HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-22 IFC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet _ CITY OF PALM DESERT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: DIANA LEAL, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY i
DATE: MAY 17, 2002
SUBJECT: INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Please incorporate the attached documents into your sorters for the Investment and
Finance Committee meeting of Wednesday, May 22, 2002.
Sorter
Section Item
New Business A City and Redevelopment Agency Investment
Schedules and Summary of Cash Reports for
April 2002
B State of California Local Agency Investment
Fund Balance
GARnance\Diana LeaMpdocs\Investment Committee\2002 Memos%Membersl.wpd
COMMITTEE MEETING WORKSHEET
Meeting Description Investment Committee Meeting Date 5/22/02 Time 2:00 p.m.
Location North Wing Conference Room Mailed Agenda 5/15/02
Posted Agenda 5/15/02
Time
Convene Adjournment
o Z,
Staff Members Attending Yes No Others Attending Yes No
1 Paul Gibson, Chairperson 10 Dennis Coleman
2 Council Member ✓ 11 Justin McCarthy - W
3 Council Member JJ12 Recording Secretary
4 Dave Erwin, City Attorney
5 Carlos Ortega, City Mgr.
6 Thomas Jeffrey
Public Members Attending Guests Attending
7 Russ Campbell 12
8 Murray Magloff 13
9 Bill Veazie 14
10 Everett Wood VII, 15
16
17
n o Follow-Ups/Tasks Assigned Person Responsible Due Date
b `
1
2
3
4
5
6 ;
7
8
.. �® MEETING NOTES
Fill
.111M_'1'� �� . �.��r. ,
=�M ,_,�� I �.�- . .,� -��
IN, t it /1 . _o %�" 0
���■ra y%s MUM A ZAA
i
.. ®® MEETING NOTES
��
0, e /_ . _( ��� / ,
i��ii�l/' ••=�Mrf Ulf,PIA "Al
Opp
/i
GM- A
u
,• - ®m •
_ _
179' .Nwi l_
MUM
.A)MA . r ).ijf
�__� i � .-alias_ i _. I)• a , s !/)�A/F�'/�
sir
I-__ _ IMM VIVOR_I -_
M�m
Im"Ifflorl"I Ma WINE
W_m:�i"i' � tee' . i c • il,��
M�m ... / . r �►7
Spoke Mtn (1) Mtn (2) MEETING NOTES
471
Gt6
Lla
6
l C<Gh /S
r o d
z16o - o
fv
Spoke Mtn (1) Mtn (2) MEETING NOTES
Spoke Mtn (1) Mtn (2) MEETING NOTES
Spoke Mtn (1) Mtn (2) MEETING NOTES
Spoke Mtn (1) Mtn (2) MEETING NOTES
I
CITY OF PALM DESERT
�•
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: DIANA LEAL, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY-f
DATE: MAY 17, 2002
SUBJECT: INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Please incorporate the attached documents into your sorters for the Investment and
Finance Committee meeting of Wednesday, May 22, 2002.
Sorter
Section Item
New Business A City and Redevelopment Agency Investment
Schedules and Summary of Cash Reports for
April 2002
B State of California Local Agency Investment
Fund Balance
GAFinance\Diana Leal\Wpdocs\Investment Gommittee\2002 Memos\Membersi mpd
_ CITY OF PALM DESERT
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA
May 22, 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 April 24, 2002, as
submitted.
Action:
1
052202wpd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA April 24, 2002
VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. City and Redevelopment Agency Investment Schedules and
Summary of Cash Reports for April 2002
Rec: Review and submit for the next City Council agenda.
Review the presentation on the investment graphs. Review
the investment activity for April 2002. Review status of
capital projects and cash-flow projections.
Action:
B. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund Balance
Rec: Informational item for the Committee to review. No action
required
C. Conflict of Interest Presentation by David Erwin
Rec: Informational item for the Committee to review. No action
required
D. Selection of Audit Firm
Rec: Report and submit to City Council
Action:
E. City and Redevelopment Agency Monthly Financial Reports for City
Council for April 2002
Rec: Report and submit to City Council
Action:
F. Parkview Professional Office Buildings - Financial Report for
April 2002
Rec: Review and file report:
Action:
2
052202.wpd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA April 24, 2002
G. Palm Desert Golf Course Facilities Corporation Financial
Information for April 2002 (Will be distributed at the meeting)
Rec: Review and file report
Action:
VIII. 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, June 26, 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 15`" day of May, 2002.
VWi9ee"aY,'Wqbordir(g Secretary
3
0szz0z.w d
Finance Department
MEMORANDUM
To: Gloria Martinez, Records Technician
From: Diana Leal, Administrative Secret
Subject: Investment and Finance Committee
Date: June 28, 2002
Attached is a copy of the sign in sheet for the Investment and Finance Committee meeting of May
22, 2002 for your files.
Attachments (1)
GAFinanceTiana Leal\Wpdocs\Investment Committee\2002 Memos\City C1erk\5-22-02.wpd
.4 Finance Department
5
MEMORANDUM
To: Rachelle Klassen, Deputy City Clerk
From: Diana Leal, Administrative Secretary �� 1
Subject: Investment and Finance Committee
Date: June 28, 2002
Attached is a copy of the May 22,2002 minutes of the Investment and Finance Committee approved
by the Committee on June 26, 2002. Please place on the next City Council agenda for approval
thereof.
Thank you for your assistance.
Attachments (1)
G:Tinance\Diana Leal\Wpdocs\Investment Committee\2002 Memos\City Clerk\5-22-02.wpd
_ CITY OF PALM DESERT
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Minutes
May 22, 2002, 2:00 p.m.
North Wing Conference Room
I. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Gibson on Wednesday,
May 22, 2002 at 2:04 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Absent:
Paul Gibson, Chairman None
Thomas Jeffrey, Investment Manager
Dick Kelly, Mayor
Jean Benson, Mayor Pro-Tempore
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
David Erwin, City Attorney
Murray Magloff
Bill Veazie
Russ Campbell
Everett Wood
Also Present:
David Yrigoyen, Redevelopment Director
Dennis Coleman, Redevelopment Finance Manager
Jose Luis Espinoza, Finance Operations Manager
Rodney Young, General Manager - Desert Willow
Diana Leal, Recording Secretary
Guests:
Oscar Armijo, CPA
Elizabeth Gobble
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -
Oscar Armijo who represents the joint venture of Hutchinson and Bloodgood,
LLP and Oscar G. Armijo, CPA introduced himself and his assistant Elizabeth
Gobble. He said that even though their firm was not selected to participate in the
interview process for the selection of an audit services firm, they were in
attendance to make themselves available to answer any questions that the
committee had in relation to their proposal which was submitted for
consideration.
1
52202 w d
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
No questions were asked by the committee. Mr. Gibson thanked Mr. Armijo for
attending and discussion ensued to the next agenda item.
IV. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS - None
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Wood said that on page 7 of the minutes it made mention that IROC
had not contributed their funds and he wanted to find out what the status
was on this matter. Mr. Gibson said IROC submitted their funds
approximately 3 weeks ago.
Motion was made by Mr. Veazie and seconded by Mr. Erwin to approve
the Minutes of the April 24, 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 April 2002
Mr. Jeffrey gave a brief overview of the April 2002 Investment Reports.
For the month ended April 31, 2002, the book value of the City Portfolio
was approximately $164,612,000. The City earned approximately
$420,000 in interest during that month. The City Portfolio yield-to-maturity
was 3.18%.
For the month ended April 31, 2002, the book value of the RDA Portfolio
was approximately $106,058,000. The RDA earned approximately
$232,000 in interest during that month. The RDA Portfolio yield-to-
maturity was 2.42%.
Mr. Jeffrey also provided the Committee with a list of$14 million of
securities that he had purchased for the City's portfolio since the last
Finance Committee meeting.
Mr. Gibson said that the Council had approved using CAMP as an
alternative to LAIF. Staff is in the process of getting the paperwork
processed and mailed to CAMP in order to transfer $30 million. This will
2
52202."d
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
allow the City to meet its liabilities if the State does not duly adopt a
budget and LAIF monies are frozen again. This amount should be
sufficient to cover the City's operating needs through November.
B. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund Balance
Mr. Gibson said that a copy of the statement of account was distributed to
the committee. $30 million ($15 million from the City and $15 million from
RDA) will be transferred from LAIF to CAMP.
C. Conflict of Interest Presentation by David Erwin
Mr. Erwin said that several years ago, the City began speaking with
individuals, who desired to be on City committees and commissions, about
the Conflict of Interest and the Brown Act prior to being instated as a
member. This year, he is meeting with the various committee/commission
members so that those members who have not had an opportunity to hear
the discussion held about the Brown Act and the Conflict of Interest can
be informed.
The Brown Act, which is called "the open meeting act", has been in place
for many years. Meetings are conducted in an open space so that anyone
who wishes to come in and listen to the meetings is entitled to do so. If
they wish to speak, there is a place on the agenda for them to speak.
Prior to the committee taking any action, the agendas are required to be
posted 72 hours prior to the meeting date. There is a method to add items
to the agenda, however, it takes a vote and a finding of special
circumstances to add an item to the agenda. The idea of the Brown Act is
— The public's business is to be done in the public so that the public has
access and is able to see and hear what is being done with the City's
funds and projects. The Brown Act does provide for attorney/client
privilege and closed sessions which fall under very specific special
circumstances; 1) conference with legal counsel, 2) personnel issues, 3)
threats to public buildings or public facilities. Should anything of this sort
occur, it is potentially possible for the Council and/or any of the committee
or commission members to meet in closed session to discuss those items
should there be a need to do so. There is very specific information
required to be provided prior to entering into a closed session. There are
requirements that once this is done, if you are the committee/commission
making the final decision, the action needs to be announced after the
meeting and it needs to be reflected in the minutes of the meeting.
The Brown Act defines meeting and the definition of a meeting is very
broad. As an example, the council has five members. Three members of
the City Council is a quorum. Three members attending a social event is
3
52202.Pa
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
permitted, however, they should not talk about City business outside the
public forum/meeting. In this day and age, with the advanced technology
such as e-mail, it is very easy to fall into a trap of creating a meeting. It
would be very easy for a member of the Council to send an e-mail urging
two other members of the Council of a position, should they respond, they
potentially have a meeting and have violated the Brown Act. This is
something to be avoided. The purpose of this discussion is to alert
everyone to that possibility so that the members do not necessarily restrict
themselves in social or other occasions, however, members must be very
cautious of what is discussed when the members do get together.
Every year each member fills out a disclosure statement whereby assets,
income sources and debts/obligations are disclosed as are required
through the Conflict of Interest which is occasioned by the Political Reform
Act (PRA) which was passed by the California voters in 1974. The PRA
states that the people making the decisions should not be making
decisions on items when they have a financial interest. Conflict of Interest
deals with financial interests of yourself as an individual. If there is a
financial interest in the subject matter, it should be disclosed and you
should abstain from voting on that particular issue. Mr. Erwin will send
out a chart to each of the members which discusses each of the levels of
financial involvement in ownership of property, sources of income, gifts
and all other items of this nature. He invited all the members to call him if
they have any concerns or questions concerning the Conflict of Interest
statement. Further, if the committee wishes to address any questions or
concerns with staff, they may do so as staff is very familiar with the
Conflict of Interest.
Mr. Erwin thanked the committee for their time.
