The URL can be used to link to this page

08/08/1985CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA AUGUST 8, 1985 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 5 30 P.M. 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order * Invocation - * Pledge of Allegiance * Roll Call CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of 7/25/85 Minutes 2. Approval of Check Register No 080885 (Also listed as Council Agenda No 2A) ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Add/Delete 2. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine & non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion Any Council Member, Staff Member or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calenaar for discussion. A Approve Check Register No 080885 B Ratify 8/8/85 C RA Action C. Approve 7/8/85 Minutes D. Approve 7/25/85 Minutes Staff Recommendations Approve Approve Approve Approve Approve Approve Council Action COUNCIL AGENDA Staff 8/8/85 - Page 2 of 3 Recommendations E A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Adopt OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-04 & APPROVING AN AMENDED APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN -SPACE & RECREATION PROGRAM FOR ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT FOR RECREATION TINY -TOT PROGRAM & ACQUISITION & INSTALLA- TION OF WASTE RECEPTACLES FOR TERRACE HILLS COMMUNITY PARK. F. Approve renewal of Bingo Permit - Lions Club A7; �;/ 0 G. Approve & authorize Mayor to execute Addendums 1 & 2 for Civic Center Janitorial Service - Accurate Janitorial Service, Inc. o, (GTC 85-14 ) t� 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 14. ORAL REPORTS w A. Planning Commission <' Cry B. Parks & Recreation Committee C. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee D Crime Prevention Committee E. Emergency Operations Committee F. Economic Development Adhoc Committee G. Police Chief H. Fire Chief I. City Engineer J. City Attorney K. City Manager L. City Council (1) Red Curb - 11959 Arliss Drive 15. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 7 30 P.M. A. Specific Plan 85-11 - USA Properties 6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continue to 8/22/85 Meeting A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Adopt OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE B. Master Plan - Areas 10, 11 & 12 C. Contract Award - Employee Reclassification Approve Study (GTC 85-19) Council Action COUNCIL AGENDA 8/8/85 - Page 3 of 3 7. NEW BUSINESS Staff Recommendations Council Action A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Adopt 1st Reading OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, ADOPTING POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR THE PURCHASING OF SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT BY THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE (First Reading) ADJOURN THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1985, AT 5 30 P M AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 8/22/85 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY 12 00 NOON ON 8/14/85. i i.xY�Jli i a �. n�7 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPROVAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUG 8 1985 REGULAR MEETING - JULY 25, 1985 Cr"L�,,��..:.. The 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 July 25, 1985, at 5 30 p.m. PRESENT Hugh J. Grant, Chairman Byron Matteson, Vice Chairman Tony Petta Barbara Pfennighausen Dennis L. Evans Seth Armstead, Executive Director Thomas J. Schwab, Treasurer Ivan Hopkins, Attorney Myrna Erway, Secretary ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7/11/85) CRA-85-40 Motion by Mrs. Pfennighausen, Second by Vice Chairman Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of July 11, 1985, as presented. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. 072585 CRA-85-41 Motion by Vice Chairman Matteson, Second by Mrs. Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 072585, as presented. Adjourned at 5 33 p.m. The next Regular Meeting will be held August $, 19$5—a t 5 30 p m . Respectfully submitted, i ty,e r APPROVED Mayor Page 1 - CRA 7/25/85 VOCHREGR CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PAGE 1 OATEr07/31/P5 VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER VOUCHER/ VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ITEM WARRAN WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT AGENCY DIRECTORS FRINGE 150.00 150.00 P1525 2278 DENNIS L. EVANS _ P1526- _-_-5576 i -BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN _ _ - -AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE _ _ - - _ - 150 00 _ - 150.00- P1527 5565 ANTHONY PETTA AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE 150.00 150.00 - AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE T 150.00 150.00 P1528 4658 BYRON MATTESON P1529 2950 HUGH GRANT AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE 150.00 150.00 P4374 4347 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONF. REG. MONTEREY 7/17-7/19 600.00 600.00 5L P4375 1972 DEFERRED COMPENSATION FUND INS. JULY 175.94 INS. JULY 267.63 INS. JULY 267.63 9I N3 -. J U-11'- 2 6 7--.-6-3- INS. JULY 89.21 ' DEF. COMP JUNE 1985 19370.82 ' DEF. COMP JUNE 1985 224.21 2,663.07 t P4376 6510 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL COURT CARREA E CRISOSTOMA 12.00 12.00 , P4377 6504 R.C.RANDOLPH, MARSHALL SVCS/ CORREA E CRISOSTOMO 28.00 28.00 ) P4378 1740 CITY CLERKIS ASSN OF CALIF RECORDS MGMNT HANDBOOK 53.00 53.00 3 ZEff P4379 RUDY CEBALLOS CARPENTRY ADJ CIV/CTR 980.00 980.00 ' P4380 1972 DEFERRED COMPENSATION FUND INS AUG 1965 175.94 ) INS AUG 1985 267.63 INS AUG 1985 267.63 - INS AUG 1985 267.63 5 INS AUG 1985 89.21 INS DIED 4/85 7.63 19075.67 5 P4381 CITY CLERKIS ASSN. OF CALIF. ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 20.00 _ 20._00 T P4362 2272 MYRNA ERWAY VAC/SL PAID 39698.67 39698.67 TOTAL CHECKS 99880.41 I VOCHREGR DATE 08/01/85 l CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER PAGE 1 I Iuvl,nCR/ �•••••.••• ^+�+ i cr, 1 I CPI WARR-AW WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER NAME^ DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT 'I 3 0 • 1 6 I61 P1531 4992 NAZAREKgHARPER,HOPKINS £ ARBITRATION 6/85 450.00 450.00 i6I 61 14863 VIRGIL EGAN REFUND OVER 91 °i „1 I PAYMENT � 7.00 ' 7.00 � 14865 1024 ACCENT PRINT £ DESIGN REGIS. RECEIPTS 249.10 =49.10 14866 1027 ACCURATE JANITORIAL SERVICES "" SVCS CIVIC CENTER 85/86 " "z<" 19066.00 1066.00 14868 1223 AT£T INFORMATION SYSTEMS RENTAL EOC PHONE 7/85 3.39 3.39 14869 _ 1360 "'> BASTANCHURY BOTTLED WATER d BTL WTR > , 59.50. h 59.50 .„ ~ M MM r y= N „.�. OFFICE SUPPLIES 172.38 j OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES ,' u .^�-�: • ;,vim "20•.63.. �4 y r „� OFFICE SUPPLIES " 71.94r> ?. - r x``, x •" , s .15 1 i OFFICE SUPPLIES 34.85 340.11 REC. ySUPPLIES i iz . 514 10 09 .. '~ s r x 1 ,. ~ .. " :. .< FK�."< ".• " " REC...SUPPLIF-S-z, ; 4.18 .. _ `�" '26.81 14872 1860 COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL SQUARE DANCE 7/85 60.00 ti DRAINAGE PARK 600.00 660.00 14873 y�,,'1875 COMPLETE BUSINESS SYYSTEMS " " RENT ON TOSHIBA COPIER t^ 427.73 " u427.73 - N • ./f . f Q ~ s xx £ ~ " _ + 1 I 14875 , 2226 1 tINE eORP EASTERDAY SUPPLY COMPANY TRASH CAN LINERS 158.10 158.10 14876 2565 " FKM COPIER PRODUCTS TONER £ TONER BAGS "475129 475.29 - 1 14878 2890 GRAND TERRACE GLASS £ MIRROR -A-T ELTP [ A t- -Sril-- 1 S REPLACE WINDOW/LIBRARY 5 71.00 5- 71.00 { (J 14879 2950 HUGH GRANT LEAGUE SEM/MONTEREY 56.74 56.74 , 1661 I " 1611 1 ^ f - 66I • . O V 69' )°) 14881 3495 IPS SERVICES INCORPORATED STREET SWP 6/85 368.70 368.70 17;1 ! IS S 7.1 7 J 6 z 3 5 6 I Q VOCHREGR DATE 08/01/85 WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER NAME CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER DESCRIPTION ENG SVCS 6/85 ENG SVCS 6/85 AMOUNT 7 29839.25 145.70 PAGE 2 AMOUNT --- -- C 114 V.-3. I. / 11 1 1 1 V %' m 4 9 C J l . a j ENG / PROF SVCS 1008.10 ENG / PUBLIC COORDINATION 377.50 PLANNING SVC 69317.70 ENG / PUB WORKS 543.15 � 801.25 _ < _ ZONE CHG / CITY WIDE A 127.50 ` r 29047.50 I 14884 4484 MC KENZIE CO. RIBBON E LIFT OFF TAPE 73.82 "14885 rt 4658 BYRON MATTESON LEAGUE SEM/MONTEREY :"'>? 20.50 i 20.50 i 14886 4895 N C R CORPORATION PRINTER CABLE 76.50 COMPUTER ADAPTER CABLE 112.02 188.52 -a <14887"9 4907 ;r NATIONAL SANITARY' SUPPLY CO..._ ° TISSUE `E PAPER TOWELS =s ;_ 153.Z8 153.28 3 • .68 II 14889 1� 5529 PACIFIC BELL EOC 7/85 31.79 1 PAY PHONE 7/85 w 124.66 " PAY PHONE 7/85 30:62 7/85 COMPUTER PHONE COMPUTER PHONE 7/85 7.69 CIV CTR LISTING 7/85 9.62 19011.67 w 14890 c 5545 •.. PETRA ENTERPRISES`""n NAME PLAQUES PL. COMM" j 23.11 F23.11 zI t� 14892 5579 PEOPLE HELPERS9INC. SVC 7/10 - 7/25/85 . 29450.89 2,450.89 I 14893 5581 PETTY CASH-PEGGY TROTTIER COFFEE SUPPLIES 6.79 s A PARK BROOM 8.70 LAWNMOWER REPAIR 12.19 71 POSTAGE DUE .33 FUSES 8.26 FILM /CODE ENFORC. 8.04 a 1 � a' II I 131 ) i 6<1 651 661 671 1661 691 j HOSE NOZZLE 1.90 FILM DEV /CODE ENFORC. 3 06 J11 1 , 7=i . 7] 6I 7< I 76) 14 VOCHREGR ' DATE 08/01/85 WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER 3L 61 14894 5581 L 2 {6i of I9 I1, b] I' I1 1] ,6 19 1 20 21 2 1.3 {2. 12 2 2' 2 30 31 ` �3 3 1' I] 3 1c m NAME CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER 1 1 C I"I DESCRIPTION PETTY CASH—PEGGY TROTTIER OFFICE SUPPLIES ` GRAPHITE �F. w MONEY ORDER PRENTICE HALL 1 1 C rl AMOUNT C1.U`f 2.65 ` 6.13 3.38 PAGE 35 T -VAR-WAN'—�� AMOUNT J { 3 1fil ] 61 9 I e 1� 1 6 7� 91 2 ] .1 6 ]1 61 ASSESSOR MAP UPDATE i.06 PARK TRASH COVER 3.98 19.90 I �4= � ! i "" Oil PSTG MTR RENTAL FY 85/86 � t w . r 51.28 " 1 102.56 " I t r 14897 6720 ' SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY ELEC CITY BLDGS 39243.22 " Y2 r >, • 2 M "EtEC 3 ,✓, b ' >• .v. L ' PA.y.., > (. ` a.,"2 � W ,"SIGNALS p „ =• �"ya � e., •�'266.09 " " '`-=,•a.r 3,732.05,E J{ �"`'.. �S E 'f . s � t" 2��' " �x tr.�F C, :�:w l�.`.`r Y,C...` t„ F'43 y. ✓ST eFl4+ f� w •'„ ; ,F ..."�`h� p r 5 "?'" �c ;3uyc q898• I • 1 .z CIVIC CENTER 240.23 CITY BLDGS 13.35 266.23 If 148914" ` "'` 6790" �`s • i>� 1:_STOCKWELL, Ex B INNEY ; ..p yv... ' �N " t ", 3 � V "? 66.14 " x' wr BULLETIN'BOARD t �-; < µ <a; .`r ">;; �; � Y `t j. %•�?: .-. ." n � > ~ .k 66.14 r i� fi _° y,.ro .., 3 fN�n e` S� n '" L S<}," s. •R F�,., :�`.ur .. •y =`n ')'S�, "y., Y� a . ....tk � r .k' � x _ =n{ .Arse• C w." a, nq 3 .75,. S y I f fiF .�,?., iM. r w v`Co .k /'. �h r' i t ry Y i n;^ 2 �.','� �<.�irr .+•A "+5� <n MFe itCHECKS .. t rt \ .nt t U � � ..r✓> t � 'P <a'^ ' 9n •614 .. ., ry ? ` " ; `' S "e• � '� `<;� 3 rh -S, a� � ....kx- ..,.� '. s.. '.: , 5 y � kc{ C ) '"� '�'° „�tH.., � ",i rw. �, " ., K� " . „ 1 I CERTIFY THAT TO THE` BEST '4 .. ""✓ n.." ",. s .,. M. 5 � OF MY, KNOWLEDGE THE AFORELISTED} • CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY 7 i` a "' u' LIABILITIES HAVE ` ' " ° 'ir .. N i • o " ... {�, _ BEEN AUDITED BY MEK vn S R THE OPERATION OF THE CITY 1 L01 0.11 S6 IS] � i � y n''• „ � µ3 "`" _ � '<� ' S w " "'.t � , """� r n ,> ,��: � c s n � " I �s ,], THOMAS SCHWAB �621 s FINANCE DIRECTOR 164,1 a9j 631 " 66 1 ` 65, i I 69 ]0 16 ]21 9 I ]3 1 55c1 �c > I ]6 L PENDING CiTY COUNCIL APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR MEETING - JULY 8. 1985 AUG 8 1985 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3 ), C An adjourned joint regular meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission 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 July 8, 1985, at 5 36 p.m. PRESENT Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice Chairman Sanford Collins, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner John McDowell, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner (Arrived Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, Planning Director Myrna Erway, City Clerk ABSENT Vern Andress, Commissioner William DeBenedet, Commissioner at 5 40 p.m.) The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson. Mayor Grant stated this meeting was requested by the Planning Commission Chairman Caouette advised the purpose for requesting the meeting was to discuss development of the R-3 area, the ability of local infrastructure to handle higher levels of development, the levels that will be necessary for the development proposed, and funding for this type of development. The Commission needs to know the limitations and potentials to make better decisions and establish better coordination between the two agencies. Commissioner Collins stated the Planning Commission needs guidelines on Council expectations relative to development of the R-3 area, noted Council has disapproved projects the Commission has approved and has approved projects the Commission has disapproved. The Commission feels some type of overlay is needed to fund the necessary improvements in the R-3 area between Mt. Vernon, Canal and Barton Road The Commission is questioning the placement and number of Gage Canal Crossings that will be available, how the area will be improved and how the improvements will be made. Page 1 - 7/8/85 I = i Commissioner McDowell recommended establishing the number of units per acre for multiple developments. Mayor Grant, with Councilman Petta concurring, felt the Commission should be given latitude in decisions, with minimum guidelines. Councilman Petta felt differences of opinion are good, noted an appeal process is provided and fees are paid by each builder. Commissioner Hawkinson stated his primary concern is ensuring the development of this area will not be a financial burden to the City, since unusual costs are involved, such as title fees, Gage Canal access, rights -of -way and a section of Canal Street, recommended an assessment district for this purpose. Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt it is impossible to expect the developers to pay development costs and provide quality construction if limited to 12 units per acre. Councilman Evans stated he views the development of Areas 10, 11 and 12 as a key development which will impact the entire community and will compliment commercial development. Envisions a well -planned commercial development on Barton Road that will compliment development of that area and the City. Recommended estabishing specific direction to ensure coordination between the agencies on development. Recommended that Al Trevino present the master plan he has prepared so input can be provided by both agencies. Mayor Grant stated the area south of Barton Road and west of Michigan is also being considered for commercial development, the opinion on commercially developing Barton Road is not unanimous. MASTER PLAN - AREAS 10, 11, 12 Al Trevino displayed several master plan concepts for Areas 10, 11 and 12, incorporating recreation areas, a bridle path, a bicycle path, open space areas and swimming and tennis clubs which would be shared by the entire community. Supported a master -planned project versus small individual projects. Felt the proposed master plan would lend character to the area, would link the housing community to the commercial area, would provide recreational facilities for the community and would be competitive with surrounding cities. Mr. Trevino outlined possible alternatives to fund public improvements for the project such as the Community Redevelopment Agency or an assessment district, which is not preferable. Meetings have been held with some of the property owners to consider development possibilities such as one developer acquiring all the land or changing the boundaries to accommodate the overall project. Some property may have to be purchased to implement the project. Requested that the City determine whether it wants to undertake the overall planning, use the redevelopment authority, and allow the fees to be used for development of that area. If the City makes that commitment, the next step is up to the landowners. Relative to Gage Canal access, City Attorney Hopkins advised Staff was directed to acquire five crossings, with the exact number and placement to be determined. Staff is also working on proceedings to Page 2 - 7/8/85 1 acquire a portion of Canal Street which is privately owned, additional rights-o/ff-way to widen Canal Street, and the use of the Gage Canal property for bicycle and jogging paths and landscaping. The cost cannot be determined at this time, but should be in the thousands, not millions. Finalization of acquiring possession of the property could take five more months. LEASE OF PARK PROPERTY FROM SCE Sue Noreen, SCE Area Manager, advised SCE will lease 10 acres on Pico to the City for five years, renewable at the expiration of five years, at $100 per acre per year. SCE would have the option of terminating the lease with 30-day notice if needed for development, felt the property would never be needed by SCE. A letter has been mailed to the City Manager outlining conditions necessitated by SCE transmission right-of-way through the property. SCE is requesting a development plan for the 10 acres which will be presented to the SCE Real Properties Department for final approval. Marygold Farms, the present tenant, is willing to relinquish its lease, but the City will be required to pay for crop loss since the present crop will not mature until January 1987. Under those circumstances, the City may want to consider five acres initially. Sue Noreen stated SCE received two requests relative to the 40 acres fronting on Pico. One request was consideration of selling the land and the other was regarding the possibility of developing parks. SCE then initiated a study of development plans for that property, and determined the property will probably never be for sale. Responding to Councilman Evans, stated SCE acreage on Van Buren was not considered, access is not as good as Pico, but could possibly be negotiated. Councilman Evans recommended considering a potential school site and relocation of Grand Terrace Elementary to the southwestern area of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated he has investigated and found the cost to move the school site prohibitive. Recommended allowing time for individual inspection of potential SCE sites prior to further consideration. Responding to Councilman Evans, Planning Director Ki cak advised the southwestern area is the only area of the City in which Specific Plans have not been filed. Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt the present school site is unsuitable, the southwestern area is more populated and is a safer location. Felt placing a school site adjacent to a park site would be beneficial, providing joint -use of the facilities, and that a large corporation would be willing to pay the relocation costs of a school if it was commercially viable. Recessed at 7 00 P.M. and reconvened at 7 15 P.M. with all present. SCHOOL IMPACTION Mr. Danny Carrasco, Colton Joint Unified School District, distributed a validation report on the school district's school impaction report prepared by consultant D.J King for the City of Colton. Advised Page 3 - 7/8/85 School district representatives met with City Manager Armstead today regarding the district's impaction report which requests mitigation by the cities within the school district by establishing builder's fees on future developments Outlined the basis used and action taken by the Colton City Council, as indicated in the report The school district estimates an increase in student population from 10,720 to 15,000 in the next five years In response to Council questions, Mr Carrasco advised the 6th graders from the Cooley Ranch Area, and 150 students from Wilson are bussed to Terrace Hills Jr High, the r,@maining students are from Grand Terrace Next year the 6th graders will remain at Wilson, but will attend Terrace Hills Jr. High as 7th graders. Sixteen portables have been located in Grand Terrace The school district estimated a .59 student generation factor for every development within the City Development fees imposed for impaction would be utilitized in the Grand Terrace schools and at Colton High only Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated Mr. Jacobsen responded to the City's request for information relative to impaction and whether the district had established a potential site in the City for future expansion by indicating in a letter that enrollment is somewhat small and there is potentially no need for expansion Recommended consideration at a future Council Meeting due to conflicting information between that letter and the impaction report. Councilman Petta disagreed with charging builders fees, feeling the cost of education should be spread equally Recommended delaying a decision to see the amount of funding that will be generated by the lottery since it was to benefit the schools. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson supported builder's fees if necessary, noted lottery funds cannot be used for capital improvements. Commissioner Collins left the meeting at 7 45 P M. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, stated Colton Joint Unified School District has a very low national scholastic rating. Recommended the City accumulate the funding rather than giving it to Colton Joint Unified School district and forming a committee to consider the City establishing its own school district. MASTER PLAN - AREAS 10, 11, 12 Mr. Trevino requested joint agreement on the following items (1) It is beneficial to master -plan the entire area (2) The schematic plan proposed is acceptable for implementation. (3) Establish a funding method through the CRA or an assessment district to improve all public facilities surrounding the project, such as street improvements, signalization and park Page 4 - 7/8/85 (4) Allowing a greater percentage of the capital improvement development fund fees that would be generated from the project to be credited to the project for developing open space areas, landscaping, jogging and bicycle trails, etc. (5) Strengthening marketing of the project by including information on the project relative to housing opportunities in City brochures. (6) Conceptually agree that a master plan is preferred over separate development projects, and that the City will contribute to make the plan work. The contributions the developers will make will be to engineer the plan, work out land assembly, and hopefully immediately start development of the first phase. (7) Consider fresh, innovative approaches to planning criteria and conditions if adjustments are needed, such as setbacks. Mr. Trevino requested a decision on whether or not to proceed with the overall master plan within the next two weeks, since time is of critical concern. City Attorney Hopkins advised the project cannot be legally approved in two weeks. If both agencies indicate conceptual approval and a willingness to proceed, the legal process would begin through the Planning Commission and Council and would take longer than two weeks. Councilman Evans recommended that both agencies determine if this is a viable project, that Mr. Trevino meet with Staff regarding the percentage of development fees needed for public improvements and to be retained by the City and provide a report to Council in two weeks for further consideration. Planning Director Kicak advised alternatives can be evaluated and information provided if agreed density is known to enable establishing the number of units which will determine the amount of revenue to be generated for capital iprovement fund fees. Noted only a small percentage of the sewer fund fees remain in the city, due to certain obligations, some capital improvement funds are legally restricted. Mr. Trevino stated he is trying to keep the density at 15.75 on a gross acreage basis as approved. Requested a letter of intent. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated 12.75 units plus a bonus of 3 per acre for senior citizens should be reflected for the entire project. Mr. Kahlon, USA Properties, requested a land use plan establishing density. City Attorney Hopkins advised conceptual approval can be given on the items requested by Mr. Trevino, but not on a land use plan establishing density, as requested by Mr. Kahlon. CC-85-219 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, to support the plan proposed by Mr. Trevino, with the exception of allowing the use of a percentage of the capital improvement development fees. Page 5 - 7/8/85 Chairman Caouette felt conceptual approval of the project is premature since there are unresolved problems on right-of-way, Gage Canal, and the traffic studies which indicate that development is predicated on providing four lanes on Mt Vernon and the hill, getting two traffic signals, etc. The Planning Commission has been unable to settle basic density issues due to these unresolved problems. Indicated concern about Mr. Trevino's request for new approaches to setbacks Mayor Pro Tem Matteson advised the proposed action is only approving the concept, the project would still be required to follow normal processing through the Planning Commission and Council Commissioner Cole voiced total agreement conceptually with the proposed approach. Felt master planning the entire area will provide the opportunity to study and resolve problems on one specific plan to develop the total area vs separate projects. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, concurred with the proposed plan Estimated that area is currently costing the developers approximately $30,000 a month, which will be charged to the project and could result in lower -priced building. Noted the tennis courts and swim club are special items which can be provided if cooperation is provided by the City, funds to construct the park, jogging trail and baseball diamond could be taken from park development fees, the drainage canal could come from storm drain fees, the funds would be used for facilities available to the entire community, and would not be used for construction within the project. PCM-85-68 Motion by Commissioner Cole, Second by Chairman Caouette to accept conceptually the plan as presented by Mr Trevino with the exception of allowing the use of a percentage of the capital improvement development fees Chairman Caouette suggested that the Planning Commission only address the setback condition as outlined by Mr. Trevino since the other items would be addressed by Council. Commissioner Cole stated he has no problem with setbacks other than those around the perimeter of the entire project Motion No PCM-85-68 carried 4-1, with Commissioners Caouette, Cole, Hawkinson and McDowell voting AYE, and Commissioner Munson voting NOE Mr. Trevino requested consideration of limiting the density of 12.75 plus a bonus of 3 units per acre for senior citizens to two years, from an investment standpoint, during that period the matter could be considered further and a recommendation proposed Felt this is acceptable at this time Referencing Commissioner Munson's NOE vote, voiced a desire for unanimous support and to provide further clarification to eliminate dissension Commissioner Munson stated he had the impression the recreational facilities would be closed to the public. Mr Trevino stated the tennis and swimming clubs would be private clubs by membership, with access to club members and also to project residents, possibly at a reduced rate The jogging trail, Page 6 - 7/8/85 r a � park and baseball diamond will be outside the development and will be available to the general public. Commissioner Munson questioned if the City would be expected to contribute funds to build the recreational facilities. Mr. Trevino stated he is requesting reduced " fees for the project. ' jw awwom 1-1 +Commissioner Munson voiced concern for improvement of Mt. Vernon and • the hill down to Washington Mayor Grant stated Caltrans has made it clear it will become involved if traffic warrants action to be taken, did not feel Colton would consider the hill of primary concern due to its location. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated the Planning Commission requested this meeting to get direction from Council, felt the Commission should have its own opinions and make its own decisions based on its knowledge, noted the appeal process is available to resolve differences of opinion. Councilman Evans stated discussion was held with the City Attorney regarding conducting an all day mandatory seminar on a weekend for the Planning Commission and Council for in-service training on planning, development, and the City's developmental laws,0 Requested concurrence from the Planning Commission to establish a date Commissioner McDowell voiced concurrence Mayor Pro Tem Matteson recommended placing the matter on the next Planning Commission Agenda for consideration. ADJOURN CC-85-220 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to adjourn the Joint Adjourned Regular Meeting at 9 07 P.M. PCM-85-69 Motion by Commissioner McDowell, Second by Chairman Caouette, ALL AYES by all present to adjourn the Joint Adjourned Regular Meeting at 9 07 P.M. Page 7 - 7/8/85 Respectfully submitted, City r< APPROVED Mayor PENDING CITY AUG 8 1985 COUNCIL APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CQUNCIL AGENDA ffgd:a COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JULY 25, 1985 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 July 25, 1985, at 5 33 p m PRESENT Hugh J Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Myrna Erway, City Clerk Ilene Dughman, Deputy City Clerk ABSENT None The meeting was opened with invocation by Tom Jones, Director of Alumni & Church Relations, California Baptist College, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Myrna Erway ITEM ADDED TO AGENDA - Item 2C - Certificate of Commendation, Myrna Erway. ITEM DELETED FROM AGENDA - Item 3C - Approval of 7/8/85 Minutes CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION - GRIFFIN HOMES Mayor Grant read and presented a Certificate of Commendation to Dale Griffin, Griffin Homes CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION - MYRNA ERWAY Mayor Grant announced that City Clerk Erway had accepted a position of City Clerk/Senior Administrative Assistant with the City of San Clemente, read and presented a Certificate of Commendation to City Clerk Myrna Erway for her service prior to and since the City incorporation Mayor Grant stated Mrs Erway will be missed very much by everyone City Clerk Erway introduced Sally Stone, Steno Clerk, a new employee in the City Clerk Department, whose prime task will be to assist with the preparation of Council and CRA meeting Minutes Page 1 - 7/25/85 FRANCHISE PROPOSAL - LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL CO Council was provided Section 66757 of the Government Code relative to the Council's authority for providing service, which was inadvertently omitted from the Staff Report City Manager Armstead advised that Loma Linda Disposal Co has agreed to a proposed franchise for the disposal of household and business hazardous waste in a safe manner within County and State guidelines, with 15% of the gross franchise fee being allocated to the City provided the City processes the required billing, the estimated gross revenue to the City is estimated to be approximately $25,000 for the first year Mr Armstead emphasized the importance of the franchise contract allowing for rate increases on a CPI, but noted Council has final review over any rate changes. Staff recommended - 0) Council consider awarding Loma Linda Disposal Company an exclusive franchise for collection of solid and hazardous waste for the City of Grand Terrace, (2) Should this proposal be approved, Council direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare the modifications of the municipal code, a refuse collection ordinance, and a franchise agreement for codification and approval by the Council Finance Director Schwab felt the franchise would be advantageous for the City to gain the additional revenue. Responding to questions, stated the additional cost for billing would be slight and no permanent additional manpower would be necessary since processing would be done in conjunction with the current sewer billings. However, estimated initial cost for the transition at approximately $10,000 in additional manhours the first year netting the City approximately $15,000 Don Cook, 1595 Crescent, San Bernardino, Manager of Loma Linda Disposal Company, in response to questions, clarified disposal collection service would not be mandatory under the proposed franchise. Advised they agreed to establish a method of handling collection of hazardous wastes, however, could not calculate a fee since no laws have been established for guidelines, felt disposal of such waste at designated collection points was the only cost effective way of handling the problem. Stated Loma Linda Disposal Company would share costs for processing delinquent accounts CC-85-228 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, to proceed with the exclusive franchise and direct Staff to prepare the proposed Ordinance and Franchise Agreement Following Questions and clarifications, Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the Question CC-85-229 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Mayor Grant Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to overrule the Call for the Question. Page 2 - 7/25/85 Finance Director Schwab, responding to Councilman Petta's request for clarification, advised no amount would be received by either party for delinquent accounts Motion No CC-85-228 carried, ALL AYES CONSENT CALENDAR Items 3A (Check Register No 072585) and 3E (Law Enforcement Contract (GTC 85-11) were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion CC-85-230 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items B. Ratify 7/25/85 C RA actions, D Approve 7/11/85 Minutes, F Authorize Mayor to execute and City Clerk to record Notice of Completion for the Palm Avenue Realignment Project (GTC 85-01), G RESOLUTION NO 85-13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, LIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE FY 1985-86 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII-B OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 7910, H RESOLUTION NO 85-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 85-8 AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS (Mt Vernon Villas) CHECK REGISTER NO 072585 Councilwoman Pfennighausen requested assurance that expenditure for street patching by Harber Construction, Warrant No. 14811, was not for Riverside Highland Water Co street cut repairs CC-85-231 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No 072585, as presented LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT (GTC 85-11) Following clarification relative to language change from the previous CC-85-232 Contract, Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Law Enforcement Contract with San Bernardino County for FY 1985-86 (GTC 85-11) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Kenneth Ford, 22715 Arliss Drive, submitted a petition to the Council regarding the placement of a stop sign at the intersection of Arliss Drive and Holly Petitioners requested removal of stop sign and suggested posting a speed limit sign, a yellow divider line, and additional patrolling of area to control speed violators Page 3 - 7/25/85 Fred Schultz, 22739 Arliss Drive, Arthur Weers, 22865 Arliss Drive, Dominique Marotta, 22751 Arliss Drive, and Ray Donaldson, 22696 Arliss Drive, all requested that the stop sign be removed and reiterated Mr Ford's observations Lila Weers, 22865 Arliss Drive, and Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, also in icated concurrence Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated that, due to three years of citizen complaints, the stop sign was felt necessary Discussion followed pertaining to the exhorbitant cost of increased law enforcement for speed reduction Mayor Pro Tem Matteson felt the majority should rule, however, that violators of the stop sign would not abide by a speed limit and recommended increased enforcement CC-85-233 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, to remove the stop sign at Arliss Drive and Holly. Upon recommendations by Councilmen Evans and Petta, Captain Bradford stated he would increase enforcement of the area Mayor Grant indicated reluctance, but would support the Motion, felt deterrence by increased law enforcement and the issuances of numerous citations could possibly be more effective than the stop sign Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt the stop sign caused the traffic to slow, but would support the Motion - if complaints continue relative to excessive speed, will request the stop sign be reinstalled Councilman Petta called for the Question CC-85-234 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to overrule the Call for the Question Mayor Grant concurred with Councilwoman Pfennighausen's admonitions, felt if an accident occurs at that intersection, Council will have to reevaluate its decision Motion No CC-85-233 carried, ALL AYES Audrey Plantico, 12455 Willet, advised Council of repeated leash law violations and harassment by a neighbor as well as existing fire hazards on his property, cited a situation whereby the Fire Department was prohibted access to extinguish a fire Understands five previous residents moved after failure to resolve untenable situations, was also advised of various attempts by neighbors to seek enforcement of violations over a 17 year period Requested Council's assistance City Manager Armstead stated he was advised of this matter that day and instructed the Code Enforcement Officer to investigate and take action, was currently unaware of status Councilwoman Pfennighausen expressed her awareness of the problem, recommended pursuing abatement of the existing fire hazard, noted the individual carries a firearm Earl Plantico, 12445 Willet, stated that, in addition to violations of leash laws and numerous encroachments, various rabid -carrying animals Page 4 - 7/25/85 CC-85-235 Page 5 - 7/25/85 continually venture onto his property from his neighbor's yard Mr. Plantico reiterated the individual does carry a firearm and, if confronted by it, stated he would apprehend and hold the individual until the proper authorities arrived Barney Karger, 11688 Bernardo Way, indicated his awareness of the problem and concurred with the above statements. Following discussion, Staff was directed to investigate and take immediate, appropriate action in enforcing any violations, taking the firearm into consideration Recessed at 7 10 p m. and reconvened at 7 30 p m with all members present APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE DETERMINATION - PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE Patricia Hamilton, representing the appellant, Pacific Bell Telephone, cave background on their proposal and possible benefits to be derived by the City with the establishment of a remote switching center (RSC) Due to the fact that the Colton office of Pacific Bell, which currently services the City, has essentially reached its growth capacity with regard to providing service for new lines, she advised that RSC is an alternative to meet requirements. In answer to the Council's question of changing the proposed location, Ms Hamilton stated the original site at the end of Center City Court next to the Fire Station was not economically feasible nor conducive to future expansion, therefore, the new site on Michigan was selected based upon location, economics, and expansion capabilities Enhanced services discussed included 3-way calling, call forwarding, and distinctive ringing capabilities as well as a standby power communication system for implementation in emergency situations Mayor Grant opened the meeting for Public Hearing Dave Jones, 12880 Fremontia Avenue, commented on the phenomenal charges incurred by Grand Terrace residents calling San Bernardino Mr. Jones questioned whether the RSC would change those costs and was advised by Tony Lopez, a Pacific Bell Telephone representative, that the switching system would not affect current fees Councilwoman Pfennighausen, with Mayor Grant and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson indicating concurrence, noted the scarcity of prime commercial property in Grand Terrace and felt the issue should be viewed from the standpoint of future sales tax revenue potential Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Evans, to deny the Pacific Bell Telephone appeal Councilman Petta voiced support for the appeal if the building would be sufficiently attractive and blend architecturally City Attorney Hopkins stated the matter at hand is an interpretation of the Zone Ordinance and whether the proposed use is amongst those contained in the Municipal Code Section 18.27.030 dealing with uses permitted within CPD zone - the Planning Commission has made the determination that it does not fall within the Code. Councilwoman Pfennighausen noted the Planning Commission placed a CPD overlay on the proposed location in question with the specific intent of preserving the development of this prime commercial corner for future revenues. Motion No. CC-85-235 carried 4-1, with Councilman Petta voting NOE. SPECIFIC PLAN 85-11 - USA PROPERTIES Planning Director Kicak advised the developer requested the Public Hearing scheduled for this item be continued to the August 8, 1985 meeting. CC-85-236 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to continue the Public Hearing on Specific Plan 85-11 to the August 8, 1985 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT - The Planning Commission Minutes of June 11, , were provided. lanning Director Kicak advised the Planning Commission will hold its next meeting on August 5, 1985. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE - Community Services Director Anstine's memorandum dealing with the 1985 spring recreation program summary was provided. HISTORICAL & CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE - The Minutes of July 1, 1985, were provided. FIRE CHIEF REPORT - City Manager Armstead advised the Fire Chief had issued and followed through with code enforcement at site directly across from Greg's Market, 'hereby accomplishing fire prevention in that area. CITY ENGINEER REPORT City Engineer Kicak (1) Additional FAU Regional funding in the amount of $85,000 has been approved by SANBAG T-TAC Committee, it will go before the SANBAG Board and, when approved, will be transferred into the City's Account as required, (2) Proposed Master Plan for Development of Areas 10, 11 & 12 - A Report of Revenues, Costs and Expenditures was provided ouncil. Mr. Kicak outlined corrections required in the Report, which would be revised and redistributed. Recommended Council consider establishing an Assessment District for off -site improvements within the perimeter of Areas 10, 11, and 12, with cost to be paid by landowners over a 15-year period, suggested the City contribute to the Assessment District a small portion of Capital Improvement fees derived from the Page 6 - 7/25/85 project which exceed attributable costs to cover improvements benefiting property other than the development. In preparing the Report, no attempt had been made to estimate the cost of widening Mt. Vernon between Grand Terrace Road and Washington. Councilman Evans, with Councilwoman Pfennighausen indicating concurrence, felt the Project would be an asset to the City, felt Council requires more extensive information to assure benefits for this project would not impact storm drains and street improvements, felt the matter should not be unnecessarily delayed. Responding to questions, Mr. Kicak outlined procedures for the Assessment District, which would only involve improvements for that project and would not affect the City's entire operation. Understood Mr. Trevino had no problems with pursuing an Assessment District, however, has not discussed that portion to be funded by him as yet. If the Project becomes a reality, revenue for improvements would be generated from Capital Improvement fees and Gas and Sales Tax revenue whether or not an Assessment District is formed. In Council discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Matteson voiced objection to expending funds each year in view of the negative revenue foreseen, Councilman Petta felt references to negative revenue and intangibles were irrelevant. Councilwoman Pfennighausen pointed out there would be no cost to the City. Al Trevino, 1015 Madison Place, Laguna Beach, stated he first received Mr. Kicak's Report that evening, felt more positive revenues could be shown, displayed and reviewed a preliminary, proposed layout for the area, felt coordinated planning and cooperation between the City and developers are required to implement the Plan. Stated 65-70% of the landowners agree this is a very good concept, estimated 1 1/2 Million Dollars for improvements. CC-85-237A Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, to delay any action on this matter until Mr. Trevino meets with Planning Director Kicak and Finance Director Schwab to revise the Report. Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned whether the Master Plan would address and mitigate problems of the two approved developments, relative to negative revenue, produced by all residential developments, felt a well -planned development better than a multitude of poorly planned projects, opposed delaying the matter, felt that kind of rationale would restrict any further development. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the Question. CC-85-238 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL AYES, to overrule the Call for the Question. Mayor Grant expressed his inclination to favor the overall Master Plan, however, concurred additional information is needed. Councilman Evans had no objection to the delay in order to correct data, but would oppose prolonging the entire issue. Page 7 - 7/25/85 Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the Question. CC-85-239 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to overrule the Call for the Question. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, requested Council approve establishing an Assessment District, which would provide funding for the off -site improvements at no cost to the City; felt the City could profit from a uniform, high -quality development that would draw people of higher income and increase property tax revenue. Advised he was not totally in agreement with Mr. Trevino's preliminary design, however, recommended not delaying action since it would increase cost for developers and could result in lowering quality. Mr. Karger included brick entrances and block walls as off -site improvements. Mr. Kicak responded cost for those improvements were not included in his Report and would require eligibility determination by the Bond Counsel. Councilman Petta felt Mr. Karger substantiated the Report, felt the matter of negative revenue is immaterial since it exists in all residental developments, supported establishing the Assessment District. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson voiced no objection to the Assessment District, was concerned about putting Capital Improvement Funds back into the project. CC-85-237B Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilman Evans, to amend Motion No. CC-85-237A to proceed with the project as recommended in the Report using the Assessment District as an avenue of financing improvements for the project. City Attorney Hopkins clarified the amendment would incorporate into the original Motion Council's intent to fund certain improvements through an Assessment District, which does not obligate additional Capital Improvement Funds, felt the only meaningful figures to be revised in the Report are those involving Capital Improvement Funds, which would be done subsequent to a meeting of the Planning Director, Mr. Trevino, and the Finance Director. Council can choose to direct any portion of Capital Improvement Funds toward the project at a later time. Motion No. CC-85-237B to amend Motion No. CC-85-237A carried, ALL AYES. Motion No. CC-85-237A, as amended by Motion No. CC-85-237B carried, ALL AYES. Mr. Trevino stated certain revisions to the specific Plan, which have been discussed with Council, will be required subsequent to new concepts, felt they are moderate modifications and recommended the Planning Director be allowed to administer them thereby allowing him to proceed with his engineering and architectural drawings. The City Attorney recommended reviewing the revisions to determine whether they are minor deviations, advised Council cannot delegate legislative functions of the General Plan process. Page 8 - 7/25/85 It was Council1,.sConsensus that the Planning Di, for be authorized to make revisions pursuant to review and determination they qualify as minor deviations. Mr. Kicak advised he would make necessary minor revisions provided Council agrees they would be in conformance. Mr. Trevino noted acquiring Gage Canal access is a condition precedent to issuance of a building permit, which is now out of his hand, requested that be waived to reduce apprehensions by financial institutions. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson objected to bypassing restrictions. Councilwoman Pfennighausen disagreed with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's objections; felt waiving that condition would implement the project, impaction could only result when the project is completed, at which time the City expects to have right-of-way. Councilman Petta questioned and City Attorney Hopkins advised he foresaw no problems in the City's proceedings to acquire Gage Canal access and felt confident it would be acquired prior to the building permit stage. The purpose of the condition was to ensure participation of all developers, felt the Assessment District would be established prior to that time. Planning Director Kicak recommended, in order to expedite establishing the Assessment District, that all property owners bounded by Barton Road, Mt. Vernon, and Canal Street submit petitions to Council requesting the formation of an Assessment District - only those properties benifiting from the Assessment District, as determined by Council, would be assessed. City Attorney Hopkins was directed to prepare the petitions for submission by property owners, was questioned and advised he felt it premature to waive the building permit conditions at this time; felt there are other means of assuring Mr. Trevino's financiers. Recessed at 9 35 p.m. and reconvened at 9.45 p.m., with all members present. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Petta noted Councilmembers had been given City plaques, advised that the City of Palazzolo Dello Stella, Italy, has displayed great interest in becoming a Sister City to Grand Terrace and has requested something to display. CC-85-240 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, that outgoing Department Heads, previous and outgoing Councilmembers, the designer of the City's Logo, Kelly (Armstead) Arizaga, and the Sister City of Palazzolo Dello Stella, Italy, be presented City plaques, that small USA, State, and City flags also be sent to the Sister City. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson (1) Recommended each Councilmember review the Council Procedure Handbook, (2) Noted the League of California Cities' request for video tapes of council meetings for training sessions, Page 9 - 7/25/85 CC-85-241 Page 10 - 7/25/85 suggested furnishing a tape of a Council meeting, (3) Hated to see City Clerk Erway leave the City, she will be missed Mayor Grant (1) Reported uncollected litter is increasing within the community - cited the following conditions and locations debris on private property at the dead end of DeBerry adjacent to the freeway, paper on the east side of Greg's Market, filth fronting shopping center stores, primarily food establishments, paper collected at City Center Court from the Stater Bros area - suggested some type of wind break. Following discussion, Staff was directed to investigate and return with recommendations Councilwoman Pfennighausen advised the Clean Community Systems is preparing a letter to the Shopping Center, recommended the City again pursue this matter in writing as before. (2) Felt a video tape of a Council meeting would be beneficial to the League of California Cities and advised he previously suggested to the City Manager that one be sent RESOLUTION NO 85-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND A ORNIA, INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 18 72, DEALING WITH SIGNS City Attorney Hopkins noted that, subsequent to the recent Sign Code revision, certain local businesses voiced concern regarding restrictions from displaying banners, etc., for special events Following a Chamber of Commerce request for another revision of the Sign Code, a proposed Ordinance was prepared and presented to the Chamber Board of Directors providing for limited special -event signs, including pennants, flags, banners, balloons, etc Subsequent to his meeting with the Chamber President, a proposed Ordinance is submitted as Exhibit "A" to the Resolution for Council's consideration to initiate the amendment. Attorney Hopkins outlined the Ordinance provisions and recommended revisions be made before submitting to the Planning Commission for recommendations Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to adopt Resolution No. 85-12 City Manager Armstead advised there have been no variance applications for the 18 sign code violations. City Attorney Hopkins stated he was advised the Chamber planned to notify those businesses requesting they either bring their signs into conformity or request a variance. Adjourned at 10 05 p m The next regular meeting will be held August $, 19$3; at530pm APPROVED Respectfully submitted, Mayor Acting City Clerk TiFF IBM"' GAT isom C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) AGENDA ITEM NO oZ F SUBJECT MEETING DATE August 8, 1985 Amendment to Roberti-Z'berg Park Grant Resolution 85-4 • FUNDING REQUIRED X NO FUNDING REQUIRED As Council may recall, Resolution 85-4 was adopted by Council on March 28, 1985, solely to set aside funds that are available to the City via State Parks & Recreation. The majority of the Council voiced objection to the installation of the exercise stations. At this time, in lieu of the exercise stations, staff is requesting that said funds be utilized for the acquisition and installation of concrete waste receptacles for Terrace Hills Community Park. There is an immediate need to install waste recep- tacles within the parksite that can resist constant daily abuse. The current wooden receptacles have been unable to withstand such abuse, and require immediate replacement. Attached to this staff report is a descript- ion of the proposed receptacles. It is staffs'intent to install these containers on concrete bads to provide proper anchoring. There is an additional match of funds (25%) which amounts to $1,175 and has been approved in the • FY Budget for 1985/86. Staff Recommends that the Council: ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION FOR THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF WASTE RECEPTACLES FOR TERRACE HILLS COMMUNITY PARK, AND FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY TINY -TOT PROGRAM. RLA - (... ^r{1 ` ► �k.j: -e�:J .zi tYt „� ; r �rF,�,��'';� E"ts:. a"� r � .li. 7C s�l+�r•"r�,*,','�7„`' .y, ,+`ry�� ^.i•^ � ,rY-•�r>r- _ ). aut•..