HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-26 IFC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet � Finance Department
MEMORANDUM
To: Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk
From: Diana Leal,Administrative Secret
Subject: Investment and Finance Commi t. �ttee
Date: June 9, 2004
Attached is a copy ofthe April 28,2004 minutes ofthe Investment and Finance Committee approved
by the Committee on May 26, 2004. Please place on the next City Council agenda for approval
thereof.
Thank you for your assistance.
Attachments (1)
GAFinance\Diana Leal\Wpdocs\Investment Committee\2002 Memos\City Clerk\2003\4-28-04 minutes.wpd
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Minutes
April 28, 2004, 10:30 a.m.
North Wing Conference Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Gibson on Wednesday, April 28,
2004 at 10:31 a.m.
IL ROLL CALL
Present: - Absent:
Paul S. Gibson, Finance Director Buford Crites, Mayor Pro-Temp
Bob Spiegel, Mayor Carlos Ortega, City Manager
Thomas Jeffrey, Deputy City Treasurer
Russ Campbell
Everett Wood
Bill Veazie
Thomas Wormley
Dave Erwin, City Attorney
Also Present:
Justin McCarthy, ACM/Director of Redevelopment
Dennis Coleman, RDA Finance Manager
Diana Leal, Recording Secretary
Guests:
Joseph Crowley, Vice President, Citigroup
Carmen Vargas, Associate Municipal Securities, Citigroup
Bradford Thiel, Director Municipal Securities, Citigroup
111. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Gibson introduced Mr. Thomas Wormley, the newly appointed Investment and
Finance Committee member. Mr. Wormley provided the committee with his work
experience and background. The Committee welcomed Mr. Wormley.
Mr. Coleman introduced Mr. Joseph Crowley, Ms. Carmen Vargas and Mr. Bradford
Thiel representatives of Citigroup and said that they attended this meeting to provide
a bond proposal.
1
a2HM wPd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES April 28, 2004
IV. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS
None.
i
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
Motion was made by Mr. Campbell and seconded by Mr. Erwin to approve the
Minutes of the March 24, 2004 meeting as submitted with Mr. Wormley
abstaining.
VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. City and Redevelopment Agency Investment Schedules and Summary of
Cash Reports for March 2004
Mr. Jeffrey provided the Committee with a copy of the City's ICMA and
Nationwide Deferred Comp statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2004.
For the month ended March 31, 2004, Mr. Jeffrey reported that the book value
of the City Portfolio was approximately $126,691,000. The City earned
approximately $161,000 in interest during that month. Portfolio yield-to-
maturity was approximately 1.56%.
For the month ended March 31, 2004, Mr. Jeffrey reported that the book value
of the RDA Portfolio was approximately $163,515,000. The RDA earned
approximately $174,000 in interest during that month. Portfolio yield-to-
maturity was approximately 1.20%.
Mr. Jeffrey said that he recently attended the California Municipal Treasurer's
Association Annual Conference. Wells Fargo's Chief Economist had predicted
that the Federal Open Market Committee would raise the Federal Funds Rate
by 400-to-500 basis points over the next three-to-four years. Most of the
speakers recommended maintaining a short portfolio duration so that investors
could take advantage of interest rates as they rise.
Mr. Jeffrey said that in the first quarter of 2004, the Ford Motor Company had
more than doubled its profit over the same period prior year. This may signal
the beginning of a recovery for Ford.
2
42804.wpd
MVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES April 28, 2004
B. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund Balance for the month of
March 2004
There being no business issues to report, discussion ensued to the next
agenda item.
C. California Asset Management Program (CAMP) March 2004 Statements
There being no business issues to report, discussion ensued to the next
agenda item.
D. City and Redevelopment Agency Monthly Financial Report for City Council for
March 2004
Mr. Gibson said that sales tax continues to thrive. His last estimate was $14
million, however, after the quarter numbers, his estimate will be higher than
$14 million. Everything is going well with the City with the exception of the
State subvention where $700,000 of Department of Motor Vehicle fees were
taken.
Mr. Campbell said that he read in the local newspaper that the mayor of the
City of Rancho Mirage made a comment that their city had a shortfall and has
run out of land. He asked how the City of Palm Desert was doing in relation to
land and if there was a plan in case there were no land available. Mr...Gibson
said that the City of Palm Desert is currently looking at increasing building
permit fees as the City of Palm Desert charges the lowest rates in the valley.
A staff report regarding the increase to the fees will go before the Council in
May. The north sphere is all that the City has left to develop. It is projected
that the available land can potentially be built out within 5 years. The interest
rates will determine how many homes will be built, etc.
Mr. Spiegel said that the City has a lot of commercial land left. The biggest
land is the Gateway Project which is across from the Costco. This will bring in
additional revenue for the general fund. Lowe's is planning to open a store on
Monterey and Sears will open at the Westfield Shoppingtown in October 2004.
The area near the freeway is designated commercial office professional.
Mr. Spiegel said that the owner of the property just north of Country Club drive
would like to build a grocery store there. The problem that they are having is
that there is a tremendous amount of work that has to go into the old
Albertson's building before anyone can occupy the space.
The City of Palm Desert has a Business Support Manager whose primary task
is to ensure that the City business buildings have no vacancies.
3
428N.» d
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES April 28, 2004
Mr. Spiegel asked about the City of Palm Desert's transient occupancy tax.
Mr. Gibson said that they were doing okay, however, he did not expect much
growth revenue wise. He said that it is very difficult to project what revenues
will be received as not many conventions are being booked for the future. The
Marriott will have to rely on people coming from Los Angeles and Orange
County.
E. Parkview Professional Office Buildings - Financial Report for March 2004
Mr. Gibson said that the City of Palm Desert operates the Parkview
Professional Office Building. The office complex is occupied with State
tenants: Water Resources Board, Assemblyman Battin, Assemblyman Benoit,
CVAG, and other quasi-governmental agencies. There are a couple of private
businesses that occupy space at the complex. The funds derived from the
complex are used to fund the park maintenance.
Mr. Gibson said that he was contacted by Supervisor Wilson advising him that
they intend to occupy a space. They are taking measurements of the space to
determine what changes are necessary. The earliest they can move in will be
July or August.
Mr. Spiegel asked why there were more expenditures indicated for March. Mr.
Gibson said that he is aware that some of the offices are being refurbished.
He will ask the Senior Financial Analyst why there is a change in the amount
expended and will provide the information at the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
F. Palm Desert Golf Course Facilities Corporation Financial Information for March
2004
Mr. Gibson said that Mr. Young is out of town this week to attend to personal
business.
Mr. Gibson said that Kemper Management, a third party management
company, operates Desert Willow (DW) for the City of Palm Desert. They
provide the City with monthly reports.
Mr. Wormley asked how long DW has been in operation. Mr. Gibson said that
it has been in operation since 1997. One of the goals for DW is to locate a
hotel at the site.
Mr. Spiegel said that the restaurant is doing a fabulous job. He said that he
thinks that more and more locals are going to the restaurant.
Mr. Gibson reported that the televisions approved by the Council have been
installed at DW.
4
428N,.pd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES April 28, 2004
Vill. CONTINUED BUSINESS - None.
IX. OLD BUSINESS
A. Status of Public and Private Partnershios Background Checks
There being no business issues to report, discussion ensued to the next
agenda item.
B. Bond Issuance by Palm Desert Financing Authority
Hiring Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. to Refund the 1995 Project Areas No. 1
and 2 Bond Issues
Mr. Coleman said that his department deals with the municipal bonds., He
said that a refunding candidate was identified by Citigroup. Citigroup
representatives met Mr. Coleman at a conference and said that one of the
City's issues were due for a refund. They contacted Mr. Coleman with some
figures and submitted a proposal for consideration. Mr. Coleman said that
staff was impressed with the proposal as they have good retail capabilities, a
long time business aggressiveness on spreading of pricing. Citigroup Global,
Inc. was formerly known as Salomon, Smith, Barney. Mr. Coleman said that
the report he provided to the committee recommends that the Palm Desert
Financing Authority to hire Citigroup to refund 1995 Project Area 1 and Project
Area 2 bonds. The savings have changed since they first came to the City as
the market has changed. At one point, staff was looking at about $2.4 million
in savings, however now, they are looking at about a $1.2 million in Project
Area No. 1 and about $200,006 in Project Area No. 2 that includes about
$68,000 in new project money and $130,000 in debt service. He asked that
representatives of Citigroup be present to introduce themselves and provide
background information to the Committee. In attendance were: Vice President
Joseph Crowley, Bradford Thiel, Director and Underwriter and Carmen
Vargas, Associate. '
Mr. Crowley said that in addition to Mr. Coleman's analysis, they distributed a
presentation booklet that provides a general overview of the firm's
qualifications and capabilities. He said that they have at their disposal,
nationwide, and here in California, distribution capabilities along with all market
spectrums. He said that he wanted to highlight the retail credentials indicated
on the retail segment. Their retail works under the name Smith and Barney.
They have nearly 1,700 retail brokers focusing on the individual investor. They
have a strong retail investment base at the disposal of the investor when
pricing bond issues. The retail goes to the investor. It depends on the
underlying strong credit quality of the Agency, the project areas and ultimately
the bond insurance. The retail investors are less tri-sensitive in retail of
5
42804.wpd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES April 28, 2004
institutional investors. This enhances the pricing advantage. They are staffed
as a local firm. They have investment bankers in Los Angeles. They are able
to focus on all clients. Their plan is to provide a customized service to clients
regardless of size.
Ms. Carmen Vargas, Associate said that since 1997 Citigroup has made an
effort to focus on California cities transactions. Most recently, they worked
with the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency, City of Oceanside, and the
City of Palo Alto. She said that the booklet that was provided to the
Committee included both negotiated and competitive transactions since 1999.
They are currently working with the City of Desert Hot Springs.
Mr. Bradford Thiel, Director and Underwriter said that the key to providing
lowest rates on any bond transaction is distribution. This creates competition
for bonds in a primary and secondary markets. He said that if they only invest
for two or three major institutional customers, those customers will turn around
and sell bonds at a higher price to the end user of the bonds. Citigroup acts
as an end user and they cut the institutions out of the transaction. In many
cases, with the market being such as it is, there are a lot players in the market
place that are simply renting bonds for a short period of time. They are looking
to buy a bond that they feel is key versus any type of an index, the government
bonds, government futures, etc., and make it turn around and narrow that
spread, then put the bonds back out into the street. What Citigroup tries to do
is eliminate this practice and pass the savings along to their public finance
clients. Over the years, this is what has made them number one. They
continue to be number one, not based on the new clients, but rather for a
tremendous amount of repeat business. A deal of this sort, where there are
good customers that they are selling bonds, there is a secondary market
provided. Their clients know that Citigroup runs a big operation and will
always be there in case they need to sell their bonds for any reasons.
Mr. Thiel said that Peter Bartlett, his supervisor, handles all national sales
trading and underwriting operations out of Los Angeles. Peter Bartlett reports
to the head of their department'who is in New York. All other traders,
underwriters and sales people report to Peter Bartlett. This affords the ability
to get a lot accomplished.
Mr. Crowley said that the California based funds are covered by 20 institutional
sales people that cover over 300 accounts across the country. There are over
111 sales specialist that cover over 9,500 middle market type accounts.
Mr. Coleman said that one of the reasons he would like to see Citigroup hired
is the distribution base they offer and the other reason is for the compensation
requested. He said that when staff saw this opportunity, they knew it was one
that they would like to bring forward to the Committee to try out because
Citigroup is a national firm. The Agency has never been targeted by a national
6
426N w d
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES April 28, 2004
firm. In taking a look at Citigroup's transactions within the last five years, one
can note that it has done bonds as small as $1.7 million. Citigroup provided
the Agency with an aggressive proposal which includes a retail distribution, an
institutional distribution and it is accompanied by their solid reputation.
Mr. Gibson said that one of the problems they have had in the past with the
bonds is local distribution. Mr. Coleman said that in the past the bonds have
only been offered to institutions with retail book. It has gone to these
institutions because the money market funds need paper for performance.
They are constantly turning over.
Mr. McCarthy said that as the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has matured,
they have to acknowledge that this is the 6`" largest Redevelopment Agency in
the state of California. RDA is very active in the market. RDA warrants a
more competitive position in the marketplace with respect to underwriting than
it has in the past. This particular financing is opportunistic in nature, and not
planned financing. RDA looked at both proposals received and gave them fair
consideration. Staff is trying to institutionalize a practice of some sort of
competitive process (i.e. RFQ, etc.)where a number of firms can be contacted
to identify those firms that are appropriate for a long term relationship as
opposed to competitively bidding each bond. A part of this will be to look at
the future issuance strategy. Mr. Gibson said that an issuance strategy
proposal will be presented to the committee at a future meeting.
Mr. Veazie said that he did not believe that the Agency could find a finer group
than Citigroup, Smith Barney and Solomon Brothers. He said that the'
difference between the two proposals was approximately $100,000. Mr.
Coleman said that Citigroup has also offered to pay the underwriter's counsel
to prepare the official statement, the bond purchase agreement and the
continuing disclosure which is an additional $20,000-25,000.
Mr. Wood said that he believes that the City is attractive to investors because
there is value, need and the City of Palm Desert's reputation.
Mr. McCarthy said that they will try to create a competitive environment where
differentials get compressed as the market realizes that there are other
competitors vying for underwriting opportunities.
Mr. McCarthy said that given the aggressive proposal tendered by Citigroup,
staff is recommending that the Committee consider hiring Citigroup.
Motion made by Mr. Erwin and seconded by Mr. Veazie to forward the
recommendation to hire Citigroup to Refund the 1995 Project Areas No. 1
and 2 Bond Issues to the City Council for approval. Motion carried.
7
428N.wPd
JNVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES April 28, 2004
X. NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 10:30 a.m.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Erwin at 11:20 a.m.
