HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-02-2006CCThis Agenda contains a brief genera/description of each item to be considered. Copies of the Staff
reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection. A person who has a question
concerning any of the agenda items may call the City Manager at (310) 603-0220, ext. 200.
Procedures for Addressinq the Council
IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS, WE ASK THAT ALL PERSONS WISHING TO
ADDRESS THE COUNCIL FILL OUT A FORM PROVIDED AT THE DOOR, AND TO TURN IT IN TO
THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FAILURE TO FILL OUT SUCH A FORM
WILL PROHIBIT YOU FROM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL IN THE ABSENCE OF THE UNANIMOUS
CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL.
AGENDA
ITEMS ON FILE FOR CONSIDERATION
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL
TO BE HELD ON
VED
CITY OF LYNW~00D
MAY 2, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11330 BULLIS ROAD, LYNWOOD, CA 90262
5:00 P.M.
LETICIA VASQUEZ
MAYOR
REVEREND ALFREDDIE JOHNSON, JR.
MAYOR PRO-TEM
FERNANDO PEDROZA
COUNCILMEMBER
LOUIS BYRD
COUNCILMEMBER
MARIA TERESA SANTILLAN
COUNCILMEMBER
CITY MANAGER
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
CITY ATTORNEY
J. ARNOLDO BELTRAN
CITY CLERK
ANDREA L. HOOPER
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL TO ORDER
CERTIFICATION OF AGENDA POSTING BY CITY CLERK
ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Louis Byrd
Reverend Alfreddie Johnson, Jr.
Fernando Pedroza
Maria T. Santillan
Leticia Vasquez
CITY TREASURER
IRIS PYGATT
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
COUNCIL RECESS TO:
LYNWOOD INFORMATION INC.
LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
LYNWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
LYNWOOD UTILITY AUTHORITY
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
IF AN ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THERE SHOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE BY THE COUNCIL, BUT IT IS ALL RIGHT FOR
COUNCIL TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE STAFF OR SCHEDULE SUBSTANTIVE
DISCUSSION FOR A FUTURE MEETING. (The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code
Section 54954.2 (a).)
PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
REPEALING AND RESTATING THE LYNWOOD CIVIL PENALTY SCHEDULE
(EXHIBIT 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2004.128) FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING
THE PENALTY AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PARKING VIOLATIONS
Comments:
The purpose of the item is to conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed adoption
of a resolution repealing and restating the Lynwood Civil Penalty Schedule (Exhibit 1 of
Resolution No. 2004.128) for the purpose of increasing the penalty amounts for certain
parking violations.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City Council:
1) Open the public hearing on the proposed adoption of the attached Resolution
Repealing and Restating the Lynwood Civil Penalty Schedule (Exhibit 1 of Resolution
no. 2004.128);
2) Remind the public that the public hearing on item number 8 of this Agenda is also
open and will run concurrent with this public hearing should any person wish to offer
testimony on either item;
3) Receive public testimony and Staff's report on this item and the continued public
hearing listed as item number 8 on this Agenda;
4) Close both public hearings;
5) Adopt the proposed attached resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD REPEALING AND RESTATING THE
LYNWOOD CIVIL PENALTY SCHEDULE (EXHIBIT 1 OF RESOLUTION NO.
2004.128) FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE PENALTY AMOUNTS FOR
CERTAIN PARKING VIOLATIONS," if Council determines that Exhibit I of the
attached Resolution achieves the standardization of parking penalties specified in the
California Vehicle Code.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING
LYNWOOD CIVIL PENALTY SCHEDULE, WHICH LISTS PENALTIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS IN THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
Comments:
This item is a continuance of the public hearing opened on April 18, 2006 regarding
proposed amendments to the existing Lynwood Civil Penalty Schedule, which lists
penalties and administrative fees for parking violations in the City of Lynwood.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City Council:
1)
Consolidate the continued public hearing on this item with the new public hearing
listed on this Agenda as item number 7 (Public Hearing Regarding the Proposed
Adoption of a Resolution Repealing and Restating the Lynwood Civil Penalty
Schedule (Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 2004.128) for the Purpose of Increasing the
Penalty Amounts for Certain Parking Violations), and run the two hearings
concurrently.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD'S FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH NEW AND REVISED
FEES CHARGED FOR CITY SERVICES
Comments:
The purpose of the item is to conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed adoption
of a resolution amending the City of Lynwood's fee schedule to establish new and revised
fees charged for city services.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City Council:
1) Open the public hearing on the proposed adoption of the attached Resolution
amending the City Of Lynwood's Fee Schedule to establish new and revised fees
charged for city services;
2) Remind the public that the public hearing on item number 10 of this Agenda is also
open and will run concurrent with this public hearing should any person wish to offer
testimony on either item;
3) Receive public testimony and staff's report on this item and the continued public
hearing listed as item number 10 on this Agenda;
4) Close both public hearings;
5) Adopt the proposed attached resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AMENDING THE CITY OF LYNWOOD'S
FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH NEW AND REVISED FEES CHARGED FOR
CITY SERVICES," if Council determines that it wishes to adopt the new and revised
fees which are based on the March 28, 2006 PMC Cost of Services Study and
specified in Exhibit A of the attached Resolution.
10.
11.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING,
ENGINEERING, BUILDING & SAFETY AND FIRE PERMIT/INSPECTION FEES,
RECREATION USER FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS USER FEES LISTED IN THE
LYNWOOD FEE SCHEDULE
Comments:
This item is a continuance of the public hearing opened on April 18, 2006 regarding
proposed amendments to the Planning, Engineering, Building & Safety and Fire
Permit/Inspection Fees, Recreation User Fees and Miscellaneous User Fees Listed in
the Lynwood Fee Schedule.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Lynwood City Council:
1)
Consolidate the continued public hearing on this item with the new public hearing
listed on this Agenda as item number 9 (Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of
a Resolution Amending the City of Lynwood's Fee Schedule to Establish New and
Revised Fees Charged for City Services), and run the two hearings concurrently.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM IN THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD AND THE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES TO BE IMPOSED ON
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY
Comments:
This item is a continuance of the public hearing opened on April 18, 2006 regarding:
a. The adoption a proposed enabling Ordinance Establishing a Development Impact
Fee Program in the City of Lynwood; and
b. The consideration of a draft resolution proposing adoption of Development Impact
Fee Schedule.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City Council:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Open the continued public hearing regarding the above items;
Receive public testimony and Staff's report on the above items;
Close the public hearing on both of the above items;
Effectuate final passage by second reading of the attached ordinance entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ADDING A
NEW SECTION 11-19 TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM" if Council determines that an Impact Fee Program should be
established.
(Note: No action will be taken on the resolution adopting the Schedule of Impact
Fees and the Development Impact Fee Study as part of this item. A separate public
hearing, item number 12 on this Agenda, is being held for that purpose).
12.
13.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT
FEE (NEXUS) STUDY FOR THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
Comments:
The purpose of this hearing will be to receive public comment regarding the proposed
adoption of a resolution establishing development impact fees and adopting the
Comprehensive Impact Fee (Nexus) Study for the City Of Lynwood.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City Council:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Open the public hearing regarding the proposed adoption of the attached Resolution
establishing Development Impact Fees and Adopting the Comprehensive Impact Fee
(Nexus) Study for the City of Lynwood;
Receive public testimony and staff's report on this item;
Close the public hearing;
Adopt the proposed Resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
AND ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FEE (NEXUS) STUDY FOR
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD" if the City Council:
a. Has adopted and read a second time "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ADDING A NEW SECTION 11-19 TO CHAPTER
11 OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM"; and
b. Finds and determines that the Comprehensive Impact Fee (Nexus) Study, Exhibit
B of the attached Resolution, complies with Government Code §66001 by
establishing the basis for the imposition of the Development Impact Fee
Schedule specified in Exhibit A of the attached Resolution.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE NO. 1 TO THE HOME
PROGRAM
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to conduct the Public Hearing for Substantial Change No. I to
the HOME Program. $1,406,340 in HOME Funds is recommended for reprogramming.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council of the City of Lynwood adopt the attached
resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD TO APPROVE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE N0.1 TO THE HOME PROGRAM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF REALLOCATION OF HOME FUNDS TO THE SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND DOCUMENTATION OF
COMMITMENT OF HOME/CHDO FUNDS TO A CHDO PROJECT".
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one motion affirming the
action recommended on the agenda. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to
voting unless members of the Council or staff request specific items to be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
14.
15.
16.
17.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
Regular Meeting - March 21,2006
Regular Meeting - April 4, 2006
APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT REGISTER
Comments:
City of Lynwood warrant register dated May 2, 2006 for FY 2005-2006.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the warrant register.
SECOND READING OF CITY OF LYNWOOD ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN ART IN
PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM AND AN IN-LIEU FEE
Comments:
The City Council conducted a public hearing and introduced by title only the attached
ordinance on April 18, 2006.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council read for second reading and adopt the attached
ordinance titled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
ADDING SECTION 11-20 TO THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING AN
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM AND AN IN-LIEU FEE".
SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT CITY-WIDE TEAM BUILDING AND
GOAL SETTING TRAINING
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to seek the City Council's approval to award a contract to the
Lipton Group, Inc. to continue and complete City-wide Team Building training for all
employees and to facilitate a Goal Setting session for the City Council.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LIPTON GROUP, INC. TO
COMPLETE TEAMBUILDING TRAINING CITY-WIDE FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS AND
THE GOAL SETTING SESSIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL".
18. FOUR-YEAR TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT AMENDMENT
19.
20.
Comments:
At the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting staff was directed to negotiate with the
contractor to expedite the tree trimming schedule to trim all city trees this fiscal year. To
proceed, the existing contract needs to be amended and $288,000 needs to be
appropriated and transferred to the tree trimming account.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AMENDING THE
TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CALIFORNIA WESTERN ARBORISTS, INC. AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY
FUNDS APPROPRIATION AND TRANSFER TO COVER THE AMENDED CONTRACT
COST".
ACCEPTANCE OF SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENT AROUND
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PROJECT-PROJECT NUMBER 05-5271, FEDERAL
PROJECT NO. 07-LA-O-LYN-STPLH-5250 (012)
Comments:
On September 20, 2005 the City Council awarded a contract to Damon Construction Co.
in the amount of $247,240 for the Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Improvement around
Elementary Schools Project, Project Number 05-5271 [Federal Project No. 07-LA-O-LYN-
STPLH-5250 (012)]. All construction work on the project is complete. The project is
ready for final acceptance by the City of Lynwood.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Lynwood City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled,
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ACCEPTING
THE SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENT AROUND ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 05-5271 [(FEDERAL PROJECT NO. 07-LA-
O-LYN-STPLH-5250 (012)], AS BEING COMPLETE".
DECLARING OPPOSITION TO THE PARK WATER COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR
A RATE INCREASE
Comments:
On January 5, 2006 Park Water Company filed Application No. 06-01-004 with the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California for authority to increase its rates to recover
increased operating costs and to allow the company to earn a fair rate of return on their
investments dedicated to providing water service to their customers in and near
customers in its Central Basin Division service area. If adopted by the Public Utilities
Commission, Lynwood customers serviced by the Park Water Company will be affected
by the increase.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DECLARING
OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION OF PARK WATER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE RATES CHARGED FOR WATER SERVICE FOR THE
YEARS 2007, 2008, AND 2009".
21.
22.
VENDOR RECOMMENDATION FOR A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM /
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOLUTION
Comments:
The City's current Financial Management System was custom programmed
approximately 15 years ago and has many limitations, especially with regards to its
auditing capabilities. To address the audit findings, enhance internal controls and
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the budget and financial transactions, the City
Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new, integrated
Financial Management System / Enterprise Resource Planning Solution. Based on the
RFP issued in December, proposals have been received and evaluated by a panel of
staff. The selection process included the review of written proposals, live presentations,
reference checks, interviews with finalists, and site visits. A vendor has been selected
unanimously by the panel, and is recommended for the City Council for approval.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the that the City Council approve the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH EDEN TYLER
TECHNOLOGIES, FOR AN INTEGRATED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM /
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOLUTION, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE SAID AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT".
ACCEPTANCE OF PASS THROUGH FUNDS (2002 PER CAPITA GRANT) FROM THE
CITY OF VERNON
Comments:
City staff was recently notified by the City of Vernon that the City of Vernon proposes to
pass through, $50,000 of their 2002 Per Capita Grant Fund allocation to the City of
Lynwood. In order to accept these funds, City Council must adopt the attached
resolution.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT FOR CONTRACT NO.
C0207180 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT
PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN
AIR, AND COSTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2002".
23. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST - ST. PHILLIP NERI CATHOLIC CHURCH SPRING
FESTIVAL
24.
25.
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to consider a request by St. Phillip Neri Catholic Church for a
permit to conduct its Spring Festival on the church property Saturday - Sunday, May 20 -
21,2006. The hours of operation would be 3:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. on Saturday and 8:00
A.M. - 10:00 P.M. on Sunday. The money raised from this event is allocated to the
various church ministries to carry out the service and mission of the church.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve this request with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant agrees to comply with the City of Lynwood permit requirements.
2. The applicant agrees to meet requirements imposed by the Sheriff's Department, Fire
Department, and Health Department.
3. The applicant agrees to comply with the noise levels prescribed in the Lynwood
Municipal Code.
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER- FURNITURE
PROJECT-PROJECT NUMBER 05-5297
Comments:
The City of Lynwood sent out a Request for Bids for the procurement and installation of
furniture at the Lynwood Senior Citizen Center Building. Intelligent Facility Furnishing
Inc. was the apparent lowest bidder and is being recommended for a contract award,
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AWARDING A
CONTRACT TO INTELLIGENT FACILITY FURNISHINGS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$108,006.23 FOR THE LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER BUILDING FURNITURE
PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 05-5297; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT".
AWARD OF CONTRACT - DEL RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES FOR HAM PARK
REPLACEMENT PROJECT RELOCATION SERVICES
Comments:
The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider executing a contract with Del
Richardson & Associates (DRA) not to exceed $50,000 to complete relocation services
(i.e. goodwill, fixtures & equipment, moving expenses) for the Ham Park Replacement
Project.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the contract with Del Richardson &
Associates and adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT WITH DEL RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES (DRA) IN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $50,000 TO COMPLETE RELOCATION SERVICES FOR THE HAM PARK
REPLACEMENT PROJECT".
26. LYNWOOD LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2006-A, FY
2006-2007
27.
Comments:
This report recommends that the City Council approve the attached Engineer's Report for
the Lynwood Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and adopt a resolution of
intention, which sets this matter for a public hearing.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 22565 ET SEQ., AS
ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 4, 2006, RELATING TO LYNWOOD
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT"; and
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 WITHIN LYNWOOD
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972", AS AMENDED, (COMMENCING
WITH STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 22500 ET SEQ.)".
LYNWOOD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2006-L, FY
2006-2007
Comments:
This report recommends that the City Council approve the attached Engineer's Report for
the Lynwood Landscape Maintenance Assessment District and adopt a resolution of
intention, which sets this matter for a public hearing.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:
1)
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 22565 ET SEQ., AS
ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 4, 2006, RELATING TO LYNWOOD
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT"; and
2)
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 WITHIN LYNWOOD
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972", AS AMENDED, (COMMENCING
WITH STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 22500 ET SEQ.)".
10
28.
29.
30.
AMENDMENT TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT SALARY
SCHEDULE FOR THE POSITIONS OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT
AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to seek the City Council's approval to adjust the salary range
for the positions of Deputy Director of Redevelopment and Deputy Director of
Development Services.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AMENDING THE
CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE
POSITION OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES".
EXMEPTING THE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY LIFE SERVICES AND DIRECTOR OF
RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES FROM THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM AND
AUTHORIZING FILLING OF TWO DEPARTMENT HEAD POSITIONS BY AN OPEN
EXAMINATION PROCESS
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to request that the City Council exempt from the Personnel
System two (2) Director level positions by making them at-will. This action will allow the
City to recruit and hire highly qualified individuals with the most flexibility for the City.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO EXEMPT
THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS: DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES,
AND DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, FROM THE
PERSONNEL SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING BY A 4/5 VOTE THE STAFFING OF BOTH
POSITIONS BY OPEN EXAMINATION."
DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES - EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to seek the City Council's approval to authorize the City
Manager to execute an employment agreement with the Director of Quality of Life
Services.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE RETENTION OF SERVICES FOR THE DIRECTOR OF
QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT".
11
31.
32.
33.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST - UNITED CITIZENS OF LYNWOOD - MOTHER'S DAY
CELEBRATION
Comments:
A request has been made by the United Citizens of Lynwood to close a portion of San
Luis Avenue, (between Norton and Abbott) to conduct a Mother's Day Celebration on
Friday, May 12, 2006.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council review the staff report and provide direction on the
sponsorship of the United Citizens of Lynwood Mother's Day Celebration.
APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD'S DRAFT CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
ACTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007
Comments:
In order to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment
Partnership (HOME) funds, the City must prepare a Consolidated Annual Action Plan,
which provides for the use of CDBG and HOME funds during the fiscal year. Each year,
as part of the Consolidated Plan process, the City must also prepare and submit to HUD
funding applications for the CDBG and HOME programs. The Fiscal Year 2006-07
Consolidated Annual Action Plan, CDBG and HOME applications are due to HUD before
May 15, 2006.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council, after review and consideration:
1. Approve the Consolidated Annual Action Plan (Consolidated Plan) for Fiscal Year
2006-2007;
2. Adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE CITY'S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN AND
FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007"; and
3. Direct staff to submit the CDBG and HOME Grant Applications and the Consolidated
Plan to HUD prior to the May 15, 2006 deadline.
RECORDS MANAGEMENT, ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE SAME,
AND RESTATEMENT OF STATUTORY DUTIES FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to have the City Council provide direction regarding the
responsibilities of records management and statutory duties of the City Clerk.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council consider the report set out below, evaluate the alternatives to
meet the stated goals in the records management area, and provide further direction on
the specific functions of City staff and the City Clerk.
34.
TO AUTHORIZE AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A CITY DESIGNATED COMMUNITY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CHDO), TO ACQUIRE EITHER A FIVE
UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3382 NORTON AVENUE OR A SIX UNIT
RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3568 BRENTON AVENUE UTILIZING
HOME/CHDO FUNDS
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to authorize the acquisition of rental property by the
Community Development Housing Organization (CHDO) American Family Housing via a
Resolution and subsequent execution of a Purchase and Sale Agreement in order to
provide affordable housing and comply with HUD deadlines.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council of the City of Lynwood approve one of the two
attached resolutions entitled:
1)
UA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF A FIVE UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3382
NORTON AVENUE BY AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CHDO), AND TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL
CHDO FUNDS OF FY 2003 IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,052 TO SUPPLEMENT THE
CURRENT ALLOCATION OF $673,685".
2)
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF A SIX UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3568
BRENTON AVENUE BY AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A COMMUNITY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CHDO), AND TO ALLOCATE
ADDITIONAL CHDO FUNDS OF FY 2003 IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,052 TO
SUPPLEMENT THE CURRENT ALLOCATION OF $673,685".
CITY COUNCIL ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTING ON MEETINGS ATTENDED (GOV. CODE SECTION 53232.3 (D))
LETICIA VASQUEZ, MAYOR
REVEREND ALFREDDIE JOHNSON, JR., MAYOR PRO-TEM
LOUIS BYRD, COUNCILMEMBER
FERNANDO PEDROZA, COUNCILMEMBER
MARIA T. SANTILLAN, COUNCILMEMBER
13
35.
A.
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to
Section 54956.8:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Properties: See listing of properties by Address and Assessor Parcel
Numbers in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
City Negotiator:
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Development Services
Director and Universal Field Services, Inc.
Negotiating: See listing of properties and property owners ("Seller" or
"Seller's") in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
Under Negotiation:
Price and terms of payment - Seeking authority to make offer to
Seller's for acquisition of property and, where appropriate, value
of immovable fixtures and equipment, provision of appropriate
relocation benefits and compensation for potential loss of
goodwill to parties legally entitled thereto.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to
Section 54957:
Public Employee Appointment/Discipline/Dismissal/Release
1. Director of Recreation & Community Services
2. Director of Quality of Life Services
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (subdivision (a) of
section 54956.9:)
1. Name of Case:
Cynthia Green-Geter v. City of Lynwood
Case No. 0700000041
2. Name of Case:
Bulletin Displays v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC340572
3. Name of Case:
Laverne Jackson and Jackson & Associates v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC288237
4. Name of Case:
Thomas v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC288238
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to
Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9:
Four (4) Cases
14
E. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title - City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MAY 16, 2006 AT 5:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 11330 BULLIS ROAD, CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MAY 2, 20O6
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8.
Properties:
See listing of properties by Address and Assessor
Parcel Numbers in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
City Negotiators:
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Development Services Director and Universal Field
Services, Inc.
Negotiating Parties:
See listing of properties and property owners ("Seller"
or "Seller's") in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
Under Negotiations:
Price and terms of payment - Seeking authority to
make offer to Seller's for acquisition of property and,
where appropriate, value of immovable fixtures and
equipment, provision of appropriate relocation
benefits and compensation for potential loss of
goodwill to parties legally entitled thereto.
APN
6189-019-060,
061
6189-019-003
6189-019-058,
059
6189-019-007,
008
6189 -019-009,
010
6189-019-011
6189-019-012
6186-036-001
6186-036-029
6186-036-030
6186-036-006
6186-036-007
6186-036-008
ATTACHMENT "A"
Conference with Real Property Negotiators
Ham Park Replacement Project
Commercial Properties
City Council Meeting
May 2, 2006
COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE PROPERTIES
Owner Site Address
Tacos Mexicos Inc. 11800-11808 Atlantic Avenue
Bhagat, Narayan & Ranjan 11812 Atlantic Avenue
Christ New Testament
Baptist Church of L.A.
Ornelas, Raul & Isabel 11836 Atlantic Avenue
Trust/Ornelas Family
Ornelas, Raul & Isabel
Trust/Ornelas Family
Patel, Navin & Champa 12012 Atlantic Avenue
Nabulsi, Walid/Mohanned 12022 Atlantic Avenue
Chin, David & Jackie & 12100 Atlantic Avenue
Chen, Becky
Bhagat, Vinodbhai Trust
Ghagat, Vinodgha Trust
Ballard, William Trust
J L Flores DDS Inc.
Ballard, William & Katherine12140 Atlantic Avenue
11820-11832 Atlantic Avenue
12000-12006 Atlantic Avenue
12108 Atlantic Avenue
12120 Atlantic Avenue
12130 Atlantic Avenue
12134 Atlantic Avenue
ATTACHMENT "A"
Page 2
6186-001-011
6186-001-007
6186-001-004,
005, 006
6186-001-002
Alfaro, Froylan & Jorge
Loera, John & Mary
Vasquez, Leonel
Michalak, Michael
12001 Atlantic Avenue
12015 Atlantic Avenue
12017-12031 Atlantic Avenue
12035 Atlantic Avenue
6189-019-900
6189-019-056,
057*
6189-019-013
6189-019-014
6189-019-015
6189-019-016
6189-019-017
6189-019-018
6189-019-019
6189-019-020
6189-019-021
6189-019-022
6189-019-025
6189-019-027
RESIDENTIAL/VACANT PROPERTIES
Lynwood Redevelopment
Agency
Lynwood Redevelopment
Agency
Chalvin, Myron Z. Trustee
Chavez, Lucia
Casas, Jesus & Patricia
Membreno, Julio & Juana
Contreras, Ramiro & Livier
Tostado, Emesto & Adrian
Mosqueda, Rogelio & Maria
Gatlin, Signe Conita Trustee
Cruz, Guillermina
Vasquez, Inez & Maria
Cajero, Maria (Estate of)
Aguiar, Gaudencio & Amarilis
NEC Atlantic Avenue &
Josephine Street
NWC Josephine Street &
Virginia Avenue
11801 Virginia Avenue
11807 Virginia Avenue
11815 Virginia Avenue
11819 Virginia Avenue
11825 Virginia Avenue
11833 Virginia Avenue
11837 Virginia Avenue
11845 Virginia Avenue
11851 Virginia Avenue
11857 Virginia Avenue
11867 Virginia Avenue
11869 Virginia Avenue
ATTACHMENT "A"
Page 3
6189-019-030
6189-036-028
6189-036-027
6189-036-026
6189-036-025
6189-036-024
6189-036-023
6186-001-024
Quezada, Salvador
Nabulsi, Mohammed, et al
Jones, Sarah
Zavala, Pedro & Rebecca
Alvarez, Teofilo & Noemi
Cullens, Charles & Joyce
Preciado, Roberto & Imelda
Chavez, Ascencion & Margarita
5121 Lavinia Avenue
5124 Lavinia Avenue
12111 Virginia Avenue
12115 Virginia Avenue
12121 Virginia Avenue
12127 Virginia Avenue
12205 Virginia Avenue
12011 Atlantic Avenue
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor and City CouncilOrs
N. Enrique Martinez, City
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Finan
Christy Valencia, Deputy Director of Finance
Tara L. Taguchi, City Attorney's Office
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding the Proposed Adoption of a Resolution
Repealing and Restating the Lynwood Civil Penalty Schedule (Exhibit
I of Resolution no. 2004.128) for the Purpose of Increasing the
Penalty Amounts for Certain Parking Violations
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City Council:
1) Open the public hearing on the proposed adoption of the attached
Resolution Repealing and Restating the Lynwood Civil Penalty Schedule
(Exhibit 1 of Resolution no. 2004.128);
2) Remind the public that the public hearing on item number 8 of this
Agenda is also open and will run concurrent with this public hearing
should any person wish to offer testimony on either item;
3) Receive public testimony and Staff's report on this item and the continued
public hearing listed as item number 8 on this Agenda;
4) Close both public hearings;
5) Adopt the proposed attached resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD REPEALING AND
RESTATING THE LYNWOOD CIVIL PENALTY SCHEDULE (EXHIBIT 1
OF RESOLUTION NO. 2004.128) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING THE PENALTY AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PARKING
VIOLATIONS," if Council determines that Exhibit I of the attached
Resolution achieves the standardization of parking penalties specified in
the California Vehicle Code.
Background:
At the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting, Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC)
presented the Lynwood Cost of Services Study, which included a review of the
Lynwood Civil Penalty Schedule. The Study included a comparison of Lynwood's
parking penalties with five neighboring cities. Per the Study, Lynwood's parking
civil penalties "are on the lOwer side of the range established by the comparison."
AGENDA
r[EM
In order to comply with Government Code § 66018, which requires a local
agency to hold at least one open and public meeting prior to levying a new fee or
prior to approving a revision to an existing fee, a public hearing was held on April
18, 2006. This public hearing, which invited public comment and testimony on
the proposed changes to the parking civil penalty amounts, was continued by the
City Council to May 2, 2006. To allow additional public input, the continued April
18, 2006 hearing is being consolidated to run concurrently with a second public
hearing noticed for May 2, 2006 prior to the City Council adoption of a final
resolution.
Discussion & Analysis:
Based on the PMC Cost of Services Study, Lynwood's current parking violation
civil penalties are on the lower side of the range compared to those charged in
the cities of Paramount, South Gate, Downey, Bellflower and Compton.
Pursuant to California Vehicle Code §40203.5, the City of Lynwood is authorized
to establish as civil penalties the fine amounts for parking violations within its
jurisdiction. Section 40203.5 also authorizes the City to standardize its parking
penalties, to the greatest extent possible, with those of surrounding jurisdictions.
It is recommended that Lynwood increase the penalty amount for several
violations. The increase will establish standardization and will allow the City to
recover the increase of costs of parking enforcement.
Attached for the City Council's review and adoption is a Resolution, that repeals
and restates the existing Lynwood Civil Penalty Schedule (which was adopted in
July 2004, Resolution No. 2004-128). Exhibit "A" of the proposed resolution
contains the schedule of new parking civil penalty amounts recommended by
PMC.
Fiscal Impact:
If the proposed resolution is adopted, the estimated average annual revenue
increase is $72,514 for the General Fund, assuming parking violation citations
continue to be issued at existing levels.
Coordinated With: City Manager's Office
Development Services Department
Attachments: Resolution and its attached Exhibit A (City of Lynwood Parking
Civil Penalty Schedule)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD REPEALING AND RESTATING THE LYNWOOD
CIVIL PENALTY SCHEDULE (EXHIBIT I OF RESOLUTION NO.
2004.128) FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE PENALTY
AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PARKING VIOLATIONS
WHEREAS, Section 40203.5 of the California Vehicle Code authorizes a city to
establish as civil penalties the amount of fines for parking violation citations issued under
its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Section 40203.5 of the California Vehicle Code authorizes issuing
agencies within the same county to standardize their parking penalties to the greatest extent
possible; and
WHEREAS, on or about January 18, 1994, the City of Lynwood originally
established its parking fines and Civil Penalty Schedule by adopting Resolution No. 94-12;
and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 94-12 provided for annual review of the f'mes listed in
the Civil Penalty Schedule; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2004 the City Council of the City of Lynwood increased
its parking penalty fine amounts by adopting Resolution No. 2004.128; and
WHEREAS, parking penalty fees were recently reviewed as part of a
comprehensive cost of services study performed for the City of Lynwood by Pacific
Municipal Consultants ("PMC"); and
WHEREAS, the results of the PMC study determined that an increase in the
penalty amounts for certain parking violations in the City of Lynw°od was required in
order to achieve standardization; and
WHEREAS, the City has published a notice of public heating on the proposed
increase to the parking penalties, and held the required public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
DOES RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Exhibit 1 of Resolution 2004.128 (The Lynwood Civil Penalty
Schedule), which last established the civil penalties for parking violations in the City of
Lynwood, shall be repealed in its entirety and the City of Lynwood Parking Civil Penalty
Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted in its place.
section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
__ day of ,2006.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
J. Amoldo Beltran
City Attorney
N. Enrique Martinez
City Manager
Marianna Marysheva
Assistant City Manager- Finance
Exhibit "A"
City of Lynwood
Parking Civil Penalty Schedule
Resolution No.
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
Section & Code Violation Description Pre-May 2, Civil Penalty Change:
2006 Civil Amounts Effective Increase/
Penalty May 2, 2006 (Decrease)
Arnount~
7-20.23 LMC Street Sweeping $ 35.00 $ 40.00 $ 5.00
7-20.14 LMC NoAlley Parking $ 35.00 $ 40.00 $ 5.00
25-4.5(a)(14b2) Lawn Parking $ 35.00 $ 40:00 $ 5.00
7-14.2 LMC Drive Across Sidewalk $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.2(a)LMC For Sale $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.2(b) LMC Greasing Vehicle $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.10 LMC No Parking, Excess 72 hrs $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.13(b) LMC ,No Parking, Any Time $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.4(a)(1) LMC No Parking, Red Curb $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.4(a)(2) LMC No Parking, YellowCurb $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.4(a)(3) LMC No Parking, White Curb $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.4(a)(4) LMC No Parking, Green Zone $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.11(a) LMC Parking Left Side $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.16 LMC No Parking, Temp $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.17 LMC Parking Push CartNeh $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.20(a) LMC Parking Prohibited $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
'7-20.21(b) LMC Permit Parking $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.21c LMC Parking Restricted 1 HR $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.21(d) LMC Parking Restricted 2 HR $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.5 LMC Parking in Loading Zone $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.7 LMC :Parking in Drive/ParkWay $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.8 LMC Angle Parking $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-20.9 LMC Marking of Parking Spaces $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-21.3 LMC No Parking City Property $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
22502(a) CVC Parking 18" from curb $ 25.00 $ 35.00 $ 10.00
22502(e) CVC Curb Parking One-Way $ 25.00 $ 35.00 $ 10.00
22505(b) CVC State Highway Parking $ 15.00 $ 55.00 $ 40.00
22515CVC Unattended Vehicles $ 25.00 $ 45.00 $ 20.00
22516 CVC Locked Vehicle $ 35.00 $ 40.00 $ 5.00
22520 CVC Stopping on Freeway $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ -
22502.5(a) CVC Vending on Freeway R.O.W $ 55.00 $ 55.00 $ -
22502.5(a) CVC 2nd Offense Vending $ 55.00 $ 55.00 $
22521 CVC Illegal to Park on RRD $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 5.00
22522 CVC Parking Near Sidewalk Access $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $
22523(a)(b) CVC Abandonment Prohibited $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $
22526(a) CVC Anti-Gridlock Act $' 55.00 $ 60.00 $ 5.00
22526 (b) CVC 2nd Off. Anti-Gddlock $ 105.00 $ 105.00 $
22526(c) CVC 3rd OffAnti-Gridlock $ 255.00 $ 255.00 $ -
22951 CVC Parking Lot-Street and Alley $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 5.00
23333 CVC Stopping Parking-Vehicular $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 5.00
26710 CVC Defective VVindshield $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ -
27155 CVC Fuel Cap Required $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ -
Exhibit "A"
City of Lynwood
Parking Civil Penalty Schedule
Resolution No.
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
Section & Code Violation Description Pre-May 2, Civil Penalty Change:
2006 Civil Amounts Effective Increase/
Penalty May 2, 2006 (Decrease)
Amounts
28071 CVC Front Bumper Required $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $
i4454(a) CVC Registration Card $ 22.00 $ 30.00 $ 8.00
5201 CVC Position of Plates $ 22.00 $ 30.00 $ 8.00
5202 CVC Period of Display $ 22.00 $ 30.00 $ 8.00
4462(a) CVC Evidence of Registration $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $
4462(b) CVC Evidence of Registration Wrong
Vehicle $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $ -
7-20-15 LMC No Parking, Private property $ 55.00 $ 55.00 $ -
7-20.3 No Parking Prohibited Gen. $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $ -
7-20.6.1 LMC Safety Parking Zone $ 45.00 $ 60.00 $ 15.00
7-28.7(a) LMC Expired Meter $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ -
7-28.7(b) LMC Extended Parking $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $ -
7-28.7(c)LMC RepluggingMeter $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ -
7-28.7(d) LMC Non Designated Space $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
7-21.4 LMC Improper Manner of Parking $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $
7-21.5 LMC Use of Entrance and Exit $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $
7-20.15(b)(1) Private Property C/V $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $
7-17(I) LMC CV Parking on Residential $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $
'7-18(a) LMC Restriction on Comm. Veh $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $
7-17(b) LMC Compliance with Truck Route $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $
7-17(h) LMC Prohibit CV Parking on T/R $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ -
4000(a) CVC Registration Required $ 52.00 $ 52.00 $ -
5204(a) CVC No Tags/Expired Tags $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ -
5200 CVC Missing License Plate (F) $ 22.00 $ 25.00 $ 3.00
5200 CVC Missing License Plate ( R ) $ 22.00 $ 25.00 $ 3.00
22§00(e) CVC Blocking Driveway/Ent $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
22500(f) CVC Parking On/Across Sidewalk $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
7-29.12(a)(1)LMC Parking in RPPDw/o permit $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ -
7-20.2(c) LMC Repairing Vehicle $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $
22507.8(a) CVC Handicapped Zone (Blue) $ 330.00 $ 330.00 $
22507.8(b) CVC Blocking Disabled Parking $ 330.00 $ 330.00 $
7-20.22 LMC Unattached Trailer $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $
22514 CVC Fire Hyd./No Parking 15 Ft $ 30.00 $ 45.00 $ 15.00
21113(a) CVC Unlawful Parking $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ -
21210 CVC Bicycle Parking $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ -
21461(a) CVC Traffic Control Device $ 35.00 $ 35.00 $ -
22500(a) CVC Parking Within Intersection $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
22500(b) CVC Parking on Crosswalk $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
22500( c ) CVC Parking/Safety and Curb $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
22500(d) CVC Parking Fire Station Entrance $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
2_~)500(g) CVC Parking Along/Excavation $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
22500(h) CVC Double Parking $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
Exhibit "A"
City of Lynwood
Parking Civil Penalty Schedule
Resolution No.
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
Section & Code Violation Description Pre-May 2, Civil Penalty Change:
2006 Civil Amounts Effective Increase/
Penalty May 2, 2006 (Decrease)
Amouqt~
22500(I) CVC Parkin~l in Bus Zone $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
22500(k) CVC Parkin~l on Brid~le $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 10.00
22500(II CVC Blockin~l Wheelchair Ramp Curb $ 40.00 $ 325.00 $ 285.00
22500.1 CVC Parkin~l in Fire Lane $ 55.00 $ 55.00 $
Late payment fee after 14 days
of issuance $ 10.00 $ 10.00
$
Late payment fee after 10 days
~of mailing of notice of $ 13.00 $ 13.00
delinquency $ _
Retumed check fee $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ -
DMV hold charge $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ -
Facsimile copy of original
citation $ 2.00 $ 2.00
$ -
All parking violations not listed $ 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00
above shall have a $35 penalty.
3
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me~~
N. Enrique Uartinez, City Uanage/If'//.~
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager -
Christy Valencia, Deputy Director of Finance
Tara L. Taguchi, City Attorney's Office
Finance~
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing Regarding the Proposed Adoption of a Resolution
Amending the City of Lynwood's Fee Schedule to Establish New
and Revised Fees Charged for City Services
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the LynwOod City Council:
1) Open the public hearing on the proposed adoption of the attached
Resolution Amending The City Of Lynwood's Fee Schedule To Establish
New And Revised Fees Charged For City Services;
2) Remind the public that the public hearing on item number 10 of this
Agenda is also open and will run concurrent with this public hearing
should any person wish to offer testimony on either item;
3) Receive public testimony and Staff's report on this item and the continued
public hearing listed as item number 10 on this Agenda;
4) Close both public hearings;
5) Adopt the proposed attached resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AMENDING THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD'S FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH NEW AND
REVISED FEES CHARGED FOR CITY SERVICES," if Council
determines that it wishes to adopt the new and revised fees which are
based on the March 28, 2006 PMC Cost of Services Study and specified
in Exhibit A of the attached Resolution.
Background:
At the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting, Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC)
presented the "Lynwood Cost of Services Study". The Study identified service
areas currently subsidized by the City. The Study recommended fee increases
and/or new fees. The recommended fee changes would increase the cost
recovery level to 100% in most areas, except Recreation and Community
Services, where the recovery levels are set at 10% - 75% per the City Council
policy.
In order to comply with Government Code §§ 66016-66018, which requires the
City to hold at least one public hearing prior to levying new user fees or prior to
AGENDA
ITEM
approving a revision to an existing fee, a public hearing was held on April 18,
2006. This public hearing, which invited public comment and testimony on the
proposed changes to the City of Lynwood's Fee Schedule, was continued by the
City Council to May 2, 2006. To allow additional input from the public, the
continued April 18, 2006 hearing is being consolidated to run concurrently with a
second public hearing noticed for May 2, 2006 prior to the City Council adoption
of a final resolution.
Discussion & Analysis:
The "Lynwood Cost of Services Study" determined the City is subsidizing the
cost of services in several areas. In order to reduce or eliminate the subsidy, the
Study includes a recommendation from PMC to recover at 100% level (except
Recreation and Community Services where the recovery is limited to 10% to
75%). The table below shows that the City collects approximately $1.14 million
annually in revenues. If the City adopts PMC's recommendation, the new annual
revenue would be $1.53 million. This will result in additional General Fund
resources of $387,520. Please note that revenue from the Parking Citations
referenced in the PMC Study is not included in the table. The revised parking
penalties are presented in a separate staff report and resolution.
Existing Revenue at City Potential New
Fee Program Revenue Policy Level Revenue
Recreation $331,375 $386,561 $55,185
Planning $126,603 $175,687 $49,084
Engineering $110,242 $146,090 $35,848
Building & Safety $314,795 $396,209 $81,414
Fire $255,533 $398,522 $142,989
Misc. Fees ~ ~23,000 ~;23,000
Total* $1,138,548 $1,526,068 $387,520
In line with PMC's recommendation, attached for the City Council's review and
adoption is a Resolution that amends the City of Lynwood's Fee Schedule.
Exhibit "A" of the resolution contains the schedule of amendments (15 pages) to
the fee schedule. Except for fees that may be imposed on development projects,
the new fees specified in the resolution would become effective upon adoption on
May 2, 2006. Any fees that may be imposed on development projects, such as
building and other permit-related fees would become effective on July 2, 2006.
Fiscal Impact:
If the proposed resolution is adopted, the estimated revenue increase is
$387,520. The revenue will be accrued in the General Fund. This will reduce the
current level of subsidy to these programs and services from the General Fund.
Coordinated With: Human Resources
Environmental Services
Development Services
Recreation and Community Services
City Manager's Office
Pacific Municipal Consultants
Attachments: Resolution and its attached Exhibit "A" (Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD AMENDING THE CITY OF LYNWOOD'S FEE
SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH NEW AND REVISED FEES
CHARGED FOR CITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, presentations have been made to the Lynwood City Council at a
public meeting to discuss the Cost of Services Study dated March 28, 2006 prepared by
Pacific Municipal Consultants (the "PMC Study"); and
WHEREAS, the PMC Study provided the City with cost-of-service information,
identified service areas where the City may implement new fees and recommended fee
adjustments which do not exceed the City's costs of providing those services; and
WHEREAS, the study provided data outlining various services which are highly
subsidized primarily by the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, the reasonable costs of rendering such services should be borne by
the individuals or groups who are beneficiaries of the such services rather than the
citizenry at large; and
WHEREAS, it is the City's policy to recover costs reasonably borne for services
provided at the policy level approved by the City Council as set forth in § 6-4.4 of the
Lynwood Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, current charges are insufficient to cover all business costs associated
with providing certain services; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code §66016, the specific fees to be charged
for services must be adopted by the City Council by resolution or ordinance, after
providing notice and holding a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing has been provided pursuant to Government
Code § 6062a, copies of the PMC Study have been made available to the public, oral and
written presentations have been made and received and the required public hearing held;
and
WHEREAS, all requirements of California Government Code §§ 66016 - 66018
are hereby found to have been complied with.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby find,
order, and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the City Council approves and adopts the Schedule of
Amendments to the City of Lynwood's Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. That the new fees and adjusted fees relating to development projects
as listed in the attached Exhibit "A" shall become effective on July 2, 2006.
SECTION 3. That all other new fees and adjusted fees listed in the attached
Exhibit "A", other than those relating to development projects, shall become effective May
2, 2006.
SECTION 4. That any existing fee not specifically enumerated in the Schedule of
Amendments attached hereto as Exhibit "A" shall remain in effect at the current level and
shall be subject to the provisions of the legislative action that placed it into effect.
SECTION 5. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
~day of__.,2006.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
J. Amoldo Beltran
City Attorney
N. Enrique Martinez
City Manager
Marianna Marysheva
Assistant City Manager - Finance
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New F;~s Fee
;Planning Pm-July 2, Effective July Increases/
User Fee Service 2006 Fees 2, 2006 tDecreases)
1Appeal (City Council or Planning Commission) $ 725 $ 866 $ 141
2Cate<joricalExemption $ 32 $ 108 $ 76
3 Certification of Compliance $ 127 $ 217 $ 90
4 Conditional Use Permit $ 1,357 $ 1,949 $ 592
5 CUP Modification $ 789 $ 1,299 $ 510
6'Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration $ 63 $ 433 $ 370
7 Fence Permit $ 45 $ 54 $ 9
8 General Plan Revision $ 1,736 $ 1,949 $ 213
9 Home Occupation Appeal $ 127 $ 325 $ 198
101nitialStudy $ 380 $ 650 $ 270
11 Land Use Determination Review $ 253 $ 433 $ 180
12 Lot Line Adjustment $ 127 $ 433 $ 306
13 Lot Merger or Unmer~ler $ 127 $ 433 $ 306
14 :~arcel Map/Tract Map Subdivision $ 1,738 $ 2,165 $ 427
15 Preliminary Project Review/48 hour plan check $ 63 $ 325 $ 262
16 Property Owner Notification $ 155 $ 217 $ 62
17 Revision toApproved Plans $ 127 $ 108 $ (19)
18 (a) Room Additions $ 32 $ 27 $ (5)
19 (b) Tenant Improvement $ 32 $ 27 $ (5)
20 Sign Review and Inspection $ 76 $ 108 $ 32
21 Site Plan Review-Commercial/Industrial $ 571 $ 650 $ 79
22 Site Plan Review-Remodel/Interior Alterations $ 256 $ 433 $ 177
23 Site Plan Review-Single Family $ 255 $ 433 $ 178
24Variance $ 1,230 $ 1,949 $ 719
25 Zone Change $ 1,736 $ 2,165 $ 429
26 Extraordinary Research (Rebuild Letters) $ 68 $ 108 $ 40
~lew Fee
27 Minor Variance $ $ 325 $ 325
28 Staff Appeal $ $ 866 $ 866
Other Planning Services
29 General Plan (pages) $ 42.50 $ 17.00 $ (25.50).
30 Postage $ 4.75 $ 5.01 $ 0.26
31 TotaIGeneral Plan $ 47.25 $ 22.01 $ (25.24)
32 Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 25) (pages) $ 84.00 $ 26.70 $ (57.30)
33 Posta~le $ 4.75 $ 5.01 $ 0.26
34 Total Zoning Ordinance $ 88.75 $ 31.71 $ (57.04)
35 Zoning Maps, Blue Print $ 2.65 $ 2.65 $ -
36 Postage $ 0.60 $ 0.63 $ 0.03
37 Total Zoning Maps, Blue Print $ 3.25 $ 3.28 $ 0.03
38 Agency and City Owned Properties (pages) $ 9.00 $ 3.60 $ (5.40)
39 Postage $ 1.75 $ 1.84 $ 0.09
40! Total Agency and City Owned Properties $ 10.75 $ 5.44 $ (5.31)i
141 Copying Fees per page $ 0.25 $ 0.10 $ (0.15).
42 Postage $ 0.37 $ 0.39 $ 0.02
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Building & Safety Pre-July 2, 2006 Effective July Fee Increases/
User Fee Service Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
1 Real Property Report $ 186 $ 204 $ 18
2 Fire Dept. permit issuance fee $ 38 $ 38 $
3 Mobile home installation $ $ 81 $ 81
4 House moving permit $ - $ 788 $ 788
5 New Private In-Ground Swimming Pool $ $ 109 $ 109
Other types of swimming pools, therapeutic,
whirlpools, spas, hot tubs and alterations to
6 existing swimming pools, each $ $ 65 $ 65
Air conditioning commercial, plan check
7 (assume 30 sq. ft.) $ - $ 4 $ 4
Air conditioning residential, plan check
8 (assume 17 sq. ft.) $ $ 4 $ 4
91Plan check by the hour (outside consultant) $ 100 $ 100 $ -
Accelerated plan check fee
10 (50% more of regular Plan Check fee) Based on Plan Check Fee
SMIP FEE:
(X 0.0001 for Residential and X 0.00021 for
11! Commercial) Based on valuation & formula
121SPECIAL INSPECTION FEE $ 50 $ 87 $ 37
13 RE-INSPECTION FEE $ 50 $ 87 $ 37
SPECIAL INSPECTION FEE: Outside
14i normal business hours (2 hr. min.) $ 100 $ 174 $ 74
INSPECTION: For work started without
151 permits, plus double permit fees $ 50 $ 87 $ 37
16 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $ 1,000 $ 1,000
17 Temporary Utility Bond $ 5,000 $ 5,000
18 Board of Appeals Fee $ $ 1,076 $ 1,076
Fees per Mile for investigations of property
located outside city limits (assume 5 miles
19 and mileage reimbursement at IRS rate) $ $ 18 $ 18
20 Inspecting fee for temporary mobile office $ $ 299 $ 299
21 Permit verification letter $ $ 27 $ 27
22 Permit issuance fee $ 38 $ 38 $ (0)
23 Supplemental permitfee $ 20 $ 19 $ (1)
Minimum fee (permit issuance fee + .25 hrs
24 inspector time) $ $ 59 $ 59
25 ELECTRICAL:
26 Services Main or sub-panels
27 100 or 200 AMPS each $ 10 $ 29 $ 19
28 400 to 1,000AMPS each $ 10 $ 62 $ 52
29 1001 and moreAMPS each $ 10 $ 125 $ 115
30 Temporary power- main or pole, each $ 8 $ 65 $ 58
31 Temporary power distribution circuit, each $ 8 $ 65 $ 58
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Building & Safety Pre-July 2, 2006 Effective July Fee Increases/
User Fee Service Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
New Residential - Habitable space per Sq.
32 Ft.
One and Two Family Dwellings (per Sq. Ft.)
33 (assume 1400 sq. fi) $ - $ 0 $ 0
Multi Family (per Sq. Ft.) (assume 1900 sq.
34ft) $ - $ o $ 0
35 ;ixtures $ -
36 Switches, outlets, lights - First 20, each $ 1 $ 1 $ 0
37 Switches, outlets, lights - next 10, each $ 0 $ I $ 0
38 Special light assembly, each $ - $ I $ 1
Appliances - Motors, generators and
39 HVAC's
40 0 to 1 Horse power, each $ 3 $ 4 $ 1
41 2to10 Horse power, each $ 8 $ 13 $ 6
42 11to50 Horse power, each $ 30 $ 35 $ 5
43 51 to 100 Horse power, each $ 35 $ 43 $ 8
44 Over 100 Horse Power, each $ 45 $ 87 $ 42
45 Buss ways per 100 In. ft. $ - $ 4 $ 4
46 Signs, each $ 10 $ 22 $ 12
47 Carnivals, Circus, Mobile Exhibits
Generators, electrical driven amusement
48 rides, each $ 3 $ 35 $ 32
Lighted exhibits, booths, and mechanical
49 rides, each $ 3 $ 17 $ 14
Miscellaneous apparatus and circuits not
50listed, each $ 3 $ 22 $ 19
51 Electrical permit base fee $ - $ 19 $ 19
52 Electrical permit issuance fee $ 38 $ 38 $
53 Electrical supplemental permit fee $ - $ 19 $ 19
Minimum Electrical fee (permit issuance fee
54 + .25 hrs inspector time) $ - $ 59 $ 59
55 PLUMBING:
56 Plumbin~l fixtures, each
57 Toilets, urinals, bidets $ 6 $ 9 $ 3
58 Tubs, showers, lavatories $ 6 $ 9 $ 3
59 Laundry tubs, washing machines $ 6 $ 9 $ 3
Kitchen sinks, wet bar sinks, garbage
60disposers $ 6 $ 9 $ 3
61 Dishwashers $ 6 $ 9 $ 3
62 Roof drains, floor drains, floor sinks $ 6 $ 9 $ 3
63 Other fixtures and appliances not listed $ 6 $ 9 $ 3
Repairs, alterations to existing, each
64 fixture
65 Repair waste to any of the above $ $ 4 $ 4
3
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Building & Safety Pre-July 2, 2006 Effective July Fee Increases/
User Fee Service Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
66 Repair water to any of the above $ - $ 4 $ 4
67 Water Heaters, each $ 8 $ 13 $ 6
68 Sewer connections, each $ 15 $ 22 $ 7
69 Waste interceptors, each $ - $ 22 $ 22
70 Lawn sprinklers
71 System with I anti-siphon $ 9 $ 13 $ 4
72 Additional anti-siphons up to 5 $ 9 $ 13 $ 4
73 Additional anti-siphons over 5 $ 9 $ 4 $ (5)
74 Hose Bibb, each $ 9 $ 9 $ (0)
75 Miscellaneous fixtures not listed, each $ 12 $ 22 $ 10
76 Plumbing permit base fee $ $ 19 $ 19
77.Plumbing permit issuance fee $ 38 $ 38 $ (0)
78 Plumbing supplemental permit fee $ $ 19 $ 19
Minimum Plumbing fee (permit issuance fee
79 + .25 hrs inspector time) $ $ 59 $ 59
80 MECHANICAL:
81 Furnace, Force Air, Wall, Floor, each
82 0-100,000 BTU's $ 9 $ 22 $ 13
83 Over 100,000 BTU's $ 11 $ 43 $ 32
84 Boilers, Compressors, each
850-3HorsePower $ 9 $ 17 $ 8
86 Over 3 to15 Horse Power $ 17 $ 26 $ 10
87 Over 15 to 30 Horse Power $ 22 $ 43 $ 21
88 Over 30 to 50 Horse Power $ 34 $ 65 $ 32
89 Over 50 Horse Power $ 56 $ 100 $ 44
90 Absorption Systems, A/C Units, each
91 Up to l00,000 BTU's $ 11 $ 17 $ 6
92 Over 100,000 BTU's to 500,000 BTU's $ 11 $ 26 $ 15
93 Over 500,000 BTU's to 1,000,000 BTU's $ 11 $ 43 $ 32
94 Over 1,000,000 BTU's to 1,750,000 BTU~'s $ 11 $ 65 $ 54
95 Over 1,750,000 BTU's $ 11 $ 100 $ 89
96 Evaporative Coolers, each $ 7 $ 13 $ 7
97 Appliance Vents, each $ 9 $ 8 $ (1)
98 Air Handlers, each
99 Up to 10,000 cu/ff/mn. $ 7 $ 12 $ 6
100 Over 10,000cu/ft/mn. $ 11 $ 21 $ 10
101' Ventilators, each
102Vent fans $ 9 $ 8 $ (1)
103 Ventilation system or Hood system $ 9 $ 12 $ 3
104 Incinerators, each
105 Domestic $ - $ 21 $ 21
106 Commercial/Industrial $ - $ 51 $ 51
107 Miscellaneous fixtures not listed, each $ 7 $ 22 $ 15
108 Mechanical permit base fee $ $ 19 $ 19
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Building & Safety Pre-July 2, 2006 Effective July Fee Increases/
User Fee Service Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
109 Mechanical permit issuance fee $ 38 $ 38 $ (0)
110 Mechanical supplemental permit fee $ $ 19 $ 19
Minimum Mechanical fee (permit issuance
111 fee + .25 hrs inspector time) $ $ 59 $ 59
112 OTHER PERMIT FEES
113 PATIOSr per sq. ft.
114 Enclosed patios $ $ 84 $ 84
115 Solid roof patios $ $ 41 $ 41
116 Open lattice patio $ $ 41 $ 41
Wrought Iron Fence (per sq. fi) (assume 24
117 sq. ft) $ $ 3 $ 3
NEW GABLE/HIP ROOFS Over existing fiat
118 roof, persq, ft. $ $ 22 $ 22
119 GARAGE CONVERSIONS, per sq. ft. $ $ 51 $ 51
120 CONVERT PATIO TO ROOM, per sq. ft. $ $ 51 $ 51
121 TRASH ENCLOSURES, each:
122 Single container $ $ 87 $ 87
123 Double container $ - $ 174 $ 174
124 BLOCK WALLS, per linear foot
125 6 inch residential $ - $ 43 $ 43
126 8 inch commercial/industrial $ - $ 65 $ 65
127 ROOFS, per sq. foot
128 Reroof- new layer over existin~l $ - $ 125 $ 125
129 Reroof - tear off & new layer $ - $ 146 $ 146
130 Reroof- new sheathing & new layer $ - $ 190 $ 190
131 ,SIGNSr per sq. ft.
132 Pole $ - $ 43 $ 43
133 Monument $ - $ 43 $ 43
134 Cabinet $ - $ 43 $ 43
135 Channel letter $ - $ 43 $ 43
136 RESEARCH FEE, perhour $ 68 $ 75 $ 7
137 FEE FOR COPIES $ 0.25 $ 0.10 $ (0)
Construction Permits
Recommended
Fee @ Policy Increased Fee
Total Valuation Existing Fee Level @ Policy Level
138 Up to $500 $ 38 $ 38 $ -
$501.00 to $2,000.00
$ 38 $ 38 $ -
1391 $__ for the first $500 plus
!$__ for each additional $100, or fraction
140 thereof, to and including $2,000 $ 6 $ 6 $
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00
141 $__ for the first $2,000 plus $ 100 $ 100 $
5
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Building & Safety Pre-July 2, 2006 Effective July Fee Increases/
User Fee Service Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
$__ for each additional $1,000, or fraction
142 thereof, to and including $25,000 $ 11 $ 14 $ 3
$25,001 to $50,000.00
143 :$__ for the first $25,000 plus $ 359 $ 391 $ 32
$__ for each additional $1,000, or fraction
144 thereof, to and includin~l $50,000 $ 9 $ 10 $ 1
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00
145 $__ for the first $50,000 plus $ 578 $ 644 $ 66
$~ for each additional $1,000, or fraction
146 thereof, to and includin~l $100,000 $ 6 $ 7 $ 1
$100,001 to $500,000
147 $~forthe first $100,000 plus $ 890 $ 994 $ 104
$~ for each additional $1,000, or fraction
148 thereof, to and including $500,000 $ 5 $ 6 $ 1
$500,001 to $1,000,000.00
149 $__ for the first $500,000 plus $ 3,234 $ 3,234
$__ for each additional $1,000, or fraction
150 thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $ 5 $ 5
$1,000,001.00 and up
151 $__ for the first $1,000,000 plus $ 5,609 $ 5,609
$~ for each additional $1,000, or fraction
152 thereof. $ 4 $ 4
Plan Check Fees
65% of constr.
permit fee
(includes
original plan
65% of constr, review and 1
1531Building Plan Check Fee permit fee recheck) 0
Additional Plan Reviews $86.97 per hour,
154 (for revisions or additions to plans) 0% minimum 1 hour $ 87
25% of bldg. plan 25% of bldg.
155 Electrical Plan Check Fee check fee plan check fee 0
25% of bldg. plan 25% of bldg.
156 Plumbing Plan Check Fee check fee plan check fee 0
25% of bldg. plan 25% of bldg.
157 ,Mechanical Plan Check Fee check fee plan check fee 0
10% of building 10% of building
158 Title 24-Energy Efficiency Plan Check 0% plan check fee plan check fee
10% of building 10% of building
159 Title 24-Disabled Access Plan Check 0% plan check fee plan check fee
Exhibit
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Building & Safety Pre-July 2, 2006 Effective July Fee Increases/
User Fee Service Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
Gradin~l Permit Fees
Recommended
Fee @ Policy Increased Fee
Volume Existing Fee Level @ Policy Level
160 50 cubic yards or less $ $ 24 $ 24
161 51 to 100 cubic yards $ 13 $ 37 $ 24
101 to 1,000 cubic yards
162 Sm for the fimt 100 cubic yards plus $ 19 $ 37 $ 18
$__ for each additional 100 cubic yards or
163 fraction thereof. $ - $ 18 $ 18
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
164 $__ for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $ 25 $ 195 $ 170
$__ for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or
165 fraction thereof. $ - $ 15 $ 15
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards
166 $~ for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $ 25 $ 325 $ 300
Sm for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or
167 fraction thereof $ 13 $ 66 $ 53
100,001 cubic yards and up
168 5~ for the fimt100,000 cubic yards plus $ 138 $ 919 $ 781
$__ for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or
169 fraction thereof $ 8 $ 37 $ 29
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
Pm-duly 2, 2006 Fees New Fees Effective July 2, 2006
Public Works Engineering Fee Per
User Fee Services Residential Commercial Base Fee * ** Variable Fee Unit
1Curb or Gutter Only (linear foot) $ 2 $ 4 $ 125 $ 2.30
2 Curb and Gutter Construction (linear foot) $ 2 $ 4 $ 125 $ 2.30
3 Sidewalk Construction (scI. foot) $ I $ 2 $ 125 $ 1.00
4 Pavement Construction (scI. foot) $ 0.30 $ 0.40 $ 125 $ 0.20
5 Gdnd and Oveday (sq. foot) $ 0.30 $ 0.40 $ 125 $ 0.20
6 Ddveway Construction - Commercial $ $ 200 $ 184
7 Ddveway Construction - Residential $ 100 $ - $ 184
8 Sanita~ Sewer Main and Lateral (Lane ft.) $ 11 $ 11 $ 125 $ 2.30
9 Sewer Saddle Inspection $ 237 $ 237 $ 184
10 Sewer Manhole Construction $ 237 $ 237 $ 184
11 Adjust Existin~l Manhole $ 60 $ 120 $ 184
12 Water Main Construction (linear foot) $ 3 $ 3 $ 125 $ 2.30
13 Water Service Construction $ 100 $ 100 $ 184
14 Water Meters, Valve Construction $ 100 $ 100 $ 184
15i Fire Hydrant Installation $ 271 $ 271 $ 204
l( Storm Drain (linear foot) $ 3 $ 3 $ 125 $ 2.30
17 Catch Basin Construction $ 120 $ 120 $ 204
1~ Curb Drain Construction $ 50 $ 50 $ 184
lC~ Tree Plantin~l/Well Construction $ 67 $ 67 $ 184
2¢ Wheelchair Ramp Construction $ 120 $ 120 $ 184
21 Street Li~lht Installation/Relocation $ 120 $ 120 $ 184
22 Residential Trash Bin $ 18 $ $ 134
22 Road Closure $ 254 $ 254 $ 174
2,~ Off Street Handicap Parkin~l $ 250 $ 250 $ 178
2~ Industrial Waste Permit $ 233 $ 233 $ 149
2(~ Encroachment Permit $ 50 $ 315 $ 246
27 Filin~l Fee $ 22 $ 22 $ 28
2~ Flood Zone Letter $ 25 $ 25 $ 49
2c~ Subdivision Plan Processin~,i $ 342 $ 342 $ 350
3(; Improvement Plan Check $ 2,065 $ 2,065 $ 2,227
31 Gradin~l Plan Check $ 1,265 $ 1,265 $ 1,409
32 ROW Vacation $ 1,290 $ 2,573 $ 1,811
33 CIP Permit Fee $ 120 $ 120 $ 155
New Fees
34 Tree Trimming/Root Prunincj $ $ $ 184 $ 16.94
35 Tree Removal/Stump Removal $ - $ $ 184 $ 16.94
36 Flow Test $ - $ $ 243
37 Bacterial Test $ - $ $ 132
Abandonment of Existing Sewer or Water
38 Services $ - $ $ 184
39 Hydrostatic Test (New water main constr.I $ - $ $ 313
40 Traffic Control Plan Check Fee $ - $ $ 143
411Hourly Rate $ 95 $ 95 $ 98
· Per 50 Linear Ft., 100 Sq. Ft Sidewalk or 500 Square Ft. of other. Minimum units used by other jurisdictions, or based
on data from pdor fee study.
· * Vadable fee after 10 trees. I [ I I I
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective May 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees Fee
Recreation Pre-May 2, Effective May Increases/
User Fee Services 2006 Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
1 Lynwood Resident Non-Profit Groups (C)
2 Community Center
3 Day Rate (per hr)
4 Gymnasium (4 hr min) $ 10 $ 40 $ 30
5Room#1(4hrmin) $ 8 $ 38 $ 30
6 Evening Rate {per hr)
7 Gymnasium (4 hr min) $ 15 $ 45 $ 30
8Room#1(4hrmin) $ 12 $ 42 $ 30
9 Car Washes (per date) $ 13 $ 13 $ 1
10 City Park
11 Dali Rate {per hr)
12 Ball Diamond (2 hr min) $ 12 $ 25 $ 13
13 Soccer Field (2 hr min) $ 12 $ 25 $ 13
14 Evening Rate (per hr)
15 Ball Diamond (2 hr min) $ 15 $ 28 $ 13
16 Soccer Field (2 hr min) $ 12 $ 25 $ 13
17 Diamond Light Usage
18 Diamond#1 (perhour) $ 10 $ 10 $ 1
191 Diamond #2 (per hour) $ 9 $ 9 $ 1
20 Natatorium (pool) {2 hr rain)
210to150 $ 40 $ 65 $ 25
22 151 to 200 $ 46 $ 71 $ 25
23 201 to 250 $ 75 $ 100 $ 25
24 Bateman Hall
25 Saturday Events $ 2,925 $ 2,925 $
26 Sundaythru Fdday (dancing) $ 2,010 $ 2,010 $
27 Saturday (no dancing) $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $
28 Sunday thru Fd ( no dancing) $ 945 $ 945 $
29 Room 1 or Room 2
30 Daily Events (dancing) $ 828 $ 828 $
31iSaturday Reservations ( no dancing) $ 700 $ 700 $
32iSunday thru Fdday (no dancing) $ 465 $ 465 $
33iLlinwood Youth Center
341
Day Rate (4 Hrmin) $ 8 $ 38 $ 30
351Evening Rate(4 Hr min) $ 12 $ 42 $ 30
36iDeposits
37iBall Diamond $ 100 $ 100 $
38Gymnasium $ 100 $ 100 $
39!Room # 1, and Youth Center $ 40 $ 40 $
40 Security Guards (per hour/perguard/5hr min) $ 15 $ 15 $
411
421Lynwood Residents
z~43 Community Center
Day Rate (per hr)
451Gymnasium(4hrmin) $ 15 $ 45 $ 30
461Room#1(4hrmin) $ 10 $ 40 $ 30
9
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective May 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees Fee
Recreation Pre-May 2, Effective May Increases/
User Fee Services 2006 Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
47 Racquetball Court (1 hr min) $ 2 $ 10 $ 8
48 Evenin~l Rate (per hr)
49 Gymnasium (4 hr min) $ 20 $ 50 $ 30
50 Room #1(4 hr min) $ 15 $ 45 $ 30
51 Racquetball Court (1 hr min) $ 2 $ 10 $ 8
52 City Park
53 Day Rate (per hr)
54 Ball Diamond (2 hr min) $ 20 $ 33 $ 13
55 Soccer Field (2 hr min) $ 15 $ 28 $ 13
56 Evenin9 Rate (per hr)
57 Ball Diamond (2 hr min) $ 25 $ 38 $ 13
58 Soccer Field (2 hr min) $ 15 $ 28 $ 13
59 Diamond Li~lht Usable
60 Diamond #1 (per hour) $ 10 $ 10 $ 1
61 Diamond#2 (perhour) $ 9 $ 9 $ 1
62 Natatorium (pool) (2 hr min)
630to150 $ 40 $ 65 $ 25
64 151 to 200 $ 46 $ 71 $ 25
65 201 to 250 $ 75 $ 100 $ 25
66 Bateman Hall
67 Saturday Events $ 3,025 $ 3,025 $
68 Sunday through Friday (dancing) $ 2,010 $ 2,010 $
69 Saturday (no dancing) $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $
70 Sunday throu~lht Fd (no dancin~l) $ 1,095 $ 1,095 $
71 Room t or 2
72 Daily Events (dancin~l) $ 828 $ 828 $
73 Saturday Reservations (no dancing) $ 700 $ 700 $
74 Sunday thru Friday (no dancin~l) $ 600 $ 600 $
75 Lynwood Youth Center
76 Day Rate (4 Hrmin) $ 10 $ 40 $ 30
77 Evening! Rate (4 Hr min) $ 15 $ 45 $ 30
78 Deposits
79BallDiamond $ 100 $ 100 $
80 Gymnasium $ 100 $ 100 $
81 Room# 1, and Youth Center $ 40 $ 40 $
82 Security Guards (per hour/per~luard/5hr min) $ 15 $ 15 $
83
84 Lynwood Non-Residents (E)
85 Communi~ Center
86 Day Rate (per hr)
87 Gymnasium (4 hr min) $ 25 $ 55 $ 30
88 Room#1(4hrmin) $ 15 $ 45 $ 30
89 Racquetball Court (1 hr min) $ 2 $ 10 $ 8
90 Evenin~l Rate (per hr)
91 Gymnasium (4 hr min) $ 30 $ 60 $ 30
92 Room#1(4hrmin) $ 20 $ 50 $ 30
I0
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective May 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees Fee
Recreation Pre-May 2, Effective May Increases/
User Fee Services 2006 Fees 2, 2006 (Decreases)
93 RacquetbalI Court (1 hrmin) $ 2 $ 10 $ 8
94 City Park
95 Dall Rate {per hr)
96 Ball Diamond {2 hr min) $ 25 $ 38 $ 13
97 Soccer Field (2 hr min) $ 25 $ 38 $ 13
98 Evenincj Rate {per hr)
99 Ball Diamond (2 hrmin) $ 35 $ 48 $ 13
100 Soccer Field {2 hr min) $ 25 $ 38 $ 13
101 Diamond Li~lht Usable
102 Diamond#1 (per hour) $ 10 $ 10 $ 1
103 Diamond#2 {perhour) $ 9 $ 9 $ 1
104 Natatorium {pool) {per hour. 2 hr min)
1050to150 $ 63 $ 88 $ 25
106 151to200 $ 75 $ 100 $ 25
107 201 to 250 $ 95 $ 120 $ 25
108 Bateman Hall
109 Saturday Events $ 3,175 $ 3,175 $ -
110 Sunday through Friday (dancing) $ 2,010 $ 2,010 $ -
111 Saturday {no dancing) $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ -
112 Sunday through Fri {no dancing) $ 1,095 $ 1,095 $ -
113 Room I or2
114i Daily Events {dancing) $ 828 $ 828 $ -
115 Saturday Reservations ( no dancing) $ 700 $ 700 $ -
1161Sunday thru Friday (no dancing) $ 600 $ 600 $ -
117 Llinwood Youth Center
1181Day Rate (4 Hr min) $ 15 $ 45 $ 30
1191Evening Rate(4 Hr min) $ 20 $ 50 $ 30
120!Deposits
121 Ball Diamond $ 100 $ 100 $ -
122!Gymnasium $ 100 $ 100 $ -
123iRoom # 1, and Youth Center $ 40 $ 40 $ -
124 Security Guards {per hour/perguard/5hr min) $ 15 $ 15 $ -
125,
126;Governmental A~lencies (FI
127 {limited to Bateman Hall use only)
128 Saturday Events $ 3,175 $ 3,175 $ -
129 Sunday through Friday (dancing) $ 2,010 $ 2,010 $ -
130 Saturday {no dancing) n/a n/a
131; Sunday through Fri (no dancing) $ 377 $ 377 $ -
132 Room 1 or 2
133 Daily Events (dancing) $ 828 $ 828 $
134iSaturday Reservations (no dancing) $ 700 $ 700 $
135ISunday thru Friday (no dancing) $ 150 $ 150 $
136
137 Recreation and Community Services
138 Softball-Adult {per team) $ 275 $ 330 $ 55
il
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective May 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees Fee
Recreation Pre-May 2, Effective May Increases/
User Fee Services 2006 Fees 2, 2006 tDecreases)
139 Basketball-Adult (per team) $ 275 $ 330 $ 55
~140 Baseball- Youth (a~les 5 to 6) $ 50 $ 53 $ 3
141 Baseball- Youth (a~les 7 to 14) $ 55 $ 58 $ 3
142 Basketball- Youth (per participant) $ 45 $ 48 $ 3
143 Soccer- Youth (per participant) $ 40 $ 43 $ 3
144 !Tennis (per session) $ 13 $ 22 $ 9
145 Racquetball (per sessionI $ 2 $ 10 $ 8
146 Excursions Processin~l Fee $ 5 $ 5 $ -
147Da¥Camp $ 175 $ 210 $ 35
148 Skate Park $ - $ - $ -
149 Swim Lesson Child $ 17 $ 22 $ 5
150 Swim Lesson Adult $ 22 $ 27 $ 5
151 Recreation Swim Child $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ -
152 Recreation Swim Adult $ 1.50 $ 3.00 $ 2
12
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Effective Fee
Fire Pre-July 2, July 2, Increases/
User Fee Services 2006 Fees 2006 (Decreases)
Group A
1 Clubs, Iod~les, recreation halls $ 328 $ 442 $ 114
2!Churches under 5,000 sq. ft. $ 190 $ 314 $ 124
3 Churches over 5,000 sq. ft. $ 285 $ 351 $ 66
4 Restaurants (over 50 people) $ 346 $ 442 $ 97
5 Restaurants (under 50 people) $ 302 $ 407 $ 105
6Restaurants(takeout) $ 199 $ 314 $ 116
7 Bowling AIleys $ 346 $ 442 $ 97
8 Dance Studios or Ball Rooms $ 302 $ 407 $ 105
9 Mortuaries and Chapels $ 173 $ 314 $ 142
10 Any occupancy w/liquor license add $ 216 $ 351 $ 135
Group E-3 Da}/Care Centers
11 l to 25 Children $ 130 $ 330 $ 201
12:26 to 25 Children $ 216 $ 380 $ 164
13 Over50 Children $ 302 $ 430 $ 128
Group I - OCCUrna-qcies
14 50 beds or less $ 259 $ 758 $ 499
15 51beds to 99 beds $ 432 $ 1,109 $ 677
16 100 beds or more $ 778 $ 2,594 $ 1,816
Group H - Occupancies
H-1 Storage, handling or use of explosives
17 Chemical Plants (under 10,000 sq. ft.) $ 864 $ 629 $ (235)
18 Chemical Plants (10,000 to 25,000 sq. ft.) $ 1,037 $ 815 $ (222)
19 Chemical Plants (25,000 to 50,000 sq. ft.) $ 1,210 $ 1,036 $ (174)
20 Chemical Plants (50,000 to 100,000 sq. ft.) $ 1,598 $ 1,444 $ (155)
21 Chemical Plants (100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft.) $ 2,160 $ 1,814 $ (346)
22 Chemical Plants over200,000 sq. ft. $ 3,110 $ 2,221 $ (889)
H-2 Class I, II, III Flammable Liquids, Gases
H-3 Dusts, Cryo~lenics
23 Under 5,000 sq. ft. $ 605 $ 552 $ .(53)
24 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. $ 778 $ 959 $ 182
25 10,000top 25,000 sq. ft. $ 950 $ 1,146 $ 195
26 25,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. $ 1,339 $ 1,329 $ (10)
27 Over S0,000 sq. ft. $ 1,728 $ 1,516 $ (212)
-I-4 Automotive Repair
28 Under 5,000 sq. ft. $ 328 $ 517 $ 189
29 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. $ 432 $ 738 $ 306
30 10,000 top 25,000 sq. ft. $ 648 $ 996 $ 348
31 25,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. $ 1,123 $ 1,180 $ 57
32 Over 50,000 sq. ft. $ 1,555 $ 1,404 $ (151)
Group B - Occupancies
B-I Gasoline Service Stations
33 Minor Repairs under 2,500 sq. ft. $ 199 $ 186 $ (13)
34 2,500 to 5,000 sq. ft. $ 259 $ 278 $ 19
35.Over 5,000 sq. ft. $ 302 $ 351 $ 48
B-2 Wholesale and Retail Stores
36 Under 2,500 sq. ft. $ 130 $ 186 $ 56
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective July 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
New Fees
Effective Fee
Fire Pre-July 2, July 2, Increases/
User Fee Services 2006 Fees 2006 (Decreases)
37i 2,500 to 5,000 sq. ft. $ 173 $ 278 $ 106
3815,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. $ 302 $ 351 $ 48
391 10,000 top 25,000 sq. ft. $ 218 $ 442 $ 224
40! Over 25,000 sq. ft. $ 691 $ 629 $ (62)
Office Buildings
41 Under2,500 sq. ft. $ 130 $ 186 $ 56
42 2,500to 5,000 sq. ft. $ 173 $ 278 $ 106
43 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. $ 302 $ 351 $ 48
44 Over 10,000 sq. ft. $ 518 $ 536 $ 17
B-4 Warehouses of Non-Combustible Mtls.