�3 -`�- „^: ^'-'ram "6 _ '$•nE� u�� _ _ .�' � `yrri'�G'.rS `- 'xE3+-aa.'�- ,` .�1",2r„�"'-: �•. � - T _ l-M- I par Af o• •- •• - - • -• •• • �• - •• ••- ��: i • • • l 1.-t'.i i � '�. -. �.. Y • l 'J ►yl N U '1015 PE.JNG CrTY COUNCIL APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO 85-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-04 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN -SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM FOR ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT FOR RECREATION TINY -TOT PROGRAM AND ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF WASTE RECEPTACLES FOR TERRACE HILLS COMMUNITY PARK. WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open -Space and Recreation Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet urban recreation needs, and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program, and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of applications prior to submission of said applications to the State, and WHEREAS, said applications contain a certification that the applicant will comply with all Federal, State, and local environmental, public health, relocation, affirmative action, and clearinghouse requirements and all other appropriate codes, laws, and regulations prior to the expenditure of the grant funds, and WHEREAS, the project applied for under this program must be of a high priority and satisfy the most urgent park and recreation needs with emphasis on unmet needs in the most heavily populated area, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace does hereby 1. Rescinds Resolution No. 85-04 in its entirety, and 2. Approves the filing of an amended application for funding under the Roberti-Z-berg Urban Open -Space and Recreation Program, and 3. Certifies that said Agency understands the general provisions of the agreement, and 4. Certifies that said Agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project funded under this program, and 5 Certifies that said Agency has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application matching money from a nonstate source, and 6 Certifies that the project included in this application conforms to the recreation element of any applicable City or County General Plan, and 7 Appoints the City Manager as Agent of the City of Grand Terrace to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests, and so on which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project, and 8. Appoints the City Attorney as legal counsel for said Agency with authorization to sign the certification on page 1 of application ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 1985 ATTEST Acting City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace and of the City and of the City Council thereof Council thereof I, Ilene Dughman, Acting City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the day of , 1985, by the following vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Approved as to form City Attorney City Clerk - 2 - -'� 11 w ST. ►F REPOr-T C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( xx) MEETING DATE: 8/8/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2F SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF BINGO LICENSE - GRAND TERRACE LIONS CLUB FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX The Bingo License issued to the Grand Terrace Lions Club expired on April 20, 1985, through an oversight, the renewal was not effected at the proper time. The attached application has been completed and reviewed by Capt. Bradford pursuant to Chapter 5.08 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, and all requirementment have been met. Staff recommends that Council AUTHORIZE THE ACTING CITY CLERK TO ISSUE A BINGO LICENSE TO THE GRAND TERRACE LIONS CLUB FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, TO EXPIRE ON APRIL 20, 1985. ID T� CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO OPERATE BINGO GAMES Pursuant to Provisions of Chapter 5 08 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE (not refundable) Original Original - $28 00 Renewal 14 Renewal - $10 00 1 Name of Applicant Organization Type selr(Itc Address .1�4 ,$��-�y� �o / Trrace. A9�3zt� Telephone 71'y17P3-3o3/ Number and Street City Zip Code Applicant must submit declaration of a duly authorized officer or representative, under penalty of perjury, which states the applicant organization owns or leases the property on which bingo games are to be held and that such property is used by such organization as an office or for purpose of the organization other than bingo games 2. Bingo games will be operated at gta/ /0 er and stree on Gu e_ y t,/ Ft-;'d w From 6 ug P/i') To �/ ; UL7 Am Dates/Da s Hour Hour` 3 A copy of the tax-exempt - status determination, issued by the State Franchise Tax Board to the applicant organization MUST BE ATTACHED HERETO (NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ONLY) 4 Name(s) of person(s) having management and/or supervision of said games r1 . 1 - , 1 mber, Street, City and Zip elephone F� J PAY TO THE ORDER OF. GRAND TERRACE LIONS CLUB 12168 MT VERNON AVENUE NO 58 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324 O Im VALLEY BANK 9TD. MNro.G WA MA=GmH FOR POO 13 24u■ -1: 12 2 2 20 506,: 1324 1222 1 tiC X � ZA2tnl�� 296oll00 18 2 111' E I v n 1 L- OAT O/ G/ O7 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM NO SUBJECT ADDENDUM TO EXISTING JANITORIAL CONTRACT FUNDING REQUIRED X NO FUNDING REQUIRED W--,bf�nm Staff is seeking Council authorization to initiate two (2) addendum's to the existing contract with Accurate Janitorial Service. The addendum's pertain to previously Council approved tasks. Addendum One, addresses window washing within the Civic Center. As you may recall, the contractor desires to provide exterior bilevel window washing services on an as needed basis. This was the basis for no increase in the cost of the existing contractual price. Staff has no objection to this, in addition, Council also had no objection to this arrangement when the contract was awarded. Addendum Two, addresses the need for weekend maintenance at Terrace Hills Community Park. Currently, the City utilizes the services of a local resident to perform this service. There is an established need for the contract employee to be insured via, workmen's compensation as well as liability. The current janitorial contractor is willing to perform the janitorial duties at the parksite, as well as provide the necessary required insurance, for $155.00 per month. This figure is a decrease over what the City is currently paying. The average payment to the current vendor is $213.00 per month. Hence, the City will realize a dollar savings as well as being provided the necessary insurance coverage. Staff Recommends that the Council: APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ADDENDUMS 1 & 2, TO THE ACCURATE JANITORIAL SERVICE CONTRACT. RLA V (2) Warrant No. 13245 - understood Susan Crawford volunteered her services to the City for caligraphy, recommended seeking someone to the community to volunteer that service, (3) questioned and received clarification on Warrant Nos. 13256 and 13277. CC-85-192 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 061385 as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (5/9/85) Councilwoman Pfennighausen, referencing the first paragraph on Page 10, requested the Minutes be amended and returned for approval since the statement she requested "for the record" was not complete. CIVIC CENTER JANITORIAL SERVICE CONTRACT (GTC85-14) Councilwoman Pfennighausen, with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson concurring, felt the Contractor is not providing all the services specified; referencing an Addendum to the Contract indicating an additional charge of $59.00 per occurrence for cleaning the exterior windows, questioned why the Staff Report stated there would be no additional cost unless minimum wages are increased. Felt the additional cost should be reflected in the records and that the windows will require monthly cleaning. Community Services Director Anstine stated the Contractor misinterpreted the original window washing specifications and requested the renewed Contract be amended to include the C- additional charge on an as -needed basis, as specified in the Addendum, felt the proposed cost was reasonable. CC-85-193 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute renewal of the Contract for Annual Janitorial Services (GTC85-14) with Accurate Janitorial Services, in the amount of $1,066 per month, including $155 per month for the Library, to expire June 30, 1986. (There will be an additional $59.00 per occurrence cost for exterior window cleaning.) Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's request for Staff follow-up on janitorial service, Mr. Anstine requested that service complaints be provided to him in writing. Motion No. CC-85-193 carried, ALL AYES. RECREATIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT RENEWAL (GTC85-18) Councilman Petta requested this matter be deferred to the June 27 meeting to allow him to meet with Staff for clarification. RESOLUTION NO. 85-07 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 84-42 AND ADJUSTING THE SALARY RANGES FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE. Page 3 - 6/13/85 ADDENDUM' ' Janitor Service (GTC 85-14) City of Grand Terrace JANITOR SERVICE, INC. COMMERCIAL — INDUSTRIAL — DOMESTIC LICENSED — BONDED — INSURED �' PHONE 714 / 682-1010 3933 SEVENTH ST RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 "SINCE 1 9 5 5 ?4 �} -'e,m E oo June 7, 1985 Randy Anstine City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA Reference Window cleaning City of Grand Terrace Dear Randy, In regard to our phone conversation of June 6, 1985, the cost for the cleaning of the exterior windows will be $59.00 per occurence This cost includes supply cost, insurance, etc. The only other instance requiring an increase in the present contract cost would be if there was an increase in the minimum wage or an increase in the State or Federal taxes. If the additional cost for the monthly cleaning of the windows is accepted - please let me know and I will send you an adendum to the contract for your signature. ATTEST CITY OF GRAND TERRACE City Cle Approved as to forrr City Attorney ,ayor Date PCCURANTE JANITORIAL SERVICE, INC Date N CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ADDENDUM NO 2 Furnish Custodial Service for Civic Center Complex, 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California PLEASE CHANGE TO READ Page 6, Section XXIII, please add, Terrace Hills Community Park Provide twice weekly custodial services at said parksite Basic Services shall be performed on weekends between the hours of 9 00 p m - 6 00 a m The working hours are flexible enough for the contractor to establish exactly what time the actual work is to be performed Said services shall consist of the following 1) Collect all trash and deposit in designated areas, This includes parksite, restrooms and parking lot 2) Clean, sanitize and polish drinking fountains. 3) flash and clean any and all graffiti 4) Sweep and mop restroom floors using a germicidal solution 5) Clean and sanitize all commodes, basins and urinals 61 Polish fixtures, dispensers and mirrors 7) Clean and sanitize all restroom fixtures and partitions 81 Check and fill all paper dispensers with supplies to be furnished by the City 9) Sweep entryways leading into restroom areas, 101 Clean concrete walkways of all stains, dirt, etc, As agreed by both parties, the cost of this extra work at the parksite is to be an additional $155 00 per month for twice a week service ATTEST CITY OF GRAND TERRACE City Clerk Mayor Approves as to forr, Date ACCLRATE JANITORIAL SERVICE, !NC City Attorney Lesiie 6 Vance Operations Manager Date AU - 1985 _ Q,Wt4CI1- AGENDA ITEM 4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETINGS JULY 8 & JULY 18, 1985 MINUTES The July 8 and July 18 workshop meetings were held in the E 0 C Building for the purpose of working on the City's Emergency Disaster Plan The project is proceeding nicely Those in attendance were Ed Luers, Jim Hodder, Mike Harris, Vic Pfennighausen and Randy Anstine from the City Staff W-mainsi-iffi. Respectfully Submitted, Vic Pfennighausen RECEI V LD J'J ) r) I 1985 CITY OF GRANU TERRACE ST/i=F REPORT Date 8/2/85 ZA4 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 8/8/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. tj L. (/ SUBJECT: Red Curb - Arliss Drive (11959) FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED Councilman Petta requested this Item placed on the Agenda. ID 1 1 R11 DATE T 8/5/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE 8/8/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5A 64w SUBJECT Specific Plan 85-11 - USA Properties FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED xx This item is to be continued to the August 22 meeting per the developer's request due to the proposed Master Plan for Areas 10, 11, 12. Staff recommends Council. MOVE TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIFIC PLAN 85-11, USA PROPERTIES, TO THE AUGUST 22, 1985 MEETING. ID r •� August 2, 1985 STA, `F REPOR 12.49 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) W ETING DATE: AUGUST 8, 1985 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4A_ SUBJECT: SPEED ZONE STUDY FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED xx rr A Speed Zone Study for the City of Grand Terrace, has been completed by San Bernardino County. That Study was distributed to the City Council for their review and comments The staff has prepared a Resolution to adopt the Speed Zone Study as recommended in a previous report by the Staff. Attached for your consideration is the Resolution, for consideration and adoption of the resolution. No recommendation is being made for Main Street, since a coordinated effort between the City of Grand Terrace and Riverside County will determine the ultimate speed on Main Street. STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION. JK/lh Attachments rp dENDiNG MY COUNCIL APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO 85- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace, through its traffic consultant, has conducted speed zone surveys on various City streets, and WHEREAS, the City Staff has evaluated traffic conditions and street hazards in each area, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, after careful consideration of the Speed Zone Survey and existing traffic hazards, does hereby establish the following Speed Limits for the City of Grand Terrace STREET NAME LIMITS SPEED Barton Road Freeway to Palm Avenue 35 MPH Mt. Vernon Avenue Barton Rd to Grand Terrace Rd 40 MPH DeBerry Street Mt. Vernon to east City limits 25 MPH DeBerry Street Mt. Vernon to west City limits 25 MPH Palm Avenue Barton Rd to Honey Hill Drive 35 MPH Michigan Street Barton Rd. to Main Street 35 MPH ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 1985 ATTEST Acti ng Ci ty Clerk of the Ci ty of Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace and of the City and of the City Council thereof. Council thereof. W I, Ilene Dughman, Acting City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the day of , 1985, by the following vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Approved as to form ity Attorney City Clerk - 2 - SPEED ZONE STUDY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE JULY, 1985 CONTENTS 1. Memo to City Manager from City Engineer. 2. Engineering Analysis of the Speed Zone Study. 