorporation or annexation almost every tax would continue to
exist, but accrue to other agencies. In those few instances showing a. zero,
no such tax would be paid except in the event of incorporation or annexation.
A major tax source shown in Appendix II is the 6% utilities users tax which
can be imposed only by a charter city. A charter can only be adopted follow-
ing incorporation as a general law city. For this reason that revenue source
is excluded from the general comparison and the financial ranking. However,
the effect of the utility tax as an alternate to a portion of the property
tax of a new city is shown in the last summary as a possible alternative
following incorporation and adoption of a charter.
Expenditure Comparisons
Expenditures for services for each of the four governmental organization
arrangements are shown on page 77 for the same approximate level of service
wherever feasible. When a distinctly different service level is anticipated
that is explained in this text material. In the case of annexation, service
would be provided by the- City of Colton within its overall tax rate and
general revenues so no exact cost is shown. Instances where the county or
a private contractor might provide the service without direct cost to the
local government the agency which would provide the service is shown instead
of the cost.
Administrative and Support Services
Some administrative and support services required in a city government are
furnished by the County for a CSD or CSA. In other instances the costs of
these services might be less than would be the case for a city. Each
potential expenditure item was reviewed with a representative of the County
Special Districts Department and the estimate modified in accordance with
County experience in similar settings.
Service Level Variances
Instances which require some explanation of differences in service levels
among possible alternate governmental forms of organization are outlined
in the following sections.
73
Refuse. Monthly residential charges in Grand Terrace for optional once-
a-week refuse pickup are $2.50. The City of Colton has a mandatory require-
ment that all homes subscribe to its twice-weekly City-operated refuse
service at a $4.00 monthly rate. Thus, annexation would provide an increased
level of service at a somewhat higher cost to the residents.
Street Maintenance. A credit of $31,160 is provided on the CSA and CSD
street budget for the approximate cost of current County Road Department
expenditures. Thus the remaining $34,225 represents the additional expendi-
tures above the service level already provided to bring this service up to
the defined city levels.
Street Lighting. All four comparisons assume street lighting will continue
to be funded by a separate tax rate imposed only on those areas which enjoy
the lighting benefits.
Transportation. No cost is shown in the event of annexation to Colton.
However, an increased level of service, including the provision of 50¢
dial-a-ride service, would be available to the Grand Terrace area in the
event of annexation.
Fire. Level 2 fire service contemplates two persons on duty at all times
and no paramedic service. The capital improvements tax levy for a new
city will fund the immediate construction and equipping of a properly
located Grand Terrace fire station. Annexation to Colton would provide
a higher level of service, including paramedic response. The proposed
location of a Colton fire station, at Washington and Barton, would not be
as well situated as one built to service Grand Terrace exclusively. Also,
there is no assurance of the date that such a station would be placed in
operation.
Law Enforcement. The cost shown for a CSD and a CSA is the maximum charge-
able based on contract services provided an incorporated city by the Sheriff's
Department. A contract negotiated by a CSD or CSA should be reduced to
account for the level of service already provided so that the area would pay
only for the additional service it requested. That total is negotiable, for
which no estimate is currently available.
Parks. Acquisition of 15 acres of parkland to supplement the estimated 25
acres which is estimated as being capable of being legally obtained and
developed through subdivider dedications is anticipated with the incorporation
of a new city. Money is provided in the capital improvement tax levy for
acquisition and development of this additional acreage. The City of Colton
also proposes the use of subdivider dedications for future parks development
in the event of annexation. No reference to a program for catching up on
past deficiencies is mentioned in Colton's Appendix V comments. Therefore,
the standard proposed under the incorporation alternate and provided for in
the CSD and CSA must be presumed to exceed that to be provided should the
area be annexed to the City of Colton.
Financial Ranking of Alternatives
Based on the current projected and estimated costs to the residents of the
74
unincorporated Grand Terrace area the alternate forms of government avail-
able to deliver expanded governmental services clearly rank as follows:
1. Incorporation of a new city;
2. Annexation to Colton;
3. An expanded County Service Area; and,
4. Creation of a Community Services District.
These rankings are based only on local, not regional costs. They do not
consider longer term considerations discussed in Chapter VI. The rankings
assume approximately the same level of services to be delivered in all
identified functions. Should the number or types of services to be
delivered be substantially changed, the rankings might also be altered.
Finally, the wishes as well as the needs of the area residents must be
considered following community input based on available alternatives and
considerations presented in this report.
75
GENERAL REVENUE COMPARISON
1977-78 BASE
(Refer to Appendix II for Detail Backup)
INCORPORATE ANNEX CSD CSA
Sales & Use Tax $100,699 To Colton To County To County
Franchise Tax 27,955 To Colton -- --
Construction Tax 75,000 -- -- --
Utilities Tax--6% Exclude -- -- --
Property Transfer Tax 7,500 To Colton -- --
Business License Tax 15,000 To Colton -- --
Highway Carriers Tax 889 To Colton -- --
Building Permits County To Colton To County To County
Animal License County To Colton To County To County
Bicycle License 300 To Colton -- --
Other Licenses & Permits 1,000 To Colton To County To County
Court Fines 2,000 To Colton To County To County
Traffic Fines 44,300 To Colton To County To County
Parking Fines 100 To Colton To County To County
General Revenue Sharing 36,000 To Colton To Other Cities & Counties
State ABC 1,127 To Colton To County To County
State Trailer In Lieu 4,000 To Colton To County To County
Off-Highway License 200 To Colton To County To County
Cigarette Tax 23,938 To Colton To Other Cities
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 98,092 To Colton To County To County
SB-325--Transportation 79,433 To Colton To Other Cities
Zoning & Subdivision Fees County To Colton To County To County
Sales of Maps $ Public't'ns 50 To Colton To County To County
Miscellaneous Fees 100 To Colton To County To County
TOTAL-General Fund $517,683 To Colton -- --
*Available only to a charter city.
76
GENERAL EXPENDITURE COMPARISON
1977-78 COST BASE
(Refer to Appendix III for Detail Backup)
Showing the Cost of the Service or Providing Agency
Incorporate Annex CSD CSA
Governing Body $ 7,100 Colton $ 7,100 County
Elections 4,500 Colton 4,500 $ 2,250
Manager 61,200 Colton 40,000 40,000
Attorney 12,600 Colton 9,600 County
Finance 41,200 Colton 9,600 County
Engineering 12,500 Colton 6,000 County
Non-Departmental 59,100 Colton 59,100 40,000
Refuse Contract Colton Contract Contract
Storm Drainage-Level 2 15,375 Colton 15,375 15,375
Street Maintenance-Level 2 72,785 Colton 24,202 24,202
Street Sweeping-Level 4 8,000 Colton 8,000 8,000
Street Lighting District District District District
Transportation 30,000 Colton County County
Fire-Level 2 191,350 Colton 191,3S0 191,350
Law Enforcement-Level 2 1S6,863 Colton 156,863* 156,863*
Parks-Level 3 32,750 Colton 32,750 32,750
Recreation-Level 2 7,500 Colton 7,500 7,500
Planning-Level 2 12,000 Colton County County
Building Regulation 23,360 Colton 23,360 23,360
Contingencies @ 5% 36,000 Colton 31,000 29,000
TOTAL-GENERAL FUND $783,085 Colton $626,300 $570,6S0
Lower costs may be negotiated with the County based on payment for
only the additional service over that already provided from the general
County tax rate.
77
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES
BASED ON 1977-78 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL LAW CITY COMPARED TO ANNEXATION TO COLTON, COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA
INCORPORATE ANNEX CSD CSA
GENERAL FUND REVENUES $517,683 Colton -- --
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 784,083 Colton $626,300 $570,650
AMT. TO BE RAISED BY PROPERTY TAXES 266,400 Colton 626,300 570,673
REQUIRED TAX RATE @97% COLLECTION 1.01 Colton 2.36 2.15
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TAX LEVY .3498 Colton .22* .22*
TOTAL REQUIRED TAX RATE $ 1.3598 $1.8357 $ 2.58 $ 2.37
LESS COUNTY SERVICE AREA TAXES .3498 .3498 .332 .332
NET TAX RATE INCREASE $ 1.01 $1.4859 $ 2.248 $ 2.038
CHARTER CITY COMPARED TO ANNEXATION TO COLTON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA
INCORPORATE ANNEX CSD CSA
GENERAL FUND REVENUES $517,683 Colton -- --
ADD 6% UTILITY TAX 167,728 Colton -- --
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $685,411 Colton -- --
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 784,083 Colton $626,300 $570,650
AMT. TO BE RAISED BY PROPERTY TAXES 98,672 Colton 626,300 570,650
REQUIRED TAX RATE @ 97% COLLECTION .37 Colton 2.36 2. 15
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TAX LEVY .3498 Colton .22* .22*
TOTAL REQUIRED TAX RATE $ .6998 $1.8357 $ 2.58 $ 2.37
LESS COUNTY SERVICE AREA TAXES .3498 .3498 .332 .332
NET TAX RATE INCREASE $ .37 $1.4859 $ 2.248 $ 2.038
*Based on building a fire station and purchase/development of
15 acres of parks but no civic center.
78
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the contract between San Bernardino County and Public Adminis-
tration Service a previous edition of this report was submitted to and
reviewed by the Grand Terrace Municipal Advisory Council and the Special
Districts Department Staff. At its November 22 meeting the MAC received
the earlier draft of all this report with the exception of this Chapter.
The "Draft Feasibility Report" was accepted by the MAC at its November 29
meeting. Also pursuant to the contract the County Special Districts Depart-
ment acknowledged its approval, in writing, the next day. Both County
instrumentalities then. instructed the PAS study staff to proceed with
the next-to-last step in the five month process--to revise where appropriate
and to prepare a "Comprehensive Final Feasibility Report." This chapter
comments on the revisions and presents data and time tables concerning the
apparent conclusions. Appropriate recommendations are made and commented
on. The final step is presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
Methodology
During the process of developing the data included in and the commentary
explaining, leading to, and based thereon, a series of preliminary reports
were developed by the PAS staff. Each was presented to the Municipal
Advisory Council of Grand Terrace and discussed at one of a series of public
meetings. Also, copies were provided to the County Special Districts
Department staff, who also commented thereon. Further, considerable input
was made by the Cities of Loma Linda and Colton, especially the latter,
regarding information in and perceptions regarding the preliminary reports.
Revisions
Based on the requests and comments of the MAC and the public at the meetings
held by the MAC, several revisions were made in response to the data,
mostly providing clarifications. Several County departments, especially
the Special Districts Department and LAFCO staff, made significant inputs,
also causing some corrections, deletions and clarifications.
Very important and cogent comments were made by the staff of the City of
Colton, resulting in additional corrections, deletions, additions and clari-
fications, both in data and in approach. Last, of course, were the usual
grammatical, typographical and style changes prevalent in transition from
preliminary to final report.
Results
The resultant "Final Feasibility Report" contained herewith, and concluded
hereby is one which can be defended and implemented. The comprehensive
reviews and inputs, not to mention the considerable research, have resulted
in a report that truly can be cited both as comprehensive and feasible.
After all, the requirement for a preliminary report was designed to secure
79
as much corrective input as possible toward the comprehensiveness and
feasibility goals.
Projections
One additional major change will be noted between the "Preliminary" and
the "Final" Reports--in calculating the financial data for the recommended
approach and projecting such data into a specific implementational calendar.
More will be said, in detail, about these data in a later section of this
final--and new, additional chapter.
Reconciliation of "Preferences"with "Costs"
Chapter VI presented on page 69 six alternative methods for providing local
government services to the Grand Terrace area. These "preferences," as
discussed in that chapter, were based on long range considerations and
standard local government practice garnered from throughout the United
States.
"Preferred" Alternatives
Based on the above long range and academic considerations the six possible
ways to organize to provide local government services in Grand Terrace were
ranked by the PAS staff in the following "preferred" rank order:
1. Governmental reorganization
2. Total annexation to Colton
3. Partial annexation to Colton
4. Incorporation as a City of Grand Terrace
5. Community Services District
6. County Service Area
Comments on each are made in Chapter VI, in effect disposing of all but
alternatives 2 and 4.
Financial Results Ranking
Chapter VII presented a summary of financial data which would prevail
for the several alternative ways to provide expanded local government ser-
vices to the Grand Terrace area. Those results were so clear and pronounced,
considering the basically conservative way in which they were derived, that
the "preferred" alternative rankings presented above were totally overridden.
