CDC - Item 2A - Bond Refinance DiscussionI
,e
P 9
iperjaffray " IT& 41.00. S3M I rn ll
o 'f A: 415-98M15161 5161 Trl41C96LiH10 Pax 4 15-N451.5
Piper Jafmy BCo. Si 7895. Member SIPC and NYSE
To Andrew Lazzaretto, City Manager
Brian Saeki, Redevelopment Manager
Oliver Chi, Deputy City Manager
From Steven Gortler
Date November 30, 2006
Subject Refunding Savings
Attached for your review are two options for structuring the refunding savings:
Option #1: Level Savings
Option #2: Up-Front Savings
With Option #1, the refunding bonds are structured to achieve approximately equal debt
service savings every year. Based on current market interest rates, average annual
savings will equal approximately $190,000 from 2007-2033.
With Option #2, the refunding bonds are structured to achieve higher savings in the
early years. Based on current market interest rates, average annual savings will equal
approximately $257,000 during 2008-2018 and $260,000 during 2019-2022.
g J
The advantage of Option #2 is that it increases the Agency's capacity to issue new-
money bonds in the future by approximately $1 million compared to Option #1. The
Agency's existing Plan Limits require that Project Area No. 1 new-money bonds mature
by June 27, 2023. Thus, in order to maximize new-money bonding capacity, the
A enc should maximize debt service savings between now and 2023.
Therefore, I recommend Option #2: Up-Front Savings.
Moreover, although the timing of the savings differs between the two structures, the
overall benefit is very similar when measured on a net present value basis:
Option #1 Net Present Value Savings: $2,740,740
Option #2 Net Present Value Savings: $2,681,456
Please call me anytime with questions at (415) 984-5163. Thank you.
1)
iloo
$24,345,000
Rosemead Community Development Commission
Tax Allocation Refunding
Bonds, Seri
es 2006B
Option #1: Level Savings
Gross Debt Service
Comparison
Date Principal
Coupon
Interest
New D/S
OLD DIS
Savings
10/012007 295,000
4.000%
809.093
1,103,275
1,293,320
190,045.32
10/012008 75,000
4.000%
1,028,463
1,103,463
1,293,320
189,857.50
10/012009 80,000
4.000%
1,025,463
1,105,463
1,293,320
187,857.50
10/012010 80,000
4.000%
1,022,263
1,102,263
1,293,320
191,057.50
10/012011 85,000
4.000%
1,019,063___
1,104,063 _
1,293.320
189,257.50
10/012012 90,000
_
4.000%
1,015,663
11105,663
1,293,320.
187,657.50
10/012013 - 90,000
4.000%
1,012,063
1,102,063
1,293,320
191,257.50
10/012014 95,000
4.000%
1,008,463
1,103,463
1,293,320
189,857.50
101012015 100,000
4.0005;
1,0047663
1,104,663
1,293,320
188,657.50
105,000
10/012016
4.000%
_1,000,663
1,105,663
1_293,320
187,657.50
_
_
10/012017 110,000
4.000%
996,463
1,106,463
1,293,320
186,857.50
101012018 110,000
4.000%
992,063
1,102,063
1,293,320
191,257.50
10/012019 1,135,000
4.000%
987,663
2,122,663
2,313,320
190,657.50
101012020 1,185,000
4.000%
942,263
27127,263
2316,200
188,937.50
1,230,000
10/012021
4.000%
894,863
_2,124,863
2,315,720
190,857.50
_
10/012022 1,285,000 -
4 00%
845,663
2,130.663
2,316,880
186,217.50
101012023 1,330,000
4.000%
794263
2,124,263
2,314,400
190,137.50
101012024 1,385,000
4.000%
741,063
2,126,063
2,311280
187.217.50
10/012025 1,440,000
4.000%
685,663
2,125,663
2,313,240
187,577.50
1,495,000
10/012026
4.250%
628.063
19U,937.50
_
_
,0,000 -
10/01/2027 156
-4.3-00'/.-
564.525
,124,525
2,315,280
190,755.00
10/012028 1,640,000
4.500%
494.325
2,134,325
2,321,800
187,475.00
101012029 1,710,000
4.500%
420,525
2,130,525
2,318,000
187,475.00
10/012030 1,785,000
4.500%
343,575
2,128,575
2,319,160
190,585.00
101012031 1,865,000
4.500%
263,250
2,128,250
2,319,720
191,470.00
_
101012032 1,950,000
4.500%
179,325
2,129,325
2,319,400
190,075.00
10/012033 2,035,000
4.500%
91,575
2,126.575
2,317,920
191,345.00
Total ,$24,345,000
-
$20,810,981
$45,155,162
$50,268,160
$5,112,997.82
PV Analysis Summary (Gross to Gross)
Gloss PV Dcbl Service Savings .
