Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01/22/1987
+� r .:... January 22 lg Call=`et �.6,=. ::'^*. :30 P.M. * Invocation _Past or Frank Cawthon, First Baptiste Pledge of All C,Nrch of Grand Terrace Rol Cali COUNTER COPY - PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE — CONVENE C FROM INFORMATION DESK!! IT YELOf'M£NT AG €NCY Staff R ecommenda ions Attf on • �A.'ve Cit d yRegiste.r No. CRA01228 Approve { ADJOU{{N CDhi7 UNFY'.. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Approve C_'ENE CITY COUNCIL 1• Items to Delete 2• SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Resdtu'tion of Acknowledgement - Ruby E.• Andengaard, A 01rector Assistant Finance to Finances Director, City of Colto 3 • "CflNSNT CALENDAR -,I*iflg Consent Cal con: are . refit to be routine &anon-dar controversi They �w1�'I be enacted b - � di$c4ssion.unless Councilne motion without Staff, or the ' Pub1rC requests removal of an item for separate discussion and action. { A• Approve Check Register No.. 012287 B. Ratify1 Approve /22/87 CRA Actl,on C• Waive, Full Readingof Approve and Ordinances on Al1,�Resolutions _. Benda Approve D. Approval of Council Minutes: �1) 12/4/86; (9) 12/18/86 Approve LUTION OF - AN I OF THE CITY Adopt TERRACE, NG THE SUB_ ri OF THE FY l.OPMENT ACT PORTATION z `q-w& V�.. _ s Staff. . .. k. wry A Recommendations Council Action :ttairce Directors attendance Approve ,xf I'ifornia Society of Municipal Finance Officers Annual Seminar in Fresno, February 11 - 14, 1987. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, 5. ORAL REPORTS A., Plannr� Vision B, p Y " Rion Committee C.. 4 ` ` Mural Activities Committee _ D. - Va Committee �a krt�iaons Committee rce O 'Y. dime Approval to Name a i Onor of a Grand Terrace G. Police Chief H. Fire Chief I. City Engineer J. City Attorney K. City Manager L. City Council 6. NEW BUSINESS - A. Award &.Authorize Mayor to Execute Contract Approve (GTC-87-01) with Willdan & Associates for Planning Services to the City of Grand Terrace at the Hourly Rates & the Scope of Services as outlined in their Proposal. 7. Closed Session Re: Potential Litigation ADJOURN TO AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ON 0 . THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1987, AT 5:30 P.M. =V===emu=====�_' AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 2/12/87 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY 12:00 NOON ON 2/4/87. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE JAN 2 t� COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ..,. �F:�. h.,.i.:.iJ�� i f"t..� NO. REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 1986 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on December 18, 1986, at 5:32 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Chairman Byron Matteson, Vice Chairman Dennis L. Evans Susan Crawford Seth Armstead, Executive Director Barbara Michowski, Acting Treasurer Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Alicia Chavez, Acting Secretary ABSENT: Thomas J. Schwab, Treasurer APPROVAL OF MINUTES (11/20/86) CRA-86-56 Motion by Chairman Grant, second by Vice Chairman Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of November 20, 1986, as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (12/4/86) CRA-86-57 Motion by Mr. Evans, second by Vice Chairman Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve the Minutes of December 4, 1986, as presented. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. 121886 CRA-86 -58 Motion by Mr. Evans, second by Vice Chairman Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 121886, as submitted. ACCEPT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT CRA-86-59 Motion by Chairman Grant, second by Mr. Evans, ALL AYES, to accept the Community Redevelopment Annual Report and direct Staff to transmit a copy to the State Controller's Office. Adjourned at 5:37 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday-. January 8, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Acting Secretary APPROVED Chairman CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CR. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 8, 1987 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 January 8, 1987, at 5:35 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Chairman Byron R. Matteson, Vice Chairman Dennis L. Evans Susan Crawford Seth Armstead, Executive Director Thomas J. Schwab, Treasurer Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Alicia Chavez, Acting Secretary ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. 010887 CRA-87-01 Motion by Chairman Grant, second by Vice Chairman Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 010887, as submitted. Adjourned at 5:38 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held urs ay, January 22, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, cting Secretary APPROVED Chairman COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Cj... -"'✓" "'""' " �' JAN. 22, 1987 CHECK REGISTER NO.012287 CHECK NUMBER OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF JAN. 22, 1987 (1) P4862 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK (MASTERCHARGE) (2) 16641 SUSAN CRAWFORD (3) 16643 DENNIS EVANS (4) 16646 HUGH GRANT (5) 16648 IVAN HOPKINS (6) 16654 BYRON MATTESON (7) 16668 SANWA BANK MEETING ON MOUNT VERNON PROJECT $ 23.63 STIPENDS, JANUARY, 1987 150.00 STIPENDS, JANUARY, 1987 150.00 STIPENDS, JANUARY, 1987 150.00 LEGAL SERVICES FOR DECEMBER, 1986 97.50 STIPENDS, JANUARY, 1987 150.00 TRUSTEE'S FEES FOR CIVIC CENTER PROJECT 233.75 TOTAL: $954.88 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CRA LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF CRA. -----. / THOMAS SCHWAB TREASURER 14 ' 1 I ` .a RESOLUTION OF ACKUCWLEDGEJIENT RUBY E. ANDENGAARD WHEREAS, Ruby E. Andengaard has worked for the City of Colton for twenty-seven years; and WHEREAS, Ruby has worked diligently to constantly upgrade her position from bookkeeper, to Accounting Office Supervisor, Sr. Accountant, Assistant Finance Director to Finance Director; and WHEREAS, Ruby has contributed many hours to civic affairs; and WHEREAS, Ruby has been an excellent liaison between the cities of Colton and Grand Terrace; NOW, THEREFORE, I Hugh J. Grant, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby commend and congratulate Ruby E. Andengaard for her many years of service to the City of Colton and, on behalf of the City Council, the City Staff, and the citizens, express gratitude and appreciation and wish you well in retirement which we understand will include traveling through Europe. mayor o 4 i ran errace and of Council ereof. This 22nd day of January, 1987. v0UCHREG �- ll��h�(� CITY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE GE 1 [LATE C:1l15/P7 �t_�, '�; /1, VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER l('�f�4'�i itC;f Il.IE�•�-mis - ,-,I1�\!(`{� t.4 . �\OVAI, cno .t I orotnnc fNFfK RFGiCTFR NO_n199R7 ' VnUCHEP•/ CHECK NUMBFR VENDOR NUMBER VENDER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT P 4 8 4 1 6720 SO.CA.EOISGN CCMFANY CASH PAY.12/319SCE 111014 111.14 P4842 6730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY CASH PAY.12/319SCG 26.96 26.96 P4843 5660 POSTMASTER-COLTON POSTAGE9W.W.D.BILLING 19000.00 POSTAGE,GEN._MAIL 1,000.00 POSTAGE,GENEP,AL PLAN 1,150.00 39150.00 P4844 F2E5 kIVE_RSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO WATER,C/C,CITY BLDGS. 386.73 -"-- WATER,FIRE STATION _ 70.56 WATER,MV/ARLISS 39.20 WATER,PARK/DEBERRY 848.52 WATER,PARK/MEPLE CT. 166.05 WATER,BART/PALM 33.40 19544.46 P4845 6720 SO.CA.EOISON COMPANY CASH PAY.1/59SCE 105.05 105.05 P4846 6730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY CASH PAY.1/89SCG 72.51 72.51 P4847 6720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY CASH PAY.1/69SCE 69.79 69.79 P4848 6730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY CASH PAY.1/69SCG 18.03 18.03 P4849 1662 CA SOCIETY/MUN.FINANCE OFFICER CSMFO CONF.SCHWAB 110.00 110.00 P4850 67b2 STATE COMPENSATION INS.FUND WORKERS COMP.INS.12/86 674.34 674.34 4851 6531 SHERIFF FLGYD TIDWELL LAW ENFORCE91/87 42,956.65 C.P.O. 1/87 39386.35 469345.00 i P4852, 4718 MORGAN AND FkANZ LIFE INSURANCE96ETTS91/67 7.25 7.25 4853 31E3 HEALTH NET HEALTH INSURANCE 1/87 165.67 165.67 P4854 6730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY CASH PAY.1/79SCG 20.68 20.68 P4955 1P80 CRIMFBUSTEkS LOAN FROM CRIME PREVENT. 15C.00 150.00 P4856 4634 MAIN LINE EMBOSSING BUS.CARDS,ARMSTEAD 23.32 BUS.CAROS9CRAWFORD 23.32 BUS,CARDS9PLANNING COMM. 163.24 209.88 P4B57 SISTERS OF ST.BENECICT REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT 159000.00 159000.00 F4858 E720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY CASH PAY.1/99SCE 79.12 79.12 P4859 6730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY P4R60 6720 P4P,L1 _ 6730 SO.CA.E[)ISCN CE,MPANY SO.CA.GAS COMPANY CASH PAY.1/99SCG CASH PAY.1/129SCE CASH PAY.1/12,SCG i ,9 e0 e� e, ee iee J 42.33 42.33 ,e, i.. 83.87 83.87 43.46 43.46 I" � ,noCHPEG iP.TE 61/15/87 PAGE 2 CITY OF GFAND TERRACE VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHED/ CHECK NUMBER VFN'LlOR N-IIMBER VE�DGR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT P4862 662'9 SECUFITY PACIFIC NAT.BANK PARK PEET. BEET.M.V.PKOJECT CONF.ALSTINE SAN 6ERNAROIN0 102.13 112.28 23.63 236.04 P4864 16E0 CA PARKS E RECREATION SOCIETY CPRS CONF.GALVEZ 75.00 75.00 P4865 P4866 1660 1660 CA PARKS E RECREATION SOCIETY CA PARKS E RECREATION SOCIETY CPRS CPRS CONF.CONLEY CONF.ROLLINS 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 DUCHF FG ATE C1/15/E7 CITY OF CFAf,D TERRACE VOUCHEk/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 3 f VOUCHFV/ VEN00R VEf•DGR I T E h ITEM CHECK CHECK E UMAFR NUrBER NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT 1E643 2278 LEfdNIS L. EVANS EVAf.S, 1/87 150.00 EVANS, 1/87 150.00 300.00 16644 2605 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CA TRUCK/BOND ISSUE 377.25 COMP/BOND ISSUE 777.31 COMP/BOND ISSUE 777.30 1 931.86 16645 2b04 G.T.AREA CHAMBER OF COKMERCE GRANT 3RD OUART.66/b7 7,500.00 79500.00 16046 2950 HUGH GRANT GRANT, 1/87 150.00 GRANT, 1/87 150.00 300.00 1 I 647 31L3 HEALTH NET HEALTH INS. 2/87 164.22 HEALTH INS. 2/87 413.45 HEALTH INS. 2/67 164.22 HEALTH INS. 2/87 Z92.52 HEALTH INS. 2/87 246.33 i,260.74 16648 3217 IVAN HCPKINS LEGAL SERVICE5,12/86 97.50 I LEGAL SERVICES912/86 49719.47 49816.97 16649 3218 HYDREX PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL,C/C912/86 48.00 48.00 16650 3858 JUST -A -CAKE BAKERY BIRTH.CAKE,CITY 40.00 40.00 10651 4160 KLEEN-LINE CORPORATION JANITORIAL SUPPLIES,C/C 33.87 33.87 16652 4470 LOMA LINUA DISPOSAL TRASH PICK-UP,C//C,1/87 38.35 TRASH PICK-UP,PARK91/87 38.35 76.70 ! I 16653 4652 PAR LIN PkINTING REVENUE REC.V000HER 39.70 ENVELOPES 37.63 77.33 �- 654 4658 BYRON MATTESON MATTESON, 1/87 T 150.00 MATTESON, 1/87 150.00 300.00 1E655 4718 MORGAN At•D FRANZ LIFE INS. 2/87 14.50 LIFE INS. 2/87 14.50 LIFE I_NS. 2/87 21.7_5 LIFE INS. 2/87 21.75 72.50 ' 16656 4891 NADIG SCAFFOLDING PENT SCAFFOLDING/PARKF60.5 60.50 60.50 16657 5450 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY MAINT.ELEVATOR91/87 190.50 190.50 2EE 16658 5527 THUMAS B. PAGE PARK CLEAN-UP912/66 250.00 250.00 le _� 16659 5529 PACI_F_IC EELL COMP.PHONE 8.57 COMP.PHONE 6.56 PAY PHONE,C/C 26.09 PAY PHONE,C/C _ 32.24 _ _75.46 13 r0CHP EC iATE, O1/1`/87 11 CITY CF GPAAD TERRACE VOUCHFF/CHFCK REGISTER FOR ALL PEPIOCS PAGE 4 VOU,NEF'1 VEI.DOR VENDER ITEM ITEM CHECK CHFCK �UrBER NUP.LIE R NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT 1f.660 5 35 PAGING PLUS RENT PAGEk91/87 29.00 RENT PAGER91/67 29.00 58.00 16661 `545 PETPt, ENTIFPPISFS ENVELOPES/BILLING 501.41 501.41 �( 16662 5555 PERRYIS STATIONARY AND OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.10 I OFFICE SUPPLIES 124.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 20.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 20.29 O-MIMC C-SUPPLIES 4.75 _ 191.70 16663 5579 PEOPLE HELFERS ONC. REC.SVCS.12/16/E6-1/1/87 29017.86 29017.66 6664 5581 PETTY CASH REIMB.PETTY CASH 5.57 REIMB.PETTY CASH 14.19 kEf-B.PETTY CASH 4.00 REIMB.PETTY CASH 28.85 REIMB.PETTY CASH 63.47 116.08 I 16665 (124 RAY HEEMSTRA SIGNS SIGN/COP,MUNITY CENTER 19101.00 19101.00 9 7: LLINS BUFDICK HUNTER SGRETY BOND 175.00 175,00 16667 6502 SAN PERNARUlIN09COUNTY OF BATTERY/CITY TRUCK 50.21 50.21 I.C668 f•550 SANdA BANK TRUSTEE'S FEE,C/C 233.75 233.75 -16669 Lb:�--S NAL "tAlh NAN E fN STG�AL MA1NT,12%86 21 .48 219.48 1 16670 6720 SO.C4.EDISUN COMPANY ST.LIGHTSell/1-12/31/86 49804.87 ELEC.SIG.NIGH//KART 97.20 49902.07 16671 6773 STAND ARD REGISTER W-2 FORMS 32.49 32.49 16672 1-9(0 TERRACE LANDSCAPE SERVICES IRRIGATION REPAIRS C/C 370.06 IRRIGATION kEPA1RS/PARK 40.56 IRRIGATION F�EPAIRS/PARK 191.16 IRRIGATION kEPAIRS/PARK 56.48 am ays+ au-nt=nand r fRR�ATION �PAIRS�PARK cc�•�.� �a 86.14 IRRIGATION REPAIRS,C/C 805.00 IRRIGATION REPAIRS/PARK 119.88 LANDSCAPE MAINT.10/669PARK 900.00 ` LANDSCAPE MAINT,10/869B/P 60.00 b LANCSCAPE MAINT.IG/869C/C 440.00 [ANL��CAPC-MAINT.11%Eb�PARK 900.00 LANDSCAPE MAINT.11/6698/P 60.00 49257.71 i. 4(7 0 P tC LAN ,.CAPVTCES LAN SJ PE MAINT.11/86,C/C 440.00 ` LANDSCAPE MAINT.12/661PARK 900.00 LANCSCAPE MA1NT.12/869B/P 60.00 �> VOUCHR'EG CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PAGE 5 DATE J.O1/15/C7 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ VENDOR VENDOR CHECK NUMBER NUMBER NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM AMOUNT CHECK AMOUNT 16674 7309 UNION OIL CO.OF CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MAINT.12/869C/C GAS/CITY TRUCK 440.00 45.34 19840.00 45.34 16675 7340 UNIVERSITY PROMPT CARE PHYISCAL/BETTS 38.00 38,00 16676 7880 NEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 16677 7905 WORKS STRIPING E MARKING SVC. CAL.CODE UPDATE STREET STRIPING 237.90 39564.45 237.90 i ) 39564.4501 TOTAL CHECKS _ 1319529.08 1� i I I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. THOMAS SCHWAB `-FI ANCFDIRECrtOR I 9 \ \ JAN 2 2 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ,. COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Grand Terrace, California, on December 4, 1986, at PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Susan Crawford, Councilwoman of Grand Terrace was called to Center, 22795 Barton Road, 5:37 p.m. Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, Planning Director/City Engineer Alicia Chavez, Acting City Clerk ABSENT: NONE The meeting was opened with invocation by Professor Stephen Wyrick, California Baptis College, Riverside, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilwoman Crawford. ITEMS DELETED FROM AGENDA - 2A - Certificate of Appreciation for Barbara M. Conley to be awarded at the 12/4/86 meeting); 3D - Approval of the 11/20/86 Minutes (pending review). SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Proclamation - "Drunk & Drugged' Driving Week, December 14 - 20, 1986 Mayor Grant read above Proclamation; relating the seriousness of this problem. CONSENT CALENDAR The followina items were removed for discussion: 3A - Check Register No. 120486; 3F (1) - Recordation of Irrevocable offer of Dedication, rejecting at this time, Storm Drain Easement Dedication located north of Barton Road, west of Grand Terrace Road through property being developed by James Goode; 3F (2) - Approve & Authorize Mayor to Execute & City Clerk to record agreement covering property owner's responsibilities for maintenance, as well as acceptance of up -stream properties' runoff into subject storm drain. CC-86-277 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem,Matteson, second by Councilman Evans, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: B. Ratify 12/4/86 CRA Action; C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda; E. Accept & Authorize City Clerk to Record the following Grant Deeds for Barton Road Rights -of -Way: Marylou A. Williams, AP #275-242-06; Kenneth & Linda L. Fisher, AP #277-121-22. CHECK REGISTER NO. 112086 Responding to Councilman Evans relative to Warrant # 16531, picnic tables for park, Finance Office Manager Barbara Michowski related the picnic tables, a budgeted item, were purchased for the Community Park. CC-86-278 Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve Check Register No. 112086, as submitted. IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION/AGREEMENT - PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE Councilman Evans requested clarification from the City Attorney. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that an Irrevocable offer of dedication is one in which a person making the offer provides it and cannot withdraw . Stated is commonly done by public agencies, particularly when they are not yet ready to accept improvements but they want to make certain that it's there in perpetuity for the general public's use. It can never be withdrawn unless the public agency itself vacates and that's the only way it can ever revert back. Councilman Evans questioned City Engineer Kicak regarding potential liability because it deals with runoff? City Engineer Kicak stated there would be none. CC-86-279 Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve and authorize recordation of Irrevocable offer of Dedication and, Agreement Covering Property Owner's Responsibiities for Maintenance, and acceptance of up -stream properties' runoff into subject storm drain. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 2 too PUBLIC PARTICIPATION' - Barbara Pfennighausen, 2 our Planning Director, a For almost two years has is right to ask Council RFPs have been sent out. critical and need someon planning problems. Need in-house planner with an 2491 DeBerry, stated was sorry to hear that good friend, has submitted his resignation. pushed for in-house planning and felt time to seriously consider in-house planning since Next three to five years will be extremely e that can concentrate full attention on to give serious attention to bringing in an Urban Planning Degree. Mayor Grant stated he had received an inter -office memorandum from staff dated November 25 relating to this subject prepared subsequent to Mr. Kicak's correspondence with the City Manager. Feels very pertinent and would like to hear how Council feels. Councilman Evans questioned City Manager Armstead if only considering contractual services at this time? City Manager Armstead advised that RFPs have been sent out at this time only to those who had submitted RFPs in the past to see if they are still interested and if any cost change. Once all RFPs are received, staff can compare cost of in-house vs. contractual for Council consideration. Councilman Evans stated his concern that when packet was put together it should have included the in-house planning information prepared by the Finance Director during budget hearings this past year, which indicate if we were to retain Kicak & Associates it would be a break-even point. Prior reports indicate that the comparison between the RFPs and in-house costs that it would be to our advantage to come in-house. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated the importance to compare certain issues as to number of hours that the in-house planner would devote to the planning process and whether or not his facilities would be located in this building opposed to having elsewhere. Feels possibly, cost wise, having contract service office in City Hall will save them money and give us a good contract. Mayor Grant concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's statement. Barbara Pfennighausen, stated when preparation was made by the Finance Director for comparisons, it was assumed that in-house planning would have an office in this building. Feels advantage is that whatever we agreed to pay the planning director is consistant when it's in-house; We Direct precisely what is to be done, etc. Included in that budget benefits included the planning director, secretary and all necessary office supplies, expenses, maintenance, all that would be required for that department to function with a total of $80,865 a year. Costs are possbily different now. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 3 ORAL REPORTS - PLANNING COMMISSION - Planning Director Kicak stated that the Title 18 Report has been completed and will be submitted the first meeting in January with all corrections for Council consideration. Councilman Evans questioned Mr. Kicak as to the City's General Plan being reviewed yearly, and the legal requirement to update every two years. Stated most information was compiled in late 1983, and approved on April, 1984. In January of 1986, an update schedule was prepared by your office, showing that review of the entire document would have had to been done in September, 1986. Stated his only concern is that this is something that should have been done. Feels we should wait until the new planning director is hired and start from square one. Planning Director Kicak stated the original schedule at that time was prepared by an employee that has since left and was unable to replace him with a competent person. As directed by Council approximately four weeks ago, unless Council directs otherwise, will proceed with process. Mr. Kicak further stated he planned on initiating the project by producing labels to mail copies of the General Plan and map of their current land use element to all property owners within the City of Grand Terrace. Once the new planning director is hired that information would be compiled enabling him to start with the next step of scheduling the necessary Public Hearings. Councilman Evans emphasized the importance of updating the document with current information. Council discussion involved whether Kicak and Associates should undertake the project or defer until an in-house planner is hired. City Attorney Hopkins emphasized the importance of expeditiously processing the update for completion in conjunction with the recent six-month building moratorium. Mr. Kicak related his willingness to initiate the update and the feasibiity of a new planner subsequently following through with the information gathered. Based on that, Mayor Grant, with Council concurring, supported Mr. Kicak proceeding with initiation of the project. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT - Minutes of the November 3, meeting were provided. is o lins, Committee member reported the following: (1) Proposal for a ten -acre sports complex, land to be leased from SCE, was discussed at the last meeting; Community Services Director Anstine and staff will review; (2) Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony will be held at the Civic Center, Saturday, December 12, 1986, at 5:30 p.m.; encouraged participation; (3) Volunteers are still needed to help with the Terrace Hills snack bar. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE REPORT Laurie Payce, Chairperson, reported the following: Committee currently has two vacancies; has received three applications with Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 4 equal qualifications; the Committee had discussed and felt they would prefer to have a committee of eight members rather than seven with an alternate; felt that alternate would not have voting privileges; therefore, would like to request changing current policy for the Committee to function with eight members so that they could appoint all three applicants. Councilwoman Crawford felt the Committee should remain as a seven -member committee with one alternate. Councilman Evans felt that all three should be appointed to better cover absences of other members. Mrs. Payce stated that the Committee had discussed amending the policy to read, "if two consecutive meetings are missed, then that person would be asked to resign." Attorney Hopkins clarified that alternates sit with the rest of the members and act as regular members with all privileges with the exception of voting. However, should one of the alternates be making up the quorum, they would have voting privileges. Mrs. Payce related that this had been a problem for two months and that the Committee recommends that Council increase membership to eight and appoint all three. Mayor Grant felt the committee should submit a staff report recommending the way they want to operate. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Barbara Bayus, President, introduced Dick Yost as Presient-Elect of of the Chamber (indicated he was now distributing letters to Council); reminded everyone of the Christmas Decorating Contest; prizes would be given at the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in conjunction with the City; deadline for entering the contest is December 10. Dick Yost (appearing under the offices of the Chamber of Commerce in reference to the Economic development Committee) explained that the committee is made up of Chamber members, Council members and citizens at large. Mr. Yost called attention to the letter he had just distributed to Council from Bill Campbell thanking us for participation in the Business Development Conference held in the City of Industry; the Grand Terrace booth was displayed and felt this put Grand Terrace on the map; referenced two other pieces of correspondence from Denny's Restaurant chain and Wendy's regarding their potential location here; thanked us for our interest, but presently do not wish to locate here. Also had information that another organization has given approval to locate a fast food service here provided it passes approval by Council; Council would have more information on this later. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 5 The other letter provided to Council (directed to Seth Armstead) from Westar Associates included a packet of information. The Committee had met with Westar on November 19 with an impressive presentation of small shopping centers that had been developed in Southern California. They are requesting in their letter an exclusive right to negotiate for 120 days on a section of Barton Road, south side, at Michigan coming back this way to City Hall. If granted, they will prepare extensive information; go into great detail regarding shopping habits of our community and gear the shops toward what this area would support, and incorporate our existing businesses with the new. The Committee has talked with Group W Cable to see if businesses can be put on video and at Council break times put these businesses on the screen for exposure to the community and use the video also as a way to sell Grand Terrace. In closing, Mr. Yost recommended Council seriously consider the negotiation rights to have Westar proceed with the hope that the entire package would be on the way by the first of the year. Councilman Evans stated the importance of encouraging commercial development; felt we should take advantage of this opportunity and asked City Attorney Hopkins the procedure in which to use this vehicle. City Attorney Hopkins advised that the only way would be to not consider competing commercial proposals from the planning standpoint of that nature to occur in this area. Since Council is not the property owner, they can't give that exclusive right and, so, they would ask for planning/police power in that respect. Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Grant, that Council grant an exclusive right to negotiate for 120 days on the southerly side of Michigan, southerly extension to Canal. Councilman Evans stated that all that was asked of Council this evening was, if motion passes, that they agree to work with the Committee in trying to assemble land necessary on which to put the development. Mr. Yost responded yes, referencing paragraph three where Westar had requested certain parcel maps and the fact that they need 120 days to see if all is feasible. Councilwoman Crawford felt motion was premature since the letter stipulated that when data is completed they would contact the Committee to arrange a presentation to the City Council and, then, at that time would ask for the 120 days to negotiate. Mr. Yost clarified it was his understanding that they would like the right to negotiate now before they go ahead and expend money and time on their studies. Mayor Pro Tempore Matteson indicated that he would not participate in this discussion due to his residence being encompassed by this area. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 6 n Following discussion, Councilman Evans withdrew his motion for two weeks contingent upon finding out exact specific. Mayor Grant as second of motion concurred, and asked Mr. Yost to have that information for Council at the next meeting. Councilwoman Crawford asked as a non -participating member of the Committee if there is any other time the Committee can meet since she cannotbe there at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Yost stated that this time was most convenient for those presently involved; however, will take back to Committee for re-cosideration. Councilwoman Crawford reiterated she would like to attend these meetings and would appreciate them taking a concensus. Ms. Bayus reported that the Chamber had been working on their budgets with the Finance Director, Thomas Schwab, and had submittted a revised budget to Council. A correction should be made on insurance, as the originalbudget had $10,000 and had been revised t o $7,500; had learned that it was not possible to be insured for $7,500 and figure needs to go back to $10,000. This would mean that $2,500 should be added at the bottom line. The revision of budget was a result of projected income from events that weren't held because of insurance purposes and that revenue was then lost. The budget is in a deficit of $8,942 and, again, felt it necessary to ask Council for an additional $10,000 from the City. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13364, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86 -4 - TERRACE GROVES A APARTMENT96 UNIT (Chaparral Fines, Ltd.) (Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 1986) Mayor Grant, stated this was an appeal by the developer to support the decision of the Planning Commission; reason for continuance was for staff to answer questions that Council had relative to traffic. Mayor Grant felt questions had been answered satisfactorily and turned to staff for briefing. Planning Director Kicak, stated that at the last meeting Council requested staff to review the triangular area between Barton Road, Canal Street and Mt. Vernon for additional traffic that would be generated. Staff reviewed the three reports that had been done in the past. The report most comprehensive to this issue was the CG Engineering report done for USA Properties in April, 1985. The study states for traffic to function with a level of approximately 1,000 units Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street should be widened, and traffic signals installed at the intersection of Barton Road and Canal Street and at Mt. Vernon and Canal Street. At that time it was staff's opinion, and still is, that the best way to accomplish this would be that individuals benefitting from the project would be Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 7 assessed their proportion/share of improvements required. However, there are oppositions from the current developer as well as other developers in the area. The other option is to pay as you go and the City would enter into agreement with the developer that when other properties are developed in that area the City would collect pro rata share and repay that person/developer that installs the improvements and reimburse him before pro rata share of improvements he had made on behalf of others. Mr. Kicak stated that the traffic report was still valid today and, that with the mitigating circumstances recommended, the project could proceed with density that was proposed. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson requested clarification on exact location regarding the widening of streets and installation of traffic signals. Mr. Kicak explained for widening of streets it would include everything north of Town & Country Professional Center and would be developed to R -3 standards at density of 16 units per acre; improvement of Canal Street along total perimeter of that project to collector standard; require improvement of Mt. Vernon Avenue along perimeter of projects between where Barton and Canal come. Traffic signals are recommended for Canal and Mt. Vernon, Grand Terrace Road and Canal and Barton. These improvements are required for the project area to function. Mr. Kicak further explained that the study included all properties within that triangle to determine improvement and was still valid for current project being reviewed and that no changes had been made in that area since the study had been done in 1985. Mayor Grant opened public participation. Bill Mauerhan, Chaparral Pines, 53 Royal Street George, Newport Beach, volunteered to answer any questions anyone might have, and supported Mr. Kicak's explanation of the validity of CG Engineer's Report. Ken McClellan, 21882 Grand Terrace Road, stated that he and others appeared at a Council meeting appealing an apartment complex on Grand Terrace Road and wanted to support this particular project to show that the group had an opend mind; not opposed to apartments providing location was right; felt this was a well -designed project that would be an asset to the community. Mayor Grant thanked Mr. Kicak for a good job on a complex issue; felt integrity of reports good; agreed with staff that City should not front the money and concurrred with staff on recommendation of alternative #2. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson expressed that he also favored alternative #2, having the developer install the improvements and the City collect money from future development and return to them; felt this was a sizeable project and asked for input from the developer. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 8 Bill Mauerhan stated their project is 96 units (8 percent) of total project which is planned for 1,000 units; didn't feel traffic signals would be warranted after their project is in and possibily not after the second. However, felt when 60 or 70 percent of the project was done, those signals would go in; the same with the street improvements on Canal Street and on Mt. Vernon Avenue. The improvements on Canal Street shown in the conditions of approval for this project will allow our traffic to ingress/egress from the site now. As developments on Von Kanal's property and north to USA Properties progress, then they should do their improvements and reimbursment as we are. We'll have an estimate of total work, put in our work and enter into a reimbursement agreement; felt "brunt" of work is starting off with the power pole relocation and the heavy work at intersection of Canal and Barton Road. Mr. Kicak stated that when the whole area is developed, or even prior to the whole triangle development, that all of those improvements should be in; felt the whole group should get together and agree what those improvements should be and how funded. Mr. Mauerhan stated he was open to such a meeting with Forest City Dillon, Mr. Kicak and City staff to work something out, but felt those that did not have immediate plans would not be as eager; however, did not want it to be a condition that would prevent them from moving on with their project. Mayor Grant stated that Council's concern was that there be no loose strings on implementing the improvements and that this should be clarified before Council takes a position. City Attorney Hopkins stated that one of the major problems which he and Mr. Kicak had discussed is division of costs of improvements on a pro rata basis. For instance, Forest City already has approval so time to get that approval or agreement has passed and they have a vested right to the improvement without these conditions. They may possibly agree to participate for beneficial reasons to them or, if they don't approve an assessment district, they could be included because that is the nature of assessment districts. This would require meeting with Forest City Dillon and maybe increased cost on a per unit or per acreage basis. If they don't participate, their share would have to be absorbed by some other developer or by the City and, the Mayor has already indicated, personally, is not in favor of the City participating in that way. The City has to be involved in meeting with the developers and, if an assessment district is used, the City has to be the motivator because the developers can't do this without the City and its guidance. Mr. Hopkins suggested that, if they were looking for a condition to include in an approval, it could include the condition that one of these alternatives, satisfactory to the City, be met prior to issuance of building permits. This would eliminate the need to determine what method would be used, but that Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 9 one of these or a combination thereof would be used to put in the improvements. Mr. Britton had also indicated in his first proposal that he wanted to see what was going to be approved and then they could make the decision of whether or not to proceed. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson asked what conditions were placed on Forest City Dillon in improvements. Mr. Kicak answered that the condition was to improve the frontage of their property that is Canal Street as well as Mt. Vernon, which leaves a piece of property along the frontage of the Edison Property. Mr. Mauerhan in agreement volunteered to have his Civil Engineer prepare for staff a cost estimate on the improvements around curb and gutter and the pavement around the trianale along with the signal cost. Councilwoman Crawford asked Mr. Mauerhan if they would be willing to accept 10 percent of the cost on both signals? Mr. Mauerhan answered in the affirmative and that this would put in the signals, curb, gutter and paving along with some other things; expressed the estimate was low; but didn't think the power poles to be in excess of a hundred thousand dollars. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson asked who would be putting up the other 90 percent. Mr. Mauerhan stated that would come as they develop. Councilwoman Crawford agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Matteson in concern of the other 90 percent; felt developers whose projects have been approved prior should share in costs; felt it unfair to hold up present developer. Mayor Grant questioned Mr. kicak on what he felt the pro rata cost of percentage for this particular signal would be. Mr. Kicak stated that the total area project contributes 69 percent of the traffic towards Canal Street, 69 percent of the traffic towards Mt. Vernon traffic signal and Canal Street signal; indicated we could come back with total number of units and relate that to the 69 percent generated and come up with the traffic generator percentage of the contributing traffic; felt 7 percent (69% of 96 units) for this project rather than 10 percent. Mr. Kicak also stated that the traffic signal had not been a condition of the original project as it had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kicak stated he had been directed to address the traffic generated within that certain area on this project which now had been done; that City Council had not taken action on it pending this particular report which was being considered at this meeting. The development still had not been approved and that was to be considered tonight. Mr. Hopkins stated that this needed to be done at this meeting; if the project were approved without making provision for this, then no provision for them to participate; as there was no provision for Forest City Dillon to participate. This also was not entirely true since some of the conditions of approval were not included in Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 10 400 Mr. Kicak's estimates in his conditions. However, there would be others that would escape such as there are no traffic signals required, and if they don't participate in their pro rata share or whatever alternative Council determines then you could not do at later date because their rights to develop have vested and they go ahead based on conditions that were approved this evening and by the Planning Commission previously. Mr. Mauerhan stated he was in agreement with getting costs involved in the improvements needed as spelled out in the CG Report to make the traffic work when ultimately developed; willing to pay pro rata share based on formulas used; wanted credit for $36,000 that they were putting into the street fund as per unit cost that City gets on building permits. Councilman Evans indicated that this total project should have been a unified plan; felt this project should be approved. CC-86-280 Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, second by Mayor Grant, to add a condition of approval whereby the developer accept their pro rata share of the two signal lights. Mayor Grant stated he recognized this as a part of alternative #2 set by staff; assuming the motion would include a reimbursement agreement for that which would be in excess to their pro rata percentage. Councilwoman Crawford stated that intent was they would bare their pro rata costs of the two signals when put in. Mayor Grant indicated this was somewhat different. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated he feels need to keep proper order; find out what is to be done and then approve the project. Mayor Grant stated the motion is equitable, but only part of the overall issue of mitigating measures as suggested by staff. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson agreed that we had to figure in total cost for total improvements of total project and pro rate by acres or units and then assion in that respect. Councilwoman Crawford repeated that she had in her motion included an additional condition which would be No. 47 as an addition to the 46 that went before the Planning Commission. Mayor Grant questioned what if motion passes, petitoner pays their fair share and for some reason caused by the project we find we need that signal and we only have so many dollars which would not buy the signal. Mr. Mauerhan stated that is why they are interested in the reimbursement agreement because the improvements that they are conditioned to do will cost more than the power poles. Councilman Evans stated that two projects are approved, USA Properties and Mt. Vernon Villas, and the fact that those two projects are not in the pro rata condition and do not have to participate. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that as currently approved they do not have to participate. Councilman Evans also asked if Mr. Mauerhan and the other parcels that do not have improvements if they are going to be bearing the brunt of the costs. Mr. Hopkins answered no that they would bare the brunt of some costs that are already conditioned; that Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 11 the City would bear the brunt of the signal cost because it is the City's responsibility under the motion to put in signals at such time as needed including the contributions of this development and others that might occur prior to the City having to put in traffic signals presuming that the City is going to finance those costs and we are getting their contribution in advance so they can proceed with development. Mr. Hopkins stated that the City might want to make contributions as encouragement to future projects because of the contributions these projects make to the City. Mayor Grant voiced concern that if projects are never phased out and have paid more than their fair share and there is no reimbursement coming in then someone is going to have to reimburse them and it would appear to be the City because these people are not going to do this if sometime in the future nothing is going in north of their project. City Attorney Hopkins stated there are developers/reimbursement agreements that can agree to repay developers at various times whether or not development occurs or that they lose in the event development does not occur. We can have whatever kind of developers agreement that Council directs. Mr. Mauerhan indicated that if developer has to bare brunt of costs up front they could not afford the project to proceed because he has already stated the project cannot support a million dollars of additional costs to make improvements whether they are reimbursed in the future or not. Councilman Evans stated that the City does make improvements in the community such as improving Barton Road putting in curbs, gutters and we could wait for a developer to do this; the same could be done with the traffic signals as there are enough conditions already. Mr. Mauerhan asked if improvements on Barton Road are being done with federal gas tax money. Councilman Evans answered it was a combination of funds. Mayor Grant stated the improvements on Barton Road are going to benefit the project that will bring in sales and use taxes. We have a small commercial base in this town and the people here and those who would come here in the future are going to go elsewhere to spend their money. To have a lot of people with a small commercial tax base does not guarantee any increase in what we need called sales and use taxes. Not in objection to more people providing we can provide services to them; shouldn't draw a parallel between apartments, condominiums and single-family dwellings and commercial establishments as the City doesn't even have a property tax and we don't get that much back from the County property tax; won't make up for the increased costs that we have to have. Mr. Kicak confirmed everything is in the conditions other than the signal light; stated there was a motion to add the signal lights. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the question. Motion No. CC-86-280, carried, 3-1, with Councilman Evans voting NOE. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 12 CC-86-281 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Mayor Grant, to adopt alternative of staff recommendation "that the developers be required to construct improvements as specified in the report and enter into reimbursement agreement to have City collect the pro rata share from future developments, as they occur, and reimburse the developers." That the City Engineer is directed to work up an estimate and that he and the City Attorney are to prepare an agreement with the developer to be brought back to the Council to provide for collection of fees pursuant to the agreement based on a pro rata share. City Attorney Hopkins stated the motion is not necessary because improvements and who would install has already been addressed. The City would be required to install the signal lights at the time needed and the developer is required to install other improvements that are listed in the conditions. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson repeated he wanted in his motion that developer would, at the Engineer's discretion, put in improvements required now. Councilman Evans asked if the last condition included all. City Attorney clarified it only spoke to the 45th condition; continued with fact that Mr. Matteson's motion is in regard to a reimbursement agreement between the City and the developers for those other 44 conditions that speak to traffic conditions and the traffic improvements they are putting in that do not benefit them. This means removing or moving the poles from their project down to Barton Road and other developments may benefit and, if they do not benefit, then a reimbursement agreement or developers agreement would be made with the developer so they could get reimbursement as development occurs. Mayor Grant opened to public for input. Barbara Pfennighausen, 22491 DeBerry Street, stated we are dealing with unimproved property drawing very little property tax. As that property is improved, tax dollars are generated; receive approximately 32 percent of frozen tax base that improvement of those properties are going to generate; these properties will generate tax dollars and the dollars will be invested in improvement of the community. Also, products do not generate sales tax, only people generate sales tax; Committee is attempting to find out what spendable dollars and how much are being spent outside of the community so we can capture those dollars for Grand Terrace. The Economic Development Committee has assumed this responsibility and will do a survey so we know what we need in services and retail facilities in order to keep Grand Terrace dollars in Grand Terrace; all of this works together and money will be coming in off of this. Stan Hargrave, 12048 Canary Ct., Planning Commissioner, stated his comments are his own and not those of the Commission as a body; felt the Planning Commission did address the signalization and recommend Council establish some fee or pro rata share division for establishing Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 13 n n participation in the signalization; stated he wanted each Council member to read all conditions of approval that had been put in the Planning Commission approval package since he had not heard anyone say definitely that these were conditions of approval based on the recommendations coming from the Planning Commission; would like to hear that Council had read all 44 before going to a final vote. City Engineer Kicak, commented that there was reference to 44 conditions which were staff recommended conditions; attached conditions within the report with a recommended resolution to Council is to make those conditions that are shown as Exhibit "A" as the conditions of approval with a total of 46. City Attorney Hopkins made note that Mr. Hargrave stated that signalization had been addressed by Planning Commission. Stated a fund could be established in which this developer and other developers would at time of final inspection or occupancy pay money into a fund which would be set aside and used at future date for installation of traffic signals at the two locations and this money would draw interest until used and would be expended for that purpose only. Council confirmed that they all had read the conditions and Councilwoman Crawford corrected her motion to be the 47th; recommended that Council consider establishment of some participation of developers in that area to the signalization. Mr. Mauerhan asked to clarify that the amount of work that was required in the 47 conditions will exceed their pro rata share of total cost of the development; didn't feel they should pay pro rata cost of entire development in a fund and do the work too at their cost. Mr. Hopkins intervened to say they would do both; they would front in cost of certain improvements included in the first 46 conditions; would enter into agreement that developers reimburse you as developments occur for their pro rata share of costs incurred by Mr. Mauerhan. In addition, Councilwoman Crawford's motion indicates they would pay pro rata share into a fund that is for signalization. In summary, they would do both and would not get a credit from the City because the City is not one of the developers. Mr. Britton, 14 Palma Lane, Newport Beach, California, stated to keep things simple, throw everything into one pot; pay their cost down at their end and then when signals are put in they get a little back and when the other curb is put in down there they get a little back and so on; want to do all in one big lump sum. In summary, a million dollars, hypothetically, their pro rata share being $100,000, but costs facing them now to do the project are $300,000, we pay that now and we get $200,000 back part of which is going to be the traffic fund, part of which is going to be the curb fund, so on. Mr. Hopkins stated that they would get reimbursed for the $300,000 but that is Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 14 Ln separate from the signals as the motion was made the City would have responsibility for installing the sionalization; it owed reimbursement to one one; the pot has to be separate unless the Council changes that. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson re -explained the motion; intent was all be considered in one pot; total improvement for whole triangle be considered as one item and it be pro rated per unit or per acre and refund credits received for what he put into project. Mr. Hopkins explained Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's motion is they would only do some improvements that's set forth to do in the 46 conditions; stated he needed staff to advise him when time comes to deal with traffic signals, who was going to pay for them then because the City was taken out of it because there is no money fund for the City to put it in unless the City expends all of money because development may never occur and no fund created for signalization, since traffic study shows there is a need now and each development that occurs in that area creates a greater need in that traffic study. Mr. Kicak confirmed the report indicated that there are areas on Barton Road and Canal right now that warrant the one signal. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson re-established his motion is that any improvements required now must be done now. Mr. Mauerhan stated that they are not trying to get away from responsibility, but does want to be reimbursed back for portion that exceeds their pro rata share; does not want to do work and pay the pot too. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that was the intent of his original motion, but need to consider the projects that have already been approved as far as what we could get back from them; need to know what total project is going to cost, how much Forest City Dillon is going to pay for their portion and divide the rest up or the two projects that are approved; find out how much they will pay for their development along the streets and divide balance by remaining acreage and pro rate it that way. Planning Director Kicak stated that there was not a cost figure with respect to all of improvements required; that the particular study referred to did not include relocation of poles. What we actually are trying to come up with is a formula that is acceptable to the City and developer, understanding which improvements are being shared, which are total responsiblity of developer; prepare an agreement based on that and then work from the certified cost to those items that are to be shared by others and determine what the actual costs are. Stated it is difficult to come up with costs until we have some specific designs and know what needs to be done in way of construction. Mr. Hopkins stated we couldn't speak in today's dollars because all improvements including signal lights will be in future dollars and this needs to be factored. Stated there was really no problem with proceeding as Mr. Mauerhan and Mr. Britton indicate; the only problem is the money won't be in the kitty for the signal lights until the last development occurs. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 15 Iwo Continued discussion between Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, Councilman Evans, and Mr. Mauerhan regarding on how costs could be distributed and how improvements would be done by each developer as it comes in. For instance, Forest City Dillon would be required to do these improvements; if Barney Karger's property is developed, he will have to bare the brunt of doing and this leaves the question of who is going to pay for the signals? Mr. Kicak stated each developer will install the improvements along the frontage of his property; there are improvements that are being required of this developer that is specifically the relocation of the poles that will benefit other properties along Canal Street, and those are the items we are talking about reimbursing. As far as the signal installation, we are trying to relate to the percentage of total units that will be in the area to the total cost of project less any contributing traffic that comes from the outside and the traffic contributing to those two intersections is 69 percent of the total traffic and, therefore, direct responsibilities of that project. City Attorney Hopkins, restated under the motion proposed there will be just one kitty and we can't separate the poles because the developers will be making improvements that will be reimbursable to them as well; probably would get a cash contribution from each developer as he develops or the City will have to pay out of the general fund; they will want to make certain there is some guarantee that we will make effort to reimburse them; either the City will have to make a contribution on a pro rata basis for each developer as they occur or we will have to require that the developer makes a cash contribution as well as improvements. Last payment made to them will be paid when the last ultimate development occurs since they will be paying its final pro rata share, but will want to get a pro rata share of reimbursement as development does occur rather than wait until ultimate development. Mayor Grant informed Mayor Pro Tem Matteson chair was calling for question and to repeat his motion. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated the motion is to accept item #2 whereby the developer will install all the necessary improvements at this time that are required; pay their fair share of any deposits that would be required of the 47 items that would be before the benefit of total development including signal lights and that they would be reimbursed on a per development basis, and that the City Engineer will come up with an agreement/cost estimate to be approved by Council. Councilman Evans asked the City Attorney to clarify the motion into simple terms for voting purposes. The City Attorney explained the vote was on improvements that are required as a result of the 47 conditions totalled and an estimate will be put on them using a built-in total for future dollars; their pro rata share of the difference between their pro rata share of what they spend will be Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 16 n M put into a development agreement for reimbursement; will recieve reimbursement as development occurs and that the agreement and cost estimate will be brought back for Council approval. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Mayor Grant called for the question. Motion No. CC-86-281, carried, All Ayes. Mr. Mauerhan thanked staff, particularly the City Engineer and City Attorney, for the manner in which they had been taken care of by staff during the last five months. CC-86-282 Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, second by Mayor Grant, to approve staff's recommendation to approve this project subject to the 47 conditions and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson's last motion (CC-86-281), which would make 48 conditions. Mayor Grant asked for discussion on the motion. Councilman Evans asked if Council was voting on staff's recommendation Nos. 2 and 3 that appears on the November 20 staff report; that is Specific Plan 86-4 that will not be detrimental to the general health, etc. consistant with the latest adopted General Plan and conditions necessary to secure the purposes of Ordinance 57, and then approve the tentative tract map. Mayor Grant stated motion has been stated, asked for cast of votes. Motion No. CC-86-282, carried, ALL AYES. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT - Mayor Grant asked the City Attorney to address item 5J dealing with Pastor Mitchell D. Carioga of Orange Grove Commuity Church and his request to use the Council Chambers on a temporary basis for Sunday services. Stated there was some concern as to violation of the religion/government prohibitions of the Constitution, but felt that this would not invoke any constitutional problems since the City would be allowing it not to promote religion, but as we would any other user of the facility subject to City's rules and regulations; some use rules would have to change as we have one that pertains to solicitation of funds for any use in any of the City facilities; feels the church would probably be soliciting donations from its membership on a regular basis to continue the work of the church; this is a policy matter, but rules would need to be addressed with possibly some changes and we would be setting a precendent by allowing this. Pastor Carioga stated that temporary use of the Chambers would allow the Church to cut their costs and build up their membership. Once this is accomplished, they could afford to return to the Rancho 6 Theater in Colton. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 17 CC-86-283 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Councilman Evans, to deny the request because of the problems that could be incurred. City Attorney Hopkins stated that we cannot discriminate provided renter meets all our rules and regulations, but the Pastor is really asking that certain rules be set aside or waived. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the question. Motion No. CC-86-283, carried, 3-1, with Councilwoman Crawford voting NOE. Mayor Grant noted that conditionally over the years Council has corrected their vote verbally and this can be done if an error has been made by not pushing the right button. Councilwoman Crawford stated she had not voted as intended, but will stand with vote as it is. City Attorney Hopkins stated he wanted to remind Council that the agenda requirements in the conduct of Council Meetings will be , changing on Janaury 1, 1987; the main change being Council cannot act on items that are not on the agenda; for the most part this Council already complies with other changes that have been made. Further explained that there are provisions to add on, but they are only in special circumstances. Also, Senate Bill 1685 which becomes effective on Janaury 1 allows City Council members to call themselves Council members rather than councilman or councilwoman. CITY ENGINEER REPORT - City Engineer Kicak stated in respect to an action item prior to the placement of moratorium in the area west of I-215 on an R-3 development there were three projects which were submitted and fees paid, but never reached the Planning Commission and applicants now requesting that we return their fees and asking City Council authorize placement on the next check register to replace the funds paid in the approximate amount of $8,000. CC-86-284 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to refund these monies. COUNCIL REPORTS - Councilman Evans reported the following: Had been asked about the possibility of having trash collection twice a week instead of once a week during summer months. This person had expressed that during the summer his trash builds and with the heat creates some potential health hazards; requested staff check with Loma Linda Disposal Company to see if they would be interested in doing this and what costs would be to pass on to citizens that do request such a pick-up. Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 18 n n Mayor Grant reported the following: Had been privileged to present the proclamation to the Colton High School student body regarding their outstanding school at two assemblies; was delighted to recognize some of the students as Grand Terrace residents. Adjourned at 9:24 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, December 18, 1986. Respectfully submitted, Acting City Clerk APPROVED Mayor Council Minutes - 12/4/86 Page 19 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 1986 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 December 18, 1986, at 5:37 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Byron Matteson, Mayor Pro Tempore Dennis L. Evans, Councilman Susan Crawford, Councilwoman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Alicia Chavez, Acting City Clerk ABSENT: Joe kicak, Planning Director/City Engineer The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Ray Williams, Grand View Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Captain Bradford, Chief of Police. ITEMS DELETED FROM AGENDA - 3D Minutes of December 4, 1986. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Mayor Grant read and presented the Certificate of Appreciation to Barbara M. Conley for outstanding services and her contribution to the Tour de Terrace Bike Tour which was held on Sunday, November 9, 1986. Mayor Grant presented a Resolution of Acknowledgement to Max Lofy, who is retiring as Recreation Director from the City of Colton and for his twenty years of service for teaching, guiding and advising the youth of Grand Terrace and Colton. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 3D, minutes of November 20, 1986, were removed for discussion. CC-86-285 Motion by Councilman Evans, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar items: A. Approve Check Register No. 121886 B. Ratify 12/18/86 CRA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda E. Release of $15,000 Street & Water System Improvements Cash Deposit to Sister's of St. Benedict. v APPROVAL 0 /20/86 MINUTES Councilman Evans questioned the City Attorney regarding a comment made by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, referencing page 8, paragraph 8, of the November 20 Minutes, regarding the density issue, was a blanket statement and what kind of liability would this comment be for the City? City Attorney Hopkins stated that the blanket statement could cause a problem regarding a denial of developments as they are proposed to the City, if those particular developers were to pursue the matter. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that was an incorrect statement; did not have a maximum density; was given for a particular project and that minutes should be corrected. CC-86-286 Following clarification, Motion by Councilman Evans, second by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, ALL AYES, to approve minutes of November 20, 1986 as corrected statement to read: "last year the City Council approved a project based upon the then existing conditions and determined that parcel could support a density of 15.75 units per acre." PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry St. asked to make an appeal on behalf of residents in the southerly portion of Grand Terrace and asked when Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Ave. will be finished. Mayor Grant stressed that all residents, northerly as well as southerly have equal concern. Mr. Gene McMeans, Riverside/Highland Water Company, stated that the job is taking longer than desired; the present work at Mt. Vernon is the tie-in necessary to various streets into the new pipeline; there are two more tie-ins on Mt. Vernon, one of which will be to Stater Bros. Shopping Center and will be a night tie-in because that system cannot be shut down except at night. Present plan is to continue with completion for all tie-ins by January 27, 1987; major problem to come is the major tie-in on Mt. Vernon and Barton Road intersection, which will be approximately January 12 to 15 and involves a quarter of the intersection. This will be coordinated with the City for traffic control to eliminate as much discomfort as possible. There will be complete overlay on Barton Road from the center line to the south curve from Mt. Vernon center line to west curve and on to Van Buren with Van Buren being a refurbished street. This should be completed sometime in early February. Jeff Miller, 22085 Newport Avenue, required clarification regarding the moratorium placed on the west side of freeway and will their group be able to proceed with their plans which is located next to the trailer park on Newport? City Attorney Hopkins stated that any project that had received approval or permits prior to the moratorium would be exempt. Further questioning of Mr. Miller indicates that, due to not having an approved plan, he is caught in the six-month moratorium along with the current review of the General Plan. City Manager, Seth Armstead, explained that a letter reauesting input from Citizens on the General Plan would be out the first week of January. The review of the General Plan will be for the entire City and this could affect the land use in area of the project. Councilman Evans asked whether one of the problems regarding multi -family development at the time General Plan went to the State Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 2 was the fact that the State did not feel the General Plan had addressed multi -family development as extensively as they felt we should and so that was an area that got hit with multi -family; should there be a change to our General Plan land use as it applies to the west side, does the City Attorney feel the State would change their decision? City Attorney Hopkins felt the State would not be particularly concerned, if the change is not substantial. Should we change the multi -family housing substantially in the City and remove a substantial portion of it or attempt to lower the maximum density in our medium density zoning, then there would be concern. That was the area that held up the approval of our housing element for a period of time in which we met and compromised because the State wanted more density than we provided for them in our General Plan. Should we substantially remove medium density from our General Plan, the State would look for us to provide elsewhere for multiple -family because that is an area of great concern. Multiple -family provided affordable housing and meets the guidelines for affordable housing as opposed to sprawling, single-family development. Councilman Evans further discussed that multi -family housing revealed that the State's trend is for higher density; that should we remove it from the west side, it will have to go to another location in the City. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that the State looks at area as a whole (Colton, Cooley Ranch area along Washington) and that Colton currently has close to 3,000 units being built and felt this would take care of low-income housing for this area and he is currently doing research to go to the State to support this position. Mayor Grant explained that we are a month into the moratorium; conditions could change that may or may not favor Mr. Miller's situation, but we do currently have a moratorium. Councilman Evans asked the City Clerk for as detailed report on Attorney Hopkins response. Also questioned the City Manager relative to the General Plan. City Manager Armstead reported that any project that had received its approval or permit prior to the moratorium would be exempt from the moratorium. Clyde Jacobs stated he was also involved in the same project; that a 95 unit project had been approved over on Canal and, if Council was concerned about traffic, why was the project approved? Councilman Evans stated that Council was concerned about what the entire affect would be on the Community and that is why it was decided to stop and take a look at the entire City and affect thereon. Mr. Rosinor stated that he owned property on the corner of Grand Terrace and Newport (the project discussed); was notified of moratorium one week before his scheduled appearance before Planning Commission; felt Council should be more specific about the moratorium. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson explained he would receive a letter regarding the Plan and he would in turn be able to give opinions that would be considered. Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 3 400 4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City Attorney Hopkins related that under general discussion, the moratorium was addressed and Planning Commission questioned what Council wanted done and what exactly the moratorium meant; gave them the time frame Council was looking to and explained the discussion that had preceded Council to take that action. The Commission also related their concern in the processing and filling of the Planning Director's position. Attorney Hopkins brought up discussion regarding the Beautification Plan -and the need for uniformity in tree planting that is done in the City; felt Council should address this issue and ask for a progress report on the Plan. There are ten types of trees that can be planted and the Commission feels this is a wide range of selection and is requesting input. The City Manager is to find out if we are talking about the entire City or just an area referred to as a Parkway Vista which would be incorporated in the zoning. Mayor Grant referred to a Plan Design Document for Mt. Vernon Avenue which also included what had occurred already on Barton Road. This addressed types of shrubs, trees and things of that nature, but we never arrived at a decision because of the problems of width on Mt. Vernon and Barton Road. One of the paramount problem areas was the junction of Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue. This is all available through past minutes and should be made available to Council. Councilman Evans asked what is the Beautification Plan, when did it come up? He related that he thought they were discussing Title 18 and reference to Parkway Vista and that Joe Kicak, City Engineer, would be bringing the Zoning Ordinance to the next Planning Commission in Janaury. City Attorney Hopkins related that he probably would not be drafting ordinances concerning this until we have a new Planning Director since that person or organization should be involved. Councilman Evans questioned the status of the Planning Director. The City Manager stated that Request for Proposals had been sent out and are due by the 31st of December; will then be screened and recommendations brought to Council with request of whether to continue on Contract or bring in-house. Councilman Evans also voiced concern as to whether Council now had information regarding in-house costs; felt cost would be cheaper for in-house and felt this should be reviewed as well as the RFPs and asked when this would be on the agenda. Mr. Armstead indicated this would be brought before Council at the second meeting in January. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE Dick Rollins indicated that Council had their minutes in their packets. Stated that they are continuing to work on the Park's Snack Bar; hope to have it completed by first of the year. Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 4 CC-86-287 Mayor Grant thanked Mr. Rollins and indicated, for the record, that they did have minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting for November 3 and 17 in their packets, also have two items under the Parks and Recreation Committee category which relates to the earlier presentation given for the bike tour and a Staff Report to the Committee and recommendation of choices between numbers 2 and 3. Finance Director Tom Schwab, asked to address this report for Randy Anstine, explaining that the Tour de Terrace was a worthwhile program and recommending it be made an annual event or by Council request for a yearly basis, and requested action be Nos. 2 or 3. Further, indicated that there were no negatives in this project, brought outside people into Grand Terrace and that they made a profit of over $800, also good feed back. Motion by Mayor Grant, second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to establish the Tour de Terrace as an annual event. Councilman Evans addressed Barbara Conley (in the audience) for input on potential liability insurance coverage in a program such as this; felt that a 10-K run and a triathlon should be considered in the future as well. Chairman, Barbara Conley, responded that this was a tour rather than a race for liability purposes with the intent that all rules and traffic regulations are obeyed; were somewhat exempt from traffic problems, parade premits, etc. The event was run without any negative incidents and would like to do the event in the same way next year under the City's insurance coverage. Would also like to have more support from local businesses. Councilman Evans asked whether they had the people necessary to get involved in also having a 10-K run and a triathlon. Ms. Conley felt they would have to move at a slow pace since there are only seven members on the Committee; the Tour de Terrace had taken a good seven to eight months of work; felt it would be 1988 before a successful event could be put on of this magnitude. Would also need the support of the City and Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Evans reiterated the positive response for the Tour and, if Council concurred, would like Ms. Conley to take the idea back to the Committee to pursue other events as well as the Tour de Terrace. Mayor Grant stated the second item for the Committee is a recommendation that Council direct Staff to inform Marygold Farms that they can continue to farm on Pico Street Park Site for one more year and, possibly longer; currently not ready to take physical possession of this land; there are time constraints brought about by surveys, bids, proposals and financial assistance. Randy Anstine stated that our lease is signed and would start at first of the year. This creates other legal problems by having Marygold farm there unless we used sub -leases which is actually prohibited by our lease. At present, Marygold Farms is under the lease agreement of Edison. Edison is aware of where we stand and if we don't proceed now, we will be looking at another two years because it is a two-year crop. Should we go ahead with our lease now and Marygold vacates, we have a weed abatement problem with ten acres of land to maintain and this would be an unnecessary cost for the City. Should we receive alternate funding Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 5 within a year to go ahead with the project, then Staff would be in a position to recommend proceeding and pay Marygold Farms for any crop loss. We don't currently have funds for the project; there is $46,000 available for park development and the project will cost approximately $175,000. This cost will cover three or four ball diamonds, provide the turf and irrigation system. Costs could even exceed $600,000. Also to take in consideration is what the Council and Parks and Recreation Committee want developed in the Park. At the next Council Meeting, staff will come to Council with a recommended landscape architect to retain. Once the architect is approved, he can start his public hearings and his working drawings; then hope to have a full set of plans approved by the City and Southern California Edison Company. At that time, we could send the completed documents to the State of California for a grant. Councilwoman Crawford asked why there was such a difference in figures by the architect. Mr. Anstine explained his figures contained absolute bare minimum of three fields, three backstops, and the irrigation systems which is a workable plan. The architect's plan was more elaborate with off-street parking, restrooms, two tennis courts, basketball court, handball courts and provision for future lighting of the park. Mr. Anstine brought up the fact that for grant purposes, it enhances a project if the City indicates they are putting a percentage in also along with the lease; that Southern California Edison has worked in the past with the State Department and Parks and Recreation for joint use of Edison property and Edison would be in a position to send a letter informing them that if grant were approved, that the property would be leased to the City for a certain number of years. The only problem to foresee would be that Edison would want to see a fully completed set of drawings of what is proposed for the site. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson suggested giving two plans and Councilman Evans wanted to know when can you get into Lease Agreement. Mayor Grant reiterated the fact that Marygold Farm's crop is a two-year crop; that we are either going to have to freeze it and then put up with the weed problem or allow Marygold to farm the land and harvest it two more years; agree that we should try to tie the lease down; need to consider the liability factor thereof in letting Marygold farm under our lease. CC-86-288 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Mayor Grant, that we continue as we are and proceed with lease as we are doing now and proceed with subleasing. Mayor Grant stated alternative number 1, would be to continue with the lease, but we need to address the Marygold Farm issue. Other alternates would be, should Marygold not want to continue, we could provide weed abatement once or twice a year. Should we buy Marygold's crop, it would cost approiximately two or three thousand dollars and this would add to the $2,000 per year that Edison would require for the lease. Also there would be a cost of installing a permanent fence around the ten acres at the time we take possession of the Park. Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 6 Ln n Mayor Grant asked for cast of votes, motion CC-86-288 carries 3-1, with Councilman Evans voting NOE. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Mayor Grant made note that the Chairman of the Committee had addressed the Council at the last meeting regarding supporting and increase of Committee Members to eight with approval of three applications from James Singley, Bruce Foytik and Terry Krider. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson indicated that an odd number should be kept so that when votes are counted they would not end up in a tie. CC-86-289 Motion by Councilwoman Crawford, second by Councilman Evans, ALL AYES, to accept the recommendation of the Crime Prevention Committee to accept all three applications and increase the membership to eight. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Randy Anstine stated that Chairman, James Hodder, had requested that he convey to the Council that he would like comments from the Council and Staff as soon as possible regarding the Base Emergency Plan for the City. Also, there is an action item to appoint Cynthia L. Williams to the Emergency Operations Committee. CC-86-290 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Councilman Evans ALL AYES, to appoint Cynthia L. Williams to the Committee. Mayor Grant asked if there were any comments from Council regarding input on the Emergency plan and indicated they would be doing it at a later time. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Barbara Bayus, President Chamber of Commerce, reported on the Economic Development Committee and the fact that they had a meeting with Westar, City Staff, and one of the partners; that Westar had brought updated information which was quite complex; would like to wait until there is a full Council and then would request a workshop to present the package. Ms. Bayus wanted to assure the Parks & Recreation Committee that they were interested in triathlon, Tour de Terrace, a 10-K run and other events as proposed. Indicated that they were interested in those same things, but insurance problems preclude the Chamber putting them together and the Chamber would probably be open to supporting co-sponsorship. Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 7 n n Ms. Bayus reported that the Women's Club along with the Chamber of Commerce is putting together a Candidates' Forum; read a letter addressed to Council from Joe Ramos, Legislator Chairman, requesting permission for the Chamber of Commerce and the Grand Terrace Women's Club to co-sponsor a Candidates' Forum in the Council Chambers at City Hall on January 20, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. CC-86 -291 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Councilman Evans, to move for approval of this request. Mayor Grant stated he felt the two candidates should be heard from for their input on format. Councilman Evans stated that Group W Cable would be televising the Forum simultaneously. Ms. Bayus wanted to know if Council and Chamber could agree on one date only. Following discussion, Mayor Grant motion CC-86-291 carries, ALL AYES. Ms. Bayus continued with Chamber Report stating that last was the budget item that had been discussed at the last meeting and offered to answer any questions Council had regarding the budget. Further stated that questions one of the Council Members had were answered satisfactorily and asked in view of this, if Council could act on the budget item this evening. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that he had supported the additional $10,000 be granted to Chamber due to the money that had been spent for Economic Development. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Matteson, second by Councilwoman Crawford, to give $10,000 to the Chamber as a one-time thing to help support Economic Development. Councilman Evans stated he is prepared to discuss the budget, but did have questions; asked under meetings, seminars and education, what the $2,600 increase for 1986-87 would be attributed to. Ms. Sandy Windbigler explained that the money would allow herself, board members, and staff to take advantage of educational seminars geared toward economic development. Councilman Evans asked why expenditures on the directory and plaques/trophies/awards were increased. Ms. Windbigler answered that the increase in the directory is due to actually knowing what costs would be and before, it was just a guess, the increase for plaques is due to increase in membership. Chamber is now down to zero plaques and need to build back up again. Councilman Evans questioned whether the Chamber would be pursuing any type of economic development since the revised budget showed no expenditure of funds. Ms. Windbigler explained that the line item for economic development had come out because almost everything that comes through the Chamber's door is economic development. Councilman Evans agreed that this is what the Chamber does, it markets the Community and, therefore, the entire budget would be geared toward economic Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 8 development. Ms. Windbigler explained that along with bringing in new development, there is a need to maintain the development that already exists in the City. Councilman Evans further questioned wages for 1986-87 with an expenditure of $27,600. Ms. Windbigler explained that in the beginning the Chamber had one part-time employee and now have three employees; also have two employees that will soon be with the Chamber for one year without a pay increase. Councilman Evans stated he had concerns on whether the City should pick up costs for increase in staff; Chamber has limited funds and there is a need to prioritize. The City is small with not a lot of extra money and must prioritize as well. Also stated that he had met with the Finance Director and discovered the City is spending approximately three to one the monies feeding out of the Chamber for every person getting three dollars worth of City money and in other cities it is twenty-five cents per person. Ms. Windbigler explained that other cities do their own City Newsletter; indicated that they had increased their circulation to include Cooley Ranch as well as Highgrove and Reche Canyon so that the people in those areas would be aware of the businesses we had in Grand Terrace. This had put the circulation up to 8,000 and now has been cut back to 5,000 which goes to the Grand Terrace area only; felt that the newspaper alone could support the $3.00 per person. Councilman Evans explained he did not feel the $10,000 was warranted, since the City became involved with the grant as a result of the newsletter, and if we went with just that then we should only have granted $19,000; that all other costs should be absorbed by the Chamber through its revenue generations. Further stated that the decision boils down to whether to grant an additional $10,000 for economic development and put the burden for that on the Chamber or have this done in-house; supports the Chamber 100 percent, but was not for granting the additional $10,000 based on where we are now. Ms. Sandy Windbigler indicated that the City would be seeing some exciting development coming in; felt Chamber should continue to serve ecomonic development since they had the resources and employees. She also felt that the Chamber had gone further in its service for the City by putting on the Grand Terrace Parade and that other Cities paid for these extra events. Councilman Evans stated that we are probably the smallest of all Cities compared, but we were actually giving more in form of a grant. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson called for the question. CC-86-292 Motion by Mayor Grant, second by Councilwoman Crawford, ALL AYES, to overrule the call for the question. Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 9 Mayor Grant questioned where the $10,000 would come from within the Chamber grant budget with the Finance Director indicating it would come from general funds. Mayor Grant stated that Council should take the opportunity to visit with the Chamber when they have their Economic Development Meetings. Ms. Windbigler referred to the workshops dealing with projection on Barton corridor; had contacted developers about this specific area, since that is the most developable. Mayor Grant asked if the Committee was concentrating on the Barton Road Corner and the area around the skating rink as opposed to any other area in town and why the Committee was doing so. Ms. Windbigler answered in the affirmative with the reason that the feeling was that it is the area that needs to be developed and is ready to be developed. Mayor Pro Tem Matteson stated that since the Economic Development Committee is working in the area where he owns property, he felt he must abstain from voting on the budget increase for economic development. Councilman Evans inquired if the Committee had up-to-date material to hand out on the demographics of the City? Ms. Windbigler indicated that they are pursuing getting updated material and working with the City Engineer in getting the information. Also inquired if the City gave $10,000 at this time as a one-time shot, could the Chamber pay back the amount to the City during a fixed period of time. Ms. Windbigler felt it would be hard to make this committment; should talk to the Chamber Board before she could give an answer. Councilman Evans reiterated that he could not support $10,000 across the board, but was willing to explore the loan and options other Council Members might have. Motion No. CC-86-292, fails, 2-1-1 with Councilman Evans and Mayor Grant voting NO and Mayor Pro Tem Matteson abstaining. POLICE CHIEF REPORT Captain Bradford gave report about a homicide that had occurred on Wednesday, December 17, 1986 involving a female living at 22853 DeBerry Street. A search warrant was obtained and the search revealed findings of human body parts found in a refrigerator in the garage. Positive identification had not been made. A male suspect, James David Loftsinger, that resides at the DeBerry Street address was being sought for questioning. Captain Bradford gave details on the car and other information and asked the neighbors and anyone else that might have information regarding the suspect, the vehicle, or the homicide itself, to contact the Sheriff's Homicide Division. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Councilman Evans referred to a letter from City Attorney Hopkins regarding his having gone into private practice; would this mean a Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 10 410 re -negotiation of his contract and could the City Attorney give further input. The City Attorney explained that he has always been in private practice and had been the City Attorney long before he was with the law firm and there should be no contractual problems; will also continue as the CRA Attorney for the City and that he will be sending a duplicate letter addressing Community Redevelopment Agency specifically. Mayor Grant reported the following: (1) represented the City at the Omnitrans Board Meeting on December 10, 1986. On the same date also attended the San Bernardino Association Government Meeting with an interesting discussion about the Las Vegas Supported Magnetic Levitation Train (MEGLEV). Conclusion was reached that it would not benefit Southern California, only beneficial to Clark County, Nevada; (2) attended the Local Agency Formation Commission on December 17 and did vote in opposition to Loma Linda annexing certain parcel(s) of land. The reason for this vote was the parcel(s) would have created an island within the City which goes against State Law. Mayor Grant reminded everyone that this would be the last time he; would be able to ask if there was anything else to discuss before closing the meeting. Adjourned at 7:58 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, January 8, 1987, at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Acting City Clerk APPROVED Mayor Council Minutes - 12/18/86 Page 11 SThFF REP T DATE: Jan. 15, 198 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. -? 'I: -:_ SUBJECT 1986-87 TDA ARTICLE 8 CLAIM FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX V Jan. 22, 1987 The San Bernardino Associated Government has made available the information necessary to submit the City's 1986-87 Article 8 TDA Claim. After determining that all transportation needs will be met, a balance of $152,130 is available to the City for street purposes. Part of the filing process requires the City to adopt a resolution claiming the funds. STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO CLAIM $152,130 OF TDA ARTICLE 8 TRANSPORTATION FUNDS. TS:bt i S:+ I""t" N i DA 1FOR NIA .'—SS"_1..- is�i 3L:'-' '�-S ART iCL_ 8a C_.' I;1 F 0R!•, - F1SI.AL YEAR. DATE. IS-$? ,N LAih,u, T. ?AYMENT ?E'1 A-INT: (r%-( OF T RPUSE: (Check one box only ( ) Article 8, PUC Section 99400a Local Streets and Roads ( ) Article 8, PUC Section 99400a Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities a iman z ;,a-795 Mailing 15Ar}oh Rd Address CorAn d Terra c a 9a3;t4 (City and Zip Code Thomas Sol w^6 F;hAnce D; for Attention -- Na:-,,-- and Title) SW T' p*mas Sc.%wa 6 8.1iI -66W I (Contact Person, - Phone Number) GETAIL OF REQUESTED ALLOCATION: At4CUNT 1. Payment from unallocated Funds dq IS a� l3D 2. 1. Planning Contribution to I`AG (Imoerial County only 3. .3% Planning Contribution to SCAG (Imo=-rial and Ventura Counties 4. Total Allocation Requested (Line 1 less Lines 2 and 3) 1 5 Z A s o S. Payment from Reserves (Drawdown of funds reserved in a previous year) CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to monies being available, and to the provision that such monies will be used only in accordance with the allocation instructions. CTC USE ONLY AUTHORIZING SIGN;,TURF(CLAIlrtANT'S CHIEF AGMINISTRATOR OR FINANCIAL CFFICER) i ilon►gS sc nwa 6 Finance Pirer+or (Print Name and Title) Pay-ment Schedule Requested: one payment Monthly Qtrly Other -- Indicate monthly payments on the following schedule: 7 10 1 4 8 11 2 5 9 12 3 6 FY 1986-87 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND DISTRIBUTION May 14, 1986 OMNIIRANS SERVICE AREA ------------------------------------- FY 1587 FY 1987 12/21186) Article 4 FY 1987 Article 8 Distribution FY 1906 Total Article B Jurisdiction:--------- Apportionment Transit Reserve------- ------------------------------------- Streets-- Factor ------- --------------------------------- Unallocated Street Claim Chino S36B,382 0.075 1150,339 S51B,721 Colton $181,735 0.037 $74,171 S255,906 Fontana $358,559 0.073 $146,335 1504,874 Grand Terrace 1102,059 (1.022 144.071 1152,13i� Loma Linda $961 ;i5 0.0"C0 $40,065 113B,320 Montclair $24,559 0.005 31011U2 134,741 Ontario $633,617 0.129 $258,767 $872,384 Rancho Cucamonga $628,706 0.128 $2569453 SO851159 Redlands $422,412 0.006 $172,:61 $594,773 Rialto 1442,U59 0.09u 31B0,325 t622,384 San Bernardino City $147,353 0.030 $60,565 S2Uf1,318 San Bernardino County $1,031,469 0.210 $4219177 $10452,646 Upland W6,617 0.095 $190,382 $656,999 TOTAL: 116,031,352 $9,119,590 12,000,000 $4,911,762 1.000 12,005,613 Sb,917,375 v RESOLUTION NO. 87 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FY 1986-87 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM. WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace has been allocated $152,130 for Article 8 Street and Road purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace that the City of Grand Terrace hereby claims $152,130 and forwards said claim, along with a certified copy of this Resolution, to San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANDBAG) for processing. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Acting City Clerk of the City -of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. , 1987. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. I, ALICIA CHAVEZ, 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 , 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved as to form: City Attorney Acting City Clerk STJkFF REP T DATE: Jan. 15, 198 I'M,?* C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X MEETING DATE: Jan. 22, 1987 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT STAFF ATTENDANCE AT THE CSMFO ANNUAL SEMINAR FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX The California Society of'Municipal Finance Officers is holding its Annual Seminar on February 11-14, 1987 at the Fresno Airport Holiday Inn. Funds have been budgeted for this purpose. The approximate cost of attendance will be $400. STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ATTEND THE 1987 CSMFO ANNUAL SEMINAR IN FRESNO. TS:bt Aftw PARKS Mgt tft* CAMW cwr ,4 RS PRESrN ;-,J 41t,"%"-l-, L041it 6-0 rec4t. Jig 0111 D k T.Xen R- 1rderhavIgnw 'CITY STAFF #R0-ZNT.;,' Randall "NON GUESTS: mav,6r,-_.Huuh Orant, Barbara PO4ijo A*Aslq: CALLTO DRUM: 7-in P" bu- ITF-MS 1. Minutei upon a motloi approved bW, rvA.J*w#, e., TOUR d* TZR ^237 zed 6VA organ 3. ---------- 'T Communitu- cr t1he 6044nt - individuals f Jason Ott14_1.,'AQVW1_'t0, cubit.., to=r dt 'Ji"VILAI ija j1d the eilid' til, TB race Ot t ccui� be set Aftur ovided t;M P ;*wd*'f e0i*!, uspid to *t wl'COO*-. b this �",tt ACTION ttEtt 'OUBM11' I$ -To txT-Y._.._c;L. V av- Cut'-- rebar ASAP`'..'ra VbPOit pour came0t,ftr Pat. it was unanimously agrted. will be wr-wct'id to protoft, patrons, sxist'jtV-. -fincing on bia-arr FundWLtc �be used - and upgrad , 1� - - - U: From the State Bond Act, 4. SNACKSAR rENCING—Snackbi "f*v.-=jng- 1%..Uo. has been given key respeMsitilitwi- Mai -CA-0, 14-5295 13 ick loot WOO -3 '.� y �'i� .5,' " x � �, ; ,fie • � '• i� d l,' r� � 7 $ ,_ r •-ax-+' z.. L -r 1 . - i L AT. S ON COMM I TTEE. MEET I NQ <<'-1.X. . `C}CR I : t $RLE 6HT IS-7he pt�►9t'j'°t' F =< �Al .,. i'th t dditictn of .tom 'k ,#aut thltr x ii stablishMd..' hid :#4 ', t :. Christmas 4*corating, a�warc s`. "stat TV,, r,. kit' s;s proC'am is stilluct�Cirrg rr� .. stt icay td { Cane donati460, '. I t was suggested, ' iteet°?.a ni contacted at, x i Y Christmas Ligrti S. P.1CO FAR p"per utilatat lsndti, ., A��rvlw'7 y sr4i to '+It d'ttir`,zK ' '►red tI't�';.T�t yaCasu rC`:< xa1'tt m41 ` M w I a -with this r3c tioablea and eigfiClent plan for t sl Tefrace in a. !;- .time `fraime be developed ° del a Ot.. 1987 to .send California for 4 ft"'t. Award " 4 'This ComMt-tht "i dt i t► }3.`t Metr:ygold. f`rma hct� fie c3 . h ad: loft h* _ T `LEAS'P 1 r be I P lkyv paperWork ACTION I TEM � t1i'' U-0 ' TO C ry cat#4c ,,.' : 7. RsndW Atsi*cheers ;i,'•�rini.e9:"` State Bond `Pas!'k t . blr. rat•r�-�,e�+t ,'a�fsi f i sr: a l year ,* cl l.$s8" This committ* ;; tsp meeting what .,tl1' � ' s ca`U31ft` rrabie 8 . T.J. AUST"4'1' .A.,"TEE-�Ti: Cv ft I+c: it this time aeso1?teas a rrt'a will date this r`i�mnn irr °,fi t t est ,rtes S . Lenay Fit eo i�dinvit�: numerous wades ..`tNO to tnrt{; abundance © Children's 14bs'pitbl' ©f-Ore}r►ga` k 10. Lenny Frost in ti:ort 3 Sued. to, thea:F' �rji� _Jn_'the°w' inyt, Tat Program that,~a.sfxgle us+et `aC- ei''`lated ftai'''the program. At this time, dust tia" Fi Vn, ark- 64,iidind Codes, na _ such building caulet b detc c e 3 r a rt ' i stow: for- Future - discussion.. fee:;Wage McCarthy mentioned <`t t the. Tiny. Tqt. Program--, -is, happU ' n... ,t the Comtitunity Car�te�r,. dat F tltie fast that the INN .0 LATJON COMMITTEE MEETING praMBER 1, ises Children S$lletin boards tOnd'-to b*"evor-W Monday due to the'tttivitW in thi Community weekends. 11. CPRS Confertfic* to in San Francisco. Ir-tr r #tion mailed wet. it will be di sod in JanuarW WK4 CoWni"Loners w-il,1 represent arihd Terraca based on -ti cohstraints. Ugh Dick Rollins swWWstod'that a S*6LA0,11%)k t,bw.diractad on the Snadkbar for better socurit4 p i ti er, SRandy Anstine will check into this. Meeting adjourn4d at S:SO pm. Respectfully submitted, v Barbara M.