05/12/2011 - SP PENDING CRA APPROVAL
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 10, 2011
r.
A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace,was held in
the Council Chambers,Grand Terrace Civic Center,22795 Barton Road,Grand Terrace,California,
on May 10, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Walt Stanckiewitz, Chairman
Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairman
Darcy McNaboe, Agency Member
Bernardo Sandoval, Agency Member
Gene Hays, Agency Member
Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Bernie Simon, Finance Director
Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director
Richard Shields, Building& Safety Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Sgt. Ed Finneran, San Bernardino County Sheriff s Department
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department
ABSENT: None
CONVENE THE JOINT CRA/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP at 4:30 P.M.
JOINT CRA/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
A Joint CRA/City Council Workshop was held to discuss the following item:
1. Overview of Bonding Process
Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the CRA/City Council Workshop at 5:52 p.m.
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 6:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF 04-26-2011 MINUTES
CRA-2011-29 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER MCNABOE, SECOND BY AGENCY
MEMBER HAYS, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (AGENCY MEMBER SANDOVAL WAS
ABSENT), to approve the April 26, 2011 Community Redevelopment Agency
Minutes.
OPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING
CRA AGENDA ITEM NO.
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
May 10,.2011
Page 2
Sylvia Robles,23008 Orangewood Court,feels that she as a tax payer doesn't want City Staff
to lie to her or the public. When they say there is not an increase to the tax payer,yes there
is. There is only one stream of property tax revenue that runs through the State and when
that sets the valuations being diverted and it doesn't go to pay for schools,police or fire any
longer it creates a gap and that is where the State is struggling right now. There is a gap in
financing that can not be closed. She stated that we are all paying higher taxes that the State
Legislature is fighting amongst themselves whether to increase or not. When the Finance
Director says that the State is robbing the City, she stated that they aren't robbing the City,
they allowed local government to have money that use to go to schools so that we could be .
more solvent. When they took it away it was because they could not meet that debt
themselves. 630 million dollars in assessed valuation goes into RDA. She is concerned that
there will be junk bonds that will be floated and that the City is not waiting appropriately to
see what the State Legislature is going to do. She questioned why the City didn't look at
1911 Act or 1913 Act as a method of financing streets and highways and also assessment
districts for infrastructure. She feels that the business can come and if they want to build
capital they can-do it. Walgreen's is being done by private investment. The most concern
that she has is transparency. There are things like Michigan and the South West Corridor and
she feels that the.tax payers deserve a right to know in detail what it is that the City is going
to spend taxpayer money on. Also the lack of underwriting is very problematic to her
because if you are going to get an insurance policy and it's not going to be underwritten then
you are skirting bond counsel and what the market is going to bear. From what she has heard
the market does not want to finance RDA funds. She feels that the City needs to tred very
cautiously. She feels that the most important thing is transparency to the citizens on how
money is going to be expended and to proceed with caution. RDA is going to be reformed
then the citizens get to vote on what we go into debt for. This is what the country was
founded on taxation with representation.
Mark Huebsche,bond Counsel,feels that Mrs. Robles' statement is of political philosophy.
He feels that there is clearly a large benefit to the community at approximately 3 times the
share of property taxes if Redevelopment is implemented.
CRA-2011-30 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER MCNABOE, SECOND BY AGENCY
MEMBER SANDOVAL, CARRIED 5-0,to approve scenario number one which is
as follows:
The First Scenario assumes that the Agency will deposit funds on hand(i.e.,available
cash balance of$1.6 million) and the existing 2004 reserve fund held by the bond
fiscal agent (approximately $1.3 million) to retire the outstanding 2004 bonds
maturing September 1, 2012. The scenario would result in a bond issue of
approximately $23 million. After issuance costs and reserve requirements, the
Agency would have net proceeds of approximately $20 million. The bonds would
have a debt service coverage factor of 1.40, meaning that the Agency's annual tax
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
May 10,2011
Page 3
increment is projected to be 1.40 times larger than the amount of the annual debt
service payments.
CLOSED SESSION- CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-POTENTIAL
LITIGATION GC 54956.9 (B) - ONE CASE
Chairman Stanckiewitz announced that the Agency met in Closed Session for a Conference with
Legal Counsel regarding Potential Litigation GC 54956.9(b)- One Case. There was no reportable
action taken.
Chairman Stanckiewitz adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 7:46 p.m.,
until the next CRA/City Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011
at 5:00 p.m.
SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
CHAIRMAN:of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
PENDING CRA APPROVAL
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PENDING CRYCOUNCILAPPROVAL
CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING -MAY 12,2011
A special meeting of the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand
Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton
Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 12, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Walt Stanckiewitz, Mayor
Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem
Darcy McNaboe, Councilmember
Bernardo Sandoval, Councilmember
Gene Hays, Councilmember
Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
ABSENT: Bernard Simon, Finance.Director
Richard Shields, Building &.Safety Director
Sgt. Ed Finneran, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department
The Special City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency meeting was opened at 5:00 p.m.
with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilwoman Darcy McNaboe.
CLOSED SESSION
1. Closed Session Regarding Labor Relations per GC54957.6.
2. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (GC54956.8)
Pro pea-APN 1167-151-10; 8.45 Acres
Negotiating Parties-Ed Smith, Lee and Associates
Agency Negotiator- Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation-Price and Terms of Payment
Pro e - APN 1167-181-12 & 1167-181-13; 8.57 Acres
Negotiating Parties - Jim Towers, Towers and Associates
Agency Negotiator- Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation- Price and Terms of Payment
,Pro e - APN 1167-151-22; 14.22 Acres
Council/Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
05/12/2011
Page 2
Ne otg iating Parties -Bo Smith, CB Richard Ellis, Inc.
Agency Negotiator- Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation- Price and Terms of Payment Closed
Mayor Stanckiewitz announced that the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency met
in.Closed Session to discuss Labor Relations and held a conference with Real Property Negotiators
and there was no reportable action taken.
Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.,until the next City Council Meeting which
is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
CALIFORNIA AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2011 Council Item ( ) CRA Item (X)
TITLE: Options for Redevelopment Financing
PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director
Bernie Simon, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Review the Agency's fiscal position and financing options, and
authorize the Bond Financing Team to pursue the issuance of
Agency Bonds secured by tax increment revenue.
BACKGROUND:
Due to the Governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies this year to address the
State's budget shortfalls, the Agency has been evaluating methods to finance and expedite
projects. Staff has been working with fiscal consultants and legal counsel previously
approved by the Agency, to examine all available financing options and provide
recommendations to the Agency.
There are several unfunded public infrastructure projects needed in the community that may
be funded by the Agency. Because preemptive actions by the State could curtail these local
projects, prompt action to prioritize and complete the improvements is recommended. The
public infrastructure improvements under consideration include:
• The southwest area of the City;
• Michigan Street;
• Storm drain and street rehabilitation on Van Buren, Pico, and Main Streets; and
• Stabilization of the Mt. Vernon slope.
In an effort to secure Agency funds for current and future projects, staff is recommending a
bond financing team including:
• The Executive Director, Finance Director, and the Community and Economic
Development Director;
• Mark Huebsch and David McEwen of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth (SYCR) as
bond counsel;
• RSG, Inc. as the fiscal consultant;
CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. 2,
• Wedbush Securities as the bond underwriter, who is highly recommended by bond
counsel, RSG and staff; and
• U.S. Bank, the Agency's current trustee for the 2004 Tax Allocation Bonds.
At the Agency's direction, the team would pursue bond financing and obtain a rating for a
potential bond issue. Bond proceeds would provide immediate funds in the amount of
approximately $15-$22 million based on tax increment projections, which would be used for
the completion of infrastructure and economic development projects and programs.
DISCUSSION:
The Agency's Fiscal Consultant, RSG has completed a Fiscal Consultant Report and a
memorandum reviewing financing options, which are attached to this report. The draft Fiscal
Consultant Report is subject to further review and refinement as facts and circumstances
may warrant.
Fiscal Consultant Report
The report (Attachment 1) includes a discussion on the Agency's history, obligations and
potential revenue. If not eliminated by the State, the Agency will collect tax increment
revenues over the next 23 years, in accordance with our Redevelopment Plan. Future tax
increment revenue has been projected to ascertain the amount of capacity to obtain
additional funds and is summarized on page 20 of the report. The Agency has sufficient
revenues, after existing obligations are met, to leverage this stream of future revenue to fund
projects and programs in the near- and mid-term.
Financing Options Memorandum
Tax increment revenues are a portion of the property taxes paid each year on assessed
property values above the base year values and allocated to the Agency to be reinvested in
the Project Area. To receive these revenues, the Agency must first create an obligation, or
indebtedness. The obligation ensures that a purpose to receive the revenue exists as is
required.
The Financing Options Memorandum (Attachment 2) reviews various financing mechanisms,
including private placement financing and a line of credit. At this time, there is little investor
interest in private financing due to the uncertain future of redevelopment agencies. In
researching a line of credit, it appears that the net proceeds would be significantly lower than
a bond financing due to the limited term of a line of credit. The most viable financing option
available to the Agency is a tax allocation bond issue given present market conditions.
Tax allocation bonds are the most commonly utilized financing mechanism for redevelopment
agencies to fund redevelopment activities. Future redevelopment tax increment revenue is
pledged to pay the principal and interest on the Agency bonds, and does not create a new or
additional property tax levy on parcels within the Project Area, which is the City. The risk is
solely with the Agency, not the City or taxpayers, in the unlikely event that the Agency
defaults on the bond payments. The Agency has issued bonds in the past to raise revenues
to immediately fund projects and programs, rather than to wait many years for revenues to
accumulate. In order to maximize near-term revenues, three bonding scenarios have been
analyzed to provide the Agency with various options.
Scenario 1
The first scenario assumes that the Agency will deposit funds on hand (i.e., available cash
balance of $1.6 million) and the existing 2004 reserve fund held by the bond fiscal agent
(approximately $1.3 million) to retire the outstanding 2004 bonds maturing September 1,
2012. This scenario would result in a bond issue of approximately $23 million. After
issuance costs and reserve requirements, the Agency would have net proceeds of
approximately $20 million. The bonds would have a debt service coverage factor of 1.40,
meaning that the Agency's annual tax increment is projected to be 1.40 times larger than the
amount of the annual debt service payment.
It is important to note that the 2004 bonds are not callable in advance of maturity due to the
terms of the bond indenture, so the approximately $2.9 million would be deposited in an
Escrow Fund and used by the Bond Trustee to make the regularly scheduled principal and
interest payments on the 2004 Bonds until their final maturity. Additionally, because the 2004
Bonds were refunding bonds when they were issued, the Agency may not use new bond
proceeds to defease the 2004 Bonds.
Scenario 2
The second scenario assumes the 2004 Bonds are left outstanding until maturity and debt
service is "wrapped around" current debt service, or as current debt service is reduced, some
of the new debt service is applied, but the annual debt service remains constant over the life
of the bond issue. This Scenario ensures level debt service for the Agency until the new
bonds mature. Scenario 2 would yield a total of $22.5 million in bonds, with a net amount to
the Agency of approximately $20 million after issuance costs and reserve requirements are
applied. This scenario would also have a debt service coverage factor of 1.40.
Scenario 3
The third scenario assumes the 2004 Bonds are left outstanding until maturity and debt
service is structured to remain at about the same levels as those currently paid by the
Agency. Scenario 3 results in a $15.5 million bond issue, with approximately $13.6 million in
net proceeds to the Agency. The debt service coverage factor on these bonds would be 2.0.
The table below provides a summary and comparison of these three scenarios.
i
Cash Needed Coverage(allows
for Reserve Net Proceeds to for>$850,000 for
Scenario# Fund- Total Issue Agency admin costs)
'1 $1,949,955 $23,035,000 $20,240,000 40%
2 $1,949,955 ' $22,500,000 $19,710,000 40% -
3 $1,349,730 $15,575,000 $13,610,000 100%
As shown in the last column of the table above, each of the scenarios allows net tax
increment revenues of over$850,000 annually to cover other Agency costs after existing debt
service and obligations are paid. This financing structure allows the Agency to fund needed
annual administration costs. Staff is recommending that the Agency direct the bond financing
team to pursue the issuance of Agency bonds under Scenario 1.
Please note that conditions within financial markets are fluid and the structuring of any bond
issuance as well as interest rates are subject to modification. The team's recommendation is
based upon the most recent information and best estimate concerning the most feasible
structure and likely sizing parameters. It is anticipated that bonds would be issued by the
Agency, sold to the Grand Terrace Public Financing Authority and immediately resold to the
underwriter, who would, in turn, handle the marketing and sale of the bonds on a public basis.
By utilizing such a structure, the Agency would be in a position to respond relatively quickly to
market conditions.
While the team is seeking direction to move forward, any issuance of bonds would be brought
back to the Agency Board for further consideration. Page 5 of the Financing Options
Memorandum contains a proposed schedule to complete the bond closing by the end of
June, 2011.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact would be in the amount of approximately$31 to $45 million in future Agency
tax increment revenues (total tax increment varies by bond scenario) to secure immediate
funds in the amount of approximately $15-$22 million. Future debt payments would be
appropriated from the Agency's Debt Service Fund between the fiscal years 2011-12 and
2033-34, based on the debt service schedule to be included in the official statement. Based
on the financial projections that have been prepared by Agency consultants, the Agency will
receive sufficient tax increment revenues to meet all existing obligations and make debt
payments. Without the additional debt, not only would the Agency not collect the additional
projected property tax revenue, the community would not receive funds necessary to
complete the local projects.
Respectfully submitted,
oyce Powers
Community Development Director
Bernie Simon
Finance Director
Manager Approval:
Betsy/M. Ad ms
CRA Executive Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Fiscal Consultant's Report
2. Financing Options Memorandum
ATTACHMENT #1
DRAFT FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DRAFT FISCAL CONSULTANT
REPORT
' R S G Grand Terrace Community
Redevelopment Project Area
May 3, 2011
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC.
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................1
Redevelopment Agency and Project Area..................................................................1
Time and Financial Limitations..................................................................................... 2
TimeLimitations...............................................................................................................................2
FinancialLimitations.......................................................................................................................3
Ownership of Project Area Properties........................................................................3
TopTen Taxpayers..........................................................................................................................4
Agency-Owned Properties in Project Area..........................................................................6
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS ........................................6
AssessedValuation .........................................................................................................6
GrowthAssumptions.......................................................................................................8
Revenue &Taxation Code Inflationary Adjustments........................................................9
Resales..................................................................................................................................................9
Construction.....................................................................................................................................10
AssessmentAppeals.......................................................................................................................11
TaxRates..........................................................................................................................15
UnitaryUtility Revenue .................................................................................................15
CountyAdministrative Fees.........................................................................................16
Tax Increment Collection History................................................................................16
Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Deposits................................................17
Payments to affected taxing agencies.......................................................................17
County& SBVMWD Settlement Agreement...............................:.......................................17
Colton Joint Unified School District Agreement..............................................................18
StatutoryPayments......................................................................................................................18
Owner Participation & Developer Agreement Payments .......................................19
Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Shift............................19
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS .................................................................19
GRSG i
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
INTRODUCTION
This Fiscal Consultant Report ("Report") has been prepared at the request of the City of Grand Terrace
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") to present the projected tax increment revenues from the Grand Terrace
Community Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). The purpose of this Report is to assist the Agency
develop a long-term financial management strategy to prudently invest redevelopment funds so that
reinvestment efforts result in a fiscally sustainable community.
This Report presents historical assessment information and future revenue projections for the Project Area.
The projected assessed values and tax revenues presented in this Report are based upon the following
assumptions:
■ Assessment and apportionment procedures of the County of San Bernardino ("County');
■ Historical growth trends within the Project Area;
■ Trended growth in valuation as permitted by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution ("Proposition
13"); and
■ Assessed values and tax rates as reported by the County Auditor-Controller and Assessor.
Revenue projections have been conservatively estimated in order to reduce the possibility of overstating
future tax increment revenue.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Grand Terrace ("City") is one of 24 incorporated cities located in San Bernardino County
("County"), California. Incorporated on November 30, 1978, the City has a population of 12,717, according to
January 1, 2010 estimates from the State of California Department of Finance, making it the third smallest city
in the County.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PROJECT AREA
Following incorporation, the City Council activated the Agency by ordinance and thereafter formulated a
redevelopment plan for the Project Area. The Project Area is comprised of two parts: an original 640-acre
redevelopment project area created in 1979 that encompasses seven noncontiguous residential
neighborhoods ("Original Area"), and the 1981 amendment area ("Added Area"), and together with the
Original Area, the "Project Area," that incorporates the rest of the City limits in the Project Area. The Project
Area totals 2,255.6 acres and the entirety of the City limits, and therefore mirrors the land uses in the City, as
summarized in Figure 1 which details land use data for the Project Area, including the number of acres,
parcels and assessed values.
RSG
1
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
FIGURE 1: 2010-11 ASSESSED VALUES BY LAND USE CATEGORY
Land Use Category Acres Bills/1 2010-11 Assessed Values(Net of Exemptions) %of
Secured Unsecured Total Prior Yr A Project Area
Residential,SFR 838.8 3,280 $ 531,538,184 $ 1,227,063 $ 532,765,247 15.1% 69.6%
Residential,Multifamily 131.1 251 93,206,833 379,884 93,586,717 -5.5% 12.2%
Industrial 144.0 66 39,972,759 8,701,581 48,674,340 -4.7% 6.4%
Commercial 67.2 147 38,101,676 8,544,201 46,645,876 -3.3% 6.1%
Vacant/Open Space 604.0 342 24,384,547 1,365,521 25,750,068 -36.7% 3.4%
Public Recreational 103.3 33 7,624,732 2,396,731 10,021,463 34.5% 1.3%
Institutional 32.2 4 7,314,609 618,625 7,933,234 1.5% 1.0%
Public Right-of-Way 335.0
Total Project Area 2,255.6 41123 $ 742,143,339 $ 23,233,606 $ 765,376,945 6.7% 100.0%
Original Area 640.0 442 86,489,352 221,563 86,710,915 -12.1% 11.3%
Added Area 1,615.6 3,681 655,653,987 23,012,043 678,666,030 -4.0% 88.7%
Source:San Bernardino County Assessor's Secured and Unsecured Roll
1/ Bills consist of the number of secured and unsecured roll records for each land use type
TIME AND FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS
The Redevelopment Plan was most recently amended and restated as a result of the Sixth Amendment,
adopted by the City Council on May 11, 2010 by Ordinance No. 250. The Redevelopment Plan contains
various time and financial limitations that affect the ability to collect and utilize tax increment revenue. As a
result of the Sixth Amendment to the Plan, the current limitations differ from those at the time of adoption and
are summarized below:
Time Limitations
Incur Indebtedness: As stated in Section 1003 of the Plan, The previous time limits to incur debt in the
Original Area and Added Area were rescinded by Ordinance No. 212 on July 22, 2004; as such the time limits
for incurring debt would be the same as those for the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan for both the
Original and Added Areas. The time limits to incur indebtedness for the Original and Added Areas are
September 27,2022, and July 14,2024, respectively.
Effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan: Currently, the Plan has a 43-year duration for each of the two
component areas of the Project Area. For the Original Area established in 1979, the Plan is effective until
September 27,2022. The Added Area established in 1981,the Plan is effective until July 15,2024.
Final Date to Collect Tax Increment Revenue: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 250, the Plan permits the Agency to
collect tax increment for a 53-year period, or until September 27, 2032 for the Original Area and July 15,
2034 for the Added Area.
GRSCD 2
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
Financial Limitations
Cumulative Tax Increment Revenue Limit: Consistent with all redevelopment plans adopted prior to 1994, the
Redevelopment Plan contains a cumulative tax increment revenue limit on the gross tax increment revenue
that may be apportioned to the Agency. Section 1001 of the Plan establishes a$225,000,000 cumulative limit
on the amount of tax increment revenue that may be collected by the Agency, net of negotiated fiscal
mitigation agreements. (California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000,
et. seq. ("CRL") does not allow statutory pass through payments pursuant to CRL Section 33607.7 to be
deducted from the Plan's tax increment cap calculation). As shown in Figure 2 below, through fiscal year
2009-10, the Agency has reported total receipts of $59,093,809, leaving $165,906,191 of tax increment
revenue remaining to be collected under the current limit to repay existing and future indebtedness of the
Agency.