2,927,741.94
Transf. . from Prior Issue DSR Fund
(1_323,238.13)
aunt dcpos_~d
Am
1,135,418.13
_
_
Contingency or Rounding Amount
_ _
_
_ 816.38
Net Present Value Benefit
$7,740,740.32
Net PV B=cfit/ $23.095,000 Refunded Principal
11'867%
Net PV Benefit/ $24:345,000 Refunding Principal
11.258°.5
_
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date__ _
12/212006
Refunding Delivery Date
121212006
RetuNiN 1 11/J02 1 959 PM
• ~ •
a a
L
$24,530,000
Rosemead Community Development
Commission
Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2006B
Option 92: Up-Front Savings
Gross Debt Service Comparison
Date Principal Coupon
Interest
New D/S
OLD D/S
Savings
10/012007 - 430,000 4.000%
819,360
1.246,914
1,293,320
46,406.30
10/012008 - -
1,036,263
1,036,263
1,293,320
257,057.50
10/012009 - -
1,036,263
1,036,263
1,293,320
257,057.50
101012010 - -
1,036,263
1,036,263
1,293,320
257.057.50
10/012011
1,036,263 _
1,036,263
1,293,320 _
__257.057.50
10/012012 -
1.036.263
1.036,263
1,293,320
257,057.50
101012013 - -
1,036,263
1,036,263
1,293,320
257,057.50
10/012014 - -
1,036,263
1.036,263
1,293,320
257,057.50
10/012015 - -
1,036,263
1,036,263
1,293,320
257,057.50
10/012016
1,036,263_
L036,263
1,293,320 _
257,057.50
_
10/012017 - -
1.036,263
1,036,263
_
1,293,320
257,057.50
10/012018 - -
1,036,263
1,036,263
1,293,320
257,057.50
10/012019 1.020,000 4.000%
1,036,263
2,056,263
2,313,320
257,057.50
10/012020 1,060,000 4.000%
995,463
2,055,463
2,316,200
260,737.50
4.000/
21 1,100,000
10/0120
953,063
2,053,063
2,315,720 _
2_62,657.50
_
_
_
]0/012022 1,140,000 4.000%
909.063
2,049,063
2,316,880
267,817.50
10/012023 1,445,000 4.000%
863,463
2,308,463
2,314,400
5,937.50
10/012024 1,505,000 4.000%
805,663
2,310,663
2,313,280
2,617.50
10/012025 1,565,000 4.000%
745,463
2,310,463
2,313,240
2,777.50
1,625,000 4.250%
10/012026
682,863
2,307,863
_ 2,314,000
6.137.50
_
I /012027 1.700,000 4.500%
613,800
2,313,800
2,315,280
1,480.00
101012028 1780,000 4.500%
537,300
2317,300
27321,800
4,500.00
101012029 1,855,000 4.500%
457,200
2,312,200
2,318,000
5,800.00
101012030 1,940,000 4.500%
373,725
2,313,725
2,319,160
5,435.00
10/012031 2,030,000 4.500%
286,425
2,316,425
2,319,720
3,295.00
10/012032 2,120,000 4.500%
195,075
2,315,075
2,319,400
4,325.00
10/012033 2,215,000 4.500%
99,675
2,314,675
2,317,920
3245.00
Total $24,530,000 -
$21,772,747
$46,300,301
$50,268,160
$3,967,858.80
PV Analysis Summary (Gross to Gross)
Caoss PV Debt Service
_2.728,133.47
7}ansf. from Prior Issue DSR Fund
_(1323,238.13)_
Amount deposited into new DSR Fund
1,274,11535
ConWtgency or Rounding Amount
2,446.02
Net Pent Value Benefit
$2,681,456.71
Net PV Bcncfil / $23.095.000 Refunded Principal
_ _ _ _
_
_ _ 11.611%
Net PV Benefit/ $24,530,000 Refunding Principal _
10.931 %
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Daled Date
-
17/212006
ReCundin Deliv Date
12/212006
RotuMiM 11/30200612.42PM
MINE
ME
E
M
E
E
MAYOR:
GARY A. TAYLOR
MAYOR PRO TEM:
JOHN NUNEZ
COUNCILMEMBERS:
MARGARET CLARK
JAY T. IMPERIAL,
JOHN TRAN
•
osesftead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BO 39
ROS ~S r5
SS:: ~
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 ii
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 CM, O RO1EM EAD
FAX (626) 307-9218
CITY
B e, c
17
Azl 14
41.
✓c'L <<,. C- j
ey,--- //_/!dam /'C
7/
7
/jr~G✓ ~„C~/~, -'c'~'LL~= ~i,.i~.1ZE~E'✓~~~a?✓rir~z~f'~ t9 / ~ ~ f
~L ` L~zc L-E~- j1,7 / j
12 /A
& alit (G /
~J>12Z) -5'
CITY MANAGER'S
NEWSLETTER
5VOVE5WBER30, 2006
Dear JKayorand'Councd Wem6ers
During the past week, the following issues and items have come up which we would like to call to your
attention.
REQUEST By THE CITY OF Los ANGELES ON BEHALF OF THE Los ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT TO CONSOLIDATE THE MARCH ELECTION
You may recall that we had received a request from the City of Los Angeles to approve a consolidation
of the of March election. When this request was received, staff recommended against the
consolidation based on the fact that Rosemead must still abide by the Dept. of Justice Consent Decree.
When staff recommended against consolidation, it was over concern that the combined election might
jeopardize the City's ability to fulfill the Consent Decree.
Sometime after the City Clerk notified the City of L.A. that Rosemead did not wish to consolidate the
election, Frank Martinez, the City Clerk for Los Angeles, implored us to reconsider our position. Mr.
