The URL can be used to link to this page

03/24/198341TY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING TERRACE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 22731 Grand Terrace Road * * * * A G E N Call to Order Invocation - Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call D A Staff COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Recommeridati ons 1. Approval of Minutes (2-24-83) (3-10-83) Approve 2. Approval of Check Register No. CRA032483 Approve 3. Deferred Compensation Participation Approve 4. Commercial Development Status Report ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Items to add/delete. 2. Approval of Minutes (2-24-83) (3-3-83) Approve (3-10-83) 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The bottowi.ng Consent Catendan items ate expected to be nowtine and non-contAoveA— z i s e. They w tt be acted upon by the Counci.2 at one time without-di,scu�ss on. Any Councit MembeA, Sta.bj MembeA, on Citizen may %equest an .item to be nemoved bnom the Consent Ca.Cendan bon discussion. A. Approval of Check Register No. 032483 Approve B. Authorize CRA Members and Employees Approve to Participate in the City of Grand Terrace Employees Deferred Compensa- tion Plan. MARCH 24, 1983 5:30 P.M. Council Action COUNCIL AGENDA Page 2 of 3 C. Authorize City Clerk to attend City Clerks Assoc. of Calif. Annual Conf. in Sacramento April 21-23, 1983. D. E. F. RESOLUTION NO. 83- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, REQUEST ING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED NEW FEDERALISM LEGISLATION. RESOLUTION NO. 83- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, OPPOS- ING PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO RE-ALLOCA' REVENUE GENERATED FROM VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS. RESOLUTION NO. 83- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, DESIG- NATING THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE & TAXATION CODE. G. RESOLUTION NO. 83- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, ESTABLI SHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON LA CROSSE AVENUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 22507 OF THE STATE VEHICLE CODE: H. Approve Proclamation designating April 24 as "General Federation of Women's Club Day, to be presented to Grand Terrace Woman's Club 3-30-83. I. Approve Certificate of Commendation to be presented to Grand Terrace Woman's Club 3-30-83, in honor of celebration of its 75th Anniversary. COUNCIL AGENDA Page 3 of 3 4. ORAL REPORTS A. Planning Commission B. Parks & Recreation Committee C. Energy Committee D. Historical & Cultural Activities (1) Establishment of Policy for Theater Group. E. Crime Prevention Committee F. Emergency Operations Committee G. Police Chief H. Fire Chief I. City Engineer J. City Attorney K. City Manager L. City Council (1) Proclamation Designating April 18-24, 1983 as "Great California Resource Week." 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Contract Award - Barton Road Sidewalk & Beautification Project. B. FY 1982-83 Budget Reductions 7. NEW BUSINESS A. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, ESTABLI SHING REGULATIONS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SECOND FAMILY UNITS WITHIN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. ADJOURN NEXT REGULAR MEETING - THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 198 AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 4-14-83 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY 12:00 NOON ON 4-6-83. PENDING CRA APPROVAL MAR 2 4 pol COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CRA AGENDA ITEM N0, ,�, CITY OF GRAND TERRACE J �~ MARCH 24, 1983 CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA032483 CHECK NO. OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MARCH 24, 1983 *(1) P1133 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON CO. LOW VOLTAGE RISER AT PALM & BARTON TRIANGLE $ 33.25 (2) P1134 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR GRANT & PETTA, AND DEF. COMP. FOR NIX 350.00 (3) P1135 JIM RIGLEY AGENCY DIRECTORS' FRINGE MARCH 1983 150.00 (4I P1136 ROY NIX AGENCY DIRECTORS' FRINGE MARCH 1983 100.00 (5) P1137 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN AGENCY DIRECTORS' FRINGE MARCH 1983 150.00 (6) P1138 BROWN & NAZAREK LEGAL SERVICES FOR NOVEMBER 1982 204.75 (7) P1139 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY SERVICES 11/20/82-2/25/83 14,962.59 CRA PORTION OF CITY INSURANCE 2,420.00 INTEREST ON LOAN FROM CITY THRU 12/31/83 55,437.27 TOTAL:CITY 72,819.85 (8) P1140 MYRNA ERWAY LOCAL MILEAGE 1/17-1/21/83 8.00 TOTAL: $73,815.86 11 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 THE CRA. EDWARD R. CLARK TREASURER *CHECK RELEASED PRIOR TO CHECK REGISTER APPROVAL Date: March 16, 1983 STAFF C R A ITEM (XX) COUNCIL ITEM ( ) MEETING DATE: March 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 SUBJECT: Agency Members Deferred Compensation Staff has consulted with Glendale Federal Savings and Loan, who were the originators of the City's Deferred Compensation Plan, regarding Agency Members contributing deferred income into the plan. According to Maryann Spicer, Glendale Federal's legal counsel, the City should agree to accept contributions from Agency Members into the plan and the CRA should agree that any directors or future employees of the Agency can become participants of the plan. Staff Recommends That Agency: AUTHORIZE CRA MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMPLOYEES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN. BM;gk GRAND TERRACE PENDING C11 Y �301INC11'-lPPP0','AI 14AR 2 4 j9Rj nn 9OUNCCAGENDA ITEM #3;o " HECK REGISTER NO. 032483 PAGE NO. DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO 83-092 DATE 03/24/83. CHER PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED WARRANT CHECK � WRITTEN go. DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CHG'D INV NO. AMOUNT NO AMOUNT BASTAI4CHURY BOTTLED WATER BOTTLED vATER,FINANCE 10-4190-238 66501 16.80 BOTTLED NATER,MAINT. 10-4190-238 66800 8.50 BOTTLED ►nATER,CITY M.ANAG 10-4190-238 66502 25.40 BOTTLED WATER,PLANNING 10-4190-238 66799 21.25 BOTTLED hATER,CITY MANAG, 10-4190-238 62999 8.3U BOTTLED hATER,FINANCE 10-4190-238 62998 12.45 10977 92.70 FROWN 8 NAZAREK LEGAL SERVICES 11/82 10-4160-250 1488.21 1097E 148e.21 COLTON, CITY OF w.ty.D. SERVICES 4/83 21-4570-704 18604.80 1097 18604.80 COLTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTR COUNCIL MEET. 2/1092/24/ 10-4110-242 175.00 PLANNING COM.MEET. 2/7/8 10-4801-242 25.00 S[DUARE DANCE 1/1&2/1/83 13-4430-242 120.00 1098 320.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAIV I � DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 10-2164-000 693.00 DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 10-2170-000 10.47 DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 10-4120-140 548.76 DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 10-4125-140 362.06 DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 10-4140-140 554.12 DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 10-4180-140 210.26 DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 10-4370-140 277.31 DEF.COMP.P/R END. 2/25/8 13-4430-140 168.02 DEF.COMP.P/P END. 2/25/8 21-4572-140 100.03 P3711 2924,05 EMPLOYEESRETIREMENT FUND RETIRE.P/P END. 2/25/83 10-2167-000 45.19 RETIRE.P/P ENn. 2/25/R3 10-4120-140 375.Q6 j RETIRE.P/R EIJD. 2/25/83 10-4125-14n 248.04 RETIRE.P/R END. 2/25/83 10-4140-140 314.40 RETIRE.P/R ENO. 2/25/83 10-4180-140 144.04 RETIRE.P/R END. 2/25/83 10-4370-140 189.98 RETIRE.P/R END. 2/25/83 13-4430-140 115.10 A GRAND TERRACE 4 PAGE NO. DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 63-092 DATE 03/24/83 CHER PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN 10. DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CHG'D INV. NO. AMOUNT NO AMOUNT RETIRE.P/R END. 2/25/83 21-4572-140 68.53 P3716 1501.24 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. PIT P/R TAX 3/10/83 10-2162-000 708.42 SDI P/R TAX,3/10/83 10-2163-000 286.03 P372C 994.45 GRAND TERRACE LOCK & KEY NAME PLATES (2) 10-41407210 1915 12.19 10981 12.19 GRAND TERRACE HARDM.'ARE STEEL BUCKETS (2) 12-4631-255 1296 13.24 1098i 13.24 ALEXANDER GRANT & COMPANY LABELS, W.W.D.LETTER 21-4572-210 02111 127.30 10983 127.30 HARBER COMPANY PATCHING VARIOUS STREETS 16-4900-255 2205 800.00 BACKHOEr DUMP TRUCK, STRE 16-4900-255 2212 385.00 10984 1185.00 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL RENT TRUCK & SKIP LOADER 16-4900-255 555.06 P371 555.06; IPS SERVICES INCORPORATED ST.SWEEP.2/22 18-4908-255 1810 325.04 1098 325.04 ToJERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEME ELECTED OFFICIALS HANDBO 10-4110-210 47.25 10986 47.25 K MART #4432 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES C/H 10-4180-245 99733 46.08 1098 46.08 K—MART (10) BAGS OF FERTILIZER 10-4180-245 173202 95.06 1098E i 95.08 i GRAND TERRACE PAGE NO. 3 DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 83-092 DATE 03/24/83 PAYEE WARRANT CHECK UCHER DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED WRITTEN NO. DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CHG'D INV NO AMOUNT NO AMOUNT GwENDA KNIGHT LOCAL MILEAGE,KNIGHT 10-4140-271 8.33 LOCAL MILEAGE,KNIGHT 21-4572-271 3.20 10989 11.53 LAYMON CANDY COMPANY CANDY XMAS PARTY 13-4430-220 72000 174.96 10990 174,96 VIRGIL LIVELY CROSSING GUARD 2/28-3/ii 17-4910-250 127.20 10991 127.20 LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL TRASH PICK-UP,3/83,C/H 10-4180-245 33.80 TRASH PICK-UP13/83,PARK 13-4430-245 33.80 10992 67.60 MICHAEL LUNA USE OF TRUCK 2/83,LUNA 10-4180-240 122.12 LOCAL MILEAGE,2/21-3/2,L 10-4180-271 92.85 1099 214.97 JEAN MYERS CROSSING GUARD 2/28-3/11 17-4910-250 127.20 10994 127.20 CANDY NITSCHKE CLERICAL HELP 4 HRS. 10-4140-250 16.00 CLERICAL HELP 4 HRS. 21-4572-250 16.00 10995 32.00 ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO.,INC. EXTERMINATE C/H 3/83 10-4160-245 262862 50.00 10996 50.00 PUSTAL INSTANT PRESS PRINT PRELIM. BUDGET410-4140-210 976880 216-56 10997 216.56 83/84 PUSTMASTER/COLTON POSTAGE FOR METER 10-4190-210 400.00 CHECK VOID, PRE -PAID CHECK WRITTEN GRAND TERRACE PAGE NO. DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 83-092 DATE 03/24/83 ICMER N0. PAYEE OF DEMANDS PRESENTED wDETAIL WRITTEENE N DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CHG'D INV. NO. AMOUNT NO, AMOUNT CHECKVpI&OR METER 21-4572-210 500.00 10998 -tIIO:� RADIO SHACK REPAIR TAPE RECORDER 10-4110-210 508628 18.81 10999 18.E1 RIVERSIDE ROCKSCAPE PRODUCT 20 TONS SAND FOR SAND BA 12-4631-255 16644 274.40 11000 274.40 DICK ROLLINS CPRS MEET.3/6,ROLLINS 13-4807-270 85.88 11001 85.88 ROTO-ROOTER ' CLEAN STORM DRAINS 12-4631-255 04682 325.00 11002 325.00 SAN BERNARDINOPCOUNTY OF COUNTY CODE SUPPLEMENT 10-4190-210 94.04 11003 94.04) SAN BERNARDINO,AUDITOR/CONY 1/1/82-2/28/83 CJFTCF 10-2200-000 298.50 11004 298.50 COUNTY PORTION ON PARKING CI�ATIONS @$1.50/each SHERI F FLOYD TIDivELL LAW ENFORCE.THRU 2/28/83 10-4410-255 80388.05 P3719 8038e.05 SAN BERNARDINO, COU14TY OF DUMP.CHARGES 1/18-2/15/8 16-4909-255 842 149.00 11005 149.00 SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF TRAFFIC ENG. 7/82-12/82 16-4900-256 098/83 150.58 11006 150.58 SIGNAL h1AINTENANCE• INC. MAINT. (3) SIGNALS,2/83 16-4909-255 33544 199.23 REPAIR SIG.RARTONBPREST0�-,16-4909-255 d33591 42.23 11007 241.46 GRAND TERRACE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 83-092 PAYEE CHER 10. DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CHG'D INV. N SO. CALIF. EDISON COMPANY - ST.LIGHTS,1/1-2/28/83,EDI11-4510-238 LIGHTS IN PARK,3/83,(2) 13-4430-238 SQUIRES LUMBER COMPANY CONCRETE,NUTS,BOLTS 16-4900-255 1134 DISCOUNT SQUIRE LUMBER .16-4900-255 1134 STOCKWELL 8 BINNEY NOTE PADS,PENCILS,INDEX 21-4572-210 3359 GLUE STICKS (12) 21-4572-210 3350 TORO DISPOSAL, INC. RENT STORAGE BIN 3/83 10-4110-240 1009 PEGGY TROTTIER CMBTA MEET.3/4,TROTTIER 10-4140-270 LOCAL MILEAGE,TROTTIER 21-4572-271 ZAMPESE & DE BENEDET RENT.C/H 4/83 10-4190-242 RENT FIRE STATION 4/83 10-4411-242 HAL KELLY GRAIN 8 MILLING SAND BAGS (600) 12-4631-255 0107 CLARENCE FUQUA W.W.D.REFUND,FAQUA 21-311u-000 PASTOR RONALD HOOVER N.W.D. REFUND,HOOVER 2.1-3114-000 NATIONAL CHEMSEARCH PATCHING MATERIAL FOR 16-4900-255 4661 STREETS LEI PAGE NO. 5 DATE 03/24/83 z WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN AMOUNT NO. AMOUNT 4069.37 24.62 11008 48.65 .65-11009 28.04 4.83 11010 60.00 11011 40.33 1.75 11012 625.00 100.00 11013 222.60 1101 14.00 1101 6.30 11016 757.90 11017 4093.99E 48.001 32.871 60.001 42.081, 725.00i 222.601 14.001 6.301 757.801 two GRAND TERRACE DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO 83-092 PAGE NO. DATE 03/24/83+ CHER PAYEE DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED WARRANT CHECK WRITTEN +� DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CHG'D INV. NO AMOUNT NO. AMOUNT MONROE SYSTEMS FOR BUSINESS CALCULATOR 10-4140-700 945376 242.46 11018 242.46 TONY ROMERO :VORKER—STORM DAMAGE 12-4631-255 280.00 P3721 280.00 JOHN SALAS WORKER —STORM DAMAGE 12-4631-255 280.00 P3722 280.00 PAYROLL P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-2161-000 1672.89 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-2162-000 258.84 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-2163-000 98.15 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-2164-000 693.00 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-2167-000 45.19 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-2170-000 10.47 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-4120-110 3031.91 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-4125-110 2000.30 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-4140-110 3061.49 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-4180-110 1161.65 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 10-4370-110 1532.11 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 13-4430-110 928.26 P/R ENDING 2/25/83 21-4572-110 552.67 0 9489.85 I a GRAND TERRACE PAGE NO. DEMAND/WARRANT REGISTER NO. 83-092 DATE 03/24/831 PAYEE WARRANT CHECK OCHER DETAIL OF DEMANDS PRESENTED WRITTEN NO. DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CHG'D INV NO AMOUNT NO. AMOUNT roRITTEN 32161.68 REPAID 96412.70 CCRUED .00 TOTAL 128574.38 RECAP BY FUND RE —PAID hRITTEN FUND 10 93365.03 4400.33 FUND 11 .00 4069.37 I FUND 12 560.00 835.24 FUND 13 1211.38 439.26 FUND 16 555.06 2382.84 FUND 17 .00 254,40 FUND 18 .00 474.04 FUND 21 721.23 19306.22 I CERTIFY, THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFO ELISTED CHECKS FOR P YMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. DW RD R. CLARK FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER _ .w a T' Date: March 1A 1983 STAFF CC> C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: March 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT: Agency Members Deferred Compensation ti Staff has consulted with Glendale Federal Savings and Loan, who were the originators of the City's Deferred Compensation Plan, regarding Agency Members contributing deferred income into the plan. According to Maryann Spicer, Glendale Federal's legal counsel, the City should agree to accept contributions from Agency Members into the plan and the CRA should agree that any directors or future employees of the Agency can become participants of the plan. Staff Recommends That The Council: AUTHORIZE CRA MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMPLOYEES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN. BM;gk Date: i SYAFF P URT C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( X) MEETING DATE: 3-24-83 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3C SUBJECT: City Clerks Association of California Annual Conference The City Clerks Association of California will be holding its Annual Conference in Sacramento April 21-23. These conferences are essential, since they provide the City Clerk with the latest up-to-date information to ensure that all legal requirements for the City are being met. The City Clerk's budget for FY 1982-83 includes funds for this conference, and sufficient funds are available. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL: AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEND THE CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN SACRAMENTO APRIL 21-23, 1983. ME VAC ANNUAL CONFFRFN( APRIL 21 - 23, 1983 Capitot Ptaza Hot i.da. y Inn 300 "J" StAeet, Sauu men to, Cae i.johni,a. 0A, "�Ze9is}ration worm PLEASE COMPLETE AND MAIL WITH CHECK PAYABLE TO CCAC - DEADLINE: FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 1983 MAIL TO: FLORENCE LADECK, CITY CLERK REGISTRATION CHAIRMAN 1103 HIGH STREET AUBURN, CALIFORNIA 95603 PH. (916) 885-5661 Ext. 37 -ENCLOSED FIND CHECK(_S)/MONEY ORDER(S) TOTALING $ 125.00 FOR REGISTRATION FEE: 4AME OF DELEGATE Myrna Erway TITLE City Clerk MUNICIPALITY City of Grand Terrace SAILING ADDRESS 22795 Barton Road I TY Grand Terrace STATE CA Z I P 92324 CHECK IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST CCAC CONFERENCE and/or ( ) NEW CITY CLERK K4 REGISTRATION, $125 (includes all scheduled meals) ( ) GUEST/SPOUSE, $70 (includes all REGISTRATION, $135 after April 1, 1983 scheduled meals & Capi-tol Tour) *( ) GUEST/SPOUSE TOUR, $15.45 (additional) (see enclosed program for tour info) (Additional meal tickets may be purchased separately at registration desk) AME OF SPOUSE/GUEST AILING ADDRESS ITY STATE ZIP z-FUND POLICY FOR CANCELLATIONS: Cancellations received by April 1, 1983 will receive ill refund; after April 1, 1983 reservations will be accepted, but no refunds will be made. Must have 39 confirmed participants for tour. I 440 * Date: March , 1983 STAFF C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: March 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT: Requesting Federal Government to Allocate Direct to all Units of Local Government Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) The attached resolution asks that the Federal Government take action to allocate subject funds direct to cities under 50,000 in population. This resolution opposes the current federal initiative. The current federal initiative will combine federal revenue sharing and block grant funds for delivery to entitlement jurisdictions. Under this proposal we would only receive a share of general revenue sharing funds. National allocation of small cities'block grant funds would be combined with general revenue sharing to states. States would not be required to implement a small cities' program. Staff Recommends Council: ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION Enc; 1. Proposed Resolution 2. City of Vista, February 15, 1983 3. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, January 12, 1983 memo EC;gk MAR � pEND1NG CITY'- COUNCIL AGEWITEg 3 3 ,� COUNCIL ApppoVAL RESOLUTION N0. 83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED NEW FEDERALISM LEGISLATION. WHEREAS, Congress and the Executive Branch of the United States Government is considering the relationship between Federal, State, and local government relative to Federalism proposals; and WHEREAS, historically the Federal Government has only recognized cities of fifty thousand in population and greater as units of local government for the purpose of a direct relationship; and WHEREAS, 80 percent of all cities within the State of California (344 of 428) are under fifty thousand population; and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace may be positively or adversely affected by the proposed Federal legislation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace desires to take a proactive approach in influencing Federal legislation; and WHEREAS, the Federal Government encourages the input of local units of government; and WHEREAS, cities are the unit of local government closest to the people; and WHEREAS, small communities nationwide have proven their ability to directly administer Federal funds through the General Revenue Sharing Program; and WHEREAS, priority setting for the use of Federal funds, once appropriated by Congress, should be made at the local level; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Community Development Block Grant Funds be allocated directly to all units of local government, including those under fifty thousand pop Ttion, utilizing the same rationale and formula that currently exists for allocations to entitlement jurisdictions. This action could result in substantial savings to the Federal Government by reducing administrative costs at the Federal, State, and County levels of the government. SECTION 2. To request the Executive Branch of Government and the local representative Congressional Delegation to take a leadership role to introduce legislation to effect this change. SECTION 3. That members of key Congressional Committees be informed of the request in an effort to effect New Federalism Legislation slated for debate this year. ADOPTED this 24,th day of March, 1983. Encl.*I / City of Vista February 15, 1983 SUBJECT: FEDERAL INITIATIVE TO COMBINE GENERAL REVENUE SHARING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Dear Mayor and City Manager: Please join in our urgent effort to see that small communities gain Entitlement status to receive our fair share of Community Development Block Grant and Revenue Sharing funds in the future. Collectively we are in danger of being "lost in the shuffle" of lobbying efforts by States, Urban Counties, and big cities. The current Federal Initiative will combine Federal Revenue Sharing and Block Grant funds for delivery to ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTIONS. Under this proposal we would only receive a share- of General Revenue Sharing funds. National allocation of Small Cities Block Grant funds would be combined with General Revenue Sharing to States. States would not be required to implement a Small Cities Program. Wye like the idea of combining GRS and CDBG funding with little or no strings attached. The majority of small communities in our State must now go "hat in hand" to the State or an Urban County to receive Community Development Block Grant funds. Our priorities are often in conflict with that of the States and Urban Counties. The Legislative proposals are now being considered by Congressional Committees and the Federal Administration. Please write your Congressman and our two Senators to express your views on this important matter. Advocate that small cities be given Entitlement status for the purpose of General Revenue Sharing and Community Development Block Grant allocations. This can be accomplished at the Federal level by "folding in" the small cities portion of the National Program. Attached you will find a copy of the resolution adopted by the Vista City Council at its meeting of February 14, 1983. Wye intend to visit key Congressional leaders in early March. Please send us a copy of your action regarding this important issue. Thank you for your support and consideration. - -- Very truly yours, V",/ Pdt- KECFIVEf Michael Flick, Morris B. Vance, Mayor City Manager F" 171983 CITY OF GRAND TERRACL Enclosure: Resolution No. 83-26 HUD Letter of Jan 12/83 600 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1988 • VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92083 9 . 714/726-1340 460 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY wAs QNGTON• D.C- 20410 JAN 12 19M XEMCC— ,ma4 TO: Principal Staff FTCM June Q. Koch, PhD�. Deputy Under Secre. y for Intergovernmental Relations SDn.' Decision Memorandum on 1983 Federalism Initiative Attached is a copy of the Decision Memorandum on the 1983 Federalism Imitative sent by Rich Williamson *to the President. The President has signed off on the proposal. It is probable that there will be some mention of is in the State of the Union Address, although no detailed plan will be give= at that time. 'treasury is currently drafting legislation, which is expected to be circlated for agency comment late this week or early next week. The legislation is to be sent to the Hill shortly after the budget is submitted. 