Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ANNEXATIONS NORTH OF I-10 FILE 1 1998
JACK IVEY RANCH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION _ 74-NO Vamer Road Telephone 7W343-0445 ThoAand Palm,CA M76 Fax 76=43.0445 November 6, 1998 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Attention: Philip Drell Dear Mr. Drell: Attached please find Petition signed by residents of Jack Ivey Ranch in favor of becoming annexed to the City of Palm Desert. We had overwhelmingly favorable response, however some of our part time residents have not returned and couldn't be contacted. However, we have obtained more than a majority of the owners who are full time residents. If we can be of further assistance to make this become a reality, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Hilgenfeldt or myself. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, JACK IVEY RANCH HOA BOA OF DIREC S BARBARA BECK, President 10/23 94 08:03 FAX ®02 t G� GRDUP October 26, 1998 Phillip Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: Annexation Dear Mr. Drell: The Welk Group, Inc. owns some 57 lots in the Jack Ivey Ranch development and some 125 acres of unimproved land adjacent to Jack Ivey Ranch. The APN s comprising the unimproved land are as follows: t. 653-270-023.8 2. 653-290-002-1 3. 653-290-015-3 4. 653-300-030-6 5. 653-300-031-1 The Welk Group,Inc. wishes to be included on the petition for annexation which you have received from the Jack Ivey Ranch Homeowners Association with respect to the 57 lots and the unimproved land described above. Please contact The Welk Group,Inc.'s asset manager,Charles Schmid, at(619) 259-2624 ext. 102, if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. cc SZFN Mt►aV6AA CFO 8860 Lowreete Welk Drive, E=46, CA 92026 1760 7.493000 •fox pd0)749,6182 PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Bandana Qn -13 /3 67 77 I « �lxlccoNJ zai 3Y3- 3C7Z 7�Sa vf/i�pa � ,6�7777o.Q �-Bdc72S / /2c"s LcJF� Z ✓c✓z rsn PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Brandin Iron �/� ,f v El 7) E2 3 �14 S E/d V(rs. r-a ze 6 3 S w� ,x< Jeati c 3S ' // � Jo - A F o Laha�u� S" — 3 6 D � / /LCd-'nl 3 ; �p c 'L - r N = s M 0 r L 0120A) Ic A-R C , TES Fva J�c� � Sctileic�r � ,3 9� s Sc icher � �`S9 ,�cz - i lro 3 O PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Bellows 7yCx Lur,tu L3RO4nvjr-/Z ° QQQ 1�f6ya- i n no Ic aL L--bkoTfq E77�79 ccs L �j r i` PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Canteen k Logs 7>,4 zo✓& L 3 �o RR ca- Gr u- 3f5^ Z 3 ,e L - �iS�2Cc 3 Z Z I PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Chuckwa on - 3 sz EA< drz— /1�2T N � G 4 (gyp t� -� 85 C uc&/cJ- C 1-3 7ZO7f ,� PTV e. 3 V 2 7 PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Conestoga L o A/ 7 �JC-ELi ✓,4 1 , r S d psi - P 7� - S oN c -r - �yo sl3d7c&7 �y yob cvi ✓�r�v 7 —9/c2— 'Z �-4G d , \ -t L S-v 1 /c s dZ4 e P 3r PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Cottontail / 74-7 o SiC 7cl -77S' u L 71f��f 7 CoTla�tl7fl i2c�C��l??J• C-arSudl �1✓��, •7�-8 'Z'3 CoT-�lY,d,�l. I N �_ GArJD ( � � �� 2s��a.3 ca7��ia a,•- � 1 41-s-w gPaad E Y0. 7-4/-97/ OA-7T6Z� c: k4R L1=S ,C . PO-Tf-- 'r�F787 �ofa� !C KF`/ F• o R T Eta "1�7Y7 �o-t`ot�i. �ow 7 f-5 c i i 17 PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Double Diamond aTi i � S �� A 6�i- L Nd-S z_ S i LUAM woa "( 7Z<S SCE, 1i /0 ��5 Cab -�� la PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Double Diamond u 6Z �ianar!J�tE / c7AA) 17 C \J e: de - soN `f67/ a �CK Ao LL Cz r4 sQQa, 1 ,34 LQ o i ,=,,Z 3¢�7Z cc' ATrH�r�s _ C$• OY7 )10 S /% A k:Q .a u ti N Ila -7/s � inMva� PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Gaucho Way -7 I -7 -L Z 4—! -7 n/E L — v;y�,"He ko 4e � C 7`f- 66�/ f��i es2 Ak7r7 /",'s 7 - / ✓- I - f c T-. _J 5 t 7 C7 PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Mesquite Tree J N 4� 9 !! G2Q L I- PP f LED�)$D CT 11FTCALI-f A `f �i tio41 !! f rr y`S l\1 1 PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Mexicali Rose w e_ /s 7 43/ A.xic4/" /� AN C'l�N 74a 7 9 /C cf N oS G b C- �F T uia y v �9r ,041, Xosx--' r�' zm !62 �^C2lc SE (�aoAIIA aM 9 -2 673 /5 Iz rz �SS c 7 67 o givC 7 a c es r E 6a &VIC4/i e ,1 e SE PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Mexico Way 3 S- 174 9 O cc d 0 ems,s7d cs 514ouse -34 a G cyz £ �s� ✓ � o -LI 13 E NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS oad 7 (?g - gr Pr �� . L ly- / 74 Bois � �A ,s��✓ �� �f�--�� 7 p J 74-19�/ �d�flll ,vs 7z7/ Arif/C/y I7JAI;rZ- v4. /'' M- b 1 N A F • 0 L-5 o,J 7 y - PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Sand Rock Road \A/21 A 0 N en S z3 v GAlyr 9 � I ber C�assa,r 3s- ��7 if 61- 7�Glf' /YI LE 0744e v �� / -- � s 49 .5-, - o 3 5J 9� 3 .�o,y CLLiuL'7L /�E/✓ IVeAj Deggee 35-G G 6 �.do i ,ec.✓ � D S �oj�-�/�/ /JK.e L A F c cr CR cLLO x1 y Get PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Serenade AJ r / city-w&t( 9Cs -34 Q� b aCAP nr h o SrFT.a `ae�P� f 35-or�� se��n�r1� e U oc 8-4VIly1v /V PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS South Border IL LlG'NN �• `•f�iv C -- s`�-3o0 lea (?0 G' nl�J - 4.✓C oh L.rnv / 3S 3ev ea D, ?aS7Sv � . Lt/ zy i ,QC Ss 35 2f�/ 80l� I L Ace r f s�o F S ' ass� 9oS. d_o cl �/ PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Stage Line Gis�4Lc( /16e,� 7 B/� njL -Ali! 7,V f-f F o.e.c3TH S N 2,r lt^ !Nr n c4 A - eta-& es f ine ,t. 2ZI 7Y-9Yb WAS Tom- CA 17o RE � 7� GS�S�G F 7[ TL13o7D, Sw� �� 717zs' 6) a e l� Xr a s7e P, �9s ^r L i zz -SS z _n i l3 0 : :u -b fl) 6`ts7V 411Ailzr tno6-a ✓ L' _ .� f 5-/:�- 61 K*,�P6 Coy LhL �3 PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Sta e Drive o / Of Y5 611;� / N p 3 5l Y S� Y 3 S Y� OY \ 3 - y Sf- e we _ d, *,Rvolpl PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Stage Drive LIVA L Ge 3 s - �flT v 3 q- 6 L�- I/ .v Ale-N Flsc G10s Fi s �/ 3 sh'I��Ey eNAPyoc% 34�- S� o,, 7lo I n• e - (/O 4 to o 3y 62S— 0 s i j`i1 — 3 5�y ��6,q Z-1qkrz-iF Ell, e 3 So PF -397 7 � r - j 0 VosG'� PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Sunshine c ►z.s C • C tolk /6/ u�5�,n C fir,✓� o o q.p 2 ,. u ' n fti+' PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS SurreZ Way 3 - 2G`�s2 9 �Fj (r.4�ViG2 3 SL- Ptf ��e aORN �wJ 3 q SD 7 a Srh,=tl1 3 �9s— zo C r LLI a 22 vie E. Saner �v2cc A SAmC- r- 34- -7T s Jo1cc E h+. 3 - S1 - 9 �o SL' Q D i PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS �Sweetwell Rd . !C°K41?0 7 66/ 2�w ar, E �11-�tI E U , -i;`lrW L/ 7/) OaL AVJ S/ia r07V �a c Kso v 75'l6 PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS Tioga Sfie o \ V 4-• ,5- FT ��, .J o - z 11 e N e s't 0. Ple7/4;eti B, IGKQvd CatS2q 0 3�f T-90 D D D D D D D D FINAL STUDY REPORT D OF THE D SUN CITY PALM DESERT . ® COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AND REQUEST FOR SPHERE CHANGE 9 AND ANNEXATION i TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Submitted To RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION October 27,1997 Prepared By SUN CITY PALM DESERT i COMMUNITY OF INTEREST en ibow,M ber Sy Kaplan, tuber S Stan Rumber Max Ganstwig,Member 16C Paul D.(dill s 65170 r O O O O TABLE OF CONTENTS O O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 pI. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 © A. SCPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. COI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. Considered Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1. Indio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Palm Desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . (A) Data from Independent Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (1) Resident Poll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (2) Results of Resident Poll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (3) Fiscal Impact Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (B) Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 (1) Fiscal Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 D (2) Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 (3) Ambulance Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 (4) Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 (5) Government Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 (6) Benefits for Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' 3. Unincorporated Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. Request for Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 i SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO LAFCO COI POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 LIST OF EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 P ' 63170 O O O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY O I. Background. The Sun City Palm Desert Community of Interest consists © primarily of the Sun City Palm Desert project. The project, and the Community of p Interest, are described briefly as follows: DA. SCPD. Sun City Palm Desert ("SCPD") is a master planned community ® being developed by the Del Webb California Corp. It is a senior-oriented residential project with substantial amenities and supporting services including approximately 70 acres of commercially zoned areas. SCPD has been approved by the County of Riverside under Specific Plan No.281, and the community currently has a population of approximately 2,500 residents living in 1,391 homes, with an average occupancy rate of 1.8 residents per household. At buildout, the project is expected to consist of approximately 9154 residents living in 4818 homes. B. COI. The SCPD Community of Interest ("COI"), as originally configured, ® consisted of property located within SCPD,plus approximately 70 adjacent acres of commercial property. Of that 70 acres, a 30 acre parcel ("Auto Mall Parcel") is in the process of being annexed to the City of Indio for purposes of constructing an Auto Mall, and is no longer intended to be included within the boundaries of the COI. For purposes of orientation, a map showing the original COI boundaries is attached as Exhibit "A", a map of the Auto Mall Parcel is attached as Exhibit 'B", and a map showing the revised COI boundaries is attached as Exhibit "C"•. A map of mid- Coachella Valley cities and their existing spheres of influence is also attached as Exhibit ' „D„ P ' C. Considered Alternatives. Since the inception of the COI, alternatives that t were considered with respect to the future of SCPD included annexation to Indio, annexation to Palm Desert, and obtaining an Unincorporated Community designation, each of which is discussed below. ' 1. Indio. At the beginning of SCPD,portions of SCPD were located ' within the sphere of influence of the City of Indio and, in fact,at one point Indio initiated Annexation 70 which,as originally configured, included portions of SCPD commercial areas. However, from the outset SCPD residents expressed, at homeowner meetings and other membership venues, a reluctance to become part of Indio, and a preference to becoming part of Palm Desert. This preference lead to a change of the ' project post office address from Indio to Palm Desert in 1995, and a change of the name ' from Sun City Palm Springs to Sun City Palm Desert in 1995. Further, it lead to a series of discussions with Indio which culminated in late 1996 with an agreement pursuant to 1 which Indio would amend its sphere of influence to exclude all of the SCPD COI except � 1 for the Auto Mall Parcel,and limit its annexation efforts west of Adams Street to the Auto Mall Parcel and a 40 acre parcel just northly thereof("Kaptur Parcel"). Revisions D to Indio's sphere of influence and Annexation 70 are currently being processed by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission("LAFCO"). D 2. Palm Desert. Since annexation to Indio was not a viable alternative D to SCPD residents, and since Section A.6.a. of LAFCO's COI policies lists annexation to D an existing city as the highest priority in the hierarchy of changes in organization, the natural course of direction turned to the City of Palm Desert. In evaluating the Palm D Desert alternative, a number of factors were considered. D (A) Data from Independent Studies. In connection with the evaluation process, a number of steps were taken. (1) Resident Poll. In order to confirm the preference of the residents that had been expressed at homeowner meetings and other membership venues, in August of 1997, a Resident Poll, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "E", ® was sent out to members. (2) Results of Resident Poll. The results of the Resident Poll have been tabulated and are indicated in a SCPD Community Association Inter- Office Memorandum dated September 30, 1997, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "F". The results show that of the 48% of the members that responded, 78% favored ® annexation to Palm Desert, 11% opposed annexation and 11%had no opinion. An article from the Desert Sun newpaper which discusses the results of the Resident Poll is ® also attached as Exhibit "G". (3) Fiscal Impact Report. In order to consider potential economic impacts on the County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert by an annexation, in July of 1997, a Fiscal Impact Report,a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "H", was prepared. This Report indicates that,excluding the effects of commercial areas within the COI, an annexation into Palm Desert would essentially be revenue neutral generating, at SCPD buildout, a small recurring surplus to the County of$132,000 per year, and a small recurring deficit to the City of$32,000 per year. The Report excluded evaluation of the development of commercial areas located within the ® revised COI on the assumption that revenue from such development would flow to Palm Desert to offset the recurring deficit, unless for some reason other arrangements ® were made. ® (B) Other Factors. Other factors that were taken into consideration in connection with possible annexation to Palm Desert were as follows: ® 2 o 0 0 0 (1) Fiscal Status. Palm Desert is widely regarded as one 0 of the Coachell Valley's best-run municipalities. The City has put several million O dollars into reserve accounts ($5 million was reserved last year, and another$2-$3 © million is expected to be reserved this year),and it is now one of the most fiscally sound cities in the state of California. Riverside County, like many counties throughout 0 California,has been forced to repeatedly reduce staff and services over the past several p years. © (2) Police Protection. SCPD is currently served by the Indio station of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Palm Desert, like Indian D Wells, La Quinta, and Rancho Mirage, contracts with the Sheriff's Department, and is ® served by the station at the Civic Center on Fred Waring Drive. Unincorporated areas, . such as the current locale of SCPD, are staffed at less than 1 officer per 1,000 residents. Under its contract with the Sheriffs Department,Palm Desert currently receives 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. (3) Ambulance Service. For a fee of$49 per year, ® members of SCPD will enjoy free ambulance service as residents of the City. For ® members without ambulance service insurance coverage, this could mean savings well beyond the annual cost of$49 P (4) Proximity. Because of its proximity to SCPD, Palm Desert offers better overall accessibility and ease of communication with staff and elected officials. Although the County Supervisor for the SCPD district has an office in Indio at the Larson Justice Center, and spends considerable time there, in dealing with members of the legislative body and staff in general, Palm.Desert would be afford much p more convenient contact since the City Hall is only a few miles away and Riverside is a ' one-hour drive. (5) Government Processing. Governmental requirements to process and develop land and build homes are less burdensome in 0 Palm Desert than in the County, although the fees are comparable in many ways. A 0 more streamlined process could mean a more efficient rate of development at SCPD, allowing new phases to be completed more quickly. 0 (6) Benefits for Residents. As a part of Palm Desert, 0 SCPD residents would be able to take advantage of programs and activities in Palm Desert offered at special prices for City residents, e.g., the Desert Willow golf course, ' the city's recreation complex,and other programs. 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 o 0 0 Q 3. Unincorporated Community. The final alternative that was given 0 serious consideration for the SCPD COI was to request from LAFCO a long term 0 designation as an Unincorporated Community. However, because the preference of the residents appeared to be so clearly in favor of annexation to Palm Desert, and because o Section A.6.a. of LAFCO's COI policies lists annexation to an existing city as the highest Q priority in the hierarchy of changes in organization and designation as an p Unincorporated Community as the lowest priority, the decision was made to request © LAFCO approval of annexation to Palm Desert. © II. Request for Annexation. Based on the above, the COI representatives © respectfully request that LAFCO approve the revised COI for inclusion within the spere p of influence of the City of Palm Desert and, as expeditiously as possible thereafter, approve the revised COI for annexation into the City of Palm Desert. 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 O SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO LAFCO COI POLICIES O O Throughout the balance of this Final Report, the representatives of the SCPD COI O have chosen to utilize a "question and answer" format,providing specific responses to 0 relevant Sections of the LAFCO COI policies. Each reference to a LAFCO policy O Section shall state the question or issue raised by the Section and then provide a O response in bold. © 1.2 Prior to the conclusion of the two-year study period (or extension) designated COI representatives must submit a documented report covering the results of its study. The report will address the methods used to arrive at the preferred . jurisdictional/organizational aternatives and the reasons why other alternatives ® were not selected. 0 a. The report will include a map of the original COI and a map for any requested changes of the COI organizational boundaries. The map will be ® developed in accordance with the LAFCO guidelines appropriate to the D requested long-term status. A request involving expansion of the territory beyond the originally designated COI boundaries must be supported by strong evidence to justify the action. Response:As indicated above, a map showing the original COI boundaries is attached as Exhibit"A", a map showing the Auto Mall Parcel is attached as Exhibit "B", and a map showing the revised COI boundaries is attached as Exhibit "C". ' b. The COI representatives may use any format desired in the presentation ' of the study report. However, the report should endeavor to provide answers to the questions appropriate for the designated study options. There is no restriction on the volume of data submitted, although information should be pertinent and clearly stated. The report may include, as attachments,supporting data referenced in the analysis. The ' Commission will consider all information submitted with the report, those submitted by opposing parties and public testimony submitted at the hearing if a hearing is requested by an affected party. 1 1 Response:As indicated above, the representatives of the SCPD COI have chosen 1 to utilize a "question and answer"format,providing specific responses to relevant Sections of the LAFCO COI policies. 1 1 1.3 Annexation to an existing city I 1 5 1 1 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 a. What city(ies) was/were considered for annexation into? 0 0 Response: The COI is bordered by unincorporated Riverside County territory to the northwest, and east. To the south-west, immediately across Interstate-10, lie 0 the city limits of the City of Palm Desert. To the south, also across the Interstate, 0 lies the unincorporated area of Bermuda Dunes. The City of Palm Desert is 0 therefore the only incorporated city adjacent to Sun City Palm Desert COI, and, O except as otherwise indicated in Section I.C.1 of this Report, was the only city Q considered for annexation. 0 b. Is the community within that city's sphere of influence? Response: Not at the present time. Currently, a portion of the southernmost ® area of the COI is within the sphere of influence of the City of Indio, however, as indicated in Section I.C.1 of this Report,Indio is currently in the process of ® adjusting its sphere of influence to exclude the COI. ® C. Did you consult with that city? Response: Yes. Informal-discussions have taken place between representatives of the COI and Palm Desert elected officials and staff. d. What were the results of the consultation? Response: It is the policy of the City to not request annexation of an unincorporated Riverside County area or Community of Interest prior to the expression of a desire for annexation from that area of COI. The COI representatives are therefore making this request prior to any expression of intent by the City. However, Palm Desert has informally indicated that it would ' favorably consider a request, under LAFCO oversight,for the SCPD COI to change its sphere of influence to Palm Desert and annex to Palm Desert. e. Does the city desire to annex the community as a whole entity? Are there ' plans to annex portions of the COI? If the answer is yes, when? What ' actions have been taken by the city to annex the COI and what is the current status of these actions? Response: The City of Palm Desert has indicated that if annexation were to take place, the City would desire to annex the whole COI, except for tha Auto Mall ' Parcel discussed above. 1 f. Have any planning actions been initiated by the city that will lead to a 1 6 I 1 0 0 0 0 future attempt to annex the community? Is the answer is yes, describe the 0 planning action. For example: The city has included the COI (or part of 0 the COI) in its documented General Plan for future expansion. 0 Response: In accordance with the policy of the City of Palm Desert, there have D been no planning actions initiated by the City that would lead to a future attempt D to annex the SCPD COI. D g. Can the adjoining city provide needed services not now available within the COI? What services? How would they be provided? When? What D would they cost? How would they be paid for? D ® Response: As a senior-oriented, residential planned community, SCPD, through ® its Community Association,provides substantial amenities and supporting services for its residents. Additional services are currently being provided in an adequate manner by the County of Riverside. The City of Palm Desert can provide equal services to those provided by the County of Riverside. The Fiscal Impact Report attached hereto as Exhibit"E"shows that annexation of the SCPD ® COI would be essentially revenue neutral to both the City and the County. h. Has any action been taken to determine whether or not residents of the COI would support annexation of the area into the city? Please describe. ® Response: The mayor of Palm Desert, the-Honorable Dick Kelley, spoke publically before a group of SCPD residents, and members of the community's Veterans and Residents Assistance Club, on April 1, 1997. Among the topics addressed at that speech was the possible future annexation by the City of the SCPD COI. Both the Mayor and the majority of residents attending expressed t favorable views of possible future annexation. 0 In addition, open meetings of the Sun City Palm Desert COI petitioners have 0 been held in January 1997,April 1997,and September 1997, with due notice to residents and property owners of the SCPD COI, to provide information with 1 respect to the available alternatives and the progress of the annexation process. These open meetings were recorded and tapes are available for review by the LAFCO commissioners. At the meetings, strong support was shown for 1 annexation to Palm Desert. In addition, as indicated in Section I.C.1(a)(2) and (3) of this Report, in August of 1997, a Resident Poll, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit"F", was sent out to 1 members. The results of that Poll have been tabulated and are indicated in a 1 SCPD Community Association Inter-Office Memorandum dated September 30, 1 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 1997, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit"G". The results show that of the O 48% of the members that voted, 78%favored annexation to Palm Desert, 11% O opposed annexation and 11% had no opinion. An article from the Desert Sun newpaper which discusses the results of the Resident Poll is also attached as 0 Exhibit"H". 0 p (Note: Since the findings of the SCPD COI are that Annexation to an Existing D Multi- or Single Purpose District,Formation of a County Service Area, Incorporation of a City, or remaining an Unincorporated Community are nt applicable, and would not be supported by a majority of the residents and D property owners of the, the COI representatives have not addressed those ® questions.) 10 S p i ® �I / / 1 1 r 1 1 r 1 r . 8 o 0 0 LIST OF EXHIBITS 0 0 Exhibit "A"- Map showing the original COI boundaries. Exhibit "B"- Map showing the Auto Mall Parcel. Exhibit "C"- Map showing the revised COI boundaries. Exhibit "D"- Map showing mid-valley cities and existing spheres of influence. p Exhibit"E" -Resident Poll. ® Exhibit"F" - Results of Resident Poll. ® Exhibit "G" -Newspaper Article from Desert Sun. ® Exhibit"H" - Fiscal Impact Report. P 9 1 1 65170 1 1 1 O ' - EXHIBIT "A" O ORIGINAL C.O.I. BOUNDARY O O O Community of Interest #3 D Sun City Palm Desert & Sphere of Influence Amendment D to the City of Indio D LAFCO 93-50--4 & 93-51-4 D .................... ....... D = • D FRANCE& WXr D ...: D LAFCO 93-51-4 Staff Recommended • Amendment to Indio's Sphere of Influence Win.. LAFCO 93-50-4 Staff Recommended 3&TH ST. ® Boundaries - C.O.I. 13 = Sun City Palm Desert got D :z DEL o° ® 38TN AvE. JCI D 38TH vE. ' 2 O - r Z (j) a :N z LLI LL LL 'Q W p /`/0 City of Indio Q � � STAFF RECOMMENDATION � D' EXHIBIT "B" D a D Wz ZZ Z= D =m UD D wZ W W_p D �< F— D °Z �W w oZ D ?4 to c� 00 0 D W W ��]]- D 00 CL o �LL W 00 a o M- as S r � . D Y a. Q D ® i i ® i i o i � o D m i o � � N ® � i N W o D OCHIBIT "C" D REVISED C.O.I. BOUNDARY D D D D D Community of Interest #3 D Sun City Polm Desert D •................... ......• D D FRANCES WAY : D .... D :08000 R£NSED !NDlO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE . 0,00 REVISED C.O.I. BOUNDARY '. 36TH 5T. : ® DAL D a 5.515 o ® SCUD :o 30TH AVE. N ••.": 38TH AVE. Z LLI ® •F .Q .p w D0549649 D z i.14a ® City of D z Indio D Q D' EXHIBIT "D" ge 1 of 2 D D 'THOUSAND PALMS ® CITY OF PALM DESERT D D EM PALM DESERT SPHERE QFINFLUENCE D ...._...^...-� D i D D D p�JMile D ® FAAW SMTAA M WEDS PALM SPRINGS COUNTRY CUS D BEkIAADJDA OU 11y OF RANCHO COIN (3� = DUNES ® WAGE PALM ® FREDdWAWNa S 447H � f CCU (lam OF % ® MAN WELLS SUTY OF ® LA QUINTA D D D I I ' BERMUDA DUNES I .. FF • r O . v D Exhibit "E" DSun City Palm Desert Community Association D D D D D D August 21, 1997 D Dear Sun City Palm Desert Resident: D Over the past several months the question of the possible annexation of Sun City Palm Desert by the City of Palm Desert has been a subject of discussion among residents. This being ® the case, we decided to do a survey of residents to gauge your feelings on the subject. ® Do you think Sun City Palm Desert should seek annexation into the City of Palm Desert, ® or do you think we should remain in unincorporated Riverside County? Please note the issues © briefly discussed below. At the bottom of this letter you will find a survey form. Please fill it out and return it to the Community Association office. We will publish the results in an upcoming issue of News & Views. ® (Please be aware this is not a vote for or against annexation; annexation would have to meet the D strict requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission, and require both a formal vote D by Sun City Palm Desert residents and agreement by the City of Palm Desert.) ® Taxes ® By law, property tax rates are the same for Palm Desert and unincorporated Riverside County. P Current Assessments The only special assessment on Sun City residents would be an additional$49 per year. In return for this annual sum Sun City residents would receive free ambulance services. For residents without insurance which includes ambulance services, this could mean savings on these services well beyond the $49 annual cost. Future Special Assessments S There are no guarantees that either Palm Desert or Riverside County might not implement some ® new special assessment;that risk exists in every jurisdiction in California. At the same time, the state's Proposition 218, which is now law, mandates that no new special assessment can be D implemented unless it is approved by the voting public. D Fiscal Status D Palm Desert is widely regarded as one of the valley's best-run municipalities. The city has put D several million dollars into reserve accounts ($5 million was reserved last year, and another$2- $3 million is expected to be reserved this year). It is now one of the most fiscally sound cities in D the state of California. Riverside County, like many counties throughout California, has been forced to repeatedly reduce staff and services over the past several years. With no new revenue sources in sight(projects like the lucrative Eagle Mountain Landfill may not be approved), there is ID no immediate prospect for a significantly improved fiscal situation for Riverside County. ® Continued. . . . ® 38180 DEL WERB BIND. RlkL:f DESER7;C%9221: i519;772.2222 FAA;619)772.2299 ® Page 2 Police and Fire Protection ® Sun City is currently served by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department's station in Indio. The City of Palm Desert, like Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Rancho Mirage, contracts with the Sheriff's Department for police protection, and is served by the station at the Civic Center on Fred Waring Drive. The unincorporated area of the valley, in which Sun City is located, is staffed at less than ' one patrol officer per 1,000 residents. The incorporated cities that contract with the County are staffed at a higher rate with, for example, approximately 2.25 officers per 1,000 in Indian Wells and approximately 1.5 officers per 1,000 in Palm Desert. Fire protection would remain the same under the state Department of Forestry, with the nearest station being on 42nd Avenue until the new fire station on Washington Street next to Sun City Palm Desert has been built. 1 Proximily Because of its size and proximity, Palm Desert offers Sun City residents the same or better accessibility and ease of communication with staff and elected officials. The Palm Desert city council and staff are located at the Civic Center on Fred Waring Drive. The elected Riverside County Supervisor for our district has an office in Indio at the Larson Justice Center, and spends considerable time there, even though the official seat of County government is located in the City of Riverside. Since Sun City began developing, our local County Supervisors have been very responsive to the residents of Sun City. Palm Desert Status for Residents As a part of Palm Desert, Sun City residents would be able to take advantage of programs and activities in Palm Desert priced specially for city residents, e.g. Desert Willow golf course, the city's recreation complex, and other programs. Processina The governmental requirements to process and develop land and build homes are less burdensome in Palm Desert than in Riverside County, though the fees are comparable in many ways. A more streamlined process could mean a more efficient rate of development at Sun City, allowing new phases and neighborhoods to be completed more quickly. Please help us with this survey by filling it out and dropping it off at the Community Association office. If you have any questions, please feel free to speak to any of the residents administering this issue for the Community Association -- Sy Kaplan, Ken Leibow, Stan Rush, or Max (Mickey) Ganstwig. At Del Webb, both vice president of land development Paul Quill and director of public relations Bruce Bonafede can also answer your questions. Thank you for your cooperation. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PALM DESERT SURVEY . NAME ADDRESS YES, I think Sun City Palm Desert should request annexation into Palm Desert . _NO, I don't think Sun City Palm Desert should request annexation into Palm Desert . _I have no opinion at this time . COMMENTS:. . PLEASE DROP OFF AT THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OFFICE . THANK YOU! Exhibit "F" Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 1 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DDate: September 30, 1997 D To: Helen McEnemey,President,SCPD Community Association D From: Sue A. Sweeney,Executive Director D D Subject: Palm Desert Annexation Resident Poll ® The following report indicates results from the above mentioned poll: ® Survey was mailed 8/21/97 . ® Number mailed(all homes) 1391 D Mailing done First class mail Results as of 9/30/97 515 -Yes(for annexation) 78-No(against annexation) 78-No opinion(neutral position) ® On the subject of annexation to the city of Palm Desert,these results represent a response of approximately ® 78%yes, 11%no,and 11%no opinion. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. r, Exhibit "G" The Desert Sun Wednesday, October 8, 1997 i P Growth&development p Sun City takes first step D toward joining Palm Desert D D D D D D D P D - e ® On the mOtrG Ellen Noss peh).Sal Aiello,John at Sun City.More Nan 75 percam of homeowners Buckley and Marlene Klinger use the exercas,room who answered a Survey want to oe annexed. ® Survey shows many members favor annexation ® y yepp MOAIDaaM the Sun City community association Me oesm sun who also serves on the committee Submitting the repon. PALM DESERT—Sue Sweeney m^Clty The association mailed the sur. read the survey's results: ' Py"Dever[ vey to 1.391 homeownem in late Yes. _ August, and 671 households Yea. responded. . Yes. ®:._ ,� Of those. 515 said they favored N. ;. annexation.78 said they opposed it In the end,more than 75 percent � a_; R er-,0+ and 78 had no opinion. . of the Del Webb's Sun City home, ?rd!r,}' COMPLICATED VENME:Art owners who returned surveys said ca Zlub p, -;�-?f,' neAfter S aren't simple fears. they wanted their 1.pan of cam- Alter submitting Lee have to musty to become pan of Palm ..nimmo.a::[ City residents would have to apple Desert. v =T;+y, el LA Sph7 to become part of fiat ,Now a livemember committee `^ ���� ew nmenrme onry s.� vty's sphere of influence,an area . plans to submit a report to River- designated for the cilv's expansion. . side County saving Sun City wants tale community like Palm Desert' Then Sun Citv would have to apply to be,annexed by Palm Desem he said. And I tsnk there's a lot of for annexation.Both the City Court- "It really wasn't asurprue."mid benefits you can't even think of. cif and Sun City residents would Sweeney,executive director of the Sun City opened in July 1992. vote whether to approve it. Sun City Palm Desert Community More than 2.500 people live there. -For the final solution,it's a very Association.which counted the stir- and the communi[v is expected long road we have to go through" veysin September."Alotofpeople eventually to have an eanmaletl said hamcower Stan flush. he ® have mid. Why are we still in the 10.000 residents serves on the committee."It may couty^n "' "Everyone is looking toward the be several hears in the future Max Ga[[s[xug. who moved to future. 'said Audrey Legge[as she The city annexed Palm Desert ® Sun City in 1993. said he went worked in the community's ceram- Country Club in May 1994.But the through a similar experience when its Mom.'-And 1 think the future is City Couneil turned down Bermuda his Northern California community being part of Palm Desert." Dunes request for annexation in ® was amwsed by Walnut Creek. NOVEMBER DEADLINE: Sun M1larch 1996, citing the cost n( Cannwi¢said he thinks m -come that the City in 199J became a'-comunip' providing services there and the ® benefits of becoming pan of Palm of interest.'a two-year desiCmtion lack of revenue from Bermuda Dean include faster response time that gave residents time to decide Dunes to pay(or its services. by police and less expensive ambu. what thev would like to do.Sun City The hilamphv of annexations ® lance semth Palm Desert has a got an enerrsmn vnm the Local P conuvct'De nmern. which County Agents' Formation tbmmin in. s somelly Ra that fits in:' Jlaeer Sheriffs Depenm t G which also which oretsees ato Solemn a m be D¢k Recemeal. 1. ow[gsod men ® serves Sun tin-.but Govides sore county.but eras to suhmn a rcoon just m¢ce likl. In tCi case is to the ma's contras provides more m November. lee-me R like Sun City wants to officers Per believed residents. AS far ne I'm R best-run.Pmm ly look of the city.we'd prof ® -!Aiwa prove-being i an upt- Desert Kaplan. ar a boar me m[ir of abk look at list the bit bigger of an ties will improve.being in an ups- said Sy Kaplan.a board member of urea than just[ha[." v D — 4AL REPORT D Exhibit "H" D D D D D D D D D D FISCAL IMPACT REPORT ® SUN CITY PALM DESERT ® PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE ® CITY.OF PALM DESERT D S ® AUGUST 22, 1997 P Prepared For Del Webb California Corp. 39755 Berkey Drive . Palm Desert, California 92211 P Prepared By David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ® 1301 Dove Street, Suite 600 ® Newport Beach, California 92660 ® (714) 752-1554 e v. D D D TABLE OF CONTENTS D D D Section Page D D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 D I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I A: Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I p B. Scope and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Project Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Public Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. Land Use and Infrastructure Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D E. Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS: CITY OF PALM DESERT . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Net Recurring Impacts . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. Analysis of Recurring Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ® C. Analysis of Recurring Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 IV. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE : . . . . . . . . . 18 A. Net Recurring Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Analysis of Recurring Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . C. Analysis of Recurring Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 . FIGURES 1. Categories of Recurring Revenues and Costs 2. Summary of Total Annual Revenues and Costs to the City 3. Summary of Annual Costs to the City at Buildout 4. Summary of Annual Revenues to the City at Buildout ® 5. Summary of Total Annual Revenues and Costs to the County 6. Summary of Annual Costs to the County at Buildout ® 7. Summary of Annual Revenues to the County at Buildout ® EXHIBITS ® 1. Vicinity Map 2. Area Map ® 3. Schematic of Methodological Approach ® 4. Project Land Use Plan 1 1 p . D D APPENDICES A. Analysis of Recurring Fiscal Impacts D B. Analysis of City Budget C. Public Agency Contact Persons D D D D D r r r r r c r r r r r r r e • • 0 • • • ii 0 • • 1 1 & Assoc.rEs, INC. a / 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 BACKGROUND i This fiscal impact report(FIR) provides an analysis of the fiscal impact to the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside resulting from development of Sun City Palm Desert ("the Project"). 1 The FIR was prepared in order to evaluate the proposed annexation of the Project area to the City of Palm Desert. The Project covers approximately 1,600 acres currently located in unincorporated Riverside County. The fiscal impact analysis is based on the land uses and project description as detailed in the Project's site plan. While the Project's Specific Plan was approved for 5,800 dwelling units, the current estimate for buildout of the project is 4,818 dwelling units. Sun City Palm Desert is a senior-oriented, residential planned community with substantial amenities and supporting services for its residents. The Project is being developed by Del Webb California i Corp. ("the Developer"). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is being developed in two approximately equal sized phases and is expected to include a total of 4,818 dwelling units at buildout. The Project is anticipated to have a population of approximately 9,154 persons at buildout. Sales prices in future years are projected to stabilize at $214,000 for an average home size of 1,659 square feet. Phase I is halfway complete, with approximately 1,260 homes sold through 1996. Phase I of the Project includes a private 18-hole . golf course and a recreation center, which contains ancillary retail services of a pro shop and restaurant, Phase II is assumed to have similar amenities. The current assessed value of the Project is estimated at $263,948,006. . There is additional commercial/retail land uses situated between the I-10 Freeway and the Project's . residential development, but they have been excluded from the fiscal analysis for purposes of a conservative report. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The fiscal impacts identified in this report include recurring municipal revenues and costs to the City and the County that result from development of the Project. Impacts on the City are associated with a variety of services, such as general government, police protection, fire protection, and public works. Impacts on the County are associated with a variety of county-wide • services, such as health and sanitation, public assistance, and county courts. Fiscal impacts have • been estimated during each year and at buildout of the Project. The methodology employed in estimating the fiscal impacts for Project involves a combination of the Case Study and Per Capita, Multiplier methods for various cost and revenue categories. • Where applicable, fiscal impacts have been estimated based on the City's 1995-96 budget. For • the impact on the County, fiscal impacts have been estimated based on the County's latest Fiscal • Fiscal Impact Report Page ES-1 Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 r ® 1 r & A$Sa._._rEs, INC. D ® Impact Report Guidelines. All fiscal impacts are stated in constant (uninflated) dollars. Figure I ® summarizes the main recurring revenues and costs to the City. a ® CONCLUSIONS ® FISCAL IMPACT ON THE CITY OF PALM DESERT As shown in Figure 2, development and annexation of the Project is projected to have a fiscal impact on the City of Palm Desert. The Project is essentially fiscally balan ' generating a small recurring fiscal deficit to the City of$32 thousand at Project buildout. a base of$3.076 million in recurring annual costs, the Project is projected to generate i than $3.044 million in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue-to-cost ratio of 0.99 to 1. ' Recurring Costs. As shown in Figure 3, recurring costs to the City at Project buildout include$1.244 million for fire protection costs (40.45 percent of the total project cost to the City), $1.200 mullion for police protection (39.02 percent), $64 thousand for road maintenance (2.07 percent), $79 thousand for library (2.58 percent); $23 thousand for animal control (0.75 r percent); $13 thousand for traffic signal maintenance; and $439 thousand for general government and overhead costs (14.27 percent). Appendix A provides more detail about all ' recurring costs and the assumptions used in their derivation. Recurring Revenues. As shown in Figure 4, recurring revenues to the City at project ' buildout include $654 thousand in annual property taxes (21.48 percent of the total project revenues to the City); $247 thousand in indirect sales taxes (8.13 percent); $42 thousand in direct sales taxes (1.37 percent); $47 thousand in property transfer taxes (1.54 percent); $1.147 million in other revenues (37.69 percent), which includes franchise fees, gas taxes and Measure A revenues; approximately $531 thousand in structural fire protection property taxes i (17.43 percent); $231 thousand in projected Proposition A fire tax revenues (7.60 percent); and $145 thousand in investment income earnings (4.76 percent). Appendix A provides more detail about all recurring revenues and the assumptions used in their derivation. FISCAL IMPACT ON THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE As shown in Figure 5, development and annexation of the Project by the City of Palm Desert will not have an adverse fiscal impact on the County of Riverside. The Project is fiscally balanced, generating a small recurring surplus to the County of $132 thousand at Project buildout. On a base of$1.248 million in recurring annual costs, the Project is projected to . generate more than $1.381 million in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue-to-cost ratio of 1.11 to 1. Recurring Costs. As shown in Figure 6, recurring costs to the County at Project buildout . include $73 thousand for general government costs (5.85 percent of the total project cost to the County), $419 thousand for public protection (33.57 percent), $320 thousand for sheriff costs (25.64 percent), $100 thousand for health and sanitation (8.01 percent); $176 thousand • Fiscal Impact Report Page ES-2 • San City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 1. ( 1 • & ASSOCIA[ESA INC. 1 for public assistance (14.10 percent); $4 thousand for recreation and culture (0.35 percent); $61 thousand for debt service obligations (4.89 percent); and $95 thousand for library costs (7.59 percent). Appendix A provides more detail about all recurring costs and the assumptions used in their derivation. Recurring Revenues. As shown in Figure 7, recurring revenues to the County at project buildout include $1.071 million in annual property taxes (77.54 percent of the total project revenues to the County); $146 thousand in library property taxes (10.56 percent); $47 thousand in property transfer taxes(3.40 percent); $52 in other revenues (3.73 percent), which includes fines, intergovernmental revenues and tipping fee revenues; and $66 thousand in P investment income earnings (4.76 percent). Appendix A provides more detail about all recurring revenues and the assumptions used in their derivation. D a 0 O ® Page E Fiscal Impact Report ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 97 I � ► D E� D O � Q w • � V U � • M� U � w � • � W W � F' a ; � • V Aq a Cd • V► � a� • U °' Con o o 0 0 0) o Con °? • U a s Lon C7 w w • O • • • UN O ' O O i 8 � � N O ' N 1 r v + o 1 8 � 1 - o / Iwo, .o / N ® ' 00 0 0 0 o 0 C C 0 p o 00 %.0 I�t Ncl ® spuvsnoy,L uI 0 I 1 0 - o 1 N ' O - O O , - O cq ' O N I N � ' o 00 o / w o I / O a - N / _ � 00 1 0 ON s r o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 cn N ® spuvsnoiLL uj Li r y 00 `ti N L� +.. ' Z O N a� c' C w donM o > J o o a. 1 1 lit 09 09 09 ► "Zi M A ter U AO ► � V a 1 1 C 06 ► V N o 1 � � 1 N � 1 con x 1 � 1 1 / rA rAH 42 con vi �ZI t p M � M a 1 QOD Itz � � r ► A U ► o� i U ► 4 1 a iZ III ti 1 1 1 r, 1 Noxwoomm�& Assoc_-Es, INC. p D D p I. INTRODUCTION D DA. Background D This report provides an analysis of the fiscal impact on the City of Palm Desert and the p County of Riverside resulting from development of Sun City Palm Desert ("the Project"). D The Project entails the development of approximately 4,818 dwelling units in two phases. D The Project is currently located within unincorporated Riverside County and is proposed for annexation to the City of Palm Desert. The Project is situated north of the I-10 Freeway between Washington Street and Adams Avenue. As shown in Exhibits 1 and 2, ® the Project, if annexed, would be located in the northern portion of the City of Palm ' Desert. B. Scope and Methodology D D 1. Scope of Analysis Fiscal impacts arising from a land development project can be broadly categorized as one of two types: recurring impacts or one-time impacts. Each of these broad types may, in turn, be divided into a revenue component and a cost component. For ® purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that one-time revenues directly offset ® one-time costs. For example, one-time City plan check and inspection costs associated with construction of the project are assumed to be offset by plan check and inspection ® fees collected by the County. Consequently, the fiscal impacts identified in this Fiscal Impact Report(FIR) focus on ongoing or recurrin fiscal impacts from the development of the Project on the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside. In addition, the FIR assumes that in-tract streets, in-tract street lighting, and landscaped areas will be maintained by the Community Association and hence will not be the fiscal responsibility of the City or the County. 