Decision Sequence. It is significant that the PAS staff wrote Chapter VI
and its "preference" rankings before ever adding up and balancing revenues
with expenditures for Chapter VII. In other words, the work of the study
staff was organized in such a way that no financial ranking comparison
between alternatives was possible until after the Chapter VI preferred
alternatives were reached. The resultant relatively low tax rate that
will be possible if the incorporation alternative transpires came as much
of a surprise to the staff as it did to the MAC and SDD.
80
Financial Rankings. The comparison of revenues which would be available,
and expenditures which would prevail for each alternative organizational
pattern was. calculated and the difference between the two reduced to a
property tax rate. Those resultant "financial" rankings of the alternatives
are presented in tabular form on page 78 of Chapter VII. These are, again
in rank order:
1. Incorporation of a City of Grand Terrace
2. Annexation in entirety to Colton
3. An expanded County Service Area
4. Creation of a Community Services District
The Result. Clearly, the difference between the 1977-78 $1.01 tax rate
(as a general law city) or a 37� tax rate (as a Charter City) increase
presented in the preliminary report, as compared to the increased rate
of $1.4859 for annexation to Colton, makes the alternative of incorporation
as a separate city an irresistibly alluring alternative. The prospect of
a 47.6� property tax increase by being made a part of Colton, over that
which a separate city would require, is not a seductive alternate. The some-
what academic alternative of regional reorgnization also was discarded as
infeasible. Thus the request of the MAC, and the clear conclusion of the
consultant, to develop the least expensive alternative of incorporation in
detail. The balance of this chapter does that.
The decision by the MAC to pursue the incorporation alternative thru
implementation steps led to revised financial calculations that, as will be
shown later in this chapter, makes the incorporation of Grand Terrace even
more irresistible by having a lower tax rate than the $1.01 or 37¢ shown
above.
City of Grand Terrace Financial Projections
Based on the above inescapable conclusion that a City of Grand Terrace would
be the least expensive alternative for providing local government services
to Grand Terrace, a calendar for incorporation was calculated. That calen-
dar is presented later. Based on incorporation on November 7, 1978, the
budgetary revenue and expenditure projections presented on page 78 and in
detail in Appendices II and III, were revised and projected through Fiscal
1982-83.
Financial Figures Projected
The following table--Five Year General Fund Expenditures--summarizes the
General Fund for the proposed City of Grand Terrace based on incorporation
at election on November 7, 1978. It is to be noted that the figures present-
ed here, and in subsequent tables, differ somewhat from both those in the
preliminary report and those in Chapter VII and in Appendices II and III.
The reasons for the differences are: first, the earlier figures are those
for 1977-78; second, a City of Grand Terrace would have to provide and
finance. . . only limited services between November 7, 1978 and June 30,
1979; and, third, higher assessed valuations make a somewhat lower tax rate
possible.
81
Total Financial Picture. The next table--Five Year Financial Effects of
Incorporation--presents the total financial scene which would prevail were
the City of Grand Terrace to incorporate on November 7, 1978. As can be
seen, a healthy financial picture can emerge quite steadily, with good
management and reasonable self-restraint. It is most important, however,
that the Capital Improvement Fund be created and financed as recommended,
otherwise financial difficulties could be predicted in the not-too-distant
future. More will be said on this later.
Resultant Property Tax Rate. The financial summary table shows that
instead of the previously (on page 78 as revised) projected property tax
rate of $1.3598 for 1977-78, a lower rate would be possible starting with
fiscal year 1979-80 on July 1, 1979. The first property tax rate to be
set by the Grand Terrace City Council would be as follows:
Operating Costs $ .8700
Capital Improvements 3498
Total City Levy 1.2198 per $100 assessed valuation
This is an 87¢ increase beyond that currently paid. On a $50,000 owner-
occupied house this would be some $93.53 per year, or a $7.79 per month
increase in property taxes. A charter city could mitigate this considerably,
about which more will be stated later.
Comparison with Colton Rate. The $1.2198 City of Grand Terrace rate would
compare quite favorably with the $1.8357 Colton rate. The $.6159 difference
means that the same $50,000 home in a City of Grand Terrace would pay some
$66.21 per year, or $5.52 per month, less than were it in the City of Colton.
These figures can be summarized as follows:
Total City Net Tax
Tax Rate Rate Increase
City of Colton $1.8357 $1.4859
City of Grand
Terrace 1.2198 .87
Difference $ .6159 $ .6159
In addition, substantial fund balances, to be held in reserve for the lack
of future growth, would fairly quickly put the City of Grand Terrace in an
enviable financial position.
82
FIVE YEAR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
BASED ON NOVEMBER, 1978 INCORPORATION
The following table summarizes only General Fund expenditures as a basis
for the following table, "Five. Year Effects of Incorporation." Gas Tax
and Capital Improvement Fund expenditures are not included in these totals.
All of these totals are drawn from Appendix II. However, for added quick
reference the page number(s) following each expenditure item denotes the
page number(s) upon which that expenditure estimate is described in detail.
When the number is a combination such as III-3, that indicates Page 3 of
Appendix III. First year estimates are calculated for only 6 months for
services which the new city must provide. Services which would continue
to be furnished by the County until the end of the fiscal year (June 30,
1979) show no first year city cost.
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
City Council (III-3) $ 3,763 $ 7,978 $ 8,456 $ 8,964 $ 9,501
Elections (III-3) 4,770 5,056 5,360 5,881 6,022
City Manager (III-3) 32,436 68,764 72,890 77,264 81,900
City Attorney (III-3) 6,678 14,157 15,007 15,907 16,862
Finance (III-4) 21,836 46,292 49,070 52,014 55,135
Engineering (III-4) -- 14,045 1.4,888 15,780 16,728
Non-Dptmental (III-4) 31,323 66,405 70,389 74,612 79,089
Storm Drainage
Level 2 (35) -- 17,275 18,312 19,411 20,572
Street Maintenance
Level 2 (35-36) -- 81,781 86,688 91,889 97,403
Street Sweeping
Level 4 (37) 4,452 9,910 11,030 12,276 13,664
Transportation
(23-24, 38) -- 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Fire - Level 2 (38-39) -- 214,889 227,782 241,449 255,936
Law Enforcement
Level 2 (41) -- 176,251 186,826 -- --
Level 3 (41) -- -- -- 264,811 280,700
Parks - Level 3 (43) -- 36,798 39,006 41,346 43,827
Recreation - Level 2
(43-44) -- 8,427 8,933 9,469 10,037
Planning - Level 2
(45) -- 13,483 14,292 15,158 16,059
Building Regulation
(45-46) 12,381 26,247 27,822 29,491 31,261
Contingencies @ 5% 5,882 41,888 44,338 50,286 53,235
$123,521 $879,646 $931,089 $1,056,008 $1,117,931
83
FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF INCORPORATION
GENERAL LAVA CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
BASED ON NOVEMBER, 1978 INCORPORATION
The following five year projections provide a realistic basis for funding
greatly increased governmental services to be provided by a new city.
Adequate and steadily increasing cash balances assure continuing financial
health for the proposed city. An operating tax rate of 87¢ and capital
improvement rate of 34.98� are calculated for the four years in which a
tax could be levied. The capital improvement tax rate, exactly equivalent
to the current combined County Service Area rates which would be abolished
upon incorporation, provides parks, a fire station and equipment and a
City Hall and Civic Center fully paid for in a 20-year period. Steadily
increasing Gas Tax and Capital Improvement Fund balances could be either:
1. Transferred to the General Fund for street maintenance use
and increasing various service levels;
2. Slightly reducing the operating tax rate; or,
3. Substantially accelerating development of the Grand Terrace
major street system as state and federal construction fund
shares become available.
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
OPENING BALANCE-
ALL FUNDS -- $ 187,734 $ 321,678 $ 358,696 $ 414,024
GENERAL FUND
Opening Balance -- 148,524 150,304 169,798 159,225
General Revenues(1)$272,045 535,174 572,476 632,542 667,923
Property Taxes
(.87) (2) -- 346,252 378,107 412,893 450,879
Total Available
Funds $272,045 $1,029,950 $1,100,887 $1,215,233 $1,278,027
Less Expenditures(3)123,521 879,646 931,084 1,056,008 1,117,931
Closing Balance $148,524 , 150,304 169,798 159,225 160,096
GAS TAX FUND
Opening Balance -- 39,210 107,829 124,638 175,825
St. Subventions(4) 39,210 78,419 78,419 88,187 88,187
Total Available
Funds $ 39,210 $ 117,629 $ 186,248 $ 212,825 $ 264,012
Local Share Ex-
penditures (5) -- 9,800 61,610 37,000 110,000
Closing Balance 39,210 107,829 124,638 175,825 154,012
84
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-,82 1982-83
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS
Opening Balance -- $ 63,545 $ 64,260 $ 78,974
Property Tax
(.3498) (6) -- $139,217 152,025 166,012 181,285
Total Available
Funds _ -- $139,217 $ 215,570 $ 230,278 $ 260,259
Level 4 Expen-
ditures (7) -- 75,672 151,304 151;304 151,304
Closing Balance -- 63,545 64,260 78,974 108,955
CLOSING BALANCE--
ALL FUNDS $187,734 $321,678 $ 358,696 $ 414,024 $ 423,063
(1) GENERAL REVENUES are shown in detail in Appendix II. These totals ex-
clude the 6% utilities tax which can be imposed only if a city charter is
adopted.
(2) OPERATING PROPERTY TAX at 87� per $100 assessed valuation calculated on
97% collection on assessed valuation projections shown in Appendix I.I-3.
(3) GENERAL EXPENDITURES are shown in detail on the preceding schedule.
(4) STATE SUBVENTIONS for the Gas Tax Fund are shown in detail on Appendix
II-2 and II-6.
(5) LOCAL SHARE EXPENDITURES from street construction are shown in greater
detail on pages 49 and 54.
(6) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY TAX at 34.98� per $100 of assessed valuation
is the exact equivalent to the total of County Service Area taxes which will
be abolished upon incorporation and is calculated at 97% collection on
assessed valuation projections shown in Appendix II-3.
(7) LEVEL 4 EXPENDITURES are summarized on page 54 and discussed in detail
in Chapter V.
85
General Law vs. Chartered City
Under the California Constitution and California Government Code there are
only two classes of cities: chartered or general law. As stated in an
authoritative study on the differences between the two:
As a general proposition, the main advantage of the
charter form of government stems from the potential
breadth of local authority which may be exercised.
Chartered cities are not restricted to the exercise
of- such powers as are set forth in the general law.
. . . On the other hand, general law cities are what
their name implies, i.e. , those governed principally
by the general laws of the state. l
About 80 of the almost 420 cities in California have charters.
Advantage to Grand Terrace
The major advantage to a City of Grand Terrace of having a city charter
would be to avail itself of added taxing powers, thus enabling the City
to de-emphasize property taxes, to diversify its tax structure, and to
broaden its tax base. The resultant "tax reform" possible is effectively
illustrated by the below table:
CHARTER CITY FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
(General Fund)
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
Genearl Revenues $272,045 $535,174 $572,476 $ 632,542 $ 667,923
6% Utilities Tax -- 255,974 282,144 311,064 342,948
Total $272,045 $791,148 854,620 943,606 $1,010,871
Expenditures 123,521 879,646 931,084 1,056,008 1,117,931
Amount to be
Raised by Property
Tax $-- $ 88,498 $ 76,464 $ 112,402 $ 107,060
97% of 23¢ Rate 91,538 99,959 109,156 119,198
Balance 3,040 23,495 ( 3,246) 12,138
Property Tax Rate. It can be seen that a 23� per $100 of assessed valuation
property tax rate would be possible were Grand Terrace to adopt a charter.
Only chartered cities are empowered to levy such a tax, which is proposed
to be imposed at the 6% general sales tax rate on each of the monthly bills
for the utilities of electric, gas, water and telephone. Thus the tax base
is spread and the tax paid, in effect, in installments four times monthly,
rather than as property tax--annually in a lump.
1Reid, Carlyn F. , Charter or General Law City?. League of Califor-
nia Cities, Sacramento, Marc 1971, p. l.