RSG estimates that the Project Area's 2010-11 assessed values will be required at a minimum annual growth
rate of 3.8 percent in order for the Agency to reach its current cumulative limit on tax increment revenue by
the expiration of the Agency's time limit to collect tax increment.
FIGURE 2: STATUS OF"$225M TAX INCREMENT LIMIT .
Year Gross Exclusions from Limit 2 Net after Cumulative Red.Plan Balance
Apportionment ' County CJUSD Total Exclusions Revenue Limit Under Limit
2009-10 $ 6,810,970 $ (1,951,455) $(258,029) $ (2,209,484) $4,601,487 $59,093,809 $225,000,000 $165,906,191
2008-09 7,677,867 (2,167,874) (246,159) (2,414,033) 5,263,834 54,492,322 75,000,000 20,507,678
2007-08 7,086,921 (2,081,528) (234,521) (2,316,049) 4,770,872 49,228,488 75,000,000 25,771,512
2006-07 6,539,392 (1,941,886) (223,112) (2,164,998) 4,374,394 44,457,616 75,000,000 30,542,384
2005-06 6,157,747 (1,832,812) (211,926) (2,044,738) 4,113,009 40.083,222 75,000,000 34,916,778
2004-05 '5,401,087 (1,605,609) (200,958) (1,806,567) 3,594,520 35,970,213 75,000,000 39,029,787
2003-04 32,375,693 75,000,000 42,624.307
Source:Redevelopment Agency Financial Statements.
1 2009-10 and 2008-09 figures reduced to reflect apportionment error of$2,295,360 reported by County
Auditor-Controller.
2 Redevelopment plan excludes payments to taxing agencies pursuant to fiscal mitigation agreements from tax
increment limit.
Amount of Bonds Outstanding At One Time: Section 1002 of the Plan also establishes a$75,000,000 limit on
the amount of bond principal that may be outstanding at any one time. As of the date of this Report, the
Agency has a total of$3,650,000 of bond principal outstanding, specifically the Agency's 2004 Tax Allocation
Bonds. Both non-housing and housing revenues are pledged towards debt service on the bonds, which will
be fully redeemed on September 1, 2012. The bond trustee is currently holding approximately$1,300,000 in
non-housing reserve funds that will be utilized with the bond trustee will be used to make the non-housing
portion of the final payment. Low and moderate income housing funds will be used to make the housing
portion of the final payment,estimated at approximately$619,000.
OWNERSHIP OF PROJECT AREA PROPERTIES
This section describes the top taxpayers and other key components of the ownership of Project Area property
on the 2010-11 assessment roll.
• RSG 3
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
Top Ten Taxpayers
Using the County's 2010-11 Secured and Unsecured Assessment Rolls, the ten largest taxpayers within the
Project Area own $111,586,054 (approximately 15 percent) of the total Project Area net assessed value and
enumerated in Figure 3 below.
FIGURE 3: TOP TEN 2010.11 TAXPAYERS-SHARES OF INCREMENTAL ASSESSED VALUE
Taxpayer Name Bills /1 2010-11 Assessed Value(Net of Exemptions) %of Total %of
Secured Unsecured Total Prior Yr A Project Area Incremental
1 North Waterford Apartments /2 3 $ 33,851,749 $ - $ 33,851,749 -0.2% 4.4% 5.4%
2 Osage Tower Ltd /3 1 23,900,000 23,900,000 -14.5% 3.1% 3.8%
3 Wilden Pump&Engineering 5 19,071,430 - 19,071,430 -14.6% 2.5% 3.0%
4 JSP Grand Royal,LP 4 7,548,751 7,548,751 0.6% 1.0% 1.2%
5 San Gabriel Jacobson Holdings /4 7 6,156,374 6,156,374 -23.0% 0.8% 1.0%
6 Emeritol Grand Terrace LLC /5 1 5,370,023 5,370,023 -0.2% 0.7% 0.9%
7 Amemar,Inc /6 2 4,425,437 4,425,437 -0.2% 0.6% 0.7%
8 Viking Investment Properties 6 4,363,124 4,363,124 -0.3% 0.6% 0.7%
9 Hirth Properties Grand Terrace 1 3,899,166 - 3,899,166 -0.2% 0.5% 0.6%
10 Blaich Properties/7 2 3,000,000 3,000,000 -20% 0.4% 0.5%
Total Top Ten Taxpayers 32 111,586,054 - 111,586,054 7.51.4%
Total Project Area Value 766,352,316 14.6%
Total Project Area Incremental 629,263,576 17 7%
Source:San Bernardino County Assessor's 2010-11 Secured and Unsecured Roll
Notes
1/ Bills issued from County for secured and unsecured value.
2/ North Waterford Apartments filed an appeal in 2010 to reduce its value of one of its parcels from$31.3 million to$20.4 million.
The appeal is still pending.The reduction could decrease 2011-12 assessed values by as much as approximately$6.9 million.
3/ Osage Tower Ltd filed an appeals in 2009 and 2010 to reduce its real property value to$17,000,000.The appeal is still pending.
reduction could decrease 2011-12 assessed values by as much as approximately$11 million.
4/ San Gabriel Jacobson Holdings filed an appeal in 2009 to reduce the assessed value on one of its parcels to from$551,000 to$381,700.
The appeal was denied.The parcels were transferred to Stater Bros Markets in December,2010.
5/ Emeritol Grand Terrace LLC filed an appeal in 2010 to reduce its real property value to$3,236,705.The appeal is still pending.The
reduction could decrease 2011-12 assessed values by as much as approximately$2.4 million.
6/ Amemar,Inc filed an appeal in 2009 to reduce its real property value to$3 million.The appeal is still pending.The reduction could
decrease 2011-12 assessed values by as much as approximately$1.4 million.
7/ Blaich Properties filed an appeal in 2009 to reduce the real property value on one of its parcels from$229,500 to$100,000.The appeal is
still pending.The reduction could decrease 2011-12 assessed values by approximately$129,000.
Descriptions of these taxpayers, including any recent appeals or changes in their assessed values as
compared to the prior 2010-11 assessment roll are detailed below:
1. North Waterford Apartments owns three parcels developed as multi-family apartments and totaling
over $33 million in assessed value. The tax bill is mailed to Sequoia Equities, Inc., which has a
portfolio of over 10,000 apartment homes valued at over $1.5 billion, making Sequoia Equities, Inc.
one of California's largest multi-family investment firms.' In 2010, North Waterford Apartments filed
appeals for all three properties to reduce the total assessed value from $31.3 million to $20.4 million.
The appeals are still pending. The parcels (APNs 0275-251-80-0000, 0275-251-81-0000, and 0275-
251-82-0000)were last transferred in February 15, 2000.
Sequoia Equities,Index Page,hfto://seguoiaeouities.com/
r:S`
4
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
2. Osage Tower Ltd owns one parcel located at 22491 De Berry St and developed as Crest Apartments.
It is a multi-family apartment complex with 228 units, and is valued at $23.9 million. The property
(APN 1167-331-07-0000) was last transferred on July 10, 2006. Appeals were filed to reduce the
value of this property in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The 2008 appeal was stipulated in 2010 and the value
of the property was reduced from $27,412,500 to $24,500,000. The 2009 and 2010 appeals, with
proposed reductions from a total assessed value of$23,900,000 to $17,000,000, were received and
are currently pending.
,3. Wilden Pump and Engineering is headquartered at 22069 Van Buren Street and owns five parcels
used for industrial manufacturing. The total assessed value of all property owned by the tax payer is
approximately $19 million. Wilden Pump and Engineering has been producing air-operated double-
diaphragm pumps since 1955.2 The parcels were last transferred on July 11, 1991 (APNs 1167-181-
07-0000, 1167-191-01-0000, 1167-191-02-0000, 1167-191-02-1000, and 1167-191-03-0000).
4. JSP Grand Royal. LP, owns four parcels in the Project Area developed as a mobile home park.
Grand Royal Mobile Estates is located at 22111 Newport Avenue and contains 184 units. The
property tax bills are mailed to Jackson Square Properties LLC in San Francisco. Jackson Square
Properties LLC has acquired residential properties with over 10,500 apartment units and over 1,000
mobile home park spaces in ten states with concentrations in California, Florida, Texas and Utah.3
Appeals were filed by JSP Grand Royal, LP in 2007 and 2008. In 2007 and 2008, appeals were filed
for APN 0275-211-53-6115 seeking a reduction in total assessed value from $33,500 to $31,500.
Both appeals were denied. In 2008, an appeal was filed for APN 0275-211-53-0000 seeking a
reduction in total assessed value from $7,282,000 to $7,140,000 that was withdrawn. The parcels
were last transferred on December 31, 2007 (APNs 0275-211-53-0000, 0275-211-53-6075, 0275-
211-53-6090, and 0275-211-53-6115).
5. San Gabriel Jacobsen Holdings owns seven parcels with a total assessed value of approximately
$6.1 million. The properties are zoned for commercial and single family residential uses and are
located on Barton Road and Michigan Street. The tax bills are mailed to JH Portfolio Debt Equities in
Woodland Hills. In 2009, appeals on all seven properties resulted in total assessed value reductions
totaling $1,500,700. The properties have been sold to Stater Bros Markets in as part of a multi-parcel
sale totaling $2,900,000. Stater Bros Markets is a grocery store chain with 52 full-service
supermarkets in San Bernardino County.4 The parcels were last transferred on December 2, 2010
(APNs 1167-231-03-0000, 1167-231-08-0000, 1167-231-09-0000, 1167-231-12-0000, 1167-231-13-
0000, 1167-231-15-0000, and 1167-231-21-0000).
6. Emeritol Grand Terrace LLC owns one parcel located at 22325 Barton Road, with an assessed value
of approximately$5.3 million. The property is developed as Emeritus at Grand Terrace, a multi-family
senior assisted living and retirement community with 88 units. Property tax bills are mailed to
Emeritus Senior Living in Seattle, a national provider of senior housing services.5 Appeals were filed
for the property in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The 2007 appeal was subsequently withdrawn and
the 2008 appeal was denied. In 2009, the proposed total assessed value reduction totaled
$1,882,780 and no action has been made on the appeal. In 2010, the property owner appealed for a
2 Wilden Pump and Engineering,Index Page,http://www.wildenpump.com/
3 Jackson Square Properties,LLC,"About Us,"http://www.iacksonsguarei)rooerties.com/company
Stater Bros.Markets,Index Page,http://www.staterbros.com/
5 Emeritus Retirement Communities,Index Page,http://www.emeritus.com/
9 R_'SG 5
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
reduction from a total assessed value of$5,370,023 to $3,236,705. The parcel (APN 1167-311-02-
0000)was most recently transferred on October 24,2008.
7. Amemar. Inc. owns two parcels located at 11980 South Mt. Vernon Avenue and are in use as
Keystone Schools Grand Terrace Campus. This campus has an enrollment capacity of
approximately 120 provides special education services for students in grades K-12.6 An appeal was
received in 2009 seeking a reduction in total assessed value of$1,287,494. To date, no action has
been taken on this appeal. The parcels (APNs 0275-251-37-0000 and 0275-251-38-0000) were last
transferred on April 4, 1988.
8. Viking Investment Properties owns six parcels in the Original Area located at 22401-22473 Barton
Road. The properties are developed as a retail shopping center with at least 17 retail spaces and are
located along Barton Road. The properties were last sold on October 1, 1982 for a combined price of
$1,384,500. (APNs 1167-311-05-0000, 1167-311-06-0000, 1167-311-07-0000, 1167-311-08-0000,
1167-311-09-000, and 1167-311-10-0000)
9. Hirth Properties Grand Terrace owns a commercial retail center located on Mount Vernon Avenue in
the Original Area. Appeals were filed for this property in 2007 (Denied) and 2008 (Withdrawn). The
property(APN 0276-182-21-0000)was last transferred on May 30,2006.
10. Blaich Investments-3 LLC owns two parcels in the Original Area located at 22822 Palm Avenue and
developed as multi-family apartments. The taxpayer filled an appeal in 2009 to reduce the real
property value on one of its parcels from $229,000 to $100,000. The appeal is still pending. The
properties were last sold on September 25, 2007 for a combined price of$3,675,000. (APNs 0276-
202-35-0000 and 0276-202-36-0000)
Agency-Owned Properties in Project Area
The Redevelopment Agency owns 16 parcels in the Project Area, none of which are taxable at this time. The
Agency is currently in the process of acquiring a 1/2-acre parcel that is located adjacent to an Agency-owned
parcel that is intended to be developed as a Habitat for Humanity project. The property is currently owned by
the City and has no taxable value. Therefore, the acquisition of this property will not remove taxable
assessed valuation from the Project Area in future years. Beyond this purchase, according to staff, the
Agency has no plans to purchase additional taxable property at this time.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS
ASSESSED VALUATION
According to data from the County Assessor's office, the Project Area's 2010-11 total assessed value is
$766,352,316,of which the base year value is$137,088,740 leaving an incremental value of$629,263,576.
Figure 4 below presents the assessed values, base year values, and incremental assessed values since the
Original and Added Areas were established in 1979 and 1981, respectively.
6 Private School Profile,"Keystone Schools Grand Terrace,"htto://www.pdvateschoolreview.com/school ov/school id/1213
GRSG 6
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
FIGURE 4: PROJECT AREA ASSESSED VALUE HISTORY
Year Secured Unsecured Secured Utility Total Prior Yr A Incremental
2010-11 $742,143,339 $23,233,606 $ 975,371 $766,352,316 -5.0% $ 629,263,576
2009-10 781,242,868 24,216,460 983,441 806,442,769 -5.1% 669,354,029
2008-09 829,919,192 19,176,027 974,976 850,070,195 3.8% 712,981,455
2007-08 798,905,361 19,236,768 934,570 819,076,699 10.8% 681,987,959
2006-07 720,089,092 17,750,565 1,413,449 739,253,106 9.0% 602,164,366
2005-06 662,838,141 15,160,342 142,762 678,141,245 12.0% 541,052,505
2004-05 589,131,617 13,343,544 2,803,028 605,278,189 7.3% 468,189,449
2003-04 545,567,710 12,985,629 5,590,624 564,143,963 6.7% 427,055,223
2002-03 515,568,308 11,807,427 1,492,810 528,868,545 4.6% 391,779,805
2001-02 491,210,648 13,034,580 1,484,632 505,729,860 368,641,120
Base Year 130,924,820 5,043,200 1,120,720 137,088,740
Source: San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller reports
Historically, assessed values in the Project Area have trended similarly to the County-wide statistics.
Between fiscal year 2006-07 and 2008-09, values in the Project Area experienced less significant decreases
than values County-wide. Figure 5 on the following page shows a comparative graph of the Project Area
assessed value in comparison to the City and County.
'FIGURE 5: ANNUAL GROWTH IN ASSESSED VALUES
20.0%
15.0%
10.0% sn.
C7 s
5.0%
0.0%
N
-5.0% �.
Q
-10.0%
-15.0%
03 Aa Ay o� o� o� A� do y'y
�oo�; �003 �ooa pooh �oo�o �001' �oo� �oo� �oy�
Fiscal Year
Original RDA ®Revised RDA ®County
Source:San Bernardino County Auditor Controller Reports
ice'S-
7
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
Thus far, the County Assessor has not announced any plans for blanket reductions in assessed values in
2011-12, although re-sales and market activity appear to be trending below assessed values somewhat in the
past year. For this reason, RSG has limited assessed value growth in our projections as described in the next
section.
GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
Project Area assessed values are conservatively projected based on several factors as summarized in Figure
6 on the following page, which have been refined by RSG to reflect a conservative forecast based on
available data known to RSG.
FIGURE 6: SECURED ASSESSED VALUE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
Component 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Thereafter
_Original Area Total_Growth Rate_________________12.163% 0.342% 0.000% 1.000% 2.000%
------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue&Taxation Code Inflationary 0.753% 0.000% 1.000% 2.000%
Changes due to Resales Actual 0.267% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
Increases from Construction Growth 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
Decreases due to Base Year Appeals Rate 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
Decreases due to Prop 8 Appeals -0.678% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
Added Area Total Growth Rate -3.972% -0.052% 0.439% 1.000% 2.000%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue&Taxation Code Inflationary 0.753% 0.000% 1.000% 2.000%
Changes due to Resales Actual 0.400% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
Increases from Construction Growth 0.000% 0.439% 0.000% 0.000%
Decreases due to Base Year Appeals Rate 0.000% 0.000%- 0.000% 0.000%
Decreases due to Prop 8 Appeals 1.205% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
4%
2%
0%
-2% 2010-11 - - n1�_14 Th ft r
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
®Original Area ■Added Area
RSC 8
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
Historically, assessed values in the Project Area had grown from year to year with the exception of the last
two fiscal years. For the purposes of this forecast, RSG forecast specific changes in secured assessed
values as noted below, but held unsecured values constant (due to the nature of the reassessment process
for such property, unsecured values tend to remain constant and less predictable).
As shown in Figure 4 earlier, real property values in the Project Area decreased from $806,442,769 in 2009-
10 to$766,352,316 (or by 5 percent)in 2010-11. Taking into consideration the factors described below, RSG
is predicting a modest amount of growth going forward in both component areas. Reduction in 2011-12
assessed values due to pending assessment appeals (see pages 12-15 of this report) have been
conservatively estimated based on historical information from the County and applied to projected growth
factors. In 2011-12, Original Area secured assessed values are anticipated to grow by 0.342 percent, then
remaining flat in 2012-13. For the Added Area, secured assessed values are 'anticipated to decrease by
0.052 percent in 2011-12, then grow slightly by 0.439 percent in 2012.13. Both areas are expected to see 1
percent growth in 2013-14, and then 2 percent growth thereafter. These assumptions are conservative based
on interpretation of data available to RSG at the time of this report.
The growth assumptions were established by RSG to account for the following factors that affect future tax
increment collections in the Project Area.
Revenue & Taxation Code Inflationary Adjustments
As enacted by Proposition 13 in 1978, Article XIIIA of the State Constitution limits annual inflationary
adjustments to secured assessed values to a maximum of two percent. Each year, the State Board of
Equalization (SBE) establishes this annual increase based on the statewide consumer price index for the
previous year. Between 1978 and 2010-11, the Proposition 13 inflationary factor has been less than the 2
percent maximum six times, most recently in fiscal year 2010-11 reported by the SBE of -0.237 percent
(negative inflation factors are referred to as a deflation factor). This was the first time since 1978 that the rate
was negative. On December 16, 2010, the SBE released a report indicating that the 2011-12 inflationary
factor would be+0.753 percent.
In order to present a conservative forecast in projected tax increment revenues, RSG is projecting a 0.435
percent change in the inflationary factor in 2012-13, no growth rate in 2013-14, and the maximum two percent
change thereafter.
Resales
Under Section 110.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a change of ownership establishes a reassessment
of taxable property based on the property's purchase price and fair market value. Sales that occur prior to
January 1 are reflected on the next equalized assessment roll. Sales occurring after January 1 are subject to
a supplemental tax bill for the prorated amount of increase in taxes during the fiscal year.
RSG compiled statistics of sales transactions based on data from the County Recorder, via a private property
vendor. Sales closed and recorded between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011 would be reassessed on
the 2011-12 assessment roll,while sales after this date would be reflected on subsequent rolls.
Figure 7 summarizes sales transactions in the Project Area between January 1, 2009 and December 31,
2010. During 2009, a total of 154 transactions occurred in the Project Area, dropping to 125 sales for the
same 12-month period in 2010. In 2009, sales prices were somewhat lower than assessed values, resulting
` � S G. 9
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
in an aggregate decrease in Project Area real property values of$944,622, or 0.133 percent of the 2009-10
assessment roll. Commercial and condominium residential property sales were the dominant cause of this
decrease in the Project Area. These activities are reflected on the 2010-11 assessed value roll.