3. Speed Zone Surveys - San Bernardino County Department of Transportation 4. Maps, showing existing and proposed speed limits. SPEED ZONE STUDY Attached is a summary of the Speed Zone Study conducted by the Traffic Division of the County Transportation Department. The County Survey indicated some speed limits should be increased because a majority of the motorist are driving at speeds, which exceed the posted limits. However, there are conditions on some of the streets where excessive speeds would jeapardize traffic safety and some where the condition of the street requires lower speeds. Listed below are streets which the City Staff recommend be posted at speeds lower than indicated in the Speed Study. BARTON ROAD FREEWAY TO PALM AVENUE. Presently posted at 35 MPH The speed study shows a majority of the vehicles are traveling at approximately 45 MPH. However, accident reports show that 42 accidents have occurred on this street in the past three years, which is excessive, considering it is only 1 1/2 miles long and has two signalized intersections. RECOMMENDATION Retain the existing 35 MPH speed limit. MT. VERNON AVENUE BARTON ROAD TO GRAND TERRACE ROAD. Presently posted at 40 MPH The speed study shows the critical speed on this section of street to be 50 MPH in both directions. However, the southbound traffic is entering a congested commercial district, where a lower speed would be more prudent and safer. The northbound traffic is proceeding to a section of street with reduced width, limited visibility of cross traffic and a section of roadway that is subject to landslides. RECOMMENDATION. Retain the existing 40 MPH speed limit. SPEED ZONE STUDY (Continued) DEBERRY EAST AND WEST OF MT. VERNON Presently posted at 25 MPH Both the east and west ends of DeBerry Street are dead end and will remain that way, in between is a public school, a city park and a highly developed residential area. The fact that most people are driving this street at 42 to 44 MPH does not mean that speed is in the best interest of the school children or the residents that walk from their residential area to the school or park. The safety of the school children in this area should be more important than the desires of some residents to travel at excessive speeds. RECOMMENDATION Retain the present 25 MPH speed limit. PALM AVENUE- BARTON ROAD TO HONEY HILL DRIVE. Presently posted at 35 MPH The traffic study indicates a critical speed of 38 to 42 MPH in this area, which is only slightly above the posted speed of 35 MPH. Considering the fact that Palm Avenue is a dead end on the east with a stop sign on the west at Barton Road, it would seem to be impractical to travel in excess of 35 MPH for such a short distance. There have been 8 accidents in this area during the last three years, and the property is almost completely developed with commercial and residential uses RECOMMENDATION Retain the 35 MPH speed limit. MICHIGAN AVENUE NORTH OF CARDINAL Presently posted at 35 MPH A critical speed of 40 MPH, both northbound and southbound was reported in the Traffic Survey However, there are existing numerous residential dwellings along this street with major commercial developments at the north end The street also dead ends in a school zone and a major intersection with Barton Road where there has been 11 reported accidents in the past three years. In addition, there is a lack of adequate pedestrian facilities, due to inadequate right of way at this time. SPEED ZONE STUDY (Continued) MICHIGAN AVENUE NORTH OF CARDINAL (Continued) RECOMMENDATION Retain the present 35 MPH speed limit, until further study of the intersection accident problem has been implemented and additional pedestrian facilities are constructed. PALM AVENUE- EAST OF HONEY HILLS DRIVE. No posted speed limit. It is believed that the steep grade and sharp curves on this portion of Palm Avenue will automatically regulate the speed of motorist using this street. There have been no reported accidents in this area for the past three years. RECOMMENDATION N/A SPEED LIMIT INCREASE MAIN STREET- WEST OF MT. VERNON. Presently posted at 40 MPH. The Traffic Survey disclosed that most people travel westbound on Main Street at speeds in excess of 50 MPH. For a driver exercizing reasonable caution, this should be a safe speed. RECOMMENDATION Increase speed limit from 40 to 50 MPH, sub3ect to the following conditions a) Install paddle marker reflectors on the Northside of the street East of Michigan where the roadway narrows. b) Coordinate change with Riverside County to insure their concurrence and change speed limit on both sides of the street at the same time ALL OTHER STREETS IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ARE PROPERLY SPEED ZONED AND POSTED 'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO... ATION I _ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO �K ENVIRONMENTAL FLOOD CONTROUAIRPORTS -: PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY N' li%l 111111 E25 East Third Street • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 (714) 383-1665 �� jt� MICHAEL G WALKER Director June 13, 1985 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 ATTN: Joe Kicak, City Engineer Dear Mr. Kicak: RECEIVED aT SUN 17 19085 KICAK & ABATES Speed zone surveys have been conducted on the roads requested as per your letter of March 28, 1985. Our policy is to post the critical speed or within 5 MPH of the critical. This would allow the law enforcement agency to use radar to enforce the posted speed limits. Please keep in mind radar enforced speed zones should be reviewed with the traffic courts before posting. The critical speeds on the roads are as follows: 1. Barton Road -west of Mt. Vernon: 44 westbound 44 eastbound 2. Mt. Vernon Avenue -south of Barton: 46 northbound 44 southbound 3. DeBerry-east of Mt. Vernon: 42 westbound 42 eastbound 4. Palm Avenue -east of Honey Hill: 38 westbound 38 eastbound 5. Main Street -west of Mt. Vernon• 54 westbound 6. Michigan -north of Cardinal 40 northbound 40 southbound east of Mt. Vernon: 48 westbound 48 eastbound north of Barton. 50 northbound 50 southbound west of Mt. Vernon: 44 westbound 44 eastbound east of Preston. 42 westbound 40 eastbound Enclosed for your files are copies of the requested speed zone survey logs. Continued Letter to City of Grand Terrace May 23, 1985 page 2 of 2 If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (714) 383-1255• Very truly yours, j' FILIBERTO R. GONtALEZ PTraffic Engineer FG•JPL:bar enclosures STP-'::F REPORT Date 8/5/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: 8/8/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6B SUBJECT: Master Plan - Areas 10, 11, 12 FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX Pursuant to Council direction at the July 25 meeting, attached is the revised Report for the proposed Master Plan for Council to review. The data used in this revision reflects the following 1. Corrected value of per capita sales tax generated within the City of Grand Terrace. 2 Data furnished by Mr. Trevino for the following (a) Occupancy per unit (b) Estimated costs of improvements including the perimeter wall and entries to the project if they are to be included in the assessment district proceedings. 3. Include the restricted funds (gas tax) generated by the project. Staff recommendations are listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Report. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF AREAS 10, 11, and 12 ` S / On July 8, 1985 a proposal by Mr. Al Trevino, was presented in concept to the joint session of the City Council and the Planning Commission for a development of the area, known as areas 10, 11, and 12 in the mass zone change. Said area is bounded by Mt. Vernon Avenue on the east, Canal Street on the west and northwest and Britton Way on the south. Planning Commission and the City Council were favorably impressed with a proposal by Mr. Trevino, and are considering this plan for the development of these areas. The plan as proposed by Mr. Trevino incorporated all of the acreage within the boundaries of these areas. The presentation by Mr. Trevino generally indicated that cooperation of all of the property owners would be required to make such a plan a reality. Mr Trevino further stated that he had contacted a majority of the property owners, and indicated that the plan received favorable consideration by the property owners. Mr Trevino further indicated that he would attempt to gain control of all of the properties within the area and develop as per plan. As consideration for the efforts to plan and develop the project as presented, ` he requested consideration from the City Council and Planning Commission. The considerations requested were generally as follow: From the Planning Commission and City Council 1. Processing of the plan at an accellerated rate. 2. Consideration of waiving the set -back requirements and other requirements in favor of design where such waiver would be outweighed by a development of a better overall project. From the City Council 1. Financing the required public improvements through Assessment District, specifically a combination of 1913 Improvement Act and 1915 Bond Act or 1911 Bond Act. % 2. Utilizing the revenues generated by the project development, or portion thereof for the installation of the required public improvements. At that meeting, City Council directed the staff to evaluate this request. To accomplish this, without detail plans, staff made assumptions which may be considered reasonable, in view of the past actions by the City Council, as -1- these actions pertain to density of the proposed development. In addition, the cost estimates included are based on a general knowledge of the area and the improvements that would be required to meet the current City standards, based on the general plan circulation element. The revenues to be generated are based on a schedule for the completing the development as perceived by Mr. Trevino. It should be noted, that no reduced or reproducible map of the proposed project as presented previously was available to be included in this report. The map used for this analysis was a 42" by 84" copy of the map, solar to that used in Mr. Trevino's presentation to the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Therefore no map of the proposed project is included in this report, however a map of the general area is included. In order to fairly evaluate the revenues generated by the proposed project and the costs associated with the project, three areas of these revenues and expenditures must be considered. These areas include: 1. Capital Improvements (a) Costs of Required Improvements. (b) Revenues generated from the project for Capital Improvements. 2. Service Costs (Costs incurred by the City during project development) (a) Fees generated for plan checking and inspection fees. (b) Costs for the services required during project development. 3. Maintenance costs (a) Fees generated from the following sources (1) Tax Increment (2) Gas Tax Revenues (2106, 2107, 2107.5 & SB325-Art8) (3) Sales Tax Revenues (4) Cigarette Tax (b) Services Associated with this project (1) Police Protection (2) Fire Protection (3) General Administration (4) Street Lighting (5) Street Maintenance (6) Pro-rata costs of City owned facilities to include Civic Center, Fire Station and Parks and Recreation. GENERAL INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS The general information and the assumptions used for the basis of this report -2- 1 i are listed below and the source of information and/or reason for assumption. General Information Source/Reason 1. Area - (Estimated) 60 acres Assessor's Records 2. Density 15.75 Units per acre Previous City Council Action 3. Total No. of Units 945 Area x Density 4. Estimated cost per unit $50,000.00 Project Proponent 5. Total Project Cost $47,250,000.00 Total Units x Cost Per Unit 6. Occupancy Per Unit 1.7 Per Al Trevino 7. Population Increase at Project I Completion 1606 Units x 1.7 Per Unit Schedule for Completion - (As per project proponent) Year No. of Units Total Units Percent Completed 1. (1986) 250 250 26% 2. (1987) 350 600 63% 3. (1988) 200 800 85% 4. (1989) 145 945 100% 1(a) ESTIMATED COSTS OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (CAPITAL COSTS) The improvement costs identified herein are subdivided into three categories. These catergories are as follow: I. The improvements benefiting the properties to be developed, whereby 100% of the cost of these improvements would be the responsibility of the developer pursuant to Subidivision Map Act. (Perimeter Improvements - Project Area) II. Improvements which, as a result of this project will be required, however portion of the cost is attributable to the project. (Traffic Signals Mt. Vernon -Canal -Grand Terrace and Barton - Canal and Mt Vernon Ave. improvements - East Side) III. Improvements which will be required by this project, however are within the jurisdiction of another agency, and City has no control over the revenues or expenditures of the project costs (Water System - Riverside Highland Water Co.) Following are the estimated costs within each category: -3- F— I. Project Area Perimeter 1. Street Improvements (a) Mt. Vernon and Canal Street 267,000 (b) Canal Crossings 25,000 (c) Right -of -Acquisition and Appraisals (Gage Canal) 30,000 (d) Storm Drain System 110,000 (e) Street Lighting 25,000 (f) Bikeway along Canal 25,000 (g) Perimeter Landscaping 40,000 (h) Perimeter Walls 225,000 (i) Landscaping 50,000 (j) Entries 120,000 Total $917,000 II. Improvements - Partial Responsibility - Adjacent to - but Outside Immediate Project Area Based on the study completed by C G Engineering for Mt. Vernon Condominiums Specific Plan, it has been determined that based on traffic volumes generated by this proposed project, 69% of the costs is attributable to the signals at the two locations. In addition, traffic volumes from the project areas will account for 17% of the total traffic volume on Mt. Vernon Avenue. Based on the above, the costs of these improvements that can be allocated to this project are as follows: 1. Street Improvements - East Side Mt Vernon Barton Road to 1300' Northerly Total Cost 48,000 @ 0.17 $ 8,160 2. Traffic Signals (a) Barton and Canal St. 85,000 @ 0.69 58,650 (b) Mt. Vernon -Canal -Grand Terrace 100,000 @ 0.69 69,000 Total Costs 233,000.00 Project Area Cost (Pro Rata Share) $135 810 III. Improvements - Water System (Riverside Highland Water Company) It must be recognized that certain water system improvements will be required by R.H.W. Co. These requrred improvements are within the jurisdiction of R.H.W. Co. and Fire Warden. The estimated costs are $45,000.00 exclusive of any reservoir and/or meter fees. -4- The construction costs can be further discussed if the proposed improvements within the project area are to be constructed through Assessment District Proceedings, however, have no bearing on the capital improvments and associated capital improvement fund fees of the City's revenue and expenditure. Summary of Project Costs (Estimated) Total Costs Costs Attributable to this Project I. Project Area Perimeter $ 917,000.00 $ 917,000.00 II. Adjacent -Outside Project Area 233,000.00 135,810.00 III. Other Agency Costs (R.H.W. Co) 45,000.00 45,000.00 Total Construction Costs $1,195,000.00 $1,097,000.00 City Improvements $1,195,000.00 $1,097,000.00 Park Site - Development Grand Terrace Road & Mt. Vernon $ 50,000.00 $ -0- Total Cost - City Improvements $1,245,000.00 $1,097,000.00 Contingencies: $ 436,000.00 $ 402,000.00 (a) Construction (b) Engineering (c) Assessement District { $1,681,000.00 $ 1,499,000.00 l(b) REVENUES GENERATED FROM THE PROJECT (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS) The following is a list of Capital Improvement Fund Fees applicable to this development pursuant to existing ordinances and resolutions. The revenues generated are per unit basis for multi -family residential unit developed. These fees are estimated based on the limited knowledge of the project assuming the final design and development as now proposed. The fees indicated are those which may actually be realized by the City if the project is approved at the density indicated over the total area of 60 acres. Capital Improvement Fee Percent to City Amount to City Fund r Street $ 375.00 100% $ 375.00 Park $ 275.00 100% $ 275.00 Storm Drain $ 185.00 100% $ 185.00 Sewer Grand Terrace $ 1500.00 10% $ 150.00 Sewer - Colton $ 1500.00 90% $ -0- Water - R.H.W. Co. $ 1400.00 i 100% $ -0- Estimated Revenues Generated at Build -Out Street Capital Improvement Fund - 945 @ 375 $ 354,375.00 Park Capital Improvement Fund - 945 @ 275 $ 259,875.00 Storm Drain Capital Improvement Fund - 945 @ 185 $ 174,825.00 Sewer Capital Improvement Fund - 945 @ 150 $ 141,750.00 Total City Fees - Capital Improvement Fund $ 930,825.00 Capital Improvement Fund - Sewer City of Colton 945 x 1350 $ 1,275,750.00 Sub -Total - Capital Improvement Fund p p $ 2,206,575.00 Riverside Highland Water Company - 945 x 1400 $ 1,323,000.00 GRAND TOTAL OF FEES (CAPITAL IlMPROVE14ENTS) $ 3,529,575.00 Payments of Capital Improvement Fund Fees to the City based on Proposed Project Development Schedule would be as follows: Year No. of Units Street Park Storm Drain Sewer Total 1 250 93,750 68,750 46,250 37,500 246,250 2 350 131,250 96,250 64,750 52,500 344,750 3 200 75,000 55,000 37,000 30,000 197,000 4 145 54,375 39,875 26,825 21,750 142,825 $354,375 $259,875 $141,750 $930,825 $174,825 2. Service Charges and Associated Costs The following fees are expected to be generated by the City in conjunction with the development of this project. A. Building Plan Check, Inspection and Permit Fee 945 Units @ 200.00/unit $189,000.00 B. Public Works Plan Check, Permit and Inspection Fee -6- 1,316,250.00 @ 2% Total Plan Check Permit and Inspection Costs $ 26,325.00 $215,325.00 The corresponding expenditures by the City for the sservices associated with the project are anticipated to equal the revenues, $215,325.00. 