45 Under 5,000 sq. ft. $ 302 $ 220 $ (82)
46 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. $ 389 $ 220 $ (169)
47 10,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. $ 475 $ 374 $ (102)
48 25,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. $ 691 $ 592 $ (99)
49 50,000 to100,000 sq. ft. $ 1,210 $ 1,092 $ (117)
50 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft. $ 1,555 $ 1,306 $ (249)
51 Over 200,000 sq. ft. $ 1,901 $ 1,357 $ (543)
Group J - Oxygen Systems
i52 6,000 to 12,000 Cubic Feet Capacity $ 259 $ 552 $ 293
53 Morethan 12,000 Cubic Fee Capacity $ 346 $ 959 $ 614
Group R - Hotels & Apartments
54 Hotels & Motels $ 173 $ 315 $ 142
(plus $1.75 per unit)
55 Apartment Buildin~ls over 4 Units $ 104 $ 315 $ 211
(plus $1.75 per unit)
General Use Fire Clearance
{Special Permits)
Truck Terminals
i56 Under 10,000 sq. ft. $ 518 $ 386 $ (132)
57 Over 10,000 sq. ft. $ 605 $ 645 $ 40
58 Auto Salvage Yard $ 518 $ 609 $ 90
59 Fireworks Stand Inspection Fee $ 552 $ 573 $ 21
60 ChdstmasTree Lot $ 432 $ 201 $ (231)
61Circus (per day) $ 147 $ 215 $ 68
621Carnival (per day) $ 104 $ 215 $ 111
63 Fire Reports $ 45 $ 47 $ 2
641EMS reports $ 45 $ 47 $ 2
65 Spdnklers Type1, av910heads $ 1,185 $ 1,230 $ 45
66i Sprinklers Type 1, av9 50 heads $ 5,164 $ 5,355 $ 191
67' Spdnklers Type1, av,q100 heads $ 5,720 $ 5,934 $ 214
68 Junior Sprinkler System $ 104 $ 109 $ 5
69 Sprinklers Type 2, av~l 3 heads $ 70 $ 72 $ 2
70 Sprinklers Type 3, av~l 2 outlets $ 127 $ 133 $ 6
71 Fire Alarm System $ 279 $ 289 $ 10
72
Five Year Alarm Test $ 175 $ 181 $ 6
Exhibit A
The Schedule of Amendments
to the City of Lynwood Fee Schedule
Fee Amendments effective May 2, 2006
Resolution
Resolution Date: May 2, 2006
Pre-May New Fees
Misc. User 2, 2006 Effective May 2, Fee Increases/
Fee Services Fees 2006 (Decreases)
1 False Alarm $ 32 $ 46 $ 14
2 Photocopy $ 0.25 $ 0.10 $ (0.15)
15
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Mo/~'~ anc. n~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Managey/(.,~./'~'//.
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Fin
Christy Valencia, Deputy Director of Finance
Tara L. Taguchi, City Attorney's Office
SUBJECT:
Continued Public Hearing Regarding the Proposed Adoption of an
Ordinance Establishing a Development Impact Fee Program in the
City of Lynwood and the Adoption of Impact Fees to be Imposed on
New Developments in the City
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City
Council:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Open the continued public hearing regarding the above items;
Receive public testimony and Staff's report on the above items;
Close the public hearing on both of the above items;
Effectuate final passage by second reading of the attached Ordinance
entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD ADDING A NEW SECTION 11-19 TO CHAPTER 11 OF
THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM" if
Council determines that an Impact Fee Program should be
established.
(Note: No action will taken on the resolution adopting the Schedule of
Impact Fees and the Development Impact Fee Study as part of this
item. A separate public hearing, item number 12 on this Agenda, is
being held for that purpose).
Background: At the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting, the City Council
received a Staff Report, a Comprehensive Impact Fee Study prepared by Pacific
Municipal Consultants ("PMC") and a presentation by PMC regarding the
establishment of a Development Impact Fee Program in the City of Lynwood.
The purpose of the Study was to determine the impact of new developments on
the City's infrastructure, document the nexus between the New Developments
and the adverse impacts on public infrastructure, and to assess the appropriate
cost that applicable law permits the City to impose on New Developments to
ameliorate said impacts to the greatest extent possible.
AGENDA
ITEM
On April 18, 2006, the City held a public hearing on these items to and made
available to the public copies of the 3129106 Pacific Municipal Consultants
Comprehensive Impact Fee Study to comply with the provisions of the Fee
Mitigation Act (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.).
On April 18, 2006, the City Council also introduced the attached Ordinance
entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD ADDING A NEW SECTION 11-19 TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE
LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM" for first reading by title only
continued the public hearing to May 2, 2006 to permit additional public comment
prior to the City Council adoption of a final resolution establishing the
Development Impact Fee Schedule and final passage of the attached ordinance.
Discussion & Analysis: To establish a Development Impact Fee Program in
the City, the City Council must: (1) adopt for final passage the proposed enabling
ordinance establishing the parameters of the program; (2) hold at least one
public hearing to receive public comment on the Fee Study prior to adopting any
specific impact fee; and (3) make specific findings regarding the nexus Study
prepared by PMC in conjunction with adopting the resolution to establish the
initial Development Impact Fee Schedule applicable to all New Development
projects in the City.
1. THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ENABLING ORDINANCE
The attached ordinance, which was introduced for first reading at the April 18,
2006 meeting following a public hearing, provides the mechanism by which the
Impact Fee Program will be implemented and creates the framework for proper
adoption, assessment and calculation of the Impact Fee, as well as the
maintenance and reporting requirements for the Impact Fee Fund and its
accounts. The key components of the ordinance are summarized below:
· Applicability of Impact Fee
· Applies to all New Development and Development Proiects requiring
building permits and other land use approval documents
· Exempts remodeling and reconstruction of existing residential structures
provided no additional dwelling units are created and there is no change of
use
· Exempts.. remodeling and reconstruction of existing non-residential
structures provided there is no increase in square footage and no change in
use
· Exempts statutory development agreements and development projects with
vested rights or building permits obtained prior to the effective date of the
ordinance
· Exempts DDA's in existence on the effective date of the ordinance, unless
those DDA's provide for later imposition of impact fees
2
Establishes that the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee ("PFDIF") will
fund capital projects in the following public facilities categories:
· Police Services ·Water Facilities
· Parks and Recreation Facilities ·Wastewater Facilities
· Technological Enhancements · Childcare Facilities
· Noise Monitoring System · Civic Center/City Garage
· Establishes that the Transportation Development Impact Fee ("TDIF") will
fund capital projects related to traffic and transportation
· Permits amendment by resolution to the PFDIF and TDIF categories and the
capital projects within them
Permits Adoption of the initial Development Impact Fee Schedule by
resolution provided the findings in the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §66000
et seq.) have been met
· Annual adjustments to the Fee Schedule to account for escalation in
construction costs may be made by resolution based on the "Engineering
News Record's Construction Cost Index--20 Cities Annual Average"
Establishes the annual and five-year review of the Impact Fee Program and
accounting requirements for the PFDIF and TDIF Funds pursuant to Gov.
Code §66000 et seq.
· Funds must not be commingled with other funds of the City and shall bear
interest
· A separate Fund with sub-accounts for each public facility category must be
created for deposit of the PFDIF
· A separate Fund must be created for deposit of the TDIF
· Funds must be expended only for the public facilities for which they were
collected (and for administrative costs established by a set percentage)
· 180 days after the end of each fiscal year, Director of Finance must provide
to the public and to the City Council reports required by Gov. Code §66006(b)
· Every fifth fiscal year the City must make the findings required by Gov.
Code §66001(d) with respect to all Impact Fee funds collected
Establishes time of payment of the Impact Fee
· Non-residential projects must remit prior to receiving building permits
· Residential projects must remit fees prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy or final inspection (payment can be collected earlier if provisions
specified in Gov. Code §66007 are present)
Enforcement Provisions
· No certificate of occupancy can issue without payment of the Fee
· Permits civil remedy to collect fee or criminal prosecution for permit non-
compliance
The Fee Mitigation Act provides that any action creating or increasing a
development related fee becomes effective sixty (60) days after its final passage.
Should Council adopt the ordinance for final passage tonight, it will become
effective on July 2, 2006, concurrent with the effective date of the fee-adopting
resolution.
2. ADOPTION OF THE FEE RESOLUTION
Although public comment will still be taken at tonight's meeting as a part of the
public hearing continued from April 18, 2006, the Council will not be taking any
final action on the fee resolution as part of this item. A separate public hearing,
item number 12 on this Agenda, is being held for that purpose.
Fiscal Impact: The City projects that future development of needed
infrastructure will cost, in today's dollars, $90,422,000. Based on the nexus
study prepared by PMC, the City has determined that the share of this cost to be
paid by new development is $10,449,000. The balance of $79,973,000 must be
paid by the City through other sources.
Coordinated With: City Manager
Human Resources
Environmental Services
Development Services
Recreation and Community Services
Pacific Municipal Consultants
Attachments:
Impact Fee Program Enabling Ordinance
Draft Impact Fee Resolution
Exhibit A- Development Impact Fee Schedule
Exhibit B - Comprehensive Impact Fee Study
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LYNWOOD ADDING A NEW SECTION 11-19 TO
CHAPTER '1'1 OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAs, the City of LynWood ("Cit~~) is a general law city located in the
County of Los Angeles and operating under the laws of the State of California and the
California ConstitUtion; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan and Capital Improvement Plan were
designed to ensure that the City's public facilities meet future needs without an adverse
impact on the current level of services as a result of increases in poPulation and impact
resulting from said increases; and
WHEREAS, the changing fiscal landScape in California dUring the last few
decades has steadily undercut the ability of cities to fund public facility infrastructure;
and
WHEREAS, the continuing growth of the City, combined with the continued
expectation of high quality services by persons who live and work in the City, requires
that new development contribute its fair share to public facilities though the imPoSitiOn of
impact fees which will be used to finance, defray Or reimburse the. City for the
appropriate portion of the cost of public facilities which serve SUCh development; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 7 of the Califomia Constitution and Califomia
Government Code § 66000 et seq. empower general law cities to impose impact fees
and other exactions to provide the necessary public facilities required to mitigate the
effects of new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynwood (the "Council") has
determined that a reasonable means of financing the needed public facilities is to
charge a fee on all new commemial, office, industrial and residential developments in
the City of Lynwood. Imposition of development impact fees on all new development for
which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary to ensure the health,
safety and welfare of the residents of Lynwood and to ensure effective implementation
of goals set forth in the City's General and Capital Improvement Plans; and
WHEREAS, the City assumes the responsibility for and is committed to funding
and providing pUblic facilities at levels necessary to cure any existing deficiencies in
already developed areas and impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance shall not
be used to cure existing deficiencies in public facilities;, and
WHEREAS, the Council, after careful consideration of the Comprehensive
Impact Fee Study completed by Pacific Municipal Consultants in March of 2006, and the
experience of other similarly situated cities finds that the establishment of an impact fee
program to finance specified public facilities in the City, a portion of the demand for
which is created by new development, is equitable and .does not impose an unfair
burden on new development.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
HEREBY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS.:
Section t. The City Council of the City of Lynwood hereby adopts the findings set
forth in the above recitals.
Section 2. That a new Section 11-19 of Chapter 11 of the Code of the City of
'Lynwood is hereby added to Code of the City of Lynwood, which Section reads as
follows:
Section 11-19
Development Impact Fee Program
11-19.i Definitions
"New Development or Development Project" shall mean any development requiring
a development permit.
"Development Permit" shall mean any zoning entitlement permit or approval from the
City of Lynwood, including, but not limited to, a general plan amendment, zoning or re-
zoning of property; a conditional use permit, subdivision map, development review
application, building permit or other permit for construction, reconstruction or
remodeling. "Development Permit" also includes permits, for the* erection of
manufactured housing or structures and structures moved into the City.
"Public Facilities" includes public improvements, public services and community
amenities.
"Section" or "This Section" shall mean Section 11-19 of the Lynwood Municipal
Code.
"Initial Effective Date" shall mean the effective date of the Ordinance creating this
Section.
1 t-19.2
Purpose and Applicability of' Section
a. The City Council declares 'the purpose of this Section is to provide for the orderly,
fair and fiscally sound development of property located with in the City of Lynwood in
order to promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Lynwood and to
comply with the provisions of Government Code [}66000, et seq. or any applicable
successor statutes.
b. The Impact Fee Program established by this Section and any subsequently
adopted Development Impact Fees shall apply to all New Development or Development
Projects as defined in subsection 11-19.1 of this Code, with the following exceptions:
Development Projects for which a final map, as described in Section 24-6
et seq. of this Code, or any successor Code Section or ordinance of the
City, has been duly approved by the City Council and recorded as of the
effective date of this ordinance, provided the project is built in
conformance with the final map and pays all applicable development
impact fees previously imposed.
2. Government/public buildings, public schools, or other public facilities.
Alteration, remodeling, rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of, or additions
to, any existing legal residential structure where no additional dwelling
units are created and/or the use is not changed. Any change in use or
increase in the number of dwelling units shall 'pay the current applicable
development impact fees for such use or increase. '
-5.
Alteration, remodeling, rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any existing
legal non-residential structure where there is .no'net increase in square
footage of the structure and/or the use is not changed. Any chan. ge in uSe.
or increase in square footage of the structure shall pay the current
applicable ·develoPment impact fees for such use or increase.
Development Projects that are the subject of a development agreement
entered into pursuant to Govemment Code [}65864 et seq. prior to the
initial effective date of this Section, wherein the imposition of new fees is
expressly prohibited; provided, however, if the term of such development.
agreement is extended after the Initial Effective Date of this Section, the
development impact fees shall be imposed.
Ge
o
Disposition and DevelOpment Agreements "DDA's" entered into prior to
the effective date of this Section, unless the specific provisions of such a
DDA provide for or permit the imposition of impact fees that may be later
established by the City.
Development Projects with an approved tentative subdivision maps(s) or
recorded' lots that are vested pursuant to Government Code. §§ 66498.1
through 66498.9 or other applicable laws veSting the development project
and affecting the collection of development impact fees.
Development Projects where a 'building permit has been obtained prior to
theeffective date of this 'SeCtion.
11-19.3
Development Impact Fees Established.
3
a. Except as provided in subsection 11-19.2, a Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee (the "PFDIF") is hereby' established to be imposed on all New Development
or Development Projects for which a development permit is issued on or after the
effective date of this Section. The PFDIF is hereby established for the following
categories of publ!c facilities:
5.
6.
7.
8.
Police Services
Water-Facilities
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Wast(~water Facilities
Technological Enhancements
Childcare Facilities
Noise MonitOring System
Civic Center/City Garage
b. ExcePt as provided in subsection 11-19.2, a Transportation DeVelopment Impact
Fee (the "TDIF") is hereby established to be 'imposed on all New Development or.
Development Projects for which a development permit, is issued on or after the effective
date of this Section.
c. The PFDIF and the TDIF are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Impact
Fees" or the "Fees"
d. : By resolution, the City Council may modify or...amend the categories of public
facilities funded by Impact Fees, as well as the and the specific infrastructure projects.
identified within each category to maintain compliance with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Code, Capital Improvement Plan, or any master facilities plan(s) subsequently
adopted by the City. The procedures specified in Government Code § 66000 et seq., or
any applicable successor statutes, shall be observed prior to the adoption of such
resolution.
1t-19.4
Land Use Utilized to Compute Fee.
a. New .Development or Development Projects shall be classified into one of the
following types of uses, and shall pay the 'Impact Fee pursuant to that classification, as .
determined by the City Manager or his/her duly authorized designee:
1. Single Family Residential
2. Multi-family Residential
3. Commercial
4. Industrial
5. Office
b. The Impact Fees due hereunder shall be determined and calculated by the City
Manager or his/her duly authorized designee in accordance with the Development
Impact Fee Schedule adopted pursuant to subsection 11-19.6.
c. If a single project or building contains more than one of the types of specified
uses (a mixed use), the Impact Fee shall be determined by applying to each use'type
the applicable fee for that individual use.
11-19.5
Impact Fees in Addition to other Fees and Charges.
Payment of the Impact Fees are in addition to the requirements imposed by other laws,
policies or regulations of the City relating to the construction or the financing of public
improvements within subdivisions or developments.
11-19.6
Amount df Impact Fee.
a. The specific amount of Impact Fees created to fund the public.and transportation
facilities specified in subsections 11-19.3.a and 11-19.3.b shall be initially set forth by a
resolution of the City Council adopting a Development Impact Fee Schedule (the
"Schedule"). The Schedule may be amended annually or from time to time in
accordance with the procedures and based upon the findings for such fees set forth in
Government Code Section 66000 et seq., or any applicable successor statutes.
b. On July 1st of each fiscal year, beginning in July 2007, the Director of Finance, or
his/her designee shall make annual adjustments to the dollar amounts on the Schedule
by a percentage equal to the percentage change in the UEnginee~ing News Record's
Construction Cost Index--20 Cities Annual Average" for the preceding twelve (12)
month period calculated from Apdl I to March 31. This adjustment will offset the effects
of inflation-related construction cost increases (or any deflation related decreases). If
this index should cease publication, the Director of Finance shall use any appropriate
official index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or successor, or similar'
agency as may then exist or may then may be most nearly equivalent thereto. Land
costs may be-evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary based on the current
market.conditions at the time. The Director of Finance shall present the new Schedule
for adoption by resolution of the City Council after at least one public hearing.
c. At least once every five (5) years the City Council shall review the basis for the
Impact Fees to determine wh~ther Fees are still reasonably related to the needs of new
development.
11-19.7
Purpose and Use of Impact Fees.
a. The Impact Fees established pursuant to this Section and collected pursuant to
the adopted Schedule shall be expended only for the Public Facilities for which they
were imposed, calculated and collected. The Impact Fees may also be used to pay the
principal,, interest and other costs of bonds, notes and other obligations issued or
undertaken by or on behalf of the City to finance such Public Facilities.
b. -The Impact Fees may also used to reimburse the City for the costs assOciated
with the administration and implementation of the Impact Fee Program and to mak(~
refunds as required, by Government Code § 66001 or any applicable successor statute.
11-19.8
ImpOsition and Payment .of Impact Fees.
a. Except as otherwise provided by the provisions of this Section or any
amendment or resolution adopted hereunder, the City shall impose the Impact Fee as a.
condition of approval of all New Development or Development Projects.
b. In the case of non-residential New Development or Development Projects, the
Impact Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any part of the project.
c. Unless earlier payment is permitted pursuant to the provisions of Government
Code §66007, or any applicable successor statute, the Impact Fees for residential
developments shall be paid On the date of the final inspection or on the date the
certificate of occupancy is issued, 'whichever date occurs first.
d. In no event shall a certificate of occupancy be issued for a New Development or
Development Project without payment of the Impact Fees.
e. Whenever ImpaCt· Fees are imposed pursuant to:. this Section, the City shall
provide each applicant for a development permit with a notice in writing at the time of
the approval of the 'development permit or at the time of the imposition of the Impact
· Fees, a· statement of the amount of the Fees and notification of the ninety (90) day
approval period in which the applicant may protest the Fees. Said notice shall be in
substantially the following form:
"The conditions of project approval for your project, identified as
-., . include certain fees, dedication'
requirements, reservation requirements, and/or, other exactions more -.
specifically described as: ..(identification of the amount of. the
Impact .Fee and/or description of the dedications, reservations or other
exactions The applicaqt is hereby notified that the 90-day protesl
period to challenge such items has begun as of the date of the project
approval or the date of the Impact Fee· imposition, which was
If the applicant fails to file a protest regarding any of the
fees, dedications, reservations or other exaction requirements as specified..
in Government Code §66020, the applicant shall be legally barred from
later challenges.'
11-19.9 Disposition of ImpaCt Fees.
a. To avoid commingling of the PFDIF with other revenues and funds, of the City'*.
the City shall deposit any PFDIF collected pursuant to subsection 11-19.3.a in a
separate Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund (the "PFDIF Fund"), which
'shall consist of individual accounts for each category of public facilities specified in' that
subsection, as·such subsection may be amended from time to time. The PFDIF Fund
shall be interest bearing and the accumulated interest shall become a part of the Fund
and shall be allocated amongst the individual accounts therein.
b. To avoid commingling of the TDIF with other revenues-and funds of the City, the
City shall deposit any TDIF collected pursuant to subsection 11-19.3.b in a separate
Transportation Development Impact Fee Fund (the "TDIF Fund"). The TDIF Fund shall
be interest bearing and the accumulated interest shall become a part of the Fund and
shall be allocated amongst the individual accounts therein.
c. The PFDIF and TDIF Funds (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Funds"
shall be used only to:
1. Fund the capital costs for the Public Facilities adopted by resolution of the
City Council pursuant to subsections 11~19.3.a and 11-19.3.b. The. Costs of
construction of Public Facilities shall include acquisitions of property and property
rights, costs of construction, including costs associated with planning,
administration and design, as well as actual building or installation, or any other
costs associated with the construction of the Public Facilities.
2. Reimburse the City of Lynwood to offset administrative costs associated
with administering and updating the Impact Fee Program.
3. Make refunds if and 'when required by the applicable sections of
Government Code 66000 et seq., or any applicable successOr statutes.
11-19.10 Reporting Requirements for Funds.
The Director of Finance or his/her designee shall comply With the public reporting
requirements for the Funds and accounts therein within 180 days of the end of each
fiscal year as specified in Government Code §66006(b), or any applicable successor
statute. The Director of Finance or his/her designee shall also present .the pUblic
reports to' the City Council for review at the first regqlar council meeting that occurs not
more than fifteen (15) days after the reports are made available to the public as
Specified in Govemment Code §66006(b), or any applicable successor statute.
11-19.11 Findings Requirements for Funds; Refunds.
For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into PFDIF or TDIF Fund, and every
five (5) years thereafter, the City shall make the findings required by Gov. Code
§66001(d), or any applicable successor statute, with respect to any monies remaining'
unexpended in the Funds and the accounts therein. The City shall also comply with the
notice and refund provisions of Government Code §§ 66001(e) and (f), or any
applicable successor statutes.
7
11-19.12 Protest.
Any person subject to the Fee established by this Section may protest the imposition of
same by complying with the protest provisions in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government
Code § 66000, et seq.) in effect at the time of the protest.
t1-19.t 3 Compliance; Enforcement.
a. No person shall fail to pay, when due, any Impact Fees imposed pursuant to this
Section.
b. The Impact Fees due pursuant to this Section shall constitute a debt to the City.
An action for the collection thereof may be commenced in the name of the City in any
court having jurisdiction of the cause; however, nothing in this subsection shall prevent
a criminal prosecution for any violation of this Section.
c. It shall be a misdemeanor to engage in any construction activity without first
Obtaining the required development permit and complying with all other applicable
provisions of this Section.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or any part thereof is' for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance. The City CoUncil hereby declares that it would have passed each
section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Pursuant to Government Code §66017, this Ordinance shall take effect
sixty (60) days after its final passage by the City Council.
Section $. The City Clerk of the City of Lynwood is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance and to cause it to be published or posted as
required by law.
First read at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
,2006 and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of
said Council held on the day of ,2006.
Leticia Vasquezi Mayor
City of Lynwood
A'I-I'EST:
Andrea L. Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
J. Amoldo Beltran
City Attomey
N. Enrique Martinez
City Manager
Marianna Marysheva
Assistant City Manager - Finance
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
LYNWOOD ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY OF
IMPACT FEES
AND ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FEE 0NEXUS)
STUDY FOR THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
WHEREAS, many cities and counties have adopted and imposed development
impact fees on new development to pay for new development's fair share of infrastructure
and services; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2006, the City Council of the City of Lynwood adopted for
final passage Ordinance No. , establishing a Development Fee Impact Program in
the City of Lynwood; and
WHEREAS, the City retained Pacific Municipal Consultants ("PMC") to prepare a
Comprehensive Impact Fee nexus study dated March 29, 2006 (the "Study") in accordance
with Government Code §§ 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Study provided the City with information and data regarding the
nexus between the public facilities and services and the benefiting land uses that would
pay the fees at time of development; and
WHEREAS, 'the Study provided data outlining various public facilities and
services which are now highly subsidized primarily by the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, it is the City's policy that future new development should contribute.:
its fair share to public facilities and services though the imposition of impact fees which
will be used to finance, defray or reimburse the City for the appropriate portion of the cost
of public facilities which serve such development; and
WHEREAS, the City. Council has held at least one duly noticed public hearing on
the .proposed development impact, fees with an oppommity for the public to be he~d,
pursuant to the provisions of Government Code § § 66016 - 66018; and
WHEREAS, the Study prepared by PMC has been available for public review and
comment pursuant to the provisions of Government Code § 66016; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. , the City Council
of the City of Lynwood desires to impose and adopt the Development Impact Fees in
accordance with the nexus calculations and recommendations in the Study.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council'of the City of Lynwood does hereby find,
order, and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: That the. 'Ctty Council ofthe Ctty of Lynwood finds and determ~.' ~~i' i ~~~
Comprehensive Impact Fee nexus study dated March 29, 2006 prepared by Pac~-ffc
Municipal Consultants (the "Study") complies with California Government Code § 66001
by establishing the basis for the imposition of the fees on new development. This finding
is based on the fact that the Study:
(d)
'(e)
Identifies the purpose of the fees;
Identifies the use to. which the fees will be put;
Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed;
Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facilities and the type of development projects on which the fees are
imposed; and
Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the mount of the fees and
the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable
to the development on which the fees are imposed.
SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby determines that the fees collected pursuant to
this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the
Study.
SECTION 3. That the City Council has considered the specific prOject descriptions and'
cost estimates identified in the Study and hereby approves such project descriptions and
cost estimates and finds them reasonable as the basis'for calculating and. imposing certain
development impact fees.
SECTION 4. That the City Council finds that the projects and fee methodology identified
in the Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and Capital Improvement Plan..
SECTION 5. The adoption of the Study. and the Development Impact Fee Schedule are
statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), because the setting of development impact fees merely establishes
a funding mechanism for the provision of future projects, and as such, the Resolution is not
an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment and
environmental review required under CEQA will be performed when projects funded by
the development impact fees are chosen and defined (Kaufi~an & Broad South Bay, Inc. v.
Morgan Hill (1993) 9 Cai.App.4th 464:
SECTION 6. That the City Council adopts the Development Impact Fee Schedule
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 7. That the Comprehensive Impact Fee nexus study dated March 29, 2006
prepared by Pacific Municipal Consultants, atiached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby adopted.
SECTION 8. That the fees specified in the attached Exhibit A shall become effective
sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.
SECTION 9.
effective.
That this Resolution is contingent upon Ordinance No. __
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __. day of~
2006.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
J. Amoldo Beltmn
City Attorney
N. Em'ique Martinez
City Manager
Mariarma Marysheva
Assistant City Manager~ Finance
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 2, 2006
Facility Category
Police Services
Parks/Recreation
Civic Center/City Garage
Water facilities
Wastewater facilities
Noise-Monitoring System
Technological Enhancements
Childcare
Subtotal
Single Multi-
Family Family Commercial Industrial Office
Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1,O00 Building Square .
Feet
$ 413.32 $ 413.32 $ 29.63 $ 12.52 $ 35.39
2,270.10 2,270.10 - - -
145.70 145.70 10.44 4.41 12.47
1,381.25 1,381.25 2,244.53 1,381.25 1,381.25
347.17 208.30 433.96 267.32 267.32
0.42 0.42 0.03 0.01 0.03
35.02 35.02 2.51 1.06 3.00
- - 7.14 3.02 8.53
$4,592.98 $ 4,454.11 $ 2,728.24 $1,669.59 $ 1,707.99
Administration 5% $ 241 $ 235 $ 143 $ 88 $ 90
Total Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee
("PFDIF')
$ 4,834 $ 4,689 $ 2,871 $ 1,758 $ 1,798
Transportation facilities
Administration 5%"
Total Transportation
Development Impact Fee ("TDIF")
$ 320.67 $ 224.47 $ 1,439.81 $ 234.09 $ 368.77
$ 17$ 12$ 76$ 12 $ 19
$ 338 $ 236 $ 1,516 $ 246 $ 388
TOTAL $ 5,172 $ 4,925 $ 4,387 $ 2,004 $ 2,186
"B"- Comprehensive Impact Fee Study
COMPREHENSIVE-IMPACT
FEE S.TUDY
FOR THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD
MARCH 29, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents · . ........... i
List of Tables .......................................................................... v
Executive Summary ............................................................ vm
Back~ound and study obiccdvcs ................................................... vm
Development proi¢cdons ........................................... ~ ....................
F¢¢ schedules and revenues .............................................................. ix
Ad~donal considerations ................................................................
Introduction and Summary .......................................... 11
public facilities financing in California ............................................. 2
Miligation Fee Act ............ · ............................... i ..................................... 3
Organization of the report...~ ............................................................. 3
Facility standards ................................................. :": ............ .. .............. 5
Fee schedules and revenues .: ............................................................. 6
Growth Projections . i ............... 9
Introduction ........................................................................................ 9
population and Employment Estimates '. ........................... : .............. 9
Land use categories ........... ' ....................... : ..................... : ...... " ........... 10
................. 11
Service population ...........................................................
Occupant densities ........................................................................... 12
m
Police Services ' . ........... L..t3
~3
Exisdng Police facilides ...................................................................
Police Services service population ................................................... .14
L VNWOOD CITY IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTEN~
Police Services facilities standards and unit costs ..................... : .... 15
Police Services facilities for new development ............................... 16
Fee schedule ............................................................ : ..... ~ ................... 17
Fee implementation .......................................................................... 17
Se
Parks & Recreation ....................................................19
Existing Parks and Recreation .................................................... ~ .... 1'9
Parks and Recreation service population ........................................ 21
Park faciIity standards and unit costs .............................................. 21
Park and Recreation for new development ..................................... 23
Fee schedule .................... ~ ................................................................. 23
Fee implementation .......................................................................... 24
Civic'Center/City Garage ..................................... ~ ..... 25
Existing Civic Center/City Garage facilities .................................... 25
Civic Center/City Garage service population ................................. 27
Civic Center/City Garage standards and unit costs .......... : ............ 28
Civic Center/City Garage' for new development ........................... 28
Fee schedule ...................................................................................... 29
Fee implementation .......................................................................... 30
¸6.
Water Facilities ........................................................... 31
Existing Water facilities .................................................................... 31
Water Facilities ~ervice population ..... : ............................................ 33
Water facilities standards and unit costs..' .................................. .- .... 34
Water facilities -for new development .............................................. 35
Fee schedule .......... i ........................................................................... 35
Fee implementation .................................................... . ........ i ............ 36
'7.
Wastewater ................ , ................ ~ .............................. 38
Existing Wastewatcr £acilidcs ........ ~ ........................................... : ..... 38
PA C~'Ic MIIlVICIPAL ~I~rSUL TAIV'I~
L ~OOD CrrY .r~4~ACT FEE S~O~' TAZL~ OP CONT~
Wastewater facilities service population ......................................... 40
Wastewater standards and unit costs ......... i ..................................... 41
Wastewater facilities for new development .................................... 42
Fee schedule ...................................................................................... 42
Fee implementation .......................................................................... 43
10.
Noise-Monitoring System .........................................45'
No[sc monitoring system ............................... : ................................. 45
Noise monitoring service population .............................................. 46
Noisc monitoring standards and unit costs .......... ~ ......................... 46
Noise monitoring sTstcm ['or new development ............................ 47
Fcc schedule ....................................................................................... 48
Fcc implementation .............................. : ...... : .................................... 49'
Technological Enhancements .................................. 50 .
F. xisdng Systems ............................................... '- .......... : ................... : 50
Technological Enhancements service populations ........................ 52
System standards and unit costs ...................................................... 53
Technological Enhancements for new development ..................... 54
Fee schedule ...................................................................................... 55
Fee implementation .................................................................. ] ........ 55
TranSportation Facilities ............ ~ ............................... 57
Tra£fic demand £rom new development ...... ~...' ............................... 57
Traffic facilities standards ................................................................ 59
Transportation improvements for new development .................... 59
Transportation Facility Impact Cost per DUE .............................. 60
Transportation System facilities for new development .......... : ...... 61
61
Fee Schedule .....................................................................................
62
Alternative funding sources ............................... ' ..............................
Fee implementation.. ............................................. ~ .......................... 162
L YNWOOD CTTY .rMpACr FEE..~7.JDY TABLE OF Co~
11.
12.
13.
14.
Childcare Facilities .......................... ~ ......................... 64
F. xisdng Child Care Services ............................................................ (54
Childcarc service population .............................. ' ............................... '66
Childcare standards and unit costs ................................ : ................. 66
Childcare for new development ....................................................... 67
Fee schedule ................................................................................ - ...... 68
Fee implementation ............... ~ ........................................................... 68
Administration ........... · ................................................. 70
Cost to implement ............................................................................ 70
Implementation ...... ~ ...................................... ~ ........ .. .... 72
Impact Fcc Program AdoPtion Process ............... ~ .......................... 72
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP ....................... 72
Inflation Adjuslment., ................... ~ .................................................. 73
Combining Fees ................................................................................ 73
Reporting ReqUirements .................................................................. 74
Appendix .; .............................. . ..................................... 76
PAC~C ~'~VIC~PAL
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Resident and Worker Population ......................... ......................... vii'
Table 2: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees. ......................................... vm
Table 3: Total Impact Fee Revenues .......................................... : ................. ix
Table 1.1: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees .......................................... 7
Table 1.2: Total Impact Fee Revenues to 2020 ............................................ 8
Table 2.1: Population and Employment Est. and Projections ................... · 10
Table 2.2: Occupant Densities ..................................................................... 12
Table 3.1: Police Services - Planned Inventory .......................................... i 4
Table 3.2: Police Service Population ........................................................... 15
Table 3.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ................................. 2 .... 16
Table 3.4: Total Police Service Costs ........................................................... 16
Table 3.5: Police Services Impact Fees ........................................................ 17
Table 4A: Parks and Recreation Existing and Proposed Inventory .......... 20
Table 4.2: Parks/Recreation Service Population ........................................ 21
Table 4.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ..................................... 22
· Table 4.4: Parks/Recreation Costs .............................................................. 23
Table 4.5: Parks/Recreation Impact Fees ....................... ~ ........................... 23
Table 5.1: Civic Center/City Garage Inventory .......................................... 25
Table 5.la: Civic Center/City Garage Vehicle Inventory ........... ~ .............. 26
Table 5.2: Service Population ....................................................................... 27
Table 5.3: Facility Standards and' per Capita Costs ...... ..................... . ~ ......... 28
Table 5.4: Civic Center/Garage Costs ......................................................... 29
Table 5.5: Facilities Impact Fee ..................................................................... . 29
32
Table 6.1: Water Facilities ............................................................................
Table 6.2: Service population ................ · ...................................................... 33
Table 6.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ..................................... 34
PA C~C MU~CIPAL Colff$~d'~L TAIV~
L FNWOO D CITY IMPACT FEE .~JD Y LIS'T O F TAB LE~
Table 6.4:
Table 6.5:
Table 7.1:
Table 7.2:
Table 7.3:
Table 7.4:
-Table 7.5:
Table 8.1:
Table 8.2:
Table 8.3:
Table 8.4:
Table 8.5:
Table 9.1:
Table 9.2:
Table 9.3:
Table 9.4:
Table 9.5:
Table 10.1:
Table 10.2:
Table 10.3:
Table 10.4:
Table 10.5:
Table 11.1:
Table 11.2:
Table 11.3:
Table 11.4:
Table 11.5:
Table 12.1:
Table 12.2:
Water Facilities Costs ................................................................... 35
Water Facilities Impact Fee ........................................................ 36
Wastewater Facilities .................................................................... 40
Service Population ....................................... : ............................... 41
Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ........ : ........................... '. 42
Wastewater Facilities Costs ........................ ................................. 42
Wastewater Facilities Impact Fees .................... : ........................ 43
Noise Monitoring System ...................................................... } .... 46
Service Population ...................................................................... 46
Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ..................................... 47
Noise Monitoring System Costs..~ ............................................... 48
Noise Monitoring system Impact Fees ..... i ................................ 48
Technological Enhancements ..................................................... 52
Service Population ....................................................................... 53 ·
Facility Standards and Per Capita Costs .................................... 54
Technological Enhancements Costs .......................................... 54
Facilities Impact Fee .................................................................... 55
Trip Generation by new Development ....... i ............................ 58
Road Improvement Projects.. .................................................... 60
Transportation Facility Impact Cost per DUE .......................60
Transportation System Costs .................................................... 61
Transportation Impact Fees ..................................................... 62
Childcare C0sts..., ...................................................................... 66
Service Population ............................ ~ ........................................ 66
Facility Standards ahd per Capita Costs ................................... 67
Childcare Facilities Costs .......................................................... 67
Facilities Impact Fee ................................................................. 68
Summary of Maximum Justified Fees ...................................... 70
Total Impact Fee Revenues ............... ~ ....................................... 71
PAC.~IC MUI~C. IPAL CONSU~.TANT$
L Y~OOD CITY I'MPA CT FEE ST-o'DY LIST OF ?~ABL~
Table 13.l: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees ............. i ........................ 74
PA C~'IC M~I'CtPAL COI~S~fL TAN~S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facitlities to
accommodate new development in the City of Lynwood. The report
documents the maximum justified impact fee that could be imposed on
new development in the following facility categories:
* Police Services
· Parks and Recreation
· Civic Center/City Garage
· Water Facilities
· Wastewater Facilities
· Noise Monitoring
· Technological Enhancements
· Transportation facilities
*-Childcare
Although nearly built-out, the City of Lynwood has been experiencing
growth through more intensive redevelopment and the consequent need
to provide public facilities to serve this new development. The City does
not currently have a development impact fee program in place to ensure
that' new development pays its fair share of public fadlifies.. The
consultant's task was to identify the public facilities needed to serve new
development and determine a. fair share of costs attx4butable to new
development to maintain the City's quality of' life. The primary policy
objective was to provide for orderly development of infrastructure
.necessary to accommodate the continued planned growth and
redevelopment of the city.
The development projections used for this analysis are summarized in
Table L The projections are based upon information from U.S. Census
PA~c MUNI~lPAL C01~$ULTAN'P3
L YNIV'OOD CII'Y IMPA cI' FEE 3'YUD Y EI~CUN~ ~ Y
Bureau data, SCAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast, California Department
of Finance (DOF), and information provided by City staff to ensure
consistency with the City of Lynwood General Plan. This data is used for~
the analysis of public facilities.
Table 1:
Resident and Worker Population
Net Growth
999 2005 2020 2005-2020
City of Lynwood
Residents'~,2.3.4 - 73,212 · 79,040 5,828
Workerss.6 8,144 9,054 11,799 2,745
Notes:
~ Residents for CitY of Lynwood based upon 4.7 persons/dwelling unit in 2002.
2 Residents for City of Lynwood based upon 5.2 persons/dwelling unit in 2020.
3 Residents for City of Lynwood in 2005 based upon State of California DOF estimate
for 1/1/05.
4 2020 'residential projection is based upon SCAG 2001 RTP Growth ForecaSt.'
s Employee projection for 1999 and 2005 based upon the General Plan 2020
Economic Element.
6 2020 employee projection is based upon the growth rate'between 1999 and 2005.
Sources: Lynwood General Plan,-2020 (January 2002), SCAG 2001 RTP Growth ForeCast,
Dept. of Finance.
Table 2 summarizes the schedule Of maximum justified impact fees based
on the analysis contained in this report. Total fee 'revenues to 2020 (in
constant dollars) for all'facility categories by land use are ~ummarized in
Table 3.
PAC.~¢ MUNICIPAL
Table 2: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees
Facilit~ Cate¢,lO~
Police Services
Parks/Recreation
Civic Center/City Garage
Water facilil~es
Wastewater facilities ~
Noise-Monitoring System
Technological. Enhancements
Transportation facilities
Childcare
Subtotal
Administration 5%
Total
Single Multi-
Family Family
Fee .Der Dwelling Unit
$ 413 $ 413
2,270 2,270
146 146
1,381 1,381
347 208
0.42 0.42
35.02 35.02
321 224
$ 4,914 $ 4,679
.$ 258 $ 246
$ 5,172 $ 4,925
Commercial Industrial Office
Fee _~er 1.000 Building Square Feet
$ 30 $ 13 $ 35
10 4 12
2,245 1,381 1,381
434 267 267
0.03 0.01 '0.03
2.51 1.06 3.00
1,440 234 369
7.14 3.02 8.53
4,168 $ 1,904 $ 2,077
219 $ 100 $ 109
4,387 .$ 2,004 $ 2;186
Notes:
Table excludes other fees paid at time ol~ building permit issuance and not a Part of this
study.
. SOurces: PMC
PACI~IC ~UI~CIPAL CONSULTANT$ x
L YN~OOD CITY [I,tl,A CT FEE $TUD I ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 3: Total Impact Fee Revenues
(Constant dollars)
Revenues
Facility from Impact
Category Fees
General
Fund/Otiler '
Sources Program Total
Police Services
Parks/Recreation
Civic Center/City Gam~e
Water facilities
Wastewater facilities.
Noise-Monitoring System
Technological Enhancements
.Transportation facilities
Childcare
Subtotal
570,000 $ 6,630,000 $ 7,200,000
2,815,000 35,265,000 38,080,000
201,100 2,337,000 2,538,100
3,760,500 21,409,500 25,170,000
'762,800 5,837,200 6,600,000
584 6,516 7,100
48,000 562,000 610,000
1,754,100 7,879,800 9,633,900
14,000 46,000 60,000
$ 9,926,084 $79,973,016 $ 89,899,100
Administration 5% $ 522,916 . NA 522,916
Total (to nearest $1,000)
$10,449,000 $79,973,000 $ 90,422,000
Percentage of Program 12% 88% 100%
Funds identified under General Fund/Other Sources is a City obligaUon to the program.
Excludes additional funding of $628,000 for Transportation improvements.
Sources: PMC
From this discussion, the following is offered for the City to consider
minimizing the potential negative economic impacts of the proposed fees,
while still funding the facilities needed to accommodate growth:
· Identify and use other sources of funding' to reduce the proposed
fee while still providing needed facilities; and
· Phase in fee increases over two or more years to provide time for
real estate markets to adjust. Loss of fee revenue during the
phase-in period should not be passed on to future develoPment..
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to
accommodate new development in the City of Lynwood. This chapter-
explains the study approach and summarizes results under the following'
sections:
About Lynwood;
· Public facilities financing in California;
* Mitigation Ft~e Ac~,
· Organization of the report;
· :Facility standards; and
· Fee schedules and revenues
About Lynwood
Lynwood is a 4.9 square mile community within Los Angeles County with a
current population of approximately 73,200. The Community is located
between 'two major freeways, Interstate 710 .and Interstate 105, maldng the
City accessible to major airports -approximately 14 miles from the Los
Angeles International ..Airport (LAX) and nine miles from the Long Beach
Airport.
.Since Lynwood's incorporation in .1921; it continues to move forward and
many of its accomplishments can be attributed to its. aggressive
redevelopment program that has attracted new businesses and industry alike.
Today, Lynwood is home to a host of booming retail centers including
Atlantic Crossing that consists of Walgreens, Starbuck, and Panda Express.
Another center is the Long Beach Pluma Shopping Center which is anchored
by Smart & Final and 99 Cent Only Store. One of the City, s largest
redevelopment projects is Plaza Mexico, situated in the downtown area of
Lynwood. This 36-acre project is known for its architecture reminiscent of
old town Mexico, While' showcasing an authentic look of towns such as San
Miguel de Allende and other dries located in the State of Guanajuato.
In addition, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency is focusing on reviving the
City's downtown area, in which Long Beach Boulevard will be the focal
point- The Agency's goal is to enter into exclusive con~'acts to recreate a
downtown area through projects that will contain traditional commercial
retail projects, including mixed-use projects that will contain design features
to encourage pedestrian activity. Pedestrian nodes, street furniture,
· Paa~cMo'mC~A~ Co~ts°zram's
L YIV~OOD CrI'Y[MPA Cl' FEE .,qTUD y llV'I'RODUCTION AND ...qI. II~IMAR Y
hardscape and landscape, and unique paving patterns will be used to reshape
the area and encourage economic development. The Agency is also focusing
on the construction of new housing and plans to develop 215 Single-Family
homes within the next i8 months. The Agency will utilize 20% of funding
that has been set aside to assist and facilitate the development of the homes.
Th~ changing fiscal landscape in California during the past couple of
decades has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments
to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends, stafid out:
· The passage of a s~ring of tax limitation measures, starting with
Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of
Proposition 218 in 1996;
· Declining 'popular support for bond measures to finance
infrastructure 'for the next generation of residents and businesses;
and
· Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a
policy of "growth pays its own way". This policy shifts most of the
burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and
taxpayers to new development. This funding shift has been· partly
accomplished by the imposition of development impact fees, also known
· as public facility fees or mi..tigafion fees. A key advantage of this approach
in an era of voter approval requirements is that impact fees need only a
majority vote of the legislative, body for adoption and are thus exempt
from the requirements of Proposition 218.
Some fee programs address only a few specific facilities, Such as sewer,
fa:e, or storm drainage. Other programs are comprehensive, funding a
variety of facility categories from traffic improvements to City office
expansions. Finally, a few programs have even tackled the difficult
problem of funding large regional infrastructure bY collecting fees across
multiple jurisdictions.
In some jurisdictions, new development pays the maximum justified fee
that maintains existing standards as growth occurs. In most jurisdictions,
however, new-development pays less than the maximum. The effect is
Often a decline in facility standards, though some communities are able to
increase other revenue sources to compensate.
PA C~TC MU~VIC. IPA L C01~SU~ TAIV~
'2
L ~41gOOD CITY [~A CT FEE .qTUD Y INT~ ODL/CTION AI~D $~M~Y..4R Y
As a result of widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State
Legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act, starting with Assembly Bill 1600
in 1988. The Act, contained in Cahfornia Goverament Code Section 66000 et
seq., establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing
administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January
1989 and requires'local governments to document the following when
adopting an impact fee:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of fee revdnues;
3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the
type of development paying the fee;
4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee
and the type of development paying the fee; and
5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying
the fee.
In general, the fee cannot be more than the cost of the public facility
needed to accommodate the 'development paying the fee, and fee
revenues can only be used for their intended purposes. -"Public facilities"
that can be funded pursuan't to AB1600 include "public improvements,
public services~ and community amenities," but otherwise the term is not
.limited by statute or case law as of yet. However, GC section 65913.8
narrOWs the permissible range of uses that can be funded by fees. Fees
imposed as a condition of approval for a public capital facility
improvement cannot be used for maintenance or services. Together,
these provisions (sections 66000(d) and 65913.8) limit the use of most
fees to public capital improvements. The ~4ct also has specific accounting ·
and reporting requirements annually and every five years for the .use of fee
revenues..
Chapter 2 presents the population and employment assumptions used for
the public facilities fee analysis. Chapters 3 through 11 are devoted to
documenting the' maximum justified impact fee for each 'of the following
facility categories:
PA C.~¢ MrJ~rC-~A L CoNz'rrr ~rAN~
LFIVi~ooD CITY[M3~ACTFEE..qlTJDY - INTRODUCTIONAI~'D $~RY
· Police Services
· Parks and Recreation
· Civic Center/City Garage
· Water facilities
· Wastewater facilities
* Noise Monitoring
· Technological Enhancements
· Transportation facilities
· Childcare facilities ..
Each chapter is organized using the following sections to clegrly
documentthe requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act discussed above:
· The chapter begins with a statement identifying the purpose of
the'fee by stating the types of facilities that would be funded.
· The Existing Facilities Inventory section summarizes thc
investment of existing development in this type of facility to
date.
· The Service Population section defines what type of development
requires this type of facility, whethe~ .(1) only residents, or (2)
residents and businesses (measured by employment): It also
.projects the service population growth anticipated to. occur
over the planning 'horizon.
· The Fadli[y Standards and Unit Costs section es/ablishes a
reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the
type of development paying the fee. This section also
estimates the cost per capita for facilities to accommodate
growth.
· The Fad~t.y Costs to Accommodate Growth section establishes a
-reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and
the type of development paying the fee. This section estimates
the total facilities costs associated with new development over
the planning horizon, equal to the revenues that would be
collected through the' impact fee.
· The Fee Scheduk .section establishes a reasonable relationship
between the amount of the fee and the cO'st of the facility
attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common
factor fOr facility costs per capita, the schedule ensures that
PA CI~¢ MOI~C~AL COIqSUL Tm~T$
CITY.TMP AcT FEE ~ Y ~ .71~TR ODUCTION AI~rD SU~.'~tR Y
each development project pays its fair share of total facility
costs.
Chapter 12 documents the need for an additional component of the fee to
pay for on-going administration of the fee. The final chapter of the
report, Chfipter 13, provides a summary of fee implementation procedures
and recommendations for the ongoing administration of the fee. The
recommendations ar.e provided to ensure compliance with the Act, and to
ensure that fees are updated in the future for facility cost inflation.
New development alone cannot be asked' to improve facility standards
that benefit both new and exisdng development. Additionally, new
development alone cannot correct an existing facility deficiency. Either
way, facility standards cannot be increased compared to existing standards
solely "on the backs of new development".
By policy, the City can adopt its own' reasonable facility standard to
reduce, maintain, or increase the existing facility standard. However,
basing an impact .fee on a standard that is higher than the existing
standard is only fair to new development if the City uses alternative funds
to expand existing facilities to the same ~tandard for' existing
development. This extra funding is needed to correct the "existing
deficiency".
This study considered four approaches for establishing facility standards.
· The existing inventory method uses a standard based on the ratio
of existing facilities to the current service population. Under this
approach, new development funds the expansion of facilities at
the same standard currendy serving existing development. By
definition, this approach results in no facility deficiencies
attributable to'existing development.
· The master' plan method establishes the standard based on the
ratio of all existing plus planned facilities to total future demand
(~urrent and future development). This method is used when the
local agency anticipates increasing its facility standards above the
existing inventory, standard and planned facilities are part of a
system that benefit both existing and new development.
· The excess capacity method determines the standard based upon
the ratio of existing facilities to the current and future service
population. This approach is used where the facilities have been
sized to accommodate the current population as well as the 'future
L yA~W'OO D CITY I'MPA CT FEE S27.1D Y INTR O D UCTIO N AND S UI~.IA R F'
Use of these standards is not meant to label them as City policy.
many jurisdictions consider their existing standards to be
compared to their policy objectives.
population. Use of this approach does not result in additional
facilities being built. Instead, fees are collected from new
development to reimburse the City its costs for having constructed
a facility with excess capacity sufficient to serve new development.
The City is responsible for funding the share related to the existing
service population.
The adopted standard approach is based upon standards adopted
by the City and/or standard engineering or. planning criteria. For
the traffic component, the 's. tandard is to maintain a level of
service of "C" for all roadway segments/intersections. Any costs
related to existing deficiencies are not passed on to new
development.
Indeed,
deficient
Tabl~ 1.1 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified impact fees
based on the analysis Contained in this report. Total fee revenues to 2020
(in constant dollars) for all facility categories by land use are summarized
in Table 1.2.
PAC~TC MUI~CIPAL CO~VSUL~ANT~
L YI~7OOD CITY II~A CT FEE STUDY [NTltODUCTION AND
Table 1.1: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees
Facility Category
Police Services
Parks/Recreation
Civic Center/City Garage
Water facilities
Wastewater facilities
Noise-Monitoring Syst~.m
Technological Enhancements
Transportation 'facilities
Childcare
Subtotal
Multi-
Single .Family Family
Fee per Dwelling_ Unit
$ 413.32 $ 413.32
2,270.10 2,270.10
145.70 145.70
1,381.25 1,381.25
347.17 208.30
0.42 0.42
35.02 35.02
320.67 224.47
$ 4,913.65 $ 4,678.58
Administration 5%
258 $ 246
Total (to nearest dollar)
$ 5,172 $ 4,925
Commercial Industrial Office
Fee per 1.000 Building Square Feet
$ 29.63 $ 12.52 $ 35.39
10.44
2,244.53
433.96
0.03
2.51
1,439.81
7.1,4
$ '4,168.05
$ 219
$ 4,387
4.41 12.47
1,381.25 1,381.25
267.32 267.32
0.01 0.03
1.06 3.0O
234.09 368.77
3.02 8.53
1,903.68 $ 2,076.76
$ 100 $ 109
$ 2,004 $ 2,186
Sources: PMC
~A~c Mff~IC~AE COI~'$UI. TAI~r~
L Ylv'g~oo C~Y ;,r~d CT FEE STUD Y INTR OD UCTI'ON AND SrJI~4MAR Y
Table 1.2: Total Impact Fee Revenues
(Constant dollars)
Revenues
Facility from Impact
Category Fees
General
Fund/Other
Sources Pro~lram Total
Police Services
'Parks/Recreation
Civic Center/City 'Garage
Water facilities
Wastewater facilities
Noise-Monitoring System
Technological Enhancenhents
Transportation facilities
Childcare
Subtotal
Administration 5%
Total (to nearest.S1,000)
Percentage of Program
$ 570,000
2,815,000
201,100
3,760,500
762,800
584
48,000
1,754,100
14,000
$ 9;926,084
$ 6,630,000 $ 7,200,000
35,265,000 $ 38,080,000
2,337,000 $ 2,538,100
21,409,500 $ 25,170,000
5,837,200 $ 6,600,000
6,516 $ 7,100
·562,000 $ 610,000
7,879,800 $ 9,633,900
· 46,000 $ 60,000
$ 79,973,016 $ 89,899,100
$ 522,916
NA 522,916
$10,449,000 $ 79,973,000
$ 90,422,000
12% - 88% 100%
Funds identified under General Fund/Other Sources is a C!ty obligation to the program.
Excludes additional funding of $628,000 for Transportation improvements.
Sources: PMC
Each facility category is presented separately in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 for ease
of analysis. However, fees may be combined into two fee categories,
pubIic facilities fee and traffic impact fee, for ease of administration.
1
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
This chapter explains how development projections are used to calculate
impact fees, and summarizes estimates of existing development and
projections of growth used throughout this study. Existing development
is estimated for 2005. The planning horizon is 2020, and growth
projectiOns are consistent' with those used in the L. ynwood GeneralPlan. ·
Estimates of existing development and projections of growth are ~rifical
assumptions used throughout the public facility fee chapters that follow in
this report. Current residential population estimates are taken from the
California Department of Finance and the City of Lyr~wood. Future
population estimates are based upon SCAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast
to determine the average growth per year projected out to the planning
horizon.
Existing estimates of employment within the city (workers working at
jobs within the City as opposed to employed residents who live in the City
but may work elsewhere) are from the City Of Lynwood General Plan
2020 Economic Element. Employment projections to 2020 are based
upon the employment projections from the General Plan 2020' Economic
Element between 1999 and 2005 and applying that growth rate to the
planning horizon. . ·
Table 2.1 summarizes the Population and Employment Estimates and
Projections:
LYIq~OOD CIlY IM~.4cT F~ ~Y GROl~TI PROJE6"7701~
Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates and Projections
Net Grow[h
1999 2005 2020 2005-2020
City of Lynwood
Residents~.203,4 -- 73,212 79,040 0.5%
WorkersS.6 8,144 9,054 11,799 1.8%
~ Residents for City of Lynwood based upon 4.7 persons/dwelling unit in 2002.
2 Residents for City of Lynwood based upon 5.2 persons/dwelling unit in 2020.
3 Residents for city of Lynwood in 2005 based upon State of California DOF estimate for
111/05.
4 2020 residential projection is'based upon sCAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast.
s Employee projection for 1999 and 2005 based upon the General Plan 2020 Economic
Element.
6 2020 employee projection is based upon the growth rate between 1999 and 2005.
Sources: Lynwood General Plan,-2020 (January 2002), $CAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast, Dept. of
Finance.
The projections included in this study were used as follows:
· Estimates of existing development are used to determine current
facility standards; for example, building square fee-per .capita or
traffic levels of service..
· Estimates of future growth are used to de.tennine the total amount
of public facilities required to accommodate growth for the
planning horizon
Measuring the impact of growth requires land use types for summarizing
different categories of new development. The land use types used in this
analysis are defined below.
· Single family: Detached one-family dwelling units including
mobile homes. Mobile homes are included in the single-family
category because these developments typically have Occupancy
densities similar to other single-family development,
-Multi-family: All attached single-family dwellings such as
duplexes and condominiums, apartments, and dormitories.
PACIFIC M,u~GIPAL CoI~SOZ TAI~S
L lq~l~OOD CITY [I~A C"I' FEE STEfD l" ~'R 0 I~l'H PR O.]ECTI'O NS
Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational,, and hotel/motel
development.
· Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
· Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Some developments may include more than one land use category, such as
an educational . institution with dormitories, or a planned unit
development with both Single-family residential uses and commercial uses.
In,these cases, the impact fee would be calculated separately for each land
use category.
The City should have the discretion to impose the impact fee based on
the specific aspects of a proposed development regardless of zoning. The
guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development,'
either residents, including, seasonal residents, per dwelling unit or workers
per building square feet. The fee imposed should be based on the land
use category that most closely represents the probable occupant density, of
the development.
Different types of development use public facilities at different rates in
relation to each other, depending on the services provided. In each
succeeding chapter, a specific service population is identified for each
facility type to reflect this. The service population weights one land use
category against another based on each category's demand.for services.
Different service populations are used to estimate impacts for different
.types of fees. To measure existing development and future growth, we
use:
· Citywide residents and workers for public facilities; and
· Citywide residents for public facilities; and
· DWelling units and building square feet-to estimate vehicle trips
for transportation facilities.
.i
· Dwelling units and building square feet to estimate water usage
rates and wastewater generation rates for water and wastewater
facilities.
The specific service population for each' facility category is shown'
separately in each of the following facility chapters. When residents and
workers 'are part of the same service population, it is reasonable to assume
that one resident places greater demand on' public servia:es and assodated
PA c~c MuI~IC. IPAL
11
L FNWO O D ClTY IMI'A CT ~E~ b~grD Y (3R O WI'H PROJECTIONS
facilities than one Worker. One method of calculating the demand of one
worker relative to one resident is to compare the length of the typical
workweek (40 hours) to total hours in a seven-day week (168 hours).
Based upon this method, one worker is assumed to generate only 24% of
the demand for facili, ties as a resident (40/168 = 0.24).
We use these measures because they ali are reasonable indicators of the
level of demand for public facilities. The City builds public facilities
primarily to serve these populations .and, typically, the greater the
population the larger the facility required to provide a given level of
service.
O,ccupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase
in service population and amount, of the fee. To do this~ the fee must
vary by the estimated service population generated by a particular
development project. Developers pay the fee based on the number of
additional housing units or building square feet, so the fee schedule must
convert service population estimates to: these measures of. project size.
This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by land use
category, shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Occupant Densities
Land Use Density
Residential
Single Family
Multi-family
4.7 persons per dwelling unit
4.7 persons per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commerch31~
Industrial2
Office3
713 building square feet per new worker
1.686 building square feet per new worker
597 building square feet per new worker
~Commercial yields 2.9 employees/lO00 sf; new commercial in Lynwoo, d
_ yields 1,4 new employees of the 2.9 employees.
.2Industrial yields 1.2 employees/!O00 sf; new industrial in Lynwood yields
only .6 new employees of the 1.2 employees.
aOffice yields 3.5 employees/lO00 sf; new office in Lynwood yields 1.7
new emploYees of the 3.5 employees. ·
Source: U.S. Census Bureau,. 'Employment Density Summary Ret~ort dated
OctOber 3i, 2001' by Natelson Co., PMC
Pa C~C Mtmr~ca~ta Co~T~r~s
3. POLICE SERVICES
This chapter summarizes the need for the expanded Police facilities to
accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable
relationship between new development and the maximum justified impact
fee for funding of those facilities.
The City of Lynwood contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff
Depa_vtment for law enforcement services. The Century Sheri£~s Station,
located at 11703 Alameda St. in Lynwood, provides, law enforcement services
· tO nearly 200,000 residents living within 13 .square miles of southern Los
Angeles County. These communities indude the City of Lynwood and the
unincorporated areas of Florence, Firestone, Walnut Park, Willowbrook and
Athens Park.
The Sheriffs Department is responsible by charter, to provide munidpal
police services to the one million residents in the unincorporated
communities throughout Los Angeles county. In addition, forty of the
county's eighty-eight cities contract with the Sheriffs Department to provide
local police protection. These cities, 'ranging in population from 700 to
150,000, and in size from 1 to i00 square miles, represent very diverse
communities with equally diverse needs. The Sheriffs Department works
closely with each of these communities to provide a level of service that
reflects those individual ·needs. Services can be provided on a regional basis
· with other communities, with the benefits of cost sharing, or On a fully
dedicated basis.
The City of Lynwood contracts for 15-sw0m pa~ol personnel not including
relief positions during each 24-hour period. The early morning hours (10
PM to 6 AM) includes 1 one-officer traffic car, two one-officer criminal cars,
and one two-officer criminal car. Daytime operations (6 AM to 2 PM)
include 3 one-officer traffic cars and 3 one-officer criminal cars. Evening
operations (2 PM to 10 PM) include 3 one-officer traffic cars, 4 one-officer
criminal cars, and I one-officer criminal car.. The. City also receives the
benefit of specialized services including canine response, DUI traffic car,
helicopter support in emexgencies, gang enforcement and investigation,
· arson-explosives detail, parking enforcement, and special weapons teams.
~ Through the availability Of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, COPS
grant and tight sizing the City organization, the City is able to supplement
.PAC-IFIC. MDNICIPAL CONbTfL
LFI~gOOD CITY IMPAcT FI~.V17~DY POLIt~ SER ~CES
basic law enforcement services with a COPS team that indudes a Special
Assignment Sergeant and two deputies. In addition, the City budget includes
one motorcycle officer plus a business district team that consists of four
deputies .to implement a gang enforcement strategy with a focus more. on
drug, prostitution and other quality of life issues in Lynwood.
The City's 2005-06 general fund budget includes $6,345,600 for the cost of
this level of service.
Loo, king to the future, the City. of Lynwood is analyzing the cost-benefit of
providing police services with a local Lynwood Police Department. There
a~e numexous combinations of facilities and manpower that could
· accomplish this, but no derisions or plans have been solidified. However, in
any scenario, the following basic facility components (buildings, dispatch and
communications center and equipment, technology equipment, etc:) and
associated 'costs would be required as shown in Table 3.1:
Table 3.1: Police Services - Planned
Facility and Other Needs Inventory
Facility Costs
Office - 8000 sf
Land acquisition/relocation
Facility Capital Equipment
Capital equipment
Consultant study
Total
4,300,000
2,000,000
650,000
210,000
40,000
7,200,000
Notes:
Facilities serve current and future population.
Serves residents and workers..
Sources: City of Lynwood, PMC
Residents and workers are assumed to generate the need for Police
Services. Consequently, both .residential and non-residential development
would be subject to the impact fee.
PA~C MUI~7(31'AL
L YN~OOD CITYIM;P~4CT FEE STUDY POLI'CE SERVI'Cl~
The Police Services facilities service population, based on the number.of
residents and workers, is shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: pOlice Services Population .
Residents Workers
· Service '
Population
· Existing (2005) 73,212 9,054 75,385
New Development (2005-2020) __5.828 2.74§ 6.487
Total (2020) 79,040 11,799 81,872
Weighting factor 1.00 0.24
Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 hours/week for an
employee to 24 x 7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Sources: Pacific Municipal Consultants
· . .. ~
This section discusses the standard used to determine future
developments' share of the costs of facilities for services related to police
services:
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 3.3, is based on the
Master Plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned' facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. 'As such,, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact
fees. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new
development pays for the same level of facilities as existing development.
-PA CI~C ~UNICIPAL CON'$UL TA,:I~
L FNWOOD CITY IMPA C'I' FF~ STUDY
POLIC~ SE~FICB$
Table 3.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility
Standard
Service per 1,000
Planned facilities Population Capita Unit Cost
Facility
Expansion
Cost Per
Capita
Eand NA 81,872 . $ 2,000,000
Buildings 8,000 sq. ft. 81,872 98 Sq. ft. $ '538
Equipment NA 81,872 $ 900,000
24.43
52.52
10.99
Total Cost per Capita
Cost per Resident
Cost per Worker~
~ Based on worker per capita weighting factor from Table 3.2.
87.94
87.94
21.11
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3; PMC.
New development can be required to provide its prOportionate share of
facilitieS related to new development. Table 3.4 shows the allocation of
citywide Police Services fafility costs. Future development is contributing
at the same rate per capita as existing development.
Table 3.4: Total Police Services Costs
Service Population Growth. 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds to serve existing population
6,487
$ 87.94
$ 570,000
$ 6,630,0O0
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.3
PACIFIC MtlNI cII'AL CO1VSUL T'ANTS
L ~Iv~gOoD CITY II~ACT F~ STUDY POLICE SERVIfCES
Table 3.5 shows the Police Services facilities impact fee for new
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 3.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate growth based on master plan standard. CitYwide
residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee based on
the service population for the facilities.
Table 3.5: Police Services Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~ Capita Density= Fee3
Residential
Single Family $ 87.94 4.7 $ 413.32
Multi-family 87.94 4.7 413.32
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 21.11 1.4 $ 29.63
Industrial 21.11 0.6 12.52
Office 21.11 1.7 35.39
~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
.2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per .1000
square feet for nonresidential land uses.
3 Per dwelling.unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet fo~-
· nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC, Table 2.2
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact ..
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lOwer fee through the
following option:.
· Lower the facility standards on which'the' fee is based. The ·
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost tO new development.
PACI~Ic MUNICIPAL
17
L IqVWOO D CITY I~A CT FEE S3WD y P O LICE SERVICES
Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Continue contracting the services. This approach continues the
practice of contracting with another Agency for the provision of
services.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Police Services facility impact fee at time of
final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit
.issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and inch/de an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
4. PARKS & RECREATION
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for expanded parks and
recreational facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter
documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the
maximum justified impact fee for funding of such facilities.
According to the 2002 General Plan Infrastructure/Public Services
Element, there are 46 a~res of parkland in the City and 52 acres of school
playgrounds, which are available to local residents during off school
hours. The two largest parks in the City are Ham Park and Lynwood City
Park. In addition, the' Lynwood City Park and Civic Center contains a
natatorium with an Olympic size swimming pool, the Bateman Assembly
Hall and complex. This facility offers a gym, meeting rooms and offices
for the recreation department staff. The City recently completed a
skateboard park direcdy across from City Hall. The facilities are listed in
.Table 4.1.
The City also operates Los Amigos Park, which is approximately 1 acre
and includes one-half basketball court, a volleyball court and seven park
benches. Lynwood Park is approximately 36 acres and includes a
skatepark, indoor and outdoor basketball courts, a volleyball court, three
soccer lots, six picnic stations, four baseball/softball diamonds, two sets
of slides, four tennis courts, a handball court, grilling~stafions, and other
amenities. The park offers senior citizen and teen programs.
Ham Park is being replaced with new and updated facilities. The park will
consist of 10 acres covering 44 parcels. The City intends to construct a
5,000 square foot commurfity, building, a soccer field, a baseball field,
picnic tables and shelters, bike and walking .paths, and three (3) parking
lots containing 195 stalls. Nine acres will be located on the east side of
Adantic Blvd. from the 1-105 to mid-block between Lavinia Ave. and
Clark Street. A one,acre tot lot will be~located .on the west side of
Atlantic between Agnes Ave. and Lavinia Ave.
Rose Park and Carnation Park are each approximately 1.7 acres in size
and consist primarily of grass with no structural amenities.
Lynwood Meadows is being planned as a future 1.8-acte park.
PA CI~C MtgNI'E~I'AZ CONSUL TAN'I~
L VRIrOOD CITI' [M1'A CT FEE S1'UD y PA RI~/RECREA TION
Table 4.1: Parks/Recreation
Existing and Proposed Facility.Inventory
Net
Building
Land Area
Location (acres) (sq. ft.)
Los Amigos Park
1/2 basketball court
Volleyball court
0 3
Lynwood Park
Natatorium (Olympic size pool)
Skatepark
Indoor/outdoor basketball court
Volleyball court
Soccer fields (3)
Picnic stations (6)
Baseball/softball fields (4)
Play equipment
Tennis courts (4)
36
Ham Park (under construction) 10
Community' building
Soccer field
Baseball field
Picnic stations
Lynwood Meadows Park (proposed) 2
'Rose Park 2
Carnation Park 2
Subtotal
54
5,000
5,000
Total 54
Notes:
Proposed and current facilities serves current and future residents.
Sources: City of Lynwood
Expenditures for Ham Park started in 2004-05 and are continuing in
2005-06. Approximately $4 M of the $35:9 M budget has been .placed in
escrow pUrsuant to an agreement between the City, the County, and the
.Lynwood School District. The budget has recently increased to $52.2 M
due primarily to increases in the cost of land, relocation expenses,
demolition and 'site clearance, and construction. Therefore, additional
L ~OOO CrrY It. fl'AcT F~:B STrJo r PA.~z~/R~CsF.4
funding in the amount of $16.25 M is needed. The City is anticipating
applying for State grant funds to make up this shortfall.
The Parks and Recreation facilities serve both residents and workers in
the City.
T~ible 4.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In
calculating the service population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and
workers are Weighted at 0.24 to reflect lower per capita service usage.
Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than
dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker 'usage
of services is less than average per-resident usage.
Table 4.2: Parks/Recreation Service Population
service
Residents PopUlation
Existing (2005)
New Development (2005-2020)
Total (2020)
73,212 73,212
5.828 5.828
79,040 79,040
Weighting factor 1.00
Sources: Table 2.2
This section discusses the standard Used to determine the future needs for
fadlities related to the Parks and Recreation facilities.
According to the 2002 Lynwood General Plan -2020, the City does not
have standards for the number of park acres per 1,000 residents nor does
it have standards for how. a park should be developed and equipped. In
order to measure Lynwood's current situation, the Quimby Act park 1.and
and dedication standard can be used.
Under State law, a community can enact a Quimby ordinance that Would
allow the City to request land dedication or payment of fees in-lieu of
dedication of parkland equal to .3 acres per 1,000 population. Using this
measure and a 2005 population of 73,212 (California Department of
Finance), the City should have 219 acres of parks. Given the 98 acres
LPA CIF/C Mr./N/C.~AL
I'. Y'~VWOOD CITY [~A ~ FF_.E .~'cID ¥ PAR i,~/R~C'R EA
currently available (46 City park acres and 52 acres of school
playgrounds), the City is lacking 121 acres toward meeting the standard.