Martinez and his staff insisted that we meet and discuss the City of L.A. request. Nina, Ken Rozell,
and.I agreed to such a meeting which took place today, November 30. During the meeting it became
clear that the City is, as they say "caught between a rock and a hard place." If the City does not agree
to assist Los Angeles, voters could be very confused about where they were to vote if the City of
Rosemead and Los Angeles had different election locations. On the other hand, if the City agreed to
consolidate its election with the Community College District, then this would substantially complicate
the City's full compliance with the Consent Decree for the March 2007 election. This is based upon
the substantially larger ballot that would be required and the need to have two different types of ballots
within Rosemead since the entire City is not within the jurisdiction of the Community College District.
In order to try to do the best for all concemed and to ensure that the City will comply with the Consent
Decree, the City Attomey and staff recommend against consolidation of the election. However, in
order to help ensure that voters are not confused about where to vote in the City of Rosemead, we
support a "concurrent" arrangement, whereby the Community College District would use the same
polling places as the City of Rosemead, in 3 or 4 precincts. In effect, the two agencies would run
separate election stations in the same locale.
o •
Cite Mana,-er's Newsletter
November30.2006
Paae 2 of 3
Time is of the essence in this matter, therefore, we have promised to advise the City of Los Angeles of
our position. If members of the City Council have concerns about our position on this election, I
would appreciate hearing them by mid-day on Monday December 4th.
PIPERJAFFRAY BOND REFUNDING UPDA'rE
As part of the 2006 bond issue refunding process, the City has two options for structuring debt service
savings. Option #1 is structured to achieve approximately equal debt service savings every year.
Based on current market interest rates, average annual savings will equal approximately 5190,000 from
2007-2033. This is an''increase in what we were initially projecting.
Option #2 is structured to achieve higher savings in the early years. Based on current market interest
rates, average annual savings will equal approximately $257,000 during 2008-2015 and $260,000
during 2019-2022. Because of the opportunities Option #2 provides to the Commission and City, and
based on the recommendation given by Piper Jaffray, we have elected to proceed with Option #2. A
memo from Piper Jaffray explaining the two options has been included for your review.
STATUS OF SPIN CYCLE BUSINESS LOCATED AT THE SWC OF GARn'EY AVENUE & DEL MAR
At our Council Meeting this past week, a question was raised regarding the status of the business
located at the southwest corner of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar. In researching the issue, we have
been able to determine that the business, which is called Spin Cycle, submitted applications for tenant
improvement, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical permits on October 18, 2005. Their plans were
approved by Building Department on March 6, 2006.
However, it is important to note that on February 1, 2006, the Planning Division approved Spin
Cycle's plans for tenant improvements only, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit CUP for subdividing space.
2. Submit landscape and irrigation plans.
3. Submit sic-mage plans, including removal of pole sign.
4. Remove pay phone. .
5. Hold issuance of sewer permit until after the CUP hearing.
6. Submit new trash enclosure detail.
7. Re-slurry/re-stripe parking lot, double striped.
Subsequently, on April 4, 2006, Spin Cycle submitted their Conditional Use Permit application to the
Planning Department. A public hearing was heard on September 18, 2006, approving Conditional Use
Permit 06-1055, subject to the above listed conditions for six months. During the past two months, the
architect for the project has been refining the drawings from a conceptual concept to actual
construction drawings. The Planning Division contacted the project architect today and confined that
they will be ready to submit the construction drawing within the next week.
NEW CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE GOVERNMENT RELA"rmNS REPRESENTATIVE
We found out this week from Consolidated Disposal Service that a new Goverunent Relations,
Representative has been appointed to service the City of Rosemead. Greg Nordbak, who also serves as
a City Council Member for the City of Whittier, has announced that he will be our new liaison with our
refuse service provider. I have included a letter from Greg as an attaclmnent for your review.
City Manager's Newsletter
November30, 2006
Pace 3 of 3
TRANSLATED ARTICLES FRONT THE ASIAN MEDIA REGARDING ROSEMEAD
This past week, we had three news articles related to Rosemead printed in local Asian press. Two of
the articles relate to the liquor store sting conducted by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
and the third article provides information related to the construction of the Garvey Bridget. All three
have been included as attachments for your review.
PROPFRTN, RIGHTS INITIATIVES PURSUED IN OTIIFR STATES
Recently, Council Member Clark requested from the League of California Cities information related to
the other states in the union that considered an initiative similar to Proposition 90 here in California
during the recent election. The League has provided us with that information and it appears that 12
states considered such an initiative with 8 states passing the measure. Additional information has been
included as an attachment for your review. .
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COG ANALYSIS OF PROPOSITION I A& 16 -
I have included in this week's newsletter an e-snail from Nicholas Conway of the San Gabriel Valley
COG which includes an analysis of voter patterns here in the valley as it relates to Proposition 1 a and
lb. The analysis shows that a majority of voters in SGV cities supported both measures more strongly
than the rest of the County and State.
HOLIDAY GATHERING INVITATION FROM ICA, CCCA. cC THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
We received an invitation this week from Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles City Mayor), Dennis
Zinc (Los Angeles City Council Member and President of ICA), and Jeff Prang (West Hollywood
Council Member and President of the California Contract Cities Association) for a Holiday Gathering
taking place on Friday, December 22 at 6:00 p.m. The event will be held at the City Club at the Wells
Fargo Center in Los Angeles. Please let Jan know, if you would like to attend.
CALIFORNIA ASIAN PEACF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM ANNOUNCED
The California Asian Peace Officers Association (CAPOA) announced this week the opening of their
2007 Scholarship Program. The initiative is open to all high school seniors in the Southern California
area and those qualifying and deserving students of character who demonstrate a sincere desire to
further their education will be awarded a 5500 scholarship. Additional information regarding the
program has been included for your review.