3. Project Revenues and Costs - General Government and Restricted Funds The area that could be considered as revenue generating for the above purposes as a result of the proposed project includes the following sources. These projected revenues and expenditures are based on the historical data within the City of Grand Terrace. The most equitable method of comparison is on the historical per capita basis of both the revenues and expenditures. The revenues projected are based on recent actual return to the City of Grand Terrace. Following is the per capita revenue generated: Sales Tax (a) Taxable Sales - $2000.00 @ 0.01 = 20.00 (b) Gas Tax - $ 24.00 (c) Cigarette Tax - $ 2.00 Tax Increment Based on 30% of 1% of total Value of Incremental Improvements. (Approximately 0.003 x Total Value of Improvements) Based on the above, the following revenues can be anticipated annually after the total build -out of the project: (a) Sales Tax - $20.00/cap x 1606 32,120.00 (b) Gas Tax - $24.00/cap x 1606 38,544.00 (Restricted (c) Cigarette Tax - $2.00/cap x 1606 3,212.00 (d) Tax Increment 945 units x 50,000/unit = $47,250,000.00 47,250,000.00 x .003 141,750.00 Total Revenue $ 215,626.00 The restricted funds, estimated in the amount of $38,544.00 may only be used for construction and/or maintenance of the street, storm drain, street lighting, traffic signals and in general public thoroughfare. However, they are revenues generated as a result of this project. Although restricted, are being included in this analysis. The balance of the funds estimated at $177,082.00 are considered unrestricted -7- and could therefore be used for the general fund purposed. Based on the current fiscal year budget, general fund, projected expenditures are estimated to exceed $1,500,000.00. These costs are associated with personnel, police and fire protection and general day to day operation and administration of the City. These services in general are not revenue producing and are supported largely by the above identified unrestricted funds. The estimated per capita cost to operate general government based on the total population of 11606 and $1,500,000.00 is $129.25 per capita. The total funds generated by the proposed project in the amount of $177,082 amounts to $110.26 per capita, approximately the same as the cost of service being provided to the present residents of the community. In summary the following is the analysis of the proposed project, associated revenues and expenditures. Capital Cost - Improvements City of Grand Terrace - Public Works Total Construction Costs Payments to Capital Improvement Fund City of Grand Terrace Total - Grand Terrace l City of Colton Sewer Fund Total —City of Colton Riverside Highland Water Co. Total - R.H.W. Co. Total Public Improvement and Fund Costs Revenue Generated (City of Grand Terrace) Project Development Stage Capital Improvement Fund Plan Check, Permits & Inspection (a) Building Department (b) Public Works Department (City Project) Total Revenue Generated Expenditures During Project Development Balance of Revenues - Capital Improvement Fund $1,681,000.00 $ 930,825.00 $1,275,750.00 $1,323,000.00 $ 930,825.00 $ 189,000.00 -0- $ 189,000.00 $1,681,000.00 $ 930,825.00 $1,275,750.00 $1,323,000.00 $5,210,575.00 $1,119,825.00 $ 189,000.00 $ 930,825.00 -8- Annual Revenues Generated General Sales Tax $ 32,120.00 Cigarette Tax $ 3,212.00 Tax Increment $ 141,750.00 Total Annual Revenue Generated (General Govm't) $ 177,082.00 Restricted Funds (Gas Tax) $ 38,544.00 Grand Total Revenues $ 215,626.00 Less Gas Tax Revenues (Restricted) 38,544.00 Balance to operate General Government 177,082.00 Cost to operate General Government (This Development) 1606 x 129.25 207,575.00 Net Revenues — (Negative) — Annually $( 30,493.00) ` The above analysis is, at best, an attempt to bring into focus approximate i relative costs and revenues that are associated with the project as they effect the public agency. The capital improvement fund fees that are collected for this project are estimated at $937,400.00 for the benefit of the City. After the incorporation, the staff identified needs and the associated costs of the various capital improvements needed throughout the City. Many of these needs, such as storm drain system, street improvements and the development of the park system have not yet been met, due to the lack of funds. For this reason and the fact that the proposed development will impose an even greater burden on these facilities, the staff would recommend to the City Council that not all of the capital improvement funds be credited this project for the required improvements. However, the project proponent requested, that Assessment District Proceedings be favorably considered by the City Council. The staff has met on July 29, 1985 with the majority of the property owners. (Those owning more than 50% of the land area) In the attached "Mt Vernon Master Plan" memorandum is a summary of the items discussed and agreed upon. The following costs identified in this report may be considered for Assessment District Proceedings: 1. Construction Contingency and Costs Associated with Assessment $1,681,000.00 2. Costs payable to other Agencies (a) City of Colton (b) Riverside Highland Water Co. Total Costs -Assessment District $1,275,.750.00 $1,323,000.00 $4,279,750.00 Less City's Contribution 182,000.00 Total Amount to Assessment $4,097,750.00 The City's contribution from the capital improvement fund should represent that portion of offsite improvements for the items benefiting other general public and participation of Park Development within area 10. In this manner of financing, the property benefiting pays its full fair share of the improvements over a period of as many as 15 years without immediate burden on the developer. IFor the City to have a successful bond sale to finance the Assessment District Improvements and acquisition of capacity, the ratio of the true value to Assessment Amount of the benefiting properties must be considered. A reasonable expectation of the bond buyer is a ratio of greater than 5:1 with the full development of the property as proposed by Mr. Trevino the ratio would be approximately 24,000,000.00 to 4,000,000.00 or a ratio of approximately 6:1. However, that ratio will be considerably less at the time of bond sale, since the development of the project is estimated to be 4 years. Therefore, it should be determined what the exact true value of the development would be at the time the bond sale is to take place and contact some bond buyer to determine how they would view purchase of such an issue. At the meeting of July 29, 1985 those present discussed the possibility of the City incurring costs prior to any assurance that the District will be formed. There is no guarantee that the City will recover these costs unless the District is actually formed. Therefore, City should consider its options in conjunction with this possibility. In addition, the perimeter walls and landscaping are proposed to be part of the capital improvements of the district. If such proposal is legally acceptable and becomes a reality, the maintenance costs should be borne by the occupants. These maintenance costs could be generated through the formation of 1972 Act Landscaping and Lighting District with the City assuming the maintenance costs and assessing those to property owners annually or have the property owners assume the full responsibility for maintenance and operation of these facilities. The staff would recommend the following be considered by the City Council: 1. Consider favorably to formation of an Assessment District for Areas 10, 11, and 12 subject to: (a) Presentation of a petition by 60 percent or more of the -10- property owners in the areas to form such Districts (1913-1915 Act and 1972 Act Maintenance). (b) Deposit with the City of Grand Terrace the costs associated with the formation of the District. (c) A schedule for completing the development in the subject area. 2. Direct the staff to investigate the potential of a succesful bond sale for the proposed district. 3. If the above indicates that a district can be formed, direct the staff to prepare the necessary documents for innitiating the Assessment District. -11- SUBJECT: MT. VERNON MASTER PLAN A meeting was held on July 29, 1985, to discuss the Mt. Vernon Master Plan, with the following people in attendance: Joseph Kicak Al Trevino John Shone Surinder S. Kahlon Ivan Hopkins Barney Karger Richard Edwards The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed project in Areas 10, 11, and 12, and responsibilities of the City and the Developers as consideration of Assessment District proceedings. Scheduling was discussed, in the event the Assessment District is formed for the improvements. In addition to the street and utilities that have been previously discussed as Assessment District projects, Mr. Trevino requested the perimeter block wall and the ornamental entrances be included in the District. Mr. Hopkins stated that to be included in the District, all work would have to be in the Public right-of-way and he didn't think the City would be interested in taking on the future maintenance of the block wall or entrances. This matter was resolved by agreeing to constructing the facilities on property to be dedicated to the City with the Homeowner's Association assuming maintenance responsibility for the wall and ornamental entrances. Staff agreed to include these two items in the Assessment District. Considerable time was spent discussing the time required to process an Assessment District. Mr. Trevino stated that he would like to have units ready for occupancy by February, 1986, which would require a start date of October, 1985. Mr. Kicak and Mr. Hopkins agreed that the City could not be assured that improvements would be installed by Assessment District proceedings until the City Council had held all of the Public Hearings and confirmed the Assessment. With a crash program, this procedure would take approximately one year. However, building permits could be issued, if the developers posted a bond for off -site improvements. If the Assessment District formation was successful the bonds would be released, if not the developer would be required to construct all improvements. Mr. Kicak went through the step-by-step procedures required to establish an Assessment District and explained in detail how the district formation could be prevented by a majority of the property owners, or even by a few property owners, if they were successful in convincing the City Council to stop the proceedings. If the district formation is stopped either by the City Council or by a majority protest, the City would be responsible for all expenses incurred to that date, and because of that potential liability, the City may require the developers to deposit sufficient funds to cover that obligation, otherwise, the taxpayers of Grand Terrace would have to pay these costs. Al Trevino agreed to gather names of the property owners on a petition, which he would present to the City Council and request the Council to initiate steps to form the district. Mr. Hopkins told the property owners they should have an agreement among themselves, wherein each would agree to provide an easement to the others for access and utilities, if the schedule of development is required. Also, define who would pay for public facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools. The final topic discussed by the group was the figures to be used in the revised report to the City Council concerning funds that would be generated by this project and the cost of providing City services. Mr. Trevino thought police protection should not be a factor in determining City expenses, because the project would have controlled gates and not require police protection. Mr. Kahlon disagreed with that assumption saying you are just as likely to be ripped off by a neighbor as a stranger from out of town, also the project would have as many family arguments, as any other area of town. Police protection will be left in the report as one of the City expenses. Joe Kicak agreed to use other figures provided by Al Trevino in the revised report. � �� N C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) AGENDA ITEM NO G FUNDING REQUIRED x_ NO FUNDING REQUIRED DATE Aug. 5, 1985 MEETING DATE August 8, 1985 Council directed staff to obtain a Request for Proposal from qualified consultants to conduct a classification analysis and documentation study for salary and benefits for 14 City employees. Please see attached letter of June 5, 1985 to see what criteria was to be met. Department Heads and the Personnel Officer prepared a job weighted vote procedure for the RFP which is attached. The firms were rated based upon cost, meeting the requirements of the RFP and maintenance of operation. The highest weighted factor for cost was 25, for meeting RFP requirments 60, 15 for maintenance of operation. Recap sheet is attached. A comparable worth study was requested to be included in the classificiation study. A comparable worth study uses a point factoring system which considers many additional vital factors in determining the responsibility and classification of each individual. Combining this with the classification study will result in significantly more equality among the employees, and will properly classify their positions pursuant to their level of responsibility and consequence of their actions conducting City business Hay Associates is the only firm that responded fully to the City's RFP, and has been highly recommended by other cities which have used their services. Hamilton indicated they did not include the cost for a comparable worth study, and that inclusion of the study would increase the cost. Staff recommends Hay Management Consultants, feeling it will provide a complete, overall study necessary to properly classify the employees. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT 1 COUNCIL SELECT HAY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TO CONDUCT THE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS AND COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY TO INCLUDE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR ALL PERSONNEL FOR THE SUM OF $10,300 TO BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE 2. DIRECT STAFF TO INFORM HAY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TO BEGIN THIS STUDY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT IT MAY BE COMPLETED IN TIME TO BRING THE RESULTS BACK TO THE COUNCIL BY SEPTEMBER 26. ST, OFF REPO .T Date 8/5/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: 8/8/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7A SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ADOPTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PURCHASING OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT BY THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX The City Staff, in a continuing effort to provide goods and services to the City in the most efficient and cost effective manner, have developed purchasing guidelines Exhibit "A" to the Ordinance to adopt purchasing policies is referred to as the Purchasing Manual. This Manual sets forth guidelines for Staff to follow. The major sections provide procedures on uses of purchase orders, invoicing procedures, petty cash, and contracting. Staff recommends Council 1. Waive full reading of the Ordinance. 2. Adopt the first reading of the Ordinance by title only. TS id 1 PENDING CITY, ORDINANCE NO. COUNCIL APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PURCHASING OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT BY THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 54202 and 54203 provide for the adoption by Cities, by Ordinance, of policies and procedures, including bidding regulations, for the purchasing of supplies and equipment: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Grand Terrace Purchasing Manual, as revised on July 1985, is hereby adopted by reference and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 A.M. on the thirty first day after its adoption. Section 3. Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen (15) days after its passage, as designated for such purpose by the City Council. Section 4. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the day of , 1985, and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the day of , 1985. ADOPTED this day of , 1985 EXHIBIT "A" ` Ordinance No. e r f. ED % S RMSED JULY 085 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PURCHASING PROCEDURES MANUAL I PURPOSE The purpose of this manual is to set forth a guide to be applied in the purchasing function for the maintenance of intelligent, constant and har- monious relationships with suppliers and their representatives and the City of Grand Terrace The success of the purchasing program may he determined by the manner in which these relationships are fostered II RELATIONS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The Purchasing Division exists as a service agency for all City depart- merts Co-operation is essential for the successful operation of the purchasing function. Throughout this manual the principles and responsi- bilities are set forth for all departments of the City in connection with the purchasing function The purpose of this section is to emphasize these responsibilities A. Purchasina Division's Responsibility 1. To become acquainted with the needs of the various departments of the City 2 To know the availability and the delivery time of the various material needed B. Using Departments' Responsibility• 1. To consider the lead time necessary for the Purchasing Division to obtain items ordered, planning requisitions accordingly. Rush orders can sometimes cause the item to be purchased from the nearest supplier at a higher cost. 2 To prepare specifications for materials that require engineering or technical backaround ` 3 To be specific and complete, to incluae ecuivalent brand or model numbers, in describing the material or items reouired, remembering that a requisition is an internal form. 4 To refrain from makina contacts with suppliers directly whenever possible and in no case obligate the Purchasing Divisior without prior authorization III RELATIONS WITH SUPPLIERS' REPRESENTATIVES The promotior of good supplier relations is an important function of the Purchasino Division. It is important that the Purchasing Division be aware of all transactions that are conductea between the Citv and its suppliers It is necessary that the various other departments be free from the routine visits of suppliers Much of the supplier's and the City's tine will be savee by observing the following rules and principles A All suppliers' representatives shall receive courteous and prompt attention B All suppliers' representatives are to be receivec in the purchasing Division C The Purchasing Division will arrange interviews between the supplier's representatives and the other departments of the City D The Purchasina Division shall pass on to other departments useful information obtained from interviews, direct mail, and advertising E All correspondence with suppliers shall be conducted by the Purchasing Division except on subjects reouirina technical details which must necessarily be supplied by other departments, in which case letters may be written directly to suppliers with copies forwarded to tre Purchasing Division F All requests for prices, catalogs, samples, etc , are to be made throuo_h the Purchasina_ Division G Every emDl oyee of the City shall keep himself free of obligation b� refusing to accept gratuities of any value in any form offered by suppliers or their representatives H Offer of any gratuity to any official or employee of the City by a vendor or contractor may be cause for declaring such individual or firm an irresponsible bidder and debar him fro.. bidding IV PURCHASING PROCEDUPES Purchase Orders are used when a department is purchasing materials or services A. Purchase Reouisition is the means used to correctly define th requirements of the using department. The Reouisition is a form which is to be completed by the using department, supplying as much information as is known by the requesting department in order to allow the Purchasing Division to properly process it and make the most economical purchase E Information on Pecuisitions Reouisitions shall be comp eted by the requesting department giving the following information 1 Date issued - the gate the purchase requisition is written 2 Issued by - the name of the using department 3 Approved (Department Head) - the sia_nature of the approving department head 4 P,eouired Delivery - state a definite delivery date (do not use sub- stitutions such as "Rush", "Immediately", "As soon as possible") Constant reauests for rush orders are indicative of poor planning on the part of the requesting department 5 Deliver to - the location at which material is to be delivered, listing street address If not applicable, leave blank 6 Quantity - the number or amount required 7 Unit - state whether item is procured by dozen, gross, board feet, pints, etc P. Description - Adequate description of the items) recuisitioned, by catalog number or specification, etc This is necessary for obtaining the best ouality, service and price P Account number - the proper budaet code account number to w-ich the material will be charged -c- 10. Unit Price - the ESTIMATED unit price or last unit price paid for the item. 11. Total - estimated total amount of the requisition. 12. Remarks and Suggested Sources - suggested sources of supply and any additional information which will help the Purchasing Division. N C. Distribution of Requisitions The original will be routed to the Purchasing Division and the copy retained by the requisitioning department. ND. Request for Quotations and Bids Upon receipt of a Purchase Requisition, the Purchasing Division shall obtain a source of supply. This is done by selecting from a bidder's list, firms that will give the best price, proper quality and service. To secure the best quality, service and price, quotations shall be secured from several sources. It is the policy, whenever possible, M that no less than three suppliers be invited to quote on all purchases. If the amount is $5,000 or less, the standard form Request for Quotation may be used. If the amount exceeds $5,00 -Formal Contract Procedure' lshall be followed. When negotiating for the purchase of materials or services which have, ' in the course of the City's operations, become highly standarized and which do not fluctuate appreciably in price or quality, the Purchasing Division may request quotations covering unspecified quantities to be delivered within specified periods, the prices quoted shall apply to all shipments made within such periods. Blanket Purchase Orders will be issued to the lowest responsible bidder specifying the period covered, the items and prices that are to be invoiced. All quotations become a part of the Purchasing Division's records and may be reviewed upon request by those persons interested E. Purchase Order A Purse r er authorizes the seller to ship and invoice materials or services as specified. Phraseology in the text of the Purchase Order should be clear and precise, if this is not adhered to, misunderstand- ings will occur, unnecessary correspondence will result and procedure will be delayed. 1. Issuance of Purchase Orders - Purchase Orders shall be issued based upon Requisitions signd a ep�artment a a. All Requisitions shall be filed with the Purchasing Division and no purchase sha 1 be made until a Purchase Order has been obtained. 2. Purchase Order ova standaard Purchase Order form is used for all purchases. Each order is a snap -out form -consisting cconsisting of an original and four copies, white, yellow, green, blue, and goldenrod. a. White Copy - the white copy is mailed to the vendor to be used as authority to furnish the City such materials or service as indicated. b. Yellow Copy - the yellow copy is kept in the Finance Department and the proper account encumbered by the the amount of the Purchase Order c. Green Copy - the green copy is retained by the Purchasing Div- ision and filed in numerical order -3- d. Blue Copy - the blue copy is sent to the department head making the request, to be held until the materials or services are received. Upon completion of the order or contract, the blue copy will be signed and dated by the department head and returned to the Finance Department for discounting and processing for payment If a partial shipment is received, make a copy of the receiving copy and note the quantity received, sign, date and forward to the Finance Department. The blue copy is sent to Finance when order is complete. e Goldenrod Copy - the goldenrod copy will be sent to the requisitioning department to file with the requisition. F. Conditions of Purchase Order It is important tTat the vendor and the buyer be familiar with all conditions of the purchase order A better understanding of procedures is thus obtained and acts contrary to the conditions of the purchase order will not take place The terms and conditions which are integral parts of the purchase order follow 1. Render invoice in duplicate. 2. The purchase order number must appear on all invoices, delivery slips, and correspondence 3. All claims for labor and materials furnished must be filed within thirty (30) days 4. All packages, cartons or other containers must be plainly marked with the purchase order number. 5. All purchases are to be F O.B. Grand Terrace, California, unless otherwise specified on bid or purchase order. 6. Substitutions may be made only upon approval of the Finance Director 7. The City of Grand Terrace shall not be responsible for articles furnished officials or employees without a purchase order signed by the Finance Director or his authorized representative G. Purchase Order Acknowledgment An acknowledgment of the City's purchase order by the supplier is simply an agreement on his part to furnish the items specified in accordance with our terms and conditions. Some. -suppliers have the practice of sending their own forms of acknowledgment These forms should be sent to the Purchasing Division without signature because such acceptance on our part will mean that we Ti— e accepted all of the supplier's terms and conditions as printed on his acknowledgment form, thereby making a contract which supersedes the conditions of our purchase order. H. Follow-up The process of procurement is not accomplished by simply issuing an order Satisfactory delivery must also be made The basis for successful follow-up lies, first of all, in the proper stipulations of purchase. The purchase order should state when delivery is wanted. Date and method of follow-up will depend upon the nature of the order and the promised delivery date IME I. Eliminating Rush Orders If the using departments will plan their work carefully, many needless rush orders for materials will be eliminated and there will be no need for any particular follow-up other than routine. Constant requests to suppliers for rush service destroys the effectiveness of such requests, and extra expense for long distance telephone calls, and special service add to both the buyer's and seller's costs. J. Receiving Procedure The blue/pink copy of the purchase order serves as the receiving report. It is forwarded immediately to the location where the material will be received. 1 Receiving Report Requirements - the person receiving delivery of materials or services shall immediately complete the receiving report by verification of actual count of the items delivered. He shall enter on the receiving report the actual quantities of all items received in specific terms such as tons, gallons, cubic yards, etc. He shall also enter the date the material is received and he shall sign the report. 2. Routing Receiving Report - when the information has been added to the receiving report, it will be forwarded immediately to the Purchasing Division in order to clear the records of that office. It will then be forwarded to Accounts Payable for final accounting and payment. 3. Blanket Purchase Order - the person receiving materials or services under the provisions of a blanket purchase order shall obtain at that time an invoice, delivery slip or other form of receipt for materials or services received. This documentation will be deliv- ed to the Purchasing Division on the next working day and will be annotated "Blanket P 0." along with the purchase order number. K. Emergency Purchases While the need for occasional emergency purchases is recognized, the practice shall be curtailed as much as 1s possible by anticipating needs in time for the use of regular purchasing procedures. 1. Approval of Emergency Purch-ases - like regular purchase orders, emergency purchase orders shall be approved only when requisitioned by heads of departments. 2 Procedure for Emergency Purchases - during regular working hours, the using department shall call the Purchasing Division, advising of the emergency which has arisen, and shall recuest a purchase order number on which to proceed. On the day following the emergency, the requisition shall be prepared and processed as usual. The invoice or delivery slip shall accompany the requistion to the Purchasing Division, and a confirming purchase order will be prepared accordingly. The requisition shall contain the phrase "CONFIRMATION - EMERGENCY PURCHASE", and the purchase order number which the Purchasing Division has authorized to be used. During other than normal working hours, the using department shall obtain the material or service needed and a delivery slip or invoice, from the vendor On the day following the emergency the requisition shall be prepared and processed as usual The invoice -5- r or delivery slip shall accompany the requisition to the Purchasing Division and a confirming purchase order will be prepared accordingly. The requisition shall contain the phrase "CONFIRMATION - EMERGENCY PURCHASE" A brief report including the date, time and nature of the emergency shall accompany the requisition. L. Request for Payment A Request for Payment is used when paying for dues, subscriptions, registration for seminars, etc., NOT FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIALS OR SERYICES. The Request for Payment is in 2 part paper, white and one copy. 1. White Copy - w1Tl-6e kept with the warrant in the Finance Dept. 2. Yellow Copy - will be returned to requesting department when warrant is issued. When a department wishes to pay for dues, subscriptions, etc. the Request for Payment is filled out as follows I -Vendor name and address 2. Date request is filled out 3. Description of why request is needed 4. Amount 5. Account number(s) 6. Signature of requesting Department Head 7. Attach ORIGINAL Invoice NOT copy 8. Forward to Purchasing Division for authorization When the Request for Payment has been received in Purchasing Division the Finances rector wTTT verify that this can be paid by Request for Payment and should not be paid by Purchase Order It wi t en be signed by Purchasing and the Finance Director and forwarded to Accounts Payable for processing, and be distributed as above. Y. PETTY CASH PROCEDURES There is established in the Finance Department a Petty Cash Fund of $300. This fund is established for the purpose of conven-fence in puurcTasing small inexpensive items required in an emergency situation Departments are authorized to make purchases from the Petty Cash Fund up to $25.00 in value, at their discretion. Following a purc-F—ase, the Department Head writes the account number on the receipt or invoice and signs it. Following these actions, the Department Head, or his representative will deliver the invoice or receipt to the Finance Department and obtain a refund. VI. CONTRACT PROCEDURES In order to clarify the sequence of events and delineate the responsibilities involved in cases where a CONTRACT will be signed for the performance of work, the following are set orb —Although financial !M y payments are referred to in this section, this section is not intended to fully cover the responsibilities and requirements for financial payments of work in progress or completed. A. It shall be the responsibility of the using department, by virtue of their technical knowledge, to prepare the specifications and requirements for the work done and to secure a bid number from the City Clerk. B. It shall be the responsibility of the using department to prepare a Staff Report requesting bid authorization and to forward all material to the City Clerk for inclusion on an agenda for Council action. The City Clerk shall submit the specifications and proposed contract to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to placing the matter on the agenda. C. It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to issue the Notice Inviting Bids and receive the completed bids from prospective bidders. D. The City Clerk, the Department Head of the using department and any other person the City Manager may designate shall be present at the opening of the bids. Bids shall be opened and read publicly. E. Following the opening of bids, all bids and bid securities will be maintained in the vault for safekeeping, with copies of necessary information being provided to the using department. It shall be the responsibility of the Department Head of the using department to prepare a Staff Report outlining the bid amounts received and award recommendation to the City Clerk for inclusion on an agenda for Council action. F. Following Council action, the City Clerk's office shall- 1. Notify unsuccessful bidders of Council decision and award and return bid securities to the unsuccessful bidders. 2. Prepare the contract documents in quadruplicate. 3. Have the documents signed by the City Attorney as to form and content. 4. Transmit the contract documents along with a letter of notification and instruction to the successful bidder. 5. When the contract documents -have been returned by the contractor, forward to the City Clerk and Mayor for their signatures. 6. After signatures, distribute contracts as follows a. Original to City Clerk b. Copy to Contractor c. Copy to Origination Department d. Copy to Purchasing Department e. Copy to Finance Department -7- 11 G. Following finalization and distribution of the contract documents, it shall be the responibility of the Department Head of the using department to. 1. Supervise the execution of the contract. 2. Where periodic payments are involved, prepare and forward to the Finance Department, progress payment recommendations for Council action. 3. Prepare and forward to the City Manager periodic progress reports as may be required by the City Manager. 4. When the work has been completed according to the contract and specifications, forward to the City Clerk a Staff Report of completion and acceptance for inclusion on an agenda for Council action. The City Clerk will prepare a Notice of Completion to be attached to Staff Report. (City Manager will so certify to the City Council ) If, in its discretion, the City Council finds the r work has been completed according to the contract, it will thereupon so find and shall authorize the recordation of the "Notice of Completion" by the City Clerk. The City Clerk will 1 notify the Finance Department that at the expiration of 35 days i following the date of recordation of the "Notice of Completion"the Contractor is to be paid the full total contract price. It shall be the responsibility of the Finance Department, prior to final payment to the Contractor, to verify, through the City clerk, that there are no outstanding liens against the contract, and to notify the City Clerk of the final contract price. 