'here will be some changes in regard to the Federal -Local Block Grant. Tble -=--ansportation elements will not be included, since capital transit ex-.:)e=ditures will be taken care of by the new user fees. The proposed. Fe&=al-Local Block Grant will therefore consist of General Revenue Sharing and =BG. The White House rationale for this is as follows. The main intention is = allow maximum flexibility to local governments. GRS is up for rea=thorization this year, and the White House believes this is a chance to --:ve greater flexibility in CDBG by combining it with GRS. If CDBG and GPS are combined and given a new five year authorization, it is believed that mayors and local officials will support the change. There will be no reduction in funds. In addition, C:)BG funds, although (—�-i:hed, would continue to be allocated on existing CDBG formulas. This combining with GRS does not apply to the CDBG State Block Grant for S='1 Cities, or the remaining HUD Shall Cities program. The CDBG State Bloom Grant is included in the Block Grant for States. No decision has yet xe= made an the HUD Small Cities program. At•..c!,=ents 1983 STAFF RE -PORT C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: March 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT: Reallocation of Revenue Generated from Vehicle Code Violations and Misdemeanor Fines Staff through consultant Gene Tidwell for some time has been investigating the revenue received from vehicle code violations and misdemeanor fines. The reason for this investigation has been: 1. That although the City has been growing and has been concentrating law enforcement on subject violations, the revenue for these violations has been dropping. (See enclosure one.) 2. That the records kept by the County agencies, including the Sheriff, District Attorney, and Municipal Courts are extremely difficult to establish an audit trail from the Sheriff's Office through the District Attorney to the Court, and from the Sheriff's Office to the Court in the case of Vehicle Fines. 3. That judges system of fining persons found guilty has a negative impact on revenue received by the City from Vehicle Code Fines. The individuals found guilty by the judges, for example: a. Suspends sentences 1/3 b. Enrolls violators in traffic schools 1/3 c., Requires violators pay fine 1/3 Changes in policy in a, b, or c could be reason revenue is dropping. In other words, if a higher percentage of violations are suspended or enrolled, the fines would drop. 4. That the City may not be receiving it's share of Vehicle Code fines. Penal Code 1463 states that City/County ratio varies from approximately 79%/21% to 11%/9%, Penal Code 1203.1 states County is to receive 100% of fines collected by the Probation system. The City of Sacramento recently sued the County and won $3 million in back fines by agreeing to an overall City/County 74%/26%. Staff believes Council has the following alternatives: 1. Oppose the proposed legislation to reallocate revenue generated from Vehicle Code violations (enclosure 4) as recommended by the Citrus Belt Division League of California Cities. 2. Agree to County realigning revenues requiring cost of courts be first deducted before the revenues are distributed. Agreement would be made only if County would agree to raising Property Tax, say by $10,000.00 since City received $6,692.00 in Vehicle Code Fines in 1979/1980. 3. Have joint meetings with Senior Municipal Judge, CAO, Auditor Controller, District Attorney, and City to clear up record keeping system and negotiate City/County ratio similar to Sacramento. Staff Recommends Council: A. DIRECT STAFF TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE. B. ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO MEET WITH JUDGE, CAO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND AUDITOR/CONTROLLER TO CLEAR UP RECORD KEEPING SYSTEM AND NEGOTIATE CITY/COUNTY RATIO FOR VEHICLE CODE FINES. COMMITTEE TO CONSIST OF TWO COUNCIL PERSONS AND THE CITY MANAGER. enc; 1. Chart of Revenues 2. Resolution 3. Rancho Cucamonga February 18, 1983 letter 4. Citrus Belt Division, League of California Cities February 18, 1983 letter 5. "Sun" February 15, 1983 article 6. County of San Bernardino February 14, 1983 letter 7. Penal Code 1463 8. Penal Code 1203.1 9. City Manager August 27, 1982 letter 10. Gene Tidwell February 23, 1983 memo EC;gk m Acct. 3240 Acct. 3241 CVC FINES MISDEMEANOR FINES TOTAL 1979/1980 $6692. $2773. $9465. 1980/1981 $2871. $3811. $6682. 1981/1982 $3488. $ 80. $3568. 1982/1983 Budget $3600. $2460. $6060. Actual $2209. $ 716. $2925. 60 L I . MAR��1983 ' pENDNCIC AGENDA ITEM I �NG �� ACC C0UNCIL APPR RESOLUTION N0. 83- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO RE -ALLOCATE REVENUE GENERATED FROM VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS. WHEREAS, there is proposed legislation which would re -allocate revenue generated from vehicle code violations, taking money away from the cities and the State to reimburse the County fully for the costs of operating its Municipal and Justice Courts; and WHEREAS, the Municipal and Justice Court System already collects more revenue than its combined General Fund appropriations; and WHEREAS, such legislation would enrich the County's General Fund at the expense of cities' ability to provide the law enforcement service and code enforcement which actually produces the revenue; and WHEREAS, further County attempt to seek this controversial State legislation would waste hundreds of additional hours of staff time fighting over such a clear issue, thus further jeopardizing relationship with its 17 cities; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE its opposition to State legislation which would re -allocate revenue generated from vehicle code violations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this Council urges the County Board of Supervisors to consider the impact of such re -allocation on other affected entities and discontinue any further attempt to obtain this legislation. ADOPTED THIS 24th day of March, 1983. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. Approved as to form: City Attorney Mayor of the City of GrandTerrace and of the City Council thereof. 6NG 2. CIT)6DF RANCHO CUCONGA J� r Mayo. Jon D. Diikels cc - 6 0 Corncil..e..ber. 70 F Z Charles J. Buquet II James C. Frost U > Richard M. Dahl Phillip D. Schlosser 1977 February 18, 1983 Supervisor Cal McElwain, Chairman Board of Supervisors San Bernardino County 175 W. Fifth Street, Second Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 Dear Supervisor McElwain: In response to your letter of February 14,' 1983, regarding a legislative proposal to re -allocate revenue generated from Vehicle Code violations, I would offer several thoughts for your consideration. I believe there has been a serious miscalculation regarding the affects of this proposal. The municipal and justice court system already collect more revenue than their combined General Fund appropriations. The net effect would be to enrich the County's General Fund at the expense of the cities' ability to provide the law enforcement service that actually produces the revenue -- police patrol and Vehicle Code enforcement in all locations. In Rancho Cucamonga, the patrol function is budgeted for an amount in excess of $2 million. Revenue generated from Vehicle Code fines totals about $125,000 annually. I would suggest further contact with your colleagues on the Board of Supervisors before any further action is taken on this legislative proposal. With all due respect, Cal, I think a serious error in judgment has been made._ My advice would be simply to drop consideration of this item. The proposal is ill-conceived and untimely. Please do not hesitate to contact me if further information is desired. Sincerely, A2"� RECEIVEr PonD. Mikels Mayor FEB 2 2 1983 JDM: mk _ _ cc: City Council '" ' C: ! r-opf, -. Board of Supervisors San Bernardino County Mayors EAIG 3 9320 BASELINE ROAD. SUITE C • POST OFFICE BOX F07 • RANCIIO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 • (714) 539-1651 HAGUE DF EAbIFGRNIA EI`PIES DATE: February 18, 1983 TO: Mayors, City Council Members, and City. Managers of San Bernardino County FROM: James C. Frost President As you are probably aware, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors has given direction to its staff to modify the municipal and justice court allocation formula. It is apparent that the Board was not fully apprised of its impact on other affected entities. I concur with the comment in the enclosed "Sun" article that the relationship between the Board and cities continues to be in jeopardy by such ill adivsed action. At this time, it is expected that the Supervisors may reconsider their position in the immediate future. It should not be necessary for the Cities, the State, and County to waste hundreds of additional hours of staff time in fighting over such a clear issue. I will keep in close touch should it be apparent that a stronger approach becomes necessary. JCF:baa:mk Enclosure cc: Board of Supervisors r 1- r cE.,f�v�.l FER 2 21983 PA r Adefant0 Montclair Eke, San Bernardino Blythe Indian Wells Perris Barstow Needles Upland Coachella Indio Rancho Mirage Chino Ontario Vicl Orwille Corona Lake Elsinore Riverside Colton Rancho Cucamonga Banning Desert Hot Springs Norco San Jacinto Fontana Redlands Beaumont Grand Terrace Palm Desert California City Loma Linda Rialto B-p Bear take Hemet Palm Springs Rldpecrest Ttiemlay, February' 15, 1983 ..west. valley edition : • 1; • fontana, • ranch o'.cucamonga, ',o ontarlo a upland.i B Sec County seeks court'. revenues -going-,,-,t 0*' cities,- state B) BILL ROGERS cause the legislation would leave courts costs the county about $8.3 . telling us they don't want county Recalling the defeat of similar gresslve," replied the board', leg - sr s��" »� �•� the cities and the suit with only mullon last year, but formulas In ' government to be self-sufficient legislative attempts In the past, islalive analyst, Fatle Quadrl. about i.°00,000 a year from fines sure law permitted the county to . or efficient." Supervisor Robert Townsend, at- "So was Robin hood," Ilam• SAN 11CANARf11N0 — County sod other revenues from the receive only about $3.1 million of avail bHammock, board wilt for die (hough voting with McElwain end stock countered amid laughter. supervVors split 31 Monday In courts, compared with the 7.7.7 the U.0 million of fines and otherSupervisor John Joyner, likened McElwain aid be wants the voltnt to strk controversial sate olllllon they collected during the revenue, generated by the courts. cu„lon with The cities, aid he felt the chance, for sucecs, of the pro. county to receive only enough of Irgololloo that %ould take money poll year, The cities rocelyed more than 11,8 compelled to oppose the move In gal to "the second coming," view of the fact that "we've Do'the court revenues d pay for a%a1 from the ettu's mod the sate In dissent. Supervisor Robert million and the elate received worked so long and bard with the Although McElwain proposed court costs. Ile proposed that rave. Ili rrnnbur.e the county fully for hammock rlcMed the proposal as nearly $1.2 million 10 help offset , Ulloring the leglalmlon to apply nues In excess or costs could be the eii,u of elg•ralliig Its hlunlcl• "a rald on the titles' treasuries" some of their law enforcement • eltle, problem,inodo understand them under• only to Son Bernardino County, split up between the cities and the pal and Justu'rcouhs, end as a serlous setback for the eats stand ours, hammock said the board "would mute. ,Juprr vtlart � halrmkd Cal IniprweA relallonshlps the board , "Anybody who objecm," McCh 'TW Im elmply a (natter of put. bo lucky to act away whit It In this Among the clilm, Sic Bernar. !•IcF;�.is, 10toducing the props has been tryin,, io establish with wain uld of reactions to his legls. • ting more money In county cot. County, let alone statewide." dino received IM,000 of court sal, ronredrd that the county Thecounty's 17citie.. lative proposal to boost the coun•, fen at the expense of the titles," 'That gives me an opportunity revenues tut year while Ontario Ward A ill "take a lot of heal" be. McElwain said ooeratloo U •te ty's share to match costs, "Is he objected. to say that this county is very pro. received ti208,000. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS )hn Joyner .............. First District N McElwain ........... Second District Ovid L. McKenna .......... Third District 5bert O. Townsend ....... Fourth District Ebert L. Hammock ......... Fifth District SAN County Civic Building - West 175 West Fifth Street San Bernardino, CA 92415 (714) 383-1949 February 14, 1983 Honorable Hugh J. Grant Mayor, City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear Mayor Grant: n ROBERT B. RIGNEV Adrr r suatwe Officer ANDREE DISHAROON Clerk of the Board One of the underlying philosophies of the Gann Initiative (Proposition 14) and the Jarvis Initiative (Proposition 13) was to have revenues generated from government services pay for the cost of providing those services. Following the directives of the vast majority of the citizens who voted for the initiatives and made that provision a part of the California Constitution, this morning I presented to the County Board of Supervisors.a legislative proposal to reform the financing of the munici- pal court system in our county. The proposal will attempt to realicLn the revenue rated by the mun_i- ci al and justice courts of our countX an require that the operating cos r s a firstd romthe revenues rc the revenues aTe-77FT r1 b e ]he -total revenue amoun approximately $9 mi111on and it exceeds the local cost by almost half a million dollars. The cities of San Bernardino County, along with the State of California, the community colleges, and the Law Library, are potentially affected by the proposal. Therefore, I have directed Mr. Robert Rigney, our County Administrative Officer, to discuss the proposal with city representatives at the earliest possible time. I want to incorporate any constructive reform you suggest, and I promise to cooperate with you in every possible way to make the reform proposal workable for the cities and other affected entities. I look forward to jointly meeting our responsibilities as the elected representatives of our cities and county. Sincer yours, N CAL McELWAIN, Chairman Board of Supervisors FQ:kl tt F -,V'*: F E B 1 V%"; 1911, :iTY Or C-RAND TERRA(:t LNG 1 i § 1462.2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Part 2 jurisdiction to proceed on pending infor- construed as designating as the proper + ' mation. Application of Joiner (1960) 4 courts for the trial of cases involving the CaLRptr. 667, 180 C-A.2d 250. misdemeanors therein specified the courts t before whom the person arrested for such = The provisions of this section clearly in- misdemeanors might be cited. Smith v. dicate the intent of the legislature that Municipal Court of Glendale Judicial Dist., the provisions of Chapters 1 and 2, Divi- Los Angeles County (1959) 334 P.2d 93L sion 12, of the Vehicle Code should be 167 C.A2d 534. s= # § 1463. Disposition of fines and forfeitures collected in municipal or justice courts e Except as otherwise specifically provided by law: (1) Deposit and distribution. All fines and forfeitures including Vehicle Code fines and forfeitures collected upon conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail, together with moneys deposited as bail, in any municipal court or justice court, shall, as soon as practicable after the receipt thereof, be deposited with the county treasurer of the county in which such court is situated. The moneys so deposited shall be distributed as follows: (a) County funds; arrests by state or county. Once a month there shall be transferred into the proper funds of the county an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected during the preced- ing month upon the conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail follow- ing arrests made by officers or other persons employed by the state or by the county in which such court is situated, exclusive of fines or forfeitures or forfeitures of bail collected from any person arrested by a state officer and charged with the commission of a misdemeanor under the Vehicle Code within the limits of a city within the county. (b) City traffic safety fund; special road fund of county; gener- al fund of county. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, once a month there shall be transferred into the traffic safety fund of each city in the county an amount equal to 50 percent of all fines and forfeitures collected during the preceding month upon the conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail from any person arrested by a state of- ficer and charged with the commission of a misdemeanor under the Vehicle Code within that city, and an amount equal to the remaining 50 percent shall be transferred to the special road fund of the county; provided, however, that the board of supervisors of the county may, # by resolution, provide that not more than 50 percent of the amount to be transferred to the special road fund of the county, be trans- ferred into the general fund of the county. ' Once a month there shall be transferred into the general fund of the county an amount equal to that percentage of the fines and for- feitures collected during the preceding month upon the conviction or 310 k, �f 4 �j Part 2 , ating as the Proper of cases involving the _ m specified the court - 'son arrested for such be cited. smith .. lendale Judicial Dist,, (1959) 334 P.28 931. Y cted in municipw i eitures including nviction or upon I as bail, in any practicable after -reasurer of the !ys so deposited Once a month ' the county an ring the preced- e of bail follow- ed by the state usive of fines or person arrested a misdemeanor thin the county. county; gener- his subdivision, safety fund of of all fines and the conviction i by a state of- anor under the the remaining of the county; le county may, of the amount inty, be trans- ;eneral fund of fines and for - conviction or Title 11 PROCEEDINGS IN INFERIOR COURTS § 1463 n the forfeiture of bail from an _ upon y person arrested by a state officer and charged with the commission of a misdemeanor under the Vehi- cle Code on state highways constructed as freeways whereon city po- lice officers enforced the provisions of the Vehicle Code on April 1, 1965, within the limits of a city within the county which is set forth in the schedule appearing in subparagraph (c) of this paragraph (1). If this paragraph is applicable within a city, it shall apply uniformly t throughout the city to all freeways regardless of the date of freeway construction or completion. (c) County general fund; arrests by city officers. Once a month there shall be transferred into the general fund of the county an amount equal to that percentage of the fines and forfeitures col- lected during the preceding month upon conviction or upon the forfei- ture of bail following arrests made by officers or other persons em- ployed by each city in the county which is set forth in the following schedule: - _ County and city Percentage Alameda Alameda............................................. 18 Albany .... 29 Berkeley............................................. 19 Emeryville........................................ Hayward 13 10 ... Livermore........................................... 7 w: Oakland 22 Piedmont............................................ 44 Pleasanton .... 17 San Leandro s ......................................... County percentage 9 -.. . .................................. 21 Amador Amador............................................. Ione................................................ 25 Jackson............................................... 25 Plymouth........................................ 25 Sutter Creek 25 ..................................... County 25 percentage .................................. 29 Butte WIN Biggs................................................ 75 • Gridley .............................................. 49 Oroville................................ 9 County percentage .................................. 20 311 Part 2 Title 11 PROCEEDINGS IN INFERIOR COURTS § 1463 Percentage County and city Percentage Plumas ....... 23 Portola.............................................. 19 ....... 21 County percentage .................................. 19 ' ' ' ' • • • 23 Riverside ....... 14 Banning ... Beaumont ............................................ 15 ....... 18 Blythe ............................................... 9 ....... 18 Coachella ............................................ 12 Corona.............................................. 12 ,...... 42 Elsinore ............................................. 10 ,...... 42 Hemet ............................................... 35 Indio................................................ 16 Palm Springs ........................................ 35 ...... 17 Perris ............................................... 14 ...... 10 Riverside ............................................ 16 ...... 13 San Jacinto .......................................... 41 ...... 36 - County percentage .................................. 35 ...... 13 ...... 22 Sacramento ...... 36 Folsom .............................................. 31 ...... 16 Galt ................................................. 25 ...... 23 Isleton.............................................. 13 North Sacramento .................................... 10 Sacramento.......................................... 21 ...... 37 County percentage .................................. 26 ...... 12;, San Benito ...... 14 Hollister ............................................. 9 San Juan Bautista ..................................... 28 County percentage .................................. 11 ..... 7 ..... 17 ..... 9 Barstow ............................................. 23 Chino............................................... 14 ..... 15 Colton ............................................... 21 Fontana............................................. 15 Needles.............................................. 33 ..... 18 Ontario .............................................. 20 _.... 8 Redlands ............................................ 28 ..... 26 Rialto ............................................... 15 ..... 16 San Bernardino ....................................... 20 ..... 10 Upland ..................................... 14 ..... 14 -- Part 2 Percentage k ....... 17 ....... 17 ....... 17 xi 11fle 11 PROCEEDINGS IN INFERIOR COURTS § 1463 county and city Percentage Tehama Corning............................................. 26 RedBluff ............................................ 39 Tehama. ............................................. 10 County percentage .................................. 31 Talare Dinuba.............................................. 21 ]Ebreter .............................................. 23 JAndsay............................................. 24 Porterville ............................................. 26 Tulare............................................... 20 Visalia .............................................. 17 7, Woodlake ............................................ 15 County percentage .................................. 21 Tuolumne Sonora.............................................. 23 County percentage .................................. 23 Ventura Fillmore ............................................. 16 Ojai.................................................. 16 Oxnard............................................... 16 Port Hueneme ........................................ 16- Santa Paula .......................................... 16 Ventura............................................. 16 County percentage .................................. 16 Yolo Davis............................................... 22 Winters............................................. 19 Woodland ............................................ 20 County percentage .................................. 20 Yuba Marysville ........................................... 15 Wheatland ........................................... 38 County percentage .................................. 