Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAFCO: GeneralI RESOLUTION NO. 03-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RELATING TO ANNEXATION NO. 37 - PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT (LAFCO 2002-374) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Palm Desert, California, as. follows: 1. The County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert are the agencies whose area of responsibility for service would be affected by Annexation No. 37 - Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest Country Club to the City of Palm Desert. 2. Representatives of each of the affected agencies have met and negotiated the following exchange of property tax revenue to become effective for tax purposes beginning July 1 of the subsequent calendar year following the date of annexation of the area described as "Annexation No. 37 - Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest Country Club, located east of Monterey Avenue, north of Country Club Drive, south of Frank Sinatra Drive, and west of Portola Avenue." a. The City of Palm Desert shall assume the service responsibility for the suppression and prevention of structural fires in areas to be annexed and for such service assumption shall receive 100% of that portion of the property tax revenue generated within the territory to be annexed that is presently collected by the County of Riverside as a structural fire protection tax. b. The City of Palm Desert shall assume the service responsibility for the provision of library services and for such service assumption shall receive 100% of that portion of the property tax revenue generated within the territory to be annexed that is presently collected by the County of Riverside for provision of library services. C. The City of Palm Desert shall assume the responsibility for all other general municipal services to the _area to be annexed as are required by law or presently provided throughout the City, and for such service assumption shall receive 25% of that portion of the property tax revenue generated within the territory to be annexed under the ad valorem tax rate established by RESOLUTION NO. 03-103 Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California, that represents the County of Riverside's share of such property tax revenue. d. The County Auditor shall convert the above -established percentage figures into actual dollar figures and thereafter allocate such property tax revenue in accordance with the provisions of Section 95, et. sea., of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert hereby agrees to the above -recited exchange of property tax revenue. 4. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to each affected agency, to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission, and to the Auditor of the County of Riverside pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, held this 25th day of September, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, KELLY, SPIEGEL, and BENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: FERGUSON ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA r. CITY OF PALM DESERT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Annexation No. 37-Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest Country Clubs (LAFCO 2002-37-4) Updated Fiscal Impact Analysis SUBMITTED BY: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager DATE: September 25, 2003 CONTENTS: 1. Annexation No. 37 Property Tax Distribution Sheet (December 17, 2002) 2. Annexation No. 37 Updated Fiscal Impact Analysis (July 28, 2003) 3. Sabby Jonathan, CPA Fiscal Impact Analysis (October 7, 2002) Recommendation 1. Upon reviewing a revised fiscal analysis, provide direction to staff on how to proceed with Annexation No. 37-Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest Country Clubs (LAFCO 2002-37-4) Executive Summary On February 13, 2003, the Palm Desert City Council approved Resolution No. 03-16 supporting a property tax exchange with the County of Riverside for Annexation No. 37-Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest Country Clubs (LAFCO 2002-37-4). However, the County and the City have yet to concur on an acceptable master property tax agreement. A property tax sharing agreement was recently reached between the County and the City for Annexation No. 36-The Crest (LAFCO 2002-27-4). This agreement had the City receiving an ERAF adjusted general tax percentage and additional revenues from structure fire protection/library services levies. A five year fiscal impact analysis for Annexation No. 37 was initiated, incorporating this funding structure, resulting in a deficit of approximately $1,000,000 over five years. This item is now before the City Council for their consideration and direction. Discussion On September 12, 2002, the Palm Desert City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-1111 rescinding the Master Property Tax Agreement (MPTA) that was previously utilized by the County and City for annexations. Since this time, City staff has met on several occasions with Riverside County executive personnel to discuss the proposed annexation of Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest Country Clubs in the City of Palm Desert. The Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) mandates that a property tax revenue sharing agreement be formulated between the County and the City, if they are to further consider this annexation proposal. The City aspired to enter into negotiations with the County for a higher property tax revenue return, above the standard 7% distribution, to adequately provide the necessary public services resulting from the annexed area and the addition of 3,000 individuals to the City's population. However, both parties have disagreed on the amount of the County general purpose tax allocation the City's standard twenty- five percent share is derived from. G:ICITYMGRISTEPHEN ARYANIWORD DATAWNNEXATION 37 FISCAL ANALYSIS AGENDA REPORT.DOC Staff Report- Annexation No. 37 September 26, 2003 Page 2 of 2 The City was in close contact with County officials to resolve this difference for several months, but both parties have yet to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement. The County asserts that a lower general tax allocation is necessary to account for a monetary shift to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). ERAF is a mechanism, enacted in July of 1992 by the State Legislature, to shift local tax revenues from cities, counties, and special districts to a state fund. ERAF funds have been used by the State to help school and community college districts meet minimum funding requirements. The original fiscal impact analysis of this annexation did not account for revenues derived from the County free library tax and it assumed a County general rate, which the County asserts is no longer applicable because of the ERAF adjustment. The City Council recently approved Annexation No. 36- The Crest, in which the County agreed to provide the City additional property tax allocations related to structure fire protection and library services to offset the ERAF adjustment. Without these additional levies, the City would receive approximately 3.47% versus 10.70% of the property tax distribution for the Palm Desert Greens/Suncrest annexation. Staff has prepared an updated fiscal impact analysis, incorporating these potential tax allocations; to discern what economic impacts would be placed on the City with this proposed financial structure. The analysis revealed that the ERAF property tax reduction results in acquiring additional City expenditures, for the proposed annexation area, than the additional revenues generated can support. Under this arrangement, the proposed annexation leads to the City experiencing a fiscal deficit of approximately $1,000,000 over five years. This item is now before the City Council for their consideration and direction. Approved By: . - &a 0 F Carlos L. Ortegov City Manager * By Minute Motion: 1) Approved the annexation; 2) directed staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution implementing said action and forward it to the County (Res No. 03-103). 4-0 (Ferguson ABSENT). Reviewed By: Paul Gibson Director of Finance CITY COUNC,/ L ACTION: APPROVED + RECEIVED MEETI l AYES: NOES:-1112 ABSENT: ABSTAIN:, VERIFIED Original BY: on File i DENIED OTHER -- City Clerk's Office G.ICITYMGRISTEPHEN ARYANIWORD DATAXANNEXATION 37 FISCAL ANALYSIS AGENDA REPORT.DOC N 3 @ U) z D 3 n n m CD CD a v m W CD O O < O t1 N N v CD D`D v �m w � 3 a CD D 4 -4 m o, m y b m ru. ni o cu N x y � W W wv w wZZ A , D D CD woca WI-4 IM 0 rnv CO OpAAAA��?A��AW Cl W00000ODC"00W -�OADOOADOADOADOACI��CA11 W O00 C)aw0 O NtnA1aA W N-.(Ttp�� _OOOCn���00 .. CO N V O Cr W L" CA M W A W mccc000ccc000M<mrnpcOmm��_>o���0O<mOn- 0pv =ciiDozzmmivvv=�M-zommmM cnvO DmMKKKmrn-A=mr`'��p-i�rn<: � z O O -I m �O�c>D��DDrn-UD �-mCl)-m 0;oo<cD D zz- no(J>A�OCc-;--O . O m Q°m��zOcCl) M �� D mm<ooD 0K)X O0ZWC00r, Z� Zn0m Dn�m n cnrn-im� v vD 0 DOG) Lo cn DD 3 m�Zm0 -0i0 C m X -4 A m n DSO N X N a 0 N O O w 0 N 00 0 N O O _O O O O O O O W O O O O� p -,. ' 'l O.ODA000 O Ov—W Co N O W O O4 W 0 W A DO O ENO W 0000-40)-4N)C)4 CD A,p-&OtoOp m:3-0 O W 00CoD 000 Ch00) A-IO W 0OD 400nONOOOAOA NNC) cn00O AO0OOOa)wOApN00000 D CDO OOCO 4 p W Op S O N W y OAp 0p M J_t f'M n m Z I J V V N O W co o n n n 0 0 0 c cq v_ m rn O n fD Q Q 07 T C x o n o m 3 rn n to cD o 0A n 0 x 0-9 • • W 0 O O W O O v 00 N a m V W v V V - -� O O O N a OD � W V V V • • W O O C W V OD -th. N a M� W V v V • • • •k V OD A.- V E-Mr-ONEW-11M.' O O_ O O O 14V N � OVD OD O Cli W V W V V iZ A* to m to 0 a 0 C n n n 000 _ 0 c rnrn-n 2 `V Cr (D CD �` T C 70 o Q cu Q N D n xx O Q D p OD n x fl D p' O � 0 Q O O O O O - O W 00 .p ICA) Js O % 00 Vn W V CIOCo. ti► 0 V Ol. W 4A O W W O V Ob .p 4 0� ;o cVa Ca cn O� Is V N 40 V O A A w O O O O O W o� 10 CWn A W V OD O O O O O W N O O I ON OD � N 000 W V 010 O O O O O Cn CW OD N. %O NO OD 10 c W V • - O O ODD NO 0- OD 10 W V OODD O a �> 3 -n m® VJ v rn-n Z m Ro m y M Z � n M y O i M 0-1 Zx M n Z CA C -n 0o m 0 M a r H y V - pcc0m ...i n n 0 rn 'vm I w z 0 O O rn O ZOO < r A D�nn�rn DZZ�mn mrn -n r- Z Z � -i -a M= Oy Z c rn n y re �, < M 5 m v V< 5- a < 2 rn z y Z Y y H� Z vmimpm Z C z x> m mC v Z xx x X y m � Do -Nn .'n < ; H rn -� C O m rn m y m� M m rn m m o z T D D c v m n =' 0 rn D x- x m m Z 70 c C x m m m< y N N O< m m CA c m m Z C z O m N - y c x C m m y X Z x < -V rn z m Z m �v 0 c Q N N W� � N� V O p N C y O• �I � Cn OD 1— N p 4 A O ICA) ?O z" O N N W �- N O M C O► O p 00 Ol -< o r- D' ca -64� 64 fA O► 3R► � �'`► ► E,q C i0 C o` 0 % 'o 0 `O p 0 .- CA Nf V V' �JA 0` V V OD A N N W IA 0 00 Cn O V V A V W N o W N oo N � 0% Oo O N o�o o _ oo I p N �O V a l 00 W N ch Ui W W KaW V co V oN 69 N N 0` '64 N � i {yq y W p 1.0 : O W p `� �o ON O 'O W A A V O tJ "0A W0 Cn W V a V vCA ON A W O 000 O N W O� (VO (A �O O� 00 N {�/!► 4A -64 Ch NCo CaliNO 0 0 �o W OW cn 00 V 10 .Vp NCO � V %O O O O `� OD a r AO �o �O u, o ! AGENDA PACKET SECTION MEETING DATE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS CITY OF PALM DESERT, CA PREPARED BY SABBY JONATHAN, CPA OCTOBER 7, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA 2 MAP OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA 3 NET FINANCIAL IMPACT 4 REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - DATA 5 REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - CHART 6 PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY 7 SCHEDULE 1 - REVENUE SUMMARY 9 REVENUE SUMMARY - CHART 10 SCHEDULE 1A - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 11 SCHEDULE 1B - PROPOSITION A FIRE TAX REVENUE 12 SCHEDULE I - FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE 13 SCHEDULE 1 D - PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUE 14 SCHEDULE 1 E - OTHER REVENUES 15 PUBLIC COST SUMMARY 16 SCHEDULE 2 - COST SUMMARY 18 COST SUMMARY - CHART 19 SCHEDULE 2A - GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 20 SCHEDULE 2B - PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES 21 SCHEDULE 2C - PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES 22 SCHEDULE 2D - JOSLYN COVE SENIOR CENTER EXPENDITURES 23 BASE DATA 24 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 29 CURRICULUM VITAE 30 INTRODUCTION This Fiscal Impact Analysis seeks to calculate the financial consequences to the City of Palm Desert resulting from the proposed annexation of Palm Desert Greens Country Club and Suncrest Country Club. A hybrid approach has been utilized in this analysis. It combines the Per Capita Multiplier Method, and the Case Study Method. Only those revenues and expenditures affected by the proposed annexation have been included. In some cases, the revenue and/or expenditure is calculated using existing per capita data. And in other cases, the revenue and/or expenditure is calculated using actual anticipated amounts. A five year time frame has been presented, beginning with fiscal year 2003/2004. Column headings of 2003, for example, indicate the fiscal year which begins July 1, 2003 and ends June 30, 2004. Page 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA The proposed annexation area consists of two country clubs; Palm Desert Greens Country Club and Suncrest Country Club. Both of these clubs are currently located in the County of Riverside. As shown on the next page, the proposed annexation area is generally bound by Country Club Drive to the south, Monterey Avenue to the west, Frank Sinatra Drive to the north and Portola Avenue to the east. PALM DESERT GREENS COUNTRY CLUB Palm Desert Greens Country Club consists of 423 acres, occupied by a golf course with a clubhouse, and 1,922 mobile home lots. Ten of the lots are vacant, 1,912 are occupied. The lots are owned by individual property owners. It is estimated that Palm Desert Greens Country Club has 2,500 permanent residents, plus 2,500 seasonal residents. It is further estimated that on average, the seasonal residents live at the club for approximately six months out of the year. SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUB Suncrest Country Club consists of 120 acres, occupied by an executive golf course with a clubhouse, and 360 mobile home lots. There are 108 acres that have been developed, and 12 acres which remain undeveloped. The entire site is owned by one individual. It is estimated that Suncrest Country Club has 350 permanent residents, plus 258 seasonal residents. Again, it is estimated that on average, the seasonal residents live at the club for approximately six months out of the year. Page 2 NET FINANCIAL IMPACT The financial effect on the City of Palm Desert which would result from the proposed annexation has been analyzed and is presented in -the schedules which follow. The schedule on the next page, titled Revenue and Cost Summary, presents a summary of the impacted revenues and expenditures for the City of Palm Desert for the initial five year period following the proposed annexation. Revenue is further summarized in Schedule 1, with detail provided in Schedules 1A through 1 E. Cost is further summarized in Schedule 2, with detail provided in Schedules 2A through 2D. Significant assumptions and other relevant information is presented in the section titled Base Data. As discussed in the remainder of this report, the net annual impact of the proposed annexation is as follows (figures in brackets denote expenditures in excess of revenues): 2003 $ (219,160) 2004 $ (264,935) 2005 $ (272,985) 2006 $ (283,209) 2007 $ (291,698) The cumulative impact for the five year period following the proposed annexation is projected to be: (1,331,987) Page 4 U) m D J U } F- Z D O U H V) W ix U Z N � G Q Nam } Z U) ago 0 U UF'0 QitZ aWQ �Ww J Z Q W LLa� J 00 Q � O °) F- o cn O O � O N O N (D 64 0) O � O N N N_ co 64 O co O M N M O c0 O Ln O co N O 44 O co O � N cn co LO d t z Z. cc U J a v co m ui M N It N r O) v N v ui O co M N cc O O O LO LO O cD 00 cD 0 r co O co N 0 rn M A D CM co N v LO cM O It co CN co O N v U a J ri 2 Q Z LO a) C) cc a $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS REVENUE & COST SUMMARY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ■ PUBLIC REVENUE ■ PUBLIC COST Page 6 PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY The revenue received by the City of Palm Desert as a result of the proposed annexation is summarized in Schedule 1, and detailed in Schedules 1A through 1 E. Only those revenues expected to be directly generated from the proposed annexation area are included. Certain revenues are not included because they are expected to be immaterial. Shopping patterns of the residents are not expected to change as a result of the proposed annexation, while retail sales tax, generated by clubhouse sales, is nominal. Similarly, Traffic Safety/Measure A Fund revenue is not included. This is a half cent sales tax restricted for funding a variety of highway improvements, as well as local street and road maintenance. Revenue from Business License Tax is also not included. While there are a number of home businesses operated in the affected area, the number is immaterial, and many of those are not licensed. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Total assessed value for the affected area is provided by MetroScan (First American Real Estate Solutions, L.P.). The assessed value is then reduced by homeowners exemptions for units presumed to be occupied on a full-time basis. The City of Palm Desert's portion of tax assessment, approximately 7%, is then applied to the net assessed value to compute the City's share of property tax revenue which would be generated by the affected area. At this point, the property tax sharing agreement between the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside has been rescinded. A current agreement has not yet been negotiated. PROPOSITION A FIRE TAX REVENUE Prop A Fire Tax is revenue derived from tax collected within the City for fire protection and prevention services. The City currently contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for this purpose. The annual tax rate is $36 per mobile home on leased land, and $48 per mobile home on fee land. Page 7 FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE The City of Palm Desert charges a franchise tax for use of the City's right of way by certain franchises. Currently those franchises are waste, gas, cable, and electricity. The per household rate was computed (see Base Data), and applied to the number of households in the affected area. PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUE Upon sale of residential property, a tax is collected at the rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of value. The City of Palm Desert receives 50% of this tax. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that 10% of the mobile homes in the affected area will be sold annually. OTHER REVENUES Other revenues that are assumed to be affected by the proposed annexation include the Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fee and the Gas Tax Revenue. For purposes of this analysis, the City's current per capita rate was calculated, and then applied to the estimated permanent population of the affected area. Page 8 J IQ+ O copNi tLq co O N N NV !N7 0^D C C ER C N CV)O O c C N O N N N co 69 G9 C N co cD CV 1V CV O N .- O> N c0 0 co O p) C N r •' N co 64 69 N pN GO co N GoU) M OD ti CC) co 0 �0_ N CC) O N C h �O N N N GD rn p ch (30 tO V L6 O � co p V � O N to N O GD co N co M O V 0 eh Go O ti M N N co ` N LO J V � m O O V d t W ZQ W w N ct+ W W h W k co_ i Q •. yaw �Nw 2 W c t a W W W C W LL aww W k 2 W W Q a 0W Q= W = O Co>.uj V W > � � J FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS REVENUE SUMMARY - FIVE YEAR TOTALS 0 $932,408 0 $45,928 0 102E,___ O $428,057 O PROPERTY TAX REVENUE © PROPOSITION A FIRE TAX REVENUE O FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE 0 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUE C OTHER REVENUE 0 $1,087,504 Page 10 § 2 O§ Cl) $ 0) = n R E § K / A 6 coG _ _ _ _ N 0 7 g c } en ~ k $ @ � \ k en 7 8 0 R q 2 _ _ . o f / 2 . 2 / 7 $ / . o co N o co R Ili 2 . _ # o ~ Cl) k $ 8 \ � R N 2 ® ® a. k ® k 2 V c.v o CD - \ o co % N N $ d 2 : I o w E § % 0 &% E � / ~ n v «cq \ ■ to k oo % k . D Cd _N 8 2 U J c § § D uw co « LU> k / 2 $ z� 2 / w k \ o� - 2. 2 LU / w u w e w a § 2 a \ X q k k ) LU0 E k > ■ a S 2 > e 2 / v a 2 0 E 2 w @ E «�- n w ui LU Cl) LLJ ® CO = U. a 0 @ cu 6 ■ w 2 ? $ k a % < 2 2 k / Cl) < L / / yak / -j z \ e 0 k Z k a � 2 q$ 2 2$ 2 RC6 N nc �IT § Cl)I _ _ N k co 2 E S | CY)o m nC6 . _v / n Cb kC6 K k� § / . _v § n _ _ C4 kk co kk k 7- § CV)LN 2 CN qE co 27 cc CN «a c nc o _ -V § M � _ _ k z dw w k� z» \� \ / ® 0 w w \ ui z / z a._ z j Ew D w _k . z _� z � z § �. w z w 2 w o za § o � ƒ z ƒ / � / LLI § w K \ \ . w CO z e= z z / R I K � R§ I �� o z< 2 z« �W� E -i / z k\w CL Eaw IL o \ k § z > w § ul � z 0 k 0 0 ■ CL -i � 0 vi / a .J Cl) Lo — 0 ItNOCD 0 ti 0) 1- co T- N M 69 69 69 69 O Cn M 'Ir CD t` Lo ,�— N N co r— r` O r` Me Lo00 64 64 69), 69 N CM to co O Lc) OstN N C'7CnMIt CD CD O CA M � U) 1�- 64 64 6n 69 tf) N �— O Ict r` O N 'IT � 0 ' r• 69 69 69 69 C O N O O O Cn M 0 N CD CA cD cc .0r�:chL M lA I,- 64 6ek 64 64 M CO cM N r` C LoLONLo N f`toMti M rl N cM M . to ti N m 6H 64 6FT 69 J U } H Z D UW D h- Z W W uj W U Z � U) W 0 W y Q NLU C/) co U }yU Z =cWn=Z U — �Z QIru. 9ZU U H- LL JLLI F— �cn� WD LU OnQQQJ = �C�UW Z N � = LLaa) W D Z W W W N 2 U LL Q 0 _M O m a -i v @ cv @ o ® ƒ / L k LS $ $ 0 0 CD _ _ _ § K / k 2 R g U F � k / cm @ k c k 2 2 \ 0 7 § ¢ co _ _ 2 . k \ Lo k k . I o 2 R § R § co k k k I k C4 o / 2 0 5 R 2 co - _ o \ @ $ o @ 2 k \ /cl _/ ƒ ■ m _ _ � UUJ � z nw LU z S ® 2 S I LU _ § Lu w LL - k I LLI $ z 2 o w § 2 q w 2. § 2 . o LL )■w \ X z� w -i D ƒ 0 \ LL 0z e § E §�§ < / M kW S / E. Ix a a U- u u 0 CO it § LLa� / 2 I E 0 v / a LO O Lo co N LOfi eq aD CAD O LO I N 1D cc of N to 11 N CU LO CO r- r- P. N N I C C 69 69 d9 6 C N 0) O M O In f N 06 LO 00 e N C C 69 69 d9 d O O v 00i r�i LOa N r- O r.- rri r` w r N CN 69 69 69 V 0 O °'c c � v LO r cq r N co LO �. ^ N P n y m 69 69 69 69, J Ci Q' F- Z Q LU 0 < ~ Q a p N W Q U U H U � a Q Z o W w Q w z 0O �j ui > 3 U N COW Z W p W W O w Z> J a = g Z LU Q 0 VFW W U j 2 O d d IY CL LU U) j H W I=- 0 Jo� Q FO Q y�x 0 w _TF d rn m a PUBLIC COST SUMMARY The costs to the City of Palm Desert which would result from the proposed annexation are summarized in Schedule 2,and detailed in Schedules 2A through 2D. Only those costs directly attributable to the annexed area are included. The calculations of costs utilizes the City of Palm Desert Financial Plan for the fiscal year 2002/2003. Inflationary increases are assumed to be 2.50% per year. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Specific expenditures, expected to be incurred as a result of the proposed annexation, were identified. The per capita amount was calculated based on the City of Palm Desert's permanent population. The per capita factor was then applied to the estimated permanent population of the affected area. In some cases, the budgeted cost was adjusted to arrive at an adjusted per capita factor. Building and safety was reduced by 80%, General Services was reduced by 50%, Risk Management & Development Services was reduced by 50%, Community Promotions was reduced by the fixed contribution of $1,050,000 to the Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Bureau, Marketing/Newsletter was reduced by 50%, and Code Enforcement was reduced by 50%. These adjustments were made in order to more accurately reflect the impact on expenditures that would result from the proposed annexation. PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES The proposed annexation area is bound by Country Club Drive (approximately 3/4 miles), Frank Sinatra Drive (approximately 3/4 miles), Monterey Avenue (approximately 3/4 miles), and Portola Avenue (approximately 1/2 mile). The actual cost of maintaining these public right of ways was determined. Page 16 PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES The City of Palm Desert administers its fire and emergency services program through participation in the Cove Communities Services Commission, pursuant to the Joint Powers Authority Agreement, Amendment #3. This agreement calls for a calculation of the City's portion of joint costs based on its proportionate share of assessed valuation. The effect of the proposed annexation on the sharing formula, and the resulting increase in cost, is detailed in the Base Data portion of this report. It should be noted that a new fire station is contemplated for the Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive area. The cost of building and operating a new fire station has not been incorporated into this analysis. The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department for law enforcement services. The City's current ratio of sworn officers to 1,000 residents is 1.72. Based on the permanent population of the proposed annexation area, this would require five additional officers. The affected area has historically experienced less police activity than some other areas in the City. However, in order to maintain the City's current ratio of sworn officers to residents on a city-wide basis, five additional officers would need to be hired. JOSLYN COVE COMMUNITIES SENIOR CENTER The City of Palm Desert participates in the cost of operating the Joslyn Cove Communities Senior Center. Its share is determined pursuant to a formula which averages the City's proportionate share of assessed value and permanent population. The change to the City's sharing percentage was calculated, and is detailed in the Base Data section of this report. In addition to the higher cost allocation under the formula, ,it is anticipated that the City will make a voluntary contribution in the amount of $25,000 per year. Page 17 ftj r- 2 _2 1- k n U R § m 2 R q v R - - cl 69# CD Q Go I v $ Lf) k k A / CN _ k 2 / - $ ~ A $ � ce CN . _ . q N n_ n LO r C) — . % q . \ # o LO OD 0) L % § 04 # 2 E S t k ® ~ $ . ■ m _ . � d � � m C14 A 2 1 k 4 z CO) a kuj > - ■ <Ul Cl) v v % �W§UJ kIX® § L & LU k ■ _j U � W k U k k k LL a U 0 4 k / � � 2 � k a O $199,688 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS COST SUMMARY - FIVE YEAR TOTALS ® $2,556,319 $1,463,379 O GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES O PUBLIC WORKS 0 PUBLIC SAFETY 0 JOSLYN COVE SENIOR CENTER Page 19 J O N O O OD O T N cr) Q) N di 69 Cb O N co LO CO lLO co O T N W 0) N 69 69 h NO O N � N O T N N 0) N 69 64 Oco N T LO coo f0 O T N O) co N 64 64 eh O N C LO c C O T CV to p, N 69 69 a w m a ULLJ . J � a w Z W W a U LU ~ F- W N W d Z W a. a LL. H U) Z N z O O G w o L Q J Q LL J p a W } U) 2 Z IL = p G ZW W a t� K LU W O d U. G Z a W N J U. V a 2 O V2 Z LL a cr W a LU O U..avV) U) O N d O 0 a fti o Lf) m U-) co $ m V # m L. � c 2 co 7 0 k n cl c ■ _ k K co � � ~ m C-4 LO 00 2 (D @ 2 g N V R CSL Cli n N Lf) c Cb m co 2 2 S 2 V) co OD co n cli ¥ # k � LO V N n Csf vr P _ 2 D d � . � LU S§ Cf) jXa LU zW cn . 3 z �§§ / / \ «■ CO)�u 3 z k n ƒ w cn -iz: zLLJ§ X u k o 0 §CL ƒ E ƒ 0 \ � _ w Q E_ 0 / UJ a / 7 ¢ . e 0 � LA < U LLaCl) CL 0 � � E f � i \ 2) / � E 2 k LL � i $ � 2 g ) \� O 2 0 \ $ 2 3cc $ 0 e k CD 7 \ ( 2 (D D $ / 2 \ 2 ƒ § / a o E m 7 / § E \ co i & ± % k k q / d E U) § / a \ 5 2 / � \ \ / \ u £ = 5 q K \ \ J � k J 7 k lc� / Q CD a o � rn FQ• o0i v N o m N EA OCV) LO CD N �— N O O d4 O O 'CD— & CT N O O O co 69 h O O O N t7 O N O � CD t0 fR O O p co N co v r- O qT O O COD N N tc O .a. 64 U. O m O U V J J Q it w U Z �N W Z 2O H W O U Z W U U � W W w O Z IX X U U W > W W LU U iW g o (A O may z wW U)W J O J W a 0 O Q Qua W 22 J F� o O W 0 U W W QIX'N LL O ZU Mu"'. aWW y J Q � Qw w � wQ L- ZO V22 J m U.a.cn a co W M F- C Z W a x W W w a to U J m D a H O N N N CA a LU ■ � � z LU IL w ■ � ©w §U U§_ &LU �U) z0 w SE �§ I■ Q■ z U)§ 0 §�S U)2\ LU U) 0 ■2 � k19N CL LU LU �L� 00 kak. LLaU) k K ® q _ a o co k $ $ C4 k o 04 _ to 0 k k k ~ 2 § — � _ 2 \ ® K 8 o � t \ o r � _ %. _ k co v k t- ~ 7 2 — q _ k % k § % ~ / § — q _ u , � z u 0 u } r u �-z 3 z LU < LU § I LL 0 < 0 k § k z o = / z c co q k E z z 0 w 0 > \ k w 2 \ Q CD � ƒ , , , w. ■. � S z w ul ■ uj z LU U ■ 0 z § / z � ■ ■ 0 u LU 0 Q z � 0 � � O 0: E E 3 k ± $ / E E 3 / 0 ( 3 § q Cl) a FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS BASE DATA P.D. GREENS SUNCREST AVERAGE POPULATION TOTAL NUMBER OF MOBILE HOME SPACES 1,922 360 VACANCIES (10) (22) NUMBER OF OCCUPIED MOBILE HOMES 1,912 339— NUMBER OF UNITS OCCUPIED FULL TIME (50%) 956 169 PORTION OF UNITS OCCUPIED SEASONALLY (50%) 956 169 PERMANENT RESIDENTS 2,500 350 SEASONAL RESIDENTS 2,500 258 TOTAL "PEAK -SEASON" POPULATION SEASONALLY ADJUSTED AVERAGE POPULATION 3,750 47.9 HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTIONS NUMBER OF UNITS OCCUPIED FULL TIME (50%) 956 169 HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION AMOUNT - PER UNIT $ 7,000 $ 7,000 TOTAL HOMEOWNER EXEMPTIONS PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1,912 338 ASSUMED MARKET VALUE PER UNIT $ 75,000 $ 60,000 TOTAL FAIR MARKET VALUE PROPOSITION A FIRE TAX REVENUE ANNUAL RATE - PER MOBILE HOME 48 36 Page 24 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS BASE DATA FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 20,000 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS - SEASONALLY ADJUSTED 1,688 ANNUAL ANNUAL PROJECTED REVENUE TOTAL PER HOUSEHOLD WASTE FRANCHISE $ 400,000 $ 20.00 GAS FRANCHISE 208,000 $ 10.40 CABLE FRANCHISE 620,000 $ 31.00 ELECTRICITY FRANCHISE 874,000 $ 43.70 TOTAL FOR ALL UTILITY FRANCHISES $ 2,102,000 OTHER REVENUES MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU FEE TOTAL BUDGETED REVENUE $ 2,400,000 CITY OF PALM DESERT CURRENT POPULATION 42,334 PER CAPITA REVENUE $ 56.69 GAS TAX REVENUE TOTAL BUDGETED REVENUE $ 751,000 CITY OF PALM DESERT CURRENT POPULATION 42,334 PER CAPITA REVENUE $ 17.74 Page 25 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS BASE DATA SELECTED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES - 2002/2003 BUDGET ELECTIONS LEGAL SPECIAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING & SAFETY (REDUCED BY 80%) GENERAL SERVICES (REDUCED BY 50%) INSURANCE RISK MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (REDUCED BY 50%) COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS (REDUCED BY PSDRCVB COST OF$1,050,000) MARKETING/NEWSLETTER (REDUCED BY 50%) CODE ENFORCEMENT (REDUCED BY 50%) TOTALS PER CAPITA PER CAPITA TOTAL (ODD YEARS) (EVEN YEARS) $ 67,000 $ - $ 1.58 345,000 8.15 8.15 1,408.711 33.28 33.28 148,911 3.52 3.52 191,475 4.52 4.52 500,600 11.83 11.83 287,858 6.80 6.80 629,500 14.87 14.87 426,012 10.06 10.06 297.030 7.02 7.02 $ 4,302,096 $ 100.04 $ 101.62 Page 26 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS BASE DATA COVE COMMUNITIES SHARING FORMULA TOTAL PERCENTAGE ASSESSED VALUATION BEFORE ANNEXATION INDIAN WELLS $ 2,530,555,724 20.41619% PALM DESERT 6,450,091,099 52.03849% RANCHO MIRAGE 3,414,199,280 27.54531% TOTALS $ 12,394,846,103 100.00000% AFTER ANNEXATION INDIAN WELLS $ 2,530,555,724 20.20718% PALM DESERT 6,578,299,426 52.52951% RANCHO MIRAGE 3,414,1.99,280 27.26331% TOTALS $ 12,523,054,430 100.00000% POPULATION BEFORE ANNEXATION INDIAN WELLS 3,560 6.69676% PALM DESERT 37,650 70.82393% RANCHO MIRAGE 11,950 22.47931% TOTALS 53,160 100.00000% AFTER ANNEXATION INDIAN WELLS 3,560 6.35601% PALM DESERT 40,500 72.30852% RANCHO MIRAGE 11,950 21.33548% TOTALS 56,010 100.00000% Page 27 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT GREENS AND SUNCREST COUNTRY CLUBS BASE DATA COVE COMMUNITIES SERVICES COMMISSION COST BEFORE AFTER ANNEXATION ANNEXATION ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR 2002/2003 $ 9,544,902 9,544,902 CITY OF PALM DESERT'S SHARE 52.03849% 52.52951% PROJECTED ANNUAL COST 4,967,023 5,013,890 COUNTY TAX CREDIT FOR 2002/2003 3,602,584 3,602,584 CITY OF PALM DESERT'S SHARE 62.39714% 62.39714% PROJECTED COUNTY CREDIT (2,247,909) (2,247,909) NET COVE COMMUNITIES SERVICES COMMISSION COST $ 2,719,114 $ 2,765,981 INCREMENTAL COST $ 46,867 JOSLYN COVE COMMUNITIES SENIOR CENTER ASSESSED VALUATION FACTOR 52.03849% 52.52951% POPULATION FACTOR 70.82393% 72.30852% COMBINED FACTOR 61.43121% 62.41901% INCREMENTAL FACTOR 0.98780% LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CITY'S CURRENT RATIO OF SWORN OFFICERS FOR EACH 1,000 RESIDENTS 1.72 PERMANENT POPULATION OF AFFECTED AREA 2,850 DIVIDED BY 1,000 3 ADDITIONAL OFFICERS REQUIRED 5 COST PER OFFICER 83,699 TOTAL INCREMENTAL COST OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES $ 410,292 Page 28 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Revenue and Cost Summary schedule presents the total revenues and. costs expected to be experienced by the City of Palm Desert as a result of the proposed annexation. Both the annual impact and the total impact for the five year period are presented. The analysis indicates that public cost is expected to exceed public revenue, at a gradually increasing rate. At this point, it appears that the trend is expected to continue. It is possible, however, that changes will be made that would ameliorate the situation, i.e. negotiation of a higher property tax sharing agreement. Such changes are not incorporated into this analysis. Page 29 CURRICULUM VITAE SABBY JONATHAN, CPA EDUCATION: Master's Degree in Business - University of Redlands (1982) Bachelor's Degree in Accounting - U S C (1978) EMPLOYMENT: Jonathan & Associates - 1990 to present Maryanov, Madsen, Gordon & Campbell - 1979 to 1990 Coopers & Lybrand - 1978 to 1979 PROFESSIONAL: Licensed as a CPA in California since 1981 (license number 31750E) Member of AICPA and California Society of CPA's since 1981 Teaching experience with Chapman College, College of the Desert, and CA Society of CPA's Lectured and published articles extensively for over 20 years COMMUNITY: City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission YMCA of the Desert — Board of Directors CSUSB Coachella Valley Campus — Advisory Board of Directors FirstBank of Palm Desert - Past Director Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce - Past President College of the Desert Foundation - Past President United Way of the Desert - Past Campaign Chairman Temple Sinai - Past President Page 30 City of Palm Desert Office of the City Manager MEMORANDUM To: Annexation Committee From: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Date: February 28, 2007 Attached is a memorandum from Wayne Fowler, LAFCO, indicating that LAFCO has completed a municipal services review of the cities and some districts in the County. Also attached is a summary of the findings and specifically LAFCO's write-up on the City of Palm Desert. CARLOS L. O EGA City Manager CLO:kr Attachment Annexation Committee Members: Jim Ferguson Bob Spiegel Carlos Ortega Stephen Aryan Steve Smith 4.d. 02/22/2007 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Wayne M. Fowler, Sr. Local Government Analyst SUBJECT: LAFCO-._ 2005-89-4&5 WESTERN COACHELLA VALLEY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW. PRIOR AGENDA&RELATED ACTIONS: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATION: As the Commission is aware, Assembly Bill 2838 established a new analytical tool for LAFCO's - Municipal Service - Reviews (MSRs). AB 2838 was a major rewrite of the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 and appeared as the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH LGRA 2000). Within the CKH LGRA 2000, code section 56430 is the sole statute establishing the requirement for Municipal Service Reviews. It begins as follows..."Xn 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 MSR, the Commission must prepare a written statement of determinations addressing each of the following factors: 1. Infrastructure needs/deficiencies; 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area; 3. Financing constraints/opportunities; 4. Cost avoidance opportunities; 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring; 6. Opportunities for shared facilities; I _m 1 1i =F•.,i?: _ FOP2vIATI'0T%! I vIIS I` - �I._,s o �� t,%fNZ SMEEM ;jUI1E 110 3 iiA'F'RSIDE, C1=9 O�G5vi 12'7 Phone (951) 36�7-0631 + i ��et.ua s s z: (951) 369-8479 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 3 February 22, 2007 The MSR determinations show this, and many of the current deficiencies shown within this MSR, will continue to be addressed as development and revenue come to the agencies, allowing for the existing and sometimes aging infrastructure to be brought up to current service standards. • Several cities have deficiencies in their storm water drainage systems. These are mostly caused by older or incomplete systems and are being addressed in conjunction with the regional agency responsible for the regional planning of storm water drainage, Riverside County Flood Control District in western portions of this MSR or Coachella Valley Water District in the eastern portions of this MSR. The determinations within this MSR _point out that the agencies involved are planning projects to expand and improve existing storm water drainage systems. • The cities of Cathedral City existing roadways and intersections which are currently operating below the cities adopted LOS standards. Improvements are planned to address these deficiencies. Like many cities, heavy vehicular trip numbers resulting from the rapid growth have impacted circulation significantly. • A majority of agencies within this MSR which provide park and recreational services are currently providing parkland acreage at a ratio below the agency standards. Most of these agencies have planned or are planning new facilities, and are using their Quimby Act fees to fund future facilities. • Desert Hot Springs suffers from severe flooding from storm water runoff. The City has funded an effort to address the full range of circulation issues within the City. • Several of the agencies suffer deficiencies in Fire Protection services and are operating below the agencies set service provision standards. • The City of Palm Springs has completed a study identifying the need to expand the existing library facilities by 25,000SF in order to serve the needs of - J I `! _ �? J4 r'1 � j lsl _ C J ' llf�T�� l J S1 `�l'd115�1 `d s b�: l"qf Phone (951'1 339-063 i 3 , . ;, ; . i ca 951 ) ''39-8479 -- 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 5 February 22, 2007 Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Cathedral City appropriations for Police services due to overtime caused by low staffing levels has increased. • The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Coachella Valley Recreation & Parks District to operate and provide services within city owned facilities. The City is evaluating whether there would be economies and greater benefit by detaching from the District and delivering those services directly or through contract with a private entity. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • No comments. Opportunities for Shared Facilities • Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs in conjunction with County Fire are implementing a coordinated and comprehensive communications network for voice and data transmission. • Cathedral City and Palm Springs Fire Departments have an Automatic Aid agreement. • The Cove Community Services Commission, comprised of the cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage provides a means for the three cities to cooperate on services. • The City of Indian Wells has entered into an agreement with the City of Rancho Mirage to allow the residents of Indian Wells to use the Rancho Mirage library. Government Structure options • No comments. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • The City of Desert Hot Springs has had significant management issues in the past. The City Council has hired a new City Manager and City Attorney in 2006. Incremental changes are being implemented to improve a'" ORIViA'I IO1`'•1 . -,h. 1 VINE �� ��SUITE, 0 �a T 9 . ?7^: +��L L ,�11�; "T, il. F�l✓, i�.SIvE, : ti �G5C=7-��� Pb oin (951) 809-0631 , ,Twvc-lafco.orc; 1 <a_ (951) -369-8479 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 7 February 22, 2007 Guidelines in 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 within the MSR. 5. Receive and file the Municipal Service Review - LAFCO 2005-89-4&5 Western Coachella Valley. 6. Authorize the Executive Officer to, as information is received to post that information as appendices or errata to the report. RpI6`p`ec ully submitted, Wayne M. Fowler Sr. Local Government Analyst _-�avT'i't Y FORI KtiHGIT 1Yi� i�� lS JJ�LF+;'jl) :. i's�,i,s:f, `l_( j !Lt 1'l`✓H� jib F 925042%F P.i"loile (951) 36-9- e31 7-� SECTION 7®0 CITY OF PALM DESERT 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 25 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 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 Mountainsand 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 npsprt Prnfilp 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: 25 square miles Population: 49,539 (Year 2006) / 63,402 (Year 2030) Average Annual Growth Rate =1.3% General Fund and Fire Fund Operating Budget (FY 2006- Revenues: $56,387,000 2007): Expenditures: $56,598,013 GANN Appropriations Limitation /Percentage: $77,282,779 / 44% General Plan Update Adopted March 15, 2004 Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-1 'Ii Iy of Palm Desert includedServices Law Enforcement: Riverside County Sheriff , contract - 76 sworn officers Fire Protection: Riverside County Fire Department - 3 stations Solid Waste/Recycling: Burrtec Industries, Inc. (franchise agreement) Stormwater/Drainage: Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control, Coachella Valley Water District Roadways/Circulation: Public Works Recreation and Parks: 11 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 - 6 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, I 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, Historic Preservation, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Libra yr,�j," romotion, Public Safety, Rent Review and Youth. Others which are focused on economic conditions or financial issues include: Audit, Investment and Finance; Marketing; Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4; El Paseo Business Improvement District; Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 2 y o , r r 01 w GERALD FORD DR 4 at — w a O f� FRANK SINATRA a ¢� >. ' ¢ 17 DR T T COUNTRY CLUB DR ,p O w J O ~ to F a N 11� Rancho Mirage °� °a ❑ o o r...,.�..� 14 U 15 1 i `-1U 3 I 4 FR D ARI'G DR 1 1312 16 : • • i ' f 18 sa 61 _. Palm. Springs I I Sol I I 1 j Palm I/ �A � � 1 I Springs j /' Ir Sol I / III !i Ii 111,1 ' I SOURCE County of Riverside GIS Layers TWM Indian Wells 17 0 f. _ 79 , � •� � �. � -- I Indio La Quinta Legend L.. J Palm Desert - City Limits Surrounding City Limits Sphere of Influence (Sol) Surrounding City Sphere of Influence 0 Unincorporated Area County Service Area (CSA): I ! Pinyon Flats (60) Public Facilities • City Hall O Community Center 0 Library Police/Sheriff ! Fire Station ® Parks & Recreation PALM DESERT PUBLIC FACILITIES 1 Palm Desert City Hall Park Facilities 2 Palm Desert Library 10 Civic Center Park 3 Palm Desert Community Center 11 Palm Desert Soccer Park 4 Police Department 12 Ironwood Park Fire Stations 13 Cahuilla Hills Park 5 Station 33 14 Portola Park 6 Station 67 15 Cook Street Sports Complex 7 Station 71 16 Washington Charter School Park 8 Station 81 Sun City 17 Joe Mann Park 9 Station 31 Bermuda Dunes 1 18 jCap Homme/Ralph Adams Park 19 jPaIma village Neighborhood Park i I ' Feet go 5,000 10,000 Western Coachella Valley Municipal Services Review FIGURE City of Palm Desert 7.1 WU 0 Z QO a� 0 � 0 UO VOC Figure 7.2, City of Palm Desert Organization Chart �Eg cs E r� 3U° c Imo 0 85 a o 0 p 5 jg pp �qg ea 0° o �gCS�m Ea8�g: 8 pp Q p n3� n 8 I I I I I l l l g i l l lg jI 8�1O� ffiQc�aa �At� uiS� Ufi c c o a I l UJ m_ I I I J I I I I I b n a C c� E U 4 a gbi �E9= $ a IIIIIIItllll � ca`3zwrca"s� rc 3 IIII111111 of Palm Desert 8 'a� S �8 3 a e5t E Uxg q§g g 3zu 21 a2ddtiru 8 I I i l l l l l561 Rd n ifciwcc IIIIIIp IIIII1111« p I11111111� lIII111 p' = F .4 E5.8� E� L 'o IIIIIIIIItllllll « I111111111 4 LL E Q o a Od d���7LL Illy o°°K o ��__ Illlllllllle � 111E w LL XV Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4999 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-4 rO City of Palm Desert 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 Rind 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 2007 are shown below in Figure 7.3, City of Palm Desert General FundRevenues, FY 2007 Budget: Figure 7.3 — City of Palm Desert General and Fire Fund Revenues, FY 2007 Budget Transfers Licenses and Permits 2% 7% Interest & Rentals 4% Charges for Service: 4% State Subventions 7% Other Revenue; 11% Transient wt. , cm 14% Property Taxes 0 les Tax 33% The City maintains a healthy financial condition, as shown in Table 7.2, Palm Desert General Fund and Fire Fund Summary. At FY 2005 the City had a General Fund balance of $63.3 million with $1.2 million in the Proposition A Fire Tax Special Revenue Fund. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7_5 7 0 City of Palm Desert Table 7.2 Palm Desert General Fund and Fire Fund Revenues $45,260,000 $49,193,192 $56,837,000 Expenditures $39,679,581 $49,133,794 $56,598,013 TOTAL Surplus/(Deficit) $5,923,420 \ $59,398 $238,987 At FY 2005, the City had $122.9 million in restricted reserves. Long-term liabilities totaled $254 million, of which $250 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 $99.8 million in funding for FY 2007. Projects include $71.5 million for streets and medians, $480,000 for drainage, $1.2 million for parks and recreation and $25.5 million for housing projects. The 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 FY 2007 budget includes $947,000 for this purpose, a 20 percent increase from the prior year. 7.4 Projected Growth 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 Palm Desert - 47,987 1 54,600 56,893 59,155 61,322 63,402 1.3% Western Coachella Valley 186,707 211,028 237,540 incorporated areas 263,684 288,742 312,772 2.7% Unincorporated Coachella Vly 90,668 103,079 126,925 149,159 169,437 187,870 4.3% Coachella Valley 1 419,338 470,827 1 540,105 1 607,149 j 670,378 j 730,001 j 3.0% Source: SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast. 1 Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4913 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-6 Z ® CIIV of Palm Desert The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the City's 2006 population to be 49,539, 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 Cana use Land Use Type Residential Acreage summary Developed Acres 8,722 Vacant Acres 1,078 57% 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% 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 Sheriff's Department to provide law enforcement services within the city. The Palm Desert Sheriff's Station is located at 73-520 Fred Waring Drive. This station also serves as the Sheriff's 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. Thealso Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-7 %® City of Palm Desert operates 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 six new deputies to its contract in FY 2006 due to growth in the northern sphere. Currently, there are 78 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, and Narcotics Enforcement. Current staffing provides the City with 1.5 officers per 1000 residents (based on the 2006 population of 49,539). 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). The Department operates the T-400 Target Team as an adjunct to the Patrol Division. The team consists of one sergeant, three deputies, a dedicated gang suppression officer, and a dedicated community -oriented policing officer. The primary function of the Target Team is to provide enhanced patrol services to residents of the City of Palm Desert. The Target 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. In 2005, the Palm Desert station received 17,846 emergency calls within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority calls was 4.6 minutes. 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 I 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 SOI. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 —Final Draft 7-8 7 0 City of Palm Desert Fable 7.5 Palm Desert Fire Stations Station Location Sfaffing�Equipment Station 33 - Palm Desert 44400 Town Center Way Type 1 engine - 3 staff 1 ALS Medic Unit 1 truck - 4 staff 1 reserve truck 1 Heavy Rescue Unit 1 Rescue ALS Medic Unit 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 / ALS medic unit / Type 1 Reserve engine 3 per engine / 2 per ambulance Station 81- Sun City 37955 Washington Street 1 engine / 3 firefighters 1 HazMat Unit / 2 firefighters 1 HazMat Support Unit / 3 firefighters As noted above in Section 7.3, Financial Condition, a special fire tax is imposed on real property within Palm Desert to provide additional funding for fire services. The charge for residential property is $48 per year; commercial property charges are based on square footage. The fire department is staffed by 51 personnel with 15 volunteers, equating to approximately 1.3 fire fighters per 1,000 residents (based on the 2006 population of 49,539). The department's target response time is 1 minute during the day and 2 minutes during the night. Their average response time is 2 minutes. The firefighters and emergency medical technicians at the three Palm Desert stations responded to 941 fires, 5,090 medical emergencies, and 407 miscellaneous calls in 2005 for a total of 6,438. 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. Burrtec 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 communities use their own trash bins and a manual collection system. 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 Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-9 7.0 City of Palm Desert Beaumont and San Jacinto. The Badlands Landfill is permitted to accept 4,000 tons of waste per day and is scheduled to close in 2015. 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 Los Angeles. Green waste is recycled by BioMass in Thermal. The City also has a program to help residents dispose of their electronic waste (e-waste). Residents may bring their a -waste to the Household Waste facility on Saturdays at no charge. The City hosted its first Tire Amnesty event in December 2006, where residents could dispose of unwanted tires free of charge. The City's reported waste diversion rate under AB 939 was 63 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 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 Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-10 compliance with federal regulatory requirements in the areas of water and air quality. The City has budgeted for $480,000 in drainage capital improvement projects for FY 2007. 7.9 o� Roads and Circulation ThAPalm Desert Traffic Division oversees the development, operation and maintenance of the City's transportation infrastructure. The division 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 $71.6 million in capital improvement projects for FY 2007. The CIP includes $250,000 annually for the major street and sidewalks program and $250,000 annually for the major street landscape program. 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 205 acres of park land consisting of eleven parks with a variety of amenities and open natural land conservation areas. The City currently provides 4.1 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: Table 7.6 Palm pacer+ onrir ca^iiaa. Park Name Acreage Amenities Civic Center Park 70 4 Baseball Fields with Concession/Restroom Building, 6 Tennis Courts, 4 Volleyball Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 5 Picnic Pavilions, Amphitheater, Skate Park, Tot Lot, Dog Park, Public art displays Palm Desert Soccer Park 21 5 Full Size Soccer Fields with Concession/Restroom Bldg, Picnic Pavilions, 3 Horseshoe Pits, 3 Shuffleboard Courts, 1 Basketball Court, Tot Lot Ironwood Park 14.5 Picnic Pavilions, Tot Lot, Open Grass Area, Restroom Cahuilla Hills Park 27.5 2 Tennis Courts, Picnic Area, Trails; The park serves as a trail head for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System. Portola Park land t Lot, Picnic Area, Restroom, Baseball Field available after school on weekends Cook Street Sports Complex 10 3 Baseball Fields, Open Turf Area, Restroom/Concession Building (owned by School District) Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7.11 Z ® C®tv of Palm Desert Park Name Acreage g Amenities Washington Charter School 2.5 Tot Lot, Open Turf Area available after school and on weekends (owned Park by School District) Joe Mann Park 2.5 Basketball Court, Volleyball Court, Water Feature, Rose Garden, Dog Park, Picnic Pavilion, Tot Lot, Open Turf Area, Restroom Cap Homme/Ralph Adams 27 Multi -use Trails, Picnic Areas; this site serves primarily as a trailhead for Park the Cahuilla Hills Trails System Palma Village Neighborhood 2 Shaded Playground, Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Walking Park Paths, Covered Picnic Areas, Restrooms Freedom Park 26 3 Ball Fields, Tennis Courts, Basketball Courts, Sand Volleyball Courts, Tot Lot, Trails, Picnic Shelters, Dog Park, Community Garden, Skate Features, 2 Multiuse Fields, Restroom/Concession Building Total Acreage 205 In addition to the parks shown above, the City owns and operates Desert Willow Golf Qwf�se, which has two 18-hole championship courses. j S Cpx In the future the City �lhiYa regional park, to be located on the north side of Country Club Drive west of Washington Street. The 34 acre site "include facilities such as baseball fields, a multi -use field, tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, picnic areas, playground and other amenities. A portion of the site is owned by the Desert Sands Unified School District and includes the District's new Ronald Reagan Elementary School. 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. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-12 ..! City of Pa 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. 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 75,000 volumes and is staffed by five full-time employees, 15 part-time employees, and approximately 35 volunteers. Hours of operation are Monday through Wednesday 10am-8pm, Thursday through Saturday 10am-5pm, and Sunday 1pm-5pm. A special events 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 three additional hours of operation on Thursdays, a volunteer program and coordinator, special events programs, and a special events coordinator. 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. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-13 4.d. 02/22/2007 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Wayne M. Fowler, Sr. Local Government Analyst SUBJECT: LAFCO 2005-89-4&5--WESTERN COACHELLA VALLEY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW. PRIOR AGENDAS/RELATED ACTIONS: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATION: As the Commission is aware, Assembly Bill 2838 established a new analytical tool for LAFCO's - Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs). AB 2838 was a major rewrite of the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 and appeared as the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH LGRA 2000). Within the CKH LGRA 2000, code section 56430 is the sole statute establishing the requirement for Municipal Service Reviews. 