Respec Ily su tted
D i a eal, c din Secretary
8
42800.wpd
Finance Department
MEMORANDUM
To: Records Technician
From: Diana Leal, Administrative Secretary\
Subject: Investment and Finance Committee Meeting
Date: June 9, 2004
Attached, for your records, is a copy of the May 26, 2004 Investment and Finance Committee
meeting attendance register.
Thank you for your assistance.
Attachments (1)
r
GAFinance\Diana LeaMpdoes\Investment Committee\2002 Memos\City Clerk\2003\2-24-04attend.wpd
k�- \
% k
$ f
� k } }
b § ¥ ) \ \ ®
$ \ \ q § § §
) `
/ \ \ \ \ }
� ! �
\
/
$ 2
i
COMMITTEE MEETING WORKSHEET
Meeting Description Investment Committee Meeting Date 6/26/02 Time 2:00 p.m.
Location North Wing Conference Room Mailed Agenda 6/20/02
Posted Agenda 6/20/02
Time
Convene Adjournment
2- C) on.
Staff Members Attending Yes o Others Attending Yes 'No
1 n 10 Dennis Coleman
2 Council Member 11 Justin McCarthy
3 Council Member (/ 12 Recording Secretary
4 Dave Erwin, City Attorney
5 r os rteg ity Mgr.
6 Thomas Jeffrey
Public Members Attending Guests Attending
7 Russ Campbell 17- 12
8 Murray Magloff ✓ 13
9 Bill Veazie 14
10 Everett Wood 15
16
17
€ojlow-Ups/Tasks Assigned Person Responsible Due Date
1
2
3
4 Z ` K
5
6
8
.. - ®m •
Iffle,NO ml 'tan
All :,y11J1.�
Jill
ff
VIA
wpm
Jill
m)
___MIL 1111 m •i 0 .I /.
Spoke Mtn (1) Mtn (2)_. MEETING NOTES_
AA Q-4
J
//ww
VG
f
l
M itz
V 6//�0 ] /
C �
r�
.. - ®M •
FA,�»�� till'
M��D • �, // I/ /./ • Li ��I
VOW
NO
' / / /.
po.OWN
___ff • -
=_Mm : it
mll �m MA
0 1
6.,A/�
i_i
SEEM
i�iMOM. - a ', M
i�ii41,' l�1! • _, � , .�
i�iIFi[I ` u Wwl NAMN
YVA
Spoke -Mtn (1) Mtn (2) MEET NG NOTESfj
Ip ,.
20 17
C �2 a0
i 1, e
i rt 0
.
otJ
-
c a Gt S C r
�C
13
Spoke Mtn(1) Mtn (2) MEETING NOTES
Y
J •
Spoke Mtn (1) _Mtn (2) MEETING NOTES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA
June 26, 2002, 2:00 p.m.
North Wing Conference Room
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Any person wishing to discuss any item not on the agenda may
address the Investment and Finance Committee at this point by
giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be
limited to a maximum of five minutes, unless the Investment and
Finance Committee authorizes additional time.
B. This is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment
on agenda items. It should be noted that at the Investment and
Finance Committee's discretion, these comments may be deferred
until such time on the agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks
shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes, unless the
Investment and Finance Committee authorizes additional time.
IV. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF
THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE INVESTMENT & FINANCE
COMMITTEE OR AUDIENCE REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM
THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND
ACTION UNDER SECTION V. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE
AGENDA.
A. Approval of Minutes
Rec: Approve minutes of the regular meeting of May 22, 2002, as
submitted.
Action:
1
oszeaz.woe
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA June 26, 2002
VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. City and Redevelopment Agency Investment Schedules and
Summary of Cash Reports for May 2002
Rec: Review and submit for the next City Council agenda.
Review the presentation on the investment graphs. Review
the investment activity for May 2002. Review status of
capital projects and cash-flow projections.
Action:
B. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund Balance for the
month of May 2002
Rec: Informational item for the Committee to review. No action
required
C. California Asset Management Program (CAMP)
Rec: Informational item for the Committee to review. No action
required
D. City and Redevelopment Agency Monthly Financial Reports for City
Council for May 2002
Rec: Report and submit to City Council
Action:
E. Parkview Professional Office Buildings - Financial Report for
May 2002
Rec: Review and file report:
Action:
2
062602.wptl
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA June 26, 2002
F. Palm Desert Golf Course Facilities Corporation Financial
Information for May 002
Rec: Review and file report
Action:
I
Vill. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None.
IX. OLD BUSINESS
A. Status of Public and Private Partnerships Background Checks
Rec: Status report on background checks
Action:
B. Bond Issuance by Palm Desert Financing Authority
Rec: Status report on issuing new bonds
Action:
X. NEXT MEETING -Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 2:00 p.m.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California, that the foregoing agenda for the Investment and Finance
Committee was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72
hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 20" day of June, 2002.
Dana LeWchntary
3
062602.w d
Finance Department
MEMORANDUM
To: Rachelle Klassen, Deputy City Clerk /
From: Diana Leal, Administrative Secretary-
Subject: Investment and Finance Committee 1
Date: August 20, 2002
Attached is a copy of the June 26,2002 minutes of the Investment and Finance Committee approved
by the Committee on July 24, 2002. Please place on the.next City Council agenda for approval
thereof.
The Investment and Finance Committee for August has been cancelled.
Thank you for your assistance.
I
Attachments (1)
G:\Ftnance\Diana LeaMpdocs\Investment Committee\2002 Memos\City Clerk\6-26-02.wpd
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Minutes
June 26, 2002, 2:00 p.m.
North Wing Conference Room
I. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting was called to order by Jose Luis Espinoza, Finance
Operations Manager/Acting Chairman on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 at
2:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Absent:
Jose Luis Espinoza, Acting Chairman None
Thomas Jeffrey, Investment Manager
Dick Kelly, Mayor ;
Jean Benson, Mayor Pro-Tempore
Steve Aryan, Asst. to the City Manager
David Erwin, City Attorney
Murray Magloff
Bill Veazie
Russ Campbell
Everett Wood
Also Present:
Justin McCarthy, ACM Redevelopment
Dennis Coleman, Redevelopment Finance Manager
Rick Zessna, Head Professional - Desert Willow
Diana Leal, Recording Secretary
Guests:
None
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
IV. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Espinoza said that Mr. Gibson inquired if the Investment and Finance
Committee would like to not hold a meeting in August. The committee members
agreed not to hold a meeting in August.
1
62602.wpd +
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
Ms. Benson said that she, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Spiegel will be attending a League of
California Cities meeting and will not be available to attend.the July 24, 2002
meeting. Mr. Espinoza asked if the other committee members would be
available to attend on July 24 as a quorum, six members in attendance, is
necessary to transact business. The members stated that they would be
available to attend.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
Motion was made by Mr. Campbell and seconded by Ms. Benson to
approve the Minutes of the May 22, 2002 meeting as submitted. Motion
carried.
VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None,
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. City and Redevelopment Agency Investment Schedules and Summary of
Cash Reports for May 2002
Mr. Jeffrey gave a brief overview of the May 2002 Investment Reports.
For the month ended May 31, 2002, the book value of the City Portfolio
was approximately $189,103,000. This represented a $25 million increase
from prior month due to receipt of property taxes. The City earned
approximately $440,000 in interest in May. The portfolio yield-to-maturity
was 2.92%.
For the month ended May 31, 2002, the book value of the RDA Portfolio
was approximately $103,648,000, The RDA earned approximately
$214,000 in interest in May. The portfolio yield-to-maturity was 2.38% ,
Mr. Jeffrey purchased $19.6 million of securities in May.
B. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund Balance for the Month
of May 2002
Mr. Espinoza said that as of May, 2002 the City has $37 million and in the
Redevelopment Agency account there is $40 million. Both accounts will
decrease by $3.5 million each to be transferred from LAIF to CAMP.
2
62602.wp0
f
INVESTMENT 8, FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
C. California Asset Management Program (CAMP)
Mr. Jeffrey stated that, henceforth, the Finance Committee would be
receiving a monthly account statement from CAMP, so long as the City
maintained balances there. The bulk of the City money currently invested
with CAMP would be withdrawn and reinvested in higher-yielding assets
once the California State budget crisis is over.
Ms. Benson asked why only $23 million had been transferred from LAIF to
CAMP when the Finance Committee had originally authorized $30 million.
Mr. Jeffrey responded that $30 million will be invested in CAMP, with the
difference being transferred over the next few days so that the City can
maximize its LAIF interest.
Ms. Benson then asked if such a transfer was still necessary, in view of a
recent Court of Appeal decision in Jarvis v. Connell that authorized LAIF
withdrawals as continuing appropriations. Mr. Jeffrey responded that the
transfer was still necessary since the State budget approval process
would probably continue into the next fiscal year and new litigation might
be filed.
Mr. Erwin asked why the Jarvis litigation had been initiated. Mr. Jeffrey
responded by briefly discussing the history of the Jarvis litigation. He
closed by stating that if SB 68 (Baffin) is enacted, the LAIF should be
completely removed from the Jarvis litigation, which is currently on appeal.
D. City and Redevelopment Agency Monthly Financial Reports for City
Council for May 2002
Mr. Espinoza said that for the year ending they are estimating $112,000
net gain over expenditures.
Mr. Kelly asked if there would be a surplus. Mr. Espinoza said that he
believes that there will be a surplus. Depending on what accruals and
receivables come in. He took last year's accruals and receivables, with
the exception of sales tax, and made a projection.
E. Parkview Professional Office Buildings - Financial Report for May 2002
Mr. Espinoza said that at this time the office complex is 95% occupied.;
He said that the reason why the rentals were down last year was due to
the loss of a client (WMA). The Cove Communities occupied the vacant
space, however, they requested to use some of the space, therefore, the
City is using the extra space for storage.
3
62602.wpd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
F. Palm Desert Golf Course Facilities Corporation Financial Information for
May 2002
Rick Zessna, Desert Willow Head Professional said that year-to-date they
have not met their goals for the budget, however they are beating last
year's numbers. All things considered, with golf, the 9-1-1 incident and
the economy they are fairing better then the competitors.
Food and Beverage is doing quite well. Since his arrival in June and
Rodney's in May, they have made quite a few changes to try to improve
the facility. They have reduced the amount of money invested in
merchandise. They have a better grasp on the overall activities of the
facility.
Mr. Espinoza said that at the last meeting Ms. Benson brought up
complimentary rounds. He referred to page 12 and 13 which indicates
the complimentary rounds.
Mr. Zessna said that it is very important to promote the golf course
through corporate outings. There are business people who make advance
trips. They will be set up with rounds of golf so that they can promote the
facility.
Mr. Kelly said that of the 50 most friendly golf courses for women, Desert
Willow was voted number 17 in the nation, and of the public facilities it is
number one in the valley. Mr. Zessna said that Desert Willow is
recognized all around the country, if not the world, as a fantastic golf
facility.
Mr. Magloff asked how the restaurant was doing and how was the evening
business doing. Mr. Zessna said that they are doing rather well. The
breakfast was changed from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. as there weren't
enough activities. They can bring one chef in and have him prepare the
breakfast with one or two servers and they are fine. He said that they do
not serve dinner, however, they do have outings (i.e. weddings, bar
mitzvah's, birthday parties, etc.).
Ms. Benson said that last year it was mentioned that Desert Willow would
have dinners on Thursday, Friday and Saturday this year, but they did not.
Mr. Zessna said that it would be better to have dinner on those days when
there is a hotel as it provides the base.
Mr. Kelly said that the banquet business does very well. None of the
country clubs do well serving dinner because if no one shows up, the
country club is still required to pay for the dinners.
4
62602."d
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
Mr. Wood asked if there was a projected time for a hotel to be placed at
Desert Willow. Mr. Kelly said that there have been many interested
parties, but they have had trouble obtaining financing. Fortunately, Desert
Willow is doing well due to the time shares.
Mr. Magloff asked if the Redevelopment Agency could utilize their funds to
finance a hotel. Mr. Kelly said that RDA could use their funds to fund a
hotel. Ms. Benson said that the problem was that the hotels that have
approached the City have requested more money than can be given.
Mr. Kelly said that it was not uncommon to see other cities that give up to
$30 million to entice the hotels as they are in dire need of having a hotel.
The City is not in this position.
Mr. Veazie said that the valley has nationally renowned golf courses that
receive a tremendous amount of television exposure when professionals
play. Desert Willow does not receive as much exposure as do some of
the other golf courses in the valley.
Mr. Kelly said that Desert Willow receives a great deal of exposure just by
word of mouth. Desert Willow has the advantage that there are not a lot of
homes on both sides which gives you a great view. Even the most
prestigious golf courses have condos or homes on both sides which takes
away from the beautiful view.
Mr. Veazie said that Desert Willow would be considered reasonable cost
compared to some of the other golf courses. Mr. Zessna said that Desert
Willow is considered high end during the season, of course the great
benefit to the residents is that they can play for$45 when the outside play
is paying $165/round.
Vill. CONTINUED BUSINESS - None.
IX. OLD BUSINESS
A. Status of Public and Private Partnerships Background Checks
There being no business issues to report, discussion ensued to the next
agenda item.
