Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council & SA Regular Agenda Packet 03-11-2014
ta'I Y L31 �- Lfs1 F j,Stf'0R-FE Tuesday, March 11, 2014 City of Lake Elsinore Regular Agenda City Council NATASHA JOHNSON, MAYOR STEVE MANOS, MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN TISDALE, COUNCIL MEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER ROBERT MAGEE, COUNCIL MEMBER GRANT YATES, CITY MANAGER 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION at 5:00 PM Cultural Center 183 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore PUBLIC SESSION at 7:00 PM Cultural Center 183 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Cultural Center The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon subscribers can view the meetings on Channel 31. If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at the City Clerk's Office on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the City's website at www.lake-elsinore.org. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (951) 674 3124 Ext. 262, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. City or Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 31612014 City Council Regular Agenda CALL TO ORDER 5:00 P.M. ROLL CALL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION 1a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code § 54956.9) AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION vs. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Case No. EDCV 13-00989 1b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN # 347-120-050 Agency negotiator: City Manager Yates Negotiating parties: City of Lake Elsinore and Smartlink LLC Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment 1c) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN #370-120-045 Agency negotiator: City Manager Yates Negotiating parties: City of Lake Elsinore and Richard Kane & Darlene Ryan Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment 1d) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (GOV7 CODE SECTION 54957(b)): CITY MANAGER PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION — MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION REPORT PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 1 MINUTE March 11. 2014 (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council meeting and turn it into the City Clerk. The Mayor will call on you to speak.) City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Printed on 3/6/2014 City Council Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 PRESENTATIONS / CEREMONIALS Presentation by EVMWD of Lift Station Proclamation declaring World Spay Day Certificate of Recognition of Donna Grunow Trophy Presentation to the Elsinore High School Basketball City Champions Trophy Presentation to the Elsinore High School Football City Champions CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Council Member or any member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) ID# 14-033 Approval of Minutes Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Minutes as submitted. Attachments: Minutes CC Staff Report Minutes CC 2-25-2014 ID# 14-034 Warrant List Dated February 27, 2014 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014 Attachments: Warrant City staff report 2-27-14 Warrant City summary & list 2-27-14 ID# 14-035 Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget Status Report - General Fund Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget, as reflected and adjusted in the attached Exhibits. Attachments: 2013-14 Mid -Year Budget Report 3-11-2014 corrected PUBLIC HEARING(S) - None APPEAL(S) - None BUSINESS ITEM(S) City of Lake Elsinore Page 3 Printed on 31612D14 City Council Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 ID# 14-036 Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-1322 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council waive further reading and adopt by title only ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Amending and Restating Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Rotational Towing Services, by roll -call vote. Attachments: Second reading of Ord 2014-1322 Ordinance No 2014-1322 ID# 14-037 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Requiring the Mandatory Spay and Neutering of Pit Bull Breeds; Resolution Establishing Fines and Penalties for Violation of Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municpal Code Regarding Animals and Animal Control Officers Recommendation: 1. To waive further reading and introduce by title only Ordinance No. 2014-1323 adding section 6.04.235 of Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requiring the mandatory spaying neutering of pit bull breeds, by roll call vote. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2014-012 establishing fines and penalties for violation of Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Regarding Animals and Animal Control Officers. Attachments: Staff Report -Ordinance SN Pit Bull Breeds Ordinance - Mandatory Spay -Neuter Pit Bull Breeds Resolution - Fines & Penalties Animal Control Press Enterprises News Article - Man attacked Pit Bull PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council Meeting and turn it in to the City Clerk. The Mayor will call on you to speak.) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore City Council will adjourn this meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, March 25, 2014. The regular Closed Session meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. and the regular Public meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING City of Lake Elsinore Page 4 Printed on 3/6/2014 City Council Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 I, Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of this meeting. Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 Printed on 3/8/2014 <:LI L t�« 1110 KL I ORIAI. birnIW Tuesday, March 11, 2014 City of Lake Elsinore Regular Agenda Successor Agency NATASHA JOHNSON, CHAIR STEVEMANOS, VICE -CHAIR BRIAN TISDALE, AGENCY MEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, AGENCY MEMBER ROBERTMAGEE, AGENCYMEMBER GRANT YATES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - None PUBLIC SESSION at 7:00 PM Cultural Center 183 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Cultural Center The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon subscribers can view the meetings on Channel 31. If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at the City Clerk's Office on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the City's website at www.lake-elsinore.org. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (951) 674 3124 Ext. 262, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 31612014 Successor Agency Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION — MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 1 MINUTE (Please read & complete a Request to Address the Successor Agency form prior to the start of the meeting and turn it into the Agency Clerk. The Chair will call on you to speak.) PRESENTATIONS / CEREMONIALS - None CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Board Member or any member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) ID# 14-038 Approval of Minutes Recommendation: It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve Minutes as submitted. Attachments: Minutes SA Staff Reoort Minutes SA 2-25-2014 ID# 14-039 Warrant List Dated Feb 27, 2014 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Successor -Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014. Attachments, Warrant SA RDA staff report 2-27-14 Warrant SA RDA Summary & list 2-27-14 PUBLIC HEARING(S) - None APPEAL(S) - None BUSINESS ITEM(S) - None City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Printed on 3/6/2014 Successor Agency Regular Agenda PUBLIC COMMENTS — NOWAGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES March 11, 2014 (Please read & complete a Request to Address the Successor Agency form prior to the start of the Meeting and tum it into the Agency Clerk. The Chair will call on you to speak.) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS AGENCY COUNSEL COMMENTS BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore Successor Agency will adjourn this meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, March 25, 2014. The next regular meeting will be held at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of this meeting. Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk City o/ Lake Elsinore Page 3 Printed on 316/1674 CITY OF LARGELSn0PE DREAM EXTREME, SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE OF A STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Study Session of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore will be held on Tuesday, March 11, at 4:00 p.m., at the Cultural Center, 183 No. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California. The purpose of the Study Session is to discuss the following matter: FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT -- GENERAL FUND FURTHER INFORMATION may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Department at City Hall (951) 674-3124 ext. 259. Dated: March 6, 2014 Virgi J. BI City Clerk CIlY f?i L(fl\'] - ).silv(- V DV I:A Tuesday, March 11, 2014 City of Lake Elsinore Special Agenda Special City Council Meeting 4:00 PM PUBLIC SESSION at 4:00 PM Cultural Center 183 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURALCENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Cultural Center The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon subscribers can view the meetings on Channel 31. If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at the City Clerk's Office on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the City's website at www.lake-elsinore.org. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (951) 674 3124 Ext. 262, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 3/6/2014 Special City Council Meeting Special Agenda March 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER - 4:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION — MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council meeting and turn it into the City Clerk. The Mayor will call on you to speak.) DISCUSSION ITEM ID# 14-032 Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget Status Report - General Fund Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council review the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget, proposed adjustments and provide direction to staff for formal consideration by the City Council at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Attachments: 2013-14 Mid -Year Budget Report 3-11-2014 corrected PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council Meeting and turn it in to the City Clerk. The Mayor will call on you to speak.) ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore City Council will adjourn this meeting to the regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of this meeting. Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Printed on 31612014 CITY OF LAKE � LSI1` ORT DREAM EXTREME Name: Organization Represented: PC k xo i{�a 4�I REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (Please submit to the City Clerk prior to meeting) (Please Print) (if any) I wish to comment on the following non-agendzed item(s) at beginning of meeting: (Comments limited to 1 minute) ► I wish to comment on the following non-agendized item at end of meeting: (Comments limited to 3 minutes) ► I wish to address Item No. /y' RV of this Agenda. (Comments limited to 3 minutes) 3 - //- lI/ Date 4-7 y,1)d-ol4ele'lPW _ 4/4' P51,ww Address (option l) Signature �Z� • Sy l- M Phone The Mayor will call person(s) interested in speaking in an order which coincides with the Agenda. Non- Agendized Items speakers will be called under "Public Comments — bion-Agendized Items" and will have approximately one (1) minute to speak or three (3) minutes at the end of the meeting). After being recognized by the Mayor, please walk to the podium, state your name and proceed to comment upon the Item you wish to address. Thank you for attending the City Council meeting and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated! REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (Please submit to the City Clerk prior to meeting) Name: Pleas Print Organization Represented. n �- �_ � I S ,YNC(,V , r Address S Lj ► 1 wish to address Agenda Item No. (Comments limited to 3 minutes) �z ne ► I wish to comment on the following non-agendized item at the beginninq_ of the meeting: (Comments limited to 1 minute) ► I wish to comment on the following non -a endized item at end of meefin : (Comments limited to 3 minutes) Date Signature The Mayor will call person(s) interested in speaking in an order which coincides with the Agenda. Non- Agendized Items speakers will be called under "Public Comments — Nan-Agendized Items" and will have approximately one (1) minute to speak or three (3) minutes at the end of the meeting). After being recognized by the Mayor, please walk to the podium, state your name and proceed to comment upon the item you wish to address. Thank you for attending the City Council meeting and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated! Name: Organization Represented: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (Please submit to the City Clerk prior to meeting) Address lease Print Phone ► I wish to address Agenda Item No.L 10��Comments limited to 3 minutes) 3 ► I wish to comment on the following non-agendized item at the beginning of the meeting: (Comments limited to I minute) ► I wish to comment on the following non -a endized item at end of meeting, (Comments limited to 3 minutes) MaYG� ) D I L Date Signature The Mayor will call person(s) interested in speaking in an order which coincides with the Agenda. Non- Agendized Items speakers will be called under "Public Comments — Non-Agendized Items" and will have approximately one (1) minute to speak or three (3) minutes at the end of the meeting). After being recognized by the Mayor, please walk to the podium, state your name and proceed to comment upon the item you wish to address. Thank you for attending the City Council meeting and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated! Name: Organization Represented: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (Please submit to the City Clerk prior to meeting) Address Please Print Phone ► 1 wish to address Agenda Item No. '(comments limited to 3 minutes) ► I wish to comment on the following non agendized item at the beginning of the meeting: (Comments limited to 1 minute) ► I wish to comment on the following non -a endized item at end of meetin : (Comments limited to 3 minutes) 7 0 > y Date Signature The Mayor will call person(s) interested in speaking in an order which coincides with the Agenda. Non- Agendized Items speakers will be called under "Public Comments — Non-Agendized Items" and will have approximately one (1) minute to speak or three (3) minutes at the end of the meeting). After being recognized by the Mayor, please walk to the podium, state your name and proceed to comment upon the item you wish to address. Thank you for attending the City Council meeting and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated! CITY OF ... ....... L? . LA,KE i5,LS1110Ps..,E TV Name: Organization Represented: V0 D�k`�uee o�d S REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (Please submit to the City Clerk prior to meeting) 1 Address Please Print Phone ► 1 wish to address Agenda Item No. . (Comments limited to 3 minutes) Z ► I wish to comment on the following non-agendized item at the beginning of the meetin . (Comments limited to 1 minute) ► 1 wish to comment on the following non -a endized item at end of meeting: (Comments limited to 3 minutes) �Ilzlel /7-/ Date Signature The Mayor will call person(s) interested in speaking in an order which coincides with the Agenda. Non- Agendized Items speakers will be called under "Public Comments — Non-Agendized Items" and will have approximately one (1) minute to speak or three (3) minutes at the end of the meeting). After being recognized by the Mayor, please walk to the podium, state your name and proceed to comment upon the item you wish to address. Thank you for attending the City Council meeting and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated! REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (Please submit to the City Clerk prior to meeting) Name: Please Print Organization Represented: f�� a det4A Address q3 7 SzK t y Phone ► I wish to address Agenda Item No. (Comments limited to 3 minutes) ► I wish to comment on the following non -a_ endized item at the beginning of the meeting: (Comments limited to 1 minute) ► I wish to comment on the following non -a endized item at end of meetin : (Comments limited to 3 minutes) 3/Il/1j Date gnature The Mayor will call person(s) interested in speaking in an order which coincides with the Agenda. Non- Agendized Items speakers will be called under "Public Comments -- Non-Agendized Items" and will have approximately one (1) minute to speak or three (3) minutes at the end of the meeting). After being recognized by the Mayor, please walk to the podium, state your name and proceed to comment upon the item you wish to address. Thank you for attending the City Council meeting and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated! CITY OF 47 .. LAE. LS1N0�E DKIFAM EXTREME Tv REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (Please submit to the City Clerk prior to meeting) Name: Organization Represented: Please Print Address Phone ► 1 wish to address Agenda Item No. . (Comments limited to 3 minutes) ► I wish to comment on the following non-•agendized item at the beginning- of the meeting_ (Comments limited to 1 minute) ► I wish to comment on the following non -a endized item at end of meeting: (Comments limited to 3 minutes) Date Sign ur The Mayor will call person(s) interested in speaking in an order which coincides with the Agenda. Non- Agendized Items speakers will be called under "Public Comments — Non-Agendized Items" and will have approximately one (1) minute to speak or three (3) minutes at the end of the meeting). After being recognized by the Mayor, please walk to the podium, state your name and proceed to comment upon the item you wish to address. Thank you for attending the City Council meeting and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated! a / 2 = (D n / % w cr (D 2 e mm(Ds JLU d ^ c _ 2 k. 0 7 zr 3rD 0 2 § . ¥ c 5' 7 e E 7 / % / a y (D m 0 G / # 3 2 g ° / E w 2 (D § a o e J � § ƒ c 7 § � § o VI zr 7 r 7 M * 0 0 3 0 7 ƒ LA \ 0 h j / j* cu ° \ � 0- G 2 o E (D o / j e 0 ��� / G (D m / ƒ ƒ c \ (7 y / / O 0 e � / D 0 < 2 0 :3 rD : & ) ® n , , \ • E q / 3 2 g E 9 ƒ / CL m o ƒ m = 9 o % / ƒ NJ o / 3 v) o R rD U \ \ LU 7 CD ƒ / C \ Ln ° ¥ Co w r+ -1 g §. E e a g / / n r CL } 0 o E L y Z7- (D 0 N -I o 2 § / G % 0 ] � J y o (D 0 /. /. 7 m e 0 (D g m G 5 O w m Anecdotes of cities who implemented MSN A mandatory spay/neuter law enacted in Dallas, Texas, in 2008 resulted in a 22 percent increase in animal control expenditures, as well as an overall decrease in licensing projected to reduce revenue by $400,000. • The City of Santa Cruz, California, experienced a 56% cost increase over the first 12 years of implementation. • The City of Los Angeles' budget ballooned from $6.7 million to $18 million following implementation. • 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter. During the next 24 months, the city saw a 76% increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled. Sourced from The KC Dog Blog "Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to MSN" (Excellent articlel • Little Rock, AR In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 44%. Sourced from The KC Dog Blog "Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to MSN" Los Angeles, CA - Has had MSN since 2008. 8 years later the city is still not No Kill. See research and another brilliant article from the KC Dog Blog. Research and statistics sited within article " Los Angeles MSN - Year 3 - when can we expect it to start working?" The following organizations are against MSN. (Click on the link for position statements) • ASPCA - American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals • AVMA - American Veterinary Medical Association • AKC - American Kennel Club (PDF download) • ACT The American College of Theriogenologists & SFT Society for Theriogenology Allie Cat Allies - • No Kill Advocacy Center (PDF Download) • Best Friends • Fix Austin Why are they against it? • The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law. - ASPCA • it can be extremely difficult for even a veterinary professional to visually determine if an animal, particularly a female, has been sterilized; it would be virtually impossible for an animal control officer to make those determinations in the field. -ASCPA • in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were subsequently licensed, likely due to owners' reluctance to pay either the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet altered (Office of Legislative Oversight, 1997) -ASPCA • One of the main barriers to spaying and neutering of pets is accessibility of services, which is not addressed simply by making spaying and neutering mandatory. Cost is one of the primary barriers to spay/neuter surgery in many communities (Patronek et al., 1997; Ralston Purina, 2000; Frank, 2001). -ASPCA The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non -shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences. - AVMA The ACT and SFT do not believe that mandatory spay/neuter programs will significantly reduce the pet overpopulation problems, since most animals that are abandoned are relinquished because of behavior, health, economic and life changing conditions and not due to their reproductive status. In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public. Although both organizations believe that most companion animals should be spayed or neutered, the ACT and SFT also strongly believe that it is not in the best interest of the animals to produce legislation regarding medical treatments, Therefore, both organizations oppose mandatory spay/neuter programs -The American College of Theriogenologists (ACT) & Society for Theriogenology (SFT) Most of America's 50 largest cities do not have high-volume spay/neuter clinics. Smaller communities, whether suburban or rural, are even less likely to have affordable and accessible spay/neuter facilities. - AIIie Cat Allies Veterinary services in many, if not most, areas of the country are prohibitively expensive for working families - AIIie Cat Allies The resources a community would have to dedicate to enforcing mandatory spay/neuter laws would be far better spent in making spay/neuter facilities available to residents and educating them about the importance and availability of sterilization. - AIIie Cat Allies When a law governing the ownership or care of animals is enacted 1) without adequate resources for the populace to comply, but which 2) has costly penalties and 3) is widely enforced, it can cause people to relinquish their pets to a shelter or to abandon them elsewhere. When more animals enter shelters, the kill rate goes up. When cats are abandoned outdoors, they add to and compound the feral cat issue.- Allie Cat Allies Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing. "If only we had a law," the argument goes, "all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn't have to kill so many animals." If this were true, given the proliferation of punitive mandates nationwide, there should be many No Kill communities. That there are not, is because experience has proven that legislation is far from a cure-all. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Communities that have passed such laws are not only far from No Kill, many are moving in the opposite direction. - No Kill Advocacy Center The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws (PDF Download) "Best Friends does not support mandatory spay -neuter legislation as a method of pet population control" Every single data -based study of mandatory spay/neuter laws has demonstrated that such laws do not increase spay -neuter compliance rates, nor do they reduce shelter intake, nor are they cost-effective, nor do they save lives. In fact, the opposite is true: in community after community that has passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, shelter killing and intake actually increase because in poor communities, families who cannot afford the money or time to have their pets surgically altered are forced to surrender their pets (or the pets are seized). These pets are quickly replaced in the communities with additional unaltered animals, creating an enhanced cycle of killing. These laws do not work, have never worked in any community, and will not work. - Fix Austin.org Why we Join the Natl Consensus against MSN (PDF Download) There is universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws among national animal -welfare organizations who have spent time to empirically study such laws' effects. Indeed, given the frequent hostility between national animal -welfare organizations, the universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is telling. - Fix Austin Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... KC DOG BLOG Unofficial Watchdog on Animal Welfare Issues http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2013/O6/understanding cause... June o6, 2013 Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws This topic has been coming up a lot lately, and once again I feel that laws people mis-understand the cause and effect of mandating spaying and neutering. First off, let me state, that I think most people who support Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws (MSN) want to do so because they believe it will save lives. I think they believe that if they pass the law, more people will sterilize their pets and thus, fewer pets will be born, and thus, fewer will end up at the shelter, and thus, fewer will die. This is a logical progression. Unfortunately, mandating sterilization doesn't have the same effect. I've seen it in action. And it's really horrific. Yesterday, former Los Angeles Animal Services Manager Ed Boksop sted a blog about why he plans to support MSN targeted at pit bulls in his new role at the Yavapai Humane Society. Previously, Boles had posted "statistics" about the situation, and then asked for people's thoughts and seems to support MSN targeted at pit bulls because that's the type of dog he sees most in his shelter. Then, based on the responses, deemed that most of the people that read his blog and responded supported MSN for pit bulls, it must be a good idea. It's not. Let's start with some of Boks' research. Boks relies heavily on national information provided by the magazine "Animal People". I've written a lot about the magazine's editor, Merrit Clifton, and how his information is egregiously inaccurate and misleading, including: - Covering bites only based on media reports, which is not statistically reliable - Somehow having more than 20% of all his "data" for his 29 year study occur purely within a 19 month window And blatant usirng misleading data from several communities to support his desire for mandating spay/neuter of'pit bulls' including such egregious ideas as comparing the live release rates of pit bulls in the Indianapolis shelter to other communities and saying Indy killed more pit bulls than the other communities because they DIDN"'r target pit bulls. The fact was though, that Indianapolis had a policy against adopting out pit bulls, meaning they didn't save ANY, which drove up their kill rates. - Clifton claims that pit bulls make up only about 3% of the overall population of dogs in the US -- however, when you add up the numbers for all of the breeds he includes in his report (which includes 18 of the 20 most popular AKC dog breeds k many more breeds) he only accounts for less than 42% of the total dog population. Boks fails to really analyze this information though, and then uses the latter report to justify why targeting 'pit bulls' might be a solution. According to Boks: "Is there a way to end this disproportionate killing? Three US communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver and Mianri have each enacted breed -specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls.... Cumulatively, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 4o%fewer dogs of any breed than the US National Average." The "data" here comes from Clifton, and the cities were interesting choices. Denver, which re-enacted its ban in 2005, has long been criticized for its mass killing of pit bulls. During a 2 year period, nearly 1500 pit bulls were systematically rounded up and killed at the Denver shelter, and reporters in the 1 ofo) 3/11/2014 2:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogbiog/2013/06/understandin, cause... area capturedick tares of piles of dead pit bulls as a result of their ordinance (warning, the pits at the link aren't for the faint of heart). Meanwhile, just yesterday, the city of Miami continued to look at passing a si nig f cant new tax in order to help fund low cost spay/neuter services as the community still is having very high intakes into the city shelter (btw, I'm not necessarily against this new tax, but just pointing out that things aren't all groovy in Miami). These are interestingly two of Boks' success stories. However, he also mentions San Francisco, and actually seems to prefer taking their approach of mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls as his third case study. I do want to dive a little deeper into that one. Why People don't spay/neuter their pets First off, let's note that after years of education about the importance of spaying and neutering, most people spay/neuter their pets. According to HSUS numbers, 78% of owned dogs, and 88% of owned cats arc currently altered. However, when you look at "under -served" communities, roughly 80% of pets are unaltered and of those people who say they haven't altered their pet, 53% of them have actually never taken their pet to a veterinarian before (usually because of lack of money, lack of veterinarians in their community, or lack of transportation to get to the veterinarian -- or a combination of the 3). These numbers are similar to the numbers from a Petsmart Charities study that notes that only 34% of pets are unaltered. According to this research, the three most common reasons people haven't altered their pets is: r) Pet is too young for this operation (41%) z) It is too expensive (32%) 3) Haven't gotten around to it/haven't had time (21%) So in other words, if you provide people with affordable options, and make it convenient for them, they will alter their pets once they are old enough. No law required. Failure of BSL/MSN in Kansas City In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter. During the next 24 months, the city saw a 76% increase in the number of't bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled. While the Kansas City area was growing its low cost services, there wasn't nearly enough outreach resources available. People didn't know about the law and didn't know about the services. So when people were found with unaltered dogs, they were rounded up, and taken to the shelter, where they were, more often than not, killed. Because of the increase in pit bull impounds, the law caused more than 2,000 incremental pit bulls to be seized and killed over a 2 year period than had things remained static. It was tragic. It was slaughter. Most of these dogs came from homes in the inner city where resources are limited and had people been given the opportunity for services, they would have willingly complied. Unfortunately, with the mandatory law, their dogs were seized, and destroyed. Lest anyone think that Kansas City was alone in this, Fox 16 in Little Rock captured excellent footage a few years ago of Little Rock Animals services and police rounding up pit bulls for non-compliance where they were taken to the city pound, and also