Typically, park fees are exacted only from residential development, not
non-residential. However, where it can be shown through surveys and
other sources-that parks and park amenities are used by workers in
commercial and industrial land uses who are not also residents, then it is
possible that a development impact fee can be charged to non-residential
uses. in the absence of such information, the fees calculated here are for
residential development only.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensUre equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, la per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 4.3, is based on the
Master Plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
existing and planned facilities will provide a standard benefiting both
existing and future development. As such, this Study identifies a portion
of the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact fees. Use of this.
standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new development pays
for the same level of facilities as existing developmenb
Table 4.3: Facility Standards and per Capita-Expansion COsts
Facility
Standard
2005 Service per 1,000 Unit Cost2
Inventor/ Population Capita (per acre)
Facility
Expansion
Cost Per
Capita
Developed acreage~
54.4 ac. 79,040 0.69 ac. $ 700,000 $ 483.00
Total Cost per Capita
Cost per Resident
'~' Includes buildings and other amenities and excludes joidt use of School facilities.
$ 483.00
$' 483.00
2 unit cost-is estimated to be $700,000 per de~;,eloped acre including land, buildings, &
improvements.
Sources: Tables4.1 and 4.2; PMC.
PAC~F~£ MUNIC~OAL C01VSULTANT$ 22
L YIV~OOD CITY Il~4~A CT FEE S77JO Y PARI~/~ TION
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
'facilities related to new development. Table 4.4 shows the allocation of
citywide Parks/Recreation facility costs. Future development is
contributing at the same rate per capita as existing development.
Table 4.4: parks/Recreation CostS
· Service Population'Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds to serve existing population
5,828
$ 483.00
$ 2,815,000
$ 35,265,000
Sources: Tables 4.2 and.4.3.
Table 4.5 shows' the Parks and Recreation 'impact fee for new
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 4.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide residential development would pay the fee based on the Service
population for the facilities.
Table 4.5: Parks/Recreation Impact Fees
Costs per
Land UseI - Capita Densit]/2
Fee3
Residential
Single Family $ 483.00 4.7
Multi-family 483.00 4.7
$ 2,270.10
2~270.10
~ See Chapter 2 for land use type ·definitions.
2~ersons per dwelling unit for residential land uses.
· a Per dwelling unit for residential Uses.
Sources: PMC, Table 2.2
pAC~rc MuNrC~'AL CO~rStrL~'A°trs
L FAII~OO D CI'II ~ [_lilP'A CT AI~EE .~TUD Y
PARI~/R ECREA TION
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has tt~e Policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
following options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce ~he
cost to new development.
· Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reall0cating ~xisting revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the impact fee at time' of final inspecfi°n or
certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit issuance is
allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the City
should: ·
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
PA~"IC.8t'gfAYI't21'PAL CON~r~ T.~T~ ~4
'5, -'CIVIC CENTER/CITY GARAGE
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need to, expand the Civic
Center and City Garage to accommodate new development. The chapter
documents a reasonable relationship betWeen new development and the
maximum justified impact fee for funding of such facilities.
The City of Lynwood currently owns and operates the civic center
fadlities located at 11330 Bullis Road. The civic .center has expanded
over the years to include.the Civic Center Annex. In the early 1990's, the
LynWood Sheriff Station was moved to the newly completed Century
Station on Alameda Street that created additional space at the Civic
Center. The old Lynwood Sheriff Station has now been converted to city
offices and is referred to as City Hall North that houses the City Manager
and City Council offices. Table 5.1 itemizes the cost components of
these facilities.
Table 5.1: Civic Center/City Garage
CIP Inventory
Location Vehicles Cost
Annex Building Rehabilitation
including underground tanks
City Garage
City Hall Expansion
Total
$1,483,000
443,550
229,000
$ 2,155,550
Vehicles
Total
18
$ 382,500
$ 2,538,050
Notes:
Serves current and future residents and workers.
Sources: City of Lynwood CIPo PMC.
-PA ClFIC Iff t lNIEIJ'.4L Co ~ T.4NT$
L F1V~OOD CITYII~tP.4 CT FEE ..gTTJD Y CIVIC CENT'ER/CITY CrAR.,4 GE
Table 5.la identifies eighteen selected vehicles vintage 1999 or older and
their replacement cost.
Table 5.1a: Civic Center/City Garage
Vehicle Inventory
Replacement
Division Vehicles Cost
Street Mainten, ance
2000 John Deere - 935 .
1979 Ford - 1900 $ 25,800
1992 Ford - F350 Super Duty 24,500
1994 John Deere - Gator 7,000
~'1998 John Deere - Gator Turf 7,000
1998 John Deere - Gator Turf 7,000
1998 John Deere - 5310 12,000
1999 Ford - F150 25;800
1999 Ford; F150 25,800
1999 Ford - F150 25,800
1999 Ford - F150 25,800
2000 John Deera - 935 . -
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
2000 John Deere - 460 HST
1992 Ford - F350'Super Duty
1994 Ford - F350
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
1980 Ford - F150
1980 Ford - F800
1981 Case - 580C
1984 Ford - F150
Graffiti Removal
1984 Ford - F800
1984 Ford - F150
1985 PB - T450 -
· 1985 PB - S240
1991 Volvo - L-50
.2000 Ford - F450
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
2000 Ford - F450
2000 Case - 570 LXT
2001 Ford - F550 Super Duty
2001 Ford - F 550
2001 John Deere 4600 HST
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
24,500
24;500
25,800
25,800
25,800
25,800
25,800
Traffic Signals
City Yard
2000 Ford - F450 Super Duty -
2000 Dodge - Dakota' .
1982 Toyota 18,000
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500 -
1995 Komatsu _
Total
Notes:
382,500
Cost is based upon current replacement cost for new vehicle.
,Sources: City of Lynwood CIP, Lynwood Vehicle Inventory List
L'YI~OOD c~Y i,~'A CT FEE STUD Y C~C CENTER/CITY GARA GE
The Garage Division is responsible for the purchase, repairs and
maintenance of all city owned equipment and vehicles. The division
currently maintains the City fleet of vehicles and equipment. The garage
yard is located at 11750 S. Alameda St. in Lynwood' The Division's goals
and objectives for FY2005-06 are as follows:
1. To improve and expand the vehicle and equipment preventative
maintenance program.
2. To review the demand of operation of vehicle/equipment to
project their replacement or reassignment.
3. To improve the documentation and internal control process.
4. To reduce vehicle and equipment down time and improve the
turnaround time for repairs in a cost effective manner.
5. To conduct an annual auction, when necessary, to dispose of
surplus vehicles and equipment.
The Civic Center and City Garage serve both residents and workers in the
City. Table 5.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and
2020. In calculating the ~ervice population, residents are given a weight
of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.24 to reflect lower per capita service
usage. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively
than dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker
usage of services is less than average per-resident usage.
Table 5.2: Civic Center/City' Gara~le Service Population
service
Residents Workers Population
Existing (2005) 73,212 9,054 75,385
New Development (2005-2020) 5.828 2.745 6.487
Total (2020) 79,040 11,799 81,872
Weighting factor 1.00 0.24
Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 hours/week for an
employee to 24 x '7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Sources: Table 2.2
' pACIFIc MtJIVI~I'AL
L YNI~OOD CI'P/'IJO'I cl' F~E,ClIjT) }, ClIrlC CF-.N'rE~/CrI'Y GItl GE
.~, .... ~..:~ ~;~.~:;~.:~.>3~.:4:~:~;.~.:~,~',.~:.;.~~;.;~[,~;~::.::, ~"' . ~; . . ~ . .,~..-~{~.~ '<-.;.~,~%7.::.~.~G~?. ..... ~ *-~:./~' ;:,:{~:~.~;.., .-.:~:~.~ ;.,.~ ~.*~...~ ..... . · .......... .
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future needs for
Civic Center and City Garage hcilities.
Per. capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development s. hould be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 5.3, is based on the
Master Plan approach, because the future expansion of the system will
provide a standard above the current standard, benefiting both existing
and. future development. As such, this study identifies a portion of the
cost to be funded by the City and not by impact fees. Use of this
standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new development pays
for the same level of facilities as existing development.
Table 5.3: Civic Center & City Garage Standards
and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility
Expansion
Service Cost Per
2005 CoSt Population Unit Cost Capita
Total cost of building $ 2,155,550 81,872 NA $ 26,33
Vehicle Costs 18 vehicles' 81,872 $ 21,250 $ .4.67
Total Cost per Capita
$ 31.00
Cost per Resident $ 31.00
Co~t per Worker~ $ 7.44
Based on worker per capita weighting factor from Table 5.2.
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2
New development, can be required to provide its pr0porfionate share, of
facilities related to new development. Table 5.4 shows the allocation of
Civic Center/City Garage costs allocable to citywide residents and
workers. Future development is contributing at the same rate per capita
as existing development.
E, Y~VWOO D C~W' I .MPA CT FEE STUD ¥ C~¢ CENTE.~ /Cc~ Y GA P,.A GE
Costs
Table 5.4: Civic-Center/City Gara~le
Service Population Growth, 2005-2030 6,487
Total Facilities Cost per Capita $ 31.00
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth $ 201,100
Required funds to serve existing population $ 2,337,000
Facility cost to serve existing population already appropriated.
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3;
Table 5.5 Shows the Civic Center/City Garage impact fee for new
development based on the fadlities cost per capita shown in Table 5.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee
based on the service population for the facilities.
Table 5.5: Civic Center/Cit7 Gara~le Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~ Capita Densityz
Fee3 ·
Residential
Single Family $ -31.00 4.7 $ 145.70
Multi-family $ 31.00 4.7 $ 145.70
Nonresidential
Commemial/Office $ 7.44 1.4 $ 10.44
Industrial $ 7.44 0.6 $ 4.41
· Office $ 7.44 1.7 $ 12.47
~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per 1000
square feet for nonresidential land uses.
$ Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC, Table 2.2
p,~CWr c Mv~rcr~'~r. CO~VSr~L rANTS
LYN~OOD ClTY[~PAc1'FE£.5"I'LrDy C1~{r1'¢ CENI'ER/CI'FYGA RAGE
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
following options:
* Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
~ City has the option to lower 'the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development.
· Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Fee collection and'administration
The City would collect the Civic Center/City Gaxage impact fee at time of
final inspection or certificate of occupancy. CollectiOn at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
6. WATER FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes 'an analysis of the need for expanded Water
facilities to 'accommodate new development. The chapter documents a
~reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum
.justified impact fee for fundi.'ng of those facilities. Much'of the
in[ormation contained in this section originates from the lg/ater System
· Master Plan and W/ater Distribution Sy~tera GIS Map for the City of Lynwoo. d
dated March 4, 2005, prepared by Parsons Co.
The City of Lynwood provides water service 'over an area of
approximately 2,950 acres or 4.6 square miles, which excludes
approximately 180 acres in southeast Lynwood that is served by the Park
Water District. Although most of the water consumption is by residential
water users, the largest water users in. the City include industrial users,
g0vemment, and institutions. Water supply is derived from 's'even (7)
local wells and is supplemented by potable water deliveries from a 16-inch
diameter' connection to the Metrgpolitan Water District .(MWD) of
Southern California system at McNerney and Southern in the City of
South Gate. Over the past twelve years, approximately 60% of the water
was extracted from the local wells, and 'the remaining 40% was supplied
by MWD.
The production rate of the wells is limited by adjudication and water
rights purchases to 5,337 acre-feet per year (equal to an average rate of
4.76 mgd or 3;300 gPm), although the combined capacity of the seven
wells is approximately 5,970 gpm. The well water is the City's least costly
source. Because of the cost advantage, the City has maximized the use of
this source of water. Deliveries from MWD can currently be made up to
a maximum rate of 5,520 gpm. The City's agreement-with MWD .would
have to be modified to permit a higher flow rate.
The existing distribution systemis principally comprised of pipes ranging
from 4- through 12-inch diameter. The distribution system is operated'as
a single pressure zone. Records regarding the materials of construction
-and years of installation of existing pipelines are incomplete.
A geographic information system was created to support, the 2005 water
system planning effort. The GIS system was developed using ESRI
ArcView 3.x technology.
pACIFIc MUN'ICIPAL ~.ONSULTANTS
LY'A~OOD CITY II~LPACT FEE ST-tfDy
ilra TI?R FA ClZJTIES
Parson's Co. staff inspected City Water facilities in October 2002 to assess.
the condition of existing facilities and to identify deficiencies and non-
compliance issues with the current standards. The results of the
inspections are contained in the 2005 master plan report.
Chapter 7 of the IVat~r Syttem Master Plan and [Vater Distribution System
Map for the City of Lynwood dated March 4, 2005, prepared by Parsons
Co. details a series of capital imprOVements including eight new wells at
existing sites and over 48,000 feet of pipe totaling $17,090,000 (2004-05
prices).
In addition to the Master Plan improvements identified above, City staff
has .identified the need for a new 3 MG reservoir at a cost of
approximately $5,000,000, an additional connection to the MWD system
near well #8 at a cost of approximately $800,000, and 5 electrical
generators (for wells #8, 19, 5 and booster) at a cost of approximately
$1,075,000.
The planned water facilities are shown in Table 6.1:
Table 6.1: Planned Water facilities
Pipeline Improvements
84nch diameter
10-inch diameter'
LF of 10-inch.diameter
LF of 12-inch diameter
Quantity Estimated
Facility (as shown) cost
Subtotal
30,509 If $ 2,440,000
7,193 If 720,000
9,086 If 1,040.000
~ 270,000
48,540 If $ 4,470,000
Long Beach Bled (Tweedy-MLK) upgrade to 12 and 1.6-inch diameter
Abbott Rd (MWD connecion to LB Bled) new 124nch diameter
Well Construction
Land Acquisition (allowance)
Electrical Generators
MWD Connection
New 3 MG Reservoir
SCADA System
$ 700,000
650,000
8 wells 11,920,000
NA 600,000
5 1,075,000
800,000
4,855,000
I 100,000
Notes:
Total
NA$ 25,170,000
Facilities are designed to serve current and future population. -..
Serves residential and non-residential to provide caPacity and meet fire flow demands.
Excludes the Pa~-Water Co. service area.
Sources: Lynwood Water Master Plan (2005)
PA ~IFIc Mr.~V1'C~PAL
L ~oo o Crr~ L~A Cr ~-'~ ST'V~ ~ WA r~ FA crt. rr~
1.
The City Water Division's main goal is to continue providing
excellent and reliable water services to its customers by complying
with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards. The 1996
SDWA amendments place increasing emphasis on ensuring that all
new and existing water systems are equipped to comply with the
new rules and regulations.
The Lynwood City water .facilities serve both residents and workers in the
City.
Table 6.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In
calculating the service population, a Dwelling Unit Equivalent is used
based on the water demand of 1 single family home equaling 400 gpd.
Non-residential water demand is then related to housing demand on a
DUE per 1000 square foot basis.
Table 6.2: Water Facilities Service .Population
water
Growth Demand
Land Use 2005 2005-2020 (~lpd)2
DUE
DUE DUE Growth
'Factor~, 2005 '2005-2020
Residential (in units) ~
Single Family 9,826
Multi-family 5,122
Nonresidential (in sf)
Commercial NA
Industrial NA
. Office/Business Park NA
723 400 I 9,826 723
377 400 1 5,122 377
998,500
650 1.6 NA
400 1.0 NA
400 1.0 NA
"- 15,500
Total 6,200,000 gpd
1,623
2,723
.~Residential units based upon Department of Finance.
2Gallons per d~y (gpd) for non-residential is per 1000 sf.
3One DUE = water usage of I SFD = 400 gpd/SFD
Sources: Table 2.2, Department of Finance, DRU Table 2 E-5 Estimates, 1/1/2005, LA County DPW, 2005
· Water Master Plan, PMC
L NgWOOD CITY [I~PA CT FEE$ ~.rD y ~'A TER FA t~ILITIES
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future
developments' share of the costs of facilities for services related to the
Water facilities.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ,ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 6.3, is based on the
Master Plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. As such, this study
identifies a portion of. the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact
fees. Use of the standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that .new
development only pays fox the same level-of facilities as existing
development.
Table 6.3:. FaCili~ Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs .
Facility
Service Expansion Cost'
, 2005 Inventory DUEs Cost Per DUE
Wells 8 wells' 18,223 $11,920,000 $ 654.13
Land AcqUisition 18,223 600,000 32.93
Pipeline 48,540 If 18,223 5,820;000 319.38
Generators 5 18,223 1,075,000 58.99
MWD Connection 18,223 800,000 43.90
Reservoir 1'8,223 '4,855,000 266.43
SCADA System I 18,223 100,000 5.49
Total $ 25,170,000 $ 1,381.25
DUEs 2005
Total New DUEs 2005-2020
Total Cost per DUEl
15,500
2,723
$ 1,381.25
Based on 400gpd/du = 1 DUE.
SOurces: Tables 6.1 and 6.2; PMC; Costs from Lynwood Master Plan (2005)
PACI~iC MUNIC. IPAL COI~..qULTAI~J~ ' ~
CITY [~D'A C'I~ FEE ..~.ID Y ]VA TER FA ~IL I~IF_~
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 6.4 shows the allocation of
Water facility costs. Future development is contributing at the same rate
per capita as existing development.
Table 6.4: Water Facilities Costs
. Service Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per DUE
' Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds to serve existing population
2,723
$ 1.381.25
$ 3,760,500
$ 21,409,500
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3;
Table 6.5 shows the Water .facilities impact fee for new develoPment
based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 6.3. The fee
represents the maximum justified fee to fully-fund all facilities needed to
accommodate growth based on the master plan standard. Citywide
residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee based on
the estimated DUEs for the faciLities.
PA~c MU~c.~AL C0t~ULTAIVT~
LFN~'OOD CITY [MPACTFEE STUD~. ·
IVA TER FA C. ILITIZ~S
Table 6.5: Water Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per DUE
Land UseI DUE Factor
Fee2
Residential
Single Family
Multi-family
-Nonresidential
Commercial
Industrial
Office
$ . 1,381.25 1
1,381.25 I
$ 1,381.25
1,381.25
1,381.25 1.6
1,381.25 1.0
1,381.25 1.0
$ 2,244.53
$ 1,381.25
$ 1,381.25
See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential
land uses.
Sources: PMC
This section discusses a range of implementation, issues typical to impact
.fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
following option:
Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development. However, lowering the standard for f~re
flow and demand requirements may have undesirable
consequences.
Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. 'This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenUes, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
SOUrCeS.
PA C~'IC MO~CI~AI.
L YIVWOOD CITY L~IPACTFEE ~TfDY WA TEIt FACIY..177ES
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Water facility impact fee at time of final
inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjus.tment in the fee ordinance.
PAC~Ic Mu~AL CoNs"tfz.3~AN3~
· .I7
1
WASTEWATER
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the wastewater facilities to
accommodate new development. The chapter doLuments a reasonable
relationship between new development and the maximum justified
connection fee for funding of such facilities.
The City of Lynwood is one of the original members in the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District No. 1 which serves the city with a network of
trunk sewers located in Atlantic Boulevard, Bullis Road, Alameda Street and
Imperial Highway (see attached boundary map).
The Sanitation Districts provide, environmentally sound, cost-effective,
wastewater and solid waste management for over half the population 'of Los
Angeles County, and in doing so take what others had thought of as waste
and mm it into resources such as reclaimed water, energy, and recyclable
materials.
The Sanitation Districts are a confederation of independent special districts
serving about 5.1 million people in Los Angeles County. The Sanitation
Districts' service area covers approximately 800 square r/files and
encompasses 78 dries and unincorporated territory within the County.
The Sanitation Districts construct, operate, and maintain facilities to collect,
treat, recycle, and dispose of sewage and industrial wastes. The Sanitation
Districts, also, provide for the management of solid wastes, including
disposal, transfer operations and materials' recovery. Local sewers and
laterals that connect .to the Sanitation Districts' trunk sewer lines are the
responsibility of the local jurisdictions, as is the collection of solid wastes.
The agency is made up of 25 separate Sanitation Districts working
cooperatively Under a. Joint Administration Agreement with one
administrative staff headquartered near .the City of Whittier. Each Sanitation
District has a separate Board of Directors consisting of the Mayor of each
city within that District and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors for county
unincorporated territory. Each 'Sanitation District pays for its proportionate
share of joint administrative costs. The Sanitation' Districts' 1,400 miles of
main trunk sewers and 1 l waste water treatment plants convey and treat
approximately 510 million gallons per day (mgd), 190 mgd of which are
available for reuse in the dry Southern Califomh climate. Three active
sanitary landfills handle approximately 19,500 tons per day (tpd) of which
LF1VIVOOD C1TYIMI'ACTFEEb-~I'UDY ~TASTB~gATER FACILITIES
16,000 tpd are disposed (approximately 40% of the County-wide disposal
capacity) and 3,500 tpd are recycled. The agency also operates three landfdl
gas-to-energy facilities, two recycle centers, and three transfer/materials
recovery facilities and participates in the operation of two refuse-to-energy
facilities. The Sanitation Districts' overall wastewater and solid waste
management budgets for 2004-2005 are $594 million and $222 million,
respectively. Both systems provide service to the customers at some of the
lowest rates in the entire country.
Each District collects both set,rice and connection fees from homeowners
and. businesses to fund the system's improvements and operations. The
connection fees for District No. 1 are listed on the attached schedule.
Revenue from these fees fund capital improvements required to support
system components at a level of capacity necessary to handle sewage flows.
These fees do not pay for improvements required on the non-District owned
collection system.
Joint Outfall System
Seventeen of the Sanitation Districts that provide sewerage services in the
metropolitan Los Angeles area, including District No. 1, are also signatory to
a Joint Outfall Agreement that provides for a regional, interconnected system
of facilities known as the joint Outfall System. The service area of the Joint
'Outfall System encompasses 73 cities and unincorporated territory, and
includes some areas within the City of Los Angeles.
This system provides sewage treatment, reuse, and disposal for residential,
commercial, and industrial users and includes treatment plants in Carson,
South E1 Monte, Cerritos, Industry, Long Beach, Pomona, and La Canada
Flintridge.
City of Lynwood Sewer System
The City of Lynwood's sewer sYstem consists of approximately 400,000
feet of .predominately 8-inch sewer 'pipe, 1,600 manholes and 713
connections to the County system. There are no intermediate collector
trunks and therefore the numerous connections. The City's sewer system
was formally evaluated in 1984 and a follow-up report was prepared by
Donald G. Rosenberg & As?ociates.
As stated above, District No. 1 connection fees do not. pay for
improvements required on the City-owned collection System. These costs
are the responsibility of the City of' Lynwood. The City does not
currently collect a connection fee from new development. Maintenance
and operational costs for the system ~e funded from City General Funds.
Goals and objectives of the Sewer Division' include the following from
the FY 2005-06 budget:
PACn~zc Mv~CrVAL Co~tso~ rA~rrs
-£¥N~OOD ClTVII~IPACT~WEE STUDY ~A.~-~'wAT£R FACILITIES
1. Optimize regular sewer cleaning program to reduce sewer
blockages and reduce emergency call outs.
2. Implement a sewer manhole inspection and cleaning program.
3. Implement a sewer inspection and monitoring program to identify
system deficiencies.
'5.
Initiate a citywide sewer system study to identify and recommend
system improvements.
Set up procedures for contract sewer maintenance on a yearly
basis.
6,. Administer sewer relate~l projects.
7. Implement a sewer lateral repair program on areas affected by City
tree roots.
Table 7.1 identifies the estimated costs related to projected wastewater
improvements.
"Table 7.1: Planned Wastewater Facilities Inventory
Estimated
Facility cost
Projected Wastewater improvements
Wastewater Master Plan Study
$ 6,000,000
600,000
Total $ 6,600,000
Notes:
Facilities will be designed to serve current and future population.
Serves residential and non-residential development
Sources: City of Lynwood
The Wastewater facilities serve both residents and workers citywide.
Table 7.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In
calculating the service population, a Dwelling Unit Equivalent is used
based on the was'tewater generation of 1 single family home equaling 260
gallons per day (gpd). Non-residential wastewater generation is then
L r~.qgOOD ~I~A CT 1~ STUD Y
related to housing generation rates based on a DUE per 1000 square foot
basis.
Table 7.2: Wastewater FaCilities Service Population
Growth
Land Use 2005 2005-2020 DUE Factor
DUE Growth
DUE 2005 2005-2020
Residential (in units)
Single Family 9,826 723 1
Multi-family 5,122 377 0.6
Nonresidential (in sf)
Commercial 2,254,200 998,500 1.25
.Industrial 1,424,400 0.77
Office/Business Park 0.77
9,826 723
3,073 226
2,818 1,248
1,097 -
To~l 16,814 2,197
A DUE is a Dwelling unit equivalent'based upon a single family
unit generating 260 GPD equal to 1 EDU.
For non-residential, DUE Factor is based on per 1000 sf.
From La County - Sanitation District.No. 1: SFD = 260 gpd/dwelling unit
Multi-unit residential = 156 gpd per dwelling unit
Mobile Home Parks '= 156 gpd per space
..Shopping Center = 325 gpd/1000 sf
Office Building = 200 gpd/1000 sf
Warehousing =25 gpd/1000 sf
From General Plan: Industrial = 200 gpd/1000sf
Sources: General.Plan - 2020 Infrastructure/Public Service Element; LA County Sanitation District No. 1 Master
Connection Fee Ordinance; City of LYnwood Sewer System Evaluation (1984)
This section discusses the standard used .to determine the futUre needs for
facilities related to Wastewater facilities.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown' in Table 7.3, is based on the
-Master Plan approach for establishing facility .standards because the
planned facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. As such, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the city and'not by impact
PA C~FIc MUi~ICIPAL C020'SULTAPOT'S
· LIT~gOOD C17'YI~dI~Ac"I'FEE,.,q'I~DY ]~'ASTE~ATER FACII,~I'IES
fees. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new
development pays for the same level of facilities as existing development.
Table 7.3: Facility Standards and per .Capita ExpanSion Costs
Service
~ DUEs Facility Cost
Improvements $ 6,600,000
Service DUEs 19,011
20~}5 DUEs 16,814
2005 - 2020 DUEs 2,197
Facility Expansion Cost per DUE $ 347.17
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2; PMC
New development can be required to provide 'its propo£fionate share of
facilities related to new 'development. Table 7.4 shows the allocation of
Wastewater facility costs.. Future development is contributing at the same
rate per capita as existing development.
Table 7.4: Wastewater Facilities Costs
Service PopulatiOn Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per DUE $
Total· Facilities To Accommodate Growth $
Required funds to serve existing population $
Sources: Tables 7.2 and 7.3.
2,197
347.17
762,800
5,837,200
PAC~F~C MU~O~AL CON$O~T,,~rP$
L F1V~OO D CITY [~A CT FEES T~D Y ~TA~E~A TER .FACILITIES
Table 7.5 shows the Wastewater facilities impact fee for new
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 7.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed 'tO accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee
based on the estimated DUEs for the facilities.
Table 7.5: Wastewater Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per
Land UseI DUE DUEs Fee2
Residential
Single Family $ 347.17 1.0 $ 347.17
Multi-family 347.17 0.6 208.30
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 347.17 1.25 $ 433.96
IndUstrial 347.17 0.77 267.32
Office/Business Park 347.17 0.77 267.32
~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC
This section discusses a range 'of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
ImPlementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through'the
following options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and therebY reduce the
cost to new development.
· Identify alternative fUnds to replace fee revenues. . This
approach requires either reallocating existing, revenues, increasing
tax rates or' charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
LYNWOOD CI2~I'I~PACTF~ STUDY ]~A'~i~vATF-~ FAClI.,I~I'ES
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Wastewatet facility impact fee at time of final
inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate in&xes in .the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in .the fee ordinance.
8. NOISE-MONITORING SYSTEM
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for noise monitoring
equipment to carry out and implement Lynwood Municipal Code Section
3-12, which regulates unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises from all
sources. A portion of the ben. efits of this noise monitoring equipment
accommodates new development. The chapter documents a reasonable
relationship between new development and the maximum justified impact
fee for funding of such facilities and eligible equipment.
In order to address the negative impacts that noise emitting land uses
have on the residents of the City of Lynwood, Municipal Code Section 3-
12 requires such land uses and establishments thereon to comply.with
general health, safety, and welfare performance standards and encourage
them to be "good neighbors."
Lynwood residents are entitled to' peace, welfare, and .a quality of life free
from intrusive noise sources. Acceptable levels of noise vary in different
zoning designations. ' Residential zones have lower thresholds of noise
while commercial and manufacturing zones' tend to have more intrusix;e
noise sou£ces.
The City has purchased the necessary noise measurement equipment (i.e.
decimeter and calib~rator) and all code enforcement personnel and some
sheriff deputies have received txaining on its proper use. In order to
enforce the noise ordinance, noise readings must be made at various
locations and times to identify excessive noise levels frOm a specific
source.
The City has purchased equipment from Sage Technologies to measure
noise levels. The initial cost was $2,100 per unit for 'the equipment and
$800 for a half-day txaining session for all applicable personnel as shown
on Table 8.1'.
L Y]V~OOD C/'X'Y [M~A C~ FEE ST'[rD y IV'O~'SE MOIVTTOR,W'C. ~
Table 8.1: Noise Monitoring System
System
Location (cost)
Noise Monitoring System (3 units)
Training on System
Total
Notes:
Serves residents and workers.
Serves current and future population.
Sources: City of Lynwood Agenda Staff Report (11-15-05)
$ 6,300
8OO
$ 7,100
Noise-monitoring serves both residents and workers in the City. Table
8.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020.
· Table.8.2:· Noise Monitoring System Service Population
service
Residents Workers
Existing (2005) · 73,212 9,054
New Development (2005-2020) ~5.828 2.745
Total (2020) 79,040 11,799
Weighting factor f . O0 O. 24
Population
75,385
6..487
81,872
· Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 hours/week for an
employee to 24 x 7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Sources: Table 2.2
This section discusses the standard Used to determine the future needs for
the noise monitoring system.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of exisdng capital equipment and the.
equipment that new development should be responsible for, a per capita
facility standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 8.3, is based
on the excess capacity standard because the system provides a benefit to
both existing and future development. 'Use of the standard in calculating
the impact fee ensures that new development pays for the same level of
facilities as existing development.
,Table 8.3: Facili~ Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility Facility
Standard Expansion
Service per l,O00 Cost Per
2005 Inventoq/ Population Capita Capita
Cost of system $ 7,100 81,872 $ 87 $ 0.09
Total Cost per Capita
Cost per Resident
Cost per Worker
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.02
Sources: Tables 8. f and 8.2
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 8.4 shows the allocation of
citywide noise-monitoring system costs. Future de4elopment is
contributing at the Same rate per capita as existing devel.opment.
PAC. tFIc MuNICIPAL
47
I'~ I'TVWOO D Cll~ IIl.t~l C'l' ~ ~'lZrO y NOLTE _I~'O NITO lt EVG
,Table 8.4: Noise Monitorin~l System Costs
Service Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
· 6,487
$ 0.09
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth $ 584
Required funds to serve existing population $ 6,516
Facility cost to serve existing and futur(~ Population already
appropriated.
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.
Table 8.5 shows the noise monitoring system impact fee for new.
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 8.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate ~rowth based on the excess capadty stamdard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential development would Pay the fee
based on the service population for the facilities.
Table 8.5: Noise Monitorin~l System Impact Fees '
costs per
Land Use~ . Capita Densityz Feea
Residential
'Single Family
Multi-family
Nonresidential
COmmercial
Industrial
Office
$ 0.09 4.7 $ 0.42
0.09 4.7 0.42
0.02 1.4 $ 0.03
0~02 0.6 0.01
0.02 1.7 0.03
· ~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee-per 1000
square feet for nonresidential land uses.
3 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMc, Table 2.2
L YNIVOO D CITY I','~I'A CI' FEE STUDY NOISE MO NITO R IN G
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact'
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has thc policy discretion to implement a lower fcc through the
fo!lowing options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new devclopment.
· Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the noise-monitoring system impact fee at time of
final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection 'at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· . Not include an automatic annual inflatiOn adjustment in the fee
ordinance because the City has purchased the system.
9. TECHNOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for the acquisition and
implementation of technological enhancements in the areas of financial
management, elec~onic messaging (e-mail) and file storage capacity, and a
local area network (I~N) system to accommodate existing and new
de4elopment. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between
new develtpment and the maximum justified impact fee for funding of
such enhancements.
Financial Management: The City of Lynwood currently performs financial
and accounting functions using an outdated accounting system and
hardware that is proving to be ineffective as the city grows in both
Complexity and volume of transactions. The current system is based on a
20-year old custom programmed in PIK. Therefore, the City has recently
sought bids from qualified vendors for the purpose of acquiring and
implementing a comprehensive, fully integrated financial system with the
following capab~fies and components:
· 'General ledger
· Budgeting
· Project accounting
· Purchasing
Contract management
Bid and quote management
Inventory control
· Accounts payable
· Fixed assets
· Accounts receivable
· Cashiering
· Utility bilhng
L ]"I~OOD CI'I~.[I~PA CT FEE ~I-]D Y TEC. I.I~OLOGIC.4L ~N~L4~CF_~J~
· Special Assessments
· Applicant tracking
Human resources
· Payroll
· Position budgeting/control
· Parcel manager
· Permits & inspections
· Citizen requests
· Code enforcement
* Licensing
· Integrated report writer, tools
Electronic Messaging and File Storage: During the discussions on the
Mid-Year budget on February 7, 2006, the City Council approved funds
'for a new e-mail and file storage system to replace the old and outdated
systems currently in use.
E-mail is a vital compdnent to conducting business in the City of
Lynwood. The City currently uses Lotus Notes R5 running on a Domino
server, which has been in use since early 1999. The current version of e-
mail software is outdated requiring significant ·maintenance and
patchwork to transfer larger ·files due to a lack of computer processing
power. Major' advances in e-mail technology and the need for users to
remotely and wirelessly access their e-mail accounts prompted staff to
research alternative solutions.
Local Area Network .(LAN): The City's current network operating system
for file and printer services is Novell 4.12. It has been in'service since
1999 and is nearing the end of ifs life span. The operating system is run
on a Hewlett Packard Net-server LH3, which is an older Pentium 3
machine. It has a Storage capacity of 21 gigabytes, of which only six
gigabytes are available for network files. As a comparison, the average
server today runs on a 2.5-3-Ghz processor, has 2 GB of RAM, and
typically has 200 GB of storage space.
The LAN upgrade would include a fiber optic connection from City Hall
to the Annex building and the Senior Center.
Replacing 'these two systems will improve performance by allowing .users
to access their e-mails from any location with an Internet connection,
increase security, improve spare filtering capabilities, increase file storage
PACIFIc MUI~CIPA~ COIqb'UL TANT$
51
and printer services, and integrate many collaboration features for
improving team communications such as event calendars, contacts, web
links, discussions, issues lists, and announcements, to name a few.
Table 9.1 identifies the Technological Enhancements and related costs to
provide services to citywide residents and workers.
Table 9.1: Technological Enhancements
System
Cost of System
Financia! Management System
Electronic messaging & file storage
Locan Area Network (LAN)
$540,000
50,000
20.000
Total
$610,000
Notes:
Facility will serve current and future populatiOn.
Serves residents and 'workers.
Sources: City of Lynwood RFP/Peter Han correspondence 1/'4.5706.
Technological enhancements serve both residents and workers in the City.
Table 9.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In
calculating the service population, residents-are given a weight of 1.0 and
workers are weighted at 0.24 to reflect lower per cap3ta service usage.
Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than
dwelling units,, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker usage
of services is less than average per-resident usage.
PACI~Ic MD~oTCI~AL C01VSULT~¢T5
Table 9.2: Technolo~lical Enhancements Service PopulatiOn
Service
Residents Workers .Population
Existing (2005) 73,212 9,054 75,385
New Development (2005-2020) ~ 2.745 6.487
Total (2020) 79,040 11,799 81,872
Weig, hting factor 1. O0 O. 24
Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 hours/week for an employee to
24 x 7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Sources: Table 2.2
~~~.~-~'~~;.,..?,.~:,;;~.:e~ ~..~:; ~,~: :~.;~: ........ -., ..,.......+., .. ........
This section discusses the standard used to determine future
developments' share of the costs of facilities for serVices related to
technological enhancements.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure "equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 9.3, is based on the
master' plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both 'existing and future .development.' As such, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the City and not I~y impact
fees. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures new
development pays for the same level of facilities as' existing development.
-PACI~IC MU1VICIPAL CO~SUL TAIVTS
L I'N~OO D Ct33" [/,~'.d CT FEE .qT'UD y TE ~O LOC4-C.4 £ ENHAN~
Table 9.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility
Standard
Cost of Service per 1,000 Facility Cost
System Population Capita Per Capita
Description $ 610,000 81,872 $ 7,451 $ 7.45
Total Cost per Capita
$ 7.45
'Cost per Resident $ 7.45
Cost per Worker~ $ 1.79
Based on worker per capita weighting factor from Table 9.2.
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.2
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
technological enhancements related to new development. Table 9.4
shows the allocation of citywide Technological Enhancement costs.
Future development is contributing at the same level per capita as existing
development.
Table 9.4: Technological Enhancements CoSts
Total
Service Population Growth, 2005-2020 6,487
Total Facilities Cost per Capita $ 7.45
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds to serve existing population
$ 48,000
$562,0OO
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.
t'.elC~C MO3tlCIP~ C03I~'I.T~JVTS
L Y31WOOD CITY I~tt'AcI' FF..R STUDY TRC. HN'OLOGICA£ ENHA~CF_.MRN'~
Table 9.5 shows the Technological Enhancement impact fee for new
development based on the cost per capita shown in Table 9.3. The fee
represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all enhancements
needed to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee
based on the service population for the facilities.
Table 9.5: Technolo~lical Enhancements Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~ Capita Density2
Fee3
Residential
Single Family
Multi-family
· Nonresidential
Commercial/Office
Industrial
Office
$ 7.45 4.7 $ 35.02
7.45 4.7 35.02
1.79 1.4 $ 2.51
1.79 0.6 1.06
1.79 1.7 3.00
l See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per 1~)00 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
3 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the-policy discretion to implement a lower £ee through the
following options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development. '
PACIFIC MUN~CIpAL
L YI~gOOD CITY.~.MP.4 c~ FEE STUDY
TECHnOLOgICAL ~~
Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Technological Enhancements impact fee at
time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building
permit issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the
fee, the City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual'inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
PA C~Ic MUI~TCIPAL CONSUL TAIV~
t0. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
-- ........ = ................................................... ~-~
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for transportation
facilities that include roadway, intersection, and traffic signal
improvements .~ to accommodate new development. The chapter
documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the'.
maximum justified impact fee for funding of these facilities.
The City's Public Works Department includes .Public Works
Administration, Engineering Services, Transportation Administration,
Right of Way .Maintenance, Street Maintenance, and Traffic Signals and all
having some responsibility for streets and transit operations and capital.
improvements.
Key arterial streets include Martin Luther King Blvd., Imperial Highway,
Alameda Street, Long Beach Blvd., and Atlantic Avenue. The city is also
Served by approximately ten key collector streets.
The Lynwood General Plan - 2020 includes goals and policies for the safe
and efficient movement of goods and people. For the arterial roadway
system, the goal is to:
Provide a drculation (ystem to s~rv~ th~ internal circulation needs of the City,
~vhilv also addressing the intercommunit, y or through travel needs.
For public transit and trails, the goal is to:
Accommodate alternatives to p~ivatt automobik transportation that m~et th~ nt~ds
of all City residents.
Traffic analysis reviews the amount of traffic on the major street~ of the
City and compares them to known Levels of Service (LOS). Average
Daily Trips (ADT) that a particular street can accommodate determines
the LOS. LOS A is very light traffic and LOS F is basically bumper-to-
bumper traffic. Traffic studies completed for the 2002 General Plan
Update demonstrated that the City of Lynwood's circulation system is
generally adequate and will. be adequate for. the future. The land use
changes proposed in the G. P. Update will not have a material impact on
traffi~ volumes and therefore will not significantly affect LOS within the
community.
~, i'NWOOD CFI'Y FEE STO'D Y TRAFFIC FA
However, several studies have suggested capital improvements to retain
adequate LOS levels. As impact fees are legally precluded from funding
operations and maintenance functions, only Capital Projects will be
addressed. Capital projects identified for impact fee funding are listed in
Table 10.2:
Table 10.1 shows traffic demand that would be generated by new
development from 2005 to 2020. To estimate the total demand for new
traffic facilities across all land use types, a "dwelling unit equivalent"
(DUE) factor is calculated that sets the demand from a single;family
dwelling unit at 1.00 DUE. DUE factors for all other land uses are
calculated relafix~e to the traffic, capacity demand from a single-family unit.
,Table 10.1: Traffic Generation by New Development
DUE
Growth DUE DUE Growth
Land Use~ Existin~l 2005-2020 Total Factor~ 2005 2005-2020
Residential (in units)
Single Family 9,826 723 10,549 1.00 9,826
Multi-family 5,122 377 5,499 0.70 3~585
Nonresidential (in sf) 3
Commercial 2,254,200 998,500 3,252,700 4.49 10,~ 21
Industrial .1,424,400 1,424,400 0.73 1,040
Office/Business Park 1.15 -
723
264
4,483
Total
~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions. Growth measured in dwelling units for
24,573 5,470
residential uses and 1,000 square feet for nonresidential uses.
2 DUE means "dwelling unit e .' " ' ·
qurvalent, or traffic generation by land use per unit compared to a single family
dwelling unit (9.57 trips/dwellingunit). DUE Factor for non-residential is per 1000 sf.
3per ITE
Shopping center:. 42:94 trips/1000 sf (as typical Commercial) '
General Light Industrial: 6.97 trips/1000 sf (as typical Industrial)
Office/Business Park: 11.01 to 12.76 trips/1000 sf (aS typical Office/Business Park) '
Apartment: 6.72 tripS/apartment
Sources: PMC, Lynwood General Plan - Circulation Element, ITE- Trip. Generation, 7th Edition (2003)
L I'N~OO D CITY FEE 571]DY TRAFFIC FACILITIES
The traffic facility standards used to identify traffic improvement projects
needed to accommodate growth are identified, below:
Level of service.
The City's traffic facility standards are based on a number of reports and
surveys that were used to prepare the Circulation Element of the
Lynwood General Plan dated January 2002. Circulation Element'Goal
#1, Policy #l.1 states: Maintain a minimum Level af Service "C" at all
inte'rsecti°ns during non-peak hours and LOS '~" at all intersectiom during peak
hours to ensure that traffic cklajys am leqt to a minimum.
Traffic impacts are measured using periodic traffic-modeling studies. The
model incorporates land use to generate trips and then distributes those
trips across the City's transportation network. The model generates
estimated traffic volumes for major roadways and intersections, and LOS
is calculated from that volume and capacity data.
The projects included in Table 10.2 are justified using this LOS standard.
Future projects
As a result of the traffic modeling, traffic improvements needed to
accommodate new and existing development were identified. The list
of projects is identified in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2: Transportation Impact Fee Program - Roadway Improvements
Project Total Traffic
Project Other Impact Fee
Number~ Street Location/segment Cost Funding Fundin~l
05-5258 $ 671,850 $ 618.000 $ 53.850
State Street Phase II
05-5269 Abbott Rd. 90.000 10.000 80,000 '
05-5296 Alley Improvements 400,000 400,000
05-5299 Street Improvements 4,300.000 , 4,300,000
Proposed projects:
~ Imperial Hwy Bullis to East City limits 2,500.000 2.500,000
1,300,000 1,300,000
Abbott Rd. MLK Blvd. to Atlantic Ave.
~
1,000,000 - 1,000,000
MLK Blvd. Alameda St. to Wdqht Rd.
Total Street Improvements $ 10,261.850 $ 628,000 $ 9.633,900
From City CIP
Sources: City of Lynwood CIP, Lynwood City staff
The total cost per DUE for the Projects shown in Table 10.2 is shown in
Table 10.$.
Table 10.3: TranspOrtation Impact Costs per DUE
Roadway improvements $ 9,633,900
Total DUEs 30,043
2005 DUEs 24,573
2005 - 2020 DUEs 5,470
COst per DUE $ 320.67
Sources: PMC
'~ : PA C~C MuI~CI'PAL CONSD'K TAIV~
L Iq~IWOO D ~ ~ .5~J'D Y TP. AIV'$PO RTA TION
New development can be required to provide its proPortionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 10.4 shows the allocation of
citywide transportation system costs. Future development is contributing·
at the same rate per capita as existing development.
Table 10.4:- Transportation System Costs
~erVice Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per DUE
Total
5,470
320.67
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth $ 1,754,100
Required funds to serve existing population $ 7,879,800
Sources: Tables 10.2 and 10.3;
Table 10.5 shows the Transportation faciiifies impact fee for new
development'based on the facilities cost per DUE shown in Table 10.3.
The fee represents-the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed-to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide residential and n0nresidenfial development would pay the fee
based on the service population (DUEs) for the facilities.
L VNWOOD CI~ ~ b"lTJD Y TltANSPOIt TA TI'ON FA ClI_.ITIES
Table 10.5: Transportation Impact Fee
Cost Per DUE
Land Use~ DUE per Unit2 Fee3
'ResidenUal
Single Family $ 320.67 1.00 $ 320.67
Multi-family 320.67 0.70 224.47
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 320.67 4.49 $1.439.81
Industrial 320.67 0.73 234.09
Office/Business Park 320.67 1.15 368.77
See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 DUE means "dwelling unit equivalent", or the impact by land use per
unit compared to a single family dwelling uniL
3 Fee per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per 1,000 square
feet for nonresidential uses.
Sources: PMC
Anticipated funding for traffic improvemen.ts to reduce the burden on the
Traffic impact fee program is identified in Table 10.2.
Additionally, some cities and counties have won voter approval for a half-
cent sales tax increase for transportation projects. This option could be
available for Lynwood as well.
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
ImPlementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through one
or both of the following two options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and therby reduce the
.I~A ~Tc MuI~(~PAL CONS-e.~ TAI~'S
L I 'N~OO D CIT'Y FEE b~I'[ID Y TRANSPOR TA ~IO N FA CII, I'"rlF~
cost to' new development. Reduction in thc standard could have
undesirable consequences.
* Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires' reallocating existing revenues, increasing tax
rates or charges, or identifying and securing new revenue sources.
The most feasible option for reducing the traffic impact- fee would be
secure new revenue sources to offset the impact fee.
F~e collection and administration
The City would collect thc transportation facilities impact fee at time of
final inspection or certificate of occupanCY. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
* Identify appropriate indexes in the fee 'ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
PAC.~FIc MUI~ICI~AL C. OI~SULTANT$
t 1. CHILDCARE FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for childcare facilities to
accommodate existing and new development. The chapter documents a
reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum
justified impact fee for funding of such facilities.
The City of Lynwood does not currently offer childcare facilities as a city-
sponsored service. Referrals to licensed childcare providers are made on the
Los An~de~ Couny Child Care Information and Resourcvs Directory at
http://childcare.co.la.ca.us~. (The names listed in the directory are neither
recommendations nor endorsements by Los Angeles County.) There are
currendy 52 licensed providers listed within the area serving Lynwood.
Resource and Referral Agencies (R&Rs) are local Los Angeles County
agencies that assist parents in locating childcare and help family childcare
providers with licensing, fingerprinting, and other issues. Many R&Rs are
also Alternative Payment Programs (APPs), which means they provide
childcare subsidies for low-income families. Services provided may vary from
agency to agency and R&Rs will also refer families seeking childcare.
The National Child Care Information Center (U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families) maintains an
information directory at
ht~://www.nccic.o~/pubs/ccfinancingma~-~.html. The site contains
national listings for childcare funding and financing programs.
In 1985, the City of Concord and the City and County of San Francisco
were among the first in the state'to establish linkage' fees for childcare. In
Concord, the Childcare Program was established to implement the
provisions of the land use element of the city general plan, which in 1985. was
amended to reflect the increased demand for child care facilities caused by
new development.' The subsequently adopted fee applies to all new
development with the exception of residential and non-residential projects.
whose value is les~ than $40,000. The fee is 0.5 percent of the development
COst stated on the building permit. Should the developer elect to provide-a
child care program, the city requires "satisfactorY assurances that the
establishment of the facility and program with initial and future funding of
both will be accomplished."
P, io~'rC Mr.a~rC~,,~ CONSU~.T~r~S
L I'I~FOO D CITY FF_.E b~I'U'D Y CH'IL I3~ 4R E
Under Concord's program, the developer enters into a contract with the city
and pays for a study performed by a consultant of the city's choosing, to
ensure that the proposed facility and program are appropriate. Collected
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fees are placed in a
spedal account, with the 'majority of the funds going to a non-profit
childcare corporation. As of 1999, more. than $1,000,000 in funds had been
raised.
In 1996, the City of West Sacramento adopted a childcare ordinance
designed to' encourage developers to voluntarily address childcare needs
associated with their development in accordance with the goals of the
City's 'General Plan Childcare Element. The ordinance offered incentives
to developers who address the demand for childcare services created as a
result of their development. The incentives included not counting on-site
daycare facilities in the calculation of a project's floor-area ratio,
transportation management plan credits, priority processing of
applications for permits for daycare facilities or other incentives deemed
appropriate by the city. Voluntary options, available to developers
included providing on-site daycare facilities, reserving or donating !and
for a daycare facility or contributing .to a childcare fund. '
When West Sacramento developers did not take advantage of the
incentives, the city considered adopting a Childcare Development Fee.
As part of the fee nexus study, the city conducted a childcare demand
analysis that included a discussion of the costs assodated with building
childcare facilities. The nexus study was based in part on a study entitled
"Childcare IXl~ds of Yolo County, Updat~ of th~ IPgY N~ds'As~essment and
Strattgic Plan 2003-08." Fees are currently $443 per residential dwelling
unit over 1,400 .squ. are feet and a range of $.13 to $,44 per square foot for
hotel, retail, office, and industrial. Fees are levied on construction of new
buildings only. The fee revenues are placed in a Childcare Development
Fund which may be used toward the acquisition of property for childcare
facilities, facilities for before- and after-school care, and preschool.
· Table 11,i identifies the' cost related to preparing a 'study for child care
facility needs to provide childcare services as a result of nonresidential
development.
PACI~¢ MUNIC. YPAL C02ISULTAN'~
L~ooo CPPYFF~ S~oDr
Table 11.1: Childcare
Location
Cost
Consultant Study
Notes:
Total
$ 60,000
$ 60,000
$ 60,000
Serves current and future workers..
Sources: PMC and West Sacramento Childcara Impact Fee in Book of City
Imposts
Childcare facilities serve workers in the City. Table 11.2 shoWs the.
estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In calculating the service
population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted
at 0.24 to reflect lower per capita s'ervice usage. Nonresidential buildings
are typically ocCUpied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is
reasonable to assume that average pe~-worker usage of services is less
'than average per-resident usage.
,Table 11.2: Childcare Facilities Service Population
Service
workers Population
Existing (2005) 9,054 9,054
New Development (2005-2020) ~,?=ff__4~ ~
Total (2020) 11,799 11,799
.Weighting factor 1. O0.
Sources: Table 2.2
· This section discusses the standard used to determine the future needs for
the childcare service.
L Y~g OO D C~[~ FEE ..~Z-~D Y
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 11.3, is based on the
master plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. As such, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact
fee, s. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new
development pays for the same level of facilities as existing development.
Table 11.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility Facility
Standard Expansion
Service per 1,000 Cost Per
2005 Cost Population Capita Unit Cost Capita .,,
Consultant study $ 60,000
TOtal Cost per Capita
11,799 $ 5,085 NA$ 5.09
$ 5.09
Cost per Worker
Sources: Tables 11.1 and 11.2; PMC.
$ 5.09
New development can be required to. provide its proportionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 11.4 Shows the allocation of
citywide CNldcare facility costs. Future development is contributing at
the same level per capita as existing development.
Table 11.4: Childcare Facilities Costs
Service Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
2,745
$ 5.09
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth. $
Required funds to serve existing population $
Sources: Tables 11.2 and 11.3;
14,000
46,000
CONSULTANTS
L FIV~OO D IL'~TY FEE .~'D Y CI-[ILDC.4 R £
Table 11.5 shows the childcare facilitY impact fee for new development
based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 11.3. The fee
represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities needed to
accommodate growth based on the master'plan standard. Citywide
nonresidential development would pay the fee based on the service
population for the facilities.
Table 11.5: Childcare Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~ Capita ' Density2 Fee3.
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 5.09 1.4 $ 7.14
Industrial '5.09 0.6 3.02
Office 5.09 1.7 8,53
See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per 1000 sf
for nonresidential land uses.
3 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC, Table 2.2
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
.following options:
*' Lower the' facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development.
.* Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue -
Sources.
PA~¢MU/~Tt~'AL CONSULTA~W~
L YN~OOD CITY FEE .,S"I72DY C[-IILDCARE
Fee collection and administration '-
The City would collect the Child care impact fee at time of final
inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain condifions.~ To. implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the £ee ordinance.
PAC~¢ MUIVI~'AL C.01V. CUL TANTS
12. ADMINISTRATION
This chapter discusses 'the need for an administration component to 'be
included in the impact fee program.
As with most programs, there is a cost to administer, oversee and uPdate
the program. It is recommended that a cost be added to the overall
impact fee to cover the costs related to implementing, administering,
overseeing and updating the fee program, including the annual reporting
requirements. An administrative cost of 5% of the total fee has been
added and is shown in Table 12.1.
· _Table 12.1: Summaryof Maximum Justified Fees
Facility Cate~lory
Multi-
Single Family Family Commercial Industrial Office
Police Services
Parks/Recreation
Civic Center/City Garage.
Water facilities
Wastewater facilities
Noise-Monitoring System
Technological Enhancements
Transportation facilities
. Childcare
Subtotal
Fee per Dwelling Unit
413.32 $ 413.32
2,270.10 2,27'0.10
145.70 145.70
1,381.25 1,381.25
347. t7 208.30
0.42 0.42
35.02 35.02
320.67 224.47
Fee per 1.000 Building Souare Feet
$ 29.63 $ 12.52 $ 35.39
10.44 4.41 12.47
2,244.53 1,381.25 - 1,381.25
433.96 267.32 267.32
0.03 0.01 0.03
2.51 1.06 3.00
1,439.81 234.09 368.77
7.14 3.02 8.53
$ 4,913.65 $ 4,678.58 $ 4,168.05 $ 1,903.68 $ 2,076.76
Administration 5% $ 258 $ 246 '$ 219 $ 100 $ 109
Total (to nearest dollar) $ 5,172 $ 4,925 $ 4,387 $ 2,004 $ 2,186
Sources: PMc
Table 12.2 estimates the total revenues generated by the impact fee
program for administration. The City should monitor its actual costs and
LYNWOOD C~I'F'FEE .~IT~DY CHILDCARE
adjust the factor as necessary in any subsequent update to the fee
program.
Table 12.2: Total Impact Fee ReVenues
(Constant dollars)
Revenues General
Facility from Impact Fund/Other
Category Fees Sources Program Total
Police Services $ 570,000 $ 6,630,000 $ 7,200,000
Parks/Recreation 2,815,000 35,.26,5,000 $ 38,080,000
· Civic Center/City Garage 201,100 2,337,000 $ 2,538,100
Water facilities 3,760,500 21,409,500 $ 25,170,000
Wastewater facilities 762,800 5,837,200 $ 6,600,000
Noise-Monitoring System 584 6,516 $ 7,100
Technological Enhancements 48,000 562,000 $ 610,000
Transportation facilities 1,-754,100 7,879,800 $ 9,633,900
Childcare 14,000 46,000 $ 60,000
Subtotal .$ 9,926,084 $ 79,973,016 $ 89,899,100
Administration 5% $ 522,916 NA 522,916
Total (to nearest $1,000)
Percentage to the Program
$10,449,000 $79,973,000 $ 90,422,000
12% 88% 100%
Funds identified under General Fund/Other Sources is a city obligation to the program.
Excludes additional funding of $628,000 for Transportation Improvements.
Sources: PMC
The impact fee program is estimated over a 15 year planning horizon.
Based .on this horizOn, approximately $33,000 will be 'generated annually
for program administration.
'PACIFIC Iff ~flt~'PAL ~01V'$UL TAI~r~
13. IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter identifies tasks that the City should complete when
implementing the fee program.
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California
Government Code § 66000 et seq. Adoption of an impact fee program
requires the City Board Of Supervisors to follow certain procedures
including holding a public hearing. Fourteen day mailed public notice is
required for those registering for such notification. Data, such as this
impact fee report, must be made available at least'10 days prior to the
public hearing. The City's legal counsel should inform the City of any
other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an.
enabling ordinance and/or a resolution, After adoption there is a
mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect, unless an
Urgency Ordinance valid for 30 days is adopted making certain findings
regarding the urgency being claimed. The ordinance must be re-adopted
at the end of the first period to cover the next 30 days and .therefore the
'entire 60-day waiting period. Fees adopted by urgency go into effect
immediately.. '~his procedure must also be followed for fee increases.
The City should update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to. identify
specific projects and program fee revenues to those projects. Use of the
CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new
development and the use o f fee revenues.
For the five-year planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all
existing fund balances and projected fee revenue to facilities projects.
The 'City can hold funds in a project account for longer than five years if
necessary to collect sufficient fund~ to complete a project.
L YIV'WOOD cITY FEE.~'UO~' CHILDCARE
For the maiority of the projects, the costs in this report are shown in 2005
dollars based on recent construction trendsin California. Certain facilities
are based on actual constructions costs. To ensure that the fee program
stays current with costs, the City should identify appropriate inflation
indexes in the fee ordinance and indude an automatic annual inflation
adjustment in the fee ordinance. Where practicable, it is recommended
th~at a separate index be used for land cost and construction'costs as
property often appreciates or depreciates at a different rate than
construction costs. In addition, for those facilities for which the City is
recouping funds for building excess capacity into the .facilities, no annual
adiustment factor is recommended. For these projects, the annual
adjustment factor is not necessary because the facilities have been
purchased and the costs determined.
Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser or
property-related information every few years. The construction cost
index can be based on.the City's recent capital proiect exPerience or taken
from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record. To
.calculate the fee increases, each index should be weighted by the share of
total planned facility hosts represented by land or construction, as
appropriate..
Each facility category has been presented separately for ease of analysis.
However, fees may be combined into one or more fee categories, The
most common combination is to include everything in a public facilities
fee and transportation-related items in a transportation impact fee, for
ease of administration as shown in Table 1.3.1:
pACIFIC
Table 13.1: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees
Single Multi- -
.Facility Category Family Family Commercial Industrial
Office
Fee .Der Dwelling Unit
Administration 5%
Police Services $ 413.32 $ 413.32 .$
Parks/Recreation 2,270.10 2,270.10 ~
Civic Center/City Garage 145.70 145.70 10.44
Water facilities 1,381.25 1,381.25 2,244.53
. Wastewater facilities 347.17 208.30 433.96
Noise-Monitoring System 0.42 0.42 0.03
Technological Enhancements 35;02 35.02 2.51
Childcare _.
- 7.14
Subtotal $ 4,592.98 $ 4,454.11
$ .241 $ 235
Total Public Facilities Fee
Fee per 1.000 Building Square Feet
29.63 $ 12.52 $
35.39
4.41 12.47
1,381.25 1,381.25
267.32 267.32
0.01 0.03
1.06 3.00
3.02 8.53
$ 2,728.24 $1,669.59 $ 1,707.99
$ 143 $ 88 $ 90
· $ 4,834 $ 4,689 $ 2,871 $ 1,758 $ 1,798
Transportation facilities $ 320.67 $ 224.47
Administration 5% $ 17 $ 12
Total Transportation Fee $ 338 $ 236
$ 1,439.81 $ 234.09 $ 368.77
$ 76 $' 12 $ 19
$ 1,516 $ 246 $ 388
TOTAL $ 5,172 $ 4,925 $ 4,387 $ 2,004 $ 2,186
Sources: PMC .
It is recommended that transportation impact fees be accounted for
separately from the public facility fees because the nature of the
improvements.
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting.
requirements of Government Code [ 66000 et seq. For facilities to be
funded with a combination of public facilities fees and other revenues, the
City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City
PAc~rC MO~Ca'~L Co~sr_fL r, c,~rrs
~4
L F~'OO D CITY ~I~E ..~D Y
must also identify when the other, revenues arc anticipated to be available
to fund the project.
PACIFIC MU~IlCIPAL C01VSULTAI~rI~
t 4. APPENDIX
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED bY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me~~ /"~ ,,'3
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage~//~//'~'/'.
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Finan
Christy Valencia, Deputy Director of Finance
Tara L. Taguchi, City Attorney's Office
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing Regarding the proposed adoption of a Resolution
Establishing Development Impact Fees And Adopting The
Comprehensive Impact Fee (Nexus) Study For The City Of
Lynwood
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City
Council:
1) Open the public hearing regarding the proposed adoption of the attached
Resolution Establishing Development Impact Fees and Adopting the
Comprehensive Impact Fee (Nexus) Study for the City of Lynwood;
2) Receive public testimony and Staff's report on this item;
3) Close the public hearing;
4) Adopt the proposed Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND ADOPTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FEE (NEXUS) STUDY FOR THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD" if the City Council:
a. Has adopted and read a second time "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ADDING A NEW
SECTION 11-19 TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE LYNWOOD
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM"; and
b. Finds and determines that the Comprehensive Impact Fee (Nexus)
Study, Exhibit B of the attached Resolution, complies with
Government Code §66001 by establishing the basis for the
imposition of the Development Impact Fee Schedule specified in
Exhibit A of the attached Resolution.
Background: At the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting, the City Council
received a Staff Report, a Comprehensive Impact Fee Study prepared by Pacific
Municipal Consultants ("PMC")'and a presentation by PMC regarding the
establishment of a Development Impact Fee Program in the City of Lynwood.
The purpose of the Study was to determine the impact of new developments on
AGENDA
rrEM
17.-
the City's infrastructure, document the nexus between the New Developments
and the adverse impacts on public infrastructure, and to assess the appropriate
cost that applicable law permits the City to impose on New Developments to
ameliorate said impacts to the greatest extent possible.
Government Code §§ 66016 - 66018 requires a local agency to hold at least one
properly noticed public hearing prior to levying a new fee or prior to approving a
revision to an existing fee. Such a public hearing was held on April 18, 2006. In
addition, ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, the City made available to the
public copies of the 3/29106 Pacific Municipal Consultants Comprehensive
Impact Fee Study providing the data required by the Fee Mitigation Act (Gov.
Code §66000 et seq.). A second public hearing was also properly published and
noticed for May 2, 2006.
The May 2, 2006 public hearing is being held to invite additional public comment
and testimony on the proposed adoption of the attached resolution which sets
forth the initial Development Impact Fee Schedule. Thus hearing will also permit
Council to fully discuss the resolution and make the findings required by Fee
Mitigation Act prior to its adoption.
Discussion & Analysis: To establish a Development Impact Fee Program in
the City, the City Council must: (1) adopt an enabling ordinance establishing the
parameters of the program; (2) hold at least one public hearing to receive public
comment on the Fee Study prior to adopting any specific impact fee; and (3)
make specific findings regarding the nexus Study prepared by PMC in
conjunction with adopting the resolution to establish the initial Development
Impact Fee Schedule applicable to all New Development projects in the City.
1. THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ENABLING ORDINANCE
A proposed Development Impact Fee Enabling Ordinance was introduced for first
reading by the City Council at the April 18, 2006 meeting and is scheduled to be
read a second time on May 2, 2006 as noted in item number 11 of this Agenda.
If the Council adopts this enabling ordinance for final passage on May 2, 2006,
the Council can proceed with adoption of the attached proposed resolution to
establiSh the initial Development Impact Fee Schedule applicable to all New
Development projects in the City.
2. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
The public hearing required by Government Code §66016 is designed to give the
public notice of the proposed fees to be adopted/imposed and to permit them to
review and make public comment regarding the data upon which the Council is
relying for the fee types and amounts. Such a public hearing was held on the
proposed draft, fee adopting resolution on April 18, 2006 and was continued to
May 2, 2006 to permit additional comment.
2
To give the public ample opportunity to comment and to provide an adequate
administrative record of the proceedings, a second duly noticed public hearing is
being held on May 2, 2006. Not only will this additional public hearing permit
further public comment, but such hearing will also provide Council with the
opportunity to fully discuss the resolution and make the findings required by Fee
Mitigation Act prior to adopting the Development Impact Fee Schedule.
3. ADOPTION OF THE FEE RESOLUTION
Findings Required Prior to Adoption
To meet the Mitigation Fee Act requirements, impact fees must have the
appropriate "nexus" with the public facilities for which they are imposed, and a
fee study must:
(a) Identify the purpose of the fee;
(b) Identify the use to which the fee will be put;
(c) Show a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee(s) and the
type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
(d) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is
imposed; and
(e) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee
and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities
attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
The Comprehensive Development Impact Fee (Nexus) Study dated March 29,
2006 prepared by PMC is designed to address and satisfy these requirements.
Prior to adoption of the attached proposed resolution setting the initial Impact
Fee amounts, the City Council must find that the information contained in the
PMC study does satisfy the foregoing requirements, as adoption of impact fees
without making appropriate findings may subject such fees to challenge. The
required findings are also set forth in the Recitals on the first page of the
attached proposed resolution, and the initial Impact Fee amounts are set forth in
Exhibit A of the resolution, entitled "Development Impact Fee Schedule."
Resolution Contingent Upon Effective Date of Ordinance
If the City Council makes the findings and adopts the attached resolution at the
May 2, 2006 meeting, the resolution and the Development Impact Fee Schedule
will become effective on July 2, 2006. Adoption of the resolution will be
contingent upon the Development Impact Fee ordinance becoming effective on
the same day.
Fiscal Impact: The City projects that future development of needed
infrastructure will cost, in today's dollars, $90,422,000. Based on the nexus
study prepared by PMC, the City has determined that the share of this cost to be
3
paid by new development is $10,449,000. The balance of $79,973,000 must be
Paid by the City through other sources.
Coordinated With: City Manager
Human Resources
Environmental Services
Development Services
Recreation and Community Services
Pacific Municipal Consultants
Attachments:
Impact Fee Resolution and its attached Exhibits "A" (Development Impact Fee
Schedule) and Exhibit "B" (Comprehensive Impact Fee Study)
4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
AND ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FEE (NEXUS)
STUDY FOR THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
WHEREAS, many cities and counties have adopted and imposed development
impact fees on new development to pay for new development's fair share of infrastructure
and services; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2006, the City Council of the City of Lynwood adopted for
final passage Ordinance No. ., establishing a Development Fee Impact Program in
the City of Lynwood; and
WHEREAS, the City retained Pacific Municipal Consultants ("PMC') to prepare a
Comprehensive Impact Fee nexus study dated March 29, 2006 (the "Study") in accordance
with Government Code §§ 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Study provided the City with information and data regarding the
nexus between the public facilities and services and the benefiting land uses that would
pay the fees at time of development; and
WHEREAS, the Study provided data outlining various public facilities and
services which are now highly subsidized primarily by the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, it is the City's policy that future new development should contribute
its fair share to public facilities and services though the imposition of impact fees which
will be used to finance, defray or reimburse the City for the appropriate portion of the cost
of public facilities which serve such development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held at least one duly noticed public heating on
the proposed development impact fees with an opportunity for the public to be heard,
pursuant to the provisions of Government Code § § 66016 - 66018; and
WHEREAS, the Study prepared by PMC has been available for public review and
comment pursuant to the provisions of Government Code § 66016; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. __, the City Council
of the City of Lynwood desires to impose and adopt the Development Impact Fees in
accordance with the nexus calculations and recommendations in the Study.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby find,
order, and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Lynwood finds and determines that the
Comprehensive Impact Fee nexus study dated March 29, 2006 prepared by Pacific
Municipal Consultants (the "Study") complies with California Government Code § 66001
by establishing the basis for the imposition of the fees on new development. This finding
is based on the fact that the Study:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Identifies the purpose of the fees;
Identifies the use to which the fees will be put;
Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed;
Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facilities and the type of development projects on which the fees are
imposed; and
Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and
the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable
to the development on which the fees are imposed.
SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby determines that the fees collected pursuant to
this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the
Study.
SECTION 3. That the City Council has considered the specific project descriptions and
cost estimates identified in the Study and hereby approves such project descriptions and
cost estimates and finds them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing certain
development impact fees.
SECTION 4. That the City Council finds that the projects and fee methodology identified
in the Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and Capital Improvement Plan.
SECTION 5. The adoption of the Study and the Development Impact Fee Schedule are
statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), because the setting of development impact fees merely establishes
a funding mechanism for the provision of future projects, and as such, the Resolution is not
an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment and
environmental review required under CEQA will be performed when projects funded by
the development impact fees are chosen and defined (Kaufman & Broad South Bay, Inc. v.
Morgan Hill (1993) 9 Cai.App.4th 464.
SECTION 6. That the City Council adopts the Development Impact Fee Schedule
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 7. That the Comprehensive Impact Fee nexus study dated March 29, 2006
prepared by Pacific Municipal Consultants, attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby adopted.
SECTION 8. That the fees specified in the attached Exhibit A shall become effective
sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.
SECTION 9. That this Resolution is contingent upon Ordinance No. __
effective.
becoming
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
day of__
2006.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
J. Arnoldo Beltran
City Attomey
N. Enrique Martinez
City Manager
Marianna Marysheva
Assistant City Manager- Finance
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 2, 2006
Facility Category
Police Services
Parks/Recreation
Civic Center/City Garage
Water facilities
Wastewater facilities
Noise-Monitoring System
Technological Enhancements
Childcare
Subtotal
Single Multi-
Family Family
Fee per Dwelling Unit
Commercial Industrial Office
Fee per 1,000 Building Square
Feet
$ 413.32 $ 413.32 $ 29.63
2,270.10 2,270.10 -
145.70 145.70 10.44
1,381.25 1,381.25 2,244.53
347.17 208.30 433.96
0.42 0.42 0.03
35.02 35.02 2.51
- 7.14
$4,592.98 $ 4,454.11 $ 2,728.24
$ 12.52 $ 35.39
4.41 12.47
1,381.25 1,381.25
267.32 267.32
0.01 0.03
1.06 3.00
3.02 8.53
$1,669.59 $ 1,707.99
Administration 5% $ 241 $ 235 $ 143 $ 88 $ 90
Total Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee
("PFDIF")
$ 4,834 $ 4,689 $ 2,871 $ 1,758 $ 1,798
Transportation facilities
Administration 5%
Total Transportation
Development Impact Fee ("TDIF")
$ 320.67 $ 224.47 $ 1,439.81 $ 234.09 $ 368.77
$ 17$ 12$ 76$ 12 $ 19
$ 338 $ 236 $ 1,516 $ 246 $ 388
TOTAL
$ 5,172 $ 4,925 $ 4,387 $ 2,004 $ 2,186
"B"- Comprehensive Impact Fee Study
COMPREHENSIVE-IMPACT
FEE STUDY
FOR THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD
MARCH 29, 2006
TABLE.OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................... i
List of Tables ....................... * ................................................... v
Executive Summary ............................................................ viii
Background and study objectives ................................................... vm
Development projections ........................................... : .......... ' .......... vm
Fee schedules and revenues .............................................................. ix
Ad~tional considerations ................................................................ xii
1. Introduction and Summary ....
Public facilities £mancing in California ............................................. 2
· Mitigation [rte Act ............' ............................... ~ ..................................... 3
Organization of the report...: ............................................................. 3
Facility standards ................................................. i..: ............ : .............. 5
Fee schedules and revenues .: ................ ' ............................................. 6
Growth Projections ...................................................... 9
Introduction ......... · ............................................................................... 9
population and Employment Estimates' 9
Land use categories ........... ' ....................... : ..................... '. ...... : ........... 10
Service population ............................................................................ ! !
Occupant densities ........................................................................... 12
Police Services ....................................................... 2_13
Existing Police facilidcs .................................................................... 13
Police Services service population ................................................... -14
[_,YNWOOD CgTY [~[PAC'I~FEE..q77JDY TABLE OF COIV'T~NTS
m
-6.
'7.