D. Selection of Audit Firm
Mr. Gibson said that a report was provided to the committee, however,
after discussion with Carlos, staff will be changing the recommendation.
Staff sent out Request for Proposals to five firms; four responses were
received. One firm indicated that they did not have the staffing to be able
to meet the City's schedule. The proposals submitted by the other four
firms were reviewed by Luis Espinoza, the Finance Operations Manager
and himself of which two firms were selected. Mr. Gibson met with the
City Manager and asked his opinion relative as to whether a specific firm
should be included for review. At that point, it was scheduled for the City
Manager, the Assistant City Manager, the Finance Operations Manager
and himself to interview the two firms. The two firms were interviewed by
Justin McCarthy, Dennis Coleman, Luis Espinoza and himself. The two
firms that were interviewed were Diehl Evans and Lance, Soil and
Lunghard. Following the interviews, it was determined that the work would
4
52202.wpd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
be awarded to Diehl Evans, however, since then, it is staff's feeling that
due to the fact that there was a joint venture of Diehl Evans and Oscar
Armijo, it was suggested that a new firm be used, therefore, staff is
recommending Lance Soll and Lunghard to do the upcoming audit.
Mr. Erwin asked how long Oscar Armijo and Diehl Evans were the City's
auditors. Mr. Gibson said that they have been the auditors for
approximately 10 years. He said that in light of the Enron situation,
staff felt that they should change audit firms.
Mr. Wood asked if the same period of time would apply to the new audit
firm. Mr. Gibson said that if the City is satisfied with the first year of audit
services, then the contract could continue for five additional years.
Mr. Magloff said that staff has experience with Lance, Soll and Lunghard.
Mr. Gibson said that they performed a Transient Occupancy Tax audit for
the City. He has requested references for all four firms. Lance, Soll and
Lunghard had excellent City Government experience responses.
Mr. Kelly said that he had a question as to the review team that was used.
It seems to him that most of the organizations he is associated with, the
company that is being audited does not select the audit team. Mr. Gibson
said that they had the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager of
Redevelopment participate in the process. Mr. Kelly said that they also
represented the City. Mr. Gibson said that the selection of the audit
committee was presented to the Investment and Finance Committee at its
last meeting and the committee members agreed that the individuals
suggested to be on the selection committee were fine. Mr. Kelly said that
regardless of what was discussed in the last meeting, he had a problem
with a company being audited having the ability to select a company to do
the auditing. Mr. Wood said that he did not have a problem with having
the City select the audit firm to perform their audit. He thinks it is good as
he thinks that only City staff knows what problems have come about
with the audit firms. He believes that staff has covered themselves very
well if staff is involved with the audit process.
Ms. Benson asked if the audit firm being considered is a local firm. Mr.
Gibson said that they are not local as they are from Riverside. Ms.
Benson asked if this would create a problem. Mr. Gibson said that it did
not create a problem for Diehl Evans who is not a local company to
perform the audit for the last 10 years.
Motion was made by Mr. Wood and seconded by Mr. Magloff that the
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council that they approve
awarding a one-year contract for Audit Services to Lance, Soil and
Lunghard (LSL) with a condition that LSL go before the Investment
5
s22a2.Kyd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
and Finance Committee to request approval for audit services
annually thereafter. Motion carried with Mr. Kelly abstaining.
E. Cif and Redevelopment Agency Monthly Financial Reports for City
Council for April 2002
The Redevelopment Agency Monthly Financial Report was distributed.
The second portion of the tax increment for RDA is expected to be
received on May 27.
Mr. Ortega asked if staff has arranged same day deposit with the County
so that interest is not lost. Mr. Gibson said that the County is wiring every
property tax payment including the $20 million tax increment for RDA.
Mr. Gibson said that they are currently projecting that at the fiscal year
end the City will receive approximately $13 million versus the budgeted
$13.830 million based on the last quarter received up through January.
i
If the City receives Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for May and June
equal to last year, the City should reach the $7 million that is budgeted.
This will be down from last year which was approximately $7.3 million.
With regard to the overall general fund revenues, $33.39 million was
budgeted and Mr. Gibson believes that the City will come within that
figure.
As far as expenditures, the City is $2 million above last year. Fund
balance is projected at a zero net gain with a potential worst case scenario
of a million dollar loss dependent on sales tax, TOT and other revenues.
About one third of the City's revenue between May through accruals
posted at year end.
Mr. Gibson said that the State budget came out for May. One of the
governor's significant revisions which affect the Redevelopment Agency is
that the State are projecting to take 3.5% of the tax increment to shift back
to the state as an "ERAF shift". This percentage will be collected always.
The CRA has indicated that they will suit the state over the issue as the
Cities that receive tax increment have bond obligations, etc.
Mr. Ortega said that the proposed shift is going through hearings and as of
yesterday, the lobbyist is lobbying to have the shift made over three years
only. Even if the argument is won, the City will lose money over the next _
three years. Mr. Gibson said that it would be anywhere between $1.2
million and $1.6 million depending on the interpretation and method used.
6
52202.wpd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
The only hit to the City so far is the booking fees that are reimbursed by
the County which amount to approximately $133,000. The County has
also indicated that the sheriff grants will be cut in half, however, this will
not impact the general fund.
Mr. Wood asked how the City received information regarding what the
state planned to do. Mr. Gibson said that the City receives legislative
alerts which inform the City of pending issues. Mr. Ortega said that there
is a lobbyist who keeps the City updated on a daily basis.
F. Parkview Professional Office Buildings - Financial Report for April 2002
Year to date, the Parkview office buildings have net earnings of$208,000.
Staff expects the buildings to have an occupancy of 95%.
G. Palm Desert Golf Course Facilities Corporation Financial Information for
April 2002
Mr. Young said that in the month of April they did very well. Food and
Beverage are doing an excellent job.
Mr. Erwin asked why the complimentary rounds year to date were off. Mr.
Young said that some of last year's complimentary rounds were not
recorded. Mr. Wood said that he questioned the same at the last meeting
and at that time it was suggested that a policy be in place so that there
would be continuity with the complimentary rounds. Mr. Gibson said that
he believes that it was going to go through the golf course corporation
meeting. The City has a separate president's meeting that meets on a
monthly basis to discuss issues regarding the golf course. At the next
meeting he plans to speak about the rates that are being charged as well
as the complimentary rounds.
Mr. Wood said that he would like everyone to receive the same rates. Mr.
Gibson said that there is a policy in place whereby non-profits receive
lower rates.
Mr. Gibson said that if there is a disgruntled person who could not show
up at a certain time and lost their rounds, Mr. Young has the right to
provide them with a complimentary round in the future.
Ms. Benson asked if the rounds could be broken down into two categories:
complimentary and discounted rounds for recording purposes. Mr. Gibson
said that a category can be added. Mr. Ortega said that this would help in
getting a better accounting of complimentary rounds.
7
52202wptl
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
VIII. 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.
B. Bond Issuance by Palm Desert Financing Authority
Mr. Coleman said that at the last meeting it was discussed that documents
would be taken to the Redevelopment Agency and Financing Authority
regarding a housing bond to acquire some apartments and do other
business related to the apartments. The documents were presented to
the City Council sitting as the Agency and Financing Authority and were
approved. The one thing that he noted was it is almost a $20 million bond
issue including the taxable piece. After further review, they will not be
doing the taxable piece. They will only be doing the tax exempt portion
which is for the acquisition of the apartments (Country Club Estates) and
some of the funding needed for the construction of the apartments on
Santa Rosa Lane. They have a proposed bond issuance going before the
City Council for Project Area #2. They are taking a look at Project Area #2
as was done with Project Area #1. We are proposing to refund
outstanding debt and pull new money out. The difference between Project
Area No. 1 and 2 is that there is a coverage ratio of $1.60/dollar of debt,
thus in order to issue the bonds for every $1/debt that pays for the debt
service there must be $1.60 in revenue. The characteristics of the project
area changed significantly and they are trying to get the coverage down to
$1.25 to every dollar of debt service so that they can issue more debt
when they are ready to do the new money portion. At this time they have
a consultant study report that shows the characteristics of the project area
that the top 10 property owners have an assessed valuation of 31, almost
32%, so they may not be as successful; they may get it from $1.60 to
$1.30 and negotiate milestones to bring it down to $1.25. With the current
rates of today it looks like they can pull about $650,000 out in new money.
They will bring the document to council tomorrow and bring back the
progress back to the Committee. They are looking of closing this
proposed bond issue at the end of June. They are looking at the end of
July to get the housing done giving them plenty of money in time for the
acquisition of the apartments which will be in escrow.
8
52202.Pd
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES May 22, 2002
Mr. Veazie asked if this was pre-refunding outstanding issues at a lower
rate of interest. Mr. Coleman said that this would be a combination of pre-
refund and the current. The 1992 Project Area #2 bonds were a current
as off April 2002. However, the 1995 bonds would be pre-refunding or
what is known as an advance re-funding.
X. NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, June 26, 2002 at 2:00 p.m.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Gibson at 2:40 p.m.
Respect Ily submitted,
Di L c rding Secretary
9
52202.w d
_ 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
06260Z.Pd
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
0626o2.» d
INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGENDA June 26, 2002
F. Palm Desert Golf Course Facilities Corporation Financial
Information for May 2002 (Will be distributed at the meeting)
Rec: Review and file report
Action:
VIII. 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
P 9
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`h day of June, 2002.
4Leal, 9Zq6rdi4g
na Secretary
3
062602.wpd
z & ( 5
2 § o o =
) § §
« ± -j ƒ
a @
in § \ §
a: \ 04> \
/ 3 ) /
04 a
\ \
G
§ to to 0 04
/ § \ - -
o o ° U�
§ ® 69 "
« LU a
§ I 2 =
2
k c § \ - -
« 5 \ \ \
J '
¥
IL a z 7 } cc
]
o + }
2 * 4
a
) ) ) In /
&
o ) § _ ° [ [
w § [ ƒ 2 00 = \ }
[ % 10
/ Cl) } \ oal2J
- 2 = o , , , za
) \ ® § % § 33 § ;
Ilk
Crtq=off RafmDeseti � v
BndnRedeYCIO(jy!mertt:A 'POrtf0tl0
?i .C+d A�w�"Sl � �SC�' �°i�N �°
w COMPLIANCE ANALYS S AND INVESTMENT REPOR1
rilltaraa '� C-'S
Paul S. Gibson, C.C.M.T., Treasurer
Thomas W. Jeffrey, J.D., M.B.A., Investment Manager
Treasurer's Commentary
The Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC) met on 7 May and left the Federal Funds Rate intact at 1.75%. Although the
FOMC believed that the risks of sustainable growth and price stability were balanced, it was uncertain about the sustainability
of demand over the next few quarters. Some FOMC members believe that the Fed should be focusing more on deflation.
The latest quarterly UCLA Anderson Forecast predicts that the U.S. is starting a sluggish recovery slightly ahead of California,
which is predicted to show early signs of a recovery in mid-2002. The current U.S. recession is unusual because it is the first
business-driven recession that the U.S. has experienced since 1950. During a consumer-driven economic cycle, a recession
begins with a collapse in consumer spending, followed by a recovery fueled by sharp increases in consumer spending.