However, in 2010, sales prices exceeded assessed values for all land types with the exception of vacant land
which resulted in an aggregate increase in Project Area real property values of$2,717,303, or 0.400 percent
of the 2010-11 assessment roll. Overall, the 2010 transactions generally resulted in higher sales prices as
compared to their existing assessed values and will add value to the roll in 2011-12.
Data for 2011 is not yet available to RSG, but given the modest level of transfers and variance between
assessed values and sales prices, RSG does not anticipate this factor to be a significant source of changes in
real property values in the near future.
FIGURE 7: RESALE ACTIVITY INCLUDED IN PROJECTIONS
Land Use Category Aggregate Values of 2009 Sales Aggregate Values of 2010 Sales
Parcels 2009-10 Sales A from AV Parcels 2010-11 Sales A from AV
Sold Value Price Sold Value Price
Original Area
Residential,SFR 11 $ 2,572,019 $ 2,897,250 $325,231 21 $ 4,198,132 $ 4,430,000 $ 231,868
Total Sales 11 2,572,019 2,897,250 325,231 21 4,198,132 4,430,000 231,868
%of Project Area AV $ 98,678,584 0.330% $ 86,710,915 0.267%
Added Area
Residential,SFR 144 $ 28,077.567 $27,966,750 $(110,817) 113 $ 18,980,051 $ 22,525.750 $3,545,699
Vacant 6 4,332,525 1,795,000 (2,537,525)
Residential,Multifamily 4 1,341,818 877,500 (464,318) 3 2,191,765 3,341,000 1,149,235
Commercial 3 3,889,017 3,210,000 (679,017) 2 869,934 1,425,000 555,066
Industrial 3 ' 2,994,470 3,304,000 309,530 - - - -
Public/Recreational 1 195,172 200,000 4,828
Total Sales 154 36,302,872 35,358,250 (944,622) 125 26,569,447 29,286,750 2,717,303
%of Project Area $707,764,185 -0.133% $ 679,641,401 0.400%
Source:San Bernardino County Assessment Rolls for 2009-10 and 2010-11;Metroscan
It should be noted that this report does not include supplemental roll revenues that may be generated from
resale activity.
Construction
The Revenue and Taxation Code provides for reassessment of properties upon the completion of new
construction. The County Assessor determines the construction value in place as of January 1 each year and
that amount is reflected on the next equalized assessment roll. Construction in process or completed as of
January 1, 2011 is assessed on the 2011-12 roll; construction in place after this date will be reflected on
future tax rolls.
Based on a review of building permit records provided by the City's Building and Safety Department, two
projects are currently under construction in the Added Area which would result in increases to the Project
Area assessed value upon completion. These include a single family residence and a new supermarket.
GR'SC17" 10
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
Figure 8 provides a summary of these building permits, for which RSG has included the permit value into our
projections of tax increment revenue for 2012-13.
FIGURE 8: NEW CONSTRUCTION INCLUDED IN PROJECTIONS
Location/Applicant/Permit Issuec Project Description Current Anticipated Permit Value on Roll /1
Status Completion 2011-12 Roll 2012-13 Roll
Original Area
No Major Construction
Added Area
22201 Barton Road Construct new 44,280 sf. Under Aug 2011 $ - $ 2,546,100
Stater Bros. Markets Type III N commercial Construction
Permit Issued 12/20/2010 building(new
supermarket)
23210 Twin Canyon Drive 2,910 sf single family Under July 2011 - 329,653
Dale C.Chronister with attached garage Construction
Permit Issued 11/10/2011 and decks
Total Assessed Value Added(2012-13) 2,875,753
2011-12 Secured Value 655,309,953
2012-13 Increase as Percentage of Added Area 0.439%
Source: City of Grand Terrace Building Permits
1/ Excludes any supplemental assessments for construction in process which would provide additional tax revenue prior to
completion.
RSG has made no attempt to speculate on the level of additional construction in the Project Area in future
years, although there is land available in the Project Area to do so. We believe this assumption is reasonable
given the current local, regional and national real estate climate, even though it may result in some
understating in potential future tax increment revenues for the Agency.
Assessment Appeals
Property owners that dispute the value of their property may file an assessment appeal with the County
Assessor. There are two types of appeals on real property assessed values under the California Revenue
and Taxation Code: Proposition 8 appeals and Base Year appeals. In most cases, an applicant files an
assessment appeal because present market conditions, such as residential home prices or decreased lease
rates, cause the property to be worth less than its assessed value. These market-driven appeals are referred
to as Proposition 8 appeals. Although these reductions are temporary, the assessed values reduced
pursuant to Proposition 8 are frequently reduced from their original value for multiple years until market
conditions improve. Base Year appeals are when a property owners challenge the original (basis) value of
their property. Because a successful Base Year appeal could reduce the basis value used to compute future
reassessments pursuant to Proposition 13, Base Year appeals may have a more long-term effect on Project
Area tax increment revenues as compared to Proposition 8 appeals.
• r1`j l 7 11
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
RSG collected assessment appeal data for the past four years for the Project Area from the County Clerk of
the Board. In reviewing this data, RSG concluded that-there are no pending or granted Base Year appeals for
the Project Area at this time. In 2010-11, a total of 15 Proposition 8 assessment appeals have been filed by
the Project Area property owners (one appeal in the Original Area and 14 appeals in the Added Area), a
decrease from the 32 Proposition 8 appeals filed in 2009-10. Of the 32 fiscal year 2009-10 appeals, only one
has been granted a reduction, with 19 withdrawn or denied by the County Appeals Board. The granted
reduction dropped the assessed value for one parcel in the Added Area from $215,000 to$197,000 for fiscal
year 2009-10. Twelve appeals from fiscal year 2009-10 remain pending. It is important to note that only one
Proposition 8 appeal of the 32 above-mentioned appeals was filed in fiscal year 2009-10 for property within
the Original Project Area, and this appeal was denied. Figure 9 presents historical assessment appeal
information.
FIGURE 9: PROPOSITION 8 CLOSED ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Appeals by Status Original Area Added Area
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Combined 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Combined
Total Appeals Filed 2 1 1 4 27 31 14 72
Closed Appeals 2 1 - 3 27 19 8 54
Reduced - - 0 10 1 0 11
Denied or Withdrawn 2 1 3 17 18 7 42
Percentage Reduced 0% 0% 0% 37% 5% 0%
Reduced Appeals Roll Value/1 $ 597,000 $ 239,878 $ - $31.903.068 $ 215,000 $ -
Reduced Appeal Final Value 28.575,068 197,000
Reduction in Value Due to Appeals - - - 3,328,000 18,000 -
Total Project Area Assessed Value 105.489,022 98,678,584 86,710.915 744,581,173 707,764,185 679,641,401
Closed Appeals Reduction as%of
Project Area 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% -0.447% -0.003% 0.000%
Source:San Bernardino County Assessor
As stated above, 15 appeals were filed in fiscal year 2010-11; one appeal in the Original Area and 14 within
the Added Area. The sole appeal filed in the Original Area is pending, while seven (7)of the 14 appeals filed
within the Added Area have been withdrawn or denied. Therefore, a total of 12 Proposition 8 appeals seeking
one-time reductions to assessed valuation are pending within the Original and Added Areas for fiscal years
2009-10 and 2010-11.
In order to determine the true impact to future assessed valuation in the Project Area, RSG staff conducted a
comprehensive analysis of each pending appeal, reviewing the current assessed value, the applicant's
requested assessed valuation, and a history of appeals activity by property owner for 2007 through 2010.
Based upon this analysis, it is anticipated that eight of the 19 outstanding appeals, or a slightly less than one-
half, will be denied based on historical evidence of those property owners receiving denials from the
Assessor's Office at least once in the past 4 years. It is important to note that this methodology is also
reasonable due to the fact that all of these appeals are Proposition 8 appeals which will only affect assessed
valuation in the year granted.
More specifically, three of the property owners with pending appeals have unsuccessfully filed for assessment
appeal reductions in prior years. One of these property owners is a Top 10 taxpayer in the Project Area. As
shown in Figure 10,five of the top 10 taxpayers currently have pending appeals; North Waterford Apartment,
*� '� RSG, 12
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
Osage Tower LTD, Emeritol Grand Terrace LLC, Amemar, Inc, and Blaich Investments. Emeritol Grand
Terrace LLC has filed assessment appeals every year for the past four years;the 2007 appeal was withdrawn
and the 2008 appeal was denied. Therefore, it is assumed based upon historic patterns that the 2009 and
2010 pending appeals will be denied by the Assessor's Office. Osage Tower Ltd has filed appeals for 2008,
2009 and 2010. The 2008 was granted in a significantly higher amount than what was requested. The
Assessor granted a 12 percent decrease in the total assessed valuation of the property. In an effort to
provide a conservative estimate of pending appeals, it is assumed that the Assessor will grant a similar 12
percent reduction for the pending 2009 and 2010 appeals. With regard to remaining top 10 taxpayers, neither
North Waterford Apartments, Amemar, Inc. nor Blaich Investments have filed any appeals in the past four
years, and therefore, there is no historical data to analyze in order to determine the effect on assessed
valuation. In order to be conservative in our forecast, RSG has assumed that these appeals will be granted
and the assessed valuation as determined by the applicant opinion all for the pending appeals for these
property owners has been utilized for the tax increment projections contained in Figure 13 of this report.
The remaining two property owners with a history of denied appeals are the Suh Family Trust and Christopher
Hackett within the Added Area. Appeals filed in 2008 and 2009 have been denied for these property owners.
Another property owner, Fahim Tanios, has filed assessment appeals in 2009 and 2010 and is requesting a
reduction that would result in the property having an assessed valuation equal to approximately one-third of
the current assessed valuation. Due to the history and extremely significant reductions that are being
requested by these property owners, RSG staff has assumed for the purposes of this analysis that these
appeals will be denied or withdrawn.
The remaining appeals are requesting significantly smaller reductions in value than those described above.
In an effort to conservatively forecast the impact of pending appeals, it is assumed that the applicant value will
be granted. Given past patterns of denials and the decline in applications, RSG does not anticipate a
sustained impact of any Proposition 8 appeals should any of these appeals be granted. However,
realistically, it is likely that many of these appeals will be denied or reduced by a lesser amount than what the
applicants are requesting.
Figure 10 presents a summary of the projected reductions in 2009-10 and 2010-11 pending assessment
appeals that have been factored into our forecast. Overall, RSG is projecting a 0.68 percent drop in Original
Area secured assessed values and a 1.21 percent drop in Added Area assessed values if all pending 2009-
10 and 2010-11 assessment appeals are granted.
GPSG
13
7J
(,n
G)
FIGURE 9:CHANGE IN ASSESSED VALUE DUE TO PENDING PROPOSITION 8 APPEALS '
2009 Proposition 8 Appeals 2010 Proposition 6 Appeals
Appeals 2009-10 2009-10 Potential Estimated Estimated Appeals 20111111 2010-11 Potential Estimated Estimated
Pending Appeals by Taxpayer Pending Assessed Value Opinion Value Reduction Reduction %of Pending {assessed Value Opinion Value Reduction Reduction %of
Original Area $98,6 B.584 $0 $0 O.OD% 1 $86,710,915 $587.932 $587,S32 -0.W/,
NodhWaterford Apartments 1 1.079.807 1.091.875 587.932 587.932
Added Area 12 $707,764,185 $14.259.469 $5,709,32B -0.81% 6 $879.641.401 $14=147 $8.192.886 -121
North Waterford Apartmerds 1 14.827.902 9.638,189 6.189,793 5.189.793
Osage Tower Ltd 1 23,900,070 17.000.000 6,900,OD0 2,86B4O00 - _ 1 23.900.000 17,000,000 6,900,DD0 2$68,000
Emeritol Grand Terrace,Up. 1 5,362,780 3,500,000 1.682.730 -
Amemar,Inc. 1 4,287,494 3.000.000 1,287.434 1--W.494
Tapia.Donald R 1 3.560.310 2.550.000 1,010,310 1,010,310
Tanios,Fahim 1 2.264,251 1.100,000 1,164,331 - rr 1 2.264.281 1.100.000 1.164.231 - c:
Suh Family Trust 1 1.606,500 562,000 1,044,5D0 - _» 1 1.200.000 360.000 840,000 - ,.
Hadcett,Christopher W 2 1,040,000 613.400 428,000 - Y;
Austin,Craig E 1 731.0.93 721.000 10.093 10.093 'A
TimeWarnetCable 1 38B4O00 38,600 349,200 349=0 N
Bavadian,Shapour 1 234.477 180,000 54.477 54,477
Blaich Investments 1 229.500 100,000 129=0 129.500
Guru Nanak Investment,Up. 1 185.000 60,000 125,0110 125,000
D&WFH 1,Lie. 1 34,4B9 24,142 10.347 10,347 •,
n
Total for All Project Areas 12 $806,442,769 $14,259.469 $5,709,32B -0.71% 7 $76S,352,316 $14517,079 $8,780,818 -11.15% O
z
Source:San Bernardino County Assessor C
r
z
--I
M
m
OTar
i N
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
TAX RATES
The Agency currently receives incremental revenue based on the 1.0% general ad valorem property tax levy.
By law, any taxes in excess of the general levy, approved by the voters on of after January 1, 1989, imposed
after the Plan was adopted must be paid to the respective taxing entities. There are no tax levies in excess of
the 1 percent and the tax increment projections employ a 1.0%general ad valorem property tax levy.
Figure 11 presents a breakdown of the property tax levy in the Project Area.
FIGURE 10: BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT AREA TAX RATE
Taxing Agency 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Shares
Original Amended Combined
County General Fund 0.12717 0.12717 0.12717 0.12717 0.12715 0.12717 0.12717
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund 0.19256 0.19256 0.19256 0.19256 0.19254 0.19256 0.19256
Flood Control 0.02257 0.02257 0.02257 0.02257 0.02257 0.02257 0.02257
Flood Control Admin 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159
County Library 0.01231 0.01231 0.01231 0.01231 0.01231 0.01231 0.01231
Superintendent of Schools 0.00653 0.00653 0.00653 0.00653 0.00653 0.00653 0.00653
City of Grand Terrace 0.19971 0.19971 0.19971 0.19971 0.19971 0.19971 0.19971
San Bern.Comm.College Dist. 0.04469 0.04469 0.04469 0.04469 0.04469 0.04469 0.04469
Colton Joint LSD 0.26531 0.26531 0.26531 0.26531 0.26531 0.26531 0.26531
County Fire District - - - 0.10336 0.10336 0.10336 0.10336
County Service Area 38 0.10336 0.10336 0.10336 - - _
Riverside-Corona Conserv.Dist. 0.00120 0.00120 0.00120 0.00120 0.00124 0.00119 0.00120
San Bern.Valley MWD 0.02300 0.02300 0.02300 0.02300 0.02300 0.02300 0.02300
Subtotal 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000
No Override Tax Increment Revenue - - _ _
Total Tax Levy 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000
Source: San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller reports
It is important to note that fire protection services are provided by the County of San Bernardino County Fire
District. These services were provided by "County Service Area 38," as shown in Figure 10 above, until
January 2008 when it was dissolved and reorganized under the San Bernardino County Fire District.
UNITARY UTILITY REVENUE
As provided by Assembly Bill 454, tax revenue from unitary utility property is disbursed in a different manner
than revenue from non-unitary property. Unitary utility taxes are apportioned by the County Auditor-Controller
based on a regional distribution methodology, regardless as to where the unitary utility property is located.
Typically, unitary utility taxes are relatively small and see limited growth due to this methodology.
According to the County Auditor-Controller, the Agency has not received any unitary utility taxes during the
past ten years. For the purposes of the tax increment revenue projections in this report, RSG does not
anticipate the Agency would begin collecting such revenue in the future.
15
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Actual tax increment disbursements are reduced to reflect the tax collection fee charged by the County
Auditor-Controller pursuant to Senate Bill 2577. The tax collection fee varies slightly from year to year, based
on actual costs incurred by the County for administration of property taxes to the Agency. In 2009-10, the
County charged the Agency a total of$119,977 for the fiscal year, equal to approximately 1.52 percent of the
gross tax increment revenue received that year. RSG has accounted for a similar rate of County
administrative fees going forward in our projections, and has reduced both housing and non-housing funds by
their pro rata share of this fee.
TAX INCREMENT COLLECTION HISTORY
Tax increment charges, equal to the incremental assessed value multiplied by the one percent general
levy, have been consistently exceeded by actual revenues over the past five years, largely as a result of
supplemental revenues collected after tax bills are issued. Supplemental property tax receipts and prior
year collections resulted in the Agency collecting between $117,430 and $749,995 in revenues as
compared to what was billed based on assessed values of the Project Area.
RSG summarized year-to-year changes in the Project Area's revenues in Figure 11 below. Despite the
fact that tax increment billings have been exceeded by actual receipts in recent years, RSG has
conservatively excluded these revenues from our calculations of projected revenues.
FIGURE 11:ESTIMATE TO ACTUAL GROSS TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 20D4-05 2005-06 2006.07 -2007.08 2008-09 2009-10
Total Incremental Assessed Value/1 $ 368.641.120 $ 391.779,805 $ 427.055.223 $ 468,189,449 $ 541,052,505 $ 602,164,368 $ 681,987.959 $ 712,981,455 $ 669,354.029
Tax Rate 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000
Estimated Tax Increment $ 3,686,411 $ 3,917,798 $ 4,270,552 $ 4,681,894 $ 5,410,525 $ 6.021.644 $ 6,819,880 $ 7,129,815 $ 6,693,540
Gross Tax Increment Received 2 $ 3 971 366 $ 4196 116 $ 4,667,164 $ 5,402,538 $ 6,160,520 $ 6,539,392 $ 7,08L632 $ 7 877 867 $ 6,110,)711
Current Year $ 3.791,293 $ 4,035.186 $ 4.409,715 $ 5,004.826 $ 5.696.942 $ 6,264,428 $ 6,634,479 $ 7,037,53,I $ 6,321,042
Debt Service $ 2,560 $ 680 $ (150) $ 2,091 $ 4,330 $ 2,622 $ 65,720 $ 52.402 $ 49,216
Prior Year $ 177,501 $ 160,250 $ 157,589 $ 395,621 $ 459,248 $ 272.343 $ 389,440 $ 587,929 $ 440,712
Variance $ 284.944 $ 278,318 $ 296.602 $ 720,644 $ 749.995 $ 517,749 $ 269.759 $ 548,053 $ 117,430
Source:San Bernardino CountyAudifor Control/er
/1 Total incremental Assessed Value Is calculated In Figure X of this report.
2 Estimated Tax Increment is the product of the Total Incremental Assessed Value and the Tax Rate.
S8,000,0a0
$7,500.000
$7,000,000
$6,500,000 —
$6,000,000
$5,500,000
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000 -
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
®Pdor Year eCurrent Year �Erilmated Taxlnmment
According to the County Tax Collector, property taxes are reported as delinquent in their reports when such
taxes remain unpaid at the end of the fiscal year, after June 30. Taxes are generally paid twice a year, on
November 1 and February 1; so taxpayers that are late making these installments but current by June 30 are
not reported as delinquent.
Delinquent property taxes impact the Agency's tax increment revenues. The Agency is not on a County
Teeter Plan, which stabilizes property tax payments at 100% of the anticipated receipts. As a result, actual
Agency tax increment receipts are reduced to reflect property tax delinquencies. Although the Agency has a
RSG 16
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
history of receiving prior year taxes (presumably due to delinquent or late payments)over the last nine years,
the total amount of current year tax increment receipts was an average of 3 percent higher than the amount of
estimated tax increment revenues over this period.
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND DEPOSITS
The CRL requires the Agency to deposit 20 percent of tax increment allocated to the Agency into a Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund for the purposes of maintaining and expanding the supply of housing
affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households.
