Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout318359 '•ICE P Li-1 GLSLK i. C SUN CITY PALM DESERT' 2010 MAY 25 PM 3: 05 ll^^ [`,rxtx,�ttx6xx+x?r' �. .,rr,Z.x�'trav THIS IS IMPORTANT! Please read this letter and return the attached form to your District Delegate or to the front desk at the Mountain View clubhouse. 1. The City of Palm Desert would like to return our community and the surrounding area to their Sphere of Influence, as it was prior to 2007 when we bought our homes. 2. This does not mean that our community would become part of the City of Palm Desert. Inclusion in Palm Desert's S01 would be invisible. There will be no impact on taxes and SCPD would remain part of unincorporated Riverside County and continue to receive services from the County. 3. Inclusion in Palm Desert's S01 simply provides a safe haven for SCPD, making it impossible for any other city to absorb us.The City of Indio now surrounds us on three sides—north, south and east—and they would like to absorb the surrounding commercial neighbors. Being within Palm Desert's Sol would Prevent this. 4. Last week, Palm Desert contacted our association to ask if the residents of Sun City want to be included in their S01 once again.They would like a written response from our residents. 5. Please complete the attached form immediately, but no later than Thursday April 15, 2010. Return it to your Delegate or the Mountain View front desk or fax it to (760) 200-2299. Our goal is to present several thousand letters to the Palm Desert City Council. Bill Murphy, President Sun City Palm Desert Community Association .� t t t y r Z s ^s SUN CITY PALM DESERT Community Association April 15, 2010 The Honorable Cindy Finerty City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Finerty: On behalf of our board and staff, and the overwhelming majority of our residents, I ask that you and your fellow council members continue your support for reinstatement of Palm Desert's former sphere of influence boundaries. On April 6, 2010, we received a letter from your City Manager John Wohlmuth informing us that the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence would be on the Agenda for the April 22, 2010 City Council meeting. John encouraged us to ask our residents if they want to return to the City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. We have polled our residents at Sun City Palm Desert Community Association and they have spoken loud and clear. In just nine days, we have had an overwhelming response, with nearly 78% of our 4985 homes responding, all in the affirmative. Our residents truly wish to return to the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. Please reaffirm your request to LAFCO to return our community and the surrounding commercial properties to your Sphere of Influence. Sincerely, N Will Murphy, President 0 Sun City Palm Desert Community Association xn• ;='` . CC: SCPD Board of Directors — ca CJ7 m'`= , -0 ;rj N >n 38180 Del Webb Boulevard•Palm Desert•CA•92211 • Ph: 760-200-2222•Fax: 760-200-2299 4.c. 3/25/2010 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 ITEMS:Continued October and December 2009. On December 3, 2009, after announcing its intent to continue the item, the Commission received limited testimony and continued the sphere review to the March meeting. No new correspondence that has been submitted since our last hearing. The original staff report is attached. The analysis and recommendations remain unchanged. lh 5h fiu �� 1W Respectfully submitted, IrtvgW41 A,,,,l Z�9 Adriana Romo �, Oct 2ev-F- Local Government Analyst II U SoS ret�1tsl'hW( Orll'�Feo Z0)8 I-V 1 ,��,Q �o f� w/�'� f►tie �e�� © INDUSTRIAL WEST, INC. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES BROKERAGE■MANAGEMENT•INVESTMENTS April 15,2010 Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Mayor: 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 or own the following properties that are 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 hh Steve Metzler President COPY GIVEN TO Industrial West, Inc. �P DATE� INITL — Cc: John Wohlmuth,City Manager Frank Riley EE .E Wd^ 91 ddv 0101 _i - 41-865 Boardwalk,Suite 106,Palm Desert,CA 92211 OFFICE: (760)773-4443 FAX: (760)773-4998 www.inwestinc.com Klassen, Rachelle From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 3:34 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW:- Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Hi Rachelle, Below is the email I told you about. Thank you! David -----Original Message----- From: shelley mccullough [mailto:shelley@mirasera.com] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 3:26 PM To: InformationMail Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Honorable Mayor Finerty and Members of City Council, Mirasera would like to express our complete support for the reintroduction of the Sun City Area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The Mirasera project is also part of the Sun City area and would be included in the reintroduction of the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence over the area. Mirasera is a 186 acre mixed use project to include high density residential, commercial, hotels, retail and office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Shelley McCullough Controller Mirasera, LLC by Davila Group, LLC PO Box 13803 Palm Desert, CA 92255 (760) 275-0644 1 RINKER COMPANY April 15,2010 TO: Bill Murphy, President and SCPDCA Board of Directors RE: Sun City and Palm Desert I understand the Palm Desert City Council will be voting April 22n on whether to return Sun City,including The Marketplace Shopping Center 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 Palm Desert, I strongly support the returning of the shopping center property to Palm Desert's original sphere of influence. Please advise if I may furnish you additional information in support of this measure. H S. Rinker /gt MAILING ADDRESS:P.O. BOX 7250•NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92658.7250 TEL: (714)979.8300•FAX:(714)979-3327 � M ' m �p C � v � a £ O LL n o C Z = O u n N � M C M N N a N M O ei co t0 tD rl Go M en� n � N v n � M M N M N Ln r+ � to a o o}J q M O � N rl � � Go n Go M Q Q en W u Z W D 4 '6 x O� H ZLL ++ O f- La C W a 'ca (A Q `wW ` w Klassen, Rachelle From: Hermann, David Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:35 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: - Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Good morning Rachelle, Below is another message to the City Council regarding the Sun City Palm Desert sphere of influence issue that we received this morning via the City's general electronic mailbox. Thanks for your help! David David Hermann Public Information Officer City of Palm Desert 760-776-6380 From: Mee Lee [mailto:meehae2@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:33 AM To: InformationMail Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Honorable Mayor Finerty and Members of City Council: Palm Desert 53 Investors,LLC, owners of Valante, would like to express our support for the reintroduction of the Sun City Area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence(SOI). The Valante Project is adjacent to the Mirasera Project and a part of the general Sun City Area. Although we are located north of the I-10 and currently not contained within Palm Desert's SOI, we would prefer to be included in the reintroduction of the Palm Desert SOI over this area. Valante is a proposed development of an infill single family attached and detached residential community of 460 new dwelling units. We would appreciate your consideration of this matter and if you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at(213)706- 7475. Thank you. Sincerely, Mee Semcken,Project Manager PD 53,LLC 1 Page 1 of 1 From: Shelley mccullough <shelleyca mirasera com> Date:April 19, 2010 3:26:23 PM PDT To: infoCa)_ci.Palm-desert ca us Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Honorable Mayor Finerty and Members of City Council, Mirasera would like to express our complete support for the reintroduction of the Sun City Area into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The Mirasera project is also part of the Sun City area and would be included in the reintroduction of the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence over the area. Mirasera is a 186 acre mixed use project to include high density residential,commercial,hotels,retail and office. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Shelley McCullough Controller Mirasera,LLC by Davila Group,LLC PO Box 13803 Palm Desert,CA 92255 (760)275-0644 http://netmail.verizon.net/webmail/driver?nimlet—deggetemail&fn=INBOX... 4/20/2010 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 38t" 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 Sun City Palm Desert Sphere of Influence April 22, 2010 Page 2 of 3 the City's SOI. They also directed staff to have a fiscal analysis performed for potential 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. 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 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 separated from the rest of Thousand Palms by the Thousand Palms Conservation Area of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. g:\planning\tonya monroe\word files\city council staff reports\2010 04-22 sun city sphere of influence.doc Sun City Palm Desert Sp re of Influence *Aw April 22, 2010 Page 3 of 3 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 Approval: John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager g:\planning\tonya monroe\word files\city council staff reports\2010 04-22 sun city sphere of influence.doc 73-57o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346-o6i i FAX: 760 341-7o98 info palm-desert.org May 11, 2010 Bill Murphy, President Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 38180 Del Webb Boulevard Palm Desert, California 92211 Dear Mr. Murphy: RE: Sun City Palm Desert Petitions for inclusion into the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Per your request, I am releasing the original petitions submitted to the Palm Desert City Council requesting the inclusion of the Sun City area back into Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. A sample of the petitions is attached. There are approximately 3,800 petitions in ten binders. I understand it is your intention to submit these petitions to the Local Agency Formation Commission for their considerations. In the event any other petitions are received by the City, they will be forwarded to you. Thank you again for your interest in being part of Palm Desert and I wish you the best in your endeavors. Sincerely, Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development cc: City Clerk 4 xi'f0 fix AI[v[lfU rnfLA Palm Desert City Coboocil City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Dear Palm Desert City Council Members: I am a resident of Sun City Palm Desert and I am requesting that you restore our community and the surrounding commercial area to your Sphere of Influence. Our community has been closely aligned with Palm Desert for many years and we are proud to include it in our name. Each day, thousands of Sun City residents cross the freeway to shop, dine, worship and volunteer in the city of which we are so much a part. Sincerely, Resident Signature: �� —Z. � �-- Resident Signature: Address: District: S p 1 Z 7 �- Ql r. c,^ w v r7 taw P1 M 0e. 7 3 5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2 578 TEL: 760 346-o6 i i 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 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. ?er hn M. Wohlmuth ity Manager Enclosures: - April 22, 2010 Staff Report - April 22, 2010 Minutes cc: George Spiliotis Palm Desert City Council *40 *ftw Iwo Mail: Mr. George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, California 92507-4277 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 38`h 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 ire 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 c ',ere of Influence a 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 Approval- Jo n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager CITY COUNCILACMOP1 APPROVED DLrM(L�D RECEIVED OTHER MEETING DATB AYES: NOES: ABSEN11t ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: Original on File with City Is Oft w g:\planning\tonya monroe\word files\city council staff reports\2010 04-22 sun city sphere of influence.doc *410 *ale e zx 8 h .z a � r+SMON-RD I n ..OJNAA a. SHORE OR. q.. a y HERALD FORD OR FRANK SINATRA DR COUNTRYCLUS DR HOVLE'Y LN W N POVLEY LN E 6 HOYLEY LN E g P4F MAONESU FALLS DR er . PALM DESERT SPHERE OF I N FLUENIC-E DEL WEBB- SUN CITY AREA Thousand Paims ' ti ® Paim Deser Sphere of Influence to be Rt atec DATE: CVMSHCP Boundary , � L'► 4/26/201 0 Palm Deser.City Bounlary V CI N I A MA 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 III 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 r.� 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 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 Palm Desert be 8 MINUTES 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 COUNCIL MEETING AP 22, 2010 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY 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 SOL 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 381h 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 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. 