Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATIONS NORTH OF I-10 FILE 2 2009 PUBLIC NOTICE MEETING OF THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:30 a.m. Board of Supervisors Meeting Room County Administrative Center, I" Floor 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California A G E N D A 1.1 CALL TO ORDER AND SALUTE TO THE FLAG. - 1.2 ROLL CALL. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2009. 3. CONSENT (NON-HEARING ITEMS) There are no consent items. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONTINUED: a. LAFCO 2007-73-3-Sphere of Influence Amendments to the City of Canyon \ Lake (removal) and County Service Area 145 (addition) and Reorganization to Include Detachment from the City of Canyon Lake and Concurrent Annexation to County Service Area 145. (Continued from April 23, 2009) NEW: b. LAFCO 2008-09-4-Sphere of Influence Amendments (additions) to the City of Cathedral City (Thousand Palms) and the Cathedral City Community Services District (subsidiary) . (Staff recommends continuance to December 3, 2009) C. LAFCO 2008-18-2-Reorganization to Include Incorporation of Eastvale, Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District and Detachment from the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District. MAP 1; MAP 2 d. LAFCO 2009-01-3-Reorganization to Include Annexation 78 (Country Lake/San Jacinto Ave. ) to the City of San Jacinto and Detachments from the City of San Jacinto and the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. (The City requests continuance to December 3, 2009) LAFCO AGENDA PAGE 2 OCTOBER 22, 2009 e. LAFCO 2009-08-5-Reorganization to Include Annexation 37 to the City of Desert Hot Springs, Concurrent Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District and Detachments from County Service Areas 13 and 15. f. LAFCO 2009-09-5-Reorganization to Include Annexation 36 to the City of Desert Hot Springs and Concurrent Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. MAP g. LAFCO 2009-10-1-Municipal Service Review - City of Wildomar. MSR h. LAFCO 2009-11-1-Establish a Sphere of Influence for the City of Wildomar. MAP i. LAFCO 2009-16-4-Municipal Service Review - City of Palm Desert. MSR j . LAFCO 2009-17-4-Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT; MAP 1; MAP 2 k. LAFCO 2009-24-2-Annexation to Lee Lake Water District (Laliberte) . S. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 6. RECEIVE AND FILE: a. Information Items: Proposals Received (Government Code Section 56857, 56751) : i. LAFCO 2009-33-5-Sphere of Influence Amendments to the City of Moreno Valley and the Moreno Valley Community Services District (subsidiary) (Additions) and Sphere of Influence Amendment from the City of Riverside (Removal) and Reorganization to Include Detachment from the City of Riverside and Concurrent Annexations to the City of Moreno Valley and the Moreno Valley Community Services District (subsidiary) (SR 60/Day Street) . b. LAFCO Monthly Expenditure Review. 7. EASTVALE INCORPORATION COMMITTEE - REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF FEES. 8. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FISCAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIREMENT-ANNEXATION (STAR RANCH) TO THE CITY OF CORONA. 9. LOCAL AGENCY SHARE STATUS REPORT. (ORAL UPDATE) 10. MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORTS. 11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 12. ADJOURNMENT. LAFCO AGENDA PAGE 3 OCTOBER 22, 2009 NOTICES: Anyone present at the hearing who is involved with any annexation to be considered and who has made a contribution of more than$250 in the past twelve (12)months to any member of the Commission will be asked to state for the record the Commission member to whom the contribution was made and the matter of consideration with which they are involved. Non-exempt materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public Inspection at the LAFCO Office, 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110, Riverside, CA 92507 during normal business hours. The Clerk of the Board will no longer permit anyone to plug their own laptops or other external devices into the chamber's audio/video system. This prohibition Includes laptops memory sticks and any other type of external drive. Therefore, any media presentation to be played through the chambers audio/video system must be submitted to LAFCO on a DVD, CD or in another usable format no later than noon on Tuesday, the week of the LAFCO Hearing. If special accommodations are needed to participate in this meeting, please contact Elena G. Medina, Executive Assistant 11, at (951) 369-0631 during regular business hours (M-F 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.). Our website may be reached at:www.lafco.org A:, Octaber22,2009 RIVERSIDE Local Agency Fonnation Commission sav C&=viCw Prepared byAdnana Romo Local AgencyFormation Conunission 3850 Vine Street•Suite 110 Riverside,CA 92507 Phone 951369.0631•Fax 951369.8479 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Overview .......................................................................................................1-1 II. Service Review Process ...............................................................................1-2 III. Agency Review .............................................................................................1-2 A. Governing Body...................................................................................1-3 B. Budget Information..............................................................................1-3 C. Population & Growth...........................................................................1-3 IV. Services........................................................................................................1-5 A. Police Protection Services..................................................................1-5 B. Fire Protection Services......................................................................1-6 C. Park and Recreation Services ............................................................1-7 D. Solid Waste.........................................................................................1-8 E. Road Maintenance..............................................................................1-9 F. Library Services...................................................................................1-9 G. Animal Services..................................................................................1-9 V. Sphere of Influence .......................................................................................1-9 VI. MSR Determinations ..................................................................................1-10 I Palm Desert Municipal Service Review I. Overview LAFCOs are mandated by the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH) to encourage orderly development within their county of jurisdiction. The Act governs the boundaries of special districts and cities, consistent with each agency's principal act. To implement boundary changes, CKH directs LAFCOs to make reorganization decisions based on several factors, including the need for and efficiency of public services. To promote greater efficiency in services for future planning purposes, the CKH mandates LAFCOs to conduct Sphere of Influence (SOI) reviews once every five years or as necessary. SOls are used as a planning tool for agencies to conduct service and facility planning for areas it intends to serve in the future. A SOI is defined as "a plan for probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission." Consistent with Commission SOI policies, a SOI can a) be coterminous to agency boundaries as the ultimate foreseen configuration of the agency in anticipation of no future growth, b) be extended beyond the agency boundaries in anticipation of future growth, c)be smaller, indicating the need to detach areas from the agency boundaries, or d)be designated a"zero sphere",which indicates a potential dissolution of the agency. In order to amend the sphere of influence boundaries, formal approval from the LAFCO Commission is required. Prior to or in conjunction with SOI reviews a Municipal Service Review(MSR)must be prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 56430(c). MSRs are conducted to assist in the SOI review process by providing information regarding the ability of agencies'to provide public services. This Municipal Service Review will review the services provided by the City of Palm Desert. Pursuant to 56430 (a), the MSR will make the following determinations: (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure or operational efficiencies. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by the Commission. Provided below is a summary of what each determination will assess. (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. This will evaluate the method of projection and its relationship to services and facility planning. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Will assess standard/objective levels of municipal services in relation to the current level of services as well as future plans to attain those objectives and/or maintain existing levels of services. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. Identifies whether the City has any general bonded indebtedness, its purpose, tax rate and when the debt will be retired. In addition, general taxes, special taxes, and assessments will be identified in relation to the services funded by those monies. In extreme cases, agencies not financially capable of providing the basic services will be identified. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-1 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. To promote greater efficiency in public services, the MSR explores opportunities for different agencies to share facilities and/or resources. By sharing facilities or other resources, agencies can eliminate the duplication of studies, planning efforts, staff or equipment, and potentially lower the cost for providing services. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. Identifies efforts made by the agency to increase public participation and accountability. Also, discusses whether audits are performed and how they are made available to the public- (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. This will allow this LAFCO to identify areas outside an agency's boundaries currently receiving or requesting services from the agency. Also, identifies inhabited areas within or outside the current sphere of influence that the City anticipates annexing within the next five years or that could benefit from services provided by the agency. Issues unique to a particular agency or geographic area will be explored. II. Service Review Process In preparation of the MSR, public agency input is very kmportant. To begin the MSR process the affected agencies were sent a questionnaire regarding services provided. Through a combination of responses from the questionnaires, follow-up conversations with the agencies, and research, the MSR was prepared. Agencies are encouraged to review and comment on the PubliclAgency Review Draft prior to the circulation of the Final Draft that will be presented before the LAFCO Commission, October 22, 2009. This is an opportunity to address any concerns of the affected agencies regarding the data presented. At the public hearing the Commission will review the final draft of the MSR. After the hearing, the draft determinations will be modified as necessary to be adopted by the Commission. III. Agency Review The City of Palm Desert incorporated on November 26, 1973 as the 18th city in Riverside County. It is located in the Western Coachella Valley and is bounded by the City of Rancho Mirage to the west and the City of Indian Wells to the south and east as well as the unincorporated area of Bermuda Dunes to the east. The western city limits generally follow Monterey Ave. and to the north the city limits end at Interstate-10, south of the railroad tracks and south of the unincorporated area of Thousand Palms. The city is predominantly flat at an elevation of 220 feet above sea level, surrounded by the Cahuilla Hills and Dead Indian Creek/Black Hills to the south. The city boundaries encompass approximately 27 square miles. The City's existing sphere of influence currently extends beyond the city boundaries to include approximately 38 square miles, which does not include ary area within the city limits. City Hall is located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, half a mile east of Monterey Ave., the City's most western boundary. The municipal services provided by the City include police,fire, park and recreation, solid waste collection and disposal, road maintenance, and library services. Water, wastewater, and flood control services are provided by the Coachella Valley Water District. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1.2 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review A. Governing Body The City of Palm Desert incorporated in 1973 as a General Law City. In 1997 as a result of a special election, the voters of Palm Desert elected for the City to become a Charter City. Unlike a general law city, a charter city is governed by its own charter document and is not limited by State statute. The current city government consists of a five member council elected at large. The terms of council members are four years and there are no term limits. Regular City Council Meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber. B. Budget Information This fiscal year is a difficult one for many local agencies due to the current economic situation. This fiscal year, the City's general fund budget was decreased by approximately 9.3%, indicative of revenue declines. Three of the City's primary revenue sources, which include sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and property tax, have been impacted by the economic slowdown. The City's annual budget projects a sales tax revenue decline of 14 percent and a property tax revenue decline of one percent. The County of Riverside FY 2008-09 Third-Quarter Budget Report projects a countywide estimated property tax revenue decline of ten percent for FY 2009-2010. The City does not have any general bonded indebtedness and maintains a balanced budget. However, in order to avoid service level reductions, the City's budget represents a personnel cost savings of $1.8 million. The City accomplished these savings by implementing a hiring freeze and not filling four vacant positions. In addition, the City offered an Early Retirement Program that provided eligible employees the opportunity to retire with an additional credit for two years of service, which resulted in eleven retirements. Lastly, four positions were eliminated as a result of the decline in development activity, which resulted in three early retirements and one layoff. Overall, general fund positions were decreased by 19 from FY 2008-09 to FY 2009-10. Table III.B.1. City of Palm Desert General Fund General Fund FY 2008-09 FY 200940 Pct Chan a from rior ear Revenues $62,424,500 $56,613.107 -9.31% Expenditures $62,423,706 $56,588,653 9.35% 'General fund amounts include fire taxes and transfers,and the fire reserve. C. Population &Growth Population As of January 1, 2009, the Department of Finance reports an estimated population of 51,509 for the City of Palm Desert, which is an increase of approximately 1.6 % from the previous year. For planning purposes, the city utilizes both the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research and the Department of Finance population estimates. The population projections for Palm Desert in the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report indicate an average annual population increase of 1.4 % from 2010 to 2035. Provided are the population projections as listed in the 2008 County Progress Report, which corresponds with the Adopted 2008 Southern California Association of Governments population projections. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-3 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.1. City of Palm Desert Population Projections Year Population Ava.Annual Percent Change 2010 54,435 2015 59,588 1.89% 2020 64,860 1.77% 2025 67,206 0.72% 2030 70,303 0.92% 2035 1 73,1311 0.80% Population projections within the existing city limits are expected to increase by approximately 42% from the Department of Finance estimates as of January 1, 2009 to 2035 projections of 73,131. This does not account for potential annexations within the City's existing sphere of influence. The City's sphere of influence extends approximately 34.5 square miles to the south and 32 square miles to the east. The area to the south is mostly mountainous and habitat to the Big Horn Sheep. This southern sphere area was added to the City's SOI since it serves as a natural habitat backdrop, which the City seeks to preserve. There are no current population projections for the 3.2 square mile sphere area to the east of the city limits known as Bermuda Dunes. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, Bermuda Dunes was identified as a Census Designated Place(CDP)with a population 6,229. Housing Inventory The total amount of housing units in the City of Palm Desert as of January 1, 2009 is estimated at 34,329 (DOF) and countywide it accounts for approximately 7.2% of the housing units. This is an increase of less than two hundred homes or .006% from January of 2008, reflecting the housing market slowdown. Over the course of the projected 25 year period, housing units are expected to increase an average of five percent every five years. Provided are the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report projections. Table III.C.2. City of Palm Desert Housing Inventory Year Housing Avg. Annual Units Percent Chan e 2010 36,685 — 2015 40,533 2.10% 2020 43,349 1.39% 2025 44,483 0.52% 2030 46,291 0.81% 2035 1 48,1361 0.80% Based on DOF housing unit, population, and vacancy estimates, the average persons per household within the City is 2.156 as of 2009. The City household unit vacancy is 31%, similar to the countywide vacancy of 32%. The City's average household size is less than the County's average of 3.059 persons per household. The majority of homes in the City are single family detached homes, followed by single family attached homes, multi-family, mobile homes, and lastly other miscellaneous unit types. As of 2008 provided is a breakdown of housing unit types. ILAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-4 i Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.3. City of Palm Desert Housing Unit Types Type 2009 Percent Detached 13,571 39.530A Attached 9,697 28.25% Multi-Family: 2-4 2,541 7.400/4 Multi-Family: 5+ 5,208 15.17% Mobile Homes 3,312 9.650/1 Total Units 34,329 'January Estimate,California Stale Department of Finance Capacity for growth The City is mostly developed, with the exception of a few scattered vacant parcels, and the northern city limits that are part of the University Park Area General Plan designation. From 2000-2009 approximately 6,300 units were built within the city limits at an average rate of 700 homes per year. At a gross density of three dwelling units per acre, the City has the capacity for approximately 3,732 dwelling units within its estimated 1,244 acres of vacant developable area. This represents approximately 5.3 years of residential growth based on absorption over the last nine years. As the City continues to develop, the City's goal is to maintain its existing level of services. Growth projections are integrated into the City's planning as new projects or developments are submitted to the City for review. It is the City's general policy to route new projects or developments to the various City departments for each department to evaluate the potential growth impacts. The comments received from the departments are used to plan for new facilities, transportation improvements, and identify the need for additional public safety services and designated park acreage. IV. Services The City of Palm Desert provides several general services, but this is a review of municipal services that will include police, fire, park and recreation, solid waste, road maintenance, library, and animal control services. A. Police Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriffs Department for police protection services. The Palm Desert Station is located at 73-520 Fred Waring Drive and it is shared with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells as well as the unincorporated areas of Andreas Hills, Joshua Tree National Park, North Palm Springs, Painted Hills, Pinyon, Sky Valley, and Thousand Palms. The City of Palm Desert also maintains and operates two off-site police sub-stations located at 42-305 Avenue of the States, Suite E/Washington St. and at 72-990 Monterey Ave./Highway III. The City currently contracts for 80 sworn officers, including 36 sworn dedicated to the Patrol Division. The remainder of the 44 sworn personnel are assigned to the Traffic Division, Special Enforcement Teams, School Resource Officer, Narcotics and Gang Enforcement, Investigations Bureau and other miscellaneous assignments. The City added one new deputy, a narcotics task force officer, to its contract for FY 2009-10. The cost for an additional deputy is reflected in the cost for police protection under the General Fund. Police patrols are divided into five beats within the city limits and within each beat an officer from the Special Enforcement Team (SET) is assigned. The team provides additional support to the Patrol Division and consists of one sergeant, six deputies, and a dedicated community-oriented policing officer The SET officers provide follow-up work to reported crimes relieving patrols of these time intensive duties LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-5 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review and therefore making patrols available to respond to emergency service calls. The SET allows the City to provide an enhanced level of police protection services. Although the City of Palm Desert has not established a standard level of police protection services the department's goals are to improve the quality of life for its residents. The City provides an annual police report that provides crime statistics. Based on the 2009 population of 51,509 and the police department's contract for 80 sworn officers, the officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population, which is higher than the County's service level of .97 officers per 1,000 population. The City has maintained the same level of service since 2006. In calendar year 2008, the Palm Desert Station received 44,237 calls within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority calls was 4.2 minutes. Provided are service calls made to the Palm Desert Station for emergency calls within the city limits. Emergency calls include priority one and priority two calls. The average response times include responses to priority one calls. Table IV.A.1. Police Protection Service Calls Total Calls Total Highest Average for Service I Erneraency Priorit Calls Res onse Time 2006 42,042 10,634 61 4.41 mins. 2007 39,6181 10,7381 69 4.64 mins. 2008 44,2371 11,0221 591 4.2 mins. B. Fire Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Fire Department for fire protection and emergency services. There are currently three stations within the city limits and one in the unincorporated area of Sun City-Palm Desert, which primarily services Riverside County residents. Table W.B.I. City of Palm Desert Fire Stations Station Location Staffing/Equipment Station 33-Palm Desert 44400 Town Center Way Type 1 engine-1 staff, 1-100"Aerial Ladder Truck, 1 ALS Paramedic Ambulance, 1 Urban Search and Rescue Truck-4 staff 1 Reserve Ladder Truck and Water Rescue Vehicle are cross staffed with station personnel Station 67-Mesa View 73200 Mesa View Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit 3 per engine/2 per ambulance Station 71-North Palm Desert 73995 Country Club Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit/Type 1 Reserve engine 3 person engine/2 person ambulance Station 81-Sun City-Palm 37955 Washington St. 1 engine/3 firefighters 1 HazMat Unitt 2 Desert firefighters. HazMat until cross staffed with a total of 5 firefighters. HazMat requires 2 engine personnel and all 3 pieces of [equipment The City contract allows for 51 paid full-time firefighters. In addition to the paid firefighters there are 15 volunteers resulting in a total of 66 firefighters providing services within the city limits. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-6 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review The department's target response time which is specific to the time dispatch receives the call to the time a unit is responding is one minute during the day and two minutes during the night. The goal is to provide services five minutes from the time dispatch receives a call. The average response times, which include the time dispatch receives the call to the time services are being provided for calendar year 2008 where 5.1 minutes. Fire Department response times within the city limits have been as follows: Table IV.B.2. Fire Protection response times No. of Calls Fire related Medicalltraffic Misc. Average Response coliison Times 2005 6,43 941 5,090 401 2 mins." 2006 7,353 951 5,509 893 5.2 mins. 2007 7,903 1,000 5,921 982 5.1 mins. 2008 7,954 928 6,025 1001 5.1 mins. 'This average response time does not include travel time. Refers to the target response time. To maintain average response times of five minutes, for suburban areas like the City of Palm Desert, the City plans for each of its fire stations to provide services within a 1.5 mile radius. As development occurs outside the five minute response zone, planning for an additional station begins. The City has identified a new fire station site of approximately three acres at the California State University, San Bernardino- Palm Desert campus to accommodate growth. Although this future station has been considered, planning for the construction of the new station has temporarily been placed on hold due to the economy and stalled development. To offset the revenue declines and to maintain the existing level of service for fire protection, the City has increased the fire tax. The City levies an annual special fire tax and the basis for the charge is the property's type of use. The annual charge per equivalent dwelling unit is $60. The tax applied to vacant lots varies by acreage at a minimum of$30 and a maximum of$60. Commercial properties are taxed on a square footage basis and are credited for improvements made to the property to mitigate fire damage such as fire sprinklers. Generally commercial properties less than 2,600 square feet are charged an annual tax of $60. This special tax was approved by the Palm Desert voters on April 8, 1980 which granted the city council the authority to increase the tax to the current maximum. The special tax was increased from an annual $48 per equivalent dwelling unit to$60 per equivalent dwelling unit. C. Park and Recreation Services The City of Palm Desert has its own Park and Recreation Department and a Parks and Recreation Commission that serves as an advisory board to the City Council. This Commission meets once a month to discuss issues and topics related to Palm Desert's parks. The City currently owns and operates fourteen parks consisting of 212.9 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have five acres of park land for every 1,000 city residents. Based on the 2009 Department of Finance population estimate within the city limits of 51,509, the City maintains 4.13 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Park locations, amenities, and activities can be found on the City's website. The City also publishes a four page Parks and Recreation Guide with contact and park information. The Cook Street Sports Complex is no longer being operated. Once the New Palm Desert High School is built and relocated, existing school buildings will be demolished to accommodate the new sports fields. The new sports fields are expected to be open in 2012 and will be located at the former Palm Desert High School site. The City is also within the boundaries of the Desert Recreation District (DRD), formerly known as the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District, which operates local facilities on a regional basis. Currently, LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-7 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review DRD maintains and operates three facilities in Palm Desert, providing additional recreational opportunities to city residents. The facilities include the Palm Desert Community Center and Civic Center Park located at 43-900 San Pablo Ave., Portola Community Center located at 45-570 Portola Ave., and the Golf Center at 74-495 Sheryl Ave. In 1990, the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to fund park and recreation facilities. Through this cooperative agreement, the sports complex at Palm Desert Civic Center Park was built, which is accessible to residents of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The cost to fund these facilities is shared by all three cities based on a population and assessed valuation formula. Table IV.C.1. City of Palm Desert Parks Park Name Acreage Amenities Civic Center Park 70 4 Baseball fields with Concession Stand/Restrooms., 6 Tennis Courts, 4 Sand Volleyball Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 5 Picnic Pavilions, Amphitheater, Skate Park, Playground, Dog Park, Public Arts Displays, Multi ur ose field, Open Areas, Rose Garden Water Feature, Paths Hovley Soccer Park 21 5 Full Size Soccer Fields, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Picnic Pavilions, 3 Horseshoe Pits, 3 Shuffleboard Courts, 1 Basketball Court, Playground, Disc Golf Course Ironwood Park 14.5 Picnic Pavilions, Tot Lot, Open Grass Area, Restrooms, Walking Paths Cahuilla Hills Park 27.5 2 Tennis Courts, Picnic Area, Off-leash Dog Area, Trails; The park serves as a trail head for the Cahuilla Hills Trail System Magnesia Falls City 2 Playground, Picnic Area, Restrooms, Baseball Field, Mulit-purpose fields, Park available for after school and on weekends Washingtom Charter 2.5 Playground, Open Turf Area available after school and on weekends (owned School Park by the School District Joe Mann Park 2.5 Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Water Feature, Rose Garden, Dog Park, Picnic Pavilion, Playground, Open Turf Area Restrooms Cap Homme/Ralph 27 Trails, Off Leash Dog Area, Picnic Areas; this site serves primarily as a trail Adams Park head for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System Palma Village 2 Playground, Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Picnic Pavilions, Neighborhood Park Restrooms, Water Feature Freedom Park 26 3 Baseball Fields, 2 Tennis Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 2 Sand Volleyball Courts, 2 Playgrounds, Walking Paths, Picnic Pavilions, Dog Park, Community Gardens, Skate Boarding Area, 2 Multi-purpose fields (soccer/football), Open Grass Areas, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Public Art Community Gardens 1 Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms, Community Gardens Haystack Greenbelt 12 Open Grass Areas, Paths and Smoketree Natural Area University Dog Park 2.4 Dog Park, Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms University Park East 2.5 Playground, Basketball Court, Open Grass Area, Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms Community Garden,Walking Paths Total Acreage 212.9 D. Solid Waste Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Buntec Industries to provide solid waste collection and disposal services to residential and commercial properties. Residential service is provided once a week, LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-8 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review while commercial properties can have up to six pick-ups per week. Customers are provided with bins for trash, recyclables, and green waste. Recyclable materials such as plastic, glass, and newspaper are hauled to a third party recycler. Green waste is recycled by a local compost facility. All other trash is hauled to the Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley or the Lamb Canyon Landfill located in Beaumont. Recently the City modified its agreement with Burrtec to extend services to include curbside hazardous waste collection, two annual document shredding events, enhanced bulky item pick-ups, while maintaining existing rates for residential customers. Commercial properties can also participate in the hazardous waste collection program by making an appointment with Burrtec. Commercial customers are allowed to dispose of hazardous waste at no cost up to a $300 limit annually. Disposal of materials over the limit is the responsibility of the business. The$300 coverage is subject to change. In addition, the City has launched a pilot program to work with restaurants for food waste recycling. The implementation of this program and the City's other recycling services will allow Palm Desert to meet its goal of recycling 75 percent of the community's waste. E. Road Maintenance Palm Desert oversees the development, operations and maintenance of its roads and transportation facilities. The City currently contracts with outside consultants to implement a pavement management system. This allows the City to monitor the status of its roads and where necessary provide annual slurry sealing and resurfacing. Also, the City's Public Works Department monitors traffic volumes by hiring outside contractors as traffic counters. The data collected is used for the City's traffic-model which projects traffic impacts of new developments at build-out. Lastly, the Department also oversees the design, installation and maintenance of traffic control services. F. Library Services The City does not provide library services. The Riverside County Library System provides library services within the city limits. The Palm Desert Public Library is located at 73-300 Fred Waring Drive. The library encompasses 20,000 square feet of a 40,000 square foot library facility. The facility is shared with the College of the Desert Library. Although the libraries and its materials are physically separated, they have a reciprocity agreement that allows them to share an online research database and checkout desk. The Palm Desert Library contains approximately 144,000 volumes, is staffed by 10 full-time employees, 13 part time employees, and approximately 65 volunteers. The library is open seven days a week: Monday-Thursday 10am-8pm, Friday and Saturday 10am-5pm, and Sunday 1 pm-5pm. The City allocates General Fund revenues to pay for additional library services. These funds cover expenses for additional hours of operation, the volunteer program and coordinator, special events coordinator, two part-time receptionists, one full time reference librarian, and one full time teen/young adult librarian. G. Animal Control The City contracts with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services for control of domestic animals. Services include spaying and neutering of pets, shelter for lost or abandoned pets, and attending to nuisance issues. V. Sphere of Influence To begin the Municipal Service Review process, LAFCO staff sent a letter to all the cities and special districts of Riverside County inquiring about any anticipated sphere of influence changes within this sphere cycle ending December 31, 2012. The City of Palm Desert informed us of their interest to amend LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-9 I _ Palm Desert Municipal Service Review their sphere of influence to include the Del Webb Sun City-Palm Desert area. This area was removed from the City's sphere of influence in October of 2007. Since 2007, discussions between the community of Sun City and Palm Desert have occurred where they mutually agree that this area belongs in the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence. This area is within the City's General Plan and would add approximately four square miles to the city's sphere of influence. Including the Sun City-Palm Desert area within the City's sphere would allow the City to plan the future extension of services to this area and evaluate how these additional services will be funded. VI. MSR Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. To estimate growth and population projections, the City of Palm Desert uses the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research as well as the Department of Finance estimated population projections. Growth and population projections are incorporated into the City's future planning. As new projects and developments are submitted to the City they are reviewed by each department. At this time additional services and/or facilities needed to maintain the existing levels of services are considered. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. The City of Palm Desert maintains an enhanced level of services for police protection services. Currently, the Palm Desert Police Department's officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population. The City's contract for fire protection services allows the City to maintain an average fire response time of 5.1 minutes. The City's goal is to provide a five minute response time. For every 1,000 residents the City operates and maintains 4.13 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System within the city limits. Above the County's standard level of service the City provides general fund monies for extended hours of operation, special events, and additional employment opportunities. The City monitors the impacts of new developments on its services and plans for additional facilities and personnel when new projects are submitted to the City for approval. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The City Palm Desert adopts an annual budget every June which can be found on the City's website. In addition, the City has adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)that identifies special projects and their funding. To offset the anticipated decline in revenue to the City's General Fund, the City has decreased overall expenditures in salary costs, while maintaining the same level of services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The City of Palm Desert has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells to share park and recreational facilities, as well as the cost for maintaining these facilities. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-10 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The City's website is www.citvofoalmdesert_org where City departments post significant documents online such as the City of Palm Desert Annual Police Report, Annual Budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR), Audits, and Information Brochures for park services as well as other quick links to other pertinent public safety information. The City also maintains a monthly newsletter that is mailed to individual households in Palm Desert. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. The City of Palm Desert is mostly developed and provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas. While this high level of service indicates that it can accommodate growth, it can also indicate that maintaining these levels while annexing large areas could be very costly to the City. It would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact of annexing additional large areas. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-11 LAFCO 2009-16-4 Municipal Service Review CITY OF PAILM- DESERT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA iGAT�HED L � CITY City requested SOI I - �A, addition � -M HY4L�V1 QESERT : � � 'd I �6: fl - �I •� cINDIOI . i1 p � l�-C i �•Is IND AID N �-, WELLS '" t r d a 1 � A I r � � ' ♦llt. '. mi¢k l PALM SPRING . ' LAQUINTA r , D I!!l777 �. FI LAKE _ r _ PALM DESERT ,{ 'r�.Y CAHUIL i Sol I ' r L s ., r s.r •� J Y � � r f �!' '� / r11 ' SeDr mber 9,2009 �a�er.wwamammr..n..�Y...saw.m•+r Ysbll.ls .rrroo.Ns.w Ne m..mabr.ervrm...w*o.sp..mv tITN0..1MCmpNRwrWa iNnl.m.¢YPr6YYb M.a.tl Miles/ a"s"^"^r^^ r"^O.Nolep.uwture,w.aar.mn.+a mra.0 1 2 4 ra�4I5 ma e.�., N a0.Mr u.Nem PSW Mq N,pd mNwuY�Pw'tlbnw4MYe w.•NwsN.rae.m.,wmwwamwme.s. comnwremnc rwncs Current Sphere of Influence (SOI) CIIY 0r PHEM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 2 60-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346—o61 r FAX: 760 340-0574 cttyha11@ci.pa1m-descr[.ca.us OFFICE OF THE MAYOR October 12, 2009 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Subject:Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Thank you for your past support concerning boundary issues affecting the City of Palm Desert. I am sending you this correspondence to reiterate the City's position related to the area commonly referred to as the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City of Palm Desert desires to have the Del-Web Palm Desert region, as outlined in the attached LAFCO exhibit, reintroduced as part of Palm Desert's sphere of influence. Although the City Council may. initiate a fiscal impact feasibility study on this region in the future, the decision to reaccept this area into Palm Desert's SOI is not contingent upon such a study. Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, at (760) 346-0611. Again, thank you for your ongoing support and assistance. Sincerely, Robert A. S ie el p 9 Mayor Attachment: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments Map cc: City Council Patricia A. Larson John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager Justin McCarthy, Assistant City Manager Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager �,.unvoan nomeo ro.. i { Sphere Of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert �i UTCO2006-89-4 Exhibit A a e G 1 a u PA(iLtt e G c i ° e a v a G City of Rancho " - Mirage :.. . " e a„, • • • � , wa . City of ►® Indio orr;3 F ARING OR 1 4J �.� I,. t 15 .44r , • . City of ` ` Indian °° City of Wells La a e Quinta µ e' •4 City of Palm Desert :f7,7/ Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10/25/07 Commission Approved on 10/25/07 t ' (Removal) .} ' �` •w {� � ,,� t :pie +ru 1 ,P" 1 e e x 5 1 .I. 10/22/2009 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II SUBJECT: LAFCO 2009-16-4—MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW—CITY OF PALM DESERT. BACKGROUND: As we have discussed previously, AB 2838 established a new analytical tool for LAFCOs, municipal service reviews (MSRs) , to evaluate service provision . Section 56430 is the sole statute establishing the requirement. It begins as follows : "In order to prepare and to update spheres of influence in accordance with Section 56425, the commission shall conduct a service review of all municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission". The section goes on to require that service reviews must be conducted prior to or concurrent with consideration of any action to establish or update a sphere of influence (SOI) . After conducting the reviews, the Commission must prepare a written statement of determinations addressing each of the following factors : 1 . Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. 3. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 4 . Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities . 5. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 6 . Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. Municipal Services Review: Staff has prepared the Palm Desert MSR and provided are the determinations : Growth and population projections for the affected area. To estimate growth and population projections, the City of Palm Desert uses the County of Riverside Center for Demographic r 1� LAFCO 2009-16-4 Page 2 October 22, 2009 9 MSR—CITY OF PALM DESERT Research as well as the Department of Finance estimated population projections . Growth and population projections are incorporated into the City' s future planning. As new projects and developments are submitted to the City they are reviewed by each department . At this time additional services and/or facilities needed to maintain the existing levels of services are considered. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. The City of Palm Desert maintains an enhanced level of services for police protection services . Currently, the Palm Desert Police Department' s officer to population ratio is 1 . 55 officers per 1, 000 population. The City' s contract for fire protection services allows the City to maintain an average fire response time of 5. 1 minutes . The City' s goal is to provide a five minute response time. For every 1, 000 residents the City operates and maintains 4 . 13 acres of parkland. The City' s goal is to have 5 acres of parkland for every 1, 000 residents . Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System within the city limits . Above the County' s standard level of service the City provides general fund monies for extended hours of operation, special events, and additional employment opportunities . The City monitors the impacts of new developments on its services and plans for additional facilities and personnel when new projects are submitted to the City for approval. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The City Palm Desert adopts an annual budget every June which can be found on the City' s website . In addition, the City has adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that identifies special projects and their funding. To offset the anticipated decline in revenue to the City' s General Fund, the City has decreased overall expenditures in salary costs, while maintaining the same level of services . i LAFCO 2009-16-4 Page 3 - October 22, 2009 MSR—CITY OF PALM DESERT Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The City of Palm Desert has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells to share park and recreational facilities, as well as the cost for maintaining these facilities . Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The City' s website is www.cityofpalmdesert .org where City departments post significant documents online such as the City of Palm Desert Annual Police Report, Annual Budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) , Audits, and Information Brochures for park services as well as other quick links to other pertinent public safety information. The City also maintains a monthly newsletter that is mailed to individual households in Palm Desert. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. The City of Palm Desert is mostly developed and provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas . While this high level of service indicates that it can accommodate growth, it can also indicate that maintaining these levels while annexing large areas could be very costly to the City. It would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact of annexing additional large areas. Comments from Affected Agencies/Interested Parties : The City of Palm Desert provided input throughout the development of the MSR. Additionally, the draft MSR was made available for further agency comment during the agency/public review period. During the agency/public review period relatively minor comments were received. The comments were addressed in the MSR. CEQA Compliance: The Secretary for Resources has listed several classes of projects, via the CEQA Guidelines, that do not have a significant effect on the environment. These types of activities are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. Class 6 categorical exemptions, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306, consist of "basic data collection, research, a , � LAFCO 2009-16-4 Page 4 October 22, 2009 MSR-CITY OF PALM DESERT experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded. " The Class 6 categorical exemption is directly applicable to the municipal service reviews . SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Conduct the hearing on the MSP.. 2 . Make modifications as deemed appropriate. 3 . Find the Municipal Service Reviews are exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines in that the municipal service reviews consist of basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. 4 . Adopt the required determinations included in the MSR for the City of Palm Desert. 5 . Receive and file I,AFCO 2009-16-4-Municipal Service Review-City of Palm Desert. Respectfully submitted, Adriana Romo Local Government Analyst II ' 4 Grisa, Melissa From: Adriana Romo[ARomo@lafco.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:21 PM To: Grisa, Melissa Subject: FW: lafco letter Attachments: Lafco.pdf Hi Missy. We just received this letter from Supervisor Ashley's Office on behalf of the Fourth Supervisorial District. This is a request for a continuance. Please forward to Lauri Aylaian. Thank you. From: Elizabeth Valdez Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:18 PM To: Adriana Romo Subject: lafco letter 1 UA_ SUPERVISOR MARION ASHLEY Furm DISTRICT Oct. 13, 2009 Russell Kitihara, Chairman Riverside County LAFCO 3850 Vine Street, Ste. 110 Riverside, CA 925074277 RE: LAFCO 2009-174-Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments -City of Palm Desert Dear Mr. Kitihara: Please convey to your colleagues my desire to have the matter of LAFCO 2009-17-4 continued in order for the residents and landowners of the affected area time to be fully appraised of this SOI change. It has been brought to my attention that no official notification has at this late date reached the Fourth District Supervisorial office or my Fifth District office, let alone the residents within the Thousand Palms and Desert Palms Community Councils. As you undoubtedly know,the Desert Palms Community Council comprises Sun City Palm Desert and its immediate surroundings. LAFCO staff has reported that notification of this item was published in the Riverside Press- Enterprise on Sept. 30. The Press-Enterprise,as you also know,is no longer serving the Coachella Valley,and it is unavailable by subscription or at any commercial outlet or vending machine. While publication in the Press-Enterprise may satisfy technical legal notification requirements, it certainly does not meet the intended purpose of legal notification. I would also like to point out that LAFCO staff itself objected to the continuance of his sphere— and the Commission voted to sustain that objection—back on Oct. 25,2007. LAFCO staff stated,among other things, "LAFCO was concerned that the City of Palm Desert had no real interest in ever annexing these areas..." That objection was ruled a valid concern in 2007,and I believe it's a valid concern in 2009. Ultimately, the Palm Desert City Council agreed with LAFCO and "... directed City staff to request that LAFCO remove the Del Webb community from the City sphere." COUNTY AmrtagmTNE CENTER • FIFra FLOOR • 4080 LEMON STREET • P.O. Box 1645 - RIVERSIDE, CA 92502-1645 TELEraoNE(951)955.1050• FAx (951)955-9030 •INTERNET: districts@co.riversidexa.us MORENO VALLEY Dmwcr OFFICE'14375 NAsoN STREET,SUITE 207•MORENO VALLEY,CA 92555 PERRs DISTRICT OFFICE• 137 S.PERRis BouLEVARn,#137C•PERRIs,CA 92570 Also, the LAFCO staff report at the time concluded that there are adequate levels of public facilities and services in the area. For these and other reasons, I urge you to continue this matter until the communities involved have adequate notice and have had a chance to conduct town hall meetings,study sessions and the like. Sincerely, Marion Ashley O CC: George Spiliotis Grisa, Melissa From: Adriana Romo[ARomo@lafco.org] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 3:57 PM To: Grisa, Melissa Subject: FW: Palm Desert Sphere Request Attachments: SOI LTR 10-7-090001.pdf Hi Missy. Following up on my phone call conversation with Laurie provided is the correspondence from community proponents in the Sun City-Palm Desert vicinity. I confirmed with Laurie that a continuance of the Palm Desert SOI has been requested and will be presented to our Commission on Oct. 22nd. Also, attached is the Association's response to this email. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Adriana Romo FYI. We will be closed Monday, Oct. 12th in observance of the Columbus Day Holiday. From: Patricia Saleh [mailto:ps8888@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 11:17 AM To: Elena Medina Subject: Palm Desert Sphere Request Hi George, The Thousand Palms Preservation Action Group executive committee met last night to discuss the impending hearing by LAFCO of the Palm Desert sphere area. The concern was raised that there has been no time for town hall meetings in Thousand Palms or Desert Palms on this sphere request. People who live here primarily in the winter months are not even back here yet. In talking to Sy Kaplan of Desert Palms, no poll has been taken in Sun City Palm Desert. Only the small group who went to the Palm Desert City Council and asked for them to take the sphere back had knowledge of the request. As you know, Sun City Palm Desert voted overwhelmingly against incorporation after their HOA board authorized $5,000 for a feasibility study the homeowners did not want. For some reason the spearheads of this Palm Desert sphere of influence movement have acted once again under the radar of most people in their community. If this did not also affect Thousand Palms we would have nothing to say about it, but I believe that we are entitled to more time before this question comes before LAFCO, time to hold town hall meetings with the property owners within the former Palm Desert sphere area that are within the boundaries of the Thousand Palms community council district. There are many sides to this action and misinformation is rampant. If we could get the addresses of the property owners in the Palm Desert sphere of influence request area and 300 feet beyond it would be most helpful. If you could e-mail them to me, as you did for the Cathedral City sphere of influence area, it would be most helpful Being that your calendar is full for the October 22 meeting anyway, could we ask for a delay on this hearing to give us time to meet with the landowners concerned? I believe it is only fair to give people the chance to hear the pros and cons. Thanks so much for your help on it all George. We really appreciate it. 1 Patricia Saleh Ultimate Approach, License #01760240 Marketing Director/Sales 72877 Dinah Shore, #103-104 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Tel: 760-343-2440 Fax: 760-343-4609 Web: www.ultimateapproach.net E-Mail: patricia@ultimateapproach.net 2 II SUN CITY PALM DESERT Community Association October 7, 2009 George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Ste. 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4277 Dear George, I am in receipt of a letter written by Patricia Saleh, dated October 2, 2009 with the subject Palm Desert Sphere Request. As President of the Board of Directors of Sun City Palm Desert Community Association, I am obligated to correct several misstatements that Ms. Saleh made in her letter regarding our community. First and foremost, our community is thrilled that the City of Palm Desert is requesting that we and our neighbors be part of their sphere of influence. To say as Ms. Saleh has stated that our Board and other community members have"acted once again under the radar of most people in their community" is frankly absurd and disrespectful. At open Board meetings, District meetings and club meetings, Board members are constantly asked the question as to when we might be put back into the sphere of Palm Desert. When we tell them that there is positive activity, a round of applause generally follows. Ms. Saleh also states "Sun City Palm Desert voted overwhelmingly against incorporation..."This is again a misstatement. When the City of Palm Desert dropped our community from their sphere in 2007, we were devastated. We believed our future could have four outcomes: eventually become part of Palm Desert, become part of Indio, remain an unincorporated area of Riverside County, or maybe,just maybe, become our own city. When a financial feasibility study showed positive results, the Board then held a town hall meeting to inform the residents and to get resident input. There was no vote. We:were years away from any type vote. With respect to Ms. Saleh's request for a continuance, we emphatically say NO. Next month will be one year since the City of Palm Desert requested to include our community in their sphere of influence. Our residents would like this to happen sooner rather than later. Sincerely, Bill Murphy President, Board of Directors Sun City Palm Desert Community Association Cc— Board of Directors Patricia Saleh 38180 Del Webb Boulevard •Palm Desert•CA•92211 • Ph: 760-200-2222•Fax: 760-200-2299 I •Aylaian, Lauri From: Grisa, Melissa Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:29 PM To: Adriana Romo Cc: Gibson, Paul; Aylaian, Lauri; Bagato, Tony; Greenwood, Mark; Aryan, Steve; Moore, Janet; (ashouse@riversidesheriff.org); Hunley, Bill, Steele, Janis, Riddle, Frankie Subject: RE: Park Svs. follow-up Hi Adriana, My review comments are below. I am also forwarding this information to several of my co-workers here in Palm Desert so they can verify the information that pertains to their department is accurate. Palm Desert Staff: Please note some of the information I provided to LAFCO was omitted, re-worded, added to, at Adriana's discretion. Please review and make any necessary corrections to the document found at the website below. Click on MSR—City of Palm Desert to the right of the page. Please e-mail Adriana directly with a copy to me for my information (I will be out of the office starting September 24 and returning October 6). 1 have two specific questions for Bill and Steve, that can be found towards the end of this e-mail. In Section A. Governing Body, it states the City was incorporate in 1963.That should state 1973. 