killed. In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 44%, 2 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 I'M Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne. San Francisco So let's get back to San Francisco. http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2013/06/tardestandina cause... There has been a fair amount written about San Francisco's breed -specific MSN. Some places have called it successful, while others continue to say that it has been at best, mixed results (most everyone I talk to close to the scenes have reported that things are definitely not as rosie as the reports would indicate). Here are the numbers from the first Lq months. Even if we were to take San Francisco as a "success" story, it would appear that it would be more of the exception than the rule -- and this is in part to a lot of other factors involved in San Francisco -- including, a povert ry ate of L5% which is below the state average, combined with a median HH Income that is zo% higher than the state average. So, there is more money in the community than normal, and less poverty - -meaning fewer people needed the low-cost services, and there was more available money to help subsidize it. Meanwhile, it's worth nothing that because of no kill efforts going on in the community, San Francisco, at the time, had one of the most well-developed low cost spay/neuter programs in the country, as well as one of the best pit bull outreach groups in the country. So the availability of resources in San Francisco helped keep the law from being the disaster it has been in other places. From examining dozens of cities across the country, one thing becomes completely clear. If there are substantial enough low cost spay/neuter services in a community, people will comply. This works with, or without a law. A mandatory spay/neuter law will not necessarily fail if there are significant low cost resources available -- however, if there are not enough resources, then it will be a complete and udder failure. So there is no value in passing the law because if the set -vices are available, there will be success without it. This is something Ed Boks should be familiar with. When he was in Los Angeles, he helped pass a law mandating the spay/neuter for all pets in the community. The law has notbeen a success. And the lack of availability of low-cost options for compliance created a. disaster in the commutuity, and in part, led to Boks' firiinQ at that position. Cause and Effect Recently, many of its in Kansas City were discussing the enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls in Kansas City (which, unfortunately, still exists). And the sad thing is, there is no "good" way to enforce it. If people who don't comply have their animals seized, then animals with homes end up in a shelter where they have to be rehomed -- that's no good. If people are given tickets, well, the primary reason they likely didn't alter in the first place was because of lack of money, so giving them a ticket only makes that situation worse, and more likely they'll have to surrender their pet. Then, there are a few people who simply, for whatever reason, don't want to alter their pit bull. So what then? Do we ticket them until they wrack up fines they can't afford and then end up with a warrant for their arrest? Or should the dogs eventually be seized and taken to the shelter? And if they are, does that stop their desire for having an unaltered pit bull as a pet? And is that driving up the demand (and price) for pit bull puppies causing more to be bred, not less? In the end, the idea of seizing pets and bringing them to a shelter in the name of enforcing a law designed to limit the number of pets coming into the shelter is counter-productive. There is no good solution to it. Which is why I oppose the law which has already proven itself to be a failure. It's also why nearly every humane organization in the couutry mandatinav/neuter in an fY ortn• The solution that has proven itself effective in every situation is to provide adequate, accessible and targeted low-cost spay/neuter programs. Until people start basing their support of legislation based on results, not on what 3 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... http://btoellnentypepad.con/kcdogbio&,/2013/06/understanding-cause... they "think" might work, or what "a lot of people who responded to my blog post think" or based on misinformation provided by numnuts, then we will continue to have to fight this battle. We must do better. Related: Knowing what to ex e� ct from ro oop sed animal control laws. Sway Love - Ed Boks floating the idea of mandatory Ts ay cuter for pit bulls Posted at tt:o6 AM in BSL MSN, Kansas City MO, Little Rock, Mandatory Suav/_Neuter,Merrit Cliffton Permalml Tweet { 1 0 `oin u. '. Like !899 Comments Fabulous work, Mr. Toellner! Posted by: Sharon I June 06 9911 at or:2S PM "In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter." I must take umbrage with you here good sir. They had no such altruistic intent. This was so they could "do something" in the middle of the great pit bull panic of ought -5 without going so far as to enact a ban. Or as one city official put it tome "this is so we can get those 'gangsters'who breed pit bulls in their back yards" (define the word "gangster" as you will). but great article. Posted by: anthony I Juneo6yor3 at 03:37 PM dammit... *aught Posted by: anthony I June o6 2or at o g3 PM a .r \ f q 5^ay. I agree that services Must be in place with a well planned timeline for implementing MSN thereafter. I also know that unfortunately one size does not fit all and that there are communities were MSN is going to have to be given more weight. Posted by: Bomric Carollin I June 06 201 a3 t 03:46 PM Yes Anthony. You are correct from the city perspective. I think many in the animal welfare community supported it because of the more altruistic intent which made it harder for those of us who stood up against it at the time to win out on that too. Bonnie, I want you to read through the "cause & effect" portion of this again. Unless you can come up with solutions that don't end up, when played out in the end, with pets being removed from homes and taken to the shelter in the name of implementing a law designed to keep dogs out of the shelter, then I'm hard pressed to believe that MSN will ever be effective.... given that it never has been. I'm not a huge believer in trying things that have failed other places and thinking that I'm some how smart enough to make them work when others haven't. Posted by: Brent I June o6, 2or at 03!54 PM 4 of 9 3/11/20142:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... http://btoellner.typepad.conl/kcdogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... KC DOG BLOG Unofficial Watchdog on Animal Welfare Issues June o6, 2013 Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws This topic has been coming up a lot lately, and once again I feel that laws people mis-understand the cause and effect of mandating spaying and neutering. First off, let me state, that I think most people who support Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws (MSN) want to do so because they believe it will save lives. I think they believe that if they pass the law, more people will sterilize their pets and thus, fewer pets will be born, and thus, fewer will end up at the shelter, and thus, fewer will die. This is a logical progression. Unfortunately, mandating sterilization doesn't have the same effect. I've seen it in action. And it's really horrific. Yesterday, former Los Angeles Animal Services Manager Ed Boles posted a bloc about why he plans to support MSN targeted at pit bulls in his new role at the Yavapai Humane Society. Previously, Boks had posted "statistics" about the situation, and then asked for people's thoughts and seems to support MSN targeted at pit bulls because that's the type of dog he sees most in his shelter. Then, based on the responses, deemed that most of the people that read his blog and responded supported MSN for pit bulls, it must be a good idea. It's not. Let's start with some of Boks' research. Boks relies heavily on national information provided by the magazine "Animal People". I've written a lot about the magazine's editor, Merrit Clifton, and how his information is egregiously inaccurate and misleading, including: - Covering bites only based on media reports, which is not statistically reliable - Somehow having more than 20% of all his "data" for his 29 year study occur purely within a 19 month window - And blatantly using misleadin data from several communities to support his desire for mandating spay/neuter of'pit bulls' including such egregious ideas as comparing the live release rates of pit bulls in the Indianapolis shelter to other communities and saying Indy killed more pit bulls than the other communities because they DIDN"T target pit bulls. The fact was though, that Indianapolis had a policy against adopting out pit bulls, meaning they didn't save ANY, which drove up their kill rates. - Clifton claims that pit bulls make up only about 3% of the overall population of dogs in the US -- however, when you add up the numbers for all of the breeds he includes in his report (which includes 18 of the 20 most popular AKC dog breeds + many more breeds) he only accounts for less than 42% of the total dog population. Boks fails to really analyze this information though, and then uses the latter report to justify why targeting'pit bulls' might be a solution. According to Boks: "Is there a way to end this disproportionate killing? Three US communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver and Mianni have each enacted breed -specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls.... Cumulatively, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 4o%fewer dogs of any breed than the US National Average." The "data" here comes from Clifton, and the cities were interesting choices. Denver, which re-enacted its ban in 2005, has long been criticized for its mass killing of pit bulls. During a 2 year period, nearly 1500 pit bulls were systematically rounded up and ]tilled at the Denver shelter, and reporters in the I of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it canes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... http://btoellner.typepad.coin/kedogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... area captured picrinres of Hiles of deadt bulls as a result of their ordinance (warning, the pies at the link aren't for the faint of heart). Meanwhile, just yesterday, the city of Miami continued to look atap ssi a significant new tax in order to help fund low cost spay/neuter services as the community still is having very high intakes into the city shelter (btw, I'm not necessarily against this new tax, bat just pointing out that things aren't all groovy in Miami). These are interestingly two of Boks' success stories. However, he also mentions San Francisco, and actually seems to prefer taking their approach of mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls as his third case study. I do want to dive a little deeper into that one. Why People don't spay/neuter their pets First off, let's note that after years of education about the importance of spaying and neutering, most people spay/neuter their pets. According to HSUS numbers, 78% of owned dogs, and 88% of owned cats are currently altered. However, when you look at "ander-served" communities, roughly 80% of pets are unaltered and of those people who say they haven't altered their pet, 53% of them have actually never taken their pet to a veterinarian before (usually because of lack of money, lack of veterinarians in their community, or lack of transportation to get to the veterinarian -- or a combination of the 3). 'these numbers are similar to the numbers from a Petsmart Charities study_that notes that only 34% of pets are unaltered. According to this research, the three most common reasons people haven't altered their pets is: r) Pet is too young for this operation (41%) 2) It is too expensive (32%) 3) Haven't gotten around to it/haven't had time (u%) So in other words, if you provide people with affordable options, and make it convenient for them, they will alter their pets once they are old enough. No law required. Failure of BSL/MSN in ICansas City In 2oo5, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter. During the next 24 months, the city saw a16 6 increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled. While the Kansas City area was growing its low cost services, there wasn't nearly enough outreach resources available. People didn't know about the law and didn't know about the services. So when people were found with unaltered dogs, they were rounded up, and taken to the shelter, where they were, more often than not, killed. Because of the increase in pit bull impounds, the law caused more than 2,000 incremental pit bulls to be seized and killed over a 2 year period than had things remained static. It was tragic. It was slaughter. Most of these dogs came from homes in the inner city where resources are limited and had people been given the opportunity for services, they would have willingly complied. Unfortunately, with the mandatory law, their dogs were seized, and destroyed. Lest anyone think that Kansas City was alone in this, Fox 16 in Little Rock captured excellent footage a few years ago of Little Rock Animals services and police rounding up pit bulls for non-compliance where they were taken to the city pound, and also killed. In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 44%. 2 of 9 3/11/20142:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... http://btoellner.typepad.coin/kcdogblog/2013/06/Lmderstanding-cause... San Francisco So let's get back to San Francisco. There has been a fair amount written about San Francisco's breed -specific MSN. Some places have called it successful, while others continue to say that it has been at best, mixed results (most everyone I talk to close to the scenes have reported that things are definitely not as rosie as the reports would indicate). Here are the numbers from the first 1R months. Even if we were to take San Francisco as a "success" story, it would appear that it would be more of the exception than the rule -- and this is in pari to a lot of other factors involved in San Francisco -- including, a poverty rate of t5% which is below the state average, combined with a median HH Income that is 2o% higher than the state average. So, there is more money in the community than normal, and less poverty- -meaning fewer people needed the low-cost services, and there was more available money to help subsidize it. Meanwhile, it's worth nothing that because of no kill efforts going on in the community, San Francisco, at the time, had one of the most well-developed low cost spay/neuter programs in the country, as well as one of the best nit bull outreach groups in the country. So the availability of resources in San Francisco helped keep the law from being the disaster it has been in other places. From examining dozens of cities across the country, one thing becomes completely clear. If there are substantial enough low cost spay/neuter services in a community, people will comply. This works with, or without a law. A mandatory spay/neuter law will not necessarily fail if there are significant low cost resources available -- however, if there are not enough resources, then it will be a complete and udder failure. So there is no value in passing the law because if the services are available, there will be success without it. This is something Ed Boks should be familiar with. When he was in Los Angeles, he helped pass a law mandating the spay/neuter for all pets in the community. The law has not been a success. And the lack of availability of low-cost options for compliance created a disaster in the community,and in part, led to Boks' firiing at that position. Cause and Effect Recently, many of us in Kansas City were discussing the enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter law for pit brills in Kansas City (which, unfortunately, still exists). And the sad thing is, there is no "good" way to enforce it. If people who don't comply have their animals seized, then animals with homes end up in a shelter where they have to be rehomed -- that's no good. If people are given tickets, well, the primary reason they likely didn't alter in the first place was because of lack of money, so giving them a ticket only makes that situation worse, and more likely they'll have to surrender their pet. Then, there are a few people who simply, for whatever reason, don't want to alter their pit bull. So what then? Do we ticket them until they wrack up fines they can't afford and then end up with a warrant for their arrest? or should the dogs eventually be seized and taken to the shelter? And if they are, does that stop their desire for having an unaltered pit bull as a pet? And is that driving up the demand (and price) for pit bull puppies causing more to be bred, not less? In the end, the idea of seizing pets and bringing them to a shelter in the name of enforcing a law designed to limit the number of pets coming into the shelter is counter-productive. There is no good solution to it. Which is why I oppose the law which has already proven itself to be a failure. It's also why nearly every humane organization in the count mandating spav/neuter, in any form. The solution that has proven itself effective in every situation is to provide adequate, accessible and targeted low-cost spay/neuter programs. Until people start basing their support of legislation based on results, not on what 3 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... they "think" might work, or what "a lot of people who responded to my blog post think" or based on misinformation provided by numnuts, then we will continue to have to fight this battle. We must do better. Related: Knowing what to expect from prouosed animal control laws. Sway Love - Ed Boks floating the idea of mandatory sway/neuter for pit bulls Posted at 11:o6 AM in BSL MSN, Kansas City, M0, Little Rock, Mandator Spay/Neuter, Merrit Cliffton Permalink Tweet 0 tulu Like 1 899= Comments Fabulous work, Mr. Toellner! Posted by: Sharon I June o6, 2_o,I a� t 01:98 PM "In Zoog, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter." I must take umbrage with you here good sir. They had no such altruistic intent. This was so they could "do something" in the middle of the great pit bull panic of ought -5 without going so far as to enact a ban. Or as one city official put it to me "this is so we can get those 'gangsters' who breed pit bulls in their back yards" (define the word "gangster" as you will). but great article. Posted by: anthony June o6 zorT at o4:g7 PM danunit..*aught Posted by: anthony June o6 2oi3„at 03:4'i PM I agree that services Must be in place with a well planned timeline for implementing MSN thereafter. I also know that unfortunately one size does not fit all and that there are communities were MSN is going to have to be given more weight. Posted by: Bonnie Carollin June o6, 2ota at o;;.46 PM Yes Anthony. You are correct from the city perspective. I think many in the animal welfare community supported it because of the more altruistic intent which made it harder for those of us who stood up against it at the time to win out on that too. Bonnie, I want you to read through the "cause & effect" portion of this again. Unless you can come up with solutions that don't end up, when played out in the end, with pets being removed from homes and taken to the shelter in the name of implementing a law designed to keep dogs out of the shelter, then I'm hard pressed to believe that MSN will ever be effective.... given that it never has been. I'm not a huge believer in tying things that have failed other places and thinking that I'm some how smart enough to make them work when others haven't. Posted by: Brent I June o6 2or; at o;:54 PM 4 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM How to lower/prevent shelter intake #'s 1. Close the night drop boxes 2. Set up an intake process or booth like Downtown Dog Rescue's model at East LA shelter 3. Make available low cost or FREE spay neuter 4. Educate the public 5. Let the public know Animal Friends of the Valley's is a kill shelter, it's mind numbing how many people are of the belief it's No -Kill 6. Stop incentivizing intakes financially. AFV makes money off every dog brought in. If they weren't financially incentivized, they would make an effort to check tags, or microchips in the field and return a dog home, rather than take it to the shelter. A program used by many animal controls. 7. Free or low-cost spay neuter. When LA had a voucher program intakes went down every year, when they made MSN numbers when up. 8. Follow Orange County Shelters lead and don't take in any stray cats. Only owner cats, after an interview process. 97% of cats die in shelters only 3% make it out alive. Promote SNTR Spay Neuter Trap Return 9. Did I mention Low -Cost or FREE spay neuter 10. Low Cost Free Spay Neuter \ \ ƒ f )\\ \ \ / 0 \{0 ) \ ` ) % ®ct \ \ \ �- \ /Gf !- 7> / / \ \ / /$ 6 <§; !!- r .!\; k®� M _\ } . Ck \ [ \\ \}\ /f � CN 2 ` �\ E �\ � � \ \ ƒ f \ \ / 0 \ (D % \ \ \ \ / / \ \ / \ \ } \ \\ /f CN 2 ` �\ E �\ � � \ \ \ \ § 0 } / =z ) y es 3 z 6 £ o 0 \ 0 \ s\ / / \ �{ \ / 0 y / \ £ ƒ 3 = > » 2 ( ~o ` ° / j X / \ _\ \ [ / D (D ( S \ \ \ 3 \ CL / \ \ \ / / . 11 LS I N 01 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the Minutes as submitted. Discussion The following minutes are submitted for approval: a. Regular City Council meeting of February 25, 2014 Prepared by: Diana Giron Deputy City Clerk Approved and Submitted by: Approved by: Virginia J. Bloom City Clerk Grant Yates City Manager FTFUi.>`I titil rt4)Itl',. City of Lake Elsinore Meeting Minutes - Draft City Council NATASHA JOHNSON, MAYOR STEVE MANOS, MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN TISDALE, COUNCIL MEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER ROBERT MAGEE, COUNCIL MEMBER GRANT PATES, CITY MANAGER Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro Tem Manos called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CJ Stewart led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE EVMWD BOARDROOM 31315 CHANEY STREET I-AKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 EVMWD Boardroom PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale ABSENT: Mayor Johnson Also present: City Manager Yates, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Simpson, Lakes, Parks & Recreation Director Kilroy, Community Development Director Taylor, Interim Public Works Director Eskandari, Police Chief Kennedy -Smith, Management Analyst Dailey, and Deputy City Clerk Giron. PRESENTATIONS I CEREMONIALS Proclamation Declaring K-9 Veterans' Day Mayor Pro Tem Manos presented a proclamation declaring March 13, 2014 as K-9 Vereran's Day to CJ Stewart. CJ Stewart accepted the proclamation and provided a brief history of K-9 Veteran's Day, Christine Davis spoke regarding the awareness of veteran canines becoming service companions and thanked Council for recognizing Vereran's K-9 Day. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE None Ciry of Lake ElSinofe Page 1 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None None CONSENT CALENDAR ID# 14.022 Approval of the Minutes It is recommended that the City Council approve the Minutes as submitted. ID# 14-023 Warrant List Dated February 13 2014 It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 13, 2014. ID# 14-024 Construction Contract Awards - Project No 4411 Lakepoint Park Parkin Lot Improvements 1. Award the construction of Lakepoint Park Parking Lot Improvements to FSG Paving in the amount of $116,388.00 with a 10% contingency of $11,000.00 to be used for construction. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with FSG Paving. 3. Authorize the budget transfer of $8,825.00, Fund 221 (Park Development Impact Fee) from Machado Park Renovation Project 4373. 4. Authorize the budget transfer of $4,583.00, Fund 221 (Park Development Impact Fee) from the Swick-Matich Park Fencing Project No. 4273, ID# 14-025 Community Facilities District No 2006-1 (Summerly)' Dissolving Existing Improvement Areas Designating New Improvement Areas and Assigning Maximum Bond Authorization 1. Adopt a resolution dissolving improvement areas within the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Summerly) and designating new improvement areas within said community facilities district. 2. Adopt a resolution of intention to incur bonded indebtedness in the amounts not to exceed $4,000,000, $7,500,000, $5,500,000, $8,000,000, $9,000,000, and $12,500,000 for Improvemetn Area CC, Improvement Area DD, Improvement Area EE, Improvement Area FF, Improvement Area GG, Improvement Area HH, and Improvement Area 11, respectively, of the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Summerly). ID# 14-026 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore in Support of SB 69 (Roth) and AB 1521 (Fox) vehicle License Fee Adjustment It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution No. 2014.009 supporting SB 69 and AB 1521 Vehicle License Fee Adjustment; and Authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to sign the letter of support. City of Lake Elsinore Page City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Motion by Council Member Tisdale, seconded by Magee, to approve all items identified on the Consent Calendar; the motion passed by unanimuos vote as follows: AYES : Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale NOES : None ABSENT: Mayor Johnson ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING(S) None APPEALS) None BUSINESS ITEM(S) ID# 14-027 Amendment to Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Regarding Rotational Towing Services; Consideration of Form Franchise Agreement It is recommended that the City Council: A. Introduce by title only and adopt by roll call vote Ordinance No. 2014-1322, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Amending and Restating Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Rotational Towing Services. B. Review the attached draft form of the City Tow Operation Franchise Agreement and direct staff to proceed with preparing and posting a request for qualifications to select franchise tow operators. Management Analyst Dailey provided a staff report and recommendation to Council. City oft ake Elsinore Page 3 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Motion by Council Member Hickman, seconded by Council Member Magee, to waive further reading and introduce by title only Ordinance No. 2014-1322. Deputy City Clerk Giron read the title of the ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 12.14 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES; the motion passed by unanimous roll -call vote as follows: AYES : Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale NOES : None ABSENT: Mayor Johnson ABSTAIN: None Motion by Council Member Hickman, seconded by Council Member Magee, to proceed with preparing and posting a request for qualifications to select franchise tow operators; passed by unanimous vote as follows: AYES : Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale NOES : None ABSENT : Mayor Johnson ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES Elizabeth Moriarity expressed her concerns regarding the need for improvements and expansion of the Lake Elsinore Senior Center. She asked Council to consider the request of improvements to better serve the seniors that participate at the center. Gillian Larson announced the Reality Rally 2014 in the City of Temecula, April 11th - 13th, and invited Council to participate in the rally to defend last year's title. She also announced that the Storm Stadium would host a game for the the winning team and City Council team. Reality Rally is to raise funds for Michelle's Place, the Women's Breast Cancer Resource Center. Judy Zalfiqar announced the events that will take place during the Reality Rally weekend April 11th - 13th. She also announced that this year there will be a celebrity chef showcase cook off. Ms. Zalfiqar encouraged the community to get involved in the fundraising and have fun at the event. City of Lake Elsinore Page 4 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Monica Mestas stated that she is with the FTAspay non-profit organization and thanked Lake, Parks, and Recreation Director Kilroy, Manager Davis, Recreation Supervisor Foster and Council for being supportive of the spay and neuter programs. Ms. Mestas spoke regarding the pet overpopulation crisis throughout the country. The solution to this crisis is spaying and neutering. FTAspay's mission is to end animal shelter euthanasia through affordable spaying, neutering and microchipping. Ms. Mestas also thanked Council Member Hickman for being instrumental in acquiring a donated bus for their group through RTA's recycling program. Council Member Tisdale invited Ms. Mestas to attend the South Coast Finance Authority meeting on April 14th at 2:00 p.m. at the Murrieta Council Chamber. The meeting will address an animal shelter marketing campaign for cities located in the southwest area. Zia Bossenmeyer, FTAspay Board Member, announced the Lake Elsinore Small Dog Project to spay or neuter and microchip dogs that weigh under 20 pounds for a fee of $15. She also announced the Pit Bull Project to spay or neuter and microchip dogs for a fee of $25. Ms. Bossenmeyer asked for assistance in promoting both projects. Valerie Geason introduced a new non-profit organization, L.F.W. Foundation, to honor her mother Leona Ford Washing. Ms. Geason stated that there is a need for college counseling workshops and scholarships for students in this community. The foundation is introducing itself to the community through a fashion show luncheon on March 22nd at 1:00 p.m. at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Yates announced that the City is under storm watch and that the County is very engaged in storm preparation, especially in the burnt areas. City Manager Yates announced that sand bags are available at the City's Public Works Yard, fire stations in the City of Lake Elsinore, and Fire Station 11 in Lakeland Village. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Hickman asked the public to drive carefully in the rain. Council Member Hickman announced that crime in the City is down by 16%; the Spring City Clean Up event on March 8th from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Storm Stadium; and thanked Elizabeth Moriarty for her public comments. City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Council Member Magee advised Ms. Moriarity that this meeting is the place to express her questions and concerns. He also informed Ms. Moriarity that Council approved paving improvements in the amount of $116,000 for the parking lot at Lakepoint Park, which will help the Senior Center. Council will review the mid -year budget and consider the Senior Center improvements for the 2014/2015 Fiscal Year Budget. Council Member Magee also announced that the motor cross park will be in full operation the second week of March; thanked City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Director Simpson, and Finance Administrator Lassey for their work on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS); and encouraged the public to purchase tickets for Opening Day at the Storm Stadium. Council Member Tisdale thanked staff for their hard work and looks forward to the Reality Rally this year. Council Member Tisdale stated that Council does takes the animal issue serious; it would be great if Ms. Mestas could attend the South Coast Finance Authority meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Maros annuonced that he attended the Good Vibes concert and stated that the event had potential. The event showcased the RV resort and boat launch. Mayor Pro Tem Manos stated that he looks forward to future events and that concerns that were presented by the public will be addressed. Mayor Pro Tem Manos welcomed the following new businesses to the City of Lake Elsinore: Bass Outlet, ETax Services, Juniors MX Supply, Paws Appeal and Grooming and Doggy Day Care, Secure Detention Products, Serenity Nails and Spa, and Western Fluids Engineering and Manufacturing. Mayor Pro Tem Manos announced that the next City Council meeting will be held at the Cultural Center and invited the public to attend the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Manos adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m, to the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, Steve Manos, Mayor Pro Tem Diana Giron, Deputy City Clerk City o1 Lake Elsinore Page 6 C'I'IY Cil LASE LSIN0RE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GRANT YATES CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: WARRANT LIST DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2014 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014 Discussion The warrant list is a listing of all general checks issued since the prior warrant list. Prepared By: Frances Ramirez Account Specialist II Reviewed By: Jason Simpson Administrative Services Director Approved By: Grant Yates City Manager Attachments: Warrant List 2-27-2014 1 IEBRUAlRS' 27.2011 0TY OF ]LAIKIE 1E)LS]NOlR,1E WARRANT SUMMARY FUNS31f PUNID DESCR]YrION TOTAL 100 GENERALFUND v" 101 SUPLMNT. LAW ENF. SVC, FUND 4125.00 103 OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 5,815 46 104 TRAFFIC OFFENDER FUND 4,851 37 105 MISC. GENERAL PROJECT 22,911 83 108 _FUND MISC, GRANT FUND __ _ 66,809 01 110 STATE GAS TAX FUND 34,064 52 _ 111 TUMF CAPITAL PROJECT FUND _ _ 8,882.94 112 TRANSPORTATION/MEASURE A FUND _ 2,208.46 113 SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK FUND _ 2,69T03 115 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 44,271,59, 116 CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS DIF FUND _ 51,930 96 130 LIGHTING/LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FUND 38 465.82 135 L.L.M.D. NO. 1 FUND __ 195.00 150 C. D.B.G. FUND 155 CSA 152 - N.P. D. E, S. FUND _ _ __ 2,225 37 160 PEG GRANT RESTRICTED FUND 2,995 33 204 SIGNAL C.I.P. FUND _ _ 135.00 205 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND 5,352.50 221 PARK C.LP. DIF FUND 361.07 232 FIRE PROTECTION DIF FUND _ 69 129.99 605 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN -LIEU FUND _ 180.56 606 - A62766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION FUND 2055.00 - 608 TRUST DEPOSIT & PRE -PAID EXPENSE FUND 2,000.00 620 COST RECOVERY SYSTEM FUND 6,094.53 650 C.F.D. 2003-1 LAW & FIRE SERVICE DEBT SERVICE FUND 113,159.6o GRAND TOTAL $ 1,524,549.01 3/4/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 1 of 4 FEBRUARY 27, 2011 CITY OF 1LAIKE ELS�NOJRE WARRANT ;LIST Cl1ECKk VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 117262 VOID BMW MOTORCYCLES OF RIVERSIDE 117264 VOID -CA MUNICIPAL REVENUE & TAX ASSOCIATION 117479 VOID-HARRAHSRINCON 00) (400.00) 117539 ACTION GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 53 15 117540 AL'S KUBOTA TRACTOR _ 3j'03.27 117541 APPLE ONE _- 2,436.00 117542 BATTERY SYSTEMS INC 220.17 117543 VIRGINIA BLOOM _ 285.$1__ 117544 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA, INC 43 219.37 117545 CALOLYMPIC GLOVE & SAFETY CO _ 1,904 05 117546 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS LLC 475.00 117547 DATA QUICK INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. 130 50 117548 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING, INC _ _ 4,287.01 117549 ECS IMAGING INC. 5,695.71 117550 EXTREME ELECTRICAL SERVICES _ 1 980,00 117551 FIRE ETC. 46,564.87 117552 MARK GORE 944 60 117553 GRAINGER, INC _ _ 5,204 20 117554 GREAT AMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES 117555 HART20G & CRABILL, INC _ 2,010 00_ 117556 HI -WAY SAFETY, INC 1,431 62 117557 I.C.M A RETIREMENT_ TRUST _ 1,645J00 117558 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, INC 125.00 117559 LAKE CHEVROLET 69'79 4,982.00 117560 LANDMARK SITE CONTRACTORS _ 117561-117564 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC _ 3,898 39 117565LVP _ DISTRIBUTION _ 724.94 9 773 60 117566 MACHOVEC 375 00 117567 - MUNISERVICES LLC 14,917 88 117568 NEW IMAGE FLOORING _ __ 117569 ORKIN INC 100 08 117570 RIGHTWAY SITE SERVICES INC, __ 117571 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF _ 5,81546_ 117572 RIVERSIDE_COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT 8 388.06 117573 SCOTT FAZEKAS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 331.97_. 117574 SHRED IT _ 160.00 172.91 117575 SNAP ON TOOLS - OMAR MUNOZ 117576 SOUTH COAST LIGHTING & DESIGN _- 1 708.83 117577 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN _ - 206.88 117578 STAUFFER S LAWN EQUIPMENT 73.82 117579 STK ARCHITECTURE, INC. 3,855.60 117580 SUAREZ S AUTO UPHOLSTERY _ 375.66 117581 TEAM AUTOAID INC _. 150 01 117582 TIME WARNER CABLE _ _ 147.73 117583 TOP -LINE INDUSTRIAL, INC 47.55 117584 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE H.89 117585 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 1,950 00 117586 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 4,902 50 117587 VERIZON INTERNET _ __ _ _ 3119.99 48.66 117588 VERIZON CALIFORNIA _ 539.98 117589 VERIZON WIRELESS (#1) 167.77 117596 VERIZON WIRELESS (#2) _ _ _ _ 243,76_ 117591 VERIZON WIRELESS (#4) _ 165,06 117592 VILLAGE EQUIPMENT RENTALS, INC 117593 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 036.38 38 3/4/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 2 OF 4 FEBRUARY 2-7,2014 CITY OF ]LA\ IE lE]LSINORE WARRANTLIST CI-iE mi VENDOR NAME AMOUNT' 117594 WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING 14,288 00 117595 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY __ _ 533.25 117596 WEST COAST SERVICES _ 900 00 117597 WILLDAN _ _ 15,373.61 117598 DOROTHY WINKLE _ 402.08_ 117599 X -FACTOR MARINE & SPEED _ 357 50 117600 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE _ 250.0 117601 LAMVIN INC _ 9,330 12 117602-117604 _ A & A JANITORIAL SERVICE _ __ 4,967.50 _ 117605 ACCOUNTEMPS _ _ _ 4 623 20 117606. ALL -PRO ENGINE & MOWER SUPPLY _3 94 ' 117607 ALLEGRA MARKETING PRINT MAIL _ 286.20 117608 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES _ _ 1,433 24_ 117609 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEY _ 14,341.00 117610 APPLE ONE 1,450.02 117611 ARTISTIC WOOD _ _ __ ___ 6,712.00 117612 BAZILIO, COBB ASSOCIATES PC_ ___ _ _ _ 8,850 00 117613 BIO TOX LABORATORIES _ 4,127,10 117614-117615 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA INC _ 52,505.48 117616 CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 350.00 117617 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC 3,177.32 117618 CITY OF OAKLAND _ 76.00 4,050 00 117619 KIRT COURY _ 2,057 12 117620-117621 CTAI PACIFIC GREENSCAPE _ _,_ _ 2,000 00_ 117622 D.R.HORTON, INC _ 1,605 00 117623 RITA DAVIS 390.50 117624 RICK DE SANTIAGO _ _ 390.50 117625 FRANCISCO DIAZ _. _ 95.27 117626 DISH NETWORK 41,63417 117627-117632 E. V M W. D. __ 1,1803.8b 117633 ELSINORE PIONEER LUMBER CO. 179.56 1.17634 ENVIROMINE _ __ 842 40 1135 76 FOREST WOOD FIBER PRODUCTS 117636 CARMEN GODINA _ 750 00 425 00 117637 GRANT WRITING USA 425.00 1 1 7638 GRANT WRITING USA 3 50 117639 LORENA HANCOCK ,532 400 00 117640 HARRAH'S_RINCON _ _ V 261 27 117641 JOHNSON MACHINERY CO. 667,67 117642 LAKE CHEVROLET 30.00 117643 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE _ _ 1,706 80 117644 LUXOR HOTEL _ 10,422 25._ 117645 MARATHON GENERAL, INC 442.60 117646 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS _ _ 534.44_ 117647 OFFICE MAX INCORPORATED _ 117648 GUSTAVO POLETTI _ _ _ .30.38, 2.000.00 117649 GENARO & MABLE PRATS _ 189.00 117650 PREMIUM PALOMAR MT SPRING WATER _ 282.70 117651 THE PRESS ENTERPRISE _ 518.40 117652 PRO COAT POWDER COATING, INC ___ 117653 PRO PET DISTRIBUTORS 95 1,90195 117654 PRODUCTION VIDEO, INC. _ 375.00 117655 RBI TRAFFIC, INC. _ _ 2,670 00 117656 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF 707,402 71 117657 RIVERSIDE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE 36,817.18 3/4/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 3 OF 4 FEBRUARY 27, 2014 CITY OF "LAKE IEILSIIl ORIE Vi N:DOIR NAME WA1RRANT 1LIST AMOUNT 117658-117659 ROBBINS FESI MANAULMLNI, INl -1- 117660 ROBERT ROONEY -- MATCO TOOLS 328.20 117661 SEA PAC ENGINEERING INC. 88,358 67_ 117662 SIGNS BY TOMORROW _ 591.00 117663 SOS STORAGE CENTERS _ 580.00.11 117664-117668 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO _ 6,368.78 117669-117670 STAPLES ADVANTAGE _ _ 1,094.99 117671 STAUFFER'S LAWN EQUIPMENT _ 189.52 117672 SUSTAINABLE CIVIL ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS INC. 20J245.59 117673 TEAM AUTOAID, INC. 194.89 117674 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS _ _ __ 508.05 117675 TIME WARNER CABLE _ 246.81 117676 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 72.38 117677 VERIZON CALIFORNIA _ _ 1,030,90 117678 VERIZON WIRELESS (#1) _ 418.33 117679 VERIZON WIRELESS (#3) 229.61 117680 WAL-MART COMMUNITY _ 368 77 117681 WILLIAM JOHNSON _ _ _ 70000.. 11.7682 X -FACTOR MARINE & SPEED 260 00 117683 Z BEST BODY & PAINT_ SHOPS INC 3,872.58 117684 MATTHEW BROWN 3,000.00 WARRANT TOTAL 1 293 996.33 PAY DATE 02/19/14 CALIFORNIAP.E.R.S. 42457.45 02/25/14 CALIFORNIA P E R S. 1,4Z3.00 02/25/14 CALIFORNIAP.E.R.S. 9454.36 02/27/14 PAYROLL CASH 126,822.75 02/27/14 PAYROLL TAXES _ ___ 50 395.12 GRAND TOTAL 1,524,549.01 3/4/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 4 OF 4 CI"I'Y 01- i LAKE LSINO1ZE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GRANT YATES CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget, as reflected and adjusted in the attached Exhibits. BACKGROUND The City is presenting its FY2013-14 Mid -Year Budget review of the General Fund. On Thursday, March 6, 2014, the City's Budget Committee reviewed the FY2013-14 Mid - Year Revised budget for the General Fund. Please note that a review and status report update for Special Revenue Funds, Capital Project Funds, and other funds will be presented as part of the process for the FY2014-15 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Plan Budget, which includes a comprehensive workshop in May 2014. The downturn in the economy continues to challenge many cities throughout the state and Lake Elsinore is no exception. While development activity momentum is building within the City, it is critical that we continue to operate in a fiscally prudent manner, maintain current public safety service levels, and continue providing key services that our citizens have come to expect. As such, the FY2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget Status Report proposes to maintain current services through June 30, 2014, maintains the Uncertainty Reserve at 17.5%, and establishes a path towards development of the FY2014-15 Operating Budget and the Five (5) Year General Fund Financial Plan. Included as attachments to this report are several schedules illustrate (in a tabular format) the current status of the FY2013-14 Mid -Year Budget for the General Fund, as follows: FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Exhibit A — Selected Analysis — Reconciliation of General Fund Fund Balance Exhibit B - Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances — General Fund - FY2013-14 Mid -Year Annual Operating Budget Exhibit C —Budget Calendar for FY2014-15 DISCUSSION Revenues: At mid -year, the City is anticipating a net decrease in recurring operating revenues of $775,292, from $26,308,291 to $25,532,999. The estimated revenue adjustments are as follows: Estimated Revenue Adjustments: Reimbursements $ 159,867 Franchise fees 200,000 Property taxes (34,053) Sales taxes (91,949) Administrative fees, licenses, and charges (272,900) Fire tax credit (82,338) Community Development fees (120,100) Code enforcementfees (structure abatement) 33,500 Weed abatement (50,000) Public Works fees (4,100) Lake, Parks, Recreation fees (73,500) Lake Elsinore Successor Agency - Reimburse D/S(ROP! (439,719) $ (775,292) The largest revenue decrease of $439,719 is largely offset by a similar decrease in appropriations related to the ROPS (Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule) payment and accounting for debt service paid on behalf of the Successor Agency. All of the remaining revenue adjustments are as a result of changes in user fee estimated revenues based upon activity year-to-date and projections to year end. 1A FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND March 11, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Expenditures: Appropriations: The total decrease for mid -year appropriations is $766,969. Departments were requested to reduce or maintain costs within their existing appropriations, except for minor changes within individual line items. Estimated Appropriation Adjustments: General Law Enforcement $ (150,000) Fi re (100,000) Public Works (100,000) Lake Elsinore Successor Agency - ReductionD/S(ROPS (439,719) Other (Retirement related costs) 22,750 $ 766,969 However, the City Manager will be working closely with the departments to further reduce expenditures before June 30, 2014. GENERAL FUND BALANCE RESERVES The General Fund Balance Reserves at June 30, 2014 would reflect the following as a result of the proposed Mid -Year adjustments, as follows: Nonspendable: Deposits and prepaid items $ 1,034,879 Due from Successor Agency 434,897 Loans Receivable 1,000,000 Designated: Uncertainty reserve 5,154,601 Undesignated: Unallocated reserve/working capital 3,212,095 Total Fund Balance (net) 10 R�6.477 The Uncertainty Reserve has been established at 17.5% of Appropriations. FISCAL IMPACT While the City is beginning to benefit from the improving economy, the development of an accurate, balanced and achievable budget is critical to establishing a solid foundation to manage the anticipated growth and demand for services within and by the 3 FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND March 11, 2014 Page 4 of 4 community. In developing and implementing a comprehensive operating budget plan, the factors impacting the City's operations and financial condition are numerous, and while the City's General Fund is still in a vulnerable condition, efforts will continue to monitor operating activities closely to ensure the General Fund's resources are programmed appropriately. The FY2013-14 Mid -Year Budget Report is one of the first steps in beginning the FY2014-15 budget preparation process. The City Manager will be proactively working with each department to develop and present a balanced budget to the Mayor and City Council that moves the City forward in achieving its financial goals as part of the FY2014-15 Budget process. The overall fiscal impact of the FY2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget for the General Fund is as follows: Revenue Adjustments $ (775,292) Appropriation Adjustments 766,969 Net reduction in transfers in (257,057) Net reduction in transfers out 30,000 Netchange/impact-FY2013-14 Midyear Operating Budget $ (235,380) Prepared by: Jason Simpson Director of Administrative Services Approved by: Grant Yates City Manager 4 Exhibit A Selected Analysis — Reconciliation of General Fund "Fund Balance" CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA FY2013-14 MID -YEAR BUDGET - OPERATING SELECTED ANALYSIS - RECONCILIATION OF GENERAL FUND - "FUND BALANCE" DATED: FEBRUARY 28, 2014 Projected Ending Fund Balance -June 30, 2014 (as adopted) $ 9,959,390 Designated for budget stabilization reserve 1,334,899 Designated for budget carry -forward from FY12-13 1,494,721 2,829,620 FY2013-14 Adopted Budget- Deficit (2,829,620) FY2012-13 Roll -Over Encumbrances (307,014) (3,136,634) FY2013-14 Midyear Budget Changes: Net Impact - Increase/ Favorable/ Adopted Midyear (Decrease) (Unfavorable) Estimated Revenues $ 26,308,291 $ 25,532,999 $ (775,292) $ (775,292) Appropriations 30,221,831 29,454,862 (766,969) 766,969 Transfers in 806,906 549,849 (257,057) (257,057) Transfers out 30,000 - (30,000) 30,000 Net FY2013-14 Net Mid -Year Operating Budget Surplus/(Deficit) (235,380) $ (3,372,014) Reconciling Items: FY2012-13 General Fund Net Revenue (unaudited) (123,902) Adjustment (Projected Ending Fund Balance) Budget vs. Actuals (FY2013-14 Adopted Budget Book) 543,377 Audit Adjustment - Loan Receivable (Pottery Court) - Reclass Deferred Revenue to Fund Balance 1,000,000 Ending Fund Balance (Projected), June 30, 2014 $ 10,836,472 9 Exhibit B Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances — General Fund - 2013-14 Mid -Year Annual Operating Budget CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND 2013-14 MID -YEAR ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET Excess of Revenues Over 2012-13 2012-13 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 $ Variance % Variance (Under) Expenditures Revised Unaudited Current Year -to -Date Midyear Increase Increase Operating Transfers In/(Out): Budget Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Revenues: 1,195,510 1,266,690 806,906 163,872 549,849 (257,057) -31.86% sales tax 7,923,000 7,788,115 8,030,676 3,433,520 7,938,727 (91,949) -1.14% Property Tax 5,396,581 5,263,296 5,537,970 2,859,295 5,478,917 (59,053) -1.07% Franchise l'ax 1,875,000 2,095,081 1,900,000 715,159 2,102,000 202,000 10.63% Building Permit Fee 1,254,000 1,867,598 1,900,000 1,101,633 1,900,000 - 0,00% Property Transfer Tax 195,000 265,337 200,000 179,030 225,000 25,000 12.50% Other Taxes 247,000 277,042 252,000 212,513 252,000 - 0.00% Other Licenses & Permits 1,041,825 974,553 1,139,025 641,546 1,149,625 10,600 0.93% Intergovernmental 109,889 79,706 110,307 73,837 118,407 8,100 7.34% Fees 2.,211,870 2,053,193 2,757,600 1,450,313 2,282,000 (475,600) -17.25% Pines and Forfeitures 599,000 592,185 439,900 198,565 440,200 300 0.07% Fire Service Tax Credit 1,816,436 2,073,402 2,000,000 454,109 1,917,662 (82,338) -4.12% Investment Earnings 195,000 9,010 195,000 47,555 195,000 - 0.00% Reimbursements from RDA 314,760 314,760 328,813 193,223 321,180 (7,633) -2.32% RDA Lease Pymts (LERA) 704,000 704,000 1,200,000 600,000 760,281 (439,719) -36.64% RDA SB211 Pass Through 98,000 102,422 98,000 55,261 98,000 - 0.00% Other Miscellaneous Revenue 219,000 740,754 219,000 226,383 354,000 135,000 61.64% Total Revenues 24,200,361 25,200,454 26,308,291 12,441,942 25,532,999 (775,292) Expenditures by Dept: City Council/PSAC 292,872 270,864 272,131 178,216 272,131 - 0.00% City Treasurer - - - - - - 0.00% City Attorney 325,000 366,912 325,000 100,860 325,000 - 0.00% City Clerk 358,866 290,509 365,181 168,759 365,181 - 0.00% City Manager/Econ Dev 515,259 420,069 474,952 289,390 474,952 - 0.00% Administrative Services 2,333,757 2,380,460 2,244,738 1,467,903 2,244,738 - 0.00% General Law Enforcement 7,849,832 7,548,303 8,471,850 1,562,251 8,321,850 (150,000) -1.77% Fire 4,016,939 3,935,908 5,390,844 1,241,406 5,290,844 (100,000) -1.85% Community Development 2,037,971 1,632,023 2,298,418 1,097,121 2,298,418 - 0.00% Public Works 2,096,386 1,977,325 2,359,659 1,373,251 2,259,659 (100,000) -4.24% Lake, Parks and Recreation 4,209,411 4,250,777 4,276,234 2,663,980 4,276,234 - 0.00% Animal Shelter Operating 484,308 485,161 738,624 197,339 738,624 - 0.00% Non -Departmental -Operating 2,525,391 3,032,736 3,004,200 1,494,504 2,587,231 (416,969) -13.88% Total Expenditures 27,045,992 26,591,047 30,221,831 11,834,979 29,454,862 (766,969) -2.54% Excess of Revenues Over 1,000,000 - - Fund Balance, Beg. of Year (as restated) $ 11,682,267 (Under) Expenditures (2,845,631) (1,390,593) (3,913,540) 606,963 (3,921,863) (8,323) -0.21% Operating Transfers In/(Out): Nonspendable: Budget carry -forward - FYI .2-13 - - 1.494,721 - Deposits and prepaid Items Operating Transfers In 1,195,510 1,266,690 806,906 163,872 549,849 (257,057) -31.86% Operating Transfers In/(Out): 434,897 434,897 Loans Receivable - - - 1,000,000 LLMD NO. 1 (Fund 135) - - (30,000) (30,000) - 30,000 -100.00% Excess of Revenues Over Unallocated reserve 5,083.,767 (Under) Expenditures and 914,547 7,246,698 3,212,095 Total Fund Balance (net) $ 11,682,267 $ 14,208,486 $ 11,071,852 $ Operating Transfers In/(Out) (1,650,121) (123,902) (3,136,634) 740,835 (3,372,014) (235,380) -7.50% Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 13,332,388 13,332,388 14,208,486 14,208,486 14,208,486 Prior Period Adjustment 1,000,000 - - Fund Balance, Beg. of Year (as restated) $ 11,682,267 $ 14,208,486 $ 11,071,852 $ 14,949,320 $ 10,836,472 Budget stabilization reserve Detail of Fund Balance 1,000,000 1,334,899 - Nonspendable: Budget carry -forward - FYI .2-13 - - 1.494,721 - Deposits and prepaid Items $ 1,070,606 $ 1,070,606 $ 1,034,879 $ 1,034,879 $ 1,034,879 Due from Successor Agency 434,897 434,897 434,897 434,897 434,897 Loans Receivable - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Designated: Uncertainty reserve 3,641,400 3,641,400 5,232,846 5,232,846 5,154,601 Budget stabilization reserve 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,334,899 - - Budget carry -forward - FYI .2-13 - - 1.494,721 - - Working capital - - - Equipment replacement 114,073 114,073 316,302 - civic Beautification 210,763 210,763 180,000 - - Darwin Rogers Trust Funds 128,761 128,761 128,761 Undesignated: Unallocated reserve 5,083.,767 7,607,986 914,547 7,246,698 3,212,095 Total Fund Balance (net) $ 11,682,267 $ 14,208,486 $ 11,071,852 $ 14,949,320 $ 10,836,472 Exhibit C Budget Calendar for FY2014-15 MONTH DESCRIPTION MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE ONGOING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA FY2014-15 BUDGET CALENDAR - Development of budget parameters/strategic goals - Distribution of Budget Preparation Guidelines - Budget workshop with key City staff - Development of program goals and objectives - Development of performance measures - Budget requests submitted to Finance for review - Proposed CIP ("Capital Improvement Plan") projects submitted to Finance - Department operating budget submittals reviewed - Revenue estimates completed by Finance - Budget analysis prepared for review by City Manager - CIP project timing and priorities modified based on available revenues - Preliminary operating and CIP budgets prepared - Five-year financial projection completed - Public budget workshop with City Council allowing for public input - Prepare agenda reports and proposed budget documents - Council adoption of final operating and CIP budgets - Council adoption of schedule of authorized positions and Gann Appropriations Limit Monthly budget/actual reports reviewed & sent to Departments Quarterly financial statements prepared and presented to City Council Mid -year budget analysis and revision 10 TIMELINE March 12 March 12 March 13 March 13 March 13 March 26 March 28 April 1 April 1 April 8 April 11 May 1 May 6 TBD - 3RD WEEK OF MAY June 1 June 10 June 10 Monthly Quarterly February 2015 CITYOt: ix _ LA_KT . LSI]`IOIJE DREAM EXTREML� REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council waive further reading and adopt by title only ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 12.14 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES, by roll -call vote. Discussion The above -referenced Ordinance was introduced at the regular Council meeting of February 25, 2014, relating to the Towing Services. It is now being presented for second reading and adoption by title only. Prepared by: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk Approved by: Grant Yates, City Manager Attachment: Ordinance No. 2013-1322 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 12.14 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopted Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in 2001 pursuant to Ordinance No. 1065; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend and restate Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in order to revise and update the provisions related to rotational towing services and the franchise granted by the City Council to provide such services. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated as follows: Chapter 12.14 ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES Sections: 12.14.010 Purpose and intent. 12.14.020 Definitions. 12.14.030 Tow truck operator franchise. 12.14.040 Nonexclusive franchise. 12.14.050 Selection of franchisees. 12.14.060 Rotation system. 12.14.070 Conditions on franchises. 12.14.080 Rates. 12.14.090 Vehicle impound cost recovery fee. 12.14.100 Franchise fees. 12.14.110 Franchise agreements. 12.14.120 Additional services to be provided. 12.14.130 Authority to maintain City towing operations and towing yard. 12.14.010 Purpose and intent. It is the intent of this chapter and any subsequent amendments thereto to prescribe the basic regulations for the operation of the City of Lake Elsinore ("City") and Lake Elsinore Police Department ("Police Department') towing service in emergency situations and in the removal of vehicles that are abandoned, involved in an accident, or constitute an obstruction to traffic because of mechanical failure. It is the purpose of the City Council 1 in enacting this chapter to provide a fair and impartial means of distributing requests for towing services among qualified franchises, and to ensure that such service is prompt and reasonably priced, and in the best interests of the public as well as the interest of efficient policing operations for the removal of such vehicles from public streets. 12.14.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words, and derivations shall have the meaning given in this section: "City Manager" means the City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore. "Franchise agreement" means an agreement between the City and a franchisee for the purposed of providing towing services as provided in this chapter. "Franchisee" means a certain tow truck operator to which the City Council may, by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance, grant a nonexclusive franchise for purposes of providing towing services to the City under and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. "Police Chief" means the Chief of Police of the Police Department of the City of Lake Elsinore. "Police Department" means the Police Department of the City of Lake Elsinore. "Tow truck operator" means mean a towing company and the owner(s) and/or managing employee(s) of a towing company. 12.14.030 Tow truck operator franchise. The City Council may at its discretion, by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance, grant a nonexclusive franchise to a tow truck operator ("franchisee") to provide towing services to the City under and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 12.14.040 Nonexclusive franchise. A. All franchises granted to franchisees pursuant to this chapter shall be nonexclusive and shall be for a term to be specified by the City Council in the resolution granting a franchise hereunder and in the franchise agreement between the City and the franchisee. B. No provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to require restricting the number of franchises to one or any particular number, and no provision of this chapter shall be deemed to require the City Council to grant any franchise if the City Council determines that the grant of any such franchise is not in the best interest of the City and the public. C. All franchisees shall be subject to the terms and conditions specified in this chapter, as well as any terms or conditions specified in the resolution granting the franchise and the franchise agreement. 2 D. In granting any tow truck operator franchise, the City Council may prescribe such other terms and conditions, not in conflict with this chapter, as are determined by the City Council to be in the best interest of the City and the public. 12.14.050 Selection of franchisees. A. The selection of the franchisees shall be done through a competitive selection process. Upon any opening(s) on the rotation list, the City Manager shall issue a notice of request for qualifications (RFQ) to solicit interested tow truck operators. The RFQ shall be posted on the City's website and either: (1) posted on a website devoted to procurement services, bid and vendor management such as Planetbids.com., or (2) published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Responses to the RFQ shall be due no earlier than 20 days following posting and/or publication of the notice as required herein. B. The Police Chief, in coordination with the City Manager or designee, shall evaluate the qualifications of the tow truck operators responding to the RFQ. No later than 60 days after receipt of the responses to the RFQ, the Police Chief shall submit to the City Council for consideration the qualifications of the tow truck operator(s) that he/she deems most qualified together with a franchise agreement as provided in LEMC 12.14.110. C. With respect to the selection process as provided herein, the Police Chief shall determine the number of franchisees needed to provide towing services to the Police Department. In determining the required number of franchisees, the Police Chief may consider the following factors: (1) the operational needs of the Police Department; (2) population growth; (3) the number of currently authorized franchisees and their average response time; (4) administrative burdens imposed by the number of franchisees to be included in a rotation list; and (5) such other reasonable factors as determined by the Police Chief. 12.14.060 Rotation system. A. The tow truck operators who obtain a franchise pursuant to this chapter shall provide towing service to the City pursuant to the rotation system established by the Police Chief. B. Nothing shall prohibit a Class B, C, or D operator from maintaining a place on a lighter class rotation list. Regardless of the class of tow truck, charges shall not be more than the class of vehicle towed or serviced, except when recovery operations required a larger class of truck. 3 12.14.070 Conditions on franchises. Any tow truck operator that obtains a franchise pursuant to this chapter shall A. Comply with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. B. Have an office and storage facility in the same location within the City's boundaries, with a sign posted including the company name, address, phone number and hours of operation, to be clearly visible from the roadway. Unless otherwise authorized under the franchise agreement, such storage facilities shall contain a minimum of 25 vehicle exterior storage spaces and a minimum of four (4) secured vehicle storage spaces. The secured vehicle storage spaces shall be for the purpose of securing vehicle for evidence at the request of the police department. Secured vehicles shall be transported to and from the storage facility to the police station at no charge to the City or the Police Department. C. Maintain a sign listing the rates and charges of all towing and storage services offered. Such sign shall be conspicuously posted in the office or other location clearly visible where customer financial transactions take place. D. Furnish each owner of an automobile impounded by the tow truck operator with a fully itemized billing. E. Maintain minimum operating hours for storage facilities of Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except holidays. F. Respond to Police Department calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week, within the response time as established by the Police Chief, but generally within 20 minutes. The franchisees shall promptly advise the Police Department as to any anticipated delay in arrival. In the event of a delay, the Police Department may elect to contact another franchisee for service. G. Provide appropriate insurance as determined by the City Manager and agree to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and the Police Department from all claims, demands or liability arising out of or encountered in connection with its agreement with the City or the performance of work in preparation for the towing operation, or claims, demands and liability occurring during the towing and subsequent storage and maintenance activities whether such claims, demands or liability are caused by the tow service or its employees or agents. H. Conduct its business in an orderly, ethical, businesslike manner, and use reasonable means to obtain and keep the confidence of the motoring public. Franchisee shall be responsible for the acts of its employees and agents while on duty and for damage to towed vehicles while in its possession. I. Comply with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations for providing towing service and be a currently approved operator for the California Highway Patrol rotational tow list. J. Comply with the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement CI 12.14.080 Rates. A. Franchisee shall not charge rates in excess of 115 percent of the schedule of rates for towing established by the California Highway Patrol for the Riverside County area. B. Storage fees shall be charged by calendar day except that vehicles stored eight hours or less shall be charged no more than one day storage. 