The URL can be used to link to this page

03/09/2021CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ● MARCH 9, 2021 Council Chambers Regular Meeting 6:00 PM Grand Terrace Civic Center ● 22795 Barton Road City of Grand Terrace Page 1 PUBLIC ADVISORY: THE COUNCIL CHAMBER IS NOW OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!! Beginning June 15, 2020, the City of Grand Terrace will reopen its public meetings. Therefore, the regular meeting of the City Council for March 9, 2021 is now open to the public. Please be advised that face masks are required, social distancing will be practiced, and occupancy limits will be enforced. Please note that Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N -29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, the regular meeting of the City Council for March 9, 2021 will also be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the City’s website. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC The public is encouraged to address the City Council on any matter posted on the agenda or on any other matter within its jurisdiction. If you wish to address the City Council, you are invited to complete a Request to Speak Form available at the entrance and present it to the City Clerk. Speakers physically present and participating via Zoom will be called upon by the Mayor at the appropriate time and each person is allowed three (3) minutes speaking time. If you would like to participate telephonically and speak on an agenda item, you can access the meeting by dialing the following telephone number and you will be placed in the waiting room, muted until it is your turn to speak: 1-669-900-9128 Enter Meeting ID: 895 5176 4559 Password: 194341 The City wants you to know that you can also submit your comments by email to ccpubliccomment@grandterrace- ca.gov. To give the City Clerk adequate time to print out your comments for consideration at the meeting, please submit your written comments prior to 5:00 p.m.; or if you are unable to email, please call the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 824-6621 x230 by 5:00 p.m. If you wish to have your comments read to the City Council during the appropriate Public Comment period, please indicate in the Subject Line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and list the item number you wish to comment on. Comments that you want read to the City Council will be subject to the three (3) minute time limitation (approximately 350 words). Pursuant to the provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting. PLEASE NOTE: Copies of staff reports and supporting documentation pertaining to each item on this agenda are available for public viewing and inspection at City Hall, 1st Floor Lobby Area and 2nd Floor Reception Area during regular business hours and on the City’s website www.grandterrace-ca.gov. For further information regarding agenda items, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (909) 824-6621 x230, or via e-mail at dthomas@grandterrace- ca.gov. Any documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made avail able for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall located at 22795 Barton Road during normal business hours. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at www.grandterrace-ca.gov. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (909) 824-6621 x230 at least 48 hours prior to the advertised starting time of the meeting. This will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. Agenda Grand Terrace City Council March 9, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 2 CALL TO ORDER Convene City Council. Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived Mayor Darcy McNaboe    Mayor Pro Tem Bill Hussey    Council Member Sylvia Robles    Council Member Doug Wilson    Council Member Jeff Allen    A. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS American Rescue Plan presented by United States Representative Pete Aguilar, California’s 31st District. B. REORDERING OF, ADDITIONS TO, OR REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM THE AGENDA C. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the City Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent calendar for discussion. 1. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda DEPARTMENT: CITY CLERK 2. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting – 02/23/2021 DEPARTMENT: CITY CLERK Agenda Grand Terrace City Council March 9, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 3 3. September 17, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 14, 2021 Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes and Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Workplan RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DEPARTMENT: CITY CLERK D. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE G. NEW BUSINESS 4. Amendment #1 to the Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group for Interim Public Works Director & Senior Engineer Services Changing the Assigned Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer & Increasing the Contract Amount from $150,000 to $200,000. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment #1 to the Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group for Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer Services changing the assigned Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer and increasing the contract amount from $150,000 to $200,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment #1 subject to City Attorney approval as to form. DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER Agenda Grand Terrace City Council March 9, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 4 5. FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget updates. DEPARTMENT: FINANCE H. REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL - NONE I. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Sub-Committee/Ad Hoc Committee Communications Subcommittee Mayor Pro Tem Bill Hussey & Council Member Doug Wilson Oral Report: • Oath of Office, Acceptable Code of Conduct, and Censure Policy Applicable to the City Council Council Member Jeff Allen Council Member Doug Wilson Council Member Sylvia Robles Mayor Pro Tem Bill Hussey Mayor Darcy McNaboe J. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS K. CLOSED SESSION - NONE L. ADJOURN The Next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 6:00 PM. Any request to have an item placed on a future agenda must be made in writing and submitted to the City Clerk’s office and the request will be processed in accordance with Council Procedures. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ● FEBRUARY 23, 2021 Council Chambers Regular Meeting 6:00 PM Grand Terrace Civic Center ● 22795 Barton Road City of Grand Terrace Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Darcy McNaboe convened the Regular Meeting of the City Council for Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Reverend Anthony C. Waturuocha of Christ the Redeemer Catholic Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Doug Wilson. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Darcy McNaboe Mayor Present Bill Hussey Mayor Pro Tem Present Sylvia Robles Council Member Present Doug Wilson Council Member Present Jeff Allen Council Member Present G. Harold Duffey City Manager Present Adrian Guerra City Attorney Present Debra Thomas City Clerk Present Steven Weiss Planning & Development Services Director Present Craig Bradshaw Interim Public Works Director Present Cynthia A. Fortune Assistant City Manager Remote A. PRESENTATIONS 1. Pavement Management Program Status Presentation Craig Bradshaw, Interim Public Works Director gave the PowerPoint presentation for this item. 1. RECEIVE AND FILE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE RESULT: NO ACTION TAKEN C.2 Packet Pg. 5 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 23, 2021 6:00 PM (Consent Calendar) Minutes Grand Terrace City Council February 23, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 2 B. REORDERING OF, ADDITIONS TO, OR REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM THE AGENDA None. C. CONSENT CALENDAR RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Jeff Allen, Council Member SECONDER: Bill Hussey, Mayor Pro Tem AYES: McNaboe, Hussey, Robles, Wilson, Allen 1. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting – 02/09/2021 APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2021. 3. Approval of the January-2021 Check Register in the Amount of $665,950.57 APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER NO. 01312021 IN THE AMOUNT OF $665,950.57 AS SUBMITTED, FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31, 2021. 4. Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 2020 RECEIVE AND FILE THE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2020. 5. City Department Monthly Activity Report - December 2020 RECEIVE AND FILE. 6. Award the Contract for Installation of Park Shad e Structures at Fitness Park and Handicap Swing at Rollins Park to Jonescape Construction in the Amount of $22,550, Plus a 10% Contingency ($2,255) 1. AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF GRAND TERRACE FIT NESS PARK SHADE STRUCTURE AND RICHARD ROLLINS PARK HANDICAP SWING TO JONESCAPE CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,550, PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $2,255, FOR A TOTAL OF $24,805 AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CONTRACT SUBJECT TO CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL AS TO FORM; AND 2. APPROVE THE REVENUE AND APPROPRIATIONS OF $19,000 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE APPROVED LOCAL ASSISTANCE SPECIFIED GRAND FOR HANDICAP SWING PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT WHICH WILL FUND THE HANDICAP SWING EQUIPMENT INSTALLED AT RICHARD ROLLINS PARK. D. PUBLIC COMMENT None. C.2 Packet Pg. 6 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 23, 2021 6:00 PM (Consent Calendar) Minutes Grand Terrace City Council February 23, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 3 E. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE G. NEW BUSINESS 7. Sales Tax Sharing Agreement with SERJ Taco California, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company Operating a Taco Bell Restaurant on the Corner of Barton Road and Vivienda/Commerce Way G. Harold Duffey, City Manager gave the PowerPoint presentation for this item. 1. FIND THAT THE SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENT IS NOT A “PROJECT” FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED BY CEQA GUIDELINES §15378, OR ALTERNATIVELY, AN ORGANIZATIONAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITY THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN A DIRECT OR INDIRECT PHYSICAL CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT; AND AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AS APPLICABLE; AND 2. APPROVE SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENT WITH SERJ TACO CALIFORNIA, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NEW EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE; AND 3. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL AS TO FORM. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Jeff Allen, Council Member SECONDER: Bill Hussey, Mayor Pro Tem AYES: McNaboe, Hussey, Robles, Wilson, Allen 8. Award On-Call Contracts for Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance to Jonescape, Inc., On-Call Asphalt Pothole Repair to Hardy & Harper, Inc., and On -Call Asphalt Pothole Repair to Roquet, Inc. Craig Bradshaw, Interim Public Works Director gave the PowerPoint presentation for this item. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AWARD CONTRACTS FOR ON - CALL CONCRETE AND ASPHALT MAINTENANCE TO JONESCAPE, INC. (IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000), ON-CALL ASPHALT POTHOLE REPAIR TO HARDY AND HARPER, INC. (IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000), AND ON-CALL ASPHALT POTHOLE C.2 Packet Pg. 7 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 23, 2021 6:00 PM (Consent Calendar) Minutes Grand Terrace City Council February 23, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 4 REPAIR TO ROQUET, INC. (IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000); AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE EACH OF THESE CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL AS TO FORM. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Doug Wilson, Council Member SECONDER: Bill Hussey, Mayor Pro Tem AYES: McNaboe, Hussey, Robles, Wilson, Allen 9. Award Contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for $663,000, Plus a 10% Contingency ($66,300) for the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project (CIP 2021-1) Craig Bradshaw, Interim Public Works Director gave the PowerPoint presentation for this item. Council Member Doug Wilson alternatively moved, with a second from Council Member Jeff Allen, to: 1. FIND THAT THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROJECT (CIP 2021-1) IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA REGULATIONS SECTION 15301(C) AND AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AS APPLICABLE. 3. AWARD THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROJECT (CIP 2021-1) TO ONYX PAVING COMPANY, INC. AND APPROVE THE PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT WITH ONYX PAVING COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $468,000.00, PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY ($46,800.00) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROJECT (CIP 2021-1 FOR: A) BASE BID ($358,000) AND B) ADD ALTERNATE 1 (BARTON ROAD FROM CITY LIMIT TO HONEY HILL ($110,000) AND DIRECT STAFF TO ACCORDINGLY REVISE THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE REVISED AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL AS TO FORM; AND AUTHORIZE THE REVENUE AND EXPENSE APPROPRIATIONS AS DETAILED IN TABLE 1 OF THE FISCAL IMPACT SECTION. RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 2] MOVER: Doug Wilson, Council Member SECONDER: Jeff Allen, Council Member AYES: Darcy McNaboe, Doug Wilson, Jeff Allen NAYS: Bill Hussey, Sylvia Robles C.2 Packet Pg. 8 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 23, 2021 6:00 PM (Consent Calendar) Minutes Grand Terrace City Council February 23, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 5 10. Consideration for Use of Community Development Block Grant COVID-19 Virus (CDBG-CV) Additional Funding and Authorization for Use of Those Funds Steve Weiss, Planning & Development Services Director gave the PowerPoint presentation for this item. 1. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO UPDATE THE APPLICATION FOR CDBG- CORONAVIRUS (CV) PROGRAM FUNDING TO COMBINE THE EMERGENCY RENT/MORTGAGE PROGRAM WITH THE HOMELESS HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM; AND 2. APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS TO AVAIL OF CDBG-CORONAVIRUS FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,010; AND 3. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DEVELOP AN AGREEMENT WITH LIGHTHOUSE SOCIAL SERVICES TO ADMINISTER THE COMBINED PROGRAM, WITH THE AGREEMENT TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A FUTURE MEETING. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Jeff Allen, Council Member SECONDER: Doug Wilson, Council Member AYES: McNaboe, Hussey, Robles, Wilson, Allen H. REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL - NONE I. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Jeff Allen Nothing to Report. Council Member Doug Wilson Council Member Doug Wilson informed the City Council that the Ad Hoc Committee tasked with review of City legislation is close to bringing it back for Council deliberation. Council Member Sylvia Robles Nothing to Report. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Hussey Nothing to Report. Mayor Darcy McNaboe Nothing to Report. C.2 Packet Pg. 9 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 23, 2021 6:00 PM (Consent Calendar) Minutes Grand Terrace City Council February 23, 2021 City of Grand Terrace Page 6 J. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS G. Harold Duffey, City Manager gave the PowerPoint presentation for City Manager Communications. K. CLOSED SESSION - NONE L. ADJOURN Mayor McNaboe adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 7:25 p.m. The Next Regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, March 9 , 2021 at 6:00 p.m. _________________________________ Darcy McNaboe, Mayor _________________________________ Debra L. Thomas, City Clerk C.2 Packet Pg. 10 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 23, 2021 6:00 PM (Consent Calendar) AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: March 9, 2021 Council Item TITLE: September 17, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 14, 2021 Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes and Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Workplan PRESENTED BY: Debra Thomas, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 2030 VISION STATEMENT: This staff report supports Goal #5, Engage in Proactive Communication. BACKGROUND: Beginning with the November 14, 2017 City Council meeting, the City Clerk was directed by the City Manager to provide Council with a copy of the Planning Commission, Historical & Cultural Activities Committee and Volunteer Emergency Operations Committee minutes to keep Council up -to-date on those Commission/Committee activities and on January 16, 2018, the City Manager requested that the Parks & Recreation Advisory minutes be included in the Committee/Commission Report. DISCUSSION: On February 18, 2021, the Planning Commission held its Regular Meeting and approved its September 17, 2020 Regular Meeting minutes. The minutes for this meeting are included as an attachment to this report (Attachment I). The Planning Commission’s next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 18, 2021. On February 11, 2021, the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee held its Regular Meeting and approved its January 14, 2021 Regular Meeting minutes. The minutes for this meeting are included as an attachment to this report (Attachment II). Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Workplan At its February 11, 2021 Regular Meeting, the Committee was provided with a Workplan that will help the Committee identify resources to address park facilities. This Workplan was discussed at length, reviewed, revised and approved for use by the Committee. This Workplan has been included as an attachment to this report for Council’s information (Attachment III). C.3 Packet Pg. 11 The Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee’s next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 11, 2021. Historical & Cultural Advisory Committee – Nothing to Report. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment I - 09-17-2020 PC Minutes (PDF) • Attachment II - 01-14-2021 P&R Minutes (PDF) • Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (PDF) APPROVALS: Debra Thomas Completed 03/01/2021 3:14 PM Finance Completed 03/03/2021 1:03 PM City Attorney Completed 03/04/2021 9:56 AM City Manager Completed 03/04/2021 2:33 PM City Council Pending 03/09/2021 6:00 PM C.3 Packet Pg. 12 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION/SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ● SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 Council Chambers Regular Meeting 6:30 PM Grand Terrace Civic Center ● 22795 Barton Road City of Grand Terrace Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Edward Giroux convened the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission / Site and Architectural Review Board for Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice-Chairman Jeremy Briggs. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Edward A. Giroux Chairman Present Jeremy Briggs Vice-Chairman Present Tara Ceseña Commissioner Present Jeffrey McConnell Commissioner Present David Alaniz Commissioner Present Steven Weiss Planning & Development Services Director Present Robert Khuu Assistant City Attorney Present Haide Aguirre Assistant Planner Present Debra Thomas City Clerk Present APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Motion: Motion: September 17, 2020 Approval of Agenda RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Giroux, Briggs, Ceseña, McConnell, Alaniz PUBLIC ADDRESS None. C.3.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Attachment I - 09-17-2020 PC Minutes (Committee and Commission Minutes) Minutes Grand Terrace Planning Commission/Site and Architectural Review Board September 17, 2020 City of Grand Terrace Page 2 A. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting – 08/20/2020 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Edward A. Giroux, Chairman SECONDER: Jeffrey McConnell, Commissioner AYES: Giroux, Briggs, Ceseña, McConnell, Alaniz B. ACTION ITEMS None. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. D. PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation on Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds for Analysis of Traffic Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act Steven Weiss, Planning & Development Services Director introduced consultant Jason Pack of Fehr & Peers. Jason Pack, Fehr & Peers gave the PowerPoint presentation for this item. RECEIVE AND FILE RESULT: NO ACTION TAKEN E. INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONERS Director Weiss stated that the Development Advisory Board held meetings with the Greens Group regarding the property located east of McDo nalds and a developer who is proposing a Wing Stop/Drive Thru Pizza type development across the street. C.3.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Attachment I - 09-17-2020 PC Minutes (Committee and Commission Minutes) Minutes Grand Terrace Planning Commission/Site and Architectural Review Board September 17, 2020 City of Grand Terrace Page 3 F. INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Ceseña attended a webinar through Southern California Association of Governments regarding upcoming new laws. The webinar has been posted on SCAG’s website and can be accessed via www.scag.ca.gov. ADJOURN Adjourn to the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission / Site and Architectural Review Board to be held on October 1, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. _________________________________ Edward Giroux, Chairman of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission _________________________________ Debra L. Thomas, City Clerk C.3.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Attachment I - 09-17-2020 PC Minutes (Committee and Commission Minutes) This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING January 14, 2021 - 4:15 p.m. City Hall Community Room – North 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 MINUTES CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairman Brian Phelps convened the Regular Meeting of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee at 4:25 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Brian Phelps Present: Committee Member Freund, Committee Member Reagan; Vice-Chair Firnkoess; Chairman Phelps Absent: Committee Member Rivera ROLL CALL: 1. Approve November 19, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes Committee Member Freund moved, with a second from Committee Member Regan to approve the November 19, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes. Ayes: Committee Members Freund, Reagan; Vice-Chair Firnkoess; Chairman Phelps Absent: Committee Member Rivera 2. Public Comments None. C.3.