86
Comparison of Property Tax Rates. The following table shows the resultant
city property tax rate if Grand Terrace opts to become a chartered city,
rather than a general law organization;
Property Taxes
Total Tax Net Increased
Rate Tax Rate
General Law City $1.2198 $ .87
Chartered City 5798 23
Difference .64 .64
On the $50,000 house this would be a reduction in property taxes of $68.80
per year, or $5.73 per month, from taxes paid to a general law city.
A charter provides other marked advantages to a City: its powers emanate
directly from the State Constitution, not solely from the Legislature. Thus
the whims of the latter are severely limited.
Disadvantages of a Charter
There are three basic disadvantages to Grand Terrace if it decides to
incorporate and become a chartered city.
First, as stated in the previously quoted work:
The general laws have been subjected to judicial
scrutiny over the years, and there is a clarity
of meaning and resultant understanding of what
can and cannot be done under the general laws of the
state. . . .
Utilities Tax is Adjudicated. However, the basic reason that a City of
Grand Terrace would desire a city charter--a utilities users tax--has
already been clearly adjudicated.2 No difficulties should be encountered
unless some exotic act is attempted sometime in �he future, and even then
the body of charter case law is quite extensive.
The second disadvantage is that a city cannot now incorporate as a chartered
city. Thus on November 7, 1978 the City of Grand Terrace would have to
have an election on incorporation and, if successful, have another election
to adopt a city charer on March 6, 1979.
This leads to the third disadvantage. To assure that the voters casting
1Ibid. , p. 1.
2Rivera vs. Fresno (6 Cal 3rd, 132) .
3Reid; Op. Cit. , pp. i-iii cites other cases.
87
ballots on incorporation would know absolutely that they would be committing
themselves to subsequent adoption of a city charter, that charter should
be drawn between January and October of 1978. That way its contents and
intents would be clearly known to the citizens of Grand Terrace prior to
voting on incorporation.
Procedure for Drawing and Adoption. In the event that incorporation as a
City of Grand Terrace is decided on, and that a charter would be desirable
so as to keep property taxes low, the following procedures would have to
be followed.
First, the charter would have to be drawn starting in January, to be in-
cluded no later than mid-October of 1978. Next, the charter--at this point
unofficial--would have to be fully publicized both during its drawing and
after its adoption--presumably by the Municipal Advisory Council.
Third, immediately after incorporation the City Attorney would have to be
employed and the newly elected City Council would then declare itself a
Charter Commission. The previously unofficial charter would then be sub-
jected to a series of legally required public hearings, all of which would
be. approved in advance by the City Attorney, as required by state law.
Next, the charter would be adopted by the City Council, sitting as a Charter
Commission. Any revision would have to be considered quite serious, due to
the implied commitment made by its unofficial approval by publicity prior
to the incorporation election , and due to the tightness of the schedule.
Last, the charter would be subjected to referendum on March 7, 1979. If
adopted by majority vote it would go into effect upon filing with the
California Secretary of State.
The major--and only--necessity for the above procedure is so that when the
first full year budget, and property tax rate setting ordinance, is
required to be passed before July 1, 1979 and September 1, 1979 respectively,
both could be predicted on a lower property tax rate than would be possible
for a general law city. Such would only be possible were the charter drawn
and adopted on the schedule outlined, and a utilities tax ordinance sub-
sequently passed before about May 1, 1979. Thus the utilities tax could
start producing revenue on July 1, 1979, in lieu of a 64¢ higher property
tax required to finance a general law city.
Procedure for Incorporation
Under existing--and newly revised--state law, several major and numerous
minor steps must be taken to incorporate as a city in San Bernardino County.
The schedule in the case of Grand Terrace is extremely tight, as seen herein.
Fortunately, the newly enacted Municipal Organization Act of 1977 reduces
the time by some two months. The citizens of Grand Terrace could not have
an incorporation election on November 7, 1978 had such Act not been passed.
Even with it the schedule is extremely tight, maybe impossibly so.
88
Recommended Schedule
The following is the schedule which is recommended and must be adhered
to if economical incorporation is to be accomplished before 1980.
DATE STEP
December 14 to
January 11, 1978 Secure signatures of at least 25% of registered voters
in area proposed to incorporate
January 11, 1978 Present petitions to LAFCO
Present feasibility study to LAFCO
January, 1978 Start drafting proposed city charter
April 12, 1978 Present Environmental Impact Report to LAFCO
May 10, 1978 LAFCO hearing on Incorporation and EIR
May 24, 1978 Special LAFCO meeting to adopt resolution approving
incorporation
June 26, 1978 Hearing before Board of Supervisors
Call election on incorporation
July 10, 1978 Last possible date for Board of Supervisors to call
election on incorporation
October, 1978 Complete city charter
November 7, 1978 Referendum on incorporation
Election of Mayor and City Council
November 1978--
January, 1979 City Council sit as Charter Commission
March 6, 1979 Referendum on City Charter
Referencum on $420,000 in Park bonds
April 3, 1979 Adoption of utilities users tax ordinance
June 26, 1979 Adopt 1979-80 budget
August 28, 1979 Adopt property tax ordinance: 35¢ capital improvement fund
23¢ general fund
58¢ total
Commentary on Schedule
There is only two weeks slippage possible in the proposed schedule--between
89
June 26 and July 10. "Murphy's Law" should be remembered--if something
can go wrong it will. Thus if Grand Terrace wishes to incorporate on
favorable financial terms and timing before November of 1980 its leaders
must act swiftly and certainly.
The Petition. A petition for incorporation must be carefully drawn. Its
contents can bind the city for centuries. The petition must include the
following:
1. Legal description of the area to be incorporated;
2. The number of inhabitants in the area;
3. The number of registered voters in the area;
4. Other specific optional provisions.
Under 4, above, it is recommended that any petition for a proposed City
of Grand Terrace include the additional provisions:
1. A map of the area;
2. That the Mayor would be separately elected every two years;
3. That a city manager would be appointed;
4. That the city clerk and city treasurer would be appointed, by the
city manager, or that such official could assume such duties;
S. The intent to re-incorporate as a chartered city at the first
opportunity.
An affidavit of the circulator must accompany each petition.
Environmental Impact Report. The EIR usually is required--but not always--
and is usually done by an outside consultant specializing in such. The
County has stated that it could not do such a report in 90 days--thus an
expedited selection procedure is necessary. Unless procedures are speedy
and the selection made of such a consultant early in January, the EIR
presentation cannot be made to LAFCO by the April 12 required date. Even
with this hasty schedule, a consultant will be hard pressed to do the EIR
in the three months available. This step is probably the most vulnerable
and difficult to control.
Critical Date. The Board of Supervisors must call the election by not
later than July 10, 1978. This is the last date by which the Registrar
of Voters can implement the necessary procedures. A slippage of any more
than two weeks anytime prior to July 10 would not be fatal, but the July 10
date is fixed, and all steps prior to that date are extremely tightly
timed.
It is only fair to state that the LAFCO staff thinks that the above
schedule cannot be met, it being extremely optimistic. While possible, a
November 7, 1978 election is not highly probable.
Should the incorporation election be slipped to March 6, 1979 from November 7,
1978 such is definitely to the distinct disadvantage of a City of Grand
Terrace. Only three months of revenues and three months of "free" services
from the County would be provided. Under the November 1978 schedule nearly
90
eight months of revenues are accrued without services being denied by the
County. Plus the property tax relief measure made possible by the previously
related city charter procedure would be most problematical.
However, Larry Hendon, LAFCO Assistant Executive Officer, is of the unofficial
opinion that the LAFCO does have the authority to make the incorporation
date effective on July 1 after a March 6, 1979 election. 'Thus one full
year of revenues would accrue without commensurate service responsibilities--
the latter still required to be provided by the County through June 30, 1980.
The PAS staff is dubious of either the expectation or, if legal, probability
of a consolation prize of a "free ride" for a year through LAFCO delaying
the effective date of incorporation for some 3-3/4 months after the election.
The schedule calling for a November 7, 1978 election on incorporation should
be pushed, if this is what is desired.
Election of City Council. Petitions for candidacy for the Mayor and four
City Councilmen would have to be filed, and their campaigns held concurrent-
ly with the campaign on the incorporation referendum. Candidacy petition
dates and forms will be available from the County Registrar of Voters on the
appropriate schedule, dependent on whether the July 10, 1978 absolute
deadline is met.
Later Referenda and Financial Actions. The referenda on each of the city
charter and the proposed $420,000 of park acquisition and development
bonds would have to be called in January, 1979 and held on March 6, 1979.
The charter needs only a majority to pass; the bonds 66-2/3% of those voting,
since it is proposed that these be general obligations. The civic center
land acquisition, city hall and fire station construction bonds could be
either joint powers obligations financed in conjunction with either the
County or School District, or lease purchase, or non-profit bonds. None
require a referendum, the City Council having authority to issue. The
fire equipment would be bought when needed through lease-purchase provisions:.
All are as sanctioned in state law. All are to be financed indirectly or
directly through the 35¢ capital improvement levy--the amount currently
being levied by the special districts. The new city council would withdraw
from the districts and, on August 28, 1979 adopt a 58¢ (or $1.22 without a
city charter) city property tax levy ordinance.
Conclusion
This "Final Report" is felt to be both comprehensive and accurate. Some
minor details may be questioned, and the basic result already has been
challenged by the City of Colton. However, taken as an entirety it should
present a full and fair picture upon which each of the Municipal Advisory
Council of Grand Terrace, the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation
Commission, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, and the citizens
of Grand Terrace and La Loma Hills can reach an informed decision as to the
future mode of providing and financing local government services to them-
selves.
The recommendations made in the following section have been arrived at
91
after an excrutiatingly deliberate and open process. As stated in Chapter
VI governmental reorganization is the "academic and good government" pre-
ferred alternative. But the costs of local government, and the passions
surrounding "self-determination and home rule" are such that only one
realistic conclusion could be drawn by the consultant staff--incorporation
as a separate City of Grand Terrace.
Such self-determination is the rock upon which American democracy rests.
Even if ultimately more expensive--and in this case there is no indication
that such would be the case--people regularly vote their pocketbooks, even
if local self-government does cost more. In the current case such will
cost less--significantly less. 'Thus the purely pragmatic prognostications
and specific recommendations made in the final section of this report.
Implementation of Recommended Alternative
Based on all the data and statements contained herein the Public Adminis-
tration Service survey staff recommends the following:
Area Included in Recommendations
The feasibility of the incorporation of a City of Grand Terrace to provide
cost-effective local government services is dependent on the tax base of
the entire study area, including all of Areas 1, 2 and 3 (see Map 2 after
page 17) . The City of Colton sphere of influence should not be extended
into any of this area until after the incorporation election, should that
be unsuccessful. The new city will need all its potential land area and
tax base to remain viable. The citizens thereof should be provided the
opportunity to decide on the future as an entirety, not partially. Thus
it is recommended that the election procedure for a November 7, 1978 incor-
poration referendum be for all the unincorporated area of Grand Terrace
and La Loma Hills currently surrounded by the City of Colton.
Specific Recommendations
The following specific implementing recommendations are made so as to
effectuate this report and study:
1. That this report be presented on December 14, 1978 to the
San Bernardino County LAFCO and Board of Supervisors;
2. That the Municipal Advisory Council of Grand Terrace
immediately seek legal advice, draft and circulate the required
petition mentioned earlier in this chapter;
3. That the LAFCO provide an expedited procedure toward a November 7,
1978 incorporation election for a City of Grand Terrace;
4. That all steps in the schedule contained herein be proceeded
with with all deliberate speed;
92
5. That a city charter be drafted per the schedule contained
herein,
6. That the Grand Terrace MAC budget for 1977-78 be
amended, and the 1978-79 budget reflect appropriate
amounts to. finance the necessary expenses for the preparatory
work and expedited schedule contained herein.
93
APPENDICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA °
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION GEORGE R.Francisco
7020 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA First District,San Franncisco(P.O. BOX 1799, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95808) IRIS SANKEY
Second District, San Diego
WILLIAM M. BENNETT
(916) 445-0840 Third District, San Rafael
RICHARD NEVINS
Fourth District, Pasadena
September 23, 1977 KENNETH CORY
Controller,Sacramento
DOUGLAS D. BELL
Executive Secretary
Mr. Larry Hendon
San Bernardino County Local
Agency Formation Commission
1111 East Mill Street
Building 1, 2nd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92415
Dear Mr. Hendon:
The enclosed revenue forecast sheets for Grand Terrace in
San Bernardino County summarize the data for local sales tax and
other sources of State revenue.