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 10 MINUTES 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 DES RT 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 MINUTES 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 SOL 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 ti..r T 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 letter was 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 SOI. 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 dis-incorporate. 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 2009 SPP 18 r'?111: 33 September 17, 2009 John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Availability of Public/Agency Review Draft for the Municipal Service Review of the City of Palm Desert LAFCO 2009- 16-4 Dear Mr. Wohlmuth, The Draft Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the City of Palm Desert is now available for agency review and comment . Please review the draft and submit comments by Thursday, October 8, 2009. You may submit comments to my attention via e-mail at aromo@lafco. org or by mail . Also you may call me if you have any questions about the MSR or comments . Thank you. Sincerely, Adri na Romo Local Government Analyst II lie rrTort'�, V-11A )CAA� J�dl�VAe- )V�� or 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 4 ppp tt NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW-CITY OF THE PALM DESERT Notice is hereby given that a Public/Agency Review for the Municipal Service Review—Palm Desert is currently available for public review and comment. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the Public/Agency Review Draft is available for public review for a period of three weeks beginning immediately and ending on October 8, 2009. All comments concerning the draft should be made in writing and directed to Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II, Riverside LAFCO, 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110, Riverside, CA 92507-4277 or emailed to info ,lafco.org. The Public/Agency Review Draft may be accessed from the LAFCO website,www.lafco.org, or you may contact the LAFCO office at the address above or by calling (951) 369-0631. Based on comments received, a revised final draft will be produced and considered by the Commission at a future public hearing. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION '9� Adriana Romo Local Government Analyst II September 17, 2009 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION - 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110-RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951) 369-0631 9 www.lafco.org-Fax(951)369-8479 q r Stim17 2009 RIVERSIDE Local Agency Formation Commission Ftim 0 LSmi(rRaiew Prepared by Adriana Romo Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street•Suite 110 Riverside,CA 92507 Phone 951.369.0631 •Fax 951.369.8479 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Overview .......................................................................................................1-1 II. Service Review Process ...............................................................................1-2 111. Agency Review .............................................................................................1-2 A. Governing Body...................................................................................1-3 B. Budget Information..............................................................................1-3 C. Population & Growth...........................................................................1-3 IV. Services........................................................................................................1-5 A. Police Protection Services..................................................................1-5 B. Fire Protection Services......................................................................1-6 C. Park and Recreation Services ............................................................1-7 D. Solid Waste.........................................................................................1-8 E. Road Maintenance..............................................................................1-9 F. Library Services...................................................................................1-9 G. Animal Services..................................................................................1-9 V. Sphere of Influence .......................................................................................1-9 VI. MSR Determinations ..................................................................................1-10 N"w Palm Desert Municipal Service Review I. Overview LAFCOs are mandated by the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH) to encourage orderly development within their county of jurisdiction. The Act governs the boundaries of special districts and cities, consistent with each agency's principal act. To implement boundary changes, CKH directs LAFCOs to make reorganization decisions based on several factors, including the need for and efficiency of public services. To promote greater efficiency in services for future planning purposes, the CKH mandates LAFCOs to conduct Sphere of Influence (SOI) reviews once every five years or as necessary. SOls are used as a planning tool for agencies to conduct service and facility planning for areas it intends to serve in the future. A SOI is defined as "a plan for probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission." Consistent with Commission SOI policies, a SOI can a) be coterminous to agency boundaries as the ultimate foreseen configuration of the agency in anticipation of no future growth, b) be extended beyond the agency boundaries in anticipation of future growth, c) be smaller, indicating the need to detach areas from the agency boundaries, or d) be designated a"zero sphere", which indicates a potential dissolution of the agency. In order to amend the sphere of influence boundaries, formal approval from the LAFCO Commission is required. Prior to or in conjunction with SOI reviews a Municipal Service Review(MSR) must be prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 56430 (c). MSRs are conducted to assist in the SOI review process by providing information regarding the ability of agencies'to provide public services. This Municipal Service Review will review the services provided by the City of Palm Desert. Pursuant to 56430 (a), the MSR will make the following determinations: (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure or operational efficiencies. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by the Commission. Provided below is a summary of what each determination will assess. (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. This will evaluate the method of projection and its relationship to services and facility planning. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Will assess standard/objective levels of municipal services in relation to the current level of services as well as future plans to attain those objectives and/or maintain existing levels of services. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. Identifies whether the City has any general bonded indebtedness, its purpose, tax rate and when the debt will be retired. In addition, general taxes, special taxes, and assessments will be identified in relation to the services funded by those monies. In extreme cases, agencies not financially capable of providing the basic services will be identified. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-1 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review (4) Status of, and opportunities for,shared facilities. To promote greater efficiency in public services, the MSR explores opportunities for different agencies to share facilities and/or resources. By sharing facilities or other resources, agencies can eliminate the duplication of studies, planning efforts, staff or equipment, and potentially lower the cost for providing services. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. Identifies efforts made by the agency to increase public participation and accountability. Also, discusses whether audits are performed and how they are made available to the public. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. This will allow this LAFCO to identify areas outside an agency's boundaries currently receiving or requesting services from the agency. Also, identifies inhabited areas within or outside the current sphere of influence that the City anticipates annexing within the next five years or that could benefit from services provided by the agency. Issues unique to a particular agency or geographic area will be explored. II. Service Review Process In preparation of the MSR, public agency input is very important. To begin the MSR process the affected agencies were sent a questionnaire regarding services provided. Through a combination of responses from the questionnaires, follow-up conversations with the agencies, and research, the MSR was prepared. Agencies are encouraged to review and comment on the Public/Agency Review Draft prior to the circulation of the Final Draft that will be presented before the LAFCO Commission, October 22, 2009. This is an opportunity to address any concerns of the affected agencies regarding the data presented. At the public hearing the Commission will review the final draft of the MSR. After the hearing, the draft determinations will be modified as necessary to be adopted by the Commission. III. Agency Review The City of Palm Desert incorporated on November 26, 1973 as the 18th city in Riverside County. It is located in the Western Coachella Valley and is bounded by the City of Rancho Mirage to the west and the City of Indian Wells to the south and east as well as the unincorporated area of Bermuda Dunes to the east. The western city limits generally follow Monterey Ave. and to the north the city limits end at Interstate-10, south of the railroad tracks and south of the unincorporated area of Thousand Palms. The city is predominantly flat at an elevation of 220 feet above sea level, surrounded by the Cahuilla Hills and Dead Indian Creek/Black Hills to the south. The city boundaries encompass approximately 27 square miles. The City's existing sphere of influence currently extends beyond the city boundaries to include approximately 38 square miles that does not include any area within the city limits. City Hall is located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, half a mile east of Monterey Ave., the City's most western boundary. The municipal services provided by the City include police, fire, park and recreation, solid waste collection and disposal, road maintenance, and library services. Water, wastewater, and flood control services are provided by the Coachella Valley Water District. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-2 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review A. Governing Body The City of Palm Desert incorporated in 1963 as a General Law City. In 1997 as a result of a special election, the voters of Palm Desert elected for the City to become a Charter City. Unlike a general law city, a charter city is governed by its own charter document and is not limited by State statute. The current city government consists of a five member council elected at large. The terms of council members are four years and there are no term limits. Regular City Council Meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber. B. Budget Information This fiscal year is a difficult one for many local agencies due to the current economic situation. This fiscal year, the City's general fund budget was decreased by approximately 9.3%, indicative of revenue declines. Three of the City's primary revenue sources, which include sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and property tax, have been impacted by the economic slowdown. The City's annual budget projects a sales tax revenue decline of 14 percent and a property tax revenue decline of one percent. The County of Riverside FY 2008-09 Third-Quarter Budget Report projects a countywide estimated property tax revenue decline of ten percent for FY 2009-2010. The City does not have any general bonded indebtedness and maintains a balanced budget. However, in order to avoid service level reductions, the City's budget represents a personnel cost savings of $1.8 million. The City accomplished these savings by implementing a hiring freeze and not filling four vacant positions. In addition, the City offered an Early Retirement Program that provided eligible employees the opportunity to retire with an additional credit for two years of service, which resulted in eleven retirements. Lastly, four positions were eliminated as a result of the decline in development activity, which resulted in three early retirements and one layoff. Overall, general fund positions were decreased by 19 from FY 2008-09 to FY 2009-10. Table III.B.1. City of Palm Desert General Fund General Fund FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Pct change from prior year Revenues $62,424,500 $56,613,107 -9.31% Expenditures $62,423,706 $56,588,653 -9.35% *General fund amounts include fire taxes and transfers,and the fire reserve. C. Population & Growth Population As of January 1, 2009, the Department of Finance reports an estimated population of 51,509 for the City of Palm Desert, which is an increase of approximately 1.6 % from the previous year. For planning purposes, the city utilizes both the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research and the Department of Finance population estimates. The population projections for Palm Desert in the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report indicate an average annual population increase of 1.4 % from 2010 to 2035. Provided are the population projections as listed in the 2008 County Progress Report, which corresponds with the Adopted 2008 Southern California Association of Governments population projections. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-3 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.1. City of Palm Desert Population Projections Avq.Annual Year Population percent Chancie 2010 54,435 --- 2015 59,588 1.89% 2020 64,860 1.77% 2025 67,206 0.72% 2030 70,303 0.92% 2035 73,131 0.80% Population projections within the existing city limits are expected to increase by approximately 42% from the Department of Finance estimates as of January 1, 2009 to 2035 projections of 73,131. This does not account for potential annexations within the City's existing sphere of influence. The City's sphere of influence extends approximately 34.5 square miles to the south and 3.2 square miles to the east. The area to the south is mostly mountainous and habitat to the Big Horn Sheep. This southern sphere area was added to the City's SOI since it serves as a natural habitat backdrop, which the City seeks to preserve. There are no current population projections for the 3.2 square mile sphere area to the east of the city limits known as Bermuda Dunes. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, Bermuda Dunes was identified as a Census Designated Place(CDP)with a population 6,229. Housing Inventory The total amount of housing units in the City of Palm Desert as of January 1, 2009 is estimated at 34,329 (DOF) and countywide it accounts for approximately 7.2% of the housing units. This is an increase of less than two hundred homes or .006% from January of 2008, reflecting the housing market slowdown. Over the course of the projected 25 period, housing units are expected to increase an average of five percent every five years. Provided are the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report projections. Table III.C.2. City of Palm Desert Housing Inventory Year Housing Avq.Annual Units Percent Change 2010 36,685 --- 2015 40,533 2.10% 2020 43,349 1.39% 2025 44,483 0.52% 2030 46,291 0.81% 2035 48,136 0.80% Based on DOF housing unit, population, and vacancy estimates, the average persons per household within the City are 2.156 as of 2009. The City household unit vacancy is 31%, similar to the countywide vacancy of 32%. The City's average household size is less than the County's average of 3.059 persons per household. The majority of homes in the City are single family detached homes, followed by single attached homes, multi-family, mobile homes, and lastly other miscellaneous unit types. As of 2008 provided is a breakdown of housing unit types. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-4 'err° Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.3. City of Palm Desert Housing Unit Types Type 2009 Percent Detached 13,571 39.53% Attached 9,697 28.25% Multi-Family: 2-4 2,541 7.40% Multi-Family: 5+ 5,208 15.17% Mobile Homes 3,312 9.65% Total Units 34,329 *January Estimate,California State Department of Finance Capacity for growth The City is mostly developed, with the exception of a few scattered vacant parcels, and the northern city limits that are part of the University Park Area General Plan designation. From 2000-2009 approximately 6,300 units were built within the city limits at an average rate of 700 homes per year. At a gross density of three dwelling units per acre, the City has the capacity for approximately 3,732 dwelling units within its estimated 1,244 acres of vacant developable area. This represents approximately 5.3 years of residential growth based on absorption over the last nine years. As the City continues to develop, the City's goal is to maintain its existing level of services. Growth projections are integrated into the City's planning as new projects or developments are submitted to the City for review. It is the City's general policy to route new projects or developments to the various City departments for each department to evaluate the potential growth impacts. The comments received from the departments are used to plan for new facilities, transportation improvements, and identify the need for additional public safety services and designated park acreage. IV. Services The City of Palm Desert provides several general services, but this is a review of municipal services that will include police, fire, park and recreation, solid waste, road maintenance, library, and animal control services. A. Police Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriffs Department for police protection services. The Palm Desert Station is located at 73-520 Fred Waring Drive and it is shared with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells as well as the unincorporated areas of Andreas Hills, Joshua Tree National Park, North Palm Springs, Painted Hills, Pinyon, Sky Valley, and Thousand Palms. The City of Palm Desert also maintains and operates two off-site police sub-stations located at 42-305 Avenue of the States, Suite E/Washington St. and at 72-990 Monterey Ave./Highway III. The City currently contracts for 80 sworn officers, including 36 sworn dedicated to the Patrol Division. The remainder of the 44 sworn personnel are assigned to the Traffic Division, Special Enforcement Teams, School Resource Officer, Narcotics and Gang Enforcement, Investigations Bureau and other miscellaneous assignments. The City added one new deputy, a narcotics task force officer, to its contract for FY 2009-10. The cost for an additional deputy is reflected in the cost for police protection under the General Fund. Police patrols are divided into five beats within the city limits and within each beat an officer from the Special Enforcement Team (SET) is assigned. The team provides additional support to the Patrol Division and consists of one sergeant, six deputies, and a dedicated community-oriented policing officer The SET officers provide follow-up work to reported crimes relieving patrols of these time intensive duties LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-5 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review and therefore making patrols available to respond to emergency service calls. The SET allows the City to provide an enhanced level of police protection services. Although the City of Palm Desert has not established a standard level of police protection services the department's goals are to improve the quality of life for its residents. The City provides an annual police report that provides crime statistics. Based on the 2009 population of 51,509 and the police department's contract for 80 sworn officers, the officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population, which is higher than the County's service level of .97 officers per 1,000 population. The City has maintained the same level of service since 2006. In calendar year 2008, the Palm Desert Station received 44,237 calls within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority calls was 4.2 minutes. Provided are service calls made to the Palm Desert Station for emergency calls within the city limits. Emergency calls include priority one and priority two calls. The average response times include responses to priority one calls. Table IV.A.1. Police Protection Service Calls Total Calls Total Highest Average for Service Emerciency Priority Calls Response Time 2006 42,042 10,634 61 4.41 mins. 2007 39,518 10,738 69 4.64 mins. 2008 44,237 11,022 59 4.2 mins. B. Fire Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Fire Department for fire protection and emergency services. There are currently three stations within the city limits and two in the unincorporated- areas of North Palm Desert and Sun City that provide services to city residents. Table IV.B.1. City of Palm Desert Fire Stations Station Location Staffing/Equipment Station 33-Palm Desert 44400 Town Center Way Type 1 engine-1 staff, 1-100"Aerial Ladder Truck, 1 ALS Paramedic Ambulance, 1 Urban Search and Rescue Truck-4 staff 1 Reserve Ladder Truck and Water Rescue Vehicle are cross staffed with station personnel Station 67-Mesa View 73200 Mesa View Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit 3 per engine/2 per ambulance Station 71-North Palm Desert 73995 Country Club Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit/Type 1 Reserve engine 3 person engine/2 person ambulance Station 81-Sun City 37955 Washington St. 1 engine/3 firefighters 1 HazMat Unit/2 firefighters. HazMat until cross staffed with a total of 5 firefighters. HazMat requires 2 engine personnel and all 3 pieces of ,equipment The City contract allows for 51 full-time firefighters of which 15 are volunteers. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-6 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review The department's target response time which is specific to the time dispatch receives the call to the time a unit is responding is one minute during the day and two minutes during the night. The goal is to provide services five minutes from the time dispatch receives a call. The average response times, which include the time dispatch receives the call to the time services are being provided for calendar year 2008 where 5.1 minutes. Fire Department response times within the city limits have been as follows: Table IV.B.2. Fire Protection response times No. of Calls Fire related Medical/traffic Misc. Average Response collison Times 2005 6,438 941 5,090 401 2 mins.* 2006 7,353 951 5,509 893 5.2 mins. 2007 7,903 1,000 5,921 982 5.1 mins. 2008 7,9541 9281 6,0251 1001 5.1 mins. *This average response time does not include travel time. Refers to the target response time. To maintain average response times of five minutes, for suburban areas like the City of Palm Desert, the City plans for each of its fire stations to provide services within a 1.5 mile radius. As development occurs outside the five minute response zone, planning for an additional station begins. The City has identified a new fire station site of approximately three acres at the California State University, San Bernardino- Palm Desert campus to accommodate growth. Although this future station has been considered, planning for the construction of the new station has temporarily been placed on hold. To offset the revenue declines and to maintain the existing level of service for fire protection, the City has increased the fire tax. The City levies an annual special fire tax of$60 per equivalent dwelling unit, $30 per vacant lot, and $60 for commercial properties less than 2,600 square feet. Commercial properties are taxed on a square footage basis and are credited for an improvements made to the property in case of a fire, such as the installation of fire sprinklers and fire hydrants. This special tax was approved by the Palm Desert voters on April 8, 1980 which granted the city council the authority to increase the tax to the current maximum. The special tax was increased from an annual $48 per equivalent dwelling unit to $60 per equivalent dwelling unit. Co�+wt�SSf�n C. Park and Recreation Services �y� ��� d le'p_00 ` b °i. I-gerV�71 ado G; Co,,nc�\ ' The City of Palm Desert has its own department, a This Commission meets bwa month to discuss issues and topics related to Palm Desert's parks. The City currently owns and operates fourteen parks consisting of 212.9 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have five acres of park land for every 1,000 city residents. Based on the 2009 Department of Finance population estimate within the city limits of 51,509, the City maintains 4.13 acres parkland for every 1,000 residents. Park locations, amenities, and activities can be found on the City's website. The City also publishes a four page Parks and Recreation Guide with contact and park information. The Cook Street Sports Complex is longer being operated. Once the New Palm Desert High School is built and relocated, existing school buildings will be demolished to accommodate the new sports fields. The new sports fields are expected to be open in 2012 and will be located at the former Palm Desert High School site. cpf-n�1 The City is also within the boundaries of the Desert Recreation Districtvformerly known as the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District, which operates local facilities on a regional basis. Currently, Desert-RD. maintains and operates three facilities in Palm Desert, providing additional recreational opportunities to city residents. The facilities include the Palm Desert Community Center and Civic Center Park located at LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-7 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review 43-900 San Pablo Ave., Portola Community Center located at 45-570 Portola Ave., and the Golf Center at 74-495 Sheryl Ave. In 