1 think under Population &Growth, Housing Inventory, it should state 25 years, and in another section it should read single family attached homes. I think the bold words are missing from these statements. Under Fire Protection Services. It should state, "There are currently three stations within the city limits and one in the unincorporated area known as Sun City Palm Desert that provide services to city residents."There are two stations within the city's SOI, but we do have an unincorporated area known as North Palm Desert. In regards to the new fire station, under Fire Protection Services, I would clarify the sentence to add the ending phrase as I highlighted in bold. "Although this future station has been considered, planning for the construction of the new station has temporarily been placed on hold due to the economy and stalled development in the north sphere of the city. "Without some sort of explanation, it sounds like we considered it and just decided to put it on hold for no particular reason. A clarification should be made on a sentence in the last paragraph under Fire Protection Services. Fire hydrants are not optional items. Please clarify this sentence to read, "Commercial properties are taxed on a square footage basis and are credited for improvements made to the property in case of a fire, such as built -in sprinkler systems and fire resistant materials." Under Park and Recreation Services,the third paragraph, first sentence should read "The Cook Street Sports Complex is no longer being operated." Under Section VI. MSR Determinations, 2,fourth paragraph, I would clarify the statement to read, "Above the County's standard level of service the City provides general fund monies for extended hours of operation, special events, and additional employment positions. Bill, Can you confirm if there are 51 firefighters with an additional 15 volunteers or if the 15 volunteers are encompassed in the total number of 51 firefighters. I thought it was a total of 66 altogether. Please clarify. Steve, 1 Can you confirm the$30 per vacant lot regarding the fire tax? Thank you everyone, M1JSJl cyli q ASSISTANll' PLANNER LEE,1)ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone: 760.346.0611 ext. 384 Fax: 760.776.6417 From: Adriana Romo [mailto:ARomo@lafco.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:19 AM To: Grisa, Melissa Subject: RE: Park Svs. follow-up Thank you Missy. Also, I want to let you know the Public/Agency Review Draft of the MSR is available on our website: www.lafco.org. It was mailed to the City Manager's attention on Thursday, September 17, 2009. Please feel free to review and make comments as you feel necessary. Best regards, Adriana Romo From: mgrisa@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:mgrisa@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 8:49 AM To: Adriana Romo Subject: RE: Park Svs. follow-up Hi Adriana, Yes, they can access all our facilities. Really, anyone in the desert can. However, the MOU is just for sports fields. IifJ! �j19JQ ASSISTANT PLANNER LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Z I .:v . .9 C'T Y C` C'rICE PALMDESERT, CA 2009 SEP 18 AN II: 33 RIVERSIDE LAFCO September 17, 2009 John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Availability of Public/Agency Review Draft for the Municipal Service Review of the City of Palm Desert—LAFCO 2009- 16-4 Dear Mr. Wohlmuth, The Draft Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the City of Palm Desert is now available for agency review and comment. Please review the draft and submit comments by Thursday, October 8, 2009. You may submit comments to my attention via e-mail at aromo@lafco. org or by mail . Also you may call me if you have any questions about the MSR or comments . Thank you. Sincerely, v�0— Adri na Romo Local Government Analyst II or P 1 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110• RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 •w Aafco.org•Fax(951)369-8479 • R RIVERSIDE LAFCO NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW-CITY OF THE PALM DESERT Notice is hereby given that a Public/Agency Review for the Municipal Service Review—Palm Desert is currently available for public review and comment. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the Public/Agency Review Draft is available for public review for a period of three weeks beginning immediately and ending on October 8, 2009. All comments concerning the draft should be made in writing and directed to Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst Il, Riverside LAFCO, 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110, Riverside, CA 92507-4277 or emailed to infona,lafco.org. The Public/Agency Review Draft may be accessed from the LAFCO website, www.lafco.ore, or you may contact the LAFCO office at the address above or by calling (951) 369-0631. Based on comments received, a revised final draft will be produced and considered by the Commission at a future public hearing. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AE? adnana Romo �Local Government Analyst II September 17, 2009 2 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 vuvE ST1zEEr, sUrrE 110.1znTElzstDE. CA 9 507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 •m wlafco.org• Fax(951)369-8479 9 • J AMdAgencyRmiow SqAm*w17j2OW RIVERSIDE Local Agency Formation Commission Prepared by Adrian Romo Local Agency Formation Corr nission 3850 Vine Street•Suite 110 Riverside,CA 92507 Phone 951.369.0631 •Fax 951.369.8479 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Overview .......................................................................................................1-1 II. Service Review Process ...............................................................................1-2 III. Agency Review .............................................................................................1-2 A. Governing Body...................................................................................1-3 B. Budget Information..............................................................................1-3 C. Population & Growth...........................................................................1-3 IV. Services........................................................................................................1-5 A. Police Protection Services..................................................................1-5 B. Fire Protection Services......................................................................1-6 C. Park and Recreation Services ............................................................1-7 D. Solid Waste.........................................................................................1-8 E. Road Maintenance..............................................................................1-9 F. Library Services...................................................................................1-9 G. Animal Services..................................................................................1-9 V. Sphere of Influence .......................................................................................1-9 VI. MSR Determinations ..................................................................................1-10 v Palm Desert Municipal Service Review I. Overview LAFCOs are mandated by the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH) to encourage orderly development within their county of jurisdiction. The Act governs the boundaries of special districts and cities, consistent with each agency's principal act. To implement boundary changes, CKH directs LAFCOs to make reorganization decisions based on several factors, including the need for and efficiency of public services. To promote greater efficiency in services for future planning purposes, the CKH mandates LAFCOs to conduct Sphere of Influence (SOI) reviews once every five years or as necessary. SOls are used as a planning tool for agencies to conduct service and facility planning for areas it intends to serve in the future. A SOI is defined as "a plan for probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission." Consistent with Commission SOI policies, a SOI can a) be coterminous to agency boundaries as the ultimate foreseen configuration of the agency in anticipation of no future growth, b) be extended beyond the agency boundaries in anticipation of future growth, c) be smaller, indicating the need to detach areas from the agency boundaries, or d) be designated a"zero sphere", which indicates a potential dissolution of the agency. In order to amend the sphere of influence boundaries, formal approval from the LAFCO Commission is required. Prior to or in conjunction with SOI reviews a Municipal Service Review(MSR) must be prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 (c). MSRs are conducted to assist in the SOI review process by providing information regarding the ability of agencies'to provide public services. This Municipal Service Review will review the services provided by the City of Palm Desert. Pursuant to 56430 (a), the MSR will make the following determinations: (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure or operational efficiencies. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by the Commission. Provided below is a summary of what each determination will assess. (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. This will evaluate the method of projection and its relationship to services and facility planning. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Will assess standard/objective levels of municipal services in relation to the current level of services as well as future plans to attain those objectives and/or maintain existing levels of services. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. Identifies whether the City has any general bonded indebtedness, its purpose, tax rate and when the debt will be retired. In addition, general taxes, special taxes, and assessments will be identified in relation to the services funded by those monies. In extreme cases, agencies not financially capable of providing the basic services will be identified. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-1 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review (4) Status of,and opportunities for, shared facilities. To promote greater efficiency in public services, the MSR explores opportunities for different agencies to share facilities and/or resources. By sharing facilities or other resources, agencies can eliminate the duplication of studies, planning efforts, staff or equipment, and potentially lower the cost for providing services. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. Identifies efforts made by the agency to increase public participation and accountability. Also, discusses whether audits are performed and how they are made available to the public. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. This will allow this LAFCO to identify areas outside an agency's boundaries currently receiving or requesting services from the agency. Also, identifies inhabited areas within or outside the current sphere of influence that the City anticipates annexing within the next five years or that could benefit from services provided by the agency. Issues unique to a particular agency or geographic area will be explored. II. Service Review Process In preparation of the MSR, public agency input is very important. To begin the MSR process the affected agencies were sent a questionnaire regarding services provided. Through a combination of responses from the questionnaires, follow-up conversations with the agencies, and research, the MSR was prepared. Agencies are encouraged to review and comment on the Public/Agency Review Draft prior to the circulation of the Final Draft that will be presented before the LAFCO Commission, October 22, 2009. This is an opportunity to address any concerns of the affected agencies regarding the data presented. At the public hearing the Commission will review the final draft of the MSR. After the hearing, the draft determinations will be modified as necessary to be adopted by the Commission. III. Agency Review The City of Palm Desert incorporated on November 26, 1973 as the 181" City in Riverside County. It is located in the Western Coachella Valley and is bounded by the City of Rancho Mirage to the west and the City of Indian Wells to the south and east as well as the unincorporated area of Bermuda Dunes to the east. The western city limits generally follow Monterey Ave. and to the north the city limits end at Interstate-10, south of the railroad tracks and south of the unincorporated area of Thousand Palms. The city is predominantly flat at an elevation of 220 feet above sea level, surrounded by the Cahuilla Hills and Dead Indian Creek/Black Hills to the south. The city boundaries encompass approximately 27 square miles. The City's existing sphere of influence currently extends beyond the city boundaries to include approximately 38 square miles that does not include any area within the city limits. City Hall is located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, half a mile east of Monterey Ave., the City's most western boundary. The municipal services provided by the City include police, fire, park and recreation, solid waste collection and disposal, road maintenance, and library services. Water, wastewater, and flood control services are provided by the Coachella Valley Water District. LAFCO—September 2009—PubliclAgency Review 1-2 li Palm Desert Municipal Service Review A. Governing Body The City of Palm Desert incorporated in 1963 as a General Law City. In 1997 as a result of a special election, the voters of Palm Desert elected for the City to become a Charter City. Unlike a general law city, a charter city is governed by its own charter document and is not limited by State statute. The current city government consists of a five member council elected at large. The terms of council members are four years and there are no term limits. Regular City Council Meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber. B. Budget Information This fiscal year is a difficult one for many local agencies due to the current economic situation. This fiscal year, the City's general fund budget was decreased by approximately 9.3%, indicative of revenue declines. Three of the City's primary revenue sources, which include sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and property tax, have been impacted by the economic slowdown. The City's annual budget projects a sales tax revenue decline of 14 percent and a property tax revenue decline of one percent. The County of Riverside FY 2008-09 Third-Quarter Budget Report projects a countywide estimated property tax revenue decline of ten percent for FY 2009-2010. The City does not have any general bonded indebtedness and maintains a balanced budget. However, in order to avoid service level reductions, the City's budget represents a personnel cost savings of $1.8 million. The City accomplished these savings by implementing a hiring freeze and not filling four vacant positions. In addition, the City offered an Early Retirement Program that provided eligible employees the opportunity to retire with an additional credit for two years of service, which resulted in eleven retirements. Lastly, four positions were eliminated as a result of the decline in development activity, which resulted in three early retirements and one layoff. Overall, general fund positions were decreased by 19 from FY 2008-09 to FY 2009-10. Table III.B.1. City of Palm Desert General Fund General Fund FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Pct change fromrior ear Revenues $62,424,5001 $56.613,107 -9.31% Expenditures $62,423,706 $56,588,653 -9.35% "General fund amounts include fire taxes and transfers,and the fire reserve. C. Population & Growth Population As of January 1, 2009, the Department of Finance reports an estimated population of 51,509 for the City of Palm Desert, which is an increase of approximately 1.6 % from the previous year. For planning purposes, the city utilizes both the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research and the Department of Finance population estimates. The population projections for Palm Desert in the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report indicate an average annual population increase of 1.4 % from 2010 to 2035. Provided are the population projections as listed in the 2008 County Progress Report, which corresponds with the Adopted 2008 Southern California Association of Governments population projections. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 13 i Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.1. City of Palm Desert Population Projections Year Population Ava.Annual Percent Chan e 2010 54,435 -- 2015 59,588 1.89% 2020 64,860 1.77% 2025 67,206 0.72% 2030 70,303 0.92% 2035 1 73,131 1 0.80% Population projections within the existing city limits are expected to increase by approximately 42% from the Department of Finance estimates as of January 1, 2009 to 2035 projections of 73,131. This does not account for potential annexations within the City's existing sphere of influence. The City's sphere of influence extends approximately 34.5 square miles to the south and 3.2 square miles to the east. The area to the south is mostly mountainous and habitat to the Big Horn Sheep. This southern sphere area was added to the City's SOI since it serves as a natural habitat backdrop, which the City seeks to preserve. There are no current population projections for the 3.2 square mile sphere area to the east of the city limits known as Bermuda Dunes. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, Bermuda Dunes was identified as a Census Designated Place (CDP)with a population 6,229. Housing Inventory The total amount of housing units in the City of Palm Desert as of January 1, 2009 is estimated at 34,329 (DOF) and countywide it accounts for approximately 7.2% of the housing units. This is an increase of less than two hundred homes or .006% from January of 2008, reflecting the housing market slowdown. Over the course of the projected 25 period, housing units are expected to increase an average of five percent every five years. Provided are the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report projections. Table III.C.2. City of Palm Desert Housing Inventory Year Housing Ava. Annual Units Percent Chan e 2010 36.685 — 2015 40,533 2,10% 2020 43,349 1.39% 2025 44,483 0.52% 2030 46,291 0.81% 2035 48,1361 0.80% Based on DOF housing unit, population, and vacancy estimates, the average persons per household within the City are 2.156 as of 2009. The City household unit vacancy is 31%, similar to the countywide vacancy of 32%. The City's average household size is less than the County's average of 3.059 persons per household. The majority of homes in the City are single family detached homes, followed by single attached homes, multi-family, mobile homes, and lastly other miscellaneous unit types. As of 2008 provided is a breakdown of housing unit types. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-4 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.3. City of Palm Desert Housing Unit Types Type 2009 Percent Detached 13,571 39.53% Attached 9,697 28.25% Multi-Family: 2-4 2,541 7.40% Multi-Family: 5+ 5,208 15.17% Mobile Homes 3,312 9.65% Total Units 34,329 'January Estimate,California State Department of Finance Capacity for growth The City is mostly developed, with the exception of a few scattered vacant parcels, and the northern city limits that are part of the University Park Area General Plan designation. From 2000-2009 approximately 6,300 units were built within the city limits at an average rate of 700 homes per year. At a gross density of three dwelling units per acre, the City has the capacity for approximately 3,732 dwelling units within its estimated 1,244 acres of vacant developable area. This represents approximately 5.3 years of residential growth based on absorption over the last nine years. As the City continues to develop, the City's goal is to maintain its existing level of services. Growth projections are integrated into the City's planning as new projects or developments are submitted to the City for review. It is the City's general policy to route new projects or developments to the various City departments for each department to evaluate the potential growth impacts. The comments received from the departments are used to plan for new facilities, transportation improvements, and identify the need for additional public safety services and designated park acreage. IV. Services The City of Palm Desert provides several general services, but this is a review of municipal services that will include police, fire, park and recreation, solid waste, road maintenance, library, and animal control services. A. Police Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriffs Department for police protection services. The Palm Desert Station is located at 73-520 Fred Waring Drive and it is shared with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells as well as the unincorporated areas of Andreas Hills, Joshua Tree National Park, North Palm Springs, Painted Hills, Pinyon, Sky Valley, and Thousand Palms. The City of Palm Desert also maintains and operates two off-site police sub-stations located at 42-305 Avenue of the States, Suite E/Washington St. and at 72-990 Monterey Ave./Highway III. The City currently contracts for 80 sworn officers, including 36 sworn dedicated to the Patrol Division. The remainder of the 44 sworn personnel are assigned to the Traffic Division, Special Enforcement Teams, School Resource Officer, Narcotics and Gang Enforcement, Investigations Bureau and other miscellaneous assignments. The City added one new deputy, a narcotics task force officer, to its contract for FY 2009-10. The cost for an additional deputy is reflected in the cost for police protection under the General Fund. Police patrols are divided into five beats within the city limits and within each beat an officer from the Special Enforcement Team (SET) is assigned. The team provides additional support to the Patrol Division and consists of one sergeant, six deputies, and a dedicated community-oriented policing officer The SET officers provide follow-up work to reported crimes relieving patrols of these time intensive duties LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-5 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review and therefore making patrols available to respond to emergency service calls. The SET allows the City to provide an enhanced level of police protection services. Although the City of Palm Desert has not established a standard level of police protection services the department's goals are to improve the quality of life for its residents. The City provides an annual police report that provides crime statistics. Based on the 2009 population of 51,509 and the police department's contract for 80 sworn officers, the officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population, which is higher than the County's service level of .97 officers per 1,000 population. The City has maintained the same level of service since 2006. In calendar year 2008, the Palm Desert Station received 44,237 calls within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority calls was 4.2 minutes. Provided are service calls made to the Palm Desert Station for emergency calls within the city limits. Emergency calls include priority one and priority two calls. The average response times include responses to priority one calls. Table IV.A.1. Police Protection Service Calls Total Calls Total Hiuhest Average for Service Eme enc Priori Calls Response Time 2006 42,042 10,634 61 4.41 mins. 2007 39,518 10,7381 691 4.64 mins. 2008 44,2371 11,0221 591 4.2 mins. B. Fire Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Fire Department for fire protection and emergency services. There are currently three stations within the city limits and two in the unincorporated areas of North Palm Desert and Sun City that provide services to city residents. Table IV.B.1. City of Palm Desert Fire Stations Station Location Staffing/Equipment Station 33-Palm Desert 44400 Town Center Way Type 1 engine-1 staff, 1-100"Aerial Ladder Truck, 1 ALS Paramedic Ambulance, 1 Urban Search and Rescue Truck4 staff 1 Reserve Ladder Truck and Water Rescue Vehicle are cross staffed with station personnel Station 67-Mesa View 73200 Mesa View Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit 3 per engine/2 per ambulance Station 71-North Palm Desert 73995 Country Club Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit/Type 1 Reserve engine 3 person engine/2 person ambulance Station 81-Sun City 37955 Washington St. 1 engine/3 firefighters 1 HazMat Unitl 2 firefighters. HazMat until cross staffed with a total of 5 firefighters. HazMat requires 2 engine personnel and all 3 pieces of e ui ment The City contract allows for 51 full-time firefighters of which 15 are volunteers. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-6 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review The department's target response time which is specific to the time dispatch receives the call to the time a unit is responding is one minute during the day and two minutes during the night. The goal is to provide services five minutes from the time dispatch receives a call. The average response times, which include the time dispatch receives the call to the time services are being provided for calendar year 2008 where 5.1 minutes. Fire Department response times within the city limits have been as follows: Table IV.B.2. Fire Protection response times No. of Calls Fire related Medical/traffic Misc. Average Response collison Times 2005 6,43 941 5,090 401 2 mins.' 2006 7,353 951 5,509 893 5.2 mins. 2007 7,903 1,000 5,921 982 5.1 mins. 2008 7,954 928 6,025 1001 5.1 mins. *This average response time does not include travel time. Refers to the target response time. To maintain average response times of five minutes, for suburban areas like the City of Palm Desert, the City plans for each of its fire stations to provide services within a 1.5 mile radius. As development occurs outside the five minute response zone, planning for an additional station begins. The City has identified a new fire station site of approximately three acres at the California State University, San Bernardino- Palm Desert campus to accommodate growth. Although this future station has been considered, planning for the construction of the new station has temporarily been placed on hold. To offset the revenue declines and to maintain the existing level of service for fire protection, the City has increased the fire tax. The City levies an annual special fire tax of$60 per equivalent dwelling unit, $30 per vacant lot, and $60 for commercial properties less than 2,600 square feet. Commercial properties are taxed on a square footage basis and are credited for an improvements made to the property in case of a fire, such as the installation of fire sprinklers and fire hydrants. This special tax was approved by the Palm Desert voters on April 8, 1980 which granted the city council the authority to increase the tax to the current maximum. The special tax was increased from an annual $48 per equivalent dwelling unit to $60 per equivalent dwelling unit. j�w Co,•.,wP'SSf c� C. Park and Recreation Services �"� P�{r1jMiiy b .�° The City of Palm Desert has its own f department, a . This Commission meets -a month to discuss issues and topics related to Palm Desert's parks. The City currently owns and operates fourteen parks consisting of 212.9 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have five acres of park land for every 1,000 city residents. Based on the 2009 Department of Finance population estimate within the city limits of 51,509, the City maintains 4.13 acres parkland for every 1,000 residents. Park locations, amenities, and activities can be found on the City's website. The City also publishes a four page Parks and Recreation Guide with contact and park information. The Cook Street Sports Complex is longer being operated. Once the New Palm Desert High School is built and relocated, existing school buildings will be demolished to accommodate the new sports fields. The new sports fields are expected to be open in 2012 and will be located at the former Palm Desert High School site. l0� The City is also within the boundaries of the Desert Recreation DistricKformerly known as the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District, which operates local facilities on a regional basis. Currently, Desert-RJI maintains and operates three facilities in Palm Desert, providing additional recreational opportunities to city residents. The facilities include the Palm Desert Community Center and Civic Center Park located at LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-7 � J Palm Desert Municipal Service Review 43-900 San Pablo Ave., Portola Community Center located at 45-570 Portola Ave., and the Golf Center at 74-495 Sheryl Ave. In 1990, the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to fund park and recreation facilities. Through this cooperative agreement, the sports complex at Palm Desert Civic Center Park was built, which is accessible to residents of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The cost to fund these facilities is shared by all three cities based on a population and assessed valuation formula. Table IV.C.1. City of Palm Desert Parks Park Name Acreage Amenities Civic Center Park 70 4 Baseball fields with Concession Stand/Restrooms., 6 Tennis Courts, 4 Sand Volleyball Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 5 Picnic Pavilions, Amphitheater, Skate Park, Playground, Dog Park, Public Arts Displays, Multi purpose field, Open Areas, Rose Garden, Water Feature, Paths Hovley Soccer Park 21 5 Full Size Soccer Fields, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Picnic Pavilions, 3 Horseshoe Pits, 3 Shuffleboard Courts, 1 Basketball Court, Playground, Disc Golf Course Ironwood Park 14.5 Picnic Pavilions, Tot Lot, Open Grass Area, Restrooms, Walking Paths Cahuilla Hills Park 27.5 2 Tennis Courts, Picnic Area, Off-leash Dog Area, Trails; The park serves as a trail head for the Cahuilla Hills Trail System � 2 Playground, Picnic Area, Restrooms, Baseball Field, Mulit-purpose fields, � i z F241y c,' ,Park available for after school and on weekends Washingtom Charter 2.5 Playground, Open Turf Area available after school and on weekends(owned School Park by the School District Joe Mann Park 2.5 Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Water Feature, Rose Garden, Dog Park, Picnic Pavilion, Playground, Open Turf Area, Restrooms Cap Homme/Ralph 27 Trails, Off Leash Dog Area, Picnic Areas; this site serves primarily as a trail Adams Park head for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System Palma Village 2 Playground, Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Picnic Pavilions, Neighborhood Park Restrooms, Water Feature Freedom Park 26 3 Baseball Fields, 2 Tennis Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 2 Sand Volleyball Courts, 2 Playgrounds, Walking Paths, Picnic Pavilions, Dog Park, Community Gardens, Skate Boarding Area, 2 Multi-purpose fields (soccer/football), Open Grass Areas, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Public Art Community Gardens 1 Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms, Community Gardens Haystack Greenbelt 12 Open Grass Areas, Paths and Smoketree Natural Area University Dog Park 2.4 Dog Park, Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms University 2.5 Playground, Basketball Court, Open Grass Area, Picnic Pavilions, d Park Restrooms, Community Garden, Walking Paths Total Acreage 212.9 D. Solid Waste Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Burrtec Industries to provide solid waste collection and disposal services to residential and commercial properties. Residential service is provided once a week, while commercial properties can have up to six pick-ups per week. Customers are provided with bins for trash, recyclables, and green waste. Recyclable materials such as plastic, glass, and newspaper are LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-8 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review hauled to a third party recycler in San Diego County. Green waste is recycled by BioMass in Thermal. All other trash is hauled to the Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley or the Lamb Canyon Landfill located in Beaumont. Recently the City modified its agreement with Burrtec to extend services to include curbside hazardous waste collection, two annual document shredding events, enhanced bulky item pick-ups, while maintaining existing rates for residential customers. Commercial properties also receive curbside hazardous waste collection, but are charged for services beyond the$300 limit. In addition, the City has launched a pilot program to work with restaurants for food waste recycling. The implementation of this program and the City's other recycling services will allow Palm Desert to meet its goal of recycling 75 percent of the community's waste. E. Road Maintenance Palm Desert oversees the development, operations and maintenance of its roads and transportation facilities. The City currently contracts with outside consultants to implement a pavement management system. This allows the City to monitor the status of its roads and where necessary provide annual slurry sealing and resurfacing. Also, the City's Public Works Department monitors traffic volumes by hiring outside contractors as traffic counters. The data collected is used for the City's traffic-model which projects traffic impacts of new developments at build-out. Lastly, the Department also oversees the design, installation and maintenance of traffic control services. F. Library Services The City does not provide library services. The Riverside County Library System provides library services within the city limits. The Palm Desert Public Library is located at 73-300 Fred Waring Drive. The library encompasses 20,000 square feet of a 40,000 square foot library facility. The facility is shared with the College of the Desert Library. Although the libraries and its materials are physically separated, they have a reciprocity agreement that allows them to share an online research database and checkout desk. The Palm Desert Library contains approximately 135,000 volumes, is staffed by 10 full-time employees, 13 part time employees, and approximately 70 volunteers. The library is open seven days a week: Monday-Thursday 10am-8pm, Friday and Saturday 10am-5pm, and Sunday 1 pm-5pm. The City allocates General Fund revenues to pay for additional library services. These funds cover expenses for additional hours of operation, the volunteer program and coordinator, special events coordinator, two part-time receptionists, one full time reference librarian, and one full time teen/young adult librarian. G. Animal Control The City contracts with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services for control of domestic animals. Services include spaying and neutering of pets, shelter for lost or abandoned pets, and attending to nuisance issues. V. Sphere of Influence To begin the Municipal Service Review process, LAFCO staff sent a letter to all the cities and special districts of Riverside County inquiring about any anticipated sphere of influence changes within this sphere cycle ending December 31, 2012. The City of Palm Desert informed us of their interest to amend their sphere of influence to include the Del Webb Sun City-Palm Desert area. This area was removed from the City's sphere of influence in October of 2007. Since 2007, discussions between the community of Sun City and Palm Desert have occurred where they mutually agree that this area belongs in the City LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-9 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review of Palm Desert's sphere of influence. This area is within the City's General Plan and would add approximately four square miles to the city's sphere of influence. Including this area within the City's sphere would allow the City to plan the future extension of services to this area and evaluate how these additional services will be funded. VI. MSR Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. To estimate growth and population projections, the City of Palm Desert uses the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research as well as the Department of Finance estimated population projections. Growth and population projections are incorporated into the City's future planning. As new projects and developments are submitted to the City they are reviewed by each department. At this time additional services and/or facilities needed to maintain the existing levels of services are considered. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. The City of Palm Desert maintains an enhanced level of services for police protection services. Currently, the Palm Desert Police Department's officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population. The City's contract for fire protection services allows the City to maintain an average fire response time of 5.1 minutes. The City's goal is to provide a five minute response time. For every 1,000 residents the City operates and maintains 4.13 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System within the city limits. Above the County's standard level of service the City provides general fund monies for extended hours of operation and special events. The City monitors the impacts of new developments on its services and plans for additional facilities and personnel when new projects are submitted to the City for approval. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The City Palm Desert adopts an annual budget every June which can be found on the City's website. In addition, the City has adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that identifies special projects and their funding. To offset the anticipated decline in revenue to the City's General Fund, the City has decreased overall expenditures in salary costs, while maintaining the same level of services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for,shared facilities. The City of Palm Desert has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells to share park and recreational facilities, as well as the cost for maintaining these facilities. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-10 1 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The City's website is www.cityofi)almdesert.oro where City departments post significant documents online such as the City of Palm Desert Annual Police Report, Annual Budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR), Audits, and Information Brochures for park services as well as other quick links to other pertinent public safety information. The City also maintains a monthly newsletter that is mailed to individual households in Palm Desert. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. The City of Palm Desert is mostly developed and provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas. While this high level of service indicates that it can accommodate growth, it can also indicate that maintaining these levels while annexing large areas could be very costly to the City. It would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact of annexing additional large areas. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-11 i IlAllnCity requested didition • e� I r - LIf GIj (u� • �:_ �� �til ` �gc f•_``� � Wil IMM 717 (s I '.'.i � ■ �. - r �� t tit ,f U9 3 II� III II ASr�III�r_� ���� IIIIIII IIIIL� ilYllllllllllllll� � Inmminln IIUIIIIrIIcr 1; Ii�1111�IlIlulll 74 :.x Phone: 760.346.0611 ext. 384 •Fax: 760.776.6417 From: Adriana Romo [mailto:ARomo@lafco.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:21 AM To: Grisa, Melissa Subject: RE: Park Svs. follow-up Hi Missy. Another question just popped into my head. Now, the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells have entered into an MOU for park and recreation facilities. Does this give city residents access to all of the other cities' facilities, or is this limited to the sports complex at PD Civic Center Park? Thanks. From: mgrisa@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:mgrisa@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:35 AM To. Adriana Romo Subject: RE: follow-up Hi Adriana, Here is a bit more about police and parks. Hope this helps! The City of Palm Desert does not currently have its own municipal police department. The city contracts for police services with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department,forming the Palm Desert Police Department. The Riverside County Sheriffs Department runs police services for the city at county owned facilities located within the City of Palm Desert. Construction is currently underway to build a new, approximately 80,000 sq.ft. county Sheriff's Station located in the City of Palm Desert. When complete,this building will house police operations for the contract cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage,and Indian Wells, as wells as a large unincorporated county area. All facility planning for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department is conducted in conjunction with the County of Riverside. As far as parks,we always try to be in compliance with the guide given forth in the general plan. So in our previous answer, I mentioned how projects are routed to various departments to evaluate their impact on various elements in the City.This would correspond with parks as well.These numbers below are what we try to keep standard. It is noted in the general plan that these numbers are flexible, but serve as a valuable guide for acreage needs for each park type. Mini Parks .25 Acre/ 1,000 Population 5—1 ac Ideal site size .25 Miles radius of area served Neighborhood Parks 1.0 Acre/ 1,000 Population 5—10 ac Ideal site size .25 - .5 Miles radius of area served Community Parks 5.0 Acres/ 1,000 Population 30-50 ac Ideal site size .5—3 Miles radius of area served If you need any more information, please feel free to contact me. �(ussJ C�risa ASSISTAIN7F PLANNER 3 LEE) ACCUIEDnED PROFESSIONAL City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone: 760.346.0611 ext. 384 Fax: 760.776.6417 From: Adriana Romo [mailto:ARomo@lafco.org] Sent:Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:49 PM To: Grisa, Melissa Subject: RE: follow-up Wow, impressive! If all cities were like Palm Desert, I'd be in heaven, lol..... I'm sorry, but I'm sure after our EO reads over my draft MSR, he'll have some more follow-up questions that I won't be able to answer. In the meantime thanks so much and have a great holiday weekend. &#0; From: mgrisa@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:mgrisa@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:25 PM To: Adriana Romo Cc: tbagato@cityofpalmdesert.org; laylaian@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: RE: follow-up 4 l i a �1. u 3 II 4.r m Hi Adriana, Here are the answers to the follow up questions. s 1. The City has a pavement management system.To date,the City has hired outside consultants to review distresses and inefficiencies in City streets.After that review,the consultant notes those comments and establishes an index to show the condition of each street. City staff monitors the results and this service is currently under consideration to be brought back in-house. City staff would then begin to monitor the status of roadways and continue to update the system as before. The City has annual maintenance programs for both slurry seal and resurfacing(overlay). Both are components of our pavement maintenance program. 2. Public Works monitors traffic volumes annually by hiring outside contractors as traffic counters.Also,the City has a city-wide traffic model which projects traffic needs through build-out over the entire City of Palm Desert. The Fire Department's primary determination for the location and need for a fire station rests on their ability to provide services within a 5 minute response time from dispatch to arrival. In suburban areas such as ours,this has historically resulted in fire stations providing services to an area approximately 1%:miles around that station. As an area becomes built up which is outside that 5 minute response zone...we need to plan on an additional fire station. As new projects or developments are submitted to the City, these projects are routed to various departments to evaluate their potential growth impacts on each department.These comments are very valuable to us as we plan new facilities around future growth for transportation management, police,fire, parks,and recreation. 3. 1 know you said to scratch number 3, but I've attached the entire resolution for your use.Yes, it did go to City Council for a vote. 4. Please see General Plan attachments. I've incorporated your other follow-up questions in this e-mail above as well. I'm still gathering some information related to item number 2 for Parks and Recreation and Police. I'll send that over as soon as I get that information. Here is what I've gathered so far. Please let me know if you have any further questions. ASSISTANT' PLANNER LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone: 760.346.0611 ext. 384 Fax: 760.776.6417 From: Adriana Romo [mailto:ARomo@lafco.org] ` Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 4:39 PM To: Grisa, Melissa Subject: follow-up Hi Missy. Thank you for again for all the work that went into the MSR questionnaire. I do however, have a few follow-up questions... 1. How does the city monitor the need for road improvements? 6 2. How does the City incorporate growth and population projections with facility planning? 3. The annual special tax for fire protection was raised from $48 to$60 per residence? Did this go to a vote? If yes, please provide a few more details on how it was increased. Sincerely, Local Government Analyst 11 Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street,Ste. 110 Riverside,CA 92507 Ph.: 951.369.0631 Fax: 951.369.8479 www.lafco.ora PS: I'm sure when our executive officer reads through the draft MSR we will have more follow-up questions. 7 CITY 01 r 0 [ M 01 1R1 ' 73-510 FREI) WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 922.60-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserc.orp August21, 2009 Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4277 Subject: LAFCO 2009-16-4 - Municipal Service Review- City of Palm Desert Dear Ms. Romo, Please find the following responses to the questions that were addressed in your letter dated July 21, 2009.At the end of this response list,we have also reviewed our previous City of Palm Desert Municipal Service review and attached an updated document.Within the Municipal Service Review, I have marked our changes in red bold font. I will be sending you this information electronically as well for ease of reading these highlighted changes with all of the associated attachments. 1. Growth and Population Proiections: Yes, the City of Palm Desert obtains information related to population projections from the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research, in conjunction with the California Department of Finance. 2. Public Facilities and Services: The following is a list of public facilities and services. The objective of the City of Palm Desert is to provide exemplary and sustainable services, amenities and programs for the benefit of the community. Our existing level of service has been maintained by the City through various reorganizations and reassignments of duties. Energy Independence Program • Part of the City's five-year goal to cut energy usage by 30 percent, the Palm Desert Energy Independence Program offers residents affordable financing for major energy- saving home improvements, such as high-efficiency air conditioners, dual-pane windows and solar panels. Long term payback of the improvements is linked to the owner's property taxes. Waste Management and Recycling • Palm Desert prides itself on maintaining a beautiful, clean city while being great stewards of the environment. The City contracts with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services to provide regular trash, recycling, and green waste pickup. Code Compliance • Blight and nuisances can devalue, detract, and degrade the quality of any neighborhood. Recognizing the importance of protecting the quality of life here, the City of Palm Desert has adopted ordinances that regulate the use and maintenance of private property. While many of the City's ordinances deal with private residential G TlonningtMissy Gnsawisc AFCO UpdateILAFCO Review Response Letter Coc LJ n+nee,e.n.nn, 1 property, there are also ordinances that regulate the condition of commercial properties as well. Generally, the City of Palm Desert Code Compliance Division is responsible forenforcing Municipal Code regulations on private property throughout the city. Parks and Recreation • Public parks provide Americans with the opportunity to be active and to lead healthy lives. About 60 percent of Americans do not get the recommended 30 minutes of activity, five days a week. Parks and trails improve local residents' overall quality of life by providing facilities for exercise. Parks positively affect our physical and psychological health, as well as provide economic, environmental, and social benefits to the surrounding community and the people who live nearby. Parks create a sense of community, make neighborhoods more attractive places to work and live, and promote a healthy lifestyle to local residents. Palm Desert takes tremendous pride in its parks and is constantly working to improve its parks and recreational facilities. Palm Desert's park system features: public art, community gardens,dog parks, a rose garden, an amphitheater, a variety of trails systems, sports facilities, playgrounds, and other amenities. Palm Desert Library • See Section 7.11 Library Facilities as attached in the updated review Palm Desert Police/ Riverside Sheriffs Department/Cal Fire • Palm Desert is ranked one of the safest cities in southern California. Police, Fire, and Paramedic services are contracted through the County of Riverside. A good portion of the City's annual budget is dedicated to public safety services. Graffiti Removal • Graffiti is an eyesore. It is costly, destructive, lowers property values, and is against the law. The City of Palm Desert conducts an active graffiti abatement program through its Public Works Maintenance Services Division. Graffiti is removed from public areas and private property with owners' consent and is automatically removed from walls and fences immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way. Nuisance Water • Nuisance Water is defined as chronic running water in gutters and street crossings as well as standing water where it doesn't belong. These wet areas,that never seem to dry, are a common eyesore, create potential safety hazards, prematurely age street pavement and waste of a valuable, resource. Street/Sign Maintenance • The Maintenance Services Division maintains street signs throughout the City of Palm Desert that have been vandalized, knocked down, are faded, or obstructed by landscape material. Street Sweeping • One of the Maintenance Services Division's primary goals is to ensure that City streets remain in excellent condition for Palm Desert residents and visitors. This requires regular street sweeping. The City contracts for bi-weekly street sweeping services on all residential and some commercial streets with a private company— CleanStreet. Most of the City's commercial streets fall under the financial responsibility of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and are swept weekly. Capital Improvements • The Capital Improvement Section oversees the development, design, and construction of City projects such as flood control systems and roadway construction and rehabilitation. ciIY of F0 M 0ESERI WlolanningWissy GnsaWiscILAFCO UpdatelL FCO Review Response Leder.doc 0m..enarw Land Development • The Land Development Section provides project review for commercial and residential development, focusing on the areas of grading, roadway construction, and drainage improvements. Transportation Engineering • The Transportation Engineering Section is responsible for the City's traffic control system, which consists of signs, markings, and interconnected traffic signals. Landscape Services The Landscape Services Division's primary responsibility is to maintain and enhance the urban forest of the City of Palm Desert's public and open spaces. This includes the administration and management of the contracts for that work as well as the review, implementation, inspection, and approval of new public and private landscaping projects. Landscape Services develops and maintains Palm Desert's urban forest. These activities include managing the City's annual Arbor Day program, its landscape awards program, citywide tree pruning programs, and educational outreach presentations to various communities and agencies. The division also oversees Palm Desert's water conservation programs and provides technical and staffing assistance to other City departments, including Parks and Recreation, Planning, Community Services, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Housing Authority. "Desert Flora,"a landscaping guide published by Landscape Services,describes more than 250 desert-friendly plants, provides detailed advice on their care and maintenance, and outlines design principles showing how best to use them in your project to create an attractive and sustainable landscape. Landscape Services Division staff includes:the landscape manager; a landscape specialist; a senior landscape inspector; and four landscape inspectors who also enforce and monitor the following ordinances. Tree Maintenance Ordinance • The purposes of this chapter are: (1) to establish standards for care and maintenance of trees located on public property; (2) to regulate compliance with those standards in order to protect those public assets and enhance their appearance; (3)to establish standards for the use of public rights-of-way for the care and maintenance of trees located on public property or located on private property and affecting public rights-of-way; and (4)to provide for the public safety during such care and maintenance. Parking Lot Shade Tree Ordinance • The intent of this code shall be to improve and maximize the landscaping within the off-street open parking areas to provide fifty percent or more of shade coverage in ten years. In order to achieve this coverage the applicant shall plant multi-trunk trees in windy areas, and design, where possible, north/south oriented parking areas to provide maximum shade. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained to the extent that at least one medium or large-scale tree is planted for every three parking stalls. A diversity of tree species is required. The minimum size tree planted shall be no less than a twenty-four-inch box tree, sized to specifications according to the American Standard for Nursery Stock(ANSI Z60.1)and Arizona Nursery Association Grower's standards. Low water use and"native"plant materials shall be encouraged CITY 0f PR M 0 1[ P I G TlanningWissy Grisa%MisclLA CO UpdatellAFCO Review Response Letler.doc i �mmwrtanioev and used to the greatest extent possible. Problematic trees having shallow or invasive roots or having brittle or weak branching structure shall be prohibited. All trees shall be planted and maintained according to the City of Palm Desert's landscape installation and maintenance guidelines and in such a manner to maximize the growth, health and longevity of the plantings. Parking lot trees adaptable to the Coachella Valley environment shall be selected and planted according to the recommended parking lot tree list in the city's parking lot tree design criteria and specifications on file in the city clerk's office. