The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008/06/04 - Agenda Packet 10500 Civic Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 City Office: (909) 477-2700 AGENDAS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS 15t and 3rd Wednesdays 4 7:00 P.M. JUNE 4, 2008 MEMBERS MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBERS Donald J. Kurth, M.D. L. Dennis Michael Rex Gutierrez Sam Spagnolo Diane Williams CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK Jack Lam, AICP James L. Markman Debra J. Adams, CMC ORDER OF BUSINESS CLOSED SESSION Tapia Conference Room............ 5:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers ........................ 7:00 P.M. INFORIVIATION FOR THE PUBLIC ~~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO ADDRESS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,_FIRE BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL The Agency, Fire Board and City Council encourage free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the Agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Agency, Fire Board or City Council by filling out a speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk. The speaker cards are located on the wall at the back of the Chambers, at the front desk behind the staff table and at the City Clerk's desk. During "Public Communications," your name will be called to speak on any item listed or not listed on the agenda in the order in which it was received. If you are present to speak on an "Advertised Public Hearing" item, your name will be called when that item is being discussed. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. Any handouts for the Agency, Fire Board or City Council should be given to the City Clerk for distribution. AGENDA BACK-UP MATERIALS Staff reports and back-up materials for agenda items are available for review at the City Clerk's counter, Public Library and on the City's website. A complete copy of the agenda is also available at the desk located behind the staff table during the Council meeting. LIVE BROADCAST Agency, Fire Board and Council meetings are broadcast live on Channel 3 for those with cable television access. Meetings are rebroadcast on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The City has added the option for customers without cable access to view the meetings "on-demand" from their computers. The added feature of "Streaming Video On Demand" is available on the City's website at www.ci.rancho- cucamonga.ca.us/whatsnew.htm for those with Hi-bandwidth (DSUCable Modem) or Low-bandwidth (Dial-up) Internet service. The Agency, Fire Board and City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Members of the City Council also sit as the Redevelopment Agency and the Fire District Board. Copies of the agendas and minutes can be found at http:llwww.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _ .TUNE 4, 2008 1 A. 5:30 P.M. -CLOSED SESSION CALL TO ORDER - TAPIA ROOM 1. Roll Call: Mayor Kurth Mayor Pra Tem Michael Councilmembers Gutierrez, Spagnolo and Williams CLOSED SESSION CALLED TO ORDER AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM S) C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S~ D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF I-15 FREEWAY, FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CA, INC., & LEWIS INVESTMENT CO., LLC; LINDA D. DANIELS, RDA DIRECTOR, NEGOTIATING PARTY, REGARDING TERMS OF AGREEMENT -RDA E. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS F. RECESS CLOSED SESSION TO RECESS TO THE REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _ JUNE 4, 2008 2 G. REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CALLED TO ORDER. IT IS THE INTENT TO CONCLUDE THE MEETINGS BY 10:00 P.M., UNLESS EXTENDED BY CONCURRENCE OF THE AGENCY, FIRE BOARD AND COUNCIL. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call: Mayor Kurth Mayor Pro Tem Michael Councilmembers Gutierrez, Spagnolo and Williams H. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of a Proclamation in recognition of "Public Works Week," May 18-24, 2008. 2. Announcement regarding the 7th Annual Ron Ives Bicycle Safety Rodeo to be held on June 14, 2008. 3. Presentation of a Proclamation supporting the San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership. I. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency, Fire Protection District and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Agency, Fire Board, or City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Agency, Fire Board, or City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Agency, Fire Board or City Council, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _ JUNE 4, 2008 3 .T. AGENCY/FIRE BOARD/COUNCIL RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the Agency, Fire Board or City Council to respond to comments made by the general public. K. CONSENT CALENDAR -REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Agency at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by an Agencymember for discussion. ~ 1. Approval of Check Register dated May 14 through May 27, 2008 for the total amount of $1,703,986.30. 2. Approve to reject all bids received for the Compressed Natural Gas and Above Ground Fuel 2 Tank Improvement project at the City Corporate Yard, as non-responsive to the needs of the City. 3. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Above Ground 5 Fuel Tank Improvement at the City Yard, to be funded from Redevelopment Agency 2008 Tax Allocation Bond Funds and City Fund 25 Capital Reserves. 7 RESOLUTION NO. RA 08-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT AT THE CITY YARD" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Compressed Natural ~ 2 Gas Improvement Project at the City Yard, to be funded from Redevelopment Agency 2008 Tax Allocation Bond Funds and City Fund 25 Capital Reserves. 14 RESOLUTION NO. RA 08-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 5. Approval to proceed with the biennial review of the Conflict of Interest Code for the 19 Redevelopment Agency, Fire Protection District and City Council. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _ JUNE 4, 2008 4 6. Approval of revisions to the Redevelopment Agency's First-Time Homebuyers Program. 20 7. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to County Agreement 05-603 (RA 01-021 }which provides for funding to complete the Etiwanda and San Sevaine regional flood control improvement 23 project, provides funding for the installation of a reinforced concrete box culvert at Foothill Boulevard, and allows the Agency's commitment to contribute to the debt service for the Federal Bureau of Reclamation Loan to be transferred to the debt service on bonds that were issued by the County of San Bernardino and used to refinance the Bureau Loan. 8. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract 25 in the amount of $702,684.10, including Additive Bid items 1 through 4, to the apparent lowest responsive bidder, Herk Edwards, lnc. (RA 08-018), and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $70,268.41, for the Epicenter Stadium Seat Replacement, to be funded from RDA Stadium Complex Capital Improvement Funds, Acct. No. 2646801-5602. L. CONSENT CALENDAR -FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Fire Board at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Boardmember for discussion. 9. Approval of Check Register dated May 14 through May 27, 2008, for the total amount of 28 $388,928.73. 10. Approval to proceed with the biennial review of the Conflict of Interest Code for the 31 Redevelopment Agency, Fire Protection District and City Council. 11. Approval to award a contract to Radio Satellite Integrators (RSI) (FD 08-010 / CO 08-063) 32 who were selected through a competitive bid proposal, RFP 07/08-200, to furnish and install a Citywide automatic vehicle location (AVL) system, in the amount of $443,000.00, to be funded from the following accounts: 1712001-5200, $290,000.00 (Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund - O&M) and 3289501-5207, $153,000.00 (Fire District Capital Reserve Fund - O&M/Capital Supplies); and authorization to transfer $153,000.00 from Acct. No. 3289501-5603 (Capital Outlay Equipment) to Acct. No. 3289501-5207 (O&M/Capital Supplies) to facilitate the purchase. 12. Approval of a Resolution declaring results of a Special Election in Community Facilities 34 District No. 88-1, Annexation No. 88-08-2 (a proposal to build a single family residence located at 10059 Snow Drop Rd.). RESOLUTION NO. FD 08-018 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1, ANNEXATION NO. 88-08-2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _ JUNE 4, 2008 5 M. CONSENT CALENDAR -CITY COUNCIL The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember for discussion. 13. Approval of Check Register dated May 14 through May 27, 2008, and payroll ending May 38 27, 2008, for the total amount of $7,259,409.43 14. Approve to reject all bids received for the Compressed Natural Gas and Above Ground Fuel 64 Tank Improvement project at the City Corporate Yard, as non-responsive to the needs of the City. 15. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Above Ground Fuel 67 Tank Improvement at the City Yard, to be funded from Redevelopment Agency 2008 Tax Allocation Bond Funds and City Fund 25 Capital Reserves. RESOLUTION N0.08-107 69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT AT THE CITY YARD" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 16. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Compressed Natural 74 Gas Improvement Project at the City Yard, to be funded from Redevelopment Agency 2008 Tax Allocation Bond Funds and City Fund 25 Capital Reserves. RESOLUTION N0.08-108 76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 17. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Victoria Park Lane 81 Pavement Rehabilitation from Fairmont Way to Rochester Avenue and 300' east of Day Creek Boulevard to Base Line Road, to be funded from Proposition 1 B Funds. RESOLUTION NO. 08-109 83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR "VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS i REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _ JUNE 4, 2008 18. Approval of Resolutions pertaining to the November 4, 2008 General Municipal Election (Presidential Election). RESOLUTION NO. 08-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 4T" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE RESOLUTION NO. 08-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATES STATEMENT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4T" 2008 19. Approval to proceed with the biennial review of the Conflict of Interest Code for the Redevelopment Agency, Fire Protection District and City Council. 20. Approval to award a purchase from Dell, Inc. to provide one (1} lot of storage area network equipment and maintenance, utilizing Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA), Contract No. A63307, in the total amount of $120,545, to be funded from Acct. No. 1001209- 5605 (Capital Outlay-Computer Equipment). 21. Approval to release Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 4270, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Hellman Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 08-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING OF REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 4270, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE 22. Approval and execution of Amendment No. 1 (03-117-A1) to Agreement No. 03-117 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District) which provides refinancing of debt for improvements on the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Creek Improvement project. 6 88 89 91 93 94 95 96 98 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ~ _ JUNE 4, 2008 23. Approval to award a contract to Radio Satellite Integrators (RSI) (CO 08-063 / FD 08-010) 100 who were selected through a competitive bid proposal, RFP 07/08-200, to furnish and install a Citywide automatic vehicle location (AVL) system, in the amount of $443,000.00, to be funded from the following accounts: 1712001-5200, $290,000.00 (Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund - O&M) and 3289501-5207, $153,000.00 (Fire District Capital Reserve Fund - O&M/Capital Supplies); and authorization to transfer $153,000.00 from Acct. No. 3289501-5603 (Capital Outlay Equipment) to Acct. No. 3289501-5207 (O&M/Capital Supplies) to facilitate the purchase. 24. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a 102 Maintenance cash deposit and file a Notice of Completion for improvements for DRC2003- 00719, located on the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue, submitted by Pacific Globe, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 08-113 104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2003-00719 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 25. Approval to accept the Baker Avenue Grade Crossing, north of 8th Street project, Contract 105 No. 07-089, as complete, retain the Faithful Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and Materials Bond, and authorize the Acting City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $199,619.20. RESOLUTION NO. 08-114 108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE BAKER AVENUE GRADE CROSSING, NORTH OF 8T" STREET PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. 07-089 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK N. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-controversial. The Agency, Fire Board, or Council will act upon them at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion by an Agencymember, Boardmember, or Councilmember. 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE CONTINUING THE ANNUAL 109 SPECIAL TAX RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008!09 IN MELLO RODS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 4, 2008 ORDINANCE NO. FD 47 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF THE SPECIAL TAX IN MELLO-RODS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2007-00495 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - ORDINANCE NO. 792 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 14.08.350, 14.16.010(P) AND 14.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 14.25 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING TEMPORARY SIGNS; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF O. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Mayor will open the meeting to receive public testimony. UCV CLVrIVI CIV I IJVUC MIYICIVUIVICIV I VRI.LVVO-VVJVI - VI 1 I Vr f\/'11YV1 IV CUCAMONGA -Consideration of an ordinance prohibiting the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in all land use zones within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adding Chapter 17.44 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17 of the Municipal Code. This item is exempt per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the ordinance will impose a greater limitation on uses, which includes a prohibition on establishing medical marijuana dispensaries to reduce potential significant adverse impacts. ORDINANCE NO. 793 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 17.44 TO TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 8 109 112 112 116 177 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 9 _ JUNE 4, 2008 P. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM COOPERATION AGREEMENT (CO 08-064) - DRC2008-00434 -CITY OF RANCHO 182 CUCAMONGA -Approval of a cooperation agreement with the County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing for participation in the County HOME Consortium. 2. UPDATE ON SUMMER LIBRARY SERVICES DURING THE ARCHIBALD REMODEL (PowerPoint Presentation) 3. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 1gg NO. 2000-01 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE RESOLUTION NO. 08-115 191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-01 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) 4. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 198 NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE 200 RESOLUTION NO. 08-116 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX "A" FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000- 03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) FOR TAX YEAR 2008-2009 5. APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1, ZONES 1, 2, & 3), SERIES 2003- 213 A RESOLUTION NO. 08-117 215 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1, ZONES 1, 2, & 3), SERIES 2003-A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 4, 2008 6. RESOLUTION NO. 08-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-01 (VINTNER'S GROVE) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-02 (AMADOR ON ROUTE 66) RESOLUTION NO. 08-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2006-02 (AMADOR ON ROUTE 66) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 8. APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2006-01 (VINTNER'S GROVE) 10 225 227 242 244 259 261 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 9. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) 265 RESOLUTION NO. 08-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO 2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) 270 10. APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES 274 ....,.~.....~ ..,, ,,,,,,, ,,, ,,..~.....,.-...-.,~ „~~. .,,.,, ~ ,. ~~~,~.. ,,. ,.,,T„ .,,, RESOLUTION NO. 08-120 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 11 _ JUNE 4, 2~~g RESOLUTION NO. 08-122 I 277 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 & 2), SERIES 2001-A 11. APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES 291 DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2, ZONES 1 & 2), SERIES 2003-B RESOLUTION NO. 08-123 293 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2, ZONES 1 & 2), SERIES 2003-B 12. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR DRAINAGE AREA NO. 301 91-2 (DAY CANYON DRAINAGE BASIN) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE RESOLUTION NO. 08-124 303 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS 13. APPROVAL TO SET AN ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES ~ 311 RESOLUTION N0.08-125 I 313 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 3, ZONE 7), SERIES 2001-B 14. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 320 NO. 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE RESOLUTION NO. 08-126 322 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 4, 2008 12 15. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 336 NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE RESOLUTION NO. 08-127 338 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) 16. APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 345 NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) OPERATION OF AND MAINTENANCE OF PARK AND PARKWAYS RESOLUTION NO. 08-128 347 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX "B" FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2003- 03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) FOR TAX YEAR 2008-2009 TO FINANCE THE OPERATION OF AND MAINTENANCE OF PARK AND PARKWAYS 17. APPROVAL TO MAINTAIN LEVY FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 354 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE 356 RESOLUTION NO. 08-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) Q. COUNCIL & AGENCY BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. 1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Councilmember.) 2. CONSIDERATION OF A MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RDA) 365 3. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY 375 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 4. LEGISLATIVE AND REGIONAL UPDATES (Oral) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 13 JUNE 4, 2008 RANCxo CUCAMONGA R. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 29, 2008, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Agenda Check ReP_ister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267204 5/14/2008 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 36.39 AP - 00267205 5/14/2008 ARTISTIC SIGNATURES 557.48 AP - 00267237 5/14/2008 COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION INC 1,629.91 AP - 00267244 5/14/2008 DANIELS, LINDA 1,071.61 AP - 00267265 5/14/2008 G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS 5,006.30 AP - 00267290 5/14/2008 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 741,15 t.85 AP - 00267290 5/14/2008 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 5,641.02 AP - 00267300 5/14/2008 LAM, JACK 200.00 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 21.01 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 32.08 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT -11.96 AP - 00267364 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTI 1,753.02 AP - 00267374 5/14/2008 TEAM THOMPSON 625.00 AP - 00267420 5/21/2008 ASSI SECURITY 5,870.00 AP - 00267420 5/21/2008 ASSI SECURITY 2,300.00 AP - 00267440 5/21/2008 CALIFORNIA CENTERS MAGAZINE INC. 4,200.00 AP - 0026748] 5/21/2008 EMCOR SERVICE 161,237.70 AP - 00267481 5/21/2008 EMCOR SERVICE 554,400.00 AP - 00267487 5/21/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP ~ 30.35 AP - 00267487 5/21/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 17.52 AP - 00267495 5/21/2008 FRANCE PUBLICATIONS INC. 3,895.95 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 87.60 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 87.60 AP - 00267550 5/21/2008 LANDSAFE TITLE OF CALIFORNIA INC 80,000.00 AP - 00267550 5/21/2008 LANDSAFE TITLE OF CALIFORNIA INC 400.00 AP - 00267554 5/21/2008 LSI TITLE AGENCY 80,000.00 AP - 00267554 5/21 /2008 LSI TITLE AGENCY 400.00 AP - 00267578 5/21/2008 NOVELTY PRINTING 3,280.99 AP - 00267601 5/21 /2008 PITASSI ARCHITECTS INC 7,100.00 AP - 00267615 5/21/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 6,633.33 AP - 00267621 5/21/2008 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 49.50 AP - 00267621 5/21/2008 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 6,574.19 AP - 00267626 5/21/2008 SAFCO CAPITAL CORP 29,265.87 AP - 00267671 5/21/2008 UNITROL STINGER SPIKE SYSTEMS 441.99 Total for Chcck ID AP: 1,703,986.30 Total for Entity: 1,703,986.30 P1 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 1 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:38:3 STAFF REPORT ENGMI:',I:RING DI:?PAR"PMFNT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer ~ Shelley Hayes, Assistant Engineer~~} RANCHO CUCAMONGA Subject: REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS AND ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATE YARD, AS NON-RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CITY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency reject all bids received for the Compressed Natural Gas antl Above Ground Fuel Tank improvement project at the City Corporate Yard, as non- responsive to the needs of the City. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Per previous Agency action, bids were solicited, received and opened on May 20, 2008, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $974,091.00. Only two bids were received and both bids significantly exceeded the Engineer's Estimate and budgeted amount, by more than thirty percent (30%). In addition, both bidders did not have direct Compressed Natural Gas experience, as required by the contract specifications. Staff proposes re-bidding the Compressed Natural Gas and Above Ground Fuel Tank portions of the project as two separate projects to encourage more competitive bids. The request to re-bid the two projects follows as a separate Consent Calendar item. This second bid solicitation should only add an additional thirty days to the original estimated completion date. Res ttull~~tted ~ !~l ~ ~~L Mahdi Aluzri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:CB:SH/Is P2 Attachment BID SUMMARY P(IR BID OPENm'G MAY 20, 2008 gvvgREMmweropER f COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS AND ABOVE GROllND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT elep:xaaR's rtaf~a - ms. CORSTROCTIOs AT THE CORPORATE CITY YARD E81'IASATS eRtrRepss¢srwe>ea. tewRACtsmaRT OP. PMi tID OXST OIpT NO QTV OmT aPdWR10P CO¢i AYOVRi CO¢T AYOa11T CACI AtlOOTr m,ooo Gaoon convaon AST ma9an9 3 EA fXBmtlinO antl In9taUelion d Fual Tank antl $50,000.00 slsp,ooo.po ne,a3o.oo Sass,z9o.op m3,¢3c.oo ixso,9oa.00 A Appurtenances as Shwm an Epuipmenl lul B 3 EA Grouts Level F01 $2,000.00 ib,oCO.W fs,53b.00 sla,sy9.M t9,soo.oo fae.soo.00 O6ta 6WI098r1 seal umps end 8 EA Oispansers Inautlin0 Tdm antl Hen9in0 $3.000.00 E2a,ooo.oo n,13o.00 E5].wo.op sa,+oo.oo tat,aoo.oo C 1 ~ Install Single Hale CNG Fa6t FYI SmOm and $5.000.00 is.oCO.M ib+,Wl.W fb+.b91.M feaem.ao ta3 eoo.oo p Curbed lWntl . E 5 EA Install l4)Hwe CNG $IWI FiII Stature 52,500.00 t12,s00.00 ila,o3o.po no,lsp.po ite.9W.C0 - s9a,soo.oo 1 E4 CNG Compressor Skid (Complete Assembly) $260,000.00 f2ao,ooo.00 ^]o,bro.oo fngaop.o0 {199,900.00 5199,9pJ.00 F 1 EA CNG Gas Dryer $kld (Complete ASSembN) 550,000.00 fw.oo9.0o fs3,am.oo t33 ao0.o0 Hs ]55.0p H5 >SS.00 O , , . 3 EA CNG Slorspe Spllem (Canplete ASSemby) $12,000.00 i3a,oo9.0o taa,too.ap ttae,3o0.00 is3,loo.00 fis9soo.ao H 1 1 EA hlata NpKdta Fu61 FnOr 53,000.00 f3,0o0.C0 t],ffi0.o0 i]ssp,00 633p]3.o0 i33)]3.M 552 TON CwuWda•ASphan Comets Pavampm $85.00 saa,9zo.oo i9T.oo is3 sw.oo noa.9p ise slzao 1 InaWinO $ewMtln9 , , 986 TON Canswa Crushed AOBre9ate Base $45.00 tM,3]O.CO {95.351 iM,]3f.30 S35,W i3q,al0.C0 2 441 $F COIUVUd P.c.c. wbbon GOnar $15.00 16,635.00 LI6.00 {6 blf.W {25.03 1 t11 01f C0 3 , , . 846 SF CmsWa6'TNCk P. C.G. Slab 5"l.0a is,9oe.oo {12001 t10,129.ao i1a.00 SI5.19a.oo 4 55 SF Install Cobblestone (Gmutetl)Dissipeter $50.00 iz,>SO.oo m].oo ta,]ss.oo i1o0.00 500.00 [5 5 , 103 E4 Install Bollard par DetaO 5300.00 i30 9o0.00 2353.001 ta6 3s9m t566 o0 I tao 25s 00 5 , , . , . 3982 $F Remove POrllpn of Ex¢tmp P.C.C. Pobbm $20.1]0 n9,bao.oo sx.9o ilt x].eo ce.oo l tv ew.pp ] Gutter 8 P.C.C. Slab Indutlin Savmdtin , , Remove antl Dispose Exisdnp Fuel Tanks 4 EA antl Dispensers lndutlinp Plug, Rinse, and gB,000.00 tsz,opo.op n+,+os.oo is;aa0.oo im 9m.ap iby eoo oo Remove Portions W Fuel Unes. Arb Dkpoea , , . 8 of Wastef 1,23$ $F COnsWm $tNClu2 Slab (Or A$T IIIaIMlla u•.50 i3,08]SO fx9.W 335,9I5.G0 t3e.C0 ai6 930 00 g Santl Base , . 183 SF f:On6lNd Strudurel Slab fa CNG Skid 5200 a3za.po M9.o0 Tx>.co W ws oo iu ae5 00 10 intludin0 Sand Base , . , . 21 SF COnSINa SVUaurel Slab /orCNG Gas Dryer 00 82 u2 p0 fa9 oo1 11 indutlin0 Santl Base . . . faw.o0 fI5o.00 13,150.00 133 SF CoritWd $tmmum Slab lcrCNG Sphere 5200 faaa.c9 f29.W ta 95T.00 tla0 o0 i13 3W 00 12 indudinp Santl Base . . , . In¢tall Signs (or Dispcnaing Opcntione, 1 ~ Uneupcrviecd Dperntiona, GCn<rel ~. r~,~ t3,500.W is,¢as.M [5 825.00 i2 f00 W i3 Wa CO Safety, Material Identification, end , . . . . 13 Miacellene0ve Si e 6 LF Can¢tNC( 9' ConClBte Culb to Matdl 540.00 S3aO. W 235.001 t3ls.oo iloo.oo {0.'0.00 lq ExisOng Indutlin9 Removals 353 SF Remove ExIS1MB Pwtlons d A.C. Pavement $2.00 t]0a.o0 sa.aol {91].60 tlp.oo t3 sso.po 15 , 4 ~ InsmL Light Polc, Fixture, Electric 53,000.00 f12,oo0.00 i1,'l+T.COI ib 996.C0 n seo.po i30 oo0 00 16 OuU<te end Footin , , , . Install Underground Conduits 8: Piping 1 ~ $33,551.50 233,55{.50 swsl2oo twslx.ao iax,300.0o ibxso0.oo 1T lndudin Trtnch Re air & Pull Boxce 1 EA g~tn119'Iang Concrt4 Mchortd Whccl ~~.~ ~~.pp i291.o0 ta91m {200.001 620J.W 1B Ina[~1 E0CfgCnCy 511YtdOWn Switch end 19 2 EA $i Includin Removals 51,000.00 M.W0.00 {2,330.001 ta.66D.W {1.500.00 f3,000.Da t ~ Inamll Firt Eztinguiaher end Locked ~]'~ R].00 i+aa.00 F66.00 ps0.00 t35o o0 20 Endoeure with a Retin of 3-A 40-B C . Striping Including Sendble¢ting m 1 1S 51,200.00 s1,x00.o0 t],5]a.oo t>,5]2.00 i1,9Mm H,e00.00 21 Remove Existing Obtain Multi Agenry Pcrmit Appmvels Including Submitml¢, EnSineering 1 ~ i 515,000.00 S15,oo0.00 i+a,000.0o Ha,o00.0o i].epo.0o A,900.00 Drawings, end At ending Two 22 Prtcone on Meee Instal TFAK Key Poe Pedeual end Relecw aurtn['t9eum a' Putl Menyemmt Keypad 2 ~ vWUdint balnuere UppWv(maseeu rm K% ,j3 000.W ta,000.00 faa 2t2.W f52 aN.M {] 5'.0 00 f3s 000 00 FJB Acceu a City Yvd end Instal Trek Kry POB , , , . . , . on Eurtiry PedeeW per bite Plen R in APPendu L 23 , . Join Exiating Md E%I[nd Ges Linc 24 ~ ~ ncludin Trcnch Rc $g5.00 tl>135.00 i59.C0 M3,59].00 f9¢.WI 53].SN.00 1000 G l Remove and Diapoae of Gee end Diced 00 $ o00 00 i 2 25 e Product 1. . i, 2001 tx,ooo.co Sx3o i2,soo.o0 26 4l3 (Ff CY E%raVetion $25.DD 611,9a5.C0 139.601 610,]J0.60 ta0.00 fz6,3ao.W 1 L$ Elccviul ModiSmtiona and Upgrades 530 000.00 tao,ooo.oo i5t.as¢.a5 fal a59.bs Hx e9o oo f42 iW oO 2] , , , . , . 1947 CF or Swcturnl Slabs including ~ $ 2 00 S3a 0aa o0 2 28 ravefion 2 , . 30.901 taa,e]a.to Sw.o0 AS.NO.00 29 5906 LB$ Stal forSwcturel Slabs $1.00 ispoe.oo ft.a t],91a.]2 Uso 69,ab200 ]TISAL ma,0ar.ao il,e¢e,Y9e.9'r stAt3ATt oo P3 Pagc 1 P4 u HI!LBIDE ALM DST VIL50 AVE II 24TH ST N ~ BANYAN T N ^ ~ BANYAN ST Q N w I ~l _ ~ iG G ~ O o] u Q " ~ VICTORI RK Q ASE LINE w.s~rz J w O ~ ^ FiURC ST ER V ~ 4 w i ~ O ~ $ h FO I11LL BLVD z a a F Ttil LVD ~ ~~ ~ Z ~ ~ 10500 CI CENTER 6 u a c ^ ~ _ ^ ARRO E ~ p ") 9Th ST ~ _ ~ w' w BNSF RR w 8TH ST > 6Th 5T I I I I =1 4Th 5T KI I ~ I PROJECT ONTARIO CITY LIMIT LOCATION ~G~ ~P ~,~P ~~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATE YARD VICINITY MAP NTS STAFF REPORT E.NCiINr$IiRING DI?P~\R'fMBNT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer~~ . . RANCHO C,UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD TO BE FUNDED FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2008 TAX ALLOCATION BOND FUNDS AND CITY FUND 25 CAPITAL RESERVES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the plans and specifications for the Above Ground Fuel Tank Improvement Project at the City Yard and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This retrofit project will decommission underground fuel tanks and install above ground fuel tanks at the City Corporate Yard. Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per Article 19, Section 15301(a) of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate is $466,812 including a 10% contingency and costs for printing and materials testing. Legal advertising is scheduled for June 10 and June 17, 2008 and a bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 unless extended by Addenda. Resp tful~ ubmitt ~D>2 Mahdi Alzuri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:CSB P5 Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution P6 ~u HILLSIDE ALMC DST IL50 AVE 24TH 5T N Q G~ ~ BANYAN T ~ ^ I BANYAN ST ~ - N -J ~9 ~O N = ~{ ~\ ~a I a p ~P z f a m w ~'~P <~ z ~~ I I ~ ~ ~~~ ~ VICTORI RK Q l(O ASE LINE D '~` ~ w °z R V ~ Q w ~ HURC ST p O ~i w w ~ z > > ~ ~~ FO HILL BLVD - a a ~ THI LVD 6 w Q ~ • 10500 CI CENTER > ~ = ARRO iE > > TH ST~ _ ~ w BNSF RR w 8TH ST w > 6TH BT ~ N z "-' = 4TH ST oOc PROJECT ONTARIO CITY LIMIT LOCATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT ' PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATE YARD VICINITY MAP rrrs P7 RESOLUTION NO. 1 A 0 ~' DO~o A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offces of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 24, 2008, sealed bids or proposals for the "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" capital improvement project in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of the ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 2 Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1130 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. P8 Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 3 forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract far said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder's Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. P9 RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 4 The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for the "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" may be directed to: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4069. By order of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 4`" day of June, 2008 Publish Dates: June 10 and June 17, 2008 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 4"' day of June, 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: P10 Debra J. Adams, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 5 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 4`h day of June, 2008. Executed this 4`h day of June, 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P11 ADVERTISE ON: June 10 and June 17, 2008 STAFF REPORT FN(ilNl',Ii.RIN<7 DI?YAIi"fMF_NT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer~~ P12 RANCHO cUCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD TO BE FUNDED FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2008 TAX ALLOCATION BOND FUNDS AND CITY FUND 25 CAPITAL RESERVES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the plans and specifications for the Compressed Natural Gas at the City Yard Project and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This project will construct a Compressed Natural Gas fueling station for City fleet vehicles at the City Corporate Yard on Ninth Street. Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per Article 19, Section 15301(a) of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate is $635,114 including a 10% materials testing. Legal advertising is scheduled for June at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2008, unless extended contingency and costs for printing and 10 and June 17, 2008, and a bid opening by Addenda. Resp ~tf~ submitte ~ ~,~ ~~ Mahdi Alzuri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:CSB Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution P13 ~u HILLSIDE ALM I D ST G w ~~ ILSO AVE 24TH ST a K BANYAN T ~ ^ ~ BANYAN ST ~ ~ \ .9~0 ~ _ ~ ~ a > ~ G ~ ¢ ~ a m w ~P i "~ "~- VICTORI RK ~( ASE LINE ""'"` -J+ w ~z t1URC ST R V ~ Q w O O ~ ~ Z > j ~ ~~ FO I11LL BLVD - a a ~ TF11 LVD w Q a~ ~ 10500 O CEN7ER 6 w G > ^ ~ _ ^ ARROW E > > 9TH ST ~ _ ~ w BNSF RR 8Th ST w > 6Th 5T N z = w U a 4Th ST ~ P f~OJ ECT ONTARIO CITY LIMIT LOCATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT '~ PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATE YARD VICINITY MAP rrrs P14 RESOLUTION NO. /C l~ ~ $ "Q 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD ". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals far doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 24, 2008, sealed bids or proposals for the "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" capital improvement project in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of the COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD ". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 2 Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. P15 Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 3 forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder's Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. P16 RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 4 The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for the "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" may be directed to: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4069. By order of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Dated this 4`h day of June, 2008 Publish Dates: June 10 and June 17. 2008 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 4~' day of June, 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: P17 Debra J. Adams, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 5 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 4~" day of June, 2008. Executed this 4`h day of June, 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P18 ADVERTISE ON: June 10 and June 17, 2008 STAFF REPORT CI"I'Y CLERK'S OFFICE Date: June 4, 2008 To: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director/City Manager From: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager ,~ ~; ' . r"~,r i ~~ RANCHO C,UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Agency/Fire Board/City Council direct staff to proceed with the biennial review of their Conflict of Interest Code. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, all local governments and agencies must update their Conflict of Interest Code in 2008. Prior to July 1, 2008, all Agency/Fire DistricUCity staff will be notified of the pending update and will be requested to review any changes to designated positions, such as changes in title or duties, or creation or elimination of positions. Pursuant to state law, after a thorough review has been made, the City Clerk's office will bring this item back to the Agency/Fire Board/City Council prior to October 1, 2008 to propose any appropriate amendments as needed. If amendments are needed, they must be approved by the Agency/Fire Board/City Council prior to December 30, 2008. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Ad ,CMC City Clerk/Records Manager P19 P20 STAFF REPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Date: June 4, 2008 To: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director From: Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director By: Flavio H. Nuriez, Redevelopment Analyst II RANCHO C,UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO THE AGENCY'S FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Approval of revisions to the Agency's First-Time Homebuyers Program to allow other sources of financing for down payment and closing costs in conjunction with the Agency's down payment assistance program. Additional funding sources shall be subordinate to the Agency's second trust deed. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS One of the Agency's primary goals is to provide a mix of safe affordable housing opportunities for low to moderate income families (i.e. rental, senior, and ownership housing). However, over the last ten years this has become difficult with the rise in home values in Rancho Cucamonga. Despite the market correction that is occurring in Southern California's housing market, home values in Rancho Cucamonga remain relatively high. Rancho Cucamonga is one of the highest housing cost areas in San Bernardino County. According to Dataquick information, the price of an average new and existing home in 2007 was $593,656 and $522,006 respectively. These home prices were among the highest in the Inland Empire (See Exhibit - A). Between 2003 thru 2007, new and existing home prices increased an average of 14% and 19% each year respectively, while the San Bernardino County median income only increased an average of 3% each year during the same period. This has caused many low to moderate income families to be priced out of the first- time homebuyer market in Rancho Cucamonga. At the May 15, 2008 meeting the Housing Subcommittee discussed and recommended that other sources of financing be allowed in conjunction with the Agency's First-Time Homebuyer Program. This would allow for the Agency's program to be leveraged with other funds, allowing more families to qualify for homes in Rancho Cucamonga. Typically other financing sources can be done with short term low interest loans or grants. Additional loan and grant programs are currently offered by non-profit organizations such as, Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire, Nehemiah, and HART to name a few. The Agency's program will remain the same with the exception of allowing additional financing to be combined with the program only at the time of purchase. Any P21 APPROVAL OF REVISIONS'1"O THP:.AGI?NCY'S FIRST-1~IMti HOMEBUYERS PROGRAM PAGE Z Ju~E a, zoos additional funds combined with the Agency's program shall be subordinate to the Agency's second trust deed. The underwriting requirements will continue to require that potential homebuyers demonstrate a need for the Agency's First-Time Homebuyer Program including a need for other sources of down payment assistance. Respectfully Submitted,; ~ ~ ~ ~~ Li a D. Daniels Redevelopment Director Attachments -Exhibit A P22 APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO THE AGENCY'S FiR$'1'-TIME HOMEBUYERS PROGRAM JUNH 4, 2008 EXHIBIT - A . w rr Rancho Cucamonga $593,656 Riverside $565,746 Corona $558,555 Ontario $554,750 San Bemardino $515,407 Fontana $512,694 Temecula $482,555 Murrieta $421,303 i Moreno Valley $420,479 J Rancho Cucamonga $522,006 Ri~.erside $508,010 i Corona i $445,610 Ontario $421,768 San Bemardino $404,454 Fontana $403,333 Temecula $400,825 Mumeta i $338,786 Moreno Valley $311,536 J PAGL'3 Source: Dr. John Housing's Community and Economic Prof le; Dataquick Y_,~ ,. STAFF REPORT `\ { REDE\'ELOPMENT AGENCY ~{`~y. RANCHO Date: June 4, 2008 cUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director From: Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director Subject: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to County Agreement 05-603 (CO RA 01-021) which provides for funding to complete the Etiwanda and San Sevaine regional flood control improvement project, provides funding for the installation of a reinforced concrete box culvert at Foothill Boulevard, and allows the Agency's commitment to contribute to the debt service for the Federal Bureau of Reclamation Loan to be transferred to the debt service on bonds that were issued by the County of San Bernardino and used to refinance the Bureau Loan RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment No. 1 to the County Agreement 05-603 (CO RA 01-121) pertaining to financial commitments to the Etiwanda and San Sevaine regional flood control improvement project. BACKGROUND: In June 2005 the Agency and County Flood Control District entered into an Agreement which provided for the Agency's financial commitment to the Etiwanda and San Sevaine regional flood control improvement project. Included in the Agreement was the Agency's obligation to pay up to $5 million in any cost overruns associated with the project, as well as contribute to the debt service on a Bureau of Reclamation Loan that was obtained by the Flood Control District. ANALYSIS: The flood control improvement project is nearing completion, and the Flood Control District has informed the Agency that the cost overruns for the project are expected to be $3 million, and not the $5 million that was originally anticipated. The Flood Control District and the Agency have discussed the value in constructing a reinforced concrete box culvert on Foothill Boulevard as part of the flood control project in order to improve the storm water drainage in the area. The cost of the box culvert is estimated to be $3 million. The funding for the culvert will come from the Agency's Regional Facilities account, with the majority of the money coming from the $2 million in revenue that was reserved for the project cost overrun but will not be needed. The box culvert will be added to the Flood Control District's project with the approval of this Amendment. Also, the Flood Control District has previously secured a loan from the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to help finance the construction of the Etiwanda and San Sevaine project. In 2007 the County of San Bernardino, on behalf of the Flood Control District, sold a bond issue which refinanced the Bureau Loan. The refinancing was done to take advantage of cost savings P23 P24 APPROVAL OF AMENUI`IENT NO. 1 '1'O COUNTY AGREEMENT OS-603 (CO RA O]-021) W111CH PAGE 2 PROVIDES FOIi FUNDING TO CO~fPLEl'E THE ETIWANDA AND SAN SEVAINE REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMEN"I' PROJECT, PROVIDES FUNDING FOR THE INS'PALLA'PION OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE 130X CULV ER1' JuNr 4, 2008 - - - - associated with a reduced interest rate that was obtained for the County Bonds. Amendment No. 1 provides for the transfer of the Agency's commitment to pay towards the debt service for the Federal Bureau of Reclamation Loan to the County Bonds. The Agency is not the sole source of funding to pay the debt service associated with the County Bonds. Other sources for paying the debt service include fees from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Fontana, as well as County and Flood Control District revenue. ~ReQspectfully submitted, , ~ ~ , ~~ Linda D. Daniels Redevelopment Director P25 STAFF REPORT Evcm~r•.r:aiNC D[:r,vrrtitrsN r RANCHO Date: June 4, 2008 CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Comm~u/nit'y Development By: Ty Quaintance, Facilities Superintendent`s Shelley Hayes, Assistant Engineer Subject: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $702,684.10, INCLUDING ADDITIVE BID ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4, TO THE APPARENT LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, HERK EDWARDS, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,268.41, FOR THE EPICENTER STADIUM SEAT REPLACEMENT, TO BE FUNDED FROM RDA STADIUM COMPLEX CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 2646801-5602 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $702,684.10, including Additive Bid items 1 through 4, to the apparent lowest responsive bidder, Herk Edwards, Inc. and authorize the expenditure of a 10% wntingency in the amount of $70,268.41, for the Epicenter Stadium Seat Replacement, to be funded from RDA Stadium Complex Capital Improvement Funds, Account No. 2646801-5602. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Per previous Agency action, bids were solicited, received and opened on April 15, 2008, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $1,200,000.00. A total of three bids were received. Staff has reviewed all bids received and in consultation with the City Attorney found the bid of Track Corporation, to be non-responsive due to the lack of including Addendum numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. The lowest responsive bid of Herk Edwards Inc. was found to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds the lowest responsive bidder meets the requirements of the bid documents. The Epicenter Stadium Seat Replacement scope of work consists of removal and off-site disposal of all stadium seating and cup-holders and replacement in kind per the city seating plan and manufacturers specifications. The contract documents call for forty-five (45) working days to complete this construction, beginning after the current baseball season ends. Res ecffully submit f ,~~ Mahdi ~ ri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA/TO/SH:Is Attachment P26 VICINITY MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BID SUMMARY FOI2 BID OPENING APRII. 15, 2008 Annarent Loty Bidder d EPICENTER STADIUM SEAT REPLACEMENT ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE DERK EDWARDS AMF.RiCAN SEATING UNIT UNIT UNIT NO TY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT I. 4891 LS Removal and off-site disposal of existing seats and hardware; prepare area for installation $44,170.00 $66,972.39 2. 4891 EA Stadium Seats and hardware (Nary blue color) $115.38 $564,323.58 $78.93 $386,032.92 3. 100 EA Addm°nal seats for stock (20 of each type, style, size $44.55 $4,455.00 $307.75 $30,775.00 4. 4891 EA Cu holders & hardware $8.05 $39 372.55 $5.95 $29 101.45 5. 4891 IS I Installation of new seats/cu holders $3 155.00 $151 902.23 I I TOTAL BASF. BiD $655 476.13 $664 783.99 I ADDITIVE BID SUPER BOX SEATS - CUSAION SEA I 1. 823 EA Substihne above super box seats with cushioned seats (includes handicap seating) $32.49 $26,739.27 $32.40 $26,665.20 2. 823 LS I installation 3 630 EA Substihne above field seats with cushioned seats (includes handicap seating) $32.49 $20,468.70 $32.40 $20,412.00 4 630 LS I Installation I TOTAL ADDITIVE RID $47 207.97 $47 077.20 I i "TOTAL BASE AND ADDITIVE BID 51,200,000.00 $702 684.]0 $711 861.19 Sheet 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P28 Agenda Check Resister S/]4/2008 through S/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267189 S/14/2008 49ER COMMUNICATIONS 3,495.46 AP = 00267197 571472008- A-IRGAS WEST 388:43- -- AP - 00267202 S/14/2008 APPLE ONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 789.75 AP - 00267202 S/14/2008 APPLE ONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 391.80 AP - 00267202 S/14/2008 APPLE ONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 899.10 AP-00267212 5/14/2008 BINDERFINDER 1,991.41 AP - 00267222 5/14/2008 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 267.29 AP - 00267222 5/14/2008 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 214.28 AP - 00267222 S/14/2008 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 267.85 AP - 00267222 S/14/2008 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 182.24 AP - 00267222 S/14/2008 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 196.52 AP - 00267222 S/14/2008 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 268.62 AP - 00267222 5/14/2008 CADET UNIFORM SERVICE 158.03 AP - 00267231 S/14/2008 CLOUGHESY, DONALD 46.48 AP - 00267233 5/14/2008 COMEAU, CHAD 100.00 AP - 00267253 S/14/2008 EIGHTH AVENUE GRAPHICS 315.63 AP - 002672SS 5/14/2008 EMCOR SERVICE 205.00 AP - 00267256 S/14/2008 EMS PERSONNEL FUND 130.00 AP - 00267261 S/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 440.78 AP - 00267261 S/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 295.00 AP - 00267282 S/14/2008 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 118.12 AP - 00267292 S/14/2008 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 247.75 AP - 00267298 S/14/2008 KME FIRE APPARATUS 46.SS AP - 00267298 S/14/2008 KME FIRE APPARATUS 35.43 AP - 00267298 S/14/2008 KME FIRE APPARATUS 111.11 AP - 00267298 S/14/2008 KME FIRE APPARATUS 252.73 AP - 00267302 S/14/2008 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 940.81 AP - 00267307 S/14/2008 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1,981.50 AP - 00267307 S/14/2008 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 108.00 AP - 00267307 S/14/2008 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 270.00 AP - 00267307 S/14/2008 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 859.00 AP - 00267308 S/14/2008 LIFE ASSIST INC 272.95 AP - 00267314 S/14/2008 MARLINK AS 224.00 AP - 00267324 S/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 376.62 AP - 00267324 S/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 618.08 AP - 00267324 S/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 10.75 AP - 00267333 S/14/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 315.00 AP - 00267333 S/14/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 315.00 AP - 00267339 S/14/2008 RELIABLE ICE EQUIPMENT INC 360.06 AP - 00267342 S/14/2008 ROBERTS, CHERYL L 114.71 AP - 00267344 S/14/2008 RUSCO INC 1,777.88 AP - 00267351 S/14/2008 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 140.00 AP - 00267352 S/14/2008 SC FUELS 1,390.38 AP - 00267363 S/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 669.20 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Agenda Check Register 8/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267386 8/14/2008 WALKER, JANET 17.97 AP=0026T86 5/14/2008 WALKER,-JANET --"-- --"-- 15.61 AP - 00267386 8/14/2008 WALKER, JANET 10.00 AP - 00267386 5/]4/2008 WALKER, JANET 16.08 AP - 00267386 5/14/2008 WALKER, JANET 7.50 AP - 00267386 5/14/2008 WALKER, JANET 11.00 AP - 00267402 8/21/2008 AFSS 75.00 AP - 00267406 5/21/2008 AIRGAS WEST 134.04 AP - 00267406 5/21/2008 AIRGAS WEST 18.05 AP - 00267406 5/21 /2008 AIRGAS WEST 61.91 AP-00267406 5/21/2008 AIRGAS WEST 47.85 AP - 00267406 5/21/2008 AIRGAS WEST 51.40 AP-00267406 5/21/2008 AIRGAS WEST 64.95 AP - 00267406 5/21/2008 AIRGAS WEST 59.25 AP - 00267406 5/21/2008 AIRGAS WEST 92.55 AP - 00267407 8/21/2008 ALL CITIES TOOLS 158.34 AP - 00267413 8/21/2008 APPLE ONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 391.80 AP - 00267428 5/21/2008 BAUER COMPRESSORS 521.12 AP - 00267433 5/21/2008 BROCK, ROBIN 103.09 AP - 00267453 8/21/2008 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 571.00 AP - 00267461 5/21/2008 COMMERCIAL DOOR COMPANY INC 548.44 AP - 00267465 5/21/2008 COSTELLO, DENNIS M 100.00 AP - 00267469 5/21/2008 DAPPER TIRE CO 10,000.00 AP - 00267469 5/21/2008 DAPPER TIRE CO 7,867.55 AP - 00267490 5/21/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 440.78 AP - 00267490 5/21/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 295.00 AP - 00267490 5/21/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 295.00 AP - 00267490 5/21/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 636.68 AP - 00267490 5/21/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 398.52 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 765.00 AP - 00267498 5/2]/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 420.00 AP - 00267498 8/2]/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 7,824.73 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 472.50 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 260.00 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 1,070.00 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 13,583.03 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 12,494.03 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 3,290.00 AP - 00267498 5/21/2008 FREY ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 8,497.54 AP - 00267502 8/21/2008 GENERAL SERVICES ADMIN. 965.82 AP - 00267513 8/21/2008 HARRIS, TY ]30.00 AP - 00267514 5/21/2008 HARTWIG, MARK A. 250.00 AP - 00267514 5/21/2008 HARTWIG, MARK A. 38.12 AP - 0026751 S 8/21/2008 HAZARD CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 5,000.00 AP - 00267525 5/21/2008 HOY"I' LUMBER CO., SM 22.90 AP - 00267828 8/21/2008 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 9.53 AP - 00267539 5/21/2008 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 64.45 AP - 00267539 8/21/2008 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 64.46 AP - 00267558 8/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,555.24 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,004.74 AP - 00267566 8/21/2008 MINUTEMAN PRESS 316.79 AP - 00267573 8/21/2008 NAPA AUTO PARTS 58.06 AP - 00267590 5/21/2008 PATHFINDER ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENI 1,100.00 AP - 00267591 5/21/2008 PDSI 430.42 P29 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 2 Current Date: 08/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:39:0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Agenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 P30 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267600 5/21/2008 PIT STOP EMBROIDERY AND SCREEN PRINT 549.53 AP - 00267609 5/2ll2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 6,138..76 AP - 00267609 5/2]/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 15,399.63 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 24,910.66 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 5;279.85 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 901.41 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 14,283.50 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 25,280.49 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 8,779.30 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 423.65 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 1,926.73 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 2,235.90 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 14,580.74 . AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 1,196.26 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 26,708.30. AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 26,260.21 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 25,246.47 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 24,059.06 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 24.29 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 3,635.90 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 24,957.63 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 26,437.13 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 8,7]0.88 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM 4,121.83 AP - 00267609 5/21/2008 PUBLIC AGENCY SELF INSURANCE SYSTEM -19,991.38 AP - 00267610 5/21/2008 QUALITY TRUCK ELECTRIC INC 280.37 AP - 00267624 5/21/2008 ROTO ROOTER 187.96 AP - 00267636 5/21/2008 SC FUELS 993.13 AP - 00267636 5/21/2008 SC FUELS 1.779.07 AP - 00267636 5/21/2008 SC FUELS 2,383.48 AP - 00267642 5/21/2008 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 141.65 AP - 00267642 5/21/2008 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 83.04 AP - 00267642 5/21/2008 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 343.82 AP - 00267642 5/21/2008 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 218.20 AP - 00267654 5/21/2008 SUNSHINE GROWERS NURSERY INC 258.60 AP - 00267654 5/21/2008 SUNSHINE GROWERS NURSERY INC 411.07 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 34.79 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 534.99 AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 159.63 AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY ] 59.63 AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 159.64 AP - 00267679 5/21/2008 WEST END UNIFORMS 135.43 AP - 00267679 5/21/2008 WEST END UNIFORMS 486.00 Total for Check ID AP: 388,928.73 To[al for Entih•: 388.928.73 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 3 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:39:0 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: June 4, 2008 To: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director/City Manager From: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager ~. ,_ K RANGxo ~UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Agency/Fire Board/City Council direct staff to proceed with the biennial review of their Conflict of Interest Code. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, all local governments and agencies must update their Conflict of Interest Code in 2008. Prior to July 1, 2008, all Agency/Fire DistricUCity staff will be notified of the pending update and will be requested to review any changes to designated positions, such as changes in title or duties, or creation or elimination of positions. Pursuant to state law, after a thorough review has been made, the City Clerk's office will bring this item back to the Agency/Fire Board/City Council prior to October 1, 2008 to propose any appropriate amendments as needed. If amendments are needed, they must be approved by the Agency/Fire Board/City Council prior to December 30, 2008. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adamsv, CMC City Clerk/Records Manager P31 T H E C I T Y O F R A N C tt O C U C A M O N G A StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager Manuel Pilonieta, Information Systems Manager Dawn Haddon, C.P.M., CPPO, Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: APPROVE AND AWARD A CONTRACT TO RADIO SATELLITE INTEGRATORS (RSD AS PER RFP 07/08-200 TO FURNISH AND INSTALL A CITYWIDE AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION (AVL) SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $443.000.00 TO BE FUNDED FROM THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS: 1712001-5200 - $290,000.00 (VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND - O&M) AND 3289501-5207 - $153,000.00 (FIRE DISTRICT CAPITAL RESERVE FUND - O&M/CAPITAL SUPPLIES); AND AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER $153,000.00 FROM ACCOUNT NO. 3289501-5603 (CAPITAL OUTLAY -EQUIPMENT) TO ACCOUNT NO. 3289501-5207 (O&M/CAPITAL SUPPLIES) TO FACILITATE THE PURCHASE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve and award a contract for Radio Satellite Integrators (RSI) as per RFP 07/08-200 to furnish and install a citywide Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) System, in the amount of $443,000.00 to be funded from the following Accounts: 1712001-5200 (Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund - O&M) - $290,000.00 and 3289501-5207 (Fire District Capital Reserve Fund - O&M/Capital Supplies) - $153,000.00; and authorization to transfer $153,000.00 from Account No. 3289501-5603 (Capital Outlay - Equipment) to Account No. 3289501-5207 (O&M/Capital Supplies) to facilitate the purchase. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS One of the City Council goals for FY2007-2008 is to implement a citywide integrated Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) System to enhance the ability to increase safety and productivity, efficiently monitor various city operations, and improve service to citizens. The AVL system will provide real-time location and status data on customized AVL mapping workstations using P32 P33 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report Purchase of AVL System the City's existing GIS map data. Users will interact with the system through GIS mapping tools as well as customized reporting applications. The AVL system will establish a wireless gateway between the vehicle fleet and the base center using of wireless communication system. The RSI AVL solution consists of in-vehicle equipment and base applications and equipment. The in-vehicle equipment is a self-contained unit integrating GPS location and sensor technologies, as well as wireless communication, allowing for timely data transmission between the field and the center. It can be connected to any devices or sensors including lights, ignition, odometers, doors open/closed, sweeper up/down, alazms, etc. In addition, any variety of in- vehicle computing devices such as laptops or public safety Mobile Data Computer (MDC) can be connected to the in-vehicle unit and mounted for a driver interface to the system in the future. Some advantages to implementing the use of an AVL system is to maximize effectiveness of dispatching crews for vazious public works issues, ability to manage emergency resources by locating and dispatching the neazest unit, as well as customized reports for resource allocation and vehicle function monitoring (i.e. ignition, idling, alarms, sensors, etc.) which can be archived or maintained as needed and later analyzed. Phase I of equipment implementation is slated for all City Fleet and Fire District staff vehicles. AVL equipment for emergency response vehicles and appazatus that utilized MDC's is currently being assessed in association with the Emergency Dispatch System and Call Triage Request for Proposal. Upon completion of the request for proposal that the City is currently engaged in, Phase II will address AVL utilization on emergency Fire vehicles now equipped with Tiburon MDC's and integration of AVL with call triage and emergency dispatch. Administrative Services has taken the lead in the AVL Request for Proposal. A team of representatives from IS, GIS, Purchasing, Building and Safety, Engineering and Fire performed the initial review of the submitted proposals. A short list was developed and two top candidates were selected as finalists. The two finalists were invited to present technical demonstrations to the Team. RSI was selected as the final candidate and site visits were conducted. Purchasing then solicited a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from RSI. After the BAFO was reviewed by staff, it is now recommended that the contract be a~~azded to RSI as they have met the scope of work and the overall objectives for the AVL system. Re 1 fitted, John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services ,, STAFF REPORT - r RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT RANCHO Date: June 4, 2008 CjUGAMGNGA To: President and Members of the Board of Directors Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Peter M. Bryan, Fire Chief By: Janet Walker, Management Analyst II Subject: PETER&HEATHERTHURESSON:-APN:0201-043-54-SPECIALELECIION RESULTS PERTAININGTOANNEXAIION NO.88-08-2 RECOMMENDATION Consideration of approval of a resolution declaring results of a special election in Community Facilities District No. 88-1, Annexation No. 88-08-2 (a proposal to build a single family residence located at 10059 Snowdrop Rd.). BACKGROUND On April 2, 2008, the Board declared its intention to annex APN: 0201-043-54 into CFD No. 88-1 On May 7, 2008, a public hearing was held regarding the annexation and called for a special election. A special election was scheduled for May 14, 2008, after the adoption of the resolution declaring the annexation. On May 14, 2008, the landowner submitted their ballot to the Board Secretary. The Board Secretary has canvassed the ballot and completed the statement of votes cast (see Exhibit "A" of Resolution). The Landowner cast their vote unanimously in favor of the levy of the special tax in the Annexed Territory. Adoption of this resolution constitutes the formal action of the Board declaring the results of the election and directs the recordation of an amendment to the existing Notice of Special Tax Lien. By recordation of this amendment, prospective purchasers of property within the Annexed Territory will have notice of the special tax obligation affecting such property. Respectfully submitted, eter M. Bryan Fire Chief P34 Attachment P35 RESOLUTION NO. FD 08-0/S A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1, ANNEXATION NO. 88-08-2 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, California, has previously declared its intention and held and conducted proceedings relating to the annexation of territory to an existing Community Facilities District pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, and specifically Article 3.5 thereof. The existing Community Facilities District has been designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1 (the "District"); and, WHEREAS, the area proposed to be annexed is known and designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1, ANNEXATION NO. 88-OS-2 ("Annexed Territory"), and, WHEREAS, the Board did call for and order to be held an election to submit to the qualified voters of the Annexed Territory a proposition to levy a special tax in the Annexed Territory; and, WHEREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measure voted upon did receive the favorable 2/3's vote of the qualified voters, and the Board desires to declare the favorable results of the election. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. The Board hereby receives and approves the CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST, as submitted by the Election Official, said Statement setting forth the number of votes case in the election, the measure voted upon, and the number of votes given for and/or against the measure voted upon. A copy of said Certificate and Statement is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", referenced and so incorporated. SECTION 3. The Secretary is hereby directed to enter in the minutes of this meeting the results of the election and the STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST. SECTION 4. The Board hereby further determines that the Board is now authorized to levy the special taxes within the Annexed Territory as approved and authorized by the qualified electors of the Annexed Territory. SECTION 5. Immediately upon adoption of this Resolution, the AMENDMENT TO THE NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN (NOTICE OF ANNEXATION) shall be recorded in the Offce of the County Recorder. P36 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., President ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, Secretary I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, SECRETARY of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the _ day of 2008. Executed this _ day of 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, Secretary 2 P37 CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )SS RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ) THE UNDERSIGNED, AS ELECTION OFFICIAL OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of Section 53326 of the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at the: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-1 ANNEXATION NO. 88-08-2 SPECIAL ELECTION In said Fire Protection District held on May 14, 2008 I FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast shows the whole number of votes cast in said District, and the whole number of votes cast for the Measure in said District, and the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for the Measure are full, true and correct. I. TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST: IL TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES FOR FOR \`~ AND AGAINST PROPOSITION A 0 ~,,,,, ~) AGAINST WITNESS my hand and official Seal this ~/ day of / l~/,s1'2008. Election Official Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District State of California CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister S/14/2008 through S/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 20.]3 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 15.19 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 10.27 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 169.74 AP - 00267190 5/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 708.20 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 43.34 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 2,119.47 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 9.93 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 30.24 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 10.19 AP - 00267190 5/14/2008 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 15.13 AP - 00267190 S/14/2008 A AND R T[RE SERVICE 278.33 AP - 00267191 S/14/2008 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 3,633.21 AP - 00267192 S/t4/2008 ABLARD, GARY 150.00 AP - 00267193 S/14/2008 ACCELA INC 43,799.93 AP - 00267193 S/14/2008 ACCELA INC 1,52S.SS AP - 00267194 S/14/2008 ACTIVE WALLACE GROUP 1,713.00 AP - 00267195 S/14/2008 AFLAC 3,902.90 AP - 00267196 S/14/2008 AGI ACADEMY 180.00 AP - 00267198 S/14/2008 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. 16,242.94 AP - 00267198 S/]4/2008 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. 5,944.04 AP - 00267199 S/14/2008 ALLIANCE RESOURCE CONSULTING LLC 10,090.00 AP - 00267199 S/14/2008 ALLIANCE RESOURCE CONSULTING LLC 10,661.17 AP - 00267200 5/14/2008 ANDRADE, LAINI S7.S7 AP - 00267201 S/14/2008 ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES (AC 39.00 AP - 00267201 S/14/2008 ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES (A( 5.40 AP - 00267203 5/14/2008 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 3.35 AP - 00267206 S/14/2008 ASCE 250.00 AP - 00267207 S/14/2008 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC INC 5,247.50 AP - 00267207 S/14/2008 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC INC 3,202.50 AP - 00267208 S/14/2008 BELLA VISTA POOLS NC. 148.38 AP - 00267209 S/14/2008 BELLUE, JODI 25.00 AP - 00267210 5/14/2008 BIA SC 75.00 AP-00267210 S/14/2008 BIA SC 75.00 AP - 00267211 S/14/2008 BIEGGAR, VERONICA 250.00 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.1 S AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.98 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 28.23 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 19.18 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 18.38 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 15.42 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 21.82 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 56.01 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.98 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 27.46 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 1 S.S2 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 3.84 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 14.54 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 10.63 AP-002672]8 S/]4/2008 BRODARTBOOKS 22.33 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 50.78 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 109.75 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 425.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 853.83 P38 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 1 Current Dale: OS/28/200 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pomait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.57 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 14.57 . AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 21.33 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 444.50 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 18.12 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.95 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 61.02 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 112.82 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.40 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 7.75 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 29.70 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 15.65 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 15.04 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.44 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 40.60 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.41 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 12.88 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 76.64 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.14 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 23.73 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 7.71 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 26.60 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 368.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 176.66 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.41 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 25.54 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.51 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.03 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.51 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.51 AP - 00267218 ~ 5/]4/2008 BRODART BOOKS 42.57 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.52 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.04 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 110.76 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 10.46 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 48.64 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 131.41 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 75.02 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 157.52 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.96 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/!4/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 37.81 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 18.38 P39 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 2 Current Dale: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAI'I'_RC - CK: Aeenda Check Register Pomait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P40 Agenda Check Register sn4/zoos ihrot,gn s/z7/zoos Check No. Check Dale Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 75.71 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.19 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.37 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 650.86 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 1,550.77 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 73.57 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 42.53 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 112.19 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 49.37 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 24.62 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 12.22 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.32 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 29.43 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 380.29 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 24.20 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 380.29 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 7.82 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 42.35 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 25.39 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 84.97 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 815.39 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 11.64 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 66.57 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 128.97 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 32.10 AP - 00267218 5/]4/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.51 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 29.82 . AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 46.88 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 63.84 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 302.16 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 12.77 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.51 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 10.68 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 81.18 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 34.34 AP - 00267218 5/]4/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.04 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 15.04 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 21.46 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 10.68 AP - 00267218 5/]4/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 12.78 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/!4/2008 BRODART BOOKS 12.84 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 15.04 AP - 00267218 5/]4/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218. 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 27.82 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 3 Current Date: ~OS/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P41 Agenda Check Reeister S/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 213.84 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 27.88 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 12.78 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.04 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 10.68 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.10 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 64.14 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 19.