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 MSR, the Commission must prepare a written statement of determinations addressing each of the following factors: 1. Infrastructure needs/deficiencies; 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area; 3. Financing constraints/opportunities; 4. Cost avoidance opportunities; 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring; 6. Opportunities for shared facilities; 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 3 February 22, 2007 The MSR determinations show this, and many of the current deficiencies shown within this MSR, will continue to be addressed as development and revenue come to the agencies, allowing for the existing and sometimes aging infrastructure to be brought up to current service standards. • Several cities have deficiencies in their storm water drainage systems. These are mostly caused by older or incomplete systems and are being addressed in conjunction with the regional agency responsible for the regional planning of storm water drainage, Riverside County Flood Control District in western portions of this MSR or Coachella Valley Water District in the eastern portions of this MSR. The determinations within this MSR point out that the agencies involved are planning projects to expand and improve existing storm water drainage systems. • The cities of Cathedral City existing roadways and intersections which are currently operating below the cities adopted LOS standards. Improvements are planned to address these deficiencies. Like many cities, heavy vehicular trip numbers resulting from the rapid growth have impacted circulation significantly. • A majority of agencies within this MSR which provide park and recreational services are currently providing parkland acreage at a ratio below the agency standards. Most of these agencies have planned or are planning new facilities, and are using their Quimby Act fees to fund future facilities. • Desert Hot Springs suffers from severe flooding from storm water runoff. The City has funded an effort to address the full range of circulation issues within the City. • Several of the agencies suffer deficiencies in Fire Protection services and are operating below the agencies set service provision standards. • The City of Palm Springs has completed a study identifying the need to expand the existing library facilities by 25,000SF in order to serve the needs of 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 5 February 22, 2007 Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Cathedral City appropriations for Police services due to overtime caused by low staffing levels has increased. • The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Coachella Valley Recreation & Parks District to operate and provide services within city owned facilities. The City is evaluating whether there would be economies and greater benefit by detaching from the District and delivering those services directly or through contract with a private entity. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • No comments. Opportunities for Shared Facilities • Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs in conjunction with County Fire are implementing a coordinated and comprehensive communications network for voice and data transmission. • Cathedral City and Palm Springs Fire Departments have an Automatic Aid agreement. • The Cove Community Services Commission, comprised of the cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage provides a means for the three cities to cooperate on services. • The City of Indian Wells has entered into an agreement with the City of Rancho Mirage to allow the residents of Indian Wells to use the Rancho Mirage library. Government Structure Options • No comments. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • The City of Desert Hot Springs has had significant management issues in the past. The City Council has hired a new City Manager and City Attorney in 2006. Incremental changes are being implemented to improve 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 7 February 22, 2007 Guidelines in 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 within the MSR. 5. Receive and file the Municipal Service Review - LAFCO 2005-89-4&5 Western Coachella Valley. 't 6. Authorize the Executive Officer to i-//as information is received to post that information as appendices or errata to the report. Respectfully submitted, Wayne M. Fowler Sr. Local Government Analyst !' RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION r umvu&tlulN LUMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.tafco.arg • Fax (951) 369-8479 NOTICE The following proposal has been submitted to LAFCO, and is being routed to you for comment. Please provide your comments on the other side of this form or on a separate form if necessary. Please sign and date. 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, please contact this office immediately. Your comments are due back by the date shown at the top of the page on the opposite side of this page. LAFCO 2007-02-4 Sphere of Influence Amendments to the City of Palm Desert (removal) and La Quinta (addition) and Reorganization to Include Annexation 18 to the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta Lighting & Landscaping District 89-01 and Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District APPLICANT: Van Buren Investments, 2437 Monaco Drive, Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 PROPOSAL: To annex for provision of municipal levels of services. GENERAL LOCATION: Generally described as being south of Hidden River Road, east of Washington Street, west of Lima Hall Road and north of Darby Road. See Thomas Bros. 2007 Riverside County map book page 819, grid F-6. ACREAGE: Approximately 12.5 acres. ESTIMATED BY APPLICANT: 0 Population/ 0 Registered Voters C- MAP Nlrrj "Desef� Sphere Qf lyn{I�ence ARBY '9OA'D i APPLICATION TO THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Sphere of Influence Amendments to the Cities of Palm Desert (removal) and La Quinta (addition) and Reorganization to Include Annexation 18 to the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta Lighting & Landscaping District 89-01 and Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District LAFCO 2007-02-4 NOTICES: List below the names and addresses of persons to whom noticeez'Fri l •staff reports sfiou"rd-be -: .directed (3 maxitxlum). tName: Douglas Evans. ; y Telephone/Fax:Z60-777- 47195/76n- 777-1213 Address: 78-495-••C:1-1-ano --City, State,•ZiP: -La- Name: `Nicole 841dv at -ester ---._-.___.-__.—._-- Telephone/Fax:760-32Q---9t740/760_ ..32 2711 - _--_ ae P Addressxerra Nov3an=±ag•- R-es�e�arclr;I- -n.c : -- City, State, Zip: Palm �- 400 South..-:Ear=ell:uite:.S-:2Q� ` Name: y - - Telephone/Fax- Address: City, State, Zip: Providesix sets of mailing-labels•for-persons to whom•noticas and reports are to-baserii.- =-•-= ••• .-:•-:- -:_�:. Does this property owriers7 Yes x `' 96 If yes, Include written statements of consent and proof of ownership (assessor roll printout,grant deed, etc). F Also, attach all correspondence, to/from-existing :residents and/or property owners. - : OJ: r IUVERSID.E LOCALAG EED Y Ftr k'T"10K CQ1rtMISSW ! 3850 VINE STREET, 9UITE..t:t0. �.CLWERSIDE, C k-9,=7.427.7 PHONE 95I 364 063 t_� www.lafco.or� FAX (95 Application Form Pace 2 Southeast corner of Hidden River Road & Washington Street APN 609-040-007 & 023 are developed. APN 609-040-005 is vacant, flat desert land. Describe the proximity of the subject area to currently developed areas. The parcels are immediately north of the City of La Quinta's City limits. Apartments are under construction to the South -of the proposed annexation. LAND USE APPROVALS COUNTY CITY General Plan Desi nations Medium Density Residential Hijzh Density Residential Zoning or Pre-Zonin R-3-2000 & R-1-12000 i h DensityResidential SubdWslons None rl",ne Is any portion of the subject te"Itory within a redevelopment area? Yes No X Is any portion of the subject territory subject to a Williamson Act Contract (Agricultural Preserve)? Yes No X If yes, Contract/Preserve Number. Date established: List all amendments by date: , Date Notice of Non -Renewal flied: Has the city filed a protest pursuant to government code section 51243.5? Yes _j<Io Provide an official map of the Agricultural Preserve. The City ❑ will succeed C3 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 shalt 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 rpose pftiocessing this application until such time as written notice to the contrary is provided by the Appl' nt t x r the Riverside LAFCO. Si nature Date Si nature Applicant date Nicole Sauvi t Cri e, Douglas Evans, City of La Quinta Printed Name of kcient and Firm (if applicable) Printed Name of Applicant Terra N6va Planning & Research, Inc. REVISED 1=004 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION - 3850 VME STREET, SUITE 110 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 PHONE (951) 369-0631 - www.lafco.org - FAX (95I) 369-8479 LAFC4 2006-99-4 Reconsideration of LAFCO 2005-20-4 Review of City of La Quinta Sphere of Influence Amendment Del Webb Pahn Desert Palm Bermuda Desert Dines Indian Wells Adopted on June 22, 2006 4j ro La Qu to a Vista p . Rasa . . cc . Jacqueline Cochran ' Regional All- e Airport Tribal I.a.d — VISTA SANTA ROSA CC BOUNDARY Tribal Iznd Tribal Land Tribal Land Exhibit A City of La Quinta La Quinta SOI City of Indio .� City of Coachella Honorable Mayor and City Council C/o City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: M 2010 JUNK 23 PM 4: 43 i 4 F''4.. Date June 22, 2010 LAFCO No.:2009-17-4 You are hereby notified that the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-10 amending the Sphere of Influence of the City of Palm Desert at a public hearing held on May 27, 2010. A copy of Resolution No. 06-10 is attached. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, � U Elena G. Medina Executive Assistant II Attachments cc: City Manager, City of Palm Desert Sun City -Palm Desert Community Association Thousand Palms Community Council Desert Palms Community Council Fourth District Supervisor, Co. of Riverside 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.lafco.or,6 9 Fax (951) 369-8479 Cn 1 2 Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside Count 3 RESOLUTION NO. 06-10 4 AMENDING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF 5 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 6 LAFCO NO. 2009-17-4 7 BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the Local Agency 8 Formation Commission in regular session assembled on May 27, 9 2010, that the sphere of influence for the City of Palm Desert 10 is hereby amended to include the territory as identified in the 11 attached exhibit. 12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that: 13 1. The Commission has initiated this review 14 pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(g). 15 2. A municipal service review that included the 16 subject agency was prepared and reviewed by this Commission 17 Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 and determinations 18 were made thereon on December 3, 2009. 19 3. Find that the sphere of influence amendment is 20 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant 21 to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with 22 certainty that the sphere of influence amendment will not have 23 a significant effect on the environment. 24 3. The sphere of influence of the City of Palm 25 Desert is hereby amended to include the territory as depicted 26 in Exhibit "A". 27 4. Adopt the following Statement of 28Determinations: RIVERSIDE LOCAL A08NCY IRNATION CONNISSION 3850 Vine Strut Suite 110 vereide, Cali Pornia 92507-4277 (451) 369-0631 CM 1 a. The present and planned land uses in the area, 2 including agricultural and open -space lands: 3 The sphere amendment area includes the Sun 4 City -Palm Desert community and the developed commercial area 5 west of Washington Street and north of Interstate 10. None of 6 the areas being considered are within any agricultural land 7 uses. u b. The present and probable need for public 9 facilities and services in the area: 10 This sphere addition will not generate a need for 11 additional services. Services will remain the same. 12 C. The present capacity of public facilities and 13 adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is 14 authorized to provide: 15 The City of Palm Desert generally provides a higher 16 level of services compared to the services rendered in the 17 unincorporated areas. While this high level of service 18 indicates that the City can accommodate growth, it would be 19 appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact prior 20 to annexing large areas. 21 d. The existence of any social or economic 22 communities of interest in the area if the Commission 23 determines that they are relevant to the agency: 24 The sphere amendment area includes Desert Palms 25 Community Council and a portion of the Thousand Palms Community 26 Council. 27 28 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY 'ORMATION COMMISSION 3850 Vine St ceet Suite "I lve rsida, CA1 if0z iA 92507-0277 (951( 369-0631 - 2 - Eva CM 1 5. The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a 2 certified copy of this resolution to each subject agency. )* A e�i BOB BUSIER, Chair 7 I certify the above resolution was passed and adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on May 8 27, 2010. 9 10 GEO SPIGOT S 11 Exec t Officer 12 13 14 FOR PRO ,E COUNTY COUNSEL %z7/1 G BY: PA ELA .1 WALL _ _ _-- Q 15 16 17 18 11 19 21 22 23 25 2 RIVERSIDS LOCAL AO&NCY PORNATION CONNI SSION 3650 Vins Street Snits 110 — 3 — i--ids, Calif ... ia 92507-4277 (951) 3 69 -0631 LAFCO 2009-17-4 SOI Review & Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert ' 1 Commission Approved on: 5/27/2010 (SOI addition) ry;M, no 1:. � r .Szj,�, . " � r�..rd q�r;y�5b� � ? is h yj .gib ♦ y ,SW c d` �` � i'i" t !i/ o N'Sr9�� �<t ���e'. *.1 "`aq� .`ref ..,a`x, ' ".�tbdx6�• 9,y, "w av �1'pA A d an p -py ytu ap Q.d2' ZZ -Sx ti"$ h,+t, sd t� tJr,aA - c7e. fy,'�'u'�"i Y�`3y Marl "� d i i r a' n a v+^! n .i�i ''rq° '+ - �•'i 'c ,b ¢ n3 � �J'\S /^ � � " > 7=i 4�`", ar"f.v _ : 9bti�.id�asatirf°rd'N�'k'6h..�"Y'°Ar$,'''cj�� -.®` `�' �••-..'. w#�, $.'�'. > ✓ r , rf C - X",��`r -n , 3.! q; scrs i .p �� , br -j td' r k, n Y.+,'r'',✓: aha+e". r,..:' . .{' I ray 'S : Ns ">!at.4 e�p tdgo-pr +�.i+« 1. +. a Y ¢'y!. } r.,,a 3 s a •.a �'T"¢/ a 'r '9A Y �''�. x " n` t aiYquK'aad'�`t �i$ V.� iqA :11, f,qh l\�.^ ..Ca i y+Y� ++� a. .j M• +d a ,E�Aat Sa,'Y yj"w'a "! ,ps' AA3, !r �� a ,.s re,.,a .�+yA'N� \ m_ + „ �f y3 s•� _7 '�Rj ° � < . `'� a RP's,�`�:'++A °a��,•y'�"� "','%��y^ '�' ; t a; t r pc aka+:n^' g,Lay.�,.+'a�or•E :� 4s eas.*.�a '!"'$ J' _'�a �.-,,r3 �'i' aaA rya �y• W ,",< E r r!w opt:� v l iv.�+M a ',1Lr���'��,,. r,J �'4;' i.-�' 3;d 3. b� 5 x c go { r1 j ad4$Of 'aa ,"`•`. 'i• c o 7 b a 5 i•-' i •a yi ,on ' '; �.y ' "_- '` ' a � i, r f t� ; r�81`i •'� $ b�r'' av�` a,�, qy,�t,' �„�v ��'1. ,yY0.���� �r "»i i t 1 10 aiP v." s r n ,..: T � � „t r -t 'a `S.o- o X 9. =q ° �� � q' harp. •�zi {X till •i a .. r< "# r 1 u _i'� rost 7 "" ��i�S3>ry ? '^ t€�a►.. �.. '#:- xi y'A'",1tc }att °q�� f *s• °" r ti 0 41 re t d 'aa s 0 �� •''<..:4 ` ,,...a '�r7t a•" . r+'Jba t ��.�'> a 9 A as a d '�y ,�i'S3°N,,nE' # 'A�tAa, • ;; s4 ' - 8 wt u Li4 v A A5im2tiAm"^Zti 3P ®anrst � �� g �4��9 r A *d Vs In c' Sy#: e �ad°w,°"s6 t.,A3ri5 p+ 3% �P {�1d1 f Jf "41 Y' "-.'*�..^- e "' _w� -�xa-"-w`-tt '"w � +�ti y� �"TY agrA+ � � kfi'$1 q ., �� a '+m^ 'f � �� * i •� .t§ � r { �a rz • P Y raa. tar e. '� � d p J 9. O�77 K_ 1E4,_ e r h ) D Mr t p p aS t �7,Jk� m�p5 y f �.uy� ,afi.y ,y� "t �.. � �� tg' "'.'{ � ."..'�."^".'r� •+r .a,.�".,,ar+.-.. cur- «� t�+t 4, `i aON W we"; w-*w-. *"r •+c aa' i'�a' 4G 4 x r 'x �'""!�I a`9°�w'e. +a a 1 � �oxdfi t,o- Y !!°nit xKi: 4C+61d � •. o � .. 'a +'yF-r�,.�•--.,,)'�J ,a' e�a���. �,/.ep"r-w-''3'�- ��_.e��1 �� # s. .r � � ✓�` t 7k a. R� � y �,.? 1 t'U i i t1 a+;. S 2 R ;?` r r J t `" .n x. 'rw • +at S ♦ a w s .b"` 1 A -,y..im WY, �'.'rA6' �`° Y. ? a b�• 8. $7�m,i q.+r,. A c r ,y.. 1110A �� �,�' " � z r # ` ' w � R. � �, ', ot''"'�' �tsa'ra$�eia�t t:�>r •�+��sr a+"�'" �o A} °f'- E5 lz"Zrl '� PUBLIC NOTICE 10� ,f MEETING OF THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CTt1J�,� Thursday, 7, 2010 l�Y� 9:30 a.m. Board of Supervisors Meeting Room��T 9t71, County Administrative Center, 1st Floor 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California T n V T.T n S 1.1 CALL TO ORDER AND SALUTE TO THE FLAG. 1.2 ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2010. 3. CONSENT (NON -HEARING ITEMS) There are no consent items. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11l11.'rT TTdrTL n a. LAFCO 2007-31-4-Reorganization to Include Annexation 86 to the City of Indio (Citrus Ranch) and Concurrent Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. (Continued from April 29, 2010; Staff recommends continuance to July 22, 2010). b. LAFCO 2009-17-4-Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert (Continued from March 25, 2010). C. LAFCO 2009-32-2-Reorganization to Include Incorporation of Jurupa Valley, Concurrent Detachment from Riverside County Waste Resources Management District and Dissolution of County Service Areas 72 and 73 (Continued from March 25, 2010; Staff recommends continuance to July 22, 2010). NEW: d. LAFCO 2010-03-1-Detachment from County Service Area 103 (City of Wildomar). e. Final Budget Fiscal Year 2010-2011. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 6. RECEIVE AND FILE: a. Information Items: Proposals Received (Government Code Section 56857, 56751): i. LAFCO 2010-11-3-Annexation 68 to County Service Area 69. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION s 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 s RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 s Nv"w.Iafco.org s Fax (951) 369-8479 LAFCO AGENDA PAGE 2 V0 MAY 27, 2010 b. LAFCO Monthly Expenditure Review. 7. CALAFCO RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION. Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9: a. CITY OF PERRIS v. LAFCO i. Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC10002712 b. CITY OF PERRIS v. LAFCO et al i. Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC488264 C. CITY OF PERRIS v. LAFCO et al i. Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC10005075 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -PENDING LITIGATION. Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: Exposure to litigation c. One case. 9. MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORTS. 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 11. ADJOURNMENT. 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 II, 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 RIB-'ERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 9 vTw",.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 rn 4. b. 5/27/2010 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II SUBJECT: LAFCO 2009-17-4—SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS —CITY OF PALM DESERT PRIOR RELATED rrEMS: Continued 10/22/2009, 12/3/09, 3/25/10. The sphere of influence amendment for the City of Palm Desert has been continued several times. In March, the Commission continued the sphere of influence review for sixty days to allow for further discussion between the parties. Since the March 25, 2010 hearing, the Palm Desert City Council has met and additional correspondence has been submitted in support of the sphere expansion. The City Council minutes are attached confirming their position to proceed with the sphere influence amendment to include the Sun City -Palm Desert area. Correspondence also includes approximately 4,000 letters of support for inclusion in the City of Palm Desert's sphere from Sun City -Palm Desert community residents. Lastly, property owners along :Interstate 10 have indicated their support for reinstatement in the City's sphere. Provided is a brief summary of their letters. Mee Semeken, Project Manager of Palm Desert 53 Investors, LLC, representing the owners the Valante project, a proposed residential community, has submitted a letter supporting the reintroduction of Palm Desert's sphere of influence over their area. Shelley McCullough, Controller of Mirasera LLC, on behalf of the Mirasera mixed use project has submitted a letter supporting the sphere reintroduction. Harry S. Rinker, owner of The Marketplace Shopping Center, within the sphere expansion area has submitted a letter indicating his support to return the shopping center property to Palm Desert's previous sphere of influence. Steve Metzler, President of Industrial West, LLC, owner of property in the Washington Street Business Park and board member of the Business Park Association has submitted a letter supporting inclusion in the City's sphere and annexation of five properties along Interstate 10. Mr. Metzler owns at least two of the properties. The remainder of properties he represents as a board member to the Association. All correspondence has been attached. Staff's recommendation remains unchanged. However, the language of the determinations has been modified. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission: Find the sphere of influence amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the sphere of RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 LAFCO 2009-17-4 PAGE 2 May 27, 2010 Palm Desert SOI Revive influence amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Amend the City of Palm Desert sphere of influence to include the territory as identified in the attached exhibit. 3. Adopt the following Statement of Determinations: a. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open -space lands: The sphere amendment area includes the Sun City -Palm Desert community and the developed commercial area west of Washington Street and north of Interstate 10. None of the areas being considered are within any agricultural land uses. The City's General Plan land uses in this sphere amendment area are low density residential (R-L), medium density residential (R-M), high density residential (R-H), light industrial (I-L), and community commercial (C-C). b . The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area: The area is developed consisting of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. As a result, the sphere expansion area receives a full range of municipal services. c . The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide: The City of Palm Desert generally provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas. While this high level of service indicates that the City can accommodate growth, it would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact prior to annexing large areas. d . The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency: The sphere amendment area includes the Desert Palms Community Council and a portion of the Thousand Palms Community Council. Respectfully submitted, Adriana Romo Local Government Analyst II RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 on LMM CITY CORRESPONDENCE i R a iA a- a i 7 3 - 5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346-o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org May 12, 2010 Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507-4277 Dear Commissioners: RE: City of Palm Desert Sphere of Influence 1 O At your meeting on March 25, 2010, you considered Palm Desert's request to reintroduce the Sun City Palm Desert area into the City's sphere of influence. The matter was continued to May 27, 2010, with the request that City staff ask the Palm Desert City Council to confirm that their desire to reintroduce the Sun City area had not changed since the request was originally made in December 2008. This letter is written to advise you that on April 22, 2010, the Palm Desert City Council voted 4-0 to reaffirm their request that the same Sun City Palm Desert area that was previously removed from our sphere of influence be reinstated. I am providing you with our staff report on the subject and with the minutes from that meeting so that you can see the nature of the discussion by the City Council members on the issue. We look forward to a final decision on our request at your meeting on May 27, and will have representatives available at the meeting to answer any additional questions that you might have. )hn M. Wohlmuth ity Manager Enclosures: - April 22, 2010 Staff Report - April 22, 2010 Minutes cc: George Spiliotis Palm Desert City Council �.+ PAINiEP ON AE(Y(LFO PAPEfl I CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: That the City Council reaffirm their request to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to reinstate the Sun City Palm Desert area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. SUBMITTED BY: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development DATE: April 22, 2010 CONTENTS: Map of Proposed Sphere of Influence Area Recommendation That the City Council, by minute motion, reaffirm their direction given on December 11, 2008, to ask the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to reintroduce Sun City Palm Desert and the adjacent commercial area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI). Executive Summary A group of property owners in the Thousand Palms community has petitioned LAFCO to deny the Palm Desert City Council's request to have the Del Webb - Sun City area reintroduced into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. As they consider the matter, the LAFCO commissioners would like to verify that the request of the City Council is still valid. The original request was made fourteen months ago in December 2008. Background The Palm Desert Sphere of Influence was expanded north of Interstate 10 to include Del Webb - Sun City ("Sun City Palm Desert") in 1998. The area comprises 3.7 square miles, including Sun City and a commercial district west of Washington Street between 38th Avenue and Interstate 10; the whole area is commonly referred to as the Sun City Sphere of Influence (SOI). (See attached map.) In early 2007, LAFCO representatives asked Palm Desert to review its sphere of influence areas, including the Sun City and Bermuda Dunes areas, and make known their plans for retaining them. In April 2007, the Palm Desert City Council directed staff to advise LAFCO that they had no interest in maintaining the Del Webb — Sun City area in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence, but wanted to maintain Bermuda Dunes within the City's SOI. They also directed staff to have a fiscal analysis performed for potential Sun City Palm Desert Sire of Influence +, April 22, 2010 Page 2 of 3 annexation of Bermuda Dunes at some point in the future. On October 25, 2007, LAFCO held a public hearing on the matter and passed Resolution 117-07, removing the Del Webb — Sun City area from the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. In late 2008, LAFCO requested that the City identify changes, if any, anticipated to Palm Desert's SOI during the next five years. In response to this request and to public testimony on the issue, the City Council directed staff to ask LAFCO to reinstate the Sun City area in Palm Desert's SOI. A hearing was held in front of the Local Agency Formation Commission on 3 December 2009; the matter has been continued three times. At the most recent LAFCO meeting on 25 March 2010, the Commission requested that the Palm Desert City Council reaffirm their interest in reintroducing the Sun City area into their sphere of influence. Discussion A sphere of influence is defined as a "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency." Spheres of influence are used by cities as planning tools to ascertain the levels of service for any potential future incorporations or annexations. However, inclusion of a particular area in a sphere of influence does not categorically mean that the city is actively trying to annex the area. Nor does it mean definitively that the lands within the SOI cannot be annexed into another jurisdiction. A contingent of property owners and residents from Thousand Palms has expressed opposition to having the Sun City area reinstated in Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. - In particular, they object to inclusion of the commercial properties along Interstate 10, believing that the revenue from these properties will be needed by Thousand Palms for financial viability in the event that it incorporates as a city in the future. Their opposition is the principal reason why LAFCO has continued consideration of the matter three times. Representatives plan to attend the City Council meeting to voice their concerns in person, and to ask whether the City Council intends to annex the subject area. On the other side of the discussion, representatives of Sun City Palm Desert have expressed strong support for reintroduction into the SOI. More than 3,800 letters of support have been submitted by the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. Those letters are in binders that will be available for your inspection in the City Council offices during the week of 19 April 2010, and will be available at the 22 April 2010 meeting. The Community Association will also ask representatives to present their position orally at the meeting. Unless the City Council has ruled out the possibility of annexing the Sun City area, staff believes that it is important to reinstate the entire area originally included in the SOL The cost of providing services to residential developments is typically greater than the revenue they provide to a city through property taxes. Hence a balance of land uses, including commercial and industrial uses, is usually required for an area to be revenue neutral when incorporation or annexation is considered. The area north of Interstate 10 gAplanning\tonya monroe\word files\city council staff reports\2010 04-22 sun city sphere of influence.doc Sun City Palm Desert ;,,:iere of Influence April 22, 2010 Page 3 of 3 originally included in Palm Desert's S01 included the Del Webb — Sun City residential development, plus the commercial and industrial properties fronting along Interstate 10 to the west. These properties are effectively separated from the rest of Thousand Palms by the Thousand Palms Conservation Area of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Fiscal Analysis Without the commercial areas to the west of Sun City, it is unlikely that the residential area alone would ever be fiscally suitable for annexation. Without a detailed fiscal analysis, staff cannot determine if some smaller portion of the Interstate 10 frontage would support the added burden of the residential properties. Such a fiscal analysis is not usually performed until or unless annexation is studied. Reintroducing the subject area in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence would not require any capital expenditure and would not have any impact on the City's operating budget. Submitted by: v Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development App n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager CITY COUNCILAG�T�IOPI APPROVED.DENTED ENNEM RECEIVED OTHER AYES: NOES: ABSErM ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: Original on File with City gAplanning\tonya monroe\word files\city council staff reports\2010 04-22 sun city sphere of influence.doc PALM DESERT SPHERE OF (NFLUEN'_E DEL WEBB--SI)N CITY AREA Thousand Palms Palm Deser. Sohere of Influence to he Rt , ated DATE' ED l.V%ISHCP 3oundary 4/ 26/20 10 Palm Deser. City Boundary J MINUTES , REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 Company in an amount not to exceed $108,000 for title fees incurred as part of EIP Phase I I I as services are rendered — all Phase 111 costs will be reimbursed by EIP participants; 3) Director of Finance to transfer funds deposited into the Energy Independence Program Loan Proceeds in Account No. 237-0000-349-9400 to Energy Management to offset said costs — funds for these costs have been budgeted in the Energy Management Professional Services Account, No. 850-4511-442-3090. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO CONTRACT WITH SIERRA LANDSCAPE COMPANY, INC., FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREA NO.4 IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,144 (CONTRACT NO. C28621, PROJECT NO. 904-09). Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a one-year extension to the subject contract with Sierra Landscape Company, Inc., Palm Desert, California, in the amount of $93,144 for maintenance services for Landscape Maintenance Area No. 4 — funds are available in the General Fund Account No. 110-4614-453-3370 - Repair/Maintenance Medians. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS None XVI. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REAFFIRM THEIR REQUEST TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) TO REINSTATE THE SUN CITY PALM DESERT AREA INTO THE PALM DESERT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. Ms. Aylaian stated this item was before the City Council because the Riverside County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) requested the City Council reaffirm the December 11, 2008, request. The history was as follows: In 2007, LAFCO requested the City review its Sphere of Influence (SOI) and make known any plans for retaining the areas. The City Council reviewed the issue and determined they wanted to release Sun City Palm Desert from its SOI and directed staff to conduct a fiscal analysis of the Bermuda Dunes area. That information was forwarded to LAFCO, and LAFCO responded by removing Del Webb Sun City area from Palm Desert's SOI. In 2008, LAFCO came back to all the cities within Riverside County and asked them to identify any changes planned for the next five years within their SOL When the item was agendized for discussion in front of the City Council, there was representation from residents within the Del Webb Sun City who came forward and requested that Sun City Palm Desert be MINUTES r W REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 reinstated into Palm Desert's SOI. The City Council voted to do so and forwarded that request to LAFCO. A year later in December 2009, LAFCO held its first hearing on Palm Desert's request to reinstate the original area from Del Webb Sun City into Palm Desert's SOI. The request has been continued by LAFCO three times, because property owners from Thousand Palms (TP) object to the reinstatement. At the most recent hearing in front of LAFCO, several commissioners expressed the desire to have Palm Desert City Council identify any long-range plans, including potential annexation for the area, but ultimately the Commission voted simply to ask the City Council if it still desired to have the entire area reinstated. She said there was intense interest on both sides of the equation with those in favor of the reinstatement and those opposed. She presented binders that included 3,800 signatures from residents of Del Webb Sun City, but also from businesses within the commercial area just west of Sun City. She called attention to the diagram included in the agenda packet, stating the cross -etched area in red indicated the original Del Webb Sun City area, but north of the freeway was commercial areas and undeveloped lands; the commercial area is the chief area of contention. She said representatives from Thousand Palms are opposed to the inclusion of Del Webb Sun City and commercial areas in Palm Desert's SOI, because they would like to maintain the possibility to incorporate as a city in the future. In order to make it financially viable, they would like to retain revenue from the commercial area within their areas. She noted there were representatives from both sides of the equation that would like to speak, but first she wanted to clarify two things. First, having an area within its SOI did not mean it was going to be annexed, nor was it a commitment by the City Council to pursue annexation in the near future. Although such a decision should not be entered into lightly, it did not serve as a commitment, but simply retains the ability for the City Council to study the issue further in the future. She said a fiscal analysis of the area had not been performed, because that is typically done at the stage where annexation is considered and not where a SOI is considered. Secondly, in the event the City Council wanted to pursue these lands in its SOI as requested in December 2008, staff recommended strongly that the entire original Del Webb Sun City area be reinstated, because if only the residential area was considered, there would be no potential for annexation in the future. She said a residential -only area would never be revenue neutral to the City, because it would need a balance of land uses from both residential and commercial areas to ensure it can have a revenue neutral annexation. She offered to answer questions. Councilman Spiegel asked if the Classic Club, which was west of the subject sphere, in anyone's sphere of influence. Ms. Aylaian answered that she didn't believe so. 9 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 MS. HELEN MCENERNEY, Inverness Avenue, Sun City, Palm Desert, stated she was reaffirming her previous request of December 2008, to petition the City of Palm Desert to reinstate Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert into Palm Desert's SOI. As former vice president and general manager of Del Webb California Corporation, she wanted to share with the Mayor and remind Councilmembers how closely the City worked with Del Webb. She said back in 1993 or 1994 the City assisted Del Webb in changing its name from Sun City Palm Springs to Sun City Palm Desert along with a post office box change. At that time, home building and construction on the north side of the freeway was considered foolish by many, but some may recall the cooperation Palm Desert provided to assist with the construction of the Washington Street Interchange, which was no small feat. Her predecessor Frank Pankratz, a charter member of the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership(CVEP), along with Dick Oliphant, Bob Dickey, Rick Daniels, etc., worked hard to get Del Webb into the Enterprise Zone with the property zoned Industrial and Commercial, which was in the sphere boundary north of 1-10 and west of Washington Street up to 38`h Avenue. Del Webb owned several parcels and assisted Eisenhower with the Del E. Webb Foundation and helped create the Eisenhower Medical Center on the corner of Washington Street and Wildcat. She said Del Webb worked hard to bring businesses and enterprises north of the freeway into the Industrial Park, which was previously owned by Del Webb. Suffice to say Del Webb Sun City had a long-standing bond with Palm Desert hoping that one day, some time in the future, an annexation could or would take place. That time may or may not be in the distant future, but reestablishing the SOI would protect Sun City Palm Desert and its boundary from other cities or jurisdictions from trying to annex or "cherry pick" the commercial parcels it worked hard to develop. She asked the Council to vote in favor of reinstating Del Webb Sun City into Palm Desert's SOI. MR. BILL MURPHY, President of the Board of Directors of Sun City Palm Desert Community Association, stated he and his colleagues were in support of reinstating its community and commercial property into Palm Desert's SOI. He noted that in attendance were members of the board, former president of the board Corky Larson, current general manager of the board, and representatives of its 15 districts. He said ten days ago he received a letter from City Manager John Wohlmuth requesting that he and his association get in touch with the residents for their input on returning Sun City Palm Desert into Palm Desert's SOI, and after nine days they had a 75% response rate with additional letters' still coming in, which was incredible. He said if you counted the snow birds that already left, one could say it was a 90% response rate in favor. He said he also spoke to the neighbors in the commercial areas and that the City should have received letters of support from Harry Rinker, owner of the Marketplace Shopping Center, developers from Mirasera and Valante, and owner of Industrial West. He said Mirasera was a proposed development covering 186 acres, which will include MINUTES �w REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 high -density residential, commercial, hotels, retail, and offices, which was the pie -shaped green area in the lower right-hand corner in the diagram included in the City Council packets; Valante was a proposed development of 160 single-family homes adjacent to Mirasera; and the owner of Industrial West owned several properties on Washington Street Business Park. He said the City asked for input and the aforementioned was the response, which showed high support for the measure. Mayor Finerty noted the next speaker requested five minutes, because others were giving up their time. MS. PATRICIA SALEH, Thousand Palms Community Council Member, stated that having grown up in the Coachella Valley since the age of three, she's watched the Desert change since the days when spa waters flowed uncapped along a dirt road in Palm Springs, which was now called Indian Avenue. She was here when Palm Village became Palm Desert, and when a Government decision in 1957 allowed Interstate 10 (1-10) to be built parallel to Varner Road cutting off Ramon Road access to Thousand Palms (TP) for five years until an overpass was finally built. During that time, the blossoming community of TP shriveled up and almost disappeared. The message was loud and clear, "who cares about Thousand Palms." It has only been during the last 15 or 20 years that TP has begun to rebound. It now had a school, library, community council, the largest fire training center in Riverside County, two new commercial/industrial areas, an animal campus, multimillion -dollar horse ranches and more. Most of the community is on sewers, and last year, the County and Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) invested $32 million into TP based on the potential development of its central location and freeway frontage. It was the potential and diversity that recently prompted Cathedral City to propose taking all of Thousand Palms rather than just its west flank. Since LAFCO recognizes that a SOI is a serious planning tool for future annexation, and because neighboring cities have concluded that TP didn't fit their profile, TP is fighting to avoid being cut down in size that it can never incorporate on its own. It would be costly for TP to fight a SOI, and without the same growth potential, it would not only receive a lesser share of County funds, but likely become a permanent orphan of the County. Because Cathedral City's proposal also included the areas Palm Desert was requesting, she and Thousand Palms Community Councilmember Roy Nokes informed Councilman Kelly of Cathedral City's intention and asked if Palm Desert would object or also consider taking all of Thousand Palms rather than just Sun City and its commercial areas. She said Councilman Kelly expressed interest and that he would organize a meeting with another Councilmember along with City staff to discuss the pros and cons. Chairman of the Desert Palms Community Council Sy Kaplan agreed to take part in this meeting, and at that meeting on March 17, the response from Councilman Spiegel and Councilman Ferguson was that Palm Desert had decided two years prior not 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 to annex north of 1-10 and that nothing had changed. She said Councilmen's Spiegel and Ferguson stated the Council requested to take Sun City Palm Desert back into its sphere of influence just to be nice to Del Webb Sun City, because Sun City didn't want to be taken in by the City of Indio. At that time, she asked if Palm Desert would consider taking Thousand Palms land out of the request since it had no intentions of annexation, and Councilman Spiegel answered no. It is for this reason that LAFCO has continued its hearings on Palm Desert's request until May 27, 2010, to see if a compromise could be worked out and also give Palm Desert the opportunity to confirm whether or not this Council had any real desire to annex the proposed sphere area. She said LAFCO Executive Officer George Spiliotis stated his recommendation to approve Palm Desert's request was based on the City's assumed intent to annex the area, because taking a sphere on the basis of the possibility that some future council might want to annex would be land -banking and not acceptable to LAFCO. LAFCO wants the present Council to confirm its intent to annex. She didn't want to hamper Sun City's efforts in any way and hoped that if Palm Desert wanted to annex Sun City Palm Desert west of Washington Street that it leave Thousand Palms territories out of its sphere. With all the habitat and preserved area taken out of Thousand Palms, it needed every bit of land to achieve the tax base to incorporate. She knew Palm Desert would not be well served by the failure of TP. She hoped the Palm Desert City Council can stop another government decision from crippling the future of its blossoming community. MR. ISRAEL ESMERALDA SR. stated he would pass his time. MR. ROY NOKES, Thousand Palms Community Council Member, stated he knew they were fighting an elephant all the way; however, once the door was opened for possible future City of Thousand Palms after Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert gave up its SOI, it had another opportunity to incorporate as a city. He's been in the Desert since 1966 and seen Palm Desert and four of the other cities develop. He said the City of Palm Desert had done great and it was an example to other cities anywhere, and now Thousand Palms (TP) wanted that same opportunity exercised by Palm Desert when it became a City Council. He said TP was centrally located for a city and should have been able to move toward being a city years ago, but the financing and commercial growth was south of 1-10. Now that the development had come to TP and after this recession is over, there will be a lot of development in the TP area because there was nowhere else to go except the vacant land north of 1-10. He said based on the General Master Plan, many didn't think TP could generate the tax based needed, but if the Plan was adjusted to retail, commercial, and industrial, which would be further north, it will have the income base from hotel, bed tax, retail shops, and restaurants along Interstate-10 and south of Varner Road, but not counting the development between Ramon Road and Washington Street. He said TP also had the Enterprise Zone along 1-10 to Date Palm and beyond. He said this was the 12 MINUTEST REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 only opportunity to convince Palm Desert City Council that TP needed the chance to develop its own city. He said they were asking for 10 or 15 years down the road to try to build the tax base. He said for years TP supported Palm Desert's tax base even before it became a community, and now they wanted to keep some of their own tax base to build their own city. He said TP was more centrally located than other cities, because they were on the railroad, 1-10, and all five of the north south routes across the Valley passed through the TP area. He said TP didn't have traffic congestion, noise or crime problems, graffiti, or drug dealers standing on the corner like other cities. He said they had a beautiful well -maintained park thanks to Corky Larson. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak on this matter. MR. DON DONNELLY, Tri-Palms United Owners Association Board Member, stated he represented more than 1,700 units or 3,500 residents in the Tri- Palm Community, which was within the area of Thousand Palms. He said they didn't support the taking of land in the Thousand Palms areas, because it was a jeopardy to its future by the piracy or cherry picking of some potential industrial and commercial properties to get more assessed valuation. His community opposed any sphere of influence, because it was step one of annexation by Palm Desert's SOI. He thanked the Council for its consideration. MS. CORKY LARSON, Palm Desert, stated she loved hearings like these where both sides were nice people, but the City Council had to decide how to split the baby. She's lived in Sun City Palm Desert for 14 years now from when she moved from Palm Springs. She said Thousand Palms didn't really care if Sun City Palm Desert was back in Palm Desert's sphere. It was the commercial area they didn't want to see go along with Sun City. However, she was requesting the Council return Sun City Palm Desert to where it was a few years ago. She had spoken to Thousand Palms representatives, but she didn't think they understood exactly what a sphere of influence meant. The reason Sun City pushed to return to Palm Desert SOI was because there are aggressive cities. She said before Thousand Palms can become a city, if that's in their destiny, those aggressive cities would like to cherry pick that commercial area. A member of LAFCO had mentioned there was an inquiry about it. She said returning Sun City Palm Desert with the commercial area was in Palm Desert's best interest if the next step should ever be annexation. However, it wouldn't change anything for Thousand Palms, because they could still incorporate, and if they wanted to, they could include Sun City Palm Desert in that incorporation. She used to serve as chair of LAFCO and knew a sphere of influence and incorporation could happen at the same time. However, right now Sun City Palm Desert wished to return under Palm Desert's SOL She said as County Supervisor, she created community councils, and the sole purpose of them was to advise the Board of Supervisor who was the government of the area. She said neither Supervisor Wilson nor Supervisor Benoit had any objections to the whole area returning to 13 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 where it was. She loved the people of Thousand Palms and vowed to work with them in any way possible to help them fulfill whatever their dreams are and believed when this was all over everyone will be friends. She asked the Council to return Sun City Palm Desert to Palm Desert's sphere of influence to provide it the protection that went away when Sun City was dropped from its sphere, knowing the action would not hurt Thousand Palms. She requested Palm Desert City Council reaffirm it's request to LAFCO, although she didn't know why they were asking for a confirmation from Palm Desert. She offered to answer any questions. Councilman Kelly stated he thought Palm Desert had already requested Sun City Palm Desert return to Palm Desert's SOI as mentioned by Ms. Larson. Mr. Wohlmuth responded a letterwas sent to LAFCO in December to request Sun City Palm Desert return to Palm Desert's SOI, and LAFCO has continued its hearing three times, and in their last meeting they requested Palm Desert to reaffirm it's request. Councilman Kelly stated he understood Thousand Palms desire to create their own City, and they had his blessings. On the other hand, Del Webb Sun City would like to continue to be in Palm Desert's SOI, and the adjacent commercial area was part of their area. He said Sun City Palm Desert deserved to have some of that commercial area connected with their area. He said God bless Indio and hallelujah for the sales tax they get, but the proper thing for Sun City would have been for that whole area to be in Del Webb Sun City's SOI and whom they were connected with. He reconfirmed that Sun City Palm Desert and the adjacent commercial areas be in Palm Desert's SOL Councilman Spiegel noted the recreational vehicle retailer in the commercial area was on television four or five times a day advertising that its location was in Palm Desert. The fact that Thousand Palms didn't have the Classic Club or the whole area in its sphere, meant that TP was in one area and now it wanted to be moved to take in this RV retailer, which didn't make sense. He agreed with Councilman Kelly to reaffirm its request to LAFCO. Councilmember Benson stated she had always been in favor of Sun City being in Palm Desert's SOL She said Palm Desert requested Sun City change their name so that they weren't aligned to Palm Springs before they ever asked to be part of Palm Desert. She certainly thought it was admirable Thousand Palms wanted to be a city, but maybe it should be grateful they weren't facing these economic times, because they wouldn't have the money to keep it running and would have to d is-i n corporate. She said Thousand Palms was a vital part of the corridor along 1-10 as much as Sun City, but Sun City Palm Desert needed to be in Palm Desert's SOI to promote and 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 protect itself. She said whether Thousand Palms ever got to be a city was not up to Palm Desert, but she can respect their economic situation. Mayor Finerty concurred with her colleagues. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, reaffirm the direction given on December 11, 2008, to ask the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to reintroduce Sun City Palm Desert and the adjacent commercial area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. Councilman Kelly stated the City Council would be happy to work with Thousand Palms residents and Thousand Palms Council toward whatever it desired to achieve. MS. SALEH stated they were told Palm Desert would not annex north of 1-10, and it seemed Palm Desert didn't want Thousand Palms either. Councilman Kelly responded that question couldn't be answered at this point. Councilman Spiegel stated it was unknown who would be serving on the Council five years from now, and that future Council would be making a decision based on a staff report that indicated whether or not it was economical. One of the reasons why Palm Desert had not done anything in Bermuda Dunes was because if was not economically sound to pay for the curbs and gutters. Unfortunately, the City of La Quinta had been cherry picking in that area, but that was another story. Councilman Kelly noted this kind of process took time and nothing would happen overnight. MS. SALEH said she wanted it explained why LAFCO had returned Palm Desert's request, which was obvious Palm Desert had not taken back its request. Councilman Kelly stated the City Council had to deal with the fact that the folks in Thousand Palms changed their mind every two years; Thousand Palms was either in or out. He said if the process ever happened, the Council will work to try to make it work for everyone. MS. SALEH said LAFCO wanted to know if this particular City Council had any intent to annex, but that wasn't addressed with the motion that was made by LAFCO. She said LAFCO wouldn't have returned the request just to reconfirm if Palm Desert wanted Sun City Palm Desert in its sphere. 15 in LETTERS OF SUPPORT • Business Park Owners Along Interstate 10 From: Mee Lee <meehae2Qyahoo.com> Date: April 20, 2010 0:32:40 AM PDT To: infoaci.palm-desert.ca.us Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence fionorahle Mayor Fincm and Members of City Council: Palm Desert 53 Investors, LLC, owners of Valance, would like to express our support for the reintroduction of the Sun City Area into the Palm Deaun Sphere of Influence (SOO, The Valente Protect is Adjacent to the Mitasers Project and a pun of the general Sun City Area. Although we are located north of the 1-10 anti currently not contained within Palm Deserts SOL we would prefer to be included in the reintroduction of the Palm Desert SOf over this area. Valdwe is a proposed development of an infill Single family attached and defAched residential community of 460 new dwelling, units. We would appreciate your consideration of this matter and if you have any questions, please fbel free to contact me at (213) 706-7475, Thank you. Sincerely, Mee 5emckmt Project Manager PD 53, LLC nA Y-14-L1l I U h K l I Z; U l rn Sun U 1 IT ry UH r HA nu, l ov cuu eeuu r vor ua Pagel of i From: sheUey mccullough <sheilev mirasera,-4L,M> Date: April 19, 2010 3:26:23 PM PDT To: of c , iegrt, ca•us Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence H noraWe Mayor Fin" and Memgers of City Counu'l, mitamm would like to uxpmsc ow complato support br Me raintrodwoon of trio Sun C fy Area into §tie Palm Desert Sphe►a Of lnlhte #M TM Mkasera oMiW is also part of #* Sun City area and would be Mduded in Me reintrodualon of the Palm Desert Sphere of lnfiuehca OW the area. MWasera is a 188 acre mbod use pmoa to i vam high density rssidentW, coprprtetpat, hotata, mall and MOW. if you have any questions, please teal tree to contact me. Thank you in advance tar your help, Best regards, Shelley mcculioup Controller M'w'eseta, LLC by Davila Group, LLC PO Box 1380 Palm Desert, CA 92M (760) 275-0eae httD://netmai1.veri2.c>n.net/vwebmail/driver?nimlet=deasetemai)&,fn=INBO:y ... 