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance • The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum water-efficient landscape requirements for newly installed landscapes. It is also the purpose of this chapter to implement these minimum requirements to meet the state of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Statutes of 1990, Chapter 1145. It is the intent of the city council to promote water conservation through climate-appropriate plant material and efficient irrigation an well as to create a Palm Desert landscape theme through enhancing and improving the physical and natural environment. These provisions are supplementary and additional to the subdivision and zoning regulation of this code and shall be read and construed as an integral part of the regulations and controls established thereby. Please see the attached Capital Improvement Program for Streets, Traffic Signal, and Drainage Projects for the next five years, 2008-2012. All of the projects listed on this attachment are fully funded through a variety of internal and external resources as indicated each fiscal year. There are no plans for facility upgrades beyond the City's boundaries or existing sphere of influence. New facilities may be needed to serve existing and proposed sphere of influence areas once annexed, but the City does not have plans to annex any areas in the existing or proposed sphere of influence areas in the immediate future. Once an annexation is proposed, the City would need to evaluate current population numbers and community needs within City boundaries and the potential annexation. The City of Palm Desert is still planning to construct a fourth fire station to serve the community. A three acre site was identified and secured; the new station will be located within the California State University San Bernardino, Palm Desert Campus property (on Gerald Ford Drive, between Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive). However, given the current economic conditions, this project has temporarily been put on hold. This station is necessary to serve the new development within the City's"North Sphere." As development projects have slowed due to the economy, this station is currently not needed. Once development increases, this project will be reinitiated. A City consultant previously enacted a nexus study to fund the new station via a Fire Facilities Fee on new development. Please note that the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency has set aside funding for this project, in which it would be partially reimbursed from this development fee. If the City were to annex the unincorporated "Sun City" Sphere of Influence, that area is already served by Riverside County Fire Station No. 81 (37955 Washington, Palm Desert, CA 92260). The Fire Department indicated that the proposed new station could be too far to service this area, so this particular station may be retained, pending an analysis of the issue. CITY Of PR [ M OHM Gnorning\Missy GrisoNiscLLAFCO Update\LAFCO Review Response Loner.doc ftwo noon'.. Here are the Fire Department Response Times for 2006-2008 2006: • 7,353 calls- 951 fire related, 5,509 medical emergency/traffic collision, 893 miscellaneous • From time of dispatch to on scene time 5.2 minutes. From time of response(wheels rolling)to on scene 4.8 minutes 2007: 7,903 calls- 1000 fire related, 5,921 medical emergency/traffic collision, 982 miscellaneous • From time of dispatch to on scene time 5.1 minutes. From time of response(wheels rolling) to on scene 4.7 minutes 2008: • 7,954 calls- 928 fire related, 6,025 medical emergency/traffic collision, 1001 miscellaneous • From time of dispatch to on scene time 5.1 minutes. From time of response(wheels rolling) to on scene 4.7 minutes The times of 1 minute daytime and 2 minute night time reported in the previous report, is what we call"turn out"time. That means from time of dispatch to unit responding. That is the Fire Departments' guideline. The following information is from the Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report,which is also attached for your review. Indicated below is the number of total number of calls for service, emergency calls, the number of highest priority calls and the average response times for the years 2006 —2008. 2006: • Total Calls for Service: 42,042 • Total Emergency Calls: 10,634 • Highest Priority Calls: 61 o Average Response Time: 4.41 2007: • Total Calls for Service: 39,518 • Total Emergency Calls: 10,738 • Highest Priority Calls: 69 o Average Response Time: 4.64 2008: • Total Calls for Service: 44,237 • Total Emergency Calls: 11,022 • Highest Priority Calls: 59 o Average Response Time: 42 See the attached updated document table under Section 7.10 Parks and Recreation for complete listing of City parks and recreational areas. 3. Financial Ability to Provide Services: The City does not have existing bonded indebtedness to the General Fund. However, the Redevelopment Agency and Special Assessments to property owners does create existing lily of PRIM OHM G:\Planning%Mlssy GrisaNAiscILAFCO UpdateLLAFCO Review Response LetterAoc '0 avaoa roannm I bonded indebtedness. There are no general taxes, and the only special tax is for fire protection which has increased from $48 per residence to $60 per residence per year. The amount charged for fire tax to commercial properties and the unit basis is$60 per year for commercial properties less than or equal to 2,600 square feet, including a 25% reduced assessment for sprinklers or a 50% discount if fire resistant with sprinklers. Commercial properties in excess of 2,600 square feet are assessed upon an equivalent tax computed in accordance with the fire flow requirements by area using an established fire flow actuary table as attached in Exhibit A, Table 1. Special assessment indebtedness is created to for sewer,water, street, curb and gutter, and electrical undergrounding improvements. The special assessments are as follows: 2003 Assessment Revenue Bonds $3,500,000 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds 94-2 Sunterrace 09/02/14 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds 94-3 Merano 09/02/20 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds Silver Spur Ranch Utility Undergrounding 09/02/28 AD 98-1 Limited Obligations Refunding Bonds $870,000 09/02/18 CFD 2005-1 Special Tax Bonds Series 2006A $67,915,000 09/01/36 AD 2004-2 Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds $29,430,000 09/02/37 2008 Special Tax Refunding Bonds $10,935,000 10/01/20 Please see attached documents for tax rate information. As part of an overall strategy of reducing expenditures the City took several actions to lower salary costs. The first was the implementation of a hiring freeze, which resulted in the elimination of four (4) vacant positions, the second was offering a "golden handshake" early retirement program, which resulted in eleven (11) retirements, and four positions were eliminated as part of the FY 09/10 budget. The elimination of positions resulted in one lay-off and three (3) early retirements. The elimination in positions was due to significant slowing in development activity and a resulting reduction in work. Overall, we have achieved a total reduction in staff of nineteen (19) positions. These retirements and position eliminations required a substantial reorganization of functions and staff. Many functions are being absorbed by other staff in the same department, but the retirement of ACM's and Directors has resulted in staff reassignments as needed. A revised organizational chart has been attached for your reference. Since the last review, City contributions have increased as noted in Section 7.11 Library Facilities in the attached updated review. 4. Status of and Opportunities for Shared Facilities: Contracted service agreements that the City maintains include: • Police • Fire • Landscape Maintenance • Parks and Recreation Maintenance CIIY Rf P R[ M RESERT G Wlanning\Missy Grisa\MistnLAFCO UpaateV FCO Review Response LeHecdoc �NIIIOalln4fplM1 • Waste Management and Recycling Please see question number 2 above, Public Facilities and Services, and the updated attached document for further information. 5. Accountability for Service Needs/ Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies: The City Council has established a number of commissions and committees to serve in an advisory role for issues important to the City and its residents. In addition to these commissions and committees, made up of City residents,when the City seeks out information related to the overall communities wants and needs, survey mailers are sent out to individual residents. The City also maintains a monthly newsletter sent out to individual households in Palm Desert, which highlights new programs or items of interest occurring in the City along with community information and hours of operation for various places of interest. Yearly audits and budgets are done and are available on the city website, www.cityofpalmdesert.org. The website is a detailed tool for individuals seeking information or doing business with the City. Various types of information include general information and services provided to residents, businesses, and visitors, individual department information including applications, and various quick links to highlighted features frequently used. At this time, the City is not considering any consolidations, mergers, or other reorganizations with another agency. The City will be undergoing its own restructuring process with City staff within the next few weeks, due to overall strategy to reduce expenditures as discussed above. 6. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery. as Required by Commission Policy: At this time, no areas outside of the City boundaries are currently receiving or requesting services. The City does not anticipate annexing any areas outside of the current boundaries within the next five years. Please contact me with any additional questions at 760-346-0611 ext. 384. j" §inc hn M. Wohlmuth y Manager lily of PH [ M OMNI G:%PlanningWissy GrisaWisdLAFCiO Updaie%AFCO Review Response Letter doc mmvm em,mrw Mh fly, V(Z RIVERSIDE LAFCO July 21, 2009 John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: LAFCO 2009-16-4—Municipal Service Review— City of Palm Desert Dear Mr. Wohlmuth, Thank you for your response to the Municipal Service Review (MSR)/Sphere of Influence (SOI) inquiry. As you may be aware, prior to reviewing the City's sphere of influence review, a Municipal Service Review must be completed. This will allow us to update the City's service and service level data for the analysis in this sphere review cycle, ending December 31, 2012. Please address the following: 1. Growth and Population Projections: For population projections does the City utilize forecasts developed by the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research? If not, what does the City use? 2. Public Facilities and Services: Provide a brief description for each service provided by the city. List standard/objective levels of services and existing level of service provided. Include information on planned major new facilities or facility upgrades. Indicate whether these improvements are included in an adopted CIP and whether a funding source has been identified. Do any facility plans or general plan elements include area beyond the agency's boundaries or beyond existing SOI? Will new facilities be needed to serve existing/proposed sphere of influence areas, once annexed? i In the prior MSR there was mention of City plans to construct a new fire station in the vicinity of Cook St. and 1-10. Has this occurred? What is the status? How is it being funded? Indicate how this will change the existing level of fire protection services. Please provide additional information regarding emergency service calls: For calendar years 2006-2008, indicate the number of emergency calls and the average response times for highest priority calls. Has the City developed any additional parks or park acreage, such as the regional park planned on the north side of Country Club Dr. west of Washington St.? 3. Financial Ability to Provide Services: Does the City have any existing bonded indebtedness? Include the purpose, tax rate and when the debt will be retired. Separately identify all general taxes, special taxes, and assessments, including purpose and amount. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE srREEr,surrE 110•RNERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone(951)369-0631 •w .lafco.org•Fax(951) 369-8479 In the prior MSR a special tax for Are protection of$48 per residence was identified. Has this amount changed? If yes, what is the new amount? What is the amount of fire tax charged to commercial properties and the unit basis (parcel, area, per square foot)? We realize these are difficult economic times for all agencies. Indicate whether layoffs or other service reductions have been required. If so, please indicate what services/departments were impacted and provide an estimate of when service levels will return to their prior state. If not, how were service level reductions avoided? For example, has there been a change in the City's contribution for additional library services under the County contract? If yes, has this resulted in a change in the library's hours of operation and/or staffing levels? 4. Status of. and Opportunities for Shared Facilities: Identify any areas where the City and another agency provide similar services, duplication of services or overlap of service responsibilities exist, or other opportunities for sharing facilities, equipment or services. Identify existing service agreements with other agencies. Describe which services are contracted. (If not previously addressed in Question 1.) 5. Accountability for Service Needs/Government Structure and operational efficiencies: Discuss efforts the agency made to increase public participation and accountability. How often are audits performed and how are they made available to the public? Does the agency have a website and what type of information can be found on the site? Discuss any consideration for consolidation, merger or other reorganization with another agency that might improve accountability or operational efficiencies. 6. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission Policy: Identify areas outside the agency's boundaries currently receiving or requesting services from the agency. Also, identify inhabited areas within or outside the current sphere of influence that the City anticipates annexing within the next five years. Submit a corresponding map of the area(s). Also, please review the prior City of Palm Desert Municipal Service Review attached, and identify any areas of significant changes. Please submit your response by Friday, August 21, 2009 so that we can continue the sphere of influence process as scheduled. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SiniEna Romo� Local Government Analyst II RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •38.30 VINE STREET. surrE 110•RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Shone (951) 369-0631 •www.lafco.org•Fax(951) 369-8479 SECTION 7.0 CITY OF PALM DESERT 7.1 City Profile The City of Palm Desert (City) is located in the western Coachella Valley south of Interstate 10. It is bounded by Rancho Mirage to the west, Indian Wells to the southeast, the unincorporated community of Bermuda Dunes to the east, and unincorporated county lands to the north. The Santa Rosa Mountains lie to the south. The City encompasses 26 square miles and has a Sphere of Influence (SOI) that consists of 41.5 square miles (see Figure 7.1, City of Palm Desert). The City's northern SOI includes the community of Bermuda Dunes to the east and extends north of Interstate 10 to include Sun City and industrial and service-commercial uses west of Washington Street and north of Varner Road. (The City of Palm Desert voted to remove Sun City from the sphere of influence at the April 12, 2007 City Council meeting. On December 11, 2008, after public testimony in support of reintroducing this area into the sphere of influence, the City Manager wrote Mr. George J. Spiliotis a letter of interest regarding this concept. On May 8, 2009 the Palm Desert City Manager again expressed clear interest in another letter to Mr. Spiliotis to reaccept the delineated area previously known as Del Webb Palm Desert into Palm Desert's sphere of influence. The underlined statement above was previously detached and is the subject of this request for reattachment. This statement is not currently accurate and will need to be re- established after this request has received a decision.) The majority of the City's SOI is south of the city and includes Cahuilla Hills, Royal Carrizo and large areas of the Santa Rosa foothills and mountains. The Palm Desert General Plan Planning Area extends north to the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains and the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park. It is generally bounded on the west by Rio del Sol and on the east by Adams Street. This area encompasses an additional 68 acres, for a total Planning Area of approximately 134 square miles. The City contracts with the County of Riverside for some services, including: police and fire protection, animal control, and health services. The City directly provides services for public improvements; art and community promotion; planning, zoning, building and engineering; housing and community development; code enforcement and inspections; and economic and business development. Palm Desert contracts with the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District to provide recreation programs. The Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency has four project areas, encompassing approximately 68 percent of the city. Table 7.1 Palm Desert Profile General Information City Hall Address: 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260 (760)346-0611 www.cityofpalmdesert.org Date of Incorporation: November 26, 1973 Form of Government/Type of City: Council-Manager/Charter Area: 26 square miles Population: 51,509(Year 2009)/70,303(Year 2030)Average Annual Growth Rate=1.6% General Fund and l Fund Operating Budget(FY 2009- Revenues:$46,982,000 2010 : Expenditures:$46,957,546 GANN Appropriations Limitation/Percentage: $91,311,963/39% General Plan Update Adopted March 15,2004 I includedServices in this MSR Law Enforcement: Riverside County Sheriff,contract-88 sworn officers Fire Protection: Riverside County Fire Department-3 stations Solid Waste/Recycling: Burrtec Industries, Inc. (franchise agreement) Slormwater/Drainage: Public Works,Riverside County Flood Control, Coachella Valley Water District Roadways/Circulation: Public Works Recreation and Parks: 15 park sites, 1 municipal golf course Library Services: 1 branch library,Riverside County Library System Animal Control Services: Contract with Riverside County Code Enforcement: Building and Safety Department-5 staff Code Enforcement-4 staff Water and Wastewater Services: The Coachella Valley Water District provides water and wastewater services within the city. These services are addressed in the Coachella Valley Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review(2004). 7.2 Governance The City of Palm Desert was incorporated in 1973 under the General Laws of the State of California. In November 1997, the voters approved a charter for the City. The City has a Council-Manager form of government consisting of five council members. The Council selects the Mayor from its own members for a one year term. Council members are elected at large for four-year terms, staggered every two years, with general municipal elections conducted in November of even-numbered years. The City Council is charged with governing according to the City's Charter, enacting City ordinances, establishing policies, representing the public,maintaining intergovernmental relations, and exercising general oversight over the affairs of City government, the Redevelopment Agency, Financing Authority, Housing Authority, and Parking Authority. The Council appoints the City Manager and City Clerk (see Figure 7.2, City of Palm Desert Organization Chart). Regular Meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber. Council meeting agendas and minutes are available on the City's website(www.cityofpalmdesert.ore). The City Council has established a number of commissions and committees to serve in an advisory role for issues important to the City and its residents. These include: Architectural Review, Art in Public Places, Building Board of Appeals,Cove Commission, Cultural Resources Preservation, Housing Commission, Housing Authority, Landscape Beautification, Parks and Recreation, Library Promotion, Planning, Redevelopment, Public Safety,Rent Review and Youth. Others which are focused on economic conditions or financial issues include: Audit, Investment and Finance; Financing Authority; Outside Agency Funding; Marketing; Citizens Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4; and El Paseo Business Improvement District and Entrada del Pasea. 2 % \ I �} � ! I �\ - f � ©» � } \ | | � | - � ( � � { � I � • — — —-- - � — -�—- � ! - � � �92 - - I a 7.3 Financial Condition The City of Palm Desert relies on three primary sources of revenue: 1) retail commercial; 2) tourist and resort development; and 3) educational institutions, including the College of the Desert, the California State University campus and the University of California Heckman School of Entrepreneurship. These institutions are expected to be a major source of employment in the future as well as provide sales tax revenue from increased daily population. Palm Desert is a no/low property tax city and therefore relies on sales tax, transient occupancy tax and a special fire tax to fund municipal services. In 1982 the voters approved Proposition A, imposing a special tax on real property to provide additional funding for fire services. The City's transient occupancy tax is nine percent, the lowest within the study area. The budgeted General Fund and Fire Fund revenues for FY 2009 - 2010 are shown below in Figure 7.3, City of Palm Desert General Fund Revenues, FY 2009- 2010 Budget: Figure 7.3—City of Palm Desert General and Fire Fund Revenues,FY 2009-2010 Budget Replace Pie Chart with the Following Bullet Points: • Sales Tax 34% • Property Tax 12% • Subvention 8% • State Franchise Tax 6% • Transient Occupancy Tax 17% • License, Permits & Charges 5% • Interest Earnings 3% • All Other Revenue 15% The City maintains a healthy financial condition, as shown in Table 7.2, Palm Desert General Fund and Fire Fund Summary. At FY 2008 the City had a General Fund balance of$63.5 million with $3.7 million in the Proposition A Fire Tax Special Revenue Fund. Table 7.2 Palm Desert General Fund and Fire Fund Summary General Fund and Fire Fund Revenues $54,854,277 $47,SOQ 000 $46,982,000 Expenditures $51,184,595 $52,015,000 $46,957,546 TOTAL Surplus/(Deficit) $3,669,682 $4,515,000 $24,454 t vv 2009 the City had $122 n million i estr-ie.ed reserves, (Please see attached documents for financial figures) Long-tern liabilities totaled $412 million, of which $412 million are tax allocation bonds and obligations of the Redevelopment Agency and the Financing Authority. The City has no general obligation bond debt. The City has a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that includes $280.3 million in funding for FY 2009-2010. Projects include$134.5 million for streets and medians, S3 million for drainage, $2.9 million for parks and recreation and $50.6 million for housing projects. The 4 City funds these improvements using a variety of sources, including a New Construction Tax, developer fees, Measure A revenues (a half-cent sales tax program for transportation improvements), and redevelopment funds. The City budgets annually to provide funding assistance to non-profit agencies or groups that provide charitable, public benefit, public welfare or educational services to Palm Desert Residents. The Outside Agency Funding Committee makes recommendations on the grants. The cv 2007 budget inelude $947 000 for this purpose,_ 20 p nt; e from she prior- eor(delete) 7.4 Projected Growth (Adriana informed staff LAFCO would update this section) Palm Desert is the second largest city of the six cities within the study area, and has the lowest projected growth rate. Table 7.3, Projected Population Growth compares the population growth in the City, in the western Coachella Valley incorporated areas, and in the Coachella Valley. Table 7.3 Projected Population Growth Area 2005 i Growt h Rate Palm Desert 47,987 54,600 56,893 59,155 61,322 63,402 1.3% Western Coachella Valley 186,707 211,028 237,540 263,684 288,742 312,772 2.7% incorporated areas Unincorporated Coachella 90.668 103,079 126,925 149,159 169,437 187,870 4.3% VI Coachella Valley 419,338 470,827 540,105 607,149 670,378 730,001 3.0% The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the City's 2009 population to be 51,509, slightly higher than the SCAG estimate. In addition, the DOF estimates that the City had 33,142 housing units, with 2.149 persons per household. Palm Desert has an estimated 15,000 seasonal residents; approximately 30 percent of the dwelling units are second or vacation homes for part time residents. Table 7.4, Land Use Acreage Summary, summarizes the land uses within the City per the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan: Table 7.4 Land Use Acreage Summary Land Use TYpe Developed �7acant 0/4 Acres Acres Residential 8,722 1,078 Commercial 1,222 517 10% Industrial 231 293 3% Public/Quasi-Public 636 16 4% Open Space 2,572 0 15% Roads 1.955 0 11% Total 15,339 1,904 100% 5 The estimated permanent population at build-out ranges from 53,000 to 59,000. Lands north of the I-10 are subject to development constraints, including flooding and seismic conditions, a lack of infrastructure, and sensitive species habitat. This area contains the Coachella Valley Preserve. There are several hundred vacant acres between Varner Road and Avenue 38. Build-out in this northern SOI is expected to be at substantially lower overall densities with a smaller population. Development in the southern SOI area is limited to very low density residential on large lots with the vast majority of the area expected to remain undeveloped. Note: On January 29, 2007, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments adopted updated population projections for the SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Those projections are included in Section 2.0, Regional Population and Growth. 7.5 Law Enforcement Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department to provide law enforcement services within the city. The Palm Desert Sheriffs Station is located at 73-520 Fred Waring Drive. This station also serves as the Sheriffs Department base of operations for the contract cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells, and the unincorporated area in the western half of the Coachella Valley. They also operate two off-site Police Sub-Stations to provide easier access to police services to the residents on the east side of the city. The City added one new deputy, a narcotics task force officer, to its contract in FY 2009. Currently, there are 80 sworn officers serving Palm Desert, including 36 deputies dedicated to the Patrol Division and the balance assigned to the Traffic Division, Special Enforcement Teams, School Resource Officer, Narcotics and Gang Enforcement, Investigations Bureau and other assignments. Current staffing provides the City with 1.55 officers per 1000 residents (based on the 2009 population of 51,509). Of the six cities in the study area, in 2005 Palm Desert ranked third in the property crime rate (56.7 incidents per 1,000 residents) and the violent crime rate (3.1 incidents per 1,000 residents). ( This section needs to be updated) The Department operates the Special Enforcement Team as an adjunct to the Patrol Division. The team consists of one sergeant, six deputies, and a dedicated community-oriented policing officer. The primary function of the Special Enforcement Team is to provide enhanced patrol services to residents of the City of Palm Desert. The Special Enforcement Team conducts the time-intensive follow-up investigations of burglaries, thefts, and various other localized crimes, in order to keep the patrol officers in the field and available for calls for service. The Department also provides officers to two regional multi jurisdictional task forces that investigate narcotic and gang activity. In 2008, the Palm Desert station received 44,237 calls within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority calls was 4.2 minutes. 6 7.6 Fire Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection and emergency services. There are three stations within the city limits, two additional stations within the City's SOI, and two within the expanded General Plan Planning Area. The City has identified the need for a new station in the vicinity of Cook Street and I-10 to serve future growth in the northern portion of the City. Palm Desert has an ISO rating of 3. Table 7.5, Palm Desert Fire Stations provides a breakdown of staff and equipment available at the City's stations and those within its SOL Table 7.5 Palm Desert Fire Stations i Station Location Staffing/Equipment Station 33-Palm Desert 44400 Town Center Way Type 1 engine-3 staff, 1 -100"Aerial Ladder Truck,1 ALS Paramedic Ambulance, 1 Urban Search and Rescue Truck -4 staff 1 Reserve Ladder Truck,I Water Rescue Vehicle. The Urban,Search and Rescue Truck and Water Rescue Vehicle are cross staffed with station personnel.' Rescue ALS-Medw11n0 Station 67-Mesa View 73200 Mesa View Drive Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit 3 per engine/2 per ambulance Station 71 -North Palm Desert 73995 Country Club Drive Type 1 engine 1 ALS medic unit/Type 1 Reserve engine 3 per engine 12 per ambulance Station 81 -Sun City 37955 Washington Street 1 engine 13 firefighters 1 HazMat Unit/2 firefighters 1HazMat Support Unit 12 firefighters The HazMat unit is now cross staffed with a total of 5 firefighters.On a HazMat call 2 of the engine personnel move over to the Hazmat unit and all 3 pieces of equipment respond. As noted above in Section 7.3 Financial Condition a special fire tax is imposed on real property within P P P P Y Palm Desert to provide additional funding for fire services. The charge for residential property is $60 per year; commercial property charges are based on square footage. The fire department is staffed by 51 full-time firefighters with 15 volunteers, equating to approximately 1.2 fire fighters per 1,000 residents (based on the 2009 population of 51,509). The department's target response time is 1 minute during the day and 2 minutes during the night. Their average response time is 5 minutes. The firefighters and emergency medical technicians at the three Palm Desert stations responded to 928 fires, 6,025 medical emergencies, and 1,001 miscellaneous calls in 2008 for a total of 7,954. 7.7 Solid Waste Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Burrtec Industries to provide solid waste collection and disposal services. Commercial pick-up is offered up to six days per week, and residential pick-up is generally once per week. Burrtec offers additional services to large waste generators including restaurants,hotels, retailers, and resorts. 7 Bun-tee uses a 3-Cart Automated Collection System, which provides customers with one bin for trash, one for recyclables, and one for green waste. Gated residential eemmunities use their own trash bins Trash collected in the City is hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station. The trash is then diverted to the Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley or the Lamb Canyon Landfill, located between the Cities of Beaumont and San Jacinto. The Badlands Landfill is permitted to accept 4,000 tons of waste per day and is scheduled to close in 2016. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is permitted to accept 3,000 tons of waste per day and is scheduled to close in 2023. The City's recycling program has proven beneficial in the preservation of landfill space for non- recyclable materials, and the preservation of energy and other finite resources used in materials production. Recyclable materials such as glass, plastic, and newspaper are hauled to a third party recycler in San Diego County. Green waste is recycled by BioMass in Thermal. The City has recently approved an agreement between the City and Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services to expand services to include curbside hazardous waste collection, two free document shredding events per year, and enhanced bulky item pickup without increasing rates. Businesses can also schedule curbside hazardous waste pick-ups, but will be charged for services exceeding a $300 limit. The City's bulky item pick-up process has also been expanded to include apartment complexes and other multi-family residences with more than four units. Another benefit of the new agreement is that residents can now recycle plastic grocery bags along with their other recyclables. This bag in bag program allows residents to take one plastic grocery bag and stuff all their other plastic bags inside it.The full bag is then deposited in the gray recycling bin. Working with Palm Desert's restaurants, the City is creating a pilot program for food waste recycling that, combined with the other new services, will help Palm Desert meet its goal of recycling 75 percent of the community's waste,reducing the trash that ends up in landfills. The City's reported waste diversion rate under AB 939 was 63.1 percent for 2004, exceeding the 50 percent requirement established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 7.8 Stormwater Drainage The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the Riverside County Flood Control District are responsible for the management of regional drainage within and in the vicinity of Palm Desert, including rivers, major streams and their tributaries, and areas of significant sheet flooding. Both Districts are empowered with broad management functions, including flood control planning and construction of drainage improvements for regional flood control facilities, as well as watershed and watercourse protection related to those facilities. To carry out their mandates, the Districts also have powers of taxation, bonded indebtedness, land and water rights acquisition, and cooperative partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies. An elected Board acts as the official decision-making body of CVWD, while the Riverside County Board of Supervisors is the official decision-making body of that District. While CVWD and the County have the primary responsibility of regional flood control, the City is directly 8 responsible for the management of local drainage. The preservation of lands constrained by topography or drainage, including steep slopes, areas rich in vegetation and cover, alluvial plains and drainage channels greatly reduces runoff and preserves the capacity of downstream facilities. The planned integration of on-site storm water detention facilities, where possible and appropriate, significantly reduces the needed size of downstream facilities, while creating opportunities for groundwater recharge, and enhanced open space and recreation areas. The City has a Land Development and Capital Improvement Projects Division which provides project review and permitting for land development projects (subdivisions, commercial and single family homes) focusing on the areas of grading, roadway construction and drainage improvements. The division also includes the development, design and construction of the City's Capital Improvement Program. Projects such as new roadway construction and roadway widening, flood control and storm drain systems and major street rehabilitation are all included in the division activities. The division also monitors compliance with federal regulatory requirements in the areas of water and air quality. The City has budgeted for$8,071,000 in drainage capital improvement projects for FY 2010. 7.9 Roads and Circulation The Palm Desert Public Works Department oversees the development, operation and maintenance of the City's transportation infrastructure. The department also oversees the design, installation and maintenance of traffic control devices, reviews and resolves of traffic related problems and prepares traffic-engineering studies. The City has budgeted for a total of $59.4 million in capital improvement projects for FY 20010. The ^' •d c2e0 nnn annuall, fer- the major street and sidewalks program and $250 nnn annually for the major street land..eape program.idelete) Public Transit. The provider of public transit service within the City and the Coachella Valley is the SunLine Transit Agency. SunLine carries nearly 4 million passengers per year in a service area of more than 360 square miles and provides five bus routes within the City. 7.10 Parks and Recreation The City's Parks and Recreation Department oversees parks and recreation services within the City. The City has 212.9 acres of park land consisting of fourteen parks with a variety of amenities and open natural land conservation areas. The City currently provides 4.0 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, with a General Plan goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Table 7.6 summarizes park facilities within the City: 9 Table 7.6 Palm Desert Park Facilities Park Name Acreage Amenities Civic Center Park 70 4 Baseball Fields with Concession/Restroom Building,6 Tennis Courts, 4 Sand Volleyball Courts,3 Basketball Courts,5 Picnic Pavilions, Amphitheater,Skate Park, Playground, Dog Park, Public Art Displays, Multipurpose Field,Open Areas,Rose Garden,Water Feature, Paths Hovley Soccer Park 21 5 Full Size Soccer Fields, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Picnic Pavilions,3 Horseshoe Pits,3 Shuffleboard Courts, 1 Basketball Court, Playground,Disc Golf Course Ironwood Park 14.5 Picnic Pavilions,Tot Lot,Open Grass Area,Restrooms,Walking Paths Cahuilla Hills Park 27.5 2 Tennis Courts, Picnic Area, Off-leash Dog Area,Trails;The park' serves as a trail head for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System. Community Park 2 Playground,Picnic Area,Restrooms, Baseball Field,Multi-purpose Fields;available after school and on weekends Cook Street Spoirts Complex 40 3 Baseball Fields, (OWAed by School DistFiG* Washington Charter School 2.5 Playground, Open Turf Area available after school and on weekends Park owned by School District Joe Mann Park 2.5 Basketball Court,Sand Volleyball Court,Water Feature,Rose Garden, Dog Park(Small 1 Large), Picnic Pavilion, Playground,Open Turf Area, Restrooms Cap Homme/Ralph Adams 27 Trails,Off Leash Dog Area,Picnic Areas;this site serves primarily as a Park trailhead for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System Palma Village Neighborhood 2 Shaded Playground, Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court,Walking Park Paths,Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms,Water Feature Freedom Park 26 3 BaseBall Fields,2 Tennis Courts,3 Basketball Courts,2 Sand Volleyball Courts,2 Playgrounds,Walking Paths, Picnic Pavilions, Dog Park(Small I Large),Community Gardens,Skateboarding Area, 2 Multi-purpose Fields(for soccer I football),Open Grass Areas, Concession Stand,Restrooms,Public Art Community Gardens 1 Picnic Pavilions,Restrooms,Community Gardens Haystack Greenbelt and 12 Open Grass Areas, Paths Smoketree Natural Area University Dog Park 2.4 Dog Park(Small I Large),Picnic Pavilions,Restrooms University Neighborhood 2.5 Playground,Basketball Court,Open Grass Area,Picnic Pavilions, Park Restrooms,Community Garden,Walking Paths Total Acreage 212.9 In addition to the parks shown above, the City owns and operates Desert Willows Golf Course, which has two 18-hole championship courses. Drive west of Washington Sty-eet. The 34 nere site iveulld inellude feedities sueh as baseball fields, a multi use field, tennis e9urts, Wskethail eourts, volleybell eaur-ts, pienie areas, pllaygFe- a nther r of he it is owned by the Desert Sands Unified Ce beel Digtr*et an *nollmdpq the Disti4et's new Ronald Reagan Elementary . 10 The Cook Street Sports Complex is currently unavailable park space.The sports fields,north of the current Palm Desert High School campus, is where the new Palm Desert High School will be reconstructed. The existing school buildings will be demolished soon after staff and students move into the new building which is scheduled for completion in 2011.New sports fields are planned to be built on the old demolished school site and open the following summer of 2012. Palm Desert maintains a number open space hiking trails. The majority of trails are located in the outlying areas in the hills and mountains that surround the Valley. Open space areas within the City with hiking trails and facilities include the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and the Living Desert. In 1990 the Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to fund park and recreation facilities that serve the Cove Communities. The cost of recreation facilities are shared based upon a formula of population and assessed value. Through this MOU, the three cities contributed toward the construction of the sports complex located in the Palm Desert Civic Center Park; the facilities are available to Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells residents through the joint funding agreement. The City has also adopted the Quimby Act as part of its municipal code which requires new subdivisions to dedicate land or pay fees for parks and recreational purposes. It is noted in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan that the City needs to prepare a Master Parks and Recreation Plan that will fully assess the adequacy of existing facilities and evaluate the need for additional land and facilities. Palm Desert contracts with the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District to operate and schedule some of its facilities, including the Palm Desert Community Center and Civic Center Park along with all sports fields with the City. The District is proposing the formation of a new assessment district for the entire district. The City's Parks and Recreation Commission has expressed concerns over this issue; the Commission is also evaluating the benefit the District provides to Palm Desert residents. If these concerns cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the Commission may consider recommending that the City detach from the District. 7.11 Library Facilities The Palm Desert Public Library, located at 73-300 Fred Waring Drive, is a branch of the Riverside County Library System. The library encompasses approximately 20,000 square feet of a 40,000 square foot facility, which is shared with the College of the Desert Library. Although their books and resources are physically separated, the two libraries have a reciprocity agreement and also share an online research database and checkout desk. The Palm Desert Public Library contains approximately 135,000 volumes and is staffed by 10 full-time employees, 13 part-time employees, and approximately 70 volunteers. Hours of operation are Monday through Thursday 10am-8pm,Friday and Saturday 10am-5pm, and Sunday Ipm-5pm. A special events 11 coordinator arranges musical events and guest speaker lectures and presentations. The library operates a youth story-time program and adult computer classes and supports the County-wide Literacy Program, which is managed from the Indio Public Library. The City allocates General Fund revenues to pay for additional library services, which are above and beyond those provided under the County contract. Specifically, these funds cover expenses for six additional hours of operation on Thursdays, a volunteer program and coordinator, special events programs, a special events coordinator, 2 part-time receptionist, 1 full-time reference librarian, and 1 full-time teen/young adult librarian. 7.12 Animal Control The City contracts with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services for the control of dogs, cats and other domestic animals. Services that are provided include spaying and neutering of pets, sheltering of lost or abandoned pets at various shelters throughout the County, and nuisance issues such as animal care questions, dog licensing, barking dog problems, and loose dogs in public places. Figure 7.1 (Adriana- Map needs to be updated with revisions, see attached handout as well as the updated Section 7.10 Parks and Recreation) 12 I Nerdral Rancho a Mirog '•�•. ° SOI f ° j\. WT, I I 1 i GERALD FORD OR ` •.\ � j i '•. SI/' � h j FRANK SINATRA DR ••\ / `-_-•_ •�`-- I > I / - aD < 7 COUNTRY CLUB DR- •-� % 1 I !r •\ jj m F Indio D o m rc 11 Y /g %'• Rancho Mirage s a° ■ 0 17 /6 / r_..._..... 14 u 1s 1 I ■ %j 1 10 3 D ARIt t p {I 2 I♦ 4 FR jGI D -.--. -R La Quints •_-• — � ■13 �16 11�E '— I t_ r_. 12 �Y- I6 Legend Palm Desed-City Limits Indian Wells i --_ -�J Surrounding City Limits — j Palm i / / /S [ Sphere of Inguenos(SO0 Springs _i Surrounding City Sphere of Influence SOI i "�• �j + = Uninmrporated Area — �•. I County Service Area(CSA): ®Pinyon Flats(60) Public Facilities _ • City Hall / i Community Center • Library • Firs Station Parksa Recreation � jPalm PALM DESERT PUBLIC FACILIMES Springs I / / // / 1 Palm beset Han Park Fawlnn SOl / % / / 2 Palm Deaen LlO 10 CNCCemer Park 3 Palm Desert Communty Center 11 Pdm Desert S=w Pad s w—Departineat 12 ImggoaPan / Fire Stabre 13 Cahullla Hills Pent 5 Station 33 14 Pond.Park a Stagm 67 15 Cook Sliest Spwle Cdnplex 7 Station 71 16 Washinglm Cheraw S1nod Pak a Station 81 Sun aty 17 Joe Mom Pad 9 Station 31 Sennusa Dunes 18 Cap Homme/Ralph AExme Pad 1g Palma w5ge NelgMonwotl Pak / I i ! r Feet SOURCE:County of Riverside GIS Layers / millllill i1 ® 0 5,000 10,000 Western Coachella Valley Municipal Services Review FIGURE City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Police Department "Professionals Who `are " 2008 Annual Report jam/ r f r ( � 1Y ti -S Served by lire Riverside Coanhr Sheriffs Department Chief of Police- Captain Dan Wilham Assistant Chief of Police — Lieutenant Andrew Shouse www.palmdesertpolice.org Ctty of PALM DESERT AF BACKGROUND The men and women assigned to the Palm Desert Police Department are dedicated to providing the citizens,. business owners, and visitors to Palm Desert a safe and pleasant environment in which to live, work, and enjoy the amenities of this fine city. The City of Palm Desert is proudly served under contract by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. Contract law enforcement has been in existence for many years, in fact the Riverside County Sheriffs Department has been providing law enforcement services to the City of Palm Desert since the city was founded in 1973. Palm Desert is one of fifteen cities in our county that has asked us to provide law enforcement services. The Palm Desert Police Department is proud to provide quality service to the City of Palm Desert. We are, as our slogan reads, Professionals Who Care. MISSION STRATEGY The Palm Desert Police Department has a comprehensive strategy for the implementation of law enforcement services provided to the city. This strategy utilizes a multitude of Community Oriented Policing methodologies, including an emphasis on proactive prevention. the focusing of our efforts, and the setting of specific goals. The Palm Desert Police Department strives to meet the following goals within its area of operations: 1. Focus on Proactive Patrol Strategies 2. Increase the Quality of Life 3. Reduce the Fear of Crime In order to meet these goals, the Palm Desert Police Department's Proactive Patrol Strategy includes the following: A. Focus enforcement on those activities that are creating the most reactive calls for service. B. Identify methods to reduce calls for service and allow patrol personnel to spend more time on proactive/preventive enforcement. 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report I C. Utilize the Crime Analysis Unit to identify criminal trends, potential perpetrators, and develop strategies to prevent or reduce this activity in the future. D. Work with city Code Enforcement personnel to improve the quality of life in al I of the areas that we service. E. Promote a reduction in victimization through educational programs. F. Development of strong partnerships with various businesses and private security agencies operating in the City of Palm Desert. Our three goals - Focus on Proactive Patrol Strategies, Increase the Quality of Life, and Reduce the Fear of Crime within our jurisdiction are symbiotic, in that one depends on the other for success. By focusing on Proactive Patrol Strategies, we provide our field personnel with more time to seek out criminals in our community and contact them before they commit a crime. The more criminals we apprehend before they commit crimes, the less reactive crime reports we have to investigate and document. If we decrease the number of reports we investigate and document, the more time we have to seek out criminals in our community, while continuing to be available for community needs. Even though arresting criminals is an important part of this strategy, of equal importance is the education and prevention component, which will reduce the number of reported crimes and allow our personnel to focus on proactive law enforcement activities. PATROL DIVISION The Patrol Division responds to all calls for police service placed to the Department either through the 911 system or through non-emergency telephones. Patrol officers handle the initial investigation of reported thefts, burglaries, robberies, assaults, and all other felonies, misdemeanor, and public service calls. Upon completion of the initial investigation, the case is either suspended, continued to the Investigations Bureau, closed by arrest,referred to the District Attorney's Office for review/prosecution,or unfounded. The Palm Desert Police Department supports and promotes the concept of Community Oriented Policing. This is accomplished by the deployment of officers to regular beat assignments, providing state of the art equipment, training, and adequate staffing to handle the approximately 121 calls for service received daily. The City of Palm Desert is approximately twenty-five square miles, and has an estimated population of 50,907. The Palm Desert Police Department handled approximately 44,237 calls for service in 2008, which was an increase of 4,719 calls from 2007. CRIME ANALYSIS Summary The Palm Desert Police Department observed an increase in calls for service during the 2008 reporting period. The response times for all types of priority calls improved. The 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 2 latest Uniforni Crime Report (UCR) for 2007 indicated a decrease in violent crime. hi contrast, the UCR data suggested an increase in oronerty crime. Calls for Service The Palm Desert Police Department responded to 44.237 calls for service during the 2008 reporting period, an increase of 4.719 calls from 2007. This was the highest rate of calls for service in the last five years. Fig 1. Palm Dozed Calla for Sawke 45000 43000 42000 - `o i U i `o B 3W00 i 0e000 77000 06000 OSODO i 2004 2005 2006 2DD7 200e Year Calls for Sen-ice by Priorilt Total Priority 1 Calls: 59 Total Priority lA Calls: 349 Total Priority 2 Calls: 10.614 Total Priority 3 Calls: 7,466 Total Priority 4 Calls: 6.214 Total Priority 5 Calls: 4 Cancelled Calls: 1,860 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 3 A comparison of priority call type by year is represented) in Fig. 2_ Fig.2 Palm Oasurt Call Priority Breakdown by Yoar 12000 ,H. Imes -- Y 7 o d =. � 40DO6 v 2 Y Y 0 s a a a aaaaaaaaB a 6 s a s a s s s a a s s a a a s s a a a s a a a s s 200/ 20M 2" 2007 zoos Yea, Response Times Although the calls for service increased for the Palm Desert Police Department in 2008, the response times improved for all call priority types. Fig. 3 Palm Desert Response Times by Year 16 nr to 12 10 yr nr 9 rn v ry � W min f 0I „ r $ n < a R" a` a' < $ a $ s o a 3 a 5 a 'a 9 a -a BF5 8F3 N N H t� N a N N E N N N N� Ji N3 2oW 2005 2005 2007 2006 Yen 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 4 Crime Statistics The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),posts annual crime statistics in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). These statistics are based upon law enforcement agencies reporting of Part I crimes. Part I crimes are defined as homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, vehicle theft, larceny-theft, and arson. The official Annual Crime Statistics are posted once a year in late October for the previous calendar year. Data for 2008 has not been published and is not available for the Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report. According to the UCR, the population for Palm Desert in 2007 was 47,903. The city's population has steadily risen since 1995. Figure 4 represents the population from 1995 to 2007 for Palm Desert as reported by the UCR. Fig.4 Palm Desert Population by Year e0000 50000 , ill r" rKl ( f X. ��7ir6t�/ mm l f��t 40000 u , 30000 10000 All , •. i �yt; r , i (Ik, i G , Ili , Ir r lir .. / �:r Ir •. r si IM 1990 1997 1996 1e0e 2000 2001 20D2 2003 2000 2003 2005 2007 You 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 5 UCR data indicated a significant decrease in violent crime for 2007. In 2006 there were 169 violent crimes reported. The number of violent crimes reported in 2007 was 92. Figure 5 represents violent crimes reported to the FBI from 1995 to 2007 for comparison. Fig.5 Palm Desert Violent Crimes 200 .178 a 5e� �`1 P trlfiArY+a ria ss�' z�'" v '4 �1t K.[� L. 't 1BD if 160 ��" 100 60 �` 40 20 ie26 1096 IM 1e96 low 1000 Mel 2002 2003 20W 20M 2006 200r Year 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 6 Property crime increased from 2,755 reported property crimes in 2006 to 2,914 reported in 2007. The rate of property crime has increased steadily since 2000. Figure 6 represents property crimes reported to the FBI from 1995 to 2007 for comparison. Fig.6 Palm Desert Pmp"Crimea 0500 I - 9000 ISM F. r low Soo ,5 e — 1995 1999 1997 1991 Ism 2000 201)r 2002 2ee3 2004 2005 20M 20W You 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 7 UCR data can be influenced by many factors such as fluctuations in population, commercial and/or residential growth, economic or environmental conditions, and other factors. The Palm Desert Police Department conducts daily, weekly, and monthly analysis of crimes in the city. Analyses involve comparisons of Palm Desert Police statistics and past trends. Analysis of the processed data facilitates a directed approach to crime suppression and deterrence. The UCR crime data is included in Table 1. Table 1 Part I Offenses Known to the Police(UCR) Tow Crimes violem Property veh Tow Pen I Per 1000 Year Populmlon crime Mwdv Rape Robbery Assault crime Burglary Lw=y Theft Anon Crimes Residents 2007 47.903 92 2 16 48 26 2.914 947 1,937 230 11 3.006 62.75 2006 47,482 169 3 18 66 82 2,755 730 1,792 233 4 2,924 61.58 2005 46.925 145 2 6 38 99 2.662 714 1,691 257 4 2.907 59.82 2004 46.150 165 1 11 41 112 2.972 961 1871 240 4 3.137 67.97 2003 44,300 193 0 11 32 140 2,390 721 1,437 221 1 2.563 57.86 2002 42,667 151 0 9 37 105 2.047 536 1325 I81 5 2,198 51.52 2001 41,920 176 1 6 47 122 M44 538 1399 206 1 2,320 55.34 2000 38.171 166 0 12 33 121 1,674 389 1139 144 3 1.940 48.20 1999 29,844 I50 0 10 17 123 1,771 667 964 139 1 1,921 64.37 1998 28,923 173 3 5 38 127 Z130 521 1499 Ills 5 2,303 79.63 1997 27,261 199 2 9 41 136 2.449 $01 1527 115 6 2,637 96.73 1996 26.932 161 2 10 43 106 2.372 732 1505 127 8 2,533 94.05 1995 26,688 178 1 6 28 143 2,982 so 1791 209 13 3,060 114.66 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 8 POLICE DEPARTMENT BEATS The City of Palm Desert is broken into five servicelbeat areas. The T-30 Beat covers the business corridor along Highway 1 11. The T-32 Beat covers the southern portion of the city south of Highway I I I of the Highway I l l business corridor to the southern city limits. The T-34 Beat covers the eastern portion of the city east of Cook Street south of Country Club Drive and east to the city limits at Washington Street. The T-36 Beat covers the westem portion of the city west of Cook Street south of Country Club Drive to the western city limits. The final beat is the T-38 Beat that covers the entire northern portion of the city from north of Country Club Drive to the northern, eastern, and western city limits. City of Palm Desert "AN SH M 1jy' Police Department 38' Beats AfAH!A OR kp4 O CWNIItY CL 8OR Y 34; HOW"LN Q 136 _ - 132 NSW Home oOWAW- a..,,=%Wu.Sw PeenDeW =SWU-H hEwFe Doripeeve-NonnNlelPaimo..n O8.0 b.KO Pew Demon 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 9 STAFFING The 2008 Palm Desert Police contract consists of seventy-nine (79) sworn officer positions. The current sworn officer per 1,000 resident ratios is 1.55. Thirty-six (36) officer positions are dedicated to the patrol division with the remaining officers dedicated to specials assigrunents, such as the Traffic Division, the Special Enforcement Team, the Motorcycle Enforcement Unit, School Resource Officers; a Community Oriented Policing Officer (COP) and the Business District Team. The officers' positions are fully supported by sworn supervision and administration. The police contract also contains several non-sworn support positions to assist with the daily operation of the station and to support Field Services, including a myriad of Community Services Officers. Together, they are able to provide professional service to the citizens of Palm Desert INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU The Palm Desert Police Department Investigations Bureau serves the City of Palm Desert, as well as the other cove communities. The bureau is comprised of one Sheriffs Lieutenant, two Sheriffs Sergeants and fifteen dedicated investigators assigned to various specialties, such as robbery, assaults, sex crimes, child abuse, and property crimes, as well as missing persons, runaways, and domestic violence investigations. These investigators are goal oriented and take pride in their assignment. Nothing makes them happier than solving these cases and recovering stolen property that can be returned to the victims. SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT TEAM Since the mid 1980s,the palm.Desert Police Department has operated the Target Team as an adjunct to the Patrol Division. In the recent past, this unit was renamed as the Special Enforcement Team (SET). The team consists of one Sergeant and four officers and has a primary function to provide enhanced patrol services to residents of the City of Palm Desert. The team is supplemented by both the Business District Team and the Community Oriented Policing Officer. SET conducts time intensive follow up investigations of burglaries, thefts, and various localized crimes in order to keep the patrol officers in the field and available for further calls for service. Each beat Aithin the City of Palm Desert is covered by a SET member who can devote additional time, as necessary,to the problems that occur in than beat. SET also conducts specifically targeted enforcement to combat identified problems within the city. They are responsible for specialized enforcement and security at Palm 2008 Palm Desert Police Deparlment.Annual Report 10 Desert civic community events, as well as bicycle and Segway EPAMD (Electronic Personal Assistant Mobility Device) patrol within the City. These innovative patrol techniques are an effective tool to enhance the Community Oriented Policing concept supported by the city and the Palm Desert Police Department. While working on bicycle or Segway patrol, SET officers have close direct contact with the citizens, business owners, and visitors in the city. The bicycle and Segway patrols allow for better mobility and quicker response in business and commercial areas when traffic is heavier. SET also targets specific crimes that affect all three Cove Communities and regularly combine with SET officers from Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells Police Departments. This group identifies, investigates and targets criminals that are committing crimes throughout our communities and moving from city to city. it is well known that criminals do not respect borders and regularly move into the City of Palm Desert to commit their crimes, while living in neighboring or cities afar. SET focuses upon these individuals by using a mix of surveillance and direct enforcement, once again showing our mission strategy of PROACTIVE PREVENTION. Palm Desert Police SET continues to be an important part of this strategy and their enforcement activity has helped dramatically in reducing crime within the city. SET 2009 Year End Stats Moving Citations: 43 Parking Citations: 75 Traffic Stops: 172 Pedestrian Checks: 81 Vehicle Checks: 113 Business Checks: 262 FI Cards: 194 Assist other Department: 20 Felony Arrests: 59 Misdemeanor Arrests: 31 Warrant Arrests(Felony): 25 Warrant Arrests(Mild.): 31 Cases Cleared: 65 Search Warrants Written: 11 Search Warrant Served: 31 Property Recovered Value: $77,000.00 Drugs Seized/Recovered Value: $6,530.00 No. Days-Bicycle Patrol: 18 No. Hours-Bicycle Patrol: 116 Felony Filings: 56 Misdemeanor Filings: 33 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 11 BUSINESS DISTRICT TEAM Beginning in 2006, the City of Palm Desert funded a new Business District Team. This team is comprised of two officers specifically assigned to the business district (30 beat), notably the El Pasco corridor, the Westfield Mall, the Highway III corridor, the Mervyn's shopping center, and the Desert Crossing shopping center. They not only conduct high visibility patrol in this area, but are also responsible for handling many of the calls for service generated in the business district. Their responsibilities include: 1. Bicycle, marked unit, Segway EPAMD,plain unit,foot,and Golf Cart patrol duties. 