As allowed by CRL Section 33690.5(c), the Agency loaned $448,636 from the Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund to the Redevelopment (non-housing) fund for the May 2011 Supplemental Educational
Revenue Augmentation Fund ("SERAF") payment. The Agency intends to repay this interest-free loan within
the five year period pursuant to the requirements of CRL Section 33690(c)(2).
PAYMENTS TO AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES
The Agency is responsible to share a portion of its tax increment revenue with affected taxing agencies, as
described in detail below. Generally,the Agency's obligations fall into three categories:
Fiscal Mitigation Agreements: payments for fiscal mitigation agreements with entities affiliated with the
County, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District,and the Colton Joint Unified School District.
Statutory Payments: payments to other affected taxing agencies that did not have an agreement with the
Agency at the time of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan which trigged additional payments in
exchange for rescinding the time limit to incur debt.
These obligations are detailed on the following page.
County & SBVMWD Settlement Agreement
Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated April 21, 1980, as amended on June 16, 1993, the Agency makes
a full pass through of tax increment revenue to several taxing agencies, including the County General Fund,
County Flood Control District, County Library District, County Service Area 38 (since reorganized as the
County Fire District), the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District, the County Superintendent of
Schools and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District("SBVMWD). The County Auditor-Controller
remits these payments to these taxing agencies prior to the disbursement of tax increment revenue to the
Agency each year.
On April 20, 2011, the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller's Office notified the Agency that the County
erroneously included property tax revenues attributable to debt service override tax rates for the SBVMWD in
the fiscal year 2008-09 and 2009-10 apportionments to the Agency. The County is attempting to address this
situation by meeting with the Agency to discuss settlement options which may include repayment of the some
of or all of the amount of the overpayment, which is currently estimated at$2,295,360. The Agency is in the
process of verifying data and subject to verifying the Auditor-Controller's allegations, expects to arrange for
repayment.
It is important to note that the Agency treated the alleged overpayment as tax increment revenue and as
such, set aside excess low and moderate income housing funds (20 percent of the amount of overpayment,
or approximately $459,000 over the two year period) and paid excess statutory pass through payments to
17
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
affected taxing entities (approximately $167,000 for the 2 year period). Thus, assuming the Agency was
overpaid as the Auditor-Controller alleges,these housing and pass through obligations were over-funded and
the Agency intends to make the necessary adjustments to these funds and apply these revenues to a
possible settlement agreement with SBVMWD. Additionally, the Agency currently retains non-housing cash
reserves of approximately $1.7 million which also could be applied to a potential settlement agreement
payment. Going forward, the Agency will be discussions with the County Auditor's Office regarding more
oversight of tax increment apportionments in the future.
Colton Joint Unified School District Agreement
The Agency and Colton Joint Unified School District entered into a revised tax increment agreement on July
8, 1993 which provides that following that date, the School District is to receive its share of the inflationary
increase in Project Area real property values annually. It should be noted that because the County Auditor-
Controller does not report the real property value of the base year values for the Original and Added Areas,
respectively„ it has been the practice of the Agency to compute these payments based on the secured base
year assessed values of the Project Area. Unlike the County Settlement Agreement,the Agency remits these
payments to the School District.
The 1993 Agreement was amended once on March 14, 2002, when the Agency and School District executed
an agreement for the Agency to advance to the School District $1,600,000 of future School District pass
through for the completion of improvements at Richard Rollins Park and Terrace Hills Middle School. As a
result, between 2003-04 and 2010-11, the Agency retained the School District annual pass through as an
interest free credit towards the$1,600,000 advance.
A review of the Agency's financial records indicated that a total of$930,737 of pass though due to the School
District has not yet been remitted by the Agency, but has been recorded as a liability and reduced from
Agency fund balances accordingly. The Agency has sufficient cash on hand to remit this payment and will
seek direction from the Agency board and School District officials as to the timing and appropriate use of
these funds owed to the School District.
Statutory Payments
When the City Council adopted the Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan on July 22, 2004 to rescind
the Plan's time limit on incurring debt, this action triggered a subsequent obligation to make payments to the
San Bernardino Community College District, the City of Grand Terrace and the Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund beginning in 2004-05. The amount shared with these districts is based on formulas in
Sections 33607.5 and 33607.7 of the Health and Safety Code ("Statutory Payments"). Statutory Payments
are calculated annually using the Project Area assessed value and each taxing entities share of the tax levy.
For the first 10 years the Agency collects tax increment revenue, the Statutory Payments are equal to 25
percent of the Project Area's annual non-housing tax increment revenue collected in excess of the 2003-04
assessed value of the Project Area. Subsequently, these Statutory Payments are subject to two increases.
Beginning in the eleventh year, in addition to the first 25 percent share, the Agency would be required to pay
an additional 21 percent of the incremental increase in nonhousing tax increment revenues exceeding the
2013-14 assessed value. A third tier is described in the law, but is not triggered in this case because it would
be reached after the Agency no longer collects tax increment revenue.
ORSG 18
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
OWNER PARTICIPATION & DEVELOPER AGREEMENT PAYMENTS
The Agency does not have any agreements which have a specific pledge of tax increment revenue that may
be senior to any future financings by the Agency at this time.
SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND SHIFT
The State of California approved the fiscal year 2009-10 budget relying on a $2.05 billion shift from
redevelopment agencies over two years. In fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11, all redevelopment agencies
were required to make SERAF payments to their local County Auditor-Controller from available funds, or
employ other legal means to shift the funds to the County for distribution to local school districts.
The Agency's share of these SERAF payments were$2,179,087 due in May 2010 and $448,636 due in May
2011. The Agency has paid the May 2010 SERAF installment from its cash reserves. As stated previously,
the May 2011 payment will be made with a loan from the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund,
as allowed by CRL Section 33690.5 (c). The Agency intends to repay this interest-free loan within the five
year period pursuant to the requirements of CRL Section 33690(c)(2). The California Redevelopment
Association ("CRK) has lost a court challenge on the legality of these SERAF payments; while it pursues an
appeal, CRA has advised redevelopment agencies to remit these payments. Future shifts are less likely, as
the voters approved Proposition 22 in November 2010 to constitutionally protect redevelopment agency tax
increment funds from similar state shifts. The 2011-12 state budget proposed by Governor Brown has
proposed to abolish redevelopment agencies as a means to circumvent the constitutional protections for
redevelopment funds; it remains to be seen whether such a course is legal or politically viable.
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Figure 12 presents the tax increment revenue projections for the Project Area, based upon the assumptions
described in this Report.
t • RSC 19
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
FIGURE 12: 201041 TAX INCREMENT PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Year Total Pass Through Payments by Agency Housing Housing Net Senior Lien Nonhousing Obligations Net
Tax Set Bond IDS Housing
Increment County CJUSD Statutory Pmt Total Aside 2004 TA Revenue County Adm 2004 TA Zion Bank Loan Total Nonhou R venue g
(pd by County) (pd by Agency)(pd by Agency)Pass Thrcughs 33.35% 1.76% 66.65% (1997 COP
1 2010-11 6,285,170 1,871,267 222,177 150,132 2,243.576 1,257,034 619.301 637,733 110.619 1,237,674 254,848 1,603,140 1,181.420
2 2011-12 6,284,687 1,871.124 261,142 150,090 2,282,355 1,256,937 619,301 637,636 110,610 1,237,674 254.848 1,603,132 1,142,263
3 2012-13 6,313,455 1,879,689 273,312 152.604 2,305,604 1,262,691 619,301 643,390 111.117 254,848 365,964 2,379,196
4 2013-14 6,387,953 1,901,869 285,725 159,114 2,346,708 1,277,591 1,277,591 112,428 254,848 367,276 2,396,379
5 2014-15 6,538,437 1,946,672 298,387 179,918 2,424,976 1,307,687 1,307,687 115.076 254,848 369,924 2,435,849
6 2015-16 6,691,931 1,992,371 311,302 200,819 2,504.492 1,338,386 1,338,386 117,778 254.848 372,626 2.476.427
7 2016-17 6,848.495 2,038,984 324.475 222.299 2,585,759 1,369,699 1,369,699 120,534 254,848 375.381 2,517,656
8 2017-18 7.008.190 2,086,530 337,911 244,209 2,668,651 1,401,638 1,401,638 123,344 254,848 378,192 2,559,710
9 2018-19 7,171,079 2,135,027 351,617 266,557 2,753,200 1,434,216 1,434,216 126.211 254,848 381,059 2,602,604
10 2019-20 7,337,226 2,184,493 365,596 289,352 2,839,441 1,467,445 1,467,445 129,135 254,848 383.983 2,646,357
11 2020-21 7,506,696 2,234,949 379,855 312,603 2.927.407 1,501,339 1,501,339 132,118 127,424 259,542 2,818,408
12 2021-22 7,679,555 2,286,414 394,400 336,319 3,017,132 1,535,911 1,535,911 135.160 135,160 2,991,352
13 2022-23 7,855,871 2,338,908 409,235 360,509 3,108,651 1.571,174 1,571,174 138,263 138.263 3,037,783
14 2023-24 8,035,714 2,392,452 424,366 385,183 3,202,001 1,607.143 1.607,143 141,429 141,429 3,085,142
15 2024-25 8,219,153 2,447,067 439,801 410,350 3,297,218 1,643,831 1,643,831 144,657 144,657 3,133,448
16 2025-26 8,406,262 2,502,774 455,544 436,021 3,394,339 1,681,252 1.681,252 147,950 147,950 3,182,721
17 2026-27 8,597,112 2,559,595 471,602 462.205 3,493,402 1,719,422 1,719,422 151,309 151,309 3,232,978
18 2027-28 8,791,780 2.617,553 487,981 488,913 3,594,447 1,758,356 1.758,356 154,735 154.735 3,284,241
19 2028-29 8,990,341 2,676,670 504,688 516,155 3,697,513 1,798,068 1,798,068 158,230 158,230 3,336,530
20 2029-30 9,192,873 2,736,969 521.729 543,942 3.802,640 1,838,575 1,838,575 161,795 161.795 3,389,864
21 2030-31 9.399.455 2,798,474 539,111 572,284 3,909,869 1,879,891 1,879,891 165,430 165,430 3,444,265
22 2031-32 9,610,170 2,861,210 556,840 601,194 4,019,244 1,922,034 1,922,034 169,139 169,139 3,499,753
23 2032-33 8,603,238 2,561,389 553,543 463,045 3,577.977 1,720,648 1,720,648 151,417 151.417 3,153,197
24 2033-34 8,796.927 2,619,054 571,310 489.619 3.679,984 1,759,385 1,759.385 154,826 154,82. 3,202,732
Total 186,551,770 55,541,502 9.741,647 8,393,434 73,676,584 37,310,354 1.157.903 35,452,451 3,283,311 2,475,348 2,675,899 8.434,558 67,130,275
Cumulative Increment Net of Negotiated Pass Through Payments(applied to cap): 182,709,089
r
20
FISCAL CONSULTANT REPORT
r
While RSG has taken precautions to assure the accuracy of the data used in the formulation of these tax
increment revenue projections, we cannot ensure that projected valuations will be realized. Future events
and conditions that cannot be controlled or predicted with certainty may affect actual values presented in this
report.
ROSENOW SPEEVACEK GROUP INC.
l�,
Jim Simon Hitta Mosesman
Principal Senior Associate
RAG 21
ATTACHMENT #2
FINANCING OPTIONS MEMORANDUM
RSG
INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. T 714 5414585
309 WEST 4TH STREET F 714 5411175
SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA E INFO@WEBRSG.COM
92701-4502 WEBRSG.COM
Via Electronic Mail
Date: April 25, 2011
TO: Betsy Adams, City Manager
Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director
Bernie Simon, Finance Director
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
FROM: Jim Simon, RSG
Hitta Mosesman, RSG
SUBJECT: FINANCING OPTIONS—GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Pursuant to our recent discussions pertaining to the Grand Terrace Redevelopment
Agency's ("Agency") financing options to maximize revenues to complete projects and
programs within the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area ("Project
Area"), this memorandum provides information about various financing options available
to the Agency. With the potential passage of Assembly Bill 101 and Senate Bill 77,
which would effectively-eliminate redevelopment agencies and force agencies to forfeit
all revenues and assets with the exception of established indebtedness, it is advisable
that the Agency attempt to complete as many planned redevelopment activities in the
short-term. This memorandum provides an analysis regarding financing options
available to the Agency at this time to accomplish this objective.
Review of Existing Indebtedness
The California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000,
et. seq. ("CRL") requires all redevelopment agencies to file an annual report providing
information on all existing indebtedness to justify the collection of tax increment. More
specifically, the CRL requires redevelopment agencies to establish indebtedness
in order to collect tax increment. With this indebtedness, redevelopment agencies
obtain the resources to fund infrastructure and economic development projects, as well
as meet operational costs and other contractual obligations.
The "indebtedness-first" manner of securing tax increment revenue is intended to be a
safeguard that ensures that redevelopment agencies only receive the amount of tax
increment revenue to the extent it is needed; with the remainder of the tax increment
distributed to other taxing agencies. As a result, a redevelopment agency only collects
tax increment revenue to the extent it has indebtedness incurred to do so.
REDEVELOPFIENT PLANNING
REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS
HOUSING
FINANCING
REAL ESTATE ACOUISITION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Betsy Adams
Joyce Powers
Bernie Simon
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
April 25, 2011
Page 2
Based on our preliminary projections, the Agency is projected to collect as much as
$186 million in tax increment revenue through 2033-34. Compared 'to the amount of
existing indebtedness of $119 million, the Agency may not collect the remaining $67
million unless additional indebtedness is incurred.
The Agency's current indebtedness includes the following:
• 2004 Tax Allocation Bonds (requiring annual debt service payments until the
bonds are retired in fiscal year 2012-13)
• Zions Bank loan (formerly the 1997 Certificates of Participation) with annual debt
service payments until fiscal year 2020-21
• Annual payments to the County of. San Bernardino and the Colton Joint Unified
School District (pursuant to negotiated pass through agreements)
• Statutory annual pass through payments (required by the CRL to all taxing
entities except the County of San Bernardino and Colton Joint Unified School
District(CJUSD))
• Low and moderate income housing set aside (20 percent of gross tax increment)
• $448,636 loan from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for the
Supplemental Education Augmentation Fund
• County administrative fees
• Overhead and administrative costs
• Approximately$2,317,500 for various projects, including:
o Town Center
o CJUSD/Agency storm drain project
o Baseball field construction
_o Street improvements
At present, after spending approximately,$2.3 million in 2010-11, the Agency would not
have any additional funds for projects without incurring additional debt, forgoing over$67
million in net non-housing funds for principal and interest payments on economic
development and infrastructure programs. If AB 101 and SB 77 are adopted in their
current draft form, the elimination of redevelopment would cap the ability to incur
additional debt, thereby capping the ability of a redevelopment agency to obtain
additional tax increment revenue to undertake projects. In Grand Terrace, this may
mean a substantial loss of future local resources for both economic development as well
as affordable housing.
Redevelopment agencies all over California have employed a number of mechanisms to
secure future tax increment revenues by incurring additional debt, including loans with
the city or county, issuing tax allocation bonds, obtaining a line of credit, or other
legitimate means of capturing the most tax increment revenue possible to ensure as
much completion of redevelopment and economic development projects as possible, as
this may be the last such money the community may ever see.
Betsy Adams
Joyce Powers
Bernie Simon
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
April 25, 2011
Page 3
Near-Term Financing Options
As a result of these issues, we projected tax increment revenues over the next 23 years
to ascertain the amount of capacity to obtain additional funds. The Agency has sufficient
revenues, after the above-described obligations are met, to leverage this stream of
future revenue to fund projects and programs in the near-term. There are several
financing options available that the Agency can pursue, as described below.
Tax Allocation Bond Issues
Tax allocation bonds are the most commonly 'utilized financing mechanism for
redevelopment agencies to fund redevelopment activities. The Agency has issued
bonds in the past to raise revenues to immediately fund projects and programs. In order
to maximize near-term revenues, several bonding scenarios have been analyzed to
provide the Agency with various options.
Scenario 1
The first scenario assumes that the Agency will deposit,funds on hand 'Le., available
cash balance of$1.6 million) and the existing 2004 reserve fund held by the bond fiscal
agent (approximately $1.3 million) to .retire the outstanding 2004 bonds maturing
September 1, 2012. This scenario would result in a bond issue of approximately $23
million. After issuance costs and'reserve1requirements, the Agency would have
net proceeds of approximately $20 million.' The bonds would have a debt service
coverage factor:of 1.40; meaning that the,Agency's annual tax increment is projected to
be 1.40 times larger than the amount of the annual debt service payment.
It is important to note'that the 2004 bonds are not callable in advance of maturity due to
the terms of the bond indenture,so the approximately$2.9 million would be deposited in
an Escrow Fund and used by the Bond .Trustee to make the regularly scheduled
principal and interest payments on the 2004 Bonds until their final maturity. Additionally,
because.the 2004 Bonds were refunding bonds when they were issued, the Agency may
not use new bond proceeds to defease the 2004 Bonds.
Scenario 2
The second scenario assumes the 2004 Bonds are left outstanding until maturity and
debt service is "wrapped around" current debt service, or as current debt service is
reduced, some of the new debt service is applied, but the annual debt service remains
constant over the life of the bond issue. This Scenario ensures level debt service for
the Agency until the new bonds mature. Scenario 2 would yield a total of $22.5
million in bonds, with a net amount to the Agency of approximately $20 million
after issuance costs and reserve requirements are applied. This scenario would
also have a debt service coverage factor of 1.40.
Betsy Adams
Joyce Powers
Bernie Simon
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
April 25, 2011
Page 4
Scenario 3
The third scenario assumes the 2004 Bonds are left outstanding until maturity and debt
service is structured to remain at about the same levels as those currently paid by the
Agency. Scenario 3 results in a$15.5 million bond issue, with approximately$13.6
million in net proceeds to the Agency. The debt service coverage factor on these
bonds would be 2.0.
The table below provides a summary and comparison of these three scenarios.
Cash Needed Coverage(allows
for Reserve Net Proceeds to for>$850,000 for
Scenario# Fund Total Issue Agency admin costs)
1 $1,949,955 $23,035,000 $20,240,000 40%
2 $1,949,955 $22,500,000 $19,710,000 40%
3 $1,349,730 $15,575,000 $13,610,000 100%
As shown in the last column of the table above, each of the scenarios results in net tax
increment revenues of over $850,000- annually after existing debt service and
obligations, and new debt service from the:scenarios-described previously, are paid.
This financing structure allows the Agency to fund needed`annual administration costs.
A proposed schedule for bond-issuance,that-could-be,applicable under any of the three
scenarios is also provided on the,following,,page for informational purposes.
Betsy Adams
Joyce Powers
Bernie Simon
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
April 25, 2011
Page 5
Date Task
April 29, 2011 Financing Team Conference Call
April 29, 2011 Draft Revised Fiscal Consultant's Report
May 4, 2011 Financing Team Conference Call
Presentation of Financing Options to
Council/Request Authorization of Financing
May 10, 2011 Team/Direction to Start Rating Process
May 17, 2011 Draft Preliminary Official Statement
May 17, 2011 Draft Bond Indenture
May 23, 2011 Comments due on Preliminary Official Statement
May 23, 2011 Comments due on Bond Indenture
May 24, 2011 Council/Agency Resolutions for Bonds
May 26, 2011 Rating Agency Conference Call
May 31, 2011 - Receive Rating
June 1, 2011 Official Statement Printed
June 13, 2011 Pre-Price Bonds
June 14, 2011 Price Bonds/Agency signs Purchase Agreement
June 21, 2011, Bond Closing/Agency Receives Bond Proceeds
Private Placement
Private placement financing is .the sale of a bond or other security directly to a limited
number of investors. For example; sale of stocks, bonds, or other investments directly to
an institutional investor like an insurance company, avoiding the need for Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") registration if the securities are purchased for
investment as opposed to resale. A private placement is exempt from SEC registration,
subject to certain restrictions, because it is not offered to the general public. In order to
make a private placement, the issuer must file a private placement memorandum (PPM),
which explains exactly why the issue complies with SEC Regulation D exempting certain
companies from registration; this is done to protect both the issuer and the investors.