The current recession is different because consumers continued to spend as if there were no recession, while businesses
sharply cut their spending. Since consumer spending cannot increase substantially,the economy is dependent upon an
increase in business spending to stimulate a recovery. UCLA believes that it is unlikely that business spending will be strong
enough to stimulate anyting better than a sluggish recovery over the next few years, since business spending cycles last 10
years or more. The last cycle reached its peak in 2000. Internet commerce has also created intense competition that has
dramatically reduced business profit margins.
Pa"bs- tir wv* C.C.M.T.
Treasurer
PORTFOLIO STATISTICS
Dollars in Thousands
APR-02 MAR-02 FEB-02 JAN-02 DEC-01 NOV-01
CITY
Month-End Book Value"' $ 164,612 $ 158,976 $ 165,313 $ 179,824 $ 163,537 $ 166,386
Month-End Market Value"' $ 166,818 $ 161,199 $ 167,796 $ 182,342 $ 166,130 $ 169,077
Paper Gain (Loss) $ 2,206 $ 2,223 $ 2,483 $ 2,518 $ 2,593 $ 2,691
Interest Earnings $ 420 $ 448 $ 445 $ 488 $ 499 $ 519
Yield-To-Maturity 3.18% 3.17% 3.27%o 3.27% 3.55% 3.69%
Weighted Maturity(Days) 338 332 333 325 364 360
Effective Duration 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.27
RDA
Month-End Book Value"' $ 106,058 $ 134,282 $ 106,319 $ 85,482 $ 85,132 $ 84,935
Month-End Market Value"' $ 108,029 $ 136,190 $ 108,295 $ 87,392 $ 87,015 $ 86,814
Paper Gain (Loss) $ 1,971 $ 1,908 $ 1,976 $ 1,910 $ 1,883 $ 1,879
Interest Earnings $ 232 $ 257 $ 205 $ 184 $ 194 $ 203
Yield-To-Maturity 2.42% 2.28% 2.51% 2.45% 2.61% 2.83%
Weighted Maturity(Days) 164 132 160 202 203 204
Effective Duration 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.27
City.Treasurer's Office
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
"' Omits SLGSs. 760.346.0611
City of Palm Desert- Portfolio Characteristics
30 April 2002
Dollars in Thousands
Ageina Interval Market Value
< 1 M $ 44,385 General Fund Ageing
<2M 3,052
<3M 7,954 .so
<6M 22,252
<1YR 12,050 60 49
<2YR o a
<3YR 3 40 "
o 25
<4YR a
c5YR 20 x* 13
>SYR 3 9 0
Total: $ 89,693 <1M <2M <3M <6M <1YR <2YR
AAA
Retinas` Market Value Credit Quality
490116
AAA $ 81, AI/PI
AA 3,053 053 p%
A 4,081 AA
Al/P1 Unrated Z 2'°
47% A
Unrated•' 78,037 20/<
Total: $ 166,818
Sector Market Value Asset Allocation Money Market Commercial
U.S. Treasury $ 23,115 Funds Paper
Federal Agency , 4% MTNs
26
Money Market Funds 26,404404 Federal Agency � °i s
Commercial Paper 5,967 190/6
MTNs 10,184 I.AIF
23 i
LAIF 40,000
RDA Loan 31,003 U.S.Treasury RDA Loan
Total: $ 166,818 t4% 79a
Month City Yield LAW Yield Variance Pertormance
May01 4.91 5.33 -0.42
Jun 4.71 4.96 -0.25 6.5
Jul 4.53 4.64 -0.11
Aug 4.42 4.50 -0.08 5.5
Sep 4.28 4.35 -0.07
Oct 3.98 3.79 0.19 45
Nov 3.69 3.53 0.17 S
3.5
Dec 3.54 3.26 0.28
Jan02 3.27 3.07 0.20 25 ,
Feb 3.27 2.97 0.31 Mayol Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan02 Feb Mar Apr
Mar 3.17 2.86 0.31
Apr 3.18 2.85 0.34 113 LAIF Yield 13 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
30 April 2002
Market Ratings
Par Value Issuer I Couponj Maturity Cost YTM I Price Value I Moody's I S&P
Medium-Term Notes
$ 1,000,000 ASSOCIATES 6.50 8/15/02 $ 1.005,883 4.38 101.19 $ 1,011,946 Aa3 AA-
$ 2,000,000 DU PONT 6.75 10/15/02 $ 1,999,450 6.81 102.00 $ 2,039,960 Aa3 AA-
$ 2,000,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 6.52 10/8/02 $ 1,997,764 6.80 101.83 $ 2,036,504 Aaa AAA
$ 1,000,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 6.65 9/3102 $ 1,007,456 4.36 101.48 $ 1,014,831 Aaa AAA
$ 4,000,000 GENERAL MOTORS 5.95 3114/03 $ 3,999,869 5.94 102.04 $ 4,081,556 A2 BBB+
is 10,000,000 Subtotals $ 10,010,422 5.97 $ 10,184,796
Commercial Paper-Discount
$ 2,030,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 2.08 1/15/03 $ 1,999,036 2.14 98.65 $ 2,002,500 Aaa AAA
$ 4,015,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC 1.72 7/15/02 $ 3,999,654 1.73 98.75 $ 3,964,859 Aaa AAA
$ 6,045,000 Subtotals $ 5,998,690 1.89 $ 6,967,360
Agencies-Coupon
$ 4,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.50 8/6/02 $ 3,998,385 3.66 100.38 $ 4,015,000 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG 6.63 8/15/02 $ 1.999,493 6.72 101.31 $ 2,026,250 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED NATIONAL MTG ASSOC 6.75 8/15/02 $ 2,013,629 4.29 101.34 $ 2,026,875 Aaa AAA
Is 8,000,000 Subtotals $ 8,011,507 4.58 $ 8,068,125
Agencies-Discount
$ 2,071,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.46 7/30/02 $ 1,999,741 3.60 99.57 $ 2,062,095 Aaa AAA
$ 1,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.34 7/23102 $ 980,175 2.41 99.60 $ 996,000 Aaa AAA
$ 1,000,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.33 6/20/02 $ 982,396 2.39 99.77 $ 997,700 Aaa AAA
$ 2,048,000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.34 10/7/02 $ 2,000,077 2.42 99.16 $ 2,030,797 Aaa AAA
$ 3,977,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 2.30 7/18/02 $ 3,900,774 2.36 99.63 $ 3,962,285 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG 2.35 10/10/02 $ 1,952,608 2.43 99.14 $ 1,982,800 Aaa AAA
$ 2,064,000 FED MTG DISCOUNT NOTE 3.51 6/20/02 $ 2,000,006 3.65 99.77 $ 2,059,253 Aaa AAA
$ 4,080.000 FED NATIONAL MTG ASSOC 2.21 3114/03 $ 3,999,350 2.28 98.03 $ 3,999,624 Aaa AAA
$ 2,000,000 FED NATIONAL MTG ASSOC 1.81 9/16/02 $ 1,985,621 1.82 99.31 $ 1,986,200 Aaa AAA
$ 2,034,000 SALLIE MAE 2.13 2/7/03 $ 1,999,461 2.19 98.31 $ 1,999,625 Aaa AAA
$ 22,274,000 Subtotals $ 21,800,208 2.56 $ 22,076,379
Treasury-Coupon
$ 1,340,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 1,341,571 5.84 101.44 $ 1,359,263 Aaa AAA
$ 15,194,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 5.88 9/30/02 $ 15,195,646 5.84 101.66 $ 15,445,651 Aaa AAA
$ 16,534,000 Subtotals $ 16,537,216 5.84 $ 16,804,913
Treasury-Discount
$ 166,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 5.08 5/15/02 $ 128,677 5.84 99.94 $ 165,907 Aaa AAA
$ 6,170,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 5.03 8/15/02 $ 4,718,446 5.82 99.58 $ 6,144,271 Aaa AAA
$ 6,336,000 Subtotals $ 4,847,122 5.82 $ 6,310,178
NR=Not Rated Page 3 of 7
City of Palm Desert
Portfolio Holdings
30 April 2002
Market Ratings
Par Value Issuer I Couponj Maturity Cost YTM I Price I Value Moody's S 8:P
LGIPs
$ 40,000,000 L.A.I.F. 0.00 5/1/02 $ 40,000,000 2.85 100.00 $ 40,000,000 NR NR
$ 40,000,000 Subtotals $ 40,000,000 2.85 $ 40,000,000
Pooled Funds-AIM
$ 19,369,202 PRIME PORTFOLIO 0.00 5/1/02 $ 19,369,202 1.44 100.00 $ 19,369,202 Aaa AAA
$ 19,369,202 Subtotals $ 19,369,202 1.44 $ 19,369,202
Pooled Funds- HighMark
$ 4,968,415 CITY MAIN SWEEP 0.00 5/1/02 $ 4,968,415 0.80 100.00 $ 4,968,415 NR NR
$ 144,380 DESERT WILLOW SWEEP 0.00 5/1/02 $ 144,380 0.80 100.00 $ 144,380 NR NR
$ 400,580 GOLF COURSE SWEEP 0.00 5/1/02 $ 400,580 0.80 100.00 $ 400,580 NR NR
$ 1,520,991 OFFICE COMPLEX SWEEP 0.00 5/1/02 $ 1,520,991 0.80 100.00 $ 1,520,991 NR NR
$ 7,034,366 Subtotals $ 7,034,366 0.80 $ 7,034,366
City Loan to RDA
$ 31,002,917 CITY OF PALM DESERT 0.00 4/30/32 $ 31,002,917 2.85 100.00 $ 31,002,917 NR NR
$ 31,002,917 Subtotals $ 31,002,917 2.85 $ 31,002,917
Total Investments
$166,595,484 $164,611,650 3.183 $166,818,235
Cash
$ 61,132 OFFICE COMPLEX CHKG 0.00 5/1/02 $ 61,132 0.00 100.00 $ 61,132 NR NR
$ (311,164) CITY MAIN CHKG 0.00 5/1/02 $ (311,164) 0.00 100.00 $ (311,164) NR NR
$ 179,421 DESERT WILLOW CHKG 0.00 5/1/02 $ 179,421 0.00 100.00 $ 179,421 NR NR
$ (17,866) CPD GOLF COURSE 0.00 5/1/02 $ (17,866) 0.00 100.00 $ (17,866) NR NR
$ 28,949 OFFICE COMPLEX TRUST 0.00 5/1/02 $ 28,949 0.00 100.00 $ 28,949 NR NR
$ 86,265 RECREATIONAL FAC CHKG 0.00 5/1/02 $ 86,265 0.00 100.00 $ 86,265 NR NR
$ - VACATION INN CHKG 0.00 5/1/02 $ - 0.00 100.00 $ - NR NR
$ 26,736 Subtotals $ 26,736 0.00 $ 26,736
Cash and Investments
$166,622,221 $164,638,387 $166,844,972
NR=Not Rated Page 4 of 7
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency- Portfolio Characteristics
30 April 2002
Dollars in Thousands
Ageinq Interval Market Value
<1 M $ 89,667 Portfolio Ageing w/o SLGSs
<2M 3,982
<3M - 100
90 88
<6M 851 80 .t
<1YR 194 v 70
<2YR 1,011 0 60
<3YR 6,509 so
a
1` ao
<4YR a° 30
g
<SYR 20
10H 4 0 1 0 1 6 0
>SYR - 0
Total: $ 102,214 <1M <2M <3M <6M <1YR <2YR <3YR <4YR
Quality` Market Value CredR Quality /P1
AAA $ 48,477 AAAF<6
°/>
AA - 45%
A
Al/P1 Unrated
AA55%Unrated" 59,552 0%Total: $ 108,029
Sector Market Value Asset Allocation Money Market
Federal U.S.Treasury
$ 8,989 Funds
Federal Agency 3,969