Police .Services facilities standards and unit costs ..................... 2 .... 15
Police Services facilities for new development ............................... 16
Fee schedule ............................................................ : ..... ~ ..... ~ ............. 17
Fee implementation .......................................................................... 17
Parks & Recreation .................................................... 19
Existing Parks and Recreation .................................................... ~ .... 19
Parks and Recreation service population ........................................ 21
Park facility standards and unit costs ................... . ........................... 21
Park and Recreation for new development ..................................... 23
Fee schedule .................... ~ ................................................................. 23
Fee implementation ................................ : ......................................... 24
· Civic'Center/City Garage ............... ~ ..................... ~ ..... 25
Existing Civic Center/City Garage facilities ..................................... 25
Civic Center/City Garage service population ................................. 27
Civic Center/City Garage standards and unit costs .......... : ............ 28
Civic Center/City Garage' for new development ......... .................. 28
Fee schedule ...................................................................................... 29
Fee implementation ..................................................................... .:... 30
Water Facilities ......................................... ' .................. 31
Existing Water facilities .................................................................... 31
Water Facilities service population ..... : ............................................ 33
Water facilities standards and unit.costs ..' ................................... -.... 34
Water facilities .for new development .............................................. 35
Fee schedule ............................... . ....................................................... 35
Fee implementation ............................................................. ~ ............ 36
Wastewater ................ , ................ ~ .............................. 38
Existing Wastewater facilities ........~ ........................................... i ..... 38
PA~C ~UXVTCJ'PAL CONS~JKTA]V'I~
Llq~gOOD CITY .[kI~ACTFEE.gruDv TABLE OF COI~I'ENT$
Wastewater facilities service population ......................................... 40
Wastewater standards and unit costs ......... i ..................................... 41
Wastewater facilities for new development .................................... 42
Fee schedule ...................................................................................... 42
Fee implementation .......................................................................... 43
Noise-Monitoring System ......................................... 45
Noise monitoring system ............................... : ................................. 45
Noise monitoring service population .............................................. 46
Noise monitoring standards and unit costs .......... i ......................... 46
Noise monitoring system for new development ............................47
Fee schedule ....................................................................................... 48
Fee implementation .............................. : ...... : .................................... 49'
10.
Technological Enhancements .................................. 50
Existing Systems ............................................... '. .......... : ................... : 50
Technological Enhancements service populations ........................ 52
System standards and unit costs ...................................................... 53
Technological Enhancements for new development ..................... 54
Fee schedule ...................................................................................... 55
Fee implementation .................................................................. ~ ....... SS
TranSportation Facilities ............ ~ ............................... 57
Traffic demand from new development ...... ~...' ............................... 57
Traffic facilities standards ................................................................ 59
Transportation improvements for new development .................... 59
Transportation Facility Impact Cost per DUE .............................. 60
Transportation System facilities for new development .......... : ...... 61
Fee Schedule .............................................. ' ....................................... 61
Alternative funding sources ............................... - .............................. 62
Fee implementation .............................................. '. .......................... 162
L FIV~FOOD C17¥' [MPA CT ~ ~'I~J'D Y TABLE 0 F COIVTENTE
11.
12.
13.
14.
Childcare Facilities .................................................... 64
Exisdng Child Care Services ............................................................ (54
Childcarc scrvice population .............................. ~ ............................... (5(5
Childcare standards and unit costs ................................ : ................. 66
Childca~e for new development ....................................................... 67
Fee schedule ................................................................................ ' ...... 68
Fee implementation ............... ] ........................................................... 68
Administration .......... , ................................................. 70
Cost to implement .................................... ~ ....................................... 70
Implementation ...... ~ ...................................... : ........ , .... 72
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process ............... ~ .......................... 72
Programming Revenues and Projcdts with the CIP ....................... 72
Inflation Adjus~tment., ................... : .................................................. 73
Combining Fees ................................................................................ 73
Reporting Requirements .......................................................... : ....... 74
Appendix .; ........ i ..................... - ..................................... 76
PA C~C M r. INIC.~AL CON~O~ TANT$
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1:
Table '2.2:
Table 3.1:
Table 3.2:
Table 3.3:
Table 3.4:
Table 3.5:
Table 4~1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
· Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 1: Resident and Worker Population .................................................. vii'
Table 2: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees'. ......................................... viii
Table 3: Total Impact Fee Revenues .......................................... : ................. ix
Table 1.1: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees .......................................... 7
Table 1.2: Total Impact Fee Revenues to 2020 ............................................ 8
Population and Employment Est. and Projections ................... · 10
Occupant Densities ..................................................................... 12
Police Services - Planned Inventory .......................................... i4
Police Service Population ........................................................... 15
Facility Standards and per Capita CoSts ................................. ~ .... 16
Total Police Service Costs ........................................................... 16
Police Services Impact Fees ........................................................ 17
Parks and Recreation Existing and Proposed. Inventory .......... 20
Parks/Recreation Service Population ........................................ 21
Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ..................................... 22
Parks/Recreation Costs .............................................................. 23
Parks/Recreation Impact Fees ....................... i ........................... 23
Table 5.1: Civic Center/City Garage Inventory .......................................... 25
Table 5.la: Civic Center/City Garage Vehicle Inventory ........... ~ .............. 26
Table 5.2: Service Population ....................................................................... 27
Table 5.3:
Table 5.4:
Table 5.5:
Table 6.1:
Table 6.2:
Table 6.3:
Facility Standards and' per Capita Costs ......: ........... : ........ 2 ......... 28
Civic Center/Garage Costs ......................................................... 29
Facilities Impact Fee ................................ : ................................... 29
Water Facilities .................. ~ ......................................................... 32
Service Population ....................................................................... 33
Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ..................................... 34
L YIVIgOO D ClTY [MPA CI' FE. E S'TU'D Y LYST 01~ TABLES
Table 6.4:
Table 6.5:
Table 7.1:
Table 7.2:
Table 7.3:
Table 7.4:
Table 7.5:
Table 8.1:
Table 8.2:
Table 8.3:
Table 8.4:
Table 8.5:
Table 9.1:
Table 9.2:
Table 9.3:
Table 9.4:
Water Facilities Costs ................................................................... 35
Water Facilities Impact Fee ........................................................ 36
Wastewater Facilities ................................................................... 40
Service Population ....................................... : ............................... 41
Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ........ : ........................... '. 42
Wastewater Facilities Costs ........................ ................................. 42
Wastewater Facilities Impact Fees .................... : ........................ 43
Noise Monitoring System ...................................................... ~ .... 46
Service Population..i .................................................................... 46
Facility Standards and per Capita Costs ..................................... 47
Noise Monitoring System Costs..~ ............................................... 48
Noise Monitoring system Impact Fees; .... i ................................ 48
Technologieal Enhancements ..... i ............................................ '... 52
Service Population ........... .' ........................................................... 53
Facility Standards and Per Capita Costs ....... ' ............................. 54
Technological Enhancements Costs .............................. i ........... 54
Table 9.5: Facilities Impact Fee .................................................................... 55
Table 10.1: Trip Generation by new Development ....... i ..................... ....... 58
Table 10.2: Road Improvement Projects.~ .................................................... 60
Table 10.3:
Table 10.4:
Table 10.5:
Table 11.1:
Table 11.2:
Table 11.3:
Table 11.4:
Table 11.5:
Table 12.1:
Table 12.2:
Transportation Facility Impact Cost per DUE .......................60
Transportation System Costs .................................................... 61
Transportation Impact Fees ......................... ~ ........................... 62
Childcare Costs ......................................................... ~ ................ 66~
Service Population .................................................. .. .................. 66
Facility Standards and per Capita COsts ..... ' .............................. 67
Childcare Facilities Costs ...................... .................................... 67
Facilities Impact Fee ................................................................. 68
Summary of Maximum Justified Fees ...................................... 70
Total' Impact Fee Revenues ...................................................... 71
PA C~IC I~UN~C.~A~
TABLES
Table 13.1: Summary of Maximum Justified F~es ............. ~ ........................ 74
PA C~'IC M~I~C~'AL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facitlities to
accommodate new development in the City of Lynwood. The report
documents the maximum justified impact fee that could be imposed on
new development in the following facility categories:
* Police Services
· Parks and Recreation
· Civic Center/City Garage
· Water Fadlifies
· Wastewater Facilities
· Noise Monitoring
· Technological Enhancements
· Transportation facilities
· . Childcare
Although nearly built-out, the City of Lynwood has been experiencing
growth through more intensive redevelopment and the consequent need
to provide public facilities to serve this new development. The City does
not currently have a development impact fee program in place to ensure
that' new development pays its fair share of public fadlities.. The
consultant's task was to identify the .public facilities needed to serve new
development and determine a. fair share of costs attributable to new
development to maintain the City's quality of' life. The primary policy
objective was to provide for orderly development of infrastructure
.necessary to accommodate the continued planned growth and
redevelopment of the city.
The development projections used for this analysis are summarized in
Table 1. The projections are based upon information from U.S. Census
PAC.~c M~PAL C01~UI~TAI~I~
L I'I~ D ClTY [MPACT FEE ,ST'L ~ Y I~XECLrIT~ ~ Y
Bureau data, SCAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast, California Department
of Finance (DOF), and information provided by City staff to ensure
consistency with the City of Lynwood General Plan. This data is used for.
the analysis of public facilities.
Table 1:
Resident and Worker Population
Net Growth
1999 2005 2020 2005-2020
City of Lynwood
Residents.~02,3,4 -- 73,212 ' 79,040 5,828
Workers5.6 8,144 9,054 11,799 2,745
Notes:
~ Residents for CitYof Lynwood based upon 4.7 persons/dwelling unit in 2002.
z Residents for City of Lynwood based upon 5.2 persons/dwelling unit in 2020.
3 Residents for City of Lynwood in 2005 based upon State of California DOF estimate
for 1/1/05.
4 2020 'residential projection is based upon SCAG 2001 RTP Growth ForecaSt.'
s Employee projection for 1999 and 2005 based upon the General Plan 2020
Economic Element.
s 2020 employee projection is based upon the growth rate'between 1999 and 2005.
Sources: Lynwood General Plan,-2020 (January 2002), SCAG 2001 RTP Growth ForeCast~
Dept. of Finance.
Table 2 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified impact fees based
on the analysis contained in this report. Total fee 'revenues to 2020 (in
constant dollars) for all 'facility categories by land use are .qummafized in
Table 3.
PAC..~FIC ML~ClPAL CON57]Ll'AN~
L YIVIIzooD ClTY IMPA cI' FI~ ~ Y ~XECI. rlTV~ $UI~IMAR Y
Table 2: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees
Single
Facilit~ Cate~jorj/ Family
Multi-
Family' Commercial
Fee per Dwelling Unit
Industrial
Office
Fee .oer 1.000 Building
Police Services $ 413 $ 413 $ 30
Parks/Recreation 2,270 2,270 -
Civic Center/city Garage 146 146 10
Water facilities ~ 1,381 1,381 2,245
Wastewater facilities 347 208 434
Noise-Monitoring System 0.42 0.42 0.03
Technological. Enhan .cements 35.02 35.02 2,51
Transportation facilities 321 224 1,440
Childcam - 7.14
Subtotal $ 4,914 $ 4,679 $ 4,168
Administration 5% .$ 258 $ 246 . $ 219
Total $ 5,172 $ 4,925 $' 4,387
$ 13
4
1,381
267
0.01
1.06
234
3.02
Square Feet
$ 35
12
1,381
267
0.03
3.00
369
8.53
$ 1,904 $ 2,077
$ 100 $ 109
-$ 2,004 $ 2;186
. Notes:
Table excludes Other fees paid at time of building permit issuance and'not a Part of this
· SOurces: PMC
PA CII~C-II~D'N[CIPAL CONSbT..TAN'I~
Table 3: Total Impact Fee Revenues
(Constant dollars)
Revenues
Facility from Impact
Catego~' Fees
General
Fund/Otlier *
Sources Pro~lram Total
Police Services
Parks/Recreation :
Civic Center/City Garage
Water facilities
Wastewater facilities
Noise-Monitoring System
Technological Enhancements
.Transportation facilities
Childcare
Subtotal
570,000 $ 6,630,000 $ 7,200,000
2,815,000 35,265,000 38,080,000
201,100 2,337,000 2,538,100
3,760,500 21,409,500 25,170,000
762,800 5,837,200 6,600,000
584 6,516 7,100
48,000 562,000 610,000
1,754,100 7,879,800 9,633,900
14,000 46,000. 60,000
$ 9,926,084 $79,973,016 $ 89,899,100
Administration 5% $ 522,916 . NA 522,916
Total (to nearest $1,000)
$10,449,000 $ 79,973,000 $ 9Q,422,000
Percentage of Program 12% 88% 100%
Funds identified under General Fund/Other Sources is a City obligation to the program.
Excludes additional funding of $628,000 for Transportation improvements.
Sources: PMC
L F1VWOOD C. AW'Y1fl~PA CT FEE STUDY .~ECUTIVE SUMMARY
From this discussion, the following is offered for the City to consider
minimizing the potential negative economic impacts of the proposed fees,
whqe still funding the facilities needed to aCcommodate growth:
· Identify and use other sources of funding' to reduce the proposed
fee while still providing needed facilities; and
· Phase in fee increases over two or more years to provide time for
real estate markets to adjust. Loss of fee revenue during' the
phase-in period should not be passed on to future development. -
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to
accommodate new development in the City of Lynwood. This chapter-
explains the study approach and summarizes results under the following
About Lynwood;
· Public facilities fmandng in California;
· Mitigation Ft!Ac~
· Organization of the report;
· Facility standards; and
· - Fee schedules and revenues
About Lynwood
Lynwood is a 4.9 square mile community within Los Angeles County with a
current population of approximately 73,200. The Conununity is located
between two major freeways, Interstate 710 .and Interstate 105, making the
City access~le to major airports -.approximately 14 miles from the Los
Angeles International .AJ~ort (LAX) and nine miles from the Long Beach
Airport
-Since Lynwood's incorporation in ,1921; it continues to move forward and
many of its accomplishments can be attributed to its. aggressive
redevelopment program that has attracted new businesses and industry alike.
Today, Lynwood is home to a host of booming retail centers including
Atlantic Crossing that consists of Walgreens, Starbuck, and Panda Express.
Another center is the Long Beach Pluma Shopping Center which is anchored
by Smart & Final and 99 Cent Only Store. One of the city, s largest
redevelopment projects is Plaza Mexico, situated in the downtown area of
Lynwood. This 36-acre project is known for its architecture reminiscent of
old town Mexico, While' showcasing an authentic look of towns such as San
Miguel de Allende and other cities located in the State of Guanajuato.
In addition, the Lynwood Redevelopmeht AgenCy is focusing on reviving .the
City's downtown area, in which Long Beach Boulevard will be the focal
point_ The AgenCy's goal is to enter into exclusive con~'acts to recreate a
downtown area through projects that will contain traditional commerdal
retail projects, including mixed-use projects that will contain design features
'to encourage pedestrian activity. Pedestrian nodes, street furniture,
L F'NW~ D CITY II~PA cT FEE ~ Y
ODUCITOIV'AND ..~ftb~4~4R Ix
hardscape and landscape, and unique paving patterns will be used to reshape
the area and encourage economic development. The Agency is also focusing
on the construction of new housing and plans to develop 215 Single-Family
homes within the next 18 months. The Agency will utilize 20% of funding
that has been set aside to assist and facilitate the development of the homes.
Th~ changing fiscal landscape in California during the past couple of
decades has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments
to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends, stafid out: .
· The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with
Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of
Proposition 218 in 1996;
· Declining 'popular support for bond measures to finance
infrastructure 'for the next generation of residents and businesses;
and'
· Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a
policy of "growth pays its own way". This policy shifts most of the
burden of funding infrastructure expansion f/om existing rate and
taxpayers to new development. This funding shift has been partly
accomplished by the imposition of development impact fees, also known
· as public facility fees or mitigation fees. A key advantage of this approach
in an era of voter approval requirements is that impact fees need only a
majority vote of the legislative, body for adoption and are thus exempt
from the requirements of Proposition 218.
Some fee programs address only a few spedfic facilities, Such as sewer,
fire, or storm drainage. Other programs are comprehensive, funding a
variety of facility categOries from traffic improvements to City office
expansions. Finally, a few programs have even tackled the difficult
problem of funding large regional infrastructure by collecting fees across
multiple jurisdictions.
In some jurisdictions, new development pays the maximum justified fee
that maintains existing standards as growth occurs. In most jurisdictions,
however, new-development pays less than the maximum. The effect is
Often a decline in facility standards, though some communities are able to
increase other revenue sources to compensate.
PAt:~'~c Mr. a~C~'AL CO~ T~
As a result of widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State
Legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act, starting with ASsembly Bill 1600
in 1988. The Act, contained in Ca~fornia Government Code Section 66000 et
$eq., establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing
. administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January
1989 and requires' local governments to document the following when
ado, pting an impact fee:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of fee revenues;
3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the
type of development paying the fee;
4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee
and the type of development paying the fee; and
5. Determine'a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying
the fee.
In general, the fee cannot be more than the cost of the public facility
needed to accommodate the 'development paying the fee, and fee
revenues can only be used for their intended purposes. -"Public facilities"
that can be fUnded pursuant to AB1600 include "public improvements,
public services, and community amenities," but otherwise the term is not
.limited by statute or case law as of yet. However, GC section .65913.8
narrows the permissible range of uses that can be funded by fees. Fees
imposed as a condition of approval for a public capital facility
improvement cannot be used for maintenance or services. Together,
these provisions (sections 66000(d) and 65913.8) limit the use of most
fees to public capital improvements. The Act also has specific accounting
and reporting requirements annually and every five years for the .use of fee
revenues..
Chapter 2 presents the population and employment assumptions used for
the public facilities fee analysis. Chapters 3 through 11 are devoted to
documenting the' maximum justified impact fee for each 'of the following
facility categories:
PA ~'~¢ MI.~V~C~PAL
Li'N~oOD ClTYI~ACTFEE.57'UDY - INTRODUCITONAND SUIdMARY
· Police Services
· Parks and Recreation
* Civic Center/City Garage
· Water facilities
* Wastewater facilities
· Noise Monitoring
· Technological Enhancements
· Transportation facilities
· Childcare facilities
Each chapter is organized using the following sections to clearly
document'the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Aci discussed above:
· The chapter begins with a statement identifying the purpose of
the'fee by stating the types of facilities that would be funded.
· The Existing Fadlities Inventot_y section summarizes the
investment of existing development in this type of facility to
date.
· The Service Population section defines what type of development
requires this type of facility., wheth% .(1) only residents, or (2)
residents and businesses (measured by employment): It also
.projects the service population growth anticipated to. occur
. over the planning'horizon.
· The Fadli~y Standards and Unit Costs section esiablishes a
reasonable relationship between the need for the. fee and the
type of development paying the 'fee. This section also
estimates the cost per capita for facilities to accommodate
growth.
· The Fadli~y Costs to Accommodate Growth section establishes a
-reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and
the type of development paying the fee. This section estimates
the total facilities costs associated with new development over
the planning horizon, equal to the revenues that would be
collected through the impact fee.
· The Fee Seheduk section establishes a reasonable relationship
between the mount of the fee and the cdst of the facility
attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common
factor for facility costs per capita, the schedule ensures that
CtT'Y It~tP ACT FEE ,.qI~ Y : IIVTR O D U CTgON A.,N'D ~ Y
each development project pays its fair share of total facility
costs.
Chapter 12 documents the need for an additional component of the fee to
pay for on-going administration of the fee. The final chapter of the
report, Chfipter 13~ provides a summary of fee implementation procedures
and recommendations for the ongoing administration of the fee. The
recommendations are provided to ensure compliance with the Act, and to
ensure that fees are updated in the future for fadlity cost inflation.
New development alone cannot 'be asked to improve facility standards
that benefit both new and existing development. Additionally, new
development alone cannot correct an existing facility deficiency. Either
way, facility standards cannot be increased compared to existing standards
solely "on the backs of new development".
By policy, the City can adopt its own' reasonable facility standard to
reduce, maintain, or increase the existing facility standard. However,
basing an impact .fee on a standard that is higher than the existing
standar4 is only fair to new development if the City uses alternative funds
to expand existing facilities to the same ~tandard for existing
development. This extra funding is needed to correct the "existing
deficiency".
This study considered four approaches for establishing facility standards.
· The existing inventory method uses a standard based on the ratio
of existing facilities to the current service population. Under this
approach, new development funds the expansion of facilities at
the same standard currently serving existing development. By
definition, this approach results in no facility deficiencies
attributable to existing development.
· The master' plan method establ~shes the standard based on the
ratio of all existing plus planned facilities 'to total future demand
(current and future development). This method is used when the
local agency anticipates increasing its facility standards above the
existing inventory, standard and planned facilities are part of a
system that benefit both existing and new development.
· The excess capacity method determines the standard based upon
the ratio of existing facilities to the current .and future service
population. This approach is used where the facilities have been
sized to accommodate the current population as well as the 'future
pA C'~I c MU~CIPA L CO.e~b'UT..TAN~
L IBIWOO D CITF' IMPA GI' FF~ ,,PT'O'D Y IIPI'R O D UCTIO N AIO'D SUMMARY
population. Use of this approach does not result in additional
facilities being built. Instead, fees are collected from new
development to reimburse the City its costs for having constructed
a facility with excess capacity sufficient to serve new development.
The City is responsible for funding the share related to the existing
service population.
· The adopted'standard approach is based upon standards adopted
by the City and/or standard engineering or. planning criteria. For
the traffic component, .the 'standard is to maintain a level of
service of "C" for all roadway segments/intersections. Any costs
related to existing deficiencies are not passed on to new
development.
Use of these standards is not meant to label them as City policy. Indeed,
many jurisdictions consider their existing standards to be deficient
compared to their policy objectives.
Tabl~ 1.1 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified impact fees
based on the analysis contained in this report. Total fee revenues to 2020
(in constant dollars) for all facility categories by land use are summarized
in Table 1.2.
PA~'~¢ M~AL C01V'SULTA~-I'5
L Yt,~ooo ~II~A crFEE~r IIVTSODUCTIONAND $1f.f~dMAR Y
Table 1.1- Summary of Maximum Justified Fees
Multi-
Facilit~ Category Single .Family Family
Fee .Der Dwelling Unit
Police Services $ 413.32 $ 413.32
Parks/Recreation 2,270.10 2,270.10
Civic Center/City Garage 145.70 145.70
Water facilities 1,381.25 1,381.25
Wastewater facilities . 347.17 208.30
Noise-Monitoring System 0.42 0.42
Technological Enharmements 35.02 35.02
Transportation'facilities 320.67 224.47
Childcare -
Subtotal $ 4,913.65 $ 4,678.58
Administration 5% $
Commercial Industrial Office
Total (to nearest dollar)
Fee.Der 1.000 Building Sq. uare Feet
$ 29.63 $ 12.52 $ 35.39.
10.44 4.41 12.47
2,244.53 1,381.25 1,381.25
433.96 267.32 267.32
0.03 0.01 0.03
2.51 1.'06 3.00
1,439.81 234.09 368.77
7.1.4 3.02 8.53
$ -4,168.05 $ 1,903.68 $ 2,076.76
258 $ 246 $ 219 $
100 $ 109
$ 5,172 $ 4,925 $ 4,387 $ 2,004 $ 2,186
Sources: PMC
Table 1.2: Total Impact Fee Revenues
(Constant dollars)
Revenues General
Facility from Impact Fund/Other
Category Fees Sources Program Total
Police Services $ 570,000 $ 6,630,000 $ 7,200,000
Parks/Recreation 2,815,000 35,265,000 $ 38,080,000
Civic Center/CityGarage 201,100 2,337,000 $ 2,538,100
Water facilities 3,760,500 21,409,500 $ 25,170,000
Wastewater facilities 762,800 5,837,200 $ 6,600,000
Noise-Monitoring System 584 6,516 $ 7,100
Technological Enhancerhents 48,000 *562,000 $ 610,000
Transportation facilities 1,754,100 7,879,800 $ 9,633,900
Childcare 14,000 -' 46,000 $ 60,000
Subtotal $ 9~926,084 $ 79,973,016 $ 89,899,100
Administration 5% $ 522,916 NA 522,916
Total (to nearest$1,000)
Percentage of Program
$ 10,449,000 $ 79,973,000 $. 90,422,000
12%. 88% 100%
Funds identified under General Fund/Other Sources is a C!ty obligation to the program.
ExCludes additional funding of $628,000 for Transportation improvements.
Sources: PMC
Each facility category is presented separately in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 for ease
of analysis. However, fees may be combined, into two fee categories,
public facilities fee and traffic impact fee, for ease of administration.
8
1
GRo rTH PROJECTIONS
This chapter explains how development projections are used to calculate
impact fees, and summarizes estimates of existing development and
projections of growth used throughout this study. Existing development
is estimated for 2005. The planning horizon is 2020, and growth
projections are consistent'with those used in the Lynwood GeneralPlan. '
Estimates of existing development and projections of growth are ~rifical
assumptions used throughout the public facility fee chapters that follow in
this report. Current residential population estimates are taken from the
California Department of Finance and the City of Lyt~wood. Future
population estimates are based upon SCAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast
to determine the average growth per year projected out to the planning
horizon.
Existing estimates of employment within the city (workers working at
jobs within the City as opposed tO employed residents who live in the City
but may work elsewhere) are from the City of Lynwood General Plan
2020 Economic Element. Employment projections to 2020 are based
upon the employment projections from the General Plan 2020' Economic
Element between 1999 and 2005 and applying that growth rate to the
planning horizon. . .
Table 2.1 summarizes the Population and Employment Estimates and
Projections:
~.ROIVTH PRO.]EL~IO.~
L YIVWOO D CITF' I~tPA CT FEE ,~T-ID Y
Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates and Projections
Net Grow[i~
1999 2005 2020 2005-2020
City of Lynwood
Residents~,2,3.4 -- 73,212 79,040 0,5%
WorkersS,6 8,144 9,054 11,799 1.8%
~ Residents for.City of Lynwood based upon 4.7 persons/dwelling unit in 2002.
2 Residents for City of L~n~,ood based upon 5.2 persons/dwelling unit in 2020.
a Residents for City of LynWood in 2005 based upon State of California DOF estimate for
111/05.
4 2020 residential projection is'based upon SCAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast.
s EmPloyee projection I~or 1999 and 2005 based upon the General Plan 2020 Economic
Element.
6 2020 employee projection is based upon the growth rate between 1999 and 2005.
Sources: Lynwood 'Genera! Plan,-2020 (Januan/ 2002), $CAG 2001 RTP Growth Forecast, Dept. of
Pinance.
The projections included in this study were used as follows:
· Estimates of existing development are used to determine current
facility standards; for example, building square fee.per .capita or
traffic levels of service..
· Estimates of future growth are used to de.termine the total amount
of public facilities required to accommodate growth £or the
planning horizon
· , , ~ - - · ;._. '~!-~?';'.'-.35.!., ~.~;~L~;.'~'. ~-:~;!:;',~-"~i~-4~~.~3!5::: :~:~;::::~7:.~:ii
Measuring the impact of growth requires land use types for summarizing
different categories of new development. The land use types used in this
analysis are defined below.
· Single family: Detached one-family dwelling units including
mobile-homes. Mobile homes are included in the single-family
category because these developments typically have OCCupancy
densities similar t° other single-family development.
· .,Multi-family: All attached singlelfamily dwellings such as
duplexes and condominiums, apartments, and dormitories.
PACII~IC M. UIVICIPAL CONgUI. TAN'I~
L Y'A~OO D CITY II~A CT FEE b~tID y GR O lri~H PRO fECTiO N$
* Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational,-and hotel/motel
development.
* Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
* Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Some developments may include more than one land use category, such as
an educational . institution with dormitories, or a planned unit
development with both Single-family residential uses and commercial uses.
In'these cases, .the impact fee would be calculated separately for each land
use category.
The City .should have the discretion to impose the impact fee based on
the specific aspects of a proposed development regardless of zoning. The
guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development,'
either residents, including, seasonal residents, per dwe.lling unit or workers
per building square feet. The fee imposed should be based on the land
use category that most closely represents the probable occupant density, of
the development.
Different types of development use public facilities at different rates in
relation to each other, depending on the services provided. In each
succeeding chapter, a specific service population is identified for each
facility type to reflect this. The service population weights one land use
category against another based on each category's demand-for services.
Different service populations are used to estimate impacts for different
.types of fees. To measure existing development and future growth, we
USC:
· 'Citywide residents and workers for public facilities; and
· Citywide residents for public facilities; and
· DWelling units and building square feet-to estimate vehicle trips
.for transportation facilities. '
· Dwelling units and building square feet to estimate water usage
rates and wastewater generation rates for water and wastewater
facilities.
The specific service population for each facility category is shown'
separately in each of the following facility chapters. When residents and
workers are part of the same service population, it is reasonable to assume
that one resident places greater demand 0npublic servia:es and assodated
PACIFIC
L Iq~'WOO D CITY [AtPA CTFEE 53T.'rD Y GR O ;gTft PRo. IECTIOIV$
facilities than one Worker. One method of calCUlating the demand of one
worker relative to one resident is to compare the length of the typical
workweek (40 hours) to total hours in a seven-day week (168 hours).
Based upon this method, one worker is assumed to generate only 24% of
the demand for facili, ties as a resident (40/168 = 0.24).
We use these measures because they all are reasonable indicators of the
level of demand for public facilities. The' City builds public facilities
primarily to serve these populations ..and, typically, the greater the
pol~ulation the larger the facility required to provide a given level of
service.
O,ccupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase
in service population and amount, of the fee. To do this~ the fee must
vary by the estimated service population genera'ted by a particular
development project. Developers pay the fee based on the number of
additional housing units or building square feet, so the fee schedule must
convert service population estimates to~' these measures of. project size.
This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by land use
category, shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: .Occupant Densities
Land Use Density
Residential
Single Family
Multi-family
4.7 persons per dwelling unit
4.7 persons per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial~
Industrial2
Office3
713 building square feet per new worker
1,686 building square feet per new worker
597 building square feet per new worker
~Commercial yields 2.9 emploYees/1000 sf; new commercial in Lynwoo. d
yields 1.4 new employees of the 2.9 employees.
2Industrial yields 1.2 employeesEI000 sf; new industrial in Lynwood yields
only .6 new employees of the 1.2 employees.
aOffice yields 3.5 employees/1000 sf; new office in Lynwood yields 1.7
new employees of the 3.5 employees..
Source: U.S. Census Bureau,* 'Employment Density Summary Report dated
October 3i, 2001' by Natelson Co., PMC
3. POLICE SERVICES
This chapter summarizes the need for the expanded Police facilities to
accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable
relationship between new development and the maximum justified impact
fee for funding of those facilities.
The City of Lynwood contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff
Department for law enforcement services. The Century Sheriffs Station,
located at 11703 Alameda St. in Lynwood, provides, law enforcement services
· to nearly 200,000 residents.living within 13 square miles.of southern Los
Angeles County. These communities include' the City of Lynwood and the
unincorporated areas of Florence, Firestone, Walnut Park, Willowbrook and
Athens Park.
The Sheriffs Department is responsible by charter, to provide municipal
police services to the one million residents in the unincorporated
co.mmunifies throughout Los Angeles County. In addition, forty of the
county's eighty-eight cities contract with the Sheriffs Department to provide
local police protection. These dries, 'ranging in population from 700 to
150,000, and in size from 1 to 100 square miles, represent very diverse
communities with equally diverse needs. The Sheriffs Department works
closely with each of these communities to provide a level of service that
reflects those individual 'needs. Services can be provided On a regional basis
'with other communities, with the benefits Of cost sharing, or On a fully
dedicated basis.
The City of Lynwood contracts for 15-Sw0m.pa~ol personnel not including
relief positions during each 24-hour period. The early morning hours (10
PM to 6 AM) includes 1 one-officer traffic car, two one-officer criminal cars,
and one two-officer criminal car. Daytime operations (6 AM to 2 PM)
include 3 one-officer traffic cars and 3 one-officer criminal cars. Evening
operations (2 PM to 10 Ply0 include 3 one-officer traffic Cars, 4 one-officer
criminal cars, and 1 one-officer criminal car.. The City also receives the
benefit of specialized services including canine response, DUI traffic car,
helicopter support in emergencies, gang enforcement and investigation,
arson-explosives detail, parking enforcement, and special weapons teams.
Through 'the availability Of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, COPS
grant and right sizing the City organization, the City is able to supplement
PA~¢MU~r~PAL CO~~
POLI£1E SERI, TCl~
LI'~OOD CITV II~I~AcT FF~E'5'Tt'rDY
basic law enforcement services with a COPS team that includes a Special
Assignment Sergeant and two deputies. In addition, the City budget includes
one motorcy&le officer ·plus a business district team that consists of four
deputies to implement a gang enforcement strategy with a focus more. on
drug, prostitution and other q-ality of life issues in Lynwood.
The City's 2005-06 general fund budget includes $6,345,600 for the cost of
this level of service.
Looking to the future, the City.of Lynwood is analyzing the cost-benefit of
providing police services with a local Lynwood Police Department There
are numerous combinations of facilities and manpower that could
.accomplish this, but no decisions or plans have been solidified. However, in
any scenario, the following basic facility components (buildings, dispatch and
communications center and equipment, technology equipment, etc.).and
associated 'costs would be required as shown in Table 3.1:
Table 3.1: Police Services - Planned
Facility and Other Needs Inventory '
Facility
Office - 8000 sf
Land acquisition/relocation
Facility Capital Equipment
Capital equipment
Consultant study
Total
Costs
$ 4,300,000
2,000,000
650,000
210,000
40,000
$ 7,200,000
Notes:
Facilities serve current and future population.
Serves residents and workers.-
Sources: City of Lynwood, PMC
Residents and workers are assumed to generate the need for Police
Services. Consequently, both .residential and non-residential development
would be subject to the impact fee,
PAE~'Ic Mu~vICIPAL COnSUlTAnt, S
POLgCE SER
The Police Services facilities service population, based on the number of
residents and workers, is shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: pOlice Services Population .
Residents Workers
· Service
Population
· Existing (2005)
New Development (2005-2020)
Total (2020)
73,212 9,054 75,385
~ 2.745 6.487
79,040 11,799 81,872
Weighting factor 1.00 0.24
Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 hours/week for an
employee to 24 x 7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Sources: Pacific Municipal Consultants
This section discusses the standard used to determine future
developments' share of the costs of facilities for services related to police
services:
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 3.3, is based on the
Master Plan 'approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned' facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. 'As such,, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact
fees. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new
development pays for the same level of facilities as existing development.
L YI~IWOOD CjTy IM~A CT FEE S'I'UD Y
POLICE
Table 3.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
Planned facilities
Facility
Standard
Service per !,000
Population Capita
Land NA 81,872 ..
Buildings 8,000 sq. ft. 81,872 98 Sq. ft.
Equipment NA 81,872
Unit Cost
Facility
Expansion
Cost Per
capita
$ 2,000,000 $ 24.43
$ '538 52.52
$ 900,000 $ 10.99
Total Cost per Capita $ 87.94
Cost per Resident $ 87.94
Cost per Worker~ 21.11
~ Based on worker per capita weighting factor from Table 3.2.
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3; PMC.
New development can be required to provide its pr0p°rfionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 3.4 shows the allocation of
citywide Poli~e Services fa.cility costs. Future development is contributing
at the same rate per capita as existing development.
Table 3.4: Total Police Services Costs
Service Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds to serve existing population
6,487
$ 87.94
$ 570,000
$ 6,630,000
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.3
PA C~C MtnVr c~Ar Co~rsvr ~'a~'s
L lq~gOOD CIT'Y IMI~AC1' ~ STUDy POLI'~E SERi.,'i'C. ES
Table 3.5 shows the Police Services facilities impact fee for new
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 3.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate growth based on master plan standard. Citywide
residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee based on
the service population for the facilities.
Table 3.5: Police Services Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~ Capita
Density2 Fee3
Residential
Single Family $ 87.94 4.7 $
Multi-family 87.94 4.7
Nonresidential
Commemial $ 21.11 1.4 $
Industrial 21.11 0.6
Office 21.11 1.7
See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
413.32
413.32
29.63
12.52
35.39
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per .1000
square feet for nonresidential land uses.
a Per dwelling.unit for residential uses and per 1,000 sqUare feet fo~
· nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC, Table 2.2
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact-
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
'The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
following option:.
· Lower the facility standards on which,'the' fee is based. The' .
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost tO new development.
PAC~¢ M~rl~c. IPAI. CO~grLTA.t~S 17 '
L YIV~ OOD CITV IMI~A CI'FEE 53~D Y POLI CE SER VICES
· Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Continue contracting the services. This approach continues thc
practice of contracting with' another Agency for the provision of
se~ices.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Police Services facility impact fee at time of
final inspecfi, on or certificate of occupancy. Collection at bnilding permit
.issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and incldde an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
pA t~FIc MoNI~AL
1
PARKS & RECREATION
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for expanded parks and
recreational facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter
documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the
m,aximum justified impact fee for funding Of such facilities.
According to the 2002 General Plan Infrastructure/Public Services
Element, there are 46 acres of parkland in the City and S2 acres of school
playgrounds, which are available to local residents during off school
hours. The two largest parks in the City are Ham' Park and Lynwood City
Park. In addition, the' Lynwood City Park and Civic Center contains a
· natatorium with an Olympic size swimming pool, the Bateman Assembly
Hall and complex. This facility offers a gym, meeting rooms and offices
for the recreation department staff. The City recently completed a
skateboard Park directly across from City Hall. The facilities are listed in
.Table 4.1.
The City also operates Los Amigos Pa~k, which is approximately 1 acre
and includes one-half basketball court, a volleyball court and seven park
benches. Lynwood Park is approximately 36 acres and includes a
skatepark, indoor and outdoor basketball courts, a volleyball court, three
soccer lots, six picnic stations, four baseball/softball diamonds, two sets
of slides, four tennis courts, a handball court, grilling!stations, and other
amenities. The park offers senior citizen and teen programs.
Ham Park is being replaced with new and updated facilities. The park will
consist of 10 acres' covering 44 parcels. The City intends to construct a
5,000 square foot commuriity, building, a soccer field, a baseball field,
picnic tables and shelters, bike and walking .paths, and three (3) parking
lots containing 195 stalls. Nine acres will be located on the east side of
Atlantic BIv& from the 1-10S to mid-block between Lavinia Ave. and
Clark Street. A one,acre tot lot will be;located .on the west side of
Atlantic between Agnes Ave. 'and Lavinia Ave.
Rose Park and Carnation Park are each approximately 1.7 acres in Size
and consist primarily of grass with no structural amenities.
Lynwood Meadows is being planned as a future 1.8-acte park.
PAC. II~C I~'u~I~AL CONSgJL TANT5
L F~DO D CITY I~A CT FEE ,~'T'UD Y
pARIc~/RE. ERF.4 TION
Table 4.1: Parks/Recreation
Existing. and Proposed Facility Inventory
Net
Building
Land Area
Location (acres) (sq. ft.)
Los Amigos Park
112 basketball court
Volleyball court
3
Lynwood Park
Natatorium (Olympic size pool)
Skatepark
Indoor/outdoor basketball court
Volleyball court
Soccer fields (3)
Picnic stations (6)
Baseball/softball fields (4)
.Play equipment
Tennis coUrts (4)
36
Ham Park (under construction) 10'
Community' building 5,000
Soccer field ' '
Baseball field'
Picnic stations
Lynwood Meadows Park (proposed) 2
'Rose Park 2
Carnation Park 2
Subtotal
54
5,000
Total 54
Notes:
Proposed and current facilities serves current and future residents.
Sources: City of Lynwood
EXpenditures for Ham Park started in 2004-05 and are continuing in
2005-06. Approximately $4 M of the $35:9 M budget has been placed in
escrow pursuant to an 'agreement between the City, the County, and the
Lynwood School District. The budget has recently increased to $52.2 M
due primarily to increases in the cost of land, relocation expenses,
demolition and site clearance, and construction. Therefore, additional
PACIPIC MUN'IC--IPAL
L I'NIgOOD C1TY I.~7~A CT FEE ~ y P~4 RI~/RECREA ~ION
funding in the amount of $16.25 M is needed. The City is anticipating
applying for State grant funds to make up this shortfall.
The Parks and Recreation facilities serve both residents and workers in
the City.
T~ble 4.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In
calculating the service population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and
workers are Weighted at 0.24 to reflect lower per capita service usage.
Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than
dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker 'usage
of services is less than average per-resident usage.
Table 4.2: Parks/Recreation Service Population
Service
Residents Population
Existing (2005)
New Development (2005-2020)
Total (2020)
73,212 73,212
79,040 79,040'
Weighting factor 1.00
',Sources: Table 2.2
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future needs for
facilities related to the Parks and Recreation facilities.
According to the 2002 Lynwood General Plan -2020, the City does not
have standards for the number of park acres per 1,000 residents nor does
it have standards for how. a park should be developed and equipped. In
order to measure Lynwood's current situation, the Quimby Act park land
and dedication standard can be used.
Un&i: State law, a community can enact a Quimby ordinance that W°uld'.
allow the City to request land dedication or payment of fees in-lieu of
dedication of parkland equal to .3 acres per 1,000 population. Using this
measure and a 2005 population of 73,212 (California Department of
Finance), the City should have 219 acres of parks. Given the 98 acres
L YNlgOOD ~ IMPA CT FEE STUD Y PA R I~/RECREA 170N'
currently available (46 City park acres and 52 acres of school
playgrounds), the City is lacking 121 acres toward meeting the standard.
Typically, park fees are exacted only from residential development, not
non-residential.. However, where it can be shown through surveys and
other sources, that parks and park amenities are used by workers in
commercial and industrial land uses who are not also residents, then it is
possible that a development impact fee can be charged to nonresidential
uses. in the absence of such information, the fees calculated here are for
residential development only.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities .and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, ~a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 4.3, is based on the
Master Plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
existing, and planned facilities will provide a standard benefiting both
existing and future development. As such, this Study identifies a portion
of the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact fees. Use of this.
standard in. calculating the impact fee ensures that new development pays
for the same level of facilities as existing development.·
Table 4.3: Facility Standards and per Capita .Expansion costs
Facility
Standard
2005 Service per 1,000 Unit Cost2
Inventory Population Capita (per acre) ·
Facility
Expansion
Cost Per
Capita
Developed acreage~
54.4 ac. 79,040 0.69 ac. $ 700,000 $ 483.00
Total Cost per Capita
Cost per Resident
$ 483.00
$- 483.00
4' Includes buildings and other amenities and excludes joint use of school facilities.
2 Unit cost is estimated to be $700,000 per. de~,eloped acre including land, buildings, &
improvements.
Sources: Tables4.1 and4.2? PMC.
PAC2FIC IffUIVTCIPAL C01~$~I. TANT~
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
'facilities related to new development. Table 4.4 shows the allocation of
citywide Parks/Recreation facility costs. Future development is
contributing at the same rate per capita as existing development.
,Table 4.4: Parks/Recreation CostS
Service Population'Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
5,828
$ 483.00
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds to serve existing population
2,,815,000
35,265,000
,Sources: Tables 4.2 and4.3.
Table 4.5 shows' the Parks and Recreation 'impact fee for new
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 4.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
CitT, vide residential development would pay the fee based on the Service
population for the facilities.
,Table 4.5: Parks/Recreation Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~
Capita Densit~
Residential
Single Family $ 483.00 4.7
Multi-family 483.00 4.7
See Chapter 2 for land use type 'definitions.
21~ersons per dwelling unit for residential land uses.
Per dwelling unit for residential Uses.
Fee3
$ 2,270.10
2:270.10.
iSources: PMC, Table 2.2
P~cg~rc Mv~C.O,A~ Co.,esrrLr'~x~ '
L YIVWOO D CiTY IlU~A CT FEE .qTUD V
PARK$/RECREA TION
~s section ~scusses a range o¢ ~plementaOon issues ~ical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has thee Policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
following options:
· Lower the facility standards on. which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development.
· Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocafing e. xisfing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sourccs.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the impact fee at time' of final inspecfi°n or
certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit issuance is
allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the City
should: '
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
PArC M~C~PAL CO~f. iL TAN~
CIVIC CENTER/CITY GARAGE
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need to, expand the Civic
Center and City Garage to accommodate new development. The chapter
documents a reasonable relationship betWeen new development and the
maximum justified impact fee for funding of such facilities.
The City of Lynwood currently owns and operates the Civic center
facilities located at 11330 Bullis Road. The civic center has expanded
over the years to include the Civic Center Annex. In the early 1990's, the
Lyn~ood Sheriff Station was moved to the newly completed Century
Station on Alameda Street that created additiOnal space at' the Civic
Center. The old Lynwood Sheriff Station has now been converted to city
offices and is referred to as City Hall North that houses the City Manager
and City Council offices. Table 5.1 itemizes the cost components of
these facilities.
Table 5.1: Civic Center/City Garage
CIP Inventory
Location Vehicles Cost
Annex Building Rehabilitation
including underground tanks
City Garage
City Hall Expansion
Total
$1,483,000
443,550'
229,000
$ 2,155,550
Vehicles
Total
18
Notes:
Serves currant and future residents and workers.
Sources: City of Lynwood CIP, PMC.
$ 382,500
$ 2,538,050
L FI~OOD CIT~ [.8~A cT FF:~ ~IYfD Y CMC CENTER/CITY CzAR. AGE
Table 5.la identifies eighteen selected vehicles vintage 1999 or ol'der and
their replacement cost.
Table 5.t a: Civic Center/City Garage
Vehicle Inventory
Replacement
Division Vehicles Cost
Street Mainten, ance
2000 John Deere - 935 -
1979 Ford - 1900 $ 25,800
1992 Ford - F350 Super Duty 24,500
1994 John Deem - Gator 7,000
~1998 John Deere - Gator Turf 7,000
1998 John Deere - Gator Turf 7,000
1998 John Deere - 5310 12,000
1999 Ford - F150 25;800
1999 Ford; F150 25,800
1999 Ford - F150 25.800
1999 Ford - F150 25,800
2000 John Deere - 935 · -
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
2000 John Deem - 460 HST
1992 Ford - F350'Super Duty 24,500
1994 Ford - F350 24;500
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500 -
1980 Ford - F150 25,800
1980 Ford - F800 25,800
'1981 Case - 580C -
1984 Ford - F150 25,800
1'984 Ford - F800 25,800
1984 Ford - F150 25.800
1985 PB - T450 ·
.1985 PB - S240 '-
1991 Volvo - L-50
2000 Ford - F450
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
2000 Ford - F450
2000 Case - 570 LXT
2001 Ford - F550 Super Duty
2001 Ford - F 550
2001 John Deem 4600 HST
Gmfffli Removal -
Traffic Signals .
City Yard 18,000
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
2000 Ford - F450 Super Duty
2000 Dodge - Dakota
1982 Toyota
2000 Dodge - Ram 2500
1995 Komatsu
.. $ 382,500
Total
Notes:
Cost is based upon current replacement cost for new vehicle.
SOurces: City of Lynwood ClP, Lynwood Vehicle Inventory List
L YlglVOOD CITY 1l$41'A CT FEE ~ y ClFIC CE~IER/CF'ty GARA {;E
The Garage Division is responsible for the purchase, repairs and
maintenance of all city owned equipment and vehicles. The division
currently maintains the City fleet of vehicles and equipment. The garage
yard is located at 11750 S. Alameda St. in LynWood. The Division's goals
and objectives for FY2005-06 are as follows:
1. To improve and expand the vehicle and equipment preventative
maintenance program.
2. To review the demand of operation of vehicle/equipment to
proiect their replacement or reassignment.
3. To improve the documentation and internal control process.
4. To reduce vehicle and equipment down time and improve the
turnaround time for repairs in a cost effective manner.
5. To conduct an annual auction, when necessary, to dispose of
surplus vehicles and equipment.
The Civic Center and City Garage serve both residents and workers in the
City. Table 5.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and
2020. In calculating the ~ervice population, residents are given a weight
of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.24 to reflect lower per capita service
usage. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively
than dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker
usage of services is less than average per-resident U~age.
Table 5.2: Civic CenterlCity~ Gara~le Service Population
Service
Residents Workers Population
Existing (2005) 73,212 9,054 75,385
New DevelOpment (2005-2020) ~5.828 2.745 6.487
Total (2020) 79,040 11,799 81,872
Weighting factor 1.00 0.24
Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 hours/week for an
employee to 24 x '7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Seurces: Table 2.2
' PACIFICMUNICI~AL CON~7.]LTANT~
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future needs for
Civic Center and City Garage facilities. '.
Per. capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of exisdng facilities and the facilities
that new development s. hould be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 5.3, is based on the
Master Plan approach, because the future expansion of the system will
provide a standard above the current standard, benefiting both existing
and. future development. As such, this study identifies a portion of the
cost to be funded by the City and not by impact fees. Use of this
standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new development pays
for the same level of facilities as existing development.
Table 5.3: Civic Center & City Garage Standards
and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility
Expansion
Service Cost Per
2005 Cost Population Unit Cost Capita
Total cost of building
Vehicle Costs
Total Cost per Capita
Cost per Resident
Cogt per Worker~
$ 2,155,550 81,872 NA $ 26.33
18 vehicles' 81,872 $ 21,250 $ .4.67
$ 31.00
$ 31.00
$ 7.44
' i Based on worke~ per capita weighting factor from Table 5.2.
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2
New development can. be required to provide its proportionate share-of
facilities related to new development. Table 5.4 shows the allocation of
Civic Center/City Garage costs allocable to citywide residents and
workers. Future development is contributing at the same rate per capita
as existing development.
PA~c M~C. rPAL CO~ULTA~P5
Table 5.4: Civic'Center/City Gara~le Costs
Service Population Growth, 2005-2030
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
Total Facilities To Accommodate 'Growth
ReqUired funds to serve existing population
6,487
31.00
201,100
2.337.000
Facility cost to serve existing population already appropriated.
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3;
Table 5.5 ghows the Civic Center/City Garage impact fee for new
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in 'Table 5.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential developtnent would pay the fee
based on the service population for the facilities.
Table 5~5: Civic Center/City Gara~le Impact Fees
- Costs per
Land Use~ Capita Density=.
Fee3 .
Residential
Single Family $ -31.00 4.7 $ 145.70
Multi-family $ 31.00 4.7 $ 145.70
Nonresidential
Commercial/Office $ 7.44 1.4 $ i0.44
Industrial $ 7.44 0.6 $ 4.41
· Office $ 7.44 1.7 $ 12.47
See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per 1000
square feet for nonresidential land uses.
3 Per. dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC, Table 2.2
PACtt~C MUNICrpAI. CONSUI.~AN'P3
L YIVWOO D Cr~Y I,~4rA cr F~B b'rV~ Y
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
Thc City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through thc
following options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower 'the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development.
Identify alternative funds to replace fee ~evenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Fee collection and'administration
The City would collect the Civic Center/City Garage impact fee at time of
final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
EM
WATER FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes 'an analysis of the need for expanded Water
facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a
~reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum
justified impact fee for fundi.'ng of those facilities. Much'of the
in[%rmation contained in this section originates from the Water S-Yxtem
· Maxter Plan and Water Dixttibution S_yxtera GIS Map for the City of LynwoQd
dated March 4, 2005, prepared by Parsons Co.
The City of Lynwood provides water service 'over an area of
approximately 2,950 acres or 4.6 square miles, which excludes
approximately 180 acres in southeast Lynwood that is served by the Park
Water District. 3'lthough most of the water consumption is by residential
water users, the largest water users in. the City include industrial users,
government, and institutions. Water supply is derived from 's'even (7)
local wells and is supplemented by potable water deliveries from a 16-inch
diameter' connection to the Metropolitan Water District .(MWD) of
Southern California system at McNemey and Southern in the City of
South Gate. Over the past twelve years, approximately 60% of the water
was extracted from the local wells, and 'the remaining 40% was supplied
by MWD.
The production rate of the wells is limited by adjudication and water
rights purchases to 5,337 acre-feet per year (equal to an average rate of
4.76 mgd or 3~300 gpm), although the combined capacity of the seven
wells is approximately 5,970 gpm. The well water is' the City's least Cosily
source. Because of the cost advantage, the City has maximized the use of
this souxce of water. Deliveries from MWD can currently be made up to
a maximum rate of 5,520 gpm. The .City's agreement.with MWD would
have to be modified to permit a higher flow rate.
The existing distribution systemis principally comprised of pipes ranging
from 4- through 12~inch diameter. The distribution system is operated as
a single pressure zone. Records regarding the materials of construction
-and years of installation of existing pipelines are incomplete.
3, geographic information system was created to support, the 2005 water
system planning effort. The GIS .system was developed using ESRI
ArcView 3.x technology.
PA C.~Tc MUI~TCIPAL
L Y~b~OD CITY II~PA C~ I~EE.-~~tlD Y ~FA TER FA CILITI'ES
Parson's Co. staff inspected City Water facilities in October 2002 to assess
the condition of existing facilities and to identify deficiencies and non-
compliance issues with the current standards. The results of the
inspections are contained in the 2005 master plan report.
Chapter 7 of the Wattr Systtra Ma~ter Plan and Watzr Distribution Systtm GIS
Map for the City of Lynwood dated March 4, 200S, prepared by Parsons
Co. details a series of capital improvements including eight new wells at
existing sites and over 48,000 feet of pipe totaling $17,090,000 (2004-05
prices).
In addition to the Master Plan improvements identified above, City staff
h:is .identified the need for a new 3 MG reservoir at a cost of
approximately $5,000,000, an additional connection to the MWD system
near well #8 at a cost of approximately $800,000, and 5 electrical
generators (for wells #8, 19, 5 and booster) at a cost of approximately
$1,075,000.
The planned water facilities are shown in Table 6.1:
Table 6.1: Planned Water facilities
Pipeline Improvements
84nch diameter.
10-inch diameter
LF of lO-inch.diameter
LF of 12-inch diameter
Quantity' Estimated
Facility (as shown) cost
Subtotal
30,509 If $ 2,440,000
7,193 If 720,000
9,086 If. 1,040,000
1,752 If 270,000
48,540 If $ 4,470,000
Long Beach Blvd (Tweedy-MLK) upgrade to 12 and 16-inch diameter
Abbott Rd (MWD connecion to LB Blvd) new 12-inch diameter
Well Construction
Land Acquisition (allowance)
Electrical Generators
MWD Connection
· New 3 MG Reservoir
SCADA System
Total
$ 700.000
650,000
8 wells 11,920,000
NA 600,000
5 1,075,000
800,000
4,855,000
1 100,000
NA $ 25,170,000
NoteS:
Facilities am designed to Serve current and future population. --.-
Serves residential and non-residential to provide capacity and meet fire flow demands.
Excludes the Pa~I/Vate~' Co. service area.
- Sources: Lynwood Water Master Plan {'2005)
PAt~Ic MUNICIPAL
The City Water Division's main goal is to continue providing
excellent and reliable water services to its customers by complying
with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards. The 1996
SDWA amendments place increasing emphasis on ensuring that all
new and existing water systems are equipped to comply with the
new rules and regulations.
The Lynwood City water fadlifies serve both residents and workers in the
City.
Table 6.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In
calculating the service population, a Dwelling Unit Equivalent is used
based on the water demand of 1 single family home equaling 400 gpd.
Non-residential water demand is then related to housing demand on a
DUE per 1000 square foot basis.
Table 6.2: Water Facilities Service ·Population
Land Use
Water
Growth Demand DUE DUE
2005 2005-2020 (~lpd)2 *Factor3 2005
DUE
Growth
' 2005~2020
.Residential (in units) ~
Single Family 9,826
Multi-family 5,122
Nonresidential (in st)
Commercial NA
Industrial NA
Office/Business Park NA
723 400 I 9~826 723
377 400 1 5,122 377
998,500
650 1.6 NA
400 1.0 NA
400 1.0 NA
1,623
Total 6,200,000 gpd
'~Residential units based upon Department of Finance.
15,500
2,723
:~Gallons per d.a.y (gpd) for non-residential is per 1000 sf.
3One DUE = water usage of 1 SFD = 400 gpd/SFD ·
Sources: Table 2.2, Department of Finance, DRU Table 2 E-5 Esgmates, 1/1/2005, LA County DPW, 2005
Water Master Plan, PMC
ILYNWOOD CITY IMTPACT FEE STUDY
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future
developments' share of the costs of facilities for services related to the
Water facilities.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ,ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 6.3, is based on the
Master Plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. As such, this study
identifies a portion of. the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact
fees. Use of the standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that .new
development only pays fctr the same level .of facilities as existing
development.
Table 6.3: FaCility Standards and per Capita Expansio'n Costs
Service
2005 InventOr~ DUEs Cost
Wells 8 wells' 18,223 $11,920,000
Land AcqUisition 18,223 600,000
Pipeline 48,540 If 1'8,223 5,820;000
Generators 5 18,223 1,075,000
MWD Connection 18,223 800,000
Reservoir i8,223 ' 4,855,000
SCADA System I 18,223 100,000
Total $ 25,170,000
Facility
Expansion Cost'
Per DUE
$ 654.13
32.93
319.38
58.99
43.90
266.43
5.49
$ 1,381.25
DUEs 2005
Total New DUEs 2005-2020
Total Cost per DUE~
15,500
2,723
$ 1,381.25
~ Based on 400gpd/du = 1 DUE.
SOurces: Tables 6.1 and 6.2; PMC; Costs from L~nwood Master Plan (2005~
IVA TER FA CILI'I'IES
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
facilities related to new development. 'Table 6.4 shows the allocation of
Water facility costs. Future development is contributing at the same rate
per capita as existing development.
Table 6.4: Water Facilities Costs
. Service Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per DUE
2,723
· Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds to serve existing population
$ 3,760,500
$ 21,409,500
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3;
Table 6.5 shows the Water ,facilities impact fee for new development
based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 6.3. 'Th~ fee
represents the maximum justified fee to fully 'fund all facilities needed to
accommodate growth based on the master plan standard. Citywide
residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee' based on
the estimated DUEs for the facilities.
L Iq~FOO D CITY [MPA CT.~E. E S2r~JD I' IVA TER FA C-rL IT[I~
Table 6.5: Water Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per DUE
Land UseI DUE Factor
Fee2
Residential
Single Family $ . 1,381.25 1 $ 1,381.25
Multi-family 1,381.25 I 1,381.25
.Nonresidential
Commercial $ 1,381.25 1.6 $ 2,244.53
Industrial 1,381.25 1.0 $ 1,381.25
Office 1,381.25 1.0 $ 1,381.25
l See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential
land uses.
Sources:. PMC
This section discusses a range of implementation, issues typical to impact
.fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
Thc City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through thc
following option:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development. However, lowering the standard for fire
flow and demand requirements may have undesirable
consequences.
· Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocafing existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or .identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Water facility impact fee at time of .final
inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection' at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjus.tment in the fee ordinance.
m
WASTEWATER
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the wastewater facilities, to
accommodate new development. The chapter doCUments a reasonable
relationship between new development and the maximum justified
connection fee for funding of such facilities.
The City of Lynwood is one of the original members in the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District No. 1 which set, res the city with a network of
trunk sewers located in Atlantic Boulevard, Bullis Road, Alameda Street and
Imperial Highway (see attached boundary map).
The Sanitation Districts provide, environmentally sound, cost-effective,
wastewater and solid waste management for over half the population 'of Los
Angeles county, and in doing so take what others had thought of as waste
and turn it into resources such as reclaimed water, energy, and recydable
materials.
The Sanitation Distlicts are a confederation of independent speci~ districts
serving about 5.1 million people in Los Angeles County. The Sanitation
Districts' service ~rea covers approximately $00 square r~ailes and
encompasses 78 dries ~nd unincorporated territory within the County.
The Sanitation Districts construct, operate, and maintain facilities to collect,
t~eat, recycle, and dispose of sewage and industrial wastes. The Sanitation
Districts, ~lso, provide for the management of solid wastes, including
disposal, transfer operations and materials recovery. Local sewers and
laterals that 'connect-to the Sanitation Districts' trtmk sewer lines axe the
responsibility of the local jurisdictions, as is the collection of solid wastes. ·
The agency is rrmde up of 25 separate Sanitation Districts working
cooperatively Under a. joint Administration Agreement with one
administrative staff headquartered near .the City of Whittier. Each Sanitation
District has a sepaxate Board of Dkectors consisting of the Mayor of each
city within that District and the Chair of the Board of Supetwisors for county
unincorporated territory. Each 'Sanitation District pays for its proportionate
share of joint administrative costs. The Sanitation' Districts' 1,400 miles of
main trunk sewers and 11 waste'water treatment plants convey and treat
approximately 510 million gallons per day (mgd), 190 mgd of which are
available for reuse in the dry Southern California climate. Three active
sanitary landfills handle 'approximately 19,500 tons per day (tpd) of which
[-'YI~P'ooD CI'TY[I~tPAC~FEE b-~IT~DY ~'A.5'2~ElgYl TEI~ FACILITIES
16,000 tpd are disposed (approximately 40% of the County-wide disposal
capacity) and 3,500 tpd are recycled. The agency also operates three landfill
gas-to-energy facilities, two recycle centers, and three transfer/materials
recovery facilities and participates in the operation of two refuse-to-energy
facilities. The Sanitation Districts' overall wastewater and solid waste
management budgets for 2004-200S are $S94 million and $222 million,
respectively. Both systems provide service to the customers at some of the
lowest rates in the entire country.
Each District collects both service and connection fees from homeowners
and-businesses to fund the system's improvements and operations. The
connection fees for District No. 1 are listed on the attached schedule.
Revenue from these fees fund capital improvements required to support
system components at a level of capacity necessary to handle sewage flows.
These fees do not pay for improvements required on the non-District owned
collection system.
Joint Outfall System
Seventeen of the Sanitation Districts that provide sewerage services in the
metropolitan Los Angeles area, including District No. 1, are also signatory to
a Joint Outfall Agreement that provides for a regional, interconnected system
of facilities known as the Joint Outfall System. The service area of the Joint
'Outfall System encompasses 73 cities and unincorporated territory, and
includes some areas within the City of Los Angeles.
This system provides sewage treatment, reuse, and disposal for residential,
commercial, and industrial users and includes treatment plants in Carson,
South El Monte, Cerritos, Industry, Long Beach, Pomona, and La Canada
Flintridge.
City of Lynwood Sewer System
The City of Lynwood's sewer system consists of approximately 400,000
feet of .predominately 8-inch sewei 'pipe, 1,600 manholes and 78
connections to the County system. There are no intermediate collector
trunks and therefore the numerous connections. The City's sewer system
was formally evaluated in 1984 and a follow-up report was prepared by
Donald G. Rosenberg & As.sociates.
As stated above, .District No. 1 connection fees do not pay for
improvements required on the City-owned collection System. These costs
are the responsibility of the City of' Lynwood. The City does not.
currently collect a connection fee from new development. Maintenance
and operational costs for the system are funded from City General Funds.
Goals and objectives of the Sewer Division include the following from
the FY 2005-06 budget:
./9
1. Optimize regular sewer deaning program to reduce sewer
blockages and reduce emergency call outs.
2. Implement a Sewer manhole inspection and cleaning program.
3. Implement a sewer inspection and monitoring program to identify
system deficiencies.
4. Initiate a citywide sewer system study to identify and recommend
system improvements.
"5. Set up procedures for contract sewer maintenance on a yearly
basis.
6,. Administer sewer related projects.
7. Implement a sewer la[eral repair program on areas affected by City
tree roots.
Table 7.1 identifies the estimated costs related to projected wastewater
improvements.
Table 7.t: Planned Wastewater Facilities Inventory.
Estimated
'Facility cost
Projected Wastewater improvements
Wastewater Master Plan Study
$ 6,000,000
600,000
'Total $ 6,600,000
Notes:
Facilities will be designed to serve current and future population.
Serves residential and non-residential development
Sources: City of Lynwood
The Wastewater facilities serve both residents and workers citywide.
Table 7.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In
calculating the service population, a Dwelling Unit Equivalent is used
based on the wastewater generation of 1 single family home equaling 260
gallons per day (gpd). Non_residential wasteWater generation is then
LFlgWOOD CITY[~I~ACI'FEE..~iT]Dy [F'~ATER IFACILITIE$
!
related to housing generation rates based on a DUE per 1000 square foot
basis.
,Table 7.2: Wastewater FaCilities Service Population
Growth DUE Growth
Land Use 2005 2005-2020 DUE Factor DUE 2005 2005-2020
'Residential (in units) :
Single Family 9,826 723 I 9,826 723
Multi-family 5,122 377 0.6 3,073 226
Nonresidential (in sf)
Commercial 2,254,200' 998,500 1.25 2,818 1,248
.Industrial 1,424,400 0.77 1,097 -
Office/Business Park 0.77 _ _
Total
A DUE is a Dwelling unit equivalent'based upon a single familY
16,814 2,197
unit generating 260 GPD equal to 1 .EDU.
For non-residential, DUE Factor is based on per 1000 sr,
From La County - Sanitation District,No. 1: SFD = 260 gpd/dwelling unit
Multi-unit residential = 156 gpd per dwelling unit
Mobile Home Parks '= 156 gpd per space
.Shopping Center = 325 gpdll000 sf
Office Building = 200 gpd/1000 sf '
Warehousing =25 gpd/1000 sf
From General Plan: Industrial = 200 gpd/1000sf
Sources: General.Plan - 2020 Infrastructure/Public Service Element; LA County Sanitation District No. 1 Master
Connection Fee Ordinance; City of LYnwood Sewer System Evaluation (1984)
This section discusses the standard used .to determine the futUre needs for
facilities related to Wastewater facilities.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown-in Table 7.3, is based on the
-Master Plan approach for establis .l-ting facility .standards because the
planned fadlities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. As such, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the City and'not by impact
LFIV~OOD CiTy.[JI.~ACT FEE,gTg]DY i~TAST~iI~'ATF_,.R .~ACILITIE$
fees. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new
development pays for the same level of facilities as existing development.
Table 7.3: Facility Standards and per .Capita Ex, panSion Costs
Service
DUEs Facility Cost
Improvements $ 6,600,000
Se~ice DUEs 19,011
20~)5 DUEs 16,814
2005 -' 2020 DUEs 2,197
Facility Expansion Cost per DUE $ 347.17
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2; PMC
New development can.be required to provide 'its proportionate share of
facilities related to new 'development. Table 7.4 shows the allocation of
Wastewater facility costs.-Future development is contributing at the same
rate per capita as existing development.
Table 7.4: Wastewater Facilities cOsts
Service PopulatiOn Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per DUE
TOtal Facilities To Accommodate Growth
Required funds 'to serve existing population
2,197
$ 347.17
$ 762,800
$ 5,837,200
Sources,: Tables 7.2 and 7.3.
pAC~='~C MgaV~C~A~ CO.NZ'rJLTA.'V'~
LYNWOOD CITY~I~ACT~ST-t_fDy IVAz,'-'Iz~u~A~F~R ~iCILI~ES
Table 7.5 shows the Wastewater facilities impact fee for new
development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 7.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed 'to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide re.sidenfial and nonresidential development would pay the fee
based on the estimated DUEs for the facilities.
.,Table 7.5: Wastewater Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per
[,and Use~
DUE DUEs
Feez
Residential
Single Family $ 347.17 1.0 $ 347.17
Multi-family 347.17 0.6 208.30
Nonresidential
Commemial $ 347.17 1.25 $ 433.96
Industrial 347.17 0.77 267.32
Office/Business Park 347.17 0.77 267.32
See Chapter 2 l~or land use type definitions.
2 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresMentJal land uses.
Sources: PMC
This section discusses a range 'of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
ImPlementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through'the
fOllowing options:
· Lowe~ the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development.
Identify alternative fUnds to. replace fee revenues. . This
approach requires either reallocating existing, revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
PA CI~Ic Mr. rI~C. gPAL CO. nI~O'L 3'AIV~ 4J
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Wastewater facility impact fee at time of final
inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
* Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in .the fee ordinance.
PACIFIc MDIvICIPAL
am
NOISE-MONITORING SYSTEM
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for noise monitoring
equipment tO carry out and implement Lynwood Municipal Code Section
3-12, which regulates unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises from all
so, urces. A portion of the ben. efits of this noise monitoring equipment
aceommoda'tes new development. The chapter documents a reasonable
relationship between new development and the maximum justified impac[
fee for funding of such facilities and eligible equipment.
In order to address the negative impacts that noise emitting land uses
have on the residents of the City of Lynwood, Municipal Code Section 3-
12 requires such land uses and establishments thereon to comply.with
general health, safety, and welfare performance standards and encourage
them to be "good neighbors."
Lynwood residents are entitled to' peace, welfare, and .a quality of life free
from intrusive noise sources. Acceptable levels of noise vary in different
zoning designations. ' Residential zones have lower thresholds of noise
whil~e, commerdal and manufacturing zones' tend to have more intrusix/e
noise sources.
The City has purchased the necessary noise measurement equipment (i.e.
decimeter and calibrator) and all code enforcement personnel and some
sheriff deputies have received training on its proper use. In order to
enforce the noise ordinance, noise readings must be made at various
locations and times to identify excessive noise levels from a specific
SOUtCC.
The City has purchased equipment from Sage Technologies to measure
noise levels. The initial cost was $2,100 per unit for 'the equipment and
$800 for a half-day training session for all applicable personnel as shown
on Table 8.1'.
PAC~C MUNICIPAL
I'. yNFOO D ClTY Ig'A CT FEE ..qT~ Y
Table 8.1: Noise Monitoring System
Location
System
(cost)'
Noise Monitoring System (3 units)
Training on System
,' Total
Notes:
Serves' residents and workers.
Serves current and future population.
Sources: City of Lynwood Agenda Staff R. eport (11-15-05) ·
$ 6,300
8OO
$ 7,100
~ ~'~:~.-~.~ :.:':.,. ~< ;~ ~:~ :: :~ ;~.:! ~ :~: :;::: !~ ~.':: ~::
Noise.monitoring serves both residents and workers in the City. Table
8.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020.
Table,8.2: Noise Monitorin~ System Service Population
· ' * . Service
Residents Workers Population
Existing (2005) · 73,212 9,054 75,385
New Development (2005-2020) 5.828 2.745 6.487
Total (2020) 79,040 11,799 81,872
Weighting factor t. O0 O. 24
.Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 houm/week for an
employee to 24 x 7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Sources: Table 2.2
This section discusses the standard Used to determine the future needs for
the noise monitoring system.
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CO ~UL TAI~T~
FI~ STUDY NOI~E ]i{ONFI'OHU~'G S'F5-1'tit
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing capital equipment and the
equipment that new development should be responsible for, a per capita
facility standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 8.3, is based
on the excess capacity standard because the system provides a benefit to
both existing and future development. 'Use of the standard in calculating
the impact fee ensures that new development pays for the same level of
fadlities as existing development.
,Table 8.3: Facilit~ Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility Facility
Standard Expansion
Service per 1,000 Cost Per
Population Capita CaPita
2005 Inventory
Cost of system $ 7,100 81,872 $
87 $ 0.09
Total Cost per Capita
Cost per Resident
Cost per Worker
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.02
Sources: Tables 8~ f and 8.2
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 8.4 shows the allocation of
citywide noise-monitoring system costs. Future dexielopment is
contributing at the same rate per capita as existing devel.opment.
PACl~Ic MuI~I~'PAL COI~ISU~TA~I~
47
NOISE MoN~ORING SYSTEM
L I'N~OO D CiTY IJ,IPA CY FEE ~ Y
Table 8.4: Noise Monitorin~l System Costs
Service Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
6,487
0.09
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth $ 584
Required funds to serve existing population $ 6,516
Facility cost to serve existing and futur(~ Population already
~ppropriated.
Sources: Tables '8.2 and 8.3.
Table 8.5 shows the noise monitoring system impact fee for new.
development based on the facilities CoSt per capita shown in Table 8.3.
The fee represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed to accommodate ~growth based on the excess capadty stamdard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential development would Pay the fee
based on the service population for the facilities.
Table 8.5: Noise Monitoring System Impact Fees
Costs per
L~nd Use~ Capita Density2
Fee3
Residential
'Single Family $ 0.09 4.7 $ 0.42
Multi-family 0.09 4.7 0.42
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 0.02 1.4 $ 0.03
Industrial 0.02 0.6 0.01
Office 0.02 1.7 0.03
· ~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employeeper 1000
square feet for nonresidential land uses.
3 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMc, Table 2.2
PA~C MUI~It~'AL GO.n~grl. TAP4'Ps
L HVWOOD ~ [MPA CF ~ b~f_~Dy NO~I~ ~ONI'FO~II~rG ~
This section discusses a range o£ implementation issUes typical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
fo~,lowing options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development.
· Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sources.
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the noise-monitoring system impact fee at time of
final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection 'at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should' do the following:
· . Not include an automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee
ordinance because the City has purchased the system.
PAC. I~IC ~U1~I~'pAL CO.I~$b'K TAN'I~
TECHNOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for the acquisition and
implementation of technological enhancements in the areas of financial
managemeny, electyonic messaging (e-mail) and. file storage capacity, and a
local area network (LAN) system to accommodate existing and new
de&elopment. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between
new devel6pment and the maximum justified impact fee for funding of
such enhancements.