All estimates are for the first full year of receipts.
Also enclosed are data that show when payments from each revenue
source may be expected.
I am sorry for the confusion and delay caused by the map of
the area. Our local tax unit which controls the registration cards
cannot function without boundary lines defined by street numbers.
Let us know if we can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
;�.,r� 0�
Richard B. West
Statistical Research and
Consulting Division
RBW:se
Enclosures
vv�
I-1
FORECAST OF LOCAL REVENUES Grand Terrace - San Bernardino County
A. Local Sales and Use Taxes (1%)
1. Estimated local sales taxes in 12-months ended 3-31-77 $ 94,990
2. Estimated percentage change in tax between date shown above and
12-months ended 12/31/78 18
3. Estimated tax during 12 months ended 12/31/78 $ 112,088
4. Cost of administration (computed at .82%)----------------------- $ 919
5. Net first full year revenue from a 1% local tax----------------- $_111,169
6. Amount (if any) to be shared with the county---( - %)---------- $ -
7. Anticipated net revenues in the first full year of receipts----- $ 111,169
B. Anticipated Liquor License Fees in the First Full Year of Receipts
Estimated population (3 times registered voters)--------------------
Number of active outlets with industry codes:
(22 + 34) 2 x $315--------------------------------------------- $ 630
833 2 x $ 22--------------------------------------------- 44
5 3 x $151--------------------------------------------- 453
36 + 75 (76)
POPULATION NO. FEE AMOUNT NO. FEE AMOUNT
Less than 20,000 $T9 $Tg�g
20,000 - 39,999 $371 $223 ------
40,000 and over $522 $297 ------
Minimum net amount to be anticipated------------- $ 1,127
C. Cigarette tax----6ao of Line 7 + $2.00 x pop. $
D. Anticipated receipts from other sources of State revenue
1. "In-lieu" tax monies (population x $11.36)---------------------- $
2. Gas tax revenue, §2107 Streets & Highways Code,
(population x $4.35 )------------------------------------------- $
3. Collier-Unruh gas tax funds §2106 Streets & Highways Codes,
(population x $3.945)-t-480�------------------------------------ $
4. Engineering allotment (based on population)--------------------- $
5. Highway Carriers Uniform Business License Tax §4304 Public
Utilities Code (population x $.103 )---------------------------- $
Estimates prepared for: Mr. Larry Hendon
San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission
1111 East Mill Street
Building 1, 2nd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92415
GA-421 Rev. 4 (10-74) I-2 DATE September 23, 1977
APPENDIX II
BASIC REVENUE PROJECTIONS
(See Accompanying Comments)
F I S.0 A L Y E A R
1977- 1978- 1979- 1980- 1981- 1982-
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
GENERAL FUND
Property Taxes S e e C o m m e n t s
Secured Taxes - - - - - -
Unsecured Taxes - - - - - -
Prior Years Secured - - - - - -
Prior Years Unsecured - - - - - -
State Reimbursed Exemptions - - - - - -
Sub-Total. . . . . . . . . . S e e C o m m e n t s
Other Taxes
Sales $ Use Tax $100,699 $114,505 $128,246 $143,636 $155,127 $ 167,537
Franchise Tax 27,955 31,310 35,067 39,275 42,417 45,810
Transient Occupancy Tax - - - - - -
Construction Tax 75,000 105,000 33,000 35,000 37,000 39,500
Utilities Tax - 6% 167,728 207,968 255,974 282,144 311,064 342,948
Property Transfer Tax 7,500 10,500 3,300 3,500 3.700 3,950
Business License Tax 15,000 16,800 18,800 21,100 22,750 24,600
Highway Carriers Tax 889 889 889 889 1,011 1,011
Sub-Total. . . . . . . . . . $394,771 $486,972 $475,276 $525,544 $573,069 625,356
License & Permits
Building Permits c c c c c c
Animal Licenses c c c c c c
Bicycle Licenses $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 350 $ 350 $ 400
Other Licenses & Permits 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
Sub-Total. . . . . . . . . . $ 1,300 $ 1,400 $ 1,500 $ 1,650 $ 1,750 1,900
Fines $ Forfeits
Court Fines $ 2,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,800 $ 3,300 $ 3,800 $ 4,200
Traffic Fines 44,300 46,960 51,186 55,793 59,141 64,463
Parking Fines 100 100 100 100 100 100
Sub-Total. $ 46,400 49,560 54,086 $ 59,193 $ 63,041 68,763
From Use of Money $ Property
Investment Earnings - - - - - -
Rental Income - - - - - -
Sub-Total. - - - - - -
Intergovernmental Revenues
General Revenue Sharing $- $- $ 40,000 $ 42,000 $ 44,100 $ 46,300
CETA - - - - - -
HCDA - - - - - -
State ABC 1,127 1,262 1,414 1,583 1,710 1,847
State Trailer in Lieu 4,000 4,200 4,400 4,650 5,500 5,725
Off Highway License 200 225 250 275 300 350
Cigarette Tax 23,938 24,138 24,963 25,886 28,935 29,679
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 98,092 101,968 106,026 110,256 130,290 135,490
SB 325--Transportation 79,433 79,433 79,433 79,433 90,261 90,261
County Grants - - - - - -
Sub-Total . . . . . . . . . . $206,790 21_1__,2_2_6_____j 256,486 $264,083 $301,096 $ 309,652
Charges for Services
Zoning $ Subdivision Fees c c c c c c
EIR's - - - - - -
Sales of Maps $ Publications $ s0 $ 100 $ ISO $ ISO $ ISO $ ISO
Park $ Recreation Fees - - 500 S00 750 1,000
Fire Inspection Fees - - - - - -
Weed 8 Nuisance Fees - 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,SOO
Miscellaneous Fees 100 100 100 100 100 100
Sub-Total. . . . . . . . . . $ 150 $ 2,700 3,S00 $ 3,750 $ 4,250 $ 4,750
Miscellaneous Revenues
Sale of Property $- $- $ 100 $ 200 $ 200 $ 250
Other Revenue 200 200 200 200 200 200
Sub-Total. . . . . . . . . . $ 200 $ 200 $ 300 $ 400 $ 400 4SO
TOTAL - GENERAL FUND $649,611 $7S2,OS8 $791,148 $854,620 $943,606 $1,010,871
II-1
APPENDIX II
PROJECTIONS
F I S C A L Y E A R
1977- 1978- 1979- 1980- 1981- 1982-
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
TOTAL - GENERAL FUND (Forward) $649,611 $752,058 $ 791,148 $ 854,620 $ 943,606 $1,010,871
GAS TAS FUND
Gas Tax--Section 2106 $ 38,861 $ 382861 $ 382861 $ 38,861 $ 432509 $ 43,509
Gas Tax--Section 2107 37,558 37,558 37,558 37,558 42,678 42,678
Gas Tax--Section 2107.5 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Capital Constructions Grants - 42,330 33,200 321,390 333,000 -
TOTAL - GAS TAX FUND $ 78,419 $120,749 $ 111,619 $ 399,809 $ 421,187 $ 88,187
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Property Taxes $ -- $-- $ 139,217 $ 152,025 $ 166,012 $ 181;285
Quimby Act Park Revenue
State Bond Park Revenue
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND $ -- $-- $ 139,217 $ 152,025 $ 166,012 $ 181,285
TOTAL REVENUES $728,030 $872,807 $1,041,984 $1,406,454 $1,530,805 $1,280,343
"c" indicates a County contract service for which revenues are retained by the County in payment for the
services provided.
II-2
APPENDIX II COMMENTS
BASIC REVENUE PROJECTIONS
As a basis for future revenue projections the actual revenues which could accrue to a current incorporated City
of Grand Terrace have been evaluated and are shown in the 1977-78 (first) column. All of these estimates are
based on incorporation of the total 5.9 square mile currently unincorporated Grand Terrace area and must be
adjusted when only a portion of that area is considered. A number of potential revenue categories are listed
for which no revenues are shown. These listings are included to show a future potential or for other reasons
explained under the appropriate heading in these comments. Each revenue and some comment concerning its com-
position, total and/or projected amounts follow in the order shown on Appendix II.
General Fund
Eight major categories of General Fund revenue are shown. Together they constitute the overwhelming bulk of
municipal operating revenues, which in most instances can be expended for any legitimate governmental purpose.
Some revenues within the Fund, such as SB 325 transportation revenues and federal General Revenue Sharing do
have some limitations concerning the purposes for which they may be expended and in how they are accounted for
respectively.
Property Taxes
Property taxes are broken into three separate categories. The projected assessed valuations for each category
for each of the years included in the scope of this study are shown below:
PROJECTED ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Property Tax 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
Secured taxes $22,989,060 $27,769,386 $34,420,531 $37,587,220 $41,045,244 $44,821,406
Unsecured taxes 1,454,590 1,757,057 2,177,896 2,378,262 2,597,062 2,835,992
State Reimbursed
Exemptions 2,959,795 3,575,253 4,431,575 4,839,280 5,284,494 5,770,667
TOTAL $27,403,445 $33,101,696 $41,030,002 $44,804,762 $48,926,800 $53,428,065
These totals provide the basis upon which tax estimates are drawn for the various alternate methods of financ-
ing local government. Property tax revenues may be shown in five different categories. The definition of each
category follows.
Secured Taxes. This tax rate is applied to land, improvements to land, buildings and structures that are, in
effect, attached to the land. The assessed value must by statute be set by the elected County Assessor at 25%
of the "true cash value." Periodic reassessments--usually on a three to five-year cycle--cause these values to
change as values change. Modest increases are projected based on both increased values of existing property
and on new construction.
Unsecured Taxes. The same rate as applied to secured property is applied to personal property, which is not
exempt and which is movable--not secured to the property. Such things as machinery, trade inventory, equipment,
and other movable property used in the production of income, and aircraft are covered here.
Prior Years' Secured Taxes. No revenue would be secured from this the first two years of any levy, since this
category is the revenue secured from the 3% average of delinquent taxes paid on secured property plus interest
and penalties. All the levy, plus some penalty and interest, will be collected eventually, but spread over
five years of delinquencies.
Prior Years' Unsecured Taxes. This category is the delinquent payments, plus penalties and interest--after the
initial two years of enforcement proceedings--for unsecured taxes. The two years is conservative, as some
delinquencies may come in the first year.
State Reimbursed Exemptions. The State of California over the past several legislative sessions has passed a
series of local property tax reimbursement measures. In effect certain classes of property owners are exempt
from payment of all or a portion of their local property taxes, with the State making up the loss by payment to
local jurisdictions, but from State sales and income tax sources. These revenues would reimburse the City of
Grand Terrace for losses incurred due to the homeowners, veterans and disabled veterans exemptions, senior
citizens exemptions and deferrals, and inventory tax exemption.
Other Taxes
Eight other types of taxes are described below.
Sales and Use Tax. These taxes are equal to 1% of the total cost of all items for which sales taxes are collect-
in the community, after deductions of a small State administrative charge. Reimbursement is paid from the
State Board of Equalization quarterly. The first and second year estimates are based on data provided by the
State.
II-3
APPENDIX II
Subsequent years' projections are increased at rates reflecting inflation compounded by anticipated growth.
Franchise Tax. Franchise taxes are paid by utility companies to the City representing one percent of the gross
revenues collected by the telephone, gas, electric and water utilities. The possibility of levying a similar
tax on refuse collection also might become feasible as the City grows and the refuse franchise question decided.
The 1977-78 total represents actual estimates from the concerned companies less a substantial but undependable
volume of natural gas sales now being used by SCE for electric power generation in its Grand Terrace plant.
Projections follow the same inflation factor used previously plus the population curve plotted for sales taxes,
which should be quite conservative in times of rapidly increasing energy costs.
Transient Occupancy Tax. This tax is levied by cities and counties on the gross receipts of hotels, motels,
and boarding houses and is available for Grand Terrace use.
Construction Tax. This tax, first utilized by Palm Springs, is now widely used to produce additional revenue
in situations of rapid growth which create strains on a City's ability to meet expanding demands for service.
The formula for the tax as here computed is based on a one-time charge of $200 per new dwelling unit and 5� per
square foot of industrial and commercial construction. Projections are directly related to total new dwelling
units required to house the estimated population projections with a minimal additional allowance for commercial
and industrial construction.