-Conlew Recording Secret-*rU U ITM LAUGH A BRAN. ' • *Ili' �" ? , " , = �FDfir. W v PREIV ti:.. P ti . vom* . i n oma nc i ng r Those present were:►utyc+e,apirr nlison� .dr. Ralph-'Buchv�alter',rt8; a;:a}les� 5erai wn`Kot'ar1� Community Service Qfi'J cam: ' v Guest; Floyd GiTbreiht Senior DOWy.' _ QlD JUSIJ ESS ; The Committee r'evi:et+cisu'ss-tit'�itt�aby t citizens for <the trio v�r .tom " tf e. It wa; =fe ' '#fi all Three -applicants ..we " : tfi4 � �s ! o ii�t,e meMation was that all ',tom:: p 1=i s ba o 4 r a ftrum, of fire :emrs ?'Or fiast'n fir- k� t f f member jai saes three iirrs a.,,�� # 01 p i. r: A vote was Aakem -r-O OW#A ` he 40 � 3p r. i# the Crime Prevent#on nts be , accepted. Th1. motion 5'wa� °.ecot►ced'f�" applicants. ,-' �.xx.. l` ,. .. - Wit', .i,-, - .., ': .• a. - CSO Korgan re;sd j9 5: ;=., f= Oo.lso ' giver, out as ate, "too shd. chi.l dry r n I de ,. fir. Ral fr Ouchwalter tM-VAM west grerir NEW, MMW CSO r an ,jadvisd`f. ri t°. gyw'. Yu�' rand, er~ir;y was, gGi rag to' 'mtrti C j pf; °:r�r a #. '`ab �► , { 197 using the Sheri ff `s`ri s,r .s i,.. 'bird tp airst`. CSO Korgan i'n :this efi'dr•t, u' Senior Deuty Gil: tk z se � 1 al p b w s a' i b d` rim' n activity in the comonf. , lfe � ` a has bn of the lowest came ratet iir- t r, there,wor. only three burglarli".-and in ^ee,cas s ;fir nded + l*1'thind- the casks were cleared. CSO Korgan advised , th under the: „fiat �rac a ►s reilitil red to kelp,; time sheet of their activities in '>'e erc handed out the current Grant for.,--e4,c ;meftrr'Wrevia* ems:-picict ar€ ,a'ft�r of ifit�res�` for d-fscussion at -tbe next meeting,. City3 Pundilwoman Barbara Pfa�W? `z h line . vantion personnel and NUff i~ A a t 'is t -re itsi t t:, f t1 CRI Program and the i r of-, -efforts' ' wil-I assure continued participati6tv in the area of funding. rned at 7:30.P.M. The next meeting.is scheduled on Monday, ` Secretary ' ; OUCATION: (List highest year CUPleted and al I 7- Are there any workday even i*1!qS YOU could not lute t? res If so, please list: Why are you Interested 14,aih positioft.: 7 7-7`7o be ,your ift�4�r,qutjlficttfo V What do you cons ides- to, REr MENCES: CITYUAND TERMCE A.4 C. x 2. 3. h written sta�eff"'t ,Atainrtng:,�ny addimional in fo rma ti,,On you feel fie a A -_ fu ' 1 to the Ci ty Counci 1. r.. tm MR C ►THY QF.GRrAtQ TAR R a c E h APP__ ATi©N" CFTI ; - `¢;_ •�?. Stll' TO City- . As 3 gw } f ME PHONE • .. .r �S1 NES'S AMU -EDUCATION: (List highest year compl*ted 4—M all Are these any workday evoftings you 0,04 not ftdt? Yet y kr . , H�.J '" _ ` so lease list: • ` t` MA, Whyare you interested ' : tiii t i Lion What do you consider to be =-YdU * or .W REFERENCES: •ems AR i��it-�i� i St 2 . .. _ • - 3. Lov,r%^ =° M h a. ri tten statement cbnta4n-,i.nj, PY A—dditionat 'inforMation. Youf4ti ,w�+��d;. ` "* `Ci ty Council. ;.the Ow .�� - �'-33'yr _�,.. - < .. i343 -�.�, A.._ _.... - -,:. .- n. ,�'�t r- �� - .. ... z ..'�-f•T�:}�• .tom -... ;'�, � r E ^R IR� A C`,E PP of 6�°�_: ,�-:-*::,� � _. '{ " ��: h � - •> � f, �._ ADDRESS 4 t �" � � � P -• it •'.! }:t -G. "ie- _ PHO�/� ME g� glass.. i i4.•r� s+nr.in�rr ir4rrii rri�.tirr •iikrr*�Wr , s ` . rtog:' (List high" year 000 01*d sad `a l' 4"W� 8achelcrs Ike e , , c _ lire any workdtyi:s-.mac-`raid .nod ets�es� so, y are �roa .interested ` "a � Obi=�fon: ass t ► z ;: s; u #. ,.. , have an intense inrt` .help :tstw a -fictive crime . prevention that do you consider to;b-e 3 'quay a . and upper peraduat d" _-1t%htr 7777 1•� ShSlif f Vlotdj 2. Sberif is Lieut ' nt . , 3• Sheriff Is De ut 'T; P1 ::at ch ` w-ritte EatWer� Ontai'ri v, --ink 40,t Wdr i�� ►. �' � ��� � �� be �ssSM., to the Ci ty taulvd It.., � i"W1 ft__ 1W IA nj OM464GRANT of -T -RACE sw N E PREVENTIO COI& TOW-ft"A "MN14 I.Av"s AC. ',-,SHARON Kt RGAN 'Otion -sit on Monday, Committed 198-6, commencing at Those eiti' were: Laurie Payte, Chairperson; Ron Wri'ght.'Vic*-Chairperson; ailph ��ter, Tr, �"T R essurer-, Robert Bailes, Secretar mph and Sharon Koiganj -Community Service -Officer. Guests: Bruce Foytik.and Jim Singley - dpplicantwl6r,th4 CV1*_e Preve:A-tioft Committee; Ed O'Neal,.past-Committee member. BUSINESS Minutes from meeting of November 3 were approved. Semph discusseM, Ppoposed,bike ralley and registratidn 01'vw which will probably 'Se ph be set for Mafch 198% ph will -attempt -to geeld* f-rt*'- local, businesses. Drivers license numbers of, the children,_is parents. are --to be,,*6Xked on the bikes. Korgan will distribute reminder cards to everybody' sev# '-dars before committee meetings. Korgan discussed the outcome ',of the essay contest c',6n4uc]te#':i'P the public ublic schools in Grand Terrace whichwasan overwhelming -success, Committee discussed the current grant for Coma" # _y $er icer.. It was further discussed to .whom, §haron Urgan should r*#*rt-'t*z.4 ardioin$-.her activities. Korgan advised that she is'-t-6'have a meeting d,tentral Station. and Captain Brody, Public Affairs Division- every' two, vdvioe. NEW BUSINESS Safety Fair was discussed for' the month of'.April A,98.7. Korgan requested financial assistan;_e,from to";-h -new-forms printed t madi motion to- , may; hwa-.ter Otoaded this Bud,* for citizen apprecia ion. Semph- motion. Agenda to be made up one -week- prior to Committee meetings,. Information to be provided to Chairperson ftyce. Singley-inquired about Committee budget and what monies are available. informed that $3.660 was budgeted by the City for 1986. I 1 4CJvj*- (714) 024-"21% KiiAl *' tU-5295 O'Neal 'Ar CR a or-,, Tie V -t 4 l"Unt"t 0 140- a isco" iWW*WdKtW,i_A - 4 r ie members. All Auii Po"tr,are time spent performing Commifttpi�-, Are, to! b4. .j - -$Ugloy volunteers -to,� -utdr 3s#, wur jl� In'T 7 Buchwaltet volunteered.. A., r Jj 01 -andl* - I t", Bailes volunteered to 'h jQ a 04" oowk k #rapa edniss r mock ro ary Program. 77 bb by working in liaison wiar: nageo"i Duchwalter advised he -would donate slion de programs, "ft- for Corim �rcial Businesses, Foytik and Buchwaltejvolunteered to assist on bu ti g-., r Wright volunteered to. $ ist,; Somph on tik'.. apis t-t.at 00111 Pa thisier rosrim,:W4 t 4r �F ,yce is setting up: a Cr o that it sh#a'd. She, ovte'ri4-We flyers. PVC.pipe aid, IT nk � iolabursed once "gram io i'mpitieivi -91 iio, tw' te,14pdg; Semphseconded thisS. mg, epy vo Watderei�`, Buster Program. i '$ft W.' -1*A4 1, Grant n -wdOC ba �,947. - t r t O'Neal advised thiat bt48o_t;A4- ari as PLI " 4a the,, ty t6 Lost of renewed, U t is not 0 the Of- U0 the Community Servix" 7 _.'P0duqt1.,,, possibility of the-' it Id"Most. y7,f ddiiAg the C***M1 Wright put out infaimailon concerning oup o The group .offers td1p".--,iit",io#tinkier'systet,.S6,t,'. UP iront:, starts the work and newir—com toW,4-t. Meeting adjourn6d'at Next -.I sfttft, -jat%i*ry 5 -1"7, Monday. ROBERT S. BAILES Secretary DATE: Jan. 15, 1987 S TFF REP RT C R A ITEM ( ) /� COUNCIL ITEM FX) MEETING DATE: Jan. 22, 1987 AGENDA ITEM NO. (o SUBJECT CONTRACT AWARD FOR PLANNING SERVICES FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED With the resignation of our current Planning Contract, the City Staff sent out a Request for Proposal to eight firms that provide contract planning services. The City received five proposals. The firm's proposal for which we are recommending awarding the contract is attached to this Staff Report, and the other four proposals are available for review in the reading box. Any Council member wishing to have a personal copy of all the proposals can request copies from the City Clerk's office. The Request for Proposal which is also attached required that the firm locate within the City and provide office hours of Monday through Thursday from 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. for developer or citizen inquiry, provide planning staff support and attendance at all Planning Commission and City Council Meetings, and act on behalf of the City for all matters relating to planning. At this time staff feels that this level of staffing proposed is sufficient and can be adjusted upward or downward as activity demands. If a point is reached when full in-house staffing is justified, the City will have the option of terminating the contract and going in-house. Staff has attached the projection for in-house planning costs for your review. All of the proposals differ slightly in the method of delivery of planning services. All of the proposals would be billing on time and materials so the common thread between all the proposals is the hourly rate that would be charged. The following is a breakdown of the proposed hourly rates: Principal Associate of Firm Name Planner Project Planner Planning Associates $85 $55 Willdan Associates 45 30 D. G. King 75 45 Harrison Associates 65 -- Gary Mitchell Assoc. 90 55 Secretarial $28 15 25 20 STAFF REPORT -- CONTRACT AWARD FOR PLANNING SERVICES January 15, 1987 Page 2 The evaluation panel felt that any of the above firms were highly qualified and could provide planning services to the City. The issue then turns to the cost of having the services provided. The panel, based on qualifications as well as cost, is recommending the proposal of Willdan and Associates. The proposal made by Willdan and Associates will provide all basic planning services mentioned above for a projected rate of $47,500 per year. The derivation of that figure is as follows: Clerical General 16 Hrs Wk @ $15 Hr X 52 Wks = $12,480 Clerical Meetings 8 Hrs Mo @ $15 Hr X 12 Mo = $ 1,440 Planner Meetings 16 Hrs Mo @ $45 Hr X 12 Mo = $ 8,640 Project Planner 16 Hrs Wk @ $30 Hr X 52 Wks = $24,960 Total $47,520 In addition to the basic services, Willdan proposes to provide any fee -based services such as subdivision map processing for 80% of our current fee. This arrangment will insure that the project pays for itself and the City only pays for actual activity generated. It is estimated that, based on our current activity level, this will amount to an additional $10,000 per year. Our current budget for planning is projected to provide sufficient funds to continue basic planning services to the end of the fiscal year, but additional funds will be required for the General Plan review and the rewriting of the Title 18 Zoning Ordinance. When quotations are received for the General Plan update, staff will be requesting an additional appropriation. In summary, Staff feels that Willdan and Associates with their staff of ten in the planning division will be able to provide a diverse background of experience and knowledge at the most cost effective manner for the City. If selected, Willdan and Associates will be able to immediately begin work on the General Plan Amendment for the area affected by the moratorium and will be able to take over the day-to- day planning needs of the City by March 5, 1987. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR PLANNING SERVICES TO WILLDAN AND ASSOCIATES AT THE HOURLY RATES AS SET FORTH ABOVE AND THE ICOPE OF SERVICES AS OUTLINED IN THEIR PROPOSAL. SA:TS:bt Attachments M IN HOUSE PLANNING COST PROJECTION Planning Director $33,698 Secretary 17,232 Benefits 17,985 Total Personnel $68,915 Office Expense 1,600 Special Departmental 1,000 Advertising 500 Maint. & Oper. of Equip. 200 Professional Services 1,000 Contractual Services 3,000 Travel and Meetings 1,500 Mileage 150 Total Maint. & Oper. 8,950 Added Expenses to non -departmental for copies to run packet, phone expenses, etc. 3,000 Total In -House Planning $80,865 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING SERVICES Introduction The City of Grand Terrace, population approximately 10,000, invites qualified firms to submit proposals to provide Planning Department services for the current fiscal year. The City of Grand Terrace is located in San Bernardino County on Freeway I-215, with the southerly boundary bordering Riverside County. Additional statistical information is available upon request. Proposals should be addressed to the attention o31th city Manager, and are to be received by 5:00 P.M. 86. Scope of Services The City requires the assumption of all functions and duties typically conducted by a municipal Planning Department, which include: 1. Serve as City Staff for all Planning Commission Meetings, to include preparation and distribution of all Planning Commission agenda materials and minutes. Preparing City Council agenda materials and representing the City on planning matters before the Council. The Planning Commission and the City Council each customarily conduct two regular meetings per month. 2. Administering the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, including responding to citizen and developer inquiries. 3. Review and make recommendations and conditions of approval for tentative subdivision map and development plan proposals for conformance with zoning and other planning ordinances and policies. 4. Coordinating with other City departments for review of current development proposals, capital improvement programs, budgeting and other policy matters. 5. Administering environmental assessment and review pro- cedures for all City projects. 6. Coordinating with City Staff the preparation of new ordinances, amendments, general plan element revisions, and special planning studies. -2- Contents of Proposal Proposals should include at least the following: 1. Commitment to staffing. 2. Scope of work for services to be provided. 3. Cost of the service. 4. Fees you would propose the City adopt, if different from those of San Bernardino County. The consultant will be required to locate an office within the City of Grand Terrace. Limited space is available within the Civic Center. The proposal should also include the following information: ' 1. Whether the proposal includes provision of office space for your personnel by the City and, if so, how much space would be required. 2. Alternatively, whether your firm would provide the space required by your personnel. 3. Identify the personnel who would be assigned to provide this service, together with their qualifications. 4. Include a list of those municipalities or counties for which your firm is currently providing the services included in your proposal. 5. Minimum staffing level would consist of four half days (M-Th afternoons 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.) with an individual with enough knowledge to man the planning counter. The City Planner would need to be available one of the half days as required to meet with developers and citizens.