5. Contract bonds as specified in the Purchasing Policy Manual shall be maintained by the Contractor in full force and effect until the completed work is accepted by the City Council, and until all claims for materials and labor are paid, and shall otherwise comply with the Civil Code of the State of California, Section 3239. VII. WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE t � The City purchases many items which have a Warranty or Guarantee for a �1 certain period of time such as batteries, office machines and other equipment. Before these items are repaired or replaced, the Purchasing Division should be consulted to see if the item is covered by such Warranty or Guarantee. Each department should forward all such Warranties or Guarantees with complete information to Purchasing Division at the time the item or equipment is purchased to be maintained in an active up-to-date file. VIII SIGNATURES Contracts, Applications for Title, Tax Exemption Certificates, Agreements and Contracts for Utilities shall not be signed by any City employee unless authorized in writing by the City Manager or other proper official. ua L,c . -- s S , REPO. Date 8/7/85 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: 8/8/85 'VA AGENDA ITEM NO. 7B SUBJECT: PEDDLING LICENSE - TEEN CHALLENGE FUNDING IS REQUIRED NO FUNDING IS REQUIRED XX The City Council, in March 1980, took a "hands off" policy regarding soliciting, however, Chapter 5.64 of the Municipal Code provides for issuing licenses, subsequent to Council approval, for Peddling, Soliciting and Hawking, since that is one of the County Codes adopted following incorporation Prior to submitting applications for Council approval, they are investigated by our Law Enforcement Captain Jim Bradford was contacted regarding his investigation on Friday placing the Item on the Agenda. He had no problem with the City issuing the license, however, noted soliciting dates were not furnished, and recommended the City require written permission from establishments at which an organization plans to solicit, in this case, Stater Bros. Market. The organization was contacted requesting this additional information The Item was removed from the Agenda since they failed to get the information to the City Clerk's Office in time for the Council packet Subsequent to receiving the attached letter in Wednesday's mail denoting dates for soliciting and verbal permission from Stater Bros. Manager, along with complimentary tickets, this Item is being added for Council consideration Staff realizes many organizations conduct fund raisers without a license This would be the first such license issued by the City, and Council may wish to give consideration to Captain Bradford's recommendation Staff recommends Council Consider issuing a Peddling License to Teen Challenge to solicit the sale of tickets from August 26 through August 31 for an Annual Pancake Breakfast to be held October 12, 1985, with the stipulation that written permission from affected businesses be furnished ID seiliwe.1 pule, 1s31npd `ylno i, 6uidIGH LISZ6 EIUJ01ge3 9pIS19nly VINNOd17VO N&3Hinos cl0 3ON311VHO N331 UNno3 HISSWU UvvZ� M L I r� a_ a v hoc 8 L' « r9�O O = 7 R w Z a M A 1 T S a co CA n Gj .tN C4) < c - 0z M = m m - = -i mnv o �0 a- C D m C �M mrn C a Zm m G ITI o X to m Q o Cr c Cr M -------------------- UbTabl / Pizza Restaurants 82 00 off Large Pizza OR $1 00 off Mod Pizza GOOD AT THESE LOCATIONS 5250 ARLINGTON AVE RIVERSIDE SS7 5733 2955 VAN BUREN BLVD RIVERSIDE 6884,147 122REDLANDS MALL REDLANDS 7932539 2360 STERLING AVE SAN BERNARDINO 881 25" 1010 NO MOUNTAIN AVE ONTARIO 988 84" 830 E. FOOTHILL AVE. UPLAND 946.0741 Round Table Pizza Donates SOe to Teen Challenge when you redeem this coupon E:pues 11 30.85 ITeen Challenge of Southern California Helping Youth, Adults, and Families Bob Rogers So Calit Director Headquarters/ Christian Life School P 0 Box 5068 Riverside CA 92517 (714) 683 1241 Imperial Valley P 0 Box 586 El Centro CA 92244 (619) 353 3504 Kern County P 0 Box 1011 Bakerstield CA 93302 (805) 832 4920 Los Angeles P 0 Box 18946 Los Angeles CA 90018 (213) 732 8141 Orange County PO Box61 Orange CA 92666 (714) 633 3000 San Diego P 0 Box 8087 San Diego CA 92102 (619) 239 4157 Ventura/ Santa Barbara Counties P 0 Box 1064 Ventura CA 93002 (805) 648 3295 To Whom It May Concern Teen Challenge is a non-profit religious organization, whose main outreach is to people with drug and alcohol/ life controlling problems Teen Challenge houses approx- imately 130 men and women throughout Southern Califor- nia During the one-year program, we use Bible studies, work programs, and classroom study to help the students get their lives reconstructed The one year program provides housing, food, and educa- tion free to the public Teen Challenge is run strictly by donations and fundraising efforts However, as you will notice from our annual Audited Financial Statement, the yearly operating budget for Teen Challenge is $1,250,000 00 One of the ways Teen Challenge raises funds is by spon- soring an annual pancake breakfast We solicit don- ations for this effort in front of local stores, with prior store management approval. If I can answer any further questions, or be of assis- tance, please contact me at (714) 683-4241 Thank you Sincerely, Harvey Pinkney, Pancake Ticket Sales Coordinator Riverside Christian Life School Teen Challenge of Southern California HP/dp C ENC iCF.r]iZ r t_ tTeen Challenge of Southern California Helping Youth, Adults, and Families Bob Rogers So Calif Director Headquarters/ Christian Life School P 0 Box 5068 Riverside CA 92517 (714) 683 4241 Imperial Valley P 0 Box 586 El Centro CA 92244 (619) 353 3504 Kern County P 0 Box 1011 Bakersfield CA 93302 (805) 832 4920 Los Angeles P 0 Box 18946 Los Angeles CA 90018 (213) 732 8141 Orange County PO Box61 Orange CA 92666 (714) 633 3000 San Diego P 0 Box 8087 San Diego CA 92102 (619) 239 4157 Ventura/ Santa Barbara Counties P 0 Box 1064 Ventura CA 93002 (805) 648 3295 Method of Pancake Breakfast Ticket Sales Teen Challenge is a non-profit religious organization. We provide room and board, food, and schooling for one year sessions for men and women with life -controlling problems such as drug and alcohol abuse. Teen Challenge is run strictly through donations from private sources. One way Teen Challenge raises funds is through our annual pancake breakfast We use one van of men (approximately 10-14 men) and solicit funds in front of local supermarkets with prior approval from the management of the store We do not sell door to door, and only solicit the customers when they are leaving the store Our men are courteous and not high pressure Our normal solicitation days are Monday, Wednesday, Fri- day, and Saturday Quarterly, we will have an all week sale of tickets, which would encompase selling Monday through Saturday The hours of solicitation are from 12 00 noon until 7 00 p.m. We like to set up a table with literature about the Teen Challenge program, and our men are able to minister to parents or anyone with a life -controlling problem We charge $1 00 for an all you can eat pancake breakfast, held at our local outreach facility. There is also a coupon attached for $2 00 off the purchase of a large pizza through Pizza Hut Restaurants v YEAR 1963-1983 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPLICATION FOR PEDDLING, SOLICITING OR HAWKING ULkNSE (Pursuant to requirements of Chapter 5.64, Grand Terrace Municipal Code) TO City Clerk's Office City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road, Second Floor Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Date i `Ir-rf Application Is hereby made for a City of Grand Terrace license to engage In the business of peddling or hawking goods, wares, merchandise or of soliciting orders for goods or services, or of offering services for repair or Improvement of real property exceeding $25 00 In cost or value within the City of Grand Terrace, pursuant to the provision of Chapter 5.64, Grand Terrace Municipal Code, with the knowledge that, If approved, the required license fee shall be paid to the City of Grand Terrace Finance Department 1. Applicant's Legal Name o r %lQ Address Siff GA�Lo4a 0✓C2, (Number and STreleT) (''y) 6,V2- (If Religious or Nonprofit Organization, answer the following (' ('i Business Address ��{.� G�lKO J awe P1X�jju a `c` _'72ro Date Articles of Incorporation filed with the City Clerk's Office Cc I,,1' 01 2 Applicant, partners or other persons who will engage In soliciting, peddling or hawking (Note Each person must obtain a separate license) NaQie Social Security Number Driver's License Number ari.levd etense"1�, Y/ ,yo3os39`y (- -ree-, - - G 1 i)/M i 3. Specific locations and time of day applicant Intends to hawk, peddle or solicit at each location (Written permission of property owner must be submitted with application for all Hawker's license)- 4. The supplier of the goods to be sold and a description of every type merchandise or service that applicant proposes to hawk, peddle or solicit. A COPY OF THE STATE SALES TAX PERMIT (CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE 6066) ' MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I have carefully read Section 5.64 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, that I understand It thoroughly and will carry out every provision thereof. I further state that the statements and answers contained In this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, knowing that any false statement will be sufficient cause for denial or revocation of said license. I declare that there Is no known cloud on the title to ownership of the goods to be sold. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the following Is true and correct. Date 7 /k '(f r- Signature FEE: $25.00 PER QUARTER 020 Application Fee Applied to License) I hereby apply for one of the following exemptions and have submitted valid proof. ( ) *Disability ( ) **under 18 ( ) ***Veteran ( ) *Religious or Nonprofit ( ) *Over 55 ( ) ***Special Veteran *See Municipal Code Section 5.64. **Letter fran parents required. ***Authorization from Veterans' Affairs required, Special Veterans' Exemption requires proof that applicant owns good. (Business and Professions Code Sec 16102.) SPECIAL VETERANS' E)EMPTION STATEMENT I hereby certify that I own all the goods, wares or merchandise that I plan to hawk, peddl6 or vend. Signature After approval, the license fee shall be paid to the Finance Department, City of Grand Terrace, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324. 1 RECOMMEND THAT THIS APPLICATION BE ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT By All regU1--1 11 Z/-/76 -0CS 11Z/ -/)b - Ors �''�l� �br� G h 6 o Goo v £//A -Ilp-3 - 2S-9 "wo� ✓��r avo/U 94 £ b - s£- .S'h� 2a✓p".;/Dw ! Oh 9 140A/ S h £h e, 0 9/V _ 508.8 - .SD- <, -Z Z 9 Z 19n hh 3 Z - s1- L 9�i �a p �� .,�►� _I-zso-3ZZ/V 90- 9/7-3 1ISA 590,8- !h -- OG-g h �o+�� +au.►t� 's 1b-3 £0.5 /V O'ZpG _ ��-SIS vlAat� a o/y jhhh2- ZS-hsl vI!C ,b U b1S2/y ,)Ilq IPAa�S 90 - ?SS S LVD1//►M V annry w VOCHREGR CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PAGE 1 DATE,07/31/E'5 VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER VOUCHER/ VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ITEM WA_RR A-K WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT P1525 2278 DENNIS L. EVANS AGENCY DIRECTORS FRINGE 150.00 150.00 1 P1526 5576 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE 150.00 150.00 P1527 5565 ANTHONY PETTA AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE 150.00 150.00 BYRON MATTESON AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE 150.00 150.00 P1528 4658 P1529 2950 HUGH GRANT AGENCY DIRECTOR FRINGE 150.00 150.00 P4374 4347 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONF. REG. MONTEREY 7/17-7/19 600.00 600.00 l P4375 DEFERRED COMPENSATION FUND 1972 INS JULY 175.94 INS. JULY 267.63 INS. JULY 267.63 3 l_._ J UTY- �3 INS. JULY 89.21 DEF. COMP JUNE 1985 19370.82 DEF. COMP JUNE 1985 224.21 29663.07 P4376 6510 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL COURT CARREA £ CRISOSTOMA 12.00 12.00 , P4377 6504 R.C.RANDOLPHq MARSHALL SVCS/ CORREA £ CRISOSTOMO 28.00 28.00 } P4378 1740 CITY CLERK'S ASSN OF CALIF RECORDS MGMNT HANDBOOK 53.00 53.00 3 P4379 RUDY CEBALLOS CARPENTRY ADJ CIV/CTR 980.00 980.00 0 I P4380 1972 DEFERRED COMPENSATION FUND INS AUG 1985 175.94 ) INS AUG 1985 267.63 INS AUG 1985 267.63 _ INS AUG 1985 267.63 INS AUG 1985 89.21 INS DED 4/85 7.63 19075.67 P4381 CITY CLFRK'S ASSN. OF CALIF. ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 20.00 S 20.00 P4382 2272 MYRNA ERWAY VAC/SL PAID 39698.67 39698.67 TOTAL CHECKS 99880.41 r ' VOCHREGR CITY OF GRAND TERRACE I PAGE 1, I DATE 08/01/85 VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER ' a i RA WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT :I 3� 30 1� 5 • ]I 61 P1531 4992 NAZAREKgHARPERgHOPKINS 6 ARBITRATION 6/85 i61 450.00 450.00 71 14863 ell VIRGIL EGAN REFUND OVER PAYMENT , i91 7.00 7.00 10! DENNIS PINKSTON R __ND • . . 1 1 14865 1024 ACCENT PRINT E DESIGN REGIS. RECEIPTS 249.10 249.10 14866 1027 W ACCURATE JANITORIAL SERVICES SVCS<CIVIC CENTER 85/86 < "` E� �¢ 1'066.00 19066.00 7 14868 1223 AT ElINFORMATION SYSTEMS RENTAL EOC PHONE 7/85 3.39 3.39 { .14869 Y<• � � s.fi TR �^; � `- Y.[ �" .n.< ro i .,,. v ., oy<V 1360 `r �BUTTLED WATER ° � '' a w„ : BL WTR T,x � Xj (., ^� „<., r `' � ". ".' � �" )"` i "` '`' - w% 1 Y sµ'c ' FBASTANCHURY z` tt a# M "' f ,59.50 wh ; .. ;59.50 y - OFFICE SUPPLIES 172.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.61 } ✓v F o. �. y "' _ s^^yy ,.s r a. Y<' S � 'A.�Ya., � e�' .'1'>,>i Xf" yf t � �t Y " .:..-a n i ,. ,. �' �< <; ", •'''"" R s .,t �' '>3' !r ' ''ai o z<A 4 r V 's dam= r. ti Mn n ` v`s 6 ¢ ti i,E w ^r 'OFFICE SUPPLIES `' X • k fin„ •• k y f is( y �A f"'ay V s<.d ^ Din n<, �^ `. 20.63 " rsn f I h r :h,; x".��rc £�T^'f'1n ,. F' s " SUPPLIES ``T ,:, .; �i, x< i<aC".o'�'x ass `°'3 ..-310 °•.h n�a aw*[A �iS",•,`< s , YOFFICE� OFFICE SUPPLIES 34.85 340.11 I r �^ S X' ,�, ,. tT..'. '^ ^.' ✓ � ..a .. � X rNKni x""i' • •REC.;SUPPLIES h G"e � ' " Hn " y b^...r, r x 10.09 ''.<>'x' n �xf ' 4>" REC. SUPPLIES'. gr _max xr" F`i >c 4.18 ,zr " 2b.81�7 a 14872 1860 COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL SQUARE DANCE 7/85 60.00 DRAINAGE PARK 600.00 ` 660.00 I J': 14$73 j.. �;. 1875 .. - < y..COMPLETt BUSINESS"SYSTEMS l 'x < '^ Y ^ Hx<•^'<-;',,,. .„ RENT�ON�TOSHIBA-COPIER < w` ~` 'Y, n"y, 427.73 "„ y 427.73' " o - y S ,,. .. I., M „. 1 14875 2226 • EASTERDAY SUPPLY COMPANY TRASH CAN LINERS • 158.10 I, • 158.10 I 1 _14876 =w > 2565 r uWr FKM COPaIER PRODUCTSj,� -^ TONER E TONER BAGS -; "�f `au"475t29 475.29 •. ^ } „$ " ^r. t?f7-StfifT�PTTnzlx oer�o��rrl�u erree ee*eTes �� f.< I' 14878 2890 GRAND TERRACE GLASS E MIRROR REPLACE WINDOW/LIBRARY 14879 2950 HUGH GRANT LEAGUE SEM/MONTEREY a 14881 3495 IPS SERVICES INCORPORATED STREET SWP 6/85 71.00 56.74 10 5. 6 V 368.70 71.00 i 56.74 I 368.70 nw: 71 ) z VOCHREGR DATE 08/01/85 --l-tf-R-f- WARNU RANT MBER . 5 6, 6 9 ,o 12 16 17 IB 19 20 2, 22 23 2. 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 3• 37 '136 3 I• l., 11.2 .] Ii.5 NUMBER NAME CITY OF GRAND TERRACE VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER DESCRIPTION ENG SVCS 6/85 ENG SVCS 6/85 AMOUNT 29839.25 145.70 PAGE 2 r I I� AMOUNT 2 IS 7 '61 22 23 2. 25 26 _1 27 J 26 29 30 32 33 3. 35 36 37 36 39 J .0 .1 .2 .3 44 .5 .6 .7 .6 .9 SO , 5, 52 53 5. 55 56 5' 60I 6, 62I 63 641 65) 66 67! 1 . • J661 6.1 i HOSE NOZZLE 1.90 17. I„ FILM DEV./CODE ENFORC. 3 06 1]2I �1 • 19 2� 6, 6I 5 6 OI 6� . v i. %tom i 1 7 1"i.1 ENG / PROF SVCS 19308.10 ENG / PUBLIC COORDINATION 377.50 PLANNING SVC 69317.70 ENG / PUB WORKS 543.15 M ' 25 „ ZONE CHG / CITY WIDE 127.50 299347.50 i 14884 4484 MC KENZIE CO. RIBBON E LIFT OFF TAPE . 73.82 '?. " TAPE, s • + " ' YL„ ,M»4 _y14885 4658 ' 'BYRON MATTESON „ LEAGUE SEM/MONTEREY 20.50 250.50 14886 4895 N C R CORPORATION PRINTER CABLE 76.50 11 COMPUTER ADAPTER CABLE 112.02 188.52 14887 t `z F490Z~ 'N " ` NATIONAL `SANITARY SUPPLY `CO.m,s' .TISSUE Ew PAPER TOWELS " Yt "`153.Z8 ,. s y"rS ^ 153:Z8 • s ' • v649.68 14889 5529 PACIFIC BELL EOC 7/85 31.79 tPAY PHONE' 7/85 _ ry 24.66 N s + k „PAY -PHONE 7/85 7/85 :30:62 e8M.,toTER-P;;eNE COMPUTER PHONE 7/85 7.6 7.69 CIV CTR LISTING 7/85 9.62 19011.67 s 14890 55455 ^ H. PETRA�EN`T RPRISES "� y` PLAQUES PL. °COMM - a .. - 23.11 '" , rt'" M-" ^,NAME „' ,k , yA23.ilrt� 14892 5579 PEOPLE HELPERS9INC. SVC 7/10 - 7/25/85 . 00 29450.89 29450.89 14893 5581 PETTY CASH-PEGGY TROTTIER COFFEE SUPPLIES ~xw 6.79 ' _ PARK BROOM 8.70 LAWNMOWER REPAIR 12.19 POSTAGE DUE .33 COMPUTER SUPPLIES FUSES 2.06 8.26 FILM /CODE ENFORC - 8 04 VOCHREGR CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PAGE 3 DATE 08/01/85 VOUCHER/WARRANT REGISTER ] B AN — WARRANT NUMBER NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT 3� 1. V I C M1 • • 51 SI 16 •1 14894 5581 PETTY CASH—PEGGY TROTTIER OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.65 91 —u 'to 2.70 19 GRAPHITE 6.13 MONEY ORDER PRENTICE HALL 3.38 Z 9f ASSESSOR I 1 PARK TRASH COVER 3.98 19.90 ' I •1 15 Ix 116 ,] is 19 �20 �2, i2Z !-3 2. 125 3 E PSTG MTR RENTAL FY 85/86 - 51.28 102.56 f 14897 6720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY ELEC CITY BLDGS 3,243.22 A ti r 4 'SIGNALS r r 266.09 Z 39�732.05 v < CIVIC CENTER 240.23 CITY BLDGS 13.35 266.23 >^r 14899 6790 k STOCKWELL E BINNEY " BULLETIN BOARD 66.14 66.14 N ?� Ifi 19 20 21 2] 23 V 2! 2( 2-11 29 2] l0 31 32 ]3 N�<' • 1� i. I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED " CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME 1.01 nnU Mnc 1\LUCJJMR] MI\u MrrKurKlMl [ tAYGYUl I UKtJ MK l Ht UPtKAI JUN rI OF THE CITY 'a2 3 � � O 161 1.71 THOMAS SCHWAB I FINANCE DIRECTOR 50 1 m