Utilities Tax. This tax shown as 6% of gross utility bills is presented as a possible alternate to an equal
amount of property taxes (approximately equal to a tax rate of 62¢ per $100 of assessed valuation). It has
the advantage of being less painful to pay,occuring more frequently and in smaller amounts, than property tax.
Given the inflationary trend of energy costs it also appears to offer a more elastic growth rate. This tax
could only be used if the new city were to have its own city charter instead of being incorporated under
general law.
Property Transfer Tax. This tax, much like the construction tax, produces additional revenue in rapid growth
situations which tend to strain a City's ability to meet expanding needs. It is almost universally applied by
cities. It is based on the sale value of real property. Projections for future revenue are directly related
to real estate activity, in this case taken as a percentage of the anticipated construction tax revenue.
Business License Tax. This commonly utilized city tax is difficult to estimate accurately since the rates are
variable. However, this conservative projection begins at 25% below the current Loma Linda budgeted revenue
and is increased in accordance with expected commercial growth. Each business and occupation would pay the
tax based on a minor percentage of its gross receipts.
Highway Carriers Tax. One-tenth of one percent of the gross operating revenue of highway carriers under the
jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission is rebated after expenses to the various cities.
This negligible revenue amounts to approximately ten cents per capita per year, in lieu of a local business tax.
Licenses and Permits
Four potential revenue sources combine to provide possible City license and permit revenues.
Building Permits. No city revenue is shown since it is expected that the San Bernardino County Building and
Safety Department would provide City building inspection services by contract and keep the permit fees in
consideration for the services performed.
Animal Licenses. County contract services provided a City would also in this instance be paid for through
County retention of related fees. Therefore, no City revenue is shown.
Bicycle Licenses. A minor regulating revenue is shown with a modest projected growth.
Other Licenses and Permits. This "catch all" of miscellaneous regulatory and permit charges is projected at a
growth rate of approximately 10% per year.
Fines and Forfeits
Court fines are collected by the Colton Justice Court and apportioned on a formula to the City in which the
offense occurred.
Court Fines. This small category of fines represents those general non-traffic related fines imposed for
minor law violations within the City.
Traffic Fines. Traffic fines are rebated at a rate of 79% to the City with the County retaining 21% for the
cost of collection. The estimate is based on an examination of the Colton Justice Court records while projections
reflect the combined effect of population and enforcement increases.
II-4
APPENDIX II
Parking Fines. Only a nominal unchanging amount is shown for this revenue source.
From Use of Money and Property
Revenues may accrue to a city from interest income or rental of its property or equipment.
Investment Earnings. Investment earnings are directly related to projected cash flows and surplus monies ex-
pected to be available for investment. Amounts have to be projected based on each alternate government form
and its anticipated cash flow.
Rental Income. It is not expected that the City would acquire property or equipment which would produce rental
income during its first years of existence.
Intergovernmental Revenue
A variety of revenues may accrue from other governments, some automatically and others in the form of specific
grants.
General Revenue Sharing. A city does not become eligible for this federal program until the beginning of the
next fiscal year following incorporation. The amount of revenue is determined by a complex formula involving,
among other factors, population and "local tax effort." The exact figure cannot be determined at this time.
However, the estimate is a conservative one based on a review of other similarly sized and constituted communi-
ties.
CETA. The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) provides federal employment and training grants
for public service jobs. These jobs must be funded to provide additional services after the city is in operation.
Any such grants would be applied for by the city and used to underwrite new or expanded programs.
HCDA. The Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) also provides federal grants for specified programs .
upon application by a city. A city the size of Grand Terrace must file its application through the county. These
monies must be utilized for programs or services directly related to developing the community or eliminating
physical blight. The beginning of any such program would be a decision of the City Council following incorpora-
tion.
State ABC. This State subvention is based on the number of retail liquor outlets in the city. A modest growth,
considering anticipated population increases, .is projected.
State Trailer In Lieu. Though this is a State subvention, no estimate was provided by the State Board of Equali-
zation for the local share of revenues from State trailer registration fees. The PAS estimate is considered
conservative based on an examination of surrounding communities. Only the most modest growth is projected due
to the uncertainty of possible mobile home population increases.
Off Highway License. Dirt bikes, dune buggies and other off-highway vehicles must be State licensed. A percent-
age of this fee is rebated by the Department of Motor Vehicles to the City or County in which the vehicle is
registered.
Cigarette Tax. This revenue is rebated from the State monthly based on a formula involving a percentage of
sales tax and city population. The current estimate is calculated from data provided by the State Board of
Equalization using the registered voter, estimated population of 8,634 (3 x 2,878 registered voters as of
August 1, 1977). This population formula would be and is used until 1981-82 when the projected 1980 census
population of 9,811 is used for the last two annual projections.
Motor Vehicle In Lieu. Monthly allocations are paid from the State to the City based on population and the
total vehicle registration fees available for apportionment. Current figures were supplied by the State Board
of Equalization. Projections reflect an annual increase of 4% in monies available due to inflation raising the
total value of vehicles upon which registration fees are based. The population portion of the projection formula
described under the cigarette tax heading is applied in the same manner for this revenue.
SB 325 Transportation. The current $9.20 per capita rebate under the terms of this State legislative bill has
been steadily increasing over the past several years. The trend is expected to continue. Revenue uses are
restricted to Article 4 public transportation and Article 8 street construction and/or maintenance. The latter
uses are subject to Southern California Association of Governments'(SCAG) approval. The regional trend is toward
withholding approval for large sums of non-public transportation uses. For these reasons no revenue increases
are projected. Minor increases in anticipated public transportation expenditures result in a diminishing amount
of this revenue being available for general use.
County Grants. No regular revenue is projected in this category, though some future city programs may qualify
for County assistance.
II-5
APPENDIX II
Charges for Services
A number of services rendered by a community are financed totally or in part through charges paid by the persons
using the service.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees. These fees finance all related zoning and subdivision services. Since it is ex-
pected that the County would provide the service and keep the fees in payment, no city revenue is shown.
EIR's. The city might, through its planning consultant or the County, require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
whenever required by State law or local need. These reports will often be paid for by private developers interest-
ed in a particular project. If that is the case the total cost might be shown as a revenue item, but an off-
setting cost would usually be shown in the City's budget. Neither are shown in these projections.
Sale of Maps and Publications. This is a minor somewhat unpredictable revenue item projected on a relatively
flat basis.
Park and Recreation Fees. A modest revenue is projected for persons participating in miscellaneous recreation
classes which are anticipated to begin in summer programs the second year of incorporation.
Fire Inspection Fees. A very effective fire prevention device is to require all commercial, industrial and
multiple dwelling building owners and operators to secure an annual fire inspection, for which a modest fee is
charged. This amount is projected to be collected by the fire service contractor, which would retain the fees to
provide the service.
Weed and Nuisance Fees. The major portion of this revenue would result from charges against property due
to City-ordered cleaning of weeds or otherwise littered private property. This service, often provided through
a private contractor, would also show as a City expenditure item.
Miscellaneous Fees. This category catches the "odds and ends" revenues for which there is no regular recurring
tax, fee or charge.
Miscellaneous Revenues
All General Fun revenues not included in the preceding major categories are credited as "miscellaneous revenues."
Sale of Property. It is not expected that a newly incorporated city will have any significant amount of surplus
property for sale during its first five years of existence. However, a negligible revenue is projected beginning
the second year of incorporation.
Other Revenue. This revenue item is the "catch all" for small non-recurring revenues for which no regular account
exists.
Gas Tax Fund
Revenues accruing to the Gas Tax Fund may be used only for maintenance and construction of streets. A 1977
legislative enactment removes former restrictions to where this Fund can be utilized on street-allied arterial,
collector and residential street construction and maintenance, with the latter two terms broadly construed by
State regulation.
Gas Tax--Section 2106
The current estimate was supplied by the State Board of Equalization and is based on $3.945 per capita plus a
lump sum of $4,800. Population assumptions are explained under the cigarette tax revenue item. Due to the
uncertainty of the national energy situation, no increase is projected in gasoline consumption throughout the
projection period. An adjustment is provided for following the change in population certified by the 1980 census.
Gas Tax--Section 2107
Current State subventions are based on $4.35 per capita. Projections of this revenue item were based on the same
assumptions outlined for Section 2106 gas taxes.
Gas Tax--Section 2107.5
This flat $2,000 annual allotment is based on city population and may be used only for engineering costs and
administrative expenses relating to city streets.
Capital Construction Grants
Revenue shown in this category reflects the Federal and State (non-local) share of street construction projects
outlined in Chapter V. Expenditures balanced against this estimate of revenue will reflect the total construction
costs, of each project.
II-6
APPENDIX II
Capital Improvement Fund
` Property Taxes. A tax rate exactly equivalent to the $.3498 combined rate for present County Service Area
levies (Nos. 38, 38G, 70 and 70A) is calculated to produce sufficient revenue to pay for site acquisition,
construction and furnishing of a fire station and City Hall within a 7-acre Civic Center complex and the
acquisition and development of a supplemental 25 acres of park land (identified as level 2 service in Chap-
ter IV). These improvements would be financed through bond issues, lease-purchases or joint powers agreements,
none of which would exceed a twenty-year pay out period. Projected revenue is based on the $.3498 tax rate
applied to the appropriate projected assessed valuation and calculated at a 97% collection rate.
The tax could not be levied until the beginning of the fiscal year following incorporation.
Quimby Act Park Revenues. Some subdivisions would be too small or inappropriately located to dedicate land.
In this instance the cash equivalent would be paid into a city fund restricted to purchasing and developing
park lands.
State Bond Park Revenue. The State of California has bond issue money which can be made available to local
governments for park development. Since the amount which might be available to Grand Terrace cannot at
this time be estimated, no revenue is shown from this source.
II-7
APPENDIX III
BASIC EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
(See Accompanying Comments)
F I S C A L Y E A R
1977- 1978- 1979- 1980- 1981- 1982-
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
GENERAL FUND
City Council $ 7,100 $ 7,526 $ 7,978 $ 8,456 $ 8,964 $ 9,501
Elections 4,500 4,770 5,056 5,360 5,881 6,022
City Manager 61,200 64,872 68,764 72,890 77,264 81,900
City Attorney 12,600 13,356 14,157 15,007 15,907 16,862
Finance 41,200 43,672 46,292 49,070 52,014 55,135
Engineering 12,500 13,250 14,045 14,888 15,780 16,728
Non-Departmental 59,100 62,646 66,405 70,389 74,612 79,089
Storm Drainage
Level 2 15,375 16,298 17,275 18,312 19,411 20,572
Level 3 14,375 15,238 16,152 17,121 18,148 19,237
Street Maintenance
72,785 77,152 81,781 86,688 91,889 97,403
Level 2
Level 3 88,160 93,450 99,OS7 104,940 111,299 117,978
Street Sweeping
Level 2 700 779 867 965 1,074 1,196
Level 3 4,000 4,452 4,955 5,515 6,138 6,832
Level 4 8,000 8,904 9,910 11,030 12,276 13,664
Street Lighting -- -- -- -- -- --
Transportation 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Fire Service
Level 2 191,250 202,725 214,889 227,782 241,449 25S,936
Level 3 336,450 356,637 378,035 400,717 424,760 450,240
Law Enforcement
Level 2 156,863 166,275 176,251 186,826 198,036 209,918
Level 3 209,755 222,340 2359681 249,822 264,811 280,700
Animal Regulation -- -- -- -- -- --
Parks
Level 2 32,750 34,715 36,798 39,006 41,346 43,827
Level 3 32,750 34,715 36,798 39,006 41,346 43,827
Recreation
Level 2 7,500 7,950 8,427 8,933 9,469 10,037
Planning
Level 2 12,000 12,720 13,483 14,292 15,158 16,059
Building Regulation
Level 2 23,360 24,761 26,247 27,822 29,491 31,261
Contingencies @ 5% 36,000 38,200 40,400 42,400 45,500 48,200
TOTAL-GENERAL FUND-- WILL VARY DEPENDING ON SELECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE
GAS TAX FUND
--Barton Rd.-La CAdena/I-15 -- -- -- -- -- 110,000
--Barton Rd. at Southern
Pacific R.R. -- -- -- 50,000 70,000 --
--Barton Rd, overcrossing I-15 -- -- 3,000 --
-- --
--Barton Rd., Mt. Vernon Avenue/
I-15 -- 51,000 40,000 333,000 -- --
--Vivienda Avenue at Southern
Pacific R.R. -- -- -- -- 300,000 --
TOTAL-GAS TAX FUND -- $ 51,000 $ 43,000 $383,000 $370,000 $110,000
III-1
APPENDIX III
PROJECTIONS
1977- 1978- 1979- 1980- 1981- 1982-
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Fire Station and Furnishings -- -- $ 21,798 $ 21,798 $ 21,798 $ 21,798
Fire $ Paramedic Apparatus -- -- 14,415 14,415 14,415 14,415
Add 15 Acres Parks -- -- 36,620 36,620 36,620 36,620
Civic Center Site $ Develop -- -- 26,157 26,157 26,157 26,157
City Hall $ Furnishings -- -- 52,314 52,314 52,314 52,314
TOTAL - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND -- -- $ 151,304 $ 151,304 $ 151,304 $ 151,304
II1-2
APPENDIX III COMMENTS
BASIC EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
As a basis for future expenditure projections the current costs which would be associated with an incorporated
City of Grand Terrace have been estimated and shown in the 1977-78 (first) column. An annual inflation rate
of 6% is allowed for each successive year for almost all expenditures. When that rate is varied the reason is
noted in these comments. All of these estimates are based on incorporation of the total 5.9 square mile cur-
rently unincorporated Grand Terrace area and must be adjusted when only a portion of that area is considered.