5
62602, pd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
B. Bond Issuance by Palm Desert Financing Authority
Mr. Coleman said that with respect to the Project Area No. 2 bonds, at the
last meeting he indicated that they were going with the insurance
commitments from both MBIA and AMBAC. They did receive the
commitments. He also mentioned that they were trying to reduce the
coverage from $1.60 to $1.25. They thought that, given the market, they
would be able to get it at $1.30. They met certain milestones and are at
$1.20 now. They did not know if the insurance companies would honor it
given the current conditions. They received the insurance commitment
from MBIA indicating that it was at $1.20. In the bond issue that was done
in November for Project Area No. 4, they obtained the cost of insurance at
150 basis points of total debt service, which is one and one half percent of
the total debt service. They got Project Area No. 1 back in March at 120
basis points and they obtained 82 '/2 basis points for Project Area No. 2. It.
turns out that Project Area No. 2 had a shadow rating, which is a rating
that the rating agencies give that they do not make the Agency aware of,
but they tell the insurance agencies and that is that this project area has
"A" rating. They received a surety of at 3%. They have been getting the
surety at 4%. With the savings in insurance, it turns out they did quite
well. They priced the bonds last week, meaning they were pre-sold. The
underwriters did a fantastic job. They received several comparisons of
what was going on in the market and a lot of the information they received
did not point to one specific place. It was an interesting market that there
were a lot of bond issues that were coming out to market and some that
had just been out. It turns out that some of the bond issues that came out
before us weren't totally sold. They were allocations (unsold) at different
yields. They received yields from between 1.75% to 5.07%. This is
reflected on the page titled "pricing summary". The 20 year maturity they
received at 5.07% shows how the market has moved because back in
March when it was done they received a 30 year at 5.06. Overall, they
were able to get this bond issue sold, which will close on July 11. They
are pointing out that they are basically paying the same debt service as
before without lengthening the maturities and are pulling out $1.18 million
in new money proceeds to utilize in projects. They are quite happy with
the outcome. The underwriting team was a team they have used before,
Kinsell and Stinson, they have done a wonderful job.
Mr. Coleman said that they are in the process of doing the tax allocation
bond for housing to buy Country Club Estates. They are also looking at
money for building new apartments that they have (Santa Rosa Villas) and
reimbursing the Agency for land. The net amount of money necessary is
approximately $11.6 million. Currently they have the tax increment
verification report by the consultant. After reviewing the document and
providing final comments, the document will be ready to be sent to the
insurance companies. They are trying to solicit a bid from AMBAC and
6
62602 wpd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
MBIA. MBIA has done most of the Agency's bonds in terms of insurance.
They just want to make sure with AMBAC they have another play, in case
for whatever reason they cannot obtain insurance from MBIA. AMBAC
has not been successful in bidding for the insurance, but they are coming
closer and are beginning to understand the Agency's credit. They are
hoping to receive an insurance commitment by July 12 after which time
they can pre-sell the bond as is normally done by the 171h of July and
close it on the first week in August. The market has been shifting. It is still
a good time to issue bonds for new money. There were additional bond of
115% coverage on the last bond.
Mr. Campbell asked if Mr. Coleman felt that the real estate market was not
going to do well. Mr. Coleman said that in talking with the insurance
company, they believe that it is a very good and stable market. Usually
once a year, they ask that the Agency provide them with an update on
various information. They want to know how much money has been .
received, where they are on a coverage ratio for all of the bond issues and
such. They have stopped asking for the information. When Mr. Coleman
asked why this was not being done, they said that those people were
transferred to the hospital industry because they feel that real estate is
stable enough that they do not need to have people there.
Mr. McCarthy said that the single family detached housing market is rate
driven. When the rates leave the market, the market will dry up a bit. In
terms of the industrial and commercial markets, you see a lot of refinance
going on. People getting new debt on and are being able to up their cash
flow. They are pulling money out of their commercial investments. It is a
much more disciplined market than it was in the past. Commercial and
industrial is demand-driven and when demand drives up because of higher
financing cost, you will probably see some values fall back.
Mr. Veazie said that at a prior meeting they had discussed about getting
$20 million instead of$17 million. Mr. Coleman said that they were going
to refinance the 1995 bonds as well, however, because they reached the
$1.20 coverage, they left them alone. They were originally doing this for
coverage purposes because they needed to do this in parity and they
wanted to bring $1.60 down to $1.20. The documents stated that when
the assessed valuation for the top ten tax payers is less than 40% of the
project area and the top one is below 20% you reach the $1.20 coverage.
Their only worry was whether or not the insurance companies would buy
off and they did. When they bought off on it, there was no sense in
refunding the 1995 bond issues as they already maintain the coverage
and from a price standpoint it was actually a negative return. They had to
do it when they thought they needed for parity for both of them. However,
once it did not make economic sense, they carved it out and the savings
went up. They were talking about a $600,000 in savings, now because of
taking that out and not moving the principal payments from August to
7
62602.w d
1
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
February to coincide, however this was left alone and they were able to
pull out 1.1 to 1.2.
Mr. Veazie said that one of the driving factors for the personal and private
real estate boom is the same thing that provided the 5% bonds. When the
Agency is unable to sell bonds any longer, mortgages at the lowest levels
in years will continue to decline.
Mr. McCarthy said that hotels are unique in the real estate market. They
tend to be the most difficult to finance of all the classes be it retail,
industrial or hotels. As capital gets allocated to various asset classes, the
least amount and probably the latest capital goes to the hotel and return is
the highest. In terms of the risk capital placed, they want high yields and
on the debt side, they may not want as high a yield, however what they
are doing is underwriting at a much lower level, 50-60% below the value,
which is making it that much harder to attract the equity capital to finance
those projects.
Mr. Zessner asked if the single family homes are mainly driven from the
hotel in the 20-40 age bracket. Mr. McCarthy said that one of the growth
industries here is resorts and casinos. The casinos are driving the
moderate income housing in the $200,000 range. The average mortgage
rate is $1,200/month. In some cases for a 3-4 bedroom homes this is only
about $200 above rental rates and after taxes it is probably more cost
effective.
Mr. Kelly said that the school system is booming. It is often mentioned
that the City is tourist and agriculture, but he thinks that the City has a
tremendous medical industry (hospitals, doctors and nursing homes). Ms.
Benson said that the City also has quality of life issues for people that are
looking for the overall attractions.
Mr. Veazie said that he was recently at the Desert Orthopedic Center at
Eisenhower Medical Center and spoke to some people who are coming
here to this facility from San Diego because Eisenhower has a more
modern facility and equipment.
X. NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 2:00 p.m.
8
62602.wpd
`INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES June 26, 2002
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Espinoza at 2:35
p.m.
Resp tfully submitted,
Di a di g Secretary
9
62602 wp0
- � Gil`y of a/m"'�Deserl
` yr
r SI�I�,ntl R � P�� � C POrtlU1108
• ,:. GOMPLIANEE ANAL1fSl5/>rN INV STIUIT R PpRT
__ay 2f102
Paul S. Gibson, C.C.M.T., Treasurer
Thomas W. Jeffrey, J.D., M.B.A., Investment Manager
Treasurer's Commentary
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee("FOMC") met on 26 June and left the Federal Funds Rate unchanged at 1.75
percent. The FOMC noted that while economic activity had continued to increase, inventory investment and demand had
moderated. Although the FOMC expects demand to strengthen over coming quarters, the degree of the strengthening is
uncertain. Most economists believe that the earliest date for any FOMC rate increase would be November 2002 or, more likely,
in 2003.
The latest UCLA quarterly forecast predicted a sluggish U.S. economic growth rate of 2.6 percent in 2002. A lack of vigor in
consumer spending is expected to slow growth,and might even trigger a recession next year. Accordingly, profit-conscious
companies are reluctant to create new jobs. Consumers may have "spent their future" in fourth quarter 2001 and first quarter
2002,when unusually high levels of consumer spending occurred.
U.S. Treasury prices have been strengthened by"flights to quality"after several recent stock price declines. This pattern may
continue due to slumping confidence in the equity markets, which continue to be plagued by 1920s-type scandals (the latest
being WorldCom's$3.8 billion bookkeeping "error"and Martha Stewart's alleged insider trading).
PauLS. 4 b7aw •rf C.C.M.T.
Treasurer
PORTFOLIO STATISTICS
Dollars in Thousands
MAY-02 APR-02 MAR-02 FEB-02 JAN-02 DEC-01
CITY
`Month-End Book Value"'` $ 189,180 $ 164,612 $ 158,976 $ 165,313 $ 179,824 $ 163,537
Month-End Market Value"' $ 191,365 $ 166,818 $ 161,199 $ 167,796 $ 182,342 $ 166,130
Paper Gain (Loss) $ 2,185 $ 2,206 $ 2,223 $ 2,483 $ 2,518 $ 2,593
Interest Earnings $ 440 $ 420 $ 448 $ 445 $ 488 $ 499
Yield-To-Maturity 2.92% 3.18%, 3.17% 3.270/6 3.27% 3.55%
Weighted Maturty(Days) 292 338 332 333 325 364
Effective Duration 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.24
RDA C�`
Month-End Book Value"` $ 103,648 $ 106,058 $ 134,282 $ 106,319 $ 85,482 $ 85,132
Month-End Market Value"' $ 105,664 $ 108,029 $ 136,190 $ 108,295 $ 87,392 $ 87,015
Paper Gain (Loss) $ 2,016 $ 1,971 $ 1,908 $ 1,976 $ 1,910 $ 1,883
Interest Earnings $ 214 $ 232 $ 257 $ 205 $ 184 $ 194
Yield-To-Maturity 2.38% 2.42% 2.28% 2.51% 2.45% 2.61%
Weighted Maturity(Days) 158 154 132 160 202 203
Effective Duration 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.24 0.25
i
City Treasurer's Office
73-610 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert,CA 92260-2578
"' Omits SLGSs. 760.346.0611
City of Palm Desert- Portfolio Characteristics
31 May 2002
Dollars in Thousands
Ageing Interval Market Value
<1M $ 39,746 General Fund Ageing
<2M 9,989
<3M 9,080 60
<6M 13,086
<1 YR 14,083 so
46
<2YR 3 40
<3YR
<4YR °
a20 12 11 15 16
<5YR f OEM
�,
>5YR 0 0
Total: $ 85,984 <1M <2M <3M <6M <tYR <2YR
Ratings' Market Value Credit Quality AAA
AAA $ 98,339 500/
AA 3,042 AA
A 4,077 2°/u
Al/P1 10,008 UN
A
Unrated"Unrated" 79,316 41% 2°iTotal: $ 194,782 1/P1
5%
Asset Allocation
= Sector Market Value Mon� BY Market Commercial
U.S. Treasury $ 22,906 Funds Paper 2891�Q 5%Federal Agency 30,176
2a i< 5%
Money Market Funds 53,531 MTNs
/6
Commercial Paper 10,008 Federal Agency 5/
MTNs 10,159 15% 1�P-A LAIF 37,000 D LAIF
RDA Loan 31,002 U.S.Treasury 191Y.