Money Market Funds 41,307 Federal Agency
LAIF 54,055 40/6
Commercial Paper LAIF
Corporate Bonds - U.S.Treasury W/6
Total: $ 108,029 8%
Month RDA Yield LAIF Yield Variance Performance
May01 4.74 5.33 -0.59
Jun 4.44 4.96 -0.52 7.0
Jul 4.08 4.64 -0.56
6.0
Aug 3.96 4.50 -0.54
Sep 3.69 4.35 -0.66 it 5.0
Oct 3.04 3.79 -0.74 'a 4.0
Nov 2.83 3.53 -0.69
Dec 2.59 3.26 -0.67 3.0 `
Jan02 2.46 3.07 -0.61 2.0 `
Feb 2.51 2.97 -0.46 May01 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan02 Feb Mar Apr
Mar 2.28 2.86 -0.59
Apr 2.42 2.85 -0.43 113 LAIF Yeld p RDA veld
Standard and Poor's Credit Ratings
" LAIF and HighMark Sweep Page 5 of 8
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency
Portfolio Holdings
30 April 2002
Par Value I Issuer I Couponj Maturity I Cost I YTM I Price I Value I Moody's S&P
Agency-Discount
$ 4,000,000 FED HOME LOAN MTG 2.24 6/28/02 $ 3,936,284 2.30 99.73 $ 3,989,200 Aaa AAA
$ 4,000,000 Subtotals $ 3,936,284 2.30 $ 3,989,200
U.S.Treasury-Coupon
$ 422,700 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 423,708 5.43 101.44 $ 428,776 Aaa AAA
$ 405,200 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 406,167 5.43 101.44 $ 411,025 Aaa AAA
$ 9,100 UNITED STATES TREASURY 6.25 8/31/02 $ 9,122 5.43 101.44 $ 9,231 Aaa AAA
$ 837,000 Subtotals $ 838,997 5.43 $ 849,032
U.S.Treasury-Discount
$ 198,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.70 2/15/03 $ 150,793 5.45 98.37 $ 194,765 Aaa AAA
$ 181,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.63 2/15/04 $ 130,168 5.51 94.68 $ 171,369 Aaa AAA
$ 7,143,000 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.59 8/15/04 $ 4,989,671 5.54 92.57 $ 6,612,489 Aaa AAA
$ 532,400 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.66 8/15/03 $ 394,279 5.47 96.92 $ 516,013 Aaa AAA
$ 344,600 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.66 8/15/03 $ 255,200 5.47 96.92 $ 333,993 Aaa AAA
$ 8,399,000 Subtotals $ 5,920,112 5.53 $ 7,828,629
LGIPs
$ 40,000,000 L.A.I.F. 0.00 5/1/02 $ 40,000,000 2.85 100.00 $ 40,000,000 NR NR
$ 14,055,000 L.A.I.F. BOND PROCEEDS 0.00 5/1/02 $ 14,055,000 2.85 100.00 $ 14,055,000 NR NR
$ 54,055,000 Subtotals $ 54,055,000 2.85 $ 54,055,000
Pooled Funds-AIM
$ 35,809,644 PRIME PORTFOLIO 0.00 5/1/02 $ 35,809,644 1.44 100.00 $ 35,809,644 Aaa AAA
$ 35,809,644 Subtotals $ 35,809,644 1.44 $ 35,809,644
Pooled Funds-HighMark
$ 5,294,051 HOUSING AUTH CHK SWEEP 0.00 5/1/02 $ 5,294,051 0.80 100.00 $ 5,294,051 NR NR
$ 203,864 HOUSING AUTH TRT SWEEP 0.00 5/1/02 $ 203,864 0.80 100.00 $ 203,864 NR NR
$ 5,497,915 Subtotals $ 5,497,915 0.80 $ 5,497,915
Total Investments
$ 108,598,559 $ 106,057,952 2.416 $ 108,029,419
Cash
$ 52,424 HOUSING AUTH CHKG 0.00 5/1/02 $ 52,424 0.00 100.00 $ 52,424
$ 51,815 HOUSING AUTH TRUST 0.00 5/1/02 $ 51,815 0.00 100.00 $ 51,815
$ 104,238 Subtotals $ 104,238 0.00 $ 104,238
Total Cash and Investments
$ 108,702,797 $ 106,162,190 $ 108,133,658
NR=Not 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 Treasurer's '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 30 April 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 22 May 2002,
Pa4Ls. rid c.c.M.r.
City Treasurer
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
California Government Code City Investment Policy
CA Govt Maximum Maximum Quality Maximum Maximum Quality % of 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
53601 b ,
53601 c CA State Debt 5 Years No Limit Not Authorized
53601 d CA Local Agency Debt 5 Years No Limit Not Authorized
53601 e ` Fetlerals4 enaes „` 5`Y,eais'` • No Limit': t , ",e a µ .,5`Years ,9:°30%_ „ a "wi , ��181q;« 379e�%.
w_
x v a
-53601 f , Barikefs'sfA&6 tancest ;lWDa e , , 40%,s � , v „a :,180 Da s, „ 40q>, A.1 &'1P 1, eke
53601 t. Corriinercial,Pa er,;:? '270:Da s 25% as 270,''Da s ,,,,'25%, A.1+o,:P:1 , 3:60W s`wg0'0%,5
53601 h ^ " Ne'otialile CDs„ -&.Years " r 30% , s� ; ��'
( u ` ..� 3 ?_' ,t .� SzY,ears a 30.1°m AA or'Aa3 ,2,a" * ,...++�
53601 i ; .;Re 'os , 4 r.�1 Year No Limits ' . 30;Da"s, Y,20% AAAA Aaa n
53601 i Reverse Re os 92 Da s 20% Not Authorized
53601' -','?Medium Teirri Note's r 5 Years:• , .30%Fa , , A. .3 Years 30% a ,A .- 6:1?/0 .,K ?'_„`
;63601 k t .°` ,M itual Fundsf, 90.Da s l 20%„,, "AAA` `Aaa
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 Authorzed
Securities AA Securi
a16429.,, nK 1 LAIFx a ; ,'No.Limit,, S t ? . '. x .No°L'imit hr a .s^24`.3°k 51 Oda
81.2% 100.0%
1 The Cl loan to RDA, which is not a bond, has been approved by the Palm Desert City Council.
Certified California Municipal Treasurer Page 7 of7
n
c
0 0 0 c
� m m 2 m
Y LL ci li ci
0 N y N
m 0
m
U)
M M M N N
W
O O O O p
a F c ) c W
F= Q (i cc
7 ? 7
Q v r- LO (D LO
r O r r r
�I 0 0 0 0 0
F r- rn rn co
> N r 700 r+
N N N r
N
0 U M n co 00N I N p a co
ao 0)
d W 0) N 0) rn
IL
p w m
0 J F M O (ND (0 eN-
U) F- 0 0) 0) 0) 0000 0) 00
¢ 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O)
2 N F V M r r M
U O
Zwco
a w
W
W N U
Q Z ss F» f» v> u>
QQ (LO ((00 M N LO
U a Cfi v p (D w
uj U 0) rn of (ri C
Z rn C C rn rn
� M M
a bq (» (n <n (fl
0 0 0 0 0 0
W O O O O O 0
0 M M 0 1 r IT N
IL Q
O O O O O T
> V N N N V
b9 fA FA EA fA (A
N N
cc cc
CL
Z Q Q Q Q Q
a
0 0 ` 0
w o D m
y o 0 0 _d o f°-
N � O Q Q W Q w
Q � 0 co
LL N C LL C
0) 0l
C7 0
N M 4 lC)
s
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PHILIP ANGELIDES, Treasurer
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER
t; SACRAMENTO -,`
r Local Agency Investment Fund
PO Box 942809
Sacramento, CA 94209-0001
(916) 653-3001
April, 2002 Statement
CITY OF PALM DESERT Account plumber : 98-33-621
Attn: CITY TREASURER
73510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT CA 92260
Transactions
Effective Transaction Tran Confirm Authorized Amount
Date Date Type Number Caller
04-15-2002 04-13-2002 QRD SYSTEM 279,153.09
04-22-2002 04-19-2002 RW 629246 THOMAS JEFFREY - 279,153.09
Account Summary
Total Deposit : 279,153.09 Beginning Balance : 40,000,000.00
Total Withdrawal : 279,153.09 Ending Balance : 40,000,000.00
Page : 1 of 1
PMIA Average Monthly Effective Yields
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct ' Nov Dec
1977 5.770 5.660 5.660 5.650 5.760 5.850 5.930 6.050 6.090 6.390 6.610 6.730
1978 6.920 7.050 7.140 7.270 7.386 7.569 7.652 7.821 7.871 8.110 8.286 8.769
1979 8.777 8.904 8.820 9.082 9.046 9.224 9.202 9.528 9.259 9.814 10.223 10.218
1980 10.980 11.251 11.490 11.4801 12.017 11.798 10.206 9.8701 9.945 10.056 10.426 10.961
1981 10.987 11.686 11.130 11.475 12.179 11.442 12.346 12.844 12.059 12.397 11.887 11.484
1982 11.683 12.044 11.835 11.773 12.270 11.994 12.235 11.909 11.151 11.111 10.704 10.401
1983 10.251 9.887 9.688 9.868 9.527 9.600 9.879 10.076 10.202 10.182 10.164 10.227
1984 10.312 10.280 10.382 10.594 10.843 11.119 11.355 11.557 11.597 11.681 11.474 11.024
1985 10.579 10.289 10.118 10.025 10.180 9.743 9.656 9.417 9.572 9.482 9.488 9.371
1986 9.252 9.090 8.958 8.621 8.369 8.225 8.141 7,8441 7.512 7.586 7.432 7.439
1987 7.365 7.157 7.205 7.044 7.294 7.289 7.464 7.562 7.712 7.825 8.121 8.071
1988 8.078 8.050 7.945 7.940 7.815 7.929 8.089 8.245 8.341 8.397 8.467 8.563
0 1989 8.698 8.7701 8.870 8.9921 9.227 9.204 9.056 8.833 8.801 8.771 8.685 8.645
1990 8.571 8.538 8.506 8.497 8.531 8.538 8.517 8.382 8.333 8.3211 8.269 8.279
1991 8.164 8.002 7.775 7.666 7.374 7.169 7.098 7.0721 6.859 6.719 6.591 6.318
1992 6.122 5.863 5.680 5.692 5.379 5.323 5.235 4.958 4.760 4.730 4.659 4.647
1993 4.678 4.649 4.624 4.605 4.427 4.554 4.438 4.472 4.430 4.380 4.365 4.384
1994 4.359 4.1761 4.248 4.3331 4.434 4.6231 4.823 4.989 5.106 5.243 5.380 5.528
1995 5.612 5.779 5.934 5.960 6.008 5.997 5.972 5.910 5.8321 5.784 5.805 5.748
1996 5,698 5.643 5.557 5.538 5.502 5.548 5.587 5.566 5.601 5.601 5.599 5.574
1997 5,583 5.575 5.580 5.612 5.634 5.667 5.679 5.690 5.707 5.705 5.715 5.744
1998' 5.742 5.720 5.680 5.672 5.673 5.671 5.652 5.652 5.639 5.557 5.492 5.374
1999 5.265 5.2101 5.136 5.119 5.086 5.0951 5.178 5.2251 5.274 5.3911 5.484 5.639
2000 5.760 5.824 5.851 6.0141 6.190 6.349 6.443 6.505 6.502 6.517 6.538 6.535
2061 6.372 6.169 5.976 5.760 5.328 4.958 4.635 4.502 4.288 3.785 3.526 3.261
2002 3.068 2.967 2.861
25 Revised March 31,2002
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PHILIP ANGELIDES, Treasurer
OFFICE OF THE TREASURER
SA—bRAMENTO",,�1
Local Agency Investment Fund
PO Box 942809
Sacramento, CA 94209-0001
(916)653-3001
April, 2002 Statement
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Account Number : 65-33-015