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.03 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 85.14 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 21.28 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS S 1.08 AP ~- 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 42.57 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 42.56 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 14.85 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 296.29 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 7.27 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 411.11 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 30.86 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 43.91 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 88.90 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.63 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 224.18 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS ]07.00 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 82.25 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 14.01 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.98 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.93 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 24.24 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 15.10 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 39.67 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 13.98 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 14.00 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 22.26 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 7.94 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 22.88 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 64.94 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 38.75 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 923.79 AP - 002672 ] 8 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 497.20 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 002672 ] 8 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 14.94 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42. AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 17.04 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 32.10 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 6.42 AP - 00267218 S/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 4 Current Date: OS/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_ REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pornait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA p42 Agenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 8/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 8.52 AP - 00267218 8/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 12.78 AP - 002672 ] 8 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 80.94 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 25.54 AP - 00267218 8/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 163.89 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 8/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 4.26 AP - 00267218 8/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 38.31 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 123.54 AP - 00267218 8/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 9.69 AP - 00267218 8/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 24.27 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 38.19 AP - 00267218 8/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 419.00 AP - 00267218 5/14/2008 BRODART BOOKS 53.68 AP - 00267219 8/14/2008 BRUNO MANCINELLI CONSTRUCTION 158.00 AP - 00267220 8/14/2008 BURNETT, CANDYCE 44.20 AP - 00267221 5/14/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 65.69 AP - 00267221 5/14/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOF1N 372.44 AP - 00267221 5/14/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 1,075.98 AP - 00267223 5/14/2008 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 318.57 AP - 00267224 8/14/2008 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 47.58 AP - 00267225 8/14/2008 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 372.03 AP - 00267226 5/14/2008 CAR CARE & TRANSMISSION PRO 68.68 AP - 00267226 8/14/2008 CAR CARE & TRANSMISSION PRO 463.86 AP - 00267226 8/14/2008 CAR CARE & TRANSMISSION PRO 526.06 AP - 00267227 8/14/2008 CASK N CLEAVER 21.00 AP - 00267227 5/14/2008 CASK N CLEAVER 21.00 AP - 00267227 8/14/2008 CASK N CLEAVER 21.00 AP - 00267228 5/14/2008 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 489.61 AP - 00267229 5/14/2008 CELAYA, CONNIE 220.00 AP - 00267230 8/14/2008 CENTURY 21 KING 38.50 AP - 00267232 5/14/2008 COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANIES 292.58 AP - 00267234 8/14/2008 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPS 192.55 AP - 00267235 8/14/2008 COPIES & INK PRINTING INC. 58.80 AP - 00267236 5/14/2008 COPQUEST PUBLIC SAFETY PRODUCTS-COPQi 203.50 AP - 00267238 8/14/2008 CRIDLAND, KYLE 33.33 AP - 00267239 5/14/2008 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC 540.00 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.58 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 124.30 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 86.88 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 80.23 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 410.07 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 92.20 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 137.17 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 48.31 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 902.38 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 147.81 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 200.11 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 61.61 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 101.60 AP - 00267242 8/]4/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 66.68 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 102.89 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 102.89 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 540.59 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 5 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Porhait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P43 Agenda Check Register 8/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 376.57 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 265.25 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,265.01 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 650.98 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 483.40 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 65.60 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 366.91 AP - 00267242 S/] 4/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 123.87 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.07 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 330.02 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 265.10 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 121.21 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 18.40 AP - 00267242 8/]4/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 149.39 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 720.14 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 151.80 AP-00267242 8/]4/2008 CUCAMONGAVALLEYWATERDISTRICT 90.27 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 482.97 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 351.30 AP-00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGAVALLEYWATERDISTRICT 133.9] AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 349.97 AP - 00267242 S/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 96.19 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,317.31 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 678.48 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 642.57 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 605.58 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 633.26 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 72.25 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 643.90 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 719.71 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 728.12 .4P - 00267242 S.i14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 33.68 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 368.59 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 89.29 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 66.93 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 44.32 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 64.61 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 142.74 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 56.29 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 130.52 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 141.16 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 69.34 AP - 00267242 8/]4/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 120.13 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 532.18 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 44.12 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 99.98 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 184.1 S AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 36.80 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 126.78 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 223.14 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 121.21 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 657.20 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 346.41 AP - 00267242 8/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 859.79 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 6 Current Date: 08/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_ REG_PORTRAI T_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pornait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P44 Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267242 5/]4/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 354.56 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 80.23 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 158.45 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.59 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 504.10 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 187.24 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 305.18 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 213.41 AP - 00267242 5/]4/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 637.25 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 231.60 AP - 00267242 5/14/2008 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 715.72 AP - 00267243 5/14/2008 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON CO INC 1,049.42 AP - 00267245 5/14/2008 DAMS, AZIZA 7.58 AP - 00267245 5/14/2008 DAMS, AZIZA 37.88 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE t 8.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267246 5/14/2008 DEER CREEK OIL &LUBE 18.99 AP - 00267247 5/14/2008 DELTA DENTAL 41,965.98 AP - 00267248 5/14/2008 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 928.00 AP - 00267248 5/14/2008 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1,734.00 AP - 00267249 5/14/2008 DOMINICK, SAM 500.00 AP - 00267250 5/14/2008 E.D.D. RIVERSIDE AREA COLLECTION OFFICE 36.99 AP - 00267251 5/14/2008 EASTER, PAMELA 29.93 AP - 00267252 5/14/2008 EDFUND 164.91 AP - 00267254 5/14/2008 EL MONTE, CITY OF 65.08 AP - 00267257 5/14/2008 ENSIL, NORMAN 28.00 AP - 00267258 5/14/2008 ESGIL CORPORATION 27,266.03 AP - 00267259 5/14/2008 ESTRADA, FERNANDO 425.00 AP - 00267259 5/14/2008 ESTRADA, FERNANDO 150.00 AP - 00267260 5/14/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 19.54 AP - 00267260 5/14/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 22.11 AP - 00267260 5/14/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 33.42 AP - 00267261 5/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 851.20 AP - 00267261 5/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 851.20 AP - 00267261 5/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 930.00 AP - 00267261 5/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 465.00 AP - 00267261 5/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 930.00 AP - 00267261 5/]4/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 930.00 AP - 00267261 5/]4/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 930.00 AP - 00267261 5/14/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 638.40 AP - 00267262 5/14/2008 FORD OF UPLAND INC 148.57 AP - 00267262 5/14/2008 FORD OF UPLAND INC 159.47 AP - 00267262 5/14/2008 FORD OF UPLAND INC -159.47 AP - 00267262 5/14/2008 FORD OF UPLAND INC -93.05 AP - 00267263 5/14/2008 FOREMOST SILKSCREEN AND EMBROIDERY 586.70 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 7 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_ REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pomait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA p45 Agenda Check Resister 8/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267264 5/14/2008 FUTURE LIGHTING 399.00 AP - 00267266 8/14/2008 GALE GROUP,THE 60.26 AP - 00267267 5/14/2008 GALLS INC 2,281.72 AP - 00267268 8/14/2008 GALLS INC 127.96 AP - 00267268 8/14/2008 GALLS INC 12.99 AP - 00267269 8/14/2008 GEOGRAPHICS 2,040.52 AP - 00267270 8/14/2008 GIRL SCOUTS SPANISH TRAILS COUNCIL 230.50 AP - 00267271 8/14/2008 GOLDRUSH GETAWAYS 500.00 AP - 00267271 8/14/2008 GOLDRUSH GETAWAYS 86.80 AP - 00267271 8/14/2008 GOLDRUSH GETAWAYS 12.00 AP - 00267272 8/14/2008 GRAINGER 326.91 AP - 00267272 8/14/2008 GRAINGER 9.42 AP - 00267272 8/14/2008 GRAINGER 15.32 AP - 00267272 8/14/2008 GRAINGER 80.71 AP - 00267272 8/14/2008 GRAINGER 229.49 AP - 00267273 8/14/2008 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY 38.00 AP - 00267274 8/14/2008 HARDY, ANDRE 200.00 AP - 00267278 8/14/2008 HAVEN CAR WASH 800.00 AP - 00267276 8/14/2008 HEDIGER, PATRICK 26.26 AP - 00267277 8/14/2008 HENDERSON, LARRY 230.28 AP - 00267277 8/14/2008 HENDERSON, LARRY 115.46 AP - 00267278 8/14/2008 HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE 138.15 AP - 00267279 8/14/2008 HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC 226.31 AP - 00267280 5/14/2008 HOGAN, JULIA 12.28 AP - 00267281 8/14/2008 HOLLOSY, TISHA 90.00 AP - 00267283 8/14/2008 HOMECOMING AT TERRA VISTA 23.00 AP - 00267284 8/14/2008 HUANG, PRUDENCE 975.00 AP - 00267284 8/14/2008 FIUANG, PRUDENCE 750.00 AP - 00267285 8/14/2008 HUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN BERNARDINO VAL] 25.00 AP - 00267286 8/14/2008 I A A P 113.00 AP - 00267287 8/14/2008 ICMA 1,160.00 AP - 00267288 5/14/2008 IDS PROPERTY CASULATY 777.41 AP - 00267289 8/14/2008 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIC 1,036.00 AP - 00267291 8/14/2008 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 20.00 AP - 00267293 8/14/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 546.80 AP - 00267293 8/14/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 629.50 AP - 00267293 8/14/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 846.50 AP - 00267294 8/14/2008 INTERSTATE CAPITAL CORPORATION 5,080.00 AP - 00267294 8/14/2008 INTERSTATE CAPITAL CORPORATION 1,200.00 AP - 00267294 8/14/2008 INTERSTATE CAPITAL CORPORATION 400.00 AP - 00267295 8/14/2008 JOHNSON, STEPHEN 250.00 AP - 00267296 8/14/2008 JON'S FLAGS AND POLES . 700.00 AP - 00267297 8/14/2008 KAVATHAN, VERONICA 56.00 AP - 00267299 5!14/2008 L S A ASSOCIATES INC 1,462.50 AP - 00267299 8/14/2008 L S A ASSOCIATES INC 6,268.44 AP - 00267299 8/14/2008 L S A ASSOCIATES INC 7,668.00 AP - 00267301 8/14/2008 LAND FORMS LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION INS 383,928.30 AP - 00267301 8/14/2008 LAND FORMS LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION [N~ -35,392.83 AP - 00267303 8/14/2008 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 35.00 AP - 00267304 8/14/2008 LEE, KAREN 26.26 AP - 00267305 5/14/2008 LEE, MARY 80.00 AP - 00267306 8/14/2008 LEGACY OF HOPE 3,000.00 AP - 00267307 5/14/2008 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1,245.00 AP - 00267309 8/14/2008 LLAMAS, TERESA 500.00 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 8 Current Date: 08/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name ~ Amount AP - 002673]0 5/14/2008 LOS ANGELES TIMES 43.85 AP - 00267311 5/14/2008 LUTZ, ANN 100.00 AP - 00267312 5/14/2008 MAREV, DENISE 45.00 AP - 00267313 5/14/2008 MARK BEAMISH WATERPROOF INC 40.40 AP - 00267315 5/14/2008 MICHAEL, L. DENNIS 115.65 AP - 00267316 5/14/2008 MOTOROLA 714.38 AP - 00267316 5/]4/2008 MOTOROLA 4,102.58 AP - 00267317 5/14/2008 NAJIAR, KAMAR 70.00 AP - 00267318 5/14/2008 NATIONAL CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY 2,000.00 AP - 002673 ] 9 5/14/2008 NATIONAL MS SOCIETY SOUTHERN CALIFOR)` 2,000.00 AP - 00267320 5/14/2008 NBS 2,000.00 AP - 00267321 5/14/2008 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 184.00 AP - 00267322 5/14/2008 NINYO & MOORE 3,541.00 AP - 00267323 5/ 14/2008 NOVELTY PRINTING 694.99 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 21.04 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 32.37 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 8.02 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 1,111.13 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 223.13 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 7.26 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 57.89 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 53.14 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 197.82 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 36.72 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 89.64 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 23.58 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 14.12 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 26.45 AP - 00267324 5/14/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 32.93 AP - 00267325 S/14/2008 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE -3.23 AP - 00267325 5/]4/2008 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 7.61 AP-00267325 5/14/2008 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 19.91 AP - 00267325 5/14/2008 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 5.06 AP - 00267326 5/]4/2008 PAL CAMPAIGN 82.00 AP - 00267327 5/ 14/2008 PATTON SALES CORP 43.19 AP - 00267328 5/]4/2008 PBS&J INC 14,568.50 AP - 00267329 5/14/2008 PEREZ, HECTOR 40.00 AP - 00267330 5/14/2008 PMI 1,644.80 AP - 00267331 5/14/2008 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 244.00 AP - 00267331 5/14/2008 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 432.56 AP - 00267331 5/14/2008 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 44.39 AP - 00267332 5/14/2008 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 266.49 AP - 00267333 5/14/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 100.00 AP - 00267334 5/14/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FOUNDA 500.00 AP - 00267335 5/]4/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA QUAKES PROFESSIONF 500.00 AP - 00267336 5/14/2008 RANCHO REGIONAL VETERINARY HOSPITAL I 100.00 AP - 00267337 5/14/2008 RANDOM HOUSE INC 147.70 AP - 00267338 5/14/2008 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 96.98 AP - 00267340 5/14/2008 RGA ENVIRONMENTAL INC 46.00 AP - 00267341 5/14/2008 RMA GROUP 665.50 AP - 00267341 5/14/2008 RMA GROUP 271.25 AP - 00267341 5/ 14/2008 RMA GROUP 168.75 AP - 00267341 5/14/2008 RMA GROUP 720.50 AP - 00267341 5/14/2008 RMA GROUP 262.50 P46 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 9 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pomait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P47 Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267343 5/]4/2008 ROBLES, RAMON 24.00 AP - 00267345 5/]4/2008 SAMUEL FRENCH INC 2,649.02 AP - 00267346 5/14/2008 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 172.00 AP - 00267347 5/14/2008 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 840.00 AP - 00267348 5/14/2008 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 1;232.85 AP - 00267349 5/14/2008 SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF 600.00 AP - 00267350 5/14/2008 SANDERS, JJ 450.00 AP - 00267350 5/14/2008 SANDERS, JJ 70.00 AP - 00267353 5/14/2008 SCOTT, DIANA 375.00 AP - 00267354 5/14/2008 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 250.00 AP - 00267355 5/14/2008 SHERMAN, DAN 100.00 AP - 00267356 5/14/2008 SHOETERIA 92.12 AP - 00267356 5/14/2008 SHOETERIA 111.51 AP - 00267357 5/14/2008 SMITH, LaSHONDA 250.00 AP - 00267358 5/14/2008 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 20,029.18 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,768.05 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 7,256.63 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.39 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.18 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.21 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.07 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.18 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.24 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNL4 EDISON 18.10 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.79 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.65 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 70.66 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 45.69 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 67.63 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.39 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.10 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 78.16 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.13 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.51 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.21 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.10 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.24 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 119.54 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 87.83 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.51 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.91 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.18 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.05 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.24 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.01 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.16 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.24 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.60 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.13 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ED[SON 16.01 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 10 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG _PORTRAI T_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.17 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.01 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.29 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 65.56 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.29 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.01 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 46.63 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.03 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.61 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 27.30 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 74.47 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.89 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 58.26 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.32 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNL4 EDISON 127.89 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.10 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.18 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1.45 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.29 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 48.58 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9.41 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.01 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.29 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.28 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.33 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.23 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.39 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.38 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.84 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.42 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.48 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.16 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.83 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 140.09 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,899.82 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 102.97 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.84 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.55 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 85.26 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.11 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.06 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 225.77 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.17 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.84 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 144.02 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1.69 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.48 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 160.94 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 120.83 P48 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 11 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pomait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P49 Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 58.90 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 274.66 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFOR\IA EDISON 16.18 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 33.06 . AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.52 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.93 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.03 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,102.58 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.15 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.05 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.18 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.02 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 97.70 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 200.53 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.72 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 104.51 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.37 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.38 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 48.59 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12,838.22 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 37.49 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 91.11 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.17 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.77 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.39 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.74 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.46 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 737.94 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 665.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 570.95 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.25 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.31 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.39 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.30 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267363 5/]4/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1824 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 375.16 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 107.35 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3.08 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 611.84 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 354.53 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.01 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.23 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.01 AP - 00267363 5/14/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.01 AP - 00267365 5/14/2008 SPAGNOLO, SAM 88.28 AP - 00267365 5/14/2008 SPAGNOLO, SAM 6.00 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 12 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 8/]4/2008 through 8/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267366 8/14/2008 STERLING USA INC. 1,817.25 AP - 00267367 8/14/2008 STEVES TOWING AND TRANSPORT 177.00 AP - 00267368 8/14/2008 STEWART DVM, DONNA 550.00 AP - 00267368 8/14/2008 STEWART DVM, DONNA SS0.00 AP - 00267369 8/14/2008 STOFA, JOSEPH 13.00 AP - 00267370 8/14/2008 SUPERIOR PLUMBING SYSTEMS 79.31 AP - 00267371 5/14/2008 SYCAMORE TERRACE 369.24 AP - 00267372 8/14/2008 TANTIER RECOGNITION COMPANY, O C 365.90 AP - 00267372 8/14/2008 TANNER RECOGNITION COMPANY. O C 85.16 AP - 00267373 5/14/2008 TBH INC 218;320.00 AP - 00267373 8/14/2008 TBH INC 67,324.91 . AP - 00267373 8/14/2008 TBH INC 12,500.00 AP - 00267373 8/14/2008 TBH INC 258,659.78 AP - 00267373 8/14/2008 TBH INC 37,500.00 AP - 00267373 8/14/2008 TBH INC 31,121.55 AP - 00267373 5/14/2008 TBH INC 72,521.27 AP - 00267373 5/14/2008 TBH INC 25,423.60 AP - 00267376 8/14/2008 TROYER, ]AMES 123.70 AP - 00267377 5/14/2008 UMANA, PETER 500.00 AP - 00267378 5/14/2008 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P. 48,508.61 AP - 00267379 8/14/2008 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P. 249.31 AP - 00267379 8/14/2008 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P. 2,867.02 AP - 00267380 8/14/2008 UNITED WAY 304.82 AP - 00267381 5/14/2008 VEND U COMPANY 86.63 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 69.64 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 21.66 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 19.19 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 1,490.28 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 19.60 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 70.31 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 181.1 I AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 45.57 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 146.90 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.04 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 378.39 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 35.99 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 34.81 AP-00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 34.81 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 33.75 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 34.82 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 19.61 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 34.81 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 91.15 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 19.61 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 19.6] AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 88.28 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 33.74 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 118.35 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 33.74 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP-0026T83 8/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 8/14/2008 VERIZON 34.82 P50 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 13 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P51 Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 37.24 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 127.57 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 40.49 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 225.66 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 34.81 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 33.74 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.04 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.04 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.04 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.04 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 32.66 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 35.75 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 34.81 AP-00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 33.74 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 19.61 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 34.82 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 70.56 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 34.81 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 34.81 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.03 AP-00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 278.95 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 33.74 AP-00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 61.43 AP-00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 88.04 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 33.74 AP - 00267383 5/14/2008 VERIZON 356.02 AP - 00267384 5/14/2008 VMWARE INC 3,295.00 AP - 00267385 5/14/2008 VMWARE INC 3,295.00 AP - 00267387 5/14/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 145.66 AP - 00267387 5/14/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 76.99 AP - 00267388 5/14/2008 WE TIP INC 7,740.00 AP - 00267389 5/14/2008 WEST COAST COMMUNICATIONS INC 1,000.00 AP - 00267389 5/14/2008 WEST COAST COMMUNICATIONS INC 1,000.00 AP - 00267390 5/14/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS & SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267390 5/14/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS & SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267390 5/14/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS 8 SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267390 5/14/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS & SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267390 5/]4/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS & SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267390 5/14/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS & SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267390 5/14/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS & SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267390 5/14/2008 WEST COAST LIGHTS & SIRENS 65.39 AP - 00267391 5/14/2008 YEE, LARRY 47.00 AP - 00267392 5/14/2008 ZEE MEDICAL INC 819.91 AP - 00267393 5/15/2008 I A A P 111.00 AP - 00267394 5/21/2008 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 49.16 AP - 00267394 5/21/2008 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 19.48 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 14 Current Dale: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_ REG_PORTRAI T_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P52 A¢enda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 8/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267394 8/21/2008 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 106.15 AP - 00267394 8/21/2008 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 518.09 AP - 00267395 8/21/2008 ABC LOCKSMITHS 97.50 AP - 00267395 8/21/2008 ABC LOCKSMITHS 52.50 AP - 00267395 8/21/2008 ABC LOCKSMITHS 45.26 AP - 00267395 8/21/2008 ABC LOCKSMITHS 117.11 AP - 00267396 8/2]/2008 ABI VIP ATTOILNEY SERVICE 80.89 AP - 00267397 5/21/2008 ABLETRONICS 49.46 AP - 00267397 5/21/2008 ABLETRONICS 11.85 AP - 00267397 8/21/2008 ABLETRONICS 11.25 AP - 00267398 8/21/2008 ABM JANITORIAL SW 1,728.28 AP - 00267398 5/21/2008 ABM JANITORIAL SW 1;303.10 AP - 00267398 5/21/2008 ABM JANITORIAL SW 204.23 AP - 00267398 5/21/2008 .ABM JANITORIAL SW 1;858.75 AP - 00267398 5/21/2008 ABM JANITORIAL SW 163.02 AP - 00267399 8/21/2008 ACUTINT AND GRAPHICS 135.00 AP - 00267399 5/21/2008 ACUTINT AND GRAPHICS 135.00 AP - 00267400 5/21/2008 ADVANCED UTILITY SYSTEMS CORP. 3;000.00 AP - 00267401 8/21/2008 ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2,485.82 AP - 00267403 8/21/2008 AG ENGINEERING EVC 1,138.98 AP - 00267404 5/21/2008 AGUIRRE, PARIS 98.00 AP - 00267405 5/21/2008 AGUSTIADI, ELIZABETH 250.00 AP - 00267408 8/21/2008 ALL WELDING 300.00 AP - 00267409 8/21/2008 ALPHAGRAPHICS 45.26 AP - 00267409 8/21/2008 ALPHAGRAPHICS 45.25 AP - 00267409 8/21/2008 ALPHAGRAPHICS 45.26 AP - 00267410 8/21/2008 ALTA FIRE EQUIPMENT CO 98.05 AP - 00267411 5/21/2008 AMERICAN ROTARY BROOM CO. INC. 581.23 AP - 00267411 8/21/2008 AMERICAN ROTARY BROOM CO. INC. 180.81 AP - 00267411 8/21/2008 AMERICAN ROTARY BROOM CO. INC. 640.96 AP - 00267411 8/21/2008 AMERICAN ROTARY BROOM CO. INC. 180.81 .AP - 00267412 5/21/2008 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 219.58 AP - 00267412 5/21/2008 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 192.65 AP - 00267412 8/21/2008 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 224.16 AP - 00267414 8/21/2008 AQUABIO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES I 584.03 AP - 00267415 8/21/2008 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 3.35 AP - 002674] 6 8/21/2008 ARBOR NURSERY PLUS 107.75 AP - 00267417 8/21/2008 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 2,375.00 AP - 00267417 5/21/2008 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 397.76 AP - 002674]7 8/21/2008 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 7.58 AP - 00267417 8/21/2008 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 819.00 AP - 00267418 8/21/2008 ARROW TRUCK BODIES AND EQUIPMENT INC 172.21 AP - 00267419 8/21/2008 ASCE 50.00 AP - 00267420 8/21/2008 ASSI SECURITY 210.00 AP - 00267421 8/21/2008 ASTRUM UTILITY SERVICES 12,508.75 AP - 00267421 5/21/2008 ASTRUM UTILITY SERVICES 3,285.00 AP - 00267422 8/21/2008 AUDIO EDITIONS 8.58 AP - 00267423 8/21/2008 AUTO BODY 2000 60.00 AP - 00267423 8/21/2008 AUTO BODY 2000 484.23 AP - 00267423 8/21/2008 AUTO BODY 2000 1,052.55 AP - 00267423 8/21/2008 AUTO BODY 2000 88.00 AP - 00267424 8/21/2008 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 655.66 AP - 00267425 8/21/2008 BALLOONS TO GO 160.00 AP - 00267426 8/21/2008 BARNES AND NOBLE 282.25 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Pagc: 1 S Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267426 5/21/2008 BARNES AND NOBLE -55.94 AP - 00267426 5/21/2008 BARNES AND NOBLE 201.98 AP - 00267427 5/21/2008 BARRATT AMERICAN INC 1,000.00 AP - 00267429 5/21/2008 BENEFIT CONCEPTS 1,207.50 AP - 00267430 5/21/2008 BILLINGS, CURT 30.00 AP - 00267431 5/21/2008 BRAKE, KATHERINE 72.00 AP - 00267432 5/21/2008 BRAUGHTON CONSTRUCTION INC. 99,545.21 AP - 00267432 5/21/2008 BRAUGHTON CONSTRUCTION INC. -9,954.52 AP - 00267434 5/21/2008 BROOKS PRODUCTS 286.62 AP - 00267435 5/21/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 904.76 AP - 00267435 5/21/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN -400.00 AP - 00267435 5/21/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 209.29 AP - 00267435 5/21/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 222.71 AP - 00267435 5/21/2008 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 129.73 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 1,148.57 AP - 00267436 5/2]/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 1,316.60 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 842.57 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 3,600.00 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 4,077.00 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 1,047.67 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 1,979.00 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 7,825.04 AP - 00267436 5/21/2008 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC. 3,031.04 AP - 00267437 5/21/2008 CACIOLA, JAMES 100.00 AP - 00267438 5/21/2008 CaICPA 375.00 AP - 00267439 5/21/2008 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, STAT 6,175.00 AP - 00267441 5/21/2008 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 125.00 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 835.10 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 2,496.66 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 835.03 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 3,250.98 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 835.03 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 2,496.56 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 1,666.14 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 835.03 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 1,665.86 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 835.10 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 835.10 AP - 00267442 5/21/2008 CALSENSE 4,926.61 AP - 00267443 5/21/2008 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY 37.02 AP - 00267444 5/21/2008 CAMPBELL. COLIN 15.00 AP - 00267445 5/21/2008 CAMPOS DECORATION AND RENTALS 1,963.13 AP - 00267446 5/21/2008 CAR CARE & TRANSMISSION PRO 162.28 AP - 00267446 5/21/2008 CAR CARE & TRANSMISSION PRO 69.68 AP - 00267446 5/21/2008 CAR CARE & TRANSMISSION PRO 464. ] 6 AP - 00267446 5/21/2008 CAR CARE R TRANSMISSION PRO 38.03 AP - 00267446 5/21/2008 CAR CARE & TRANSMISSION PRO 38.03 AP - 00267447 5/21/2008 CARROT TOP INDUSTRIES 256.00 AP - 00267448 5/21/2008 CBIZ ACCOUNTING TAX & ADVISORY OF ORA] 8,000.00 AP - 00267448 5/21/2008 CBIZ ACCOUNTING TAX & ADVISORY OF ORA] 1,600.00 AP - 00267448 5/21/2008 CBIZ ACCOUNTING TAX & ADVISORY OF ORAL 5,000.00 AP - 00267449 5/21/2008 CCPOA 30.00 AP - 00267450 5/21/2008 CEITHAMER, DUSTIN 250.00 AP - 00267451 5/21/2008 CENTRAL CITIES SIGNS INC 484.88 P53 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 16 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P54 Asenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267452 5/21/2008 CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,098.00 AP - 00267454 5/21/2008 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 109.99 AP - 00267455 5/21/2008 CHAVIRA, MONICA 500.00 AP - 00267456 5/21/2008 CISNEROS; HERNANDO 500.00 AP - 00267457 5/21/2008 CLABBY, SANDRA 1,000.00 AP - 00267458 5/21/2008 CLARK, DEBORAH 28.00 AP - 00267459 5/21/2008 CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC. 166.28 AP - 00267459 5/21/2008 CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC. 229.12 AP - 00267460 5/21/2008 CLOUD, DON 98.00 AP - 00267462 5/21/2008 COMPOSTING AUTHORITY 78.05 AP - 00267463 5/21/2008 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPS 16.39 AP - 00267464 5/21/2008 COPIES & INK PRINTING INC. 58.80 AP - 00267464 5/21/2008 COPIES & INK PRINTING INC. 58.80 AP - 00267464 5/21/2008 COPIES & INK PRINTING INC. 303.51 AP - 00267464 5/21/2008 COPIES & INK PRINTING INC. 58.80 AP - 00267466 5/21/2008 CUTTING EDGE VIDEO CONCEPTS 4,995.00 AP - 00267466 5/21/2008 CUTTING EDGE VIDEO CONCEPTS 600.00 AP - 00267466 5/21/2008 CUTTING EDGE VIDEO CONCEPTS 100.00 AP - 00267467 5/21/2008 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 406.22 AP - 00267467 5/21/2008 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 768.26 AP - 00267467 5/21/2008 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 637.88 AP - 00267467 5/21/2008 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 858.77 AP - 00267468 5/21/2008 DANIEL'S ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO INt 990.00 AP - 00267470 5/21/2008 DAWSON SURVEYING INC. 325.00 AP - 00267470 S/21/2008 DAWSON SURVEYING INC. 1,855.00 AP - 00267470 5/21/2008 DAWSON SURVEYING INC. 980.00 AP - 00267471 5/21/2008 DEER CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE 50.00 AP - 00267472 5/21/2008 DELLHIME, SIGMUND 100.28 AP - 00267473 5/21/2008 DIAZ, NORBERTO 38.00 AP - 00267474 5/21/2008 DMJM HARRIS 30,867.66 AP - 00267475 S/21/2008 DODSON & ASSOCIATES, TOM 150.00 AP - 00267476 5/21/2008 DUMBELL MAN FITNESS EQUIPMENT, THE ]47.17 AP - 00267477 5/21/2008 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 101.78 AP - 00267478 5/21/2008 DYNASTY SCREEN PRINTING 1,524.25 AP - 00267479 5/2 ] /2008 ECHO FIRE PROTECTION CO. 151.72 AP - 00267480 5/21/2008 ELLIS ENTERPRISES 3,470.00 AP - 00267480 5/21/2008 ELLIS ENTERPRISES 70.00 AP - 00267480 5/21/2008 ELLIS ENTERPRISES 1.000.00 AP - 00267482 5/21/2008 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 7,915.30 AP - 00267483 5/21/2008 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 915.00 AP - 00267483 5/21/2008 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 286.72 AP - 00267484 5/21/2008 F & F LLC 38,403.30 AP - 00267484 5/21/2008 F & F LLC 13,751.40 AP - 00267484 5/21/2008 F & F LLC 13,751.40 AP - 00267484 5/21/2008 F & F LLC 20,794.80 AP - 00267484 5/21/2008 F & F LLC 35,552.40 AP - 00267485 5/21/2008 FASTAIRE HAND DRYERS 504.65 AP - 00267486 5/21/2008 FASTENAL COMPANY 26.33 AP - 00267487 5/21/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 24.34 AP - 00267487 5/21/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 142.63 AP - 00267487 5/21/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 34.56 AP - 00267487 5/21/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 49.18 AP - 00267487 5/21/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORD 57.66 AP - 00267488 S/21/2008 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND INC 2,] 17.14 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 17 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: li:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date V"endor Name Amoun[ AP - 00267489 5/21/2008 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 58.34 AP - 00267490 5/21/2008 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 465.00 AP - 00267491 5/21/2008 FLOWERS, SONJA 250.00 AP - 00267492 5/21/2008 FOOTCHESTER PARTNERS LLC. 143,886.11 AP - 00267492 5/21/2008 FOOTCHESTER PARTNERS LLC. 44,943.60 AP - 00267492 5/21/2008 FOOTCHESTER PARTNERS LLC. 13,351.80 AP - 00267493 5/21/2008 FOOTHILL VACUUM AND JANITOR 1,7]8.61 AP - 00267494 5/21/2008 FORD OF UPLAND INC 396.69 AP - 00267494 5/21/2008 FORD OF UPLAND INC 225.00 AP - 00267496 5/2]/2008 FRANKLIN COVEY CO 102.22 AP - 00267497 5/21/2008 FRAZEE PAINT CENTER 242.37 AP - 00267497 5/21 /2008 FRAZEE PAINT CENTER 84.26 AP - 00267497 5/21/2008 FRAZEE PAINT CENTER -84.26 AP - 00267499 5/21/2008 GALE GROUP,THE 26.64 AP - 00267499 5/21/2008 GALE GROUP,THE 28.25 AP - 00267499 5/21/2008 GALE GROUP,THE 124.36 AP - 00267499 5/21/2008 GALE GROUP,THE 29.27 AP - 00267499 5/21/2008 GALE GROUP,THE 29.27 AP - 00267500 5/2]/2008 GAMBOA, TERESA 206.00 AP - 00267501 5/21/2008 GARCIA, MARIO 10.00 AP - 00267503 5/21/2008 GILKEY, JOHN 150.00 AP - 00267504 5/21/2008 GIRON, SABINO 25.00 AP - 00267505 5/21/2008 GOLF VENTURES WEST 54.95 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 213.35 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 116.62 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 717.66 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 260.86 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 26.08 AP - 00267506 5/21 /2008 GRAINGER 37.93 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 62.77 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 4,540.83 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 545.48 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAEVGER 2,286.94 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 13.58 AP - 00267506 5/2]/2008 GRAINGER 29.23 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAEVGER 215.34 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 104.33 AP - 00267506 5/21/2008 GRAINGER 9.05 AP - 00267507 5/21/2008 GREATER THAN DESIGNS LLC 897.90 AP - 00267508 5/2]/2008 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 996.69 AP - 00267509 5/21!2008 GUIDANCE SOFTWARE INC 2;154.54 AP - 00267510 5/21/2008 GUTIERREZ, MHVETTE 36.00 AP - 00267511 5/21/2008 H & H GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC 922,177.63 AP - 00267511 5/21/2008 H & H GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC -92,217.77 AP - 00267512 5/21/2008 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 188.44 AP - 00267512 5/21/2008 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 573.8] AP - 00267516 5/21/2008 HEATH & ASSOCIATES, KICHARD 5,000.00 AP - 00267517 5/21/2008 HENDERSON, LARRY 374.96 AP - 00267518 5/21/2008 HENRY, MAXINE 500.00 AP - 00267518 5/21/2008 HENRY, MAXINE 500.00 AP - 002675]9 5/2]/2008 HILLCREST CONTRACTING INC. 21,269.20 AP-002675]9 5/21/2008 HILLCREST CONTRACTING INC. -2,126.92 AP - 00267520 5/21/2008 HIRSCH AND ASSOCIATES 480.74 AP - 00267521 5/21/2008 HOGLE-IRELAND 23,054.75 P55 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 18 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pornait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267522 5/21/2008 HOLL[DAY ROCK CO INC 50.00 AP - 00267522 5/2]/2008 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 50.00 AP - 00267523 5/21/2008 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 61.29 AP - 00267523 5/21/2008 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 36.27 AP - 00267524 5/21/2008 HOSE MAN INC 205.53 AP - 00267525 5/21/2008 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 255.15 AP - 00267526 5/21/2008 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES 2,424.38 AP - 00267527 5/21/2008 HUNTINGTON HARDWARE 420.23 AP - 00267528 5/21/2008 HYDRO TEK SYSTEMS INC 3,034.64 AP - 00267529 5/21/2008 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 65.93 AP - 00267530 5/21/2008 IIMC 100.00 AP - 00267530 5/21/2008 IIMC 100.00 AP - 00267531 5/21/2008 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC 39.71 AP - 00267531 5/21/2008 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC 291.57 AP - 00267531 5/21/2008 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC 57.21 AP - 00267531 5/21/2008 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC 1,668.15 AP - 00267531 5/21/2008 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC 187.87 AP - 00267531 5/21/2008 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC 67.08 AP - 00267532 5/21/2008 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC 425.61 AP - 00267533 5/21/2008 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIC 913.00 AP - 00267534 5/21/2008 INLAND FAIR HOUSING AND MEDIATION 1,018.57 AP - 00267534 5/21/2008 INLAND FAIR HOUSING AND MEDIATION 844.05 AP - 00267534 5/21/2008 INLAND FAIR HOUSING AND MEDIATION 17.50 AP - 00267535 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 1,750.00 AP - 00267536 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 192.00 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 87.60 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 87.60 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 87.60 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 48.00 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 67.25 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 57.00 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 48.00 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 4,969.44 AP - 00267537 5/21/2008 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 87.60 AP - 00267538 5/21/2008 INTEILNATIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ASSOC 178.75 AP - 00267540 5/21/2008 IRON MOUNTAIN OSDP 525.30 AP - 00267541 5/21/2008 J D C INC 111,949.50 AP - 00267542 5/21/2008 JAMES, KATHY 24.24 AP - 00267543 5/21/2008 JONES, LENNELL 500.00 AP - 00267544 5/21/2008 JONES, ROBERT 3,360.00 AP - 00267545 5/21/2008 JPI INV 1,000.00 AP - 00267546 5/21/2008 KC PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC 183.18 AP - 00267547 5/21/2008 KELLY EXPRESSIONS LTD 34.00 AP - 00267547 5/21/2008 KELLY EXPRESSIONS LTD 25.00 AP - 00267548 5/21/2008 L S A ASSOCIATES INC 2,655.29 AP - 00267548 5/21/2008 L S A ASSOCIATES INC 367.20 AP - 00267548 5/21/2008 L S A ASSOCIATES [NC 262.50 AP - 00267549 5/21/2008 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO 6.307.75 AP - 00267551 5/21/2008 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC 537.80 AP - 00267552 5/21/2008 LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS 3,040.68 AP - 00267553 5/21/2008 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 550.00 AP - 00267553 5/21/2008 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 325.00 AP - 00267553 5/21/2008 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 85.00 AP - 00267553 5/21/2008 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 165.00 P56 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 19 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pomait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P57 Asenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267553 5/21/2008 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 400.00 AP - 00267553 5/2]/2008 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 600.00 AP - 00267555 5/21/2008 MAIN STREET SIGNS 1,274.14 AP - 00267556 5/21/2008 MANELA, ROSE 33.00 AP - 00267557 5/21/2008 MANSOURI, IRAJ 6,800.00 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,974.64 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 5,059.08 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 9,71859 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 141.57 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 21,740.35 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,701.90 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,910.52 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 5,511.22 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,950.23 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 9,123.15 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,323.10 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 587.54 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 870.74 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,181.84 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,022.47 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,930.05 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 6.578.73 AP - 00267558 5/21/2008 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 15,998.12 AP - 00267559 5/21/2008 MARK CHRISTOPHER INC 329.40 AP - 00267559 5/21/2008 MARK CHRISTOPHER INC 741.22 AP - 00267560 5/21 /2008 MARQUETTE COMMERCIAL FINANCE 33,899.22 AP - 00267561 5/21/2008 MARTINEZ UNION' SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00267561 5/21/2008 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00267561 5/21/2008 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00267562 5/21/2008 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 192.54 AP - 00267562 5/21/2008 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 32.85 AP - 00267562 5/21/2008 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 165.18 AP - 00267563 5/21/2008 MERRITT, TYNEIA 100.00 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 46.98 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 274.33 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 344.76 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 143.92 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 217.88 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 87.93 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 461.67 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 106.54 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 502.03 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 10.99 AP-00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 220.37 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 352.84 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 46.98 AP - 00267564 5/21/2008 MIDWEST TAPE 35.98 AP - 00267565 5/21/2008 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 190.98 AP - 00267567 5/21/2008 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA IT 490.00 AP - 00267568 5/21/2008 MOORE, MICHAEL 77.88 AP - 00267568 5/21/2008 MOORE, MICHAEL 112.43 AP - 00267569 5/21/2008 MOUNTAIN VIE~i' SMALL ENG REPAIR 426.05 AP - 00267570 5/21/2008 MUSCHAMP, GIRLIE 10.00 AP-00267571 5/21/2008 MWIVETERINARYSUPPLY 15,875.53 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 20 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pomait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P5$ Asenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267572 5/2]/2008 NAFFZIGER, MICHAEL 650.00 AP - 00267572 5/21/2008 NAFFZIGER, MICHAEL 326.30 AP - 00267574 5!21/2008 NEW COLOR 446.09 AP - 00267574 5/21/2008 NEW COLOR 130.38 AP - 00267575 5/21/2008 NEW IMAGE COMMERCIAL FLOORING 6,024.21 AP - 00267576 5/21/2008 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 160.00 AP - 00267577 5/21/2008 NINYO & MOORE 10,476.50 AP - 00267579 5/21/2008 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CALIFO 68.62 AP - 00267579 5/21/2008 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CALIFO 68.62 AP - 00267579 5/21/2008 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CALIFO 42.02 AP - 00267579 5/21/2008 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CALIFO 103.87 AP - 00267580 5/21/2008 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY TRAINING SERVICES 1,190.00 AP - 00267581 5/21/2008 OCLC INC 45.79 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 35.27 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 122.01 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 1,038.33 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 28.00 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 234.38 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 265.08 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 95.16 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 696.88 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 198.45 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 25.49 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 5.51 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 59.81 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 24.33 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 65.71 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT -90.00 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 90.00 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 30.16 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 59.01 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 81.95 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 1,196.23 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 182.98 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 41.96 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 44.77 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 171.11 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 8.79 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 269.78 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 23.69 AP - 00267582 5/21/2008 OFFICE DEPOT 219.56 AP - 00267583 5/21/2008 OLSEN, DORENE AND CLARENCE 40.00 AP - 00267584 5/21/2008 OMNITRANS 333.00 AP - 00267585 5/21/2008 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS INC. 770.41 AP - 00267585 5/21/2008 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS INC. 389.12 AP - 00267585 5/21/2008 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS INC. 146.54 AP - 00267585 5/21/2008 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS INC. 770.41 AP - 00267585 5/21/2008 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS INC. 770.41 AP - 00267585 5/21/2008 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS INC. 425.25 AP - 00267586 5/21/2008 ORONA, PATRICIA 400.00 AP - 00267587 5/21/2008 OWEN ELECTRIC INC 2,629.45 AP - 00267588 5/21/2008 PALLOTTQ, KRISTINA 54.54 AP - 00267589 5/21/2008 PATCHETT & ASSOCIATES 12,796.92 AP - 00267590 5/21/2008 PATHFINDER ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENI 2,650.00 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 21 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Pornait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P59 Aeenda Check Re>?ister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267592 5/21/2008 PEP BOYS 75.41 AP - 00267592 5/21/2008 PEP BOYS 8.61 AP - 00267592 5/21/2008 PEP BOYS 11.56 AP - 00267592 5/21/2008 'PEP BOYS 66.71 AP - 00267593 5/21/2008 PEREZ, HECTOR 40.00 AP - 00267594 5/21/2008 PERVO PAINT CO 2,181.83 AP - 00267595 5/21/2008 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 680.96 AP - 00267596 5/21/2008 PHONG, BRYAN 400.00 AP - 00267597 5/21/2008 PIONEER MANUFACTURING 8.73 AP - 00267598 5/21/2008 PIP PRINTING 972.50 AP - 00267599 5/21/2008 PIRANHA POOL & SPA CONSTRUCTORS INC 250.00 AP - 00267602 5/21/2008 POUK AND STEINLE INC. 23,453.92 AP - 00267603 5/21/2008 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 22.80 AP - 00267604 5/21/2008 PREVITI, JAMES ],000.00 AP - 00267605 5/21/2008 PRICE, CATHERINE 500.00 AP - 00267606 5/21/2008 PRIDE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS INC 99.50 AP - 00267607 5/21/2008 PRO-PLANET INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 320.45 AP - 00267608 5/21/2008 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 191.02 AP - 00267608 5/21/2008 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 204.83 AP - 00267608 5/21/2008 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 308.65 AP - 00267608 5/21/2008 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 221.92 AP - 00267608 5/21/2008 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 685.64 AP - 0026761 I 5/21/2008 R AND H THEATRICALS 4,710.00 AP - 002676]2 5/21/2008 RACKED AND READY STEEL AND ALUMINUM 92.67 AP - 00267613 5/21/2008 RAETECH 13,576.50 AP-00267613 5/21/2008 RAETECH 3,187.00 AP - 00267614 5/21/2008 RAMFUNKSHUS 4,000.00 AP - 00267615 5/21/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 200.00 AP - 00267616 5/21/2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUL 10.00 AP - 00267617 5/21/2008 RANDOM HOUSE INC 35.39 AP - 00267618 5/21/2008 RAPP, SCOTT 81.82 AP - 00267618 5/21/2008 RAPP, SCOTT 96.93 AP - 00267619 5/21/2008 RCPFA 8,061.22 AP - 00267620 5/21/2008 RELIABLE GRAPHICS 195.89 AP - 00267620 5/21/2008 RELIABLE GRAPHICS 137.38 AP - 00267620 5/21/2008 RELIABLE GRAPHICS 54.95 AP - 00267621 5/21/2008 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 33.00 AP - 00267622 5/21/2008 RMA GROUP 986.25 AP - 00267623 5/21/2008 ROBLES, RAMON 72.00 AP - 00267625 5/21/2008 RUBBER STAMPS N STUFF 60.03 AP - 00267627 5/21/2008 SAFELITE GLASS CORP 172.78 AP - 00267628 5/21/2008 SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY 433.72 AP - 00267628 5/21/2008 SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY 68.80 AP - 00267629 5/21/2008 SAN ANTONIO MATERIALS 310.80 AP - 00267630 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTRC 336.00 AP - 00267630 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTRC 448.00 AP - 00267630 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTR( 336.00 AP - 00267631 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO CTY DEPT OF PUBLIC HEAL 294.00 AP - 00267632 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO CTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 36,285.00 AP - 00267633 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 2,121,717.00 AP - 00267633 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 9,569.00 AP - 00267634 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 186.83 AP -00267635 5/21/2008 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT ]0,922.37 AP -00267637 5/21/2008 SCHNEiDERWENT, KAREN 41.00 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 22 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Asenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name ~ Amount AP - 00267638 5/21/2008 SF CONCRETE SPECIALIST 500.00 AP - 00267639 5/21/2008 SIEGFRIED, JERREMIE 17.73 AP - 00267640 5/21/2008 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 157.85 AP - 00267640 5/21/2008 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 1,480.49 AP - 00267640 5/21/2008 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 644.56 AP - 00267641 5/21/2008 SMIDERLE, BEA 800.00 AP - 00267643 5/21/2008 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 2,400.00 AP - 00267643 5/21/2008 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 700.00 AP - 00267644 5/21/2008 SOUNDZSKILZ ENTERTAINMENT INC 300.00 AP - 00267645 5/21/2008 SOURCE GRAPHICS 36.70 AP - 00267645 5/21/2008 SOURCE GRAPHICS 54.52 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 33.59 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.98 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.75 AP - 00267647 5/2U2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.37 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 116.55 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.66 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.95 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.93 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNL4 EDISON 88.1 S AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.39 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.98 AP - 00267647 5!21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267647 5/2 ]/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 87.79 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 117.33 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 133.42 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 187.09 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 99.42 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 630.77 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 111.06 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 67.99 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,840.49 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,419.62 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 52.97 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.41 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 127.72 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 519.63 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 130.54 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.98 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.83 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.75 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.80 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ] 6.82 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 912.39 AP - 00267647 5/2 1/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.36 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON t 8.39 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.26 AP - 00267647 5/2]/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.05 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 202.46 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.76 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.77 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.93 P60 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 23 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P61 Agenda Check Register 8/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.39 AP - 00267647 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.98 AP - 00267647 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 7.87 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFOR,\'IA EDISON 33.59 AP - 00267647 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 160.65 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.73 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 121.14 AP - 00267647 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.41 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.39 AP - 00267647 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.87 AP - 00267648 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,273.44 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.17 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 117.08 AP - 00267648 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12,033.43 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 45.54 AP - 00267648 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14,992.80 AP - 00267648 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,212.90 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,727.75 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 181.47 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,215.60 AP - 00267648 5/Z 1/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON , 10,20].20 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 994.22 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83,404.85 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFOINIA EDISON 44.24 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,868.67 AP - 00267648 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12,120.96 AP - 00267648 8/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19,429.89 AP - 00267648 5/21/2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.88 AP - 00267649 5/21/2008 SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS 276.00 AP - 00267650 8/21/2008 SPECTRA COMPANY 943.92 AP - 00267651 8/2]/2008 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 708.33 AP - 00267652 5/21/2008 STERICYCLE INC 445.53 AP - 00267652 8/21 /2008 STERICYCLE INC 445.60 AP - 00267653 8/21/2008 STITCHWEAR INC 1,025.26 AP - 00267653 8/21/2008 STITCHWEAR INC 943.27 AP - 00267654 5/21!2008 SUNSHINE GROWERS NURSERY INC 96.98 AP - 00267654 5/2]/2008 SUNSHINE GROWERS NURSERY INC S4.9S AP - 00267654 5/21/2008 SUNSHINE GROWERS NURSERY INC 129.30 AP - 00267688 5/21/2008 T MOBILE 200.00 AP - 00267656 8/21/2008 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 1,154.82 AP - 00267656 5/21/2008 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 1,727.22 AP - 00267656 5/21/2008 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 200.32 AP - 00267657 5/21/2008 TIME WARNER TELECOM 532.00 AP - 00267657 8/21/2008 TIME WARNER TELECOM 670.40 AP - 00267657 5/21/2008 TIME WARNER TELECOM 995.20 AP - 00267658 8/21/2008 TOMARK SPORTS INC 103.06 AP - 002676>8 8/21/2008 TOMARK SPORTS INC 796.65 AP - 00267659 8/21/2008 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 8,285.78 AP - 00267660 5/21/2008 TRAFFIC SPECIALTIES INC 3,081.65 AP - 00267661 8/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 8,669.20 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 11,018.73 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,357.39 AP - 00267661 8/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,928.08 AP - 00267661 8/2]/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 4,508.97 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 24 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA pgQ Asenda Check Resister 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 661.89 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 2,907.26 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 4,464.40 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 7,104.06 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 14,409.20 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 27,156.75 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 78,145.90 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 496.54 AP -00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 21,52].30 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 57.34 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 16,794.00 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 23,034.86 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 2,014.07 .4P - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 2,022.12 AP - 00267661 5/21/2008 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 4,154.92 AP - 00267662 5/21/2008 TUCKER, MARY ANN 44.12 AP - 00267663 5/21/2008 TUNCAY, BARBARA 138.84 AP - 00267664 5/21/2008 UAP DISTRIBUTION INC 1,568.06 AP - 00267664 5/21/2008 UAP DISTRIBUTION INC 1,242.93 AP - 00267664 5/2]/2008 UAP DISTRIBUTION INC 2,223.85 AP - 00267664 5/21/2008 UAP DISTRIBUTION INC 4,014.82 AP - 00267665 5/21/2008 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 154.50 AP - 00267666 5/21/2008 UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGY INC 797.13 AP - 00267666 5/21/2008 UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGY INC 570.26 AP - 00267667 5/21/2008 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P, 48,346.72 AP - 00267668 5/21/2008 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 627.48 AP - 00267669 5/21/2008 UNITED SI"CE SERVICES OF CA INC 132.71 AP - 00267669 5/21/2008 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 108.10 AP - 00267669 5/21/2008 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 126.74 AP - 00267670 5/21/2008 UNITED WAY 16.00 AP - 00267672 5/2]/2008 VANDERHAWK CONSULTING LLC 6,781.75 AP - 00267672 5/21/2008 VANDERHAWK CONSULTING LLC 2,848.00 AP - 00267673 5/21/2008 VERA, CAROLINE 146.45 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 33.72 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 34.79 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 19.58 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 21.70 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 33.72 AP-00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 67.45 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 34.04 AP-00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 22.00 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 33.72 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 151.38 AP-00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 21.37 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 33.72 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 134.94 AP - 00267674 5/21/2008 VERIZON 104.43 AP - 00267675 5/21/2008 VISTA PAINT 21.78 AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 21 ].89 AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 233.14 AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 101.59 AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 145.03 AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 1,802.14 AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 3,687.35 User: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 25 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 5/14/2008 through 5/27/2008 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/2]/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/2]/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267676 5/21/2008 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO AP - 00267677 5/21/2008 WARREN & CO INC, CARL AP - 00267677 5/21/2008 WARREN & CO INC, CARL AP - 00267677 5/21/2008 WARREN & CO INC, CARL AP - 00267677 5/21/2008 WARREN & CO INC, CARL AP - 00267677 5/21/2008 WARREN & CO INC, CARL AP - 00267677 5/21/2008 WARREN & CO INC, CARL AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 S/2 U2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267678 5/21/2008 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY AP - 00267680 5/21/2008 WEST PAYMENT CENTER AP - 00267681 5/21/2008 WILBERT, DAVID AP - 00267682 5/21/2008 WILLIAMS. STEVEN AP - 00267683 8/21/2008 WORD MILL PUBLISHING AP - 00267683 5/21/2008 WORD MILL PUBLISHING AP - 00267684 5/21/2008 YEE, LARRY AP - 00267685 5/21/2008 ZEE MEDICAL INC AP - 00267686 5/22/2008 MSA INLAND EMPIRE/DESERT CHAPTER AP - 00267687 5/22/2008 SVERLOW, GEORGE AP - 00267687 5/22/2008 SVERLOW, GEORGE Amount 421.47 1,639.49 200.89 431.00 119.61 388.30 -43.97 1,263.72 40.62 164.16 250.16 4,654.80 1,560.65 779.29 32.97 2,410.21 245.34 112.32 308.88 673.92 940.68 804.72 812.18 -43.34 426.26 500.00 173.50 500.00 527.32 179.78 34.72 145.14 1,211.30 72.49 279.23 1,489.53 90.28 -375.31 320.85 300.00 36.00 725.00 725.00 47.00 197.42 600.00 16.06 71.68 Total for Check ID AP: 6,167,373.40 Total for Entih~: 6,167,373.40 P63 Uscr: VLOPEZ -Veronica Lopez Page: 26 Current Date: 05/28/200 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 15:36:0 STAFF REPORT E.N2iINli;1'.RINCi DL?Pi\RTMTN'f Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineerr~ Shelley Hayes, Assistant Engineer j{k RANCHO C,,UCAMONGA Subject: REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS AND ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATE YARD, AS NON-RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CITY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council reject all bids received for the Compressed Natural Gas and Above Ground Fuel Tank improvement project at the City Corporate Yard, as non-responsive to the needs of the City. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on May 20, 2008, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $974,091.00. Only two bids were received and both bids significantly exceeded the Engineer's Estimate and budgeted amount, by more than thirty percent (30%). In addition, both bidders did not have direct Compressed Natural Gas experience, as required by the contract specifications. Staff proposes re-bidding the Compressed Natural Gas and Above Ground Fuel Tank portions of the project as two separate projects to encourage more competitive bids. The request to re-bid the two projects follows as a separate Consent Calendar item. This second bid solicitation should only add an additional thirty days to the original estimated completion date. Re fful~ ubmit~d / ~~ ' Mahdi Aluzri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:CB:SH/Is P64 Attachment ~u HILLSIDE ALM DST ~~^~VIL50 AVE 24TH ST ~ BANYAN T ¢ ^ ~ BANYAN BT ~Nnnn =^ 4 ASE LINE D ~~ ~^^na ~ ~~n ~ ~ ~ ~ YtURC ~ J STJ ~ p I a ~ 'O THILL BLVD w z w w Q ¢ F THI LVD ~ 3 h v 6 Z > m ~ 10500 CI I CENTER w ~ ~ ~ '~' 9TH 5 = w BNSF RR 8TH BT > 6TH ST P f~OJ ECT ONTARIO GTY LIMIT LOCATION ~G~ ~P ~~P ~O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATE YARD VICINITY MAP H' NTs BID $UMMAAV POR BID OPENWG MAV 20, 2008 AvvaRFNr LOW BIOOER ! COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS AND ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PR07ECT exp1RRR5fe n R AT THE CORPORATE CITY YARD P6TIOfATB EirVIXORIIERTAL arc. SURApemP.nr pP. OInT qO NIIT U01i XO O3Y URCf ptlONP1tOP COST AYO11M' COOT AYOUIT COii AtlOURr 10,000 G611On Convaull AST indutling 3 EA Offloading antl lrvstllalion of FUel Tenk antl $50,000.00 i150,00D.00 i16 <so.00 Ez35,z9D.oo f0],631.OD f350,903.00 A AppURerlance6 as shown M EOUipmenl Lisl B 3 EA Ground Level Fill $2,000.00 ia,OW.OD {5,536.00 1 Llas]8.00 f9,3M.W f36,500.00 nsi3 SOInB do i06e Umps Oft 8 EA Di6peR5ers nOuding Tnm end Hanging $3,000.00 E3<,WD.OD t],190.OO ESO,WD.00 f6,eM.W !6],300.00 C 1 ~ Install single Hose CNG Fast F61 Stliw and $5 000 00 is ppD DD ta6 a9 Curbed Island , . , . , 1.0o [66,691.00 sapedp.Da [63,900.00 p E 5 EA Install (4)HOSa CNG slaw F61 $NIIC(IS $2,500.00 {12,300.00 i14,O10.o0 1 6]o,ISO.OD ite,9oo.DO {96,500.00 1 EA CNG Cwnpressw $kltl (Cwnplet ASSemdy) $260,000.00 f]fO,ODD.Dp ^]o,6oom {]]0.600.00 ^9apOD.00 n99,9o0.00 F 1 EA CNG Gas Dryar Skid (CanplOte ASSemby) $50,000.00 f30,0.'V.00 f33,<M.OO t33 iN.00 f<5 ]SS CO i05 ]85 OD G , . . . . R 3 EA CNG storage Sphere (Complete ASSembty) $12,000.00 s5g00o.00 t46aao.DD s13e,3ao.DO [53.100.00 1 SI59.3W.W 1 1 FJ] Install NOw6t Fuel Fltler $3,000.00 [3,000.00 psea.oD A,5eD.00 tz3p13.OD 53],n3.00 552 TON Canvale Pavement rCU SB5 00 w6 930 oo 0 t > 1 in d ng Sawartting . , . 9 .o t59,5N,CO 2106.00 1 [50313.00 BB6 TON Coretma Crashed Aggregate Bess 545.00 CN.3]0.00 665.35 1 f96 T15.10 s35 oo f36 310 00 2 , . , . J 441 SF COtSWa P.D.C. Ribbon Gutter $15.00 f4a15.00 ns.00 1 66,615.00 {36.00 1 nt,ozsm 614 SF COn5Wa 6'iNrk P.C.C. SIOb 2].00 i3,90e.00 tt2W 61D,130.W t1e.CO tls t9x.M 4 , 55 $F Install Cobblestone (Groutd)DL9sipaler 550.00 fS,T50.00 te].pb 165.00 N fIDD DD LS SOD 00 5 . . , . 5 103 E4 Instb Bo3aA per Detll $300.00 t30,sao.M [333.00 1 i%,939.00 iSas.DO I 660,335.00 3962 SF Remora Portico of Evsung P.C.C. Ribbon $20 00 O9 T Gutter 8 P.C.C. Slab induct Sa . .wo.o0 62.90 1 su,36ilo tlm 1 i3L696.00 Renwva and Dispose Existing Fuel Tanks d ~ end Dispensers indutlNg Plug, ilitue, end gB,OW.00 f33,D00.00 {[6,605.00 551 630.00 61 a 950 W sb] OOD W Remora Portiass of Fuel Lines. And Dispose , , . , . 8 d Wastes 1 235 $F Cwlslua SWaural slab lv A$T Rldumng u• $0 {3 00]30 { q , SaM Base . , 39.001 S35,BIS.CO [30.001 f<69911.Op 163 $F D009Wtl SWduml SWb for CNG Skid $2 00 5336 00 {39 001 ]0 intlWinB Sentl Bese . . . H,1TS.00 f95.oo f15A63.o0 21 SF ConSWCtSWaurel $IaO for CNG Gas Dryer $2 00 H3 00 M I1 inducting Santl Bese . . 9.OO 66M.C0 tlsD.oo {3.150.00 CwssWa SWaurel slab for CNG Sphere 12 133 SF intludulg Santl Base 52.00 5366.00 t39.9p {3,691.60 ftm.obl 513,30D.00 InataR Signe !or Dispensing Operetlons, 1 ~, Unauperviaed Opentlorb, General Safety, Metered Identification, end $3.$00.00 f3$W.OO !5,035.00 E5,635.M L3,M0.M t3,fO0.W 13 Miacellaneou¢ $i n c 9 LF Cw¢tma 9'Canwele Cub to Malch 14 Existvtg Intlutling Remwals gg0.00 i3ao.DO [35.001 s315.D0 sloD.oD 6900.00 353 SF Remove brisling POdions of A.C. Pavement $2.00 no6.D0 fa 691 s9v.e0 slo DO gs3o 00 IS . . 6 ~ Install Light Pele, Fixture, Electric $3 000 00 613 000 0 ] t l6 Outlet and Fo9ti , . , . 0 t 4].DD 66,966.60 t].5DD.9D iw,aeo.ao InatW Untlerground Conduit & Piping 11 1 ~ Indudin Trench R< air & Pull Boxes $33,551.50 !33,35160 (69,513.001 {49,313.00 fa3,500.00 {63600.00 1 EA td14' Long Concrete Mchorcd Wheel 5600 00 s4eo D0 5391 001 18 St P . . . [391.00 2600.001 izoD.aD 2 ~ IrttB Emcrgcnry Shutdown switch and $1 000 00 63 ooo N 19 Si Ineludin Removals , . , . 63.330.00 F,660.ro ft,sDO.oo 93.DDO.CO 1 ~ Inatll Fire Extinguisher and lacked $61 00 H1 a0 20 Enclosure with a Rahn of 3-A 90-8 C , . w66.oD 6666.00 6660.06] !350.60 Striping Including Sendbleadng t 1 ~ Remove Exis[in !1,200.00 9L300.o0 Q.5>3.00 i>sT3.00 H,900.00 !6006.00 21 e Obtdn Multi Agenry Permit Approvals 1 ~ Including $ubmitrd¢, Engineering $15,000.00 SIS,DDO.oO ta6 DDO.aD sg6 oaD aD f] eoD DO t] eoD oD Drawings, and Attending Two , , . , . , . 22 Prcrnnatrue[i9n Mcetin a IvWI TRAK Key PO6 PotleeW entl Pelaceu P 'etin6 ~bya[em 6' F4e1 Meneiement Reyped 2 i ~ ncluGni 6ortwere UpP~tle fm 3 Seau for Ky 53 000.00 86,000.DO {16 313.00 !33 /36 00 f] 503 W i15 W0 D0 POS ACCeu ac Ciry YvG end lne[W Trek K%POB , , , . , . . . on EvetinB PatlaeW Por Sire flan R in APPendv L 23 383 LP Join Existing antl Extend Oas Line $45 00 {]] 335 00 S39 W 29 mClOdin Tmnch Re er . , . . 533,59].00 190.00 i3],5]i.OO 1000 Od antl Diapoec of Oae end Diesel $L00 O ooD ao [2601 iz 000 00 !36 1 25 Prcduc[ , . , . 0 [3.500.00 26 4l3 (F) CY E%Cavetion $2$.00 !11.033.00 i39.aD {10,]30.00 {60.001 !30,300.00 2] 1 L$ Elccvicel MadJCatiOn¢ Ond Upgrades $3D,000.00 f3D,CW.00 ESL350.65 951.356.65 f03,BOD.03 [03,000.00 154] CF Concrete for S[ructurd Slabs including $22 00 {39 036 00 !30 30 2$ IXcavation . , . . {66,0]4.10 [10.00 fI5,tl0.00 29 5908 LBS $[cd for $[ruC[ural slate $1.00 i3,900.W {1.39 0,916.]3 tL50 f0,06RW 'TOTAL iafe.mi.ao i1,3at,39a.9f !16036][.06 P66 Page 1 STAFF REPORT ENCi1N11]121NCi DEPARTMENT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City ManagerA/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer v5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD TO BE FUNDED FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2008 TAX ALLOCATION BOND FUNDS AND CITY FUND 25 CAPITAL RESERVES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the plans and specifications for the Above Ground Fuel Tank Improvement Project at the City Yard and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This retrofit project will decommission underground fuel tanks and install above ground fuel tanks at the City Corporate Yard. Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per Article 19, Section 15301(a) of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate is $466,812 including a 10% contingency and costs for printing and materials testing. Legal advertising is scheduled for June 10 and June 17, 2008 and a bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 unless extended by Addenda. Respectfully submitted, ~'/~/ ~~j.~ Mahdi Alzuri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:CSB P67 Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution P68 ~u FtILLBIDE ALM t D BT ILBO AVE 24TH ST li < G ~_ BANYAN T N ~ BANYAN BT ~ w J ~\ ~p N = I Ci~ .o I ¢ PAP Z a O ~~~ ~~~no ~m~ ~ o ~~ ¢ ASE LINE ~ w z w U _ ¢ ~' nuRC BT R v ~ a ~ D ~ ~ ~ FO FULL BLVD ? ¢ ¢ ~ TF11 LVD ~ o ~ h w Q a~ ~ 10500 cl CENTER 6 w ^ ~ _ ^ ARROW E > > TF1 BT ~ _ ~ w BNBF RR w 8Th BT w > 6Th ST ~ Z w w = > U = 4Tt15T PROJECT ONTARIO CITY LIMIT LOCATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT TB:E CITY CORPORATE YARD VICINITY MAP rrrs P69 RESOLUTION NO. ~ $ ~ ~~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 24, 2008, sealed bids or proposals for the "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" capital improvement project in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the offce of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of the ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 2 Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. P70 Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 3 forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder's Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. P71 RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 4 The wgrk is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Offce of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the offce of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to'the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for the "ABOVE GROUND FUEL TANK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" may be directed to: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4069. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Dated this 4'h day of June, 2008 Publish Dates: June 10 and June 17, 2008 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 4'h day of June, 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk P72 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 5 Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4'" day of June, 2008. Executed this 4'h day of June, 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P73 ADVERTISE ON: June 10 and June 17, 2008 STAFF REPORT EN(i1N l?ftRING DI_~:I?