UPCOMING CONFERF\CES
If you have not done so already, please let Jan Saavedra know if you would like to attend any of the
following conferences:
NLC
Reno, Nevada, Dec. 6-9, 2006
CCCA
Sacramento, January 8-10, 2006
League
Sacramento, January 10-12, 2006
League City Manager's Mtg.
San Francisco, February 7-9,2006
Lip
•
T }`''}f" iii Gii(omia5,_. Su1m 2400.5an fi:,nciuo, CA 94104
P1perJallray Td: 415-9545161 I Td: 415954-3600 I rax: 4159843139
Piper Jaflray 8 Ca Since 1895. Member SIPC and NYSE.
To Andrew Lazzaretto, City Manager
Brian Saeki, Redevelopment Manager
Oliver Chi, Deputy City Manager
From Steven Gorder
Date November 30, 2006
Subject Refunding Savings
Attached for your review are two options for structuring the refunding savings:
Option #1: Level Savings
Option #2: Up-Front Savings
With Option #1, the refunding bonds are structured to achieve approximately equal debt
service savings every year. Based on current market interest rates, average annual
savings will equal approximately $190,000 from 2007-2033.
With Option #2, the refunding bonds are structured to achieve higher savings in the
early years. Based on current market interest rates, average annual savings will equal
approximately $257,000 during 2008-2018 and $260,000 during 2019-2022.
The advantage of Option #2 is that it increases the Agency's capacity to issue new-
money bonds in the future by approximately $1 million compared to Option #1. The
Agency's existing Plan Limits require that Project Area No. 1 new-money bonds mature
by June 27, 2023. Thus, in order to maximize new-money bonding capacity, the
Agency should maximize debt service savings between now and 2023.
Therefore, I recommend Option #2: Up-Front Savings.
Moreover, although the timing of the savings differs be the two structures, the
overall benefit is very similar when measured on a net present value basis:
Option #1 Net Present Value Savings: $2,740,740
Option #2 Net Present Value Savings: $2,681,456
Please call me anytime with questions at (415) 984-5163. Thank you.
OEM
S24.345.000
Rosemead Community Development Co"I'llissiOn
Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds~ Series 2006B
Option #1: Level Savings
Gross Debt Service
Date Principal Coupon Interest New DtS OLD DIS Savings
10101/2007 295,000 4.000% 809,093 1,103.275 1,293.320 190,045.32
10/018008 75,000 4.000% 1,026,463 1,103,463 1,291.370 189,857.50
10/01/2009 80,000 4.000% 1,025,463 1,105,463 1.293,320 187,857.50
10/01/2010 80,000 4.000% 1,022263 1,102,263 1.293,320 191,057.50
10/01/2011 85.000
10/01/2012 90,000 4.000% 1,015,663 1,105,663 1,293.320
10/01/2013 90,000 4M0% 1,012,063 1,102,063 1.293,320 191,257.50
10/01/2014 95.000 4.000% 1,008,463 1,103,463 1,293,320 189,857.50
10/01/2015 100,000 4.000% ),004,663 1,104,663 1,293.320 188,657.50
10/01/2016 105,000 4.000% 100,663 1,105,663 1.293,320 1,87,657.5-0,
10/01/2017 110,000
10/01/2018 110,000 4,000% 992,063 1,102,063 1,293320 191,257.50
10/01/2019 1,135,000 4.000% 987,663 2,122,663 2,313,320 190,657.50
10/01/2020 1,185,000 4.000% 942,263 2,127,263 2,316,200 188,937.50
10/01/2021 1,230,000 400% 894,863 2,124,863 2,315,720 190,857510
10/01/2022 1285,000 4,000',. 845,663 2.130,6
10/01/2023 1,330,000 4.000% 794,263 2,124,263 2.314,400 190,13T50
10/01/2024 1385,000 4.000% 741,063 2,126,063 2,313.290 187,217.50
10/01/2025 1,440,000 4.000-1. 685,663 2,125,663 2,313,240 197,577.50
10/01/2026 1,495,000,
001/2027 1,560,000 4.500% 564,525 2,124,525 2,315,280 m.755M
10/01/2028 1,640,000 4.500% 494,325 2,134,325 2,321,800 187,475.00
10/01/2029 1,710,000 4.50M~. 420,525 2,130,525 2.318,000 187.475.00
10/01/2030 1,785,000 4.50M 343,575 2,128,575 2,319,160 190,585.00
10/01/2031 1,8,865,000 4.500% 263.250 2,128.250 2,319,720 191,470.00
1793 2 - 5 . 2, 1 . 9,325 2,319,400 190,075.00
10/01/2032 1,950,000
10/01/2033 2,035,000 4.500% 91,575 2,126,575 2,317,920 191,345.00
Total $24,345,11101 $20,810.981 $45,155,162 S50.2l 60 S5,112,997.82
PV Analysis Summary (Gross to Gross)
Gross PV Dcbt Service Savings
Tmnsfers from Prior Issue DS_R_ Fund
Amount deposited into new DSR Fund 1,135,418.13
Contingency or Rounding Amount
Net-Present Value Benefit
Net PV Benefit / $23,095.000 Reone
Net PV Benefit /S24,1415,000- Refun<
Refunding Bond Information
1212 V2006
Refunding Dated Date 12/21/7006
Refunding Delivery Date
Refu ng 1 11130.2006 1 9:59 AM
$24,530,0(
Rosemead Con-ortunity Development Coil' Mission
Tax Allocation
Option 112: Up-FroDt Savings
Gross Debt Service Comparison
Date Prinoipal Coupon Interest New DIS OLD DIS Savings
1,293,320 46,406.30
10/01 2007 4~0,000 4.000% 819,360 1,246.914 257,057 50