According to Regulation D, a PPM must contain a complete description of the security
and the terms of the sale. It must also include applicable information about the issuer's
financial situation and applicable risk factors.
We have researched the private placement option for the Agency and it appears that at
the present time, there is very little interest in this type of financing for redevelopment
Betsy Adams
Joyce Powers
Bernie Simon
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
April 25, 2011
Page 6
agencies. Therefore, this does not appear to be a viable option for the Agency at this
time.
Line of Credit
Another financing option to be explored is a line of credit for the Agency. We recently
learned that Wells Fargo Bank extended the City of Santa Monica Redevelopment
Agency a seven-year, $60 million line of credit in March of this year. It is our
understanding that Wells Fargo provides this type of line of-credit for existing customers
only and we are aware that the Agency currently banks with Bank of America.
Irrespective of Bank of America's own appetite and-terms,.if the Agency were to try to
pursue a similar seven-year financing with its •bank at terms similar to the Santa
Monica/Wells Fargo transaction, the net proceeds`'would be roughly half of a 23-year tax
allocation bond could yield, and leave no-certainty about capturing the additional tax
increment revenue after the seventh yea`r:in,the event that redevelopment is eliminated
by the State.
1
) 1
1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
ROLE OF FINANCING PARTICIPANTS
BOND COUNSEL (STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH):
Bond Counsel prepares all legal documents required in connection with the issuance of the bonds,
including:
• resolution approving the issuance of the bonds by the Agency, and establishing parameters for
the sale of the bonds;
• resolution approving the issuance of the bonds by the City required by Redevelopment Law; and
• the indenture of trust(the contract between the Agency and the Bondholders)
Bond Counsel gives its opinion on the tax-exemption of interest on the bonds under state and
federal tax law and that the pledge of revenue to the bonds is valid and binding.
Where, as here, Bond Counsel handles disclosures in connection with the public offering of bonds,
Bond Counsel reviews the official statement (similar to a prospectus) prepared by the Underwriter
to make sure that the disclosure of the Redevelopment Project details and the disclosure of risks
associated with ownership of the bonds is free from material misstatements and includes all the
information that a bondholder would need to make an informed investment decision. In this role,
Bond Counsel assists in defining the Agency's ongoing continuing disclosure requirement for
operating data.
FISCAL CONSULTANT (ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP):
The Fiscal Consultant prepares the projections of tax increment available to pay for the bonds, and
provides certain statistical data relating to the Redevelopment Project, such as formation
information, major taxpayers, appeals, and assessed value history, that will be incorporated into the
official statement and analyzed by rating analysts and investors in assessing the credit quality of the
bonds. The Fiscal Consultant additionally will review and comment upon statistical data within the
body of the official statement.
UNDERWRITER(WEDBUSH SECURITIES):
The Agency will sell its bonds to the Grand Terrace Public Financing Authority;.the Authority will,
in turn, immediately sell the bonds to the Underwriter, and the Underwriter sells the bonds to its
investor clients. The Underwriter works together with the Fiscal Consultant, Bond Counsel and
Agency Staff to make sure that the bonds are structured to be marketable. The Underwriter also
assists in preparing the Agency for discussions with the rating analysts and reviews all documents
prepared by Bond Counsel.
TRUSTEE (U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION):
The Trustee is the intermediary between the Agency and the bondholders. The Trustee collects
payment from the Agency and forwards the funds to bondholders. The Trustee also,acts on behalf
of bondholders in the event of a default under the indenture.
Tax Allocation Bonds
Issued in the State of California
January 1 2011 Present
Sale Date Par Amount Issuer Issue Description Tax Status
_01/19/2011 __$ 680000 WestmorlandRodama|o Redevelopment Tax Allocation Refundin B d Series 2011 Tax Exempt
n1/���--^1 � nrnr��' ��- �����p|o~~--^- S�n�KAa��o�---'- �l `ig -- '-ds!`-eo2--Or �_-` --'ra6ab|e�--�- '01/26/2011 68.790.000 Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds (Merged Project Areo).2D1i Series A Tax Exempt
0
2/03/2011, 6./25.000, '�17o/rne|d Redevelopment 8genoy� Taz7\|000Upn Bond o�Sohao'�O11�(Nodh�mzoo'Sh�otPr�en�. Taxable
. .
02/ 1/2O11 ____ 8835000 _ '_`_ __ Tax AJ|000Uon8ondm SereaA _ _ Tax Exempt
0�h1/2O11_ �55OO�O - genc �tt�e� ' ' edle �_ � _ ' - �[ '-�-
02/ 5/2O11 4.760.000 BlytheTox/U|ouoUonRevonuo8ondnRed�ve|opmantAganoy ' Series 2011 A( `e"",e'"p'''`"'` Tax Exempt
_ . Project No. 1) _ _
02/18/2011 12,480.000 �Stanto_ nRedave|b_ .p� .�men_ .fAoenuy' Houoing'Ton"�U|boaUoh8ond ^201� Series-A ' �To�ab|�
02/ 8/2O11 15.330.000 Stanton Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds,2O11 Series 8 (Stanton Consolidated Taxable
Redevelopment Project)
. `�` � ' � K8a
.D�/22/2U11 � 7.12O�OOO�' �o|m���Commor�� - |�pment/\gon�y� ` .`Redov�|� 'manhP ` |` ' ~'n""���|��o`. `' Tax-.-Exempt,:
' 2011�'
02/22/2011 9565000 K8anzhJoirdPo�enoR�deva|opmentAgm Tax Sahao3O11A Tax� . � -- _ �' -- ~' � - Allocation _- --
. ` ' � ` |o�mmnon '
02/22/2011 OOD ' `K8eroh`Jointpowanu^Rada0e|opn�a � '� ~''°�^~~~"~~r~~.�� '~p� - `Ta�E�ampt
_ ,�. ,,.. , '�'�ny`"�, YFe�`|opr� ' '
02/28/2011 6.005.000 Redevelopment Agency nf the C�yof(�o� 2D11 Tax/U|ocotonBonds, 8er�a��and B ��o� Taxable
� Redevelopment Project)
� �� ./���ouu ^' ` .' �'r '-'-- ��� `--' `
-_-_ ' . pt
..,-.� ' �^
02/38/2011 10.490.000 Redevelopment Agency of the City ofVernon- Tax Allocation Bonds, Gmrea2O11 (industrial Redevelopment Taxable
Projec
1 �^�� . � . � 2uy� unop � '
^.. iBnt�A- . ' ' �.
03/01/2011 13.310.000 Redevelopment Agency of the City ofDova 3O11 Subordinate Tax Allocation Bonds, Series A and B(Davis Tax Exempt
Redevelopment Project)
- ''"~- '--^�� �-�r ,��-�� -� ' '`���- ' ' -- . . ~.-
' 1/2n1Y � 1�J15.00O- f�ah' |up 6f�ha-C�yotEo|ob `-.'�/ '�n^���ox��som /no������ ^ Taxable
'
Central Folsom Redevelopment Project Subordinate Tax
03/01/2011 11.365.000 Redevelopment Agency of the City ofFolsom Allocation Bonds, Housing Set Aside Tax Allocation Bonds, Taxable
Series 2D118
_ 'Cu|v��Qty.Radeve|opmentAoanoy^.' � _ . ���To�AUoo��ion��ondu/���d�e�2O11A � '.'�^' ` `Ta�Fx -� '
03/01/2011
33,585,000
33 58SODD Culverkm- City-R_a-d_--'_ _ -'_ ' -----' - Tax
_Allocation
-Bonds,_Sah- / 2'n_11B ' '---' -- Taxob|
ecu 35,0'00 — - -- '
Re eve opmen �
- - _. -
03/01/3011 19.150.000 Lemoone Redevelopment Agency Lemoore Redevelopment Project 2O11 Tax Allocation Bonds Tax Exempt
Tax Allocation Bonds
Issued in the State of California
January 1, 2011 - Present
Sale Date Par AmountDescripti-on Tax Status
;'84'5;000, -Santee Redevelopment_A'gency:., :Tax Allocation Non-.Housing°Bonds;;Secies'2011A Tax:Exempt _
-- ------ - - - --
03/02/2011 4,710,000 Santee Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Non-Housing Bonds, Series 2011 B Taxable
03/02/2011 14;093,028. Riverside RedevelopmenfAgency _ T2011`TaxAllocatiori Housing_Bonds,-Series'-A Tax Exempt
03/02/2011 14,095:000 Riverside Redevelopment Agency 2011 Tax Allocation Housing Bonds, Series A-T Taxable
03l02/2011 29,590.;000 Community,.Redevelopment::Agency,of,the City of:, 'Subordinate', Tax_Allocatiom'Bonds;._Series 20.1.1.(City of- Tax Exempt
.Union,City Union-City-Community Redevelopment Project)
03/03/2011 11,315,000 Count of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds (Live Oak/Soquel Community) Series
Y p g Y 2011A Taxable
03/03/2011 5'595 000 Count of Santa Cruz Redevelo menf A enc Tax Allocation Bonds-(Live Oak/Soquel Community,),Series
Y - P g y 2011 B Taxable
Agency 03/03/2011 16,085,000 Goleta Redevelopment A 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds (Goleta Old Town Redevelopment
p 9 Y Tax Exempt
-- -- - -_-- - - --- -- ---._,_ _ Project) _
03/07/2011 18;480;000 L nwood:Redevelo mentA enc Tax Allocation Bonds,-(Project-Area A-Subordinate. -.2011
Y _ p - 9 YSeries A. Tax Exempt
03/07/2011 5,660,000 Lynwood Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds(Housing Projects-Subordinate Lien),
Y p g Y 2011 Series B Taxable
03/08/2011 5 1'80,000 ,Ukiah.Redevelopment--Agency Tax Alloc4o—n' :Bonds; Series-2011'A. Tax Exempt
03/08/2011 _ 3,250,000 Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds Series 2011 B Tax Exempt
03/15/2011 23,,133,000 Riverside.Redevelopment Agency 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series B Tax Exempt
03/15/2011 11,525,000 Riverside Redevelopment Agency 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series B-T Taxable
0311-5/2011 6',475',000 Riverside Redevelopment:Agency, 2011 Tax Allocation,Bonds,_Series 2011 Dr- Tax-Exempt
03/15/2011 12,579,720 Riverside Redevelopment Agency 2011 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2011 E Tax Exempt
03/17/2011 27;335;000 City-and'County:of;_San,Francisco.Redevelopment: Tax Allocation Revenue:Bonds;=Series12011C (Mission-Bay Tax Exempt-
- -Fin-ancing.Authority �,North'Redevelopment:Project)
03/17/2011 36,485,000 Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San 2011 Series D Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds(Mission Bay Tax Exempt
Francisco South Redevelopment Project)
Redevelopment;Agency.of the-CityandiCounty,of=San --
03l18/201;1 22;370;000,=
Francisco—Tax;Allocati6n.Bonds;'Series'20-1 `_Taxable,
03/23/2011 17,000,600 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Novato Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2011 (Hamilton Field Tax Exempt
- - :------ ---------:------- -- --------- -------- -- -- -- -- --..._.__.Redevelopment Project) -
03/25l201.1 8;835;000 Si naI HilfRedevelo mentA enc 2011 Tax:Allocation.P_arity,Bonds"(Signal,HillRedevelopment', - -
Z ,9, p 9 Y = _ TaX"Exempt =
_;Project,No;;1)
04/07/2011 50,000,000 Glendale Redevelopment Agency 2011 Subordinate Tax Allocation Bonds(Central Glendale Taxable
- Redevelopment Project)
04/12/'011 8,000;000 Monrovia Redevelo ment A enc Housing Tax Allocation Bonds,-,- (Central.. -
p- g Y Redevelopment Project-Project Area�N6.1) Tax;Exempt
04/19/2011 8,575,000 Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency Four Corner Project Area, Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2011A Tax Exempt
Tax Allocation Bonds
Issued in the State of California
January 1, 2011 - Present
Sale Date Par Amount Issuer Issue D�scription Tax Status
04/19/2011- 3;000 000- TwentY'nine>Palms-Redevelo ment Q enc . Four Corner;Project A .
rea, Housing,P 9 Y Tax Exempt-
- _- -- __ -- ._.-_-- _ _- _ Series 2201.1 B,
04/19/2011 9,455,000 City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series 2011 B and Series Taxable
Financing Authority 2011 E
04/19/2011 16;020;000 City and County ofiSan Francisco Redevelopment TaxAllocation.Revenue.Bonds; Series 201.1 B°and Series Tax:Exempt
Financing Authority 201'1.E
TOTAL $ 780,343,635 50 Transactions
t .
FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT
• Primary source is Tax Increment Revenue
— Others include grants, loans, ,deve lope r advances
• Tax increment revenue redirects a portion of tax from the
growth in property values to the redevelopment agency
• No increase in tax rates
FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT
New
Redevelopment Private
Project Area Investment
Created; Tax
Base Set
Potentaial Tax
y I crement Re enue
a)
U)
U)
a
1980 2034
Year
M map
HOW MUCH TAXES STAY LOCALLY?
70% �4�/
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
0%
Without RDA With RDA
O
BREAKDOWN OF FUTURE $186.5M OF
PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT
CONTINGENT TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE
Redevelopment agencies must first
have a reason ("indebtedness") to
Taxing
collect revenue before they can Agency
collect it. Payments,
$76.90
Potential `
Funds to
Agency,
$102.60
In other words...
Other Agency
Agency would only receive $102.6 Debt, $7.00
million IF additional indebtedness is
incurred.
FISCAL CONSULTANT'S REPORT
RSG CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAY 103 2011
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION
Financial Objectives
• History/Purpose of the Fiscal Consultant's Report
• Time and Financial Limitations
General Assumptions for Tax Increment Projections
• Tax Increment Revenue Projections
FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES
• Protect Agency Resources
• Obtain funds to Finance Various Projects
• Maintain Conservative Fiscal Policies
• Invest in Projects that Generate Positive Economic
Activity in Community
PURPOSE OF FISCAL REPORT
• Leverage TI Revenues to Complete Planned
Projects/Programs
• Tax Allocation Bonds Routinely Issued by Agencies (50
issues since January 2011 in CA)
• Fiscal Consultant's Report
— included in bond documents to show Agency's ability to pay
bond debt service
— data and evidence on assumptions for TI projections
WHY IS THIS REPORT PREPARED?
• Variety Of Purposes
— Rating Agencies Review as Part of Potential Financing to
Determine Quality Of Credit
— Underwriters Evaluate for Purposes of Sizing and Pricing of Debt
Issuance
— Potential Investors Obtain Copy as Part of Official Statement for
Bond Debt
— Tool for Staff and Agency Board, Provides a More
Comprehensive Study of Potential Revenues
KEY CONTENTS OF REPORT
• Background Information on Agency & Project Area
• Analysis of Factors Affecting Assessed Values &
Revenues
• Projections Through 2034
— Conservative Forecast
O
BACKGROUND OF PROJECT AREA
• Established Between CONCENTRATION OF
1979 and 1981 OWNERSHIP
• Encompasses Entire
Top 10
City Taxpayers
14.6%
• Relatively Diversified
ownership
• Assessed values
Declining Due to
Residential 1
Depreciation All Other``
Taxpayers
85.4%
RECENT ASSESSED VALUES
=Annual AV Change Linear (Annual AV Change)
1,000,000,000
900,000,000
800,000,000
700,000,000
600,000,000 t,
500,000,000
400,000,000
... ,. { ,fir"fl,• r. .'. .{,� '+
1'k` ag''E�_[%rK µ4;i'Ai� t:p •' yb*�'r%
300,000,000
'7��� ,,4� `L '#^'"* , _,,x.k.}, v'3Y:� 7X"� �`•iY'�`� ,s�'tl�!; •r.• �'14t
200,000,000u7y a '
;a^'<s• �,,," '� '�f�:y+_V y'•t.{�Lk.F Y,4':�'S`� .'°�P�.'1 :a.t�s 3" �'%:� k.� ;�+
100,000,000
..P( kl,A^,y�f, �"^�inT''",,qq +",yy'�;:, .,may,` ,� .3C " } ""°d; V"•F,,� ry��^; �'+
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
CHANGES IN ASSESSED VALUES
15.0%
10.0%
r
5.0%
y 0.0%
a
-5.0%
-10.0%
O� 0�O0 O`OO'� O�p�
,yO ,yo tip ,yO ,yoti
Fiscal Year
0 County 0 Project Area
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
Proposition 13 Inflationary Adjustments
Resales and Market Values
Existing Obligations
Assessment Appeals
County Surcharges
New Construction
Apportionment Policies
SERAF Payment
Tax Rates Delinquencies/Collection History
Major Taxpayers Impacts
Assessor-Initiated Reductions
O
EXISTING OBLIGATIONS
• Senior to new debt
— Housing Set Aside
— County Fees
— Taxing Agency Payments
— 2004 Bond Payments Pass
Through
• Subordinate to New Debt Payments,
Operating Costs f'otentisl $76,959,895
p g Fwndsto
— Zions Bank Loan Repayment Agency,
$102,582,725
• Ensure capacity to meet both
types of obligations
Other
Existing
Agency
Debt,
$7,009,150
TAX INCREMENT PROJECTIONS
2011-12 Gross Tax Increment 6,284,687
Low/Mod Housing Set-Aside 1,256,937
Pass Through Payments 2,392,966
Net Tax Increment 2,634,784
Existing Subordinate Debt 1,492,521
' Net Tax Increment After Existing Debt 1,142,263
Net Tax Increment
$4,000,000
$3,50 0,0 0 0
$3,000,000 - -
$2,50 0,0 0 0 -
$2,000,000 —
$1,500,000
$1,000,000 -
$500,000
N4) ;\°j �� ,r1` ryrL ,t'h .y� rye rp ti� ti� ti�
`L `L -p rpp rp rL, rL0 rip �� 'p rL� rLO rp
Fiscal Consultants Report Presentation
QUESTIONS
0 -
i L
CALIFORNIA AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2011 Council Item (X) CRA Item ( )
TITLE: _Check Register No. 05-10-2011
PRESENTED BY: Bernie Simon, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
BACKGROUND:
The Check Register for May 10, 2011 is presented in accordance with Government
Code §37202.
The attached index to the warrant register is a guideline account list only and is not
intended to replace the voluminous list of accounts used by the City and CRA.
Expenditure account number formats are XX-XXX XXX [Fund-Depart-General Account].
Expenditures may be made from trustiagency accounts (fund 23-xxx-) or temporary
clearing accounts which do not have budgetary considerations.
DISCUSSION:
A total of $592,637.26 in accounts payable checks was issued during the period for
services, reimbursements, supplies and contracts and are detailed in the attached
Check Register. Payroll costs for the period amounted to $71,991.66 and are
summarized below.
Some of the non-routine items include:
66701 Burrtec Waste Tax Roll Collection-Delinquent Trash Fees $5,832.05
Industries, Inc.
66703 Chino Ice 11 Tons Snow for Child Care Snow Day $2,229.70
66722 Len Perdue Appraisal Analysis/Summary Appraisal $2,600.00
Report for property on Grand Terrace Road
66726 Redflex Traffic February and March Contract Services $9,804.20
Systems
COUNCIL- AGENDA ITEM NO.3R
S i
66741 Wildan Winter Storm Damage-Grand Terrace Road $11800.00
Account 10-190-702-001-000
Some the larger items include:
66711 Fraco Baseball Field Construction Management $10,628.88
Enterprises Services/Misc.