Financial Management: The City of Lynwood currently performs financial
and accounting functions using an outdated accounting system and
hardware that is proving to be ineffective as the city grows in both
~omplexity and volume of teansactions. The current system is based, on a
20-year old custom programmed in PIK. Therefore, the City has recently
sought bids from qualified vendors for the purpose of acquiring and
implementing'a comprehensive, fully integrated financial system with the
following capab~ties and components:
· 'General ledger
· Budgeting
· Project accounting
· Purchasing
· Contract management
Bid and quote management
· Inventory control
· Accounts payable
· Fixed assets
· Accounts receivable
· Cashiering
· Utility billing
PA C~C ~W~a'~C~'AL
· ,I'N~OOD CI'1'Y[~ACl~FEES'1~DY TECHNOLOC. ICd£ ~NHAN~
· Special Assessments
· Applicant tracking
· Human resources
Payroll
· Position budgeting/control
· Parcel manager
· Permits & inspections
· Citizen requests
· Code enforcement
· Licensing
· Integrated report writer, tools
Electronic Mess.a~ng and File Storage:. During the discussions on the
lvfid-Year budget on February 7, 2006, the City Council approved funds
for a new e-mail and file storage system to replace the old and outdated
systems currently in use.
E-mail is a vital compdnent to conducting business in the City of
Lynwood. The City cUrrently uses Lotus Notes R5 running on a Domino
server, which has been in use since early 1999. The current version of e-
mail software is outdated requiring significant 'maintenance and
patchwork to transfer~ larger .files due to a lack of' computer processing
power. Major advances in e-mail technology and the need for users to
remotely and wirelessly access their e-mail accounts prompted staff to
research alternative solutions.
.Local Area Network (LAN): The City's CUrrent network operating system
for file and printer services is Novell 4.12. It has been in service since
1999 and is nearing the end of i~s life span. The operating system is nm
on a Hewlett Packard Net-server LH3, which is an older Penfium 3
machine. It has a storage capacity of 21 gigabytes, of which only six
gigabytes are available for network files. As a comparison, the average
server today runs on a 2.5-3~Ghz processor, has 2 GB of RAM, and
typically has 200 GB of storage space.
The LAN upgrade would include a fiber optic connection from City Hall
to the Annex building and the' Senior Center.
Replacing 'the.se two' systems will improve performance by allowing users
to access their e-mails from any location with an Internet connection,
increase security, improve spam filtering capabilities, increase file storage
L YNWOO D CiTY [~XpA CT FE, E ,q"I~D Y
and printer services, and integrate many collaboration features for
improving team communications such as event calendars, contacts, web
links, discussions, issues lists, and announcements, to name a few.
Table 9.1 identifies the Technological Enhancements and related costs to
Provide services to citywide residents and workers.
Table 9.1: Technological Enhancements
System
Cost of System
Financial Management System
Electronic messaging & file storage
Locan Area Network (LAN)
$540,000
50,000
To{al
$610,000
Notes:
Facility will serve current and future population.
Serves residents and *workers.
Sources: City °f Lynwood RFP/Peter Han correspondence 1~5706.
Technological enhancements serve both residents and workers in the City.
Table '9.2 shows the estimated service population for 2005 and 2020. In'
calculating the service population, residents .are given a weight of 1.0 and
workers are weighted at 0.24 to reflect lower per capita service usage.
Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than
dwelling units,, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker usage
of services is less than average per-resident usage.
PAcIPTc M~V~C[PAL
Cr~,' I~u~,A cT FE~ STUDy
Table 9.2: Technolo~lical Enhancements Service Population
Service
Residents. Workers .Population
Existing (2005) 73,212 9,054 75,385
New Development (2005-2020) ~_,SJ~J~_ 2.745 6.487
Total (2020) 79,040 11,799 81,872
Weigh ting factor 1. O0 O. 24
Worker to resident weighting factor based upon 40 hours/week for an employee to
24 x 7 hours/week for a resident = 0.24.
Sources: Table 2.2
This section discusses the standard used to determine furore
developments' share of the costs of facilities for services related to
technological enhancements.
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure "equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard~ as shown in Table 9.3, is based on the
master' plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned facilities will provide a standard 'above the current standard,
benefiting both 'existing and future .development.' As such, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the City and not fly impact
fees. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures new
development pays for the same level of facilities as' existing development.
~OA t~rcM~//~'PAL CONSUL T~S~TS
TECHNOLOGICAL .EArttA~CE.MEJVT~
LYJVI~OOD C17fY I.8~AcT FBE ~i"
Table 9.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
- Facility
Description
Total Cost per Capita
'Cost per Resident
Cost per Worker~
Standard
Cost of Service per 1,000 Facility Cost
System Population Capita Per Capita ,
'610,000 81,872 $ 7,451 $ 7.45
$ 7.45
$ 7.45
$ 1.79
~ Based on worker per capita weighting factor from Table 9.2.
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.2
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
technological enhancements related to new development. Table 9.4
shows the allocation of cit3rwide TechnologicaI l~nhancement costs.
Future development is contributing at the same level Per capita as existing
development.
Table 9.4: Technolo~lical Enhancements CoSts
Total
Service Population Growth, 2005-2020 -6,487
Total Facilities Cost per Capita $ 7.45
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth $ 48,000
Required funds to serve existing population $562,000
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.
pAC~lZl'C I~Lr~PAL
L ~'~OOD ~ I~t~A C/~ F~ ~ y TE~OLO~ICA L E.~I~V~
Table 9.5 shows the' Te&hnological Enhancement impact fee for new
development based on the cost per capita shown in Table 9.3. The fee
represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all enhancements
needed to accommodate growth based on the master, plan standard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee
-based on the service population for the facilities.
Table 9.5: Technological Enhancements Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~
Capita Density~
Fee3
Residential
Single Family
Multi-family
Nonresidential
Commercial/Office
Industrial
Office
$ 7.45 4.7 $
7.45 '4.7
$ 1.79 1.4. $
1.79 0.6
1.79 1.7
35.02
35.02
2.51
1.06
3.00
See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per 1~)00 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
3 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1.000 square feet for nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC
This section discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through the
following options:
* Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development. '
PA C~¢ MUI~AL CON~L TAI~ .frS'
Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining, new revenue
sources.
Fee collection' and administration
The City would collect the q~echnological Enhancements impact fee at
time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building
peffnfit issuance is allowable under certain conditions.. To implement the
fee, the City should do .the following; .
Identif]~ appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
10. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for transportation'
facilities that include 'roadway, intersection, and traffic signal
improvements ~to accommodate new development. The chapter
dgcuments a reasonable relationship between new development and the'
maximum justified impact fee for funding of these facilities.
The City's Public Works Department includes .Public Works
Administration, Engineering Services, Transportation Administration,
Right of Way Maintenance, Street Maintenance, and Traffic Signals and all
having some responsibility for streets and transit operations and capital
improvements.
Key arterial streets include Martin Luther King Blvd., Imperial Highway,
Alameda Street, Long Beach Blvd., and Atlantic Avenue. The city is also
served by approximately ten key collector streets.
The Lynwood General Plan - 2020 includes goals and policies for the safe
and efficient movement of goods and people. For the arterial roadway
system, the g0al is to:
Provide a drculation systtm to serve the inttrnal drculation needs of the City,
while also addressing the intercomrauni~y or through travel needs.
For public transit and trails, the goal is to:
Accomraodate alternatives to private autoraobik tran~ortation that meet the needs
of all City residents.
Traffic analysis reviews the amount of traffic on the major street~ of the
City and compares them to known Levels of Service (LOS). Average
Daily Trips (ADT) that a particular street can accommodate determines
the LOS. LOS A is very light traffic and LOS F is basically bumper-to-
bumper traffic. Traffic studies completed for the 2002 General Plan
Update demonstrated that the City of Lynwood's circulation system is
generally adequate and will. be adequate for. the future. The land use
changes proposed in the G. P. Update will not have a material impact on
traffid volumes and therefore will not significantly affect LOS within the
community.
PA CtI~Ic MtlNIC~A~ COI~'UK TAI~'I~ $7
TRAFFIC FA CILIT[I~
L YJVW'O O D CITY FEE .~I'~D Y
However, several studies have suggested capital improvements to retain
adequate LOS levels. As impact fees are legally precluded from funding
operations and maintenance functions, only Capital P~ojects will be
addressed. Capital proiects identified for impact fee funding are listed in
Table 10.2:
Table 10.1 shows traffic demand that would be generated by new
development from 2005 to 2020. To estimate the total demand for new
traffic facilities across all land use types, a "dwelling unit equivalent"
(DUE) factor is calculated that sets the demand from a singlerfamily
dwelling unit at 1.00 DUE. DUE factors for all other land uses are
calculated relative to the traffic, capacity demand from a single-family unit.
Table 10.1: Traffic Generation by New Development
· DUE
Growth DUE DUE Growth
L~nd Use~
Existin~l 2005-2020 Total Factor= 2005 2005-2020
Residential (in units)
Single Family 9,826 723 10,549 1.00 9,826 723
Multi-family 5,122 377 5,499 0.70 3~585 264
Nonresidential (in sf) 3
Commercial .2,254,200 998,500 3,252,700 4.49 10,~121 4,483
Industrial .1,424,400 - 1,424,400 0.73 1,040
- 1.15
Office/Business Park - -
Total
24,573 5,470
1 See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions. Growth measured in dwelling units for
residential uses and 1,000 square feet for nonresidential uses.
2 DUE means "dwelling unit equivalent", or'traffic generation by land use per unit compared to a single family
dwelling unit (9.57 trips/dwelling.unit). DUE Factor for non-residentia! is per 1000 sf.
3per ITE
Shopping Center:. 4Z94 trips/1000 sf (as typical commercial) '
General Light Industrial: 6.97 trips/1000 sf (as typical Industrial)
Office/Business Park: 11.01 to 12.76 trips/1000 sf (a~ typical Office/Business Park) '
Apartment: 6.72 tripS/apartment
Sources: PMC, Lynwood General Plan - Circulation Elemen~ ITE - Trip. Generation, 7th Edition (2003)
PACiFiC MUNI~PAL CO~SUL~AIV~
L I'NWOO D CfI'Y FEE S~FD y TI~7£ FA CIL ff lES
Thc traffic £acili~ standards used to identify Ixaffic hnprovcmcnt proiccts
needed to accommodate growth arc identified below:
.Level of service.
The City's traffic facility standards are based on a numb*er of reports and
surveys that were used to prepare the Circulation Element of the
Lynwood General Plan dated January 2002. Circulation Element*Goal
#1, Policy #1.1 states: Maintain a minimum Level of Service "C" at all
inte'rsections during non-pvak hours and LOS '~9" at all intersectSans during peak
hours to ensure that traffc delays am kqt to a minimum.
Traffic impacts are measured using periodic traffic-modeling studies. The
model incorporates land use to generate trips and then distributes those
trips across the City's transportation network. The model generates
estimated traffic volumes for major roadways and intersections, and LOS
is calculated from that volume and capacity data.
The projects included in Table 10.2 are justified using this LOS standard.
Future projects
As a result Of the traffic modeling, traffic improvements needed to
accommodate new and existing development were identified. The list
of projects is identified in Table 10.2.
PACI~IcMuNICI~AL COI~rLTAa~I~ $9
Table 10.2: Transportation Impact Fee Program - Roadway Improvements
Total
Project Project Other
Number* Street Location/segment Cost Funding
05-5258 $ 671.850 $ 618.000
State Street Phase II
05-5269 Abbott Rd. 90,000 10.000
T,af;;c
Impact Fee
Fundin9
$ 53,850
80,000~
05~5_~96 Alley Improvements 400,000 400,000
05-5'~9 Street Improvements 4,300,000 - 4,300,000
Proposed projects:
- Imperial Hwy Bullis to East City limits 2,500,000 - 2,500,000
· ' ' 1,300,000 - 1,300,0.00
Abbott Rd. MLK Blvd. to Atlantic Ave.
1,000,000 ' - 1,000,000
MLK Blvd. Alameda St. to Wright Rd.
Total Street Improvements $ 10,261,850 ' $ 628,000 $ 9,633,900
From City CIP
Sources: City of Lynwood CIP, Lynwood City staff
The total cost per DUE for the Projects shown in Table 10.2 is shown in
Table 10.3.
Table 10.3: TranspOrtation Impact Costs per DUE
Roadway improvements $ 9,633.900
Total DUEs 30,043
2005 DUEs 24,573
2005 - 2020 DUEs 5,470
COst per DUE $ 320.67
Sources: PMC
PA ~7¢ J~UI~7C~PA L COIVSUL TAI~I~
L I'T~POO D CJ'T~ F~ ~ITJD I~
TP.~V~PORT,~ TIOIV PA CILI77Eg
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 10.4 shows the allocation of
citywide transportation system costs. Future dtvelopme.nt is contributing
at the same rate per capita as existing development.
Table 10.4:- Transportation System Costs
Total
~en, ice Population Growth, 2005-2020 5,470
Total Facilities Cost per DUE .$ ~
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth $ 1,754,100
Required funds to serve existing population $ 7,879,800
Sources: Tables 10.2 and 10.3;
Table 10.5 shows the Transportation facilities impact fee for new
development'based on the facilities cost per DUE shown in Table 10.3.
The fee represents, the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities
needed .to accommodate growth based on the master plan standard.
Citywide residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee
based on the service population (DUEs) for the facilities.
P~c:t~c Mv~am~a
TRAIg$POR TA TIOIV ~A CILITIE~
LVI~'OOD ~ FF~B STUDY ·
Table 10.5: Transportation Impact Fee
Cost Per DUE
Land Use~ DUE per Unit= Fee3
Residential
Single Family $ 320.67 1.00 $ 320.67
Multi-family 320.67 0.70 224.47
Nonresidential
Commercial $ -320.67 4.49 $1,439.81
;Industrial 320.67 0.73 234.09
Office/Business Park 320.67 1.15 368.77
~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 DUE means 'dwelling unit equivalent", or the impact by land use per
unit compared to a single family dwelling unit.
3 Fee per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per 1,000 square
feet for nonresidential uses.
Sources: PMC
Anticipated funding for traffic improvement, s to reduce the burden on the
Traffic impact fee program is identified in Table 10.2.
Additi~)nally, some cities and counties have won voter approval for a half-
cent sales tax increase for transportation projects. This option could be
available for Lynwood as well. ·
~~;~...~%~.~~-~..~.~er~., ............... .
This secdon discusses a range of implementation issues typical to impact
fee programs.
ImPlementing a lower fee
The City has the policy discretion to implement a lower fee through one
or both of the following two options:
· Lower the facility standards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and therby reduce the
pACIFIC MUI~I4~IPAL COI~SD'~ TA~rI'~
CITYFEE b~7.JD Y T~RT~ TIoAr FA CTLITIF~
cost to new development. Reduction in the standard could have
undesirable consequences.
Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires' reallocafing existing revenues, increasing tax
rates or charges, or identifying and securing new revenue sources.
The most feasible option for reducing the traffic impact, fee would be
secure new revenue sources to offset the impact fee.
F~e collection and administration
The City would collect the transportation facilities impact fee at time of
final inspection or certificate of occupanCy. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. T° implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
Identify appropria.te indexes in the fee 'ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
~A~c M~I~A~ CON~I'ANT~
t t.. .CHILDCARE FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for childcare facilities to
accommodate existing and new development. The chapter documents a
reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum
jus,tified impact fee for funding of such faCilities.
~e Ci~ of L~wood does not c~renfly offer c~dcare fac~fies as a d~-
sponsored se~ice. Referrals to ~censed ch~dcare prodders =e made on ~e
~s ~n~tks ~un~ ChiM Cam I~a~n and ~sourcts Dimcto~ at
ht~://c~dc~e.co.la.ca.us/. ~e names Usted ~ &e ~ecto~ are nd~er
reco~endafions nor endorsements by ~s Angeles Co~.) ~ere ~e
~enfly 52 ~censed prodders ~sted ~t~ ~e area se~ing Lynwood.
Reso~ce ~d Refer~l Agendes ~) are locfl ~s Angeles Co~
agend~ ~at assist p~en~ ~ locating ~fldcare ~d hdp f~y c~dc~e
pro~de~ ~ Ucens~g, ~ge~fing, ~d o~er ~sues. M~y R~ ~e
also Alternative Pa~ent Pro~s (A~Ps), ~ch means ~ey pro,de
c~dc~e subsides for low-~come f~. Se~ices prodded may va~ from.
agen~ to agen~ and R~s ~ also ref~ ~es seeing childcare.
~e National C~d C~e Info~afion Center ~.S. Department of Heal~ &
H~n Se~ces, A~s~afion for ChOSen and Fa~es) m~s an
info~afion ~ecto~ at
ht~://~,.nccic.o~/pubs/ccfin~a~.h~. ~e site con~s
nafionfl ~s~ for ch~dc~e ~g and ~anc~g programs.
In 1985, ~e Ci~ o~ Concord and ~e' Ci~ ~d Co~ of San F~cisco
were among ~e ~st ~ the s~te'to es=b~sh ~e fe~ for c~&=e. In
Conc~d, ~e C~dcare P=o~ was ~b~shed to ~plement ~e
pro~sions of~e hnd use el~t of~e d~ general plan, w~ch in 1985. was
~ended to reflect ~e ~creased de~d for c~d c~e fac~fi~ caused by
n~. devdopmen~ ~e subsequently adopted fee apples to ~ n~
d~elopment ~ ~e exception of residen~l and non-residual project.
~hose vflue is less &~ $~,000. ~e fee is 0.5 p:~cent of ~e devdopment
Cost s~ted on ~e b~l&g pe~t. Shoed ~e devdoper elect to. prodde'a
c~d care pro~am, ~e ci~ =eq~eS "safisfacto~ ass~ances ~at ~e
estab~shment of ~e fa~~ ~d pro~ ~ ~fifl ~d ~e ~n~g of
bo~ ~ be accomp~she&"
PACIFIC MUI~ICI~AL CONb'~SLTA~I~
L ~OOD C"~7~FEE.~UDY
Under Concord's program, the developer enters into a contract with the city
and pays for a study performed by a consultant of the city's choosing, to
ensure that the proposed facility and program are appropriate. Collected
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fees are placed in a
special account, with the 'majority of the funds going to a non-profit
childcare corporation. As of 1999, more than $1,000,000 in funds had been
raised.
In 1996, the City of West Sacramento adopted a childcare ordinance
d~igned to' encourage developers to voluntarily address childcare needs
associated with their development in a~cordance w~th the goals of the
City's 'General Plan Childcare Element. The ordinance offered incentives
to developers who address the demand for clfildcare services created as a
result of their development. The incentives included not counting on-site
daycare facilities in the calculation of a project's floor-area ratio,
transportation management plan credits, priority processing of
applications for permits for daycare facilities or other incentives deemed
appropriate' by the city. Voluntary options, available to developers
included providing on-site daycare facilities, reserving or donating !and
for a daycare facility or contributing .to a' childcare fund.
When West Sacramento developers did not take advantage of the
incentives, the city considered adopting a Childcare Development Fee.
As part of the fee nexus study, the city conducted a childcare demand
analysis that included a discussion of the costs associated with building
childcare facilities. The nexus study was based in part on a study entitled
"ChiMcarv Nttds af Yolo County, Update af the 1999 Ne~ds'As~ts~mtnt and
gtratvgiv Plan 2005-08." Fees are currently $443 per residential dwelling
unit over 1,400 squ. are feet and a range of $.13 to $,44 per square foot for
hotel, retail, office, and industrial. Fees are levied on construction of new
buildings only. The fee revenues are placed in a Childcare Development
Fund which may be used toward the acquisition of property for childcare
facilities, facilities for before- and after-school care, and preschool.
i
Table 11.1' identifies the cost related to preparing a study for child care
facility needs to provide childcare services as a result of nonresidential
development.
PA C~¢ MUI~rpAL CONSUL
Table 11.1: Childcare
Location Cost
Consultant Study'
Total
$ 60,000
$ 60,000
$ 60,000
Notes:
Serves current and future workers.,
Sources: PMC and West Sacramento Childcare Impact Fee in Book of City
Imposts
Childcare facilities serve workers in the City. Table 11.2 shows the.
estimated service population for 2005 'and 2020. In calculating the service
population, residents are given a weight, of 1.0 and workers are weighted
at 0.24 to reflect lower per capita s'ervice usage. Nonresidential buildings
are typically ocCUpied less intensively than dwetling units, so it is
reasonable to assume that average pe~-worker usage of services is less
'than average per-resident usage.
Table Il.2:
Childcare Facilities Service Population
service
Workers Population
Existing (2005) 9,054 9,054
New Development (2005-2020) 2.745 2.745
Total (2020) 11,799 11,799
· Weighting factor
Sources: Table 2. 2
· : . . .~. ,.,~,3~'~:~-!-~'-~;~.~-;~'.-_:..3~ :~,,~,_~%??~.~. -~g:~.;.:~-.'-:;:~;:~.
· This section discusses the standard used to determine the furore needs for
the childcare service.
PA C~IC MII~rlCIPAI* COI~UL TAI~S
Q'rY~ STUDy
Per capita standards and unit costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities
that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility
standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 11.3, is based on the
master plan approach for establishing facility standards because the
planned facilities will provide a standard above the current standard,
benefiting both existing and future development. As such, this study
identifies a portion of the cost to be funded by the City and not by impact
fe,es. Use of this standard in calculating the impact fee ensures that new
development pays for the same level of facilities as existing development.
,Table 11.3: Facility Standards and per Capita Expansion Costs
Facility
Standard
Service per 1,000
2005 Cost Population Capita Unit Cost
Facility
Expansion
Cost Per
Capita
COnsultant study $ 60,000 11,799 $ 5,085 .NA $ 5.09
Total COst per Capita
$ 5.09
Cost per Worker
$ 5.09
Sources: 'l:ables 11.1 and 11.2; PMC.
New development can be required to provide its Propor.tionate share of
facilities related to new development. Table 11.4 shows the allocation of
citywide Childcare £acility costs. Future development is contributing at
the same level per capita as existing development.
Table 11.4: Childcare Facilities Costs
Service Population Growth, 2005-2020
Total Facilities Cost per Capita
2,745
5.09
Total Facilities To Accommodate Growth · $
Required funds to. serve existing population $
14,000
46,000
Sources: Tables 11.2 and 11.3; ·
CltlI..DC.A~E
L YNWOO D ~I'Y FEE ,S3'UD Y
Table 11.5 shows the childcare facilitY impact fee for new development
based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 11.3. The fee
represents the maximum justified fee to fully fund all facilities needed to
accommodate growth based' on the master'plan standard. Citywide
nonresidential development would, pay the fee based on the service
population for the facilities.
Table 11.5: Childcare Facilities Impact Fees
Costs per
Land Use~ Capita ' Density2 Fee3.
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 5.09 1.4 $ 7.14
Industrial '5.09 0.6 3.02
Office 5.09 1.7 8.53
~ See Chapter 2 for land use type definitions.
2 Persons per dwelling unit for residential land uses and employee per 1000 sf
for nonresidential land uses.
3 Per dwelling unit for residential uses and per 1,000 square feet for
nonresidential land uses.
Sources: PMC, Table 2.2
~s section ~scusses a range of implementation issues ~icat to impact
fee programs.
Implementing a lower fee
The City has the-policy discre, tion to implement a lower, fee through the
.following options:
*' Lower 'the' facility statidards on which the fee is based. The
City has the option to lower the standard and thereby reduce the
cost to new development.
Identify alternative funds to replace fee revenues. This
approach requires either reallocating existing revenues, increasing
tax rates or charges, or identifying and obtaining new revenue
sourccs.
. . pAC~¢MLtNICIPAL
Fee collection and administration
The City would collect the Child cate impact fee at time of final
inspection or certificate of occupancy. Collection at building permit
issuance is allowable under certain conditions. To implement the fee, the
City should do the following:
· Identify appropriate indexes in the fee ordinance and include an
automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance.
PACI~C M~PAL CONSr.~ TA.~'fS
t 2. ADMINISTRATION
This chapter discusses the need for an administration component to 'be
included in the impact fee program.
As with most programs, there is a cost to administer, oversee and UPdate
the program. It is recommended that a cost be added to the overall
impact fee to cover the costs related to implementing, administering,
overseeing and updating the fee program, including the annual reporting
requirements. An administrative cost of 5% of the total fee has been
added and is shown in Table 12.1.
.Table 12.1: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees ..-----,
:. Multi-
Facility Category Single Family Family Commercial Industrial
Office
lee _~er 1.000 Building Square Feet
PoliCe Services $ 413.32 $ 4=13.32 $ 29.63 $ 12.52 $ 35.39
Parks/Recreation 2,270.10 2,270.10 - -
Civic CentedCity Garage. 145.70 145.70 10.44 4.41
Water facilities '. 1,381.25 1,381.25 2,244.53 1,381.25
Wastewater facil!ties 347. t 7 208.30 433.96 267.32
Noise-Monitoring System 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.01
Technological Enhancements 35.02 35.02 2.51 1.06
Transportation facilities 320.67 224.47 1,439.81 ·234.09
. 7.14 3.02
· Childcare .
Subtotal $ 4,913.65 $ 4,678.58 $ 4,168.05 $ 1,903.68
$ 258 $ 246
$ 5,172 $ 4,925
· Administration 5%
Total (to nearest dollar)
Foe per Dwelling Unit
219 $ 100
$ 4,387 $ 2,004
12.47
-1,381.25
267.32
.0.03
3.00
368.77
8.53
$ 2,O76.76
$ 109
$ 2,186
Sources: PMc
Table 12.2 estimates the total revenues generated by the impact fee
program for administration. The City should monitor its actual costs and
P~c~c M~WC~
L I'NWOO D CITY FEE ..~7.~ y
CIf1ZDCARE
adjust the' factor as necessary in any subsequent update to the fee
program.
Table 12.2: Total Impact Fee ReVenues
(Constant dollars/
Revenues General
Facility 'from Impact Fund/Other
Category, Fees . Sources
Program Total
Police Services $ .570,000 $ 6,630,000 $ 7,200,000
Parks/Recreation 2,815,000 35,.26.5,000 $ 38,080,000
-Civic Center/City Garage 201,100 2,337,000 $ 2,538,100
Water facilities 3,760,500 21,409,500 $ 25,170,000
Wastewater facilities 762,800 .5,837,200 $ 6,600,000
Noise-Monitoring System 584 6,516 $ 7,100
Technological Enhancements 4.8,000 562,000 $ 610,000
Transportation facilities 1,.754,100 7,879,800 $ '9,633,900
Childcare 14, .000 46,000 $ 60,000
Subtotal .$ 9,926,084 $ 79,973,016 $ 89,899,100
Administration 5% $ 522,916 NA 522,916
Total (to nearest $1,000)
Percentage to the Program
$10,449,000 $ 79,973,000 $ 90,422.000
12% 88% 100%
Funds identified under General Fund/O~her Sources is a City obligation to the prOgram.
Excludes additional funding of $628,000 for Transportation Improvements.
Sources: PMC
The impact fee program is estimated over a 15 year planning horizon.
Based on this horizon, approximately !;33,000 will be generated annually
for program administration.
'PA ~IC ~' U~I~'PAL COP~3UK TA~Y'~
13. IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter identifies tasks that the City should complete when
implementing the fee program.
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California
Government Code ~ 66000 et stq. Adoption of an impact fee program
reqUires the City Board Of Supervisors to follow certain procedures
including holding a public hearing. Fourteen day mailed public notice is
reqUired for those registering for such notification. Data, such as this
impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing. The City's legal counsel should inform the City of any
other procedural £equirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an
enabling ordinance and/or a resolution; After adoption there, is a
mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect, unless an
Urgency Ordinance valid for 30 days is adopted making certain findings
regarding the urgency being claimed. The ordinance must be re-adopted
at the end of the first period to cover the next 30 days and .therefore the
'entire 60~day waiting period. Fees adopted by urgency go into effect
immediately.. ~lais procedure must also be followed for fee increases.
The City should update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to identify
specific projects and program fee revenues to those projects. Use of the
CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new
development and the use of fee revenues.
For the five-year planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all
'existing fund balances and projected fee revenue to facilities projects.
The 'City can hold funds in a project account for longer ihan five years if
necessary to collect sufficient fund. s to complete a project.
L~OOD (~q~FE~ ,grV'D P
For the majority of the projects, the costs in this report are shown in 2005
dollars based on .recent construction trends'in California. Certain facilities
are based on actual constructions 'costs. To ensure that the fee program
stays current with costs, the City should' identify appropriate inflation
indexes in the fee ordinance and include an automatic annual inflation
adjustment in the fee ordinance. Where' practicable, it is recommended
that a separate index be used for land cos~ and construction 'costs as
property often appreciates or depreciates at a different rate than
construction costs. In addition, for those facilities for which the City is
recouping funds for building excess capacity into the .facilities, no annual
adjustment factor is recommended. For these, projects, the annual
adjustment factor is not necessary because the facilities have been
purchased and the costs determined.
Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser or
property-related information every few years. The construction cost
index can be based on .the City's recent capital project experience or taken
from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record. To
.calculate the fee increases, each index should be weighted by the share of
total planned facility Costs represented by land or construction, as
appropriate..
Each facility category has been presented separately for ease of analysis.
However, fees may be combined into one or more fee categories. The
most common combination is to include everything in a public facilities
fee and transportation-related items in a transportation impact fee, for'
ease of administration as shown in Table 15.1:
CHILl)CARE
L I"N~OOD CITY FEE ..~I~D Y
Table 13.1: Summary of Maximum Justified Fees
Single Multi- -
FacilE)/Categor~ Family Family Commercial Industrial
Office
F~e _oer Dwelling Unit
Administration 5%
Fee per 1.000 Building Square Feet
Police Services $ 413.32 $ 413.32 $ 29.63 $ 12.52 $
Parks/Recreation , 2,270.10 2,270.10 ~
Civic Center/City Garage 145.70 145.70 10.44 4.41
Water facilities 1,381.25 1,381.25 2,244.53 1,381.25
· Wastewater facilities 347.17 208.30 433.96 267.32
Noise-Monitoring System 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.01
Technological Enhancements 35~02 35.02 2.51 1.06
Childcare .. - 7.14 3.02
Subtotal $ 4,592.98 $ 4,454.11 $ 2,728.24 $1,669.59 $ 1,707.99
$ .241 $ 235 $ 143 $ 88 $ 90
Total Public Facilities Fee
Transportation facilities
Administration 5%
· $ 4,834 $ 4,689
$ 320.67 $ 224.47
$ 17 $ 12
35.39
12.47
1,381.25
267.32
0.03
3.00
8.53
Total Transportation' Fee
$ 2,871 $ 1,758 $ 1,798
$ 1,439.81 $ 234.09 $ 368.77
$ 76 $' 12 $ 19
$ 338 $ 236 $ 1,516 $ 246 $ 388
TOTAL $ 5,172 $ 4,925 $ 4,387 $ 2,004 $ 2,186
Sources: PMC
It is recommended that transportation impact fees be accounted for
separately from the public facility fees because the nature of the
improvements.
The City should comply with the annual and five~year reporting.
requirements of Government Code ~ 66000 vt seq. For facilities to be
funded with a combination of public facilities fees and other revenues, the
City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City
must also identify when the other revenues are anticipated to be available
to fund the project.
t4. APPENDIX
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me))~~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage~/.,,(~-/~'/-
Don Vestal, Interim Redevelopment Dire~
Leaonna Fletcher, Sr. Rehabilitation Specialist
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE NO. 1 TO THE HOME PROGRAM
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council of the City of Lynwood adopt the
attached resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD TO APPROVE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE NO. 1 TO THE
HOME PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF REALLOCATION OF HOME
FUNDS TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
AND DOCUMENTATION OF COMMITMENT OF HOME/CHDO FUNDS TO A
CHDO PROJECT".
Background:
On April 4, 2006 and on April 18, 2006 the City Council opened and continued a
Public Hearing to May 2, 2006 regarding the consideration of a Resolution to
Approve Substantial Change No. 1 to the HOME Program.
1. The City of Lynwood receives an annual allocation of HOME Investment
Partnership Act (HOME) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to develop affordable housing programs in accordance with the
federal regulations.
2. Each year, the City prepares an Annual Action Plan that states the goals,
the federally funded program/projects to be undertaken, the amount of funds to
be committed per program/project and the targeted number of assisted
households and incomes per project for the new fiscal year. The City had
identified specific programs and allocations in the Action Plans.
3. Per HOME Program regulation 92.204(a)(2)(A), the City is required to
commit HOME Program funds to eligible activities "within twenty-four months
AGENDA
ITEM
after the last day of the month in which HUD notifies the entity of HUD's
execution of the HOME Investment Partnership Agreement."
4. As of August 25, 2005, HUD's new policy fOr de-obligating funds states
that future allocations will be reduced. The FY 2003 HOME funds were de-
obligated by HUD therefore, according to the new policy, the City's FY 2006 and
FY 2007 HOME allocation will be reduced.
Discussion and Analysis:
Summary of Proposed Changes
1. Delete Activity
First Time Homebuyer
Acquisition & Rehabilitation
Total
Fiscal Year
Ori.qinal Allocation
2O03 $100,000
2003 $100,000
$200,000
Rental Rehabilitation
First Time Homebuyer
Acquisition & Rehabilitation
Program Income
Total
2004 $180,000
2004 $280,000
2004 $100,000
2004 $357,258
$843,059
Rental Rehabilitation
First Time Homebuyer
Acquisition & Rehabilitation
Total
2005 $ 45,0O0
2005 $120,000
2005 $124,082
$289,082
Total of Deleted Projects
$1,406,340
2. New Activity Fiscal Year ProposedAIIocation
Housing Rehabilitation 2003/2004/2005 $627,603
CHDO Project CHDO/PI 2000-2005 $673,685
CHDO Project 2003 $105,052
Total $1,406,340
The City is able to reinstate any of the above activities at anytime, however the
City would be required to submit the reinstatement in the City's Consolidated
Annual Action Plan for the corresponding year. The City Council can allocate the
above Housing Rehabilitation monies to any active activity.
HUD has notified the City that it must commit FY 2003 and FY 2004 HOME funds
of $1,197,019 which includes the FY 2004 $104,540 in CHDO funds. These
funds need to be committed into the HUD Integrated Disbursement Information
System (IDIS) by August 31, 2006, in order to meet the 24-month commitment
requirement.
There are several categories of projects which the City can commit funds to in
the Action Plan and IDIS. In the past years, the City had attempted to commit
funds to First-Time Homebuying, Rental Rehab and New Construction along
with Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program.
The non-commitment and expenditure of funds may be due to the significant rise
in sales prices of single-family residences in the last 3 years and/or in the cost of
materials for the owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program. These market
forces have made the programs infeasible due to the insufficient HUD maximum
sale price regulations and to insufficient funds allocated in the Action Plans to
implement these programs adequately.
HUD De-obligation and Commitment Requirements
Since the City has not successfully committed any monies to these activities for
FY 2003, and 2004 and has not expended CHDO funds for five years, a
Substantial Change (amendment) process involving public notification/review and
a public hearing is required by HUD to enable the City to commit and expend
these funds. According to the HUD notice, the City must commit the funds by
August 31, 2006 or lose the funds through the de-obligation process and further
reduce the future allocation for FY 2008 and FY 2009. In a letter received in
February 2006, HUD has warned the City that if further de-obligation occurs, they
may also determine that the City is not capable of administering the HOME
program and may remove the City from its status as a Participating Jurisdiction
(P.J.) for federal funds.
Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program
The City has been working to address this commitment shortfall deadline through
the Single Family Housing Rehab program. The City currently has approximately
30 Single Family Housing Rehab applications that have been processed. Of
these, 10 Loans are awaiting funding and contract signing with approximately
$387,000 expended. Eleven cases are awaiting bids and ten cases are awaiting
inspections. Once the loans are funded and closed, property addresses could be
entered into IDIS. Another 58 applicants are on the waiting list waiting for
additional funding as provided through Substantial Change No. 1.
Inclusive in the process of applications are many components. These
components consist of the following requirements. After receipt of application the
applicant is determined eligible based on applicant's income. A property profile
is requested from the title company to show the basic property information, along
with an appraisal provide by a certified appraiser to determine if the property
meets the after rehab value which is determined by HUD. Environmental
documents are prepared for each property identifying the conditions surrounding
the property. A termite & lead abatement inspection is requested. After
receiving inspection reports, if lead is detected, an abatement inspection is
requested. A scope of work is prepared and authorized by the homeowners and-
homeowners are encouraged to submit bids and provide to staff. A Historic
clearance is requested to determine if the property has any historic value and if
not the City receives clearance. After receiving all inspection reports and bids,
grant and loan documents are prepared for signature by homeowner and
contractor. A notice to proceed is executed and construction begins and
contractor has 90 days to complete the rehabilitation work. Staff records all
necessary documentation and submit a request to Finance for funding.
Construction management of the project is performed to insure contractor
performance. After construction is completed a final inspection is performed and
the contractor submits request for final payment. From initial application
submission to completion of project it takes approximately 6 months.
Community Housing
Rehabilitation Project
Development
Organization
Acquisition and
Additionally, the City has recently approved Resolution No. 2006.029 which
reserved CHDO funds of $673,685 and committed funds to the City's CHDO,
American Family Housing. Additional HOME/CHDO funds in the amount of FY
2003 $105,052 need to be committed to the CHDO acquisition project for both
requirement and project purposes. The rents will be lowered to benefit Iow-
income tenants. After the Substantial Change No. 1 has been approved and the
actual acquisition and rehabilitation project has been approved by Council and
subsequently committed into IDIS, the CHDO project will also assist the City in
meeting HUD's commitment and expenditure requirements.
The Redevelopment Agency Committee meeting was scheduled for April 12,
2006 and continued until April 19, 2006 at which time committee members were
not all in attendance so therefore no recommendation was given.
Fiscal Impact:
Reallocation of these HOME funds will not affect the General Fund and will allow
the City to avoid further de-obligation of funds.
Coordinated With:
City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
Finance Department
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
APPROVE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE NO. 1 TO THE HOME PROGRAM FOR
THE'PURPOSE OF REALLOCATION OF HOME FUNDS TO THE SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND DOCUMENTATION
OF COMMITMENT OF HOME/CHDO FUNDS TO A CHDO PROJECT
WHEREAS, Lynwood City Council approved the use of HOME funds for
fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 which included allocations for
specific activities; and
WHEREAS, a review of HOME activities identified which activities have
not committed or expended funds due to market forces beyond the City's control.
The market forces include the significant rise in sales prices of single-family
residences in the last 3 years. These increases have made certain programs
infeasible due to HUD's maximum sale price regulations and to insufficient funds
being allocated to prior year programs. As a result the City needs to reallocate
funds via a Substantial Change (amendment) to the City's Consolidated Annual
Action Plans; and
WHEREAS, a need eXists to reallocate HOME/CHDO funding for
commitment of to eligible feasible projects by August 31, 2006 and a need exists
to commit and expend five years of CHDO funds (2000- 2004) including FY 2003
in the amount of $105,032 in order to comply with HUD regulations and avoid
further de-obligation of funds; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Substantial Change No. 1 to the City's
Consolidated Action Plans constitutes a Substantial Change will accomplish this
goal.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby
find, determine, order and resolve as follows:
Section 1. Approve and Adopt amendments to prior Consolidated Action
Plans as follows:
DELETED AND NEW ACTIVITIES/ALLOCATIONS
Substantial Change No. I will reprogram HOME funds to the following activities
and amounts and amend the prior years Action Plans accordingly:
1. Delete Activity Fiscal Year
First Time Homebuyer 2003
Acquisition & Rehabilitation 2003
Total
Original Allocation
$100,000
$1oo,ooo
$200,000
Rental Rehabilitation
First Time Homebuyer
Acquisition & Rehabilitation
Program Income
Total
Rental Rehabilitation
First Time Homebuyer
Acquisition & Rehabilitation
Total
Total of Deleted Projects
2004 $180,000
2004 $280,000
2004 $100,000
2004 $357,258
$843,O59
2005 $ 45,000
2005 $120,000
2005 $124,082
$289,082
$1,406,340
2. New Activity Fiscal Year Proposed Allocation
Housing Rehabilitation 2003/2004/2005 $627,603
CHDO Project CHDO/PI 2000-2005 $673,685
CHDO Project 2003 $105,052
Total $1,406,340
Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2006.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Arnoldo Beltran, City Attorney
Don Vestal, Interim Redevelopment
Director
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & Council Members
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerl~ '
Albert Espinoza, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT:
Lynwood City Council Minutes
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Lynwood City Council adopt the
following Minutes:
· Regular Meeting, March 21, 2006
· Regular Meeting, April 4, 2006
Background: N/A
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Coordinated With: N/A
AGENDA
ITEM
LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 2006
The City Council of the City of Lynwood met in a regular meeting in the Council
Chambers, 11330 Bullis Road on the above date at 5:13 p.m.
Mayor Vasquez presiding.
Council Members Byrd, Johnson, Pedroza, Santillan, and Vasquez answered the roll
call.
Also present were City Manager Martinez, City Attorney Beltran, City Clerk Hooper, and
City Treasurer Pygatt.
City Clerk Hooper announced that the Agenda had been duly posted in accordance with
the Brown Act.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
NONE
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Maria Galvan thanked the Council for purchasing and installing stop signs near schools.
Frank P. Calderon commented that the letters he writes to Council Members are thrown
away.
Irene Garcia commented that the City is not responding fast enough to request for
services.
Jack Keen commented on law enforcement issues.
Ernestine Austin commented that people racing their cars on Lynwood Ave.
Dr. Hanan Islam commented that the City has done a good job regarding the Bond
ratings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item #7
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-01-CREATE AND
IMPLEMENT A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Jonathon Colin and Jennifer Mizrahi introduced and discussed the proposed ordinance
regarding the design review board.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, and
carried to open the public hearing.
Dr. Hanan Islam commented she supports the proposed ordinance. However, she
believes the ordinance should not be retroactive.
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, and
carried to close the public hearing.
After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council
Member Santillan, to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance by title.
ORDINANCE FIRST READING ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ADDING
SECTION 2-27 TO THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING A
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
City Clerk Hooper read the ordinance by title.
Item #8
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-02-AMENDMENTS TO
LYNWOOD ZONING CODE
Jonathon Colin and Jennifer Mizrahi introduced and discussed the proposed zoning
ordinance amendments.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, and
carried to open the public hearing.
Dr. Hanan Islam commented she supports the proposed ordinance. However, she
believes the ordinance should not be retroactive.
Lionso Guzman thanked Jonathon Colin for putting this item on the agenda. He
requested the City to enforce the ordinance should it be approved.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, and
carried to close the public hearing.
After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Council
Member Pedroza, to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance by title.
ORDINANCE FIRST READING ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AMENDING
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 25 (ZONING) OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
INCLUDING SIGNS, FENCES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND USES.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
City Clerk Hooper read the ordinance by title.
Item # 9
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
FOR THE ACQUISITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF REAL PROPERTY
INTEREST IN APN 6186-001-005 AND 6186-001-006, LOCATED AT
12017 ATLANTIC AVENUE LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT
PARK FOR JOHN HAM MEMORIAL PARK WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY
LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE MARCO ANTONIO FIREBAUGH HIGH SCHOOL
It was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, and
carried to open the public hearing.
Leo Pelallo, representing Mr. Reyes and Josefina Vasquez, commented on the
properties located at 12017 & 12031 Atlantic Ave. He said there has been ongoing
negotiations and the City's offer to purchase his property has been Iow. He requested a
fair compensation for his property. He is proposing to have his property be reappraised
to current market value.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, and
carried to close the public hearing.
The City has extended an offer pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 7267.2 et seq. to the owner of record of the Subject Property, but the owner has
rejected the City's initial offer. Negotiations are ongoing, but no negotiated sale has
been reached. Based on the legal mandate under the Public Park Preservation Act of
1971 and the urgent need for park and open space in the City (the City of Lynwood was
already short of the required open and park space for its residents prior to the loss of
Ham Park. Nearly three years have now elapsed since the loss of the 10 acres of open
and park space that made up Ham Park), it is necessary that the City Council consider
at this time the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject
Property by eminent domain. In order to adopt the Resolution of Necessity the City
Council found and determined that:'
Necessary findings for adoption of resolution of necessity.
1. The public interest and necessity require the Project.
2. The Project is planned or located in the manner that will be compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury.
3. The Subject Property described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for
the Project.
4. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the
owner of record of the Subject Property.
This hearing relates to issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. The amount of just compensation is
not an issue before the City Council at this hearing.
After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Council
Member Byrd, to adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.036 ENTITLED'
A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DECLARING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM MEMORIAL PARK.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
Item #10
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
FOR THE ACQUISITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF REAL PROPERTY
INTEREST IN APN 6186-001-004, LOCATED AT 12025 ATLANTIC
AVENUE LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM
MEMORIAL PARK WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY LYNWOOD UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARCO
ANTONIO FIREBAUGH HIGH SCHOOL
It was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Council Member Byrd, and
carried to open the public hearing.
Jose Gonzalez commented he is the owner of a four-plex property located at 12025
Atlantic Ave. Some of his tenants have already been evicted. He said that real estate
property values have gone up and the City has offered to purchase his property at
$300,000. He believes this amount is to Iow.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, and
carried to close the public hearing.
The City has extended an offer pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 7267.2 et seq. to the owner of record of the Subject Property, but the owner has
rejected the City's initial offer. Negotiations are ongoing, but no negotiated sale has
been reached. Based on the legal mandate under the Public Park Preservation Act of
1971 and the urgent need for park and open space in the City (the City of Lynwood was
already short of the required open and park space for its residents prior to the loss of
Ham Park. Nearly three years have now elapsed since the loss of the 10 acres of open
and park space that made up Ham Park), it is necessary that the City Council consider
at this time the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject
Property by eminent domain. In order to adopt the Resolution of Necessity the City
Council found and determined that:
Necessary findings for adoption of resolution of necessity.
1. The public interest and necessity require the Project.
2. The Project is planned or located in the manner that will be compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury.
3. The Subject Property described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for
the Project.
4. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the
owner of record of the Subject Property.
This hearing relates to issues 1,2, 3, and 4 above. The amount of just compensation is
not an issue before the City Council at this hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, to
adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.037 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THI~ CITY OF LYNWOOD DECLARING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM MEMORIAL PARK.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERSBYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
Item #11
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
FOR THE ACQUISITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF REAL PROPERTY
INTEREST IN APN 6186-001-004, LOCATED AT 12031 ATLANTIC
AVENUE LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM
MEMORIAL PARK WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY LYNWOOD UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARCO
ANTONIO FIREBAUGH HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. Leo Pelallo who spoke on item #9 - indicated by the nod of his head that he was not
interested in making further comments.
It was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, and
carried to open public hearing.
Seeing that there was nobody interested in making public comments with respect to this
property, it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member
Santillan, and carried to close the public hearing.
The City has extended an offer pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 7267.2 et seq. to the owner of record of the Subject Property, but the owner has
rejected the City's initial offer. Negotiations are ongoing, but no negotiated sale has
been reached. Based on the legal mandate under the Public Park Preservation Act of
1971 and the urgent need for park and open space in the City (the City of Lynwood was
already short of the required open and park space for its residents prior to the loss of
Ham Park. Nearly three years have now elapsed since the loss of the 10 acres of open
and park space that made up Ham Park), it is necessary that the City Council consider
at this time the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject
Property by eminent domain. In order to adopt the Resolution of Necessity the City
Council found and determined that:
Necessary findings for adoption of resolution of necessity.
1. The public interest and necessity require the Project.
2. The Project is planned or located in the manner that will be compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury.
3. The Subject Property described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for
the Project.
4. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the
owner of record of the Subject Property.
This hearing relates to issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. The amount of just compensation is
not an issue before the City Council at this hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, to
adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.038 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DECLARING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM MEMORIAL PARK.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERSBYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, ANDSANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
Item #12
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
FOR THE ACQUISITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF REAL PROPERTY
INTEREST IN APN 6189-019-060 AND 6189-019-061, LOCATED AT
11800 AND 11808 ATLANTIC AVENUE LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
90262, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM MEMORIAL PARK WHICH
WAS ACQUIRED BY LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARCO ANTONIO FIREBAUGH HIGH
SCHOOL
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, and
carried to open the public hearing.
City Attorney Beltran stated that the City attempted to contact Antonio Moreno,
President, Tacos Mexico Inc, via 3 separate means of communication as follows: (1) the
City mailed correspondence to Ricardo S. Gonzalez, agent for service of process, at
5120 E. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles. Records reflect that the correspondence was
delivered on February 25, 2006. (2) the City mailed correspondence to Antonio Moreno,
care of Victor Rosales, at 8060 Florence Ave. Suite 302, Downey. Records reflect that
the correspondence was delivered on February 27, 2006. (3) the City mailed
correspondence to Ricardo S. Gonzales at P.O. Box 7038, Los Angeles. Records reflect
that the correspondence was delivered on March 7, 2006. City Attorney Beltran also
stated that Antonio Moreno wrote the City a letter which he claims he never received
correspondence from the City.
Victor Rosales, representing Mr. Moreno with respect to his property located at 11800
and 11808 commented that the reason the owner of the subject property did not
respond to the offer was because he was out of town. However, Mr. Rosales indicated
that he has been negotiating the price of the property for almost a year through
Universal Field Services. He is open to further negotiations.
It was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Council Member Byrd, and
carried to close the public hearing.
The City has extended an offer pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 7267.2 et seq. to the owner of record of the Subject Property, but the owner has
rejected the City's initial offer. Negotiations are ongoing, but no negotiated sale has
been reached. Based on the legal mandate under the Public Park Preservation Act of
1971 and the urgent need for park and open space in the City (the City of Lynwood was
already short of the required open and park space for its residents prior to the loss of
Ham Park. Nearly three years have now elapsed since the loss of the 10 acres of open
and park space that made up Ham Park), it is necessary that the City Council consider
at this time the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject
Property by eminent domain. In order to adopt the Resolution of Necessity the City
Council found and determined that:
Necessary findings for adoption of resolution of necessity.
1. The public interest and necessity require the Project.
2. The Project is planned or located in the manner that will be compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury.
3. The Subject Property described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for
the Project.
4. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the
owner of record of the Subject Property.
This hearing relates to issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. The amount of just compensation is
not an issue before the City Council at this hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Byrd, to
adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.039 ENTITLED'
A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DECLARING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM MEMORIAL PARK.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
Item #13
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
FOR THE ACQUISITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF REAL PROPERTY
INTEREST IN APN 6189-019-012, LOCATED AT 12020 AND 12022
ATLANTIC AVENUE LYNVVOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262, IN CONNECTION
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN
HAM MEMORIAL PARK WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY LYNWOOD
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MARCO ANTONIO FIREBAUGH HIGH SCHOOL
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, and
carried to open the public hearing.
Seeing that there was nobody interested in making public comments with respect to this
property, it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member
Byrd, and carried to close the public hearing.
The City has extended an offer pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 7267.2 et seq. to-the owner of record of the Subject Property, but the owner has
rejected the City's initial offer. Negotiations are ongoing, but no negotiated sale has
been reached. Based on the legal mandate under the Public Park Preservation Act of
1971 and the urgent need for park and open space in the City (the City of Lynwood was
already short of the required open and park space for its residents prior to the loss of
Ham Park. Nearly three years have now elapsed since the loss of the 10 acres of open
and park space that made up Ham Park), it is necesSary that the City Council consider
at this time the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject
Property by eminent domain. In order to adopt the Resolution of Necessity the City
Council found and determined that:
Necessary findings for adoption of resolution of necessity.
1. The public interest and necessity require the Project.
2. The Project is planned or located in the manner that will be compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury.
3. The Subject Property described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for
the Project.
4. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the
owner of record of the Subject Property.
This hearing relates to issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. The amount of just compensation is
not an issue before the City Council at this hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, to
adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.040 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DECLARING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT PARK FOR JOHN HAM MEMORIAL PARK.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one motion
affirming the action recommended on the agenda. There will be no separate discussion
on these items prior to voting unless members of the Council or staff request specific
items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
Council Member Pedroza pulled item #18 - STREET NAME SIGNS REPLACEMENT
PROJECT AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS.
Council Member Santillan pulled item #19 - TREASURER'S QUARTERLY
INVESTMENT REPORT.
The Council removed item #23 - TOWING SERVICES OPTIONS from the agenda.
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, to
approve the minutes, approve the resolutions, and receive & file the staff reports.
Item #14
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
Regular Meeting - February 21, 2006
Item #15 APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT REGISTER
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.041 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING AND APPROVING THE DEMANDS AND WARRANTS
THEREFORE.
Item #16
DESIGNATION OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE INDEPENDENT
CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.042 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPOINTING
A REPRESENTATIVE, AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE AND A SUBSTITUTE
ALTERNATE REPRESENATIVE TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE
INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ICRMA).
Item #17 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 19
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.043 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AWARDING
A CONTRACT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 19 TO LAYNE
CHRISTENSEN COMPANY, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO MAKE
THE NECESSARY FUND APPROPRIATION AND TRANSFERS.
Item #20 TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.044 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
APPROVING THE TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERSBYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, ANDSANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
Item #18
STREET NAME SIGNS REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
This item was pulled by Council Member Pedroza. He asked the City Manager if this
item was going to a RFP. The City Manager said yes.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Santillan, to
adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.045 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
THE STREET NAME SIGNS REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
MAKE THE NECESSARY FUNDS APPROPRIATION AND TRANSFER FOR THIS
PROJECT.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERSBYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
Item #19 TREASURER'S QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
This item was pulled by Council Member Santillan. Treasurer Pygatt made a
presentation on the types of Investments by the City of Lynwood.
Receive and file the attached investment report for the quarter ending September 30,
2005.
After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council
Member Byrd, to receive & file the Treasurers quarterly investment report.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Item #21
CERTIFICATION, REVIEW, RATIFICATION AND GRANTING OF
UTILITY USER'S TAX EXEMPTIONS
Director of Finance - Marysheva gave a presentation on this item.
After discussion, it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council
Member Byrd, to adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.046 ENTITLED'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD RATIFYING
THE APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFIED LIST OF UTILITY USER'S TAX EXEMPTIONS
FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 AND
APPROVING THE CERTIFIED LIST OF UTILITY USER'S TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR
THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2006 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006, AND IN EACH
CASE GRANTING EXEMPTIONS TO THE INDIVIDUALS ON THE CERTIFIED LISTS.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
BYRD
VASQUEZ
Item #22 TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT EXTENSION
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member Byrd, to
approve the contractor's request to accelerate the current tree trimming efforts as
outlined in the staff report and approve an allocation of $280,000 from the
unappropriated General Fund reserve and authorized the City Manager to negotiate for
light maintenance.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
AB STAI N:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
VASQUEZ
Item #23 TOWING SERVICES OPTIONS
This item was removed from the agenda.
CITY COUNCIL ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Council Member Pedroza commented on the passing of former Assembly Member
Marco Antonio Firebaugh. He said he will be deeply missed as he was a champion of
education.
Council Member Santillan commented on her mixed emotions regarding the sentencing
of former Lynwood Mayor Paul Richards. She believes he received a harsh sentenced
of 17 years for corruption charges.
Council Member Byrd commented that former Lynwood Mayor Paul Richards received
a harsh sentence of 17 years for corruption charges. He believes it was a vendetta by
certain people that were involved with the Alameda Corridor project. He is sad for Paul
Richards's family.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson offered his prayers for the families of Paul Richards and Marco
Antonio Firebaugh.
CLOSED SESSION
Item #24
City Attorney Beltran stated with respect to every item of business to
be discussed in Closed Session Pursuant to Section 54956.8
A. CONFERENCE WITH.REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Properties:
See listing of properties by Address and Assessor
Parcel Numbers in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
City Negotiator:
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Development Services Director and Universal Field
Services, Inc.
Negotiating:
Under Negotiation:
See listing of properties and property owners ("Seller"
or "Seller's") in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
Price and terms of payment - Seeking authority to
make offer to Seller's for acquisition of property and,
where appropriate, value of immovable fixtures and
equipment, provision of appropriate relocation
benefits and compensation for potential loss of
goodwill to parties legally entitled thereto.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54957:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Director of Redevelopment
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54957.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator:
Employee Organization:
Sandra Rocha
Lynwood Employees' Association
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 5456.95:
LIABILITY CLAIMS
1. Claimant: Michelle Davis
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
2. Claimant: Jose Castro
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
3. Claimant:
Francisca Gonzalez
Agency claimed against: City of Lynwood
4. Claimant: Gilbert Woods
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
Eo
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
54956.9:
One (1) Case
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in
closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(subdivision (a) of section 54956.9:)
1. Name of Case: Bulletin Displays v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC340572
2. Name of Case:
Laverne Jackson and Jackson & Associates v. City of
Lynwood
Case No. BC288237
3. Name of Case: Thomas v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC288238
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member
Santillan, and carried to recess to Closed Session at 8:45 p.m.
Council reconvened at 9:36 p.m.
City Attorney Beltran stated that Council met on the aforementioned matters and
with respect to the following:
A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Properties:
See listing of properties by Address and Assessor
Parcel Numbers in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
City Negotiator:
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Development Services Director and Universal Field
Services, Inc.
Negotiating:
See listing of properties and property owners ("Seller"
or "Seller's") in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
Under Negotiation:
Price and terms of payment - Seeking authority to
make offer to Seller's for acquisition of property and,
where appropriate, value of immovable fixtures and
equipment, provision of appropriate relocation
benefits and compensation for potential loss of
goodwill to parties legally entitled thereto.
This item was not addressed.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54957:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Director of Redevelopment
Consensus was reached by the Council (4-0-1 Vasquez absent) and
further instruction was provided to the City Manager.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54957.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator:
Sandra Rocha
Employee Organization:
Lynwood Employees' Association
Status report was given and no action was taken.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 5456.95:
LIABILITY CLAIMS
1. Claimant: Michelle Davis
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Vasquez not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
2. Claimant: Jose Castro
Eo
Fo
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Vasquez not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
3. Claimant: Francisca Gonzalez
Agency claimed against: City of Lynwood
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Vasquez not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
4. Claimant: Gilbert Woods
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Vasquez not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
54956.9:
One (1) Case
This item was not discussed.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in
closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(subdivision (a) of section 54956.9:)
1. Name of Case: Bulletin Displays v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC340572
No Action was taken
2. Name of Case: Laverne Jackson and Jackson & Associates v. City of
Lynwood
Case No. BC288237
After presentation the Council reached cOnsensus (4-0-1 Vasquez not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
3. Name of Case: Thomas v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC288238
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Vasquez not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by
Council Member Byrd, and carried to adjourn the regular Lynwood City Council meeting
at 9:40 p.m., in memory of former Assembly Member Marco Antonio Firebaugh.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 4, 2006
The City Council of the City of Lynwood met in a regular meeting in the Council
Chambers, 11330 Bullis Road on the above date at 5:13 p.m.
Mayor Vasquez presiding.
Council Members Byrd, Johnson, Pedroza, Santillan, and Vasquez answered the roll
call.
Also present were City Manager Martinez, City Attorney Beltran, City Clerk Hooper, and
City Treasurer Pygatt.
City Clerk Hooper announced that the Agenda had been duly posted in accordance with
the Brown Act.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
Aide Castro spoke on item #23 - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK - ASSESSMENT OF
STATUTORY DUTIES AND CONSIDERATION OF FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION OF
RESPONSIBILITIES AND STATUTORY DUTIES. He was under the impression that the
Council wanted to take away the duties of the City Clerk. She asked the Council to
respect all elected positions.
Percy Brown spoke on item #23 - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK - ASSESSMENT OF
STATUTORY DUTIES AND CONSIDERATION OF FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION OF
RESPONSIBILITIES AND STATUTORY DUTIES. She was perplexed why the Council
wanted to take away the duties of the City Clerk.
Irene Garcia spoke on item #23 - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK -ASSESSMENT OF
STATUTORY DUTIES AND CONSIDERATION OF FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION OF
RESPONSIBILITIES AND STATUTORY DUTIES. She does not understand why the
Council wants to take the duties away from the City Clerk. On item #25 - TOWING
SERVICES OPTIONS, she requested that the towing contract should go to a local
company.
Paulette Bradley spoke on item #23 - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK - ASSESSMENT
OF STATUTORY DUTIES AND CONSIDERATION OF FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION
OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND STATUTORY DUTIES. She questioned if this move
would affect the retirement compensation of the City Clerk.
Margie Harper spoke on item #23 - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK - ASSESSMENT
OF STATUTORY DUTIES AND CONSIDERATION OF FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION
OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND STATUTORY DUTIES. She believes City Clerk is doing a
good job.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Frank P. Calderon requested the proponents of the re-call to pay for the expense.
Irene Garcia commented on the need for affordable housing in Lynwood.
Margaret Araujo commented that she is sick and tired of people calling Council
Members to complain about City issues.
Herman Young commented on the need for sidewalk improvements and fix pot holes.
Maria Ybarra requested the City to fix the pot holes on Waldorf Drive.
Carol Tally commented on the need to clean up street trash around the City.
Aide Castro commented that the City Manager kicked out a Council Member out of a
meeting. She believes that was inappropriate.
Bess Goodman commented that the area around Lindbergh elementary school is
congested with traffic when the children get out of school. She also commented she
supports the City Clerks job performance.
Jack Keen commented the reason he never gives out his residential address when
required to do so during public orals is because he has had bad experience with people
stalking him.
Dr. Hanan Islam commented that it's important to improve communications especially
on the transition of new policies.
Alex Landeros commented that the City should add more diverse restaurants other than
Tacos and Chinese food restaurants.
Lorene Reed commented that the City manager is trying to move City forward.
PUBLIC HEARING
Item #7
PUBLIC HEARING FOR A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE HOME
PROGRAM
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Pedroza, and
carried to open the public hearing.
Dr. Hanan Islam questioned if there were going to be funds available for first time
buyers and home owners who want to rehabilitate their home.
Lorene Reed commented that the dollar amount to the HOME program needs to be
increased because the people who are rehabilitating their homes are facing rising
construction costs. She also commented on the need to rehabilitate and preserve older
homes.
Patricia Carr commented that it's importing to properly staff the department in order to
implement this program.
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, and
carried to continue the public hearing to April 18, 2006.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAI N:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
Item #8
APPEAL NO. 2006-01 PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-35 TO UPGRADE AN EXISTING
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FROM BEER AND WINE TO AN
OFF-SITE GENERAL LICENSE (TYPE 21) ALSO SERVING DISTILLED
SPIRITS
The Mayor declared the meeting open. Rod Archer, representing Villa Clara Market,
said his client purchased the property around 9 months ago. He said he is willing to
comply with requirements established by the City and asked the council to approve the
CUP.
It was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Council Member Byrd, and
carried to close the public hearing.
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Santillan, to
approve the resolutions with the conditions set forth in section 2 of the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.047 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
APPEAL NO. 2006-01 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-35) TO UPGRADE AN
EXISTING LICENSE TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FROM OFF-SALE BEER
AND WIN (TYPE 20) TO OFF-SALE GENERAL (TYPE 21) IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE EXISTING MARKET (VILLA CLARA), LOCATED AT 10236 LONG BEACH
BOULEVARD (APN 6191-005-023) IN THE C-3 (COMMERCIAL) ZONE, CITY OF
LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one motion
affirming the action recommended on the agenda. There will be no separate discussion
on these items prior to voting unless members of the Council or staff request specific
items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
It was moved by Council Member Byrd, seconded by Council Member Pedroza,
to approve the minutes, adopt the resolutions, and receive & file the staff reports.
Item #9
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
Regular Meeting - March 7, 2006
Item #10 APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT REGISTER
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.048 ENTITLED-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING AND APPROVING THE DEMANDS AND WARRANTS
THEREFORE.
Item #11 LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER PROJECT NUMBER 05-5297
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.049 ENTITLED-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE EXISTING CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH
STEINBERG ARCHITECTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR THE LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER AT THE EXISTING HOURLY RATE
NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 IN TOTAL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.
Item #12
ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT OFFER DEDICATED FOR STREET
PURPOSES
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.050 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ACCEPTING
AN EASEMENT OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR STREET PURPOSES AT 10900
LONG BEACH BOULEVARD, 10910 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD AND 10930 LONG
BEACH BOULEVARD.
Item #13 SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT FY 2005-06
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.051 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
APPROPRIATING $41,645 OF TDA ARTICLE 3 FUNDS FOR THE SIDEWALK
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, FY 2005-06.
Item #14
TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS WORK AT IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
AND ATLANTIC AVENUE
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.052 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT IMPERIAL HIGHWAY AND ATLANTIC
AVENUE INTERSECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE
TO MAKE THE NECESSARY FUNDS APPROPRIATION AND TRANSFERS.
Item #15 DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT- EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.053 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE RETENTION OF SERVICES FOR THE
DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.
Item #16
QUARTERLY CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER PROJECT REPORT-
NOVEMBER 1, 2005 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2006
Receive and file staff's quarterly contract change order report for the period of
November 1,2005 through January 31, 2006.
Item #17 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, FY 2006-2007
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.054 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE
LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 (PART TWO OF DIVISION 15 OF THE
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2006-2007.
Item #18 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, FY 2006-2007
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.055 ENTITLED'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 (PART TWO OF DIVISION 15 OF THE STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007.
Item #19 MS. SENIOR AMERICA REGIONAL PAGEANT
Approve the following:
1. The hosting of the Ms. Senior America Regional Pageant at
Bateman Hall.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 2006.056 ENTITLED.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOD AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MS. SENIOR
AMERICA OF CALIFORNIA ORGANIZATION.
3. The assessment of an admission fee for entrants into the pageant
and for the general public to see the event in order to cover the
costs associated with the hosting of the event.
Item #20
SECOND READING OF CITY OF LYNWOOD ORDINANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ORDINANCE NO. 1572 ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AMENDING
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 25 (ZONING) OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
INCLUDING SIGNS, FENCES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND USES.
Item #21
SECOND READING OF CITY OF LYNWOOD ORDINANCE -
AMENDMENTS TO LYNWOOD ZONING CODE
ORDINANCE NO. 1573 ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ADDING
SECTION 2-27 TO THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING A
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Item #22
PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED NEW AND REVISED FEES
BASED ON THE CONSULTANTS STUDIES, INCLUDING THE COST OF
SERVICES STUDY, COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
STUDY AND ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REPORT
Director of Finance - Marysheva and Pacific Municipal Consultants' gave a presentation
on the impact fees study. After discussion it was moved by Council Member Pedroza,
seconded by Council Member Santillan, to (a) receive& file staff's report; (b) receive
Pacific Municipal Consultants' studies and presentation concerning the City's proposed
new and revised fees; (c) review and approve the timeline to implement the proposed
new and revised fees; and (d) provide staff with direction.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
Item #23
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK - ASSESSMENT OF STATUTORY
DUTIES AND CONSIDERATION OF FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION OF
RESPONSIBILITIES AND STATUTORY DUTIES
City Manager Martinez made a presentation on the statutory duties of the City Clerk.
City Clerk Hooper reported on the records management system she has in her office.
She also reported on her efforts to put City resolutions and certain documents online.
After discussion it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Mayor Pro
Tem Johnson, to bring this item back in two weeks to allow the Council and residents an
opportunity to tour the City Clerks records management operations.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
Item #24
CONSIDERATION OF A RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC
SAFETY FACILITY WITHIN THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
Lorry Hempe made a presentation on the proposals to conduct a feasibility study to
establish a public safety facility within the City of Lynwood. After discussion it was
moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, to approve
the following:
Option #1 - Direct staff on the scope of the study and authorize the release of a
Request for Proposals to conduct a feasibility study to establish a public safety facility
and;
Model #3 - Police Department, This model involves City staffing of law enforcement
services for higher accountability to both residents and city officials, more ownership
between community and police officers and development of identity and pride within the
City.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
Item #25 TOWING SERVICES OPTIONS
Grant Taylor made a presentation on the City of Lynwood towing services options. After
discussion it was moved Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, seconded by Council Member
Santillan, to approve option #3 - city directed tow ordinance and option #-4 - Request
for Proposal (at large).
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.057 ENTITLED'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR NON-EXCLUSIVE TOWING
SERVICES.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, AND SANTILLAN
NONE
NONE
PEDROZA, VASQUEZ
Item #26
AGREEMENT WITH DEVELOPERS OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED
AT 10900, 10910, AND 10930 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD
G. Daniel Ojeda made a presentation on the properties located at 10900, 10910, and
10930 Long Beach Boulevard.
After discussion it was moved by Council Member Santillan, seconded by Mayor Pro
Tem Johnson, to approve the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006.058 ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
10900, 10910, AND 10930 RELATIVE TO SITE PLAN REVIEW 2004-30.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS BYRD, JOHNSON, PEDROZA, SANTILLAN, AND
VASQUEZ
NONE
NONE
NONE
CITY COUNCIL ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Council Member Pedroza requested staff to look into putting a left turn signal on the
south bound side of Long Beach Boulevard at Sanborn. He was pleased that Governor
Schwarzenegger visited Plaza Mexico.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson commented that the Mayor was selected to chair the
Latino/African American Leadership Summit at USC.
Mayor Vasquez commented that she was very impressed by Governor Schwarzenegger
when he visited Plaza Mexico.
CLOSED SESSION
Item #27
City Attorney Beltran stated with respect to every item of business to
be discussed in Closed Session Pursuant to Section 54956.8
A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Properties:
See listing of properties by Address and Assessor
Parcel Numbers in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
City Negotiator:
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Development Services Director and Universal Field
Services, Inc.
Negotiating:
See listing of properties and property owners ("Seller"
or "Seller's") in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
Under Negotiation:-
Price and terms of payment - Seeking authority to
make offer to Seller's for acquisition of property and,
where appropriate, value of immovable fixtures and
equipment, provision of appropriate relocation
benefits and compensation for potential loss of
goodwill to parties legally entitled thereto.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in
closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(subdivision (a) of section 54956.9:)
1. Name of Case: Bulletin Displays v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC340572
2. Name of Case:
Laverne Jackson and Jackson & Associates v. City of
Lynwood
Case No. BC288237
3. Name of Case: Thomas v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC288238
4. Name of Case: Cynthia Green-Geter v. City of Lynwood
Case No. 0700000041
Co
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT / DISCIPLINE ! DISMISSAL /
RELEASE
Director of Recreation & Community Services
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 5456.95:
LIABILITY CLAIMS
1. Claimant: Ethel Todd
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
2. Claimant: Juan Gomez
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
3. Claimant: Ernestine Austin
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
It was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by Council Member
Santillan, and carried to recess to Closed Session at 9:08 p.m.
Council reconvened at 10:39 p.m.
City Attorney Beltran stated that Council met on the aforementioned matters and
with respect to the following:
A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Properties:
See listing of properties by Address and Assessor
Parcel Numbers in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
City Negotiator:
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Development Services Director and Universal Field
Services, Inc.
Negotiating:
See listing of properties and property owners ("Seller"
or "Seller's") in Attachment "A" to this agenda.
Under Negotiation:
Price and terms of payment - Seeking authority to
make offer to Seller's for acquisition of property and,
where appropriate, value of immovable fixtures and
equipment, provision of appropriate relocation
benefits and compensation for potential loss of
goodwill to parties legally entitled thereto.
After presentation the Council reached consensus (5-
0) and provided further instructions to staff regarding
the possible disposition of the matter.
Bo
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in
closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(subdivision (a) of section 54956.9:)
1. Name of Case:
Bulletin Displays v. City of Lynwood
Case No. BC340572
No action was taken.
2. Name of Case:
Laverne Jackson and Jackson & Associates v. City of
Lynwood
Case No. BC288237
No action was taken.
3. Name of Case: Thomas v. City of Lynwood
Co
Case No. BC288238
No action was taken.
4. Name of Case: Cynthia Green-Geter v. City of Lynwood
Case No. 0700000041
No action was taken.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT ! DISCIPLINE / DISMISSAL /
RELEASE
Director of Recreation & Community Services
This item was not discussed.
With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session
pursuant to Section 5456.95:
LIABILITY CLAIMS
1. Claimant: Ethel Todd
Agency claimed against: City of Lynwood
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Santillan not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
2. Claimant: Juan Gomez
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Santillan not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
3. Claimant: Ernestine Austin
Agency claimed against:City of Lynwood
After presentation the Council reached consensus (4-0-1 Santillan not
present) and provided further instructions to staff regarding the possible
disposition of the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Council Member Pedroza, seconded by
Council Member Byrd, and carried to adjourn the regular Lynwood City Council meeting
at 10:43 p.m.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
May 02, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me~b~~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage]/'/'r~..._////' f //,~//
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager-Financ(~./v
Tamu Ledbetter, Accounting Technician
Approval of the Warrant Register
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Lynwood City Council approve the
warrant register.
..................... Attached Warrant Register dated May 2, 2006 .........................
AGENDA
ITEM
15
r-
Z
0
-<
r
z
c~
I-
-<
z
o
o
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me~J3~ c.~j
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage/r///~-,v/',/'/Z.
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Finan
Christy Valencia, Deputy Director of Finance
Jennifer A. Mizrahi, City Attorney's Office
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Establishing an Art in Public
Places Program and an In-Lieu Fee
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council read for second reading and adopt the
attached ordinance titled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD ADDING SECTION 11-20 TO THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ESTABLISHING AN ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM AND AN IN-LIEU FEE."