10/01/2008 - 1,036,263 1,036,263 1,293,320 257,057.50
10/01/2009 1,036,263 1,036,263 1,293,320 257,057.50
50/01/2010 1,036,263 1,036263 1,293,320
10/01/2011 1,036,263 1.036,263 1,293,320 157,057.50
l0/01/1012 1,036,263 1,036,263 1,293,320 257,057.5
10/012017 1,036,263 1,036,263 1,293,320 257,057.50
to/01rzo1a 1,036,263 1,036-263 1.293,320 157,057-50
o/o1n_a1s L036.263 1,293,320 257.057.50
1,036.263 257,057.~O
1.036,263 1,293,320
10/0112016
w D 1/2017 1,036.263 1,036,263 1,293,320
10/01ao 18 1.036,263 1,036,263 1,293,320 257,057.50
10/01/2019 1,020,000 4.000% 1,036,263 2,056,263 2,313,320 257,057.50
10/01/2020 1,060,()00 4.000% 995,463 2,055,463 2,316,200 260,737.50
1, w 953.063 2M53 063 2,315,720 162,657.50
10/01/2021
_....2
10/001 1/2022 1,140,000 4B00% 909A3 2,049:R3 2,316,880 26
o/o1rzo23 1,445,000 4.000% 863,463 2.308,463 2.314.400 5,937.50
10/01/2024 1,505,000 4B00% 805,663 2,310,663 2,313,280 L,617.50
10/01/2025 1.565,000 4.000% 2,310,463 2,313,240 2.777.50
o/olnoz6 4,250% 682.863 2,307.863 2.314.000 6,137.50
1.625.000 613.800 2,313,800 2.315.280 1,480.00
10/01rz02i 1.700.000 4500%
o/olno2s 1,780.000 4.500% 537,300 2,317,300 1,321.800 4.500.00
457,200 2.312,200 1,3181000 5,800M 1,855,000 4.500% 5,435.00
10/0112029
10/o 12070 1,940,000 4.500% 373,725 2,313725 2,319,160
2,030,000 4.500% 186,425 11316,425 2,131.19,720 -3.295.0.0.
,10/01/2031 4,325.00
10/01/2032 2, 1 m6oo 4.566-X. 195,()75 2,315,075 2,3 19,460
10/012033 2,215,000 4.500% 99,675 2,314,675 2,317,920 3,245.00
Tidal S24,530,000 - S21,772,747 $46100,301 S50,268,160 $3,967,858.80
PV Analysis
cross ev_n_ec
Transfers from
Amount Aepo
or Rounding Amount
S2,68 1,450 71
Nct Present V
Net PV Benefit
Net PV Bene
Refunding Bond Information
12121/1006
Refunding Dated Refunding Dehverw Date
Refunding I1
CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE
A Subsidiary of REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
November 29, 2006
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead CA 91770
Dear Mr. Andy Lazzaretto
•
NOV 3 0 2006
BY:
I'm pleased to announce that I have agreed to be your Government Relations
representative for Consolidated Disposal Services (CDS).
12949 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs. CA 90670
Telephone (562) 663-3400
Facsimile (562) 906-0251
Consolidated Disposal Services (CDS) wants you to be 1001/o satisfied with our service to
your community and our responsiveness to your needs. I have recently been appointed
as the Government Relations representative from CDS to your City with the explicit
directive from our area president to make sure that no problem that you have
personally, from a community standpoint, or from an individual resident, goes
unresolved.
As the Past President of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and a former
member of the Board of the County Sanitation District, I think that I am uniquely -
qualified to help CDS serve your City.
I understand that we play a simple role in service to you. That role is to do what we've
promised by managing the provision of your refuse services in an efficient and cost
effective manner. I hope that you will call on me when I may assist in our delivery of
that promise.
I would very much appreciate the chance to stop by and say'hi' and find out if there are
any issues with CDS that I need to be aware of in my effort to ensure that we are
keeping up our share of the professional relationship we strive to maintain with your
City. I will call your secretary and see if you can find time for this brief discussion.
Thanks for your help over the years and an anticipated mutually beneficial role in my
service to you in my new capacity with Consolidated Disposal Services.
Warmest Regards,
reg N rdbak
(Chinese Daily News, 11-25-06)
Hour Liquor Stores in Rosemead Illegally Sell Alcohol to Minors
By Staff Writer Kai-Wen Yang
ROSEMEAD - The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control discovered that four
liquor stores sell alcohol to minors in a recent sweep in the City of Rosemead. The
stores cited for violation have been cited to go to court for hearings and a file of 5250
have be imposed.
The San Gabriel Tribune reported on November 23 that one minor was sent by the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to buy alcohol in 10 liquor stores in
Rosemead and four of them had problems of illegally selling alcohol.
ABC spokesman John Carr pointed out that the liquor stores suspected of violations
include Beach's Market, CVS, Vito's Liquor and Casa De Liquor. Each of them was
Fined for $250.