2. Methodological Approach • The methodology employed in estimating fiscal impacts on the City and County and special districts utilizes a combination of the Case Study and Per Capita Multiplier ® methods for revenue and cost categories. The Case Study approach projects fiscal ® impacts based on future service demand or revenue potential, determined through interviews with City and County staff and based on characteristics unique to the ® Project. Other fiscal impacts have been estimated using the Per Capita Multiplier ® method, which assumes that recurring costs or revenues will result from the Project at p the same rates per person(or per dwelling unit) as currently prevail within the City and ® the County. Exhibit 2 summarizes the methodological approach in a schematic. ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 1 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 12, 1997 R . BMW & ASSO�--nTES INC. Exhibit 3 shows the methodological approach employed for each revenue and cost category of the City and County. For example, the Per Capita Multiplier method is used to estimate recurring costs for recreation services. Alternatively, the Case Study method is used to estimate both secured and unsecured property taxes, sales and use taxes, property transfer taxes, and parcel charges. In addition, the Case Study method is used to calculate costs for fire protection, police protection, and general government services. ® Fiscal impacts on the City have been estimated based on an analysis of the City's approved budget for fiscal year 1995-96 except where noted otherwise. Fiscal impacts on the County have been estimated based on the County's Fiscal Impact Report Guidelines of 1994 ("the Guidelines') and reflect County service standards. This 1 edition of the Guidelines is the latest version produced by the County. In order to reflect current costs, cost and revenue multipliers in the Guidelines have been inflated ' to 1997. All fiscal impacts are stated in constant (uninflated) dollars r C. Limitations ' 1. Accuracy of Information This FIR contains an analysis of recurring revenues and costs to the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside from development of the Project. The report is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from our research, ' knowledge of fiscal impact analysis and municipal finance, and interviews with staff at the County and the City, during which we were provided certain data. The sources of information and basis of the estimates are stated herein. While we believe that the sources of information are reliable, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. (DTA) does not r express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accuracy of such information. r The analysis of fiscal impacts contained in this report is not considered to be a financial forecast or a "financial projection" as technically defined by the American r Institute on Certified Public Accountants. The word "projection" used alone within r this report relate to broad expectations of future events or market conditions. Since the r analyses are based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, DTA can not represent them r as results that will actually be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not r materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, the actual r results achieved may vary from the projections. r i r r r r • Fiscal Impact Repon Page 2 Sun City Palm Desen Annexation August 22, 1997 1 1 Vicin,y Map - Sun City Palm D@ert �( 1 } .�'• hAx o�a�.�`�,'"A�Ei.}} ?�"T',�F � ✓slrvar„ ej,2 u �s� s��.,. i, V(� 'x'Y;s'q 1 �r Y 1 D esey r a�: ..3. � 1 aSL sai e•,a , .�hnS t aw.�� �itF, q� M'W �• llf�,¢yr w 6 �' k s 'P,ax r m vdn PPa1m.Sprmg l .r (.) € Thousand Palms 1 `Cathedral City 1 1 414 �, r$ o, Sun City Pal rri Desert Rancho Mirage 1M } CPal m Desert `Ind10 Coachella ` „ I a Quints \,T,hermal 1 , w i W 1f� r� tt Tyr , a Mecc Ca 1995 s lr iw.s ternlulud Carp. 1 ,^.w•: .37 YC'1 "ey 7 and Pro(D.Nc. 1 G mites Populated Area � I Military Land/Indian Land / Park/Federal Land County Boundary Water / ------ Minor Road _ 1 «,....,,•.- --- Secondary Road Primary Road / ❑ Interchange ' b Point orinlerest 1 1 1 Pro+ ,j' Select Street Atlas 1 Area .Zap - Sun City Palm Desert t 1 1 Sun City Palm Dese 1 ._ r r_ yoma r 1 �! 1 I_ � Bernmdn 16 ncs 1x } ` •�--Bermuda Dimes I - 8 Palm De � Populated rtrex ' Water }-}.}..�-}-{-}•}-}-}- Railroad »--- Miaor Road ® Secondary Road ® ® Primary Road ® n Poiatorinlerest ® rIU�Ja Scicof Stmet AflaS 1 fORM MEN& ASSOCIATE INC. 1 1 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION_ f A. Land Uses Sun City Palm Desert consists of approximately 1,740 acre, age-restricted planned p community of predominately residential land uses. The Project is expected to include a D total of 4,818 dwelling units at buildout and is being developed in two equal phases. Phase I is halfway complete, with approximately 1,260 homes sold through 1996. The Phase I D of the Project includes a semi-private 18-hole golf course and a recreation center, which ® contains ancillary retail services of a pro shop and restaurant, Phase II is assumed to have ® similar amenities. ® There is additional commercial/retail land uses between the I-10 Freeway and the ® residential development, but they have been excluded from the fiscal analysis for purposes p of a conservative report. These commercial uses include (i) a 53 acre parcel for a regional retail center with approximately of 500,000 square feet of retail space; (ii) an 8.3 acre ' parcel for a retail area known as Desert Cities Oasis, proposed with five quick service restaurants and two gas stations; and (iii) a 5.7 acre parcel for a hotel/professional center ® which could accommodate a 120 room hotel and office building. A diagram of the Project's land use plan is attached as Exhibit 4. ® The Project is anticipated to have a total resident population of approximately 9,154 ® persons at buildout. The Developer has divided the Project in two phases. Phase I of the ® Project will consist of approximately 2,409 homes and Phase II will likewise consist of approximately 2,409 homes. Buildout of the residential-units in Phase I is projected to . occur in 2001. Phase II will begin after Phase I and is expected to buildout in 2009 assuming home sales of 300 units per year. For purposes of the Fiscal Impact Report, commercial/retail land uses adjacent to the Project have not been included in the fiscal analysis. ® B. Project Valuation ® Residential home prices are expected to vary depending on the size and location of a home ® in the Project. The Project's residential sales price information is based on a Developer 0 report of actual sales transactions. During development of Phase I, total average sales ® prices started at $195,000 in 1992-93 for an average home size of 1,509 square feet, and ® increased to $224,000 in 1995-96 for an average home size of 1,659 square feet. Total average sales prices in 1996-97 are projected to equal $210,000 for an average home size Q of 1,659. Total average sales prices in future years are projected to stabilize at $214,000 for an average home size of 1,659 square feet. Because the Project is an age-restricted community, many of the residents in Phase I have 0 qualified for a transfer of their previous home's assessed valuation pursuant to either 0 0 Fiscal Impact Report Page 6 Q Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 I . = 2q ƒ\ ) \F�l /\ ( ► . . i� Iz � ® \ ) ■ ■ \ ® Fig © rot ) \ ) ■ � ■ � � . . � ■ � ■ a \\ § ; acn , ■ ƒ {) % ) o2 ■ $ $} / ® j ) ■ A $ ■ ■ -� \ \ q }\\ lui p 0 rt6Z . ti \ ./ � \ \\ e rjo e . e -0 0 q e \ \ \ 0 \ ? e . } 6 .1 Q e . . \ e e 1, 1 i & ASSOCIA'1 nS, INC. 1 1 Proposition 60 (intra-County moves) or Proposition 90 (inter-County moves). This has resulted in an initial assessed valuation that is lower than the home value reflected in the sales transaction. However, once these homes change ownership in the resale market, the assessed value of the homes have another opportunity to reflect the market price. No such ' assumptions have been made for purposes of this FIR. 1 Based on information obtained from the County Assessor's Office, the current assessed value of the Project is estimated at $263,948,008. The assessed value of the recreation center uses is included in this figure. Future assessed value of the Project may also be affected by Proposition 60 (but not by Proposition 90, which ended in 1995). The developer estimates that 19 percent of its buyers have come from homes in Riverside County. If this trend continues in the future, ' some of these future residents may be eligible to transfer the assessed value of their current ' homes to a home in the Project. Based on previous studies conducted by the County Assessor's Office, the average loss in assessed value due to Proposition 90 equaled $94,300 per unit. Unfortunately, the Assessor's Office maintains no data on losses in assessed value due to Proposition 60. The FIR conservatively assumes that 19 percent of all future homes sales will qualify for Proposition 60 with a loss in assessed value of $100,072 (based on the aforementioned $94,300 loss escalated for 3 years at 2 percent) as compared to the sales price. At buildout, the total estimated assessed value of the Project in today's dollars is $948,545,000. C. Public Infrastructure Annexation of the Project would entail the dedication of approximately 12 lane miles of arterial streets to the City. The Project is also projected to include 4 traffic signals and associated street lights. It is assumed that these major streets and traffic signals will all be dedicated to and maintained by the City of Palm Desert, and that the street lights will be . maintained by a CSA or a Homeowner's Association ("HOA"). Interior (in-tract) streets and exterior landscaping (community perimeter and street medians) are maintained and funded by the Project's Community Association. . All water improvements and wastewater improvements are assumed to maintained by the Project's Community Association or the Coachella Valley Water District, at no cost to the City. The FIR assumes that the costs of providing water and sewerage service and maintenance costs will be offset by service fees. D. Land Use and Infrastructure Phasing The Project is currently proposed for development in two phases and is expected to contain a total of 4,818 units at buildout. Phase I commenced in October 1992 with the first • escrow closing and is expected to buildout in June 2001. As of April 1997, 1,309 homes have closed escrow. Future home sales in Phase 1 are projected at 250 units per year. • Fiscal Impact Report Page 7 Sun City Palm Desert Annexation Augast 22. 1997 Y v, room, & ASSOCIA..>S, INC. b P D Phase 2 will commence thereafter and would end in 2009 assuming home sales of 300 units per year. While actual phasing may differ depending on future market conditions and other D factors, these are the Developer's current expectations for the Project. The FIR examines D recurring revenues and expenditures during each year of development and at buildout of D the Project as a whole. D Because most infrastructure facilities are related to site improvements required prior to D actual construction of structures, most infrastructure maintenance costs of the Project have D been allocated to Phase 1. Since the FIR focuses on recurring costs and revenues, this phasing assumption may not be consistent with the actual dedication of the improvements D to the City of Palm Desert and therefore may overstate Phase 1 costs. Table A-5 in ® Appendix A summarizes infrastructure requirements and projected infrastructure phasing. D E. Demographics The Project's 4,818 dwelling units are projected to generate a total population of 9,154 ® persons at buildout. This projection is based on the current population and housing within the Project as calculated by demographic researchers at Del Webb Corporation. As of D May, 1997, the Project contained an average of 1.9 persons per household. (This is lower than the County-wide average of 2.947 and the City-wide average of 2.213 persons per household identified by the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 1997.) Because the Project is an age-restricted, senior-oriented community, this population assumption more accurately reflects the buildout population of the Project. The ® demographic assumption affects the fiscal impact analysis as some recurring costs and ® revenues are based on population. i ID ID 0 0 ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 8 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August22, 1997 J EXHIBIT 4 D AD — D i I f � I � j\F{♦ c 1 1 © Ii M.]AC ® I z p ----- EA z Im a. a. ' IA.M ' EImIF I.CM'Il Ili' ' U.AYE � 1 17 PA.E t IIIA IC. �+ PA.1 - Ks K. 1 1` sn ^, Wwelor I �I ��- 0. I Lnp Avc /REIINE0.1.3-EI ® F v...1�21- 94 FEVM4ER 112111f ® REVISED.9/10/97 PC 6- _ � N `N-la iC�8 F 5 FF FFF F FF >; RF FFFFFFFF F FFFF F FFFFF F FFF�FF e �i' - 6"a368-oMa !r a •o ° 5&xxe Gc�5Bg N a p p pv eeepoo pe Qeep papv 1Fr�I/-may f fc ct'ccff fG F ff f;cfC LFcffc �-1 W, s , MUM & ASSOCIA.a, INC. D D D D III. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS: CITY OF PALM DESERT D D This section identifies each of the recurring revenue and cost impacts to the City of Palm Desert arising from development and annexation of the Project. It also discusses the methodology used in projecting these impacts. Detailed numerical analysis of the impacts D discussed below are contained in Tables A-2 through A-6 in Appendix A. D A. Net Recurring Impacts D The Project would essentially fiscally balance to the City of Palm Desert. Development D of the Project is projected to generate a fiscal deficit to City of approximately $32 thousand D at Project buildout. On a base of about $3.076 million in recurring annual costs, the © Project is projected to generate$3.044 million in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue- to-cost ratio of 0.99 to 1. D D B. Analysis of Recurring Revenues ® 1. Property Taxes--Secured Roll ® The County Auditor-Controller identifies property tax rates as a percentage of total ® assessed valuation by Tax Rate Area (TRA) and AB 8 apportionment factors. The ® Project currently consists of numerous Assessor's parcels located in five TRAs in unincorporated Riverside County. Most of Phase 1 is located within TRA 075-135 and most of Phase 2 is located within TRA 075-004. Both TRAs have the same P apportionment factors (see Table A-2 in Appendix A). The TRA apportionment factors are used to project property tax revenues resulting from development of the Project. For annexation of the Project to the City, the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement would govern the transfer of property taxes that are currently allocated to the County General Fund, County Library Fund and County Fire Protection Fund. The current apportionment factors (prior to the proposed annexation) S for the Project are as follows: ® Gross Apportionment Factor ® (As A Fraction of 1.0% ® County Fund Property Tax) ® General Fund 0.2890 Library Fund 0.0280 ® Fire Protection Fund 0.0602 TOTAL 0.3772 ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 10 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 dh 1 & Assom._.s, INC. ® With annexation of the Project, the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement will divide the County General Fund property tax allocation with 25 percent allocated to the City ® and 75 percent retained by the County. All of the Fire Fund allocations will go to the ® City. Consequently, the fiscal impact report has divided the property tax analysis into ® two separate components--the first represents property tax revenues accruing to the City of Palm Desert and the second represents property tax revenues accruing to the ® County. ® Based on information provided by the Auditor-Controller's office, total property tax ® revenues received by the County, cities, and special districts have been reduced to account for the state-mandated property tax shift to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). For Fiscal Year 1995-96, the City of Palm Desert lost $168,872 of$2,356,366 in gross property taxes to the ERAF, which represents a loss of 7.16 percent. Likewise, the County of Riverside General Fund lost$74,380,725 out ' of $150,810,724 in property taxes to the ERAF, which represents a loss of 49.32 percent (see Table A-2). p The net effects of the ERAF shift and the property tax sharing agreement on the tax 10 allocation factors are summarized below: 10 Post-Annexation Post- 10 Property Gross Annexation Net 10 Pre-Annexation Gross Tax Apportionment ERAF Shift Apportionment Agency Apportionment factor Allocations Factor Reduction Factor 0 CITY N/A 0.25 0.0723 7.16% 0.0671 COUNTY 0.2890 0.75 0.2168 49.32% 0.1099 10 DTA conservatively assumes that property tax losses to the ERAF will continue in the future. Thus, for purposes of calculating net property tax revenues from the Project, the FIR assumes that 6.71% of the 1% basic property tax will accrue to the City of i Palm Desert and that 10.99% of the 1% basic property tax will accrue to the County of Riverside General Fund under an annexation scenario. By applying the City of Palm Desert's property tax allocations to the Project's assessed valuation, DTA projects that the City will receive approximately $636 thousand in . secured property tax revenues at Project buildout. 2. Property Taxes--Unsecured Roll Unsecured property taxes are levied on tangible personal property that is not secured by real estate. Examples of unsecured property include trade fixtures (e.g., manufacturing equipment and computers), as well as airplanes, boats, and mobile Fiscal Impact Report Page 11 Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 D D 11TWOMMOMM& ASSOCIn-eS, INC. D D homes on leased land. Tax rates for unsecured property in a given fiscal year are the same as tax rates for secured property in the preceding fiscal year. D D Based on information in the Guidelines, unsecured property values are assumed to D average 2.75 percent of secured value for residential land uses. Based on these D assumptions, the Project is projected to generate approximately $17 thousand per year in unsecured property taxes for the City of Palm Desert at project buildout. D D Again, note that the unsecured property tax revenues have been deflated by the D aforementioned tax loss percentages to account for the property tax shift to the ERAF. D 3. Fire-related Property Taxes ® Under an annexation scenario the City would receive the 100 percent of County's share ® of Fire Structural Protection revenues. In addition, the annexation would also result in the likely inclusion of Project properties in the Proposition A Fire Special Tax ® District which currently levies a special tax at $48 per home. Based on project D demographics, the City is projected to receive $531 thousand (17.43 percent of total City revenues) in Structural Fire protection revenues and $247 thousand in Proposition A revenues. D 4. Sales and Use Taxes Retail Sales and Use Taxes ® The Project includes taxable retail sales generating land uses in its recreation center. ® The recreation center includes a pro shop and restaurant which are designed to serve the entire population of the Project. Actual sales taxes reported to the State Board of Equalization from these uses totaled $81,185 in 1996. These sales taxes represent taxable retail sales of approximately $1,082,000 per year . Retail sales are projected to increase in proportion to increased population within the Project. Since the City will receive sales tax equal one percent of taxable sales, sales tax revenues to the City from i retail uses in the Project are estimated at approximately $36 thousand per year at ® buildout. ® Indirect Sales Taxes The report also has quantified indirect sales tax revenues created by purchases of © project residents within the City. Assuming an average household income of$53,500 (assuming an home price-to-income ratio of four-to-one), a 25% taxable expenditure rate, and a 40.41% City capture rate, the Project will generate additional sales taxes p to the City of$247 thousand at buildout. © Fiscal Impact Report Page 12 Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 D D ISUMMUM& ASSOCIA'. , INC. D D 5. Measure "A" Sales Taxes D A portion of Measure "A" sales taxes are subvented to Cities and the County by the D local transit authority for transportation purposes. For purposes of the FIR, the City D of Palm Desert's share of Measure "A" taxes is assumed to equal $26.89 per capita. D Consequently, Measure "A" sales taxes to the City are projected to total approximately D $246 thousand per year at project buildout, or about 8.1 percent of recurring City D revenues. D 6. Proposition 172 Public Safety Sales Taxes D A portion of Proposition 172 public safety sales taxes are subvented to cities via the Q County by the State for public safety purposes. Paul Gibson of the City Finance ® Department indicates that as a "no-low" property tax city the city does not receive any Proposition 172 sales tax revenues. D 7. Property Transfer Tax The property transfer tax applies to all sales of real property, and is shared by both the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside at a rate of$0.55 per $1,000 of sale ® or resale value, excluding assumed liens or encumbrances. ® The Fiscal Impact Report utilizes the residential turnover rates specified in the Guidelines of 10 percent for residential properties. Assuming that continuing liens and . ® encumbrances are insignificant, property transfer taxes to the City are projected to total P about$47 thousand per year at project buildout, or about 1.54 percent of recurring City General Fund revenues from the Project. 8. Franchise Taxes Franchise taxes are levied on residential and commercial users of privately owned utilities, such as electric, gas, cable TV and telephone. Franchise tax revenues ® accruing to the City from the Project have been estimated based on a $39.16 per capita (including cable TV). Note that the Project has negotiated a unique agreement for D cable TV service at a rate of$22 per month per unit. A case study approach was used D to quantify franchise fees from cable TV, but these fee projections were not used for D purposes of the FIR impact analysis (see Table A-4). Based on these assumptions, ® franchise fee revenues to the City are projected to total $359 thousand per year at Project buildout. D 9. Motor Vehicle License Fees D Motor vehicle license fees or in-lieu taxes are collected annually by the State Department of Motor Vehicles at the time a vehicle is registered. These revenues are ® Fiscal Impact Repots Page 13 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 v OBUTUMEJEM& ASSOCIA.cS, INC. distributed to cities and counties largely on the basis of population. Multiplying the City's current $35.85 per capita factor by the Project population results in revenues to D the City of $328 thousand per year at buildout, or 10.8 percent of recurring City revenues from the Project. DIO.Transient Occupancy Taxes D The transient occupancy tax (TOT) is a ten percent levy on room rate receipts from p hotels, motels, and short-term boarding houses. TOT revenues are projected for the D years prior to buildout of the Project but terminate at buildout as the Project provides short-term housing to prospective home buyers from 54 vacation villas. At Project D buildout, the vacation villas will be sold and thereby ending TOT revenues to the City. D Actual TOT revenues paid to the County totaled approximately $81 thousand in 1996. As the County and the City levy the same bed tax, the same TOT revenues are ® projected to accrue to the City during project development. ® In addition, some indirect transient occupancy tax revenues could be credited to the D Project as it will be an impetus for development of off-site hotels and motels to serve ' population growth resulting from the Project. For the sake of a conservative analysis, ® indirect TOT revenues have not been included in this FIR. D 11. State Gasoline Tax D D Gasoline sales are subject to the sales and use tax discussed above, and to federal and ® State excise taxes. A portion of the State excise tax is distributed back to the City (based largely on population), where it must be used for roadway improvements and maintenance. Based on a review of the City's budget, DTA has calculated these revenues to equal $20.91 per capita. Multiplying this factor by the Project population ' results in revenues at project buildout of over $191 thousand per year, or 6.3 percent of the recurring City revenues from the Project. 12. Miscellaneous Per Capita Revenues ® The City will likely receive other revenues associated with the Project population, largely associated with fines and forfeitures. Based on a review of the City's budget, ® DTA has calculated these revenues to equal $2.51 per capita (see Table A-4 in ® Appendix A). Multiplying this factor by the Project population results in revenues at ® project buildout of $23 thousand per year, or 7.56 percent of the recurring City ® revenues from the Project. D D D D D Fiscal Impact Report Page 14 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 B v D & ASSOCIA.rS, INC. D D D 13. Investment Earnings D Investment earnings have been projected for the City using the Case Study method. An D annual reinvestment rate of 5% has been employed in the revenue analysis. Interest D earnings for all funds total $145 thousand per year at project buildout, or 4.76 percent D of recurring City revenues. D C. Analysis of Recurring Costs D D 1. Police Protection Costs D Police protection services will be provided to the Project by the City of Palm Desert. ® The City provides public protection services by contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, which operates out of the station in Palm Desert. Annexation ® of the Project is expected to increase demands on the City by increasing the number of ® calls for assistance and hence necessitate the hiring of additional officers. D Recurring public protection requirements have been estimated using the Case Study method based on the Project's expected demand for public protection and in recognition ® of the City's current level of service. The City currently provides police protection at an overall rate of 1.31 patrol officers per 1,000 residents. (Note that this exceeds the ® current level of service for law enforcement in the Unincorporated County of 0.85 ® officers per 1,000 population.) Based on consultations with Lt. George Conroy of the ® Sheriffs Department, the Project will likely require a total of 10 officers at buildout. ® This need equates to 2 "officers per day equivalents"in terms expressed by the County's around-the-clock staffing schedule, meaning that 2 officers will be on patrol at any given time. In addition, the Project will necessitate the need for additional vehicles and equipment to support the new officers. Note that public protection demands of the Project should be evaluated in unique terms because Sun City is a gated community and it contracts with a private security firm, both of which tend to generate lower than average calls for service and therefore police protection needs. ® The cost assumptions for police protection are detailed in Table A-5. At buildout, annual police costs are projected at approximately $1.2 million per year. ® 2. Public Works ® The Project is estimated to require 12.0 lane miles of major streets to be dedicated to the City. The Project is also projected to include 4 traffic signals and approximately 64 street lights that are appurtenant to the major streets. It is assumed that major streets, and traffic signals will be maintained by the City after annexation. However, street lights © will probably be maintained by a CSA or HOA. All water and waste water maintenance and services costs are assumed to funded by offsetting user charges. D ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 15 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 v D & AssociA..S, INC. D D D D A cost multiplier of$5,300 per lane mile for annual maintenance of major streets and D traffic signals has been applied to the total street lane miles projected for the Project, D which results in street maintenance costs to the City of $64 thousand per year. [In D addition, an annual cost multiplier of$125 per light for traffic signal has been applied to the total number of street lights to be maintained by the City. As a result, traffic D signal maintenance costs will total $13 thousand per year. All street-related costs are D projected to begin in the initial year of annexation.] D3. Fire Protection Costs Fire protection services to the Project currently are provided by the Riverside County ® Fire Department. After annexation, these services would be provided by the City via the Cove Community Services Commission. The Commission contracts with the ® County to deliver fire protection and paramedic service through four stations. Mr. Walt Andrews of the County Fire Department preliminarily stated that the Project ® would generate the need for two new fire stations and perhaps one new paramedic unit. D This is based on a service level demand of 1 fire station per 2,000 homes. Mr. Andrews stated that it may not be necessary for the Sun City fire station to contain a paramedic unit as it could be served by the other paramedic units. This issue will require further examination as calls for service increase as the Project develops. A typical fire station is staffed by two level Il firefighters, consisting of a ® captain/firefighter and an engineer/firefighter. For Sun City, however, it would likely make sense to house four firefighters in a single, centrally located station. Such a ® location has already been identified adjacent to the Project. Based on current cost ® assumptions identified by the County (see Table A-5 in Appendix A), the annual cost for fire protection to the Project at buildout is projected at $1.244 million per year, or ' 41.0 percent of all City recurring costs. A single, centrally located station would result in somewhat lower costs associated with dispatch and maintenance. ' 4. Parks, Recreation and Culture Costs ® The Project contains no City parks or recreational facilities. While the City may incur minimal recreation and culture costs arising from the Project, no additional costs associated with annexation are anticipated to be incurred since these services are ® provided by the Coachella Valley Recreation Park District. ® Additionally, the Project offers substantial recreational and cultural activities to its ® residents, many which are open to the public. ® 5. Animal Control ® The City would also provide animal control services to the Project. Using the Per Capita Method (see Table A-6), the Project is anticipated to generate $23 thousand per p year in additional animal control costs at project buildout. ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 16 Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 v D & AssoClA.as, INC. D D D 6. General Government and Overhead Costs D D General government costs include program or departmental costs associated with the p City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Finance Director, City Treasurer, City D Attorney, and other overhead costs (see Table A-6). While many of these costs will D increase less than proportionally with development of the Project, General Government costs of the Project have been estimated using the case study method. DTA analyzed D the City of Palm Desert's budget to calculate the ratio between general government and p overhead costs to direct City costs. DTA assumed that the Project would incur D additional general government and overhead costs in proportion to one-half the ratio of current overhead as a percentage of direct costs, or 16.65 percent of direct Project ® costs (See Table A-6). ® At buildout, the sum of all general government costs is projected at $439 thousand per ® year. This represents 14.27 percent all City recurring costs. ® 7. Library Costs D The City currently does not operate its own library system, although the City may ® provide library services in the future. In such an event, the demand by the Project on a City library system would need to consider that Sun City maintains its own library ® materials. However, the city is subsidizing the County Free Library Program for ® enhanced hours of service. A per capita multiplier of$8.66 is assumed resulting in an ® estimated contribution of$79 thousand at buildout. D D D ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 17 1 Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 CLEF ® & Assoc],. INC. D ® IV. RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ® This section identifies each of the recurring revenue and cost impacts to the County of Riverside arising from development and annexation of the Project. It also discusses the ® methodology used in projecting these impacts. Detailed numerical analysis of the impacts ® discussed below are contained in Tables A-1 through A-6 in Appendix A. ® A. Net Recurring Impacts The Project would be fiscally positive to the County of Riverside. Development of the Project is projected to generate a fiscal surplus to County of approximately $132 thousand at Project buildout. On a base of about $1.248 million in recurring annual costs, the Project is projected to generate$1.381 million in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue- to-cost ratio of 1.11 to 1. B. Analysis of Recurring Revenues 1. Property Taxes—Secured Roll The County Auditor-Controller identifies property tax rates as a percentage of total assessed valuation by Tax Rate Area (TRA) and AB 8 apportionment factors. The Project currently consists of numerous Assessor's parcels located in five TRAs in unincorporated Riverside County. Most of Phase 1 is located within TRA 075-135 and most of Phase 2 is located within TRA 075-004. Both TRAs have the same apportionment factors (see Table A-2 in Appendix A). The TRA apportionment factors are used to project property tax revenues resulting from development of the Project. For annexation of the Project to the City, the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement would govern the transfer of property taxes that are currently allocated to the County General Fund, County Library Fund and County Fire Protection Fund. The current apportionment factors rior to the proposed annexation) for the Project areas follows: Gross Apportionment Factor (As A Fraction of 1.0% County Fund Property Tax) General Fund 0.2890 Library Fund 0.0280 Fire Protection Fund 0.0602 TOTAL 0.3772 Fiscal Impact Report Page 18 Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 0 & ASSOCIA',�S, INC. ® With annexation of the Project, the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement will divide the County General Fund property tax allocation with 25 percent allocated to the City ® and 75 percent retained by the County. All of the Fire Fund allocations will go to the ® City. Consequently, the fiscal impact report has divided the property tax analysis into ® two separate components--the first represents property tax revenues accruing to the ® City of Palm Desert and the second represents property tax revenues accruing to the County. ® Based on information provided by the Auditor-Controller's office, total property tax revenues received by the County, cities, and special districts have been reduced to account for the state-mandated property tax shift to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). For Fiscal Year 1995-96, the City of Palm Desert lost $168,872 of$2,356,366 in gross property taxes to the ERAF, which represents a loss of 7.16 percent. Likewise, the County of Riverside General Fund lost$74,380,725 out of $150,810,724 in property taxes to the ERAF, which represents a loss of 49.32 percent (see Table A-2). The net effects of the ERAF shift and the property tax sharing agreement on the tax allocation factors are summarized below: Post-Annexation Post- Property Gross Annexation Net Pre-Annexation Gross Tax Apportionment ERAF Shift Apportionment Agency Apportionment factor Allocations Factor Reduction Factor CITY N/A 0.25 0.0723 7.16% 0.0671 ' COUNTY 0.2890 0.75 0.2168 49.32% 0.1099 DTA conservatively assumes that property tax losses to the ERAF will continue in the future. Thus, for purposes of calculating net property tax revenues from the Project, ' the FIR assumes that 6.71% of the 1% basic property tax will accrue to the City of ' Palm Desert and that 10.99% of the 1% basic property tax will accrue to the County of Riverside General Fund under an annexation scenario. By applying the City of Palm Desert's property tax allocations to the Project's assessed valuation, DTA projects that the County will receive approximately $1.042 million in ' secured property tax revenues at Project buildout. 2. Property Taxes—Unsecured Roll Unsecured property taxes are levied on tangible personal property that is not secured ' by real estate. Examples of unsecured property include trade fixtures (e.g., manufacturing equipment and computers), as well as airplanes, boats, and mobile ' Fiscal Impact Report Page 19 1 San City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 v 11WF1WffWMTAsSOC1,.rSr INC. J homes on leased land. Tax rates for unsecured property in a given fiscal year are the Ip y same as tax rates for secured property in the preceding fiscal year. Based on information in the Guidelines, unsecured property values are assumed to rJ average 2.75 percent of secured value for residential land uses. Based on these assumptions, the Project is projected to generate approximately $29 thousand per year in unsecured property taxes for the County of Riverside at project buildout. D Again, note that the unsecured property tax revenues have been deflated by the D aforementioned tax loss percentages to account for the property tax shift to the ERAF. © 3. County Free Library Property Taxes ® Under an post-annexation scenario the County would continue to receive 100 percent ® of the County's share of County Free Library revenues. Based on project demographics, the County is projected to receive $146 thousand (10.56 percent of total I', ® County revenues) in County Free Library property tax revenues. D 4. Proposition 172 Public Safety Sales Taxes Proposition 172 amended the California Constitution to make permanent a 1/z cent sales tax, dedicating it exclusively to funding public safety. Proposition 172 revenues are ® collected from both the incorporated as well as unincorporated areas of Riverside ® County and are therefore unaffected by incorporation. Because Proposition 172 ® revenues are treated as departmental revenues by the County for the Sheriff, District Attorney, Fire, Probation, Coroner, and crime prevention programs, Proposition 172 revenues have been "built-in" lower net cost multipliers for public protection. ' 5. Property Transfer Tax The property transfer tax applies to all sales of real property, and is shared by both the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside at a rate of$0.55 per $1,000 of sale or resale value, excluding assumed liens or encumbrances. ® The Fiscal Impact Report utilizes the residential turnover rates specified in the P Guidelines of 10 percent for residential properties. Assuming that continuing liens and ® encumbrances are insignificant, property transfer taxes to the County are projected to ® total about $47 thousand per year at project buildout, or about 3.40 percent of ® recurring County General Fund revenues from the Project. ® 6. Miscellaneous Per Capita Revenues D The County will likely receive other revenues associated with the Project population, ® largely associated with fines and forfeitures. Utilizing the County Guidelines and an escalation factor of 5.85% (to account for two years of inflation based on the CPIs for ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 20 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 Cr D D ZUKIM& ASSOCIA.1.s INC. � D D 1995 and 1997), DTA has calculated these revenues to equal $5.63 per capita (see Table.A-4 in Appendix A). Multiplying this factor by the Project population results D in revenues at project buildout of $52 thousand per year, or 3.73 percent of the D recurring County revenues from the Project. D 7. Investment Earnings D D Investment earnings have been projected for the County using the Case Study method. D An annual reinvestment rate of 5% has been employed in the revenue analysis. Interest D earnings for all funds total $66 thousand per year at project buildout, or 4.76 percent ® of recurring County revenues. D C. Analysis of Recurring Costs D ® 1. Per Capita County-wide Services Costs P County-wide services costs include program or departmental costs associated with the D general government, public protection, sheriff, health and sanitation, public assistance, ' and recreation and culture (see Table A-5). While many of these costs will increase ® less than proportionally with development of the Project, General Government costs of the Project have been estimated using the multiplier method pursuant to the County ® Guidelines (a 5.85 percent escalator has been applied to the Guideline multipliers to account for two years of inflation). DTA has calculated these costs to equal $119.35 ® per capita (see Table A-5 in Appendix A). Multiplying this factor by the Project ® population results in costs at project buildout of$1.093 million or 87.52 percent of the recurring County costs. P A detailed breakdown of the $1.093 million figure reveals that costs include $73 ' thousand for general government costs (5.85 percent of the total project cost to the County); $419 thousand for public protection (33.57 percent); $320 thousand for sheriff costs (25.64 percent); $100 thousand for health and sanitation (8.01 percent); $176 thousand for public assistance(14.10 percent); and $4 thousand for recreation and ' culture (0.35 percent). 2. Per Capita Municipal Services Costs ® Municipal services costs include program or departmental costs associated with the D municipal general government, public protection, animal control, and sheriff patrol (see ® Table A-5). Because all municipal-type services under a post-annexation scenario will be provided by the City of Palm Desert, no municipal services costs of the Project to D the County are assumed. D D D D ® Fiscal Impact Report Page 21 D Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 S v D & ASSOCIt, D D3. Per Capita Support Services Costs p Support services costs include program or departmental costs associated with genera! p government and debt service and lease obligations (see Table A-5). DTA has assumed D that support services general government costs will be borne by the City of Palm D Desert and not the County of Riverside. However, debt service and lease obligations are assumed to continue as costs to be borne by the County and have been estimated using the multiplier method pursuant to the County Guidelines (a 5.85 percent escalator D has been applied to the Guideline multipliers to account for two years of inflation). D DTA has calculated these costs to equal $6.67 per capita (see Table A-5 in Appendix A). Multiplying this factor by the Project population results in costs at project buildout ® of$61 thousand or 4.89 percent of the total recurring County costs. D ® 4. Library Costs ® The FIR assumes that under a post-annexation scenario, the County would still provide Library services. While the City of Palm Desert would continue to subsidize the p County Free Library program(above and beyond revenues being generated by property ' taxes for library services), the County Library Fund is assumed to continue to receive D a General Fund contribution from the County. The net cost of services multiplier has been derived from the County Fiscal Impact Guideline (with a 5.85% escalator applied D to account for two years of inflation). The net cost library per capita multiplier is D $10.35 resulting in an estimated library cost to the County of$95 thousand at buildout or 7.59 percent of the total recurring County costs. K:\CLIENTS2\DELWEBB\FIR\DW FIR-WPD D D D D Fiscal Impact Report Page 22 ® Sun City Palm Desert Annexation August 22, 1997 0 D D D D D D APPENDIX A D D D D ANALYSIS OF D RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D D �._a m m D W QQ a D J ' a m a D � A D m a d F � = p� c ® G a §88 on o y � m E t p Z " C ' Q M < ' 0 � ^ = tea emE � > d ® � < J .� aaa m Taa gg � m Y a a N t N W G {i� C V ^ O mN n a � O F r � < i rnH ® c ® a 0 O y J ® > m q � a a ® ¢ m a z m N o a v � ® 5U Q 9 �� F o o gE rUii ® O < k z N IL O � Ow CN�i 3 H$ Pn N S J �oi � LLEm N U6 cm •>n W u z Q § §!, . , D � / ' � \ D . D §| ©! 6 J ■ § ■ �°! °E f ■ ) d ) | e! E¥ 2 ■ § [ \� � ( ■ 77 \ ( f| g; E k . ■ ; § « , \ � ■ | ° ) ; ! !!§ E, � � ■ • - � � ■ . �, 2 ! E _ � ( ■ ~ ~ ) ■ � ;, ,- 7 !! f r ) ■ § ! ; ) /! § ■ ) f �{ ■ . ( jam _ ■ 4 3: ■ / I - D / �} \g §. § 0( � |§ §! ! |§2"§ § ■ P , D a D . D mn D a D a p , a D , d De . e , D s ® _ A A > D a �R �88 RR yea m � aa 55 CCe � F < a ® cuh x y m U k7 c Coo Co � Z a 3 ee O O O y�� 00 2 Onl � II ® W 01 O7 e ® e a N p mQ N © a 3 0 yp J o n c < e r ® 1 v o U ® w z ;. < 2 - q0 q j J N 6 C d p q O o n U W O e y W U N Qp 0q LL 6 N! W W O6 f7l m aNL q L Lo ® N W yai 7 W 7 V N C iE N m <2b < O < U 2 ] p Qow!n¢ >W 0 6 N 6 U 6 9 K N J W 4 , D D o D m Dd D q m zC OO D � _ gym eg m 'n 'ww ac a2 3 soo ALL¢ sss D b n g o m ry n g ^ $ h $ n o E € p N O _ a O O p q m m Z F Z vmN1 LL G C 6 _N w y w OO C G OO ¢a¢ 9¢ O w O N ® ¢ z0 w U S F m LL z 2 a W ® N F am ° w '- a a' E � � H a z ai ir a ® W °¢ = aa P O a O N w S m g~ 6 & ® O ¢ w F z i ¢ O � � LL % Qr ] S §t' C w W 2 5O QQJQ t� o'f o ° ~ 6G0 V D Z m ri a J a 0 a 0 ¢ c° c° $ m E M 5 J W w w a a m ¢ m F m QQ J � a O m ° Q > J m Yr� ¢ W O f W ¢ W y� U. V +X m C'O N O ¢ W W O W Fy u u ¢ rw'- ¢w ¢ wW .9 N E m u� aZ ¢ ¢ LL Q LL l�41 O F O � 0 0 IL IX >. n Ww i a % i ww ¢ �., wwF �- no 'a c' o � w e O W J �- ao ¢ yNFN z oow ¢ oo ¢ Q g m R � ! o W m m n Q T O m N ¢ W VI N W A 6 Q a W Z ¢ ¢ O 2F ¢ ¢ mw ¢ ¢ NN ® NaOa i ww �- ¢ W 0 (a� 0 » UO >> 0a S a - N Qa a2 m N QN � `„ ¢ ¢ 2 � Q ao �- ¢ ¢ m2 ¢ ¢ 2E -e m a LL F G Z n J m J LL U ' a LL LL m LL LL "� J O ® J.O JU O O O 0 O < p OO ww OOa y O t� E ° q m a 4 6 U O 00 T �' T LL �' LL LL D 6 m LL O m Q F a a Q Z w w W a ¢ Q 2 0 Z Z O O ° ¢ , m E w0 N N N V a F, 0 00 �0 a a a . ¢ w 0 > > - » - - mm �o � -g' m ui d� a z rL 0 w y m t ¢ a m ¢ 0 0 - 0 0 w ¢ ¢ O Q 2 U U �' 1 4UN W LL 9� n E W w C i N z o § _ Z _ $ a S WN wO �W( o a a W O~a $Z ¢W 0 oS q Fa N N Xa gu Lc _5m ` Z =_ iQLL D= z F > o6 ONN s N O F a wG 0 to ONLLLLN U Jzgo O O u J yd Vo cm No¢ 6 m a W. 8 _ n w a Q. w 0 O j J aA $ as N a O > m p m m w J 2 a > O > }.. F F F F VI F O F m N o f w a n» n - n m f 0 > a ' ° a Zi a w ZW w j Q '•^ >w> �d - E < la- mm.' ffi ; LL W w w p fr m F ¢ N j w w a d W a N a V N �- p z J > �O > tl) 3 w u $ o o w a w 0 La® w � m LLrn 0 a3 mLLE mMZ j S'i a Qn' m a z N p w w D0 v D D " 16 m x SN �" C a 6 Q p a a» m a s D me p " »x » » ® W 1 Ix m W � « D I <O La cc T z 1 � OW N W 0 Q g S m WO2U T II w 1 maaa m 1 W LL Q T h N LU N ,�f 1 1 1 � ® u t o a W U 1- o Q w Q m ® s e o G D rye <p W 5 W W n W W W W T W W T W W Z n W Z O O > O T Z O T Z O T ? O U O N W W p O Q 2 a 6 I FQ 6 FQ Q S FQ G ! Z a w W a O a w 0 , G O G OY i G OO y N D F p Z 6 2 Q J O LL 6 LL 6 LL 6 L 6 F n m W W w000 Oz z 0W 6 o w O P D o D � a D D D T ® T " ® w w ® W W D � " / o N " Q N T / � WQ NCC Lou z pQ aa � F � « d 1 maaa m an Z Y Q T ZC 1 LU> 5N W LL 1 N U ' 1 W 1 / b b O / p n o a 0 N j N N C Q W R u LL 1 0 Q Q ¢ ¢ N V 6 N 2 N F a 'o 'a 3 T u u T u u r u Y O o p o e lv D D 08/21/97 D ®DAVID TAUSSIG&-ASSOCIATES,INC. D D TABLE A-3 D CASE STUDY REVENUES: SALES TAXES D CITY OF PALM DESERT D FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS D D CASE STUDY-RESIDENTIAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS D AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ASSUMPTIONS: D SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PRICE $214,000 ® AVG.HOUSEHOLD INCOME(4:1 PRICEIINCOME RATIO): $53.500 ® RETAIL TAXABLE EXPENDITURE(%OF INCOME): 25.00% ® TRADE AREA ASSUMPTIONS RETAIL TAXABLE EXPENDITURES IN TRADE AREA 95.00% 1 D CITY/COUNTY TAXABLE SALES 2nd OTR 1996 %OF TRADE/1 CITY OF PALM DESERT $178,454 40.41% r CITY OF INDIAN WELLS $19,554 4.43% ® CITY OF PALM SPRINGS $110,703 25.07% CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS $22,533 5.100/6 p COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NA 25,00% ® 100,00% PROJECT RESIDENTS'PURCHASES WITHIN CITY OF PALM DESERT: 40.41% SALES TAXES PASSED ON TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT: 1.00% ' 1. County of Riverside"capture"rate assumed to be 25%. Other cities share based on 2nd ' quarter 1996 taxable sales proportion adjusted to account for the County assumption. ' PER CAPITA -COMMERCIAL DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS SUN CITY PALM DESERT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION/1 $71,401 ' DEL WEBB SALES TAX COLLECTION/1 /2 $9,784 ' CITY PORTION OF SALES TAXES(1.0%:7.75%)/3 12.90% ' SUN CITY PALM DESERT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION/4 $3.71 1 1. Based on actual sales tax remittances for 1996 to the State Board of Equalization provided by ' Del Webb. . 