Loading...
07/23/19810 I1 J CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JULY 23, 1981 A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order at Terrace View Elementary School, 22731 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace, California, on July 23, 1981, at 6:36 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Roy W. Nix, Councilman Jim Rigley, Councilman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Myrna Lindahl, City Clerk ABSENT: Thomas A. Tillinghast, Mayor The meeting was opened with invocation by Councilman Nix, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Mayor Pro Tempore Grant. CC-81-252 ITEMS ADDED TO AGENDA 5A(1) R2solution ordering improvements and formation of Landscaping and Lighting District No. 81-01, confirming the diagram and assessment, and providing for assessment levy. 5E - Economic Development Committee Appointments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (6/25/81) Motion by Councilman Petta, second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, by all present, to approve the Minutes of June 25, 1981, as presented. LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 81-01 Attorney John Harper advised Council that the District under consid- eration is known as a Benefit Assessment District. This District differs from other kinds of districts,in that the assessment against each individual parcel is designed to benefit the parcel it serves and to provide a system whereby the individuals actually receiving the benefit from the lights will be the ones paying for that benefit. Individuals living in an undeveloped area with no street lighting will pay no assessment at this time, but at such time as the area develops, an assessment would be added, and those individuals would pay their share at that time. The name of this District being considered for adoption is known as a Landscaping and Lighting District; however, Page one - 7/23/81 the Engineer's Report does not include landscaping. This District has been designed exclusively to pay for utility cost, rather than lighting construction and landscaping. The Engineer's Report would have to be amended if landscaping were to be included. The Engineer's Report is an analysis of the lighting and benefit received by each parcel, and is limited to those improvements listed in the Report, which is user charges that Southern California Edison Company is cur- rently charging the City. This is not a source of funds for the City, but will offset the City's electricity costs. If the initial assess- ment is too large, the surplus will be carried over to the next year. The Public Hearing being held tonight is called a Majority Protest Hearing, and allows the public opportunity to express their feelings toward the establishment of a Landscaping and Lighting District, with Council making the final decision based on the input received. The Streets and Highways Code provides that, should a majority of the property owners protest in writing, that is 50% plus one of the land- owners, a four -fifths vote would be required in order for Council to override the protest. At the present time, only one written protest has been received out of approximately 1,400 noticed property owners, with some telephone inquiries and protests being received. City Engineer Joe Kicak stated the purpose of this Assessment Dis- trict is to pay for energy charges on existing street lights, and does not provide for installation of new lights. There are 185 street lights within the Assessment District. In addition there are 18 other street lights scattered throughout the City, mostly at intersections. The City's contribution toward the Assessment District is $10,000, with the balance of the assessment being spread among the other parcels for either a full or partial benefit. The amount for the full assessment is $31.28 per year; the partial assessment is $3.13. These amounts will appear on the property tax bills as a line item. On July 10, 1,400 notices were mailed out to property owners. Inquiries have been received from 17 property owners. Of those 17 in- quiries, one was a written protest, with the other sixteen inquiries being made by telephone, of which six were in a form of a protest. The balance of the inquiries were regarding questions on how additional street lights could be installed. Twenty-four notices were returned due to the owner moving and leaving no forwarding address. Of those twenty-four, seven notices were re -mailed to those property owners who were found to have a new address. A field review was conducted, and one area was found to have been assessed at $31.18, which should have been assessed at $3.13. The Engineer's Report has been amended to reflect that area as follows by parcel number: 276-531-047 is a landlocked parcel and was changed to -0-. The following parcel num- bers have been.reduced from $31.28 to $3.13: 277-231-002; 277-231- 003; 277-231-004; 277-231-005; 277-231-008; 277-231-009; 277-231-010; 277-231-011; 277-231-012; 277-231-013; 277-232-001; 277-232-002; 277-232-003; 277-232-004; 277-232-005, 277-232-006. Council questioned how the number of -parcels was determined. Mr. Kicak stated the boundaries of the Assessment District were estab- lished based on the density of street lighting, i.e., if a Tract Page two - 7/23/81 contained street lighting within a certain block, the boundary was drawn as close to the intersection as possible. CC-81-253 Motion by Councilman Nix, second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, by all present, to adopt the Engineer's Report for the Landscaping and Lighting District No. 81-01. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant opened Public Hearing. Supporting Testimony - none. Opposing Testimony - Linda Stienstra, 12740 Vivienda, stated the citizens in her block have petitioned for street lights. Stated the block presently contains one street light, which she had installed, and is currently paying for this light bi-monthly. Stated her neigh- bors are now being assessed for that street light and questioned whether she would be required to pay the assessment plus the billing she is presently paying. Jim Stienstra, 12740 Vivienda, questioned whether they would be assessed more should any future lights be installed. Ed St. Germain, 12600 Warbler, stated the Landscaping and Lighting Act specifies installation of improvements, and questioned where the authority was found to form a District for existing improvements. Questioned what formula was used to arrive at the assessments as to who is being benefited and to what extent; asked whether the utility rights -of -way were included in the District, and whether it was con- sidered a benefit to the easement and to the property. Attorney John Harper cited Streets and Highways Code, Section 22538, as the authority to form the District for existing improvements, and proceeded to read that Section. Glenda Stoneking, 12223 Dos Rios, questioned the amounts of the assess- ments, feeling they are excessive, since Mrs. Stienstra is currently paying $96.00 a year for one light and, in Mrs. Stoneking's area, five residents will be sharing one light standard for a total price of $225. Bob Yeates, 12888 Fremontia, voiced opposition to paying for the street light at his intersection, since that service has been provided by the County and the City for 10 years; voiced opposition to the number of people on City staff; voiced opposition to the City paying $35.00 each for trees recently installed, which he referred to as vines, not trees. Ed O'Neal ,22608 Minona, stated he could understand establishing a Landscaping and Lighting District if it was for the purpose of lighting the City. Stated individuals have installed lights and paid the elec- tricity bill because they wanted them - the neighbors should not be assessed for those lights. Lillian Swartz, 22757-A Palm Avenue, stated she resides in the Azure Hills Condominiums and voiced opposition to the ten condominiums with Page three - 7/23/81 frontage on the street, which has four street lights, being required to pay the assessment, feeling these lights benefit all of the condo- miniums as well as all of the City. 0 Harold Young, 22661-B Palm Avenue, stated he was representing the property owners of the Azure Hills Condominiums, and stated the Board of Directors adopted a Resolution that the assessment presently being charged to the front units should be spread equally among all of the units. John Wright, 22614 Lark Street, questioned whether all 1,400 parcels were being assessed $31.28; questioned the present utility cost to the City; and stated 16 homes share one street light and questioned whether they should all be assessed $31.28. Linda Stienstra stated approximately one and one-half years ago the City assumed the cost for some individuals' street lights, but did not assume the cost for hers, stating it was due to the fact that street light only benefited her property. However, the City is now stating her street light benefits 21 homes. Cathie Swanson, 12676 Mirado Avenue, stated the City Council had previously stated they would work for nothing; however, now receive $150.00 each per month, and suggested this amount be returned to the City to pay for the street lights. Patrick Sullivan, 22605 Lark Street, questioned how many parcels were assessed 531.28 and how many were assessed $3.13; questioned whether Southern California Edison Company had been questioned on the cost to run one light; recommended the City approach Southern Cali- fornia Edison Company to try to get a better price, since it is buying in quantity - feels the price is exorbitant, since assessments on his street indicate a charge of approximately $300.00 per light. Virginia Lothamer, 12551 Darwin Avenue, questioned why she and her neighbor, who lives on Kentfield, are being assessed, since the nearest street light is on Mt. Vernon, and questioned how that light benefits their property. Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry Street, stated he purchased three street lights, and the total energy cost is $99.00. He paid $78.00 for installation of a light. Stated these three lights benefit about eleven houses; therefore, questioned the $31.28 assessment. Ed St. Germain questioned the definition of "benefit." Ken Rinderhagen, 12738 Wilmac, voiced objection to Assessment Dis- tricts; stated they are taxation; feels the City should pay some things. John Stoneking, 12223 Dos Rios, recommended the City renegotiate for a better price for the citizens. Page four - 7/23/81 J Page five - 7/23/81 Elizabeth Northrup, 12710 Wilmac Avenue, voiced opposition, stating she has twenty lights on her house, which is more than adequate. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant closed Public Hearing. Council requested clarification regarding the assessments proposed, and questioned the amount the City paid for energy costs the previ- ous year. Finance/Administrative Services Officer Ed Clark stated the City's energy costs for the previous twelve months through June 30 was $20,794.00. He further stated that Southern California Edison Company had advised Council at a previous meeting the energy costs would increase by 50%, and indication has already been received showing that increase. Councilman Petta favored delaying the matter and decreasing the assessments. Councilman Nix stated the total amount to be collected from the assessments appears to be proper; however, feels there are inconsistencies among the assessments being charged to various individuals, and would favor delaying the matter to resolve this. Councilmen Rigley and Petta stated input previously received regarding the formation of a Landscaping and Lighting Dis- trict had indicated its formation would benefit the citizens, since it would provide additional lighting for those individuals desiring or needing additional lighting. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant concurred with Council's concerns, particularly regarding the equity of the assessments. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant reopened Public Hearing on the matter. Lillian Swartz, 22757-A Palm Avenue, voiced opposition to the City collecting $850.00 for only four lights, and stated the residents of the Azure Hills Condominiums are already paying for interior lighting of the condominiums. Virginia Lothamer, 12551 Darwin Avenue, question whether the assess- ment would always be $31.28. Gordon Swanson, 12676 Mirado Avenue, questioned the basis on which the Azure Hills Condominiums were assessed. Bob Yeates, 12888 Fremontia, disagreed with the statement that any excess funds would be received by the public. Ken Rinderhagen, 12738 Wilmac Avenue, stated the title of Majority Protest Hearing, as stated by Attorney Harper, is a term he had not heard previously, and was not stated in the Notice of Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant closed Public Hearing. Councilman Nix clarified that, relative to utilization of excess funds, the funds collected for this purpose can only be used for this pur- pose and cannot legally be used for other purposes, as has been im- plied. He further stated assessments should be conservative, with the City being responsible for any deficit. Attorney John Harper advised Council they have the alternative of either taking action to confirm or not to confirm the Landscaping and Lighting District, or the matter can be continued. However, the statute indicates that action must be taken on or before August 15, since the assessment must be filed with the County of San Bernardino on or before August 15. CC-81-254 Motion by Councilman Petta, second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, by all present, not to confirm the Landscaping and Lighting District No. 81-01, and to take no further action on this matter. Recess was called at 8:06 p.m., and reconvened at 8:20 p.m., with all members present except Mayor Tillinghast. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-81-255 Motion by Councilman Nix, second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, by all present. to approve the following items on the Consent Calendar: 3A - Approval of Check Register No. 072381. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner John McDowell requested proposed ordinances for building standards and nuisance control be considered as soon as possible. City Attorney Hopkins stated these proposed ordinances will have to be studied carefully in relation to the San Bernardino County Code in order to make certain the proposed ordinances will not have a dire effect on the City, since enactment of those ordinances would render what the City currently has as non-existent. CHAPTER 27 - FIELD SUBDIVISION City Engineer Kicak stated that, as requested by Council, the costs of the improvements in the Field's Subdivision were recomputed. The total cost of $207,203.70 was divided three ways, with one-third being the City's share, one-third to be spread on assessable front footage, and one-third to be spread equally among the 77 parcels within the Assessment