Additionally, Cesar Emilio Santos, 28, of Casa De Liquor was arrested on suspicion
of possessing two video gambling machines, marijuana, drug paraphernalia and
allowing a customer to drink in the store, officials said.
Carr said 10 stores were checked and violations were discovered from four of them.
The 40-percent failure rate in Rosemead is higher than the statewide average, Carr
said. Usually, between 15 percent and 20 percent of a city's stores fail the test.
Spokesman Mike DeAngelis from CVS Pharmacy, a famous chain store, declined to
comment on the fact that the Rosemead store was fined for violations. But he stressed
that the Pharmacy has a policy on checking identification. Employees watch a training
video and sign a contract stating they will check IDs for anyone who looks 27 years
old or younger. Any violation of the store's policy can result in disciplinary action,
includinga tennination, lie said.
Vivian Hyong Sook Lim, 40, an Asian owner of the Vito's Liquor on San Gabriel
Boulevard, said she received a ticket and will have to appear in court in January.
Councilman John Tran was shocked at the result. He said the city government should
work out a plan to prevent liquor stores to illegally sell alcohol to minors in
cooperation with the law enforcement.
The department's Minor Decoy Program has been used by the ABC since the 1980s to
crack down on merchants who sell liquor to those under 21 at irregular intervals.
(380 words)
(Singtao Daily, 11-25-06)
ABC Arrests One Store Clerk
Four Liquor Stores in Rosemead Fined for Selling Alcohol to Minors
By Staff Writer Chengke Bao
ROSEMEAD - Four liquor store owners in Rosemead were cited by the Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control because of selling alcohol to minors under age 21, and
one clerk was arrested.
The four liquor stores cited by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for
violations in Rosemead were Beach's Market on San Gabriel Blvd., CVS, VhO0 s
Liquor and Casa De Liquor. ABC has sent out citations to the four liquor stores. It is
said that the four stores have been found to illegally sell alcohol to minors under age
21, and each of them would be fined for at least $250.
ABC spokesman John Carr said the store clerk arrested was Cesar Emilio Santos, 28,
of Casa De Liquor. The surveying video searched out from the store showed that lie
allowed a customer to drink in the store. Carr also said 10 stores were checked and
violations were discovered from four of them. The 40-percent failure rate in
Rosemead is higher than the statewide average, Carr said. Usually, between 15
percent and 20 percent of a city's stores fail the test.
Vivian Hyong Sook Lim, 40, a Chinese woman manager of the Vito's Liquor, said she
received a citation from ABC and will have to appear in court in January. She said she
was too busy to check the ID of the customer. Usually when younger customer carne
to buy alcohol, she would check the ID.
Councilman John Tran said it is something that should not have happened for so many
stores in his city to be found selling alcohol to minors under age 21. Stores should
ask for ID when selling alcohol. Alcohol should absolutely not be sold to minors
under age 21, otherwise it would violate the laNv.
(315 words)
E
Chinese Daily News. November 29, 2006
BRIDGE OVER RIO HONDO CANAL AT GARVEY AVENUE WILL BE
RENOVATED
By Staff Writer Keiwen Yang
Rosemead -,The City of Rosemead will contract with a construction company to
renovate a bridge on Garvey Avenue which links the cities of Rosemead and South El
Monte since it was renovated long time ago and is not in good anti earthquake
condition.
The bridge, built in the 1930s, crosses the Rio Hondo Wash. It serves as the major
passage linking the two cities of Rosemead and South El Monte. Since it is close to
the busy 19 Freeway and the Garvey Avenue, there is heavy traffic and traffic jam
happens very often.
Oliver Chi, Assistant City Manager of Rosemead, pointed out that the bridge bears
heavy traffic flow. It lacks renovation for too long and once natural disasters such as
earthquake hit the area, it will be very dangerous both to the passengers and to
drivers.
He stressed that it will be the largest public facility construction project in recent
years in the City of Rosemead.
Oliver Chi said that seven construction contractors bid for the bridge renovation
project and Reyes Construction Inc. got the project.with a bid of S10,800,000, which
is the lowest. Other contractors bid for S Sl 1,000,000 and 513.000,000.
He said the city council agreed at the evening meeting on November 28 that the
project would be contracted with Reyes Construction Inc. The city government will
discuss in details with the contractor in the future to exchange information.
Construction will start within three to four weeks at the earliest date.
Oliver Chi pointed out that the surface of the bridge will be renovated completely, the
bridge piers will be reconditioned to make them more durable. The whole project will
take about one year to complete. The four traffic lanes will be closed to two during
the renovation process, and the other two lanes will be open once the first two lanes
have been renovated. Therefore, during the reconstruction period, the bridge and
Garvey Avenue will not be closed.
it is learned that funding of the Rosemead bridge renovation project mainly comes
from the Federal highway bridge renovation program and Los Angeles County
Transportation Fund.
(371 words)
Other Property Rights Measue 0 Page 1 of j
Oliver Chi
From: Oliver Chi
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:34 AM
To: ANDY LAZZARETTO
Subject: NEWSLETTER ITEM??? Other Property Rights Measures
From: Jennifer Quart [mailto:jquan@cacities.org]
Sent: Wed 11/29/2006 10:39 AM
To: Oliver Chi
Subject: Other Property Rights Measures
Hi Oliver
1 saw Margaret Clark at the Contract Cities meeting last week and she asked for a list of all the other states that considered
property rights initiatives. Can you make sure she gets this? _
Also, please share with other staff/council members where appropriate.