2. Sales taxes collected from Del Webb include goods sold to homeowners soon after escrow closings. Since these revenues are non-recurring,the projections for tax collections are assumed to be fixed for the life of the Project but will discontinue at buildout. 3. Based on statewide sales tax of 7.25%plus 0.5%to the Transportation Commision as ® disclosed in the City of Palm Desert budget. Note that per Paul Gibson,the City as a"no- low"property tax city does not receive any Proposition 172 sales tax revenues. 4. Future sales tax revenues from the Community Association are assumed to increase ' proportionately with population. Per Capita multipliers based on estimated population of 2,483 and the city portion of sales tax remittances to the State Board of Equalization. ® DEL W EBB SUN CITY- FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE A-3 Page 1 of 2 p s D m a p § m »a$a N � �» N r N D a p Ea„ M r b ® NN DW 1 y pp �sx » W ¢ y z N N 1 'N N Q q �TNO c a$ s $ - «a« R W a a F m 0 _� r O 1 O W r I N y g gg 1 N 1 0 1 U 1 Q 1 � 1 � � � N 1 g = W J 1 H o a i � ado n ui jO a `F` 1 W w W W Q LL w - Z U O W u a w O m N N 2 F 3 U y H JWJ Y2 < Fi c W 1vy'wxo j � u 3 Y N W Q W 2 N O x J W ® O v D D "' a D 21 a Ooo -it v, n '° -o ° oa © m U r m f9 NK 1A 19 U N J ® 11�J O ~ �• r cc a ° y D W m E a m m 3 m DJ = N C N D coact m .2 m it D w a D Z a � ' a W 0 . ¢ U ¢ a d `m o a v w w a w W ® (n w Q LL a U > m Nm' Ux JW W C c dZ Q ? dWWWQ a d NZW2W Q Nm W N J � p m N x W op W F = gOto o m CC >. 0 = W O W 0 c y d W wU - F > i LU LL J ¢ c E a Q W Z j Cl p U V ¢ Q O 0 d = io c W = J V LL > U LL U) W aWaa a > LL F- I N O O N w� J - O O N N c0 N J O O Y. U om fA OM H OM N O V) ® = V L Z• z F- u. p o w a a m m } cn w 0 J J 1 N w E � a: o a 1 W `� Q �° � � U Z ELa Z Z U W � 0 m rn W Z Z F- Q w LL U cc W N m ¢ U ® N W w U. U V W LL W w 6. a@ ; W S J W CL ¢ ~ W W > co � 30 � o Ld ~ 0 2 0 ¢ a LL V O 2 0 U F LL p J ® O H ¢ JZU) u� W m N m Z ¢ 0 LL ¢ m ¢ o m m J m Z o 0 0 o w u = E w 2 W OW �_ W a Z ar ZO S Z F N N N N ¢ U L N J O U ¢ Z Z Z Z F Z ¢ w Z w LL cc P p r x m R ¢ ¢ ¢ F-- W W m � 0O (w� (wujwn 0000 OJ m m ZILm y C) J ® p }0} = > y w a_ x x x x H n d m D a m 0 Z) j ¢ F Z O S U U I- H F- f- m R W U Erw D p Ua � ¢ LL = zmmv� m m woo m � W > co Q O LL w 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 ¢ > w co 00 LL2m0 > 20aCry0 m CV UU ¢ m W I � ® o I Cr D D D � LL D • Q N N VG N N K N � 0 0 M tV O M N Q �S�19 NN M 19 a N w N W YI V1 tll N YI q Y•A1 w M D qq D , D W o m O1 M N N N t9 N N w N N N N N y w N 0 N w Y NM 1y` VI M D Q O NNTN tlI �NNN Ny�H „ O t7 �w NyN mw m O h N y } W N VI W IN9 ® Q Y � (ryey (p Ny M1 O m N CmJ h Val m yO �y (�CC('��JJ1 O m mm O m 1q m t'1 W W ~ N Q N N M N Vl N N YI M M N N W M N N y M W ^ N 0 w Q } Y Vt VVIIII N w I Z FA W I® QW Za n $ J 2 w y v = J " ¢ J mWaa a Q U. ~ ~ WO em „ Nmm - nom mm mmo omy m 2 } Q ¢ g wa W U N_ y y y I O LL I } Q ' ww ww N$ N �NN � In NIM mww N w . I _ _ N yy N < m w ��iwwwinwNw eNiw �in � » � » . o of Q „ I U n w ® Y)1 VVVAAA IN ® z w ¢ J j 6 Z ® F ¢ ZD W u r a m <Q N ¢ R m j b DZ. dN = > w oww � > = w UOa w w w > F xaQxa XW z O y O D Vl w Z U wz 7 J Z W. ��pp w .� N UI 7 Qx¢ F > Q W W O w LL Q > m J m J N Z o m W W W W 6 )FT fL V H 2 W W W> W W ® b 6 LL } Z U W LL N N N N Q W LL 2 W W F LL 1 Q ¢ >>Z T� F Z H f w � ijwj0000 Q = S w < LL y [UU� Qwy W Y- O W Z DQ U W U= m Q O V W W W W ¢ z U ¢ 'F ¢ F r O y J Q U 1�' ¢ 0 D Q, F ¢ _w ; ] >f Ua m( N( XN mX wn LL (} ¢ 1,w 550 �' Q O z U w W S 6 N d 6 6 Q Q > 4 2 O f S (J U f F M M W a 6 J 6 LL Z a ¢ V U F W Q 0 6 Y 6 LL S Z N N F m , O ¢ 2 0 0 0 D Q ¢ m > Y +� 0 U LL � NO > fmmfQ0 lQ9 U U OF aNz x x z a n w O J w D a or D M � a D m w DN p pppyq� yy a H N q H NH N VI D tlw� Y q aSa 00 N V!H�YI 1M f) ^ q 0 � 19 N N M H 0 M Oqi } W N N H N q N ® ¢ Y Q p _ 9SwwMau W Y Dz wC p W V V V o Wy Ga pp p �y N ¢ Q N N N N H q Y1 N N M N N N N p H M r IIIQYYY A tltlll rZ W Q OO (y y p Q p p y p ® W W C H aHaW g N N N y g M N tl1 W N N b w m Y ® .J Z GQ Q i Y1 YYYIII INO M J aW G. 1U. 2 m¢ r ~ Q0 ® U V y F U. rQ Y � Yl YY tlI rN N M N m {� yy�� pp pp ryyy r N p M N tll N Cnl H N g N M Ny]H 1 � ^ pOy M pOGCC rQ q H N tl1 h a Nw N 17 �A H N Yl Vl w �N q N r YY61 W rN ® z W W J 2 O Z r a a 1- ¢ M w e U w > 1X¢Xu >> W N LL Q W> ¢ 6 W 2 j H O U N G W 6 d LL U > J J o X¢X Y X W DQ Q z H z W Dn 0®JFja(� 4U EW NLLW ULLS LLAJ ¢ia O6 b w Qz¢ w6~F l UO fSJ NJW ZJwQ ¢ Q O a LL > U6WU d W z O ¢ ¢ ONO0 o wo 0 ¢ w > > UZfmW30 N ¢ W D e gNEIM O DAVID iAU53K:a ASSOGATE9,RTC. ® TABLE A•5 ® CASE STUDY:GENERAL FUND COSTS CRY OF PALM DESERT ® FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS CASE STUDY.CITY ET 8UDG ANALYSIS IFY MrSeCtI ESTIMATED FIRE COSTS(LASE STUDYI ® GENF0.I INDyFAG!RTAIOSM TOTAL COGT PER ARE STATION II: SSII.ICO HAUTELINE DEPARTMENT II SIM MASTERKAIN LEVEL OF SERVICE: I ARE STATION PER 2.000 UNITS wM CONTROL" 52.69 I OF FIRE STATIONS REWIRED ISULLCOUTy 2 ESTIMATED FIRE COSTS IBUILOOUTl: fL2.a,2W t.1M IMubxn Dg5.9nwn preNw..wmmwrMne5r9elen Iv Grym Pe3n DMMrNMnh.loop maM.n mAcy.M1C mlrrm[p nqn I.Opwet[naenamalnlenariuee5tl m[XSb lu Wtim nrwSlM1Rt.wlu fnlgnbn ® mrmbrmneNellw ppEuwClnvnap XwnvlP lzgrye.r. iypkll Mill.�oultl imeM.odnMllnlNnNr erWpmginex0iAM .TM 1 GMd P4m Opulmmxb.Nm4 mmN weem Glilwlp Min4 fSlim.n MJUM[xbaweg5b0 aim tlepelM mE meN.riip.AMmwW Con. pnam.BeuM pn 4b.Ongb gnmpc wW mnSw plbruNlmMMO].OeO .M.d W.amd]vu mn o13g0.00q M wbc4 C.ENEan FLAND JUD&UNI.TRAPY'r COSTS _ C"COUNCIL $12MIN ESTIMATED POLICE SERVICES COSTS ICASE STUDY) Cg1MUMT MFAIRBTI UEM 54)0.]90 CURREM I OF OFFICERS PER 1 me RESIDENTS(Deal It t.31.5 CC mM (N PROMOT% SL39].]0", CURRENT CONTRACT LEVEL OF SERVICE PER LOW RESIDENTS 1.15 GttmmA A f25BSw I OF REWIRED OFACERS AT CURRENT CONTRACT LEVEL IRA Qm LEGISUTIVE ADVOCACY PROGRAM N1100 OFFICERS PER DAY EWWKEM(S OFFICERS.t DEPUTY MY)A 2 CITY ATTORNEY StM,WY CONTRACT RATE PER HOAX UNGUDES WOIRECT COSTS)M 36523 LEGALSPECIASERMCES 1500m) PERSONNEL COSTS IS f1,Ia1.6M ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SSM.390 CONTRACT RATE PER MR-E(PER STANDARD BLACK VEHIGEI 30.3E HUMAN RESOURCES MES,3W VEMOLECOSTSII MSAW P =6AFET' SUMLIT9 PALM DESERT SHARE OF EASTING FACILITY COSTS" .].SM ENWR mJ TKCONBEWAnM SHRUM FUTURE PAM DESERT SHARE OF FACXJW COSTS 51.06% FWAICE DEPARTMENT 11,23UM DIGIEMENTK INCREASE OF FACRRY COSTS TO PROJECT re 3.4]1L WDEPENDErAUDT 5$SS00 EASTMG FACILTT COSTS OSAI PER CONTRACT SJM,bO UENERKSERnel 1462.200 TOTI Paue DESERT SHARE OF All Met COSTS e12.514 DATI PRAWN[M JU40440 ' TOTAL,GENERA FUND ADMIMSTRATIVE COSTS $5A93I33 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS(BASED ON CURRENT CONTRACT) St100.21rS roIKGtt OPERANNG BUDGET• f21pM1]t 1.B.W mdlkn mmxatliecipptln<Y 10W9]XYWeI. 2. st Conroya tl4.rINnFMnd tin GMrneSa B'n^IaI urrvlaeM I51n 'ENWn D.MMNm,II]i1bFFW GpMllnpewrpnLL Moorestown, mlnshowsmm M11w1 tl.epplkeumdl.ISper l.pAaWMm�mM Rgtl tlgnMM9nw OVERNFAD A9A%OF OPEMTINO BUOOET 24.911% 1"alre USWnneradogh EeMmenMn M410 oIIkw Xengab nle2 C.pNeam tlW ,eM wnl m W Gp.Teti ukWmn wumea 1.]Mpmu4in Iroun pn Mlnw OVERHEAD ASA%OF DIRECT COSTS UAK ark Commasse of hea I. w XWlY raft he vnnM pnlCp OVEPNEAD BY OEFIMTgN GVSMG NJ COST O.W% S Ealirrubtl Meetl an M512 MuM nn%2 EegM WYa%N Xdnf%]65 Mwpn war. O.Bnp one HnBhFa ablemeM mal]YNNcbarouN M Metletl evxe9mp 2.5CO OVERHEAD AS%Of DRECT.AVENGE 15.55% mica On resom menN pw wnW.UTMA MrFemeP/,2refitln.aW rolMUM am4lanwuY/ N MvneEry.iM eWF wM1CM w/milwrliu..ar ep Mv. I TEDPO65(O VXL�PAMSDMTRLT) ]. WIMOYE PkDBYDEWEB( ptt$,OW f] A0 oB0e1nep We. e e.PaI.Deaponq floor,AVERAGE PAW INCECOSTS ACHE11 Si b. Wen aE sPPla Israel 0.pnpopoe mrant,d lMaWtlAryelnpd.AlO.wmp 0.. NyEMEMAINCREASE IN PARK COSTS l Ome. 9, mnel Postal i MeUll. assamen Me anSwpaxaeen lamor 0 aGerrit H HIM oD Sormpr)rod Me Mgcl.e showroom 15 p"vge Innn 9n Ip a<f0enq dXwrs4 ' 1.Pxn..—Material ma GneMa Party S'mo lM Mae, PUK mgnbnerGe mHw!Imm saw m3LCW Par Mae, ESTIMATE COSTS MAINTENANCE COSTS(USE STUDY) 2.Sow lYOry re Dreare ema.im me Pee Dwkl.1 AVENGE fWAD MAINTENANCE X SAII Mel SSAIN PER LANE MIEMIIE ' mossoUnw.re aWewl mSheasw4Mnlnarvnumnare PHASE I-Varnw RwOmal Low, ,X Fne4Wll" a25 LANE MILES saUsinrbMnmmtl.Nwmat dema[mal phrorc at PHASE -Waamm�en Roae.6ius Y]>.>onto eeDQ 5A3 LANE MILES ' eclntlmq bNitlp M04w ml1igw tlwpplwpWF[NM4ime1 TOTAL.FHASEI 9.7.LANE MILES pY PHASEO-WnrrNbn Re.0 It lanp%6.CW Mntllnp" 231fANE MREB ' COUNTY GENERAL Nxp RESIDENTIAL COSTS It STREET LIGHT COSTS/3 315E PER LIGHT COUNTY-WIDE SERVICES 0OFFI661G)S LDBTSN f].a.PER INTERSECTION ' GENERALGTECTI EM $].95 IOFLIDHT815 6a SHERIFF PRJIEttlgl M533 /OF TPAFFIL INTERSELibNSM SHERIFF $JAM HEALTH S10W I.B*Wen ewrml GNthaab, Far Mr.Tom iMmaM. Tna Gunry 4emwnMAID pn PUBLIC ASSISTANCE f10W Na ImPecl mee. R TOTAL -COUNTYM ESC IlV3 3.UM mbammaln pegJNmea V WNp. ' TOTAL,CCU]Itt WI0E SERVICES COSTS fllp.]5 S.SM41gnl[e5n w2 p1Mewrn b/Gry WIw51 has 0ame her erlhn e CS.w HnnpwMa Somers bond on oa.a sol. wn4wm a. oweCeq m51 prpgM la 5130. ' MUNICIPAL 6ERVILES S.Eatimes board onvinwavr t ead In Sama Behan Lot GENERAL GOVERNMENT SO.w S.Nvmeer or version,WnabCMwJmaed W ONwob. gr2W]npI1M ftIBLIC CONTROL MW S.NuneermgpuwXinlnp[umn wwwMb/O4 WaXe. NIIMK CONTHDL M40 TOTAL.F pAiROL frr.TA EBTIMATEU lR R Y SERVICE COSTS)PER CAP?AI TOTAL.MUNICIPAL SERVICES COBTG SO.W MY 1pBSB6 CITY SUBSIDY OF COIIMYLI8RMY5ERVILE/1 3390.000 ' PERCAATALISPARYSUBSIDY 18.63 SUPPORT SERVICES / GENERKGWERNMENT fO.W I.Pn Pad GlESon.Ne GNOerti[pinm Ne Cmnry Frm UErery Program.Ibwepr,Mcersa DFRTySUPPORTERACES See, aaresse FantlLYnprpp.MIn d istrAn mGw7tlderiel isepntim,Me elryntlueee TOTAL SUP PoRT BERVICEB f6.6] Lim-Prnparloomipnln MvampMrraw, ARMLM ifsoch utpine GunNFrp Leery PF'9nmlm enNmetlFwadaemce.TMfW awmn wtllaW[3n Icpnow 1.Pp IMran ,- it .Awllmynwereo .Gmb mob am Mdaep Prpa0wvl4/OaW mppgia9m nan)rem aNnne wMr.Jnmetl.pdie.d.uMer.ppfl.anrHnlpn ' .c.n4e.TnecpdY mmyMn n.w X.m.a.I.be Ms.esxa .awe Im Mowen d martian MW ea Jamrary 1P9510 Jawiry ipil DgarmmnML.WrCmwm.r .Prig lMana. LRMRYSERVK:ES if ' NETCOSTOFSERVICES 310.35 I.DnXpapnae—sonewniiw.MCMers, aHmnMe LAnrya.mcn. WMe N.GN1wMG PentimnbOO5MU.0M Lwnry Fr..LBnry pgpam mtemmi MUN p[p?l.gbulipa mIRA ' Orepam.Xn CmnM1 LLrw FUM h.awnntlmwnhnn to r.pxa .Onnrge Fe[vmLu6m"Meal malown. an new or 585ndnnn Carrrry Fhc.11hara pW.SpaM.nrd an Mr ' el ses%.vmbe m.awrM lm lw Mrs at mlbnw e.W an Me W1. ' DEL WEBB SUN CITY-FlSCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE h6 Page 013 D D r = , ! lr ;;aa ■■ ; r ` D � � D ` • I : a:a &2■§ ; § . - D . \ k �}2 ; ;a &■\ ; | D � ` k § | 2E#ala:■� D � ■ ■ &| § 2a;::'■§ § i ■ ' - ® . ■ � � . b ■ k � § / | 2;Z ,e ;= !! � ) LL ■ § � � � k B § L � � § / § ■ . � �_ . ■ - ■ ; ;; ;„ ■ ■ � ■ ) § a|2a= ; ;2; 2 § ■ ■ - ■ . ■ . § . ■ _ ! / ■ E . § ■ k - ■ _ _ . . / ^ ° w0zk ) /°/ � / 0 . [ � ) ( ( k § k )/ ■ . ® ■ . v � D {ram y (rye qq p o o Q o .my p D � R S pHN Sm H� Htl1 NNN NNN N N CI D g � N H H a D m H {� y D a H H M« N 2 In S mmN a S S�H mm O D > OI III999 H aSsIqS %12 D ® y p {y p p p® m I(1 [my (Ny Imo N M Yml H H H W H H H Yl H m y® H H H H 19 p N I g ® f!1 > D '� ry y mom ym ((yya OOSSS 034 n N U N G e H ry m H mH H� H H 19 Vl H H O r p a y W R H H H H ® � ma wZ 02882slw »$ SaS A a ® w w J U w m J mwaa ® � 17LL2 e y D O ® F V Nuj i ' h ' a � .9S U / yy Ss ass mH iAS S lb N m N U I%1 J � U Q © g m 3 a U' Z O Q 2 U Z �E J U Z J Z U 3 p > ¢ ° �> z m w a a w h ° ° ¢ o o 0p o t7 i Q 6 W < G w w zmwam �- zm � �- z w O P D N a D Uzi m D N N D g ssz� a D U N tt NN tt -n } D } D a Cc D _ N y om <09 gg gg $ a muaa aR Al F%BxSg »A.`�.3 N AB»`N'»�e < W � a N N N r ® FC � ® z " o � N 1 � 1 1 NN 1 1 a 1 N uji y Z N� In. w a � Yo ao� uw aka a a005 o w � o of O D � D � || §«!�-���■■■ §•■e ,! I . D �| ,�[l�.�.!■■ §�!;! !; f � D . � . |9 l���,te■ |g# [§ ! . � D � §•[_©�w 2f !�;Q §; E . . D • » . ; . D §| |.;;����■�f ;�Iw§ !! « ■ ' D §@ 2�;)����&�! §.g| ■! I � ■ ' ■ § � � §| !�■;���;l2§ ;�,2; ■; E ■ � §) § §| ■�l;���•;,| |-,�; E§ : ■ § § ! ( 7 � ) / ! ! f■ !-■w���«,; !a Q !§ : 7 . ■ & ° § §! §�!w©�h! ;e a !! : ' ■ t . . . ■ ■ R ;w w�-°=Q ;�=a �_ : ■ ` ■ ! ■ ; ■ . J . . � ■ §\ 2 ■ u !,§|/. ( §e § [/ _ ■ ) . )�)|(|�)! ) §;E;§ ■) ; ; !! § r � , m: E! ()§} |! ! ® a 4 D D D D D D APPENDIX B D D ANALYSIS OF CITY BUDGET D D D 1 1 1 1 1 D 1 1 1 1 1 / I 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / 1 e 0 D D 0 D m D ca a D o N D o r In m M to D Z D N D D D P ® - zzzzzzzzz g » » » > - - - - - - - - - ®® a °o uiui << ui ii < v Ka 0. a_ < ZZZ ZvZZZ UwwwwwwwW UZVZ z ° WWWWWWW w x (n !n fA fn co 0 (n ¢ LL IL U. LL LL W U. U. LL cc Q rrU < UUUUU W LLLLLL LLLL LLLL LLIL WW ci aOOOOOOOOO a a 00000000000000 0 D 0000000000 0 0000 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O <O O 0 0 <D O O O O = 7 O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N O to N N N N N O V 1. O N O N W (� O O 1n0 � Nm0000N 00 r N .-- � V r � l!j O 001 O f- � N C70 Q7 NON O,r (h rN IN N CI) (7 O C 1- 2 m a (7 I- N CV) r (0 f� Cl) c7 IT N N N ® W LL Q to 00 f0 r '- Z to (b® C V In D LL D ®® 111&a ai > m W O i V a z N D VQ ll� O z m 0 / Q N N �O W F U) a x U ' N W < fn Q Cn CC to LL W Q U C ® 2 LL C Q (n Z D o z c LL LL r g m < y LL H N C a C 00 Q m °lf N N m W N LL a1 (D < N .21 C CL — ox d m e m 6 � a� 0 d " a `n p , LL — D _ m Fo I- m � 0x cLLE �= vi Q) 'm 0 ~ M m maimmm � � dNa� ° E W ►- tea) m .� D yZmx you � c � cU ' N W � aN 'EE aid Z W Cc c U x x 0 `.�. u o c�i � U X a _E .E 'E y ro y = y C W m 'U .T NY (n © m m m � d � '= Ono < vi m m m ma oa ° CL U m m �!- I- F- (n y m F y m .. y f- W maaCL � 0 y y ; oa } Im D D F ° IT r � M = > LU0aI z WUa O1mt 0 - Q �x - 'W U F- cm . a Uo0E- roE ym > F- (( F ro - 2 UZmizD ) F- ca - in JSm0LL > X (72m 0 w 2 } D m D W D � W D Ilp v J "1 co ✓✓ O D N n a) ✓ O rtrt a� V 0 D " N m O 7 C 1 � D D LL D � m Q c� D ° D " ZZZZZZZZ - - ZZzz -- - ® o (D < < a � � � � � � � � � � � � � � aa a zz2 WWWWWWWWWWWWWW (J („) © Z W m fn to (n lA !A U1 (n to to (n to (n fA z (� w W LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL w w LL LL ¢ Q LL Q LL LL LL LL LL LL U. LL LL U. LL U. LL U. W W ® a U OOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLL LU o 0000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 D Z W O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O W > O O O O O O C 0 C 1 0 0 C C 0 C C 0 C C C 0 c O O O (9 O " V) , 03 [f 001� OMO N 000 (00 tf10 R O O Ir to O " N h 0 .- — .- .- � " O " O M Oi U7 " S O P` 6 CIL 1l as co Cl) Cl) e- O 0 ® w LL � a CPp ILW 0 T D ® U U. LL D G N y C/) W D 0ri0 Cc D U '( } o 2 F- U) i M W / O IL N N y ¢ y o ul ¢ a Z a a a } U w m a zo ? � Y y g ® ` Em` c 1i E 0LW >U mw U Z a) > a te D u z o > w m E 0 -j m z O c j c nti Q C7 F= � o U N . a D O 1- LL v c 2 c co LL 4 L > ui W H D w > w U ' E ¢ w '—aU' d LL c 1.- Cp w W a D > > � a't W V d d2onyoo � o0c fL WO w U 2 c ° d > > � u � Nw 'yEELLLL � ucu O �I ¢ a D Q Ili o Q. at0i ¢ > N U. IL u, d ro c ';� Ucm 0 m aa) aa) aci aa) m N W O W tV D U) w � c - m w ¢ om � mli E0 > o Q 0Ei (D (D 0Ei o U W WZ H LL Z y y ° r LL > LL L E U m c°i > > > > y a 2 W O y D Q w y w �a co Q w o C(� C O N c@ C0 D V 4 W LL Q F © ~O W E d aci O W jo 'E (a c�a o a.m '� a 'a 'a m aLi = H _ Z) ~ U F- 2 � fLm F- LLUINd (n `2 Ucn UJ U z 2Q QQ > 2 OH j D M m D W D � W D s v D D 0 Dm Dco D NOD � CCi � K � � IN to IT Cn 0 [b O a) CA E9 EA(A CV 6 V b4 fD D � f9 r� D D H D D D B o0 ® F FFFF F 0 U7 J F ® z 0O UUUU UU � Cn ® w w w W w w U U ® f aaaa as UU a ¢D 0000 O 0 00 0 00 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 I D co O 0 0 O 0 w o000 0 00 0o O o0 0 0 B o 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 ~ 6 n a CV � C7 f, co co ON T C� V OR Q / N 41 a N r r CN j O U LL 1 � :3 o / 1•N > W ® O z_ a U yy Q F U N D / 0 Z / X 0 1 0 N CD Z / J o a 1 Z Q Caj LL 1 y w J � W J z Q / w w z w cc Un <O t 1� W W Cn J Q D 0 0000 w X w F. N C V N N N Z 0 D X Q U / as a as as W > > W Z a. Q Q Q Q iL Q J w W D D � QQ ¢ Q Q z � o Q U O D U FQ O Q a Q Z F- F- H F- t- w Z z Z LL �nEnUnm 0) LL z LLaQ ? Q ¢ O w LL Q Q Q Q Q J W w W F- W LL F- M a D QC7C7C7C7 (� Q (7 Q �Ia: aQW a rn / f. W W W W -� W J N Fr J a N Q Q Q Q F Z H W QIQ W F O W L F- U a F- F- F F O W O a uj O (C O O z / M to U CO N H 0 F- in F- it h F- D DCD D w © J O l D D m m a D ' D D D D � D D D D � b b b o D � � t N 1 � z N 6 u O H O .b ❑ W LL I J ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ fA O ZS � a O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ W ® O O O r O O O O m 2 ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ¢ Z ❑ ❑ O ❑ b4 Vwl N Uwi N N 4w1 U U U V U U U 0000 N 8ry� O8yp p q OCOO Cb M N' ]8f+i Cpps o (ggqy8O N��� b Ori N N NIIVV(7 O N' N CJ CI '. CY8 Ci6 P P t0 N N N �(Y N 8b Q I ® W N J b Q Z r o O w a F F® r N rr ❑ N Q 6 U w W < U U b g a: m a o o w < © O a to a W w ¢ W C Y < LL U Y ❑ o Y o k w r a z w DZ w H N r r W w i a a > p S w F a N Z O `s Z 7 O m Q O Q r W N U C U LLCN w5 1 F WN U QCN O JN_ Y a J a Z J d d Y Q d m W y N W m 0 y 0 Y a W Y < O m u r >m u p W ' o p U 7 u Q V m u 1- w, C7 2 D a O n v y U ' a U O W l u ❑ I d N S a I y U p J O U N J m O N NJ p N. J J sw J 3N NJ 0 J a N J J D wJu` rvaa stem a ua xv ' a Wvga °u m a fZv' a s a�a a ¢ 3 w Y rv= 0 o m 5 O 10 O 5 0 Q= ¢O = O m= 0 W O O w 0 J OuNO r UM0 r Wr uO r X6(3 QO NONIr r UOr J r wo Q 4 D D a D N p DLL D D D D m D � DU Dz D � 1 1 1 1 1 0 D � 1 a 2 W y 1 owe W W W W W O LL b J ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Cc ¢ N 2 � LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 1 OO99 OOpp O O O O LL O O O o o ¢ m x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 1 b > Se N N N N N y N N 1 U V U U U U U U 88 8888 8NWlo[w7 NNM � �OYAm mh O O 000dooaoPIodv aao N 7h N Mop oO O VI�fJm Oi0 t7 Vf Om N ddm NO 0 4 a 1 � N F N J a WO w a n a a sc N w W ¢ e S Z ❑ F ❑ 7 J u46i y W C (0) a W W (7 Z Q U O w m J r 7 U z W r y i w r 6 r Q r < 6 N x W LL > < O w y W w Z w W a W C Q N a 012 ^ ❑ t ❑ N J O N O N t3O L W O Z w Q oa G LL S2 N ¢ ? C N d 4 Z Fmk 'bm" � rrmu m �Z mmL > a� u < eu2 wmu mH '" w ❑ 2 �. ❑ w._ W 6 f Z N m Z U' c 2 O m m m N J Z A N N J V N J p m N N J ytj J d N y J p g N N J d J W r v �qL LYr mbt_ Or > lCL6 r QWL r W r Zt 6 r HNt p r W r 3 4m0 Ztl�ONO �NOu'�� w{AOw Or ¢fnO Or z Q VON GNON O �tl1O w0. v D D o D " Da D D D D „ D � D s . D D 1 1 1 1 1 � J 1 W 2 F � N ¢ 6 a U 1 w83 0 O W b C LL 1 6 O > LL O 1 � � O n O a Q a Q N N N N N s Z Z Z w N N N y S U U U U 1 a g o 8 uwN o o d W � a o00 0 8NN o S oo� yOj N O fN0 N � V d! t7 �OO �V�N N ���M_ �O ONib ON 6 l'l l7 O NN d NN O 0O t7 Nd Ol 1 N Y Z 2 F W ¢ W 1 s ¢ Z W (7 W Z Z Z Z I g ¢ i> m Wu ° Om °a z w ¢ O W W¢ ¢ 2 U IL la- ¢ Q F N U _Z N W W¢ c ~ ° > p h ¢ - ¢ < H u ILL ° 5 ¢ _ a 'Y LL ¢ �^ m W ° O¢ u ¢ a m U m �- m a U W ' N c¢ w ° Z >a8 m? o a c� m ?dm N -� xa w I < Z w LL i 5 w a a LL zr Z owi ¢ �c z a u�i c Z a m x 2 a m m 1 U U m ai J H g m m J t a N m J yml ¢¢ O LL N n i O O O. O O O A O 7 7 A O 3 A t O J U UO n000cn t- nm O0 r w m 0 D 0 D m Da D D D D m D ° U ' O ' D D � gi 1 1 m J 1 m 2 1 m F OOn O NIL S U 1 OW $ Z 3mza 1 LL LL LL = J Q N W w O y N N N N h Q Q ¢ = Z Z W w W W W w 2 Z 2 1 � N N N N N N i U U U U U U 1 ` I �py�S B8SSggS p 8 p p q p W hdN �NOWl� N1¢y�p�y��O (�pggy]�O W'D 8O �COq}�]O O �OVOfO Od0 �0Opp�8 6 a�w ��� N w f�0 �� ^ ^Ia b [�mN� dOwl2 NN . �i Ia w Z / z w Z N z } J Z ra z Z O N Z U L LL ZZ i ¢ LL U Q H V Z =O 0 Q ¢ � ¢ J O = ¢ o a w ¢ I- U i F ¢ v m u NF i ¢ w w Z N z W O S U 6 17 W O J 4 W LL W ¢ 6 ¢ ¢ } W U J d m ¢ J ¢ ¢ FrWF W QJ m Q ¢ y J W H Fz N 7 C ry N a FN q W W N J t N = a VJ O W y LL U yl $ m m U S u Q ¢ U al¢ w z U a m am yI N IWII w O u „ U 7rx m c m y a ] m m N WW m U N U z 9 ¢ d 2 U 2 y�¢ o ¢ m SN J O �NN J N J F J �J CN Wm mQ Q(j¢ W J F O < W m F m ; - o ;m - � 0 It o ; o ; 0 30 3 o i o o m o N 1 D D " 0 N Dm a D D D D D y D � D D D � D � J t Z W ® � N � aC ® LL aV � O W S J m w ® u 0 tap 2 2 U Z 2 Z N Z � i a a / a •qqN� 88�qJ ��OOyy p spy 8 8 �ryy p ��(jy ' O OX Oi Oml(IIN q0 NN NOIN qO ONNOOi N N > n w0gm ON1p �jO N�Nu^jl� Nn�Im O a � w z N J W O Vl N n D U a v < i a ¢D w~ w Y Z W > a D N W W F p z N to w o > m > > ca.� Dm f LL O w a W g N z to ¢ N m zr rm Z Z Cu U q V1 j N C7 J J f D ¢ O v+m m m tail a m m = t0i V�V a Z w Z m m u N m u G ¢ w 2 H c Z m V o Z a C7 C7 m y J 2 m(/1 0_J J J 2 J W mN d J z AN UYJ J J W W 1- J m D a O m t 0 i 0 5 O m t O g m O O O J z mmbtn t- < z mmON �- aNOv1F '- w D 0 D D D D D D APPENDIX C D D D PUBLIC AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS D D D i 1 1 1 1 D 1 1 1 1 1 r r 1 r ► ► ► ► ► s , D & ASSOCIA.c3. INC. D D PUBLIC AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS D D D D D Public Agency Individual D D City of Palm Desert: ® City Fire Department Mr. Walt Andrews and Mr. Mike McConnell ® City Police Department Lt. George Conroy and Cynthia Hinkley ® City Finance Department Mr. Paul Gibson and Mr. Stephen B. Smith D ® County of Riverside: D County Auditor/Controller Mr. Jeff Ashbaker D D / 1 1 1 / / 1 / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �i RECEIVED '98 OCT 8 PM 2 40 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION; COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Local Agency Formation Commission, County of Riverside, State of California, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 4080 Lemon Street, 14'h Floor, Riverside, California, on Thursda r_ ; 998, at 9:OOA.M. on the following proposals: 1. LAFCO 97-15-4—REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 34 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. Parcel 1: The area contained in the northwest quarter section of Section 5, T6S, R6E SBBM, which is east and south of the City of Palm Desert and.west of the Ironwood Country Club, the development is part of the Canyons at Bighorn Specific Plan. Parcel 2: South of the City of Palm Desert, east of Hwy 74-the Pines to Palms Hwy, and west of Dead Indian Creek. 2. LAFCO 98-14-1—REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE CONCURRENT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143 AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 AND DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. South of State Highway 79 and the City of Temecula, west of Anza Rd., north of Oak Ranch Rd., Fairview Av., & Sleepy Hollow Ln., and east of Pala Rd., areas known as the communities of Redhawk and Vail Ranch. 3. LAFCO 98-15-1—REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND CONCURRENT ANNEXATION INTO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152. West of Winchester Rd., south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd., east of Cherry St., and north of Clinton Av. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION• 1485 SPRUCE STREET.SUITE J•RIVERSIDE.CA 92507.2445 PHONE(909)369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479 r • a The above does not necessarily reflect the order in which the item will be heard. Previously continued items may not appear on this notice. For a particular description of the land involved, reference is hereby made to maps and legal descriptions on file in the Office of the Local Agency Formation Commission, 1485 Spruce St., #J, Riverside, CA. 92507. If a copy of the staff report is desired for a particular proposal listed above, please submit a written request to the above address. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY OF RIVE DE Georo ili is Executive Officer September 29, 1998 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION• 1485 SPRUCE STREET.SUITE J•RIVERSIDE.CA 92507.2445 PHONE(9091 369-0631 FAX(909)369.8479 RECEIVE➢ �� '9E3R1iG18 P�OFFICE G11v GLERK S August 17, 1998 Mr . David Martin, Supervisor State Board of Equalization Tax Area Services Section Post Office Box 1713 Sacramento, California 95812-1713 SUBJECT: LAFCO 96-11-4—REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 70 TO CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Dear Mr.• Martin: Pursuant to California law, you will find enclosed the following documents relating to the above-referenced action: 1 . Statement of Boundary Change. 2 . Certificate of Completion (Recorded on JULY 2, 1998) . 3 . Conducting Authority Resolution 4 . Map and legal description. 5 . Vicinity Map. 6 . Map of limiting addresseses 7 . Assessor's Parcel Numbers . 8 . Alphabetical list of Streets . 9 . Warrant to cover fee. Property tax transfer negotiations have been completed as required by the Revenue and Taxation Code, and resolutions of affected agencies are on file in this office. Please file the above documents and acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Elena G. Me ina Staff Assistant Enclosures : As noted Continued---- RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION• 1485 SPRUCE STREET, SUITE J • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-2445 PHONE(909) 369.0631 FAX(909) 369-8479 c : Assessor, Mary Ellen Schaeffer Auditor-Controller, Tony Bellanca Registrar of Voters, Tori Richardson Information Services, Willie Greer Sheriff's Department, Captain Scully Fire Department, Chief . Environmental Health, John Fanning, Deputy Director Administrative Office, John Johnson Riverside County Office of Education, Gil Hollister CALTRANS, District 11 California Highway Patrol, Captain S. H. Russell Auto Club of Southern California, Jim Kendall Southern California Edison Company, Russell V. Bogh Southern California Edison Company, Gene Stubblefield Southern California Gas Company Thomas Brothers Maps, Source Department H. P. & ASSOCIATES, Elizabeth Dover Transportation Agency/Survey Section Subject Agencies Applicant LAFCO File RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J •RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE(909)369-0631 FAX(909)369-8479 ement of Boundary Chan State Board of Equalization Tax Area Services Section 450 N Street,MIC: 59 P.O.BOX 942879 Sacramento,California 94279-0059 B.O.E File No: County: RIVERSIDE County#: 33 Acreage: 310 Fee:$750.00 Resolution/Ord.No 6146 Conducting Authority: City of Indio LAFCO Res.No.: 14-98 Short Title: LAFCO 96-11-4 Effective Date: 1710208 type of Action: M Annexation to District 6 Consolidation of TRA's 110 Formation Redevelopment 02 Annexation to City 07 Detachment from District 11 Name Change 04 CityIncorporation 08 Dissolution of District X 12 Reorganization 05 Consolidation of District 09 Formation-District 13 School District Chan e BOE Code# District Type of Change City/District(s) City of Indio Annexation 70 Affected by Riverside County Waste Resources Management District Detachment Action Affected Territory 4nhabited evelo ed Number of Areas: 1 's legally: X ninhabited X [Undeveloped 1'he affected ill be taxed for existing bonded indebtedness or contractual obligations as set forth by the terms and 2rritory: konditions as stated in the resolution. X Iwill not be taxed for existing bonded indebtedness or contractual obligations. Enclosed are the X Fees X a s and Supporting Documents Following items X Legal Description X jAssessor parcel number(s)of affected territory •equired at the time X Resolution of Conducting Authority County Auditor's Letter of TRA Assignment )f filing: X Certificate of Completion (consolidated counties) City Boundary an of limiting addresses(2 copies) [Vicinity Maps(2 copies) Changes Only: I AI habetical list of all streets in the affected area to include beginning and ending street numbers stimated population is: 4oard of Equalization will acknowledge receipt of fling to: B.O.E.use only chk#: Name: GEORGE SPILIOTIS Title: EXECUTIVE OFFICER Agency: RIVERSIDE LAFCO amC Street: 1485 SPRUCE ST., STE J City and Zip Code: RIVERSIDE CA 92507-2445 Tel ho e: 909 369-0631 l- Au ust 14, 1998 'Signs r gency officer) Date PT-400• A 0.94) • M45 RECEIVED FOR RECORD AT 8:OOAM JUL - 2 1998 Rw,raad in Ol6dal Record9 d RhAfd a Caanb•Call Recorder - fees$ C1 711 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION Pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Sections 57201, 57202 and 57205, this Certificate is hereby issued by the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County, California. 1. Short-form designation, as designated by LAFCO, is 96-11-4. 2. The name of the agencies involved in this reorganization and the kind or type of changes of organization ordered are as follows: City & Districts Type of Change of Reorganization City of Indio Annexation 70 Riverside County Waste Resources Detachment Management District 3. The above-listed city is located within the following county: Riverside. 4. A description of the boundaries of the above-cited reorganization is shown on the attached maps and legal descriptions marked Exhibit "A", and by reference incorporated herein. 5. The territory is inhabited. 6. This reorganization has been approved subject to the terms and conditions as contained in the attached Resolution No. 6146 Resolution No. 6146 ordering this reorganization was adopted on May 20, 1998. A certified copy of the resolution is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. I hereby certify that as Executive Officer for the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County, the above- listed city has completed anization pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. GE-OR S � S� Execut ffi r July 2, 1998 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET, SUITE J • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-2445 PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479 273145 RESOLUTION NO. 6146 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION NO. 70 TO THE CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, all actions concerning the Reorganization are being taken pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985; and WHEREAS, the Reorganization was initiated by Indio City Council Resolution 5925 on April 19, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission processed and approved Reorganization to include Annexation No. 70 and concurrent Detachment from Riverside County Waste Resources Management District (LAFCO No. 96-11-4) on April 23, 1998, by Resolution No. 14-98; and WHEREAS, the boundary of the affected territory known as Reorganization to include Annexation No. 70 to the City of Indio and concurrent Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District (Indio Res. No. 5925) is described and depicted in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Reorganization is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Indio and all other affected agencies; and WHEREAS, a determination was made that the proposal is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Per Section 15168 of CEQA Guidelines because the proposal and its impacts are within the scope of environmental impacts previously analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1993 for the Indio General Plan 2020; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is inhabited, there being more than 12 registered voters therein; and WHEREAS, the City of Indio proceeded with this Reorganization in order to have direct control over land use decisions, as well as, benefit from anticipated increases in ad-valorum and sales tax revenue generated by future developments within the affected territory; and WHEREAS, the regular county assessment roll will be utilized; and WHEREAS, the effected territory will not be taxed for existing general bonded indebtedness of the City of Indio; and 2'73145 WHEREAS, on May 20, 1998, the City Council of the City of Indio held a duly advertised public hearing for protests regarding Reorganization to include Annexation No. 70 and concurrent detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District pursuant to Government Code Sections 57050- 57053; and WHEREAS at the conclusion of the hearing, it was declared that there were no written or oral protests filed by individuals registered voters or affected property owners as required by law (Government Code Section 57051); and WHEREAS, the reorganization was approved by LAFCO subjected to the following terms and conditions: a. In accordance with Government Code Section 56844(t), authorize the extension of any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment or tax by the local agency or the successor local agency in the affected territory. b. The City of Indio shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"), its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO, its agents, officers and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of LAFCO concerning LAFCO 96-11-4-Reorganization to Include Annexation 70 to City of Indio and Concurrent Detachment from Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. LAFCO will promptly notify the City of Indio of any such claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO and will cooperate fully in the defense. If LAFCO fails to promptly notify the City of Indio of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, City of Indio shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless LAFCO. c. In accordance with Government Code Section 56375 (p), waive automatic detachment from County Service Area 152 based upon the following findings: County Service Area (CAS) 152 is a funding mechanism for the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) emanating from the Federal 1972 Clean Water Act, and re- authorized under the Federal 1987 Clean Water Act. i. The City annexed into CSA 152 and is included within the CSA's service area. ii. Detachment would deprive the area residents services needed to ensure their health, safety or welfare. iii. Waiving detachment will not affect the ability of the City to provide any services. I 273145 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES: I. The City Council of the City of Indio orders the territory described in Exhibit "A" to be reorganized. II. That City Staff is authorized to file final papers certifying to the completion of these proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Lopez, Silva, Fesmire, Godfrey, Mayor Wilson. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 1� Q Michael H. Wilson, Mayor City of Indio, California ATTEST: Evelyn Clark, Deputy City Clerk City of Indio, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss. CITY OF INDIO) I, EVELYN CLARK, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Indio, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 6146 of the City Council of the City of Indio, adopted by said Council at a regular meeting on the 20th day of May 1998. EVELYN CLARK Deputy City Clerk City of Indio, California AM 2'73145 LAFCO 96-11.4 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Reorganization to include: ANNEXATION NO. 70 TO CITY OF INDIO and Concurrent Detachment from Riverside County Waste Resources Management District ALL OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.M., ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY; THENCE N89°38'30°E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 2,633.02 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE S00013'54V ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5, A DISTANCE OF 2,622.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5,ALSO BEING THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 8,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.M.,ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 40TH AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP FILED ON DECEMBER 10, 1958 IN BOOK 29 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY AT PAGES 16 AND 17, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE S89048'10'W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 AND THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 40TH AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 1,315.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; Page 1 of 5 2'73145 THENCE S00029'00"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8,A DISTANCE OF 536.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO MICHAEL E. BODINE AND SALLY L. BODINE PER INSTRUMENT NO. 217580 RECORDED JUNE 12, 1992, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S89051'00"W A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THOMAS G. SHERER AND LAURA P. SHERER PER INSTRUMENT NO. 177982 RECORDED JUNE 23, 1987, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY; THENCE S00029'002E A DISTANCE OF 612.54 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO ELKA KELLEY PER INSTRUMENT NO. .045716 RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1993,OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S89051'00'W A DISTANCE OF 85.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO ELKA KELLEY PER INSTRUMENT NO. 045716 RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1993, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S00029'00"E A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO ELKA KELLEY PER INSTRUMENT NO. 045716 RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1993, OFFICIAL RECORDS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ADRIAN THERLKELD PER INSTRUMENT NO. 93853 RECORDED APRIL 6, 1987, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE N89051'00'E PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ADRIAN THRELKELD PER INSTRUMENT NO. 93853 RECORDED APRIL 6, 1987, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S00029'00'E PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ADRIAN THRELKELD PER INSTRUMENT NO. 93853 RECORDED APRIL 6, 1987, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE N89051'00'E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; Page 2 of 5 2'73145 THENCE N89051'000E ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO CALVIN H. HOWARD AND DOROTHY J. HOWARD PER INSTRUMENT NO. 217451 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1985,OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S00023'00'W PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO CALVIN H. HOWARD AND DOROTHY J. HOWARD PER INSTRUMENT NO. 217451 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1985, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S00028'00°W A DISTANCE OF 142.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO CALVIN H. HOWARD AND DOROTHY J. HOWARD PER INSTRUMENT NO. 217446 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S88004'30'E A DISTANCE OF 276.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO CALVIN H. HOWARD AND DOROTHY J. HOWARD PER, INSTRUMENT NO. 217446 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1985, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE N03016'40'E A DISTANCE OF 208.43 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, ALSO BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND AS CONVEYED TO CALVIN H. HOWARD AND DOROTHY J. HOWARD PER INSTRUMENT NO. 217446 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1985,OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE N00025'20'W A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO SYD G. GRANBERG PER INSTRUMENT NO. 170467 RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1984,OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE N89°55'S0'E A DISTANCE OF 860.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO SYD G. GRANBERG PER INSTRUMENT NO. 170467 RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1984, OFFICIAL RECORDS, ALSO BEING PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE S00025'20'E ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; PAGE 3OF5 273145 THENCE N89°55'40"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 357.22 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO JOHN M. TURNER PER INSTRUMENT NO.173063 RECORDED MAY 10, 1993, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE S00°25'200E A DISTANCE OF 1,041.20 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO JOHN M. TURNER PER INSTRUMENT NO. 173063 RECORDED MAY 10, 1993, OFFICIAL RECORDS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY PER DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON APRIL 29, 1958, BOOK 2262, PAGE 411, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE CONTINUING S00025'20°E A DISTANCE OF 515.23 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AS SHOWN PER INSTRUMENT NO. 31034 RECORDED APRIL 13, 1959,OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE N 64008'50°W A DISTANCE OF 3332.64 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AS SHOWN PER INSTRUMENT NO. 31034 RECORDED APRIL 13, 1959, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY,TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 11,333.50 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03020'47°, A DISTANCE OF 661.94 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, AS SHOWN PER DEED PLAT 727-Q, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DATED JUNE 10, 1958, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE N70006'3GOW A DISTANCE OF 2154.64 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AS SHOWN PER INSTRUMENT NO. 31034 RECORDED APRIL 13, 1959,OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST S.B.M.; THENCE N00013'370E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 7, A DISTANCE OF 388.53 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY; THENCE S70006'30°E ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 484.44 FEET; THENCE, N20021'220E A DISTANCE OF 375.00 FEET; THENCE S69038'35'E A DISTANCE OF 275.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY,WITH A RADIUS OF 850.00 FEET; Page 4 of 5 273143 THENCE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°58'05', A DISTANCE OF 311.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 DISTANT 1486.79 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER CORNER THEREOF; THENCE N 89°23' 20'E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 6 AND ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 401H AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 1486.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ADAMS STREET AS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE-MENTIONED RECORD OF SURVEY; THENCE N 0001T 18°E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5, ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ADAMS STREET, A DISTANCE OF 2658.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AREA: 310 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT"B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: i No.23256 E)p. 12131/01 WILLIAM H.WARNER, REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER CMS- THIS LEGAL DESC:i'PTiON APPROVED 6-Z 4-99 EY Rw�4 Oc C U?STY SURVEYOR By_-)11 ifu l C. 7�as�s- �Z - N01SSiYvlA100 NOLLVIX2iOA A Y 7'=l :?*U A9 03AO2lddV Aft 2'73145 LN LI LI LG.1 1 P. 0. B. THIS MAP APPRGVED 6-z4.M `E�Y M VERSID: C'jJNTY SURVEYO SW 114 SEC. 5 SCALE T. 5 S. , R. 7 E. T IN FEET] N c 1 Intl! wo TL In H N J w -p S 112 SE 114 SEC. 6 V T. 5 S. , R. 7 E. o a 1V ¢ co �20 - 6 6 6 40th AYE 15 — NORTH LINE OF 7 6 r 2262/411 O. R. J I .. NrfgSOU y 1 5 FgFFWAyggNfq ,v I L5 4 2ggN pA�IF/�gAY�q pq �p L 7 �p q LB tit g LIB LINE • BEARING LENGTH C L9 ��p L17 119 L2� ____________________________________ S LS N89'38'30'E 2633.or ?� L12 �. L46 — LP S00'13'64•M ow.69' .�" o L3 S69.46'!0•N 131E 03, L15 L4 S00.29'00-E . 63S,60' 20p- L6 S69'61'00'M 76.00' O r- n L5 500-29'00•E $12.64, IV K L7 S89'61'00•9 86:00, L8 S00'29'00'E 60.00, oQ¢OFESS/p - a L9 N89.61'00•E 100.00' ( L10 500'29.00'E 120.00' C'� yV \ Lll N65'6l'00•E 60.00, L12 N89.61'00•E 170.00' L13 S00'28'00'M 60.00'L14 S00'28'00'M 142.30' L16 S88'04'30'E 276.IS' I� rn 1 L17 N00'25'20•M 122M oo I 5 �I (UB 09, ni LIS N89.68'60'E BSA 00' L19 S00.25'20-E 120.00, L20 NG9'66'40-E 357.22' p i 31 1 LINE ! BEARING- LENGTH_ L21 S00.25'20-E /041.20, L22 500'25'20'E US.23' `7 1, �`\ L27 H20'21'26'E 375.00' L23 N64.06'50'M 333P.64' \ L28 S69'38'36'E 276.41' L24 N70.06'30'M 2154.64, � NXc �C\�i L29 N89'23'21•E 1486.79' L26 N00.13'37'E 414. 14' L30 N00'17'IS•E 2568.25' L26 S70'06'30•E 484.44, �J Curve . Ra Lea9rn REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE: Cl 11333.50' 3.20'47' 661.94' L2 6sa 6A 00' 2G-68,066'G6' 31,.07• ANNEXATION NO. 70 TO CITY OF I ND I O BEING A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM SECTION 5, A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES OF SECTION 6, A PORTION OF THE NE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF SECTION 7, AND A PORTION OF SECTION N B. TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH RANGE 7 EAST, S. B. B. & M. DRAWN BY: a r na r APPROVED BY: L A F C O No . 9 6- 11 - 4 mpnwifil CBOB3 LN MEMORANDUM CITY of INDIO CITY OF INDIO DATE: August 11 , 1998 TO: To Whom It May Concern FROM: Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner (760) 342-6500 SUBJECT: Alphabetical Listing of Street Names and Odd and Even Address Ranges for Property Within City of Indio Annexation 70 Area Alphabetical List of Street Names and Odd and Even Address Ranges for Property within Annexation 70 Street: Odd Address RaMe: Even Address Ranae: Adams Street 40001 to 40499 39000 to 40500 Avenue 39 79001 to 79499 None Avenue 40 79001 to 79249 79000 to 79500 Varner Road lNone 78500 to 78998 J\USERS\DEVDEPnCISCO\MEMO\CISCO\ANNEX70.DOC MEMORANDUM CITY of INDIO CITV OF INDIO DATE: August 11, 1998 TO: To Whom It May Concern FROM: Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner (760) 342-6500 SUBJECT: List of Assessor's Parcel Numbers Within the boundaries of City of Indio Annexation 70 605-160-001 605-160-002 607-031-004 607-031-008 607-031-009 607-032-009 607-230-001 607-230-002 607-230-013 607-230-030 607-251-002 607-251-003 607-251-004 607-251-005 607-251-006 607-251-007 ® _ 2 607-251-008 607-251-010 607-251-011 607-251-014 607-251-015 607-251-016 607-251-017 607-260-001 607-260-012 607-351-001 J\USERS\DEVDEP-RCISCO\MEMO\CISCO\AN70APNS.DOC 2 CITOUF INDIO ANNEXA ON 70 VICINITY MAP LAFCO 96-11-4--Reorg. to Include Annex 70 to the City of Indio City of Indio Annexation 70 LAFCO 96-11 -4 s 0 1 Mile ° Sun Indio SOI s< City . ............... w faiCSiratrd DF r t :,. .�� Palm 10 rr45 f X d Q� Sru V 'T rt �t S >.r�J �LN1 t j4. l.raUn{'l CtUll`�F. LL �i.. Ay�C_<.'YJ.r. T?+y✓ Y ) R C'Y S.. 1 1.Y Y I 1 ♦ nnexation 7 t J w I Bermuda � Dunes 3fx_y!'�rii y� h ''it 3� 5M Sup jr,.ji�ym�� A, r aa, k 5 h's Er`y of ' ��s r'�z�w•�.; .� Fred=Wanng Dr ��. -, e �. ; �C I i ��p •y,�r w � w a a r t c SEE 5410 HAP ovral�cxr 1993 71rs!xru$ras M ® ---z— ,� ' _ sn3xw'` i NDSY31l3('I e g, % „Y•ySFs�.a TS V) u ' Q ys . ' em'1 h8 LILJJ Ed a m� a 13 nrxco �' �, s[ .L..i,,,�,;,;,.• y�ti.•� �t � Qlnnl..wo3. t "o'n,a 25 1 4�PA >d AYl np1 < now Z a J „rpbrr W ii 17 tzgg 3 „ w Pno SO111ro33 p tl0 SUM.o] Sol p1AYrtl 15 Sl(YOY F pYtx�S nn " ,s; n p 5"a;�•�yy, grg N'"9,.i4e ...._.. isco � „L�\�..._y�. ,,� roo'wx x ,h";✓-x ' 3 1 g � 5 p��,� Q ;� _a,B', 6�' ,; AV' xlnaaWCe __ ,': j .A >• p.u 3 .2':' 7,'.'.�C rJ __ 3 Q I\ , F-Uf' ,0(Y q. yll:�. I IJ QE 11tM L_L.i_L'1 LIIK � U •_ / O, �,': ' •f'' 4nS ry � i i � ' r w i � �ul b31bq 11Rdd � __-El"d'A9xr$ „; 00 oy 0131mnT ��-�... a—'iw-'�qQ i z � ;'_ °xar ww Lsu 1 1 '' �:% ', ' f7 U1 0 W 3xOr3X .gyp--I S F... I LU 7,'.: .. CT gg 5 ma Z ".fir" • `=a 6t�� 'nip0 a 'emus ," x:zuYes NOl`JNIHSVM LLO Y __ j1V �, �MT ♦ x31.nIWLY1 IMF 1fIOM :. tr �<° �- JU 1 �, IAn3 NrJf 1 S xlr $ g 5 mm y,R•.'A,. 1f g h Iv- O '.1iy r>� %/ w � .!{ �.� ♦ �t� . _ 3 '5, ��� g ' 3isna 'v`"', p°fl Y2 M _ $ - �.-h Wl IO�y,1Y,N00011..a3 i,} atlAA (" Ndrx • nmis 'x, / m _ ro µ �r1'J < 8 f. c ..•:SV21 .... J • y�'br Y�4luT/� �y. t p��•V` `9 n ��El� 1 01 . .... !..,' R.1 "Y 8R'3 yS' a •1rL l; r �_ U ,.TON C f•. _ rz F A !r' ' - '. 8 �' ��t3- 'IK. �s JS 1T01 3 �� .hY ix� xfsOR <yh,3 aL�tqU l ry xY NISMp5111 YY '. �F'RI a� M w.� ' t ♦ L �� C / SIStll3 [xY t� y s'f 13roWu iN � � a,n�yr F � -'r trY+? ' ' 'vni^ x l.z g no ` Pa• -: C'_" n,3:°� � Z ` ➢1 g• ^ � 3 _ $ :.1/ i. y7.WC �AFY MSC eT"; ; r y h N .fiw (c�3 a nr3L51a 3 -B,r. g ! .W g 1 uotslM yg'c3`' 'r 9 .33553xx31 G B g 8 �•`� y S N c9 N Q - S - a' 3Cu - - Aa 1gg tl', H f=A 4` g91s y . t P 1 c"'' nwn ul 1d1am tlo -. aartlam3 s ,* F— mmc .. ewE7= W �e 1 ' e5 �.• �� ���,f'r ' 1- r. . �, r °.r �,$ Ye'- i;,. n° '. ruolun ." ' g a�� e S tld 'N31r1113 - p� �r —e� ,c•F ''S ba arr s u'h`eia �1 J :m i A. Vi th V-'a S MSS vnn ., 00 d'AI gt8 33S A:^'Cma„d In •'ia^ 1-..,00 30ISU3i1I21� �±i'3r3, ';�_, • `"�"' id � RECEIVED '98 Afly 28 PM 2 49 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 27, 1998 C/O City Clerk LAFCO No. : 97-24-4 City of Palm Desert Proponent : Seymour Kaplan 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Dear Board Members : You are hereby notified that the proposal for Sphere of Influence Amendments to the Cities of Indio (Removal) and Palm Desert (Addition) approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Riverside at a public hearing held on April 23, 1998 . A copy of Resolution No. 16-98 is attached. Copies of the maps and legal descriptions of this proposal as approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission, are attached to this notice, and are the documents which must be used in all further actions regarding this proposal . Any previous maps or legal descriptions which do not conform to the attachments should be destroyed. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Geor J piliotis Execu i Officer Attachments cc: City Clerk-City of Indio Mr. Seymour "Sy" Kaplan Mr. Bruce Bonafede RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION• 1485 SPRUCE STREET, SUITE J•RIVERSIDE.CA 92507-2445 IPHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909)369-8479 1 Local Agency Formation Commission County of Riverside 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. 16-98 4 APPROVING THE PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS 5 TO THE CITY OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND THE 6 CITY OF PALM DESERT (ADDITION) 7 LAFCO NO. 97-24-4 8 9 BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the Local Agency 10 Formation Commission in regular session assembled on April 23, 11 1998, that the sphere of influence amendments, to the Cities of 12 Indio and Palm Desert as more particularly described in Exhibit 13 "A' attached hereto and made a part hereof, are approved. 14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND FOUND that: 15 The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California 16 Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 17 15061 (b) (3) , inasmuch as it can be seen with certainty that the 18 activity in question will not have a significant effect on the 19 environment. In support of this determination the Commission 20 make the following findings: 21 1 . The proposed sphere of influence amendments do 22 not involve any changes in land use, zoning, 23 intensity of development, physical changes to 24 land or specific development proposals, nor are 25 they an essential part or step of any proposed 26 development activity for the subject area. No 27 changes are currently proposed or under 28 consideration. Any potential change in future -1- I and use is purely speculative . (Kaufman & 2 Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified 3 School District. [1992] 9 Cal . App. V 464, 472- 4 474; Simi Valley Rec. & Park v. LAFCO [1975] 51 5 Cal . App. 3d 648, 666) 6 2 . The establishment or amendment of a sphere of 7 influence is a policy declaration of the 8 Commission based on existing facts and 9 circumstances which, although not readily 10 changed, may be subject to review and change in 11 the event a future significant change of 12 circumstances so warrants . (City of Agoura Hills 13 v. LAFCO [1988] 198 Cal . App. 3d 480, 495. ) 14 3. The territory subject to the sphere influence 15 amendments consists primarily of the Sun City 16 Palm Desert Specific Plan (No. 281) for which 17 EIR No. 367 was certified by the Board of 18 Supervisors. Additional land to the west of 19 SCPD is also proposed to be added to the Palm 20 Desert SOI . This area contains both developed 21 and undeveloped land. Pursuant to existing 22 County plans, planned uses in this area include 23 residential, commercial and industrial uses . 24 Future development will be subject to separate 25 entitlement and environmental review if and then 26 the owners seek to develop their property at 27 some currently unknown date. 28 -2- 1 4 . These factual findings are based upon the files 2 and records maintained by the Local Agency 3 Formation Commission and the Riverside County 4 Planning Department with respect to the subject 5 land encompassed by the sphere amendment 6 proposals . 7 The sphere of influence is hereby amended to remove 8 the area as described in Exhibit "A", from the sphere of 9 influence of the City of Indio and added to the sphere of 10 influence of the City of Palm Desert and the Commission makes 11 the following determinations: 12 A. The Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, 13 Including Agricultural and Open-Space Lands: 14 area to be removed from the Indio SOI includes a The i 15 portion of the Sun City Palm Desert (SCPD) COI and includes 16 residential dwellings, commercial establishments, a golf course 17 and some vacant land zoned for residential and commercial uses . 18 This area, as well as additional acreage to the west will be 19 added to the Palm Desert SOI . This additional acreage includes 20 some commercial establishments near Washington Street and Varner 21 Road but is primarily vacant. No changes in land use are 22 associated with the SOI amendments. 23 B. The Present and Probable Need for Public 24 Facilities and Services in the Area: 25 There is enough development in the area currently to 26 require a fairly wide range of public services . Under currently 27 approved land uses for the area, significant development is 28 expected to continue in the area, thereby increasing the demand -3- I for the full range of municipal type services . 2 C. The Present Capacity of Public Facilities 3 and Adequacy of Public Services Which the Agency Provides or is 4 Authorized to Provide. 5 Police and fire services would not change 6 significantly whether or not the area were to be ultimately 7 annexed to the City of Palm Desert as the City currently . 8 contracts with the County for these services . 9 D. The Existence of Any Social or Economic 10 Communities of Interest in the Area: 11 As indicated in. previous testimony before the 12 Commission, the COI Committee concluded residents are generally 13 in favor of pursuing annexation to the City of Palm Desert . 14 Placing the territory within the City' s sphere is a 15 prerequisite. 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Local Agency 17 Formation Commission of the County of Riverside, 18 State of California, that this Commission shall consider the 19 territory described in Exhibit "A" as being removed from the 20 sphere of influence of the City of Indio and added to the sphere 21 of influence of the City of Palm Desert, it being fully 22 understood that establishment of such a sphere of influence is a 23 policy declaration of this Commission based on existing facts 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 1 and circumstances, which although not readily changed may be 2 subject to review and change in the event a future significant 3 change of circumstances so warrants. 4 5 MARION v. ASHLE , Chai 6 I certify the above resolution was passed and adopted by the 7 Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on April 23, 1998 . 8 9 G G SPILIOT S 10 E c 've Officer 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ao ,J M >Y YO � ~ :LV 6,> O Y oLL'j LLU Q 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- Exhibit "A" Sphere of Influence Amendment To the City of Palm Desert (addition) And the City of Indio (removal) LAFCO 97-24-4 Those portions of Sections 30 and 31,Township 4 South,Range 7 East; Section 6,Township 5 South,Range 7 East; Section 36,Township 4 South, Range 5 East; and Sections 1 and 2,Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast comer of said Section 31; � South 8 9° 41' 12" West along the Southerly line of said Section 31,also being the Thence said Section 6; centerline of 38s'Avenue, a distance of 907.29 feet to the Northeast comer of s i Thence South 00' 17' 48" West along the Easterly line of said Section 6, also being the centerline of Adams Street, a distance of 2634.87 feet; Thence continuing along said Easterly line South 00° 17, 18" West, a distance of 1327.61 feet; Thence continuing along said Easterly line South 00' 17' 18" West,a distance of 1327.90 feet to the South line of said Section 6,also being the centerline of 401 Avenue; Thence South 89' 23' 17" West along said South line 1486.89 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Northeasterly having a radius of 850.00 feet; Thence Northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 20° 58, 05", an arc length of 311.07 feet; Thence North 69' 38' 38" West, a distance of 275.41 feet; Thence South 20° 21' 26"West, a distance of 745.20 feet to the Southerly right of way line of _ the Southern Pacific Railroad Company; Thence North 70` 07'00" West along said Southerly line a distance of 1544.96 feet to the South line of Section 6; Thence continuing North 70° 07, 00" West along said Southerly right of way line a distance of 1025.65 feet to the East line of said Section 1; Thence continuing North 70° 07' 00" West along said Southerly line, a distance of 4401.73 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Northeasterly having a radius of 5826.50 feet; Thence Northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 07° 02' 00" an arc length of 715.23 feet to a point of compound curve concave Northeasterly having a radius of 11556.50 feet; Thence Northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 08° 32' 00" an arc length of 1721.16 feet; Thence North 54° 33' 00" West along said Southerly line,a distance of 3565.28 feet to the North line of said Section 2, also being the centerline of 381 Avenue; Thence North 880 48' 20" East along said North line, a distance of 3921.67 feet to the Northeast comer of said Section 2; Thence South 89' 27' 51"East along said North line,a distance of 2635.37 feet to the North one- quarter corner of said Section 1; . Thence South 89' 27' 41"East along said North line,a distance of 2637.06 feet to the Northeast comer of said Section I and to the beginning of a non-tangent curve through which a radial line bears North 89° 44' 00" West, concave Southeasterly having a radius of 500.00 feet; Thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 44' 59' 59" an arc length of 392.70 feet; Thence North 45° 15' 59"East,a distance of 699.32 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Northwesterly having a radius of 500.00 feet; Thence Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 44° 39'21" an arc length of 389.70 feet to the West line of said Section 31,also being the centerline of Washington Street; Thence North 00° 36' 38" East along said West line, a distance of 1449.35 feet to the West one- quarter comer of said Section 31; Thence continuing along said West line North 00° 36, 46" East, a distance of 2642.92 feet to the Northwest corner of said Section 31; Thence North 00' 47' 50" West along the West line of said Section 30,a distance of 2651.30 feet to the West one-quarter comer of said Section 30; Thence continuing along said West line North 00' 49' 59" West, a distance of 561.11 feet; Thence North 89' 47'02" East, a distance of 62.50 feet; Thence North 00' 49' 59" West, a distance of 10.00 feet; Thence North 89' 47' 02" East, a distance of 506.98 feet; Thence North 00' 49' 59" West,a distance of 423.38 feet; Thence North 89° 47' 02"East,a distance of 151.70 feet; Thence North 00° 54' 00" West, a distance of 331.38 feet to a point on the South line of the North half of the North half of said Section 30; Thence North 89' 47' 33" East along said South line,a distance of 2040.51 feet; Thence continuing along said South line North 89' 47'23" East, a distance of 1997.20 feet; Thence South 00° 44' 03" East,a distance of 1322.32 feet; Page 2 Thence North 89° 44'27" East, a distance of 663.96 feet to the East one-quarter comer of said Section 30; Thence South 00° 39' 07" along the East line of said Section 30,a distance of 2641.77 feet to the Southeast corner of said Section 30, also being the Northeast comer of said Section 31; Thence South 00° 42' 14"West along the East line of said Section 31, a distance of 130.03 feet; Thence continuing along said East line South 00° 43'OS" West, a distance of 1197.48 feet; Thence continuing along said East line South 00° 38' 33" West, a distance of 1329.34 feet to the East one-quarter comer of said Section 31; Thence continuing along said East line South 00° 39' 32"West, a distance of 2647.35 feet to the Southeast comer of said Section 31 and the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said land contains 2367 acres more or less. pND SU U�2oyr.H d UUl FL�� y O No. L 7064 P AP RMM 13Y TriE LOCAL A.r,D-ICY FORM; IOt`I COAT I IC"! it Tt�S,LEGAL QFSC7iP tON PPROVED M/ _.. _ EY k RS.D �C ui SURVEYOR BY 2\C:WyFi 1es\Dei,y\1016.bp.wpd Page 3 SHEET 1 Of 3 T 8 Q BEARING DISTANCE Exhibit "A" 1 N 00049'59"W 561.11 Sphere of Influence Amendment 2 N 69"47.02"E 62.50 w To the City of Palm Desert (addition) O N 000 49'59"W 10.00 And the City of Indio (removal) O N 89'47'02"E 506.98 LAFCO 97-24-4 5 N 00049'59"W 423.36 �7 6 N 89°47'02"E 151.70 7 N 00054'00"W 331.38 Q8 N 00°42' 14"E 130.03 4 3 2 N 89.47' 33"E N 89.47' 2 "E 7 0. 51 1997. 2 N 3 3 0 5 6 2 o z 1 4 N 9.44' 27 E 663.96 ~ A. P. N. 747-46 L1J 3 W 3 �� o al. � m c / Z Z 0 B� CD B� Z 8 F--I c= m � Q v o n 3: rn v w o A. P. N. 747-46 ^ 0 < a z � N O O w 0 N Z p M T m N � M O ^ O Z MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 2 SHEET 2 OF 3 0 SEE SHEET 1 w MATCH LINE J u< N W o ^ A. P. N. 605-45 = P � O O O NZ 2367 ACRES t5 c� e N89°27' 41" W 3 J a Jaa dBaJ' �a 89907'. ?32.E r 1 r 2637. O6 �J ag taa I�aO �a F— P. 0. B_ w Ww W p m L1J z cn q�n� cn 6 N � J � B� W z (n NO Q 2 CD O Li H W Q N Q A. P. N. 605-45 N ^ gym' Oo i z w 06 0 N9g01. 7d A. P. N. 605-07 A. P. N. 605-09 N n 0 0�7 0p. M 1025. O z N70•p7.0p ie 1486. 89 1044 N N O N 89.23' 17"E 96 >" 40TH 'AVENUE 00^K N A. P. N. 607-02 a A. P. N. 607-03 OELTA/BEARINGE!n T. TANGENT O 20°58'OS" 157.29 2 N 69°38'38"M 1 a 44.59'59" 207.11 44°39'21" 205.35 • •I v, mea SHEET 3 OF 3 PA `L c VALLE 7 OESETT HAVEN . - �`_• r-� ,fir -7,, •� IS^Y IMO. ui••i�sy'�t'4�•`.�U7M' v 1�• \ PALM•G cu:d%iNn try, ; MS tPAINGPAIj '�'+i..•.%%Y u'F'�OIA• @ \ AAw 1 / / •mil Wo>(n _,y-,Z 3nLYl_ 'y-e�ux{:.:5;. •.gx QINDIO HILLS \© r H-e1t�d "�fj::rires£m�[A �i;;`JrngvEtoiro aCATHEDRAL 'bs 8_ Misve+Ailh ` o1o'Ar F: i:j u.'=z ' •rt CITY v •' .• o T iL[ovnery Uve 'Uv�A �' hprnort Ossert' � as A ,• tl7/LP/ 5 RANCHO"..• :o COUNTRY CLUB MIRAGE '' •_y„ a© /neon We/1 MUO mA -'Q s+seo rs. PALM ,• i CovnvY C/V. OUNES OEScAT'• c�ry r. 8ermuC� .J A /J,T- Mir.ior. Aensha , , �y i Hvs Oune NDIOyC v. Ca• (sx Pslmas Fesort gz 1Coantry duesy y Embevv INDIAN•— + WELLSi CY ( I ;_ 1 1. ,•+ 1 I The Ow'nra� j �, j�pj �uE q 0-eseR.,':Ccunm LA,4 06WTA OAC VICINITY MAPWd N 88.48' 20"E N 89'27' 51'W N 89e27- 41"W 3921.67 2635. 37 2637. 06 A. P. N. 626-15 3 BS Z N 00 J r LLI A. P. N. 626-13 ' Li q�49.B Np N ll 2 O. .. r w �s2 rB60 01, !'n t Ta'7SB 0;, ��y LJ 00 4q0 ' SOUTHE LY LINE OF N 0 0-00 SOUTHE N PACIFIC R .R. CO . w JNDbrc�L�� A. P. N. 626-14 , > 0 !a APPROVED Y �'? �� �� # T IS S MAP PRO E AGENCY FORMATION StIN64 �OFCAUF� BY JJ'';lTY URVEYCR i i DRAFT SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT October, 1998 Prepared for: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 (619) 340-5776 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 541-4585 SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1 A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION...............................................................................I B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS.................................................................2 C. ASSUMPTIONS.........................................................................................................3 II. REVENUES.................................................................................................... 3 A. GENERAL FUND......................................................................................................3 1. Taxes.....................................................................................................................3 a. Property Taxes.............................................................................................3 b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................4 C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief...............................................................5 d. . Parcel Tax ....................................................................................................5 je. Sales Taxes...................................................................................................5 . f. Transient Occupancy Taxes.........................................................................6 2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees) ..............................................................7 3. Franchise Fees........................................................................................................7 4. Development Related Fees.....................................................................................7 a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees.....................................................7 b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees...........................................................7 C. Engineering Fees..........................................................................................7 Rosen"Spevacek Group,Ina i Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October,1998 Fuca!Feasibility Study d. Development Fees........................................................................................8 5. Other Revenues ......................................................................................................8 a. Fines and Forfeitures....................................................................................8 b. Miscellaneous Revenues..............................................................................8 6. Fire Protection Fees ..............................................................................................8 a. Structural Fire Protection Tax.............................:................................:.......8 b. Proposition A Fire Tax.................................................................................8 7. Business License Tax............................................................................................9 8. Interest...................................................................................................................9 B. ROAD FUND..............................................................................................................9 III. EXPENDITURES .......................................................................................... 9 A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES......................................................................9 1. General Government ..............................................................................................9 a. Administration.............................................................................................9 b. Insurance....................................................................................................10 C. Animal Control..........................................................................................10 d. County Property Tax Collection Charges..................................................10 2. Public Safety.........................................................................................................10 a. Sheriff's Contract.......................................................................................10 b. Jail Booking Fee ........................................................................................I I C. Fire Protection............................................................................................I I 3. Community Development....................................................................................I I a. Code Compliance Officer..........................................................................12 4. Public Works........................................................................................................12 a. Administration...........................................................................................12 b. Street Sweeping .........................................................................................12 C. Street Lighting ...........................................................................................12 Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc ii Sun City/lack Ivey Ranch Annexation October,1998 _ Fiscal Feasibility Study 5. Parks and Recreation..:.........................................................................................13 6. Contingency..........................................................................................................13 7. Roads....................................................................................................................13 a. Capital Improvements................................................................................13 8. Road Maintenance................................................................................................I a. Street Maintenance...................................................:.................................13 ' b. Traffic Signal Maintenance........................................................................13 IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS....................................................................... 14 V. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS — BERMUDA DUNES ANNEXATION . 15 A. OVERVIEW OF BERMUDA DUNES AREA......................................................16 B. ANALYSIS................................................................................................................17 1. General Fund Revenues......................................................................................17 2. General Fund Expenditures.................................................................................17 3. Potential Capital Improvement Requirements....................................................17 C. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................18 MAPS Map 1 —Areas 1 and 2 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary (Del Webb's Sun City and Ivey Ranch) Exhibit 2 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary (Del Webb's Sun City and Ivey Ranch assuming 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial development) Exhibit 3 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary (Del Webb's Sun City only) Exhibit 4—Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary (Del Webb's Sun City only assuming 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial development) Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc iu Sun OtylJack Ivey Ranch Aane Pion October,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT I. BACKGROUND The City of Palm Desert ("City") engaged the Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") to prepare a fiscal feasibility analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch. This Report can be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act, if and when, the City desires to pursue annexation of these communities. Prior to the determination to pursue annexation, the City wishes to ascertain the fiscal standing of the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch communities and surrounding commercial and industrial uses. This Report will focus on what City services will be provided within these areas, the forecasted cost of those services, and what revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those services. This Report will focus on a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the annexation area for approximately seven years (i.e., the projected date of buildout for the Sun City area). It should be understood that there will usually be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. In addition to analyzing the feasibility of annexing the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch areas, this Report also provides a textual analysis of the feasibility of annexing Bermuda Dunes. Although previous feasibility studies show that the annexation of the Bermuda Dunes area is not financially feasible, the economies of scale which may be realized by annexing other areas within the sphere of influence may counteract this negative fiscal result. The "Summary of Findings" section of this Report includes this analysis. A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION This Study focuses on two unincorporated areas within Riverside County; the first area is shown on Map 1 and is generally bounded by the northern most point of Section 30 to the north, Washington Street and the intersection of Varner Road and 381h Avenue to the east, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the western portions of Sections 6, 30, and 31 to the west ("Area I"). Area 1 consists primarily of the Del Webb Sun City development, a golf course, a recreational facility, freeway-oriented commercial/retail use along Interstate 10, an overnight lodging facility, a country club (with pro-shop), a recreational vehicle park, seven developed parcels and 455 acres of vacant land. The Sun City community is in the process of developing and is scheduled to reach buildout in fiscal year 2006-07. At buildout, the Sun City community is projected to include 5,288 units, two recreation centers, and a golf course within the gates, and commercial retail uses adjacent to the development. The second area (also shown on Map 2) is generally bounded by the southern boundary of Section 21 to the north, the southeast portion of Section 35 to the west, the Interstate 10 Freeway.to the south and the midpoint of Section 28 to the east ("Area 2"). Area 2 contains the Jack Ivey Ranch community, the Jack Ivey Ranch Country Club, a pro-shop, a restaurant, and approximately Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report ,.I.dmlddw,bbl Mn,famM 624 acres of vacant land along the Interstate 10 Freeway. The Jack Ivey Ranch community contains approximately 318 single-family residential uses and is projected to contain 399 single-family units by fiscal year 2006-07. The 1998 population of Areas 1 and 2 is estimated at 3,376 and 636, respectively. A population estimate of 2 persons per dwelling unit was used for the purposes of this analysis. At the present time, the number of structures or dwelling units in Area I include approximately 1,600 residential units and 5,100 square feet of commercial space. Area 2 consist of approximately 318 single-family residential units and 5,200 square feet of commercial development. B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS The major public agencies currently providing services in Areas I and 2 are the County of Riverside, County Service Areas No. 121 and No. 152, Coachella Valley Water Improvement District, Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District, and Coachella Valley Improvement Districts 58 and 81. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for policymaking and administration, law enforcement, animal control, planning and land use regulation, building inspection, flood control, and the maintenance and improvement of roads in both areas. Street lighting services within Areas 1 and 2 are currently provided through CSA No. 121. Upon annexation, the City would assume services funded by CSA No. 121 and CSA No. 121 would be detached. The County currently collects a parcel tax for CSA No. 152 to fund street sweeping services County-wide. However, the County does not currently provide street sweeping services in Areas I and 2. Upon annexation, the City will perform all street sweeping services and this tax will remain in effect, so there is no fiscal impact. Water is currently supplied in Areas 1 and 2 by the Coachella Valley County Water District. Upon annexation, the Coachella Valley Water District will continue to supply water to these areas. Sewer service is currently, and will continue to be, provided by Septic Systems and the Coachella Valley Water District. Sewer lines currently exist at 38' Avenue, Del Webb Boulevard, Varner Road, and Washington Street. The County of Riverside currently provides fire protection services to all properties within Areas 1 and 2 through three fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35, located at 79-400 Avenue 42, 44- 400 Town Center Way and 72695 La Canada Way, respectively. In addition, a fourth station (No. 81) is currently under construction at Washington Street and 38th Avenue. Following annexation, fire protection services would be provided by the City through the Cove Community Services Commission. The Commission contracts with the County to deliver fire protection and paramedic services. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for providing police services within Areas 1 and 2. Two police substations responsible for servicing this area are located in Palm Desert and Indio. Following annexation, only the Palm Desert substation will service Areas 1 and 2 and police protection services would continue to be provided by the County of Riverside through a contract with the County Sheriff. The roads within these areas, which are currently maintained by the County of Riverside, would be maintained by the City of Palm Desert following annexation. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 2 Fiscal Feasibility Report pilmds✓de1w bhunive fearepn C. ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions used in this analysis were based primarily on the documentation and data provided by the land developer and the City. While RSG has taken precautions to assure the accuracy of the data used in the formulation of this analysis, we cannot ensure that these projections will in fact be realized because actual development and absorption may be affected by future events and conditions which cannot be controlled or predicted with certainty. In addition, this analysis does not consider any potential impacts that Proposition 218 ("Right to Vote on Tax Act") may have on revenue forecasts. The implementation of Proposition 218 is currently under statewide review as to specific impacts. Additionally, the Study assumes that proposed changes to the receipt of motor vehicle in-lieu fees, which were subject to reductions in the State Budget will not have a negative fiscal impact. Many of the General Fund and Road Fund revenues and expenditures were either calculated on a per capita basis, a marginal cost basis using actual budget figures from the City of Palm Desert, or a case study methodology. All other estimated revenues and expenditures were provided by staff at the City, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, and the Riverside County Fire Department. It is important to note that this Study focuses on recurring revenues and expenditures. This Study does not analyze any future capital improvement projects resulting from the annexation of Areas 1 and 2, nor does the Study include any development related impact fees that would be collected on new development. In addition, with the exception of the new development contained in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, and the new development assumptions outlined below, this Study does not analyze potential new development in the vacant portions of Areas 1 or 2. H. REVENUES A. GENERAL FUND The primary sources of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Exhibit 1: 1. Taxes: a. Property Taxes: The City property tax revenue is based on the historical property tax ratio of 25/75% to be split between the City and the County as set forth in Resolution No. 81-133, adopted September 24, 1981. An analysis was conducted to determine the approximate share of the County General Fund's 29.89% of the one percent (1%) general levy property tax rate within the Study Area that would be transferred to the City. Because CSA No. 121 will detach following annexation, no other transfer of property tax revenues has been estimated. Upon annexation, the City will receive 25% of the County's share of the total General Fund property tax revenue (i.e., a Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 3 Fiscal Feasibility Report Delmdn/delwebh/awiveylrarepn total of 7.30% of the general levy property tax rate within the Study Area) and the County would retain the remaining 75% of General Fund property tax revenue (i.e., 21.89% of the general levy). The total assessed valuation for the residential units and commercial development utilized in the calculation of property taxes are provided below: Proposed Average Construction Use Estimated Completed Assessed Value/Sq. Ft. (FY 1998-99 dollars) Residential Units (Area 1) $228,888 FY 2006-07 (400 constructed per year) Residential Units (Area 2) $124,848 FY 2005-06 (12 units per year until FY 2003-04 and 9 units in FY 2004-05) Six Fast Food Restaurants $133/sq. ft. FY 2001-02 (Area 1) Four Gas Stations (Area 1) $45/sq. ft. FY 2001-02 Proposed Recreation Center $85/sq. ft. FY 2003-04 (Area 1) Commercial Retail (Area 1) $120/sq. ft. FY 2005-06 A conservative 2% annual inflator has been applied to the assessed values in the Study. b. Property Transfer Taxes: Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold or an existing property is resold. A property transfer tax of$1.10 per $1,000 (0.110%) of transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided between Riverside County and the City. The amount of property transfer tax received.will depend upon the sale of land and the level of resale activity within Areas I and 2. These revenues have been estimated using the assumption of a 5% turnover rate annually at the rate of.55¢ per $1,000 of assessed values. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 4 Fiscal Feasibility Report pvlmdsdAelwrbb/sunivey(esrepn C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief: Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief were not specifically projected because this analysis bases the Property Tax Apportionment on assessed valuation gross of the Homeowners Exemption. Therefore, revenue from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax Apportionment. d. Parcel Tax: Upon annexation,the City would assume service responsibilities of County Services Area ("CSA") No. 121. CSA 121 covers all properties in Area 1 only (as well as areas outside Areas 1 and 2) and funds street lighting services for all properties outside the Sun City gated community. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 would be detached and one hundred percent (100%) of the special district levies would be transferred to the City (Exhibit 1). CSA No. 152 represents a tax levied against all properties in Areas I and 2 for street sweeping services. However, as mentioned previously, there will be no impact with respect to CSA No. 152 upon annexation, due to the fact that the County does not currently provide street sweeping services in the Study Area. e. Sales Taxes: Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive a percentage of the sales tax charged on qualifying retail sales from businesses within the Study Area. The "Fiscal Impact Report, Sun City Palm Desert," dated August 22, 1997, prepared by David Taussig and Associates ("FIR"), states that the State Board of Equalization estimated that the commercial uses within the Del Webb Sun City area are generating approximately $81,185 in sales tax revenues in calendar year 1996 dollars (Exhibits 1 and 2). RSG has assumed a modest 3% annual increase on these sales tax revenues. In addition, pursuant to the Amended Specific Plan for Del Webb's Sun City, dated October 28, 1997 (Resolution No. 97-286), approximately 78 acres in the general proximity of Varney Road and Washington Street are designated for commercial development. Given current market floor area ratios (FARS), this development will likely result in approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial retail development at buildout. Currently, there is one fast food restaurant open in this area, with one more fast food restaurant and two gas stations scheduled to open by January 1, 1999. The remainder of the development (approximately 493,400 square feet) has been estimated to occur in fiscal year 2005-06. Given the absence of specific development information for this area, an alternative fiscal analysis has been included in this Study which assumes 250,000 square feet of retail development as opposed to 500,000 square feet (Exhibit 2). A proposed recreation center within the gates is also scheduled for development by fiscal year 2002-03. Sales tax revenues generated by retail uses at the Jack Ivey Ranch County Club are estimated at $1,105 in fiscal year 1997-98 dollars. The Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October,1998 5 Fiscal Feasibitiy Report palmdsJdelwebb/evniveyfeampn sales tax figures (per square foot) utilized for all development are listed below and are reflected in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars, unless otherwise indicated. Use Sales Tas Estimated per Squa re Feel Square Footage AREA ] Existing Recreation Center $82,185 N/A (FY 1996-97 dollars) Proposed Recreation Center $225 5,000 Retail Uses along Washington/Varner Fast Food Restaurants(2) $300 4.800 Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800 Remaining Retail $225 493,400 Existing Retail between Varner Road&I10 Fast Food Restaurants(5) $300 12,000 Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800 Existing Retail on Washington/Varner Gas Station $1,000 900 Fast Food Restaurant $300 2,400 AREA 1 Jack Ivey Ranch CountryClub $85 1,300 Sales tax revenues were projected according to the phasing of this development and are reflected in Exhibits 1 and 2. This Study also contains an analysis which calculates annual sales taxes assuming that only 250,000 square feet of new commercial retail development will be constructed on the above mentioned 78 acres of vacant land (Exhibit 2). f. Transient Occupancy Taxes: Upon annexation, the City would receive the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues. Currently, the City's Transient Occupancy Tax rate is 10%. Area 2 contains one (1) commercial lodging establishment; the Motel 6 located at the comer of Washington Street and Varner Road which has a total of 92 rooms. RSG has estimated the Transient Occupancy Tax based on an occupancy factor of 60% and average room rate of $47 in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. Del Webb also provides short-term housing to prospective home buyers in the form of 54 vacation villas. At project buildout, the villas will be sold and thus will cease to generate TOT revenues. According to the FIR, the villas generated approximately $81,000 in TOT revenues in 1996. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that TOT revenues will remain constant until fiscal year 2000-01 and will steadily decrease by approximately 17 percent a year as more units are sold and the Sun City area becomes builtout. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October,1998 6 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmd,Vdd.&b/.MvW.,e prt 2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees): Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes. These taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to cities on a per capita basis. Off-Road Vehicle taxes are also allocated to cities by the State on a per capita basis. Both subventions are estimated at $39.71 per capita in fiscal year 1998- 99 dollars and are based on the estimated combined population of 11,374 for the Study Area at buildout. These per capita revenues are held constant over the term of the projections and are based on information provided by the State Controller's office. Recent State legislature changes will reduce Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees that cities receive, however these same legislative changes will fully backfill this revenue reduction by State General Funds. 3. Franchise Fees: Upon annexation, the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the County by Continental Cable Television, the Southern California Gas Company, Waste Management, and Western Waste. These fees have been estimated at $42.10 per capita (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) using budget figures from the City of Palm Desert. An annual inflation factor was applied to this figure. 4. Development Related Fees: The fees described below are not included in Exhibit 1 because these fees specifically offset costs of development related services, only the "net" cost of these services are indicated under"Expenditures". a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees: The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use planning and regulation services. The City would utilize the City's existing fee schedule. These fees should offset most of the City's cost in providing these services. b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees: The fees collected for these building and permit inspection services should, in most cases, totally offset the cost of these services. C. Engineering Fees: The Cityis also authorized to charge fees for plan checking, public works P g inspection, permit issuance and review and other engineering services. The fees collected for these services should, in most cases, offset the cost of these services. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun Ciry/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 7 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdWdebvcbNwnive Fmv n d. Development Fees: Under the provisions of State law, the City may collect development fees for the purpose of construction or improving capital facilities. Fees received must be segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling. Certain fees must be spent or committed within five years from the time they are collected. 5. Other Revenues: a. Fines and Forfeitures: This represents both Motor Vehicle Code fines, Municipal Code fines, and other miscellaneous fines and forfeitures. Motor Vehicle and Municipal Code fines were estimated at $1.63 per capita in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars using budget data from the City of Palm Desert and inflated 2% annually over the term of the projections. b. Miscellaneous Miscellaneous revenues include map sales, microfilm sales, code/certificate compliance, special investigation fees, nuisance abatement and other revenues. This revenue has been estimated at $8.13 per-capita in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars using the City's budget. A 2% inflator was applied annually over the term of the projections. 6. Fire Protection Fees a. Structural Fire Protection Tax: The structural fire protection tax is levied as art of the 1% roe tax within P P property rtY Areas 1 and 2 and is based on the total assessed valuation within this area. The current rate within the Study Area is 0.0608. Upon annexation, the City will receive approximately 70% of these revenues to fund fire protection services through its contract with the County. b. Proposition A Fire Tax: The Proposition A Fire Tax is calculated on a parcel basis. More specifically, this revenue was estimated by assuming an annual $48 charge per unit (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) for each of the existing 2,006 residential units, as well as, the additional units and the units developed over the term of the projections. A 2% inflator was applied annually to the per unit charge. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 8 Fiscal Feasibility Report pelmds✓delve bb/mnwtryf art 7. Business License Tax: Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to impose the City's current Business License Tax. The Business License fee for the City of Palm Desert is calculated based upon gross sales. RSG has estimated the amount of Business License Tax using an average Business License fee of $80 (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) for the local sales tax generators identified within Areas 1 and 2 (Exhibit 1). An annual inflator of 2% was applied over the term of the projections. 8. Interest: The City's current return on investment of 5.25% has been applied to all excess cash. B. ROAD FUND All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per capita basis, with the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2107.5 is allocated to the cities based upon total population size. It is estimated that the proposed annexation of the Study Area would add approximately 11,374 population to the existing 33,701 population of Palm Desert. According to State data, this added population will not place the City's population status into the next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is reflected relative to Section 2107.5. Similar to other state subventions, road fund revenues initially would be based at the estimated population of 11,374. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter- approved Measure "A" sales tax distributed by the County Transportation Commission. Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related maintenance expenditures. III. EXPENDITURES A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational structure and are estimated as follows: 1. General Government: a. Administration: The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating costs would be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal expenditures including legal costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies were estimated. Costs associated with the 1999-00 election are shown. Costs for general administration and election costs (every other year) were estimated at $0.51 and Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 9 Fiscal Feasibility Report palm&Vdelw bb/mniveyfmapn $1.54 per capita, respectively, using City budget data. These per capita costs have been estimated to increase 3% annually. b. Insurance: Upon annexation, it is likely that the cost of the City's insurance policy will be impacted. RSG has estimated these costs at $21,000 annually (in fiscal year 1998- 99 dollars) based on existing infrastructure and other public facilities within the Study Area in relationship to the City's budgeted expenditure forecasts. A 5% inflator has been applied to reflect annual increases in costs. C. Animal Control: The current City animal control contractor, California Animal Care, will assume animal control services for this area upon annexation of Areas I and 2. Costs were estimated at $2.23 per capita (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) using the City's budget. These costs are net of any animal license fee revenues. d. County Property Tax Collection Charges: Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor-Controller's Office charged cities and local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental administrative costs. These charges are estimated at 2% of all property tax revenues. 2. Public Safety: a. Sheriffs Contract: Based on conversations with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department staff, the annexation of the Study Area will necessitate the establishment of a new "beat" or one 24-hour patrol. This is due to the fact that the Study Area is on the opposite side of the freeway from the existing patrol area in Palm Desert and, in order to assure adequate response times to the Study Area, a patrol must be present on the same side of the I-10. This would translate into the need for approximately five additional officers to staff the new "beat" immediately following annexation, or in fiscal year 1998-99. The cost for the establishment of the new beat was calculated by assuming the hiring of five Sheriffs deputies at $71 per hour (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars), with each deputy working 2,080 hours per year. Using these assumptions, the fiscal year 1998-99 costs total $733,824. Pursuant to Sheriffs Department staff, the hourly charge has been inflated 5% annually over the term of the projections to reflect increases in contract costs. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 10 Fiscal Feasibility Report pdmdn1d,1..bb/..,v,yf.,,pn b. Jail Booking Fee: Riverside County charges a flat fee for jail bookings for the proposed annexation of approximately $110 to all cities within the County. Jail booking fees were estimated based on jail bookings in the County incorporated areas in this area and for the City of Palm Desert. C. Fire Protection: The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement forming the Cove Communities Services Commission in order to provide fire and paramedic services. Fire protection expenditures were estimated using current Riverside County Fire Department budget costs for the Cove Communities Services Commission and the City's share of these costs over the term of the projections. Pursuant to the contract for the Cove Communities Services Commission, each City pays a percentage of budget costs according to that City's share of the combined assessed valuation of all three Cities. The annexation of the Study Area will result in an increase in the total assessed value of the City and in the Cove Communities Services Commission annual budget costs. In fiscal year 1997-98, the City represented approximately 52% of the assessed valuation of all the cities and the budget for the Cove Communities Services Commission was approximately $6.4 million. Upon annexation, the City share of assessed valuation is estimated to increase to 54% and the budget will increase approximately $1.1 million to include operation costs for Fire Station No. 81 which will service the Study Area. The increase in the City's fire contract cost after annexation total approximately $700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99. An annual inflation factor of 5% was applied to the Cove Communities Services Commission budget to reflect cost increases. Currently three (3) fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35 service the Study Area. All of these fire stations are located outside of the Study Area. As mentioned previously, a new fire station (No. 81) is currently under construction and is schedule to open in March 1999 to primarily service the Study Area. However, information obtained from the Fire Department indicates that Stations 33, 31, and 35 will provide assistance where needed. 