Total: $ 194,782 120/ RDA Loan
16%
Month City Yield LAIF Yield Variance Pertormance
Jun01 4.71 4.96 -0.25
Jul 4.53 4.64 -0.11 6.5
Aug 4.42 4.50 -0.08
Sep 4.28 4.35 -0.07 5.5
Oct 3.98 3.79 0.19 ?°
Nov 3.69 3.53 0.17 a.5
Dec 3.54 3.26 0.28
3.5 �
Jan02 3.27 3.07 0.20
Feb 3.27 2.97 0.31 2.5
Mar 3.17 2.86 0.31 Junot Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan02 Feb Mar Apr May
Apr 3.18 2.85 0.34
May 3.06 2.74 0.32 pLAIF Yield ®City Yield
Standard and Poor's Credit Ratings
LAIF, HighMark Sweep, and City Loan to RDA Page 2 of 7
City of Palm Desert
Portfolio Holdings
31 May 2002
Market Ratings
Par Value Issuer Coupon Maturli7r Cost I YTM I Price Value I Moody's S&P
Medium-Term Notes
$ 1,000,000 ASSOCIATES 6.50 8/15/02 $ 1,004,186 4.38 100.84 $ 1,008,391 Aa3 AA-
$ 2,000,000 DU PONT 6.75 10/15/02 $ 1,999,551 6.81 101.66 $ 2,033,134 Aa3 AA-
$ 2,000,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 6.52 10/8/02 $ 1,998,191 6.80 101.48 $ 2,029,572 Aaa AAA
$ 1,000,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 6.65 9/3(02 $ 1,005,622 4.36 101.11 $ 1,011,069 Aaa AAA
$ 4,000,000 GENERAL MOTORS 5.95 3114/03 $ 3,999,881 5.94 101.92 $ 4,076,896 A2 BBB+
is 10,000,000 Subtotals $ 10,007,432 5.97 $ 10,159,061
Commercial Paper-Discount
$ 2,030,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 2.08 1/15/03 $ 1,999,036 2.17 98.82 $ 2,005,982 P-1 A-1+
$ 4,015,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 1.72 7/15/02 $ 3,999,654 1.75 99.78 $ 4,006,117 P-1 A-1+
$ 2,015,000 MERRILL LYNCH 1.95 11/25/02 $ 1,995,354 2.00 99.08 $ 1,996,469 P-1 A-1+
$ 2,023,000 WELLS FARGO BANK 2.01 12/26/02 $ 1,999,167 2.10 0.00 $ 1,999,167 P-1 A-1
$ 10,083,000 Subtotals $ 9,993,211 1.95 $ 10,007,735
Agencies-Coupon
$ 4,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.50 8/6/02 $ 3,998,895 3.66 100.28 $ 4,011,250 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 6.63 8/15/02 $ 1,999,639 6.72 100.94 $ 2,018,750 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED NATIONAL MTG ASSOC 6.75 8/15/02 $ 2,009,698 4.29 100.97 $ 2,019,375 Aaa AAA
is 8,000,000 Subtotals $ 8,008,232 4.58 $ 8,049,376
Agencies-Discount
$ 2,071,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.46 7/30/02 $ 1,999,741 3.65 99.73 $ 2,065,408 Aaa AAA
$ 1,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.34 7/23/02 $ 980,175 2.44 99.76 $ 997,600 Aaa AAA
$ 1,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.33 6/20102 $ 982,396 2.42 99.92 $ 999,200 Aaa AAA
$ 2,048,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.34 10/7/02 $ 2,000,077 2.45 99.38 $ 2,035,303 Aaa AAA
$ 3,977,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 2.30 7/18/02 $ 3,900,774 2.40 99.79 $ 3,968,648 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 2.35 10/10/02 $ 1,952,608 2.46 99.36 $ 1,987,200; Aaa AAA
$ 2,064,000 FED MTG DISCOUNT NOTE 3.51 6/20/02 $ 2,000,006 3.70 99.92 $ 2,062.349 Aaa AAA
$ 4,080,000 FED NATIONAL MTG ASSOC 2.21 3/14/03 $ 3,999,350 2.31 98.41 $ 4,015,128 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED NATIONAL MTG ASSOC 1.81 9/16/02 $ 1,985,621 1.85 99.49 $ 1,989,800 Aaa AAA
$ 2,034,000 SALLIE MAE 2.13 2/7/03 $ 1,999,461 2.22 98.62 $ 2,005,931 . Aaa AAA
$ 22,274,000 Subtotals $ 21,800,208 2.66 $ 22,126,566
U.S.Treasury-Coupon
$ 1,340,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 1,341,171 5.84 101.09 $ 1,354,656 Aaa AAA
$ 15,194,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 5.88 9/30/02 $ 15,195,310 5.84 101.34 $ 15,398,169 Aaa AAA
$ 16,534,000 Subtotals $ 16,536,482 5.84 $ 16,752,826
U.S.Treasury-Discount
$ 6,170,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 5.03 8/15/02 $ 4,718,446 5.82 99.73 $ 6,153,402 . Aaa AAA
$ 6,170,000 Subtotals $ 4,718,446 5.82 $ 6,153,402
NR=Not Rated Page 3'o17
I
f
City of Palm Desert
Portfolio Holdings
31 May 2002
Market Ratings
Par Value Issuer Coupon MaturityT Cost I YTM I Price I Value Moody's S& P
LGIPs
$ 37,000,000 L.A.I.F. 0.00 6/1/02 $ 37,000,000 2.74 100.00 $ 37,000,000 NR NR
$ 23,268,087 C.A.M.P. 0.00 6/1/02 $ 23,268,087 1.88 100.00 $ 23,268,087, NR AAA
$ 60,268,087 Subtotals $ 60,268,087 2.74 $ 60,268,087,
Pooled Funds-AIM
$ 18,948,118 PRIME PORTFOLIO 0.00 611/02 $ 18,948,118 1.43 0.00 $ 18,948,119 Aaa AAA
$ 18,948,118 Subtotals $ 18,948,118 1.43 $ 18,948,118
Pooled Funds-HighMark
$ 9,168,038 CITY MAIN SWEEP 0.00 6/1/02 $ 9,168,038 0.79 100.00 $ 9,168.038 NR NR
$ 148,634 DESERT WILLOW SWEEP 0.00 6/1/02 $ 148,634 0.79 100.00 $ 148,634 NR NR
$ 431,729 GOLF COURSE SWEEP 0.00 6/1/02 $ 431,729 0.79 100.00 $ 431,729, NR NR
$ 1,566,001 OFFICE COMPLEX SWEEP 0.00 611/02 $ 1,566,001 0.79 100.00 $ 1,666,001 NR NR
$ 11,314,403 Subtotals $ 11,314,403 0.79 $ 11,314,403
City Loan to RDA
_ $ 31,002,917 CITY OF PALM DESERT 0.00 5/31/32 $ 31,002,917 2.74 100.00 $ 31,002,917 NR NR
$ 31,002,917 Subtotals $ 31,002,917 2.74 $ 31,002,917
Total Investments
$ 194,594,525 $ 192,597,536 3.06 $ 194,782,490
Cash
$ 50,862 OFFICE COMPLEX CHKG 0.00 6/1/02 $ 50,862 0.00 100.00 $ 50,862 NR NR
$ (3,838,028) CITY MAIN CHKG 0.00 6/1/02 $ (3,838,028) 0.00 100.00 $ (3,838,028) NR NR
$ 153,669 DESERT WILLOW CHKG 0.00 6/1/02 $ 153,669 0.00 100.00 $ 153,669 NR NR
$ 39,179 CPD GOLF COURSE 0.00 6/1/02 $ 39,179 0.00 100.00 $ 39,179 NR NR
$ 30,181 OFFICE COMPLEX TRUST 0.00 6/1/02 $ 30,181 0.00 100.00 $ 30,181 NR NR
$ 146,188 RECREATIONAL FAC CHKG 0.00 6/1/02 $ 146,188 0.00 100.00 $ 146,188 NR NR
$ - VACATION INN CHKG 0.00 6/1/02 $ - 0.00 100.00 $ - NR NR
$ (3,417,949) Subtotals $ (3,417,949) $ (3,417,949)
Cash and Investments
$ 191,176,577 $ 189,179,587 $ 191,364,541
NR=Not Rated Page 4 of 7
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency-Portfolio Characteristics
31 May 20M
Dollars in Thousands
Ageing Interval Market Value portfolio Ageing w/o SLGSs
< 1M $ 91,365
<2M -
<3M - 100
90
<6M 849 60
< IYR 195 70
<2YR 1,021 u 60
<3YR 6,612 - so
� ao
<4YR a° 30
<5YR 0 0 0 1 0 t 7 0
>5YR 0
Total: $ 100,042 <1M <2M <3M <6M <1YR <2YR <3YR <4YR
Credit duality Al/PI
QualityMarket Value / 0=i
AAA $ 46,083 AAA
AA - 44%>
A Unrated
A1/P1 - 560/6
Unrated" 59,581 AA
Total: $ 105,664 A
0 0°/
Sector Market Value Asset Allocation Money Market
Funds
Federal asuryAgency
$ 3,995 37%
Federal Agency 3,995
Money Market Funds 38,898 Federal Agent,
LAIF 54,054 4%
Commercial Paper LAIF
Corporate Bonds - U.S.Treasury 51
8%
Total: $ 105,664
Month RDA Yield LAIF Yield Variance Performance
Jun01 4.44 4.96 -0.52
Jul 4.08 4.64 -0.56 7.0
Aug 3.96 4.50 -0.54 6.0
Sep 3.69 4.35 -0.66 _
Oct 3.04 3.79 -0.74 65.0 _
Nov 2.83 3.53 -0.69 s 4.0
Dec 2.59 3.26 -0.67
Jan02 2.46 3.07 -0.61 3.0
Feb 2.51 2.97 -0.46 2.0
Mar 2.28. 2.86 -0.59 Jun01 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan02 Feb Mar Apr May
Apr 2.42 2.85 -0.43
May 2.38 2.74 -0.36 O LAIF Yield 13 RDA Yield
' Standard and Poor's Credit Ratings
LAIF and HighMark Sweep Page 5 of 7
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency
Portfolio Holdings
31 May 2002
Market Ratings
Par Value Issuer I Couponj Maturity Cost YTM I Price Value I Moody'sl S&P
Agency-Discount
$ 4,000,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG 2.24 6/28/02 $ 3,936,284 2.33 99.73 $ 3,995,200 Aaa AAA
$ 4,000,000 Subtotals $ 3,936,284 2.33 $ 3,995,200
U.S.Treasury-Coupon
$ 422,700 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 423,452 5.43 101.44 $ 427,323 Aaa AAA
$ 405,200 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 405,921 5.43 101.44 $ 409,632 ' Aaa AAA
$ 9,100 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 9,116 5.43 101.44 $ 9,200 Aaa AAA
$ 837,000 Subtotals $ 838,489 5.43 $ 846,155
U.S.Treasury-Discount
$ 198,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.70 2/15/03 $ 150,793 5.45 98.37 $ 195,343 Aaa AAA
$ 181,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.63 2115/04 $ 130,168 5.51 94.68 $ 172,182 Aaa AAA
$ 7,143.000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.59 8/15/04 $ 4,989,671 5.54 92.57 ,$ 6,649,632 Aaa AAA
$ 532,400 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.66 8/15/03 $ 394,279 5.47 96.92 $ 517,988 Aaa AAA
$ 344,600 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.66 8/15/03 $ 255,200 5.47 96.92 $ 335,272 Aaa AAA
$ 8,399,000 Subtotals $ 5,920,112 5.53 $ 7,870,416
LGIPs
$ 40,000,000 L.A.I.F. 0.00 6/1/02 $ 40,000,000 2.85 100.00 $ 40,000,000 NR NR
$ 14,055,000 L.A.I.F. BOND PROCEEDS 0.00 6/1/02 $ 14,055,000 2.85 100.00 $ 14,055,000 NR NR
$ 54,055,000 Subtotals $ 54,065,000 2.85 $ 54,055,000
Pooled Funds-AIM
$ 33,371,895 PRIME PORTFOLIO 0.00 6/1/02 $ 33,371,895 1.44 100.00 $ 33,371,895 Aaa AAA
$ 33,371,895 Subtotals $ 33,371,895 1.44 $ 33,371,895
Pooled Funds-HighMark
$ 5,322,720 HOUSING AUTH CHK SWEEP 0.00 6/1/02 $ 5,322,720 0.80 100.00 $ 5,322,720 NR NR
$ 203,000 HOUSING AUTH TRT SWEEP 0.00 611102 $ 203,000 0.80 100.00 $ 203,000 NR NR
$ 5,525,720 Subtotals $ 5,525,720 0.80 $ 51525,720
Total Investments
$ 106,188,614 $ 103,647,500 2.38 $ 105,664,385
Cash
$ 60,502 HOUSING AUTH CHKG 0.00 6/1/02 $ 60,502 0.00 100.00 $ 60,502 NR NR
$ 44,081 HOUSING AUTH TRUST 0.00 6/1/02 $ 44,081 0.00 100.00 $ 44,081 NR NR
$ 104,583 Subtotals $ 104,583 0.00 $ 104,583
Total Cash and Investments
$ 106,293,197 $ 103,752,083 $ 105,768,968:.
NR=Noted Rated Page 6 of 7
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The investment portfolios of the City of Palm Desert('City")and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency ('RDA')are
governed by federal, state, and local law. The City Treasurers"Statement of Investment Policy" is more restrictive than the
California Government Code. The Palm Desert Investment Committee and the Palm Desert City Council review the
Statement of Investment Policy annually.
For the month ended 31 May 2002,the City and the RDA investment portfolios were in compliance with all applicable
federal,state, and local laws and regulations. The City Treasury continued to pursue conservative and prudent investment
strategies, based upon the stated objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield(in order of priority).
Barring unforeseen events,the City Treasury should have sufficient cash to finance the operations of the City of Palm Desert
and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency over the next six months. In addition, portions of either the City or the RDA
portfolio could be liquidated in order to meet any significant, unexpected cash requirements.
Bloomberg L.P. and Interactive Data Corporation provided the data and the analytical tools that were used to calculate the
market value of all securities in the City and the RDA investment portfolios. State and Local Government Series securities
are held in escrow accounts and are therefore not included in this report as assets. All balances are bank balances.
Respectfully submitted on 26 June 2002,
PauLS. ridlom C.C.ref.T.
City Treasurer
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
California Government Code City Investment Policy
CA Govt Maximum Maximum Quality Maximum Maximum Quality %cf City %of RDA
Code Investment Category Maturity Limit S&P/Mdys Maturity Limit S&P/Mdys Portfolio Portfolio
53601 a Palm Desert Bonds 5 Years No Limit Not Authorized 1
N$3601,'(6)1; U`S9vTreasunes 3; 5;Years , „No;Lunit6 �✓ "5�Years? 4NosLi 1 CA State Debt 5 Years No Limit Not Authorized
CA Local A enc Debt 5Years No Limit Not Authorized
,Y Federal`A encies 5tYeats PNo,Limitt 5Wiisu BankeFs'§Accetance§ r180;Dams : 40%' ? . ` r180)Da s, 40%,4P,JIM
Conimei:cial,P erP )2MDa's ,.°7at25%u: A i+6F t2703Dby9l f; 25%-ad Atli, ordP 1 52% t O's0Ne otiable;CDs 5 Yeats `t30% ate t 5 Years t 30%�' AA7or7'Aa3 ";MS
`,53601 i # M Re os ,�1 Y,eat, "WN&Limit 30.Da st �:v 20Vi `AAA"&fAaa MAW
53601 i Reverse Re os 92 Days 20% Not Authorized
%3601''"E NMW&Ur Tor-KN01'esft sr " ax"` °"
„ �S,Years.� r� =30% .i' `.,��+.`A`,'� a•rs
53601 k)^ Mufual Fu6d9.rW0, 90;Da sw 20% AAA*&7Qaa 090RDa s"f �„720%° ' 'AAA;&�Aaa .t 27?8°k1375%
53601 I Trust Indenture Debt Not Authorized
53601 m Secured Bank Deposits 5 Years No Limit Not Authorized
53601(n) Mortgage-Backed 5 Years 20% A(Issuer) & Not Authorized
Securities AA(Security
". : � NoiLiinit* a� 4 192% 521%
,1%1642931 taY'x, � CAI F„,;O"�c�_ ''�' ,°�s��s"r»���f: �No�LiRlit
83.9% 1 100.0%
1(1) The City loan to RDA, which is not a bond, has been approved by the Palm Desert Cit y Council.
Certified California Municipal Treasurer Page 7 of 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PHILIP ANGELIDES, Treasurer
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER
SACRAMENTO
Local Agency Investment Fund r
PO Box 942809
Sacramento, CA 94209-0001 - ' _.-
(916) 653-3001
May,2002 Statement
CITY OF PALM DESERT Account Number : 98-33-621
Attn: CITY TREASURER
73510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT CA 92260 y
Transactions
Effective Transaction Tran Confirm Authorized Amount
Date Date Type Number Caller
05-30-2002 05-30-2002 RW 757489 THOMAS JEFFREY - 3,000,000.00
Account Summary
Total Deposit : 0.00 Beginning Balance : 40,000,000.00
Total Withdrawal : - 3,000,000.00 Ending Balance : 37,000,000.00
Page : 1 of 1
mAy'"'
SPECIALLAIF NEWS
I /
NEEUPDATE
Jarvis v, Connell
Court of Appeal Decision Issued
The Court ofAppeal issued a decision on the Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Connell
case on May 29, 2002. The court held that the Controller may disburse funds during a
budget impasse when state and federal law properly authorizes or requires their pay-'
ment, despite the absence of a budget act or emergency appropriation.