Thanks. Jennifer
Twelve states considered ballot measures regarding property rights.
Eight of them dealt solely with eminent domain, all of which passed handily (AZ, FL, GA, MI, ND, NH. NV, SC).
Arizona, Idaho, and California were the states with takings initiatives and eminent domain provisions on the ballot. In Arizona,
65.3% of the voters passed Prop. 207. In Idaho, voters defeated their version, Prop. 2, 26% to 74%.
Washington State's Initiative 933 was the only one which addressed regulatory takings exclusively. Washington voters defeated
1- 933, 42.4% to 57.6"/x.
Montana's version was removed from the November ballot by the Montana Supreme Court.
The Nevada Supreme Court removed the "takings" provisions from their measure, Question 2, so that it addressed eminent
domain alone. It passed with 63% of the vote. In Nevada, ballot measures must pass two elections before they become law;
thus. Question 2 must pass at the November 2005 election before it can go into effect.
There were also some local measures that dealt solely with eminent domain. All of these measures passed in the cities of:
Anaheim. Dana Point, Newport Beach. and San Bernardino.
11 1 ,1nn!
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas T. Conway [mailto:nconway@sgvcog.orgl
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:56 AM
To: NatRead@aol.com; sharon@theaceproject.org; georgeyoung@internetlink.com;
gwright@valleyconnect.com; Gorman, Sarah P.; robert@transteche.com; Dolley, Leland C.
Subject: Prop lA and 1B
Dear SGV team members:
I wanted to get, the attached information to you sooner and certainly before
Thanksgiving but, we got sidetracked on other COG priorities. However, here it. is
being sent: to you the "morning after" with the hope this information will make your
day, weekend and year!!!
As shown in the attached excel file, we analyzed all the votes cast thus far for all of
the Valley's ballot issues. The results are very interesting. It is clear the Valley is
changing and moving more Democrat; versus Republican. More importantly with
respect. to Propositions IA and 113, the Valley's support of these two measures was
over whelming. You will note the lowest margin for lA in the Valley, South
Pasadena, was still at 72% while West Covina and La Puente registered a high of
80%. Similarly, Montebello with 78% approval margin was 13% above the County
wide average for Proposition 1B. I t of interest to note that the majority of SGV cities
were above both the County and Statewide averages for both IA and 1B measures.
This performance is unprecedented in the San Gabriel Valley especially for a tax
measure. I.A County Prop A/C was passed by less than 55% of the Valley's voters
more than 20 years ago.
You are all to be congratulated for a job well done. It required a strategic focus and
an incredible and sustained level of effort. This analysis of our Valley's performance
will greatly assist our elected representatives and business community members in
moving forward, now that the bonds have been passed and ensuring our "fair share"
for our Valley's important projects.
Thank you for all your hard work and l hope you have a very Happy
Thanksgiving!!!!
Nicholas T. Conway, Executive Director
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
3452 East. Foothill Blvd., Suite 4810
Pasadena, California 91107-3942
E-mail: nconwavC),s-veoz orgy
Phone: 626-564-9702
Far: 626-564-1116
PROPOSITION 1A: CLOSURE OF PROP 42 LOOPHOLE
SUPPORT%
IRWINDALE
82
LA PUENTE
80
WEST COVINA
80
ALHAMBRA
79
AZUSA
79
BALDWIN PARK
79
SAN GABRIEL
79
SIERRA MADRE
79
SOUTH EL MONTE
79
DUARTE
78
EL MONTE
78
GLENDORA
78
LA VERNE
78
MONTEBELLO
78
SAN DIMAS
78
TEMPLE CITY
78
WALNUT
78
ARCADIA
77
MONROVIA
77
MONTEREY PARK
77
ROSEMEAD
77
STATEWIDE
77
LOSANGELESCOUNTY
K~ , . !`76:5
BRADBURY
76
COVINA
76
POMONA
76
SAN MARINO
76
DIAMOND BAR
75
CLAREMONT
74
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
74
PASADENA
74
SOUTH PASADENA
72
% CITIES ABOVE COUNTY AVERAGE:
70%
% CITIES ABOVE STATE AVERAGE:
70%
PROPOSITION 113: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BOND
SUPPORT%
MONTEBELLO
78
MONROVIA
77
SOUTH EL MONTE
76
LA PUENTE
75
BALDWIN PARK
74
IRWINDALE
73
ROSEMEAD
73
EL MONTE
70
ALHAMBRA
68
CLAREMONT
68
PASADENA
67
POMONA
67
WEST COVINA
67
AZUSA
66
SAN GABRIEL
66
SOUTH PASADENA
66
DUARTE
65
y,?;LOS.ANGELES;000N
TK t G x_65 ,r j
MONTEREY PARK
64
SIERRA MADRE
63
WALNUT
62
COVINA
61
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
61
TEMPLE CITY
61
STATEWIDE
61
ARCADIA
60
LA VERNE
60
BRADBURY
59
SAN DIMAS
59
SAN MARINO
59
DIAMOND.BAR
56
GLENDORA
56
% CITIES AT OR ABOVE COUNTY AVERAGE:
57%
% CITIES AT OR ABOVE STATE AVERAGE:
77%
You are a~ Muted to join the Honorable
i45 NOV 2 9 2006
Dennis Zine Y`---X ionio R. Villaraigosa Jeff Prang
Los Angeles Los Angeles Mayor West Hollywood
Councilmernher Councilmember
President of ICA President of CCCA
. Of,105 ~~.c
California
N Contract Cities
Z? Association
~D 6x D ED -"L^
For a Holiday Gathering
Friday, December 22, 2006
6: 00 pn
The City Club
333 S. Grand Avenue-45th Floor
Wells Fargo Center
T os Angeles, to onn? l
UNITING FOR A COMMON PURPOSE
RSVP py December 14, 2006
To Alaribe(
Phone: 213-748-6001, ext 114
Fax: 213-748-6101
California Asian Peace Officers Association
P.O. Box 134 Alhambra, California 91802-0134
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
The California Asian Peace Officers Association (C.A.P.O.A.) is pleased to announce its
2007 scholarslup program. It is open to all high school seniors in the Southern California
area. C.A.P.O.A. is an organization composed of men & women engaged in the law
enforcement profession, wluch provides service and support to its members & community.