~V2"PMLNT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer RANCHO CUCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD TO BE FUNDED FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2008 TAX ALLOCATION BOND FUNDS AND CITY FUND 25 CAPITAL RESERVES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the plans and specifications for the Compressed Natural Gas at the City Yard Project and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This project will construct a Compressed Natural Gas fueling station for City fleet vehicles at the City Corporate Yard on Ninth Street. Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per Article 19, Section 15301(a) of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate is $635,114 including a 10% contingency and costs for printing and materials testing. Legal advertising is scheduled for June 10 and June 17, 2008, and a bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2008, unless extended by Addenda. Respectfully submi e + ~~ Mahdi Alzuri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:CSB P74 Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution LOCATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATE YARD VICINITY MAP i rrrs P76 RESOLUTION NO. O $- ~ Q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD ". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 24, 2008, sealed bids or proposals for the "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" capital improvement project in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided far the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of the COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD ". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. P77 RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 2 Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work dorie under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or joumeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set P78 RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 3 forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder's Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable taws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 4 The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for the "COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE CITY YARD" may be directed to: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4069. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 4'h day of June, 2008 Publish Dates: June 10 and June 17, 2008 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 4`h day of June, 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk P79 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City P80 RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 5 Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4'" day of June, 2008. Executed this 4~h day 4f June, 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: June 10 and June 17, 2008 Memorandum DATE: June 3, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Mahdi Alzuri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development~~ BY: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer (J3 SUBJECT: Removal of consent calendar item In Item to remove: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVE. AND FROM 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BLVD. TO BASE LINE RD. TO BE FUNDED FROM PROPOSITION 1B FUNDS Reason: This item is on the June 4, 2008, City Council agenda for authorization to advertise with a bid opening on June 24 and award date of July 2, 2008. Proposition 1 B funding for this project is available beginning July of FY 2008-2009. This overlay project on Victoria Park Lane could start this summer however most of the work would occur during the first three weeks of school and three schools would be affected by the project. Staff recommends pulling the item from the agenda tonight and will bring it back to City Council in the spring of 2009. This will allow for construction to start earlier in the summer and finish before school starts in late August. STAFF REPORT ENGINI:SI9.RING DftPA12TMHN"P Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer I/'j P81 RANCHO C,UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD TO BE FUNDED FROM PROPOSITION 1 B FUNDS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the plans and specifications for the Victoria Park Lane Pavement Rehabilitation Project from Fairmont Way to Rochester Avenue and 300' east of Day Creek Boulevard to Base Line Road and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Ndtice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This is a pavement rehabilitation project to cold plane and overlay portions of Victoria Park Lane with asphalt rubber pavement. Work will be phased to complete the sections near three schools first and finish these portions before school starts in the fall. Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per Article 19, Section 15301(a) of the CEQA guidelines. The Engineer's estimate is $649,810 including a 10% contingency and costs for printing and materials testing. Legal advertising is scheduled for June 10 and June 17, 2008 and a bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 unless extended.by Addenda. Respectfully sub~mAitte ~ //~ ` ~v>2 Mahdi Alzuri Deputy City Manager/Community Developmeht MA:CSB Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution P82 VICINITY MAP VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVE. AND FROM 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BLVD. TO BASE LINE RD. PROJECT LOCATION ~~ W ~ ~ ~ r.~ ~~ ~ Y i 5 ~~Y ~ ^~ E ~ _ -~ _ .~fn ~ U 1 ~.2 ~Q S :_ - r re"~ f > \ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ f Q e -t-'; I- Q 7 I~ > s'> Almond Rd "' "" _ (`' -, ~ `~ ~ Q ~,;, ~' yQ r'1 ~t W ) ~ re=f ter' - Hillside Rd ~ A ~ '~ ' n ~' -~I n ~ /„~' L'`1 V ~ ~~ ~ i u -IN i:r L,i mbamA+ ~ t ~..r...f W i rn ~ ' :Wilson Av C !I~l eLL LL ~~~ ' ~ ~ ~ID ~ T: Banyan St -~ ^ C ~W ~ ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~. ~ ~w ... ri " u , ~ e - in`~ = t `- Route 30 ,, i,u'fuu ~L r ~- '19th St ` ,_,_ _ -" m ~ ~,f ~ _ ~ ~ ' ' ighland Av Base Line ~ ,uU ~ il ~~~, r~~ r,.-, - i~~ ase~tine-Rd g 931 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~l~y ~~~ "R:~ ~- Foothi CBI ~ ~„ Foo~tull Bi=J- Arro~~.#t ~f I ' ~ ~ I - -r~ ~,~~q r'`~.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ row Rt 8thSt=4- I i,» ~~ _~-~ 1 - I - -- 70Freew~ ~ ~b ~~~~'i I q ~ T~ `---~ ' d IBt$-,Std ~i_~- I I j ;-., ~.~'¢'' .~ " c ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 4th St ~' =~~p•-y--`~ -~-s - ~ '°r-~-10 Frees ~ @ ~ O m ~ t ffiffiE Y m =_ I~' x a = _ ~ ~ w r P83 RESOLUTION NO. dg' /D / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and .specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for "VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE .IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Offce of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 24, 2008, sealed bids or proposals for the "VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD" capital improvement project in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of the VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 2 per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations. to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five. or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. P84 Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 3 Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to Tabor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder's Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or Specialty Class "C-12" (Paving Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law P85 RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 4 (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for the "VICTORIA PARK LANE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM FAIRMONT WAY TO ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 300' EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO BASE LINE ROAD" may be directed to: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer at (909) 477-2740, ext. 4069. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 4~" day of June, 2008 Publish Dates: June 10 and June 17, 2008 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 4'h day of June, 2008. P86 Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor RESOLUTION NO. June 4, 2008 Page 5 ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4`h day of June, 2008. Executed this 4`h day of June, 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P87 ADVERTISE ON: June 10 and June 17, 2008 STAFF REPORT CITP CLERKS OFFICE Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager Subject: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NOVEMBER 4, 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RANCHO C,UCAMONGA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the attached Resolutions pertaining to the November 4, 2008 election. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Attached you will find Resolutions relating to the November 4, 2008 election. It is recommended that the Council adopt the following: o A Resolution Calling for the General Municipal Election to be held November 4, 2008 for the positions of two City Council seats, one City Clerk seat and one City Treasurer seat, and to consolidate said election with the County of San Bernardino. o A Resolution approving the regulations for candidates running for elective office. After the Council approves the Resolutions, I will proceed with the San Bernardino County Registrar's office to place these matters on the November 4, 2008 ballot. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Res ectfully s fitted, ebra J. Ada ,CMC City Clerk/Records Manager P88 Attachments (as noted) P89 RESOLUTION NO. 08~ //O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 4T" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to General Law Cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on Tuesday, November 4'", 2008, for the election of Municipal Officers. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1: That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered, held in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, on Tuesday, the 4'h day of November 2008, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of said City for the purpose of electing two members of the City Council for the full term of four years, one City Clerk for the full term of four years, and one City Treasurer for the full term of four years. SECTION 2: That the General Municipal Election hereby called for the date hereinbefore specified shall be and is hereby ordered consolidated with the Presidential Election to be held on said date within the City. The proceedings, polling places, precincts, precinct board members and officers for the General Municipal Election hereby called shall be the same as those provided for said Presidential Election. The Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County is hereby requested to order the consolidation of the General Municipal Election hereby called with said Presidential Election, and said Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election and said election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election and one formal ballot, namely the ballot used at said Presidential Election shall be used. Said Registrar of Voters shall supervise the canvass of said returns for said General Municipal Election and transmit said returns to the City Council of said City which shall thereafter declare the results thereof. Resolution No. 08-"'* Page 2 of 2 SECTION 3: The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall reimburse said County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is directed to forward, without delay, to said Registrar of Voters, a certified copy of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 4"' day of June 2008. Executed this 5'"day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. P90 Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P91 RESOLUTION NO. 08=/// A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATES STATEMENT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4T" 2008 WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any city may adopt a charge against candidates pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidates' statement. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1: General Provisions. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November4'h, 2008, may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. Such statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. Such statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. Such statement shall be filed in the Offce of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. Such statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. SECTION 2: Additional Materials. No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package. SECTION 3: Payment. The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidates statements filed pursuant to the Elections Code, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance his or her pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter's pamphlet. The estimate isjust an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another P92 Resolution No. 08-*" Page 2 of 3 election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidate for additional actual expense or refund any excess paid depending on the final actual cost. In the event of underpayment, the Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued. SECTION 5: That all previous resolutions establishing Council policy on payment for candidates statements are repealed. SECTION 6: That this Resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 41h, 2008, and shall then be repealed. Please see the /ollowing page (or formal adoption, certilcation and signatures STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: June 4, 2008 To: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director/City Manager From: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk/Records Manager ~~;~-, n _ ~~ ~? RANCHO cUCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Agency/Fire Board/City Council direct staff to proceed with the biennial review of their Conflict of Interest Code. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the Political Reform Act, all local governments and agencies must update their Conflict of Interest Code in 2008. Prior to July 1, 2008, all Agency/Fire District/City staff will be notified of the pending update and will be requested to review any changes to designated positions, such as changes in title or duties, or creation or elimination of positions. Pursuant to state law, after a thorough review has been made, the City Clerk's office will bring this item back to the Agency/Fire Board/City Council prior to October 1, 2008 to propose any appropriate amendments as needed. If amendments are needed, they must be approved by the Agency/Fire Board/City Council prior to December 30, 2008. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitt~ed,^ _ Debra J. A ams, CMC City Clerk/Records Manager P93 STAFF REPORT ADnfINISTRdTIVE SERVICES DEPARTITTIENT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: John Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrativ~e Services By: Manuel Pilonieta, Information Services Manager fJ' Dawn Haddon, C.P.M., CPPO, Purchasing Manager ~' P94 RANCHO C,UCAMONGA Subject: APPROVAL TO AWARD A PURCHASE FROM DELL, INC. TO PROVIDE ONE (1) LOT OF STORAGE AREA NETWORK EQUIPMENT AND MAINTENANCE, UTILIZING WESTERN STATES CONTRACTING ALLIANCE (WSCA) CONTRACT NUMBER A63307, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $120,545, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 1001209-5605 (CAPITAL OUTLAY-COMPUTER EQUIPMENT) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the award purchase from Dell, Inc. to provide one (1) lot of Storage Area Network equipment and maintenance, utilizing the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) contract number A63307, in the total amount of $120,545, to be funded from account number 1001209-5605 (Capital Outlay-Computer Equipment). BACKGROUND The City has standardized on Equallogic Storage Area Networks, manufactured by Dell Inc., since these units meet our performance requirements in acost-effective manner. The additional units are necessary in order to meet current and future data storage needs. The Information Services Division provided specifications to Purchasing which were then sent directly to Dell for a request for quote. Dell responded with manufacturer direct pricing utilizing the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) number A63307. In reviewing the response the Information Services and Purchasing staff have determined that utilizing the WSCA contract is the most advantageous method of procurement. Respectfully submitted; i ~: Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services STAFF REPORT ENGINEER ING DEPARTMENT ~~ Date: June 4, 2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Carlo Cambare, Engineer Tech Subject: APPROVAL OF RELEASE OF REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 4270, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution releasing the real property improvement contract and lien agreement for Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 4270 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the Resolution approving same and cause same Resolution to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS As real property improvement contract and lien agreement for Parcel Map 4270 was approved by City Council on August 21, 1985, and recorded as document 85-203644. The agreement was for the construction of missing off-site street improvements including one-half landscaped median island on Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the property to be developed. The missing off-site street improvements have been constructed thus eliminating the need for real property improvement contract and lien agreement. Respectfully submittgd , ~ .~~~ ~~ Mahdi Aluzri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:CC/rlc P95 Attachments P96 RESOLUTION N0. (~ ~}~' ~~~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING OF REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 4 OF .PARCEL MAP 4270, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, adopted Resolution No. 85-203644 accepting a real property improvement contract and lien agreement for Parcel Map 4270; and WHEREAS, the improvements required under the lien agreement have been constructed and said real property improvement contract and lien agreement is no longer required. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby release said real property improvement contract and lien agreement from Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 4270, and the Mayor is authorized to sign this resolution and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause Release of Lien to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. P97 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DEPT 8028 •8016 •8017 801 8013' 8030 • • •8033 • 2 - • 8028 8027 • • 9 •8026 8027 8028 802 8037 8001 • • ~ • 8038 • • 8040 8041 8040 8041 8036 • 8087 • • • • • 6043 8050 8051 8054 8055 8052 8046 • 8053 ~ i • • • • • • • 8057 • 8013 • 6067 9091 9105 9119 9135 9157 9173 9187 9203 • 9215 9231 8243 9263 • • • • • • • • • • • • 9172 9292 • • • 9300 • FOOTHILL s181 • VICINITY MAP (not to scale) STAFF REPORT - IXGIVEERI\G DEPARTMENT ~I RANCHO Date: June 4, 2008 C,UCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer `~~'- Subject: APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 (03-117, A1) TO AGREEMENT NO. 03-117 BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (DISTRICT) WHICH PROVIDES REFINANCING OF DEBT FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ETIWANDA/SAN SEVAINE CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 (03-117, A1) to Agreement No. 03-117 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District) which provides refinancing of debt for improvements on the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Creek Improvement project. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Agreement No. 03-117 was signed in 2002 by the City and the District and provides for the District to utilize the City's current and future Regional Mainline Drainage Fees in the Etiwanda/San Sevaine area for improvements to the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Mainline Drainage System. The City agreed to pay its Etiwanda/San Sevaine Mainline Drainage fees it collected to the District until the year 2019, being the year that a loan from the Bureau of Reclamation would be paid off. In 2007 the District paid off its $19.2 million (plus interest during construction) loan from the Bureau of Reclamation and refinanced with repayment bonds totaling $23,845,000. Had the Bureau of Reclamation loan remained in effect for the duration of the loan, the total dollars paid the Bureau would have been $24,800,000. The savings is mainly due to the accrual of a high interest rate on the Bureau loan. The City's obligation to continue to pay the District these Regional Mainline Drainage assessment fees shall continue until 2021, which is when the bonds will be paid off. Upon completion of the project and the bonds repayment completed, City's obligation for contribution of assessment funding shall be fulfilled. Respectfully submitted ~'' ~~~ ~ ~ Mahdi Aluzri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:MO/Is P98 Attachments p ev }O A Fliwandt ~ ~ Q A ~ n e ~' 0 a I-IS 1 1 1 I I I lI 1 1 >~ 1 1 1 1 1 I a I n ~^ ~ 1 ~ a" g It ~. g I :-I I~ ~~ I~ 9 I ^N I < I O ~' I ( ~~j11 ~Y i 6 E 0. l7- r 5g5 F L~ 1 ~~ I I 1' 1 I 1 IN I~ I~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~aI Y Iw. ~~ ~~ ~C b ~~ ~ C ~ ~ 9 E. M Y G rI ~ /1 I 1 p~ C C ~pp m C 5' ~' ~ 'I s i I S ~N ~ ~ ~. / : N k ~~ ~ ~ Fi ~ ~ ~ G r8 e &.a A, ~• a d ~ Q . __ _ T~~ ~, '~~~ N M t ~~ ~ ~: Q N• g. /. P100 StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager Manuel Pilonieta, Information Systems Manager Dawn Haddon, C.P.M., CPPO, Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: APPROVE AND AWARD A CONTRACT TO RADIO SATELLITE INTEGRATORS (RSII AS PER RFP 07/08-200 TO FURNISH AND INSTALL A CITYWIDE AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION (AVL) SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $443,000.00 TO BE FUNDED FROM THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS: 1712001-5200 - $290,000.00 (VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND - O&M) AND 3289501-5207 - $153,000.00 (FIRE DISTRICT.CAPITAL RESERVE FUND - O&M/CAPITAL SUPPLIES); AND AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER $]53.000.00 FROM ACCOUNT NO. 3289501-5603 (CAPITAL OUTLAY -EQUIPMENT) TO ACCOUNT NO. 3289501-5207 (O&M/CAPITAL SUPPLIES) TO FACILITATE THE PURCHASE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve and award a contract for Radio Satellite Integrators (RSI) as per RFP 07/08-200 to furnish and install a citywide Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) System, in the amount of $443,000.00 to be funded from the following Accounts: 1 71 200 1-5200 (Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund - O&M) - $290,000.00 and 3289501-5207 (Fire District Capital Reserve Fund - O&M/Capital Supplies) - $153,000.00; and authorization to transfer $153,000.00 from Account No. 3289501-5603 (Capital Outlay - Equipment) to Account No. 3289501-5207 (O&M/Capital Supplies) to facilitate the purchase. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS One of the City Council goals for FY2007-2008 is to implement a citywide integrated Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) System to enhance the ability to increase safety and productivity, efficiently monitor various city operations, and improve service to citizens. The AVL system will provide real-time location and status data on customized AVL mapping workstations using P101 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report Purchase of AVL System the City's existing GIS map data. Users will interact with the system through GIS mapping tools as well as customized reporting applications. The AVL system will establish a wireless gateway between the vehicle fleet and the base center using of wireless communication system. The RSI AVL solution consists of in-vehicle equipment and base applications and equipment. The in-vehicle equipment is a self-contained unit integrating GPS location and sensor technologies, as well as wireless communication, allowing for timely data transmission between the field and the center. It can be connected to any devices or sensors including lights, ignition, odometers, doors open/closed, sweeper up/down, alarms, etc. In addition, any variety of in- vehicle computing devices such as laptops or public safety Mobile Data.Computer (MDC) can be connected to the in-vehicle unit and mounted for a driver interface to the system in the future. Some advantages to implementing the use of an AVL system is to maximize effectiveness of dispatching crews for various public works issues, ability to manage emergency resources by locating and dispatching the nearest unit, as well as customized reports for resource allocation and vehicle function monitoring (i.e. ignition, idling, alarms, sensors, etc.) which can be archived or maintained as needed and later analyzed. Phase I of equipment implementation is slated for all City Fleet and Fire District staff vehicles. AVL equipment for emergency response vehicles and appazatus that utilized MDC's is currently being assessed in association with the Emergency Dispatch System and Call Triage Request for Proposal. Upon completion of the request for proposal that the City is currently engaged in, Phase II will address AVL utilization on emergency Fire vehicles now equipped with Tiburon MDC's and integration of AVL with call triage and emergency dispatch. Administrative Services has taken the lead in the AVL Request for Proposal. A team of representatives from IS, GIS, Purchasing, Building and Safety, Engineering and Fire performed the initial review of the submitted proposals. A short list was developed and two top candidates were selected as finalists. The two finalists were invited to present technical demonstrations to the Team. RSI was selected as the final candidate and site visits were conducted. Purchasing then solicited a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from RSI. After the BAFO was reviewed by staff, it is now recommended that the contract be awarded to RSI as they have met the scope of work and the overall objectives for the AVL system. R 'tted, John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services P102 STAFF REPORT ENGINEERING DEPdRTMENT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development By: Trina Valdez, Public Services Technician II RANCHO C,UCAMONGA Subject: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE CASH DEPOSIT AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2003-00719 LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY PACIFIC GLOBE, INC. RECOMMENDATION The required improvements for DRC2003-00719 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Cash Deposit. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS As a condition of approval of completion of DRC2003-00719, located on the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue, the applicant was required to complete improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Cash Deposit. Developer: 12340 Highland Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Release: Faithful Performance Bond # 661114087 $79,200.00 (Bond No.) Accept: Maintenance Cash Deposit # CR117267 $7,920.00 (Receipt No.) Respectfully subjnitted -"~ Fc:~ . ~/ Mahdi Aluzri Deputy City Manager/Community Development MA:TLV Attachment(s) P~ P103 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE FRCaJ~CT ~I1~E B YA ST. w 210 ¢ FREEWAY H1Gf-1LAND AVE o P-L o Q !-~~ J ~ `~,/ n' BASELrNE ROAD ~' <cQ' x w ~ w ,~ Q a=00~'I-ifL~ BLVD. ~C VICI][~tITY MAP NTS City Of Item: DRC2003-00719 Rancho Cucamonga Title: VICINITY MAP ENGINEERING EXHIBIT: 1 bNISION _ P104 RESOLUTION NO. OS' ~~.3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2003-00719 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for DRC2003-00719 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. STAFF REPORT ENGINEERING DEP_9RTMENT Date: June 4,2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Managennr/Community Development By: Curt Billings, Associate Engineer f;] Shelley Hayes, Assistant Engineer ~~.~. P105 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Subject: ACCEPT THE BAKER AVENUE GRADE CROSSING, NORTH OF 8TH STREET PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. 07-089 AS COMPLETE, RETAIN THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AS A GUARANTEE BOND, RELEASE THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE ACTING CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $199,619.20 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept the Baker Avenue Grade Crossing, North of 8~' Street project, Contract No. 07-089, as complete, authorize the Acting City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, retain the Faithful Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $182,650.00 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $19,961.92, 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $199,619.20. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Acting City Engineer. The Baker Avenue Grade Crossing, North of 8`~ Street project scope of work consisted of cold planing, removal and replacement of existing pavement, asphalt overlay, construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, storm drain pipe, catch basin, headwall, rockscape, handrail, striping and signs. Pertinent information of the project is as follows: - Budgeted Amount: $250,000.00 - Account Numbers: - Engineer's Estimate: 1124303-5650/ 1568124-0 $295,460.00 - City Council's Approval to Advertise: May 2, 2007 - Publish dates for local paper: May 9 and May 15, 2007 - Bid Opening: June 5, 2007 9 Contract Award Date: June 20, 2007 P106 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: Accept Baker Ave Grade Crossing n/o 8`" St. Project June 4, 2008 Page 2 - Low Bidder: - Contract Amount: - 10% Contingency: - Final Contract Amount: - Difference in Contract Amount: Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. $182,650.00 $18,256.00 $199,619.20 $ 16,969.20 (9.29%) The net increase in the total cost of the project is a result of four (4) Contract Change Orders, including Contract Change Order No. 4 (Balancing Statement). The notable changes that were significant to the increase of the Contract provided for the contractor to furnish and install additional asphalt pavement, asphalt pavement removal and the modification of a manhole. The Balancing Statement accounted for some minor quantity changes. Respectfully~sub®m` fitted ~~~ Mahdi Aluzri Deputy City Manager/Community Development WJO:CB:SH/Is Attachments P107 VICINITY MAP BAKER STREET WIDENING AT R.R.-XING NORTH OF 8TH STREET PROJECT LOCATION > , ~ ~.. .~ ~ a ~ ::;.Q Almond Rd _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ; -~i ~ HillsideRd ~ -- - veseem, s ~ .~. m ~ I; •' V,:,; Banyan St -' ' -- ~ ~'i 18th St - .:~ I Base Line Rd ~ Foothill 6l Arrow Rt Bth St 10 Freeway Q gtFi Sf ~ Q o.. ,o ~ ~ ' a ¢ > 'a a a e ~' Q ~ ~ ~ _ = Q '~ase Line Rd' Foothill BI Arrow Rt 4th St > Q m 9C 1.0 Freeway Y (p ~ W ~~e~~ may: 'ilson Av Route 30 P108 RESOLUTION NO. ~ S-l~'j~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE BAKER AVENUE GRADE CROSSING, NORTH OF 8TH STREET PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. 07-089 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the Baker Avenue Grade Crossing, North of 8th Street project, Contract No. 07-089, has been completed to the satisfaction of the Acting City Engineer; and complete. WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the Acting City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. P109 ORDINANCE NO. FD 47 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF THE SPECIAL TAX IN MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 WHEREAS, a special election was held in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District No. 85-1 (the "Community Facilities District") of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (formerly Foothill Fire Protection District, the "District") on Tuesday, December 10, 1985; and WHEREAS, as a result of the election, more than two-thirds (2/3) of the qualified electors voted in favor of a proposition to authorize the levy of a special tax for fire suppression services and facilities, to establish an appropriations limit and to annually adjust the special tax and appropriations limit based upon changes in cost of living and changes in population; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53340 of the Government Code, this Board of Directors is authorized, by ordinance, to annually levy a special tax at the rate and apportion the special tax in the manner specified in the resolution adopted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 53318 of the Government Code), except that this Board of Directors may levy the special tax at a lower rate; and WHEREAS, this Board of Directors desires to levy a special tax in the Community Facilities District for the fiscal year 2008/09. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordained as follows: SECTION 1: Levy of Special Taz. By the passage of this ordinance, this Board of Directors hereby authorizes and directs the levy of a special tax in the Community Facilities District for the fiscal year 2008/09 at the rate and apportioned in the manner set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2: Exempt Properties. This Board of Directors hereby determines that properties or entities of the State, Federal or other local governments shall be exempt from such special tax. SECTION 3: Use of Special Tax. This Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that the special tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs and expenses for facilities and services specified as follows: (a) The construction, acquisition, expansion and/or rehabilitation of public facilities, within or for the benefit of, the Community Facilities District generally described as follows: P110 Fire protection and suppression facilities and appurtenances, including; equipment, real property and other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or longer. (b) The services to be provided within the Community Facilities District are generally described as follows: The performance by employees of functions, operatipns and maintenance and repair activities in order to provide fire protection within the Community Facilities District. (c) The repayment of advances and loans. The special tax shall be used solely for the purposes specified above and for no other purpose. SECTION 4: Collection of Special Tax. The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes. SECTION 5: Filing of Ordinance. The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the Tax Collector of the County of San Bernardino as may be appropriate. SECTION 6: Publication of Ordinance. The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to publish this ordinance once in a newspaper of general circulation and to maintain the ordinance for public inspection and distribution. SECTION 7: Publication: Effective Date. This ordinance was read on the 215' day of May, 2008, and was adopted on the 4'h day of June, 2008 and shall take effect and be in force upon its adoption. P111 EXHIBIT "A" SPECIAL TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 IN MELLO-RODS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT STRUCTURES Residential Multi-family 2 DU: 3 DU: 4 DU: 5-14 DU: 15-30 DU: 31-80 DU: 81 - up DU: ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX ($148.04) per DU 1.75 ($148.04) 2.25 ($148.04) 2.65 ($148.04) 2.65 ($148.04) 6.15 ($148.04) 10.65 ($148.04) 23.15 ($148.04) + {.35 (TU - 4) ($148.04)} + {.30 (TU - 14) ($148.04)} + {.25 (TU - 30) ($148.04)} + {.20 (TU - 80) ($148.04)} Commercial ($148.04) per acre + $.080 per SF Industrial ($148.04) per acre + $.098 per SF Reduction NOTE: DU =Dwelling Unit TU =Total Units SF =Square Foot Commercial and industrial structures shall be granted a .01 cent reduction in the Special Tax for the installation of complete sprinkler systems. In addition, multi-floor commercial and industrial structures shall also be granted a .01 cent reduction (not cumulative) in Special Tax for each separate floor above or below the main ground floor of the structure. P112 ORDINANCE NO. 792 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 14.08.350, 14.16.010(P) AND 14.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 14.25 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING TEMPORARY SIGNS; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. RECITALS. (i) It is this Council's intent and goal in adopting this Ordinance to clarify existing regulations regarding temporary signs within street rights-of-way. This City Council finds and declares that the regulations provided by this Ordinance are intended to provide for the public safety and well-being by assuring the community aesthetic expectations are fulfilled. (ii) This City Council is also aware of the fact that temporary signs placed on private property, often referred to as yard signs, tend to be impermanent, flimsy, and vulnerable to the elements. Because of the tendency of such signs to proliferate, creating litter, physical blight, and traffic safety hazards, this City Council hereby adopts regulation set forth in this Ordinance pertaining to such signs. It is the purpose and intent of this City Council to provide minimal regulations regarding the posting, display, maintenance, and removal of such signs on private property in order to protect the First Amendment rights of persons posting such signs on their property, while protecting the health, safety,, and general welfare of the general public and maintaining the aesthetic qualities of the City. B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Section 14.08.350 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read as follows: "14.08.350 Temporary sign. 'Temporary sign' means a sign erected for a temporary purpose attracting attention to an activity as provided for within this title." P113 SECTION 3: Section 14.16.010(P) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read as follows: "P. Political signs having to do with any issue, ballot measure, or candidate in any municipal, county, state or federal election or political statements and expressions shall be permitted in any zoning district subject to the following provisions and any other applicable provisions within this title: 1. Any person, party, or group posting political signs in the City shall abide by the provisions set forth in this title; 2. All political signs shall be placed no earlier than 45 days prior to the election and shall be removed not later than 7 days following the date of election; 3. Apolitical sign shall not exceed the size outlined in Section 14.25.020(C) of this Code in total area for one side. No signs shall be placed in a manner that would obstruct visibility of pedestrian or vehicle traffic; 4. All political signs shall not exceed an overall height of 8 feet from the finished grade. Signs used for identification of political headquarters shall comply with the provisions of this title; 5. The placement of any signs, whether on public or private property, shall not cause public safety or health hazards; 6. No political signs shall be placed or fixed to a tree, fence, or utility pole, and shall not be posted on any public property or in the public right-of-way without approval by the City Engineering Department; 7. No political sign shall be posted in violation of any provisions of this title." SECTION 4: Section 14.16.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read as follows: "14.16.020 Prohibited signs. All signs not expressly permitted are prohibited including, but not limited to, the following: A. Roof signs, except as provided for in this title; B. Flashing signs, except in time and temperature signs; C. Animated signs; P114 D. Revolving signs; E. Vehicle signs; F. Portable signs, except where permitted in this title; G. Off-site signs, except temporary directional signs as provided for in this title; H. Signs on the public right-of-way, except temporary directional signs and political signs as provided for in this title and signs required by a governmental agency; I. Signs blocking doors or fire escapes; J. Light bulb strings and exposed tubing, except for temporary uses such as Christmas tree lots; K. Banners, flags, pennants and balloons, except for special events as provided for in this title; L. Advertising structures, except as otherwise permitted in this title; M. Obscene matter." SECTION 5: Chapter 14.25 hereby is added to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 14.25 14.25.020. Temporary Signs on Private Property The following provisions shall control the placement of temporary signs on private property, excepting those signs referred to in and governed by the provisions of Chapter 14.20 of this Municipal Code: A. Only one sign advertising, identifying, displaying, or directing or attracting attention to a particular idea or event shall be placed on any parcel of real property. B. Any sign advertising, identifying, displaying, directing, or attracting attention to, or conveying an idea related to an event which is to occur on a certain date shall not be placed on a privately owned parcel of property more than 45 days prior to that date and shall be removed no later than 10 days after that date. P115 C. The area of any face of a temporary sign located on a residentially zoned parcel of property shall not exceed 6 square feet. The area of any face of a temporary sign located on any parcel of private property zoned for non-residential use shall not exceed 32 square feet." SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the pass of this Ordinance. P116 T H E C I T Y O F RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Rina Leung, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00307 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -Consideration of an ordinance prohibiting the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in all land use zones within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adding Chapter 17.44 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17 of the Municipal Code. This item is exempt per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the ordinance will impose a greater limitation on uses, which includes a prohibition on establishing medical marijuana dispensaries to reduce potential significant adverse impacts. RECCOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt an Ordinance that prohibits the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the City and conduct a first reading, which will allow for the addition of a new Chapter to Title 17 (the Development Code). PROPOSAL: In November of 1996, California voters passed the Proposition 215 initiative, which allowed medical marijuana to be accessible to people with certain illnesses. The initiative was later supplemented by the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which was enacted as Senate Bill 420 by the State legislature in 2003 and became effective in January of 2004. This Act expanded the definitions of "patient" and "primary caregiver" and created guidelines for identification cards: It defined the amount of marijuana that patients and primary caregivers can possess. Within the last year, the City proactively addressed medical marijuana dispensaries by enacting Interim Ordinances that prohibit the establishment of these uses, while the City Attorney's office conducts research on case law relating to medical marijuana dispensaries. After the City Attorney's office completed their research, an Urgency Ordinance was adopted by City Council on April 16, 2008, which supported a complete ban on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones in the City. Since the Ordinance that was adopted by the City Council was an Urgency Ordinance, the City Attorney's office recommended that a regular Ordinance be subsequently adopted. BACKGROUND: The City Council and Planning Commission held various meetings regarding medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. The following is a chronology of the City Council meeting dates as they relate to this item. P117 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00307 DRC2008-00307 -MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES ORDINANCE June 4, 2008 Page 2 Previous City Council Meetings regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries: • March 21, 2007: The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 776, prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in any zone of the City. • April 18, 2007: The City Council was provided with a status report that summarized the major legal, governmental, and enforcement issues that are associated with medical marijuana. A copy of the staff report has been attached to provide the City Council with background information regarding this proposal. • Mav 2, 2007: The City Council approved another Interim Ordinance prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries to allow sufficient time to study these uses. • April 16, 2008: The City Council adopted immediately upon introduction of an Urgency Ordinance to prohibit the establishment and/or operation of marijuana dispensaries in the City. They also directed that the item be forwarded to Planning Commission for consideration prior to final adoption and incorporation into the Municipal Code. • Mav 14, 2008: The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the attached Ordinance that prohibits the establishment and/or operation of marijuana dispensaries in the City. ANALYSIS/FACTS FOR FINDING: As discussed in the April 18, 2007, City Council report (Exhibit A), there are a considerable number of adverse secondary effects linked to medical marijuana dispensaries. Notwithstanding, the fundamental conflict between Federal and State law, police agencies throughout the state report increased criminal and other undesirable activity in and around these uses including, but not limited to, illegal narcotic transactions, loitering, and increased potential for personal and property crimes (e.g., burglary and robbery). The California Police Chief's Association has compiled an extensive report (Exhibit B) detailing the negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. During the course of research/studies conducted by the City Attorney's office within the last year, more cities have adopted Ordinances prohibiting medical marijuana uses. Furthermore, the City Attorney's office cited that the City of Anaheim's Ordinance, which prohibited medical marijuana dispensaries, has been upheld by the Orange County Superior Court. Therefore, the legal climate is more favorable for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries outright. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin newspaper with aone-eighth page ad because more than 1,000 properties would be affected by the citywide scope of the amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The project is deemed to be statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3), which applies only to projects that have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In this instance, the Ordinance is to prohibit the establishment and/or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Therefore, there can be no potential for causing a significant environmental effect. Res ffully submitt d, Jam R. Troyer, AICP Pla ng Director JRT:RL/ge P118 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00307 DRC2008-00307 -MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES ORDINANCE June 4, 2008 Page 3 Attachments: Exhibit A -City Council Staff Report dated April 18, 2007 Exhibit B -Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Report from the California Police Chief's Association Draft Ordinance for Development Code Amendment DRC2008-00307 P119 T H E C I T Y O F RANCHO CUCAMORGA Staff Report DATE: April 18, 2007 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Michael Diaz, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REPORT ON INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL LAND USE ZONES WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. RECOMMENDATION: As required by Government Code Section 65858, the purpose of this report is to update the Council on recent developments on medical marijuana dispensaries and the City's further review of the issue to, determine a permanent policy on dispensaries. Staff recommends the City Council approve and file the report. BACKGROUND: On March 21, 2007 the City Council approved an urgency interim ordinance establishing a temporary prohibition on the establishment and/or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within any land use district of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The interim ordinance is valid for a period of 45 days. During the March 21, 2007 meeting, the City Council expressed its interest in establishing the urgency ordinance to provide sufficient time to consider how the City could proactively address the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries. within the City limits. Moreover, the Council found that there was an immediate threat to public safety, health, or welfare,. in that that the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries before appropriate procedures, development standards and regulations were in enacted would result in adverse impacts to surrounding development and the welfare of the general public. The urgency interim ordinance is set to expire on May 5, 2007. A public hearing on the matter will be held on May 2, 2007, at which time the City Council will have the option to extend the interim zoning ordinance for an additional time period of 10 months and 15 days. DISCUSSION The subject of medical marijuana dispensaries is complex. The following is a summary of the major legal, governmental, and enforcement issues associated with the use. Federal and State Law Conflicts Federal and state laws continue to be in conflict. More specifically, the issue of medical marijuana is clouded by the conflicting and uncertain legal status of federal and state legislation EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL STAFF RtrORT P120 UPDATE REPORT ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA INTERIM ORDINANCE April 18, 2007 Page 2 (i.e., the Federal Controlled Substances Act and the State of California approved Proposition 215), which has yet to be fully resolved. Under federal law, the manufacturing, delivery, or possession of marijuana is prohibited. However, in 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act, which removed criminal penalties for the personal use, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana by patients that have a physician's recommendation. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld federal authority over marijuana, even in states where its use for medical purposes is legal. More specifically, the U.S: Supreme Court ruled that Congress (i.e., the federal government) has the power to prohibit the local possession, cultivation and use of marijuana. Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not go so far as to invalidate California law permitting the medicinal use of marijuana, and no appellate court has as yet invalidated the California law. What has resulted is a substantial controversy over the validity of state law permitting medicinal use of marijuana when federal authorities may legally raid medical marijuana dispensaries, shut them down, and prosecute those persons dispensing or using marijuana inside them. The Supreme Court's decision has cast a cloud of uncertainty over the Compassionate Use Act. As a result, there are several cases pending in California (both in State and federal courts). Recent experiences encountered by the City of West Hollywood illustrate the tension between the Federal and local governments resulting from the enforcement of federal law by federal agents. In March of 2007, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court ruled against a woman who sought to use marijuana to treat scoliosis and a brain tumor. Until a definitive ruling is achieved in the pending cases, a clear approach on how to address and/or regulate medical marijuana dispensaries will likely remain elusive for the meantime. Actions by other Jurisdictions California cities and counties have reacted differently to the conflicting laws. A large number of cities have enacted moratoriums to study the issue and determine whether they should regulate or prohibit dispensaries within their corporate boundaries. In 2003, the State Legislature created guidelines (SB 420) for carrying out the medical marijuana law, but local officials across the state still struggle with how to control the dispensaries. For example, larger California cities such as Oakland, Berkeley, West Hollywood, have chosen to regulate this use and limit the number of dispensaries allowed. Local cities and counties that have or intend to adopt moratoriums include the cities of Claremont, Montclair, and Riverside County. Moreover, the Counties of San Diego and San Bernardino filed a lawsuit against the State alleging the State law (California Compassionate Use Act) is unconstitutional because it is preempted by federal law. Staff is in the process of reviewing the approach taken by several jurisdictions that ban or regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in their communities. Since the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not have established standards in effect, staff believes the interim zoning regulation is the appropriate approach to take until zoning standards can be developed and enacted. Meanwhile, advocates for patients who use prescribed marijuana to ease pain related to numerous ailments from glaucoma to cancer argue that cities should work to regulate, rather than ban, medical marijuana dispensaries altogether. Enforcement Issues There are no marijuana dispensaries currently operating within the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga. The closest known dispensary was one that recently shut down by court order in CITY COUNCIL STAFF h~PORT UPDATE REPORT ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA INTERIM ORDINANCE April 18, 2007 Page 3 the City of Claremont. In Claremont, medical marijuana dispensaries are not addressed by the Land Use and Development Code, and the business was opened without benefit of a business license. Legal action was necessary to enforce compliance with City regulations. Since Proposition 215 took effect, police departments in several California cities have reported problems taking place near medical marijuana dispensaries (or, so called "cannabis clubs"). The general consensus of police agencies with medical marijuana dispensaries in their service area is that often there is criminal and other undesirable activity. Some of the major negative and/or secondary impacts of dispensaries as identified by police agencies (including the California Police Chiefs Association report), are listed below: • Fundamental conflict between federal and state law. • Illegal narcotic transactions -street dealers selling marijuana at lower prices to entice patients from dispensaries. • Non-residents coming into a City to purchase marijuana. • Negative impacts to adjacent residential neighbors and businesses -complaints about individuals (adults and juveniles) congregating/loitering in and around the dispensary. • The problem of patients selling to non-patients. • Increased potential for personal and property crimes (e.g., burglary and robbery) in attempts to obtain marijuana. • Increased vehicle traffic. • Individuals observed in public that are under the influence. In light of the .potential problems associated with medical marijuana uses as listed above, the threat to the public health and safety and welfare continues to be real and immediate. Staff believes that without appropriate standards in place no approvals and/or permits should be issued for medical marijuana uses. CONCLUSION: Given the complexity of medical marijuana issue, and the immediate threat to the public's health, safety, and welfare presented by having no development standards in place, staff plans to provide Council with a recommendation to extend the interim zoning ordinance for another 10 months and 15 days. Without being able to extend this ordinance in order to complete such preemptive planning, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health and safety presented by the possibility that such anon-regulated use may commence without effective regulation. During the time extension staff wilt continue to monitor the issues and work to develop a permanent policy on dispensaries for Council consideration and action. Respectfully submitted, `, ~'~,, f' ,~- ~ . Jam R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director P121 JRT:MD\Is P122 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries This report is respectfully presented to you with the following disclaimers; This report does not attempt to address the merits of Medical Marijuana (MMJ) or the concept of its use as an alternative medicine as discussed or proposed in Proposition 215. • ,This report contains compilations of data collected by others in Law Enforcement as well as media coverage and this data is identified as such. Areas that currently act as a hindrance to a true study of this topic are; Under Reporting_ With few exceptions, agencies contacted stated that they felt that the crimes related to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries were under reported, if reported at all. Confidential informants have provided information that these additional crimes (Robberies, Assaults and Burglaries involving Marijuana or large amounts of cash) are not reported so as to not draw additional Law Enforcement and Media scrutiny to this very lucrative trade. This is not unlike the thought processes employed by the Cosa Nostra and organized street gangs here in California. Crime Classification: Another barrier to collection of this data is the lack of classification of this data as MMJ related. In years past, statistical analysis of domestic violence and hate crimes was difficult. These crimes now receive their own classification so tracking them is much easier. However until such time as MMJ crimes receive their own classification, separating these crimes from non MMJ related crimes is very difficult. Over Reliance on Straight Statistical Data: Gathering statistical data on this topic would appear to be a simple task. One would imagine that you would look at crime in a given location prior to the arrival of a MMJ Dispensary and then look at crime afrer its arrival. This presents several difficulties. First, based on Internet research, there appears to be approximately 240 MMJ Dispensaries (www.canorml.org) located in almost as many jurisdictions. No one agency can access data from all these locations and not all agencies compile this data. I spoke with several agency representatives and each had information regarding this issue, however few had specific crime statistics. Secondly, not all crimes related to MMJ take place in or around a dispensary. Some take place at the homes of the owners, employees or patrons. Lastly, not all the "secondary issues" related to MMJ Dispensaries are crimes, Loitering, additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic, use of MMJ at or near the facilities are described as quality of life issues and are only really quantified when they appear in the newspaper or the complainants appear at a City Council meeting. Prior to discussing the reports of other Law Enforcement agencies, ]would like to present some information from our Department. While our City does not currently have a MMJ Dispensary, this does not mean that we are immune from their effects. EXHIBIT~B. P123 On January 7, 2004 a resident of EI Cerrito was arrested for possession of marijuana for sale. The subject was found to be in possession of 133 grams (4.6 ounces) of marijuana, a small amount of cash, a "replica handgun" pellet gun and three MMJ Dispensary cards (Oakland Cannabis Buyers Collective, Cannabis Buyers Collective of Marin and "Compassionate Caregivers" of Oakland) On February 25, 2005, the same subject mentioned above was discovered to be growing marijuana in his house. He was found to be in possession of 15 adult plants, 72 starter plants, 505 grams (1.10 Ibs) of processed marijuana, 50 grams (1.75 oz) of hashish packaged for sale and two assault rifles as well as $6,000.00 in cash. The subject claimed that these plants were MMJ. An investigation was conducted with the assistance of the West Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team and resulted in the conviction of the resident for Unauthorized Possession of Cannabis and Possession of an Assault Weapon. On July 9, 2005, during a suspicious vehicle check, one of our Officers determined that a resident (Who is a member of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative) possessed 55 immature plants with the intent of cultivating them and selling them to a MMJ Dispensary. The District Attorney has Fled a complaint containing two felony charges of possession and cultivation of Marijuana. This case is awaiting adjudication as the subject has failed to appear in court (it is be]ieved he has fled to the state of Oregon) and a bench warrant has been issued for his arrest. On December 1 1, 2005, a traffic stop for speeding resulted in the arrest of the occupants for the possession on Marijuana packaged for sale and $3,365.00 in cash. On March 8, 2006 our School Resource Officer received information that several students were ill afrer eating a cookie. The investigation revealed that a student had made cookies with a butter obtained outside (secondary sale) a MMJ Dispensary containing a highly concentrated form of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC the active ingredient in Marijuana). The student used the "butter" to bake and then sell these cookies to other students. After the student discovered that the cookies were so potent that some of his fellow students had to be treated at local hospitals, instead of throwing them away, he gave them to other students without telling them what they were laced with. This incident resulted in at least four students requiring hospitalization and it is suspected at least two or three others were intoxicated to the point of sickness. From March of 2004 to May of 2006, this Department has conducted seven investigations at El Cerrito High School and Portola Junior High School resulting in the arrest of eight juveniles for selling or possessing with intent to sell Marijuana on or around the school campuses. Gathering the data from these incidents required hours of research and examination. Many agencies have neither the available resources nor the inclination to gather data of this kind. This makes presenting the data for consideration in this matter very difficult. P124 Another area of importance is the possession of firearms in conjunction with large quantities of cash and marijuana. Those who have the money and drugs want to keep them and arm themselves to prevent robberies. Those who wish to relieve those in possession of cash and drugs use firearms and other deadly weapons to accomplish their task. When speaking to those involved in the drug trade, they will tell you violence and greed are "al] just part of the game." With the exception of those entries identified from other sources, I contacted and interviewed representatives from each of the listed agencies. I have included newspaper articles that either further describe events or provide additional information regarding some of the "secondary issues". ANAHEIM May 19, 2004 a MMJ Dispensary "420 Primary Caregivers" obtained a business license and began operations. Fall 2004, The Police Department began to receive complaints from neighboring businesses in the complex. The complaints centered around the ongoing sales of Marijuana to subjects who did not appear to be physically ill, the smell of Marijuana inside the ventilation system off the building and the repeated interruption to neighboring businesses. January 2005, The MMJ Dispensary was robbed at gunpoint by three masked subjects who took both money and marijuana from the business. April 5, 2005, The Department met with the property Management Company, owners and representatives from the businesses in the complex which housed the MMJ Dispensary. The meeting focused on the safety of the employees and patrons of adjacent businesses. Many neighboring businesses complained of Marijuana use on the premises and in the surrounding area as well as a loss of business based on the clientele of the MMJ Dispensary "hanging around the area". Since this meeting, two businesses have ended their lease with the property management company. A law firm that had been in that location for ten years ]eft citing "Marijuana smoke had inundated their office....and they can no longer continue to provide a safe, professional location for their clientele and employees." A health oriented business terminated their lease after six years and moved out of the complex citing "their business is repeatedly interrupted and mistaken multiple times a day for "the store that has the marijuana." The owner fears that "he or his employees may be shot if they are robbed by mistake and the suspects do not believe they do not have Marijuana." The Property Management Company indicated "at least five other businesses have inquired about terminating their lease for reasons related to 420 Primary Caregivers." Arrests have been made supporting the belief that some "qualifying patients" purchase Marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, then supply it [o their friends for illicit use. P125 Criminal investigations have revealed the business is obtaining its Marijuana from a variety of sources including Marijuana smuggled into the United Sates from South and Central America. The Police department has conservatively estimated the "420 Primary Caregivers" business to be generating approximately $50,000.00 a week in income. (Source Declaration of Sgt. Tim Miller Anaheim P.D. Street narcotic Unit) ALAMEDA COUNTY January 12, 2005 a MMJ customer was robbed after leaving the "The Health Center" MMJ Dispensary (San Leandro). The victim was accosted by two subjects who possibly followed the victim away from the dispensary. February 6, 2005 a MMJ Dispensary, the "Compassion Collective of Alameda County" was robbed by two subjects armed with handguns. The robbery took place at 4:50 pm in the afternoon and the suspects took an unspecified amount of cash and Marijuana. April 27, 2005 a MMJ Dispensary, "The Health Center" (San Leandro) was burglarized at approximately 3:05 am. No specifics were provided as to the loss sustained as a result of the burglary. Many investigators believe that the victims do not truthfully report the loss of cash or marijuana. May 24, 2005 a patron of a MMJ Dispensazy, "A Natural Source" (San Leandro) was robbed by three subjects in the parking lot of the dispensary after making a purchase of Marijuana. August 19, 2005: Five subjects armed with assault rifles conducted a take over robbery of a MMJ Dispensary "A Natural Source" (San Leandro). They engaged in a shoot out with two employees and one of the suspects was killed in the exchange of gun fire. Sept. 12, 2005: Both money and marijuana were stolen from the Alameda County Resource Center (16250 East 14th St.) when burglars chopped through the wall of an adjacent fellowship hall during the night. (Source Declaration by Lt. Dale Amaral Alameda County Sheriff s Department) Calls for Service Related to MMJ Dispensaries (Unincorporated San Leandro and Hayward) Officer Initiated events may be vehicle stops or on-view arrests. 16043 East 14`" Street: 2003: 2 Officer Initiated activity events, 2004: 1 Officer Initiated activity events. This business is now closed. 21227 Foothill Blvd "Garden of Eden" 2003: ]Officer initiated activity events, 2004: No calls for service, 2005: 1 Theft call, 4 alarm calls, 1 Officer Initiated activity events. 913 E. Lewelling Blvd. "We are Hemp" 2003: 1 Officer initiated activity event, 2004: 1 Assault call, 2 Officer Initiated activity events, 2005: 1 Assault call, ]Officer Initiated activity event. P126 16250 East ]4`h Street: 2003: 11 Officer initiated activity events, 2004: 3 loitering calls, 9 Officer initiated activity events, 2005: 5 Officer initiated activity events. 15998 East 14a' Street: "The Health Center" 2003: 1 Officer initiated activity event, 2004: 1 Trespassing call, 1 Assault, 2 Disturbance calls, 2 Miscellaneous, 26 Officer initiated events, 2005: 1 Robbery, 1 Aggravated Assault, 1 Grand Thefr, 3 Petty Thefts, 2 Vehicle Thefts, 4 Trespassing calls, 5 Loitering calls, 1 Weapons Possession, 2 Controlled Substance cases, 4 Alarm calls, 9 Disturbance calls, 3 Miscellaneous calls and 21 Officer Initiated events. 16360 Foothill Blvd: 2003: 1 Officer initiated activity event, 2004: 2 Officer initiated activity events, 2005: 1 Homicide, 2 Aggravated Assaults, 1 Grand Theft, 1 Controlled Substance case, 13 alarm calls, 2 Officer Initiated events. 21222 Mission Blvd: "Compassionate Collective of Alameda County" 2003: 2 Officer Initiated events, 2004: 5 Officer Initiated events, 2005: 1 Attempted Homicide, 2 Robberies, 2 Burglaries, 2 Controlled Substance cases, 10 Alarm calls, 2 Disturbance calls, 1 Miscellaneous calls and 2 Officer Initiated events. (Source Alameda County Sheriff s Department Report) Car Jacking Latest Pot Club Crime Linda Sandsmark San Leandro Times San Leandro, CA Sept 29, 2005 -- A woman was carjacked and robbed Monday afternoon afrer she lefr The Health Center (THC) marijuana club at 15998 East 14th Street. Citizens in the area saw the crime occur about four blocks from THC and called police on their cell phones..... The unidentified woman, who is from Garberville in Humboldt County, walked back toward the clinic and her car was found on nearby Liberty Street. "She doesn't want to pursue a criminal complaint in spite of the fact she was carjacked," says Alameda County Sheriff s Department spokesman Lt. Dale Amaral. "When you have this kind of drug distribution center it's an absolute magnet for every thug in the nine Bay Area counties. We're running from call to call." Amaral points out that no matter how armored the clinic buildings are, the people entering and exiting are still targets. He advises them to be aware of their surroundings and to drive to the nearest police station or flag down an officer if they think they are being followed. Crimes including burglaries and robberies at many of the dispensaries have caused widespread community concern......It's a target-rich environment," says Amaral. "The sheriff s department is devoting a tremendous amount of resources to these clubs.........Clinic location has also had an impact on neighborhoods. Though the clubs may not be selling directly to students, the county's School Resource Officers report a 36-percent increase in arrests on nearby school campuses for minors possessing marijuana, possibly due to increased supply in the area. (Source http:/hvww.hempevolution.ore/thc/disnensarv robbed040614.html P127 ARCATA • There are two dispensaries in town that share a building. • The two dispensaries have an ongoing disagreement with each other that has resulted in numerous calls for police services to settle disputes. The facilities do not have the correct electrical support and continuously blow out the electricity in the area. They have not complied with upgrading their electrical systems or responded to fire department concerns regarding proper exits and signage. • There have been numerous instances where people have purchased marijuana a[ the dispensary and then resold it at a nearby park. • A doctor has come to the dispensaries and, for a fee, will provide a medicinal marijuana recommendation forjust about any complaint the patient makes. (Source Staff Report to Davis City Council: Medical Marijuana June 13, 2005) BAKERSFIELD Sep 8th, 2005. DEA arrested three subjects in raid on the Free and Easy cannabis dispensary. Kern County sheriffs summoned the DEA after being called to investigate a robbery at the facility. Police found plants growing at one subject's home plus 20 Ibs of marijuana, and illegally possessed firearms. . (Source) http://www.canonnl.org/news/fedmmjcases.html BERKELEY March 30, 2000: Two males armed with sawed off shotguns forced entry into a residence and forced the occupant at gun point to turn over a safe. A subsequent investigation revealed that a second resident who was not home at the time was a former director of a MMJ Dispensary and was the intended target of the robbery. October 2001, December 2001 and June 2002: The MMJ Dispensary on University was robbed. Larger sums of money and Marijuana taken. March 2003: A home invasion robbery over marijuana cultivation escalated into a homicide. December 2003: The MMJ Dispensary on Telegraph was robbed. (No further info provided) April 2004: A home invasion robbery investigation resulted in the seizure of $69,000.00, ten pounds of Marijuana and a "Tech 9" machine pistol. "While recognizing the medical needs of the cannabis using patients, staff is concerned about the potential for crime and violence associated with the distribution and cultivation of Marijuana" (Source) City Manager's report to the Berkeley City Council P128 Excerpts from: Pot club robbed for third time in a year By David Scharfenberg, Daily Planet staff (06-07-02) Club had promised to limit amount of cash, marijuana stashed there Four men stole $1,500 and $3,500 worth of marijuana from the Berkeley Medical Herbs pot club yesterday after Avo of them were allowed on site without proper identification. The afternoon heist renewed concerns about the integrity of the club's security and reignited some anger in the neighborhood. "I think it's a public nuisance and I think it needs to be closed," said City Councilmember Linda Mayotte incident marks the third time in a year robbers have stormed the medicinal marijuana club, located in a small brick building at 1627 University Avenue. The last robbery, in December, prompted a rash of concern from city officials about security at the club. Medical Herbs responded to that by closing at 4 p.m. so it would only be open during daylight hours. The club hired a licensed security guard, installed video cameras, and it agreed to limit the amount of cash and pot on the premises, among other measures....Two Latino men approached the front gate on University Avenue Wednesday about 2:30 p.m., said Geshuri. The men failed to show the identification cards that are required of every patient but were let through the gate because they claimed to know owner Ken Estes. The security guard relayed the message to general manager Randy Moses, who opened the building's main door to confirm the story, then closed the door without fuming the lock, Geshuri said. At that point, one suspect pulled a gun and the other a knife, forcing their way into the building. The suspects told everyone to lie on the ground. They took the cash and marijuana and fled, Geshuri said. Geshuri said the club's security cameras were out for repairs Wednesday. Police who had been scouting the premises to prevent robberies had left only minutes before the incident, Geshuri said....... One neighbor who did not want to be identified said he saw the two men meeting two other men waiting outside in a late model; tan vehicle in which they all got away. "The guys who robbed it ran out with a big satchel," the neighbor said, adding that he disapproves of the marijuana club. "This is a very attractive place for other drug dealers to rob. It's not something we want in our neighborhood." Geshuri acknowledged that a few neighbors are opposed to the club, but said most of the residents support Medical Herbs in its mission. The club had pledged after the December robbery to keep no more than $1,000 and one pound of marijuana on site. But Geshuri said the robbers on Wednesday made off with $500 more than that and as much as apound-and-a-half of marijuana. The witness opposed to the club said theft proves that management is not keeping its pledge to prevent robberies and ensure safety. But Geshuri said the incident was an aberration. "It's rare that we have that much product on site," she said, arguing that the club had just received a shipment and was in the process of dividing it up for patients. She said Medical Herbs keeps most of its supply off-site, at secure locations. Berkeley • Has four facilities operating in the Cit}' currently (last 3-4 years). • There have been several take over robberies of the dispensaries. • There have been arrests where legitimate purchasers have resold marijuana on the street to well individuals. • Obvious young people entering and purchasing marijuana from the dispensary. P129 • Recommended that if we did not currently have the dispensaries, we should not allow them. • Police department has been given explicit instructions by their City Council not to take any kind of enforcement action against the dispensaries or people going in or out of the facility. • Facilities will accept any Health Department cards, even those obviously forged or faked. (Source Staff Report to Davis City Council: Medical Marijuana June 13, 2005) BUTTE COUNTY Butte County does not track statistics related to MMJ Dispensaries, however a Detective in the Investigations Unit knew of; At least six robberies or attempts, one of which involved a shoot out between the suspect and victim occurred during the months of August to October 2005. Each of these robberies took place at the victim's residence and the target was the victim's marijuana cultivation. He stated that this is the busy time of year for these activities as it is harvest time for the Marijuana grows. (Source Det. Jake Hancock Butte County Sheriffs Department) CALAVARASCOUNTY Jan. 2005. Federal government files forfeiture suit after local sheriff finds 134 marijuana plants. Government seeks to forfeit a home and five acres of land. The defendant says he was growing for half a dozen friends and family members and had checked with local authorities to make sure he was within legal guidelines. (Source http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) CHERRYLAND Cherryland, CA June 30, 2005 -- An employee of a marijuana dispensary narrowly escaped with his life after a gunman opened fire as he waited outside the establishment for co-workers to arrive. The employee, whom authorities declined to identify, was sitting inside his car in the rear parking lot of the Collective Cannabis Club at 21222 Mission Boulevard on Tuesday morning when a masked gunman appeared, said Lt. Dale Amaral, spokesman for the Alameda County Sheriffs Department. (Source http://www.hempevolution.org/media/santa_cruz_sentinel/scs041213.htm) CLEAR LAKE There have been a few reported robberies of medical marijuana patients away from the dispensaries. One significant case involved home invasion robber}. Multiple suspects entered the home of a person who was known to be a MMJ user. During the robbery, one resident was beaten with a baseball bat while the suspects made inquires regarding the location of the marijuana. Two of the suspects were shot and killed by the homeowner. (Source Clear Lake P.D. Inv. Clawson) P130 CLOVIS In December of 2005 the Clovis Police Department in conjunction with the Fresno County Sheriff s Department conducted an investigation which resulted in the arrest of a subject for possession of 120 pounds of marijuana. The subject of the investigation was found to have a medical marijuana card which helped facilitate his possession and sales of marijuana. (source www.ci.covis.ca.us/PressRelesaseDetail.asp?ID=838) DAMS (Excerpts from Staff Report to Davis City Council: Medical Marijuana June 13, 2005) In summary, the experiences of other cities that already have dispensaries are bad. Dispensaries have experienced robberies themselves; legitimate patients have been robbed of their marijuana as they leave the facility; people purchasing marijuana at the dispensaries have been caught reselling the marijuana nearby; street level dealers have begun selling marijuana and other drugs nearby in an effort to undersell the dispensary; some dispensaries have doctors present in their facility who will recommend marijuana as a course of treatment for just about any patient complaint; and many dispensaries do not take serious steps to ensure they are selling only to legitimate patients or their caregivers. When asked, many of the police departments that already have facilities in their cities said that if Davis did not already have a dispensary, we should take steps to prohibit one from opening in the city. EL DORADO COUNTY MMJ Dispensary operated medical marijuana clinic in Cool, California with 6000 patients; DEA raided Sep. 28, 2001; seized patient records. Indicted Jun 22, 2005 for marijuana found on premises. (Source http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) FAIRFAX • Chief of Police Ken Hughes, advised the following: • Fairfax has one marijuana dispensary • Fairfax has had some problems with patients selling to non-patients • They have had problems with purchasers from dispensary congregating at a baseball field to smoke their marijuana • Fairfax police arrested one person who purchased marijuana at the dispensary and then took it to a nearby park where he tried to trade it to a minor for sex • Very small town and low crime rate (Source Rocklin P.D. report) P131 HAYWARD P.D. • Acting Chief Lloyd Lowe, advises the following: • Hayward has three dispensaries total, two legal under local ordinance and one illegal. • They have had robberies outside the dispensaries • They have noticed more and more people hanging around the park next to one of the dispensaries and learned that they were users in between purchases • They have problems with user recommendation cards -not uniform, anyone can get them • One illegal dispensary sold coffee, marijuana and hashish - DA would prosecute the hashish sales and possession violations after arrests were made • They have received complaints that other illegal drugs are being sold inside of dispensaries • The dispensaries are purchasing marijuana from growers that they will not disclose • Chief Lowe believes that the dispensaries do not report problems or illicit drug dealers around their establishments because they do not want the police around • Hayward Police arrested a parolee attempting to sell three pounds of marijuana to one of the dispensaries • Hayward has recently passed an ordinance that will make marijuana dispensaries illegal under zoning law in 2006 (Information provided by Rocklin P.D. report) HUMBOLDT COUNTY One subject arrested in Humboldt County Aug O1, 2001 growing 204 plants for the Salmon Creek patients' collective; case turned over to the feds, pled guilty Dec 6; sentenced to 15 months for possession. Released from prison May 2003. Meanwhile, in a separate case, this subject won a landmark federal lawsuit for return of one ounce of pot seized by the DEA at the request of the Humboldt sheriff after the latter was ordered to return under Prop. 215. This subject is now missing and presumed dead since Aug 2003; police suspect foul play. (Source http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) 12/12/2003 Subject: Attempted Murder Suspects Arrested Contact: Brenda Gainey, Case No#: 200308180, Location: Garberville Humboldt County Sheriff s Deputies arrested two Garberville men last night wanted in connection with an attempted murder case from Mendocino County. Yesterday afternoon the Mendocino Sheriffs Office received a report of a shooting in Willits. Detectives from Mendocino learned that the victim, Jarron Jackson, 38 of Antioch, had been shot once in the arm during a robbery at a residence in Willits. Mendocino County Sheriff s Detectives learned the identities of the two suspects and issued a `Be On the Loookout" bulletin to Northern California police agencies. The bulletin also indicated that the two suspects were residents of Garberville. Late yesterday evening Humboldt County Sheriff s Deputies and officers from the California Highway Patrol went to the suspects' residence on the 1400 block of Redwood Dr. in Garberville. 