66728 Rock Bottom Baseball Field Construction Payment#4 $55,514.85
66730 SB Co. Auditor/ 2011 SERAF Payment—state required shift $448,636.00
Controller of property taxes to schools
Payroll costs processed for period ending April 15, 2011
Date Period Payroll and payroll costs
04/15/11 Biweekly $71,991.66
FISCAL IMPACT:
All disbursements are made in accordance with the adopted budget for FY 2010-11,
Respectfully submitted,
Bernie Simon
Finance Director
Manager Approval:
Betsy NrAda s
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Register—May 10, 2011
vchlist Voucher List Page:
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66686 4/26/2011 011110 TIME WARNER CABLE Apr 844840...3817 APR/MAY CABLE&INTERNETSERVICE-SR CNTR
10-805-238-000-000 58.91
Total: 58.91
66687 4/26/2011 011110 TIME WARNER CABLE Apr 844840..3825 APR/MAY CABLE&INTERNET SERVICE-SR CNTR
10-805-238-000-000 58.91
Total: 58.91
66688 4/26/2011 001206 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION Mar/Apr 2011 Mar/Apr Visa Charges
21-175-270-000-000 Prop 26 Webinar Registration 200.00
10-440-228-000-000 Mother's Day/St.Patrick's Day Supplies-C.Care 46.32
10-440-219-000-000 General Supplies-C.Care 63.47
23-200-14-00 Walk-a-thon Fundraiser 71.48
10440-221-000-000 Mother's Day Tea Supplies 43.45
10-175-272-000-000 Alignment&Oil Change for Maintenance Trucks 210.08
32-200-270-000-000 ICSC Workshop 4/6/2011-J.Powers 45.00
Total: 679.80
66689 4/26/2011 001213 AT&T Apr 2011 Apr/May Phones&Internet Service
10-440-235-000-000 173.36
10-190-235-000-000 506.79
10-450-235-000-000 46.26
10-805-235-000-000 159.04
10-808-235-000-000 76.75
Total: 962.20
66690 4/26/2011 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 6123173 Neighborhood Imp.Grant-Hughes
32-600-305-000-000 .757.49
6123175 Neighborhood Imp.Grant-Chavez
32-600-305-000-000 1,057.01
Total: 1,814.50
66691 4/28/2011 006285 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO Feb/Apr 2011 Feb/Apr Usage and Fees
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66691 4/28/2011 006285 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO (Continued)
10-190-238-000-000 319.11
10-805-238-000-000 655.30
10-440-238-000-000 140.21
10-450-238-000-000 1,667.49
26-600-239-000-000 99.47
26-601-239-000-000 28.86
32-600-301-000-000 10.30
32-600-307-000-000 20.60
34-700-709-000-000 10.30
34-700-710-000-000 10.30
34-700-767-000-000 10.30
Total: 2,972.24
66692 5/2/2011 010996 CA PUB EMPLOYEES'RET.SYSTEM H2011051493000 MAY EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT HEALTH INS.
34-400-142-000-000 - 384.84
10-625-142-000-000 277.92
10-022-61-00 8,341.49
10-022-55-00 684.13
10-190-265-000-000 74.93
10-120-142-000-000 363.45
10-125-142-000-000 641.38
10-140-142-000-000 962.07
10-172-142-000-000 406.19
10-175-142-000-000 662.75
10-180-142-000-000 171.03
10-370-142-000-000 726.88
10-380-142-000-000 320.68
10-440-142-000-000 2,256.70
10450-142-000-000 342.06
16-175-142-000-000 940.67
21-175-142-000-000 427.60
32-200-142-000-000 684.10
32-370-142-000-000 470.34
Total: 19,139.21
66693 5/3/2011 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY April 2011 April Energy Usage
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher _ Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66693 5/3/2011 006720' SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY (Continued)
10-450-238-000-000 1,046.45
10-190-238-000-000 2,551.44
16-510-238-000-000 455.84
10-440-238-000-000 790.11
10-172-238-000-000 74.26
10-175-238-000-000 74.26
Total: 4,992.36
66694 5/3/2011 001213 AT&T April 2011 Apr/May Phones&Internet Service
10-190-235-000-000 122.59
Total: 122.59
66695 5/3/2011 001038 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 0971021114 Apr/May Wirless Service-Public Works
10-175-240-000-000 103.21
Total: 103.21
66696 5/10/2011 001072 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 120623897 4TH QTR SR. CTR SECURITY MONITORING
10-805-245-000-000 160.83
10-805-245-000-000 100.00
Total: 260.83
66697 5/10/2011 011184 ALBERT GROVER&ASSOCIATES 11116-IN Signal Light Timing
16-510-255-000-000 625.00
_ Total: 625.00
66698 5/10/2011 010293 AVAYA, INC. 2730960122 APR/MAY PHONE&VOICE MAIL MAINT
10-190-246-000-000 183.46
Total: 183.46
_f
66699 5/10/2011 010293 AVAYA, INC. 352747 Replacement Phone
10-190-246-000-000 160.56
Total: 160.56
66700 5/10/2011 010070 BEARDSLEY,KEVIN HOWARD Jan-Apr 2011 JAN-APR VIDEO CAMERA OPERATOR-CC MTGS
10-125-250-000-000 400.00
Total: 400.00
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66701 5/10/2011 011170 BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. 04252011 4/13/11 Tax Roll Delinq.Trash Fees
23-302-90-00 7,638.10
04252011A 4/13/11 Tax Roll Delinq.Trash Fees
10-200-01 -1,416.62
04252011 B _ 4/13111 Tax Roll Delinq.Trash Fees
10-200-09 330.55
04252011C 4/13/11 Tax Roll Delinq.Trash Fees
10-200-14 -14.72
04252011 D 4/13/11 Tax Roll Delinq.Trash Fees
__ 10-200-02 -4�4.16
Total: 5,832.05
66702 5/10/2011 011017 CA. BLDG.STANDARDS COMMISSION 3rd Qtr 2010-2011 3rd Qtr Green Building Standards Fee
10-700-01 -5.30
23-200-23-00 53.00
Total: 47.70
66703 5/10/2011 010297 CHINO ICE 35014 11 TONS SNOW DELIVERED 4/27/11
23-200-14-00 2,229.70
Total: 2,229.70
66704 5/10/2011 010403 CITY OF REDLANDS AR131885 March CNG Fuel
34-800-272-000-000 183.37
Total: 183.37
66705 5/10/2011 010866 CIVIC PLUS 88818 MAY WEBSITE MAINT FEE
10-125-250-000-000 652.25
Total: 652.25
66706 5/10/2011 001867 COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 172008 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 378.98
Total: 378.98
66707 5/10/2011 001930 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION B2079412 April Notice of Public Hearing
10-370-230-000-000 169.40
Total: 169.40
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66708 5/10/2011 010711 DANKA FINANCIAL SERVICES 74558722 MAY E-STUDIO 350 TOSHIBA COPIER
10-172-246-000-000 79.78
10-1757246-000-000 79.79
Total: 159:57
66709 5/10/2011 001942 DATA TICKET INC. 35772 March Parking Cite Processing Services
10-140-255-000-000 100.00
Total: 100.00
66710 5/10/2011 011183 DISCOUNT TIRE/AMERICA'S TIRE 2022673 Tires for Ford F-250
10-175-272-000-000 408.51
Total: 408.51
66711 5/10/2011 011106 FRACO ENTERPRISES INC 500.04 APRIL BBALL FIELD CONSULT&CONSTR'N MGT
32-600-312-003-000 10,628.88
Total: 10,628.88
66712 5/10/2011 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 90762605 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 80.19
Total: 80.19
66713 5/10/2011 002795 GARCIA, LEE ANN May 2011 May Health Insurance Reimbursement
10-110-142-000-000 427.58
Total: 427.58
66714 5/10/2011 002867 GOLDEN PROTECTIVE SERVICES 148865 RUBBER GLOVES
10-440-228-000-000 86.78
Total: 86.78
66715 5/10/2011 010164 GREAT-WEST PR End 4/15/11 CONTRIBUTIONS/LOANS FOR PR END 4/15/11
10-022-63-00 4,978.36
10-022-64-00 2,167.48
Total: 7,145.84
66716 5/10/2011 010632 HIGH TECH SECURITY SYSTEMS 95704 MAY SECURITY CAMERA MAINT AGREEMENT
10-195-247-000-000 20.00
10-450-246-000-000 60.00
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66716 5/10/2011 010632 HIGH TECH SECURITY SYSTEMS (Continued) Total: 80.00
66717 5/10/2011 004320 LAWNMOWER CENTER 9318 MOWER/BLOWER REPAIRS
10-450-246-000-000 191.33
Total: 191.33
66718 5/10/2011 004989 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION 15806118 ERRORS&OMISSIONS INSURANCE-MARTINEZ
10-125-220-000-000 33.00
Total: 33.00
66719 5/10/2011 010097 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 410575025-104 Mar/Apr Wireless Service-Maint/C.Care
10-175-240-000-000 240.51
10-440-235-000-000 49.07
Total: 289.58
66720 5/10/2011 005400 OFFICE DEPOT 562020857001 Office Supplies
10-140-210-000-000 111.32
562422613001 COPY PAPER/OFFICE SUPPLIES
10-140-210-000-000 74.21
10-100-212-000-000 717.53
Total: 903.06
66721 5/10/2011 011190 PARAMO,JACQUELINE 04252011 Refund Admin SA 10-06 Withdrawn
10-420-11 600.00
Total: 600.00
66722 5/10/2011 011192 PERDUE,LEN 11-015 Appraisal Analysis/Summary App Report
32-600-325-000-000 2,600.00
Total: 2,600.00
66723 5/10/2011 005586 PETTY CASH 04282011 Replenish C.Care Petty Cash
10-440-228-000-000 28.40
10440-221-000-000 44.01
10-440-223-000-000 99.44
10-440-210-000-000 7.60
10-440-220-000-000 15.93
Total: 195.38
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66724 5/10/2011 010565 QUICK LANE 096185 Diagnose CNG Leak on F-150
10-175-272-000-000 95.00
Total: 95.00
66725 5/10/2011 010420 RDO EQUIPMENT CO, RDO TRUST#80-5800 P20094 V-Belt for Lawn Mower
10-450-246-000-000 25.38
Total: 25.38
66726 5/10/2011 011074 REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 30269 February Contract Services
17-900-255-000-000 5,281.36
31228 March Contract Services
17-900-255-000-000 4,516.84
Total: 9,804.20
66727 5/10/2011 006298 ROAD WORKS INC. D01511 SC Maintenance Crack Sealing-Michigan
16-900-257-000-000 4,400.00
Total: 4,400.00
66728 5/10/2011 011172 ROCK BOTTOM, INC. PW-06-10-4 BASEBALL FIELD PER GTB 10-06
32-600-312-000-000 44,657.10
Total: 44,657.10
66729 5/10/2011 006335 ROQUET PAVING INC. 0410.11 Grind/Overlay Asphalt on Michigan
16-900-257-000-000 4,395.00
Total: 4,395.60
66730 5/10/2011 006453 S.B. COUNTY AUDITOR/CONTROLLER May 2011 2011 SERAF Payment
33-300-701-000-000 448,636.00
Total: 448,636.00
66731 5/10/2011 006557 S.B.COUNTY DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS FC 129/11 4TH QTR NPDES FLOOD CONTROLL AGRMNT
10-625-220-000-000 3,725.00
Total: 3,725.00
66732 5/10/20111' 006498 S.B.COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL 04262011 Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester-Cruz
10-175-265-000-000 67.00
Total: 67.00
Page: 7
vchlist - Voucher List Page: 8
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66733 5/10/2011 006510 S.B. COUNTY INFORMATION 11286 March Pager Access
10-175-240-000-000 9.00
Total: 9.00
66734 5/10/2011 010143 SERRANO NURSERY 499235 Replacement Trees-Main Street Accident
10-700-13 110.93
Total: 110.93
66735 5/10/2011 011071 STANCKIEWITZ,W. May 2011 May Health Insurance Reimbursement
10-110-142-000-000 415.00
Total: 415.00
66736 5/10/2011 011189 STATE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS CORP 95027876 Kitchen Sanitizers-C.Care
10-440-220-000-000 216.42
Total: 216.42
66737 5/10/2011 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 1042005148 C.CARE FOOD&SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 492.93
1042712164 C.CARE FOOD&SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 507.99
Total: 1,000.92
66738 5/10/2011 010443 THE TROPHY STORE 04182011 Employee of the Month Plaque-C.Care
10-440-228-000-000 135.50
Total: 135.50
66739 5/10/2011 011191 VICKERY,TARA 05022011 Business License Fee Refund
10-200-03 30.00
Total: 30.00
66740 5/10/2011 007854 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS CO 552390 MARCH PEST CONTROL SERVICES
10-195-245-000-000 125.00
10-805-245-000-000 33.00
Total: 158.00
66741 5/10/2011 007920 WILLDAN 002-11153 A MARCH INSPECTION SERVICES
10-172-250-000-000 1,870.00
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
05/03/2011 5:05:39PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
66741 5/10/2011 007920 WILLDAN (Continued)
002-11153 B MARCH PLAN CHECK SERVICES
10-172-250-000-000 1,540.00
002-11154 MARCH PUBLIC WORKS OBSERVATION-STATERS
10-172-250-000-000 1,215.00
002-11155 MARCH ENGINEERING SRVS
10-175-255-000-000 240.00
002-11156 Storm Damage Geotech Srvs-GT Road
10-190-702-001-000 1,800.00
002-11157 Mar Eng Srvs-Disabled Access Barrier
22-425-301-000-000 1,510.00
Total: 8,175.00
66742 5/10/2011 010864 WIRZ, MATT 04182011' Mileage Reimbursement
21-175-271-000-000 22.44
Total: 22.44
66743 5/10/2011 007987 XEROX CORPORATION 054774630 APRIL XEROX WORKCENTRE 5755
10-190-700-000-000 308.10
Total: _ 308.10
66744 5/10/2011 007987 XEROX CORPORATION 054774629 APRIL LEASE XEROX CC265H
10-190-700-000-000 294.34
Total: 294.34
59 Vouchers for bank code: bofa Bank total: 592,637.26
59 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 592,637.26
Page: 9
City of Grand Terrace
Warrant Register Index
DeptNo. Department Name General Account Numbers
FD No. Fund Name 110 SALARIES/WAGES
10 GENERAL FUND 110 CITY COUNCIL
120 CITY MANAGER 139 EMPLOYEES'BENEFIT PLAN
11 STREET FUND 125 CITY CLERK 140 RETIREMENT
12 STORM DRAIN FUND 140 FINANCE 142 HEALTHILIFE INSURANCE
13 PARK FUND 143 WORKERS'COMPENSATION
14 AB 3229 COPS FUND 160 CITY ATTORNEY
172 BUILDING&SAFETY 138/141 MEDICARE/SUI
15 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND 175 PUBLIC WORKS 210 OFFICE EXPENSE
16 GAS TAX FUND 218-219 NON-CAPITAL FURN/SMALL TOOLS
17 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND/TDA FUND 185 COMMUNITY EVENTS
185 RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM 220 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL EXP
19 FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FUND REN 230 ADVERTISING
20 MEASURE I FUND 190 GENERAL GOVERNMENT(NON-DEPT)
195 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 235 COMMUNICATIONS
21 WASTE WATER DISPOSAL FUND
MMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEV
22 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 370 CO 240-2 UTILITIES
42 RENTS&LEASES
26 LSCPG/LGHTG ASSESSMENT DIST. 380 MGT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 245-246 MAIINT BLDG GRNDS EQUIPMNT
44 BIKE LANE CAPITAL FUND 410 LAW ENFORCEMENT
430 RECREATION SERVICES 250-251 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
46 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 440 CHILD CARE 255-256 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
47 BARTON RD.BRIDGE PROJECT 450 PARKS MAINTENANCE 260 INSURANCE&SURETY BONDS
32 CRA-CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 265 MEMBERSHIPS&DUES
33 CRA-DEBT SERVICE FUND 631 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE
801 PLANNING COMMISSION 268 TRAINING
34 CRA-LOW&MOD HOUSING 802 CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 270 TRAVEUCONFERENCES/MTGS
804 HISTORICAL&CULTURAL COMM. 272 FUEL&VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
805 SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM 570 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
807 PARKS&REC COMMITTEE 33-300 DEBT SERVICE
808 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PROG. 7XX FACILITIES IMPRV(NO CIP)
700 COMPUTER-RELATED
701 VEHICLES&EQUIPMENT
1
F
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the afore-listed checks for payment of City and
Community Redevelopment Agency liabilities have been audited by me and are necessary and
appropriate for the operation of City and Agency.
ZL'X-Z�'
Bernie Simon, Finance Director
PENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 10,2011
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council
Chambers,Grand Terrace Civic Center,22795 Barton Road,Grand Terrace,California,on May 10,
2011 at 4:30 p.m. _
PRESENT: Walt.Stanckiewitz, Mayor
Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tern
Darcy McNaboe, Councilmember
Bernardo Sandoval, Councilmember
Gene Hays, Councilmember
Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Bernard Simon, Finance Director
Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director
Richard Shields, Building& Safety Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Sgt. Ed Finneran, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Rick McClintock, San_Bernardirio County Fire Department
ABSENT: None
CONVENE THE JOINT CRA/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP at 4:30 P.M.
JOINT CRA/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
A Joint CRA/City Council Workshop was held to discuss the following item:
1. Overview of Bonding Process
Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the CRA/City Council Workshop at 5:52 p.m.
The City Council meeting was opened at 6:00 p.m. with an Invocation by Ken Wolf, Calvary the
Brook Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tern Lee Ann Garcia.
ITEMS TO DELETE -None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Water Awareness Poster Contest Winner- Terrace View
Don Hough, Riverside Highland Water Company, thanked the Mayor and the Council for
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.��
Council Minutes
05/10/2011
Page 2
the opportunity to recognize the.students of Terrace View Elementary School. He stated that
this is the 20t'Year for the adopt=a-school program for Riverside Highland Water Company ,
and Terrace View Elementary School.and the poster contest is one of their favorite things
that they do. He introduced the principal of Terrace View Elementary School Dr. Joseph
Adeyemo.
Dr. Adeyemo, Principal, Terrace View Elementary School, thanked the Council for their
support.
Frank Sanchez, Riverside Highland Water Company, introduced all of the winners from
kindergarten through sixth grade.
B. Spring Volunteer Project Recognition
Community and Economic Development Director Joyce Powers,announced that there were
three volunteer projects that the community worked on. She gave an overview of the three
projects and indicated that the following groups and organizations will receive Certificate
of Recognition:
George Candray
Grand Terrace Woman's Club
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Mayor Stanckiewitz presented each of them with certificates and thanked them for their
efforts.
C. Chamber of Commerce Business of the Month
Sally McGuire, President, Grand Terrace Area Chamber of Commerce, announced that
Spring Hills Family Dentistry is the Business of the Month for April 2011.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2011-36 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER ,
HAYS, CARRIED 5-0,to approve the following Consent Calendar Items:
3A. Approve Check RegisterNo. 05/10/2011
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of Minutes of 04/26/2011
3D. Historical and Cultural Activities Committee Minutes of April 4, 2011
PUBLIC COMMENT
Council Minutes
05/10/2611
Page 3
John Van Winkle, 10604 Trademark Parkway,Rancho Cucamonga,formally requested,on
behalf of Assemblyman Mike Morrell,that the Council support,in the form of a letter,AB
998.AB998 mandates that any appropriations bill for the budget be published publicly and
electronically three days before a floor vote.
CC-2011-37 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
MCNABOE,CARRIED 5-0,to add the Support of AB998 to the agenda under New
Business.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gene Hays,reported that recently he.was driving and he saw a kid about to
write some graffiti and he stopped his car and told him not to do that. The-kid didn't do it
and thanked him for stopping him. He urged residents to take an active role in things that
are going on in the City.
Councilmember Darcy McNaboe, reported that she had the opportunity to be a part-of the
clean-up day with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: They had a large amount
of volunteers and she was thrilled that they chose Grand Terrace to do their Community
Clean-up Day. She was alerted that there were kittens trapped in a storm drain on Grand
Terrace Road. Two young women had discovered them and.they called animal control and
they waited for over an hour for arrival only to have their hopes of rescue smashed when the
animal control officer wasn't adequately equipped to help. They caught the attention of our
resident animal rescue/realtor Bobbie Forbes who began making calls to bring help. The first
to respond were the firefighters. They got a hold of another animal control officer who was
able to respond with the necessary equipment and they were able to fish the five kittens from
the storm drain. The event was captured on film by an independent news correspondent who
sold the story to FOX's Channel 11. The kittens will be ready for adoption in a few weeks.