Since Local Agency Investment Fund program is provided for in law and is continu-
ously appropriated, disbursements from the fund will be permitted even if no budget is
passed by July 1 st.
Questions about this matter or the LAIF program may directed to LAIF Administra-
tor Eileen Park at (916) 653-3001 or by email at epark@treasurerca.gov.
State Treasurer Philip Argelides
Local Agency Investment Fund (916)653-3001 Phone
• • : .
Sacramento CA 000 ,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PHILIP ANGELIDES, Treasurer
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER
i SACRAMENTO,V117- c - cam '
Lr �,�1
Ste'-(fit/��II .� .�t+
Local Agency Investment Fund 0
rl
PO Box 942809
�I ,i , ;? 1 o, N 12: 51 Sacramento, CA 94209-0001 J �! Q 2002
916 653-3001
May,2002 Statement
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Account Number • 65-33-015
Attn: TREASURER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT CA 92260
Account Summary
Total Deposit : 0.00 Beginning Balance : 40,000,000.00
Total Withdrawal : 0.00 Ending Balance : 40,000,000.00
Page : 1 of 1
MAY2002
LAIF NEWS
SPECIAL EDITION
E 11
WS' UPDATE
Jarvis v. Connell
Court of Appeal Decision Issued
The Court ofAppeal issued a decision on the Jarvis Taxpayers Association a Connell
case on May 29, 2002. The court held that the Controller may disburse funds during a
budget impasse when state and federal law properly authorizes or requires their pay-
ment, despite the absence of a budget act or emergency appropriation.
Since Local Agency Investment Fund program is provided for in law and is continu-
ously appropriated, disbursements from the fund will be permitted even if no budget is
passed by July 1 st.
Questions about this matter or the LAIF program may directed to LAIF Administra-
tor Eileen Park at (916) 653-3001 or by email at epark@treasurer.ca.gov.
Local Agency Investment Fund State Treasurer Philip Angelides (916)653-3001 Phone
P• Box 942809
Sacramento CA 000 ,
�'-
�1JV ULJ FIN ,-
CALIFORNIA ASSET {i / - CONFIRMATION
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM I l� V,•:; e-7 :..� 2i• pU
A MRUCJOIM PO RS AUTII=P Llama - '
505 AIONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 800 SAN E, NCISCQ CA 94111
FOR ACCOUNT
INFORMATION: 800-729-7665
STATEMENT DATE: 5/31/2002
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ATTN: PAUL GIBSON ACCOUNT NUMBER: 553-00
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT,CA 92260 FUND NAME: Cash Reserve Portfolio
Page 1 of 1
Account Siummary as of 5131/2002
Statement Income Dividends Capital Gains Total Shares Account
Date Paid This Year Paid This Year Owned Value
5/31/2002 $0.00 $0.00 23,266,970.000 $23,266,970.00
Transaction Summary for 5/31/2002-5/31/2002
Beginning Balance Purchases Reinvestments Redemptions Ending Balance
$0.00 $23,266,970.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,266,970.00
'TRADE. - `POSTING.' - - DOLLAR AMOUNT- - SHARE ,, `SHARES THIS - TOTAL
i - DATE DATE TRANSACTIONS OFTRANSACTIONPRICE TRANSACTION SHARES OWNED
05/31/02 05/31/02 Purchase-Wire Pur. $23,266,970.00 $1.00 23,266,970.000 23,266,970.000
Message Line:
m
n
v
Y n
O
O
j
O
h
'R G
p o o c
o o A
� A
LLI
Cl) H W o r r N o r N r a r o 0 o V M y
LLI W Q O M N N N Q b v V 7 0 N 0 00
a U
a a a.
Q � � a N •-- N N 7 O � C
c W
O Z LL, N O D\ 'V 7 f-- O � W M o0 M � .• T O O M R
p h 0 - Q\ h O vt 00 v1 00 M r r 0
LL 1 t0 1p r -. { M M r M R W O W V O �D ^
-+ b �n T '. 0 r
M v1 C\ M oo O O �O E
A A �
a o o a o o rn w' m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wo
E Qa h
a
O O v1 •-+ vt \O � vt N y
O — p O
O @ N L
O
A.
0 w d
d O N O y emJ d: O W 2 N C a
o m W a I- Z
a ��"' d .W ,a•, 7 (7 OC a m
� N �d y •� a G a L N qq Q N .� O ..Oi y � N Q� (� O
N W � F11 Oy WH � 6O W o. C70.. 0. U ..P. O W z .
City of Palm Desert
Parkview Office Complex
Financial Statement
for Fiscal Year 2001- 2002
May-02 May-02 # % YTD YTD # %
Budget Actual Variance Variance Budget Actual Variance Variance
4:
r s <
Revenues
z
Rental $ 68,500 $ 69,038 $ 538 100,79% e $ 753,500 $ 725,233 $ (28,267) 96.25%
Dividends/Interest $ 4,500 $ 1,010 $ (3,490) 22.45% `� $ 48,000 $ 23,172 $ (24,828) 48.28%
Total Revenues $ 73,000 $ 70,048 $ (2,952) 95.96% ,�.x „t $ 801,500 $ 748,405 $ (53,095) 93.38%
Expenses
Professional-Accounting&Auditing $ 5,800 $ 6,800 $ (1,000) 117.240/ 's^ 1 i $ 69,800 $ 74,800 $ (5,000) 107.16%
Professional-Consultants $ 6,000 $ 5,554 $ 446 92.56% N4"`""" ,:�. $ 66,000 $ 68,064 $ (2,064) 103.13%
Tenant Improvements $ Z500 $ 6,377 $ (3,877) 255.08% $ 27,500 $ 40,227 $ (12,727) 146.28%
Repairs&Maintenance Building $ 8,000 $ 7,646 $ 354 95.58% i :" $ 88,000 $ 108,608 $ (20,608) 123.42%
Repairs&Maintenance-Landscaping $ Z300 $ - $ Z300 0.00% e; ; $ 25,300 $ - $ 25,300 0.00%
Utilities-Water $ 250 $ 142 $ 108 56.78% 7 $ Z750 $ 1,165 $ 1,585 42.36%
Utilities-Gas/Electric $ 5,000 $ 5,580 $ (580) 111.60% d $ 76,000 $ 77,589 $ (1,589) 102.09%
Utilities-Trash $. 700 $ 701 $ (1) 100.19% , '< $ 7,700 $ 4,208 $ 3,492 54.65%
Telephone $ 150 $ 188 $ (38) 125.47% r: $ 1,650 $ 1,744 $ (94) 105.70%
Insurance $ 521 $ - $ 521 0.00% `5 $ 5,729 $ - $ 5,729 0.00%
Total Expenses $ 31,221 $ 32,988 $ (1,767) 105.66% sw,_._ ',.', $ 370,429 $ 376,405 $ (5,976) 101.61%.
pxra#ing stoma $ $ �0' '4' ° ,:7 ?2 'MAN" 86.
Equipment Replacement Reserve $ 10,000 $ 12,618 $ (2,618) 126.18% $ 110,000 $ 138,795 $ (28,795) 126.18%
2002 Investment Report2002 Invest Report
E) City of Palm Desert
Parkview Office Complex
Vacancy Rate Schedule by Suite
S May 2002
Suite Square
No. Tenant Feet
73-710 Fred Waring Drive-Two (2) Story Building
100 Hanover 1,915
100A EPA 645
102 Bergren 1,360
103 Multiple Sclerosis 488
104 Arthritis Foundation 960
106 Coachella Valley Economic Partnership 928
108 Assemblyman Kelly 785
112 Senator Battin 1,406
114 Chamber of Commerce 1,478
118 Goodwill Industries 1,250
119 City/CVAG Conference Room 1,380
120 Duke Gerstal 1,750
200 CVAG 4,292
200A University of California Riverside 841
201 University of California Riverside 604
203 Vacant 480
205 Vacant 700
208 Alzheimer's Association - 960
2002 Investment Report2002 Vacancy Report
City of Palm Desert
Parkview Office Complex
Vacancy Rate Schedule by Suite
May 2002
Suite Square
No. Tenant Feet
210 Wilson,Pesota&Pichardo 3,040
211 State of California Department of Food&Agriculture 937
217 Joe B.McMillan,. Esq. 775
220 CA.State Dept. of Agriculture 1,607
222 Cove Comission-Fire Marshal 1,900
222 CITY Storage-Vacant 1,081
Total square footage(2 story Building) 31,562
Vacancy Rate-2,261/31,562= 7.16%
73-720 Fred Waring Drive- One Story Building
100 State of California-Water Resources 15,233
102 State of California-Rehabilitation Department 4,396
Total Square Footage 19,629
Vacancy Rate-0.00% 0.00%
Overall Vacancy Rate for Both Buildings:
Vacancy Rate--2,261/51,191 4.42%
Occupancy Rate-48,930/51,191 95.58%
2002 Investment Report2002 Vacancy Report
City of Palm Desert
\ Desert Willow
Budget Vs Actual
_ For the mouth of
May 2002
Budgeted Actual Budgeted Actual
May Mav $ Percentage Yearto Yearto S - Percentage
Revenue 2002 211 Variance Variance Date Date Variance Variance
Course&Ground S 419,201 S 379,418 $ (39,783) 90.51% $ 4,576,425 S 4,273,684 $ (302,741) 93.38%
Cans $ 33,092 S 34,975 $ 1,883 105.69% S 308,781 S 339,990 $ 31,209 110.11%
Golf Shop $ 93,841 $ 58,846 S (34,995) 62.71% $ 863,254 S 734,043 $ (129.211) 85.03%
Range $ 1,500 $ 1,457 S (43) 97.13% $ 14,450 S 33.318 $ 18,868 230.57%
Food&Beverage $ 148,833 S 151,635 S 2,802 101.88% $ 1,233,849 S 1,368.350 S 134,501 110.90%
Interest Income $ 2,500 S 404 $ (2,096) 16.16% $ 27,500 $ 5,801 $ (2L699) 21.09%
Total Revenues 696 967 626 7 5 72 232 89. 7% 7 024 259 6 755 186 269 073 96.17
Payroll
Proshop S 7,531 $ 2,158 $ 5,373 28.65% $ 76,861 S 44.101 S 32.760 57.38%
Can $ 23,233 -$ 26,104 $ (2,871) 112.36% $ 241,527 $ 280,743 S (39,216) lW24%
Course&Ground $ 122,301 $ 116,919 S 5,382 95.60% $ 1,363,788 $ 1,308,745 S 55,043 95,96%
Golf Operations $ 22,990 $ 27,136 $ (4,146) 118.03% $ 272,496 $ 275,319 S (2,823) I01,04%
General&Administration $ 41,758 $ 35,780 S 5,978 85.68% $ 443,842 S 386,066 S 57,776 86,98%
Food&Beverage $ 61,914 $ 66,070 $ (4,156) 106.71% $ 598,956 $ 624,595 $ .(25.639) 104.28%
Total Payroll S 279.727 274.167 S 5.560 98.01% 2 997 770 S 2 919%9 S 77 901 97.40%
Other Expenditures
Perimeter Landscaping $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - S - 0,00%
Proshop S 1,400 $ 1,202 $ 199 85.86% S 39.500 $ 42,532 S (3.032) 107.68%
Proshop-COGS $ 51.895 $ 26,599 $ 25,296 51.26% $ 442,742 S 408,342 S 34.400 9'-.23%
Can $ 13,800 S 14,054 $ (254) 101.84% S 162,000 S 137,089 S 24.911 8462%
Course&Ground-North Course $ 50,415 S 46,677 $ 3,738 - 92,59% S 605,320 5 680,977 S (75.657) 112.50%
Course&Ground-South Course $ 41,355 $ 43,541 S (2,186) 105.29% $ 600.097 S 525,585 S 74,512 87.58%
Course&Ground-Desert Pallet-N S 1,510 $ 1,126 $ 384 74.57% $ 17,165 S 10,381 S 6.784 W48%
Course&Ground-Desert PallebS S 1,440 $ 1,126 $ 314 78.19% S 17.250 S 11,067 S 6.183 64.16%
Golf Operations $ - $ 3,945 $ (3,945) 100.00% $ 14,500 $ 16,577 S (2.077) 114.32%
General&Administration $ 66,634 S 72,921 $ (6,287) 109.44% $ 808,909 S 773,546 S 35.363 95.63%
Range S 150 S 269 $ (119) 179.33% $ 15.800 $ 19,299 S (3,499) 122,15%
Food&Beverage S 15,140 $ 13,096 $ 2,044 8650% $ 165.729 S 204,243 S (38,514) 123.24%
Food&Beverage COGS S 46.023 $ 48,698 S (2,675) 105.81% $ 384,011 S 435,596 S (51,585) 113.4390
Management Fee S 25.000 S 25,000 $ - 100.00% S 275,000 S 275.000 S - 100.00%
Financing/Lease S 623 $ 3.089 $ (2,466) 495.83% S 2&827 $ 42,676 S :(13.849) 148-04%
Total Other Ex enditures 315 385 301 343 1 14 042 95.55% 3476,850 }582 910 6,060) 100.17o,
Desert Willow Golf Academy
Desen Willow Golf Academy S 15,300 S 1833 $ (11.467) 25.05% S 170.550 S 69,847 S (101,703) 4037%
COGS-,Merchandise 5 (4,880) $ (4,068) $ 812 83.36% S (51,007) S (46,216) S 4.791 90.61%
Other Expenditures $ (2,475) $ (1,049) $ L426 42.38% $ (21.490) S (16,278) S 5212 75.75%
Learning Center Income(Loss) S 7,945 S (1,284) $ (9,229) -16.16% $ 98,053 5 6.353 S (91.700) 6.48%
Operating Income(Loss) S 111.900 S 49,941 S (61.859) 44.67% S 547,992 5 252060 S (288.932) 47.276
Equipment Reserve Replacement $ 71.955 S 66,140 $ 15.815) 91.92% $ 791,505 $ 802.054 S 10.549 101.33%
het Income Loss 39 845 16 199 56 044 -40.66% 24}513 542 994 299 4%I 222.9%°/
Snapshot of Golf Rounds Budgeted(me) Actual mo Variance Variance% Budgeted vtd Actual vtd Variance Variance%
Resident 1,336 1,129 (207) 85% 17.264 19,548 2.284 113%
Non Resident 5,368 5.591 223 104% 45,351 45,898 547 101%
Other - 35 35 100% - 1.376 1,376 100%
Com limentan 220 388 168 176% 1.908 5.113 3,205 208%
Total 6,924 7,143 219 103% 64,523 71,935 7,412 111%
Folder:Desert Willow 2001:Dw2002;Financial Statement Page 1
\ ( \ } / _\ ' ) k
( ,
® � � ` ~ � /
\ +/ / � /! ) k
§ § \ $M -8
aool � a _
/± .