1990, the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to fund park and recreation facilities. Through this cooperative agreement, the sports complex at Palm Desert Civic Center Park was built, which is accessible to residents of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The cost to fund these facilities is shared by all three cities based on a population and assessed valuation formula. Table IV.C.1. City of Palm Desert Parks Park Name Acrea a Amenities Civic Center Park 70 4 Baseball fields with Concession Stand/Restrooms., 6 Tennis Courts, 4 Sand Volleyball Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 5 Picnic Pavilions, Amphitheater, Skate Park, Playground, Dog Park, Public Arts Displays, Multi purpose field, Open Areas, Rose Garden, Water Feature, Paths Hovley Soccer Park 21 5 Full Size Soccer Fields, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Picnic Pavilions, 3 Horseshoe Pits, 3 Shuffleboard Courts, 1 Basketball Court, Playground, Disc Golf Course Ironwood Park 14.5 Picnic Pavilions, Tot Lot, Open Grass Area, Restrooms, Walking Paths Cahuilla Hills Park 27.5 2 Tennis Courts, Picnic Area, Off-leash Dog Area, Trails; The park serves as a trail head for the Cahuilla Hills Trail System 6e� 2 Playground, Picnic Area, Restrooms, Baseball Field, Mulit-purpose fields, FAIy6114 ►Park available for after school and on weekends Washingtom Charter 2.5 Playground, Open Turf Area available after school and on weekends (owned School Park by the School District Joe Mann Park 2.5 Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Water Feature, Rose Garden, Dog Park, Picnic Pavilion, Playground, Open Turf Area, Restrooms Cap Homme/Ralph 27 Trails, Off Leash Dog Area, Picnic Areas; this site serves primarily as a trail Adams Park head for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System Palma Village 2 Playground, Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Picnic Pavilions, Neighborhood Park Restrooms, Water Feature Freedom Park 26 3 Baseball Fields, 2 Tennis Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 2 Sand Volleyball Courts, 2 Playgrounds, Walking Paths, Picnic Pavilions, Dog Park, Community Gardens, Skate Boarding Area, 2 Multi-purpose fields (soccer/football), Open Grass Areas, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Public Art Community Gardens 1 Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms, Community Gardens Haystack Greenbelt 12 Open Grass Areas, Paths and Smoketree Natural Area University Dog Park 2.4 Dog Park, Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms University 2.5 Playground, Basketball Court, Open Grass Area, Picnic Pavilions, Nsigobeplwed ParkGW Restrooms, Community Garden, Walking Paths Total Acreage 212.9 D. Solid Waste Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Burrtec Industries to provide solid waste collection and disposal services to residential and commercial properties. Residential service is provided once a week, while commercial properties can have up to six pick-ups per week. Customers are provided with bins for trash, recyclables, and green waste. Recyclable materials such as plastic, glass, and newspaper are LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-8 ors v,■.,r Palm Desert Municipal Service Review hauled to a third party recycler in San Diego County. Green waste is recycled by BioMass in Thermal. All other trash is hauled to the Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley or the Lamb Canyon Landfill located in Beaumont. Recently the City modified its agreement with Burrtec to extend services to include curbside hazardous waste collection, two annual document shredding events, enhanced bulky item pick-ups, while maintaining existing rates for residential customers. Commercial properties also receive curbside hazardous waste collection, but are charged for services beyond the$300 limit. In addition, the City has launched a pilot program to work with restaurants for food waste recycling. The implementation of this program and the City's other recycling services will allow Palm Desert to meet its goal of recycling 75 percent of the community's waste. E. Road Maintenance Palm Desert oversees the development, operations and maintenance of its roads and transportation facilities. The City currently contracts with outside consultants to implement a pavement management system. This allows the City to monitor the status of its roads and where necessary provide annual slurry sealing and resurfacing. Also, the City's Public Works Department monitors traffic volumes by hiring outside contractors as traffic counters. The data collected is used for the City's traffic-model which projects traffic impacts of new developments at build-out. Lastly, the Department also oversees the design, installation and maintenance of traffic control services. F. Library Services The City does not provide library services. The Riverside County Library System provides library services within the city limits. The Palm Desert Public Library is located at 73-300 Fred Waring Drive. The library encompasses 20,000 square feet of a 40,000 square foot library facility. The facility is shared with the College of the Desert Library. Although the libraries and its materials are physically separated, they have a reciprocity agreement that allows them to share an online research database and checkout desk. The Palm Desert Library contains approximately 135,000 volumes, is staffed by 10 full-time employees, 13 part time employees, and approximately 70 volunteers. The library is open seven days a week: Monday-Thursday 10am-8pm, Friday and Saturday 10am-5pm, and Sunday 1 pm-5pm. The City allocates General Fund revenues to pay for additional library services. These funds cover expenses for additional hours of operation, the volunteer program and coordinator, special events coordinator, two part-time receptionists, one full time reference librarian, and one full time teen/young adult librarian. G. Animal Control The City contracts with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services for control of domestic animals. Services include spaying and neutering of pets, shelter for lost or abandoned pets, and attending to nuisance issues. V. Sphere of Influence To begin the Municipal Service Review process, LAFCO staff sent a letter to all the cities and special districts of Riverside County inquiring about any anticipated sphere of influence changes within this sphere cycle ending December 31, 2012. The City of Palm Desert informed us of their interest to amend their sphere of influence to include the Del Webb Sun City-Palm Desert area. This area was removed from the City's sphere of influence in October of 2007. Since 2007, discussions between the community of Sun City and Palm Desert have occurred where they mutually agree that this area belongs in the City LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-9 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review of Palm Desert's sphere of influence. This area is within the City's General Plan and would add approximately four square miles to the city's sphere of influence. Including this area within the City's sphere would allow the City to plan the future extension of services to this area and evaluate how these additional services will be funded. Vl. MSR Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. To estimate growth and population projections, the City of Palm Desert uses the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research as well as the Department of Finance estimated population projections. Growth and population projections are incorporated into the City's future planning. As new projects and developments are submitted to the City they are reviewed by each department. At this time additional services and/or facilities needed to maintain the existing levels of services are considered. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. The City of Palm Desert maintains an enhanced level of services for police protection services. Currently, the Palm Desert Police Department's officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population. The City's contract for fire protection services allows the City to maintain an average fire response time of 5.1 minutes. The City's goal is to provide a five minute response time. For every 1,000 residents the City operates and maintains 4.13 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System within the city limits. Above the County's standard level of service the City provides general fund monies for extended hours of operation and special events. The City monitors the impacts of new developments on its services and plans for additional facilities and personnel when new projects are submitted to the City for approval. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The City Palm Desert adopts an annual budget every June which can be found on the City's website. In addition, the City has adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)that identifies special projects and their funding. To offset the anticipated decline in revenue to the City's General Fund, the City has decreased overall expenditures in salary costs, while maintaining the same level of services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for,shared facilities. The City of Palm Desert has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells to share park and recreational facilities, as well as the cost for maintaining these facilities. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-10 err° 'A„O Palm Desert Municipal Service Review (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The City's website is www.cityofpalmdesert.org where City departments post significant documents online such as the City of Palm Desert Annual Police Report, Annual Budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR), Audits, and Information Brochures for park services as well as other quick links to other pertinent public safety information. The City also maintains a monthly newsletter that is mailed to individual households in Palm Desert. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. The City of Palm Desert is mostly developed and provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas. While this high level of service indicates that it can accommodate growth, it can also indicate that maintaining these levels while annexing large areas could be very costly to the City. It would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact of annexing additional large areas. LAFCO—September 2009—Public/Agency Review 1-11 w LA FCO 2009-16-4 Municipal Service Review CITY OF PALM DESERT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA IX7 I : oNRO 1----- -- L'_- \ 'CATHEDRAL � \ ��—CITY OINAH aHOREDR - ' City requested S� I ---_-- - ir,l addition u I �t �y�Iii �� t FRANK-EINATRA OR {�'y �•.__ i�f`\ -- GDUNTRYICLUa DR .PAL-M DESERT I r ..� o Sly ter_ 1 t tINDIO x_ r—, a 2 21 'INDIAN / EVEN fA, WELLS - I � i �:/ `1 •' ,.a \ rz 'AVENUE Se 1 �\ AVENUE51` l 5 RI l�tlt� LAQUINTA', _ 7,;, LAKE PALM DESERT cAHuiLI11G� SOI l� ` 1 1 September 9,2009 Oa laimer Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only Map leawres I� (� are aptintad.lds.The and are rpl rside roams s no nalewar a y ofg ar ntengineering � slanderda.The Coumy o(Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content Miles phe source Is alien third party),acauacy,timeliness,or—platen SS of any of the j'' data provided,and assumes no legal responsibilfly far the information contained on this f O '� 2 4 u map.Any use of this prod=l with respW to am,racy and prevision shall be the sde respon sib dRy of Iha user.Do not copy or resell This map. CoPYRIGHT02D0g emuis of Riverside TLMAGIS Current Sphere of Influence (SOI) err+ 4 a. 12/3/2009 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II SUBJECT: LAFCO 2009-16-4- MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW—CITY OF PALM DESERT; PRIOR RELATED ITEMS:41 Continued from 10/22/2009. This item was continued from the October 22, 2009 to be heard concurrent to the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Review, which was also continued. Attached is the prior month staff report and Municipal Service Review. Respectfully submitted, 4�5"' —Ij Adriana Romo Local Government Analyst II RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110• RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951) 369-0631 •wxvw.1afco.org•Fax(951) 369-8479 r • 4.i. 10/22/2009 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Adriana Romo, Local Government Analyst II SUBJECT: LAFCO 2009-16-4--MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW—CITY OF PALM DESERT. BACKGROUND: As we have discussed previously, AB 2838 established a new analytical tool for LAFCOs, municipal service reviews (MSRs) , to evaluate service provision. Section 56430 is the sole statute establishing the requirement. It begins as follows: "In order to prepare and to update spheres of influence in accordance with Section 56425, the commission shall conduct a service review of all municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission". The section goes on to require that service reviews must be conducted prior to or concurrent with consideration of any action to establish or update a sphere of influence (SOI) . After conducting the reviews, the Commission must prepare a written statement of determinations addressing each of the following factors : 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2 . Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. 3. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 4 . Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 5. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 6. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. Municipal Services Review: Staff has prepared the Palm Desert MSR and provided are the determinations: Growth and population projections for the affected area. To estimate growth and population projections, the City of Palm Desert uses the County of Riverside Center for Demographic RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 9 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951)369-0631 •www.lafco.oig.Fax(951)369-8479 LAFCO 2009-16-4 Page 2 Vft# 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. 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 2009-16-4 N%We Page 3 1*000, October 22, 2009 MSR-CITY OF PALM DESERT Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities . The City of Palm Desert has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells to share park and recreational facilities, as well as the cost for maintaining these facilities . Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The City' s website is www. cityofpalmdesert .org where City departments post significant documents online such as the City of Palm Desert Annual Police Report, Annual Budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) , Audits, and Information Brochures for park services as well as other quick links to other pertinent public safety information. The City also maintains a monthly newsletter that is mailed to individual households in Palm Desert . Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. The City of Palm Desert is mostly developed and provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas. While this high level of service indicates that it can accommodate growth, it can also indicate that maintaining these levels while annexing large areas could be very costly to the City. It would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact of annexing additional large areas . Comments from Affected Agencies/Interested Parties: The City of Palm Desert provided input throughout the development of the MSR. Additionally, the draft MSR was made available for further agency comment during the agency/public review period. During the agency/public review period relatively minor comments were received. The comments were addressed in the MSR. CEQA Compliance: The Secretary for Resources has listed several classes of projects, via the CEQA Guidelines, that do not have a significant effect on the environment . These types of activities are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents . Class 6 categorical exemptions, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306, consist of "basic data collection, research, 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 2009-16-4 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 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION-3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110- RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951) 369-0631 -www.laf'o.org-Fax(951) 369-8479 N Foud dalbe 42009 RIVERSIDE Local Agency Formation Commission saviie&z3v Prepared by Adriana Remo Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Wine Street•Suite 110 Riverside,CA 92507 Phone 951.369.0631•Fax 951.369.8479 -Nee Palm Desert `" e Municipal Service Review TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Overview .......................................................................................................1-1 11. Service Review Process ...............................................................................1-2 III. Agency Review .............................................................................................1-2 A. Governing Body...................................................................................1-3 B. Budget Information..............................................................................1-3 C. Population & Growth...........................................................................1-3 IV. Services........................................................................................................1-5 A. Police Protection Services.............................................................. 1 5 B. Fire Protection Services......................................................................1-6 C. Park and Recreation Services ............................................................1-7 D. Solid Waste.........................................................................................1-8 E. Road Maintenance..............................................................................1-9 F. Library Services...................................................................................1-9 G. Animal Services..................................................................................1-9 V. Sphere of Influence .......................................................................................1-9 VI. MSR Determinations ..................................................................................1-10 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review I. Overview LAFCOs are mandated by the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH) to encourage orderly development within their county of jurisdiction. The Act governs the boundaries of special districts and cities, consistent with each agency's principal act. To implement boundary changes, CKH directs LAFCOs to make reorganization decisions based on several factors, including the need for and efficiency of public services. To promote greater efficiency in services for future planning purposes, the CKH mandates LAFCOs to conduct Sphere of Influence (SOI) reviews once every five years or as necessary. SOls are used as a planning tool for agencies to conduct service and facility planning for areas it intends to serve in the future. A SOI is defined as "a plan for probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission." Consistent with Commission SOI policies, a SOI can a) be coterminous to agency boundaries as the ultimate foreseen configuration of the agency in anticipation of no future growth, b) be extended beyond the agency boundaries in anticipation of future growth, c)be smaller, indicating the need to detach areas from the agency boundaries, or d) be designated a"zero sphere",which indicates a potential dissolution of the agency. In order to amend the sphere of influence boundaries, formal approval from the LAFCO Commission is required. Prior to or in conjunction with SOI reviews a Municipal Service Review(MSR)must be prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 56430(c). MSRs are conducted to assist in the SOI review process by providing information regarding the ability of agencies'to provide public services. This Municipal Service Review will review the services provided by the City of Palm Desert. Pursuant to 56430 (a), the MSR will make the following determinations: (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure or operational efficiencies. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by the Commission. Provided below is a summary of what each determination will assess. (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. This will evaluate the method of projection and its relationship to services and facility planning. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Will assess standard/objective levels of municipal services in relation to the current level of services as well as future plans to attain those objectives and/or maintain existing levels of services. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. Identifies whether the City has any general bonded indebtedness, its purpose, tax rate and when the debt will be retired. In addition, general taxes, special taxes, and assessments will be identified in relation to the services funded by those monies. In extreme cases, agencies not financially capable of providing the basic services will be identified. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-1 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. To promote greater efficiency in public services, the MSR explores opportunities for different agencies to share facilities and/or resources. By sharing facilities or other resources, agencies can eliminate the duplication of studies, planning efforts, staff or equipment, and potentially lower the cost for providing services. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. Identifies efforts made by the agency to increase public participation and accountability. Also, discusses whether audits are performed and how they are made available to the public. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. This will allow this LAFCO to identify areas outside an agency's boundaries currently receiving or requesting services from the agency. Also, identifies inhabited areas within or outside the current sphere of influence that the City anticipates annexing within the next five years or that could benefit from services provided by the agency. Issues unique to a particular agency or geographic area will be explored. II. Service Review Process In preparation of the MSR, public agency input is very important. To begin the MSR process the affected agencies were sent a questionnaire regarding services provided. Through a combination of responses from the questionnaires, follow-up conversations with the agencies, and research, the MSR was prepared. Agencies are encouraged to review and comment on the Public/Agency Review Draft prior to the circulation of the Final Draft that will be presented before the LAFCO Commission, October 22, 2009. This is an opportunity to address any concerns of the affected agencies regarding the data presented. At the public hearing the Commission will review the final draft of the MSR. After the hearing, the draft determinations will be modified as necessary to be adopted by the Commission. III. Agency Review The City of Palm Desert incorporated on November 26, 1973 as the 18th city in Riverside County. It is located in the Western Coachella Valley and is bounded by the City of Rancho Mirage to the west and the City of Indian Wells to the south and east as well as the unincorporated area of Bermuda Dunes to the east. The western city limits generally follow Monterey Ave. and to the north the city limits end at Interstate-10, south of the railroad tracks and south of the unincorporated area of Thousand Palms. The city is predominantly flat at an elevation of 220 feet above sea level, surrounded by the Cahuilla Hills and Dead Indian Creek/Black Hills to the south. The city boundaries encompass approximately 27 square miles. The City's existing sphere of influence currently extends beyond the city boundaries to include approximately 38 square miles, which does not include any area within the city limits. City Hall is located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, half a mile east of Monterey Ave., the City's most western boundary. The municipal services provided by the City include police, fire, park and recreation, solid waste collection and disposal, road maintenance, and library services. Water, wastewater, and flood control services are provided by the Coachella Valley Water District. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-2 Palm Desert `"'"'` Municipal Service Review A. Governing Body The City of Palm Desert incorporated in 1973 as a General Law City. In 1997 as a result of a special election, the voters of Palm Desert elected for the City to become a Charter City. Unlike a general law city, a charter city is governed by its own charter document and is not limited by State statute. The current city government consists of a five member council elected at large. The terms of council members are four years and there are no term limits. Regular City Council Meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber. B. Budget Information This fiscal year is a difficult one for many local agencies due to the current economic situation. This fiscal year, the City's general fund budget was decreased by approximately 9.3%, indicative of revenue declines. Three of the City's primary revenue sources, which include sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and property tax, have been impacted by the economic slowdown. The City's annual budget projects a sales tax revenue decline of 14 percent and a property tax revenue decline of one percent. The County of Riverside FY 2008-09 Third-Quarter Budget Report projects a countywide estimated property tax revenue decline of ten percent for FY 2009-2010. The City does not have any general bonded indebtedness and maintains a balanced budget. However, in order to avoid service level reductions, the City's budget represents a personnel cost savings of $1.8 million. The City accomplished these savings by implementing a hiring freeze and not filling four vacant positions. In addition, the City offered an Early Retirement Program that provided eligible employees the opportunity to retire with an additional credit for two years of service, which resulted in eleven retirements. Lastly, four positions were eliminated as a result of the decline in development activity, which resulted in three early retirements and one layoff. Overall, general fund positions were decreased by 19 from FY 2008-09 to FY 2009-10. Table III.B.1. City of Palm Desert General Fund General Fund FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Pct c from rior a ear Revenues $62,424,500 $56,613,107 -9.31% Expenditures $62,423,706 $56,588,653 -9.35% "General fund amounts include fire taxes and transfers,and the fire reserve. C. Population &Growth Population As of January 1, 2009, the Department of Finance reports an estimated population of 51,509 for the City of Palm Desert, which is an increase of approximately 1.6 % from the previous year. For planning purposes, the city utilizes both the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research and the Department of Finance population estimates. The population projections for Palm Desert in the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report indicate an average annual population increase of 1.4 % from 2010 to 2035. Provided are the population projections as listed in the 2008 County Progress Report, which corresponds with the Adopted 2008 Southern California Association of Governments population projections. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-3 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.1. City of Palm Desert Population Projections Year Population Avg.Annual Percent Change 2010 54,435 --- 2015 59,588 1.89% 2020 64,860 1.77% 2025 67,206 0.72% 2030 70,303 0.92% 2035 73,131 0.80% Population projections within the existing city limits are expected to increase by approximately 42% from the Department of Finance estimates as of January 1, 2009 to 2035 projections of 73,131. This does not account for potential annexations within the City's existing sphere of influence. The City's sphere of influence extends approximately 34.5 square miles to the south and 3.2 square miles to the east. The area to the south is mostly mountainous and habitat to the Big Horn Sheep. This southern sphere area was added to the City's SO1 since it serves as a natural habitat backdrop, which the City seeks to preserve. There are no current population projections for the 3.2 square mile sphere area to the east of the city limits known as Bermuda Dunes. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, Bermuda Dunes was identified as a Census Designated Place(CDP)with a population 6,229. Housing Inventory The total amount of housing units in the City of Palm Desert as of January 1, 2009 is estimated at 34,329 (DOF) and countywide it accounts for approximately 7.2% of the housing units. This is an increase of less than two hundred homes or .006% from January of 2008, reflecting the housing market slowdown. Over the course of the projected 25 year period, housing units are expected to increase an average of five percent every five years. Provided are the 2008 Riverside County Center for Demographic Research Progress Report projections. Table III.C.2. City of Palm Desert Housing Inventory Year Housing Avg.Annual Units Percent Chan e 2010 36,685 --- 2015 40,533 2.10% 2020 43,349 1.39% 2025 44,483 0.52% 2030 46,291 0.81% 2035 48,136 0.80% Based on DOF housing unit, population, and vacancy estimates, the average persons per household within the City is 2.156 as of 2009. The City household unit vacancy is 31%, similar to the countywide vacancy of 32%. The City's average household size is less than the County's average of 3.059 persons per household. The majority of homes in the City are single family detached homes, followed by single family attached homes, multi-family, mobile homes, and lastly other miscellaneous unit types. As of 2008 provided is a breakdown of housing unit types. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-4 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review Table III.C.3. City of Palm Desert Housing Unit Types Roe 2009 Percent Detached 13,571 39.537% Attached 9,697 28.25% Multi-Family: 2-4 2,541 7.40% Multi-Family: 5+ 5,208 15.17% Mobile Homes 3,312 9.65% Total Units J 34,329 *January Estimate,California State Department of Finance Capacity for-growth The City is mostly developed, with the exception of a few scattered vacant parcels, and the northern city limits that are part of the University Park Area General Plan designation. From 2000-2009 approximately 6,300 units were built within the city limits at an average rate of 700 homes per year. At a gross density of three dwelling units per acre, the City has the capacity for approximately 3,732 dwelling units within its estimated 1,244 acres of vacant developable area. This represents approximately 5.3 years of residential growth based on absorption over the last nine years. As the City continues to develop, the City's goal is to maintain its existing level of services. Growth projections are integrated into the City's planning as new projects or developments are submitted to the City for review. It is the City's general policy to route new projects or developments to the various City departments for each department to evaluate the potential growth impacts. The comments received from the departments are used to plan for new facilities, transportation improvements, and identify the need for additional public safety services and designated park acreage. IV. Services The City of Palm Desert provides several general services, but this is a review of municipal services that will include police, fire, park and recreation, solid waste, road maintenance, library, and animal control services. A. Police Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department for police protection services. The Palm Desert Station is located at 73-520 Fred Waring Drive and it is shared with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells as well as the unincorporated areas of Andreas Hills, Joshua Tree National Park, North Palm Springs, Painted Hills, Pinyon, Sky Valley, and Thousand Palms. The City of Palm Desert also maintains and operates two off-site police sub-stations located at 42-305 Avenue of the States, Suite E/Washington St. and at 72-990 Monterey Ave./Highway III. The City currently contracts for 80 sworn officers, including 36 sworn dedicated to the Patrol Division. The remainder of the 44 sworn personnel are assigned to the Traffic Division, Special Enforcement Teams, School Resource Officer, Narcotics and Gang Enforcement, Investigations Bureau and other miscellaneous assignments. The City added one new deputy, a narcotics task force officer, to its contract for FY 2009-10. The cost for an additional deputy is reflected in the cost for police protection under the General Fund. Police patrols are divided into five beats within the city limits and within each beat an officer from the Special Enforcement Team (SET) is assigned. The team provides additional support to the Patrol Division and consists of one sergeant, six deputies, and a dedicated community-oriented policing officer The SET officers provide follow-up work to reported crimes relieving patrols of these time intensive duties LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-5 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review and therefore making patrols available to respond to emergency service calls. The SET allows the City to provide an enhanced level of police protection services. Although the City of Palm Desert has not established a standard level of police protection services the department's goals are to improve the quality of life for its residents. The City provides an annual police report that provides crime statistics. Based on the 2009 population of 51,509 and the police department's contract for 80 sworn officers, the officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population, which is higher than the County's service level of .97 officers per 1,000 population. The City has maintained the same level of service since 2006. In calendar year 2008, the Palm Desert Station received 44,237 calls within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority calls was 4.2 minutes. Provided are service calls made to the Palm Desert Station for emergency calls within the city limits. Emergency calls include priority one and priority two calls. The average response times include responses to priority one calls. Table IV.A.1. Police Protection Service Calls Total Calls Total Highest Average for Service Emerviency Prioritv Calls Res onse Time 2006 42,042 10.634 61 4.41 mins. 2007 39,518 10,738 69 4.64 mins. 2008 44,237 11,022 59 4.2 mins. B. Fire Protection Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the County of Riverside Fire Department for fire protection and emergency services. There are currently three stations within the city limits and one in the unincorporated area of Sun City-Palm Desert,which primarily services Riverside County residents. Table IV.B.1. City of Palm Desert Fire Stations Station Location Staffing/Equipment Station 33-Palm Desert 44400 Town Center Way Type 1 engine-1 staff, 1-100"Aerial Ladder Truck, 1 ALS Paramedic Ambulance, 1 Urban Search and Rescue Truck-4 staff 1 Reserve Ladder Truck and Water Rescue Vehicle are cross staffed with station personnel Station 67-Mesa View 73200 Mesa View Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit 3 per engine/2 per ambulance Station 71-North Palm Desert 73995 Country Club Dr. Type 1 engine/ALS medic unit/Type 1 Reserve engine 3 person engine/2 person ambulance Station 81-Sun City-Palm 37955 Washington St. 1 engine/3 firefighters 1 HazMat Unit/2 Desert firefighters. HazMat until cross staffed with a total of 5 firefighters. HazMat requires 2 engine personnel and all 3 pieces of equipment The City contract allows for 51 paid full-time firefighters. In addition to the paid firefighters there are 15 volunteers resulting in a total of 66 firefighters providing services within the city limits. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-6 Palm Desert ` Municipal Service Review The department's target response time which is specific to the time dispatch receives the call to the time a unit is responding is one minute during the day and two minutes during the night. The goal is to provide services five minutes from the time dispatch receives a call. The average response times, which include the time dispatch receives the call to the time services are being provided for calendar year 2008 where 5.1 minutes. Fire Department response times within the city limits have been as follows: Table IV.B.2. Fire Protection response times No. of Calls Fire related Medical/traffic Misc. Average Response collison Times 2005 6,438 941 5,090 401 2 mins.* 2006 7,353 951 5,509 893 5.2 mins. 2007 7,903 1,000 5,921 982 5.1 mins. 2008 1 7,954 928 6,0251 1001 5.1 mins. *This average response time does not include travel time. Refers to the target response time. To maintain average response times of five minutes, for suburban areas like the City of Palm Desert, the City plans for each of its fire stations to provide services within a 1.5 mile radius. As development occurs outside the five minute response zone, planning for an additional station begins. The City has identified a new fire station site of approximately three acres at the California State University, San Bernardino- Palm Desert campus to accommodate growth. Although this future station has been considered, planning for the construction of the new station has temporarily been placed on hold due to the economy and stalled development. To offset the revenue declines and to maintain the existing level of service for fire protection, the City has increased the fire tax. The City levies an annual special fire tax and the basis for the charge is the property's type of use. The annual charge per equivalent dwelling unit is $60. The tax applied to vacant lots varies by acreage at a minimum of$30 and a maximum of$60. Commercial properties are taxed on a square footage basis and are credited for improvements made to the property to mitigate fire damage such as fire sprinklers. Generally commercial properties less than 2,600 square feet are charged an annual tax of $60. This special tax was approved by the Palm Desert voters on April 8, 1980 which granted the city council the authority to increase the tax to the current maximum. The special tax was increased from an annual $48 per equivalent dwelling unit to$60 per equivalent dwelling unit. C. Park and Recreation Services The City of Palm Desert has its own Park and Recreation Department and a Parks and Recreation Commission that serves as an advisory board to the City Council. This Commission meets once a month to discuss issues and topics related to Palm Desert's parks. The City currently owns and operates fourteen parks consisting of 212.9 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have five acres of park land for every 1,000 city residents. Based on the 2009 Department of Finance population estimate within the city limits of 51,509, the City maintains 4.13 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Park locations, amenities, and activities can be found on the City's website. The City also publishes a four page Parks and Recreation Guide with contact and park information. The Cook Street Sports Complex is no longer being operated. Once the New Palm Desert High School is built