District. Based on that formula, the maximum assessment is $2,500.70,and the minimum assessment is $1,074.30. Also, the possibility of installing a storm drain in the vicinity of Arliss and Minona was studied, with the cost estimated at $49,675.00. Mr. Kicak recommended Council consider conducting a survey of the affected property owners to determine their interest in this project and to advise them of the costs involved and how they would be paid. In discussion, Council discussed the importance of clearly conveying the information regarding the proposed project to the affected prop- erty owner, and questioned the amount it would cost to conduct the proposed survey. Mr. Kicak estimated it would cost $2,500.00 to 0 Page six - 7/23/81 conduct the survey. Councilman Rigley voiced opposition to conduct- ing the survey, feeling that $2,500.00 is an excessive amount, and that it would create more hard feelings among the citizens. Council- man Petta concurred with Councilman Rigley's comments, stating he would not be in favor of spending $1,700.00 for a gutter. Council- man Nix stated he had questioned a few property owners regarding their interest in sharing the costs of this project, and they had indicated an unwillingness to participate. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant voiced opposition to the cost of the survey, and voiced concern that it appears no improvements will be completed within the City unless they are paid for by the City. CC-81-256 Motion by Councilman Rigley, second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, by all present, to take no further action on this matter. BID AWARD - TERRACE HILLS COMMUNITY PARK ANNUAL MAINTENANCE City Manager Armstead advised Council the bids for this contract were opened on July 20, 1981, at which time only one bid was received, and that from J & L Landscaping in the amount of $19,992.00. The City Manager further stated the funds to pay this contract will be drawn from the Community Services Budget Line Item No. 245 - Mainten- ance, Building & Grounds, which presently has an allotment of $20,000.00. Staff had recommended approval of $30,000.00 for this Line Item, which also includes repair and replacement of irrigation equipment, turf repair, and nursey services for the Terrace Hills Community Park. Since award of this contract will result in a balance of 58.00 in that Budget Line Item, it appears a request for additional funds be required during the mid -year Budget review. The City Manager recommended awarding the bid for the annual maintenance of Terrace Hills Community Park to J & L Landscaping in the amount of $19,992.00. In discussion Council voiced concern that only one bid was received, and questioned what process was used for advertising the bids. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed there is no conflict of interest involved with awarding the bid to J & L Landscaping regarding the fact that Mr. Len Kramer, one of the owners, is on the Parks & Recreation Committee; clarified that Mr. Kramer would not be allowed to in- spect his own work. Parks & Recreation Committee Chairman Dick Rollins advised Council that Community Services Director Randy Anstine had made direct telephone calls to contractors notifying them of the request for bids, due to the lack of response. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant stated that, based on information received from Mr. Anstine in Work Session, he was satisfied that Staff had taken all legal precautions required in notification of the bid request. CC-81-257 Motion by Mayor Pro Tempore Grant, second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, by all present, to award the bid for the Terrace Hills Com- munity Park Annual Maintenance to J & L Landscaping in the amount of $19,992.00. } Page seven - 7/23/81 PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT Chairman Dick Rollins reported the following: (1) Withdrew pre- vious comments made regarding other committees pertaining to the Fourth of July Picnic; (2) Due to the problems which occurred recently at the ball diamond, particulary with alcoholic beverages,, there are no future plans to allow surrounding communities the use of the ball diamond. Motion by Councilman Petta, second by Councilman Rigley, to appoint Johnny Sanders as a regular member of the Parks and Recreation Committee, to fill the unexpired term of Geoff Dooley to expire June 30, 1982. Councilman Nix stated that Mr. Sanders had recently resigned from the Committee and had submitted comments of criticism at that time, and questioned whether this situation had been resolved. Chairman Dick Rollins stated he feels the problems have been resolved, and stated that the Committee had invited Mr. Sanders to reapply for membership on the Committee. Feels there is a need for liaison with Little Leaque. In discussion, Council requested clarification from both Mr. Sanders and the Committee that all recreational aspects are functions of the Committee, and that the Committee ►-ras not established