Attn: TREASURER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT CA 92260
Transactions
Effective Transaction Tran Confirm Authorized Amount
Date Date Type Number Caller
04-15-2002 04-13-2002 QRD SYSTEM 232,266.45
04-22-2002 04-19-2002 RW 60156 THOMAS W. JEFFREY - 232,109.38
Account Summary
Total Deposit : 232,266.45 Beginning Balance : 39,999,842.93
Total Withdrawal : 232,109.38 Ending Balance : 40,000,000.00
Page : 1 of 1
PMIA Average Monthly Effective Yields
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul' Aug E Sept Oct ,!',Nov Dec
1977 5.770 5.660 5.660 5.650 5.760 5.850 5.930 6.050 6.090 6.390 6.610 6.730
1978 6.920 7.050 7.140 7.270 7.386 7.569 7.652 7.821 7.871 8.110 8.286 8.769
1979 8.777 8.904 8.820 9.082 9.046 9.224 9.202 9.528 9.259 9.814 10.223 10.218
1980 10.980 11.251 11.490 11.480 12.017 11.798 10.206 9.870 9.945 10.056 10.426 10.961
1981 10.987 11.686 11.130 11.475 12.1791 11.442 12.346 12.844 12.059 12.397 11.887 11.484
1982 11.683 12.044 11.835 11.773 12.270 11.994 12.235 11.909 11.151 11.111 10.704 10.401
1983 10.251 9.887 9.688 9.868 9.527 9.600 9.879 10.076 10.202 10.182 10.164 10.227
1984 10.312 10.280 10.382 10.594 10.843 11.119 11.355 11.557 11.597 11.681 11.474 11.024
1,985 a 10.579 10.2891 10.118 10.0251 10.180 9.7431 9.656 9.4171 9.572 9.4821 9.488 9.371
1986 9.252 9.090 8.958 8.621 8.369 8.225 8.141 7.844 7.512 7.586 7.432 7.439
1987 7.365 7.157 7.205 7.044 7.294 7.289 7.464 7.562 7.712 7.825 8.121 8.071
1988 8.078 8.050 7.945 7.940 7.815 7.929 8.089 8.245 8.341 8.397 8.467 8.563
1989 8.698 8.770 8.870 8.992 9.227 9.204 9.056 8.833 8.801 8.771 8.685 8.645
1990 8.571 8.5381 8.506 8.4971 8.531 8.5381 8.517 8.3821 8.333 8.321 8.269 8.279
1.991 8.164 8.002 7.775 7.666 7.374 7.169 7.098 7.072 6.859 6.719 6.591 6.318
1992 6.122 5.863 5.680 5.692 5.379 5.323 5.235 4.958 4.760 4.730 4.659 4.647
1993 4.678 4.649 4.624 4.605 4.427 4.554 4.438 4.472 4.430 4.380 4.365 4.384
1994 4.359 4.176 4.248 4.333 4.434 4.623 4.823 4.989 5.106 5.2431 5.380 5.528
1995 5.612 5.7791 5.934 5.9601 6.008 5.9971 5.972 5.9101 5.832 5.784 5.805 5.748
1996 5.698 5.643 5.557 5.538 5.502 5.548 5.587 5.566 5.601 5.601 5.599 5.574
1997 5.583 5.575 5,580 5.612 5.634 5.667 5.679 5.690 5.707 5.705 5.715 5.744
1998 5.742 5.720 5.680 5.672 5.673 5.671 5.652 5.652 5.639 5.557 5.492 5.374
999 5.265 5.210 5.136 5.119 5.086 5.095 5.178 5.225 5.274 5.3911 5.484 5.639
2000 5.760 5.8241 5.851 6.0141 6.190 6.3491 6.443 6.505 6.502 6.517 6.538 6.535
2001 6.372 6.169 5.976 5.760 5.328 4.958 4.635 4.502 4.288 3.785 3.526 3.261
2002 3.068 2.967 2.861
25 Revised March 31,2002
'''\ a ' FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEMO
To: Investment and Finance Committee
From: Paul S. Gibson, Finance Director/Treasurer
Subject: SELECTION OF AUDIT FIRM TO PROVIDE AUDIT SERVICES
TO THE CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2002, WITH THE
OPTION OF AUDITING ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR EACH OF THE
FOUR SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEARS.
Date: May 13, 2002
Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that the Finance Committee decide at this meeting the firm to
provide audit services to the City for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2002 with
the option of auditing its financial statements for each of the four subsequent
fiscal years. The selected firm will be presented to Council at the June 13, 2002
Council meeting for approval.
2. Although the duration of the proposed agreement is for only one year, it is
recommended for continuity of audit services to retain the same audit firm for an
additional four years if the terms and services in the first year are satisfactory to
the City. It is recommended that the Investment Committee make a decision at
the appropriate time before the second year of service based on Finance staffs
report on the outcome of the first year's audit and its recommendation(s) based
on that report.
BACKGROUND:
On April 9, 2002, Request for Proposals (RFP) for Audit Services were issued and
mailed to six audit firms which included one local firms, one of which is a joint venture
arrangement with a bigger audit firm. This proposal was also advertised in a local
newspaper which generated no additional inquiries.
Out of the total six RFPs issued, four firms responded, while the other two notified us
that at the present time they did not have the staffing to meet our request. Their
proposals were studied thoroughly by the Finance Director and the Finance Operations
Manager who considered strong and weak points of each firm in relevance to the
needs of the City and RDA. Based on this study two firms namely, 1) Diehl, Evans and
Company 2) Lance Soll and Lundguard were invited for an interview, the purpose of
which was to have the firms conduct oral presentations. In addition, clarifications on
the firms' technical and cost proposals were accomplished. Identical general questions
were asked to confirm the depth of relevant knowledge and experience of each firm.
At this interview conducted by the Finance Director, Finance Operations Manager,
RDA -Assistant City Manager and the Redevelopment Finance Manager who took the
place of the City Manager these invited firms were evaluated further on the following
criteria:
General Firm Qualifications 20%
Specific Firm's Government
Engagement Experience 15%
Specific Staff Government 10%
Engagement Experience 15%
Audit Approach 20%
Pricing 15%
Quality/Usefulness of
Miscellaneous Services 10%
100%
Evaluation:
A few of the shortcomings of the firms that were not chosen for the interview are listed
as follows:
Rates are too high for the number of hours for the audit and quality and/or scope
of services proposed.
Firm's audit experience with municipal accounts is minimal based on what was
presented in audit proposal.
Current audit staff do not have enough members that have working experience
with municipal accounts.
Firm does not have the technological/computer capabilities that other firms
possess to assist them in their audit work.
As for the two firms that were chosen for the interview, attached are copies of the
ratings (details and justification of which are on file) and a recap of the cost bids for the
scope of services that each firm will provide. Based on the ratings, the
recommendation is to select Diehl, Evans and Company. Besides this firm's
experience both at the firm and staff levels with municipal accounts, the level of
knowledge and expertise in this field is higher than the other two firms. Their technical
support and training in matters of accounting and keeping up with current rulings are
available not only during the audit but throughout the year to their clients at no extra
cost.
`o
N
_ d G
E m y z > m
E t g n o U 2 E
m d m J
m 'o = 3: m U 5 '5 d L
3 d a m
w E
c m o rn m E •- v m A a m G
o rc a g = d g J m m m L-
� E _ c Op o f t E E
0 0 - a a 3 m cn y
m U o o m Q > U m m e m U
a d m o
z o O m bS m Q M ,
(ODo W Z d' a
n p v'a � V w O N
lu
m 'uNi m y U Nj O • � C L9'E tp �p O _1 O .r Q O
q UL p > 3 mL 1Nv .E
J J m O 'C'(r0� � '
w
mm � 3:'caz .-
o ,.
o E �
w U
w N « N U N R m J m C 'X m
d o L C O O C d
f U N ? O U p C 'E d m m
z 2 0 �s .� o m o. E u 0 E M c 3 r T :r r w, o
W
¢ U'� n d O O
d Zm E E
O V O N � d C N..)• U J C C N d L 12
O n m? c Q ; c o a J L. ¢ J O L o 3 m
o m 1° .� = o m
Do 2 m a
d > U p U '� J C N
.r -- O oZ o wax O w O (7 m F m` O O >
m
m ¢ E m.;di �4.ff
w75
a •u E. �p _ U in a: m 3 0
. G "`• .m' . y o.0 a :'o.¢ mJ.= � � °} o. c �.•O o..E. .� 3
m m
Jo t: E
z n N a 'z g m C7 til �-m m Z F U U'."m n .
o
IL �
Z •_ Z .� o m p1
c o. f >
L U +
u� o cv=•mm
p m : 'E
u - m J'W o m N.N _ 'E. W. y 3 w �.0 3 v
m -c m`oc ama.`-° m on"� �a' G
E �. m rnl'mv6
:� J. an
Tm m `aN m m;= dm >� O � N. �aC dN t O�NmL .
Lma. _dd im.` C an m _LN Com
d 'u° E
an d L m m O J e O L Oj a. O
v Nom ' H y oo.`'� E3mT E C. 0O
O ac c Em d
4- =
mm. L o'er' m N m m E;p �N..
0 j U 0 j LL C m U N c a N E ZL d o N p c 9 E m
W m C o - _ 3 a o - o a 5
u
Q J c m e I p+ m,-
m r-� `o a h h a N -a oQv a �+ mem e� m - a`m c .- 41 �0. m a �. E.od .-
m
m a
U o
w d y m m m m Q NW� � m m � m •3. w
m m m m m o. 0 ...
ra O tll t0 y m to F `CT Y } 2 G m' c
O00000 ma` E co- 16
Ei `m o Lo mr0 m E m a c
m m Q
.@i m,m m m •W ^� Q c tq o ' m, c �„
' mwmv��v1°�.mizz 0' E
M L L O O
m m m
o d r 5 m 3 o C
C d O O
C
C N
Zj c oo i+r o5 o ° � 9L on
1() C m N W C U
7 L N ^ ^ O < p C m d N N O N
o S Ev w N E r
ry d Z c m g m my c n 5 d m N m d d o o.