Back~round
During the last City Council meeting on April 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a
public hearing on the attached ordinance. After the close of the public hearing, the
City Council voted to introduce the ordinance by title only. Staff now recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance.
Discussion and Overview of the Ordinance
The purpose of the ordinance is to create a process and set up developer fees for an
Art in Public Places program. The Art in Public Places Program would be
instrumental in improving the overall look of the City by increasing the quality and
amount of public art; improving the aesthetic profile of the city, and contributing to
economic development, educational and cultural enhancement, and overall resident
pride.
1. Creation of an Art Fee
The attached ordinance requires that commercial, residential, and industrial
development projects having a total construction cost of $100,000 or more would
have to contribute to public art in the City of Lynwood. The ordinance mandates that
developers engaging in these projects would have to do one of two things:
AGENDA
ITEM
IL,
1. Acquire, install, and maintain artwork located in a public place that is
accessible and visible to the general public, valued at 1.5% of the
project cost, or
2. Pay an in-lieu fee in the amount of 1.5% of the project cost to the art
endowment fund which will support the City's Art in Public Places
Program.
The artwork theme, placement, and final design would require a majority vote of the
entire body of the City Council.
2. Creation of Art in Public Places Advisory Committee
The proposed ordinance recommends the creation of an Art in Public Places
Advisory Committee. The committee would serve as an advisory panel to the City
Council, making recommendations based upon guidelines set forth in the ordinance.
The committee would review artwork applications for placement, and examine the
proposal for public safety considerations, weather resistance, theme, balance within
the program, verification of value, public response, and other factors.
The Committee would consist of five (5) members appointed for four (4) year terms,
with the City Manager assigning a staff member to serve as a liaison and secretary to
the Committee. The Committee's membership will consist of: Two (2) Lynwood residents;
At least one person with a degree in art or an art related field;
Lynwood business owner or operator;
Licensed civil engineer.
The Committee would conduct meetings consistent with the Brown Act and Robert's
Rules of Order.
3. Creation of Guidelines
In addition to the formation of the Committee, the ordinance sets outs guidelines on
which the Committee would base its recommendations to the City Council. Some of
these guidelines include:
Artwork shall be displayed in an area that is open and freely accessible
to the public;
2. The composition of artwork shall be in a permanent type of material
that is durable against vandalism, theft, and weather;
3.Artwork shall be permanently affixed to the property;
4. Artwork shall be related in terms of scale, material, form and content to
surrounding structures so that it compliments the site and environment
4. Creation of the Fund
The ordinance provides for the creation, implementation and uses for the Art In
Public Places Fund. Five percent (5%) of in-lieu fees paid would be set aside to
cover the City's administrative costs related to implementing, administering,
overseeing, and updating the program. The remaining ninety-five percent (95%) of
the in-lieu fees paid would be available for the purchase, installation, commissioning,
or maintenance of artwork.
Fiscal Impact
There will be some start up costs for staff time associated with forming and staffing
the Committee, establishing the art fund account, and creating the application forms
and procedures. Once the program is underway, all or a portion of the City's
administrative costs will be offset by revenues collected from five percent of the in-
lieu fees paid. The Art in Public Places Manager position that will be recommended
for consideration during the FY 2006-07 budget development can also be charged to
the 5% administrative set-aside in the Public Art fund.
Coordinated With: City Manager's Office
Recreation and Community Services
Pacific Municipal Consultants
Attachments: Ordinance establishing the Public Art Program and In-lieu Fee
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD ADDING
SECTION 1t-20 TO THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING AN ART
IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM AND AN IN-MEU FEE
WHEREAS, many cities have adopted an Art in Public Places Program with the intent of
placing permanent art objects, such .as sculptures, throughout their communities, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynwood (the Council) wishes to create a similar
program in the City of Lynwood, and
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood retained a consultant to establish the process for the
creation of an Art in Public Places Program, and the consultant's report dated March 28,
2006, is available for review at the offices of the City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
.Section 1. Section 11-20 is hereby added-to the Lynwood Municipal Code to read as
follows:
tl-20.t Definitions
"Applicant" means the owner of the property, tenant, lessee, subiessee,
licensee, or any other person *utilizing the property and seeking the required permits.
"Artwork"' means original creations of art including but not limited to, the following
categories: sculpture, murals, mosaic and fountains. These categories may be realized
through such mediums as steel, bronze, stained glass, concrete, wood, ceramic tile and
stone, as 'well as other suitable materials.
~Project" means any development, construction, reconstruction, remodel, or erection
of any structure, building, parking lot, or sign.
"Project cost" means the total value of a project, excluding the land value; as
determined by the Building Official, and indicated on the building permits issued by the City
for that project.
"Public place" means any exterior area on public or private property, which is
accessible and visible to the general public.
'q-heme" means the subjects that have been approved by the City.
11-20.2 Purpose: The City Council of the City of Lynwood hereby finds that
development in 'the City of Lynwood should be beneficial to the public health,
safety and general welfare. Artistic resources enhance the quality of life for
residents living in, working in and visiting the City. Balanced development and
artistic resources preserves and improves the quality of the urban environment.
As development increases the need to erect, create, develop and contribute to
public art is necessary.
11-20.3
Requirements to Provide Artwork or Pay In-Lieu Contribution
When a project is subject.to the requirements of this section, the applicant shall
comply with provisions of either of the following subsections:
a. Artwork Acquisition and Installation. 'The. project applicant Shall acquire and
install an artwork in a public place on or in the vicinity of the project site. The artwork and the
place of the artwork must be approved by at least 3/5 of the entire body of the City Council
pursuant to this section. The cost or value of such artwork as approved by the City Council
shall not be less than the amount of the in-lieu contribution that would otherwise be made
under subsection B of this section. In the event that the 1.5% of the total project cost
exceeds the value of the artwork purchased and approved, the applicant shall acquire and.
install the artwork that is less than the 1.5% of the total project cost and pay the difference
between the artwork acquired and the 1.5% fee.
b. In-Lieu Contribution. In lieu of acquiring and installing, an artwork, project
applicants shall contribute funds to the Art in Public Places Fund equal to one and one-half
percent (1.5%) of-the total project cost, unless otherwise provided by the City Council.
Project applicants must indicate on their art in public places apPlications that they wish to
make an in-lieu contribution.
11-20.4 Projects Subject To Art in Public Places Requirement
a. The requirements of this section shall only apply to the fOllowing projects:.
Commercial or industrial developments, having a total project cost,
excluding any fees pursuant to this section, in excess of one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00);
o
· Residential developments, including single family homes, having a
total project cost, excluding any fees pursuant to this section, in
excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00).
activities:
Exceptions. The requirements of this section shall not aPply to the follOwing
1. All public work and governmental agency projects;
2. ReconstrUction of structures, which have been damaged by fire,
flood, wind, earthquake or other calamity;
Religious, hospital, scientific or charitable organizations if the project
is constructed on property exempt from taxation purSuant to
California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 214.
11-20.5 Processing
The requirements and procedures for the processing of an art in public places
application shall be as follows:
a: Upon submiSsion of a project application subject to the requirements of this
section, the City Manager or his designee shall' provide to the applicant a copy of the
ordinance and an art in public places application form.
b. The. project applicant shall submit to the City Manager or his designee a
completed art in public places application form in a timely manner as set forth under the
guidelines established by the City Manager or his designee.
c. The theme of the artWork shall be approved by the majodty of the entire
bodY of the City Council.
d. After the theme has been selected by the City Council, the City Manager or
his designee shall, upon receipt of the application, submit the application to the Art in
PubliC Places Advisory Committee (hereafter"Committee"). -
e. The Committee shall, within thirty (30) days from the date'of submittal of the
application by the City Manager or his designee, submit to the City Council comments
and/or a reCOmmendation on the proposed artwork.
f. The application shall then be submitted to the City Council for final action.
The City Council shall approve, approve in part, conditionally approve or deny the
application based upon the guidelines set forth in this section and .a determination of
:whether the value equals or exceeds the amount of the in-lieu contribution, which the
application seeks to satisfy.
g. When the project applicant has elected to acquire and install an artwork,
the building permit shall not be issued until the City Council has approved the art in
public Places application, and the certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the
approved work of art has been installed unless an in-lieu contribution is made as a
deposit to secure the proper installation of the artwork within a reasonable period of time
as specified by the City Manager or his designee.
h. When the project applicant has elected to make an in-lieu contribution to
the Art in Public Places Fund, the building permits shall not be issued until such
contribution has been paid.
i. If the applicant decides to install artwork after making an in-lieu
3
contribution, a bond, letter of credit, or other instrument acceptable to the City Manager
or his designee will be necessary to ensure completion of the project before any refunds
are issued to pay for artwork.
11-20.6
Art in Public Places Advisory Committee.
a. The City of Lynwood, in recognizing the important role that public artwOrk
has on the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its residents, does
hereby establish an Art in Public Places Advisory. Committee. The Committee shall
serve as a review panel, to ensure that all City Council established criteria have
been met. The Committee .shall .review the applications and examine the
proposal for public safety, weather resistance, theme, harmony with the development,
verification of value, public response, proper lighting, public accessibility, installation
methods, proportion, composition, the artists previous experience on monumental
scale sculpture, the artists art training and exhibition record.
b. The Committee shall consist of five members, wherein each Council
member appoints one of the Committee members, and appointment is approved by
the majority of the membership of the City Council. The Committee shall consist of
the following: Two (2) Lynwood residents; At least one (1) person with a degree in
art or an art-related field; One (1) Lynwood business owner or operator; and one (1)
licensed civil engineer.
c. Committee support shall be provided by the City Manager or his designee.
d. Committee appointments shall be for four (4) years. Committee members
may be removed by at least a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the entire membership of the
City. Council at any time, with or with9ut cause.
e. Committee members shall be residents of the City of Lynwood except
when waived by at least a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the entire membership of the
City Council. The City Council may waive the residency requirement only in the
event that no resident is eligible or that the only 'eligible resident for a particular
appointment category declines the appointment.
f. Should a regular COmmittee position beCome vacant for any reason,
such vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term of office, within thirty (30) days,
by a qualified successor. Such appointment shall conform to the provisions of this
subsection.
g. If a member of the Committee is absent from three (3) regular meetings
without being excused by the Committee or is absent for any reason for more than
four (4) regular meetings during a twelve (12) month period, the office of such
member shall be vacated and City staff shall immediately notify the City Council of
the vacancy. Upon such notification, a succeSsor for the remainder of the term of
such member shall be appointed by at least.a three-f~hs (3~5).vote of the entire
membership of the City Council.
4
h. The Committee shall adopt rules for the selection of its officers, including
the selection of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, the time and place of its
meetings, and such other matters relative to its work and administration of its duties
which are not otherwise provided for by statute, ordinance, or resolution of the
Council. The Committee shall comply with the Same rules and regulations for the
conduct of its business as provided for in section 2-1.5 of the Lynwood Municipal
Code.
i. The Committee shall conduct meetings as necessary. All Committee
meetings shall be held in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and shall be
open to the public, .6xcept as provided by law. Special meetings may be called by
the Chairperson of the Committee or the majority of the Committee. The regular
meetings shall be held at:
City Hall Council Chambers
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, California 90262
j. The City Manager or his designee shall appoint a secretary to the
Committee. The secretary of the. Committee shall not be a. member of the
Committee-. The secretary of the Committee shall keep a record of its proceedings
and the basis for all findings and recommendations, which shall be available to the
publiC.
k. 'The recommendation of approval or conditional approval of an application
for artwOrk Shall be bY a majority (3 members) of the total Committee 'membership;
otherwise any such application shall be considered to be a recommendation of
denial. ·
I.. Members of the Committee shall be required to file annual statements of
· economic interest pursuant to the citY's conflict of interest code.
11-20.7 Art in Public Places Advisory Co.mmittee Required Plans and
Materials.
If the applicant desires to acquire and install the artwork, the applicant shall
submit the following for review to the Committee:
ao
A site plan depicting:
The complete dimensions of the lot and site plans;
All existing and propoSed buildingsand structureS;
All existing and proposed street dedications and
improvements
5
thereon, including the location and nature of all street
improvements in the public right-of-way;
4. All easements;
5. The location of all utility services.
b; Drawings, rendering, or sketches showing the artwork itself, including, but
not limited to colOrs, dimensions, illumination, and materials
c. Architectdral drawings, renderings, or sketches showing all elevations of
the proposed buildings, structures, and artWork as they will appear upon
completion and the texture and color of all constructiOn materials to be used;
d. All existing and proposed yards and spaces between buildings and
structures;
e. All existing and proposed walls, fences, and landscaping, including the
location, height, area, color, nature, and type of design and material composition
for the walls and fences;
f. A landscape plan showing the location of the trees and shrubs (proposed
to be removed, retained, or installed), the amoUnt, height, 'type, and location of
landscaped areas, planting beds, and plant materials, and provisions for
irrigation;
g. All existing and proposed lighting, including the location and general
nature of both off-site and on-site lighting, the proposed intensity thereof, and the
diffusion thereof;
h. All existing and proposed outdoor and indoor storage activities including,
but not limited to, the nature of such storage, its location, and the proposed
height and type of screening for such storage, including the design, color, and
material composition thereof;
i. The exterior lighting plan showing the location, materials, and colors of the
illumination;
j. Such other drawings or additional information necessary to adequately
consider the drawings set forth in this section and determine compliance with the
purpose and intent of the artwork review process.
11-20.8 Guidelines
The Committee, at the recommendation level, and ~the City Council, at the final
approval level,' shall use the following guidelines in making its recommendations or
R
decisions.
a. The artwork shall be displayed in an area that is open and freely accessible to
the public for at least ten (10) hours each day or displayed in a manner which otherwise
provides public accessibility in an equivalent manner based on the characteristics of the
artwork or its placement on the site.
b. The composition of the artwork shall be of a permanent tYpe of material
in order to be durable against vandalism, theft and weather, and in order to require a
Iow level of maintenance.
c. The artwork shall be related in terms of scale, material, form and content
to immediate and adjacent buildings and landscaping so that it complements the.site
and surrounding environment.
d. The artwork shall be designed and constructed by persons experienced in
the production of such artwork and recognized by critics and by his or her peers as one
who produces works of art.
e. The artwork shall be consistent with the theme approved by the City
Council.
The artwork shall be permanentlY affixed to the property.
The following items are not to be considered,as artwork:
1. Art objects that are mass-produced from a standard
However, limited productions may be considered with
restrictions;'
design.
specific
o
Reproductions of odginal adworks;
Decorative, omamental or functional elements that are
designed .by the building architect as opposed to an artist
commissioned for the purpose of creating the artwork;
Landscape architecture and landscape .gardening except where
these elements are designed or .approved bY the artist and are an
integral part of the artwork by the artist;
Any artwork that promotes a business or service.
Services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain the artwork.
1'1-20.9 Maintenance of Artwork
a. If the applicant elects to acquire and install the artwork, the artwork shall
be maintained by the prOperty owner in a safe, neat and orderly manner at all times
acCeptable to the City. Any repair and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the
applicant and completed in accordanCe with a maintenance plan approved by the City.
b. If the applicant elects to acquire and install the*artwork, the artwork shall
remain the property of the applicant and shall be replaCed in the event of theft, or
repaired in the event of damage. Artwork shall be insured for the full replacement value.
Art may not be removed without pdor approval from the City Council. If removal is granted,
an in-lieu contribution equal to the value of the artwork shall be made to the City's Art in
Public PlaCes Fund.
c. If the applicant elects to pay the fees in lieu of the acquisition and
installation of the artwork, any artwork acquired and installed shall remain the property
of the City. In this case, the City shall be responsible for maintenance and repair of the
artwork.
1 t-20.10 Indemnification and Insurance
a. If the applicant elects to acquire and install the artwork and prior to the
issuance of building permits, the property owner, or applicant, shall execute and record
with the Los Angeles County Recorder, covenants, conditions and restrictions in form
and content approved by the City Manager or his designee and the City Attorney
providing the following. ·
1. The applicant's successors and assigns shall keep the artwork in
good repair.
2. The applicant shall execute a document agreeing to hold the City of
Lynwood, its offiCers, directors, employees, volunteers, and agents free
and harmless from any loss, liability, damage or cost sustained bY any
person or property, to the extent that the loss, liability, 'damage or cost
arises out of the installation, operation, or use of the artwork.
3. The applicant shall furnish the City Manager or his/her designee a
certificate of insuranCe evidencing that the applicant has then in force a
liability and property damage insurance policy with the following
requirements:
ao
A policy or policies of bread-form comprehensive general liability
insuranCe with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss, or
damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts by applicant, its
officers, directors, employees, agents, and-independent contractors
related to the artwork.
The City, its officers, employees, volunteers, and agents shall be
named as additional insureds. Property. damage insuranCe with a
Co
minimum limit of five hundred thousand ($500,000) naming the
City, its officers, employees, volunteers, and agents as additional
insureds.
The applicant shall keep the insurance in force during all times it
maintains the artwork. The Certificate of insurance filed with the
City shall include a statement by the insurance carrier that thirty
(30) days notice will be given to the City before cancellation.
1 t-20.1t Art In Public Places Fund
a. Accounting. Any moneys collected in accordance with the in-lieu contribution
provisions of this section shall be deposited in a separate account denominated as the "Art
in Public Places Fund." The City Manager or his designee shall establish accounting
records sufficient to identify and control these funds. The account containing these funds
shall eam interest and the eamed interest shall De used for and be subject to the same
restrictions established in this section.
b. Five percent (5%) of in-lieu fees paid would be set aside to cover the
City's administrative costs related to implementing, administering, overseeing, and
updating the program. The remaining ninety-five percent (95%) of the in-lieu fees paid
would be available for the purchase or commissioning of art works.
c. Use of Fund. The Art in Public Places Fund shall be used to provide sites for,
and works of art in, public places in order to further the intent and purpose of this section.
The Art in pUblic Places Fund shall also be used as a depository for endowments,
bequests, grants or donations specifically designated for public art or related
purposes. Such sums may be expended as set forth in subsectiOn C of this section as
approved by the City Council.
d. Permissible Expenditures. Expenditures of funds shall be limited to the
following uses:
1. The cost to purchase, maintain, repair and install the artwork;
2. The cost to purchase, maintain, repair and install the water works,
landscaping, lighting and other objects which are an integral part of
the artwork;
3.. The cost to purchase, maintain, repair and install the frames, mats,
pedestals, and other .objects necessary for the proper presentation of
the artwork;
4. The cost to purchase, maintain, repair and install the walls, pools,
landscaping, or other architectural or landscape architectural elements
necessary for the proper aesthetic and structural placement of the
artwork;
9
o
In the event repair of the artwork is required, the City shall first give
the artist the opportunity to do that work for a reasonable fee. In the
event the artist is unable or refuses to make the repair for such a
fee, the City may prOceed to contract for such repair with another
qualified artist
e. Administration.
The Art in Public Places Fund shall be administered by the City'
Manager or his designee.
The Committee shall make recommendations to the City Council
concerning the purchase or commissioning of artworks, including
a. Locations that should be considered for artworks; and
b. The medium of the proposed artwork; and
c. The artist whose work should be considered for placement in the
recommended location.
Selection of artists and artworks shall be based on the guidelines set
forth in this section, as approved by the City Council.
The City may. contract with the artist and with consultants as
necessary for the purchase or commissioning as well as the execution
and installation of the artwork.
On-site activities in connection with the artwork installation shall be
coordinated by the City Manager or his designee.
11-20.12 Administration of Approved Plans: If there is substantial change from
the original design or plans of either the artwork or the project, the matter Or plans shall
be resubmitted to the Committee, subject to all of the provisions of this section, as if it
were a new application.
11-20.13 Further Rules and Regulations: The City Council reserves the right to
adopt by resolution additional rules and regulations which shall become effective
immediately upon adoption, governing the implementation of the specific procedures of
this section.
SECTION 2: if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrase, or portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, in-espective
In
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, :sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall take effect sixty (60) days after its final passage.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the City of Lynwood is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance and to cause it to be published as required by
law.
First read at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the . day of ,2006 and
adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day
of ,2006.
ATTEST:
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Arnoldo Beltran, City Attorney
11
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council M~lb~/,~, ~.~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Uanage~///~/~,/~//,/
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager/Finan
Sandra Rocha, Director of Human Resources~'~
SUBJECT:
SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT CITY-
WIDE TEAM BUILDING AND GOAL SETTING TRAINING
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LIPTON GROUP, INC. TO
COMPLETE TEAMBUlLDING TRAINING CITY-WIDE FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS AND
THE GOAL SETTING SESSIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL."
Background:
During the All Employees Meetings in December 2005, the City Manager heard
one common concern from the employees, the lack of a team environment in the
Departments. The City Manager committed resources to employees that team
building training and other related training would be available for employees in all
departments. Subsequently, the Human Resources Department obtained three
(3) bids from Matthis & Associates, Organizational Network, and The Lipton
Group, Inc., all experts in the team building field to select a consultant for the
training sessions. Based on the bid results, the Director of Human Resources
recommended Mr. Randy Lipton to the City Manager because of his competitive
hourly, rate and strong references from other agencies where he had performed
the same and/or similar training.
The City entered into individual contracts for services with Mr. Lipton for an
amount not to exceed $15,000 to conduct a series of trainings, which included
team building and goal setting sessions for the City Council.
Discussion & Analysis:
Mr. Lipton has conducted the following team building sessions: City Council
Team Building on January 23, 2006; Finance Department Team Building on
February 16, 2006; and Quality of Life Services Department Team Building on
April 5, 2006. Mr. Lipton also facilitated a number of issues with the Shedff
Department and the City, and conducted preparation work for the Department
Directors' and Division Managers' team building session scheduled for May 18,
2006.
AGENDA
ITEM
/?
May 2, 2006
Award of Contract to the Lipton Group Inc.
Page 2.
Due to the extensive work needed Citywide, and the need to complete the work
that has already started, additional services of Mr. Lipton will be required in
excess of the $15,000 threshold. Therefore, staff recommends that the City
Council authorize a City-wide contract with The Lipton Group, Inc., for Team
Building sessions for the remaining City Departments and the Goal Setting
sessions for the City Council.
Fiscal Impact:
The estimated total cost to complete City-Wide Team Building sessions for the
departments and Goal Setting sessions for the City Council is approximately
$55,000. The exact cost will depend on the department's individual needs.
Funding for this training will be included in the FY 2006-2007 budgets of
individUal departments.
Coordinated With: City Manager's Office
Finance Department
City Attorney's Office
Attachment A - Agreement for Services
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
LIPTON GROUP, INC. TO CONDUCT CITY-WIDE TEAM BUILDING TRAINING
FOR ALL EMPLOYEES AND DEPARTMENTS AND GOAL SETTING
SESSION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, during the All Employees Meetings in December 2005, the
City Manager heard one common concern from the employees, the lack of a
team environment in the City. The City Manager committed resources for team
building training for all departments, and directed the Director of Human
Resources to select a facilitator; and
WHEREAS, The Human Resources Department received three (3) bids
for team building and goal setting, and recommended The Lipton Group, Inc.
because of their competitive 'houdy rate and strong references from other
agencies where they performed the same and/or similar training; and
WHEREAS, Due to the extensive work needed Citywide, and the need to
complete the work that has already started, additional services of the Lipton
Group Inc. are required.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby
find, order, and resolve as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council approves the agreement for services
with The Lipton Group, Inc. to conduct City-wide Team Building training for City
departments and Goal Setting sessions for the City Council.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute an agreement approved
to form by the City Attorney.
Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS
2006.
DAY OF
LETICA VASQUEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
J. ARNOLDO BELTRAN,
CITY ATTORNEY
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ,
CITY MANAGER
SANDRA ROCHA,
DIR. OF HUMAN RESOURCES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
} ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES }
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Lynwood at a regular meeting held on the day of
, 2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
}
} ss.
}
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No.
on file in my office and that said Resolution ~S a~Opted on
the~a'~~by the vote therein stated.
"~D'~his day of 2006.
ANDREA L. HOOPER, CITY CLERK
Attachment A
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement ("Agreement") is made as of May 3, 2006 by and between the
City of Lynwood, a municipal corporation ("City") and The Lipton Group, Inc.
("Consultant"). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to
as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties."
RECITALS
VVHEREAS, City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent
contractor to provide consulting services to City as set forth in the attached Exhibit A;
and
VVHEREAS, Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such
consulting services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise
of its principals and employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the
covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Services.
A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be
performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit A.
B. Time of Performance. Consultant shall complete the specific services
according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on May 3, 2006 and
shall terminate on December 31, 2006, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement. On or before ninety (90) days prior to the Termination
Date, Consultant and City shall meet to discuss this Agreement and its possible
extension and or modification. In the event the Parties do not enter into a new
agreement pdor to the Termination Date, this Agreement shall continue on a month-to-
month basis under the same terms for a period not to exceed three months following
the Termination Date. If the Parties execute no new agreement by the end of the three-
month pedod following the Termination Date, this Agreement shall terminate at the end
of such three-month pedod.
3. Compensation.
A. City agrees to compensate Consultant for services under this Agreement in
compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A Payment will be made only after
submission of proper monthly invoices in the form and manner specified by City. Each
invoice shall include a breakdown of all monthly services performed together with the
time spent on each service.
Attachment A
B. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement (including any
allowed extensions as specified in section 2 above, and any approved out-of-pocket or
incidental expenses references in section 3c below) shall be payable as billed by the
consultant for each training session.
C. ff at the request of the City, Consultant is required to incur out of pocket
expenses (including but not limited to, out-of-town travel and lodging) which are above
and beyond the ordinary expenses associated with performance of this Agreement;
Consultant shall be entitled to reimbursement of such expenses. Consultant shall only
be reimbursed for those expenses which: (i) appear on Consultant's monthly invoices;
(ii) are accompanied by a copy of the City's written authorization for Consultant to incur
such expenses; and (iii) receipts documenting such expenses.
4. General Terms and Conditions. The General Terms and Conditions set forth
in Exhibit B are incorporated as part of this Agreement. In the event of any
inconsistency between the General Terms and Conditions and any other exhibit to this
Agreement, the General Terms and Conditions shall control unless it is clear from the
context that both parties intend the provisions of the other exhibit(s) to control.
5. Addresses.
City
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, CA 90262
Attn: Mr. N. Endque Martinez, City Manager
The Lipton Group, Inc.
29425 Chdstiana Way
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Attn: Randall A. Lipton, President
6. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are listed here and are
incorporated and made part of this Agreement by this reference.
Exhibit A - Scope of Services and Time of Performance (two (2) pages)
Exhibit B - General Terms and Conditions (six (6) pages)
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
2
Attachment A
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
dates written below.
CITY OF LYNWOOD:
By:
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
J. Amoldo Beltrbn, City Attorney
Date
ATTEST:
By:
Andrea HooPer, City Clerk
Date
CONSULTANT:
The Lipton Group, Inc.
By:
Randall A. Lipton, President
Date
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT A
Scope of work
The Lipton GroUp, Inc. will provide the following services:
· Conduct individual and/or small group meetings with members of each department
by phone or on-site
· Tailor the teambuilding session(s) for the employees and goal setting session (s) for
the City Council as needed
· Conduct each teambuilding session and goal setting session as mutually scheduled
between the parties
· Follow up with "coaches" or others as required
Background
The City of Lynwood (COL) recognizes the value of team and wishes to engage in a
teambuilding process for The City of Lynwood. The most dynamic and effective leadership
bodies are operating in a state known as team. Distinct from groups, teams have their
own distinct set of commitments and operating principles. Further, they require "coaches"
who both manage the condition as well as the work at hand. The creation of team
represents a transformation down to the cultural level. As such, the process of creating
team is much more than an academic exercise. The benefits to the individuals and the
organization can be enormous.
The Lipton Group, Inc. (TLG) is a respected consulting firm that specializes in strategic
planning, leadership development/executive coaching and change management. Our
expertise includes the building of teams and our experience with the City of Pomona
provides us with valuable background for work in a municipal setting.
Roles and Responsibilities
The TLG is an external partner who brings certain skills, experience and commitment to
the creation of team. Though we teach the principles and coach the coach, it is not our
role to displace leadership in the city at any level. It is our role to have city leadership be
successful with their process of creating and maintaining team. TLG will prepare the
coach and facilitate the teambuilding process. We will provide the essential tools,
approaches and perspectives for success. We will support the coach after the
teambuilding process as the coach gain mastery in team leadership.
COL will be responsible for providing the facilities in which the consulting services shall be
rendered along with any required audio/visual equipment. Further, COL will be
responsible for compensation to TLG in accordance with the "Fees, Terms and Conditions"
as follows.
Fees, Terms and Conditions
As a government client, TLG is willing to discount our rates for consulting services to
$2,000 per day or $250 per hour. Travel will be discounted to $100 per hour. The travel
time between TLG and the City of Lynwood is approximately one hour one-way.
Direct expenses (i.e. travel, lodging) are billed at actual cost. Mileage will be billed at
$0.365/mile.
The teambuilding session will take place at a time mutually agreeable to COL and TLG.
The terms on all invoices are thirty (30) days.
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Status as Independent Contractor.
A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent
contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on
behalf of City or othe~vise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its
agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's
employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in
any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents
or employees of City.
B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant
under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes,
assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent
contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any
Federal or State agency regarding the independent contractor status of Consultant and the
audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship
between City and Consultant, then Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs,
including accounting and attomey's fees, arising out of such audit and any appeals relating
thereto. '
C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law. Consultant
further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to
comply with applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the dght to offset
against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due
to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any
reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 1.
2. Standard of Performance.
A. Consultant shall perform all work to the highest professional standards and in a
manner reasonably satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee. The City
Manager or his/her designee may from time to time assign additional or different tasks or
services to Consultant, provided such tasks are within the scope of services described in
Exhibit A. However, no additional or different tasks or services shall be performed by
Consultant other than those specified in Exhibit A, or those so assigned in writing to
Consultant by the City Manager or his/her designee.
3. Indemnification.
A. Consultant is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the
services and duties agreed to be performed under this Agreement, and City is relying upon
the skill and knowledge of Consultant to perform said services and duties.
B. To the extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees t° indemnify and hold
harmless City, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and
all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, known or
unknown, and all costs and expenses, including reasonable attomeys' fees as fixed by
the court in connection with any injury or damage to persons or property to the extent
caused by any negligent act, error, omission or negligence of Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents, contractor, subcontractors or any officer, agent or employee thereof
in relation to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. Such defense and
indemnification shall not apply in any instance of and to the extent caused by the
negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, employees, agents or volunteers.
C. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions
identical to those set forth in this Section from each and every subcontractor, or any
other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity
obligations from others as required in this Section, Consultant agrees to be fully
responsible according to the terms of this Section. Failure of the City to monitor
compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will
in no way act as a waiver of any dghts hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and
defend City as set forth herein shall survive the termination of this-Agreement and is in
addition to any rights which City may have under the law. This indemnity is effective
without reference to the existence or applicability of any insurance coverages which
may have been required under this Agreement or any additional insured endorsements
which may extend to City.
4. Insurance.
A. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City pursuant to Section 3 of
this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense
dudng the term of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or
damages to property arising from or in connection with the occupancy, use or operation of
the Licensed Premises by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, independent
contractors or volunteers.
B. The types and amounts of insurance shall be as described below, and an
insurance company admitted to do business in California and approved by the City must
issue all such policies.
(i) General Liability Insurance covering third party liability dsks, including
without limitation contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million
combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and
property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a
general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate shall apply
separately to the Leased Premises, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice
the occurrence limit;
(ii) Automotive Liability insurance, in a minimum amount of $1 million per
accident for bodily injury and property damage;
(iii). Property damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00.
D. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be
non-renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition of
additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier
giving City thirty (30) days' prior written notice thereof. Any such thirty (30) day notice
shall be submitted to CITY via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to
"Risk Manager," City of Lynwood, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California, 90262.
Consultant agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify said insurance
coverage.
E. Consultant shall submit to City (i) insurance certificates indicating compliance
with the insurance requirements above, and (ii) insurance policy endorsements
indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance requirements above, not less
that thirty (30) days following the execution of this Agreement. Endorsements shall be
executed on City's appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured
Endorsement".
5. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to
confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City'. Consultant
covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received
by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and
shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant
such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City
upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall
survive the termination of this Agreement. Further, City shall be provided with
Consultant's proprietary, materials and management technology developed over many
years. Such materials may be used without limitation within the City organization for the
purpose of organizational development beyond the term of this agreement. Such
materials may not be shared beyond the City organization or used for any other purpose.
6. Ownership of Work Product. All reports, documents or other written material
developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the
property of City and may be used by City in support of its organization in perpetuity. Such
matedal shall not be published, sold or used by the city for any other purpose without the
expressed written permission of the consultant.
7. Conflict of IntereSt.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any
interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by
Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the
performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance
of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it.
Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would
conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or
otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of services to City as a result of the
performance of this Agreement, or the services that may be procured by the City as a
3
result of the recommendations made by .Consultant. Consultant's covenant under this
section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8. Termination for Cause. Should Consultant fail to perform any of the obligations
required of Consultant within the time and in the manner provided for under this
Agreement within seven (7) days after receipt from City of a written notice of such default,
or should Consultant violate any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, City may
terminate this Agreement with cause upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant.
The effective date of termination shall be upon the date specified in the notice of
termination. Consultant agrees that in the event of such termination, City's obligation to
pay Consultant shall be limited to payment only for those services satisfactorily rendered
prior to the effective date of termination. Immediately upon receiving written notice of
termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing services, preserve the product of the
services, and turn over to City the product of the services in accordance with written
instruction of City.
9. Personnel. All of the services required under this Agreement will be performed by
Randall A. Lipton.
10. Financial Condition. Prior to entering into this Agreement, Consultant has
submitted documentation acceptable to the City Manager, establishing that it is financially
solvent, such that it can reasonably be expected to perform the services required by this
Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this
Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant
shall submit such financial information as may be appropriate to establish to the
satisfaction of the City Manager that Consultant is in at least as sound a financial position
as was the case prior to entering into this Agreement. Financial information submitted to
the City Manager shall be returned to Consultant after review and shall not be retained by
c ty.
11. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.
A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex, madtal
status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or
sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this
Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto. Such
nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading,
demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of
pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or
on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color,
creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental
handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.
C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts
for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard
commercial supplies or raw materials.
4
12. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement
nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the prior wdtten
consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement or any rights,
duties, or obligations adsing hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
13. Performance Evaluation. For any Agreement in effect for twelve months or
longer, a written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within
ninety (90) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each
year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. The work product required by this
Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for review, and any comments or complaints
received by City during the review pedod, either orally or in writing, shall be considered.
City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any noncompliance
with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the inadequacies, or, in
the altemative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein.
14. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall keep itself informed of State, Federal
and Local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this
Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times comply with such laws, ordinances, codes
and regulations. The City, its officers and employees shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of Consultant to comply with this Section.
15. Licenses. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in
full force and effect all licenses (including a City business license) required of it by law for
performance of the services hereunder.
16. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one
or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of
any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by
City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any
breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the
making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any dght or
remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.
17. Attomey's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence
any legal or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its
costs of suit, including reasonable attomey's fees and costs, including costs of expert
witnesses and consultants.
18. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be
deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during Consultant's regular
business hours or by facsimile before or during Consultant's regular business hours; or (b)
on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to
the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the
parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this
section.
19. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
21. Severability. If any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreement is
found to be invalid or unenforceable, the balance of this Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
22. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein
by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant
and City. This Agreement supersedes all pdor omi or written negotiations, representations
or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof
waived, except in a writing signed by the Parties which expressly refers to this Agreement.
Amendments on behalf of the City will only be valid if signed by the Mayor and attested by
the City Clerk.
23. Authority. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this
Agreement on behaff of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the
performance of its obligations hereunder.
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY
SUBJECT:
May 2, 2006
The Honorable Mayor and Members of th_e,~i~ Council
Enrique Martinez, City Manager~.r/~.
N.
Deborah L. Jackson, Director of Quality of Life Service~
G. Daniel Ojeda, Director Public Works/City Engineer
Four-Year Tree Trimming Contract Amendment
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AMENDING THE TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CALIFORNIA
WESTERN ARBORISTS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR
DESIGNEE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY FUND APPROPRIATION AND
TRANSFER TO COVER THE AMENDED CONTRACT COST".
Background:
On November 1,2005 the City Council awarded the 4-year tree trimming contract
to California Western Arborists. The contract was for a 2-year tree trimming
cycle where half the city would be trimmed in F.Y. 2005-06 and the second half
would be trimmed in F.Y. 2006-07 per ISA Crown Thinning Standards. For the
second cycle, the first half of the city would again be trimmed F.Y. 2007-08 and
the second half trimmed in F.Y. 2008-09 per ISA Crown Cleaning Standards.
Staff received a letter dated March 7, 2006 from the contractor requesting to
expedite the tree trimming schedule to trim all city trees this fiscal year under the
ISA Crown Thinning Standards. At the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting,
Council directed staff to negotiate with the contractor to expedite the tree
trimming schedule with an approved allocation not to exceed $288,000.
Discussion & Analysis:
Staff has met with the contractor and reached an agreement. In order to
complete the tree thinning for the second half of the City originally scheduled to
H:\WORDFILE~CITYMNGR\DEBORAH~,GENDA ITEMS~GENDA ITEM.5.2.06.TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT.doc
AGENDA
ITEM
be completed in fiscal year 2005/06 an allocation of $252,000 is being requested
to complete the ISA Crown Thinning Standards for the entire City this fiscal year.
This allocation is being requested based on a cost of $56 per tree, and
approximately 4,500 trees remaining to be trimmed.
There will be no grid-trimming during F.Y. 2006-07. Regular grid trimming
operations will resume F.Y 2007-08 per ISA Crown Cleaning Standards.
An allocation of $36,000 will be requested in FY 2006/07 for any maintenance,
stump and/or tree removals or emergencies that may occur during the fiscal year.
Fiscal Impact:
To cover the expedited tree trimming schedule and any special requests for F.Y.
2005-06 a total cost not to exceed $252,000 will need to be appropriated to the
tree trimming account budget from the General Fund reserve.
Coordinated with:
Finance Department, City Clerk's Office, City Attorney, and City Manager.
H:\WORDFILE~CITYMNGR\DEBORAHV~,GENDA ITEMS~,GENDA ITEM.5.2.06.TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AMENDING THE TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CALIFORNIA
WESTERN ARBORISTS, INC AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR
DESIGNEE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY FUNDS APPROPRIATION AND
TRANSFER TO COVER THE AMENDED CONTRACT COST
WHEREAS, the tree trimming contractor, California Western Arborists
originally was required to perform grid tree trimming at ISA Crown Thinning
Standards over a period of two years, and the contractor has now requested to
expedite the grid tree trimming schedule to trim all city trees per ISA Crown
Thinning Standards during F.Y. 2005-06; and
WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to negotiate with the tree trimming
contractor to expedite the grid trimming schedule; and
WHEREAS, the cost for said services will be at the negotiated price not to
exceed $24,000 per zone for a total contract not to exceed $252,000; and
WHEREAS, the existing contract needs to be amended; and
WHEREAS, the City originally planned spending $288,000 in FY 2005-06; and
WHEREAS, an additional $252,000 needs to be appropriated and transferred to
the FY 2005-06 Tree Trimming budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby
find, proclaim, order and resolve as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council approves amending the Four-Year Tree
Trimming Contract with California Western Arborists to expedite the grid tree
trimming schedule to trim all city trees during F.Y. 2005-06 at ISA Crown Thinning
Standards for the negotiated price of $24,000 per zone for a total amount not to
exceed $252,000.
Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to execute the contract
amendment.
Section 3. That the City Manager or designee is authorized to make the
following funds appropriation and transfer for the contract
H:\WORDFIL~CITYMNGR\DEBORAH~AGENDA ITEMS~AGENDA ITEM.5.2.06.TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT.doc
FROM
Un-appropriated General Fund
$252,000
TO
Tree Maintenance Division
Account 33-4453-4220
$252,000
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2006.
ATTEST:
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
City of Lynwood
N. Enrique Martinez
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
City of Lynwood
Deborah Jackson
Interim Director of Quality of Life
G.Daniel Ojeda, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer
H:\WORDFILE~CITYMNGR\DEBORAH~AGENDA ITEMS~AGENDA ITEM.5.2.06.TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of said
City at a regular meeting thereof held in the City Hall of the City on the
day of
,2006, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution was
adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ,2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
H:\WORDFILL%CITYMNGR\DEBORAH\AGENDA ITEMS~,GENDA ITEM.5.2.06.TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT.doc
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
TREE TRIMMING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood, herein after called City and
California Western Arborists, herein after called Contractor, have entered into the
certain services agreement, dated November 1, 2005, which Agreement sets
forth the terms and conditions for the City's Tree Trimming services; and
WHEREAS, the tree trimming Contractor, California Western
Arborists requested expediting the grid tree trimming schedule to trim all city
trees per ISA Crown Thinning Standards during F.Y. 2005-06; and
WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to negotiate with the tree
trimming contractor to expedite the grid trimming schedule; and
WHEREAS, the cost for said services will be at the negotiated price
not to exceed $24,000 per zone and shall be based on the actual tree count with
a total cost not to exceed $252,000 regardless of the number of trees; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is willing to continue service to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City is satisfied with the services provided by the
Contractor and desires to expedite the grid tree trimming schedule to trim all city
trees per ISA Crown Thinning Standards during F.Y. 2005-06.
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of mutual covenants and
agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. The grid tree trimming schedule shall be expedited to grid trim
all city trees during fiscal year 2005-06 per ISA Crown Thinning
Standards. The Contractor shall perform the additional work in
FY 2005-06 for a price not to exceed $252,000.
No grid tree trimming shall take place during fiscal year 2006-
07. Tree maintenance services for fiscal year 2006-07 shall be
for stump removals and emergencies. Costs for said services
shall be in an amount not to exceed $36,000 computed in the
manner provided for in the contract.
3. Regular tree grid trimming operations shall resume in fiscal year
2007-08 and shall be per ISA Crown Cleaning Standards.
H:\WORDFILE~CITYMNGR\DEBORAH~GENDA ITEMS'~,GENDA ITEM.5.2.06oCONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.l.doc2 of 2
Tree Trimming Contract Amendment No. I
4. All other terms and
unchanged.
conditions of said Agreement shall remain
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this first amendment
to the Services Agreement this 2nd day of May, 2006.
DATED: BY:
MAYOR
CITY OF LYNWOOD
DATED: BY:
CALIFORNIA WESTERN ARBORISTS
DATED: BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
H:\WORDFIL~CITYMNGR\DEBORAH~,GENDA ITEMS~,GENDA ITEM.5.2.06.CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.l.doc2 of 2
Tree Trimming Contract Amendment No. I
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
May 2, 2006
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Lynwood City
Council e,~~..~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manag
G. Daniel Oieda, P.E., Diredtb'r of Public Works/City
Engineer~-----~ J~. ~
Elias Saikaly, P.E., Capital Improvement Projects Manager
Acceptance of Sidewalk and Curb Ramp
Improvement around Elementary Schools Project
Project Number 05-5271
Federal Project No. 07-LA-O-LYN-STPLH-5250 (012)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Lynwood City Council adopt the attached resolution
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD ACCEPTING THE SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENT
AROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 05-5271
[FEDERAL PROJECT NO. 07-LA-O-LYN-STPLH-5250 (012)], AS BEING
COMPLETE."
Background:
On September 20, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract to Damon
Construction Co. in the amount of $247,240 for the Sidewalk and Curb Ramp
Improvement around Elementary Schools Project, Project Number 05-5271
[(Federal Pr6ject No. 07-LA-O-LYN-STPLH-5250 (012)]. The City received
Federal Hazard Elimination System Grant funds (HES) for the construction of
new sidewalk and the construction of damaged curb ramps around certain
elementary schools.
Discussion and Analysis:
The project started on December 12, 2005 and was completed on April 6, 2006.
Staff conducted the final inspection on April 13, 2006, and found that all work is
complete in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The final cost
of the project is $232,325.
J:~PUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06019SIDEWALK&CURBAcceptItem.doc
AGENDA
ITEM
Fiscal Impact:
The final project cost of $232,325 is less than the grant amount of $ 234,360.
Coordination With'
City Clerk Office, Finance Department and City Attorney's Office.
JSPUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06019SIDEWALK&CURBAcceptltem.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
ACCEPTING THE SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENT AROUND
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 05-5271
[(FEDERAL PROJECT NO. 07-LA-O-LYN-STPLH-5250 (012)], AS BEING
COMPLETE
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract
to Damon Construction Company; and
WHEREAS, the project started on December 12, 2005, and was
completed on April 6, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the project is funded in part by Federal Hazard Elimination
System Grant funds (HES); and
WHEREAS, the final payable construction cost is $ 232,325; and
WHEREAS, staff conducted the final inspection on April 13 and found that
all work is complete in accordance with the project plans and specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Lynwood City Council DOES HEREBY FIND,
PROCLAIM, ORDER AND RESOLVE as follows:
Section 1. That the Lynwood City Council accepts the Sidewalk and Curb
Ramp Improvement around Elementary Schools Project, Project Number 05-5271,
[Federal Project No. 07-LA-O-LYN-STPLH-5250 (012)], as complete in accordance
with contract documents.
Section 2. This resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2ND day of May 2006.
ATTEST:
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
J:~PUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06019SIDEWALK&CURBAcceptltem.doc
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
City of Lynwood
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
City of Lynwood
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney,
City of Lynwood
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Lynwood
J:~PUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06019SIDEWALK&CURBAcceptltem.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Lynwood at a regular meeting held in the City Hall of said City on the day
of
AYES:
NOES:
,2006, and passed by the following vote:
ABSENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and forgoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said
resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ., 2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
J:LPUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06019SIDEWALK&CURBAcceptItem.doc
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
May 2, 2006
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND CITY IlL MEMBERS
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manag
Lorry Hempe, Assistant City Manager~'~y
DECLARING OPPOSITION TO THE PARK WATER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A RATE INCREASE
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
DECLARING OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION OF PARK WATER
COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE RATES CHARGED FOR WATER
SERVICE FOR THE YEARS 2007, 2008, AND 2009".
Background:
Park Water Company ("Park") is an investor owned public water utility.
Its primary activity is the collection, storage, distribution, and sale of water.
Through its Central Basin Division, Park provides public utility water service to
27,088 customers in the southeastern section of Los Angeles County. The
Central Basin Division consists of three separate service areas. It serves
customers in the cities of Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Lynwood, Bellflower,
Artesia, and Compton, and in unincorporated areas in southern Los Angeles.
Within Lynwood, Park services 1,192 customers and the City's Water Utility
services 9,800 customers.
On January 5, 2006, Park filed Application No. 06-01-004 with the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of Califomia ("Commission") for authority to increase its
rates to recover increased operating costs and to allow the company to eam a
fair rate of return on their investments dedicated to providing water service to
their customers in and near customers in its Central Basin Division service area.
If adopted by the Commission, Lynwood customers serviced by Park will be
affected by the increase.
I'"'AGENDA
Discussion and Analysis:
On June 3, 2003, the CitY Council adopted a resolution declaring opposition to
the proposed water rate increases requested by Park for the Years 2004 through
2006. The City also provided oral comments protesting the increase in August
2003. Park's last general rate increase occurred in 2004 as authorized in the
Commission Decision No. 0312040.
The following charts are a comparison of the estimated revenues generated by
present rates and at rates requested in 2003 and the current application in 2006:
Park's 2003 Application for Revenue Requirement Increases
L__ ............................... J[ 2004 I 2005 iI 2006
Commission Adopted i $803,100 i 4.4Yo ~ $513,000! 2.7Yo i $487,500i 2.5Yo
Decision ~1 ~1 ~1 ...... ~1 ~1 ~/ ........
Park's 2006 Application for Revenue Requirement Increases
]1 2007 .]1_ 2008 JL 2009
Application Request][ $1,680,500 II8.28%111. _$_5_~!_,_~__81 Jl 2.57%_!l $658,677 !l 2'88%
If the Park request is approved by the Commission as proposed, the impact on
the average residential customer's bimonthly bill for 56 Ccf2 of water with a 5/8"
by 3A" meter will be as follows:
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL BIMONTHLY BILL IF PROPOSED INCREASE IS
APPROVED
Year I Present II 2007 j[ 2008 I~ 2009
Amount of Bill
Amount of
Increase
Percentage
Increase
k $94.89 Jl $102.90 I $105.54 !L $108.58
I $8.01 ii $2.64 iiI $3.0
....................... Jl .................................... ~1
Based on a recent survey conducted by staff (Attachment A), Park's current rate
is 35% higher than the City's Water Utility water rate per 100 cubic feet. In
Indicates increase for all Customer Class. The residential class rate will increase by 8.45%.
Ccf is 100 cubic feet
2
addition Park's meter charge is 68% higher than the City's readiness to serve.
The City refers to meter charge as readiness to serve.
There are approximately thirty (30) customers in Lynwood who are disabled or
seniors within the Park service area. Should the Commission approve Park's
proposed rate increase, they would also be impacted.
At the March 22, 2006 Commission prehearing conference, the Commission did
not set a public participation hearing. This decision was based on the fact that
the Commission has only received three communications from the public
regarding the Park's application for a rate increase. The Commission did state
that if heightened public interest merits it, it will set a public participation hearing
at a later date.
The City providing a declaration of opposition to Park's Application No. 06-01-
004 to increase its rates with the Commission may assist in prompting the
Commission to set a public participation hearing. The granting of a public
participation hearing by the Commission would provide an opportunity for Park
customers to file comments with the Commission.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no cost to file a protest with the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of California.
Coordinated With:
Finance Department
City Attorney
Public Works Department
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
DECLARING OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION OF PARK WATER
COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE RATES CHARGED FOR
WATER SERVICE FOR THE YEARS 2007, 2008, AND 2009
WHEREAS, Park Water Company's Central Basin Division provides
public utility water service to 27,088 customers in the cities of Norwalk, Santa Fe
Springs, Lynwood, Bellflower, Artesia and Compton, and in unincorporated areas
in southern Los Angeles; and
and
WHEREAS, in Lynwood there are 1,192 Park Water Company customers;
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2006 Park Water Company filed Application
No. 06-01-004 with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California for
authority to increase its rates; and
WHEREAS, the Park Water Company requested to increase its revenue
by $1,680,500 (8.21%) in 2007; $571,200 (2.57%) in 2008; and $658,677 or
(2.88%) in 2009; and
WHEREAS, if the proposed increase in water rates is adopted, based on
Park Water Company's "Notice of Proposed Increase in Rates" the average
residential customer's bill will increase from $94.89 to $102.90 in 2007, $105.54
in 2008 and $108.58 in 2009; and
WHEREAS, water is a primary living necessity, and the proposed rate
increases will negatively impact the limited finances of many residents; and
WHEREAS, such an increase in water rates would impact a large number
of Lynwood residents considered as fixed income or Iow income bracket; and
WHEREAS, the current Park Water Company's water rate is 35% higher
than the City's Water Utility water rate per 100 cubic feet and the Park Water
Company's meter charge is 68% higher than the City's readiness to serve; and
WHEREAS, Park Water Company's current water rates appear to be the
highest in the surrounding communities.
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby
find, determine, order and resolve as follows:
4
Section 1' That the City opposes any rate increase by Park Water
Company, and the City Manager or his designee is authorized to submit this
resolution to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California.
Section 2: That the Mayor or her designee is authorized to provide
testimony before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Califomia to
reinforce the City's opposition to the Park Water Company's Application for rate
increase.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of May 2006.
ATTEST:
LETICIA VASQUEZ, MAYOR
ANDREA L. HOOPER
CITY CLERK
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. ARNOLDO BELTRAN
CITY ATTORNEY
LORRY HEMPE
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SS
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of
said City at a regular meeting thereof held in the City Hall of said City on the day
, 2006, and passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
SS,
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and forgoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my
office and that said resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein
stated.
Dated this day of , 2006
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
6
ATTACHMENT "A"
INFORMAL SURVEY OF WATER PROVIDERS THAT SERVICE CITIES
WITH PARK WATER COMPANY CUSTOMERS
APR-lB-E006 16:SB From: To:+3107B44908 P.2x2
NOTICE OF PROPOSED INCREASE IN RATES
APPLICATION 06-01-004
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
I
That Park Water Company, a public utility, whose mailing address is 9750 Washburn Road, P. O. Box
[ .
7002, Downey, Cahfornla 90241, m~ January 5, 200C fi]ed Application No. 06-01.004 with thc Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California for authority to increase its rates to recover increased
I
opcratlng COSLS and to allow thc company to cam a fair ratc of return on their invcsLmcnts dcdicatcd to
providing ~atcr service to their customers in and near customers in its Central Basin Division service
area, in and near the cities of Norwalk, Bellflower, Lynwood and Compton. In this application, Park
Water Corn, puny also proposes m increase its allocation to thc Central Basin Division for thc revenue
requirement of its general office operation.
I
Following is a comparison of the estimated revenues ($1,000's) generated by present rates and at rates
roqu~sted i,~ this application (2008 and 2009 increases arc above 2007 and 2008 proposed revenue
requirements, respectively):
Cu!tomer Class
Increase in Test Year
(Dollas,'s in Thousands)
If the Par~
custonlel" $
Yenr
AmOul~t Of
Amount o~
Percentage
The Appli
2007 Increase
2008 Increase, 2009 Increase
Residential $1,232.6 8.45 % 2.57% 2.88%
Business 330.7 8.35% 2.57% 2.88%
Industrial 4.7 8.37% 2.57% 2.88%
Public Authority 78.6 8.47% 2.57% 2.88%
Private Fire Protection 3.6 3.70% 2.57% 2.88%
Resale 14.9 8.20% 2.57% 2.88%
Temporary 1.90 8.95% 2_57% 2.88%
Reclaimed 12.6 2.74% 2.57% 2.88%
Miscellaneous 0.0 0% 0% 0%
Total Water Rcvcnucs $1,679.6 8.28% 2.57% 2.88%
request is approved ~e Commission as proposed, the impact on the average residential
bimonthly bill tbr 56(C&~fwater with a 5,18" by 3/4" meter is as follows:
Prpsent 2007 2008 2009
alii $94.89 $102.90 $105.54 $108.58
Increase $8.01 $ 2.64 $ 3.04
Increase 8.44% 2.57% 2.88%
',afion and related exhibits may be inspected at Park Water Company, located at 9750
Washburn Road, Downey, California 9024'1. The application may also' be inspected at the offices of the
Public 'UI.i~itlcs Commission o.£ Iht Slate o.f California at 320 Wcsl 4n St., Sic 500, Los Angeles,
California ~00~3, and in San Francisco at the State Building, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco,
California ~4102. Comments on Iht application or inquiries rclalivc to parlicipating in the formal
hearings, including requests to receive notice of the date, time and place of any hearing on the application
should he a~ddm~.,;ed to Ihe P,blic Advisor's Office of the P,blic Utilities Commission, 320 West Fourth
Str~t, Ste ~00, Los Angeles, CA 90013 or E-mail public.advisor, la~cpuc.ca, mg.qy_.
/
A copy of s. aid Application and related Exhibits will be furnished by applicants upon written rcqucsl to
£dward Iq'. I, Jackson, Park Water Company, 9750 Washburn 'Road, P. O. Box 7002, Downey, California
Yacknin--PHC Notice--3-22-06--SF
Page 1 of 1
California Home
CPUC Home
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Word Do~3ument PDF Document
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of Park Water Company
(U314W) for Authority to Increase Rates Charged for Water
Service by $1,680,500 or 8.21% in 2007, $571,181 or 2.57%
in 2008, and $658,677 or 2.88% in 2009.
A.06-01-004
NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE
TO ALL PARTIES:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California has set a prehearing
conference in the above-entitled matter before Administrative Law Judge Hallie Yacknin, for Mamh 22, 2006, at
10:00 a.m., in the Commission Courtroom, State Office Building, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco,
California.
A prehearing conference is called to determine the parties, positions of the parties, issues, and other procedural
matters.
Parties desiring expedited or daily transcripts should advise the Chief Hearing Reporter by telephone at (415)
703-2288, no later than three days prior to the first day of hearing.
If you have questions about the hearing date, time, or place, call the Calendar Clerk at (415) 703-1203.
BY ORDER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
Dated February 16, 2006, at San Francisco, California.
/si ANGELA K. MINKIN
BY ANN HOANG
ANGELA K. MINKIN
Chief Administrative Law Judge
JB2/HSY/hl2 3/28/2006
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of Park Water
Company (U314W) for Authority to Increase
Rates Charged for Water Service by $1,680,500 or
8.21% in 2007, $571,181 or 2.57% in 2008, and
$658,677 or 2.88% jn 2009.
Application 06-01-004
(Filed January 15, 2006)
SCOPING RULING OF ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER
Pursuant to Rules 6(a)(3) and 6.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,~ this ruling sets forth the procedural schedule, assigns the principal
hearing officer, and addresses the scope of the proceeding following the
prehearing conference (PHC) held March 22~, 2006..This ruling is appealable only
as to category of the proceeding under the procedures in Rule 6.4.
1. Background
Park Water Company (Park) filed this general rate case (GRC) application
for a general rate increase for Test Year 2007, with 2008 and 2009 selected as
Escalation Years, pursuant to the new Rate Case Plan in Decision (D.) 04-06-018.
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) timely filed a protest to the
application on February 5, 2006; no other protests or responses were filed. Park
and DRA appeared at the March 22, 2006 PHC; no other persons appeared.
All references to Rules are to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure found
in Title 20 of the California Code. of Regulations.
228388
-1-
A.06-01-004 JB2/HSY/hl2
1. Categorization and Need for Hearings
Under Rule 6.1, on March 17, 2005, the Commission preliminarily
categorized this application as ratesetting as defined in Rule 5(c) and determined
that the matter requires hearing. (Resolution ALJ 176-3165.) No party objects to
the Commission's preliminary categorization of ratesetting for these proceedings
or the preliminary deter~ation that hearings are needed, and we affirm them.
2. Scope of the Proceeding
Based on the application, DRA's protest, and the discussion at the
prehearing conference, we identify the following issues for resolution in this
proceeding:
1. What revenue requirement and rates should be adopted for Park
for Test Year 2007, and what rate base should be adopted for
Escalation Years 2008 and 2009, including but not limited to
consideration of the following potentially contentious factors:
· sales forecast for residential and commercial customers;
· forecast of other, non-utility revenue;
· escalation factors;
· capital addition projects;
· operating expenses;
· transfer of not used and useful utility plant in service to non-utility
plant;
· capital structure, return on equity and cost of capital;
· averaging period to be used for the five-year averaging
methodology for estimating various categories of expense; and
· general office expense allocation.
2. Whether a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM)
should be adopted for Park and, if so, the structure of such
mechanism; and
2
A.06-01-004 JB2/HSY/hl2
3. Whether a low-income program should be adopted for Park and,
if so, the structure of such a program.
As the proceeding moves forward, parties should develop the record with
an eye toward explaining how the positions they take: (a) promote both
reasonable rates and short and long term utility viability; (b) affect the utility's
ability to ensure water quality in the short and long term; (c) increase customer
and utility conservation incentives; (d) affect infrastructure development and
investment; (e) moderate rate impacts on low income customers; and (f) make
the Commission's regulatory and decision-making processes more timely and
efficient.
3. SchedUle
With respect to issues 1 (revenue requirement and rates) and 2 (WRAM),
Park and DRA propose identical schedules consistent with the Rate Case Plan,
except that DRA proposes scheduling evidentiary hearings a week earlier due to
staff's scheduling conflicts. Park does not oppose DRA's proposal. Due to
administrative constraints, we adopt DRA's proposal only for four of the five
days of scheduled hearings, and set the fifth day of scheduled hearing for a later
date.
Although the parties' proposed schedules designate a certain date
(May 1, 2006) for formal settlement negotiations, 'the parties propose that they
retain the flexibility to schedule any formal settlement conference prior to
evidentiary hearing. I believe that reasonable parties should be able to discuss
their differences and arrive at commonly agreed-upon positions on many, if not
most or all, of their issues well in advance of the evidentiary hearings. The Rate
Case Plan anticipates such discussion by providing additional time for what it
terms "Formal Settlement Negotiations" beginning the week after the utility
-3-
A.06-01-004 JB2/HSY/hl2
serves its rebuttal testimony. Waiting until all parties have hardened their
positions before serious discussions begin, however, not only generates more
work in preparing testimony on topics that might be settled, but makes it more
likely that the parties will bring those hardened positions into the hearing room.
To ensure the parties explore'their differences early on, this Scoping Memo sets a
date by which the parties are directed to meet and confer at an initial settlement
session before finalizing their testimony, and a second settlement conference to be
set prior to the start of evidentiary hearing, at which time they must report on
their progress. Park and ORA shall arrange a mutually agreeable time and
location for both settlement sessions.
Park did not present a proposed low-income program in its application
due to its concern that the anticipated participation rate of over 30% would
impose an undue burden on the non-qualifying ratepayers who will fund the
cost of the program, and that a low-income program would harm low-income
tenants living in master metered facilities. According to Park, the Commission
dismissed those concerns with respect to Park's subsidiary, Apple Valley
Ranchos Water Company, in D.05-12-020, dated December 15, 2005, and Park
states that it is now prepared to work with DRA to develop a specific
recommendation for a low-income program in this proceeding. Pursuant to the
agreement of the parties, we will address issue 3 (low-income program) in a
second phase following the submittal of the record on issues 1 and 2, in order to
avoid delay in resolving those issues.
Neither party requested, in application or in protest, that the Commission
hold a public participation hearing, although at the PHC Park expressed a
preference that one be held. Due to the limited public interest evidenced in this
proceeding, we will not set a public participation hearing at this juncture. As of
-4-
A.06-01-004 JB2/HSY/hl2
this date - approximately 80 days after the application was filed - the
Commission has received only three communications from the public regarding
the application.2 If heightened public interest merits it, we will set a public
participation hearing at a later date.
The following schedule will be adhered to as closely as possible.
Evidentiary hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. on the dates indicated, and will
be held in the Commission Courtroom, State Office Building, 505 Van Ness
Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.
Phase I Event
Initial settlement negotiation (no later than)
DRA report served
Utility rebuttal Served
Second settlement negotiation (no later than)
Date
April 7, 2006
April 12, 2006
April 27, 2006
May 8, 2006
Evidentiary hearings
Concurrent opening briefs
Concurrent reply briefs
Draft decision
Phase II Event
Utility supplemental report served
DRA report served
Evidentiary hearings
Concurrent opening briefs
Concurrent reply briefs
May 9-12, 22, 2006
June 5, 2006
June 12, 2006
September 5, 2006
Date
July 7,2006
July 28,2006
August 7-8, 2006
August 28, 2006
September 7, 2006
In Section I of Senate Bill (SB) 960 (Ch. 96-0856), the Legislature urges the
Commission to resolve the issues within the scope of a proceeding categorized as
ratesetting, such as this, within 18 months from the date of the filing of the
2 To place this in perspective, a review of the formal file indicates that, at this juncture
in Park's previous general rate case application, A.03-04-015, the Commission had
received 13 communications. As noted in D.03-12-040 resolving that application,
approximately 30 people attended the public participation hearing and only nine
attendees offered statements.
5
A.06-01-004 JB2/HSY/hl2
application. The schedule that we have adopted should allow us to meet that
goal.
We note, however, that apparently due to an error by the newspaper, Park
inadvertently failed to provide newspaper notice of this application within ten
days of filing as required by Rule 24. Park indicated at the prehearing conference
that newspaper notice was not made until March 8, 2006. To the extent that this
late notice prompts sufficient interest to merit public participation hearings or
late intervention by other parties, adjustments and/or delays to the schedule
may be necessary.
4. Principal hearing officer
Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(3), assigned Commissioner Bohn designates
Administrative Law Judge Hallie Yacknin as the principal hearing officer.
5. Oral argument
Any party wishing to exercise the right under Rule 8(d) to make a final
oral argument before the Commission must file a written request and serve it on
all parties and the assigned Commissioner and assigned ALJ not later than the
last day of evidentiary hearing.
IT IS RULED that:
1. The schedule and issues to be addressed are set forth in this Scoping
Memo, unless subsequently modified by the assigned Commissioner or principal
hearing officer.
2. This ruling confirms the Commission's preliminary finding in
Resolutions ALJ 176-3165 that the category for this proceeding is ratesetting, and
the determination that hearings are necessary. This ruling, only as to category, is
appealable under the procedures in Rule 6.4.
3. ALJ Hallie Yacknin is designated as the principal hearing officer.
-6-
A.06-01-004 JB2/HSY/hl2
4. Any party wishing to exercise the right under Rule 8(d) to make a final
oral argument before the Commission must file a written request and serve it on
all parties and the assigned Commissioner and assigned ALJ not later than the
last day of evidentiary hearing.
Dated March 28, 2006, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ JOHN BOHN
John Bohn
Assigned Commissioner
-7-
A.06-01-004 JB2/HSY/hl2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of the original
attached Scoping Ruling of Assigned Commissioner on all parties of record in
this proceeding or their attorneys of record.
Dated March 28, 2006, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ ELIZABETH LEWIS
Elizabeth Lewis
NOTICE
Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission,
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any
change of address to insure that they continue to receive documents.
You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on
which your name appears.
The Commission's policy is to schedule hearings (meetings,
workshops, etc.) in locations that are accessible to people with
disabilities. To verify that a particular location is accessible, call:
Calendar Clerk (415) 703-1203.
If specialized accommodations for the disabled are needed, e.g., sign
language interpreters, those making the arrangements must call the
Public Advisor at (415) 703-2074, TTY 1-866-836-7825 or
(415) 703-5282 at least three working days in advance of the event.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
May 2, 2006 _
Honorable Mayor and Members of ~~~cil
N. Enrique Martinez, City Managy/'./'l,..
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Finance'~c''
Peter Han, Information Systems Manager .,/
Vendor Recommendation for Financial Management System /
Enterprise Resource Planning Solution
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution, titled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
EDEN TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, FOR AN INTEGRATED FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM / ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOLUTION,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE SAID AGREEMENT,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT."
Background:
The City's current Financial Management System was custom programmed
approximately 15 years ago and has many limitations, especially with regards to its
auditing capabilities. To address the audit findings, enhance internal controls and
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the budget and financial transactions,
the City Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new,
integrated Financial Management System / Enterprise Resource Planning Solution.
Based on the RFP issued in December, proposals have been received and
evaluated by a panel of staff. The selection process included the review of written
proposals, live presentations, reference checks, interviews with finalists, and a site
visit. A vendor has been selected unanimously by the panel, and is recommended
to the City Council for approval.
Discussion and Analysis:
Systems on the market today, known as enterprise resource planning systems
(ERP) or Financial Management Software, incorporate all data processing modules
into one linked system which includes modules for financial accounting, payroll,
human resources, purchasing, inventory control, utility billing, licensing, permitting,
-AGENDA
Zl,
citizen requests and more. By combining all data processing into one
comprehensive ERP package, operating efficiencies and accuracy are vastly
improved.
RFP Responses
Upon the City Council's approval in December 2005, staff sent out a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for a Financial Management System / Enterprise Resource
Planning Solution to eleven companies, and published it in the Lynwood Press and
on the City's Website. By the deadline of January 26, 2006, we received proposals
from the following companies:
1. Pentamation
2. Humphrey Mitchell
3. Munis
4. Eden Systems
5. GEMS
The sixth vendor, New World Systems, submitted a response to the RFP but later
withdrew their bid.
Vendor Selection
A selection panel was formed, consisting of representatives from the Finance and
Administration, City Manager, Human Resources, Environmental Services, and
Development Services departments and was led by the Information Systems
Manager, Peter Han. In addition, the City Council approved $40,000 during the
mid-year budget review for the use of a project manager to help with the system
acquisition. We have utilized services of a professional who has first-hand
experience with similar system acquisitions.
After careful evaluation of the written proposals, vendor demonstrations,
discussion and review of the scoring sheets, the Selection Panel narrowed the
candidate pool to two vendors, Munis and Eden Systems. A 12-question customer
survey was conducted among eight reference and referral customers for the two
vendors. After further research and site visits by the Selection Committee and the
consultant, staff is recommendinq the purchase of the Financial Management
System / Enterprise Resource Planninq solution from Eden Tyler Technologies.
For reference, the initial scoring sheet is provided in Attachment A; the 12 question
customer survey is presented in Attachment B; and the Selection Committee's
scoring and comments are summarized in Attachment C.
The Committee came to its recommendation to select Eden as the finalist based
on the following key points:
Some responses to the telephone reference survey indicated that the
Munis utility billing module was difficult to learn and use. Eden users
all had favorable responses with regard to utility billing module and
cited ease of use and accuracy.
Munis is just getting established in California and has few customers
in the State. Eden has been a major vendor in California for over 20
years and has many accounts in California. Some local cities that are
using Eden are the cities of Cerritos, Gardena, Manhattan Beach,
Westminster, and San Gabriel.
The Committee members liked the "look and feel" of Eden better than
Munis.
The Committee members went on a site visit to the City of Gardena,
which is using the Eden Financial System. Gardena staff gave us a
working demonstration of the software and showed us its reporting
capabilities. The demonstration of the modules such as payroll,
accounting, and purchasing, and the positive feedback on the
software gave the Committee confidence that this financial
management solution would be the best match for our City.
Support of the software was also a key determining factor of the
Committee's decision. We learned from the customer surveys that
support and response time from Eden is good. Aisc, since Eden is
based on the west coast, staff does not have to worry about any time
difference, or reaching a call center after hours.
Finalist Hi,qhli.qhts
Eden is exclusively dedicated to local government agencies, has 200 clients
nationwide, and has over 24 years of experience serving municipalities. Eden
understands the City of Lynwood's needs as described in the Request for Proposal
and will be responsible for the systems' delivery, installation, training, application
software, conversion, documentation, and support. The modules that will be
purchased are the following:
· Financial Applications
o Core Financials - General Ledger, Accounts Payable / Receivable
o Requisitioning (paperless purchase orders)
o Inventory
o Fixed Assest
o Cashiering
· Personnel Applications
o Applicant Tracking
o Employee Training
o Human Resources
o Payroll
o Position Budgeting
o Web modules for employee self service
Constituent Services Applications
o Permits and Inspections
o Utility Billing
o Licensing
o Customer Requests
Eden will deliver and support this comprehensive, fully functional integrated
Financial Management System for the City of Lynwood according to a contract
agreement.
Eden will provide training and assistance on the software in a classroom setting in
order for users to accomplish their day-to-day work requirements. Staff will also be
tested for familiarity and retention of the training to determine whether re-training is
necessary or if advanced training can commence.
The overall investment for this project, including hardware, software, training and
transition, is estimated at $700,000. Of this amount, $300,000 is available from the
previously allocated funds, and additional $400,000 will be requested during the
FY 2006-07 budget. The system will also require annual support and maintenance,
at a cost of $40,000 per year beginning FY 2007-08.
Next Steps
Staff is currently working with the City's Attorney's office to prepare a contract
agreement with Eden Tyler Technologies, and will commence negotiations upon
Council's approval. Once all approvals have been granted and negotiations
complete, staff will begin the implementation of the Integrated Financial
Management System, which will consist of the following four phases:
1. Proiect Plannin,q (May 2006 - July 2006) - Management approach,
define roles and responsibilities, conversion plan, collaboration with staff
to plan implementation, site analysis, etc.
2. Configuration Setup and Operations (July 2006 - October 2006) - Review
converted data, software configuration and training, data conversion
format and reconciliation, etc.
3. Transition to Go-Live (November 2006 - February 2007) - Final data
conversion / verification, Parallel operations, system test and verification,
then go-live.
4. Post Go-Live (March 2007 - May 2007) - System in operation, advanced
training, system setup review, implement modifications, and post
implementation review.
Fiscal Impact:
The overall fiscal impact of this project is approximately $700,000. The breakdown
of the costs is as follows:
Financial software applications,
licensing, data conversion, training
System Server hardware, SQL
database, reporting tools
Consulting / Project Manager for
transition
$535,000
$100,000
$50,000
Operating Supplies $10,000
Meetings and Travel $5,000
TOTAL $700,000
The project funding will come from prior year allocated carry-forwards, as well as a
new appropriation requested in the FY 2006-07 budget. In addition, a Technology
Impact Fee, if approved by the City Council on May 2, 2006, would help offset the
estimated $700,000 cost of the system.