In some instances more than one level of service for a particular operation will be shown. This permits the
community to chose the appropriate level of service and if desired, to change levels during the five year
projection period. For these reasons, no total expenditure costs are provided in this basic summary. Totals
can be provided only when the appropriate levels of service have been selected and the size of the proposed
city determined,should it be smaller than the 5.9 square mile total area.
General Fund
Because of the general comparability of the City of Loma Linda to the possible City of Grand Terrace, the
former city's recent budgets were examined in detail and used as a guide and a check list to assure inclusion
of all appropriate expenditures in this schedule. Knowledge of other similarly sized and situated cities also
was called on by the PAS staff.
City Council. The 1977-78 City Council expenditures for a City of Grand Terrace should it currently exist, are
estimated as follows:
1 Mayor @ $50 per meeting for 26 meetings/year. . . . . . . $1,300
4 Council persons @ $25 per meeting for 26 meetings/year. . . . 2,600
Total Personnel Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3,900
Travel, Meetings and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,400
Memberships $ Dues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Printing, Office 8 Miscellaneous Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . 500
Total Other Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,200
Total - City Council Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,100
Clerical support would be provided by the City Manager's office.
Elections. Total supplies and materials for the conduct of local elections are estimated to cost $4,500.
The City Clerk is responsible for the conduct of all local elections.
Total Elections Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$4,500
City Manager. Current expenditures for the operation of a City Manager's office are shown below:
City Manager/City Clerk @ $2,200 per month. . . . . . . . . . .$263400
Executive Secretary/Deputy City Clerk @ $900 per month. . . . . 10,800
Clerk Typist @ $600 per month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,200
Fringe Benefits @ 25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,100
Total Personnel Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55,500
Automobile @ $150 per month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,800
Travel, Meetings 8 Training . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13200
Memberships $ Dues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Printing, Office & Miscellaneous Supplies . . . . . . . . . 2,500
Total Other Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,700
Total - City Manager Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $61,200
City Attorney. City Attorney services can be provided through a retainer arrangement with a legal firm experienced
in municipal law. The retainer would cover legal services for the City Council,City Manager and staff
requiring services. Major litigation requiring extensive research and preparation would be billed on a separate
case basis whenever needed and authorized by the City Council.
City Attorney Retainer @ $800 monthly . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 9,600
Additional Professional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500
Travel, Meetings $ Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
Memberships and Dues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Total City Attorney Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12,600
Secretarial services and miscellaneous supplies would be provided by the contracting legal firm.
II1-3
APPENDIX III
Finance. This budget assumes the provision of an Administrative Services Officer who would serve as an assistant
to the City Manager with specific responsibilities for finance, business licenses, purchasing and assisting the
City Manager in detailed administration of contracts.
Administrative Services Officer @ $1500 per month. . . . . . _ . . 18,000
Business License Clerk @ $700 per month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,400
Fringe Benefits @ 25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,600
Total Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$33,000
Travel, meetings, and training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000
Annual Audit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000
Dues & Memberships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Printing, Office F, Miscellaneous Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000
Total Other Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,200
Total Finance Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 200
Engineering. This budget item anticipates the City contracting with a consulting engineering firm to act as
professional advisor to the City and serve as City Engineer on a limited basis. Major engineering undertakings
involving capital construction would be authorized and paid for separately, chargable to the project cost.
City Engineer Retainer @ 1,000 monthly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12,000
Travel, meetings and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
Memberships & Dues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Total Engineering Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$12,500
Non-Departmental. This account covers miscellaneous costs which are not easily directly attributed to one
particular department. Insurance costs shown here do not include health, worker's compensation, social security
and any other insurance associated with employment. Those costs are included in the 25% Fringe Benefits allow-
ance on all budgeted departmental salaries.
*
Building Rental--2000 sq. ft. @ 55� per month . . . . . . . . . . . $13,200
General Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,000
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000
City-wide Memberships F, Dues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,700
Central Printing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,200
Total Non-Departmental Expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$59,100
* Until City Hall is constructed.
Storm Drainage. Costs for these service levels are detailed in Chapter IV--Alternate Service Levels.
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost
Level 2 . . . . . . . Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15,375
Level 3 . . . . . . . City Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,375
Level 4 . . . . . . . Not Applicable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Street Maintenance. The detail of costs for various levels of street maintenance are shown in Chapter IV.
Level 1 . . . . . . . Not Applicable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 2 . . . . . . . Contract Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $65,385
Level 3 . . . . . . . Contract Including Storm Drain. . . . . . . . 80,760
Street Sweeping. Chapter IV more fully outlines costs for this service.
Level 1 . . . . . . . No sweeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost
Level 2 . . . . . . . Every 6 months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 700
Level 3 . . . . . . . Every month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000
Level 4 . . . . . . . Twice monthly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000
Level 5 . . . . . . . Not Applicable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Projections allow for 5% annual growth in the miles of curbed streets to be swept in addition to the standard
6% inflation factor.
III-4
APPENDIX III
Street Lighting. Neither level of street lighting service relating to incorporation as outlined in Chapter IV
would result in general city expenditures, but anticipate continued use of user financed districts.
Transportation. Bus service is currently subsidized in the Grand Terrace area through funds received from
S.B.325, state gasoline sales taxes.
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Continued level of funding . . . . . $30,000
Because of the uncertainty of this program neither the expenditure nor its related revenue are increased in
future projections.
Fire Service. A variety of potential service levels are fully explained in Chapter IV.
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . .
Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 191,350
Level 3 . . . . . . Contract Inca. Paramedic. . . . . . . . . . . 356,450
Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 5 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Available
Level 6 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . . . .
Law Enforcement. Current costs for alternate levels of law enforcement are defined in Chapter IV.
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . .
Level 2 . . . . . . 1 Unit - 24 hours $ helicopter . . . . . . . .$156 863
Level 3 . . . . . . 1-2/3 units'- 24 hours & helicopter. . . . . . 204,755
Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . . . .
Animal Regulation. Neither level of service outlined in Chapter IV anticipates any direct expenditures, nor
are fees shown in the revenues, since these would be retained by a contractor as payment for the service.
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . Contract with County . . . . . . . . No Direct Cost
Parks. As defined in Chapter IV the following costs are shown where applicable for an incorporated city:
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . No parks to maintain . . . . . . . . No Cost
Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . Quimby Act $ Overhead Costs. . . . . $32,7SO
Level 3 . . . . . . .Quimby $ Purchase & 32,750
Recreation. Summarized below are the recreation service levels described in Chapter IV.
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . No recreation program. . . . . . . . No Cost
Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . Limited summer program . . . . . . . $ 7,500
Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . . . .
Planning. Described in Chapter IV under the main heading of "Land Use Controls" the following alternate
service levels are defined:
Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant or Retainer . . . . . . . $12,000
Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable . . . . . . . . . . .
Building Regulation. Alternate levels are fully defined in Chapter IV.
Level I . . . . . . . . . . . Contract County Services . . . . No direct costs
Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . Level 1 & Environmental Coordinator $ 23,360
Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . Not Applicable
Gas Tax Fund
For the purposes of initially calculating expenditures from this fund, only the major street construction projects
included in the San Bernardino County Road Department's six-year capital construction program are included. Assum-
ing November, 1978 incorporation the following four year program leaves $114,802 -in unspent local monies in this
fund. Added to the partial year (1978-79) accumulations, approximately $150,000 in local match or project money
should be available to substantially expedite and expand the major street development program currently planned.
III-5
APPENDIX III
Should matching federal and state money not be available to speed up this capital program construction, or
should a City Council decide to utilize the surplus in a different manner, any or all of the annual surplus
could be applied toward street maintenance or construction costs.
Capital Improvement Fund
The 34.984 tax rate per $100 assessed valuation currently paid to finance various county services produces
$649,135 during a four-year period, outdistancing the cost to amortize all capital improvement needs shown
in Chapter V by $43,919. The surplus of revenue over expenditures grows each year and reaches $35,587 for
the last year of this projection. Costs for all improvements, defined as level 4 in the chapter "Capital
Budget Projections," are based on 20 year financing for all improvements except fire and paramedic equipment,
which is amortized over 15 years. Add costs are projected to be amortized on a conservative schedule at
6% interest.
III-6
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
L.A.F.C. COUPE! I -� OF SAN It` RNARUINO
1111 East Mill Street, Building 1, 2nd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415 • (714) 383-2611
October 18 , 1977
Municipal Advisory Council - Grand Terrace
22038 Van Buren
Colton, California 92324
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The LAFC Staff has been asked the procedure which will be
followed relating to the request for review of the Sphere of
Influence for the City of Colton and the subsequent consultants
report.
We will outline this for you: (for review)
1 . Last spring the City of Colton made a request
of the LAFC to review its Sphere of Influence
2 . In response to requests for information from
Staff:
a. The City of Colton responded with appropriate
data.
b. The Community of Grand Terrace requested
that the Sphere review be deferred until
it had an opportunity to review its options.
3 . Subsequently, the County (on behalf of the ex-
tended Grand Terrace Community) entered into
contract with Public Administration Service (a
private consulting firm) to review and make a
report which would outline the options for
governmental services which might be available
to the Community.
4 . ' The Staff will place the review of the Sphere
of Influence of the City of Colton on the Decem-
ber 14th LAFC Hearing Agenda.
coMnnl�,InNI=..f<s.
VVII I I,\ 1 HARTZE111 , P,il,lit:_Mlami,�''r, Chairman nt S.
JA^AI '; f IAYFIELD, Buarcl of Sul,rarvisor, MIKE: c;. Jihlf fii :', I:nia;r:': r:1rt, I-
H J'\101'-S GILLIAM. (:uunc:itntan, Bat-stow NORNIPP FCF`Wi - I I c d (-i;ti
HE.fiALD Br_RTOLOI II. SIx!c-ial i)i.tricts
AL.TF ',NA IES
EF1NA '".t HUII ING, I' rhli; Mcn'rl+., C`f=i,1".II I1 "+' !;r.' !;, I;n:•
LEONARD FRKETIC:H, Ctn,ric:ihrian. (rhino PAW Cl f'..(?N "1 I I)WIq 1
WALTFR UNDERHILL,Sr�,:cial Districts-- ROItFRF B. RIt;NE e Fyerw iveWficer IV — 1 . — I r.Iii ! Ilr fillr,[ nl E
• A COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR SAN t PFf1NAfl DliJI1 ' i of`� ":III
Municipal Advisory Council
Grand Terrace - page Two
October 18 , 1977
That hearing will include :
The Staff report which will include the LAFC
concept for Spheres of Influence, will include
the City of Colton data input, and will outline
the various alternatives open to the Commission.
The Commission will hear the report from the City
of Colton (if it chooses to make one) .
The Commission will receive any input from the
public (or from Grand Terrace MAC) if there are
people who wish to be heard.
The Commission will then consider whether or not
changes should be made to the existing City . of
Colton Sphere of Influence.
It may well be that there will be additional information
requested by the Commission or that the Commission may need
more time to study the information presented.
Its possible that the Commission may wish to visit the
Sphere Area before reaching a final decision.