and relocated, existing school buildings will be demolished to accommodate the new sports fields. The new sports fields are expected to be open in 2012 and will be located at the former Palm Desert High School site. The City is also within the boundaries of the Desert Recreation District (DRD), formerly known as the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District, which operates local facilities on a regional basis. Currently, LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-7 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review DRD maintains and operates three facilities in Palm Desert, providing additional recreational opportunities to city residents. The facilities include the Palm Desert Community Center and Civic Center Park located at 43-900 San Pablo Ave., Portola Community Center located at 45-570 Portola Ave., and the Golf Center at 74-495 Sheryl Ave. In 1990, the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to fund park and recreation facilities. Through this cooperative agreement, the sports complex at Palm Desert Civic Center Park was built, which is accessible to residents of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The cost to fund these facilities is shared by all three cities based on a population and assessed valuation formula. Table IV.C.1. City of Palm Desert Parks Park Name Acreage Amenities Civic Center Park 70 4 Baseball fields with Concession Stand/Restrooms., 6 Tennis Courts, 4 Sand Volleyball Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 5 Picnic Pavilions, Amphitheater, Skate Park, Playground, Dog Park, Public Arts Displays, Multi- purpose ose field, Open Areas, Rose Garden, Water Feature, Paths Hovley Soccer Park 21 5 Full Size Soccer Fields, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Picnic Pavilions, 3 Horseshoe Pits, 3 Shuffleboard Courts, 1 Basketball Court, Playground, Disc Golf Course Ironwood Park 14.5 Picnic Pavilions, Tot Lot, Open Grass Area, Restrooms, Walking Paths Cahuilla Hills Park 27.5 2 Tennis Courts, Picnic Area, Off-leash Dog Area, Trails;The park serves as a trail head for the Cahuilla Hills Trail System Magnesia Falls City 2 Playground, Picnic Area, Restrooms, Baseball Field, Mulit-purpose fields, Park available for after school and on weekends Washingtom Charter 2.5 Playground, Open Turf Area available after school and on weekends (owned School Park by the School District Joe Mann Park 2.5 Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court,Water Feature, Rose Garden, Dog Park, Picnic Pavilion, Playground, Open Turf Area, Restrooms Cap Homme/Ralph 27 Trails, Off Leash Dog Area, Picnic Areas; this site serves primarily as a trail Adams Park head for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System Palma Village 2 Playground, Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Picnic Pavilions, Nei hborhood Park Restrooms, Water Feature Freedom Park 26 3 Baseball Fields, 2 Tennis Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 2 Sand Volleyball Courts, 2 Playgrounds, Walking Paths, Picnic Pavilions, Dog Park, Community Gardens, Skate Boarding Area, 2 Multi-purpose fields (soccer/football), Open Grass Areas, Concession Stand, Restrooms, Public Art Community Gardens 1 Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms, Community Gardens Haystack Greenbelt 12 Open Grass Areas, Paths and Smoketree Natural Area University Dog Park 2.4 Dog Park, Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms University Park East 2.5 Playground, Basketball Court, Open Grass Area, Picnic Pavilions, Restrooms, Community Garden, Walking Paths Total Acreage 212.9 D. Solid Waste Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Burrtec Industries to provide solid waste collection and disposal services to residential and commercial properties. Residential service is provided once a week, LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-8 ` Palm Desert Municipal Service Review while commercial properties can have up to six pick-ups per week. Customers are provided with bins for trash, recyclables, and green waste. Recyclable materials such as plastic, glass, and newspaper are hauled to a third party recycler. Green waste is recycled by a local compost facility. All other trash is hauled to the Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley or the Lamb Canyon Landfill located in Beaumont. Recently the City modified its agreement with Burrtec to extend services to include curbside hazardous waste collection, two annual document shredding events, enhanced bulky item pick-ups, while maintaining existing rates for residential customers. Commercial properties can also participate in the hazardous waste collection program by making an appointment with Burrtec. Commercial customers are allowed to dispose of hazardous waste at no cost up to a $300 limit annually. Disposal of materials over the limit is the responsibility of the business. The$300 coverage is subject to change. In addition, the City has launched a pilot program to work with restaurants for food waste recycling. The implementation of this program and the City's other recycling services will allow Palm Desert to meet its goal of recycling 75 percent of the community's waste. E. Road Maintenance Palm Desert oversees the development, operations and maintenance of its roads and transportation facilities. The City currently contracts with outside consultants to implement a pavement management system. This allows the City to monitor the status of its roads and where necessary provide annual slurry sealing and resurfacing. Also, the City's Public Works Department monitors traffic volumes by hiring outside contractors as traffic counters. The data collected is used for the City's traffic-model which projects traffic impacts of new developments at build-out. Lastly, the Department also oversees the design, installation and maintenance of traffic control services. F. Library Services The City does not provide library services. The Riverside County Library System provides library services within the city limits. The Palm Desert Public Library is located at 73-300 Fred Waring Drive. The library encompasses 20,000 square feet of a 40,000 square foot library facility. The facility is shared with the College of the Desert Library. Although the libraries and its materials are physically separated, they have a reciprocity agreement that allows them to share an online research database and checkout desk. The Palm Desert Library contains approximately 144,000 volumes, is staffed by 10 full-time employees, 13 part time employees, and approximately 65 volunteers. The library is open seven days a week: Monday-Thursday 10am-8pm, Friday and Saturday 10am-5pm, and Sunday 1 pm-5pm. The City allocates General Fund revenues to pay for additional library services. These funds cover expenses for additional hours of operation, the volunteer program and coordinator, special events coordinator, two part-time receptionists, one full time reference librarian, and one full time teen/young adult librarian. G. Animal Control The City contracts with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services for control of domestic animals. Services include spaying and neutering of pets, shelter for lost or abandoned pets, and attending to nuisance issues. V. Sphere of Influence To begin the Municipal Service Review process, LAFCO staff sent a letter to all the cities and special districts of Riverside County inquiring about any anticipated sphere of influence changes within this sphere cycle ending December 31, 2012. The City of Palm Desert informed us of their interest to amend LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1.9 Palm Desert Municipal Service Review their sphere of influence to include the Del Webb Sun City-Palm Desert area. This area was removed from the City's sphere of influence in October of 2007. Since 2007, discussions between the community of Sun City and Palm Desert have occurred where they mutually agree that this area belongs in the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence. This area is within the City's General Plan and would add approximately four square miles to the city's sphere of influence. Including the Sun City-Palm Desert area within the City's sphere would allow the City to plan the future extension of services to this area and evaluate how these additional services will be funded. VI. MSR Determinations (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. To estimate growth and population projections, the City of Palm Desert uses the County of Riverside Center for Demographic Research as well as the Department of Finance estimated population projections. Growth and population projections are incorporated into the City's future planning. As new projects and developments are submitted to the City they are reviewed by each department. At this time additional services and/or facilities needed to maintain the existing levels of services are considered. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. The City of Palm Desert maintains an enhanced level of services for police protection services. Currently, the Palm Desert Police Department's officer to population ratio is 1.55 officers per 1,000 population. The City's contract for fire protection services allows the City to maintain an average fire response time of 5.1 minutes. The City's goal is to provide a five minute response time. For every 1,000 residents the City operates and maintains 4.13 acres of parkland. The City's goal is to have 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System within the city limits. Above the County's standard level of service the City provides general fund monies for extended hours of operation, special events, and additional employment opportunities. The City monitors the impacts of new developments on its services and plans for additional facilities and personnel when new projects are submitted to the City for approval. (3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The City Palm Desert adopts an annual budget every June which can be found on the City's website. In addition, the City has adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)that identifies special projects and their funding. To offset the anticipated decline in revenue to the City's General Fund, the City has decreased overall expenditures in salary costs, while maintaining the same level of services. (4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The City of Palm Desert has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells to share park and recreational facilities, as well as the cost for maintaining these facilities. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-10 r Palm Desert ' Municipal Service Review (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The City's website is www.cit rLofpalmdesert.org where City departments post significant documents online such as the City of Palm Desert Annual Police Report, Annual Budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR), Audits, and Information Brochures for park services as well as other quick links to other pertinent public safety information. The City also maintains a monthly newsletter that is mailed to individual households in Palm Desert. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. The City of Palm Desert is mostly developed and provides a higher level of services compared to the services rendered in the unincorporated areas. While this high level of service indicates that it can accommodate growth, it can also indicate that maintaining these levels while annexing large areas could be very costly to the City. It would be appropriate for the City to evaluate the financial impact of annexing additional large areas. LAFCO—October 2009—Final 1-11 LAK0 2009-16-4 Municipal Service Review CITY OF PALM DESERT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA IRGAT�HEDML CITY dNAR aHORE OR t 1, City requested I '�-addition i3 FRAM(•WA RAOR F AI M UESERT ME��.. o� a t8 �r� — ��. � ' •1; FREp (€l4 -INDDIdj ` 04� Ij, SWELLS I _ fJ� ' x k r `1. vAVEMlE 3p x ( ,. ? g , PM � f� I � i�iii{+F _ SPRING LA QUI AL NTA4- LAKE PALM DESERT CAHUIL 1 J So! i W- t , r I \\1 x i t � 1 OPsda—.Maps and data an to be afeA(oF refenaa:e peposeseaht AaM kaaaes l September 9,2009 are approasnals.and aro Rat necessuay aaallae a salseyiop or enpimnirg slanaaids.The CaaAY a RhWs Wmapsno w+mraYayaaaaoenroere ca�ma IQMiles dne lance",oaen mmd IudN.Aanueca.IWasrea,of compklolrea a aAr a mn N 0 1 2 Q G)S m; .WW rt no lepN'Imm"ROWy ow ms ddmo*n aaa "on this n peduoWftl/aspearogoftmV mid po Mmsh"tmtAs sde respansldUYame user,oo na cm.mo mla map. COPVRICFIT021100C aRivenpp TIAMGI& Current Sphere of Influence (Sol) s d R T 73-5 1 O FRED W'ARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL; 760 346—o6n FAX:760 340-0574 info@palm-descrt.org OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAG>R May 8, 2009 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Subject., Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Thank you for your past support concerning the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence (SOI) discussions. I am sending you this correspondence to clarify the City's position related to the area commonly referred as the Sun City 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 SOl 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 { Sphere-of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert a; LAFCo 2006-89-4 Exhibit A wwwaw. wrrrrr■ 1 K'C»� .. ice..' i', •..'