12.14.090 Vehicle impound cost recovery fee. A. The vehicle impound cost recovery fee ("VICR fee") is equal to one hour of police officer time at the current intermediate deputy rate in effect at the time of the release of the impounded vehicle. This rate is annually reviewed, updated and approved by the Board of Supervisors for the County of Riverside. B. The City hereby establishes a VICR fee, payable when a registered owner or a legal owner seeks the release of a vehicle which the Police Department has impounded. C. A registered owner who redeems an impounded vehicle or requests its release from a franchisee's storage facility shall first pay to the Police Department the VICR fee. D. The Police Department may waive the VICR fee due to extenuating circumstances. It is not the intention of the City nor the Police Department to penalize victims. Circumstances under which the VICR fee may be waived include the impounding of recovered stolen or embezzled vehicles, and vehicles impounded due to driver injury or incapacitation. 12.14.100 Franchise fees. Any tow truck operator granted a franchise pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall pay to the City franchise charges and fees as may be determined by separate resolution of the City Council. Such fee shall not exceed the City's annual cost of administration and enforcement of this chapter. 12.14.110 Franchise agreements. All franchises granted by the City Council pursuant to this chapter shall be memorialized in a written franchise agreement between the franchisee and the City and approved by resolution of the City Council. The franchise granted therein shall be non -transferable unless prior consent is obtained from the City. The franchise agreement shall provide for immediate suspension or termination of the franchise granted under this chapter in event that the franchisee fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter and/or the franchise agreement. 12.14.120 Additional services to be provided. Franchisee shall provide to the City, at no charge, the services needed to facilitate the City's vehicle abatement program. Additionally, the franchisee will provide emergency response to aid and service City and Police Department vehicles that are one ton or less, within a reasonable radius no greater than one mile beyond the City's boundaries, at no cost to the City or Police Department. 5 12.14.130 Authority to maintain City towing operations and towing yard. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting or prohibiting the City from conducting its own towing operations or maintaining its own towing yard, either in lieu of, or in addition to, any franchise awarded pursuant to this chapter. SECTION 2. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance and are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its final passage. The City Clerk shall certify as to adoption of this Ordinance and cause this Ordinance to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the day of 2014, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the day of , 2014. ATTEST: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leibold, City Attorney Mayor City of Lake Elsinore City Council 130 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Ordinance No. 2014- was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on the _ day of 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Virginia J. Bloom, CMC City Clerk CII[ of �Zr :)P.t_ M REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: GRANT YATES, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRING THE MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTERING OF PIT BULL BREEDS; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANIMALS AND ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS Recommendations 1. Waive further reading and introduce by title only Ordinance No. 2014-1323 adding section 6.04.235 to Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requiring the mandatory spaying and neutering of pit bull breeds, by roll call vote. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2014-12 establishing fines and penalties for violation of Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Regarding Animals and Animal Control Officers. Background The Department of Animal Services for Riverside County has found that Pit Bull and Pit Bull mixes significantly impact the health and safety of residents and their pets. Furthermore, the County's Department of Animal Services cites frequent incident reports of human injury and death from attacks by this type of canine. For example, on February 11, 2014 a man living in the unincorporated area of the County, near Lake Elsinore, was hospitalized after being attacked by a Pit Bull. In recent years, pit bulls comprise a disproportionately high number of unwanted dogs in the County of Riverside generally, accounting for twenty percent (20%) percent of shelter dogs and thirty percent (30%) of dogs euthanized in the County. Ordinance Pit Bull Breeds Page 2 of 2 Discussion March 11, 2014 While the majority of pit bull owners are responsible and take appropriate measures to ensure that their dogs do not have unwanted offspring, there is a need to mitigate the large number of unwanted pit bulls in the City. The proposed ordinance mandates the spaying and neutering of Pit Bull Breeds, with reasonable exceptions for certain cases, such as certified breeders or assistance dogs. Violation of this ordinance is proposed to be punishable by a fine. Under Resolution No. 2014-12 the fines would be sequentially increased from $100 for the first violation, a fine not exceeding $200 for the second violation and a not to exceed $500 fine for each additional violation. The City Manager would be authorized to amend the fine schedule for specific violations under LEMC Chapter 6.04, provided that such fines shall not exceed the maximum fine limits established by the City Council. Fiscal Impact Enforcement of this ordinance is anticipated to occur through routine duties of Animal Control Officers. Pit Bull Breeds will be determined in the field by the best professional judgment of the Animal Control Officer. If the owner of the dog appeals the determination of their dog as a Pit Bull Breed, then an appeal may be submitted. The cost to AFV of processing the appeal will be covered as "extra work" under the existing Animal Control Field Services agreement with the City. Given this would be a new ordinance, the number of cases that would appeal is unknown. The Animal Control Field Services agreement is due to expire in June 2014. City Staff will provide a report to the City Council on enforcement of this ordinance when renewal of the Field Services agreement is agendized. Approved by: Pat Kilroy, Director Lake, Parks & Recreation Department Approved by: Grant Yates, City Manager Attachments: • Ordinance No. 2014-1323 • Resolution No. 2014-12 • Press Enterprise News Article, dated February 12, 2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1323 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRING THE MANDATORY SPAYING AND NEUTERING OF PIT BULL BREEDS WHEREAS, in recent years, pit bulls comprise a disproportionately high number of unwanted dogs in the County of Riverside generally, accounting for twenty percent (20%) percent of shelter dogs and thirty percent (30%) of dogs euthanized in the County of Riverside; and WHEREAS, while the majority of pit bull owners are responsible and take appropriate measures to ensure that their dogs do not have unwanted offspring, there is a need to mitigate the large number of unwanted pit bulls in the City; and WHEREAS, restricting the maintenance of and breeding of intact pit bulls and requiring the spaying and neutering of pit bulls will not prevent responsible pet owners and pet breeders from owning, breeding, or showing pit bull breeds; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is adopted pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 122331, which authorizes cities and counties to enact mandatory breed specific spay/neutering programs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 6.04.235 is hereby adopted as follows: 6.04.235 Mandatory Spay and Neutering of Pit Bull Breed Dogs. A. No person shall own or possess a pit bull over the age of four (4) months that has not been spayed or neutered, except as provided for in Section 6.04.235.C. B. For purposes of this chapter, "pit bull" means Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or American Stafford Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog which contains, as an element of its breeding, any of these breeds so as to be identifiable as partially of one or more of these breeds. C. Exemptions. The following pit bulls are exempt from the regulations described in this Section 6.05.235: 1. A currently licensed pit bull (a) in which the owner or custodian has provided verification that the pit bull is registered with the American Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club or other appropriate registry, and (b) the owner or custodian possesses a current dealer's license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 1 2. A pit bull that has been appropriately trained and is actually being used by a public law enforcement agency for law enforcement purposes. 3. A pit bull that is an assistance dog as defined in California Food and Agricultural Code section 30850. 4. A pit bull which has been certified by a licensed veterinarian as having a health reason for not being spayed/neutered. 5. A pit bull which is in training at a licensed kennel and is currently licensed by the owner or custodian in another jurisdiction. The owner or custodian of the pit bull has the burden of showing that the pit bull is licensed in another jurisdiction. D Determination of Breed. 1. Upon the request of any person, including the Animal Control Director, or upon the Animal Control Officer's own initiative, the Animal Control Officer will determine whether a dog is a pit bull that has not been spayed or neutered in violation of Section 6.04.235.A. 2. The dog owner or custodian may appeal a determination issued pursuant to subsection 6.04.235.D.1 by filing a written request for appeal with the Animal Control Agency within ten days after notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or custodian. No provision herein shall prohibit personal service. The determination by the Animal Control Officer is deemed final if a timely appeal is not received by the Animal Control Agency. The appeal shall be heard within thirty days after the Animal Control Agency's receipt of the request for appeal. The Animal Control Agency shall mail written notification to the owner or custodian of the date, time, and place of the hearing, at least ten days prior to the hearing date. Failure of the owner or custodian or agent to appear at the hearing will result in forfeiture of the right to a hearing. 3. The hearing may be informal and the rules of evidence not strictly observed. The hearing shall be conducted by a hearing officer designated by the Animal Control Agency. The determination of the hearing officer shall be final. 4. The Animal Control Agency shall mail written notification of the appeal determination to the owner or custodian of the dog within ten days after the hearing. 5. If the written notification of the appeal determination confirmed that the dog is an unaltered pit bull kept in violation of Section 6.04.235.A, the owner or custodian of the pit bull shall submit written documentation to the Animal Control Agency confirming compliance with Section 6.04.235.A within fifteen days of the Animal Control Agency mailing the notice of determination. Alternatively, if the pit bull has been moved to a location outside of the City's jurisdiction, within fifteen days of the Animal Control Agency mailing the notice of determination, the owner or custodian shall provide 2 the Animal Control Agency with the new location of the pit bull, the current owner or custodian's name, and the telephone number and address of the owner or custodian. SECTION 2. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance and are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its final passage. The City Clerk shall certify as to adoption of this Ordinance and cause this Ordinance to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the.11t" day of March, 2014, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the day of , 2014. ATTEST: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leibold, City Attorney Natasha Johnson, Mayor City of Lake Elsinore City Council K1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Ordinance No. 2014-1323 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on the 11th day of March, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Virginia J. Bloom, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2014-12 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 6.04 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANIMALS AND ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City Lake Elsinore has duly adopted Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) which provides, among other things, regulations involving the control of animals; and WHEREAS, Chapter 6.04 provides that the fines for violation of Chapter 6.04 shall be established by the City Council. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMIE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of Chapter 6.04 of the LEMC shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $100.00 for a first violation, a fine not exceeding $200.00 for a second violation of the same provision within one year, and a fine not exceeding $500.00 for each additional violation of the same provision within one year. SECTION 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to establish a fine schedule for specific violations of the provisions contained within Chapter 6.04 of the LEMC, provided that such fines shall not exceed the maximum fine limits set forth in Section 2 herein. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11th day of March, 2014 Natasha Johnson, Mayor City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Virginia J Bloom, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leibold, City Attorney City of Lake Elsinore STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2014-12 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of March 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Virginia J. Bloom, CMC City Clerk Cars I Homes I Jobs THE P1ISS,-Elrl'I� P ] S'L Member CentebWelcome I Sign In I P -Edition Login I Advertise Home > Local News > Riverside County > Lake Elsinore > Lake Elsinore Headlines LAKE ELSINORE: Man rescues neighbor from pit bull mauling Search ps Today's Poll what's this? How do you feel about bats? O They freak me out. Maybe I've seen too many vampire movies. O They are fascinating, and generally harmless, creatures O Like any wild animal, they're just fine if left alone O 1 have no opinion SWmil 108 LL,- Share 0 } 0 F7 o _ A Text Size BY SARAH BURGE I STAFF WRITER I February 12, 2014; 08:42 PM Trending A quick -thinking neighbor might just have saved the life of a 53 -year-old man who was being mauled by his own pit bulls at his home near Lake Elsinore. Yet Ross Papesch was taken aback by all the attention he's receiving after crashing his van through a locked, chain-link gate, startling the pit bulls and bringing a halt to the gruesome attack. "I didn't really do anything," he said. "I drove a van through a fence to help a guy out." His family disagreed. "I think my dad is freaking epic," said his 10 -year-old son, Rohan. "And you can quote me on that." Returning from work about 4:15 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 11, Ross Papesch happened on the chaotic scene near his home on Honey Lane in an unincorporated area near Lake Elsinore. As other neighbors stood by, Papesch took action. The 44 -year-old house painter rammed the gate and scattered the animals. The victim was taken to Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar with severe injuries to his arms, hands and face, Riverside County sheriff's officials said. He was still in serious condition Wednesday. Animal control officers suspect the victim was trying to break up a fight between two male pit bulls outside his home when the dogs turned on him, said John Welsh, spokesman for the Riverside County Department of Animal Services. Welsh said there four unlicensed, unaltered adult pit bulls and two pit bull puppies on the fenced -in property, which sits along a dirt road in a semirural neighborhood northeast of Interstate 15 and Central Avenue. At least two of the adult dogs, and perhaps more, were involved in the attack, he said. If it hadn't been for Papesch, Welsh said, "Who knows how long that attack would have continued." Papesch said was getting out of his van when heard a ruckus down the street and drove down the block to investigate. He found two pit bulls tearing a man apart in a fenced -in front yard. A couple of women in the yard were screaming, hitting the dogs with a broom and throwing water on them to no avail, he said. Another neighbor was banging on the fence in an effort to distract the animals. One of the dogs was dragging the man by the leg. "It was a mess," he said. "I just decided I better do something." Ramming the chain-link fencing seemed like the only option. Papesch said he stayed with the victim until help arrived. "I just hope he's OK," Papesch said. Dog euthanized Sheriff's officials said the pit bulls were shut in a trailer on the property when deputies arrived. Two women were arrested on suspicion of interfering with deputies who were trying, for safety reasons, to search the victim's home. All six pit bulls were seized by animal control officers. One of them, Goliath, a 2 -year-old unneutered male, has already been euthanized, Welsh said. The victim's roommate owned Goliath and agreed after the attack to relinquish the animal. The victim owns the other five dogs, which are in quarantine, Welsh said. b9P` SAN BERNpolice ARDINO: �`man r KkligRd who firedrandomlyrat ,8$ stores RIVERSIDE: Man who was stabbed to death is identified HEMET:Man steals police car, flees LAKE ELSINORE: Dog attack hospitalizes man RIVERSIDE: City may hire unarmed guards at some parks Featured Business Western Municipal Water District 951-571-7100 Riverside Yellow Pages Top Bvents FEB Thursday Motocross Glen Helen Raceway 8:00 am Welsh said there had been another report Jan. 5 of a pit bull biting its owner at the same property In that incident, too, it appears the owner had tried to break up a fight between two dogs. Animal control officers later discovered the pit bull that bit the owner had been turned over to be euthanized at the Wildomar shelter operated by Animal Friends of the Valleys, Welsh said. Pit bull issues Pit bulls and pit bull mixes in unincorporated Riverside County must be spayed or neutered under terms of a sterilization ordinance the Board of Supervisors approved in October. The ordinance took effect in November. County animal control officials sought the ordinance to deal with what they said was an abundance of pit bulls in county shelters. The breed accounts for 20 percent of all shelter dogs and 30 percent of euthanized dogs, they said, adding that pit bulls are very difficult to find homes for. The rule applies to pit bulls and pit bull mixes older than 4 months in the county's unincorporated areas. Spaying or neutering is required for the dogs to be licensed. Violators face an administrative citation or misdemeanor. There are several exemptions, including licensed breeders, police dogs, dogs helping the blind and disabled, and dogs deemed too sick to be sterilized. The ordinance followed a series of highly publicized pit bull attacks against people in 2013, including the fatal mauling of a 91 -year-old woman in Hemet in February and a January attack on an 84 -year-old Jurupa Valley woman as she retrieved her mail. In September, relatives said five pit bulls pulled 2 -year-old Samuel Eli Zamudio from a window at his grandmother's home in Colton and killed him. Colton is in San Bernardino County, which also has a pit bull sterilization law on the books. Also contributing to this report: Staff writers Jeff Horseman, jhorseman@pe.com, and Aaron Claverie, aclaverie@pe.com Contact Sarah Burge at 951-368-9694 or sburge@pe.com Pit bulls in Riverside County Pit bulls and mixes accounted for 28 percent of all dog bites in unincorporated areas in Fiscal Year 2012-13. Chihuahuas accounted for 11 percent. The breed accounts for 20 percent of all shelter dogs The breed accounts for 30 percent of euthanized dogs Avoiding dog attacks Here are some tips for those who encounter dogs: Do not approach an unfamiliar dog Avoid direct eye contact with a dog Do not disturb a dog that is sleeping, eating, or caring for puppies Remain motionless (e.g., "be still like a tree') when approached by an unfamiliar dog Do not pet a dog without allowing it to see and sniff you first Do not scream or run from a dog If knocked over by a dog, roll into a ball and be still See's Valentine Candy Sale Hemet Valley Hospital Au... 8:00 am Amazing Scavenger Hunt Adventure Olvera Street 9:00 am Friday FEB 14 Saturday FEB 15 Full Calendar I Submit an Event LIFETfMME up to ,.•>�,n on ri ddodvl, 2 Yrs. The e (873} 565.6855 REPORT TO SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY FROM: VIRGINIA J. BLOOM AGENCY CLERK DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommendation It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve Minutes as submitted. Discussion The following minutes are submitted for approval: a. Regular Successor Agency meeting of February 25, 2014. Prepared by: Diana Giron Deputy Agency Clerk Approved and Submitted by: Virginia J. Bloom Agency Clerk Approved by: Grant Yates Executive Director Tuesday, February 25, 2014 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P,M. City of Lake Elsinore Meeting Minutes - Draft Successor Agency NATASHA JOHNSON, CHAIR STEVE MANOS, VICE -CHAIR BRIAN TISDALE, AGENCY MEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, AGENCY MEMBER ROBERT MAGEE, AGENCY MEMBER GRANT YATES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7:00 PM Vice -Chair Manos called the meeting to order at 7:17 p,m. ROLL CALL LAKE-FLSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE EVMWD BOARDROOM 31315 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 PRESENT: Vice -Chair Manos, Agency Member Hickman, Agency Member Magee, and Agency Member Tisdale ABSENT: PRESENT: Chairperson Johnson Also present: Executive Director Yates, Agency Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Simpson, Lake, Parks, & Recreation Director Kilroy, Interim Public Works Director Eskandari, Community Development Director Taylor, Police Chief Kennedy -Smith, Management Analyst Dailey, and Deputy Agency Clerk Giron, CLOSED SESSION REPORT None PRESENTATIONS ( CEREMONIALS Me=1 PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE None CONSENT CALENDAR ID# 14-029 Approval of Minutes It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve Minutes as submitted. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Successor Agency Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 ID# 14-030 Warrant List Dated February 13 2014 It is recommended that the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 13, 2014. Motion by Agency Member Tisdale, seconded by Agency Member Hickman, to approve all items identified on the Consent Calendar; the motion passed by unanimous vote as follows: AYES : Vice -Chair Manos, Agency Member Hickman, Agency Member Magee and Agency Member Tisdale NOES None ABSENT Chairperson Johnson ABSTAIN : None PUBLIC HEARING(S) None APPEAL(S) None BUSINESS ITEMS) ID# 14-031 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule CROPS 14-15A) for July 1 2014 Through December 31 2014 It is recommended that the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt Resolution No. SA 2014.06 A Resolution of the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 14.16A) for July 2014 through December 2014. Agency Counsel Leibold provided a staff report and recommendation the Agency. City of take Elsinore Page 2 Successor Agency Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Motion by Agency Member Magee, seconded by Agency Member Tisdale, to adopt Resolution No. SA 2014-06 A Resolution of the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (RODS 14-15A) for July 2014 through December 2014; the motion passed by unanimous vote as follows: AYES : Vice -Chair Manos, Agency Member Hickman, Agency Member Magee and Agency Member Tisdale NOES None ABSENT Chairperson Johnson ABSTAIN : None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS None AGENCY COUNSEL COMMENTS None AGENCY MEMBERS COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Manos adjourned this meeting at 7:18 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, at the Cultural Center located at 183 N.Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California. Steve Manos, Vice Chairperson Diana Giron, Deputy Agency Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 3 CI'T'Y Ol, REPORT TO SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO: HONORABLE AGENCY CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY FROM: GRANT YATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: WARRANT LIST DATED FEB 27, 2014 Recommendation It is recommended that the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014 Discussion The warrant list is a listing of all general checks issued by the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore since the prior Warrant List, Prepared By: Frances Ramirez Account Specialist II Reviewed By: Jason Simpson Administrative Services Director Approved By: Grant Yates City Manager Attachments: Warrant List 2-27-2014 FEBRUARY 2E, 201/1 WARRANT SUMMARY SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF `1CHlE REDEVELOPMENT AG ENCY OF "] IA E tCrry OF ]LAKE ]E]LS][NOR E FUNDS FUND DESCIi1PTION TOTAL 540 SUCCESSOR DIAMOND STADIUM $ 103,258.97 GRAND TOTAL 3/4/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 SA RDA 1 of 2 $ 103,258.97 F1EBR UARY 27, 2014 'JARRAN7F 1LIST SUCCESSOR AGENCY O F TI I E RlE ©EV EILOPMlEl' 'T AGENCY OF THE Cl[IFY OF ]LAKE ]E]LSIINORIE CHECK# VENDOR NAME AMO'UN'T 7199 LAKE ELSINORE STORM, LP _ $ 103 258.97 WARRANT TOTAL 103 258.97 GRAND TOTAL $ 103,258.97 3/4/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 SA RDA 2 of 2 Anecdotes of cities who implemented MSN • A mandatory spay/neuter law enacted in Dallas, Texas, in 2008 resulted in a 22 percent increase in animal control expenditures, as well as an overall decrease in licensing projected to reduce revenue by $400,000. • The City of Santa Cruz, California, experienced a 56% cost increase over the first 12 years of implementation. • The City of Los Angeles' budget ballooned from $6.7 million to $18 million following implementation. • 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter. During the next 24 months, the city saw a 76% increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled. Sourced from The KC Dog Blog "Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to MSN" (Excellent article • Little Rock, AR In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 44%. Sourced from The KC Dog Blog "Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to MSN" • Los Angeles, CA - Has had MSN since 2008. 8 years later the city is still not No Kill. See research and another brilliant article from the KC Dog Blog. Research and statistics sited within article " Los Angeles MSN - year 3 - when can we erect it to start working?" The following organizations are against MSN. (Click on the link for position statements) • ASPCA American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals • AVMA - American Veterinary Medical Association • AKC - American Kennel Club (PDF download) • ACT The American College of Theriogenologists & SFT Society for Theriogenology • Allie Cat Allies - • No Kill Advocacy Center (PDF Download) • Best Friends • Fix Austin Why are they against it? • The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law. - ASPCA • it can be extremely difficult for even a veterinary professional to visually determine if an animal, particularly a female, has been sterilized; it would be virtually impossible for an animal control officer to make those determinations in the field. -ASCPA • in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were subsequently licensed, likely due to owners' reluctance to pay either the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet altered (Office of Legislative Oversight, 1997) -ASPCA • One of the main barriers to spaying and neutering of pets is accessibility of services, which is not addressed simply by making spaying and neutering mandatory. Cost is one of the primary barriers to spay/neuter surgery in many communities (Patronek et al., 1997; Ralston Purina, 2000; Frank, 2001). -ASPCA The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non -shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences. - AVMA The ACT and SFT do not believe that mandatory spay/neuter programs will significantly reduce the pet overpopulation problems, since most animals that are abandoned are relinquished because of behavior, health, economic and life changing conditions and not due to their reproductive status. In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public. Although both organizations believe that most companion animals should be spayed or neutered, the ACT and SFT also strongly believe that it is not in the best interest of the animals to produce legislation regarding medical treatments, Therefore, both organizations oppose mandatory spay/neuter programs - The American College of Theriogenologists (ACT) & Society for Theriogenology (SFT) Most of America's 50 largest cities do not have high-volume spay/neuter clinics. Smaller communities, whether suburban or rural, are even less likely to have affordable and accessible spay/neuter facilities. - Allie Cat Allies Veterinary services in many, if not most, areas of the country are prohibitively expensive for working families - Allie Cat Allies The resources a community would have to dedicate to enforcing mandatory spay/neuter laws would be far better spent in making spay/neuter facilities available to residents and educating them about the importance and availability of sterilization. - Allie Cat Allies When a law governing the ownership or care of animals is enacted 1) without adequate resources for the populace to comply, but which 2) has costly penalties and 3) is widely enforced, it can cause people to relinquish their pets to a shelter or to abandon them elsewhere. When more animals enter shelters, the kill rate goes up. When cats are abandoned outdoors, they add to and compound the feral cat issue.- Allie Cat Allies Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing. "If only we had a law," the argument goes, "all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn't have to kill so many animals." If this were true, given the proliferation of punitive mandates nationwide, there should be many No Kill communities. That there are not, is because experience has proven that legislation is far from a cure-all. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Communities that have passed such laws are not only far from No Kill, many are moving in the opposite direction. - No Kill Advocacy Center The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws (PDF Download) "Best Friends does not support mandatory spay -neuter legislation as a method of pet population control" Every single data -based study of mandatory spay/neuter laws has demonstrated that such laws do not increase spay -neuter compliance rates, nor do they reduce shelter intake, nor are they cost-effective, nor do they save lives. In fact, the opposite is true: in community after community that has passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, shelter killing and intake actually increase because in poor communities, families who cannot afford the money or time to have their pets surgically altered are forced to surrender their pets (or the pets are seized). These pets are quickly replaced in the communities with additional unaltered animals, creating an enhanced cycle of killing. These laws do not work, have never worked in any community, and will not work. - Fix Austin.org Why we Join the Natl Consensus against MSN (PDF Download) There is universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws among national animal -welfare organizations who have spent time to empirically study such laws' effects. Indeed, given the frequent hostility between national animal -welfare organizations, the universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is telling. - Fix Austin Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... KC DOG BLOG Unofficial Watchdog on Animal Welfare Issues http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogbio&,/2013/06/utiderstanding-cause... June o6, 2013 Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws This topic has been coming up a lot lately, and once again I feel that laws people mis-understand the cause and effect of mandating spaying and neutering. First off, let me state, that I think most people who support Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws (MSN) want to do so because they believe it will save lives. I think they believe that if they pass the law, more people will sterilize their pets and thus, fewer pets will be born, and thus, fewer will end up at the shelter, and thus, fewer will die. This is a logical progression. Unfortunately, mandating sterilization doesn't have the same effect. I've seen it in action. And it's really horrific. Yesterday, former Los Angeles Animal Services Manager Ed Boksop sted a blog about why he plans to support MSN targeted at pit bulls in his new role at the Yavapai Humane Society. Previously, Boks had posted "statistics" about the situation, and then asked for people's thoughts and seems to support MSN targeted at pit bulls because that's the type of dog he sees most in his shelter. 'Then, based on the responses, deemed that most of the people that read his blog and responded supported MSN for pit bulls, it must be a good idea. It's not. Let's start with some of Boks' research. Boks relies heavily on national information provided by the magazine "Animal People". I've written a lot about the magazine's editor, Merrit Clifton, and how his information is egregiously inaccurate and misleading, including: - Covering bites only based on media reports, which is not statistically reliable - Somehow having more than 20% of all his "data" for his 29 year study occur purely within a 19 month window - And blatantly i misleading data from several communities to support his desire for mandating spay/neuter of'pit bulls' including such egregious ideas as comparing the live release rates of pit bulls in the Indianapolis shelter to other communities and saying Indy killed more pit bulls than the other communities because they DIDN"T target pit bulls. The fact was though, that Indianapolis had a policy against adopting out pit bulls, meaning they didn't save ANY, which drove up their kill rates. - Clifton claims that pit bulls make up only about 3% of the overall population of dogs in the US -- however, when you add up the numbers for all of the breeds he includes in his report (which includes 18 of the 20 most popular AKC dog breeds + many more breeds) he only accounts for less than 42% of the total dog population. Boks fails to really analyze this information though, and then uses the latter report to justify why targeting'pit bulls' might be a solution. According to Boks: "Is there a way to end this disproportionate killing? Three US communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver- and Miami have each enacted breed -specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls .... Cur nllativelg, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 40% fewer dogs of any breed than the US National Average." The "data" here comes from Clifton, and the cities were interesting choices. Denver, which re-enacted its ban in 2005, has long been criticized for its mass killing of pit bulls. During a z year period, nearly 1500 pit bulls were systematically rounded up and killed at the Denver shelter, and reporters in the 1 of9 3/11/20142:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... littp://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... area captured pictures of le—sof dead pit brills as a result of their ordinance (warning, the pies at the link aren't for the faint of heart). Meanwhile, just yesterday, the city of Miami continued to look at passing asienificant new tax in order to help fund low cost spay/neuter services as the community still is having very high intakes into the city shelter (btw, I'm not necessarily against this new tax, but just pointing out that things aren't all groovy in Miami). These are interestingly two of Boks' success stories. However, he also mentions San Francisco, and actually seems to prefer taking their approach of mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls as his third case study. I do want to dive a little deeper into that one. Why People don't spay/neuter their pets First off, let's note that after years of education about the importance of spaying and neutering, most people spay/neuter their pets. According to HSUS numbers, 78% of owned dogs, and 88% of owned cats are currently altered. However, when you look at "under -served" communities, roughly 80% of pets are unaltered and of those people who say they haven't altered their pet, 53% of them have actually never taken their pet to a veterinarian before (usually because of lack of money, lack of veterinarians in their community, or lack of transportation to get to the veterinarian -- or a combination of the 3). These numbers are similar to the numbers from a Petsmart Charities study that notes that only 34% of pets are unaltered. According to this research, the three most common reasons people haven't altered their pets is: r) Pet is too young for this operation (41%) 2) It is too expensive (32%) 3) Haven't gotten around to it/haven't had time (21%) So in other words, if you provide people with affordable options, and make it convenient for them, they will alter their pets once they are old enough. No law required. Failure of BSL/MSN in Kansas City In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit btills at the shelter. During the next 24 months, the city saw a J6% increase in the number of ' iY bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled. While the Kansas City area was growing its low cost services, there wasn't nearly enough outreach resources available. People didn't know about the law and didn't know about the services. So when people were found with unaltered dogs, they were rounded up, and taken to the shelter, where they were, more often than not, killed. Because of the increase in pit bull impounds, the law caused more than 2,000 incremental pit bulls to be seized and killed over a z year period than had things remained static. It was tragic. It was slaughter. Most of these dogs came from homes in the inner city where resources are limited and had people been given the opportunity for services, they would have willingly complied. Unfortunately, with the mandatory law, their dogs were seized, and destroyed. Lest anyone think that Kansas City was alone in this, Fox 16 in Little Rock captured excellent footage a few years ago of Little Rock Animals services and police rounding up pit bulls for non-compliance where they were taken to the city pound, and also killed. In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 2 of 9 3/11/20142:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... San Francisco So let's get back to San Francisco. http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... There has been a fair amount written about San Francisco's breed -specific MSN. Some places have called it successful, while others continue to say that it has been at best, mixed results (most everyone I talk to close to the scenes have reported that things are definitely not as rosie as the reports would indicate). Here are the numbers from the first 19 months. Even if we were to take San Francisco as a "success" story, it would appear that it would be more of the exception than the rule -- and this is in part to a lot of other factors involved in San Francisco -- including, a poverty rate of 75% which is below the state average, combined with a median HH Income that is 22 % higher than the state averaee. So, there is more money in the community than normal, and less poverty - -meaning fewer people needed the low-cost services, and there was more available money to help subsidize it. Meanwhile, it's worth nothing that because of no kill efforts going on in the community, San Francisco, at the time, had one of the most well-developed low cost spay/neuter programs in the country, as well as one of the best pit bull outreach rou s in the country. So the availability of resources in San Francisco helped keep the law from being the disaster it has been in other places. From examining dozens of cities across the country, one thing becomes completely clear. If there are substantial enough low cost spay/neuter services in a community, people will comply. This works with, or without a law. A mandatory spay/neuter law will not necessarily fail if there are significant low cost resources available -- however, if there are not enough resources, then it will be a complete and udder failure. So there is no value in passing the law because if the services are available, there will be success without it. This is something Ed Boles should be familiar with. When he was in Los Angeles, he helped pass a law mandating the spay/neuter for all pets in the community. The law_has not been a success. And the lack of availability of low-cost options for compliance created. a disaster in the comm , and in part, led to Boks' firiinQ at that position. Cause and Effect Recently, many of us in Kansas City were discussing the enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls in Kansas City (which, unfortunately, still exists). And the sad thing is, there is no "good" way to enforce it. If people who don't comply have their animals seized, then animals with homes end up in a shelter where they have to be rehomed -- that's no good. If people are given tickets, well, the primary reason they likely didn't alter in the first place was because of lack of money, so giving them a ticket only makes that situation worse, and more likely they'll have to surrender their pet. Then, there are a few people who simply, for whatever reason, don't want to alter their pit bull. So what then? Do we ticket them until they wrack up fines they can't afford and then end up with a warrant for their arrest? Or should the dogs eventually be seized and taken to the shelter? And if they are, does that stop their desire for having an unaltered pit bull as a pet? And is that driving up the demand (and price) for pit bull puppies causing more to be bred, not less? In the end, the idea of seizing pets and bringing them to a shelter in the name of enforcing a law designed to limit the number of pets coming into the shelter is counter-productive. There is no good solution to it. Which is why I oppose the law which has already proven itself to be a failure. It's also why nearly every humane oreanization in the country mandating spay/neuter, in any form. The solution that has proven itself effective in every situation is to provide adequate, accessible and targeted low-cost spay/neuter programs. Until people start basing their support of legislation based on results, not on what 3 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... htip://btocitnectypepad.cont/]<cdogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... they "think" might work, or what "a lot of people who responded to my blog post think" or based on misinformation provided by numnuts, then we will continue to have to fight this battle. We must do better. Related: Knowing what to expect from urouosed 'tnimal control laws. Sway Love - EdBolcs flo4tin The idea of mandatory s aneuter for pit bulls Posted at 11:o6 AM in BSL MSN Kansas Citv, MO, Little Rock, Mandatory Spay/Neuter, Merrit Cliffton I Pernxalink Tweet I 1-H 0 `pNd Uke 2899 Comments Fabulous wok, Mr. Tocllner! Posted by: Sharon I June 06,201'14t 101:28 PM 'In 201015, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter." I must take umbrage with you here good sir. They had no such altruistic intent. This was so they could "do something" in the middle of the great pit bull panic of ought -5 without going so far as to enact a ban. Or as one city official put it to me "this is so we can get those 'gangsters' who breed pit bulls in their back yards" (define the word "gangster" as you will). but great article. Posted by: anthony I June o6 2014 aY 04:47 PM dammit *aught Posted by: anthony I June 106 2014 at 04:44 PM �r tz S F, I agree that services Must be in place with a well planned timeline for implementing MSN thereafter. I also know that unfortunately one size does not fit all and that there are communities were MSN is going to have to be given more weight. Posted by: Bonnie Carollin I June 106, 2oL4 at o4:46 PM Yes Anthony. You are correct from the city perspective. I think many in the animal welfare community supported it because of the more altruistic intent which made it harder for those of us who stood up against it at the time to win out on that too. Bonnie, I want you to read through the "cause & effect" portion of this again. Unless you can cone up with solutions that don't end up, when played out in the end, with pets being removed from homes and taken to the shelter in the name of implementing a law designed to keep dogs out of the shelter, then I'm hard pressed to believe that MSN will ever be effective.... given that it never has been. I'rn not a huge believer in trying things that have failed other places and thinking that I'm some how smart enough to make them work when others haven't. Posted by: Brent I Jume 106 2014 aT 04:54 PM 4 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM How to lower/prevent shelter intake #'s 1. Close the night drop boxes 2. Set up an intake process or booth like Downtown Dog Rescue's model at East LA shelter 3. Make available low cost or FREE spay neuter 4. Educate the public 5. Let the public know Animal Friends of the Valley's is a kill shelter, it's mind numbing how many people are of the belief it's No -Kill b. Stop incentivizing intakes financially. AFV makes money off every dog brought in. If they weren't financially incentivized, they would make an effort to check tags, or microchips in the field and return a dog home, rather than take it to the shelter. A program used by many animal controls. 7. Free or low-cost spay neuter. When LA had a voucher program intakes went down every year, when they made MSN numbers when up. 8. Follow Orange County Shelters lead and don't take in any stray cats. Only owner cats, after an interview process. 97% of cats die in shelters only 3% make it out alive. Promote SNTR Spay Neuter Trap Return 9. Did I mention Low -Cost or FREE spay neuter 10. Low Cost Free Spay Neuter \ \ / ± \ \ / 0 \ � / \ \ \ \ \ \ E \ \ \ ( 0 / f e % y e © 35 7 � ` s ^- \ / Q — / o \ G 6 } {\ \ \ \ / \ \ \ ® ) \ \ L ƒ o f 2 7 6/ 5 Anecdotes of cities who implemented MSN • A mandatory spay/neuter law enacted in Dallas, Texas, in 2008 resulted in a 22 percent increase in animal control expenditures, as well as an overall decrease in licensing projected to reduce revenue by $400,000. • The City of Santa Cruz, California, experienced a 56% cost increase over the first 12 years of implementation. • The City of Los Angeles' budget ballooned from $6.7 million to $18 million following implementation. • 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter. During the next 24 months, the city saw a 76% increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled. Sourced from The KC Dog Blog "Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to MSN" (Excellent article) • Little Rock, AR In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 44%. Sourced from The KC Dog Blog "Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to MSN" Los Angeles, CA - Has had MSN since 2008. 8 years later the city is still not No Kill. See research and another brilliant article from the KC Dog Blog. Research and statistics sited within article " Los Angeles MSN - year 3 - when can we expect it to start working?" The following organizations are against MSN. (Click on the link for position statements) • ASPCA - American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals • AVMA - American Veterinary Medical Association • AKC - American Kennel Club (PDF download) ACT The American College of Theriogenologists & SFT Society for Theriogenology Allie Cat Allies - • No Kill Advocacy Center (PDF Download) Best Friends • Fix Austin Why are they against it? The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law. -ASPCA • it can be extremely difficult for even a veterinary professional to visually determine if an animal, particularly a female, has been sterilized; it would be virtually impossible for an animal control officer to make those determinations in the field. -ASCPA • in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were subsequently licensed, likely due to owners' reluctance to pay either the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet altered (Office of Legislative Oversight, 1997) -ASPCA • One of the main barriers to spaying and neutering of pets is accessibility of services, which is not addressed simply by making spaying and neutering mandatory. Cost is one of the primary barriers to spay/neuter surgery in many communities (Patronek et al., 1997; Ralston Purina, 2000; Frank, 2001). -ASPCA The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non -shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences. - AVMA The ACT and SFT do not believe that mandatory spay/neuter programs will significantly reduce the pet overpopulation problems, since most animals that are abandoned are relinquished because of behavior, health, economic and life changing conditions and not due to their reproductive status. In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public. Although both organizations believe that most companion animals should be spayed or neutered, the ACT and SFT also strongly believe that it is not in the best interest of the animals to produce legislation regarding medical treatments, Therefore, both organizations oppose mandatory spay/neuter programs - The American College of Theriogenologists (ACT) & Society for Theriogenology (SFT) Most of America's 50 largest cities do not have high-volume spay/neuter clinics. Smaller communities, whether suburban or rural, are even less likely to have affordable and accessible spay/neuter facilities. - Allie Cat Allies Veterinary services in many, if not most, areas of the country are prohibitively expensive for working families - Allie Cat Allies The resources a community would have to dedicate to enforcing mandatory spay/neuter laws would be far better spent in making spay/neuter facilities available to residents and educating them about the importance and availability of sterilization. - Allie Cat Allies When a law governing the ownership or care of animals is enacted 1) without adequate resources for the populace to comply, but which 2) has costly penalties and 3) is widely enforced, it can cause people to relinquish their pets to a shelter or to abandon them elsewhere. When more animals enter shelters, the kill rate goes up. When cats are abandoned outdoors, they add to and compound the feral cat issue.- Allie Cat Allies Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing. "if only we had a law," the argument goes, "all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn't have to kill so many animals." If this were true, given the proliferation of punitive mandates nationwide, there should be many No Kill communities. That there are not, is because experience has proven that legislation is far from a cure-all. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Communities that have passed such laws are not only far from No Kill, many are moving in the opposite direction. - No Kill Advocacy Center The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws (PDF Download) "Best Friends does not support mandatory spay -neuter legislation as a method of pet population control" Every single data -based study of mandatory spay/neuter laws has demonstrated that such laws do not increase spay -neuter compliance rates, nor do they reduce shelter intake, nor are they cost-effective, nor do they save lives. In fact, the opposite is true: in community after community that has passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, shelter killing and intake actually increase because in poor communities, families who cannot afford the money or time to have their pets surgically altered are forced to surrender their pets (or the pets are seized). These pets are quickly replaced in the communities with additional unaltered animals, creating an enhanced cycle of killing. These laws do not work, have never worked in any community, and will not work. - Fix Austin.org Why we Join the Natl Consensus against MSN (PDF Download) There is universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws among national animal -welfare organizations who have spent time to empirically study such laws' effects. Indeed, given the frequent hostility between national animal -welfare organizations, the universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is telling. - Fix Austin Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... KC DOG SLOG Unofficial Watchdog on Aminal Welfare Issues http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... June o6, 2013 Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws This topic has been corning up a lot lately, and once again I feel that laws people mis-understand the cause and effect of mandating spaying and neutering. First off, let me state, that I think most people who support Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws (MSN) want to do so because they believe it will save lives. I think they believe that if they pass the law, more people will sterilize their pets and thus, fewer pets will be born, and thus, fewer will end up at the shelter, and thus, fewer will die. This is a logical progression. Unfortunately, mandating sterilization doesn't have the same effect. I've seen it in action. And it's really horrific. Yesterday, former Los Angeles Animal Services Manager Ed Boksosp ted a blog about why he plans to support MSN targeted at pit bulls in his new role at the Yavapai Humane Society. Previously, Boks had posted "statistics" about the situation, and then asked for people's thoughts and seems to support MSN targeted at pit bulls because that's the type of dog he sees most in his shelter. Then, based on the responses, deemed that most of the people that read his blog and responded supported MSN for pit bulls, it must be a good idea. It's not. Let's start with some of Boks' research. Boks relies heavily on national information provided by the magazine "Animal People". I've written a lot about the magazine's editor, Merrit Clifton, and how his information is egregiously inaccurate and misleading, including: Covering bites only based on media reports, which is not statistically reliable eliable - Somehow having more than 20% of all his "data" for his 29 year study occur purely within a r9 month window - And blatantly usin&misleadin data from several communities to support his desire for mandating spay/neuter of'pit bulls' including such egregious ideas as comparing the live release rates of pit bulls in the Indianapolis shelter to other communities and saying Indy killed more pit bulls than the other communities because they DIDN"T target pit bulls. The fact was though, that Indianapolis had a policy against adopting out pit bulls, meaning they didn't save ANY, which drove up their kill rates. - Clifton claims that pit bulls make up only about 3% of the overall population of dogs in the US -- however, when you add up the numbers for all of the breeds he includes in his report (which includes 18 of the 20 most popular AKC dog breeds + many more breeds) he only accounts for less than 42% of the total dog population. Boks fails to really analyze this information though, and then uses the latter report to justify why targeting 'pit bulls' might be a solution. According to Boks: "Is there a way to end this disproportionate killing? Three US communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver and Miami have each enacted breed -specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls.... Cumulatively, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 4o%fewer dogs of any breed than the USNational Average." The "data" here comes from Clifton, and the cities were interesting choices. Denver, which re-enacted its ban in 2005, has long been criticized for its mass killing of pit brills. During a 2 year period, nearly 1500 pit bulls were systematically rounded up and killed at the Denver shelter, and reporters in the 1 of 9 3/11/20142:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay(Ne... http://btoeliner.typel)ad.com/kedogblog/2013/06/understanding-cause... area captured pictures of piles of dead pit bulls as a result of their ordinance (warning, the pies at the link aren't for the faint of heart). Meanwhile, just yesterday, the city of Miami continued to look atpassing a significant new tax in order to help fund low cost spay/neuter services as the community still is having very high intakes into the city shelter (btw, I'm not necessarily against this new tax, but just pointing out that things aren't all groovy in Miami). These are interestingly two of Boks' success stories. However, he also mentions San Francisco, and actually seems to prefer taking their approach of mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls as his third case study. I do want to dive a little deeper into that one. Why People don't spay/neuter their pets First off, let's note that after years of education about the importance of spaying and neutering, most people spay/neuter their pets. According to I-ISUS numbers, 78% of owned dogs, and 88% of owned cats are currently altered. However, when you look at "tinder -served" communities, roughly 80% of pets are unaltered and of those people who say they haven't altered their pet, 53% of them have actually never taken their pet to a veterinarian before (usually because of lack of money, lack of veterinarians in their community, or lack of transportation to get to the veterinarian -- or a combination of the 3). These numbers are similar to the numbers from a Petsnnart Charities study -that notes that only 34% of pets are unaltered. According to this research, the three most common reasons people haven't altered their pets is: I) Pet is too young for this operation (41%) 2) It is too expensive (32%) 3) Haven't gotten around to it/haven't had time (21%) So in other words, if you provide people with affordable options, and make it convenient for them, they will alter their pets once they are old enough. No law required. Failure of BSL/MSN in Kansas City In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of'pit brills' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter. During the next 24 months, the city saw a 76% increase in the mnnber of 'pit bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled. While the Kansas City area was growing its low cost services, there wasn't nearly enough outreach resources available. People didn't know about the law and didn't know about the services. So when people were found with unaltered dogs, they were rounded up, and taken to the shelter, where they were, more often than not, killed. Because of the increase in pit bull impounds, the law caused more than 2,000 incremental pit bulls to be seized and killed over a 2 year period than had things remained static. It was tragic. It was slaughter. Most of these dogs came from homes in the inner city where resources are limited and had people been given the opportunity for services, they would have willingly complied. Unfortunately, with the mandatory law, their dogs were seized, and destroyed. Lest anyone think that Kansas City was alone in this, Fox 16 in Little Rock captured excellent footage a few ,years ago of Little Rock Animals services and police rounding up pit bulls for non-compliance where they were taken to the city pound, and also killed. In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by A4%. 2 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Ne... http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogbiog/2013/06/understanding-cause... San Francisco So let's get back to San Francisco. There has been a fair amount written about San I'rancisco's breed -specific MSN. Some places have called it successful, while others continue to say that it has been at best, mixed results (most everyone I talk to close to the scenes have reported that things are definitely not as rosie as the reports would indicate). Here are the numbers from the first r9months. Even if we were to take San Francisco as a "success" story, it would appear that it would be more of the exception than the rude -- and this is in part to a lot of other factors involved in San Francisco -- including, a poverty ate of 15% which is below the state average, combined with a median HH Income that is 20% higher than the state average. So, there is more money in the community than normal, and less poverty - -meaning fewer people needed the low-cost services, and there was more available money to help subsidize it. Meanwhile, it's worth nothing that because of no kill efforts going on in the community, San Francisco, at the time, had one of the most well-developed low cost spay/neuter programs in the country, as well as one of the best pit brill outreach groups in the country. So the availability of resources in San Francisco helped keep the law from being the disaster it has been in other places. From examining dozens of cities across the country, one thing becomes completely clear. If there are substantial enough low cost spay/neuter services in a community, people will comply. This works with, or without a law. A mandatory spay/neuter law will not necessarily fail if there are significant low cost resources available -- however, if there are not enough resources, then it will be a complete and udder failure. So there is no value in passing the law because if the services are available, there will be success without it. This is something Ed Boks should be familiar with. When he was in Los Angeles, he helped pass a law mandating the spay/neuter for all pets in the community. The law has not been a success. And the.lack of availability of low-cost optionsfor compliance created a disaster in the commanit , and in part, led to Bolus' fitting at that position. Cause and Effect Recently, many of us in Kansas City were discussing the enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls in Kansas City (which, unfortunately, still exists). And the sad thing is, there is no "good" way to enforce it. If people who don't comply have their animals seized, then animals with homes end up in a shelter where they have to be rehouned -- that's no good. If people are given tickets, well, the primary reason they likely didn't alter in the first place was because of lack of money, so giving them a ticket only makes that situation worse, and more likely they'll have to surrender their pet. 