O V 0 o o v a o C Q .0 m. N E n ry ar m w 0 m
Z '° r2' Z, m o " �° E.' m c = 10 € mU c
Z Z
-
d N > 0 0 0 0 0 a m o m o y o ar d o c c c 0
0 z z z z z z_aT- } z } m3t 'a 4 um 8L H
3
d � o
m o c o c _a. c c La o
W N !O t0 O `�:
2' Z` 2^ 2'.2' Z`
0 o g.o-o o c m o.c o E
O m O m iw. N O L d m m ry m m � m w 3 m� � °1 a p e C9 c U 3 'c a E
N _N w
w m m m_m m: d m 0
z } -'U C: m 3 u'� m a
L 3
a
i`
n
g
UJ O N
m w 6 0. at
. a No`N S. cc �
d
,- E E .Z 2 - ? E . ,EE a
> .o 'm N 1O w m
`m 0 w W m E _E ,FCY
d
w X.c 2 m d mg 0,
4�
om m d c o 0 0
'u � Q a s n a n 0 0 0 �o
. Q a Q n n _ 6: u "J
M d Q Q Q z
a
d
o a
0
0
O H
R FF Y m
G Q o C
O
O O O O O O O O o 0 o 0 0 0 O
\O V'
r
W//�
b
�// �
N �n Q\ 7 V 0 00 r M �n M O O O N M y
Z o N r m m m m O o --
W o r o 0 00
Coo vt N :• .-. O N Q vi vi 7 ^ M O 01 O
Q G A
N
�Z a V
J w
Qw C N N N 7 O O
LL a w
O Z LLJ N 7 7 7 � O O O N ..• vi � m N 7 0 00 M �
LL A
N O rn Y M ^ 7 O ^ tV O
r A A 0
�O 7 T N D\ h r O N r
00 ao c0 N 7 r oo �D 'O O
7 00 vt
Q W
O
L
7
z oornOoo� coo R oa000 O o � .
♦+ 00 0 0 7 00 r O� d' M O a 0 0 0 0 0 O O V
b •-• M 't7 O. '�
E
Pt
c
U 7
U �
m
q o
F fr. '-
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
COMBINED STATEMENT
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET
30-Apr-02
TOTAL RDA
RDA RDA %OF ACTUAL (FAV)UNFAV
BUDGET YTD BUDGET ACTUAL TO YTD BUDGET VARIANCE
REVENUES
15 Tax increment 38,265,287.00 - 31,887,739.17 22,026,879.13 69% 9,860,860.04
2 Interest 986,000.00 821,666.67 1,283,032.06 156% (461,365.39)
Sales of Property - - - 0% -
3 Reimbursement From Other Agencies 1,207,300.00 . 1,006,083.33 1,322,274.04 131% (316,190.71)
Other Revenue - - - 3,020.71 0% (3,020.71)
Transfers to/from other funds - - - 0% -
TOTAL REVENUES 40,458,587.00 33,715,489.17 24,635,205.94 9,080,283.23.
_ FAV(UNFAV)
EXPENDITURES
Administrative Costs 1,169,250.00 974,375.00 827,394.97 85% 146,980.03
Professional Services ; 1,206,888.00 1,005,740.00 143,327.10 14% 862,412.90
6 Property Tax Administrative Fee 577,543.00 481,285.83 - 0% 481,285.83
Payments to Other Governmental Agencies 15,167,963.00 12,639,969.17 1,297,252.24 10% 11,342,716.93
Bond Issuance Costs - - - NoBudget -
Bond Discount - - - NoBudget Interest And Fiscal Charges 9,652,955.00 8,044,129.17 6,280,754.72 78% 1,763,374.45
Principal Payments 3,055,000.00 2,545,833.33 2,210,334.28 87% 335,499.05
Cost of Inventory Sold - - - NoBudget -
NoBudget
Capital Outlay NoBudget -
Office Equipment 13,617.00 11,347.50 5,334.28 47% 6,013.22
Undergrounding Projects-Major Art 1,970,93T00 1,642,447.50 - 0% 1,642,447.50
Undergrounding Projects-Neighbor 3,000,000.00 . 2,500,000.00 - 0% 2,500,000.00
Undergrounding Projects-Hwy 74 2,100,000.00 : 1,750,000.00 - 0% 1,750,000.00
Entrada-El Paseo 8,938,164.00 7,448,470.00 193,218.18 3% 7,255,251.82
Parking Spaces 1,400,000.00 . 1,166,666.67 1,109,955,72 95% 56,710.95
Parking Lot-Pres Plaza 1,015,115.00 845,929.17 532,833.90 63% 313,095.27
4 Fred Waring Street Improvements 4,293,784.00 3,578,153.33 - 0% 3,578,153.33
1-10 Cook St Interchange 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 100% -
Business Center - - - NoBudget -
UCR Infrastructure 2,000,000.00 1,666,666.67 - 0% 1,666,666.67
Cal-State Infrastructure 1,200,000.00 1,000,000.00 - 0% 1,000,000.00
JFK Clinic 300.000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 120% (50,000.00)
Sandpiper Improvements 400,000.00 333,333.33 - 0% 333,333.33
Palms to Pines East Project 1,000,000.00 833,333.33 - 0%n 833,333.33
Public Library/Community Center 403,915.00 336,595.83 210,520.54 63% 126,075.29
No.Sphere Infrastructure 1,097,364.00 = 914,470.00 19,587.09 2% 894,882.91
RDA Projects 3,313,582.00 2,761,318.33 2,238,582.00 81% 522,736.33
Desert Willow Pad Stabilization : 200,000.00 166,666.67 66,127.94 40% 100,538.73
Section 4-Desert Willow 81,690.00 68,075.00 8,753.96 13% 59,321.04
Property Acquisition 3,796,904.00 ; 3,164,086.67 2,042,886.07 65% 1,121,200.60
Business Enhancement Program 1,000,000.00 833,333.33 200,000.00 24% 633,333.33
Contrib-McCallum 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,003,120.00 100% (3,120.00)
Contrib-Housing 1,800,000.00 ! 1,500,000.00 779,000.00 52% 721,000.00
Regional Park 7,250,000.00 6,041,666.67 - 0% 6,041,666.67
Transfers
Transfer Out Administrative Costs - - 0% -
3 Transfer(In)/Out Capital Exp Reimb - - 0% -
5 Transfer Out Low/Mod Set-Aside 8,606,056.00 7,171,713.33 4,405,375.83 61% 2,766,337.51
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 91,260,727.00 76,925,605.83 28,124,358.82 48,601,247.02
1. Tax increment is received in Jan 8 May
2. Interest is received as securities mature
3. Reimbursements for the Library are posted at yearend.
4.
5. 20%Set Aside included here,shown as transfer out
6. Administrative fee net from TI
RDA Financial Report 4-2002 J.Moore - 5120/02 �'
O 10 U O I� O O ID h 7000 O 00000 cO N 000000000 V OO V tO h 0000 0000 O'
00 V ,fp; W 000 0000 O M'
O I O M O O f O V . . . O O
N HN Ol' n0 M N M O O N Oc0 ` 10c0O ` O O;
R M N OI of O O I[I N i[I h R1 O O 0'
O'
m O 10 m N M Ol O M b O M f0 V O O h N.
O F M M m l0 N M N N
� M
y
Z
S e C600
LL m m n nl In m'
m
cli
V a Q 0 ry ni
7 N N:
0' Q N O IOO
IL U M Di w ni
m m h rn
F2 Mi
rn m mi �n o rn m �i
LQ r NI
m m _
0
M
I �
OI 01 N w O N O O O V O 1000
M'
N 1� 01 O O N O 0000
O i M O M 10 0 V W N M O O 00 M O O O t O
IM M N M O O N N O' O
m ? O t O M M M N-OW O O N M O O O
it 0) O M N'p F O N M Oi N O O O O O M. (O:'
m o M 40 O 000 ,
V
O I N N N M N N N O h t
} O O OO O 0.00.. O
O O O OO O O O OO O O O O O O�
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O;
Z YIID O O G O O Oi O m M O m V O 0 0 0 0 O IO V N O O V 0 0 0 0 O'
IN O O Oj MOO [OO— WO 00000� (O [O OO) 00000
W N o M M N M (O O)O O O� P O Oo 00001 M 100 fOO 0000 N
N 16, O) M C C I O w O'10 M
IO N I`I t0 M h 00 MOo N 0000000/ OOJ O) 00010 N'.
Q p G
'm p I� _ �- O O)O— M ' N N ON O V O M N P O OO N O
F t7 N .6�-e-O 'N M li 10 1�
W
f a
IL x
w r
O C Q t n d E n
W c o c o �° w E
> as m m .CF,a E m a h.� m
W ' Q LL Z O d T .N R U N
UJ
W t ? m m m m E m N a E a m 0 y > w d C
F d y E
�Nd oc°N=O W ooQ E 3 o m E
IX E u m 2 Wm o mayt0
3Oc-
Jp
WO LL W U aamy a
o z
W iu
N E c
ad Qw O W x O 0 = Cn
mmma 0 NNQ E W OnmNo OV 0w Qnc E yW C O ` NN Y p
maaz ¢ OmamUma N
> X -ffi as L a � m m
oUy HaQ
wxO
w x m m
w W U F
M ID O m 00 0 l0 O V 0700N0 O O M M'.
6 ,It O (O 00 O N O
O NO O 000 0 7 O. O N OO
00ONOOV OO OO OO nO n
;N N
f O M N
H N N coo O Onl O O N`
� 0 N N (O N V V
� N w.
m N
`o co m
0 � L r
Z ii Q
LL
W
NO U M h (o (O (O O O
R O M. (o a N Mco .
Q Lu v M co u i to Cl)
(� r- V M M O m N.
M y O O a V ?; (0 1l O
m W
F a ¢ a v a> v
m M M
W
0•
m (?(qCO
n cq (o
d Q N N
(>1
c6 lV of O Gd (O
4) T N C' V N N O -It C,
IM tom
o d r rn:. a a o of ui
m ..
Cd �
C C
d _
CL G O N U0 V 0 0 V:' W
W N Obi m M.. N N O O rW
d N LQ GJ -I fl. (o IN O M M,
M O O s{ N
C a Q m N O F O) 71
� � Id(V N Oii N
000000 O' 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
CD W � 00 0000 O' 0000000 O
00 00 �.' O0 mah� m 00 Lo00 N r-: C
O N O (O O) 00 O , 3
L r n N (n O O
N i J (O M co w r,0 O N O L
m. N (O t N (O c- (O O (O N
R V M M' N 01 CM C M O N
ay No
C
O
� E w
c 3 y o c
m y m
Q y ti d U o A � 3
N y E N N X O L
L C > C CD > W U N
a N 0 C o
O
E L N U N N N L N a p 3 6 4) N
L C UJ O 01
_ y ( d L U Q NCL
`O y_LL QO N O E > O x
m C E 0 S� ro OHOuj
CECL
o [ N 'oOHC
)
w
w an C N c 0 0 N n. w w D o• U O
d d N N C N =
c x 0 °J E t m ~ c E o o E.c e d e c c c F x m
m
- inof0P a¢ aaamm° tea`
w
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 30-Apr-02
Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures
HOUSING FUND
YTD (FAV)UNFAV
::-::Budget Bud et Actual YTD Variance
REVENUES
2 Transfer in of 20% Set-Aside 7,685,200.001 6,404,333 33 4;405,375.83 ji 1,998,957.51
3Interest 20,00090I 16,666.67 (22,770.75). 39,437.42
Rental Income 48,00090 1 40,000.00 40,000.00
Sales of Property 1781500.00 (178,500.00)
1 Reimbursement From Other Agencies
2 Housing Mitigation Fees
Other Revenue 39,552.57 ; 39,552.57
TOTAL REVENUES 7,753;200,00 6,461,OQ0,00 4,600,65T65 1 860,342.35
EXPENDITURES FAV UNFAV
Administrative Costs 417400.00} 347,833.33 276,165.56 71,667.77
Professional Services 305,000.00 f 254,166.67 145,237.5.9> 108,929.08
Property Tax Administrative Fee
Cost of Inventory Sold
6 Interest And Fiscal Charges 2,560,198,00 2,150,165.00 2,578,240.20 (428,075.20)
6 Principal Payments 955;400.0Q 795,833.33 955,00090 (159,166.67)
Office Equipment 500090 4,166.67 2,274.87 1,891.80
Acquisition Rehab/Resale#7 760000.00 ' 633,333.33 633,333.33
Home Improvement Program 1-6 383344,00` 319,453 33 98,833, 220,619.98
Palm Village Apartments 723,462.00 602,885.00 250,466.58 352,418.42
Property Purchases
5 Desert Rose 10%00090 8,333.33 5,110.99 3,222.34
5 Portola Palms Mobilehome Park 170,00090 141,666.67 204,774A (63,107.80)
Fred Waring Improvements 363,895.00 is
Multi-Family Improvmt Program 200000.00
Housing Development 5,744;470.00 4,787,058.33 1087,428.32 I 3,599,630.01
Transfers
Transfer(In)/Out Administrative Costs
Transfer(In)/Out Capital Exp Reimb
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,253874,00 10,044,895.00 6067,426.93 4,341,36107.