In this case, the Commission will continue the Nearing
until January 11 , 1978 and possibly reach a decision at that
time.
In considering the position the Community of Grand Terrace
might take relating to the Sphere of Influence Hearing, the
Staff feels that on this issue the Community has the following
options :
1. It can recommend that the Grand Terrace
Community be included within the City of
Colton Sphere of Influence, and this would
mean that in the long range the urban
services for Grand Terrace would be supplied
by the City of Colton.
2 . It can recommend that on the basis that
Grand Terrace is or wishes to be an in-
dependent Community that it be left out
of the Sphere of Influence of Colton and
be given its own Community Sphere.
In this event, the Community must define
what it perceives to be the Grand Terrace
Community, and explain to the Commission
the public entity or source from which
it expects to receive needed present and
future urban services .
IV-2.
Municipal Advisory Council
Grand Terrace - Page Three
October 18 , 1977
It shall be the position of the Staff that as a Community
becomes an "urban" area, it should become (in its own self
interest) more than a combination of county and special district
urban services .
It should either become a multi-purpose special district, or
incorporate into a City, or annex to a City capable of supplying
urban services needs .
Looking at the various options and determining which option
will best meet the needs of people who are in the areas surround-
ing the City of Colton will be the thrust of the Sphere of In-
fluence Hearing.
The MAY- and other interested people should be prepared to
speak to these
ese issues at the December Hearing.
Cordial
Larry Hendon, Assista t Executive Officer
LHH: sp
cc : Supervisor Dennis Hansberger
Al Reid - Special Districts
City Manager - City of Colton
IV-3.
CE /vT
FRT p RI.
Q�fN 0
F�
o
? CITY OF COLTON
As AM,
PfNOE
C°MM0
November 9 , 1977
Public Administration Service
c/o Special Districts Department
1111 West Mill Street
San Bernardino , California 92415
ATTN : Lee Weber
Dear Mr. Weber :
By separate cover , Colton ' s comments on provision of services
to the unincorporated areas south of Colton , are being pro-
vided. The purpose of this note is to provide and suggest
corrections and other constructive criticisms for your interim
drafts "Grand Terrace Public Services Study" .
Population Projections
The basic approach used is reasonable . Your statement that
"the Grand Terrace sanitary sewer collection and treatment
capacity is fully adequate for the five-year period of growth
projected in this report" is very questionable . Considering
Colton ' s growth and resultant demands on treatment capacity at
the Water Quality Control Plant , the projected growth may not
be achievable .
Assessed Valuations
These projections may be too optimistic . Directly correlating
A-V to population does not consider the slower rate historically
found for utilities . Assuming an annual compound rate of 2% for
utilities only , the following A-V projections are found :
Fiscal Year Estimated Total Valuation
�o\-uTIOA, 1977-78 $27 ,403 ,000
o, 1978-79 $31 ,631 ,000
C)�2 1979-80 $38 ,627 ,000
v m 1980-81 $42 ,071 ,000
1981 -82 $45 ,829 ,000
�b M^ate 1982-83 $49 ,924 ,000
U ?6-1916
COLTON CIVIC CENTER 650 NORTH LA CADENA DRIVE COLTON, CALIFORNIA 92324 (714) 825-3110
SISTER CITY • CANANEA, SONORA, MEXICO
V-1
Mr. Lee Weber
November 9 , 1977
Page Two
The net result of this is a $3 , 503 ,000 lessening of A-V in
1982-83 and a cumulation reduction in A-V for the entire period
of $13 ,206 ,000 . This would affect the setting of tax rates and
projected incomes therefrom.
Electric
Colton has the legal right to acquire all of Edison ' s facilities
within the corporate limits of Colton . This right cannot and
does not eliminate Edison ' s absolute responsibility to provide
service and maintain this system. State law and PUC orders re-
quire maintenance at a safe and serviceable level . A later pur-
chase would repay the investment . " Indefiniteness of Electric
Service levels " is a straw-man .
Fire Service
Cost projections are probably too low. They assume three men
can man a station around the clock for a full year. Due to vaca-
tion , sick leave , and other absences , the minimum figure is closer
to four (4) men for constant manning . This would raise all other
projected level of service costs accordingly .
This portion of your report discussed issuance of bonds . If this
is intended to include general obligation bonds , it should be
noted a 2/3 majority vote is required in order for a City to issue .
If a 2/3 vote could not be obtained , the projected 6% interest
rate would be extremely low.
Library
Level II indicates construction of a County library in a City
Hall complex . Immediate accomplishment of this is highly im-
probable unless agreed to by County in advance .
Recreation
General obligation bonds are again mentioned but not the 2/3
vote requirement. If overall development is limited due to
limited sewage treatment capacity , projected monies from that
construction for park acquisition and development would be
drastically reduced .
v—2
Mr. Lee Weber
November 9 , 1977
Page Three
Revenue and Expense
I would like to delay my comments on the revenue and expense
portions of the draft report because the expense portion has
not been provided to the City . However , I would like to
point out some general things in the expenditure area and in
the revenue projections .
Expenses
I don ' t know if this will be addressed in the next portion of
the report , but some expenditures which were not addressed in
the service levels are : street striping and signing expendi -
tures ; street tree maintenance programs ; engineering and design
costs ; curb , gutter and sidewalk programs ; city administration ;
a city attorney ; a city finance function ; the highly expensive
provision of liability and other types of insurance ; interim
City Hall facilities ; and , general overhead expenditures , such
as utilities , office supplies , equipment , etc .
Revenue
The revenue projections have two areas that are of concern and
may be potentially misleading to a casual reader of the report .
The basic revenue projections include $168 ,000 in the first year
from a utilities tax . This tax is only available to charter
cities and is not available to general law cities . Additionally ,
the first year utilities tax cost is estimated to be equivalent
to a tax rate of . 6U per $100 of assessed valuation .
The revenue projections also propose a construction tax which
is a one-time charge imposed on new construction . This tax is
projected as a general fund source which means they are projecting
one-time revenue for the provision of ongoing operating costs .
This certainly is not illegal , but should be considered as a
potential future problem.
The revenue growth rates , in some cases , may be optimistic . For
instance , the growth between the first and second years for the
utilities tax is estimated at 24% . The growth between the second
and third years is estimated at 23% and the growth in all future
years projected is 10% .
The growth in the sales and use tax is estimated at 14% from year
one to year two , 12% from year two to year three , 12% from year
v-3
Mr. Lee Weber
November 9 , 1977
Page Four
three to year four , and 8% for the remaining projected years .
That consistent level of increase may be optimistic . It tends
to disregard any near-term cyclical movements in the economy .
The capital improvement fund projection begins in 1979-80 and
runs through 1982-83 . It is based upon a tax rate of $0 . 3498
per $100 of assessed valuation . The revenue realized from this
source would be less than the amounts listed if my assessed
valuation numbers previously reported were used rather than yours .
Very truly u s
THOMAS CALABRESE
City Manager
TJC :mr
cc : Mayor & Council
Board of Supervisors
Municipal Advisory Council Members
City of Loma Linda
San Bernardino Assn . of Governments
Local Agency Formation Commission
V-4
i O F
CITY OF COETON
1887
OR���
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: November 9, 1977
FILE NUMBER:
FROM: Thomas J. Calabrese, City Manager
SUBJECT: COMPARISON OF SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS SOUTH OF
COL`fON AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED IF THESE AREAS ARE ANNEXED
RE: Public Administration Service Report on Public Services Study for Grand
Terrace
For the purposes of this comparison, the same format as provided in the PAS report
is utilized. Services are addressed in the same order and arrangement.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The PAS report lists services provided in the unincorporated areas south of Colton
as telephone, gas , electric, refuse, water, and sanitary sewer.
Telephone service is provided by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. The basic
prefix for Colton is 825; for the unincorporated areas south of Colton, 783. The
825 prefix serves a much larger area. If annexation occurs, the City of Colton
would petition the telephone company to change tine prefix used in the unincor-
porated areas south of Colton.
Natural�Cas service to the unincorporated areas south of Colton is provided by the
Southern California Gas Co. Colton is supplied by the same source. This nation is
facing impending shortages of natural gas and resultant rate increases . The City of
Colton, as a political entity, has consistently taken a position in favor of addi-
tional natural gas services to the Southern California area and will continue to do
SO.
Electric !itility service to the unincorporated areas south of Colton is provided by
the Southern California Edison Company. The City of Colton serves the majority of
residents and businessmen within its own corporate boundaries . Others are served by
Southern California Edison. The City of Colton purchases electricity from the
Southern California Edison Company for resale to its customiers.
The City of Colton would have the option of purchasing and operating the electric
distribution system within the unincorporated areas south of Colton if annexed to
the City of Co)ton. The PAS report states "Edison may be detered from making de-
sirable, i,,,ipri,vewents being unsure as to when, if ever. Colton would move to acquire."
It -is felt this statenment is false and mrsleadinc, as- stitle law and tht enforcement
acti;i ti cs of the Public [I-i 1 i t i os Comm i ssi o,, of the State of California t;oul d force
and re'rjuire Edison Coin-my to ser%./e and t)rovide a -1cli;ato amounts ot, electrical eneriv,
V-5
Mayor and City Council
November 9, 1977
Page Two
If the service was later to be purchased by the City, fair market value is paid
under all condemnation proceedings, and in the case of a complex appraisal problem
such as an electrical facility, fair market value includes within it estimates of
the present value of the future income stream from utilization of those improvements.
San Bernardino County presently regulates private refuse haulers and their rates for
the unincorporated areas south of Colton. Refuse collection services, twice weekly
pick up in residential areas for $4 a month, are provided by the City within the
corporate limits of Colton. If the unincorporated areas south of Colton annexed,
present haulers would be notified that they have three years to discontinue service
at which time the City of Colton would opt to provide service. Under present refuse
ordinances and regulations all houses or businesses must subscribe for refuse service
in order to provide a healthy and esthetic environment.
Water for the unincorporated areas south of Colton is presently served by the City of
Colton or the Riverside Highland Water Company, a privately owned mutual water company
in business since 1898. Based upon the information in the PAS report it appears that
the Riverside Highland Water Company can provide an annual volume which is adequate
to provide water for the projected population of the unincorporated areas. If these
areas were annexed to the City of Colton, a determination would have to be made as to
long run benefits for provision of coordinated services and planned orderly develop-
ment according to the need of the City and possible acquisition of Riverside Highland
Water Company's services in these areas. The City b f Colton presently has more than
adequate water capacity to serve these areas.
With the changes in federal and state laws , the provision of sanitary sewer services
has in recent years become critical to continuation or growth of communities. Pre-
sently the City of Colton provides this vital service for the unincorporated areas
south of Colton. There is no other reasonable, viable, economical alternative for
provision of this service to these areas .
PUBLIC WORKS
Public works services provided in the unincorporated areas south of Colton include
storm drainage, streets , street sweeping, street lighting, and transportation.
Provision for flood control and storm drainage are minimal and inadequate for the
unincorporated areas south of Colton. The San Bernardino County Flood Control Dis-
trict is -concerned with regional flood control problems and properly so. Provision
of local drainage systems is the responsibility of a city and annexation of the
unincorporated areas south of Colton to the City of Colton would logically and pro-
perly solve these problems. The City of Colton is in a better position to obtain
federal or other fundings for drainage and street capital improvements . Annexation
would immediately provide the alternative of utilizing redevelopment agency authority
to improve existing storm drainage with no increase in taxes.
The report states that present street services provided by the County appear to be
both "inadequate" and that "some increases in the level of maintenance should be ex-
pected regardless of w,hi ch direction the area moves in r'est•ructur i ng local, government. "
It is beyond a reasonable man's expectation that service levels will improve by doing
nothing.
V-F
Mayor and City Council
November 9, 1977
Page Four
paramedic equipped as a back up unit. This unit would respond to additional calls
should the primary unit be on call . A chief officer would respond to all struc-
tural fires or any incident requiring two or more engine company response. Outside
of the construction cost of the third fire station for which land has already been
purchased and is available, all costs could be assumed under the general tax rate.