2. The officers work a flex schedule that allows for adjustment of schedules based on crime trend analysis,peak shopping times,and/or high profile events. 3. Availability to switch the mode of transportation on occasion based on investigative needs(i.e. conducting surveillance in plain vehicles,driving patrol units in inclement weather,or using the police Golf Cart and Segways on occasion. 4. Maintain high visibility within the Business District. (30 Beat) 5. Handle many of the calls for service in the 30 beat. Business District Team 2008 Year End Stats Moving Citations: 21 Parking Citations: 63 Field interviews: 38 Pedestrian checks: 117 Vehicle Checks: 109 Bus.Checks: 378 Felony Arrests: 25 Misd. Arrests: 50 Warrant Arrests(Felony): 6 Warrant Arrests(Mild): 14 Search warrants written: 3 Search warrants served: 4 Value of property recovered: $16,185.00 Drugs Seized/Recovered Value: $300.00 No. Days-Bicycle/Segway patrol: 25 No. Hours-Bicycle/Segway patrol: 132 Assist Patrol (Hours): 147 Calls for Service (No Report): 132 Calls for Service(Report): 72 Follow-up: 98 Other Assignments: 105 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 12 COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING OFFICER The Community Oriented Policing (COP) Officer is assigned to be a liaison to specific beat officers, Neighborhood Watch groups, and the various businesses and apartment complexes within the city. The Palm Desert Police Department Crime Prevention Program operates in conjunction with the Palm Desert Police SET Team. The crime prevention officer is responsible for coordinating the Neighborhood Watch Program, the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program and acts as the liaison between SET, the Investigations Unit, citizens and city staff. The dedicated crime prevention officer also provides safety seminars and group meetings with focus on specific crime or neighborhood problems in the City of Palm Desert. The Neighborhood Watch Program is a nationwide program that utilizes the residents of a street, residential area, or housing complex to assist the police by providing, "extra eyes" to report suspicious or criminal activities. Training is provided to each Neighborhood Watch group on how to properly observe and report these activities. Neighborhood Watch is a well proven successful crime prevention program that augments the police department, yet does not endanger the involved citizens. The Crime Free Multi-Housing Program (CFMHP) is a world wide program that puts apartment owners/landlords/tenants and the police department into a partnership to help reduce crime in rental properties. The CFMHP provides training and technical assistance to the owners/landlords, and tenants and concepts and practices that help reduce criminal activity and make apartment complexes safer places to live. The City of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Police Department strongly support CFMHP. CANINE OFFICER The Palm Desert City Council authorized a new Canine Officer position for FY 2007/2008, including the purchase of the cities first Police Service Dog, also known as a K-9. The K-9 is used to conduct searches for missing or lost persons, to track criminal violators from crime scenes, to assist with fleeing or armed suspect arrests and in searches for evidence, including narcotics. K-9s are particularly useful in searches of buildings or residences for suspects, and to assist in vehicle and/or foot pursuits if immediately available. During these occasions, the K-9 can alleviate putting an officer in harms way, while making sure the violator is apprehended expeditiously. An ancillary duty, but very valuable one, is the benefit of using a K-9 unit as a public relations tool. In December of 2007, Officer Steve Rivera was chosen as the first Canine Handler for the City of Palm Desert. After conducting evaluation of several candidates, canine Van Snapp was chosen as our first Police Service Dog. Van Snapp is now a three year old Belgian Malinois who responds to commands in Dutch. Van Snapp was not only chosen for his demonstrated skills, but also picked for the sociable aspects he displayed. Van 2009 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 13 Snapp was deployed on duty the first week of February 2008. Van Snapp has been introduced to the City Council and City staff, demonstrating a very social demeanor. In November 2008 Officer Rivera and Van Snapp competed in the I')"' Annual Riverside County Canine Trials in Temecula, California. The Canine Team preformed remarkably well placing first place in obedience, second place in protection and third place in evidence detection. The citizens of Palm Desert should be extremely proud of their new Canine Team as they have not only been performing well conducting police duties in the field, but they have also become great. ambassadors for the Palm Desert Police Department. Canine Team 2008 Year End Stats Robbery Alarms: 0 Burglary Alarms: 36 Assist other Department: 2 Apprehensions(Bite): 1 Apprehensions(No Bite): 2 Search for Evidence: 3 Find Evidence: 0 Search for Narcotics: 30 Find Narcotics: 1 I Search for Suspects: 30 Find Suspects: 2 Search for Victims: 0 Find Victims: .0 Public Relations Demo: 5 Scene Containment: 1 Suspect Control: 6 Warrant Service: 5 Total Statistics: 131 Total Uses: 127 PALM DESERT POLICE WEBSITE The Palm Desert Police Administrative Sergeant is the point of contact for the maintenance and updates to our Palm Desert website (www.palmdesertpolice.ora). The purpose of our website is to foster better community relations, communication, and understanding of the role of this department has in our community. The Palm Desert Police Department is dedicated to providing the citizens, business owners, and visitors to Palm Desert a safe and pleasant environment in which to live, work, and enjoy the amenities of this fine city. This website offers a brief look at the many services the department provides. It also offers a means of direct contact for those persons who use the internet daily, at work, at 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 14 designated home, and on the road. This site contains interactive pages,which are d gnated to help speed the crime reporting process, and to help report problem traffic areas within the city. The use of the interactive pages speeds up the time in which our citizens can receive a report for insurance purposes, or for their own personal needs. This method of filing a report will keep sworn deputies on the streets looking for criminal activity. CITIZENS ON PATROL PROGRAM The Citizens on Patrol Program (COP) is run as a concerted effort by both the City of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Police Department The dedicated Palm Desert Police Administrative Sergeant acts as the liaison officer between COP volunteers and the Police Department. These volunteers are a dedicated group of people acting as"eyes and ears" to the city and the police. COP volunteers conduct routine patrol throughout the city,assists with special events,and perform administrative work within the organization. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS The City of Palm Desert funds two School Resource Officer (SRO) positions, one for Palm Desert Middle School and one for Palm Desert High School. The SRO's work closely with school officials, teachers, and students to help create a safe and secure learning environment at each campus. The SRO's work closely with the Desert Sands Unified School District Campus Security Officers, along with the educational staff and administration at their respective schools. Through their honest and open communications with the students, the SRO's promote a positive image of law enforcement. They are often able to prevent problems arising by their close relationship with the students. Both SRO's provide public safety programs on campus to help educate our students regarding issues of strange danger, bulling, bicycle safety, drug abuse, and alcohol awareness. AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION SYSTEM The Palm Desert Police Department has recently employed new technology called the Automated License Plate Recognition System which allows our officers to be even more vigilant in tracking criminals. The system allows us to rapidly scan vehicle plates and compare them to a list of"vehicle of interest" associated with auto theft, felony plates, Amber Alerts, vehicle burglaries, along with a multitude of other crimes, while performing routine patrol. We currently have two patrol vehicles outfitted with the equipment. The system was implemented by the Palm Desert Police Department beginning July 2008. Since that time the system has read 185,917 license plates. We have recovered two stolen vehicles as a result of this new technology. 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 15 COACHELLA VALLEY VIOLENT CRIME GANG TASK FORCE The Coachella Valley Violent Crime Gang Task Force (CVVCGTF) is a multi-agency task force comprised of members from various federal and local law enforcement agencies. The mission of the CVVCGTF is to allocate resources from all participating agencies for the purpose of promoting safe and secure neighborhoods, free of violent crime and gang violence. Their duties include gang prevention efforts centered on intervention and education, gang suppression patrols and operations, and complex criminal enterprise investigations. CVVCGTF 2008 Officer.City&Team Year End Stats Officer Stats 2008 Felony Arrests: 12 Misdemeanor Arrests: 6 Gang F.I. Cards: 51 F.I. Cards: 16 Gang Intervention Contact: 174 Criminal Cases Filed: 2 Gang Enhancements: 6 Probation Searches: 51 Probation Violations: 0 Parole Searches: 92 Parole Violations: 7 Firearms Recovered: 2 Search Warrants Written: 2 Search Warrants Served: 29 Pedestrian Checks: 72 Narcotics Seized(Grams): 30.6 Warrant Arrests(Felony): 2 Warrant Arrests(Misdemeanor): 0 Felony Filings: I Misdemeanor Filings: 1 Overtime Hours: 247 Gang Presentations: 4 Training Classes(Presented): 4 Training Hours(Presented): 16 Training Classes(Attended): 14 Training Hours(Attended): 308 Court Testimony: 4.5 Assist Other Department: 71 Follow-Up: 5 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 16 Palm Desert Specific Stats 2008 Probation Searches Palm Desert 34 Probation Violations: 0 Parole Searches Palm Desert 52 Parole Violations: 0 Gang Registration 3 Felony Arrests: 1 Misdemeanor Arrests: 1 Search Warrants Served: 3 Training Classes (Presented): 2 Gang Presentations: 1 Pedestrian Checks: 10 Felony Filings: 1 Narcotics Seized(Grams): 1.3 Time Spent in Palm Desert(Hours) 800 Court Testimony: 2 Gang F.I. Cards: 3 Identification of Street Gang 1 GTF Team Stats 2008 Felony Arrests: 172 Misdemeanor Arrests: 61 Gang F.I. Cards: 556 F.I. Cards: 480 Gang Intervention Contact: 346 Criminal Cases Filed: 135 Gang Enhancements: 87 Probation Searches: 688 Probation Violations: 40 Parole Searches: 405 Parole Violations: 50 Firearms Recovered: 42 Search Warrants Written: 48 Search Warrants Served: 61 Pedestrian Checks: 864 Narcotics Seized (Grams): 3,347 Warrant Arrests(Felony): 30 Warrant Arrests(Misdemeanor): 0 Felony Filings: 130 Misdemeanor Filings: 5 Overtime Hours: 2,012 Gang Presentations: 66 Training Classes(Presented): 25 Training Hours(Presented): 75 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 17 Training Classes (Attended): 116 Training Hours(Attended): 1,937 Court Testimony: 340 Assist Other Department: 166 Follow-Up: 45 Gang Members Identified 1,225 PALM DESERT POLICE SUBSTATIONS The Palm Desert Police Department operates two off-site police substations. One substation is located at 42-305 Washington St., Suite E. This location makes access to police services more readily available to residents and business patrons located in the eastern portion of the city. The other substation is located at 72-990 H%vy 111. Community Service Officers work at both substations and the regular business hours are 8:00AM to 5:00 PM, Monday-Friday, except holidays. In addition to being on hand to answer questions concerning the Palm Desert Police Department, the Community Service Officers handle a variety of different assignments including the processing of intcmet reports, calls for service at the substations and various licensing applications to be processed through the City of Palm Desert. The following is a summary of the various activities at the sub-stations. Internet Reports/Calls for Service(2008): 90 Applications Processed (2008): 59 Number of Walk-Ins(Oct. 2008 —Dec. 2008): 501 TRAFFIC DIVISION The Palm Desert Police Department Traffic Division is responsible for the investigation of traffic collisions and conducting traffic enforcement and education programs throughout the City of Palm Desert. The Traffic Division is a contract law enforcement enhancement to provide support for the general law enforcement component (Patrol). The Traffic Division staff includes two sergeants, twelve officers and one Community Services Officer (CSO). The collision investigation portion of this division consists of one sergeant, three officers, and one CSO. This team is primarily assigned to accident investigation and DUI enforcement. The collision investigation team has primary responsibility of investigation of traffic collisions and a secondary responsibility of traffic law enforcement education. The remainder of the division consists of one sergeant and eight officers assigned to the Motorcycle Enforcement Program. The Motorcycle 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 18 Enforcement Program's primary responsibility is traffic law enforcement and education, and a secondary responsibility of traffic collision investigation. The Traffic Division provides needed support for patrol officers by handling traffic specific issues that can often become time consuming (such as major traffic accident reconstruction), thereby allowing the patrol division to handle criminal calls for service and conduct proactive enforcement. The Traffic Division provides additional emergency response support to the patrol division during critical incidents. The Palm Desert Police Traffic Team routinely conducts traffic safety checkpoints in various areas of the city. These checkpoints bring public awareness to the dangers of driving under the influence, driving without safety belts, speeding, and other safety violations. The City of Palm Desert also supports the COVE communities Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Program. The Commercial Vehicle Program consists of one officer specifically assigned to focus on commercial vehicles that may be overweight, unsafe, and/or carrying improper loads on roadways within the cove communities. The Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officer handles Vehicle Identification Number (V. I.N.) verifications using state of the art computer software and handles citation sign- off duties: Monday-Friday from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Palm Desert Station. The following is a summary of the Commercial Enforcement Vehicle Program activity in the City of Palm Desert for 2008: Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Statistics for 2008 Vehicle stops 299 Citations 241 Wamings 67 Commercial vehicle inspections 128 Commercial vehicles taken out of service 34 Overweight vehicles 3 Total pounds overweight on our streets 15,000 lbs. Traffic Collision Statistics The Palm Desert Police Traffic Division maintains and analyses traffic collision data via our Crossroads Collision Database. This modern software system is a powerful, easy to use database for traffic collision, citation, and Driving While Intoxicated records. This database allows for easy and quick retrieval of reports and statistical date that can be used for traffic planning, public safety programs, or city engineering studies. The following is a recap of the analysis of the collision statistics for 2008. 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 19 Total Traffic Collisions(25 percent decrease) 2008—597 2007—800 *This 25% decrease in collisions occurred while the population increased by approximately 1%over the same time period. Fatal Traffic Collisions(67 vercent decrease): 2008-2 2007-6 Number of People Killed(75percent decrease) 2008-2 2007-8 Number of People Killed in a DUI-related Collision 000 percent decrease) 2008-0 2007-7 i In'ury Traffic Collisions 26 Mrcent decrease) 2008— 147 2007— 199 Number of Persons Injured(25 percent decrease) 2008—209 2007—279 Driving Under the Influence Related 0 3 percent decrease) 2008—40 2007—46 High Incidents by"Day of Week" The majority of collisions occur during the week on Wednesday and Friday, with Wednesday having the highest average. Peak Time Period of Collisions A review of the statistics reflects that most collisions are occurring between the periods of 11:00 am. through 6:00 p.m.,with the highest number of collisions occurring between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. High Incident Locations(Intersections-Ranked in Order) 1. Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive 2. Cook Street and Country Club Drive 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 20 3. Fred Waring Drive and State Highway 111 Primary Collision Factor(By Rankin¢) I. Unsafe speed 2. Right-of-way violation 3. Traffic signals and signs Traffic Citation Statistics Total Citations(52 percent increase) 2008—5,232 2007—3,438 Unlicensed Drivers(55 percent increase) 2008—542 2007—350 DUI Arrests(28 percent increase) 2008—349 2007—272 Traffic Programs Worked The Palm Desert Police Department conducts focused traffic enforcement programs based upon analysis of collision statistics. In 2008,the Traffic Division conducted a total of seventy-two(72)traffic related programs within the City of Pahn Desert. (25) Speed Enforcement Programs (1) Pedestrian Safety Programs (8) School Safety Program (2) Signs/Signals Program (10) Driving While Intoxicated Enforcement Programs (5) Checkpoints (8) Seat Belt Safety Programs, including the National "Click It or Ticket'campaign (13) Special Event Programs In addition to the above programs, members of the traffic team also participate in the county wide "Avoid the 30"Driving under the Influence Enforcement Program. 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 21 Traffic Grants The Palm Desert Police Department has applied for and received the following grants funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety for FY 200812009: DUI Enforcement and Awareness Program $1 11,706.00 "Click it or Ticket" Seatbelt Compliance Program $285910.00 Sobriety Checkpoint Mini Grant $20,328.00 Traffic Division Goals for 2009 1. Maintain our comprehensive DUI program utilizing checkpoints and saturation patrols to reduce DUI-related collisions. 2. Continue to participate in grant opportunities and programs offered by the California Office of Traffic Safety. 3. Reduce injury collisions by 10%. 4. Continue close coordination with Traffic Engineering and Public Works staff for the City of Palm Desert to develop solutions to traffic complaints throughout the city. 5. Continue our"RAT" light - Red Light Enforcement Program. 6. Continue to participate in the"Click-it or Ticket'national safety belt campaign. ADDITIONAL.BASELINE SERVICES As a contract partner with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, the Palm Desert Police Department also has access to the following baseline sen�ices: 1 r • cement Bureau (SWAT) Special Enforcement ( ) • Hazard Device Team (Bomb Squad) • Aviation Unit five helicopters) ( • Desert Search and Rescue • Underwater Search and Recovery Team • Off Highway Vehicle Enforcement Program • Ben Clark Training Center for Regional Law Enforcement Training • College of the Desert Public Safety Academy • Special Investigations Bureau (Narcotics&Intelligence) • Central Homicide Unit 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 22 ADDITIONAL GOALS The Palm Desert Police Department will focus upon the following areas to increase the level of service to our citizens in 2009: • Continue to analyze traffic collision data and conduct focused traffic enforcement programs with the goal of reducing the number of injury traffic collisions in the City of Palm Desert. • Utilize innovative and proactive approaches to combat DUI drivers and reduce the alcohol related injury and fatal collisions. • Continue to aggressively combat criminal activity within the City of Palm Desert with focused efforts on property crimes. • Continue to provide an average response time for Priority I (Emergency)calls for services in less than five minutes. • Continue to provide professional dedicated service to the City of Palm Desert maintain positive relationships with all city departments and staff. • Maintain coordinated efforts with City Code Enforcement and Public Works Departments. • Continue to build relationships and cooperative efforts with business owners and shopping centers through our Business District Team. • Further develop our Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, expanding it to additional areas within the city. 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 23 RESOLUTION NO. 09-39 ORDINANCE NO, 223 16.01.110; EXHIBIT "A" TABLE I Formula 1 FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENT BY AREA FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENT FORMULA STRUCTURE WOOD FIRE FIRE FRAME RESISTIVE FLOW (area-sq.ft.) (area-sq.ft.) (gpm) 500 500 3,300 750 1,100 6,600 1. Total floor area sq.ft. 1000 1,700 10,900 1250 2. Structural fire flow requirement 1500 2.600 16,200 gpm. 3,600 22,700 1750 4,800 30,200 3. Sprinkler Adjustment 2000 25% for wood construction 2250 6,200 38,700 50% for fire resistive 2500 7,700 48,300 9,400 59,000 4. Compute estimated Fire Flow 2750 Required 11,300 70,900 ' 3000 3250 13,400 83,700 - 3500 15,600 97,700 S. Divide amount in No. 4 by 1,250 gpm 18,000 112,700 Amount in No. 4 3750 20,600 128,700 1,250 gpm 4000 23,300 145,900 4250 6. Equivalent Dwelling Units 4500 26,300 164,200 (Result of No. 5) -" 29,300 183,400 4750 32,600 203,700 7. Multiply amount in No, 6 by 5000 36,000 225,200 Equivalent Dwelling Unit charge 5250 5500 39,600 247,700 I 43,400 271,200 B. Amount in No. 7 is availability 5750 charged for particular structure 6000 47,400 295.900 computed � 6250 51,500 295,900 6500 55,700 295,900 6750 60,200 295,900 7000 64,800 295,900 7250 69,600 295,900 7500 74.600 295,900 7750 79,800 295.900 8000 85,100 295,900 L � _ . �� � � �.—! ( ] ( � I � � � , ( j \ � . }� 7 ( t : . ` � ) � � , j � R { � \ � I ° � � { § ! , ! ] � � � � { { � � [ ij�§ | \ /� ° I � � ( � � I � ! Ir � � � � r - - - - w} ( . I � ! r ! . I � ! i ) � � � � | | � \ Ji � ( }— — � l � i . \ � ) p . / � � { \ \ � � � \ / \ ` ( . . ] � � � j ) � \ / E � } � � | | | . ( , � � � � ƒ � { ! \ | \ � � � � it : . ( a , � . � � � I { � � ! � � � � , � ) � | ! | � I j � , � | ! ! � { � I ! � � I 6 � ` ! ( \ /; ( \ i � � { � | ) } | „ � - - � i ; I .! ! ! � . . , , 1 � � � � i j \; ! / � � [ � ) ° | ! � . � � � � y . . . � . � ; -- — — — ) � � � \ ! � , | . _ | � � /(/ ! ! � � ` | � ( \ � � � (| ! ! ; ; " � . — � ' � � ` ^ ! � � /� § � � � � ( � � � � � : � | : _ . � / � //£[{| � � � � ( i I tit! / | | � � ! � � ) ) ] \{ � �/2{ | : | : ! „ [ � » . . l ' ` : . � . . . . � CITY OF PALM DESERT NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) June 30, 2008 6. LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (CONTINUED): Tax Allocation Bonds A summary of changes in tax allocation bonds at June 30, 2008, was as follows: Balance Addition.4 Repaytn=W Bob= Doe Within My 1,2007 Aanttioo Reductions lone A 2009 One Year Project Area No.1 2002A TARM 522,070.000 $ 22,070AO S - S - S 22070,000 $ - 2003 TARBs.519,000.000 19,000.000 - - 19.00D,000 - 2004ATARRB4S24,945,000 22,655,000 - (850,OOD) 21.805.000 1.030.000 2006 A&B TARBs,562,320,000 60,105.000 - (1.965,000) 58.140,00D 2,075.000 2007A TARRB&S32,600,000 32.600,000 - (2.130,000) 30.470.000 2,410,000 1995A TARRB.,,S6,305,000 1,235,000 - (600.000) 635.000 635,000 Proj.1 Are.No.2 2002A TARRBs,S 17,310.000 14,680.000 - (650.000) 14,030,000 675.000 2003 TAR13%S15,745.000 15,745,000 - - 15.745.000 - 2DO6 A-D TARB.,$67,618.213 68.554,290 1,024.695 (940,000) 68.63&975 1.320.000 Project Am No.3 2003 TARBs 54.745.000 4,315,000 - (95.000) 4.220,000 100,000 2006 A-C TA%,$15,059,526 15,19L608 194.507 - 15.386,115 25,000 Project Am No.4 1998 TARBs,511.02,000 8.355,000 - - 9.355,000 - 2001 TAR13s,515.695,000 14,795,000 - (285,000) 14,510.000 310.000 2006A TARBs,519.273.089 19.509,006 265.604 - 19.774,610 200,000 Combined Low and Meder.te Housing 1998 TARBs,$48,760.000 5.725.000 - (655.0(10) 5.070.000 685.000 2002 TARBs.$12.100,000 11,130,000 - (255,000) 10.875,000 265.000 2007 TARB5,$86.155.000 86.155,000 (2,185,000) 83,970.000 2,980,000 lotal S 421,819.894 S 1,484,806 S (10,610,000) $ 412.694.700 $ 12,610.000 Tax Allocation bonds used for capital improvements are special obligations of the Agency and the Financing Authority (a component unit of the Agency) and are secured by an irrevocable pledge of tax revenues and other funds as provided under the Bond Resolution. The bonds and any interest thereon are not a debt of the City, the State of California or any of its political subdivisions, and neither the City, the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions is liable on the bonds, nor in any event shall the bonds and interest thereon be payable out of any funds or properties other than those provided under the Bond Resolution. The Agency purchased insurance from Ambac Assurance Corporation (Ambac) and MBIA Insurance Corporation (MBIA) for the purpose of enhancing the creditworthiness of the bonds. Since the date of purchase, Ambac and MBIA's ratings by Moody's Investors Services have been downgraded from"AAA" to "Baal", and "AAA" to "Baal", respectively. See independent auditors' report. - 62 - Ctly NPY Dwrt Redevelopment Agency fTax Allocation Bond Issue Information Jum 30,2008 Jr: ; 'x1 .ARBAA fr " its iS2A,Wf.w Sf2.380,t30Q�- S3tefoAe6^ 1fiaT06.00A' oFJcwFlIp'k { 'i7wAfdnkl�� :fax odMg� 'la�'Ata'M.IPor. elr}Itsiru� ,YrNoryla_a yt�.Allop�Yan•.:. �N; n - .. Kif011�1 t � RetMNIY' _n. RMBN 28 27 21 24 tl 17 Byq yy, 031 13102 08MSM3 062 1�4M4 07M6 O1M9M7 OMD195 py f7eM; 04Mt130 0417M o4M125 o0M190 O4M1J18 09M1M8 IIMnMfpale,..... 5.100% 5,000% 5.000% 5.820% 5.000% 5.560% BpMlfOlaAl11M't A S 22,070,000 i 19,000,000 f 24.945.000 S 62.320,000 f 72.6a0,000 i 8.305.000 irAB�IIe3'. t 22,070,000 f 19,000,000 f 21,805,000 f 56,140,000 f 30,470.000 f 635.000 pe 0-2.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.o0% 0.00% a-2.B9% MBIA MBIA AMBAC MBIA MBIA MBIA 2,BOI J44 950.000 2,4M,750 13.117.662 13,116,979 123.500 RwBe Bslr•eY .11 1 11 0 1 123.500 CMW ' t f f S t f OaeY 1,030,000 2.075, 2,410,a00 635.000 1.171,665 950.000 1.025,813 3,092,727 1,418,625 17,621 (� 6.2939% 4.8571% 4.]9B1% 4.]182% 3.8374% 5.2231% T'ef4CNlQa7M` 04113112 08I05108 062409 070e111 OtM912 09/Otr08 MURIA ;p100001 f3„ -ff-l4MOOW T.AfbWW:: .tSsA�edt#tC -Tfe � ''. koilmailkifto 30 30 30 35 ■ g,1,y psy: =2 03 07/25M a8M51a3 07rz5/O6 0801/33 o99t98 04M193 OIM7/11 5.00% 5.10% 5.13% 6.10% f 15,7d5,000 f 6T,618R13 f 4,745,000 t 15,059,526 t 15.]45,000 f M.638,975 i 4 2020.000 f 15.388,115 4' 0.2.00% 1-2,00% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00% Ba4M14111er' MBIA MBIA AMBAC MBIA MBIA 1,324,750 769.006 5309.825 297,953 1,034,250 ty i 675.000 f f 1,221,594 f 100,000 25,000 631.80 769,008 2.463,783 1B5,898 587,283 .-. 4.7043% 4.9502% 5.258a% 4.9358% SM26% IL�� fM�ltiwaOueiYlc 07/17/12 031MOB 0725111 08/05108 0725111 1i3T�aittaff ft+.oaema Tan Afa>aAlpo4ffrc`: ?A104 T Ahe% t, 0r. i!It7l0Agi., titbwfAG?t r iei.,8is6o ' -'SwAimlppn i TexA!alatm' R44yo T I1p 30 30 28 30 30 20 l+ ] - 0391lBB 1126ro1 OIrz5M8 01M19B 09/05M2 02J07M7 laM128 10101131 109134 tOM127 tOM191 MOM 5.00% 1.80% 5.56% DO% 5.00% 1 t 020 000 15 695 01, 1B 273 089 48 TBO 000 12 100 000 86155 OOO 8355000 14510000 19776610 5070000 1087 000 f 6 97000D �.� 0-2.03_ l 0.00% 0.2.00% 1-2.0D% 0.00% .•� MBW MBIA MBIA MBIA MBIA M8m 768020 482890 37d0843 5]2500 767625 7AS7,224 1 1 1 1 1 1 dye 1 1050a0 - - - �+ 310 ODO 200 000 695,000 285 000 2 880 000 C _ - d29590 662333 691915 233806 5005]2 3861M3 r. 5.22T1% 4.9484% 5.1111% 5.1343% d.82917% 4.1830% A1111fape17w YarA,le eepl,+.. 10101/12 1128.71 OMS11I 10M1/12 09M5/12 o2JOM2 r■ (11 A surety Bond can Issued 8y MBIA IM-Me.Mun reserve Dabnce's Bill be xem. Sm.:CBy a Perm Ossml eM RedevNWmeet Agmcy C"s L -. II.� f 199 L CITY OF PALM DESERT NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) June 30, 2008 13. OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (CONTINUED): e. Actuarial Methods and Assumptions (Continued): In the July 1, 2007, actuarial valuation, the entry age normal actuarial cost method was used. The actuarial assumptions included a 7.75% investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses) and an initial annual healthcare cost trend rate of 10%, reduced by decrements to an ultimate rate of 5% after ten years. A 3.25% annual rate of increase in future salaries is also assumed in the valuation. The City's unfunded actuarial accrued liability will be amortized as a level percentage of projected covered payroll on a closed basis. The amortization period at July 1, 2007, was thirty years. 14. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEBT: Below is a summary of the changes in the special assessment bonds payable: Balance at Payments and Balance at July 1,2007 Additions Reductions June 30,2008 1995 Revenue Bonds $ 220,000 $ - $ (220,000) $ - 1997 Revenue Bonds 17,265,000 - (17,265,000) - 2003 Assessment Revenue Bonds 3,765,000 - (265,000) 3,500,000 AD 98-1 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds 1,015,000 - (145,000) 870,000 CFD 2005-1 Special Tax Bonds Series 2006A 67,915,000 - - 67,915,000 AD 2004-2 Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds 29,430,000 - - 29,430,000 2008 Special Tax Refunding Bonds - 10,935,000 - 10,935,000 $ 119,610,000 $ 10,935,000 $ (17,895,000) S 112,650,000 The City has Special Assessment Bonds Payable issued under the 1911 and 1915, Special Improvement Acts and the 1982 Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act(1982 Bonds). The City has no liability to 1911 Act bondholders until assessments have been collected from the property owner. Such liability is then recorded in the Agency Funds. Therefore, the 1911 Bonds are not recorded as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. The City also has no liability to the 1915 Act bondholders or the bondholders of bonds issued under the 1982 Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act until assessments are collected on the tax rolls. However, the City may take certain actions to assume secondary liability for all or part of 1915 Act Bonds and the 1982 Bonds until such time as foreclosure proceedings are consummated. See independent auditors' report. - 98 - City of Palm Desert Supplemental Special Assesment Information June 30.2009 IMC 2MI0141 20030141 SM50b01 3001 R-Bonds n Rrveaae B9da Scher DMrkl NamelDur[ ipllov MarPSRoos Pool Revenue Bonds Revrvu<BOMs Seer RacS 9&1 (R]-17 j°' 2Saaler , 3Me.. Mino Undl ..dlae CanyoesC BlgOav B M4suc Date M16V Mr3P) 0625vj OM510 IIv191 Fimd Maturity Date O9r05 Mp]/I MD mrovz 0910v1 Hi best Imemm Roc 5.10Y 4.91M 5.25Y 5,175 5.11 BOM lssueAmault 1,]]5.OM M" 11153.M Z140." 2,955.0M M.m Principal 11AO.fpO W." 24RM0 MS.UM 9551000 CaI1M Principal 495,M0 NS.OM - IIO.MO IS20.Og1 gstsuMing BOMs14J - 155." 9DS,0M 1,969,M0 780,0110 Rederrrpion Pranium 3z-A 3.00 1.00% 3,MN, 3,00 pdgind Panels I]I] 71 201 2M 73 Arrive Parcek 19) 65 12I 19] 20 JI Rcquimncm(5) $ O S 35.500 S 905M S 1660M S ]B.MO R6eNe Bakme 08109(17 S 0 $ 90.516 $ R44N S 166p]J S 142.152 Principal Due 0111%(2) 0 ]u.OM 55.OM 6O.M0 m.MO Prisaipal l<v OS"(3) - 77,817 55AM 62197 67,46R In[arn Due0a09121 0 18,750 41-310 W913 35.025 Inmmal ill 08N9(3) 0 22.480 404W IM690 M,958 08109 Delinquency Ratc 0,71Y 1.51 341% 9,24% 0. Aebirnee lmrallnmt Compuptim Dec: MOVII (affim WMMA Iv17 WvCl 9VA Rebate Due imge Yield Ram SAM% ].9]6 6.0 5.1517 5838b' ANitrae�Amoum peed - - - . ConliauiM Diulmme Last Rrpwt lvI=w lVIMOY Iv1220u Ivl]!Yip Iv12/2(p laved: Commueiry 2�2 $arks 200E IM Bands B a N 101+1 Pam D.r 91-1 PecUillea Wmer No Commmay Pufifl Asuament D4trkl HlgpbeN Dktrlel NameBhserlPllm Indian Rift 10pS11,nI.I T. IJmlmd Mara .. unal.Is9aamn Dk1rkw Te,-1 earq 8pnitl Tv SpmklTv 1992A Imp RM goads Scrin 2006A rovement 8Mn2006 Bonds Re(ondlvg Bonde Boll ksue Date IUI IN mmof 3n9qw. 81PJ210 lV19nm0 Final Maturity Dale 10m10 MMIne 9WO31 9W20M 1Wa Higbca lwc Ram 6,80N 5.37I 5.1 OXON 4NW, ROM ksue Amamt 2t,509.000 69,M.0M N,430,000 3.165.M 10,9351OM MauM Prindal 7.I99.M0 N25'M RI," I.M165,000 C.iW Principal I&32o,6p0 - - 382." Du ing Bolls(4) 67,M 000 29,4XgOm 2.]B2.M0 91]O.uM RNmiptionPmrvmn 3.WA 1.00P J.OY/ 3,ON 3. Drigval Part'ck 1AM 37 I67 M LIM Ac45a Pawls I'M 27 318 135 1,03 Rave AIXryiremem(57 S 0 S 4.W.219 S 1.945,35A NA f 1033M R c,a Balarcc 07108(1) S O S 4.V0.413 S L 5.M NA S IW.5M Principal Duc OIL%(3) - I.Ifi5,0(10 505.0M 49,000 MOM Mmipm levied OB'M(3) - Z.4U.219 0M 505.IIM 47,438 855.000 IM.Dut 08r09(2) - 1,43),R60 IU,3% 314.210 Pt— LeviM"(3) .]69 1,417.860 13],1M 314.210 00108 Delinquency Ram U.IRY/ e�Y 0.00 5.44' Aftlmmllmml Compumlims DatC NA9111 01r2911 ON.YWII mag/I 90r•5 Rbae DueAr m,Yidd Bam OOgaY/ 4n S.ULU S.OfiYI M611, CJI M OLMPI a8 NA NA s d IU.Pzvnr Bdemus w m 4'9.3001.J211fo11 mil dr rerwmN 6v uJJ,..l lm1 aN inrercueonurNr sv Pomrml S'1.1-11-1 Abrc M 12)Anvxnn rcprvamn/varrrPul mrJnnmum b onl2m.Jon Jr FY 07&.—difr 0.d,Nen.,PPr mGm in FYM 09 0L+vJ—,.. ejk,wlYounonrfia nuu.nr mrr6nde.nrem:OmJ+,rcd.ryrnnn/inn/r Ord orArr,.lprcrmmu 14,Nrpner rm am rmNinx&mJv oaen4lv.•mMr 2.3MW Pmmrrylly rmrna. 151 R,ve—R............./9.`,W 16,Pv IWS C HartoRrne P,W 1.17-11 rmr ryW In full Jrmnx JV 31107 20'r fin d vrw]0erc w•nn mm MrWminrwrWmxJ•m rlur uvv 1:1] 1.7WlI&W,I—rcpmleAin bJlrun A,nl1.`IYrfl mh Ormnn....nd Porrlrue.Divnu nn W-1 ImPrormv.rnl.9,'+'00l Tur RrfludirrF Brrrdl 4xrrcr 56nn A'wmuruL6mrnl Rey^iv t81 CITY OF PALM DESERT BALANCE SHEET-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30,2008 Special Revenue Funds RDA Prop A Low Income General Fire Tax Housing ASSETS: Pooled cash and investments $ 66,045,124 $ 3,776,373 $ 28,055.415 Receivables: Accounts 1,516,427 50 150,863 Assessments _ _ _ Notes 3,748,000 - Interest 1,724,482 105,789 Loans 231,176 - 7,695,368 Prepaid costs 920,938 - 156 Deposits _ _ - Due from other governments 3,249,502 691,209 340,074 Due from other funds 218,256 - - Advances to other funds 9,236,000 Inventories 47,906 - - Property held for resale - - 25,000 Due from component unit 285,000 - - Restricted assets: Cash and investments with fiscal agent - 32,324,067 TOTAL ASSETS $ 87,222,811 If 4,4 77,632 $ 68,696,732 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILITIES: Accounts payable $ 4,489,023 $ 795,342 $ 311,808 Accrued liabilities 365,145 - 10,315 Due to other funds _ _ Unearned revenues 1,170 - 1,925 Advances from other funds - - - Deferred revenue 2,548,185 - - Amounts due under pass-through agreements - - - Deposits payable 500 TOTAL LIABILITIES 7,403,523 795,342 324,548 FUND BALANCES: Reserved 16,304,234 - 19,912,697 Unreserved: Reported in Other Governmental Funds: Special revenue funds - - - Debt services funds - - Capital projects funds - - Designated for: Special revenue purposes - 3,672,290 48,459,487 Debt service - - - Capital outlay - - - Undesignated 63,515,054 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 79.819.288 3,672,290 68,372,184 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 87.222.811 $ 4,467,632 $ 68,696,732 See independent auditors'report and notes to basic financial statements. -20- CITY OF PALM DESERT STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For the year ended June 30,2008 Special Revenue Funds RDA Prop A Low Income REVENUES: General Fire Tax Housing Taxes $ 40,876,935 $ 5,516,542 $ Special assessments collected - 1,620,168 - Licenses and permits 1,180,020 - Intergovernmental revenues 5,193,161 662,882 19,319 Rental income - - 2,844 Charges for services 1,190,725 Investment earnings 4,571,147 165,729 2,656,604 Fines and forfeitures 105,365 Sale of inventory 15,295,000 Miscellaneous 866,843 200,669 TOTAL REVENUES 53,984,196 7,965,321 18,174,436 EXPENDITURES: Current: General government 16,306,128 - 23,984,127 Pass-through agreement _ - - Public safety 17,674,051 8,942,808 Parks,recreation and culture 4,572,695 - _ Public works 10,153,794 Capital outlay 531,589 80,132 1,829,895 Debt service: Principal retirement _ - _ Interest and fiscal charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES 49,238,257 9,021940 25,814,022 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER)EXPENDITURES 4,745,939 (1,057,619) (7,639,586) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES): Transfers in 1,101,610 1,650,000 18,141,936 Transfers out (2,142,660) - (13,021,024) Capital acereation on bonds Sale of property _ TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) (1.041,050) 1,650,000 5,120,912 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 3,704,889 592,381 (2,518,674) FUND BALANCES- BEGINNING OF YEAR 76,114,399 3,079,909 70.890.858 FUND BALANCES-END OF YEAR $ 79,819.288 $ 3,672.290 $ 68,372.184 See independent auditors'report and notes to basic financial statements. -24- CITY OF PALM DESERT NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) June 30, 2008 10. FUND EQUITY: Reserves of Fund Balance In the fund financial statements, reserves segregate portions of fund balances that are either not available or have been earmarked for specific purposes. The various reserves established as of June 30, 2008, were as follows: RDA RDA Low Income Financing RDA Other General Hosing Authority Capital Governmental Fund Special Revenue Debt Service Projects Funds Total Encumbrances $ 1,724,981 $ 488,506 $ - $ 4,904,332 $ 9,775,686 $ 16,893,505 Inventory 47,905 - - - 47,905 Continuing appropriations 149,357 11,703,667 - 62,066,704 30,656,063 104,575,791 Prepaid costs and deposits 920,938 156 - 649,134 2,205 1,572,433 Reserve requirement - - - - 18,487 18,487 Property held for resale - 25,000 - - 25,000 Debt service 2,532,053 - 630,500 - - 3,162,553 Loans and notes receivable 3,748,000 7,695,368 - 2,000,000 - 13,443,368 Advances 7,181,000 - - 13,419,000 20,600,000 Totals $ 16,304,234 $ 19,912,697 $ 630,500 $ 69,620,170 S 53,871,441 $ 160,339,042 Reserved for Encumbrances - These reserves represent the portion of purchase orders awarded for which the goods or services had not yet been received at June 30, 2008. Although all appropriations lapse at year-end, even if encumbered, the City intends either to honor the contracts in progress or to cancel them. Reserve for encumbrances is rebudgeted on July 1, by Council action. Reserved for Inventory - This reserve is to restrict fund balance so that it will not be considered as current funds available. Reserved for Continuing Appropriations - These reserves are for appropriations for capital projects, which are unexpended as of June 30, 2008, and are carried forward as continuing appropriations to be expended in 2008-2009. See independent auditors' report. - 87 - CITY OF PALM DESERT NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) June 30, 2008 10. FUND EQUITY(CONTINUED): Reserves of Fund Balance(Continued) Reserved for Prepaid Costs and Deposits - These reserves represent contractual obligations for cash payments made before June 30, 2008, but not recognized as an expenditure until after July I, 2008, and noncurrent portions of deposits. Reserved for Reserve Requirement - These reserves are set up for the maintenance requirements for the housing apartments. Reserved for Property Held for Resale- This reserve is for property held for resale and has been set aside to indicate that these funds are not available to finance current expenditures. Reserved for Debt Service - These reserves for Debt Service represent reserves accumulated by the City and the Redevelopment Agency that are legally restricted to the payment of long-term debt principal and interest amounts that mature in future years and for compensated absences. Reserved for Loans and Notes Receivables - These reserves are set up to reflect the noncurrent portion of receivables so that they will not be considered as current funds available. Reserved for Advances - These reserves are set up to reflect the advances to the Redevelopment Agency so that they will not be considered as current funds available. Net Asset Restatements Net assets of the governmental activities have been restated as follows: Net assets, July 1, 2007, as previously reported $ 498,408,082 To adjust capital assets to add prior year acquisition inadvertently not recorded 11,396,588 Net assets, July 1, 2007, as restated S 509,804,670 See independent auditors' report. - 88 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2 TOTAL FV 09-10 FY 0940 - PROJECT Carry Over Year 1 1? Fund COSTS: Amount Amount o. Pro act Name PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS Measure A $3,700,000 1 Cook Strest Intersection8.Storm Drain Improvements RDA Am $6,105,501 f 709171Drel ft 992 00 CRY Signal Imeroonnect Tr�v Signal $815,502 $10,760 E850,500 2 AKA:Tretfle 81 nsl Ceordinelisn .. R85et-. : 3 Fred Waring Drive At San Pascual Signal Modification Traffic Signal $300,003 1 f53 000, Meesure Ai 107850 040;00[: -.. Drain $8,50,064 $359,35 r d Pert-1.AYenus At Frank,Slnatre Intersection Improvements. Traft SI Orel Measure A $4,031,723 $4,703,418 Capital Pr oject ed f12.000.005 than e Improvements man ts v 1 e14101nter g 0 5 Monterey Avenue Rexene - RDA Area 2 1 10 578 CapIW P'rojact $820,356 8 HO At Monterey-Landscaping Reserve $80 300 Gas Ca Tex Pro ecl $2,000,007 f1,070,10 7 Country Club Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Res�ervs { Cap Pr?lact $500.000'- f1,00,00., Reserve. $1,500.08- ._ . 6 Marderey improvements-Gerald Ford To Country.Club .� ssw.00 ROAAree2 . Measure A 000 00 RDA Area 2 94 30 000 9 Portals Interchange At Interstate 10 RDA Area 3 f70.50,009 f8 20 00 Urdunded CaPIWPrejxt' f3Y3,009: Porto is Avenue Sidewalk Extension - Amara .„z f13,381612- 10 _ RDA Area 1. 11 Right Turn Lane-Fred Waring Drive To Hwy.111 Meesure A 1715.011 $54 f12S,00 MeesureA $401,205'. $50,00: 12 Hwy.111 Sidewalk b Pla7a Way Intersection ImProvameMs Drainage f10,00 lnage _ . - Capital Project $T7-450 Reserve.; Mid Valley Bike Path Feasibility Study Para $100,013 f11,402 , 13 AKA:Freedom Trail Bicycle&Goff Can Path Capitel.project 14 PM10 Reduction S0ti Stablibistlon f355,011 $6,8f0 f340,000 Raeerva+,T 15 Resurfacing Streets Measure Annual Project 18 City-Wide Parking Lots New Corot Tex f10,016 f700,00 ' Dral ' Miscellaneous Drainage improvements Drainage $2,094,829 $1,900,000 17 AKA:Various Drainage improvements Reserve Drainage f10.000 ' Reserve Annual Project , 18 Nuisance Water InIeUDrywell UrAilrrdad. Measure A $500.000 ' 19 Monterey Improvements,-Fred Waring To Country Club RDA Area 1 $6,500,019 1000000 00 00 RDA Area 2 Unfunded ' Capital Project f40,00 20 Mid Valley Bike Path Reserve $5,800,020 , Unhanded Capffal Project ' Annual Project 21 Major Street Sidewalk Program Reserve $250 00U�ndsd Page 6-2 t 1 1 g 1 E i YY FY 70.11 FY i1-12 FY 12.13 FY 13-14 Grants,Reimbursements, 1 o Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Agreements,MOU's etc. 1 a` Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount 1 1 1 Reimbursement from RDA. 2 CMAQ Grant$752,500 3 CMAQ Grant$202,000 ' 4 ' CVAG Participation(Measure A) 50% 5 CMAQ Grant$1,565,700 6 TEA Federal Gram$376K Prop 1B funds 7 e RDA Prof Area 82 carryover f500K from 851-4363-433-"01 12 000 000 f6 000 000 (Future&contingent FY 11112) 9 CVAG 75%Participation of Measure A funds SUM -STP $51 500 000 Funds$1.275M CVAG 50%up to$7.450,000 10 RDA Prof Area 1 Funded SUM (all transfers haw been made) 11 $600,000 CMAQ Grant S642,000 ' 12 CMAQ funft$619,700 (-Hwy. 111 5ldewaik,Busbay,Signal') 13 Park funds(Bikeway Construction 14 CMAQ funds$301,000 15 $2,000,000 52,0001000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 18 17 ` 18 f150,000 $50,000 100 000 $150 000 $150,000 $1,500,000 RDA Relmb.In Year 2$1.5M 19 $500 000 f4 000 000 20 CMAQ funds f3,300,000 f200 000 $S 00 000 21 $250000 f250000 $2501000 $250000 Page 6-3 R CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM E 3 z ' TOTAL FY 09.10 FY 09-10 Q PROJECT Carry Over Yearl Q. Pro ect Name Fund COSTS: Amount Amount Capital Plidjaer 22 ADA Curb Ramp ModHlcatlone Reserve Annual Project UnlruWW' E$3 0Drain23 Gerald Ford Drive Drainage Line 3B Drain eAKA:North Sphere Drainage Drainage $4,441,156ReserveUnfundedTraIRc SI al. 024 Frank Sinatra And Gereld Ford: Dovglopo'_ $404,051 f25 Portola Avenue Aesthetic Treatment 8 Sidewalk CapesProject $2,158,915 $1526 Fred Waring Drive B Monterey Ave.Tom Pockets Ur�deA 53,122,736027 EI Passe Revitalization-Drainage Component Dralnega 5350,027 028 Accessible Pedestrian Program Traffic Signal Annual Project , 0 General 29 Traffic Signal At Hwy.74 And Mesa View Unfunded 5400,061 30 Hwy.1111 Monterey!Hwy.74 Traffic Improvements. Unforlded-_. $600,030 272 Ii 31 Major Landscaping Projects Urdunded Annual Project $300,000 $250,000 32 Solar Panel Installation-Co Yard, Urrhrrtded $400,032 ppp t 33 Sewer Laterals installations Capital Protect Reserve f23,756 $23,723 kBUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND: 34 Jonl Yard Renovation IfluildinuMaint 500 034 500 000 F J1WZ orporate Yard Facility Roof Bulidl Malm 150035 150000 c Works Storage To Office Renovation-Pw Cubicle del Bulldin MaInt 500036 500000 Comer Rsstrooms Builtll Maim 25003E f2S0000• Center Roof Replacement Bulldin Malm $300038 $300000 deling Civic Center Chamber Bathrooms Bulldin Malm 150 039 $150 0ml 4- TIONwg z'STATIOfVB �.>y -rtation 433 Renovation RDA Area 1 $900 040 900 000re Station 871 Renovation RDA Area 2. $900 041 $900,000 42 New North Sphere Fire Station Fire Facilities $10,679,237 3 504 2 - RDA Area 2 7174924 RK8'RRECREA71ON _ _ 43 PI round Re lacament-Washl n Charter Park Fund $150.043 ^$150 000 44 ADA U rades to PI rounds Park Fund Annual Project 30 000 45 Park Re-Lamping Park � Annual Project 20 000 nfim'd48 CC Park Improvements Unfundeund d $435,Ogg $125,000 47 Resurfacln Tennis Courts-Cahullla Park IPark Fund $18,047 18 000 48 Im rcvements at Civic Center 3 Palma Villa a Park Fund $15,048- 15 000 d9 Irrigation Retrofit to Calsenea Controllers-Parks Park Fund $100,049 50 000 50 L ends Fields Columns Park Fund $15,050 51 PI round Re lace ant-Joe Mann Park Fund $50,051 52 Resurfacin Civic Center Tennis 8 Basketball Court Park Fund $50,052 53 Improvements.Freedom Park Unfunded 530,053 54 Playground Replacement-Palma Villa a Unfunded $50,054 55 Resurfacing Joe Mann&Freedom Courts Unfunded $40.055 56 Playground Replacement-Soccer Park Unfunded $200,056 57 Community Center Feasibility Study Pa $359,625 $359.568 ;. t �I ' E ' E z ' FY 10-11 FV 11-12 FV 12-13 fY 13-14 Grants,Reimbursements. .a Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Agreements,MOU's etc. Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount ' 22 ' $100 000 5100 000 f 100 000 f100 000 23 ¢140 000 53 960.000 Traffic Signal funds 24 Oeveloper Deposit$189,000 25 RDA to Fund Project RDA to Fund Year 1 28 $2 550 000 27 28 $100.000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400.000 S0 $100.000 $500.000 r 31 $250.000 $250,000 $250.000 $250,000 v 32 EFf137K Ene Rebate 33 M 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 $30 000 35 000 45 Sib 000 $20000 $20000 E6000 $20000 48 125 000 5 000 $100 000 540000 $25000 47 48 48 $50 000 50 $15,000 51 $50000 52 $50,000 53 $15000 $15,000 —_ 54 $50 000 55 $40 000 56 $200 000 57 Page 6 5 CRY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM E z TOTAL FY 09.10 FY 09.10 PROJECT Carry Over Year 1 Project Name Fund COSTS: Amount Amount J >s• w.se.,.. 58. ira0 Re•Neluraliratiod Perk Flirld'+`r ° r, f91 993*: - 59 Amphitheater Park Fund $1,500,059 1500000 00 Home Improvement:Program Housing Annual Project $700,000 $150,000 61::Z161fiablkesale•1rd10 Affortlalile H - " :. ';: Hoimi - .f',.�c . ^_`'Annual,FroJeol.;.- - :�•:. .. 62 Home B er Subsidies Howl $5,000,062 $5 000 000 �'D�eiltdse%o�:�Maliderinnee/f18` rs ,r i„� ' i- Houslt+,�'t"i _ „- AnnuelFrojgeL. � �:a u�a 8e Ac ulaltion Housing $13,500,064 5500000 $Z000,000 65 Rardal`Aaahtarrce P'" ram, . - .:..:.�... Housl Yc;:'s ;_;: Anmld+PrcJacY.., 68 Se"elp Housina Housing Annual Project 200001) - 68 Homs B er Assistance P rsm HousingAnnual Project 00 000 $350 000 So Ad iad Urdt 70 Muwamllv Improvement P ram Homing Annual Project 71 Workforce Housl GjaM.'` ' ... Housl :'� ",_; 1118,889T- 11 tick:•` .. . Housing 72 ILMuna Palms Rehabilitation Authorthr $889'01114 $888 932 73 I<;i HPWInjq.,' a fi39,978 ,. s One0uailPlacsC ItalUri iovemeMs AuDro ,tL , $08,91 Housing 7Housing $1,597,638. s CalHomia Villas Rehabilitation Phase B Authority 75 r Housing tk' f923,36e Taos Pel Irderlor Rerrovetion, Autlre Housing 78 Taos Palms Capital Improvements . A f165,078 $165,000 77 ,;.,"'! :.. . s G,'Y•r' ^ . ti HoUNnDeb .x , f148A81ud4 .� �.:. , Cardlewood C' Hal Im rovemeMs Autlro 118 0 H 1 us M T8 Se acrest Capital Improvement Audro f92,978 9 900 79 Houslrg 0ti, $20000,079- s" •d . .. Autlm - $20 U00 000 Country VIIIa C� kallm�rovemems-- aT'Etlkf '�b"R'�ae5+r''r1 ;Ra ih�x .. 4 OTHER81f^„wr.r"�'.`+xk*nX ,i.X�. �' s,;v,q.-�`>^I y�tfa i,;A .•,+•. A, J t r t-yTa.. tat'h 7.k.c, ..< 14j. R '� c a'' •'.1.9 ,,a Homing 80 Housl M ation MRI adon f2,127,024 500000 81 Bub 9Ueher, lm rovememP iam.'r ��' 0009 100000 Capital Project 82 Council Chambers Renovation Reserve f173,729 33647 $140,000 Captial ProJeet' $10 000,000.,•83 Eisenhower Medwal'Center - Reserve;t•s r. . 000000- 94 Fa{,ade Program capital Resarn Project Annual Project $300 000 85- Desert Willow Pad Stablllaatioin. ROA Area�2" ` Annual Projscl',.:. 75 000 86 Desert Willow Drive Landscape RDA Area 2 $170.088 $170,000 87 OesenWlllow.Parkig�Sfiueturd AIPP',' .: f80;0117' -.::. 88 201112012 El Pasco Exhibition AIPP $65,088 89. Various AR Project: ...'.d AIPP '�.'s . f550,089; 550000' 90 CI Childcare Facility r e F f1,500,090 S, b tiY Childcare Fund 1500000 - Capital Project - - 91 Alessandro Improvements, sea"We' - f8,211,775' 663529.�: I RDA Area J-.: - S 351 155'capital Prole I j 92 Saks Stir Avenue Parking Easement Reserve $760,092 750 000 . Capital Project: $850;093 .93 F.I.N.D Building Reserve, - _ 50000' Capital Project 94 Chlldren's Discovery Museum Reserve f500,094 500000 95 HommelAdams Park - RDA Trust $276,613 278518 96 Emrada del Paseo RDA Area 1 $907,944 907 848 97 Property Acquisition RDF?ag86-6 $893,409 $S83312. 1 1 , I $ E i FY 10.11 FY 11.12 FY 12-13 FY 13.14 Grants,Reimbursements, Q Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Agreements,MOU's etc. m Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount 1 58 59 ZL 60 $150,000 $153000 $156,060 $158181 81 $290 000 $295 800 $301716 5307 750 62 I 63 50 000 SS1.000 S5ZO20 $53.050 64 $2 000 000 52.000.000 $2 000 000 $2 000 000 65 130 000 $153 000 1 060 $159,isi 66 5400 000 $400 000 $400,000 I 67 $2 000 $25 500 $26 010 $26,530 68 50 000 $357 000 $408,000 $416,160 69 $50 000 S51 000 5 020 $53.060 70 $25 000 S25 500 $26,010 126.530 j 71 72 73 74 75 76 I 77 1 78 I 79 I 80 1,50 000 1154.500 159135 $163,909 I 81 / 82 1 63 84 $300 000 $300 000 S300.000 $300 000 1 65 178.750 $82 608 $86.822 $91.163 1 B8 1 87 $80 000 a8 $65 000 I 89 1 90 1 RDA reimbursing City for 91 Purchases of Properties. 1 1 92 1 93 1 94 1 95 1 96 97 Page 6,7 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM E = TOTAL FY 09-10 FY 09.10 rtga PROJECT Carry Over Year y Pro ett Neme Fund COSTS: Amount Amoum 98 Portola PropertieslAdobe Villas RDA Area 1 $204,088 $203,990 99 El PM&D RevllnitratIon RDA Aree: - K430,309 10 RDA Ares 1 $500,000 RDA Area 2 5500 000 100 Police Academy(COD) $2,000,100 RDA Area 3 $500,000 RDA Area 4 $500,000 . - RDA ArN2 -•� • f0.00D.101'' 000 OOg. ,._ 102 NS Intrestructunt(DW Well Sites) RDA Area 2 $1,323,291 $1,323,169 109 >>fecgop 1-Dnwt Willow Rerim900n(Greens) RDA Arta 2 . : $25 50 5g ggg! -. . 104 FalconfHovley Perimeter Landscaping RDA'Area 3 62 ,104 T50 000 105 Underground Neighbodlaody; RDAAreak $13.380,105 $13,380,000- 106 Pertola Avenue Improvement&Sidewalk RDA Area 1 $974,241 $974,135 101 Fred WwIng Drive 8_Morderay Ave.Tom Pocket RDA Area 1 ' $5?Z81fi_ 710 1D8 Cna*y's Restaurant RDA Ares4 $119,227 119119 FD CARRYOVER YEAR1 211-On Tax 600,3D0 213-Measure A 14,215,928 8,403,278 214-Housing Mitigation - 500.000 _ 228-Childcare Fund 1.500,000 231-New Const Tax - 100,000 _ 232-Drainage 3,171,000 2.040.000 233-Parks 1,962,667 1801000 234-Traffic Signed $49,505 512.000 235-Fire Facilities 3,504,271 - 236-Air Gualihr 80,000 100,000 400-Capital Protect 7,332.956 6,926,635 _ 420-Drainage 1.900,000 960,000 430.Parke 228.000 436-AIPP S50,000 - 440-Traffic Signal 10,760 850,500 460-Building Metm. 1,550,000 610-Developer 189.000 850-RDA Area 1 14,176.516 1.546,845 851-RDA Area 2 23.137,697 245.000 863-RDA Area 3 11,659,171 854-RDA Area 4 13,999,119 870-Housing 5.347,732 8,155,000 871-Housing Authorlty 3,354,992 20,000.000 880-Trust 276,518 Unfunded 1,000.000 109.568.331 51,814,250 Page 6-8 E FY 10.11 FY 11.12 FY 12-13 FY 13.14 Grants,Reimbursements, Q Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Agreements,MOU's etc. IL Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 FO YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 FUND TOTAL 211 800,511 213 16,100,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 50,719,419 214 1,150,000 154,500 159,135 163.909 2,127,758 228 - - 1,500,228 231 100,231 232 - 5,211,232 233 2,143,100 234 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 1,528,739 235 - - 3,504,506 238 180,238 400 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 15,45%"1 420 150,000 50,000 - 3,060,420 430 234,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 822,430 436 80,000 65,000 - - 695,436 440 - - 061,700 450 1,850,450 610 1",610 850 - - 15,724,210 851 78.750 $2.688 86,822 91,163 23,722,971 853 11,660,024 854 - - 13,999,973 870 3,490,000 3,511,800 3,577,896 3,201,452 27,284,750 871 - - 23,355,SM 880 - - - - 277,398 OF 3,856,000 10 905 000 56 550 000 1 250 000 73,561,000 25.538.750 17 258 988 68,893,853 7,226,524 280,342,1Sg Page 6-9 ( p4Y ° CITY OF PALM DESERT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STREET, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS 5-YEAR SCHEDULE 2008-2012 S;0 A i=i.^.:ANGE AR01=�'.4101h i EzG,:ih eE MOPIT`RfT NE.i\�41 C :nnTarsw -10 R.?ERCY4NG E'PROJECT:PORTCAA.W-AT 41G PORTOlAAUEAT I-15 WlTTWwK IANDSGAPE PAO RCT.t-101NiE.1'-„YANCE 1 IADNiEREI'AYE ANJ 410 � _� Eat Ca>': i1000.000 QES Ca.¢ FY::O]7-1001 CONTLV'S ry - -_ E7;oa. a.a,000 n'.z;;7-z➢oa SIt}RE ., NAND-aU3°-�tl F_LT AW NYEvYA`F_AND�lti;-a??ORE OR TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROLE CT.PORTOUAVEAND D%A�SMOKE OR EKTENS KIN 1,lyNtE REY AVEANDDINAHSHOAE DA PO.RTOIAMEANDDAIAHSHD.RE Di'-KTENSON WNT"11w.,. GDr!erarr- E-'a ast.a Ica;. , FY.me-mca iu TRAFF a'iGNALPA!WSIi:.`R4NC SINDP0ORANDPOR OLAAVE Q 1 FRAVK 53NATRA DR AN}POTOIAAVE GERALD FORD Wt WNi tlYU1K c•PRORGT.E FW: W 1MTRY G1 DR TD GE AAL D FO FDRD]R d 'c51 GLR: 6 500.0J0 FY:30GT•C003 � TRA-ID OGN4n PR01E Ci.`34 ANDA I.DANDG E5.4L}FQ JJ DA FRAtSf 51,E+4:M]RAND CE Sit J=OiD DR s �sr WNTAvwrt B 0 rP FRAfa<SINATRA DR FRA IS< .TAA DR D24fN4Ci?RDJECT COOK CoL O:,'NT RY CE{R DR]:4'NAA AE DNN P401EC-.MONTEREY AE DN NS COOK ST AND AND COtS!'RY'YL.E 0.R 'HDV-EY LN W TO VDLN AY CAVE DR toNrnr^Fr- W hTN"m 1 ST.-E`_T pRG.2v.MONtEZFY AYE WIDENINC $]WA RING 70..OIR, vale d WUIRAY CLUB OR COUNTRY E,I.gM.3�AQwo TY ,.c-zooa TRAFFIC SIGNAL PR04C7.AVAE Y.N E AND ELODR.4DO NOVLEY NNW ¢ n 'Y EY AN E.14]EL JORAw E coarcE aoaux� sm®-m+�: Gq Eucwsmu.oco =r':+x7-200a - T 8 HDAEYLNE �8 FREDW:�Pi0 Ems'MONi ER£YAY T'M;G� ERfD Eg=O2.137.