Notes:
1 Reimbursements are various throughout the year
2 This transfer is done once a year only. (This is an based on actual$ rcvd)
3 Interest is posted with investment maturities or dividend payments
4
5 Includes re-purchases and re-sales
6 Debt Service is due 10/1 and 4/1 of each year
Housing 20% Financial Report, J. Moore 5/20/02
i City of Palm Desert
Parkview Office Complex
Financial Statement
for Fiscal Year 2001-2002
April-02 April-02 # % YTD YTD #
Budget Actual Variance Variance Budget Actual Variance Variance
Revenues
Rental $ 68,500 $ 65,034 $ (3,466) 94.94°% $ 685,000 $ 656,195 $ (28,805) 95.79%
Dividends/Interest $ 4,500 $ 1,057 $ (3,443) 23.50% - $ 43,500 $ 22,162 $ (21,338) 50.95%
Total Revenues $ 73,000 $ 66,091 $ (6,909) 90.54% ° $ 728,500 $ 678,356 $ (50,144) 93.12%
Expenses
Professional-Accounting&Auditing $ 5,800 $ 6,800 $ (1,000) 117.24% $ 64,000 $ 68,000 $ (4,000) 106.25%
Professional-Consultants $ 6,000 $ 5,670 $ 330 94.50% $ 60,000 $ 62,511 $ (2,511) 104.18%
Tenant Improvements $ 2,500 $ 15,532 $ (13,032) 621.27% '.( $ 25,000 $ 33,850 $ (8,850) 135.40%
Repairs&Maintenance Building $ 8,000 $ 7,206 $ 794 90.07%j $ 80,000 $ 100,962 $ (20,962) 126.20%
Repairs&Maintenance-Landscaping $ 2,300 $ - $ 2,300 0.00% $ 23,000 $ - $ 23,000 0.00%
Utilities-Water $ 250 $ 132 $ 118 52.93% � . , $ 2,500 $ 1,023 $ 1,477 40.92%
Utilities-Gas/Electric $ 5,000 $ 5,001 $ (1) 100.03% $ 71,000 $ 72,009 $ (1,009) 101.42%
Utilities-Trash $ 700 $ 351 $ 349 50.09°% - $ 7,000 $ 3,507 $ 3,493 50.09%
Telephone $ 150 $ 155 $ (5) 103.37% $ 1,500 $ 1,556 $ (56) 103.72%
Insurance $ 521 $ - $ 521 0.00% $ 5,208 $ - $ 5,208 0.00%
Total Expenses $ 31,221 $ 40,847 $ (9,626) 135.83% ` $ 339,208 $ 343,417 $ (4,209) 101.24%
Oq'enttmgZnrttnre - $' `. 41,77Y'$ ` $ ( S{s� bD.42g/n 389,242-$ 33444 d,(54352)'y 86.Q4°l
Equipment Replacement Reserve $ 10,000 $ 12,618 $ (2,618) 126,18% $ 100,000 $ 126,177 $ (26,177) 126.18%
�IVetlt[Cgttte _�. 31e`I79 -$ ?�+f`L12G {�-$r1?'$�' ',3t}'7„34/!t -28 ��_:$$0$�.762•$3Y(80,530}•.: ,72.1
2002 Investment Report2002 Invest Report
City of Palm Desert
Parkview Office Complex
Vacancy Rate Schedule by Suite
April 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 Senator Kelly 785
112 Assemblyman 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
April 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-2,165/31,562= 6.86%
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--2,165/ iqi 4.23%
Occupancy Rate-49,026/51,191 95.77%
2002 Investment Report2002 Vacancy Report
- City of Palm Desert
Desert Willow
Budget Vs Actual
For the month of
April 2002
Budgeted Actual Budgeted Actual
April April $ Percentage Year to Year to $ Percentage
Revenue 2002 2002 Variance Variance Date Date Variance Variance
Course&Ground $ 574,921 $ 617,949 $ 43,028 107.48% $ 4,157,224 $ 3,894,266 $ (262,958) 93.67%
Cans $ 41,691 $ 49,645 $ 7,954 119.08% $ 275,689 5 305,015 S 29,326 110.64%
GolfShop $ 109,836 $ 83,374 S (26,462) 75.91% $ 769,413 $ 675,197 $ (94,216) 87.75%
Range $ 1,900 $ 3,155 $ 1,255 166.05% $ 12,950 $ 31,861 $ 18,911 246.03%
Food&Beverage $ 155,861 $ 199,576 $ 43,715 128.05% $ 1,085,016 S 1,216,715 $ 131,699 112,14%
Interest Income $ 2,000 $ 377 $ (1,623) l&85% $ 25,000 S 5,397 S (19,603) 21.59%
Total Revenues 896 209 954 076 1 67,867 107.66° 6 325 292 6,128,451 (196,8411 96.89
Payroll
Proshop S 8,439 $ 4,982 $ 3,457 59.04% $ 69,330 $ 41,943 S 27,387 60.50%
Can $ 30,064 $ 32,927 $ (2,863) 109,52% $ 218,294 S 254,639 $ (36,345) 116b5%
Course&Ground $ 117,920 $ 113,873 $ 4,047 96.57% $ 1,241,487 $ 1,191,826 $ 49,661 96,00%
Golf Operations $ 25,617 $ 29,377 $ (3,760) 114.68% $ 249,506 $ 248,183 $ 1,323 99.47%
General&Administration $ 40,514 $ 33,826 $ 6,688 83.49% $ 402,084 $ 350,286 $ 51,798 87.12%
Food&Beverage $ 60,835 $ 72,640 $ (11,805) 119.40% $ 537,042 $ 558,525 S (21,483) 104.00%
Total Pa roll 283.389 1 287 625 1 4 236 101.49% 2 717 743 2 645 402 72 341 97.34
Other Expenditures
Perimeter Landscaping $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ - 0.00%
Proshop $ 7,150 $ 2,110 S 5,040 29.51% $ 38,100 $ 41,330 $ (3,230) 108,48%
Proshop-COGS $ 62,091 $ 42,372 S 19,719 68.24% $ 390,847 $ 381,743 $ 9,104 97.67%
Can $ 19,300 $ 15,535 $ 3,765 80.49% $ 148,200 $ 123,035 $ 25,165 83.02%
Course&Ground-North Course $ 41,226 $ 45,449 $ (4,223) 110.24% $ 554,905 $ 634,300 $ (79,395) 114.31%
Course&Ground-South Course $ 43,757 S 26,639 $ 17,118 60.88% $ 558,742 $ 482,044 $ 76,698 86.27%
Course&Ground-Desert Pallet-N $ 1,460 $ 159 $ 1,301 10.89% $ 15,655 $ 9,255 $ 6,400 59,12%
Course&Ground-Desert Pallet-S $ 1,440 $ 1,347 $ 93 93.54% $ 15,810 $ 9,941 $ 5,869 62,88%
Golf Operations $ 750 $ 633 $ 117 84.40% $ 14,500 S 12,632 $ 1,868 97.12%
General&Administration $ 73,147 $ 83,081 $ (9,934) 113.58% $ 742,275 $ 700,625 $ 41,650 94.39%
Range $ 450 $ 332 $ 118 73.78% $ 15,650 $ 19,030 $ (3,380) 121,60%
Food&Beverage $ 16,414 $ 15,309 $ 1,105 93.27% $ 150,589 $ 191,147 $ (40,558) 126.93%
Food&Beverage COGS $ 48,317 $ 59,084 $ (10,767) 122.28% S 337,988 $ 386,898 $ (48,910) 114.47%
Management Fee $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ - 100.00% $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - 100.00%
FinancinWLease $ 700 $ 4,694 $ (3,994) 670.57% $ 28,204 $ 39,587 $ (11,383) 140.36%
'Total Othcr Ex enditures 341202 21744 1 19458 94.30°° 3261465 j 3281567 20102 100.62;
Desert Willow Golf Academy
Desert Willow Golf Academy $ 18,300 $ 5,623 $ (12,677) 30.73% $ 155,250 $ 65,014 $ (90,236) 41.98%
COGS-Merchandise $ (4,822) $ (3,988) $ 834 82.70% $ (46,127) $ (42,148) S 3,979 91.37%
Other Expenditures $ (I,700) $ (1,730) $ (30) IOL76% $ (19,015) $ (15,229) $ 3,786 80.09%
Learning Center Income(Loss) $ 11,778 $ (95) $ (11,873) -0.81% $ 90,108 $ 7,637 $ (82,471) 8.48%
Operating Income(Loss) $ 273,396 $ 344,612 $ 71,216 126.05% $ 436,192 $ 209,119 $ (227,073) 47,94%
Equipment Reserve Replacement $ 71,955 S 66,140 $ (5,815) 91.92% $ 719,550 $ 735,914 $ 16,364 102.27%
Net Income Loss 201,441 j 2 8 472 77 031 138.24% 283 358 526 795 243 437 185.91
So pshol of Golf Rounds Budgeted mo Actual mo Variance Variance% Budgeted td Actual td Variance Variance%
Resident 2,470 2,351 (119) 95% 15,928 18,419 2,491 116%
Non Resident 6,033 7,181 1,148 119% 39,983 40,307 324 101%
Other - 100 too 100% - 1,341 1,341 100%
Com limentary 220 658 438 299% 1688 4725 3037 280%
Total 8,723 10,290 1,567 118% 57,599 64,792 7,193 112%
Folder:Desert Willow 2001:Dw2002;Fimmcial Statement Page 1
) k NNOOMMM
( K
) § 00 ` 91
)
. /
to
{f \ � �� ■
� kpa
\ \
0 2
| � � 46 °
d
� 2
] ( k !