for any one - specific function prior to any further action being taken on the appointment of Mr. Sanders. Council also clarified that this action is not meant to be a reflection on the applicant. The question was raised regarding proper items to be considered in Executive Sessions. City Attorney Hopkins stated it is proper for committees to hold Executive Sessions; however, appointment to committees is not a proper item for Executive Session. IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING CONTRACT NO. GTC 81-09 City Engineer Joe Kicak advised Council this Contract expires July 31, 1981. At that time all of the work that was required is to be completed; and if it is not completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, liquidated damages can be assessed against the Contractor at that time. The Contractor has been provided with a list of deficiencies that are to be corrected prior to acceptance of the work by the City. Those deficiencies have not yet been cor- rected; however, it is anticipated they will be corrected before the completion of the project. A portion of the Contract cannot be completed until electrical service is provided to the Park. To date the Southern California Edison Company has not provided that service. Mr. Kicak then outlined the recommended action on this matter as listed on the Staff Report dated July 23, 1981. 0 In discussion it was stated that a walk-through inspection will be conducted at the Site on Friday, July 31, for the purpose of assess- ing the status at the Site and expressing the satisfaction or 0 Page eight - 7/23/81 dissatisfaction, and that $4,500.00 is presently being held against that Contract. Council also clarified that Engineering Staff had indicated the Contractor is willing and anxious to have the portion of the Contract rescinded which requires prior installation of electrical facilities. CC-81-258 Motion by Councilman Nix, second by Mayor Pro Tempore Grant, ALL AYES, by all present, to take the following action on the Irrigation and Landscaping Contract No. GTC 81-09: (1) That the City Council re- verse its action on a previously approved Change Order for the $1,000 a month maintenance by the Contractor after the bids have been re- ceived for the maintenance of the Park; (2) That the Contractor be given the time in accordance with the specifications to complete the Contract, after which time all the provisions of the Contract, with respect to liquidated damages, will be imposed; (3) That the City Council delete the portion of the Contract which pertains to the remaining electrical work. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Council discussed the number of members to be established for the Com- mittee, voiced opposition to including any special interest groups, such as the large landowners sped fical ly,on the Committee, stating a preference that those individuals be encouraged to provide input to the Committee. It was noted that the proposed members to be represented by the Chamber of Commerce are not residents of the City. Council then concurred that the Committee would be comprised of five members, one to be appointed by each Council Member, with representa- tives from the Chamber of Commerce, the affected landowners, and the San Bernardino County representative to be included in the Committee as non -voting members. It was also clarified that City Engineer Joe Kicak had been appointed as a respresentative on the Committee at the previous Council Meeting. Nominations to the Committee were made as follnws: Councilman Petta nominated Jerry Hawkinson; Councilman Rigley rominated John McDowell; Councilman Nix nominated Mrs. Glen (Skippy) Cooley, with the clarifi- cation this individual had not been contacted for concurrence to serve on the Committee; Mayor Pro Tempore Grant nominated Arlena Ware. CC-81-259 Motion by Councilman Petta, second by Mayor Pro Tempore Grant, ALL AYES, by all present, to approve the nominations as made by Council. WATER LINE EXTENSIONS - BARTON ROAD, PRESTON TO PALM City Engineer Joe Kicak stated that at the present time there is no water line on Barton Road between Preston and Palm. A certain amount of development could occur along that fontage. Also, on a portion of Preston Avenue, there is only a four -inch -diameter line. Concern has been expressed regarding this matter with respect to fire protec- tion, as well as service to the properties along Barton Road. Mr. Kicak then recommended that the City Council express the City's Page nine - 7/23/81 interest in participating in this project and authorize Staff to contact other property owners involved to determine their interest in this project. Council questioned the cost to conduct the survey and requested clarification on the footage and price. Mr. Kicak stated it is estimated that 2,300 feet of eight -inch steel line, ten valves, and five hydrants will be required to provide adequate service for the area at an estimated cost of $50,000.00. Staff proposes that these costs be spread among the benefiting