She thanked the firefighters, animal control and to the independent news correspondent for
showcasing Grand Terrace with a positive feel good story.
Councilmember Bernardo Sandoval,reported that he attended the Art Show and was really
impressed and really enjoyed it. He feels that it was a great event and would love to see it
grow. Supervisor Neil Derry was recently in town holding a town meeting and provided
some great insight to some of the challenges that are going on at the County level. There was
a School Board Meeting on that same evening where they discussed the issue of Coach Brey.
He was voted in 7-0. There were a lot of things that took place to make that happen. They
laid off 70 teachers,which affects all of us. He thanked the Councilmembers that were able
to attend the School Board Meeting.
Mayor Pro Tern Lee Ann Garcia, stated that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
is a very committed group that is so willing to serve the community. She feels that it was a
Council Minutes
05/10/2011
Page 4
wonderful day and thanked Staff and the Church for making it all happen. She reported that .
the art show was very good. The Historical and Cultural Activities Committee does a great
job getting residents to participate in the event. She appreciates all the efforts that the
committee puts into the event. She encouraged residents to contact the Sheriff s Department
with any suspicious activity that may be going on. She requested staff to give a status update
of Dr.Ha's project,specifically regarding the weeds on the property. She requested that staff
begin working on the safety issues with regards to 4rh of July.
Community and Economic Development Director Powers,responded that the property owner
is aware of the issue and they are working on it.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None
NEW BUSINESS
Letter of Support for AB 998
CC-2011-38 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA,'SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
MCNABOE, CARRIED 5-0, to direct staff to prepare a letter from the Mayor on
behalf of the Council in support of AB 998.
8A. 2010 Winter Storm Update
Director of Building and Safety/Public Works Richard Shields gave an update on the 2010
Winter Storm.
8B. Request for Proposal-for City Attorney Services
CC-2011-39 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAYS,CARRIED 5-0,to approve the proposed Request for Proposal(RFP)for City
Attorney Services with Section V under Interviews to read as follows:
The City of Grand Terrace may invite one or more proposers to be interviewed by the
City Council in June.
And to define the interview process at the City Council Meeting of May 24, 2011.
CLOSED SESSION -None
Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.,until the next City Council Meeting which
Council Minutes
05/10/2011
Page 5
is scheduled to be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
PEtNDiNt: _ p�C►�Nr r�OVAI
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PENDING CRA APPROVAL
CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING -MAY 12,-2011
A special meeting of the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand
Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton
Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 12, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Walt Stanckiewitz, Mayor
Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem.
Darcy McNaboe, Councilmember
Bernardo Sandoval, Councilmember
Gene Hays, Councilmember
Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Joyce Powers, Community& Economic Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
ABSENT: Bernard Simon, Finance Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
Sgt. Ed Finneran, Sari Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department
The Special City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency meeting was opened at 5:00 p.m.
with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilwoman Darcy McNaboe.
CLOSED SESSION
1. Closed Session Regarding Labor Relations per GC54957.6.
2. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (GC54956.8)
Pro pea-APN 1167-151-10; 8.45 Acres
Nefzotiatina Parties - Ed Smith, Lee and Associates
Agency Ne otg_ iator-Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation-Price and Terms of Payment
Pro e -APN 1167-181-12 & 1167-181-13; 8.57 Acres
Ne otg_iating Parties _ Jim Towers, Towers and Associates
Agency Negotiator-Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation-Price and Terms of Payment
Pro e - APN 1167-151-22; 14.22 Acres
Council/Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
05/12/2011
Page 2
NegotiatingLParties arties -Bo Smith, CB Richard Ellis,Inc.
AgencNegotiator-- Betsy M. Adams
Under Negotiation-Price and Terms of Payment Closed
Mayor Stanckiewitz announced that the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency met
in Closed Session to discuss Labor Relations and held a conference with Real Property Negotiators
and there was no reportable action taken.
Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.,until the next City Council Meeting which
is scheduled to be Held on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
r
CALIFORNIA
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2010 Council Item (X) CRA Item ( )
TITLE: 2010 Winter Storm Update
PRESENTED BY: Richard Shields, Director of Building and Safety/Public
Works
RECOMMENDATION: Receive Update.
DISCUSSION:
On Friday, December 24, 2010 the City of Grand Terrace City Manager proclaimed a
local emergency due to the torrential rain fall in Grand Terrace. On December 27tn,
2010 during a special meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43
ratifying the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency. See Exhibit'n.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) later identified this emergency
as FEMA-1952-DR, December 2010 Statewide Storms. Staff sent a request for public
assistance dated February 16, 2011 to the California Emergency Management Agency
(Cal EMA). FEMA approved the Citys request for assistance and since that time staff
has been working on identifying the damaged areas for FEMA, making necessary
repairs to the damaged areas, and applying for reimbursement. Attached as Exhibit"IT
is a list of projects that define the areas of damage and the original cost estimates for
repairs.
During the submission of projects for reimbursement, FEMA determined numerous
projects were not qualified for reimbursement for various reasons. Projects numbered
(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), Orangewood Court, (a) and (c) and Wren Street (8), were not
qualified. A series of withdraw letters have since been provided to FEMA pursuant to
their requests to remove the request for reimbursement. See Exhibit'u.
Projects 1,2,5,E were disqualified because the locations were deemed the responsibility
of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FEMA will not reimburse for damages
to FHWA roads. Staff notified CALTRANS and submitted forms to start the process for
FHWA reimbursement. The request for reimbursement includes the work already
completed as well as the permanent repair work to be performed in the future. The
temporary work including clean up costs totals approximately $42,451.00. The
1
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. U
remaining future work to be performed is estimated to cost approximately $245,440.00.
The total funds requested for these four project areas is $287,891.00.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FEMA and FHWA will review the project submissions and determine whether or not
they will be reimbursing the City for qualified damages. Staff believes FEMA will
reimburse $23,364.69; FHWA will reimburse $287,890.00, leaving $14,862.00 that is
unfunded.
Respectfully submitted,
chard Shie ds
Director of Building and Safety/public Works
Manager Approval:
Betsy dams
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit"A"Resolution No. 2010-43
Exhibit`B" List of Projects
Exhibit"C"Letters of Withdraw
2
RESOLUT10N N0,2010- 43
A- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COVINCII, OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,
CALIFORNIA, RX171FYING THE PROCLAMATION., OFT11E.EXISTAINCE OF A LOCAL
EMERGENCY BY THE CITY ?\4ANNAGER AND REQUESTING THE STATE DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF' E.MERGENCY ,S-ER-VICES�' ..C',O.N.'SURRFNCE :fi'sr 'rHEPROCLA,-MATIO�N OF
LOCAL EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, on December 22,. 2010,, ,i torrential rain 'fall ,event in Grand. Terrace posed a
significant threat and left in its wake 'dangerous:conditions, at which time.the City Council was not in
session; and
WHEREAS, in response to the emergency situation created by torrential,rain fall, the City
danger proct4imed a 101-State-of emergency ontI ecernber 24,22610.:,.-and,
WHEREAS., the. City- Manager .now requests the City CVuridl to ratify City y, the City Manger's
proclamation of the existence of a local emergency in accordance with the City of'Grand Terrace
:Municipal.Code.Section.8.30.0', at
P 10,and State e law.:
NOW, THERFORE, the City Council. of the City* of'Grand Terrace does hereby resolve,
detertnifte and order as follows:
SECTION t, The Proclamation of*Local Emergencyissued by the City Manager is hereby
.ratified.
SECTIQIN, 2, The Proclamation. of focal :Emergency shall..- -continue to exist until its
. I .. . Proclamation.I �1. . . . . * erg
termination is proclaimed by the City Council.
SEC71JONN 1 The City Council shall revicut the iieWss4`-for continuing the localeme.emergency
ticy
60 less..rfequeatly-than.emery f6utteen(14) days until the-emergencyls terminated.
SECTION 4, A.copy ofthis,Resofution shall be forwarded to.thc $*tat, DIrcctor of Emergency
Services:wiih.a.requ
est tfigt4t,bg f0uryd acceptable in accordance with-the pro V-1*19ions of the.Calliforitia
Assistance Act and that the Director concur iii"fhe 10 a tf oflocil
SECTION 5. The;.-City MLanager is betehy designated :as the authorized-representative of the
City of Grand '.Terrace for the; purpose Of receipt, processing and .coOrdination o.f all.-inquiries and
requilreinen,Ls necessary to obtain available State and-Fede.ra.I as
SECTION6. TheCityClerk-shail:certify as1 the dopubno 'fth.is Resolution.
1)NSSFI), APPROVE-1)' A NND ADOPTED;by..ifie0ty Councilbf the.Cit:yof Grand Terrace this
27"day of December 2010.
d
Resolution No.1010- 43
alb Sfanc`iew.itz
Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace
Attest:
"K-1
City Clerk.ofthe City of Grand Terrace
I, OR N-DA titESA,. City Clerk -of the :City of Grand `ferrate, do hereby .certify that
Rcs,olution No.. 2010- ,3 was introduced.and adopted�at;a speciat meeting of the City Council
of the City of Grand.Terrace held on the.�,7th day, of.December., 201.0, lay the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember° Xaaboc, Xayox Pro Tex Garcia and Mayor Stanclievitz
NOF,S:. None
ABSENT: Cpunc3.lmember Sandoval:
.1BS.TAItii: None'
:Brend"a Mesa, City-.Clerk
;1:pproved.as to form:
CCitytttcrney t
EXHIBIT "B"
State of Califo'nfa .. -
Page
Califomfa Emergency Management Agency, LDS..' Of PrOiQIE $ Disaster Name/No:; FEMA=1952.-DR-CA
APPLICANT, CITY OF GRAND TERRACE. D E SUBMITTED: 03-03=2011
AT
CONTACTNAME AND.PHONE NUMBER:_Matt3Niri;:Managotnent analyst(909)'430=225G IS THIS AN AMENDED LISTOF PROJECTS? No
z
W Ou; D wwp. > w
WW W;f2- vvW
� 'W LL
.� d
}Q
> W W.N w F
s�>- •:�`U ''�' 2:W'-'t : { �'ta/J f/J W~-CO UL
;t owm '_ o:'LL` W' '� ' W. o� w Ul
�' o �`9 r�omm c.DLu
w DESCRIPTION'OF DAMAGE COST .ar a �•m �,> ,�:
LOCATION. ANRSCORE.OF'WORK. ESTIMATE;;¢. ¢..o n. 'z z-z W a:o'w d a z .tea lr
Emergency Gtean.;.O for access.w
1 Barton Road Clean.Uo Roadway and Sand Bagging $3;500; 6.. F d NIA' no
Permanent.rppair pr""s",lope
washout.Wlhne-ed'
Bendi'ing,slope:arid add,fll to'
2 Barton Road'Slide; reconstruct slope :$50;000 C, G- . Env N/Q ;no.
Yes,;Replace
asphauit burb with.
Vivienda Road Failucel Emergency.Re ,4ir:°Sandba "in .:
p (, _99 9 ;; approved concrete
3 Grand'Tertace.Road Failure and.A-.GuPbs),to rotect.utilities_ $3;000:.B:. C; NIA .. . no. curb and'gutter .
Perriiaient repair:to'profecf utilities.
4"Vivienda Road,1=piltlre ....._ and.restore,access:•_ N/A no
Grand Terrace'Road Failure
5.22081:Grand"Telrice Raatl; Tem`ofa Repair to.restoie:acce`"s $50;000'. B 'C N/A no
Grariii"Terrace"Road:Fail ft.
6 (220"81.Grand 1 erraceRoad; ,,,
Permanent Re air'to:res'tore,:acces .$2.0`0;000:':"G C Env _ NIA. .. no
Erosioti:'(Orangewpod Ct;:Wren:S"t,;Find?St)
Slide;debris.clean u $27,000:. "B: C< NA' no
8'Oran ewootl Gt:Drivewa Re airs:to Ddhia&d:divewa:'06b. $3;850 C c: NIA no
$ N/A' no
*GATEGORY: .A).Debrls"clearance;B).Prpte"ctive:Measures;:C)Roa-d:System;D)Water'Control'Facility;E)Buildings and.Equipment;
F')Public Utility,System;,G)Other. :(Note:'if a single site has more-than one.category,indicates the category that
represents the.0iajci*. of damage;}
(OE9'95;Rev.s1VO4)
t
Exhibit"C"
CALIFORNIA
April 4, 2011
Mr. Goforth,
After discussion we have come to the conclusion that the following two projects are not
eligible for reimbursement. This work was performed on private property to protect from further
damage. Damages to a private property were exacerbated by the equipment performing ineligible
work. Knowing that FEMA does not cover work performed on any private property, the City will
be withdrawing its request for reimbursement for the following LOP Item numbers:
FEMA Disaster Number Item Number Estimated Cost
FEMA-1952-DR-CA 7 (a)
FEMA-1952-DR-CA 8
Please make the necessary changes to your files. Please direct and questions you may
have to Matt Wirz, Management Analyst at(909) 430-2255 or mwirz@cityofgrandterrace.org.
Sincerely,
Betsy Adams
City Manager
City of Grand Terrace
Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92313-5295
(909) 824-6621 Fax (909) 783-7629 or (909) 783-2600
Exhibit"C"
CALIFORNIA
I
I
April 4, 2011
i
Mr. Goforth,
This letter is to inform FEMA that the City of Grand Terrace will be withdrawing its
request for reimbursement for the following LOP item numbers:
I
I
i
I
FEMA Disaster Number (Item Number Estimated Cost
FEMA-1 952-DR-CA 13 $0.00
FEMA-1952-DR-CA 17(c) $0.00
I
I
The following is the reason for withdrawing Item #3. The City had trouble discerning
where actual work was performed.1 Some of the invoices do not state which location the
contractor was working and contractor was unable to break out the costs per specific location.
It has been concluded that under Item# 7(c)the work that was preformed was done so on
private property. A company was hired to clear a drainage v-ditch and place the material on the
hillside from which it washed off of.IThe v-ditch was the responsibility of the property owner(s)
and thus cannot be submitted for reimbursement.
Please make the necessary changes to your files. Please direct and questions you may
have to Matt Wirz, Management Analyst at(909) 430-2255 or mwirz@cityofgrandterrace.org.
Sincerely,
Betsy Adams
City Manager I
City of Grand Terrace I
i
I
Civic Center, 22795 Bartoni Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92313-5295
(909) 824-6621 Fax (909) 783-7629 or (909) 783-2600
I
i
i
y
r. I
Exhibit"C"
i
CALIF4RN(a
April 28, 2011
Mr. Goforth,
After discussion we have come to the conclusion that the following four line items are
not eligible for reimbursement. This work was and will be performed on FHWA routes or right
of ways, and are not eligible for FEMA reimbursement. Knowing that FEMA does not cover
work performed on FHWA routes or right of ways, the City will be withdrawing is request for
reimbursement for the following List of Project item numbers:
FEMA Disaster Number Item Number Estimated Cost
FEMA-1952-DR-CA 1
FEMA-1952-DR-CA 2
FEMA-1952-DR-CA 5
FEMA-1952-DR-CA 6
Please make the necessary changes to your files. Please direct and questions you may
have to Matt Wirz, Management Analyst at(909) 430-2255 or mwirz@cityofgrandterrace.org.
Sincerely,
Betsy Adams
City Manager
City of Grand Terrace
Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92313-5295
(909) 824-6621 Fax (909) 783-7629 or (909) 783-2600
^ ' ^ 5/3/3011
Update
Letter of withdraw 41-etter of withdraw -Letter of withdraw
2010 Storm Damages Resolution 2010-43 List of Projects
ML
l
1 9
-Ail \~
CALI'FORNIA AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2011 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( )
TITLE: Request for Proposal for City Attorney Services
PRESENTED BY: Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) for City
Attorney Services and direct the City Manager to issue the
RFP on May 11, 2011.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council reported out from Closed Session on April 26, 2011 that the City
intended to solicit proposals for City Attorney services. On April 29., 2011, the City's
current City Attorney, John Harper from Harper & Burns, LLP, provided the Council with
his written resignation effective July 1, 2011. The City Attorney indicated in his letter
that he was willing to provide City Attorney services after that date while the City
completes the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
DISCUSSION:
The RFP for City Attorney services is a draft document which the Council may revise
prior to its issuance. As the Council has indicated a desire to have a new City Attorney
in place by July 1, 2011, revisions to the RFP should be made on May 10, 2011 so that
the document can be issued on May 11, 2011. The tentative schedule for this RFP
process is as follows:
RFP for City Attorney Schedule
Date Activity
April 26 Council decided to solicit proposals for City Attorney services
Ma 10 Council approves RPF document
May 11 RFP document issued
June 1 RFP responses due by 2 m
June 1 RFP responses provided to Council for review at 5 pm
June 7 Council interviews selected RFP responders
June 8-10 Reference checks of top law firm(s)
June 13-16 Contract finalized for City Attorney services
June 22 1 Staff report due for City Attorney services contract
June 28 Council awards contract for CiN Attorney services
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.��
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 2
With regard to the tentative schedule, allowing law firms three (3) weeks to prepare
responses is a shorter period of time than the typical four (4) to six (6) weeks specified
in the example RFPs used to develop the City's RFP. Also, the Council was typically
allowed two (2) to three (3) weeks to review the RPF responses in the example RPFs
whereas the City's tentative schedule only allows.Council five (5) days for review. If the
City were to allow longer periods of time in either of these areas the schedule for
selecting a new City Attorney would be extended correspondingly.
The Council will also need to define the interview process for City Attorney services at
the May 28 Council Meeting. Staff will prepare. alternatives for Council to consider at
that meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of the RPF for City Attorney services is not known at this time. The
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 operating budget provided $120,000 for City Attorney services
funded equally between the General Fund and the Community Redevelopment Agency.
$120,000 has been included in the proposed FY 2011-12 operating budget, though the
Council has the. discretion to adjust this budget accordingly after the finalist has been
determined through-the RFP process.
Respectfully submitted:
Betsy . Ada s, .City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Request for Proposal for City Attorney Services
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 3
Attachment A
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 4
E
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
FOR
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
MAY 1112011
PROPOSAL DUE JUNE 11 2011
i
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 5
SECTION I
GENERAL INFORMATION
Introduction
The Grand Terrace City Council invites qualified municipal law firms to submit written
proposals to provide City Attorney services to the City of Grand Terrace effective July 1,
2011. As City Attorney, the selected law firm and individuals representing the firm will
be expected to provide a wide range of legal services. The City Attorney will be
selected by the City Council and will work closely with the City Manger and other City
staff.
Background
The City of Grand Terrace is located in San Bernardino County and was incorporated in
1978. Grand Terrace is primarily a residential community with a population of 12,109 in
January 2011 according to the State of California Department of Finance. Grand
Terrace is a General Law City with a directly elected Mayor and four City Council
Members elected at large. The City Council selects the Mayor Pro Tem. Grand
Terrace operates under a council-manager form of government with the City Council
appointing the City Manager, City Attorney, and members of the Planning Commission
and other City committees. The City Attorney reports to the City Council. The City
Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. When
needed, City Council workshops are usually scheduled for 4:30 pm prior .to Council
meetings. The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Thursday of
every month and the City Attorney may be asked to attend a meeting infrequently.
Grand Terrace encompasses approximately 3.6 square miles and is bounded by the
City of Colton and unincorporated County of Riverside. Grand Terrace's Community
Redevelopment Agency's boundaries are contiguous with the City's boundaries. The
City's current annual budget, all funds, is $17 million and includes $120,000 for City
Attorney services (funding evenly split between the General Fund and Agency). Bond
counsel is retained under a separate agreement for legal services.
The City has 48 employees, half of which work in the City's child care programs. As a
small city, Grand Terrace provides many services through contract services including
the following:
■ Law enforcement (San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department)
■ Sewer treatment (City of Colton)
■ Animal control (City of San Bernardino)
■ Weed abatement (County of San Bernardino)
■ City Attorney (Harper & Burns)
■ City Engineer (Wildan Engineering)
Fire protection and paramedic services are provided by an independent San Bernardino
County Fire Protection District. Water service is provided by Riverside Highland Water
Company.