-Y cWATERS-0AA1LHi NlLt WVLEY LNE ER CAA'.5_.1 i:.062 FY:mC7-2TPn STR`_ET ogORCT. }WARNG�ON T NG CAi L`O RNN D.R'D WAS rtt1GTON ST aCG ttESN FLL LS DW �tt�"K' PAR rc F3:Cast S'70000D FY:m07-m0a 0 C4lEO N� AK)N::REY.ME'OSM1==:vWIAVE z a l U iRE RING OR . z E>,CAA.:E f;S.xO •FY::'eGT-2f08.' I ST EE-PROFCTCOOKSTW']ENING STATE III -:ED WARAG}3TOFR.4`X Si N1T3i D.'. - DDnfwwEG EL ASE �t reAY7D ESt CYd i3a0C m: ,ry.MC7-mOF -4F=f�SiGNi rvyII .Y yd r'WY111 AND:-WY i! a aAI NCY_ 'R Goq:534WG n'.mCT-200d aIDGE PfD.l ECT:.0 "WE RIDS' GRA EVIIlE AT '� R)RTOAAV EAT W YR 6YA1 ERSTOnM G'.fANNEL - m NTwwtl� K YSTACK D NO koA�"El�]R -YIW�I AN}ME Si_'MFMi E" Co:i S wo..000 FY m D2i WAIL P40ECT.PO. OLAA WA:E -RED WA.R,NG]'.TD S4 N.ASCLA:AVE E➢AVRWOR ¢SR TOE TRAFFC S CN.AL P AOIECT FRe D WAKING AIiD SAN PAS CUY =RED WWG.ARANOSANP.A"C t ES Gres: S XO WQ :Y:2307-2sia PROR--h1iY 1;t a' W ENB-SIO W ' fl4Y.SGNAI MD] ANPAMOPO WEST GY LM .S I �� Eit COR. SL'OGL9 l':10W-2CCa Il I Ilflrnll� i i 0 1 2 I I I Miles CITY-WIDE PROJECTS IMPROVEMENT FISCAL YEAR MAJOR STREET MAJOR STREET NUISANCE WATER TYPE COLOR INDEX SIDEWALKS PROGRAM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM INLET/DRYWELL PROGRAM BRIDGE CONTINUING FY: 2007-2008 -$250,000 FY: 2007-2008 -$21,200,000 11 FY: 2007-2008 -$300,000 DRAINAGE FY: 2007-2008 I-10 INTERCHANGE FY: 2008-2009 - 25CO001 25000FY 20.08-2009 $300,000 — LANDSCAPE FY: 200812009 FY: 2609-2010'-$250,000 FY: 2009-2010'-$250,000 ;_- MEDIAN FY: 2009=2010 VARIOUS DRAINAGE _ STREET FY: 2010-20 1 $250,000 FY: 2010-2011 -$250,000 IMPROVEMENTS WALL FY: 2010-2011 FY: 2011-2012 -$250,000 FY: 2011-2012 -$250,000 FY: 2007-2008 -$600,000 TRAFFIC SIGNAL FY: 2011-2012 '40 (D 7 � 0 0 o ❑ (D < Q 0 iN ° O ❑ D ❑ o cc o (D � m m ° O � �' O (D �_ N N W < n v 3 Q ,3 N O Q v 0 Q p ❑ U O N an '" O0 3Qm0o ❑ ° - 3 0- 3Q ,a t, y d6 (D3NNOOm ° msn,� � n ° O ° 00� 3 �� N � C_ NC Q 3 0 ° C C , O Q p Q.Q� C 3 Cn Q • N • LD ° O ❑ ° (D ,"' N Q o < T f0D D (D (D C) C O Q Q N -. ❑ m 3 3 (D D 7 ° (D o < 0 7 o Aa am ° o� � n m 7 o N ° f 3 � ❑ 3 ° _ c < _ p f (D ° Q -0 0 3 o n p, m N ❑0 (D ❑ c 3 D ❑ ° -( (D � Q' ons ` m3 � (<o G1 mmn °_ 4T � m ❑ m -00❑ oo- 0 - 1 :3 v � O � m3 � A oK) <2. - 0 3 v' m F' m ° C(❑ Q O C O. m fl Q < am �c CL (D CD � 4 3 fl C) 0 = > >c N m � 3 m o vm N O_ ° ° N (D '< 7 ° v < (Q O 7 F o 3 ic' O (° O 1 = Q(O ❑ (❑ Q (D O.S j ❑ Q ❑_ N Q ❑ (D ° Q N C C (D • 7 7 CD N O N -' n S K ZL N N 3 _o N - m � Q cN0 � N m = O -< Q < (D3mDm cP <' ;� v m-O a o o � 7 O (D Q ° n . Q-6 w ' m O a n � ° N N O p ° °� � o m m m C p 3 (D 0 :: 3 o Duo m nWA no O Q ❑ 't0 (❑ _ 3. ° c (❑• m O o D J Q ❑ o (D 1° O m O O N N • �. n O C �c Q O 3 N 3 (❑ -O CO ° Q ❑ D m ❑ OI • m N N N p ° ° 3 � ° � o � � G� � � CD Tc QOca30 (D m a � �, a m __ °- Q �^ 3 (o❑ 3 ° .7« O ° ° N Q 3 7 O ❑ o g o "a N °- ° j ° F: "-' O . O 7 —^ 61t4m — If rjll t t .� O .`4 P. • Q n N O n O u;, �, V 2 (D ~ 2 Z 2 'n ❑ ❑ N Q (D N W a m 0 ❑ 0 < CD : V N ° °O � 0 S n w O (D m ° N � ° p N AO NO S < p ❑ m ❑ m Q _. m 7 ry ° ,n n Q Q y °C V < ° (D CD N O ,< ° N Q <. N Q ❑ ❑ 3 °- (D O a m A N Q fl OD N O ❑ U O Q n O c Q m (D O (D 5 W (D n (D 7 rn C -w (D O , (D G' O in O a , ❑ O O F Q (D 7 n • (N C N ❑ U-< (0 Q ❑ � Q C Q O O 7 Q D 6 n ❑ 0 0 0 0 (D 7 - a'U rt O • .^ Q (p ooGWo ° QmQo' � o ° 000xyF n4o ° mQ � � o � � oTfl_ ov � w ° aNao � 3QWQ< •Q • Q N (D ❑ (D -o (Dr N "O O m m " O. .'O p S N o N, O • n Q o 3 O 3 7x F (D ❑ Q ❑ m x w Q (D Q nu QN ° 7j 210 n ((D mn w0D mQo0 < o (D Q_ o ° Q D3 S D- n C (D N O ° o (❑ U ❑ (o Q 7 D O N • ❑ (D O �^ W O X ❑ 'G m CI 7 u p '^ fD 1 7 = C (D m N (°D Q y-O H (D j N Pr Q -- ❑ O �.+' G Q N i 3 OD O °_ OT ' N ° C ti Q 7 3 ° rt n Q (D a N0 � oa ° mQa mac❑ om� m z � N o o Q � �p :3 ° m o- zr O Q ❑ o o "' , � � � ao Q . DS ° aQ � � R� Q • ° mgNF ° o �. o. ? ❑ m < aQ (°. Q ° 3 v m m (n ° W • N (D (D JC N D A � N F 7 T.< ° ❑ (D ❑ N `G Z] • � N Q m 3 3 �- (D.� �' in 7 3 (Q o Q Q • y 6 � Q T <O ° (D Q j N N 0 x n _ 6 0 7 T (D '- O Q y o -u 3 = -° O Q •m N O - "6 (❑ (D Q T ° o = c ❑ o ° ° O ❑ 3 v N n C ❑ N ° mom . ° o m E D c Q m m G� ° N ° 3 :7 ❑_ 3 c n 3 o -a� _a , Q QQQ ' ❑ 3 = Oz o o m Q o o m '^ in O (D `^ �. 7 ❑ (D 7 ❑ ° ❑ ❑ N N N C Q (D (❑ N 7 Q `G ° (D < n N 7 (D (❑ W 7 3 - . �. (D S • (D (❑ D N 3 N A � p n N TrT C V N N ^ -0 - C T � < N fl -UID O � r � � N ❑ � -0 14 r am ❑ � r A 4 .(D u' m ° 7' On :T 4 ❑ Q O cn �, O N 7 A O ° Q ° (Np 7 Q j O ° a ❑_ N p O(❑ �' Q ° `^ (D O V, Q p m 7 a - 0 ❑_ •( � a - � ❑ m 3 <' ❑ � - 3 < c . mn N 3 ,7 3 N m (❑ D ° � (D(❑ Q n D - (D00(D 0 nU�X ° ° (DQ � oA m °v� (D = m omn ° o :3 Q -V ° m mcc N Q -u(O • (� OND ,CH p (N 7 —_ �.+. m ° ❑ -O < fDWQ � • C ° � � 0Cm ° n ❑ � -. O n N O • O , 3 (D i7.`. < • m Q 3 ((Di a`C' < _ • m ° = a • • Q Q a 0 7 fl n' 7 S °- o -O 0 7 ❑ •� (D m-6 �, Z �' 3 ❑ Q �,� p 5' n W Q(o ° (DQ ti W C =. -0 S ' 0' N p ° O ❑ .O 0 T, , ❑ (p .A - N (° -° m m N . 10 ° N m ° N n' • ° .C. m ❑- �O O O '^ ° _° 7 O ° p , 3 - -< Q Cn (O • (D N H • N '< .0 • Q ( ° m 7 7C' <. m :. m S (❑ �,,. ❑ D O (❑ 0 (❑ S"C � A Q (D OQ (D O G S ❑ Q O O ° (° O N < O Q o :' (D (D ❑ 3 Q O `-o :° 0 is Q(❑ 4 O 7C CD Q O 7 jC ° -(❑ O C) (D Q Q 0 07 6 Q D a(D C H N : D a ° ° I C' � O N 7 � Q 3�Q O -2 (—) :7 °. m O � D n 0 3 Q � < • ❑ N � 3 (Q0 :3 o 0o o W ° � o a � ° o � mQi0 � � � Q6 3 oAQaa � SpN � y �. m (D m ❑ o m (D (D 0 3 QNom (a0 a (D a,N O o � f� m �Nn ' pQs oo <. m Sao c c � ° � nNic, 3o ° QfD QaQF - ° °o3 � a � � � 3 . mQ - � 36m is 33' 0 D m m m o ° (D ❑ 0 3 ° gym o <' Nofo ° • • • • • • • • • • • N Q ° N O .Z- O ❑ D E m O ❑ ❑ ❑ o � 3 3a o Q(Q 3Qm N ❑ 3 � 3 o 3 o N N o ° Q Q o 3 -. ° 3 �CD Q ° ? m o � Q 1 m =(Q a 0 (D 3 (D (Q O C 70 a ° Q � 3 � Qo (❑ , � Nn � O N m n (D �' 3(❑ (D N (D (D (D O 3 Q n 1 R' IIOMEREY AVE Q Q7 m ❑ ❑ 7 w H' ° ❑ V I y1 eW6p p $ �t�' (SD n Q' (D Q °- � O °CL ❑ QO(D aa � O $ off �' p wAYE £ £ v, c�'` 0 N G Q S n S T m ° Q 3 N ❑ m ^' w gg sgg roRrou AVE i m ge-0ac A 0 n m n' 3 n Q. O ° � � Q 3 N O -O m m C -. c N a m n ux RD $ 7 Q 4 N S ❑ m '0. ? W 3 ° 3 3 3 N 7 ❑ Q n N p O (D Q Q (D 7 t/, CN. Q 1 CO,c xsr O� m 7C m ❑- 7 Q 7 COOR sr p Q C- n -0,' O O (❑ = N O ❑ ❑ (D x, Q Q m m O 3 m n O p, FLOP 000R £ EI DOOR 6 (D (D(D 3 p 6 J N p M. O OL N 7 Q .O a G (n m -0 Q :3C(°Q Q (0 3 7 O _ Tc OASM"WOR mm m � - O (Q m � o � WARNER a s ° r) ❑ D n Q m O ❑ n a N 9.'a Q o WASMxoroxsr m o o a o ❑w (D G _ ° � � ° + o m ' 3 0 C C a � c > 0 QC o a N T O O - C j v1 o C N V' a a) U Y C O a - N n_ Q h cO � Q° Naa � � � � � o - ° moo 00 cE � IL o ° •� 0`a) � ° 3E } .� a a3 oorn.� ° ,'c_ X � w � LDa � `owTu o) O 0 4 p C a y a) r Q) 6 O 7 ,tti U rn a) - 0 a) w 0 6 N C a } ClP.- MIME O.c.�-.. N L 0 T h Q E a) t O -0 0 - p w 0 G o a) 'E .o U � U 'o � Q ° 'o �0u0 ° Ya ° p ° a o.� o � � E o 'orZu `oa 3 (D o W 0 ' o 0 0 o ° a L E o � ° z a -0 o > v o a o ( a o M H L .00 � '� Ca F .0, u 0 , C� 0r Na-0 L 0E a) ° ' ° a° ° a � � a OEa LLAQ 3Q007 C) - 0. -0 (D ° orJ oLEO � a a ca �a ^ V C) .> a aro > omm � Qoa C -0 � 000 � _ as Q) C) o } ` ° V T C } l7 -E Q) a ._ U '- . O a � - N C � C -aa 6 itOE ° 1 a � .So0- a) > � co oj0 ° om , a •NYpoT Ey E - S E — a) 0 a oY o f O }t L N TNYL ED c 0 Q N M 12 c ° O r ° O t CL ° o O N c °U E O) N N .V ° U U E N E h m a°i c o o = C NY a3 0 - 5 O E � o m ° E � E ° uUU o ° ° � 0 LLM • X CD O. N 0 a) N U 'Np O O rn•N C U 0 �-O U a) C U w o_ .N a O C N U O E ° a) o Cl- O - p p >-Z '" .d w a a C w T- c U a) N ° o � o -u° :y c° � L � 'o o � ° �� = ° `C c ° } 0) Q) o c 0 a 'a) a E 7 ° c o a 0 u 0 p o O -0 a N ° a a o O a) p c p o 0 0 a) o = C o u i� ua a oauo � Nca � t ° •urn a a 00Ev a ru ° UEC EQ) 9 „ a U' QYo a 0) E U o a U9 C E Ou C O o Y� � U aO Q . EL0a - 0` ° ` oE ° H° ^ E u -0 -0 � � Ern ° a aQ a � E Qo 6� U o� o aa ° a a l W _ E a a ; '`e C U E ° _ EEQ ETE ) Q U U p O a O O O _ Ua U e i t -° ° a Q rno oa � C) TaN � o o ; � _ N rnC06) - c ( Oc OL° aa) L a � O ° OEo ppO � � � a0 � Ec � ° c � a6 � OtE � cOc � � UON C •oy .m } a E aE ' u � � as E a o 0 0 ° o � o Z - o ' ° o � � o ° a) Q) a p u70Q_ an C a) o a Eo a TE o Y � � a uUU4 E CL 3 ° � 0 0 £ a > `o a 0 U d d .1v r ■ ( � , so ` r r SIaYd H�nxlYA1 • • • • • � �- a) sarygnYd atgsntasa� • • W c 61 c ° amlYad rala�,(y • • • CL LU E O j p O y a o a C O siSB1y • • a Q a 0 U t y U ma 00 a a o j m o vapepa:off . • Q co oo � o ooa u � a o �Zmgo ° 0 -> -0 C) VV 344nd • • d c .` a s _o Z sL - Z p0 E � ,n E E .a u � oc � o � U o mLL � vapsYplynmwwo� . . . O i 'o c o o a o a o n ° o `0 0 � � 0 °) t u E m > Ja7eayi}4ducd . > _ a) 0 .o 'o o. �'� u u 'o o o ° cog a: o E a o u o a o) o L 'N o 'N o N o - (J swooxya� • • • • • • • • • • • V [i O `o x > U b� LL y L U '� ° l O -" su C a C NZ y 6 D U o f E E E E E E a d (surd 3mo7d • • • • • • • • • _ ° c� - C o a u p u E E E E E a � `o o m E > p o E o E o o a > s ai. a oi[tai Y = 'E 7 U U U U U U U 0 a p�7S voasaouo� • • • • • lj}� 6 a. a ;d sard HoQgsYal$O • • G (a�a'UtiswS)K+sd H�U • • • (s�no�ilg4Aa[IDA • • • • � � (scary ssss,�ygny vadp • • • • • • • • - r o C (s)ppig osodmd4ingy • • • y° °� >'`c Sp os¢ ay • • • U 1? o 0 6 p au m Du oa .x QN _> `m � o a (sia id la�aoS • . _�N U o p a o 0 o c c U - O a Xaad atYK5 • . D m 0 g c o EL 0 y ° E (oj rn u a o E sunoopno4aln4S • �: E Q V ('J a ° °E o o O ^ ¢' s}(d aogsastog • s ,� O o o N o o 0 > y op o 0. ;ia�j ossQ • V t o o O o N N o `_ a t ; v t t t (sJyno3lia47aKsYg • • • • • O c a -o rn a) 'o m� E _ rn (s)Pta!dais4aseg • CL p U avC VdroOE E NNm'o h a � C at E • • . • . 0Eaov `(s9un2(sid 0 aao � 09 333 d a) - ~ g O o a o 0 0 O o 0 Z . Q CO O L 1 o Q U � a o o a) N O O ° fi p c a 0 a o o c' a -6 a a) �_ o m d 0) a) x o° z S a oZO) 4) aa) ° 0 3 a � Q o a� 3 o a x x N Q O RE 3 o U _ -�° u U a > .1r a ° `o m a a U a n c a > c 3 0 - a o ry E c N p 11' i a E °� « v a c7 o v « « °_ a o N O u mo } O o_ tl t OWN ., �M a 7.' u .y ..• N p _y ,g a ry L U u 215 Nn u t � n "a10. T N ona cpd u S o o 0 O1) O 3 � o. , cqi Tin - � U U V U U U a .'C x o N r Q a P O a O a0 3 a) o� 'O a �n Oo '�° 4 ri c•i V mid dOL 3 U _ U 1333 U 1 .- C11Y 0f I 01 191 \ 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 922 6 0-2 578 TEL: 760 346-o6n FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org July 29, 2009 Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4277 Subject: LAFCO 2009-04-4 Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails) to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District To Whom It Concerns; The City of Palm Desert voted to remove Sun City from the sphere of influence at the April 12, 2007 City Council meeting. On December 11, 2008, after public testimony in support of reintroducing this area into the sphere of influence,the City Manager wrote Mr. George J. Spiliotis a letter of interest regarding this concept. On May 8, 2009 the Palm Desert City Manager again expressed clear interest in another letter to Mr. Spiliotis to reaccept the delineated area previously known as Del Webb Palm Desert into Palm Desert's sphere of influence. On June 18, 2009, the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert received notice of the above mentioned project. Staff contacted the City of Indio for a copy of the complete specific plan and reviewed the plan content. On July 9, 2009, staff requested that the Palm Desert City Council give direction to prepare a letter either in support or opposition to the proposed project. The City Council expressed concern forthe Sun City Palm Desert development and requested staff to obtain comments from the Sun City Board of Directors and issue those comments as City of Palm Desert's concerns. I have attached the concerns of the Sun City Board of Directors for your review and consideration as was discussed with the President of the Board, Bill Murphy. The Sun City Palm Desert Community Association has expressed interest in annexing to the City of Palm Desert, and would like to keep that option viable. The following page of comments is issued to LAFCO at the request of the Palm Desert City Council on the behalf of the City of Palm Desert. Please contact me with any additional questions at 760-346-0611 ext. 384. iely . Wohlmuth anager G:W Ianniwwjssy Grisallndio TmHWLetter 07,29.09 doc �J roman unmrw 6N. SUN CITY PALM DESERT (.inrniriuih .h::uriuliair July 28, 2009 Palm Desert City Council c/o Ms. Missy Grisa,Assistant Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ms. Grisa, Thank you for contacting us on behalf of the Palm Desert City Council, The Council has invited Sun City Palm Desert Board of Directors to comment on the Indio Trails Development and potential annexation of this area by the City of Indio. The Community Association is particularly concerned that as the City of Indio moves west and expands their boundaries, they will ultimately surround Sun City Palm Desert. If this does occur, the opportunity for Sun City Palm Desert Community Association to be annexed by the City of Palm Desert could be adversely impacted. Regarding the specific project proposed,we find the following items to be of critical importance: 1. Traffic Mitigation—Asa result of the high building density per acre,we anticipate a material impact on the traffic generated on Washington Street. a. The Sun City Palm Desert project was required to realign Washington Street and build it to full width, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Additionally, Sun City Palm Desert was required to build a gutter on the west (Preserve) side of Washington Street. b. In order to mitigate the traffic along Washington Street, we include believe it is also appropriate that the Indio Trails Entitlements conditions which require the widening and extension of Adams Street to full width prior to the closing of the first residence within the first phase of the project site. c. Similarly, mitigation measures should require synchronization of any signals along Washington Street as required per the traffic study. 2. Flood Control—Require full implementation of flood control measures as identified by the Coachella Valley Water District, and that the flood control infrastructure be installed as early as possible within the development of the project site. Sincerely,__ ctry Sandy Seddon, General Manager CC: SCPDCA Board of Directors Roy Wilson, Riverside County District 4 Supervisor CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING LAFCO 2009-04-4, THE REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 89(INDIO TRAILS) TO THE CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY: Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner DATE: July 9, 2009 CONTENTS: Application to the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission City Limit and Sphere of Influence Exhibit Recommendation: By Minute Motion, that the City Council provide staff direction on the position to take regarding the proposed annexation, Indio Trails. Upon Council consideration,direct staff to prepare a letter in support of or opposition to the proposed annexation. Executive Summary: The City of Indio has developed an Indio Trails Specific Plan with an application to the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to amend the City of Indio Sphere of Influence and annex the proposed project area into the City limits. Staff is presenting this information to the City Council as the City of Palm Desert has a request in concurrently with LAFCO to re-attach the community known as Sun City into the City of Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The proposed Annexation 89 is directly north of Sun City Palm Desert Discussion: The City of Indio's proposed Annexation 89 is located north of Frances Way and east of Washington Street. The proposal contains approximately 743 acres of land immediately north of the community Sun City Palm Desert. Indio Trails Specific Plan proposes a development plan for 494t acres in the Indio Hills. The plan specifies 267 acres (54%) as permanent open space with the remaining 227 acres split into low density residential(148.45 acres), country estates(8.96 acres), medium density residential (45.26 acres), high density residential(8.0 acres),and commercial(4.84 Staff Report Annexation 89 Indio Trails Page 2 of 2 July 9, 2009 acres). Also included in this plan is 12-13 acres for streets outside specific development areas, flood control facilities, a water booster station, and a water reservoir. The proposed Indio Trails Specific Plan is surrounded by vacant Bureau of Land Management land to the east of a large portion of the site, vacant Coachella Valley Preserve conservation land to the west, and vacant desert hillsides with native scrub vegetation to the north currently zoned open space — rural in the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Immediately south of the proposed project is largely vacant property(one residence) that is currently zoned W-2, Controlled Development under the County's designation. The City of Indio has pre-zoned this property to Community Commercial as a part of the annexation, but there are no plans of development at this time. Upon Council's consideration, provide staff with direction on the City of Palm Desert's position regarding this proposed annexation. Staff will prepare a letter based upon council action to write in support of or opposition to the Annexation 89 Indio Trails. Submitted by: Department Head: WAV Grisa Lauri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director of CommunityDevelopment CITYCOUNCILA�ON Q6i"_k4� APPROVED DF.NTFD�, J Wohlmuth RECEIVED OTHER i Manager MEETIIf AYES:/ NOES: ABSENT: 69 ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY Original on File with City 4dkls OiGa * By Minute Motion, directed staff to contact the Board of the appropriate Sun City Palm Desert Resident Association to obtain its position and forward same from the City of Pala Desert to LAFCO. 3-0 (Ferguson, Spiegel ABSENT) c:wa%naysuyGdna .eMan%PW.1aaonna,xation.00c RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION The following proposal has been submitted to LAFCO and is being routed to you for comment. Please sign, date and provide your comments on a separate form and be sure to reference the proposal title with your comments. If appropriate, include suggested terms and conditions and/or recommendations. Please coordinate your response with the County Executive Office if you are a County department. If you would like additional information regarding this proposal contact our office immediately.Your comments are due back by the date requested. A map of the proposed project has been provided to you on the opposite side of this sheet along with the 2 page application form. All comments can be emailed to infoCa)lafco.org or mailed to 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110, Riverside, CA 925074277. Title: LAFCO 2009-04-4-Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails) to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. Forwarded on: June 18, 2009 / Return comments by: July 30, 2009 SUS CI' ,5 Coi'r"►FVJ ®SURVEYOR-small o_ 13 SPECIAL DISTRICT(S): ®COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE-(JANA ROUSH)email Citrus Pest Control No.2-email ®SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT-4''-email Coachella Valley County Water ® MAC f COMMUNITY COUNCIL-Desert Palms CC &Thousand Coachella Valley Mosquito&Vector Control Palms CC Coachella Valley Park&Recreation - IdCALIFORNIAHIGHWAYPATROL-Riverside-email Coachella Valley Resource Conservation-email H CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL-San Bernardino-email Desert Healthcare-email 0 CALTRANS-(DISTRICT DIRECTOR) Palm Springs Cemetery-email IZ REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 0 Colorado River Basin Region ❑San Diego Region ®SCHOOL DISTRICT(S): ❑Santa Ana Region Desert Community College-email ❑AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Desert Sands Unified-email ❑Mojave Desert(for Blythe/Palo Verde Valley Area Palm Springs Unified ®RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION IZ SOUTHERN CA.ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS-email ®CITY(IES): ®TLMA REGIONAL OFFICE-MANAGER,INDIO-email City of Indio-email ®COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC.OF GOVERNMENTS-email City of Palm Desert-email ❑WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS-email ®BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IZ BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ®Palm Desert-email ❑ Riverside-email IZ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON-LOUIS DAVIS-email 0 COUNTY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION (PATTI CRAWFORD.COORDINATOR ADMIN SVCS.)-email O DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION-DIRECTOR IZ COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL-(STUART MCKIBBIN)-email 0 COUNTY REGIONAL PARK&OPEN SPACE-email - M COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT-email ®EDAI CSA-(AMBER JACOBSON,CSA PROJECT MGR)-email ❑RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES-(GARY NOLFF)-Riv.Only ❑THE VISTA SANTA ROSA ASSOC.-(ELLEN TROVER)-email RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIO •3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone(951)369-0631 •www.l co.org•Fax(9511,369,9479 LAFCO 2009-04-4 Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails)to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District APPLICANT: The City of Indio, 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio,CA 92201 PROPOSAL: To annex for the provision of municipal services. GENERAL LOCATION: Generally located north of Frances Way and east of Washington St.See Thomas Bros.2009 Riverside County map book page 789,grid F-4. ACREAGE: The proposal contains approximately 743 acres. rr N� �S .,;_______ i____ yQ�r I� I T � .1 �, � •1 � � .. I i I - i 1W \�.•, � wa, \ 1 1 NOq R Sun City � ' . `• '`.,, \ .' � � Palm Desert 4\ ,�\I City Bermuda of Dunes Palm Deser City of \ La Quinta cal�Yoo` Res2walYon Indio S01 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET.SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951) 369-0631 •w .lafco.org•Fax(951)369-8479 i CITY Df PM DESERT f ° I 73-510 PREI)WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 26 0-2 578 '• "`" TEL: 76o 346-06n FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-dcert.org OFFICE OFTHE CITY NIANAGRR May 8, 2009 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Subject: Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Thank you for your past support concerning the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence (SOI) discussions. I am sending you this correspondence to clarify the City's position related to the area commonly referred as the Sun City SOL The City sent LAFCO correspondence in response to your letter dated October 7, 2008, requesting us to inform you of any planned changes to the City's spheres of influence over the next five years. The City of Palm Desert is interested in reintroducing the formerly detached Sun City 801. 1 wish to clarify that although the Council may initiate a fiscal impact feasibility study on this region in the future, the decision to reaccept this area into Palm Desert's SOI is not contingent upon such a study. This request constitutes the only anticipated changes to Palm Desert's spheres of influence during the next five years. Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, at (760) 346-0611. Again, thank you for your ongoing support and assistance. Sincerely, Joh . Wohlmuth Ci anager Attachment: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments Map cc: City Council Justin McCarthy, Assistant City Manager for Redevelopment Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager :2mmauwenn. • • r l Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCO2006-89-4 Exhibit A i : Tltotwxl;d City of .' Rancho .. . . . - ;.., Mirage ..e`., r,T ``iyr, - . - <e, City ,rq ..• e o ., Of :S: _""`• . Indio Mill NEW 1 I .. City of City of .�, Indian ,. ..•' j + Wells La Quinta ° :M City of Palm Desert Existing Sphere of influence priorto 10/25/07 "- ': "` ''1 *. .;. p , • :0 Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) ;•y.1N1' P�j ram,., .,. Z� v' 1. ,�,, v•;a• .1?cq a.• t•:'7. ,i,y;;, .................. ig i .�..r.ddp'V,RAv •'�niJ Yij:.S�1 Y.iyv'Jr:. .1 CIIY 01 P 0 1 M 01 1 R I 73-510 PRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 TEE: 760 346—o611 FAX: 760 340-0574 inlo@palm•dmrcorg OMCEOF' R Cr MANAGM May 6, 2009 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 925074225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Subject: Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Thank you for your past support concerning the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence (SO[) discussions. I am sending you this correspondence to clarify the City's position related to the area commonly referred as the Sun City SOL The City sent LAFCO correspondence in response to your letter dated October 7, 2008, requesting us to inform you of any planned changes to the City's spheres of influence over the next five years. The City of Palm Desert is interested in reintroducing the formerly detached Sun City SO]. I wish to clarify that although the Council may initiate a fiscal impact feasibly study on this region in the future, the decision to reaccept this area into Palm Desert's SOI is not contingent upon such a study. This request constitutes the only anticipated changes to Palm Desert's spheres of Influence during the next five years. Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, at (760) 346-0611. Again, thank you for your ongoing support and assistance. er Wohlmuth ity Manager Attachment: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments Map cc: City Council Justin McCarthy, Assistant City Manager for Redevelopment Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager a Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCO2006-89-4 Exhibit • :. � Tyousund r r fiEf.,.l r a • City of RanchoLEE r-- . Mirage City :i ofr r Indio LEA r��• 0 irww ,..: r City of Indian City of Wells r La Quinta a nW,i w r IM r P r City of Palm Desert 47/7 Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10/25/07 commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) al ✓ d yy �t� r {.�x.. . tI .Pr eft% ,aryl aya .rL.{, ?n ° i APPLICATION TO THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails) to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. 0 LAFCO 2009-04-4 a x N b M rj o rri o� PROPOSAL: /� cj, FOR LAF ON zA -lit Nw coot,- or- +) � Gay 0���b S SOT p Petition,or• RescWuon ry O/Aliplication Complete [Z/M'ap/Legal APPLICANT- a s Name: C `"` // �Plan of services Address: (- LL. 10 Environmental Documents z e•. City,Stata,Zip: -G Q� ❑.F&G Fee Exempt. or. Reoetpt Phone. Fax:l/ w 1" O E-mall: �"tx1 �nl to Or ❑ Pm ,Tax Reso. p Master p lndiv. 'CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Fees Name: eLv� C, r WAl 2f cit Pro-zoning Ordinance Address: TA, cvlc II Fiscal G >100 ec.l(s city,State,Zl : I ❑ S.O.I rs.Facto a Phone - Fax. L E-mail:51^^G0 A/ rti.0 Msilin Labels NOTICES: List below the names and addresses of persons to whom notices and staff reports should be directed (3 maximum). LA,I (� �j( 1� y > Name:, Cva) l.1 1//n��b(ei�.i ir-P 9riNGa.( f 14�AW, Telephone/Fax: C/����(I l�l•�l.d ��JJ71-(�0,2) Address:-t(� ClVI'C `, Or ( ' City,State,Zip: -2,✓/dio J Name: Telephone/Fax: - Address: City,State,Zip: Name: Telephone/Fax: Address: City,State,Zip: Provide six sets of mailing labels for persons to whom notices and reports are to be sent. Does this proposal have the consent of 100 percent of the affected property owners? Yes No ff yes,include written statements of consent and proof of ownership(assessor roll printout,grant deed,etc). Also,attach all correspondence to/from existing residents and/or property owners. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET,SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE,CA 92507-4277 PHONE(951)369-0631 •www.lafco.ore •FAX(951)369-8479 Application Form Page 2 AREA DATA y General Location: /l of-4,Sj 0 _ ,Q.,0S Ci'I^, - Np(i'✓� ^� �^b iA1�YG� ' AOL ili6l- o� Ads r-5 strgA . UX Topography and significant physical features: ` 7 1 Acreage: Estimated Owellin Units: -Z}) Estimated Po u/anon: .�I Describe the proximity of the subject area to currently developed 4reas.C�cusfrd r�to( u ( O0& c C- �S�a C'f w tv Hgf w- (Jme_r+ � �lre Con�nu�r LAND USE APPROVALS COUNTY CITY ,5 2 N5i(* — Kabi ,k)14' General Plan Designations d �. Zoning or Pre-Zoning A 0 1, Subdivisions AJ ) I,v�t !%O )lS Tllxr L5 Is any portion of the subject territory within a redevelopment area? Yes No "�_ Is any portion of the subject territory subject to a Williamson Act Contract(Agricultural Preserve)? Yes No If yes, Contract/Preserve Number: Date established: List all amendments by date: Date Notice of Non-Renewal filed: Has the city filed a protest pursuant to government code section 51243.5? Yes P o Provide an official map of the Agricultural Preserve. The City❑will succeed❑will not succeed to the contract. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding, and for any damages, penalties, fines or other costs imposed on or incurred by LAFCO wherein LAFCO, its officers, agents or employees should be named as a party in any litigation or administrative proceeding in connection with this application. Applicant agrees that LAFCO has the right to appoint its own counsel for its defense and conduct its own defense in the manner it deems in its best interest and taking such action shall not limit Applicant's obligation to indemnify and reimburse LAFCO, its officers,agents and employees. Furthermore, I hereby certify that the statements and information presented within this application and associated attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I acknowledge that anyone who is involved with any annexation to be considered by the Commission and who has made a contribution of more than $250 in the past twelve months to any member of the Commission must disclose the Commission member to whom the contribution was made and the matter of consideration with which they are involved. Furthermore, the Agent designated herein is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the Applicant for the purpose of processing this application until such ti as written notice to the contrary is provided by the Applicant to the Executive Officer of the Riverside LAFCO. A, m� 3 i a2 I Signature of Agent Date A4ngture of Applica DatEY[O6(�_, Printed Name of Agent and Firm(if applicable) Printed Name of Applicant REVISED 1012004 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET,SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE,CA 92507-4277 PHONE(951)369-0631 •ww,.laka.or, • FAX(951)369-8479 � lIY I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6n FAX: 760 340-0574 info@paim-desert.org OFFICE OF THE CRY M AGER December 16, 2008 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Subject. Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Thank you for your past support concerning the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence (SOI) issues, including the 2007 removal of the Del-Webb Sun City area from Palm Desert's SO[. This correspondence responds to your letter dated October 7, 2008, requesting that the City advise the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of any planned changes to our spheres of influence in the next five years. After receiving public testimony in support of the concept at the December 11, 2008, City Council meeting, the Council indicated their desire to reexamine the decision to remove the Del-Webb Palm Desert sphere of influence. Staff was directed to inform LAFCO of Palm Desert's interest in reintroducing this formerly detached area from its sphere of influence. The Council may also wish to initiate a fiscal impact feasibly study on this region in the future as part of this process. A map of the area in question is attached for your review. No other changes to Palm Desert's spheres of influence are anticipated during the next five years. We appreciate LAFCO's consideration in this matter and are available to provide additional information, if needed,while you consider the City's request. �,mvrtoao rtrVNl run Spiliotis Correspondence December 16, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, at (760) 346-0611. Again, thank you for your ongoing support and assistance. Sincerely, CARLOS L. RTEGA City Manager CLO:SA:kr Attachment: 1. Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments Map 2. Correspondence to Sun City Palm Desert Community Association cc: City Council Justin McCarthy, Assistant City Manager for Redevelopment Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager C11Y Of PO ( IO OHM r . Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCO 2006-89-4 Exhibit A °•, TLi d Pafrtlf , g3 94 .. " • R .. 1 F� City of • � •., Rancho Mirage °, , ,ice . ' Cityr off • � { .r w, '`sfsm Indio X�1�41 � tfl ;'a FNED ANNG OP , u#w,; 1t2� x4 S'le F V City of ; "�� ra 1 Jk xYcr''f"S'"'P e+k ••• Indian City of k fff :. La Wells Y< Quinta p�[�.'�� }h. A • °=City of Palm Desert Existing Sphere of Influence prior to sfs 10/25/07 Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) �,ty ✓Y' ��)r� f .g jar ky..H: J ....................a ui iwr I �, MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 D. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION THAT NO CHANGES IN THE PALM DESERT SPHERES OF INFLUENCE ARE ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS (Continued from the meeting of November 20, 2008). MS. CORKY LARSON, Sun City, Palm Desert, stated she was present to address the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence, but first expressed her appreciation of Mr. Ortega,stating it was beautiful what he had accomplished for the City of Palm Desert. She recalled when she was serving as Interim City Manager for the City of Desert Hot Springs (DHS), she came to Mr. Ortega for assistance in dealing with DHS financial issues, and he agreed to lend the City's Financial Director to help, but also offered the City's consultant; it was a very common response from him. She went on to say Mr. Ortega made the Costco Regional Access project happened when she, the County, and City were in a fight, it was Mr. Ortega who solved that problem. She characterized him as a Saint of the City and the Coachella Valley, and she couldn't thank him enough. Returning to the matter at hand, she introduced the following Board Members from Sun City: David Novick, Carolyn Einung,Ann Leach, Helen McEnerney, Vice President of the Board Don Hein, and General Manager Sandy Seddon. She noted a letter was dropped off for the Council the previous day and presumed the Council had an opportunity to review it. She said it would be a deal for Palm Desert to take back Sun City under its sphere of influence because of all the commercial development within the walls of Sun City, i.e., housing, three clubhouses,$1.75 billion assessed valuation,private streets,private security, and non-resident expenses. She said the Council really needed to take a favorable look at what the area had to offer. Just outside the walls of Sun City were two hotels with a third one about to be built, a Stater Bros., and mammoth commercial revenue possibilities. She asked the Council to return Sun City to its original sphere, which went over to 3e Avenue to Varner Road. She would understand if the Council decided annexation would not be best for the City, but she wanted the chance to show the Council what Sun City had to offer. Initially when Sun City was.dropped from Palm Desert's sphere, she thought it would be okay because they had an agreement with the City of Indio; however, she now thought they wouldn't honor it. A study was done that showed exported taxes exceeded the services they received. The study was done by Ruthler & Kelly (sp?), a reputable outfit recommended by George Spiliotis, which she would be happy to share with the Council. MS. HELEN MCENERNEY, stated she was former Vice-President/General Manager of Del Webb California Corp., the developer of Sun City, Palm Desert, and a current resident of Sun City. She said for the past four years she was in Florida building an active adult community, but since her return to the desert this past summer, much to her dismay and surprise, a few changes had taken place at Sun City. One in particular related to the action 21 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 taken by the City of Indio to place its sphere east of Washington Street and west of Adams Street (north of Sun City and Francis Way right into the foothills). Back in November of 1996, the City of Indio and Del Webb, of which she was a signatory on that agreement, had a written signed agreement regarding annexation. Basically Del Webb would assist in the annexation of property along Varner Road for purposes of auto mall uses, including a triangular parcel, which was 40 acres a.k.a. Capter Parcel. The written agreement was very clear that except for the Capter property,the City of Indio would annex west of Adams Street. However, the City of Indio approved the Indio Trails project last week; it approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIP), Change of Zone, and Specific Plan Development Agreement. This now paved the way for annexation west of Adams Street, in direct violation of their agreement. What would prevent the City of Indio from annexing the commercial property south of Sun City along Varner Road and Interstate 10, which incorporates a Coco's, fast food restaurants, gas stations, Stater Bros.,Walgreens, shops, motels, and other venues. She recalled in past years, Del Webb worked closely with the City of Palm Desert to change the name Sun City Palm Springs to Sun City Palm Desert, and it assisted with a Palm Desert Post Office and the Washington Street interchange. Even thought Sun City disclosed their homes that were built in an unincorporated Riverside County, Sun City residents always felt a strong bond with the City of Palm Desert. She asked the Council to reconsider the return of Sun City under Palm Desert's sphere, and also to protect their commercial property. She said at some future point in time, maybe Palm Desert could annex Sun City into the City of Palm Desert. Councilman Ferguson stated he represented Indio Trails and wasn't aware it would be part of this discussion. He recused himself and left the Council Chamber. MR. DON HEIN, Vice President of the Board for Sun City Community Association, concurred with all the details expressed by the previous speakers on behalf of Sun City. He said they were sincere about wanting to be part of Palm Desert's sphere of influence, and once this matter was reviewed by the Council, they will find that it's probably beneficial to both the City and Sun City residents. MS. MCENERNEY clarified the reinstatement of Sun City into Palm Desert's sphere of influence would not include Indio Trails, which was one-half mile away. Councilmember Benson recalled Sun City was taken out of Palm Desert's sphere of influence because La Quinta was cherry-picking all the way up Washington Street and Sun City was included in that sphere. She said that 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 decision was being reconsidered because another hearing had been scheduled. Councilman Kelly stated when Sun City was taken out of Palm Desert's -sphere of influence, the Council didn't hear much concern from its residents. He said it was important to protect Palm Desert's sphere and the people that lived out in Sun City, so he was in favor of applying to have Sun City in Palm Desert's sphere of influence. . Responding to question about notifying Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), Mr. Ortega reminded Council that a couple of years ago when the issue came up, Palm Desert did a study, and Council decided it was not financially feasible to include Sun City under its sphere because eventually annexation would have been the next step. The commercial area had not been built at that time, so he didn't know if all the potential revenue was included in the study. He suggested Council review the matter again, given the new commercial growth, and see if it's financially feasible. Councilman Kelly requested staff prepare a map that outlined exactly what was being considered, appoint two Councilmembers to review it, and continue this item to the next City Council Meeting. However, the final decision should not be based solely on the City making money, because it made sense to him that Sun City be under Palm Desert's sphere of influence. He said there was a lot of development on the west side of Sun City, and he thought that area needed to be included with the City's proposal. He had heard the comment that LAFCO thought Palm Desert was vacillating in and out, but it was a poor excuse for not doing what needed to be done. Councilman Kelly moved to continue this item to the next City Council meeting, and direct staff to provide a map that delineated the exact area with street names. Ms. Aylaian noted the Council had two different choices. She said LAFCO needed a letter from the City prior to January 2, 2009, indicating what Palm Desert's intentions were for its sphere of influence for the next five years. If the Council voted this evening to notify LAFCO about wanting to reintroduce Sun City to its sphere of influence, staff could do that. Councilman Kelly modified his motion to send a letter to LAFCO and notify them that Palm Desert was proposing keeping Sun City under its sphere of influence, and the City will follow-up at a later time. Ms.Aylaian stated the letter to LAFCO would need to include the area it was considering or just the area that was previously detached from Palm Desert's sphere of influence. Further responding, she confirmed the previously 23 • t' o MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 detached area included the area to the west. She offered a recommendation for Council to consider, and Councilman Kelly agreed with her suggestion. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, directed staff to send a letter to LAFCO, indicating the City of Palm Desert's interest in reintroducing formerly detached area from its Sphere of Influence(Sun City), subject to staffs verification of the lines drawn on the map, such that they include the related commercial area. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Ferguson and Finerty ABSENT. Mayor Spiegel stated he hoped representation from Sun City would be present when this matter went to LAFCO. Ms. Larson agreed. E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH WELLS FARGO BANK REGARDING ITS PROPOSAL TO ASSIST THE CITY WITH STRUCTURING A VARIABLE RATE BOND ISSUE TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR THE CITY'S ENERGY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM (Continued from the meetings of November 20, 2008 and November 24, 2008). Mr. Ortega noted the Audit, Investment & Financing Committee recommendation. He said Council had a proposal on the table from Wells Fargo, and City Consultant Ken Dieker would explain the changes Wells Fargo was willing to make in order address Council's concerns. At the last meeting, Wells Fargo was offering a variable with no cap. He said the Council previously authorized the private placement of$5 million directly with the Redevelopment Agency, so the program had money to work with. He said staff wanted to continue with Wells Fargo's proposal because it provided long-term financing and they were willing to lower the amount the City would have to borrow; however,the initial$10 million proposal was still on the table. He said a representative from Wells Fargo was present to answer questions. MR. KEN DIEKER, Del Rio Advisors, Financial Advisor to the City, stated since the last City Council meeting, Wells Fargo had agreed to finance $5 million versus $10 million; $5 million being the initial amount of loans currently waiting to be funded. In addition, they were willing to work with the City to provide a cap to the interest rate, and that cap would be approximately 5.57% in today's market. When you add the letter of credit, fees, and re-marketing fees, it was approximately the 7% rate, which would match the underlying City's loan rate. In summary, Wells Fargo was willing to finance the $5 million or$10 million and also provide an interest rate cap, which addressed Mayor Pro Tem Finerty's concern. Councilman Ferguson apologized for not being present at the last City Council meeting, but he was meeting with the President of the Public Utilities Commission who had expressed reservations about private placement 24 AGENDA PACKET SUN CITYL .- P A L m DESERT Mol,ia RATE l _ I _ c g Ci 0971971 i171ity'4ssociat2077 December 10, 2008 City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 In re: Item XV D - Sphere of Influence Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Sun City Palm Desert Home Owners Association to formally request that you reinstate our area to your Sphere of Influence. Sun City Palm Desert was unaware that the City of Palm Desert was considering dropping us from its sphere until the action was reported in the local newspaper. Had we been aware of the pending action, we would have come to any and all hearings on the matter and have registered our concern. While ignorance is no excuse, we hope you will find it understandable and will reinstate our area to your sphere for study purposes. Our area has a great deal to offer to the City in property tax, sales tax, room occupancy tax, motor vehicle tax, and subvention funds. According to the Riverside County Assessor for FY 06/07, the Assessed Valuation within the walls of Sun City Palm Desert alone was $1,759,012,034. That figure of 1.75 billion dollars does not include the substantial commercial and business park area which were part of the former sphere. Last year our Association paid for a financial analysis which shows the area produces significant tax benefit. In short we are an exporter of tax funds. We are happy to share the analysis with the City. As you study Bermuda Dunes, we request that you reinstate the old sphere which is north/east of the I-10 freeway at Washington so that you may study our area as well. We bear the City name and the City zip code. We were stunned to be dropped from the sphere. We would be honored if you would reinstate the former sphere in order to review the area benefits to the City and hereby so request. o Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Association ran aim,:-:._ M ;JV .- Patricia A. Larson President, SCPDCA w CD m fee f 38130 Der Webb Boulevard• Palm Desert•CA.92211•Ph: 760-200-2222•Fax: 760-200-2299 SUN CITY PALM DESERT Community Association December 10, 2008 City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 9Z260 In re: Item XV D — Sphere of Influence Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Sun City Palm Desert Home Owners Association to formally request that you reinstate our area to your Sphere of Influence. Sun City Palm Desert was unaware that the City of Palm Desert was considering dropping us from its sphere until the action was reported in the local newspaper. Had we been aware of the pending action, we would have come to any and all hearings on the matter and have registered our concern. While ignorance is no excuse, we hope you will find it understandable and will reinstate our area to your sphere for study purposes. Our area has a great deal to offer to the City in property tax, sales tax, room occupancy tax, motor vehicle tax, and subvention funds. According to the Riverside County Assessor for FY 06/07, the Assessed Valuation within the walls of Sun City Palm Desert alone was $1,759,012,034. That figure of 1.75 billion dollars does not include the substantial commercial and business park area which were part of the former sphere. Last year our Association paid for a financial analysis which shows the area produces significant tax benefit. In short we are an exporter of tax funds. We are happy to share the analysis with the City. As you study Bermuda Dunes, we request that you reinstate the old sphere which is north/east of the I-10 freeway at Washington so that you may study our area as well. We bear the City name and the City zip code. We were stunned to be dropped from the sphere. We would be honored if you would reinstate the former sphere in order to review the area benefits to the City and hereby so request. o Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Association _� ri Om" Q fillII r,' Patricia A. Larson N -H-r President, SCPDCA n O M 38180 Del Webb Boulevard•Palm Desert•CA•92211 • Ph: 760-200-2222•Fax: 760-200-2299 .CITY OF PALM DES0 . OpgSSF�ti�FOro ��a DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO G O STAFF REPORT REQUEST: That the City Council confirm that no changes in the Palm Desert spheres of influence are anticipated within the next five years. SUBMITTED BY: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development DATE: November 20, 2008 CONTENTS: Sphere of Influence Review& Potential Amendments, Exhibit A Recommendation: That the City Council confirm that no changes in the Palm Desert spheres of influence are anticipated within the next five years so that that information can be provided to the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). Discussion: LAFCO recently completed an update of the spheres of influence for Riverside County. During this process, Palm Desert elected to have the Sun City sphere of influence detached (see attached Exhibit A). This leaves the City of Palm Desert with two spheres of influence: Bermuda Dunes to the east and the Cahuilla Hills to the south. LAFCO is now commencing their next round of Municipal Service Reviews, and has asked all cities to identify changes, if any, anticipated during the next five years in their spheres of influence. Staff anticipates no need for changes during the five-year event horizon, but recommends that existing spheres remain in place so that annexation can be considered in the future. LAFCO requests that this information be provided no later than January 2, 2009. Submitted by: Approval: ` Lauri Aylaian f6 Homer Croy Director of Community Development ACM for Development Services CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approval: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED_ OTHER — MEETING DATE / - -- Carlos L. Ortega AYE u. — City Manager ='S By Minute Motion, directed staff to send NOES:-N ABSENT• ^ letter to LAFCO, indicating the City of ABSTAIN 0' j Falm Desert's interest in reintroducing f-ermerly detached area from its Sphere of "ERIFIED BY: Y3�G l Influence (Sun City), subject to staff's �.��. on File wi City Clerk's Offi Verification of the lines drawn on the map, such that they include the related commercial area. 3-0 (Ferguson, Finerty ABSSNT) CITY OF PALM DESERT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAG9R INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk From: Carlos Ortega, City Manager Date: July 8, 2008 Subject: Modification of Sphere of Influence Amendment The attached is the official Notice and Resolution from LAFCO that on October 25, 2007, Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert was removed from the City's Sphere of Influence. CARLOS ORT GA City Manager CLO:kr Cc: Homer Croy Justin McCarthy Lauri Aylaian Mark Greenwood �In f,Oe,6e f (Q i - RIVERSIDE LAFCO Honorable Mayor and City Council Date July 2, 2008 C/o City Clerk LAFCO No. :2006-89-4 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Honorable Mayor and Council Members : You are hereby notified that the proposed Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert was reviewed and amended as described in the attached Exhibit A from the City' s SOI by the Local Agency Formation Commission at a public hearing held on October 25, 2007 . A copy of Resolution No. 117-07 is attached. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, �E er naG. c/Medina Executive Assistant Attachments cc: City Manager-City of Palm Desert TLMA-Alex Martinez TLMA-Angel Perez TLMA-Jeff Letterman TLMA-Kathy Gifford Tina Grande, Executive Office Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •385o viNE STREET,surrE 110• R[VERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951) 369-0631 •www1afco.org•Fax(951)369-8479 1 Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 117-07 5 REVIEWING AND AMENDING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF 6 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 7 LAFCO NO. 2006-89-4 8 BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the Local Agency 9 Formation Commission in regular session assembled on October 10 25, 2007, that the sphere of influence of the City of Palm 11 Desert has been reviewed and amended, as more particularly 12 described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part 13 hereof. 14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that: 15 1. The Commission has initiated this review 16 pursuant to Government Code Section 56425 (f) . 17 2 . The revisions to the sphere of influence 18 amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality 19 Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) , as 20 it can be seen with certainty that the removal of territory to 21 the City of Palm Desert' s SOI will not have a significant 22 effect on the environment. 23 4 . The sphere of influence of the City of Palm 24 Desert is hereby amended as follows: 25 a. Remove the Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert 26 community and all existing sphere of influence areas north of 27 Interstate 10 from the City of Palm Desert' s SOI, as described 28 in Exhibit "A", and the Commission makes the following nxvnaxve ._._.. Jxioa caiertevxw ]a viv. a.Jp J]o aMxx] >9ll 1] 311-0631 1 determinations: 2 a. The present and planned land uses in the 3 area, including agricultural and open-space lands: 4 The area in question, includes the Del Webb 5 Palm Desert community and the developed commercial area west of 6 Washington Street and north of Interstate 10 . No areas are 7 involved in agricultural lands uses. Palm Desert has requested 8 this area be removed from their existing sphere of influence as 9 the City does not anticipate annexation of this area. 10 b. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area: 12 The County of Riverside through CSA 121 13 provides needed services to this areas. Removal from Palm 14 Desert' s sphere of influence will have no effect on service 15 provision. 16 C. The present capacity of publi c facilities 17 and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is 18 authorized to provide: 19 The County of Riverside provides adequate 20 public services to the Del Webb community and the adjacent 21 commercial area. Del Webb is a gated community. 22 d. The existence of any social or economic 23 communities of interest in the areas if the commission 24 determines that they are relevant to the agency: 25 There exist in close proximity to these areas, 26 portions of the City of Indio and the communities of Thousand 27 Palms and Bermuda Dunes. Del Webb is a gated planned 2011community. . �,...].... - 2 - .usu ]]a .asm--.an IS1] ]69-06]1 1 5 . The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a 2 certified copy of this resolution to each subject agency. 3 4 C;; 5 ROBIN WE, Ch r 6 7 I certify the above resolution was passed and adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on 8 October 25, 2007 . 9 10 GEORG ILIOTIS FORM APPROVED Exec u ' fficer 11 COUNTY COUNSEL 12 DEC 1 2 2007 13 sY �\ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 N]1'aH]�i 1:]011 ca{aes]® 3 - Nlt. 1]u .sa., ali rov]{ ]11 ]C9-06]1 ]I Sphere of V luence Review & Pot( tial Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCo 2006-89-4 Exhibit A • � ' Th'ousand� • � P..alrn� s . - City of m .vvQ�b Rancho Mirage '•, ' City of J er ird'd Indio 5 . { FPW WAHMG OX 9 . � '. NWY111 ; City of City of Indian .. F La Wells ; Quinta A- 1 qy City of Palm Desert Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10/25/07 Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) CITY OF PALM DESERT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk From: Carlos Ortega, City Manager Date: July 8, 2008 Subject: Modification of Sphere of Influence Amendment The attached is the official Notice and Resolution from LAFCO that on October 25, 2007, Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert was removed from the City's Sphere of Influence. CARLOS ORT GA City Manager CLO:kr Cc: Homer Croy Justin McCarthy Lauri Aylaian Mark Greenwood m X L�rn N T N m RIVERSIDE LAFCO Honorable Mayor and City Council Date July 2, 2008 C/o City Clerk LAFCO No. :2006-89-4 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: You are hereby notified that the proposed Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert was reviewed and amended as described in the attached Exhibit A from the City' s SOI by the Local Agency Formation Commission at a public hearing held on October 25, 2007 . A copy of Resolution No. 117-07 is attached. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, � a/ E eI" na Medina Executive Assistant Attachments cc: City Manager-City of Palm Desert TLMA-Alex Martinez TLMA-Angel Perez TLMA-Jeff Letterman TLMA-Kathy Gifford Tina Grande, Executive Office Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET,SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone (951)369-0631 •www.Woo.org•Fax(951) 369-8479 1 Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 117-07 5 REVIEWING AND AMENDING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF 6 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 7 LAFCO NO. 2006-89-4 8 BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the Local Agency 9 Formation Commission in regular session assembled on October 10 25, 2007, that the sphere of influence of the City of Palm 11 Desert has been reviewed and amended, as more particularly 12 described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part 13 hereof. 14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that: 15 1. The Commission has initiated this review 16 pursuant to Government Code Section 56425 (f) 17 2. The revisions to the sphere of influence 18 amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality 19 Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) , as 20 it can be seen with certainty that the removal of territory to 21 the City of Palm Desert' s SOI will not have a significant 22 effect on the environment. 