. ) `
) !
)
) §
/!_ a ] �
§ �
° k [ § #
| !
) `
{�$ f co
a a
\
\ y
!
r
m
6
n �
—
w
wwwwww w wwwwww w wwwwwwwwwwww w www w w w w
y On + w wwww w w wwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
n
O y a
TQ _V wwwwww wwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww www w w
a
�' U 'J
4 ;
80
o y
8 �
N
8 �
N R
8O
Q e6 N
Ila
N y
cd
W C >
8 N
rQv 0 O
U 0 V
, N
Oci
N �
.a
U G Q
N Y�
w N
4 8
D+ O
G
w N
�1
v ^
y
U
5
N
N
�8p1
O
/
d |
§ k �
\
\ �
;
/
§ ;
CM
B 29 !
E § . i
ca
k0 /k � z/
-
2 ! ! k f ;9
Xm \ \ \ # § .
c t % § C
§ C-4 LU
so f
/CM
� . 7
k
cc
) k �
� \
\ k / \ \ CD /
) J 7 : -a ] !
AJOBQm � ` ]
. !
w �
U �
w a
w
m m NON bo bs BQ B' b� S` S
V O� �D 00 �D •t �A r
y ao t� 00 00 h oo r ao 0o vi �
r N M 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0
O O N
O •$
'z O
0
U
� N
zrt E
0
w U
y O
4i may/ b� b� b� b� b� b� Sb� 6� B� b� S i
y
n o4 Z
a O W
� SSS � 6RSb� S° S' S° S
O
3 M ^ op r r N O r00cc
C N 0 0 N N N
y� Oen
C a, N N N M N m N o cC O M O N v1 v1 O V T vl vl
y z >
La sS° b� SS� � S° S° S° S b� S rv� � � r ^ v� — ter = N
4- �- r. N C N cNn tM�t N N ON N tn
tn C
00
Vl L
� A
O� r �/'1 M _ �p N Vl a0 �O •O 9 D` V r V v1 O O� r
G N •-. •-• iD N N M M Vt O 7 �+ _ VI VI n CO _ _ 'p n R
y
v� — -• 00 N -• �O N V) _ h � a+ v1 ,-• .� 00 N .-. �D N v� — v1 r
yO = _ .--. .-. .-. V M M � � V1 M � = LO � _ —• •� ^• •.• V M M � Vl V1 M r h
F � en a �0 M a.
N
79
'C h
y_
y � �
O � `v v y T w •L G GLi N y T � �
v T = G O O
0.1 .�iQV] OzCa <c 0zo —�°. CL �EQ2 U
= A
- - - - - - - - - -bRA
• V �p
A
w
a
u`9
am'
v �
sa
0
q N INn N O O= P N rl N N
>
n
�m
V
O 6 V N
F C 6
O
V
Y 5
N tR
d : N
V � Ni V �"• � � �J v^ N �N N v � V _ O P �N P N N nt to N �
M ^
> om
Z
y � re •o min .� � '
om'
= z°
cese � � � secececears 58
F
z
-
00 rvrr NmInIn
> e >
U
V O P
3� - n n v u ry ry N n 'O •- _ �
} Z r C m
_ pp�O p_p _ i
r 0 0 0 d O A N .r-. .�-. b ng N - - - r - 4 �
n ie
z
s F t F N
o y a y s
T ep C O
< h0Z 5+ nL � 6 � U < '�{. OZG
i
a 00
>
a
' .M
93
O 6 ^ ^ O
0
S
O
� 0
vi SS e L-lz Liz S tR bR b3R ZRS
00 �Dcl
O a
O
U
o N
0
w U
0
� � ass� ssssssss s
rj
ay
4. ..�i ;: r V V w O V N N �c V N e6� e bR �
M M r oo �O M oo C U M �n O �D N r N O M o0 �
R
W Z 7
Q
S S 00Nvv� 7 — oo oo �oO p ,
00 G ^ 7
N y
7
M S: ti O r O M O O O O O� ao pp
'R
G - - � 00 M N � M OO N r � � ❑ � N 7 r ^ �/1 N N O N V CN
O L
N O K N
a u CIL
o "0
u >
co �n v CD m m r a+ o0 00 0o v� v co rn o0 00 a� o0
O fn
r- cn
F M H U O
Q a
'D m N
C
It o
� N
3 °
'� v N T C •L � d P � T " �
0. >O v C P icV '.'� G T j v O
—3. Q fn O z A .R-. [L G Q 2 U uo O z
ceae wee ae � et � ae � et ye .
- - — — — — — — — — - —
� A
V �
Y y
m � O
C 7
O
G9 ,
gym'
0
� a
Y y
3a
0
bRcebR tRbR � ce �
�n
rt
c�
U
O GU
F ea
U
ti Y BQ 6Q BQ BQ 6Q BQ BQ 9Q 6Q Be 6e g°
a ceeE s� ee eE arce epece ee ape. B° — P �no �c o �- - —
a
O
y N m d v Q o v y N N N N
owl
F �9
to
Z
P —
C
C]
R
z
G V
_ _ —
r�
>
R� A
C
} C >
O
F "
I
m n
o cJc. ry F
y 5 } s
o o m
/
} ) k
� ( / ! ` ■
Ve� a ■ | ; -
0 �2
, | 2
!
42
2
q ! |
§ a '
a I
\ ; }
_ \
Desert Willow
Breakdown of Rounds
per point of sale system
Desert Willow - Combined Analysis- MAY 2002
Resident 1,129 $ 50,780 $ 44.98 15.80%
Non-Resident 5,591 $ 361,503 $ 64.66 78.30%
Other 1 35 $ 350 $ 10.00 0.50%
Complimentary I 388 1 $ 1,200 $ 3.09 5.40%
Desert Willow Totals i 7,143 413,833 ! 57.94 , 100.00%
Dw2002;POS AVG RD Page 11
Desert Willow
Breakdown of Rounds
per point of sale system
FIRECLIFF COURSE- MAY 2002
Description No. Of Revenue__! Avg. Per _Pct.to
Rounds Per POS Round Total
Resident Rounds
Resident Fee- Weekend 248 $ 11,135 $ 44.90 7.46%
Resident Fee-Weekday 152 $ 6,840 $ 45.00 4.57%
Resident_Twilight_ 19 855— $ 45.00 0.57%
Total Resident 419 18,830 44.94 12.60%
Non Resident
Posted Weekend 154 1 $ 167,940 $ 110.00 4.63%
Posted Weekday 133 1 $ 11,970 $ 90.00 — 4.00%
IROC Des. PRTY - Weekday 65 ! $ 2,925 : $ 45.00 1.95%
IROC Des. PRTY - Weekend 126 $ 6,930 $ 55.00 3.79%
IROC Member Guest- Weekday 23 $ 1,656 $ 72.00 0.69%
IROC Member Guest- Weekend 33 $ 2,904 $ 88.00 0.99%
Wholesale Weekend 155 $ 12,312 $ 79.43 4.66%
Wholesale Weekday 185 $ 12,453 $ 67.31 5.56%
Twilight 218 $ 14,170 $ 65.00 6.56%
Posted Replay 26 $ 1,484 $ 57.08 0.78%
Outing 1,520 $ 91,660 $ 60.30 45.71%
Fee Pass Fire - Card 10 $ 700 $ 70.00 0.30%
Fee Special Event Variable - 88 $ 5,742 . -$ 65.25 2.65%
Total Non Resident Rounds 2,736 181,846 66.46 82.29%
Other Rounds
Junior Walking 19 $ 190 $ 10.00 0.57
Total Other 19 190 10.00 0.57%
Complimentary . - ---- -- - — — ---- -------- -- -- - - ._ . - - --
VIP - 27 $ $ 0.81%
PGA Member 32 $ 275 $ 8.59 0.96%
Donation 16 $ 200 $ 12.50 0.48%
COD / PDHS _ _ 21 $ - $ - 0.63%
Employee / Employee Guest - 55 $ - $ - 1.65%
Total Complimentary 151 475 $ 3.15 4.54%
Total Round (FireClifi) 3,325 $ 201,341 $ 60.55 100.00%
Dw2002;POS AVG RD Page 12
Desert Willow
Breakdown of Rounds
per point of sale system
MOUNTAINVIEW COURSE- MAY 2002
Description j No. Of Revenue 'Avg. Per Pet to
j Rounds ! PerPOS Round Total
Resident Rounds _
Resident Fee- Weekend 283 j$ 12,735 . $ 45.00 7.41%
Resident Fee-Weekday 373 1 $ 16,785 1 $ 45.00 9.77%
Resident Twilight 54 $ 2,430 $ 45.00 _ I_41%
Total Resident 710 31,950 45.00 18.60%
Non Resident
Posted Weekend 88 i $ 9,680 $ I10.00 2.30%
Posted Weekday 71 $ 6,390 : $_ 90.00 1.86%
IROC Des. PRTY- Weekday 91 $ 4,095 $ 45.00 2.38%
IROC Des. PRTY- Weekend 138 $ _ 7,590 $ 55.00 3.61%
IROC Member - Weekday 52 ! $ 3,744 $ 72.00_ 1.36%
IROC Member Guest - Weekend 44 j $ 3,872 $ 88.00 1.15%
Wholesale Weekend - 178 1 $ 13,824 $ 77.66 4.669%
Wholesale Weekday 165 $ 10,165 $ 61.61 4.32%
Fee Pass - Card ____ __ 10 $ ' 700 $ 70.00 0.26%
Outing _ 1,715 . $ 100,490_ $ 58.59 4. 4.92%
Replay 4 $ 310 $ 77.50 0.10%
Twilight _ 239 $ 15,535 $ 65.00 6.2_6%
Fee Special Event Variable 60 $ 3,262 — $ 54.37 _ 1_57%
Total Non Resident Rounds 2,855 179,657 62.93 74.78%
Other Rounds
Junior Walking 16 $ 160 $ 10.00 0.42%
Total Other 16 160 10.00 0.42%
Complimentary
VIP 24 $ — - $ 0.63%
PGA Member 40 $ 175 $ 4.38 1.05%
Donation 40 $ 550 $ 13.75 1.05%
Employee / Employee Guest _ _ 106 $ _ _ $ __ _ 2.78%
COD / PDHS —_ _-_ 27 $ — $ -_0.71%
Total Complimentary 237 725 3.06 6.21%
Total Round (Mountainvie 3,818 $ 212,492 $ 55.66 100%
w)
Dw2002;POS AVG RD Page 13
City of Palm Desert
Desert Willow
Cash Reserve Analysis
for the month of
May 2002
Cash Reserve Analysis One Month
Required Reserve $ 500,000.00
Cash on Hand $ 891,286.75
Variance- Favorable ( Unfavorable $ 391,286.75—�
Page 14
PalmDesert Recreation Facilities Corporation
Income Statement
May-02 May-02 k %
Budget Actual Variance Variance
Food & Beverage Revenues $148,833 $151,635 $2,802 101.88%
Total Revenues $148,833 $151,635 $2,802 101.88%
Salaries $61,914 $66,070 ($4,156) 106.71%
Cost of Goods Sold-F&B $46,023 $48,698 ($2,675) 105.81%
Food & Beverage Expense $15,140 $13,096 $2,044 86.50%
Total Expenses $123,077 $127,864 ($4,787) 103.89%
Net Income (Loss) $25,756 $23,771 ($1,985) 92.29%
Note: The above revenues and expenditures are also included in the Desert Willow analysis.