3. Community Development: Upon the annexation of Areas 1 and 2, the Community Development Department will assume the processing of all land use related services. These services will, in most cases, be off-set by fees. Those services not covered by fees have been estimated at $5,000 per year in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. These costs have been escalated by 3% per year to account for inflation. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 1 I Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdstldehve WN ivWea%e n a. Code Compliance Officer: Upon annexation, it is anticipated that an additional Code Compliance Officer will be required to provide code enforcement services within the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch areas. This expenditure is calculated using the first step in the City's payroll salary range for Code Compliance-Officer which total $27,030 per year in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. RSG has included an additional 35% of the annual salary to reflect benefits and an additional 10% for supplies, minor equipment, and other overhead costs. 4. Public Works: For purposes of this Report, it is assumed that the current level of service of maintenance programs is sufficient to the community's needs. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 and other County responsibilities will be assumed by the City. The Public Works cost estimates also include an allowance for contract services to administer these programs. a. Administration: A minimal administrative cost impact based on a per capita factor using City budget data is reflected. This cost represents supplies, meeting and travel costs, equipment, and other services. b. Street Sweeping: CSA No. 152 represents a parcel tax levied by the County for street sweeping services within Areas 1 and 2. However, the County does not provide street sweeping services to Areas 1 and 2. Upon annexation, the City will provide street sweeping services to Areas 1 and 2 and CSA No. 152 will continue to be collected to cover these costs. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, no fiscal impact would result from the annexation. C. Street Lighting: Street lighting services within the Area 1 only are currently provided through CSA No. 121. These services are limited to street lighting outside the gated Sun City community, which includes those commercial and industrial uses between the Sun City community and the Interstate 10 Freeway. Area 2 properties are not within CSA 121. It is important to note that CSA No. 121 covers a larger area which includes not only Areas 1 and 2, but significant surrounding territory. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 will be detached and all funds will be transferred to the City. The forecasted expenditure is based on current CSA No. 121 budget data (Exhibit 1). Street lighting within the Jack Ivey Ranch and Sun City communities is funded through the existing homeowners associations. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October,1998 12 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdsddelwebbh nive feerepn 5. Parks and Recreation: There is no anticipated financial impact relative to existing landscape maintenance services due to the fact that all parks and open space areas are private and located within the gated communities of Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch. All private parks, open space and recreational facilities, both existing and future, are assumed to be maintained by homeowners association. 6. Contingency: A 10% contingency factor has been added to the General Fund expenditure estimate to meet unforeseen programs or emergency needs. 7. Roads: a. Capital Improvements: Upon annexation, it is the City's policy to upgrade existing infrastructure systems within the annexation area to meet or exceed current City standards. The funding sources for capital improvements within Areas I and 2 are not identified due to the fact that a capital improvement program (CIP) has not been developed nor addressed as part of this analysis. The preparation of a CIP plan for the annexation areas would require the preparation of an extensive and detailed infrastructure assessment analysis. S. Road Maintenance: a. Street Maintenance: The street maintenance expenditure was estimated based upon estimated curb miles and area size using budget data from the City of Palm Desert. This cost reflects a - 3% increase which includes general street maintenance; City-wide street slurry sealing, overlaying and resurfacing, new and replaced curbs and gutters, centerline striping, and safety and sign painting. b. Traffic Signal Maintenance: Upon annexation, the City of Palm Desert will be required to maintain additional traffic signals. The City of Palm Desert currently maintains 50% of the traffic signals located at Washington Street and Varner Road, along Varner Road, on Cook Street and Varner Road (2 signals), and all other signals along Varner Road in Areas I and 2. Upon annexation of Areas 1 and 2, the City will be required to maintain 100% of these four (4) traffic signals. All other traffic signals in Areas I and 2 are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch homeowners associations. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 13 Fiscal Feasibility Report pelmd,�ddwcb�huniveyfsampn IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The fiscal feasibility of annexing the Study Area (comprised of Areas I and 2) was evaluated by assessing the feasibility of Area l (Sun City) alone, as well as examining the feasibility of both Areas 1 and 2 (Jack Ivey Ranch). Sun City Alone Two .scenarios were prepared for the fiscal analysis of Area 1. Both scenarios assume residential development, as presented in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, but the first scenario (Exhibit 3) assumes approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial development while the second scenario (Exhibit 4) assumes a more conservative 250,000 square feet of new commercial development. Although the annexation of Area I would result in a cumulative General Fund surplus of approximately $2.5 million over a nine year time period under the first scenario (Exhibit 3), the City would experience shortfalls in years 1 through 4 ranging from $29,000 to $450,000 annually and a cumulative shortfall for the seven of the nine years. The second scenario results in a lower cumulative General Fund surplus ($1.7 million over a nine year period), with the same annual and cumulative shortfalls in years 1 through 7. General Fund expenditures exceed revenues in the first few years following annexation due to the fact that revenues are growing progressively with new development, but costs, such as public safety costs, must be incurred upon annexation. In particular, due to the required provision of adequate response times, a full "beat" must be established upon annexation, at a cost of over $700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. Police services costs are high beginning in fiscal year 1998-99, before the increasing value of all development comes on-line. It is important to note that the annual General Fund shortfall declines significantly each year over the term of the projections. The additional 500,000 square feet of commercial uses projected to be developed in fiscal year 2005-06 will greatly reduce the annual deficit in the General Fund. Finally, if the contingency referenced in this Study are not used by the City, the projections would show that the shortfall would be eliminated by fiscal year 2002-03. The _ reason that the annual and cumulative shortfalls are identical under both scenarios is due to the fact that commercial development does not occur until years 8 and 9 of the projections. The forecasted revenues for the Road Fund exceed estimated expenditures under both scenarios by a range of $133,731 to $559,424 annually, with a cumulative surplus of $3.0 million. It is important to note that the use of these funds is restricted to road-related expenditures. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 14 Fiscal Feasibility Report pa1mds✓de1w bb/wniyWampn Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch In contrast, the two scenarios prepared for the fiscal analysis for Areas 1 and 2 combined yields a higher surplus and lower deficits. Similar to the two scenarios described above, both scenarios that assume the annexation of Areas 1 and 2 combined include the residential development as presented in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan. However, the first scenario (Exhibit 1) assumes approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial development while the second scenario (Exhibit 2) assumes a more conservative 250,000 square feet of new commercial development. The fiscal analysis presented in the first scenario (Exhibit 1) shows a cumulative General Fund surplus of$3.7 million over the nine year period with fiscal deficits in years 1 through 3, rather than four years of deficits as shown in Exhibit 3 (the annexation of the Del Webb area alone). The annual deficits range from $77,732 to $352,566 under both of these scenarios. The second more conservative scenario results in a somewhat lower cumulative General Fund surplus of$2.8 million. It is important to note that this surplus resulting from the more conservative development assumptions is higher than the surplus shown in Exhibit 3 (described above) that includes twice the amount of commercial square footage (500,000 vs. 250,000 square feet) to be developed in the Study Area. Road funds exceed estimated expenditures under both scenarios by a range of $154,634 to $591,347 annually, with a cumulative surplus of $3.3 million. Analysis of Factors The primary reason that the potential annexation of Areas 1 and 2 combined results in a higher fiscal surplus and a lower fiscal deficit as compared to Area 1 alone is that the addition of Jack Ivey Ranch would not necessitate any additional police services (or cost), but would represent property tax and other revenues to the City. According to the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, the annexation of the Del Webb Sun City area would require the addition of a full-time police beat (one 24-hour patrol) due to the fact the nearest substation to service the area is located on the east side of the I-10 freeway. This distance between this substation and the Del Webb Sun City area would not allow the existing patrols out of this substation to meet required response times. Therefore, a new patrol must be created to service the area. Additionally, if a full time patrol or beat was established and Jack Ivey Ranch was also annexed into the City, the new patrol could service both areas with no additional cost to the City. V. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS —BERMUDA DUNES ANNEXATION This section presents RSG's initial conclusions regarding the financial impacts of also including the Bermuda Dunes area within the proposed subject annexation. RSG has limited this analysis to reviewing the anticipated operating revenues and expenditures. We took this approach because an annexation proposal must demonstrate that the City can provide at least the existing levels of service to Bermuda Dunes residents. This report does not address Bermuda Dunes' capital improvement needs, which may be substantial. Another key Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 15 Fiscal Feasibility Report pelmGNdelwebblsuniveykarcpn assumption focuses on revenue and expenditure projections at a buildout (population and businesses) based on the current County General Plan. The analysis employs the land use designations and densities that are currently permitted by the Riverside County General Plan; the County General Plan limits a majority of future development to residential uses. This is an important assumption because residential uses generally have service costs that exceed the revenue this use generates. Both today and at buildout, Bermuda Dunes will primarily be a residential community. Because residential uses do not generate many of the General Fund revenues, the annexation of Bermuda Dunes is anticipated to have a detrimental impact on the City's General Fund. Consequently, the City would be required to: (1) absorb these impacts, (2) pursue voter approval for a tax assessment to offset revenue shortfalls, and/or(3) modify the land use plan to permit development of more revenue-generating uses. A. OVERVIEW OF BERMUDA DUNES AREA The Bermuda Dunes area is bound by the City of Palm Desert along Washington Street to the west, Interstate 10 to the north,the City of Indio near Jefferson Street to the east, and the City of La Quints along Fred Waring Drive to the south. RSG estimates the total acreage of the Bermuda Dunes area is approximately 2,020. According to a demographic profile prepared by National Decision Systems, the estimated 1997 population of Bermuda Dunes is approximately 6,154. RSG conducted a cursory land use assessment of Bermuda Dunes based upon the land use categories in the County General Plan. Presently, approximately 47%, or 964 of the 2,020 acres, of Bermuda Dunes is currently developed. Approximately two-thirds of the 964 acres of developed uses are residential; the residential area currently contains 2,555 dwelling units. Nonresidential uses include retail, commercial, manufacturing, a 41-room resort hotel, the Bermuda Dunes Country Club golf course, a medical center, and Bermuda Dunes Airport. The retail and manufacturing/industrial land uses total 231,539 square feet. At buildout, residential uses will account for approximately 79%, or 1,598 of the 2,020 acres within Bermuda Dunes. Including the 2,555 existing units, a total of 6,726 residential units are projected to be constructed in Bermuda Dunes. Nonresidential uses will constitute approximately 422 acres, or 21% of Bermuda Dunes. The retail and manufacturing components will account for approximately 1,420,753 square feet of the commercial building space, of which 1,235,514 square feet are planned for manufacturing/industrial use. Only 16 of the 2,020 acres in Bermuda Dunes are planned for retail commercial use; 5 of these 16 acres are currently developed with a retail commercial center located at the corner of Washington Street and Country Club Drive. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 16 Fiscal Feasibility Report ,]l &UddwebE .Mn,f.rz B. ANALYSIS 1. General Fund Revenues RSG conducted a preliminary analysis of potential revenues, including property tax, sales tax, franchise fees, state subventions, transient occupancy taxes, and other miscellaneous revenues. Total forecasted General Fund revenues, including the landscaping and lighting assessment and County Service Area (CSA) Nos. 121 and 152 assessments, are approximately $1 million. The County currently operates a Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District (89-1-Consolidated) that maintains the median on 42nd Avenue between Lima Hall Road and Glass Drive. Median maintenance is funded by property owner assessments that are currently $178.58 per acre per year. A total of 113 property owners are assessed. Upon annexation, RSG has assumed that the City would administer this Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District to continue maintenance of this median. The amount of assessment revenue the City would annually receive would be approximately $15,000. There are two CSA's that provide municipal services to Bermuda Dunes. CSA No. 121 provides street lighting to portions of Bermuda Dunes, as well as other unincorporated areas north of Interstate 10. The County currently collects approximately $20,000 in property taxes each year to fund street lighting operation costs. Upon annexation, the City may detach the Bermuda Dunes portion of CSA No. 121 and collect these property taxes directly through the City's general property tax levy. A second CSA in Bermuda Dunes is CSA No. 152 that funds street sweeping costs throughout the County and in Bermuda Dunes. Upon annexation, the City would receive this property tax revenue which would offset approximately 25% of the street sweeping costs in Bermuda Dunes. The total amount of annual revenue from both CSA's is estimated at$25,000. 2. General Fund Expenditures The largest General Fund expenditures relate to public safety services. Public safety cost estimates were compiled by RSG and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Annexation of Bermuda Dunes would result in a higher level of service than Bermuda Dunes residents currently enjoy; this would result from an increased physical presence of patrol cars and increased patrol resources available to meet peak levels of service. The total cost is forecasted at $1 million. Other services to be funded include animal control, a code compliance officer, public works related services, additional insurance costs and minimal administrative and support service costs. A preliminary forecast of annual recurring expenditures is approximately $1.4 million. RSG's analysis of the General Fund indicates a shortfall of approximately $400,000 per year, not including any additional capital improvement cost requirements. A further analysis of General Fund recurring expenditures and revenues at a buildout scenario would indicate a growing shortfall of approximately $600,000 annually. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October,1998 17 Fiscal Feasibility Report palm&Vd6 WsuniveyfmcM 3. Potential Capital Improvements Requirements While the scope of this study excluded a thorough analysis of the capital improvement needs for Bermuda Dunes, RSG did a cursory investigation of potential infrastructure improvements. The Bermuda Dunes area would require significant road-related improvements including street resurfacing, street widening, curbs and gutters, drainage and runoff improvements, striping and signage. C. FINDINGS If the Bermuda Dunes area was also included as part of the annexation proposal for Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch, the addition of this area would significantly impact the forecasted fiscal short fall of providing recurring services to the Bermuda Dunes area. Because of its location in relation to the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch areas, the sharing or cost distribution of new incremental services such as law enforcement, would be limited. Only minimal administrative and processing costs could be reduced by including all areas within one annexation proposal. I Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation October, 1998 18 Fiscal Feasibility Report R1M&/de1WCWw iveyfertepn l EXHIBIT I Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1998-99 1999.00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full fear) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FIND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 349,182 423,921 501.820 583.665 667.222 754.260 843.850 935,797 1.081.715 Property Transfer Tax 6.404 6,532 3.755 3.830 3.907 3.985 4.065 4.146 4.229 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Sales Tax 135.677 153.115 157.708 223.217 229.914 250.244 257.751 792.848 1.359,819 Existing Commercial 122,699 126.380 130.172 134,077 138,099 142.242 146509 150.905 155.432 New Commercial 12.978 26.735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108.002 111.242 641,944 1.204.38- Transient Occupancy Tax 174.239 176.104 178.006__ 166.446 154.925 143.444 132.003 120.603 109.245 Subtotal 666.242 760.412 842.030 977.899 1.056,708 1.M202 1238.409 1.854.134 2.555.748 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 191,941 224.645 257.350 290,055 322.759 355.464 387.930 419.682 45 L434 Off-Highway License 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 187 Subtotal 192.020 224.738 257.456 290.174 322.892 355.611 388.090 419.855 451.621 FRANCHISE FEES Gas.Electric.Trash,and Cable TV 203.869 243.632 284.927 327,802 372.303 418.479 466.076 514.491 _564.659 Subtotal 203,869 243,632 284.927 327.802 372,303 418.479 466,076 514 491 564,659 OTHER REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9.436 11.025 12.675 14,386 16.161 17.990 19.851 21.780 Miscellaneous Revenues 39,338 46.041 52.744 39.447_ 66,149 72.852 79.506_ 86,014 _ 92.521 Subtotal 47.242 55.477 63.769 72.122 N.536 89,013 97.496 105.865 114.302 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Protection Tax 203,793 247,413 292.877 340.644 389A10 440.208 492.496 546.158 631,320 Prop A Fire Tax _ 116.064 158.305 160,284 180,654 201.023 _221.392 241.613 _261.389 281,165 Subtotal 319,857 405.718 4 33.161_521.29 5540.433 661,600 _734.109 807.547 911486 LICENSES Business License Tax_ 3.200 3.271 3,344 ___3.819 ___ 3.904 _3.991 4.080 4.171 6.814 Subtotal 3,200 3.271 3.344 3.819 3.904 3,991 4.080 4,171 6,814 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.432.430 1.691247 1.904.688 2.193.113 2.426376 2.681.366 2.928.260 3.706,063 4.605.629 Interest Earning: 0 0 0 4,784 11.907 18.262 25.630 58,682 97.958 ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 29.403 34.413 39.423 44.433 49.443 54.452 59.426 64190 69.154 Section 2106 19,247 22.527 25.806 29.086 32.365 35.645 3&901 42.085 45.269 Section 2107 41.009 47,997 54,984 61.972 68.959 75.947 82.884 89,668 96,452 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Tumback 162,582 195,993 231.262 268.471 307.704 349.050 392.358 437.207 484.393 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252.242 300,929 351,476 403.961 458A71 515.094 573.568 633.249 695.267 Interest Earnings 7.713 10.104 12.586 15.166 17.846 20.632 23,510 26,445 29.497 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1.692.385 2.004,280 2.268.750 1617,024 2.915.001 3,235.354 3.550.968 4.424.439 5.428.352 RM 1. loam vetneONf 6YIge1 EXHIBIT 1 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year)(Full Year) (Full fear) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 2,467 11.718 3509 15.703 4.669 19.976 5,953 24.485 7.350 Insurance 21,000 22.050 23.153 24.310 25.526 26.802 28.142 29.549 31.027 Animal Control 10.762 12.596 14.430 - 16.264 18.097 19,931 21.752 23.532 25.312 County Tax Collection Charge 6,984 8.478 10.036 11.673 _ 13.344 _ 15.085 16.877 18.716 _ __21.634 Subtotal 41.213 54.843 51.129 67.950 61,636 81.794 72.724 .96.282 85.323 PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff Contract 733.824 770.515 809.041 849A93 891.968 936.566 983.394 1.032.564 1.084.192 Jail Booking Fees 4,400 4.532 4.668 4.808 4.952 5.101 5.254 5.411 5.574 Fire Protection 769.677 811,961 856,723 904,314 953,274 1.005.839 1,060.723 1.118.441 1211.003 Subtotal 1.507,901 1,5873008 1.670.432 1.758.615 1.8%194 1.947,506 2.049.372 2.156.416 2.300.769 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Net Costs 5.000 5.150 5.305 5A64 5,628 5.796 5.970 6.149 6.334 Code Compliance Officer 52,703 54.284 55.912 57.590 59.317 61.097 62.930 64.818 _ 66,762 Subtotal 57.703 59,434 61.217 63.053 64,945 66.893 68.900 70.967 73.096 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 7,626 9104 10.637 12.229 13.880 15.592 17.357 19.153 21,014 Street Lighting _ 8.281 8.530 8,786 9.049 9.321 9.600 _ 9.888___10.185 10,490 Subtotal 15,907 17.633 19.423 21.278 23.201 25.192 27.245 29.335 31.504 PARKS&RECREATION Landscaping/Median Maintenance • ' • Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTINGENCY 162.272 171.892 180.220 19L090 199,998 212,139 221.824 D5.300 249.069 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.784.995 1,890.810 1.982.420 2.101.986 2.199.973 2,333.524 2.440.064 2.598,304 2,739.761 ROADS Capital Improvements 0 0 0 _ 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD MAINTENANCE Street Maintenance 74.772 77,015 79.325 81.705 94.156 86.681 89.281 91,960 94,719 Street Sweeping 6.142 6.327 6.516 6.712 6,913 7,121 7334 7.554 7.781 Traffic Signal Operation/Mainten_ane 14.832 15.277 15,735 16.207 16,694 17.194 17.710 18,241 18.789 Contingency 9.575 9.862 10.158 10.462 10,776 I1.100 11.433 11,776 12,129 TOTAL ROAD FUND 105.321 108.480 111.735 115.087 118,539 122,096 125.758 129,531 133.417 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1,890.316 1.999.290 2.094.154 2.217.073 2,31&513 2A55.620 2.565.823 2.717,835 2.873.178 REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (197,931) _ 4.990 174.595 399.952 596.488 779.734 985,145 1.706.605 2,555,173 CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (197.931) (192.941) (18,345) 381.606 978.094 1,757.828 2,742.973 4.449.578 7,004.751 _ General Fund Surplus/(Shorda-II (352.566) (197.562) (77,732) 95.911 238310 366.103 513,825 1.176.442 1.963.826 Cumulative General Fund (352.566) (550A228) (627.860) (531.949) (293,239) 72.864 586,G89 1,763.131 3,726,957 Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154.634 202.553 252,327 364.040 557.778 413.631 471,326 5T.163_ 59L347 Cumulative Road Fund 154.634 357,187 609.514 913.555 1.271,333 1,684.964 2,156284 2.686.447 3.277.794 Rao In, 1WM8 cmEnea.w aWpei i EXHIBIT 2 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY& JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft.comm.) 1998.99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006.07 (Full Year(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year)(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 349.192 423.921 501,820 583.665 667.222 754.260 843.850 935.797 1.056.071 Property Transfer Tax 6.404 6,532 3.755 3.930 3.907 3,985 4.065 4.146 4.229 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 .739 -739 739 Sales Tax 135,677 153.115 157.708 223.217 229.914. 250.244 • 257.751 525.639 809.368 Existing Commercial 122.699 126.380 130.172 134.077 138.099 142.242 146.509 150.905 155,432 New Commercial 12.978 26,735 27,537 89.140 91.815 108.002 111.242 374.734 653.936 Transient Occupancy Tax 174.239 176.104 178-006 166A46 154.925 143.444 132.003 120.603 109.245 i Subtotal 666.242 760.412 842.030 977.899 1.056.708 1.152.672 1.238.409 1.586.924 1.979.653 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 19L941 224,645 257.350 290,055 322.759 355.464 387,930 419,G82 451.434 Off-Highway License 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 I87 Subtotal 192.020 224.738 257,456 290,174 322.892 355,611 M__00 419.855 451,621 FRANCHISE FEES Gas.Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 203,869 243,632 284.927 327.802 372.303 418.479 466.076_ 514.491 _ 564.659 Subtotal 203,869 243,632 284.927 327,802 372,303 418.479 466.076 5 IF49 I 564,659 OTHER REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9.436 11.025 12.675 14.386 16,161 17,990 19.851 21,780 Miscellaneous Revenues _ 39,338 46.041 52,744 59.447 6&149 72,852 79.506 86.014 _92,521 Subtotal 47.242 55.477 63,769 72,122 80.536 89.013 97.496 105.865 114.302 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Protection Tax 203,793 247,413 292,877 340.644 389.410 440.208 492.496 546.158 616.354 Prop A Fire Tax 116.064 158.305 160.284 180.654 201,023 221.392 24L613 261.389 281,165 Subtotal 319.857 405,71 8 453,161 521.298 590,433 661,600 734.109 807547 897.519 LICENSES Business License Tax 3.200 3.271 3.344 3.819 3.904 3.991 4.080 4,171 5.539 Subtotal 3,200 3,271 3.344 3,819 3.904 3,991 4.080 4,171 5.539 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.432.430 1.693.247 1.904.688 2.193,113 2.426.776 2.681.366 2.928,260 3.438,854 4.013,293 Interest Famines 0 0 0 4784 11.907 18.262 25.630 44.654 67,798 ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 29.403 34,413 39.423 44.433 49,443 54.452 59.426 64,290 69.154 Section 2106 19.247 22.527 25.806 29.086 32,365 35,645 3&901 42.085 45.269 Section 2107 41.009 47.997 54.984 61.972 68,959 75,947 82.884 89.668 96,452 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Tumback 162.582 195.993 231.262 268.471 307.704 349,050 392.358 437.207 484,393 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252.242 300,929 351.476 403.961 458.471 515.094 573.568 633,249 695,267 Interest Earnings 7.713 10.104 12,586 15,166 17.846 20.632 23.510 26.445 29.497 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1.692.385 2.004.280 2.268.750 2.617.024 2.915.001 3.235,354 3.550.968 4.143.201 4.805,855 RSGJI . 1WMS mema,a.ewonxvr mmm l EXHIBIT 2 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft. comm.) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year (Full Year)(Full Year) (Full fear) (Full fear) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full fear) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 2.467 11.718 3.509 15.703 4.669 19.976 5,953 24.485 7.350 Insurance 21,000 22,050 23.153 24.310 25.526 26.802 28.142 29.549 31.027 Animal Control 10.762 11596 14.430 16.264 1&097 19.931 2L752 .23.532 25.312 County Tax Collection Charge 6,984 8.478 10.036 __ 11.673 13,344 - 15.085 16.877 18.716 21.121 Subtotal 4L213 54.84]- 1.1 528 67.950 61.636 81.794 72.724 96282 R4.810. PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff Contract 733.824 770.515 809.041 849.493 891,968 936.566 983.394 1.032.564 1.084.192 Jail Booking Fees 4.400 4.532 4.668 4.808 4.952 5.101 5.254 5.411. 5.574 Fire Protection 769.677 811,961 856.723 904,314 953.274 1.005.839 1.060,723 1.118.441 1.195.283 Subtotal J 1,507,901 1,587,008 1.670.432 1,758.615 1.850.194 1.947.506 2.049.372_2156.416 2.285.049 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Net Costs 5.000 5,150 5.305 5.464 5,628 5.796 5,970 6.149 6.334 Code Compliance Officer 52,703 54284 55,912 57,590 59317 61.097 __62.930 64.818 66.762 Subtotal 57,703 59.434 61,217 63,053 64.945 66.893 68,900 _70.967 73.096 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 7.626 9.104 10.637 12.229 13.880 15.592 17.357 19,153 21.014 Street Lighting_ _ _ 8.281 8,530 8.786 9,049 _ 9.321_ 9.600 9,888 10.185 _ 10A90 Subtotal 15,907 17.633 19.423 21.278 23.201 25.192 27.245 29,338 31.504 PARKS&RECREATION Landscaping/Median Maintenance _ ' " ' Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association ` " Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTINGENCY 162.272 171,892 180.220 19L090 199,998 212.139 221,824 235,300 247.446 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.784.995 1.890.810 1.982.420 2.101.986 2.199,973 2,333.524 2.440,064 2,588.304 2.721.905 ROADS Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD MAINTENANCE - _ Street Maintenance 74.772 77.015 79.325 81.705 84.156 86.681 89.281 91.960 94.719 Street Sweepling 6.142 6.327 6.516 6,712 6.913 7,121 7.334 7.554 - 7.781 Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenanc 14.832 15.277 15.735 I6.207 16.694 17,194 17,710 18.241 18.789 Contingency 9.575 9,862 10.158 16,462 10,176 1L100 11.433 11,776 12,129 TOTAL.ROAD FUND 105.321 108A80 111,735 115.087 118,539 122.096 125,758 129,531 133.417 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES L890,316 1.999.290 2.094.154 2.217.073 2.318.513 2.455,620 2.565.823 2.717.835 2,855.322 REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (197,931) 4.990 174,595 399,952 596.488 779.734985.145 1.425,367_1.950.533 CU MULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (197,931) (192,941) (18.345) 381,606 978.094 7,8 1,7528 _2,7_,_,973 168.34 4, 0 -6,118,873 _ General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (352,566) (10562) (77,732) 95.91I 238.710 _366,I03 -513.825 895.204 1,359.186_ Cumulative General Fund (352.566) (550.128) (627.860) (531.949) (293,239) 72.864 58609 1,481.893 2.841A79 _Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfa11) 154,634 202.553 _ 252.327 _304.040 357.778 413.631 471.320 530.163 591,347_ Cumulative Road Fund 154.634 357.187 609,514 913.555 1.271,333 1,684.96,4 2,156284 2.686.447 3.277,794 nsc,W.. IWNe mWxC HS aWBeFkzf Wm EXHIBIT 3 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full\'ear) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 322.897 395,426 471,033 550.497 631.603 716.100 803.374 893.862 1.037.803 Property Transfer Tax 5312 5.419 2.619 2.672 2.725 2.780 2.835 2,892 2.950 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739. 739 Sales Tax 134.539 151.943 156.501 221,973 228.633 248.925 256.392 791.449 1.358.377 Existing Commercial 121,561 125,208 128.964 132,833 136.818 140.923 145.150 149.505 153.990 New Commercial 12,978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108.002 111,242 641,944 1.204.387 Transient Occupancy Tax _174.239 176.104 179.006 166.446 134.925 _ 143.444 132.003 _ 120.60_3 _ _109.24_5 Subtotal 637.727 729A30 808.899 942.328 1.018.625 1.111.988 1-195.344 1.809.544 2.509.114 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 165.745 197,497 229.249 261.001 292,753 324.505 356.257 388.009 419.761 Off-Highway_Lieense 68 82 95 108 121 __ 134_ 147 _ 160 _ _ 173 Subtotal 165,814 197.579 229.344 261,109 292,874 324.640 356A05 388.170 419.935 FRANCHISE FEES Gas,Electric.Trash.and Cable TV 175,811 213.681 252.995 293.797 336,129 380.037 425.567 472.767 521.684 Subtotal 175.811 213.681 252,995 293,797 336.129 380,037 425.567 472.767 521,684 OTHER REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 6,825 8.295 9.822 11A05 13.049 14,753 16.521 18.353_ 20252 _Miscellaneous Revenues 33.969 40.477 _ 46.985 53,492 60.000 66.507 _ 73.015 79.522_86:030 Subtotal 40,795 48,772 56,806 64.898 73.049 81.261 89.536 9TV6 106,282 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Protection Tax 188,453 230,784 274,911 321.289 368.625 417.940 468.876 521,688 605.696 Prop A Fire Tax _ 100.224 141.396 142,783 162,559 182.335 202.111 _221,887 241,663 _261.439 Subtotal 288,677 372.180 417.694 483,847 550,959 620.051 690.763 763.350 867,135 LICENSES Business License Tax _____ 2.960 3.019 3,080 3. 3,61 ,68541 3.612 3.684 3.758 3.833 6.46_0 Subtotal 2.960 3.019 3,080 3,541 2 34 3,758 3.833 6.460 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,311.783 1.564.862 1.768,818 2.049,520 2.275.249 1521.660 2.761372 3.535.540 4A30.610 Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0 5.175 I L236 18.207 51.174 90,188 ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 25,390 30.254 35,118 39.982 44,846 49.710 54.574 59.438 64,302 Section 2106 16.620 19.804 22.998 26.172 29.356 32.540 35.724 3&908 42.092 Section 2107 .35,412 42,196 48,980 55,764 62,548 69.332 76.116 81900 89,684 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Tumback 140.394 172.308 206.010 241.580 279.098 318,650 360.324 404.212 450.408 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 217.817 264.563 313.097 363.499 415.849 470.233 526,739 595.459 646,487 Interest Earnings 6.671 8,982 11,383 13.877 16.469 19.164 21.964 24.877 27.905 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1.536.271 1.838.406 2.093.298 2.426.896 2.712342 3.022.293 3.328.283 4.197.049 5.195,190 Fso,InL, 1M9e oELW 92.I&Budgd l EXHIBIT 3 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure SummarX DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1998.99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full fear) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 2.130 10.302 3.126 14.130 4.235 18.236 5.467 22.637 6.834 Insurance 19.740 20.727 21,763 22.852 23,994 25.194 26.453 .27.776 29.165 Animal Control 9.293 11,074 12.854 14.635 16.415 _ 18.195 19.976 21.756 23,536 County Tax Collection Charge _ 6.458 7,909 9.421 11.010 12.632 14.322 ____ 96 16.067 _ _ 17.877_ 26.756 Subtotal 37.622 50.012 47.164 62.626 57.276 75.947 67. 4 90.047 80291 PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff Contract 733,824 770.515 809.041 849,493 891,968 936.566 983.394 1.032.564 1,084.192 Jail Booking Fees 3.872 3.988 4,108 4 231 4.358 4.489 4-623 4.762 4.905 Fire Protection 758.673 800.352 844.476 891.395 939.639 991.455 1.045.723 1.103.177 1,195.077 Subtotal 1.496.369 1.574.855 1,657,624 1.745.119 1,835,965 1.932.509 2,0B.741 2.140.503 2,294,175 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Net Costs 3,850 3.966 4,084 4.207 4,333 4.463 4.597 4.735 4.877 Code Compliance Officer 52303 54.284 55.912 57.590 59.317 61.097 62.930 _6_4.818_ 66_762 Subtotal 56.553 58,249 59.997 61,797 63.651 65.560 67.527 69553 71.639 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 6.585 8.003 9.476 11.004 12.590 14.234 15.940 17.708 19.540 Street Lighting 8.281 8.530 8.786 9.049 9,321 9,600 9,888 __ 10.185 _ 10.490 Subtotal 14.866 16.533 18,26I 20.053 2L910 21835 25.828 27.992 30.030 PARKS&RECREATION _Landscaping/Median Maintenance ___ • " • Assumed to be Paid by Master H_om_eow_ners_'Ass_oc_iatio_n_• •_"__ Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTINGENCY 160.541 169.965 178,305 18&960 197.880 209.785 219,506 232.799 246.614 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.765.951 1,869,614 1.961,351 2,078.555 2.176.682 2.307,636 2.414,365 2.560,794 2.712.749 ROADS Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0-- 0 0 ROAD MAINTENANCE Street Maintenance 69.271 71.350 73.490 - 75.695 77.966 80.305 82,714 85A95 97.751 Street Sweeping 5.819 5,993 6.173 6.358 6.549 6,745 6.948 7.156 7,371 Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance 7-416 7.638 7.868 8.104 8347 8,597 8,855 _ 9.121 9.394 Contingency 8.251 8,498 8353 9.016 9,286 9,565 9.852 _ 16.147 10.452 TOTAL ROAD FUND 90.757 93,479 96.284 99,172 102.147 105.212 108.368 111.619 114.968 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1.856.707 1.963.093 2.057.635 2,177.727 2,278.829 2.412.848 2.522.933 2.672A14 2.827,717 REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (320.437) (124,687) 35.663 249,170 433,913 609,445 805,350 1,524.636 2.367,473 CUMULATfVESURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (320.437) (445.123) (409,461) (160,291) 273,622 883,068 1,688.418 3.213.054 5,580.527 General Fund_S_urplu_s/(Shortfalf) (454.167) (3047752) (192.534) (29.034) 103,742 225.26_0_36_3.015 1.025.920 L80&049 Cumulative General Fund (454,167) (758.919) (951 A53) (980.487) (876,745) (651_485)_(286A70) 739.449 2,547.498 _ Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) _ 133.731 180_065_ 228,196 278.204 330,171 38_4,185 440.336. 498.716 559.4_24_ Cumulative Road Fund 133,731 313.796 541,993 820.196 1,150,368 1.534,553 1,974,888 2,473,604 3,033.029 R56,IM., IWM OELNE61.#t BudVt I J EXHIBIT 4 Nine Year Revenue & E2Wenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq. ft. comm) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full fear) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 322.897 395.426 471.033 550.497 631.603 716.100 803.374 893.862 1.012.391 Property Transfer Tax 5.312 5.419 2,619 2.672 2,725 2.780 2,935 2.892 2.950 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Sales Tax 134.539 151.943 156,501 22L973 228.633 248.925 1-56.392 524.239 807.926 F_xisring Commercial 121.561 125.208 128.964 132.833 136.818 140.923 145,150 149,305 153.990 New Commercial 12.978 26.735 27,537 89.140 91.815 108,002 111.242 374,734 653.936 Transient Occupancy Tax __174,239_ 17_6.104 178.006 __166.446 154.925_ _ 143.444 132.003 120.603 109.245 Subtotal 637,727 729.630 808.899 942.328 1,018,625 1.111.988 1.195.344 1.542.335 1.933.251 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 165,745 197.497 229.249 261.001 292,753 324.505 356,257 388.009 419.761 Of7•Highway_License _68___ 82 _ 95 108 121 ___1334__ 147 _ _ 160 173 Subtotal 165,814 197,579 229,344 261.109 292.874 324.640 356.405 388.170 4R935 FRANCHISE FEES Gas.Electric.Trash,and Cable TV 175.811 213.681 252,995 291797 336,129 380.037 425.567 ___472.767 _ _ 521.684 Subtotal - 175.811 213.681 252.995 293,797 336.129 380.037 425.567 472367 521.684 OTHER REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 6.825 8.295 9.822 11,405 13.049 14.753 16.521 18.353 20.252 Miscellaneous Revenues _33_.969_ 40.477 46.985__ 53,492 60.000 6_6.507 _ 73.015 79,522 __ 86.030 Subtotal - -- 40.795 48.772 56.806 64.898 73.049 81261 89.536 __97.876 106.282 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Protection Tax 188.453 230.784 274,911 321.289 368,625 417.940 468.876 521.688 590.865 Prop A Fire Tax 100.224 141.396 142.783 162.559 182.335 __202.111 221.887 _ 241,663 _ 261.439 Subto-tal 288.677 372.180 417.694 483.847 550.959 620.051 690,763 763.350 852,304 LICENSES Business License Tax 2.960 3.019 1080 3.541 3.612 3.684 3.758 3.833 5A 85 Subtotal 2.960 3.019 3,080 3.541 3,612 3.684 3.758 3.833 5.185 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.311.783 1.564.862 1.768,819 2.049.520 2.275.249 2.521.660 2.761.372 3.268.331 3.938.640 Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0 5.175 11.236 18.207 37.146 60.052 ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 25.390 30.254 35.118 39,982 44.846 49.710 54,574 59A38 64.302 Section 2106 16.620 19.804 22.988 26.172 29356 32.540 35.724 38.908 42.092 Section 2107 35.412 42.196 48.980 55.764 62.548 69.332 76.116 82,900 89.694 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Tumback 140.394 172.308 206.010 241.580 279.098 318.650 360.324 404,212 450,408 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 217.817 264.563 313.097 363.499 415.849 470.233 526.739 585.459 646.487 Interest Eamines 6.671 8.982 11383 13,877 16.469 19.164 21.964 24.877 27.905 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1.536.271 1,838.406 2.093.298 2.426.896 2.712.742 3.022.293 3.328,283 3.915,811 4.573.084 RSG a . IWNa nELWEW3rt BEri-kUs M, l EXHIBIT 4 r Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY (Assumes 250,000 sq. ft. comm) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITUREc GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 2,130 10.302 3,126 14.130 4.235 18.236 5.467 22.637 6.934 Insurance 19,740 20.727 21,763 22.852 23.994 25,194 26.453 27.776 29,165 Animal Control 9.293 11.074 12,854- 14.635 16.415 18.195 19.976 21.756 23.536 Countv Tax Collection Charge 6.458 7.909 9.421 11.010 12.632 14.322 16.067 17.877 20.248 Subtotal 37.622 50.012 47.164 62,626 57.276 75.947 67.964 90.047 79.783 PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff Contract 733.824 770.515 809.041 849.493 891,968 93&566 983.394 1.032.564 1.084.192 Jail Booking Fees 3.872 3.988 4,108 4.231 4.358 4.489 4,623 4.762 4,905 Fire Protection _ 758.673 800.352 844A76 891.395 939.639_ 99L455_1.045.723 _1.103.177 _1,179.267 Subtotal 1,496.369 1.574.855 1,657.624 1,745,119 1.835.965 1.932,509 2.03.341 2.I40.503 2.268.365 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Net Costs 1850 3,966 4.084 4,207 4.333 4.463 4.597 4.735 4.877 Code Compliance Officer 52.703 54.284 55.912 57.590 59.317 61.097 61930 _ _64.818 _ _66.762 Subtotal 56.553 58.249 59.997 61.797 63.651 65,560 67.527 69.553 71.639 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 6.585 8.003 9.476 11.004 12.590 14.234 15.940 17.708 19.540 Street Lighting 8.281 _8.530 8,786 _9.049 9.321 9.600 9.888 _ 10.185 10.490 Sub _ total 14,866 16.533 18.261 20.053 21.910 23.835 25.828 27,892 _30.030 PARKS&RECREATION Landscaping/Median Maintenance " " " Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowmers'Association Subtotal -- o ----�- ---Q --- 0 0 - 0 --- - 0-- ---0-- --0 i I --CONTINGENCY 160.541 169.965 178,305 188,960 197.880 209,785 219.506 232.799 244.982 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.765.951 1.869.614 1.961.351 2.078.555 2.176.692 2,307.636 2.414.565 2.560.794 2.694.799 ROADS Capital Improvements ___ 0 _ _ 0_ ___ 0 0__ 0 --0-- __ _0 _ 0 0 ROAD JIAINTENANCE Street Maintenance 69,271 71,350 73,490 75.695 77.966 80.305 82.714 85,195 87.751 Street Sweeping 5,819 5.993 6.173 6.358 6.549 6,745 6,948 7.156 7.371 Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance 7.416 7.638 7.868 8.104 8.347 &597 8.855 9.121 9.394 Comb -- - --- -- - -- ---- -- --- -52 ingenc}' 8,251 8.498 8.753- 9.016 9,286 9.565 9,852 10.147 10.452 TOTAL ROAD FUND 90.757 93.479 96,284 99.172 102.147 105.212 108.368 111.619 114,968 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1.856.707 1.963,093 2.057.635 2.177.727 2.278.829 2,412.848 2.522.933 2.672.414 1809.766 REVENUE6Q SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (320A37) (124.687) 35.663 249.170 ___433,913 609,445 805.350 1.243,398 1.763.318 CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (320,437) (445.123) (409.461) (1291) 273.622 883,068 L688,418 2,931,816 tOfi,133 General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (454,I67)_ 758 (304,752) (192,534)_ (29.034)_ _ 103,7_42_ _225.260 _ 3_65.015 744,68_2 __1,203.893 Cumulative General Fund (454.167) ( .919) (951.453) (980.487) (876.745) (651,485) (286.470) 458.211 1.662,105 Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) _ 133.731___18_0.065 22$196_278.i _330.117 384.18_S__440.336___ 4_98,716 559.424 _ Cumulative Road Fund 133.731 313,796 54L993 820.196 1.150.368 1.534.553 1.974.888 2.473.604 3.033.024 Rao,Inc.. wma oELMW.