15 In any county for which a county percentage is set forth -inthe above schedule and which contains a city which is not listed or which 7� is hereafter created, there shall be transferred to the county general und the county percentage. In any county for which no county per- fundt 321 44 11tifii- AIM 400 *4 § 1463 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Part 2 centage is set forth, and in which a city is hereafter created, there shall be transferred to the county general fund 15 percent. A county and a city therein may, by mutual agreement, adjust the percentages herein. (d) City funds; arrests by city or state officers for Vehicle Code misdemeanor violations. Once a month there shall be transferred to each city in the county an amount equal to the total sum remaining after the transfers provided for in subparagraphs (b) and (c) above have been made of the fines and forfeitures collected during the pre- ceding month upon conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail following arrests made by officers or other persons employed by such city or arrests made by state officers for misdemeanor violations of the Ve- hicle Code. (2) Return or payment of money deposited with court; warrant. Any money deposited with such court or with the clerk thereof which, by order of the court or for any other reason, should be re- turned in whole or in part to any person, or which is by law payable to the state or to any other public agency, shall be paid to such per- son or to the state or to such other public agency by warrant of the county auditor, which shall be drawn upon the requisition of the clerk of such court. Unclaimed bail. All money deposited as bail which has not been claimed within one year after the final disposition of the case in which such money was deposited, or within one year after an order made by the court for the return or delivery of such money to any person, shall be apportioned between the city and the county and paid or transferred in the manner hereinabove provided for the apportion- ment and payment of fines and forfeitures. This paragraph shall control over any conflicting provisions of law. (3) Processing the posting of bail for parking violations. Not- withstanding any other provision of law, in the event that a county or court elects to discontinue processing the posting of bail for an issuing agency, the city, district or other issuing agency may elect to receive, deposit, accept forfeitures and otherwise process the posting of bail for parking violations for which such city, district, or other issuing agency has issued a written notice of parking violation pursu- ant to Section 41103 of the Vehicle Code. Notwithstanding para- graph (1), if the city, district, or other issuing agency processes such posting of bail, the issuing agency may retain the forfeited bail col- lected. For the purposes of this subdivision, neither the California High- way Patrol, nor a sheriff's office when acting on a contract basis for a city, shall be deemed an "issuing agency". 322 Part 2 Title 11 PROCEEDINGS IN INFERIOR COURTS § 1463 treated, there The issuing agency may elect to contract with the county, a mu- . nicipal or justice court, or another issuing agency within the county ntntadjust to provide for the processing of the posting of bail for such parking violations. Vehicle Code ransferred to m remaining nd W above ring the pre - )ail following such city or is of the Ve- A; warrant. lerk thereof hould be re - law payable to such per- rrant of the ition of the las not been the case in .er an order )ney to any lty and paid e apportion - graph shall tions. Not - at a county bail for an iay elect to the posting .t, or other ,lion pursu- ]ding para- cesses such ed bail col- )rnia High- t basis for No provision of this section shall be construed to require any county or municipal or justice court to process the posting of bail for a city, district or other issuing agency prior to the filing of a com- plaint. If a county or court has been processing the posting of bail for an issuing agency, and if the county or court elects to terminate the processing of the posting of bail the issuing agency and the coun- ty or court shall reach agreement for the transfer of the processing activity. The agreement shall permit the county or court to phase out, and the issuing agency to phase in, personnel, equipment, and fa- cilities that may have been acquired or need to be acquired in con- templation of a long-term commitment to process the posting of bail for the issuing agency's parking violations. (Added by Stats.1925, c. 439, p. 949, § 2. Amended by Stats.1929, c. 736, p. 1383, § 1; Stats.1935, c. 344, p. 1204, § 1; Stats.1943, c. 954, p. 2823, § 1; Stats.1949, c. 1517, p. 2699, § 2, adopted Election Nov. 7, 1950; Stats.1953, c. 1582, p. 3261, § 1; Stats.1954, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 67, p. 365, § 1; Stats.1955, c. 1490, p. 2729, § 1; Stats.1957, c. 1361, p. 2692, § 1; Stats.1961, c. 995, p. 2639, § 1; Stats.1961, c. 2181, p. 4519, § 1; Stats.1963, c. 1881, p. 3872, § 1; Stats.1965, c. 236, p. 1208, § 1; Stats.1965, c. 1451, p. 3399, § 2; Stats. 1966, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 67, p. 497, § 1; Stats.1967, c. 961, p. 2463, § 1; Stats. 1968, c. 638, p. 1193, § 1; Stats.1977, c. 104, p. 525, § 1; Stats.1978, C. 679, p. 2168, § 1; Stats.1979, c. 827, p. 2860, § 1, eff. Sept. 20, 1979 ; Stats. 1980, c. 1276, § 1, eff. Sept. 30, 1980.) Historical Note As added in 1925, the section read: "Except where otherwise specifically provided to the contrary all fines and for- feitures collected upon conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail in any municipal court following the arrest by any officer employed by the state or by the county in which such court is situated, shall be paid into the general fund of the county; and all fines and forfeitures collected in such court upon conviction or upon the forfei- ture of bail following the arrest by any officer employed by the city for which such court is established shall be paid into the general fund of the city. "All such fines and forfeitures, together with moneys deposited as bail shall as soon as racticable after the receipt "Any money deposited with such court or the clerk thereof which by order of the court or for any other reason should be returned in whole or in part to any per- son, shall be paid to such person upon de- mand certified to bp correct by the clerk of the court. "All money deposited as bail, which has not been claimed within one year after the final disposition of the case in which said bail is deposited, shall be paid into the general fund of the county if the bail was deposited following arrest by an offi- cer employed by the county or state, or in the general fund of the city if the bail was deposited following arrest by an offi- cer employed by the city." p The 1929 amendment rewrote the sec - thereof be deposited with the county trea- surer. tion to read: "At least once a month the county trea- "Except where otherwise specifically surer shall pay over to the treasurer of provided by law all fines and forfeitures any city entitled thereto, all moneys, fines collected upon conviction or upon the for - and forfeitures belonging to such city. feiture of bail in any municipal court shall 323 Part 2 Title 8 JUDGMENT § 1203.1b .nection there- tion department of each county and approved by the presiding judges • of the municipal and superior courts. (b) The term "ability to pay" means the overall capability of the defendant to reimburse the costs, or a portion of the costs, of conducting the presentence investigation, preparing the presentence 1571, 181& report, and probation, and shall include, but shall not be limited to, the defendant's: ration and pra- t according to allocation of operative i of an offense make a deter - portion of the )resentence in - le pursuant to d of probation it average cost Donal hearings discretion, or- ;ignated by the Jant to pay all I shall be enti- ty to be heard i evidence, and to disclosure of 3tement of the . defendant has t may set the ay that sum to reasonable and naking a deter - pay the court !d upon the de- iered to pay in be made on a Execution may ment in a civil not be enforced :osts of presen- t by the proba- (1) Present financial position. (2) Reasonably discernible future financial position. In no event shall the court consider a period of more than six months from the date of the hearing for purposes of determining reasonably dis- cernible future financial position. (3) Likelihood that the defendant shall be able to obtain em- ployment within the six-month period from the date of the hearing. (4) Any other factor or factors which may bear upon the de- fendant's financial capability to reimburse the county for the costs. (c) At any time during the pendency of the judgment rendered according to the terms of this section, a defendant against whom a judgment has been rendered may petition the rendering court to modify or vacate its previous judgment on the grounds of a change of circumstances with regard to the defendant's ability to pay the judg- ment. The court shall advise the defendant of this right at the time of rendering of the judgment. (e) The provisions of this section shall be operative in a county upon the adoption of an ordinance to that effect by the board of su- pervisors. (Added by Stats.1980, c. 555, § 1. Amended by Stats.1981, c. 284, § 1.) Historical Note The 1981 amendment inserted "convicted of an offense and" Prior to "granted" in the first sentence of subd. (a); substitut- ed "of Probation; and of conducting the presentence investigation and preparing the presentence report made pursuant to Section 1203" for "thereof" at the end of the first sentence; inserted "such services and of" prior to "probation" and substi- tuted "thereof" for "of probation serv- ices" at the end of the second sentence; substituted "such costs" for "the cost of Probation" at the end of the fourth sen- tence; added the last sentence in the first paragraph of subd. (a); added the tbird paragraph to subd. (a); inserted "con- ducting the presentence investigation, pre- paring the presentence report, and" prior to "probation" in subd. (b) ; deleted "of probation" from the end of subd. (b)(4); and added subds. (d) and (e). 225 E^rct 8 `� ' •�.1 � sic~�" 1 i The Honorable John M. Kennedy Presiding Judge San Bernardino Municipal Court 351 N. Arrowhead Ave. San Bernardino, CA 92415 Dear Judge Kennedy: August 27, 1982 n HUGH J. GRANT Mo yor JIM RIGLEY Mayor Pro Tem Council Members TONY PETTA ROY W. NIX BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN SETH ARMSTEAD City Manager MYRNA ERWAY City Clerk EDWARD R. CLARK Finance 6 Administrative Services 011rcer I requested Mr. Eugene Tidwell to audit the Municipal Court fines revenue for the City of Grand Terrace; The reason I asked for the audit was because of the severe drop in revenue when the sheriff's D.R. rate had not decreased. This drop is reflected in the following: YEAR NO, D.R.'S REVENUE NO. CHARGED 1979-80 752 2,773,00 14 1980-81 681 3,811.40 31 1981-82 761 80.00 4 The results of Mr. Tidwel1Is audit so far have not been too successfulI because the system is complex and inconsistent, Explanation of a simplified flow diagram should illustrate the need for revised procedures and/or state legislation. First, a deputy sheriff investigates the incident (defined as Penal Code misdemeanors, as differentiated from felonies, i.e., vandalism, drunkness, distrubing the peace, etc.). He then prepares a report which is assigned a D.R. number. Some 700+ D.R.'S are written annually for the Grand Terrace area. Of these incidents written up an unknown number are completed to a point where sufficient evidence and a suspect are developed for transmittal to the District Attorney's Office for potential prosecution. The sheriff files these D.R.'S numerically. The remaining D.R.IS are completed/solved or still open, pending disposition. (This report is restricted to Municipal Court actions and does not cover California Vehicle Code citations, which are handled in traffic court). 2�7_ , a�aTor: ►:;,�.o city V:.ager — City Ciu►. (71c; [24•_t_ , Gi.,''.D I =- P..ACc-, CA 9231- - 52 95 Finnnc% — Ficr.n 1-_ — C= .- .