10 P132 Arrested at the house were Charles Magpie, 26, and Rudolph King, 28. Both men were taken into custody without incident. While waiting for Mendocino County Officials to arrive at the scene, Humboldt County Deputies received consent to search the house from one of the residents. Deputies found a sophisticated indoor commercial marijuana grow. Members of the Sheriff s Drug Enforcement Unit were called and found the following: • Twenty-eight pounds of processed marijuana; estimated street value of $100,000. • One thousand growing marijuana plants ranging in size from six inches to two feet; estimated street value of $875,000. • Two shotguns • Approximately $16,000 in cash Date Released: 6/2/2006 Subject: Marijuana Investigation Contact: Deputy Campbell Case No#: 200603240 Locations: Swayback Ridge On 6/1/06, Sheriffs deputies were conducting follow up to a residential burglary that occurred in the Swayback Ridge area of Humboldt County. While attempting to contact persons who may have had knowledge about the burglary, a commercial indoor marijuana operation was discovered. The Sheriffs Drug Enforcement Unit, assisted by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, served a search warrant on the property. Law Enforcement seized 570 marijuana plants, 1.5 pounds of processed marijuana, and three rifles. Suspect information was obtained, and warrants are being sought at this time. (Source http://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/sheriff/pressreleases) KERN COUNTY July 20, 2005. The director of American Kenpo Kungfu School of Public Health was arrested for cultivating over 2,000 plants at three different locations. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess more than 1,000 plants (10 year mandatory minimum). (Source http:/lwww.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) LAKE COUNTY TASK FORCE: (Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement) One recent case currently in federal litigation involves the seizure of 32,000 plants from one grow. The cultivator claims that he is a "provider" for Medical Marijuana patients and therefore exempt from prosecution for cultivation. The subject was arrested and released on bail pending trial on marijuana charges with possible sentence of 12 years to life. On Feb 16, 2005 this subject was re-arrested along with another subject after allegedly selling one pound of marijuana to DEA agents, who claim they did not mention medical purposes. (Source) Lake County Narcotic Enforcement Team One pound of high grade Marijuana sells for approximately $4,000.00 dollars in the Bay Area. In the Mendocino area that price drops to approximately $2,700 per pound based on availability. 11 P133 It is estimated that one plant can yield one to three pounds of Marijuana. Based on this information 32,000 plants times 1- 3 pounds = 32,000 - 96,000 pounds at $2,700 per pound = $86,400,000 to 259,200,000. LAKE COUNTY IMPACTS Sheriff Rod Mitchell, advised the following: • Lake County has one marijuana dispensary in Upper Lake (Two as of this writing) • The biggest problem is the doctor, close by the dispensary who is known across the state for being liberal in his recommendations to use marijuana for a fee of $175 • Many "patients" come from hours away and even out of state, Oregon specifically, to get a marijuana recommendation from the doctor • Upper Lake has been impacted by the type of people coming for the marijuana doctor and dispensary. Citizens report to the Sheriff that the people coming to Upper Lake for marijuana look like drug users ("dopers"). • One quilt shop owner has told the sheriff that she does not feel safe anymore because of the type of people drawn to the marijuana doctor and the dispensary, which are located close together in the very small town. • They also have a notorious marijuana grower who beat prosecution for cultivation by making a medical claim. Law enforcement has taken a hands off approach even though he is blatantly violating the law. • The Marijuana grower has recently claimed to be a church to avoid paying taxes. (Source Rocklin P.D.report) LAYTONVILLE Crane by QUINCY CROMERlThe Daily Journal (Excerpts from the article) The owner of Mendo Spiritual Remedies in Laytonville and Hemp Plus Ministry in Ukiah -- who says he provides medical marijuana to more than a thousand people in Mendocino County -- will be in court next week to face charges for cultivation of marijuana. Les Crane, founder and self-proclaimed reverend of the two churches where medical marijuana is available locally, said some 5,000 cannabis plants and his life savings -- about $6,000 converted into gold -- were seized by the Mendocino County Sheriffs Office on May 16. "They came here because a guy was coming to rob my house. I called them to come and solve the problem and then they found out about the grow. We showed them all the documentation and they lefr and went and got a search warrant and came back and searched my church," Crane said. (Source) http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=1203&aid=10 Laytonville marijuana guru shot to death 2 others beaten in home; no suspects, but officials believe killing related to pot growing Saturday, November 19, 2005 12 P134 ByGLENDA ANDERSON THE PRESS DEMOCRAT A Laytonville pot guru who founded two Mendocino County medicinal cannabis dispensaries was shot to death during an apparent robbery in his home early Friday morning. Les Crane, who called his pot dispensaries churches and referred to himself as a reverend, said he was in the business to help ailing people, not to make money. He had said he had nearly 1,000 patients. He was killed at about 2:30 a.m. Friday in his home, which is about a mile from the center of Laytonville.... Two other people in Crane's home at the time of the shooting were beaten....Crane'sdeath is believed to be related to his marijuana-growing and dispensing activities, Mendocino County authorities said. "I am totally surprised we haven't had more robberies and violent crimes associated with these things because of the amount of money involved and the value of the product," Sheriff Tony Craver said. Crane's Ukiah cannabis dispensary, Hemp Plus, offered exotic varieties of pot that sell for as much as $350 an ounce. He also had a dispensary in Laytonville. He called marijuana "the tree of life" and said God placed it on Earth to benefit man. His religious credentials were issued by the Universal Life Church, which supplies certificates through the mail and the Internet. Sheriffs Lt. D.J. Miller provided few details of the crime, pending further investigation, including how many times Crane was shot or if any money or items were taken. Mendocino County officials had doubts about Crane's purpose for growing pot, and in May he was arrested for marijuana cultivation and several thousand pot plants were confiscated from his home. The criminal case was pending when he was killed.... (S ource)http://www l .pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs. d l l/article?AID=/20051 1 1 9/NE W S/5 11190303 LOS ANGLES COUNTY January 2004, Approximately six to eight known MMJ Dispensaries operating in West Hollywood. Several of the MMJ Dispensaries have generated calls for service. January 10, 2004, An Assault with a Deadly Weapon and a Vandalism are reported at one of the MMJ Dispensaries as well as calls generated reporting obstruction of the street or sidewalk. February 19, 2005, A MMJ Dispensary "LA Patients and Caregivers" reported that two subjects armed v.~ith handguns robbed the dispensary. May 6, 2005, A search warrant was served at one of the dispensaries by L.A.P.D. (no further information provided) May 15, 2005, A MMJ Dispensary "Alternative Herbal Health Services" four to five subjects armed with handguns entered the business at 4:25 pm, one of the employees was "pistol whipped" as the suspects demanded access to the dispensary's safe. (Source Declaration of Sgt. Robert McMahon Los Angles County Sheriff's Department) 13 P135 LOS ANGELES RECENT INVESTIGATIONS The County Ordinance does not specify who may dispense medical marijuana and what dosage is appropriate for a particular illness. Furthermore, many dispensaries contract with physicians who issue the recommendations without examining the individual to verify they are in fact ill and using the marijuana for the illness. In May 2005, the LAPD began investigating Compassionate Caregivers Group (CCG) Inc., a medical marijuana dispensary located in West Hollywood, that bordered the City of Los Angeles. The' dispensary was one of seven CCG medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state. The owner of CCG, a marijuana trafficking fugitive from another state, also owned Green Medicine Group (GMG) that referred prospective patients to their group of doctors throughout the state. One of the GMG doctors saw as many as 49 patients a day charging from $150-$250 per patient. The same doctor saw 293 patients in one week. The doctor allegedly examined each patient from aclosed-circuit television monitor and a clerk in another office where the patient was, handed out pre-signed medical recommendations. Because there is no ordinance, procedure, guideline or anything to regulate dispensaries and to whom or how they disperse drugs, they are free to distribute as much marijuana as they want and to anyone, whether they are adults or young people. Young people from all over Los Angeles County flocked to CCG to buy marijuana and then returned to their respective communities to conduct street sales of the drug. No one on the premises had medical or pharmaceutical training or licensing to distribute marijuana, edibles, plants and liquids. There was no first aid kit, defibrillator or trauma kit present at the location in case of a medical emergency. Furthermore, the business promoted the sale and cultivation of 60 strains of marijuana, of which, only six strains were for medical purposes. Evidence was also recovered at the scene that showed the dispensary was in business to make a profit. Over $1.7 million in cash alone was received during the month of March 2005. And, most importantly, only three medical marijuana recommendations were found for patients residing in Los Angeles County, yet they provided medical marijuana to an average of 300 patients per week. The County Ordinance provides for the sales and consumption of edible marijuana. Edibles are food products, i.e. soda pop, peanut butter, candy, bakery items, jam and other liquids that contain various levels of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive agent of marijuana. There were no regulations in the ordinance for the quality control, potency, dosage and legality of the products sold. There is no Food and Drug Administration approval of the products. On March 23, 2006 in Oakland, "Beyond Bomb," one of a handful of manufacturers and distributors of edible marijuana products, who distribute edibles to medical marijuana dispensaries in California and the US, was searched by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The owner was arrested for marijuana trafficking. The area of the company used for processing and packaging edibles was atrocious. No sanitary precautions were taken whatsoever and the area was absolutely filthy and vermin was present. In addition, the company sold edibles in packaging resembling copyrighted and trademarked food items. Beyond Bomb used the same logo, candy wrapper colors and derivatives of the names of legal products, i.e. "Buddafinga" had the similar color wrapper and logo as the NestleUSA candy bar "Butterfinger." Over 20 different legitimate products were found that had infringed copyrights and trademarks in this manner. 14 P136 In addition, legitimate candy bars were opened and the chocolate was laced with THC and then repackaged in the new labeling. There was no explanation for " 3X," "6X," or "10X" markings on the wrappers of edible products (according to operators of dispensaries the markings indicate the potency of THC in the product), Lastly, there are no directions on the edible packages for the uses, dosage, warnings (allergy alerts, stomach bleeding and alcohol), drug facts, expiration date and other information, as required for over the counter drugs. Lastly, the ordinance called for a security system and guards for each location. This requirement has not been an issue in the past. Medical marijuana dispensaries typically have had more extensive security systems than Sav-On, Rite Aide or Walgreen drug stores, and yet they still have been robbed and assaults and murders have occurred because they keep exorbitant amounts of cash and marijuana on hand. In addition, the security systems and guards do nothing for the surrounding businesses or area. Many of the dispensaries locally employ street gang members with extensive criminal histories as security guards and many of them are armed. In addition, where medical marijuana dispensaries have sprung up, the surrounding area has seen a 50 percent increase in Part I crime. Several unincorporated areas within the County of Los Angeles border the City of Los Angeles. Compounding this issue, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has a policy of not enforcing the law at medical marijuana dispensaries. Therefore, if the City of Los Angeles does adopt the same ordinance, crime will significantly increase in these areas making it extremely difficult to enforce the law. (Source Det. Dennis Packer Asset Forfeiture/Narcotics Vice Division L.A.P.D.) MENDOCINO COUNTY Marijuana: Marijuana Crop Worth $1.5 Billion in One California County Alone, Paper Estimates 12/2/05 Northern California's Mendocino County has been known for marijuana growing for at least 30 years. Part of the state's legendary Emerald Triangle of high-grade pot production along with neighboring Humboldt and Trinity counties, Mendocino has long profited from the underground economy. Last week, a local newspaper, the Willits News, tried to gauge just how large the profits may be, and the result is startling. According to the News, the local marijuana industry will add $].5 billion to the county's economy this year. With Mendocino's legal economy estimated at about $2.3 billion, that means the pot economy is almost two-thirds as large as all other legal economic activities combined. When combining the aboveground and underground economies, the marijuana industry is responsible for roughly 40% of all Mendocino County economic activity, a figure approaching the proportions of the Afghan opium economy. As the News is quick to acknowledge, because marijuana is an illicit commodity, no one really knows how big the industry in the county is, so the paper relied on extrapolations based on the number of plants seized and on information it acquired about current wholesale (pound level and up) marijuana prices in the area. The County of Mendocino Marijuana Eradication Team (COMMET) seized 144,000 plants this year, and District Attorney told the paper COMMET normally seized between five and eight percent of the crop, a ]ittle less than the ] 0% rule of thumb for estimating all drug seizures. 15 P137 The paper more than compensated for the lowball seizure rate by also factoring in a 20% crop loss to spoilage. Following the formula, the News estimated ].8 million plants were sown in the county this year, with 1.32 million surviving droughts, floods, bugs, mold, and cops. And while both the DEA and Mendocino County law enforcement like to say that one plant produces one pound, the newspaper consulted local grower "Dionysius Greenbud," who said the average yield is closer to a half pound -- a very rough estimate, given a local crop that consists of both high-yielding outdoor plants and smaller, lower- yielding indoor plants. The paper's in-the-ballpark estimate for total pot production in the county is thus some 662,000 pounds. The paper assumed a wholesale price of $2200 a pound, based on reports from local growers, and a simple multiplication yields a total of $1.5 billion. ]s that figure out of line? It's hard to say. In last year's "Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market," Eric Schlosser quoted former DEA officials as estimating the value of all marijuana grown nationwide at $25 billion. While it is difficult to believe that one California County accounts for nearly 5% of all pot grown in the US, who is to say different? (Source http://stopthedru?war.or¢/chronicle/413/mendocino. shtm I) March 16, 2006 Three suspects enter a MMJ Dispensary (Mendocino Remedies), pepper spray the employees and attempt to take property. A fight between the suspects and victims ensues and the suspects flee the scene. (Source http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/sheriff/pressreleases.htm) MODESTO July 18th, 2005. DEA arrests three subjects on charges stemming from a raid by Stanislaus Co sheriffs, who reported discovering 49 plants and 235 pounds of marijuana there. The main subject of the investigation and his wife had been providing medical marijuana for patients at a San Francisco dispensary. (Source http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.htm]) Soap store a front for pot outfit, cops say Patrick Giblin Modesto Bee Modesto, CA June 17, 2006 -- Drug agents looked past the soaps and lotions at The Healthy Choice on McHenry Avenue in Modesto and sniffed out a marijuana store in the back, law enforcement officials said Friday. Narcotics officers arrested Michael O'Leary, 37, of Modesto at the store, 4213 McHenry Ave. They are looking for his brother, Shannon O'Leary, 34, of Modesto, agent Kelly Rea said. "The second store was just like a legitimate store, with shelves, prices listed and receipts given to the customers," said Rea, an agent with the Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency. "I've never seen anything like it." There were prescription bottles filled with pre-weighed amounts of marijuana. There also were 50 to ] OO pre-wrapped, marijuana-laced brownies and an equal number of marijuana-laced cookies. The store had a menu of prices and types of marijuana, with the different varieties neatly packed in Tupperware containers, Rea said. "They offered full customer service," Rea said. Local, state and federal drug agents raided the store about 9 a.m. Friday and stayed until about 1 p.m., seizing property and cataloging the inventory, sheriffs spokeswoman Gina Legurias said. 16 P138 They also seized about $20,000 in cash. Approximately 30 people came to the store looking to buy marijuana while officers were there, Rea said. About half of them had California medical marijuana cards, indicating they were suffering from cancer, glaucoma or other ailments. Marijuana is believed to help relieve the symptoms. However, the store isn't a licensed medical marijuana dispensary. The rest of the potential customers didn't have cards, Rea said. "They sold to anyone and everyone," he said. No customers were arrested. They were interviewed to give officers an idea of how much business the store did, Rea said. Michael O'Leary was booked into the Stanislaus County Jail in Modesto on charges of possession of marijuana for sale and criminal conspiracy. He was released on $25,000 bail Friday afternoon. OAKLAND • Large criminal element drawn to the dispensary location • Marijuana dealers who have a doctor recommendation are purchasing from the dispensary and then conducting illegal street sales to those who do not have a recommendation. • Street criminals in search of the drugs are robbing medical use patients for their marijuana as they leave the dispensary. • Thefts and robberies around the location are occurring to support the illegal and legal (by State law) drug commerce. • Chief Word mentioned that a shoe repair business next door to a dispensary has been severely impacted because of the concentration of criminals associated with the dispensary. The shoe repair business owner is considering shutting down his business. • They had more than 15 total in city, now limited to four by ordinance but control is not very strong. The fines are too small to control a lucrative business. • Most of the crime goes unreported because the users do not want to bring negative publicity to the dispensary. • The dispensaries have an underground culture associated with them. • At least one of the dispensaries had a doctor on the premises giving recommendations on site for a fee. • One location was a combination coffee shop and dispensary and marijuana was sold in baked goods and for smoking. • Dispensary management has told the police that they cannot keep the criminal element out. (Source) Rocklin P.D. report ROBBERS INVADE OAKLAND POT CLUB Oakland Tribune by Susan McDonough, (Excerpts from) November ]0, 2003 A medical marijuana club in Oakland's so-called Oaksterdam district was the target of an invasion-style armed robbery Sunday morning. Four men, one with a gun, tied up a bouncer outside Compassionate Caregivers at about 8:10 a.m. and barreled their way to where the cannabis club is located on the top floor of the three-story building, police said. 17 P139 Several medical marijuana patients and staff members were inside the club at 1740 Telegraph Ave......The gunmen tied up another person inside the dispensary and took several ounces of marijuana and a significant amount of cash before fleeing, police said...... Oakland Police Sgt. Hugh Kidd said no one was injured and no patrons or staff members were robbed individually. Oakland was one of the first U.S. cities to legitimize the use of medical marijuana by deputizing a former club on Broadway as a distributor. That dispensary was shut down by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in 1998, but a number ofmarijuana-related businesses have sprung up in the neighborhood to replace it. Cannabis clubs in Berkeley and Sacramento have been hit by similar armed robberies in recent years. (Source) http://www.mapinc.org/newscme/v03/n1750/a02.html June 30, 2004: Five subjects were arrested by DEA following a CHP raid on a warehouse where 4,000 plants were found. The subjects claim that the plants were for a licensed dispensary. Police gave conflicting accounts of the incident; the CHP says it called on the DEA after Oakland police declined to help. Two defendants have pled not guilty to manufacturing charges bearing a 10-year to life sentence. March ] 6, 2006. DEA raids cannabis candy manufacturer, "Beyond Bomb," at three different East Bay sites, seizing over 5,000 plants, $150K cash, and the company's stash of cannabis candies & soda pop. Arrested are the owner and 11 other employees. DEA says products were packaged in eye-catching candy wrappers that might pose danger to kids. Supporters say that products were distributed for use by medical marijuana patients. (Source) hum://www.canormLore/news/fedmmicases.html One Department representative was willing to speak with me, but did not wish to be quoted for this report. They advised me of a recent carjacking. This event involved an owner and three employees of a MMJ Dispensary. None of the four could agree on any fact relating to the case other than while property of the dispensary was stolen, no Marijuana or cash was taken. This leads us to believe that either a large quantity of Marijuana or cash was the target of the attack. PLEASANTON The City of Pleasanton does not have any dispensaries operating in Pleasanton, whether legally or illegally. Pleasanton has a moratorium on dispensaries in place, has not prepared any reports on a ban, and staff will request that Council extend the moratorium for another 12 months. In support of the moratorium, the following health /safety / welfare infonnation was cited; Juveniles in Pleasanton found with marijuana which was re-sold to them after having been obtained from a dispensary. A dispensary employee was the victim of a robbery at his home after he brought more than $100,000.00 in cash from a MMJ Dispensary back to his home to Pleasanton. (Source Larissa Seto Assistant City Attorney) 18 P140 ROSEVILLE: • Street level dealers trying to sell to those going to the dispensary at a lower price • People are smoking marijuana in public around the facility • People coming to the community from out of town and out of state to obtain Marijuana (Nevada State, San Joaquin County, etc) • Marijuana DUI by people who have obtained from dispensary • At ]east one burglary attempt into building (Source Rocklin P.D. report) On January 13, 2006 the proprietor of the Roseville's MMJ Dispensary was indicated by a Federal Grand Jury on 19 counts of marijuana trafficking and money laundering. The indictment alleges that in an eight month period the defendant made approximately $2,750,849.00 from the sale of MMJ and of that figure $356,130.00 was traced to money laundering activities. The U.S. Attorney handling the case stated, "This case is a perfect example of a person using medical marijuana as a smokescreen to hide his true agenda, which is to line his pockets with illegal drug money." (Source Press release California State Attorney Generals Office) SACRAMENTO Sacramento has four dispensaries. Relatively few crimes other than at least two burglary attempts. Most of the complaints came to the council via citizens regarding quality of life issues i.e. loitering, traffic and use of marijuana in or near the dispensaries. July 7, 2005. The director of Alternative Specialties dispensary, charged by feds following raid by Sacramento County Sheriff that uncovered two indoor gardens with an alleged 800 plants. Sheriffs say the subject had a criminal record for embezzlement and failed to file for a business license. He was charged with the manufacture of marijuana and illegal possession of weapons. (Source http://www.canorml.ore/news/fedmmicases.html) SAN DIEGO Dec 12, 2005 -Interagency task force raids 13 of 19 San Diego dispensaries. Task force led by DEA with state police. Raids conducted under state, not federal search warrant. No arrests, investigation ongoing. (Source ham://www.canorml.ore/news/fedmmicases.html) July 7, 2006: Medical marijuana dispensaries charged with drug trafficking ALLISON HOFFMAN Associated Press Federal prosecutors accused six people Thursday of illegally trafficking pot under the cover of California's medical marijuana laws - in some cases processed into baked goods, "Reefer's" peanut butter cups and "Split' peanut butter. Federal and state search warrants were executed at more than I 1 locations throughout San Diego in a morning raid, and at least five people were arrested, authorities said. Federal charges were expected to be filed Friday, according to U.S. Attorney Carol Lam. 19 P141 "They made thousands of dollars every day," Lam said. "Their motive was not the betterment of society. Their motive was profit." One federal indictment accuses John Sullivan, 38, of growing more than 100 marijuana plants for distribution and distributing marijuana or processed marijuana-based goods from his two dispensaries, the Purple Bud Room in Pacific Beach and THC in San Diego. Five managers of the Co-op San Diego were indicted separately on similar allegations. Wayne Hudson, 42; Christopher Larkin, 34; and Ross McManus, 39, are alleged to have distributed marijuana products through the co-op. Scott Wright, 40, and Michael Ragin, 34, are accused of growing hundreds of plants for the co-op at their homes. Messages left a[ the dispensaries were not immediately returned. Also, the San Diego County District Attorney has filed state charges against one of the men named in the federal indictment and nine others for selling marijuana and possessing marijuana for sale. State charges were filed against Sullivan's THC dispensary and four other independent operations in San Diego. Prosecutors alleged that these dispensaries sold marijuana or marijuana-based products with little concern for legitimate medical need. "The party is over," District Attomey Bonnie Dumanis said at a news conference with federal prosecutors. She added that Proposition 215, the ballot measure that legalized marijuana for medical purposes, has been "severely abused by neighborhood pot dealers opening up storefronts." Complaints from residents living near dispensaries precipitated an investigation beginning in September 2005 by the San Diego police, the county sheriffs department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Dumanis said. Dumanis said that her office has "no intention" of preventing people who suffer chronic illnesses like AIDS, glaucoma or cancer from using medically prescribed marijuana to ease their pain. But San Diego County has fought an ongoing battle to limit the impact of the medical marijuana law, which was approved in 1996 by 55 percent of voters. San Diego has ignored a state requirement that counties issue identification cards to registered medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards. In December, county supervisors sued the state of California and its director of health services in federal court, saying federal law that prohibits marijuana use trumps the state law. The county moved that lawsuit to state court in February to avoid bringing [he case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sided in recent rulings with medical marijuana supporters. That suit is still pending. The men indicted by the federal grand jury face a maximum of 40 years in prison and ~2 million in fines for each of the allegations listed in the indictment, authorities said. The San Diego County District Attorney's office released a complaint sent last week to the state medical board against four physicians alleging that they wrote "recommendations" for medical marijuana use -doctor's notes required by state law - to apparently healthy individuals. (Source: Http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/ 14982395.htm) City hopes to close legal pot dispensary July 8, 2006 By Linda Lou UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER SAN MARCOS - An existing medical-marijuana dispensary here survived a City Council vote in February that banned any more dispensaries from opening. 20 P142 It was able to receive a business license because it called itself a nutritional supplement store, city officials said. But the dispensary's ability to remain open is now uncertain. On Thursday, local and federal law enforcement officers went to the storefront on Rancho Santa Fe Road and seized all of the marijuana and products laced with the drug's byproducts as part of raids of dispensaries countywide. Now the city is intent on shutting down the business, run by Legal Ease Inc. of San Diego, because it's been burglarized several times since the council's vote, said City Manager Rick Gittings. The city contends it's a threat to the community's health, safety and welfare, violating the provisions the city imposed in February when it allowed the dispensary to stay open, Gittings said. The concept of providing medical marijuana to patients who really need it has good intentions, but as indicated by state and federal prosecutors this week, medical marijuana dispensaries are fronts for drug peddling, Gittings said. Recently, Legal Ease asked the city to transfer its business license to a new location on Grand Avenue. The city rejected the request in a letter sent to Legal Ease last month. The letter said that another business near the dispensary's current location was burglarized because it was mistaken for the dispensary. The letter also said Legal Ease had failed at least once to submit security tapes of its premises and has failed to reveal what was stolen in the burglaries. Though the letter didn't say the city wanted to close the business, that conclusion is "painfully obvious," Gittings said. City officials will meet with Legal Ease's representatives next week to discuss the situation, he said. Gittings said he doesn't know when the dispensary would be closed. When reached earlier this week, Henry Friesen, Legal Ease's attorney, said that he hoped to clear up any miscommunication with the city. He said he thought the new location would be approved, based on discussions with representatives from the Sheriff Department's San Marcos substation and the Fire Department. Sgt. Gary Floyd, supervisor of San Marcos' street narcotics and gang unit, said he's not aware that Legal Ease had talked with the Sheriffs Department about relocating. He said that after some recent early-morning burglaries, the dispensary installed roll-up metal security covers over the door and window because thieves had smashed the glass to get inside. In Thursday's raid, dozens of candy bars and cartons of ice cream containing THC, a marijuana byproduct, were confiscated, Floyd said. Bags of packaged marijuana and larger bags of the drug used to refill the smaller ones were also taken, he said. No one was arrested. In December, a federal drug agent said he was able to purchase marijuana at the site with a forged doctor's recommendation. (Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060708-9999- I m i 8smmari.htm I) SAN FRANCISO May 14, 2005--In a daring home-invasion robbery at around 1 OPM, the house of the owner of Alternative Health and Healing Services at 442 Haight St was robbed of several pounds of cannabis and the dispensary keys. Details are sketchy, but it is believed that the robbers burst into the owner's home at gunpoint. More on this story as details are known. (Source) http://www.hempevolution.org/thc/dispensary_robbed040514.htm 21 P143 June 23, 2005 3 S.F. pot clubs raided in probe of organized crime Medical marijuana dispensaries used as front for money laundering, authorities say. Federal authorities raided three San Francisco medical marijuana dispensaries Wednesday, and investigators arrested at least 13 people as part of an alleged organized crime operation using the clubs as a front to launder money. Agents seized marijuana and other items from two cannabis clubs on Ocean Avenue in the Ingleside district and a third on Judah Street in the Inner Sunset district. The raids were the first in the Bay Area since the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the medical marijuana movement two weeks ago by ruling that the federal government had the authority to prosecute people whose activities are legal under state law.....Twenty people were charged in an indictment that federal authorities planned to unseal today. Authorities would not comment on the specific allegations against them. Authorities said.....that the operation controlled at least 10 warehouses where marijuana was grown in large quantities and that those involved were bringing in millions of dollars. One warehouse in Oakland that federal agents raided earlier this month was capable of growing $3 million worth of marijuana annually, investigators said. The marijuana ostensibly was for cannabis clubs, but the amount being grown was far more than needed to supply the dispensaries, authorities said. (Source) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/arti cl e.cgi?fi le=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDG 321.DTL. Dec. 20, 2005 - DEA raids HopeNet Cooperative afrer first raiding home of HopeNet directors Steve and Catherine Smith. No arrests. Agents seize cash, medicine, a few hundred small indoor plants, mostly cuttings and clones. (Source) http://www.canormLorg/news/fedmmjcases.html June 27, 2006: Medical marijuana dispensary robbed during S.F. Gay Pride Parade Adam Martin San Francisco Examiner Thieves apparently took advantage of Sunday's 36th Annual San Francisco Gay Pride Parade and Celebration to commit this year's second robbery of a medical marijuana dispensary. According to police and the club's proprietor, two men entered Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic at 1597 Howard St. about 1:30 p.m. Sunday. They held up the clerk and stole cash and inventory while most of the staff was handing out fliers at the Gay Pride Parade. Sunday's holdup marked The City's second pot club robbery of the year. The Purple Heart dispensary at 1326 Grove St. was robbed Feb. 3, San Francisco Police Lt. John Loftus said. There were four such robberies in 2005, Loftus said. Loftus said clubs are attractive to thieves because "it's a big cash business, and marijuana is expensive." He said that so far, none of the victims with whom the department has worked has been able to recover their inventory. Emmalyn's proprietor John Baumgartner said he and his staff felt safe in their trade until Sunday. "We never felt threatened," he said in an interview Monday. "We usually have two people on duty. Because of the gay pride day, I happened to be out with other staff passing out fliers and left one person in the store. We left ourselves open." The two men who robbed the dispensary had been in about an hour prior to the crime and bought some marijuana. 22 P144 When they returned, Baumgartner said, "they put a gun to my clerk's head, had him lie down on the floor, then they robbed him and the store. They took everything in the place. They emptied out the cash registers and the counters." Baumgartner said the club will remain closed for the near future while he upgrades security. "They took all the inventory I had," he said, but he said the crime was captured on security cameras, whose tapes will be reviewed in the investigation. (Source) http://www.hempevolution.org/media/examiner/e060627.htm SAN JOSE Murder in a Head Shop Will David Cruz's killer ever be found? By William Dean Hinton ON MAY 10, right around 8:30pm, Jonathan Cruz dropped in on his brother at the Rainbow Smoke Shop on West San Carlos Street...... About half an hour later, Jonathan left his brother, who was preparing to close the shop and head over to the Rainbow owner's home for dinner that night. What happened next is still somewhat of a mystery. Shortly after Jonathan departed, someone walked into the shop and killed David Cruz with a single bullet wound to the back of his head, just above the left ear. No money was taken from the register, and the store wasn't ransacked. When the owner, Suzie Andrews, was allowed back inside, a month after the shooting, everything appeared to be normal except for the bloodstain in the doorway leading to a small body-piercing room. The killing was essentially the end of Andrew's shop. After 10 years as owner, she was afraid to be in her own store. She began carrying a .38 with hollow-point bullets and closed the Rainbow's doors two hours earlier than before David's death. She finally closed the business permanently on New Year's Eve, sticking the remaining bongs, handpipes, hookahs, T-shirts and porn tapes into storage, where they might eventually be sold on eBay. David Cruz's killer, meanwhile, has never been identified. Police can usually determine a murder suspect within 48 hours of a shooting, even if they're unable to apprehend him. The Cruz case is approaching the nine month mark with no credible theory why David was shot. (Source http://equalrights4all.us/content/view/192/~0~ SAN LEADRO San Leandro does not have any MMJ Dispensaries within their City Limits. They do however have employees of MMJ Dispensaries from other jurisdictions living in their city. June 19, 2005: Suspects enter an unoccupied residence of a MMJ Dispensary employee taking jewelry and $10,000.00 in cash. June 28, 2005: Suspects return to the same residence and begin to force entry when they are confronted by the resident and flee before any loss is sustained. September 20, 2005: A receptionist of a MMJ Dispensary was accosted by a lone suspect as she walked from her vehicle to her house. The receptionist was able to get into her home and call police before the robbery was completed. 23 P145 October 26, 2005: A Detective on routine patrol observes a suspicious circumstance and stops two subjects. The stop results in the arrest of the subjects for robbery and possession of stolen property. The house the suspects were watching was the home of a MMJ Dispensary employee. December 19, 2005: The same receptionist (9/20/05 event) is robbed as she walks from her vehicle to her home. The suspects took a bag containing receipts from the MMJ Dispensary (Paperwork only, no cash) (Source Mark Decoulode San Leandro PD) SANTA CRUZ Four men sought in home robberies Santa Cruz Sentinel Santa Cruz, CA Dec 13, 2004 -- Santa Cruz Police are asking for the public's help in finding four armed men who took marijuana grown for medicinal uses and electronics from two separate houses on Clay Street. Around 1 a.m. Sunday, a white, Asian and possibly two black males -all wearing masks and dark clothing -broke into two residences, rounded up their tenants, held them at gunpoint and ransacked their homes, all while demanding drugs and cash. Two of the victims were battered during the robbery, resulting in minor injuries not requiring hospital treatment. One of the suspects fired a single shot from a handgun when one of the victims tried to escape. No one was shot. http://www.hempevo I ution.org/media/dai ly_rev iew/dr050824.htm SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Capitola 2004: Three suspects entered the victim's home armed with a handgun in search of the residents MMJ grow. The resident and two guests were ordered to the floor. During the robbery the resident was shot and stabbed but managed to fight off the suspects who fled prior to the arrival of the responding Deputies. Live Oaks October 1, 2005: Four suspects attempted to conduct a home invasion robbery of a home cultivator of MMJ. The homeowner fired a shotgun at the suspects who fled and were later captured by police following a vehicle pursuit and crash. Ben Lomond March ~, 2006: Two suspects who identified themselves as "Police" forced their way into the victim's residence. The victim was assaulted, robbed and left tied up in his residence until the next day when he was discovered. Subsequent investigation revealed that the motive for the robbery was the victims MMJ supply. SANTA ROSA May 29, 2002 Federal agents raided a medical marijuana buyers club here Wednesday and arrested two people. A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman said two addresses were searched, including the club near downtown. 24 P146 Marijuana, cash, a car and a weapon were seized. Authorities declined to identify the arrested pair, saying all information about the case was sealed by a federal judge. (Source) http://cannabisnews.com/news/12/thread12999.shtml September 29, 2004 The father of the owner of a MMJ Dispensary was followed home from the dispensary and robbed at gunpoint in front of his residence. The owner of the club believed that his business was being "cased" and that "further robberies were eminent." January 25, 2005 Suspects force entry into a closed MMJ Dispensary and burglarize the business taking three pounds of Marijuana and cash. March 3, 2005 Suspects forced entry into a MMJ Dispensary a stole a laptop computer, Marijuana and smoking paraphernalia. April I5, 2005 Employees of a MMJ Dispensary were robbed by a suspect armed with a shotgun as they were closing the business. The suspect stole a "duffle bag" of Marijuana. April 18, 2005 Suspects forced entry into a closed MMJ Dispensary and stole a digital scale. April 19, 2005 Suspects forced entry into a MMJ Dispensary and stolen one half pound of marijuana. Mar 17, 2006 Suspects forced entry into a closed MMJ Dispensary, loss unknown at this time. (Source) Lt. Briggs Santa Rosa P.D. The Vice unit has been involved in the investigation of [he following MMJ Dispensary related crimes; • A homicide, during a residential robbery where the suspects sought Marijuana cultivated for a dispensary. • Four residential robberies, where the suspects sought Marijuana cultivated for a dispensary. • Twelve cases where individuals were cultivating Marijuana for dispensaries, but were found to be operating outside MMJ guidelines and in a "for profit" status. Each of these cases resulted in the arrest of the cultivators and disposition is pending. • ]nstances where undercover officers have found subjects buying Marijuana from MMJ Dispensaries under the guise of MMJ and then reselling the Marijuana to non MMJ users. (Source) Sgt. Steve Fraga Santa Rosa P.D. 25 P147 SONOMA COUNTY A subject was arrested May 9, 2001 while growing for himself and other patients; convicted by ajury of cultivating more than 100 plants on Feb 11, 2002; sentenced to 5 yrs probation; He was re-arrested July 31, 2002 for cultivating while on probation. Convicted and sentenced to 44 months for growing 920 plants Dec 19, 2002. Released on bail April 2004; awaiting sentencing post-Raich 2005. The proprietor of Genesis 1:29 club in Petaluma was arzested Sept 13, 2002. Agents uprooted 3,454 plants at the club's garden in Sebastopol. The suspect pled guilty July 2003; sentenced to 41 months, July 2005. Information provided by: (Source) http://www.canorml.ore/news/fedmmicases.html Friday, February 17, 2006 at 12:13, PM Commercial marijuana operation shut down. On 2/16/05, the Sonoma County Narcotic Task Force, SCNTF, and the County of Mendocino Marijuana Eradication Team, COMMET completed an investigation . involving alarge-scale commercial marijuana growing operation. At the first residence on Little Creek Rd., agents located a marijuana growing operation where "starter" plants were being cultivated. These plants would eventually be moved to the larger grow rooms as they matured. As agents collected evidence, Kenneth D. Brenner, 57 yrs, of Annapolis arrived at the residence. When agents contacted Brenner, they located grow equipment in the bed of his truck. He was detained and returned to his residence. At Brenner's residence, agents seized numerous firearms. Agents also seized an AK47, a Colt AR15, and a .308 sniper rifle. Additional documents linking Brenner to the growing operation were seized. The indoor grow operation included 4 buildings which were located approximately a quarter of a mile off Annapolis Rd. in the thick brush. The grow buildings ranged from ] 00'X 30' to 30'x 20'. The buildings were constructed of plywood, with the exteriors painted black, and concealed under the thick canopy of trees. The plants were growing in a hydroponics type system, under approximately 120 high intensity lights. The lighting equipment alone is valued at $48,000.00. Agents located a camouflaged, insulated concrete bunker which housed a 125KW diesel generator. This generator was seized and valued at approximately $75,000.00. The total number of plants was approximately 1700. Agents determined the plants when harvested would yield approximately 50 pounds of marijuana. The marijuana would have a street value of $150,000.00. As agents continued their searching, they seized over 3,000 live rounds of ammunition in one of the grow buildings. The ammunition matched the same type of assault rifles seized at Brenner's residence. Agents then discovered numerous metal military type ammunition cans hidden in the area. When the cans were opened, the agents discovered 22 solid bars of silver, and antique silver coins. The bars each weighed 9ozs., with an estimated value of $30,000.00. The Drug Enforcement Administration was contacted to consider the adoption of this case on a federal level. Mc Brenner was released at his residence. The case will be under further review by the United States Attorney's Office. For further information contact Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli at (707) 565-5441. Prepared by Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli. 26 P148 Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 12:18, PM $600,000 in marijuana seized. On 1/4/06, the Sonoma County Narcotics Task Force completed a three month investigation involving the sales of methamphetamine in the City of Cloverdale. Through the use of undercover purchases, Task Force Agents identified a residence on South Cloverdale Boulevard as the source of methamphetamine. When agents served a search warrant at the residence, they located 212 pounds of manicured marijuana. The marijuana had been concealed in various locations on the property. Along with the marijuana, agents seized a half ounce of "crystal" methamphetamine, ascale, packaging material, and paylowe records. As agents continued their search, they located an AK-47 assault rifle with 3 fully loaded 30 round magazines next to the rifle. A stolen sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun, 2 additional rifles, and one loaded semi-automatic handgun were also located in the same location. ' While searching the residence, agents encountered three children living at the residence with their parents. The ages of the children were 6,7, and 8 years. As agents searched, they discovered approximately 3 pounds of marijuana within the same room as the children were discovered sleeping. The estimated street value of the marijuana is $636,000.00 dollars. The methamphetamine is valued at $450.00. For further information contact Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli at (707) 565-5441. Prepared by Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli. (Source www.sonomasherif£org) TEHENLA COUNTY Two subjects were indicted by federal grand jury on Jan 8, 2004 afrer trying to assert medical marijuana defense in state court. Arrested with 100s of small seedlings, 33 mature plants, and a few pounds of processed marijuana in Red Bluff and Oakland. Defendants say they were for personal use. The Tehama DA turned the case over to the feds while pretending to negotiate a deal with their attorneys. Denied a Rarch defense by Judge England. (Source) http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html TRINITY COUNTY A subject and his wife were arrested in 2003 for a sizable outdoors grow; they were re- arrested the next year afrer deliberately replanting another garden in public view. While awaiting trial, they were arrested once again, this time for a personal use garden of approximately ten plants. (Source) http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html TUSTIN After a MMJ Dispensary opened, undercover officers conducted an investigation in the business. During the service of a search warrant, 25 pounds of marijuana was seized and the dispensary was shut down. The District Attorney still has not made a decision as to whether to file charges or not. (Source) Scott Jordan Tustin PD 27 P149 UKAIH Over the last four years, the City of Ukiah has experienced an increase in crimes related to the MMJ Dispensaries. They are four Dispensaries in town as well as several citizens growing Marijuana for the purpose of providing Marijuana to dispensaries. There have been approximately ten robberies of either dispensaries or private grows. Some of these robberies have resulted in shootings. There has also been an arson of a dispensary which the police department believes was the result of a dispute with a customer. (Source) Det. Guzman Ukiah P.D. Ukiah Daih~ News An arson fire burned the Ukiah Cannabis Club Saturday morning, causing extensive damage and blackening neighboring structures as well. A man who told The Daily Journal he was upset with the Ukiah Cannabis Club, claiming club members owed him money for the crop of marijuana he grew for them, was arrested at the scene.....The man in the back of the store, later identified as William Howard Ryan, ~ 1, of Willits, telephoned UPD dispatch, saying he vas armed and that he would shoot anyone coming to get him. Officers and firefighters heard muffled shots from the interior of the store..... Ryan was arrested on charges of arson, burglary and possession of hashish. He was interviewed by The Daily Journal just days ago when he claimed he was going to sue the Ukiah Cannabis Club for the money he says he is owed. Some witnesses said they saw Ryan enter the building with what looked like grenades strapped to his body. There were also reports the suspect carried a weapon, though that was not corroborated by police. A spokesperson for the Forest Club said the bar would be closed for a short time only. (Source http://www.hempevolution.org/media/ukiah_daily_news/udn020527.htm) VENTURA Two subjects were arrested Sept 28, 2001 for cultivating for the LACRC. Forfeiture filed against their property, including home they built for themselves, in July 02. Raided again and arrested for personal use garden of 35 plants in Aug 02; charged with cultivation. Pled guilty Sep 03. Ninth Circuit denied appeal March 2006. (Source) http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html CALIFORNIA CHIEFS OF POLICE The California Chiefs of Police outlined their collective opinion on their web site; Law Enforcement Concerns to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries; • It violates Federal Law • Street dealers selling at lower prices to entice patients away from dispensaries • Non-residents coming into city to purchase Marijuana • Neighboring businesses have experienced a loss of customers • Increase in unreported crime to avoid negative publicity to the Dispensary 28 P150 • Problem of patients selling to non-patients (similar to providing alcohol to a juvenile waiting outside a liquor store • Documented cases of robberies outside MMJ Dispensaries • Dispensaries create alternative methods to market products -such as food items called Buddafingers, Munchy Way, Rasta Reese's and Puff-a- Mint Pattie • Complaints from patients that other illegal drugs are being sold at the dispensary • Marijuana dispensaries perpetuate asub-culture that openly supports behavior consistent with criminal activity and publishes instructional material on the web. Examples include: 1. Assume you are under surveillance if you are in any way involved in providing medical marijuana to patients. 2. Do not discuss sensitive matters on the phone, through the mail, by e-mail, or in you home, car, dispensary collectives or office. 3. Don't gossip, brag or ask for compromising or unnecessary information about medical marijuana operations and activities. 4. You should be cautious of thefr. Many patients and care providers have been robbed because the wrong person knows sensitive information . Management from an established dispensary told police that they cannot keep the criminal element out. CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Agents have conducted sting operations on web sites such as "Craigslist" and recently conducted an investigation which resulted in the arrest of a subject for the sale of three pounds of marijuana as well as possession of an additional four pounds. This subject was an employee ofa local MMJ Dispensary. In all of these communities, law enforcement leaders were concerned with the impacts to the public health, safety and welfare by the commercial marijuana dispensing enterprise. All wished that they did not exist in their community. The trouble seems to occur when a large number of marijuana users, legal (under State law) and illegal gather at one location making them easy targets for illegal drug dealers; those freelance illegal drug dealers who are trying to recruit individuals with a doctors recommendation to legitimize (under State law) their sales and possession; and those who wish to prey upon the ill to steal their marijuana. This is compounded by the vast amounts of cash and little or no oversight of the processes of prescription, procurement and sales of MMJ. All of these impacts are avoidable if the commercial marijuana dispensing business were not allowed to locate in our community. 29 P151 Medical Marijuana Doctor's Another area of contention is the apparent lack of oversight regarding who receives a physician's recommendation for MMJ and the process in doing so. One doctor who is touted as a "MMJ Doctor" is a practitioner in the City of EI Cen Ito. It is reported that our local doctor has issued over ten thousand recommendations for MMJ in the ten years since Prop. 215 was enacted in 1996. Research on the Internet has revealed that the cost to patients to receive their initial recommendation ranges from $125.00 to $250.00. If these figures are accurate, this one doctor has made $1,250,000 to 2,500,000 over the past ten yearsjust in issuing MMJ recommendations. These recommendations have to be renewed every one to two years at the cost of $50.00 to $100.00. This same doctor has repeatedly been the target of investigations regarding his practices related to MMJ and is currently on probation with the Medical Board of California as a result of investigations into 47 complaints, all of which were referred by law enforcement or district attorneys. And this is how his web site explains this; Medical Board of California v Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D. Since 1993, the Medical Board of Califomia have had various ongoing investigations into Dr. Mikuriya's use of cannabinoids in his medical practice. Beginning in 1993 with rural county probation officers turning him in to the medical board for prescribing Marinol to probationers. The initial investigation resulted in a letter in Dr. Mikuriya's file. With the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, outlying Sheriff Deputies and District Attorneys began flooding the Medical Board with bogus complaints. Nearly 50 complaints were filed, none came from patients, health care professionals or patient families--none alleged any harm to patients. The medical board initiated multiple investigations. In 2003 Dr. Mikuriya had a hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge which resulted in the worst of the allegations being dismissed. (Dismissed charges included unprofessional conduct and incompetence.) However, Dr. Mikuriya was convicted for negligence and failing to keep adequate records. In April of 2004 he was placed on probation which includes a practice monitor, cost recovery ($70,000), and various other indecencies. Appeals of all charges are pending and continue. This page and the associated links contain all of the legal documents in this matter, as well as interpretations of why it occurred and the politics that surround it by Dr. Mikuriya. All of these materials are being made available to the public and any interested party as a means for Dr. Tod to show that this entire production was--and remains--a political action and has nothing to do with patient care and/or harm. (Source: httn://www.mikuriya.com~ .Another interesting concept is that even the doctors involved in this industry appear to do a "cash only" business. This is from Dr's Ellis' site; httn://www.potdoacom/ProfilePaee.html Occasionally the office will be closed due to Dr. Ellis' outside schedule. You must call to schedule an appointment to see Dr. R. Stephen Ellis, MD (CA License # G-40749). We are not a referral service for medical marijuana doctors in your area. We are a medical clinic with one medical doctor located in San Francisco, California. 30 P152 We can see patients living anywhere in the State of California in our medical clinic located in San Francisco. A Prop. 215 recommendation written from our office is good anywhere in the State of California. We will ultimately require confirmation of your diagnosis from your MD (or DC, DPM, or DDS as appropriate). We work with our patients to develop appropriate case documentation as per the routine standards of medicine -the only acceptable standard of valid legal protection a'Prop 215' recommendation can provide. Please bring an official picture ID for proof of ID and age. ALL patients (and any caregivers) MUST be at least 18 years of age and no longer attending high school. Exceptions in extreme cases can be made, so please feel free to call and discuss your situation. The Initial New Patient Physical Exam and Evaluation with Dr, Ellis is $250.00 total if you qualify and a recommendation is issued. There is an initial interview with Dr. Ellis to see if you qualify and the cost is included in the $250.00 new patient total fee. All patients that we will be able to assist then continue to undergo a physician performed medical history and physical exam as part of the initial visit. Those patients that we will not be able to help are immediately refunded al] but $25 (for pre-screening assessment) of the total $250 new patient fee. The $250 new patient fee includes all follow-up visits needed as well as associated administrative services for the entire initial 6 month period. New Patients are covered for up to six months with their initial letter of recommendation. Once you are an established patient (six months after your initial visit), expired letters can be re-issued if the condition is still valid. You must see Dr. Ellis at a scheduled appointment in person in order to have an expired letter re- issued. Unfortunately, recommendations /physician statements can not be issued by telephone or mail at this practice. Any available updates to your medical records from your doctors confirming that your diagnosis is still valid are expected (and MAY be necessary) to complete the renewal process. The office visit and exam fee for established patients is currently $125.00 and any includes and all follow-up visits needed as well as associated administrative services for entire 1 year period. Established patients recommendations can be issued for up to one year duration as indicated. Due to potential patient privacy issues, all fees are due and payable in full in CASH ONLY at the time of your visit. Patients are to bring the entire $250 payment at their initial visit. Multiple banks and ATMs are in the immediate vicinity. The San Francisco Clinic is very conveniently located in downtown San Francisco in the 450 Sutter St. Medical Building (Suite # 1415), between Stockton and Powel] Streets, just one block North of Union Square. We are a short walk from Powell Street Station for convenient BART / MUNI (and hence SFO, OAK, & Ca] Train) access from all of Califomia. Multiple non-validated parking options on-site and very nearby. Call for simplified directions. Practice Profile page updated on February 27, 2006 This is what one reporter has to say about Dr. Ellis; Doctor's orders: Get high A trip into the medical marijuana demimonde smokes out America's confusion about drugs, pleasure and moralih~. By Chris Colin 31 P153 Jan. 31, 2001 ~ SAN FRANCISCO -- To get pot, you can stand on 16th and Mission and wait for someone to approach you, and wonder if he's a cop, and wonder if he's going to rob you, and wonder if his pot is laced with strychnine. Or you can have a dull pain in your right ear. In a green box on the back page of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Dr. R. Stephen Ellis advertises medical marijuana physician evaluations for just about anyone. The ad contains no explicit offers or promises, just a list of symptoms that presumably qualify one for legal pot: "Anorexia ... chronic pain ... arthritis ... migraine, or ANY other condition for which marijuana provides relief" This is from Califomia Health & Safety Code 11362.5, implemented after California passed Proposition 215, also known as the Medical Marijuana/Compassionate Use Act, in 1996. In case his point is unclear, the ad goes on to interpret "ANY": asthma, neuropathy, HIV discomfort, constipation, old injury pains," etc. At the bottom, boldfaced, underlined, in caps, we're reassured: "]t's THE LAW!" My ear hurts, I tell the assistant over the phone. He tells me to bring $200 cash. No check or credit card? I ask. Cash, he says. Ellis' office is at the end of a long, dark corridor in a tall building next to a fabric store. The $200 cash does not go toward interior decoration. A cardboard sign with Ellis' name is taped to the glass on the wood door, which appears to be a good 50 years old. This is medical marijuana noir. That Philip Marlowe isn't smoking a cigarette on the other side seems to be a miscalculation on the director's part. Not that the other side isn't dark. In the grimy waiting room, which is just a little bigger than a glass of whiskey, six tired men in plastic chairs take their eyes off the linoleum only briefly. "1 have an appointment," I say to Ellis' assistant behind the window. He's young, wearing a sweat shirt. "Have a seat," he says, handing me a clipboard. There shouldn't be enough room for two camps in the tiny room, but the six patients manage to segregate themselves. To my left are the ill; three men between 35 and 50 sink into their chairs and stare at things in the floor that I can't see. Their eyes are glassy, and two of their heads are chemo-bald. To my right are three young men, none over 22 surely. They slump too, but with attitude, not sickness. They have baggy jeans and each has acne. The young camp looks at its shoes. The man directly to my left says he has glaucoma. He's grumpy about waiting. The man to his left says he's new to medicinal marijuana and is shaking and giddy. The man to his left sells sports tickets for a living, and is doing so on a cell phone, apparently unfazed by his circumstances. The grump beside me is New Agey and shakes his head whenever the cell phone rings. To my right are frauds. "1 hurt my back playing football," the big one next to me says. He grins conspiratorially, as if he's never touched a football in his stoner life. Across from us a raver taps his toes. He grins, too, when I make eye contact. The surfer next to him grins too. "I better get this before my man Nate's party Friday," he says to no one in particular. "How long does it take to get the prescription filled?" I ask. "My other friend got some from a San Francisco dispensary two days after his evaluation," he says. 1 wonder how many scammers it would take to undermine the medical marijuana cause. (This line of thinking is a vector from the anti-pot camp's faulty premise; penicillin would never be criminalized just because some people were smoking it on Friday nights.) And while it's entirely possible that none of these guys will leave today with a prescription, the quiet raver does eventually have his appointment and walk out with a thumbs up. He directs the thumbs up at me. It's assumed I'm in the fraud boat too. 32 P154 To me, it's unclear what boat I'm in. My ear does hurt. I've considered cutting my head off and throwing it in the ocean. The pain is intermittent, and in fact I haven't had any for weeks, but when it's around, I would smoke medicinal crack if it did the trick. Normal doctors and two specialists were no help. It's not an infection, we have determined. 1 got hit with an oar once, I always offer. The doctors and specialists nod. So I have chronic pain but not glaucoma and consequently suffer a faker's guilty conscience. Not that fakers are taking pot from the legitimately ill -- there's plenty to go around. Still, I don't know where I belong, waiting room-wise, and keep myself between the ailing and the insincere. Uncertainty emerges later as a motif in the medical marijuana universe, but for now, I'm being called into the examining room. Ellis joins me in the bare room, slight, friendly and rushed. He seems breakable. He also has the air of celebrity, probably because he's the only man many people know who can legalize pot, albeit one smoker at a time. He talks fast, like someone who either has been in an E.R. for years or has a line of patients out the door, each with a wad of cash. He takes my money and puts it in his pants pocket. "My ear hurts," I say, and I explain the pain. My honed explication of the problem doesn't seem to interest him. He interrupts after a minute, telling me to take my shirt off so he can use his stethoscope. The checkup is rudimentary. He hears my heart. He takes a peek at the bad ear. He looks into my eyes. I offer my oar theory. There's a brief, touching moment where he pats my arm, not weirdly, and then he's signing his recommendation. For the next 12 months, I'll be a legal medical marijuana smoker. I'll be a legal medical marijuana smoker in California, that is. California may have approved Proposition 215 four years ago, but 215 has yet to be reconciled with federal law, which still classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic. There is no consensus on how to interpret the ambiguity. California's medicinal marijuana proponents say medicinal marijuana is protected under law. The police, depending on the county, generally don't arrest smokers who have a prescription, except when they do. Courts often drop cases, depending on the judge, or how a jury might respond. Federal authorities generally say let's wait for the U.S. Supreme Court. They're referring to the long-anticipated ruling, which is likely to come down this summer. In September 1999, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "medical necessity" justifies violation of federal distribution charges. The Clinton administration asked the Supreme Court for an emereencv order to stop the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Club from selling pot. The order is temporary, and this summer the court will issue a final ruling on whether federal law permits the medicinal use of marijuana. It will be a significant ruling politically -- a verdict against 215 and similar measures would be a verdict against states' rights, typically a Republican cause -- but the efficacy of any ban on medical marijuana would be dubious. It can't overturn California's 215, or the medical marijuana laws in the seven other states that have passed them. Likewise, state and local police can't be forced to enforce the federal laws. Discerning any trend in the response to the medical marijuana question is difficult. In January, charges were dropped against Robert Voelker, a Marin County man found growing 19 pot plants adjacent to his trailer home. Marin Superior Court Judge Verna Adams ordered the confiscated plants returned to the man, according to the Marin Independent Journal. Given the physician's recommendation that Voelker subsequently obtained, it seemed no jury would convict him. Other "legal" users don't get off as easy, and the pro- pot groups all have stories of various authorities flagrantly disregarding medical marijuana legislation. 33 P155 One Web site devoted to Proposition 215 contains a letter sent by senior U.S. Customs inspector Mark Johnson to amarijuana-prescribing doctor in July 1998: "As a reminder you may want to tell your 'patients' that although they may have received a 'prescription' for marijuana from your office it will hold no weight as far as federal or state laws are concerned. Such was the case a few days ago when we confiscated less than a gram of marijuana from one of the people who had put their confidence in you ... This was a stiff $500 lesson for someone who probably couldn't afford it, but erroneously placed their trust in you." There remains confusion at the medical level, too, but nothing like there used to be. Plenty of doctors maintain that pot's a damaging and addictive narcotic, but more and more point to studies confirming its medicinal value. In November, for example, BBC News reported that 80 percent of doctors in the United Kingdom would prescribe medical marijuana to patients with serious illnesses if they were allowed to, according to a study by Medix UK, a Web site for doctors. If statistics like those from the Medix survey are surprising, it's because the evolution of thinking within the medical community has been undermined every step of the way. Even Drug Enforcement Administration administrative law Judge Francis Young's 1988 acknowledgment that pot "has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States for nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy treatments" got buried after a while. And of course marijuana's benefits among AIDS patients -- cannabis can help stimulate appetites, for example -- are obscured regularly by pot prejudice and AIDS prejudice. As far back as 1982, then Rep. Newt Gingrich wrote to the Journal of the American Medical Association criticizing the "outdated federal prohibition" of medical marijuana, and the "bureaucratic interference" it encounters, as reported by Michelle Malkin in the Seattle Times. Sixteen years later, Malkin pointed out, Gingrich was "Speaker of a House that just declared that marijuana 'contains no plausible medicinal benefits."' If doctors like Ellis eventually excuse themselves from the medical debate and start furiously signing pot prescriptions, it might be because the medical debate is stuck on repeat. None of the above -- the legal and the medical disputes -- particularly matters. In the United States, medicinal marijuana still occupies a place far from the realm of reason. The terms of understanding are primitive. We rely on imagery and hysterical association to direct, and then articulate, our suppor[/disdain for the movement. Like all drug debates to emerge in the past 15 years, this one is a closed system, impervious to new information. Progress occurs in spite of the alleged national conversation. Within the conversation, those opposed to medical marijuana have made little rhetorical progress since 1936's now-camp propaganda film "Reefer Madness." As few researchers will deny the drug's medicinal value, its detractors employ abstract versions of morality (it's "evil") and foresight (it's a gateway drug) to make their case. These tools interact with the presiding convention of all drug debates -- a collective disreeard of loeic on both sides -- and consequently we no longer ask why pot is evil, or how we can legislate something because it might lead to something worse. (Are forks a gateway weapon?) Those leading the medical marijuana charge can be dismissed, too: They're potheads. If there's a single obstacle to the acceptance of the drug's medicinal virtue, it's that it's fun, too. The high that accompanies the pain relief is the unspoken dozy conservatives can't surmount. That medical marijuana users experience this -- and perhaps even enjoy it -- diminishes their credibility. The high is distilled subversion. What else could it represent? Like sex, religion and the red menace, its threat lies in its utter ungovernability. 34 P156 Transcendent or faux-transcendent experiences aren't only dismissed because they're hokey -- to some, they seem to be downright unpatriotic. Still, in spite of the noise and in between the zealots, attitudes are quietly changing. if polls are any indication, the average American is more open to the idea of medical marijuana than ever before. The dialogue has never broken free from the larger drug war discussion, but it has cdoled off some. On a case-by-case basis, we seem to be remembering that we don't want our loved ones' chemotherapy worse than it has to be, and that in fact we, or our friend, or our aunt, has smoked quite a bit of pot for quite a long time, and nothing bad has happened yet. Getting a physician's recommendation from Ellis may have been easy, but getting him on the phone for an interview is another story. It isn't until a month after my visit that he agrees to talk. "What were you doing before this?" I ask. "I was at emergency rooms," he says. "Which ones?" "Various emergency rooms in the Bay Area," he says. He won't say how many patients he's seen since opening the office in July -- "let's say several hundred," he finally tells me. Nor will he say how many are ultimately granted recommendations. Iget the impression most walk away satisfied. "What about fakers?" I want to know. Ellis assures me that fakers don't make it to the examination room. "They realize it's a legitimate medical setting and go home," he says. "They can't get in without supporting documentation." Itell Ellis that I was not asked for supporting documentation. He says he has since changed that policy, though 1 sense that he did so reluctantly. "We don't [require supporting documentation] in the E.R.," he says. "People come in complaining of a headache, we go over to an open cabinet and they leave with a shot of Demerol in their butt." "And that's unfair?" I ask. "Marijuana is much more benign than conventional narcotics," he says. We talk about his history. Ellis graduated from the University of Illinois medical school at Chicago in ] 978, he says. His work as an emergency physician exposed him to "a real need" for better pain management strategies. A few seminars on medical marijuana persuaded him to look into alternative treatments. If Ellis was uneasy at the beginning of our conversation, he's in a gallop by the end. I ask why so few Califomia doctors are recommending marijuana for pain four years after the passage of 215. "They're afraid," he says. "They're afraid of the [California] Medical Board, and of their peers, and possibly of potential legal ramifications ... even though they're clearly protected by the law." It's the Califomia Medical Board that gets Ellis Fred up. "They've been officially silent [on medical marijuana], but behind closed doors they've been harassing physicians," he says. "That's the bottleneck on 215. Patients can't get their dots to prescribe medicinal marijuana, even though the law allows for this. In California, you might find 1 in 1,000 doctors" who would. Ron Joseph, the board's executive director, calls Ellis' charges ridiculous. "It's a nice fallback," Joseph says, "but I defy him to cite one case where the board has harassed a single doctor." As Joseph tells it, i['s not the board's policy to have an official position on medical marijuana -- it would just as soon have a position on X-rays. "We don't say whether it's good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate," he says. "We simply ask, 'Has the physician applied good judgment?"' Because the board's procedure is simply to investigate a "physician's actions as they're brought to our attention [by a patient]," he says, it has no incentive to bother doctors who are prescribing marijuana. So why aren't more doctors prescribing marijuana? Joseph blames the government. "The chilling effect has come from federal [agencies]," he says. "Doctors might be afraid of losing their DEA permit" (which allows them to prescribe controlled substances). 35 P157 As for Ellis' objection to the liberal distribution of Demerol in the E.R., compared with the paucity of marijuana prescriptions in the doctor's office, Joseph says an E.R. deserves its own standards. "It's a much different situation," he says. "There's little time to make the diagnosis [in the E.R.]