Dw2002;PDRFC Budget Page 1
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
SOURCES & USES
Dated 07/11/2002 Delivered 07/11/2002
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Par Amount of Bonds.................................................................... $17,310,000.00
Reoffering Premium...................................................................... 56,084.50
TOTAL SOURCES.......................................................................... $17,366,084.50
USES OF FUNDS
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.025%)......................................... 177,427.50
Costs of Issuance......................................................................... 156,375.00
Gross Bond Insurance Premium..................................................... 221,000.00
Reserve Surety Premium............................................................... 41,000.00
Deposit to Current Refunding Fund................................................ 15,589,800.36 -
New Money Proceeds.................................................................... 1,180,481.64
TOTALUSES................................................................................ $17,366,084.50
Kinsell,Newcomb&De Dios, Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 611912002 10:59 AM
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I
8/01/2002 - - -
8/01/2003 645,000.00 3.000% 780,939.58 1,425,939.58
8/01/2004 665,000.00 3.000% 720,487.50 1,385,487.50
8/01/2005 690,000.00 3.000% 700,537.50 1,390,537.50 -
8/01/2006 630,000.00 2.700% 679,837.50 1,309,837.50
8/01/2007 650,000.90 3.000% 662,827.50 1,312,827.50
8/01/2008 675,000.00 3.400% 643,327.50 1,318,327.50
8/01/2009 695,000.00 3.600% 620,377.50 1,315,377.50 -
8/01/2010 720,000.00 3.850% 595,357.50 1,315,357.50
8/01/2011 760,000.00 5.000% 567,637.50 1,327,637.50
8/01/2012 795,000.00 5.000% 529,637.50 1,324,637.50
8/01/2013 835,000.00 4.200% 489,887.50 1,324,887.50
8/01/2014 870,000.00 4.300% 454,817.50 1,324,817.50
8/01/2015 910,000.00 4.400% 417,407.50 1,327,407.50
8/01/2016 955,000.00 4.600% 377,367.50 1,332,367.50
8/01/2017 995,000.00 4.750% 333,437.50 1,328,437.50
8/01/2018 1,050,000.00 4.750% 286,175.00 1,336,175.00
8/01/2019 1,100,000.00 4.800% 236,300.00 1,336,300.00
8/01/2020 1,160,000.00 5.000% 183,500.00 1,343,500.00
8/01/2021 1,230,000.00 5.000% 125,500.00 1,355,500.00
8/01/2022 1,280,000.00 5.000% 64,000.00 1,344,000.00
Total 17,310,000.00 9,469,359.58 26,779,359.58
YIELD STATISTICS
BondYear Dollars............................................................................................................. $205,341.67
AverageLife....................................................................................................................P. 11.863 Years
AverageCoupon.................................:............................................................................. 4.b115139%
Net Interest Cost(NIC)......................................................................6.............................4 4.6706072% ..
True Interest Cost(TIC)...........................................................................................6........ 4.6470663%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes.........................................................6...........................6 4.7039471% -.
All Inclusive Cost(AIC)...................................................................................................... 449325631%
IRS FORM 8038
Net Interest Cost............................................................. ..................,.........:................... 4.5841421%
Weighted Average Maturity................................................................................................ 11.824 Years
Kinsell, Newcomb 6 De Dios, Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance - 6/19/2002 10.59 AM
t
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I
8/01/2002 - - - -
2/01/2003 - - 411,020.83 411,020.83
8/01/2003 645,000.00 3.000% 369,918.75 1,014,918.75
2/01/2004 - - 360,243.75 360,243.75
8/01/2004 665,000.00 3.000% 360,243.75 1,025,243.75
2/01/2005 - - 350,268.75 350,268.75
8/01/2005 690,000.00 3.000% 350,268.75 1,040,268.75
2/01/2006 - - 339,918.75 339,918.75
8/01/2006 630,000.00 2.700% 339,918.75 969,918.75
2/01/2007 - - 331,413.75 331,413.75
8/01/2007 650,000.00 3.000% 331,413.75 981,413.75
2/01/2008 - - 321,663.75 321,663.75
8/01/2008 675,000.00 3.400% 321,663.75 996,663.75
2/01/2009 - - 310,188.75 310,188.75
8/01/2009 695,0111 3.600% 310,188.75 1,005,188.75
2/01/2010 - - 297,678.75 297,678.75
8/01/2010 720,00(1.00 3.850% 297,678,75 1,017,678.75
2/01/2011 - - 283,818.75 283,818.75
8/01/2011 760,000.00 5.000% 283,818.75 1,043,818.75
2/01/2012 - - 264,818.75 264,818.75
8/01/2012 795,000.00 5.000% 264,818.75 1,059,818.75
2/01/2013 - - 244,943.75 1 244,943.75
8/01/2013 835,000.00 4.200% 244,943.75 1,079,943.75
2/0112014 - - 227,408.75 227,408.75
8/01/2014 870,000.00- 4.300% 227,408.75 1,097,408.75
2/01/2015 - - 208,703.75 208,703.75
8/01/2015 910,000.00 4.400% 208,703.75 1,118,703.75
2/01/2016 - - 188,683.75 188,683.75
8/01/2016 955,000.00 4.600% 188,683.75 1,143,683.75
2/01/2017 - - 166,718.75 166,718.75
8/01/2017 995,000.00 4.750% 166,718.75 1,161,718.75
2/01/2018 - - 143,087.50 143,087.50
8/01/2018 1,050,000.00 4.750% 143,087.50 1,193,087.50
2/01/2019 - - 118,150.00 118,150.00
8/01/2019 1,100,000.00 4.800% 118,150.00 1,218,150.00
2/01/2020 - - 91,750.00 91,750.00 '
8/01/2020 1,161),000.00 5.000% 91,750.00 1,251,750.00
2/01/2021 - - 62,750.00 62,750.00
8/01/2021 1,230,000.00 5.000% 62,750.00 1,292,750.00
2/01/2022 - - 32,000.00 32,000.00
8/01/2022 1,280,000.00 5.000% 32,000.00 1,312,000.00
Total 17,310,000.00 - 9,469,359.58 26,779,359.58
YIELD STATISTICS
Bond Year Dollars............................................................................................. $205,341.67
AverageLife..................................................................................................... 11.863 Years
- Average Coupon............................................................................................... 4.6115139%
Net Interest Cost(NIC)..................................................................................... 4.6706072%
True Interest Cost(TIC).................................................................................... 4,6470663%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes....................................................................... 4.7039471%
All Inclusive Cost(AIC)...................................................................................... 4.9325631%
IRS FORM 8038
Net Interest Cost.............................................................................................. 4.5841421% -
Weighted Average Maturity................................................................................ 11.824 Years
Kmsell,Newcomb 8 De Dios,Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 6/I 912002 10.59 AM
3
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No.2)
Series 2002
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
pope F'Odpa Capon IMOOt Tm0 P+1 FLSULIOTAL
211IQW2 - - - -
2101/2= - - 411,020A3 411,020A3 -
6/30/2001 - - 411,MMU
8/01/2W3 MS,000.W 3.W0% 369,918.n 1,014,918.n -
2/O112W4 - - 3W,MIn 360,243.n -
8/01/2M W,M.W 3.00018 360.243.35 1,025,243.75 -
2/01/2W5 - 3W,20.n MM.n -
6f3(N2W5 - L M51230
B/0l/2W5 6WAW.W 3.O 35%2W.n 1,040,268.n
2/01/2W6 - an"I&M M,918.n
6/30/2M e - - - 1,380.13750
8/01/2006 aW,OW.W 2.T10% 339,918.25 969,918.n -
2/01/2W2 - mi'lan A1,413.M -
6/30/M7 - - - 1,M1,332.50
8/01/20n (30,000A0 3.0)(ft 131,413.75 W1,413.15
2/01/2008 - RL66I.35 ni,eum -
iisl/2008 - - - 1,3031022.50
5/01/2W8 6nAW.W 3.4 321,60.15 ww.ls -
zml/2009 - - 310,168.73 31%M.M -
610/20e) - - 1,3WW250
"lam 695000.W 3AOP.8 '31%1N.25 4MIBB.n -
2/uNlo - 2m,6n.n 39 sn.n -
6/30/2010 - - 1,W2.Bfiz50
8/O112010 ne=.W 3A50% 2W,63B.n 1,017,6W,z5 -
2M1/2011 - - MBa.n 283,81B.n -
61=011 - - 1,WI.M)50
Bro112011 ]611,=.W 5.LdM 2BT,818.35 1,OOA18.3 -
M1/2012 - - 264,81B.n 261,818.n
6/WO12 - - - I'lo,'0250
0/01/2012 795,W0.W 5.W 264,818.n I.M.8I8.n -
2101(2013 - - M,M3.n 2M,W3.75 -
6/30/2013 - - 1.301.26l.w
BIOL12013 BIS,000.W 4.200% 2M,W3.75 1,079,W3.75
2/0112011 - 222,M8.35 2n,Me.n -
6/30/2019
8/01/2014 B20,OW.W 4.30eK 222,4LB.35 I,02,4M.35
V01/2015 - - 2W,M3.73 2MM.n -
6/30/2015 - - - 1,306.11230
B/91/2015 910,WBA0 4.4WW 203,310.35 1,118,M3.n -
2/01/2016 - - 188,W3.z5 IW,W3.n -
WW2016 - - - 1,307.ID250
0112016 955,000.W 4.6W% 1W,W3.73 1,143,03.73 -
2/01/2017 - 16fi,lIB.n lism.n -
6/30/2017 - 1,310.M230
8/01/2017 WS,000.W 4.n096 166J18.n 1,151,318.n -
Vol/2018 - - 1+3,03330 143,W250 -
6/30/2018 - - - - 1,1IN,8W.15
e/01/2018 1,00,000.W 4.250% 1+3,W750 L193,W250 -
2/01/2019 - - 118,IW.W lAlWA0
6/M/2019 - - L311,U230
8/01/2019 I,IW,=.W 4.8W% 118,IW.W 1,21%IW.W
2101/2020 - - 91,350.W 91,n0.W -
W3011W0 - - - LW9,9W.W
0I01I2W0 L1W,WO.W S.WA36 91,M.W
VO1/2021 - - 6z,3W,W 62.350,W "
613MMI - - - - 1.314,WO.W
8I01RW1 1,2IO,OW.W 5.W0% 62.z50.W 1,29L250.W
ZIOU2022 32,=.W 32,WO.W -
6/30/2022
8I0I/2W2 1,2W,OW.W 5.W0% 32,000.W 1,312.WAW -
6/30/2023 - - - - 1,3t2,13M.W
Ta1a1 17,310,00D.W - 9,469,3E.W 26,329559.% -
tt U)STATIMM
BOM YorO m...................._......_.... 82(5,ML67
Artt Lile.......................................... 11A63YdM
A,era UuN.................................... 4.6115139%
NO lntvr t a(NK)........................... 4.6MWz2%
Tn N,Ol Cut(T1Q...._.................. 4.M1 % v
. E Y MMNdt Nurpuu............ 4.M3947I%
ul 1M.WC (MC).................... 4.932501% `
IRS FORM M38
NO lnWnOt Cast.................... ............ 4.W 41421%
We196tM Avva3e Natality..................... 11AMYun
NinaNl,Newcom68Ce pm,lz, FJe=RF019955,Pra &1"2FMd-SINGLE PURPOSE
PUNK Fnemv &191 21059AM ..