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Attachment II - 01-14-2021 P&R Minutes (Committee and Commission Minutes) Agenda Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee January 14, 2021 3. Discussion: Parks & Recreation Projects a. Art in Public Places – Committee Design Ideas for Planning Commission The Committee held discussion on creating a list of design ideas and an Art in Public Places policy to present to the Planning Commission for adoption. Staff would then determine the cost for each item approved on the design list. The Committee approved the following items to add to its design list: A. Beehive B. Wall Art C. Wrap for Dumpster Enclosures D. Tiles on Wall – Commerce Way & Barton Road E. Frames on Wall along Barton Road next to Grand Terrace Elementary School F. Veterans Freedom Park Mural G. Framed Art – Along Mt. Vernon Avenue H. Wrap Trash Cans I. New Digital Sign in Town J. Wrap Utility Boxes K. Place Statuary – Palm/Barton Road b. Community Garden – Update G. Harold Duffey, City Manager informed the Committee that the Community Benefit Agreement with Grand T-1, Inc. will be presented to the City Council at its February 9, 2021 regular meeting. c. Blue Mountain Trail – Update City Manager Duffey informed the Committee that he would like to present information on Dr. Sigdestad’s donation of land for the Blue Mountain Trail to the City Council in June 2021. City Manager Duffey also reminded the Committee about the upcoming Blue Mountain Hike scheduled for March 7, 2021. Staff will begin planning the hike and the item will be brought back to the Committee for discussion at its February 11, 2021 meeting. C.3.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Attachment II - 01-14-2021 P&R Minutes (Committee and Commission Minutes) Agenda Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee January 14, 2021 d. Goals and Objectives Workshop Review City Manager Duffey reviewed the Committee’s March 1, 2019 Goals and Objectives Workshop projects. Each request was reviewed one-by-one, defined, and placed into one of four categories to assist the Committee move its platform forward: Yellow = Action Items (Items to be Completed Without Resources) Green = Contribution and Volunteerism Blue = Presentation and Expansion of City’s Existing Programs (Items do not Require Funding) Olive = Resource (Items that need Funding) Committee Member Reagan requested that the Planning & Development Services Director attend a meeting occasionally to provide updates from maintenance on the City parks. City Manager Duffey provided the Committee with the list of Community Pride Vents managed by the City, as well as supported by the City and of those events, the following events were id entified as events that the Committee would like to continue and fall under the purview of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee: • Rabies Vaccination Clinic in the Park • Walk on Blue Mountain • Community Cleanup Day • Community Day (This event has its own sub-committee. Representatives of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee will serve as a liaisons.) • Summer Recreational Activities • Movies in the Park • Halloween Trunk or Treat • Light Up Grand Terrace (This event has its own sub-committee. Representatives of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee will serve as a liaisons.) Committee Member Freund requested that a digital activity guide be placed on the City’s website. City Manager Duffey also stated that programs that would have otherwise been held in the Community Room , could be broadcast on the City’s various web and television outlets. Chairman Phelps requested that this activity proceed during the pandemic. C.3.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Attachment II - 01-14-2021 P&R Minutes (Committee and Commission Minutes) Agenda Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee January 14, 2021 City Manager Duffey suggested that the Committee hold annual meetings in March with the youth groups (i.e. baseball, football, and soccer leagues) to discuss each group’s needs for the year and resources required. An Adopt-a-Park project needs to come back to the Committee as soon as possible to implement and outline how the volunteer program will work and establish the application process. 4. Committee Member Comments None. 5. Adjournment Chairman Phelps adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee 5:40 p.m. ____________________________ ________________________________ Brian Phelps, Chairman Debra L. Thomas, Committee Secretary Next Meeting Date: February 11, 2021 @ 4:15 p.m. C.3.b Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Attachment II - 01-14-2021 P&R Minutes (Committee and Commission Minutes) City of Grand Terrace Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Workplan February 11, 2021 C.3.c Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee When Parks and Recreation Committees are established, Councils usually have an objective to provide opportunities that guarantee every resident has access to quality Parks and Recreation activities. This is accomplished by: 1) Developing and maintaining park areas and recreation facilities for citizens to enjoy, and at the same time, protecting and preserving the environment for future generations and; 2) Offering recreation programs and services that are consistent with citizens’ needs, interests that add to their health, sense of well-being and sense of community. A Parks and Recreation Committee would most likely focus on the following items: • Give Advice and Provide Recommendations • Evaluate Services • Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Budgets • Committee Helps Establish Park and Recreation Priorities • Review and Support the Use of Park Facilities for events • Review City’s Park Facilities Assessment Plan • Review and Comment on New Park Development The items listed above would require committee members to meet once a month, or as needed, to address park facilities, which can be staffed with existing resources. The resources needed to provide staff the ability to address the recreation component of t he committee really depends on the level of recreational programs the City Council would like to undertake. The City of Grand Terrace’s City Council recognizes the importance of providing Parks and Recreation Services for Grand Terrace residents and th erefore re-established a Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. The committee is comprised of volunteer citizens whose job is to focus on the needs of the community and advise local policymakers on recreation and park matters. The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace has determined that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee shall advise the City Council on the following Parks and Recreation matters: • The development and maintenance of park areas and recreation facilities for residents to enjoy; • and at the same time, protecting and preserving the environment for future generations, and • recommend the establishment of programs and services that are consistent with resident needs, interests that that would add to their health, sense of well- being and sense of community. C.3.c Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee is advisory, meaning they provide valuable input but have no final decision-making or enforcement authority. They make recommendations that are not adopted unless the local elected officials approve them. The City Council controls the formation, objectives, appointments, and removal of committee members. Past Community and Park and Recreation Activities Staff was engaged or supported various community activities, including: • Grand Terrace Community Days • Community Cleanups • Summer Camps • Excursions to Sporting Events • Tour De Terrace Bike Classic • Trunk or Treat • Light-up Grand Terrace • Movies in the Park • Rabies Vaccination Clinic • Youth Art Show • Other Activities • Joint Use Agreement with Colton Joint Unified School District (CJUSD) for Grand Terrace Sports Leagues to use School District Facilities as Recreation Sites • Recommendation on Fees • New Parks and Open Space Recommendations Expanded Partnership for New Recreation Programs The “Recreation” component of Parks and Recreation activities are usually conducted by city staff. However, Grand Terrace has not offered direct programming since April 2000. The City’s primary park activity is ownership of parks and maintenance of those facilities. The City has also continued its partnership with the Colton Joint Unified School District (CJUSD) to facilitate the use of CJUSD sites by Grand Terrace Sports Leagues. This arrangement provides a ray of facilities that Community Sports Leagues can utilize to offer organized league play to the Grand Terrace community. The park facilities are also used by nonprofits to offer additional recreational offerings. The City charges a nominal fee for use of facilities. Example, in the 2015/16 Fiscal Year, the City Council supported a five (5) week summer camp and swim program at a cost of approximately $45,000. The City Council contracted with the REC Center and the Boys and Girls Club. If the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee continued programs like the items funded in 2015/16 Fiscal Year, there would be no need to hire staff. If programs were to increase beyond seasonal programs, into C.3.c Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee league play and other activities, staff resources would be needed (however, not at the previous Recreation Department level of eight (8)). Based on the charge given to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, staff convened a workshop to develop a work plan to strategically identify areas the committee would like to focus. Staff conducted the worksho p in March of 2019. Although, the committee membership has changed with resignations and appointment of two new members (Committee Members Freund and Reagan), a summary of the workshop was provided to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee in January 2021, allowing the new members to review and add any additional comments to the original data from the original workshop. Therefore, this workplan represents the current Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee’s 2021-22 workplan, subject to any additions or modifications. The workplan identifies four key areas: Focus Area Definition Action items Actions items are short term Goals and Objectives of the committee. The committee desires the community to connect with the City’s Park and Open Spaces and will promote ideas and programs to further this endeavor. Volunteerism and Contribution by the Community Grand Terrace is a unique community and much of its success depends on the community’s contribution towards its quality of life. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee would like to harness the energy of the community and create more opportunities for residents to volunteer, contribute and engage in our parks and recreation programs. Preservation and Expansion of our Existing Programs The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee values the existing programs offered by the City and would like to expand recreational and community activities through partnerships with local community partners. Resources and Facilities The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee would like to maximize existing resources and examine ways to increase maintenance of parks, in addition to expanding programs in existing parks and the creation of new facilities. C.3.c Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Action Items Action items were identified as goals and objectives during the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee workshop. The committee expressed a desire to have community members associate City Parks with “safe, relaxing and active places” within the community. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee also wanted the community to have pride in city parks and programs. The committee felt additional programs would allow more people to connect with Grand Terrace Parks and Recreation programs. The committee wanted the community to take pride in the diversity and number of park facilities throughout the City of Grand Terrace. Volunteerism and Contribution by the Community The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee members recognize the volunteer spirit within the Grand Terrace Community and wants to harness that energy to increase program opportunities without waiting for future resources to expand program options. The Parks and Recreations Advisory Committee believes that when residents are given an opportunity to volunteer, share their opinions about parks and recreation programs, the community members will volunteer their time and contribute to programs. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee’s focus will provide opportunities for residents to volunteer and contribute by promoting the following: • Adopt -A-Park Program • Encourage the City to promote its Civic Live reporting system that shows how residents can see a problem and report it through the ir mobile devices • Encourage the City to highlight its Volunteer Park Closure Program so more residents volunteer • Develop a volunteer crew that allow people to sign up and be ready to assist the City in various City programs. • Encourage nonprofits and other organizations to provide the City with copies of their free public events, so the City can promote on the City’s social media sites and Channel 3. • Host an annual meeting with Sports leagues to get their feedback. Preservation and Expansion of our Existing Programs Although the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee was re-established July 25, 2017, the committee recognizes the City has established an active calendar of special events over the years, with a significant share of the events occurring in City Parks. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee reiterated its support for the following: C.3.c Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee • Rabies Vaccination Clinic • Walk on Blue Mountain • American Red Cross Blood Drive • Community Cleanup Day/Wall Painting/Plant and Tree Planting • State of the City • Youth Art Show • Community Day • Memorial Day • Bulky Item Pickup • Summer Recreational Activities • Movies and Music in the Park • Halloween Trunk or Treat • Country Fair • Veterans Day • Light Up Grand Terrace • City Birthday Potluck The programs above are outstanding examples of the City of Grand Terrace’s special events programming. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee would like additional special events and to create an avenue where local and smaller events can routinely support the community. The committee felt a concerted effort to promote the following classes and programs would enhance the City’s overall recreational program: • 5K Run • Bike Race • 5K Blue Mountain Trail Run • Parade • Sports for Adults (adult leagues) • Racquetball Club • Tennis Club • Swimming Club • Women’s Day • Hero’s Day • Youth Programs • After School Tutoring, Recreational Activities • Add Special Classes • Knitting, • Painting, • How-to Classes • Spelling Bee • Parent and Me Activities C.3.c Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee • Dance/Exercise Programs, • Game Night • Open Mic Events The events above can be managed by volunteers or nonprofits and can utilize existing City facilities; therefore the committee believes the event would strengthen Park and Recreation activities within the City, without any significant cost or staffing increase. Staff believes a review of existing talent within the community could facilitate the emergence of new programs (or existing programs that are offered to clubs to expand to the entire community). Resources and Facilities While the City has a diverse portfolio of Park and Recreation facilities, the City is growing and throughout the years sporting activities and community needs change. In November 2016 the City of Grand Terrace commissioned a new Parks and Enhancement of Existing Facilities Report. The report identified the City’s desire for several new parks, of which the Dog Park and Blue Mountain Trail and Soccer Field renovations were listed. The Dog Park is active, the City is currently working on the design of the Blue Mountain Trail and the Soccer Field was refurbished through an interagency agreement with CJUSD. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee is charged with providing input to the Council on new park facilities, as well as recommendations about existing park facilities. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee understands the importance and cost associated with new facilities. It is also paramount to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee that the City promptly maintain its existing facilities through normal maintenance and upgrades at existing facilities. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee would like to provide its input to the City of Grand Terrace on facility and maintenance needs. The committee has pledged to provide the Council with a report in April of each year. The request will identify equipment and maintenance needs with a desire that the City Council include those needs in the following year’s annual budget. Existing Parks Maintenance 1) The Parks and Recreations Committee would like parks maintained in a timely manner. The committee has a concern that items are not repaired in a timely manner. They would like to understand how the work order system works. Equipment and Existing Park Needs 1) The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee requested Special Needs swings for parks C.3.c Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee 2) Committee members referenced inadequate parking at some facilities 3) Committee members wanted more shade at parks 4) A desire for more swings in parks 5) Grand Terrace Fitness Park - Cameras, plants, gorilla grass, fitness equipment shading and playground sails 6) Griffin Park - Dog waste station, maintenance 7) Gwenn Karger Park - Removal of a palm tree that does not belong and trimming. 8) Veteran’s Freedom Park - Add sport turf 9) Richard Rollins Park - Update some plants, add special needs swings, and create an amphitheater 10) Susan Petta Park - Seating shade 11) T.J. Austin Park - Replace wood chips in play area New Facilities The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee understands the time and costs associated with the development of new facilities but would like the Council to consider the community’s need for the following new facilities: a. Blue Mountain Nature Trail b. Swimming Pool c. Build a Community Center at one of our Parks d. New Water Park e. Skateboard Park f. Pilot Program – Water Fountains for Reusable Water Bottes The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee will review its work plan to add items and review its progress within the four (4) focus (key) areas. C.3.c Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Attachment III - Park and Recreation Committee Workplan (Committee and Commission Minutes) AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: March 9, 2021 Council Item TITLE: Amendment #1 to the Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group for Interim Public Works Director & Senior Engineer Services Changing the Assigned Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer & Increasing the Contract Amount from $150,000 to $200,000. PRESENTED BY: Cynthia Fortune, Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment #1 to the Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group for Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer Services changing the assigned Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer and increasing the contract amount from $150,000 to $200,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment #1 subject to City Attorney approval as to form. 2030 VISION STATEMENT: This staff report supports the Mission to preserve and protect our community and its exceptional quality of life through thoughtful planning, within the constraints of fiscally responsible government. It also supports our Core Values by continuing to provide exceptional customer service to the residents of the City of Grand Terrace. BACKGROUND: On July 14, 2020, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Interwest Consulting Group for Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer Services, with a maximum compensation of $150,000. This Agreement also assigned Craig Bradshaw to serve as the Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer. The Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer was to focus on the timely delivery of infrastructure projects and the effective management of public works consultant contracts. The term of the agreement is on a month-to-month basis until such that the City can fill the position of Public Works Director/Senior Engineer. DISCUSSION: The City has advertised, received applications, and interviewed prospective candidates for the Public Works position. Although an offer was made to a prospective candidate, G.4 Packet Pg. 28 they had to decline for medical reasons. At this time, in order to maintain continuity in providing public works services to the community, an increase of $50,000 to the agreement with Interwest Consulting Group (“Interwest”), which increases the maximum compensation under t he agreement to $200,000, is needed. Furthermore, Mr. Bradshaw, as a CalPERS annuitant, has reached the annual maximum of hours that he may provide services to the City. Consequently, Amendment #1 revises the original agreement such that Robert Eisenbeisz, PE of Interwest would be assigned to serve as the City’s Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer. It is the City’s intent to readvertise and fill the Public Works Director position prior to the end of the fiscal year. Based upon the foregoing, staff recommends that the City Council approve Amendment #1 to the Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group changing the assigned Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer and increasing the contract amount from $150,000 to $200,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment #1 subject to City Attorney approval as to form. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for the increase in the contract agreement in the amount of $50,000 are already included in the FY2020-21 Approved Budget. ATTACHMENTS: • Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (PDF) • First Amendment to Interwest Agreement for Interim Public Works Director - Senior Engineer (DOCX) APPROVALS: Cynthia A. Fortune Completed 03/02/2021 7:43 PM Finance Completed 03/02/2021 7:43 PM City Attorney Completed 03/03/2021 10:34 AM City Manager Completed 03/04/2021 11:42 AM City Council Pending 03/09/2021 6:00 PM G.4 Packet Pg. 29 2020-14 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES By and Between CITY OF GRAND TERRACE and INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. for INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ENGINEER SERVICES 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 h Kada -Darcy M' 1777 Mayor Chef Financial officer 2020 TTEST: Receipt Acknowledged:ESCROW HOLDER: Debra Thomas, City Clerk Fidelity National Title Insurance Company By:APPROVED AS TO FORM:MaryLou Adam Escrow Officer Aleshire & Wynder, LLP Dated: May 11 , 2020 By:Adrian R. Guerra,City Attorney 01247.00201642172 6 3 uerra, City Attorney 01247.0020/ 642172.6 3 G.4.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ENGINEER SERVICES This "AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ENGINEER SERVICES" (herein "Agreement") is made and entered into this )&{-Th day of „)LA , 2020 by and between the City of Grand Terrace, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. Consultant"). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as "Party" and hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Qualifications, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement. B. Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement,the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the"Scope of Services"attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the "services" or "work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase"highest professional standards" shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first- class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 2- she has been duly authorized to do so on behalf of Buyer and Buyer is thereby obligated to perform the terms of PSA as amended by this Amendment.SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING] 01247.0020/642172.6 2 G.4.