# 9a91.bls wrnIn - Q9/23/98 WED 09:51 FAX 619 342 6556 CITY OF INDIO 0001 �1 CITY OF INDIO Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA•32260 September 22, 1 P98 Dear Mr. Drell: The City of Indio Mshes to comment on General Plan 98-5, Change of Zone 98- 6 and Development Agreement 98-2, related to the recent annexation of Sun City (Del Webb) into the City of Palm Deserts Sphere of Influence. The City of Indio wishes to mote the importance of Avenue 36 as a major east-west corridor in the Coachella 'Valley. The corridor is of great importance in that it is the only east-wet corridor serving the northern Shadow Hills area of Indio. Avenue 36 will serve a unique public safety function and thus is necessary to ensure adequate circulation to future development which will occur in the area. The City of Indio has followed the status of this corridor as projects have been proposed along its length. In the past, the County of Riverside required that Avenue 36 be included as major corridor in the Specific Plans approved for the area. The City of Indio would hope that the City of Palm Desert would cooperate to ensure that this important circulation link is maintained by including it in future General Plans, and General Plan Circulation Elements- Furthermore, the corridor should be included in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments' (CVAG) Regional Arterial Program. We look forward to cooperating with you to ensure future access to the Shadow Hills area through the use of Avenue 36. Sincerely, i Kenneth Feenstra Interim Director or Development Services J Juserldevdeptlalexnelterslpda36.doo CrrY OF*1010.100 CMC CENTER MAIL•P.O.DRAWER 1788•INDIO,CA 922M CEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NUMBERS,ALL IN 760 AREA CODE CITY CLERK 3424570•CITY MANAGER 342.6W•ECONOMIC DEVELOPMFNTAIEDEVFJ.OPN[ENT 342-500 FINANCE 342.6560•FIRE 347-0756•HUMAN RESOURCES 342-66 0•CRY HALL FAX 342-65.56•POLICE 347-8522 FAX 347-4317 PUBLIC SERVICES/FNGINEEIMG 342-6630•CITY YARD 347.1058 SEWOR CENTER 3475111 -•Del Webb's `�.SunCftyPalmDesert' RECEIVED SEP 2 8 1998 HELEN McENERNEY (4)u1fUNITYLEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT Vice President and General Manager UTY OF PALM DESERT September 23, 1998 Councilman Jim Ferguson Councilman Bob Spiegel City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92266 Subject: Repeat Plan Check Fee -- City of Palm Desert Dear Messrs. Ferguson and Spiegel: As we have discussed previously with Ray Diaz and Phil Drell, at present in the County of Riverside, we pay a repeat plan check fee of approximately $75.00 for every house that we permit under the County's present building code. The$75.00 is a deposit-based system that is sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower, but it is for the repeat plan check fees. It does not deal with the initial plan check of a house or a new model. Field construction inspection of each home is covered by the balance of the permit fees. The intention of the plan check fee is to throughly review the building plans and specifications for adherence to adopted codes and ordinances. For example, the technician or building official in the office reviews the blueprints,checks the structural engineering,and seismic calculations, reviews the dimensions,reviews title 24 calculations to ensure that our energy efficiency uses are within the codes. They look at the air conditioning, insulation, plumbing, and electrical and see that the plans are in compliance with the building code. In the City of Palm Desert,this is done with each model in a tract and these plans and specs are on file for review. After the initial model plan is checked and permitted, the only thing that the technician does or building official does in the office is check the plot plan, the front, rear and side set backs over the counter for subsequent permits for the same model type. This is done in a very short period of time. 39755 Berkey Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772-5300 • Fax(760) 772-5303 E-mail: mcenernh@delwebb.com Page -2- It is based on the repetitive use of the same model plans that Del Webb is challenged with the fees Palm Desert charges. The average plan check fee on a Sun City home based on square footage of the home and valuation is an approximate average of$400.00. Quite frankly in discussing these fees with our corporate executives, their jaws just about hit the floor when they learned of the high repeat plan check fees as this is the only community in our Sun Cities nationwide endeavors where fees are so high for repeat plan review. We are requesting that the City of Palm Desert reduce our repeat plan check fees for Sun City Palm Desert to $100.00 (or 25%) for each unit that is repeat after the original plan check of the model set. The purpose of this reduction is to off set other fees within the City that we would incur that would drive up our cost of permitting in the City. One of these mitigation fees being art in public places. In the City of Palm Desert there is a net difference of approximately $400.00 per house based on a 2,000 sq. ft. house, $165,000.00 evaluation. If we can reduce the plan check fees by$300,we are essentially same/same with the County's permit fees. As you are aware Sun City Palm Desert contemplates closing in excess of 2,500 homes, providing the City with over $7,400,00.00 in permit expenses exclusive of planning and other mitigation fees. We anticipate building more homes of the same type than any other builder. At present we have 15 separate models within the community and no other single builder will build as many homes in Palm Desert as Del Webb. No other builder will build as many of the same models as Del Webb. We would appreciate your review of these repeat plan check fees for equity sake and reduce them to approximately $100 (25% of the plan check fee as presently calculated). We feel that we are unique in this request by our shear volume. By including this in our Development Agreement as a negotiated point. we do not feel that the City need offer this to all developers. S' c ely, 114& Helen McEnemey HM:jt cc: Jean Benson, Mayor Ray Diaz, City Manager Buford Crites, Councilmember Phil Drell, Dir. Community Development Dick Kelly, Councilmember INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM b ME EPARTNT OF THE,crry MANAGER CITY OF PALM DESERT: APRIL 6,199E TO: EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT (SEE DISTRIBUTION LIST) FROM: RAMON A. DIAZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DRAFT SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT Attached is the RSG(Rosenow Spevack Group, Inc.)Draft Fiscal Feasibility Report for Sun City and Ivy Ranch. Please review and have your comments back to me no later than Friday,April 10, 1998. Thank you. RAY DIAZ 4 Distribution: Sheila Gilligan John Wohlmuth Phil Drell Pat Conlon Carlos Ortega Paul Gibson Dick Folkers F{ECEIVED APR 0 7 1998 cDMMUMTYE OF POLM NT DEPAWMENT G R0 1: N0W S PEA AC LN C, 1Z01* P I NC. April 3, 1998 Via Overnight Mail RECEIVED Mr. Ray Diaz CITY OF PALM DESERT APR 0 6 1998 73-510 Fred Waring Drive pp ppt M DESERT ER Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 SAG DRAFT SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT Dear Mr. Diaz: The Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") is pleased to submit a draft of the Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report. This Report will focus on what City services will be provided within these areas, a forecasted cost of those services, and what revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those services. Please note that the maps of the Study Area are in progress and will be incorporated into the final draft. Pursuant to our telephone conversation earlier today, the enclosed Study does not analyze future new development in vacant portions of the Study Area, with the exception of one 500,000 square feet retail center near Del Webb's Sun City and ancillary commercial uses. Finally, I have reviewed an updated analysis of the Bermuda Dunes area and have concluded that, despite certain economies of scale and cost savings from the annexation of the proposed Study Area with Bermuda Dunes, expenditures would continue to exceed revenues and would result in a shortfall to the City. Should you have any questions or require any further information,please give me a call. Sincerely, ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. Daniel T. Miller Principal DTM:ap Enclosure cc: Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert 540 Noah Golden Circle, Suite 305, Santa Ana, CA 92705-3914, Telephone 714/541-4585, Fe: 714/836-1748, San Diego 619/967.6462 IhadsVsunivy&alu ''i DRAFT SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DRAFT April, 1998 Prepared for: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 (619) 340-5776 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 541-4585 SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1 II. REVENUES.................................................................................................... 2 A. GENERAL FUND......................................................................................................2 1. Taxes.....................................................................................................................2 a. Property and Parcel Taxes............................................................................2 b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................3 C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief................................................................3 d. Parcel Tax ....................................................................................................3 e. Sales Taxes...................................................................................................4 f. Transient Occupancy Taxes.........................................................................4 2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees) ..............................................................4 3. Franchise Fees.......................................................................................................4 4. Development Related Fees .............................................................................:.....5 a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees.....................................................5 b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees...........................................................5 C. Engineering Fees..........................................................................................5 d. Development Fees........................................................................................5 Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc 1 Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study 5. Other Revenues.....................................................................................................5 a. Fines and Forfeitures....................................................................................5 b. Miscellaneous Revenues..............................................................................5 6. Fire Protection Fees ..............................................................................................6 a. Structural Fire Protection Tax......................................................................6 b. Proposition A Fire Tax................................:.................................................6 7. Business License Tax.............................................................................................6 8. Interest...................................................................................................................6 B. ROAD FUND...............................................................................................................6 III. EXPENDITURES .......................................................................................... 7 A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES......................................................................7 1. General Government ..............................................................................................7 a. Administration.............................................................................................7 b. Insurance......................................................................................................7 C. Animal Control............................................................................................7 d. County Property Tax Collection Charges....................................................7 2. Public Safety...........................................................................................................8 a. Sheriff's Contract.........................................................................................8 b. Jail Booking Fee ..........................................................................................8 C. Fire Protection..............................................................................................8 3. Community Development......................................................................................9 a. Code Compliance Officer............................................................................9 4. Public Works..........................................................................................................9 a. Administration.............................................................................................9 b. Street Sweeping ...........................................................................................9 C. Street Lighting .............................................................................................9 Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc ii Sun Cityllvy Ranch Annexation April,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study 5. Parks and Recreation............................................................................................10 6. Contingency..........................................................................................................10 7. Roads....................................................................................................................10 a. Capital Improvements.................................................................................10 8. Road Maintenance................................................................................................10 a. Street Maintenance.....................................................................................10 b. Traffic Signal Maintenance........................................................................I I IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS....................................................................... 11 MAPS Map I —Area I (To Be Inserted) Map 2—Area 2 (To Be Inserted) EXHIBITS Exhibit I —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. lII Sun Chy/Ivy Ranch Annexation April,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study DRAFT SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT I. BACKGROUND ' The City of Palm Desert ("City") engaged the Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") to prepare a fiscal feasibility analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch. This Report can be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act if and when the City desires to pursue annexation of these communities. Prior to the determination to pursue annexation, the City wishes to ascertain the fiscal standing of the Sun City and Ivy Ranch communities and surrounding commercial and industrial uses. This Report will focus on what City services will be provided within these areas, the forecasted cost of those services, and what revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those services. This Report will focus on a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the annexation area for approximately seven years (i.e., the projected date of buildout for the Sun City area). It should be understood that there will usually be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. More specifically, this Study focuses on two unincorporated areas within Riverside County; the first area is shown on Map 1 (to be inserted) and is generally bounded by the northernmost point of Section 30 to the north, Washington Street and the intersection of Varner Road and 38" Avenue to the east, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the western portions of Sections 6, 30, and 31 to the west ("Area 1"). Area I consists primarily of the Del Webb Sun City development, a golf course, a recreational facility, freeway-oriented commercial/retail use along Interstate 10, an overnight lodging facility, a country club (with pro-shop), a recreational vehicle park, seven developed parcels and 455 acres of vacant land. The Sun City community is in the process of developing and is scheduled to reach buildout in fiscal year 2006-07. The second area is shown on. Map 2 (to be inserted) and is generally bounded by the southern boundary of Section 21 to the north, the south east portion of Section 35 to the west, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the midpoint of Section 28 to the east ("Area 2"). Area 2 contains the Ivy Ranch community, a restaurant, and approximately 624 acres of vacant land along the Interstate 10 Freeway. The Ivy Ranch community contains approximately 314 single family residential uses and is currently at buildout. For the purposes of this analysis, Area 1 and Area 2, collectively, are herein referred to as the "Study Area". The 1998 population of Areas I and 2 is estimated at 3,200 and 628, respectively. At the present time, the number of structures or dwelling units in the proposed Study Area include approximately 1,914 single family residential units, 5,200 square feet of commercial space, and seven industrial parcels. The major public agencies currently providing services in the Study Area are the County of Riverside, County Service Area No. 121 and No. 152, Coachella Valley Water Improvement District, Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District, and Coachella Valley Improvement Districts 58 and 81. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for policymaking and Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report Palmd Wniryfinepn administration, law enforcement, animal control, planning and land use regulation, building inspection, flood control, and the maintenance and improvement of roads in both areas. Street lighting services within the Study Area are currently provided through CSA No. 121. Upon annexation, the City would assume services funded by CSA No. 121 and CSA No. 121 would be detached. The County currently collects a parcel tax for CSA No. 152 to fund street sweeping services County-wide. However, the County does not currently provide street sweeping services in the Study Area. Upon annexation, the City will perform all street sweeping services and this tax will remain in effect, so there is no fiscal impact. Water is currently supplied in the Study Area by the Coachella Valley County Water District. Upon annexation, the Coachella Valley Water District will continue to supply water to these areas. Sewer service is currently, and will continue to be, provided by Septic Systems and the Coachella Valley Water District. Sewer lines currently exist at 38'h Avenue, Del Webb Boulevard, Varner Road, and Washington Street. The County of Riverside currently provides fire protection services to all properties within the Study Area through three fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35, located at 79-400 Avenue 42, 44400 Town Center Way and 72695 La Canada Way, respectively. In addition, a fourth station (No. 81) is currently under construction at Washington Street and 38th Avenue. Following annexation, fire protection services would be provided by the City through the Cove Community Services Commission. The Commission contracts with the County to deliver fire protection and paramedic services. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for providing police services within the Study Area. Two police substations responsible for servicing this area are located in Palm Desert and Indio. Following annexation, only the Palm Desert substation will service the Study Area and police protection services would continue to be provided by the County of Riverside through a contract with the County Sheriff. The roads within these areas, which are currently maintained by the County of Riverside, would be maintained by the City of Palm Desert following annexation. Many of the General Fund and Road Fund revenues and expenditures were either calculated on a per capita basis, a marginal cost basis using actual budget figures from the City of Palm Desert, or a case study methodology. It is important to note that this Study focuses on recurring revenues and expenditures. This Study does not analyze any future capital improvement projects resulting from the annexation of the Study Area, nor does the Study include any development related impact fees that would be collected on new development. In addition, with the exception of the new development contained in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, and the new development assumptions outlined below, this Study does not analyze all future new development in the vacant portions of Areas I or 2. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 2 Fiscal Feasibility Report PalmdsUsunivyfurcpn 11. REVENUES A. GENERAL FUND The primary sources of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Exhibit 1: 1. Taxes: a. Property and Parcel Taxes: The City's property tax revenue is based on the historical property tax ratio of 25%/75% to be split between the City and the County as set forth in Resolution No. 81-133 adopted September 24, 1981. Upon annexation, the City would receive 25% of the total current County General Fund property tax revenue and the County would retain the remaining 75%of General Fund property tax revenue. b. Property Transfer Taxes: Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold or an existing property is resold. A property transfer tax of$1.10 per $1,000 (0.110%) of transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided between Riverside County and the City. The amount of property transfer tax received will depend upon the sale of land and the level of resale activity within the Study Area. These revenues have been estimated using the assumption of a 5% turnover rate annually at the rate of.55¢ per$1,000 of assessed values. C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief: Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief were not specifically projected because this analysis bases the Property Tax Apportionment on assessed valuation gross of the Homeowners Exemption. Therefore, revenue from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax Apportionment. d. Parcel Tax Upon annexation, the City would assume service responsibilities of County Services Area ("CSA") No. 121. CSA 121 covers all properties in Area I only (as well as areas outside the Study Area) and funds street lighting services for all properties outside the Sun City gated community. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 would be detached and one hundred percent (100%) of the special district levies would be transferred to the City (Exhibit 1). CSA No. 152 represents a tax levied against all properties in the Study Area for street sweeping services. However, as mentioned previously, there will be no impact with respect to CSA No. 152 upon Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 3 Fiscal Feasibility Report PelmdsVsunivyfmre n annexation, due to the fact that the County does not currently provide street sweeping services in the Study Area. e. Sales Taxes: Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive a percentage of the sales tax charged on qualifying retail sales from businesses within the Study Area. The State Board of Equalization estimated that the commercial areas within the Study Area are generating approximately $43,080 in sales tax revenues in fiscal year 1997-98 (Exhibit 1). RSG has assumed a modest 3% annual increase on these sales tax revenues. However, pursuant to the Amended Specific Plan for Del Webb's Sun City, dated October 28, 1997 (Resolution No. 97-286), approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial retail will be constructed on the 80 acre parcel located along Varner Road and Washington Street by fiscal year 2006-07. Sales tax revenues were projected according to the phasing of this development and are reflected in Exhibit 1. L Transient Occupancy Taxes: Upon annexation, the City will receive the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues. Currently, the City's Transient Occupancy Tax rate is 9%. The Study Area contains one (1) lodging establishment; the Motel 6 located at the comer of Washington Street and Varner Road which has a total of 92 rooms. RSG has estimated the Transient Occupancy Tax based on an occupancy factor and average room rate. . 2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees): Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes. These taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to cities on a per capita basis. Off-road Vehicle taxes are also allocated to cities by the State on a per capita basis. Both subventions are based on the estimated combined . population of 3,828 for the Study Area. The per capita figures used in the revenue summary have been provided by the State Controller's office for the 1997-98 fiscal year. 3. Franchise Fees: Upon annexation, the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the County by Continental Cable Television, the Southern California Gas Company, Waste Management, and Western Waste. These fees have been estimated on a per capita basis using budget figures from the City of Palm Desert. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 4 Fiscal Feasibility Report Polmdst nivyfeartpet 4. Development Related Fees: The fees described below are not included in Exhibit 1 because these fees specially offset costs of development related services, only the "net" cost of these services are indicated under"Expenditures". a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees: The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use .planning and regulation services. The City would utilize the City's existing fee schedule. These fees should off-set most of the City's cost in providing these services. b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees: The fees collected for these building and permit inspection services should, in most cases,totally offset the cost of these services. C. Engineering Fees: The City is also authorized to charge fees for plan checking, public works inspection, permit issuance and review and other engineering services. The fees collected for these services should, in most cases, offset the cost of these services. d. Development Fees: Under the provisions of State law, the City may collect development fees for the purpose of construction or improving capital facilities. Fees received must be segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling. Certain fees must be spent or committed within five years from the time they are collected. 5. Other Revenues: a. Fines and Forfeitures: This represents both Motor Vehicle Code fines, Municipal Code fines, and other miscellaneous fines and forfeitures. Motor Vehicle and Municipal Code fines were estimated on a per capita basis using current budget data from the City of Palm Desert. b. Miscellaneous Revenues: Miscellaneous revenues include map sales, microfilm sales, code/certificate compliance, special investigation fees, nuisance abatement and other revenues. This revenue has been estimated on a per-capita basis using the City's fiscal year 1997-98 budget. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 5 Fiscal Feasibility Report Pelmds✓sunivyfnmepn 6. Fire Protection Fees a. Structural Fire Protection Tax: The structural fire protection tax is levied as part of the 1% property tax within the Study Area and is based on the total assessed valuation within this area. The current rate within the Study area is 0.06025. Upon annexation, this rate will be transferred to the City and the City will fund fire protection services through its contract with the County. It is important to note that the fire protection costs (detailed in Section III) have been reduced to reflect the net costs of services (i.e., less the 1% of the total assessed valuation of the Study Area multiplied by the Structural Fire Tax rate of 0.06025). The cost of providing fire protection services is net of the property tax levy of the County Fire District. b. Proposition A Fire Tax: The Proposition A Fire Tax is calculated on a parcel basis. More specifically, this revenue was estimated by assuming an annual $48 charge per unit for each of the existing 1,914 single family residential units, as well as the additional units and the units developed over the term of the projections. 7. Business License Tax: Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to impose the City's current Business License Tax. The Business License fee for the City of Palm Desert is calculated based upon gross sales. RSG has estimated the amount of Business License Tax using an average Business License fee for the local sales tax generators identified within the Study Area (Exhibit 1). 8. Interest Because expenditures exceeded revenues resulting in no excess cash, RSG did not include interest in this analysis. B. ROAD FUND All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per capita basis, with the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2107.5 is allocated to the cities based upon total population size. It is estimated that the proposed annexation of the Study Area would add approximately 3,828 population to the existing 33,701 population of Palm Desert. According to State data, this added population will not place the City's population status into the next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is reflected relative to Section 2107.5. Similar to other state subventions, road fund revenues initially would be based at the estimated population of 3,828. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter-approved Measure "A" sales tax distributed by the County Transportation Commission. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun Chy/1vy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 6 Fiscal Feasibility Report , PelmdsVsunivy(eartpn - Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related maintenance expenditures. I11. EXPENDITURES A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational structure and are estimated as follows: 1. General Government: a. Administration: The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating costs would be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal expenditures including legal costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies were I, estimated. Costs associated with the 1999-00 election are shown. Costs were estimated based on a case by case analysis or a per capita rate using City budget data. b. Insurance: Upon annexation, it is likely that the cost of the City's insurance policy will be impacted. RSG has estimated these costs based on existing infrastructure and other public facilities within the Study Area in relationship to the City's budgeted expenditure forecasts. C. Animal Control: The current City animal control contractor, California Animal Care, will assume animal control services for this area upon annexation of the Study Area. Costs were estimated assuming additional personnel and equipment as required by California Animal Care. These costs are net of any animal license fee revenues. d. County Property Tax Collection Charges: Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor-Controller's Office charged cities and local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental administrative costs. These charges are estimated at 2% of all property tax revenues. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 7 Fiscal Feasibility Report PelmdsJs6nivyGarcpn - 2. Public Safety: a. Sheriffs Contract: The Riverside County Sheriffs Department estimates service costs on a per capita basis. Based on conversations with Sheriffs Department staff, the City will maintain a patrol beat to population ratio of 1 Sheriffs deputy per 1,000 population, or approximately five additional officers in fiscal year 1998-99 and increasing to a total of 12 officers for the Study Area at buildout. RSG believes this estimated service level may be excessive given the character of this particular community. Information obtained from the Riverside County Sheriffs Department was utilized to calculate a per capita rate of$157 in fiscal year 1997- 98 dollars. The calculation of Sheriffs contract costs is based on the per capita rate and generally equals the cost of adding the 12 additional officers over the term of the projections. An annual inflation factor of 1.5% was applied to this rate to reflect increases in costs. b. Jail Booking Fee: Riverside County charges a flat fee for jail bookings for the proposed annexation of approximately $110 to all cities within the County. Jail booking fees were estimated based on jail bookings in the County incorporated areas in this area and for the City of Palm Desert. C. Fire Protection: The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement forming the Cove Communities Public Safety Commission in order to provide fire and paramedic services. Fire protection expenditures were estimated using current .Riverside County Fire budget costs. This expenditure reflects a percentage of the assessed valuation based upon fiscal year 1997-98 costs. The annexation of the Study Area will result in an estimated . need for nine (9) new positions needed to staff the proposed Fire Station No. 81. More specifically, three (3) Firefighters (II) and six (6) Paramedics/Firefighters (11) will be required. The estimated cost for services include $630,000 for fire services staff costs, $441,500 for base level service (including new equipment), and $9,000 for support costs for medic unit in 1998-99 dollars. This estimated budget figure does not include optional paramedic services, which would be an additional one- time cost of$121,000. An annual inflation factor of 5% was applied to reflect cost increases. Currently three (3) fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35 service the Study Area. All of these fire stations are located outside of the Study Area. As mentioned previously, a new fire station (No. 81) is currently under construction and is schedule to open in March 1999 to service the Study Area. Upon annexation, Station No. 81 would be the primary station servicing the Study Area. However, information obtained from the Fire Department indicates that Stations 33, 31, and 35 will provide assistance where needed. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 8 Fiscal Feasibility Report Pelmdnhvnivyfartpn 3. Community Development: Upon the annexation of the Study Area, the Community Development Department will assume the processing of all land use related services. These services will, in most cases, be off-set by fees. Those services not covered by fees have been estimated at $5,000 per year in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. These costs have been escalated by 3% per year to account for inflation. a. Code Compliance Officer: Upon annexation, it is anticipated that an additional Code Compliance Officer will be required to provide code enforcement services within the Sun City and Ivy Ranch areas. This expenditure is calculated using the first step in the City's payroll salary range for Code Compliance Officer which total $27,030 per year in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. RSG has included an additional 35% of the annual salary to reflect benefits and an additional 10% for supplies, minor equipment, and other overhead costs. 4. Public Works: For purposes of this Report, it is assumed that the current level of service of maintenance programs is sufficient to the community's needs. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 and other County responsibilities will be assumed by the City. The Public Works cost estimates also include an allowance for contract services to administer these programs. a. Administration: A minimal administrative cost impact based on a per capita factor using City budget data is reflected. This cost represents supplies, meeting and travel costs, equipment, and other services. b. Street Sweeping: CSA No. 152 represents a parcel tax levied by the County for street sweeping services within the Study Area. However, the County does not provide street sweeping services to the Study Area. Upon annexation, the City will provide street sweeping services to the Study Area and CSA No. 152 will continue to be collected to cover these costs. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, no fiscal impact would result from the annexation. C. Street Lighting: Street lighting services within the Area 1 only are currently provided through CSA No. 121. These services are limited to street lighting outside the gated Sun City community, which includes those commercial and industrial uses between the Sun City community and the Interstate 10 Freeway. Area 2 properties are not Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 9 Fiscal Feasibility Report Palmdst/smivyfmrepn within CSA 121. It is important to note that CSA No. 121 covers a larger area which includes not only the Study Area, but significant surrounding territory. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 will be detached and all funds will be transferred to the City. The forecasted expenditure is based on current CSA No. 121 budget data(Exhibit 1). Street lighting within the Ivy Ranch and Sun City communities is funded through the existing homeowners associations. 5. Parks and Recreation: There is no anticipated financial impact relative to existing landscape maintenance services due to the fact that all parks and open space areas are private-and located within the gated communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch. All private parks, open space and recreational facilities, both existing and future, are assumed to be maintained by homeowners association. 6. Contingency: A 10% contingency factor has been added to the General Fund expenditure estimate to meet unforeseen programs or emergency needs. 7. Roads: a. Capital Improvements: Upon annexation, it is the City's policy to upgrade existing infrastructure systems within the annexation area to meet or exceed current City standards. The funding sources for capital improvements within the Study Area are not identified due to the fact that a capital improvement program (CIP) has not been developed nor addressed as part of this analysis. The preparation of a CIP plan for the annexation areas would require the preparation of an extensive and detailed infrastructure assessment analysis. 8. Road Maintenance: a. Street Maintenance: The street maintenance expenditure was estimated based upon estimated curb miles and area size using budget data from the City of Palm Desert. This cost reflects a 3% increase which includes general street maintenance; City-wide street slurry sealing, overlaying and resurfacing, new and replaced curbs and gutters, centerline striping, and safety and sign painting. b. Traffic Signal Maintenance: Upon annexation, the City of Palm Desert will be required to maintain additional traffic signals. The City of Palm Desert currently maintains 50% of the traffic Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 10 Fiscal Feasibility Report PelmdsJsuniyiearepn signals located at Washington Street and Varner Road, along Varner Road, on Cook Street and Varner Road (2 signals), and all other signals along Varner Road in the Study Area. Upon annexation of the Study Area, the City will be required to maintain 100% of these four (4) traffic signals. All other traffic signals in the Study Area are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Sun City and Ivy Ranch homeowners associations. IV." SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based upon this fiscal analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch, as well as the commercial and industrial properties located between these areas and the Interstate 10 Freeway, forecasted expenditures for fiscal year 1998-99 through 2005-06 for the General Fund exceed the estimated total revenues. However, the projections indicate a surplus in fiscal year 2006-07 of$155,438. Forecasted expenditures and revenues have been calculated using conservative methodologies and modest escalation factors. The forecasted expenditures exceed the estimated revenues for fiscal years 1998-99 through 2005-06 by a range of$157,403 to $770,184 annually. As shown in Exhibit 1, the cumulative shortfall of General Fund revenues totals $5,639,794. However, the forecasted revenues for Road Fund exceed estimated expenditures. In fiscal years 1998-99 through 2006-07, the forecasted revenues exceed expenditures by a range of $134,253 to $435,373, with a cumulative surplus of $2,586,923. It is important to note that the use of these funds is restricted to road-related expenditures. Because of the gated, residential character of both Areas 1 and 2, the estimated amount of local sales tax generated annually was minimal until the buildout year of 2006-07. Due to the fact that State subventions are allocated to cities on a per capita basis, the Sun City and Ivy Ranch areas (with approximate populations of 3,200 and 628, respectively) will receive modest motor vehicle and off-highway fees. RSG has assumed that the addition of 12 Sheriffs deputies would be required to provide sufficient police services to the Study Area at buildout. The forecasted expenditure was calculated using per capita costs based on existing supported rates for Riverside County Sheriff and applying an escalation factor of 7.5%. It is important to note that the estimated expenditure for the Sheriff contract amount for police services in fiscal year 1998-99 totals approximately 32%of the total General Fund expenditure estimate. The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage are part of a Joint Powers Agreement in order to provide fire and paramedic services. The expenditures reflected in this analysis are commensurate with the City's desire to maintain a high level of service in terms of structural fire protection, suppression, and paramedic services. The forecasted expenditure for structural fire protection services in fiscal year 1998-99 is approximately 49% of the grand total General Fund expenditure estimate. Thus, the combined expenditures for public safety services alone constitute 81%of all general fund expenditures. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun Ci ylIvy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 11 Fiscal Feasibility Report PalmdsVwniwfearepn It is important to note that the annual shortfall declines each year over the term of the projections. The additional 500,000 square feet of commercial uses projected to be developed in fiscal year 2006-07 will greatly reduce the annual deficit in the General Fund. Finally, if the contingencies referenced in this Study are not used by the City, the projections would show that the shortfall would be eliminated by fiscal year 2003-04. �exalion Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun Cilyllvy Ranch/ Reporl April, 1998 12 Fiscal Feasdi110 PalmdsVswiryfweprt � EXHIBIT 1 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY IM-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 346,650 418,830 492,453 567,548 _ 644.146 722,275 801.705 881.935 963.769 Property Transfer Tax 13,068 15.789 18,564 21,395 24,282 27.228 30,222 33.246 36.331 Parcel Tax 739 813 894 984 1,082 1.190 1,309 1,440 1,584 Sales Tax 44,803 46.595 48,459 135,398 140,813 156,672 161372 167.041 422.485 . Transient Occupancy Tax 174,911 180.159 185.563 191,130 196.864 202.770 208.853 215,119 221,572 Subtotal 580,172 662,185 745,934 916,455 1.007,188 1,110,136 1,203,862 1,298.782 1,645,743 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 185,000 217.700 250.400 283,100 315,800 348,500 380,900 412,700 444,400 Off-Highway License 75 90 105 115 130 145 155 170 185 Subtotal 185,075 217,790 250,505 283215 315,930 348,645 381,055 412,870 444.585 . FRANCHISE FEES Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 198,069 233,192 268,212 303.232 338.252 373,272 408.086 442.076 476,066 Subtotal 198,069 233,192 268212 303,232 338.252 373,272 408,086 442,076 476,066 OTHER REVENUES - Fines&Forfeitures 7,650 8,976 10,302 11,628 12,954 14,392 15,708 17,034 18,258 Miscellaneous Revenues 37.900 44,600 51,300 58,000 64,700 71,400 78,100 94.600 91.100 Subtotal 45,550 53,576 61.602 69,628 77.654 85,782 93,808 101,634 109,358 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Protection Tax 288,915 349,073 410A34 473,022 536.862 601.979 668.179 735.046 803.251 Prop A Fire Tax 111.840 135.564 155,934 176,303 196,672 217,042 237_263 257,039 276.815 Subtotal 400,755 494,637 566,367 649.325 733,534 819,020 905,441 992,085 1,080,066 LICENSES Business License Tax 3,200 3.360 3,530 4,110 4,320 4,540 4,770 5,010 7,810 Subtotal 3,200 3,360 3,530 4,110 4,320 4,540 4,770 5,010 7,810 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,412,821 1.654.741 1,896,150 2,225,965 2,476,878 2,741.395 2,997,022 3,252,457 3,763,628 Interest Famines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROADFUNDS Section 2105 28,300 33.300 38,400 43,400 48,400 53,400 58,400 63.200 68,100 Section 2106 18,500 21,800 25,100 28.400 31,700 34,900 38,200 41,400 44,600 Section 2107 39.500 46.500 53,500 60,500 67,500 74,500 81,400 88,200 95,000 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Tumback 156.663 184.370 212,077 239,784 267,491 295,198 322.699 349,582 376,465 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 242,963 285.970 329,077 372,094 415,091 457,998 500,699 542,382 594,165 Interest Eamines 12,756 15,013 17,277 19.534 21,792 24.045 26,287 28,475 30,669 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1.668.539 1.955.724 2.242.504 2,617.583 2.913.761 3.223.438 3.524,008 3,823.314 4.378,461 aSG.In,4WO enWear Sud e - EXHIBIT 1 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 2,369 7,017 3.193 9,114 4,017 11,212 4,944 13,285 5,665 Insurance - 21,000 22,050 23,153 24,310 25.526 26,802 28,142 29.549 31,027 Animal Control 10.400 11200 14,000 15,900 17300 - 19,500 21.400 23,100 24,900 County Tax Collection Charge 6,900 8.400 9,800 11,400 12,900 14,400 16.000 17,600 19,300 Subtotal 40,669 49,667 50,146 60,725 60.143 71,913 70,486 83,535 80,892, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Net Costs 5.000 5,150 5,305 5.464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6.334 Code Compliance Officer 52,700 54,300 55,900 57.600 59.300 61,100 62,900 64.800 66,700 Subtotal 57,700 59,450 61,205 63,064 64,928 66,896 68,870 70,949 73,034 PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff Contract 786,470 925,575 1,064,690 1,203,678 1,342,783 1.481.888 1,619,918 1,754,938 1,889,958 Jail Booking Fees 4,400 4.500 4,600 4,700 4.800 4,900 5,000 5,200 5,400 Fire Protection 1,201.500 1.134.525 1,191,251 1,250.814 1.313.355 1,379,022 1,447,973 1,520,372 1,596,391 Subtotal 1,992,370 2,064,600 2,260,531 2,459,191 2,660,937 2,865,810 3,072,891 3,280,510 3,491,748 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 7,416 8,755 10,094 11,330 12,669 14,008 15,244 16,583 17,819 Street Lighting 8,442 8.864 9,307 9,773 10.261 10.774 11,313 11,879 12,473 Subtotal 15,858 17,619 19.401 21,103 22,930 24.782 26,557 28,462 30,292 PARKS&RECREATION Landscaping/Median Maintenance ' ' ' Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association - • Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTINGENCY 210,660 219,134 239,128 260,408 280,894 302,940 323,880 346,346 367,597 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2.317,257 2,410.470 2.630,411 2.864,490 3,089.831 3,332,342 3.562,694 3,809,801 4,043,562 ROADS Capital Improvements 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD MAINTENANCE Street Maintenance 89,040 93,492 98,167 103.075 108,229 113,640 119,322 125,288 131,553 Street Sweeping 6,264 6,577 6,906 7,251 7,614 7,994 8,394 8,814 9.254 Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance 15,120 15.876 16,670 17,503 18.378 19.297 20.262 21,275 22,339 Contingency 11,042 11.594 12,174 12,783 13,422 14,093 14,798 15,538 16,315 TOTAL ROAD FUND 121,466 127.539 133,916 140,612 147.643 1551025 162,776 170,915 179,461 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 2,438.723 2.53&009 2.764.327 3,005.102 3,237,474 3,487.367 3,725,461 3.980.716 4,223,023 REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (770184) (582.285) (521.823) (387.519) (323,713) (263,929) (201,453) (157,403) 155,438 CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (770,184) (1,352,469) (1,874,292) (2,261,811) (2,585,524) (2,849,453) (3,050,906) (3,208,308) (3,0527871) General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (9D4.436) (755.730) (734260) (638,525) (612,953) (590,947) (565,662) (557,345) (279,935) Cumulative General Fund (904A36) (1,660,166) (2,394,427) (3,032,952) (3,645.905) (4,236,852) (4,802,515) (5,359,859) (5,639,794) Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 134,253 173,445 212.437 251,006 289,241 327,018 364,209 399,942 435,373 Cumulative Road Fund 134,253 307,697 520,135 771,141 1,060,381 1,387,400 1,751,609 2,151.551 2,586,923 asG.Mc.,YLi!enna .,8W. - h DRAFT SUN CITY/IVY RANCHANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DRAFT April, 1998 Prepared for: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 (619) 340-5776 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 541-4585 • 1 SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND ............................................................:.............................. 1 H. REVENUES.................................................................................................... 2 A. GENERAL FUND......»....».................................................» »......»»»...»...:.2 1. Taxes.....................................................................................................................2 a. Property and Parcel Taxes............................................................................2 b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................3 C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief.................................................................3 d. Parcel Tax....................................................................................................3 e. Sales Taxes............................:......................................................................4 f. Transient Occupancy Taxes......................:..................................................4 2. State Subventions(Motor Vehicle Fees) ..............................................................4 3. Franchise Fees.......................................................................................................4 4. Development Related Fees ...................................................................................5 a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees.....................................................5 b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees...........................................................5 C. Engineering Fees..........................................................................................5 d. Development Fees........................................................................................5 . Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. i Sun City/!vy Ranch Anneralion April,1998 Fuca(Feasibility Study 5. Other Revenues.....................................................................................................5 a. Fines and Forfeitures....................................................................................5 b. Miscellaneous Revenues..............................................................................5 6. Fire Protection Fees ..............................................................................................6 a. Structural Fire Protection Tax......................................................................6 b. Proposition A Fire Tax.................................................................................6 7. Business License Tax............................................................................................6 8. Interest...................................................................................................................6 B. ROAD FUND.....»..................................................................................................._..6 III. EXPENDITURES ........................»................................................................ 7 A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES.......................»