property owners on a basis of $20.00 per lineal foot. Council discussed the possibility of proceeding with this project, with payment being provided by the developers who are willing to participate at this time; the City paying the remaining balance at this time and charging the developers who do not participate at such time as they develop the property. Mr. Kicak questioned the City Attorney as to the legality of charging the property owners directly for a water line, rather than entering into an agreement. City Attorney Hopkins stated it would be necessary to enter into a reimbursement agreement, and the standard PUC reim- bursement agreement could be used. Council then authorized and directed Engineering Staff to conduct a telephone survey of the affected property owners to determine their interest in participating in this project. GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST - TENNIS COURT CONSTRUCTION City Manager Armstead requested Council authorize International Systems, Inc., to submit a Grant application to the State Department of Parks and Recreation in order to provide the City with funds to construct two unlighted tennis courts at the Terrace Hills Junior High School. Staff has estimated the construction of two tennis courts would cost appoximately $30,000.00. Funding distribution from the Grant, if approved, would be $22,500.00, to be paid by the State, with the City's portion to be $7,500.00. In discussion, Council recommended negotiating with Colton Joint Unified School District regarding the possibility of participating in this project, and that the cost of the project be increased to in- clude lighting the tennis courts. Council also questioned whether the prospects of being awarded the Grant would be increased by having ISI prepare the Grant application. It was noted that the information regarding the Grant was obtained through the Community Services Director, Randy Anstine, rather than through ISI, and ISI would receive the credit for application of this Grant if we proceed through them. RESOLUTION NO. 81-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-P BERG URBAN OPEN -SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM FOR CON- STRUCTION OF TENNIS COURTS. Page ten - 7/23/81 I CC-81-260 Motion by Councilman Rigley, second by Councilman Petta, ALL AYES, by all present, to approve Resolution No. 81-51 and authorize ISI to submit the Grant application. CITY ENGINEER REPORT Page eleven - 7/23/81 City Engineer Kicak stated, regarding the Landscaping and Lighting District No. 81-01, that most of the individuals attending the meeting in opposition were those whose assessments had been adjusted, and felt that, given the opportunity, all questions could have been answered very easily. He further stated 15 or 16 phone calls were received and responded to, and most of the individuals were quite satisfied. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Nix voiced agreement with the City Engineer regarding his statements on the Landscaping and Lighting District, feeling that, had the matter been presented to Council at an earlier date, ..most of the questions could have been answered satisfactorily, ..,'-adjustments could have been made, and the results could have been different. The CRA Hearings went well because sufficient time was allowed to answer all questions. Councilman Nix requested action be taken to correct the erroneous numbers on the Country Club Lane street signs. Mayor Pro Tempore Grant reported on the following: (1) A meeting was held with Supervisor Younglove, Supervisor of Riverside County, which produced no results regarding a stop sign at the intersection of Vichigan and Main, and feels the matter is closed. Stated that Supervisor Younglove was receptive to the idea of joining with thte City in an advisory capacity to study the growth in that area; (2) Attended the Inland Manpower Association Executive Board Meeting held July 17, at which time he proposed the possibility of Councils of Government becoming equal members in the Joint Powers Agreement. Further stated he is considering proposing this matter to the SANBAG Board of Directors also; (3) Took a tour of the Inland Empire Job Corps, and stated the facility is very much improved. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry, addressed Council regarding construction of proposed City facilities. Ken Rinderhagen, 12738 Wilmac, ques- tioned how an Engineering related problem would be handled in order for it to come before Council for consideration. Mr. Kicak stated that any time a citizen advises them of a problem, the Staff goes out to check to see what the problem is and what the solution could be. ADJOURN CC-81-261 Motion by Councilman Petta, second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES, by all present, to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 10:05 p.m. The next Regular Meeting will be held August 13, 1981, at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City erk= APPROVED: Page twelve - 7/23/81 11 d