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 6
More information can be found on the City's website: www.cityofgrandterrace.org
RFP Contact
Questions regarding the RFP should be directed to:
Betsy Adams, City Manager
(909) 430-2245
badams `yofgrandterrace.org
Responses will be shared with all interested responders to the RFP.
Proposal Due Date
Seven (7) .copies of the proposal along with a proposed contractual agreement must be
received by the City of Grand Terrace no later than 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 1,
2011. Proposal should be delivered to:
City of Grand Terrace
Attention: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
Proposal should be marked "City of Grand Terrace City Attorney RFP." Additionally,
please email an electronic copy of the proposal to Betsy Adams at
badamsft—cityofgrandterrace.org by 2:00 p.m. on June 1, 2011. Proposals received
after this deadline will be disqualified.
The City Council reserves the right to reject all proposals, to request additional
information. concerning any proposal for purposes of clarification, to accept or negotiate
any modification to any proposal following the deadline for receipt of all proposals, and
to waive any irregularities if such would serve the best interests of the City as
determined by the City Council.
Independent Contractor
The City Attorney will be an independent contractor. All persons employed by a law firm
in accordance with a contract resulting from this RFP will be employees of the firm and
not the City of Grand Terrace.
• RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 7
SECTION II
LEGAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
SCOPE OF WORK
Services To.Be Provided
The scope of -services is to provide a full range of City Attorney and redevelopment
counsel services including, but not limited to, the.following:
• Advise-the City Council, City commissions and staff on municipal government legal
matters including the Brown Act and parliamentary procedures for running meetings.
■ Represent and advise the-City Council in all matters of law pertaining to their office.
■ Give advice or opinion on the legality of all matters under consideration by the City
Council or by any commissions or officers of the City. -
■ Attend all City Council meetings and workshops unless excused by the City Council
or City Manager.
• Attend other meetings, usually Planning Commission meetings, as assigned by the
City Manager or Community &Economic Development Director.
■ Provide legal advice to staff, upon request of the City Manager or department
directors.
■ Plan, prepare and/or approve all ordinances, resolutions, contracts, deeds, leases,
redevelopment agreements and legal documents required by the City and/or Agency.
■ Approve the form of all contracts made by and between the City of Grand Terrace
and the Community Redevelopment Agency.
■ Prepare legal opinions as.requested by the City Council or City Manager.
• Provide written updates on new State or Federal: legislation or judicial decisions
impacting the City and/or Agency and suggest action or changes in operations or
procedures to assure compliance.
■ Provide guidance on personnel matters, including employee disciplinary and
grievance matters.
■ Perform legal work pertaining to land use issues including but not limited to property
acquisitions, property disposals, public improvements, easements, dedications and
right-of-way vacations.
■ Enforce City codes, zoning regulations, and building standards through administrative
and judicial actions.
■ Assist in the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports.
■ Prepare cases for trial and the investigation of claims or complaints by or against the
City.
■ Attend staff level meetings.at the request of the City Manager.
• RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 8
■ Communicate with the press when authorized to do so by the City Manager or City
Council regarding City and/or Agency legal matters.
■ Promptly return all calls and emails from the City Council and staff.
■ Perform other such legal duties as may be required by the City Council or as may be
necessary to complete the performance of the functions mentioned above.
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 9
SECTION III
PROPOSAL FORM AND CONTENT
Proposal Submittal,
All pages of the proposal must be numbered consecutively. Proposal should not
exceed fifteen (15) pages in length. Resumes and licenses will not count against this
page limit. Proposal should be organized in accordance with the list of proposal
contents.
Proposal Form and Content
Proposers must include the following items in their proposal addressing the scope of
work in Section II. All items must fall within the maximum page count. Proposals and
cost schedule shall be valid and binding for ninety (90) days following the proposal due
date and will become.part of the contract that is negotiated with the City.
A. Letter of Transmittal
Include a .cover letter signed by a duly authorized representative of the .legal firm.
Cover letter must include the name, title, address, telephone number and email
address of the proposer submitting the proposal. In addition, the name, title,
address, telephone number, fax number and email address of the person or persons
to contact authorized to represent the proposer and to who correspondence should
be directed should also be included. Additionally, the cover letter must include the
following table containing the information requested below:
Name of Legal Firm
Name of Proposed City Attorney
Number of Years of Municipal Law
Experience of Proposed City Attorney
Number of Years of Redevelopment
Law Experience of Proposed City
Attorney
Office Address for Proposed City
Attorney
Services Included in Monthly Retainer
Hourly Rates for Services Not Included
in Retainer
Areas of Expertise of Legal Firm
References (Name, Municipality, 1.
Telephone Number, Email) 2.
3.
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 10
B. Table of Contents
Include a clear identification of the submitted material by section and by page
number.
C, Executive Summary
Introduce the proposal and summarize key provisions of the proposal. Provide a
statement describing why the proposer is qualified to perform this work for Grand
Terrace and include the name of the person who would serve as City Attorney along
with the proposed fees.
D. Statement of Understanding
Include a detailed statement of understanding of the City Attorney services to be
provided. If there are services listed in this RFP which the proposer will not be able
to provide, describe those services in this section.
E. Approach to City Attorney Services
Provide a response to each of the following items:
1. Describe your view of the role of the City Attorney.
2. Describe how you would keep the City informed about the status of litigation and
other legal matters.
3. Provide an .example of a written communication (not to exceed 5 pages) to the
governing body about a legal issue in which options are explained and a
recommendation is given.
4. Describe how you track and manage legal costs so that City and/or Agency legal
costs are held to a minimum. Include an example.
5. Describe how you would proactively advise the City Council and City Manager
about legal developments or issues of concern.
6. Describe how you would work with the City Council and participate in City
Council, Planning Commission and other meetings.
7. Describe how you would work with the City Manager and staff.
8. Describe how you evaluate the cost/benefit of litigating or settling cases.
9. Describe the firm's practices regarding professional development, training, and
keeping current in the law and legal matters affecting its municipal clients.
10. Describe how you evaluate whether to use an attorney within your law firm or an
attorney from another firm to handle a case, provide expert advice or provide
other needed services. How would fees enter into your recommendation of who
to use?
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 11
11. How much over the proposed retainer would you expect Grand Terrace to spend
engaging the services of your firm for litigation, special expertise, or other
services?
F. Background and Capacity
1. Describe your firm's background and history including the number of years in
business.
2. List the location of the office(s) that would serve Grand Terrace.
3. List the type of communications devices which would be used by the firm to
communication with Grand Terrace (e.g., email, telephone, cell phone, voice
mail, conference calls, websites, etc.)
4. List staff services available (e.g., .clerical support, paralegals, other non-attorney
staff, etc.)
G. Proposed.Attorney(s)
Name the person who proposed to be designated as the City Attorney and Assistant
City Attorney. Provide the following for each:
1. Certificates or licenses, including the date of admission to the State Bar of
California.
2. Description of education including name of educational institutions, degrees
conferred and year of each degree.
3. Professional background and professional associations.
4. Experience. with and knowledge of the law relating to general law cities for land
use and planning, environmental law (including California Environmental Quality
Act and National Environmental Policy Act), redevelopment law, general plans,
code enforcement and other related areas, administrative law, labor relations and
personnel law, and other areas of municipal law.
5. Expertise and training.
The person designated as City Attorney, and any firm specialists identified in
response to the RPF, may not be changed without the prior written consent of the
City Council. The City retains the right to approve or reject replacements and to
require replacements to familiarize themselves with the City and assigned projects at
no cost to the City.
H. Expertise of Other Attorneys
1. Describe the expertise your firm is able to provide Grand Terrace (e.g.
redevelopment, labor, etc.)
2. Provide the names and qualifications of attorneys -in your firm which would be
able to provide such legal services.
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 201-1
Page 12
I. References
Provide contact information for five (5) municipal clients for which comparable
services have.been provided in the last three (3) years so that reference checks can
be conducted. Include the person's name, municipality, telephone number and
email address. In addition, list five (5) public agencies for which contracts were lost
by the firm in .the last three (3) years and provide contact names and telephone
numbers.
J. Clients/Potential Conflicts of Interest
1. List all public sector clients for which your firm currently provides services under
a fee for services or on a retainer basis. Indicate the services provided (e.g., City
Attorney services, special legal expertise, etc.). Identify any foreseeable or
potential conflicts of interest that.could result from such representation and the
manner in which you would proposed to resolve such conflicts.
2. For the person to be designated as City Attorney, list all public sector clients the
person presently represents as City Attorney or general counsel, along with the
meeting dates and times for each governing body.
3. List all private sector clients which could potentially pose a conflict of interest with
your firm representing the .City and/or Agency.
4. Identify all, situations in the last five (5) years in which you have been adverse to
public entities, either in litigation or administrative matters.
K. Fee Schedule
The selected City Attorney will be required to provide services under a monthly
retainer fee format for regular City Council meetings and workshops, special City
Council meetings, period meetings with staff, communications with Grand Terrace
and legal work provided under the retainer. Routine travel expenses would be the
responsibility of the law firm.
1. Describe what is included in the retainer (include if any on site office hours would
be provided and if there is a maximum number of hours under the retainer).
2. Provide an hourly rate for all individuals from your firm who could be working with
Grand Terrace. In addition, provide a rate for special legal services
Include retainer fee and rate information in the summary table format.
L. Additional Information
Any other information the proposer feels is. applicable to the evaluation of the
proposal or ,of the qualifications for providing City Attorney services should be
included in this section. You may use this section to address those aspects of your
services that distinguish your firm from other firms.
• RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 13
SECTION IV
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
NOTE: IT IS THE PROPOSER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE
THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SOLICITATION IN ITS ENTIRETY
PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL
A. Waiting Period
Proposals shall be firm offers, subject to acceptance or rejection for a period of up to
ninety (90) days from the date of the proposal opening until proceedings are
completed and an award is made. Proposer shall assume full responsibility for the
effect of the waiting period on all proposal fees and terms.
B. Insurance
Proposer's attention is directed to the insurance requirements set forth herein.
Proposers are required to provide with their proposal, certificates of insurance
verifying coverage, as well as a letter from the Proposer's insurance agent or
corporate Risk Management Department acknowledging that the Proposer is able to
comply with all. insurance requirements. It 'is highly recommended that Proposers
confer- with their respective insurance carriers or brokers to determine in advance of
proposal submittal, the availability of insurance certificates and endorsements as
prescribed herein.
During the term of this Contract, the law firm shall maintain at law firm's sole
expense, the following insurance.
Minimum Scope of Insurance:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad
as Insurance Services Office form number GL 00 02. (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL
04 04 03 81 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General. Liability-, or
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage, "occurrence"
form CG 00 01 11 85. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form
with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall
apply separately to this project/location, endorsement CG 25 03 11 85 or CG 25
04 11 85, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit.
2. Automobile Liability. $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily
injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance
Services Office form number CA 00 01 01 87, covering Automobile Liability, code
1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 00 25 (Ed. 01 86).
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 14
3. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Workers' compensation limits as
required by the Labor Code'of the State of California.
4. Professional Liability, and Errors and Omissions Insurance with a limit not less
than $1,000,000.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention:
Any deductibles or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the
City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers; or the law firm shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions: The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,
the following provisions:
1. General Liability, Automobile Liability, and.Professional Liability Coverage.
2. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as
insured, endorsements [GL 20 11 07 66, CG2010 1185 and/or CA 20 01 (Ed. 01
78)], as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the
law firm, products and completed operations of the law firm, premises owned,
occupied or used by the law firm, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the law firm. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the
scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
3. The law firm's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the
City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers
shall be excess of the law firm's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
4. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect
coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. The
law firm's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the Insurers Liability.
5. The law firm may satisfy'the requirements in a single policy or multiple policies.
Any such additional policies written as excess insurance shall, not provide any
less coverage than that provided by the first or primary policy.
Workers' Compensation and. Employers Liability Coverage:
The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its
officials, officers, employees and volunteers from work performed by the law firm
for the City.
All Coverages:
Each insurance policy required by this contract shall be endorsed to state that
coverage shall not be ended, voided; canceled by either party; reduced in
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 15
coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior, written notice by certified
mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
Acceptability of Insurers:
All insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests rating of no .less than
A:VII, and who are admitted Insurers in the State of California.
Verification of Coverage:
Law firm shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by the City for themselves prior to
commencing work or within fourteen (14) days of notification of award of contract;
whichever is shorter. The certificates and endorsements for insurance policy are
to be by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
Certificates and endorsements are to be approved by the City before work
commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of
all required insurance policies, at anytime.
Submittal of Certificates:
Law firm shall submit as required certificates end endorsements to the following:
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
City of Grand Terrace
C. Proposal Preparation Costs
The City is not, nor shall be deemed, liable for any costs incurred by Proposer in the
preparation, submittal, or presentation of.their proposals.
.D. Proposal Inclusions
Proposers are encouraged to review and confirm that their proposal includes and
specifically addresses all of the proposal requirements prior to submitting as outlined
elsewhere in this document.
E. Withdrawl of Proposal before Closing
Any Proposer may request the withdrawal of their submitted proposal by written
request at any time .prior to the scheduled closing date and time. Upon receiving
written request to withdraw any proposal, the City will consider the Proposal null and
void, and return the proposal to the Proposer, unopened. Withdrawal of proposal will
not prejudice Proposer's resubmittal for this or any future proposal(s).
F. Mistake in.Proposal
Any Proposer may withdraw their proposal after the proposal opening, subject to the
time restrictions indicated below, only if the Proposer can establish to the City's
satisfaction, that a mistake was made in preparing the proposal.
1. A Proposer declaring a mistake must provide a written notice to the City within
five (5) calendar days following the scheduled dosing date, specifying in detail,
• RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 16
how the mistake occurred, and how the mistake made the proposal materially
different than it was intended.
2. Withdrawal of the proposal will only be permitted for mistakes made in the
completion of the proposal. A Proposer who claims a mistake shall be prohibited
from submitting further proposals on the Project on which the mistake was
claimed. (Public Contract Code 5105).
H. Proposal Labeling
Proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope with all original pages intact.
Proposal envelopes must be plainly marked and submitted as follows:
City of Grand Terrace City Attorney RFP
I. Proposal Submittal
Proposers. shall complete and return one (1) original and six (6) copies of their
proposal. All proposals delivered in an express courier package shall be sealed in a
separate envelope within the courier package. Any proposal found to be illegible or
incomplete shall not be considered for selection. Whether sent by courier, mail, or by
means of personal delivery, Proposers assume full responsibility for having their
proposal deposited at the proper address and not later than the scheduled closing
time. Faxed or e-mail proposals or modifications will not be considered. More than-
one (1) proposal from an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation under the same
or different names, will not be considered.
J. Proposal Acceptance
The City of Grand Terrace reserves the right to accept or reject any and all
proposals and waive any irregularities or informalities in any proposals or in the
proposal process. The City of Grand Terrace further reserves the right to award the
contract to other than the lowest Proposer if such action is deemed to be in the best
interest of the City of Grand Terrace.
K. Interpretation of Documents
During the proposal solicitation period, should a Proposer find discrepancies or
omissions in any part of the RFP or should the Proposer be in doubt as to their
interpretation, the Proposer shall immediately notify the contact indicated in Section
1(C), above. Should it be found necessary, an addendum will be sent to all
Proposers. Any addenda issued prior to the scheduled proposal closing date and
time, shall form a part of this solicitation and shall become a part of the submitted
proposal.
Exceptions to this Request for Proposals: Any changes from the provisions of
this RFP, which may be desired by the Proposer, shall be clearly and
specifically noted in the Proposer's submittal.
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 17
L. Public Record
Be advised that all information contained in proposals submitted in response to this
solicitation shall become a matter of public record upon contract award, and be
made available upon request, unless otherwise marked. The Proposer must identify,
in writing, all copyrighted material, trade secrets or other proprietary information the
Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public
Records Act. The Proposer who claims such an exemption must also state in the
proposal that, "The Proposer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
officers, employees and agents from any claims, liability or damages against the City
and to defend any actions brought against the City for its refusal to disclose such
material, trade secrets or other proprietary information to any party."
M. Federal, State and Local Laws
The law firm and all subcontractors shall comply with all applicable federal, state,
and local laws, rules, and regulations.
N. Retention of and Access to Records
At all reasonable times during the term of this contract and for a minimum of three
years following final settlement, the City of Grand Terrace, and any designated
representative shall have access to all records related to work performed under this
contract and the law firm and all subcontractors shall make such records available
for inspection, audit, copying excepts and transcriptions.
O. Druq Free Workplace Requirements
The law firm and all subcontractors shall comply with the requirements of the Drug-
Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code Sections 8350 et seq.).
P. Americans with Disabilities
The law firm and all subcontractors shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) which prohibits discrimination on the
basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued
pursuant to the ADA.
Q. Order of Precedence
The documents referenced below represent the Contract Documents. Where any
conflicts exist between the RFP Terms and Conditions, or addenda attached; then
the governing order of precedence shall be as follows:
1. Amendments to the RFP/Contract
2. City Request for Proposal, including the fully executed contract.
R. Conflict of Interest
No official, officer, or employee of the City of Grand Terrace or of a local public body
during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. Furthermore, the parties hereto
covenant and agree that to their knowledge, no board member, officer or employee
of the City of Grand Terrace has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual,
• RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 18
financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party
other than the City of Grand Terrace, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of such
information will be made in writing to the other party or parties, even if such interest
would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with
Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1120) of Division 4 of Title 1
of the Government Code of the State of California.
S. Disputes
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the provisions of this Agreement
or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the Rules of
the American Arbitration Association, unless the parties agree, in writing, to some
other form of alternative dispute resolution.
T. Small and Disadvantaged Business
The City of Grand Terrace hereby notifies all Proposers that it will affirmatively
ensure that minority business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity and
consideration when submitting proposals in response to this RFP and will not be
discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, sex, creed, or national origin
when reviewing the bid proposals for award of contract.
U. Non-Collusion Affidavit
All proposals must be accompanied by a signed and notarized Non-Collusion
Affidavit per the Public Contract Code Section 7106.
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 201.1
Page 19
SECTION V
EVALUATION/SELECTION PROCESS
Evaluation Criteria
The .following information will be considered by the City Council during the evaluation
process:
1. Qualifications identified in the proposal.
2. Cost of providing services.
3. Complete-and clear responses to items requested in the Proposal Form and Content
section.
4. Familiarity with laws and regulations governing California municipal governments
and redevelopment agencies.
5. Demonstrated expertise in the following areas as it relates to municipalities:
a. Land use and-zoning law
b. Building Code compliance law
c. Public construction law
d. Real estate law
e. Environmental law
f. Administrative law
g. Labor relations and personnel law
h. Laws pertaining to fees and taxes, including Proposition 218 and Proposition 26
i. Redevelopment law
j. Other relevant areas pertaining to municipal law.
6. Adequate local availability, support staff and range of services offered.
7. Demonstration of workload capacity and level of experience commensurate with the
level of service required by Grand Terrace.
8. Professional reputation for providing high-quality services and ability to work
cooperatively with the City Council, City Manager, department directors and media.
9. Demonstrated sound judgment, integrity and reliability as determined by references
provided.
10. Results of interview(s) with the City Council.
Interviews
The City of Grand Terrace may invite one or more proposers to be interviewed by the
City Council on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 (time to be determined).
Method of Selection
The City Council will review the submitted proposals. After review, the Council and its
advisors will interview the finalists. The City Council will choose a finalist with whom to
negotiate an,agreement and will make the final determination.
RFP for City Attorney Services
May 10, 2011
Page 20
Agreement
A contract between the City of Grand Terrace and the selected law firm will define the
extent of services to be rendered along with the method and amount of compensation.
The contract will be executed by the Mayor, upon City Council approval which is
tentatively planned for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 28, 2011.
a 4