4/20/2010 MflY-14-2U1U M1 1z;U1 rn buN uttr Yu tali trot tvu. +oU e-UU ccatl M RINKER COMPANY April I S, 2010 TO: Bill Murphy. President and SCPDCA Board of Directors RE; Sus City and Pnhn Desert I understand the Palm Desert City Council will be voting April 2V6 on whether to return Sun City, including The Marketplace Shopping Cantor to Palm Desert's sphere of influence. Would you kindly advise the Palm Desert City Council that as owner of The Marketplace Shopping Center In Palen Dow; I strongly support the retuning of the shopping cmum property to Patin Donn's original sphere of influaw. Please advise if I may hunish you additional inibimation in support of this treasure. fi S. Rinker /gt MAILING A0DAE55� PO BOX 7250 • NEWPORI RACH, CAUPOAMA 92451.7250 YEL (7141 97Q4300 . FAX {714; 474.3327 rlH1-1q-tu1u rrct I.c.ul M M April 15, 2010 Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Dcsort, CA 92260-2578 RE: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Mayor: COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES MOORAGE • MANAGEMENT o INVESTMENTS I am writing you and the City Council regarding the pending Palm Desert Sphere of Influence vote to reintroduce the Sun City area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. I own property in the Washington Street Business Park which is west of Sun City and would be included into Palm Desert Sphere of Influence, I am also an Association Board Member for the Business Park and represent t or own the following properties that arc within the Park: 77-775 Jackal Drive, Metzler 77-779 Jackal Drive, Metzler 77-971 Wildcat, Sanddrift 77-899 Wolf Road and two adjoining improved vacant lots, Doms 39-205 Leopard, Roth We are all in agreement that we would like to be in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence and eventually become incorporated into the city along with my other commercial properties on Country Club Drive and Cook Street. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope all is well with you. Regards *( Steve Metzler/ President Industrial West, Inc. Cc: ,iohn Wohlmuth, City Manager Frank Riley 4 v-Rf�� 1�+,ep�y{w,tl�t, 4uita IN" Pxiari (A 91211 Nome I I I Y Of P rL M 73-510 FRED WA PALM DESERT, 0 TEL: 760 346—c FAX: 760 340-05 info@palm-desert.org Orrici: ou-rm; Crty MANAGHR April 5, 2010 Bill Murphy, President Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 38180 Del Webb Boulevard Palm Desert CA 92211 RE: PALM DESERT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Dear Mr. Murphy: At its meeting of March 25, 2010, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) continued, for two months, consideration of reintroducing the Sun City area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. This is the third time that the Commission has considered, then continued, the matter. The Commissioners requested that the Palm Desert City Council confirm that their desire to include the Sun City area — including the commercial area to the west -- in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence has not changed since December 2008 when the request was originally made. In order to garner direction from the City Council, I will be placing this matter on the agenda for consideration at the Palm Desert City Council meeting to be held at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, 2010. At their specific request, the City Clerk will be notifying a number of interested parties from the Thousand Palms area of this agendized matter. Since the residents of Sun City Palm Desert are even more directly impacted than are residents of Thousand Palms, I'm requesting your assistance in making certain that the City Council hears from them as well. I would appreciate it if you would circulate notice of the upcoming meeting to your HOA Board of Directors and to the membership at large. Interested parties are invited to make their opinions regarding the sphere of influence known by writing a letter to the Mayor and City Council, or by sending an e-mail message to info@ci.palm-desert.ca.us. Additionally, having one or more spokespersons for the HOA Board of Directors attend the meeting and make their request (or otherwise state the position of the Board) will be beneficial. If you have any specific questions or concerns about the implications of being within the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence, please contact Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, at (760) 346-0611 x481. N M. WOHLMUTH Manager la cc: Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director "NpNIN ON RFCIatD PARRR cm Im PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING XIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: [DRAFT APRIL 22, 2010 A. ORDINANCE NO. 1212 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 8.40.080 AND SECTION 8.40.100 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA— RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. Mr. Erwin stated this item was a correction and there had been no change. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No.1212. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. XIV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PAY TITLE FEES TO FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY AND LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY AS PART OF THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM (EIP) (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Redevelopment Manager Martin Alvarez stated approval of this item will allow the City/Agency to reimburse title companies used for Phases I and II as part of the Energy Independence Program (EIP). Moving forward, staff requests approval to reimburse up to $108,000 for title fees as they are incurred for Phase III participants. He said Phase II(b) and Phase III will be fully reimbursed by the EIP participants. He offered to answer questions. Councilman/Member Kelly asked what portion will be paid by EIP participants. Mr. Alvarez responded $200 of the $360 title fees for Phases I and II will be reimbursed by the EIP participant. Further responding, he said out of the $50,000 title fees incurred for Phases I and 11, the City/Agency will be reimbursed $27,800 by the EIP participants. Councilman/Member Kelly moved to by Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Payment to First American Title Company in an amount not to exceed $30,240 for title fees incurred as part of Phases I and 11(a) & (b) of the EIP — a portion of these costs will be reimbursed by EIP participants; 2) payment to First American Title Company and Lawyers Title 7 M cm PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 0 A APRIL 22, 2010 Company in an amount not to exceed $108,000 for title fees incurred as part of EIP Phase III as services are rendered — all Phase I// costs willbe reimbursed by EIP participants; 3) Director of Finance to transfer funds deposited into the Energy Independence Program Loan Proceeds in Account No. 237-0000-349-9400 to Energy Management to offset said costs — funds for these costs have been budgeted in the Energy Management Professional Services Account, No. 850-4511-442-3090. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO CONTRACT WITH SIERRA LANDSCAPE COMPANY, INC., FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AREA NO.4 IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,144 (CONTRACT NO. C28621, PROJECT NO. 904-09). Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve a one-year extension to the subject contract with Sierra Landscape Company, Inc., Palm Desert, California, in the amount of $93,144 for maintenance services for Landscape Maintenance Area No. 4 — funds are available in the General Fund Account No. 110-4614-453-3370 - Repair/Maintenance Medians. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS None XVI. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REAFFIRM THEIR REQUEST TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) TO REINSTATE THE SUN CITY PALM DESERT AREA INTO THE PALM DESERT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. Ms. Aylaian stated this item was before the City Council because the Riverside County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) requested the City Council reaffirm the December 11, 2008, request. The history was as follows: In 2007, LAFCO requested the City review its Sphere of Influence (SOI) areas and make known any plans for retaining the areas. The City Council reviewed the issue and determined they wanted to release Sun City from its SOI and directed staff to conduct a fiscal analysis of the Bermuda Dunes area. That information was forwarded to LAFCO, and LAFCO responded by removing the Del Webb Sun City area from Palm Desert's SOI. In 2008, LAFCO came back to all the cities within Riverside County and asked them to identify any changes planned for the next five years within their SOI. When the item was agendized for discussion in front of the City Council, there was representation from residents within the Del Webb Sun City who came forward and requested that Sun City be reinstated into Palm I' cm PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING A I.' APRIL 22, 2010 Desert's SOI. The City Council voted to do so and forwarded that request to LAFCO. A year later in December 2009, LAFCO held its first hearing on Palm Desert's request to reinstate the original area from the Del Webb Sun City into Palm Desert's SOI. The request has been continued by LAFCO three times, because property owners from Thousand Palms (TP) object to the reinstatement of the area into Palm Desert's SOI. At the most recent hearing in front of LAFCO, several Commissioner's expressed the desire to have Palm Desert City Council identify any long-range plans, including potential annexation for the area, but ultimately the Commission voted simply to ask the City Council if it still desired to have the entire area reinstated. She noted there was intense interest on both sides of the equation with those in favor of the reinstatement and those opposed to it. She presented binders that included 3,800 signature from residents of Del Webb Sun City, but also from businesses within the commercial area just west of Sun City. She called attention to the diagram included in the agenda packet, stating the cross -etched area in red indicated what was in the original Del Webb Sun City area, and the west corner, south of 381h Avenue, but north of the freeway was commercial area and undeveloped lands; the commercial area is the chief area of contention. She said representatives from the Thousand Palms area are opposed to the inclusion of Del Webb Sun City and commercial areas in Palm Desert's SOI, because they would like to maintain the possibility to incorporate as a city in the future. In order to make it financially viable, they would like to retain revenue from the commercial area within their areas. She noted there were representatives from both sides of the equation that would like to speak, but first she wanted to clarify two things. First, having an area within its SOI did not mean it was going to be annexed, nor was it a commitment by the City Council to pursue annexation in the near future. Although such a decision should not be entered into lightly, it did not serve as a commitment, but simply retains the ability for the City Council to study the issue further in the future. She said a fiscal analysis had not been performed, because that was typically done at the stage where annexation was considered and not where a SOI is considered. Secondly, in the event the City Council did want to pursue these lands in its SOI as requested in December2008, staff recommends strongly that the entire original area be reinstated, because if only the residential area was considered, there would be no potential for annexation in the future. She said a residential -only area would never be revenue neutral to the City, because it would need a balance of land uses from both residential and commercial areas to ensure it can have a revenue neutral annexation. She offered to answer questions. Councilman Spiegel asked if the Classic Club, which was west of the subject sphere, in anyone's sphere of influence. Ms. Aylaian answered she didn't believe so. N En M PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 13 ,A F T APRIL 22, 2010 MS. HELEN MCENERNEY, Inverness Avenue, Sun City, Palm Desert, stated she was reaffirming her previous request in December 2008, to petition the City of Palm Desert to reinstate Sun City into the Palm Desert's SOI. As former vice president and general manager of Del Webb California Corporation, she wanted to share with the Mayor and remind Councilmembers how closely the City worked with Del Webb. Back in 1993 or 1994, the City assisted Del Webb in changing its name from Sun City Palm Springs to Sun City Palm Desert along with a post office box change. Home building and construction on the north side of the freeway was considered foolish by many, but some Councilmembers may recall the cooperation Palm Desert provided to assist with the construction of the Washington Street Interchange, which was no small feat. Early on her predecessor Frank Pankratz, a charter member of the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership(CVEP), along with Dick Oliphant, Bob Dickey, Rick Daniels, etc., worked hard to get Del Webb into the Enterprise Zone with the property zoned Industrial and Commercial, which was in the sphere boundary north of 1-10 and west of Washington Street up to 38`h Avenue. Del Webb owned several parcels and assisted Eisenhower with the Del E. Webb Foundation and helped create the Eisenhower Medical Center on the comer of Washington Street and Wildcat. She said Del Webb worked hard to bring businesses and enterprises north of the freeway into the Industrial Park, which was previously owned by Del Webb. Suffice to say Del Webb Sun City had a long-standing bond with Palm Desert hoping that one day, some time in the future, an annexation could or would take place. That time may or may not be in the distant future, but reestablishing the SOI would protect Sun City and its boundary from other cities or jurisdictions from trying to annex or "cherry pick" the commercial parcels it worked hard to develop. She asked the Council to vote in favor of reinstating Sun City Palm Desert into Palm Desert's SOL MR. BILL MURPHY, President of the Board of Directors of Sun City Palm Desert Community Association, stated he and his colleagues were in support of reinstating its community and commercial property into Palm Desert's SOL He noted that in attendance were members of the board, former president of the board Corky Larson, current general manager of the board, and representatives of its 15 districts. Ten days ago he received a letter from City Manager John Wohlmuth requesting that he and his association get in touch with the residents for their input on returning Sun City into Palm Desert's SOI. After nine days, they had almost a 75% response rate with additional letters' still coming in, which was incredible. He said if you counted the snow birds that already left, one could say it was a 90% response rate in favor. He also spoke to the commercial neighbors, and the City should have received a letter from the owner of the Marketplace Shopping Center Mr. Harry Rinker, who strongly supported the SOI measure. Additionally, the City should have also received letters of support for the reinstatement from developers of Mirasera and Valante, and owner of Industrial West. He said 10 0 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 091 T APRIL 22, 2010 Mirasera was a proposed development covering 186 acres, which will include high -density residential, commercial, hotels, retail, and offices, which was the pie -shaped green area in the lower right-hand corner in the diagram included in the City Council packets; Valante was a proposed development of 160 single-family homes adjacent to Mirasera; and owner of Industrial West own several properties on Washington Street Business Park. He said the City asked for input and the aforementioned was the response, which showed a high supported for this measure. Mayor Finerty noted the next speaker requested five minutes, because others were giving up their time. MS. PATRICIA SALEH, Thousand Palms, stated having grown up in the Coachella Valley since the age of three, she's watched the Desert change, since the days when spa waters flowed uncapped along a dirt road in Palm Springs, now called Indian Avenue. She was here when Palm Village became Palm Desert, and when a Government decision in 1957 allowed Interstate 10 (1-10) to be built parallel to Varner Road, cutting off Ramon Road access to Thousand Palms (TP) for five years until an overpass was finally built. During that time, the blossoming community of TP shriveled up and almost disappeared. The message was loud and clear, "who cares about Thousand Palms." It has only been during the last 15 or 20 years that TP has begun to rebound. It now had a school, library, community council, the largest Fire Training Center in Riverside County, two new commercial/ industrial areas, an Animal Campus, multimillion -dollar horse ranches and more. Most of the community is on sewers, and last year the County and Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) invested $32 million into TP based on the potential development of its central location and freeway frontage. It was the potential and diversity that recently prompted Cathedral City to propose taking all of Thousand Palms rather than just its west flank. Since LAFCO recognizes that SOI are serious planning tools for future annexations, and because neighboring cities have concluded that TP didn't fit their profile, TP is fighting to avoid being cut down in size so much that it can never incorporate on its own. It would be costly for TP to fight a SOI, and without the same growth potential, it would not only receive a lesser share of County funds, but likely become a permanent orphan of the County. Because Cathedral City's proposal also included the area Palm Desert was requesting and wanting to be fair to all concerned, she and TP Community Councilmember Roy Nokes informed Councilman Kelly of Cathedral City's intention and asked if Palm Desert would object or also consider taking all of Thousand Palms rather than just Sun City and its commercial areas. She said Councilman Kelly expressed interest and that he would organize a meeting with another Councilmember along with City staff to discuss the pros and cons. Chairman of the Desert Palms Community Council Mr. Kaplan agreed to take part in this meeting, and at that meeting on March 17, the response from Councilman Spiegel and Councilman Ferguson was that Palm 11 i 'too PRELIMINARY MINUTES O A FT REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 Desert had decided two years prior not to annex north of 1-10 and nothing had changed. She said Councilmen's Spiegel and Ferguson stated the Council requested to take Sun City back into its sphere of influence just to be nice to Sun City, because Sun City didn't want to be taken in by the City of Indio. At that time, she had asked if that was Palm Desert's only intention with no plans for annexation, if Palm Desert would considertaking Thousand Palms land out of the SO1, and Councilman Spiegel answered no. It is for this reason that LAFCO has continued Palm Desert request until May 27, 2010, to see if a compromise could be worked out and give Palm Desert the opportunity to confirm whether or not this Council had any real desire to annex the proposed sphere area. She said LAFCO Executive Officer George Spiliotis stated his recommendation to approve Palm Desert's request was based on the City's assumed intent to annex the area, because taking a sphere on the basis of the possibility that some future council might want to annex, would be land -banking and not acceptable to LAFCO. LAFCO wants the present Council's to confirm its intent to annex. She did not want to hamper Sun City's efforts in any way and hoped that if Palm Desert did want to annex Sun City's west of Washington Street, that this Council see its way clear to leaving the Thousand Palms territories out of its sphere. With all the habitat and preserved area taken out of Thousand Palms, it needed every bit of land to achieve the tax base to incorporate. She knew Palm Desert would not be well served by the failure of TP. She hoped the Palm Desert City Council can help stop another government decision from crippling the future of its blossoming community. MR. ISRAEL ESMERALDA SR stated he would pass his time. MR. ROY NOKES stated he knew they were fighting an elephant all the way; however, once the door was opened for possible future City of Thousand Palms after Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert gave up its SOI, it had another opportunity to incorporate as a city. He's been in the desert since 1966 and seen Palm Desert and four of the other cities develop. He said the City of Palm Desert had done great and it was an example to other cities anywhere. He said Thousand Palms (TP) wanted the same opportunity exercised by Palm Desert when it became a City Council. He said TP was centrally located for a city and should have been able to move toward being a city years ago, but the financing and commercial growth was south of 1-10. Now that the development had come to TP and after this depression is over, there will be a lot of development in the TP area, because there was nowhere else to go except the vacant land north of 1-10. He said most people didn't think TP can generate the tax base based on the General Master Plan, but if it was adjusted more to retail, commercial, and industrial, which would be further north, it will also have the other income base from hotel, bed tax, retail shops, and retail restaurants along Interstate-10 and south of Varner Road, but not counting the development between Ramon Road and Washington Street. He said TP also had the Enterprise Zone along 1-10 to 12 cm In PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING A F APRIL 22, 2010 Date Palm and beyond. He said this was the only opportunity to convince the Palm Desert City Council that TP needed the chance to develop its own city. He said they were asking for 10 or 15 years down the road to try to build the tax base. He said for years TP supported Palm Desert's tax base even before it became a community, and now they wanted to:keep some of their own tax base to build their own city. He said TP was more centrally located than other cities, because they were on the railroad, 1-10, and all five of the north south routes across the Valley passed through the TP area. He said TP didn't have traffic congestion, noise or crime problems, graffiti or drug dealers standing on the corner like other cities. He said they had a beautiful well -maintained park thanks to Corky Larson. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak on this matter. MR. DON DONNELLY, Thousand Palms, stated he represented more than 1,700 units or 3,500 residents in the Tri-Palm Community, which was within the area of Thousand Palms. He said they did not support the taking of land in the Thousand Palms areas, because it was a jeopardy to its future by the piracy or cherry picking of some potential industrial and commercial properties to get more assessed valuation. He said his community opposed any sphere of influence, because it was step one of annexation by Palm Desert's SOI. He thanked the Council for its consideration. MS. CORKY LARSON, Palm Desert, stated she loved hearings like these where both sides were nice people, but the City Council had to decide how to split the baby. She's lived in Sun City Palm Desert for 14 years now from when she moved from Palm Springs. She said Thousand Palms didn't really care if Sun City was back in Palm Desert's sphere. It was the commercial area they didn't want to see it go along with Sun City. However, she was requesting the Council return Sun City to where it was a few years ago. She had spoken to Thousand Palms representatives, but she didn't think they understood exactly what a sphere meant. The reason Sun City pushed to return to Palm Desert SOI was because there are aggressive cities. She said before Thousand Palms can become a city, if that's in their destiny, those aggressive cities would like to cherry pick that commercial area. A member of LAFCO had mentioned there was an inquiry about it. She said returning Sun City with the commercial area was in Palm Desert's best interest if the next step should ever be annexation. However, it wouldn't change anything for Thousand Palms, because they could still incorporate, and if they want to, they could include Sun City Palm Desert in that incorporation. She used to be chair of LAFCO and knew Councilmemberwho also served on LAFCO, and knew the sphere and incorporation could happen at the same time. However, right now Sun City Palm Desert wished to return under Palm Desert's SOI. She said as County Supervisor, she created community councils, and the sole purpose of them was to advise the Board of Supervisor who is the government of the area. She said neither Supervisor Wilson or Supervisor Benoit have any objections to the whole area returning 13 PRELIMINARY MINUTES A F REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 to where it was. She loved the people of Thousand Palms and vowed to work with them in anyway possible to help them fulfill whatever their dreams are. She believed when this was all over everyone will be friends. She asked the Council to return Sun City to Palm Desert's sphere of influence to provide it the protection that went away when Sun City was dropped from its sphere, and the action would not hurt Thousand Palms. She reiterated that the Council reaffirm it's request to LAFCO, although she didn't know why they were requesting confirmation from Palm Desert. She offered to answer any questions. Councilman Kelly stated he thought Palm Desert had already requested Del Webb Sun City return to Palm Desert's SOI as mentioned by Ms. Larson. Mr. Wohlmuth responded a letter was sent to LAFCO in December to request Sun City return to Palm Desert's SOI, and LAFCO has continued this hearing three times, and in their last meeting they requested Palm Desert to reaffirm it's request. Councilman Kelly stated he understood Thousand Palms desire to create a City and they had his blessings. On the other hand Del Webb Sun City would like to continue to be in Palm Desert's SOI, and the commercial area next to them was part of their area. He said Sun City deserved to have some commercial connected with their area. He said bless Indio and hallelujah for them and the sales tax they get, but the proper thing for Sun City would have been for that whole area to be in Sun City's SOI and whom they were connected with. He reconfirmed that Sun City be in Palm Desert's SOI and include the commercial area that is adjacent to it. Councilman Spiegel noted the recreational vehicle retailer in the commercial area is on television four or five times a day, and advertises that his recreational lot is in Palm Desert. The fact that Thousand Palms didn't have the Classic Club or the whole area in their sphere, which means that TP was in one area and now it wanted to be moved and take in this RV retailer didn't make sense. He agreed with Councilman Kelly to reaffirm its request to LAFCO. Councilmember Benson stated she was always in favor of Sun City being in Palm Desert's SOI. She said Palm Desert requested Sun City change their name so that they weren't aligned to Palm Springs before Sun City ever asked the City to be a part of Palm Desert. She certainly thought it was admirable Thousand Palms wanted to be a city, but maybe it should be grateful they weren't facing these economic times, because they wouldn't have the money to keep it running and would have to dis-incorporate. She said Thousand Palms was a vital part of the corridor along 1-10 as much as Sun City, but Sun City needed to be in Palm Desert's SOI to promote and 14 E9 M PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 011RAFT APRIL 22, 2010 protect itself. She said whether Thousand Palms ever got to be a city was not up to Palm Desert, but can respect their economic situation. Mayor Finerty concurred with her colleagues. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, reaffirm the direction given on December 11, 2008, to ask the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to reintroduce Sun City Palm Desert and the adjacent commercial area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. Councilman Kelly stated the City Council would be happy to work with Thousand Palms residents and Thousand Palms Council toward whatever it desired to achieve. MS. SALEH stated theywere told Palm Desertwould not annex north of 1-10, and it seemed Palm Desert didn't want Thousand Palms either. Councilman Kelly responded that question couldn't be answered at this point. Councilman Spiegel stated that first of all no one knew who would be serving on the Council five years from now. He said a future Council would be making a decision on a staff report that indicated whether it was economical or not. One of the reasons why Palm Desert had not done anything in Bermuda Dunes was because if was not economically sound to pay for the curbs and gutters. Unfortunately, the City of La Quinta had been cherry picking in that area, but that was another story. Councilman Kelly noted this kind of process took time and nothing would happen overnight. MS. SALEH said she wanted it explained why LAFCO had returned Palm Desert's request, which was obvious Palm Desert had not taken back its request. Councilman Kelly stated the City Council had to deal with the fact that the folks in Thousand Palms changed their mind every two years; Thousand Palms was either in or out. He said if the process ever happened, the Council will work to try to make it work for everyone. MS. SALEH said LAFCO wanted to know if this particular City Council had any intent to annex, but that wasn't addressed with the motion that was made. She said LAFCO wouldn't have return the request just to reconfirm if Palm Desert wanted Sun City in its sphere. 15 M cm PRELIMINARY MINUTES RA +T REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 With City Council concurrence, Mayor Finerty called a recess at 4:52 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 4:54 p.m. XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ADDING CHAPTER 25.130 - LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES -TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE Case No. ZOA 10-69 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Principal Planner Tony Bagato stated this was a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add section for Miscellaneous Uses that are identified in the Ordinance. At the November 10, 2009, a Planning Commissioner requested staff to research potential regulations onto tattoo establishments. The City currently had five establishment on Highway 111, and there was a concern with having certain business types along the prime commercial corridors of El Paseo and Highway 111 as a resort community. On December 15, 2009, staff presented four possible restriction types and stated that if there was a concern over the image of businesses that should be in that category along with tattoo establishments. On March 16, 2010, staff presented the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) and locations of Miscellaneous Uses. Those uses are identified in the Ordinance as bail bonds and body piercing establishments, billiards or pool halls, fortune teller, independent massage parlors, tattoo shops, and smoke shops, which are categorized as mainly smoke shops that sold paraphenilia, so it wouldn't include high -end cigar shops or cigar lounges. The uses would be prohibited on Highway 111 and El Paseo, but allowed in other C1 or Service Industrial Zones with a 1,000-foot distance separation from a similar use. He said a tattoo establishment would have to be 1,000 feet away from another tattoo, but could be next to a massage parlor or smoke shop. He said the packet included a map that illustrated the current Miscellaneous Uses that would be grandfathered underthe Ordinance. Staff received one letterfrom Ink Sanity Tattoo voicing their concern over the fairness of the Ordinance and asking for the opportunity to expand or downsize if they had to. The current non -conforming uses would not allow it and would require a separate Zoning Ordinance Amendment and that perhaps Tattoo be removed from the Ordinance. Because this item was the original request by the Planning Commission, staff recommended that it remain. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 3-2 vote with Commissioner Tanner and Campbell voting NO. He offered to answer questions. Mayor and Councilmembers noticed they did not have a copy of the map with the identified current Miscellaneous Uses along El Paseo and Highway 111. 16 i EJ CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: That the City Council reaffirm their request to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to reinstate the Sun City Palm Desert area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. SUBMITTED BY: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development DATE: April 22, 2010 CONTENTS: Map of Proposed Sphere of Influence Area Recommendation That the City Council, by minute motion, reaffirm their direction given on December 11, 2008, to ask the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to reintroduce Sun City Palm Desert and the adjacent commercial area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI). Executive Summary A group of property owners in the Thousand Palms community has petitioned LAFCO to deny the Palm Desert City Council's request to have the Del Webb - Sun City area reintroduced into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. As they consider the matter, the LAFCO commissioners would like to verify that the request of the City Council is still valid. The original request was made fourteen months ago in December 2008. Background The Palm Desert Sphere of Influence was expanded north of Interstate 10 to include Del Webb - Sun City ("Sun City Palm Desert") in 1998. The area comprises 3.7 square miles, including Sun City and a commercial district west of Washington Street between 38th Avenue and Interstate 10; the whole area is commonly referred to as the Sun City Sphere of Influence (SOI). (See attached map.) In early 2007, LAFCO representatives asked Palm Desert to review its sphere of influence areas, including the Sun City and Bermuda Dunes areas, and make known their plans for retaining them. In April 2007, the Palm Desert City Council directed staff to advise LAFCO that they had no interest in maintaining the Del Webb — Sun City area in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence, but wanted to maintain Bermuda Dunes within the City's SOI. They also directed staff to have a fiscal analysis performed for potential Sun City Palm Desert Sre of Influence April 22, 2010 Page 2 of 3 annexation of Bermuda Dunes at some point in the future. On October 25, 2007, LAFCO held a public hearing on the matter and passed Resolution 117-07, removing the Del Webb — Sun City area from the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. In late 2008, LAFCO requested that the City identify changes, if any, anticipated to Palm Desert's SOI during the next five years. In response to this request and to public testimony on the issue, the City Council directed staff to ask LAFCO to reinstate the Sun City area in Palm Desert's SOI. A hearing was held in front of the Local Agency Formation Commission on 3 December 2009; the matter has been continued three times. At the most recent LAFCO meeting on 25 March 2010, the Commission requested that the Palm Desert City Council reaffirm their interest in reintroducing the Sun City area into their sphere of influence. Discussion A sphere of influence is defined as a "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency." Spheres of influence are used by cities as planning tools to ascertain the levels of service for any potential future incorporations or annexations. However, inclusion of a particular area in a sphere of influence does not categorically mean that the city is actively trying to annex the area. Nor does it mean definitively that the lands within the SOI cannot be annexed into another jurisdiction. A contingent of property owners and residents from Thousand Palms has expressed opposition to having the Sun City area reinstated in Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. In particular, they object to inclusion of the commercial properties along Interstate 10, believing that the revenue from these properties will be needed by Thousand Palms for financial viability in the event that it incorporates as a city in the future. Their opposition is the principal reason why LAFCO has continued consideration of the matter three times. Representatives plan to attend the City Council meeting to voice their concerns in person, and to ask whether the City Council intends to annex the subject area. On the other side of the discussion, representatives of Sun City Palm Desert have expressed strong support for reintroduction into the SOI. More than 3,800 letters of support have been submitted by the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. Those letters are in binders that will be available for your inspection in the City Council offices during the week of 19 April 2010, and will be available at the 22 April 2010 meeting. The Community Association will also ask representatives to present their position orally at the meeting. Unless the City Council has ruled out the possibility of annexing the Sun City area, staff believes that it is important to reinstate the entire area originally included in the SOI. The cost of providing services to residential developments is typically greater than the revenue they provide to a city through property taxes. Hence a balance of land uses, including commercial and industrial uses, is usually required for an area to be revenue neutral when incorporation or annexation is considered. The area north of Interstate 10 g:\planning\tonya monroe\word files\city council staff reports\2010 04-22 sun city sphere of influence.doc Sun City Palm Desert S*ere of Influence April 22, 2010 Page 3 of 3 originally included in Palm Desert's SOI included the Del Webb — Sun City residential development, plus the commercial and industrial properties fronting along Interstate 10 to the west. These properties are effectively separated from the rest of Thousand Palms by the Thousand Palms Conservation Area of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Fiscal Analysis Without the commercial areas to the west of Sun City, it is unlikely that the residential area alone would ever be fiscally suitable for annexation. Without a detailed fiscal analysis, staff cannot determine if some smaller portion of the Interstate 10 frontage would support the added burden of the residential properties. Such a fiscal analysis is not usually performed until or unless annexation is studied. Reintroducing the subject area in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence would not require any capital expenditure and would not have any impact on the City's operating budget. Submitted by: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager CITY COUNCILACMOPI APPROVED DENiLrD RECEIVED OAR own C 211 _ f/ � rl� Original on File writb City C1AIS Oin" g:\planning\tonya monroe\word files\city council staff reports\2010 04-22 sun city sphere of influence.doc p v - " r fNN, 7 4 'e • Ile yys PALMDESERT OF 1 Palms DATE:Thousand CVIVISHCP BoundaryN %W w 0 O O O CY i V p N N U)cl t6 O O tt� _ Y CO ~+10 O o C O N _ 0 O L CY N N � L Q M t to N pp M cp O) M 0 0 � t7 O co tG 0 O � U M 4 M CO M e _ � LCD U .o-. t� .•. � .-. tC .-. ° co .poer tD w ', t00 CG N_ ti P. I� h ti P+ >ti ; t` I�► Is Z t CL eCLO'.=O. C O co N U U ►^- O H Q C L C y tU N O ® C O i O O O N O N N co N> V cQo °'�' ,G = tU DE tU E N N o N t0 Og 00 o O o� y3 E Em O� EaEi ; o� �,� £ E E EU O o -a _ � 3 _ c� _ v, _ n. (D co = a. o = ca — 0- � _ ca a to V a M a E E �a s a... o- 0 .� E O . (.� v w O O w. _>, O c O w O O w. o a W = to 0 W O IL tD O O ytp, Q m a O s F-- 4 c led co m 0 z cc El 10 Q w w c . � o ''.,�, Y �► Q AL 'g c •� _ 0 *W too v.r Patricia Saleh From: Patricia Saleh [ps8888 c@r msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:19 PM To: George Spiliotis Subject: FW: Palm Desert Mayor And Entire City Council Endorse Benoit For Supervisor l-ii Georgo, Cathedral City COMICii VOtE-.d last night, after our ii eelkingg exploring the possibilities of joh—iin C"Ithedrll Clitv and ilil,)t!saric Pah"?a , to CClrttirlti( !heir sphere i`;_`C}t.E ei i7iiti I: s"i i .` 2i}! 1. 'ulllll �)i? ert t'itV C?:livir.11tCoc;is IRlih i4.t'ilFt ,il(l fElt Palm Desert City Manager have arranged to rneet with us on t Ian.1i 1;' to discirss Pairn Desert t. king ,)ll of Thousand Pairs s. ; roceived this e-mail today and l think: it underlines whV bath spheie reiTu is should be continued mitil after tht" election, I'll let you know how the Palm Desert situation ptoc eds and i know that Lers%l Luk ,, will he talkii:,> to W'ou- ab gut what Cathedi a! Cite has voleA to do as well. Talk to vou, P. ,. This ha5 (Ynat,`le Coming Lip dviti€ <a letter to include in thi' ccunrlli: si ners' PIckets i little leoo h nhl l' d1;:lr.. 25 itleet:ine., ;Io l'I! have to faring it in .after the lath, if tha s stsll Okay With '/OA. Patricia sal€ h From: Supervisor John J. Benoit[mailto:FriendsofJohn@jbenoit.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:19 PM To: patricia@ultimateapproach.net Subject: Palm Desert Mayor And Entire City Council Endorse Benoit For Supervisor Palm Desert Mayor And Entire City Council Endorse Benoit For Supervisor The Benoit for Supervisor campaign continues to build and attract significant local support and is proud to announce the endorsement of all five members of the Palm Desert City Council: Mayor Cindy Finerty, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ferguson, and Councilmembers Jean Benson, Richard Kelly, and Robert Spiegel. "John Benoit was a great friendthe legislature to cities and alwaysght against the state taking money from local governments to balance the state budget. As our newly appointed Supervisor, he is already working to create jobs and protect public safety. John, like Roy Wilson before him, is a good listener, relates well with people and has impeccable integrity. There is not any blemish on his career in the Highway Patrol or as a public official," stated Mayor Cindy Finerty. "I'm honored to have the unanimous backing of the Palm Desert City Council" replied Fourth District Supervisor John J. Benoit. They have led the way in alternate energy use and conservation in the Coachella Valley, while allowing growth to occur and creating a high quality of life for their residents. I know we'll continue to be great partners in local government." Supervisor Benoit was appointed to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in November 2009, following the death of Supervisor Roy Wilson. Prior to his appointment, Benoit served in the State Assembly and Senate, on the Desert Sands School Board, and 29 years on the Highway Patrol, retiring in 2001 after 13 years as the Commander of the Indio Station. The Palm Desert City Councilmembers join a growing list of local government leaders endorsing Benoit for Supervisor, supporters including: the entire City Councils of La Quinta and Rancho Mirage, 4 of 5 Indio City Councilmembers, Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff, Retired Undersheriff and State Senator Robert Presley, and Former Sheriffs Cois Byrd and Larry Smith. To contact the Benoit for Supervisor campaign, call us at 760-360-7832 or email at CM N PUBLIC NOTICE MEETING OF THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:00 a.m. La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 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 FEBRUARY 25, 2010. 3. CONSENT (NON -HEARING ITEMS) There are no consent items. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONTINUED: a. LAFCO 2007-31-4-Reorganization to Include Annexation 86 to the City of Indio (Citrus Ranch) and Concurrent Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. (Continued from February 25, 2010; Staff recommends continuance to April 29, 2010). b. LAFCO 2008-09-4-Sphere of Influence Amendments (addition) to the City of Cathedral City and the Cathedral City Community Services District (subsidiary). (Continued from December 3, 2009; City requests continuance to January 2011). C. LAFCO 2009-17-4-Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert. (Continued from December 3, 2009). MAP d. LAFCO 2009-32-2-Reorganization to Include Incorporation of Jurupa Valley, Concurrent Detachment from Riverside County Waste Resources Management District and Dissolution ,of County Service Areas 72 and 73.(Continued from January 21, 2010;Staff recommends continuance to May 27, 2010). NEW: There are no new items. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS. LAFCO AGENDA 6. RECEIVE AND FILE: a. Information Items: 56751): PAGE 2 MARCH 25, 2010 Proposals Received (Government Code Section 56857, i. LAFCO 2010-04-4--Detachment from the City of Cathedral City and the Cathedral City CSD, Sphere of Influence Amendment (Addition)to the City of Rancho Mirage and Concurrent Annexation to the City of Rancho Mirage (Da Vall Dr./Ramon Rd). ii. LAFCO 2010-05-1--Sphere of Influence Amendment (Addition) to the City of Temecula (Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve- SMER-2) and the Temecula Community Services District (Subsidiary). iii. LAFCO 2010-06-1--Reorganization to Include Concurrent Annexations to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District (Subsidiary) (Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve). b. LAFCO Monthly Expenditure Review. C. City Sphere of Influence Review Cycle Ending December 31, 2012. 7. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE PROCEEDINGS FOR LAFCO 2006- 134-3&5-REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 32 TO THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. 8. INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION. Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9: a. CITY OF PERRIS v. LAFCO Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC10002712 10. MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORTS. 11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 12. ADJOURNMENT. 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. LAFCO AGENDA *%SW PAGE 3 1VW MARCH 25, 2010 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 II, 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 w *0 C11Y Of I M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:76o 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org August 21, 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. 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 1PlanningUssy Grlsa\MiscILAFCO UpdateIAFCO Review Response Letter doc n �, PIIINiEO ON AF(YQFO PAPER fir` 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 for enforcing 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 NO The Capital Improvement Section oversees the development, design, and construction of City projects such as flood control systems and roadway construction and rehabilitation. CIIV 01 P 0 1 M 0 [ S I P I GAPlanning\Missy Grisa\MisOLAFC0 Update\LAFCO Review Response Letter doc 10 "UNTE04X IIEEYQEO YAM Land Developrnent • The Land Development Section and drains pment, focusing provides project review for Transpo�tion drainage improVements. g on the areas of grading, commercial an Engineering g' roadway construction • The Transportation En system, which c° Engineer' Section is responsible Landscape Se consists of Sig ponsible for the The Landscapervices gnsr markings, and interconnected Cac traffic c urban forest fServices Division's control prima signals. City of Palm peserti Primary responsibility is to This includes the public and maintain and the review, • administration and Open spaces. enhance the ' es th-e administration inspection, of the Projects. pection contracts for that and approval of new public and work as Landscape Services well as develops private landscaping include mans in ps and maintains P citywide g g the City's annual Palm Des ert's urban forest. The tree pruning programs Arbor Da communities and a , and educational Out its landsca se activities agencies. outreach Pe awards program, The division also presentations to various technical and staffio versees Palm D Plannin Desert, water copse 9, Communi g assistance to other cityconservation Y Services the Redevelopment includingprograms a and provides "Desert Flora " a landscaping Services, Agenc Parks and 250 desert -friend) Y, and the Recreation, guide published bHousing authority. and outlines Y plants, provides Y Landscape design principles showingdetailed advice Services, describes attractive and sustainable landscape• how best to °n their more than use the care and maintenance, Landscape Services Division staff includes- min your project to create an a senior landscape insp ector, and four des- tha landscape mans g ordinances. landscape ins gal a landscape Tree inspectors who also enforce nd specialist; Maintenance Ordinance monitor • The Purposes of this chapter maintenance of trees located are: those standards i (1) to establish n order to n public property; (2) to standard ul for care and appearance; (3) to establish sta dares fort°se regulate com and maintenance of trees located °n public assets and pliance with and affectin he use of public rights -of -way enhance their care and g public rights -of -way; Public property or located one the care Parkin maintenance. and (4) to provide for the private g Lot Shade Tree Ordinance public safetyproperty • The intent of this code shall be to i during such off-street open parking areas to improve and maximize the landscaping ten years. In order to achieve to Pr via fifty percent iz more n p g within the Provide , and design where i l the applicant shall shade covers maximum shade. Possible plant multi -trunk coverage extent that at least one Landsca nOrth�south oriented stalls. q diversity medium or )aping shall be provided parking areas to st less than y °f tree species is large-scale tree is and maintained to the a twent - required. The planted for eve American Standard for four -inch box tree minimum size tree l three parking Growers standards Lowursery Stock 'sized to specifications planted shall be water use and (ANSI Z60.1) and Arizona according O F PRIM D E J E R l "native Nurse o is the Plant materials shall be Association G:IPlanningtMissy GnsalMisdLAFCO encouraged UpdatelLAPCO Review Response Letfer.doc rceo rAnr 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. I I I Y 01 PO1M 0 1 S [ P T GAPlanning\Missy GnsatMisc\LAFCO Update\LAFCO Review Response Letter doc 0 '1MID ON IE(YQEO PAMI 09 M 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 I 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: 4.2 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 CITY Of P 0 1 M 0 [ S [ P I G:APIanning\Missy Grisa\Misc\LAFCO Update\LAFCO Review Response Letter.doc 0.') PRINTED DX RECRUIT PAPER M 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 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds 94-2 Sunterrace 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds 94-3 Merano 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds Silver Spur Ranch Utility Undergrounding AD 98-1 Limited Obligations Refunding Bonds CFD 2005-1 Special Tax Bonds Series 2006A AD 2004-2 Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds 2008 Special Tax Refunding Bonds $3,500,000 09/02/14 09/02/20 09/02/28 $870,000 09/02/18 $67,915,000 09/01 /36 $29,430,000 09/02/37 $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 CIIV Of P 0 1 M 0 1 S I R I &\Planning\Missy Grisa\Misc\LAFCO Update\LAFCO Review Response Letter.doc f Ptilm ON 110(in PAPER • 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. Sinc y, n M. Wohlmuth Manager I I I y 0f P 0 [ M 9 1 S [ P I GAPIanning\Missy Grisa\Misc1LAFCO Update\LAFCO Review Response Letter.doc C) FRINTEO 09 REnQEO PAM m �!I V -1Yl'. Pork. 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 Proiections: 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 SOP Will new facilities be needed to serve existing/proposed sphere of influence areas, once annexed? In the prior MSR there was mention of City plans to construct a new fire station in the vicinity of Cook St. and I-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 STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 M in 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 Fife Fund Operating Budget (FY 2009- 2010): Revenues: $46,982,000 Expenditures: $46,957,546 GANN Appropriations Limitation / Percentage: $91,311,963 / 39% General Plan Update Adopted March 15, 2004 `*rr 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) Stormwater/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.org). 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 . 2 m 3 M M 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 At FV 2005 the City had $122 n million + + a (Please see attached documents for �' J .+ W+�/�+./ Iul IVII . financial figures) Long-term 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, $3 million for drainage, $2.9 million for parks and recreation and $50.6 million for housing projects. The 4 44%W 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 F2007 budget :„,a„a ss $947,000 for this purpose, a 20 peFeent inerease from the prior . (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 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 Residential Developed Acres 8,722 Acres 1,078 vo 57% 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 L 11% Total 15,339 1,904 1 100% *4„r 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. L 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 SOI. Table 7.5 Palm Desert Fire Stations Station Location Staff ing/Equi pment 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,1 Water Rescue Vehicle. The Urban, Search and Rescue Truck and Water Rescue Vehicle are cross staffed with station personnel.' °, r.eSGUe ALS-Medic-ljr►+t 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 / ALS medic unit / Type 1 Reserve engine 3 per engine / 2 per ambulance Station 81 — Sun City 37955 Washington Street 1 engine / 3 firefighters 1 HazMat Unit / 2 firefighters 1 HazMat Support Unit / 2 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 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 Burrtec 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 a „;ties use their own trash bins an 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 0 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.$250,000 annually for- the major- street and sidewal program .,d $250 000 R R11., f r the majoF stF et landspFogFam. (delete) 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: M 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 StFeet Sports Complex- 4-0 3 Baseball Fields, Open TuFf AFea, ReStFOGMS, GenGNSion Stand (owned by SG1400"XSWGt� 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, Waking 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. mrrwr 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 1pm-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 Ix vray mIraq 1''�. a SOI J Q J J •�. •` la GERALD FORD DR 11 _ I �• FRANK SINATRA DR h .— .1 I O > ¢ 17 COUNTRY CLUB DR���••.