Coordinated with: City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
Attachments:
Resolution
"A"- Initial Evaluation Form and Scoring Sheet
"B"-Customer Survey
"C" - Selection Committee Scores and Comments
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
EDEN TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, FOR AN INTEGRATED FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM / ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOLUTION,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE SAID
AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood's current Financial Management System
was custom programmed approximately 15 years ago in an arcane programming
language; and
WHEREAS, the current system has many limitations, especially with
regards to its auditing capabilities; and
WHEREAS, the past two audits of the City and its component units have
resulted in un-addressed findings due to an unworthy financial system currently in
place; and
WHEREAS, to address audit findings and enhance internal controls a new
Financial Management System / Enterprise Resource Planning software must be
put in place; and
WHEREAS, staff has performed a rigorous selection process to determine
the best vendor for the City of Lynwood, and selected Eden Tyler Technologies as
the finalist;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby
find, order, and resolve as follows:
Section 1. That the City Manager is authorized to negotiate a purchase
and maintenance agreement with Eden Tyler Technologies for an integrated
financial management system, and the Mayor is authorized to execute the said
agreement with Eden Tyler Technologies upon the City Manager's negotiation and
City Attorney's legal review.
Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this
2006.
day of
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Arnoldo Beltran
City Attorney
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Marianna Marysheva
Assistant City Manager/Finance
Attachment A - Initial Evaluation Form and Scoring Sheet
City of Lynwood, California
Evaluation Form
PANELIST NAME:
COMPANYEVALUATED:
Criterion
- Financial Management System / ERP Solution
Weight Score Weighted
Choose from 1 (lowest) Score
to 10 (highest)
Design, capability, and functionality 0.35
of system and application software
0.35 x ....... = .............
Level of integration between
applications / Ease of integration
with existing systems and processes
0.20
0.20 x ....... = .............
Overall cost and cost justification 0.20
........... 0.20 x ....... = .............
Feasibility of software implementa- 0.05
tion schedule and conversion plans
0.05 x ....... = .............
Level of service and support /
Quality and availability of
user training
0.05
0.05 x ....... = .............
Quality and extent of documenta-
tion (technical specs, user guides)
available
0.05
0.05 x ....... = .............
Experience and technical
expertise of staff
0.05
0.05 x ....... = .............
Acceptable, verifiable references 0.03
........... 0.03 x ....... = .............
Adherence to the specified form
/ Completeness of proposal
0.02
0.02 x ....... = .............
TOTAL: 1.00
PANELIST'S COMMENTS:
Please return the completed form to Peter Han by 8:00am on Thursda% March 9.
T
<
0
.-~
0 0
~ Z Z ' Z ~
o ~
--.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
Ill
Z
· ~ - ~
Z
Z
Z
m
Attachment C - Selection Committee Scores and Comments
Scorinq
Humphrey Eden
Pentamation Mitchell Munis Systems GEMS
Panelist 1 7.35 5.08 8.1 8.5 7.35
Panelist 2 7.72 4.77 8.65 8.55 8.41
Panelist 3 8.43 7.2 8.8 9 8.05
Panelist 4 4.25 4.65 9.35 8.35 7.35
Panelist 5 7 3.5 7,15 7.2 8.15
Panelist 6 7.75 4.4 8.05 8.55 7.49
Total 42.5 29.6 50.1 50.15 46.8
Comments
Pentamation:
· Like e-government software, friendly, not sure about their focus (work with
schools and government)
· Software suite is well organized. Functionality and workability along all
modules is good. Software not as intuitive and a bit complex to use.
Humphrey Mitchell:
· Systems limited to finance and HR. Not comprehensive solution. Prefer all
inclusive solution.
· Very limited capability, lack required modules such as Code Enforcement.
Must purchase additional software.
Munis:
· Comprehensive solution, online services for employees.
· Very good functionality, covers all of the City's requirements, above average
support.
· Cost and implementation is high.
· Web customer option but more expensive.
Eden Systems: · I like the cashiering module.
· Functionality is good, ease of use, covers all major issues among modules.
· Above average support.
GEMS: · Focuses exclusively in the Public Sector. Only one client in CA.
· More technical, software is updated automatically.
· Vendor supported hardware.
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me.~
U. Enrique Martinez, City Manage~//~///'
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E., Director of Public Works/Cit~?'E'r~g~neer
Josef Kekula, Civil Engineering Associate
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Pass Through Funds (2002 Per Capita Grant)
From the City of Vernon
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT
FOR CONTRACT NO. C0207180 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR
THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COSTAL PROTECTION BOND
ACT OF 2002".
Background:
Staff was recently notified by the City of Vernon that the City of Vernon proposes
to pass through $50,000 of their 2002 Per Capita Grant Fund allocation to the
City of Lynwood. These funds may be used for park and open space
improvements and are available on a reimbursement basis.
Staff has contacted the State Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of
Grants and Local Services and received direction on the acceptance process.
Staff will initiate this process if City Council approval is received.
Discussion & Analysis:
In order to accept and receive these funds, City Council must adopt the attached
Resolution. Once the City accepts these funds from the City of Vernon, the State
will mail an Agreement to the City of Lynwood for signature.
Fiscal Impact:
Once these funds are programmed through the State Department of Parks and
Recreation, staff will present options to the City Council for the use of the funds.
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager ~-z ~ ~.
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engin6er
Josef Kekula, Civil Engineering Associate
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Pass Through Funds (2002 Per Capita Grant)
From the City of Vernon
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT
FOR CONTRACT NO. C0207180 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR
THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COSTAL PROTECTION BOND
ACT OF 2002".
Background:
Staff was recently notified by the City of Vernon that the City of Vernon proposes
to pass through $50,000 of their 2002 Per Capita Grant Fund allocation to the
City of Lynwood. These funds may be used for park and open space
improvements and are available on a reimbursement basis.
Staff has contacted the State Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of
Grants and Local Services and received direction on the acceptance process.
Staff will initiate this process if City Council approval is received.
Discussion & Analysis:
In order to accept and receive these funds, City Council must adopt the attached
Resolution. Once the City accepts these funds from the City of Vernon, the State
will mail an Agreement to the City of Lynwood for signature.
Fiscal Impact:
Once these funds are programmed through the State Department of Parks and
Recreation, staff will present options to the City Council for the use of the funds
at the June 20, 2006.
Coordinated With:
City Clerk's Office, Finance Department and City Attorney's Office.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT
FOR CONTRACT NO. C0207180 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR
THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COSTAL PROTECTION BOND
ACT OF 2002
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood will enter into an Amended
Contract with the State of California to increase the City of Lynwood Per Capita
Grant Fund Allocation from $316,000 to $366,000 to reflect the pass through of
$50,000 from the City of Vernon.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lynwood does
hereby find, proclaim, order and resolve as follows:
Section 1: That the City Council approves the Amendment to
Contract No. C0207180 with the State of California under the Per Capita Grant
Program under the California Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air
and Costal Protection Act of 2002.
Section 2: That the Mayor is authorized to execute the
Amendment on behalf of the City of Lynwood.
Section 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2006.
ATTEST:
LETICIA VASQUEZ, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
City of Lynwood
APPROVED ASTO FORM:
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
City of Lynwood
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E.
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the resolution entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT FOR CONTRACT NO. C0207180 WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COSTAL
PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2002, was duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Lynwood at a regular meeting held in the City Hall of said City on the
day of ,2006, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and forgoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said
resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ,2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council M~I~)
Enrique Martinez, City Manage/,/,)C,./~/
N.
Autra C. Adams, Int. Dir. Recreation & Community Services
Perry Brents, Deputy Director
SUBJECT:
SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST
St. Phillip Neri Catholic Church Spring Festival
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve this request with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant agrees to comply with the City of Lynwood permit
requirements.
2. The applicant agrees to meet applicable requirements imposed by the
Sheriff's Department, Fire Department, and Health Department.
3. The applicant agrees to comply with the noise levels prescribed in the
Lynwood Municipal Code.
Background:
St. Phillip Ned Catholic Church is requesting a permit to conduct a Spring
Festival on the church property Saturday - Sunday, May 20 -21, 2006. The
hours of operation would be 3:00 P.M - 10:00 P.M. on Saturday and 8:00 A.M. -
10:00 P.M on Sunday. The money raised from this event is allocated to the
various church ministries to carry out the service and mission of the church.
Discussion & Analysis:
The festival will be conducted on the St. Phillip Neri Church property only. No
street closure of any kind is being requested to accommodate this activity. The
Lynwood Sheriff's Department has approved the event with no conditions. The
Fire Department has recommended that all food booths contain fire eXtinguishers
and one (1) propane tank per booth (1 to 1 exchange with one eXtra tank only).
The LA County Health Department requires that the applicant register the event
with their agency. City staff concurs with these recommendations.
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact from the action recommended in
this report. Non-profit organizations are exempt from the Special Permit Fee.
Coordinated With:
LA County Sheriff, LA County Fire Department, LA County
Health Department, City Manager, Finance Department,
Development Services-Business License Division,
Environmental Services Department, City Attorney's Office
Attachments: Correspondence/Application for Special Permit Plotplan
recreatn/agenda 2006/SPECIAL PERMIT ST. PHILLIP NERI Spdng Festival 5.02.06
AGENDA
ITEM
SAINT PHILIP NERI
CATHOLIC CHURCH
4311 Olanda Street Lynwood, CA 90262
(310) 632-7179 (310) 632-5119 Fax
April4,2006
To whom it may covcern:
Saint Philip Neff Parish and school was established in 1948. Through the years, the parish
has grown in the number of ministries that help serve the people of the parish. Each of
these ministries needs financial support to carry out the various missions.
While our mission statement of beliefs and service remains constant, revision of methods
to serve the frequently changing pOpulation is done annually. Our strong Family of Faith
Community reflects success in the education and service to the parishioners and students.
The students are both from the school ministry and from the local public schools through
CCD.
Saint Philip Neri Parish will host our spring fiesta on May' 20th from 5:00 pm to 10:00
pm and May 21st from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm We anticipate a net profit of $30,000.00.
This money is allocated to the various ministries to pay for the needs necessary to carry
out their service and missioN.
Attached is a drawing. Showing the booth set up, there will be tarps, the cooking will be
done in our school kitchen and there will be a large grill outside cooking A 16# ABC
Fire extinguisher is placed next to the cooking area.
We are proud of our service to the community and wish to continue, and more, to grow in
our ability to serve.
In advance, thank you for.your consideration and support of Saint Philip Neri Parish.
Respectfully,
u
o
~J
~#
4~ C~de
3r~ Crude
2nd. Grade
9 #
g #
sodos
PA Syatcm
0
0
~pueT
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT
CITY OF LYNWOOD
11330 BULLIS ROAD
LYNWOOD. CA 90262
310-603-0220
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
ADDRESS: q3t
occu. Tio. ou:
NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED:
SPECIFIC AR~ DESIGNATED FOR EVENT'
IS STREET CLOSURE BEING REQUESTED: YES ~ ~x .(CIRCLE
IF INDOORS, APPROXIMATE TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA OF STRUCTURE:
HAVE YOU MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THIS TYPE OF PERMIT BEFORE? ~ NO
IF YES, WHERE AND WHEN: ~'7'~
NON-PROFIT AGENCY OR ORGANI~TION, PL~SE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:
NAME OF ORGANI~TION BEING BENEFITED:
STATE NON-PROFIT NUMBER:
ADDRESS OF ORGANI~TION:
IF YES, EXP~IN:
A NEGOTIATED PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS IS REQUESTED TO BE DONATED TO THE CITY.
I HEREBY (;ERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND
COMPLETE AND THAT ANY MISSTATEMENTS OF ~,MA'TERIAL FA..C...TS ~. ~(~AUSE A
FORFEITURE OF FEES AND DENIAL OF PERMIT,~
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS APPLICATION FOR REVIEVV DOES NOT IMPLY APPROVAL. THIS
PERMIT REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. YOU VVlLL BE NOTIFIED ACCORDINGLY.
FOR CITY USE ONLY -'--
CITY CLERK: CONFLICT WITH PRIOR APPROVED EVENTS:
IF CONFLICTS EXIST. DESCRIBE:
EVENT DATE
YES NO
APPLICANT
': ;FIRE DEIS:T:. '" .., ,- ~' APISR(~EblNO'CONDITIONS~D WITH CONDITIONSi
COMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAE; ~ . ~
'- ' ...... SIG~ATu'~E DATE
SHERIFF'S.DEPT: V
COMMENTS:~CONDITI . ~; . = -. _ : APPROVED ~TH CONDITIONS:
SIGNATURE ~ DATE
PUBLIC WORKS APPROVED/NO CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
COMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:~
SIGNATURE DATE
COMM.' DEV. DEP'T. APPROVEI~/NO CONDITION S
COMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
, ~ ?, .... \~', , , ,
SIGNATURE DATE
RECREATION DEPT. ' APPROVED/NO CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
~OMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:
APPROVED/DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
APPLICANT NOTIFIED:
SIGNATURE DATE
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED By:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
May 2, 2006
The Honorable Mayor and Members~f J~l~nWood City Council
N. Enrique Uartinez, City Uanag~)f'4/'~,/'//,--", ~
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Enginee~'''' ~"~'/'4~'
Elias Saikaly, P.E., Capital Improvement Projects Manager
Contract Award
Lynwood Senior Citizen Center Building Furniture Project
Project No. 05-5297
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled,
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AWARDING A CONTRACT TO INTELLIGENT FACILITY.FURNISHINGS, INC.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,006.23 FOR THE LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN
CENTER BUILDING FURNITURE PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 05-5297;
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT."
Background:
The project is part of the City's approved Capital Improvement Program for fiscal
year FY 2005-2006, and is funded by the Lynwood Utility Authority (L.U.A.). The
project encompasses the purchase, transportation, and installation of furniture
and other appurtenant furnishings for the newly constructed Lynwood Senior
Citizen Center.
The project was advertised on March 19, 2006, with fifteen (15) corporate
furnishing dealers receiving project plans and specifications. Four (4)bids were
received on April 4, 2006.
BID
RANK CORPORATE FURNISHING DEALERS BID TOTAL
1 INTELLIGENT FACIUTY FURNISHINGS $108,006.23
2 ASSOCIATES PURCHASING $12;~,858:34
3 CORPORATE BUSINESS INTERIORS $126,280.23
4 THE SHERIDAN GROUP INVALID BID
J:XPUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06020_SeniorCtrFumitureAwarditem.doc
AGENDA
ITEM
Discussion and Analysis:
Intelligent Facility Fumishings, Inc. was the apparent Iow bidder in the amount of
$108,006.23 (see bid tabulation table). The Sheridan Group, Inc. was
disqualified due to an incomplete and inaccurate bid proposal. Therefore, Staff
recommends awarding the project to Intelligent Facility Fumishings, Inc. in the
amount of $108,006.23.
Fiscal Impact:
The funding for this project is included in the existing Senior Citizen Center
Project account.
Coordinated With:
City Clerk, Finance Department, City Manager's Office and City Attorney's Office.
JSPUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06020_SeniorCtrFurnimreAwardltem.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AWARDING A CONTRACT TO INTELLIGENT FACILITY FURNISHINGS, INC.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,006.23 FOR THE LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN
CENTER BUILDING FURNITURE PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 05-5297;
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Senior Citizen Center Building Furniture Project,
Project No. 05-5297 is scheduled for completion during FY 2005-2006; and
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Senior Citizen Center Building Furniture Project
is funded by Lynwood Utility Authority (L.U.A) funds; and
WHEREAS, Intelligent Facility Fumishings, Inc. was the apparent lowest
bidder at $108,006.23; and
NOW THEREFORE, the Lynwood City Council of the City of Lynwood
does hereby find, proclaim, order and resolve as follows:
Section 1. That the contract for the Lynwood Senior Citizen Center
Building Furniture Project, Project No. 05-5297 be awarded to Intelligent Facility
Furnishings, Inc. for its Iow bid of $108,006.23.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the
agreement between the Lynwood City Council and Intelligent Facility
Furnishings, Inc.
Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of May 2006.
J:~PUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNClL\Cou06020_SeniorCtrFumitureAwarditem.doc
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E.
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
JSPUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06020_SeniorCtrFumimreAwardItem.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
held in the City Hall of said City
,2006, and passed by the following vote:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and forgoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said
resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ., 2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
J:XPUBWORKS\wordfiles\COUNCIL\Cou06020_SeniorCtrFumitureAwardltem.doc
CITY OF LYNWOOD
11330 BULUS RD. BIDDERS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
LYNWOOD, CAUFORNIA
(310) 603-0220
LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAl- [ TOTAl- TOTAl-
BUILDING FURNITURE 1 2 3 I 2 3
INTELLIGENT CORPORATE INTEU. IGENT CORPORATE
PROJECT iV 05-5297 ~ FAClUTY ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES
FURNISNINOS PURCHASING BUSINESS FAC/UTt' BUSINESS
INTERIORS FURNISHINGS PURCHASING INTERIORS
# ITEM
CHA~R ON CASTERS EA 16 $ 222.50 $ 316.00 13 220.15 $ 3,560.00 $5,056.00 $ 3,522.40
2 SIOECHAIRW/ARMS(21'X21") EA 8 $ 156.0~ $ 245.00 $ 270.09 $ 1~48.00~ 1.960.00 $ 2,160.72
3 TASKCHAIR-MID-BACKSWIVELWIARMS EA 4 $ 300.07 $ 518.00 $ 359.82 $ t,200.28 2,072.00 $ 1,439.28
4 CONFERENCE ROOMCHAiR-MID-BACKSWIVELW/ARMS ~ 12 $ 300.07 $ 519.00 $ 359.62 ,$ 3,600.84 $ 6,216.00 $ 4,317.84
5 UPHOLSTERED BENCH (24"X60) EA I $ 1,323.39 $ 1,3~4.00 $ 2,041.85 $ 1,323.39 $ 1.364.00 $ 2,041.85
6 LIt~GE LOUNGE CHAIR (33"X33"} EA 6 $ 1.231.58 $ 1.253.00 $ t ,849.91 $ 7,359.48 $ 7,518.00 ! $ 11,099.46
7 SMALl. LOUNGE CHAIR (28"X28") EA 2 $ 1,226.73 $ 1~47.00 $ 1.859.57 $ 2,453.46 $ 2,494.00 , $ 3,719.14
8 THREESE.~TSOFA(32"X84") E~. ! $ 2,619.47 $ 2,609.00 $ 3,890.34 $ 2,619.47 $ 2.609.0~ $ 3,890.34
9 EXTERIOR CAFE[ CHAIRS EA 32 $ 144.44 $ ! 39.00 $ 173.33 $ 4,622.08 $ 4,448.00 $ 5,546.56
10 STOOLS WI ARMS EA 8 $ 234.00 ' $ 351.00 $ 422.95 $ 1,872.00 $ 2,808.00 $ 3,383.60
11 'BANQUETSEATING(tg'X19") EA 150 $ 66.67 $ 69.00 $ 84.70 $ 10,000.50 $ 10,350.00 $ 12,705.00
12 EXTERIOR BENCH EA 6 $ 300.00 $ 288.00 $ 360.00 $ 1,800.~O $ 1,728.00 $ 2,t60.00
13 6TAFFWORKSTATIONSW/PANELS EA 2 $ 2,401.60 .3 3,~46.00 $ 1,142.01 $ 4,803.20' $ 7,692.00 $ 2,284.02
14 RECEPTION DESK EA t $ 3,830.55 $ 6,134.00 $ 4,799.70 $ 3,830.56 $ 6.134.00 $ 4,799.70
159TAFF DESK EA I $ 726.80 $ 1.1~4.00 : $ 772.01 $ 726.60 $ t,164.00 [ $ 772.01
16IH LATERAL FILES EA 8 $ 1,323.00 $ 71 ! .00 : $ 384.99 $ 10,584.00 $ 5,688.00 $3,079.92
17BROCHURE SHELVING EA I $ 742.78 $ 609.00 $ 935.90 S 742.78 ! $ 609.00 $ 835.90
18MOBILE TV CART EA 1 $ 982.22 $ 1,380.00 $ 1.599.60 $ 962.22 $ t,380.00 $1,599.60
19FURNITURE DOLLY FOR CHAJRS F_~ 1 $ 174.44 $ tSt.00 $ 2~0.50 $ 174.44 $ 151.00 $ 220.50
20FURNITURE DOLLY FOR TABLES E~ t , $ 495.00 $ 390.00 $ 519.40 $ 495.~O $ 390.00 $ 519.40
21 CC~';~'~.~.NCETABLE(42'X120") EA 1 ~ $ 2,029.12 $ 1,655.00 $ 3.989.32 $ 2,029.12 $ 1.658.00 $3,989.32
22 CRAFT TABLE (30"X60") EA I6 $ 547.24 $678.00$ 421.47 $ 3,283.44 $ 4,068.00 $2,528.82
23 INFORMAL MEETING TABLE (36"DIA) EA 2 $ 370.00 $ 383.00$ 466.20 $ 740.00 $ 766.00 $ 932.40
24 COMPUTER TABLE (30"X77") CmA 3 $ 293.66 : $ 362.08$ 226.17 $ 880.98 $ 1,086.00 $ 678.51
25 COFFEE TABLE (36"DIA) E~ 2 $ 1,262.78 ' $ 1,176.00 $ 1,363.80 $ 2,525.56 $ 2,352.00 $ 2,727.60
26 SIDE TABLE (24"X24") EA 6 $ 963.89 $ 898.00$ 1,363.80 $ 5.783.34 $ 5,388.00 $ 8,182.80
I 27 CREDENZA(24'X72") EA 1 $ 2,212.46 $ 3,234.00 $ 3,476.59; $ 2.212.46 $ 3,234.00 $ 3,476.59
25 ;COFFEE TABLE (36'X36") EA 8 $ 222.22 $ 207.00 $ 266.67 $ 1,777.76 I $ 1,656.00 $2.133.36
29 BARHEJGHTTABLE(27'DIA) EA 3 $ 381.67 $ 395.00 $ 500.50 $ 1,145.01 $ 1,185.00 $1.501.50
30 BANQUETTABLE (TZ'DIA) EA 6 $ 494.44 $ 396.00 $ 519.40 $ 3,855.52 $ 3,165.00 $4.155.20
316EMI-C~RCULAR BANQUET TABLE (72'OIA) EA 4 $ 316.67 $ 252.0~ $ 303.80 $ 1.266.68$ 1,008.00 $ 1,2152.0
32[31NING TABLE (48'DIA) EA 5 $ 482.78 $ 500.00 $ 609.00 $ 2,413.90$ 2,500.00 $ 3,045.00
33LECTERN (24'X30')
:ADDITIONAL TABLE (NOT STATED ON THE oRIGINAL EA I $ 778.23 $ 2,363.00 $ 2.679.20 $776.23 I $ 2,363.00 $ 2,679.20
FURNITURE SCHEDULE1 EA $ 857.78 $ 799.00 I $ 9~6.40
SUBTOTAL 13 53,678~7$ ~83,086.~ $ ~.,388.~4
FREIGHT $ 5,994.44$ 1,305.00 $ 2,517.64
INSTALLATION $ $ 9,101.00 $ B.453.00
FUEl. SURCHARGE $ 175.56
TAX $ 8,157.96$ 9,363.~4 $ 8,940.45
GRAND TOTAL $ 108,006.23 $ 122,658.34 $ 126,280.23
Note: Intaillgent Facili~ Furnishings has an incon'ect No. fdor bid No.
26 (S]~e tab,es). Bid amount should be 6 tables instead of 5, bdnging
b,J total amount of 35,78344 instaed of $4,81945. therefore, changing
We subtotal amount to $93, 678.27 instead of 392,889.94. A~d
changing Grand total to 4108,006.23 instaed of $I07,042.34
CIP060013SENIORCITIZENFURNITUREB~ds
1 OF2
LYNWOOD SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
BUILDING FURNITURE 4 4
PROJECT # 0,~5297 ~ ~ SHERIDAN GROUP SHERIDAN GROUp
# ITEM
CHAIR ON CASTERS EA 16
2 SIDE CHAIR W I ARMS (21'X21') EA 8 $ 236.00 $ t,888.00
3 TASK CHAIR*MIO-~ACK SWIVEL W I ARMS EA 4 $ $
4 CONFERENCE ROOM CHAtR~MIO-BACK SVMVF_L W/ARMS EA 12 $ $
5 UPHOL~ I ~:~:u BENCH (24"X60) EA 1 $ 1,387.00 $ ~.387.00
6 LARGE LOUNGE CHAJR (33"X33") EA 6 $ 1,220.00 $ 7,320.00
7 SMALL LOUNGE CHAIR (28"X28") EA 2 $ 1.275.00 $ 2,550.00
8 tHREE SEAT SOFA (32"X84") EA 1 $ 2,595.00 $ 2,595.00
9 ~XTERIOR CAFE~ CHAIRS
10~TOOLS WI ARMS EA 8 $ 357.O0 $ 2,856.00
21CONFERENCE TABLE (42'X120") EA 1 $ $
22CRAFT TABLE (30"X60") EA 6 $
30!BANQUET TABLE (7Z'DIA)
$;SEMI-CIRCULAR BANQUET TABLE (72'DIA) EA 4 $ I $
32DINING TABLE {48'OIA) EA 5 $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00
33LECTERN (24'X30") EA I $ $
ADDITIONAL TABLE (NOT STATED ON THE ORIGINAL FURNITURI
SUBTOTAL $ $
GRAND TOTAL
ClP060013SENIORCITIZENFURNITUREBids
2OF2
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council M~~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage~///Y,~/,~~
Grant Taylor, Director of Development"----Services
SUBJECT:
Award of Contract- Del Richardson & Associates
Ham Park Replacement Project Relocation Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the contract with Del Richardson
& Associates and adopt the attached resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH DEL RICHARDSON &
ASSOCIATES (DRA) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 TO
COMPLETE RELOCATION SERVICES FOR THE HAM PARK REPLACEMENT
PROJECT".
Background:
The City has been pursuing acquisition of properties and relocation of displaced
persons to develop the Ham Park Replacement Project on Atlantic Avenue.
Property acquisition status is currently:
Purchase Agreements Signed - 2
Closed Escrows- 38
Condemnations - 4
TOTAL 44
The contract with Contrast Environmental Services has been executed and
asbestos survey services are underway. Universal Field Services continues to
board and fence vacant properties and perform other related project
management tasks.
Discussion & Analysis:
Due to the increased scope of work for the Ham Park Replacement Project, staff
time for the project management team Universal Field Services, and the
relocation specialists, Del Richardson & Associates (DRA) has increased. The
consultants are requesting additional funding and the City has directed Universal
Field Services to submit itemized expenditures for review.
DRA estimates that the relocation aspect of the project is 80% complete and it is
anticipated that an additional 500 to 550 staff hours is necessary to complete
AGENDA
ITEM
relocation benefits for displaced persons. On April 4, 2006 th& City Council
directed staff to review and audit Universal Field Services funding requests and
expenditures. The City Council also directed staff to pursue subcontracting with
DRA to complete the relocation services.
DRA charges $85.00 per hour and estimates the relocation services to be fully
completed by July 1, 2006.
Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) Section 6-3.9 generally requires a formal bid
procedure for contracts exceeding $15,000. LMC Section 6-3.13 identifies
exceptions to include when services could be obtained by only one source of by
a 4/5 vote of the City Council.
It would be impractical if not impossible to attempt to have another vendor
complete relocation services due to the amount of research and background
information involved in the Ham Park Relocation Project.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impact associated with completion of relocation services based on a
fee of $85.00 per hour for 500 to 550 staff hours would be between $42,500 and
$46,750; funding is included in the Ham Park budget, and will be available
through account 05-5295-4220.
Coordinated With:
City Manager's Office
Finance Department
City Attorney's Office
Attachments:
Resolution
Letter from DRA
Contract
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH DEL
RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES (DRA) IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 TO
COMPLETE RELOCATION SERVICES FOR THE
HAM PARK REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to the three-party agreement between the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and City of Lynwood, staff has been pursuing
development of the Ham Park Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, the scope of property acquisition and relocation services has
increased due to unknown residences and displaced persons; and
WHEREAS, DRA is prepared to move forward and complete relocation services
at the project site; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006 the City Council directed staff to procure the
services of Del Richardson & Associates to complete relocation services for the Ham
Park Replacement Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES
HERBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Mayor is authorized to execute an agreement of DRA
in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lynwood authorizes the
funding not to exceed $50,000 from account number 05-5295-4220.
its adoption.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon
H:\WO RDFILE~PLANNIN'C6RF-.S OS~rcs o.council.dracontract. 5 -2 -06B. doc
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 2"d day of MayT 2006.
ATTEST:
LETICIA VASQUEZ, Mayor
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GRANT TAYLOR, Director
Development Services Department
ARNOLDO BELTRAN, City Attorney
Lynwood City Council
H:\WORDFILE'~PLANNI~G~ES OS~res o.cotmcfl.dracontract. 5-2-06B. doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
)
)ss
)
I, the undersigned, City Clerk for the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Lynwood at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of May, 2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
)
)ss
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City Council
of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution was
adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ., 2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
H: \WORDFlLE~PLANNllqG~.ESOSh'e~o.council.draeont ract. 5 -2 -06 B. doc
Del Fliohmrdson & 4$8o,~_late.. Inc.
April 19, 2006
EXHIBIT
Mr. Grant Taylor
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Rd.
Lynwood, CA 90262
I
Dear Mr. Taylor;
Del Richardson & Associates, Inc. (DP, A) is pleased to submit this Proposal for Relocation and
related Consultant Services in response to your urgent request for assistance in the Ham Park
Project.
DRA has always prided itself in the unique way it serves its clients. The DRA Team is highly
qualified, bringing over five decades of direct relocation experience working with public
agencies, quasi-public agencies, for-profit and not-for-profit, and housing developers throughout
the Greater Southern California area. DRA is well known for providing cost-effective, client-
centered programs tailored to meet the demands of all parties involved in and during the
relocation process. DRA coordinates well with other team members and is experienced in
resolving complex relocation issues. DRA is sensitive to the displacee and works diligently to
meet the expectations of the Agency.
DRA proposes to provide relocation and other services as may be required by the City of
Lynwood to complete site vacation of the Ham Park Project. Such services may include but not
be limited to:
· It is anticipated that continuing relocation services will be required to assist site
occupants in vacating the units.
· Compliance reviews of all relocation files will be necessary in order to facilitate
proper file close out.
· Assistance with interim property management
· Coordination of acquisition activities
· Other duties yet determined but as necessary to facilitate project closure.
Schedule:
It is anticipated that it will take an additional 500 to 550 man-hours to complete this
project. For the month of April it is anticipated that DRA will spend 140- 160 hours in
April, 200-240 in May and the balance of hours in June. Of course this schedule all
depends on acquisition and closing escrows.
Rates:
Relocation Consultant
Third Party Cost
$85.00 fully burdened rate
Actual cost + 10% if required.
510 S. La Brea Avenue
Inglewood, California 90301
Phone: (310) 645-3729
Fax: (310) 645-3355
If you have any questions regarding this proposal or general relocation questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me or Debbie Dumas at 310 64503729 extension 225 or Debbie at 231.
I can also be reached via cell at 310 567-1523.
We look forward to meeting soon!
Kind Regards,
Del Richardson
Principal Consultant
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement ("Agreement") is made as of May 2~ 2006 by and between the City of
Lynwood, a municipal corporation ("City") and Del Richardson & Associates (I)RA)
("Consultant"). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as a
"Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent
contractor to provide consulting services to City as set forth in the attached Exhibit A: Letter
from BRA dated April 19~ 2006; and
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting
services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and
employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants
and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Services.
A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be performed by
Consultant are as described in Exhibit A.
B. Time of Performance. Consultant shall complete the specific services according to
the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on May 2~ 2006 (the
"Commencement Date") and shall terminate on July 1~ 2006 (the "Termination Date"), unless
sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. On or before thirty (30) days
prior to the Termination Date, Consultant and City shall meet to discuss this Agreement and its
possible extension and or modification. In the event the Parties do not enter into a new
agreement prior to the Termination Date, this Agreement shall continue on a month-to-month
basis under the same terms for a period not to exceed three months following the Termination
Date. If the Parties execute no new agreement by the end of the three-month period following
the Termination Date, this Agreement shall terminate at the end of such three-month period.
3. Compensation.
A. City agrees to compensate Consultant for services under this Agreement in
compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. Payment will be made only after
submission of proper monthly invoices in the form and manner specified by City. Each invoice
shall include a breakdown of all monthly services performed together with the hours spent on
each service.
Consulting Services Agreement
B. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed fifty.
thousand dolloars, {$50,000) which shall be payable in monthly installments of based on hourly
services performed. In the event that this Agreement continues beyond the Termination Date as
specified in Section 2, the total additional payment to Consultant in the event no new agreement
is signed shall not exceed the stun that may be mutually agreed upon by the City and Consultant
for each month of extension or the appropriate prorated amounts if less than a full month of
additional services is involved at any time.
C. If at the request of the City, Consultant is required to incur out of pocket expenses
(including but not limited to, out-of-town travel and lodging) which are above and beyond the
ordinary expenses associated with performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall be entitled to
reimbursement of such expenses. Consultant shall only be reimbursed for those expenses which:
(i) appear on Consultant's monthly invoices; (ii) are accompanied by a copy of the City's written
authorization for Consultant to incur such expenses; and (iii) receipts documenting such
expenses.
4. General Terms and Conditions. The General Terms and Conditions set forth in
Exhibit B are incorporated as part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between
the General Terms and Conditions and any other exhibit to this Agreement, the General Terms
and Conditions shall control unless it is clear from the context that both parties intend the
provisions of the other exhibit(s) to control.
5. Addresses.
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, CA 90262
Attn: Mr. N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
Consultant
Del Richardson & Associates (DRA)
510 S. La Brea Avenue
Inglewood, CA 90301
(310) 645-3729 (office) (310) 645-3355 (fax)
Attn: Del Richardson
6. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are listed here and are incorporated
and made part of this Agreement by this reference.
Exhibit A- Scope of Services and Time of Performance ~ pages)
Exhibit B - General Terms and Conditions (six (6) pages)
///
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
Consulting Services Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreemem as of the dates
written below.
CITY
CITY OF LYNWOOD
By:
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
Date
CONSULTANT
By:
Date
ATTEST:
By:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
J. Amoldo Beltrfin, City Attomey
Consulting Services Agreement
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Status as Independent Contractor.
A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent
contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of
City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have
control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in
this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its
agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City.
B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on mounts paid to Consultant under this
Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments,
penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship
created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any Federal or State agency
regarding the independent contractor status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain
the validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant, then
Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees,
arising out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto.
C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding
Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City
harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable worker's compensation laws.
City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this
Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to
promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 1.
2. Standard of Performance.
A. Consultant shall perform all work to the highest professional standards and in a
manner reasonably satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee. The City Manager or
his/her designee may from time to time assign additional or different tasks or services to
Consultant, provided such tasks are within the scope of services described in Exhibit A.
However, no additional or different tasks or services shall be performed by Consultant other than
those specified in Exhibit A, or those so assigned in writing to Consultant by the City Manager
or his/her designee.
B. The Director of Development Services shall, until further notice to Consultant,
administer this Agreement and provide for immediate supervision of Consultant with respect to
the services to be provided hereunder.
3. Indemnification.
A. Consultant is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the services and
duties agreed to be performed under this Agreement, and City is relying upon the skill and
- Consulting Services Agreement Exhibit B
1
knowledge of Consultant to perform said services and duties.
B. To the extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
City, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all claims,
demands, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, known or unknown, and all
costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees as fixed by the court in connection
with any injury or damage to persons or property to the extent caused by any negligent act,
error, omission or negligence of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, contractor,
subcontractors or any officer, agent or employee thereof in relation to Consultant's
performance under this Agreement. Such defense and indemnification shall not apply in any
instance of and to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its
officers, employees, agents or volunteers.
C. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions
identical to those set forth in this Section f~om each and every subcontractor, or any other
person or entity involVed by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this
Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as
required in this Section, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of
this Section. Failure of the City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no
additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder.
This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth herein shall survive the termination
of this Agreement and is in addition to any rights which City may have under the law. This
indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any insurance
coverages which may have been required under this Agreement or any additional insured
endorsements which may extend to City.
4. Insurance.
A. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City pursuant to Section 3 of this
Agreement, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the
term of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
arising from or in connection with the occupancy, use or operation of the Licensed Premises by
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, independent contractors or volunteers.
B. The types and amounts of insurance shall be as described below, and an insurance
company admitted to do business in California and approved by the City must issue all such
policies.
(i) General Liability Insurance covering third party liability risks, including
without limitation contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined
single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If
commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to the Leased Premises, or the
general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit;
(ii) Automotive Liability insurance, in a minimum amount of $1 million per accident
for bodily injury and property damage;
- Consulting Services Agreement Exhibit B
2
(iv) Workers' Compensation insurance on a state approved policy form with a
minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the amount required by law, whichever is greater;
(iii). Property damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00.
C. City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as additional
insureds on the policy(ies) as to commercial general liability, automotive liability and property
damage.
D. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be non-
renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition of additional
insureds to the policy) by the insurance carder without the insurance carder giving City thirty
(30) days' prior written notice thereof. Any such thirty (30) day notice shall be submitted to
CITY via certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to "Risk Manager," City of
Lynwood, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California, 90262. Consultant agrees that it will not
cancel, reduce or otherwise modify said insurance coverage.
E. Consultant shall submit to City (i) insurance certificates indicating compliance with
the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above, and (ii) insurance policy
endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance requirements above, not
less that one (1) day prior to beginning of performance under this Agreement. Endorsements
shall be executed on City's appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured
Endorsement".
F. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City,
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance
and shall not contribute with it.
G. Consultant agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and
effect, and such insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may take out the necessary
insurance and pay the premium thereon, and the repayment thereof shall be deemed an obligation
of Consultant and the cost of such insurance may be deducted, at the option of City, from
payments due Consultant.
5. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to confidential
data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant covenants that all data,
documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for
performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant
without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is
required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement.
Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
6. Ownership of Work Product. All reports, documents or other written material
developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property
- Consulting Services Agreement
3
Exhibit B
of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City. Such material
shall not be the subject of a copyright application by Consultant.
7. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any
interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by
Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance
of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement,
no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid
the appearance of having any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performance
of its services pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or
otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of services to City as a result of the performance of
this Agreement, or the services that may be procured by the City as a result of the
recommendations made by Consultant. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
8. Termination for Cause. Should Consultant fail to perform any of the obligations
required of Consultant within the time and in the manner provided for under this Agreement
within seven (7) days after receipt from City of a written notice of such default, or should
Consultant violate any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, City may terminate this
Agreement with cause upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant. The effective date of
termination shall be upon the date specified in the notice of termination. Consultant agrees that
in the event of such termination, City's obligation to pay Consultant shall be limited to payment
only for those services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination.
Immediately upon receiving written notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue
performing services, preserve the product of the services, and turn over to City the product of the
services in accordance with written instruction of City.
9. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all
personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required
under this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel
engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. Consultant reserves the right to
determine the assignment of its own employees to the performance of Consultant's services
under this Agreement, but City reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to
exclude any employee from performing services on City's premises.
10. Financial Condition. Prior to entering into this Agreement, Consultant has submitted
documentation acceptable to the City Manager, establishing that it is financially solvent, such
that it can reasonably be expected to perform the services required by this Agreement. Within
thirty (30) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year
thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall submit such financial
information as may be appropriate to establish to the satisfaction of the City Manager that
Consultant is in at least as sound a financial position as was the case prior to entering into this
- Consulting Services Agreement Exhibit B
4
Agreement. Financial information submitted to the City Manager shall be returned to Consultant
after review and shall not be retained by City.
11. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.
A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status,
national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual
orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will
comply with all roles and regulations of City relating thereto. Such nondiscrimination shall
include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers,
recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of
compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on
behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all qualified
applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed,
religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical
condition, or sexual orientation.
C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for
any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial
supplies or raw materials.
12. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor
the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent
of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties, or
obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
13. Performance Evaluation. For any Agreement in effect for twelve months or longer, a
written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within ninety (90) days of
the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout
the term of this Agreement. The work product required by this Agreement shall be utilized as
the basis for review, and any comments or complaints received by City during the review period,
either orally or in writing, shall be considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing
the written report. If any noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct
Consultant to correct the inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as
provided herein.
14. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall keep itself informed of State, Federal and
Local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it
or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant
shall at all times comply with such laws, ordinances, codes and regulations. The City, its officers
and employees shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of Consultant to
comply with this Section.
15. Licenses. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full
- Consulting Services Agreement Exhibit B
5
force and effect ail licenses (including a City business license) required of it by law for
performance of the services heretmder.
16. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or
more of the conditions of performance trader this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other
condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any
payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant,
or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such
payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with
regard to such breach or default.
17. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shail commence any
legai or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement,
the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit,
including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including costs of expert witnesses and
consultants.
18. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be
deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during Consultant's regular
business hours or by facsimile before or during Consultant's regular business hours; or (b) on the
third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses
heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to
time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section.
19. Governing Law. This Agreement shail be interpreted, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Caiifomia.
20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any ntunber of counterparts, each of
which shail be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
21. Severability. If any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreement is found
to be invaiid or unenforceable, the balance of this Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
22. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other doctunents incorporated herein by
specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City.
This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements.
This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a
writing signed by the Parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf
of the City will only be vaiid if signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
23. Authority. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behaif of the
Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations
hereunder.
- Consulting Services Agreement Exhibit B
6
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
oou o,
U. Enrique Martinez, City Manage, r/'/-/C-///i
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E., Director of Public Works/City
Paul Nguyen, Public Works/Engineering Manager
Engineer
SUBJECT:
Lynwood Lighting Assessment District No. 2006-A, FY 2006-07
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
"Adopt the attached resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 22565 ET SEQ., AS ORDERED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON APRIL 4, 2006, RELATING TO THE LYNWOOD LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT," AND
Adopt the attached Resolution of Intention entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD, DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 WITHIN LYNWOOD LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE "LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF
1972", AS AMENDED, (COMMENCING WITH STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
CODE SECTION 22500 ET SEQ.)
Background:
The Lynwood Lighting Assessment District was first established in 1978 under the
Street Lighting Act of 1919. The District was re-established in 1981 under the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The cost of maintenance, including the
assessment engineering costs and administration can be levied annually against the
properties, which receive the benefits, thereby relieving the General Fund of that
amount. Property owners are assessed only for the benefits received. The
assessments were levied as a fair and equitable way to provide funds to maintain
operate and improve the lighting areas in the City. The plans and specifications for the
District are on file with the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works.
The City Council, on April 4, 2006, adopted Resolution 2006-055 proposing the
formation of a Lighting Assessment District pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, and directed the preparation of the Engineer's Report.
AGENDA
rrEM
Discussion & Analysis:
In order for the District to be self sufficient, a variety of funding alternatives were
analyzed which would make the District self sufficient in three years. It is highly
recommended that such an alternative be considered for implementation in the very
near future.
If the City should decide to raise the assessment rates, the law requires that the City
send out voting ballots to all property owners in order for them to vote. The City would
need a simple majority of the returned votes approving the rate increase to implement
the new rates. The law also requires a period of 45 days from the time the ballots are
sent out to the public hearing date in which the City Council will act on this matter.
Fiscal Impact:
The District is currently operating at an annual deficit. The Finance Department has
prepared a separate report detailing options on corrective measures. At this time the
assessment rates for the City's Lighting District will remain the same, which will result in
a negative fund balance of $648,132 in F.Y. 06/07. See page three of the attached
Engineer's Report.
Coordinate With:
Finance Department, City Clerk's office and City Attorney's office.
COU060371ightingdistrict
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
PREPARED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 22565 ET SEQ., AS ORDERED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 4, 2006, RELATING
TO THE LYNWOOD LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 4, 2006, adopted Resolution No.
2006-055, instructing the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk, a report in
writing in accordance with the requirements of Streets and Highways Code, Section
22565 et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed said report with the City
Clerk and the City Clerk has presented said report to this City Council for consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve, order, and
determine as follows:
Section 1. The City Council has considered and passed on said report.
Said report, as filed, is hereby approved. Said report, including any plans,
specifications, estimates of costs and expenses, diagram and assessments are
incorporated herein by reference and shall be placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk and may be examined by any interested persons. Reference is made to said
plans and specifications for a description of the proposed improvements.
Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
,2006.
LETICIA VASQUEZ, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ATTEST:
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
City of Lynwood
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
City of Lynwood
G. DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
Director of Engineering/City Engineer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Lynwood at a regular meeting held in the City Hall of said City on the
day of ,2006, and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAI N:
ABSENT:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution
was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ,2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LYNWOOD, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 WITHIN LYNWOOD LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE "LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972", AS AMENDED,
(COMMENCING WITH STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
SECTION 22500 ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed and the City Engineer has
prepared and filed a report in writing containing all matters required by Council under
Streets and Highways Code, Section 22565, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, said report has been presented to the City Council for
consideration and has been received and approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve, order and
determine as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 as
amended, commencing with Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq., the
City Council of the City of Lynwood hereby declares its intention to order the levy and
collection of assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of land within an
existing assessment district designated "Lynwood Lighting Assessment District (the
"District") for fiscal year 2006-2007 to pay for the costs of those existing and previously
proposed improvements described as:
The installation or construction and maintenance and servicing of existing
and previously proposed public lighting facilities and facilities which are appurtenant
thereto or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof,
including but not limited to, electric current, repair of street light standards and fixtures
and incidental costs including labor, material and equipment. Such improvements
constitute the maintenance and operation of sidewalks and streets, specifically, the
maintenance and operation of existing and previously proposed public lighting facilities
located in and along sidewalks and streets, including street lights and traffic signals,
and facilities which are appurtenant thereto or which are necessary or convenient for
the maintenance or operation thereof, including the cost of rent, repair, replacement,
rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to
properly operate and maintain public lighting facilities and traffic signals located in and
along public streets within the City; and the installation and construction of previously
proposed public lighting facilities, and facilities which are appurtenant thereto or which
are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or operation thereof, which have been
or are to be paid from the proceeds of revenue bonds."
The boundaries of the District are conterminous with the boundaries of the
City of Lynwood as shown on the map identified as Assessment District Map No. 2006-
A on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 2. Reference is hereby made to the report of the Engineer
approved by Council on May 2, 2006, by a resolution, and on file in the office of the City
Clerk, describing in detail the improvements to be made, the boundaries of the
assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon
assessable lots and parcels of land within the District.
Section 3. Notice is hereby given that on July 18, 2006, at the hour of
5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood,
California, is the date, hour and place fixed for the hearing of protests and objections by
the City Council to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments (existing rates)
against the lots and parcels of land within the District for fiscal year 2006-2007.
Any and all persons having any protest or objection to the proposed improvements, the
extent of the assessment district, or the levy and collection of the proposed
assessments may appear before the City Council at said hearing and show cause why
said improvements should not be carried out and the proposed assessment and
diagram confirmed, all in accordance with this Resolution of Intent and the report of the
City Engineer. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any interested person may file a
written protest with the City Clerk, or, having previously filed a protest, may file a written
withdrawal of protest. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection.
A protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the
property owned by him. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear
and be heard. The City Council shall consider all oral statements and written protests
or communications made or filed byan interested person.
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the
passage of this resolution to be given at the time and place in the form and manner
provided by law.
Section 5. The proposed assessments for fiscal year 2006-2007 will
remain the same and are $1.62 per foot of frontage for residentially zoned property
and $3.01 per foot of frontage for commercially zoned property.
Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this
day of ,2006.
LETICIA VASQUEZ, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ATTEST:
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
City of Lynwood
APPROVED ASTO FORM:
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
G.DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
Director of Public Work/City
Engineer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Lynwood at a regular
meeting held on the ~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
day of ,2006.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
SS.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution
was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ,2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
LYNWOOD LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
(Division 15, Part 2)
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DATED: May 2, 2006
LYNWOOD LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Prepared by:
G. DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
City Engineer
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, California 90262
Cou060421ightingengineerreport
ENGINEER'S REPORT
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
LYNWOOD LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the Resolution No. 2006-055 adopted by your Honorable Body on April 4,
2006, I have prepared the
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended, (Division 15, Part
2, Streets and Highways Code of the State of California). This Engineer's Report
contemplates the levying of an assessment to provide funds necessary to construct,
install, maintain and service public lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities within the
Lynwood Lighting Assessment District (the "District"). The assessment will be levied
against those parcels of land within said District benefiting from the improvements, as
required by law.
Proper construction, installation, maintenance and servicing of the street lighting
facilities within the District benefit each and every assessable property within the
District by providing proper illumination for ingress and egress and safe traveling at
night to and from such properties. It also improves protection of such properties from
crime and vandalism. The foregoing enhances property values.
Since the lighting facilities are located along the public streets, the front footage of
each benefited property along such streets is used as the base for distributing the
overall costs of the improvements in proportion to the estimated benefits 'to be
received by each assessable parcel from the improvements.
The different assessments for commercial and residential properties are based on
different lumen and other design requirements along major arterial and residential
streets.
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended, it is required that
an Engineer's Report be prepared and filed with the City Clerk, who in turn presents it
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page 2
to the City Council for its consideration.
The said Engineer's Report consists of the following:
1. PLAN NO. 2006-A AND SPECIFICATIONS. The plans and specifications for
the improvements within the District are on file with the City Clerk and Director of
Public Works and incorporated herein by reference. Plan No. 2006-A shows the
approximate location, nature and extent of the street lighting system of the District.
Existing and previously proposed improvements for fiscal year 2006-2007 include, but
are not limited to, the following: electrical energy; repair and replacement of street
light standards and fixtures; labor; materials; equipment; miscellaneous improvements;
overhead and incidental work and construction of capital improvement projects (see
attached Capital Improvement Project List) as required.
A diagram of the District, showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the
boundaries of each lot or parcel of land within the District, is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Reference is made to the Los Angeles County
Assessor's Maps for fiscal year 2006-2007 for a detailed description of the lines and
dimensions of any lots or parcels within the District.
ESTIMATE OF COSTS.
Maintenance and Servicinq Costs
The estimate of the maintenance and servicing costs with respect to the District
(including incidental expenses) for the one-year period beginning July 1, 2006 and
ending June 30, 2007 is as follows:
Street Li.qhtin.q
A. Personnel $304,469
B. Maintenance & Operations
$786,350
TOTAL COST $1,090,819
Capital Improvement Costs
In 1993, the City of Lynwood entered into an agreement with the Lighting Assessment
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page 3
District pursuant to Section 22662 (b) of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
whereby the District received an advance of $2,560,703 from the City of Lynwood for
deposit to the Capital Improvement Fund and would repay the City through the levy
and collection of annual assessments for those improvements over a period of twenty
(20) years, commencing with fiscal year 1992-93. The annual installment is
$ 296,600. A list of the approved projects and their status is attached with this report
as Exhibit A.
3. STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND BALANCE:
Attachment 1 describes the District fund balance history. If the District assessment
rates remain the same for FY 2006-07, the year-end balance would be a deficit of
$648,132.
4. ALTERNATIVES TO FUND THE DISTRICT:
In order to balance the District budget a variety of funding alternatives, which would
make the District self sufficient in three years were analyzed. I recommend that the
City Council consider the implementation of such alternatives in the very near future.
Total Estimated Costs
The total amount to be assessed against parcels within the District for FY 2006-2007,
consisting of the maintenance and servicing costs for FY 2006-2007 and the annual
installment for capital improvement cost discussed above, is as follows:
FY 2006-2007 ASSESSMENT
Street Lighting Costs
Annual Installment for
Certificates of Participation
(Revenue Bonds)
TOTAL COST:
Estimated deficit FY 2005-06
Capital Improvement Projects
NET AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED:
Projected year-end deficit:
$1,090,819
$296,600
$1,387,419
$14,916
$280,000
$1,034,203
$ 648,132
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page 4
o
TOTAL NUMBER OF LIGHTS IN THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
EDISON OWNED
CITY OWNED
TOTAL
Lumen Number Lumen Number Lumen Number
7,000 0 7,000 41 7,000 41
9,500 1,635 9,500 251 9,500 1,886
15,000 142 15,000 80 15,000 211
20,000 143 20,000 146 20,000 289
25,500 0 25,500 551 25,500 551
35,000 0 35,000 8 35,000 8
47,000 0 47,000 87 47,000 87
55,000 0 55,000 5 55,000 5
TOTAL 1,920 1169 3,089
1. Residential properties with 7,000 - 15,000 lumen/light.
2. Commercial properties with 20,000 - 55,000 lumen/light.
o
ASSESSMENT OF ESTIMATED COST
There are approximately 10,075 parcels of property, with approximately 556,151 feet of
front footage, within the District, excluding parcels of public property, which are not
assessed for the cost of improvements.
Zone Feet Rate Amount
I 474,517 $1.62/FF $ 768,717
2 88,201 $3.01/FF $ 265,485
Estimated Revenue: $1,034,202
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page 4
ASSESSMENT ROLL
In compliance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, copies of the County
Assessor's Map and the County Tax Collector's tax rolls were used in this Engineer's
Report. The assessment roll, for each parcel of land therein, shows the legal description,
the County Assessor's code numbers, the assessable front footage used in calculating
the assessment against each individual parcel and the total net assessment levied
against the parcel. All assessable parcels of land in said District were included in one of
the two zones of benefit as set forth herein above. The assessment roll is on file in the
office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference.
The foregoing Engineer's Report, which includes PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, and
the DIAGRAM, ASSESSMENT ROLL and the ESTIMATE OF COSTS, is presented
herewith for your approval by resolution.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2006
Respectfully,
G.DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Lynwood
Attachments
STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1. Street Lighting Rehab. (Res.)
2. Street Lighting Rehab. (Comm.)
3. Public Works Yard
4. Cesar Chavez Ln. Lighting
5. Security Lighting
6. Lynwood City Park Lighting
TOTAL:
BUDGET
COMPLETED. %
$740,503 100
$1,114,000 100
$360,0O0 100
$31,200 100
$100,000 100
$200,000 100
$2,545,703
Cou01020
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS
FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 2006-07
STATUS ACTUAL BUDGET
BEGINNING BALANCE $25,731 -$14,916
REVENUE $1,034,203 $1,034,203
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE COST $778,250 $1,090,819
CIP $0 $280,000
DEBT SERVICES $296,600 $296,600
FUND BALANCE -$14,916 -$648,132
H:Oth06006assessmentdist rictanalysis
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
FY 2006-07
1. Removal of old street light poles on various streets
$ 80,000
2. Construction of residential street lights, various streets
$200,000
$280,000
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
U. Enrique Martinez, City Manager~/',,/C-Jff/"
G. Daniel Ojeda, P.E., Director offPublic ~'Vorks/City Engin-e~r
Paul Nguyen, Public Works/Engineering Manager
SUBJECT:
Lynwood Landscape Assessment District No. 2006-L, FY 2006-07
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION 22565 ET SEQ.,
AS ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 4, 2006, RELATING TO
LYNWOOD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT"; and
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 WITHIN LYNWOOD
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972", AS AMENDED,
(COMMENCING WITH STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 22500 ET
SEQ.)".
Background:
The Lynwood Landscape Maintenance Assessment District was first established in
1978 under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The cost of maintenance,
including the assessment engineering costs and administration can be levied annually
against the properties, which receive the benefits, thereby relieving the General Fund of
that amount. Property owners are assessed only for the benefits received. The
assessments were levied as a fair and equitable way to provide funds to maintain,
operate and improve the landscaped areas in the City. The plans and specifications for
the District are on file with the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works.
The City Council, on April 4,
formation of a Landscape Maintenance Assessment District pursuant to the
2006, adopted Resolution 2006-054 proposing the
AGENDA
ITEM
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the preparation 'of the Engineer's
Report.
Discussion & Analysis:
In order for the District to be self sufficient a variety of funding alternatives were
analyzed which would make the District self sufficient in a three year period. It is highly
recommended that such an alternative be considered for implementation in the very
near future. Should the City desire to raise the assessment rates all Proposition 218
requirements would have to be followed.
At this time the rates for the Citys Landscape Assessment District will remain the same.
Fiscal Impact:
The District is currently operating at an annual deficit. The Finance Department has
prepared a separate report detailing options on corrective measures. At this time the
assessment rates rates for the City's Landscape Assessment District will remain the
same, which will result in a negative fund balance of $1,194,420 for F.Y. 06~07. See
page (4) of the attached Engineering Report.
Coordinate With:
Finance Department, City Clerk's office and City Attorney's office.
Cou060431andscapedistrict
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD, APPROVING THE REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT
TO CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SECTION
22565 ET SEQ., AS ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
APRIL 4, 2006, RELATING TO LYNWOOD LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 4, 2006, adopted Resolution
No. 2006-054, instructing the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk, a report
in writing in accordance with the requirements of Streets and Highways Code, Section
22565 et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed said report with the City
Clerk and the City Clerk has presented said report to this City Council for consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve, order, and
determine as follows:
Section 1. The City Council has considered and passed on said report.
Said report, as filed, is hereby approved. Said report, including any plans,
specifications, estimates of costs and expenses, diagram and assessments are
incorporated herein by reference and shall be placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk and may be examined by any interested persons. Reference is made to said
plans and specifications for a description of the proposed improvements.
Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this __
day of .,2006.
ATTEST:
LETICIA VASQUEZ, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
City of Lynwood
N ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City of Lynwood
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
G.DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Lynwood at a regular meeting held in the City Hall of said City on the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
day of
,2006, and passed by the following vote:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution
was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ., 2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LYNWOOD, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 WITHIN LYNWOOD LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE
"LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972", AS AMENDED,
(COMMENCING WITH STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
SECTION 22500 ET SEQ.).
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed and the City Engineer has
prepared and filed a report in writing containing all matters required by Council under
Streets and Highways Code, Section 22565, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, said report has been presented to the City Council for
consideration and has been received and approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve, order and
determine as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 as
amended, commencing with Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq., the
City Council of the City of Lynwood hereby declares its intention to order the levy and
collection of assessments against the assessable lots and parcels of land within an
existing assessment district designated "Lynwood Landscape Maintenance Assessment
District (the "District") for fiscal year 2006-2007 to pay for the costs of those existing
and previously proposed improvements described as:
The installation, maintenance, and servicing of existing and previously
proposed landscaping and appurtenant facilities within parks and landscaped areas
within public rights-of-way and City owned property in the City of Lynwood. Such
improvements include the maintenance and operation of sidewalks, streets, and water,
flood control and drainage systems, specifically the maintenance and operation of
landscaping and appurtenant facilities in and along streets and sidewalks, the
maintenance and operation of parks, including appurtenant facilities, which serve as
natural retention and drainage systems as required by the area's Master Storm Drain
Plan, and the maintenance and operation of landscaped areas adjacent to and
appurtenant to water well sites; and the installation of previously proposed landscaping
and appurtenant facilities within parks and landscaped areas within public rights-of-way
and City-owned property in the City which have been paid or are to be paid from the
proceeds of revenue bonds.
The boundaries of the District are conterminous with the boundaries of the
City of Lynwood as shown on the map identified as Assessment District Map
No. 2006-L on file in the office of the City Clerk.
assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon
assessable lots and parcels of land within the District.
Section 3. Notice is hereby given that on July 18, 2006, at the hour of
5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood,
California, is the date, hour and place fixed for the hearing of protests and objections by
the City Council to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments (existing rates)
against the lots and parcels of land within the District for fiscal year 2006-2007.
Any and all persons having any protest or objection to the proposed improvements, the
extent of the assessment district, or the levy and collection of the proposed
assessments may appear before the City Council at said hearing and show cause why
said improvements should not be carried out and the proposed assessment and
diagram confirmed, all in accordance with this Resolution of Intent and the report of the
City Engineer. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any interested person may file a
written protest with the City Clerk, or, having previously filed a protest, may file a written
withdrawal of protest. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection.
A protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the
· property owned by him. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear
and be heard. The City Council shall consider all oral statements and written protests
or communications made or filed by an interested person.
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the
passage of this resolution to be given at the time and place in the form and manner
provided by law.
Section 5. The proposed assessments for fiscal year 2006-2007 will
remain the same and are $1.90 per foot frontage for residential and commercial
properties.
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this
day of ,2006.
LETICIA VASQUEZ, Mayor
City of Lynwood
ATTEST:
ATTEST: '
ANDREA L. HOOPER, City Clerk
City of Lynwood
N ENRIQUE MARTINEZ
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
City of Lynwood
G. DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) §.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Lynwood at a regular
meeting held on the day of ,2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution
was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of ,2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
(DIVISION 15, PART 2)
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
May 2, 2006
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
Prepared by:
G. DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
City Engineer
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, California 90262
CouO60421andscapeengineerreport
ENGINEER'S REPORT
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2006-054, adopted by your Honorable Body on April 4,
2006, I have prepared the
ENGINEER'S REPORT
required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended, (being Division 15,
Part 2, Streets and Highways Code of the State of California). This Engineer's Report
contemplates the levying of an assessment to provide funds necessary to construct,
install, maintain and service sidewalks, streets, and water, flood control and drainage
systems and appurtenant facilities within the Landscape Maintenance District of the City
of Lynwood (the "District"). The assessment will be levied against those parcels of land
within said District benefiting from the improvements, as required by law.
Proper construction, installation, maintenance and servicing of median islands, retention
basins, street trees and other landscaped facilities provide an esthetically pleasing
environment, air purification and sound attenuation. Proper maintenance of such
landscaping also provides for the efficient operations of streets, sidewalks, water, flood
control and drainage systems throughout the City. It enhances the overall quality of life
and desirability of an area, thereby enhancing the value of each and every parcel in the
District.
Since the street trees and medians are evenly distributed along the public streets and
other landscaped facilities are evenly distributed throughout the District, all properties
within the District are located within a single zone. The front footage of each benefited
property is used as the base for distributing the overall costs in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received by each assessable parcel from the improvements.
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended, it is required that
an Engineer's Report be prepared and filed with the City Clerk, who in turn presents it to
the City Council for its consideration. The said Engineer's Report consists of the
following:
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page 2
1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The Lynwood Landscape Maintenance District was formed and assessments first levied
in 1978 following the passage of Resolution No. 78-78 by the City Council. The plans
and specifications for the improvements within the District are on file with the City Clerk
and Director of Public Works and are incorporated herein by reference.
Landscape Maintenance for fiscal year 2006-2007 includes the following improvements:
LYNWOOD CITY PaRk
(39 acres) Mowing, edging, weeding,
irrigation, restroom maintenance, painting,
fence repair, and trash pick-up.
LOS AMIGOS PARK
(1.75 acres) Mowing, edging, weeding,
irrigation, painting, fence repair and trash pick-up.
STREET MEDIAN
(Long Beach Boulevard, 74,646 square feet;
State Street, 170,000 square feet; Imperial
Highway, 37,740 square feet; Atlantic Avenue,
94,472 square feet; Hulme Avenue 2,160
square feet; Lilita Avenue 1,620 square feet;
Carlin Avenue 1,530 square feet; Los Flores
Avenue, 36,800 square feet; Flower Street
36,800 square feet; Bullis Road, 3,888 square
feet.) Mowing, edging, irrigation, trash pick-up
and eradicating pests.
WATER WELLS
(Six locations, 11750 square feet)
Mowing, edging, weeding and irrigation.
TREE TRIMMING
Four year cycle general tree trimming, and in-house
light tree trimming and emergency response services.
A further explanation of the proposed improvements is attached as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by reference.
2. DIAGRAM
A diagram of the District, showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page 3
of any zones within the District, and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of
· land, within the District, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Reference is made to the Los Angeles County Assessor's Maps for fiscal year 2006-
2007 for a detailed description on the lines and dimensions of any lots or parcels within
the District.
3. ESTIMATE OF COST
Maintenance and Servicinq Costs
The estimate of the water, electrical energy, operation and maintenance costs with
respect to the District (including incidental expenses) for the one-year period beginning
July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007, is $1,496,141
Capital Improvement Costs
There was a considerable backlog in capital improvement projects in the District. The
public interest and safety required that these projects be constructed on an expedited
basis. The cost of such capital improvements exceeded the amount that could be
conveniently raised in a single assessment.
Pursuant to Section 22662 (b) of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the City of
Lynwood entered into an agreement whereby District received an advance of
$2,467,850 from the City of Lynwood for deposit to the improvement fund. Such
advance is to be repaid to the City through the levy and collection of annual
assessments for these improvements over a period of twenty (20) years commencing
with fiscal year 1992-93. With the 2003 bond refinancing, the annual installment is
$242,8OO.
A list of the previously approved projects and their status is attached to' this report as
Exhibit A.
4. LANDSCAPE DISTRICT FUND BALANCE:
Attachment I describes the District fund balance analysis. If the District assessment
rate remains the same for FY 2006-07, the year-end balance would be a deficit of
$1,194,420.
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page 4
5. ALTERNATIVES TO FUND THE DISTRICT:
In order to balance the District budget variety of funding alternatives, which would make
the District self sufficient within three years were analyzed. I recommend that the City
Council consider implementation such alternative in the very near future.
6. Total Assessment
The total amount to be assessed with respect to the District for fiscal year 2006-2007,
consisting of the maintenance and servicing costs and the capital improvement cost
discussed above, plus the estimated deficit from fiscal year 2005-06 is as follows:
FY 2006-2007 ASSESSMENT
Maintenance and
Servicing Costs
Annual Installment
(Revenue Bonds)
Total Cost
Est. Deficit FY 2005-06
Net Amount to be
Assessed
Projected year-end deficit:
$1,496,141
242,800
$1,738,941
$524,643
$1,069,164
$1,194,420
DISTRICT DESCRIPTION AND REVENUES
There are approximately 10,083 parcels of property, with approximately 562,718 feet of
front footage within the District, excluding parcels of public property, which are not
assessed for the costs of improvements.
Engineer's Report
May 2, 2006
Page5
DISTRICT DESCRIPTION AND COST
Total Front Footaqe
Assessment
Rate Revenues
562,718 FF
$1.90IFF $1,069,164
5. ASSESSMENT ROLL
In compliance with the above Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, copies of the
County Assessor's Map and the County Tax Collector's tax rolls were used in this
Engineer's Report. The assessment roll, for each parcel of land therein, shows the legal
description; the County Assessor's code numbers; the assessable front footage used in
calculating the assessment against the parcels and the total net assessment levied
against the parcels for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. The assessment roll is on file in the
Office of the City Clerk and Director of Public Works, and is incorporated herein by
reference.
The foregoing Engineer's Report, which includes PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, the
DIAGRAM , the ASSESSMENT ROLL and the ESTIMATE OF COSTS, is presented
herewith for your approval by resolution.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2006.
Respectfully,
G.DANIEL OJEDA, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Lynwood
Cou060421andscapeengineerreport
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1. Sidewalk Reconstruction
2. Cesar Chavez Ln. Improv.
' St pi
o. reetsca ng
4. Landscaped Median Islands
5. Tree Planting
6. Public Parks
BUDGET COMPLETED. %
$1,000,000 100
$357,000 100
$431,400 100
$236,000 100
$105,697 100
$73,400 100
TOTAL: $2,545,297
Cou01021
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS
FISCAL YEAR 2005~)6 2006-07
STATUS ACTUAL BUDGET
BEGINNING BALANCE -$286,207 -$524,643
~EVENUE $1,069,164 $1,069,164
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COST $1,064,800 $1,496,141
CIP $0 $0
DEBT SERVICES $242,800 $242,800
FUND BALANCE -$524,643 -$1,194,420
H:Oth06006assessmentdistrictanalysis ATTACHMENT 1
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me, n~b~y~ /~/~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage//~/JJ' (/~--~
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Finance/vJ'
Sandra Rocha, Director of Human Resources~..,/ '~
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND
MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE POSITIONS
OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT AND
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNVVOOD AMENDING
THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE FOR
THE POSITIONS OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT AND DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES."
Background:
The City Council approved the FY 2005-06 Budget at the June 21, 2005 Council
Meeting. Since the adoption of the budget, staff has identified the need for changes
in the organizational structure to attract the most qualified applicants to fill the current
management vacancies in the City.
CPS, an executive search firm was hired by the City to conduct a recruitment for the
positions of Deputy Director of Redevelopment and Deputy Director of .Development
Services. On March 16th and April 13th, the City interviewed the top qualified
applicants for these positions, and determined that to hire the best, highly qualified
applicants, the salary range for these positions must be adjusted.
Discussion & Analysis:
The Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City of Lynwood grant the City Council
the authority to adjust the salary schedule for citified positions.
As such, staff recommends adjusting the salary for the following positions:
AGENDA
ITEM
ClasSification Current Range 8, Salary New Range 8, Salary
Deputy Director of 56 M 67M
Redevelopment $5013.55 - $6105.83 $6576,15 - $8002.59
Deputy Director of 60M 66M
Development, Services $5525.98 - $6740.41 $6414.69 - $7813.05
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impact through the end of the fiscal year for salades and benefits to the
Redevelopment Agency is $2,561 and to the Development Services Department is
$1,450. The additional costs will be absorbed within the respective departments'
budgets, and the salades will be appropriated accordingly in the fiscal year 2006-
2007 budget.
Coordinated With: Finance and Administration Department
City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT SALARY
SCHEDULE FOR THE POSITIONS OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
REDEVELOPMENT AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynwood has adopted an Employee
Classification and Position Plan and on occasion amends the plan as needed; and
wHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynwood has adopted a salary
resolution with salary schedules for Management Employees'; and
wHEREAS, the City identified a need to upgrade salary levels of identified
positions; and
WHEREAS, the City Negotiator has informed the employee bargaining group
regarding the proposed modifications.
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Lynwood does hereby find,
determine, order and resolve as follows:
Section 1... Amend the Employee Classification Plan and the Management
Employees' Salary Schedule to adjust the salary range as follows:
Classification current Range 8, SalarY New Range & SalarY
Deputy Director of 56 M 67M
Redevelopment $5013.55 - $6105.83 $6576.15 - $8002.59
Deputy Director of 60M 66M
Development Services $5525.98 - $6740.41 $6414.69 - $78!3.05
Section 2, That the modifications so ordered by this resolution shall become
effective immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this
day of ., 2006.
LETICIA VASQUEZ, MAYOR
ATTEST:
ANDREA HOOPER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ,
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CITY ATTORNEY
SANDRA ROCHA, DIRECTOR OF
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN
RESOURCES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SECRETARY OF THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AMENDING
THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE FOR
THE POSITIONS OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT AND DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' WAS DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD IN THE
CITY HALL OF SAID CITY ON THE ~ DAY OF , 2006, AND
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Andrea L. Hooper,
City Clerk
2
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorablesandra Rocha,May°r & City Council M~I~
N. Enrique Uartinez, City Uanage_~,/'_.~_////,
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Finan
Director of Human Resource~v~
SUBJECT:
EXEMPTING THE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES
AND DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES FROM THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM AND
AUTHORIZING FILLING OF TWO DEPARTMENT HEAD
POSITIONS BY AN OPEN EXAMINATION PROCESS
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO EXEMPT
THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS: DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE
SERVICES, AND DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES,
FROM THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING BY A 4/5 VOTE THE
STAFFING OF BOTH POSITIONS BY OPEN EXAMINATION."
Background:
In accordance with Govemment Code Section 45001, on September 7, 1982 the City
adopted Ordinance No. 1178 which states that offices, positions, and employment in the
service of the City may be exempt from the coverage of classified service as from time
to time specified by resolution of. the City Council. Further, City Personnel Rule VII,
Section 2 provides that prior to conducting examinations for Department Head positions,
a 415 Council vote may authorize said examinations to be open in nature. The
examination process for the Director of Quality of Life Services has commenced, and
recruitment for the Director of Recreation and Community Services will soon begin.
Staff seeks a 4/5 Council vote approving filling of both Department Director positions by
means of an open examination. Such examinations will reasonably provide for eventual
retention of the most qualified individuals.
Discussion & Analysis:
The City currently has vacancies in the Director of Quality of Life Services and Director
of Recreation and Community Services positions. In order to attract highly-skill~
~ r -AGENDA
ITEM
professionals to the respective vacancies and aid the City in the recruitment, selection
and discharge processes, it is in the best interest of the City to both exempt these
positions from the personnel system, and to conduct recruitment by means of open
examinations. Staff proposes to hire an executive search firm to conduct the
recruitment for the Director of Recreation and Community Services position.
It is a common practice for Executive Management positions to be exempt from
classified service. Additionally, this will allow the organization to demand an exemplary
level of performance to individuals appointed to these positions.
Fiscal Impact:
The action recommended in this report does not have a fiscal impact. However, if an
outside executive search firm is hired; the cost for the recruitment may be approximately
$27,000. The Human Resources Department will return to the City Council on May 16,
2006 for approval to award a contract to the recommended executive search firm.