23 4 . The sphere of influence of the City of Palm 24 Desert is hereby amended as follows: 25 a. Remove the Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert 26 community and all existing sphere of influence areas north of 27 Interstate 10 from the City of Palm Desert' s SOI, as described 28 in Exhibit "A", and the Commission makes the following la w]eale. 16 . i i511 ]69-OC31 1 determinations: 2 a. The present and planned land uses in the 3 area, including agricultural and open-space lands: 4 The area in question, includes the Del Webb 5 Palm Desert community and the developed commercial area west of 6 Washington Street and north of Interstate 10. No areas are 7 involved in agricultural lands uses. Palm Desert has requested 8 this area be removed from their existing sphere of influence as 9 the City does not anticipate annexation of this area. 10 b. The present and probable need for public 11 facilities and services in the area: 12 The County of Riverside through CSA 121 13 provides needed services to this areas. Removal from Palm 14 Desert' s sphere of influence will. have no effect on service 15 provision . 16 C. The present capacity of publi c facilities 17 and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is 18 authorized to provide : 19 The County of Riverside provides adequate 2C public services to the Del Webb community and the adjacent 21 commercial area. Del Webb is a gated community. 22 d. The existence of any social or economic 23 communities of interest in the areas if the commission 24 determines that they are relevant to the agency: 25 There exist in close proximity to these areas, 26 portions of the City of Indio and the communities of Thousand 27 Palms and Bermuda Dunes. Del Webb is a gated planned 28 community. ..... .]. .1G.. - s]vaa..2 Asa] a.a-s.n 1 5. The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a 2 certified copy of this resolution to each subject agency. 3 4 ' 5 ROBIN WE, Ch r 6 I certify the above resolution was passed and adopted by the 7 Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on 8 October 25, 2007 . 9 10 GEORG ILIOTIS FORM APPROVED Execu fficer 11 COUNTY COUNSEL 12 DEC 1 2 2007 13 BY � ` �a 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .�...... - 3 - WLI. 110 „SG)-.]„.sv> ss.-asnl a a a yam;_ 4 w • � n "'y`�';-`7�—•"'em .fey V•.xf1, ♦ ia"V of�> ��} r s:w�j' Fran • • • . - /// 1 1 i t CIIY O M OESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-dmart.org March 5, 2008 Ms. Sandy Sosnowski, General Manager Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 38180 Del Webb Boulevard Palm Desert, CA 92211 Dear Ms. Sosnowski: Subject: City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence On behalf of the Palm Desert City Council, I am forwarding you this correspondence to provide your residents with a history of the City's recent decision to detach the Del- Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The Council has received numerous requests from Sun City residents inquiring about this matter, so please share this letter with your community in an effort to educate all those who are interested. A Sphere of Influence (SOI) is identified by Government Code as a, "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency." Spheres of Influence are used by cities as a planning tool to ascertain the levels of service for any future incorporation. The City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence originally included three separate areas: the Southern Sphere, the Bermuda Dunes Sphere, and the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere. The Southern Sphere is the largest of the three at approximately 34.5 square miles. Much of this southern sphere is within the Bighorn Sheep Preserve and habitat. In 1998, the City's sphere was expanded north of Interstate 10, which included the Del- Webb community. This SOI was the City's second major one and is commonly referred to as the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere, but it also includes a commercial district west of Washington Street. This whole area comprises approximately 3.7 square miles. The third and final sphere was introduced in 2000 and includes the Bermuda Dunes community, east of Washington Street and South of Interstate 10. This area comprises approximately 3.2 square miles. �j mmmoe uamonm !� City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence March 5, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The Spheres of Influence for California cities are regulated by Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO), with each county in California having its own LAFCO. The Riverside County LAFCO initiated Sphere of Influence reviews for all cities and special districts in 2007. A City Council Annexation Subcommittee was formed and met with Riverside County LAFCO representatives in 2007 concerning this issue. LAFCO wanted to ascertain if the City would retain the Bermuda Dunes and Del-Webb Palm Desert Spheres of Influence before their formal SOI review period. This matter went before the Palm Desert City Council at its April 12, 2007, meeting. The majority of the members of the City Council indicated that they found it more important to provide excellent services to the area already incorporated than to expand the city limits and potentially dilute the quality of those services. Staff was subsequently directed to inform LAFCO that the City no longer desired to retain the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. On October 25, 2007, Riverside County LAFCO held its hearing on this matter and affirmed Palm Desert's recommendation to remove the Del-Webb Palm Desert Community and all other existing SOI areas north of Interstate 10. I am confident that this correspondence adequately addresses the various questions your residents may have on the history and current status of the Del Webb Sphere of Influence. If you or your residents have additional questions, please contact either Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or me at (760) 346-0611. Thank you. Sincerely, CARL S4 ORTEGA City Manager CLO:SA cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services hauri A.ylaian,,Director o fCoXnmupity Develop(nest. Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager CITY 0E P 0 1 M 01 Ri Sun.City 'Palm Dese `, Commatzif�dssoaotrait .. , -:;. �i RECEIVED VAR 2 9 21. ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Preliminary Feasibilitv Study Proposed Incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert • January 8, 2008 Prepared for: The Sun City Palm Desert Community Association Prepared by: Winzler & Kelly 3531 E. Miraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 714.854.1890 0 INTRODUCTION This Preliminary Feasibility Study for the proposed incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert has been prepared at the request of the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association (SCPDCA). Recent decisions by the City of Palm Desert to remove the community from that city's sphere of influence, coupled with recent and planned future retail and business development activity adjacent to the community, has provided an opportunity for self governance that heretofore did not exist. The Board of Directors of the SCPDCA has expressed an interest in studying the feasibility for the community to incorporate into a city as the most desired self governance option. The purpose of this preliminary study is to provide a general "snapshot" of the anticipated revenues and expenditures that would be applicable to the proposed city, and to provide a basis for the SCPDCA to determine whether it is warranted proceeding further with a more formal analysis and application process. It should be noted that all findings reached with regard to this study are predicated on the information made available to Winzler & Kelly by the SCPDCA, and other sources, utilizing basic forecasting assumptions for formulating current and future projections. The data utilized for the review, should be considered very preliminary and subject to moderate to significant variation. In order to fully assess the viability of the proposed incorporation at a much greater level of detail, a formal Initial Feasibility Study, suitable for submittal with an incorporation application will need to be developed. BOUNDARY OPTIONS AND SCENARIOS Two boundary alternatives were identified by thB SCPDCA for study. The analysis of each boundary alternative will provide a basis for the SCDPCA to make determinations of desired boundaries that reflect the community goals and objectives of incorporating logical communities of interest and long term fiscal viability. It should be: noted that further boundary alternatives may be required for study by the Riverside County Lo cal Agency Formation Commission (IAFCO) as part of a formal application process. Exhibits One and Two depict each of the two boundary alternatives. Option One The Option One boundary includes all of the Sun City Palm Desert planned community, and the adjacent retail and business park areas north of the 1-10 freeway. This area is generally bounded by the City of Indio to the east, the 1-10 freeway to the south, and unincorporated area to the north and west. This boundary option also encompasses all undeveloped area south of 38th Avenue between Washington Street and the 1-10 freeway. This area includes the recreational vehicle dealership on Varner Road, the future Mirasera planned community residential & retail/business park development, and a smaller future home development near the intersection of 381h Avenue and the 1-10 freeway. (See Exhibit 1) Option Two The Option Two boundary includes all of the Option One territory, and additionally, extends the western border to Cook Street/Chase School Road, and the northern border to Calle Tosca. The Option Two boundary includes the future Avanterra planned community residential & retail/business park development (formerly the NorthStar Ranch development), and the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic Golf Course and Classic Club. (See Exhibit 2) 1 Projection Scenarios for each Option There are four scenarios included in this preliminary study, attached as Exhibits 3 through 6. Two scenarios are included for each boundary option. Each option includes a scenario assuming the extension of the AB 1602 Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF) backfill, and one assuming the loss of this revenue. Discussions related to each of these scenarios follow further below. ASSUMPTIONS This preliminary feasibility study and fiscal projections have been prepared under the general requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines for Incorporations, and LAFCO's locally adopted Policies and Procedures for Incorporations. Reference documents utilized for this study include: • Local area information provided by the SCPDCA including assessed valuation, and hotel/motel and retail/business park information. • Future development and planning information for the Mirasera and Avanterra Planned Communities. • Retail sales and marketing information from InfoUSA. • Preliminary data and reference information from the HDL Companies, the League of California Cities, California City Finance, the State Department of Finance, the State Controllers Office, and the County of Riverside. • Recent Comprehensive Fiscal Analyses for the communities of Wildomar and Menifee Valley. • Budget information for the cities of In than Wells, Canyon Lake and Palm Desert. • Interviews with city engineering and public works directors, and contractors servicing contract cities. With all municipal incorporations comes a transfer of certain service responsibilities for the new city. These responsibilities include general government, law enforcement, traffic control and accident investigation, fire protection, construction and maintenance of local streets, street lighting, code enforcement, land use planning and regulation, building inspection, animal control, and parks and recreation services. This study analyzes the forecasted ability of the proposed city to provide these municipal services over an extended period of time. An Effective Date of Incorporation of July 1, 2009 is assum ed for the fiscal projections. This date was selected developing the preliminary projections, and to depict the maximum amount of Transition Service requirement the county would be obligated to provide to the new city. Timing of further studies and proceedings as part of an incorporation application process may effect the actual Effective Date of Incorporation, and the Transition Service period. The fiscal projections include a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the proposed new city for the first ten years of operation. Projections of revenues and expenditures for a period of 10 years forward are forecasted in order to gauge long term sustainability. The analysis is limited to a presentation of information in the form of a forecast based on estimated base year costs/revenues, using the best information available for this level of study. There may be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences can be material. A 2 ' 1 3% general annual inflation rate has been included in the forecast. It should be noted that any future studies required as part of an application for incorporation will require extensively more detailed information to be provided by the County and other servicing agencies, and could result in material changes in the projections. Revenue Neutrality, discussed further below, has not been included in the forecast models, although will need to be addressed in any future studies that would result as part of an incorporation application process. Additionally, assumption scenarios have been made for each boundary option addressing the provisions of the AB 1602 MVLF backfill to new cities. One scenario for each boundary option assumes that MVLF backfill will be available. The other scenario for each boundary option assumes that the backfill will not be available. Further discussion follows below concerning the impact of the MVLF backfill on the boundary scenarios. Proposition 218, approved by California voters in 1996, amended the state Constitution by adding Article XIII C and D to the tax limitation provisions adopted by Proposition 13. The purpose of Proposition 218 was to close existing loopholes in Proposition 13 which was allowing local governments to increase fees, charges and assessments without a public vote, rather than increasing general and specific property taxes which do require a vote. Proposition 218 does not have a direct impact on the conclusions in the preliminary study, as no "revenue enhancements" such as new taxes, fees, charges, or assessments are included. However, as is discussed further in this study, the Option One boundary would require an analysis of potential revenue enhancements in order to achieve fiscal viability. FISCAL ANALYSIS There are two primary categories of revenues and expenses that are presented in the fiscal projections- General Fund, and Road Fund. Additionally, other types of dedicated revenues such as AQMD & COPS grants, and TUMF fees are available to cities. However, dedicated revenue sources are not included in the study since due to their nature they are considered revenue neutral against the overall fiscal complexion of the city. General Fund revenues are all general purpose revenues received that are allowed under state law to be utilized for any purpose, including services normally paid for with restricted revenues. Additionally, some restricted revenues dedicated for certain services are included in the General Fund. General Fund expenditures are all expenditures that are allowed under state law to be funded with unrestricted revenues, and some restricted General Fund revenues dedicated for specific General Fund services. Examples of General Fund revenues and expenses restricted to certain services would be structural fire fund property tax for fire protection, and planning and building/safety fees for development services. Road Fund revenues are all revenues received that are restricted under state law to be utilized for road related purposes only. This includes ordinary maintenance, which involves shoulder maintenance, curb maintenance, signing and striping, pothole repair, traffic signal maintenance and street sweeping. Road Fund expenditures are all expenditures for the road services identified above. The forecast does not include significant long term special maintenance, such as asphalt overlays, major storm drain repairs, and damaged and deteriorated road reconstruction, as these are considered capital improvement projects generally funded by project specific grants. Additionally, site inspection of the existing road infrastructure indicates that the area is well maintained and not subject to any significant repair requ irements in the near future. 3 The forecast includes projections of new development for the Mirasera and Avanterra projects based on the best information currently available concerning their status. Additionally, there is one residential project included that is located between these two master planned developments. The forecast projects development over a 10 year period. Our forecasts include a reduction in the projected development' ted residential retail and commercial de a opment by 20%. The reduction factor is included to ensure a conservative level of sensitivity in the future forecast. Total planned development for the three projects combined is approximately 4,600 residential units, 1.1 million square feet of retail use, 1.4 million square feet of other office/light industrial use, and over 500 hotel rooms. General Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources available to each boundary option are Property Tax, Sales Tax, Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). These four revenue sources comprise the bulk of the unrestricted General Fund revenues. A portion of the Property Tax included in the General fund is dedicated to Fire Protection services. Primary expense categories include General Government (Administrative Services), Law Enforcement and Fire Protection. Community Development and Engineering/Building & Safety revenues and expenses are forecast based on future development projections, generally will fluctuate with development, and are mostly 100% offset by fees. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, the General Fund revenue to expense ratio is greatly enhanced for boundary Option Two over boundary Option One. As indicated in the Exhibits, insufficient General Fund revenues accrue to support the projected expenses in Option One. Although the four key revenue sources are relatively strong in relation to the area, the cost of law enforcement and fire protection are too substantial to overcome. For Option Two, the additional revenues associated with the planned future development of the Avanterra project overcome this issue. Road Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources for road maintenance are state fuel taxes, sales tax on fuel products (Prop 42), and Measure A sales tax allocations. Projected road maintenance costs include all regular/routine maintenance requirements anticipated to be conducted including, repairs, storm drain catch basin maintenance, curb and gutter maintenance, road and median landscape maintenance services and street sweeping. It should be noted that as the majority of the current residential street infrastructure is privately maintained, the overall cost of road maintenance to the city is reduced. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, each boundary option scenario indicates substantial capacity to fund all city responsible road related maintenance, and accrue significant reserves for future long term capital maintenance projects. Coupled with the ability to acquire project specific grant funds for road improvements, the study indicates that there are no road related funding issues for the foreseeable future. Transition Year & County Repayment The Transition Year is the time period from the Effective Date of Incorporation until the end of the Fiscal Year in which the incorporation occurs. During this period of time, the County continues to provide municipal services for the new city while the city establishes its service provision plan, and engages the necessary resources for beginning service responsibility at the 4 i beginning of the next fiscal year. During this same period, the city receives many of the revenues that will accrue to the city on a continuous basis, thus allowing for the ability to be able to absorb the service responsibility. The city may opt at anytime during the transition period to assume service responsibility from the County for any service that it desires to transition early. At the end of the Transition Period, all municipal service responsibility transfers from the county to the new city. The new city will be responsible for repayment of the net costs of services provided by the county during the Transition Period, generally in deferred payments over 5 years with interest. For the purposes of this study, an assumed full fiscal year of Transition Year services has been forecast. The actual length of the Transition Year would ultimately be dependent upon the timing of the Effective Date of Incorporation, established as part of the incorporation application process. For purposes of this study, an "Effective Date" of July 1, 2009 is assumed. This optimizes SCPDCA's options by allowing for the maximum transition period of one year. POTENTIAL ISSUES Revenue Neutrality In the early 1990's, the State of California enacted legislation designed to lessen the negative fiscal impacts incorporations might have on counties and other affected agencies. Revenue neutrality requires the incorporation to result i n a "similar exchange" of both revenue and service responsibility between the proposed city, the county, and any other affected agency. Prior to the passage of the revenue neutrality legislation, the ability of an area to support municipal level services was the prime financial criteria used in evaluating a proposed new city. Limited analysis was conducted to determine the impacts to counties or other affected agencies containing incorporating communities. Counties we,e losing annual revenue surpluses from these previously unincorporated areas due to the inherent nature of the cost of county services being provided to these areas as being less than the revenues received. However, the revenue neutrality statute was vaguely written and was fairly silent on the method of calculating financial impacts, or the process for determining the impacts of revenue neutrality. The legislation establishing revenue neutrality did not set forth any well defined parameters for what should be included in the calculations for determining the prior year's fiscal data, for the method of repayment to the county, or for the duration of fiscal impacts. Subsequent legislation has since better defined this calculation criteria, and the Governor's Office of Planning & Research has issued guidelines to assist LAFCO's in making determinations concerning revenue neutrality. A provision within the legislation does allow for counties and incorporating communities to negotiate a mutual revenue neutrality mitigation agreement. For both Options One and Two, the preliminary study indicates that there will be revenue neutrality mitigation issues to be resolved with the county. The final revenue neutrality mitigation level is determined through negotiation as part of the incorporation application process, therefore no estimate of revenue neutrality has been included in the preliminary study. The assumption for this study is that a satisfactory level of revenue neutrality can be negotiated with the county that will not materially affect our findings. AB 1602 Sunset Provision Prior to 2004, all cities received Motor Vehicle License Fees on the full 2% valuation of the vehicles, and new cities received an additional population subvention based on 3 times the number of registered voters for the first seven years after incorporation. In 2004, the legislature 5 i I implemented what was termed the "VLF Swap" in which the valuation fee was lowered to .65%, and the resultant loss of city revenue was "swapped" with an augmentation of Property Tax. However, the new legislation failed to include provisions for newly incorporating cities to receive the Property Tax backfill that existing cites were now receiving. In order to correct this situation, AB 1602 was signed into law in 2006, providing a formula that restores most of the previous VLF funding, and provides a sliding scale population based subvention increase for the first 5 years after incorporation. Two Types of MVLF revenues are now available to newly incorporating cities. The Basic Subvention is based on the statutory formula that allocates a portion of the .65% valuation fee to each city based on population. The proposed city will receive this subvention as do existing cities today, however will not receive the property tax swap revenue. The AB 1602 Subvention allocates to new cities on a continuous basis, an additional FY 2004 Base Year allocation of$50 per capita, adjusted annually based on statewide popolation and VLF revenue growth. In addition, for the first 5 years after incorporation, population for purposes of this revenue allocation is calculated based on a downward annual sliding scale starting at 150% of the city's population, fixed annually by the State Department of Finance for each year. In the 61b and subsequent years, the actual city population is utilized. As a component of AB 1602, a provision was inserted into the legislation that provides that the additional subvention to new cities "sunsets", or expires, on July 1, 2009. Essentially, any new city that does not incorporate prior to July 1, 2009, will only receive the minimal basic subvention, but wil I not receive the additional adjusted per capita allowance. For Option One, the oreliminary study indicates that the loss of the AB 1602 revenue subvention will render the option fiscally infeasible. For Option Two, the preliminary study indicates that the loss of the AB 1602 revenue subvention would require the city to secure supplemental revenues for the first four years to be fiscally feasible. Unless the provisions of AB 1602 are extended, incorporation prior to July 1, 2009 must occur. Potential Future Fire Station Not included in the preliminary study is the potential for an additional fire station that could be located within either of the Option boundaries. Currently, the county does not include a new fire station in their future planning, however, based on the level of anticipated development, and the county's criteria for service delivery, a future fire station may be required. Based on the projections, it is not likely that an additional fire station would be included in the Option One boundary area, however, there is a likelihood that one could be included in the Option Two boundary. The cost of construction of a future fire station is normally funded through development impact fees, however, operational costs become the responsibility of the city. For Option Two sufficient revenue surpluses exist to absorb the cost of operating a future fire station, dependent upon timing. 6 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Based on the preliminary information available and applying reasonable industry standards and assumptions for projection of future revenue and expenditure growth, the following findings are made: • The existing tax base with the recent additions of the retail and business park development adjacent to the Sun City Palm Desert community provide for a greater foundation for potential incorporation than has existed at any time before. • Timing and progress of the future planned community developments are a critical aspect of long term sustainability. Major modifications or delays in these planned projects could have a significant material effect on the forecast projections. • The fiscal projections show a relatively strong diversification of the revenue base between the four major General Fund revenue streams identified above, indicating the ability to better sustain a downturn in any one revenue stream as compared to other cities that are heavily dependent on one revenue such as sales tax. • General Fund revenues to expense ratios, and reserve capacities, are sustained at an acceptable level only under boundary Option Two, with the M VLF backfill. • Road Fund revenues to expense ratios and reserve capacities far exceed accepted standards in all scenarios. Based on the above findings, the following conclusions are drawn: Option 1 — This option is not fiscally viable. Further, the projections indicate that this option is not viable within the forecast period. Current and future projections for Option One, either with or without the extension of AB 1602, do not support a finding of feasibility at any time within the next ten years. Although the projections indicate a positive General Fund surplus in the first year, the ensuing years experience significant annual General Fund deficit spending. This deficit spending could not be overcome without significant revenue enhancements, such as additional taxes or fees, which can only be imposed subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Additionally, as indicated previous, the impacts of revenue neutrality have not been included. Recommendation: It is recommended that if the SCPDCA desires to proceed toward a potential incorporation application, that OpJon One be eliminated from future study, unless consideration is given to studying potential revenue enh ancements to offset revenue shortfalls. 7 Option 2 — This option is fiscally viable. if AB 1602 is extended, or the incorporation occurs prior to July 1, 2009, and revenue neutrality can be mitigated sufficiently, this option is fiscally viable within the forecast period. With the inclusion of the AB 1602 MVLF backfill the forecast indicates a moderate to strong finding of fiscal feasibility. Projections of General Fund annual revenue surpluses exceed the minimally accepted standards in the first three years of the projection, growing at a significantly higher rate in later years. With the exclusion of the AB1602 MVLF backfill the forecast is not fiscally viable unless supplemental funding is secured. After the first year of positive General Fund surplus, significant annual deficit spending is projected to occur until Year 5, when positive annual surpluses begin to accrue. Preliminary analysis of the projected base year revenues and expenses indicate that a revenue neutrality mitigation requirement will require negotiation. This impact cannot be quantified at this level of study, and thus is not included. Recommendation: It is recommended that the SCPDCA seriously consider proceeding toward potential incorporation, and that Option 2 be considered for further study in consultation with LAFCO and the county with respect to timing of the process. Key considerations include: • Setting goals and schedules to achieve an "Effective Date of Incorporation" no later than June 30, 2009. • The County of Riverside will sponsor the application for incorporation as an "affected agency" vice a time consuming petition process. • Conceptual agreement by LAFCO and the County, that the formal Initial Feasibility Study, the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, and the procedural process, can be streamlined to meet the June 30, 2009 timeline constraint. • The County will support providing transition services for one full year, regardless of the end of fiscal year requirement, subject to reimbursement. • Negotiations will be successful with regard to potential revenue neutrality mitigation issues. An incorporation date of June 30, 2009 is feasible subject to the above. This approach provides for the greatest opportunity to achieve self governance now, versus the inherent risk of the loss of the MVLF revenue, which would delay any prospect of incorporation for several years. 8 J: J• �Yxx: JJJ' J� Z- i J � z of .. n �� `�!1 •�" .wI 44�+� !�"� Y l I Lu 011 YS 1, is y? ui t - VIA lit IN If . qq lit, rW $L ..� ,: aa •Ifs �� C! t yI �t\ ll�-- ,aA �} f.Jr Ito 777 it F t� d w- ;w � t%'ti,wr ram,=.:;z�'• � ► j� ��(� �, a•�;;yy�,� ►1 �� �Ry ��, tilt � �"�'`�"� i•�� ���"yt` • t �� r}y"'�t55 .4; •t..r �i. ' M1 � t ��'[. (��...�]Syr• . ie .? • " x�f � y�< n 1t: j,�� ti 9� .'� t fi'''�b�{yR F" �_ . �I a� f ids e9� � �� ...«.. ��, �`.i� .•`.,°'i�� i 1{'dSs/ n .'41^" < tYy <7gG 7j7' R+ye,C wr 4MI l- t lry.•. ,mob ii _ �I� 'IS 1N MP r t$ Rd � x .,,_ x rr�♦tif- 6 i x+e��'*'+ft {} � ". '. a :+, 4. i. ' fi `�!`H[tpi F{#�'' '��ixi hin $p.°✓n 71 ° � '1`:y.EJ` r � ' . P 4 N yP m? 3n3�m3 ^rva�er & �i K w x Y € .. ." s �ar�mxssmnom �o��°att�aa.�� a a� - n "a _ ^^n v ur � e L H E > o 5 l5-�,4o � D a � SSFio4 cE � x � vV ct a.LL �WLL S �a � vev oY (j LL�LLI� F 7Guu 7u 52v.7'- uus" - � c c y � 1 - d ! � 3 ! � - -w) - ! ` � /�} ) § - - O ! \ r - a� � ry 1 •19 C W i } L LL N e �I .0 L m T a O T IS N V W c i• 9 e - n F ° F 5 t o °w Eris c ;.; e'e of a `y5 - V ni. aayaar�o�U W��I� r u.Gi�ucz-i._z�5!`3: uc�a f wt ciw wr§!■5 � m4I T» - : . : _\ k ) § ) (} ) )d (\ §'I � ( ` _ « { / ® - 2 § ! i2 !a � { j in Z 0 ! 00 \ � , N3 V M a paa P� a; x t �LL � I a y w I a� 0. fC5�u e 4 `J t'. E 3r�= E p na c V � D ayiydit-io�u°w`< -IF f iu'uwG-'Zuwd�3 uuz" f em J , !e 2! . ! : . • ! , (\ | §) ( )§ {\ \ . ! `E : §!R&® ( � ] � ! ® M} 8 A-� °^ ` / { ! \ ( \ -« ! . IE 2 \ [ \ - J /) . g u II R E x m- le.� nr•y' _ nr _ '^ _ ml � ,o x.nn�E�oN� � .n"€ yl ..{ _ � nn y II .L L - O _T C Z T S 2 � w _ u "�`-�� $�' E�c " 33oye � � � s(_• ' t ���.�e � � �. a ec of � C ;'`'�eLLe U a � r yaii-CfO C�w`1�uIF 5 F �ygGui�G'iuu<9" vA i�i�e rcW rig C w t5 a ci c� O . z .. , „ : l=� ` � ! / � - (� \ � ] \( ) r ) \d �\ . &$RG§ ` » " §� / _; ! 2 ) \ § \\ ] �° ) \] �\ � f<Egl , , / !`! 2 ] � \ R ] � \ )] )} ! ;q\R ° ¥ � � : : : _ e ] \ ] � d # § \) \/ § - �:m! , R : ,32! ) ( § R § (� 2 }) �\ � � � � r#k:;! ` E; : . _ \! ) � § y2 �� ) }\ )} § : �\�{ f / \ � ) }) / |) |[ i � ,S;;m . p � � . & / 2l2: ) [ § 2 ) |\ ) (] i\ | \ � � j\(�( \ ( ] Sd () / � K : � � �� �� � ; § } ; - /#°§( ) � ] !! § ` ° & /d �\ - / / ` - } \ i � \ � / \ } \ ° � { \ _ !! )/ - � , � � s _ . g f | ! . 2 � ` ( , :!! . . . , r ! � {; ` � ! l:l::. ; _ ! ) !/) ,� , . � ! ) � ) ; _ \§ ` : - - /! Z !! ; � } ; ! e ) \ �, ::, . . _ . .�_ ) }\ / !! �! ! Sun Cih' Palm Desert i:nun�mituAscneiiinurt �;,,y..�. Preliminary Feasibility Study Proposed Incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert January 8, 2008 Prepared for: The Sun City Palm Desert Community Association Prepared by: Winzler & Kelly 3531 E. Miralorna Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 714.854.1890 WINZLERCSLKELLY January 8, 2008 Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 38180 Del Webb Blvd. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Attn: Board of Directors Dear Members of the Board, Winzler & Kelly is pleased to submit the attached Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for the proposed incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert. As indicated in the report, the opportunity exists for a potential incorporation of the Sun City Palm Desert community under the parameters outlined. As always, we are available to assist you in any way we can as you proceed further in this process. Sincerely, Gary Thompson, Project Manager Attachment: Preliminary Feasibility Study 3531 E. Miraloma Avenue,Anaheim,CA 92806 tel 714.854.1890 fax 714.854.1895 ana@w-aind.k.com www.w-and-k.com I INTRODUCTION This Preliminary Feasibility Study for the proposed incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert has been prepared at the request of the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association (SCPDCA). Recent decisions by the City of Palm Desert to remove the community from that city's sphere of influence, coupled with recent and planned future retail and business development activity adjacent to the community, has provided an opportunity for self governance that heretofore did not exist. The Board of Directors of the SCPDCA has expressed an interest in studying the feasibility for the community to incorporate into a city as the most desired self governance option. The purpose of this preliminary study is to provide a general "snapshot" of the anticipated revenues and expenditures that would be applicable to the proposed city, and to provide a basis for the SCPDCA to determine whether it is warranted proceeding further with a more formal analysis and application process. It should be noted that all findings reached with regard to this study are predicated on the information made available to Winzler & Kelly by the SCPDCA, and other sources, utilizing basic forecasting assumptions for formulating current and future projections. The data utilized for the review, should be considered very preliminary and subject to moderate to significant variation. In order to fully assess the viability of the proposed incorporation at a much greater level of detail, a formal Initial Feasibility Study, suitable for submittal with an incorporation application will need to be developed. BOUNDARY OPTIONS AND SCENARIOS Two boundary alternatives were identified by the SCPDCA for study. The analysis of each boundary alternative will provide a basis for the SCDPCA to make determinations of desired boundaries that reflect the community goals and objectives of incorporating logical communities of interest and long term fiscal viability. It should be noted that further boundary alternatives may be required for study by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as part of a formal application process. Exhibits One and Two depict each of the two boundary alternatives. Option One The Option One boundary includes all of the Sun City Palm Desert planned community, and the, adjacent retail and business park areas north of the 1-10 freeway. This area is generally bounded by the City of Indio to the east, the 1-10 freeway to the south, and unincorporated area to the north and west. This boundary option also encompasses all undeveloped area south of 38"' Avenue between Washington Street and the 1-10 freeway. This area includes the recreational vehicle dealership on Varner Road, the future Mirasera planned community residential & retail/business park development, and a smaller future home development near the intersection of 381"Avenue and the I-10 freeway. (See Exhibit 1) Option Two The Option Two boundary includes all of the Option One territory, and additionally, extends the western border to Cook Street/Chase School Road, and the northern border to Calle Tosca. The Option Two boundary includes the future Avanterra planned community residential & retail/business park development (formerly the NorthStar Ranch development), and the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic Golf Course and Classic Club. (See Exhibit 2) 1 i Projection Scenarios for each Option There are four scenarios included in this preliminary study, attached as Exhibits 3 through 6. Two scenarios are included for each boundary option. Each option includes a scenario assuming the extension of the AB 1602 Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF) backfill, and one assuming the loss of this revenue. Discussions related to each of these scenarios follow further below. ASSUMPTIONS This preliminary feasibility study and fiscal projections have been prepared under the general requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines for Incorporations, and LAFCO's locally adopted Policies and Procedures for Incorporations. Reference documents utilized for this study include: • Local area information provided by the SCPDCA including assessed valuation, and hotel/motel and retail/business park information. • Future development and planning information for the Mirasera and Avanterra Planned Communities. • Retail sales and marketing information from InfoUSA. • Preliminary data and reference information from the HDL Companies, the League of California Cities, California City Finance, the State Department of Finance, the State Controller's Office, and the County of Riverside. • Recent Comprehensive Fiscal Ana,yses for the communities of Wildomar and Menifee Valley. • Budget information for the cities of Indian Wells, Canyon Lake and Palm Desert. • Interviews with city engineering and public works directors, and contractors servicing contract cities. With all municipal incorporations comes a transfer of certain service responsibilities for the new city. These responsibilities include general government, law enforcement, traffic control and accident investigation, fire protection, construction and maintenance of local streets, street lighting, code enforcement, land use planning and regulation, building inspection, animal control, and parks and recreation services. This study analyzes the forecasted ability of the proposed city to provide these municipal services over an extended period of time. An Effective Date of Incorporation of July 1, 2009 is assumed for the fiscal projections. This date was selected developing the preliminary projections, and to depict the maximum amount of Transition Service requirement the county would be obligated to provide to the new city. Timing of further studies and proceedings as part of an incorporation application process may effect the actual Effective Date of Incorporation, and the Transition Service period. The fiscal projections include a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the proposed new city for the first ten years of operation. Projections of revenues and expenditures for a period of 10 years forward are forecasted in order to gauce long term sustainability. The analysis is limited to a presentation of information in the form of a forecast based on estimated base year costs/revenues, using the best information available for this level of study. There may be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences can be material. A 2 3% general annual inflation rate has been included in the forecast. It should be noted that any future studies required as part of an application for incorporation will require extensively more detailed information to be provided by the County and other servicing agencies, and could result in material changes in the projections. Revenue Neutrality, discussed further below, has not been included in the forecast models, although will need to be addressed in any future studies that would result as part of an incorporation application process. Additionally, assumption scenarios have been made for each boundary option addressing the provisions of the AB 1602 MVLF backfill to new cities. One scenario for each boundary option assumes that MVLF backfill will be available. The other scenario for each boundary option assumes that the backfill will not be available. Further discussion follows below concerning the impact of the MVLF backfill on the boundary scenarios. Proposition 218. approved by California voters in 1996, amended the state Constitution by adding Article XIII C and D to the tax limitation provisions adopted by Proposition 13. The purpose of Proposition 218 was to close existing loopholes in Proposition 13 which was allowing local governments to increase fees, charges and assessments without a public vote, rather than increasing general and specific property taxes which do require a vote. Proposition 218 does not have a direct impact on the conclusions in the preliminary study, as no 'revenue enhancements" such as new taxes, fees, charges, or assessments are included. However, as is discussed further in this study, the Option One boundary would require an analysis of potential revenue enhancements in order to achieve fiscal viability. FISCAL ANALYSIS There are two primary categories of revenues and expenses that are presented in the fiscal projections- General Fund, and Road Fund. Additionally, other types of dedicated revenues such as AQMD & COPS grants, and TUMF fees are available to cities. However, dedicated revenue sources are not included in the study since due to their nature they are considered revenue neutral against the overall fiscal complexion of the city. General Fund revenues are all general purpose revenues received that are allowed under state law to be utilized for any purpose, including services normally paid for with restricted revenues. Additionally, some restricted revenues dedicated for certain services are included in the General Fund. General Fund expenditures are all expenditures that are allowed under state law to be funded with unrestricted revenues, and some restricted General Fund revenues dedicated for specific General Fund services. Examples of General Fund revenues and expenses restricted to certain services would be structural fire fund property tax for fire protection, and planning and building/safety fees for development services. Road Fund revenues are all revenues received that are restricted under state law to be utilized for road related purposes only. This includes ordinary maintenance, which involves shoulder maintenance, curb maintenance, signing and striping, pothole repair, traffic signal maintenance and street sweeping. Road Fund expenditures are all expenditures for the road services identified above. The forecast does not include significant long term special maintenance, such as asphalt overlays, major storm drain repairs, and damaged and deteriorated road reconstruction, as these are considered capital improvement projects generally funded by project specific grants. Additionally, site inspection of the existing road infrastructure indicates that the area is well maintained and not subject to any significant repair requirements in the near future. 3 The forecast includes projections of new development for the Mirasera and Avanterra projects based on the best information currently available concerning their status. Additionally, there is one residential project included that is located between these two master planned developments. The forecast projects development over a 10 year period. Our forecasts include a reduction in the projected residential, retail and commercial development by 20%. The reduction factor is included to ensure a conservative level of sensitivity in the future forecast. Total planned development for the three projects combined is approximately 4,600 residential units, 1.1 million square feet of retail use, 1.4 million square feet of other office/light industrial use, and over 500 hotel rooms. General Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources available to each bouncary option are Property Tax P y Sales Tax, Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). These four revenue sources comprise the bulk of the unrestricted Gereral Fund revenues. A portion of the Property Tax included in the General fund is dedicated to Fire Protection services. Primary expense categories include General Government (Administrative Services), Law Enforcement and Fire Protection. Community Development and Engineering/Building & Safety revenues and expenses are forecast based on future development projections, generally will fluctuate with development, and are mostly 100% offset by fees. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, the General Fund revenue to, expense ratio is greatly enhanced for boundary Option Two over boundary Option One. As indicated in the Exhibits insuff�ieat GeniarBI Fund revenues accrue to support the projected expenses in Option One. Although the four key revenue sources are relatively strong in relation to the area, the cost of law enforcement and fire protection are too substantial to overcome. For Option Two, the additional revenues associated with the planned future development of the Avanterra project overcome this issue. Road Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources for road maintenance are state fuel taxes, sales tax on fuel products (Prop 42), and Measure A sales tax allocations. Projected road maintenance costs include all regular/routine maintenance requirements anticipated to be conducted including, repairs, storm drain catch basin maintenance, curb and gutter maintenance, road and median landscape maintenance services and street sweeping. It should be noted that as the majority of the current residential street infrastructure is privately maintained, the overall cost of road maintenance to the city is reduced. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, each boundary option scenario indicates substantial capacity to fund all city responsible road related maintenance, and accrue significant reserves for future long term capital maintenance projects. Coupled with the ability to acquire project specific grant funds for road improvements, the study indicates that there are no road relaters. funding issues for the foreseeable future. Transition Year& County Repayment The Transition Year is the time period from the Effective Date of Incorporation until the end of the Fiscal Year in which the incorporation occurs. During this period of time, the County continues to provide municipal services for the new city while the city establishes its service provision plan, and engages the necessary resources for beginning service responsibility at the 4 beginning of the next fiscal year. During this same period, the city receives many of the revenues that will accrue to the city on a continuous basis, thus allowing for the ability to be able to absorb the service responsibility. The city may opt at anytime during the transition period to assume service responsibility from the County for any service that it desires to transition early. At the end of the Transition Period, all municipal service responsibility transfers from the county to the new city. The new city will be responsible for repayment of the net costs of services provided by the county during the Transition Period, generally in deferred payments over 5 years with interest. For the purposes of this study, an assumed full fiscal year of Transition Year services has been forecast. The actual length of the Transition Year would ultimately be dependent upon the timing of the Effective Date of Incorporation, established as part of the incorporation application process. For purposes of this study, an "Effective Date" of July 1, 2009 is assumed. This optimizes SCPDCA's options by allowing for the maximum transition period of one year. POTENTIAL ISSUES Revenue Neutrality In the early 1990's, the State of California enacted legislation designed to lessen the negative fiscal impacts incorporations might have on counties and other affected agencies. Revenue neutrality requires the incorporation to result in a "similar exchange" of both revenue and service responsibility between the proposed city, the county, and any other affected agency. Prior to the passage of the revenue neutrality legislation, the ability of an area to support municipal level services was the prime financial criteria used in evaluating a proposed new city. Limited analysis was conducted to determine the impacts to counties or other affected agencies containing incorporating communities. Counties were losing annual revenue surpluses from these previously unincorporated areas due to the inherent nature of the cost of county services being provided to these areas as being less than the revenues received. However, the revenue neutrality statute was vaguely written and was fairly silent on the method of calculating financial impacts, or the process for determining the impacts of revenue neutrality. The legislation establishing revenue neutrality did not set forth any well defined parameters for what should be included in the calculations for determining the prior year's fiscal data, for the method of repayment to the county, or for the duration of fiscal impacts. Subsequent legislation has since better defined this calculation criteria, and the Governor's Office of Planning & Research has issued guidelines to assist LAFCO's in making determinations concerning revenue neutrality. A provision within the legislation does allow for counties and incorporating communities to negotiate a mutual revenue neutrality mitigation agreement. For both Options One and Two, the preliminary study indicates that there will be revenue neutrality mitigation issues to be resolved with the county. The final revenue neutrality mitigation level is determined through negotiation as part of the incorporation application process, therefore no estimate of revenue neutrality has been included in the preliminary study. The assumption for this.study is that a satisfactory level of revenue neutrality can be negotiated with the county that will not materially affect our findings. AB 1602 Sunset Provision Prior to 2004, all cities received Motor Vehicle License Fees on the full 2% valuation of the vehicles, and new cities received an additional population subvention based on 3 times the number of registered voters for the first seven years after incorporation. In 2004, the legislature 5 implemented what was termed the "VLF Swap" in which the valuation fee was lowered to .65%, and the resultant loss of city revenue was "swapped" with an augmentation of Property Tax. However, the new legislation failed to include provisions for newly incorporating cities to receive the Property Tax backfill that existing cites were now receiving. In order to correct this situation, AB 1602 was signed into law in 2006, providing a formula that P 9 t restores most of the previous VLF funding, and provides a sliding scale population based subvention increase for the first 5 years after incorporation. Two Types of MVLF revenues are now available to newly incorporating cities. The Basic Subvention is based on the statutory formula that allocates a portion of the .65% valuation fee to each city based on population. The proposed city will receive this subvention as do existing cities today, however will not receive the property tax swap revenue. The AB 1602 Subvention allocates to new cities on a continuous basis, an additional FY 2004 Base Year allocation of $50 per capita, adjusted annually based on statewide population and VLF revenue growth. In addition, for the first 5 years after incorporation, population for purposes of this revenue allocation is calculated based on a downward annual sliding scale starting at 150% of the city's population, fixed annually by the State Department of Finance for each year. In the Wh and subsequent years, the actual city population is utilized. As a component of AB 1602, a provision was inserted into the legislation that provides that the additional subvention to new cities "sunsets", or expires, on July 1, 2009. Essentially, any new city that does not incorporate prior to July 1, 2009, will only receive the minimal basic subvention, but will not receive the additional acjusted per capita allowance. For Option One, the preliminary study indicates that the loss of the AB 1602 revenue subvention wi ren er a op ion isca v in ease e. or pion wo. the pre iminary s u v m ica loss of e B 1602 revenue suwention would -equire the city to secure supplemental revenues for the first four years to be fiscally feasible Unless the provisions of AB 1602 are extended, incorporation prior to July 1, 2009 must occur. Potential Future Fire Station Not included in the preliminary study is the potential for an additional fire station that could be located within either of the Option boundaries. Currently, the county does not include a new fire station in their future planning, however, based on the level of anticipated development, and the county's criteria for service delivery, a future fire station may be required. Based on the projections, it is not likely that an additional fre station would be included in the Option One boundary area, however, there is a likelihood that one could be included in the Option Two boundary. The cost of construction of a future fire station is normally funded through development impact fees, however, operational costs become the responsibility of the city. For Option Two sufficient revenue surpluses exist to absorb the cost of operating a future fire station dependent upon timing. , 5 p'I I A eeo `d 'f We bA,( o"-s Q G5V519 c��✓ ' 6 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Based on the preliminary information available and applying reasonable industry standards and assumptions for projection of future revenue and expenditure growth, the following findings are made: • The existing tax base with the recent additions of the retail .and business park development adjacent to the Sun City Palm Desert community provide for a greater foundation for potential incorporation than has existed at any time before. • Timing and progress of the future planned community developments are a critical aspect of long term sustainability. Major modifications or delays in these planned projects could have a significant material effect on the forecast projections. • The fiscal projections show a relatively strong diversification of the revenue base between the four major General Fund revenue streams identified above, indicating the ability to better sustain a downturn in any one revenue stream as compared to other cities that are heavily dependent on one revenue such as sales tax. • General Fund revenues to expense ratios, and reserve capacities, are sustained at an acceptable level only under boundary Option Two, with the MVLF backfill. • Road Fund revenues to expense ratios and reserve capacities far exceed accepted standards in all scenarios. Based on the above findings, the following conclusions are drawn: Option 1 — This option is not fiscally viable. Further, the projections indicate that this option is not viable within the forecast period. Current and future projections for Option One, either with or without the extension of AB 1602, do not support a finding of feasibility at any time within the next ten years. Although the projections indicate a positive General Fund surplus in the first year, the ensuing years experience significant annual General Fund deficit spending. This deficit spending could not be overcome without significant revenue enhancements, such as additional taxes or fees, which can only be imposed subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Additionally, as indicated previous, the impacts of revenue neutrality have not been included. Recommendation: It is recommended that if the SCPDCA desires to proceed toward a potential incorporation application, that Option One be eliminated from future study, unless consideration is given to studying potential revenue enhancements to offset revenue shortfalls. 