C.A.P.O.A. scholarships of $500.00 each are presented annually to qualifying and deserving
students of character, who demonstrate a sincere desire to further their education.
Eligibility requirements are as follow:
1. Applicants must be a graduating high school senior with a full time attendance record
at a Southern California high school.
2. Applicants must have maintained a minimum G.P.A. of 2.5 throughout high school.
3. C.A.P.O.A. scholarship application package must include all of the following items to
be considered valid:
a) Completed application
b) Autobiography (One-Page Maximum, 12-Font)
c) High School Transcript
d) School Recommendation Letter (i.e., Counselor/Principal/Teacher)
e) Community Member Recommendation Letter (i.e., Church/Government Agency)
4. Applicants must submit a completed C.A.P.O.A. scholarship application package and
mail it to the above P.O.' box address. It must be postmarked no later than Monday,
January 8, 2007. The scholarships will be awarded on March 10, 2007.
5. Semi-finalists will appear before a C.A.P.O.A. scholarship panel for a personal
interview, during which time a number of factors, will be addressed. These include
scholastic ability, general leadership qualities, career objectives and financial need.
For further information, please contact Glenn Sugiki at (909) 581-5885
or email at capoaeditor@yahoo.com.
California Asian Peace Officers Association
P.O. Box 134, Alhambra, CA 91802-0134
- APPLICATION FOR THE C.A.P.O.A. SCHOLARSHIP -
Please print or type the following information (use addilional pages if necessary):
Name:
Address:
Email Address:
High School Attending:
( )
Home Phone k
City, State. Zip Code:
Cell Phone k ( )
Leadership Position(s):
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
Membership in any organization(s) Please list mry position(s).
held or special events in which you participate.
AWARDS RECEIVED:
FUTURE SCHOLASTIC GOALS:
FUTURE EMPLOYMENT GOALS:
HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THIS SCHOLARSHIP?
> All of the fo0owing items must be attached to this application in order to be considered:
a) Completed application
b) Autobiography (One-Page Maximum, 12-Font)
c) High School Transcript
d) School Recommendation Letter (i.e., Counselor/PrincipaUTeacher)
e) Community Member Recommendation Letter (i.e., Church/Government Agency)
> You must also be prepared for an oral interview by a board composed of members from our
organization. Finalists will be notified by telephone.
> Scholarships will be awarded at the CAPOA Annual Scholarship Awards Banquet on Saturday,
March 10, 2007
> Please mail completed application package to: C A P.O A P. O. Box 134, Alhambra CA 91802-0134.
>APPLICATIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MONDAY,.IANUARY 8,2007<
For further information, please contact Glenn Sugiki, email: capoizetlitor a?yahoo.com
0 a
STEVE WE.
Uttliforitia Mute
Division of Accounting i
October 12, 2006
Rosemead Financing Authority
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Fiscal Officer/Executive Officer:
Government Code (GC) section 12463(a) requires the State Controller to annually compile and publish
the financial transactions of all special districts in California.
GC section 12463(d)(2) defines the meaning of special districts to include:
(A) A special district as defined in Section 95 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(B) A commission provided for by a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with
section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1.
(C) A nonprofit corporation that is any of the following:
(1) Was formed in accordance with the provisions of ajoint powers agreement to carry out functions
specified in the agreement.
(ii) Issued bonds, the interest on which is exempt from federal income taxes, for the purpose of
purchasing land as a site for, or purchasing or constructing, a building, stadium, or other facility,
that is subject to a lease or agreement with a local public entity.
(iii) Is wholly owned by a public agency.
A review of records obtained from the Secretary of State's Office indicates that a joint powers agreement
for the Rosemead Financing Authority (JPA) has been filed. In order to determine whether the JPA is a
special district according to the provisions of GC section 12463, a copy of the joint powers agreement
must be submitted to the State Controller's Office. Please mail the copy to the State Controller's Office,
Local Govcmmcnt Repo; ,'ng Section, at the address listed below by
November 3, 2006.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Perla Nolasco of the Division of
Accounting and Reporting at (916) 323-2369.
Sincerely,
OHN A. KORACH, Chief
Division of Accounting and Reporting
JAK:NEV:pmn
MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 942850, Sacramento, CA 94250
STREET ADDRESS 3301 C Street, Suite 500, Sacramento, CA 95816