� : _. (71;�:.:4•7: The H norable John Kennedy Page August 27, 1982 Second, the District Attorney's office reviews the D,R „ and makes a decision to file against the defendant or reject the case. Supposedly all rejected cases are communicated back to the sheriff's office with reasons for rejection. Such follow through does not always take place. If the D.A. decides to proceed with an action, he opens a file in the name of the defendant. These files are maintained alphabetically. The number of filings and rejections by geographic areas is not maintained. Third, if the case is filed in the courts a case number is assigned and filed numerically. The D.R. number and defendants name are buried in the folder. Following the judicial proceedings any fines which may be levied can be paid in cash to the clerk or made in time payments, collected by probation accounting. The number of cases filed and their disposition by geographic area is not maintained. Those monies collected by the court clerk and/or probation accounting are forwarded to the County Auditor's Office for disbursement, The auditor complies with Section 1463 of the California Penal Code in transmitting funds to the various cities. The noticeable drop in revenue to the City for 1981-82 can be attributed to any or all of the following factors: (A) The citizens of Grand Terrace are better behaved than previous years, especially in fineable misdemeanors, even though the number of reportable incidents did not decline. (B) The District Attorney has elected to forgo prosecution of mis- demeanor defenses, or has insufficient data for successful prosecution. (C) The court judges and/or juries are downplaying misdemeanor offenses with dismissals or probation and no fines levied. I would appreciate it if you would review the forgoing and send me any comments you may have by September 17, 1982. . I will then consolidate your comments with others that I have hopefully received. I then will propose, if it appears constructive, that the concerned agencies Etui,t to consider improvements to the system. Please call me if you have any questions, I am appreciative of your assistance and cooperation regarding this matter. Sincerely, XSet4hArm tead City Manager City of Grand Terrace SA: ERC:ac fL� 2 31983 To: Seth Armstead, City Manager From: E. Tidwell, Special Consultant Subj: California Vehicle Code Fines and Municipal Misdemeanor Fines Ref: Your ltr dated August 22, 1982 to Judge John M. Kennedy In your previous letter you outlined the filing procedures of the Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney and the Muni- cipal Court relative to Misdemeanor Fines. This memo will expand upon that report with a description of auditing the Vehicle Code Fines process. A_15% sample of Traffic Citations issued in Grand Terrace during 1982 revealed: (1) the Officers copy of the ticket is filed in a shoe box in the Sheriff's office by Officer name and badge number. Many of these deputies work several differ- ent communities, so Grand Terrace must be extracted. To audit the citation number, the violators name and date of birth needs to be transcribed; (2) with these three data items the Municipal Court computer can be interrogated for date of dis- position or current status, and total monies collected, if any. (3) The citations are filed, again, in shoe boxes by date of disposition. Several sources of CVC citations are filed by Central Division, Muni Court including California Highway Patrol, Sheriff's Office, Colton Police, San Bernardino City Police and others. Extracting only those related to Grand Terrace a computer produced receipt if attached to the court record. This receipt gives a breakdown of the monies collected, which are; Night Court Assessment ($1.00), Criminal Justice Construction Fund ($3.00), the Penalty Assessment and the allocation to the municipality where the offense occurred. The 15% sample examined constituted 121 citations out of the 795 issued for 1982. Thirty-six percent (36%) of the citations were dismissed (no monies collected); twelve percent (12%)are ENG to + -2- still open and pending disposition; one percent (1%) elected to go to jail rather than pay a fine; the remaining fifty-one percent (51%) were assessed a fee. This fee in forty percent of the cases was a $10.00 enrollment charge for Traffic School plus the Night Court Assessment and the Criminal Justice Construction Fund. Out of the $13,800 total collected for 1982 attributed to Grand Terrace the City received $3500 or 25%. This does not appear to be a viable source of revenue for the municipality. I would recommend that a substitute guaranteed revenue be negotiated with the County, from salestax and/or property tax, especially in light the County's interest in the fines and forefeitures.for operation of the Judicial System. Date* March 16, 1983 S tA F F R E-P O't� O-W I C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( XX) MEETING DATE: March 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT: Designating the County of San Bernardino as the City of Grand Terrace's Agent for service of process for actions under Revenue and Taxation Code A state statute adopted in September 1981 requires that before the County may represent a city in a case of taxes collected by the County for the City, the City must first designate the County as its agent for the service process. The state statute further requires that the County charge a fee to cover the costs associated with the representation provided. An example of the types of cases that are arising because of Proposition 13, is the application of the 2% annual increase in Property Tax that has been interpreted by the State as applicable to 1975 rather than 1978. Enclosure one reflects the fee structure formula that the County will be using to collect from cities using it's service. The City has two alternatives: 1. Defend itself in cases that are occurring in Grand Terrace. 2. Share the costs with other cities on cases that occur in all of the cities that have the County defending them. The Staff Recommends Council: A. APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, ENCLOSURE ONE, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO SERVE AS THE CITY'S AGENT FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. Enc. 1. Fee Structure 2. Proposed Resolutions 3. County Counsel's January 28, 1983 letter 4. Assembly Bill 1211 EC;gk FEE STRUCTURE The Office of County Counsel will record actual hours worked on cases for those cities which have adno d the required resolutiom The total ^ t of the County's defense of property tax cases will be determined bX applying the hourly rate for County Counsel -ser- vices (current y $56 per hour) to the number of hours expended. This computation will be made annually. CITY'S SHARE OF COST An individual city's actual charge for services will be determined in the following manner. Under current law, the property tax of $1.00 per $100 of market value is distributed among several taxing agencies. Cities' shares of these taxes range from zero percent for a non -property tax city to as much as 34 percent of the taxes col- lected. Based on the premise that the city originally shared in the property tax collected according to its tax factor, the same factor. (percentage) will be applied to the County Counsel's cost of the legal defense. For example: A = Total County Counsel Hours Recorded for Case B = Current Hourly Rate C = Involved City's Tax Factor (percentage) D = Cost to City for Legal Services Rendered Therefore a case for which the County Counsel devotes six hours of time for a city whose tax factor (percentage) is 15%, the charge would equal: A A x B x C= D 6 hours x $56/hr. x 15% _ $50.40 When the County determines to hire outside counsel to defend a particular action, the outside counsel charges will be applied against the involved city's tax factor to determine the cost to the city for legal services rendered. PAYMENT OF CHARGES Utilization of the following procedures is intended to minimize FEE STRUCTURE Page 2 " 'the administrative steps for billing and payment by the respective agencies. Cities will be assessed no more than once per year depending on actual cases defended by the County Counsel (or outside counsel retained by the County). Accordingly, the Auditor -Controller will develop an amount to be charged to a serviced city based upon the above formula. The city will then be billed for such charges, or alternatively, with the consent of the city, such charges will be deducted from the city's annual Decemb ro erty tax allocation and an informational bill re ort- ing the total charge will be submitted to the city. PENDING vVy. (BAR 1983 �NC1� pppROVA1- RESOLUTION N0. 83- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The County of San Bernardino is hereby designated to receive service of process for any and all actions brought against the City of Grand Terrace under Article 2, Chapter 5, Part 9, Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the San Bernardino County Clerk. ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1983. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City oG—ra—ncT Terrace and of the City Council thereof. Approved as to form: City Attorney Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. E7GL 2- 6FFtCE OF THE *00 ' COUNTY COUNSEL County Civic Building 157 West Fifth Street SAN San Bernardino, CA 92415 (714) 383-2761 ALAN K. MARKS County Counsel ROGER N. KEHEW JR. Assistant County Counsel FROM: ALAN K. MARKS County Counsel HNO SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA January 28, 1983 TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR/MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX REFUND ACTIONS Chief Deputies County Counsel Eugene L. Holder Craig S. Jordan Deputies County Counsel E. H. Robinson William Sabourin Paul A. Grube, Jr. Richard Wm. Strong Charles A. Duerbeck Clark H. Alsop Dawn Stafford Edward Duddy Ronald D. Reitz Charles J. Larkin Paul F. Mordy Daniel B. Haueter Legal Research Attorney Jonathan Weg INFORMATION COPY FURNISHED TO: d In the past the County of San Bernardino, through the office of County Counsel, has represented cities in the complex area of pro erty tax lifiaa ion. With the passage of Assembly Bill- No. 1211 in 19�8�1, Section 5149 of the Revenue and Taxation Code was amend--- and now re. gins that Pe -To e the county y may represent a city, the city+must first desi na e�the County as its a��t for service of process. 'gn -ate ikon, the statute re wires that the County charge a fee to recover the costs —associated with the representation prov The County Counsel is currently handling several property tax refund cases wherein various cities have requested representation. A new case (Poer v. Alameda, et al.) has recently been filed naming all counties and cities in the State as defencrantZ7 In light of the new requirements under R & T 9 5149, cities desiring representation should adopt a resolution simi ar the draft attached hereto and desi nate--th-e-Z!ounfy as fts ascent for service of process. fter a option, t e resolu- tion should e i ed wi'i-" Me County Clerk as specified in the law (a copy of AB No. 1211 is attached for your review) and a copy of the resolution should be forwarded to this office. This action should be taken as soon as possible in order for the County to provide adequate representation of the city in pending litigation and to avoid any legal challenge to the County's authority to represent the city. t,w/+tC 3 • City Administr rtor/Manager -2- January 28, 1983 The fees provided for in the statute will be calcula on the �s of hours spent by the Countv and o - tioned to cities in accor a percentage distri- bution of 'PropertX taxes. An explanation of the fee structure is attached ereto. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't hesitate to call. r ALAN K. MARKS County Counsel AKM:am Attach. l Laa6ttlVtl tatAt t.v• r a Vtt. VVV CIIAPTER 850 Ali net to amend Section 5149 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation. (Approved by Governor Sepplembcr 26. 1981. Filed wlllt Secretary of Stale September 26. 1981.) LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AD 1211, Harris. Property taxation. Under existing law, cities are authorized to impose property taxes to pry the principal and interest on indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1,1978, but the property loxes of general law cities shall be, and the property taxes of chartered cities 'may be, administered by counties. This bill would revise the procedures for counties to be designated by cities to defend actions for refunds of city property taxes, and would require the county to charge the city Ices for tho costs of the services provided. '• Article X11i D of the California Constitution and Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Tnxation Code require the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other provisions require the Department of P iiiance to review statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, for 'making claims to the State Board of Control for reimbursement. This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by this act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to the constitutional mandate or Section 2231.or 2234, but would recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue their other available remedies to seek •reimbursement for these costs. 