'then, there are a few people who simply, for whatever reason, don't want to alter their pit bull. So what then? Do we ticket them until they wrack up fines they can't afford and then end up with a warrant for their arrest? Or should the dogs eventually be seized and taken to the shelter? And if they are, does that stop their desire for having an unaltered pit bull as a pet? And is that driving up the demand (and price) for pit bull puppies causing more to be bred, not less? In the end, the idea of seizing pets and bringing them to a shelter in the name of enforcing a law designed to limit the number of pets coming into the shelter is counter-productive. There is no good solution to it. Which is why I oppose the law which has already proven itself to be a failure. It's also whynearlyever�luunane or aniz tion in the country mandatin spay/neuter, in an,Ltoirn The solution that has proven itself effective in every situation is to provide adequate, accessible and targeted low-cost spay/neuter programs. Until people start basing their support of legislation based on results, not on what 3 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Nc... http://btoellnei.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2013/06/uuderstandiog-cause... they "think" might work, or what "a lot of people who responded to my blog post think" or based on misinformation provided by mmmmrts, then we will continue to have to fight this battle. We must do better. Related: Knowing -what to expect from proposed animal control laws. Sway Love - Ed Boles floating the idea of mandatory—sVay/neuter for pit bulls Posted at u:o6 AM in BSL MSN, Kansas City, MO, Little Roclc, Mandatory S a Neuter, Merrit Cliffton I Permalink Tweet 0 �! 'Pini* Like {8991 Comments Fabulous work, Mr. Toeliner! Posted by: Sharon I June ob 2013 at 01:28 PM "In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter." I must take umbrage with you here good sir. They had no such altruistic intent This was so they could "do something" in the middle of the great pit bull panic of ought -5 without going so far as to enact a ban. Or as one city official put it to me "this is so we can get those'gangsters' who breed pit bulls in their back yards" (define the word "gangster" as you will). but great article. Posted by: anthony I June o6 2013 at 93:37 PM dammit... *aught Posted by: anthony I June o6, 201399343 --PM } I agree that services Must be in place with a well planned timeline for implementing MSN thereafter. I also know that unfortunately one size does not fit all and that there are communities were MSN is going to have to be given more weight. Posted by: Bonnie Carollin I June o6, 2013 at 03:46 PM Yes Anthony. You are correct from the city perspective. I think many in the animal welfare community supported it because of the more altruistic intent which made it harder for those of us who stood up against it at the time to win out on that too. Bonnie, I want you to read through the "cause & effect" portion of this again. Unless you can come up with solutions that don't end up, when played out in the end, with pets being removed from homes and taken to the shelter in the name of implementing a law designed to keep dogs out of the shelter, then I'm hard pressed to believe that MSN will ever be effective.... given that it never has been. I'm not a huge believer in trying things that have failed other places and thinking that I'm some how smart enough to make them work when others haven't. Posted by: Brent I June 06,2o 13 at o3-54 PM 4 of 9 3/11/2014 2:34 PM How to lower/prevent shelter intake #'s 1. Close the night drop boxes 2. Set up an intake process or booth like Downtown Dog Rescue's model at East LA shelter 3. Make available low cost or FREE spay neuter 4. Educate the public 5. Let the public know Animal Friends of the Valley's is a kill shelter, it's mind numbing how many people are of the belief it's No -Kill b. Stop incentivizing intakes financially. AFV makes money off every dog brought in. If they weren't financially incentivized, they would make an effort to check tags, or microchips in the field and return a dog home, rather than take it to the shelter. A program used by many animal controls. 7. Free or low-cost spay neuter. When LA had a voucher program intakes went down every year, when they made MSN numbers when up. 8. Follow Orange County Shelters lead and don't take in any stray cats. Only owner cats, after an interview process. 97% of cats die in shelters only 3% make it out alive. Promote SNTR Spay Neuter Trap Return 9. Did I mention Low -Cost or FREE spay neuter 10. Low Cost Free Spay Neuter \ ) \ / \ \ \ \ 0 '\ / 0 ) � < \ \ / \ \ \ 0 ®-0 D / / y\ \ \0 0 % -C y % \\ / > }\ o \ \f — 0 k 0 0 2 §m D b ( s c * 0 / » 0/ ® \ ) { (D _ { § ` ( ) ? 0 z 3 0 < a 5 E / o o [ / ® » \ / 0 ƒ \ o E / / / \ \ 2 0 u L V) 0 .4-J N cn m � bio -� C (3) -V) CL:3 0-0 � O mQ o• N LL • V E Y ro O CD 0 Q) D c 0 L- 0 w • J d cn V C— a --J a� E 0- °' -0 �U C -O U o. U U • LL v u v X W 'V' v 4- 0 c 0 0 U F-, v o* - 0 v yc�� V Q .E (� VV a u p O 4W -0 C o V � .� O Q ._ W �a au � 30 Qj o QJ > e E - m _Ln f.on00 O O cu Ei fi �^ 0 L�� � �v b� M 0a �� :3 :3 L D 0C- 0< O �U u�w �� 4-j ro 4-J M pD +� .0-0 L C�x ° .> o .E L 4-0w(13 LO W a�0 Q a. cn0wF-.-- C..�.. .�.J W x %< W V Q .E (� VV a u p O 4W -0 C o V � .� O Q ._ W �a au � 30 x H N O N 0 O N 00 O N O O N O N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a C o o a o 0 � � VV 4A -LIJ. N O N 0 O N 00 O N O O N O N O O N O O N CO g Vr o N i V o N Ln d - N Rr O -_ N m 0 .o N o n o 0 0 0 �' O O Q O O O O O O O Q O � � qj)- 00 00 N Ln IA qT M tD M GoO M ■ 00 LnM N N M O ff1 O p O p O O O O O O Q d tOD LM LA dam' m M O O N 00 8 N p1D O N Ln N 9 N vM N c a� E 0 a E a� c a CA o 4 3 txo o= cu I a .> C6 O o V UD C) N • O �YtlIN� `v� T Q) 4-J 0 00000 LLJ �Y =� Q) 4-P N J V V Qj • • • • O O • 4 3 txo o= V UD C) N M Q) O ri T-4 00000 Q) N N [V N tV Cc� O .�oo�oo \00mCF)00 Qj • . • • a J • 10 ri c � u U U iD c C X N QZS L al �- X �p U] X V x T +� v A- C E cu .� N t o *, V) a u` a O ii ac O ■ ■ w ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ om W J A J r I � Kr N W 00 M n il} G} t CL 13 C O M Ln w Ln N N rl M N n co LrLN I^ W00 _E� Eom N O > N 4-J a 16. a� Ln LA 4.j 4-J Lf) iV} -t!� 4U V 4-j +-+ CLU C: � mj E =3 o � ..�..-- cE n � � r%%.o o uv Vl � o %o +azo� i o o Q — o c -I .v E=moo, tn E W o +a aE a � L. U m au � o o :3Cl M o 0 4-J L to . V to W E =3 t7uLIZ-- Lo _ Q 0 L, t s c 0 1 a �ce O) bjO NLM 0000^ 0000 00 C4 OUD C M u LM RT N M �! N N N N N Z ih a �ce O) bjO GChi� 0000^ 0000 C4 mC u ' RT L N N Z e-1 rf UD O G1 M O O N 00 On O as M O N O M N 00 M N O Ln � O O � OAC O ' .rL In 12 4.' y a ° E CL C W Q H a �ce J a) a u u m CID co I LA. w to W W +�+ u u O � � CL D L � � O .V LL o = - � a 2 o -- Q 0,0 CO w � Q' dr o LA C)) M . M • �O p p .� LL L 11 0 N Ln An tA O Z .CL 0 OL 0 a n a--1 U 0 u u IRI iii x F� t• m 2 w N O Cll a� a a ZCD CL O o O P o o O (D dr Lf) C3 lqr Co (? N m O O r - CO LO M LO LO r N N N N V- r- O CA Sf (D N�oLD��o 0) o 0 ti CO LO r O�S Lcy Ln (D CO �00r_ti(6() � co N O LD (Q r- M r 8 r 8 C�) 6 O V C, O � CO r r CO O CB V O O o0 CO (O (0 r r 0) 0 r N N N N V- r- O CA Sf (D to 0) o 0 ti CO LO r O�S Lcy Ln M CO �00r_ti(6() r N O CO r- M co (D m cO (O C- LS) V LO N (D (0 O r`. CQ r. (O m M (0 r (N 0) 0 V r r CO r N N N N V- r- d' CA Sf (D LO (C) N 0 N 0 LO O7 O Lcy 00 E� CO r N O CO M CO LO M O C) 6(6'0� co, () CO (4 r CO r LO Lr) N CO r 0) r--- �N CO LO ti r r-(0 V- LO co (b (O r~�(Q(D m C) O r N CO 0Q(C)oC) N N N N N N m c X= MM � r -I � �:3 m Vf �,C .a) u CN M L) UD Ln o �r rj .+� do :3 00W -Ca Um:)� 45 u Ln Q a • �C) N}cn na V C 4A M ? X 4-0 i '0'^0 }`Lf .UD 0 00 64m a� UD u 00 • 0 :., L♦ CL 0 LM am G b4 Q N W ryO V N � 4 C► O G1 Q CD a o o a o c D OOp O O pO N_ OD G� p p N T, r t4 40 V4 b4 6% #H G b4 Q N W ryO V N TO AAAAw E m U. AAAA 40. A AAAA L 0 7i 44 u imi CLZ ■ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a oC 6o 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 r_i o 6 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 Lr) 0 Ln 0 0 It m 0 N N r r 0 N N r r N 0 0 N 4} 0 0 N coo N I� 0 O N CQ a N �A a 0 N a O N {7 O a N N O 0 N U) c U) 0 4.� O. u o 0 Q L.. a Mo OL CO 401 o _ C:t �C 0 .0 0 M C o�70 O c: tko u O � C* �" L' "0' Cl. :3 i 4J CO N � Q -Q3 270> o o ..... a. LL E m LLRf }' > m V u_ U. V 0 iti cu L c 0 v As an organization, FTAspay has not taken a position on Mandatory Spay Neuter (MSN). I don't claim to have all the answers. But as an individual, in general, I don't support it, though there are opinions 1 would still like to listen to. I believe the goals of protecting the public, saving lives of dogs and cats, and reducing animal control $$ can be accomplished through affordable, accessible spay/neuter and microchipping. .. ...,_eNom.. .. . .��. ,v✓.. 1.: , -.-.-..�,An.._�w .. ../rN _.r. -... /.. Message Today, 3/11/14, from Casey Tyson, HSUS Headquarters, WA (nearly verbatim) Hello Monica, The World Spay Day team forwarded a question that your local City Council in Lake Elsinore is going to consider MSN for pit bulls tonight at the same meeting where they were supposed to be doing a Proclamation for World Spay Day, which is really kind of tragedy. We are not in favor of MSN of any kind for any dog, especially not any breed specific MSN policy. So, you know, I don't know what to encourage you to do. I looked it up online and I do think that this is an issue that continues to surface in your area. And I'm hoping that the successful efforts that have held it off in the past will continue through this evening. And it will work out for you. If you have a chance to call me back, I am happy to talk with you about it at length My number is 301 258 3065 Thanks so much Opposed: American Veterinary Medical Assn; HSUS; ASPCA; Best Friends Animal Society; Fix Austin No Kill Advocacy Center; Alley Cat Allies and more Reasons for opposition: • Mandatory spay/neuter laws do not increase spay/neuter compliance; 10 percent of the population creates 90 percent of the problem • Unenforceable; animal services $$ will be diverted to enforcement • Mistaken Breed Identification —What is a pit bull? • Punitive measures are ineffective (animals pay the price) & resources are diverted from programs that do work, like low-cost & free spay/neuter and education, which empowers responsible behavior This is not a new idea. MSN in many forms (breed specific and all dogs & cats) has been tried and re -tried since the 1980's. Please, don't let your good intentions decide tonight. Look at the history. Do your research. Ask questions. So you can make a well-informed decision. Check with other cities/counties that have tried it or are trying it now: In California, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma County, Gilroy, Lancaster, Los Angeles, Manteca and Ripon in San Joaquin, unincorporated San Bernardino County, and now unincorporated Riverside County. 2011, The Austin NoKill Mandatory Spay/Neuter A Case Study: Los Angeles For six years, the intake rate for dogs and euthanasia declined. Year Intake Euthanized Change from previous year 2001 40,442 22,675 --- 2002 34,295 17,335 -24% 2003 30,605 12,821 -62% 2004 26,949 9,985 -22% 2005 25,740 8,127 -19% 2006 24,999 6,949 -15% 2007 25,792 6,051 13% In 2008 the City passed a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. Here's what happened. 2008 30,813 7,518 +24% 2009 31,869 7,624 +1.5% 2010 33,396 8,210 +7.7% Intake increased and more adoptable dogs were killed. 01 .._> -- , a006r Tuesday, March 11, 2014 City of Lake Elsinore Regular Agenda City Council NATASHA JOHNSON, MAYOR STEVE MANOS, MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN TISDALE, COUNCIL MEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER ROBERT MAGEE, COUNCIL MEMBER GRANT YATES, CITY MANAGER 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION at 5:00 PM Cultural Center 183 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore PUBLIC SESSION at 7:00 PM Cultural Center 183 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Cultural Center The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon subscribers can view the meetings on Channel 31. If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at the City Clerk's Office on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the City's website at www.lake-elsinore.org. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (951) 674 3124 Ext. 262, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 3/6/2014 City Council Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER 5:00 P.M. ROLL CALL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION 1 a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code § 54956.9) AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION vs. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Case No. EDCV 13-00989 1b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN # 347-120-050 Agency negotiator: City Manager Yates Negotiating parties: City of Lake Elsinore and Smartlink LLC Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment 1c) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN #370-120-045 Agency negotiator: City Manager Yates Negotiating parties: City of Lake Elsinore and Richard Kane & Darlene Ryan Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment 1d) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (GOV'T CODE SECTION 54957(b)): CITY MANAGER PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION — MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION REPORT PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of Me City Council meeting and turn it into the City Clerk. The Mayor will call on you to speak.) City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Printed on 31612014 City Council Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 PRESENTATIONS / CEREMONIALS Presentation by EVMWD of Lift Station Proclamation declaring World Spay Day Certificate of Recognition of Donna Grunow Trophy Presentation to the Elsinore High School Basketball City Champions Trophy Presentation to the Elsinore High School Football City Champions CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Council Member or any member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) ID# 14-033 Approval of Minutes Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Minutes as submitted. Attachments: Minutes CC Staff Report Minutes CC 2-25-2014 ID# 14-034 Warrant List Dated February 27 2014 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014 Attachments: Warrant City staff report 2-27-14 Warrant City summary & list 2-27-14 ID# 14-035 Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget Status Report - General Fund Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget, as reflected and adjusted in the attached Exhibits. Attachments: 2013-14 Mid -Year Bu IReport 3-11-2014 corrected PUBLIC HEARING(S) - None APPEAL(S) - None BUSINESS ITEM(S) City of Lake Elsinore Page 3 Printed on 3/6/2014 City Council Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 ID# 14-036 Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No 2014-1322 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council waive further reading and adopt by title only PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council Meeting and turn it in to the City Clerk, The Mayor will call on you to speak.) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore City Council will adjourn this meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, March 25, 2014. The regular Closed Session meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. and the regular Public meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING City of Lake Elsinore Page 4 Printed on 3/6/2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Amending and Restating Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Rotational Towing Services, by roll -call vote. Attachments: Second reading of Ord 2014-1322 Ordinance No 2014-1322 ID# 14-037 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore California Requiring the Mandatory Spay and Neutering of Pit Bull Breeds Resolution Establishing Fines and Penalties for Violation of Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Regarding Animals and Animal Control Officers Recommendation: 1. To waive further reading and introduce by title only Ordinance No. 2014-1323 adding section 6.04.235 of Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requiring the mandatory spaying neutering of pit bull breeds, by roll call vote. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2014-012 establishing fines and penalties for violation of Chapter 6.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Regarding Animals and Animal Control Officers. Attachments: Staff Report -Ordinance SN Pit Bull Breeds Ordinance - Mandatory Spay -Neuter Pit Bull Breeds Resolution - Fines & Penalties Animal Control Press Enterprises News Article - Man attacked Pit Bull PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Request to Address the City Council form prior to the start of the City Council Meeting and turn it in to the City Clerk, The Mayor will call on you to speak.) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore City Council will adjourn this meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, March 25, 2014. The regular Closed Session meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. and the regular Public meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING City of Lake Elsinore Page 4 Printed on 3/6/2014 City Council Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 I, Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of this meeting. Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 Printed on 3/6/2014 E'irll of L (IKE I'S 1 101 U, d Tuesday, March 11, 2014 City of Lake Elsinore Regular Agenda Successor Agency NATASHA JOHNSON, CHAIR STEVE MANOS, VICE -CHAIR BRIAN TISDALE, AGENCY MEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, AGENCY MEMBER ROBERT MAGEE, AGENCY MEMBER GRANT YATES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - None PUBLIC SESSION at 7:00 PM Cultural Center 183 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE CULTURAL CENTER 183 N. MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Cultural Center The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon subscribers can view the meetings on Channel 31. If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at the City Clerk's Office on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the City's website at www.lake-elsinore.org. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (951) 674 3124 Ext. 262, at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Printed on 3/6/2014 Successor Agency Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION — MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE (Please read & complete a Request to Address the SuccessorAgency form prior to the start of the meeting and tum it into the Agency Clerk. The Chair will call on you to speak.) PRESENTATIONS / CEREMONIALS - None CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a Board Member or any member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.) ID# 14-038 Approval of Minutes Recommendation: It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve Minutes as submitted. Attachments: Minutes SA Staff Report Minutes SA 2-25-2014 ID# 14-039 Warrant List Dated Feb 27, 2014 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014. Attachments: Warrant SA RDA staff report 2-27-14 Warrant SA RDA Summary & list 2-27-14 PUBLIC HEARING(S) - None APPEAL(S) - None BUSINESS ITEM(S) - None City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Printed on 3/6/2014 Successor Agency Regular Agenda March 11, 2014 PUBLIC COMMENTS — NOWAGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES (Please read & complete a Request to Address the Successor Agency form prior to the start of the Meeting and tum it into the Agency Clerk. The Chair will call on you to speak.) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS AGENCY COUNSEL COMMENTS BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Lake Elsinore Successor Agency will adjourn this meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, March 25, 2014. The next regular meeting will be held at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of this meeting. Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 3 Printed on 3/6/2014 CITY Or 0% LADE L LSI NOR E DIAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GRANT YATES CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget, as reflected and adjusted in the attached Exhibits. BACKGROUND The City is presenting its FY2013-14 Mid -Year Budget review of the General Fund. On Thursday, March 6, 2014, the City's Budget Committee reviewed the FY2013-14 Mid - Year Revised budget for the General Fund. Please note that a review and status report update for Special Revenue Funds, Capital Project Funds, and other funds will be presented as part of the process for the FY2014-15 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Plan Budget, which includes a comprehensive workshop in May 2014. The downturn in the economy continues to challenge many cities throughout the state and Lake Elsinore is no exception. While development activity momentum is building within the City, it is critical that we continue to operate in a fiscally prudent manner, maintain current public safety service levels, and continue providing key services that our citizens have come to expect. As such, the FY2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget Status Report proposes to maintain current services through June 30, 2014, maintains the Uncertainty Reserve at 17.5%, and establishes a path towards development of the FY2014-15 Operating Budget and the Five (5) Year General Fund Financial Plan. Included as attachments to this report are several schedules illustrate (in a tabular format) the current status of the FY2013-14 Mid -Year Budget for the General Fund, as follows: FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 4 • Exhibit A — Selected Analysis — Reconciliation of General Fund Fund Balance • Exhibit B - Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances — General Fund - FY2013-14 Mid -Year Annual Operating Budget Exhibit C —Budget Calendar for FY2014-15 DISCUSSION Revenues: At mid -year, the City is anticipating a net decrease in recurring operating revenues of $775,292, from $26,308,291 to $25,532,999. The estimated revenue adjustments are as follows: Estimated Revenue Adjustments: Reimbursements $ 159,867 Fra nchi se fees 200,000 Property taxes (34,053) Sales taxes (91,949) Administrative fees, licenses, and charges (272,900) Fire tax credit (82,338) Community Development fees (120,100) Code enforcement fees (structure abatement) 33,500 Weed abatement (50,000) Public Works fees (4,100) Lake, Parks, Recreation fees (73,500) Lake Elsinore Successor Agency -Reimburse D/S(RCP: (439,719) $ (775,292) The largest revenue decrease of $439,719 is largely offset by a similar decrease in appropriations related to the ROPS (Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule) payment and accounting for debt service paid on behalf of the Successor Agency. All of the remaining revenue adjustments are as a result of changes in user fee estimated revenues based upon activity year-to-date and projections to year end. a FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND March 11, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Expenditures: Appropriations: The total decrease for mid -year appropriations is $766,969. Departments were requested to reduce or maintain costs within their existing appropriations, except for minor changes within individual line items. Estimated Appropriation Adjustments: General Law Enforcement $ (150,000) Fi re (100,000) Public Works (100,000) Lake Elsinore Successor Agency - Reduction D/5(ROPS (439,719) Other (Retirement related costs) 22,750 $ 766,969 However, the City Manager will be working closely with the departments to further reduce expenditures before June 30, 2014. GENERAL FUND BALANCE RESERVES The General Fund Balance Reserves at June 30, 2014 would reflect the following as a result of the proposed Mid -Year adjustments, as follows: Nonspendable: Deposits and prepaid items $ 1,034,879 Due from Successor Agency 434,897 Loans Receivable 1,000,000 Designated: Uncertainty reserve 5,154,601 Undesignated: Unallocated reserve/working capital 3,212,095 Total Fund Balance (net) S 1n R3fi 477 The Uncertainty Reserve has been established at 17.5% of Appropriations. FISCAL IMPACT While the City is beginning to benefit from the improving economy, the development of an accurate, balanced and achievable budget is critical to establishing a solid foundation to manage the anticipated growth and demand for services within and by the 41 FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 MID -YEAR OPERATING BUDGET STATUS REPORT — GENERAL FUND March 11, 2014 Page 4 of 4 community. In developing and implementing a comprehensive operating budget plan, the factors impacting the City's operations and financial condition are numerous, and while the City's General Fund is still in a vulnerable condition, efforts will continue to monitor operating activities closely to ensure the General Fund's resources are programmed appropriately. The FY2013-14 Mid -Year Budget Report is one of the first steps in beginning the FY2014-15 budget preparation process. The City Manager will be proactively working with each department to develop and present a balanced budget to the Mayor and City Council that moves the City forward in achieving its financial goals as part of the FY2014-15 Budget process. The overall fiscal impact of the FY2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget for the General Fund is as follows: Revenue Adj us tments $ (775,292) Appropriation Adjustments 766,969 Net reduction in transfers in (257,057) Net reduction in transfers out 30,000 Net change/impact-FY2013-14 Midyear Operating Budget _L__L35,3801 Prepared by: Jason Simpson Director of Administrative Services Approved by: Grant Yates City Manager 4 Exhibit A Selected Analysis — Reconciliation of General Fund "Fund Balance" CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA FY2013-14 MID -YEAR BUDGET- OPERATING SELECTED ANALYSIS- RECONCILIATION OF GENERAL FUND - "FUND BALANCE" DATED: FEBRUARY 28, 2014 Projected Ending Fund Balance -lune 30, 2014 (as adopted) $ 9,959,390 Designated for budget stabilization reserve 1,334,899 Designated for budget carry -forward from FY12-13 1,494,721 2,829,620 FY2013-14 Adopted Budget- Deficit (2,829,620) FY2012-13 Roll -Over Encumbrances (307,014) (3,136,634) FY2013-14 Midyear Budget Changes: 6 Netimpact- Increase/ Favorable/ Adopted Midyear (Decrease) (Unfavorable) Estimated Revenues $ 26,308,291 $ 25,532,999 $ (775,292) $ (775,292) Appropriations 30,221,831 29,454,862 (766,969) 766,969 Transfersin 806,906 549,849 (257,057) (257,057) Transfers out 30,000 - (30,000) 30,000 Net FY2013-14 Net Mid -Year Operating Budget Surplus/(Deficit) (235,380) $ (3,372,014) Reconciling Items: FY2012-13 General Fund Net Revenue (unaudited) (123,902) Adjustment(Projected Ending Fund Balance) Budget vs. Actuals(FY2013-14 Adopted Budget Book) 543,377 Audit Adjustment - Loan Receivable (Pottery Court) - Reclass Deferred Revenue to Fund Balance 1,000,000 Ending Fund Balance (Projected), June 30, 2014 $ 10,836,472 6 Exhibit B Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balances — General Fund - 2013-14 Mid -Year Annual Operating Budget CIN OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND 2013-14 MID -YEAR ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET 7,788,115 8,030,676 5,396,581 5,263,296 5,537,970 2012-13 2012-13 2013-14 2013-14 201314 $ Variance % Variance Revised Unaudited Current Year -to -Date Midyear Increase Increase Budget Actuals Budget Actuals Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Revenues: Sales Tax Property Tax Franchise Tax Building Permit Fee Property Transfer Tax Other Taxes Other Licenses & Permits Intergovernmental Fees Fines and Forfeitures Fire Service Tax Credit Investment Earnings Reimbursements from RDA RDA Lease Pymts(LERA) RDA SB211 Pass Through Other Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenues Expenditures by Dept: City Council/ PSAC City Treasurer City Attorney City Clerk City Manager/Econ Dev Administrative Services General Law Enforcement Fire Community Development Public Works Lake, Parks and Recreation Animal Shelter Operating Non -Departmental - Operating Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers In/(Out): Operating Transfers In Operating Transfers In/(Out): LLMD NO. 1(Fund 135) Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers In/(Out) Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 7,923,000 7,788,115 8,030,676 5,396,581 5,263,296 5,537,970 1,875,000 2,095,081 1,900,000 1,254,000 1,867,S98 1,900,000 195,000 265,337 200,000 247,000 277,042 2.52,000 1,041,825 974,553 1,139,025 109,889 79,706 110,307 2,211,870 2,053,193 2,757,600 599,000 592,185 439,900 1,816,436 2,073,402 2,000,OOD 195,000 9,010 195,OOD 314,760 314,760 328,813 704,000 704,000 1,200,000 98,000 102,422 98,000 219,000 740,754 219,000 3,433,520 7,938,727 (91,949) -1.14% 2,859,295 5,478,917 (59,053) -1.07% 715,159 2,102,000 202,000 10.63% 1,101,633 1,900,000 - 0.00% 179,030 225,000 25,000 12.50% 212,513 252,000 - 0.00% 641,546 1,149,625 10,600 0.93% 73,837 118,407 8,100 7.34% 1,450,313 2,282,000 (475,600) -17.25% 198,565 440,200 300 0.07% 454,109 1,917,662 (82,338) -4.12% 47,555 195,000 - 0.00% 193,223 321,180 (7,633) -2.32% 600,000 760,281 (439,719) -36.64% 55,261 98,000 - 0.00% 226,383 354,000 135,000 61.64% 1.4,200,361 25,200,454 26,308,291 12,441,942 25,532,999 (775,292) -2.95% 292,872 270,864 272,131 178,216 272,131 - 0.00% - - - - - - 0.00% 325,000 366,912 325,000 100,860 325,000 - 0.00% 358,866 290,509 365,181 168,759 365,181 - ODO% 515,259 420,069 474,952 289,390 474,952 - 0.00% 2,333,757 2,380,460 2,244,738 1,467,903 2,244,738 - 0.00% 7,849,832 7,548,303 8,471,850 1,562,251 8,32.1,850 (150,000) -1.77% 4,016,939 3,935,908 5,390,844 1,241,406 5,290,844 (100,000) -L85% 2,037,971 1,632,023 2,298,418 1,097,121 2,298,418 - 0.00% 2,096,386 1,977,325 2,359,659 1,373,251 2,259,659 (100,000) -4.24% 4,209,411 4,250,777 4,276,234 2,663,980 4,276,234 - 0.00% 484,308 485,161 738,624 197,339 738,624 - 0.00% 2,525,391 3,032,736 3,004,200 1,494,504 2,587,231 (416,969) -13.88% 27,045,992 26,591,047 30,221,831 11,834,979 29,454,862 (766,969) -2.54% (2,845,631) (1,390,593) (3,913,540) 606,963 (3,921,863) (8,323) -0.21% 1,195,510 1,266,690 806,906 163,872 549,849 (257,057) -31.86% (30,000) (30,000) 30,000 -100.00% (1,650,121) (123,902) (3,136,634) 740,835 (3,372,014) 1235,350) -7.50% 13,332,388 13,332,388 14,208,486 14,208,486 14,208,486 Prior Period Adjustment 1,000,000 Fund Balance, Beg. of Year (as restated) $ 11,682,267 $ 14,208,486 $ 11,071,852 $ 14,949,320 $ 10,836,472 Budget stabilization reserve Detail of Fund Balance 1,000,000 1,334,899 - Nonspendable: Budget carry -forward- FY12-13 - - 1,494,721 - Deposits and prepaid items $ 1,070,606 $ 1,070,606 $ 1,034,879 $ 1,034,879 $ 1,034,879 Due from Successor Agency 434,897 434,897 434,897 434,897 434,897 Loans Receivable - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Designated: Uncertainty reserve 3,641,400 3,641,400 5,232,846 5,232,846 5,154,601 Budget stabilization reserve 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,334,899 - - Budget carry -forward- FY12-13 - - 1,494,721 - Working capital - - - Equipment replacement 114,073 114,073 316,302 - - Civic Beautification 210,763 210,763 180,000 - - Darwin Rogers Trust Funds 128,761 128,761 128,761 Undesignated: Unallocated reserve 5,081,767 7,607,986 914,547 7,246,698 3,212,095 Total Fund Balance (net) $ 11,682,267 $ 14,208,486 $ 11,071,852 $ 14,949,320 $ 10,836,472 Exhibit C Budget Calendar for FY2014-15 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA FY2014-15 BUDGET CALENDAR MONTH DESCRIPTION TIMELINE MARCH - Development of budget parameters/strategic goals March 12 - Distribution of Budget Preparation Guidelines March 