Coordinated With: Finance and Administrative Department
City Manager's Office
City Attomey's Office
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
EXEMPT THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS: DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF
LIFE SERVICES, AND DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES, FROM THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING BY A 4/5
VOTE THE STAFFING OF BOTH POSITIONS BY OPEN EXAMINATION
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood is authorized by Government Code
section 45001 to adopt an ordinance establishing a personnel system for the
selection, employment, classification, advancement, suspension, discharge, and
retirement of appointive officers and employees; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood established a personnel system through
Ordinances No. 671 and No. 728; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood adopted Ordinance No. 1178 relating to
exemptions from the personnel system on September 7, 1982; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1178 provides that other offices, positions,
and employment in the service of the City as may from time to time be specified
by resolution of the City Council to be exempt from the coverage of classified
service; and
WHEREAS, Section 18-3.2 of the Lynwood Municipal Code provides for
the City Manager and City CoUncil to set a position and compensation plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 18-9 of the Lynwood Municipal Code designates the
Appointing Authority for vadous positions; and
WHEREAS, the positions of Director of Quality of Life Services and
Director of Recreation and Community Services work closely with the City
Council and City Manager of the City of Lynwood; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that the City Manager has authority to ensure
that the positions of Director of Quality of Life Services and Director of
Recreation and Community Services carry out his directions appropriately; and
WHEREAS, the positions of Director of Quality of Life Services and
Director of Recreation and Community Services require a working relationship
different than that other line staff positions and as such should be exempt from
the personnel system; and
WHEREAS, an open examination for the Director of Quality of Life
Services and Director of Recreation and Community Services positions will
reasonably provide for retention of most qualified person in said position; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,
DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The personnel system shall not apply to the positions
Director of Quality of Life Services and Director of Recreation and Community
Services, as they are exempt.
Section 2. Appointments to the above positions will be made by the
Appointing Authority as defined in Section 18-9 of the Lynwood Municipal Code
with the compensation level to be set by the City Manager through an
employment contract.
Section 3. Appointments to said two Department Head positions shall
serve at the will of the Appointing Authority, with no showing of cause being
required to remove the incumbents from said positions, and the incumbents shall
have no rights of administrative or civil appeal of a dismissal decision.
Section 4. If approved by a 4/5 Council vote, the open examination
process for staffing the Director of Quality of Life Services classification shall be
completed by use of the open examination process, and staffing of the Director of
Recreation and Community Services classification shall be by an open
examination process.
Section 5. The above amendment shall be effective after adoption of
this RESOLUTION, and the open examination process shall be effective after
adoption of this RESOLUTION by a 4/5 Council vote.
Section 6. That this resolution becomes effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS
2006
DAY OF
ATTEST:
LETICIA VASQUEZ,' MAYOR
ANDREA L. HOOPER
CITY CLERK
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ,
CITY MANAGER
AppRoVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CITY ATTORNEY
SANDRA ROCHA, DIRECTOR
OF HUMAN RESOURCES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Lynwood City Council, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO EXEMPT THE FOLLOWING
CLASSIFICATIONS: DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES, AND
DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, FROM THE
PERSONNEL SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING BY A 4/5 VOTE THE STAFFING
OF BOTH POSITIONS BY OPEN EXAMINATION" was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lynwood at a regular meeting held in the City Hall of said
City on the . day of , 2006, and passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Andrea L. Hooper,
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Andrea L. Hooper, as Clerk to the City Council, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lynwood, at a regular meeting of said Council, held of the
~ day of 2006.
Executed this.
County, Califomia.
day of
2006, at Lynwood, Los Angeles
Andrea L. Hooper,
Secretary
4
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage~,/_~-.._~//'
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant City Manager- Finance~z.x
Sandra Rocha, Director of Human Resource~ ../
DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES- EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE RETENTION OF SERVICES FOR THE DIRECTOR OF
QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT".
Background:
On April 13, 2006, a candidate was selected for the position of the Director of Quality of
Life Services. An extensive search by the City's Human Resources Department was
conducted which resulted in an excellent pool of highly qualified applicants.
Discussion & Analysis:
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (the City's Special Counsel for labor and employment
matters) has drafted the attached at-will employment agreement. The City Manager
and the candidate have agreed on the terms and conditions contained in the
agreement.
The City interviewed the top three (3) candidates and selected Deborah Jackson, the
City's current Intedm Director of Quality of Life Services. Ms. Jacksonhas been with
the City of Lynwood for 17 years and has been successfully leading the Department
Quality of Life Services for approximately nine (9) months. Ms. Jackson will officially
start as the Director of Quality of Life Services on May 3, 2006.
Fiscal Impact:
The funding for this contract is available within the adopted Fiscal Year 2005-06
Operating Budget of the Department of Quality of Life Services.
Coordinated With: City Manager's Office
City Attomey's Office
Finance and Administration
Attachment A- Candidate's Resume
B - Employment Agreement
AGENDA
ri'EM
RESOLUTION NO. '
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE RETENTION
OF SERVICES FOR THE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood is a General Law City under Califomia law and
is governed by an elected City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a search to retain the services of a Director
of Quality of Life Services; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2006, a candidate was selected for the. position of
Director of Quality of Life Services based on the outcome of a competitive recruitment
and selection process.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE LYNWOOD CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute the attached AT-WILL
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT on behalf of the City as the Appointing Authority,
pursuant to Section 18-9 of the Lynwood Municipal Code.
Section 2. The Director of Quality of Life Services authorized and directed to
commence performance of duties upon the effective date of the agreement.
Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this. day of May 2006.
ATTEST:
LETICIA VASQUEZ, MAYOR
ANDREA L. HOOPER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
J. ARNOLDO BELTRAN,
CITY ATTORNEY
N. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ,
CITY MANAGER
Attachment A
Deborah L. Jackson
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS: · Strongly serf motivated and enthusiastic
· Conscientious and creative; eager to assume responsibility
· Proficient in developing working relationships with residents and businesses
EDUCATION:
CAUFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY DOMINGUEZ HILLS
CARSON, CALIFORNIA
Bachelor of Science Degree:
Concentration:
Public Administration
Urban Administration
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
1990- Present City of Lynwood, Lynwood~ California
9/05 - Present Interim Assistant Director of Public Works
· Manage Quality of Life Services Department consisting of Code
Enforcement, Right of Way, Graffiti, Landscape and Arbor
Services, Block Watch, Business Watch, and Citizens Requests
for Services
· Distribute and monitor assignments from City Manager to
Department Directors
· Manage contract for City tree trimming services
· Supervise Block Watch and Business Watch activities
· Supervise Quality of Life Education Campaign and weekend
clean up activities
· Coordinate joint activities with Code Enforcement and Sheriffs
Department COPPS Team
· Coordinate activities for Mayors Task Force
· Liaison for Business & Economic Development Roundtable
monthly meeting
7/04 - 9/05
Deputy Director- Recreation & Community Services
· Managed Natatorium and Sports Divisions
· Supervised Block Watch and Business Watch aclivities
· Prepared Divisions budgets
· Supervised grant writer and assisted in preparation of City grant
submissions
· Staff Liaison for Recreation and Parks Commission and Mayors
Senior Center Advisory Committee
Attachment A
11/01 - 7/04
1197- 11/01
12/95 - 1/97
2/92 - 12/95
10/90 - 2/92
· Liaison for Business & Economic Development Roundtable
monthly meeting
Recreation Superintendent- Recreation & Community Services
· Served as Deputy Director
· Managed Senior Citizens Program
· Liaison for Senior Citizens Advisory Board and Mayors Senior
Center Advisory Committee
· Liaison for Parks & Recreation Commission
· Supervised City Dial-a-Taxi program
· Managed contracts for Child Care Consultant and Sports
Ambassador
Project Manager/Election Coordinator - City Clerks Office
· City Election Coordinator - 1999 and 2001 elections
· Served as Deputy City Clerk
· Researched and monitored Public Information requests
· Liaison for Business & Economic Development Roundtable
monthly meeting
Project Manager - City Manager's Office
· Managed "Tree of Life" Youth Employment Program
· Liaison for Law Enforcement Review.Board
· Coordinated special events
· Liaison for Business & Economic Development Roundlable
monthly meeting
Project Manager- Facilities Maintenance Department
· Managed Weed Abatement Program and reporting to County
Assessor
· Supervised Graffiti Division
· Coordinated City/County General Relief Workfare project
Administrative Assistant to the City Manager
· Served as Public Information Officer
· Performed legislative analysis
· Responded to and followed up on citizens requests for services
· Liaison between City and Law Enfomement contract services
· Liaison for Business & Economic Development Roundtable
monthly meeting
2
Attachment A
6/89 - 7/90
5/87 - 6/89
City of Inglewood~ Inglewood~ California
Administrative Analyst
City of Compton, Compton California
Administrative Analyst
REFERENCES: Available upon request
3
Attachment B
AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
AND
DEBORAH L. JACKSON
This AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made by and
between the City of Lynwood ("City") and Deborah L. Jackson ("Employee"). The City and
Employee may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as "the Parties".
RECITALS
City desires to hire Employee as an at-will employee in the position of Director of
Quality of Life Services. Employee desires to be the Director of Quality of Life Services and
acknowledges that such employment is at-will.
The City Manager, pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council, agrees to hire
Employee, as an at-will employee, subject to the terms and conditions identified below.
AGREEMENT
Section 1: TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from May 3, 2006, until terminated by either Party.
Employee is an at-will employee and may be terminated, with or without cause, and with or
without notice, at any time by the City Manager. Employee may resign at any time. May 3
shall be Employee's "Hire Date" for purposes of this Agreement
Section 2: DUTIES
/~ City engages Employee as the Director of Quality of Life Services to perform the
functions and duties specified in the job description for the position (Attached as Exhiba "A" tO
this Agreement) as the same may be modified by the City Manager, from time to time, and to
perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Manager
shall, from time to time, assign.
B. Employee agrees that to the best of his or her ability and experience that he or she
will at all times conscientiously perform the duties and obligations required, either express or
implied, by the terms of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions and adopted policies of the
City and the laws and regulations of the State of California and the United States.
C. As a public employee, Employee is required to work a full and complete work
week pursuant to the established work schedule as determined by the City Manager, and devote
whatever time is necessary to fulfill the employment responsibilities and duties as identified in
this Agreement.
D. During the term of this A~eement, Employee is required to have and maintain a
valid California Driver's license.
E. Employee acknowledges that in connection with the performance of his or her
duties, he or she will obtain information fi.om City employees and third parties that are of a
confidential nature. Employee agrees that he or she will not disclose such confidential
information other than to officers and employees of the City who have been authorized to have
access to such information. Employee further agrees that if he or she has a question as to the
confidentiality of information obtained in the course of his or her employment, he or she will
contact the City Manager for advice.
Section ~: EXCLUSIVE EMI~~NT
Employee agrees to focus his or her full professional time, ability and attention to City
business during the term of this Agreement. Consequently, Employee agrees not to engage in
any other business pursuits, whatsoever, directly or indirectly, render any services of a business,
commercial, or professional nature to any other person or organization, for compensation,
without the prior written consent of the City Manager. This does not preclude Employee from
volunteering his services to other entities or individuals as long as such volunteer services are not
in conflict with the services to be provided by Employee under this Agreement.
Section 4: COMPENSATION
As compensation for the services to be rendered by Employee, City agrees to pay
Employee a salary of $91,465.08 per year payable in twenty-six (26) biweekly installments at the
same time as other employees of the City are paid and subject to customary withholding. In
addition, employee shall receive any Cost of Living Adjustment awarded to the Management
Bargaining Group through City Council resolution. Increases, if any, in Employee's salary
during the term of this Agreement, shall be at the sole discretion of the City Manager based upon
the City Manager's evaluation of Employee's job performance as set forth in Section 5 of this
Agreement.
Section 5: PERFORMANCE REVIEWS AND MERIT ADJUSTMENTS
Upon employment and annually, or more frequently at the discretion of the City
Manager, the City Manager will define goals and performance objectives for Employee. Said
goals and objectives will be placed in writing and used to evaluate the performance of Employee.
Employee will receive an evaluation one (1) year fxom the hire date established in this
Agreement and annual reviews thereafter by the City Manager. The City Manager may write
more frequent evaluations in his or her discretion. Based on these performance evaluations, the
Employee may, at the discretion of the City Manager, receive a salary adjustment (merit
increase) based on the Employee's performance as evaluated by the City Manager. In no event
shall Employee's merit increase exceed five percent (5%) per year. A merit increase of up to
five percent (5%) per year will only be available in the event that Employee satisfies all the
performance criteria established by the City Manager for Employee. Should Employee satisfy
some, but not all, the performance criteria established by the City Manager for Employee,
Employee may be eligible for a merit increase of less than five percent (5%) per year, in the City
Manager's sole discretion.
2
Section 6: BENEFITS
A. Car Allowance
City shall provide an automobile, or an automobile allowance to Employee of $500.00
per month while he or she is employed by the City.
B. Other Employee Benefits, And Cost of Living Increases
In addition to the benefits set forth in this Agreement, Employee shall receive the benefits
provided by the City to members of the Lynwood Management Bargaining Group except for
License and Certificate Incentive Pay. To the extent benefits provided under this Agreement are
similar to those provided to Lynwood Management Bargaining Group; Employee shall receive
only those benefits provided under this Agreement, and not both. Should members of the
Lynwood Management Bargaining Group receive a cost of living increase in salary, Employee
shall receive the same percentage increase in salary as a cost of living increase. The cost of
living increases shall be in addition to any merit increases that Employee may receive under
Section 5 of this Agreement
Section 7: TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAY
A. Employee is an at-will employee and serves at the will and pleasure of the City
Manager and may be terminated at any time without cause.
B. In the event that Employee is terminated by the City Manager more than one-
hundred-eighty (180) days al~er the Hire Date, for reasons other than physical or mental
incapacity, or those reasons noted in subsection F., below, the City agrees to pay Employee
severance pay equal to two (2) months salary (but not benefits) at the Employee's salary at the
date of termination.
C. To be eligible for severance pay, as identified in Paragraphs B and C of this
section, Employee shall fulfill all of his obligations under this Agreement and shall sign an
acknowledgement and release of claims against the City. Such acknowledgement and release
appears as Attachment "B"to this Agreement.
D. All severance payments shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of
Employee's last date of employment.
E. Notwithstanding subsections A, B and C, above, if Employee retires or is
terminated due to insubordination, incapacity, dereliction of duty, addiction to a controlled
substance or alcohol, which addiction impairs Employee's job performance, conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude or involving personal gain to him, any felony or a breach of this
Agreement, City shall have no obligation to pay any severance provided in this section.
F. At termination, Employee shall be paid for all earned, but unused, vacation time.
Section 8: RESIGNATION/RETIREMENT
Employees may resign at any time. Employee may retire, provided he is eligible for
retirement, at any time. Employee agrees to provide thirty (30) calendar days advance written
notice of the effective date of his or her resignation or retirement.
In the event Employee retires or resigns, Employee shall be entitled to payment for
earned, but unused, vacation time, but not to severance pay as delineated in Section 7,
subsections B and C.
Section 9: DISABILITY
If Employee is permanently disabled or otherwise unable to perform his duties because of
sickness, accident, injury, mental incapacity or health for a period of thirty (30) calendar days
beyond any earned sick leave, City shall have the option to terminate this Agreement. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict Employee's benefits or fights under Workers'
Compensation, the Public Employees' Retirement System ("PERS")-:nSr the Americans with
Disabilities Act or California Family Rights Act.
However, an employee terminated under this section is not eligible for severance pay as
delineated in Section 7, subsections B and C of this Agreement.
In cases of disability, Employee shall be compensated for any earned, but unused,
vacation leave.
Section 10.
RESTRICTION ON POST
RELATIONSI~IP WITH THE CITY
EMPLOYMENT
ECONOMIC
The undersigned Director of Quality of Life Services shall as a condition of employment
with the City of Lynwood, shall not seek employment/remuneration for himself or others, nor
accept any remuneration from the City or from any person or entity performing compensated
services for the City, for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months following separation of
employment. No person or entity having any economic or similar relationship with Director of
Quality of Life Services, shall be permitted to create or maintain a relationship with the City
which presently or forseably in the future, may result in remuneration to said perSOn or entity.
Section 11: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Notice
Any notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and either delivered in person
or by first class, certified, return receipt requested U.S. mail with postage prepaid. Such notices
shall be addressed as follows:
TO CITY:
City ManaSer
City of Lynwood
~4
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, California 90262
TO EMPLOYEE:
Deborarh L. Jackson
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, California 90262
B. Entire Agreement
The text of this Agreement shall constitute the entire and exclusive agreement between
the parties. All prior oral or written communications, understandings, or agreements between the
Parties, not set forth herein, shall be superseded in total by this Agreement. No amendment or
modification to this Agreement may be made except by a written agreement signed by the
Employee and the City Manager and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
C. Assignment
This Agreement is not assignable by either the City or Employee.
D. Severability
In the event that any provision of this Agreement is finally held or determined to be
illegal or void by a court having jurisdiction over the Parties, the remainder of this Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect unless the parts found to be illegal or void are wholly
inseparable from the remaining portions of this Agreement.
E. Effect of Waiver
The failure of either Party to insist on strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants,
or conditions in this Agreement by the other Party shall not be deemed a waiver of that term,
covenant or condition, nor shall any waiVer or relinquishment of any right or power at any one
time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of that right or power for all'or any other
time or times.
F. Jurisdiction
Any action to interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement shall be held exclusively in
a state court in Los Angeles County, California. Employee expressly waives any right to remove
any such action from Los Angeles County.
G. Effective Date
This Agreement shall not become effective until it has been signed by Employee, and
approved by the City Manager. ,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Lynwood has caused this Agreement to be
signed and executed in its behalf by its City Manager, and duly attested by its City Clerk, and
executed by the Employee.
CITY OF LYNWOOD,
Dated: ,
City Manager
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
In signing this Agreement, Employee understands and agrees that he or she is an at-will
employee and that his or her fights to employment with the City are governed by the terms and
conditions of this Agreement rather than the ordinances, resolutions, and policies of the City of
Lynwood which might otherwise apply to employees of the City. Employee further
acknowledges that he was given the oppommity to consult with an attorney prior to signing this
Agreement.
Dated: Signed:
Deborah Jackson
Director of Quality of Life Svs.
6
CITY OF LYNWOOD
Exhibit A
DIRECTOR OF QUALITY OF LIFE SERVICES
DEFINITION
Under administrative direction of the City Manager to plan, organize and administer the
Quality of Life Services department including Code Enforcement, Graffiti Removal, Alley
and Weed Abatement, Landscaping Maintenance and Arbor Services, Block Watch
activities, Citizen Requests for Services, and other related neighborhood and
community service programs.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
Administers all quality of life issues including Code Enforcement operations;
coordinating community clean up and anti-litter campaigns an~programs; coordinate
activities of Mayor's Quality of Life Task Force; provides recommendations to the City
Manager and City Council on objectives, level of service, schedules and other operating
aspects of the above areas and other related services as assigned; maintains personal
contact with residents, organizations and business community to promote participation
in developing neighborhood and business improvement programs particular to their
environment; serves as staff liaison with Cai Trans contracts and services; directs
preparation of and administers Quality of Life Services budget; prepares reports and
agenda items; determines the effectiveness and/or impact of programs and services
being provided; interprets and explains policies, procedures, rules and regulations of the
City as they pertain to quality of life issues; coordinates with City departments,
residents, businesses and community groups to ensure problems are satisfactorily
resolved in compliance with established laws, rules, regulations and procedures; keeps
apprised of changes in laws, codes ordinances and City policies; conducts research and
special studies as assigned by the City Manager; provides supervision, training' and
evaluation of the Quality of Life Services staff; attends City Council and Commission
meetings as required; performs other related duties as assigned.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT
Possession of an appropriate California driver's license issued by the State
Department of Motor Vehicles.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATION
Knowledge of:
Modern methods, techniques
between agencies;
and practices
of contract negotiations and services
Director of Quality of Life Services (Continued)
Principles, practices and procedures of public administration, management
organization;
Techniques of financial, management and administrative analysis;
Principles and practices Of varied community and public services;
Functions, operation and objectives of a municipal government organization;
Applicable City, County and State laws, codes and ordinances;
Report writing methods and techniques;
Principles and practices of supervisions, training and budget administration;
Effective public relations methods;
Principles and practices involved in implementing innovative community
programs;
Computers and computer applications.
and
based
and
Ability to: ~_
Plan, organize, direct and coordinate a comprehensive quality of life activities and
programs;
Effective organize and formulate policies and procedures pertaining to City community
programs;
Analyze and develop community participation and recommendations;
Provide technical assistance to Lynwood citizens, community organizations,
Commissions, and committees;
Initiate research studies and reports including the collection, organization, analysis and
development of administrative and management recommendations;
Prepare and present comprehensive written and oral reports;
Follow up and resolve issues;
Establish and maintain cooperative work relationships with those contacted in the
course of work;
Build partnerships within and outside the City;
Supervise and train subordinate personnel.
and
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
Any combination of training and experience which would provide the required
knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain these knowledges and
abilities would be:
Seven years of professional experience in managing code enforcement, graffiti,
right of way, or related quality of life activities, including at least three years in a
supervisory or administrative capacity.
Director of Quality of Life Services (Continued)
EDUCATION
Graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with a Degree in
Public Administration, Business Administration, Industrial Relations, Finance, Public
Policy or a closely related field is required. Possession of a Master's Degree in a field
noted above is preferred and may be substituted for one year of the required
experience.
Effective Date: February 2006
ATTACHMENT B
ACKNOWI,EDGMENT AND RELEASE
This is to confirm that on this date I have received severance pay in the amount of
$ pursuant to my employment agreement with the City of Lynwood ("City"). I
acknowledge that, in accepting such severance pay, I am releasing the City, its employees,
officers and agents, from any and all claims of any kind or nature I had or may have had against
the City arising from my employment with the City.
I further acknowledge that this Acknowledgement and Release releases the City from and
waives any claim I may have against the City, its employees, officers and agents, stemming from
my employment relationship, including the severance thereof; to the fullest extent permissible
under the law.
I further acknowledge that this waiver extends to all claims, known and unknown,
relative to my employment with and cessation of my employment with the City. I specifically
waive the application of Civil Code Section 1542, which provides.
A general release does not extent to claims which the creditor does not know or
suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if
known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the
debtor.
Specific Acknowledgment,of Waiver of Claims under ADEA and OWBPA
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") makes it illegal for an
employer to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate with respect to the nature and
privileges of an individual's employment on the basis that the individual is age forty or older.
The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA"), 29 USC Sections 626, et. seq., further
augments the ADEA and prohibits the waiver of any fight or claim under the ADEA unless the
waiver is knowing and voluntary. By entering into this Acknowledgement and Release, I
acknowledge that I am knowingly and voluntarily, for just compensation in addition to anything
of value of which I am already entitled, waiving and releasing any rights I may have under the
ADEA and/or OWBPA. I acknowledge that I have been advised and understand, pursuant to the
provisions of the ADEA and OWBPA, that:
a. This Acknowledgement and Release, including this waiver/release, is written ina
manner I understand.
b. I am aware of and have been advised by legal counsel of my own choosing of my
rights under the ADEA and OWBPA, and of the legal significance of my waiver of any possible
claims I currently may have under the ADEA, OWBPA, or similar age discrimination laws.
c. I am entitled to a reasonable time of at least twenty-one (21) days within which to
review and consider this Acknowledgement and Release, including the waiver and release of any
rights I may have under the ADEA, the OWBPA, or similar age discrimination laws, but I may,
in the exercise of my own discretion, sign or reject this Acknowledgement and Release at any
time before the expiration of the twenty-one (21) day period.
d. The waivers and releases set forth in this Acknowledgement and Release shall not
apply to any rights or claims that may arise under the ADEA and/or OWBPA after the effective
date of this Acknowledgement and Release.
e. I am hereby advised that I should consult with an attorney prior to executing this
Acknowledgement and Release.
f. I have had an opportunity to discuss this Acknowledgement and Release,
including this waiver/release, with, and to be advised with respect thereto, by an attorney of my
choice, and I do not need any additional time within which to review and consider this
Acknowledgement and Release. ~
g. I have seven (7) days following my execution of this Acknowledgement and
Release to revoke this Acknowledgement and Release.
h. This Acknowledgement and Release shall not be effective nor enforceable until
after it is executed by all the Parties thereto and after the expiration of the seven (7) day
revocation period set forth in the preceding paragraph.
I have had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel relative to this
Acknowledgement and Release. I have signed this Acknowledgement and Release voluntarily
and willingly.
Dated:
Employee
2
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
Date:
To:
Approved By:
Prepared By:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of ~l~,~i,,t~ouncil
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage~,'/,/,.,J/'/'
Autra C. Adams, Int. Dir. Recreation & Community Services
Perry Brents, Deputy Director
Subject:
Request for Special Permit:
United Citizens of Lynwood - Mother's Day Celebration
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council review the staff report and provide direction
on the sponsorship of the United Citizens of Lynwood Mother's Day Celebration.
Background:
A request has been made by the United Citizens of Lynwood to close a portion of
San Luis Avenue, (between Norton and Abbott) to conduct a Mother's Day
Celebration on Friday, May 12, 2006.
Discussion & Analysis:
The applicant is requesting the use of the City's stage, tables, chairs, and
canopies. In addition they are requesting the City to pay for rental of lights
(towers), and portable restrooms. Events of this nature also necessitate the
rental of a garbage dumpster. The applicant is also requesting that the City
waive all permit fees.
In the past, the City has supported this type of activity at varying levels for Fourth
of July and Christmas celebrations. The support has ranged from approval of
street closures only to providing set up and staffing at the level of this request.
Conditions:
· Sheriff's Department - The Sheriff's Department did not impose any
conditions on this request.
· Fire Department - The Fire Department is requiring an emergency lane to
be maintained, no fire hydrants may be blocked, two (2) fire extinguishers,
no flammable liquids and no cooking except for warming.
· Public Works - The area included in the street closure must be fully
cleaned of all debris by the applicant.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
1. Approve the street closure for this Mother's Day Celebration with no
waiver of permit fees and the provision of no City of Lynwood
assistance beyond the basic requirements for the street closure.
2. Approve the street closure for this Mother's Day Celebration with a
waiver of permit fees and the provision of no City of Lynwood
assistance beyond the basic requirements for the street closure.
AGENDA
ITEM
,51
Approve this Mother's Day Celebration with a waiver of fees and
provide items and/or services requested by the group that can be
reasonably acquired by staff.
Denythis request. '
Fiscal Impact:
The following is an estimated breakdown of costs associated with the Mother's
Day Celebration based upon the applicant's requests:
Rental and Purchase Costs
Rental Usage of 2 portable toilets (includes delivery/pick-up) $ 200
Rental Usage of 2 street lights $ 475
Rental Usage of 1 trash dumpster $ 499
$1,174
Staff Costs
Staff Set-up/break-down barricades
Staff Set-up/break-down tables and chairs
Staff Set-up/break-down of city stage
$ 175
$ 250
$1,250
$1,675
Street Closure Permit Fee Waiver
$ 155
TOTAL COST
$ 3,004
The costs for this sponsorship request were not included in the 05/06 fiscal year
budget. Should the Council approve this request, staff will attempt to find funding
within the budget. However, if this endeavor is not successful an appropriation
from the general fund reserve up to $3,000 may be required. If the Council
approves this request with City assistance, some deviations from the normal
purchasing process such as pre-pay checks will be necessary.
Coordinated With: LA County Sheriffs Department, LA County Fire
Department, Development Services-Business License
Division, Public Works Department, Finance Department and
City Attorney's Office
Attachments: Application for Special Permit
recreatn/agenda 2006/SPECIAL PERMIT United Families of Lynwood Street Closure 5 02 06
CITY OF
NUMBER OF ~ERSONS EblPLOYED ~/~ SeE
I~ ~ ~ EQL~b~al on N~er
INFOR~A~ON
~EVENT
.pR OF PERMIT REQUESTED
IS STRE~ Ct OSURE BEING REQUESTED ~SU - ' NO (CIRCLE ONE) .
IS THIS A FOR-PRO1 ITO EVENT* ICIRCLE ONE1
IF THIS IS a NON-PROFIT ~NT OR A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS BENEFIT A
NON PROFIT AGENCY OR ORGANI~TION PL~SF PRO'4OE THE FOLLO~NG
~TATE NON-PROFIT NUMBER
PHONE
ADDRESS OF ORGANI~TION
IF YES EXP~
A NEGOTIATED PERCENTAGE OF THE PHOCEED$ I$ p. EQUES'TEDTO BE DONATED TO THE'CITY'
I HEREBY ~,.ERTIFY rHA r ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS
COMPLETE AND THAT ANY MISSTATEMENTS OF MATERI
FORFEITURE OF FEES AND DENIAL OF PERMIT ~
t
SIGNATU~
ACC~:PTANCE~ OF THI. S ApPut..ATIOH FOR REV1EW 13c'L NOT la~Pt,Y ,~ THIS
PI=RMLT RFOIIIRteS CITY COUNC%t., APPROVAl. yI IWll !.. b~ NOTIF~ tC.~ORDINGI. Y
~3i~ARE TRUE AND
FOR CITY USE ONLY
YES NO
CITY CLERK: CONFLICT WITH PRIOR APPROVED EVENTS:
IF CONFLICTS EXIST, DESCRIBE:
EVENT
DATE APPLICANT
COMMENTS:/CONDITIoNsF'IRE DEP'Ti - APPROVED/NOFOR APPROVAL;CONDITIONS~APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS'~
SIGNATURE DATE
SHERIFF'S DEPT: ~ROVED/NO COND~PPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
COMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:
SIGNATURE~// DATE
PUBLIC WORKS APPROVED/NO CONDITIONS
COMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL: ,,
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
SIGNATURE DATE
COMM. DEV. DEPT; APPROVEI~/NO CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
COMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:
SIGNATURE DATE
RECREATION DEPT. APPROVED/NO CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
~;OMMENTS:/CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:
APPROVED/DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
APPLICANT NOTIFIED:
SIGNATURE DATE
4/18/200~ 12:56 PM FROM: Fax TO:
I STREET BARRICADE ON NORTON .
310 637-7784 PAGE: 002 OF 002
FOOD SERVING AREA/TENT , [
IINFO
TENT
STAGE
ENTERTAINMENT
TENT
300 CHAIRS
[JUMPER 2
IINFO
TENT
INFO
TENT
RTRF,F,T RARRICAFIE ON ARBC~'VI' AVF.NI
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor and City Council
N. Enrique Uartinez, City Manag_e,~',,Z.~.,_ ,/~'/. Finance ~ ~,'~ .
Marianna Marysheva, Assistant Gity' M~lhager-
Don Vestal, Interim Director of Redevelopment
Annette Potts, Deputy Director of Administrative Services
APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD'S DRAFT
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council, after review and consideration:
1. Approve the Consolidated Annual Action Plan (Consolidated
Plan) for
Fiscal Year 2006-2007;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE CITY'S
DEPARTMENT OFHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN AND FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006-2007"; and
3. Direct staff to submit the CDBG and HOME Grant Applications and the
Consolidated Plan to HUD prior to the May 15, 2006 deadline.
Background:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development requires cities to have an
approved Consolidated Plan, in order to receive Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program funds. The
Consolidated Plan serves as a planning document, an application for federal
funds, a strategy to be followed in carrying out HUD programs and an action plan
that provides a basis for assessing performance.
The Consolidated Plan includes:
· Executive Summary
· Housing Needs Assessment
Homeless Population Needs Assessment
· Special Population Needs Assessment
AGENDA'"
ITEM
Public and Assisted Housing Needs Assessment
· Lead Paint Hazard Reduction Strategy
· Community Development Needs Assessment
· Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan
· Anti-Poverty StrategyJision for the future
· Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Consolidated Plan
The Consolidated Plan reflects the goals and objectives identified within the 5-
Year Strategic Plan for housing and community development priorities, and lists
projects, programs and resources, which will assist in the implementation of the
5-Year Strategic Plan.
The City encourages citizen participation dudng the preparation of its
Consolidated Plans. Several hearings were held, hosted~ by the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Advisory Board Commission, in order to
obtain citizens input and comments on the City's housing and community
development needs for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
Discussion & Analysis:
A public hearing was held in January 2006, to allow Lynwood residents to
discuss and provide input on the City's housing and community development
needs. In February 2006, public service and community organization were
invited to a public meeting to provide their input on the City of Lynwood's housing
and community needs, and the services they could offer to meet those needs.
Based on these meetings, staff prepared the City's 2006-2007 Consolidated
Annual Action Plan. On April 5, 2006, a public hearing was held to obtain citizen
input on the draft Consolidated Plan. No negative input or comments were
received.
For fiscal year 2005-2006, the City had $2,024,754 in CDBG funds and $392,026
in HOME program funds for programs listed in Column "A" on the following page,
as approved by the City Council. The City expects to have $1,776,824 for CDBG
activities and $285,319 for the HOME program to use during Fiscal year 2006-
2007. The CDBG Commission reviewed proposals and allowed non-profit
organizations to give presentations for services for the upcoming fiscal year. The
CDBG Commission evaluated the proposals for consistency with the 5-year
Strategic Plan, and determined which activities would be most beneficial to
Lynwood residents. CDBG Commission made recommendations for Fiscal Year
2006-2007 funding, as listed in Column "B" on the following page.
The City Manager, given the opportunity to conduct an analysis of the 5-year
Consolidated Plan, 1-year Annual Plan, and the recommendations made by the
CDBG Commission, has provided alternative funding recommendations in
Column "C" on the following page.
Column "A"
FY2005-2006
A. CDBG Activities Council Approved Allocations
1) CDBG Administration 350,000
2) Fair Housing 17,990
FoundalJon
3) Section 108 Repayment 591,220
4) Street Improvements 445,081
5) Code Enforcement 350,000
Public Service
Activities
6) Senior Citizens Program 133,463
7) Crossing Guard 60,000
8) Natatorium 50,000
Lynwood Al~letics 7,000
9) Community Services
ARC of Southeast -0-
10) Los Angeles
Women Empowered
11) (RAFESAFE) -0-
12) Healthy Initiatiye -0-
13) Peace and Joy Center 10,000
14) Sunshine Daycare 10,000
15) Compton Dance -0-
Theatre Foundation
SUBTOTALS: $2,024,754
Column "B"
CDBG Commission's
Recommendations
328,000
18,000
598,324
430,000
150,000
80,000
60,000
60,000
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
$1,776,824
Column "C"
City Manager's
Recommendations
328,000
18,000
598,324
$200,000
$380,000
80,000
80,000
40,000
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
$1,776,824
Home Activities
Home Admin. 66,810 28,532 28,532
HOME CHODO 100,216 42,798 42,798
Rehabilitation 255,000 213,989 213,989
SUBTOTALS: $392,026 285,319 $285,319
TOTALS: $2,416,780 $2,062,143 $2,062,'I 43
Lynwood City Council, at its discretion and upon review and consideration of all
information, may amend the above recommendations for Fiscal Year 2006-2007
allocations.
In order to ensure timely submission of the CDBG and HOME Applications, and
2006-2007 Annual Plan, these documents must be submitted to HUD before May
15, 2006.
Fiscal Impact
The expected Fiscal Year 2006-07 funding for CDBG activities is $1,776,824,
and for the HOME program $285,319. These amounts are lower than the current
year's allocation, due to reductions at the federal level.
Coordinated with:
City Manager's Office
Redevelopment Department
Development Services
Quality of Life Services
Public Works Department
Recreation and Community Services
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD APPROVING THE CITY'S DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONSOLIDATED
ANNUAL PLAN AND FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
requires cities to have an approved Consolidated Annual Action Plan
(Consolidated Plan) order to receive Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME funds; and
WHEREAS, the Consolidated Plan serves as a planning document, an
application for federal funds, a strategy to be followed in carrying out HUD
programs, and an action plan that provides a basis for assessing
performance; and
WHEREAS, the City expects to have $1,776,824 in CDBG funds and
$285,319 in HOME funds available for Fiscal Year 2006-2007, to carry out
goals set in the Consolidated 2005-2010 Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood's Community Development Block
Grant Advisory Board Commission has conducted the required Public
Hearings to obtain citizen input on the draft Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Annual
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lynwood City Council has reviewed the draft
Consolidated Plan and taken into consideration public comments/input
relating to Lynwood's community development and housing needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of LynWood does
hereby find, determine, order and resolve as follows:
.Section 1. The Lynwood City Council approves the Consolidated
Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2006-2007, to include any amendments
made at the May 2, 2006, City Council meeting.
Section 2. The Lynwood City Council approves the following
allocations and activities for fiscal year 2006-2007, with the use of CDBG and
HOME funds as listed below:
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 ALLOCATIONS
ACTIVITIES
2. FAIR HOUSING FOUNDATION
3. SECTION 108 REPAYMENT
4. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
5. CODE ENFORCEMENT
6. SENIOR CITIZEN PROGRAM
7. LYNWOOD CROSSING GUARDS
8. NATATORIUM EXTENDED HRS.
9. LYNWOOD ATHELETICS COM. SERV.
10. ARC OF SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES
11. WOMEN EMPOWERED (RAPESAFE)
12. HEALTHY INITIATIVE
13. PEACE AND JOY CENTER
14. SUNSHINE DAYCARE
15. COMPTON DANCE THEATRE
HOME ACTIVITIES
A. HOME ADMINISTRATION
B. HOME CHDO
C. REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Section 3. This Resolution authorizes the required submittal of the
CDBG and HOME Applications and Consolidated Annual Action Plan Fiscal Year
2006-2007, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this
day of May 2006.
ATTEST:
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
City of Lynwood
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
N. Enrique Martinez
City Manager, City of Lynwood
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney - City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Lynwood at a regular meeting held on the day of Apdl 2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
)ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and the Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above foregoing is a full, true
and correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that
said Resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this
day of May 2006.
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council Me~b,~¢)
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager, r~//~Z,/'//-
J. Arnoldo Beltran, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Records Management, Allocation of Responsibilities for the
Same, and restatement of Statutory Duties for Certain Public Officials.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council consider the report set out below, evaluate the
alternatives to meet the stated goals in the records management area, and
provide further direction on the specific fUnctions of City staff and the City Clerk.
Background:
The City of Lynwood operates a City Manager form of government under which,
as stated in the Lynwood Municipal Code (the "Code"), the "City Manager shall
be the administrative head of the government of the City, under the direction and
control of the City Council." Under the general parameters set forth in California
Government Code section 34851, a city manager has the authority (in a general
law city such as Lynwood) to administer the day-to-day affairs of the city, hire
and fire employees and perform such other functions as the council may
authorize or delegate by ordinance. A clear delineation of these powers for the
Lynwood City Manager is found in Section 2-2.6 of the Code.
The position of City Clerk ("Clerk") is that of a constitutional officer of the
municipality and the same is provided for in California law at Government Code
section 36501. The position of Clerk may be elected or appointed. In the case of
Lynwood, the City Clerk is an elected official. Duties of the Clerk are set out at
California Government Code. Many of the specified duties are subject to transfer
to other designated City officials, and in Lynwood such has been the case with
regard to keeping the records reflecting the financial condition of the city,
certifying payrolls and counterSigning warrants, and the assessor's function
(which has been delegated to the Finance Director and/or the County).
Remaining official duties for the Clerk include: keeping records of the
proceedings of the legislative body, maintaining an index of ordinances, keeping
AGENDA-
IrEM
custody of the City seal and serving as City's filing officer for candidate
statements and statements of economic interest pursuant to the Political Reform
Act. In addition, Lynwood Municipal Code section 2-23.5 states that the Clerk
"may" be designated as the City's election official.
Powers of the Clerk include the appointment of deputies, "for whose acts he and
his bondsmen are responsible. Such deputies serve at the pleasure of the City
Clerk and receive such compensation as is determined by the legislative body."
The ability to designate or appoint a deputy or deputies does not, however, imply
the right to do so by hiring at the sole discretion of the City Clerk absent approval
of the funding by the Council for such a position and delegation of hiring authority
by the Council.
We have found no ordinance in Lynwood's Code that specifically describes the
areas in which the Clerk is accountable to the City Manager, nor any ordinance
that specifically delegates the City Council's authority over the Clerk to the City
Manager. To the contrary, Code section 2-2.6.b makes clear that the City
Manager is unable to employ, discharge or discipline the City Clerk, and such
disability also extends to the Clerk's appointed deputie(s).
The foregoing notwithstanding, jurisdiction over the Clerk's Department and the
appointed employees within it are not entirely removed from the jurisdiction of the
City Manager. For example, Code section 2-2.6.d permits the City Manager to
"exercise control over all departments and divisions of the City Government...
subject to the approval of the City Council" (emphasis added). Likewise, the
City Manager has the power "to make investigations into the affairs of the City or
any department or division thereof.., or the proper performance of any
obligations running to the City" (emphases added). The situation is similar with
respect to the purchase of supplies; Code section 2-2.6.e requires the City
Manager to supervise the purchase of all of the supplies for all of the
departments and divisions of the City (emphases added). Section 1-2 of the
Code defines the term 'department' as "an organizational unit of the government
established or designated by ordinance or otherwise, together with any agency or
instrumentality of the government assigned to such organizational unit by the City
Council." The Code does not provide a definition for the term 'division;' however
the 2005-2006 adopted budget identifies the Clerk position itself as a division of
the City Clerk Department.
Discussion & Analysis:
The City Clerk presently serves as City Clerk to the Lynwood Information Inc.,
and Secretary to the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency ("LRA"), the LynwoOd
Utility Authority ("LUA") and the Lynwood Public Finance Authority ("LPFA").
Each of these additional assignments are created pursuant to joint powers
agreements, bylaws and other actions of each of the respective bodies. There
are corresponding amounts of compensation associated with each position which
have been established pursuant to action by those bodies and/or the Council.
The duty of the City Clerk to serve as the Secretary to the LUA (a joint powers
authority) is set forth in article 4.01 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for
the LUA. Pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the bylaws of LPFA (another joint
powers authority), the City Clerk is designated as the Secretary of the Authority.
The origin of the City Clerk's designation as "City Clerk" to the LII, a California
non-profit corporation, is not presently known, as the copy of the bylaws in our
possession merely provide for the position of a secretary to the corporation and
do not designate the City Clerk. Appointment or designation to that position was
most likely done by an early resolution of the LII.
At the moment, the section of the Code that addresses the City Clerk (Section 2-
3) contains absolutely no information or details concerning the _p, osition. In light
of the omission, we believe the matter of the extent of the Clerk s responsibilities
and the City Manager's scope of authority over the operations and support of the
same for the Clerk's duties could best be addressed by the City Council
considering an ordinance to cover the desired and statutory responsibilities.
Such an ordinance should spell out the responsibilities the Council desires to
vest in the City Clerk (in addition to those duties mandated by statute and not
otherwise previously delegated to other departments or third parties such as the
County of Los Angeles). Further, the same ordinance can provide for the specific
administrative responsibility of the City Manager (a draft of such an ordinance is
attached).
In our review of this matter we have established that there are general law cities
that have considered this very issue. A clear example is in the City of Ontario
where the council has taken all records management functions from the City
Clerk and placed them in a "Records Management Department." A copy of this
section of the City of Ontario's Code is attached. You should also consider the
approach take by the City of Orange in creating a "Chief Clerk" position. A copy
of the pertinent section of the City of Orange's code is attached for review.
Alternatives:
Staff recommends Council consider the following alternatives:
* Receive and file this report.
* Initiate discussions with the City Clerk about Council's interest in
reorganization to accomplish the desired organization and functionality not
currently present in City Clerk operations. Such discussions will cover Council's
objectives in the reconsideration of previously assigned non-statutory duties to
the City Clerk.
* Establish the duties of the City Clerk as those duties which, by statute, may
only be performed by the City Clerk, and assign the City Manager all
responsibility for supporting the City Clerk, by way of staff and materials, in the
performance of those duties. A draft resolution containing such designation of
duties is attached for consideration by the Council.
* Request further consideration of the approaches taken by other cities like
Ontario (which has a separate individual serving as the Records Manager
reporting directly to the City Manager) and Orange (which presently has the City
Clerk serving as the Chief Clerk) to refine alternatives suitable to the goals and
objectives defined by the Council as necessary for the effective and efficient
functioning and performance of statutory duties by the City Clerk.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown at this time.
Coordinated With: City Manager's Office, Finance Department and Human
Resources.
4
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
APPROVED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
May 2, 2006
Honorable Mayor & City Council M~'t)~,~
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manage,,r/',/'.,,~/,//'
Don Vestal, Interim Director of Re~d'e~v~lo~~_~.
Leaonna Fletcher, Sr. Rehabilitation Specialist
TO AUTHORIZE AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A CITY
DESIGNATED COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION (CHDO), TO AQUIRE EITHER A FIVE
UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3382 NORTON
AVENUE OR A SIX UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3568 BRENTON AVENUE UTILIZING HOMEICHDO
FUNDS
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and approve one of the
attached Resolutions entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A FIVE UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3382 NORTON AVENUE BY AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A COMMUNITY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, (CHDO) AND TO ALLOCATE
ADDITIONAL CHDO FUNDS OF FY 2003 IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,052 TO
SUPPLEMENT THE CURRENT ALLOCATION OF $673,685".
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A SIX UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3568 BRENTON AVENUE BY AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A COMMUNITY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, (CHDO) AND TO ALLOCATE
ADDITIONAL CHDO FUNDS OF FY 2003 IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,052 TO
SUPPLEMENT THE CURRENT ALLOCATION OF $673,685".
AGENDA
ITEM
Background:
The City receives HOME Program funds to expand the supply of decent,
safe and sanitary and affordable housing. Per HOME Program regulation
92.205 (a) (1), HOME funds may be used to support affordable housing
through acquisition. Such housing must be permanent or transitional.
The acquisition of this property will be for the purpose of providing
permanent affordable housing to Iow-income tenant households that
currently reside in the City or will reside in the City in the future.
Per 92.204 (a)(2)(A), the City is required to commit HOME Program funds
to eligible activities "within twenty four months after the last day of the
month in which HUD notifies the entity of HUD's execution of the HOME
Investment Partnership Agreement."
o
The City received notifications from HUD in November 2005, February
and March 2006 reminding the City of their additional commitment shortfall
of $1,197,019 which must be committed in IDIS by August 31, 2006 or the
funds will be de-obligated. Other letters have been received reminding the
City that they have not expended the past 5 years of CHDO funds.
To prevent the further de-obligation of funds, on February 21, 2006, the
City Council approved Resolution No. 2006-029 authorizing the
reservation of $673,685 in HOME Program funds to American Family
Housing (CHDO) to be used for "Eligible Activities".
There are two properties available for sale that meets the HUD criteria.
The properties are located at 3382 Norton Avenue and 3568 Brenton
Avenue. Both properties are currently occupied by Iow-income tenants
and are not overcrowded. Council has the opportunity to select one of the
properties for the CHDO project.
The Iow-income tenant households will benefit from the purchase of this
property because the CHDO intends to rehabilitate the property and lower
monthly rents to the lowest possible HOME rents depending upon cost of
property, source and amount of funding.
Both properties were inspected by the CHDO. The estimated cost of
rehabilitation work is $75,000.
Based upon current funding, the CHDO would prefer to acquire and
manage the property located at 3568 Brenton Avenue. Staff recommends
that the Brenton Avenue property be selected.
Consultant to the City Gayle Bloomingdale also has an exclusive broker's
agreement with American Family Housing for purchases in Lynwood and
will be and therefore, will be the broker for the purchases if approved by
City Council. This relationship has been reviewed by the City Attorney
who has found no legal impediment. Staff feels that this is a item that
needs to be disclosed prior to any decision on the project.
Discussion & Analysis:
The properties are described as follows:
Address
Agreed Purchase
Prices
Listed Date
Number of Units
Type of Property
Year Built
Cost for Rehab
Current Rents
Number of
Parking stalls
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3382 Norton Avenue
$900,000.00
November 15, 2005
5 units all 2 bedrooms
Single Story House
(in front), 2 Story
Structure (in back)
1958
$75,000
$1000 for 2 bedroom unit
7 parking stalls
3568 Brenton
Avenue
$870,000.00
February 18, 2006
6 units of 4-2
bedrooms
2-1 bedrooms
2 Story Structure
1962
$70,00O
$925 for 2 bedroom
unit
$700 for 1 bedroom
unit
6 parking stalls
The HOME rents are limits set by HUD and are subject to change annually (see
attached 2006 HOME rent chart).
The original allocated HOME/CHDO funds of $673,685 and a primary loan of
approximately $277,000 to $300,000 must be obtained by the CHDO for the
estimated remaining acquisition costs of ($227,000 for Norton or $203,000 for
Brenton and the estimated rehab costs of $75,000) which will allow for the
completion of the purchase and rehabilitation of the property. The CHDO will also
contribute $5,000 cash toward the acquisition costs (good faith deposit) and pay
for closing costs (estimated to be $3,000).
Staff recommends the property with the lowest HOME rent if the debt service on
the primary lender's loan does not make the lowest rents infeasible. However,
the cash flow using the Iow HOME rents is limited. The amount of the mortgage
the Iow HOME rents will support is approximately $200,000 based upon
calculations by the Consultant using a 15-year affordability term and a
commercial loan at a 7% interest rate. The cash flow must be able to repay the
mortgage amount and other operating costs such as maintenance, reserves,
advertising, utilities, insurance, taxes, vacancy allowance/eviction activities etc.
Therefore, either additional HOME/CHDO funds need to be added to the project
to reduce the loan amount or the CHDO may have to charge up to the high
HOME rent. It is recommended that the additional available CHDO funds of FY
2003 $105,052 be allocated toward the purchase of the selected property.
The Redevelopment Agency Committee meeting was scheduled for April 12,
2006 and continued until April 19, 2006 at which time committee members were
not all in attendance so therefore no recommendation was given.
Fiscal Impact:
The approval of this property acquisition will authorize the expenditure of
$673,685 in HOME/CHDO funds, some of which must be expended by the
August 31, 2006 deadline and the allocation of FY 2003 $105,052 of CHDO
funds which will be committed and expended. The $673,685 is the funding that
the City committed to American Family Housing on February 21, 2006 via
Resolution 2006-029. The expenditure of these funds and the commitment of the
FY 2003 of $105,052 will not impact the General Fund and the City will meet its
requirement with HUD.
Coordinated With:
City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
Finance Department
Attachments:
Resolutions
Property Listings, 2006 HOME Program Rent Limits
HOME Reservation and Commitment Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF A FIVE UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3382
NORTON AVENUE BY AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, (CHDO)
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood administers a HOME Program pursuant
HUD/HOME guidelines located at Title 24 CFR, Part 92; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with HUD guidelines, the City of Lynwood is required
to commit and spend 15% of the City's annual allocation of its HOME funds to qualified
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) project(s); and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2006 the City approved Resolution 2006-029,
reserving HOME/CHDO funds in the amount of $673,685, which implemented a HOME
Participation Agreement between the City of Lynwood and American Family Housing, a
qualified CHDO, to assist the City in carrying out the HOME requirements of providing
affordable housing opportunities to Iow and very Iow income households/residents; and
WHEREAS, the City must commit FY 2003 $105,052 in HOME/CHDO funds by
August 31, 2006; and
WHEREAS, a purchase and sale agreement for the property located at 3382
Norton Avenue, Lynwood California, 90262, has been made by the CHDO, for the
purchase price of $900,000. A primary loan of approximately $300,000 for acquisition
and rehabilitation loan must be obtained by the CHDO and the City of Lynwood will
provide the HOME funds in the amount of $673,685; and
WHEREAS, the agreed prices and terms for the property located at 3382 Norton
Avenue are fair and will provide additional affordable rental housing units to the City of
Lynwood's eligible households; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide affordable housing at the lowest HOME
rent possible for the benefit of Iow-income eligible households.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City of Lynwood as follows:
Section 1. The City hereby finds that the purchase and sale agreement between
American Family Housing (the "Buyer") and Claudio and Elsira Baca (the "Seller") is fair
and that adequate price and terms for the property located at 3382 Norton Avenue,
Lynwood, California, 90262 have been met.
Page I of 4
Section 2. The City finds that the purchase price of $900,000 for the property
located at 3382 Norton Avenue in the City of Lynwood is in accordance with the Federal
HOME Program and is consistent with the HOME Participation Agreement approved by
the City Council on February 21, 2006.
Section 3. The City allocates the available 2003 HOME/CHDO funds in the
amount of $105,052 which must be committed by August 31, 2006 towards the purchase
of the selected property, thereby ensuring that the Low HOME rents can be utilized to
provide affordable housing.
Section 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign all agreements and contracts on
behalf of the City that are required to complete this transaction. The City Manager or his
designee is hereby authorized, by the City of Lynwood to sign all other documents
necessary and appropriate to carry out this eligible activity and to execute a HOME
Program Agreement for the real property known as 3382 Norton Avenue located in the
City of Lynwood, California 90262.
Section 5. The City approves the following appropriation from the
Unappropriated HOME Program Fund Balance to the HOME Program Land and Building
Fund 34-4135-4314.
FROM
Unappropriated HOME
Program Fund Balance
Fund 34
$778,737
TO
HOME Program
Land and Building
A/Cfi 34-4135-4314
$778,737
Section 5. This Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2006.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
Page 2 of 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Arnoldo Beltran, City Attorney
Don Vestal, Interim Director of Redevelopment
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Lynwood at a regular meeting held on the day of ,2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Page 3 of 4
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the Lynwood City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution was
adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this .day of ,2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO.~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD TO
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF A SIX UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3568
BRENTON AVENUE BY AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING, A COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, (CHDO)
WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood administers a HOME Program pursuant
HUD/HOME guidelines located at Title 24 CFR, Part 92; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with HUD guidelines, the City of Lynwood is required
to commit and spend 15% of the City's annual allocation of its HOME funds to qualified
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) project(s); and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2006 the City approved a HOME Participation
Agreement between the City of Lynwood and American Family Housing, a qualified
CHDO, to assist the City in carrying out the HOME requirements of providing affordable
housing opportunities to Iow and very Iow income households/residents; and
WHEREAS, a purchase and sale agreement for the property located at 3568
Brenton Avenue, Lynwood California, 90262, has been made by the CHDO, for the
agreed upon purchase price of $870,000. A primary loan for approximately $275,000
acquisition and rehabilitation loan must be obtained by the CHDO and the City of
Lynwood will provide the HOME funds in the amount of at least $673,685; and
WHEREAS, the agreed prices and terms for the property located at 3568 Brenton
Avenue are fair and will provide additional affordable rental housing units to the City of
Lynwood's eligible households.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City of Lynwood as follows:
Section 1. The City hereby finds that the purchase and sale agreement between
American Family Housing (the "Buyer") and Dan and Jacqueline M. Damon .(the "Seller")
is fair and that adequate price and terms for the property located at 3568 Brenton
Avenue, Lynwood, California, 90262 have been met.
Section 2. The City finds that the agreed upon purchase price of $870,000 for
the property located at 3568 Brenton Avenue in the City of Lynwood is in accordance with
the Federal HOME Program and is consistent with the HOME Participation Agreement
approved by the City Council on February 21,2006.
Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign all agreements and contracts on
behalf of the City that are required to complete this transaction.
Page I of 4
The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized, by the City of Lynwood to sign all
other documents necessary and appropriate to carry out this eligible activity and to
execute a HOME Program Agreement for the real property known as 3568 Brenton
Avenue located in the City of Lynwood, California 90262.
Section 4. The City approves the following appropriation from the
Unappropriated HOME Program Fund Balance to the HOME Program Land and Building
Fund 34-4135-4314.
FROM
Unappropriated HOME
Program Fund Balance
Fund 34
$778,737
TO
HOME Program
Land and Building
NC# 34-4135.4314
$778,737
Section 5. This Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2006.
Leticia Vasquez, Mayor
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Amoldo Beltran, City Attorney
Don Vestal, Interim Director of Redevelopment
Page 2 of 4
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Lynwood at a regular meeting held on the .day of ,2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and Clerk of the Lynwood City
Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of Resolution No. on file in my office and that said resolution was
adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated.
Dated this day of .,2006.
City Clerk, City of Lynwood
Page 3 of 3
tie Bloomingdale
RIN Active
,..,sidential Income
3382 Norton Ave
S419855 Media: 3_
Have 1 House+4 Units
XSTS S/Imperial N/California
Lynwood (LNWD)
Los Angeles County (LA)
Features Direct Garage Access, Parking Space, No Pool
Terms Cash To New Loan
List Type Exclusive Right To Sell/Full Service
Zip 90262-2550 ' Loans
Price/Unit $
View
Prices 900,000
APNO 6191-007-005
Area Lynwood (RM)
Aerial Map~
Gr Schd Inc $ 69,600
TG 705B6
Units 5
Gross Equity
',-.' . Cap Rate 5.68% Poss
m building with large unit mix in quiet neighborhood. 3 bed/2 bath Owner's unit in front and four 2 bed units with 7 garages! Close to market rents and
dry income make great investments. Newer outside paint. Will need 35% down. Owner currently lives on property. Occupants are unaware of sale.
ss + Cap are based on markets rents, expenses estimated.
I inancial Analysis (ANNUAL)
$ 69,600 Tax Area 6089
ss Sched Income
ancy Allow
ss Oper Income
rating Exp
Oper Income
~ Payment
ss Spend Income
Rate
~s MultiPlier
8R Bath P Rent
0
1000
3 2 U 1400
2 I U 1100
ised
:r Income
Tot4000
$ $
· 7 @
Id Eqmt $300
thly GSI 4,300
2% $1,392
$ 68,208
25%$17,052
$ 51,156
$
$
5.68%
12.93 X
Rent
0
4000
Two Levels
Is #Drap
Htrs Pool No Pool
1400
4400
Gross
Water
Tax Rate
BIk# Tract # 2551
8799/Assessor 2 Yr Bit 1958
Of
1st $ @ $ /Mo @ %
Due Lender
Assumable Type Fee
2nd $ @ $ /Mo {~ %
Due Lender
Assumable Type Fee
Fin Rmrks Call Don Simkins for loan information 949 757-1443 x 26
Lot# 16
Lot Size
#Bdgs
Res
Primary714-969-6100 103
Owner
DOM 106 Exp Date LP/SqFt $182.85
CDOM 106 Off market Comp 2%
The accuracy of all information regardless of source, including but not limited to square footages and lot size, is deemed reliable but is not
guaranteed and should be independently verified through personal inspection by and/or with the appropriate professionals. Copyright SoCalMLS.
Date Added 11/30/2005
Prev Price $
Date 11/21/2005
Price $ 900,000
ected Activation Date:
Rinks Do Not Contact Occupants, Drive By Only.
Listing Activity
Tran Date 3/3/2006
Cur List Price $900,000
· Drive By Only
ip 2%
(Box No Key Safe
Office Century 21 Beachside Realtors (H33900)
Agent Rich McHugh (hmchuric)
E-Mail Rich(~.Rich-McHu.qh corn
Agent Remarks,
DUal/Var No
List Type Exclusive Right To Sell/Full Service
Listing Office/Agent Info
Office 714-969-6100
Pager 000-0000
Annual Oper Exp
New Tax
Ins
Wrk Comp
Gas
Electric
WaterlSw
Trash
Supplies
Cable TV
Mnt
Pest Ctl
Licenses
Gardener
Pool
Manager
Prof Mgt
Furn Rep
Other:
Total
Tax Rate Yr
Land $ %
Imprvmnts % $
Per Prop $ %
Total $ 3,024
Legal:
Zoning
LtSqft
~ inancial Info As
$ 9,900
$1,540
$0
$ 2,760
$ 3,480
$ 576
$1,368
$0
$0
$0 0%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,624
.~.dditi~nal Property Features
Swr Cent AJC
#Rnges #Refrg
Htd Spa Sauna
Firs Roof
~howing Instructions
Fax 714-960-4975
Cell 714-425-8441
Agt WSite
Possession
Owner
COnsider Lease
Gate Code
~flNall A/C Elevtr
#Displs #D/W
Alley Paved
Heat
# Sep Mt: Water 2 Gas 5 Elec 5
App Avg Apt
SqFt: Studio/ IBR/
2BR/895 3BR/ Tot Bid Sqft 4,922
SubArea/T~act 0 Name
Land Fee Lse $ /Mo YrExp
Zones: Spc Std Fid Cstl SId
Adds, Alts, Repairs? Bldg Permit
Tot Prkg 14 #Garage 7 #-Caprt
~Spaces 7 #Patio Rec Room
Tenant Pays Gas Elec Water
Rent Control
Yes Cable TV Trash
P. epor
~yte BIo~.gmin~ale
RIN
Active
No picture available,
Residential Income
_3.5_68 Brep.t0n Ave...~ Lynwood (~.NWD) Prices 875,000
P495674 Media: 0 Los Angeles County (LA) APNO 6191-0.1.6-009
Area Lynwood rRM)
Have 6 Units Aerial MaP~'~
XST$ MLK and Abbott Road
Features Built-ins, Frame & Stucco, Wall Gas, Garage Detached, No Pool
Terms Cash To New Loan Gr $¢hd Ira; $ 61,200
List Type Exclusive Right To sell/Full Service TG
ZIp 90262-2038 Loans Units 6
PricelUnlt $145,633 Gross Equity
View
~"'* ' Cap Rate 4.48% Pose Close of EscroW
ease dO not disturb manager or tenants. Good rental location. Good building with large units and garage parking. 100% occupied with rental upside.
, ~.. inancial Analysis (ANNUAL)- District
~ss Sched Income $ 61,200 fax.Area
3% $1,836 Tax Rate Yr
icancy Allow $ 59,364 Land
·oss Oper Income 34% $ 20,163 Imprvmnts
~eratlng Exp Per Prop
Oper income $ 39,202
Payment $ 35,771 Total
· ess Spend Income $ 3,431 Legal:
4.48% Zoning
Rate
· ess Multiplier 14.3 X Gross LtSqtt
· os5 ,-u,.,~ .... Inancial Info AS
Annual Oper Exp
) BR Bath P Rent Rent
I I U 700 1400
2 2 U 925 3700
.eased 0
thor income 0
Tot 5100
$0
3ar ~
New Tax
Ins
Wrk Comp
Gas
Electric
WaterlSw
Trash
Supplies
Cable '~/
Mnt
PeSt Cfi
Licenses
Gardener
Pool
Manager
Prof Mgt
Furn Rep
Other.
$10,063
$2,500
$0
$0
$0
$1,600
$ 2,400
$o
$o
$3,000 5%
$0
$0
$ 600
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
6089 Water
Tax Ra~e
$%
%$
$%
$ 4.519
Lot~ 33 BIId~ Tract # 20680
Lei Sire
75181Assessor #Bdgs 2 Yr Bit lg62
Of 200
1st $ 0 (~ $ 35,771 /Mo {~ %
Due 0 Lender 0
Assumable Type Fee
2nd $ ~ $ /Mo ~ %
Due Lender
Assumable Type Fee
Fin Rmrks Contact listing agent for financing informaUon.
#Sep Mt: Water 1 Gas § Eiec 6
App Avg Apt Studio/ IBR/
SqFt:
2BR/ 3BR/ Tot Bid $qft 6,042
SubArea/Tract NIA Name
Land Fee Lee $ /Mo yrExp
Zones: Spc Std Fid Cstl
Adds, Airs, Repairs? Bldg Permit
Tot Prkg 6 #Garage 6 ftCaptt 0
ii,Spaces 0 ~Patlo 0 Rec Room No
Tenant Pays Gas Yes Elec Yes Water No
$ Trash No
aund Eqmt $0 $ 20,163 Rent Control Notable TV Yes
Ionthly GSI 5,100 Total _'tdditional Property Feature
,, &tWall AJC 0 Elevtr No
try Two LeveLs Swr In Street I~aid Cent A/C
Cpts 6 ~fDrap 6 #Rnges 6 #Refrg 0 f~Displs 6 #D/W 0
/Ir Him Yes pool No Pool Hid N Spa Sauna No Alley ' Paved
Roof Composition Heat Wall Gas
.... (:co Firs
;net Hrame ~ ~,tu hewing InstnJctions
Owner Dan & Jacquellne M Damon possession Close of Escrow
~str Drive By Only ConSider Lease
Dual/Var No
;omp 2.5% .......... '.,-ire Ri~'ht To Sell/Full Service Gate Code
.ockBoX No Key ~a;e I~Sl ~ype ~..,u~ ~ isting Office/Agent Inf
,ist Offioe ReNLax Corem.unity Re. laE_y 0NA35) Office 562-696-3300 Fax 562-696-5190 Res 562.587-5494
Jet Agent Juan Cardenas (pcardjua) Pager 562-587-5494 Cell 562-587-5494 Primary 562-587-5494 2173
Agt WSite ~_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(~bcC~_ aoL.q~m_
q;it E.Mail ~.bc(a)aol._C~m Agent Remarks
Owner Dan & Jacqueline M DamOn
,fly Rmks Contact listing agent for details, sting Activity
.Iai Date 2/15/2006 Date Added 2118/2006 T~n Date ?.J1812006 DOM 17 Exp Date LPISqFt $144.82
)rig Price $ 875,000 Prey Price $ Cur List Price $875,000 CDOM 17 Off market Comp 2.5%
reliable but Is not
~rojected Activation Date:
The accuracy of all information regardless of s~urce. Including but net limited to square footages end tel Size. is deemed
guaranteed and should be independently verified through perSorlal inspection by and/or with the appropriate professionals, Copyright $oCalMLS-
o
0
0
0
THIS HOME FUND RESERVATION AND COMMITMENT AGREEMENT
(the "Agreement") is entered into as of February 21, 2006 by and between the
CITY OF LYNWOOD, a public corporate body ("the City"), and American Family
Housing, Inc., a non-profit Community Housing Development Organization
("CHDO") pursuant to the HOME Program (as the term is hereinafter defined)
and for the benefit of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD").
RECITALS
Bo
The City of Lynwood receives federal funds from HUD pursuant to the
Home Investment Partnerships Act Program (the "HOME Program") and
the implementing regulations thereto set forth in 24 CFR 92.1 et seq., for
the purposes of providing affordable housing for Iow income residents of
Lynwood in accordance with the HOME Program regulations.
The City of Lynwood enters into this agreement as part of its efforts to
comply with the HOME Program regulations regarding the annual
allocation of funds for affordable housing and to meet the requirements for
the commitment of funds as set forth in 24 CFR 92.2.
The City administers a multi-year housing program by providing financial
assistance to eligible Iow income households to improve the existing
housing conditions in the community and increase the affordable housing
opportunities.
The City's Consolidated Plan has identified housing programs to address
community and housing needs, including programs for rehabilitation,
acquisition of rental units and specific projects related to the identified
goals.
The purpose of this Agreement is for the City to reserve and commit the
following sums of HOME Program funds: FY 2003-$468,930, FY 2004-
$104,539, FY 2005 - $100,216 to a qualified CHDO to develop affordable
housing in the City of Lynwood or carry out such other activities as a
participating jurisdiction may carry out as "eligible activities" as the same
are defined at 24 CFR 92.205 ("Eligible Activities").
NOW, THEREFORE, the City hereto agrees as follows:
1. Reservation and Commitment of HOME Pro.qram Funds.
The City hereby commits HOME Program funds heretofore received by the City
as follows:
(a)
the FY 2003 -$468,930, FY 2004 - $104,539, and FY 2005-$100,216
for the annual CHDO Reservation and Commitment requirement for
each of the years in question.
(b)
the funding shall be committed to American Family Housing, Inc., a
non-profit Community Housing Development Organization, for such
Eligible Activities as the City may approve from time to time. Eligible
Activities include affordable housing, as the same is defined by the
HOME Program.
(c)
the parties anticipate any council approved Eligible Activities will
commence within a twelve month period. The period of this
Agreement is twenty-four months commencing upon execution of this
Agreement by all designated parties.
2. Proiect Description. The HOME Program funds committed to
American Family Housing, Inc. will be utilized and expended on Eligible
Activities. Any of the Eligible Activities approved by the City and to be pursued
as part of this Agreement are directed towards increasing affordable housing
opportunities in the City and are herein collectively referred to as the "Project".
(a) The delivery of such reserved funds to or on behalf of the
Project is expressly conditioned by the City upon (i) prior approval of the Project
by the City and the establishment of Project guidelines acceptable to the City, (ii)
the selection of eligible and acceptable property (ies) in the City, and (iii) the
execution by the Project applicants to enter into affordable housing agreement(s)
and related documentation, which meet the requirements of the HOME Program.
(b) The City shall utilize HOME Program funds for the Project,
after satisfying conditions set forth within this Agreement with activities to
commence within the established program guidelines.
(c) Upon mutual agreement between the parties, HOME
Program funds may be applied toward other qualifying activities, including
without limitation, develOpment and management of Iow income rental units,
acquisition of property and/or acquisition of existing housing units in connection
with the development of additional owner-occupied affordable housing units
through rehabilitation and/or new construction of affordable housing.
3. HOME Pro,qram Fund Commitment The City intends this
Agreement as a reservation and commitment of HOME Program funds. This
HOME Fund Reservation and Commitment Agreement shall qualify as a
"commitment" of funds pursuant to 24 CFR 92.2.
4. Annual Commitment and Disbursement The City shall
implement and expend the committed HOME Program funds committed by this
Agreement in accordance with the Annual Commitment and Disbursement
requirements established by HUD under the HOME Program guidelines.
5. Project Implementation Documents and Scope of Affordable
Housing Agreements. The Project documents and affordable housing
agreement(s) shall contain such matters as (i) the total amount and sources of
financial assistance to be made available (HOME Program funds and/or Housing
Fund monies) toward each portion of the Project, (ii) whether the financial
assistance will be in the form of a grant or a loan, (iii) eligible uses of the financial
assistance (such as for acquisition, new construction, eligible off-site
improvements), (iv) security for repayment of the financial assistance provided by
the Project (such .as deed of trust, guarantee), (v) conditions precedent to
disbursement of the financial assistance, (vi) scope of development and schedule
for performance for the work, as applicable, or the close of escrow for purchase
of real property, (vii) number, size, and term of affordability of affordable units,
(viii) affordable housing cost verification and the rent or housing cost limitation
formulas, as applicable, for affordable units, (ix) income limits for tenants or
owners, as applicable, for affordable units, (x) ongoing maintenance, occupancy,
and operation requirements, (xi) recordable regulatory agreement, including but
not limited to deed restrictions, (xii) other related HOME Program and/or
community redevelopment requirements, specifically including without limitation
the requirements of CFR 92.504, and Health & Safety Code Section 33334.2, et
seq., and (xiii) such other matters as the parties find necessary or appropriate for
proper implementation of the ProjeCt including information required by Section 24
CFR 92.252 and 92.254.
6. Cooperation. The City agrees to negotiate in good faith and to
cooperate in establishing the Project guidelines and implementing documents,
identifying suitable properties and sites within the target areas in the City, and/or
development, evaluating potential Project applicants and participants, and
supplying related housing information and analysis which are pertinent to the
Project and the subject matter of this Agreement.
7. Notices. Any notices, requests or approvals given under this
Agreement from one party to another may be personally delivered or deposited
with the United States Postal Service for mailing, postage prepaid, to the address
of the other party as stated in this paragraph, and shall be deemed to have been
given at the time of personal delivery or three (3) days after the date of deposit
for mailing. Notices shall be sent to:
City and Agency:
CHDO:
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, CA 90262
Attention: N. Enrique Martinez, City Manager
American Family Housing, Inc.
15161 Jackson Street
Midway City, CA. 92655
8. Administration of HOME Fundm The City hereby administers the
use of HOME Funds in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.
The City shall not disburse HOME Funds prior to entering into a written
agreement with any qualified, eligible contractor, or project.
9. Proqram Income. Any Program Income received through a project
must be remitted to the participating jurisdiction. American Family Housing must
transfer to the City any HOME funds on hand at time of expiration of this
Agreement and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of HOME funds.
If American Family Housing provides HOME funds to for-profit owners or
developers, nonprofit owners or developers, sub-recipients, homeowners,
homebuyers, tenants receiving tenant-based rental assistance, or contractors,
American Family Housing must have a written agreement which meets the
requirements, of 24 CFR 92.504.
10. Uniform Administration Requirements, The American Family
Housing shall comply with applicable uniform administrative requirements, as
described in Sec. 92.505 (b) including but not limited to OMB Circular No. A-122.
11. Amendment to Aqreement. No modification, rescission, waiver,
release or amendment of any provision of this Agreement shall be made except
by a written agreement executed by both parties.
12. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and agreement of the parties. This Agreement integrates all of
the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental thereto, and supersedes
all prior and negotiations or agreements, discussions and previous agreements
between the City concerning all or any part of the subject matter of this
Commitment Agreement.
14. Enforcement of the Agreement. In accordance with 24 CFR
85.43, suspension or termination may occur if American Family Housing
materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the date first set forth above.
City of Lynwood
eticia Vasqu;~,~Mayor <~
Attest:
Community Housing Development
Orga_.nization (CHDO) ~
(~-¢/"'~/~, re c,~o r"'-
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
/' tN: E~rue ~artinez~_,~y Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Arr~ldo Beltran, City Attorney
APPROVED TO CONTENT:
Ki~'k ' nt
Director