..............._.........................»7 1. General Government..............................................................................................7 a. Administration.............................................................................................7 b. Insurance......................................................................................................7 C. Animal Control............................................................................................7 d. County Property Tax Collection Charges....................................................7 2. Public Safety......................................:....................................................................8 a. Sheriff's Contract.........................................................................................8 b. Jail Booking Fee..........................................................................................8 C. Fire Protection..............................................................................................8 3. Community Development......................................................................................9 a Code Compliance Officer............................................................................9 4. Public Works..........................................................................................................9 a. Administration.............................................................................................9 b. Street Sweeping ...........................................................................................9 C. Street Lighting .............................................................................................9 Rosenow Spevacek Group,Ina Il Sun City//vy Ranch Anncration April, 1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study 5. Parks and Recreation............................................................................................10 6. Contingency..........................................................................................................10 7. Roads....................................................................................................................10 a. Capital Improvements............................................ 8. Road Maintenance................................................................................................10 a. Street Maintenance.....................................................................................10 b. Traffic Signal Maintenance........................................................................11 IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.......»..».......................................................... 11 MAPS Map 1 —Area I (To Be Inserted) Map 2—Area 2 (To Be Inserted) EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Ill Sun City//vy Ranch Annexation April,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study DRAFT SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT I. BACKGROUND The City of Palm Desert ("City') engaged the Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG') to prepare a fiscal feasibility analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch. This Report can be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act if and when the City desires to pursue annexation of these communities. Prior to the determination to pursue annexation, the City wishes to ascertain the fiscal standing of the Sun City and Ivy Ranch communities and surrounding commercial and industrial uses. This Report will focus on what City services will be provided within these areas, the forecasted cost of those services, and what revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those services. This Report will focus on a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the annexation area for approximately seven years (i.e., the.projected date of buildout for the Sun City area). It should be understood that there will usually be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected,and those differences may be material. More specifically, this Study focuses on two unincorporated areas within Riverside County; the first area is shown on Map 1 (to be inserted and is generally bounded by the northernmost point of Section 30 to the north, Washington Street and the intersection of Vamer Road and 310 Avenue to the east, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the western portions of Sections 6, 30, and 31 to the west ("Area 1'). Area 1 consists primarily of the Del Webb Sun City development, a golf course, a recreational facility, freeway-oriented commercial/retail use along Interstate 10, an overnight lodging facility, a country club (with pro-shop), a recreational vehicle park, seven developed parcels and 455 acres of vacant land. The Sun City community is in the process of developing and is scheduled to reach buildout in fiscal year 2006-07. The second area is shown on Map 2 (to be inserted) and is generally bounded by the southern boundary of Section 21 to the north, the south east portion of Section 35 to the west, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the midpoint of Section 28 to the east ("Area T). Area 2 contains the Ivy Ranch community, a restaurant, and approximately 624 acres, of vacant land along the Interstate 10 Freeway. The Ivy Ranch community contains approximately 314 single family residential uses and is currently at buildout. For the purposes of this analysis, Area 1 and Area 2, collectively, are herein referred to as the"Study Area". The 1998.populafion of Areas 1 and 2 is estimated at 3,200 and 628, respectively. At the present time, the number of structures or dwelling units in the proposed Study Area include approximately 1,914 single family residential units, 5,200 square feet of commercial space, and seven industrial parcels. The major public agencies currently providing services in the Study Area are the County of Riverside, County .Service Area No. 121 and No. 152, Coachella Valley Water Improvement District, Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District, and Coachella Valley Improvement Districts 58 and 81. The County of Riverside. is currently responsible for policymaking and Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun CUy/Ivy Ranch Annexation April. 1998 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report P,Imdahuniv fo"pn administration, law enforcement, animal control, planning and land use regulation, building inspection, flood control, and the maintenance and improvement of roads in both areas. Street lighting services within the Study Area are currently provided through CSA No. 121. Upon annexation, the City would assume services funded by CSA No. 121 and CSA No. 121 would be detached. The County currently collects a parcel tax for CSA No. 152 to fund street sweeping services County-wide. However, the County does not currently provide street sweeping services in the Study Area. Upon annexation, the City will perform all street sweeping services and this tax will remain in effect, so there is no fiscal impact. Water is currently supplied in the Study Area by the Coachella Valley County Water District. Upon annexation, the Coachella Valley Water District will continue to supply water to these areas. Sewer service is currently, and will continue to be, provided by Septic Systems and the Coachella Valley Water District. Sewer lines currently exist at 38* Avenue, Del Webb Boulevard, Varner Road, and Washington Street. The 'County of Riverside currently provides fire protection services to all properties within the Study Area through three fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35, located at 79400 Avenue 42, 44-400 Town Center Way and 72695 La Canada Way, respectively. In addition, a fourth station (No. 81) is currently under construction at Washington Street and 38th Avenue. Following annexation, fire protection services would be provided by the City through the Cove Community Services Commission. The Commission contracts with the County to deliver fire protection and paramedic services. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for providing police services within the Study Area. Two police substations responsible for servicing this area are located in Palm Desert and Indio. Following annexation, only the Palm Desert substation will service the Study Area and police protection services would continue to be provided by the County of Riverside through a contract with the County Sheriff. The roads within these areas, which are currently maintained by the County of Riverside, would be maintained by the City of Palm Desert following annexation. Many of the General Fund and Road Fund revenues and expenditures were either calculated on a per capita basis, a marginal cost basis using actual budget figures from the City of Palm Desert, or a case study methodology. It is important to note that this Study focuses on recurring revenues and expenditures. This Study does not analyze any future capital improvement projects resulting from the annexation of the Study Area, nor does the Study include any development related impact fees that would be collected on new development. In addition, with the exception of the new development contained in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, and the new development assumptions outlined below,this Study does not analyze all future new development in the vacant portions of Areas 1 or 2. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun Clry/Ivy Ranch Annexation April,1998 2 Fiscal Feasibility Report ftmdMunivyfe prt H. REVENUES A. GENERAL FUND The primary sources of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Exhibit 1: 1. Taxes: a. Property Property and Parcel Taxes: JLV% 1 The City's property tax revenue is based on the historical property tax ratio of 250/a/75% to be split between the City and the County as set forth in Resolution Lta4�4"�LNo. 81-133 adopted September 24, 1981. Upon annexation, the City would receive 25%of the total current County General Fund property tax revenue and the �6 /J County would retain the remaining 75%of General Fund property tax revenue. V b. Property Transfer Taxes: Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold or an existing property is resold. A property transfer tax of$1.10 per $1,000 (0.1100/0) of transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided between Riverside County and the City. The amount of property transfer tax received will depend upon the sale of land and the level of resale activity within the Study Area. These revenues have been estimated using the assumption of a 5% turnover rate annually at the rate of.550 per$1,000 of assessed values. C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief: Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief were not specifically projected because this analysis bases the Property Tax Apportionment on assessed valuation gross of the Homeowners Exemption. Therefore, revenue from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax Apportionment. d. Parcel Tax Upon annexation; the City would assume service responsibilities of County Services Area("CSA')No. 121. CSA 121 covers all properties in Area 1 only(as well as areas outside the Study Area) and funds street lighting services for all properties outside the Sun City gated community. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 would be detached and one hundred percent (1005/6) of the special district levies would be transferred to the City (Exhibit 1). CSA No. 152 represents a tax levied against all properties in the Study Area for street sweeping services. However, as mentioned previously, there will be no impact with respect to CSA No. 152 upon Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun Cily//vy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 3 Fiscal Feasibilfty Report Pdmdn iv FnMn annexation, due to the fact that the County does not currently provide street sweeping services in the Study Area. e. Sales Taxes: Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive a percentage of the sales tax charged on qualifying retail sales from businesses within the Study Area. The State Board of Equalization estimated that the commercial areas within the Study Area are generating approximately $43,080 in sales tax revenues in fiscal year 1997-98 (Exhibit 1). RSG has assumed a modest 3% annual increase on these sales tax revenues. However, pursuant to the Amended Specific Plan for Del Webb's Sun City, dated October 28, 1997(Resolution No. 97-286), approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial retail will be,constructed on the 80 acre parcel located along Varner Road and Washington Street by fiscal year 2006-07. Sales tax revenues were projected according to the phasing of this development and are reflected in Exhibit 1. f. Transient Occupancy Taxes: Upon annexation, the City will receive the Transient,Occupancy Tax revenues. Currently, the City's Transient Occupancy Tax fate is 9%. The Study Area contains one (1) lodging establishment; the Motel 6 located at the comer of Washington Street and Varner Road which has a total of 92 rooms. RSG has estimated the Transient Occupancy Tax based on an occupancy factor and average room rate. 2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees): Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes. These taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to cities on a per capita basis. Off-road Vehicle taxes are also allocated to cities by the State on a per capita basis. Both subventions are based on the estimated combined population of 3,828 for the Study Area. The per capita figures used in the revenue summary have been provided by the State Controller's office for the 1997-98.fiscal year. 3. ' Franchise Fees: i Upon annexation, the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the County by Continental Cable Television, the Southern California Gas Company, Waste Management, and Western Waste. These fees have been estimated on a per capita basis using budget figures from the City of Pallm1 Desert. - (` lc� c,J'q�i tcv �./*V J A `o A4La, Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc- San Cityllvy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 4 Fiscal Feasibility Report P.Imddwnivyftueprt 4. Development Related Fees: The fees described below are not included in Exhibit 1 because these fees specially offset costs of development related services, only the `het" cost of these services are indicated under"Expenditures". a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees: The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use planning and regulation services. The City would utilize the City's existing fee schedule. These fees should off-set most of the City's cost in providing these services. b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees: The fees collected for these building and permit inspection services should, in most cases,totally offset the cost of these services. c.. _ Engineering Fees: The City is also authorized to charge fees for plan checking, public works inspection, permit issuance and review and other engineering services. The fees collected for these services should, in most cases, offset the cost of these services. d. Development Fees: Under the provisions of State law, the City may collect development fees for the purpose of construction or improving capital facilities. Fees received must be segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling. Certain fees must be spent or committed within five years from the time they are collected. 5. Other Revenues: a. Fines and Forfeitures: This represents both Motor Vehicle Code fines, Municipal Code fines, and other miscellaneous fines and forfeitures. Motor Vehicle and Municipal Code fines . were estimated on a per capita basis using current budget data from the City of Palm Desert. b. Miscellaneous Revenues: Miscellaneous revenues include map sales, microfilm sales, code/certificate compliance, special investigation fees, nuisance abatement and other revenues. This revenue has been estimated on a per-capita basis using the City's fiscal year 1997-98 budget. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc- Sun City//vy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 5 Fiscal Feasibility Report PYmd lunirp(nmyn 6. Fire Protection Fees a. Structural Fire Protection Tax: The structural fire protection tax is levied as part of the 1%property tax within the Study Area and is based on the total assessed valuation within this area. The current rate within the Study area is 0.06025. Upon annexation, this rate will be transferred to the City and the City will fund fire protection services through its contract with the County. It is important to note that the fire protection costs (detailed in Section III) have been reduced to reflect the net costs of services (i.e., less the 1% of the total assessed valuation of the Study Area multiplied by the Structural Fire Tax rate of 0.06025). The cost of providing fire protection services is net of the property tax levy of the County Fire District. b. Proposition A Fire Tax: The Proposition A Fire Tax is calculated on a parcel basis. More specifically, this revenue was estimated by assuming an annual $48 charge per unit for each of the existing 1,914 single family residential units, as well as the additional units and the units developed over the term of the projections. 7. Business License Tax: Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to impose the City's current Business License Tax. The Business License fee for the City of Palm Desert is calculated based upon gross sales. RSG has estimated the amount of Business License Tax using an average Business License fee for the local sales tax generators identified within the Study Area (Exhibit 1). S. Interest Because expenditures exceeded revenues resulting in no excess cash, RSG did not include interest in this analysis. , B. ROAD FUND ` All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the ciWita basis, wi 'tipyr'f°� the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2ed to the citiesbased upon total population size. It is estimated that the propn of the Study4o�Area would add approximately 3,828 population to the existination of PalDese According to State data, this added population will noty's population status into the 1.next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is reflected relative to Section iV"&I 2107.5. Similar to other state subventions, road fund revenues initially would be based at the estimated population of 3,828. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter-approved Measure / "A'sales tax distributed by the County Transportation Commission. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 6 Fiscal Feasibility Report P�ImdVwnrv,feucgn Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related maintenance expenditures. M. EXPENDITURES A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational structure and are estimated as follows: 1. General Government: a. Administration: The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating costs would , be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal expenditures including legal costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies were estimated. Costs associated with the 1999-00 election are shown. Costs were estimated based on a case by case analysis or a per capita rate using City budget data. b. Insurance: Upon annexation, it is likely that the cost of the City's insurance policy will be impacted RSG has estimated these costs based on existing infrastructure and other public facilities within the Study Area in relationship to the City's budgeted expenditure forecasts. C. Animal Control: The current City animal control contractor, California Animal Care, will assume animal control services for this area upon annexation.of the Study Area Costs were estimated assuming additional personnel and equipment as required by California Animal Care. These costs are net of any animal license fee revenues. d. County Property Tax Collection Charges: Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor-Controller's Office charged cities and local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental administrative costs. These charges are estimated at 2%of all property tax revenues. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 7 Fiscal Feasibility Report PdmdsUwn feuepn 2. Public Safety: a. Sheriffs Contract: The Riverside County Sheriff's Department estimates service costs on a per capita basis. Based on conversations with 'Sheriffs Department staff, the City will maintain a patrol beat to population ratio of I Sheriffs deputy per 1,000 population, or approximately five additional officers in fiscal year 1998-99 and increasing to a total of 12 officers for the Study Area at buildout. RSG believes this estimated service level may be excessive given.the character of this particular community. Information obtained from the Riverside County Sheriffs Department was utilized to calculate a per capita rate of$157 in fiscal year 1997- y�y , 98 dollars. The calculation of Sheriffs contract costs is based on the per capita rate and generally equals the cost of adding the 12 additional officers over the term of the projections. An annual inflation-factor of?:5°o was applied to this rate to r reflect increases in costs. / b. Jail Booking Fee: 6��ivu....Asa. Riverside County charges a flat fee for jail bookings for the proposed annexation of approximately $110 to all cities within the County. Jail booking fees were estimated based on jail bookings in the County incorporated areas in this area and for the City of Palm Desert. C. Fire Protection: The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement fomring the Cove Communities Public Safety Commission in order to provide fire and paramedic services. Fire protection expenditures were estimated using current Riverside County Fire budget costs. This expenditure reflects a pen:entage of the assessed valuation based upon fiscal year 1997-98 costs. The annexation of the Study Area will result in an estimated need for nine (9) new positions needed to staff the proposed Fire Station No. 81. More specifically, three(3) Firefighters(II) and six(6) Paramedics/Firefighters(II) will be required. The estimated cost for services include $630,000 for fire services staff costs, $441,500 for base level service (including new equipment), and$9,000 l� for support costs for medic unit in 1998-99 dollars. This estimated budget fieure A tko 49a rg t include optional paramedic services which would he an additinnAl nue- time cost of$121,000. An annual inflation factor of 5%was applied to reflect cost increases. Currently three (3) fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35 service the Study Area. All of these fire stations are located outside of the Study Area. As mentioned previously, a new fire station (No. 81) is currently under construction and is schedule to open in March 1999 to service the Study Area. Upon annexation, Station No. 81 would be the primary station servicing the Study Area. However, information obtained from the Fire Department indicates that Stations 33, 31,and 35 will provide a.4sistance where needed. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 8 Fiscal FeasibI14 Report PalmdNrvnivyfnetyn within CSA 121. It is important to note that CSA No. 121 covers a larger area which includes not only the Study Area, but significant surrounding territory. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 will be detached and all funds will be transferred to the City. The forecasted expenditure is based on current CSA No. 121 budget data(Exhibit 1). Street lighting within the Ivy Ranch and Sun City communities is funded through the existing homeowners associations. 5. Parks and Recreation: There is no anticipated financial impact relative to existing landscape maintenance services due to the fact that all parks and open space areas are private and located within the gated communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch. All private parks, open space and recreational facilities, both existing and future, are assumed to be maintained by homeowners association. 6. Contineencw A 10% contingency factor has been added to the General Fund expenditure estimate to meet unforeseen programs or emergency needs. 7. Roads: a. Capital Improvements: Upon annexation, it is the City's policy to upgrade existing infrastructure systems within the annexation area to meet or exceed current City standards. The funding sources for capital improvements within the Stud Area are not identified u Pre y due to the fact that a capital improvement program (CIP) has not been developed nor addressed as part of this analysis. The preparation of a CIP plan for the annexation areas would require the preparation of an extensive and detailed infrastructure assessment analysis. 8. Road Maintenance: a. Street Maintenance: The street maintenance expenditure was estimated based upon estimated curb miles and area size using budget data from the City of Palm Desert. This cost reflects a 3% increase which includes general.street maintenance; City-wide street slurry sealing, overlaying and resurfacing, new and replaced curbs and gutters, centerline striping,and safety and sign painting. b. Traffic Signal Maintenance: Upon annexation, the City of Palm Desert will be required to maintain additional traffic signals. The City of Palm Desert currently maintains 50% of the traffic Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/!vy Ranch Annexation April,1998 10 Fiscal Feasibility Report PdmdNwnivyfdrryn signals located at Washington Street and Varner Road, along Vamer Road, on Cook Street and Varner Road (2 signals), and all other signals along Varner Road in the Study Area. Upon annexation of the Study Area, the City will be required to maintain 100% of these four (4) traffic signals. All other traffic signals in the Study Area are, and will continue to be,maintained by the Sun City and Ivy Ranch homeowners associations. IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based upon this fiscal analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch, as 1 well as the commercial and industrial properties loaned between these areas and the Interstate c 10 Freeway, forecasted expenditures for fiscff'year-1998-99 through 2005-06 for the General Fund exceed the estimated total.revenues. However,the projections indicate a surplus in fiscal " :, year 2006-07 of$155,438. Foecasted expendituresrl�y1's..vFV aMnd revenues have been calculated using conservative methodologies and modest escalation factors. A4 The forecasted expenditures exceed the estimated,revenues for fiscal years 1998-99 through A�,pQ� 2005-06 by a range of$157,403 to $770,194 a.hhM ly. As shown in Exhibit 1,the cumulative AO'y�y?-il•+ shortfall of General Fund revenues totals $5,639,794. However, the forecasted revenues for vV Road Fund exceed estimated expenditures. In fiscal years 1998-99 through 2006-07, the forecasted revenues exceed expenditures by a range of $134,253 to $435,373, with a cumulative surplus of $2,586,923. It is important to note that the use of these funds is restricted to road-related expenditures. Because of the gated, residential character of both Areas 1 and 2, the estimated amount of local sales tax generated annually was minimal until the buildout year of 2006-07. Due to the fact that State subventions are allocated to cities on a per capita basis, the Sun City and Ivy Ranch areas (with approximate populations of 3,200 and 628, respectively) will receive modest motor vehicle and off-highway fees. RSG has assumed that the addition of 12 Sheriff's deputies would be required to provide sufficient police services to the Study Area at buildout. The forecasted expenditure was calculated using per capita-costs based on existing supported rates for Riverside County Sheriff and applying an escalation factor of 7.5%. It is important to note that the estimated expenditure for the Sheriff contract amount for police services in fiscal year 1998-99 totals approximately 32%of the total General Fund expenditure estimate. The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage are part of a Joint Powers Agreement in order to provide fire and paramedic services. The expenditures reflected in this analysis are commensurate with the City's desire to maintain a high level of service in terms of structural fire protection, suppression, and paramedic services. The forecasted expenditure for structural fire protection services in fiscal year 1998-99 is approximately 49% of the grand total General Fund expenditure estimate. Thus, the combined expenditures for public safety services alone constitute 8 1%of all general fund expenditures. Rosenow Spevaeek Group,Inc. Sun City/ivy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 1! Fiscal Feasibility Report PdmAnhunivyfaMn It is important to note that the annual shortfall declines each year over the term of the projections. The additional 500,000 square feet of commercial uses projected to be developed in fiscal year 2006-07 will greatly reduce the annual deficit in the General Fund. Finally, if the contingencies referenced in this Study are not used by the City, the projections would show that the shortfall would be eliminated by fiscal year 2003-04. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun Cityllvy Ranch Annexation April, 1998 12 Fiscal Feasibility Report PdmdsWuniyRueprt • EXHIBIT 1 Nine Year Revenue & Exl2enditure Summarwv, DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1998-99 1999-00 200"1 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-0S 200S-06 2006-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Fan Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERA 1ND RFV N t C TAXES Property Tax 346,650 418.930 492,453 567,548 644,146 724,275 801,705 891,935 963,76! Property Transfer Tax 13,068 15,789 IU64 21J95 24,292 27,228 30,222 33,246 36,33: Parcel Tax 739 813 894 994 1,082 1,190 1,309 1,440 1,58, Sala Tax 44,803 46,595 48,459 135,398 140,813 156,672 161,772 167,041 422,49! Transient Occupancy Tax 174,911 190,159 195,563 191,130 196,864 202,770 208,853 215,119 221 57, Subtotal 580,172 662,185 745,934 916,455 1,007,188 1,110,136 1.203,962 1,298,782 1,645,7C MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 185,000 217,700 2"AW 283.100 315,900 349,500 390,900 412,700 444,40( On=Highway License 75 90 105 . 115 130 145 155 170 185 Subtotal 195,075 217,790 250505 293,215 315.930 348.645 391,035 412,870 444,595 SE FEES OElectric,Trash,and Cable TV 198,069 233,192 269212 303,232 338,252 373.272 409.086 442,076 476.066 2 199,069 233,192 26IU12 303,232 338,252 373,272 409,096 442,076 476,066 -OTHER REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 7,650 8,976 10= 11,628 IZ954 14,382 15,709 17,034 18,258 Miscellaneous Revenues 37.900 44,600 51a00 58,000 64,700 71400 78,100 84600 91100 Subtotal 45,550 53,576 61,(12 69,628 77,654 85.792 93,808 101,634 109,358 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Protection Tax 298,915 349,073 410,434 473,022 536,862 601,979 669,179 735,046 903,251 Prop A Fire Tax 111,940 135,564 155,%4 176,303 196,672 217,042 237.263 257,039 276,915 Subtotal 400,755 494,637 566,367 649,325 733,534 819,020 905,441 992,085 1,080,066 LICENSES .Business License Tax 3,200 3,360 3.530 4.110 4,320 4,540 4,770 5,010 7.810 Subtotal 3,200 3,360 3,330 4,110 4,320 4,540 4,770 5,010 7.810 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,417,821 1,654,741 1,896,150 2,225,965 2,476,878 2,741,395 2,997,022 3.252,457 3,763,628 Interest Emings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD FINDS Section2105 28,300 33,300 39.400. 43,400 48,400 53,400 58,400 63,200 68,100 Section2106 18,500 21,800 25.100 28,400 31,700 34,900 38,200 41,400 44,600 Section 2107 .39,500 46,500 53,500 60,500 67,500 74,500 81,400 89,200 95,000 Section 21075 0 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 156,663 194.370 217077 239,794 267,491 295,198 322,699 349,582 376,465 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 242,963 295,970 329,077 37ZO94 415,091 457,998 500,699 542,392 594,165 Interest F minus 12,756 15,013 17,277 . 19,534 21,792 24,045 26,287 28,475 30,669 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,668.539 1,955.724 2 242504 2,617,593 2.913 761 3 223 439 3.524 009 3 823 314 4.379.461 M.Ire.,YMpt N„Aeu 8u " RS6, INC. ID:714-836-1748 APR 17198 15:17 No.013 P .02 1':XI'IIBIT I Nine Year Revenue & Esnenditurc SHMmM DEL WEBB'S SUN.CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY • 1991A9 U99A0 XN41 Will 2104.0 200546 M64 7 (Fo01'nr) (Full Yrnr) (Fun Year) Ow Year)(Fell Ynr) (Von Yar) (Fun Yeor) (Full Y"#) (owdool) r.ENEBJLFl1ND ympuyU1TUHES GENti1tAL(iOVl;l W MF.NT AdainutruiDs 2369 7,0I7 3.193 9.111 4.017 11212 4944 13395 S,66S 21.000 22,Os0 23,151 24,310 25-96 26,102 21,142 29" 31,027 AoimdCoolml 10.400 12.200 14,000 ISM 17.700 19.500 21.400 23,100 24,900 CauotYTaxCollecanaChuge ..-_�_. 6,90o MM._.- 9,I D .�00 IL900 11.400 ._1§PW.. IZA- 19300 _ SubwW 40AW 49A67 AL146 60725 6 7 0,113 1,913 704i6 i],57f Ii0192 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMtNT Net Cogs 5.000 5.150 5.305 S4464 SA21 S.796 5.970 6.149 6334 c MplisiaOlDar_._ ....__.. . SUM) S4a00 SSt90D • 376W _ .S oo . 6!L1o0 •, 6?0pt W, W Woo Subtood S7.7G0 59,450 6L20S 67A64 6+.9TR Wi96 bd. �.`N9 73,031 PUBLIC SAFETY Shni fconum 786A70 W3.575 IA61,N0 I.M,618 1.14L783 1.481AU 1.619.918 1.754,938 1,889.958 Joil Dook4 FM 4AW 4.500 4AW 1.7110 4.500 4.900 SAm 5=1 $ADD FirePtotmion 1.2opm 12134s2s_ 1,191,51 1,? I4 1.313.355 l.379..022 IA17I . I i"2m 1i391y791 Subowd- 1.9W70 2A64AW 2,760331 4439.191 2, .937 Z110.810 3A72.891 3;WIC 3.491.746 PUDI.IC WORKS AdminMadi n 7.416 8.755 10.094 11.3" 12.669 11,008 15" 16.513 17.119 Sncel l.ilMlnB, _1M2 8ie66-_ . V,M7 9,773 10.261 _10,774 11313 IL679.- 12.473 Su6WW 8 1 ,619 19.401 21.103 272.930 21.782. 26SS7 2R162 30�92 15.85 PARKS A RECREATION 1 dMedir Mutormrea • •. • Aso m be Ptld br Moue l rs'Aaaeimion' -- ---- - -0 G .. .. 0 0 U . ..._p_._.. 0 0 o SubtoW CONTINGENCY 210AN 219,134 239.128 26DA01 280A" 302,94U 323J= 346-346 367.597 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2317357 2.410.470 U30AI I 2MA90 3A19,131 3.332342 3.562,6t4 3,609.801 44,13.562 RnADS 0 0 .. - 0 .. _p_ _ G Swat -89,010 23.492 91,167 103,07$ 101,229 113.6w 119322 123.218 131333 SuwS%va s 6.2M 6,f77 6.906 7451 7.614 79% 9394 4,114 9,234 7111"iWnsl0orrsiiodMninuararce IS,lIO lS,t76 16.670 1 18.378 19.297 20,262__ 21�75.. 2239 C Moey II.M 11.f94 12.174 1$70 •13,422 14,097-1i,7W libil t6A15 TOTAL ROAD FUND 121.4" 127.539 133916 140,612 147,613 US= 161776 170915 .179.461 TOTALALL FXPFNDITURE6 2A31723 U31009 2.764,127 3M102 3.237474 3487367 3.725.461 3,910•?16 1,223.023 REVEMIESURPLIIS7y5110RTRALI�._ (1701, N) (582,215) -�1yi27)• (387,519 Q11.713�-(263.919) (201A33•i1157.402�_ 155�436 'Cl1Mul.AflVrsURPLU51(UEFTCm (770.E84) (I.MX469) (IJ7+.292) (2261ti1) (2.SHSW) M1149.+53) (3A50,M) P.2D1. M pA51,673) GrneralFuedSgrplurliSborlUl1__ 4(90 A36) (153.7.30)�'!]4,2 R 638 2S�•-j612�953)-._(590,9<?) (3�bG21 •1ss72!S) 79.935 Cumulnire Omni Fund -• _ -_ 436 (I.ti6b,le6) gJ%o27L1(A32�9s2) (7.6as9os) (4,2I6.1S2)54 IS) . .gs9)_.Si6397799q) --- . .---- 219 41 327,018 361109 399,94 135 73 R"dFOnd Sbprlf�. 134 f3 173,4AS 212477. 231.006___,2 ... --'- __s-.. __._. .--. -- _. . _--�1 ( ._ _.. __...�_._.__.-� Cum"w Rwd Fmd ..-. ,IN IS�_307.697,-_ S10i75 .171,141 110603/1 „1J67.400 1.751` 2.iSl,SS1 2316,923 ld . ,e j. -Arm 4/23/98 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: George J. Spilictis, Executive Officer SUBJECT: LAFCO 9 6-11-4—REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 70 TO CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; LAFCO 97-05-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (REMOVAL) TO THE CITY OF INDIO, LAFCO 97-24-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ' OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PRIOR AGENDAS/RELATED ACTIONS: Approval of adjacent Annexation 68 to Indio on I211l94: Review of Sun City Palm Desert COI Final Report on December 4. 1997. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATION: This report addresses three related proposals : a) an inhabited reorganization proposal submitted by the City of Indio which encompasses anne::ation of 310 acres including a 28 acre auto mall; b) another proposal submitted by the City to remove approximately one square mile of Sun City Palm Desert from the City of Indio Sphere of Influence (SOI) ; and c) a proposal submitted by one of the Sun City Palm Desert (SCPD) COI Committee members which duplicates (b) above as well as places the entirety of the COI plus additional acreage north of I-10 within the City of Palm Desert SOI . The two SOI amendment proposals are logical and are supported by staff . The reorganization proposal has very poor boundaries as submitted and is not necessary for the development of the auto mall . However, there is no opposition and there are cooperative agreements between affected agencies regarding infrastructure financing and revenue sharing. The staff recommends approval of this proposal . GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: The City of Indio is the applicant for the reorganization and the SOI removal . Mr. Sy Kaplan of Sun City Palm Desert is the applicant for the proposal to exxpand the City of Palm Desert SOI . LOCATION: The reorganization is generally bordered on the north by the 39th Avenue, on the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2443 PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 2 APRIL 23 , 1998 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 right of way, on the west by Adams Street and the sun City Palm Desert community, and on the east by western boundary of the City. POPULATION: The population of the reorganization is estimated by the appiicant to be approimately 50 . The population of the SOI amendment area, which is the SCPD community, is estimated to be appro::imately 2, 500 . REGISTERED VOTERS : The Registrar reports 16 registered voters within the reorganization area, making the . proposal legally inhabited. The number of registered voters within the SOI proposals is 1, 645. ACREAGE : The area of the reorganization is approximately 310 acres . The area proposed for addition to the Palm Desert SOI is approximately 2, 370 acres, appro:imately 640 of which are being removed from the Indio SOI . CEQA DETERMINATION: The City of Indio, as lead agency, certified a Final EIR in conjunction with the approval of its General Plan. The EIR constitutes a Program EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines . The proposed reorganization and its impacts are within the scope of the Program EIR. Staff recommends the Commission find both SOI proposals exempt from CEQA. PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE : Master Property Ta,, Resolutions govern the reorganization. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The area subject to the SOI amendments includes the developed and undeveloped portions of the SCPD community. The community is approximately 40 developed, and includes single family dwellings, a golf course and a clubhouse . An area west of SCPD is also proposed to be added to the Palm Desert SOI . This triangular shaped area is primarily vacant but does include a commercial area near Washington Street . Almost the entire area of the proposed reorganization is vacant. Three small pockets of residential dwellings, including a trailer park, are also included within the subject area. LAND USE PLANS : No changes in land use are associated with the two SOI applications . Within the reorganization area County zoning generally calls for commercial uses west of Adams, and agricultural and residential agricultural uses over the remainder of the site . The County has approved an Auto Mall for the area west of Adams and south of Avenue 40 . The City intends to implement the Auto Mall plans approved by the County. Prezoning approved by the City RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA92507-2445 PHONE (909)369-0631 FAJC(9091 369-8479 LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 3 APRIL 23 , 1998 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 includes designations for Business Park uses and Country Estates, consistent with the City' s General Plan. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES : COMMISSION POLICIES : The following is a listing of Commission policies and applicable Government Code sections particularly relevant to the reorganization proposal . The subject proposal conflicts with many of these basic provisions as demonstrated in the paragraphs which follow. Agency boundaries should not be drawn so as to create an island, corridor or strip either within the proposed territory or immediately adjacent to it . Where such an island, corridor or strip is created, the proponent shall justify the reasons for non-conformance with this standard. (56841 (f) ] Annexation proposals to cities or districts providing urban services of undeveloped or agricultural parcels should show that: 1) urban development is imminent for all or a substantial portion of the proposal area; 2) urban development will be contiguous with existing or proposed development; and 3) the proposal will not result in a leap frog, non-contiguous urban development pattern. (56301, 563771 In order to avoid further urban sprawl, LAFCO will encourage in-fill development in urban areas and annexations of areas inside existing city spheres of influence. (56841 (d) ) BOUNDARY ISSUES : The proposed boundaries are poor. The proposal skirts approximately two dozen rural residential lots south of Avenue 40 . The annexation proposes to bring into the City an irregularly shaped expanse of primarily vacant land to reach the only proposed development, an Auto Mall, at the far western edge of the proposal . Between its point of contiguity with the City on the east and the Auto Mall site on .the west, the anneation territory narrows to a width of appro::imately 100 feet, exclusive of rights- of-way. INEFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN: During review of previous anne::ations to Indio, staff expressed concern regarding the inefficient development pattern which would likely occur as a result of anne:ation. The development proposed in conjunction with Annexation 68, for example, was at the furthest point from the City' s core, miles away from existing police and fire services . RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION• 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE(909)369-0631 FAX(909)369-3479 1 . LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 4 APRIL 23 , 1998 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 However, e::tension of water and sewer lines from the nearby Sun City Palm Desert area to the west made near term development of this outlying area a realistic possibility. Development of the Auto Mall is further evidence that development will proceed from the west back toward the core of the City. Typically, services most affected by such development patterns 'are police and fire protection services . Road maintenance responsibility patterns are also impacted. If the proposed boundaries are approved there will be a "hopscotch" jurisdictional pattern along Avenue 40 . Such a pattern can result in inefficient road maintenance efforts by both the City and the County. In past proposals where such configurations occurred, conditions were applied requiring the city to enter into an agreement to maintain a continuous length of roadway. This was done to improve the efficiency and consistency of road maintenance . •Such a condition is not being recommended in this case . The County and the City have entered into an agreement whereby the City will pay an amount to the County equivalent to a specified portion of the sales taxes generated within the Auto Mall . Additionally, the County and the City of Indio are parties to a settlement agreement concerning the Auto Mall project . This analysis assumes that those two agreements represent sufficient opportunity to mitigate impacts on the County. While there are similarities between the development patterns of this proposal and previous annexations, two factors mitigate the _ concern as it pertains to this annexation. First, since the last annexation approval the City has entered into a contract with the County of Riverside for the County/CDF to provide fire protection within the City. The County has long been in a better position to serve the areas on the north side of I-10 . Therefore, the issue of over-extension of the City' s fire protection system is no longer a concern. Second, since the Auto Mall is receiving its development approvals through the County, the same development pattern will occur regardless of which jurisdiction•the subject territory is in. DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (RCWRMD) : On March 24, 1994 , the Commission approved the formation of the RCWP,M1 D as a separate financial and legal entity to operate and finance solid waste facilities in Riverside County. The District became effective on May 2, 1994 . As part of the Commission' s action, it determined that future annexations to cities should detach from the RCWRMD unless those cities have annexed to the District . This is based on an understanding between the county and the COGS that anne::ation of cities to RCWRMD will be accomplished RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORNLATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE.CA 92507-2445 PHONE I9091 369-0631 FAX(9091 369-8-479 II _ LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 5 APRIL 23., 1998. LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 in an organized fashion to ensure appropriate representation on the governing board of the District . Therefore, staff will recommend concurrent detachment from the RCWRMD. COMMENTS FROM AFFECTED AGENCIES : The Coachella Valley Water District indicates it is currently working with the Corps of Engineers to develop flood control facilities for this area . Until such facilities are in place, there is a risk of flooding on portions of .the proposed annexation, specifically those areas east of Adams Street. WAIVER OF AUTOMATIC DETACHMENT FROM CSA 152 : If the Commission approves the reorganization proposal, it should make specified findings in order to waive automatic detachment from the CSA, since the City has opted to annex- to CSA 152 . CONCLUSIONS: The reorganization will add to the City' s large inventory of vacant developable land and will lead to development away from the City' s core . However, with the completion of several large annexations north of I-10 and the existing pockets of rural residential dwellings which were excluded from previous annexations, the additional service impacts of this annexation are almost insignificant . As an inhabited annexation, the few registered voter residing on site will ultimately determine whether the annexation is in ther best interest if the Commission sends the proposal on to the conducting authority proceedings . Therefore, with some reluctance, staff will make a recommendation for approval . The proposals to remove a portion of SCPD from the Indio SOI and place that territory and an additional 1700 acres within the Palm Desert SOI represents a logical, and perhaps minimal, extension of Palm Desert ' s future service area. Staff will recommend approval of these proposals . SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS : Based on the factors outlined above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commission make the following findings and determinations : A. Concerning the reorganization proposal : 1 . Find and determine that a Final Environmental Impact Report entitled, " Indio General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, " was prepared and certified by the City of Indio . This Final EIR constitutes a Program EIR under Section 15168 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORNIATION CONINTISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507.2445 PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-3479 LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 6 APRIL 23 , 1998 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines in that it is an EIR prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and which are related geographically, or as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions . The proposed action by- LAFCO is within the scope of the project covered by this Program EIR in that no new environmental effects will occur and no new mitigation measures will be required; 2 . Find the proposed reorganization is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Indio and all other affected local agencies; 3 . Find the proposed reorganization is legally inhabited; 4 . Approve LAFCO 96-11-4--REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 70 TO CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, subject to the following terms and conditions : a. The City of. Indio shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO" ) , its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO, its agents, officers, and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of LAFCO concerning LAFCO 96- 11-4--Reorganization to Include Annexation 70 to City of Indio and Concurrent Detachment from Riverside County Waste Resources Management District . LAFCO will promptly notify the City of Indio of any such claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO and will cooperate fully in the defense . If LAFCO fails to promptly notify the City of Indio of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, City of Indio shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless LAFCO. b . In accordance with Government Code Section 56844 (t) , authorize the e:.tension of any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment or to:, by the local agency or the successor local agency in the affected territory. C . In accordance with Government Code Section 56375 (p) , waive automatic detachment from County Service Area 152 based upon the following findings : i . County Service Area (CSA) 152 is a funding mechanism for the implementation of the National RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUCfE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (9091 369-0631 FA.0(9091 369-8479 LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 7 APRIL 23, 1998 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) emanating from the Federal 1972 Clean Water Act, and re-authorized under the Federal .1987 Clean Water Act . ii . The City anne.