12 - Budget workshop with key City staff March 13 - Development of program goals and objectives March 13 - Development of performance measures March 13 - Budget requests submitted to Finance for review March 26 - Proposed CIP ("Capital Improvement Plan") projects submitted to Finance March 28 APRIL - Department operating budget submittals reviewed April - Revenue estimates completed by Finance April 1 - Budget analysis prepared for review by City Manager April 8 - CIP project timing and priorities modified based on available revenues April 11 MAY - Preliminary operating and CIP budgets prepared May 1 - Five-year financial projection completed May 6 - Public budget workshop with City Council allowing for public input TBD - 3RD WEEK OF MAY JUNE - Prepare agenda reports and proposed budget documents June 1 - Council adoption of final operating and CIP budgets June 10 - Council adoption of schedule of authorized positions and Gann Appropriations Limit June 10 ONGOING - Monthly budget/actual reports reviewed & sent to Departments Monthly - Quarterly financial statements prepared and presented to City Council Quarterly - Mid -year budget analysis and revision February 2015 10 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER -Mayor: Good evening. I call the City of Lake Elsinore City Council Meeting to order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -Mayor: I'm going to call on to do the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION -Mayor: Please remain standing for a moment of silent prayer. (20 seconds) ROLL CALL -Mayor: Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll. -City Clerk: Calls the roll. CLOSED SESSION REPORT -Mayor: Madame City Attorney Closed Session Report. -City Attorney: City Attorney provides report on Closed Session Item. PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS -Mayor: I call on the representatives from EVMWD for a presentation on the Lift Station -EVMWD: Will make presentation to City Council and then be seated. -Mayor: I will now ask Willa Bagwell of Animals Friends of the Valleys to join me while I read the proclamation declaring World Spay Day. -Willa: Will say a few words about spay and neutering and then be seated. -Mayor: I will now invite Ms. Donna Grunow to the podium for the presentation of a Certificate of Recognition — read the certificate and invite Ms. Grunow to say a few words. -Donna G: Will say a few words and introduce the West family and then be seated. -Mayor: I will now invite Council Member Hickman to make the presentation of the two City Champion trophies. Council Member Hickman will present the trophies to the two teams. Page I of 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS -Mayor announces: We are now at the Public Comments portion of the Agenda -1 minute in length. -Mayor: "Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak? CONSENT CALENDAR -Mayor: Under the Consent Calendar we have 3 items; Approval of Minutes, the Warrants, and the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Mid -Year Operating Budget. -Mayor: All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a -Mayor: Council Member or any member of the public request a separate action on a -Mayor: specific item. -Mayor: Do we have any requests to speak? (Council Members or public may request to pull item(s)) -Mayor: What is the pleasure of the Council? (Council Members make a motion and second) -Mayor: We have a motion by and a second by -Mayor: Any further discussion? -Mayor: All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye. -Mayor: All those opposed? -Mayor: The Consent Calendar passes [unanimously or 4-11 with each member presenting voting yes [and Council Member voting no]. "IF ITEM(S) ARE PULLED" PULLED ITEMS Announce Item and ask Staff to provide a report. -Mayor: What is the pleasure of the Council? (Council Members make a motion and second) -Mayor: We have a motion by and a second by -Mayor: Any further discussion? -Mayor: All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye. -Mayor: All those opposed? -Mayor: Agenda Item [Title of Staff Report] passes [unanimously or 4-11 with each member present voting yes [and Council Member voting no]. (Repeat if there is more than one item pulled) PUBLIC HEARINGS: None APPEAL(S) None Page 2 of 5 BUSINESS ITEM(S) Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No 2014-1322 relating to Rotational Towing Services -Mayor: reads the title of the report -City Clerk provides a presentation of the staff report. -Mayor: Do we have requests to speak? (Council Members or public may speak) -Mayor: What is the pleasure of the Council? (Council Members make a motion and second) -Mayor: We have a motion by and a second by to adopt Ordinance No. 2014-1322. Call upon City Clerk. -City Clerk: Will read the title into the record and take the roll -call vote. -Mayor: The motion passes with each member present voting yes [and Council Member voting no]. -Mayor: reads the title of the report and asks for a staff report. -Pat Kilroy: provides a presentation of the staff report. -Mayor: Do we have requests to speak? (Council Members or public may speak) -Mayor: What is the pleasure of the Council? (Council Members make a motion and second) -Mayor: We have a motion by and a second by to introduce Ordinance No. 2014-1323. Call upon City Clerk. -City Clerk: Will read the title into the record and take the roll -call vote. -Mayor: The motion passes with each member present voting yes [and Council Member voting no]. -Mayor: We have a motion by and a second by to adopt Resolution No. 2014-012 establishing fines. -Mayor: Any further discussion? -Mayor: All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye. -Mayor: All those opposed? -Mayor: The motion passes with each member present voting yes [and Council Member voting no]. -Mayor: That was our Business Agenda. Now we go to the Successor Agency meeting. Page 3 of 5 SUCCESSOR AGENCY Chair: I'm calling the Successor Agency meeting to order at p.m. ROLL CALL Chair: The roll call previously taken will stand. CLOSED SESSION REPORT There are no Closed Session Reports. CONSENT CALENDAR -Chair: Under the Consent Calendar we have 2 items, Approval of Minutes and the Warrants. -Chair: All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless an Agency Member or any member of the public requests a separate action on a specific item. -Chair: Do we have requests to speak? (Agency Members or public may request to pull items) -Chair: What is the pleasure of the Agency? (Chair Members make a motion and second) -Mayor: We have a motion by Agency Member and a second by Agency Member -Mayor: Any further discussion? -Mayor: All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye. -Mayor: All those opposed? -Mayor: The Consent Calendar passes [unanimously or 4-11 with each member present voting yes [and Agency Member voting no]. Chair: The Successor Agency is adjourned at p.m. to the next regular meeting to be held on March 25th BACK TO CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEM — 3 MINUTES -Mayor: That takes us back to the City Council agenda - Public Comment on Non Agendized Items, 3 minutes in length. -Mayor: "Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak?" CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Will introduce new Police Chief. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Page 4 of 5 ADJOURNMENT Mayor: Thank you for your decorum. The meeting is adjourned to the next Regular scheduled meeting to be held on March 25th. Thank you and good night. Page 5 of 5 AGENDA COVER SHEET MEETING OF ElCity Council � Redevelopment Agency F-1 Other DEPARTMENT: ST �, <_ . CONSENT: APPEAL BUSINESS: RESOLUTION: 171 ORDINANCES F—] PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHMENTS: ��(���tii i r —�} -1_`7 E;aReport emailed to Clerk ■■ a a a a a w a w a a a a a a a a a a a a w■ a w w w w w a a a a a a a a w a w a a w a a a a a a a a w a a a a a w a w a a a a w w ... a a � FOLLOW UP DIRECTION: a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a w a a a a a a a a a a w w w w w a w a a a a a a a a a a a a w a a a a a w a a a w w■■ a a a w a a a w l Submitted by: _ Date: � 1 Lf Approved by: Department Head: Date: SV�� Finance Director: Date: City Manager: Date: CITY OF LAKE LSINOP E 7�DREAM EXTREME `TN REPORT TO SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO: HONORABLE AGENCY CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY FROM: GRANT YATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: WARRANT LIST DATED FEB 27, 2014 Recommendation It is recommended that the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014 Discussion The warrant list is a listing of all general checks issued by the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore since the prior Warrant List. Prepared By: Frances Ramirez Account Specialist II Reviewed By: Jason Simpson Administrative Services Director Approved By: Grant Yates City Manager Attachments: Warrant List 2-27-2014 FEBRUARY 27,20114 WARRANT' SUMMARY SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ]LAKE E LSI1' OR E FUND# FUND DESCRIPTION 'TOTAL 540 SUCCESSOR DIAMOND STADIUM $ 103,258.97 GRAND TOTAL 3/5/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 SA RDA 1 of 2 $ 103,258.97 IFEBR'U/ RY 27, 2011 WARRANT iLIST SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TFHE CITY OF LAKE IEILS]LNOR E Cl ECK# VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 7199 LAKE ELSINORE STORM, LP $ 103 258.97 WARRANT TOTAL _ 103 258.97 GRAND TOTAL $ 103,258.97 3/5/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 SA RDA 2 of 2 AGENDA COVER SHEET MEETING OF S,k ElCity Council Redevelopment Agency F-1 Other DEPARTMENT: it r5Q CONSENT: 1 APPEAL BUSINESS: RESOLUTION: F-1 ORDINANCES F7 PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHMENTS: EIReport emailed to Clerk ■ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a tl a a a a r,.■ a 0 a a a .. a. a ............ a s ... a a■■ a■■. a a. a. a. a a .. l FOLLOW UP DIRECTION: Submitted by: Date: Approved by: Department Head: Date: Finance Director: Date: City Manager: Date: t 1('1{Y Or 1 y KE REPORT TO SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY FROM: VIRGINIA J. BLOOM AGENCY CLERK DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommendation It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve Minutes as submitted. Discussion The following minutes are submitted for approval: a. Regular Successor Agency meeting of February 25, 2014. Prepared by: Diana Giron Deputy Agency Clerk Approved and Submitted by: Virginia J. Bloom Agency Clerk Approved by: Grant Yates Executive Director 'Kt ,�... - -- hili,. "��:.- ..,.e. Tuesday, February 25, 2014 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. City of Lake Elsinore Meeting Minutes - Draft Successor Agency NATASHA JOHNSON, CHAIR STEVE MANOS, VICE -CHAIR BRIAN TISDALE, AGENCYMEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, AGENCY MEMBER ROBERTMAGEE, AGENCYMEMBER GRANT YATES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7:00 PM Vice -Chair Manos called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. ROLL CALL LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE EVMWD BOARDROOM 31315 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 PRESENT: Vice -Chair Manos, Agency Member Hickman, Agency Member Magee, and Agency Member Tisdale ABSENT: PRESENT: Chairperson Johnson Also present: Executive Director Yates, Agency Counsel Leibold, Administrative Services Director Simpson, Lake, Parks, & Recreation Director Kilroy, Interim Public Works Director Eskandari, Community Development Director Taylor, Police Chief Kennedy -Smith, Management Analyst Dailey, and Deputy Agency Clerk Giron. CLOSED SESSION REPORT None PRESENTATIONS / CEREMONIALS None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 7 MINUTE None CONSENT CALENDAR ID# 14-029 Approval of Minutes It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve Minutes as submitted. City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 Successor Agency Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 ID# 14-030 Warrant List Dated February 13 2014 It is recommended that the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 13, 2014. Motion by Agency Member Tisdale, seconded by Agency Member Hickman, to approve all items identified on the Consent Calendar; the motion passed by unanimous vote as follows: AYES : Vice -Chair Manos, Agency Member Hickman, Agency Member Magee and Agency Member Tisdale NOES None ABSENT Chairperson Johnson ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING(S) None APPEAL(S) None BUSINESS ITEM(S) ID# 14-031 Recoqnized Obliqation Payment Schedule (ROPS 14-15A) for July 1 2014 Through December 31 2014 It is recommended that the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt Resolution No. SA 2014-06 A Resolution of the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 14-15A) for July 2014 through December 2014. Agency Counsel Leibold provided a staff report and recommendation the Agency. City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 Successor Agency Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Motion by Agency Member Magee, seconded by Agency Member Tisdale, to adopt Resolution No. SA 2014-06 A Resolution of the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 14-15A) for July 2014 through December 2014; the motion passed by unanimous vote as follows: AYES : Vice -Chair Manos, Agency Member Hickman, Agency Member Magee and Agency Member Tisdale NOES None ABSENT Chairperson Johnson ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS None AGENCY COUNSEL COMMENTS None AGENCY MEMBERS COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Manos adjourned this meeting at 7:18 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, at the Cultural Center located at 183 N.Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California. Steve Manos, Vice Chairperson Diana Giron, Deputy Agency Clerk City or Lake Elsinore Page 3 AGENDA COVER SHEET MEETING OF E1 City Council Redevelopment Agency F-1 Other DEPARTMENT: F] CONSENT: APPEAL BUSINESS: RESOLUTION: ORDINANCES [:::] PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHMENTS: LC -,–) -2 JCI y Report emailed to Clerk ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ a a a a a a a • a ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ a ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ a ■ a ■ ■ ■ 1 FOLLOW UP DIRECTION: a a a a a a a f a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 4 Submittedby: ,1 �; �� til Date: Approved by: Department Head: Date: Finance Director: Date: City Manager: Date: L NEW „F`'g DRFAN4 L-,)�FRLME REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the Minutes as submitted. Discussion The following minutes are submitted for approval: a. Regular City Council meeting of February 25, 2014 Prepared by: Diana Giron Deputy City Clerk Approved and Submitted by: Approved by: Virginia J. Bloom City Clerk Grant Yates City Manager Tuesday, February 25, 2014 CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Elsinore Meeting Minutes - Draft City Council NATASHA JOHNSON, MAYOR STEVE MANOS, MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN TISDALE, COUNCIL MEMBER DARYL HICKMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER ROBERT MAGEE, COUNCIL MEMBER GRANT YATES, CITYMANAGER Mayor Pro Tem Manos called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CJ Stewart led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG (951) 674-3124 PHONE EVMWD BOARDROOM 31315 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 EVMWD Boardroom PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale ABSENT: Mayor Johnson Also present: City Manager Yates, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Simpson, Lakes, Parks & Recreation Director Kilroy, Community Development Director Taylor, Interim Public Works Director Eskandari, Police Chief Kennedy -Smith, Management Analyst Dailey, and Deputy City Clerk Giron. PRESENTATIONS / CEREMONIALS Proclamation Declaring K-9 Veterans' Day Mayor Pro Tem Manos presented a proclamation declaring March 13, 2014 as K-9 Vereran's Day to CJ Stewart. CJ Stewart accepted the proclamation and provided a brief history of K-9 Veteran's Day. Christine Davis spoke regarding the awareness of veteran canines becoming service companions and thanked Council for recognizing Vereran's K-9 Day. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 1 MINUTE None City of Lake Elsinore Page 1 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None None CONSENT CALENDAR ID# 14-022 Approval of the Minutes It is recommended that the City Council approve the Minutes as submitted. ID# 14-023 Warrant List Dated February 13, 2014 It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 13, 2014. ID# 14-024 Construction Contract Awards - Proiect No. 4411 Lakepoint Park Parkin Lot Improvements 1. Award the construction of Lakepoint Park Parking Lot Improvements to FSG Paving in the amount of $116,388.00 with a 10% contingency of $11,000.00 to be used for construction. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with FSG Paving. 3. Authorize the budget transfer of $8,825.00, Fund 221 (Park Development Impact Fee) from Machado Park Renovation Project 4373. 4. Authorize the budget transfer of $4,583.00, Fund 221 (Park Development Impact Fee) from the Swick-Matich Park Fencing Project No. 4273. ID# 14-025 Community Facilities District No 2006-1 (Summerly): Dissolving Existing Improvement Areas Designating New Improvement Areas and Assigning Maximum Bond Authorization 1. Adopt a resolution dissolving improvement areas within the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Summerly) and designating new improvement areas within said community facilities district. 2. Adopt a resolution of intention to incur bonded indebtedness in the amounts not to exceed $4,000,000, $7,500,000, $5,500,000, $8,000,000, $9,000,000, and $12,500,000 for Improvemetn Area CC, Improvement Area DD, Improvement Area EE, Improvement Area FF, Improvement Area GG, Improvement Area HH, and Improvement Area II, respectively, of the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Summerly). ID# 14-026 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore in Support of SB 69 (Roth) and AB 1521 (Fox) Vehicle License Fee Adiustment It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution No. 2014-009 supporting SB 69 and AB 1521 Vehicle License Fee Adjustment; and Authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to sign the letter of support. City ofLeke Elsinore Page 2 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Motion by Council Member Tisdale, seconded by Magee, to approve all items identified on the Consent Calendar; the motion passed by unanimuos vote as follows: AYES : Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale NOES : None ABSENT: Mayor Johnson ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING(S) None APPEALS) None BUSINESS ITEMS) ID# 14-027 Amendment to Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Regarding Rotational Towing Services Consideration of Form Franchise Agreement It is recommended that the City Council: A. Introduce by title only and adopt by roll call vote Ordinance No. 2014-1322, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Amending and Restating Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Rotational Towing Services. B. Review the attached draft form of the City Tow Operation Franchise Agreement and direct staff to proceed with preparing and posting a request for qualifications to select franchise tow operators. Management Analyst Dailey provided a staff report and recommendation to Council. City of Lake Elsinore Page 3 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Motion by Council Member Hickman, seconded by Council Member Magee, to waive further reading and introduce by title only Ordinance No. 2014-1322. Deputy City Clerk Giron read the title of the ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 12.14 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES; the motion passed by unanimous roll -call vote as follows: AYES : Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale NOES : None ABSENT: Mayor Johnson ABSTAIN: None Motion by Council Member Hickman, seconded by Council Member Magee, to proceed with preparing and posting a request for qualifications to select franchise tow operators; passed by unanimous vote as follows: AYES : Mayor Pro Tem Manos, Council Member Hickman, Council Member Magee, and Council Member Tisdale NOES : None ABSENT: Mayor Johnson ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES Elizabeth Moriarity expressed her concerns regarding the need for improvements and expansion of the Lake Elsinore Senior Center. She asked Council to consider the request of improvements to better serve the seniors that participate at the center. Gillian Larson announced the Reality Rally 2014 in the City of Temecula, April 11th - 13th, and invited Council to participate in the rally to defend last year's title. She also announced that the Storm Stadium would host a game for the the winning team and City Council team. Reality Rally is to raise funds for Michelle's Place, the Women's Breast Cancer Resource Center. Judy Zalfiqar announced the events that will take place during the Reality Rally weekend April 11 th - 13th. She also announced that this year there will be a celebrity chef showcase cook off. Ms. Zalfiqar encouraged the community to get involved in the fundraising and have fun at the event. City of Lake Elsinore Page 4 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Monica Mestas stated that she is with the FTAspay non-profit organization and thanked Lake, Parks, and Recreation Director Kilroy, Manager Davis, Recreation Supervisor Foster and Council for being supportive of the spay and neuter programs. Ms. Mestas spoke regarding the pet overpopulation crisis throughout the country. The solution to this crisis is spaying and neutering. FTAspay's mission is to end animal shelter euthanasia through affordable spaying, neutering and microchipping. Ms. Mestas also thanked Council Member Hickman for being instrumental in acquiring a donated bus for their group through RTA's recycling program. Council Member Tisdale invited Ms. Mestas to attend the South Coast Finance Authority meeting on April 14th at 2:00 p.m. at the Murrieta Council Chamber. The meeting will address an animal shelter marketing campaign for cities located in the southwest area. Zia Bossenmeyer, FTAspay Board Member, announced the Lake Elsinore Small Dog Project to spay or neuter and microchip dogs that weigh under 20 pounds for a fee of $15. She also announced the Pit Bull Project to spay or neuter and microchip dogs for a fee of $25. Ms. Bossenmeyer asked for assistance in promoting both projects. Valerie Geason introduced a new non-profit organization, L.F.W. Foundation, to honor her mother Leona Ford Washing. Ms. Geason stated that there is a need for college counseling workshops and scholarships for students in this community. The foundation is introducing itself to the community through a fashion show luncheon on March 22nd at 1:00 p.m. at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Yates announced that the City is under storm watch and that the County is very engaged in storm preparation, especially in the burnt areas. City Manager Yates announced that sand bags are available at the City's Public Works Yard, fire stations in the City of Lake Elsinore, and Fire Station 11 in Lakeland Village. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Hickman asked the public to drive carefully in the rain. Council Member Hickman announced that crime in the City is down by 16%; the Spring City Clean Up event on March 8th from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Storm Stadium; and thanked Elizabeth Moriarty for her public comments. City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 City Council Meeting Minutes - Draft February 25, 2014 Council Member Magee advised Ms. Moriarity that this meeting is the place to express her questions and concerns. He also informed Ms. Moriarity that Council approved paving improvements in the amount of $116,000 for the parking lot at Lakepoint Park, which will help the Senior Center. Council will review the mid -year budget and consider the Senior Center improvements for the 2014/2015 Fiscal Year Budget. Council Member Magee also announced that the motor cross park will be in full operation the second week of March; thanked City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Director Simpson, and Finance Administrator Lassey for their work on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS); and encouraged the public to purchase tickets for Opening Day at the Storm Stadium. Council Member Tisdale thanked staff for their hard work and looks forward to the Reality Rally this year. Council Member Tisdale stated that Council does takes the animal issue serious; it would be great if Ms. Mestas could attend the South Coast Finance Authority meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Manos annuonced that he attended the Good Vibes concert and stated that the event had potential. The event showcased the RV resort and boat launch. Mayor Pro Tem Manos stated that he looks forward to future events and that concerns that were presented by the public will be addressed. Mayor Pro Tem Manos welcomed the following new businesses to the City of Lake Elsinore: Bass Outlet, ETax Services, Juniors MX Supply, Paws Appeal and Grooming and Doggy Day Care, Secure Detention Products, Serenity Nails and Spa, and Western Fluids Engineering and Manufacturing. Mayor Pro Tem Manos announced that the next City Council meeting will be held at the Cultural Center and invited the public to attend the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Manos adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California. Steve Manos, Mayor Pro Tem Diana Giron, Deputy City Clerk City of Lake Elsinore Page 6 AGENDA COVER SHEET MEETING OF (�Q ET City Council F-1 Redevelopment Agency F-1 Other DEPARTMENT: I s I L3 / , I f - � J; c t- " CONSENT: El APPEAL _ BUSINESS: RESOLUTION: 1=1 ORDINANCES = PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHMENTS: W(A_P—fLA1Ni-�_ Report emailed to Clerk a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a l FOLLOW UP DIRECTION: a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a E a a a a a a a a a w a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 6 Submitted by: Date: Approved by: Department Head: Date: S �� Finance Director: Date: City Manager: Date: CITY OF LAKE-? LSINOKE DREAM EXTREME ,7 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GRANT YATES CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: WARRANT LIST DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2014 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore receive and file the Warrant List dated February 27, 2014 Discussion The warrant list is a listing of all general checks issued since the prior warrant list. Prepared By: Frances Ramirez Account Specialist II Reviewed By: Jason Simpson Administrative Services Director Approved By: Grant Yates City Manager Attachments: Warrant List 2-27-2014 FEBRUARY 27, 201/1 CITY OF ]LAKIE ]ELSINOIRIE FUND# FUND DESo; ]UPTTON 101 SUPLMNT LAW ENF. SVC. FUND 103 OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 104 TRAFFIC OFFENDER FUND 105 MISC. GENERAL PROJECT FUND 108 MISC. GRANT FUND 110 STATE GAS TAX FUND 111 TUMF CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 112 TRANSPORTATION/MEASURE A FUND 113 SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK FUND 115 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 116 CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS DIF FUND 130 LIGHTING/LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FUND 135 L L.M D. NO 1 FUND _ 150 C.D B G. FUND 155 CSA 152 — N.P.D.E.S. FUND 160 PEG GRANT RESTRICTED FUND 204 SIGNAL C I.P FUND 205 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND 221 PARK C.I.P. DIF FUND 232 FIRE PROTECTION DIF FUND 605 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN—LIEU FUND 606 AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION FUND 608 TRUST DEPOSIT & PRE—PAID EXPENSE FUND 620 COST RECOVERY SYSTEM FUND 650 C.F.D. 2003-1 LAW & FIRE SERVICE DEBT SERVICE FUND WARRANT SUMMARY TOTAL 4,125.00 5,815.46 4,851.37 22, 911.83 66,809.01 34,064.52 8,882.94 2,208.46 2,697.03 44, 271.59 51,930.96 38,465.82 195.00 9,635.30 2,225.37 2,995.33 135.00 5,352.50 361.07 69,129.99 180.56 2,055.00 Z000.00 6,094.53 113,150.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 1,524,549.01 3/5/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 1 of 4 TE RUA R 27, 2014 CITY OF ]LAKE ]E]LS]INOR E WAll RANT,IST CHECK# VENDOR NAME AMOUNT' 117262 VOID -BMW MOTORCYCLES OF RIVERSIDE $ 117264 VOID -CA MUNICIPAL REVENUE & TAX ASSOCIATION (100.00) 117479 VOID-HARRAH'S RINCON (400.00) 117539 ACTION GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 53.15 117540 AL'S KUBOTA TRACTOR 3,703 27 117541 APPLE ONE _ 2,436.00 117542 BATTERY SYSTEMS, INC. 220.17 117543 VIRGINIA BLOOM 285.81 117544 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA, INC. 43 219.37 117545 CALOLYMPIC GLOVE &SAFETY CO. 1 904.05 117546 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC 475.00 117547 DATA QUICK INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. 130.50 117548 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING, INC. 4,287 01 117549 ECS IMAGING, INC. 5,695 71 117550 EXTREME ELECTRICAL SERVICES 1,980 00 117551 FIRE ETC. 46,564.87 117552 MARK GORE 944 60 117553 GRAINGER INC. _ 5,204.20 117554 GREAT AMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES _ _ _ 621.01 117555 HARTZOG & CRABILL, INC. 2,010.00 117556 HI -WAY SAFETY, INC. 1,431_62 117557 I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT TRUST 1,645.00 117558 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, INC 125.00 117559 LAKE CHEVROLET _ 69.79 117560 LANDMARK SITE CONTRACTORS 4,982 00 117561-117564 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. 3,898 39 117565 LVP DISTRIBUTION _ _ 724.94 117566 MACHOVEC __ 9,773.60 117567 MUNISERVICES, LLC _ 375.00 117568 NEW IMAGE FLOORING 14 917.88 117569 ORKIN, INC _ 178.04 117570 RIGHTWAY SITE SERVICES, INC. 100.08 117571 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF 5,815 46 117572 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT 8,338.06 117573 SCOTT FAZEKAS & ASSOCIATES, INC 5,331.97 117574 SHRED -IT 160.00 117575 SNAP ON TOOLS - OMAR MUNOZ _ _ 172 91 117576 SOUTH COAST LIGHTING & DESIGN 1,708.83 117577 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 206.88 117578 STAUFFER'S LAWN EQUIPMENT _ 73.82 117579 STK ARCHITECTURE, INC. 3855.60 117580 SUAREZ'S AUTO UPHOLSTERY 375.00 117581 TEAM AUTOAID INC. _ 150.01 117582 TIME WARNER CABLE _ _ 147.73 117583 TOP -LINE INDUSTRIAL, INC. 47.55 117584 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 38.89 117585 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE _ 1,950.00 117586 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 4,902 50 117587 VERIZON - INTERNET 319.99 117588 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 4866 117589 VERIZON WIRELESS (#1) _ 539.98 117590 VERIZON WIRELESS (#2) 107.77 117591 VERIZON WIRELESS (#4) _ 243.76 117592 VILLAGE EQUIPMENT RENTALS, INC 165 00 117593 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY _ 1,136.38 3/5/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 2 OF 4 FEBRUARY 2%, 201'4 GTT OF LAKE ELSINORE WARRANT LIST C1-I'ECK# VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 117594 WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING _ 14,288 00 117595 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 533.25 117596 WEST COAST SERVICES _ 900.00 117597 WILLDAN _ 15,373.61 117598 DOROTHY WINKLE _ 402.08 117599 X -FACTOR MARINE &SPEED _ 357.50 117600 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 250.08 117601 LAMVIN INC _ 9,330 12 117602-117604 A & A JANITORIAL SERVICE 4,967.50 117605 ACCOUNTEMPS _ 4,623.20 117606 ALL -PRO ENGINE & MOWER SUPPLY _ 3.94 117607 ALLEGRA MARKETING PRINT MAIL 286.20 117608 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES 1,433.24 117609 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEY _ 14,341.00 117610 APPLE ONE _ _ 1,450.02 117611 ARTISTIC WOOD 6,712.00 117612 BAZILIO, COBB ASSOCIATES PC _ 8,850.00 117613 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 4,127 10 117614-117615 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA INC. _ 52,505 48 117616 CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE _ 350.00 117617 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. _ 3,177.32 117618 CITY OF OAKLAND _ 76.00 117619 KIRT COURY _ 4,050.00 117620-117621 CTAI PACIFIC GREENSCAPE _ 2,057.12 117622 D.R. HORTON, INC. 2,000.00 117623 RITA DAVIS _ 1,605.00 117624 RICK DE SANTIAGO 390.50 117625 FRANCISCO DIAZ 390.50 117626 DISH NETWORK 95.27 117627-117632 E. V. M. W. __ __ 41,634.17 117633 ELSINORE PIONEER LUMBER CO _ 1,803 89 117634 ENVIROMINE _ 179.56 117635 FOREST WOOD FIBER PRODUCTS _ _ _ 842.40 117636 CARMEN GODINA _ 750.00 117637 GRANT WRITING USA 425.00 117638 GRANT WRITING USA 425.00 117639 LORENA HANCOCK _ _ _ 3,532.50 117640 HARRAH'S RINCON 400.00 117641 JOHNSON MACHINERY CO. 261.27 117642 LAKE CHEVROLET _ _ _ 667.67 117643 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 30.00 117644 LUXOR HOTEL 1 706 80 117645 MARATHON GENERAL, INC. _ _ _ 10,422.25 117646 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS _ _ _ 442.60 117647 OFFICE MAX INCORPORATED _ 534.44 117648 GUSTAVO POLETTI _ 30.38 117649 GENARO & MABLE PRATS 2,000.00 117650 PREMIUM PALOMAR MT SPRING WATER 189.00 117651 THE PRESS ENTERPRISE _ 282.70 117652 PRO COAT POWDER COATING, INC _ 518.40 117653 PRO PET DISTRIBUTORS 1,903 95 117654 PRODUCTION VIDEO, INC. 375.00 117655 RBI TRAFFIC, INC. 2,970.00 117656 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF 707,402.71 117657 RIVERSIDE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE 36,817.18 3/5/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 3 OF 4 FEBRUARY 2l, 2014 CITY OF LAKE E LSI NONE WARRANTLIST . 