7 Option 2 — This option is fiat viable. " AB "02 is extended or the incorporation occur`s prior to July 1, 2009, and revenue neutrality can be mitigated sufficiently, this option is fiscally viable within the forecast period. With the inclusion of the AB 1602 MVLF backfill the forecast indicates a moderate to strong finding of fiscal feasibility. Projections of General Fund annual revenue surpluses exceed the minimally accepted standards in the first three years of the projection, growing at a significantly higher rate in later years. With the exclusion of the AB1602 MVLF backfill the forecast is not fiscally viable unless supplemental funding is secured. After the first year of positive General Fund surplus, significant annual deficit spending is projected to occur until Year 5, when positive annual surpluses begin to accrue. Preliminary analysis of the projected base year revenues and expenses indicate that a revenue neutrality mitigation requirement will require negotiation. This impact cannot be quantified at this level of study, and thus is not included. Recommendation: It is recommended that the SCPDCA seriously consider proceeding toward potential incorporation, and that Option 2 be considered for further study in consultation with LAFCO and the county with respect to timing of the process. Key considerations include: • Setting goals and schedules to achieve an "Effective Date of Incorporation" no later than June 30, 2009. • The County of Riverside will sponsor the application for incorporation as an "affected agency' vice a time consuming petition process. • Conceptual agreement by LAFCO and the County, that the formal Initial Feasibility Study, the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, and the procedural process, can be streamlined to meet the June 30, 2009 timeline constraint. • The County will support providing transition services for one full year, regardless of the end of fiscal year requirement, subject to reimbursement. • Negotiations will be successful with regard to potential revenue neutrality mitigation issues. An incorporation date of June 30, 2009 is feasible subject to the above. This approach provides for the greatest opportunity to achieve self governance now, versus the inherent risk of the loss of the MVLF revenue, which would delay any prospect of incorporation for several years. B "7 140 A N Is its 'Ai�4 7--.n 7.9 7�7; YN ".L J" ZP Y ll�.\�� r'' -y 1'�n i �•! �� ,f��C4� '��E' T j ��i t��1=_ r� �Y s'+ i "94 �1_ ;'RiL t• • :1 F t iy _-�. '{. �! L2.'1,La 2'1-kIR (r" ..t'J' k a'.. •w'• 1,_ �+ � ' ,i •.R " ., M >• � �` ^ \. r nr �Ywv�' irat-x,t fi yj ?}y[�'+{r' 1 r r �r �.Y .' M-•rr 1 � r •rt �i � i���1fF✓"y rt l���'���.'" •,4 � l f +( i i /.J� �/�iyw f �w.,,� tin : 'pY N�_r � , � ��f� � � ', �"• • ,�dlllit r rS� i �(IRf `-,{q t`� ' .�.y. '�ri � '�✓,`�� ��rkkj yl; I�11Gt i tiLY"•.. � r �lyka� '�l�� i�s}'k� � `"r'- �.'��-rrr..v.n`w. ,Py' f- F - I J — - 'm�� �' )>�'ar f��+w�'A •� r.y,',,�/ >if• �^ `t\e l- )� �114 r y�.��''..,z'•-y£t_. r .if �•Cs�lf"`d. "r . �, s � I 1 .9.. { ! 5,' I ���4:.�'( : '� 'y�!I p��lE�III�t� � x - ,� L _r�t',.�Q.�'.� 'K, vJ�t�.ry��t. t�y�'•,. $-+, s.�. <ua rs•.. fffc�`_ `•.�'F —...�` vf� A `r � �rt py� ,a,,.F` •f}�,r e 3 N t6F+f qx r is �i �-":. �tl r� x -,�q . ?`rj y ♦� '3f1 r FwJr '�' �'Lfay r� .;+ •t L ;F+ o c� �.} Fij,�.• .p '� �. i.. r. r• is. t - +I�r��C y`� .wi \ i-'LL t ._� P �i� s��k. � s� rOWy I}✓� V� Y 1� t1..`� �Fr • fi� y _ ��r� � � 4�yi M. ,s�_gy ♦s• t ,t, � 55 � ! r �j��{�{ ; 111153 4 ] t �1.'rJ.i $` :tr y4 ;y"•F° ..�i 'Y•. f �M-r ^t_.v., r4'i' •ti,"G: 1 La Yt f r45�I�!a -�- i-'t � TjI (�t p � f Mr, y{ p �z � i ' yY' try „ 'So t } fIIFS�- IS,F� 'J�jtiyF�� R ,3 L e -17 SAM ' ti ..CL r C t. � 179 u } r �Y f7t7 f�! (f'•1t ^'�P�J ;'+� ,F ♦ � 1 -r ,� �D r n � Era! 7ia� ��r T � l.� tr � Ft F.:�i.:R � � ;'.iry��l;.. Yr -�'�'Y--�,4��. 1,. 'ti ii .i ..x 'k�i-.t�f :u~' •'3>~���••. n� T - _ :�",s.^ -5 .•� 'r, .ram„ = '..3��,x �^,"_�°• ...8�, �2 :n c N � 3 c o ✓• = w ol it U — _ J1 2�re C LL U'J 5 LL<F' 4 iJ U U V L 2 J Y!?J L V V C �• _ Y YI . � }) K . ` E \ _ W Jll 17 Zi _ �N _ a 'v�x a � _ zs��ii cn -yo rnv y •� r _ ' tl Q 3 _ a t _ yz 0 �Jr AiF c:i� 5 ` ; � •'7 2 �'C F = ny. � O LOU a ae ���"'JJJ t- L'I !Y. Lf _p�U II J U L Z UU!3 1c VJK YW i) \ 7 ) ( } \ u n.�_.�«r.zvan•�nne�i- � c -� - _ rw _n Z•-^ '`',_,� �n - - ry c� e _ c 5 _ o m N 1 a u = du ' Tt pf p _ <J 5 U n C J E C O L U'J •(L G r �•U V UJ - � - V1 :&§!i§ 2 : \ ] )\ ] �` ] \§ �\ ' \IF 11, ` }\ \�}\ /) ] § ƒ ] �§ \/ ! IF 2 - - !�®im )}IF IF IF : \ �} )\ 2 ) ] IF2 )) ] )2 \) § - ;!!§;! § � § ) ] )ƒ ] § ] § - j \ e \ \ � i > ;) _ � ) t ) ` /!$ )!! 9 � . � � � _ 2 = r� u 'a tl a o O N U a « d a FLLg a Fy �x Ex ae ,�� V E L 2 2F Z Diu <. _sr 'f -U4Ul,�.iuu` S�2 ���777 '•Ei v'e _ z W 'O 3 � au""• � o 4 ` `� • � � � � � � ¥ : / ! - \ \ \ } \\ )\ ] \ \ \ ] uu _ � Y 73-510 rPED !WAPjijG DRIVE NLM DESERT, CALIFOR141A 92260-2578 Tw— 760 3,36-06ffF FAX: 760 340-0574 info@PaLn-d"emotg March 5, 2008 Ms. Sandy Sosnowski, General Manager Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 38180 Del Webb Boulevard Palm Desert, CA 92211 Dear Ms. Sosnowski: Subject: Clty of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence On behalf of the Palm Desert City Council, I am forwarding you this correspondence to provide your residents with a history of the City's recent decision to detach the Del- Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The Council has received numerous requests from Sun City-residents inquiring about this matter, so please share this letter with your . community in an effort to educate all those who are interested. A Sphere of Influence (SOI) is identified by Government Code as a, "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency." Spheres of Influence are used by cities as a planning tool to ascertain the levels of service for any future incorporation. The City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence originally included three separate areas: the Southern Sphere, the Bermuda Dunes Sphere, and the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere. The Southern Sphere is the largest of the three at approximately 34.5 square miles. Much of this southern sphere is within the Bighorn Sheep Preserve and habitat. In 1998, the City's sphere was expanded north of Interstate 10, which included the Del- Webb community. This SOI was the City s second major one and is commonly referred to as the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere, but it also includes a commercial district west of Washington Street. This whole area comprises approximately 3.7 square miles. The third and final sphere was introduced in 2000 and includes the Bermuda Dunes community, east of Washington Street and South of Interstate 10. This area comprises approximately 3.2 square miles. CRY *off Faldea NostmVe �")p9-dSVcr 'of lnfiusuc& March 5, 2008 Pager 2 of 2 The Spheres of Influence for California cities are regulated by Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO), with each county in California having its own LAFCO. The Riverside County LAFCO initiated Sphere of Influence reviews for all cities and special districts in 2007. A City Council Annexation Subcommittee was formed and met with Riverside County LAFCO representatives in 2007 concerning this issue. LAFCO wanted to ascertain if the City would retain the Bermuda Dunes and Del-Webb Palm Desert Spheres of Influence before their formal SOI review period. This matter went before the Palm Desert City Council at its April 12, 2007, meeting. The majority of the members of the City Council indicated that they found it more important to provide excellent services to the area already incorporated than to expand the city limits and potentially dilute the quality of those services. Staff was subsequently directed to inform LAFCO that the City no longer desired to retain the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. On October 25, 2007, Riverside County LAFCO held its hearing on this matter and affirmed Palm Desert's recommendation to remove the Del-Webb Palm Desert Community and all other existing SOI areas north of Interstate 10. I am confident that this correspondence adequately addresses the various questions your residents may have on the history and current status of the Del Webb Sphere of Influence. If you or your residents have additional questions, please contact either Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or me at (760) 346-0611. Thank you. Sincerely, CARL S L. TEGA City Manager CLO:SA cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager MY 01 ? Ito 1111111 F�.; gat i ,il �. �r� i;i '��t ,i: � .�i -•� ±51 7'-5 -7Ar11ic Dr.m i i PALIA Ur.'*LP'T, f;,<,Llpor"1IF 9t240 2578 FAX: 760 340-0574 infoCFalco-dean.org March 5, 2008 Ms. Sandy Sosnowski, General Manager Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 38180 Del Webb Boulevard Palm Desert, CA 92211 Dear Ms. Sosnowski: SubJectc CRY Of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence On behalf of the Palm Desert City Council, I am forwarding you this correspondence to provide your residents with a history of the City's recent decision to detach the Del- Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The Council has received numerous requests from Sun City-residents inquiring about this matter, so please share this letter with your community in an effort to educate all those who are Interested. A Sphere of Influence (SOI) Is identified by Government Code as a, "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency." Spheres of Influence are used by cities as a planning tool to ascertain the levels of service for any future incorporation. The City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence originally included three separate areas: the Southern Sphere, the Bermuda Dunes Sphere, and the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere. The Southern Sphere is the largest of the three at approximately 34.5 square miles. Much of this southern sphere is within the Bighorn Sheep Preserve and habitat. In 1998, the City's sphere was expanded north of Interstate 10, which included the Del- Webb community. This SOI was the City's second major one and is commonly referred to as the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere, but it also includes a commercial district west of Washington Street. This whole area comprises approximately 3.7 square miles. The third and final sphere was introduced in 2000 and includes the Bermuda tunes community, east of Washington Street and South of Interstate 10. This area comprises approximately 3.2 square miles. Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCO2006-89-4 Exhibit A • :, Thousand • palms i - --- = I CAeI City of Rancho Mirage . . •. , • '- City of Bernpd Indio i - Dines FNED WAAING DR , i • KWr m . City of Indian City of Wells La : Quinta =City of Palm Desert Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10/25/07 .. ��Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) : I Datestamp:02/01/2008 Community far from eager for cityhood More than 600 residents come out to forum By K Kaufmann The Desert Sun Hundreds of residents packed the Sierra Ballroom at Sun City Pahn Desert on Thursday evening for a spirited public forum on whether the 55—plus community should incorporate itself as the Coachella Valley's 1 Oth city. "I'm not thinking very favorably about incorporating," said resident Grace Hoffman in a phone interview after the meeting. "I think we would end up paying a lot more for things." Hoffman's views were echoed by many, if not most,of the more than 600 residents at the event. "When I went in 1 had an open mind," Barbara Emhoff said. "(But)no one gave a really good reason why we should do it. They didn't have a good argument." The gated community of about 5,000 homes and 9,300 residents is located in an unincorporated part of Riverside County,just north of the intersection of Washington Street and Varner Road. A study commissioned by the homeowners association concluded that incorporation is financially feasible and proposed city boundaries stretching west from Sun City to Cook Street,north of Interstate 10. Speaking earlier this week,Ron Kennedy,a member of the homeowners association board,said incorporation would provide more local control over key services. "When we pay taxes to the county of Riverside,that money comes back to the county largely,"Kennedy said. The possibility of incorporation arose after the Palm Desert City Council voted last year to end its sphere of influence over the community—meaning the city would not consider annexing it at a later date. The meeting concluded with no vote or any further action on whether the community will continue to explore becoming a city. Community far from eager for cityhood 1 LAFCO 2006-89-4 Page 3 October 25, 2007 Palm Desert SOI Review Current SOI Boundaries: The current SOI includes roughly three separate areas - the southern sphere, Bermuda Dunes and Del Webb Palm Desert. The southern sphere area is by far the largest of the three areas at approximately 34 . 5 square miles. This sphere area was part of the initial sphere established for the City in 1974 . The southern sphere includes significant territory which is mountainous and the habitat of the Big Horn Sheep. The City wishes to retain this area as it represents the scenic backdrop for the City and is an important habitat area which the City wants to see preserved. The second major sphere area is located north of the City, across interstate 10. This is often referred to as the Del Webb community, but it also includes a commercial area west of Washington Street . This whole area comprises approximately 3 . 7 square miles . The third major area of the existing sphere is the Bermuda Dunes community, east of Washington Street and south of Interstate 10. Bermuda Dunes is a large community of approximately 3.2 square miles in size /which was added into Palm Desert' s sphere in 2000. / City Input: When staff first met with the City to discuss the her review, w sphere re ie staff asked the City specifically about two areas, the Del Webb community and Bermuda Dunes . LLAFCO was concerned that the City of Palm Desert had no real interest in ever annexing these areas. The City of Palm Desert in council study sessions discussed their future interest in both of these areas, and on April 12, 2007 the Palm Desert City Council directed City staff to request that LAFCO remove the Del Webb community from the City sphere.> The Council also directed City staff to conduct a fiscal feasibility study on the community of Bermuda Dunes . The fiscal study was completed several weeks ago and was taken to the City Council, which on October 11, 2007 voted to retain Bermuda Dunes within its sphere. However, the fiscal study showed that if Bermuda Dunes was annexed into Palm Desert, the City would expend on an annual basis, over $7, 000, 000 to provide municipal services over and above the revenue received from the property taxes collected within the Bermuda Dunes area. The Council expressed that it may be another 15-25 years before the City may be ready to look at annexation of Bermuda Dunes. Potential Amendments: Staff is recommending that the Commission leave the southern sphere areas as they are, and to retain the Bermuda Dunes community within the sphere of influence of the City. Staff is also recommending that the Del Webb community and areas existing north of Interstate 10 be removed from the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert. LAFCO 2006-89-4 Page 4 October 25, 2007 Palm Desert SOI Review COMMENTS FROM AFFECTED AGENCIES/INTERESTED PARTIES: No comments have been received to date. CONCLUSIONS: The City of Palm Desert and LAFCO staff have reviewed the existing City sphere of influence, and have determined that the southern sphere of influence is important to the City and to not make any sphere revisions in that area . The City has also determined that after preparing a fiscal review of the Bermuda Dunes community, that the City wishes to retain Bermuda Dunes within its sphere. Last the City has determined that it is not interested in any of the area north of Interstate 10 and to request LAFCO to remove those areas from Palm Desert' s sphere. RECCKaNDATION: It is recommended that the Commission: 1 . Find the revisions to the sphere of influence are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) , as it can be seen with certainty that the addition of territory to the City of Palm Desert' s SOI will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2 . Remove the Del Webb Palm Desert community and all existing sphere of influence areas north of Interstate 10 from the City of Palm Desert' s SOI, as depicted on the attached exhibit. 3. Adopt the attached Statement of Determinations. Respectfully submitted, Wayne M. Fowler Sr. Local Government Analyst8 l MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2007 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. Mayor Kelly convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Pro Tern Jean M. Benson Councilman Jim Ferguson arrived at 3:45 p.m. Councilmember Cindy Finerty Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Richard S. Kelly Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Lauri Aylaian, Acting ACM for Development Services Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety Patrick Conlon, Director of the Office of Energy Management Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Doug Van Gelder, Director of Information Systems Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs Travis Witten, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert Fire/Riverside Co. Fire Dept./CDF Frank Taylor, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriffs Dept. Grace L. Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A (CLOSED SESSION ITEMS) None MINUTES • j REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 said the life of the system was approximately 25 years and required no maintenance. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Award of the subject contract to Carlson Solar, Hemet, California, in the amount of $464,157.68; 2) a 10% contingency for the project in the amount of$46,415.70; 3) $800 for Interconnection Application fee for net-metering to Southern California Edison; 4) Director of Finance to allocate$510,373.38 for this work—no appropriation is necessary for the project, funds are available in Account No.400-4511-422-3911. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote. F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE 2007 CITYWIDE PALM TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL PROGRAM (CONTRACT NO.C26220, PROJECT NO. 931-07)(JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY). Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to Tree Rite, Bermuda Dunes, California, in the total amount of $78,421.50 (City: $68,336.75; Housing Authority: $10,084.75); 2) authorize the Director of Finance to set aside an additional 10% Contingency totaling $7,842.15 (City: $6,833.67; Housing Authority: $1,008.48); 3)authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate $10,084.75 of the total contract amount to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance Budget line items plus set aside $1,008.48 of the total contingency to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance Budget; 4) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement— funds for the City portion of the contract are available in General Fund and Assessment District Fund 200 accounts. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 5-0 vote. G. CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION'S(LAFCO)REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SPHERES OF INFLUENCE. Mr. Ortega stated LAFCO asked the City of Palm Desert to make known its future plans for retaining or removing the Bermuda Dunes and Del Webb Spheres of Influence. He said the City of La Quinta recently submitted an application to annex land in Bermuda Dunes, in Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence (SOI). Staff recommended that specific authority be given to conduct a feasibility study if Council decided to retain Bermuda Dunes. Responding to question, he clarified that LAFCO's request included three things, a decision on the two spheres of influence and to comment on La Quinta's application to enter Palm Desert's SOI at Bermuda Dunes, involving approximately 15 acres. Upon further question, Mr. Ortega replied he was seeking Council direction on LAFCO's request and that specifically with regards to Bermuda Dunes, staff recommended Council grant authority to 16 _ 1 `�. MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 staff to hire a consultant to see if the City was still interested in annexing Bermuda Dunes. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Officially inform LAFCO the City no longer desired to keep Sun City Del Webb within the City's Sphere of Influence; 2) retain Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence and conduct a Fiscal Impact Feasibility Study on Annexation of Bermuda Dunes SOI; 3) hold off on responding to the City of La Quinta's application and direct City Manager to meet with the La Quinta City Manager and return to Council with a specific recommendation. Motion was seconded by Finerty. Mayor Pro Tern Benson stated she wasn't interested in jumping over Washington Street or 1-10 Freeway, and it wouldn't do any good to do a study with regards to La Quinta's application. She felt the City had enough on its plate within its boundaries and preferred informing LAFCO the City wasn't interested in either SOI. Councilman Spiegel stated six or seven years ago, the residents of Bermuda Dunes requested Palm Desert annex their area, a survey was conducted and found that it would be very expensive financially, because Bermuda Dunes did not have curbs, gutters, or sewer. At that time, the City Council did not want to annex Bermuda Dunes. The matter came up again, and Mr. Ortega said he was interested in revisiting to see if it was still the case. He recalled stating at the time that if any other area was annexed within the City of Palm Desert, it should be by the vote of the people with their recommendation. His personal opinion was to not annex additional land unless the people wanted it, but figures and facts needed to be gathered before that could happen. . Mayor Kelly stated his position coincided with Mayor Pro Tern Benson in that the City had the Rancho Mirage boundarys to the west, the mountains to the south, a clear-cut boundary with 1-10 Freeway, and a logical boundary with Washington Street. He said a study was not necessary to show it would cost Palm Desert a lot of money, with no benefit or asset to the residents of Palm Desert. He said the City of La Quinta had been creeping up toward the 1-10 Freeway for more than 20 years and had taken up all the vacant property; all that remained was developed property with no curbs, gutters, or sewers. However, his basic reason was that Palm Desert already had nice boundaries established and had plenty of projects on the table to deal with. He requested the City Manager communicate with LAFCO that Palm Desert was not interested in any more annexations and was prepared to release the spheres of influence outside the City. Councilman Ferguson agreed with Councilman Spiegel that any annexation should be by the vote of the people and not only by five Councilmembers. He believed a Palm Desert address had a premium value, and it troubled him 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 that people with basic middle income wages could not afford to live in Palm Desert. He said homes built in the north sphere were promised to be affordable by developers, but they end up costing $700,000 to$800,000. He suspected that even a large portion of the City's staff could not afford to live in Palm Desert. His point was that he did not want to preclude it forever by saying he didn't want them in Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. Councilman Spiegel said La Quinta wants the Bermuda Dunes propertythat's adjacent to their City to build low-income housing. He said La Quinta was not asking the residents of Bermuda Dunes if they wanted low-income housing, they were just telling them that's what they intended to do. He thought it was unfair the City of La Quinta had been cherry-picking parts of Bermuda Dunes and believed they should take the whole thing or nothing at all. However, in the mean time, he didn't want it costing the City of Palm Desert anything. Mayor Kelly requested the motion be repeated for the record. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize: 1)Official notification to LAFCO that the City of Palm Desert has no interest in maintaining the Del Webb - Sun City- Palm Desert Sphere of Influence north of 1-10; 2) maintaining Bermuda Dunes within Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence for the time being and instructing the City Manager to have an updated cost assessment done for the City's potential annexation in the future; 3) no answer to the City of La Quinta question but instructing City Manager to meet with the La Quinta City Manager and return with a specific recommendation. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 3-2 vote, with Benson and Kelly voting NO. H. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES, EXTENDING THE TERM FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2006, TO JUNE 30, 2007 (CONTRACT NO. C24200). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the One-year Extension to the subject agreement with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services, Riverside, California, in an amount not to exceed $88,328 unless otherwise approved; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute same — funds are available in Account No. 110-4230-442-3090. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. 18 Vm�Y a , r> y 4z,yH "zs'7yr�c ,a A �,�s�? � " +LC'x 1a �`s n�» •RECiaV ,G17YCL¢RK-SOFFICE , PALM DESERT. CA 2001MAR 15 AH10 49 3 Asa �NOZICE'OFPRO iBSIT ARI IG+ �BEFORE�++ ,EXXECUTIUE OFFICER OF THE'; LOC�&AGENCX4FORMATION CIv 91vSMISSION .s�;° �OF+RTERSIDE'COUNTY ;, 1, a _ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEIYyptatla Rrotest Heanag will be:i-:hetd by the Exccuhve Officer of[he Local Agency t Formatio'Ca,O11r16aiaR ofRive'rside County dt`3650 Vme Sheelt Suite 110;ILvccstde,.Califomta,on Wednesday, '$ a '+ Aprtlt4�200�dt9 00 a.m.-Ito r cave written protest on the following propdssal:. r 1 �. LAFC0.2006114-0 Reorgamzahon Ito Include Annexation 84 to the-City of Indio and Concurrent ' . t 'T' " DetadimentCrom lLverstde Wastcfiesources Mnnsgement Distract Located as followix�Genc zity'locarted south'of Francts�Vay;asl of Adams�St.,worth of iitter3ate]0 aad:west of « e { s '' '^•. �, Tarr Rd'iSce Thomas Bros�Rrversrde County 2005 map bool.,pages 789 819 and 5410 Q°: at54 e"tiiyHcA�kx'� tttilrn .d 1 h I i.�:xi«" Q`« I�,z ,e \ t ti`t9 �wa•` t zj 1"""d '°4 r s tt �YPr}';°,•{rl f{m fi ,:,tt xi � + ..i, jUIP bb Wd r PAImT� s .. v a �` and i as lam, ti + x rat♦ ' CfOf t c'a�j cKk°+' m, .' . fx Yip Tw9 r Mvt t :` Desert r >1 .♦ y « SC �y,.i�Off .. A �P ¢Sawg,,,ns � •�'40 yp+• ' xy� +f+n w«x s�'� + 1 « .;� as{ � Comtmasron proceedings wue commenced by resotunon of fhcCtty of Indto i ,,'1'hcnorgantzabou+ts proposed,�to provtdc mumctpal scrvtres by the Crty of Indio TEe annezanoa nos spprovediuii)eci to the terms and condlho0a outlined 1n f:AFCO Resolution No 07-07 which is + '� 1'i a�fSYr available upon request througbahe LAFCO office � � oonei of ladd or registered voter wdhin;the territory may file a written protest against Ore proposal with the u:4r iEx,cunve.Officer of the,Co an sion at any fime between the dale of this notice and the conclusion of the protest +•'''j N.hearing an this proposal. Written protest must be submitted on-the official,protest form:available,from LAFCO. 'Protests most be delivered to the following address prior to the conclusion of hearing::,.. *. George a:epdtobs Executive Officer Local Agency Formanoa c6nurnnon. '3850 Vine Street,Suite;ll0 ` - RiversiA CA 92507 t t (951) 0631 +369 s LOCAL AGENCY F.O. III N COMMISSION OF RIVERSID 6 } Geor pin s Exec cer : March 13,2007 Local Agency Formation Commission•3850 Vine Street,Suite 110•Riverside,CA 92507 Phone(951)369-0631•Fax(951)369.8479 ) 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: RAMON A. DIAZ, CITY MANAGER FROM: PHILIP DRELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 SUBJECT: SUN CITY POLICE AND FIRE COSTS In the first draft of the RSG Sun City Fiscal Impact Study, police and fire costs seemed excessive. RSG was directed to go back to the sheriff and fire chief and reexamine their assumptions. As a result, projected costs were lowered significantly (see attached spreadsheet). Police costs were lowered from $786,470 to $733,824 in 1999 and from $1 ,889,958 to $1 ,084,192 in 2007. Fire costs were lowered from $1,201 ,500 to $758,673 in 1999 and from $1 ,596,391 to $1,179,267 in 2007. PHILIP DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm November 11, 1998 Via Fax and Overnight Mail NOV 12 1998 WAIMJNITY CEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Ray Diaz CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive. Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 REVISED SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT Dear Mr. Diaz: Attached is a revised Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report. Pursuant to my discussions this week with Phil Drell, the previous Fiscal Feasibility Report (transmitted to you on October 12, 1998) required minor modifications; the Transient Occupancy Tax needed to be changed from 10% to 9% and there were minor corrections to the Property Transfer Tax calculations which resulted in higher Property Transfer Taxes from the annexation of both Areas 1 and 2. Should you have any questions or require any further information, please give me a call. Sincerely, ROSE�NNOW SPE/�VACEK GROUP, INC. ` -- T ��1 u k" ---- Hitta Mosesman Associate DTM:Imi Enclosure cc: Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert? 541d�p _Mf: , 1p�F�,,pR�GpSplkw„r�ybiA,S�, S�j.JoN�nta Ana, CA 92705-3914 • Telephone 714.541.4385 I-ax 714.836.1748 San Dirg,, 760,967.6462 • F-Mail )\ddress: RSG1\'CCA@aol.com aol.com J a SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT November, 1998 Prepared for: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-5 10 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 4 SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ I A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION...............................................................................1 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 e. 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 Rosenow Spevacek Group,Ina i Sun C oVack Ivey Ranch Annexation November, 1998 Fiscal 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............................................................................................11 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/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Ratty R 5. Parks and Recreation............................................................................................I 6. Contingency..........................................................................................................13 7. Roads...........................................................................................................:........13 a. Capital Improvements.........................................................................:......13 8. Road Maintenance................................................................................................13 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....................................................18 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. iii Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study N SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT L 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 resu lts 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 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 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 November, 1998 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report pnlmds✓ddwebb/suniveyfearcpn N o AREA 2 0 S PRANCES WAY AREA 1 U W W Q >Q Q (Y } U 38LH 5T. (Y W r Z 0 O o 38TH AVE. °' 38TH AVE. b FRANK SINAT A DR. o I s N z O N ✓� 3 40TH AVE. COUNTRY CLUB DR. Z `' 0 H i ~ W P N W } W O (n 42ND AVE. z Y � O O O Q U FRED WARING DRIVE Map 1 City of Palm Desert SUN CITY / IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION ROSE NOW S PE V A C E K GROUP I NC. 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 I 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 1 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 1 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 November, 1998 2 Fiscal Feasibility Report pnlmtlNEeI web blsuniveyfearepn 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 Sheriffs 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. II. 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 Spevaeek Group, Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November, 1998 3 Fiscal Feasibility Report paImds✓dclw bb/suni.eyfenrepn J 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. FY2001-02 (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 1 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 Spevaeek Group, htc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November, 1998 4 Fiscal Feasibility Report ,.W,Jdd.Ob/sv w,fc pn 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 I 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 Croup,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November, 1998 5 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdsVdclwchbkvniveyfcarepn 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 Tax Estimated per Square Feet Square Footage AREA I Existing Recreation Center S82,185 N/A (FY 1996-97 dollars) Proposed Recreation Center $225 5,000 Retail Uses alone Washington/Varner Fast Food Restaurants(2) S300 4,800 Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800 Remaining Retail $225 493,400 Existing Retail between Varner Road& 110 Fast Food Restaurants(5) $300 12,000 Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800 Existing Retail on Washineton/Varner Gas Station $1,000 900 Fast Food Restaurant $300 2,400 AREA 1 Jack Ivey Ranch CountryClub S85 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). L Transient Occupancy Taxes: Upon annexation, the City would receive the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues. Currently, the City's Transient Occupancy Tax rate is 9%. 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 November, 1998 6 Fiscal Feasibility Report pa1mdsUddwcbb1 univcykarcyn 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 Controllers 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 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. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sim City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November, 1998 7 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdsJdelwebb/sunivpiearepn 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 Revenues 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 part of the 1% property tax within 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 Croup, Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November, 1998 8 Fiscal Feasibility Report palm dsVdehvebb/suniveyRarepn 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 Annecation November, 1998 9 Fiscal Feasibility Report ,.1.d,dddw6bA..w,fn1e n $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 1 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. Sheriff s Contract: Based on conversations with the Riverside County Sheriffs 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,lire. Suit City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexatiou November, 1998 10 Fiscal Feasibility Report pnlmds✓dc1wcbb1sunivcyfe=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. Roseuow Spevacek Group, 6rc. Suit City/Jack Ivey Ranch Aititevation November, 1998 1 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report pnlmdSUdelwebbisuniveytenmpm 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: el tax levied b the Count for street sweeping CSA No. 152 represents a pare y Y P 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 larger area which CSA 121. It is important to note that CSA No. 121 covers a lar g 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 Croup, Inc. Suit City/Jack Ivey Ranch Amravation November, 1998 12 Fiscal Feasibility Report pclmdsddelwebb/sunireyfenrepn 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 1 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. 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 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 1 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 1 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 November, 1998 13 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmds✓delwehb/suniveyfca¢pn IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The fiscal feasibility of annexing the Study Area (comprised of Areas 1 and 2) was evaluated by assessing the feasibility of Area 1 (Sun City) alone, as well as examining the feasibility of both Areas 1 and 2 (Jack Ivey Ranch). Sun Citv 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 1 would result in an overall cumulative surplus of approximately $6.0 million over a nine year time period under the first scenario (Exhibit 3), the City would experience shortfalls in years 1 and 2 of $279,000 and $83,000, respectively and a cumulative shortfall for three of the nine years. The total cumulative surplus to the City's General Fund would be $3.0 million over the nine year period, with annual shortfalls ranging from $150,000 to $413,000. The cumulative General Fund shortfalls would persist in years 1 through 6, and range from $387,000 to $826,000. The second scenario (Exhibit 4) results in a lower overall cumulative surplus of$5.1 million and a cumulative General Fund surplus of$2.0 million, with the same annual and cumulative shortfalls in years 1 through 3 overall, and in years 1 through 6 for the General Fund. 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 Spevaeek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Anneeation November, 1998 14 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdsddelwebblsuniVryfeompn 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 an overall cumulative surplus of$7.4 million over the term of the projections with an annual fiscal deficit of$156,000 in year 1 only and cumulative deficits in years 1 and 2 of $156,000 and $108,000, respectively. Exhibit 1 also shows a cumulative General Fund surplus of$4.1 million over the nine year period with annual 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 $71,000 to $311,000 under both of these scenarios. The second more conservative scenario results in a somewhat lower overall cumulative and cumulative General Fund surplus of $6.5 million and $3.3 million, respectively. 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 I 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 1-10 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 Rosenow Spevaeek Group, Inc. Suit City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation November, 1998 15 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdsddelwebb/suniveyfearepn 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 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 Quinta 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 comer of Washington Street and Country Club Drive. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Suit City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annecad n November, 1998 16 Fiscal Feasibility Report palmdsVdelwebb/sunivcyfwrepn 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 Y currentl 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 A/mevation November, 1998 17 Fiscal Feasibility Report pelmdsVdclwebb/s nivgfearcppn 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. Annexation Sun Ci( /Jack Ivey RanchA Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Y November, 1998 18 Fiscal Feasibility Report pxlmdsVdal webWsunlveyfearepn 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 Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 349.182 423.921 501,820 581665 667.222 754.260 843.850 935,797 1,081,715 Property Transfer Tax 57,584 58,735 57,002 58,142 59,305 60,491 61.469 61,989 63,229 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 111699 126.380 130,172 134.077 138,099 142,242 146.509 150,905 155,432 New Commercial 12,978 26.735 27537 89.140 91.815 108,002 111,242 641,944 1,204.387 Transient Occupancy Tax 164.915 166.594 _ 168.306 156,552 144.833 133,150 121.503 109,893 98.321 Subtotal 708,097 803104 885.576 1.022.316 1,102.013 1.198.884 1,285,313 1,901.266 2,603.822 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 191,941 224.645 257.350 290.055 322.759 355.464 387,930 419,682 45L434 Off-Highway License 79 _ 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 187 Subtotal 192,020 224.738 257456 290,174 322,892 355,1i11 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 59,447 66.149 72.852 79,506 86,014 92.521 ___ __ . _____ .— __.__-.__ _____._.—...__ _ ._ ._.__— Subtotal 47,242 55.477 63,769 72,122 80,536 89.013 97,496 I05,8G5_ 114.302 FIRE TAX Stmetural Fire Protection Tax 203.793 247,413 292,877 340,644 389,410 440,208 492,496 546,158 631.320 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 40-5,718 453,161 521,298 590,433 661,600 734,109 807,547 912.486 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 37J71 3,344 3.819 3.904 3.991 4,080 4,171 6.814 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,474,285 1,735.940 1.948,234 2,237,530 2,472.081 2,727,577 2,975,164 3,753,195 4.653,704 Interest Eaminas 0 0 0 7,116 14,286 20,688 28.093 61,157 100,482 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 38,901 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 3K929 351,476 403,961 459.471 515,094 571568 633,249 695.267 Interest Eamings 7,713 10.104 12,586 15,166 17.846 20,632 23,510 26,445 29,497 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,734,240 2,046.973 2.312.296 2.663,774 2,962.685 3.283,992 3.600,334 4,474,046 5.478,950 Rse.ma. I mores=tuteO#s Budget 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 Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL GENLRAL 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 24310 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 51.128 67,950 6 1,636 81.794 72,724 96,282 85.323 PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff Contract 733,824 770,515 809,041 849,493 891,968 936.566 983.394 I,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 _ 769,677 911,961 856,723 904,314 953,274 1,005.839 1,060,723 1.118,441 1,211.003 Subtotal 1.507,901 1,587.008 1,670,432 1,758.615 1,850,194 1.947.506 2.049372 2,156,416 2.300,769 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Net Costs 5.000 5.150 5305 5.464 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 9,104 10,637 12.229 13,880 15.592 17,357 19,153 21,014 Street Lighting 8,291 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 29,338 31,504 II PARKS&:RECREATION Landscaping/Median Maintenance " ` ` Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association • ` ' -Subtotal .._ 0 —0— __O- --._—� 0-0-0-0-0 CONTINGENCY 162.272 171.892 180,220 191,090 199,998 212.139 221,824 235.300 249,069 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,784,995 1,890,810 1.982,420 2,101,986 2,199,973 2.333.524 2.440,064 2.588.304 2,739,761 ROADS Capital Improvements --.-0 ---0 0 _ 0 0 0 __ 0__ 0 0 ROAD NIAINTENANCE Street Maintenance 74.772 77,015 79.325 81,705 84,156 86,681 89.281 91.960 94,719 Street Sweeping 6.142 6.327 6.516 6,712 6.913 7,121 7.334 7.554 71781 Traffic Signal Operation_/_Maimcnanc 14.832 15,277 15.735 16.207 16,694 17,194 17,710 18,241 18389 Contingency 9.575 9,862 10,158 10.462 10,776 11,100 11433 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 EXPENDIT TIRES 1,890316 1,999,290 2.094,154 2,217.073 2,318513 2,455,620 2.565,823 2,717,835 2,873. 778 REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) _ (156.076) 47.683 218,142 446,701 644.172 828,372 1.034.512 1,756.211 2,605,772 CUMULATI VES URPLUS/(DEFIC1T) (156,076) (108,393) 109.749 556,450 1,200,622 2.028.994 3,063.505 4,819,717 7,425,489 General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (31 70,71-0) (1547!-70) (34,186) 142.660 286,394 414,741 563.192 1,226,048 2,014.425 Cumulative General Fund (310.710) (465,580) (499,765) (357.105) (70,711) 344,030 907.222 2,133.270 4,147,695 _Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154.634 202,553 252.327 304.040 357,779 413:631 471320 530.163 591,347 Cumulative Road Fund 154,634 357,187 609,514 913.555 1,271.333 1,684.964 2,156,284 2.686,447 3,277,794 EXHIBIT 2 Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq. ft.comm.) 1999-99 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 349.182 423.921 501,820 583.665 667,222 754.260 843,850 935,797 1,056,071 Property Transfer Tax 57,584 58,735 57.002 58,142 59,305 60.491 61,469 61,989 63,229 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 122,699 126.380 130.172 134,077 138.099 142.242 146,509 150,905 155,431 New Commercial 12,978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91.815 108,002 111,242 374,734 653.936 Transient Occupancy Tax 164,915 166,594 168.306 156,552 144,833 133,150 121.503 109,893 98.321 Subtotal 708.097 803.104 885.576 1.022,316 1,102,013 1.198,884 1.285313 1,634.056 2,027,728 MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 191,941 224,645 257,350 290,055 322,759 355,464 387.930 419,682 451,434 Off-Highway License 79 _ 93 106 120 133 147 160. 173 187 __ Subtotal I92,0 0 224,738 257.456 290,174 322,892 355.611 388.090 419,855 451,621 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 OTHERREVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9,436 11,025 12,675 14.386 16,161 17,990 19,851 21,780 Miscellaneous Revenues __ 39338 46,041 52,744 59,441 66.149 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 292877 340,644 389,410 440.208 492,496 546,158 616,354 Prop A Fire Tax 116.064 158,305 160.284 180,654 _ _201,023 221.392 241.613 261,389 281.165 Subtotal 319.857 405,718 -- 453,161 521,298 590.433 661,600 734,109 807.547 897,519 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 1,474,285 1,735,940 1.948,234 2,237,530 2,472.081 2,727,577 1975,164 3,485,986 4,061,368 Imcrest Earnings 0 0 0 7,116 14,286 X688 28.093 47,128 70.322 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 38,901 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 162,582 195,993 231,262 268,471 307,704 349,050 392,358 437,207 494,393 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 1,734,240 2.046.973 2,312,296 2,663.774 2,962.685 3,283,992 3,600,334 4,192,808 4.856.454 Rsc.m, IIn W98 mbnea..e ewgmievwm EXHIBIT 2 0 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 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 18.097 19.931 21,752 23,532 25,312 Countv Tax Collection Charge 6,994 8.478 10.036 11,673 13,344 15.085 16,877 18,716 21.121 Subtotal 41,213 54,843 51.128 67,950 61.636 81,794 72.724 96,282 84,810 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 1,507,901 1.587,008 1,670.432 1,758,615 1,850,194 1,947,506 1049,372 2,156,416 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 _ 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 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 10,490 SubtWal -- - -- 63 15.907 17, 3---19,423 21,278 23,201 23.192 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 162,272 171,892 180,220 191,090 199,998 211139 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 Sweeping 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 16,207 16,694 17,194 17,710 19.241 18.789 Contingency 9,575 9,862 10,158 10,462 10,77 111,100 11,433 11.776 12.129 TOTAL ROAD FUND 105,321 109,480 111.735 115,087 118,539 122,096 125,758 129.531 131417 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1.890,316 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) (15&076) 47,683 218.142 446.701 644.172_ 828.372 1,034,512 1,474.973 2.001.132 M CUULATIVESURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 07(I56. 6)- (108,353) 109,749 556.450 1.200,622 2,028,994 3,063,505 4,538.479 6,539,610 General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (310,710) (154,870) (34.186) 142.660 286,394 414,741 563,192 944.811 1,409,784 Cumulative General Fund (310,710) (4657580) (499,765) (357,10)) (70.711) 344,030 907,222 1,852,032 3,2611817 Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154,634 202,553 252,327 304,040 357.778 413,631 471,320 530,163 591,347 Cum ulative Road Fund 154,634 357,187 609,514 913,555 1,271,333 1,684,964 2.156,284 2,686.447 3,277,794 RSG.l¢. I"WAS CmEneO.rh auJgq less camm 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 Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND R VFNU S - 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 55,668 56,781 55.009 56,109 57.232 58.376 59,544 60,735 61,949 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 _ 164,915 166.594 168,306 156,552 144.833 133,150 121,503 109,893 98.321 Subtotal 678,758 771,482 851,588 985,871 1,063,039 1,157,290 1,241,552 1,856,677 2557,189 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 License 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 175,811 213,691 252,995 293,797 336.129 380,037 425,567 472,767 521,684 Subtotal 175,811 21301 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425,567 472,767 521.684 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 66.507 73,015 79,522 86,030 Subtotal 40.795 48,772 56.806 64,898 71049 81,261 89.536 97,876 106,282 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Protection Tax 188,453 230,784 274,911 321.289 368.625 417.940 468,876 521,688 605.696 Prop A Fire Tax __ _ _ _ _100.224 141.396 142,783 _ 162.559 182,335 20_2.111 _ 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 3,0803,541__ 3.612 _3_684 3.758 3_833 6,460 Subtotal 2,960 3,019 3,080 3,541 3.612 3.684 3,758 3,833 6,460 TOTALOENERALFUND 1,352,815 1,606.714 1.811,507 2,093.063 2,319.662 2.566,962 2,807.580 3,582.672 4.478.685 Interest Earnings 0 0 0 762 7.506 13,615 20.633 53,649 92,712 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 22,988 26,172 29.356 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 89,684 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Turn 279098 318,650 3 back 140.394 172,308 206,010 241.580 60324 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 Earnings 6,671 8,982 11,383 13,877 16,469 19,164 21,964 24,877 27,905 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,577.302 1.880,258 2.135.987 2,471.201 2.759.487 3,069.974 3.376,917 4,246,656 5.245,788 Fsc.Inc., 11no5e DELMB2 va BuEan EXHIBIT 3 h 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 fear) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 2,130 107302 3,126 14,130 4,235 18236 5467 22,637 6,834 Insurance 19,740 202727 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 Counry Tar Collection Charge 6,458 _ 7,909 9,421 11,010 12,632 _14.322 16.067 17,877 20.756 Subtotal 37,622 50.012 47.164 62,626 57.276 75.947 67.964 90,047 80,291 PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff Contract 733,824 770,515 809.041 849,493 891,968 936.566 983394 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 2.033.741 2.140.503 2,284.175 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_ 52,703 54.284 _ 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62,930_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 9.281 8.530 _ 8.786 _ 9.049 9,321 9.600 9.888 10,185 _ 10.490 Subtotal 14,866 16.533 18,261 20,053 21,910 23.835 25.828 27,892 30,030 PARKS&RECREATION LandscapingMe_dian Maintenance _ _ _' '_' Assumed_to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTINGENCY 160,541 169.965 178,305 188,960 197,880 209,785 219,506 232,799 246.614 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.765,951 1.869,614 1,961.351 2,078.555 2,17602 2,307,636 2,414.565 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 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 8,597 8,855 9,121 9,394 Contingency 8,251 8.498 8,753 9,016 9,286 9,565 9,852 10,147 10.452 TOTAL ROAD FUND 90,757 91479 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 2,827.717 REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (279.405) (82.835) 78,352 293,474 480.659 657,126 853.984 1,574,242 2,418,072 CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (279,405) (362,240) (283,888) 9,586 490,245 1,147,371 2.001.355 3,575,597 5,993,669 General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (413.136) (262.900) (149,845) 15.270 150,487 272.941 413,649 1,075,526 1,858,647 Cumulative General Fund __ (413,136) (676,036) (825,881) (810.610) (660,123) (387,182) 26,466 1,101,993 2.960.640 Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) ___ 133.731 18 0065 228.196 278,204 330.171 384.185 _440.336 498.716 559,424 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 RBG.L¢., 1111"'DELWE82ih BW M EXHIBIT 4 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 REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 322,897 395A26 471.033 550A97 631,603 716,100 803,374 893.862 1,012,391 Property Transfer Tax 55,668 56,781 55,009 56.109 57,232 58,376 59,544 60,735 61,949 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Sales Tax 134.539 151.943 156,501 221.973 228,633 248,925 256,392 524.239 807,926 Existing Commercial 121,561 125.208 128,964 132,833 136,818 140,923 145,150 149,505 153,990 New Commercial IZ.978 26.735 27.537 89.140 91,815 108.002 111,242 374,734 653,936 Transient Occupancy Tax 164,915 166,594 168.306 156,552 144,833 133,150 121,503 109,893 98,321 Subtotal 678,758 771,482 851,588 985.871 1,063,039 1,157,290 L241,552 1,589,467 1.981,326 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 Licensc _ 68 82 _95 108 121 134 147 160 173 Subtotal 165,814 197,579 229,344 261,109 292,874 324,640 356,405 398.170 419,935 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 175,811 213,691 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425,567 472,767 521,684 OTHER REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 6,825 9,295 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 66,507 71015 79,522 86,030 Subtotal 40.795 48,772 56,806 64,898 73,049 81,261 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 Subtotal 288.677 372,186 417,694 4U,847 550.959 620,051 690,763 763,350 852,304 LICENSES Business License Tax 2,960 _ 3.019 3,080 3,541 _3,612 3.684 3,758 3,833 5,195 Subtotal 2,960 3.019 3.080 3,541 3.612 3,684 3,758 3,833 5,185 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.352,815 1,606,714 1,811.507 2,093,063 2,319.662 2.566.962 2,807,580 3,315,463 1886,715 Interest Earnings 0 0 0 762 7,506 13,615 20,633 39.620 62,576 ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 25,390 30,254 35,118 3%982 44,846 49.710 54,574 59,438 64,302 Section 2106 16,620 19,804 22,988 26,172 29,356 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 89,684 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 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 Earnings 6,671 8,982 11,383 13,877 16,469 19.164 21.964 24,877 27,905 TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,577,302 1.880.258 2.135.987 2,471.201 2,759,487 3,069,974 3.376,917 3,965.418 4.623,683 RSG.IM.. t111M8 DELMK. s U914e9 comm 1 e EXHIBIT 4 1 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 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 12,954 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 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 733,824 770,515 809,041 849.493 891.968 936,566 983.394 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 1.179.267 Subtotal 1,496,369 1,574,855 1,657.624 1,745,119 1.835,965 1,9327509 2,033,741 2,140.503 2.268365 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 52,703 54,284 55,912 57.590 59.317 61,097 62.930 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 Strect Lighting 8,281 8,530 8,786 9_049 _ 9.321 _ 9,600_ 9,888_ 10,185 10,490 Subtotal 14,866 16,533 18,261 20,053 21,910 23,835 25,828 27,892 30,030 PARKS&RECREATION LandscapinpJMcdian Maintenance • ' " Assumed to be Paid b y Master Homeowners'Association • " " Sub- total -_____-_.