-
\
] $
!
m
u
m
a
6
> y j
w wwww w w w wwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
0 4 -
= � a
« a ;,o wwwwww wwwwww w wwwwwwwwwwww www w w
iz
B ` wwwwww wwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww www w w i
:1
wwwwww w wwwwww w wwwwwwwwwwww w www w w w w
Ea` -
a
wwwwww w wwwwww w wwwwwwwwwwww w www w w w w
Via` -
a
wwwwww w wwwwww w wwwwwwwwwwww w www w w w w
E $
4. V
U • U a 2 O U.q Q ` i O U U
a 0 � °'3 m E c° =
4 0 U f-
44
8 ;
; a
w
8 �
N
N
w
ad
c m
U Q
y Q � M 2OQ5
F O e N
O
y& " 9 C a
N 5��
U p m
N
w q
y 2S
a
V N
N
m Q dJ o
� B �
0
N
8
. i
% 2
kK
A ■
4
k
R
\ CIT
C4CY
E [ f
■ �� \) \ q m m } k
a ■ | � � _ o
) § a � "a -
P., \ ca
m
u / § � § 7 !
) @ 7Lxu
/k
k
2 k
2
� ! � f
! ! ] o
) � {
_mn ® \
U Cd
w
a
w
ssssssss � s s
*� oMo oMo oNo v�i ono oho oo N
z' cvri000 -� 0000 r•
tn
O
'r O
W �i v1 W � O �O o0 00 V1 C
O O M 7 vt N o0 v1 �D �D vt
O
U
aNO N r V�1 M N cN�t N n
p N
O
O
a �ti •� �'^ N - N O O 00 OD M M M
Ca Q .y O R'
z
p, o H
v ,-. ran Dort �c \o oo v� C y �° �° Sb� b� S° � � � � S
Q h Ll O r 7 Vt .r-i N r Gl
N r �r O
ya+ a O �, .-. ,-. N N N M N M
O O N 3
a >
MN V1vv» r �n � �n �p �., ao � oo �n �n o --. ,-• v a
Ztk
q N � �O N N M M �n O C 1.• C y �D 7 C' �n �D o0 �D 'n p
O 'O .-. .-. .-� ..r .-. .� � A O N •-• .-• N .—. M N v v v v .--i
vt .-. .-. 00 N .� �D N Vt Vt .-. .-. oo N .-• �O N V1 .-. nj
'O h N 7 00 r r vt0A �y 'O T vt N V v'1 00 r r vt U
PC p � 7 —• .• .-• .-, 7 c�i t+i v �n �n M y
< M a.
F �q
N
V ram+ O
0
3 � N Y L T p �+ � N EJ N T w ❑
T N y
cYa 75
ti ¢ ri OZCa .-, [i: ¢ U ..°, ¢ rn0za "° u. � ¢ U
8e - - - - - - - - s
C N
U p
u
O SON N Q � iw
7
J m
O
O Q
tJ Q
O
A
7
ryp N C m ^ V
C N
R
q
7
9 00 Q O O O O O O O O O
E 49
O m
U
W q N N E vl m N m N n
F E 6 N
0
U
u BQ be ae ae ee ae ee ae ee BQ gE
a+ w BE
� u
�tl � G v 6Q 6Q 6cF BQ BQ 6e BQ 62 6e 6pF� pg°� •:•• •� _ b
7
O
z
N
�om Fa¢
z°
o aon6 $ '•° ^ N � eececececeeecececece ge
Dames- . _ oom m m � mry = e $ � � m
F a >
8
'S N vml r c� m d Q bO N Vdl d ^Q C ISO N_
00
°�
E �
0
U
_ n
�z° Fara
'c
v
� m
0 qq
< < OZ —
a 00
>
� a
;9 ssssb sbRsss s
O V1 M o0 W r ^ l0 O b
C� r v v
O ,G
� Q
vi b� b� b� b�° �° SSSb� S° S
� vo�'o � � ari �o o�obbN
O . rn ri v a uj vi t�
E
0
U
O '
O
�y U
O
d W w r 0 7 't
� aa z
a ° "
6E S 6E
8 b
17 O O O Q\ O\ ^ r a0 �O M � U M V� O �D N r N M w
a z >
ASS° SS � SSSS � ooNvvi � ,-. oo ao � O p
00 M h n 00 N N N D\ N N
w F.
� 7
tn
bz
N L W
RS O Rj
vl T a0 N O v1 N o0 D\ h 01 00 N O h N .-. 00 D\ N
q7 m N �D N r E
J
y
C � C
a+ t0 7
FG E■ � F� N
C � C ❑ N
C �
wo
NE Ej
T P. 0 v
ti ¢ nozC) 0zCz w � ¢ U
- - - - - - - - - - s
° a °
m
k �
7
O
57
m
O
Q
`v u
56
O
> pp G
> pp
o�4
U pp VV�� q
2n
°
U
v SQ BQ BQ ee BQ ee SQ be BQ ee 9°
O e m o a
Q O 6Q 6e 6e BF tl2 Be Be 6e 6Q ae 64 — � hovo Or O
C > >
° 3 O
O pp pp�� yy pp p pp
M Qi r P Q Cp d N 0 O N
'O N vl O W Vt m w C y� N b q U P NN N
O r
�
G m
z
9 N r 0 0 Om yOy & O O N r d $ ry mry O U N N m ti Zp N tit VNi O P P d r m YJ m
�F,a � Fay
�a
�m o
z
v� c+ m b < .. o N BQ 6Q BQ ae 6e BQ � be be sF 5E
F m >
Q� N
F �
Y 0
0
U GC
S Ri
r
s
O O N N P N tit f7 L R „ C W P N V M m N (1 T
S'O 4 d ry � p 6
F F o
A Ai
U
/
} ) \
/a
! � #
» ~
m
,
/| &!
�2 \xQ ) !
. | @
!
109
z \ ) k
{ | _ \
�
A /
ƒ / \
! � . /
Desert Willow
Breakdown of Rounds
per point of sale system
Desert Willow - Combined Analysis- APRIL 2002
Resident 2,351 $ 105,795 $ 45.00 22.80%
Non-Resident 7,181 $ 556,111 $ 77.44 69.80%
Other 100 $ 1,000 F $ 10.00 1.00%
Complimentary 658 $ 3,965 $ 6.03 6.40%
Desert Willow Totals 10,290 666,871 64.81 100.007/o
Dw2002;POS AVG RD Page 11
Desert Willow
Breakdown of Rounds
per point of sale system
FIRECLIFF COURSE- APRIL 2002
Description No. Of Revenue Avg. Per Pct to
Rounds Per POS Round Total
Resident Rounds
Resident Fee- Weekend 434 $ 19,530 $ 45.00 8.36%
Resident Fee-Weekday 569 $ 25,605 $ 45.00 10.96%
Resident -Twilight 62 $ 2,790.00 $ 45.00 , 1.19%
Total Resident 1,065 47,925717 47001 20.52%
Non Resident
Posted Weekend 229 $ 29,770 $ 130.00 4.41%
Posted Weekday 199 $ 21,890 $ 110.00_ 3.83%
IROC Des. PRTY - Weekday 147 $ 8,210 $ 55.85 1 2.83%
IROC Des. PRTY - Weekend 191 $ 12,353 $ 64.68 3.68%
IROC Member Guest- Weekday 57 $ 5,016 $ 88.00 1.10%
IROC Member Guest- Weekend 40 $ 4,160 $ 104.00 0.77%
Wholesale Weekend 329 $ 30,401 $ 92.40 6.34%
Wholesale Weekday 435 $ 32,441 $ 74.58 8.380/.
Twilight 479 $ 31,135 $ 65.00 9.23%
Posted Replay 19 $ 1,179 $ 62.05 0.37%
Fee Pass Fire - Card - Specials 92 $ 7,089 $ 77.05 1.77%
Fee Special Event Variable 1,578 $ 110,847 1 1 $ 70.25 30.40%
Total Non Resident Rounds 3,795 294,491 77.60 73.11%
Other Rounds
Junior Walking 44 $ 440 $ 10.001 0.85%
Total Other 44 440 10.00 0.85%
Complimentary
VIP 48 $ $ - 0.92%
PGA Member 44 $ 420 $ 9.55 0.85%
Donation 48 $ 500 $ 10.42 0.92%
COD/PDHS 92 $ $ 1770%
Employee / Employee Guest 55 $ 25 $ 0.45 1.06%
Total Complimentary 287 445 3.29 5.5301
Total Round (FireCliff) 5,191 $ 343,801 $ 66.23 100.00%
Du2002;POS AVG RD
Page 12
Desert Willow
Breakdown of Rounds
per point of sale system
MOUNTAINVIEW COURSE- APRIL 2002
Description No. Of Revenue Avg. Per Pct to
Rounds Per POS Round Total
Resident Rounds
Resident Fee- Weekend 516 $ 23,220 $ 45.00 1 10.12%
Resident Fee-Weekday 710 $ 31,950 $ 45.00 j 13.92%
Resident Twilight 60 $ 2,700 $ 45.00 1.18%
Total Resident 1,286 57,870 45.00 25.22%
Non Resident
Posted Weekend 203 $ 26,390 $ 130.00 3.98%
Posted Weekday 184 $ 20,240 $ 110.00 3.61%
IROC Des. PRTY- Weekday 130 $ 7,338 $ 56.451 2.55%
IROC Des. PRTY- Weekend 191 $ 12,415 $ 65.00 1 3.75%
IROC Member Guest - Weekday 69 $ 6,072 $ 88.00 1 1.35%
IROC Member Guest - Weekend 46 $ 4,7841 $ 104.00 1 0.90%
Wholesale Weekend 257 $ 21,132 1 $ 82.23 1 5.04%
Wholesale Weekday 349 $ 24,593 1 I $ 70.47 6.84%
Fee Pass - Card 74 $ 5,125 $ 69.26 1.45%
Replay 14 $ 910 $ 65.00 0.27%
Twilight 528 $ 34,645 $ 65.62 10.35%
Fee Special Event Variable 1,341 $ 97,976 $ 73.06 26.300%
Total Non Resident Rounds 3,386 261,620 1 77.27 66.41%
Other Rounds
Junior Walking 56 $ 560 $ 10.00 1.10%
Total Other 56 560 10.00 1.10%
_Complimentary
VIP 1 39 $ $ - 0.76%
PGA Member 35 $ 245 1 $ 7.00 _0.69%
Donation/ Charity 123 1 $ 2,775 1 $ 22.56 2.41%
Employee / Employee Guest 86 $ - $ j 1.69%
COD / PDHS 84 $ $ 1.65%
Trade 4 $ - $ 0.08%
Total Complimentary 371 7020 8.14 7.28%
Total Round (Mountainview) 5,099 $ 323,070 $ 63.36 100%
Dw2002;POS AVG RD Page 13
City of Palm Desert
Desert Willow
Cash Reserve Analysis
for the month of
April 2002
Cash Reserve Analysis One Month
Required Reserve $ 500,000.00
Cash on Hand $ 872,854.96
Variance- Favorable Unfavorable $ 372,854.96
Page 14
PalmDesert Recreation Facilities Corporation
Income Statement
Apr-02 Apr-02 # %
Budget Actual Variance Variance
Food & Beverage Revenues $155,861 $199,576 $43,715 128.05%
Total Revenues $155,861 $199,576 $43,715 128.05%
Salaries $60,835 $72,640 ($11,805) 119.40%
Cost of Goods Sold-F&B $48,317 $59,084 ($10,767) 122.28%
Food & Beverage Expense $16,414 $15,309 $1,105 93.27%
Total Expenses $125,566 $147,033 ($21,467) 117.10%
Net Income (Loss) $30,295 $52,543 $22,248 173.44%
Note: The above revenues and expenditures are also included in the Desert Willow analysis.
Dw2002;PDRFC Budget Page 1