01ECK# VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 117658-117659 ROBBINS PEST MANAGEMENT, INC. 1,845.00 117660 ROBERT ROONEY -- MATCO TOOLS 328.20 117661 SEA PAC ENGINEERING, INC. 88,358 67 117662 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 591.00 ' 117663 SOS STORAGE CENTERS 580.00 117664-117668 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 6,368 78 117669-117670 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 1,094 99 117671 STAUFFER'S LAWN EQUIPMENT 189.52 117672 SUSTAINABLE CIVIL ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC. 20,245 59 117673 TEAM AUTOAID, INC 194.89 117674 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS _ 508.05 117675 TIME WARNER CABLE 246.81 117676 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 72.38 117677 VERIZON CALIFORNIA _ 1,030.90 117678 VERIZON WIRELESS (#1) 418.33 117679 VERIZON WIRELESS (#3) _ _ 229.51 117680 _ WAL-MART COMMUNITY 368 77 117681 WILLIAM JOHNSON 700.00 117682 X -FACTOR MARINE & SPEED _ 260 00 117683 Z BEST BODY & PAINT SHOPS, INC. 3,872.58 117684 MATTHEW BROWN 3,000.00 WARRANT TOTAL 1,293,996.33 02/19/14 CALIFORNIA P E R S. 02/25/14 CALIFORNIA P E R S 02/25/14 CALIFORNIA P E R.S. 02/27/14 PAYROLL CASH 02/27/14 PAYROLL TAXES 42,457.45 1,423.00 9,454.36 126,822 75 50,395.12 GRAND TOTAL 1,524,549.01 3/5/2014 Warrant 02 27 14 City 4 OF 4 City Council DEPARTMENT: CONSENT: APPEAL _ Fq BUSINESS: AGENDA COVER SHEET MEETING OF al i al Redevelopment Agency Other Tom Ord. F1 RESOLUTION: FT ORDINANCES F—] PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHMENTS: Report emailed to Clerk a a a a■■ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a E FOLLOW UP DIRECTION: eu-�'h U`"'' ` L ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ a a i a a ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ a ■ ■ a a a a a a ■ a ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ a ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ a a a It a a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �?YSubmitted by: Date: Approved by: Department Head: Date: Finance Director: Date: City Manager: Date: 3/S� CITY OF LADE LSIft0RE DREAM EXTREML. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 11, 2014 SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council waive further reading and adopt by title only ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 12.14 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES, by roll -call vote. Discussion The above -referenced Ordinance was introduced at the regular Council meeting of February 25, 2014, relating to the Towing Services. It is now being presented for second reading and adoption by title only. Prepared by: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk Vy�_ Approved by: Grant Yates, City Manager Attachment: Ordinance No. 2013-1322 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-1322 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 12.14 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopted Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in 2001 pursuant to Ordinance No. 1065; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend and restate Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in order to revise and update the provisions related to rotational towing services and the franchise granted by the City Council to provide such services. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 12.14 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated as follows: Chapter 12.14 ROTATIONAL TOWING SERVICES Sections: 12.14.010 Purpose and intent. 12.14.020 Definitions. 12.14.030 Tow truck operator franchise. 12.14.040 Nonexclusive franchise. 12.14.050 Selection of franchisees. 12.14.060 Rotation system. 12.14.070 Conditions on franchises. 12.14.080 Rates. 12.14.090 Vehicle impound cost recovery fee. 12.14.100 Franchise fees. 12.14.110 Franchise agreements. 12.14.120 Additional services to be provided. 12.14.130 Authority to maintain City towing operations and towing yard. 12.14.010 Purpose and intent. It is the intent of this chapter and any subsequent amendments thereto to prescribe the basic regulations for the operation of the City of Lake Elsinore ("City") and Lake Elsinore Police Department ("Police Department") towing service in emergency situations and in the removal of vehicles that are abandoned, involved in an accident, or constitute an obstruction to traffic because of mechanical failure. It is the purpose of the City Council 1 in enacting this chapter to provide a fair and impartial means of distributing requests for towing services among qualified franchises, and to ensure that such service is prompt and reasonably priced, and in the best interests of the public as well as the interest of efficient policing operations for the removal of such vehicles from public streets. 12.14.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words, and derivations shall have the meaning given in this section: "City Manager" means the City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore. "Franchise agreement" means an agreement between the City and a franchisee for the purposed of providing towing services as provided in this chapter. "Franchisee" means a certain tow truck operator to which the City Council may, by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance, grant a nonexclusive franchise for purposes of providing towing services to the City under and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. "Police Chief' means the Chief of Police of the Police Department of the City of Lake Elsinore. "Police Department" means the Police Department of the City of Lake Elsinore. "Tow truck operator" means mean a towing company and the owner(s) and/or managing employee(s) of a towing company. 12.14.030 Tow truck operator franchise. The City Council may at its discretion, by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance, grant a nonexclusive franchise to a tow truck operator ("franchisee") to provide towing services to the City under and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 12.14.040 Nonexclusive franchise. A. All franchises granted to franchisees pursuant to this chapter shall be nonexclusive and shall be for a term to be specified by the City Council in the resolution granting a franchise hereunder and in the franchise agreement between the City and the franchisee. B. No provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to require restricting the number of franchises to one or any particular number, and no provision of this chapter shall be deemed to require the City Council to grant any franchise if the City Council determines that the grant of any such franchise is not in the best interest of the City and the public. C. All franchisees shall be subject to the terms and conditions specified in this chapter, as well as any terms or conditions specified in the resolution granting the franchise and the franchise agreement. 2 D. In granting any tow truck operator franchise, the City Council may prescribe such other terms and conditions, not in conflict with this chapter, as are determined by the City Council to be in the best interest of the City and the public. 12.14.050 Selection of franchisees. A. The selection of the franchisees shall be done through a competitive selection process. Upon any opening(s) on the rotation list, the City Manager shall issue a notice of request for qualifications (RFQ) to solicit interested tow truck operators. The RFQ shall be posted on the City's website and either: (1) posted on a website devoted to procurement services, bid and vendor management such as Planetbids.com., or (2) published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Responses to the RFQ shall be due no earlier than 20 days following posting and/or publication of the notice as required herein. B. The Police Chief, in coordination with the City Manager or designee, shall evaluate the qualifications of the tow truck operators responding to the RFQ. No later than 60 days after receipt of the responses to the RFQ, the Police Chief shall submit to the City Council for consideration the qualifications of the tow truck operator(s) that he/she deems most qualified together with a franchise agreement as provided in LEMC 12.14.110. C. With respect to the selection process as provided herein, the Police Chief shall determine the number of franchisees needed to provide towing services to the Police Department. In determining the required number of franchisees, the Police Chief may consider the following factors: (1) the operational needs of the Police Department; (2) population growth; (3) the number of currently authorized franchisees and their average response time; (4) administrative burdens imposed by the number of franchisees to be included in a rotation list; and (5) such other reasonable factors as determined by the Police Chief. 12.14.060 Rotation system. A. The tow truck operators who obtain a franchise pursuant to this chapter shall provide towing service to the City pursuant to the rotation system established by the Police Chief. B. Nothing shall prohibit a Class B, C, or D operator from maintaining a place on a lighter class rotation list. Regardless of the class of tow truck, charges shall not be more than the class of vehicle towed or serviced, except when recovery operations required a larger class of truck. 3 12.14.070 Conditions on franchises. Any tow truck operator that obtains a franchise pursuant to this chapter shall A. Comply with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, B. Have an office and storage facility in the same location within the City's boundaries, with a sign posted including the company name, address, phone number and hours of operation, to be clearly visible from the roadway. Unless otherwise authorized under the franchise agreement, such storage facilities shall contain a minimum of 25 vehicle exterior storage spaces and a minimum of four (4) secured vehicle storage spaces. The secured vehicle storage spaces shall be for the purpose of securing vehicle for evidence at the request of the police department. Secured vehicles shall be transported to and from the storage facility to the police station at no charge to the City or the Police Department. C. Maintain a sign listing the rates and charges of all towing and storage services offered. Such sign shall be conspicuously posted in the office or other location clearly visible where customer financial transactions take place. D. Furnish each owner of an automobile impounded by the tow truck operator with a fully itemized billing. E. Maintain minimum operating hours for storage facilities of Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except holidays. F. Respond to Police Department calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week, within the response time as established by the Police Chief, but generally within 20 minutes. The franchisees shall promptly advise the Police Department as to any anticipated delay in arrival. In the event of a delay, the Police Department may elect to contact another franchisee for service. G. Provide appropriate insurance as determined by the City Manager and agree to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and the Police Department from all claims, demands or liability arising out of or encountered in connection with its agreement with the City or the performance of work in preparation for the towing operation, or claims, demands and liability occurring during the towing and subsequent storage and maintenance activities whether such claims, demands or liability are caused by the tow service or its employees or agents. H. Conduct its business in an orderly, ethical, businesslike manner, and use reasonable means to obtain and keep the confidence of the motoring public. Franchisee shall be responsible for the acts of its employees and agents while on duty and for damage to towed vehicles while in its possession. I. Comply with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations for providing towing service and be a currently approved operator for the California Highway Patrol rotational tow list. J. Comply with the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement FAI 12.14.080 Rates. A. Franchisee shall not charge rates in excess of 115 percent of the schedule of rates for towing established by the California Highway Patrol for the Riverside County area. B. Storage fees shall be charged by calendar day except that vehicles stored eight hours or less shall be charged no more than one day storage. 12.14.090 Vehicle impound cost recovery fee. A. The vehicle impound cost recovery fee ("VICR fee") is equal to one hour of police officer time at the current intermediate deputy rate in effect at the time of the release of the impounded vehicle. This rate is annually reviewed, updated and approved by the Board of Supervisors for the County of Riverside. B. The City hereby establishes a VICR fee, payable when a registered owner or a legal owner seeks the release of a vehicle which the Police Department has impounded. C. A registered owner who redeems an impounded vehicle or requests its release from a franchisee's storage facility shall first pay to the Police Department the VICR fee. D. The Police Department may waive the VICR fee due to extenuating circumstances. It is not the intention of the City nor the Police Department to penalize victims. Circumstances under which the VICR fee may be waived include the impounding of recovered stolen or embezzled vehicles, and vehicles impounded due to driver injury or incapacitation. 12.14.100 Franchise fees. Any tow truck operator granted a franchise pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall pay to the City franchise charges and fees as may be determined by separate resolution of the City Council. Such fee shall not exceed the City's annual cost of administration and enforcement of this chapter. 12.14.110 Franchise agreements. All franchises granted by the City Council pursuant to this chapter shall be memorialized in a written franchise agreement between the franchisee and the City and approved by resolution of the City Council. The franchise granted therein shall be non -transferable unless prior consent is obtained from the City. The franchise agreement shall provide for immediate suspension or termination of the franchise granted under this chapter in event that the franchisee fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter and/or the franchise agreement. 12.14.120 Additional services to be provided. Franchisee shall provide to the City, at no charge, the services needed to facilitate the City's vehicle abatement program. Additionally, the franchisee will provide emergency response to aid and service City and Police Department vehicles that are one ton or less, within a reasonable radius no greater than one mile beyond the City's boundaries, at no cost to the City or Police Department. 5 12.14.130 Authority to maintain City towing operations and towing yard. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting or prohibiting the City from conducting its own towing operations or maintaining its own towing yard, either in lieu of, or in addition to, any franchise awarded pursuant to this chapter. SECTION 2. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance and are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its final passage. The City Clerk shall certify as to adoption of this Ordinance and cause this Ordinance to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the day of 2014, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the day of , 2014. ATTEST: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leibold, City Attorney Mayor City of Lake Elsinore City Council C STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Ordinance No. 2014-_ was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on the _ day of 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Virginia J. Bloom, CMC City Clerk .. - P.0, Box 244 DECEIVED Wildorriar, CA 92595 www.ftaspay,or FEB 2 1 2414 info@ftaspay.or CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FTA Pur The Animals Spay & Neuter Clinic February 20, 2014 Daryl Hickman, City Councilmember Lake Elsinore City Hall South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92560 Dear Mr. Hickman, This Thank You from FTAspay is long overdue. The goal was to get all six of our board members together on the same day with the bus and the banner. Well, we're still short a board member. From left to right are Denise Glass, Rose Cook, Kristin Lucero, Monica Mestas and Zia Bossenmeyer. Not shown is Chris Miller. The photo was taken this past Saturday, Feb 15, at our $10 Microchip Clinic for dogs and cats. The board of directors of FTAspay wish to express our sincere gratitude for your help in acquiring this beautiful bus as a donation from the Riverside Transit Authority. We are extremely grateful. it has been used to transport pets for spay/neuter surgeries, as a service for people who have transportation challenges or just need to get to work. In the near future, we will also use the bus to rescue and transport dogs from high -kill shelters in Southwest Riverside County to rescue organizations in the Pacific Northwest where there are available homes. The Pacific Northwest is not besieged with the pet overpopulation crisis that exists here. it is the Mission of FTAspay to end animal shelter euthanasia through affordable spay/neuter. In addition to saving countless lives of dogs and cats, the added benefit of reducing pet overpopulation is the extraordinary savings in tax dollars. Thank you, Mr, Hickman, for supporting our Mission. Respectfully, M nica Mes s Board President FlrAspoy is a 50103 nonprofit orgonizotion, Federal lox lD No. 36-46 7.3985. F 0_ �s R a t }s � i, 6 � Q ro� r Cr (f) f © Cl) a t }s � i, 6 P.O. Box 244 Wildomar, CA 92595 www.ftaspay.org info ftaspay_org FTA Spey & Ncnler Clinic February 21, 2014 Lake Elsinore City Council South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers, FTAspay is a local nonprofit spay -neuter advocacy organization. Our Mission is to end animal shelter euthanasia through affordable spay/neuter and microchipping. It is the desire of FTAspay to acknowledge World Spay Day, February 25, 2014, established by the Humane Society of the United States. This acknowledgment would consist of a tree planting and memorial plaque at Rosetta Canyon Dog Park. I have had some discussion and support from Pat Kilroy, Director of Lake, Parks and Recreation, who has also been very supportive of our spay/neuter programs. A few weeks ago, Leo Solorzano, Maintenance Mgr, and I met and selected a site at the dog park for the tree planting. FTAspay will purchase 24 -inch box Southern Magnolia tree. I understand, though, that a specific plaque and installation are required. The $450 fee for the plaque is prohibitive for our nonprofit organization. FTAspay could, however, afford $200 for the plaque, if the City would waive or absorb the balance. In addition, I have attached a World Spay Day Proclamation that was adopted in 2013 by the City Council of Gainesville, Forida. As Lake Elsinore is aware of the pet overpopulation crisis in our Valley and the associated costs — pets' lives and taxpayers' dollars -- we would ask the City to make a public Proclamation observing World Spay Day. Affordable and accessible spay/neuter is the Solution to this decades old problem. I apologize for the short notice, but it would be a lovely gesture to observe World Spay Day at Tuesday's City Council meeting. Thank you for your consideration and for being a proactive, progressive participant in promoting spay/neuter throughout our Valley. Respectfully, X onica Mesa s Board President FTAspay is a SO1 Q3 nonprofit organization, Federal Tax lil No. 36-46-73995. City of Gainesville, Florida it x-ci EQS, pets provide compattion-Aip to m4ou than SU,UU At' itaa-whafds in the `ilttited Staten; and '11INE.J aS, animal sftef&Aftaue euthanized rrtow, hart 4 miffion. urns, dugs, w6bits and otfiet artitmd3 each. yeaa., many, of warn au heaMy. and adoptable, due to a acitkat 6u* of Yeaowww arid pudic aw"Miee{s; and WAD'YaS, tf b hwgk auexpupu&dion, of peta caste tartpaye" o f tfib eoutdNy ntdiiotui of doPtaia atuuta bj; and 2U.qu.wQS, e payittg and ueutetirtq ftan been sfuttun to dwtt:4atica4 wduce tf e ou"popuM ion of pets and feud cats, pwuiiu to L+i a ueiee utitestMetet in scireuty iirrea and tulxpai doifax6; and wwwas, ocivdnaviaA4, nation( and &cat au4wat" oxgartiza ow, community. spay.Jneutet dttio 3ucft as .No Maw 3iatue-se feta, Opnna&w YdSuip and ptluate eitiz/ �v, //��64we /p�iiwd logceffi" tgon aduacate tfte. oti�arlfvza&n 4 pets and Awt tufa on rrl�/1/t�.:l eo Syay -qav, in 2('1,3. NOW, 9.IEE�1Wff'.`RE, 3, eauig. Bowe, Cy. the cutMo4iti,, ueeied in, me ccs Atuywc of &e eiti,, of gaineeuit&, do Reny. ptoc;faim 3ebwaW 26,2(113 a -s r APqiajm�gw) in the C'itiy, of QainwPi(c and invite all ows citiwLi tojoin rite itt obewingtftia day hj $acing Mzk otun pets spayed ox tmacted at 6# s ponso,irtg. dw :ste�Ion of anomek pexaon's pet ow o f are animal itt a ahefieu aaeading adoption. .7,N ` ,7 .NESS iUWWO-1, 9 have fteumda.:set nui hand azul cawed to be of Reed the, o f f&W sear? of Lie City a f Qautesuiffe, tl'oaida, titin 1516 day. of ju wavj, ex., 203, Virginia Bloom From: Celina Tinsley <celinatinsley@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:55 AM To: City Council Cc: Virginia Bloom Subject: Veteran's Memorial Attachments: City Council.docx Dear Mayor Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem Manus, Councilmembers, and Ms. Bloom: I am writing in regards to the veteran's memorial issue on the agenda for the closed session of the city council tonight. I have thought extensively about this issue and, as a concerned citizen, would like to respectfully request that you continue to pursue this matter on appeal. I am attaching a rationale, which I ani also copying and pasting below for your convenience, as some people dislike opening and reading attachments. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for all your work on behalf of the citizens of Lake Elsinore. Sincerely, Celina'rinsley *+*++*+*+***+***Text follows Natasha Johnson, Mayor; njohnson ,lake-elsinore.org Steve Manos, Mayor Pro Tem; smanosCcDlake-elsinore.org Daryl Hickman, Councilmember; dhickman(a)lake-elsinore.org Robert Magee, Councilmember; rmagee(a)lake-elsinore.org Brian Tisdale, Councilmember; btisdale(a)lake-elinore.org CC: Virginia Bloom, City Clerk Celina Tinsley 15233 Lake Breeze Circle Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (951) 479-7373 celinatinsleyOa gmail.com March 11, 2014 Re: Request to Pursue Appeal in Veterans' Memorial Cross Dear City Council: I am writing to express my concern over the American Humanist Association's actions to attack and marginalize Christianity in Lake Elsinore. Their persistent threats and frivolous lawsuits demonstrate a hostility towards Christianity and the First Amendment. I respectfully request that you to reject their hateful claims, defy any of their unreasonable orders, and stand behind the Council's convictions. Most importantly, I ask you to stand by the Council's decision to use the Latin cross and Star of David on a veteran's memorial in front of the Storm Stadium. I understand that there is an injunction currently prohibiting you from pursuing this option, but I respectfully request that you pursue an appeal — all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. I am no legal scholar, but I read over some pertinent case law and found relevant information that supports this position. The following five reasons appear to form a case that could pass a Constitutional challenge in a higher court: The plaintiffs have not proven legitimate injury, government is permitted to acknowledge the role of religion in society, the American Humanist Association primarily targets Christianity, government can permit historical displays, and there is no threat of the monument establishing a state church. 1. No Injury to Plaintiffs First, in a precedent set by Salazar v. Buono, the court stated that Buono failed to allege any injury to himself by the law. Since he was not offended by Christian symbols on private property, the cross itself was not offensive to him. To compare, Fox News ran a story on March 4, 2014 about another lawsuit filed by the American Humanist Association which stated, "The American Humanist Association says it does not object to the fact that the Bladensburg Cross memorializes soldiers, but rather the placement of the Christian symbol on property owned by a government agency." (Emphasis added.) (http://www foxnews com/us/2014/03/04/humanist-group-sues-to-remove-cross-shaped-wwi-memorial-in- maryland/) 2. Government Is Permitted to Acknowledge the Role of Religion in Society When Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Salazar v. Buono, he wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society. See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 598 (1992) ("A relentless and all -pervasive attempt to exclude religion from every aspect of public life could itself become inconsistent with the Constitution")." (emphasis added). 3. The American Humanist Association's Litigation Solely Targets Christianity The American Humanist Association's pattern of legal attacks clearly targets Christian images and practices. They are also participating in other lawsuits with the clear purpose of eliminating the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States. For example, they have complained about public school students participating in a Christian charity, to which ADF attorney Matt Sharp commented, "Neutrality toward religion does not permit schools to discriminate against beneficial programs simply because they are run by Christians. That is not neutrality but the very hostility toward religion that the First Amendment forbids." (emphasis added). (http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/243399021.html Robbinsdale school criticized for'field trip'to church) They even attacked a long-standing historical cross that honored World War I veterans in Maryland, in which the historical value and length of time the monument went unchallenged were both issues which already seemed to be settled by established case law. (http://www foxnews com/us/2014/03/04/humanist-group-sues- to-remove-cross-shaped-wwi-memorial-in-maryland/). It is clear that the organization's intent is to prevent Christians from participating fully in this democracy by eliminating their role in the founding and establishment of the United States and revising history by removing these roots altogether. 4. Government Can Permit Religious Symbols with Historical Relevance. The ruling in Murray v. City of Austin, allowed a city seal to retain a small cross. The majority opinion stated. "Simply put, we do not find that Austin's insignia demonstrates a preference for Christianity... Other cases also permit the use of religious symbols: according to Buono, the "creche (a Christian symbol) in Lynch, the menorah (a Jewish symbol) in County of Allegheny, the legislative prayer in Marsh, and the above -discussed references by government to God have been held not to transgress the Establishment Clause" and "in Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 334 (1987) "This Court has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause" (internal quotation marks omitted). As stated in the original injunction against Lake Elsinore, "This inquiry does not call for "any judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter's heart of hearts." Rather, "[t]he eyes that look to purpose belong to an objective observer, one who takes account of the traditional external signs that show up in the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, or comparable official act." Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1108 (quoting McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862)." An objective observer need not enter into the discussions at city hall meetings. He or she would recognize the crosses and Star of David as grave markers and see a soldier honoring the fallen and reflecting on their sacrifice, as not a city government promoting a specific religion. The grave markers are historic messages and the memorial is a non -religious context. As stated in Trunk, "[T]here exists 'an 'exception' to the Lemon test in certain borderline cases regarding the constitutionality of some longstanding plainly religious displays that convey a historical or secular message in a non -religious context."' (Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1107). The memorial honors both our historic heritage as a Judeo-Christian nation, and the sacrifices our military men and women have made to protect the Constitution. This contrasts with 492 U.S. 573, Allegheny v. ACLU: "When viewed in its overall context, the creche display violates the Establishment Clause. The creche angel's words endorse a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message." The lack of language that suggests a Christian message and the presence of the other nonreligious elements in the design convey an overall secular impression. 5. No Threat of the Memorial Establishing a State-sponsored Church. Another relevant case, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. at 1366, states "Any notion that [this] symbol[ ] pose[s] a real danger of establishment of a state church is far-fetched indeed." It seems unlikely that an impartial observer would happen upon the veteran's memorial at the Storm stadium and come to the logical conclusion that the presence of including a historical image of crosses and a Star of David equates unequal treatment of other denominations or non -believers. The images, which comprise less than half of the display, placed in front of a minor league baseball stadium would not likely indicate that the municipal government of Lake Elsinore prefers Christian or Jewish individuals over others. This is no towering cross upon city hall or a cross on a police car that could cause someone to believe that fair and impartial justice may not be accorded to someone who did not practice Christianity. It is for these reasons that I ask you to consider appealing the injunction. Sincerely, Celina Tinsley