____-_-- __ _ y -- - Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTINGENCY 160,541 169,965 178305 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 2.176,682 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 MAINTENANCE Street Maintenance 69,271 71,350 73490 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 8,597 8,855 9,121 9,394 Contingency 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 2.279,829 2.412,848 2.522.933 2.672,414 2.809.766 REVENUE SURPLUSI(SHORTFALL) (279405) (82835) 78352 293474 480659 657126 853,984 1,293,005 1.813,916 CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (279.405) (361240) (283,888) 9,586 490,245 1.147,371 2,001,355 3.294.359 5,10$276 General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (413,136) (262,900) (149,845) 15,270 150,487 272,941 413,649 794,288 1,254.492 Cumulative General Fund (413,136) (676,036) (825.881) (810.610) (660,123) (387,182) 26,466 820,755 2,075,247 _ Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 133,731 180,065 228,196 278,204 330,171 384,185 440,336 498,716 559424 Cumulative Road Fund 133,731 313,796 541,993 820,196 1,150.368 1,534,553 1.974.888 2,473;604 3,033,029 Rse.41L.. +u1M8 n LW t;2, I a]gl-le6 wmm. RSG, INC . I'714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :36 No .O12 P .O2 EXHIBIT 1 Nine Year Revenue& EMenditure Summary l DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY &JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ((6M19jNV0) 19 8.99 1 1 y 2 S 2005-06 EMU- (Full Year(Pall Year)(Mull Year)(FWl Year)(Pull Year)(wall Year)(Full Year)(Full Year) (BuOdom) GRNKRALFUND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax 349.182 423,921 501;820 583,665 667.222 754260 843.850 935.797 1,091,715 rroperly Transfer Tax 6A04 6,532 3.755 3.830 3.907 3.98$ 4^5 4,146 4,229 PWWI Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Sales l ax 134,841 152,2.54 156.921 222" 228.973 249.275 256,753 791,820 135IL760 l rirling C'om nrrcial 121,863 125.S19 129.283 133,163 137.158 141.273 143,311 14Y,876 IS4,373 NewCmxmemal 17.978 26,733 27,337 89.140 91,815 IIA002 111,242 641.944 1,704,387 Translent Occupancy Tax ._ 174,2.19 176,104 178,006 166,446 154.925 143,444 132AM_ 120.603 109,245 Sub0,tal 665,406 759.551 841,142 97605 1.055,Y6Y 1,131,703 1,237.410 1.833, 'C6 2,554,688 MOTOR WMICI-K PI M:S Motor VOW*In-Lieu 191.941 224,645 257,350 290.055 322.759 355.464 397.930 419.682 451,434 Off-HighwoylAccm 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 _ 173 197 Subtotal _ -- ----- —_ 192,020 224.738 257.456 290.174 32ZM 3$5.611 388.090 419,855 451,621 rRANCIIISE PEES Gaq rdalric,'fralh,and Cable 1V MAW 243,632 294.927 327.802 372303 _ 418.479 466,076 514,491 564.659 Subtotal 203AN 243,632 294,927 327,802 3723U3 418,479 466,076 514,491--­SW,659 (AMER REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9.436 1 LMS 12,675 16196 16.161 17,W0 19,851 21.790 MlseKllacwous Remmuea _39338 46.041 52,744 59,447 66.149 72.852 79.506 86.014 92.521 Subtotal 47j42 53.477 6.0.769 72.122 80,536 Ii9,013 97.496 105,865 114,902 FIRE.TAX SUuclurol Fiat Ptolection Tax 203,793 247A13 29ZIM 140,644 389,410 440.208 492.496 546.159 631 120 Prop A Fire Tax... .............._.,_,. _. 116,064.., 158,305 MA284 190.654 201.023 221.392 241,613 261„149 281.165 Subtotal 319.957 405.M 453,161 521,Y98 590,433 661,60 _0 7.14,109 807,547 912,486 LICENSES aurdoms License Taz 32W 3.271 3,344 3.919 3.904 3,991 4,080 4,171 6,314 Suhautal 3200 3,271 3344 3,819 3,904 3,991 4,080 4,111 - - 6,814 TMALGENERAL FUND 1,431194 1.692,386 1.903.801 2,192,199 2,425.914 2.60.3% 2,927.261 3.705,034 4.604,570 InterC91110mimm 0 0 0 4.736 11.858 18,211 25.578 58,628 97,902 eN IAII FI1Niri Section 2105 29,403 34,413 39,423 44.433 49.443 54,452 59,426 64,290 69.154 Section 2106 19.247 W27 25.806 29.086 32,365 33,645 38901 42,085 45.269 Scaino2107 41.009 47,997 54,994 61.972 6059 75,947 82,884 89,668 96.452 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 Measure"A"R(TC local Tumbac8 162,582 195.993 231,262 26RA71 307,704 349.050 392358 437,207 484,393 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252.242 300929 351,476 403,961 458,471 515,094 573.568 633,249 695.267 101efeSt Efffn108a 7.713 10,104 12596 1S,166 17.846 20,632 23,510 26,445 29A97 'lUrALALLREVENVES 1,691„549 Z003A19 2,267,863 2.616.063 2,914,010 3,2.3413,1 3,549,917 4A23,357 5,427Z37 am.m,aaav om.am ewes+ RSG , INC . In:714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :36 No .012 P .03 EXHIBIT 1 Nine Year Revenue &Raendi= Sumrm>Lr± DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1998Ay 19994o MOM 2001-02 -03 2003-04 21)(14-05 2095-06 211116.07 (Full Year(F9u Year)(Pull Year)(Fuu Year)(Full V—)(Pull Your) (Full Year)(Full Year) (Dulldoul) CflNF.RAL COVERNMENI Administration 2,467 11.718 3509 15,703 409 19,976 5,953 24,485 7.350 Inswanco 21,000 4050 23.153 24.310 25.526 26.802 29,142 29,549 31,027 Animal Control 10,762 W96 14,430 16,264 18,097 19931 21,732 23,532 25.312 County Tax Collation C2ratgc_. . _. _ 6,984 6,478 10,036 11,673 13,344 15,085 16,877 19,716 21.634 Subtotal 41.213 54,843 "- 51.126 679St1 . .61.636 81.794 72,724 WM 85,323 PUBLIC SAFETY Shcriff Contract 713.824 770.515 909,041 849,493 891,%8 936.566 993.394 1.032,564 1,094,192 hil Booking rom 4.400 4,332 4,6601 4.809 4952 3.101 5,234 5,411 5,574 Fire Protection ." . __�9,677 81),%l 8S6,723 904,314 953.274 1,005,939 1.060,723 1.118.441 1,211,003 1.5079U1 )387.008 1.670.4.12 1,758.615 1,850.194 1,947506 2,049,372 2.156.416 2,300,769 COMMUNTlY 11HVNI..OPMISTIT Net Costs 5,000 $.130 5,305 3,464 sAn 5,796 5,970 6.149 6,334 Code CvmylianoeUDioor 52,703 $4,284 5$,912 37,390 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,818 66,762 subtotal"" 57.703 59,434 61217 0.053 64.945 66,893 62,900 70,967 73,096 PURI JC WORKS Administration 7.626 9.104 10,637 12,229 13,880 15592 17,337 19,153 21,014 Strmet lighting 8.281 8530 &786 9.049 9.32) 9,6f10 9,888 10,185 10,490 Subtotal '...... ............._. ..---.."15.907 17A33 10.423 21.278 _ 13.201 2S.192 27,243 29,338 31,104 t ' PARKS ds RECREATION ImdxetgrinWMcditm Muintmana • • • Assumed to be Paid by MaNci Homeowners'Association e Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 .0..." 0 CONI7NOIiblCY 162,272 171,992 180.220 191,090 199.9% 212.1.19 221.824 2-15.300 249.069 TOTALGENERALFVND 1.734.995 1.890,810 1.982,420 %101,986 2,199,973 2,333,524 2,440,064 2,588a04 2,739,761 ROAR C:apWlml,ravcmea4 0 ......---0 .. a.. .. ....... 0 .0U U 0 0 BOAnM IMrKNANCE ._ . StradMaimenanee 74.772 77.015 79.325 91.705 84,156 86,681 89,281 91,%0 94,719 Sitwt Sweeping 6,142 6,327 6.516 6.712 6.913 7,121 7.334 7554 7.781 3Ystlic Slltnal Opruation)Mainteaanc 14.932 15.277 15,735 16,207 16,694 17,194 17.710 13.241 19.799 Ci,titi _ _ agency �� � 9,$75"-79,862 10,158 10,462 10,776 11,1110 11,473 11,776 � 12,129 TOTAL ROAD FUND 105.321 109,490 111.735 115.097 lIU39 122,0% 125.752 129,531 133.417 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1.990.316 1.999,290 2,094,154 2.217,073 2,318,513 2,455.620 2,565,923 Z717.1135 2,973,179 REYENIfE SIIRPLIISASHOJOYALL) (198,767) 4,129 173,709 398.990. 595,499 779.714 994.094. 1.705.522_ 7,554.058 C(1MUI.ATPJE S11111'L(ISl(1)F3a3Cn7 (19&767) (194.638) (20,93n) 378,060 973557 1,752,271 2,736,365 4,441,887 6,995,946 General Fund SurLffshorthll) (153,402) , (198,424) (78,619) 94,949_237,719 365.093 SIZ775 1.175d59 19U2,711 CumulatNe(iarrcral Fund (353.402) (551.925) (6.30,444) (535,495) (297,176) ' 67,307 580,i4i .1,755,4413jiliJ52 _ Road Fund Surplud(Shortfall) 154,63A 202553 252.327 304.040 357,778 413,631 471120 530,16.4 591.347_ CuroulatNe ltoadhind 154,6.74 3.0,187 609,514 913,555 1,271,333 1,4F{4,9U4" 2.134.2114 "2.btW,44T" 3Z77.794 rtao.rro..aaaw aw.W�b e,ar,t RSG, INC . Tn:714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14138 No .012 P .06 EXHIBIT 2 Hine Year gevenue&E7<nenditurc SLmm= DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ( with, -[A-Cx,wy) l"11-99 1999.00 2000-01 2091-02 20U2-03 2003-04 2004-05 200.406 200"7 (Full Ymr) (Pull Year) (Foil Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Fall Year) (Haildoul) GKNHIIAL FUND WaNIIFA TAXES Property Tux 322,897 395,426 471,033 550,497 (,31.603 716,100 803374 993.962 1,037,803 ihr,Fcrty Trawler Tax 5,312 5.419 21619 Z672 Z725 7,780 Z835 2,892 2.9.50 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Sales lnx 133,703 1S1.091 155,614 221.060 227,692 247.955 233,394 790.420 1,357,31R &1:11mB Commercial 1265725 124.347 128.077 131,919 133,877 139,9S3 144.152 148.476 1.52,931 Now C.ommemial 1$978 M735 27,537 69,140 PI,81S 108.002 111,242 641.944 1,204.387 Transient Occupancy Tax __. ...— 174,239 176,104 179,006 166,446 154,925_ _„_143.444 M003 120,603 109,245 Subtotal 636,891 729.769 808.012 941.415 1,01T.6114 1,111,019 1,194,346 1,808.516 23U8,055 MOTOR VEHIC I J;M Motor VehideIn-Licu 165,745 197,497 229,249 261.001 292.753 324,505 356,257 388.009 419,761 ()RHighway Lkensc _----- 68 82 95 t08 . __ 121 134 147 — 160_ 173 Subtotal 165,914 197,TM 229,344 261,109 292,874 324,640 356,405 388,170 419,935 FRANCHISE ERkS (in.Electric,Trap,and Cdb1c TV 17.1.811 _._ 213.681 252.995 293.797 336,129 380,037 425.567 472,767 - 521,6114, Subtotal 173,911 213ARI 252,995 293,791 336,129 386.037 425,567 472,767-_ 521.694 U111F.R 1(L'VENUES Fines G rorleitums 6.925 81295 9.822 11.405 13.049 14.753 16,521 19,3,53 20.252 MiseollanomsRavonas 33,969 40.477 46,985 53.492 60,000 66,507 73,015_ _ 79,522 96,030 .i __.._T-._. . Subtotal 40.793 49.772 56,806 64,999 73,049 81.261 89,536 47.876 106,282 FINE TAX S6unturel Firc Protection Tex 188,453 230,7114 274.911 321.299 369,625 417.940 469,976 521,688 605.696 .FropAFge—tax _ _.__. 100.224 141,396 142,7113 162,539 182,333 202.111 221,887 241,663 261.439 Subtotal 288,677 372,180 417.694 483,847 550.959 670,051 690.763 763.350 967,135 LICENSES Rusiness No msc'I'ax 2,960 3,019 3,OR0 3,541 _ 3.612 3,694 3,758 _3.933 6.460 Subtotal 2,960 3A19 SA80 3.541 3,612 3,694 3.758 3,833 6.460 TOTAL GVNF.RAI.FVND 1,310,947 1,564,00) 1.767,930 2,048,607 2,274307 2,520.691 2.760,374 3,534,511 4.429.551 bwmnf.mpj 0 0 0 0 5.125 11.185 18,155 51,120 90.132 RQ1lR-EUNI75 , Section 2105 25,390 30254 35,118 39.992 44.546 49.710 54,574 59,439 64,302 Section 2106 16.620 19. 04 22,999 26,172 29356 32,540 35.724 39.909 42,092 Section2107 35,412 42,196 48NO 55.764 62,548 69,332 76,116 82,900 89.694 Section 2107-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 Measure"A"RC7C Local Tumback 140394 172,308 206,010 241,380 279.099 319.650 360,324 404,212 _ 450 008 TOTAL.ROAD FUNDS 217,817 264.563 313,097 363,499 415.849 47U.233 526,739 595,439 646AS7 Interest F8m108s 6,671 8,982 11383 13,877 16,469 19,164 21,964 24,877 27.905 TOTAL.ALL RF.VRNUF"9 1.535.435 3,937,545 2.092,410 2,423.993 2,711.751 3.021,273 3-127,233 4.195.967 5,t905 pact.toe.NS91 erlaxa6r.b aeon RSG , INC . TD:714-836-1748 AUG 25198 14 :39 No .012 P .07 13X1111.11T 2 Nine Year Revenue&E7rocnditurc Sununam DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY imm ,999.00 now 2001-M 2002.03 20034)6 2110045 2005AG 200"7 p,,uB veer) (Pop Veer) (Fug veer) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Poll Ycar) (Fall Veer) (Full Year) (Belmont) 5+4 N&RAL FUND E7CPEND177mFS GENERAL GOW%RNMINT Administration Z130 10.302 3.126 14.130 4,235 I8,236 5.467 22.637 6.834 Insummtx 19.740 20.727 21,763 22,952 23,994 21.194 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 ('amty Tax Collection Charge 6.459 7.909 _ 9,421 11.010 12.632 „ 14ri22.. _.,.16,067 17,g77 20,756 subtotal 37,622 50,012 47.164 62A26 57.276 7.5,947 67.964 90,047 80,291 PUBLIC SAFETY Shcril7Contrrat 733.924 770.513 809,041 949,493 591,968 936.566 983,394 1.032 564 1,094,192 Jail Ranking Fees 3.972 3,9gg 4,109 4,231 4.359 4,489 4,623 4,762 4,905 FireI-Mcction 758.673 SM352 844,476 891,395 939,639 991.455 1.045,723 1,103.177 1J95.077 Subotal _--� 1,496,369 1574.855 1,657,624 1,745,119 1,935,965 1.432.509 2.033,741 2,140,St19 2,294,175 LOMMUNIIY UrsvF.(.()PMENT Net Costa 3,950 3,966 4.084 4.207 4,333 4,463 4,597 4.735 4.877 l.ude Gnnpilaace O111ar . . 57,103 54,294 55,912 57.590 _ _59.317 _61,097 b2,970 64,g18 66,762 Subtoal 56553 58.249 59,997 61,797 63,651 6556U 67,127 69553 71,679 PUBLIC WORKS Adminimmion 6583 SM3 9.476 11,004 12590 MaM 15.940 17.708 19,540 Strcct Lighting 9.281 8,530 8.796 9.049 ...9;121..,__.._ 9.600 9,888 10,185 10.490 Subtotal ----- 14,866 16.333 19,261 20,053 21.910 23,835 25,lt2R 27,R92 30,030 PARM&RECREATION Lands.9ping/Median Maintauuttx • • • Assumed to bo Paid MYctcr biemeownem'Assoeiation • - Suhimal 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 WNTINOTNCY 160.541 169,965 178,30.5 198,960 197,990 209.785 219506 232.799 246.614 TOTAL.GENERAL FUND 1.765351 1.969.614 1.961,351 2.07055 2,176.692 2,307.636 2AI4.565 2560,794 2.712.749 ROADS imllm Nis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD MAIbDjiNANCx Stred Maintenance 69,271 71,350 73,490 75.695 77,%6 80,303 82.714 85.1y$ 97.751 sttectswcoping 5,819 5.993 6.173 6.359 6.t49 6.745 6,948 7.156 7,371 TralTc Bit na_I OPcruOon/Malmenmoe 7A 16 7.638 7,9611 9.104 _ 8,347 8597 9,855 0.121 9.394 Ctmdngertey sasl 8.499 8,753 9.016 9.296 9,565 %R52 M147 10,452 TOTAL ROAD FUND 90.757 93A79 96,284 99,172 102,147 105,212 108,368 111.619 114.968 JVfAL ALJ.F.MNOMIRIKS 1956707 1,961.093 2,057.635 2177,727 2.279,929 2.41Z,648 2.522933 2672,414 2,827.717 REVENUE SuxPLll3/(SMOI{'i'PAI.1.) _CSZI.273) (1ZS,54g) 34.775 7A8,256__.432r923_ 609,425 R04,2" 1,523,553 2,366,3S8 Ci1M1RATIVE SURPLUS4DGF7Cfl7 (321173) (446.821) (412.045) (163,789) 269,133 877,558 1.68i.858 3.205,411 1,571,769 _ General FutM surpiv&A4ort(04*,, . „,_(4SSLOOq (305,61]). (193,42I) (29,948) 102.751 224,240. _3(e1,966 1,024.837 I.906.934 C:mmtla8vc[lateral Fund (455,004) (760,617) (954,038) (983.9�881,234) (656,994) (293.031) 731.907 2.538.740 �.,Road.Fund SHFIp l(86ortfall) 133,T31 180,063 .228,196._27R,204 330,171 394,195 440,33E 496.T16 „_ 559,424_ CYttnoletivoRonalFund .. . ..133,731 313,796 54),993 920.196 1.150.368_.1,334,553 1.974,1188 2,473.604 3.033,029 Era,bc..VtY10 orLWrle+� . RSG , INC . In :714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :41 No .012 P . 10 EXHIBIT 3 Ninc Ycar Revenue&E=mditure SuaM= JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY (,W1T4hlQT- DAL 290 1 1 2000a11 2011I-02 2002A3 Z00344 2004-0S 2003416 2006-07 (Full Year) (Roil Year) (Puff Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (,,)di Year) (Poll Year) (Buibinut) rFNRMAI.RIINV Rf VeF.NM TAXRS Pruperty Tax 25,909 27,532 29.315 31.158 33,063 33,032 36,726 37,440 39,199 Pmperty'1tanefer7'ax 1.092 1.114 1,136 1,159 1.182 1.205 1,230 1,254 1.279 Parcel Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salps7ax 1.138 1.172 1,207 1.2" 1.281 019 1.359 1,400 1A42 Transient OccupancyTax,. 0 0 0 .,_0 _.. 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 28,038 29.818 31,658 33.560 35.526 37.557 39.315 40,094 40910 MWvJR VF111L9E FEES MmorVchidcln-Licu 26.195 27.149 28.101 29.053 30,006 30.958 31.673 31,673 31.673 Off-iliFhweyl_iwtso,,. . 11 11.____._ 12 12 12 13 13 13 _ 13 Subtotal 26,206 27,159 2R,112 29,065 30,018 30,971 31,6R6 31,686 31,686 171ANC311SE=— - Cos,lilectric,'Iiash,and Cable TV 28,059 29,951 31.932 34.005 36,174 311,442 40,509 41,724 _ 42.976 summed 28 _,059 29,951 31.932 34,OOS 16.174 )8,442 40.509 41,724 A2.976 07111 R RBVI'NUFS Fins&Forrckuras 1.079 1.140 1,204 1.270 1,137 1,407 IA69 - 1,499 1528 Miscellaneous Revcnum 5569 5,364 3.759 5,954 6.150 6,345 6,491 _ _ 6.491 6,491 Sublulxl 6.447 6.704 6,963 7,ZM 7,4117 7.752 7960 7,989 8.019 FIRF TAX Structural Fire protection Tax 15,061 16.067 17,108 18.183 19.295 20,444 21,433 21.849 22.286 Prop Firo'fax .__ 15,M0 16,908 17,502 1 k0 5 18,6R9 _ _19,42 . 19,727 19.727 19.721 Sublatol 30,901 37,976 34,609 36.279 37.983 39,726 41,159 41.376 42,013 [IMSES Business l.loane Tax 240 252 265 278 292 _ 306 322 339 _ 35S Subtotal 240 2.52 265 278 292 306 322 338 355 TOTALGENF.RALFUND 119.591 12601 133,540 140.411 147.490 154,754 160,950 163,407 365,958 tate«.t .c�^in� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD FUND, Section 2105 4.00 4,159 4,305 4,451 4.5% 4.742 4.8S2 4,852 4.952 Soction2106 2,627 2.722 2,818 4913 3,009 3,104 3,176 3,176 3,176 Sct46m 2107 5,597 3,800 6" 6,207 6.411 (014 6,767 6,767 6.767 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mossuro"A'Wit 14W Tumbock 22,189 23,683 25,252 26,891 28,606 30,400 32,034 32,995 33,985 TUFAL ROAD FUNDS 34A25 36.367 U,378 40.452 42.622 44,861 46.929 47,790 49,780 11114 st Lami ,c 1.043 1,122 1,204 1" 1177 1.469 1546 1,569 1592 '1"0'1'AL ALL REVENUES 133,359 164.349 173.122 192.162 191,479 201,0113 209125 212.766 216531 xea,ft.,some yunvv.a Mesta RSG , INC . ID-'714-836-1748 RUG 2S198 14 :41 No .012 P . 11 EXHIBIT 3 Nine Year RM=ue&Lno ityrc SLm_mm JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 199&99 1999410 2000A1 2001-02 2(102-03 200M4 M".q 2005-06 30064)7 (Full Year) (Null Year) (Full Vear) (Full Year) (Pull Year) (pan Year) (pull Year) (Fug Year) (Bulldoat) pa•rvaa�7,vI INn vxrvNDm tars 0MRAL GOVERNM(Nl' Administration 337 1,416 393 1,573 4.14 1.740 486 1,848 516 iosuraac4 1.260 1.323 1,389 1,459 1,532 1,602 I'm 1,773 i,g62 Animid Ctmuul 1,469 1.57.2 1,576 1,629 1.682 1.736 1,776 1.776 1.776 County'rax Collection cluaw $16.�351_„_-__ M6_..--_ 623 _661,.,. .., "1 735 749 764 Suhtotnl 3,582 4,812 3.939 5,264 4,309 5,164 4,68.4 6,146 4,917 PUR113C SAFETY ShmiD•(.*Mmwt 733,R74 770,515 909,041 949,493 991,969 936,566 993,394 1,032,564 1.084.192 Jail Dooking Fees 528 344 360 $77 594 612 630 649 669 Pare Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 - -- ._.... -. ..._ ._.. Su6totel 34.352 7)1.059 809,601 850,0T0 692,562 937,179 994,025 1,013,213 1,024,861 COMMUN17Y DrVELOPMENT Not Code 1.150 1.183 1.220 1.2S7 V94 1.333 1,373 1.414 1.457 Code Compliance nlFm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1,150 1.185 L220 1.257 1,294 1.33.3 073 1.414 1,457 ! PUBLIC WORKS Adminilrutilm 11041 1,100 1,162 1=5 1,290 1,358 1.417 1,445 1,474 Sacct Lighting ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1.041 1,100 1,162 1,225 1,290 1,3S9 1,417 1.445 1,474 i PARKS&RECREATION I.SmIxonpinLvIvIodiall Mainlawoe • ' • Assumed to bo Paid My Masser IlomwwnvW Aasodation Subtotal 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 L'ON7TNGENCY 74,012 77,916 11,592 95,794 89.946 94,565 99,150 104.222 109.271 TOTAL GFNKRAL FUND 814,137 855,971 891S09 943.619 999,402 1,040,219 1,090,650 1.146,441 IA01,980 ROADS Capital lmprmanernr _ 0 0._.._..._._ 0 -0. ROAD MAINTENANCE Serene Maintenance 5,500 5,663 5,935 6,010 6.191 076 068 C765 6,968 Su"t Sweeplu8 324 334 344 354 364 375 397 398 410 Trnffic Signnl_O Imn i1mmaimmunce __.7A16 T,639 7,869 8.104 . _ 8.347 8.597 _8,R55........_9,121 91394 Contingency 1,324 064 1,403 1.447 1,49D 1,535 1,581 1.628 1,677 TOTAL ROAD FUND 1064 ISA01 13,451 15,915 16,392 16.884 17.390 17.912 18,449 i TOTAL ALL ERPENDITURF.S 828 701 970.972 912,960 939.333 1,005,794 1,957,103 1.109.040 1.164.3S3 1.220.430 MGYRNilEgilMP]AISASHORTFAI.1.),.__-__J�73.342) (706,6p) (719,338) (777.371) .(814„315) (856r0211) . (696,716) (95),587) (1,004,099) CUMMATIVAMIRP1IM(DFiFICI'1) (673,342) (1,379,965) 12,119.803) (2.897,175) (3,711,48% (4.567,509) (5.466M) (6.417.812) (7.421810) General Fund Sar4dua/(8hor41dl), . . ._._(694_245) (T29,1 11) (7(3.969) 1a03,208) (641.922) (885.40) (929,700) . .(9R3,074) (1.036.072) C:umnlmire General Fund (694,245) (1,423,35(,) (2.187.325) (2,99D,S33) (3.R32_455L(4,717,920) (5,(47,620) (6.630,654) (7,666,676) _ Pod Fund 9mplur/Bhorlfagl 2U.904 22.487 24.f31 25,837 27,607 29,446 30.984 31,447._._-..a1,92_3_ CumulativeItnadrund 20.90443.391 67.522 93.358 120.966 150,411 191.396 212,R42 244,765 mu.am.annul uatlwa.ama. RSG, INC . T`714-836-1748 AUG 2F '98 14 :40 Nc .012 P .08 EX1 IBI T 4 Nine Year Re_venl!e & Pxprpdi= ,%ummwy (I,U ITfw. 7-1-1cV.1V?Y'�$ DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 eq. ft.Comm) 4tad of 566,640 1998.99 1999M 2000-01 2001-M 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06* 256-07 (Full Year) (Full Year) (Futi Your) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Poll Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Ruildout) GRERAL Ft�FVENU S TAXRS Pro9crtyTex 32ZB97 39$,426 471,033 350,497 631.603 716,100 903,374 893.862 1,012,391 Pnq"Torofbr Tax 5,312 5.419 21619 2,672 2,725 2.790 2,935 2.892 $950 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Salcx Tax 133,703 151MI 155.614 221,060 227,692 247.955 255.394 523,211 8(16.867 trbibT Comarrrciol 120.725 174.07 128.077 131,➢iP 135,877 139.953 144.152 148,476 152.931 New Commercial 12.978 26735 27.537 89.140 91.815 19002 111,242 374.734 633,936 'ihnslent Occupmey T"..._.,_ 174,239 , 176.104 179.006 166.446 154.925 143.444 132,003 120.6M 109.245 Subtolul _�--- 636,891 728,769 RDR,012 941A15 1.OI7,68A 3,111,018 1,194,346 1,541,.107 1.62,192 M(yl'Olt VEI11CIdi 1T;P$ Motor Vohicic la•Lfou 165,745 197,497 229.249 261.001 292,753 324,503 356,257 388,009 419,761 OIFI1__0hwoyld�eaxc 68 82 95 108 121 134 147 160 173 --.... .---... . .---- Sobtotnl 1G5,814 197579 229344 261.109 T9T.R74 324.640 336.405 386,170 419,035 FRANCHISE i•TdiS Got,likcVic.'ltash.andC&WcTV 175,R11 213.681 252.995 293.797336,129_ 390.037^_ 425567 472,767 521.694 Satuotal 375.811 21301 252,995 293,797 336.129 380.037 425,567 472,767 521.684 OTIJERREV04UES Fincx 8t ForlIciturex 6,923 8,295 9= )1,405 13.049 14,753 16,321 1U353 20,252 MixccHan ms Revenues 33,9((9 40,477 46.985 53,492 60.000 66 5(17 73.015 79522 96,030 Sublaml 40.795 49,772 56,806 64,898 73.049 81.261 89536 97,976 106,28R2 P1RF TAX Structural Fire Prutatitm Tax 188.453 230,794 274.911 321" 368,625 417,940 468.876 521.688 590,865 .PnLFirc Tax . 100,224 14096 . 142,7R,7 162559_ . 182335 202.111 221.997_ 241.663 M A39 Subtotal MA77 372.180 417.694 483,847 550,959 620.051 690.763 763.350 NS2,304 LICENSES HmincisLiccnscTax._ _._.__._.__ 2,960__.. .3,019 3,090 3,541 3,6.1I3,694 3.758 3,933 SIBS Sublaw — �_ 2966 3.019 3,080 3541 3.612 3,684 3,758 3,833 5,110 TOTALGENERALFIIND 1,310,947 ]564,m 1,761.9.30 2,048,607 Z274407 2520.691 2.760,374 3,267.302 3.837.591 )01WAL11millm 0 0 0 0 5.12S 11.1&5 18,155 37,092 59,996 WAD F(INRR Ration 210S 25390 30,254 35,118 39" 44.846 49.710 54.574 59.4311 64.302 Section 2106 16,620 1904 22.988 26,172 29356 32,540 35,724 38,908 42.092 Smlion 2107 35A 12 42,196 48,980 55,764 62549 69332 76,116 82,900 99,694 Soction 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mmure"A:RCPC lnrwl Tutohar* .. 140.M _ 172.308 206,010 741580 279,(M8 _ 318,00 360.324 404,212 450.408 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 217,817 264563 313,097 363A99 415,849 470,233 526,739 595,459 646.487 lnterrst Emmoinng 6.671 8.992 11.383 13,877 16,469 19.164 21.964 24.877 27,905 'M'AI.ALLRCVEN11ES 1.535.435 1,937,545 2,092,410 2,425,983 2.711,751 3,n21.273 3,327.233 3.914.729 4571,969 moo.nc.roa"mwai arrtbuooa+a, RSG, INC . T`714-836-1748 AUG 2r '98 14 :40 No .012 P.09 HX111SIT 4 Nine Year Revenue&F,Xtlenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.fL Comm) 1998A9 19" 20D0-01 2D01-02 2002-03 200344 2011"S 2(105.04 2006-07 (Full Ymr) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Fall Var) (FUI Year) (Fall Year) (Fell Year) (Ftdl Year) (OuiW,wt) f-KN_ERAI.FIND PYPE:NimnixEs GENERALODVRRNMENT Administration Z130 10,302 3,126 14,130 4,235 19.236 5,467 22,637 6,934 lnsarana 19,740 20,727 21,76.1 22A$2 23.994 25.194 26.453 27,776 29.163 Animal C atrol 9.293 11,074 12,854 10.635 16.05 18,195 19,976 21,7S6 23 S36 Caanly Taa Collcdion Chugs 6,_458 _ 7" 9.421 ,. .11,010 12.632 14,322 16.067 __ 17.977 20,248 Subtotal — 37,622 $0,012 47,164 62,626 57,276 75.947 67,9W 90,047 79,783 PUBLIC SAIT:IY ShoriffContrtw 713.824 M,515 809,041 849,493 891.968 936,566 9R3394 1,032,564 1.094,192 Jail Booking F= 3,972 3,989 4,108 4231 4,359 4,4119 4.671 4,762 4.(XA Firs Pmtwian _.., _ 7511,673 Bee,352 944,476 891393 939.6.39_ _991.455 1.045,723 1,103,177 1.179,267 Subtotal 1.496369 1,574.955 1.657,624 1.743,119 1.835,965 1,932,509 2,033,741 2,140,St13 2,26836$ M)WMUNf1Y DEVELOPMENT Net Costs 3.850 3.966 4,084 42D7 4,333 4,463 4597 4,735 4,877 CodcCmnnlionaOfficer _52,703 54,284 55.9)2 57,590 593)7 ,61,097 62.930 64,818 66,762 Subtotal *553 53.249 $9,997 61.797 63.651 65,560 67-127 69.553 71,639 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 6.585 8,003 9.476 11.004 IZ590 14,234 15.940 17,708 19,540 Street LiBhlinly _8,281 "30 8.786 9,049 9,321 _ 9.600 9,888 10.125 10.490 Subtotal 14.866 16533 1R,261 20. S3 21.910 23,8.35 25,82R 2Z892 30,030 PARKS&REC:REATION Lad"Ing/Median Mainwrma.,,_. • • • Amurncd to be Paid by Master llomeownera'Assarimion suhww 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 - 0 0 CONTINGENCY 160.541 169,965 17R305 199.960 197.990 209.785 219,506 232.799 244.992 TOTAL GENERAL FIND 1,765$51 3.g69.614 1.961,351 2,078,35S $176,692 2307,636 2,414.565 2,560.794 2,694,799 11t)AD Camel lm�r menu.._.. . 0.__ 0 ..._ _._ �.. . . _ _.. 0 0 ....._0 0 0 ROAD MAINTENANCE: Sheat MWnknanee 69,271 7050 73,490 75.695 77.966 $0.305 SZ714 M.195 87.751 Street Sweeping 5.819 5993 6.173 6.359 6549 6,745 6.949 7.156 7,371 Tratrc Siptal OPM MOM anWamwo 7,416 7,638 7.86R 8,104 8347 8,597 81955 9121 9.394 Contingency 82.51 8,498 8.753 %016 9,286 9565 4.852 10,147 10.452 TOTAL ROAM FUND 90,7$7 93.470 96aM 99.172 102,147 105,212 10,168 111.619 114,968 TOTA1,ALI,RXPRNDl7'UkF;g 1856707 1963093 2.037,6.3.5 2,177.727 2278.829 2Al2.848 2,522,933 2,672,414 2,8U9766 REVENUE SURPLUBf(RHOR'I'FAId.) (321273) _i12J5548) .. 34,773. 248,2$6 432,923 609.425 B04.299 _1.242316 03(.7622 (11MULA'1)VI;S6RPLUSADEFICIT) (321.273) (446.821) (412,04S) (163,799) 269,133 877558 1,681.858 2,924.17i 4,696376 Caneml Fund f) _ __General uaf(Fihurlfd0 455,004( ) (3.03,613) (193,421) (29,948) 1D2,751... . 22A,240 363,964 743,599 1.202,77R Cumuklive Creneml Fund 455,014 _� ) C160.617) (954,03g) C983.986Z..C881,�?4) (656,994).__5293.U3p._ 450,569 1.653347 Ilo6d FunO supluxr16b6Mfal1) 133,731 _180,065 220,196 27g�0{ 330.171 384,185 440336 498,716 559,424 Cumulative Read Fund 133,731 313,f96 541,993 820.196 1,150.369 1.534553 1,974,8R8._2,473,601... 3,033,009 am,•.e,Vtfs1 taueaur�glrra a.,.d I RSG , INC . T '714-836-1748 AUG 2`98 14 :36 No .012 P .02 EXHIBIT 1 e Nine Xea rttevenue& E7menditnrc S1mrn=DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY& JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY('(d1'�Ie,w) 1 &99 1 2 5 200"6 MM— (Ful Veer(Fall Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Fall Year)(Fall Year)(FuD Year) (Buildoul) GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES Property Tax .149.182 423,921 501;920 593,66S 667.222 754260 943,950 935.797 1,091,715 Property Tranarer Tax 6A04 6532 3.755 3.00 3.907 3,985 4.065 4.146 4,229 _ Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Salcs7'ax 134,841 152.M 156,821 222" 228,973 249.275 256,753 791.820 1359,760 Ecirlinx Cnrnmrrcinl 121,863 125.519 129.185 133,163 I37,r58 141.273 145,511 10,876 I S4.373 Nm Cnmarencial 17.978 26,733 27,537 89,140 91,815 108,007 111,242 641.944 1.104,387 Transient Oecupeacy Tax 174239 176,1" 173,006 166.446 154.925 143,444 132.=_ 120,603 109,745 Suw,tul 665,406 759SS1 841,142 976,985 1,055,767 1,151,703 1237.410 1,b57,ioS 2,554,688 MOTOR V1011C4.1s FTlt.+S Motor Vcbicic Inddeu 191.941 224,645 257,350 290,tISS 322.739 355.464 397,930 419.682 451.434 OM li8hwoylicense 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 187 Subtotal --' -- � -- I92,020 .224,738 237.456 •Y00,174 32ZR92 355,611 388.090 419,955 451,621 FRANCHISE•FEES Cas,TJeexric,'rnsh,and Coblo7'V 203XB 243,632 294.927 327,802 372303 _ 418A79 466,076 514,491_ _ 564.659 subtotal _ 203.869 243.632 294.927 327�72 b:l 418.479 466,076 514,491 544.659 O'I71RR REVENUES Fines&Forfeitures 7" 9.436 11,025 12,675 14396 16.161 17,990 19.951 21,780 Miwellwous Revenues 39339 46,041 52,744 59,447 66.149 72,852 79.506 86,D14 92.521 Subloial 47242 35.477 6.1.769 72.122 80,536 _ _' 89,0I7 97.496 103.865 I14302 F7Rr TAX SOO ml Fire PmwAon Tax 203,793 247,413 29ZB77 34DA44 389.410 440.208 492.496 S46,158 631320 Pnrp A Fire Tax 116.064 15005 160,284 190.654 201.023 22092 241,613 261,389 281.165 Subtotal 319,R57 405,718 453,161 527298 590,433 661,600 734,109 807547 42,486 UCENST4 Dudacm Licerne Tex 32M 3,271 3,344 3.819 39D4 3,991 4,01b0 4.171 6.814 SuhtoWl --- 3200 7271 3344 3,0I9 3,904 3,991 4,080 4,171 __ 6,814 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,431,194 1.692386 1.903.801 2,192,199 2,425,R34 2.680396 2.927261 3,705,034 4,604SM Intereg omi08a 0 0 0 4.7.16 11.053 19211 25,578 58.628 97,902 I(pAlf FI INDS Section 2105 29,403 34,413 39,423 44.433 49.443 ",452 59,426 64,290, 69.154 SoU)oa2106 19,747 22,527 25.806 29.086 32365 35,645 38901 42.095 45.269 Sctuian 2107 41.009 47,997 54,994 61.972 6059 75,947 92,984 89,668 96,452 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meuore"A"ROTC Lowl Tumback 162.592 195,993 231262 268.471 307,704 349,050 392.359 437,207 494,303 TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 232.242 300929 351,476 403,961 45R,471 $1S,094 573.569 633249 695,267 IpleresthamjORa 7,713 10,104 12.596 15,166 17.846 20,632 23,510 26,445 29,497 'JOTALALLREVENUFS 1.69049 Z003A19 2,267.863 2.616,063 2,914,010 3,21A333 3,549,917 4.423.357 5,427237 aao,m,sear o"eue.r m.qa RSG , INC . I`714-836-1748 AUG 25198 14 :36 Nc .012 P ,03 i J EXHIBIT I Nine Year Revenue & Laendi= SSIIMMp Y DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 19YA699 IM40 MAI 2001-02 MM 9=4 IW"S M5.06 2tR1607 (FPO Year(Fall Year)(Full Year)(Fall Year)(Foil Vmr)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year) (BullduuQ (WNFMAI.GOVERNMENT Adminisustion Z467 11.718 3-" 15.703 4,669 19,976 5,953 24.485 7.350 insumnco 21,M0 22,050 23.153 24.310 25 526 26.802 28.142 29,549 31,027 Animal Control 10,762 IZ596 14,430 16,264 15,097 . 19931 21.752 23532 25112 0mmiy Tao Cullcctioa Clwp.,. , ,,.__ 6,9R4 BA78_ 10,036 11,673 13,344 15,085 16,977 19.316 21,634 Subtotal 41.213 54,843 51.128 679S0 61,636 91,794 72,724 96.282 g3123 PUBI dC SAFETY Shcrill•Contract 733,824 770515 A09,041 R49,493 891,%8 936566 983,394 ).032,564 1,084.192 Jail Btmking Ftxa 4.400 4,332 4.668 4.809 4.952 5.101 3X4 5,411 - S 574 Fire Protccrion 769.677 811.961 856,723 904,314 953.274 1,005,839 1,060,723 1.119,441 1,211,003 -i30.911i 1387.008 1,670.412 1,758.61S lA50.194 1,947506 2.049172 2,156,416 2,300,769 C(IMMUNTIY 11F.W.MMIM, Not Coats 5,000 3.150 5,305 3,464 5,629 5,796 5,970 6.149 6134 Code Complianx Ullioor 52.703 34.Z84 $5.912 57,590 59,3I7 61,097 62,930 64,919 66,762 Subtolel 57.703 59,434 61.217 63.053 _64,945 66.99.1 69.900 70.967 73,096 PU"l X:WORKS Adminimarion 7.626 9.104 10,037 12,229 13,880 15592 17,357 19,153 21,014 Street Lighting 9.291 8530 8,786 9.049 __ 9121 9AW 9,838 t0,I g5 10A90 Subtotal ""'-................ ...._ -15,9U9�17,6.7 19,423 21.278_ 23.201 2S.192 27,245 29.339 31504 I ' PARKS dr.RECREATION I.andmping/Mudian Mainlmenee • • • AsmmcdtobeNd_�yMaster Homeownm'AssoeiNion ' '...!..-.. .. . ' Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 -0-- ..-.0 " - 0 0 CONTINOWCV 162,272 171,892 190,220 191,090 199.998 212,139 221,624 2.3530U 249.064 TOTALCENERALFUND 1.794,995 1,890.810 1.992,420 2,101,986 2,199,973 2,333,524 2,440,064 2,586104 2,739,761 ROAD Capita Imimtvcmmts 0 ....-...0 .. U.. .. ....-- 0 .U_._ U U tl 0 B{fAMA),NTMANCF. Stredmaintesmus: 74.772 77.015 79325 21.705 94,156 96.691 89,281 91,960 94,719 Sired Rwccfdng 6,142 6327 6,516 6.712 6.913 7,121 7,334 7554 7.781 Traffic tuation/Maintananc__.14,832 iS.277 15,7]S 16207.. 16,694 17,194 I7.710 182. 1 I8,799 Cmtbngeacy 9,575 ---4,862 10,159 10,462 10,776 II,I00 11,433 11,776 12,129 TOTAL,ROAD FIIND 105,321 106,490 111.735 115,097 118539 122,n96 125.759 129.531 133,417 TOTAL ALL EXPENDFFURES 1,890.316 9D 2,094,154 2,217.07.4 2318,513 2,455,620 2,565.8M 2.717.935 2,973,179 REVENUE SURPLIIMSHOWI•F'ALL) (198,767) 4,129 173,709 399.990. 595.499 779,714 984.094_ 1.705,522 _2,554.058 CUM111.ATIVI S6RI'LUSJ(5Et••1CIT) (198,767) (194.638) (20.030) 37R,060 973,557 1.7S2,271 I,736,365 4,441,U7 6,99S,946 Generwl Fund Sorl,lutl(Shortfall) (.153,402) , (t98,424) (78,619) 94,949 237,719 365,011] 512,775 1,175359 1,962711 � Cltmolelive(icrtud Fund (333.402)- (SSI,825) (6.10,444) (535,495) (297,776) 67.307 580,66 ,1,755,441 3,718,152 Road Fund Surplud(Shos7fall) 154,634 202553 252327 304,040 357.778_ 413.63) 471320 W.163_ 19l.347 CumnlativeRoadYund 154,634 30,187 609,514 90,555 127{333 1,6W4,964 2.156284 2.696.447 3-M.794 ttw.ne..rxtna o,ee,axr amwt RSG , INC . ?" '714-836-1748 AUG 2q '98 14 :38 No .012 P .06 EXHIBIT 2 NiLle Year Revenue& Expoditurc Summri w DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ( W)T4cW- Tkcr y, 19" 199940 200"1 200142 2OU243 2003-04 200,1-M 2005-06 200647 (Fug Year) (Poll Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (FOR Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Rulldoul) •BN 1 Al.FUND R(r,VFNI1F,li TAXES Property Tux 3221197 395,426 471,033 5.W,497 631.603 716,100 803,374 893.862 1,037,903 Property Treasfa'l'ax 5,312 $.09 2,619 2,672 2,725 2,780 2.835 2,892 2,950 ],steel lax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Sties 7'ax 133,703 151,081 133.614 221.060 227,692 247,955 255,394 790.420 1.357.31R tYB8a8Commersial 120725 124.347 128,077 131,919 133,W 139,953 144,IJ2 148.476 1.52,931 New C.mmmeroial IZ978 26.735 27,537 89.140 91.815 10&002 111.242 641.944 1.204.387 TransiWOccupancy Tax ,. ,.._...-174.239 176.104 179,006 166,446 154,925_ . 143A44 132.003 120,603 109.245 Subtotal 636,6i 728,769 90R,012 941.415 t,017.684 1,111,0151 1,194,346 1.80&516 2A8,055 MOTOR Vr.HIC11:F75t•B Maier Vehide In-Lieu 165,745 197.497 229.249 261.001 292.753 324,505 3-%257 398.009 419,761 OlrltiBhwayllccasc 68 82 95 108 121 134 147 _ 160 173 Subtow 165,814 197570 2N.344 261,109 292,874 324,640 356,405 38N,170 419,935 17RANCHISF F9I?3 Gas,Electric,Trash,sad Cp6 CTV 175.811 _._ 213.681 M995 293,797 336,129 .180,037 425,567 472,767 521.6R4 Rebtalal 175,911 213,681 252,995 293.797 336.129 380.037 425f67 472,767 521.654 V111ER REVENUES rines&rtw&iums 6.925 SAS 9.822 IIAOS 73.049 14.753 16,521 19353 20.252 Miswllan_cous Revenues 33,969 40,477 46,985 53.492- . . 60,000 66,507 73,015- _ 79.572 96,030 Subtotal 40.795 48.772 56.806 ,89 8 64 73,049 81.261 89.536 97,876 106,292 FIRE TAX Structural Fire Pmtection'1•ax ISBA53 230,784 274.911 321.289 369.625 417,940 469,976 $21.688 605.696 .1rM� ----- ---. .. 783.A F 1002M 141,396 12 ._162,559 182,135 202.111 221, 87 241,663 261.439 . . Subtotal 289.677 372.180 417.694 493,847 550,959 620,051 690.763 763.350 967,133 LICENSES Rusin"l4mm e'I'a_x 2,960 3,019 3,0110 3.541 3.612 3,684 3,758 3,833 6.460 Subtotal 2,96 _ 9 3,019 3,080 3.541 3,612 3.694 3,75R J,BJJ 6.460 TO'rAI.GF:Ni'llAl,FUNA 1,310,947 1,564,000 1,767,930 2.048.607 2274307 2.520.691 2.760.374 3,534,511 4.429.551 ]nL=!nERm4a2y 0 0 0 0 5.125 11.185 18.155 51,120 90.132 Roe>z Furrps , Section 2105 25390 30.254 35.118 39.982 44.846 49.710 54,574 39,438 64,302 Sec tt 2106 16.620 19,804 22,989 26,172 29,356 32,540 35.724 38.9U8 42,092 Section 2107 - 35,412 42.196 48980 55.764 62,543 69,332 76,116 82.900 89.684 SerAhm 21075 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 Measure"A"RCrC Local Ttwnhach 140394 172,308 2U6,010 241,580 279,098- 31&650 360.324 404,212_— 450.408 Tl1TAL ROAR FUNDS 217,817 264.563 313,097 363.499 415.849 470.233 526,739 585,459 646.487 Interest Famines 6,671 8,982 11383 13.877 16,469 19,164 21.964 24.877 27,905 TOTAL.ALL RF.VFNl1F.S 1.535.435 1,937,545 7,092,410 2,425,91) 2.711.751 3,021,273 3327,233 4.195,967 5,194,075 ace.6w,pas"t mvfier New RSG, INC . ?" '714-836-1748 AUG 2�- '98 14 :39 No .012 P.07 EA l BIT 2 *Tine Year Revenue &Expenditure summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1"11-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001.0 2002-W 200y.04 ZI "5 W05A6 2006407 (Iml Year) (Fug Year) (Full Veer) (Full Year) (Fug Ynr) (Fall Ymr) (Fodl Veer) (Full Veer) (Bngdout) GENERAL F11ND G:7IP&Nnmt m GENERAL GOVr%RNMI NT Administmtlon Z130 10,302 3.126 M.130 4233 18,236 5.467 22.637 6.834 Insurance 19.740 20.727 21,763 22,g32 23,994 2-1.194 26.453 27,776 29,165 Animal Control 9293 11,074 12.854 14,635 16,415 18,195 19,976 21.756 23.536 Coum7 Tax Onllemion Charge 6.459 7.909 _ 9.421 11,010 12.632 _.14.322„ _..,16,067 17,677 20,756 Bubtolel 37,622 50,012 47.164 62.626 57276 75,947 67.964 90,047 80.291 PUBLIC SAMMY Shcrifre4nracl 733.824 770.515 809,041 R49,493 993,968 936566 983,394 1.032.564 1,094,192 341 Hooking Fees 3.872 3,98R 4,108 4,231 4.358 4.489 4,623 4,762 4,905 Fire Protection 758.473 SM352 844,476 89095_939,639 991,455 1.D45,723 1,103.177 1.195.077 Subtotal - - 1,496,369 1.574.855 1.657,624 1.745.119 1,935,965 1.932.509 7.0.13,741 2,140503 22R4,175 C')MMUNI'IY DRVRI.(1PMENT Not Cons 3,850 3,%6 4,084 4207 4,31.3 4,463 4,597 4.735 4.877 _Cxnic Cmnpllaece Ofim _ 52,703 54.294 _ 55,912 57.590 ..._59a17.. _61,097 62,930 64,9IR 66,762 Sutgotel 56.553 58,249 .49.997 61.797 63,651 65,560 67,527 69,553 71,6.39 Pt IR1.IC W ORKS Adminirnation 6.593 8,W3 9.476 13,004 12,590 14,234 15,940 17.708 19,540 Street lighting 8_291 81530 8.786 93)49 .,,9721,.. ._ 9,600 9,888 10,185 IOA90 Subtotal 14,866 16.$33 18,261 20,053 21.910 23,835 25,929 27,992 30,030 PARKS&RECREATION lamduyping/MedianMainummuc ' ' ' AnumedtoboPabd Mas1cr11ame w.nm.Aerociation Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 CANTINC.T•.NCY 160,541 169,969 178.305 198,960 197,990 209.795 219.S06 732,799 246.614 TOTAL CF.NF.RAL FUND 1,765.951 1.969.614 1.961,351 2,07M55 2.176,682 2.307.636 2.414.565 2.560,794 2.712.749 ROAM Ct�ildlmpnwenKtlli, _. 0._ 0 . . ._......8...... . .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAn R4 IN3:K AK NI'1s Street Maintenance 69271 71.350 73,490 75.695 77,966 80}05 M714 85.195 87,751 Street Swooping 5,R19 5,993 6.173 6.359 6.549 Q745 6,948 7,156 7.371 TralTic3i nal tMoiklalnlen6nce 7.416 7.638 7,96R 9,104 _ 8,147 U97 81855 9.121 9394 Contingency 821 1 8.496 8,753 9,016 9,286 9.363 9,R52 10,147 10,452 TOTALROADFUND 90.737 93A79 96,284 99,172 102,147 105212 108,368 111.619 114.968 IWAI Al.l F7iPENDITIIRF.R 18567D7 1963093 2.057633 2,07.727 2278,929 2,412,B48 2,522,933 2,672,414 2,927.717 REVENUE SURPRAW(SHORTFALL) _(321,273) (125,$48) 34.775 248256___A72,923_ 60R,425 R04299 1,523,553 2.36059 CUMUTATPM-SURPLUSI(DLF1Crn (321273) (446,921) (412.045) (163,789) 269,133 877.558 1.681,858 1,20..mll 5171.769 C,eaeml Fund RarpltW(SborNall) ,,. _ ,.._(455,001) f305.6 p). (193,421) (29,948) 102.751 224,240_ _36.3,964 1,024,A37 I,R06,934 6mulatin C-mond Fmtd (455,0D4) (76D,617) (954,038) (983.9 61,234) (656,994) (293,031) 731,807 7.538.740 _ .. . .... .._ ....... ..... ......... RaadFundSarplusl(SLnA61q 133,731 180.065 . R28,19¢ 27RX4. 330,171. 384,195 440.33E 499.716 ,._,559.424 Crr _ mnlativo Road Fund IS],731 313,79E 541.993 82U.1% 1,150,]6R 1,534,557 1,974,R88 2,473,604 3,033,OZ9 aw.,n~atear ocrwaor e.ir . RSG , INC . 1`714-836-,1748 AUG 2q '98 14 :41 No .012 P. 10 EXHIBIT 3 Nine Year Revenue&E7cnenditurc Summary JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY61Tr 1998A9 1999-00 2000-01 211111-02 200243 200344 2084-0S 2005-06 2006-07 (RuD Year) (M Year) (Fall Year) (Fo0 Year) (Poll Year) (Full Year) (I-Vi Year) (Full Year) (Ouildaut) CEMMAI,FIIND I�LYKNIMS TAxFS Property Tax 25,909 27.532 29.315 31.158 33,063 35.032 36.726 37,440 39,189 PtepertyTmnsferTax 1,092 1.114 1,136 1.159 1,182 1.205 1,230 1.254 1.279 Parcel Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Sales Tax 1,138 1.172 1,207 1,244 1.281 019 1.359 1,400 1.442 Tranxicut Ovoupancy TTax.. 0, 0 ... 0. . ._0_.. 0 0 __-0__........ .. 0 0 Subrotal 29,038 29.818 31,658 33-60 35.526 37.557 39,315 40,094 40910 MOIX) .VERUCLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lice 26.195 27.148 28.101 29,053 30,006 30.958 31.673 31,673 31.673 II I1 . 12 12 12 _ 13 13 13 _ 13 Subtotal 26,206 27,159 28,112 29.065 30.019 3U,971 31,686 31.686 31,686 IR4ANCINSE FEES Cas,McLo ic,'1ia_sh,and Cable 7V 28,059 29,951 31.932 34.003 36,174 _311,442 40.509 41,724 _ 42,976 Subtotal 28,059 29.951 31,932 34,005 36,174 3 8.4 42 40,509 41,724 42,976 OTHER RP.VI:NIIPS Pines k Porreituroa 1,079 1.140 1,204 1 A70 1.337 1.407 1.469 1,499 1.528 Miscellaneous Pe um 5,369 :_ 3,564 .. .._ $,759 _ 5.954 .. 6.150 6,345 6,491 _ _ 6,491 6.491 Sublulul 6,447 6.704 6.963 7,224 7,497 7,752 7.96U 7,989 8,019 FIRE.TAX Structural Poe Ptatudion Tax 15,061 16,067 171108 18,183 19.295 20,444 21,433 21.849 =86 PropA Fire'fax ,.._ 15,840 16908 17.502 18,095 IS _ 19,282 19.727 19,727 19.727 Subtotal 30,901 32.976 .14,609 36.278 37.983 39.726 41.159 41.376 44013 IICFNSLS Business Llcatsc Tux 240 252 2,65 278 292 300 322 339 335 Subtotal 240 252 265 278 292 306 322 .138 355 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 119.991 126.861 133,540 140.411 147AR0 154,754 160.950 163,407 163,958 Mismit-resin} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 4,00 4,159 4305 4,451 4.5% 4.742 4,8.52 4,952 4,8S2 Soctioo2106 2.627 Z722 2.819 2.913 3,009 3,104 3,06 3.176 3,176 Reckon2107 5,597 S,800 6,004 6.207 6A11 6.614 6,767 6,767 6.767 Section 2107.S 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"RL"1'C L9ool Tumbock 22,189 23,683 25.252 26,991 28,606 30,400 32.014 32,995 33.985 TOTAL IMAD FUNDS 34.425 36367 39379 40,462 42,622 44.861 46.929 47.790 49,780 tnt mat •"mium 1.043 1.122 1,204 1,299 1,177 1.469 U46 1.569 1,592 '1"0TAL ALL REVENUES 155.359 164,349 173.122 IRZ162 191479 201,093 209325 212.760 216331 Ran.an,aaflaa.Ial'xll/IA 4,laY • RSG , INC . I'714-836-1748 RUG 25 '98 14 :41 No .012 P . 11 EXHIBIT 3 Nine Year Revenue&L=ditnre , sminW JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY I998A9 J99A00 2000.01 2991-02 2002-03 2403-04 W"S 2005-06 26064)7 (Fall Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Fun Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Buildoul) GENERAL 4RIND9.xPF.14DIT11 M GENERAL GOVERNML•N! Administmtitm 337 1,416 393 I'm 434 1.740 486 1,848 516 Insurance 1260 023 1,389 1.4$9 1,532 1,608 1,689 1,773 1,862 Animal Camlml IAA 1.522 1,576 1,629 102 11736 1.776 1.776 11776 Coonry Tax Colleaion(Imp 516._331,,...__ 596_..._ 623 _66I.... ... 701 735 749 764 Subtotal 3,582 4,812 3,934 S$64 4,309 5.794 4.683 6,146 4,917 PUBLIC SAFETY Shc[ifl comma 733.R74 770,515 8W,04I 949,493 891,968 936.566 983.394 1,0)2,560 1,084.192 Jail Booking Fees 529 544 $60 $77 594 612 630 649 669 Firc Pnuaxion 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 U Subtmal 734.352 771.039 909.601 850.070 892,562 9,17,172 9114.025 1,033,21.1 1,094,861 COMMUNITY DrVFLOPMENT Not cow 1.150 3,183 1220 1257 1.294 1.333 1.373 1.414 1.457 Code Complimm ORScor 0 0 0_ ._,.._ 0 _. 0 0 U 0 0 Subtotal ---�— 1,130 1,185 1.220 1,257 1.R94 1.333 1373 1,414 1.457 PUDLIC WORKS Adminisirathm 1.041 1,100 1.162 I= 1,290 11358 1,417 1.445 1,474 stew Lighting .,... 0 0 ., ._ . 622 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subotal 1.041 1,IU0 1,162 S U90 1,45R 1,417 1,445 1,474 PARKS&RECREATION landsc 'n ediwi Malnlcama • • • Assamed to bo ri1d 6y.MaM IlmmcnmeM'Aasnelation Suhtmnl 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 (, JNI'INGVNCy 74,012 77,816 9092 85,784 99.946 94 S65 99,150 104.272 109,271 1 914 137 95S 071 R97%9 943 619 999,402 1,040,219 1,000,650 1.146,441 1,201,980 TOTAL.GENERAL FUND , ROADS Capital Impravememe 0 0 0 .,0... 0 0 0 . . .. .. 0__-..... _._0 ROAM MAINTENANCE. Shoot Maintunnmx; 5,500 5,665 5,935 6,010 6.191 076 068 6,765 6.968 SOect Sweoplog 324 334 344 354 364 375 397 398 410 •1'fi1Rc5i8naI0L=mitmlMaintmacc __.TAM 7.639 7,868 8,104, 8,347 8.597 8,R55 9.121 9,394 ComIflwry 1,324 1,364 1,405 1,447 1,490 1.535 1.591 1.628 1,677 TOTAL ROAD FUND 14.5M 15,001 13,451 15.915 16,392 16.884 17.390 17.912 16.449 TOTAL ALLEXPF.NDITURIN 1428701 27IX972 912,960 959,533 1005,794 1057103 1.108.040 1.164.353 1.220.430 REVRNIIRSIIkI'1.11S/(SHOIMAI.I.). _____f673342 6,629) (739,838) (777.371) .(914,315) (8.56,020) (R98,7)6) (951,587) (1,004,099) (11MUI.ATIW%BURPI.IISJ(DEFIrM (673,342) (1,379,965) (2.119,803) (2,897,175) (3,711,411% (4,567,509) (5,466XS) (6.417.812) (7,42010) (General Fund Surldaa/(ShorNaU), - .-.._.(694_243) (729,110 (763,969) (803,208) (841=) (885,4(4) (92C.71m) . .(9R3.934) (1.66.022) C:umalalrvc Cmwal rmM (694,243) (IOM,356) (2,197,325) (2.990,533) (3.ID2.4551(4,?I7,970) (5,647,620) (4.630.654) (7,666.676) __.RvaJ Fw3d RurylaM(Rho47talA 20,904 22.48Y T4,131 25,$37 _27,607 29,446 30,984 31,M7 j Cumulative Rand lend 20.90443.391 67,522 93.150 120,966 150,411 181,396 212,842 244,765 f nw. .MM mows ousew • RSG, INC . 7.714-836-1748 AUG 2`98 14 :40 No .012 P .08 EXI 11131T 4 Nine Year Revenue& BxlcndiWMSLmm= (Ipr((4-,ji TACUAy) DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(assumes 250,000 sq._ft. Comm) Ant►tnd612 -W0.drb 199&99 1999-00 200114J] 2MI-02 2D02-03 2003-04 2004-05 20M-06 2006-07 (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Fall Your) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Ruildout) Gj,;NFRAL UND RRYFNIIEC TAXFS Property Tax 32LS97 395,426 471,033 3$OA97 631.603 716,100 903,374 $93.862 1,012.391 NupcAy Transfer Tax 5312 5A19 2,619 Z672 2,725 2.780 2,835 2,892 2.950 Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 Sales Tax 133,703 15101 155.614 221,060 227,692 247.955 255394 523,211 906,867 Er Urlrx Camn,rrcl a l 120.725 1 Z4.347 128.077 131,010 135.877 139,953 144,152 148,476 152.931 New Commercial 12.078 26,735 27,537 89.140 91.815 111$002 111,242 374.734 633.936 Wonsical Occupancy TM_., 174,239 176.104 179,006 166,446 154925 143.444 132,003 120,60.3 1U9245 Subtotal 636,891 729,769 909,012 041.41$ 1A17,684 1,111,010 1,194,346 I s41.307 662,192 M(7l'Olt V8u1CLr ITS.S Motor VWdcic In-Liou 165.743 197A97 220.249 261.001 292,733 324,505 .156.257 388,OD9 419,761 O1FI1sbwayl.ltxnsc __..,_ 68____..92 . ._.___,95___ _ 108 121 134 147 _ 160 173 Subtotal 165.814 197379 229344 261.109 292,874 324.640 356.405—388.170 419.931 FRANCHISE TT.f S .Gas.Electric.7>• ah.and Cable I V _ 175,R11 213.681 252,995 293,797 __336,129_ 380.037_. 425.567 472,767 521.694 Subtoal 175,811 213,6R1 252,995 29.1,70 336,129 31t0.037 42SS67 472,767 521.694 OTHER REVENUES Fins&Forfciturcr 6,825 9293 9,11122 11.405 13.049 14,753 16,521 11t,353 20,252 Miscellaneous Revenues _ 3.109 40.477 46.995 53,492_ 60,000 _ 66,507 _ 73.015 79.522 86,030 Subtotal 40.795 40,772 56,806 64,898 731.E 81.261 99536 97,976 1D6.292 FIItN'I'AX Structural rim Prutcctioa Tax 189,453 230,794 274.911 321,299 368,625 417,940 468,876 521,680 590,865 PnT A Firc'faK .. _ . 100,274 141396 142,7R,3 16%559., . 132335 202.111 221,997 241.66,3 261.439 Subtotal 298.677 3725'96 417.694 493.8W 550,959 620,051 69D,763 763,350 952,304 LICk44SE.4 HusinctsLiccnsc Tax _,.,..._.___._.__..,. 2,9603,019 3,090 3,541 3,612 .____3.684 3.758 3,833 5,185 Sub64al $%6 3,019 3,0R0 3,541 3.612 3,684 3,759 3,833 5,185 TOTA1.GENERALFUND 1,310,947 1564,000 1,767,9.N1 2,048.607 2,274.307 7.520.691 2.760,374 3.267,302 3,637,581 INs1a41)r91IIl0&5 0 0 0 0 5,12$ 11,185 18.155 37,092 39,996 YSIADlRINMi Swlkm 2105 25,390 30,254 35,119 39,982 44.846 49.710 54.574 59,438 64.302 - Section 2106 1020 19.804 22.988 26.172 29356 32,540 35,724 39,908 42.092 Section 2107 35A 12 4Z.196 49,980 55,764 62,$49 69332 7M 16 SZ900 99,694 Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mmure"A:RC'l'C Inxxd Ttunhack ......._. 140394 . 172,308 206.010 241590 279,099 318,6.50 360.324 404,212 450,408 TOTAL.ROAD FUNDS 217,817 254563 313.097 363,499 415.849 470,233 526.739 595,459 646.497 Infere,0.P,8I0ip8s 6.671 8,992 11,393 13,1177 16,469 19,164 I1,964 24.877 27,905 TOTAL.ALL REVENI I&ti 1.535A35 1,937,545 2,092,410 2,425,983 2,711,751 3.021,27.1 3,327.233 3914,729 4,571969 am,mc,►riar PrawEm+M aly++,amm • RSG , INC . 1- -714-836-1748 AUG 2`98 14 :40 No .012 P .09 F.'X1111i1T 4 Ninc Year Revenue&EXnenditarc SIljnarRr DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq. iG Comm) 1998.99 199940 200041 MI-02 2002-03 2003.04 20D0.0S W.16- ; 2006-07 (Full Year) (Fog Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Oundml) GENF,RAI.FUND EXpkNDI'IVILB GENERAL 00WRNMIN T Administration 2,130 ID,302 3.126 14.130 4,235 13.236 5,467 A637 6,934 Insurance 19,740 20,727 21,763 22,852 23,994 25.194 26.453 27,776 29,163 Animal Cumrol 9.293 11,074 12,854 14A33 10,415 18,195 t9,976 21,756 23,136 (:nuns Tys Cogcdiau Charp __-_ 6.4S8 _ 7,909 9.421 I1.010 12.632 14,322 16,067_ _ 17.877 20" Subtotal 37,622 30,012 47.164 62,626 57,276 75,947 67.964 90,047 79,763 PUBLIC SAIMTY Shcrilf'Contrao 733.824 770,515 909,041 949,493 891.968 936,566 983394 1,032.564 1.094,192 Jail Doeldag Fees 3,872 3,9R8 4,108 401 4,359 4,409 4,673 4,762 4,9(A Fir;Protcctim+ _-. _ 758,673 800352 944,476 991395 939,6.39, _99),455 1.045,723 1.103.177 ).179,267 Subwral 1.496.369 1,574.855 3.657,624 1.745.119 1,835,965 1,932,509 2A33,741 2A6.563 2,269,365 (XIMMUNnY DEVELOPM124T Net Costs 3.850 3,966 4,084 4.207 4333 4,463 4.597 4,733 4,877 Code Compliance Officer ... _52,703 S4.284 $5.912 57,590 59,317_ 61,077 62.930 . ..64,8 8 66,762 Subtotal 56,553 59y19 $9,997 61,797 63.651 65,560 67,527 69.SS3 71.09 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 6.585 8.003 9.476 11.004 IZ590 14,234 15.940 17.709 19.540 Sus;tli8htm)y._ .. 8,2R1 U30 8.786 9,049 _ 9,321 9.600 9,888 10,185 10.490 Subtotal 14.866 16,533 IR,261 20,053 2I,910 23,635 25,R29 27.892 30,030 PARKS R,RECREATIGN LmdtcapiuVM;dim,M■imcnancc • • • A.mumed to be Pall by MasterllomeowneW Axwrcimiun ........_.._... .. _. .___....,__.... ... ._.. SubWWI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTINGM4CY 160.541 169,965 178,305 1R8.960 197.980 209.795 219,506 232,799 244.992 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,76.5,951 1.869.6I4 1.96051 2,078,535 2,176.682 2307,636 2.414.565 2,56Q.794 2,694,799 R0AIJS ROAD MAINTENANC : Street Mdinkmmx 69,271 71,350 73,490 75.695 77.966 R0305 BZ714 R5,195 87,751 Stroa Swccping 5.819 5" 6.173 6358 6349 6.745 6.948 7.156 7,371 TraRm SiBNI QPwadw✓Maidbnmroa 7,416 7,639 _ ?,MR_-_-_--.8.104 _- 8347 8,597 8,235_ __ 9.121 9394 (:ontiagmry 8,2.51 8,498 8.753 9,016 9,286 9,565 9.852 10,t4T 10,452 Tal'AI.ROAD FUND 90,757 93.479 962M 99.172 102,t47 105,212 ]O8,3M 111.619 114,969 TOTAL ALI,RXI.3:N0IT1IRF:8 1856707 1963093 2,0576.1i 2.177.727 2.279.029 2AI2.048 2,=933 2,672414 2509766 REVENUE SIIRP1.lIR/(BHOR'I'FAl.ld (321,273) _1.122&148) .. 34,775....-248.256 432,923 W3.425 904.299 12 231R___.1.762,203 (:11M(II,A•IIVI:SUI4•LUSI(DPF1crn (321.273) (446.821) (412,045) (163,789) 269,133 877.558 1,681,858 2.924,173 4,6116,376 --._._ . Cctlernl FLnd B wptuWehon6lq _,_____ (455,004) (305,613) (193,421) (29,948 f02,TS1. _ _224 240 363.964 743,599 1.202.778 Cumuhdiv;(icn;ml Fund (45S•0) (760.617) (954,038) (983,986) ._.(gg1,234) (656,99q) (j93.031) AS0,569 1.653,347 Ilodd Fund b'eroluar;6benfall)_ . 133,731 _180,U65 220,196 278,204 330.17) . 384,185 440,336 496.716 _ 559,424 Cumulalir;Road Fund 133,731 313.796 541.993 920.196 1,150368 1.534,553 1,974,RM 2,47.1,604 3,033029 am,w.,riaw turwarr ua.w•u.0 ' RSG , INC. I' 714-836-1748 AUG 2"q8 14 :37 No .012 P .04 EXHIBIT 5 Nine Yew*Revenue &Eaenditure SLtmmlLry ( 44'I151"W-) DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY&JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUD (Aasume9 2b0,000 sq.0.mmm.) mc4-eRd at w6wov,-(4. 1 98-99 2ON41 2MI-02 7A -03 20D3-04 20114.OS 200.5-06 2 (Full Year(Full Year)(Full Yaar)(Full Year)(Fall Year)(Full Vmr)(Full Year)(I MI Year) (Rulldout) C. 'NERA -WNU It -V :NIL .a TAXES ftwnrTax 349.182 423.921 591,820 593.565 667222 754.260 943.950 9.15,797 1,056,071 19operq Tmnsfcr Tax 6.404 032 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 Rulcr Tax 134,641 152,254 156,921 222,303 229.973 249.275 256,753 524,611 808109 zxualm commercial 121,863 )25,519 129,285 133,163 137.158 141.273 /45,511 149.876 154,373 Nm C'aa=Tad 12,978 26,735 27.537 89,140 91,815 109,,002 111.242 374,734 653,9.36 Transicnt Occupancy_Tax _..__. ,._. 174.239 176.104 178,006 166.446 154.925 143,444 132.003 120.603 109.245 _ RuMold • 665,006 759,531 A41,142 976,9R5 1,053,767 1,151,703 1,237,410 1,585,896 1,978,593 MOTOR V13111CL F=- Molor Vehicle ln-1kv 191.941 224,645 297,350 290.033 322,7S9 355.404 387.93U 419.692 451,434 Off-llighw7y License 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 197 192,020 274,736 257,436 290,174 322,R92 755,611 7RR,09D 419,1155 451,621 NRAN(;HISIi FIOiS (ins,l0aetrie.'1'rob,and(:aWo IV 203.90 243.632 254.927 327.802 372.303 _418,479 466,076 514.491 564,6S9 Subtotal 203.869 243.632 294.927 327AM 372303 418A79 466.076 514.491 564,659 OTHER REVEMIES rinee&rerfdtrtrex 7,904 9.436 11,02$ 12,675 14.396 16,161 17.990 19,831 21.780 Misecllarmous Revenues 39338 46,041 52.744 39,447 66.149 72,852 79MO 86.014 92,521 _..._ .. Subtotol -�--�--^ -- 47,242 SS,477 63,769 72,122 RO,S36 89,013 97,496 IOS,R65 114,3(12 FIRE TAX %tntauml fire Pmlecticn Tax 203.793 247.413 292,877 W."il 399.410 440208 492A96 m6.158 6W6354 Prop A Pirc7bx..__—.... _..__. 116.064 159,305 „160.284 180,6M 201,023 221392 241,613 26089 281,165 SvMotal - 719,I1SJ 405,718 4531161 521,298 S9D,433 661,600 734,109 807,547 997,519 LICENSES Rumor I Wmsc Tax 3.200 3,271 3,344 _ _3.819 3,904 3.991 4.080 4.171 5339 320U 7271 -3344 � 3,819 3,904 3,991 4,080 4.171 5,539 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,431,594 1,692,386 1,903,1101 2.192,199 2,425,R34 2,690,396 2,927,261 3,437,R2.4 4,017,133 1pt11s'Ot.Famines 0 0 0 4.736 11.858 111211 25.578 44.600 67,742 ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 29,403 3013 39A23 44.433 49.443 54A52 59.426 64,290 69,154 Section 2106 19247 22.527 25,806 29,086 32,365 35,645 38,901 42,085 45,M Section2107 41,009 47.997 54.984 61.972 6&959 75.947 82,884 99,669 96,452 Scutum 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure"A"MAC Local Turnback 162.592 19S."ll 231.262 268471 307,704 349,050 392358 437.207 494.393 TOTAL.ROAD FUNDS 252242 300.929 351,476 403,961 459,471 315,094 573—W 633,249 693.267 rn 11F.mim.e 7.713 10.104 12.596 15,166 17.846 20,632 23.510 26A45 29.497 TOTAL AM.RF.VFNIJFS 1.691.549 2,003,419 2267,963 2,616,063 2,914.010 3234.333 3.549,917 4.142,119 4,SD4,740 atr:.br..eretaa a,a.rrt a.M+w..wn 1 RSG, INC . I`714-836-1748 RUG 2F '98 14 :38 No .012 P .05 EXHIBITS Nine Year Revenue& Enenditure Summary DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY&JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Asswms 25o,000 sq.1L comm.) 1"11.99 199940 200"1 2001-02 2003-03 20" 2(b4-0S 20U5-06 0607 (Full Year(Pan Year)(Full Year)(Poll Year)(Pull Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(bull Year) (Dulldowo CPNSHAI.RIND EXPP.NDITIIRPA GENERALGOVERNM M Adminktrathm 2,467 11,718 3,509 13,703 4.669 19.976 5;953 24.455 7,35D Insumnw 21,(R10 22.050 23,153 24.310 25,526 26.802 28,142 29.549 31,027 Animal Coutrol 10.762 12,396 14.430 16.264 18,097 1%931 21,752 23,532 2$.312 QNnly Tax Cadlectilm Charge 6.994 8.473 10,036 11,673 13.344 15.085 16,1177 18,716 21,121 Subtotal 41,213 54.843 51,128 67.956 -61,636 81.794 72.724 96.282 14.316 PURIAC SAMW Sh"UrContraol 733,924 770,315 $09,041 849,493 891,968 936,566 983,394 1,032,564 1,094,192 Jail Ronkingfws 4.400 4,532 4,668 4,808 4,952 5,101 5.254 5,411 5,574 Pile Protcclion 769A77 811,961 856,723 904.314 953,274 1.MA39 1.060,723 1,119,441 1,195,2M Suhlnlal 1,507,901 I,SST,OOR 1,670,4.32 1,75R,6I5 1,830,194 1,947506 2,049,372 2,156,4)6 2,285,049 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Net Coals 5.000 5.150 5,305 5,464 5,629 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,3,M Code Compliance 0lRocr 52,703 54.294 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,818 66,762 Subtotal $7,703 59,434 61.217 6.1,033 64.945 (A893 68.900 70.967 73.096 PUH1.1C WORKS Adminiauation 7.626 9,104 10.637 12.M 13,890 15,592 17.357 19,153 21,014 Street Uoting R.2B1 U30 8,786 9,049 9,321 9,600 912811 10.185 10,49U Submial 13,907 17,6'!3 19,423 21.279 23,201 25,192 27,245 29.338 31.504 PARKS&RF(:RE471019 landreaping/MalianMninieluarce _...,.._.____ • • • Anumcdtobo Paid byMrotcrHomcownrn_ 'Anwiation Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONTTNGENCY 162.272 171.892 190.220 191.090 199,998 21Z139 221.924 235300 247,446 TOTAI.GENERALPUND 1,784,995 1,390,910 1,992,420 2,101,996 $199,973 2,333,524 2,440.064 2%R,304 Z721,905 ROADS Capital Improvcmcnte..._........ .0 0 . 0 . .. 0_--' 0 0 0 0 ... . 0 ROAD MAINTENANCE Stnet Mamtemnee 74,772 77,015 79.325 111,705 94,156 96,6R1 R9,2g1 91,960 94,719 sucat Swecping 6.142 027 6,516 6.712 C913 7,121 7334 7.554 7.781 Irtil6o Signal OpemtionlMeintcnene 14,932 15,277 _ .15,735 16.207 LN694 17,194 17,710 18,241 18.799 CPntinBcnt,y 9,575 9,862 16,158 10*4 10.776 11,10D 11.433 11.776 , 12.129 TOTAL ROAD FUND 105321 108.490 111,735 115.097 118.539 122.096 125.759 129.531 133.417 TOTAI.AMEXPENDITURES 1,890316 1,999.290 2.094.154 2,117,073 2318,513 2,455.620 2,56.S,92.7 2,717.g35 2.855.322 REVENVESIIRPL(1S/(Sl10RTFALL)., . (198.767) 4,129 173.709 393.990 595.498 778,714 994,094 1.424,2114 1,949,418 aml11.ATMS g11RP1.lIS/(DPmM, (19$767) (194,63R) (20.930) 37g,060 973,557 1,752.271 2,736365 4,160,6.50 6.110,068 __ .. (:enenl FuM 8ar�lr�botiraR�_•_.(353,402) 198,424)_.,178.619) ,. .94.949 237,719 . ,_365,083.,. 512,775 894,122 1,356,071 Cumulalivc(ionendFund. (353,402)•_ (551,F5) (630.444) (535,495)_...g2 7,776) 67307 580.091 1,474.203 ZR32,274 Road Fund Surptua/(811nrlta8) I54,w 161:553 252327 304,046' 357,778 413,6.31 _ 471,320 530,163 591347 (,lumulmivc Road Fund - 154.634 _ 357,187 669,04 913,355...1�71,373 1,61i4,964 2,156,2JW 2,686,447 7,2T7,794 aa0.nc..vmw mrnd.r pMpraxwnm The e& RECEIVED GROUP NOV - 3 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT 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: 1. 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. nee o�ti Ptd M tt al�� R ra V P .►- CFO 8860 Lawrence Welk Drive, Escondido, CA 92026 (760) 749-3000 • Fox (760) 749-6182 JACK IVEY RANCH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 74560 Varw Rued Telephone 76=43-0445 Thareand Pelme,CA 92276 Fax 76M430445 October 2, 1998 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Attention: Philip Drell Dear Mr. Drell: This letter will serve as our official request to include Ivey Ranch Golf and Country Club in any annexation proceedings that will be taken on the north side of Highway 1-10 and Varner Road. Our address is 74-580 Varner Road, Thousand Palms, CA 92276. As you are probably aware, our community has shown an interest in becoming part of Palm Desert since approximately 1990 and we would be very happy to be a part of your city. Our Board of Directors has appointed Carl P. Hilgenfeldt to represent Ivey Ranch Homeowners in this matter. His address for mailing is P. O. Box 38, Thousand Palms, CA 92276 - Phone Number 760/343-3672. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, JACK IVEY RANCH HOA QBOF4BEK, President �i0ME0W� INCORPORATED NOYJK0 21,1980 a F CAu4�Q�\P L