Police services are presently provided by the Sheriff's Office of San Bernardino
County. When a unit is available for patrol , that unit is assigned to an area
designated as "Area 6" which encompasses ,Nest Colton, Slover Mountain, County un-
incorporated territory of La Loma Hills to Riverside Avenue and extending to the
Riverside County line, Grand Terrace county area, Reche Canyon, and county areas
south of Norton Air Force Base and west of Tippecanoe. This 14.5 square miles is
more than twice the size of Grand Terrace. If the unincorporated areas south of
Colton were to annex to the City of Colton, Colton would provide the same total
police services for all citizens and businesses presently provided within the City
of Colton. This would include patrol services , calls for services and inspection
of commercial establishments. This would be accomplished by placing one police
unit in the unincorporated areas south of Colton on a 24 hour basis. Helicopter
back up patrol services would also be provided. Animal control services, detec-
tive services and back up administrative costs would also be provided as a part of
the basic tax rate. in the opinion of the police chief of the City of Colton,
these provisions would provide a much much higher level of police service than
the residents and businessmen of the unincorporated- areas south of Colton presently
receive. The felonv crime statistics contained within the PAS report indicate a
high property loss w,rhich may be correlated with poor to inadequate police patrol
within these areas. Regular patrol has been often shown to be a deterent to pro-
perty loss. Consistent detective follow!-up of crimes and crossing guard programs
are further deterents to the type of crimes mentioned.
LEISURE SERVICES
Leisure services in the unincorporated areas south of Colton consist of library .
and parks and recreation services .
Library services are provided throughout the County by means of a library district
with a tax levy of $1 .524 per $100 of assessed valuation. Some Grand Terrace resi-
dents use the Riverside County Library on Center Street in Highgrove. However, it
is felt the unincorporated areas south of Colton have historically looked to Colton
for library services. Prior to the California Public Library Services Act of 1957,
the Colton Library received funds and material fror,► the County library -in exchange
for giving library services to these areas. Since then, the Joint Powers Agreement
for the Inland Library System assures equal access to all libraries in the system and
Colton has continued to allow; service to residents of the unincorporated areas with-
out reimbursement but with some sharing of materials . The County does provide
occasional book mobile service but the two nearest branch libraries are in Loma
Linda and {rialto. If the unincorporated areas south of Colton annexed, the resi-
dents and businessmen would have absolute right to use the Colton Library and its
materials and services . if these areas do not annex, the City would have the option
V-7
Mayor and City Council
November 9, 1977
Page Three
Provision of street services, including street striping and signing which are ex-
cluded as cost items from the PAS report, can be provided within the regular tax
rate applied within the City of Colton if this area annexes. If it is true that
street improvements have not been provided in these areas due to the recent con-
struction of sanitary sewer facilities , these improvements should be immediately
required of the County in order to reduce short-term and long-range costs.
Street sweeping is a non-regular program in the unincorporated areas south of
Colton. The City of Colton provides street sweeping services in residential areas
at a level of every other week. The annual cost is based on an approximate cost
of $3.75 a curbed mile and is included in the basic tax rate. This would provide
a drastic improvement in services to residents with comparable benefits to the
commercial areas.
Very limited street lighting is presently provided through a tax rate imposed by
the County services area SLI ($0.1740 per $100 of assessed valuation) . These
lights are provided by the Edison Company at a cost of $8,248 annually. This is
$87.85 per year per light, or $7.31 per month per light. Colton has 2,500 street
lights. Colton now pays $72,000 for its 2,500 street lights per year. . This costs
out to a substantial savings in the amount provided for street lighting if these
areas annex to the City of Colton and Colton provides street lighting.
Annexation to the City of Colton would immediately upgrade the transportation ser-
vices available in the unincorporated areas south of Colton by the ,provision of a
Dial-A-Ride program at no additional cost to the residents . Colton's Dial-A-Ride
,program is funded out of SB 325 monies with the charge of only 5U per ride to the
residents. By annexation to the City of Colton, the City's representative on the
Omnitrans Board would be in a highly advantageous position to assist in bus trans-
portation routing and improvements. The Mayor of the City of Colton is also Chairman
of the East `alley Transit Service Authority which approves and recommends i,erouting
to the Omnitrans Board. The Mayor of Colton is also on the executive board of the
San Bernardino Association of Governments which is the regional clearinghouse in
transportation matters.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Public safety services provided in the unincorporated areas south of Colton include
fire services, police or law enforcement services, and animal regulation.
Fire protection and rescue service in the unincorporated areas south of Colton are
currently being provided by the San Bernardino County Forestry and Fire Warden
Departments. The nearest fire station is in Loma Linda. If the unincorporated
areas south of Colton annexed to the City of Colton, fire protection and paramedic
service would be provided. Colton is currently planning a third fire station within
minute response to most of the unincorporated areas . The level of fire protection
would include: (1 ) residential areas --- response by two engine companies and a
paramedic unit; (2) commercial areas --- response by three engine companies and a
paramedic unit; (3) paramedic and rescue responses Would be provided through the
paramedic unit with an engine company back up. The department also has a second
V-8
Mayor and City Council
November 9, 1977
Page Five
of discontinuing allowance of use of its library services and materials for resi-
dents of the unincorporated areas.
Neither parks nor community oriented recreation services are currently provided
within the unincorporated areas south of Colton. Annexation to Colton would pro-
vide a specific program for park land acquisition and development within these
unincorporated areas which would be funded by new construction. Historically
residents of these unincorporated areas have utilized recreation and park services
of the City of Colton at no cost. Residents and businessmen of Colton pay for
maintenance and operation of these facilities through the basic tax rate. If the
unincorporated areas south of Colton annexed, they would share equitably in the
cost for maintenance and operation of these recreation systems and for maintenance
and operation of future systems to be constructed. If the unincorporated areas
south of Colton were not to annex, Colton could consider a policy decision limiting
access to its parks and recreation activities to residents and businessmen of Colton
as they are the ones paying for these programs.
SOCIAL SERVICES
PAS reports that a variety of social services are provided for the unincorporated
areas south of Colton through the San Bernardino County Environmental Improvement
Agency, Health Care Services Agency, and the Law Enforcement and Justice Agency.
If the unincorporated areas south of Colton annexed. to Colton, in addition to
these County-provided services, which are provided to all , social service pro-
gramming could be improved through access to the two new social service programming
centers under construction at Municipal and Veterans Parks in the City of Colton.
LAND USE CONTROLS
The PAS report states that land use controls occur through the application of
planning, zoning, subdivision and building regulations by San Bernardino County
Staff. One of the greatest benefits to the people residing in the unincorporated
areas south of Colton if they annex to the City of Colton would be their ease of
input into the Colton planning process. Annexation would greatly facilitate their
local control of development. The Building and Safety Department for the City of
Colton presently provides -inspection programs with one-day service. It is currently
understood County inspections are delayed up to two or three days from time of call .
CAPITAL IPIPROVEMENTS
The PAS report stresses the need for construction of a civic center complex to in-
clude among other things city hall , public safety facilities , post office and
library. If the unincorporated areas south of Colton annex to Colton, there will
be no programmed, immediate or long-term, costs for construction of a city hall
complex as the City of Colton already has a Civic Center complex. As discussed
before, there is and will continue to be a need for a third fire station. The
third fire station is in the capital improvements program adopted by the City
Council of the City of Colton. Construction is considered probable within a few
years, or earlier if annexation occurs.
V-9
Mayor and City Council
November 9, 1977
Page Six
There would be no immediate need for construction of a library; however, in the
long run, some provision need be made for expanding the services of the library,
possibly by an outlying station to serve these southern portions. Also considered
priorities in the capital improvement program are construction of City "yards" to
house present equipment, and construction of a water reservoir to insure adequate
water flow and pressure for fire protection and service to residential and commer-
cial establishment in southern portions of the City. These constructions would
also benefit the unincorporated areas south of Colton if they annex to Colton.
BUDGET PROJECTIONS
If the unincorporated areas south of Colton annex to Colton application of the
basic tax rate of $1 .8357 per $100 assessed valuation and other in-lieu taxes
will provide income assuring provision of comparable services as provided in pre-
sent corporate Colton. It can be stated that there will be no property tax rate
increase as a result of annexation while services will be provided for the first
time or at a greatly increased level .
It must also be stated those living in the unincorporated areas south of Colton do
not have to fear a drastically increased tax rate in the near future. Property
tax increases are limited bystate law and major revisions must be voted in by the
people.
Colton's present full service tax rate application is shown in comparison to rates/
costs for present County service taxes in the unincorporated areas south of Colton
in attached Chart No. 1 .
CONCLUSION
New or additional services to be provided if the unincorporated areas south of Colton
annex to Colton:
Police services --- 24 hour patrol service, response within limited time to calls for
service, inspection of commercial establishments. Helicopter back-up patrol ser-
vice will also be provided. Detective follow-up and crossing guard programs will
also be provided. Animal control services will be provided in response to calls
and in patrol .
Fire services --- fire protection and paramedic with two to four-minute response from
soon-to-be constructed Fire Station No. 3. Back-up engines and paramedic unit are
available.
Street services --- street needs would be included in a master plan with new construc-
tion and maintenance programs implemented.
Planning --- growth control and economic development must be Master Planned. These
reports and policy instruments must be periodically reviewed and can be through
locally controlled Planning Commission dnd City Council . Annexation will provide
local control in the hc-rnds of those living and affected by these decisions.
v-10
Mayor and City Council
November 9, 1977
Page Seven
Recreation services --- development tax and programming for eventual recreation
needs would be developed and implemented based on public input.
Telephone services --- Colton would petition Pacific Telephone to extend the 825
prefix into the newly annexed areas providing a much larger service area with-
out extending costs.
Capital improvements --- pursuit of grant programs and use of the Redevelopment
Law provisions to reduce costs of needed storm drains , streets, and other
public improvements.
Administrative services --- existing professional staff, serving residents full
time.
ist
Attachment
V-11
CHART NO. 1
CITY Or COLTON
COMPARISON OF CURRENT UNINCORPORATED AREAS
SOUTH OF COLTON TAX RATE WITHOUT CITY SERVICES
AND CITY OF COLTON TAX RATE FOR FULL CITY SERVICES
(l)County Service Colton Tax Annual Tax Monthly
Current ilarb:et Tax $0. 3498 (2) $1 .8357 (2) Difference Difference
'Jalue of Assessed Less $1750 With No City With Full City For Full City For Full City
;!Dose Value (25%) Homeowners Ex. Services (3r _ Services (3) Services Services
w 20,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,250 $11 .37 $ 59.66 1" 48.29 $ 4.02
30,000 7,500 5,750 20.11 105.55 85.44 7.12
40,000 10,000 8,250 28.86 151 .45 122.59 10.22
50,000 12,500 10,750 37.60 197.34 159.74 13.31
60,000 15,000 13,250 46.35 243.2.3 196.88 16.41
70.000 17,500 15,750 55.09 289.12 234.03 19.50
30,000 20,000 18,250 63.84 335.02 271 .18 22.60
90,CC0 22,500 20,750 72.58 380.91 308.33 25.69
100,O00 25,000 23,250 81 .33 426.80 345.47 28.79
(1 ) Street Lighting District
#1 cast not included.
;2) Tax rates shown are in dollars per $100 of assessed valuation.
(3) Annual cost.
V-12
CITY OF LOMA LINDA
J-11
P. O. Box 965, Loma Linda, California 92354 • Tel. (714)796-2531
LOMFrom the Office of: City Manager
CA
November 21 , 1977
Lee Weber, Public Administration Service
c/o Special Districts Department of San Bernardino County
1111 E. Mill Street - Building B-1 , 2nd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415
SUBJECT: GRAND TERRACE STUDY
Dear Lee:
Your studies concerning the community of Grand Terrace and its future
which have been submitted to us have been submitted in their entirety to
the City Council of the City of Loma Linda.
At the regular meeting of October 25, 1977 the City Council was asked
to submit any comments that they might wish to make in connection with
these studies and their possible future involvement with the City of Loma
Linda. It was the unanimous opinion of the City Council that this office
be authorized and directed to inform you that should the community of
Grand Terrace incorporate as a city and at that time desires to explore
the possibilities of joint municipal cooperation for the purpose of bene-
fiting both of the communities, then, in that event, this City would be
interested in entering into such discussions.
This above obviously reflects a general policy of the City Council .
They are always interested in exploring means of saving taxpayers money.
If joint municipal cooperation will result in savings, then they wish to
explore any such possibilities.
In the event of the incorporation of Grand Terrace, we look forward
to co-operating with them.
Sincerely yo
Robert R. Mitchell
City Manager/Clerk'
RRM/nc
VI-1 .