�,`,,�•�-�- �m o — Indio C ~ G x N 11 9 i Rancho Mirage \ 0 a ■ 0 17 ; 14 15 10 811111J I2mk� FR D ARItjG DR I Sa 1 4 I �19 ilk► La Quints (18Indian Wells PalmSpringsSOIiii -1 L I I j Palm /" t Springs s SOI i `s i Legend — ,— j Palm Desert - City Limits _ Surrounding City Limits Sphere of Influence (SDI) Surrounding City Sphere of Influence [_J Unincorporated Area — County Service Area (CSA): Pinyon Flats (60) Public Facilities • City Hall 0 Community Center i Library S Police/Sheriff ! Fire Station ® Parks & Recreation PALM DESERT PUBLIC FACILITIES 1 Palm Desert City Hall Park Facilities 2 Palm Desert Library 10 Civic Center Park 3 1 Palm Desert Community Center 11 Palm Desert Soccer Park 4 1 Police Department 12 Ironwood Park Fire Stations 13 Cahuilla Hills Park 5 Station 33 14 Portola Park 6 Station 67 15 Cook Street Sports Complex 7 Station 71 16 Washington Charter School Park 8 Station 81 Sun City 17 Joe Mann Park 9 Station 31 Bermuda Dunes 18 Cap Homme/Ralph Adams Park 1g Palma Village tJeighborhood Park ;rail i t I l , �� — — --- Feet SOURCE: County of Riverside GIS Layers e 0 5,000 10,000 Western Coachella Valley Municipal Services Review FIGURE City of Palm Desert 7.1 1 EM Pq Palm Desert Police Department ""Professionals Served by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department Chief of Police- Captain Dan Wilham Assistant Chief of Police — Lieutenant Andrew Shouse www.palmdesertpolice.org n fCity of 3 PALM DESERT BACKGROUND The men and women assigned to the PaIrn 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 Sheriff s Department. Contract law enforcement has been in existence for many years, in fact the Riverside County Sheriff s 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 LIS 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 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 all 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 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) for 2007 indicated a decrease in, violent crime. In contrast. the UCR data suggested an increase in 12roverty 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. 45000 "000 43000 42000 41000 o 4 40" O 39000 E 38000 37000 35000 Palm Desert Calls for Service 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Calls for Service by Priority, Total Priority I Calls: 59 Total Priority I A 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 on I!m A comparison of priority call type by year is represented in Fig. 2 Response Times i�11 711 :1" 211.1-11.111elaa a. a. CL BE � i i E E E E , S EI ; E E A in 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year 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 90900 50000 40000 30000 8 20000 10000 0 1995 19" 1997 son 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Palm Desert Population by Year I 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 5 M 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. S Palm Desert Violent Crimea 200 160 180 140 120 too 8 80 60 40 20 0 IM 1908 IM INS IM 2000 2001 am MW 2004 2M 2008 2W Year 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 6 M In 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 3500 3000 E 25W V 2000 1500 s $ 1000 Z 500 0 Palm Desert Property Crimea 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20M 2005 20M 2007 Year 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 7 LWA M 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) Total Crimes Violent Property Veh Total Part 1 Per 1000 Year Population crime Murder Rape Robbery Assault crime Burglary Larceny Theft Arson Crimes Residents 2007 47.903 92 2 16 48 26 2,914 847 1,837 230 11 3,006 62.75 2006 47,482 169 3 18 66 82 Z753 730 1,792 233 4 2,924 61.59 2005 46,925 145 2 6 38 99 2,662 714 1,691 257 4 2,807 59.92 2004 46,150 165 1 11 41 112 2.972 861 1971 240 4 3,137 67.97 2003 44,300 183 0 11 32 140 2,380 721 1,437 221 1 2,563 57.86 2002 42,667 151 0 9 37 105 2,047 536 1325 181 5 2,198 51.52 2001 41,920 176 1 6 47 122 2,144 539 1399 206 1 2,320 55.34 2000 A171 166 0 12 33 121 1,674 388 1139 144 3 1,940 48.20 1999 29,844 150 0 10 17 123 1,771 667 964 139 1 1,921 64.37 1998 28,923 173 3 5 38 127 2,130 521 1499 105 5 2,303 79.63 1997 27,261 199 2 9 41 136 2,449 901 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 26,698 178 1 6 28 143 2,992 869 1791 209 13 3,060 114.66 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 8 POLICE DEPARTMENT BEATS The City of' Pal Desert is broken into five serviceibeat areas. The T-30 Beat covers the business corridor along Highway 111. The T-32 Beat covers the southern portion of the city south of Highway I I I of the Highway I I I business corridor to the southern city limits. The T-34 Beat covers the eastern portion of the city cast of Cook Street south of Country Club Drive and east to the city limits at Washington Street. The T-36 Beat covers the western, 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 DMA H S HIEPfi Police Department 2Beats SWA "DO COUMY CL8 OR P" 3' R 30 dO?ATEHWY111 Beat Nam Beat 30 - 8j&W*%$ 8"t 32, S*,dh Pl*n Desmi Beat 34 - NOM ERU Perim DeS" -32 seat m Nann west Pain Desert ftM 38 Noah Prim Dnwl 2008 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 9 n In STAFFING The 2008 Palm Desert Police contract consists of seventy-nine (79) sworn officer positions. Tile 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 assignments, 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 Sheriff's Lieutenant, two Sheriff's 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 within the City of Palm Desert is covered by a SET member who can devote additional time, as necessary, to the problems that occur in that 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 Department Annual Report to 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 2008 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 Paseo corridor, the Westfield Mall, the Highway 111 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 (Misd): 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 2008 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 Fan Snapp competed in the 130' 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: Apprehensions (Bite): I Apprehensions (Nio Bite): 2 Search for Evidence: 3 Find Evidence: 0 Search for Narcotics: 30 Find Narcotics: I I Search for Suspects: 30 Find Suspects: 2 Search for Victims: 0 Find Victims: 0 Public Relations Derno: 5 Scene Containment: I 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.palmdesertrolice.orgy). 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. J'his website offers a brief look at the many services, the department provides. It also offers a means of direct contact for those persons %N-house the internet daily, at work, at 20,09 Palm Desert Police Department Annual Report 14 home, and on the road. This site contains interactive pages, which are designated 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 M In 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 CWCGTF 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. CWCGTF 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: 1 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 IWJ 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: 396 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 om en 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 Hwy 111. Community Service Officers work at both substations and the regular business hours are 8:OOAM 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 internet 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 la,.N, 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 Warnings 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 re -cap 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 percent decrease): 2008-2 K111YOU Number of People Killed 75 percent decrease) 2008-2 2007-8 Number of People Killed in a DUI -related Collision (100 percent decrease) 2008-0 2007-7 Iniury Traffic Collisions (26 percent decrease) 2008 —147 2007 —199 Number of Persons Injured (25 percent decrease) 2008 — 209 2007 — 279 Driving Under the Influence Related (13 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 a.m. 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 M 3. Fred Waring Drive and State Highway I I I PrimaryCollision Factor (By Ranking) 1. 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 Proerams 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 Palm 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 cm en 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 2008/2009: DUI Enforcement and Awareness Program $111,706.00 -Click it or Ticket- Seatbelt Compliance Program $28,910.00 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 services: Special Enforcement Bureau (SWAT) 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 fir+' RESOLUTION NO. 09-39 ORDINANCE NO. 223 16.01. no: EXHIBIT "A" TABLE I FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENT BY AREA STRUCTURE WOOD FIRE FIRE FRAME RESISTIVE FLOW (area-sq.ft.) (area-sq.ft.) (gpm) 500 750 500 3,300 1000 1,100 6,600 1250 1,700 10,900 1500 2,600 16,200 1750 3,600 22,700 2000 4,800 30,200 2250 6,200 38,700 2500 7,700 48,300 9,400 59,000 2750 11,300 70,900 3000 3250 13,400 83,700 15,600 97,700 3500 18,000 112,700 3750 4000 20,600 128,700 4250 23,300 145,900 26,300 164,200 4500 4750 29,300 183,400 32,600 203,700 5000 - 36,000 225,200 5250 5500 39,600 247,700 43,400 271,200 5750 47,400 295,900 6000 51,500 295,900 6250 55,700 295,900 6500 60,200 295,900 6750 64,800 295,900 7000 ,� 69,600 295,900 7250 74,600 295,900 7500 79,800 295,900 7750 85,100 295,900 8000 Formula 1 FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENT FORMULA 1. Total floor area sq.ft. 2. Structural fire flow requirement gpm. 3. Sprinkler Adjustment 25% for wood constructi-'on 50% for fire resistive 4. Compute estimated Fire Flow Required 5. Divide amount in No. 4 by 1,250 gpm. Amount in No. 4 1,250 gpm 6. Equivalent Dwelling Units (Result of No. 5) 7. Multiply amount in No. 6 by Equivalent Dwelling Unit charge B. Amount in No. 7 is availability charged for particular structure computed �10 F 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 Additions/ Repayments/ Balance Due Within July 1, 2007 Accretion Reductions June 30, 2008 One Year Project Area No. I 2002A TARRBs, $22,070,000 $ 22,070,000 $ $ $ 22,070,000 $ 2003 TARBs, $19,000,000 19,000,000 19,000,000 2004ATARRBs, $24,945,000 22.655,000 (850,000) 21,805,000 1,030,000 2006 A & B TARBs,$62,320,000 60,105,000 (1,965,000) 58,140,000 2,075,000 2007ATARRBs, $32,600,000 32,600,000 (2,130,000) 30,470,000 2,410,000 1995A TARRBs, $6,305,000 1,235,000 (600,000) 635,000 635,000 Project Area No. 2 2002ATARRBs, $17,310,000 14,680,000 (650,000) 14,030,000 675,000 2003 TARBs, $15,745,000 15,745,000 15,745,000 - 2006 A-D TARBs,$67,618,213 68,554,280 1,024,695 (940,000) 68,638,975 1,320,000 Project Area No. 3 2003 TARBs, $4,745,000 4,315,000 - (95,000) 4,220,000 100,000 2006 A-C TABs, $15,059,526 15,191,608 194,507 15,386,115 25,000 Project Area No. 4 1998 TARBs, $11,02,000 8,355,000 - 8,355,000 - 2001 TARBs, $15,695,000 14,795,000 - (285,000) 14,510,000 310,000 2006A TARBs, $19,273,089 19,509,006 265,604 19,774,610 200,000 Combined Low and Moderate Housing 1998 TARBs,$48,760,000 5,725,000 - (655,000) 5,070,000 685,000 2002 TARBs, $12, 100,000 11,130,000 (255,000) 10,875,000 265,000 2007 TARBs,$86,155,000 86,155,000 (2,185,000) 83,970,000 2,880,000 Total $ 421,819,894 $ 1,484,806 $ (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- City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bond Issue Information June 30, 2008 (1) A surety bond was issued by MBIA Insurance, future reserve balance's will be zero. Source: City of Palm Desert and Redevelopment Agency 199 cm M 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: 1995 Revenue Bonds 1997 Revenue Bonds 2003 Assessment Revenue Bonds AD 98-1 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds CFD 2005-1 Special Tax Bonds Series 2006A AD 2004-2 Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds 2008 Special Tax Refunding Bonds Balance at Payments and July 1, 2007 Additions Reductions $ 220,000 $ - $ (220,000) 17,265,000 - (17,265,000) 3,765,000 - (265,000) 1,015,000 - (145,000) 67,915,000 - - 29,430,000 - - Balance at June 30, 2008 3,500,000 870,000 67,915,000 29,430,000 - 10,935,000 - 10,935,000 $ 119,610,000 $ 10,935,000 $ (17,895,000) $ 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. Cn in City of Palm Desert Supplemental Special Assesment Information June 30, 2008 District NamelDescri on Pn 1995 C Marks -Roos Pool (87-1) r`) 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds 2 Sunterrace 2003 01-01 Revenue Bonds 3 Merano 2003 01.01 Revenue Bonds Silver Spur Ranch Utility Undergrounding 2004 R-Bonds 98-1 Canyons (a Bighorn Bond Issue Date 09/26/9 0625/) 0625/0. 06/25/0. 02/ 19/( Final Maturity Date 09/01 09/011 09/02/2 09i02/2 09/0211 Highest Interest Rate 5.7(r 4.80'% 5.25 % 5.375% 5.100 Bond Issue Amount 1,775,0W 930,0(8) 1,153,000 2,140,000 2,955,000 Matured Principal 1,280,000 340,000 248,M) 265,000 955,000 Called Principal 495,000 235,000 - II0,000 1220,0W Outstanding Bonds (4) - 355,000 905,000 1,965,000 780,000 Redemption Premium 125% 3.00% 3.00% 3.0(r 300% Original Parcels 1,317 71 201 250 73 Active Parcels 191 65 121 197 20 Reserve Requirement (5) $ 0 $ 35,5W S 90,500 $ 166,000 $ 78,000 Reserve Balance 08/09(1) $ 0 $ 90,516 S 80,408 $ 166,477 $ 142,152 Principal Due 08/09 (2) 0 70,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 Principal Levied 08/09 (3) - 77,917 55.(W 62,297 67,468 Interest Due 08/09 (2) 0 18,750 42,310 99,81-1 35,025 Interest Levied 08/09 (3) 0 22,480 40,410 100,680 36,958 08/09 Delinquency Rate 0.7}% L51% 3.41% 8.24% 0.00/ Arbitrage Installment Computation Date: 90% Rebate Due 09/02/I 09/02/ 09102/1 12/17/ 12/I6/0 Arbitrage Yield Rate 5.8194% 7.9769% 6.672% 5.15771% 5.8396% Arbitrage -Amount Owed - - - Continuing Disclosure Last Report Issued: 12/12200 12/12/200 12/12/20W 12/12200 12/12/2W District Name\Descriptiod 1997 Bonds an 1 Indian Ridge 1992A R (7l Community Facilities District No 2005-1(University Park) Special Tax Bonds Series 2006A 2004.2 Section 29 Assessment District Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds 2004-1 Palm Desert Highlands U Series 20 6 Series 2006 Series 2008 Community Facilities District No. 91-1 special Tax Refunding Bonds Bond Issue Date 121t I/9 05/09/0 1/29/200 8/8/201 12/19/200 Final Maturity Date 10/01/2 09/01/3 9/2/203 9/21203 10/l/202 Highest Interest Rate 6.8001% 5.371% 5.100% 0.(W/. 4.00(Y% Bond Issue Amount 23,509,000 67,915,000 29,430,000 .1,165,000 10,935,000 Matured Principal 7,189,0(D 825,000 - 91,000 1,665,000 Called Principal 16,320,000 - - 192,000 - Outstanding Bonds (4) - 67,090,000 29,430,W0 2,702,W0 9,270,0W Redemption Premium 3.00% L(%)G 3.00% 3.00% 3.001/1 Original Parcels 1,154 37 167 172 1,154 Active Parcels 1,063 27 NS 135 1,063 Reserve Requirement (5) $ 0 $ 4,597,219 S 1,945,358 NA $ 1,093,500 Reserve Balance 07/08(1) S 0 $ 4,620,473 S 1,945,358 NA S 1,093,500 Principal Due 08/09 (2) - 1,165,000 505,W0 49,000 955,000 Principal Levied 08/09 (3) - 1,165,0W 505,0W 47,438 855,000 Interest Due 08/09 (2) - 3,422,219 1,437,860 134,306 314,210 Interest Levied 08/09 (3) - 3,445,759 1,437,860 135,180 114,210 07,08 Delinquency Rate 0,00°/, 0.63% 0AM 5.44'/ 1.60% Arbitrage Installment Computation Date: 90-,/. Rebate Due NA 05/09/1I 0329/1 08;08/11 WAS/11 Arbitrage Yield Rate 0.00011% 5.3599% 5.0134%, 5 0691% 3,n681'% Arbitrage -Amount Owed Continuing Disclosure Last Report Issued: I2A 112(8) 12/12/2M) 011152008 NA NA !1) Reven r Brdmrcev ., as n( 9 30 98. shnrrlul! vdl he recnre.J h, addm l / leiy, aid interest eanoggs yea Financial Siarernervr Note 10 (').4 ropre.ent, mrJ unease w i e ,11-don the FY 0- 08 tar roll /or Dehr Se-, P--w Jar in FYON 09. (3) Gated -an, nylrct udjnsnnew, /... consrrurnon /ruuA, rcderrpninn fl 1, mrJ other adPrsnnem., (4) Reprevrnro Orn.xmnding 8 J, uIper Splemlrr Z, '008 pnnrrpal j.vrner 1 (5) Resent Regnnvna•nr a.+ u/ 9 208 (6) The / 995 C.Narkr-Rnov Pon! I87-1) -s pmd m lull Jurur,k du• 1ri0'-20lIN lr rr u[ vrur Th; re ore nn nwre l,W, nutrrundnlK.lnr elm nsur i) The 199" 91-1 Bands xl"d m/all nn Apes! 1. _'00N. ,n al, Cmnrnwune, Furilrrm Drrtnr urn 91-1 lrnprarernruU S/k-rent Tm" Rco,W,r,q Bonds .Sm,rrr tiaraFuwmi,/,innnulRep- 181 In en 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 $ 4,467,632 $ 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- n 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 General Fire Tax Housing REVENUES: 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 9,022,940 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 aecreation 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- M In 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 $ 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- M 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 1, 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- �j CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM E Z TOTAL FY 09-10 PROJECT Carry Over Fund COSTS: Amount aP Project Name 1 Cook City 2 AKA: Street Intersection & Storm Drain Improvements Signal Interconnect Traffic Signal Coordination Waring Drive At San Pascual Signal Modification Portola Avenue At Frank Sinatra Intersection Improvement Monterey Avenue 11-10 Interchange Improvements D aw�Area O ane Traffic Signal Reserve Traffic Signal Measure 3 Fred 4 5 Drain Traft Si Dral Measure A CCappiaaitProject Rrve RDA Area 2 Capital Project Reserve 6 1.10 At Monterey - Landscaping Gas Tax 7 Country Club Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Capital e Project 8 Monterey Improvements - Gerald Ford To Country Club Capital Project Reserve RDA Area 3 Measure A 9 Portola Interchange At Interstate 10 RDA Area 2 RDA Area 3 Unfunded Capital Prcjecl Reserve 10'Ch Portola Avenue Sidewalk Extension nel RDA Area 1 11 Right Turn Lane -Fred Waring Drive To Hwy. 111 Measure A Measure A 12 Hwy. 111 Sidewalk 3 Plaza Way Intersection Improvements R Mid Valley Bike Path Feasibility Study 13 AKA: Freedom Trail Bicycle & Golf Cart Path capital Project 14 PM10 Reduction Soil Stabilization Reserve 15 Resurfacing Streets Measure A 16 City -Wide Parking Lots New Const Tax Drainage Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements Drainage 17 AKA: Various Drainage Improvements Reserve Drainage 18 Nuisance Water Inlet/Drywell Reserve Unhanded Measure A 19 Monterey Improvements - Fred Waring To Country Club RDA Area I RDA Area 2 Urdtaided _ 20 21 Mid Valley Bike Path I Major Street Sidewalk Program Capital Project Reserve unfunded Capital Project Reserve Page 6-2 $6,105,501 $875,502 $300,003 $8,500,064 $12,000,005 $820,356 $2,000,007 $1,500,008 $74,500,009 $13,383,672 $775,011 $1,900,012 $100,013 $355,014 Annual Project $100,016 $2,094,829 Annual Project $6,500,019 $5,800,020 Annual Project 72, 09,171 1,992,500 $10,760 $55 $4,031,723 $801,850 $800 300 $1,070,100 $500,000 $500,000 $573,009 $50,000 $481,205 $100,000 $11,402 $6,810 $1,900,000 $500,000 WP 40 40 40 FY 09-10 Year 1 40 Amount do do do $850,500 • $290,000 $2 50 150 . 04000f- ` $4,703,418 $1,000,000 $125,000 is $500,000 • 41 41 $772,500 , $340,000 $100,000 1 $150,000 ' 1 $400,000 $250,000 t 1 E 3 z FY 10-11 FY 11-12 o Year 2 Year 3 a` Amount Amount M FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Grants, Reimbursements, Year 4 Year 5 Agreements. MOU's etc. 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 Grant $378K Prop IBfunds 7 8 RDA Proj Area 02 carryover $500K from 851-4363-433-4001 9 12 000 000 $6 000 000 (Future & contingent FY 11112) CVAG 75% Participation of Measure A funds $54M - STP Funds $1.275M $51 500 000 CVAG 50% up to $7,450,000 10 RDA Proj Area 1 Funded $3.8M (all transfers have been made) 11 $600,000 CMAQ Grant $642,000 12 CMAQ funds $619,700 ("Hwy. 111 Sidewalk, Busbay, Signal") 13 Park funds (Bikeway Construction 14 CMAQ funds $301,000 1s $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 16 17 18 $150,000 $50,000 100 000 $150 000 $i5o.000 $1,500,000 RDA Reimb. In Year 2 $1.5M 19 $500 000 $4 000 000 20 CMAQ funds $3,300,000 $200 000 $S 00 000 21 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Page 6-3 AW E Z aProject CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL FY 09-10 FY 09-10 Name PROJECT Carry Over Year 1 Fund COSTS: Amount Amount 22 ADA Curb Ramp Modifications Capital Project Reserve- L A Annual Project Unfiarded $100 000 23 Gerald Ford Drive Drainage Line 36 AKA: North Sphere Drainage Drainage Drainage $4,441,156 Drainage Reserve Unfunded 24 Frank Sinatra And Gerald Ford Traffic SI nal $404,051 $190100 $189 000 Developer Dopos ;189,000 25 Portola Avenue Aesthetic Treatment & Sidewalk Capital Project Reserve $2,158,915 $1,060,288 $974,135 26 Fred Waring Drive & Monterey Ave. Turn Pockets as Measure $3,122,736 572 710 reA 27 El Paseo Revitalization - Drainage Component Drainage Reserve $350,027 ;350,000 28 Accessible Pedestrian Program Traffic Signal Annual Project $100,000 29 Traffic Signal At Hwy. 74 And Mesa View General $400,061 Unfunded 30 Hwy. 111 / Monterey I Hwy. 74 Traffic Improvements Unfunded $600,030 31 Major Landscaping Projects Unfunded Annual Project $300,000 $250,000 32 Solar Panel Installation - Corp Yard Urdunded $400,032 y400 000 33 Sewer Laterals Installations Capital Project Reserve $23,756 ;23,723 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND: 34 Joni Yard Renovation Buiidi Maint 500 034 500,000 35 Corporate Yard Facility Roof BulldiMa1M n 750 035 150 000 36 Public Works Storage To Office Renovation - Pw Cubicle Remodel Building Maint $500,036 $500 000 37 Civic Center Restrooms Bulldin Malnt $250 037 $250 000 38 Civic Center Roof Replacement Bulldin Maint $300,038 $300,000 39 Remodeling Civic Center Chamber Bathrooms Bulldin Maint 150 039 $150 000 FIRE STA71ON& 40 Fire Station #33 Renovation RDA Area 1 $900 040 $900 000 41 Fire Station #71 Renovation RDA Area 2 $900 041 $900 000 42 New North Sphere Fire Station , Fire Facilities $10,679,237 $3,504,271 RDA Area 2 $7,174,924 - Playground Replacement - Washington Charter Park Fund $150,043 43 ;150 000 ADA Upgrade* to Playgrounds Park Fund Annual Project $30 000 45 Park Re Lamping Park d Annual Project i20 000 46 CC Park Improvements ParkFund, d y�g 046 $125 000 Unfu47 Resurfacing Tennis Courts - Cahuilla Park Park Fund $18,047 18 000 48 Improvements at Civic Center & Palma Village Park Fund $15,048 15 000 49 Irrigation Retrofit to Calsence Controllers - Parks Park Fund $100,049 50 000 50 Legends Fields Columns Park Fund $15,050 51 Playground Replacement - Joe Mann Park Fund $50,051 52 Resurfacing Civic Center Tennis & Basketball Courts Park Fund $50,052 53 Improvements - Freedom Park Unfunded $30,053 54 Playground Replacement - Palma Village 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 m a E z a a.. FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Grants, Reimbursements, Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Agreements, MOU's etc. Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount 22 $100 000 $100,000 $100,000 $100 000 23 $440,000 $3,960 000 Traffic Signal funds 24 Developer Deposit $189,000 25 RDA to Fund Project RDA to Fund Year 1 26 2,5 000 27 28 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 29 $400,000 30 $100,000 $500,000 31 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 32 $137K Ener Rebate 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 $30 000 $35 000 $14 000 $20 000 $20 000 45 $s 000 $20 000 $125000 $85000 $100,000 46 $40 000 $25000 47 48 49 $50 000 50 $15,000 51 $50 000 52 $50,000 53 $15,000 $15,000 54 $50 000 55 $40 000 56 $200 000 57 Page 6.5 CITY OF PALM DESERT Row PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM E z Ti TOTAL FY 09-10 FY 09-10 PROJECT Carry Over Year 1 Project Name Fund COSTS: Amount Amount 58 TMU Re -Naturalization P Fu 4 $9't,958; $91.897 59 Am hitheater I Park Fund i1,500,059 1 500 000 60 Home ImeESvernent Program Housing Annual Project $700,000 $150,000 . ; " Ac R tliieaedrdlU Affordable H Housing- Annual Project 280 $275 000 62 Home Buyer Subsidies Houstno, $5,0W,062 $5 000 000 63 Desert Rose Maintensncelfte , Ire Houst ` °: ` Annual..Project " $20.000 64 Proeft Acquisition Housing $13,500,064 $3 500 000 $2 000 000 65 ReM Asslstm�s Program Houk Annual Project $448,414 '- 1 000 Self -Help Housing Housing Annual Project $200 000 67' Mortow Assistance Pr rant: • Housing, Annual Project 10 000 68 Home Buyer Assistance Pr ram Housing Annual Project 300 000 $350 000 69 Acquired Unit Subskilot Housl Annual Project, 70 Multi -Family Improvement Program Housing Annual Project 71 Workforce Homing Giant Hdusi"`' �118,88g 11 Silt 72 Housing $889'D04 Laguna Palms Rehabilitation Author $888 932 73 Housing• $138,9Ta$, One Quail Place Cap" IMemofft A 138 905" 74 California Villas Rehabilitation Phase B Housing Authority$1 $1,597,636 597 562 7S Taos Pat Interior Renovation ~ Housing, q i323,384 23 286 76 Housing $185,078 Taos Palms Capital Improvements Autho $165 000 77 Candiewood Capital Improvements HoulgiN'ar" A $14$r18 148 404 78 Housing Sa ecrest Capitol Improvement Authority$92,978 $92 W0 79 Housing', $20,000,079 CountryVillage Coons[ Improvements Autho $20 000 000 77, �n x 80 HousingMitigation Housing Mitigation i2,127,824 500 000 81 Bus Shelter Improvement Program Air Quality,' $180108t $80,000 $100,000 82 Capital Project $173,729 Council Chambers Renovation Reserve 33 647 $140 000 83 Eisenhower Medical Center. Capital Project Reserve. $10,000,000 3 000 000 84 Fayads Program CR pitaI Project rve Annual Project 300 000 85 Desert Willow Pad Stabilization RDA Area 2 ' Annual Project $75000 86 Desert Willow Drive Landscape RDA Area 2 $170,086 $170 000 87 Desert Willow Parking Structure AIPP' $llelow- 88 2011/2012 El Passo Exhibition AIPP $65,088 89 Various Art Projects AIPP, $550,089 $550,000 90 City Childcare Facility Childcare Fund $1,500,090 $1,500,000 Capital Project 91 Alessandro Improvements Reserve $6,214,775 $863,529: RDA Area 1 $5,351,155 92 Saks Sth Avenue Parking Easement Capital Project Reserve $750.092 750 000 93 F.I.N.D Building Capita Project Reserve, S850 093 $850 000 94 Children's Discovery Museum Capital Project $500,D94 Reserve $500 000 95 HommelAdams Park RDA Trust $276,613 278 518 96 Entrada del Pasco RDA Area 1 $907,944 $907 848 97 Property Acquisition RDRa" S-6 $883,409 $883 312 M E z z FY 10-11 Q Year 2 o Amount FY 11-12 FY 12-13 Year 3 Year 4 FY 13-14 Grants, Reimbursements, Year 5 Agreements, MOU's etc. 58 59 i153 000 $156,060 $159181 60 150 000 61 $290 000 $295 800 $301,716 $307 750 62 63 $50 000 $51,000 $52 020 $53,060 64 $2 000 000 $2 000 000 $2 000 000 $2 000 000 65 150 000 $153 000 $158 060 $159 181 66 00 000 $400 000 $400,000 67 $25 000 $25 500 1 $26 010 $28 530 68 350 000 $357 000 $408 000 $418 160 69 $50 000 $51,000 $52,020 $53,060 70 $25 000 $25 500 $26 010 i26 530 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 1 150 000 $154 500 $159,135 $163 909 81 82 83 84 $300 000 $300 000 $300 000 $300 000 85 $78 750 $82 688 $86 822 $91 163 86 87 $80 000 88 $65 000 89 90 91 RDA reimbursing City for Purchases of Properties. 92 93 94 95 96 97 Page 6 7 CITY OF PALM DESERT v00, PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM E z Project Name TOTAL FY 09-10 FY 09-10 PROJECT Carry Over Year 1 Fund COSTS: Amount Amount 98 Portola Properties/Adobe Villas RDA Area 1 $204,088 $203 990 99 El Past:o Revitalization RDA Ares 1 ` $4,430,309 430 210 100 Police Academy (COD) RDA Area 1 $2,000,100 $500 000 RDA Area 2 $500 000 RDA Area 3 $500,000 RDA Area 4 $500 000 101 AquatlR Facility_ RDA Aria 2 , , . $6,00%104~~ 000 000 102 NS Infrastructure (DW Well Sites) RDA Area 2 $1,323,291 $1,323J89 108 4 -Desert WillowRenovation (Omens) RDA Aria 2 i75$,10> 59006 104 FalconlHovley Perimeter Landscaping RDA'Area 3 $250,104 $250,000 10ls �1nMrground Neighttorttaod RDA Ares 4 $13,380,105 $13,380,000 106 Portols Avenue Improvement ✓L Sidewalk RDA Area 1 $974,241 $974135 107 Fred Waring Drive & Monterey Ave. Turn Pockets RDA Area 1 $572,817 572 710 108 Casey's Restaurant RDA Area 4 $119,227 $119 119 FD CARRYOVER YEAR1 211 - Gas Tax 800,300 - 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 1,962,867 180,000 234 - Traffic Signal 549,505 579,000 235 - Fire Facilities 3,504,271 - 238 - Air Quality 80,000 100,000 400 - Capital Project 7,332,956 6,926,635 420 - Drainage 1,900,000 960,000 430 - Parks 228,000 436 - AIPP 550,000 - "0 - Traffic Signal 10,760 850,500 450 - Building Maint. 1,850,000 - 610 - Developer 189,000 - 850 - RDA Area 1 14,176,515 1,546,845 851 - RDA Area 2 23,137,697 245,000 853 - RDA Area 3 11,659,171 854 - RDA Area 4 13,999,119 - 870 - Housing 5,347,732 8,155,000 871 - Housing Authority 3,354,992 20,000,000 880 - Trust 276,518 Unfunded 1,000,000 Page 6-8 M E z aAmount FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 Grants, Reimbursements, Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Agreements, MOU's etc. Amount Amount Amount Amount 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 FD 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 15,459,991 420 150,000 50,000 - - 3,060,420 430 234,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 822,430 436 80,000 65,000 - - 695,436 440 - - - 861,700 450 - - - - 1,850,450 610 - - - - 189,610 850 - - - 15,724,210 851 78,750 82,688 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 - 23,355,863 880 - - - - 277,398 OF 3.856.000 10.905.000 56.550.000 1,250,000 73,561,000 25.539.750 17.288.988 68.893.853 7.226.524 280,342,188 1 Page 6-9 in 2. 12/3/2009 MINUTES October 22, 2009 Present: Russell Kitahara, Chair Bob Buster, Vice Chair Terry Henderson John Tavaglione Stephen Tomanelli Robin Lowe Phil Williams Present Staff: George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Crystal Craig, Local Government Analyst II Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II Elena G. Medina, Executive Assistant Elizabeth Valdez, LAFCO Secretary Pam Walls, Legal Counsel 1.1 CALL TO ORDER AND SALUTE TO THE FLAG. The meeting was called to order by Chair Kitahara at 9:37 a.m. 1.2 ROLL CALL. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2009. Moved (Tomanelli) seconded (Williams) to approve the minutes as presented. 6/0 (Lowe absent) 3. CONSENT(NON-HEARING ITEMS) There were 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). Chair Kitahara stated that the City of Canyon Lake had withdrawn their application and Commissioner Williams asked if it required a formal RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMAIYON COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,09 Page 2 N001 December 3, 2009 action to accept their withdrawal. Mr. Spiliotis stated that no action was needed on the part of the Commission. 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). Mr. Spiliotis stated that there was no staff report prepared, but it was staff's recommendation to continue this proposal to the December 3rd LAFCO Meeting. Commissioner Tavaglione commented that if people had traveled from Thousand Palms to speak on this item, the Commission should allow them to speak. Chair Kitahara concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione and opened the public hearing. Patricia Saleh, 35220 Bandana Circle, stated that they will wait to give December 3rd meeting. Thousand Palms, CA 92276. Ms. Saleh their group presentation until the Thomas Hughes, 73-330 San Carlos Drive, Thousand Palms, CA 92276. Mr. Hughes asked the Commission how long was it going to take before the proposal came for hearing. Mr. Spiliotis stated that due to all the other items on the agenda, staff did not have time to prepare all the analysis needed for this proposal. Ray Blaney, 75-865 Chuckawalla Road, Thousand Palms, CA 92276. Mr. Blaney spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation. Leisa Lukes, representing the City of Cathedral City, 68-700 Lalo Guerrero Avenue, Cathedral City, CA 92234. Ms. Lukes stated that she was available for any questions and will be returning in December when the proposal will be fully heard. Moved (Tavaglione) seconded (Williams) to continue 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) to December 3, 2009. 6/0 (Lowe absent) 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. Mr. Spiliotis presented the proposal as outlined in the staff report and further stated that the CFA was not presenting a conservative analysis as was required by Commission policy. He said that he outlined those concerns in the staff report presented to the Commission. Mr. Spiliotis expressed RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lalco.oig • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22;...,009 Page 3 December 3, 2009 several concerns and stated that based on the current CFAs, it was his opinion that the area would not support two cities at this time. Mr. Spiliotis said that he had distributed to the Commission adjustments made subsequent to the staff report and the largest adjustment was regarding the vehicle license fees. Mr. Spiliotis stated that if the Commission approved the incorporation, the base property tax determination should incorporate the new number which will increase the base property tax by 31"0. Mr. Spiliotis discussed the revenue neutrality and stated that the fiscal analysis showed a net loss to the County of approximately a million dollars annually as a result of the Eastvale incorporation. Mr. Spiliotis stated that it was staff's recommendation to deny the incorporation. He said that the Commission may wish to consider continuing the proposal to be heard concurrently with the Jurupa Valley incorporation proposal which was expected to be heard in February. He said that the Commission may also hold the incorporation request in abeyance for an extended period in the event economic or other factors change significantly enough to update the CFA. He said that holding the matter in abeyance would preserve the initiating petition, relieving the proponents of the necessity to recirculate the petition. He said that if the Commission approved the incorporation, statute required that the Commission made findings specifically rejecting the basis for staff's recommendation for denial. He said that there were required findings, determinations, terms and conditions that were attached to the staff report. Commissioner Tavaglione commented that the previous efforts to incorporate severely divided the Community and it had taken many years to bring the community back to a more cohesive community. Commissioner Tavaglione stated that when Eastvale asked to incorporate, they asked him for his support and he told them that he favored their effort only if the community supported the incorporation. He said that when the Jurupa Valley proponents asked him for his support he told them the same thing that he would support it only if the community was in full support of cityhood. Commissioner Tavaglione said that he would not support incorporation at the risk of costing another area not being able to survive. He stated that regarding the revenue neutrality, although it was the law for the County to not lose revenue, it did not preclude them from negotiating with the County. Commissioner Buster expressed concern with the CFA findings regarding the city might not be able to survive economically. Jeffrey DeGrandpre, Eastvale Incorporation Committee, 12672 Limonite Avenue, #3-E-257, Corona, CA 92880. Mr. DeGrandpre expressed to the Commission that the entire community of Eastvale was in support of cityhood. He proceeded to address staff's concerns in relation to the CFA and outlined the reasons the Commission should approve their application for incorporation. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINTE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVIF-'RSIDE, CA 92507-4977 Phone (951) 369-0631 + www.1 co.org - Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,09 Page 4 *400 December 3, 2009 Mr. DeGrandpre said that the CFA before the Commission reflected data changes provided by LAFCO and Riverside County. He said that the revenue changes shown on the CFA were below the market findings from the major property owners, Randall Lewis, Lewis Operating Corporation and Brad Leal. He said that the Committee had accepted the data although their committee did not agree with it. Mr. DeGrandpre said that they had worked hard to offer options and assistance to the proponents of the Jurupa Valley Incorporation Committee. He said that they had testified and attended several of their meetings with their government sponsored agency, the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District. He said that unfortunately, every offer of assistance and support was turned down. Mr. DeGrandpre introduced their financial consultant, Eric Nickell, Principal Consultant, Willdan. Mr. Nickell gave a quick overview and power point presentation of the October 2nd draft of the CFA for incorporation of Eastvale and also addressed the issues of concern outlined in the staff report. Mr. Nickell said that there were about a million square feet of retail, 200,000 square feet of office space and over 4.4 million square feet of industrial uses planned for the area. He said that land use was the key to the fiscal solvency of either city applying for incorporation. He said that this was a contract city and as they incorporate, they will be contracting with the County for animal control, for fire and public protection services, and public works. Mr. Nickell said that the city will be basically in charge of administrative matters, and may take on other matters as the city grew. He said that they looked at the Cities of Menifee, Coachella, La Quinta and Lake Elsinore for comparable staffing, salary and benefit levels. He said that those numbers were plugged into the cost side of CFA. Commissioner Williams asked if $1.10 for every $1,000 in property taxes will be transferred when a property was sold. Mr. Nickel said that it was his understanding that half will go to the city and half will go to the County. Mr. Spiliotis reaffirmed the response. Commissioner Henderson asked Mr. Spiliotis what figures the two recent incorporations used in their studies regarding the sales tax. Mr. Spiliotis responded that the Cities of Menifee and Wildomar used in their analyses $175 per square foot for taxable sales for future development. Mr. Spiliotis said that the $177 figure was used looking at the base year sales tax revenue documented by the State Board of Equalization over the existing commercial square footage reported by the County for the entire area, including the Jurupa Valley. Commissioner Henderson stated that legitimately the figures were gathered from current statistics, revenues and estimates. Mr. Spiliotis stated that regarding taxable sales, he did not disagree that it was a low figure but the city needed to do a conservative analysis which was supported by the current data. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 + www.lafco.orgi • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22 ,, .)09 Page 5 *40#1 December 3, 2009 Commissioner Buster stated that over a ten-year period there will be a second fire station built and asked if the cost of building the new fire station was covered by the structural fire tax. Mr. Nickell responded that the CFA did not assume that the costs will be covered. However, there was ample money in the fund to carry another fire station. Commissioner Buster asked Mr. Nickell if he had built anywhere in the estimates for natural, inevitable and very strong expectations from the citizens for better service levels. Mr. Nickell responded that the CFA did not promise higher service levels. Commissioner Henderson asked Commissioner Tavaglione if he would still build the community center if Eastvale incorporated. Commissioner Tavaglione stated that regardless, he would still build the community center. Commissioner Henderson asked if any part of the potential city boundaries were within a redevelopment boundary. Mr. Spiliotis said that only a relatively small area was within the redevelopment boundary. Commissioner Lowe commented that in the last 20 years, the City of San Jacinto had not enjoyed the benefits of working together with the County in sharing some of the redevelopment funds. She said that the County had kept every dime and had not used it within any city limit. She said that just recently, they were going to work together to clean up blight within the redevelopment area in the City of Hemet. She expressed concern with being able to count on any revenue because the area in question was a redevelopment corridor. She said that the city may not realize this unless there was a cooperative agreement signed prior to incorporation. Commissioner Lowe asked if it was the plan of the proposed new city to contract for the entire staff. Mr. Nickell responded that the attorney will probably be on a contract but as to the rest of the staff they might be full time or part time employees. The Commission recessed for break at 11:04 a.m. and reconvened at 11:14 a.m. Jeff Gibson, Consultant for Eastvale Incorporation. Mr. Gibson stated that the Eastvale Incorporation Committee and LAFCO had been very attentive in following the developments of the recession and the impacts on the data. He said that they had gone through 10 changes in growth and the latest change was done in August, 2009. He said that regarding the sales tax the latest change was done about three weeks ago. He said that they were dealing with as current data as the County would be using for its own projections. Commissioner Lowe asked if the information provided was adjusted in August and how far it had come down. Mr. Gibson responded that it started with the County' s projections at 30,000 units and ended it up at 16,800 units which was a very substantial drop. Mr. Gibson introduced Mr. John Cavanaugh, Counsel for the Committee. John Cavanaugh, Counsel for the Eastvale Incorporation Committee. He said that if the Commission made a decision based on the fiscal viability of the two communities, the decision will be unprecedented, for the LAFCO Commission. 2IVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION + 3850 VINE STREIEE SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 - aww.lafeo.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,09 Page 6 *00 December 3, 2009 Mr. Cavanaugh said that in looking at the CFA, the general service levels upon incorporation were not going to be negatively impacted or reduced. He said that pursuant to the revenue neutrality cooperative agreement, the general service levels for the County will not be impacted because they had made an agreement with the County over a 30-year period that will keep the County in a stable position upon incorporation. Mr. Cavanaugh addressed the concern regarding the $177 per square footage and stated that the number was higher for the community of Eastvale. He said that they had property owners who will be developing the area within the gateway center. He said that the Commission had to make reasonable projections based on current projections. He said that the numbers presented were very conservative even in these economic times. Mr. Cavanaugh said that they did not wish to be conditioned upon the fiscal viability of a community that had not yet come before the Commission and that should not be a consideration. He said that the property owners of the Gateway Center wanted to be part of Eastvale. Mr. Cavanaugh presented and read a letter from Mr. Randall Lewis, Lewis Operating Corporation and Mr. Brad Leal expressing their wish to be part of Eastvale. He said that the policy stated that if the property owners wished to be part of Eastvale, the boundaries that Eastvale had proposed which was along the 15 freeway will remain in Eastvale. He said that the community of Eastvale submitted their application based on signatures. He said that it was the community who wants to become a city as well as the two large property owners. He asked the Commission to allow the voters to decide. Pam Walls, Counsel for LAFCO stated that Mr. Cavanaugh had asked the Commission to not consider the impact it will have on the Jurupa Valley area. She said that under Cortese -Knox Government Code Section 56668 subdivision c., the Commission must to consider the effects of the proposed actions will have on adjacent areas. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that this was correct but the committee wanted to emphasize the impact on the surrounding community of the proposed application. He said that the application submitted to the Commission will not have a negative impact on the surrounding communities. Commissioner Williams left at 11:36 a.m. The following persons spoke in favor of the incorporation proposal of Wm a f-vrm l c Kelly Howell, 7938 Saddle Tree Court, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. Howell stated that her family had dedicated their lives to public service. She said she was the secretary of the committee and had served on a variety of capacities. She said she was here to express her support for incorporation on behalf of the 5,000 families that had expressed their wishes to incorporate. Jane Anderson, 6454 Daffodil Court, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. Anderson expressed her support for the incorporation proposal. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, surfE 110 • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • xww.1afco.orq • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22, 09 Page 7 %we December 3, 2009 Deanne DeGrandpre, 7710 Alderwood Avenue, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. DeGrandpre expressed her support for the incorporation proposal. Hari Dhiman, 12392 Current Dr., Mira Loma, CA 91752. Mr. Dhiman expressed his support for incorporation. Michele Nissen, 7039 Misty Meadow, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. Nissen expressed her support for the incorporation proposal. Adam Rush, 7203 Twinspur Ct., Eastvale, CA 92880. Mr. Rush expressed his support for the incorporation proposal. Adolfo Pacheco, 6868 Gypsum Creek Dr., Eastvale, CA 92880. Mr. Pacheco expressed his support for the incorporation proposal. Michael Aemijo, 7674 Alderwood, Eastvale, CA 92880. Mr. Aemijo expressed his support for the incorporation proposal. Claudia Kunhardt, 5689 Cambria Drive, Mira Loma, CA 91752. An unidentified gentleman read a letter from Ms. Kunhardt who was representing residents from the community located east of Hamner and north of Limonite called "Eastvale Estates" expressing their support for the incorporation proposal. Jean Fry, 6469 Amber Sky Way, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. Fry expressed her support for the incorporation proposal. Andrea Hove, 14095 Lemon Valley, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. Hove read a letter from Kathie Bogart, President of the Jurupa Community Services District expressing her support for the incorporation proposal. Dick Simmons, 7091 Ginko Ct., Corona, Ca 92880. Mr. Simmons stated that he was in favor of the Eastvale Incorporation; however, not withstanding the fiscal issues that the Commission had to consider on viability was the people who lived in the affected area who were being forgotten. He said that those residents deserved representation. He felt that scenario two was the only viable option. He said that their community plan went all the way to Wineville. He said that they held public meetings on what the Commission was going to be deciding. He said that if the Commission denied the Petition, they were going to disfranchise the previous planning documents. He said that the Commission should be concerned with the Jurupa Incorporation because it was not done by resident petition. He said that the residents who lived in areas 2, 3, 4 and 5 were their families. He said that Jurupa Valley wanted those parcels because of the tax revenue those parcels were going to generate. He asked the Commission to carefully consider the options before making their final decision. Shirli Wolfe, 13421 Shady Knoll, Corona, Ca 92880. Ms. Wolfe expressed her support for the incorporation proposal. The following persons were neutral to the incorporation proposal: Craig Maxwell, 9451 56th Street, Riverside, CA 92504. Mr. Maxwell stated that if the people of Eastvale want to become a city, he asked the RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RiVERSIDE. CA 92507��2.77 Phone (951) 369-0631 a wtiwv.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,09 Page 8 December 3, 2009 Commission to allow them to have their vote. He said that the historical boundary for both communities was Hamner. Stephen Anderson, 11378 Pena Way, Mira Loma, Ca 91752. Mr. Anderson expressed his agreement with staff's recommendation because Eastvale was proposing higher density in their area. He said that the Committee was not considering the rural life style of the area. Dave Zimmerman, 5304 Marlatt St., Mira Loma, Ca 91752. Mr. Zimmerman expressed his concern with the CFA, and the proposed boundary. Juan M. Chavez, 10010 60�" Street, Riverside, CA 92509. Mr. Chavez discussed his concern with the boundary line that historically should be at Hamner. The following persons spoke in opposition to the incorporation proposal: Irene Long, 6871 Sweet Clover Court, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. Long spoke in opposition to the incorporation proposal because the CFA showed a negative viability for the community. Krista Lestina, Walters Street, Corona, CA 92880. Ms. Lestina expressed her opposition to the incorporation proposal. Anne Marie Hughes, 6130 Camino Real, #300, Riverside, CA 92509. Ms. Hughes expressed her opposition to the incorporation proposal. Fred Marcher, 6630 Black Forest, Eastvale, CA 92880. Mr. Marcher expressed his opposition to the incorporation proposal. Tom Wilson, Crossroads Riverview Park, P. O. Box 1959, Corona, CA 92880. Mr. Wilson expressed his opposition to the incorporation proposal. Rachel Lopez, 6599 Lucretra Avenue, Mira Loma, CA 91752. Ms. Lopez expressed her opposition to the incorporation proposal. Josie Gaytan, 5575 Beach Street, Riverside, CA 92509. Ms. Gaytan expressed her opposition to the incorporation proposal. Jeffrey DeGrandpre, Eastvale Incorporation Committee, 12672 Limonite Avenue, #3-E-257, Corona, CA 92880. Mr. DeGrandpre stated that the incorporation effort had been a grass root effort and they had not asked help from any government agency to sponsor them. He said that they had met all the requirements for viability with no new tax increases. He said that there was nothing in the CFA that will require tax increases. He said that they gathered the petitions, letters of support and the cooperation of all the County departments. He said that the boundaries were within the Eastvale General Plan. He said that they went by the maps approved by the County of Riverside. Mr. DeGrandpre asked the Commission for their approval because there was nothing to gain from delaying the decision. He said that there was no red - RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUrrE i 10 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • w-,vkv.latco.org - Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,'09 Page 9 December 3, 2009 ink in the CFA. He said that they did look at Hamner as a possible boundary and it was discounted immediately as being not feasible. He said that he learned from this process that things change and wanted to keep everything as current and conservative as possible. He felt that it would take very good leadership of a new city council to manage the new city in a prudent manner. Mr. DeGrandpre said that he had offered his help to the Jurupa Valley Incorporation Committee and hoped that they will be successful in their efforts. He said that Eastvale Incorporation Committee were viable and organized and were here today to ask the Commission to grant them approval of their incorporation request. Commissioner Tomanelli stated that they had before them two competing proposals. He said that there was a substantial amount of land that both proposals would like to claim. Mr. Tomanelli asked Mr. DeGrandpre if he could state without a doubt that the approval of the Eastvale Incorporation will not be to the detriment of any other community. Mr. DeGrandpre responded that he could not say for certain. He said that going through the different CFA processes of modifying the numbers and adjusting them towards where the economy was today, perhaps the Jurupa Valley Incorporation Committee could take another look at their CFA. He said that perhaps they might be able to find some instances where they can increase their revenue. He said that there was a lot of land along the 60 freeway and a lot of land along the 15 freeway and when you do an in depth analysis, they will find other opportunities that will help them to become feasible. He said that there were ways for them to become viable and offered his help to them. He said that rather than refusing to take another look at the CFA that they should take a closer look. Mr. Tomanelli asked if he was willing to work with the Jurupa Valley Incorporation Committee and Mr. DeGrandpre responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tavaglione said that the bottom line was going to be regarding issues about boundaries and the financial viability of both communities. He said that these concerns will be determined by the boundaries because the sales tax revenue and the property tax revenue were what drove the success of the community. He said that with that in mind and in trying to keep both communities coordinated, the Board of Supervisors came up with $100,000 for both efforts to help fund their consultants and the petition effort. He said that it has been his belief all along that the only way both efforts will survive will be if they go to the 15 freeway. He felt that it was time for each of the areas to become cities. However, it was the worst time financially because everyone was hurting. He said that in order for both areas to incorporate, they were going to have to negotiate with Riverside County and recognize that perhaps the County would have to give up a little. Commissioner Tavaglione said that if the Eastvale incorporation was approved at this time, they will be going for election in April. He said that he had discussed this with staff. He said that in order for both requests to be heard at the same time and be able to sit down at the table, he offered to bring them back at a special meeting, Thursday, January 21st. He said that if it was approved, the Board of Supervisors must call for an election by January 26t" and that would put both community efforts on the ballot on June RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STTZLET, SUITE 1110 - RIVERSIDE, Cry 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.orro • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,140909 Page 10 December 3, 2009 81h. He said that this would only cause Eastvale to fall behind two months and will expedite Jurupa Valley. He said that the hearing will allow both communities to vote on their destiny for cityhood. He felt that this was a fair compromise and asked the rest of the Commissioners to support his suggestion. Commissioner Buster expressed his support for Commissioner Tavaglione's recommendation and stated that the Commission needed to take a closer look at the financial data and boundary issues before making the final decision. Commissioner Henderson stated that it was LAFCO's main concern for the communities to come together and discuss their issues and hopefully be able to come to an agreement. She said that unfortunately, she felt it was not the right time to approve the incorporation due to the current economic situation. She stated that she did not see a good solid economic future for the city to survive. Commissioner Tavaglione supported Commissioner Henderson's motion to continue the incorporation proposal to Thursday, January 21St Moved (Henderson) seconded (Tavaglione) to continue LAFCO 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 to a special meeting on Thursday, January 21, 2010, 9:30 a.m. 6/0 (Williams absent) The Commission recessed for lunch at 1:16 p.m. and reconvene at 1:44 p.m. Commissioner Buster did not return after the lunch recess. d. LAFCO 2009-01-3-Reorganization to Include Annexation 78 (Country Lake/San Jacinto Avenue) to the City of San Jacinto and Detachment from the City of San Jacinto and the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. (The City requests a continuance to December 3, 2009) . Moved (Lowe) seconded (Tavaglione) to continue LAFCO 2009-01-3- Reorganization to Include Annexation 78 (Country Lake/San Jacinto Avenue) to the City of San Jacinto and Detachment from the City of San Jacinto and the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District to December 3, 2009. 5/0 (Williams and Buster absent) 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. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • vwww.laIco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,09 Page 11 December 3, 2009 Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to continue 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 to December 3, 2009 as recommended by staff. 5/0 (Williams and Buster absent) 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. Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to continue 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 to December 3, 2009 as recommended by staff. 5/0 (Williams and Buster absent) g. LAFCO 2009-10-1-Municipal Service Review - City of Wildomar. No one from the public wished to speak on this item. Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to receive and file LAFCO 2009-10-1- Municipal Service Review -City of Wildomar and adopt the required determinations included in the MSR for the City of Wildomar as recommended by staff. 5/0 (Williams and Buster absent) LAFCO 2009-11-1-Establish a Sphere of Influence for the City of Wildomar. No one from the public wished to speak on this item. Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to establish a coterminous sphere of influence for the City of Wildomar and adopt the statement of determinations included in the staff recommendation. 5/0 (Williams and Buster absent) h. LAFCO 2009-16-4-Municipal Service Review - City of Palm Desert. Moved (Henderson) seconded (Lowe) to continue LAFCO 2009-16-4- Municipal Service Review - City of Palm Desert to December 3, 2009. 5/0 (Williams and Buster absent) i. LAFCO 2009-17-4-Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert. Chair Kitahara opened the public hearing on items i. and j. Bill Murphy, President of Board of Directors of Sun City -Palm Desert Community Association,78476 Valle Vista, Palm Desert, CA 92211. Mr. Murphy stated that the vast majority of the residents of Sun City -Palm Desert were in support of staff's recommendation. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 - RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,09 Paqe 12 DenemhAr I. 9nna Melissa Grisa, Representing the City of Palm Desert, 44695 San Benito Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Ms. Grisa said that they were in agreement to continuing the item to the December 3rd LAFCO Hearing to further discuss this proposal at length at that hearing. Anne Leach, Board Member of the Sun City -Palm Desert Community Association, 78240 Bonanza, Palm Desert, CA 92211. Ms. Leach stated that the Community Council had voted in favor of reinstating the sphere of influence into the City of Palm Desert; therefore, they were in full support of this change. Patricia Saleh, Thousand Palms, Preservation Study Group, 35220 Bandana Circle, Thousand Palms, Ca 92276. Ms. Saleh expressed her opposition to the reinstatement of part of Thousand Palms into the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert. Ray Blaney, 75-865 Chuckawalla Road, Thousand Palms, CA 92276. Mr. Blaney expressed his opposition to the reinstatement of the sphere of influence of Thousand Palms into the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Tavaglione left at 2:18 p.m. Roy Nokes, 30-600 Calle Helene, Thousand Palms, CA 92276. Mr. Nokes expressed his opposition of having Thousand Palms be part of the City of Palm Desert sphere of influence. Moved (Henderson) seconded (Lowe) of Influence Review and Potential December 3, 2009. to continue LAFCO 2009-17-4-Sphere Amendments -City of Palm Desert to 4/0 (Williams, Buster and Tavaglione absent) k. LAFCO 2009-24-2-Annexaton to Lee Lake Water District (Laliberte). No one from the public wished to speak on this item. Moved (Henderson) seconded (Lowe) to approved LAFCO 2009-24-2- Annexation to Lee Lake Water District (Laliberte) as recommended by staff. 4/0 (Williams, Buster and Tavaglione absent) 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no 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 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STPEST, SUITE 110 - RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • wuww.Iafeo.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 r Minutes of October 22, «09 Page 13 December 3, 2009 to the City of Moreno Valley and the Moreno Valley Community Services District (subsidiary) (SR 60/Day Street). b. LAFCO Monthly Expenditure Review. Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to receive and file 6.a. Information Items and 6.b. Monthly Expenditure Review. 4/0 (Williams, Buster and Tavaglione absent) 7. EASTVALE INCORPORATION COMMITTEE - REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF FEES. Mr. Spiliotis presented the report as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Spiliotis said that the Incorporation Committee had stated that they could pay $5, 000 at this time and had requested a deferral of 60 days to pay the remainder $11,000. He said that to date LAFCO had not received the installment of $5,000. Mr. Spiliotis clarified that it was not a waiver but only a deferral of fees to be paid at a later time. Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to approve the request from the Eastvale Incorporation Committee for a deferral of fees. 4/0 (Buster, Williams and Tavaglione absent) 8. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FISCAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIREMENT -ANNEXATION (STAR RANCH) TO THE CITY OF CORONA. Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to approve the Request for Waiver of Fiscal Impact Report Requirement -Annexation (Star Ranch) to the City of Corona as recommended by staff. 4/0 (Buster, Williams and Tavaglione absent) 9. LOCAL AGENCY SHARE STATUS REPORT. (ORAL UPDATE). Mr. Spiliotis stated that as of a few days ago there were only three agencies that had not paid their LAFCO agency share. He said they were the Cities of Blythe and Murrieta and the Elsinore/Murrieta/Anza Resource Conservation District. He said that the options were to send another reminder notice or authorize the Auditor -Controller to take the funds out of the property tax proceeds. Commissioner Lowe and Henderson suggested doing the latter suggestion. Moved (Lowe) seconded (Henderson) to direct the Executive Officer to authorize the Auditor -Controller's Office to take the funds out of the property tax proceeds. 4/0 (Williams, Buster and Tavaglione absent) 10. MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORTS. There were no miscellaneous staff reports to present to the Commission. RR7ERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINESTI`ZE, ET, SUITE 110 , RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 r www.lafco.or.4 r Fax (951) 369-8479 Minutes of October 22,*W609 Page 14 *40 December 3, 2009 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Commissioner Lowe mentioned bringing before the Commission a waiver of the waiting period for the Temecula annexation. Commissioner Lowe commented that she had met with Gary Johnson, Granite Construction and he had commented that he and the Mayor of Temecula were working together on bringing back a new application for annexation to the City of Temecula. 12. ADJOURNMENT. The Commission adjourned at 2:24 p.m. Respectfully su muted, Geore J Spiliotis Execktt� e; Officer RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • wwcvAafeo.oro + Fax (951) 369-8479 cm M FROM: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II SUBJECT: LAFCO 2009-17-4—SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS —CITY OF PALM DESERT PRIOR RELATED ITEMS: Continued from 10/22/2009. The Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Review was continued from the October 22, 2009 hearing date at the request of the Fourth District Supervisor's Office and affected residents. To address the noticing concern mentioned in the attached staff report the public notice for this hearing has been advertised in The Desert Sun. Provided is correspondence that has been submitted since our last hearing in addition to the original staff report. The analysis and recommendations remain unchanged. Respectfully submitted, r Adriana Romo Local Government Analyst II RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • wxryv.1afeo.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 0 en NEW CORRESPONDENCE �w *4 Gialdini, Michael From: Gialdini, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM To: Spiliotis, George; Romo, Adriana; ccraig@lafco.com Subject: Desert Palms Community Council SUPPORT inclusion in Palm Desert SOI On Thursday October 15, 2009, the Desert Palms Community Council voted 3-0-0 (with 2 members not present) to SUPPORT the Palm Desert proposal to include their community in Palm Desert's SOL Thank you, Mike Gialdini, Legislative Assistant Riverside County Supervisor Roy Wilson, Fourth District 760-863-8211 Visit Our Fourth District Website: www.RivCo4.org Sandy Seddon From: Steve Bailey [stevefbailey@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: info@lafco.org Subject: Sun City Palm Desert To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Steven Bailey For the past two years I have served as the elected District 9 Delegate within the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. In that capacity, based upon frequent district resident meetings, emails, one on one contact, etc; I can assure you that the vast majority of the 900 plus residents within District 9 are in suDDort of the petition by the Citv of Palm Desert to move our community back into their "_Sphere of Influence". When I along with most of my fellow District 9 residents purchased our Sun City home, we were within the City of Palm Desert's "Sphere of Influence" and we look forward once again to returning to that status. Thank you in advance for your support in making that happen. Sincerely, Steve Bailey - District Nine Delegate 78541 Kentia Palm Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 CM Sandy Seddon From: Jerry Hatcher [hatcher183@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:32 AM To: Sandy Seddon Subject: Fw: SUNCITY PALM DESERT I SENT THIS TUESDAY „JERRY ----- Original_ Message ----- rFrom: Jerry Hatcher To: LAFCO Cc: JERRY L HATCHER Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:47 PM Subject: SUNCITY PALM DESERT GOODMORNING„ THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE REFORMATION OF SCPDCA BACK INTO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF PALM DESERT ON YOUR ADGENDA.. AS A DISTRICT DELEGATE I ASSURE YOU THAT OUR RESIDENTS OVER WELMINGLY URGE YOU TO COMPLETE THIS LOOP BY ALLOWING PALM DESERT TO HAVE OUR COMMUNITY WITHIN THIER SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. THANKS AGAIN, JERRY L HATCHER ,DELEGATE ,DISTRICT # 10 Sandy Seddon From: rileypalmdesert@verizon.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:09 AM To: Sandy Seddon Subject: Shirley Allan letter to Lafco Oct 20, 2009 01:47:00 PM, shirleyallan cpdc.rr.com wrote: I run the Library in Sun City Palm Desert (over 9,000 volumes run by 53 volunteers) and am also a volunteer legislative advocate for SCPD. Wearing both hats I am told by many of our residents that they want to be included in Palm Desert's SOI. As legislative advocate I know how important it is for you to agree to support the position of the City of Palm Desert to bring us back into their SOI. Shirley Allan, Legislative Advocate, SCPDCA Chairperson, SCPD Library Committee Page 1 of 1 in Elizabeth Valdez From: Richard Petroff [dukel508@dc.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:01 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Inclusion of Sun City, Palm Desert to the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Attachments: Ltr to LAFCO of 10-21-2009.doc; "AVG certification" 11 /17/2009 RICHARD PETROFF 78070 LARBROOK DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211-1212 (760) 360-8862 To: LAFCO Commissioners October 21, 2009 My name is Richard Petroff, and I am an Alternate Delegate for District 2 in Sun City, Palm Desert, a District of 300 residents. My wife and have been residents of Sun City, Palm Desert for over 13 years.. Please be advised that we and the majority of the residents in our District support the petition of the City of Palm Desert to return our community to the Palm Desert sphere of influence. Sincerely Richard Petroff En III FAX COVER SHEET From the Office of Pro -Team Mayor 1000 Palt�as JB. Stevens cs ffi Ceil(760) 408-6583 ter, �- jDate sent: Time sent: = Number of pages including cover page: �? } To: tr1� �. A G & ay rvvA^47?w Cw&7 /SS/w Address: 385P V/A/f Sy4*e-f src,r� 110 /�wt+ts�ps Ca 'Z$Q7 Attn: 6 eb A6 E 5 )Q I Z. 07 /5 . r L 1 z A a F 7P Title: Phone: q S l) 3 b 4- rf 6 3/ Fax: !rl) 3 9_ iPlease Circle One CURGEN REVIEW COMMENT FF�LY RECYCLE !! Please reply that you have received this Fax Thank you So x' 73-673 Broadmoor Dr. Thousand Pa)ms CA 92276 Design by JB Stevens C M THE OFFICE OF CPR BR PLEASE JB Stevens - C eA C P R CONSIDERATION For Others 73673 John B. Stevens PRIDE Broadmoor Dr. in Yourself Thousand Palm - and Country RESPECT California King of Cowboys For AN 92276 17AM AAA-65$3 Tr►elwMwaIftQom. 10 ram+ THAW YOU /eve E L t /Vo'7' 11,4vv 70 !Ou-r lov 7xe IJV 3 C-rL,T Sc�,y t o �I 7 u,Q,t y C a %Hau sAW,0 PA4Ar ,oirFv o-w n, &c 3 - Z.,0 ' ��� Ss y o'i Der-A?y �� rye d NE C A A eS 14/y V 1 o C. I T/ CS D I D :W,06'. /Av "I' ALL i h s tt s•+y' Y• K S,,co 1. • 7c�rt 7s 4AFC.o S r*-rl w 6 YewA Coy coicN x 6ArW 70 - A.4 y S6/-7 F Wh%tf Sorg F c�I� icy ijar,c 'V 6 W14L BI -,,'79WX A l+/!YN CeA /*7 r n 7fffr C./°/C - 86+0r/ 1'G�,ts � � � cery � � YK� ��FrrE,rc T � ��s " J? oAY p D a w4.�l�r°P fNa ryl AV r, rr- CA SIF MA Mi, z For more information about the CPR BEAR and its meaninq Aiease see revercp PLEASE ''You Qualify for a CONSIDERATION ��Y // CPR BEAR For Others • card For a JOB WELL DONE PRIDE ; You did your BEST In Yourself You DREAM BIG and NEVER GIVE UP and Country ; You HELP OTHERS PUT THEIR BEST INTO RESPECT • EVERYTHING THEY DO For All • • You're an UPBEAT person who's always ready to If One Practices All Three say "GREAT JOB" The World Will Be a Better Placed + Your "AIM HIGH" attitude is in your personality. Design By JB. Stevens 0 • • Design By JB. Stevens C s.••...•••••••••••••.•••s••••s•••s•s•s•••s•••s••••ss•.•s•ss••e••• 0 0 c) C") `v cry JrL,S 09 OCT 27 Pik 2: 19 "f6 W14elh if MAY C,NCASAN I L K N0W -f WA7 A Y Gorr cAYW / s ro TAY Awe S4446 O u R AA € A 1 H -7Ao t(s Awjo Pfi« s c4 q %,.L-It. Art C,v N.M7 y o ¢ A l IJOIFL S 1 lot / S toil rrm(g AW .4L L Xhl.0 Nl-W 0 v*Al tokis6-s .4U,ss f#fr "L rJ+Y TA+Cks AWv T /e �o n PtW 4 P 7 A/o 10 f o r- 2 /O pia !t-'.0 -f Z JClgD TWAT 1f T" C.ITILLS dA+ T11E- Ss TAr S//f A40- /4-619- j# 4t-Km1Lt7i -7WjS 4~0 .Wd AlifY Do /fit Y 71f!^l6 felt Y447*-s T, "pn r L.rl rt7 ,* 06+L wiles T wsattI L/kE Irl 5" !F TA'gf. AAJA WA-S nla4 ,f- AII.*SLC- -fo AFYy OWE- C1Ty T: SOT ,WA) 7 IS 5.+0 - T X044 ?w1-r 411,64S/nt Gou.,rrx AWo /F AA- S V7&t a. 4C -s,,,V I—Aolf y �t tc.icr. rv�rE /u44s-rs c- s /ft+ t yF w6- Co,c 4 o a ram- ,+d- x�4 s e st-r C+LI r-sa. I, 4 -r• r.4W T/,-Ei,L i-re.7k.cF to ss I t/G/y1" TQ AC"Ofc A c o T y lrrr a v,-y ,f- / s L~v Lei s All, A04,01wrt s Z 11r,►1 oW F ok7"S/ o F vF Vow _5 / A--r 0 + Asc64 sti. +c A•, wNo i.-t F soT civ •qp r 1.;r.ato: 7t.�F" s cm r.✓ ltt�-! -M- - n IOv 6 7"0 /�O y AIO Kos IIV-- Tu C. n ^1 C 1 10 W srrr ,,PW 77M-7' ON pW S /Yb c✓ / [&k" 447W t Hv /it ! A094 6 AWD A-r " S"f Ya*'Wt.s /twa ,6 WA Arrt< A1* rA41'V4 IA/ 77'�t-t AVCf-A-d AWO 4711- 4oq-/7-1A,4 ;ern. AK-t_ 7W �_-1 o4ct AWO yifd D*;Otrr,O /Ar crt: t+lf S i/ A/ x,.t-y Do SO �t G f i�+Y h . / P c.+ jai •,t T.rKF /44p, AiL:r &tr k4+w-r.,W- 70 1U-KO1 yi#4-eri-*f� SO / cow 7iriG *w! S/ of of 15st s4,vr> 4K."t S'. /4=04a 544,"r /-r /s •� I•ydas7a>' / #4S /r!G �!w P M#rt.f !°uws ?' dF BK/c r T,l��s t✓/cc 491 ✓ G 12#16 'i i4 IOY d'-tA7Vr cif A R✓ 4 F 7o "i 6ws4s .' m 7, Sty 6 *r-rrlwv IS T fug h- Mrasi oov Att SOT Ast /7 /,v - ,,' y$.+,t c r t /o y6.0,ts � i� s (v/t-t_ *4c.ow 7/ sK C~# /°A-.ry s 71/'t E yr, 6If 7A"&1X crt�„/c Tv P2" +?7 7'v A/to u4: 70 4-''e-� t�V� /1.11.14 $1w�[��-fir /I/ �IY4? 4J� lJ/L.c. Ao %'+►i1 O�IIS �K.TurE�'. / S^ t✓G c i►.o T �•� y To FT/teFrt r°i+.,/ B Y T*Ld:ry Y ALL J`t t►+��i►s t? t✓scttaD o11I t y � � fi fit F ' C*rW4Aol4. QTy AWO /°�L AE�r2T dF t_�w�r/ 7� w/pT O"VL;e So,t gtt y -rp slar!/O-iK ? A -c*4 7wi /t&# ic,s4r /./ ^10 4) H /t 4 t e. Ur 7W /'e*rc f / 'rf X*n V AIV'4 7s r.AC,#� -rloar r -7* t✓A., " ?b 4#+xco le�/qWi S %k4 to iv `-~-f lr I O A" s U Glk r t s o m e wlto-mc. Sot! nM� !•I Yoas2 /¢r� t✓ /ZL /Yl a o P t -7AMW.Ar Y*.t . m Ax Tito USA fii14A(K O �/1/'7 /1 �n� �•+ %_2Q�r 'f�' ^ �.,��/ ��o� i4/Lac n S cal w�+/r z rNQ hG E2 00,�� SIfw/ I?Aif-AA42 i26xc2 tV) r"kx /- 9d9- 88t' Fsb/3✓ ,SCW V)*M/V r-C'I/i/.9 Te-I"/ (1)) FAw /- 14 �� /4A IL+J BOND / I,+f- ' tR) FAA 1-^ 7`10 A P ..,Jr CRY J, n') s ( R0 /� 20�_ t�S- 6y98 ✓ r--" S?4T 5 �N .J o M r/ -=- i2 clot I xA x l 17*-fE 5^1 .5f DNtH,j;,ry F,s l -Ito - ale -ry�� � ,A ss6*1l2Ly MAIAW rlf s rA-Wcr (A 1-7do L7y 6/8V A s S E--rl 3 L Y AvA-r✓ /YArvu It L. %n. a -t ! n � ,=�►1- 7 j o - ?V 7 - 8 70 � ✓ % D to J644-,r o s j F�a�c 1- 76 0 7? IF AW'/ SI AWs V Or 770f' 41 5 i 6 �� ec-vP14' K*O w Dor A-,V Y */V 4� 7���'t 5ti�uc.a Rr 40nc�,o -7i/rrfr y114. A (2OA C-A L I f0f rf BAWV Or C',. AN IUA /.Vo~s -% v MWIS 'Arc** /- 7GD l L-h x'Co co C.*".E s el,410-os cowry or vacs,,, t Of 5 4r7L-7' S KM U1 C-T.o /L 147 o 4 A 4-4E S 5�77 /-- 95-1- 9sy. L19y M in pot FAX COVER SHEET From the Office of Pro -Team Mayor 1000 Palms i JB. Stevens i Cell(760) 408-6583 'I r,11, 71, - 3Y3-/90(8 Date seat: /Yi'v Ji/" Time sent:—2rAJAPAW gvv 4-1 Number of pages including cover pagers To: I{ iVL.S/ 17E �o CIt-`- /ti G h+/Cr-,�/Lh4J'/oH C0"#f Address: 3 g�o (/i�YE 57Xf i 9* 1/6 /6mLsi P& cA % 2,Sa 7 Attn: EJ414 i 510, t, / 0 7/ S Title: i j Phone: 9.5-1 -- 3 6 i - Q 631 Pax: j -- 9 5-1-30 — 8 Y7 % Please Circle One URGENT REVIEW COMMENT REPLY RECYCLE Please reply that you have received this Fax Thank you 50s % � ,.r� eA 9 t,174 73-673 Broadmoor Dr. Thousand Palms CA 92276 Design by JB Stevens 0 Alt ? 34,73 l3KOA0/1044 P(Z 3� �'o v iN ST s a 1 �� i/ 0 CA s,r, O /°� c�rr s CA l`+CA 9 Z S07 y t-L7k ,4/4,ri 9 - of 3/ Cc -F-A3 69 y- a Y 79 /OIh,ArC-1A,4 r 769-3y3 l3 yb' Nov 0CA A S/'I !D-C- c,stogy o f -iwc 7wv sv/'s "12Z.4 do » 6 S o o c- ►a Ay l..fw/� ©c✓/V&t s w; -11 Al s o w t", w /FtTI / T A t—L 5-r*A7e-o 1-/A s Lc/ HW CA -T /f t 11(L4 t- c i t2, 1 U fc,'l S i D C„It; -,,� 4 n jA S Coo a ,� rh /7iI ?'ilia � ?iK � r,✓c�r � v i,�fG� �o /a.��c y �vn ?I� Sv / �'t•ry pc vn-+.cG —,v ��o ncs`� r.��ti� /,� �% /-f'Z'T'l L✓ /FC r7/414 y O &4. +L /�7!-FTiN6 /Q- 7 �7/•f"C �'/loK s�t►�/o �•t� � s C //�y..� ►?ls t O i �+c t �+ � 0" /Z. % >ri S 7 % C F7in/F id /� l s c u s� !✓ i[•E 7 7//t=rlL lM''C-,�I�/UM s Wg(1.L ..� LLD �/fG/'-7 1 L✓oKc. ✓� s o r /4c+,N A X7Z�A , /10EIK S'o l -2- y . t�t" 2-0 6 r 3 .S /kf-I l 0 9-1 J f I l/o s s / Ei Gr, / K. �C--/' N L✓ / 7/� rlr� �wv c-l� r � � fr,•fn �r/2 S� r 's � ,—�� c. n s a u.t 14+ 5 � rc �o /� c r1l-� c✓ %H c /�/ 71f F y' ,.t" 7, //K.r r,y w/o(/U/I Not✓ vPCWs S'r,oc-" / -G 2 '7w q 'i A-C /tt517 C N -1i -Y s 44waa a-C. s v ry rt /�r'�t /' C t� n , ,./ F r,✓ / -1/ / 7 /'/C Ii o Am t' o F fit r co jai I!-vi va u I i/f� Z Si!'< I /` G✓ L- Chr1 ti/ a S �(,Z �'+ /� I LAW or- U 4 .t u u/w �,•� r , /I /r4 i/f/ s i/� t- jiIOLZW I W/ s // 13 Q 7/r/ —7/rC "r WISP 7v -Tim �' a sr o✓ CA4L C-O /Al f-- n'P-f a YaKrt_ C_0" CNl.nrs 7f L/k�<o.•� %iC-c 3 —c� 9 C✓,tC '77f o F a ti 7` o .r T/tG 2fw 4 cm ♦0 FROM THE OFFICES OF JB STEVENS AND THE CPR - BEAR CPR John B. Stevens King of Cowboys (760) 408-6583 PLEASE CONSIDERATION For Others PRIDE In Yourself and Country RESPECT For All If One Practice AN Three The World Will Be A Better Place! THANK YOU You May Qualify For a CPR - BEAR * Thank you Card For a JOB WELL DONE * You did your BEST You HELPED OTHERS TO DO THEIR BEST Your an UPBEAT person who's always ready t to say "GREAT JOB" Your "AIM HIGH" attitude is in your personality. O N i%#t-F CA 130yA..,D +' 1AY D*cjV f If We D tF •iG �' Tt�o x s �►•v� l'.� s C,f q 2z. 7 1 WE NAVE —r&i go AL ,yvST vE>�y?�fsi✓,!: W, 0*7E. ANO Iww �7 �,� 7• iiK �f Y&" w,sN 7. GEr C-ex- 9br;17, -rM AWK You C*Ao . 3010 4OkFc p l3o.�,t fl K art wv"to 41 it E ro 13 E C.sM C A C-{Ty hWD M�Fo 130-r,4 Se, 's ,rV o-- aNrt 73-673 Broadmoor Dr. Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Design By JB Stevens® cm ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS 0 FROM: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II SUBJECT: LAFCO 2009-17-4—SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS —CITY OF PALM DESERT PRIOR RELATED ITEMS: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOB24ENDATION : This report provides a brief review of the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI) and an update of planning activities related to its SOI. At this time, the City is requesting a sphere addition to include the Sun City -Palm Desert area of approximately 3.7 square miles. The area was in Palm Desert's SOI for almost a decade until it was removed in October of 2007. In 2008, the Sun City - Palm Desert Community Association requested that the Palm Desert City Council consider returning this area to its sphere of influence. This area is currently within its general plan and a Municipal Service Review has been prepared in conjunction with this sphere review as mandated by current statute (Govt. Code Sec. 56430(c)). Currently, a continuance of this sphere of influence review is being requested by a member of the Thousand Palms Community Council. Staff is recommending approval of the sphere of influence amendment. BACKGROUND: The Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 mandates LAFCOs to initiate sphere of influence reviews for all cities and special districts once every five years or as necessary (Govt. Code Sec. 56425). To begin this review process LAFCO staff mailed a letter to all cities and special districts inquiring about any anticipated sphere of influence amendments being considered by each respective agency. This allowed us to identify agencies that would require SOI reviews. A Sphere of Influence (SOI), as defined by Government Cod 56075 is "a plan for the probable physical boundaries an area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission". of influence service and the future. are used as a planning tool for agencies to facility planning for areas they intend to e Section d service Spheres conduct serve in RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • wwwAalco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 LAFCO 2009-17-4 PAGE 2 vo October 22, 2009 Palm Desert SOI ReviZw Consistent with Commission sphere of influence policies, a sphere of influence can a) be coterminous to agency boundaries as the ultimate foreseen configuration of the agency in anticipation of no future growth, b) extend 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. Commission policy also states that prior to the expansion of a city SOI, the affected city's general plan must include provisions to adequately demonstrate that the city has planned for the increased needs associated with a larger geographic boundary. 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. The City of Palm Desert MSR is on this month's agenda and is addressed in a separate report. ANALYSIS: HISTORY: The City of Palm Desert was incorporated as the 18th city in Riverside County on November 26, 1973. At the time of incorporation the City had a population of approximately 8,000 people and encompassed a land area of 11.5 square miles. Currently, the City encompasses an estimated 27 square miles and has a population of 51,509. The City's initial sphere of influence was established in 1974 and included all of the southern territory within the City's current sphere of influence. This area is mostly mountainous, undevelopable and habitat to the Bighorn Sheep. In 1998, the City's sphere of influence was extended to the north to include the Sun City -Palm Desert area (LAFCO 1997-24-4). This added approximately 2,367 acres north of Interstate 10 to the City of Palm Desert's sphere. In 2000, under LAFCO 2000-18-4, the Bermuda Dunes community was included in the City's sphere of influence. This sphere modification added an additional 2,046 acres to the City's sphere of influence. Later, through the LAFCO initiated SOI review process in 2007, upon the City's request, the Sun City Palm Desert area was removed. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES: COMMUNITY SUPPORT: In December of last year, the Sun City -Palm Desert Community Association approached the Palm Desert City Council, requesting the City revisit the addition of their area to the City's SOI. To address interest of the Sun City -Palm Desert RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION - 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 - RIVERSIDE, CA 92507.4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 - www.lafco.org - Fax (951) 369-8479 LAFCO 2009-17-4 PAGE 3 October 22, 2009 Palm Desert SOI Revi area, the City requested that LAFCO consider returning this area to the City's SOI as part of the current sphere review cycle. Correspondence was recently received from Ms. Patricia Saleh of the Thousand Palms Preservation Action Group questioning the support from the Sun City -Palm Desert community to once again be included in the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence. Mr. Bill Murphy, president of the Sun City -Palm Desert Community Association rebutted Ms. Saleh's claims, indicating the issue has been discussed widely at various meetings. Ms. Saleh is requesting a continuance to allow Thousand Palms and Sun City residents additional time to evaluate the proposal. All correspondence is attached to this report. PUBLIC NOTICE: Staff generally advertises in the Press Enterprise (PE) and occasionally in the The Desert Sun. At one time the Press Enterprise had a greater circulation in the Coachella Valley than The Desert Sun. From Ms. Saleh's comments, staff discovered the PE is no longer circulated in the Coachella Valley. The PE is an established newspaper of general circulation in Riverside County, therefore, our legal requirement for public hearing notices has been met. However, in consideration of Ms. Saleh's concerns regarding advertising within the Coachella Valley, an additional one -eighth page advisory notice was posted in The Desert Sun on Friday, October 16, 2009. If the Commission feels sufficient notice was not provided to the area, the sphere review may be continued to the December 3rd agenda. BOUNDARIES: The proposed sphere amendment includes the Sun City - Palm Desert area, the community south of Sun City -Palm Desert, and territory west of Washington Street and south of the Coachella Valley Preserve. This area includes commercial and industrial uses as well as two motels. A portion of the area west of Washington Street is also within the Thousand Palms Community Council. The remainder of the Sun City -Palm Desert area is within the Desert Palms Community Council. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: A MSR was prepared for this SOI review, which is also before the Commission today. The MSR acknowledges the City is currently providing an adequate level of services. The City of Palm Desert provides parks, recreation, planning, and public works services directly. The City contracts with the County of Riverside for police and fire protection services. COMMENTS FROM AFFECTED AGENCIES/INTERESTED PARTIES: As noted above, Ms. Patricia Saleh, a member of the Thousand Palms Community Council (CC) has provided several comments regarding this proposal on behalf of the Thousand Palms Preservation Action Group and the CC. Most concerns have been addressed in the significant issues section of this report. Ms. Saleh's correspondence further indicates that size of the RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION e 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.1afco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 LAFCO 2009-17-4 PAGE 4 October 22, 2009 Palm Desert SOI Review Thousand Palms CC is being reduced by this proposal and therefore diminishing their ability to incorporate. A portion of the Thousand Palms CC is within the sphere amendment area. However, this area is separated from the remainder of Thousand Palms by the Coachella Valley Preserve. Both the City of Palm Desert and the Sun City -Palm Desert Community Association have submitted additional correspondence in support of once again expanding the City's sphere to include Sun City -Palm Desert. CONCLUSIONS: There is a mutual agreement between the City of Palm Desert and Sun City -Palm Desert that this area belongs back in the SOI. Although a significant portion of the SOI amendment area is within the Thousand Palms CC area, staff feels it is physically separated from the remainder of the Thousand Palms community. Staff recommends approval of the proposed sphere of influence amendment. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission: 1. Find the sphere of influence amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the sphere of influence amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Amend the City of Palm Desert sphere of influence to include the territory as identified in the attached exhibit. 3. Adopt the following Statement of Determinations: a. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open - space lands: The sphere amendment area includes the Sun City -Palm Desert community and the developed commercial area west of Washington Street and north of Interstate 10. None of the areas being considered are within any agricultural land uses. The City's General Plan land uses in this sphere amendment area are low density residential (R-L), medium density residential (R-M), high density residential (R-H), light industrial (I-L), and community commercial (C-C). b . The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area: This sphere addition will not generate a need for RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 ® RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951.) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org v Fax (951) 369-8479 LAFCO 2009-17-4 PAGE 5 October 22, 2009 Palm Desert SOI Rev�iEv additional services. Services will remain the same. c . The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide: The City of Palm Desert generally provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas. While this high level of service indicates that the City can accommodate growth, it would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact prior to annexing large areas. d . The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency: The sphere amendment area includes the Desert Palms Community Council and a portion of the Thousand Palms Community Council. Respectfully submitted, driana Romo Local Government Analyst II RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 LAFCO 2009-17-4 S01 Review & Potential Amendments - C tv of Palm Desert CITY OF PALM DESERT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA p My data pmuded and aewmes no *gal stpsnaitlity fat theMtarnrlion coxfaMed m AILS �S r.p. we of UYs ralucl I respect to SCMIM am pro tka tMa be tad wi 0 1 2 4 _ sale mW iWy of Un user.Do not copy w roses Mis map. Staff Recommendation: SOI addition , *of t — .� i-� � j�,l ar{{� &{ � 3� wNy,�'�4 • V•,. 1x'f it17'A«. i' , ,i � �t � a � a+Yy' ,' � Y `� n.� :,1 ; � .+ � *� $ r � ,•, 4 C " «�- $ a `• of i.1A"Y � � � n 'ai �xj}� os � �� r � ,s P, ; a»swss++..�i+bti a �Q .. �+ � +� e *•{ s e _ y « S ., a y�;r x » � � o x xt: 1 sa�r»s{'trtra«+tq+. ,r°�ri+e�b�w r ✓«; i r � �. «r n of r • a '� ' { an, w yw8 ,z,4 aigt 7✓' tik ✓i Ad � H s °k'►� r �ti ,i � i 1 :� � ; a;Anns:a'�,�' � � � � �. "ic a�.' s�,� �«:,{"�•,s e" sip 44"44j'i yam,; r s t' y ] "} g i i�:. z `i k v *a* � A > Ry tF y ar .z ♦ �' '� . o ate^ > - .s r31 : `�• } �"' A.r ay k�'}r�f Pa v i ` �. .a � c .t -s ,b 4 : r .r� ° .n;, �"` ru' •� 1 6 4'a<` t Ay'�'y � � 'f ti -J e: }b.:i:�ersH*tt �" w kph$ +{1C�t• et' i"v�� A 13iwg$�'yWb $'-•. RP*4st, vfis+way31 a xp4�{t 1tpi %J} �d8d� ABtS�N4 afn " $$S drt�w�b `�ii,svlatrs.�as.r,6 �, �o � '«s'x� 4 "§✓ 8�1ipi. ✓ s T, litstlit tgshtl» srr�Tp�e y + ` yir�q.. . ,• ul Ott ,r s!� rr� sad {Asp } gy,,pp?? f' ��• , -r ` 'e Of pw fi' r �' xt +Y? }i x � ��, .✓m e:�z 1w,. °d' }ti 5h t�r�.i,'i� tx_17"' 4 �' 1 '1't X r ,�' x "�' �, Faye,$"""' £rr s � �,a#'„ €• r `' �i Y� � ,3 f Az 7I i�}'� ���n� � " f �w,' r °,� } �"• x+,r a � � �" ,sf �•- ." e' 0� �. p. s . � tti � •r � ,� r ��`'. �, :l•' s,.Y' t .#'� lit s" - �' j` (��"` � r .y w m in CORRESPONDENCE %W V40 A m D�� J U � � R r..1-t Community Association October 12, 2009 The Honorable Russell Kitahara, Chair Riverside Local Agency Formation Committee C (a P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, Ca. 92236 Dear Chairman Kitahara and fellow Commissioners, The residents of Sun City Palm Desert enthusiastically request that you approve the City of Palm Desert's petition to include our community in their sphere of influence. I can make this statement because I am the President of the Board of Directors of Sun City Palm Desert Community Association and have constantly been asked by our residents when, or if, this moment would ever occur. As you know, our community was removed from the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert in 2007. The community was surprised and disheartened. Sun City Palm Desert totally supports the request by the City of Palm Desert to reinstate our community into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Bill Murphy, Pr%i ent Board of Directors Sun City Palm Desert Community Association Cc — Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission Sun City Palm Desert Board of Directors 0 C71 38180 Del Webb Boulevard 4 Palm Deseit ® CA - 92211 * Ph: 760-200-2222 ® Fax: 760-200-2299 w I I I y or P 0 1 M oESERr 7 3 - 5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 2 60-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346-o611 FAX: 760 340-0574 ci tyha11@ci.pa1m-desert. ca. us OFFICE OF THE MAYOR October 12, 2009 -n o c-) n -4 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer --- Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission �. 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 ; © Ca x Dear Mr. Spiliotis: ON 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 o Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, Development Director, at (760) 346-0611. Again support and assistance. Sincerely,l� 6 � llq n this matter, please contact or Lauri Aylaian, Community thank you for your ongoing Robert A. Spiegel 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 n 4 `ca IXipIEp ON R!(Y(lfp PAPER Sphere ©o Muence Review & PotentW Amendments ME= Or FRED WARING DR 5i !0 RAN,', . .. ...... .... City ®f al -N Ml City of Indian Wells La Quinta g-'g-; g 8, .2 City of Palm Desert i�,IlNt;" RM.,"'M it .-N . . . . . . . . . . Existing Sphere of Influence to prior 10/25/07 Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) P:" ............ tl on CM Thousand Palms Preservation Action Group Patricia Saleh, member and former chairman of the Thousand Palms Preservation Study Group 35220 Bandana Circle Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Tel: 760-343-3885 Local Agency Formation Commission Attention: Russell Kitahara, Chairman P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, CA 92236 Re: 2009-094 Sphere of Influence Amendment to the City of Cathedral City and 2009-17-4 Sphere of Influence Amendment to the City of Palm Desert October 13, 2009 Dear Chairman Kitahara: On Thursday, April 24, 2008, Cathedral City Manager Don Bradley announced before the Thousand Palms Community Council that Cathedral City would be applying for a sphere of influence over the western flank of Thousand Palms. He said that they intended to file in one week with an eye to annexation in possibly a year. The Council unanimously voted to ask Supervisor Roy Wilson to oppose the sphere. Shortly before April 24th, The Desert Sun newspaper printed an article announcing that the Sun City Palm Desert Homeowners Association had paid for a financial study that found that the eastern flank of Thousand Palms between Washington and Cook streets would be needed in order for Sun City to incorporate down the road. On May 1, 2008, realizing that if both the eastern and western ends of Thousand Palms were piecemealed away, Thousand Palms would be left with a tax base area so small that it would never be able to incorporate, the Thousand Palms Preservation Study Group was formed with representative groups from all over Thousand Palms to explore our options. Thousand Palms has been around for a long time. Founded in 1876 around a railroad depot for the Southern Pacific Railroad, the village blossomed until 1957 when Interstate 10 was built between Highway 99 (now called Varner Road) and the railroad tracks. The freeway cut off businesses on the old highway and access bridges were delayed for 5 years. During that time, Thousand Palms' once thriving community deteriorated. Over the last 10 to 15 years, Thousand Palms has begun to rebound with vigor. New homes and industrial buildings have sprung up between its boundaries at Washington Street and DaVall Road. The Bob Hope Classic Club has built its headquarters and elegant Rattlesnake Restaurant in the eastern end of Thousand Palms, and the Agua Caliente Indians have secured zoning to build a new racetrack in the portion Cathedral City has requested. Being one of the Coachella Valley's most centrally located community, Thousand Palms is now not only the home of working families and senior adults, but multi -million dollar estates with helicopter ports and horse ranches, including entrepreneurs who cherish the freedom to work at home that has been zoned away in other communities. Because of Thousand Palms' growth, the County is currently spending over $32 million to beautify and upgrade the community infrastructure and many county buildings have found their way into our midst, including the Riverside County Animal Campus, the Riverside County Code Enforcement Department, and the Riverside County Permit Assistance Center. A new Riverside County Fire Station and Training U Center is going up downtown and the area's first Safehouse of the Desert has opened its doors with construction of a new Animal Samaritans headquarters on the way. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors officially created Thousand Palms' boundaries in 1990, despite the fact that Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert had spheres of influence in the area. In 2007, both turned their spheres back to Thousand Palms stating they had no interest in annexing, and Thousand Palms now has plans to incorporate. Although Cathedral City Manager Bradley stated to the Thousand Palms Community Council that Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage began talks about Cathedral City taking over the Rancho Mirage sphere one year prior to its return, Thousand Palms was not invited into the discussion. And now, Palm Desert is asking to take back its sphere with no consultation with the two community councils within their intended sphere area. Government evidently sees Thousand Palms as nothing more than a census -derived area with the boundaries designated by the Board of Supervisors having no real meaning except for community council representation, but it is more than that to the generations who have grown up here. Thousand Palms has a history, and to many it's their hometown. We have seen how a government decision resulted in the depression of this area for at least 30 years when it cut off direct access to Thousand Palms with the Interstate 10. It would be a shame to watch another ruling take the light of community pride from Thousand Palms once again as prime property is cherry -picked away to benefit other cities. It is not the intention of Thousand Palms to work against its neighbors but to work with them. The Thousand Palms Preservation Study Group was formed to analyze the Cathedral City and Sun City Palm Desert proposals and the effects each would have on the people on both sides of the boundaries. And now we are contending with Palm Desert trying to take back the sphere it gave up such a short time ago, a move that we had to read about inside an article on another subject in the local newspaper. Thousand Palms was never consulted by Palm Desert regarding our community's plans, and public notice of the October 22, 2009, sphere requests was posted in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper that no longer serves the Coachella Valley. We've met with officials from Cathedral City and Sun City and have found them to be equally constructive in working with us. We've all agreed that in the end it's people we're talking about and what's best for those in our respective communities. Although we've had person to person contact with some of the Palm Desert Council members and development staff, all of whom have stated that they do not want to annex the land in their former sphere, this has come up for a hearing before LAFCO so quickly that we are at a disadvantage in contacting all parties in the intended Palm Desert sphere area through town hall meetings. A loss of our prime industrial complexes on the eastern end of Thousand Palms would set our community incorporation plans back a great deal. One thing is almost unanimous, as TPPSG committee members sound out the residents of Thousand Palms, no one wants Thousand Palms to be cut down to a size that it can never incorporate. We have discussed with Cathedral City staff members ideas like Cathedral City annexing all of Thousand Palms and making Thousand Palms a ward with its own say through an elected ward government. Thousand Palms stakeholders are concerned with Cathedral City's financial picture, however, and that the City's current challenges would weigh Thousand Palms down with the tax hikes needed to meet the Cathedral City budget. According to Cathedral City officials, the recently passed utility tax hike will not completely meet their budgetary shortfall, so it's almost certain that additional taxes will be needed. This is money Thousand Palms residents and businesses don't currently have to pay. After discussions with representatives of Desert Palms we've concluded that our two communities have many reasons to come together. We are both north of the Interstate 10 freeway, and incorporating together would mean taking two unincorporated communities, approximately equal in population and equally concerned about losing their tax base area (Desert Palms being in the same position as Thousand Palms if cm Indio continues to broaden its reach), and unite them as they incorporate for the first time. Both communities are currently under the supervision of the County and both could contract with the County for the services they have today. The Palm Desert sphere of influence request has confused the progress on this issue for the moment, but to our knowledge there has been no poll taken of Desert Palms residents, businesses and landowners and no town hall meetings held to explore the pros and cons of the Palm Desert sphere request other than homeowners meetings within Sun City Palm Desert, a planned community development. It is highly unlikely that Thousand Palms could incorporate without the Sphere of Influence land Cathedral City wants. Because of the huge habitat area occupying the eastern flank of Thousand Palms, the land from Rio de Sol to DaVall appears to represent over half of all buildable land left in Thousand Palms. It is for this reason that we are joining the Thousand Palms Community Council and the late Supervisor Roy Wilson in asking that LAFCO refuse the sphere of influence requests submitted by Cathedral City and Palm Desert, or failing that, that LAFCO at least grant Thousand Palms adequate continuances on both of these rulings so we can raise funds to accomplish our incorporation goals. In TPPSG meetings with Cathedral City officials and Desert Palms representatives much goodwill has been created between those representing all three communities. We've discussed the concerns that prompted Cathedral City to ask for a sphere of influence in Thousand Palms, one of the principal ones being that they'd like to have a say about what is approved near their North City area. Our discussions have revealed that a new era of cooperation is long overdue among cities in the Coachella Valley, and Thousand Palms would like to be a part of that. It would be in the entire Coachella Valley's interest to create a beautiful corridor along I-10 by working together so that no community is diminished but rather enhanced by mutual cooperation of all concerned. We'd like to make our North of I-10 cities famous for active cooperation. Patricia Saleh, former TPPSG Chairwoman Thousand Palms Community Council Member Israel Esmeralda, Sr. Thousand Palms Preservation Action Group Co -Chairman CC: George Spiliotis, LAFCO Executive Officer w r,���EI'dEl1 stlV��Sli); iOC.'. 'hENCY SUN C I T Y PALM DESERT slow 090CT13�'MMN 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 cairn Desert Sp1here r eque&L As President of the Boas d 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 a Palm Desert e CA ® 92211 o Ph: 760-200-2222 ® Fax: 760-200-2299 titanx M rage t or i Adriana Romo Subject: FW: Palm Desert Sphere Request 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. 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@vlti..m.a.t.eaor)roach.net 10/13/2009 Elizabeth Valdez 14wloor 900q-1�- From: Allan Shirley [shirleyallan@charter.net] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:55 AM To: LAFCO Information Cc: Riley Franke Subject: Proposed SOI of Palm Desert Attention: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II Please accept this email as a written comment of SUPPORT on the proposed SOI of Palm Desert to include Sun City Palm Desert. 1. SCPD maintains its own streets 2. SCPD has its own Library inside its gates. 3. SCPD has a Emergency Preparedness Committee which has been lauded by the County. 4. SCPD has its own common areas used as parks. 5. SCPD residents are already served by Burrtec. 6. SCPD has a registry for lost animals and a Resident email list that returns said animals promptly to its owners though we do have a problem with coyotes as we are adjacent to the preserve and uninhabited areas. Although the nearby fire station responds to 911 calls we have had to my knowledge only two fires within our gates. To my knowledge no one in our gated community is willing to be annexed by the City of Indio which is closing in on us Dave and Shirley Allan 39324 Mirage Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346-o6ii FAX: 760 340-0574 ijifo@paim-desert.org OFFICL• OF THE CITY MANAGER May 8, 2009 X.10 Z = rn Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 z� Riverside, CA 92507-4225CID = z Dear Mr. Spiliotis: °D 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 SOI. 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 SOI. I 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 e)flN oON Ifam FAm 4 u 9 t a ur t Sphere of Influence Review& Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCo 2006-89-4 Exhibit A '. .rwr.r City of Rancho Mirage urraw r , �r t i 1 w•Y r� r1 1 IY IrrY .. I r; wr � 1 city `•�--� of Indio ? : g-rwr..v� ; . WARM O a r 1. �• NV/I111 �••: • - i f � / ` City of + • +: ++ City of Indian F 's ,wr.•• La I Wells Quinta .ray r, 'MM � City of Palm Desert Existing Sphere of Influence prior to '^";"• ^�G. ,r? �?''� 10/25/07 Commission Approved on 10/25/07 ',1.. r ' , ,1• ,+ r..ZZ,L (Removal) tarp ��Ai:�(A¢'r•frWvy?'�: . , 1s"u, iry i tr57 t ; e�.} t� • tr wwww rrrawr+rrrrrww y}' .iay t.�f'�„�.+''s'N3.\ �'✓S�tl� ��'�,:,f�L•�:� n�1',ft' � t 31 ,u, I; r y � x 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:76o 346—o6ci FAX: 760 340-0574 info@paim-desert.org vr-r-tcr 0r- Int: CITY MANAGER 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 C30 "a! '? A M FV o Ln N erg '.i N ' 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 SOI. 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. eK � PiANIFD AD AE(Y(IID Hl(A `0 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 CITY 01 PO[M 0[SIRT CJ FlUNTio ON 6(YQfO PAPER Sphered Influence Review & Pontial Amendments %W VMO ! 73-510 FREL' WARING DRIVE 1 uyi DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 Tri,. 760 346._06,F FAX: 760 340-05741. iiifo@palin-cleserL.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 ®eser � 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. N-UME601MORW IFEG *N# L�'sMcc�L PF.Ihm LAC; c[ti' 2[-S[,rL)Cfic oV,�Uuul�9 titer U66,r Cli , %'AC The Spheres of Influence for California cities are regulated by Local Agency Fort -nation Commissions (LAFCO), with each county in California having its own LAFCO. The Riverside County LAIC® 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, Ado, � CARL S L. Oi TEGA City Manager 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 ;'—;�, Kamm oil cumin MR. En TO: Local Agency Formation Commission 4 J-Suppl. 10/22/2009 FROM: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II SUBJECT: LAFCO 2009-17-4—SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS —CITY OF PALM DESERT rK10K RELA1'Ll) ITEMS: None. Subsequent to the completion of the staff report, Supervisor Ashley, on behalf of the Fourth Supervisorial District, transmitted a letter requesting a continuance of this item. Please see attached. Sincerely, Adriana Romo Local Government Analyst II RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org . Fax (951) 369-8479 a NOW �Jan SUPERVISOR MARION ASHLEY FIFTH DISTRICT Oct. 13, 2009 Russell Kitihara, Chairman Riverside County LAFCO 3850 Vine Street, Ste. 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4277 RE: LAFCO 2009-17-4-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 ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • FIFTH FLOOR • 4080 LEMON STREET • P.O. BOX 1645 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92502-1645 TELmom (951) 955-1050 • FAx (951) 955-9030 • INTERNET: disMet5@co.riverside.ca.us MORENO VALLEY DISTRICT OFFICE • 14375 NASON STREET, SUITE 207 • MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555 PERRIS DISTRICT OFFICE • 137 S. PERRIS BOULEVARD, #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, "<::z -, 4-1�� Marion Ashley CC: George Spiliotis M 3 Item 4.b. and 4,J, cm EM Fage Adriana Romo From: Elena Medina Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:23 AM To: George J. Spiliotis; Elizabeth Valdez; Adriana Romo Subject: FW: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Request From: Patricia Saleh [mailto:ps8888@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 12:28 AM To: William SCPD HOA Pres Murphy; Sy Kaplan; PalmDesert Mayor Spiegel; jbenson@cityofpalmdesert.org; Patricia Corky Larson; rkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org; jferguson@cityofpalmdesert.org; cfinerty@cityofpalmdesert.org Cc: Elena Medina Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Request Dear Chairman Murphy, I am in receipt of the letter you forwarded to LAFCO Executive George Spiliotis concerning our request for a postponement of the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Request hearing. Thousand Palms is facing sphere requests from both Cathedral City and Palm Desert. Because of the large portion of habitat area that lies within the eastern flank of Thousand Palms, the Cathedral City request, which could turn into an annexation request any day after the sphere is granted, would take away about 50% of our remaining buildable area. The industrial area included in the Palm Desert request would take away another indispensable tax -base area. Neither Cathedral City nor Palm Desert is asking for a sphere over all of Thousand Palms. In watching Bermuda Dunes struggle for many years, being within the Palm Desert sphere but with too little retail tax base to be annexed, Thousand Palms does not want to become the same type of burden to the county or lose the option to guide our own destiny. We are sure that Sun City Palm Desert residents would not like to become an island between an increasingly poorer Thousand Palms, a suffering Bermuda Dunes, and a land -thirsty Indio, keeping in mind that according to George Spiliotis of LAFCO, a sphere of influence does not legally protect any unincorporated community from a takeover by a city nearby. (The Desert Sun recently reported that Indio is trying to annex Vista Santa Rosa, an unincorporated community currently within La Quinta's sphere of influence.) The amount of taxes now going to the County from within our community council boundaries, and the projections by public planners like Gary Thompson (the consultant who did the Sun City Palm Desert cityhood feasibility study in 2007) saying that north of the 1-10 will be the next area for substantial growth in the Coachella Valley, have convinced the Board of Supervisors to invest $32 million into Thousand Palms for county improvements to our streets, the new fire training station and more. Should we lose our current growth trajectory, future expenditures will become harder for the County to justify. Although we currently have excellent services from the County, cut -down Bermuda Dunes complains that its streets are not maintained to the quality it desires, and without a large special tax assessment to help Bermuda Dunes convert from septic tanks to a viable sewer system, Palm Desert may never find it financially practical to annex them. Fortunately for Desert Palms and Thousand Palms, we already have sewer systems. Still, no city is asking to annex either of us in our entirety. Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert must have additional reasons for not doing so. Perhaps it's that Thousand Palms has an 10/20/2009 rage Z_ or 4 erroneous reputation as a crime -ridden community, a reputation the Sheriffs office will verify is unfounded. Where SCPD is concerned, per the SCPD Blue Ribbon Committee report including interviews with Mike O'Connor, former general manager of Coachella, and John Brown, another city manager, that say, "Indio may creep our way but they don't want us for the same reason that other cities do not want us. They fear a voting block. They will, however, want revenue -producing properties ...... Particularly during this economic downturn, revenue -producing opportunities must look inviting to cities around us. Per Gary Thompson, however, Sun City Palm Desert would not have any chance of incorporation on its own without the Aventerra project formerly planned within Thousand Palms' boundaries between Washington and Cook streets. This means that sufficient tax base to support Sun City PD is not possible without crushing the future of Thousand Palms. The first night Cathedral City came before the Thousand Palms Community Council in April 2008 to announce its intended sphere request over the 4,100 acres from DaVall Road to Rio del Sol with the likelihood of annexing it within a year, the Thousand Palms Community Council voted unanimously against it. Supervisor Roy Wilson wrote a letter to LAFCO strongly opposing the sphere on the grounds that this would "pave the way for a piecemeal annexation which threatens the viability of future incorporation of the Thousand Palms community." He said, "The council members and my Legislative Assistant Denys Arcuri tell me there is near unanimous opposition to any city intrusion of the Thousand Palms Community Council boundaries, established by my predecessor Corky Larson in 1990." Thousand Palms, he said, "is one of the Valley's oldest communities and the residents feel a strong sense of identification." Subsequent town hall meetings have confirmed this. Former Supervisor Corky Larson also spoke before the Thousand Palms council in 2008, adamantly stating that she understood how Thousand Palms is now blossoming after being depressed for many years by a government decision allowing the 1-10 to cut off access to it in the 1950s and that we don't want that to happen again. Nevertheless, despite the outreach and communication between the Thousand Palms Preservation Study and Action groups and the representatives of Desert Palms, the former SCPD Blue Ribbon Committee and Larson, neither the Thousand Palms Community Council nor the Desert Palms Community Council, nor the 4th District Supervisor's office were notified of the intention of SCPD HOA board members to request that Palm Desert take back its sphere of influence, a sphere that includes the new industrial area in Thousand Palms. According to Sy Kaplan, Chairman of the Desert Palms Community Council, and John Ludemann, DPCC member, no poll was taken within Sun City Palm Desert before this action was taken. Additionally, they said that to their knowledge no poll has been taken of the marketplace businesses or the industrial area of Thousand Palms. My reference to working "under the radar" was not in any way a personal reflection, and the fact is that you may believe that you were working out in the open because you told people at HOA meetings that there was positive activity concerning getting Palm Desert to put SCPD back in its sphere. Being on an HOA board is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, I know. And sometimes boards feel that the ones who show up to the meetings should get the say; all the more power to them in most cases. However, per The Desert Sun, a little over two years ago the SCPD HOA board voted to pay for the Winzler & Kelly feasibility study to see if SCPD could incorporate on its own. After the study was done, the board then had to drop its plans when the residents showed up in such large numbers to protest incorporation. Since money had been spent, it would seem your HOA board would have had to table incorporation through a board vote, but perhaps you voted by consensus based on community dissent, an understandable position to take. Sometimes there are objections to an action that are never brought to light unless a vote or action is imminent. That is why we are asking for a delay in the Palm Desert sphere of influence hearing, so all parties who'd be affected by the sphere can be heard before the ruling is made. According to the minutes of the PD City Council on December 11, 2008 (available on line), Sun City PD board members Corky Larson, David Novick, Carolyn Einung, Ann Leach, Helen McEnerney, Don Hein and SCPD General Manager Sandy Sneddon appeared before the Council to state their hope that PD would take back its former sphere over Sun City PD, a sphere that included part of Thousand Palms and the markets outside Sun City. With councilman Ferguson recusing himself, the other four council members had to make the decision. Councilman Richard Kelly, the minutes say, stated that when Sun City was taken out of Palm Desert's sphere of influence the council didn't hear much concern from its residents. Larson stated that when Sun City was 10/20/2009 dropped from Palm Desert's sphere of influence she thought it would be okay because they (SPCD) had a (signed) agreement with the City of Indio (not to annex west of Adams street); however, she now thought they wouldn't honor it. Larson cited the 2007 Winzler & Kelly financial study as saying that exported taxes exceeded the services they (SCPD) received. The minutes state that Kelly then said it was important to protect the people that live out in Sun City, so he was in favor of applying to have Sun City put back in Palm Desert's sphere of influence. The other council members agreed. In a discussion I had with a key PD development staff member after the vote it was staffs understanding that this was being done as a favor to Corky Larson. In asking one of the council members who voted yes on Dec. 11 if annexation was the goal, the reply was that this council member never would have voted to put SCPD back in PD's sphere if it meant annexation. Another of the council members who'd voted yes that day was quoted to me as agreeing with that sentiment. Corky Larson herself told me on the phone after the Dec. 11 meeting that Palm Desert was not going to annex SCPD. Although some residents may want to be annexed, SCPD representatives have always led me to believe that most don't. Anything can change, but town hall meetings would help clarify this issue. Per a staff report written by LAFCO Senior Government Analyst Wayne Fowler on August 3, 2006, "A Sphere of Influence, as defined by Government Code Section 56425 is a '...plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission...' Spheres of Influences are a planning tool used by agencies to conduct service and facilities planning for areas it intends to annex and serve in the future." Per the minutes of the Palm Desert City Council meeting on Dec. 11, 2008, Larson said 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 the area had to offer. With the economy struggling, it would be difficult to show what the area could offer with any certainty at this time. In the sphere of influence review submitted by Fowler, on 10/25/2007, Subject 2006-89-04, it states that PD's original sphere of influence over Sun City was established in 1998. He said that when staff first met with the City in 2007 to discuss the sphere review, LAFCO was concerned that the City of Palm Desert had no real interest in ever annexing this area. On April 27, 2007, the Palm Desert City Council directed City staff to request that LAFCO remove the Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert community from the City sphere. In January 2008 the Winzler & Kelly feasibility study was presented to the SCPD HOA board. By election time 2008 the economy had crashed. Even the experts aren't sure when it will get back to what it was in 2007, if ever. A sphere of influence request based on 2007 figures is premature. A few nights ago, John Ludemann resigned from the Desert Palms Community Council citing the lack of cooperation from the Sun City Palm Desert HOA. He said that the SCPD community will not even post notices of DPCC meetings within its walls and that the council was never given the opportunity to vote on the Palm Desert sphere request. According to Desert Palms Chairman Sy Kaplan as recently as last week, by his estimate at least "three-quarters" of the residents of Sun City Palm Desert are against being annexed to Palm Desert. Nevertheless, at the Desert Palms council meeting last week Kaplan seconded Councilwoman Debra Beck's motion to support the PD sphere request within the boundaries of Desert Palms, and Ludemann agreed. I can only surmise that Sun City Palm Desert and Desert Palms representatives sincerely hope that this sphere of influence will protect SCPD from Indio for at least five years, contrary to what George Spiliotis told us it would do. I believe that all involved have the best of intentions. A sphere of influence is a serious matter. City councils usually ask for spheres to protect their own city's interests, not to keep a gated community outside their city limits from another city's grasp, and especially when that sphere will affect concerned landowners and businesses outside the community's gates. Our concern is that those people outside Sun City Palm Desert have never been directly notified of the hearing to be held Oct. 22, and matters that are decided by the powers that be without adequate public scrutiny can turn sour when exposed to the light of day. The public notice for the meeting was posted in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper that no longer serves the Coachella Valley, and the agenda posted by LAFCO on its website doesn't completely describe the sphere's intended boundaries. Needless to say, this is already raising suspicions in Thousand Palms. We are asking for a continuance of this hearing to a later date in order to give us time to hold town hall meetings in the area concerned so people can get their questions answered and discuss the pros and cons. We have to express our gratitude to the city of Cathedral City for appearing directly before our council to inform us of their sphere of influence request. It was an appropriate courtesy to a community that will be 10/20/2009 1 ar In their neighbor for years to come, no matter what LAFCO decides. We're hoping that your HOA will reverse its objection to this continuance in the light of a similar understanding. Yours truly, Patricia Saleh Former Thousand Palms Preservation Study Group Chairman and Thousand Palms Preservation Action Group member 10/20/2009 OR cm %W vao cm zn FAX COVER SHEET From the Office of Pro -Team Mayor j 1000 Palms JB. Stevens i Cell(760) 408-6583 Date sent: Time sent: Number of pages including cover page: To: t tl t S 1 p LIo C*L 4 6 CY cY AA. "AVW C-0-1 't l53NW Address: 38 5'$ MANE S7m&r st4 /t; /10 Aiy&t%),e# CA I t-567 Atha: G Fo M9 E S P l t, l 07-/S Title: I Phone: C01-!rt) 341- d'G 3 I Fax: (g!'l) 3G7- YY 79 I Please Circle One CU:RGEN REVIEW COMMENT REPLY RECYCLE ! please reply that you have received this Fax Thank you 73-673 Broadmoor Dr. Thousand Palms CA 92276 Design by JB Stevens m ;'P wJE 14 C b Atc s 0 .4" 7"g4f SOT �Lc.o w r�G GOO me rx, S-U-rg ,,c AC,-rfwip Sf4i*" VI S 4 A AA. Tars by ;, ti-saw tA't �4R 1r +►/ � S d,! ,� tt y !—'�' it - � 3'Y'- L / i Lcb c-,4 C A i 6ve y tA*AAFAWj.V Cgty,N� s s rsw/ 6&DA&f SPr-L 1p its �-^�'5'/-3�t- 57�7�c S s+r►?s � 5?'� tc- sew R, 0e74 i s c- Du C. X e x Y. Cat) Ar W464 Prrt C-x 8 ar *rvLit S rAW C� } 4t•�17f a� S7k7� a ,� ' I'i's�t[,ry ►� C �.M r � s °3 L✓o.w.4�/ �bg rtEw D1Itar—'rk tt ckftowst .7'�tf.i Wtfr7'[ ! �• l hti`'1 ft r/! �'/aM ,�,�� f aWNitrt ,,t,�✓. �OAJ DONS G � (�hvu �j� r--?fs- srbs- / SIR / i^-7Ls- 39I- fy70 r - 740 - 3Y7- 1-76 54 /,740 - 67y -a/ 8$i� I — 7(-o-77.1 - 5 tILS \4 u 4� Met/' ,;,rd mmu4M AZA �E .ivy of-rAhV50w,d e. t.A3, CA �� .$ or'1 � ��,+}3d�1 tt �/ K�/, i► -Ts /`� i /+dl � G.>3 /S 6►01.� fr IrD /4A7r/F O C..'T qr 'rV/ /Z. 1`►�ETiAlC, C.cccn Nor 13t- Rflp /.,y 70 e vNV SAYFA0 ,tom.n ZVOsC W/r#l.-Y Tim rx1Q4 IAAM" FgE T fin-, k kl'J W-0 r 7"i ?%V s&04� 75, A7r6v O ! /T Lv+�cty iKS48� Ce,�Iv�v/c5f✓i /art d7J1Y�1 �.�Sy,ti ay��l�rt3 � / �ct�cf/ c'-sy.+�sif z• r��vYr �frr�� c.�rM.o' �✓� I1Arra Aft . 1.�f; l��i� i 13% pj&,IM6 1A/ (Llumc/0F /r /`&fitFs 17 IN cJwevt�va�i✓T An. 77/9 IAw/w cw, VAI 7 7A4&0c- ► Z rrs Ott S s 7ltic-A41- I s v&c.r 4./ rrt-C Pf-m s Xw ZAP* y 7,%+-r r->& c.. -TNT /,c-rreK s r,u. -4v o T //4"o W 4*WF' TAv d.A-g eo o ,cpa. Z Do /./•/'AF 7-mov / c Ivor + CAt LZ /Jc OM$ 7* C..o sr itwo OVo s.vc- of s`r $" C-AVLt PAV "T s med ?lam elAltg /N ?,'V*fe AeL -r& j` Xt Teiv'G 4,t-JCC 0 "AM- v s,+Y "V-0 ow41F Wo S. lfi✓iW aAI,c tVAs /.d�rq' 4.9 .TKS7 s e X Ar-,,J Tu 51AvAr*4F oc T/o"t F •toss 7 70e, -Mick 16-s/eS , '6sU'7 4p+ 51W MAI-C *tt/ A i`1'fl' 7� 77 !hw: -ro 7N•ae.*A Aws oomes .' . . PLEASE i r : LAL ra C ������t�`!���^�� - .)�„�► CPR BEAR '—' CONSIDERATION Card For Others ( !� For a JOB WELL DONE PRIDE � You did your BEST In Yourself You DREAM BIG and NEVER GIVE UP and Country You HELP OTHERS PUT THEIR BEST INTO RESPECT EVERYTHING THEY DO For All + You're an UPBEAT person who's always ready to • If One Practices All Three say "GREAT JOB" The World Will Be a Better Place! • Your "AIM HIGH" attitude is in your personality. Design By JB. Stevens ® • Design By JB. 5tevene •••••.sr••••••••••••••••s••••••sass•••s••sa••••ae•sa•••i•s•i••••• i,fr cn C - Z /4 d=c- fl.,r,G i s G�Cr to /"ev r,�roK r t�.ry AL." s vC-Ayn�� A& f# Ole .+r� q0 C-v�ys^V l.iee.� F- 0 Design By JB. Stevens LMM fit, ^t' �f'�t �^.►t4i C!14�t4 ru�i�K� i 09 0111 19 A", 9` 31 Dear Thousand Palms Neighbor. Cathedral City has applied for a Sphere of Influence over the western flank of Thousand Palms, an area reaching from DaVail Road to Rio del Sol. This is the first stop toward ANNEXATION of that area. This Sphere of Influence will give Cathedral City the right to rule on all future use of what has been calculated by some to be almost HALF of Thousand Palms' buildable land. The Facts: 1. When Cathedral City moves toward annexation, which Cathedral City Manager Don Bradley has stated could be next year, this portion of Thousand Palms will become part of Cathedral City and subject to the RULES, TAXES and EMINENT DOMAIN priorities of Cathedral City. 2. The property they seek is PRIME PROPERTY and includes the land surrounding the proposed Agua Calente Indian raceway. 3. By some calculations, this geographical third of Thousand Palms includes almost half of Thousand Palms' buiktable land. The land south of Highway 62 and north of Interstate 10 is considered by land planners to be the next area for major growth in the Coachella Valley. Without this land Thousand Palms will lose a huge portion of its potential tax base, the loss of which will result in LESS MONEY FROM THE COUNTY FOR THOUSAND PALMS NEEDS and the loss of any hope for future self determination through our own incorporation in years to come. 4. The Thousand Palms Community Council was notified of the takeover on April 24, 2008. The Thousand Palms Blue Ribbon committee was brmed May 1, 2008 to study the pros and cons S. At present, LAFCO, the Local Agency Formatr'� Commission, is set to rule on the sphere in October 2008. Their ruling is not opedb appeal. LAFCO has been represented in our discussions by George Sp"Is who stated that Cathedral City will not be denied the sphere just because Thousand Palms doesn't want it. We must come up with our own plan for the future to show LAFCO why the sphere should be denied. With the ruling on the sphere to dome up within two months, we plan to request a refusal of the sphere or at least an extension on the ruling that will give us enough time to develop our plan. Fourth District Supervisor Roy Wilson has joined the Thousand Palms Community Council In opposing the Cathedral City Sphere of Influence. If you would like to ask questions, Town Hail Meetings with Cathedral City and Thousand Palms will be held on the following dates: ????????? A Ay 004 OoIJKq ouM1M s ,4T" + I MWOO Ti thsta t7 �fN►a"/s /�.�ss lr,,D� A LM-�Irm-# !' 12--r } Lam;low ,44- 44S1 D AWP �4wPow•v&4s a r ��u�d 1141-As CA. ;46'tf .A� 1/4ct- M -I/W Vk-�C,—, -fl'f F r:Wlt4l •y X-S'.1'ry 11,4 4-t-� ifk.r#t� � CJ� �✓/, s wf isar)� �r c r N�� .wp .wf r O a A C-Dicow, T Y oQj,,4 UC Ot4t ovV &ks,ve' -7,r,-Dr,< So o-Y ®jt'r# �r; SKY V.tEt_r- y, �- ftildi�ry '�'►rr�u�c, va�srn,�< i rr a c. fir h4W- -Le*fC4 Al' Ac�,rr.��c, �N . Ud �-� /•W a cr #AX-+-si .-foe ae-?wl-61 Ile 4 de I+LIL 5; -ra !1 ,� yd4 14. y Nd7" /,Y l4j,( 6-vcz Iit Cs�.+r�kr sr Q,� ; 1,ca 15 �rf� ,Cl,,WA4. w.61c o v 0 Al J us o rb uP ivIM 4 �'ltW r)C ydk liA1/1 AWy C0.4r1r ors wAF Y -fits 4iZE4 Sev*uIX ,No r af- sv r A445-r S A-rc- 13 SSW �cr,hksr R ��/ �if�K 44954 I)C WC sNskLa AV j5/+L -ro arc � A crt'y, 141($ AVC- N6&1r At rW-,r* !rK46 X- 40 y�/� �r�•4r zrX.T� As-m-c- co,vc /` - G•eyo,'s r ya X, r'4 r. C,(/Zc4X tvL o ^ 7- 7Act s Aq i'l L �5 '40co— (+G rw-y V10#6 S-r26-6" sk,12�//o k &A&D 0 C� �M cYl i lft� ��• w LL- 84tF- w 04 ©'I —_--� >* �4 Thousand PAMS Cummunity PmsaemtiOn Study Group Alternative PuWM Pros and Cons Aeneutlon by Catbedrsl City Pros Already a city Already police and fire protection Have power of bigger city to get things done CVAG, already a member Similar demographics (per capita income) Pros Cons City already in debt h=tased taxes Utility taxes Possibility of abuse of Eminnart Domain Freeway makes division Lose Autonomy "Ward" of Cathedral City . Alroady a city Already police and fire protection Have power of bigger city to get things done t;VAo, already a member Similar demographics (par capita income) Coal City alrouly.in debt Increased taxes Utility taxes Possibility of abuse of Eminent Domain Freeway makes division Lose: Autonomy Lase histowic value of old name Cooperate w►itk Sun City toward ".Desert Palnru Pros Gives more influence to plan for LAFCO Similar point in hiStory (bath not yet cities) New taxes nowt be voted on Larger group of educated, community -activist citizens to draw leadership from Tea -year interim gives more time for all decisions re status Pros Maintain historic boundaries Maintain hidwic lifestyle Maintain Autonomy Ten year gmwdn, possible city Cons Bergtr Foundation probably not support plan Sun City more af'l7ueat Sun City very politically active TewYear Plan for Thousand Pafts Cons Not enough population Would hamstrung Sun City Many homeowaam not voters Leta of work! COMM(me: ENERGY AND COMMERCEt �y � wASWNGTON OFFICE: 104 CANNON HOUSE OFFCE BUILDING WA9WNGTON. OC 20615 SUBCOMMITTEES: (202) 2254330 COMMERCE, TRADE AND FAX 1202)Z25-2961 CONSUMER PROTECTION DISTRICT OFFICES: ENERGY ANO Ails QUAUTY y� 707 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON Wa, TELECOMMUNwAroN3 4art t■�} wY�►VltY �L p, SLMTE9 PALM SMINes. CA 92262 AND THE 1NTERNET �ongrza n�! 3=D-100$ i(j,,�1 i i ` of tbt aniteb �� � F.�x: I760! 320-OS96' 45M MiArict, California 1500 EAStSFLO 301 AVENUE LIM HEMET, CA 92544 1 351) 656-2312 FAX: (961►692-2592 July 22, 2008 Supervisor Roy Wilson 4080 Lemon Street 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Supervisor Wilson: My constituent, Mr. John B, Stevens, has requested my assistance regarding the decision made by the Local Agency Formation Commission to include part of the Thousand Palms area in the Cathedral City "sphere of influence." I have enclosed the original request, which I received from Mr. Stevens for your convenience. It would be most appreciated if you would investigate and comment on these concerns at your earliest opportunity. Please forward your correspondence in care of Lauren Carian, in my Washington D.C. office. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerel, a Y BONO MACK C:I -" �2 Member of Congress 1p ;ram. ©n 4 MBM/IN t� COMMrTTf@r ENERGY AND COMMERCE � SUBCOMMITTEES: -' COMMERCE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY + ? "0h0 Ayath ji(}}a�'/� TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET ((�`''�11 ��rr��++ ��yy } # ' onorta of �e Pmn to / 6taug in 45th Aistrict, 9Caiifernia July 22, 2008 Mr. John B. Stevens 73-158 Broadmoor Drive Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Lear Mr. Stevens: WASHINOTON OFFICE: 104 CANNON HOUSE OFACE BULLGNG W—INOTON, 0C 20515 (202)Z25-5330 FAX: 1202)228-ZSOJ DISTRICT OFFICES: 707 EAST 7AMQUrr2 CANYON WAr SV"E 9 I'ALM SPRING& CA 92282 (780)3ZD-1076 FAX; (7601320-0686 100 EAST FI,OACA AVENUE SUITE 301 HEMET, CA 92644 198f1656-2312 FAX (961) 65Z-2662 Thank you for contacting me regarding the decision made by the Local Agency Formation Commission to include part of the Thousand Palms area in the Cathedral City "sphere of influence," I appreciate hearing from you. It is important that the citizens of our district keep me apprised of their views so that I can better represent them in Washington. Though the county of Riverside has direct jurisdiction over this matter, I will keep your views in mind when this issue comes before Congress. In addition, I have forwarded your letter and concerns to Supervisor Roy Wilson, and have included a copy of the letter I sent on your behalf. I am confident that Supervisor Wilson will address your concerns at his earliest opportunity. Thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. For your convenience, you can sign up to receive regular email updates from me on issues important to the 45th District at http://www.bono.house.gov. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts on other issues of mutual concern. Sincerel CO `RR""7 Y BONO MACK `'- Member of Congress sn MBM/ IN yy M RIVEXSIDF. OFFICE: 4080 Lemon Street, Sth Floor itiverAde, CA 92802.1647 (951) 955-1040 FOX MI) 955-204 John Stevens 73673 Broadmoor Drive Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Dear Mr. Stevens, �aflfl� of SUPERVISOR Roy WILSON FFovRTH DISTRICT July 31, 2008 DISTRICT 01FFICE/MAUN(: ADDREss. 73-710 Fred Waripa Drive, Suite 222 Palm Desert, CA 9226062574 (760) 863-821r Fox (760) 863.8905 Thank you for your recent faxes regarding spheres of influence, annexations, etc., but unfortunately we are prohibited from using taxpayers' funds for the mass mailing that you contemplate. Also, I must reiterate that this is an issue within the jurisdiction of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Having people write to their federal, state and county officials is not as effective as encouraging them to write to LAFCO. Letters of opposition and oral testimony at LAFCO meetings will Have the greatest impact. Other government offices and agencies have no jurisdiction in this matter. As you know, I am already on record as opposing the Cathedral City $phere of Influence, and I hope you are successful in convincing LAFCO to turn the eit�'s request down. Si www.RivCo4.erg diStrict4@rcbor,.org lilson, Chairman of Supervisors e of Riverside o l0 M lsww *400, 09 OC 1 19 AN 9: 31 S--rOe IA L L 114-6- A ILIC- A -PhksAI-W ?At-,A4-1 CA �Z-2-74 )C:klM 7�� C114AA Y PI c- K69- 5 7 Z- I-V 0 77 CtC, coo �we w OM on En 05 FAX COVER SHEET From the Office of Pro -Team Mayor 1.000 Palms J8. Stevens Cell(760) 408-6583 Date sent: Time sent: Number of pages including cover page: To: _ A.i U Cry S I fl7 ' 4 G 6V cY AAAA-roM CDI" /S 3hW Address: 32 5'& V?w/E S-ime ' sk iT6 1 /0 givetisw G 1 t_5w Attn: G Eo (Lb IE S io l 1, / e7 /s Title: Phone: I �4q— 63I Fax: ky 7?3Pleae Circle One URGEN REVIEW COMMENT REPLY RECYCLE i Please reply that you have received this Fax j Thank you Message: 73-673 Broadmoor Dr. Thousand Palms CA 92276 Design by 18 Stevens „ �j m Sc- T AA-AIOLSc.14 wAit7-f-YE66&-4 D Ac• ow6 SwA a ul f ort }irn 'rAit 4*re gay t lt6sew 4& e.4 4. A i 4N e y f *A.Af -rt**f Ccw�'V s 3tl,✓ 5Tw4d S *.41 r. A. -Tb*"w ? A JF 44of T 00 Skit S tr+ ► -n Al 0Ou r-N f N Y. (&) Ass t-rt8cy /-IA./ AIAW urc 4EA-e7. �A) tit�4M N�sTA-W Of tto�ItTFo STq. o ex{ Co,N r �s s L,or►h�I /41*A_y C� N#w p /R�tT� !� c,�Ninvf c 3 SoJf.1 tlM/ �'C 'I—ke `D #s C-A7' s u v ('lc-roA ^&AAt-ft S -r,k# sts-r A"ArAm tV 12AC U,+uirx ?"+tl- f Acrt u AIt )rtW #,#0q, 0wmot , std.. IC) o n/ O s 1v C L x (A4Wu ,pet) t — 745' _ ir6 I - J 3'® / t--7�a- 399- (Y70 i - 740 - 3IY7- ?76 54 /--740 47ff - v/ 944 /- 740-3to-a9'9.1 / — 74 0 - 773 - -4-/ t-9 ��./kS -T �w� f' Qualify for a PLEASE Ok BEAR CONSIDERATION Card For Others For a JOB WELL DONE PRIDE s i You did your BEST In Yourself You DREAM BIG and NEVER GIVE UP and Country i You HELP OTHERS PUT THEIR BEST INTO RESPECT ' i EVERYTHING THEY DO For All You're an UPBEAT person who's always ready to If One Practices All Three say "GREAT JOB" The World Will Be a Better Place! Your "AIM HIGH" attitude is in your personality. Design By is. Stevens (4 ! Design By JB. Stevens 0 i i i i i i• i i i! i i i i a i i i i i i i i i i i! i!! i i i i i!! i! i! i e i i - JB Stevens and Jessica Espino will be sole Advisors of Releasing of Funds E 11 Design By A Stevens h l CiJ J , 09 0ft" i 20 Pt`i 12: �15 Lt4-�TL-,ram /'vC 2�t�v�a �' 17 %Ste�TI-G.�ac✓ Ta tt q ue57ie.rJS ��,ir� �3C t.r�ts 'p' 71 z..A t, Cr ^ C- SIV-F Ls/7-5 4i0i.�/� �' l��l�✓ /{-4/��,,+y/ A-C /'t e to 06 GOt.t �[ / N � /� Rio Cv /?"/Y Y*Ck C✓ /fL� Y�c 7/h �rM" e w /44-r /4" c+--,r !,a/ 2.0 �d',R✓� S ,/ hY sr n P- �/,v� Pisan OF /pr-,-7 -rf-) 1��/5 'J / d AAA-4CI- A /�G/�2�� /`?�7't is�/� jZO `/ -71- T*Zr-- . f fJt�nt�(�rS euR, C�r��� Lui/a's 7/� P�24 ,/► M Z-,qT A- (CIA -a/ AWi) ! S L<A4rJ t rL (�a M LJ , s b , , s a :- X t « h7 7irC-/�►r G r�.r0 L C.# �Ut -r. if! s � S1'VLre-70 sky z 3 .-- Z_,Do $ STA-ct-176-,o w/ T// /41 rse-'-z r e4--LL/AIG- ('C- dW A7Wb l S t2 L S ^ eyt-A t, PA. Gv� A6c fV4tp T� 574,lU7 lflfG rtlsKT A r - Guth I?Gr� 9 F,{,Cr -;I—lt,4 y z L{ 200 « GrlkS �u !Jd �I -j'N.l ^! J"4Y '" �✓ /44 WA,r 7'/H S &&1 CO � Soar � . I'C KAS OA1 5 by k 7/lc (11cAsaW / o o ja 4 2 t 4,12- 25 W Nu tt r.�s "7~i� s fit- �o y �Z� Ic . �/� C11/h"t o ?/'�c 1-f w*� j,&—) /'Z� IiN S 4f7'c fl fsCo T.�f� Q 97L.� 4Jl�o k/.rs -�U �1'hv� /k lJo7'LF . C�G{� .LIo S7' D>� �/� 1°�a°LG n/L�S C'�✓ y HlW tJ 4-TIL.j CIA l/V G C.0 —rgl+-7' /%Prlt/ C ch HIVS0 1''*-1y Sipr-WOtcc.0 an n�4...G' P:44SO.,V. 1-11A rs Wh4e7ll 00 w.v /�/L , i�.M -/, ,nG a,+r. PAuL�,�, n soH !-Aa S G1/4-I(Li5—n-� /',A• Z- L I A oi`t a !3 ©,;C A"" J7,01L� G"Ld"V° �"sh�2au�:N ON? Cam+LiZeaaJi/1 SA•-e,a,+.." V V -7'v _•4itZ�- , 16�4 s SSG k�VJIJ s %J 14--L" a &u - Gi /Lo ctr lvzz✓ /vo7JvY.NG +- o4t-/ [ac c4"s c- /4-Rg r --r4 y /;c s vo &-s W 7 C ay4rC -ro 7i � lklre:?,,w�- s w9"/ /W4,j5: Ott& 1Zje&7>,t,,olC g Sv �� i 2• s T 4 �tG1-T a Av so) G�21 5 ?lhr� i C ,Vio /�Lt rl W d�,qT Tv S vr✓ t 1 rr - S 1,...E C 7tr /LM �id� T�f•ru� -ta Do w iT�/ �i,�eac s`�rvo /�.�K.•t s , So T/��y G1�G• 7'r1 Gut /h �?���l�-ti�L �P/'!4 v c atu 7/LtrT' /�.4c.•v ��sG/ZT 6d7, iD2oP,°Gp 7} ,�L So/ �vvc.: All 5-MG m � �� �f ✓�'%' S c.lfov L. tri /Lact� /�q-o Z� �Pf't,-�i-rl. ,�'7' /� p �s r-�r�-r P,�-�r�r s ✓:Z Prf 7'�.�/� /E3 ,r!'77,t-c/l C� '7�0 <rz � T Sv 7 7a1,4 co C'�� y o� o �07 f}PP�wL, 0 /L /k�l�f G-X1�/.S /}/1— /{©c✓ Ct�.✓ C ,'-- S u /'tit u ! 5 fz s /tea w V 6: s e"-? C.G 6lR A.' D!'q ! / S 7 4 U — 91-3 - £t2.J) T C uG-,f s IGc/o�cc l3 �h�L S d wt, M � i.y G s. t l 1 L LJ f iw Al ua-k S / Ad" /30-4,2 n 1317" -7'10 -! fJ��,,r Choy 7i�Y C�K. c PA C/y 5 Corz.•t LLK 17 T `OIC All' 7 C..�u L 30 �, G,T 2? ; r{ I; AGENDA 6:30 PM July 31, 2008 .heading of the Minutes Discussion on Parliamentary+ Procedure Identification of Committee Members Reports on Developable Land Left in Thousand Palms — Patricia Stich Letter to the Community Old Business New Business Adjournment /k/i/-( -70 f i t, L✓/147 /UC- Z- s /e-e tv ' l.L. S I *w !U / -z 4F,42 Thousand. Palms Blue Ribbon Committee (Now the Thousand balms Preservation study Group) Patricia Saleb, Chair 35220 Bandana Circle Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Tel: 760-343-3885 Local Agency Formation Commission Attention: Phil Williams, Chair 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507-4277 V,19}� i.s Re: 20094)9.4 Sphere of Influence Amendment to the City of Cathedral City July 23, 2008 Deer Chairman Williams: On Thursday, April 24, 2008, Cathedral City Manager Don Bradley announced before the Thousand Palms Community Council that Cathedral City would be applying for a sphere of influence over the western third of Thousand Palms territory. He said that they intended to file in one week with an eye to annexation in possibly a year. The Council unanimously voted to ask Supervisor Roy Wilson to dose the sphere. Shortly before April 24th, The Desert Sun newspaper printed an article announcing that the Sun City Palm Desert homeowners Association had paid for a financial study that found that the eastern third of nousand Palms between Washington and Cook streets would be needed in order for their newly forced community of Desert Palms to incorporate down the road. On May 1, 2008, realizing that if both the eastern and western flanks of Thousand Palms were piecemealed away, Thousand Palms would be left with a tax base area so small that it would never be able to incorporate, the Thousand Palms Blue Ribbon, Committee (now known as the 'Thousand Palms Preservation Study Group) was formed to explore our options_ 7housand Palms has been around for a long time. Founded in 1876 around a railroad depot for the Southern Pacific Railroad, the village blossomed until 1957 when Interstate 10 was built between Highway 99 (now called Varner Road) and the railroad tracks. The freeway cut off businesses on the old highway and access bridges were delayed for 5 years. During that time, Thousand Palms' once thriving community deteriorated. Over the last 10 to 15 years, Thousand Palms has begun to rebound with vigor. New homes and industrial buildings have spnmg up between its boundaries ruining from Washington Street to DaVall Road, 'lire Bob Hope Classic Club has built its headquarters and elegant Rattlesnake Restaurant in the eastern third of Thousand Palms, and the Agua Caliente Indians have secured zoning to build a new racetrack in the westem third of the territory. Being the Coachella Valley's most centrally located community, Thousand Palms now has the Riverside County Animal Campus, and the Riverside County Code Enforcement and Building departments within its boundaries. A new Riverside County lire Station is going up downtown. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors officially created 'Thousand fakers' boundaries in 199o, despite the fact that Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert had spheres of influence in the area for over 20 years. If it was the Board's perception that these two cities would never annex their respective spheres they were right. Last year both turned their spheres back to pousand Palms. However, although City Manager Bradley status to the Thousand Palms Community Council that Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage began talks one year ago for Cathedral City to take over Rancho Mirage's former sphere of influence, Thousand Palms was not invited into the discussion, nor was it notified before Sun City Palm Desert announced to The Desert Sun that it had commissioned its financial study. Although in the eyes of government Thousand palms is nothing more than a census -derived area with boundaries designated by the Board of Supervisors for community council representation► it is much more than that to the generations who have grown up here. Thousand Palms has a history, and to many it's thew hometown. We have seen how a government decision depressed this area in the past and it would be a shame to watch another ruling take the light of community pride from Thousand Palms once again as prime property is cherry picked away to benefit another town. It is not the intention of Thousand palms to work against its neighbors but to work with them. The Thousand Palms Preservation Study Group was formed to analyze the Cathedral City and Sun City Palm Desert proposals and the effects each would have on the people on both sides of the boundaries. To this end we've met with officials from both communities and have found them to be equally constructive in working with us. We've all agreed that in the end it's people we're talking about and what's best for the most involved. One thing is almost unanimous. As TPPSG committee members sound out the residents of Thousand Palms, no one wants Thousand Palms to be art down to a size that it can new incorporate on its own. We have discussed with Cathedral City officials ideas like Cathedral City annexing all of Thousand Palms and making it a ward with its own say through an elected ward goventment- The group is concerned, however, that Cathedral City's current financial challenges will weigh Thousand Palms down with the tax bikes needed to meet the Cathedral City budget. According to Cathedral City officials, the proposed utility tax hike for the November 2008 ballot will not completely meet their budgetary shortfall, so it's almost certain that additional taxes will be needed This is money Thousand Palms residents don't currently have to pay. It is on this basis that the Thousand palms Preservation Study Group. requests that LAFCO refuse the sphere of influence request subgnitted by Cathedral City, or, failing that, that LAFCO at least grant Thousand Palms an extension on the ruling so Thousand Palms can organize town bull meetings, raise funds and accomplish feasibility studies toward the hope of incorporation within 10 years. Fourth District Supervisor Roy Wilson has written a letter asking that you deny the Cathedral City request, and we're adding our request to his. In our meetings with the Cathedral City Manager and other Cathedral City department heads much good will has been created between those representing the two communities. Both groups agree that it is not our intention to harm the others' community in any way, and that mutual oonsideration is necessary in the planning for the future on both sides of our mutual boundary. Patricia Salch, TPPSG Committee Chairwoxom Ivey Ranch Liaison to Thousand Palms Community Council Roy Nokes, TPPSG Committee Member Thousand Palms Community Councilman, Chairman Pro Tern Barbara Smith, TPPSG Committee Member Ivey Ranch HOA President t4(*/Lt..4 $fk1WCr/J fA/' /»/ uN6 /-tFk-T /NG- W41C-11 Z 4SKE+� Karla Wilson) �teate� Tri-Palms Estates HOA President rr y Sr gulf A s�rrrxrt�. c�,✓,/ 09 OCT 20 2?112: 2IHOUSAND PALMS PRESERVATION STUDY GROUP Thursday, July 24, 2008 Members Present: Patricia Saleh, Don Donnelly, Roy Nokes, Israel Esmeralda, John Stevens, Sy Kaplan as a guest Patricia Saleh, Chairperson, oiled the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. Israel Esmeralda filled in as secretary for Barbara Smith during her absence and read from his notes on the previous meeting. The minutes were approved as read. Patricia passed out the Cathedral City Sphere of Influence Pros and Cons list compiled by Karla Wilson at our last meeting. Reports were given on the following topics: Patricia spread out the maps provided for our study group by Bob Lymon of the Riverside County Planning Department. He gave us two large maps of the entire Coachella Valley and two smaller maps of the community of Thousand Palms. Sy Kaplan furnished the committee with an aerial map of Thousand Palms as well. Patricia announced that Leisa Lukes of the Cathedral City Planning Department had advised, her that it would be two weeks before she could confirm whether or not Cathedral City would ask for a continuance on their sphere of influence request and on the dates of the town hail meetings. She also made the committee aware of the Southern California Edison Open House on Hovers -Palo Verde No, 2 at James Workman High School July 30, 4:30 to 7:30 PM Project Information 866-602-3782 www.sce.com/dov2 The electrical lines for this project will parallel Interstate 10 and run through Thousand Palms, so Patricia said that the committee might be interested in attending. Discussion began on the Letter to LAFCO. Patricia passed out the letter as edited to all committee members and Israel moved to take out the paragraphs referring to cooperating with Sun City Palm Desert to achieve incorporation as one city. Don Donnelly seconded. Discussion followed. Don called the question. iM i Israel, Don and John steptons voted for the motion. Roy voted against it. The motion carried. Discussion on the parliamentary procedure followed pertaining to the vote. Patricia said that because the committee had already voted for included Sun City Palm Desert in their plans for incorporation that the original motion would have to be rescinded in order for the motion that had just been made to be allowed. She said that she would research parliamentary procedure for the next meeting pertaining to this vote. Being no further business, motion was made and seconded that the meeting adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Israel Esmeralda Acting Secretary Desert Palms COl MU01 : 20 Created by the 1300rd of Supervisors Jun@ r0. 2 PUBLIC NOTICE AND AGENDA p Desert permit Assistance Contor, Ye, Moor Conference, Itoom 38-696 El Cerrito Road, Thousand Palms, CA 92211 GATE: Thursday, Oct.15, 2000 TIMM 5:00 OM in accordance with the requirements of the California Code 59454.2. this Agenda is posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meetin date and time noted above. 1. Call to order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Moment of silence In honor of Supervisor Roy Wilson 4. Roll Call of council members 5. Approval of minutes from past meeting 6. Election of Officers: Elect new chairman, vice chair and secretary 7. Staff Reports: Presenters must direct their report to the council. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair may allow questions. Each speaker must first be recognized by the Chair. a. County Supervisor Liaison & Legislative Assistant Mike Gialdini. b. Sheriff's department c. Fire Department d. Code Enforcement e. Other Departments B. New Business: Presenters must direct their report to the council. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair may allow questions. Each speaker Ty t first be recognized by the Chair. a. Christian School plan b. Shooting Range (indoor) at 38698 El Viento, C.V.P. 3630 9. Old Business: Discussion of "Sphere of Influence" as related to the City of Palm Desert and the residents and businesses of Desert Palms. 10. Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Council on items not specifically on the agenda or on matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the chair, speakers may be deferred until a related agenda item is taken for the Council's consideration. Please limit your remarks to 3 minutes. 11. Council member's reports 12. Agenda items for next meeting 13. Future regular meeting date — Jon 15, 2010 14. Adjourn Council members: Sy Kaplan, Chairman (360-0396). Debra Beck (409-6546)Ag , Mario Del Guidice (360-4906), John Ludemann (360-7979). Michael Orosky (858-922- 7200) Fourth District liaison: Michael Glaldini 760-863-8211 MGialdini@rcbos.orq Website www,rivr;:o4.orq (DPCC Agenda 09.10.15) I It-71 I I WR6.00 PM October 12, 2009 Shenandoah Springs Clubhouse �..- 32610 Desert Moon Dr. s Y44tv Thousand Palms CA Speak Four Mind ' About the .Possibility of Losing the Western .Flank Of .Thousand Palms to Cathedral City! LAFCO will hear arguments October 22, 2009. Call 760-343-2440 for firther Infornati on Post This in Your Business Today! 6C,P 2 c, ;!-7 — S(+4'1.. /ari.s l 4 'Thousand Palms tom imi ity P r rystion S' Wdy Group Alten►ative Futon•, Pros and Cons Aoacmdoik b y Cal hsdral City Pro$ Already a city Already polim and fire protection Have power of bigger city to get: thinks done CVAG, ,already a member Similar demographics (per e:apitu income) Pro$ Cotes Ci y already in debt Int ressed taxes Ut lity taxes Po taibility of abuse of Eminent Domain Fn xway makes division Lo;e Autonomy 'a%rd" o : , "tithe drat City Already a city Already police and fire protection Have power of bigger city to get things done CVAO, already a member Similar detnngrsphics (per capita income) Coal$ C i .y already in debt Im teased taxes Ut lity taxes Pe s$ibility of abuse of Eminent Domain Fr :away makes division Lc se Autonomy Use historic value of old name Cooperate with Son :' ty to, Yard "Desert Palms i Pros i Gives more intluenoe to plan for iAFCO Similar point in history (both not yet ;,ities) Now taxe$ must be voted on } LAr& t gt%p of educ:A4 community -activist citimns to draw leadership from Ten-year interim gives more time for all decisioi , re status Pros Maintain historic boundaries Maintain historic lifestyle Maintain autonomy 'Fen year growth, possible city Coax Ht rger foundation probably not support plan St n City more afiluat St n City very politically active Tao -Your Plitt t or TI artiand Palms Cotes N x enough population U ould hamstring Sun City M ady homeowners not voters Ij its of work, M f l riffli 4- 916tr --rW (AF,,V4 r 46To eA 3# 91 dips-Owr 9.44a / - '76 0 - 3 443 - 3 rf s- on cm in, FAX COVER SHEET i� From the Office of Pro -Team Mayor ' 1000 Palms i JB. Stevens Cell(760) 409-6583 Date sent: Time sent: Number of pages including cover page: To: 1�1u&t-SlLiir 40Ct4 A6�..cY Address:tJ��rr' S`Tll r 5,417S//a /ttvctslvf Cl Of I-T-a 7 Attn: Title: ;r 5Pl4./0JIS .�t�Z� lg47X Sa � a.u��ft Phone: /- q5!- 3620 b 31 Fax: /.- Er <17 i Please Circle One URGENT REVIEW COMMENT (REPDLY RECYCLE Please reply that you have received this Fax Thank you Message: Z^ tj o +10o Lo G 1 'Ta 41- ^ 4-f-7s �" 2 /A-l/'/ta v.4 L, S Ay1,JGS6�Lly / S.- FA4, %f/ D-tx-- ,,; � s .f-�.zG� y ?' /1A-tij5 !'y o fr,4 aC !I+r4:p -. J 2 7.i zo o %-oAj 4 / Z. ,j tZC-.N c✓/4ict115 /, "O".s A Z £x 13f- 7l /t rr scw C,st r t 4 o o ici.-i r �Jc '�yAvn s rl? Ph-rA-1 c.. ll - S 73-673 Broadmoor Dr. Thousand Palms CA 92276 Design by JB Stevens 0 fj �7q} �yq OCT� di{� )y VJ ld 20 ��� �/i CCU 2.009 l ��� ,S C-r1r 0 , �! � •'i f i s �.� � Td � c � a,� Tli•E� �i 5 /hNv �CrZn-6E , /vris %1A-? x oz- �rzrta2 f �•�M S 0 �' f � j /(�� '7r ,� �'TJ-1 '7t� ham'/� C O C. � L(L � J 'Al 6 G'7' L IL %//vN crt ,v f 4 t-.*t s L.c CA —,7'/0M . r i/��7 �o IvO7 / /6 u S A W l /'4 9 �u i its/ � r u�� 5'/ � r '7' 14 7' o X s: �,Ji 5. /•/ yF: ?'/� /t 7�'/ F pia k.+. �, ,�i.�-ry % .�=c � L ��.�viv G co��>y �✓ G G yam.%/O.V� D�rtt C.7ia�/ r p4 ct jr ;,I - 3bi M ca b 3 j + tt -u-t✓=U 09 QC f' 20 Pj%j j2: 2S / VOK XC-S r,O^I;7 02 OK t✓ r�'r-� r-rC- / � N � S J L�7-,- N/(/1 T fro C!fi�F ,L-T 5—: 3..s^ /'4+- rAj c ,4 /fl ntGp ''/v �E--Lc /�-ufrZ,.f-r Gt,1lJ,� /.�'7t-�Z rJ��/� � /rye •�`� !c YnK Gc a.At-,2 S'-r'f7+r3 o',v< A C lox — &rrc /�lihV+k Y,,k .Y 11 Bec�,,� C a ryDo /v4. / " /`z So -/LET 7-Ale- G uc -e-7y co k c 1) %iMC PM- /hYJ/ Jx 7�itf arc 41 /a (`�•f�-•y 'c .5u�u L p /�wcr �'� c,�s s /�-x•t-�3 Y� G�tr Cv �t� r� ?�k F DA *40 09 OCT 20 26 cl r. vv I'Z "OOR PLEASEru"SE L ,At a OCATED u"N Ttl c-I A v- 0 to IJ u EAST SID"E OF THE BUILDI—N-G c4v..t-v 86 4.4L'Ae'(- tr 7O15 P61/k A-000-6-4-s 4/ILI� 3c /fAMU-14 0,4 9 L 11 4 13 f4 on en cm on Item 4.j. M In Page 1 of 1 M En Elizabeth Valdez From: Bill Dani [wdani@netzero.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:43 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: LAFCO Letter in support of restoring SCPD into the SOI of the City of Palm Desert Attachments: LAFCO Letter 102009.doc Please See Attached Letter The Art Institutes Offering Programs In Media Arts, Culinary, Fashion, & Design. 10/20/2009 M To: LAFCO Commissioners From: William Dani Dear Commissioners, I am William Dani and I am the Chair of the Finance Committee for the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority residents in Sun City Palm Desert are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, William Dani in cm l Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: rileypalmdesert@verizon.net Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:55 PM To: LAFCO Information October 20, 2009 To the LAFCO Commissioners I am Frank Riley, a resident of Sun City Palm Desert and chair of the Government Relations Committee. My committee has tracked the progress of Palm Desert's petition to restore their previous SOI to include Sun City since it's inception. The committee provides regular updates to the Board of Directors and residents of our HOA at various community meetings. As recently as October 6, 2009, I personally briefed our 15 elected District Delegates about the LAFCO meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 22. I can assure that Sun City residents have been kept abreast of developments regarding Palm Desert's request and are overwhelmingly in favor of returning to their SOI. Most residents purchased their homes when Sun City was part of Palm Desert's SOI and we would like to see it restored. I urge the Commission to vote to approve Palm Desert's request. Thank you for you consideration *%W Respectfully, Em Frank M. Riley 35872 Donny Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 760 200 9726 10/20/2009 Clear Day Page 1 of 2 Elizabeth Valdez From: LENORE LEON [Ileon1@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:55 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: PALM DESERT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ATTENTION: LAFCO COMMISSIONERS FROM: LENORE LEON 78354 Grape Arbor Avenue Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 Commissioners: 1 have conducted a small, but important, survey recently in my District at Sun City Palm Desert. The majority of residents 1 have spoken to have expressed the firm desire and urgent acceptance of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our vibrant community back into their "Sphere of Influence". There are 296 homes in the District 1 area of Sun City and since the Delegates to the "Council" are elected positions, ( 1 am the *00 10/20/2009 Clear Day E5 Page 2 of 2 Alternate Delegate), findings. it was most important to advise LAFCO of the Thank you for your attention to this most acceptable matter. Respectfully, Lenore Leon District 1 Alternate Delegate 760-772-1393 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: FLY8104M@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:06 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Sphere of Influence, Sun City Attachments: LAFCOLetter.doc See attached Howard Rogo, Sun City, Palm Desert in 10/20/2009 M E5 To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Howard Rogo Dear Commissioners, I am Howard Rogo and I am Chairman of the Compliance Committee and District 4 Director for Emergency Preparedness in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority of the 400 residents in District 4 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, 78851 Tangerine Ct. Palm Desert Ca 92211-2169 760-345-6090 fly8104m@aol.com CM Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Howard Reese [hnrpd@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:18 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence TO: LAFCO Commissioners Dear Commissioners, I, Howard Reese, am the elected District Delegate for District 11 one of 15 Districts in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority of the more than 400 residents in District 11 support the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into its sphere of influence. I solicit your support for the the City of Palm Desert's petition on behalf of the residents of District 11 and many others within the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. Respectively, Howard Reese, District I 1 Delegate 10/20/2009 cm E5 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Paul Christoffersen [pwc@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:15 AM To: LAFCO Information; Petroff, Richard Subject: Sun City Palm Desert Community Association To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Paul W. Christoffersen Dear Commissioners, I am Paul Christoffersen and an elected AlternateDe legate for District 11 in the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that I and the vast majority of the 243 residents in District 11 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Paul W. Christoffersen 35232 Moorbrook Road Palm Desert, CA 92211-2786 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Marc Kashinsky [mkashinsky@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:31 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Sun City and the Palm Desert SOI To: LAFCO Commissioners Dear Commissioners, My name is Marc Kashinsky and I am the elected district delegate alternate in District 13 in the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. We are the largest district in Sun City with approximately 500 homes and 950 residents. I can assure you that the vast majority of our residents are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. We are anxious for you to take this action, which has been supported by both the Sun City Community Association as a whole, as well as supported unanimously by the Desert Palms Community Council. I urge you to move, with all haste, and approve the city of Palm Desert's petition. Sincerely, Marc Kashinsky, Ph.D. mkashinsky ctgmai_I.corn In 10/20/2009 M l Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez ■.►: From: Phil Corwin [pcorwin@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:44 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Sun City Palm Desert Inclusion in the City of Palm Desert's SOI En Dear Sirs, I have attached comments regarding the inclusion of Sun City Palm Desert in Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Phil Corwin Dear Commissioners, I am Phil Corwin and I am the elected District Delegate for District 6 in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority of the 301 residents in District 6 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Phil Corwin 78524 Links Dr. Palm Desert, CA (760) 200-9855 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: PARLOVER@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:15 AM To: LAFCO Information Cc: Sandy.Seddon@scpdca.com Subject: palm desert sphere of influence To: LAFCO Commissioners From Larry Levenson District 4 delegate Sun City Dear Commissioners I can assure you that the majority of the 400 residents residing in District 4 support the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely Larry Levenson R 10/20/2009 M OM To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Howard Rogo Dear Commissioners, I am Howard Rogo and I am Chairman of the Compliance Committee and District 4 Director for Emergency Preparedness in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority of the 400 residents in District 4 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, 5",d 9,5w 78851 Tangerine Ct. Palm Desert Ca 92211-2169 760-345-6090 fly8104m@aol.com CM Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Marvin Markson [marvmarkson@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:13 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence TO: LAFCO Commissioners FROM: Marvin Markowitz 78317 Grape Arbor Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 Dear Commissioners, I am the elected District Delegate for District 1 in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. As such, I represent the 296 homes and over 500 residents in my area. I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of the residents in District 1 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marvin Markowitz District 1 Delegate 760/285-6360 marvmarkson*msn.com 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 cm Elizabeth Valdez From: ABBYITIS@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:47 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Restore Sun City Palm Desert to City of Palm Desert's SOI To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Roberta S. Hoffman Dear Commissioners, I am Roberta Hoffman and I am the Chair of the Delegate Council and the elected District Delegate for District 12 in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority of the residents of the 420 homes (over 600 residents) in District 12 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. When the City of Palm Desert dropped us from their SOI the majority of the SCPD residents were disappointed and have worked very hard to have Palm Desert request to put us back under their SOL To deny us this opportunity would be very unfair in the eyes of myself and the majority of the residents I represent. Sincerely, Roberta S. Hoffman 78611 Iron Bark Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 10/20/2009 iW Page 1 of 1 vim/ . Elizabeth Valdez From: Frank Calley [fcalley@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:57 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: SCPDCA - Sphere of Influence ATTN: LAFCO Commissioners: My name is Frank A. Calley and I have resided in Sun City Palm Desert California (SCPDCA) for almost 11 years. I serve as District 7 Delegate at SCPDCA, where we have over 700 residents. The bulk of those District 7 residents strongly support the City of Palm Desert's petition to return our community back to their Sphere of Influence. Sincerely, Frank A. Calley In 10/20/2009 In 05 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Stan Bossuk [sbossuk@dc.rr.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:43 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence To: LAFCO Commissioners My name is Stanley J. Bossuk and I am the elected Alternate District Delegate for District 10 in the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. There are over 600 residents in District 10 and an overwhelming majority of them support the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Stanley J. Bossuk 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Steve Bailey [stevefbailey@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Sun City Palm Desert To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Steven Bailey For the past two years I have served as the elected District 9_Delegate within the Sun_City Palm Desert _Community Association. In that capacity, based upon frequent district resident meetings, emails, one on one contact, etc; I can assure you that the vast majority of the 900_plus residents within District_9 are in of the petition the City of Pal__m Desertto move _our community back_ into their_"SPhere of Influence". When I along with most of my fellow District 9 residents purchased our Sun City home, we were within the City of Palm Desert's "Sphere of Influence" and we look forward once again to returning to that status. Thank you in advance for your support in making that happen. Sincerely, Steve Bailey - District Nine Delegate 78541 Kentia Palm Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 10/20/2009 i in Elizabeth Valdez From: Allan Shirley [shirleyallan@dc.rr.coml int: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:47 PM LAFCO Information Subject: Please include Sun City in Palm Desert's SO[ I run the Library in Sun City Palm Desert (over 9,000 volumes run by 53 volunteers) and am also a volunteer legislative advocate for SCPD. Wearing both hats I am told by many of our residents that they want to be included in Palm Desert's SOL As legislative advocate I know how important it is for you to agree to support the position of the City of Palm Desert to bring us back into their SOI. Shirley Allan, Legislative Advocate, SCPDCA Chairperson, SCPD Library Committee in EM5 m m rm m M 19 Page 1 of 1 cm Elizabeth Valdez From: DocMorrie [docmorrie@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:15 AM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Sun City Inclusion in Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Dear LAFCO Commissioners, I am Morris Applebaum, the elected alternate delegate of District 9 in Sun City Palm Desert. A large majority of the over 900 residents of my district strongly support the petition by the City of Palm Desert to include Sun City Palm Desert back into their sphere of influence. Your support of this petition would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Morris Applebaum, O.D. 10/21 /2009 Page 1 of 1 M Elizabeth Valdez From: DOROTHEA OLSHANE [dolshane@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:26 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Sun City Palm Desert To LAFCO Commissioners From: Dorothea Olshane. Dear Commissioners, I am Dorothea Olshane and I am the elected District Alternate Delegate for District 5 in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. The 350 residents in District 5 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Dorothea Olshane. In 10/21 /2009 Page 1 of 1 cm M Elizabeth Valdez From: JACK1999LB@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:55 PM To: LAFCO Information Cc: rileypalmdesert@verizon.net Subject: City Of Palm Desert's Petition Re: Sun City Palm Desert Attachments: scpdJWLAFC0Itr10-20-09.doc Attached find a letter of support for the petition, scheduled for vote on October 22, 2009. John A. Wells 78544 Yellen Drive Sun City Palm Desert 10/21 /2009 Page I of 1 M Elizabeth Valdez From: TBAL76@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:45 PM To: LAFCO Information Cc: Sandy. Seddon @scpdca.com-, ABBYITIS@aol.com; rileypalmdesert@verizon.net Subject: Palm Desert SOI Vote To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Ken Elder Dear Commissioners, I am Ken Elder and I am the elected District Delegate for District 3 in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority of the 282 residents in District 3 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Ken Elder District 3 Delegate 19 10/21 /2009 cm M In October 20,009 To: Commissioners Local Area Formation Committee (LAFCO) Riverside County From: John A. Wells 78544 Yellen Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Subject: Petition from the City of Palm Desert to Restore Sun City Palm Desert (SCPD) to the City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence (SOI) My name is John Wells, and I am currently a member of the Public Safety Committee at Sun City Palm Desert. I have been a resident of Sun City Palm Desert since 2003. It is clear to me that most Sun City Palm Desert residents would prefer an affiliation with the City of Palm Desert, rather than with any other local city. Thus, I believe most residents at Sun City Palm Desert are in support of the petition from the City of Palm Desert noted above. Sincerely John A. Wells n Elizabeth Valdez CM From: David Novick [dtnovick@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:22 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Palm Desert Petition - SOI (Area North of 1-10 including Sun City) To: LAFCO Commissioners From: David T. Novick Dear Commissioners, I am a current member of the Board of Directors at Sun City Palm Desert. My wife Linda and I have lived here for the past eight and one-half years. In my capacity as a Board member and in my wife's capacity as a local Real Estate Agent we speak daily to a cross-section of people from Sun City as well as people looking to purchase homes within Sun City. We can attest to the fact that a large majority of the current residents and many of those looking to relocate to Sun City Palm Desert support the petition by the City of Palm Desert to restore our area north of Interstate 1-10 into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, David T. and Linda L. Novick 78378 Sunrise Canyon Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 I Page 1 of 1 M Elizabeth Valdez From: Jack Drill Odrill@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:50 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Please Approve City of Palm Desert's Request Dear Commissioners: I am a resident of Sun City Palm Desert, California. I understand that the City of Palm Desert has requested that Sun City Palm Desert be restored into Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. I strongly support their request, and I ask that that you approve it. Thank you in advance for your support of our community. John C Drill 78111 Hunter Point Rd Palm Desert CA 92211 760-345-8709 10/21 /2009 M M Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: NATCONSULT@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:05 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Petition by the City of Palm Desert To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Thomas Proctor Dear Commissioners, I am Thomas Proctor and I am the elected District Delegate for District 13 in Sun City Palm Desert Community Association. I can assure you that the vast majority of the 700 residents in District 13 are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Thomas Proctor 78770 Falsetto Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92211 10/21 /2009 • Return Sun City PD back to PD SOI Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Ron Delgado [rdelgado@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:02 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Return Sun City PD back to PD SOI To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Ronald A. Delgado Dear Commissioners, I am Ronald Delgado, retired Fire Chief, former Board member and Currently Chairman of the Public Safety Committee for the Sun City Palm Desert Community. I can assure you that the vast majority of the 9,400 residents in Sun City Palm Desert are in support of the petition by the City of Palm Desert to move our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Ronald A. Delgado 36402 Crown St. Palm Desert, CA 92211 10/21/2009 n 15 Page Elizabeth Valdez From: R. Kent McDonald [rkmcdonald@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:11 PM To: LAFCO Information Subject: Palm Desert SOI Vote To: LAFCO Commisioners From: R. Kent McDonald As duly elected Delegate of District 8 of the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association (SCPDCA), I represent 800 homeowners in our complex. I understand that you will be voting whether or not to restore our SCPDCA and surrounding area to the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI), as it was until 2007. We discussed this in our most recent District Meeting and it was evident that the majority of these residents of District 8 strongly favor our return to Palm Desert SOL Therefore, I urge you to approve this when you vote on October 22, 2009. Sincerely, R. Kent McDonald 10/21 /2009 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Valdez From: Biglieboy@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:51 PM To: LAFCO Information Cc: ABBYITIS@aol.com Subject: Paim DesertSphere of Influence To: LAFCO Commissioners From: Jerry and Sandy Goldstine 78674 Falsetto Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Sun City Palm Desert We live in Sun City, and I want you to know that we, and most of the people we know, support the petition by the city of Palm Desert to put our community back into their sphere of influence. Sincerely, Jerry and Sandy Goldstine 10/21 /2009 i a r_ F. w n n 1.1 CALL TO ORDER AND SALUTE TO THE FLAG. 1.2 ROLL CALL. 1.3 SELECTION OF OFFICERS. 