. This is not the case in an office visit where the patient has the opportunity to explain his medical history." [f a patient is able [o obtain a physician's recommendation, he or she must next join a buyer's club. The Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Club is a mile from my house, so I swing by on a Saturday. Like Ellis' office, the OCBC is also low-rent, but it makes up for it in atmosphere. If Ellis' operation was film noir, the "Co-op" is Cheech & Chong plus "Beaches." The store mixes earnest compassion for the ill with a healthy appreciation for fat, leafy weed. Inside, past the pipes and bongs and vaguely pornographic poster of a luscious green bud, a woman at a counter sorts membership files. (The club has roughly 4,000 members, executive director Jeffrey Jones tells me later, but it's hard to count. Why? I ask. "We don't know how many are dead," he replies.) The woman at the counter gives me paperwork and takes my physician recommendation, acopy of which I'd already faxed in for approval. I do the paperwork and pose for my photo and pay the fee. My $21.95 entitles me to a list of active dispensaries, support in the event of police trouble, free massages and regular cultivation seminars. Cultivation? I ask. I can grow up to 48 plants, they say -- beyond that it's risky. My new member [.D. is my "shield." If a cop stops me for possession, 1 need only flash the card. If that doesn't work, the officer is to call the 24-hour phone number on the back, and the club will vouch for me. "But this is legal, right?" I ask. "Well," they reply, "yes. But call if there's a problem." I'm out in 10 minutes, but still without pot. This is because an injunction keeps the club from selling it. When the government went after buyer's clubs in 1998, it went after the six biggest. No attempt has been made to close the others that sprang up subsequently, Jones tells me. And nothing keeps the OCBC from directing me to an active dispensary two blocks away. "Why did the government pick on some pot clubs and not others?" I ask Jones. Surely it knows about the other dispensaries. "Who knows?" he says. "Maybe they wanted a martyr." "But nobody's going to respond to martyrdom when it comes to getting marijuana," I say. "Then maybe we were doing too good a job helping people," he says. The unmarked dispensary two blocks away is to pharmacy as Bates Motel is to Ritz-Carlton. Metal gratings cover the windows of the old building, which begs for a paintjob or some dynamite work. A guard stands out front and thoroughly inspects my paperwork before sending me inside to the next guard, who also thoroughly inspects my paperwork. Then I'm sent to a desk, where I fill out more paperwork, show my OCBC card, put a dollar in a jar and gain access to the next room. The next room is un-American. It's how Amsterdam is described among teenagers, a perversely legal assortment of illegal things: pot plants, pot brownies, pot cookies, pot seeds and, of course, pot. Half a mile from the Oakland Police Department, two glass counters full of dope and a promising back room await anyone with an OCBC card and some cash. There is no catch. I experience the brief heartbreak of poorly timed access -- this kind of opportunity would've been great back when I liked pot -- but mainly I'm glad people who need it can get it. I buy an eighth of an ounce of the good stuff, not the great stuff. It's $45. The guy behind the counter is nice like a nurse. The place isn't a neighborhood drugstore -- no matter how medicinal your marijuana, it's still pot, and pot culture is irrepressible -- but there's no Pink Floyd or opium-den decadence, either. 36 P158 On the wall is a mural of a sunny Oakland park, full of relaxed people in various stages of illness. They appear positively pain-free. The night I begin writing this article, I turn my head and the old ear pain shoots back. It's mild at first, then heavier. The pain isn't really reside the ear, but rather right where my ear hits my head. It hurts when I push on it and when I move. I decide it's time to take my medicine. 1 don't really get high anymore. Back when 1 did, I never experimented with pot's medical potential. I dig out a pipe and get to work. The first thing I do is underestimate how strong it is. I take two big hits, then sort of walk around, then take two more. The high is always indistinguishable from the ritual in the first three minutes, so it's a while before I know what's what. I sit and begin writing. I get up and look for something. I find incense in a drawer and light that. I sit and write some more. The pot is strong. My head is light, or heavy. I get up and put the incense out. A piece rolls behind the couch, still burning, and the house almost bums down. I find the piece. I sit down to write again and then remember to see if my ear hurts. It does. But not as much. I think. Does marijuanajust make you too stoned to evaluate pain? This would be dumb. I consider Ellis. It's hard to conclude an~2hing about him, for he's as ambiguous as every other element of the medical marijuana question. In a city of either conservative or craven doctors, he's taking a chance. Those who take chances to improve the lives of the sick and dying are heroic. But at the same time, it wasn't just the sick and dying in that waiting room. Ellis, like many medical marijuana advocates, is breathless on the subject. He perceives an injustice perpetrated by the medical establishment and by the federal government. If he's occasionally quixotic on the issue -- the executive director of the California Medical Board can't imagine what Ellis is tilting at -- one can infer that he's either dramatic or tired of seeing people in pain. Finally, what will happen to a doctor in a tiny office who flouts federal law on the back page of the San Francisco Bay Guardian? Is he in danger? "I don't know," Jones from the OCBC had said. "Is a bug that flies into the light in danger?" Because he's working with other information, or because he's blinded by the light, Ellis himself isn't scared. "They'd be crazy if they bothered me," he'd told me, before getting off the phone to see another patient. (Source http://drueandhealthinfo.orQ/paae02.php?ID=6) Another Doctor found through Internet research; I Hanya Barth, M.D.~ Wellness CounseWrp d AIlemafive Medicine ColHOrniO L'r_ense SA~31974 your Appointment There are four tlriuss you should bring with you: ])Any paperwork regarding your condition, including doctor reports, treatment notes, and paperwork with your diagnosis. The doctor is here to give you a second opinion. Any health history paperwork helps the doctor understand what your primary diagnosis is. Our doctors are here to provide you with a second opinion, therefore you must have seen a physician recently for the condition you use marijuana to treat in order to be evaluated. 37 P159 We are happy to refer you to a low cost medical clinic so that you may receive a check up. Please call and ask our office staff for the number to one of these locations. 2) Any medications or prescriptions (you may bring the bottles with their prescription labels), any supplements or over-the-counter herbs, vitamins, etc. We are interested in knowing what you regularly use to alleviate your condition. 3) California Driver's License or California I.D. Card. You must be able to prove California residency. This is a California law. We must see a photo I.D. proving residency here in the state of California. 4) Please bring the appropriate fees to pav for your visit. At this time, our office is not acceptine checks or credit cards. if payment is an issue, please sneak with our office staff. http://www. howardstreethealthoptions.com/ This is Dr. Milan Hopkins in Upper Lake; Are you concerned about your health and looking for an old-fashioned doctor who will take the time to listen? One who is up-to-the-minute on new medical developments and understands your needs? You'll find a caring non judgmental doctor accepting Medi-Cal, Medi-Care, Tribal Healthcare & other types of insurance. Also included on site is Leah, a certified massage and bodywork therapist. Please call to get affordable fees (Fees based on a sliding scale). Cannabis Fees and Requirements Due to the legalities surrounding a medical recommendation for cannabis, patients are required to provide Dr. Hopkins with the following documentation: Primary Physician Information: if you have a primary care physician, we request that you discuss with him/her your desire for a cannabis recommendation. We require the name, telephone number, and mailing address of your physician. If possible please bring any medical records you may have that would support your medical conditions. The California State Medical Board has decreed that the physician issuing a recommendation for medical cannabis must either assume responsibility for all aspects of the patient's care, or must consult with the patient's primary physician prior to issuing the recommendation. Identification: Please bring with you some form of pictured identification. Fee: The initial consultation and recommendation fee for medical cannabis is $175.00 to be paid at the time of service. (We do not except checks or bank card payments) Six Month Check-Up: The doctor requests that his patients return ever 6 months, the fee for this visit is $60.00 to be paid at time of service. It is require by the California State Medical Board that cannabis patients be under the continual care of the prescribing doctor. Annual Renewal: Your recommendation will need to be renewed every year for $125.00 with a 6 month check-up. If you missed your 6 month check-up it will be $175.00. http://www.dochop. can/ 36 P160 lONews Exposes 'Marijuana Doctors' POSTED: 4:39 pm PDT July 6, 2006, UPDATED: 12:41 pm PDT July 7, 2006 SAN DIEGO -- Doctors Offer Legal Pot Proposition 215 -- the medical marijuana initiative approved by voters ten years ago, has been subverted, abused and misused say law enforcement agencies our I-Team has spoken with. Prop. 215 is supposed to provide seriously ill people access to marijuana to help relieve their pain but a ] ONews investigation discovered just about anyone can get pot legally if they want. 10 News became interested in medical marijuana after seeing a large number of advertisements for doctors prescribing pot. These pot docs' ads appear every week in the San Diego Reader. Discussions with ]ONews sources both in and out of law enforcement seemed to confirm a disturbing pattern of increasing sales by the pot docs as well as an increase in the number of distributors for the medical marijuana. This launched atwo-month l ONews investigation into exactly what was going on. We used staff members to go into doctor's office and see how difficult it was to get a referral for pot. It was very easy. Too easy in fact, say law enforcement sources. It turned out both federal and local agencies are also looking into the process. The l ONews I-Team was able to acquire some government surveillance tapes used to document how different doctors would discuss with patients the benefits of marijuana. One shows an undercover officer and a Dr. Robert Steiner, discussing pot. "] assure you Tylenol is more of a risk to you and a hazard than is cannabis," said Dr. Robert Steiner. Steiner was doing one of his "legitimate and affordable" medical marijuana evaluations as advertised in the Reader. "It's open drug dealing with legitimacy," said Deputy District Attorney Dana Greisen. Greisen said doctors are recommending marijuana to just about anyone who can afford a doctor's visit. "It's being recommended for insomnia, depression (and) anxiety," said Greisen. ~"The law is being abused in a massive scale," said Greisen. The people using the marijuana aren't suffering from cancer, AIDS or other serious illnesses, which Proposition 215 is supposed to address. It was approved by voters to "ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to use marijuana for medical purposes." Dr. Steiner claimed no downsides to using marijuana on the law enforcement video. "We have two convincing studies that cannabis does not cause lung cancer. Cannabis regenerates brain cells," said Steiner. The undercover agent then asked if he could also get pot for his dog. "He's got arthritis. He whines at night because of the pain," said the undercover agent. "Again, it is perfectly acceptable for pups," said Steiner. Dr. Alfonso Jimenez has a Web site -- Medical Marijuana of San Diego --where patients can register for his services online. What happened when we sent our testers in? "He was just laid- back and friendly. (He) didn't really seem to worry about if he was giving me this for the right reasons or not," said tester number one. He went to Jimenez for back pain he doesn't have. He got his referral and could have purchased pot legally. l ONews never did purchase any marijuana even after the doctor's approval. "There's a line behind me coming out of the door," said tester number one. DDA Greisen said it's all about the money. "We had a doctor recently (who) testified he gave out about 2,000 recommendations in last year -- that's what he testified to in court -- at $230 approximately. You do the math -- that's $500,000 in cash," said Greisen. Greisen said most office calls are paid for in cash. 39 P161 That's what another 1 ONews employee had to do. He paid $125 to have Steiner recommend marijuana for his "sleeping problems." "They just let me in the office. (They) kind of started giving me all these facts about medical marijuana before they even knew what was wrong with me," said tester number two. Tester two would get his marijuana if he went to another doctor first to document his condition. "He (Dr. Sterner) referred me to a doctor who would have me in and out real quickly. I could come right back, (and) he would be able to sign off on the recommendation. Once people get their recommendations, ] ONews discovered there's no limit or control as to how much marijuana they can buy from storefronts called dispensaries. Legal Loophole? You don't have to suffer from a serious illness to buy medical marijuana from dispensers. 1 ONews investigators were able to get approval for marijuana from two doctors -- Dr. Robert Stemer, who has an office near Lindbergh Field, and Dr. Alfonso Jimenez in downtown San Diego. "They got me through pretty quick," said tester number one, a l ONews employee. With a recommendation from a doctor, the staffers would be able to get marijuana that is sold at dispensaries across San Diego County. Tester number two, another l ONews employee, was sent into the doctor's offices and said, "I went to two different places, and within thirty minutes I got some (referrals). It seemed pretty easy." These marijuana recommendations can be filled at twenty different storefronts selling 'pot, and unlike a regular prescriptions, a patient can use the recommendations more than once. "A pattern is developing. Patients get recommendations," said Dep. District Attorney Dana Greisen. These recommendations are ]ike a blank check. According to lONews findings, one person received a recommendation with permission to grow 75 marijuana plants. Each plant has the street value of $1,000. The same person received permission to purchase five pounds of marijuana. With that amount, a person can smoke a joint every two hours for 24 hours a day and seven days a week, taking more than a year to go through all of that marijuana. Dr. Larry Pohl said what some of his colleagues are doing is not proper medicine. He said patients sometimes need lab work, X-rays or meetings with specialists. Pohl said marijuana is not acure-all. "It's definitely not consistent with standard medical care," said Pohl. Dr. Jimenez has several offices and we talked to him by phone at his Hawaii location, he told l ONews that he only provides a referral for patients with medical illnesses. Jimenez's operates a Web site MedicallvlarijuanaOlSanDiego.corn. When 1 ONews visited Dr. Sterner, he explained he had to see patients and closed his office door. But there is another loophole in the system, called the primary care giver form. Taking Advantage Of Proposition 215 "It is a legalization of marijuana. It's going to encourage drug use," said San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender. "It is going to be helping people who are really sick and need a medicine that has been used for 5,000 years," said one Proposition 215 supporter. These were two very different predictions made ] 0 years ago after Prop. 215 was approved by Californians. Kolender was right, if you ask Dep. District Attorney Dana Greisen. "Over the last year, we saw a proliferation of these recommendations," said Greisen. He says just about anyone can get marijuana. And to make matters worse, he says, doctors hand out blank primary caregiver forms. These forms allow patients to list anyone they want to be a caregiver. It allows this person to purchase or grow marijuana for them. l ONews Investigations sent in two staffers to check Greisen's claims. And it was as the assistant district attorney had claimed. Our staffers were given blank caregiver forms. l ONews learned that one person named his dog as a caregiver. 40 P162 As part of the investigation, l ONews nominated a bird named Riggo as a caregiver. "The doctors -- because they're giving it to so many people -- are basically legalizing marijuana one doctor and patient at a time," said Greisen. (Source: http://www.lOnews.com/news/9480300/detail.html) Who is Ken Estes you ask? Ken Estes is a long time proponent of Medical Marijuana who has or has had interests in at least four Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, all of which have come under law enforcement and media scrutiny. When Pot Clubs Go Bad: Ken Estes just wants to share the miracle of medical marijuana. Everyone else just wants him to go away. By Chris Thompson Article Published Jul 24, 2002 Neighborhood lore has it that before Ken Estes set up his medical-marijuana club, the property used to be a whorehouse. The neighbors wish it still was. Back then, the customers walked in, took care of business, and got out. Bad shit never went down at central Berkeley's local brothel -- certainly nothing like what happened on the afternoon of June 5. At 2:37 p.m., roughly ninety minutes before closing time, a gray Honda pulled to the curb and two Latino men got out the car and stepped up to the guard. One topped out at 250 pounds and wore a plaid button-down shirt; the other was a skinny kid in a T- shirt. The guard walked back to the door, and shouted for Estes' brother that there were two guys at the door to see Ken. His brother cracked open the door, took a look, and leaned back to yell for Estes. At that point, the guard noticed the two men creeping up to the door. "No no, you can't come in here!" he reportedly shouted. Then he saw the gun. Mr. Plaid jammed a black pistol into the guard's back, and the T-shirt pulled out a kitchen knife with afour-inch blade. According to the police report, they forced the guard through the door, rushed into the club, and screamed at everyone to lie face down on the floor. Everyone did except for one man, awheelchair-bound patient who had come to get his legally prescribed dose of reefer and now had a gun in his face. The two men trashed the place and finally found the stash after prying open a locked file cabinet. As terrified neighbors called the cops, the thieves ran out of the club, jumped in the car, and floored it. It was the third armed robbery at 1672 University Avenue in ten months. You get into a lot of creepy stuff when you hang out with Ken Estes. You get burglaries, armed robberies, police raids, and felony charges. You also get allegations of cocaine dealing, tax fraud, and spousal abuse. The thing is, Ken's a really nice guy. With a tanned face defined by a sandy goatee, long blond hair, and a disarming air of candor and vulnerability, he seems the very picture of California easy living. It's only when you notice the wheelchair supporting his shriveled legs, or the limp handshake born of hvo decades of nerve damage, that you catch a glimpse of the tragedy that has been his companion since 1976. Shortly after a motorcycle accident left Estes paralyzed below his chest, he became a devoted advocate of medical marijuana. He carefully organized his club to offer every possible comfort to the sick or dying. Berkeley Medical Herbs, which didn't exactly traffic in St.-John's-wort, operated out of a cute little cottage that neighbors call the "hobbit warren." 41 P163 A modest wooden fence fronts the street and a path leads through a mulch lawn to a white security door. Beneath the rich, sloping redwood ceiling, a spacious brick fireplace keeps patients toasty-warm in the winter. Once a week a woman comes in and provides free massages on a table in the corner. And unlike other East Bay pot clubs, most of which stress a clinical pharmacy's atmosphere, patients can sit down and light up right there, beneath rustic paintings of Jimi, Janis, and Jerry. If it weren't for the crime that has plagued his club's operation, Estes might be the patron saint of Berkeley stoners. "We have the best prices and the best medicine." he boasts. "If you know buds, we have the bomb." But ever since Estes first got involved in the medical-marijuana movement, men with drugs, guns, and evil intent have followed him everywhere he goes. They have robbed him, exploited his generosity, and endangered the lives of everyone around him -- even his three children. But "Compassionate Ken," as his friends call him, doesn't seem to learn. He always picks the wrong friends. At least that's Ken's side of the story. His estranged lover, Stacey Trainor, told a darker version to the Contra Costa district attorney's office. She alleged that Estes is a former coke dealer who lied to secure his club's lease, that he has a Berkeley doctor in his pocket who will sell pot prescriptions for $215 a pop, and that up to thirty percent of his customers buy his product without any medical notes at all. Police and University Avenue merchants, meanwhile, claim that high-school kids used to line up for a taste outside Estes' club, and that his security guards scared away neighborhood shoppers and even got involved in fights on the street. His fellow cannabis-club operators even tried to drive Estes out of town. Whether Estes is a character out of The French Connection or one out of The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, he couldn't exist without the peculiar politics of Proposition 215, which decriminalized medical marijuana in California. In the six years since its passage, mayors, district attorneys, and state officials have been so focused on protecting patients from federal prosecution that they've neglected to implement any sort of regulations about how pot should be distributed. No state or local agency or mainstream medical group has offered any comprehensive guidelines on who should hand out pot in what manner. As a result, medical pot is not just legal, but superlegal, perhaps California's least-regulated ingestible substance. And yet marijuana remains a powerful intoxicant with a vast underground market, one whose dealers inhabit a shadowy criminal world populated by dangerous men. In the absence of official regulation, it has fallen to pot- club operators themselves to craft some sort of system. Over the last six years, groups like the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and the Alliance of Berkeley Patients have, through a series of trials and sometimes embarrassing errors, arrived at a protocol for verifying medical ailments, providing security from criminals, and operating safely in quiet residential and commercial neighborhoods. But however sensible their rules may be, they have no means of forcing club operators to abide by them. All they have is a gentlemen's agreement. Ken Estes broke that agreement, whether by design or neglect. And no one may have the legal power to make him stop. Estes is that rare breed of Bay Area native who spent his teenage years here in the'70s and didn't smoke pot. Bom in Martinez, he moved to Concord and became a star athlete at Ygnacio Valley High. He excelled at soccer and was offered a scholarship to Santa Clara University, but that all changed one day in 1976, a month after he graduated from high school. Estes was riding his motorcycle back from a Walnut Creek McDonald's, where he worked as a manager, when a car swerved into his lane and hit him head on. 42 P164 Estes flew over the car and broke his neck. The damage was so extensive that for the next two years, he couldn't even move his arms. He struggled through physical therapy hoping to regain just enough mobility to kill himself. Estes was wracked with chronic pain, living in a rehab center and dependent on others to bathe and clothe him. The morphine and the pills didn't help, and he began to waste away. "I probably got down to a hundred pounds, and I'm six feet," he says. "I couldn't eat, I couldn't sleep, the physical pain was horrible, a nightmare. But about six or eight months into it, a group of Vietnam vets I was in rehab with were smoking marijuana. They said, 'Look, man, we know you're not eating or sleeping, why don't you come over here with us?' I said no, 'cause I was still thinking about keeping my body clean. But they said, 'Man, they're popping pills in you and morphine. This is a lot less than that.' So I said, 'Alright, lemme smoke.' That night, I slept all night. When I woke up, I ate. They brought the doctors in, they said,'Lookit, he's eating!' My doctor wrote it on the chart, he wrote that this marijuana is doing what you want the pills to do." After that first toke, Estes put his life back together. He regained limited use of his arms, enrolled in junior college, and by the early'80s was offered another scholarship, this time to UC Santa Cruz. Estes decided instead to open a string of tanning, hair, and nail salons in Concord and Davis. He met his future girlfriend Stacey Trainor while she was working at a mini mart next to one of his salons. "I kept coming over there, and she would always have the banana drink ready for me, get the burrito ready," he says. Within a month of their first date, Trainor left her husband and moved in with.Estes. Together they would raise three children. But something always bothered Estes. Before he began growing his own, he typically took his business to Haight Street or Telegraph Avenue. It was a dangerous pastime; just because he wanted to relieve his discomfort, he was mugged three times and occasionally suffered the indignity of being dumped out of his chair. In the'80s, as AIDS swept through the country, Estes began clipping press accounts of "Brownie Mary," the elderly woman who used to walk the halls of San Francisco General Hospital, handing out marijuana-laced treats to the terminally ill. Slowly, he began to think that this wasn'tjust a drug, but a cause. In 1992, he signed over his share of the salons to his business partner and started distributing pot, going to demonstrations, and working to decriminalize medical cannabis. "Everyone thought I was crazy, but I said I wanted to pursue this," he recalls, "I'm tired of being looked at as a doper, as a pothead, as somebody less than somebody else because I used marijuana." Yet as Estes became a fixture in the medical cannabis scene, his life became increasingly chaotic and dangerous. At the very time that Proposition 215 liberated thousands ofinedical-marijuana smokers from prosecution, Estes began a long, almost farcical slide into crime. Even scoring on street corners didn't compare to what was to come. "No guns in the face at that point," he says of his early years. "That came later, with the medical-marijuana movement." Estes began his cannabis activism by volunteering at the Oakland Cannabis Buyers cooperative. From the beginning, the co-op has been at the cutting edge of the movement; where San Francisco clubs have a looser, anarchic spirit, it's all business at the Oakland Co-op, whose members have pioneered security and medical protocols with a determined air of professionalism. Jeff Jones, the co-op's executive director, doesn't even smoke pot. Growing up in South Dakota, Jones watched his father waste away and die from a terrible illness and vowed to find a way to bring medical marijuana to the terminally ill. Jones first joined the co-op in 1995 and soon found himself making home deliveries of dope to AIDS and cancer patients. 43 P165 If Estes is a creative but befuddled libertine, Jones is rigid and dogmatic. From the start, the two rubbed one another the wrong way. After passage of Proposition 215, the co-op emerged from the shadows and began distributing pot out in the open. But no one had any idea how to go about it. There were simply no rules; one day medical pot was illegal, the next day it wasn't. Proposition 215 is one in a long series of brief, poorly conceived initiatives whose implementation has proven to be a giant headache. The "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" offers no guidance on how pot should be distributed; indeed, the initiative is a single page in length and merely encourages the federal and state governments to "implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients." Six years later, no one in Sacramento has figured out what this means. No state agency has ever issued binding directives on how to distribute pot, or to whom. Until the California legislature passes a law to govern distribution, neither the attorney general nor the state health department has the legal authority to innovate any such protocols. "Proposition 215 did not address prescriptions," says Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "The initiative did not authorize or spell out any specific scheme for dispensing marijuana. Nor did it say who is entitled to it, or how much marijuana is required for which ailment. I think everyone recognizes that Proposition 215 was not the best-written initiative. But the voters passed it." With the state paralyzed, it has fallen to local governments to regulate medical marijuana. But most localities have adopted a strictly laissez-faire approach and done virtually nothing to ensure that the distribution of pot adheres to the spirit of Proposition 215. The portion of the Berkeley municipal code governing medical pot, for example, is so ridiculously lax that it plays right into the city's worst stereotypes, and yet it's as strict as virtually any other Bay Area city. Although the code limits the amount of pot a club can have on hand, there are no provisions limiting how close a pot club can be to a school, or requiring doctors to conduct an actual evaluation of patients, or requiring background checks for pot distributors -- which is standard practice for anyone who wants to run a liquor store. Yet the code does encourage pot clubs to "use their best efforts to determine whether or not cannabis is organically grown." City Councilmembers Linda Maio and Dona Spring say the city can't even write up a specific-use permit for cannabis clubs, because doing so would violate federal law. The end result is that medical pot is actually less regulated than candy bars, which must at least have their ingredients printed on the wrapper. Anyone can distribute medical pot anywhere, in any fashion they please, and virtually no one is watching them. Club operators disagree on whether this is good or bad. Jeff Jones wants the government to step in and bring some common sense to pot's distribution. "We thought the government would get involved in distributing medical marijuana as per the state law," he says. "] never though that five or ten years later, we'd still be operating in a vacuum." Others worry that if the state takes a firmer hand, a conservative governor or attorney general might interpret the law so narrowly as to effectively recriminalize medical cannabis. But everyone agrees that since the government hasn't set up rules, club operators must police themselves. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Collective was at the forefront of this effort, keeping and verifying patient records, hiring security guards, and establishing a rigorous dual-identification system, in which patients had to pass through multiple checkpoints. "To be a member, they had to turn in a note from a licensed physician that we could verify," Jones says. 44 P166 "Even cancer and AIDS patients had to renew the note every year. They were a little mad about this, but we had to confirm that their medical status hadn't changed, and they still needed our services." Once Oakland officials were assured that, unlike at San Francisco clubs, patients would never smoke dope at the site, relations between the co-op and the city have generally been cordial. The city council contracted with the co-op to distribute pot to seven thousand patients on its behalf, and the co-op's membership cards became the definitive means of identifying medical pot patients throughout the East Bay. Jones even teaches classes on medical marijuana to recruits at the Oakland police academy. "We've never given them a reason to question what we're doing here," he says, "The local police like us because we give them an alternative to going out on the street. Our group have never done anything that has been deemed illegal, and we've never gotten complaints from anyone -- except the federal government." Berkeley's three clubs went through the same process, experimenting with various security and patient-verification protocols. In the beginning of2001, the Berkeley Patients Group on San Pablo Avenue, the Cannabis Buyers Cooperative on Shattuck, and the Patients Care Collective on Telegraph formed the Alliance of Berkeley Patients and agreed upon a [en-point platform. This included organizing as a collective or nonprofit, contacting physicians to confirm a patient's medical condition, scrupulously keeping patient records, hiring security guards, and maintaining good relations with their neighbors. "We agreed to police ourselves, so we don't have to have any outside regulators that might not have the patient's best interests in mind," says Berkeley Patients Group member Don Duncan. There was just one problem: none of these regulations had the force of law behind them. Even the police, hamstrung by a city council cognizant of the overwhelming public support for medical pot, can do virtually nothing to crack down on rogue clubs. If someone wanted to hand out pot like candy, no one could stop him. His neighbors along University Avenue soon figured this out. Accounts differ as to what Estes did when he first showed up at the Oakland co-op's door in 1995. Some say he taught the co-op's pot cultivation classes; others claim he weighed out the baggies and sampled the wares to categorize their potency. Estes says he did both. But one thing seems clear: he and Jeff Jones didn't get along. "Jeff always thought Ken should cut his hair -- look more appropriate for you guys, the media," says one co-op member who asked not to be named. "Ken was like, 'You know, 1 don't have to look right for the press. I'm a patient."' Jones won't say much about what he thought of Estes, but Estes recalls, "Jeff said, 'Look, if you cut your hair, you'll go places around here.' I said, 'C'mon, you're sounding like the people on the streets I've been dealing with for years. You're sounding like the conservative white guy who doesn't like anyone lookin' different from himself' So yeah, we had a lot of trouble. I told him one time, '1 wanna get out of my chair and beat your ass."' Whether the Oakland co-op itself was entirely above-board is a matter of some dispute. According to Trainor's statement to the Contra Costa DA, the co-op paid Estes in pot and unreported cash. "Part of the marijuana he received as payment from the club he would sell to other people, including persons who had no medical prescription for marijuana," her statement reads. Jones denies paying Estes in under-the-table cash, but refuses to comment on whether he paid Estes with dope. Estes claims he received a paycheck, not cash. But he acknowledges the pot-for-labor an•angement. "I got herb for working," he says. "They gave me herb, that was the trade-off. I worked there till it closed, and then I went out and opened my new shop." 45 P167 In October 1998, the feds managed to get an injunction prohibiting the Oakland co-op from dispensing marijuana. The co-op fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, where it eventually lost. Jones and his lawyers are preparing a new challenge, but except for a one-month period during which the injunction was lifted, the co-op has not handed out a dime bag since 1998. Seven thousand patients needed another supplier, and Estes jumped in to fill the void. But he needed customers, so Trainor says Estes called a friend who worked there. This employee gave Estes the names, addresses, and phone numbers of five hundred patients, and Estes soon started drumming up customers. No one at the co- op knew the two had done this; certainly the patients had no idea that their confidential information was being bandied about like just another mailing list. Estes concedes he made no effort to call their doctors and confirm their medical condition -- he just started making deliveries to anyone with a card from the Oakland club. By the time that Estes went into business for himself; he, Trainor, and their three children had moved to a house in Concord, where he began growing pot to supply his growing army of patients. On September 20, Concord police officer David Savage took a call: Estes' neighbor claimed that she could see a bumper crop of pot plants growing in his backyard. Savage stopped by and peeked over the fence. Later that afternoon, he returned with a search warrant. Savage's police report indicates that he found pot everywhere. He found roughly fifty plants in a makeshift greenhouse in the backyard. He found an elaborate hydroponics system in the garage; behind sheets of dark plastic, dozens of plants were growing on plastic trays and in children's swimming pools; grow lights wheeled back and forth on a track hanging from the ceiling. He found baggies of weed stuffed in desk drawers and scattered along the floor, and plants hanging in the closets. In the master bedroom, underneath a crib where one of the children slept, Savage found two garbage bags with dried marijuana in them. "None of the growing and dried marijuana was in a secure place," Savage wrote in his report. "Most of the marijuana was accessible to the children in the residence. Estes told [me] he was not concerned with the children having access to the marijuana because 'They know it is for daddy."' Estes denies leaving bags of dope near his children's cribs. But Savage didn't know what to do with Estes. Estes had an Oakland co-op card certifying him as a patient, as well as patient records indicating he was a legally valid caregiver. How much dope did Proposition 215 allow him to have? "They got a judge on the phone, and I talked to thejudge," Estes says. "I said, 'Please don't make me pull these plants out. These are good strains with medical benefits."' In the end, the cops confiscated the plants and the growing system, and ratted him out to Child Protective Services. In deference to Proposition 215, they left Estes with three plants and an ounce for his own use. But Estes complains Savage took all the kind buds, and left him just a bag of leafy shit. Fifteen months later, the cops would be back. By then, Estes had bought some property near Clear Lake, and Trainor had moved up north with the kids, growing more dope in a shed behind the house. Meanwhile, Estes' cousin Tim Crew had moved into the house to help him grow a crop that dwarfed his prior stash. This period marks the beginning of one of Estes' most foolish habits: keeping massive amounts of drugs and money lying around. "People told me, 'Don't put more than a certain amount in the bank, or you could get in trouble,"' he says. "We had a lot of money, and I kept it with me. I'd hide it in my closet, hide it in my suitcase. I just didn't want to put it in a bank." 46 P168 As more and more people got hip to Estes' stash, his cavalier attitude would provoke a spate of armed robberies that left his University Avenue neighbors terrified. The first robbery happened in Concord on January I, 2000. Neighbors called the cops and reported that several men had burst out of Estes' house and raced down the street, leaving the door ajar. When Concord officers arrived at the scene, they found that the front door had been forced open. They also found no fewer than 1,780 marijuana plants in various stages of cultivation, even after the break-in. This time, the cops wouldn't be satisfied with confiscating his stash. The DA charged Estes with four felony counts of possession and cultivation of marijuana for sale, and will probably argue that the volume of pot on hand proved that he was an outright dealer, not a medicinal caregiver. His trial is set to begin on August 5. With the heat coming down in Concord, Estes eyed Berkeley. Taking out a business license and a zoning permit to sell "herbs and other homeopathic remedies," Estes set up shop at 1672 University Avenue. From the very beginning, Berkeley Medical Herbs was characterized by his permissive business style. Michael "Rocky" Grunner showed up at Estes' door just months into his new operation and handed him a bag of quality product. Estes says Grunner told him there was more where that came from, and he was certainly happy to buy it. Grunner began hanging out at the club, and Estes thought everything was working just fine. The massage table was up and running, patients were streaming through the door, the smoke was flowing freely. But over time, a tense, nervous atmosphere infected the club. Finally, Estes claims, a friend came to him and broke the bad news: Grunner was dealing crank out of the back room. Estes says he promptly threw Grunner out of the club. But the club's neighbors were .beginning to worry about the sketchy new element. Machinist Richard Graham is a Icngtime area resident and has been known to take a hit upon occasion. But he even he draws the line at Estes' way of doing business. A few months after Estes opened the club, Graham dropped off a package mistakenly delivered to the wrong address. When Graham asked the man behind the counter how business was holding up, he offered to set him up with a physician for $200. "I asked them how their operation works, and they told me you just need a note from the doctor, and we have a doctor, and you can get a note for just about anything," Graham says. "Then he told me the prices, the registration fee to get the note, $200 per year. I got what I thought was an aggressive sales pitch. He said their doctor will help me get it. He looked at me and profiled me, said 'You're 51, you've got arthritis, we can help you.'... I just got the impression that these are people in it to sell marijuana as a business. I didn't feel that these were people motivated to help sick people, which 1 think other people are. It was a decidedly unclinical atmosphere, let's put it that way." In fact, Estes' operation was so unclinical that it even advertised in the Berkeley Daily Planet. Superimposed over the image of a big fat bud, the club announced that it had plenty of pot for sale, listing killer strains such as "Jack Frost, Mad Max, Romulin, G- Spot, and more." Other club operators groaned in dismay when they read the notice: "One-source shopping for all your medicinal needs! First visit, first gram free with mention of this ad!" Soon, kids were lining up outside, neighbors and police report, and the club's busiest hour was between three and four in the afternoon, when Berkeley High students got out of c]ass. "The biggest complaint was the kids going in and out of there," says Lieutenant Al Yuen, head of the Berkeley Police Department's Special Enforcement Unit, which handles narcotics investigations. "We looked into that and watched kids going in and out. 47 P169 We never caught him selling to kids without a card. He claims that the kids had medicinal cards, but he doesn't keep records on who he sells to.... He was advertising in the papers, he allowed tons of kids going though his place. He didn't have a screening process, didn't have security." In fact, Trainor told the DA's office that Estes sold his product to anyone with the cash. She estimated that seventy percent of the club's buyers were patients from the Oakland co-op, and that the other thirty percent were recreational users. And Trainor alleged that even many of the so-called patients may have had fraudulent doctor's notes. She claimed that Estes referred everyone without a card to Dr. Frank Lucido, a Berkeley family practitioner who allegedly charged a fee for every note. "Estes would tell his buyers to go to Lucido, give him $215, and he would give the person a prescription.... Trainor said that regardless of whether a buyer told Estes they had a medical problem or not, Estes would refer the buyer to Lucido to get the prescription." Trainor said she knew how Lucido operated because she went through the process herself. During her interview, she meticulously described her visit from start to finish. "Trainor went to the doctor's office, where she met a nurse who collected $21 ~ from her. She was brought into an exam room, where she waited until Lucido came in and asked her what she wanted. She told him she had a bad back and wanted a prescription for marijuana. Trainor said the doctor performed a mini physical, checked her blood pressure, and had her bend over backward to check the condition of her back.... Lucido then wrote her a prescription for marijuana. Lucido did not ask her questions about treatment or diagnosis from any other physician. Lucido gave her no advice on the amount of marijuana to use and did not advise her of any other therapy or medication that might treat back problems. Lucido did not tell her to come back for afollow-up exam." For a while, Estes says, he even accepted photocopies of Lucido's notes, and neighbors used to find them littering the sidewalk in front of his club. One neighbor, who asked not to be named, still has a copy of one such note from Lucido's office. The patient is a mere 21 years old and suffers from back pain. Lucido says he used to write such notes and rely on patients to provide verification later. But he says he discontinued that practice two years ago, and now requires independent verification of his patients' ailments from another physician. Lucido says Estes has been a headache for his medical practice. Two years ago, the doctor says, Estes printed business cards that claimed he was working in conjunction with Lucido. The physician says that as soon as he found out, he had a lawyer call Estes and tell him to stop making that claim immediately. "I'm not connected with the clubs, and I don't refer people to the clubs," he says. "I'm sure people mention my name, but it's never the case that we work in conjunction with each other." Lucido said he couldn't remember Stacey Trainor. Why is Trainor telling so many tales out of school? It all began two years ago, when she began an affair with Rocky Grunner. The feud culminated on August 31, 2000, when Trainor swore out a temporary restraining order against Estes, claiming that Estes threatened to kill her. When the Lafayette cops arrived at his house to serve it, they found more plants growing in the basement. Back went Estes into the pokey, and the cops even raided the club and seized product and financial records. Two months later, Lafayette narcotics agents raided Grunner's own house and seized seventeen pounds of marijuana. Trainor eventually broke off her affair. Grunner could not be reached for comment. Six months ago, as Estes became the subject of a Contra Costa district attorney investigation, Trainor met with assistant district attorney Phyllis Franks and county investigator Tony Arcado. 48 P170 Over the course of several hours, she told the story of their life together. According to her statement, Estes didn't start his new career dealing medical pot -- but cocaine. "After selling the tanning salon, Estes earned income by selling cocaine," Arcado wrote in his summary of Trainor's interview. "Trainer [sic] said the income from the cocaine business ran out in ] 993, and Estes switched to selling marijuana." Estes vehemently denies the charge and claims that Trainor, who declined to comment for this story, is lying as part of achild-custody dispute. "That's false, not true at all," he says. "No, I didn't sell the salons, I didn't sell cocaine. She was lying because she thought she was moving to Canada with the kids, and she thought that before she left, she could throw a bunch of stuff in the mix to mess me up in court. Because she downright hates me for dumping her." It was bad enough when neighbors watched police raid the club and kids line up for weed -- then the robberies began. On the evening of Friday, October 12, 2001, the club was winding down after a long day when someone knocked on the door. An employee pulled the door open and stared straight down the barrel of a silver handgun. "We opened up the door, same as for everybody: 'Hey, what's up?"' Estes says. "The guys came in. They put everybody on the ground and took everything." Time was running out for Estes. The kids and the police raids were bad enough, but now men were waving guns around and racing off with drugs. At the time, Estes had no security guards, no iron gate on the door, just a lot of cash and pot. Soon, the other pot-club operators came a-callin'. The robbery put new heat on all of them as City Councilmember Linda Maio started making noises. Don Duncan from the Berkeley Patients Group visited the club and found it pleasant enough, but Estes had clearly failed to implement even basic security procedures. "There weren't a lot of people around, the club was fajrly deserted, and that was a security cha]lenge," Duncan says. "And the front gate was a problem." When Duncan suggested retaining security personnel, Estes responded by hiring a couple of guys he knew from around town. Neighbors and police representatives claim that this just made things worse. The men were not professional guards, and scared people away from the neighborhood by loitering on the sidewalk during business hours. Estes says the neighbors are giving way to their own racist fears. "If you talk to them, they're big, soft, easygoing guys," he says. "But unfortunately they're black. And in this society, you think of black as criminal. So the moment you see black people standing around, looking at your ID, I guess it looks like a crack house. I have black friends, and that seems to be held aeainst me. None of the other clubs seems to be scrutinized as much as me." Not only did the guards not sit well with the neighbors, they also didn't stop the crime. On the evening of December 13, 2001, as the guards had drifted back into the club and Estes' employees began stacking the chairs, one last patient, a young woman, knocked on the door. As an employee opened the door for her, he glanced down to his left and saw three men crouched low. The woman turned and walked back to the sidewalk and the men rushed through the door. One pulled out an Uzi submachine gun, and the second robbery in two months was under way. The thieves probably wouldn't have kept coming back if there hadn't been so much to steal. Estes refuses to say how much pot was lost during the first robbery, but he says he kept an average of three pounds of dried marijuana in his store at all times. "Some of it was in ounces, some of it in eighths, prepackaged in a variety of amounts," he says. "Plus we had hash, we had kief, we had oils and other extracts from marijuana. We had baked goods, brownies, carrot cakes, Reese's peanut butter cups that were done like that. 49 P171 We had everything." At $65 an eighth, that meant thugs could make off with about $25,000 with one quick hit, to say nothing of the cash he kept on hand. With this, the city had finally had enough. City Councilmember Linda Maio convened a neighborhood meeting about the club -- which Estes didn't bother to attend -- and told the rest of Berkeley's cannabis dispensaries to bring their colleague to heel. "I called Don Duncan and his folks and said, you guys have [o be part of the solution here," she says. "It's not okay that this happens, and it's not acceptable if this isjust a rare thing. Don knows that this is not acceptable -- he understands that this would jeopardize the whole movement if it's allowed to get worse." Estes' new office manager, Dorrit Geshuri, sat down with City Manager Weldon Rucker and police officials, and other Alliance members, and together they hammered out a series of reforms. On January 2, Geshuri agreed to the following terms: the club would only operate five hours a day; less than a pound of dope would be on the premises; newspaper advertising would stop immediately; a professional security company would be retained; and security cameras would be installed. The final robbery on June 5 spelled the end for Ken Estes. Despite his promise not to keep more than a pound of pot at the store, neighbors report that during the getaway, the robbers' duffel bag was so heavy that they had to drag it down to the car. As for the security cameras, club officials claimed that they had mysteriously broken down that day, and there was no film of the incident. Estes had used up his last store of good faith, and even the other clubs agreed he had to go. "I don't think Ken is a bad guy, but it's no longer appropriate for him to operate in Berkeley," Duncan says. "The consensus of the Alliance is for Ken to leave the city, to either move on or find another cazeer. That conclusion has been some time in coming. We're happy to have him as a friend, but it's in the best interest of the patients that Ken close for real." Duncan's abandonment has left Estes fairly bitter. "Yeah, they don't want the competition," he says. "They can keep the prices high, and they can control the game. It's business, it's all about business. If you're Starbuck, you want Peet's out of town." Still, Estes has finally agreed to get out of town. He, his brother Randy Moses, and Geshuri have signed a lease at a new club in Oakland, near the corner of 18th Street and Broadway, where he promises to tighten up security. The numerous car dealerships have given in this part of town its historic name, "Auto Row," but it should really be called "Pot Row." Virtually all the pot clubs in Oakland are clustered in this neighborhood, and they're not happy [o see Estes join them. If Estes wants to defy Jones, his new neighbors, the cops, and the entire city of Oakland, there's not much anyone can do about it. Linda Maio was at a loss when it briefly looked like Estes had decided to stay in Berkeley; she ineffectually threatened to circulate a petition and prepare a nuisance complaint. As for, say, an undercover operation to catch Estes selling to customers without a valid doctor's note, she never considered that option for a second, and police won't say whether they did. If this the best local government can do, Estes is in the clear. But medical marijuana's era of raw capitalism may be coming to an end. State Senator John Vasconcellos has drafted a new bill regulating the industry, and now that it has the support of both the California District Attorneys' Association and the California State Sheriffs' Association, Governor Davis has indicated that he might sign it. The bill would establish a statewide registry ofinedical-marijuana patients and caregivers, who would receive a card certifying their medical status. Physicians would submit candidates for medical pot to the county Health Department, which would approve or reject applicants based on a review of the accuracy of the medical.records. 50 P172 The state Department of Health Services would develop regulations that define how much pot dispensaries can grow and store, bypassing the many nebulous questions surrounding how pot clubs currently get their wholesale product. Although the bill's primary intent is to protect patients facing reactionary and unjust arrests, the bill could have the secondary effect of regulating cultivators. This may explain why Californians for Compassionate Use, the organization that thought up Proposition 215, has joined the Committee on Moral Concerns in opposing the bill. But get this: the registry system is strictly voluntary. Vasconcellos' bill is more focused on reining in the police, and so it barely dwells on reining in medical-pot cultivators. The new cards offer absolute protection from scary Modoc County sheriffs, but in return both patients and caregivers must operate responsibly. For operators in progressive cities such as Berkeley and Oakland, who already can move in the light of day, there's no incentive to sign onto the deal. And so, through a strange accident of history, marijuana seems likely to remain the least-regulated ingestible substance in California. Of course, good old-fashioned drug laws may solve the Ken Estes problem for us. Assistant district attorney Phyllis Franks of Contra Costa County is preparing to try Estes on four felonies stemming from the Concord raids, and if convicted, he'll be out of business. This brings up the final legal question unresolved by Proposition 215: how do prosecutors determine whether someone is a legally sanctioned caregiver, or a drug dealer? The answer is there is no answer. District attorneys around the state have relied on counting pot plants; if you've got too many, you must be a dealer. How many plants is too many? No one knows. While a handful of cities such as Berkeley have capped the amount of pot cannabis clubs can have on hand, prosecutors more typically eyeball the plants and make a simple judgment call. That's what they've done with Estes, but the system is hardly precise. If Estes is convicted, he will pay a terrible price for this lack of precision; the charges carry a possible prison sentence of three years and eight months. But his complex reputation also could be laundered overnight. When Estes turned himself in, forty demonstrators accompanied him to the station, and his image -- the martyr of medical marijuana, persecuted by vindictive prosecutors --was flashed across the nightly news throughout the Bay Area. Stacey Trainor's allegations aside, Ken Estes seems a kind, generous man, ready to take you into his company at a moment's notice. But nothing out there can protect us from his tendency to trust the wrong people, of whom there are still plenty in the shadowy, twilight world of marijuana. Estes admits he's made some mistakes, and vows to improve his operation. "We began something here, and we didn't know where it would go," he says. "I've made mistakes in retrospect, but we tried to work it out. Stacey and all that stuff was a big problem -- I had no problems before that. I believe I know who's behind this, the robberies. All this stuff that's gone on has happened since Stacey went to the police, and the police believed her. They told me that many times women turn on their drug-dealing boyfriends, and this seems like a case of that. I wish I could have hired better people, but I can't say that 1 would have done anything different. I really didn't foresee the criminal element making its presence like it did. But I can only do so much." And should Estes revert to his old, seat-of--his-pants ways, we may have no choice but to put up with him. www.comoassionatecoal ition.ore/cornment/reoly/3 789 51 P173 Medical marijuana merchant defies Oakland order to close. Others might go underground, as city's new rule gets mixed reaction from consumers, business owners Oakland Tribune (CA) Wednesday, June 02, 2004 By Laura Counts, STAFF WRITER OAKLAND -- Medical marijuana patients who packed into the Dragonfly Holistic Solutions dispensary on Telegraph Avenue on Tuesday seemed unaware the business had been told by the city to shut down. They said they were seeking the most potent medicine in town -- a strain of marijuana called "Barney Purple" -- and didn't like hearing that new city rules will limit them to four city-sanctioned establishments. "If you enjoy feeling pain-free, this is the place to be," said Sullivan Wallace of Oakland, who says he has a cannabis prescription to fight chronic pain and anxiety. Seven existing dispensaries and one proposed club had applied for the four business permits available. Afrer a series of hearings and several delays, the clubs were notified Friday afrernoon whether they made the cut. Those that received ]icenses will have to pay a $20,000 annual fee. Those that did not were supposed to close Tuesday. Dragonfly did not make it, but owner Ken Estes said he will continue to operate in defiance of city rules until he is arrested. He planned a protest outside the dispensary Tuesday morning, but the only signs of one emerged when the doors to the club opened 15 minutes late. "There is some kind of discrimination going on behind the scenes," Estes said. "Or else the city is out of touch with the patients, because we are the preferred club. When we opened, we forced prices down and brought in higher quality (than the other clubs)." Other club owners, including some who were issued permits, criticized the city's process as arbitrary and complained that three days wasn't enough notice for them or the employees on their payrolls. Still, no one except Estes continued business as usual. One dispensary owner contended there are clubs that did not even apply for a city permit and may try to operate under the radar. "There are some who chose not to pay $300 and sign a confession," said Richard Lee, owner of the Bulldog'Cafe, who got a permit for his cafe on Broadway but not for his small SR71 Cafe on 17th Street, according to the city manager's office. Even though Lee received a permit, he contended the process was arbitrary and the four-club limit does not make sense. He plans to move to a larger location to serve the additional customers the closures will bring. "This thing is getting too big for them to say there can only be four clubs. There are too many people who appreciate getting marijuana in a civilized way," said Lee, one of the backers of an initiative now collecting signatures for the November ballot that would all but decriminalize adult use of marijuana in Oakland. Sparky Rose, operator of Compassionate Access on Telegraph -- which also was approved -- said he serves 7,000 patients and is expecting more. He plans to soon move to a larger location nearby. "It was difficult to gauge what was important to the city when we were presenting ourselves. There wasn't a ]ot of transparency in the process," Rose said, adding that everyone was asked for the same information. "They should have extended the deadline, because a lot of clubs have a lot of employees and a holiday weekend isn't much notice." The city inspected the clubs for code violations, checked for any complaints against them, and asked for information ranging from number of patients to products to prices. In the end, according to a letter from the city's Administrative Hearing Officet Larry Carroll to Estes, the city seemed to put more stock on who had operated the longest. 52 P174 The three clubs issued permits in the "uptown" area had operated between two and five years, though the fourth club on West Grand is a relative newcomer. The Lemon Drop Coffee shop on Telegraph is one of the more established clubs in the area, nicknamed "Oaksterdam," but it did not receive a permit. Owner Mark Belote said the well-stocked coffee shop will continue to sell its mochas and pastries, gelatos and cakes, but stop pot sales. "I want to do everything legally. I've always been honest with them, so we'll see what happens," he said. "I have an eight-year lease here, so the cafe will stay open." Karry Carr of The Green Door dispensary on Webster Street said he fully expected to get a permit. The building met all code requirements and there were no complaints against the club. It opened last October with the blessing of the city, even stating it was a cannabis dispensary on its business license. The city renewed its license in February. The Green Door is now seeking an injunction to stay open until it can get a court hearing. Its owners contend the application process was fraudulent. Under the new rules, denial of permits cannot be appealed, Carroll said. The final determination was made by City Administrator Deborah Edgerly, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday. As for those that continue to operate in violation, Carroll said, "the city is considering its options." Carroll said he will send final warning letters and may give them a short grace period. However, he noted, "all of those operating without permits are outside of the city's ]ow policing priority with regards to medical marijuana, so the police could take action." The city will review the new rules in six months. Jeff Jones, director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative -- which issues identification cards but does not dispense -- said he has been advising clubs to follow the rules. "The city is our friend, and we are in this together. They are doing what they feel they need to do," Jones said. "I think the best practice is to close down quietly, and we'll spend the next six months lobbying to increase the limit." http://www.mari i uana.ore/OaklandTrib6-02-04.htm Marijuana Clubs Question Ethics Of City's Order To Close Friday, May 19, 2006 by Tom Lochner Contra Costa Times Richmond, CA -- With the crafring of a medical marijuana regulating ordinance stalled, the Richmond City Attorney's office has ordered the immediate closure of two cannabis clubs, the only ones known to operate in the city. One, Natural Remedies Health Collective on Macdonald Avenue, promptly closed. The other, Holistic Solutions on Hilltop Mall Road, remained open Thursday. Owner Ken Estes said he hopes to persuade Richmond officials and council members that his business benefits both patients and the city at large. In acease-and-desist order dated May 16, Assistant City Attorney Trisha Aljoe told Natural Remedies owner Linda Jackson that failure to comply will result in the filing of criminal charges. Estes said he received a similar letter. With no land-use standards permitting medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, the letter reads, "your continued marijuana operation is in clear violation of the Richmond Municipal Code and constitutes both a public nuisance per se, as well as a criminal misdemeanor." Jackson closed her shop Wednesday, but on Thursday, she questioned the legality and ethics of the city's order. "This is taking away my livelihood and putting my patients in harm's way," said Jackson. 53 P175 She also questioned how the city could prosecute her, because no city law specifically addresses cannabis clubs, which are legal under California law -- unless the city decides to enforce the federal law. In 1996, the state's voters approved marijuana for medical use on the recommendation of a doctor. The federal government, however, considers marijuana an illegal drug, with no medical use. Aljoe did not return calls Thursday. The city's administrative chief, Janet Schneider, said the city attorney's office takes the stand that cannabis clubs are illegal since the city code does not explicitly permit them. Moreover, she said, the city's zoning ordinance rules out unlawful activities in general. Richmond's legal stand differs from that of some other Contra Costa cities, which passed urgency moratoriums on the opening of cannabis clubs. Those cities, among them Antioch, Oakley, Pinole and San Pablo, reasoned that without a moratorium, their cities lacked the legal mechanism to keep cannabis clubs from opening absent any reference to them in their municipal codes. Richmond, too, once had a moratorium; it lapsed in October. A draft ordinance that would limit cannabis clubs to certain commercial areas bounced among the Planning Commission, Public Safety Committee, City Council and city staff for months. On Thursday, the committee declined to adopt a recommendation by the city staff to declare cannabis clubs a "non-permitted use" and referred [he matter to the city council to consider as part of a general plan overhaul. Police Chief Chris Magnus said Thursday that cannabis clubs are a drain on police resources. But earlier this year, Richmond Police spokesman Lt. Mark Gagan quipped that things were so quiet at Natural remedies he had virtually forgotten it existed. Magnus said there was a burglary at Natural Remedies in May 2005. But Jackson said that occurred under a previous owner. And at Holistic solutions, Magnus said, Richmond officers observed a steady stream of young people coming and going, causing him to doubt they were there for medical reasons. But Estes said many younger people use medical marijuana for pain resulting from injuries and that police should come inside to observe how he checks out his patients. Copyright Contra Costa Newspapers Inc. www.hemp.net/news/index.php?article= 1149877045 Clearlake, CA: Moratorium on marijuana dispensaries (June 6, 2006) Submitted by Nathan on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 9:24am. Lake County. California Moratorium on marijuana dispensaries 06/06/2006 Denise Rockenstein, Lake County Record-Bee Source: htto://www.record-bee.com/oanews/ci 3906208 Should weed stay or should weed go no~v? In 1996, California voters said that it should stay. Yet, ]0 years after the passage of the Compassion Use Act, barriers are still blocking patients' access to medicinal marijuana. The City of Clearlake is taking a backseat in the movement, placing a moratorium on the issuing of business permits for marijuana dispensaries. It is the city's hope that the issue will be resolved in Federal Court before the moratorium, which has been extended to ] 0 months, 15 days, is complete. The moratorium prohibits the issuing of business permits for medicinal marijuana dispensaries. Furthermore, it does not provide for renewal of business permits for existing businesses that provide patient access to marijuana medicine. 54 P176 The purpose of the moratorium is to allow city staff time to establish zoning regulations pertaining to medical marijuana dispensaries. According the staff report submitted to the council on May 25, "Clearlake currently has no permitted Dispensaries, but the Police Department believes there may be businesses distributing medical marijuana in the City, and that it is likely that persons will seek land use entitlements and permits from the City to distribute medical marijuana." Holistic Solutions, a natural healing center that provides medicinal marijuana, has been operating on Lakeshore Drive in Clearlake for more than a year under City of Clearlake Business License No. 4535. Another distributor, Barrett Consulting, which operates Alternative Patient Services out of the Java Express Mall, has been a permitted business in the City of Clearlake for more than four years. in years past, there has not been a particular business license application available in the city that specifically licenses a marijuana dispensary-type business. The city's business application does however, require a description of the type of business for which the license is being sought. Both Holistic Solutions and Barrett Consulting have been successful in obtaining a business license as well as renewals of those licenses. As with all City of Clearlake business licenses, both will expire on Sept. 30, 2006. "If something doesn't change before (Sept. 30) I will be out of business," said James Barrett, Barrett Consulting proprietor who began his business after recognizing a need for local access. He further identified the elderly as being most affected by access barriers, stating that the teenage population basically has unlimited street access to marijuana. "The thing with the moratorium is that there is going to be a lot of (elderly) patients that can't get their medicine." Barrett agrees that zoning regulations on medical marijuana dispensaries are needed as does Holistic Solutions co-owner Dave Moses. "Zoning regulations are badly needed," Barrett said, "but, in my opinion, that should have been taken care of in 1997." Moses has extended his assistance to the city staff in establishing regulations on businesses providing medicinal marijuana to patients. Moses, along with his brother Ken Estes, have been involved in the marijuana movement for more than 13 years. Estes, president of Holistic Solutions, began using medical marijuana following a paralyzing motorcycle accident in 1993. "When I was going through my rehab I tried marijuana for the first time and it really worked. It did something that the pills weren't doing. It gave me my appetite back and I could sleep," Estes explained from his wheelchair. "The pills were breaking me down and the marijuana was kind of filling me up. Making me eat; giving me a good positive attitude. There are some good characteristics to marijuana that pharmaceuticals long to have." Estes and Moses were instrumental in the establishment of regulations in the San Francisco area where they operate two more dispensaries. An outline of those regulations has been submitted to city staff. As of Tuesday, June 6, the city has made no attempt to contact either Estes or Moses although they are eager to help put zoning regulations in place. "We want regulation and control because we believe in that," Moses said. "We don't think that we should be within 100 feet of a school, or operate all hours of the night, for example, and we would be like to be contributing our fair share to the city's coffers." Although Moses had requested that the council include in its moratorium authorization for renewal of existing business licenses, his request was denied. However, Mayor Joyce Overton recommended that the item be brought back before the council for a progress update in August. Contact Denise Rockenstein at drockenstei nncl earl akeobserver.com. 55 P177 ORDINANCE NO. 7q3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADDING CHAPTER 17.44 TO TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The People of the State of California approved Proposition 215, which was codified as California Health and Safety Code § 11362.5 and entitled the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 ("the Act"). (ii) The Act prohibits the provisions of law making unlawful the possession or cultivation of marijuana, from applying to a qualified patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical use of the patient upon the recommendation of a physician, and also prohibits the criminal prosecution or punishment of a physician for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. (iii) Thereafter, the State Legislature enacted Senate Bill 420 (the "Medical Marijuana Program"), codified as California Health and Safety Code § 11362.7, et seq., which requires the State Department of Health Services to establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients and primary caregivers, and prohibits the arrest of a qualified patient or a primary caregiver with a valid identification card for the possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana. (iv) One purpose of the Act and the Medical Marijuana Program is "[t]o encourage the Federal and State governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana...." (v) Neither the Federal nor the State government has implemented a specific plan "to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana," leaving cities with a lack of direction about how the Act is intended to be implemented, particularly in regard to distribution of medical marijuana through dispensaries. (vi) The Medical Marijuana Program provides additional statutory guidance for medical marijuana use and cultivation, but it does not explicitly address the role of dispensaries, nor does it require that cities provide for or allow the establishment and/or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. (vii) Notwithstanding the passage of the Act and the Medical Marijuana Program, the possession for sale and distribution of marijuana is prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 841, and California Health and Safety Code §11359. (viii) California law does noY provide for' the sale or distribution of marijuana by medical marijuana dispensaries to a primary care giver, a qualified patient or a person with an identification card as those terms are defined in California Health and Safety Code §11362.7. P178 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00307 June 4, 2008 Page 2 (ix) The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code currently does not restrict the existence or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (x) Medical marijuana dispensaries have been established in numerous locations in California, and as a consequence, local agencies have reported negative secondary effects on the community, which effects include, illegal drug activity and drug sales in the vicinity of dispensaries; robbery of persons leaving dispensaries; driving under the influence of a controlled substance by persons who have obtained marijuana from a dispensary; persons acquiring marijuana from a dispensary and then selling it to anon-qualified person; burglaries and robberies; and an increase in vacancies in the commercial areas in the vicinity of such businesses. (xi) The California Police Chiefs Association has compiled an extensive report detailing the negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. The City Council hereby finds that the report, a complete copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office,. contains persuasive anecdotal and documented evidence that medical marijuana dispensaries pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. (xii) California Health and Safety Code §11362.5(b)(2) expressly provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes. (xiii) The City Council hereby finds that, because of the inconsistency between State and Federal law relating to the possession, sale and distribution of marijuana, and because of the documented threat to public health, safety, and welfare, it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the City prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within any and all zones of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (xiv) This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §§ 11362.5(b)(2) and 11362.83, and the City's police power as granted broadly under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Anew Chapter 17.44 is hereby added to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, to read as follows: "Chapter 17.44 MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Section 17.44.010 Purpose and Findings. P179 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00307 June 4, 2008 Page 3 The City Council finds that Federal and State laws prohibiting the possession, sale and distribution of marijuana would preclude the lawful opening and operation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries sanctioned by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and in order to serve public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and businesses within the City, the declared purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the operation or establishment of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within the City, as provided in this chapter. Section 17.44.020 Definitions. The following terms and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section: A. Identification Card: is a document issued by the State Department of Health Services which identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and the person's designated primary caregiver, if any. B. Medical Mariiuana: is marijuana used for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic paid, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other serious medical condition for which marijuana is deemed to provide relief as defined in California Health and Safety Code § 11362.7(h). C. Medical Mariiuana Dispensary or Dispensary: is any facility or location where medical marijuana is made available to and/or distributed by or to three or more of the following: a qualified patient, a person with an identification card, or a primary caregiver. Each of these terms is defined herein and shall be interpreted in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code §§11362.5 and 11362.7, et seq. as such sections may be amended from time to time. D. Primary Care Giver: is the individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person. E. Physician: is an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral .of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient's medical record the physician's assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate. 3 P180 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00307 June 4, 2008 Page 4 F. Qualified Patient: is a person who is entitled to the protections of California Health and Safety Code §11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued by the State Department of Health Services. Section 17.44.030 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, establish, conduct, or operate any Medical Marijuana Dispensary, or to participate as an employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or capacity, in any Medical Marijuana Dispensary, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga: Section 17.44.040 Use or Activity Prohibited by State or Federal Law. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to permit or authorize any use or activity which is otherwise prohibited by any State or Federal law. Section 2. Existing Nonconforming Uses. Any Medical Marijuana Dispensary existing within the City of Rancho Cucamonga on the effective date of this ordinance shall cease operations forthwith. Section 3. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. Savings Clause. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance, nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. Section 5. Penalty. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provisions of this Ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Ordinance. P181 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00307 June 4, 2008 Page 5 Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the pass of this Ordinance. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 2008. Mayor I, Debbie Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing urgency Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga 5 P182 ~» t'~ J. ,~ T H E C I T Y O F RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM COOPERATION AGREEMENT - DRC2008-00434 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Approval of a cooperation agreement with the County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing for participation in the County HOME Consortium. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Cooperation Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the documents. BACKGROUND: The HOME Investment Partnerships Program ("HOME") is authorized under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development administers the HOME Program and provides formula grants to states and local governments for the creation of affordable housing opportunities for low-income families. The HOME Program also allows local governments to form a consortium for the purpose of receiving and administering HOME funds. In July 1995, the City initially approved a Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Bernardino for the purpose of creating a consortium of cities to receive HOME funds, and thereby participate in the San Bernardino County HOME Consortium. In July 1996, the City approved a 3-year extension to the Cooperation Agreement for the period from October 1, 1996, to September 30, 1999. The City then approved a series of subsequent 3-year extensions to the Cooperation Agreement for the periods ending September 30, 2002, September 30, 2005, and September 30, 2008. The proposed extension to the Cooperation Agreement will run for an additional 3-year period from October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2011. P183 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT June 4, 2008 Page 2 ANALYSIS: The County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing administers the HOME Consortium with various cities in order to increase the allocation received under the HOME program by allowing the population of these cities to be used in the calculation of the County's allocation. Under the terms of this program, and as identified in the City's Consolidated Plan, the County will make the following HOME programs available to participating cities. These programs include: • HOME Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP) - A silent trust deed program to assist low-income persons in becoming homeowners. • American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) -Provides assistance to first-time home buyers with their downpayment. The maximum amount of assistance, per family, is $10,000 or six (6) percent of the sales price, which ever is greater. • HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program -Provides both a monthly rent subsidy for very low-income special needs households and security deposit assistance to households receiving a monthly rental subsidy. • HOME Rental Property Acquisition and/or Rehabilitation Program - Provides a three (3) percent interest loan to acquire and/or rehabilitate existing rental property, which will then be made available to qualifying tenants at affordable rents for a specified time. • HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Program -Provides funding for affordable housing which is developed, sponsored, or owned by non-profit organizations which have been certified as CHDO's. • HOME Affordable Housing Development Loan (ADHL) Program -Provides financial assistance in the form of gap financing to qualified individuals and organizations for the purpose of new construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing. Participation in the County HOME Consortium will require a minimum 25 percent funding match contribution from any HOME eligible match source for each project designated to receive HOME funds, however, existing City and Redevelopment Agency programs already in use in Rancho Cucamonga will qualify for that match. There is no cost to the City or the Redevelopment Agency for inclusion in the program. R1espectfully submitted, /y~~'~jrt,ritj~ J~ ~>L J/ames R. Troyer a Planning Director JT:TG/ds Attachments: Cooperation Agreement ;, County of San Bernardino FAS CONTRACT TRANSMITTAL CONTRACTOR San Bernardino County HOME Consortium Federal ID No. or Social Security No. N/A Contractor's Representative Adriane Rich, Housing Program Specialist Addre55 290 North "D' Street, SiMh Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0040 Phone (909) 368-0915 Nature of Contract: (Briefly describe the general terms of the contract) FOR COUNTY USE ONLY X New Change Cancel Vendor Code ~+ SC Dept. /~ A Contract Number P184 County Department Community Development and Housing Dept. Orgn. ECD ECD Contractor's License No. County Department Contract Representative atdcia M. Cole, Deputy Administrative Officer driane Rich, Housing Program Specialist Telephone (909)388-D808 (909)388-0915 Total Contract Amount Contrail Type ^ Revenue ^ Encumbered ^ Unencumbered ~ Other: HOME Consortium If not encumbered or revenue contract type, provide reason: Commodity Code Contract Start Date 10/1/08 Contract End Dafe 9/30/11 Original Amount NIA Amendment Amount Fund SAS Dept. ECD Organization ECD Appr. 200 Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROJ/JOB No. Amount Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROD/JOB No. Amount Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROD/JOB No. Amount Project Name HOME Investment Partnership FY Estimated Payment Total by Fiscal Year Amount I/D FY Amount I/D Program (HOME) -Cooperation Agreement for HOME Consortium _ _ Countywide _ _ The purpose of this Agreement is to approve the Federal Fiscal Year 2008 tII''~~~~5q„~I 2'011 Cooperation Agreement for continuation of a HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOMF.~~~'"To tium between the County of San Bernardino and the cities of Chino Hills, Colton, Highland, Rancb~~C,ucan~`bnga, Redlands and Rialto. The cities will be members of the Consortium for three (3) federal frs'cla~ea~rs beginning October 1, 2008, and ending September 30, 2011. ~~ ~ i~J ~~ ~~~~~~ The attached coniract/agreemenl cons'stslop~pag ~S-~ p, ~ ~~ (Attach this transmittal to all cantracts not prepa~eYl^on the~S<iar~dard Contract" form.) Approvetl as to I County Counsel Date Agency Administrator/CAO Date Auditor/Controller-Recorder Use Only Date r o: I7FCO ~~ cadtdD"a"ta6ase ' ~FyAB f~N t,~n u'flUett~" u'~FCe~r106' ' titlPhk 'u~ 4ti n p., ~ P185 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPAR_ TMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING HOME TiVVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR HOME CONSORTIUM This Agreement is made by and between the Cities of Chino Hills, Colton, Highland, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands and Rialto (hereinafter called "CITIES") and the County of San Bernardino (hereinafter called "COUNTY"). WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has enacted the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq.) and Federal Regulations have been adopted pursuant thereto, (hereinafter called the "ACT"); and, WHEREAS, Title II of the ACT creates the HOME Investment Partnership Program, (hereinafter called "HOME"), that provides funds to states and local governments for the acquisition, refinance, rehabilitation, and new construction of affordable housing and tenant- based rental assistance; and, WHEREAS, the ACT requires local governments to formulate and submit a Consolidated Plan, (hereinafter called "Con-Plan"), as part of the eligibility requirements for HOME funds in accordance with section 91.215 of the Consolidated Plan final rule; and, WHEREAS, funds from Title II aze distributed to metropolitan cities, urban counties, states, and consortia of local governments; and, WHEREAS, the ACT allows local governments to form a consortia for the purpose of receiving and administering HOME funds and carrying out purposes of the ACT; and, WHEREAS, the ACT requires that a local government member of an urban county may participate in a Consortium only through the urban county; and, WHEREAS, the ACT requires that a Consortium shall have one member unit of general ]ocal government authorized to act in a representative capacity for all members for the purposes of the ACT and to assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the Consortium's HOME Program is carried out in compliance with the ACT, including requirements concerning the Con- Plan. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that: 1. CITIES and COUNTY will cooperate in the forming of the County of San Bernazdino HOME Consortium, (hereinafter called the "CONSORTNM"), for. the purpose of undertaking or assisting in undertaking, HOME-eligible housing assistance activities pursuant to Title II of the ACT, including but not limited to: acquiring, refinancing, rehabilitating, and constructing affordable housing, and providing tenant-based rental assistance. Page 1 of ]0 P186 2. COUNTY shall act as the representative member of the CONSORTIUM for purposes of the ACT and assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the CONSORTNM's HOME Program is carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Program, including requirements concerning aCon-Plan. 3. CITIES shall provide to COUNTY, all necessary information and documentation as requested by COUNTY for incorporation into COUNTY's Con-Plan in compliance with Program Requirements. 4. CITIES shall have thirty (30) calendaz days to approve the portions of the Con-Plan which pertain to the CITIES before COUNTY submits the final Con-Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HLTD). COUNTY shall incorporate CITIES' changes in Con-Plan, if any, provided that they meet HOME Requirements. CITIES shall identify any azeas designated for affordable housing activities within their jurisdiction. CITIES shall provide maps and/or detailed descriptions of such areas upon execution of this document. 5. CITIES shall approve each project funded with competitive HOME funds within their city boundaries prior to COUNTY approving funding of such projects, provided that the CITIES' approval or disapproval does not obstruct the implementation of the approved Con-Plan. 6. CITIES shall designate the City Administrator, or his/her designee, as the CITIES' representative to whom all notices and communications .from COUNTY shall be directed. COUNTY's duty to notify CITIES shall be complete when the communication is sent to the designated representative. It is the exclusive duty of the designated representative to notify the appropriate individuals and departments within the CITIES. 7. To carry out activities under this Agreement, COUNTY shall allocate HOME funds received under the ACT to those HOME activities described in the COUNTY'S Con-Plan. If necessary to meet HOME Requirements, funds will be reallocated by COUNTY in accordance with such needs, objectives, or strategies as COUNTY shall decide. In preparing such needs, objectives, or strategies, COUNTY shall consult with the CITIES before making its determinations. COUNTY shall fund HOME-eligible projects within CITIES boundaries on a first-come, first-served basis. 8. CITIES shall contribute a minimum twenty-five percent (25%) funding match contribution from any HOME-eligible match source for each project designated to receive HOME funds. 9. COUNTY and CITIES shall comply with all applicable requirements of the ACT and its regulations in utilizing basic grant funds under the ACT and shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with COUNTY certifications required by the ACT. COUNTY and CITIES will comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Order 11988, the Fair Housing Act, and other applicable federal laws. CITIES agree that HOME Page 2 of ] 0 P187 funding for activities in, or in support of, CITIES are prohibited if CITIES do not affirmatively further fair housing within their own jurisdictions or impede COUNTY actions to comply with its fair housing certification. Each party to this Agreement shall affirmatively further fair housing. 10. CITIES shall provide COUNTY with all information concerning CITIES and the activities CITIES carry out under this Agreement which COUNTY requires to prepaze: 1) documents required to be submitted to HUD, 2) annual HOME Performance Report, and 3) such other documents as COUNTY may require to carry out eligible housing activities or meet federal requirements. All information shall be submitted on forms prescribed by COUNTY. In addition, CITIES agree to make available upon request all records concerning the activities carried out under this Agreement for inspection by COUNTY or federal officials during regulaz business hours. 11. Pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITIES each shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY, its officers, employees, and agents from all claims, suits, actions or losses of any type, and from liability for any fines, penalties or damages of any type, resulting from CITIES' performance of this Agreement and caused by any act or omission of CITIES, including failure to comply with any requirement of the ACT or the HOME Program described herein except to the extent that any such claims, suits, actions, losses, or liability arises from any act or omission of COUNTY. 12. Pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, COUNTY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITIES, its officers, employees, and agents from all claims, suits, actions or losses of any type, and from liability for all fines, penalties or damages of any type, resulting from COUNTY'S performance of this Agreement and caused by any act or omission of COUNTY, including failure to comply with any requirement of the ACT or the HOME Program described herein, except to the extent that any such claims, suits, actions, losses, or liability arises from any act or omission of CITIES. 13. This Agreement shall go into effect immediately upon execution by all signatories to the Agreement and shall continue in full force and in effect until all activities funded under the terms of this Agreement, and any income generated from the expenditure of such funds, are expended and the funded activifies are completed. CITIES aze included in the CONSORTNM for a period of three (3) federal fiscal yeazs commencing on October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2011. No CONSORTIUM member may withdraw from the Agreement while the Agreement remains in effect. 14. This Agreement authorizes the COUNTY, as the lead entity, to amend the CONSORTIUM Agreement on behalf of the entire CONSORTNM to add new members to the CONSORTIUM. Any other amendments to this Agreement must be made in writing and approved by all parties. Page 3 of ]0 P188 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR HOME CONSORTIUM SIGNATURE PAGE 15. This Agreement maybe executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatories had signed the same document. All counterparts must be construed together to constitute one (1) instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed below. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Mayor Attest: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Date Date Date Page 7 of 10 i W ~ ~ I W J N ~ p J ~ ~ W J Q W p ads Y ~ Q. °' ~:Y ~ V W c~ DC GC ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ Z m ~ - ~ J p ., .. ~ ~ _ ..~ ~~ a ~~ m J -. I L •"~ ~ ~ O •_ 0 ~ ~ 0 N _ .~ ~~// IL ~ ~ ~ L W ~ ~ ~ ~ (/~ ~ _ ~ O~ L ~ _ V ~ 0 ~ ~ V //~,~ V V J a ~ ~ 'L ~, ~ ~ L' a ~ x ~ ~ c~ , ~ ~ ° ~' ~ c ~. ~v L .= }r .- L Q ~ _ ~ ~~ i w u_ --, :: ... r- ~ .: ~ W ~~.., ~ ~ v W `. .~ Q r ~ °~ `J m_ J - L ~ L L O N ~ _ O ~ •~ O •~ Q W ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ :~ Q - cn ~ ~ U L W ~ ~ •~ }, ~ L ~ ~ -o pC ~ .~ co O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ '~ _ ~ OC ~ ~ J ~' 0 a~ = a~ a~ ~-. ~ '~ ~ L ~ 'O ~ 'O ~ p L ~ L a ~ ~ ~- W cv c ~- ~ ~ ~ .~ o a o o ~ ~L ~L ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ *k U ~ ~ °~ .w M > ,~ ^ v ... ~ a .. ,~., `^ ~~ Q r ~~_ J i JI ~ ` 1' U ~~~. 5 t ~ ~ \~ K jf ~~ 0 ;~~; ~ / .~ ~ "~ - ; f ~~Jr J l+~ Y f ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ _ , ~ ~ ~--~ ~ w + ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ > _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i- ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~ r L ~ Q Rf ._ U N V .~' ~ o '. ~ O N }' ~r ~ .~ ~ ~ _ ~ a ~ b ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ L o ~ ~ ~ J (~ ~ 0 ~ ~ _ .- .. ~' a .~ w v ~, ~ ' ` ~ 1 ~ . ~ ,` ~ ~ ~ 00 J 1 O i .~ ^~ ~ ~ ' ^~ ~ ~y r ~ ~~.; ..~~ ~- '~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~' ~ ~ ~ ~. f,,- -, ~ ~ .,_ ~ ~ `~ •- V '' ~ L ~~ _ ._ ~ !~~~ .~ 0 a. ~ W U .~ ~ .r j "~ n tY ~ ~' ~.. W .~ .. ~ } ~J a ~~_ m y J ~" ~,,~~, r ~~ r _ ~ '{ ' ~ ~7" ~ ~ , ~.~ " , Yj ~ ~ - ~ / W .~±~ a 1 y t .. ~ C" L ~, W L q, .. ~ ~ ~- ~~ L ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ L r L •~ ~ L _~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ V ~ ~ J oN c~~ ~~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ 00 a~ ca N ~ ~ ~ cn ~ o m ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ .a~ .~ ~ ~ ~~_ 4~ a~3 ~~ ~o ~~}'~a ~ ~~ ~o ~~' ~~°a~i °~Q° Qv °Q °oaU~ ~ ~ u ~ o ~ ~ N _ Q ~ ~ ~ -~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ to > -Q .~ ,~ ~ Q "a ^~' N ~ ~ ~ COQ^`` N W ~ (I~ ~~~ U~.~ Uo~ pow 0°0~ ~ +L-+ ~ ~ U L- .~ ~ m ~ ~ 3 ~ to ~ • :~. ~ • Q . U J f .~ ,~ - ~ ~ { ' ~~,r, I ~ -~ ,I ~~ ,. ~r:.T ~ i ~: 4~ r Kt ' ~ ~ (. _~ , G~ r .. ~ ~ ~-- .~ W ~ 'i v ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i - ~ c ~ ~c as i ~~ ~ o o ~~ ~ i M o v' ~ ca ~ a. o c ~ ~ cv~ >, ~ ~ ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' c~v ~ ~ ~ c cn ~ ~_ cyo ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ LL. C U ~ ~ ~= L.L N Q `~ U~ O C ~ ~ ~ z ~ U N ~ ~ tom!) ~ O Q ~ ~ •L Chi ~ < ~ ~ ~ p R3 _ ~m . ~ ~ ~ . U . . . Q J r O ~ -~- :~ , -~ ~. -r-,~ ' _: J ~ - G~ t ~ L . - .. ~ ,r? r°~ -. ~ ~_ - - ~. -- .. ~ ._ o a' ' ._ ~ .- _ ~ ~: a ~ N ~ ~ ~ L .c .~ L- ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ J N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L C m °~~.~' ~~ ~ c U L ~ ~-~~~~ °~ oV V .i~+ W ~ L L ~ .: u •- !> U~~ X11. ..... ~ `; ; ~~ ~ ! >- x ~m J . _ -.. ~, ~ - L O -: - _ _ •~ i r ~/1 v/ L ,. ~ _- -,~. ~r.~_ ~'~ ~ - '` `~ .. .~ L.. ~ .~ L .~ ~ W a ~, CV ~+ ~ a~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~' ._ J cn N ~ ~ ~ ~' O ~ s ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ O V ~ ~ O O ~ O ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N cn ~ ~ V ~+ N > N +r L U cn N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • v O ~ ~ -O ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V J ~ ~- ~ ^' W L Q N L O Q L ~ Q~ ~ L ~ . U O Q. U O ~ m O ~ ~ y u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ O ~ ~ N C ~ ~ ^ .~ ~~ ~ p •> O O Q ~ N O ~ N N -~ ~ `~ ~ ~ L ' X C ~ ° L ~ ~.~r w ~- ~ O C w ._ O ~ O ~ CY :.J a m ~~ J • ~ ~ • ~ • L Q • • O • L' ~" 1~' ~ . N •F S , r=3 ~c 1 O _ F-. ~, r ~- ~ _ . _ ~~~ {°~ ~~~~ `~ ~i -- G~ ~ '' ~ ~ - r~ ~ ., ., 0 IVY _ `~, ~. -~, ~ - - / V ~ ~ ~ .. ~_ f y , -~ ~ - ,. ~4 :~ W r~= (... -?j~k+ YL.3 t ; , N ~ i ._ J ~ ~ N N ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ o o ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ - ._ ~, _ - ~ o ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ Ri N n ~ o ~ c ~ ~ C ~ ~ U ~ ~ V ' ~ ~ ~ V r v, W 0 .> ~ ~ i C ~ N ~ •N ~ ~> n :i U 0 ~ '~ ~ ~ 0 .. F ~ ~ Q L • ~ • ..i CG .`_~ ~ Cn J ~ ~ .~ t ~..~ ~ C 1 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl- O ~ O l ~ ~ Q Q ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ J O U ~ J ' ~ ~ L ~ N ~ _ J ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ G~ ~ ° N ~ - ~ ~ .. .~ .~ ~ O ' ~ N }' ~ L ~ ~ 3 N Q. ~ +~ ~ O ~_ • ~ (0 C6 ~ V O J ~ N 2 ~ ~ O ~ M ~ ~ o a~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ° o Q N > >' U ; O ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ O N N _ ~~ ~ ~ - N ~ f+ ~ ~?~ ~ V . • • ~ 3 3 Q L O ~ Q L L ~ t/~ v U c N ~ o t0 W ~ L L ~ L L ~--~ a~ x ~ a~ a~ ~ a~ U w cn ~ ' ~ c ~W ~ ~ ~ v ~ -a cv ' „ z~ ~ s + W .~ ` ~ N } ~ ~ ~ m J ' I l+ Q~ ~'+ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ W p O O N U N ~ J ~ o J Q J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U o L.V. U Q ~ ~ L r ,r W ~ .. V ' y I ~ ~ V Z ^ ~ ® W v i V r ~ N 1/ 0: Um_ J P189 Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJECT': APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-O1 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 2000-01 (South Etiwanda). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal year 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On November 7, 2000, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2000-01 (South Etiwanda) authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $1,365,000. On November 15, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 645 authorizing the levy of a special tax in the district. Bonds were issued on December 21, 2000, for the purpose of financing the acquisition of certain public facilities that included street, sewer, water, storm drain, landscaping and pazk improvements that aze required for and will permit the development of the properties within the district. The levy of special taxes annually is based on the square footage of the home for residential properties and is based on acreage for non-residential properties. P190 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CFD NO. 2000-01(SOUTH ETIWANDA) June 4, 2008 Page 2 Special Tax Land Use Class Residential Floor Area Assigned Facilities Special Tax 1 2,301 Sq. Ft. or greater $500 per unit 2 1,801 - 2,300 Sq. Ft. 475 per unit 3 1,800 Sq. Ft. or less 425 per unit 4 Non-Residential Property $3,700 per Acre Respectfully submitted, ~~~= John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map -2- p, o P191 RESOLUTION NO. (~ D ~ ~~~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-01 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-01 (South Etiw~anda) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facilities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next Fiscal Year 2008/2009 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. Resolution No. Page SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services. D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the Community Faci]ities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P192 P193 Resolution No. Page PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P194 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2000-O1 EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Yeaz 2008/2009. SPECIAL TAX PROPERTY CATEGORIES There are two categories of property subject to the levy of Special Tax, which are identified as follows: 1. DEVELOPED PROPERTY All pazcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling units. 2. UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY All parcels of Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property, Public Property and/or Property owner's Association Property that are not Exempt Property pursuant of section E. TAXING CLASSIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL TAX RATES The taxing classifications for the above Property Categories and the authorized Special Tax rates for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 are as follows: P195 Resolution No. Page Assiened Special Taxes for Developed Propert y Communit y Facilities District No. 2000-O1 Land Use Cateeory Taxable Residential Floor Area Assi ¢ned Special Tax Unit Per Taxable Unit 1. Residential Property D/U 2,301 sq. ft. or greater $500 2. Residential Property D/U 1,801 sq. ft. - 2,300 sq. fr. $475 3. Residential Property D/U 1,800 sq. ft. or less $425 4. Non-Residential Acre N/A $3,700 Property Backup Special Tax When a Final map is recorded the backup Special tax for the Parcels of taxable Property within such Final map area shall be determined by multiplying $3,700 by the Net Taxable Acreage in such Final Map and dividing such amount by the number of Pazcels of taxable property (i.e. the number of residential lots) within such Final map. If a Final Map within the CFD includes Parcels of Taxable Property for which building permits for both residential and non-residential construction may be issued, then the Backup Special Tax for each Parcel of Residential Property within the CFD shall be computed by the Administrator exclusive of the. allocable portion of total Net Taxable Acreage attributable to Parcels of Table Property for which building permits for non-residential construction maybe issued. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX As commenced in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and for each following Fiscal Year, the City Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax on all Taxable Property in the CFD until the amount of Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows: P196 Resolution No. Page First: The Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Parcel of Developed Property at up to 100% of the, applicable Assigned Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement; Second: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Parcel of Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional moneys aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax to be levied on each Parcel of Developed Property whose Maximum Special Tax is derived by the application of the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Special Tax for each such Pazcel; Fourth: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first three steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Pazcel of Public Property and/or Property Owner's Association Property that is not Exempt Property pursuant to the provisions of Section E, at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax. Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Taxes levied against any Parcel of Residential Property be increased by more than ten percent (10%) per Fiscal year as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Parcel of Taxable Property within the CFD. EXEMPTIONS The City Council shall not levy Special Taxes on up to 26.04 Net Taxable Acres of Public Property and Property Owner's Association Property within the CFD. Exempt Property status will be assigned by the Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes Public Property and Property Owner's Association Property. After the limit of 26.04 Net Taxable Acres within the CFD has been reached, the Maximum Special Tax obligation for any additional Public Property and/or Property Owner's Association Property within the CFD shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax as provided for in the fourth step. • • P197 ti ~ o ~ ~, 0 0 o ~a N ~ N ~+.+ , -p V a = v v ~' .y ~ ~ ~~ ~ o Q ~ .._.._.._.._ ~ ~ ' ~ N N ! °' ~ ~ ~ o ~i.+ r J m ~ ~ _ ~_ ~ en ~ O ~ m O ~ V 1 ti Q _.._.._ ~ nb ~Se3 fn ~ 1 .t ! .~ ~ ~_ ~ ny epuenn!;3 ~ nd epuenn!;3 ~8 ~aa~~ ea C ~.._.._.._.._.._.._..-i ny ~a;sayoo~ ny as;sayooa r"- i d ~I.II.W ~ i i i ny uaneH • ny uaneH i i nd esow~aH ~ ny esow~aH i nt1 pleq!yoat/ • nb pleq!yo-~d i ~ '•- ny uewllaH ny UewllaH i .~~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ nd p e~tau!n ~S ue!lawe~i g~~~g~~~s4m ~$p`~~~~~aG~ gg ~~ ~rp. _M ~ ~ ~*_..~~ eehE'e ng 2~~ C r ..r ~ N O ~ ~~~.g r "O fn (D O Q ~ra8 r~s°3ar'ey ~ C m L.L ~a~g~~eggq~p (,U, ~`:~'~~ie`gas N s _ ,fg_Esggg ~E ~~~ 8 z-fag: ~</< ~o os Ear=~~y`~8 o/~ wY }~}~VgB ~py~VZ C~=SII P198 StaffRepatt DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO 5ET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal year 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On October 11, 2000 an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $9,835,000. On July 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 744 approving the levy of the special tax, and on September 21, 2005 approved Resolution No. OS-278 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District was authorized to finance park improvements including clearing and grading of park sites, park hazdscape and restrooms, street improvements and parkway hardscape landscaping of pazks and parkways and park equipment with a useful life of five (5) years or more. The District is located south of Summit Avenue on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road. P199 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2000-03 Bonds were issued on September 1, 2005 to share in the provision of funds for the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities, park and parkways improvements to serve property located within the District. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to dischazge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. Respec l~ submitted, John R. i ison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map P200 RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ ~ ~~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX "A" FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) FOR TAX YEAR 2008-2009 Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 00-190 adopted on September 20, 2000 the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act"),established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2000- 03 (Rancho Summit) (the "District")and authorized, subject to the approval ofthe qualified electors of the District, the levy of a special tax ("Special Tax `A"') pursuant to the rate and method of apportionment thereof (the ``Rate and Method") for the purpose of financing the acquisition or construction of certain authorized public facilities; and WHEREAS, at an election held on October 11, 2000 the qualified electors of the District unanimously approved the levy of Special Tax "A" pursuant to the Rate and Method; and WHEREAS, in 2005 the City Council initiated proceeding to modify the Rate and Method; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2005, the City Council submitted the proposed modifications to the Rate and Method to the qualified electors of the District; and WHEREAS, on the same day, the qualified electors of the District voted unanimously to authorize the modifications to the Rate and Method (the Rate and Method as modified, the "Amended and Restated Rate and Method"); and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently enacted Ordinance No. 755 (the "Ordinance") which became effective on August on August 5, 2005, to authorize the levy of Special Tax "A' pursuant to the Amended and Restated Rate and Method; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that the City Council may provide, by resolution, for the levy of Special Tax "A" for any future tax year; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide for the levy Special Tax "A" for Tax Yeaz 2008-2009 pursuant to the Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals aze all true and correct. P201 SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax "A" to be collected for Fiscal Yeaz 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by the Ordinance, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of Special Tax "A" shall be used, in whole or in part, for the following: A. payment of debt service on all outstanding bonds issued for the District due in calendar year 2009; B. payment of a proportionate share of administrative expenses related to the bond and the District; C. payment of any amounts required to replenish the reserve fund established for the bonds; and D. payment for reasonably anticipated Special Tax "A" delinquencies based on the delinquency rate for Special Tax "A" in the preceding tax yeaz. The proceeds of Special Tax "A" shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: Special Tax "A" shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes aze collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or pazcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of Special Tax "A," and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest; penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P202 Resolution No. Page PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P203 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2000-03 EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2000-03 shall be assigned to a Zone and further classified as Developed Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment determined pursuant to Sections A and B below. Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 10 and Non-Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Class 11. The Maximum Special Tax for Residential Property shall be based on the Residential Floor Area of the dwelling unit(s) located on the Assessor's Parcel. The Maximum Special Tax for Non-Residential Property shall be based on the Acreage of the Assessor's Parcel. The Maximum Special Tax for any Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property containing more than one Land Use Class shall be determined pursuant to Section C below. A. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX Developed Property (a). Maximum Snecial Tax The Maximum Special Tax A for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special Tax A or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax A. (b). Assi ng ed Special Tax A The Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Assigned Special Tax A for each Land Use Class is shown below in the Table below P204 Assigned Special Tax A for Developed Property in City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 (Rancho Summit) Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Land Residential Use Description Floor Assessors Parcel Numbers Amount Class Area 2 Residential Pro ert 1850 - 2049 s.f. 22649201, 07, 21, 23, 26 $1,899.00 22650204, 06, 10, 20, 22, 27, 28, 38, 45 22650253, 57 22651204, 14, 17, 18, 22, 27, 34, 37, 40 22651246, 49, 51, 54, 55, 60, 61, 63, 68 22651270, 71, 74, 76 22652305, 14, 15 22653213, 15, 24, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36 22653306, 08, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21 22653325, 27, 33, 40, 42, 45 3 Residential Pro ert 2050 - 2249 s.f. 22649206, 08, 17, 19, 24 $2,027.00 22650202, 05, 08, 12, 21, 23, 36, 44, 51 22650252, 56, 59 22651201, 05, 09, 15, 19, 23, 25, 28, 50 22651253, 56, 59, 69, 75 22652312, 17 22653205, 09, 16; 31, 33 22653318, 29, 37, 39 4 Residential Pro ert 2250 - 2449 s.f. 22610227 $2,046.00 22643209, 37, 50 22644414, 21, 25 22645205 22649202, O5, 09, 16, 20, 22, 25 22650203, 07, 09, 11, 19, 25, 33, 39, 43 22650246, 49, 54, 55, 58 22651202, 06, 08, 12, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26 22651230, 32, 35, 57, 62, 64, 66 22652302, 11, 13, 16, 23 22651230, 32, 35, 57, 62, 64, 66 22652302, 11, 13, 16, 23 22653204, 08, 14, 17, 21, 25, 28, 37 22653312, 20, 24, 26, 28, 35, 38, 41 P205 5 Residential Pro ert 2450 - 2649 s.f. 22610228 $2,061.00 22643202, 05, 07, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22 22643224, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39, 43 22643245, 48, 51, 55, 59, 60 22644401, 03, 05, 07, 09, 10, 12, 13, 16 22644418, 23, 27, 31 22645201,03 22649203, 10 22650214, 17, 24, 26, 31, 32, 35, 40, 42 22651207, 11, 31, 33, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45 22651247, 65, 73 22652303, 07, 09, 18, 21 22653201, 03, 07, 11, 12, 19, 23, 26, 29 22653234 22653301, 03, 05, 16, 23, 32, 34, 43 6 Residential Pro a 2650 - 2849 s.f. 22643204, O8, 12, 16, 26, 29, 36, 38, 40 $2,235.00 22643242, 47, 49, 53, 56 22644402, 04, 11, 15, 19, 24, 28, 30, 32 22649204,18 22650201, 13, 15, 16, 18, 29, 30, 34, 41 22650247, 48, 50 22651203, 10, 13, 29, 38, 42, 44, 48, 52 22651258, 67, 72 22652301, 04, 06, 08, 10, 22 22653202, 06, 10, 18, 20, 22 22653302, 04, 07, 09, 19, 22, 30, 31, 36 22653344, 46 7 Residential Pro a 2850 - 3049 s.f. 22643201, 03, 06, 10, 19, 21, 23, 27, 31 $2,462.00 22643233, 41, 44, 46, 54, 58 22644406, 08, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29 22645202, 04 11 Residential Pro ert N/A 22649211, 12-15 $1,644.63 (c). Assigned Special Tax A The Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Assigned Special Tax A, identified in the Table above, shall not be subject to change and shall therefore remain the same in every Fiscal Year. P206 (d). Backup Special Tax A The Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Backup Special Tax A for an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 shall equal $9,601 per Acre or portion thereof. The Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Backup Special Tax A for an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 shall equal $14,824 per Acre or portion thereof. The Backup Special Tax A applicable to Zone 1 or Zone 2 shall not be subject to change and shall therefore remain the same in every Fiscal Year. (e). Multiple Land Use Classes In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax levied on an Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. For an Assessor's Parcel that contains both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, the Acreage of such Assessor's Parcel shall be allocated to each type of property based on the amount of Acreage designated for each land use as determined by reference to the site plan approved for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator's allocation to each type of property shall be final. 2. Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property (a). Maximum Special Tax A The Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Maximum Special Tax A for Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property in Zone 1 or Zone 2 shall be $14,824 per Acre or portion thereof. (b).Maximum Special Tax The Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Maximum Special Tax A for Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property shall not be subject to change and shall therefore remain the same in every Fiscal Yeaz. B. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX 1. Special Tax A Commencing with Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement for Facilities and shall levy the P207 Special Tax A until the total Special Tax A levy equals the Special Tax Requirement for Facilities. The Special Tax A shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Special Tax A shall be levied on each Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax A; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement for Facilities after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Pazcel of Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax A for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement for Facilities after the first two steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax A on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 and Zone 2 whose Maximum Special Tax A is determined through the application of the Backup Special Tax A shall be increased in equal percentages from the Assigned Special Tax A up to the Maximum Special Tax A for each such Assessor's Parcel; Fourth: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement for Facilities after the first three steps have been completed, then the Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to the Maximum Special Tax A for Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property. Notwithstanding the above the Council may, in any Fiscal Year, levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax A in step one (above), when (i) the Council is no longer required to levy the Special Tax A pursuant to steps two through four above in order to meet the Special Tax Requirement for Facilities; and (ii) all authorized Bonds have already been issued or the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by the Special Tax A. Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax A levied against any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within CFD No. 2000-03. C. 1. Special Tax A No Special Tax A shall be levied on up to 21.88 Acres of Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property in Zone 1 and up to 38.41 Acres of Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property in Zone 2. Tax-exempt status will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes Public Property or Property Owner Association Property. P208 However, should an Assessor's Pazcel no longer be classified as Public Property or Property Owner Association Property, its tax-exempt status will be revoked. Public Property or Property Owner Association Property that is not exempt from the Special Tax A under this section shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax A and shall be taxed Proportionately as part of the fourth step in Section D.1 above, at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax A for Taxable Public Property or Taxable Property Owner Association Property. D. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error may submit a written appeal to CFD No. 2000-03. The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal and if the CFD Administrator concurs, the amount of the Special Tax levied shall be appropriately modified. The Council may interpret this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment for purposes of clarifying any ambiguity and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals. Any decision of the Council shall be final and binding as to all persons. E. MANNER OF COLLECTION The Special Tax A will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 2000-03 may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually forec]ose on delinquent Assessor's Parcels as permitted by the Act. F. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX A "Previously Issued Bonds" means, for any Fiscal Year, all Outstanding Bonds that are deemed to be outstanding under the Indenture after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year. Only an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, or Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued, may be prepaid. The Special Tax A obligation applicable to an Assessor's Pazcel in CFD No. 2000-03 may only be prepaid after all authorized Bonds have already been issued, or after the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by the Special Tax A levy under this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment. The obligation of the Assessor's Parcel to pay any Special Tax A may be permanently satisfied as described herein, provided that a prepayment may be made with respect to a particulaz Assessor's Parcel only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Special Tax A obligation shall P209 provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator may charge a reasonable fee for providing this service. Prepayment must be made not less than 45 days prior to the next occurring date that notice of redemption of Bonds from the proceeds of such prepayment may be given by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture. The Special Tax A Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as defined below): Bond F plus plus plus less less Total: equals :edemption Amount Redemption Premium Defeasance Amount Administrative Fees and Expenses Reserve Fund Credit Cauitalized Interest Credit Prepayment Amount As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Special Tax A Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as follows: Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel. 2. For Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, compute the Assigned Special Tax A and Backup Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property for which building permits have already been issued, compute the Assigned Special Tax A and Backup Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid as though it were already designated as Developed Property, based upon the building permit which has been issued for that Assessor's Pazcel. 3. (a) Divide the Assigned Special Tax A computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the total estimated Assigned Special Tax A for CFD No. 2000-03 based on the Developed Property Special Tax A which could be charged in the current Fiscal Year on all expected development in CFD No. 2000-03, excluding any Assessor's Parcels for which the Special Tax A has been prepaid, and (b) Divide the Backup Special Tax A computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the total estimated Backup Special Tax A which could be charged in the current Fiscal Year on all expected development in CFD No. 2000-03, excluding any Assessor's Parcels for which the Special Tax A has been prepaid. 4. Multiply the larger quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3(a) or 3(b) by the Previously Issued Bonds to compute the amount of Previously Issued Bonds to be retired and prepaid (the "Bond Redemption Amount"). P210 5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to paragraph 4 by the applicable redemption premium (e.g., the redemption price-100%), if any, on the Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 6. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date not covered by the current Fiscal Year Special Tax A levy until the earliest redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds. 7. Determine the Special Tax A levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal Yeaz which has not yet been paid. 8. Add the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7. 9. Compute the net present value of the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 8, using as a discount rate the rate of return reasonably assumed for the conservative investment of these funds by the CFD Administrator (the "Defeasance Amount"). 10. The administrative fees and expenses of CFD No. 2000-03 are as calculated by the CFD Administrator and include the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs of redeeming Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 11. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any, associated with the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. No Reserve Fund Credit shall be granted if the amount then on deposit in the reserve fund for the Previously Issued Bonds is below 100% of the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture). 12. If any capitalized interest for the Previously Issued Bonds will not have been expended as of the date immediately following the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the larger quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3(a) or 3(b) by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund or account under the Indenture after such first interest and/or principal payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit"). 13. The Special Tax A prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to pazagraphs 4, 5, 9 and 10, less the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12 (the "Prepayment Amount"). P211 From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 11 and 12 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and be used to retire Previously Issued Bonds, as applicable, or make scheduled debt service payments. The amount computed pursuant to paragraph 10 shall be retained by CFD No. 2000-03. The Special Tax A Prepayment Amount may be insufficient to redeem a full $5,000 increment of Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next prepayment of Bonds or to make scheduled debt service payments on such bonds. Upon confirmation of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax A levy as determined under paragraph 7 (above), the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax A levy for such Assessor's Pazcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel for which the Special Tax A obligation is prepaid in full in accordance with this Section, the Council shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of the Special Tax A and the release of the Special Tax A lien on such Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Pazcel to pay the Special Tax A shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax A prepayment shall be allowed unless, at the time of such proposed prepayment, the amount of Maximum Special Tax A that may be levied on Taxable Property within CFD No. 2000-03 (after excluding 21.88 Acres of Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property in Zone 1 and 38.41 Acres of Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property in Zone 2 as set forth in Section C) both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least 1.1 times the maximum annual debt service on all Previously Issued Bonds, plus the Administrative Expenses. G. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax A shall be levied for a period not to exceed fifty years, provided however that the Special Tax A will cease to be levied in an earlier Fiscal Year if the CFD Administrator has determined that all required interest and principal payments on the Bonds have been paid. P212 i• i• i• O ~' ~~ O o O ~ o N J N ~ ~4.+ ~ ~ u- Q = U U ~ • ~ o ~_ ~ ~~xti 4 ._.._.._.._.._ ~n ~ ~ N y ! °' ~ ~ ~ o r ~ J OD +-' •1 ' N _ ~ ^` ~ ~ ~ 3 •= ~ m ~ O` V I u_ Q _.._.._ i ny #se3 in ~ i i ""' ~ ~_ ~ ny epuennl}3 ® ny epuennl;3 ~8 ~{aa.a~ eQ O ~ ny ~a;sayoo~ ~ nbr as;sayoo~ r"- i n ua ! i ~-.._.._.._.._. ny ua~l!II!W d ~I II.W ~ i i i nd uaneH • ny uaneH i i ny esow~aH ~ ny esow~aH i nb' PIeQ!4oa`d • ntl pleQ!uoa'd i i '- nd uewllaH ny UewllaH i .~~ ~ i t~ ~ nd P e~(auln ~gg9~ev+~,p Ss ~S uellauae~~ s~ey~_~~rky$g}_~~ Q2O=~Y ~~V~ ~~ L Y'~38 ~'ETJe. ~ •i* ~=2t~ ~$c OQfi I' - y ga-,- a rc ~ .'~ .~ -J ~ ?! ~ C~pBeF~FaaS~. ti_.._ -..~..I ~ ~ }, 0 00 Ana yy~~e~8 ~ ~ ~ O Q ~ec8 a8r~ e OC c o~ tL f ~ ~~ > ~9 a: ~ ~ N ?~ ~S~~=eges`ga€ ~ C 6~F8Fg~~t~e~ v> N g~~3.~9Es'#IB ` __ m g~~Y+~_R~gP~~ '~gi 38~~•Y~g _ i ~a~~•~as~e3s t ~°`rg~ $-yer6pLE ~J EVJg alu Y_ P213 StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager S[JB.TF.CT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2003-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 ZONES 1, 2 & 3, SERIES 2003-A). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1 Zones 1, 2 & 3), Series 2003-A. Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On February 19, 2003, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1), Series 2003-A authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $14,645,000. On March 5, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 699 approving the levy of the special tax, and on May 21, 2003 approved Resolution No. 03-125 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District consists of approximately 229 gross acres, of which 147 acres are designated as Improvement Area No. 1 (Zones 1, 2 & 3). The District boundary is located in the eastern part of the City generally west of Interstate 15, south of Church Street, north of Arrow Route and east of the Southern California Edison easement corridor from Arrow Route north, to Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard from Foothill Boulevard north, to Church Street. The District is located within the Victoria Community Plan of the City. P214 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1, Zones 1, 2 & 3) Bonds were issued on August 20, 2003 to share in the provision of funds for the acquisition and construction of certain public street improvements, storm drain and flood control and water and sewer improvements to serve property located within the District and a cultural center owned by the City, including a performing arts center, public library and banquet hall/meeting room. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. Respectfully bmitted, John . Gil ~ n Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map P215 RESOLUTION NO. ~ 8~ 1 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATE FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 (IMPROVEMENT'AREA NO. 1 ZONES 1, 2 & 3), SERIES 2003-A Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 03-031, adopted on February 19, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act") established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (the "District") and established within the District improvement azeas designated Improvement Area No. 1, Zones 1, 2 & 3 (the "Improvement Area"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on Februazy 19, 2003, the qualified electors of the Improvement Area No. 1, Zones 1, 2 & 3 unanimously approved the levy of a special tax against properties in the Improvement Area (the "Special Tax"); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 699 (the "Ordinance"), adopted on March 3, 2003 the City Council authorized the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2003, the District delivered its $14,645,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 Improvement Area No. 1, Zones I, 2 & 3 Special Tax Bonds Series 2003-A (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in a Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of July 1, 2003 by and between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"), the City covenanted to fix and levy the Special Tax within the Improvement Area No. 1, Zones 1, 2 & 3 for each fiscal year in an amount required for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due and payable during that fiscal year, plus administrative expenses, but taking into account certain balances in funds held by the Fiscal Agent (the "Covenant"); and WHEREAS, interest will become due and payable on the Bonds during Fiscal Year 2008- 2009 in an amount exceeding funds held by the Fiscal Agent and designated for the payment for such interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy the Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 as authorized by the Ordinance and required by the Covenant; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to provide for the collection of such Special Tax for Fiscal Yeaz 2008-2009 by City staff. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. P216 SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ' SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the Special Tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P217 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P218 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1, ZONES 1, 2 & 3) SERIES 2003-A EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Imarovement Area No. 1 Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the sections below. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE I. ZONE 1 a. Zone 1 Developed Property (i). Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel in Zone 1 classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special Tax for Zone 1 or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax for Zone 1. (ii). Assigned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall equal $4,318 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, P219 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Assigned Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Yeaz. (iii). Backup Special Tax The Backup Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall equal $4,798 per Acre for Fiscal Yeaz 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Backup Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Yeaz. b. Zone 1 Undeveloped Property The Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property in Zone I of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall be $4,798 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Maximum Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. ZONE 2 a. Zone 2 Developed Property (i). Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel in Zone 2 classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special Tax for Zone 2 or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax for Zone 2. (ii). Assigned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall equal $36,294 per Acre for Fiscal Yeaz 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July I of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Assigned Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Yeaz. P220 (iii). Backup Special Tax The Backup Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall equal $40,327 per Acre for Fiscal Yeaz 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Backup Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. Zone 2 Undeveloped Property The Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property in Zone 2 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall be $12,817 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Maximum Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Yeaz. 3. ZONE 3 a. Zone 3 Developed Property (i). Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel in Zone 3 classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special Tax for Zone 3 or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax for Zone 3. (ii). Assigned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 3 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall equal $10,272 per Acre for Fiscal Yeaz 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Assigned Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. (iii). Backup Special Tax The Backup Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 3 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall equal $11,413 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, P221 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Backup Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. b. Zone 3 Undeveloped Property The Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property in Zone 3 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) shall be $11,413 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Maximum Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Yeaz. D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX I. ZONE 1 Commencing with Fiscal Yeaz 2003-04 and for each following Fiscal Yeaz, the Council shall determine the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax in Zone 1 until the amount of Special Taxes levied in Zone 1 is equal to the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied in Zone 1 each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 in an amount equal to 100% of the Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property; Second: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property in Zone 1 at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 whose Maximum Special Tax is equal to the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. Notwithstanding the above, the Council may in any Fiscal Year levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax in step one (above) when the Council no longer must levy a Special Tax in Zone 1 pursuant to steps two and three above, and (i) all authorized CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) Bonds have already been issued, or (ii) the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of Apportionment. P222 Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Pazcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Pazcel within Zone I, except for those Residential Properties whose owners are also delinquent or in default on their Special Tax payments for one or more other properties within Zone 1. 2. ZONE 2 Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-04 and for each following Fiscal Yeaz, the Council shall determine the Zone 2 Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax in Zone 2 until the amount of Special Taxes levied in Zone 2 is equal to the Zone 2 Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied in Zone 2 each Fiscal Yeaz as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 in an amount equal to 100% of the Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Zone 2 Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Pazcel of Undeveloped Property in Zone 2 at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. Notwithstanding the above, the Council may in any Fiscal Year levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax in step one (above) when the Council no longer must levy a Special Tax in Zone 2 pursuant to steps two and three above, and (i) all authorized CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) Bonds have already been issued, or (ii) the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of Apportionment. 3. ZONE 3 Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-04 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Zone 3 Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax in Zone 3 until the amount of Special Taxes levied in Zone 3 is equal to the Zone 3 Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied in Zone 3 each Fiscal Yeaz as follows: P223 First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 3 in an amount equal to 100% of the Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Zone 3 Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Pazcel of Undeveloped Property in Zone 3 at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Zone 3 Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 3 whose Maximum Special Tax is equal to the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. Notwithstanding the above, the Council may in any Fiscal Year levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax in step one (above) when the Council no longer must levy a Special Tax in Zone 3 pursuant to steps two and three above, and (i) all authorized CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) Bonds have already been issued, or (ii) the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 1) Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of Apportionment. EXEMPTIONS 1. ZONE 1 No Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property in Zone I . 2. ZONE 2 No Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property in Zone 2. In addition, no Special Tax shall be levied on Privately Owned Exempt Parking Property in Zone 2. Furthermore, no Special Tax shall be levied on up to 10.56 Acres of Privately Owned Specific Retail Property in Zone 2. Tax-exempt status will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property in Zone 2 becomes Privately Owned Specific Retail Property. If the total number of Acres of Privately Owned Specific Retail Property exceeds the amount stated above, then the Acres exceeding such total shall be taxed at the applicable rates for Developed Property for Zone 2 as set forth in Section C above and to the extent set forth in Section D above. 3. ZONE 3 No Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property in Zone 3. P224 • • ti Q p~ a ~ N M ~~ M A, 0 ^W N W N r o ~ N ~ ~ w ~v~ Q Q ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ d m v ~ ~ ~ J r 7 n n Q ~ i c `Ir1 ~ ~ = ~ V c G E E E 1 ..-..-.._.._ '~ Q! ~ J •~~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ N ~ y j ~ o J m ~ ~ ! s cu m ~ ~ o 1 ~ Q i ® -..-..- ~ ny ~Se3 in i i i ny epuennl}3 ~ ny epuenn!;3 ,_ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~8 ~aa~~ ea .._.. i ~ ~ ny ~a~sayoo~ ny ~a~sayoo~ V ••- ~ i b ~I.II.W i i i i ny uaneH ; ny uaneH i ny esouaaaH i ny esowaaH 1 ny Pleq!4o~d : nb pleq!uoa`d 1 i '.~ n ueua a ny ueuallaH i ~ ~ ~ y ll H i ~ ~ j nd P e~(auln i ~~EQ9."~~"dos e E~~~'t~~g5 s~ 5 i ~NI"~ ~ .. nmte€aa~~3~ ` 7 30 ~`e~-8 s E°gr- E ~.._.. .. ~ t .'' ~ ~ = 3 ~ '=veeo~~s~~~ fn ~ ~ ~ ` ~9~a~~~~''~: ~ ~ ~ >. CD ~ Q ~ns~g~:~a_~` 6~ge~R ~?;ie~' ~ ,~ N oz _ C ~ m g g€~g€ $Es-~~ ae~$:$gag~a~ _~~g 8$g~~~~g $~s$ g4~a'J9 ~.t~" ~V~9;s3~~c tl w~ ~j ~$~:&~.~@s~~E T H E C I T Y O F R A M C tI O C ll C A M O N C A Sta:~R~port DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJF,CI': APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2006-O1 (VINTNER'S GROVE) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 (Vintner's Grove). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On October 18, 2006, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $5,800,000. On November 1, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 769 approving the levy of the special tax, and on December 20, 2006 approved Resolution No. 06-401 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District boundary is located on the south side of Arrow Route with Haven Avenue on the east and Center Street on the west. Bonds were issued on January 25, 2007 to share in the provision of funds for the acquisition and of street improvements, landscape improvements within the public right-of--way, and water and sewer improvements. P225 This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. P226 Page 2 June 4, 2008 Ciry Council Staff Report CFD 2006-01 (Vintner's Grove) Respectfully bmitted, John illison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map ~' 1~ p P227 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2006-01 (VINTNER'S GROVE) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 06-322, adopted on October 18, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act") established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 (the "District"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on October 18, 2006, the qualified electors unanimously approved the levy of a special tax (the "Special Tax"); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 769 (the "Ordinance"), adopted on November 1, 2006 the City Council authorized the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2007, the District delivered its $5,800,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in a Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of January O1, 2007 by and between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"), the City covenanted to fix and levy the Special Tax for each fiscal yeaz in an amount required for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due and payable during that fiscal yeaz, plus administrative expenses, but taking into account certain balances in funds held by the Fiscal Agent (the "Covenant"); and WHEREAS, principal and interest will become due and payable on the Bonds during Fiscal Year 2008-2009 in an amount exceeding funds held by the Fiscal Agent and designated for the payment for such principal and interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy the Special Tax for Fiscal Yeaz 2008-2009 as authorized by the Ordinance and required by the Covenant; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to provide for the collection of such Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 by City staff. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ]: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set Forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference P228 SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the Special Tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or pazcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P229 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. Donatd J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P230 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2006-O1 (VINTNER'S GROVE) EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2006-01 shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the sections below. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property shall be based on the Residential Floor Area of the dwelling unit(s) located on such Assessor's Pazcel. The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Non-Residential Property shall be based on the Acreage of such Assessoi s Pazcel. The Maximum Special Tax for any Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property containing more than one Land Use Class shall be determined is as follows: 1. Developed Property (a) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax For each Assessor's Parcel classified as Developed Property is shown below in Table 1. P231 TABLE 1 Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property in Community Facilities District No. 2006-O1 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Maximum Special Tax 1 Single Family Detached Property More than 2,900 SF $3,687 per unit 2 Single Family Detached Property 2,601 - 2,900 SF $3,379 per unit 3 Single Family Detached Property 2,301 - 2,600 SF $3,244 per unit 4 Single Family Detached Property Less than 2,301 SF $3,109 per unit 5 Single Family Attached Property More than 1,850 SF $2,774 per unit 6 Single Family Attached Property 1,601 - 1,850 SF $2,678 per unit 7 Single Family Attached Property 1,351 - 1,600 SF $2,501 per unit 8 Single Family Attached Property Less than 1,351 SF $2,324 per unit 9 Non-Residential Property NA $49,234 per Acre (b) Multiple Land Use Classes In some instances an Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax levied on such an Assessor's Pazcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Pazcel. For an Assessor's Pazcel that contains both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, the Acreage of such Assessor's Parcel shall be allocated to each type of property based on the amount of Acreage, or equivalent entitlement, designated for each land use as determined by reference to the site plan approved by the City for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator's allocation to each type of property shall be final. 2. Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property (a) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property shall be $54,668 per Acre. P232 A. SPECIAL TAX BUYDOWN All of the requirements of this Section D, which describes the need for a Special Tax Buydown that may result from a change in development as determined pursuant to this Section D, shall only apply after the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006- 01 Bonds. Prior to the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds, the terms of the Special Tax Buydown shall not apply. The following additional definitions apply to this Section A: "Certificate of Satisfaction of Special Tax Buydown" means a certificate from the CFD Administrator stating that the property described in such certificate has met the Special Tax Buydown Requirement for such property as calculated under this Section A. "Letter of Compliance" means a letter from the CFD Administrator allowing the issuance of building permits based on the prior submittal of a request for Letter of Compliance by a property owner. "Special Tax Buydown Requirement" means the total amount of Special Tax Buydown necessary to be prepaid in order to permit the issuance of building permits listed in a request for Letter of Compliance, as calculated under this Section A. "Update Property" means an Assessor's Pazcel of Undeveloped Property For which a building permit has been issued. For purposes of all calculations in this Section A, Update Property shall be taxed as if it were already Developed Property during the current Fiscal Year. 1. Request for Letter of Compliance After the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006-O1 Bonds, a property owner shall, as a precondition to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any residential and/or non-residential development for a specific Assessor's Parcel or lot, submit a Letter of Compliance for the construction of the development on such Assessor's Parcel or lot. If a Letter of Compliance has not yet been issued, the property owner must first request a Letter of Compliance from the CFD Administrator. The request from the property owner shall contain a list of all building permits for which the property owner is requesting a Letter of Compliance, which may exceed the number of building permit issuances being applied for at that time. The property owner shall also submit the Assessor's Parcels or tract and lot numbers on which the construction is to take place, and the Residential Floor Area (for each residential dwelling unit) or the Acreage (for each non-residential parcel) associated with each prospective building permit. P233 2. Issuance of Letter of Compliance Upon the receipt of a request for a Letter of Compliance, the CFD Administrator shall assign each building permit identified in such request to Land Use Classes 1 through 9 as listed in Table 2 below based on the type of use and, if applicable, the Residential Floor Area identified for each such building permit If the CFD Administrator determines (i) that the number of building permits requested for each Land Use Class, plus those building permits previously issued for each Land Use Class, will not cause the total number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage within any such Land Use Class to exceed the number of residential dwelling units or Acreage for such Land Use Class identified in Table 2 below, and (ii) that the total number of residential dwelling units anticipated to be constructed pursuant to the current development plan for CFD No. 2006-01 shall not be less than 156 and the amount of non-residential Acreage will not be more than 0.0 Acres, then a Letter of Compliance shall be submitted to the City and/or property owner by the CFD Administrator approving the issuance of the requested building permits for the subject property, and such subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Special Tax Buydown. This Letter of Compliance shall be submitted to the City and/or property owner by the CFD Administrator within ten days of the submittal of the request for Letter of Compliance by the property owner. However, should (i) the building permits requested, plus those previously issued, cause the total number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage within any such Land Use Class to exceed the number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage for such Land Use Class identified in Table 2 below, or (ii) the CFD Administrator determine that changes in the development plan may cause a decrease in the number of residential dwelling units within CFD No. 2006-01 to below 156 residential dwelling units or an increase in the amount of non-residential Acreage to above 0.0 Acres, then a Letter of Compliance will not be issued and the CFD Administrator will be directed to determine if a Special Tax Buydown shall be required. The number of residential dwelling units and non-residential Acreage, as listed in Table 2 below, may be updated by the CFD Administrator prior to the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds. TABLE 2 Expected Residential Dwelling Units per Land Use Class and Non-Residential Acreage Community Facilities District No. 2006-O1 Laud Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Number of Units/Acres 1 Single Family Detached Property More than 2,900 SF 22 units 2 Single Family Detached Property 2,601 - 2,900 SF 28 units 3 Single Family Detached Property 2,301 - 2,600 SF 0 units q Single Family Detached Property Less than 2,301 SF 28 units P234 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Number of Units/Acres 5 Single Family Attached Property More than 1,850 SF 26 units 6 Single Family Attached Property 1,601 - 1,850 SF 26 units 7 Single Family Attached Property 1,351 - 1,600 SF 0 units 8 Single Family Attached Property Less than 1,351 SF 26 units 9 Non-Residential Property NA 0.00 Acres 3. Calculation of Special Tax Buydown If a Special Tax Buydown calculation is required as determined by the CFD Administrator pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the CFD Administrator shall review the current development plan for CFD No. 2006-01 in consultation with the current property owners for all remaining Undeveloped Property in CFD No. 2006-01, and shall prepare an updated version of Table 2 identifying the revised number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage anticipated within each Land Use Class. The CFD Administrator shall not be responsible for any delays in preparing the updated Table 2 that result from a refusal on the part of one or more current property owners of Undeveloped Property to provide information on their future development. The CFD Administrator shall then review the updated Table 2 and determine the Special Tax Buydown Requirement, if any, to be applied to the property identified in the request for Letter of Compliance to assure the CFD's ability to levy special taxes equal to 110% debt service coverage on the Outstanding Bonds, plus Administrative Expenses. The ca]culations shall be undertaken by the CFD Administrator, based on the data in the updated Table 2, as follows: Step 1. Compute the sum of the Maximum Special Tax authorized to be levied on all Developed Property and Update Property within CFD No. 2006- Ol,plus the sum of the Maximum Special Tax authorized to be levied on all future development as identifed in the current development plan as determined by the CFD Administrator in consultation with the property owner(s). Step 2. Determine the amount of Special Tax required to provide 110% debt service coverage on the Outstanding Bonds, plus any other payments included in the Special Tax Requirement. Step 3. If the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 is greater than or equal to the amount computed pursuant to step 2, then no Special Tax Buydown will be required and a Letter of Compliance shall immediately be P235 issued by the CFD Administrator for all of the building permits currently being requested. If the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 is less than the amount computed pursuant to step 2, then continue to step 4. Step 4. Determine the Maximum Special Tax shortfall by subtracting the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 from the amount computed pursuant to step 2. Divide this Maximum Special Tax shortfall by the amount computed pursuant to step 2. Step 5. The Special Tax Buydown Requirement shall be calculated using the prepayment formula described in Section A, with the following exceptions: (i) skip Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and begin with Paragraph 4; (ii) the Bond Redemption Amount in Paragraph 4 of the prepayment formula described in Section I shall equal the product of the quotient computed pursuant to step 4 above times the Previously Issued Bonds, as defined in Section I; (iii) the Capitalized Interest Credit described in Paragraph 12 of Section I shall be $0; and (iv) any payments of the Special Tax Buydown (less Administrative Fees and Expenses) shall be disbursed pursuant to the Fiscal Agent Agreement. The Special Tax Buydown computed under step 5 shall be billed directly to the property owner of each Assessor's Parcel identified in the request for Letter of Compliance and shall be due within 30 days of the billing date. If the Special Tax Buydown is not paid within 45 days of the billing date, a delinquent penalty of 10 percent shall be added to the Special Tax Buydown. Upon receipt of the Special Tax Buydown payment, the CFD Administrator shall issue a Letter of Compliance and a Certificate of Satisfaction of Special Tax Buydown for the subject property, and such subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Special Tax Buydown. 4. Costs and Expenses Related to Impleroentation of Special Tax Buydown The property owner of each Assessor's Parcel identified in the request for Letter of Compliance shall pay all costs of the CFD Administrator or other consultants required to review the application for building permits, calculate the Special Tax Buydown, issue Letters of Compliance or any other actions required under Section D. Such payments shall be due 30 days after receipt of invoice by such property owner. A deposit may be required by the CFD Administrator prior to undertaking work related to the Special Tax Buydown. P236 B. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX Commencing with Fiscal Year 2006-07 and for each following Fiscal Yeaz, the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax until the total Special Tax levy equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Yeaz as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax; Second: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property; Notwithstanding the above the Council may, in any Fiscal Year, levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Maximum Special Tax in step one (above), when (i) the Council is no longer required to levy the Special Tax pursuant to steps two and three above in order to meet the Special Tax Requirement; and (ii) all authorized CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds have already been issued or the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by the Special Tax. Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within CFD No. 2006-01. C. No Special Tax shall be levied on up to 11.0 Acres of Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property. Tax-exempt status will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes Public Property or Property Owner Association Property. However, should an Assessor's Parcel no longer be classified as Public Property or Property Owner Association Property, its tax-exempt status will be revoked. Public Property or Property Owner Association Property that is not exempt from the Special Tax under this section shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax and shall P237 be taxed Proportionately as part of the third step in Section E above, at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property. D. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Pazcel is in error may submit a written appeal to CFD No. 2006-01. The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal and if the CFD Administrator concurs, the amount of the Special Tax levied shall be appropriately modified through an adjustment to the Special Tax levy in the following Fiscal Yeaz. No refunds shall be given in the current Fiscal Year. The Council may interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment for purposes of clarifying any ambiguity and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals. Any decision of the Council shall be final and binding as to all persons. E. MANNER OF COLLECTION The Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 2006-01 may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on delinquent Assessor's Parcels as permitted by the Act. F. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX The following additional definition applies to this Section F: "Previously Issued Bonds" means, for any Fiscal Yeaz, all Outstanding Bonds that are deemed to be outstanding under the Fiscal Agent Agreement after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Yeaz. Only an Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property, or Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued, may be prepaid. The Special Tax obligation applicable to an Assessor's Parcel in CFD No. 2006-01 may only be prepaid after all authorized CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds have already been issued, or after the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of Apportionment. The obligation of the Assessor's Parcel to pay any Special Tax may be permanently satisfied as described herein, provided that a prepayment may be made with respect to a particulaz Assessor's Pazcel only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Pazcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Pazcel intending to prepay the Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 P238 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such Assessor's Pazcel. Prepayment must be made not less than 45 days prior to any redemption date for the CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of such prepaid Special Taxes. The Special Tax Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as summazized below (capitalized terms as defined below): Bond Redemption Amount plus Redemption Premium plus Defeasance Amount plus Administrative Fees and Expenses less Reserve Fund Credit less Capitalized Interest Credit Total: equals Special Tax Prepayment Amount As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Special Tax Prepayment Amount shall be calculated as follows: 1. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel. 2. For Assessor's Pazcels of Developed Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property for which building permits have already been issued, compute the Maximum Special Tax for the Assessor's Pazcel to be prepaid as though it were already designated.as Developed Property, based upon the building permit which has been issued for that Assessor's Parcel. 3. Divide the Maximum Special Tax computed pursuant to pazagraph 2 by the estimated Maximum Special Taxes for CFD No. 2006-01 based on the Developed Property Special Taxes which could be chazged in the current Fiscal Year on all expected development in CFD No. 2006- 01 (as reasonably determined by the CFD Administrator), excluding any Assessor's Pazcels which have been prepaid; and 4. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to pazagraph 3 by the Previously Issued Bonds to compute the amount of Previously Issued Bonds to be retired and prepaid (the "Bond Redemption Amount"). 5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to paragraph 4 by the applicable redemption premium (e.g., the redemption price - 100%), if any, on the Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 6. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first .bond interest and/or principal payment date not P239 covered by the current Fiscal Year Special Taxes until the eazliest redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds. 7. Determine the Special Taxes levied on the Assessor's Pazcel in the cun•ent Fiscal Year that have not yet been paid. 8. Compute the minimum amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the reinvestment of the Special Tax Prepayment Amount less the Administrative Fees and Expenses (defined below) from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed with the prepayment. 9. Add the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7 and subtract the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 8 (the "Defeasance Amount'. 10. The administrative fees and expenses of CFD No. 2006-01 aze as calculated by the CFD Administrator and include the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs of redeeming CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 11. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser o£ (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement), if any, associated with the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement) in effect afer the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. No Reserve Fund Credit shall be granted if the amount then on deposit in the reserve fund for the Previously Issued Bonds is below 100% of the reserve requirement (as defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement). 12. If any capitalized interest for the Previously Issued Bonds will not have been expended as of the date immediately following the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest and/or principal payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit"). 13. The Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5, 9, and 10, less the amounts P240 computed pursuant to pazagraphs 11 and 12 (the "Special Tax Prepayment Amount"). From the Special Tax Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to pazagraphs 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Fiscal Agent Agreement and be used to redeem Previously Issued Bonds, as applicable, or make scheduled debt service payments or to pay administrative expenses related to the prepayment of the Special Tax. The Special Tax Prepayment Amount may be insufficient to redeem a full $5,000 increment of CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Fiscal Agent Agreement to be used with the next prepayment of CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds or to make scheduled debt service payments on such bonds. Upon confirmation of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy as determined under pazagraph 7 (above), the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy for such Assessor's Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel for which the Special Tax obligation is prepaid in accordance with this Section I, the Council shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Taxes and the release of the Special Tax lien on such Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless, at the time of such proposed prepayment, the amount of Maximum Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property within CFD No. 2006-01 (after excluding 11.0 Acres of Public Property and Property Owner Association Property as set forth in Section F) both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least equal to the sum of (i) the Administrative Expenses, as defined in Section A above, and (ii) 1.10 times the maximum annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds. G. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax shall be levied for a period not to exceed fifty yeazs commencing with Fiscal Year 2006-07, provided however that Special Taxes will cease to be levied in an earlier Fiscal Yeaz if the CFD Administrator has determined (i) that all required interest and principal payments on the CFD No. 2006-01 Bonds have been paid; and (ii) al] Authorized Facilities have been constructed. P241 i• i• i• O ~O O N ~+-+ ~ V , Q ~ ~ / /AA r~ _ > > 4 ` .._.._.._.. r ~f 1 ' ~r V 1 j i ny epueMl: ~~ 1 1 j O ny'a V ny ua~II IIW r•_.._.._.._ nd uaneH ny esow~aH nt/ Ple4!y~~d ny uewllaH ~g ue!lawe~ N .~ J ~ ~ 0 o J N ~ ~ o C U U ti. J ~~~ ny ~se~ u~ ~~ 0 0 N O L_ ~, A101 epueMl~3 ny ~a~sayoo~ ny ua~!II!W ny uaneH ny esow~aH nb pleq!yoabr °~ ny UewllaH ~°~ ,~ -~ v w m nt/ p~er(awn ~ ~ ~./ [~ n anoa ~ ~ J ~ L m Q ~ ~ ~° ,~ C N ~ `.~~ U m m ~ O O L u_ Q P242 StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2006-02 (AMADOR ON ROUTE 66) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 (Amador on Route 66). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On October 18, 2006, an election was held and the property owners within the boundazy of Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $2,980,000. On November 1, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 770 approving the levy of the special tax, and on December 20, 2006 approved Resolution No. 06-402 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District boundary is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and east of Etiwanda Avenue and west of East Avenue. Bonds were issued on January 25, 2007 to shaze in the provision of funds for the acquisition of street improvements, landscape improvements within the public right-of--way, and water and sewer improvements. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. P243 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2006-02 (Amador on Route 66) Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ John R. illison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map p Q P244 RESOLUTION NO. ~O ~~l / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2006-02 (AMADOR ON ROUTE 66) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 06-327, adopted on October 18, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act") established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 (the "District"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on October 18, 2006, the qualified electors unanimously approved the levy of a special tax (the "Special Tax"); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 770 (the "Ordinance''), adopted on November 1, 2006 the City Council authorized the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2007, the District delivered its $2,980,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in a Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of January O1, 2007 by and between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"), the City covenanted to fix and levy the Special Tax for each fiscal year in an amount required for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due and payable during that fiscal year, plus administrative expenses, but taking into account certain balances in funds held by the Fiscal Agent (the "Covenant"); and WHEREAS, principal and interest will become due and payable on the Bonds during Fiscal Year 2008-2009 in an amount exceeding funds held by the Fiscal Agent and designated for the payment for such principal interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy the Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 as authorized by the Ordinance and required by the Covenant; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to provide for the collection of such Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 by City staff. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference P245 SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the Special Tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or pazcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P246 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P247 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2006-02 (AMADOR ON ROUTE 66) EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2006-02 shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the sections below. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Pazcel of Residential Property shall be based on the Residential Floor Area of the dwelling unit(s) located on such Assessor's Parcel The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Non-Residential Property shall be based on the Acreage of such Assessor's Pazcel. The Maximum Special Tax for any Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property containing more than one Land Use Class shall be determined is as follows: MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX 1. Developed Property (a) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Developed Property is shown below in Table 1. P248 TABLE 1 Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property in Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Maximum Special Tax 1 Residential Property More than 1,850 SF $2,816 per unit 2 Residential Property 1,601 - 1,850 SF $2,697 per unit 3 Residential Property 1,351 - 1,600 SF $2,469 per unit q Residential Property Less than 1,351 SF $2,241 per unit 5 Non-Residential Property NA $64,747 per Acre (b) Multiple Land Use Classes In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax levied on such an Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. For an Assessor's Parcel that contains both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, the Acreage of such Assessor's Parcel shall be allocated to each type of property based on the amount of Acreage, or equivalent entitlement, designated for each land use as determined by reference to the site plan approved by the City for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator's allocation to each type of property shall be final. 2. Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property (a) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property shall be $71,889 per Acre. A. SPECIAL TAX BUYDOWN All of the requirements of this Section A, which describes the need for a Special Tax Buydown that may result from a change in development as determined pursuant to this Section A, shall only apply after the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006- P249 02 Bonds. Prior to the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds, the terms of the Special Tax Buydown shall not apply. The following additional definitions apply to this Section A: "Certificate of Satisfaction of Special Tax Buydown" means a certificate from the CFD Administrator stating that the property described in such certificate has met the Special Tax Buydown Requirement for such property as calculated under this Section A. "Letter of Compliance" means a letter from the CFD Administrator allowing the issuance of building permits based on the prior submittal of a request for Letter of Compliance by a property owner. "Special Tax Buydown Requirement" means the total amount of Special Tax Buydown necessary to be prepaid in order to permit the issuance of building permits listed in a request for Letter of Compliance, as calculated under this Section A. "Update Property" means an Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued. For purposes of all calculations in this Section A, Update Property shall be taxed as if it were already Developed Property during the current Fiscal Yeaz. 1. Request for Letter of Compliance After the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds, a property owner shall, as a precondition to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any residential and/or non-residential development for a specific Assessor's Parcel or lot, submit a Letter of Compliance for the construction of the development on such Assessor's Pazcel or lot. If a Letter of Compliance has not yet been issued, the property owner must first request a Letter of Compliance from the CFD Administrator. The request from the property owner shall contain a list of all building permits for which the property owner is requesting a Letter of Compliance, which may exceed the number of building permit issuances being applied for at that time. The property owner shall also submit the Assessor's Parcels or tract and lot numbers on which the construction is to take place, and the Residential Floor Area (for each residential dwelling unit) or the Acreage (for each non-residential pazcel) associated with each prospective building permit. 2. Issuance of Letter of Compliance Upon the receipt of a request for a Letter of Compliance, the CFD Administrator shall assign each building permit identified in such request to Land Use Classes l through 5 as listed in Table 2 below based on the type of use and, if applicable, the Residential Floor Area identified for each such building permit. If the CFD Administrator determines (i) that the number of building permits requested for each Land Use Class, P250 plus those building permits previously issued for each Land Use Class, will not cause the total number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage within any such Land Use Class to exceed the number of residential dwelling units or Acreage for such Land Use Class identified in Table 2 below, and (ii) that the total number of residential dwelling units anticipated to be constructed pursuant to the current development plan for CFD No. 2006-02 shall not be less than 99 and the amount of non-residential Acreage will not be more than 0.0 Acres, then a Letter of Compliance shall be submitted to the City and/or property owner by the CFD Administrator approving the issuance of the requested building permits for the subject property, and such subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Special Tax Buydown. This Letter of Compliance shall be submitted to the City and/or property owner by the CFD Administrator within ten days of the submittal of the request for Letter of Compliance by the property owner. However, should (i) the building permits requested, plus those previously issued, cause the total number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage within any such Land Use Class to exceed the number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage for such Land Use Class identified in Table 2 below, or (ii) the CFD Administrator determine that changes in the development plan may cause a decrease in the number of residential dwelling units within CFD No. 2006-02 to below 99 residential dwelling units or an increase in the amount of non-residential Acreage to above 0.0 Acres, then a Letter of Compliance will not be issued and the CFD Administrator will be directed to determine if a Special Tax Buydown shall be required. The number of residential dwelling units and non-residential Acreage, as listed in Table 2 below, may be updated by the CFD Administrator prior to the issuance of the first series of CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds. TABLE 2 Expected Residential Dwelling Units per Land Use Class and Non-Residential Acreage Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Number of Units/Acres 1 Residential Property More than 1,850 SF 33 units 2 Residential Property 1,601 - 1,850 SF 33 units 3 Residential Property 1,351 - 1,600 SF 0 units q Residential Property Less than 1,351 SF 33 units 5 Non-Residential Property NA 0.00 Acres P251 3. Calculation of Special Tax Buydown If a Special Tax Buydown calculation is required as determined by the CFD Administrator pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the CFD Administrator shall review the current development plan for CFD No. 2006-02 in consultation with the current property owners for all remaining Undeveloped Property in CFD No. 2006-02, and shall prepare an updated version of Table 2 identifying the revised number of residential dwelling units or non-residential Acreage anticipated within each Land Use Class. The CFD Administrator shall not be responsible for any delays in preparing the updated Table 2 that result from a refusal on the part of one or more current property owners of Undeveloped Property to provide information on their future development. The CFD Administrator shall then review the updated Table 2 and determine the Special Tax Buydown Requirement, if any, to be applied to the property identified in the request for Letter of Compliance to assure the CFD's ability to levy special taxes equal to 110% debt service coverage on the Outstanding Bonds, plus Administrative Expenses. The calculations shall be undertaken by the CFD Administrator, based on the data in the updated Table 2, as follows: Step 1. Compute the sum of the Maximum Special Tax authorized to be levied on all Developed Property and Update Property within CFD No. 2006- 02, plus the sum of the Maximum Special Tax authorized to be levied on all future development as identified in the current development plan as determined by the CFD Administrator in consultation with the property owner(s). Step 2. Determine the amount of Special Tax required to provide 110% debt service coverage on the Outstanding Bonds, plus any other payments included in the Special Tax Requirement. Step 3. If the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 is greater than or equal to the amount computed pursuant to step 2, then no Special Tax Buydown will be required and a Letter of Compliance shall immediately be issued by the CFD Administrator for all of the building permits currently being requested. If the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 is less than the amount computed pursuant to step 2, then continue to step 4. Step 4. Determine the Maximum Special Tax shortfall by subtracting the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 from the amount computed pursuant to step 2. Divide this Maximum Special Tax shortfall by the amount computed pursuant to step 2. P252 Step 5. The Special Tax Buydown Requirement shall be calculated using the prepayment formula described in Section A, with the following exceptions: (i) skip Pazagraphs 1, 2 and 3, and begin with Paragraph 4; (ii) the Bond Redemption Amount in Pazagraph 4 of the prepayment formula described in Section I shall equal the product of the quotient computed pursuant to step 4 above times the Previously Issued Bonds, as defined in Section I; (iii) the Capitalized Interest Credit described in Pazagraph ] 2 of Section I shall be $0; and (iv) any payments of the Special Tax Buydown (less Administrative Fees and Expenses) shall be disbursed pursuant to the Fiscal Agent Agreement. The Special Tax Buydown computed under step 5 shall be billed directly to the property owner of each Assessor's Parcel identified in the request for Letter of Compliance and shall be due within 30 days of the billing date. If the Special Tax Buydown is not paid within 45 days of the billing date, a delinquent penalty of 10 percent shall be added to the Special Tax Buydown. Upon receipt of the Special Tax Buydown payment, the CFD Administrator shall issue a Letter of Compliance and a Certificate of Satisfaction of Special Tax Buydown for the subject property and such subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Special Tax Buydown. 4. Costs and Expenses Related to Implementation of Special Tax Buydown The property owner of each Assessor's Pazcel identified in the request for Letter of Compliance shall pay all costs of the CFD Administrator or other consultants required to review the application for building permits, calculate the Special Tax Buydown, issue Letters of Compliance or any other actions required under Section A. Such payments shall be due 30 days after receipt of invoice by such property owner. A deposit may be required by the CFD Administrator prior to undertaking work related to the Special Tax Buydown. B. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX Commencing with Fiscal Year 2006-07 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax until the total Special Tax levy equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; P253 Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property; Notwithstanding the above the Council may, in any Fiscal Year, levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Maximum Special Tax in step one (above), when (i) the Council is no longer required to levy the Special Tax pursuant to steps two and three above in order to meet the Special Tax Requirement; and (ii) all authorized CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds have already been issued or the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by the Special Tax. Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Pazcel within CFD No. 2006-02. C. No Special Tax shall be levied on up to 6.0 Acres of Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property. Tax-exempt status will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes Public Property or Property Owner Association Property. However, should an Assessor's Pazcel no longer be classified as Public Property or Property Owner Association Property, its tax-exempt status will be revoked. Public Property or Property Owner Association Property that is not exempt from the Special Tax under this section shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax and shall be taxed Proportionately as part of the third step in Section E above, at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Public Property and Taxable Property Owner Association Property. D. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their Assessoi s Parcel is in error may submit a written appeal to CFD No. 2006-02. The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal and if the CFD Administrator concurs, the amount of the Special Tax levied shall be appropriately modified through an adjustment to the Special Tax levy in the following Fiscal Year. No refunds shall be given in the current Fiscal Year. The Council may interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment for purposes of clarifying any ambiguity and make determinations relative to the annual P254 administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals. Any decision of the Council shall be final and binding as to all persons. E. MANNER OF COLLECTION The Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinazy ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 2006-02 may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessazy to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually Foreclose on delinquent Assessor's Parcels as permitted by the Act. F. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX The following additional definition applies to this Section F: "Previously Issued Bonds" means, for any Fiscal Year, all Outstanding Bonds that aze deemed to be outstanding under the Fiscal Agent Agreement after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Yeaz. Only an Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property, or Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued, may be prepaid. The Special Tax obligation applicable to an Assessor's Parcel in CFD No. 2006-02 may only be prepaid after all authorized CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds have already been issued, or after the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of Apportionment. The obligation of the Assessor's Pazcel to pay any Special Tax may be permanently satisfied as described herein, provided that a prepayment may be made with respect to a particulaz Assessor's Pazcel only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Pazcel intending to prepay the Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such Assessor's Parcel. Prepayment must be made not less than 45 days prior to any redemption date for the CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of such prepaid Special Taxes. The Special Tax Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as defined below): Bond Redemption Amount plus Redemption Premium plus Defeasance Amount plus Administrative Fees and Expenses less Reserve Fund Credit less Capitalized Interest Credit Total: equals Special Tax Prepayment Amount P255 As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Special Tax Prepayment Amount shall be calculated as follows: 1. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel. 2. For Assessor's Pazcels of Developed Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property for which building permits have already been issued, compute the Maximum Special Tax for the Assessoi s Parcel to be prepaid as though it were already designated as Developed Property, based upon the building permit which has been issued for that Assessor's Pazcel. 3. Divide the Maximum Special Tax computed pursuant to pazagraph 2 by the estimated Maximum Special Taxes for CFD No. 2006-02 based on the Developed Property Special Taxes which could be chazged in the current Fiscal Yeaz on all expected development in CFD No. 2006- 02 (as reasonably determined by the CFD Administrator), excluding any Assessor's Pazcels which have been prepaid; and 4. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to pazagraph 3 by the Previously Issued Bonds to compute the amount of Previously Issued Bonds to be retired and prepaid (the "Bond Redemption Amount"). 5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to paragraph 4 by the applicable redemption premium (e.g., the redemption price - 100%), if any, on the Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 6. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date not covered by the current Fiscal Year Special Taxes until the eazliest redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds. 7. Determine the Special Taxes levied on the Assessor's Pazcel in the current Fiscal Year that have not yet been paid. 8. Compute the minimum amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the reinvestment of the Special Tax Prepayment Amount less the Administrative Fees and Expenses (defined below) from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed with the prepayment. 9. Add the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7'and subtract the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 8 (the "Defeasance Amount'. P256 10. The administrative fees and expenses of CFD No. 2006-02 are as calculated by the CFD Administrator and include the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs of redeeming CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 11. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement), if any, associated with the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement) in effect after the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. No Reserve Fund Credit shall be granted if the amount then on deposit in the reserve fund for the Previously Issued Bonds is below 100% of the reserve requirement (as defined in the Fiscal Agent Agreement). 12. If any capitalized interest for the Previously Issued Bonds will. not have been expended as of the date immediately following the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest and/or principal payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit"). 13. The Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5, 9, and ] 0, less the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12 (the "Special Tax Prepayment Amount"). From the Special Tax Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Fiscal Agent Agreement and be used to redeem Previously Issued Bonds, as applicable, or make scheduled debt service payments or to pay administrative expenses related to the prepayment of the Special Tax. The Special Tax Prepayment Amount may be insufficient to redeem a full $5,000 increment of CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Fiscal Agent Agreement to be used with the next prepayment of CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds or to make scheduled debt service payments on such bonds. Upon confirmation of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy as determined under paragraph 7 (above), the CFD Administrator shall remove the P257 current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy for such Assessor's Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Pazcel for which the Special Tax obligation is prepaid in accordance with this Section I, the Council shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Taxes and the release of the Special Tax lien on such Assessor's Pazcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless, at the time of such proposed prepayment, the amount of Maximum Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property within CFD No. 2006-02 (after excluding 6.0 Acres of Public Property and Property Owner Association Property as set forth in Section F) both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least equal to the sum of (i) the Administrative Expenses, as defined in Section A above, and (ii) 1.10 times the maximum annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds. G. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax shall be levied for a period not to exceed fifty years commencing with Fiscal Year 2006-07, provided however that Special Taxes will cease to be levied in an eazlier Fiscal Year if the CFD Administrator has determined (i) that all required interest and principal payments on the CFD No. 2006-02 Bonds have been paid; and (ii) all Authorized Facilities have been constructed. P258 • I j N ~' O ~ ~, +Q^^ T O ~~ W O .~ o r N -' o ~ Q = U U o ~i o ~ ~'X ~i.+ u~ G~ '~ti o ~~ ~ J ~ o! ~ ' _ ° + J m ~ `~d ~ N L i m o 0 1 tL Q ~ ® 1 1 ~ ny epuenn!~3 ny epuenn!;3 ~~ i ~ ~ ~8 ~{aaJ~ ep .. i ~ ny Ja~sayoo~{ ~ ny Ja~sayoo~ U ~••- b ~I.II.W i i i i ny uaneH ; ny uaneH i ny esowJaH i ny esouaJaH i n`d Pleq!yoJ'd • nd pleq!yoJt/ i nd uewllaH i .. ~ ~ ^d Ue~IIaH i w : ~ v ! ny pJe~(au!n i ga~~~i~a•yas ~S ue!IauJe~i s~~~ess~ ~~~ m~_-~~~ ~~~~ / m=°- _ ~ c m ~ Q ~a S~'~~~;~~ cu ~s~~~~" ~.a~ ~ ~ ~g~~~~&~~~~a (A (0 g3~~e~pp $ o~ - m .PEE~Bk$E~$e zo 2 ~~~~~80~~~~~ C3 F~~`s~~aL~eai~E T Y O F RANCttO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL LEVY WITHIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 93-1, MASI PLAZA, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1999-1 WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing an annual levy for the costs incurred in the collection of assessments within Assessment District No. 93-1, Masi Plaza, at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevazd and Reassessment District No. 1999-1. There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal yeaz 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Section 8682 of the Government Code authorizes cities to collect an annual assessment fee of a maximum of five percent (5%) of the amount of installments and not to exceed sixteen dollazs per parcel assessment for costs incurred in the administration and assessment collection. The requested fee will allow the City to recover funds for collection and management of assessment districts that are applicable to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. P259 P260 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ANNUAL LEVY June 4, 2008 Page 2 Rancho Cucamonga's comprehensive management program including record keeping, cost management, payoff calculations, monthly financial reports, debt service schedules, as well as providing information to the public is funded from this fee. This fee is in place now to pay for administration and will allow the City to maintain the current rate and level of service. Respectfully submitted, <~_% John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachment: Resolution Map -2- P261 RESOLUTION NO. D V ~ ~ 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has heretofore undertaken proceedings pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and has confirmed assessments upon land within various special assessment districts (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Assessment Districts"); and WHEREAS, said proceedings provided for and the City did subsequently issue bonds pursuant to the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division ] 0 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said bonds representing unpaid assessments within the Assessment Districts; and WHEREAS, the City does incur necessary administrative expenses in the collection of the annual installments of the assessment within the Assessment Districts; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 8682 does authorize the City to establish an assessment surchazge to allow the City to recover its expenses of collection of said assessments; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish such an assessment surcharge as authorized by said Government Code Section 8682. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: Treasurer is hereby directed to add to the annual installment of assessments within the Assessment Districts a maximum of five percent (5%) of the amount of the installments and ofthe interest thereon, not to exceed the Treasurer's estimate of the expenses ofcollection. Said expenses of collection shall include the necessary administrative expenses of the City incurred in providing the County Auditor with current information regazding the ownership or division of the affected lots or pazcels of land within the Assessment Districts to ensure the proper entry by the County Auditor in his or her assessment roll and the timely collection of the Assessment installments. P262 SECTION 3: The above assessment surcharge, when collected, shall belong to the City and shall cover the expenses and compensation of the Treasurer incurred in the collection of the assessments, and of the interest and penalties added on to the assessments. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. P263 i• i• i• ~ N ~ - M ~~ V .~ J Q ~' ~y Q ~ v Q o y ~, ~~ ° ~ ~' '~x ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ o c J m ~ ~ '~' O O L m ' L 1 tai Q y ~ _.._.._ ~ ny 3Se3 iq Q ~ ® j ~ v 1 ny epuennl}3 ny epuennl;3 i i ~8 ~aa~~ ea i ny ~a}say~o~ ~ ny as}sayoo~ r"' i n ua i i ~-.._.._.._.._. ny ua~i!II!W d ~I.II.W j i i i ny uaneH ; ny uaneH 1 1 ny esow~aH j ny esow~aH i ny pleq!yo~y . n'd Pleq!yo~d i ny UewllaH i .~,~ ~ ny uewllaH r~• w 1 ~ ~ j nti P el~auln j frs; am a~ ~S uellawe~j 6~~~j~m~~~~t ~_ ., j ~ ~ ~i~ r q~~€~~Q9ug~a~ ..~ ~- $~g8 F 8 U3 a ~ ~~~y-~.p N ~as~~~:gSc~ed ~ C ~~g~€8g~:~ea V! [0 gU~~z~~2gE~~ o ^ -_ m f EgsEg.ss _ egg &$A~g ., _ ~~ § 8a~~a3~ < ~ ~p °L~ar~poo8 NL EV~B'fU•EE= P264 • • • O~ ~? O~ !~ E N ~~ J tD ~ ~ ~ ~i C C U Q ¢ O Q .._...... ~ o -~ N ~l.r / ~ ~ 1 ~ o J m ~ ~ ~ w 3 y o y i ~° Q ~ ~ _.._.._ i ny 3Se3 ciy ® j ~ ~ ~ ny epueMl;3 ny epuennl;3 ~8 ~{aaa~ ed i ny ~a;say~o~ ~ ny as;sayoo~ r" I ....._...~.._.._. 1 ny ua~{!II!W ~ ~ __r ny ua~!II!W i 1 i ny uaneH ; nb uaneH 1 't ny esoua~aH ~ ny esou~~aH i ny Pleq!yo~t/ . n`d Pleq!4oab' i i ":. ny ue~IlaH nd ueuallaH i ..•~ ~ w 1 : ~ ~ ~ ny p ~~(auln 1 ~'§F°9~a€$'s~g ~S uellau~e~ ~~e`5£~-~= 1 ?a ia~ii'E~R~~ a.I•'r... °~ao~LLv ~~~ ~ ; $~$ s_`yr~ P •~~' N '''' '-' ~` ate. ~~?~~ .~ L J 3 .C t.€tle:~g e`~ ~ m Ll- ~S~~aom gsa ~ ~ ~~€s~~p~sli~: !A lD ge~'~c~6g~g~s m adp~~f8~~~$aga' jp = _p Ca gY S~~ ~< $~a ~Byy~e"E~~E~L' P265 Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager 5USIF.CT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting an annual special tax levy of $4,134.47 an acre per parcel to discharge bond obligations in Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 (Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On November 7, 2000, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 (Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park) authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $6,835,000. On December 6, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 646 authorizing the levy of a special tax in the district. Bonds were issued on December 21, 2000 for the purpose of financing the acquisition of street improvements on public street improvements required as a condition of approval of development of the property within the proposed district including Milliken Avenue, Arrow Route Highway and Foothill Boulevard; such street improvements to include but not to be limited to: demolition and grading, curb, gutter and sidewalks, traffic signals; entry feature and signs; fire hydrants; storm drains; water and sewer improvements; paving; striping; landscaping and irrigation improvements; public utilities and appurtenances. P266 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CFD NO. 2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) June 4, 2008 Page 2 The property owners within the district approved the maximum rate for the special tax at $4134.47 per acre. On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2002 the Maximum Annual Special tax shall be increased by two percent (2%) of the amount in effect for the previous fiscal year. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through fiscal year 2035-2036. Respectfu1lly submitted, ~\/~7' l~ John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Annual Status Report Map -2- P267 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK ANNUAL STATUS REPORT Resolution No. JUNE 2008 P268 Resolution No. Page BACKGROUND On November 7, 2000, the electors within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 (Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park) authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $6,835,000 for the purpose of financing the acquisition of street improvements on public street improvements required as a condition of approval of development of the property within the proposed district including Milliken Avenue, Arrow Route Highway and Foothill Boulevard; such street improvements to include but not to be limited to: demolition and grading, curb, gutter and sidewalks, traffic signals; entry feature and signs; fire hydrants; storm drains; water and sewer improvements; paving; striping; landscaping and irrigation improvements; public utilities and appurtenances. The district was approved setting the maximum rate at $3,896 per acre. However, on each July 1, commencing July 1, 2002 the Maximum Annual Special tax shall be increased by two percent (2%) of the amount in effect for the previous fiscal year. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through fiscal year 2035-2036. FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 The annual tax rate for fiscal year 2008-2009 will be $4,217.16 per acre, and will provide sufficient funding to pay debt service in the amount of $522,030.00. P269 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT PROPOSED USES AND SOURCES OF FUNDS USES: DEBT SERVICE CITY AND TRUSTEE ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL OVERHEAD & LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS SOURCES: DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS INTEREST REVENUE FUND BALANCE SPECIAL TAX Resolution No. Page $522,030 $ 48,500 $ 1,500 $ 0 $572,030 $ 0 $ 8,340 $ 0 $575,810 $584,150 $4,217.16 PER ACRE P270 RESOLUTION NO. I> D' ~ 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTNO.2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facilities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next fiscal year 2008-2009 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: P271 Resolution No. Page A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes aze collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P272 Resolution No. Page PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P273 • i• • O ~~ O o O r o N J N V Q o C U U ~ ~ ~ '••~ o .~ ~ ~ J •~ ~ o Q _.._.._.._.._ ; ~ u~ N ,,AA v/ ~ ~ C _ p ~+ • ~ ~ J ~ m m _ ~ +-' 0.' 3 m °0 0 V 1 u_ Q _.._.._ ~ ny }set u~ ~ y ~ ~ ' ~ i v ~ ~+ j ny epuenn!;3 ny epuenn!~3 3 ~8 ~aa~~ eQ 1.._.._.._.._.._.._..- C i ny ~a;sayooa ny as#sayoo~ 1.._ ~' --.._.._.._.._. i - n ua i i ~ d ~I.II.W j ny ua~!II!W i i i ny uaneH ; ny uaneH 1 ny esow~aH j ny esoua~aH i n`d Pleq!y~~`d • nd pleq!yo~d i i ' ', n ueua a ny ueuallaH i ~~ ~ y ll H ~• i ~ : ~ ny pae~tau v !~ i ;S ue!lawe~ j • ~_ see - s€~~=~5s5R_`s_ Ex°af ~O gus'a I ~~r.. ~..~ •.7 a ayy ~ n"t9~~SE~~_~i ~t fik+ S-° j ~ I' N 'ii. o ~ ;slab=fig ~ ti1 F~F~ 1..~ , ~ ~~.~' C J = ~ m - ~ ~ (n L E s~@~Ea ~f~°a~s 08 g ~ r -+ I a + $vE g 3 rP § ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ m ~ LL Q ~~a SL~~g ~, ~~ ~~>ngaa~ ~ ;a vi ~. c m ~ ~ fis ~~~6a~a 6~~s~~~el~~g _~a `s ~g€ g S ~ J ° m ~ ~~ F ~p9ug FE.3a ~Egg e- § @ a~' 1 u .mil ~~ U 8§~e~ 9~ ~~~$$.u O~c~S ~$~sl:~~i:~ P274 StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager S[JBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2001-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 & 2, SERIES 2001-A) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. 1 & 2), Series 2001-A. Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello- Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal year 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 20, 2001, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. 1 and 2), Series 2001-A authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $14,240,000. On August I5, 2001 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 01-019 authorizing the issuance of bonds. Bonds were issued on August 29, 2001 to share in the financing of public street improvements required for the development of the property within the District, including improvements to Day Creek Boulevard, Victoria Park Lane, Church Street, Foothill Boulevard, Baseline Road and Arbor Way, landscaping improvements within public right-of- way, storm drain and flood control improvements. P275 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. 1 & 2) This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. The levy of special taxes annually for Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 aze as follows: Improvement Area No. 1 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Assigned S ecial Tax 1 Single Family Property => 3,250 sq. ft. $2,100 per residential dwelling unit 2 Single Family Property 2,950 to 3,249 sq. ft. $1,684 per residential dwelling unit 3 Single Family Property 2,650 to 2,949 sq. ft. $1,515 per residential dwelling unit 4 Single Family Property 2,350 to 2,649 sq. ft. $1,301 per residential dwelling unit 5 Single Family Property 2,150 to 2,349 sq. ft. $1,217 per residential dwelling unit 6 Single Family Property 1,950 to 2,149 sq. ft. $1,119 per residential dwelling unit 7 Single Family Property < 1,950 sq. ft. $938 per residential dwelling unit 8 Apartment Property Not Applicable $237 per residential dwelling unit 9 Non Residential Property Not Applicable $8,398 per Acre Improvement Area No. 2 Land Use Description Assigned Special Tax Class 1 Apartment Property $237 per unit 2 Other Residential $10,768 per Acre Property 3 Non-Residential $0.63 per square foot of Non- Property Residential Floor Area P276 Page 3 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. I & 2) Respectfully submitted, John . Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map P277 RESOLUTION NO. ~ g- I Z 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008- 2009 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 & 2), SERIES 2001-A Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 01-162, adopted on June 20, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act") established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (the "District') and established within the District improvement areas designated Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 (the "Improvement Areas"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on June 20, 2001, the qualified electors of the Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 unanimously approved the levy of a special tax against properties in the Improvement Areas (the "Special Tax"); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 658 (the "Ordinance"), adopted on July 18, 2001, the City Council authorized the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 2001, the District delivered its $14,240,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 Special Tax Bonds Series 2001-A (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in a Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of August 1, 2001, by and between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"), the City covenanted to fix and levy the Special Tax within the Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 for each fiscal yeaz in an amount required for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due and payable during that fiscal yeaz, plus administrative expenses, but taking into account certain balances in funds held by the Fiscal Agent (the "Covenant"); and WHEREAS, debt service will become due and payable on the Bonds during Fiscal Year 2008-2009 in an amount exceeding funds held by the Fiscal Agent and designated for the payment for such debt service; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy the Special Tax for Fiscal Yeaz 2008-2009 as authorized by the Ordinance and required by the Covenant; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to provide for the collection of such Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 by City staff. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. P278 SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the Special Tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessazy replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space mazked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P279 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P280 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2001-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 & IMPROVEMENT AREA N0.2) SERIES 2001-A EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Improvement Area No. 1 Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property .within Improvement Area No. 1 shall be classified as Developed Property, Final Mapped Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, or Undeveloped Property, and all such Taxable Property shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the sections below. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE 1. Developed Property (a) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special tax or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax. (b) Assigned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Land Use class is shown in Table 1. P281 TABLE 1 Assigned Special Taxes For Developed Property Improvement Area No. I Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Assigned S ecial Tax 1 Single Family Property = > 3,250 sq. ft. $2,100 per residential dwelling unit 2 Single Family Property 2,950 to 3,249 sq. fr. $1,684 per residential dwelling unit 3 Single Family Property 2,650 to 2,949 sq. fr. $1,515 per residential dwelling unit 4 Single Family Property 2,350 to 2,649 sq. fr. $1,301 per residential dwelling unit 5 Single Family Property 2,150 to 2,349 sq. fr. $1,217 per residential dwelling unit 6 Single Family Property 1,950 to 2,149 sq. fr. $1,1 ]9 per residential dwelling unit 7 Single Family Property < 1,950 sq. fr. $938 per residential dwelling unit 8 Apartment Property Not Applicable $237 per residential dwelling unit 9 Non Residential Property Not Applicable $8,398 per Acre (c). Multiple Land Use Classes In some instances an assessoi s Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Assigned Special tax levied on an Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Assigned Special Taxes for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. The Maximum Special Tax that can be levied on an Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes that can be levied for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel derived by application of the Backup Special Tax. For an Assessor's Parcel that contains both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, the Acreage of such Assessor's Parcel shall be allocated to each type of property based on the amount of Acreage designated for each Land Use Class as determined by reference to the site plan approved for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator's allocation to each type of property shall be final. P282 (c) Backup Special Tax The Backup Special Tax shall equal $10, 768 per acre. 2. Final Mapped Property (a). Intermediate Special Tax The Intermediate Special Tax shall only be levied on Assessor's Pazcels of the Final Mapped Property. To compute the Intermediate Special Tax attributable to a Final Subdivision, the Acreage of all Developed Property and Final Mapped Property within that Final Subdivision shall be multiplied by $7,500. The Intermediate Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property planned for residential development shall then be computed by dividing the Intenmediate Special Tax attributable to the applicable Final Subdivision by the total number of Assessor's Parcels planned for residential development within that Final Subdivision (i.e., the number of residential lots). The Intermediate Special Tax for each Assessor's Pazcel of Final Mapped Property in a Final Subdivision planned exclusively for non-residential development shall equal $7,500 multiplied by the Acreage of such Assessor's Parcel. If a final Subdivision includes Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property and Final Mapped Property planned for both residential and non-residential development, then the Intermediate Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property planned for residential development shall be calculated as described above based exclusively on the Acreage of the residential Final Mapped Property. Conversely, the Intermediate Special Tax for each assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property planned for non- residential development shall be calculated as described above based exclusively on the Acreage of the non-residential Final Mapped Property. The CFD Administrator shall allocate the Acreage of each Assessor's Parcel in the Final Subdivision to residential and non-residential development based on the projected use of each such Assessor's Pazcel. (b) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for Final Mapped Property shall be $10,768 per Acre. 3. Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, and Undeveloped Property. The Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, and Undeveloped Property shall be $ ] 0, 768 per Acre. P283 APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX For each Fiscal Yeaz the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax, taking into consideration the levy of the Improvement Area No. 2 (I A No. 2) Special Tax, until the amount of Special Taxes and Improvement Area No. 2 Special Taxes equal the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of I A No. 2 Rate and Method (RMA), the I A No. 2 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Pazcel of I A No. 2 Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable I A No. 2 Assigned Special Tax; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement afrer the first step has been completed, the Special tax shall be levied on each assessor's Pazcel of Final Mapped Property at up to 100% of the Intermediate Special Tax for Final Mapped Property; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of I A No. 2 RMA, the I A No. 2 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 2 Final Mapped Property up to 100% of the I A No. 2 Intermediate Special Tax for I A No. 2 Final Mapped Property, with the levy on Final Mapped Property and I A No. 2 Final Mapped Property being Proportionate; Third: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special tax Requirement afrer the first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property at up $7,500 per acre; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. 2 RMA, the I A No. 2 RMA, the I A No. 2 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 2 Underdeveloped Property at up to $7,500 per Acre, with the levy on Undeveloped Property and I A No. 2 Undeveloped Property being Proportionate; Fourth: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement afrer the first steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property and Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Final Mapped Property and Undeveloped Property; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. 2 RMA, the I A No. 2 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 2 Final Mapped Property and I A No. 2 Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the I A No. 2 Maximum Special Tax for I A No. 2 Final Mapped Property and I A No. 2 Undeveloped Property, with the levy on Final Mapped Property and Undeveloped Property and I A No. 2 Final Mapped Property and I A No. 2 Undeveloped Property being Proportionate; Fifth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first four steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property whose Maximum Special Tax is determined through the application of the Backup Special Tax shall be increased in equal percentages from the Assigned Special Tax up to P284 the Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. 2 RMA, the levy of the I A No. 2 Special Tax on each Assessor's Pazcel of I A No. 2 Developed Property whose I A No. 2 Maximum Special Tax is determined through the application of the I A No. 2 Backup Special Tax shall be increased in equal percentages from the I A No. 2 Assigned Special Tax up to the I A No. 2 Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel, with the levy on Developed Property and I A No. 2 Developed Property being Proportionate; Sixth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first five steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Taxable Public Property at up to the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Taxable Public Property; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. 2 RMA, the I A No. 2 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Pazcel.of I A No. 2 Taxable Property Owner Association Property or I A No. 2 Taxable Public Property at up to the I A No. 2 Maximum Special Tax for I A No. 2 Taxable Property Owner Association Property or I A No. 2 Taxable Public Property, with the levy on Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Taxable Public Property and I A No. 2 Taxable Property Owner Association Property or I A No. 2 Taxable Public Property being Proportionate. Notwithstanding the above the city Council may, in any Fiscal Yeaz, levy proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax and the I A No. 2 Assigned Special Tax in step one (above) when (i) the City Council is no longer required to levy a Special Tax pursuant to steps two through six above and the City Council is no longer required to levy an I A No. 2 Special Tax pursuant to steps two through six (above) of the I A No. 2 RMA in order to meet the Special Tax Requirement; (ii) all authorized I A No. 1 and I A No. 2 Bonds have already been issued or the City Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional I A No. 1 and I A No. 2 Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes and I A No. 2 Special Taxes; and (iii) all Authorized Facilities have been constructed and/or acquired. Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel or Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within I A No. 1 or I A No. 2, except for those Residential Properties whose owners are also delinquent or in default on their Special Tax payments for one or more other properties within I A No. ] or I A No. 2. P285 CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Improvement Area No. 2 Each Fiscal Yeaz, all Taxable Property within Improvement Area No. 2 shall be classified as Developed Property, Final Mapped Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, or Undeveloped Property, and all such Taxable Property shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the Sections III, IV and V below. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE 1. Developed Property (a) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special tax or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax. (b) Assi ned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Land Use class is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Assigned Special Taxes For Developed Property Improvement Area No. 2 Land Use Description Assigned Special Tax Class 1 Apartment Property $237 per unit 2 Other Residential $10,768 per Acre Pro erty 3 Non-Residential $0.63 per squaze foot of Non- Property Residential Floor Area P286 (c). Multiple Land Use Classes In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Assigned Special Tax levied on an Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Assigned Special Taxes for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Pazcel. The Maximum Special Tax that can be levied on an Assessor's Pazcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes that can be levied for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Pazcel derived by application of the Backup Special Tax. For an Assessor's Parcel that contains both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, the Acreage of such Assessor's Pazcel shall be allocated to each type of property based on the amount of Acreage designated for each Land Use Class as determined by reference to the site plan approved for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator's allocation to each type of property shall be final. (c) Backup Special Tax The Backup Special Tax shall equal $]0, 061 per acre. 2. Final Mapped Property (a). Intermediate Special Tax The Intermediate Special Tax shall only be levied on Assessor's Pazcels of the Final Mapped Property. To compute the Intermediate Special Tax attributable to a Final Subdivision, the Acreage of all Developed Property and Final Mapped Property within that Final Subdivision shall be multiplied by $7;500. The Intermediate Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property planned for residential development shall then be computed by dividing the Intermediate Special Tax attributable to the applicable Final Subdivision by the total number of Assessor's Parcels planned for residential development within that Final Subdivision (i.e., the number of residential lots). The Intermediate Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property in a Final Subdivision planned exclusively for non-residential development shall equal $7,500 multiplied by the Acreage of such Assessor's Parcel. If a final Subdivision includes Assessor's Pazcels of Developed Property and Final Mapped Property planned for both residential and non-residential development, then the Intermediate Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property planned for residential development shall be calculated as described above based exclusively on the Acreage of the P287 residential Final Mapped Property. Conversely, the Intermediate Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property planned for non- residential development shall be calculated as described above based exclusively on the Acreage of the non-residential Final Mapped Property. The CFD Administrator shall allocate the Acreage of each Assessor's Parcel in the Final Subdivision to residential and non-residential development based on the projected use of each such Assessor's Pazcel. (c) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for Final Mapped Property shall be $10,768 per Acre. 3. Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, and Undeveloped Property. The Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, and Undeveloped Property shall be $10, 768 per Acre. APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX For each Fiscal Yeaz the City Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax, taking into consideration the levy of the Improvement Area No. 1 (I A No. 1) Special Tax, until the amount of Special Taxes and Improvement Area No. 1 Special Taxes equal the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Yeaz as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of I A No. 1 Rate and Method (RMA), the I A No. 1 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 1 Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable I A No. 1 Assigned Special Tax; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property at up to 100% of the Intermediate Special Tax for Final Mapped Property; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of I A No. 1 RMA, the I A No. I Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 1 Final Mapped Property up to 100% of the I A No. 1 Intermediate Special Tax for I A No. 1 Final Mapped Property, with the levy on Final Mapped Property and I A No. 1 Final Mapped Property being Proportionate; Third: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property at up $7,500 per acre; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. 1 RMA, the I A No. 1 Special Tax shall be P288 levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 1 Underdeveloped Property at up to $7,500 per Acre, with the levy on Undeveloped Property and I A No. lUndeveloped Property being Proportionate; Fourth: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first steps have been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Final Mapped Property and Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Final Mapped Property and Undeveloped Property; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. 1 RMA, the I A No. 1 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 1 Final Mapped Property and I A No. 1 Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the I A No. 1 Maximum Special Tax for I A No. 1 Final Mapped Property and I A No. 1 Undeveloped Property, with the levy on Final Mapped Property and Undeveloped Property and I A No. 1 Final Mapped Property and I A No. 1 Undeveloped Property being Proportionate; Fifth: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first four steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property whose Maximum Special Tax is determined through the application of the Backup Special Tax- shall be increased in equal percentages from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. 1 RMA, the levy of the I A No. 1 Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 1 Developed Property whose I A No. 1 Maximum Special Tax is determined through the application of the I A No. 1 Backup Special Tax shall be increased in equal percentages from the I A No. 13 Assigned Special Tax up to the I A No. 1 Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel, with the levy on Developed Property and I A No. 1 Developed Property being Proportionate; Sixth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first five steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Taxable Public Property at up to the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Taxable Public Property; and the City Council shall be notified by the CFD Administrator that under the terms of the I A No. I RMA, the I A No. 1 Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of I A No. 1 Taxable Property Owner Association Property or I A No. 1 Taxable Public Property at up to the I A No.l Maximum Special Tax for I A No. 1 Taxable Property Owner Association Property or I A No. 1 Taxable Public Property, with the levy on Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Taxable Public Property and I A No. 1 Taxable Property Owner Association Property or I A No. 1 Taxable Public Property being Proportionate. Notwithstanding the above the City Council may, in any Fiscal Year, levy proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax and the I A No. 1 Assigned Special Tax in step one (above) when (i) the City Council is no longer required to levy a Special Tax pursuant to steps two through six above and the City Council is no longer required to levy an I A No. 1 Special Tax pursuant to steps two through six (above) of the I A No. 1 RMA in order to meet the Special Tax Requirement; (ii) all authorized Bonds have already been issued or the City Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported P289 by Special Taxes and I A No. 1 Special Taxes; and (iii) all Authorized Facilities have been constructed and/or acquired. Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel or Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within I A No. 1 or I A No. 2, except for those Residential Properties whose owners are also delinquent or in default on their Special Tax payments for one or more other properties within I A No. 1 or I A No. 2. P290 • • • ~ ~ a ~~ o O O O N ~ y V ~ ~= O ~ `~ ~A .~ ~+• 0 ~n N Q /w O ~~ .+ V ny epuennl;3 .` 0 ny ~a;sayoo~ V ny ua~IIIIW nb ua~l!II!W ny uaneH nb uaneH ny esoua.~aH ny esouaaaH nb PIeQ!yoab nb PIeQ!yoab uew n a ny uewllaH y ll H ~~Ey ~ggsaugq `oL ~ s s~6~ ~ ;S uellawe~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~~ Pc~. v9 Vye• Cc p8~$ € > s~~~~n~a ~~~'" ~g oiY~^~ga8g.g ~.._.._ t t 9~~a'~8S$V O$°s ~egEg_ 8 ~~~~ ~s° I..~ g Se z°~S~FE ++ ++ ~ ` ~.+ n 's v-e ~ 8 ~ C ~ N m o L.L a~ ~ x ~ 6€~a`t• d ~ Aga gSa` B~ ~ ~ C $g~~~ Eb $a ~s° ~~T V1 (0 _ ~ - m °_z ~;~ _ E ;~~Y~~ $ _ s-ESg ~.sa ggs„Y~°~'Y€~ a ~ ~~~B z< < v ~ s s7~ o 8.e= a z sE 8 r~~ao y ~-YtV ec a E ..: ~- U ~ d~~~es~ ~ ~ ~~ g . a W ~ N W ~ ~ m N ~ > Q i J r m a ~i o ~ O E E U N d N ~ r.•~~ ~ V 1 c _ r J m ++ N L O m LL Q _.._.._ ~ nb ~Se~ (n ~ j ~ ny epuenn!;3 ~ 8 ~aa~~ eQ i • ny as;say~o~{ ~•._ 1 i i i i i i i i 1 ..~ ~ ~ fn •• ~ ~ 1 ~ s 1 nb P~e~(aulA i 1 1 ~ ••^.. ..~ .. ~ . ••~ cn a ~ ~ '* t.._...r° m ~ ny anoa~ cn •~ • .~ L J 1 1 1 i i ~ . L P291 StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Supervisor SUB,IE("I': APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2003-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO.2 ZONES 1 & 2, SERIES 2003-B). It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 2 Zones 1 & 2), Series 2003-A. Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On February 19, 2003, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 2), Series 2003-B authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $2,855,000. On March 5, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 699 approving the levy of the special tax, and on May 21, 2003 approved Resolution No. 03-125 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District consists of approximately 229 gross acres, of which 82 acres are designated as Improvement Area No. 2 (Zones 1 & 2). The District boundary is located in the eastern part of the City generally west of Interstate 15, south of Church Street, north of Arrow Route and east of Southern California Edison easement corridor from Arrow Route north, to Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard from Foothill Boulevard north, to Church Street. The District is located within the Victoria Community Plan of the City. P292 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2003-O1 (Improvement Area No. 2, Zones 1 & 2) Bonds were issued on August 20, 2003 to share in the provision of funds for the acquisition and construction of certain public street improvements, storm drain and flood control and water and sewer improvements to serve property located within the District and a cultural center owned by the City, including a performing arts center, public library and banquet hall/meeting room. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. Re submitted Jo . Gi ison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map /~ 3 P293 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008- 2009 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2 ZONES 1 & 2), SERIES 2003-B Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 03-031, adopted on February 19, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act") established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (the "District") and established within the District improvement azeas designated Improvement Area No. 2, Zones 1 & 2 (the "Improvement Area"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on February 19, 2003, the qualified electors of the Improvement Area No. 2, Zones 1 & 2 unanimously approved the levy of a special tax against properties in the Improvement Area (the "Special Tax"); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 699 (the "Ordinance"), adopted on March 3, 2003 the City Council authorized the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2003, the District delivered its $2,855,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 Improvement Area No. 2, Zones 1 & 2 Special Tax Bonds Series 2003-B (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in a Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of July 1, 2003 by and between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"), the City covenanted to fix and levy the Special Tax within the Improvement Area No. 2, Zones 1 & 2 for each fiscal year in an amount required for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due and payable during that fiscal year, plus administrative expenses, but taking into account certain balances in funds held by the Fiscal Agent (the "Covenant"); and WHEREAS, interest will become due and payable on the Bonds during Fiscal Year 2008- 2009 in an amount exceeding funds held by the Fiscal Agent and designated for the payment for such interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy the Special Tax for Fiscal Yeaz 2008-2009 as authorized by the Ordinance and required by the Covenant; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to provide for the collection of such Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 by City staff. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals aze all true and correct. P294 SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the Special Tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P295 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P296' Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2003-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA N0.2, ZONES 1 & 2) SERIES 2003-B EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Imarovement Area No. 2 Each Fiscal Yeaz, all Taxable Property within Zone 1 and Zone 2 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the sections below. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE I. ZONE 1 a. Zone 1 Developed Property (i). Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel in Zone 1 classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special Tax for Zone 1 or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax for Zone 1. (ii). Assigned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) shall equal $2,799 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 P297 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Assigned Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Yeaz. (iii). Backup Special Tax The Backup Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) shall equal $3,110 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Backup Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. b. Zone 1 Undeveloped Property The Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property in Zone 1 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) shall be $3,110 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Maximum Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. 2. ZONE 2 a. Zone 2 Developed Property (i). Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel in Zone 2 classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special Tax for Zone 2 or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax for Zone 2. (ii). Assigned Special Tax The Assigned Special Tax for each Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) shall equal $8,480 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Assigned Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. P298 (iii). Backup Special Tax The Backup Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) shall equal $9,423 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Backup Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. b. Zone 2 Undeveloped Property The Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property in Zone 2 of CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) shall be $9,423 per Acre for Fiscal Year 2003-04, and shall increase thereafter, commencing on July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year thereafter, by an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the Maximum Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year. D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX I. ZONE 1 Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-04 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax in Zone 1 until the amount of Special Taxes levied in Zone 1 is equal to the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied in Zone 1 each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 in an amount equal to 100% of the Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property in Zone 1 at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Zone 1 Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 1 whose Maximum Special Tax is equal to the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. Notwithstanding the above, the Council may in any Fiscal Year levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax in step one P299 (above) when the Council no longer must levy a Special Tax in Zone 1 pursuant to steps two and three above, and (i) all authorized CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) Bonds have already been issued, or (ii) the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of Apportionment. 2. ZONE 2 Commencing with Fiscal Yeaz 2003-04 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Zone 2 Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax in Zone 2 until the amount of Special Taxes levied in Zone 2 is equal to the Zone 2 Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied in Zone 2 each Fiscal Yeaz as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Pazcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 in an amount equal to 100% of the Assigned Special Tax for Developed Property; Second: If additional monies aze needed to satisfy the Zone 2 Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Pazcel of Undeveloped Property in Zone 2 at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Zone 2 Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 whose Maximum Special Tax is equal to the Backup Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. Notwithstanding the above, the Council may in any Fiscal Year levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax in step one (above) when the Council no longer must levy a Special Tax in Zone 2 pursuant to steps two and three above, and (i) all authorized CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) Bonds have already been issued, or (ii) the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2003-01 (IA No. 2) Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Rate and Method of Apportionment. E. 1. ZONE 1 No Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property in Zone 1. 2. ZONE 2 No Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property in Zone 2. P300 i• • • ~ m ~ M N W C C _ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ^_ O W N N O W N ~ ~/ N d W a a r ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~' > Q ~ J ~ a i a i C ~ L ~ O o y~.,l ~ C U ~ E E O ~ .._.._.._.._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °' _ ~ J m ~ `= j i ~ m y o 3 0 ~ 1 V ~ Q i ~ _.._.._ ~ ny }sea cn j ~ i j ny epuenn!}~ ~ ny epuenn!~~ ~~ i ~ 1 ~8 ~aaa~ eQ .. i ~ ~ nt/ ~a~sayooa ny aa~sayao~ V ••- i ,,...._.._.. _.._. ny ua~!II!W j 1 ny ua~!II!W i i i ny uaneH • ny uaneH 1 i ny esow~aH j ny esow~aH i nd ple4!yo~b' . nd Pleq!yoab' i i °~ n uew a n uew a d II Hi ,~ ~ • y ll H 1 = ~ s L ! ny p~e~(au!n 1 . es~°sg9€ ~"g 1 ..i ~ ~~ 7 gm--€~ ~~e ~ oBY.§ S ~ P S o ~ ~ 1 S_.._.. i'~ Ir~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ 3 0 ~ 00 ~W~~~~~a~~~~ ~~ n `a ` 1.._.._ _.r _r. ¢ E a f ~ ~ ro ~, m li ~;~~nm~g$g~~ E~~s s~- ~ "£ C € ~ 1 ~'a~~~'~~geg e OUO _ S E E~ 8 ~z ~na e~~ ~ ` Z55 ~_ ~d $ ~ ~'o-E~ u?eo=x ~ €~ , " ~ ~ ~ e c5 y - a ~g~ml:~e°~~SS I T Y O F A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (DAY CANYON DRAINAGE BASIN) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting an annual benefit assessment levy for the maintenance and/or servicing of a drainage channel within Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin). There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal yeaz 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On November 6, 1991, City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-331 for the annual levy of benefit assessments for the maintenance and/or servicing of a 27+ acre-foot desalting basin and a 1,460+ lineaz foot concrete drainage channel within Drainage Area No. 91-2, Day Canyon Drainage Basin area. Drainage Area No. 91-2 was adeveloper-initiated district. Protection of the properties from the overland flows was necessary in order to receive development rights from the City. The costs associated with the maintenance of this district are passed onto the property owners, as they receive special and direct benefit that is distinguishable from the other property owners that are outside the boundary. There are 351 single-family homes within this boundazy that receive this benefit. The total annual cost for maintenance is thirty-two thousand, three hundred and fifty- one dollazs and sixty-seven cents ($32,351.67) for a total cost to each home of ninety-two dollazs and seventeen cents ($92.17) P301 P302 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (DAY CANYON DRAINAGE BASIN) June 4, 2008 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, Jo R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Annual Supplement to Final Engineer's Report Map -2- RESOLUTION NO. ~ D " J2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA N0.91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, previously undertook proceedings to authorize the levy and imposition of benefit assessments to pay for the annual drainage maintenance, including the removal of sediment and debris from the Day Canyon Channel improvements and basin, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 54703), said azea of benefit being known and designated as DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (the "Drainage Area"); and WHEREAS, at this time there has been presented to this City Council a Supplemental Report (the "Supplemental Report") to the Final Engineer's Report Drainage Area No. 91-2 City of Rancho Cucamonga setting forth a description of the proposed service, cost estimate and assessment schedule for fiscal year 2008-2009 (the "Final Engineer's Report"); and WHEREAS, at this time this City Council desires to determine the cost of providing authorized services to be financed by the levy of a benefit assessment for fiscal yeaz 2008-2009 and to determine and impose such benefit assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the above recitals aze all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the Supplemental Report is hereby approved and ordered to be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open for public inspection. Said Supplemental Report generally consists of the following: A. A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived through the levy and collection of the benefit assessment; P303 B. A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment; C. The amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel. P304 SECTION 3: That the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report is hereby adopted and has been utilized as the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment to be levied in fiscal year 2008-2009. SECTION 4: That this City Council hereby determines and orders that the benefit assessments described in the Supplemental Report within the Drainage Area are hereby confirmed and levied for fiscal year 2008-2009. SECTION 5: That the above confirmed and levied benefit assessment for fiscal year 2008- 2009 shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general County property taxes aze collected and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of such County taxes shall be applicable to the collection and enforcement of these benefit assessments. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved; and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P305 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Pro Tem Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Sam Spagnolo, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Debra Adams, City Clerk Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development JUNE 2008 P306 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TABLE OF CONTENTS Engineer's Report Exhibit A -Description of Service Exhibit B -Cost Estimate Exhibit C -Assessment Schedule Map P307 AGENCY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT: DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT PURSUANT TO BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ACT OF 1982 This Annual Supplement to the Final Engineer's Report (the "Annual Supplement") for City of Rancho Cucamonga Drainage Area No. 91-2 is hereby submitted consisting of the following documents, pursuant to the provisions of the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 54703. This Annual Supplement is applicable for the ensuing 12-month period, being the fiscal veaz commencing July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE (Exhibit "A"): A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived from the levy and collection of the annual benefit assessment. 2. COST ESTIMATE (Exhibit "B"): A listing of all costs and expenses for the next fiscal year, including incidental expenses. 3. BENEFIT ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE (Exhibit "C"): The annual assessment schedule, setting forth the following: A. Annual Benefit Assessment: The amount ofthe proposed benefit assessment for each parcel. B. Description of Parcel: A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment, said pazcel being described by the County Assessor's parcel number. P308 No benefit assessments shall be imposed or levied upon land owned by a Federal or State governmental agency and/or any other local agency. Any utility property and right-of--way shall be subject to assessment only to the extent that it is specifically benefited from the proposed services. Reference is made to the Final Engineer's Report as incorporated in Resolution No. 91-331 for a description of the boundaries of the Drainage Area and each pazcel therein and for the method of spreading the benefit assessment. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITYbEVELOPMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA By: Final approval, confirmation, and levy of the annual benefit assessment and all matters in the Annual Supplement were made on the day of June 2008, by adoption of Resolution No. by the City Council. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA A copy of said Assessment Roll and Engineer's Report was filed in the Office of the City Engineer and the City Clerk on the day of June 2008. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA P309 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE The properties within Drainage Area No. 91-2 are located within the boundaries of the Day Canyon Drainage Basin area. Protection of the properties within the district from overland flows requires the construction of a 27+ acre-foot desilting basin and a 1,460+ linear foot concrete drainage channel. The channel improvements will intercept the overland flows prior to reaching the properties and carry the storm water runoff, sediment, trash, organic material, and related debris to a desilting basin. Each yeaz the sediment, trash, organic material, and other related debris that accumulates in the desilting basin and channel must be removed and transported to an approved spoils site. The services proposed to be financed from the revenue derived from the levy and collections of the annual benefit assessment aze as follows: A. Monthly on-site inspections of the desilting basin and channel. B. Bi-monthly weed abatement program for the desilting basin and channel. C. Removal of accumulated sediment, trash, organic material, and other related debris from the desilting basin and channel to an approved spoils site. This service is expected to be provided annually. During times of excessive rainfall, this service may be required more frequently. P310 C7 • C7 N ~' ~ ~ - ~~ g ~V 'i , o _ ~i.r o N A+ W p t1') o Q ny epuenn!;3 m ny ~a;sayoo~ ny ua~!p!W ny ua~!II!W ny uaneH ny uaneH ny esouaaaH ny esow~aH nb Pleq!yo~`d nb' Pleq!yoad n ueua a ny uewllaH y ll H ~S ue!lauae~ 4~E"t9~~5~° s ~~~~°st~~~i ~~ ~ ; p~a~ ~a~ € s~~o~s ~g~~, ~ ~~ $~99 6 ' YrL s ~ ~..~. 3 x~~,g,_~_~pp~ ~ ~ 8~,~g~gxe~ ~ a ~ ti_.._..~.._.._ r..r..I'~ ~ N Y ~ 00 8: ~„ ~ ~ C ~ m Q £n~~g;'~ ~1 ~ dL"~SF~~gA~$~ ~ ~ oy N m X 0 = F~~~E '~ ~~ ~~~~~8~~~ 1 ~~ ~' ~~`~a~ e~A~$ o -.~• ~ v ~k~BPc~a~s~~E '''' N m Q = U c ~ r•x d ' ti ~ J ~ Q' 1 ~ _ r .__I m N =_ L O m Oo ` Q LL _.._.._ i nd ~Se3 ~ ® i ~ ny eP 8 ~{aaa~ eQ i ny ~a~sayoo~ r"- ~ r...._.._.._.._. i i i i i i i i i r ~~ in ~~ ~ L ~ ~ _ 7 ~ ny p~e~(au!n i ~ 1 ~~r.. /H~ •. ~ ~ _ i~. . ,_ , _...r•- ny ano~~ ~~••~ u~ ~ m ~ cp ~ .~ L J - ~ ~ ~ ! i j 1 i ~ L P311 StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City.Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SIJBIECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2001-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA N0.3 ZONE 7, SERIES 2001-B) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No.3 Zone 7), Series 2001-B. Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal year 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 20, 2001, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No.3 Zone 7), Series 2001-B authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $935,000. On August 15, 2001 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 01-019 authorizing the issuance of bonds. Bonds were issued on August 29, 2001 to share in the financing of public street improvements required for the development of the property within the District, including improvements to Day Creek Boulevard, Victoria Park Lane, Church Street, Foothill Boulevard, Baseline Road and Arbor Way, landscaping improvements within public right-of- way, storm drain and flood control improvements. P312 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2001-O1 (]mprovement Area 3) The property owners within the district approved the maximum rate for the special tax at $1,963.45 per acre. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. Respectfully submitted, John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map RESOLUTION NO. Q S' ~~~ F313 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008- 2009 (IMPROVEMENT AREA N0.3 ZONE 7), SERIES 2001-B Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 01-162, adopted on June 20, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act") established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (the "District") and established within the District an improvement area designated Improvement Area No. 3 (the "Improvement Area"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on June 20, 2001, the qualified electors of the Improvement Area unanimously approved the levy of a special tax against properties in the Improvement Area (the "Special Tax"); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 658 (the "Ordinance"), adopted on July 18, 2001, the City Council authorized the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 2001, the District delivered its $935,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 Improvement Area No. 3 Zone 7 Special Tax Bonds Series 2001-B (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in a Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of August 1, 2001, by and between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"), the City covenanted to fix and levy the Special Tax within the Improvement Area for each fiscal year in an amount required for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due and payable during that fiscal year, plus administrative expenses, but taking into account certain balances in funds held by the Fiscal Agent (the "Covenant"); and WHEREAS, debt service will become due and payable on the Bonds during Fiscal Year 2007-2008 in an amount exceeding funds held by the Fiscal Agent and designated for the payment for such debt service; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy the Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 as authorized by the Ordinance and required by the Covenant; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to provide for the collection of such Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 by City staff. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. P314 SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the Special Tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P315 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of .Tune 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P316 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.2001-O1 (IMPROVEMENT AREA No. 3 ZONE 7) SERIES 2001-B EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within each Zone of Improvement Area No. 3 shall be classified as Taxable or Non-Taxable Property and all such Taxable Property shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the sections below. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE A. The Maximum Special Tax and Taxable Acreage for Taxable Property and Taxable Public Property for each Zone is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Zone Taxable Acrea a Bond Share Maximum Tax Per Acre Zone 1 -Future RDA 55.00 91.70% $15,230.37 Zone 7 - Leggio South 42.74 8.30% $ 1,963.45 B. Assignment of Maximum Annual Special Tax to Successor Parcels. The Community Facilities District (CFD) Administrator shall assign the Maximum Annual Special Tax to each Successor Parcel as fol]ows: P317 1) When an Original or Successor Pazcel is subdivided, the CFD Administrator shall classify the resulting Successor Parcels as Taxable Pazcels or Tax-Exempt parcels using the definitions in the rate and method of apportionment of special tax. 2) If the Successor Parcel is a Taxable Parcel: Calculate the percentage of the taxable Successor Pazcels' square footage to the total square footage for all taxable Successor Pazcels of that Original or Successor Parcel; then, Multiply this percentage by the Maximum Annual Special Tax assigned to the previous Original Parcel or Successor Parcel. The result of this calculation is the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Taxable Successor Parcel. C. Taxable Parcels Acquired by a Public Agency Taxable Pazcels that aze acquired by a public agency after the CFD is formed will remain subject to the applicable Special Tax unless the Special Tax obligation is satisfied pursuant to Section 53317.5 o the Government Code. An exception to this may be made if the Public use planned for a Public Parcel within the CFD is relocated to a Taxable Parcel and the previously Tax-Exempt Pazcel of comparable acreage becomes a Taxable Parcel. This trading of Pazcels will be permitted to the extent that there is no net loss in Maximum Special Tax. It is anticipated that the City will acquire approximate]y 55 Acres that will be subject to the Special Tax. APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX For each Fiscal Year the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and levy the Special Tax, taking into consideration the levy of the Improvement Area No. 3 Special Tax, until the amount of Special Taxes and Improvement Area No. 3 Special Taxes equal the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Yeaz as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax; or Second: If less monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Taxable Parcel at less than 100% of the Maximum Special Tax; provided that the Council may levy an amount in excess of the Special Tax Requirement if all authorized Bonds have not already been issued. P318 Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within Improvement Area No. 3, except for those Residential Properties whose owners aze also delinquent or in default on their Special Tax payments for one or more other properties within Improvement Area No.3. P319 r~ u • • ~ ~ O r r ti m ~ ~ ~' (~ N N ~ O 0 W M M O N N ~ Q Q ~w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i Q T ~ ~ o o L() `h ~ O ~ ~ ~ O E E U _N o j J m ~ `~+ ! ~ ~ 3 j . ~ m o o 0 ~ I ~ Q _.._.._ i ny;Se3 ~ ! ® i ~ ~ ! j ny epuennl;3 ny epuennl;3 ~~ i ~ ~ !18 ~aaJ~ ea .. i.._.._.._.._.._.._ _. i • ~ ny Ja;sayoo~ ny Ja;sayoo~{ V ~•- ~ i d ~I.II.W j i i i ny uaneH i ny uaneH i ny esowJaH j nbr esouJJaH i n`d pleq!4oJb' • ny pleq!4oJ`d 1 ! '~ n ue a ny ueuallaH i .~~• ~ y u llaH i ~ : L v ! ny p e~(auln ;S UeIIaUJe~ j s~e~e?~6~~a~~ s s az ~. ~g~s c 'a ~ ~' ~°;P~4'~`°~3~ ''~ °' ~a ~~~~€ ..~ i ~ s• m ~ cn ~~ ;3- p r ~ s r ~ ~ ~ m O U.. Q ~ B ~c. fn ~~SE -~ ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~€ge € g~g 'i~~' ~a ~g ~ ;~ ~ = ° m m ~ ~3 P~~~~e P ,a ~~~~Q~~~~ 5 ~, U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~Pc [ f s P320 StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2007 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJECT': APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2004-O1 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 (Rancho Etiwanda Estates). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Govemment Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal yeaz 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On September 15, 2004 an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum principal amount of $45,000,000. On October 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 735 approving the levy of the special tax, and on June 7, 2006 approved Resolution No. 06-185 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District was authorized to finance the following improvements: (a) Day Creek Boulevard - grading, storm drain, sewer, water, dry utilities, streets and landscaping; (b) Etiwanda Avenue -grading, sewer, water, dry utilities, streets and landscaping; (c) Cucamonga Valley Water District ("CV WD") reservoir transmission main; (d) storm drain facilities including the northern property line storm drain and the Etiwanda Avenue storm drain: (e) pazk facilities; (f) equestrian facilities; (g) school facilities to be owned by the Etiwanda School P321 Page 2 June 4, 2007 City Council Staff Report CFD 2004-O1 District and by the Chaffey Joint Union High School District; (h) water and sewer facilities to be owned by CV WD which aze authorized to be financed from the proceeds of capacity chazges levied by CV WD; (i) flood control facilities to be owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District; and Q) open space to be owned by the County of San Bernardino. Bonds were issued on July 13, 2006 to shaze in the provision of funds for the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities, to serve property located within the District. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each pazcel of taxable property to dischazge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. Respectfully submitted, Jo i iso Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Annual Status Report Map P322 RESOLUTION NO. O p ' ~.Z (O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 04-295, adopted on September 15, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the Califomia Government Code) (the "Act") established City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2004- 01 (the "District"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on September 15, 2004, the qualified electors unanimously approved the levy of a special tax (the "Special Tax"); and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance No. 735 (the "Ordinance"), adopted on October 06, 2004 the City Council authorized the levy of the Special Tax in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2006, the District delivered its $43,545,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 Special Tax Bonds (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in a Fiscal Agent Agreement dated as of May O1, 2006 by and between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Fiscal Agent"), the City covenanted to fix and levy the Special Tax for each fiscal year in an amount required for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due and payable during that fiscal year, plus administrative expenses, but taking into account certain balances in funds held by the Fiscal Agent (the "Covenant"); and WHEREAS, interest will become due and payable on the Bonds during Fiscal Year 2008- 2009 in an amount exceeding funds held by the Fiscal Agent and designated for the payment for such interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy the Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 as authorized by the Ordinance and required by the Covenant; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to provide for the collection of such Special Tax for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 by City staff. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the Special Tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Report SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P323 P324 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P325 Resolution No. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2004-O1 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2004-O1 shall be classified as Developed Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to Sections C and E below. Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 5 and Non-Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Class 6. The Maximum Special Tax for Residential Property shall be based on the Residential Floor Area of the dwelling unit(s) located on the Assessor's Parcel. The Maximum Special Tax for Non-Residential Property shall be based on the Acreage of the Assessor's Parcel. The Maximum Special Tax for any Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property containing more than one Land Use Class shall be determined pursuant to Section C below. A. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX I. Developed Property (a) Maximum Specia] Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Developed Property is shown below in Table l . P326 TABLE 1 Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property in Community Facilities District No. 2004-O1 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Maximum. Special Tax 1 Residential Property more than 4,000 SF $5,555 per unit 2 Residential Property 3,801 - 4,000 SF $5,325 per unit 3 Residential Property 3,601 - 3,800 SF $5,151 per unit 4 Residential Property 3,400 - 3,600 SF $4,896 per unit 5 Residential Property less than 3,400 SF $4,410 per unit 6 Non-Residential Property NA $19,813 per Acre (a) Multiple Land Use Classes In some instances an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Properly may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax levied on an Assessor's Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor's Parcel. For an Assessor's Parcel that contains both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, the Acreage of such Assessor's Parcel shall be allocated to each type of property based on the amount of Acreage designated for each land use as determined by reference to the site plan approved for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator's allocation to each type of property shall be final. 2. Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property (a) Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Specia] Tax for Undeveloped Property, Taxable Public Property, and Taxable Property Owner Association Property shall be $21,216 per Acre. P327 B. SPECIAL TAX BUYDOWN All of the requirements of this Section D, which describes the need for a Special Tax Buydown that may result from a change in development as determined pursuant to this Section D, shall only apply after the sale of Bonds by CFD No. 2004-01. The following definitions apply to this Section: "Certificate of Satisfaction of Special Tax Buydown" means a certificate from the CFD Administrator stating that the property described in such certificate has sufficiently met the Special Tax Buydown Requirement for such property as calculated under this Section. "Letter of Compliance" means a letter from the CFD Administrator allowing the issuance of building permits based on the prior submittal of a Request for Letter of Compliance by a property owner. "Special Tax Buydown Requirement" means the total amount of Special Tax Buydown necessary to be prepaid to permit the issuance of building permits listed in a Request for Letter of Compliance, as calculated under this Section D. "Update Property" means an Assessors Parcel of Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued. For purposes of all calculations in this Section D, Update Property shall be taxed as if it were already Developed Property during the current Fiscal Year. 1. Request for Letter of Compliance The CFD Administrator must submit a Letter of Compliance to the City for a specific Assessor's Parcel or lot prior to the issuance by the City of a building permit for the construction of any residential and/or non-residential development on that Assessor's Parcel or lot. If a Letter of Compliance has not yet been issued, and a property owner wishes to request a building permit for an Assessor's Parcel or lot, the property owner must first request a Letter of Compliance from the CFD Administrator. The request from the property owner shall contain a list of all building permits currently being requested, the Assessor's Parcels or tract and lot numbers on which the construction is to take place, and the Residential Floor Area (for each residential dwelling unit) or the Acreage (for each non-residential parcel) associated with each building permit. 2. Issuance of Letter of Compliance Upon the receipt of a Request for Letter of Compliance, the CFD Administrator shall assign each building permit identified in such request to Land Use Classes 1 through 6 as listed in Table 2 below, based on the type of use and the Residential Floor Area identified for each such building permit. If the CFD Administrator determines (i) that the number of building permits requested for each Land Use Class, plus those building permits previously issued for each Land Use Class, will no[ cause the total number of residential units or non-residential Acreage within any such Land Use Class to exceed the number of units.or Acreage for such Land Use Class identified in Table 2 below, and (ii) that the total number of residential dwelling units anticipated to be constructed pursuant to the current development plan for CFD No. 2004-01 shall not be less than 632, then a Letter of Compliance shall be submitted to the City by the CFD Administrator approving the issuance of the requested building permits. This Letter of Compliance shall be submitted to the City by the CFD Administrator within ten days of the submittal of the Request for Letter of Compliance by the property owner. However, should (i) the building permits requested, plus those previously issued, cause the total number of residential units or non- residential Acreage within any such Land Use Class to exceed the number of units or non- residential Acreage for such Land Use Class identified in Table 2 below, or (ii) the CFD Administrator determine that changes in the development plan may cause a decrease in the P328 number of residential dwelling units within CFD No. 2004-01 to below 632 dwelling units, then a Letter of Compliance will not be issued and the CFD Administrator will be directed to determine if a Special Tax Buydown shall be required. P329 TABLE 2 Expected Dwelling Units and Non-Residential Acreage per Land Use Class Community Facilities District No. 2004-O1 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Number of Units/Acres 1 Residential Property more than 4,000 SF 70 units 2 Residential Property 3,801 - 4,000 SF 110 units 3 Residential Property 3,601 - 3,800 SF 185 units 4 Residential Property 3,401 - 3,600 SF 92 units 5 Residential Property less than 3,400 SF 175 units 6 Non-Residential Property NA 0.00 acres 3. Calculation of Special Tax Buydown If a Special Tax Buydown calculation is required as a result of item 2, above, the CFD Administrator shall review the current development plan for CFD No. 2004-01 in consultation with the current properly owners for all remaining Undeveloped Property in CFD No. 2004-01, and shall prepare an updated version of Table 2 identifying the revised number of units or non- residential Acreage anticipated within each Land Use Class. The CFD Administrator shall not be responsible for any delays in preparing the updated Table 2 that result from a refusal on the part of one or more current property owners of Undeveloped Property to provide information on their future development. The CFD Administrator shall then review the updated Table 2 and determine the Special Tax Buydown Requirement, if any, to be applied to the property identified in the Request for Letter of Compliance to assure the CFD's ability to collect special taxes equal to 110% debt service coverage on the Outstanding Bonds, plus the cost of annual CFD administration. The calculations shall be undertaken by the CFD Administrator, based on the data in the updated Table 2, as follows: Step 1. Compute the sum of the Maximum Special Tax to be levied on all Developed Property and Update Property within CFD No. 2004-01, plus the sum of the Maximum Special Tax to be levied on all future development as identified in the current development plan as determined by the CFD Administrator in consultation with the property owner(s). Step 2. Determine the amount of Special Tax required to provide 1 ] 0% debt service coverage on the Outstanding Bonds, plus any other costs associated with the Special Tax Requirement. Step 3. If the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 is greater than or equal to the amount computed pursuant to step 2, then no Special Tax Buydown will be P330 required and a Letter of Compliance shall immediately be issued by the CFD Administrator for all of the building permits currently being requested. If the total sum computed pursuant to step ] is less than the amount computed pursuant to step 2, then continue to step 4. Step 4. Determine the Maximum Special Tax shortfall by subtracting the total sum computed pursuant to step 1 from the amount computed pursuant to step 2. Divide this Maximum Special Tax shortfall by the amount computed pursuant to step 2. Step 5. The Special Tax Buydown Requirement shall be calculated using the prepayment formula described in Section [.l, with the following exceptions: (i) skip Paragraphs I, 2 and 3, and begin with Paragraph 4; (ii) the Bond Redemption Amoun[ in Paragraph 4 of the prepayment formula described in Section I.1 shall equal the product of the quotient computed pursuant to step 4 above times the Previously Issued Bonds, as defined in Section I.1; (iii) the Capitalized Interest Credit described in Paragraph 11 of Section I.1 shall be $0; and (iv) any payments of the Special Tax Buydown (less Administrative Fees and Expenses) shall be disbursed pursuant to the Indenture. The Special Tax Buydown computed under step 5 shall be billed directly to the property owner of each Assessor's Parcel identified in the Request for Letter of Compliance and shall be due within 30 days of the billing date. If the Special Tax Buydown is not paid within 45 days of the billing date, a delinquent penalty of 10 percent shall be added to the Special Tax Buydown. Upon receipt of the Special Tax Buydown payment, the CFD Administrator shall issue a Letter of Compliance and a Certificate of Satisfaction of Special Tax Buydown for the subject property. 4. Costs and Expenses Related to Implementation of Special Tax Buydown The property owner of each Assessor's Parcel identified in the Request for Letter of Compliance shall pay all costs of the CFD Administrator or other consultants required to review the application for building permits, calculate the Special Tax Buydown, issue Letters of Compliance or any other actions required under Section D. Such payments shall be due 30 days after receipt of invoice by such property owner. A deposit may be required by the CFD Administrator prior to undertaking work related to the Special Tax Buydown. C. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX Commencing with Fiscal Year 2005-06 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax until the total Special Tax levy equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement afer the first two steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each P331 Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property; Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement afrer the first three steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Public Property at up to the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Public Property; Notwithstanding the above the Council may, in any Fiscal Year, levy Proportionately less than 100% of the Maximum Special Tax in step one (above), when (i) the Council is no longer required to levy the Special Tax pursuant to steps two through four above in order to meet the Special Tax Requirement; and (ii) all authorized CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds have already been issued or the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be suppoRed by the Special Tax. Further notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than ten percent as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel within CFD No. 2004-01. D. No Special Tax shall be levied on up to 78.75 Acres of Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property. Tax-exempt status will be irrevocably assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes Public Property or Property Owner Association Property. However, should an Assessors Parcel no longer be classified as Public Property or Property Owner Association Property its tax-exempt status will be revoked. Public Property or Property Owner Association Property that is not exempt from the Special Tax under this section shall be subject to the levy of the Special Tax and shall be taxed Proportionately as part of the third and fourth steps in Section E above, at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Public Property or Taxable Property Owner Association Property. E. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their Assessor's Parcel is in error may submit a written appeal to CFD No. 2004-01. The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal and if the CFD Administrator concurs, the amount of the Special Tax levied shall be appropriately modified. The Council may interpret this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for purposes of clarifying any ambiguity and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals. Any decision of the Council shall be final and binding as to all persons. F. MANNER OF COLLECTION The Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 2004-O1 may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on delinquent Assessor's Parcels as permitted by the Act. P332 G. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX The following definition applies to this Section: "Previously Issued Bonds" means, for any Fiscal Year, all Outstanding Bonds that are deemed to be outstanding under the Indenture afer the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year. Only an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, or Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued, may be prepaid. The Special Tax obligation applicable to an Assessor's Parcel in CFD No. 2004-O1 may only be prepaid after all authorized CFD No. 2004-O1 Bonds have already been issued, or after the Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds (except refunding bonds) to be supported by Special Taxes levied under this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment. The obligation of the Assessor's Parcel to pay any Special Tax may be permanently satisfied as described herein, provided that a prepayment may be made with respect to a particular Assessor's Parcel only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such Assessor's Parcel. Prepayment must be made not less than 45 days prior to any redemption date for the CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of such prepaid Special Taxes. The Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as defined below): Bond I plus plus plus less less Total: equals :edemption Amount Redemption Premium Defeasance Amount Administrative Fees and Expenses Reserve Fund Credit Capitalized Interest Credit Prepayment Amount As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as follows: Paragraph No.: Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel. 2. For Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid. For Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property for which building permits have already been issued, compute the Maximum Special Tax for the Assessor's Parcel to be prepaid as though it were already designated as Developed Property, based upon the building permit which has been issued for that Assessor's Parcel. 3. Divide the Maximum Special Tax computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the estimated Maximum Special Taxes for CFD No. 2004-O1 based on the Developed Property Special Taxes which could be charged in the current Fiscal Year on all expected development in CFD No. 2004-01, excluding any Assessor's Parcels which have been prepaid; and P333 4. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the Previously Issued Bonds to compute the amount of Previously Issued Bonds to be retired and prepaid; and 5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to paragraph 4 by the applicable redemption premium (e.g., the redemption price - 100%), if any, on the Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 6. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date not covered by the current Fiscal Yeaz Special Taxes until the eazliest redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds. 7. Determine the Special Taxes levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal Year that have not yet been paid. 8. Add the amounts computed pursuant to pazagraphs 6 and 7. 9. Compute the net present value of the amount computed pursuant to pazagraph 8, using as a discount rate the rate of return reasonably assumed for the conservative investment of these funds by the CFD Administrator (the "Defeasance Amount"). 10. The administrative fees and expenses of CFD No. 2004-01 are as calculated by the CFD Administrator and include the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs of redeeming CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 11. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any, associated with the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. No Reserve Fund Credit shall be granted if the amount then on deposit in the reserve fund for the Previously Issued Bonds is below 100% of the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture). 12. If any capitalized interest for the Previously Issued Bonds will not have been expended as of the date immediately following the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year, a capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest and/or principal payment (the "Capitalized Interest Credit"). 13. The Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5, 9, and ]0, less the amounts computed pursuant to pazagraphs 11 and 12 (the "Prepayment Amount"). From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 10,11 and 12 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and be used to redeem Previously Issued Bonds, as applicable, or make scheduled debt service payments or to pay administrative expenses related to the prepayment of the Special Tax. P334 The Prepayment Amount may be insufficient to redeem a full $5,000 increment of CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next prepayment of CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds or to make scheduled debt service payments on such bonds. Upon confirmation of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy as determined under pazagraph 7 (above), the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax levy for such Assessor's Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel for which the Special Tax obligation is prepaid in full in accordance with this Section I., the Council shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Taxes and the release of the Special Tax lien on such Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless, at the time of such proposed prepayment, the amount of Maximum Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property within CFD No. 2004-01 (after excluding 78.75 Acres of Public Property and Property Owner Association Property as set forth in Section F) both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least 1.1 times the maximum annual debt service on all Previously Issued Bonds, plus the cost of annual CFD administration. H. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax shall be levied for a period not to exceed fifty years commencing with Fiscal Year 2005-06, provided however that Special Taxes will cease to be levied in an eazlier Fiscal Year if the CFD Administrator has determined (i) that all required interest and principal. payments on the CFD No. 2004-01 Bonds have been paid; and (ii) all Authorized Facilities have been constructed. P335 • • ~ N O ~ ~, ~ o O ~ v~ O N .~ o J o ~ Q ~ U U o ~ ~ ~1~X . ~ . J ~ ~n ` Q ~ .._ .._.._.._ ~ j ~ o J m ~ `~+ ~ N m r o 3 0 ~ 1 V u.. Q i ® _.._.._ ~ ny }sea in ~ 1 __ ~ ~y e uennl}~ ~ ny epuennl}3 ~ ~ ~ 0 ny ~a~sayaoa ny ~a;sayooa V ••- ~ d ~I.II.W ~ i i i i ny uaneH ; nd uaneH i ny esow~aH ~ ny esow~aH i ny pleq!yoay . ny Pleq!yoab' 1 ~ n uew a ny uewllaH i •~~ ~ . y ll H ~ N ~ r~ }• ~ nd P el(auln ~S uellau~e~ ~ 3~$s~ee~°5°.c s eaez Sc~~s ~ ~ ~9 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~••~~~~ i~ ~ r s €~ a= s~ r a 6 as ~'~ 3 ~' ~ a ~~~ _~ •~ ~ _ m E~yg~ ,o 1..~ ~ ~~..~ J ~ 3 L - ~~Eergjg~~€~ 2 `- ~_.._..1.. _.._ _.. .I~ ~. ~,, rn ~ ~+ L 0 + 00 4 m 9a o a ~~`° z-€ =DES s~~~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m O LL Q =a~~~*~~d;~`p ~~' ~~a~~as~ed C g ~~3~~~~~$E~n ~ o~ N m mE~ ~e~g~m a~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ r`ya` v ~ 9~+ ~~~~ ~~~a~3~~o~~E P336 Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting an annual special tax levy of $14,369 an acre per parcel to discharge bond obligations in Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. There is no increase from the current tax rate for fiscal year 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On December 1, 1993, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace) authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $4,825,000. On December 15, 1993, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 518 authorizing the levy of a special tax in the district. Bonds were issued on March 15, 1994, for the purpose of financing the acquisition of certain public improvements that are required for and will permit the development of the properties within the district. On June 3, 1999, City Council adopted resolution No. 99-127 authorizing the refunding of special tax bonds for this district. The refunding bonds were issued in July, 1999 in the amount of $4,525,000. P337 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CFD NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) June 4, 2008 Page 2 While the property owners within the district approved the maximum rate for the special tax at $20,000 per acre, the tax rate that is needed to meet obligations for fiscal year 2008-2009 is adjusted downward to $14,369 per acre. This special tax shall be levied as long as necessary for each parcel of taxable property to pay for the facilities and to discharge bond obligations through the life of the bonds. Respectfully submitted, ~ ``"~ John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Annual Status Report Map 2- P338 RESOLUTION NO. O ~ ~ ~ / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTN0.93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of Califomia. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facilities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next fiscal year 2008-2009 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: P339 Resolution No. A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space mazked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close .of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. Resolution No. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. P340 Debra J. Adams, CMC, P341 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0.93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE ANNUAL STATUS REPORT Resolution No. JUNE 2008 P342 BACKGROUND On December 15, 1993, the electors within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace) authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $4,825,000 for the purpose of financing the acquisition of the street, storm drain, sewer and water improvements. The district is bounded on the north by Foothill Blvd., on the east by Etiwanda Ave. and on the west by Interstate 15. The maximum rate has been set at $20,000 per acre. This amount can be levied at a lower rate but cannot exceed the maximum tax rate as set. On July 1, 1999 this district was refunded as part of Rancho Cucamonga Reassessment District No. 1999-1 under the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"). The Authority issued bonds to acquire the Acquired Obligations, fund separate reserve funds and pay the costs of issuing the Bonds. The acquired obligations for Community Facilities District 93-3 are the aggregate principal amount of $4,525,000. FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 The annual tax rate of $14,369 for fiscal year 2008-2009 will provide sufficient funding to pay debt service in the amount of $409,670. P343 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT PROPOSED USES AND SOURCES OF FUNDS USES: DEBT SERVICE CITY AND TRUSTEE ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL OVERHEAD & LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS SOURCES: _ DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS INTEREST REVENUE SPECIAL TAX $387,730 $ 35.570 $ 1,000 $ 0 $424,300 $ 4,340 $ 6,630 $415,410 $426,380 Resolution No. $14,369 PER ACRE P344 i• • • M °' ~ ~~ `IN •~ M J ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o '~`~ Q C U U ~ ^~ c Q o N ~ ~ rx~ . ~ y ~ J .._.._.. ~ •- - ~ N ;Id I m ^~ ~+ C J m ~ o V ~ ~ ~ 3 0 m °0 u_ Q _.._.._ ~ nb ~Se3 ~ '~ ! ~ i ~ ~ ~ ny epuenn!~3 ny epuenn!;3 1 O ~e ~aa~~ ea i ~ ny aa~sauoo2i ny as;sayaoa P'- i d ~I.II.W ~ i i i ny uaneH ; ny uaneH 1 i ny esowaaH ~ nd esow~aH i ny p!eq!y~~y . n'd PIeQ!uo~d i i ° ' uew n a ny uewllaH i .~~ ~ y ll H i r~ ~ ~ 1 ny P~e~(aw n ~S ue!lauae~~ ~~~; ~:s s> ~_~~ a '~" i ~ ;~* s€ys X °a8~~~~~~ l..~ .~~ ~ c •'• m ~ (/J 4`E~ EF~I~s Sa ~ d] N 1 ~. •~~ ~ O 00 ~ 'EB ~E ~e ~e ~ ~ 00 u.. €~~$~ ~~~;~~ • ,~ ~ C m ~d's'~~ ~R€a 6~t~~~a~ ~~°~ ~~~~~a ga~ _ ~ ~~ Y9gOB a~ ~~ g~~~~9~ '. ~i~ ~ ~o E~~aa.6@~~ ~~~as&~~~<~~e P345 T H E C 1 T Y O F RANCHO C U C A M O N G A StaffReport DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SUB.IF,CI': APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKS AND PARKWAYS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for the new Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay for the operation and maintenance of pazks and parkways. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On August 16, 2000 approved Resolution No. 00-149 and established Community Facilities District No. 2000-03; on October 11, 2000 the qualified electors of the District, being the owners of the land within the District, voted to approve the levy of a special tax to pay for certain public services and the administering of such District. On July 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 744 approving the levy of the special tax. On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2006, the Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property shall be increased based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%) and a minimum annual increase of two percent (2%) per Fiscal Year. The CPI for April 2008 is 3.1%. The District was authorized to finance park improvements including clearing and grading of park sites, park hazdscape and restrooms, street improvements and parkway hardscape landscaping of parks and parkways and park equipment with a useful life of five (5) years or P346 Page 2 June 4, 2008 City Council Staff Report CFD 2000-03 more. The District is located south of Summit Avenue on the east and west sides of Wazdman Bullock Road. The special tax shall be levied as long as necessary to meet the Special Tax Requirement for Services. Respectfully submitted, John R. Gilli Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map P347 RESOLUTION NO. ~ p' ~ z a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX "B" FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) FOR TAX YEAR 2008/2009 TO FINANCE THE OPERATION OF AND MAINTENANCE OF PARK AND PARKWAYS. Recitals WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 00-190 adopted on September 20, 2000 the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the "City Council"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311 and following of the California Government Code) (the "Act"), established City ofRancho Cucamonga Community Facilities DistrictNo. 2000- 03 (Rancho Summit) (the "District"); and WHEREAS, at an election held on October 11, 2000 the qualified electors of the District unanimously approved the levy of a special tax (the "Special Tax `B"') pursuant to the rate and method of apportionment thereof for the purpose of financing the operation and maintenance of pazks and parkways within the District; and WHEREAS, in 2005 the City Council initiated proceeding to modify the Rate and Method; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2005, the City Council submitted the proposed modifications to the Rate and Method to the qualified electors of the District; and WHEREAS, on the same day, the qualified electors of the District voted unanimously to authorize the modifications to the Rate and Method (the Rate and Method as modified, the "Amended and Restated Rate and Method"); and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently enacted Ordinance No. 755 (the "Ordinance") which became effective on August on August 5, 2005, to authorize the levy of Special Tax "B" pursuant to the Amended and Restated Rate and Method; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that the City Council may provide, by resolution, for the levy of Special Tax "B" for any future tax year; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide for the levy Special Tax "B" for Tax Year 2007-2008 pursuant to the Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: P348 Resolution No. SECTION 1: That the above recitals aze all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the speciSc rate and amount of the Special Tax "B" to be collected for Fiscal Yeaz 2008-2009 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by the Ordinance, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of Special Tax "B" shall be used, in whole or in part, for the following: A. Payment of costs and expenses of the operation and maintenance of authorized parks and pazkways and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; B. Payment of an amount necessary to fund or replenish an operating reserve for the costs of the operation of authorized parks and pazkways; C. Payment of a proportionate share of Administrative Expenses as such tern is defined in the Modified Rate and Method The proceeds of Special Tax "B" shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: Special Tax "B" shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes aze collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the riext county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of Special Tax "B," and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P349 Resolution No. Page PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regulaz meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, P350 Resolution No. Page CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2000-03 EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS Each Fiscal Yeaz, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2000-03 shall be assigned to a Zone and further classified as Developed Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment determined pursuant to Sections A and B below. Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through ] 0 and Non-Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Class 11. The Maximum Special Tax for Residential Property shall be based on the Residential Floor Area of the dwelling unit(s) located on the Assessor's Pazcel. The Maximum Special Tax for Non-Residential Property shall be based on the Acreage of the Assessor's Parcel. The Maximum Special Tax for any Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property containing more than one Land Use Class shall be determined pursuant to Section C below. A. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX 1. Developed Property (a). Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax B for each Land Use Class of Developed Property is shown in the Table below. (b). Assi ng ed Special Tax B The Fiscal Yeaz 2008-2009 Assigned Special Tax B for each Land Use Class is shown in the Table below. P351 Assigned Maximum Special Tax B for Developed Property in City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 (Rancho Summit) Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Land Residential Use Descriation Floor Assessors Parcel Numbers Amount Class Area 2 Residential Pro a 1850 - 2049 s.f. 22649201, 07, 21, 23, 26 $1,000.62 22650204, 06, 10, 20, 22, 27, 28, 38, 45 22650253, 57 22651204, 14, 17, 18, 22, 27, 34, 37, 40 22651246, 49, 51, 54, 55, 60, 61, 63, 66 22651270, 71, 74, 76 22652305, 14, 15 22653213, 15, 24, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36 22653306, 08, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21 22653325, 27, 33, 40, 42, 45 3 Residential Pro ert 2050 - 2249 s.f. 22649206, 08, 17, 19, 24 22650202, 05, O8, 12, 21, 23, 36, 44, 51 22650252, 56, 59 22651201, 05, 09, 15, 19, 23, 25, 28, 50 22651253, 56, 59, 69, 75 22652312,17 22653205, 09, 16, 31, 33 22653318, 29, 37, 39 4 Residential Pro ert 2250 - 2449 s.f. 22610227 22643209, 37, 50 22644414, 21, 25 22645205 22649202, O5, 09, 16, 20, 22, 25 22650203, 07, 09, 11, 19, 25, 33, 39, 43 22650246, 49, 54, 55, 58 22651202, 06, 08, 12, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26 22651230, 32, 35, 57, 62, 64, 66 22652302, 11, 13, 16, 23 22651230, 32, 35, 57, 62, 64, 66 22652302, 11, 13, 16, 23 22653204, 08, 14, 17, 21, 25, 28, 37 22653312, 20, 24, 26, 28, 35, 38, 41 P352 5 Residential Pro ert 2450 - 2649 s.f. 22610228 $1,000.62 22643202, 05, 07, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22 22643224, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39, 43 22643245, 48, 51, 55, 59, 60 22644401, 03, 05, 07, 09, 10, 12, 13, 16 22644418, 23, 27, 31 22645201,03 22649203,10 22650214, 17, 24, 26, 31, 32, 35, 40, 42 22651207, 11, 31, 33, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45 22651247, 65, 73 22652303, 07, 09, 18, 21 22653201, 03, 07, 11, 12, 19, 23, 26, 29 22653234 22653301, 03, 05, 16, 23, 32, 34, 43 6 Residential Pro ert 2650 - 2849 s.f. 22643204, 08, 12, 16, 26, 29, 36, 38, 40 22643242, 47, 49, 53, 56 22644402, 04, 11, 15, 19, 24, 28, 30, 32 22649204,18 22650201, 13, 15, 16, 18, 29, 30, 34, 41 22650247, 48, 50 22651203, 10, 13, 29, 38, 42, 44, 48, 52 22651258, 67, 72 22652301, 04, 06, 08, 10, 22 22653202, 06, 10, 18, 20, 22 22653302, 04, 07, 09, 19, 22, 30, 31, 36 22653344,46 7 Residential Pro ert 2850 - 3049 s.f. 22643201, 03, 06, 10, 19, 21, 23, 27, 31 22643233, 41, 44, 46, 54, 58 22644406, 08, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29 22645202, 04 11 Residential Pro ert N/A 22649211, 12-15 P353 • • • M ¢' a~ p ~ ~ ~ N M O a-- O ~ N ~~ ~~ ~ N J ~ C ~ ~ ~ O ~ U U J N ~----------- "a O Q , ~ { Qy 'O N y m _ r ~~` J O ~ ~ yy ~ m O O ~ ~ ~ V ~ a ------, ny }se3 cn ~ I L I ~ w i ny epuenn!} ny epuenn!}~ .~ i >; i ~ i pnl8 ~aa~~ d V ny ~a}sayoo~ ny ~a}sayoo~{ ~-- I ny ua~{!II!W i----------- ny ua~{!II!W i i i i ny uaneH~ ny uaneH i ny esouuaH~ ny esouaaaH i ny pleq!yo,y~ nb' pleq!yoab' i ~ ~. -~'" ny Ue~IIaH ny uewllaH i ~.~- c~ I ~ i ,~~_ ~ r ~` ~ ~ ny pae~(au!n ~ t. ~m~~~~~~2t~~°~ ~ ~, t J m 3 L Eci''9taE8~~~~ E~ _ ~ ~ LL °~~~~s~~E~~~~~q~ ~~ ~ m v°~EgA62 €~~p ""off ~a3~B'~'~~amg~~$~~ P354 Ems. I T Y O r RANCHO C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE: June 4, 2008 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: John R. Gillison, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager SiJB,IECT: APPROVAL TO MAINTAIN LEVY FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) WITH NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement). Pursuant to Section 53340 and 53358 of the Government Code Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, the City Council is authorized to annually levy the tax rate to pay debt service on the bonds. There is no increase to the current rate for fiscal year 2008/2009. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 21, 1989, the City Council approved the formation of Community Facilities District No. 88-2 for Drainage Capital Facilities and Law Enforcement services and authorized the annual levy of special taxes to pay debt service on the bonds and cover the costs of police operations and maintenance. The special tax levied annually for drainage facilities is listed as Special Tax A -Drainage Facilities. On April 7, 1994, City Council approved Resolution No. 94-058, authorizing the issuance of bonds. On .Tune 3, 1999, City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-127 authorizing the refunding of special tax bonds for this district. The refunding bonds were issued in July 1999 in the amount of $2,705,000. The special tax was set at 91% of the maximum rate when the district was formed for the developed property. However, the authorized bond refunding adjusted the rate to 78% of the maximum special tax for the developed and undeveloped property. The collections from the annual levy will be used to pay debt service through the life of the bonds. P355 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CFD NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) June 4, 2008 Page 2 The levy of special taxes annually for the Law Enforcement services is listed in Special Tax B - Law Enforcement. When the City receives the collections, the funds for Special Tax B -Law Enforcement are transferred to the General Fund to offset the Law Enforcement costs. Special Tax A -Drainage Facilities Residential Class I (3590+ S.F.) Residential Class II (3077-3589 S.F.) Residential Class III (2564-3076 S.F.) Residential Class N (2308-2563 S.F.) Residential Class V (2051-2307 S.F.) Residential Class VI (Less than 2051 S.F.) Undeveloped Property . Special Tax B -Law Enforcement Residential Class I (3590 + S.F) Residential Class II (3077-3587 S.F.) Residential Class III (2564-3076 S.F.) Residential Class IV (2308-2563 S.F.) Residential Class V (2051-2307 S.F.) Residential Class VI (Less than 2051 S.F.) Respectfully submitted, (_/ "~ John R. Gillison Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map $735 $544 $408 $326 $272 $190 $1,190/acre $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 -2- Q P356 RESOLUTION NO. O$- I,2 / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, (hereinafrer referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public heazing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafrer be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Govemment Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facilities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess ofthat as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. P357 SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax aze used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B.. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services. D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or pazcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. P358 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of June 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June 2008. Executed this day of June 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk P359 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 EXHIBIT "A" The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhibit for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Yeaz 2008/2009. SPECIAL TAX "A" -DRAINAGE FACILITIES PROPERTY CATEGORIES There aze two categories of property subject to the levy of Special Tax "A", which are identified as follows: DEVELOPED PROPERTY All property identified as a single Tax Assessor's parcel for which property a building permit has been issued as of May 31 of any year. 2. UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY All other property, excluding property which, as of the date of the election to authorize the levy of Special Tax "A:, is: (i) owned by a public entity; (ii) owned by a regulated public utility and being utilized for transmission or distribution purposes; or (iii) zoned as open space. TAXING CLASSIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL TAX "A" RATES The taxing classifications for the above Property Categories and the authorized Special Tax "A" rates for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 are as follows: P360 Taxing Classification Tax Rate 1. DEVELOPED PROPERTY A. Residential Class I $735 per year (More than 3,590 square feet of dwelling unit living area) B. Residential II $544 per year (3,077-3,589 square feet of dwelling unit living area) C. Residential III $408 per year (2,564-3,076 square feet of dwelling unit living azea) D. Residential Class IV $326 per year (2,308-2,563 square feet of dwelling unit living azea) E. Residential Class V $272 per yeaz (2,051-2,307 square feet of dwelling unit living area) F. Residential Class VI $190 per yeaz (Less than 2,051 squaze feet of dwelling unit living area) 2. UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY All Undeveloped Property $1,190 per acre per yeaz ** P361 The squaze footage of dwelling unit living area shall mean the square footage of internal living space, exclusive of garages and other structures not used as living space, as shown on the building permit(s) issued for the dwelling unit. * * The acreage of an Undeveloped Property shal I be the gross acreage exclusive of any acreage dedicated or offered for dedication to a public agency. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX "A" Special Tax "A" shall be levied annually on all taxable property within one of the above identified Property Categories so long as Special Tax "A" revenues are necessary to pay authorized expenses of the Community Facilities District related to the financing of authorized public facilities, which may include, without limitation, payment of debt service on any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District; replenishment of any required reserve fund for any such bonded indebtedness; funding of any required sinking fund necessary to pay for future public facilities or debt service; or direct payment for public facilities (CFD Expenses"). The annual levy of Special Tax "A" shall be apportioned as follows: STEP 1: The Community Facilities District shall estimate the amount of CFD Expenses which must be paid for from Special Tax "A" revenues collected during the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax "A" levy is to be established (the "Required Special Tax "A" Revenue"). STEP 2: That equal percentage of the Special Tax "A" rate, not to exceed 78% of the maximum authorized Special Tax "A" rate, applicable to all Developed Property Taxing Classifications necessary to generate Special Tax "A" revenue in the Fiscal Yeaz of the levy equal to the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue for such Fiscal Year shall be levied on all Developed Property. STEP 3: If additional Special Tax "A" revenues are still necessary to generate the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue, that percentage of the maximum authorized Special Tax "A" rate applicable to all Undeveloped Property necessary to generate such additional Special Tax "A" revenue shall be levied on all Undeveloped Property. P362 STEP 4: If additional Special Tax "A" revenues are still necessary to generate the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue, that equal percentage of the maximum authorized Special Tax "A" rate applicable to all Developed Property Taxing Classifications necessary to generate such additional Special Tax "A" revenue shall be levied on all Developed Property. STEP 5: If additional Special Tax "A" revenues aze still necessary to generate the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue, the Community Facilities District shall: A. Compare (i) the Special Tax "A" rate which would be levied on each Developed Property combining STEP 2 and STEP 4 above with (ii) the product resulting from multiplying the squaze footage of the Developed Property times the Base Maximum Special Tax "A". The Base Maximum Special Tax "A" means an amount equal to $0.054 per square foot of the lot or parcel. B. If the product described in (ii) above exceeds the Special Tax "A" rate described in (i) above for any Developed Property, the Community Facilities District shall increase the Special Tax "A" rate levied on each such Developed Property in equal percentages up to the rate not to exceed the product described in (ii) above necessary to generate the additional Special Tax "A" revenues to equal the Required Special Tax "A" Revenues. P363 SPECIAL TAX "B" -LAW ENFORCEMENT All Developed Property shall be subject to the levy of Special Tax "B". The authorized Special Tax "B" rates for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 are as follows: Taxing Classification Tax Rate DEVELOPED PROPERTY A. Residential Class I $1.00 per yeaz (More than 3,590 square feet of dwelling unit living area) B. Residential Class II $1.00 per yeaz (3,077-3,589 square feet of dwelling unit living area) C. Residential Class III $1.00 per yeaz (2,564-3,076 square feet of dwelling unit living azea) D. Residential Class IV $1.00 per yeaz (2,308-2,563 square feet of dwelling unit living area) E. Residential Class V $1.00 per yeaz (2,051-2,307 square feet of dwelling unit living area) F. Residential Class VI $1.00 per year (Less than 2,051 square feet of dwelling unit living area) P364 • 1'~I f~ C7 N °' CO ~ DO ~ ,~ •~ N '~ J Q ~ ~ ~ u_ = U U . ~n .y ~ as Q O ~ ~..~ti N ~ J .~ ° ~ N `Irl N ~~ O O r~ J m ~ V ! N ~ 3 ~ m o 0 1 ~ Q _.._.._ ~ nt/ lSe3 in "~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ j ny ep '-" ny epuennl;~ j ~8 ~laaa~.. ea .._.._ ny ~a;sayao~ ~ ny as;sayao~ r"- i d ~I.II.W j 1 1 1 ny uaneH • ny uaneH i i ny esow~aH j ny esouaaaH i ny pleq!yaay . nt/ Pleq!yaa`d i i ..r, ny UewllaH ny ueuallaH j ~••~~ ~ i ~ ~ n1~ P e~(au!n ~S ue!lau~e~~ s~@~j~~~~g$"~~ ~.._.. .~..., _ }. ~. ny anoa~ ~ 9~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~~E€~~Y~ s3o .. y~ T, N O L 4a Eg~i`m ~~c-`d 'p ~ (i3 O Q sWtl9.s~3~~_~e ~ C m (,~ ~3~~~'dFgq~~ N ~~`~ $ N f0 ~~~y~g~E~~~s _ m Wag~~~~9get 07 2 sg g~E~~~~s$ c~7ti °~a8 o~~32a a~3 P365 STAFF REPORT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Date: June 4, 2008 RANCHO C,UCAMONGA To: Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director From: Housing Subcommittee Member Michael Housing Subcommittee Member Gutierrez Subject: Approval of a Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program The Housing Subcommittee recommends approval of the attached Program Guidelines and Application Packet for the implementation of a Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program and an appropriation of $250,000 from account 2622801-5200. BACKGROUND: At the December 19, 2007 City Council meeting, staff was directed to work with the Housing Subcommittee tb evaluate the feasibility of developing rental assistance program for mobile home park residents. The annual increases in space fees prompted the City to consider developing a program to assist mobile home residents with their housing needs. Unlike renters, mobile home owners cannot easily relocate their mobile home to decrease their housing costs. Thus, while a family may own their own mobile home, the rent for the space may become a financial burden. The program is structured to assist individuals who own their mobile homes, and not families who rent a mobile home. A mobile home rental assistance program will continue to further the City's goal in providing affordable housing opportunities for those who desire to live and work in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ANALYSIS: Staff has met with the Housing Subcommittee to discuss and draft guidelines for a mobile home rental assistance program. Initially, to get a better understanding of the need for the program, a needs assessment survey was developed. The survey was mailed to over 1,300 mobile home residences and over 600 surveys were returned. Approximately seventy-percent (70%) of those that returned the forms stated that they had incomes at or below 60% of the area median level and forty-seven percent (47%) were paying more than 30% of their income towards housing. Based on the survey results, program guidelines were developed to assist individuals and families paying more than 30% of their income towards housing and have incomes at or below 60% of the area median. The program will provide up to $50.00 per month to eligible individuals and families to assist them with their rental space fees. To be eligible to participate in the program, residents must meet the following requirements: P366 APPROVt\L OF A MOBILE HOME RENPAI. ASSISTANCE PROGRARS JUNE a, ?oos PAGr:2 • Their incomes must be at or below 60% of the area median income based on family size. • They must be paying more than 30% of their gross income towards housing (space rent and/or mortgage on their mobile home). • They must be a mobile home resident of the City for at least one year and must own their home. They cannot be a renter. • Their units must be used as their primary residence. • Their financial assets, excluding the value of their mobile home cannot exceed $20,000. • They must be a US citizen or non-citizen with eligible immigration status. • They must be in compliance with all park rules, regulations and terms of their lease. • They cannot be a registered sex offender or have been convicted of a felony. In addition to meeting the criteria noted above, all residents will be required to submit an application and supporting documentation to verify income (i.e. check stubs, federal 1040 tax forms, bank statements, etc.) as well as documentation regarding assets, if needed. At this time the use of more extensive measures to verify income, such as credit reports and employment verification forms, are not recommended. Staff has also met with owners of the mobile home parks within the City to discuss the proposed program and to solicit their support for implementation. The owners accept the Agency's proposal to mail them a single check, with a detailed list of the families and space numbers that the payment is to be applied towards. The owners have also agreed to notify the Agency of any changes in occupancy status of a qualifying family. At the May 15, 2008 meeting, the Housing Subcommittee instructed Agency staff to forward the draft of the program guidelines and application packet to the full Agency Board for review and approval. Once the program is approved, staff will begin holding meetings at all eight mobile home parks throughout the City to market the program and distribute applications. Respectfully submitted, ~(,eG Mayor Pro Tem L. Dennis Mich el Council Me ber Rex Gutierrez P367 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROPOSED MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RANCHO SUMMARY SHEET C',UCAMONGA CALIFORNIA Program Description The Proposed Rancho Cucamonga Rental Assistance Program is designed to assist eligible lower income individuals and families with their monthly mobile home space rent. Assistance is provided in the form of a monthly rent subsidy, up to $50.00. Please note that the program is still in the development stage and that the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency has not yet approved the program. Eligibility Requirements (Who is eligible?) To be eligible for the program, a resident must meet the following requirements: • Must be a mobile home park resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for at least one year and they must own their home. • Must use the unit as their permanent place of residence. • Their annual gross income must be at or below 60% of the area median income based on family size, as defined on the income chart below. • They must be paying more than 30% of their gross income towards housing (space rent and mortgage on mobile home). • Their assets, excluding the value of the mobile home unit cannot exceed $20,000. • They must be a US citizen, or non-citizen with eligible immigration status. • They cannot be a registered sex offender or have been convicted of a felony. • They must be in compliance with all park rules, regulations and terms of their lease. Family Size Income 1 $26,040 2 $29,760 3 $33,480 4 $37,200 5 $40,200 6 $43,140 7 $46,140 8 $49,080 P368 If eligible, your assistance will be limited to a rental space subsidy amount determined by your gross income and your housing costs (including mortgage payments and rental space fees). The maximum monthly rental subsidy shall not to exceed $50.00. All eligibility documentation will be required annually as part of the recertification process. Rental subsidy amounts will be paid directly to the mobile home park owner. The applicant will be responsible for providing the balance of their rental space fee. Once approved, the City will prepare a commitment letter; confirming the amount of eligible subsidy. A copy of the commitment letter will be forwazded to your property owner for processing. III. Determination of Adjusted Gross Income In calculating adjusted gross income, all of the income of the applicant or applicants and other household members who share the same dwelling unit or share in the ownership of the unit, whether in cash or in kind, shall be considered, as set forth below: a. the full amount, before any payroll deductions, of wages and salaries, overtime pay, commissions, fees, tips, and bonuses, b. the net income from an operation of a business or profession, as calculated by averaging the net income manifested by their Federal Income Taxes for the past three years (but without deduction for sums paid for business expansion or far amortization of capital indebtedness); c. the full amount of periodic payments received from social security, annuities, insurance policies, retirement funds, pensions, disability or death benefits, and other similar types of periodic receipts, including a lump-sum payment for the delayed start of a periodic payment; d. payment in lieu of earnings, such as unemployment, worker's compensation, severance pay, and welfare assistance; e. periodic and determinable allowances, such as alimony and child support payments, and regular contributions or gifts received from persons not residing in the dwelling to the extent that such payments are reasonably expected to continue; f. all regular pay, special pay, and allowances of a member of the Armed Forces (whether or not living in the dwelling) who is head of the family, spouse, or other person whose dependents are residing in the unit; g. any earned income tax credit to the extent it exceeds income tax liability; and any other income that must be reported for federal and state income tax purposes. 2. The following exceptions shall apply in the determination of adjusted gross income: a. payments received for the care of foster children; b. amounts specifically excluded by any federal or state statute from consideration as income; P369 c. casual, sporadic, or irregulaz gifts; d. amounts that are specifically for, or in reimbursement of, the cost of medical expenses; e. amounts of education scholazships paid directly to the student or to the educational institution, and amounts paid by the government to veterans for use in meeting the costs of tuition, fees, books, and equipment. The applicant shall be required to provide copies of their last two years 1040 forms. N. Assets For purposes of this program, the following types of assets shall be considered in eligibility determination: a. cash savings; b. marketable securities, stocks, bonds, and other forms of capital investment, including tax exempt securities other than Individual Retirement or KEOGH plans; inheritance, lump-sum insurance payments, already received; d. settlements for personal or property damage already received; and e. other personal property which is readily convertible into cash. 2. The following are not considered assets: a. ordinary household effects, including furniture, fixtures, and personal property; b. automobiles used for personal use; c. depreciable property used in a business which generates a significant proportion of household income; and d. the value or equity related to the mobile home. DRAFT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RANCHO APPLICATION C',UCAMONGA CALIFORNIA The City of Rancho Cucamonga Rental Assistance Program is designed to assist low income individuals and families with their monthly mobile home space rent. Assistance is provided in the form of a monthly rent subsidy. In order to receive a rental space subsidy, the applicant must be paying more than 30% of their gross household income toward housing. Applicants may receive up to a maximum of $50.00 toward their monthly space rent. InStI'uCtlons: Please complete and return the attached checklist and application. All forms must be completed in full. Copies of recent documents as indicated on the attached Program Checklist must be submitted with your application. You may mail or submit your application to: City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 P371 ~` ~~\~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~,,. '~ MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION RANCHO C,UCAMONGA CALIFORNIA The information you supply on this questionnaire will determine your eligibility for the City of Rancho Cucamonga Rental Assistance Program. All information in this form is confidential. APPILCANT (Head of Household) (Please print in ink) Name Address Driver's License # Telephone #: H Social Security # C Rent Subsidy from Any Source (family support, public assistance) ^ no ^ yes $ If disabled, please describe type Date of Birth Female ^ Male ^ Years in City Household Size HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION (List head of household first) Name Female or Male Date of Birth DD/MM Social Security Number Citizen or Legal Resident ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No MONTHLY INCOME FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (Attach page 2 & 3, Checklist) Employment $ Disability Benefits $ Veteran's Benefits $ Social Security $ Unemployment $ Interest from Assets $ (checking, savings, stocks, bonds, etc.) SSI $ General Assistance $ Other (list): $ AVERAGE MONTHLY UTILITY COSTS Space # Mobile Home Complex Electric Gas Water Sewer Trash Total $ $ $ $ $ $ P372 MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION PAGE2 ASSETS (describe real and personal property, excluding residence, household furnishings and personal automobiles). Assets are tonically possessions that can be converted to cash. Please attach additional sheets if necessary. ASSET VALUE LIABILITY (amount owed) Other Real Estate -Include any other homes owned Personal Property Financial Accounts -savings, checking, stocks, bonds, money market funds, life insurances and other investment accounts. Other Assets -specify type DRUG /CRIMINAL ACTIVITY Federal regulations require Housing Agencies to question applicants and participants concerning drug related or violent criminal activities. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? ^ No ^ Yes Is any member of your household registered as a sex offender? ^ No ^ Yes Has any one in the household been evicted from public housing or Section 8 housing for any reason including drug or other criminal activity? ^ No ^ Yes If yes, date of eviction: ~,y? Please provide Name of Agency Address Telephone APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ^ UWe certify that the information provided in this application is accurate, complete to the best of my/our knowledge and belief and is subject to verification. ^ UWe give consent to have City of Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program obtain any information or documentation required to verify program participation. ^ UWe understand any attempt to obtain City of Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program by false information, impersonation, failure to disclose or other fraud is a crime under Federal law. ^ UWe understand that if this application is approved, my name and all required information will be entered into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program data base for participation in the program. ^ UWe also understand that Uwe are to notify on-site management or City of Rancho Cucamonga Mobile Home Rental Assistance Program if Uwe change my/our contact information or my/our financial or living conditions: and agree to do so. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Signature Date P373 ~~~ , ~`', CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE ~ PROGRAM CHECKLIST MRANCHO C,UCAMONGA CALIFORNIA The following documents are required in order to determine your program eligibility. Please check all boxes that apply and attach copies of applicable documents to your application and submit them along with the Program Application. All applicants no matter the source of income will need to submit their current 1040 forms and the last two months of their checking and savings account statements. During the recertification process applicants will only need to submit copies of their most recent 1040 form in addition to the documents that apply below. Proof of Ownership/Occupancy Proof of Age 1- Year Residency Requirement Social Security Number Additionallncome Documentation Check all that apply: ^ Employment ^ Social Security Benefits - SSA/SSI ^ Veteran's Benefits ^ Retirement Pension ^ Unemployment Benefits ^ Worker's Compensation or Disability Benefits ^ Self-Employed ^ Rental Income ^ Payments from IRA Accounts Copy of current registration and/or current property tax bill Copy of current driver's license or CA Identification card Copy of current lease with execution date Copy of Social Security card Types of Verification Two months worth of paycheck stubs, their current 1040 form and their last two months of both checking and savings account statements, Copy of current check, benefit statement or bank statement displaying auto deposit Copy of current check, benefit statement or bank statement displaying auto deposit Copy of current check, benefit statement or bank statement displaying auto deposit Copy of current check or verification from CA Employment Development Department Copy of check or statement or verification from payer Copies of year-to-date profit loss statement and previous two years State and Federal Tax returns Copy of previous two years State and Federal Tax returns Copy of current statement MOBILE HOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CHECKLIST PAGE2 P374 ^ Interest from Savings and Checking Copy of current statements and/or previous two years State Accounts and Federal Tax returns ^ Income from stocks, bonds, saving Monthly or quarterly statement and previous two years State certificates, money market funds and other and Federal Tax returns investment accounts ^ Lump sum receipts such as inheritances, Any form of documentation evidencing receipt of the capital gains, lottery winnings, insurance compensation settlements exceeding losses incurred and other claims Residency Status If applicable, any form of documentation evidencing eligible immigration status Disability Status Provide documentation evidencing the disability For reporting purposes on]y, please provide the following demographic information for head of household. Check all boxes that apply. Race Single Categories ^ American Indian /Alaska Native ^ Asian ^ Black /African American ^ Native Hawaiian /Other Pacific Islander ^ White Double Categories ^ American Indian or Alaska Native & White ^ Asian & White ^ Black /African American & White ^ American Indian /Alaskan Native & Black / African American ^ Other CERTIFICATION Ethnicity Hispanic /Latino: 0 Mexican /Chicano ^ Puerto Rican ^ Cuban ^ Other Hispanic /Latino ^ Not Spanish /Hispanic /Latino Head of Household ^ Female ^ Male I certify that the above information is true and accurate and that supporting documentation is provided as part of this application. Applicant's Signature ^ Disabled ^ 65 years and older Date Applicant's Signature Date STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Date: June 4, 2008 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director Subject: CONSIDERATION OI SERVICES CITY APPOINTMENT TO FOUNDATION .RECOMMENDATION RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING AN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY It is recommended that the City Council approve the City Council Community Services Sub- committee's recommendation regarding appointment of Judy Gibson to a four-year term on the Community Foundation Board of Directors. BACKGROUND Former Community Foundation Member Judy Gibson previously served on the Board of Directors from February 2005 until November 2007. At that time, Judy, along with husband Harry Gibson, also a Boardmember, resigned from their positions of Vice Chair and Treasurer due to family reasons. Mrs. Gibson recently expressed her interest in rejoining the Board and has re-applied for an appointment. The City Council Community Services Subcommittee met on May 7th to consider the matter and the Subcommittee expressed their support. Subcommittee Members Williams and Spagnolo will present their recommendation to the full City Council at their June 4th meeting. Ily submitted, P375 Kevin McArdle Community Services Director