77,e people of the State of Cidifornia do enact as follows. SECTION 1. Section 5149 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read; 4 a nv city for which' county officers collect taxes may provide for the defense by counsel for the county of actions brought ;against the city under this article, in which event it shall be the duty of such counsel to defend such actions, or the city may provide that such actions shall be defended by its own counsel; provided, however, that no city may provide for the defense by counsel for the -county of any act -ion brought against the city under this article unless lite city previously has designated the county us its agent for service of lirocess for nny and all actions brought ligainst the city under this article. A ci Rich has so designated the county as Its lgent for service of process may, at any time thereafter, withdraw that�' designation. Where a city has so clesi ► ount non eat for service of process, the count sin notify the 'tlie-titic general nature of any action namtn t cla ", qWaAiter service of process. (b) The county clerk sliall keep and maintain a public record of all cities who have designated the county as agent for service of process pursuant•to subdivision (n), and shall delete therefrom the name of any city which has withdrawn the designation. (c) The county t_ ose_ ees_on a city which has designaled the county as its agent for service of process which shall cover the costs incurre i pursuant to this section. M-C. 2. Notwithstanding Section G of Article XIII13 of the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made by this act for the puragse of making reimbursement pursuant to these sections. is recognized, however, that a local. agency or school district may pursue any remedies to obtain reimbursement available to it under Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Divisiun 1 of that code. M E k.�'C 14 Date: March 16, 1983 S tA F R E P T C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X ) MEETING DATE: March 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13 (� SUBJECT: Red Curb La Crosse Avenue, Southerly of Barton Road to City Limits A traffic problem exists on La Crosse Avenue southerly of Barton Road to the City limits. Whenever RMG Tools has a sale cars park on both sides of La Crosse Avenue leaving only a single travel lane. The easterly side of La Crosse Avenue accommodates only one car which does not allow a parking lane on that side of the street. The Planning Commission studied the traffic situation and recom- mended that the City Council consider a red curb on the easterly side of La Crosse Avenue southerly of Barton road to the City limits. The westerly side of La Crosse Avenue accommodates parking. The length of the proposed no parking zone is approximately 780 feet. Staff Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON LA CROSSE AVENUE, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PLACE SIGNS ACCORDINGLY AND TO PAINT THE CURB RED ACCORDINGLY. ?r Encs. 1. Resolution No. 83- establishing a "No Parking" zone 2. Planning Commission Staff Report of February 7, 1983. PENDING C1 V COUNCIL APPHIWgt RESOLUTION NO. 83- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON LA CROSSE AVENUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 22507 OF THE STATE VEHICLE CODE. WHEREAS, vehicles parked parallel to the curb on the easterly side of La Crosse Avenue are causing traffic congestion; WHEREAS, Section 22507 of the State Vehicle Code permits local agencies to restrict, by resolution, the parking or standing of vehicles on certain streets; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The parking, stopping, or standing of vehicles is prohibited on the easterly side of La Crosse Avenue southerly of Barton Road to the City limits. Section 2. City Staff is directed to place signs providing notice of this action and to paint the curb red along the aforementioned portion of La Crosse Avenue. ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1983. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. Approved as to form: City Attorney Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof n STAFF REPORT i ebruary 3, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 7, 1983 FROM: Planning Department AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6 SUBJECT: Parking on La Crosse Southerly of Barton Road Staff has received complaints concerning parking on La Crosse Avenue southerly of Barton Road to the City limits. Whenever the RGM Tool Company has a sale cars park on both sides of La Crosse. This leaves only one lane open for traffic. The solution to the problem is to post the easterly side of the street adjacent to the freeway "No Parking." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO POST EASTERLY SIDE OF LA CROSSE AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE FREEWAY "NO PARKING." APPROVED: Virg i a Farmer Planning Director attachment VF:gjf ;+•+�AV[ Q a 1 IL • A * K K • ' OL .. .. M--Z Y * * ** K* K IL ' u.,aaslIlCs r K K • • t Ytt�ftLt�f iai.�21 .1J.4 / lr iE. ILK * K * K ILIL IL * i IL •� K f DA I C Z < .i� ..::': ici..:1':::•::: "YY" Xiy. r r * 1 r ` :r. .��• Y :<: 1 :1... M a --- �_ R R �,.. �, q T. :x::1: Q CARS L Y O Y .... 1eyy •11 • r .r. r • . •• �_J + ,. ,w �•...- •^ r. Or t } .. + • • •• . ! N fG .w Wit'• . Y .. all CJ 9APTON - Y'tiiYiC�f�'Y3Y ruzaY__.. 1_ % . _ �-J rye. rr �a_ pl _• .- - � • � � L } 11•fj � •.r_.••Y �� J\ r . o F J i . •\V^ /�, Y .' ray 7 �-� ` ` l\ " l +, 't "I ' Y N . • I • Y 1 • •y-,....-:__sue. -.-� •• WAY _..: • w �` ...•.u+ .•�•�dFd1.iF.iMy��+.�.• Y�1•. :1.•.:«.... •r til • •• rj. •+ alp1.� lw "`•.',�,•' '•\' _ •-• � CITYUMITS Do fifffN F-,J ,:..�.• �- _ ! i - MAR 2 4 1988 COUNCIL AGENDA LTEP it livoidaninfilan 3N GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S" CLUB DAY APRIL 24, 1983 WHEREAS, the General Federation of Women's Club, fou7ided in 1890, is the only volunteer women's organization chartered by the United States Congress; and WHEREAS, there are 12,500 affiliated Women's Clubs in the United States, consisting of approximately 587,000 members; and WHEREAS, its international organization consists of 10,000,000 members in 45 countries; and WHEREAS, the General Federation of Women's Club policy program is directed towards conservation, education, home life, legislation, international, public, and community affairs, scholarships, and arts and cultural interests; and WHEREAS, our Grand Terrace Womzn's Club has displayed to us evidence of these programs in its community spirit and endless contributions for the betterment of our community; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Hugh J. Grant, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, in recognition of this organization's community involvement and in honor of the day established as the General Federation of Women's Club Day, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM that day, April 24, 1983, as General Federation of Women's Club Day in the City of Grand Terrace. Mayor of t Ci o Gra Terre and of the City Council thereof. This 24th day of March, 1983 MAR 2 419PI COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM *3-T- GRAND TERRACE POMAB'S CLUB WHEREAS, in 1908 a group of ladies in the community of Grand Terrace, feeling the need for broad culture that comes from literary and social communion, formed a club which has become known as the "Grand Terrace Woman's Club; and WHEREAS, this Club's objective was to encourage amongst its members the spirit of social friendliness, intellectual inquiry and culture, and the uniting of pleasant entertainment with mentaZ improvement; and WHEREAS, the Grand Terrace Woman's Club affiliated with the General Federated Women's Clubs in 1925 adopting the policy and programs of volunteer community service; and WHEREAS, the Grand Terrace Woman's Club has become an asset to its community through volunteer services and invoZvement in community affairs; and WHEREAS, the Grand Terrace Woman Is Club has continualZy worked to improve the quality of living in this community by such projects as the "Blue Dot" Program with the California Department of Forestry, scholarships to graduating seniors at Colton High School, and administration of a free blood pressure clinic; and WHEREAS, in 1983, the Grand Terrace Woman's Club is celebrating its 75th anniversary; and WHEREAS, the Grand Terrace Woman's Club is the community's oldest continuous service organization; NOW, THERERFORE, I, Hugh J. Grant, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the City Council and its citizens, do hereby commend and extend thanks and appreciation to the GRAND TERRACE WOMAN IS CLUB, applaud the efforts of this organization, and congratulate each participating member for recognizing the needs, feeling responsibility for actions, and taking a direct approach in bringing service to the community. Mayor of thg, CitR of Grand Terrace and of the City Ceunci.Z thereof% This 24th day of March, 1983 MAR 2 41999 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Z L4 !; March 15, 1983 City Council City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 The Historical and Cultural Committee feels that the Theater Group that is now meeting are moving to fast. We want to be selective about a Board of Directors since they will be a permanent body. Many of those who are in attendance at these meetings are not interested in permancency but in the productions that they want to put on. We feel that the governing body of a theater group should not include members of the theatrical profession who are actively engaged in theater production. The governing body should be impartial. Nothing should proceed until a Board of Directors has been established and by-laws and policies are defined. Right now, we need to get more input and attract more people who would be interested in serving on this Board. The Committee feels that, if we are going to sponsor this group, we should know what our position is. We would request from the Council clarification of our role and authority to proceed along the lines outlined above. Thank you, , 0'0 Barbara Mathews Chairman 1 T' pF GRAND .TER '4CE M L AGENDA ITEM 3 4/ X livoidamatijan MAR 2 4 IaA3 GREAT CALIF0RIVIA RESOURCE RALLY "RIL 18-24, 1983 WHEREAS, California currently disposes of more than 35 million tons of non -hazardous solid waste each year in landfills; and WHEREAS, by 1986 California will lose more than 45 percent of its sanitary landfill capacity; and WHEREAS, Californians spend more than $1.3 billion each year to collect, transfer, haul, and bury solid wastes containing hundreds of millions of dollars of valuable resources and energy that could be reused, recycled, or recovered; and WHEREAS, the problem of litter continues to plague California's cities and counties costing taxpayers an additional $100 million each year; and WHEREAS, the California Waste Management Board is the State agency assisting and encouraging community programs in solid waste management pZannin- and enforcement, recycling, resource reuse, energy recovery, litter control, and public education and participation; and WHEREAS, the California Waste Management Board - with the support of hundreds of California public interest groups, businesses, and local governments - is sponsoring the Great California Resource Ratty to be held April 18-24, 1983, to raise public awareness of the State's impending garbage crisis and encourages citizen participation in litter control, recycling, and waste reduction activities; NOW, THEREFORE, I, HUGH J. GRANT, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, recognizing California's need in finding solutions to its solid waste management problems, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM April 18-24, 1983, as "GREAT CALIFORNIA EESOURCE WEEK" in the City of Grand Terrace and urge citizens, local businesses, and community leaders to participate in Resource Rally activities, and I further encourage al Californians to help our State win its imr on waste through year-Zong recycling, litter control, and other waste management efforts. Mayor -of City �of Gra Te e and of the City Co"nciZ thereof. This 24th day of March, 