1.4 *COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2009. 3. CONSENT (NON -HEARING ITEMS) a. LAFCO 2009-30-4-Annexation 45 to County Service Area 121. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: nnWrPT TrrFn a. LAFCO 2007-31-4-Reorganization to Include Annexation 86 to the City of Indio (Citrus Ranch) and Concurrent Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. (Continued from September 24, 2009; Staff recommends continuance to February 25, 2010). 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).(Continued from October 22, 2009). C. LAFCO 2009-01-3-Reorganization to Include Annexation 78 (Country Lake/San Jacinto Avenue) to the City of San Jacinto and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District and Detachment from the City of San Jacinto. (Continued from October 22, 2009; Staff recommends continuance to February 25, 2010). d. 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.(Continued from October 22, 2009). e. 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. (Continued from October 22, 2009). RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 cj f- V% AI. ze, L '71 1. T -D t IRE UATMEDRAL CITY, PALMDESERT We, the undersigned, agree with the late Supervisor Roy Wilson in asking LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) to refuse the current CATHEDRAL CITY AND PALM DESERT sphere of influence requests (LAFCO 2008-09-4 and LAFCO 2009-17-4 Sphere of Influence Amendments) on the basis that a sphere of influence is the first step toward annexation. Neither Cathedral City nor Palm Desert are asking to take all of Thousand Palms, only Thousand Palms' prime tax base areas, cutting the historic and rapidly growing com- munity down in size so much as to prevent Thousand Palms from incorporating in the future. The land Cathe- dral City wants is the western flank of Thousand Palms from DaVall Road to Rio del Sol, comprising almost half of Thousand Palms' available, buildable land. Palm Desert wants the eastern flank of Thousand Palms that runs from Washington Street to Frank Sinatra, a triangle that includes Thousand Palms' invaluable com- mercial and retail growth west of Washington Street. When Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert gave up their spheres of influence a little over two years ago, it opened the door for Thousand Palms to make plans to in- corporate. Please do not destroy Thousand Palms' future by approving these spheres. �. ADDRESS 1At� src.0 �S3J C .�.. The person signing in this space attests that he or she was the person circulating thip petition and that no co- ercion of any type was used in obtaining the above signatures. j, �' fir.. f/_. CITY'' DEPARTI ©. "HL NX, REQUEST: That the City ,,.,uncil 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 Approval: Carlos L. Ortega City Manager N%w- 'irk A r_ R w n n 1.1 CALL TO ORDER AND SALUTE TO THE FLAG. 1.2 ROLL CALL. 1.3 SELECTION OF OFFICERS. 1.4 *COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2009. 3. CONSENT (NON -HEARING ITEMS) a. LAFCO 2009-30-4-Annexation 45 to County Service Area 121. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONTINUED: a. LAFCO 2007-31-4-Reorganization to Include Annexation 86 to the City of Indio (Citrus Ranch) and Concurrent Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. (Continued from September 24, 2009; Staff recommends continuance to February 25, 2010). 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).(Continued from October 22, 2009). C. LAFCO 2009-01-3-Reorganization to Include Annexation 78 (Country Lake/San Jacinto Avenue) to the City of San Jacinto and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District and Detachment from the City of San Jacinto. (Continued from October 22, 2009; Staff recommends continuance to February 25, 2010). d. 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.(Continued from October 22, 2009). e. 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. (Continued from October 22, 2009). RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 140 LAFCO AGENDA PAGE 2 December 3, 2009 f. LAFCO 2009-16-4-Municipal Service Review -City of Palm Desert. (Continued from October 22, 2009). g. LAFCO 2009-17-4-Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert.(Continued from October 22, 2009). NEW: h. LAFCO 2009-31-5-Dissolution of County Service Area 41. 5. PUBLIC COMNIENTS . 6. RECEIVE AND FILE: a. Information Items: Proposals Received (Government Code Section 56857, 56751) : No new proposals. b. LAFCO Monthly Expenditure Review. 7. BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR FY 2009-10. 8. REQUEST FOR PARTIAL REFUND OF APPLICATION FEES FOR LAFCO 2009-29-3- ANNEXATION TO VALLEY -WIDE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT. 9. WAIVER OF WAITING PERIOD TO INITIATE A SIMILAR PROPOSAL--SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA. 10. WAIVER OF FEES FOR SUBMITTAL OF SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA. 11. UPDATE ON CALAFCO ISSUES (ORAL REPORT). 12. MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORTS. 13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 14. ADJOURNMENT. 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 II, 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 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET. SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • xuww1afco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 I % P* VXJ -A V- ly t4 I�5 7 L) I 12-- 15 Ic lie, 4, tl -7 k 11: 7 t 1, 7 I Li 2 } We, the undersigned. F l Commission) to refuse (LAFCO 2008-09-4 anc influence is the first ste Thousand Palms, only j munity down in size so aral City wants is the w half of Thousand Palm; j that runs from Washing `mercial and retail growl spheres of influence a I corporate. Please do ni gree with the late Supervisor Roy Wilson In asking LAFCO (Local Agency Formation he current CATHEDRAL CITY AND PALM DESERT sphere of influence requests LAFCO 2009-17-4 Sphere of Influence Amendments) on the basis that a sphere of toward annexation. Neither Cathedral City nor Palm Desert are asking to take all of 'housand Palms' prime tax base areas, cutting the historic and rapidly growing com- nuch as to prevent Thousand Palms from incorporating in the future. The land Cathe- istern flank of Thousand Palms from DaVall Road to Rio del Sol, comprising almost available, buildable land. Palm Desert wants the eastern flank of Thousand Palms on Street to Frank Sinatra, a triangle that includes Thousand Palms' invaluable com- i west of Washington Street, When Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert gave up their Ile over two years ago, it opened the door for Thousand Palms to make plans to in- t destroy Thousand Palms' future by approving these spheres. K tt) t Srl - JkA, Las i i i i he person signing in this space attests that he or she was the person cVculating this petition and that no co- ercion of any type was used in obtaining the abctie signatures. I/ / We, the undersigned, agree with the late Supervisor Roy Wilson in asking LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) to refuse the current CATHEDRAL CITY AND PALM DESERT sphere of influence requests (LAFCO 2008-09-4 and LAFCO 2009-17-4 Sphere of Influence Amendments) on the basis that a sphere of influence is the first step toward annexation. Neither Cathedral City nor Palm Desert are asking to take all of Thousand Palms, only Thousand Palms' prime tax base areas, cutting the historic and rapidly growing com- munity down in size so much as to prevent Thousand Palms from incorporating in the future. The land Cathe- dral City wants is the western flank of Thousand Palms from DaVall Road to Rio del Sol, comprising almost half of Thousand Palms' available, buildable land. Palm Desert wants the eastern flank of Thousand Palms that runs from Washington Street to Frank Sinatra, a triangle that includes Thousand Palms' invaluable com- mercial and retail growth west of Washington Street. When Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert gave up their spheres of influence a little over two years ago, it opened the door for Thousand Palms to make plans to in- corporate. Please do not destroy Thousand Palms' future by approving these spheres. Az S 5 L The person signing in this space attests that he or she was the person circq(ating this petition and that no co- ercion of any type was used in obtaining the above signatures.-�` t REQUEST: SUBMITTED BY: DATE: CONTENTS: Recommendation: l CITY DEPARTI VELO NTH' �4e That the City ,...,uncil confirm that no changes in the Palm Desert spheres of influence are anticipated within the next five years. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development November 20, 2008 Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments, Exhibit A 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 Homer Croy Director of Community Development ACM for Development Services Approval: Carlos L. Ortega City Manager CITY OF PALM DES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY STAFF REPORT Fir0 / ao LO NT 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: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETING AYES • _ NOES: ABSENT: DATE ABSTAIN: 17ERIFIED BY: ��, on File with City Clerk's Office Approval: Carlos L. Ortega City Manager $ Sphere of influence Review & Po ential Amendments *W 1%0 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, 1°h 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: nf1ATT TWTTL T1 . 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) .M W11 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) M Im 0 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). 5. 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. cm Im 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 II, 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 NOW Illy Of PRIM OHIRI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 2 60-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346-061I FAX: 760 340-0574 cityha11@ci.pa1m-desert.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 Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, Development Director, at (760) 346-0611. Again, support and assistance. Sincerely, Robert A. Spiegel Mayor this matter, please contact or Lauri Aylaian, Community thank you for your ongoing 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 e� PRINTED ON AEEY(LER PAPER Sphere of 8nfluence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert N LAFCO 2006-89-4 Exhib"t A 4114, I City of Rancho Mira ge L , i and ........................ QQ ... .... TARING DR ii City of Indio City of 0 a 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) r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 001, u.4 .1. 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 LAFCO 2009-16-4 Page 2 October 22, 2009 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. 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.c.ityo.f..pa1.mdese.r.t.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. 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, n 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 MSR. 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 LAFCO 2009-16-4-Municipal Service Review -City of Palm Desert. Respectfully submitted, Adriana Romo Local Government Analyst II In 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. Thanks you. From: Elizabeth Valdez Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:18 PM To: Adriana Romo Subject: lafco letter Now, �_ L �94 of .aw SUPERVISOR MARION ASHLEY FIFTH DISTRICT Oct. 13, 2009 Russell Kitihara, Chairman Riverside County LAFCO 3850 Vine Street, Ste. 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4277 RE- LAFCO 2009-17-4-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 2009-174 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 ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER - FIFTH FLOOR - 4080 LEMON STREET - P.O. BOX 1645 - RIVERSIDE, CA 92502-1645 TELEPHONE (951) 955-1050 • FAx (951) 955-9030 • INTERNET: district5@co.riverside.ca-us MORENO VALLEY DISTRICT OFFICE ' 14375 NASON STREET, SUITE 207 ' MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555 PERRIS DISTRICT OFFICE • 137 S. PERRIs BOULEVARD, #137C PERRIS, CA 92570 row 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, I//.c(5 4-1�� Marion Ashley CC: George Spiliotis In I 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 $5,000 for a feasibility study the homeowners did not want. For some reason the spearheads of this Palm Desert sphere of influence movement have acted once again under the radar of most people in their community. If this did not also affect Thousand Palms we would have nothing to say about it, but I believe that we are entitled to more time before this question comes before LAFCO, time to hold town hall meetings with the property owners within the former Palm Desert sphere area that are within the boundaries of the Thousand Palms community council district. There are many sides to this action and misinformation is rampant. If we could get the addresses of the property owners in the Palm Desert sphere of influence request area and 300 feet beyond it would be most helpful. If you could e-mail them to me, as you did for the Cathedral City sphere of influence area, it would be most helpful Being that your calendar is full for the October 22 meeting anyway, could we ask for a delay on this hearing to give us time to meet with the landowners concerned? I believe it is only fair to give people the chance to hear the pros and cons. Thanks so much for your help on it all George. We really appreciate it. In Patricia Saleh Ultimate Approach, License #01760240 Marketing Director/Sales 72877 Dinah Shore, #103-104 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Tel: 760-343-2440 Fax: 760-343-4609 Web: www.ultimateapproach.net E-Mail: Patricia@ultimateapproach.net October 7.20U8 George lSo|k»bs.Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street. Ste. 110 Riverside, CA925O7-4277 Dear George, |8minreceipto0fa�t��rvvr�tenbvPabiC�Sa|eh.dated (�{tober2,2OO9xv�hthe subject PalmDgsed Sphere R$OWem1. As President of the Board of Directors of Sun City Palm Desert Community Association, | am obligated to correct several misstatements that Ms. Sa|ehmade inher letter regarding our community. First and foremost, our community is thrilled that the City mfPalm 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 ofmost people |ntheir community" iafrankly absurd and disrespectful. Atopen Board meetings, District meetings and club meetings, Board members are constantly asked the question astowhen vvemight beput back into the sphere {fPalm Desert. When we tell them that there is positive activitv, a round of applause generally follows. K8m. Sa|eh also states "Sun City Pm|rn Desert voted overwhelmingly against incorporation..." This is again a misstatement. When the City mfPalm Desert dropped our oonnmunitvfnomtheire�henein2OO7.we were devastated. VVe believed our future ' t U b �VfFz�|nn��e�e� bec0n�epo��y|nd|o omu|dh�vefourou�oo[De���venVa y ��Vnnmp� . . remain anunincorporated area ofRiverside County, urmaybe, justmaybe, become our own cik/.VVhena�nmnda|fegaibiUb/study shmvvedposiUvGresults, the Board then held t' a|| meeting to inform the residents and bzget resident input. There was no vote. We were years away from any type vote. With respect boMs. Sa|eh'srequest for acontinuance, we emphatically say NO. Next month will be one year since the City ofPalm Desert requested to include our community in their sphere of influence. Our residents would like this to happen sooner rather than later. Bill Murphy 44�� President, Board of Directors Sun City Palm Desert Community Association Cc—BoandofOirectors Patricia Saleh 38180Del Webb Boulevard ° Palm Desert °C&°922l1°Ph: 760-20U2ZZ2°Fax: 76O200 2299 I�mw vo 14001, `wry, 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. I 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, M Can you confirm the $30 per vacant lot regarding the fire tax? Thank you everyone, m� gn-ra ASSISTANTPIANNER EE x fTTE'' f PROFE'SSIONAY, 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.or . 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 rrom: 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. miry cynya ASS ISTA NTIPLANN TAt City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Lwn Phone: 760.346.0611ext. 384 Rax:76O.776.6417 From: AdhanaRomo[nmaIto: Sent: Wednesday, September16. 2009 10:21AM To: Grba,Melissa Subject: RE: Park Svs. follow-up Hi Missy. Another question just popped into nnyhead. Now, the Cities ofPalm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells have entered into anW1OUfor park and recreation facilities. Does this give city residents access tVall nfthe other cities' facilities, or is this limited to the sports complex at PD Civic Center Park? From: mgrisa |mdesertong[maKo: Sent: Thursday, September 1O,2DO98:35AM To: AdhanaRomo Subject: RE: follow-up HiAdhana, 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 Sheriff's 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 ofPalm Desert. When complete, this building will house police operations for the contract cities ofPalm 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 served Neighborhood Parks served Community Parks served 5-1acideal site size 5—l0acIdeal site size 30-50 ac Ideal site size |fyou need any more information, please feel free to contact me. �� � �mill`mvfsa A S S I Sll,; 14 N'F P L A NN V" I I .25 Miles radius of area 25 .S Miles radius ofarea 5 — 3 Miles radius of area 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 Hi Adriana, Here are the answers to the follow up questions. 5 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 Y2 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. Miry evisa 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? CM 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 II Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Ste. 110 Riverside, CA 92507 Ph.: 951.369.0631 Fax: 951.369.8479 www.lafco.orz PS: I'm sure when our executive officer reads through the draft MSR we will have more follow-up questions. %W *40 1 `-01 I 73-5G FED 's'IF:RRIG g''t1_LtvI DES—Eai7j, Q1L tFGtt--l1A :/260-257u TIED 7 G n 3 n1, 6. —& Ei, i t FAX: 760 340-0574 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 Deserts 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 (Sol) 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 S®I 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. _ r, c Frig& 2) ,V 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, Honorable • and Members_ Assistant City Council Homer L. Croy, Manager4 Development Services Lauri Aylalan, Directori ,-. • pment Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager djy 01 P0111 WE'ril6 `ww 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 sphere review, 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. RECObMNDATION : 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 REVISED March 29, 1997 Mr. Ken Liebow 78256 Moongold Road Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 Mr. Stan Rush 78636 Bougainvillea Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 RE: ACTION TAKEN AT MARCH 27, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING - LAFCO 93-50-4 COI NO. 3- SUN CITY - PALM SPRINGS This is to notify you that on March 27, 1997, the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission granted an extension of time for LAFCO 93-50-4--Community of Interest No. 3-- Sun City -Palm Springs, to November 1, 1997. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Elena G. Medina Staff Assistant cc: Frank Pankratz Paul Quill Jim Rizzi City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Coachella City of Palm Desert RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development DATE: April 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Bermuda Dunes and Sun City Annexation as requested at Budget Session Whether Palm Desert will or should annex Bermuda Dunes and/or Sun City is a determination which may be necessary shortly. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify those concerns which we may wish to address either prior to or during the annexation process. Neither area is within our current sphere of influence. It appears that while a majority of property owners prefer their current non - incorporated status, a vast majority prefer to become part of Palm Desert should a change in their respective status be required. Palm Desert should continue its long term policy of not seeking areas to annex, but entertaining and evaluating those areas which may wish to become part of Palm Desert. A key concern in annexing any area, of course, is the fiscal impact on our city. This could be of particular concern because of the fact that in the case of Bermuda Dunes, the City of La Quinta currently contains the highest single sales tax producer. Further, La Quinta has sought to annex other commercial areas on the east side of Washington. Minimally Palm Desert should support Bermuda Dunes' request that further annexations of their area by anyone be curtailed until they have decided the future of their community. In order to assist in that determination, as well as our ultimate decision, we may wish to undertake a fiscal impact analysis earlier than we have in previously annexed areas. It is also advised that we explore the possibilities of establishing a redevelopment area for Bermuda Dunes. It is recommended that the firm of Rosenow-Spevoceck conduct these studies. In the case of Sun City there is immediate concern with the proposed auto mall partnership between indio and Riverside County. We should also undertake a fiscal impact of this area. We may wish to somehow get involved in the auto mall issue if we plan to annex Sun City. ON A. DIAZ /tm SABBY JONATHAN, CPA JONATHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 73-301 FRED WARING DRIVE, SUITE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 http://www.JonathanAndAssociates.com TELEPHONE (760) 341-6656 FAX (760) 779-8926 EDUCATION: Master's Degree in Business - University of Redlands (1982) Bachelor's Degree in Accounting - U S C (1978) EMPLOYMENT: Jonathan & Associates - 1990 to present Maryanov, Madsen, Gordon & Campbell - 1979 to 1990 Coopers & Lybrand - 1978 to 1979 PROFESSIONAL: Licensed as a CPA in California since 1981 (license number 31750E) Member of AICPA and California Society of CPA's since 1981 Teaching experience with Chapman College, College of the Desert, and California Society of CPA's Lectured and published articles extensively for over 25 years COMMUNITY: Family YMCA of the Desert — Capital Campaign Chairperson City of Palm Desert — Past Member of the Planning Commission Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce - Past President FirstBank of Palm Desert — Past Member of Board of Directors CSUSB Coachella Valley Campus — Past Member of Board of Directors College of the Desert Foundation - Past President United Way of the Desert - Past Campaign Chairman )NMPION 6 OSSOCI TES, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC fICCOUNTONTS Members of the American Institcde of CPA's and the California Society of CPA's May 1, 2007 Mr. Steven Aryan City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Steve: RECEIVED MAY 01 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DMRTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Enclosed, as you requested, is my statement of qualifications and a sample of a previous Fiscal Impact Analysis which our firm prepared. To update a previous analysis would take between two and four weeks, depending on the availability of the information required. Once engaged, we can begin work immediately. Thank -you for this opportunity, Steve together. Sinc(,-r)ply, Sabby Nipathan, CPA I look forward to the possibility of working 73-301 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 200, Palm Desert, CO 92260 ■ Ph: (760) 341-6656 ■ Fwc (760) 779-8926 www.jonathanandiqssociates.com r FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY SABBY JONATHAN, CPA DECEMBER, 2005 )ONATHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 73-301 FRED WAKING DRIVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT....................................................................... 2 NET FINANCIAL IMPACT.............................................................................................. 3 REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - DATA 4 REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - CHART 5 RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - DATA 6 REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - CHART 7 PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY 8 SCHEDULE 1 - PUBLIC REVENUE DATA 10 PUBLIC REVENUE CHART 11 SCHEDULE 1A - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 12 SCHEDULE 1 B - TRANSFER TAX REVENUE 13 SCHEDULE 1 C - RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE 14 SCHEDULE 1 D - UTILITY TAX REVENUE 15 SCHEDULE 1 E - SAFETY TAX REVENUE 16 SCHEDULE 1 F - LLMD TAX REVENUE 17 SCHEDULE 1G - FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE 18 PUBLIC COST SUMMARY 19 SCHEDULE 2 - PUBLIC COST DATA 20 PUBLIC COST CHART 21 SCHEDULE 2A - GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 22 4 Z, TABLE OF CONTENTS SCHEDULE 2B - SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES 23 BASE DATA 24 COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - DATA 29 REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY - CHART 30 PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY 31 SCHEDULE 3 - PUBLIC REVENUE DATA 33 PUBLIC REVENUE CHART 34 SCHEDULE 3A - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 35 SCHEDULE 3B - RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE 36 SCHEDULE 3C - GENERAL FUND REVENUE 37 SCHEDULE 3D - SAFETY TAX REVENUE 38 PUBLIC COST SUMMARY 39 SCHEDULE 4 - PUBLIC COST DATA 40 PUBLIC COST CHART 41 SCHEDULE 4A - GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 42 SCHEDULE 4B - SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES 43 BASE DATA 44 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................... 50 CURRICULUM VITAE.................................................................................................... 51 INTRODUCTION This Fiscal Impact Analysis seeks to calculate the financial consequences to the City of Desert Hot Springs which would result from the proposed development and annexation of a 120 acre project known as ''Mountain View Village." The analysis computes the consequences resulting from the buildout of the project, including both the residential and commercial components. A hybrid approach has been utilized in this analysis. It combines the Per Capita Multiplier Method, and the Case Study Method. Only material revenues and expenditures affected by the proposed annexation have been included. In some cases, the revenue and/or expenditure is calculated using existing per capita data. In other cases, the revenue and/or expenditure is calculated using anticipated amounts. Page 1 of 61 r DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project, known as "Mountain View Village," consists of approximately 120 acres bordered by Dillon Road to the south and Mountain View Road to the east. The property is currently located in the County of Riverside. RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT The residential component of this project consists of 499 homes built on 102 acres. The residential portion of this analysis calculates the financial impact on the City of Desert Hot Springs resulting from the buildout and annexation of the residential component of the project. COMMERCIAL COMPONENT The commercial component of this project consists of stores, restaurants, storage facilities, and office buildings built on 18 acres. The commercial portion of this analysis calculates the financial impact on the City of Desert Hot Springs resulting from the buildout and annexation of the commercial component of the project. Page 2 of 61 NET FINANCIAL IMPACT The financial impact on the City of Desert Hot Springs which would result from the proposed project has been analyzed and is presented in the schedules that follow. The "Revenue and Cost Summary" presents an annualized summary of the financial impact resulting from the development and annexation of the entire project, including both the residential and the commercial components. The ''Revenue and Cost Summary (Residential)" summarizes the financial impact resulting from development and annexation of the residential component of the project. The schedules that follow, 1, 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, 1 D, 1 E, 1 F, 1 G, 2, 2A, and 2B provide the detailed calculations associated with the residential component. The ''Revenue and Cost Summary (Commercial)" summarizes the financial impact resulting from development and annexation of the commercial component of the project. The schedules that follow, 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4, 4A, and 4B provide the detailed calculations associated with the commercial component. As discussed in the remainder of this report, the net annual impact of the proposed development and annexation of the project can be summarized as follows: RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL 2006 $ 11,467 $ 2,024 $ 13,491 2007 $ 17,888 $ 82,603 $ 100,491 2008 $ 16,015 $ 181,754 $ 197,769 2009 $ 9,478 $ 268,599 $ 278,077 2010 $ (28,192) $ 352,874 $ 324,682 TOTALS $ 26,656 $ 887,854 $ 914,510 Page 3 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT PUBLIC REVENUE (Schedule 1) PUBLIC COST (Schedule 2) NET ANNUAL IMPACT - RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMPONENT PUBLIC REVENUE (Schedule 3) PUBLIC COST (Schedule 4) NET ANNUAL IMPACT - COMMERCIAL 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTALS 11,467 107,704 266,215 508,742 547,547 1,441,675 - (89,816) (250,200) (499,264) (575,739) (1,415,019) 11,467 17,888 16,015 9,478 (28,192) 26,656 2,024 95,317 208,142 - (12,714) (26,388) 306,949 402,370 1,014,802 (38,350) (49,496) (126,948) 2,024 82,603 181,754 268,599 352,874 887,854 TOTAL IMPACT OF PROJECT $ 13,491 $ 100,491 $ 197,769 $ 278,077 $ 324,682 $ 914,510 Page 4 of 51 $4;000;000 - $900 $800,000 $700, 000 - $600,000 - $500,000 $474,357__ Page 5 of 51 ♦, , y MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY (RESIDENTIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 PUBLIC REVENUE (Schedule 1) $ 11,467 $ 107,704 $ 266,215 $ 508,742 $ 547,547 PUBLIC COST (Schedule 2) 0 (89,816) (250,200) (499,264) (575,739) 0 NET ANNUAL IMPACT 11,467 17,888 16,015 9,478 (28,192) PRIOR YEARS' IMPACT 0 11,467 29,355 45,370 54,848 CUMULATIVE IMPACT (RESIDENTIAL) $ 11,467 $ 29,355 $ 45,370 $ 54,848 $ 26,656 Page 6 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY (RESIDENTIAL) $400,000 I j I $266,215 $300,000 $250,200 e $200,000; $ 1 07,704 a I 89,816 v $100,000 $11,467 [ j,� i 10 — 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 �,�u,,; ; • � , ��,;, ,' , � �, OPUBLIC REVENUE ❑PUBLIC COST Page 7 of 51 h 1 PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY (RESIDENTIAL) The revenue received by the City of Desert Hot Springs as a result of the residential component of the proposed project is summarized in Schedule 1, and detailed in Schedules 1A through 1 G. Only those revenues expected to be directly generated from the proposed project are included. Certain revenues are not included because they are expected to be immaterial. Traffic Safety/Measure A Fund revenue is not included. This is a half cent sales tax restricted for funding a variety of highway improvements, as well as local street and road maintenance. Revenue from Business License Tax is also not included. While there may be a number of home businesses operated in the affected area, the number is expected to be immaterial. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Property tax revenue is calculated based on projected selling prices of the homes. The projected prices and buildout schedule were provided by the developer. TRANSFER TAX REVENUE The calculation of transfer tax revenue is based on the projected selling prices and sales schedule, applied to the transfer tax rate. Page 8 of 51 RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE Retail sales tax revenue received by the City of Desert Hot Springs was calculated on a per household basis. This figure was then applied to the cumulative number of households generated by the project. UTILITY TAX REVENUE Utility tax revenue received by the City of Palm Desert was calculated on a per household basis. This figure was then applied to the cumulative number of households generated by the project. SAFETY TAX REVENUE The calculation of safety tax revenue is based on the projected number of vacant lots and occupied homes, applied to the respective safety tax rate. LLMD TAX REVEN The calculation of LLMD tax revenue is based on the projected number of residential units built, applied to the respective LLMD tax rate. FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE Franchise tax revenue received by the City of Desert Hot Springs was calculated on a per household basis. This figure was then applied to the cumulative number of households generated by the project. Page 9 of 51 � ti MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1 - PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY (RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (Schedule 1A) TRANSFER TAX REVENUE (Schedule 1 B) RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE (Schedule 1 C) UTILITY TAX REVENUE (Schedule ID) SAFETY TAX REVENUE (Schedule 1 E) LLMD TAX REVENUE (Schedule 1 F) FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE (Schedule 1 G) TOTAL 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTALS 11,467 48,268 114,812 218,584 247,879 641,010 - 14,493 25,959 40,415 10,658 91,525 - 10,710 29,900 59,630 68,862 169,102 - 14,195 39,560 78,765 91,317 223,837 - 9,692 27,011 53,827 62,170 152,700 - 3,546 9,883 19,696 22,749 55,874 - 6,800 19,090 37,825 43,912 107,627 $ 11,467 $ 107,704 $ 266,215 $ 508,742 $ 547,547 $1,441,675 Page 10 of 51 ®$9, MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY (RESIDENTIAL) ■Q169.1D2 837 4 v. --- 0 $152,700 $641,010 $55,874 ®$107,627 ®PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ®TRANSFER TAX REVENUE Ill RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE OUTILITY TAX REVENUE I3SAFETY TAX REVENUE OLLMD TAX REVENUE ®FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE Page 11 of 51 •, a V r MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1A - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ASSESSED VALUE OF HOMES CUMULATIVE HOME SALES LESS: HOMEOWNER EXEMPTIONS CUMULATIVE ASSESSED VALUE REASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF HOMES LAND COST ALLOCABLE TO RESIDENTIAL TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE ALLOCATION TO CITY TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ - $ 26,350,000 $ 73,547,500 $147,029,125 $166,407,781 - (595,000) (1,610,000) (3,115,000) (3,493,000) - 25,755,000 71,937,500 143,914,125 162,914,781 - 515,100 1,449,052 2,907,264 - 25,755,000 72,452,600 145,363,177 165,822,045 8,075,000 8,236,500 8,401,230 8,569,255 8,740,640 8,075,000 33,991,500 80,853,830 153,932,432 174,562,685 0.1420000% 0.1420000% 0.1420000% 0.1420000% 0.1420000% $ 11,467 $ 48,268 $ 114,812 $ 218,584 $ 247,879 Page 12 of 61 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1 B - TRANSFER TAX REVENUE (RESIDENTIAL) TRANSFER TAX REVENUE VALUE OF HOMES SOLD TRANSFER TAX RATE PER $1,000 TOTAL TRANSFER TAX REVENUE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ - $ 26,350,000 $ 47,197,500 $ 73,481,625 $ 19,378,656 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 $ - $ 14,493 $ 25,959 $ 40,415 $ 10,658 Page 13 of 61 +, • MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1C - RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE (RESIDENTIAL) RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE SALES TAX REVENUE PER HOUSEHOLD CUMULATIVE HOUSEHOLDS TOTAL RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 122 $ 126 $ 0 85 130 $ 230 134 $ 445 138 499 $ - $ 10,710 $ 29,900 $ 59,630 $ 68,862 Page 14 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1 D - UTILITY TAX REVENUE (RESIDENTIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 UTILITY TAX REVENUE UTILITY TAX REVENUE PER HOUSEHOLD $ 162 $ 167 $ 172 $ 177 $ 183 HOMES OCCUPIED 0 85 230 445 499 TOTAL UTILITY TAX REVENUE $ - $ 14,195 $ 39,560 $ 78,765 $ 91,317 Page 16 of 51 ♦� d MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1 E - SAFETY TAX REVENUE (RESIDENTIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 SAFETY TAX REVENUE REVENUE RATE PER SFR $ 110.70 114.02 117.44 120.96 124.59 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPLETED - 85 230 445 499 TOTAL SAFETY TAX REVENUE $ - $ 9,692 $ 27,011 $ 53,827 $ 62,170 Page 16 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1 E - LIGHTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT TAX REVENUE (RESIDENTIAL) LLMD TAX REVENUE LLMD TAX REVENUE PER HOUSEHOLD HOMES OCCUPIED TOTAL LLMD TAX REVENUE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 40.50 41.72 - 85 42.97 230 44.26 445 45.59 499 $ - $ 3,546 $ 9,883 $ 19,696 $ 22,749 Page 17 of 51 a MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 1 E - FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE (RESIDENTIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE PER HOUSEHOLC $ 78 $ 80 $ 83 $ 85 $ 88 HOMES OCCUPIED - 85 230 445 499 TOTAL FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE $ - $ 6,800 $ 19,090 $ 37,825 $ 43,912 Page 18 of 51 PUBLIC COST SUMMARY (RESIDENTIAL) The costs to the City of Desert Hot Springs which would result from the development and annexation of the residential component of the proposed project are summarized in Schedule 2, and detailed in Schedules 2A and 2B. Only those costs directly attributable to the affected area are included. The calculations of costs utilizes the City of Desert Hot Springs Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2005/2006. Inflationary increases are assumed to be 3.00% per year. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Specific General Fund expenditures, expected to be incurred as a result of the proposed project, were identified. The per capita amount was calculated based on the City of Desert Hot Springs permanent population. The per capita factor was then applied to the estimated population of the proposed project. SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES Specific Special Fund expenditures, expected to be incurred as a result of the proposed project, were identified. The per capita amount was calculated based on the City of Desert Hot Springs permanent population. The per capita factor was then applied to the estimated population of the proposed project. Page 19 of 51 i MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 2 - PUBLIC COST SUMMARY (RESIDENTIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTALS GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Schedule 2A) $ - $ 21,630 $ 60,604 $ 120,512 $ 138,805 $ 341,551 SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Schedule 2B) - 68,186 189,596 378,752 436,934 1,073,468 TOTAL $ - $ 89,816 $ 250,200 $ 499,264 $ 575,739 $ 1,415, 019 Page 20 of 51 Page 21 of 51 4, 7 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 2A - GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (RESIDENTIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 SELECTED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 102 $ 105 $ 109 $ 112 $ 115 PROJECT POPULATION 0 206 556 1076 1207 TOTAL RELEVANT GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ - $ 21,630 $ 60,604 $ 120,512 $ 138,805 Page 22 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 2B - SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES (RESIDENTIAL) SELECTED SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ PROJECT POPULATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 322 $ 331 $ 341 $ 352 $ 362 0 206 556 1076 1207 TOTAL RELEVANT SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ - $ 68,186 $ 189,596 $ 378,752 $ 436,934 Page 23 of 51 0 0 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY TAX REVENUE HOME SALES PROJECTED SELLING PRICE PER UNIT NUMBER OF UNITS SOLD ANNUAL HOME SALES PRIOR YEAR TOTAL CUMULATIVE HOME SALES HOMEOWNER EXEMPTIONS EXEMPTION AMOUNT PER UNIT CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF UNITS CUMULATIVE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTIONS 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ - $ 310,000 $ 325,500 $ 341,775 $ 358,864 - 85 145 215 54 26,350,000 47,197,500 73,481,625 19,378,656 - 26, 350, 000 73, 547, 500 147, 029,125 $ - $ 26,350,000 $ 73,547,500 $ 147,029,125 $ 166,407,781 $ - $ 7,000 $ - 85 7,000 $ 230 7,000 $ 445 7,000 499 $ - $ 595,000 $ 17610,000 $ 3,115,000 $ 3,493,000 Page 24 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (RESIDENTIAL) RESIDENTIAL PROP - ASSESSED VALUATION PURCHASE PRICE ACRES TO RESIDENTIAL ACRES TO COMMERCIAL TOTAL ACRES VALUATION ALLOCABLE TO RESID PROP RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE TOTAL SALES TAX REV (FY 2006 BUDGET) NO. OF HOUSEHOLDS - CITY OF DHS 1/1/2005 SALES TAX REVENUE PER HOUSEHOLD 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 9,500,000 102 18 120 $ 8,075,000 $ 980,000 1,009,400 1,039,682 1,070,872 1,102,998 8,016 8,016 8,016 8,016 8,016 $ 122 $ 126 $ 130 $ 134 $ 138 Page 25 of 51 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (RESIDENTIAL) UTILITY TAX REVENUE UTILITY TAX REVENUE (FY 2006 BUDGET) NO. OF HOUSEHOLDS - CITY OF DHS 1/1/2005 UTILITY TAX REVENUE PER HOUSEHOLD 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,339,000 $ 1,379,170 $ 1,420,545 $ 1,463,161 8,016 8,016 8,016 8,016 8,016 $ 162 $ 167 $ 172 $ 177 $ 183 SAFETY TAX REVENUE RESIDENTIAL RATE PER UNIT - SFR 110.70 (TOTAL UNITS - RESIDENTIAL) 499 LLMD TAX REVENUE RESIDENTIAL RATE PER UNIT 40.50 Page 26 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (RESIDENTIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE (FY 2006 BUDGET) $ 625,000 $ 643,750 $ 663,063 $ 682,955 $ 703,444 NO. OF HOUSEHOLDS - CITY OF DHS 1/1/05 8,016 8,016 8,016 8,016 8,016 FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE PER HOUSEHOLD $ 78 $ 80 $ 83 $ 85 $ 88 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FINANCIAL SERVICES $ 463,115 $ 477,008 $ 491,318 $ 506,058 $ 521,240 RISK MANAGEMENT 859,388 885,170 911,725 939,077 967,249 GENERAL NONDEPARTMENTAL 517,457 532,981 548,970 565,439 582,402 GENERAL FUND TAX SUPPORT 607,494 625,719 644,491 663,826 683,741 TOTAL RELEVANT GEN FUND EXPEND 1,984,339 2,043,870 2,105,186 2,168,342 2,233,392 PORN - CITY OF DHS (CA DEPT OF FIN) 19,386 19,386 19,386 19,386 19,386 PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 102 $ 105 $ 109 $ 112 $ 115 Page 27 of 61 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (RESIDENTIAL) SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES POLICE SERVICES POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL FUNDS FIRE EXPENSES ANIMAL SERVICES CODE ENFORCEMENT TOTAL RELEVANT SPEC FUND EXPEND POPULATION - CITY OF DHS PER CAPITA SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES PROJECT POPULATION AVG PERSONS/HOUSEHOLD (CA DEPT OF FIN) CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS CUMULATIVE PROJECT POPULATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 3,937,881 4,056,017 4,177,698 4,303,029 4,432,120 445,575 458,942 472,710 486,891 501,498 1,158,890 1,193,657 1,229,467 1,266,351 1,304,342 349,619 360,108 370,911 382,038 393,499 345,260 355,618 366,287 377,276 388,594 6,237,225 6,424,342 6,617,073 6,815,585 7,020,053 19,386 19,386 19,386 19,386 19,386 $ 322 $ 331 $ 341 $ 352 $ 362 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 - 85 230 445 499 Page 28 of 51 206 556 1,076 1,207 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY (COMMERCIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 PUBLIC REVENUE (Schedule 3) $ 2,024 $ 95,317 $ 208,142 $ 306,949 $ 402,370 PUBLIC COST (Schedule 4) 0 (12,714) (26,388) (38,350) (49,496) NET ANNUAL IMPACT 2,024 82,603 181,754 268,599 352,874 PRIOR YEARS' IMPACT 0 2,024 84,627 266,381 534,980 CUMULATIVE IMPACT (COMMERCIAL) $ 2,024 $ 84,627 $ 266,381 $ 534,980 $ 887,854 Page 29 of 51 • MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY (COMMERCIAL) ,/,3 tb t, .•.•....Y. ,. ,ss. G ... 'i ,azf`" .. : :_ .r�"'sE£sF' {G {. -,i• t'x sE; ss i.. £ si r s' qi' �` j..y s 1��{{ 4fF�y ids #" »;�.y. Fr-. y b•• ; s�,� s , .- $450 000 t •: _., n:: 3 •. S� ,:ZG ,. •,:^x �s-.r3acnk..,, f �; { ty ? 1 "i9' ..�-. ,g._ { 3{; .-F �..£ s h's£ xi. .bps. . ,.-z'z''L°�..� s:"s� ,„ { us �5:� __'�E -�'s�` ssl f'"�It <x-.. tx �/E - sx .iy:. x i� -;#€ ;„• k E s'k�, Es£... .':.....sss sty ,;, .. •,.`.g., f3 s'#•__ Yj`ssfxF p'.. --. ^id 4s_ k' Ys:£. '^ :' s'e Ss K ,., i 'r';?• .,.::: 3-s°s•-5 . ,. b i 1 'sy +' IN :•s ...y ...< a, « x f Y •,!, ' :.^m''.. <{i 3« „«w m ... _�r'r.. s•s f3 E ., .<E6F6.'f^ «'i „A`.;x ..„x:. .:mks,,. •x.,i'rc,.� • sss ssE $350,000 {"t { . '.. E r`�k I �£• f .h9 a' .. .Hf sit i�v '£ ss h $300,000 ,�§ f ps �� � �� � t� � {�£�£s� � F . nssi:� � h {1�• u` tL; E �'� ,s,{ �. � s{ ,°' z { s � �....... E;Hp -,ss �£�I h. ..b.£ss M.„sts' { € i £ 3 �3 £ 's i� { £ s„cu,'• �E � � seem rs $250,000 $200, 000 $150,000 $100, 000 $50,000 wl- $0,<; C4�\"4``.".'�ih\)U�Y`4 V i�\Fk1\d(al. 2006 200r 2008 2009 2010 c PUBLIC REVENUE O PU B LIC COST a '`` \ \p `, aid\` �w` �haA,,\tZ���',.1� a" , t` `a ~�&`� a�1 a w' Ill Page 30 of 51 PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY (COMMERCIAL) The revenue received by the City of Desert Hot Springs as a result of the development and annexation of the commercial component of the proposed project is summarized in Schedule 3, and detailed in Schedules 3A through 3D. Only those revenues expected to be directly generated from the proposed project are included. Certain revenues are not included because they are expected to be immaterial. Traffic Safety/Measure A Fund revenue is not included. This is a half cent sales tax restricted for funding a variety of highway improvements, as well as local street and road maintenance. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Property tax revenue is calculated based on projected increases to the assessed value which result from buildout of the project under the commercial alternative. The projected construction costs and buildout schedule were provided by the developer. RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE Retail sales tax revenue currently received by the City of Desert Hot Springs was calculated on a per square foot basis. This figure was then applied to the cumulative amount of retail square footage generated by the project. In addition to the consumer price index, the retail sales revenue in the base data was increased by an additional 10% for the years 2007 through 2010. It is projected that Desert Hot Springs residents will shop in the city at an increasing rate, once the retail facilities are available. Page 31 of 51 r• S GENERAL FUND REVENUE Relevant General Fund revenues associated with the proposed project were identified. These revenues were then calculated on a per square foot basis, and applied to the cumulative amount of commercial square footage generated by the project. SAFETY TAX REVENUE The calculation of safety tax revenue for commercial and industrial property is based on the projected number of commercial acres developed, applied to the respective safety tax rate per acre. Page 32 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 3 - PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY (COMMERCIAL) PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (Schedule 3A) RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE (Schedule 3B) GENERAL FUND REVENUE (Schedule 3C) SAFETY TAX REVENUE (Schedule 3D) TOTAL 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTALS $ 2,024 $ 9,357 $ 17,174 $ 23,599 $ 29,306 $ 81,460 - 50,422 114,704 175,360 237,877 578,363 - 22,770 46,801 67,353 86,086 223,010 - 12,768 29,463 40,637 49,101 131,969 $ 2,024 $ 95,317 $ 208,142 $ 306,949 $ 402,370 $ 1,014,802 Page 33 of 51 t ► Page 34 of 61 - 0 $81,460 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 3A - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (COMMERCIAL) PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CUMULATIVE ASSESSED VALUE ALLOCATION TO CITY TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 1,4257000 $ 6,589,500 $ 12,094,240 $ 16,618,925 $ 20,638,304 0.1420000% 0.1420000% 0.1420000% 0.1420000% 0.1420000% $ 2,024 $ 9,357 $ 17,174 $ 23,599 $ 29, 306 Page 35 of 51 i MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 3B - RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE (COMMERCIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES PER SQUARE FOOT $ 117.42 $ 132.69 $ 149.94 $ 169.43 $ 191.45 CUMULATIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL SPACE - 38,000 76,500 103,500 124,250 TOTAL TAXABLE SALES SALES TAX RATE - ALLOCATION TO CITY OF DHS TOTAL RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE $ - $ 5,042,220 1.00% 1.00% $11,470,410 1.00% $17,536,005 1.00% $23,787,663 1.00% $ - $ 50,422 $ 114,704 $ 175,360 $ 237,877 Page 36 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 3C - GENERAL FUND REVENUE (COMMERCIAL) GENERAL FUND REVENUE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX LICENSE & PERMIT FEES 2006 2007 $ - $ 12,220 $ 10,550 2008 2009 2010 25,117 $ 36,146 $ 46,200 21,684 31,207 39,886 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ - $ 22,770 $ 46,801 $ 67,353 $ 86,086 Page 37 of 51 % to MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 3D - SAFETY TAX REVENUE (COMMERCIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 SAFETY TAX REVENUE REVENUE RATE PER ACRE - COMMERCIAL $ 2,979.51 $ 3,068.90 $ 3,160.97 $ 3,255.80 $ 3,353.47 COMMERCIAL ACRES COMPLETED - 4 9 12 14 REVENUE FOR COMMERCIAL - 12,276 28,449 39,070 46,949 REVENUE RATE PER ACRE - INDUSTRIAL 478.01 492.35 507.12 522.33 538.00 INDUSTRIAL ACRES COMPLETED - 1 2 3 4 REVENUE FOR INDUSTRIAL - 492 1,014 1,567 2,152 TOTAL SAFETY TAX REVENUE $ - $ 12,768 $ 29,463 $ 40,637 $ 49,101 Page 38 of 51 PUBLIC COST SUMMARY (COMMERCIAL) The costs to the City of Desert Hot Springs which would result from the development and annexation of the commercial component of the proposed project are summarized in Schedule 4, and detailed in Schedules 4A and 4B. Only those costs directly attributable to the proposed project are included. The calculation of costs utilizes the City of Desert Hot Springs Operating Budget for the budget year 2005/2006. Inflationary increases are assumed to be 3.00% per year. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Specific General Fund expenditures, expected to be incurred as a result of the proposed project, were identified. The per square footage amount was calculated, and an adjustment factor was applied. The adjusted per square footage amount was then applied to the amount of projected commercial square footage generated by the project. SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES Specific General Fund expenditures, expected to be incurred as a result of the proposed project, were identified. The per square footage amount was calculated, and an adjustment factor was applied. The adjusted per square footage amount was then applied to the amount of projected commercial square footage generated by the project. Page 39 of 51 I_ % p MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 4 - PUBLIC COST SUMMARY (COMMERCIAL) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Schedule 4A) $ SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Schedule 4B) 2006 2007 - $ 3,027 $ 9,687 2008 6,283 $ 20,105 2009 2010 TOTALS 9,131 $ 11,785 $ 30,226 29,219 37,711 96,722 TOTAL $ - $ 12,714 $ 26,388 $ 38,350 $ 49,496 $ 126,948 Page 40 of 51 $30,226 ---- ---- --___-_ __-- ❑GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 13SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES Page 41 of 51 r . • MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 4A - GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (COMMERCIAL) SELECTED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FINANCIAL SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT GENERAL NONDEPARTMENTAL 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ - $ 762 $ 1,581 $ 2,298 $ 2,966 - 1,414 2,935 4,265 5,505 - 851 1,767 2,568 3,314 TOTAL RELEVANT GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ - $ 3,027 $ 6,283 $ 9,131 $ 11,785 Page 42 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SCHEDULE 4B - SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES (COMMERCIAL) SELECTED SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES POLICE SERVICES POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL FUNDS FIRE EXPENSES CODE ENFORCEMENT 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 - 6,479 13,447 19,543 25,223 - 733 1,522 2,211 2,854 - 1,907 3,957 5,751 7,423 - 568 1,179 1,714 2,211 TOTAL RELEVANT SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ - $ 9,687 $ 20,105 $ 29,219 $ 37,711 Page 43 of 51 l 1 b f . r MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (COMMERCIAL) PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CONSTRUCTION COSTS CONST'N COST PER SQ FT - RETAIL CONST'N COST PER SQ FT - INDUSTRIAL CURRENT YEAR CONST'N - RETAIL CURRENT YEAR CONST'N - INDUSTRIAL TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LAND ACQUISITION COST TOTAL CURRENT YEAR COST PRIOR YEAR TOTAL REASSESSMENT CUMULATIVE ASSESSED COST 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 100 $ 103 $ 106 $ 109 $ 112 $ 50 $ 52 $ 54 $ 56 $ 58 - 38,000 38,500 27,000 20,750 - 23,500 23,925 23,925 23,500 - 5,136,000 5,372,950 4,282,800 3,687,000 1,425,000 - - - - 1,425,000 5,136,000 5,372,950 4,282,800 3,687,000 1,425,000 6,589,500 12,094,240 16,618,925 28,500 131,790 241,885 332,379 $ 1,425,000 $ 6,589,500 $ 12,094,240 $ 16,618,925 $ 20,638,304 Page 44 of 61 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (COMMERCIAL) RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE TAXABLE SALES - DHS (PER BOE) RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE - DHS ANNUAL TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT CUMULATIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE - RETAIL CURRENT YEAR CONSTRUCTION PRIOR YEAR CUMULATIVE CONST'N CUMULATIVE SQ FT OF RETAIL SPACE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 76,324,329 $ 86,246,492 $ 97,458,536 $ 110,128,146 $ 124,444,805 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 $ 117.42 $ 132.69 $ 149.94 $ 169.43 $ 191.45 - 38,000 38,500 27,000 20,750 - 38,000 76,500 103,500 - 38,000 76,500 103,500 124,250 Page 46 of 61 t, it t r MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (COMMERCIAL) CUMULATIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE - INDUSTRIAL CURRENT YEAR CONSTRUCTION PRIOR YEAR CUMULATIVE CONST'N CUMULATIVE SQ FT OF HOTEL SPACE CUMULATIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE - TOTAL CUMULATIVE SQ FT OF RETAIL SPACE CUMULATIVE SQ FT OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE CUMULATIVE SQ FT - TOTAL 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 - 23,500 23,925 23,925 23,500 - 23,500 47,425 71,350 - 23,500 47,425 71,350 94,850 - 38,000 76,500 103,500 124,250 - 23,500 47,425 71,350 94,850 - 61,500 123,925 174,850 219,100 Page 46 of 51 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (COMMERCIAL) GENERAL FUND REVENUES COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE - DHS BUDGETED REVENUES BUSINESS .TAXES BUS LIC TAX - PER SQUARE FOOT LICENSES & PERMITS LIC & PERMIT FEES - PER SQ FT SAFETY TAX REVENUES COMMERCIAL RATE PER ACRE INDUSTRIAL RATE PER ACRE (TOTAL ACRES - COMMERCIAL) (TOTAL ACRES - INDUSTRIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 770,000 770,000 770,000 770,000 770,000 $ 150,000 $ 153,000 $ 156,060 $ 159,181 $ 162,365 0.19481 0,19870 0.20268 0.20673 0.21086 $ 129,500 $ 132,090 $ 134,732 $ 137,427 $ 140,176 0,16818 0,17155 0.17498 0.17848 0.18205 2,979.51 478.01 14 4 Page 47 of 51 a • a* 4 , w MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (COMMERCIAL) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE - DHS 770,000 770,000 770,000 770,000 770,000 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FINANCIAL. SERVICES ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FIN'L SERVICES - PER SQUARE FOOT RISK MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT FACTOR RISK MGMT - PER SQUARE FOOT GENERAL NONDEPARTMENTAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR GEN NONDEPT'L - PER SQUARE FOOT $ 463,115 $ 477,008 $ 491,318 $ 506,058 $ 521,240 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 9,262 9,540 9,826 10,121 10,425 0.01203 0.01239 0.01276 0.01314 0.01354 $ 859,388 $ 885,170 $ 911,725 $ 939,077 $ 967,249 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 17,188 17,703 18,235 18,782 19,345 0.02232 O. 02299 0,02368 0.02439 0.02512 $ 517,457 $ 532,981 $ 548,970 $ 565,439 $ 582,402 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 10,349 0.01344 Page 48 of 51 10,660 10,979 11,309 11,648 0.01384 0.01426 0.01469 0.01513 MOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS BASE DATA (COMMERCIAL) SPECIAL FUND EXPENDITURES POLICE SERVICES ADJUSTMENT FACTOR PUBLIC SERVICES - PER SQUARE FOOT POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL FUNDS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR POLICE SERV SP FD - PER SQUARE FOOT FIRE EXPENSES ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FIRE EXPENSES - PER SQUARE FOOT CODE ENFORCEMENT ADJUSTMENT FACTOR CODE ENFORCE'T - PER SQUARE FOOT 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ 3,937,881 $ 4,056,017 $ 4,177,698 $ 4,303,029 $ 4,432,120 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 78,758 81,120 83,554 86,061 88,642 0.10228 0.10535 0.10851 0.11177 0.11512 $ 445,575 $ 458,942 $ 472,710 $ 486,891 $ 501,498 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 8,912 9,179 9,454 9,738 10,030 0.01157 0.01192 0.01228 0.01265 0.01303 $ 1,158,890 $ 1,193,657 $ 1,229,467 $ 1,266,351 $ 1,304,342 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 23,178 23,873 24,589 25,327 26,087 0.03010 0.03100 0.03193 0.03289 0.03388 $ 345,260 $ 355,618 $ 366,287 $ 377,276 $ 388,594 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 6,905 0.00897 Page 49 of 61 7,112 7,326 7,546 7,772 0.00924 0.00951 0.00980 0.01009 L , i SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This Fiscal Impact Analysis presents the total revenues and costs expected to be experienced by the City of Desert Hot Springs resulting from development and annexation of the proposed project. The annual impact, as well as the cumulative impact for the five year period, are presented. The analysis indicates that under the residential alternative, public revenue is expected to exceed public cost, at a gradually increasing rate. Under the commercial alternative, public revenue is also expected to exceed public cost, at a gradually increasing rate. Page 50 of 51 CURRICULUM VITAE SABBY JONATHAN, CPA JONATHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 73-301 FRED WARING DRIVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 (760) 341-6656 EDUCATION Master's Degree in Business - University of Redlands (1982) Bachelor's Degree in Accounting - U S C (1978) EMPLOYMENT Jonathan & Associates - 1990 to present Maryanov, Madsen, Gordon & Campbell - 1979 to 1990 PROFESSIONAL Licensed as a CPA in Ca since 1981 (license no 31750E) Member of AICPA and California Society of CPA's since 1981 Lectured and published articles extensively for over 20 years COMMUNITY City of Palm Desert - Planning Commission Family YMCA of the Desert — Chairman of the Board CSUSB Coachella Valley Campus — Past Board Member FirstBank of Palm Desert - Past Director Coopers & Lybrand - 1978 to 1979 Teaching experience with Chapman College, College of the Desert, and California Society of CPA's Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce - Past President College of the Desert Foundation - Past President United Way of the Desert - Past Campaign Chairman Page 51 of 51 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO STAFF REPORT �M NT`7�o9 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 �Croy Director of Community Development ACM for Development Services Approval: Carlos L. Ortega City Manager CITY OF PALM DES OAgsS ,�UF�T�00, Fp q7 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO STAFF REPORT NT 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 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: �7ERIFIED 1. DATE BY: on File with City Clerk's Office Carlos L. Ortega City Manager Sphere of influence Review & PoILential Amendments _ City of Palm Desert _ LAFCO 2006-89-4 Exhibit A �•. Thousond Polms ta o City of m Rancho .,/ .._, FRANC SINATRA DR aE-Lalei Mirage ' • City COUN1tiV (U.16 DR • - � , -'--= of x Ber,,,mdrr Indio a Danes FRED WARING DR HWY 111 ' City of ' �e Indian City of - Wells La 7 Quinta a , 0 City of Palm Desert Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10/25/07 Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) ................... w --Y „ y Sol � o J J a J W H a a O � 1,ERALD FORD DR s 0 0 z O M Rancho Mirage Palm Springs Sol Palm Springs Sol Thousand Palms { FRANK SINATRA DR ` I a 7 COUNTRY CLUB DR Indio w z c H 11 >r g O O a 0 O 17 rmud unes i- 14 U 15 .L� �10 3 ._..— -� 2 FR D ARIhG DR 4 5 • La Quinta �--• 13 16 j L i ■ I 12 ' Legend 16 6 Palm Desert - City Limits Indian Wells � Surrounding City J g b Limits `[J Sphere of Influence (Sol) Surrounding City Sphere of Influence j Unincorporated Area County Service Area (CSA): Pinyon Flats (60) _ -T---J--?---------- Public Facilities / 0 City Hall � • Community Center / r I • Library ♦ Polioe/Sheriff • Fire Station ■ Parks & Recreation SOURCE' Cdtilnty of Riverside GIS Layers r �,rll Mr0 I PALM DESERT PUBLIC FACILITIES 1 Palm Desert City Hall Park Facilities 2 Patm Desert Library CiHc Center Park 3 Palm Desert Community Center Palm Desert Soccer Park 4 Pdice De anment Ironwood Park Fire Stations Cahuilfa HMIs Park 5 Station 33 Portola Park 6 Station 67 E12 Cook Street Sports Complex 7 Station 71 Washington Charter Scholl Pa8 Station 81 Sun City Joe Mann Park 9 Station 31 Bermuda Dunes CapHommelRalphAdams Park Palma Village Neighborhood Park r r I l i 1 l , Feet 0 5,000 10,000 Statement of Qualifications to the City of Palm Desert Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis FlMuniffl:inancial 27368 Via Industria, Suite 110, Temecula, California 92590 ARM M MunlFinancial May 2, 2007 Mr. Stephen Y. Aryan Assistant to the City Manger City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Qualifications to Prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Proposed Annexation of the Bermuda Dunes Area to the City of Palm Desert Dear Mr. Aryan: MuniFinancial is pleased to present the following statement of qualifications in regard to the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis regarding the proposed annexation of the Bermuda Dunes area to the City of Palm Desert. I am certain you will find MuniFinancial's unique qualifications to be of value to the City. Of particular note are our: • Experienced Project Team: The project team we propose for the City of Palm Desert includes myself as principal -in -charge, Mr. Marshall Eyerman as project manager, and Mr. Habib Isaac providing analytical support. Mr. Robert D. Spencer will serve as technical advisor for this engagement. For this engagement we will partner with our affiliate engineering firm Willdan, to conduct the Bermuda Dunes area infrastructure assessment. Our team approach ensures that your project has the necessary depth of experience and high priority from start to finish. • Depth of Experience: MuniFinancial has consistently been at the forefront of innovative approaches to fiscal impact analyses. Our recent clients for fiscal impact analysis services include the: City of Rio Dell, CA; City of Roseville, CA; the County of Yolo, CA; and the County of Sacramento, CA. • Firm Stability and Support: MuniFinancial is one of the largest public sector financial consulting firms in the United States. In our 18-year history, we have helped hundreds of public agencies and nonprofit organizations successfully address a broad range of financial challenges. With a staff of over 70 employees, we have the firm resources to ensure that your project will be adequately staffed, regardless of circumstances that may impact your project plans in the future. MuniFinancial is responsive to our clients' needs. We are excited about this opportunity to serve the City of Palm Desert and look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions regarding our qualifications, please contact me at (951) 587-3528 or via email to chrisf aQmuni.com. Sincerely, MUNIFINANCIAL Chris Fisher, Principal Consultant Financial Consulting Services Group Enclosure 27368 Via Industria, Suite 110 Tel (951) 587-3500 Temecula, California 92590 www.muni.com Fax (951) 587-3510 TABLE OF CONTENTS QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE 1 Introduction to MuniFinancial 1 Introduction to Willdan 3 PROJECT SUMMARIES 5 CLIENT REFERENCES 11 PROJECT TEAM 12 Robert D. Spencer 13 Marshall Eyerman 15 Chris Fisher 16 Habib Isaac 18 Page i S MuniFinancial QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE INTRODUCTION TO MUNIFINANCIAL MuniFinancial is a customer -oriented firm that delivers high -quality financial and economic services to public agencies and, ultimately, to the public. MuniFinancial is one of the largest public sector financial consulting firms in the United States, with corporate headquarters in Temecula and regional offices in the cities of Oakland, Lancaster, and Sacramento and in the states of Florida, Tennessee and Washington. Since 1988 we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of financial challenges, such as financing the costs of growth and generating revenues to fund desired services. MuniFinancial assists local public agencies with long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling, cost allocations, development impact fees, utility rate studies, and property tax audits. In addition, we assist local public agencies with arbitrage rebate, investment consulting, municipal disclosure, and special district administration. MuniFinancial has the largest special district formation and administration practice in the nation. We are known as the preeminent municipal disclosure firm as well as a major provider of arbitrage rebate services. The firm currently has a staff of over 70 dedicated professionals with the range of expertise necessary to provide high -quality service to our clients. Given the breadth and depth of expertise among our staff, MuniFinancial is able to offer clients a full range of financial services: • Capital improvement planning and financing, including infrastructure financing plans and impact or connection fee studies; • Financial planning and revenue enhancement, including financial projections and policy analysis, plus utility rate, user fee, and cost allocation studies; • Economic and fiscal policy analysis of proposed projects and plans, including government reorganizations studies; • Special district implementation and administration, including district formation and voter campaigns, plus administrative services such as levies and delinquency management and • Federal compliance services for bond issues such as continuing disclosure and arbitrage rebate analysis. Many of our projects have an engineering component as well, highlighting the benefits of MuniFinancial as part of Willdan Group, Inc. Our affiliate firm, Willdan, is a leading engineering consulting firm consisting of over 440 personnel in the Western United States. Willdan provides contract staff for building, planning and engineering departments plus a range of civil engineering services. With the combined expertise of our firms we can provide a comprehensive approach to our clients' financial, economic and public facility engineering challenges. EMuniFinancial Page 1 F/NANC/AL CONSULT/NG SERVICES GROUP MuniFinancial has been built on deep, continuing relationships with local government department staff. With hundreds of ongoing client relationships in finance, engineering and other services, we have been consistently called upon to assist staff with a range of special projects. In response to this need, the Financial Consulting Services Group was created with experienced staff in offices in both northern and southern California. Our work incorporates excellent public communication strategies and skills. As voter approval becomes the norm for revenue measures, we offer expertise in communicating persuasive information to the targeted group, whether developers, land owners or the general electorate. We provide clearly written report summaries, on -point public presentations and strong meeting facilitation skills. The table below provides an overview of Financial Consulting Services Group services. DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING IID!e!velopment Impact & Utility Connection Infrastructure & Public Facilities Fees for Capital Facilities Financing Plans Real Estate Market Analysis & Capital Improvement Plans Development Forecasts SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMATION ASSISTANCE Community Facilities Districts, including Proposition 218 Benefit Analysis Special Tax Analysis Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Fire Suppression Districts Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 Bridge & Thoroughfare Districts 1913/1915 Act Bonded Assessment Refunding Bond Analysis & Reporting Districts Construction Acquisition Services Notice & Ballot Preparation & Mailing FEES AND RATE STUDIES User Fee Analysis Utility Rate Modeling Cost Allocation Studies Budget Planning ECONOMIC AND FISCAL POLICY ANALYSIS LAFCO Annexation, Consolidation, or Financial Modeling, Budget Analysis, New Governmental Agency Formation & Feasibility Studies Studies Fiscal Impact Analysis of Projects, Plans, Economic Development & Economic & Policies Impact Studies Page 2 MMuniFinancial FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE Fiscal impact analysis is a tool to estimate the effect of proposed policies and plans on ongoing operating revenues and costs for a public agency. MuniFinancial has managed over 50 fiscal impact studies for a broad range of clients, helping them address a range of policy issues including: • Fiscal impacts of land use policies and plans; • Fiscal impacts of growth control and tax limitation ballot initiatives; • City/county tax sharing agreements for annexations; and • The feasibility of proposed city incorporations. We sometimes play the "honest broker" role, providing objective analysis to all sides such as the city and the county in annexation tax sharing negotiations, and the agency and the developer during the project approval process. INTRODUCTION TO WILLDAN Willdan is among the largest full -service civil engineering and planning firms in the western United States. Its sales have steadily increased: for example, from a posted $28 million in 1998 to over $45mil ion in 2004. Willdan has consistently been in the industry foreground by providing all aspects of municipal and infrastructure engineering, public works contracting, public financing, planning, building and safety, and construction management. Since 1964, Willdan has helped revolutionize and structure Professional Person 1 in T the way consulting services are provided by networking its 83 Administrative offices and effectively communicating project challenges 3 Architect and achievements. Its regional and satellite offices are 52 Assessment specialists strategically located to offer local, focused service to the 10 Building Clerks varied demographics of our public agency customer base. 63 Building Inspectors Our staff, many of whom have experience as former 32 Civil Designers public agency staff and management, understands the 48 Civil Engineers uniqueness of public agency needs and issues; they serve 2 Computer Programmers as building officials, city engineers, planning directors, 22 Construction inspectors. traffic engineers, and public agency staff members on a 7 Construction Managers contract basis for numerous cities and counties. This 8 Draftspersons orientation enables Willdan to offer practical solutions 4 Economists timely and within budget and share best business 3 Geologists practices. The diversity of Willdan staff experience is an 4 Highway/Rail Engineers added value of its services. 1 Hydrologists Our staff includes specialists in highways and roadways, 4 Landscape Architects drainage and flood control, bridges, traffic and 1 Mechanical Engineers transportation, municipal, landscape architecture, 31 Plan Checkers (Building) environmental planning, construction management, 19 Planners building and safety services, urban and regional planning, 2 Sanitary Engineers water resources, structural engineering, computer -aided 8 Structures Engineers analysis and design, and other technical fields. 8 Surveyors' 22 Transportation/Traffic Eng rN9ers 2 Utility Coordinators 2 Water Resource Experts MuniFinancjal Page 3 The management of Willdan is dedicated to the principles of technical excellence and professional quality. Members of the firm consistently strive to apply the strength and experience of the entire Willdan organization to achieve the most practical and effective solution to each project. Willdan has consistently attained our clients' goals of completing projects on time and within budget. /NFRABTRucTLIRE ASSE88MENT EXPERIENCE Infrastructure planning and assessment are particularly crucial in Southern California where cities and districts face numerous challenges: aging infrastructure, growing populations requiring more services, and limited budgets placing constraints on staffing and capital improvements. Willdan understands the state and federal requirements needed for effective infrastructure operations and maintenance. Through a variety of inspection and investigative methods, Willdan assists communities in assessing the infrastructure that provides vital public service. In addition, to infrastructure assessment, Willdan's professionals have extensive hands-on experience on projects ranging from master plans and feasibility studies to site -specific studies and reports that can be integrated into agency -wide planning processes. Munihnancial Page 4 PROJECT SUMMARIES Summaries of selected project experience are presented below. County of Riverside, CA, Fiscal Analysis and Municipal Service Review: Assisted LAFCO, the County, and the adjacent City of Murrieta in evaluating the fiscal impact of alternative governance scenarios for the growing community of Wildomar in southwest Riverside County. The analyses helped the agencies determine which incorporation and annexation scenarios were fiscally viable. The project included a municipal service review for the area. The study for County of Riverside was conducted in 2004. Below is the scope of work performed and enclosed in a separate, sealed envelope is a copy of the final report. PHASE 1: PROJECT MANAQEMENTp MEET/NQB, & REPORTS This phase will continue throughout the project to provide management and communicate results. TASK 1 A: PROJECT MANAGEMENT Objectives. • To develop and to complete the project in accordance with a final scope, budget, and schedule for the project. Description. We will conduct a kick-off meeting with County and City staff to discuss the options to be analyzed and the data that the County and City can provide. This task includes the ongoing effort to manage the project within the agreed upon scope, budget, and schedule. Staff role. Review and approve the final scope, budget, and schedule. Deliverables: Final scope of services, budget, and schedule. TASK 1 S: MEETINGS Objectives. • To separately identify and budget for meetings. Description. We have budgeted for three meetings with staff during Phases 2, 3, and 4 to, including the kick-off meeting, to initiate and review data collection and preliminary results. We have budgeted for three public meetings to present the final reports. Staff role: Attend meetings. Deliverables: Meeting agendas and follow up memoranda. TASK 1 C: REPORTS Objectives. • To communicate results of the project. Description: We will draft two reports for this project. The first report will be the municipal service review (MSR) developed in Phase 2. The second report will summarize the results of the incorporation and fiscal impact analyses conducted in Phases 3 and 4. We will provide a draft report for staff review and comment and then a final report. Staff role: Review and comment on draft reports. Deliverables: Two reports: Municipal Service Review and Annexation and Incorporation Fiscal Analysis. EMuniFinancial Page 5 PHASE 2: CONDUCT MuNIC/PAL SERVICE REVIEW In conducting the municipal service review (MSR), MuniFinancial will address the following services and compare service levels under the existing condition and the three governance scenarios: sheriff/police services; fire protection service (including fire stations and equipment); ambulance, paramedic and hospital services; parks and recreation; code enforcement and animal control; libraries; flood control; water and wastewater; road construction and maintenance; schools; senior centers; cemetery districts; trash collection services; postal services; and county service areas. The review will be completed in a compliance with applicable California Government Code provisions. TASK 2A: GATHER FISCAL AND SERVICE LEVEL DATA FROM LOCAL AGENCIES Objectives. To gather the data needed to complete the MSR, focusing on fiscal conditions and service levels. Description. We will provide an information request to the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to initiate this task. We will work closely with staff to ensure the efficient use of their time in this effort. We anticipate that most of the data needed for the MSR will be readily available from existing databases, staff reports, and published documents. Staff role. Provide data as requested to complete the MSR. Deliverables: Information requests to the County, the City, and the State Board of Equalization (BOE). TASK 2B: ANALYZE POLICY AREAS Objectives: To determine the affect on fiscal health and service levels of alternative governance scenarios. Description: State statute governing MSRs requires a review of nine separate policy areas. The MSR will include a statement regarding each area with the appropriate justification based on the data gathered in Task 2a. The nine areas include 1) infrastructure needs and deficiencies, 2) growth projections, 3) financing constraints, 4) cost avoidance, 5) rate restructuring, 6) shared facilities, 7) government structure, 8) management efficiencies, and 9) local accountability. For policy area (2), growth projections, we will develop a land use scenario to use in the fiscal impact analysis phases that follow (Phase 3 and 4). The projections will separate out the areas north and south of Baxter Road. The three governance scenarios analyzed by this project largely determine findings regarding policy area (7), government structure, though we will consider changes to the provision of services by agencies other than the County and the City. The MSR will then focus on the affect of the three scenarios on the seven other policy areas. Staff role. Respond to questions and issues as they arise during our analysis. Deliverables. • See Task 1c. MMuniFinancial Page 6 PHASE 3: CONDUCT ANNEXAT/ON ANALYB/8 The annexation analysis will require the construction of two fiscal impact models, one for the County of Riverside and one for the City of Murrieta. TASK 3A: DEVELOP PER CAPITA REVENUE AND COST FACTORS Purpose. To develop revenue and cost inputs for the model. Scope. Per capita factors will be calculated by dividing a revenue or cost line item total from the County and City's annual budget by the appropriate service population. Service population will include the current residential and employment population, with employment weighted to reflect impacts relative to residents. The model will multiply these per capita factors by the projected service population associated with a land use scenario to calculate per capita fiscal impacts. Deliverables: None. TASK 3B: DEVELOP CASE STUDY INPUTS Objectives. Develop case study inputs for the fiscal impact model. Description. For property tax we will use our online access to the County Assessor's database to analyze assessed values by land use type. We will develop per unit market values for new development based on interviews with local real estate brokers. We will evaluate turnover rates that lead to a divergence between market and assessed values to integrate the impacts of Proposition 13 constraints on property tax projections. We will need the Auditor -Controller to provide tax allocations by tax rate area and ERAF factors. To conduct the sales tax analysis we will work with Riverside LAFCO or the County to submit a request to the BOE for sales tax generation data by Wildomar. We will estimate per capita sales tax revenue based on a review of retail market factors and trends in the surrounding area of Murrieta and Riverside County. Case study expenditure analyses will be guided by the results of the MSR (Phase 2) and will probably include public safety, library, and community centers. Staff role. Provide any property tax allocation data. Deliverables: None. TASK 3C: CONDUCT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF LAND USE SCENARIOS Objectives. 1:stimate fiscal impacts on the City and County for the partial and full annexation scenarios. Description: We will use the two fiscal models to analyze the fiscal impacts of the two annexation scenarios on each agency (County and City). The two agencies will need to provide direction regarding a property tax sharing agreement, or we will show total property tax revenue generation available for sharing between the two agencies as a separate item in the analysis. Staff role. Direction regarding property tax sharing agreement. MMuniFinancial Page 7 Deliverables: See Task lc. PHASE 4: CONDUCT INCORPORATIDN ANALYSIS TASK 4A: DEVELOP CITY STAFFING PLAN Objectives. To develop a staffing plan for the proposed city. Description: The incorporation analysis will require a staffing plan. We will develop the plan based on our extensive experience working with newly incorporated cities. The plan will include the number of full-time equivalents by position by year with costs based on estimated salary and benefits. Staff role. None. Deliverables: None. TASK 4B: PREPARE FISCAL MODEL Objectives. • To prepare a fiscal model to use in estimating the feasibility of the incorporation. Description: A critical component of any incorporation is calculation of the "Auditor's Ratio" that determines the share of property tax due the new city. We will work with the Auditor -Controller to develop this ratio, though we understand from the RFP that the level of effort will be less than required for a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis required during the formal incorporation process. In addition to the staffing plan developed in Task 4a, other cost and revenue inputs will be derived from the annexation models developed in Phase 3. The services to be provided by the new city will be based on the results of the MSR from Phase 2. Staff role. Assistance with calculation of Auditor's Ratio. Deliverables. • None. TASK 4C: CONDUCT INCORPORATION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Objectives: To determine, at a preliminary level, the feasibility of incorporation under two governance scenarios (full incorporation and partial annexation). Description: We will use the model developed in Task 4b to conduct the incorporation feasibility analysis of the two applicable governance scenarios. The land use scenarios used in the model will be those developed for the MSR in Phase 2. Staff role. None. Deliverables. • See Task 1c. EMuniFinancial Page 8 City of Roseville, CA, Fiscal Impact Analysis: Completed fiscal impact analysis for the annexation of the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) area. Analyzed numerous scenarios of the proposed land use plan as part of the negotiations with the project developer to ensure the plan was fiscally positive for the City. Coordinated with the County's economic consultant to assist in the negotiation of the property tax split agreement with Placer County. City of Roseville, CA, Fiscal Impact Analysis: Completed fiscal impact analysis for the annexation of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area and Creekview Specific Plan (CSP) area. Analyzed proposed land use to determine the fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. Conducted market analysis to determine the amount of retail development that the area could support to assist the City in its negotiations with the developer group. The following is the scope of work completed on the CSP area that was conducted in 2005. TASK 1 : RESEARCH MODEL ASSUMPTIONS MuniFinancial will utilize the latest version of the fiscal impact model updated for the Citywide Fiscal Impact Model Update based on the fiscal year (FY) 2005-06 budget. We will research, review, and update model assumptions for the CSP. Subtasks may include: • Review and update the land use plan, including projected absorption and property values; • Develop a weighted property tax increment factor based on the tax rate areas included in the CSP; and Work with the Roseville Fire Department to develop a fire case study analysis for the CSP. TASK 2: ANALYZE FISCAL IMPACTS OF LAND USE SCENARIOS Munihnancial will analyze the fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. We will prepare a total of three (3) model runs to inform our analysis. The three scenarios included in this analysis are as follows: • Scenario 1: Initial land use plan as provided by the City, including existing project - based revenue assumptions; • Scenario 2: One additional land use scenario, suggested by City staff after review of Scenario 1 and including existing project -based revenues; and • Scenario 3: Scenario 3 will include the projected land use and project based revenues included in Scenario 2, but will additionally consider the final property tax sharing agreement with the County for the proposed annexation area. TASK 3: PREPARE MEMORANDA AND REPORT We will prepare two (2) separate memoranda summarizing the results of Scenarios 1 and 2. Based on the model results of Scenario 3, we will prepare a report describing the fiscal impact of the CSP. We will prepare an administrative draft report for City of Roseville staff review. We will revise the administrative draft report if needed based on staff comment. EMuniFjnancial Page 9 TASK 4: OTHER SUPPORT FOR THE CITY At the City's request MuniFinancial will provide other support to City staff. This may include: • Assisting the City in developing its approach to negotiating with the County; • Advising the City on the fiscal impact of potential tax sharing agreements; • Additional support in the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report; and • Additional model runs. County of Sacramento, CA, County Service Area Formation: Developed and implemented the strategy for forming a County Service Area to fund the ongoing operating costs of transit and related services for a Specific Plan Area in Sacramento County. MuniFinancial assisted the County in developing a new revenue source to mitigate the impacts of growth on traffic congestion and air pollution. County of Yolo, CA, Annexation Tax Sharing: Assisted the County of Yolo in developing policies for negotiating with cities tax sharing associated with annexations. Conducted fiscal impact analysis of growth to determine the tax revenue needed to offset current service costs and generate a surplus to correct the structural under -funding of the General Fund. Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, CA, Secession Fiscal Impact Analysis: Reviewed fiscal impact analyses prepared for the proposed secession of the Hollywood area from the City of Los Angeles. Evaluated impact of secession from the business community's perspective. Fiscal Impact Analysis and CFD for Public Services: Retained by a range of clients to analyze the fiscal impacts of growth and form a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund public services. The fiscal impact analysis examines a prototype subdivision or actual proposed development projects. Fiscal impact results inform a policy decision to set a special tax rate so that new development funds increases in service costs, typically public safety costs. We then assist in forming a Community Facilities District (CFD), including providing special tax advice, as part of a development project to fund public service costs associated with growth. Future new development projects annex into the CFD to expand this revenue stream as growth occurs. We have conducted these studies and formed CFDs for: • City of Clovis, CA • City of Galt, CA • City of Madera, CA • City of Palm Springs, CA • City of Elk Grove, CA • City of Livingston, CA • City of Manteca, CA • County of Sacramento, CA MuniFinancial Page 10 CLIENT REFERENCES Client relationships are extremely important to us. We encourage you to contact any or all of the clients listed below regarding our commitment to personalized service and performance. MUMFINANCIAL SELECTED REFERENCES AGENCY - E-1 SERVICE CONTACT Katherine M. Gifford Fiscal Analysis and Municipal Senior Management Analyst County of Riverside, CA Service Review 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor Service Date: 2004 Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 955-1179 Russ Branson Administrative Services Director City of Roseville, CA Fiscal Impact Analysis 311 Vernon Street, Suite 206 Service Date: 2004 Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5320 Russ Branson Administrative Services Director City of Roseville, CA Fiscal Impact Analysis 311 Vernon Street, Suite 206 Service Date: 2005 Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5320 SmuniFinancial Page 11 PROJECT TEAM Senior professionals have been selected for the City of Palm Desert's project. We are confident that the MuniFinancial team has a depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the City's desired work performance. Robert D. Spencer, Principal Consultant in the Oakland office of our Financial Consulting Services Group, will serve as principal -in -charge. As principal -in -charge, he will provide technical oversight to the project throughout the engagement. Mr. Spencer is an economist who has been assisting public agencies with the development of sound financial and economic policies since 1989. Mr. Spencer's experience includes a recent municipal service analysis and initial feasibility review for the Wildomar area of Riverside County, CA. This complex study included analysis of two incorporation and two annexation scenarios for the area. Marshall Eyerman, Principal Consultant, will serve as project manager. As project manager, he will provide for timely completion of the project and adequate resourcing. He will organize and direct consultant tasks, provide quality control for work products and ensure that the deliverables are completed on time and within budget. He will be the City's primary contact and will be present at meetings. Habib Isaac will provide analytical support. Chris Fisher, Principal Consultant, will serve as technical advisor throughout the project, affording the team the benefit of his experience with infrastructure financing and his first- hand knowledge of the City. Resumes for the team of professionals MuniFinancial will devote to the City of Palm Desert's project follow. MuniFinancial Page 12 19 Years Experience ROBERT D. SPENCER Areas of Expertise PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT Infrastructure Financing Robert Spencer is a Principal Consultant in the Financial Consulting Services Group at MuniFinancial. He is an economist with extensive experience assisting public agencies with the development of sound Public Services Funding financial and economic policies. Much of his work is related to infrastructure financing and public services funding to serve a community's growth or revitalization. Based on this expertise, Mr. Economic Policies Spencer has assisted agencies with land use policy, growth management, economic development, and business regulation. Project Highlights Mr. Spencer has been part of the MuniFinancial team since 1999. RELATED EXPERIENCE - Development Impact Fees City of Redding and Mr. Spencer is one of California's leading experts on development City of Roseville impact fee programs. He has broad experience reviewing and structuring impact fee programs for cities, counties, special districts, and school districts. For these clients he has provided nexus documentation to Education support fees funding a full range of public facilities, including utilities Master of Public Policy, (water, wastewater and storm drainage), roadways and transit, parks, fire, police, and administrative offices. He has also developed innovative Kennelly ,School of analyses for fees that fund habitat conservation and affordable housing. Governnre nt, Harvard His expertise has led clients to engage him as an expert witness in University, with a defending their fee programs. Most of the impact fee studies that Mr. concentration in Urban Spencer has managed have included participation by developers and Economic Development presentations to elected officials. Mr. Spencer has also assisted clients with some of the most challenging impact fee programs —implementation of a single fee across multiple Bachelor of Arts in jurisdictions to fund regional facilities. Mr. Spencer has managed multi- Econornics, jurisdictional fee studies for the Counties of El Dorado, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Solano, and for the Alameda and Santa Clara Colorado College County Congestion Management Agencies. The largest of these studies (Los Angeles) required Mr. Spencer to develop a strategy for and manage the participation of all 88 cities and the County of Los Angeles through Professional the client, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Affiliations Clients have also engaged Mr. Spencer to examine critical policy issues Urban Land Instituter often raised by impact fee programs. A common concern is the effect of American Planning fees on economic development objectives. In this regard, Mr. Spencer Association has performed market studies that evaluated the effect of impact fees on California Municipal specific development projects, and on the overall ability of a city to Finance Officers attract new development. He has conducted detailed fee surveys to Association provide clients with a comparison of impact fee programs and public facility funding methods used by their competitors for economic development. Clients have included the cities of Fremont and Roseville, and the County of Placer. MuniFinancial Page 13 Teaching and Speaking Experience "Planning In Financially Difficult Times: Creative Approaches to Funding and Managing Resources," California Planning Foundation workshop, June 11, 2004. "Takings and Exactions: Imposing Conditions on Development Without `Going Too Far'," University of California at Davis Extension, 2002, 2003, and 2004. National Impact Fee Roundtable, moderator and speaker (various topics), 2002, 2003, and 2004. "Effective Local Approaches for Promoting Smart Growth: Financing and Planning Strategies," Urban Land Institute and the Association of Bay Area Governments, September 26, 2003 Capital Facility and Infrastructure Financing Mr. Spencer is an expert in capital facility and infrastructure financing, fiscal impact analysis, special district formation, and economic development programs. He speaks regularly on topics such as defensible impact fee programs and successful strategies for Proposition 218 mail ballot elections. A sample of Mr. Spencer's recent experience includes: • Wastewater Financing Plans, City of Stockton: Principal in charge and project manager on several financing plans for wastewater infrastructure to serve developing areas. The plans included long-range developed projections, cash flow modeling, and justification of a connection fee to fund debt service on wastewater revenue bonds. • South Sutter County Financing Plan, Sutter County: Managed project to develop a $300 million financing plan for 3,500 acres planned for commercial and industrial development. Included absorption and financial feasibility analyses. • Development Impact Fee Program, City of Redding: Managed project to develop comprehensive impact fee program for the City of Redding that includes storm drain, water, sewer, parks, fire, and transportation facilities. Special attention was paid to the development of a financing plan for the storm drain and other utilities because of the lack of updated plans and the need for immediate funding. • Integrated Financing and 1911 Act District, San Luis Obispo County: Principal in charge of a project to form an overlapping integrated financing and 1911 Act district for the funding of parking and transit improvements. • Infrastructure Financing Program, Vallejo Mare Island: Managed project to develop an infrastructure financing program for the reuse of the Mare Island Navy Base. Included water, sewer, storm drain, and transportation facilities. Developed revised rate structure and implementation recommendations to comply with Proposition 218. Fiscal Impact Analysis Mr. Spencer has managed over 40 fiscal impact studies for a broad range of public agency clients. He focuses on helping clients understand the economic implications of land use policy decisions. Mr. Spencer has also managed the development of proprietary fiscal impact analysis software to provide clients with a user-friendly program designed to help them conduct their own fiscal impact studies. Much of Mr. Spencer's fiscal impact analysis work has been as an "honest broker," providing objective analysis to both sides (city and county) in property tax sharing negotiations for annexations and incorporations. EMuniFinaneial Page 14 13 Years Experience I MARSHALL EYERMAN PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT Areas of Expertise Having been associated with MuniFinancial since May of 1997, Marshall Eyerman is currently a Principal Consultant in the Financial Cost of Service tlttctlysis Consulting Services Group at MuniFinancial. A professional with Special District thirteen years of experience in all facets of municipal finance, Mr. Eyerman is one of MuniFinancial's most diversely knowledgeable team Formation members. He has significant experience in preparing cost of service Impact Fee Studies analyses, fiscal impact analyses and development impact fee studies. Mr. Eyerman is also deeply experienced in special district formations, and is Fiscal Analysis one of our lead consultants for community facilities district formation Arbitrage Rebate projects. Dedicated to his craft, Mr. Eyerman is involved in various organizations, Municipal Disclosure such as the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers, National Association of Bond Lawyers and National Federation of Municipal Analysts and routinely offers educational sessions detailing aspects of the analysis process to clients and internal staff. Education Mr. Eyerman came to MuniFinancial with experience performing financial analysis and providing investment advice as a Licensed Master's and Registered Representative. His very first duties at the firm were focused Bachelor's, Business on local improvement districts within the District Administration Services group. He then worked within the Federal Compliance Group, Administration, focusing on the development of continuing disclosure practices, before California State moving to the Financial Consulting Services Group. University, San ,ffarcos RELATED EXPERIENCE Mr. Eyerman's past clients include: • City of Calexico, CA • City of Chowchilla, CA • City of El Centro, CA • County of Fresno, CA • City of Fresno, CA • City of Hemet, CA • City of Indio, CA • City of Los Angeles, CA • City of Palm Springs, CA • City of Rio Vista, CA • Tracy Operating Partnership Joint Powers Authority, CA • Stockton Public Financing Authority, CA MuniFinandal Page 15 8 Years Experience C H RI S FISHER PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT Areas of Expertise Chris Fisher is a Principal Consultant in the Financial Consulting Special District Services Group at MuniFinancial. He is one of MuniFinancial's experts in Formation Expert Community Facilities District (CFD) and Assessment District formation and administration. Multi -Disciplinary Prior to joining the Financial Consulting Services group, Mr. Fisher Team Management served as Senior Project Manager for the Northern California region in Business Development the District Administration Services Group at MuniFinancial. He has specialized expertise in the administration of 1915 Act Assessment and Client Districts, 1972 Act Landscape and Lighting Districts, 1982 Benefit Presentations Assessment Districts, and Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts, including: • Administration of Marks -Roos and Mello -Roos Pools, Project Highlights . Delinquency monitoring, and Cities of Roseville, . Preparation of Continuing Disclosure Reports to bondholders. Galt and West Mr. Fisher oversaw the annual administration of all of the aforementioned Sacramento district types for cities, counties, and Special Districts throughout Northern California. Before taking over his management responsibilities, Mr. Fisher was an analyst responsible for day-to-day district administration. Prior to Education joining MuniFinancial, he worked as a budget and financial analyst for an airline and an electronics corporation. Bachelor of Science, RELATED EXPERIENCE Finance, San Francisco Community Facilities Districts State University • City of Rialto: CFD No. 2006-1 (Elm Park), financing of infrastructure improvements and impact fees. Professional ' Town of Apple Valley: CFD No. 2006-1 (Ravenswood), CFD No. Affiliations 2006-2 (Bell Mountain Estates), CFD No. 2006-3 (Sky Haven Ranch), CFD No. 2006-4 (Vista Del Sol), financing of infrastructure and fees. California So,'ieq of . City of Escondido: CFD No. 2006-1 (Eureka Ranch), financing of Municipal Finance infrastructure improvements and impact fees. Off, cers . City of Galt: CFD No. 2005-1 (Public Safety Services), and Municipal Annexations Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Management . City of Union City: CFD No. 2005-1 (Public Services). Association of • Val Verde Unified School District: Citation Homes CFD No. Northern California 2003-1, John Laing Homes CFD No. 2003-2. California Municipal • City of Palm Desert: CFD No. 2005-1 (University Park), financing Treasurer's Association of street, sewer and storm drain improvements, fees and park improvements. • City of Chula Vista: CFD No. 12M, service district to provide for maintenance of habitat areas, parks, landscaping and storm drain maintenance. Page 16 Munihnancia! Landscaping and Lighting Districts • City of Rancho Cordova: Landscaping and Lighting District No. 2005-1. • City of Chino Hills: Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 (Vellano). • City of Vallejo: Downtown -Waterfront Landscaping and Lighting District. • City of Atascadero: Landscaping and Lighting Districts No. 01, 02, and 03. • City of Roseville: Dunmore junction Landscape and Lighting District annexation. Assessment Districts • City of Cathedral City: Cove Improvement District No. 2004-2. Bond Issuance - $33.8 million. • City of Palm Desert: Highlands Utility Undergrounding No. 04-01. • City of Palm Desert: Section 29 Assessment District — (improvements include: roads, drainage, sewer, water lines, and utility undergrounding). • City of Solana Beach: Barbara-Granados Utility Undergrounding and Pacific West Circle Utility Undergrounding. Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) • Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP): 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Multiple counties, preparation of engineer's reports, diagrams, and assessment spreads, and support for multiple bond issues. Balloting Processes • City of Cathedral City: Landscaping and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 — Benefit Zone 17, 2004, >2,400 ballots mailed. District Administration Services • City of Brentwood: Assessments and Marks -Roos pooled districts • City of West Sacramento: CFDs and Assessment Districts • City of Elk Grove: Maintenance and Facilities CFDs • City of Redwood City: CFDs and Assessment Districts • City of Big Bear Lake: Assessment Districts • Town of Apple Valley: Assessment Districts MuniFinancial Page 17 4 Years Experience Areas of Expertise Special District Formation and Administration Education Bachelor of Science, Applied Mathematics with emphasis in computational science, San Diego .State University Publication (2002) Cryptography wit, Cycling Chaos Physics Letter A V 303 Pgs.345-351 HABIB I SAA C Habib Isaac is a Project Manager in the Financial Consulting Services Group at MuniFinancial. He specializes in special district formations, which include, Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), 1913/1915 Assessment Districts, 1972 Act Landscaping and Lighting Districts, 1982 Benefit Assessment Districts, and Fire Suppression Assessments. Mr. Isaac's primary emphasis is in CFDs and he is MuniFinancial's lead Project Manager for the formation of CFDs. In addition, through the preparation of Engineer Reports and formation of various Assessment Districts and Fire Suppression Assessments, Mr. Isaac has acquired thorough knowledge of the special benefit provisions of Proposition 218, and has facilitated numerous successful protest balloting proceedings in compliance with the State Constitution. Prior to joining MuniFinancial, Mr. Isaac gained direct experience in public finance as the lead analyst in the day-to-day administration of over 50 School District CFDs; creating annual reports, calculating and submitting special tax levies, and preparing continuing disclosure reports for bondholders. Mr. Isaac also collaborated with a team preparing financial plans that reviewed revenue sources available for capital facilities for school districts. RELATED EXPERIENCE Community Facilities Districts Facilities • City of Escondido: CFD No. 2006-1 (Eureka Ranch) — $18M Bond Issue; financed infrastructure, utility undergrounding, and impact fees. • Town of Apple Valley: CFD No. 2006-2 (Bell Mountain Estates), CFD No. 2006-3 (Sky Haven Ranch), CFD No. 2006-4 (Vista Del Sol), financing of infrastructure, impact fees, and School fees. • City of Rialto: CFD No. 2006-1 (Elm Park), financing of infrastructure improvements and Public Services. Services • City of Union City: CFD No. 2006-1 (Public Services). • City of Ataseadero: CFD No. 2005-1 (Public Services), and Annexation Nos. 1 through 9. • City of Galt: CFD No. 2005-1 (Public Safety Services), and Annexations Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. • City of Union City: CFD No. 2005-1 (Public Services). • City of Livingston: CFD No. 2005-1 (Public Services), and Annexations Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Fire Suppression Assessments • El Dorado County Fire Protection District • Waterloo Morada Fire Protection District MuniFinancial Page 18 • Salida Fire Protection District • City of San Fernando Assessment Districts • City of Cathedral City: Cove Improvement District No. 2004-2, $33.8M Bond Issue. • City of Palm Desert: Section 29 Assessment District — Expected Bond Issuance - $35M+ (improvements include: road, drainage, sewer, water lines, and utility undergrounding). • City of Palm Desert: Highlands Utility Undergrounding No. 04-01. • City of Solana Beach: Barbara-Granados Utility Undergrounding and Pacific West Circle Utility Undergrounding. $2.1M Bond Issue Landscaping and Lighting Districts • City of Glendale: North San Fernando Road Corridor Landscape Maintenance District. • City of Vallejo: Downtown -Waterfront Landscaping and Lighting District. • City of Chino Hills: Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 (Vellano). Prop 218 Majority Protest Balloting • Pleasant Hill Rec. & Park District. Valley High II, Valley High IV, Valley High V, Woodside Hills I, and Woodside Hills III (protest balloting to increase assessments and include escalation factor) • City of Orange: Landscape District No. 86-2 (protest balloting to increase assessments and include escalation factor) EMuniFinandal Page 19 aw-isMuniFinancial Orm 27368 Via Industria, Suite 110, Temecula, California 92590