-ed into CSA 152 and is included within the CSA' s service area. iii . Detachment would deprive the area residents services needed to ensure their health, safety or welfare. iv. Waiving detachment will not affect the ability of the City to provide any services; and, 5 . Designate the City of Indio as conducting authority. B. Concerning the sphere of influence amendment proposals : 1 . Find the proposals are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the sphere of influence amendment proposals will have a significant effect on the environment and make the supporting findings included in Attachment A. 2 . Adopt the Statement of Determinations (Attachment B) for each of the sphere of influence amendment proposals . 3 . Approve LAFCO 97-05-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (REMOVAL) TO THE CITY OF INDIO and LAFCO 97-24-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT as shown on the exhibit labelled STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Re pectfully su tted, v Geor piliotis Eecu i Officer RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION• 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX f9091 369-8479 Attachment A 1 . The proposed sphere of influence amendments do not involve any changes in land use, zoning, intensity of development, physical changes to land or specific development proposals, nor are they an essential part or step of any proposed development activity for the subject area . No changes are currently proposed or under consideration. Any potential change in future land use is purely speculative . (Kaufman Broad-Sout-I Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District . (19921 9 Cal . App. 4tn 464, 472-474 . ; Simi Valley Rec. & Park v. LAFCO (1975] 51 Cal . App. 3d 648, 666) 2 . The establishment or amendment of a sphere of influence is a policy declaration of the Commission based on existing facts and circumstances which, although not readily changed, may be subject to review and change in the event a future significant change of circumstances so warrants . (City of Agoura Hills v. LAFCO (19881 198 Cal . App. 3d 480, 495. ) 3 . The territory subject to the sphere of influence amendments consists primarily of the Sun City Palm Desert Specific Plan (No . 281) for which EIR No . 367 was certified by the Board of Supervisors . Additional land to the west of SCPD is also proposed to be added to the Palm Desert SOI . This area contains both developed and undeveloped land. Pursuant to existing County plans, planned uses in this area include residential commercial and industr ial uses . Future development will be subject to separate entitlement and environmental review if and when the owners seek to .develop their property at some currently unknown date . 4 . These factual findings are based upon the files and records maintained by the. Local Agency Formation Commission and the Riverside County Planning Department with respect to the subject land encompassed by the sphere amendment proposals . RIVERSIDE LOCAL.AGENCY FORMATION CONEMISS[ON • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAx(909) 369-8479 spa r • _ �' � • • i � �C�,�Crnkk4F�rybYlyh"-i y�i'iV�'7Y� �n GYi� '�'y.V. G t NWT fr'Y'F � • • 4 Y Bermuda Dunes r � t .ay{Q,a 5 . Jam. -:. • ._ .,. + .. r r y* 4 :^ iS NOSb3333f l � tl m iS SV4VGV A . A •, /� i •. [� cr) n aA1Q w A �1S NO15N K; VMI �- 13 ? N I Ly O r-d3 C 'fl W CV v � r-a I —� - '- C ¢ >. O C N \IO � y o o y v Attachment B STATEMENT OF DETERMINATIONS FOR LAFCO 95-16-1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITIES OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND PALM DESERT (ADDITION) 1 . THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN-SPACE LANDS : The area to be removed from the Indio SOT includes a portion of the Sun City Palm Desert (SCPD) COI and includes residential dwellings, commercial establishments, a golf course and some vacant land zoned for residential and commercial uses . This area, as well as additional acreage to the west will be added to the Palm Desert SOI . This additional acreage includes some commercial establishments near Washington Street and Varner Road but is primarily vacant . No changes in land use are associated with the SOI amendments . 2 . THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN THE AREA: There is enough development in the area currently to require a fairly wide range of public services . Under currently approved land uses for the area, significant development is expected to continue in the area, thereby increasing the demand for the full range of municipal type services . 3 . THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH THE AGENCY PROVIDES OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE: Police and fire services would not change significantly whether or not the area were to be ultimately annexed to the City of Palm Desert as the City currently contracts with the County for these services . . 4 . THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN THE AREA: As indicated in previous testimony before the Commission, the COI Committee concluded residents are generally in favor of pursuing anne::ation to the City Of Palm Desert . Placing the territory within the City' s sphere is a prerequisite. RIb tRS[DE LOCAL ACE\CF FORSLATION COMMISSION • 1155 SPRUCE STREET. SU(TE J • RIF'ERS(DE. CA92507-2445 PHONJ'E (909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-S479 AOAMS RANCH SrECITIC PLAN N 37 4 U I n 0 • O O q 2 u AVENUE 38 Q Av o � r.I W 61 C C ® a a a J Y Q C a 0 o AVXNtM AO J -------- CI O/INOIO'SPN£R£OF INFLUENCE PROPOSED SPHERE OF MFLUEICE tc��tLTTttTT R 97-05-4 r � 1• a( 1 i r a C / 4o c Colt Co / { F Z�Z r st -- Talus SWYCIV / r a ; io �44Y f fJJ II r —7 t•' tl .I � a III • � � V I I EXHIBIT D I REVISED m w r.. March 29, 1997 = c Mr. Ken Liebow 78256 Moongold Road Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Mr. Stan Rush 78636 Bougainvillea Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 RE: ACTION TAKEN AT MARCH 27, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING - LAFCO 93-50-4 COI NO. 3- SUN CITY - PALM SPRINGS This is to notify you that on March 27, 1997, the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission granted an extension of time for LAFCO 93-50-4--Community of Interest No. 3-- Sun City-Palm Springs, to November 1, 1997 . Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Elena G. Medina Staff Assistant cc: Frank Pankratz Paul Quill Jim Rizzi City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Coachella City of Palm Desert RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET.SUITE J .RIVERSIDE. CA 92507 2 445 PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development DATE: April 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Bermuda Dunes and Sun City Annexation as requested at Budget Session Whether Palm Desert will or should annex Bermuda Dunes and/or Sun City is a determination which may be necessary shortly. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify those concerns which we may wish to address either prior to or during the annexation process . Neither area is within our current sphere of influence. It appears that while a majority of property owners prefer their current non- incorporated status, a vast majority prefer to become part of Palm Desert should a change in their respective status be required. Palm Desert should continue its long term policy of not seeking areas to annex, but entertaining and evaluating those areas which may wish to become part of Palm Desert. A key concern in annexing any area, of course, is the fiscal impact on our city. This could be of particular concern because of the fact that in the case of Bermuda Dunes, the City of La Quinta currently contains the highest single sales tax producer. Further, La Quinta has sought to annex other commercial areas on the east side of Washington. Minimally Palm Desert should support Bermuda Dunes ' request that further annexations of their area by anyone be curtailed until they have decided the future of their community. In order to assist in that determination, as well as our ultimate decision, we may wish to undertake a fiscal impact analysis earlier than we have in previously annexed areas. It is also advised that we explore the possibilities of establishing a redevelopment area for Bermuda Dunes . It is recommended that the firm of Rosenow-Spevoceck conduct these studies . In the case of Sun City there is immediate concern with the proposed auto mall partnership between indio and Riverside County. We should also undertake a fiscal impact of this area. We may wish to somehow get involved in the auto mall issue if we plan to annex Sun City. ON A. DIAZ /tm CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPh MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP.-.. NT MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager and City Council FROM: Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development DATE: April 20, 1992 SUBJECT: Strategy for Annexing North of I-10 At this point it is postulated that Palm Desert has decided to annex north of I-10. The decision now centers on how to accomplish this objective. Initial discussions on this issue limited annexation to the 430 acres covered by the North Star Range and Centerpoint projects north of I-10 in the Cook Street area. The Jack Ivey Ranch has also been discussed. The contact people have been Richard Ranger and Bill Ivey, both of whom have been active in the Cook Interchange District project. One potential critical question or issue which we need to resolve before it arises is the question of Thousand Palms. Based on earlier discussions with Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission it would „ appear that they would require the sphere of influence for the entire north of I-10 area. Whether we choose to address this issue before or after we file is up to us. We can file for sphere designation and annexation simultaneously. However, to do this we would be required to plan and prezone the area, which would be quite time consuming. Further, I believe we have other priorities to accomplish. Because of the above and lack of easy access into the area from the south of i-10 I would recommending proceeding with the sphere designation. I would recommend that we convene the annexation committee, identify the total area we wish placed in our sphere, and apply to LAFCO. Of course, we would reconfirm the interest of the property owners to eventual annexation. Ideally, direction on that Thousand Palms question should also be established at this time. O A. D AZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING /tm r i t am _V I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 May 28, 1991 i i i i Mr. Paul Clark Riverside County Planning Department 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite E j Palm Desert, California 92260 I I! Re: Del Webb, Ltd. 9 Dear Mr. Clark: This letter is to request that the County of Riverside identify the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ( TUMF) as a traffic mitigation measure and the Del Webb project should be so conditioned and paid, even if the area is annexed into a city not having the TUMF. I£ you have any questions, please feel free to call . Very truly yours, RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPAR,iinENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager through the City Attorney FROM: Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development DATE: February 25, 1991 SUBJECT: Del Webb and Palm Springs Raceway Environmental Impact Reports We have received copies of draft environmental impact reports for the Del Webb Sun City Project and the Palm Springs International Raceway. Staff time being limited we need to have a determination if we are going to either oppose these projects or let them through. In both cases we have until the end of March to comment; if we don' t we will not be able to raise CEQA challenges later if we oppose the project. You will recall the great amount of staff time used during the Sunterra review; these projects will probably require even greater staff time involvement if the city chooses to oppose them. RAMON A. DIA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING /tm */'c:nmr: counni inninc mmaimmmi: Agency Notice of Preparation V of An Environmental Impact Report cccyyy ii1e�scld V Zo DATE: August 16, 1990 AUG 2 0 199Q T0: City of Palm Desert COMMUNITYciTY DEVELOPMENT,�ePAfA1 DEPARTMENT 73510 Fred Waring Drive DESERT Palm Desert,CA 92260 PROJECT CASE NO/TITLE: Specific plan no. 281/Del Webb Sun City Palm Springs , zone change no. 5840, Comprehensive General Plan Amendment no. 281. PROJECT SPONSOR: Del Webb California Corp. 42-600 Cook Street, Suite 110, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT LOCATION: North of Highway I-10 and Varner Road; west of Adams Street; east of Washington Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Specific plan of land use on 1573.8 acres, which proposes 5800 residential units , 32.4 acres for commercial uses , 357 .acres for recreational facilities (including two golf courses and community facilities) , 12.7 acres for public "-'facilities.. The project will be an age-restricted (55 and older) residential community. x Pursuant to Riverside County Rules to;'Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, notice is given to responsible and interested agencies, that the Riverside County Planning Departmentf `plans 'to-oversee the preparation on an Environmental Impact Report for the project. The purpose of this notice is to solicit guidance from your agency as; to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. Information in that regard should be submitted to this office as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after receiving this notice. Attached is a copy of the issues to be included in the draft EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Uzma Siddique at (714) 275-3290. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director 5/21/90 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201 (714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277 9� MORONGO I ✓OSHUA NCV, '^ VALLEY SAN SERNARDINO CO. _ RIVERSIDE qo CO. Dp PO 0 I TREE 0 DESERT HOT .y SPRINGS — PAINTED� HILLS NATIONAL a OTH.a AVE. SKY o �` /,MONUMENT -GARNET* ¢ VALLEY /< ON y\ a 10 � 10 Gq THOUSAND qo PALM SPRINGS• �o PALMS 0 RAMON ¢ • ROAD PROJECT -- _w N SITE ¢o O40 t% CATHEDRAL CITY RANCHO MIRAGE* PALM DESERT • 4tTM-� INDIO 0 lil INDIAN'F AVE' WELLS= y y 10 " i •COACHELLA LA QUINT 54TH N AVE.,` w 0 86 s PINE MEADOWS I62 D. AVE. •ARABIA e • p a PINYON PINES 166TH. I AV . r VALERIE •MECCA orn. AVE. w u a a SALTON NOT TO SCALE OASIS S£A 86 R/V£RSIDE CO. ^SAN DIEGO CO. IMPERIAL CO. Ln `\ 126TH. I o _ I AVE. o� Q rt 28TH. 1AVE. /I r Q= �30TH. AVE. I PA THOU RAMON RD. /ND/O H/LLS L32ND. °qQ ' AVE. PALMS 'r r STATE PARK � `sq2 —iPROJECT SITE ., , (PROPOSED) 10 y Lq� 36TH. AVE. �< tiFp i L�, , <s - a - FRANK SIN RA DR.BFp� 36TH. j AVE. ' _i��- H , COUNTRY CLUB DRD/N0 40TH.I AVE. ' ' y Li a 42ND. AVE. N 42ND. AVE. !• ~ Y BERMUDA FR�y _ z 0 DUNES Y to f 44TH. AVE( IND10 47TH. AVE z III I 0 INDIAN • o AVE• WELLS oz z 47TH.2 z O o w z N 48TH. ` wo AVE.zz -��-w m Z O NOT TO SCALE K fl 2 0' $ F— a Z o 0 V a 8 y Z a p Z a > 1/2�ww 'k,v U VI c-iP firm@� ;I 11 „ II II I �I •� II II �� tp PI if p R�' I'll ) II II II � � •�� it .• IIz II� ' U 95 1� • N5 I I Ip z it I If _ J r , I II L p � Ile jI Iyo .\• ( ' Project Summary Del Webb's Sun City Palm Springs is located on 1573.8 acres in Riverside County, between Palm Springs and Indio, immediately north of Interstate 10 and west of Washington Street, as shown on the Regional Vicinity Map. Currently the site is vacant, except for some limited agricultural use. When fully developed, Sun City's primary use will be as an age-restricted ( 55 and older) residential community consisting of approximately 5800 owner-occupied homes in a mix of single family and multi-family dwelling units on approximately 1065 acres. The project will be built in two phases, and each phase will be centered around extensive recreational facilities, including golf courses and community facilities. Limited facilities for overnight accommodations will be provided within the recreation areas. These recreational uses will occupy approximately 367 acres. Other uses will include 33 acres of commercial uses, including general neighborhood retail and professional services, to be located near the freeway, and 13 acres designated for public facilities. ,r: Sun City Palm Springs — Land Use Summary Planned Gross Planned Density Land Use Acreage #of d.u. (d.u./ac) Residential— Med. High 1043.2 5,700 5.46 Model Homes (Residential—Low) 22.4 28 1.25 Vacation Villas (Residential—High) 10.0 100 10.00 Recreation Area & Parking 26.2 Golf Course 330.8 Total Recreation 367.0 100 0.27 Commercial 32.4 Public Facilities 12.7 Major Streets 55.7 Local Streets & Open Space 40.4 Total Streets 96.1 Total Site 1573.8 5,828 3.70 t J V I � II it r 1 I,I � I I I I I III n rl i � II II Phase 11 ( r` 'Z (( /r Models I I a l 19 l� it .../• i i���\_� .... I'I cn II II I al I 11 j i,l 11 I I q ICI I•I 11,-.. l bl Models d, / so. � � � ��'� Ares�..>, •/ I�---- II Ii u it ( I I B Phase 1 ' ' II // II ee �a� SPECIFIC PLAN NO.281 ATTACHMENT A Issues to Be Addressed in Draft EIR The Draft EIR shall address all topics required by Article 9 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the concerns listed below shall be thoroughly addressed in the report. Any additional concerns raised in the responses to the notice of preparation shall also be addressed. Landform and T000eraohy Briefly describe the existing characteristics of these elements as they pertain to the project site. Indicate any proposed modifications to current conditions based on anticipated grading or other activities required for site improvement or development. Soils and Agriculture Determine the amount of acreage currently in agricultural production. Discuss the viability of agriculture on-site and in the vicinity of the project site. Analyze the impact on agriculture of development of the parcel. .0 Biolog Flora and fauna should be inventoried in the field by qualified professionals. Rare and endangered species, if any, will be locationally identified with their range and habitat mapped. Possible impacts on the adjacent Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Preserve will be analyzed. Geology and Seismicity Describe existing conditions,including known fault zones,slopes,and wind erosion. Describe how these conditions may constrain or modify development of the project. Seismic potential should be delineated in terms of magnitude, intensity,ground acceleration,duration, frequency, and recurrence. Address liquefaction potential, provide a geologic mapping of the site,and discuss any potential for paleontological resources. Discuss potential mitigation measures with respect to wind erosion. Hydrology. Flooding, and Drainage Address impacts the proposed development will have on the project site with respect to regional hydrologic concerns. Impacts on groundwater resources in terms of overdraft and/or pollution should be addressed,as well as potential impacts to downstream properties and possible Flood control improvements. Climate and Air Quality Quantitatively estimate and evaluate air quality impacts, both immediate and cumulative. The air quality section should be in accordance with the "Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Environmental Impact Reports - Revised April 1, 1987," which was prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, CalTrans modeling (CALIN 4 methodology) will be utilized. Scenic Highways Discuss any existing or eligible County or State scenic highways that may be in the vicinity of the project site, including Interstate 10. Discuss possible mitigation measures for potential impacts resulting from development of the project with respect to viewsheds. Archaeological Resources Address impacts the proposed development will have on the project site with respect to archaeological resources during field and literature searches. Discuss appropriate mitigation measures. Water Quality and Water Conservation 4 Evaluate potential impacts on local water quality which may result from development of the project. Address availability for all uses, irrigation for open space areas (including golf courses),and water rights. Potential water-conserving measures should also be discussed. Energy Resources and Conservation Assess the energy resource potential and viability of the site potential impacts. Identify energy conservation techniques in building design. Circulation and Traffic Prepare a traffic analysis by a qualified professional. Address available circulation to the site and identify potential impacts,and possible extension and upgrading of existing roads with respect to major access corridors, including Interstate 10, Washington Street,and Varner Road. Public Facilities and Services Identify existing infrastructure and potential impacts to existing public services. The discussion should include the possible extension and upgrading of public facilities to service the project site. The following topics should be addressed by subject: airports; libraries; water facilities; sewer facilities; flood control facilities; solid waste; fire, police, and emergency services; local utilities, easements; schools; cost analysis, relating to extension and/or construction of facilities necessary to serve the project;health services; and parks and recreation. Land Use Compatibility Address the issue of compatibility of proposed land uses with established surrounding land uses. Noise Discuss the potential impacts that noise from Interstate 10, the adjacent railroads, and the nearby Bermuda Dunes Airport may have upon future residents. Fiscal Impact Analysis Assess the potential fiscal impacts to Riverside County and other municipalities in the Coachella Valley, relative to both major revenues and costs associated with the proposed development of the project site. Sphere of Influence The southernmost portion of the site is with City of Indio's sphere of Influence; the remainder is in not in any city's sphere of influence. Issues surrounding the sphere of influence sliould be addressed. y Growth Inducement Address the growth-inducing aspects of the project, including the potentially beneficial and/or adverse impacts. Discuss possible mitigation measures. Cumulative Impacts Address the cumulative effects that the approved development project will have on a regional basis. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Any potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts will be discussed. Mitigation Monitoring Plan The Draft EIR should include a tentative Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP), or should otherwise discuss proposed compliance with AB 1380, which requires that an MMP be prepared for all development projects for which an EIR is prepared. I :iWooc county Anninc Dcpwii:ncn: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: 35244 MODULE NUMBER(s): 40601 PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): Specific Plan No. 281, CZ No. 5840, and CGPA No. 281 APPLICANT'S NAME: Del Webb California Corp. NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.: Uzma Siddique 1. PROJECT INFORMATION A. DESCRIPTION (Include proposed minimum lot size and uses as applicable): A master planned, age restricted (55 and older) , community with recreational , residential , resort and supporting community land uses . Two 13-hole golf courses are al.so included in the design. B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES 1 ,573.8 ac ; or SQUARE FEET C. ASSESSOR'S ,PARCEL NO.(s): (SEE ATTACHMENT B) D. EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S, R-T, W-2-10, W-2 IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? No E. PROPOSED ZONING: S.P. IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? Yes F. STREET REFERENCES: North of Highway I-10 and Varner Road; west of Adams Street; east of Washington Street. G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 6, T5S R7E: Sections 30 and 31, T4s R7E: San Bernardino Base and fieridian H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS: This site is undeveloped desert land with 400 acres of table-grapes , 80 acres of date palms and some scattered residences. This site is bounded on the south by highway I-10 and is surrounded by land similar to that on the project site. To the east ofthe project site, across Washington Street, is the Nature Conservancy's reserve for the Fringe-toed Lizard. If. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly. ❑ All or part of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI. ® All or part of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV (A, B and D only),V and VI. ® All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B. and E only), V and VI. 29540(New 12/87) " 111. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT A. Indicate the nature of the proposed land use as determined from the descriptions as found in Comprehensive General Plan Figure VI.3(Circle One). This information is necessary to determine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section 111.8. NA - Not Applicable Critical Essential Normal-High Risk Normal•Low Risk B. Indicate with a yes(Y)or no(N)whether any environmental hazard and/or resource Issues may significantly affect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any Issue marked yes(Y)write additional data sources,agencies consulted,findings of fact and any mitigation measures under Section V. Also,where Indicated, circle the appropriate land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page). HAZARDS 1. N Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault 12.A Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11 Hazard Zones(Fig.VI.1) & VI.12& 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.) PS U R (Fig. VI.3) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11) 2. (') Liquefaction Potential Zone(Fig.VIA) 13. Y Railroad Noise(Fig.VI.13- V1.16) NA S PS U R (Fig. VIA) NA A B C D (Fig. VI.11) 3.Y Groundshaking Zone(Fig VI.1) IV & V 14.Y Highway Noise(Fig.VIA 7-V1.29) NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11) 4. N Slopes (Riv. Co.800 Scale Slope Maps) 15. I' Other Noise 5. N Landslide Risk Zone(Riv.Co.800 Scale NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11) Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16.Y Project Generated Noise Affecting NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6) Noise Sensitive Uses(Fig.VI.11) 6. N Rockfall Hazard(On-site Inspection) 17. _L_ Noise Sensitive Project(Fig.V1.11) 7.N Expansive Soils(U.S.DA. Soil 18.Y Air Quality Impacts From Project Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. Y Project Sensitive to Air Quality 6.Y Erosion (U.S.D.A.Soil Conservation 20.Y Water Quality Impacts From Project Service Soil Surveys) 21.Y Project Sensitive to Water Quality 9, Y Wind Ersosion &Blowsand (Fig.VI.1, 22. _N_ Hazardous Materials and Wastes Ord.460,Sec. 14.2&Ord. 484) 23.N Hazardous Fire Area(Fig.V1.30. V1.31) 10.N Dam Inundation Area(Fig.V1.7) 24. _ Other 11.E Floodplains(Fig.VI.7) 25._ Other NA U R (Fig. VI.8) RESOURCES 26 Y Agriculture(Fig.VI.34-VI.35) 32.Y Scenic Highways(Fig.VI.45) 27.__)L In or Near an Agricultural Preserve 33. Y Historic Resources (Fig.VI.32 -VI.33) (Riv. Co.Agricultural Land Conversation 34.--)L Archaeological Resources CVP.G's Arch. c reas Contract Maps) (Fig.VI.32 .VI.33&VI.46 - VI.48) (Hi qh Prot . 28. Y' Wildlife(Fig. VI.36 •VI.37) 35.Y Paleontological Resources 29. Y Vegetation(Fig.VI.38 • VI.40) (Paleontological Resources Map) 30.N Mineral Resources(Fig.VIAL -VI.42) 36- Other 31 N._ Energy Resources(Fig.VI.43 -VI.44). 37- Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C . Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 395-70(New 12/971 IV. LAND USE DETERMINATIO ontinued) D. If all or part of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", and is not in a Community Plan, complete questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 if it is In a Community Plan. 1. Land use calegory(les) necessary to support the proposed project. Also indicate land use type (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) �; A 2. Current land use category(ies) for the site based on existing conditions. Also indicate land use type (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) N/A 3. It D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the development stage? Explain: N/A 4. Community Plan designation(s): Agriculture, desert areas , water resources , 28 (2-5 (2-5 du/ar) and 2A-HF (multifamily with 8-14 du/ac) 5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan? If not, explain: Inconsistent with the policies . Need to address the issues in the Environmental Impact Report. 6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses? If not. explain: The proposal will impact the reserve for the Coachella Valley Fringe- toed Lizard and is incompatible with the existing scattered residential development in the area. 7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those Issues Identifying Inconsistencies: No Inconsistencies will be resovled by amendment to the General Plan and the issues have to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. i E. If all or part of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following: 1. State the designation(s): Agriculture, desert areas , water resources/flooding. 2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain: No the density Proposed cannot be consistent with the 10 acre minimum recommended by the designations. 3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those Issues Identifying inconsistencies: The proposal is inconsistent all the issues need to be addressed in the Specific Plan document and the Environmental Impact Report. 205-70(No.12/87) IV. LAND USE DETERMINATIO.. A. Complete this part unless the project Is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP"or"Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas." 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): Areas not designated as Open Space: Water resources/flooding: Agriculture: Desert Area 2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: Lower Coachella Valley (LUPA) 3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: None 4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY: Coachella Valley Cnmmunitv.Polirips'Area 5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IF ANY: Western Coachella Valley Plan (WCVP) 6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: Agric.0tilrp, dpcprt arpas , water rpspirrP, , 2B (2-5 du/ac) and 2A-MF (multifamily with 8-14 du/ac) 7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL The IlCVP Community policies should be evaluated with respect to the propnqpd nrnjPct,�,npr-T ifirall.y„ the land lisp designations need to be addressed. Also, the policies discouraging discontinguous growth and incompatible development in Western Coachella Valley affprt the nropos P Other policies within the community Plan arp also applicable to the pr0�95a1 . B. For all projects,inidcate with ayes(Y)or no(N)whether any public facilities and/or services issues may significantly affect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y),write data sources,agencies consulted, findings of fact,and mitigation measures under Section V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1. Y Circulation(Fig. IV.1-IV.11.Discuss in t o. Y Equestrian Trails(Fig.IV.19- IV.24/ Sec.V Existing, Planned 8 Required Roads) AM Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) 2.Y Bike Trails(Fig. IV.12-IV.13) 11. Y Utilities(Fig. IV.25 - IV.26) 3. Y Water(Agency Letters) 12 Y Libraries(Fig. IV.17 - IV.18) 4.Y Sewer(Agency Letters) 13.E Health Services(Fig. IV.17 - IV.18) 5. Y Fire Services(Fig. IV.16- IV.18) 14-_N Airports(Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4, 6 Y Sheriff Services(Fig IV.17- IV.18) I1.18.8- 11.18.10 8 IV.27 -IV.36) 7. N Schools(Fig.IV.17- IV.18) 15.Y Disaster Preparedness B Y Solid Waste(Fig.IVA 7 - IVA8) 16 Y City Sphere of Influence (Indio) 9. Y Parks and Recreation(Fig. IV.19-IV.20) 17— Other C. If all or part of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas", review In detail the specific policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following: 1. State the relevant land use designation(s): WA 2. Based on this initial study,is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document, and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not,explain: N/A 295-70(New 12/97) V. INFORMATION SOURCES ADINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION —,EASURES A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEQUACY SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DETERMINATION ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE) B. For each issue marked yes(Y) under Sections III.B and IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the following, in the format as shown below: 1. List all additional relevant data sources, Including agencies consulted. 2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns. 3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report(E.I.R.) 4. If additional Information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to Subsection A. 5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach the necessary sheets. SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: (SEE ATTACHMENT C) 295-70(Now 12/87) 5 V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES,AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: (SEE ATTACHfiEIJT C) IZ See attached pages. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: ❑ The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) ❑ The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) ® The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report is required. Name: _ Date: Prepared by ATTACHMENT B PROPERTY ASSEMBLAGE PS® S A.P.N. 605-002-001 605-008-005 605-003-003 653-046-014 605-003-004 747-023-002 605-003-005 747-023-005 605-004-003 747-023-008 605-004-004 747-023-009 605-004-005 747-023-010 605-004-006 747-023-012 605-005-005 747-025-001 605-005-006 747-025-008 605-005-007 747-025-009 DEL WE3B'S SUN CITY PAU4 SPRINGS 605-005-010 747-026.004 605-005-011 747-026-006 605-005-012 747-026-012 605-005-013 747-026-018 Owner /Applicant: 605-006-009 747-026-020 DEL WEBB CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 605-006-010 747-026-023 605-006-01 4 747-027-001 Attn. ( George Donaldson ) 605-006-024 747-027-007 42- Cook Street, Suite I10• I-."— De!^ Desert, Co. 92260� 605-006-033 747-027-008 605-006-034 747-027-009 el. ( 619 ) 341 - 6300• 605-006-035 747-027-010 605-006-036 747-034-001 Representative/Preparer: 605-006-037 747-034-002 PSOM AS & ASSOCIATES. 605-006-038 747-034-003 Attn. ( Larry Jones) 605-006-039 747-035-002 390I Lime Street. 605-006-040 747-035-003 Riverside, Co. 92501. 605-006-041 747-035-004 Tel. ( 714 ) 787-8421. 605-006-042 747-035-005 605-007-005 747-035-006 605-07-010 747-035-008 605-008-003 747-035-009 605-008-004 747-035-010 747-035-011 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 281 ATTACHMENT C Section/ Sources,Agencies Consulted,Findings of Fact, Issue No. Mitigation Measures III B 3 Comprehensive General Plan.: The project site is within the ground- shaking zone V. Development may increase exposure of people and property to seismic hazards. The Banning Fault lies approximately one mile north of the project site. III B 8 &9 Comprehensive General Plan and Soil Conservation Service: The project site is within the blowsand area and is subject to erosion. The site may be subject to sand accumulation. Abrasion damage can occur. A wind erosion control plan should be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits. Grading during the high wind months(March to June) should be limited to small areas. III B 11 The project may be in a floodplain. Mitigation measures should be addressed in the EIR. III B 13, 14, & 17 The southernmost portion of the project site is within the critical noise area of the railroad and highway. The residential portion of the site is noise sensitive. The impact of noise on the residential areas should be addressed and mitigation measures recommended if necessary. III B 18 & 19 Combustion emissions from mobile sources may significantly affect the Coachella Valley and other surrounding areas. Local and regional air quality will be affected. The residential portion of the site is air quality sensitive. III B 20 & 21 The project may have an impact on water quality. Residential portions of the project are sensitive to water quality.The impact on water quality should be addressed, and mitigation measures identified if necessary in the EIR. III B 26& 27 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will remove 400 ac.of table grapes from production.This land may be considered primary,unique,and important state agricultural land. The project may be in or near an agricultural preserve. III B 28, &29 Construction on the project site will eliminate existing and potential wildlife habitats. Flora, fauna, and animal life should be inventoried, with particular attention to the Fringe-Toed Lizard, Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard, Round-Tailed Ground Squirrel, and the Desert Tortoise. III B 32 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will impact views from Interstate 10, and Dillon Road, both eligible County scenic highways. III B 33,34 &35 The project may contain historic,archaeological or paleontological resources (CVAG's Archeological Areas: high probability). The presence of such resources within the project site and mitigation measures,if any, should be addressed in the EIR. IV B 1 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for water supply from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). IV B 2 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will impact the existing bike lane on Washington Street. The project may add bicycles to the County bikeway network. IV B 4 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for sewer capacity from CVWD. IV B 5 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for fire protective and preventive services. IV B 6 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for police protective services. IV B 8 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for solid waste collection and disposal services. IV B 11 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for electrical and gas services. IV B 12 Comprehensive General Plan: The project is expected to increase the demand for library services. IV B 13 Comprehensive General Plan: The project is expected to increase the demand for health services. IV B 3-13 Potential impacts on public facilities and services identified above will have mitigation measures proposed in the EIR for the project. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 April 10, 1989 Mr. Richard J. Ranger Chase School Road Associates 4255 Campus Drive, Suite 290 Irvine, CA 92715 Dear Mr. Ranger: Thank you for your letter of April 5th in which you stated the Chase School Road Associates is in favor of annexing into the City. We are pleased, and I too believe it would be beneficial to both the Center Pointe Project and the City. Thank you also for sending the book on the Project. Ray Diaz and I will be reviewing it and I have asked Ray to set a meeting of the Annexation Committee as soon as possible. We will get in touch with you relative to the next steps in the annexation process. Sincerely, n/ Bruce A. Altman City Manager BA/rh APR 0 I989 COAIMUNIry DEVELOPMENT U�ry 1qF PALM DESERT ARLMENI NORTH STAR ENTERPRISES 4255 Campus Drive, Suite 290 Irvine, California 92715 (714) 856-1858 April 5, 1989 Bruce A. Altman, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: North Star Ranch Project Proposed Annexation Dear Mr. Altman: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on the meetings with you, Ray Diaz and Lionel Steinberg related to the proposed Cook Street/I-10 interchange. You suggested that the City may well be interested in annexing the North Star Ranch project and asked that we consider that possibility. North Star Enterprises believes that the annexation of the North Star Ranch project to the City would be beneficial to the City and the project. Further, an annexation could help expedite the construction of the Cook Street/I-10 interchange. As you know, the North Star Ranch project has been approved by the County of Riverside as Specific Plan No. 151-1. Enclosed for your review is a book containing the following: 1) Board of Supervisors' Resolution No. 88-507 adopting Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 151, and adopting the Negative Declaration. 2) Conditions of Approval. 3) Ordinance No. 348 . 2933 related to the zoning of the project. 4) Specific Plan No. 151-1. 5) Environmental Impact Assessment and Focused Report. 6) Ordinance No. 664 . 20 approving Development Agreement No. 16 and Development Agreement No. 16. t Bruce A. Altman, City Manager City of Palm Desert Re: North Star Ranch Proposed Annexation April 5, 1989 Page two Section 7 . 3 of the Development Agreement requires that we oppose any annexation without the County's consent. We have spoken with Supervisor Larson and she advised us that she did not think the County would oppose an annexation. However, she did caution us that the County is not at all likely to cancel the Development Agreement. We would assume that the fees provided in Section 4 of the Development Agreement would continue to be collected by the County, subject to the City' s right to share in the fees as provided in Sections 4 . 2 and 4 . 3 of the Development Agreement. The fees and the City's share are set forth below: Total City Share Upon Fee Annexation Public Facilities Fee $ 1,891 $ 1, 790. 78 (94 . 7%) Regional Parkland Fee 350 -0- Habitat Conservation and Open Space Land Bank Fee 260 -0- Public Services Offset Fee 1, 776 592 . 00 (33 . 3%) Totals: $ 4, 277 $ 2, 382 . 78 Please note that the Development Agreement does not impose any fees upon commercial development, nor does it exempt the project from those fees. Thus, it seems that the fee structure that exists from time to time would apply to commercial projects. We believe that the annexation of the North Star Ranch would have benefits to both parties and we look forward to meeting with you to work out the terms of the annexation. Very truly yours, NORTH STAR ENTERPRISES, a California General Partnership By Richard J. Ranger, Partner RJR/smg Enclosure cc: ✓fray Diaz, Planning Director (w/o encl) William H. Ivey, Partner (w/o encl) R CHASE SCHOOL ROAD ASSOCIATES 4255 Campus Drive, Suite 290 Irvine, California 92715 (714) 856-1858 April 5, 1989 Bruce A. Altman, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Center Pointe Project Proposed Annexation Dear Mr. Altman: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on the meetings with you, Ray Diaz and Lionel Steinberg related to the proposed Cook Street/I-10 interchange. You suggested that the City may well be interested in annexing the Center Pointe project and asked that we consider that possibility. Chase School Road Associates believes that the annexation of the Center Pointe project to the City would be beneficial to the City and the project. Further, an annexation could help expedite the construction of the Cook Street/I-10 interchange. As you know, the Center Pointe project has been approved by the County of Riverside as Specific Plan No. 225. Enclosed for your review is a book containing the following: 1) -Board of Supervisors ' Resolution No. 88-506 adopting Specific Plan No. 225, and certifying the Environmental Impact Report. 2) Conditions of Approval . 3) Ordinance No. 348 .2931 related to the zoning of the project. 4) Specific Plan No. 225. 5) Environmental Impact Assessment and Report. 6) Ordinance No. 664 . 25 approving Development Agreement No. 18 and Development Agreement No. 18 . Bruce A. Altman, City Manager City of Palm Desert Re: Center Pointe Project Proposed Annexation April 5, 1989 Page two Agreement re Section 7 . 3 of the Developmentg quires that we oppose any annexation without the County' s consent. We have spoken with Supervisor Larson and she advised us that she did not think the County would oppose an annexation. However, she did caution us that the County is not at all likely to cancel the Development Agreement. We would assume that the fees provided in Section 4 of the Development Agreement would continue to be collected by the County, subject to the City' s right to share in the fees as provided in Sections 4 . 2 and 4 . 3 of the Development Agreement. The fees and the City' s share are set forth below: Total City Share Upon Fee Annexation Public Facilities Fee $ 1, 891 $ 1, 790.78 (94 . 7%) Regional Parkland Fee 350 -0- Habitat Conservation and Open Space Land Bank Fee 260 -0- Public Services Offset Fee 1, 776 592 . 00 (33 . 3%) Totals: $ 4, 277 $ 2 , 382 .78 Please note that the Development Agreement does not impose any fees upon commercial development, nor does it exempt the project from those fees. Thus, it seems that the fee structure that exists from time to time would apply to commercial projects. I would also like to mention that Chase School Road Associates has recently entered into an agreement with Champagne Partners I to develop the 132-acre residential portion of Center Pointe with an additional nine-hole golf course, and approximately 330 lots rather than the 502 lots shown in Specific Plan No. 225. This part of the Center Pointe project would be added to the existing Ivey Ranch Country Club and would provide that project with a full eighteen-hole golf course. The Ivey Ranch Country Club is doing very well now under its new ownership. Bruce A. Altman, City Manager City of Palm Desert Re: Center Pointe Project Proposed Annexation April 5, 1989 Page three The transaction with Champagne Partners I is subject to the County's approval of an appropriate amendment to the Specific Plan. The revised plan would reduce the overall density from 4 . 0 to about 2 . 5 dwelling units per acre, and would no doubt improve the revenue/expense ratio from the City' s or County's standpoint. We believe that the annexation of the Center Pointe project would have benefits to both parties and we look forward to meeting with you to work out the terms of the annexation. Also, I understand that the owners of the Ivey Ranch Country Club would like to consider annexation. Very truly yours, CHASE SCHOOL ROAD ASSOCIATES, a California General Partnership By Richard J. Ranger, Partner RJR/smg Enclosure cc: ✓Ray Diaz, Planning Director (w/o encl) William H. Ivey, Partner (w/o encl) i zr�r BMW oq paUCrutl o 0 0 V 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 April 10, 1989 Mr. Richard J. Ranger North Star Enterprises �/,/ ✓ - 4255 Campus Drive, Suite 290 Irvine, CA 92715 Dear Mr. Ranger: Thank you for your letter of April 5.th in which you stated the North Star Enterprise is in favor of annexing into the City. We are pleased, and I too believe it would be beneficial to both the North Star Ranch Project and the City. Thank you also for sending the book on the Project. Ray Diaz and I will be reviewing it and I have asked Ray to set a meeting of the Annexation Committee as soon as possible. We will get in touch with you relative to the next steps in the annexation process. Sincerely, fix, /C itllOf�Gz� v Bruce A. Altman !/ City Manager BA/rh G� ��yy tVCJL1�' r�l...r APR 1 1989 COMMUNITY D VUUPMEDjl DEPAr "•' CiTy .pf