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
GROSS DEBT SERVICE COMPARISON
Date Principal Coupon Interest NEW D/S OLD D/S Savings
8/01/2002 - - - - 823,746.25 823,746.25
8/01/2003 645,000.00 3.000% 780,939.58 1,425,939.58 1,277,512.50 (148,427.08)
8/01/2004 665,000.00 3.000% 720,487.50 1,385,487.50 1,273,625.00 (111,862.50)
8/01/2005 690,000.00 3.000% 700,537.50 1,390,537.50 1,273,512.50 (117,025.00)
8/01/2006 630,000.00 2.700% 679,837.50 1,309,837.50 1,276,868.76 (32,968.74)
8/01/2007 650,000.00 3.000% 662,827.50 1,312,827.50 1,273,387.50 (39,440.00)
8/01/2008 675,000.00 3.4000% 643,327.50 1,318,327.50 1,278,375.00 (39,952.50)
8/01/2009 695,000.00 3.600% 620,377.50 1,315,377.50 1,276,218.76 (39,158.74)
8/01/2010 720,000.00 3.850% 595,357.50 1,315,357.50 1,277,225.00 (38,132.50)
8/01/2011 760,000.00 5.000% 567,637.50 1,327,637.50 1,276,087.50 (51,550.00)
8/01/2012 795,000.00 5.000% 529,637.50 1,324,637.50 1,277,806.26 (46,831.24)
8/01/2013 835,000.00 4.200% 489,887.50 1,324,887.50 1,277,075.00 (47,812.50)
8/01/2014 870,000.00 4.300% 454,817.50 1,324,817.50 1,273,893.76 (50,923.74)
8/01/2015 910,000.00 4.400% 417,407.50 1,327,407.50 1,278,262.50 (49,145.00)
8/01/2016 955,000.00 4.600% 377,367.50 1,332,367.50 1,274,568.76 (57,798.74)
8/01/2017 995,000.00 4.750% 333,437.50 1,328,437.50 1,278,118.76 (50,318.74)
8/01/2018 1,050,000.00 4.750% 286,175.00 1,336,175.00 1,278,300.00 (57,875.00)
8/01/2019 1,100,000.00 4.800% 236,300.00 1,336,300.00 1,275,112.50 (61,187.50)
8/01/2020 1,160,000.00 5.000% 183,500.00 1,343,500.00 1,278,556.26 (64,943.74)
8/01/2021 1,230,000.00 5.000% 125,500.00 1,355,500.00 1,278,018.76 (77,481.24)
8/01/2022 1,280,000.00 5.000% 64,000.00 1,344,000.00 1,273,500.00 (70,500.00)
Total 17,310,000.00 - 9,469,359.58 26,779,359.58 26,349,771.33 (429,588.25)
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY(GROSS TO GROSS)
NET PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT............................................................................................ $1,219.08
NET PV BENEFIT/$14,860,000 REFUNDED PRINCIPAL........................................................ 0.008%
NET PV BENEFIT/$17,310,000 REFUNDING PRINCIPAL....................................................... 0.007%
REFUNDING BOND INFORMATION
RefundingDated Date.......................................................................................................... 7/11/2002
Refunding Delivery Date....................................................................................................... 7/11/2002
Kinsell, Newcomb 8 De Dios, Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 6/19/2002 10:59 AM
j
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
PRICING SUMMARY
Maturity Type of Bond Coupon Yield Maturity Value Price Dollar Price
8/01/2003 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.750% 645,000.00 101.301% 653,391.45
8/01/2004 Serial Coupon 3.000% 2.100% 665,000.00 101.800% 676,970.00
8/01/2005 Serial Coupon 3.000% 2.550% 690,000.00 101.313% 699,059.70
8/01/2006 Serial Coupon 2.700% 2.850% 630,000.00 99.428% 626,396.40
8/01/2007 Serial Coupon 3.000% 3.150% 650,000.00 99.302% 645,463.00
8/01/2008 Serial Coupon_ 3.400% 3.500% 675,000.00 99.457% 671,334.75
8/01/2009 Serial Coupon 3.600% 3.700% 695,000.00 99.382% 690,704.90
8/01/2010 Serial Coupon 3.850% 3.950% 720,000.00 99.313% 715,053.60
8/01/2011 Serial Coupon 5.000% 4.050% 760,000.00 107.139% 814,256.40
8/01/2012 Serial Coupon 5.000% 4.150% 795,000.00 106.927% 850,069.65
8/01/2013 Serial Coupon 4.200% 4.300% 835,000.00 99.125% 827,693.75
8/01/2014 Serial Coupon 4.300% 4.400% 870,000.00 99.069% 861,900.30
8/01/2015 Serial _ Coupon 4.400% 4.500% 910,000.00 99.018% 901,063.80
8/01/2016 Serial Coupon 4.600% 4.600% 955,000.00 100.000% 955,000.00
8/01/2017 Serial Coupon 4.750% 4.750% 995,000.00 100.000% 995,000.00
8/01/2018 Serial Coupon 4.750% 4.800% 1,050,000.00 99.441% 1,044,130.50
8/01/2019 Serial Coupon 4.800% 4.900% 1,100,000.00 98.850% 1,087,350.00
8/01/2020 Serial Coupon 5.000% 5.000% 1,160,000.00 100.000% 1,160,000.00
8/01/2021 Serial Coupon 5.000% 5.050% 1,230,000.00 99.389% 1,222,484.70
8/01/2022 Serial Coupon 5.000% 5.070% 1,280,000.00 99.122% 1,268,761.60
Total - - - - 17,310,000.00 - 17,366,084.50
BID INFORMATION
Par Amount of Bonds...................................................................................................... $17,310,000.00
Reoffering Premium or(Discount)...:................................................................................ 56,084.50
Gross Production............................................................................................................ $17,366,084.50
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.025%)....................................................................:...... $(177,427.50)
Bid(99.299%)............................................................................................................... 17,188,657.00
Total Purchase Price....................................................................................................... $17,188,657.00
Bond Year Dollars........................................................................................................... $205,341.67 ,
AverageLife.................................................................................................:................. 11.863 Years
AverageCoupon..............................................................I...................y......................... 4.6115139%
Net Interest Cost(NIC)................................................................................................... 4.6706072%
. True Interest Cost(TIC).................................................................................................. 4.6470663%
Kinsell, Newcomb 8 De Dios, Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 6/19/2002 10:59 AM
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Allocation Refunding
Tax A g Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
PROOF OF BOND YIELD @ 4.7039471%
Date Cashflow PV Factor Present Value Cumulative PV
7/11/2002 - 1.000000Ox - -
2/01/2003 411,020.83 0.9745003x 400,539.92 400,539.92
8/01/2003 1,014,918.75 0.9521070x 966,311.24 1,366,851.16
2/01/2004 360,243.75 0.9302283x 335,108.92 1,701,960.08
8/01/2004 1,025,243.75 0.9088523x 931,795.15 2,633,755.23
2/01/2005 350,268.75 0.8879675x 311,027.28 2,944,782.51
8/01/2005 1,040,268.75 0.8675627x 902,498.36 3,847,280.87
2/01/2006 339,918.75 0.8476267x 288,124.22 4,135,405.10
8/01/2006 969,918.75 0.8281489x 803,237.14 4,938,642.24
2/01/2007 331,413.75 0.8091186x 268,153.04 5,206,795.28
8/01/2007 981,413.75 0.7905257x 775,832.78 5,982,628.06
2/01/2008 321,663.75 0.7723600x 248,440.21 6,231,068.27
8/01/2008 996,663.75 0.7546117x 752,094.14 6,983,162.42
2/01/2009 310,188.75 0.7372713x 228,693.26 7,211,855.68
8/01/2009 1,005,188.75 0.7203293x 724,066.94 7,935,922.62
2/01/2010 297,678.75 0.7037767x 209,499.37 8,145,421.99
8/01/2010 1,017,678.75 0.6876044x 699,760.41 8,845,182.39
2/01/2011 283,818.75 0.6718038x 190,670.51 9,035,852.90
8/01/2011 1,043,818.75 0.6563662x 685,127.36 9,720,980.26
2/01/2012 264,818.75 0.6412834x 169,823.87 9,890,804.13
8/01/2012 1,059,818,75 0.6265472x 664,026.44 10,554,830.57
2/01/2013 244,943.75 0.6121496x 149,942.21 10,704,772.79
8/01/2013 1,079,943.75 0.5980828x 645,895.81 11,350,668.60
2/01/2014 227,408.75 0.5843393x 132,883.87 11,483,552.47
8/01/2014 1,097,408.75 0.5709116x 626,523.42 12,110,075.89
2/01/2015 208,703.75 0.5577925x 116,413.39 12,226,489.28
8/01/2015 1,118,703.75 0.5449748x 609,665.39 12,836,154.67
2/01/2016 188,683.75 0.5324517x 100,464.99 12,936,619.66
8/01/2016 1,143,683.75 0.5202164x 594,963.00 13,531,582.65
2/01/2017 166,718.75 0.5082622x 84,736.83 13,616,319.49
8/01/2017 1,161,718.75 0.4965827x 576,889.41 14,193,208.89
2/01/2018 143,087.50 0.4851716x 69,421.99 14,262,630.88
8/01/2018 1,193,087.50 0.4740227x 565,550.53 14,828,181.41
2/01/2019 118,150.00 0.4631300x 54,718.81 14,882,900.22
8/01/2019 1,218,150.00 0.4524876x 551,197.77 15,434,097.99
2/01/2020 91,750.00 0.4420898x 40,561.74 15,474,659.72
8/01/2020 1,251,750.00 0.4319309x 540,669.46 16,015,329.18
2/01/2021 62,750.00 0.4220054x 26,480.84 16,041,810.02
8/01/2021 1,292,750.00 0.4123080x 533,011.21 16,574,821.23
-2/0112022 32,000.00 0.4028335x 12,890.67 16,587,711.90
8/01/2022 1,312,000.00 0.393576A 516,372.60 17,104,084.50
Total 26,779,359.58 - 17,104,084.50
DERIVATION OF TARGET AMOUNT
Par Amount of Bonds.................................................................................................. $17,310,000.00
Reoffering Premium or(Discount)............................................................................... 56,084.50
Bond Insurance Premium........................................................................................... (221,000,00)
Other Credit Enhancement Fees.................................................................................. (41,000.00)
Original Issue Proceeds.............................................................:................................ $17,104,084,50
Kinsell,Newcomb 8 De Dios,Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 6/19/2002 10:59 AM
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
DERIVATION OF FORM 8038 YIELD STATISTICS
Maturity Issuance Value Price Issuance PRICE Exponent Bond Years
7/11/2002 - - - - -
8/01/2003 645,000.00 101.301% 653,391.45 1.0555556x '689,690.98
8/01/2004 665,000.00 101.800% 676,970.00 - 2.0555556x 1,391,549.44
8/01/2005 690,000.00 101.313% 699,059.70 3.0555556x 2,136,015.75
8/01/2006 630,000.00 99.428% 626,396.40 4.0555556x 2,540,385.40
8/01/2007 650,000.00 _ 99.302% 645,463.00 5.0555556x 3,263,174.06
8/01/2008 675,000.00 99.457% 671,334.75 6.0555556x 4,065,304.88
8/01/2009 695,000.00 99.382% 690,704.90 7.0555556x 4,873,306.79
8/01/2010 720,000.00 99.313% 715,053.60 8.0555556x 5,760,154.00
8/01/2011 760,000.00 107.139% 814,256.40 9.0555556x 7,373,544.07
8/01/2012 795,000.00 106.927% 850,069.65 10.0555556x 8,547,922.59
8/01/2013 835,000.00 99.125% 827,693.75 11.0555556x 9,150,614.24
8/01/2014 870,000.00 99.069% 861,900.30 12.0555556x 10,390,686.95
8/01/2015 910,000.00 99.018% 901,063.80 13.0555556x 11,763,888.50
8/01/2016 955,000.00 100.000% 955,000.00 14.0555556x 13,423,055.56
8/01/2017 995,000.00 100.000% 995,000.00 15.0555556x 14,980,277.78
8/01/2018 1,050,000.00 99.441% 1,044,130.50 16.0555556x 16,764,095.25
8/01/2019 1,100,000.00 98.850% 1,087,350.00 17.0555556x 18,545,358.33
8/01/2020 1,160,000.00 100.000% 1,160,000.00 18.0555556x 20,944,444.44
8/01/2021 1,230,000.00 99389% 1,222,484.70 19.0555556x 23,295,125.12
8/01/2022 1,280,000.00 99.122% 1,268,761.60 20.0555556x 25,445,718.76 '
Total 17,310,000.00 - 17,366,084.50 - 205,344,312.87
IRS FORM 8038
Weighted Average Maturity= Bond Years/Issue Price....................................................... 11.824 Years
Total Interest from Debt Service...................................................................................... 9,469,359.58
Reoffering(Premium)or Discount.................................................................................... (56,084.50)
TotalInterest................................................................................................................. 9,413,275.08
NIC= Interest/(Issue Price*Average Maturity)............................................................. 4.5841421%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes.................................................................................... 4.7039471%
Kinsell, Newcomb 8 De Dios, Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 611912002 10:59 AM
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
CURRENT REFUNDING ESCROW
Date Principal Rate -Transfers Receipts Disbursements Cash Balance
7/11/2002 - - - - - -
8/01/2002 15,604,000.00 1.560% (453.75) 15,604,000.00 15,603,546.25
Total 15,604,000.00 - (453.75) 15,604,000.00 15,603,546.25 - -
INVESTMENT PARAMETERS,
Investment Model(PV,GIC,or Securities]........................................................................ securities
Default investment yield target........................................................................................ Bond Yield
Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds.......................................................... 15,589,800.36
Total Cost of Investments............................................................................................... $15,589,800.36
Target Cost of Investments at bond yield......................................................................... $15,563,293.59
Actual positive or(negative)arbitrage.............................................................................. (26,506.77)
Yieldto Receipt.............................................................................................................. 1.6454778%
Yield for Arbitrage Purposes............................................................................................ 4.7039471%
Kinsell,Newcomb&De Dios, Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 611912002 10:59 AM
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Refunding Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
CURRENT REFUNDING ESCROW SUMMARY COST
Maturity Type Coupon Yield Price Par Amount Principal Cost +Accrued Interest = Total Cost
CURRENT REFUNDING ESCROW
8/01/2002 T-BILL 1.560% 1.583% 99-.909000 15,604,000 15,589,800.36 - 15,589,800.36
Sub-Total 15,604,000 15,589,800.36 15,589,800.36
Total 15,604,000 15,589,800.36 15,589,800.36
CURRENT REFUNDING ESCROW
Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds............................................. 15,589,800.36
Total Cost of Investments................................................................................... $15,589,800.36 -.
DeliveryDate..................................................................................................... 7/11/2002
Kinsell,Newcomb 8 De Dios,Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 5-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 611912002 10:59 AM
� a
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Project Area No. 2)
Series 2002
DETAIL COSTS OF ISSUANCE
Dated 07/11/2002 Delivered 07/11/2002
COSTS OF ISSUANCE DETAIL
Financial Advisor................................................................................ $43,000.00
Disclosure Counsel...... ...................................................................... $23,000.00
Bond Counsel Cost............................................................................. $2,000.00
Feasibility Study................................................................................ $18,000.00
Bond Counsel.................................................................................... $42,000.00 -
Trustee/Paying/Escrow Agent............................................................ $3,375.00
TrusteeCounsel................................................................................ $1,500.00
Verification Report............................................................................. $3,500.00
Rating............................................................................................... $10,000.00
Printing/Miscellaneous...................................................................... $10,000.00
TOTAL.............................................................................................. $156,375.00 ..
Kinsell, Newcomb S De Dios,Inc. File=RFD 1995.SF-Pricing 6-19-02 Final-SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 6/19/2002 10:59 AM
Palm Desert Financing Authority
Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds
Project Area 2
Series 2002
Total Tax
Increment Proposed 1992
Available for Existing Series Refunding Debt Annual
Fiscal Year Debt Service 1995 Debt Service Service Total Debt Service Coverage
2003 3,926,119 265,050 411,021 676,071 5.81
2004 3,996,416 268,400 1',375,163 1,643,563 2.43
2005 4,068,119 266,606 1,375,513 1,642,119 2.48
2006 4,141,253 264,795 1,380,188 1,644,983 2.52
2007 4,215,848 340,481 1,301,333 1,641,814 2.57
2008 4,291,933 .. 338,528 1,303,078 1,641,605 2.61
2009 4,369,538 336,279 1,306,853 1,643,131 2.66
2010 4,346,465 338,586 1,302,868 1,641,454 2.65
2011 4,427,201 340,304 1,301,498 1,641,801 2.70
2012 4,509,551 336,580 1,308,638 1,645,218 2.74
2013 4,593,546 337,413 1,304,763 1,642,175 2.80
2014 4,679,218 337,653 1,307,353 1,645,005 2.84
2015 4,766,603 337,300 1,306,113 1,643,413 2.90
2016 4,855,733 336,355 1,307,388 1,643,743 2.95
2017 4,946,644 334,818 1,310,403 1,645,220 3.01
2018 5,039,371 337,536 1,304,806 1,642,343 3.07
2019 5,133,951 334,511 1,311,238 1,645,749 3.12
2020 5,332,650 335,745 1,309,900 1,645,645 3.24
2021 5,431,047 331,243 1,314,500 1,645,743 3.30
2022 5,531,410 316,448 1,324,750 1,641,198 3.37
2023 5,633,779 330,770 1,312,000 1,642,770 3.43
2024 5,738,193 319,064 319,064 17.98
2025 5,844,693 321,621 321,621 18.17
2026 5,953,322 133,803 133,803 44.49
7,539,886 26,779,360 34,319,246