1983 b L _ F- uq �r State Solid Waste Management Board • 1020 9th St., Suite 300 • Sacramento CA 95814 • (916) 322-3330 Toll Free (800) 952-5545 Terry A Trumbull, Chairman John P Moscone, Vice Chairman Cass Alvin Sam Arakalian December 30, 1982 Phillip Beautrow Thomas Hamilton Dear California Leader: Pamela Melville Joy Picus Recently, the Califnrnia Waste Management Board released a year -long Hacob Shirvanian study of landfills in California. The results were staggering. By 1986 nearly half of California's landfill capacity will be lost. The state's annual garbage bill will exceed $2 billion by the end of the decade. April 18-24, 1983 To increase community awareness of the garbage crisis, the California Waste Management Board is promoting the third annual Great California Resource Rally, -scheduled for April 18-24, 1983. The Rally consists of hundreds of locally -organized events designed to promote recycling, litter control, resource recovery and other waste -efficient activities. Last year thousands of Californians throughout the state participated, and we expect an even bigger and better Rally this year. As an influential elected official in your community, your endorsement and involvement in the 1983 Great California Resource Rally will encourage your constituents to get involved. Please join other local elected officials in passing a resolution endorsing the Resource Rally and urging citizens to participate in recycling, litter control and beautification activities. I have enclosed a model resolution, the draft of a news release to assist you in publicizing your city's resolution and a 1982 Resource Rally fact sheet. If you have any questions or would like assistance -in planning an event in your community, please contact Steve Kolb at (916) 322-3330 or Michele St. Clair at (415) 957-0957. Five regional Resource Rally Coordinators throughout the state also are prepared to assist you and your community in taking part in the rally (see the enclosed list for the name and telphone number of the coordinator in your area). If a resolution is passed, please forward a copy to Steve Kolb at the Board's address above. Thank you for your consideration and support. With your assistance, California is one step closer to winning its "War on Waste." Sincerely, I Ter4 A. Trumbull Chairperson TT/kc encls. r�1 � t 100% Recycled Paoer r S-�AFF REPUT Date : Mar. 17, 1983 a 12.196 C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: Mar. 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT: _Award of Contract - Barton Road Sidewalk & Beautification Project 83-03 - Located on the north side of Barton Road between Mt. Vernon Ave. and Arliss Ave. On January 13, 1983, the City Council authorized transferring of $11,720 from the balance forward, FY 1982-83, to be used as the City's local match for SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities grant in the amount of $5,600. The City Council authorized the Bid Advertisement on Atlernative No. 1 for a grand total of $17,320.00. On March 16, 1983, bids were opened and only two bids were submitted. Those bids were Steve Pandza Construction, $14,005.00; and Gosney Construction Backhoe and Equipment, $17,346.00. Attached is the bidders' listing. The following is a recap of the City Engineer's estimate and the low bid submitted by Steve Pandza. Description Engineer's Estimate Steve Pandza Const. Sidewalk, 8' wide by 370' length $5,920 $6,275 Landscape 5,000 2,280 Irrigation system 3,000 5,450 Construction costs subtotal $13,920 $14,005 Water meter and reservoir fee 2,000 Inspection & administration 1,400 City costs 3,400 Overall Cost Estimates $17,320 $14,005 Staff recommends that City Council: 1. AWARD THE CONTRACT TO STEVE PANDZA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,005. 2. AUTHORIZED EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT BY THE MAYOR. AE/lbk Attachment • �- DATE OPENED: 3/16/83 BIDDE LISTING TIME: 2:00 P.M. BIDS OPENED By: Myrna Erway, CITY BID NO. 83-03 CITY CLERK ENGINEERING WORK ORDER NO.: ------ ENGR. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Stewart PROJECT:- SIDEWALK AND BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BARTON ROAD BETWEEN MT. VERNON AVE. AND ARLISS AVE. BIDDER ADDRESS BID BOND RCVD/OTHER TOTAL BID AMOUNT Steve Pandza Construction 25187 Eucalyptus Ave. Sunnymead, CA 92388 $14,005 Gosney Construction Backhoe and Equipment P.O. Box 381 Bloomington, CA 92316 $17,346 Date: March 15 1983 StAFF REPCPkT C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X ) MEETING DATE: March 24, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2/1)_— SUBJECT: Second Family Units R-1 Zone -- Proposed Ordinance SB1534 was enacted in 1982 and is effective July 1983. It specifically authorizes cities to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of second family units in the R-1 single-family residential zones. It prohibits Jurisdictions from precluding second family residential units on residentially -zoned lots without making prescribed findings. The law requires cities to grant conditional use permits for second FAMILY UNITS WHICH WILL BE USED FOR RENTAL PURPOSES. If a local government does not adopt an ordinance, it must accept and process an application for a conditional use permit and act on it applying only the state authorized criteria. In the absence of a city ordinance, state law would govern Planning Commission evaluation of the second family units in the R-1 zone and no other more stringent standards could be imposed by the city, except that a city could require one unit to be owner occupied. The following standards would be the only ones allowed without a city ordinance: 1. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. 2. The lot is zoned single family. 3. the lot contains an existing single family detached unit. 4. The second unit is attached and located within the living area of the existing unit. 5. The existing living area is not increased by more than 10%. 6. Construction conforms to other applicable zoning requirements and building code requirements. The attached proposed ordinance limits the possibility of sgecond ffam�l emits to larger lots only and does not include the standard lot size of 7200 square feet. It also imposes oses size and setback restrictions and parking requirements. The Planning Commission studied the attached ordinance and recommended to the City Council its adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ON APRIL 14, 1983. Attachments - 2 before E A floor plan _ • � r front elevation garage after second unit conversion floor plan, Floor plan on the left is a 1650 square foot, 4-bedroom, 2-bathroom house.. With minor modifications and the addition of 160 square feet to the back of;the house, a second unit is created. • The main unit is a 1200 square foot, 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom,house. • The second unit is a 610 square foot, 1-bedroom, 1-bathroom house. The • front elevation remains the same after the conversion. firo ORDINANCE NO. PEN . NG CITY COUN64APPROVAL QQUNCIL AGENDA LTF)1 P1 714 MAR 2 41983 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULA- TIONS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SECOND FAMILY UNITS WITHIN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the State of California requires jurisdictions to grant special conditional use permits for second units which will be used for residential purposes under certain circumstances; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Purpose - The Purpose of this Ordinance is to establish regulations for the p a-1 cement of second -family units in the R-1 District and designate certain areas where the placement of second -family units is compatible with surrounding development. SECTION 2. Definition - Second -family unit is an attached unit which provides independent living facilities and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation on the same lot as the primary unit. SECTION 3. Second -family units are permitted in the R-1 district subject to obtaining a use permit. SECTION 4. These regulations are intended to ensure a compatible integration of second -family units with single-family units. SECTION 5. The following site development standards shall apply to placement of second -family units: A. The second -family unit shall not exceed 640 square feet; B. Lot Area: Minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet; C. Lot Width: Minimum lot width shall be 65 feet; D Lot Depth: Minimum lot depth shall be 150 feet; E. Front Yard Setback: Minimum front yard setack shall be 25 feet; F. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum rear yard setback shall be 15 feet from the rear proper y ine; G. Side Yards: Side yard setbacks shall be not less than five (5) feet on one side and 15 feet on the street side of corner lots and 10 feet on interior lots. Fireplaces and other appurtenances may encroach a maximum of two (2) feet; H. Height: Maximum allowable height shall be 35 feet; M 0 I. Lot Coverage: Maximum allowable lot coverage by building or structure shall be not more than 70 percent of the net lot area. SECTION 6. There shall be provided on the same parcel parking as provided for a single family and one uncovered parking space. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission shall approve the use permit only if: A. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use without altering the exterior front appearance of the structure; B. The proposed second -family unit is clearly subordinate in size, location, and appearance to the principal unit; C. The second -family unit will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing within the neighborhood of the proposed use or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. SECTION 8. Appeal - The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless appealedTriting to the City Council by the applicant within ten (10) calendar days. The letter of appeal shall be accompanied by a processing fee. The letter shall be filed with the City Clerk's Office. A. The City Council shall set a date for public hearing, and notices shall be mailed as required. The Planning Commission shall submit a report and the Planning Commission Minutes to the City Council; B. The City Council shall make its own determination as to whether the second -family unit meets City standards and may approve, modify, or disapprove the decision of the Planning Commission. SECTION 9. No building permit shall be issued in any case where a use permit is required by the terms of this title until ten (10) days after the granting of such use permit by the Planning Commission and by the City Council in the event of appeal, and then only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the use permit granted. SECTION 10. Any use permit granted in accordance with this Ordinance may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such permit are violated, or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on.any proposed revocation after giving written notice to the permittee at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and shall submit its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall act thereon within thirty (30) days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning commission. - 2 - SECTION 11. Any use permit granted in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance shall expire if not used within one (1) year from date of final approval. Upon application by letter filed prior to expiration of use permit for second -family dwelling unit, the time at which such use permit expires may be extended by the Planning Director for a period not exceeding one (1) year. SECTION 12. Effective Date - This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12.01 a.m. on the Est day after its adoption. SECTION 13. Posting- The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) pu is aces designated for such purpose by the City Council. SECTION 14. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the day of , 1983, and finally adopted and ordered posted at regular —meeting o say ity Council on the day of , 1983. ATTEST: Gity Werk of the City of Oran Terrace and of the City Council thereof. Approved as to form: City Attorney Mayor of the City of GrandTerrace and of the City Council thereof. - 3 -