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director 1.2 Consultant's Proposal. The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's scope of work or bid which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement,the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 1.3 Compliance with Law. Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered. 1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses,permits and approvals as maybe required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes,plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder. 1.5 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions,which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer. 1.6 Care of Work. The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish. continuous protection to the work, and the equipment,materials,papers, documents,plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 3- f Buyer and Buyer is thereby obligated to perform the terms of PSA as amended by this Amendment.SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING]01247.0020/ 642172.6 2 G.4.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director 1.7 Further Responsibilities of Parties. Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement.Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other. 1.8 Additional Services. City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in(i)the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum or$25,000,whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty 180)days,may be approved by the Contract Officer.Any greater increases,taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed. 1.9 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the"Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit`B" and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit `B" and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit`B" shall govern. ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT. 2.1 Contract Sum. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars($150,000) (the"Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 4- G.4.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director 2.2 Method of Compensation. The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. 2.3 Reimbursable Expenses. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City. Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings. 2.4 Invoices. Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person. City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty-five(45) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law. 2.5 Waiver. Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 5- G.4.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including,but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy,unusually severe weather,fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified.The Contract Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement,however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding six (6) months from the date hereof. Upon expiration of this initial six(6) month term, or any subsequent term, this Agreement shall be automatically extended for succeeding terms of one (1) month each unless the City provides written notice to Consultant at least 14 days prior to the expiration of any term of the City's intention not to extend the term of this Agreement. ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 6- constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.2.5 Waiver.Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work G.4.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director James G. Ross Public Works Group Leader Name) Title) Manuel Gomez Project Manager Name) Title) It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance. 4.2 Status of Consultant. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights. 4.3 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be the City Manager such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall hav&4authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to -sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner,mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 7- G.4.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant. 4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent(25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City. ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION 5.1 Insurance Coverages. The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement including any extension thereof, the following policies of insurance which shall cover all elected and appointed officers, employees and agents of City: a) General Liability Insurance (Occurrence Form CG0001 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy of insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or if a general aggregate limit is used, then the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. b) Worker's Compensation Insurance. A policy of worker's compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for the Consultant against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the work or services contemplated in this Agreement. c) Automotive Insurance (Form CA 0001 (Ed 1/87) including"any auto" and endorsement CA 0025 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance written on a per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage in an amount not less than 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 8- nts, or in fixing their G.4.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director 1,000,000. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, leased, hired cars and any automobile. d) Professional Liability. Professional liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. This coverage maybe written on a"claims made"basis, and must include coverage for contractual liability. The professional liability insurance required by this Agreement must be endorsed to be applicable to claims based upon, arising out of or related to services performed under this Agreement. The insurance must be maintained for at least 5 consecutive years following the completion of Consultant's services or the termination of this Agreement. During this additional 5-year period, Consultant shall annually and upon request of the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage. e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit"B". 5.2 General Insurance Requirements. All of the above policies of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and any insurance maintained by City or its officers, employees or agents may apply in excess of, and not contribute with Consultant's insurance. The insurer is deemed hereof to waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the City, its officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers. Moreover, the insurance policy must specify that where the primary insured does not satisfy the self-insured retention, any additional insured may satisfy the self-insured retention. All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or cancelled by the insurer or any party hereto without providing thirty(30) days prior written notice by certified mail return receipt requested to the City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled,the Consultant shall,prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with Section 5.1 to the Contract Officer. No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant has provided the City with Certificates of Insurance, additional insured endorsement forms or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certificates of Insurance or binders are approved by the City. City reserves the right to inspect complete, certified copies of and endorsements to all required insurance policies at any time. Any failure to comply with the reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches or warranties shall not affect coverage provided to City. All certificates shall name the City as additional insured (providing the appropriate endorsement) and shall conform to the following"cancellation"notice: CANCELLATION: 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 9- han 01247.0006/656471.9 7/ 17/2020 8-nts, or in fixing their number,compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/ 2020 7- G.4.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATED THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL MAIL THIRTY 30)-DAY ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED HEREIN. to be initialed] Consultant Initials City, its respective elected and appointed officers, directors, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities Consultant performs; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by Consultant; or any automobiles owned, leased,hired or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, and their respective elected and appointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City or its respective elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, defense expenses and claims. The Consultant agrees that the requirement to provide insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property resulting from the Consultant's activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the Consultant is otherwise responsible nor shall it limit the Consultant's indemnification liabilities as provided in Section 5.3. In the event the Consultant subcontracts any portion of the work in compliance with Section 4.5 of this Agreement, the contract between the Consultant and such subcontractor shall require the subcontractor to-maintain the same policies of insurance that the Consultant is required to maintain pursuant to Section 5.1, and such certificates and endorsements shall be provided to City. 5.3 Indemnification. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened(herein"claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors' 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 10- compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 7- G.4.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith: a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection therewith; b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work,operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom; c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorney's fees. Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence, except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement.- 5.4 Sufficiency of Insurer. Insurance required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by companies qualified to do business in California, rated"A"or better in the most recent edition of Best Rating Guide,The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register,and only if they are of a financial category Class VII or better, unless such requirements are waived by the Risk Manager of the City ("Risk Manager") due to unique circumstances. If this Agreement continues for more than 3 years duration, or in the event the risk manager determines that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to the City, the Consultant agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance policies may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the Risk,Manager. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 11- 10-compensation or G.4.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS,AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION 6.1 Records. Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers,books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act. 6.2 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said,fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed. 6.3 Ownership of Documents. All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials"), including any electronic documents and materials, prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City in a format of the City's choice upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City. 6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information. a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer. b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney,voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support,testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney's fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct. d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION 7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 13- en authorization by the Consultant will be at the City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use,reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471. 9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. 7.2 Disputes; Default. In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative,the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City's legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement. 7.3 Retention of Funds. Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein. 7.4 Waiver. Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 14- G.4.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et. seq. and 910 et. seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement. 7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon written notice to Consultant. In addition, the Consultant may terminate this Contract for cause, upon sixty(60) days' advance written notice to City. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2. 7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2,take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated(provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated. 7.9 Attorney's Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement,the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15- nd warranties shall not extend to such use,reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/ G.4.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director the court allows which are incurred in such litigation.All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION 8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 Conflict of Interest. Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class. 8.4 Unauthorized Aliens. Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorney's fees, incurred by City. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 16- Attorney's Fees.If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement,the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use,reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Notices. Any notice, demand,request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Grand Terrace, 22795 Barton Rd, Grand Terrace, CA 92313, and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing.Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72)hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section. 9.2 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 9.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. 9.4 Integration; Amendment. This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void. 9.5_ _ Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses,paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining"phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 17- Attorney's Fees.If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement,the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney' s fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney' s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/ 2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which(s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of fmancial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be remote" or"noninterests"pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the fmancial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation, including but not limited to the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect. Consultant's Authorized Initials 4 9.7 Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that(i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 18- unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining"phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.01247.0006/ 656471. 9 7/17/2020 17-Attorney's Fees.If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement,the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247. 0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written. CITY: City of Grand Terrace, a municipal corporation Darcy c or TE5T: ebra Thomas, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALESHIRE & R, LLP Adrian R. Guerra, City Attorney CONSULTANT: Interwest C 1 B . Name: Y L—te Title: By: Name: bth cal-Keeso,\ Title: Upo Address: 1500 S. Haven Avenue, Suite 220 Ontario, CA 92761 Tel: 909-295-3142 Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY. 19 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 G.4.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO On,1- / 2L , 2020 before me,,i fdI/RdCA , personally appeared rill v J proved to me on the basi /of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose names(s)is/are subsci'bed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand offici al.DARED N PICKEN NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OFCOLORADO Signature. NOTARY ID 19974016915 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 5.2021 OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) LIMITED GENERAL NUMBER OF PAGES ATTORNEY-IN-FACT El TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTITY(IES)) SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy or validity of that document. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 es not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 18-unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining"phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 17-Attorney's Fees.If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471. 9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of Colorado ss. County of Boulder On M oly Z 1. , 2.0a o before me, F c;c 3. -tc qi Notary Public, personally appeared Tebrc, IT.o rs o^ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Colorado that the , foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Tricia J.Hayes WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC Z 3 STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: 91 NOTARY ID 20034019,453 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES June 19,2023 Signature of Notary Pub C'l i'y G.4.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant will perform the following Services: A. Consultant will supplement and augment the City of Grand Terrace Public Works engineering staff and serve in the capacity of Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer ("Interim Public Works Director Services"), which includes, but is not limited to, the following: Consultant will provide technical assistance and support to the City Manager, City Council, City Commissions and community and business stakeholders on public works programs, policies, activities, and projects and Consultant will provide an Interim Director and a Senior Engineer on-site as agreed upon and in consultation with the City Manager as well as being available off-site to respond to questions as needed. As provided below, subject to City Manager's approval (as provided above), Consultant has currently assigned Craig Bradshaw, PE, PLS as both Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer. B. In providing Interim Public Works Director Services, Consultant will also provide additional related services requested by the City including Project Management, Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, Construction Management, Geographic Information System (GIS), Information Technology (IT), Real Property Acquisition, Preparation of Grant Applications, and Development Plan Review. Specific services will include,but not be limited to, the following: 1.Prepare written reports, attend meetings, and present information to the City Manager, City Council, and City Commissions; 2. Provide written updates on projects and high priority activities of importance to the City Manager and City Council; 3. Attend meetings with City staff (include weekly Executive Team Meetings), regional staff and regional/regulatory agencies on projects, issues, or other matters of interest to the City of Grand Terrace; 4.Represent the City's interests_in disseminating information to public officials, community leaders, developers, contractors, and the general public; 5. Review and provide opinions on initial inquiries relating to land development matters; 6.Provide technical assistance to City staff on matters related to municipal engineering including civil, transportation, traffic, water resources, and structural engineering; 7.Proactively establish working relationships and coordination with other public agencies and utility companies related to public works and municipal engineering matters; 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A-1 erial that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.01247.0006/656471. 9 7/17/2020 17-Attorney's Fees.If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement,the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use,reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director 8.Provide technical recommendations on regional policy issues relevant to the City; 9. Provide City Surveyor review and approval duties that includes Map review, legal descriptions, lot line adjustments, and sign/stamp all documents in technical compliance with the City ordinances and the State Map Act; 10. Research, prepare, and coordinate grant funding requests; 11. Develop specific finance plans, lighting and landscape districts, and strategies necessary to implement development projects in the City; 12. Prepare,review, and administer public facilities infrastructure master plans; 13. Prepare and issue consultant Requests for Proposal, select and manage consultants and assure compliance with design standards and funding source requirements; 14. Provide project management services for the preparation of in-house contract documents and specifications for public infrastructure projects, recommendation for project award; negotiation and administration of contracts for construction projects; 15. Provide leadership, mentoring and training to in-house City staff; 16. Support City GIS system to meet the needs of various City departments; 17. Work with the City Attorney in the preparation of ordinances and agreements; 18. Manage third party agreements with the City at the direction of the Contract Officer; 19. City and Consultant have entered into that certain agreement entitled Agreement for Contracts Services by and between City of Grand Terrace and Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., for On-Call Engineering Services" dated i/if,. ("On-Call Engineering Agreement"). Notwithstanding Subsection (D)(18) above, Consultant shall not influence, participate in, or make (including attempting to carry out those acts) any decisions relating to the selection of consultants for services similar to those services provided in Exhibit "A" of the On-Call Engineering Agreement, which Exhibit A is incorporated by reference solely for the purpose of this Subsection(D)(19). C. As part of providing Interim Public Works Director Services, Consultant will also utilize its knowledge and experiences to identify and advise the City Manager on organizational initiatives and succession planning opportunities to provide meaningful and sustainable improvements compatible with the vision and direction 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A-2 mpanies related to public works and municipal engineering matters;01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A- 1 erial that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.01247.0006/ 656471.9 7/17/ 2020 17-Attorney's Fees.If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement,the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable,shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney' s fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use,reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director of the City Manager. Accordingly, Consultant will establish credibility and trust, create a collaborative partnership with City staff, and utilize the knowledge of the organization to gain an understanding of the present and future needs of the City. Consultant will strive to become an integrated and trusted colleague for staff D. As part of providing Interim Public Works Director Services, Consultant will strive to become an integrated and trusted colleague for City staff and advise the City Manager on industry initiatives and planning opportunities to provide meaningful and sustainable improvements for the organization compatible with the vision and direction of the City Manager. Consultant will establish credibility and trust, create a collaborative partnership with City staff, and utilize the knowledge of the organization to gain an understanding of the present and future needs of the City of Grand Terrace. E. During the performance of the work, Consultant will prepare and deliver tangible work products, including Reports, Studies, Design Reviews, Project Updates or other appropriate work products as requested by the City as appropriate for the specific type of work assignment. F. Consultant shall assist in any audit of the Public Works Department to identify and establishing better practices, including but not limited to, better management and oversight of financial transactions for routine expenditures (e.g., fleet rental, uniform cleaning), improved cost accounting of staffing deployed to staff City special events, City's compliance with regulatory reporting (e.g., generators, elevators, fuel tanks), administration of any solid waste contracts and compliance with CalRecycle recycling requirements, selection and oversight of a MS4 permit compliance consultant to assure the City may avail itself of grant opportunities for storm water issues, recruiting for permanent department positions, and other areas Consultant finds are not well organized or operated in the Public Works Department. II. As part of the Services and in addition to any other requirement to provide tangible work products to City pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products as the City may require from time to time. III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2 or any other requirement to provide status reports in this Agreement, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the status reports as the City may require from time to time. IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City. V. Limitations on Consultant's Employees, Agents, and Subcontractors. A. In providing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall not assign to the City any employee, agent, or subcontractor who is currently a member of CalPERS. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A-3 hall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471. 9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director B. In providing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall not assign to the City any employee, agent, or subcontractor for a duration of six (6) months or more per fiscal year if full time, or 1,000 hours or more per fiscal year if part time. C. Consultant shall assume all responsibility for ensuring that its employees, agents, subcontractors, or independent contractors who are CalPERS retired annuitants Retired Annuitants") providing services to the City under this Agreement are in compliance with CalPERS retirement laws,including,but not limited to,provisions of the Government Code and regulations relating to CalPERS and the employment of retired annuitants (including, but not limited to, Government Code Sections 7522.56, 7522,57, 21220 to 21230) ("CalPERS Retired Annuitant Regulations"). D. Consultant warrants and represents that the personnel identified in Section VI of this Exhibit do not violate this Section V of this Exhibit. VI. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services: A. James R. Ross, Public Works Group Leader B. Manuel Gomez, Project Manager C. Craig Bradshaw, PE, PLS, (as City's Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer) D. Kamran Saber, PE, QSD, Civil Engineer/CIP Project Management E. Kevin Ko, PE, QSD, Civil Engineer/Design Project Management F. Joe Indrawan, PE, Civil Engineer/Plan Review G. Jack Istik, PE, Civil Engineer/Plan Review H. Gary Neal, PLS,Land Surveyor/Map Check I.Nicole Jules, PE, Traffic Engineer/Transportation Planning J.Andrew Yi, PE, TE, PTOE, Traffic Engineer/Transportation Planning K. Rush Smith, TE, PTP, Traffic Engineer/Transportation Planning L. Roger Peterson, SE, Structural Engineer/Plan Review M. Oliver Roan, SE, Structural Engineer/Plan Review N. Charles Collet, Construction Manager/Inspector O. John Chesworth, Construction Manager/Inspector P. Jesse Isaac, Construction Manager/Inspector 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A-4 ide tangible work products to City pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products as the City may require from time to time.III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2 or any other requirement to provide status reports in this Agreement, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the status reports as the City may require from time to time. IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City.V. Limitations on Consultant's Employees, Agents, and Subcontractors.A. In providing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall not assign to the City any employee, agent, or subcontractor who is currently a member of CalPERS. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A-3 hall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use,reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A-5 NT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES By and Between CITY OF GRAND TERRACE and INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. for INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ENGINEER SERVICES 01247.0006/ 656471.9 7/17/2020 h Kada -Darcy M'1777 Mayor Chef Financial officer 2020 TTEST:Receipt Acknowledged:ESCROW HOLDER: Debra Thomas,City Clerk Fidelity National Title Insurance Company By:APPROVED AS TO FORM:MaryLou Adam Escrow Officer Aleshire &Wynder, LLP Dated: May 11 , 2020 By:Adrian R. Guerra,City Attorney 01247.00201642172 6 3 uerra, City Attorney 01247.0020/642172.6 3 G.4.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director EXHIBIT "B" SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Superseding Contract Boilerplate) Section 5.5 (Additional Indemnification) is hereby added to the Agreement as follows: In addition to the requirements set forth in Section 5.3 above (Indemnification), in the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, subcontractor, or independent contractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a federal or state agency, a court of competent jurisdiction, or the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") to be classified as other than an independent contractor for the City or subject to CalPERS retired annuitant requirements,then Consultant shall indemnify,defend, and hold harmless the City for the payment of any and all assessed fines, penalties, judgments, employee and/or employer contributions to CalPERS, and any other damages and costs assessed to the City as a consequence of(including interest), or in any way attributable to, the assertion that Consultant or any of Consultant's personnel used to provide the Services under this Agreement are other than independent contractors of the City or are subject to CalPERS retired annuitant requirements. Consultant shall also indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against all employment related-claims, including wage claims, and from all applicable federal, state and local tax and insurance obligations (including but not limited to income tax withholding, unemployment taxes, FUTA, SDI, state unemployment insurance, Workers' Compensation, disability, or other insurance), asserted against or imposed upon the City as a consequence of, or in any way attributable to, the assertion that Consultant or any of Consultant's personnel used to provide services under this Agreement are other than independent contractors of the City." 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 B-1 r/Inspector O. John Chesworth, Construction Manager/Inspector P. Jesse Isaac, Construction Manager/Inspector 01247.0006/656471.9 7/ 17/2020 A-4 ide tangible work products to City pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products as the City may require from time to time.III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2 or any other requirement to provide status reports in this Agreement, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the status reports as the City may require from time to time. IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City.V. Limitations on Consultant's Employees, Agents, and Subcontractors.A. In providing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall not assign to the City any employee, agent, or subcontractor who is currently a member of CalPERS.01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 A- 3 hall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/ 2020 15-nd warranties shall not extend to such use,reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 12- G.4.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director EXHIBIT "C" SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION I.Consultant shall perform the following the Services at the rates provided in Exhibit"C-1": II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services. III. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include: A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate. B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services. C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation. D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor,supplies, equipment,materials,and travel properly charged to the Services. V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $150,000 as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 C-1 G.4.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director EXHIBIT "C-1" CONSULTANT'S RATES Classification Hourly Billing Rate Engineering Principal In Charge 160 Project Manager 160 Traffic Engineer 160 Director of Public Works 150 Lead Engineer 150 Supervising Engineer 150 Senior Engineer 140 Engineering Associate III 125 Engineering Associate II 115 Engineering Associate I 105 Senior Engineering Technician 105 Engineering Technician III 95 Engineering Technician II 85 Engineering Technician I 75 Student Trainee 30 Grading Plans Examiner 140 Construction Management Construction Manager 145 Assistant Construction Manager 130 Supervising Public Works Observer 135 Senior Public Works Observer 125 Public Works Observer III 120 Public Works Observer II 115 Public Works Observer I 105 Overtime 140% of the above listed rates 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 C-2 1.9 7/17/2020 C-1 to provide the Services under this Agreement are other than independent contractors of the City or are subject to CalPERS retired annuitant requirements. Consultant shall also indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against all employment related-claims, including G.4.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director EXHIBIT "D" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE I.Consultant shall perform all Services pursuant to the following schedules: Task Schedule Interim Public Works Director 30 hours/week Services II. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2. 01247.0006/656471.9 7/17/2020 D-1 Receipt Acknowledged: ESCROW HOLDER: Debra Thomas, City Clerk Fidelity National Title Insurance Company By:APPROVED AS TO FORM:MaryLou Adam Escrow Officer Aleshire &Wynder, LLP Dated: May 11 , 2020 By:Adrian R.Guerra,City Attorney 01247. 00201642172 6 3 uerra, City Attorney 01247.0020/642172.6 3 G.4.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Original Contract Interwest Consulting Group (Amendment No. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for Public Works Director 01247.0006/699529.1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ENGINEER SERVICES This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ENGINEER SERVICES (“Amendment No. 1”) by and between the CITY OF GRAND TERRACE (“City”) and Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., a California corporation (“Consultant”) is effective as of the ______ day of March, 2021. RECITALS A. The City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Contract Services By And Between The City Of Grand Terrace And Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. For Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer Services” and dated July 14 2020 (“Agreement”). B. City and Consultant desire to increase the total compensation in the Agreement by $50,000 (for a total compensation of $200,000 under the Agreement) in order to continue the Services thereunder. C. City and Consultant further desire to amend the Agreement such that Consultant may assign Robert Eisenbeisz, PE to serve as the City’s Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer. TERMS 1. Contract Amendments. The Agreement is amended as provided herein. 1.1 Section 2.1 (Contract Sum) is hereby amended as follows (strikethrough represents deleted language while bold italics represents new language): “Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement of actual expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8.” 1.2 Paragraph A of Section I of Exhibit A is hereby amended as follows (strikethrough represents deleted language while bold italics represents new language): “Consultant will supplement and augment the City of Grand G.4.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: First Amendment to Interwest Agreement for Interim Public Works Director - Senior Engineer [Revision 2] (Amendment No. 1 with 01247.0006/699529.1 Terrace Public Works engineering staff and serve in the capacity of Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer (“Interim Public Works Director Services”), which includes, but is not limited to, the following: Consultant will provide technical assistance and support to the City Manager, City Council, City Commissions and community and business stakeholders on public works programs, policies, activities, and projects and Consultant will provide an Interim Director and a Senior Engineer on-site as agreed upon and in consultation with the City Manager as well as being available off-site to respond to questions as needed. As provided below, subject to City Manager' s approval (as provided above), Consultant has currently assigned Robert Eisenbeisz, PE Craig Bradshaw, PE, PLS as both Interim Public Works Director and Senior Engineer.” 1.3 Paragraph C of Section VI of Exhibit A is hereby amended as follows (strikethrough represents deleted language while bold italics represents new language): “Robert Eisenbeisz, PE Craig Bradshaw, PE, PLS, (as City's Interim Public Works Director/Senior Engineer)” 1.4 Section V of Exhibit C is hereby amended as follows (strikethrough represents deleted language while bold italics represents new language): The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $150,000 $200,000 as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. 2. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1. 3. Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and Consultant each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective rights and obligations arising under the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been no written or oral modifications to the Agreement other than as provided herein. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective, valid, and binding obligation. Consultant represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 1, City is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default under the Agreement. City represents and warrants to Consultant that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 1, Consultant is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material G.4.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: First Amendment to Interwest Agreement for Interim Public Works Director - Senior Engineer [Revision 2] (Amendment No. 1 with 01247.0006/699529.1 default under the Agreement. 4. Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 1. 5. Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment No. 1, such party is formally bound to the provisions of the Agreement, as amended and (iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 1 does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which said party is bound. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] G.4.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: First Amendment to Interwest Agreement for Interim Public Works Director - Senior Engineer [Revision 2] (Amendment No. 1 with 01247.0006/699529.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 on the date and year first-above written. CITY: CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, a municipal corporation ___________________________ G. Harold Duffey, City Manager ATTEST: ___________________________ Debra Thomas, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP _______________________ Adrian R. Guerra, City Attorney CONSULTANT: INTERWEST, INC., a California Corporation By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: Address: NOTE: CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPER’S BUSINESS ENTITY. G.4.b Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: First Amendment to Interwest Agreement for Interim Public Works Director - Senior Engineer [Revision 2] (Amendment No. 1 with 01247.0006/699529.1 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO On __________, 2021 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: _____________________________________ OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER _______________________________ TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER_________________________ ________________________________ SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ___________________________________ TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT ___________________________________ NUMBER OF PAGES ___________________________________ DATE OF DOCUMENT ___________________________________ SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. G.4.b Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: First Amendment to Interwest Agreement for Interim Public Works Director - Senior Engineer [Revision 2] (Amendment No. 1 with 01247.0006/699529.1 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO On __________, 2021 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: _____________________________________ OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER _______________________________ TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER_________________________ ________________________________ SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ___________________________________ TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT ___________________________________ NUMBER OF PAGES ___________________________________ DATE OF DOCUMENT ___________________________________ SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. G.4.b Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: First Amendment to Interwest Agreement for Interim Public Works Director - Senior Engineer [Revision 2] (Amendment No. 1 with AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: March 9, 2021 Council Item TITLE: FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates PRESENTED BY: Cynthia Fortune, Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget updates. 2030 VISION STATEMENT: This staff report supports City Council Mission to “preserve and protect our community and its exceptional quality of life through thoughtful planning within the constraints of fiscally responsible government.” This staff report also supports City Council’s 2030 goals: ✓ To “Ensure our Fiscal Viability” through the continuous monitoring of revenue receipts and expenditure disbursements against approved budget appropriations; ✓ To “Maintain Public Safety” by ensuring staff levels for police services remain adequate for our community; ✓ To “Promote Economic Development” through the continuous review and update of the Zoning Code and General Plan; ✓ To “Develop and Implement Successful Partnerships” through working with community groups, other government ag encies, creating public and private partnerships to facilitate the delivery of services that would benefit our community; and ✓ To “Engage in Proactive Communication” by utilizing technology and web -based tools to disseminate information to the community. BACKGROUND: On April 28, 2020, City Council declared a fiscal emergency directly related to the continuing threat and existence of COVID-19 in the community. As part of the resolution, City Council directed the City Manager to research, review, and prese nt, for their approval, the following: • Fiscal impacts to the current year (FY2019 -20) and following year (FY2020-21) budgets; and • Budget cuts to mitigate the impacts, including reductions in: a. Personnel; b. Operations; c. Service Levels; or G.5 Packet Pg. 66 d. Other means to mitigate further impact to the General Fund Reserves. On May 6, 2020, the City Manager presented a Proposed Revenue Enhancement and Expenditure Reduction Plan (Plan) for both FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 which included the following: a. Reductions in personnel; b. Reductions in professional and contractual services; and c. Use of General Fund Reserves. The Plan provided detail of proposed strategies designed to minimize further impact to the City’s General Fund reserves. City Council approved and authorized the City Manager to implement the Plan, directing staff to submit the FY2020-21 Proposed Budget in accordance with the approved Plan. On June 23, 2020, City Council approved the FY2020-21 Budget. Staff informed City Council that they would return to provide updates as necessary to the FY2019-20 revenue and expense amounts and any affect it would have on the FY2020 -21 budget. Due to volatile revenues during this pandemic, on July 28, 2020, City staff provided an update to both FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 projected budgets which resulted in City Council approving the following appropriations for FY2020 -21: Table 1 Dept Proposed Expenditure Appropriations (Salaries and Benefits) Amount Proposed/ Requested Sheriff Dept. (10-410) 1. Increase in Sheriff Department overtime costs (from FY2019-20 projected surplus) $100,000 Planning & Dev. Services (10-185) 2. Return the Code Enforcement/Animal Control Specialist from a 20-hour workweek to a 40-hour workweek in the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year $22,500 Public Works (10-175) 3. Re-fund one (1) Maintenance Worker position $65,000 Finance (10-140) 4. Re-fund the Management Analyst position and approve the re-class of the position to a Senior Accountant position $95,000 Finance (10-140) 5. Reclass the Budget Officer position to a Finance/Accounting Manager position $0 TOTAL $282,500 Should new information be obtained by City staff, updates will continue to be provided to City Council. DISCUSSION: FY2019-20 ACTUALS VS. YEAR-END PROJECTIONS G.5 Packet Pg. 67 The Finance Department, in conjunction with the City’s external auditors, Lance, Soll, and Lunghard (LSL), have completed the annual audit for FY2019 -20. Table 2 below shows the General Fund (Fund 10) Revenue and Expense projections provided to City Council on July 28, 2020 vs. actuals recorded at the close of Fiscal Year 2019 -20 on June 30, 2020: Table 2 City of Grand Terrace FY2019-20 Revenue & Expense Statement Actuals Year-End Report, June 30, 2020 2019-20 Revised Year-End 07/28/2020 2019-20 Year-to-Date Actuals 02/26/2021 Variance REVENUES Property Tax $2,041,758 $2,052,014 $10,256 Residual Receipts - RPTTF $1,911,591 $1,911,591 $0 Residual Receipts - Housing $1,440 $1,440 $0 Franchise Fees $469,286 $549,823 $80,537 Licenses, Fees & Permits $311,720 $389,162 $77,442 Sales Tax $714,470 $833,919 $119,450 Intergovernmental Revenue/Grants $35,937 $46,400 $10,463 Charges for Services $116,422 $132,507 $16,085 Fines & Forfeitures $69,653 $66,667 ($2,986) Miscellaneous $625 $4,346 $3,721 Use of Money & Property $73,939 $80,045 $6,107 Transfers In $0 $94,608 $94,608 Wastewater Receipts $318,349 $318,349 $0 TOTAL REVENUES $6,065,189 $6,480,871 $415,683 EXPENDITURES Salaries $1,235,505 $1,255,047 $19,542 Benefits $809,160 $824,208 $15,048 Professional/Contractual Services $3,322,302 $3,410,511 $88,209 Materials & Supplies $246,099 $277,838 $31,739 Lease of Facility/Equipment $19,323 $13,392 ($5,931) Utilities $143,858 $130,555 ($13,303) Overhead Cost Allocation ($87,450) ($56,558) $30,892 Transfers Out $125,800 $180,377 $54,577 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,814,597 $6,035,369 $220,772 REVENUE & EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REVENUES $6,065,189 $6,480,871 $415,683 EXPENDITURES ($5,814,597) ($6,035,369) ($220,772) NET Surplus (Deficit) $250,592 $445,502 $194,910 G.5 Packet Pg. 68 City of Grand Terrace FY2019-20 Revenue & Expense Statement Actuals Year-End Report, June 30, 2020 2019-20 Revised Year-End 07/28/2020 2019-20 Year-to-Date Actuals 02/26/2021 Variance Approved additional Sheriff Overtime Funding for FY2020-21 ($100,000) ($100,000) INCREASE TO FUND BALANCE $150,592 $345,502 Variances in both revenues and expenditures contributed to the increase in surplus of $194,910, resulting in a surplus of $345,502 vs. the $150,592 as originally projected in July-2020. Table 3 and 4 below will highlight the significant revenue and expense variations: Table 3 – FY2019-20 Revenue Variations Category Notes Variance REVENUES Franchise Fees Franchise Fees were reduced by $65,000 from $535,000 to $470,000, with staff assuming that the coronavirus would cause significant delays in franchise fee remittance. The auditors allowed for revenues received 90 days after the close of the fiscal year be booked/recorded in the appropriate year. $80,537 Licenses, Fees & Permits City staff expected delays in economic and community development as a result of the pandemic; however, planning services, construction permits, and business licensing renewals although delayed, were still recorded in the appropriate fiscal year. $77,442 Sales Tax Sales Taxes were reduced by from $785,400, to $714,000 expecting a reduction in sales tax revenues as a result of Governor’s orders. However, City’s manufacturing parts industry and grocery industry made up for the potential loss and exceeded projected revenues. $119,450 Transfers In Based on auditor recommendations, the City’s Child Care Fund was closed in FY2019-20 and the remaining balance transferred to the General Fund to help offset the former Child Care employees’ portion of the City’s Retirement Pension’s Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL). $94,608 Table 4 – FY2019-20 Expenditure Variations Category Notes Variance EXPENDITURES Prof./Contractual Services The bulk of the increase in professional services were due to the increase in the Sheriff’s contract of almost $80,000. $88,209 Materials & Supplies There were increased costs in fuel and vehicle maintenance in FY2019-20. $31,739 G.5 Packet Pg. 69 Category Notes Variance EXPENDITURES Overhead Cost Allocation Overhead Cost Allocation expenses are General Fund charges to Special Revenue Funds (such as the Gas Tax and Measure “I” Funds) for administration services (such as agenda writing, invoice processing, receipts, purchasing). Due to the pandemic, there were not any Measure “I” projects that required General Fund administration, therefore $30,000 in projected overhead cost allocation charges were not charged to Measure “I.” $30,892 Transfers Out $25,000 was transferred to cover partial costs to repair the traffic signal at Barton and Preston caused by a vehicular accident and an additional $29,600 (in Franchise Sweep and Pavement Impact Fees) were transferred to the Gas Tax Fund to meet the City’s required Maintenance of Effort (MOE) match for road projects. $54,577 As shown in Table 2, FY2019-20 had a surplus of $345,000 that will increase the City’s General Fund Balance. FY2020-21 BUDGET AND YEAR-END PROJECTIONS On December 30, 2020, San Bernardino County’s Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Ensen Mason sent all redevelopment agencies and affected taxing entities a letter regarding a methodology change in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Residual Allocation (Attachment A). The letter stated that the re-distribution of RPTTF residual funds is based on the appellate court decision, City of Chula Vista v. Sandoval, 49 Cal.App5th 539 (2020) (Attachment B). The letter continues to state that since the Supreme Co urt denied review of this case, the decision is final. Ms. Mason’s letter, although stating that the impact will vary for each taxing entity, summarized that the residual distribution may reflect a 13% reduction to city allocations/distributions. If such is the case, based on the City’s FY2020-21 RPTTF adopted revenue of $1,798,163, a 13% reduction will be approximately $233,760. However, City staff’s further review of both Mr. Mason’s letter and the court decision determined a much bigger reduction, prompting a request to the City’s property tax consultant (HdL) to recalculate the General Fund’s RPTTF distribution based on the County’s letter. Based on HdL’s research, below is a summary of the appellate court decision: 1. The Trial Court originally ruled in favor of Chula Vista, ordering San Diego County to allocate residual revenue in the same way RPTTF was being distributed in San Bernardino County: if a taxing entity received 100% of its full share of tax increment from its pass-through agreement, it no longer received a G.5 Packet Pg. 70 portion of the residual RPTTF, should there be any. Residual RPTTF is any remaining tax increment after administrative costs, taxing entities’ pass -through requirements and Recognized Obligation Payments (ROPS) have been satisfied. This would have resulted in no taxing entity getting more than its full share of tax increment revenue from pass-through payments and residual RPTTF distributions combined. 2. The Appellate Court ruling states that pass-through payments are to be made as required and that residual revenue is to be allocated based on the taxing entity’s shares of tax increment without regard to what they may have received in pass - through payments. 3. The Appellate Court continues that the language of the statutes may not have intended this; however, it provides that the pass-through amounts and the residual revenue amounts are to be allocated without regard to one another – which means that a taxing entity with a full (100%) pass -through payment can still receive a share of the residual RPTTF. 4. Since the Supreme Court denied review of this case, the Appellate Court’s decision is final. Prior to this court ruling, the City (General Fund) received approximately 30% of the residual RPTTF, totaling $1.9m in FY2019-20. With the implementation of the ruling, the City will now receive its normal percentage of 19.97%, resulting in receiving tax increment at approximately 33% lower. However, HdL cautions that “the amount of revenue received may be reduced by less than that due to growth in the to tal amount of residual revenue. The actual amount received is a function not only of the percentage share the City gets but also by the total residual revenue that is available for distribution.” The San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller’s office implemented the Appellate Court’s decision in the City’s tax increment distribution received in January -2021. Table 5 below shows the actuals funds received vs. what the General Fund would have normally received during the January residual distribution, showin g a decrease of $330,301. Attachment C provides further detail to show City Council all the specific affected taxing entities, their pass-through payments, and their residual distributions. In addition, affected taxing entities weighted average of property tax shares is shown on Attachment D, in support of the Residual RPTTF distribution. Table 5 Grand Terrace Successor Agency (S/A) RPTTF Distribution (San Bernardino County), January-2021 No. Original Allocation % Actual Distribution % Variance RPTTF Allocation Cycle 20-21B 20-21B 1 RPTTF Deposits $7,026,859 $7,026,859 2 County Admin Deduction ($119,090) ($119,090) 3 Pass Through Obligations ($3,160,626) ($3,160,626) Net RPTTF $3,747,143 $3,747,143 G.5 Packet Pg. 71 Grand Terrace Successor Agency (S/A) RPTTF Distribution (San Bernardino County), January-2021 No. Original Allocation % Actual Distribution % Variance 4 S/A ROPS $283,438 $283,438 S/A Admin. Allowance $0 $0 Prior Period Adjustments $0 $0 State Controller Audit Costs $0 $0 5 Residual Revenue $3,463,705 $3,463,705 Residual RPTTF Allocation 6 City $1,022,046 29.51% $691,745 19.97% ($330,301) 7 County General Fund $440,462 12.72% 8 Special Districts $568,160 16.40% 9 K-12 Schools $1,336,166 38.58% $918,954 26.53% ($417,212) 10 Community College $208,251 6.01% $154,803 4.47% ($53,448) 11 County Office of Education $22,617 0.65% 12 ERAF $897,242 25.90% $666,964 19.26% ($230,278) Total $3,463,705 100.00% $3,463,705 100.00% ($1,031,239) The City is scheduled to receive its 2nd RPTTF allocation in May or June. As requested, HdL provided a fiscal year projection (Attachment E) showing the full impact of the Appellate Court’s decision in FY2020-21. The City Manager has reached out to the League of California Cities (League) inquiring about the League’s next steps regarding the ruling. The League is currently reaching out to other attorneys who represent other cities impacted by the ruling and are currently assessing all options as to how and when to proceed with engaging the State regarding the negative impact the redistribution of RPTTF funds have had on cities. Due to this unforeseen revenue impact, City staff extensively re -reviewed the FY2020- 21 Approved Budget, reviewed all its revenue sources and expenditure disbursements, comparing it to the FY2019-20 actuals. Table 6 below is City staff’s FY2020-21 Revenue and Expenditure Year-end Projection. Table 6 City of Grand Terrace FY2020-21 Financial Report Update Projected Year-End Report, June 30, 2021 2020-21 Adopted Budget 6/23/2020 2020-21 Proposed Adj. 7/28/2020 Approved Budget 7/28/2020 Proposed Revisions 3/9/2021 Proposed Budget 3/9/2021 REVENUES G.5 Packet Pg. 72 City of Grand Terrace FY2020-21 Financial Report Update Projected Year-End Report, June 30, 2021 2020-21 Adopted Budget 6/23/2020 2020-21 Proposed Adj. 7/28/2020 Approved Budget 7/28/2020 Proposed Revisions 3/9/2021 Proposed Budget 3/9/2021 Property Tax $1,971,250 $111,343 $2,082,593 $90,000 $2,172,593 Residual Receipts - RPTTF $1,668,400 $129,763 $1,798,163 ($450,000) $1,348,163 Franchise Fees $445,000 $0 $445,000 $150,000 $595,000 Licenses, Fees & Permits $329,090 $0 $329,090 $15,000 $344,090 Sales Tax $725,000 $25,000 $750,000 $100,000 $850,000 Intergovt Revenue/Grants $160,000 $0 $160,000 ($125,000) $35,000 Charges for Services $100,300 $0 $100,300 $0 $100,300 Fines & Forfeitures $35,100 $34,900 $70,000 $0 $70,000 Miscellaneous $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Use of Money & Property $67,500 $0 $67,500 $0 $67,500 Transfers In $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Wastewater Receipts $318,349 $0 $318,349 $0 $318,349 TOTAL REVENUES $5,819,989 $301,006 $6,120,995 ($220,000) $5,950,995 EXPENDITURES Salaries $1,083,626 $125,000 $1,208,626 ($30,000) $1,178,626 Benefits $1,066,209 $57,500 $1,123,709 ($100,000) $1,023,709 Prof./Contractual Services $3,337,646 $100,000 $3,437,646 ($50,000) $3,387,646 Materials & Supplies $211,351 $0 $211,351 $0 $211,351 Lease of Facility/Equipment $19,323 $0 $19,323 ($6,000) $13,323 Utilities $143,858 $0 $143,858 ($10,000) $133,858 Overhead Cost Allocation ($87,450) $0 ($87,450) $0 ($87,450) Transfers Out $135,800 $0 $135,800 $0 $135,800 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,910,363 $282,500 $6,192,863 ($196,000) $5,996,863 REVENUE & EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REVENUES $5,819,989 $301,006 $6,120,995 ($220,000) $5,900,995 EXPENDITURES $5,910,363 $282,500 $6,192,863 ($196,000) $5,996,863 NET - USE OF FUND BALANCE ($90,374) $18,506 ($71,868) ($24,000) ($95,868) As shown above, other than the City Council approved use of $100,000 for additional Sheriff Department overtime from FY2019-20’s surplus, no additional reserves are being requested this fiscal year to cover the reduction in RPTTF revenues. Tables 7 and 8 provide explanations for the revenue and expenditure increase and/or decrease assumptions. Table 7 – FY2020-21 Revenue Variations G.5 Packet Pg. 73 Category Notes Variance REVENUES Property Taxes Since 2017-18, Property Tax –VLF swap (motor vehicles licenses in-lieu) have increased by approximately $100,000 annually. Staff is adjusting the VLF budget to reflect such increase. $90,000 Residual Receipts - RPTTF Although HdL has provided a projected decrease of $550,515 in RPTTF revenue as shown in Attachment D, the consultant’s budgeted projection of $1.798m is lower than the FY2019-20 actuals received of 1.911m. Assuming the City receives the same amount of property tax, staff is assuming a ($450,000) reduction in Residual RPTTF, $100,000 more than HdL’s projection. ($450,000) Franchise Fees Franchise Fees were budgeted assuming a delay in receipt of these revenues; however, similar to last year, the City will be able to record these fees in the appropriate year. $150,000 Licenses, Fees & Permits Staff is assuming that business license renewals will be consistent as that of last fiscal year, with annual revenues of approximately $90,000. $15,000 Sales Tax Based on last year’s sales tax receipts of approximately $834,000, and after meeting with the City’s sales tax consultant (HdL), HdL is projecting that the City will receive similar revenues in this fiscal year, if not, a little bit higher. $100,000 Intergovt Revenues / Grants The original budget included COVID-19 reimbursement revenues from FEMA. City staff has since created separate funds to account for COVID-19 related cost and reimbursements from FEMA, the State of California, and San Bernardino County. Therefore both revenue and expense FEMA allocations have been deducted from the General Fund budget and moved to a Fund of its own. ($125,000) Table 8 – FY2020-21 Expenditure Variations Category Notes Variance EXPENDITURES Salaries Proposed FEMA salary costs have been moved to a separate COVID-19 FEMA Fund. ($30,000) Benefits Proposed FEMA benefit costs have been moved to a separate COVID-19 FEMA Fund. In addition, other employee-related benefits have been moved to other funds. ($100,000) Prof./Contractual Services Proposed FEMA benefit costs have been moved to a separate COVID-19 FEMA Fund. ($50,000) Lease of Facility/Equipment Staff is assuming that this fiscal year’s equipment leasing costs will be similar to that of last years at $13,300. ($6,000) Utilities Staff is assuming that this fiscal year’s equipment leasing costs will be similar to that of last year at $133,800. ($10,000) The City is fully aware of the volatile trend of the City’s revenues due to the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic, changes in Residual RPTTF distribution methodology, and other unforeseen revenue impacts. Due to these factors, City staff will be reviewing and G.5 Packet Pg. 74 monitoring revenue and expense transactions closely and will come back to City Council with a Five-Year Plan that will address these issues going forward while continuing to maintain our community’s quality of life. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to receiving and filing the FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates Report. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A_SB County Ltr ATE Residual Notification (PDF) • Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist (PDF) • Attachment C_SB County RPTTF Distribution Detail -Table 5 (PDF) • Attachment D_ATE Weighted Average Percentage Share (PDF) • Attachment E_HdL Grand Terrace SA - RPTTF recalculation - 2-10-2021 (PDF) APPROVALS: Cynthia A. Fortune Completed 03/03/2021 12:47 PM Finance Completed 03/03/2021 12:54 PM City Attorney Completed 03/04/2021 10:05 AM City Manager Completed 03/04/2021 2:34 PM City Council Pending 03/09/2021 6:00 PM G.5 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment A G.5.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Attachment A_SB County Ltr ATE Residual Notification [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) G.5.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Attachment A_SB County Ltr ATE Residual Notification [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 1 Filed 5/27/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CITY OF CHULA VISTA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. TRACY SANDOVAL, as Auditor-Controller, etc., Defendant and Appellant; SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. C080711 (Super. Ct. No. 34-2014- 80001723-CU-WM-GDS) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Michael P. Kenny, Judge. Reversed with directions. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Thomas D. Bunton, Assistant County Counsel, William A. Johnson, Jr., and Rachel H Witt, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Appellant. Winet Patrick Gayer Creighton & Hanes, Randall L. Winet, Kennett L. Patrick and Amanda F. Benedict for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Michael G. Colantuono, Holly O. Whatley and Matthew T. Summers for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 2 Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson and Benjamin P. Fay; Angil P. Morris-Jones, City Attorney for City of National City as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents. Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel, and Rebecca J. Hooley, Deputy County Counsel for Contra Costa County as Amicus Curiae. In the wake of a government fiscal crisis, the Legislature dissolved over 400 redevelopment agencies and redistributed the former tax increment generated by redevelopment between local taxing entities. This case is primarily a fight between the tax entities who negotiated favorable passthrough agreements before their redevelopment agencies were dissolved, and those who did not, for their pro rata share of the residual pool of money in the redevelopment property tax fund left for distribution after the successor agencies first paid the passthrough agreements in full, enforceable obligations, and administrative costs. Seven cities filed a petition for a writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief against Tracy Sandoval, the auditor-controller for the County of San Diego (Auditor) challenging the methodology the Auditor used to distribute the residual pool of former tax increment, a method that favored San Diego County and, at least, three community college districts, all of whom had passthrough agreements with their former redevelopment agencies. The trial court agreed with the petitioner cities and granted their petition. Auditor appeals.1 The Contra Costa County auditor-controller filed an amicus 1 The petitioner cities (Cities) include: Chula Vista, El Cajon, Escondido, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, and Vista. There are a number of real parties in interest including school districts, water districts, cemetery districts, special districts, healthcare districts, a conservation district, a flood control district, the county office of education, the county water authority, and an irrigation district. Three real parties in interest, Southwestern Community College District, San Diego Community College District, and Palomar Community College District joined the Auditor in appealing the judgment granting the petition for a writ of mandate. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 3 brief raising constitutional challenges that had not been squarely addressed by the parties.2 Meanwhile, according to the parties, county auditors throughout the state, charged with dispersing former tax increment, have chosen three different interpretations of the applicable statutes, Health and Safety Code sections 34183 and 34188.3 This is a hard and confusing case involving the statutory construction of tw o ambiguous statutes, made even more difficult by a later amendment “clarifying” the legislative intent. As amicus curiae points out, this is not a moral narrative. Speculation 2 We will not resolve the constitutional challenge because amicus curiae “ ‘ “must accept the issues made and propositions urged by the appealing parties, and any additional questions presented in a brief filed by an amicus curiae will not be considered.” ’ ” (Younger v. State of California (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 806, 813-814; California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1275.) Moreover, the California Supreme Court shunned consideration of additional constitutional challenges in California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 268, footnote 18 (Matosantos). In the same vein, Cities urge us to either strike those portions of the Auditor’s reply brief also raising, for the first time, constitutional concerns, to ignore those arguments, or to allow a surreply. We agree with Cities that the constitutional arguments hav e been raised too late for a substantive determination of their merits. We, therefore, have ignored the arguments raised for the first time in reply. We reject the Auditor’s contention that Cities’ reference to the two -thirds requirement in discussing the legislative history of Health and Safety Code section 34188 did not squarely present the arguments later raised by amicus curiae and the Auditor in its reply brief. Constitutional scrutiny of the depth the parties, either inappropriately or belatedly, suggest must await another case in which the issues are properly raised in the trial court, thoroughly examined, and definitively resolved. Late in the opinion we provide a superficial peek into the looming constitutional issues only to bolster our conclusion that Assembly Bill No. 1484 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) conflicts with the purpose and plain language of Health and Safety Code section 34188 and to conclude otherwise casts doubt on the constitutionality of the methodology the Cities urge us to adopt. 3 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 4 about the motives of the players is both irrelevant and unhelpful.4 Cognizant that the Legislature is hamstrung by a complicated maze of voter approved initiatives, we must ascertain how the legislators intended auditor-controllers to distribute residual funds. We conclude there is no plain meaning to be attributed to inconsistent statutory language. We are nonetheless compelled to construe the mangled statutes as we find them and offer direction to auditor-controllers throughout the state. We accept nearly all of Cities’ contentions including, most importantly, their premise that the fundamental purpose of section 34188, was to include passthrough payments as part of a taxing entity’s Assembly Bill No. 8 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 8) pro rata share and thereby equalize the tax distributions to those taxing entities with favorable passthrough agreements and those without. The sole issue before us is one of statutory construction. We accept Cities’ interpretation of the language of section 34188 and how the language is consistent with its legislative history. And we agree that for all its significance on a constitutional issue we do not address, this court’s decision in City of Cerritos v. State of California (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cerritos), does not resolve any of the statutory construction problems, particularly involving passthrough payments, we confront here. 4 Real parties in interest, the three community college districts, introduced evidence at trial attempting to prove that school districts would fare better under the Auditor’s methodology. The trial court excluded the evidence as irrelevant. Yet, Cities argue, the school districts have attempted to slip in the same evidence in their reply, a tactic we should deflect by striking their reply. The school districts insist they are n ot attempting to reintroduce evidence shunned by the trial court, but have included a chart and argument to rebut the Cities’ contention that its methodology will benefit schools. We agree with Cities that the evidence, excluded at trial, is not properly considered on appeal. (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 282.) Because we are confronted by a question of statutory construction, a question of law, who will win financially and who will lose, is not relevant. We will ignore any p ortions of the reply that incorporate evidence excluded at trial but have applied the same standard and will also ignore the Cities’ calculations as to how much money they would recoup under the trial court’s methodology. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 5 But those are small Pyrrhic victories for Cities because the very rules of statutory construction Cities espouse ultimately preclude us from finding in their favor. Compelled, as we are, by the inherent conflict between section 34188 and Assembly Bill No. 1484 (Assembly Bill 1484), we must reverse the trial court’s judgment granting Cities’ petition for a writ of mandate. Cities ap pear to recognize it is Assembly Bill 1484 that is the real culprit. Indeed, Assembly Bill 1484 is the sole obstacle to harmonizing the statutes in a manner that would cap trust fund distributions at a taxing entity’s Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share. Nevertheless, Assembly Bill 1484 cannot be ignored or harmonized and, because it demands that passthrough payments be paid in full, it conflicts with section 34188’s proportionate distribution scheme. The ultimate remedy, of course, resides with the Legislature to decide whether the amount of passthrough payments made to taxing entities should affect their proportionate share of the residual moneys left in the trust fund, and if so, to amend the statutes within the parameters allowed by Proposition 1A (approved by the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)) and Proposition 22 (approved by the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2010)). BACKGROUND The Voters, the Legislature, and Budgetary Woes The story of the statutes before us was recounted by the Supreme Court in Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th 231. The critical part of the story begins in 1978 with the voters’ passage of Proposition 13 (approved by the voters, Primary Elec. (June 6, 1978)), an event of “seismic significance.” (Matosantos, at p. 244.) Prior to 1978, cities and counties levied their own property taxes. But “Proposition 13 capped ad valorem real property taxes imposed by all local entities at 1 percent (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (a)), reducing the amount of revenue available by more than half.” (Matosantos, at p. 244.) Proposition 13 failed, however, to specify a method of allocating the property taxes collected and, as a result, it “largely transferred control over local government finances from the state’s many political subdivision s to the state, converting the property Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 6 tax from a nominally local tax to a de facto state-administered tax subject to a complex system of intergovernmental grants.” (Matosantos, at p. 244.) As a consequence, Proposition 13 “created a zero-sum game in which political subdivisions (cities, counties, special districts, and school districts) would have to compete against each other for their slices of a greatly shrunken pie.” (Matosantos, at pp. 244-245.) The Legislature thereafter created an allocation system, commonly referred to as the “A.B. 8” allocation system wherein these political subdivisions or taxing entities receive their Assembly Bill 8 pro rata shares. Under “article 2 of chapter 6 of part 0.5 of division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, section 96 et seq., primarily sections 96.1, 96.2, and 96.5 . . . in every current fiscal year, each local entity receives property tax revenues equal to what it received in the prior year (also referred to as its base) ([Rev. & Tax. Code, ]§ 96.1, subd. (a)(1)), plus its proportional share of any increase in revenues due to growth in assessed value within its boundaries, which is defined as the ‘ “annual tax increment” ’ ([Rev. & Tax. Code, ]§ 96.1, subd. (a)(2); see [Rev. & Tax. Code, ]§§ 96.2, 96.5). The sum of these two amounts—the prior year base plus the current year’s proportional share of the tax increment—becomes each jurisdiction’s new base amount for the following year’s calculations. ([Rev. & Tax. Code, ]§§ 96.1, subd. (a)(1), 96.5.) . . . [Citation.] Under this statutory allocation system, ‘the proportional allocations established in the first fiscal year following the passage of Proposition 13, as modified for the following fiscal year, are perpetuated year after year, unless modified by the Legislature.’ [Citation.]” (City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 707, 713.) Proposition 98 (approved by the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988)), placed additional pressure on state coffers. Adding article XVI, section 8 to the state Constitution, the voters established a “constitutional minimum funding level for education and required the state to designate a portion of the General Fund for public schools.” (Cerritos, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p 1039.) When the Legislature was faced Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 7 with a fiscal crisis in the early 1990’s, it apportioned property taxes by reducing the property tax allocation to cities, counties, and special districts. (Id. at p. 1040.) Redevelopment agencies could not levy taxes but instead relied on tax increment financing, the tax increment created by the increased value of redevelopment project area property, a funding method authorized by article XVI, section 16 of the state Constitution and section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code. Playing center stage in the present drama are “passthrough agreements.” Before 1994, section 33401 allowed taxing entities to negotiate passthrough contracts with a redevelopment agency to offset redevelopment’s fiscal impact. Section 33401 provided: “The agency may in any year during which it owns property in a redevelopment project that is tax exempt pay directly to any city, county, city and county, district, including, but not limited to, a school district, or other public corporation for whose benefit a tax would have been levied upon the property had it not been exempt, an amount of money in lieu of taxes that may not exceed the amount of money the public entity would have received if the property had not been tax exempt.” The redevelopment agency would “pass through” a share of the tax increment from a project area to the taxing entity. Redevelopment plans adopted after January 1, 1994, were subject to mandatory statutory passthrough payments. (§ 33607.5.) In 2004 the electorate adopted Proposition 1A and added section 25.5 of article XIII of the California Constitution providing in part: “On or after November 3, 2004, the Legislature shall not enact a statute to do any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] . . . (3) change for any fiscal year the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies in a county other than pursuant to a bill passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring . . . .” (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a).) “Proposition 1A was intended to prevent the Legislature from statutorily reducing the existing allocations Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 8 of property taxes among cities, counties, and special districts . . . to satisfy the State’s school funding obligations.” (Cerritos, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 1041.) And in 2010 the voters passed yet another constitutional amendment to stop the state from raiding local governments’ tax revenue “placing local tax revenues off limits to the Legislature.” (City of Bellflower v. Cohen (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 438, 445.) A key portion of the initiative is set forth in section 24 of article XIII of the California Constitution, which provides: “The Legislature may not reallocate, transfer, borrow, appropriate, restrict the use of, or otherwise use the proceeds of any tax imposed or levied by a local government solely for the local government’s purposes.” (Cal. Const, art. XIII, § 24, subd. (b).) The purpose of Proposition 1A “is simply to explain that the Legislature had been requiring the transfer of redevelopment agency tax increment, and that Proposition 22 was intended to eliminate future transfers: ‘The Legislature has been illegally circumventing Section 16 of Article XVI in recent years by requiring redevelopment agencies to transfer a portion of those taxes for purposes other than the financing of redevelopment projects. A purpose of the amendments made by this measure is to prohibit the Legislature from requiring, after the taxes have been allocated to a redevelopment agency, the redevelopment agency to transfer some or all of those taxes to the State, an agency of the State, or a jurisdiction ; or to use some or all of those taxes for the benefit of the State, an agency of the State, or a jurisdiction.’ (Prop. 22, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2010) § 9.)” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 259, fn. 13.) The fiscal pressure on local entities persisted. Indeed, “ ‘Proposition 13 created a kind of shell game among local government agencies for property tax funds. The only way to obtain more funds was to take them from another agency. Redevelopment proved to be one of the most powerful mechanisms for gaining an advantage in the shell game.’ [Citation.]” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 247.) The temptation to use redevelopment as a weapon proved irresistible in many cities and by 2011 redevelopment Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 9 agencies received 12 percent of all property tax revenue in the state. (Ibid.) And then suddenly they were all dissolved. Moving Money and Dissolving Redevelopment Agencies Facing a projected $25 billion operating deficit and sitting in a landmine of voter approved constitutional limitations on its ability to maneuver, the Legislature in 2011 dissolved all redevelopment agencies (§ 34172) and transferred control of redevelopment agency assets to successor agencies. “Part 1.85 requires successor agencies to continue to make payments and perform existing obligations. (§ 34177.) However, unencumbered balances of redevelopment agency funds must be remitted to the county auditor-controller for distribution to cities, the county, special districts, and school districts in proportion to what each agency would have received absent the redevelopment agencies. (See §§ 34177, subd. (d), 34183, subd. (a)(4), 34188.) Proceeds from redevelopment agency asset sales likewise must go to the county auditor - controller for similar distribution. (§ 34177, subd. (e).) Finally, tax increment revenues that would have gone to redevelopment agencies must be deposited in a local trust fund each county is required to create and administer. (§§ 34170.5, subd. (b), 34182, subd. (c)(1).) All amounts necessary to satisfy administrative costs, pass-through payments, and enforceable obligations will be allocated for those purposes, while any excess will be deemed property tax revenue and distributed in the same fashion as balances and assets. (§§ 34172, subd. (d), 34183, subd. (a).)” (Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 251.) County auditor-controllers play a pivotal role in winding down the redevelopment agencies. (§§ 34182-34188.) One of their many new responsibilities is to administer trust funds from which payments and distributions are made pursuant to sections 34183 and 34188, the statutes at the heart of this appeal. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 10 The Key Statutes Section 34183 establishes the priority in which the county auditor-controller must allocate the revenue from the trust fund. The parties refer to sectio n 34183’s priorities as a “waterfall.” Section 34183 provides in relevant part: “(a) Notwithstanding any other law, from February 1, 2012, to July 1, 2012, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the county auditor -controller shall, after deducting administrative costs allowed under Section 34182 and Section 95.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, allocate moneys in each Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund as follows: “(1)(A) Subject to any prior deductions required by subdivision (b), first, the county auditor-controller shall remit from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to each local agency and school entity an amount of property tax revenues in an amount equal to that which would have been received under Section 33401, 33492.140, 33607, 33607.5, 33607.7, or 33676, as those sections read on January 1, 2011, or pursuant to any passthrough agreement between a redevelopment agency and a taxing entity that was entered into prior to January 1, 1994, that would be in force during that fiscal year, had the redevelopment agency existed at that time. The amount of the payments made pursuant to this paragraph shall be calculated solely on the basis of passthrough payment obligations, existing prior to the effective date of this part and continuing as obligations of successor entities, shall occur no later than May 16, 2012, and no later than June 1, 2012, and each January 2 and June 1 thereafter. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] “(2) Second, on June 1, 2012, and each January 2 and June 1 thereafter, to each successor agency for payments listed in its Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the six-month fiscal period beginning January 1, 2012, and July 1, 2012, and each January 2 and June 1 thereafter . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] “(3) Third, on June 1, 2012, and each January 2 and June 1 thereafter, to each successor agency for the administrative cost allowance, as defined in Section 34171, for Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 11 administrative costs set forth in an approved administrative budget for those payments required to be paid from former tax increment revenues. “(4) Fourth, on June 1, 2012, and each January 2 and June 1 thereafter, any moneys remaining in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund after the payments and transfers authorized by paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, shall be distributed to local agencies and school entities in accordance with Section 34188. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] “(d) The Controller may recover the costs of audit and oversight required under this part from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund by presenting an invoice therefor to the county auditor-controller who shall set aside sufficient funds for and disburse the claimed amounts prior to making the next distributions to the taxing entities pursuant to Section 34188. . . .” (§ 34183, subds. (a)-(d).) While section 34183 establishes the order in which the revenues in the trust fund must be paid, section 34188 dictates that all distributions must be proportionate to the tax entity’s Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share. The parties agree, and the trial court found, that the proportionate “share” referred to in section 34188 is the taxing entity’s “AB 8 share.” The pertinent part of section 34188 reads: “For all distributions of property tax revenues and other moneys pursuant to this part, the distribution to each taxing entity shall be in an amount proportionate to its share of property tax revenues in the tax rate area in that fiscal year, as follows: “(a) (1) For distributions from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, the share of each taxing entity shall be applied to the amount of property tax available in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund after deducting the amount of any distributions under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183. “(2) For each taxing entity that receives passthrough payments, that agency shall receive the amount of any passthrough payments identified under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183, in an amount not to exceed the amount that it would receive pursuant to this section in the absence of the passthrough agreement. However, Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 12 to the extent that the passthrough payments received by the taxing entity are less than the amount that the taxing entity would receive pursuant to this section in the absence of a passthrough agreement, the taxing entity shall receive an additional payment that is equivalent to the difference between those amounts.” (§ 34188, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) The Legislature dissolved the redevelopment agencies, but established a mechanism for the payment of the former agencies’ obligations. Section 34172, subdivision (d) states: “Revenues equivalent to those that would have been allocated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 16 of Article XVI of the California Constitution shall be allocated to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund of each successor agency for making payments on the principal of and interest on loans, and moneys advanced to or indebtedness incurred by the dissolved redevelopment agencies. Amounts in excess of those necessary to pay obligations of the former redevelopment agency shall be deemed to be property tax revenues within the meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 1 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution.” According to Auditor, a working group of county auditors convened to decipher the meaning of sections 34183 and 34188. They could not reach a consensus on what methodology to use to distribute the residual pool of money described in section 34183, subdivision (a)(4) in the proportionate shares directed by section 34188, subdivision (a)(1). Auditor adopted the methodology advocated by the Department of Finance. Cities resisted this construction of the statutes and the trial court applied Cities’ alternative methodology. A third methodology, adopted by amicus curiae Contra Costa County auditor-controller is not before us. After the internal inconsistency of the two statutes was brought to its attention, the Legislature attempted to clarify its intent. Assembly Bill 1484 states: “The Legislature finds and declares as follows: “(a) Certain provisions of Assembly Bill 26 of the 2011-12 First Extraordinary Session of 2011 (Ch. 5, 2011-12 First Ex. Sess.) are internally inconsistent, or uncertain Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 13 in their meaning, with regard to the calculation of the amount to be paid by a county auditor-controller from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to meet passthrough payment obligations to local agencies and school entities. “(b) Consistent with the statement in Section 34183 of the Health and Safety Code, as added by the measure identified in subdivision (a), that the provisions of that section are to apply ‘[n]otwithstanding any other law,’ it was the intent of the Legislature in enacting that measure that the amount of the passthrough payments that are addressed by that section be determined in the manner specified by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 of the Health and Safety Code, and that the amount so calculated not be reduced or adjusted pursuant to the operation of any other provision of that measure.” (Stats. 2012, ch. 26, § 36.) The San Diego Auditor’s Methodology First, Auditor deducts her administrative costs from the trust. Second, she determines the amount of passthrough payments due to a taxing entity and the payments are remitted directly. The parties agree that the passthrough payments must be paid in full. Auditor contends that section 34188 does not limit the amount of revenue a taxing entity can receive, but she implements a cap nonetheless based on the principle that a taxing entity should not receive more than it would have received in the absence of redevelopment. An entity’s cap, in Auditor’s view, is based on its Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share of the entire amount of monies in the trust fund before any distributions for passthrough payments, enforceable obligations, administrative costs, and invoices from the state controller’s office for audit and oversight are paid and deducted. The trial court described Auditor’s calculation this way: “The amount of residual allocated to an affected taxing entity, when added to any passthrough received by the entity, cannot exceed the amount equal to the affected taxing entity’s Fund Impact Ratio (AB 8 Share) of property tax revenues multiplied by the total amount of the [trust] for that Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 14 distribution.” Since Auditor’s cap is set high, more taxing entities, including the County of San Diego and the three community college districts, are paid their Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share in full. If, however, an entity’s passthrough payments when added to its pro rata share of the residual, exceeds the cap, the portion of the residual monies that exceeds the cap is reallocated to other taxing entities in proportion to their relative Assembly Bill 8 shares. The Trial Court’s Methodology The court, like both parties, accepted the notion that there should be a limit or “cap” on the amount of revenues a taxing entity could receive from the trust. But unlike Auditor, the court found that the cap was statutorily required. “The Court finds th at the first paragraph of section 34188 creates a proportionate share directive to auditor - controllers that residual distributions not exceed each entity’s property tax allocation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AB 8 share’). The directing language is, ‘the distribution to each taxing entity shall be in an amount proportionate to its share of property tax revenues in the tax rate area in that fiscal year. . . .’ ” The court recognized, however, that the cap was not the essence of the parties’ disagreement. Rather the disagreement was “how to calculate the amount each entity is entitled to receive based on their proportionate share of the [trust] residue.” The court concluded that the plain language of section 34188 required a two -step calculation—first a calculation of what the trial court characterized as the entity’s “entitlement share” and a second calculation for the actual distribution of available funds. The court explained: “Section 34188[, subd. ](a)(1) requires the residual calculations to be done using ‘the amount of property tax available in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund after deducting the amount of any distributions under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183.’ Consequently, each taxing entity’s entitlement share is to be calculated after deducting enforceable obligation payments and successor administrative cost allowances. Section 34188 [, subd. ](a)(1) Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 15 does not call for the entitlement share calculation to be performed using the actual residual amount, but instead, to consider the amount of property tax available in the [trust], minus those amounts distributed pursuant to subsections 9 (a)(2) and (a)(3) of section 34183.” The court further explained the actual distribution calculation. “When the actual distribution is made, the passthrough amounts are not included, however their consideration in the entitlement calculation ensures that each entity can receive up to its proportionate share of property tax revenues from the passthrough and residual amounts. If the Legislature had wanted to exclude the passthrough amounts from the entitlement share calculation, they would have included such language. The exclusion of subsect ions (2) and (3) from the calculation indicates that the amounts not listed -- the passthrough amounts and the actual residual -- are to be included in the entitlement calculation. As passthrough payments were designed to provide a replacement for tax increment payments, pursuant to section 33401, their inclusion in the entitlement share calculation ensures that those entities not receiving passthrough payments will not have their entitlement shares unfairly reduced.” (Fn. omitted.) The parties are at odds as to what constitutes property tax revenues. Whereas Auditor premises her analysis on a finding that passthrough payments are obligations of the successor agencies and do not constitute property tax revenues, Cities assert passthrough payments do constitute property tax revenues. The distinction is important in determining whether or not passthrough payments should be included in the pool of money to be distributed, and therefore, in calculating the size of the pool of money against which the taxing entities’ Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share should be applied. The Arguments We begin with the glaring problem at the center of this case —sections 34183 and 34188 are ambiguous, at best, and fatally inconsistent, at worst. The Legislature itself characterized the two statutes as internally inconsistent, but the purported remedy, Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 16 Assembly Bill 1484, only compounds the confusion. The arguments, as we understand them, can be synthesized as follows. Auditor offers a logical, straightforward argument focused pri marily on section 34183. Pursuant to section 34183, she asserts she must remit passthrough payments (subd. (a)(1)), enforceable obligations (subd. (a)(2)), and administrative costs (subd. (a)(3)). All three categories, she contends, constitute obligations she must pay in the order of priority established by the statute; they are not property tax revenue to be distributed. Thus, once they are remitted as section 34183 directs, they are not “available” in the trust fund for distribution pursuant to subdivision (a)(2) and (3). After the obligations are paid, the residual moneys left in the pool are then distributed to the taxing entities according to their Assembly Bill 8 shares as compelled by section 34188, subdivision (a)(1). The net effect of Auditor’s analysis is that those entities which have favorable passthrough agreements are paid in full and can also receive a proportionate amount of the residual pool of money left after the obligations, including passthrough agreements, are paid. Passthrough agreements are treated like an enforceable obligation and the recipients of passthrough payments are entitled to receive the benefit of their bargains as well as their Assembly Bill 8 share of the residual. All the parties agree that, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1484, passthrough payments, whether contractual or statutory, are to be paid in full. Auditor points out that it was primarily cities that benefited from the diversion of tax increment to fund redevelopment and, thus, it is not inequitable for other entities who were disadvantaged during the heyday of redevelopment to continue to recap their passthrough payments. Cities object to Auditor’s methodology. In their view, the dispositive statute is section 34188, not section 34183. Section 34183 establishes the priority in which obligations are to be paid, and if there is money left over, the residual is to be distributed. But Cities insist that Auditor ignores the specific directive the Legislature provides in section 34188, subdivision (a)(1): “For distributions from the Redevelopment Property Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 17 Tax Trust Fund, the share of each taxing entity shall be applied to the amount of property tax available in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund after deducting the amount of any distributions under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183.” In other words, the Legislature has redefined the size of the pie. Whereas Auditor seeks to include passthrough payments, enforceable obligations, administrative costs, and the residual moneys in the gross amount of money in the trust fund to be distributed, Cities argue the Legislature has limited the size of the money to be distributed to include the passthrough payments and the residual moneys only. The trial court agreed with Cities. At the hearin g on the petition for writ of mandate, the court asked counsel for Auditor on multiple occasions how her methodology took the section 34188 directive to include passthrough payments into account. Counsel assured the court that, as a matter of policy, not legal restraint, the controller’s office would not distribute any residual moneys in excess of the entity’s Assembly Bill 8 share, including the passthrough payments. In its ruling on the submitted matter, the court rejected Auditor’s position and held that section 34188 compelled a proportionate allocation of the residual moneys including the amount of the passthrough payments. The court explained: “Section 34188[, subd. ](a)(1) requires the residual calculations to be done using ‘the amount of property tax available in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund after deducting the amount of any distributions under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183.’ Consequently, each taxing entity’s entitlement share is to be calculated after deducting enforceable obligation payments and successor administrative cost allowances. Section 34188 [, subd. ](a)(1) does not call for the entitlement share calculation to be performed using the actual residual amount, but instead, to consider the amount of property tax available in the [trust], minus those amounts distributed pursuant to subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of section 34183. This requires the passthrough payment amounts to be combined with Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 18 what constitutes the actual residual for purposes of ca lculating the funds available for distribution in satisfaction of each entity’s AB 8 share.” The Legislature’s objective, according to the trial court, was to ensure that each entity can receive up to its proportionate share of property tax revenues from the passthrough and residual amounts. The court explained : “As passthrough payments were designed to provide a replacement for tax increment payments, pursuant to section 33401, their inclusion in the entitlement share calculation ensures that those entities not receiving passthrough payments will not have their entitlement shares unfairly reduced.” A more equitable allocation of tax increment, consistent with a proportionate A ssembly Bill 8 share allocation, results from the trial court’s findings, a calculation consistent with Cities’ position on appeal. Thus, where Auditor’s argument is premised on the primacy of the passthrough payments as a contractual or statutory right to be given priority, Cities’ argument is premised on the primacy of the Assembly Bill 8 proportionate share distribution of tax increment. A major wrinkle in Cities’ argument is Assembly Bill 1484’s purported “clarification” of legislative intent. Acknowledging that the interplay between sections 34183 and 34188 was inconsistent, the Legislature directed county auditor-controllers to make all passthrough payments in full. But the legislative clarification creates a more vexing problem, potentially of constitutional significance. If a taxing entity’s passthrough payment exceeds its Assembly Bill 8 share, the residual will have to be reallocated and other entities’ proportionate Assembly Bill 8 shares will have to be reduced. The constitutional issues, however, as noted above are not before us. We have before us an appeal of a writ of mandate, which the parties agree, turns on the interpretation of the redevelopment dissolution statutes. Where the duty of a public official under a statute presents an issue of statutory construction on undisputed facts, the question is one of law and the standard of review is de novo. (Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1253.) Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 19 DISCUSSION I The Problem the Statutory Language Creates Section 34183 is not the problem. Section 34183 clearly prioritizes all distributions from the trust fund. Passthough payments are made and enforceable obligations and administrative costs are paid. The pot of money then remaining in the trust, according to the express terms of section 34183, is to be distributed “to local agencies and school entities in accordance with Section 34188.” (§ 34183, subd. (a)(4).) The problem is section 34188 and what is left of it following the amendment contained in the uncodified language of Assembly Bill 1484. The first iteration of section 34188 contains four important elements. The introductory language sets forth the fundamental principle of proportionate distribution of property tax revenues to former tax increment of the redevelopment agencies. The introdu ction states: “For all distributions of property tax revenues and other moneys pursuant to this part, the distribution to each taxing entity shall be in an amount proportionate to its share of property tax revenues in the tax rate area in that fiscal year, as follows: . . .” (§ 34188.) As pointed out above, the trial court and the parties agree that “an amount proportionate to its share of property tax revenues” means the taxing entity’s Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share. Thus, according to the plain meaning of the introduction, the Legislature intended to apply the historically accepted pro rata distribution of property taxes to the amount local agencies would receive during the wind down of the redevelopment agencies. The second element of section 34188 is consistent with distribution of the trust fund according to Assembly Bill 8 pro rata shares and the broader notion that the Legislature intended to equalize the distributions to taxing entities who had favorable passthrough agreements with those that did not. Subdivision (a)(1) states: “For distributions from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, the share of each taxing entity shall be applied to the amount of property tax available in the Redevelopment Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 20 Property Tax Trust Fund after deducting the amount of any distributions under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183.” (§ 34188, subd. (a)(1).) Paragraph (2) includes enforceable obligations and paragraph (3) includes administrative costs. Thus, the plain language compels the auditor-controller to deduct enforceable obligations and administrative costs from the trust fund before computing each tax entity’s proportionate share. But share of what? Subdivision (a)(1) prescribes that the calculation includes both the passthrough payments and the residual moneys because, as the trial court explained, “The exclusion of subsections (2) and (3) from the calculation indicates that the amounts not listed -- the passthrough amounts and the actual residual -- are to be included in the entitlement calculation.” This language appears, however, to be at odds with section 34183. Because passthrough payments are given preferred status and are paid first, pursuant to section 34183, subdivision (a)(1), they no longer remain in the pool of money to be distributed. According to Auditor, the passthrough payments have been remitted and are no longer “available” in the trust fund, as that term is used in subdivision (a)(1). Yet section 34188 , subdivision (a)(1) directs the auditor-controller to include the passthrough payments in the moneys in the trust fund subject to distribution. This conflict presents the first problem deciphering the plain meaning of the statutes. The third and fourth elements of the initial version of section 34188 support the same theme—a legislative scheme to cap the amount of distributions a taxing entity can receive from the trust fund at its Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share. The first sentence of subdivision (a)(2) states: “For each taxing entity that receives passthrough payments, that agency shall receive the amount of any passthrough payments identified under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183, in an amount not to exceed the amount that it would receive pursuant to this section in the absence o f the passthrough agreement.” (§ 34188, subd. (a)(2).) Taken alone, the meaning of this sentence is straightforward. Taxing entities with passthrough agreements in excess of their Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 21 Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share would forfeit the amount of the excess. In short, the amount of the passthrough when added to the Assembly Bill 8 share of the residual monies in the fund cannot exceed the taxing entities’ A ssembly Bill 8 pro rata share. If, however, the passthrough payment is less than the taxing entity’s A ssembly Bill 8 share, section 34188, subdivision (a)(2) directed the auditor-controller to supplement the passthrough payment with an amount from the residual to render the total amount of the distribution equal to the entity’s Assembly Bill 8 share. The second sentence of subdivision (a)(2) reads: “However, to the extent that the passthrough payments received by the taxing entity are less than the amount that the taxing entity would receive pursuant to this section in the absence of a passthrough agreement, the taxing entity shall receive an additional payment that is equivalent to the difference between those amounts.” (§ 34188, subd. (a)(2).) As a result of section 34188, some auditor-controllers gave what came to be known as “haircuts” to the passthrough payments. Since section 34188 appeared to cap the combined amount a taxing entity could receive in passthrough payments and as a residual distribution to its Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share, then in some cases the passthrough payments would have to be trimmed so as not to exceed the cap. The Legislature abolished the haircuts, but in doing so created the more perplexing problem we now face. In Assembly Bill 1484, as recited above, the Legislature clarified its intent regarding passthrough payments. In essence, the Legislature affirmed that those payments are sacrosanct. Consistent with the priority of payments established in section 34183, passthrough payments are to be paid first and paid in full. After A ssembly Bill 1484 was enacted, there would be no further trips to the barber shop. The Legislature failed, however, to rewrite section 34188 leaving the extant provisions hopelessly ambiguous, inconsistent, and unworkable. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 22 It is clear that Assembly Bill 1484 amends part of section 34188; what is not clear is just how much it amends. Eliminating passthrough haircuts is blatantly inconsistent with the first sentence of subdivision (a)(2) which had limited the passthrough payments to “an amount not to exceed the amount that it would receive pursuant to this section in the absence of the passthrough agreement.” (§ 34188, subd. (a)(2).) As a result, there is no doubt Assembly Bill 1484 amends this sentence by eliminating the possibility of a haircut. But the thornier question for us to determine is what remains of section 34188 after the Assembly Bill 1484 amendment. Does honoring passthrough payments in the manner dictated by Assembly Bill 1484 amend subdivision (a)(1) as well? In other words, since passthrough payments are accorded first priority in section 34183 and Assembly Bill 1484, does that mean they too should be deducted along with enforceable obligations and administrative costs from the trust fund pool before applying each tax entity’s Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share? Or, as Cities contend, does Assembly Bill 1484 merely confirm that all passthrough payments should be paid in full but the remainder of section 34188 remains intact? In Cities’ view, the fact they are given priority does not change the statute’s aim to equalize total payments to Assembly Bill 8 pro rata shares. Cities acknowledge that the amendment creates an exception, but Cities do not find the exception problematic. We do. According to Cities, the exception applies only when a taxing entity’s passthrough payment exceeds the amount of its Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share, and then the entity would be ineligible to receive any additional distributions from the trust fund. That exception, however, is irreconcilably in conflict with proportionate distribution of trust funds according to Assembly Bill 8 shares. Once some of the taxing entities with favorable passthrough agreements are paid in excess of their A ssembly Bill 8 shares, others will have to receive less. The amount in the fund does not grow; rather the shares of the fixed amount must be reduced. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 23 The problem is thus simply stated: The plain meaning of Assembly Bill 1484 directing auditor-controllers to pay passthrough payments in full conflicts with the plain meaning of section 34188 to cap passthrough paymen ts to Assembly Bill 8 pro rata shares. Or to use the more colloquial characterization of the problem, A ssembly Bill 1484’s elimination of passthrough haircuts renders a proportionate distribution of the trust funds impossible. Given the inherent conflict between section 34188’s direction to apply Assembly Bill 8 pro rata shares and Assembly Bill 1484’s direction to pay all passthrough payments in full as well as the inherent conflict between section 34183 , subdivision (a)(4)’s definition of the residual pool of money to be distributed and section 34188’s definition of the residual pool, what methodology must auditor -controllers follow in distributing the residual fund? II The Solution Confronted with three laws, that when construed together and in light of their statutory purpose, conflict, we turn for a solution to well worn rules of statutory construction. “ ‘ “When we interpret the meaning of statutes, our fundamental task is to ascertain the aim and goal of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpo se of the statute” ’ ” and “ ‘ “if the clear meaning of the statutory language is not evident after attempting to ascertain its ordinary meaning or its meaning as derived from legislative intent, we will ‘apply reason, practicality, and common sense to the language at hand. If possible, the words should be interpreted to make them workable and reasonable [citations], . . . practical [citations], in accord with common sense and justice, and to avoid an absurd result [citations].’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1082.) “In cases of uncertain meaning, we may also consider the consequences of a particular interpretation, including its impact on public policy.” (Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1190.) Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 24 If, after an examination of the statutes in context, they “conflict on a central element, we strive to harmonize them so as to give effect to each. If conflicting statutes cannot be reconciled, later enactments supersede earlier ones [citation], and more specific provisions take precedence over more general ones [citation].” (Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey (2000) 24 Cal.4th 301, 310.) “ ‘ “ ‘[A]ll presumptions are against a repeal by implication. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Absent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal ‘only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes [citation], and the statutes are “irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.” ’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 805.) “ ‘Because the “doctrine of implied repeal provides that the most recently enacted st atute expresses the will of the Legislature” [citation], application of the doctrine is appropriate in those limited situations where it is necessary to effectuate the intent of drafters of the newly enacted statute.’ ” (Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP (2009) 45 Cal.4th 557, 573.) Try as we might, we cannot ascertain any plain meaning to section 34188, in light of Assembly Bill 1484 and section 34183, that would allow us to harmonize the three provisions. We therefore must apply “reason, practicality, and common sense to the language at hand” with an aim toward making them “workable and reasonable.” Both parties try to surmise legislative intent by construing the statutes together and both urge us to read the statutes in light of the broader objectives the Legislature sought to achieve in the dismantling of redevelopment agencies throughout the state. Auditor contends that Assembly Bill 1484, the later enacted law, reflects a legislative intent to give primacy to passthrough payments and, only after they are paid, to apply the Assembly Bill 8 pro rata shares to the residual. Cities insist that the primary objective sought to be achieved is, Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 25 above all else, a proportionate distribution of all trust fund moneys. Both argue their version of the spirit of the law should prevail and allow us to harmonize the statutes. “We must follow the language used by the Legislature ‘whatever may be thought of the wisdom, expediency, or policy of the act’ [citation] and we emphasize ‘[o]ur preference for literalism is compelled by the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.’ [Citation.] ‘ “It is an elementary proposition that courts only determine by construction the scope and intent of the law when the law itself is ambiguous or doubtful. . . . To allow a court . . . to say that the law must mean something different from . . . its language, because the court may think that its penalties are unwise or harsh would make the judicial superior to the legislative branch of the government, an d practically invest it with lawmaking power. The remedy . . . is not in interpretation but in amendment or repeal.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Willis v. State of California (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 287, 293.) Here the parties can both point to language in the statutes consistent with the spirit and purpose they advocate. The challenge is not for us to divine an overarching purpose, for surely a statutory scheme as complex as the winding down of 400 redevelopment agencies can achieve multiple objectives, but to determine whether the conflicting provisions can be harmonized, or whether the Legislature impliedly repealed those provisions in section 34188 that conflict with Assembly Bill 1484 because “ ‘the two acts are so inconsistent that there is no possibility of concurrent operation.’ ” (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1038.) “Because ‘the doctrine of implied repeal provides that the most recently enacted statute expresses the will of the Legislature’ [citation], application of the doctrine is appropriate in those limited situations where it is necessary to effectuate the intent of drafters of the newly enacted statute.” (Ibid.) Simply put, this is one of the rare cases in which a court cannot divine harmony where there is none. The California Supreme Court, facing another irreconcilable Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 26 conflict between two statutes, admonishes us as follows: “[T]he requirement that courts harmonize potentially inconsistent statutes when possible is not a license to redraft the statutes to strike a compromise that the Legislature did not reach. (See Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 479 [‘the general policy underlying legislation “cannot supplant the intent of the Legislature as expressed in a particular st atute” ’].) The cases in which we have harmonized potentially conflicting statutes involve choosing one plausible construction of a statute over another in order to avoid a conflict with a second statute. [Citations.] This canon of construction, like all such canons, does not authorize courts to rewrite statutes.” (State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 956.) In articulating the problem with the language of the statutes, we pointed out the inconsistencies between sections 34183, 34188, and Assembly Bill 1484. Indeed, Assembly Bill 1484 acknowledges the inconsistency and uncertainty generated by sections 34183 and 34188. The Legislature sought to clarify its intent. “It was the intent of the Legislature in enacting that measure that the amount of the passthrough payments that are addressed by that section be determined in the manner specified by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 of the Health and Safety Code, and that the amount so calculated not be reduced or adjusted pursuant to the operation of any other provision of that measure.” (Stats. 2012, ch. 26, § 36.) As explained above, this intent conflicts with section 34188’s haircut provisions. The two provisions cannot be harmonized and Assembly Bill 1484, the later statute, must prevail. The trial court recognized that Assembly Bill 1484 directs auditor-controllers to pay all passthrough agreements in full, whether or not they exceeded their proportionate Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share. But the court adopted Cities’ view that Assembly Bill 1484 did not affect the calculation of the total amount of moneys to be distributed. That is to say, pursuant to section 34188, subdivision (a), the total amount of the passthrough payments must be added to the amount of the residual pot of money as described in Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 27 section 34183 and then the Assembly Bill 8 shares must be applied. Since there may be passthrough payments that exceed the taxing entity’s Assembly Bill 8 pro rata share, however, other entities’ distributions must be reduced when applying the trial court’s methodology. Yet distributions that distort proportionate distribution according to Assembly Bill 8 shares is antithetical to the very purpose of section 34188. The two statutes seek to achieve conflicting purposes. In such a case, section 34188 must yield to the later enacted Assembly Bill 1484. There is yet another reason to construe the statutes as Auditor suggests. As mentioned above, amicus curiae asserts that Cities’ methodology, as accepted by the trial court, violates Propositions 1A and 22. We decline to determine the merits of amicus curiae’s constitutional challenge because the issues were not raised by the parties or addressed by the trial court. Nevertheless, we note, “If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which renders it constitutional and the other unconstitutional (or raises serious and doubtful constitutional questions), the court will adopt the construction which will render it free from doubt as to its constitutionality, even if the other construction is equally reasonable.” (Jonathan L. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1101.) Here we conclude Cities’ methodology raises “serious and doubtful constitutional questions” involving Propositions 1A and 22, and therefore, we must construe the statutory scheme in a manner “which will render it free from doubt as to its constitutionality.” (Jonathan L., at p. 1101.) Proposition 1A forbids the Legislature from changing “the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies” (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5, subd. (a)(3)) unless passed by two-thirds of the membership. No one maintains the statutes garnered the requisite two-thirds vote. Proposition 22 further limits the Legislature in allocating property tax revenue. According to Proposition 22, the Legislature no longer may “relocate, transfer, borrow, appropriate, [or] restrict the use of” local taxes. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 24, subd. (b).) Amicus curiae raises the plausible Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) 28 argument that in redistributing the Assembly Bill 8 shares to accommodate the satisfaction of passthrough payments, Cities’ construction of the statute violates Proposition 22. Thus, without deciding on the constitutionality of Cities’ interpretation of the statutes, we can say their interpretation raises substantial doubt as to the constitutionality of Cities’ methodology, adding support to our conclusion the trial court erred and Auditor’s methodology must prevail. DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to vacate its order granting Cities’ petition for writ of mandate and to enter an order denying Cities’ writ petition consistent with this opinion. Appellants shall recover their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (2).) /s/ RAYE, P. J. We concur: /s/ BLEASE, J. /s/ BUTZ, J. Attachment B G.5.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment B_Chula Vista vs Sandoval & SW Comm Coll dist [Revision 2] (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) Attachment CRecognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Distributions Allocation Period: January 2021 - June 2021ROPS Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Allocation Cycle: 20-21BCounty : San BernardinoTable 5RS08No. - Staff Report Title of Former Redevelopment Agency: Grand TerraceRPTTF Deposits Secured & Unsecured Property Tax Increment (TI) 6,533,362.34 Supplemental & Unitary Property TI 493,497.01 1Total RPTTF Deposits 7,026,859.35 Administrative Distributions - made pursuant to Health and Safety Code (H&S) Section 34183. Administrative Fees to CAC 55,147.10 SB 2557 Administration Fees 63,943.04 2County Administrative Deductions 119,090.14 Passthrough Distributions to Affected Taxing Entities (ATE) - made pursuant to Health and Safety Code (H&S) Section 34183. CITY OF GRAND TERRACECC14-GA01 City of Grand Terrace 136,762.30 COUNTY GENERAL FUNDAB01-GA01 County General Fund 770,928.41 SPECIAL DISTRICTS PASS-THROUGH PAYMENTSBF02-GA01 Flood Control Zone 2136,858.00 BF07-GA01 Flood Control Admin 1 & 2 9,623.39 BL01-GA01 County Free Library74,652.62 UF01-GA01 San Bdno Cnty Fire Protect District-Valley Service Area 626,601.38 WR01-GL01 Riverside Corona Rcd L O 7,267.20 WU23-DA01 San Bernardino Valley Muni Water-Debt Service 959,161.90 WU23-GA01 San Bernardino Valley Muni Water 139,428.67 COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTSU20-GA01 K-12 School Passthrough Payments - Facilities Portion 175,899.36 SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY COLLEGESC54-GA01 Community College Passthrough Payments - Tax Portion 24,765.92 SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY COLLEGESC54-GA01 Community College Passthrough Payments - Facilities Portion 27,372.86 COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION - FACILITIES PORTIONBS01-GA01 Superintendent Of Schools - County Wide 26,452.96 BS01-GA03 Superintendent Of Schools - Phys Hand 10,405.47 BS01-GA05 Superintendent Of Schools - Dev Center 2,727.63 SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY COLLEGESC54-GA01 Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) 31,718.08 3Total Passthrough Obligations 3,160,626.15 Total Administrative and Passthrough Distributions 3,279,716.29 Total RPTTF Balance to Fund Successor Agency (SA) Enforceable Obligations (EOs) Finance Approved RPTTF for Distribution - Include the total RPTTF approved for SA non-admin and admin costs. Non-Admin EOs 283,438.00 Total Finance Approved RPTTF for Distribution 283,438.00 CAC Distributed ROPS RPTTF- Grand Terrace Successor Agency Rocognized Obligation Payments (ROPS) 283,438.00 4Total Successor Agency ROPS 283,438.00 ATE Name5Residual Revenue (RPTTF Balance Available for Distribution to ATEs) 3,463,705.06 G.5.cPacket Pg. 106Attachment: Attachment C_SB County RPTTF Distribution Detail -Table 5 (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Attachment CRecognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Distributions Allocation Period: January 2021 - June 2021ROPS Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Allocation Cycle: 20-21BCounty : San BernardinoTable 5RS08No. - Staff Report Title of Former Redevelopment Agency: Grand TerraceRPTTF Distributions to ATEsORIGINALATE Code ATE NameDISTRIBUTION VARIANCECITY OF GRAND TERRACE6 CC14-GA01 City of Grand Terrace 691,744.93 19.97% 1,022,045.84 29.51%(330,300.91) COUNTY GENERAL FUND7 AB01-GA01 County General Fund440,462.20 12.72%SPECIAL DISTRICTS8a BF02-GA01 Flood Control Zone 278,192.50 2.26%8b BF07-GA01 Flood Control Admin 1 & 25,498.24 0.16%8c BL01-GA01 County Free Library42,652.07 1.23%8d UF01-GA01 San Bdno Cnty Fire Protect District-Valley Service Area358,002.67 10.34%8e WR01-GL01 Riverside Corona Rcd L O4,153.08 0.12%8f WU23-GA01 San Bernardino Valley Muni Water79,661.21 2.30%COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST9 SU20-GA01 K-12 Schools918,954.01 26.53% 1,336,165.79 38.58%(417,211.78) COMMUNITY COLLEGES10 SC54-GA01 San Bernardino Community College 154,802.87 4.47% 208,251.80 6.01%(53,448.93) COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION11a BS01-GA01 Superintendent Of Schools - County Wide15,113.63 0.44%11b BS01-GA03 Superintendent Of Schools - Phys Hand5,945.06 0.17%11c BS01-GA05 Superintendent Of Schools - Dev Center1,558.41 0.04%EDUCATION REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF)12a SU20-GA01 COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTERAF - K-12559,033.16 16.14% 752,046.57 21.71%(193,013.41) 12b SC54-GA01 ERAF COMMUNITY COLLEGESan Bernardino Community College 94,172.21 2.72% 126,685.01 3.66%(32,512.80) ERAF COUNTY OFFICES OF EDUCATION12c BS01-GA01 Superintendent Of Schools - County Wide 9,194.17 0.27% 12,368.89 0.36%(3,174.72) 12d BS01-GA03 Superintendent Of Schools - Phys Hand 3,616.60 0.10% 4,866.51 0.14%(1,249.91) 12e BS01-GA05 Superintendent Of Schools - Dev Center 948.04 0.03% 1,274.64 0.04%(326.60) Education Revenue Augmentation Fund 3,463,705.06 100.00% 3,463,705.06 100.00%(1,031,239.07) G.5.cPacket Pg. 107Attachment: Attachment C_SB County RPTTF Distribution Detail -Table 5 (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Attachment D Grand Terrace Successor Agency Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area Prior to SB County P/T Agreements After Applying A-C Weighted Average Pass Through Fund No.Taxing Entity Percentage Shares Agreements CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CC14-GA01 Grand Terrace General Fund 19.9710%Statutory COUNTY GENERAL FUND AB01-GA01 County General Fund 12.7151%12.7151% SPECIAL DISTRICTS BF02-GA01 Flood Control Zone 2 2.2574%2.2574% BF07-GA01 Flood Control Admin. 1 & 2 0.1587%0.1587% BL01-GA01 County Free Library 1.2314%1.2314% UF01-GA01 County Fire Protection District - Valley Service 10.3357%10.3357% WR01-GL01 Riverside Corona RCD 0.1241%0.1241% WU23-GA01 San Bernardino Valley Muni. Water 2.2998%2.2998% COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SU20-GA01 Colton Unified 26.5307%Per Agreeement COMMUNITY COLLEGES SC54-GA01 San Bernardino Community College 4.4693%Statutory COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION BS01-GA01 Superintendent of Schools - Countywide 0.4363%0.4363% BS01-GA03 Superintendent of Schools - Physically Handicapped 0.1716%0.1716% BS01-GA05 Superintendent of Schools - Development Center 0.0450%0.0450% ERAF AB02-GA01 Education Revenue Augmentation Fund 19.2537%Statutory 100.0000% G.5.d Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment D_ATE Weighted Average Percentage Share (FY2019-20 and FY2020-21 Budget Updates) Attachment E HdL Projection 02/10/2021 Grand Terrace Successor Agency Tabulation of RPTTF Allocations (as provided by HdL, 02/10/2021) Fiscal Year 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 RPTTF Allocation Cycle 17-18B 18-19A 18-19B 19-20A 19-20B 20-21A 20-21B 21-22A RPTTF Deposits 5,931,046 5,172,684 6,774,264 5,556,545 6,908,486 5,735,921 7,026,859 5,186,690 County Admin Deduction (27,914)(55,983)(53,911)(23,519)(121,817)(20,927)(119,090)(18,923) Pass Through Obligations (2,690,251)(2,346,982)(3,015,175)(2,537,133)(3,069,002)(2,636,725)(3,160,626)(2,384,251) Net RPTTF Deposits for Enforceable Obligations 3,212,881 2,769,719 3,705,178 2,995,893 3,717,667 3,078,269 3,747,143 2,783,516 Non-Administrative ROPS 835,478 1,210,178 797,687 1,223,346 292,438 0 283,438 0 Successor Agency Admin. Allowance 125,000 20,130 20,130 13,000 0 0 0 0 Prior Period Adjustments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Controller Audit Costs 0 0 0 Residual Revenue 2,252,403 1,539,411 2,887,361 1,759,547 3,425,229 3,078,269 3,463,705 2,783,516 City 671,578 453,279 846,589 515,302 1,003,006 908,113 691,745 555,903 County Gen. Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 440,462 353,966 Special Districts 0 0 0 0 0 0 568,160 456,587 K-12 Schools 807,078 572,905 1,084,009 675,356 1,318,498 1,187,479 918,954 738,493 Community College 145,757 96,681 180,233 107,166 207,918 185,077 154,803 124,403 County Office of Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,617 18,176 ERAF 627,990 416,547 776,530 461,723 895,808 797,399 666,964 535,988 Total 2,252,403 1,539,412 2,887,361 1,759,547 3,425,230 3,078,068 3,463,705 2,783,516 City Allocations City Pass Through 76,234 80,683 95,810 101,691 116,002 118,606 136,762 103,168 City Residual 671,578 453,279 846,589 515,302 1,003,006 908,113 691,745 555,903 Total 747,812 533,962 942,399 616,993 1,119,008 1,026,719 828,507 659,071 City Residual Allocations - Fiscal Year City Residual 1,124,857 1,361,891 1,911,119 1,247,648 Total 1,124,857 1,361,891 1,911,119 1,247,648 City % Share of Residual Revenue 29.82%29.44%29.32%29.29%29.28%29.50%19.97%19.97% City % Share of Tax Increment Revenue 19.97%19.97%19.97%19.97%19.97%19.97%19.97%19.97% G.5.e Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment E_HdL Grand Terrace SA - RPTTF recalculation - 2-10-2021 (FY2019-20 and CITY OF GRAND TERRACE YEAR-END REPORTS FY2019-20 ACTUALS / FY2020-21 PROJECTIONS March 9, 2021 2030 MISSION •To preserve & protect our community & its exceptional quality of life through thoughtful planning within the constraints of fiscally responsible government. PURPOSE OF REVIEW •To notify City Council of any significant variances in revenue and expense projections; •To provide City Council with year-end actuals and projections, and show how the variances affects Fund Balance; and •To propose adjustments to preserve the City’s reserves, if necessary. FY2019-20 YEAR-END ACTUALS JUNE 30, 2020 FY2019-20 ACTUAL REVENUES 2019-20 Year-End Proj. 07/28/2020 2019-20 Year-End Actuals 02/26/2021 Variance REVENUES Property Tax $2,041,758 $2,052,014 $10,256 Residual Receipts -RPTTF $1,911,591 $1,911,591 $0 Residual Receipts -Housing $1,440 $1,440 $0 Franchise Fees $469,286 $549,823 $80,537 Licenses, Fees & Permits $311,720 $389,162 $77,442 Sales Tax $714,470 $833,919 $119,450 Intergovt Revenue/Grants $35,937 $46,400 $10,463 Charges for Services $116,422 $132,507 $16,085 Fines & Forfeitures $69,653 $66,667 ($2,986) Miscellaneous $625 $4,346 $3,721 Use of Money & Property $73,939 $80,045 $6,107 Transfers In $0 $94,608 $94,608 Waste Water Receipts $318,349 $318,349 $0 TOTAL REVENUES $6,065,189 $6,480,871 $415,683 FY2019-20 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES 2019-20 Year-End Proj. 07/28/2020 2019-20 Year-End Actuals 02/26/2021 Variance EXPENDITURES Salaries $1,235,505 $1,255,047 $19,542 Benefits $809,160 $824,208 $15,048 Professional/Contractual Services $3,322,302 $3,410,511 $88,209 Materials & Supplies $246,099 $277,838 $31,739 Lease of Facility/Equipment $19,323 $13,392 ($5,931) Utilities $143,858 $130,555 ($13,303) Overhead Cost Allocation ($87,450)($56,558)$30,892 Transfers Out $125,800 $180,377 $54,577 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,814,597 $6,035,369 $220,772 REVENUE & EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REVENUES $6,065,189 $6,480,871 $415,683 EXPENDITURES ($5,814,597)($6,035,369)($220,772) NET -USE OF FUND BALANCE $250,592 $445,502 $194,910 ❖Revenue:$6.481m ❖Expense:$6.035m $ .446k ➢6/3/2020:$1.011M 17% ➢Net Inc:$ .346k $1.357m 22% REVENUE & EXPENSE FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE –GENERAL FUND FY2020-21 YEAR-END PROJECTIONS CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY •On Dec. 30, 2020, SB County informed redevelopment agencies and affected taxing entities (ATEs) of a methodology change regarding the distribution of Residual Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) monies. •The re-distribution was to take effect on January 1, 2021. CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY •This was based on the appellate court’s decision City of Chula Vista vs. Sandoval & Southwestern Community College District. •SB County stated that the effect may reflect a 13% reduction to City allocations. HDL’S SUMMARY 1.The trial court ruled in favor of Chula Vista; meaning the distribution of San Diego County’s RPTTF is the same method as SB County: If a taxing entity received 100% of its full share of tax increment from its pass- through agreement, it will not receive a portion of the Residual RPTTF. HDL’S SUMMARY 2.The appellate court ruled that the pass-through agreements are independent of one another: Pass-through amounts & residual RPTTF amounts are to be allocated without regard to one another. HDL’S SUMMARY Meaning, a taxing entity with a full (100%) pass -through agreement can still receive a share of the residual RPTTF. 3.Since the Supreme Court denied review of the case, the Appellate Court’s decision is final. Net Effect: 33% reduction in residual RPTTF for the City. FY2019-20 ACTUAL REVENUES 2019-20 Year-End Proj. 07/28/2020 2019-20 Year-End Actuals 02/26/2021 Variance REVENUES Property Tax $2,041,758 $2,052,014 $10,256 Residual Receipts -RPTTF $1,911,591 $1,911,591 $0 Residual Receipts -Housing $1,440 $1,440 $0 Franchise Fees $469,286 $549,823 $80,537 Licenses, Fees & Permits $311,720 $389,162 $77,442 Sales Tax $714,470 $833,919 $119,450 Intergovt Revenue/Grants $35,937 $46,400 $10,463 Charges for Services $116,422 $132,507 $16,085 Fines & Forfeitures $69,653 $66,667 ($2,986) Miscellaneous $625 $4,346 $3,721 Use of Money & Property $73,939 $80,045 $6,107 Transfers In $0 $94,608 $94,608 Waste Water Receipts $318,349 $318,349 $0 TOTAL REVENUES $6,065,189 $6,480,871 $415,683 RPTTF DISTRIBUTION: JAN2021 Grand Terrace Successor Agency (S/A) RPTTF Distribution (San Bernardino County), January-2021 No. Original Allocation % Actual Distribution %Variance RPTTF Allocation Cycle 20-21B 20-21B 1 RPTTF Deposits $7,026,859 $7,026,859 2 County Admin Deduction ($119,090)($119,090) 3 Pass Throughs (3,160,626)(3,160,626) Net RPTTF $3,747,143 $3,747,143 4 S/A ROPS $283,438 $283,438 5 Residual Revenue $3,463,705 $3,463,705 RPTTF DISTRIBUTION: JAN2021 Grand Terrace Successor Agency (S/A) RPTTF Distribution (San Bernardino County), January-2021 5 Residual Revenue $3,463,705 $3,463,705 6 City $1,022,046 29.51%$691,745 19.97%($330,301) 7 County General Fund $440,462 12.72% 8 Special Districts $568,160 16.40% 9 K-12 Schools $1,336,166 38.58%$918,954 26.53%($417,212) 10 Community College $208,251 6.01%$154,803 4.47%($53,448) 11 County Office of Education $22,617 0.65% 12 ERAF $897,242 25.90%$666,964 19.26%($230,278) Total $3,463,705 100.00%$3,463,705 100.00%($1,031,239) REVISED PROJECTIONS •Staff thoroughly reviewed all revenue & expense projections, taking into consideration the following: 1.Consistent revenues within the last 2 years; 2.Delays in receipts, yet being able to record the revenues in the appropriate fiscal year; 3.Meeting with the City’s property tax and sales tax consultants for revenue projections; 4.Reallocation of COVID-19 related revenues & expenditures into its own fund. FY2020-21 PROJECTED REVENUES Adopted Budget 6/23/2020 Proposed Adj. 7/28/2020 Approved Budget 7/28/2020 Proposed Revisions 3/9/2021 Proposed Budget 3/9/2021 REVENUES Property Tax $1,971,250 $111,343 $2,082,593 $90,000 $2,172,593 Residual Receipts -RPTTF $1,668,400 $129,763 $1,798,163 ($450,000)$1,348,163 Franchise Fees $445,000 $0 $445,000 $150,000 $595,000 Licenses, Fees & Permits $329,090 $0 $329,090 $15,000 $344,090 Sales Tax $725,000 $25,000 $750,000 $100,000 $850,000 Intergovt Revenue/Grants $160,000 $0 $160,000 ($125,000)$35,000 Charges for Services $100,300 $0 $100,300 $0 $100,300 Fines & Forfeitures $35,100 $34,900 $70,000 $0 $70,000 Use of Money & Property $67,500 $0 $67,500 $0 $67,500 Wastewater Receipts $318,349 $0 $318,349 $0 $318,349 TOTAL REVENUES $5,819,989 $301,006 $6,120,995 ($220,000)$5,900,995 FY2020-21 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES Adopted Budget 6/23/2020 Proposed Adj. 7/28/2020 Approved Budget 7/28/2020 Proposed Revisions 3/9/2021 Proposed Budget 3/9/2021 Salaries $1,083,626 $125,000 $1,208,626 ($30,000)$1,178,626 Benefits $1,066,209 $57,500 $1,123,709 ($100,000)$1,023,709 Prof/Contractual Services $3,337,646 $100,000 $3,437,646 ($50,000)$3,387,646 Materials & Supplies $211,351 $0 $211,351 $0 $211,351 Lease of Facility/Equipment $19,323 $0 $19,323 ($6,000)$13,323 Utilities $143,858 $0 $143,858 ($10,000)$133,858 Overhead Cost Allocation ($87,450)$0 ($87,450)$0 ($87,450) Transfers Out $135,800 $0 $135,800 $0 $135,800 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,910,363 $282,500 $6,192,863 ($196,000)$5,996,863 FY2020-21 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES Adopted Budget 6/23/2020 Proposed Adj. 7/28/2020 Approved Budget 7/28/2020 Proposed Revisions 3/9/2021 Proposed Budget 3/9/2021 REVENUE & EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REVENUES $5,819,989 $301,006 $6,120,995 ($220,000)$5,900,995 EXPENDITURES $5,910,363 $282,500 $6,192,863 ($196,000)$5,996,863 NET -USE OF FUND BALANCE ($90,374)$18,506 ($71,868)($24,000)($95,868) NEXT STEPS NEXT STEPS •The City Manager has reached out to the League of CA Cities; the League is communicating with other affected cities assessing all options as to how and when to proceed with engaging the State regarding the negative impact to the cities of the redistribution of residual RPTTF. NEXT STEPS •The City Manager will be contacting our Assembly and Senate representatives to discuss the negative impacts of the residual RPTTF redistribution and how to best engage the State. QUESTIONS? How Did We Get Here? As the Council will recall our overall quest to review the Council’s Policies and Procedures began several months ago. With the leadership of Council Member Robles there was much input. About a month ago the Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to explore enforcement standards. The Ad Hoc Committee was made up of the City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor Pro Tem Hussey and Council Member Wilson. One face-to-face meeting and three drafts later, the Committee has reached a consensus on form and format. It is the Committee’s pleasure to report that the Oath of Office, Acceptable Code of Conduct and Censure Code is ready for Council review. Note that the Oath of Office, Acceptable Code of Conduct and Censure Code will be applicable to all Grand Terrace legislative branches; from City Council on down. On March 3, 2021, Mayor Darcy McNaboe attended the Board of Directors Meeting for Omnitrans and discussed the following: • Authorized the CEO/General Manager to issue a Call for Public Hearings for Proposed FY2022 Service Plan and ConnectForward Short-Range Transit Plan o COVID Related Services Changes o Service Resumption Prioritization o Short-Range Transit Plan • Electric Bus Update. On March 3, 2021, Mayor McNaboe attended the Board of Directors Meeting for the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and discussed the following: • Receive and File the following: o December 2020 and January 2021 Procurement Reports o Procurement Audit Results for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 o Measure I Revenue Report / Measure I Receipts for 2010-2040 • Adopted Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget Assessment Dues • Approve the Following: o Extension Requests for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Measure I Local Street Program Funds Audit – Grand Terrace was not among the extension requests. o Business Continuity Management Program Policy and SBCTA Enterprise Continuity of Operations Base Plan • Approve a Revised Measure I 2010-2040 Revenue Estimate of $196 million, for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and the Revenue Distribution by Sub-Area.