•y... t 1 f• •j•, :Z f•, i --; City of Rancho ■ ♦ L A f!a Y,.F•'�',.}.it�iJ..:y :.�••:1:".. :;C. .:�w .w Mirage !. �r ,r'-,. .�. ;�.,•;. ..:�. J -; ., f _ •� ■ . City • flc, .al Of I t Indio �...rauf. . . F� WARM / Oi e 1 r f4 ' ! City of r ■ ■ {{"' Indian ._. City of Wells La Quinta } �,F f�n� r y y (4 ■ � •f�, Y � �. Yi,. S+. w .r n F :EM City of Palm Desert �rK. ,;� ' ;;� 1 ,t j• V/_7 Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10125/07 r .. --- rX .i Commission Approved on 10/25/07 :s� 't;f {I"�.' .: t• �, (Removal) {fi:"<i'�4H r w}i"'14 '�tI r�+' ':SY +�z;i• •CS{s'.r.$ 1.................. :�1.y �2�,.ri`t ...:����t� �,h��•f•._S.'1rJ,•rl.�C,?i �. ■ 'i�h:t�.}�r�'.L;Myt�"'�;t(Y���1� �"�d����t��eN9i�'�V`;•f� w w.w w w1 .�� •r ••-7.'.�iS;�i :�j..i� :���•?�,„:t:' ;.:fin. .•f.:• APPLICATION TO THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails) to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. LAFCO 2009-04-4 cn C riS PROPOSAL: FOR LAF �r6�J 6�- `� � /�cre5 �0 �-LQ, ► 1�1 ON —lit I' ` C T N CQ��' - or �� �������(�ll�5 �„J O,L.... ❑ Petition,or Resolution EZ/Application Complete Ma /Legal APPLICANT CY6aps Name: ft I "Plan of Services Address: 'c. �' �.� r�Environmental Documents z ies. City,State,Zi : 6 / Q� ❑ F&G Fee Exempt, or 'R t Phone C Fax:l (nv 3 h O E-mail: 100yrJ 041b 0rq, ❑ Prop.Tax Reso. ❑Master❑Indiv. CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Fees `* - €Z I c; Name: �GvIJ C. ( Gd) Q,v' re-zonina Ordinance Address: CIVIc Fiscal icity>100 ac. (s coples) City,State,Zip: d�"l ❑ S.O.I.Factors Phone Fax. t4� �+ E-mail:5 ' c&.0 Mailin Labels NOTICES: List below the names and addresses of persons to whom notices and staff reports should be directed (3 maximum). /� t y /� Name: �. (c. Aicr, Ioct CEol&y- Telephone/Fax: /�d)�l -/^`.2.d 7� �10,22 Address: City,State,Zip: Name: Telephone/Fax: Address: City,State,Zip: Name: Telephone/Fax: Address: City,State,Zip: Provide six sets of mailing labels for persons to whom notices and reports are to be sent. Does this proposal have the consent of 100 percent of the affected property owners? Yes No If yes,include written statements of consent and proof of ownership(assessor roll printout,grant deed,etc). Also,attach all correspondence to/from existing residents and/or property owners. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET,SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE,CA 92507-4277 PHONE(951)369-0631 w.Cafco_org•FAX(951)369-8479 *00 too Application Form Page 2 AREA DATA / General Location: lI I ( 1 Ct ti, fNp�i �J i��ffiU ?�Q A�1j., At off= Ad,r"s 5krO . Topography and significant physical features: Acreage: 9'3)— Estimated Dwelling Units: "(�� Estimated Population: ►'� / Describe the proximity of the subject area to currently developed a eas. n (~ VA) Cl LAND USE APPROVALS COUNTY CITY General Plan Designations v e t I i✓ T Zoning or Pre-Zonis Subdivisions �� 3511, j—S a-, 1-5 Is any portion of the subject territory within a redevelopment area? Yes No X Is any portion of the subject territory subject to a Williamson Act Contract(Agricultural Preserve)? Yes No—k— If yes, Contract/Preserve Number: Date established: List all amendments by date: , Date Notice of Non-Renewal filed: Has the city filed a protest pursuant to government code section 51243.5? Yes No Provide an official map of the Agricultural Preserve. The City❑will succeed❑will not succeed to the contract. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding, and for any damages, penalties, fines or other costs imposed on or incurred by LAFCO wherein LAFCO, its officers, agents or employees should be named as a party in any litigation or administrative proceeding in connection with this application. Applicant agrees that LAFCO has the right to appoint its own counsel for its defense and conduct its own defense in the manner it deems in its best interest and taking such action shall not limit Applicant's obligation to indemnify and reimburse LAFCO,its officers,agents and employees. Furthermore, I hereby certify that the statements and information presented within this application and associated attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I acknowledge that anyone who is involved with any annexation to be considered by the Commission and who has made a contribution of more than $250 in the past twelve months to any member of the Commission must disclose the Commission member to whom the contribution was made and the matter of consideration with which they are involved. Furthermore, the Agent designated herein is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the Applicant for the purpose of processing this application until such ti as written notice to the contrary is provided by the Applicant to the Executive Officer of the Riverside LAFCO. Signature of Agent Date i ture of ApplicantDate/ Printed Name of Agent and Firm(if applicable) Printed Name of Applicant REVISED 10/2004 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET,SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE,CA 92507-4277 PHONE(951)369-0631 •ywv.,w.lafco.oq_ •FAX(951)369-8479 NOW I%rw SU SIT C 1 rl 1 PALm DESERT July 28, 2009 Palm Desert City Council c/o Ms. Missy Grisa,Assistant Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260 Dear Ms. Grisa, Thank you for contacting us on behalf of the Palm Desert City Council. The Council has invited Sun City Palm Desert Board of Directors to comment on the Indio Trails Development and potential annexation of this area by the City of Indio. The Community Association is particularly concerned that as the City of Indio moves west and expands their boundaries, they will ultimately surround Sun City Palm Desert. If this does occur, the opportunity for Sun City Palm Desert Community Association to be annexed by the City of Palm Desert could be adversely impacted. Regarding the specific project proposed,we find the following items to be of critical importance: 1. Traffic Mitigation—As a result of the high building density per acre,we anticipate a material impact on the traffic generated on Washington Street. a. The Sun City Palm Desert project was required to realign Washington Street and build it to full width, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Additionally, Sun City Palm Desert was required to build a gutter on the west (Preserve) side of Washington Street. b. In order to mitigate the traffic along Washington Street, we include believe it is also appropriate that the Indio Trails Entitlements conditions which require the widening and extension of Adams Street to full width prior to the closing of the first residence within the first phase of the project site. c. Similarly, mitigation measures should require synchronization of any signals along Washington Street as required per the traffic study. 2. Flood Control—Require full implementation of flood control measures as identified by the Coachella Valley Water District, and that the flood control infrastructure be installed as early as possible within the development of the project site. Sincerely,_ Sandy Seddon, General Manager CC: SCPDCA Board of Directors Roy Wilson, Riverside County District 4 Supervisor %W Q low fir+ Staff Report Annexation 891ndio Trails Page 2 of 2 July 9, 2009 acres). Also included in this plan is 12-13 acres for streets outside specific development areas, flood control facilities, a water booster station, and a water reservoir. The proposed Indio Trails Specific Plan is surrounded by vacant Bureau of Land Management land to the east of a large portion of the site, vacant Coachella Valley Preserve conservation land to the west, and vacant desert hillsides with native scrub vegetation to the north currently zoned open space — rural in the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Immediately south of the proposed project is largely vacant property(one residence) that is currently zoned W-2, Controlled Development under the County's designation. The City of Indio has pre-zoned this property to Community Commercial as a part of the annexation, but there are no plans of development at this time. Upon Council's consideration, provide staff with direction on the City of Palm Desert's position regarding this proposed annexation. Staff will prepare a letter based upon council action to write in support of or opposition to the Annexation 89 Indio Trails. Submitted by: Department Head: i Grisa Lauri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director of Community Development CITYCOUNCILA ON APPROVED DFNiED J Wohlmuth RECEIVED OTHER i Manager WE AYES: NOES: lt IF' ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: Original on File with City 4dkls Office * By Minute Notion, directed staff to contact the Board of the appropriate Sun City Palm Desert Resident Association to obtain its position and forward same from the City of Palm Desert to LAFCO. 3-0 (Ferguson, Spiegel ABSENT) GAPIanning\Missy Grisa\Misc\Staff Report-Indio Mnezation.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING LAFCO 2009-04-4, THE REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 89(INDIO TRAILS) TO THE CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY: Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner DATE: July 9, 2009 CONTENTS: Application to the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission City Limit and Sphere of Influence Exhibit Recommendation: By Minute Motion, that the City Council provide staff direction on the position to take regarding the proposed annexation, Indio Trails. Upon Council consideration,direct staff to prepare a letter in support of or opposition to the proposed annexation. Executive Summary: The City of Indio has developed an Indio Trails Specific Plan with an application to the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to amend the City of Indio Sphere of Influence and annex the proposed project area into the City limits. Staff is presenting this information to the City Council as the City of Palm Desert has a request in concurrently with LAFCO to re-attach the community known as Sun City into the City of Palm Desert Sphere of Influence.The proposed Annexation 89 is directly north of Sun City Palm Desert Discussion: The City of Indio's proposed Annexation 89 is located north of Frances Way and east of Washington Street. The proposal contains approximately 743 acres of land immediately north of the community Sun City Palm Desert. Indio Trails Specific Plan proposes a development plan for 494t acres in the Indio Hills. The plan specifies 267 acres (54%) as permanent open space with the remaining 227 acres split into low density residential(148.45 acres),country estates(8.96 acres), medium density residential (45.26 acres), high density residential(8.0 acres),and commercial(4.84 **We ' LAFCO 2009-04-4 Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails)to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District APPLICANT: The City of Indio, 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio,CA 92201 PROPOSAL: To annex for the provision of municipal services. GENERAL LOCATION: Generally located north of Frances Way and east of Washington St.See Thomas Bros.2009 Riverside County map book page 789,grid F-4. ACREAGE: The proposal contains approximately 743 acres. C' .16 s � � l c j I ` INDIOTRAILS 743 Acres N.. \ o Sun City Palm Desert \ \N City Bermuda \'' \ of Dunes `. \ Palm Deser City of \ sue l4 La Quinta 'Cabazon rIo° ' ,,' ' , 's✓ 2 Reserva Indio SOI RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951)369-0631 •www.lafco.org,9 Fax(951.)369-8479 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION The following proposal has been submitted to LAFCO and is being routed to you for comment. Please sign, date and provide your comments on a separate form and be sure to reference the proposal title with your comments. If appropriate, include suggested terms and conditions and/or recommendations. Please coordinate your response with the County Executive Office if you are a County department. If you would like additional information regarding this proposal contact our office immediately.Your comments are due back by the date requested. A map of the proposed project has been provided to you on the opposite side of this sheet along with the 2 page application form. All comments can be emailed to info(a)-lafco.org or mailed to 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110, Riverside, CA 92507-4277. Title: LAFCO 2009-04-4-Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails) to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. Forwarded on: June 18, 2009 0AI' Orechl!; Return comments by: July 30, 2009 G ,5 (Qt!'a/YVh 0 SURVEYOR-email 0 SPECIAL DISTRICT(S): 0 COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE-(JANA ROUSH)email Citrus Pest Control No.2-email 0 SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT-41"-email Coachella Valley County Water 0 MAC/COMMUNITY COUNCIL-Desert Palms CC &Thousand Coachella Valley Mosquito&Vector Control Palms CC Coachella Valley Park&Recreation 0 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL-Riverside-email Coachella Valley Resource Conservation-email 0 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL-San Bernardino-email Desert Healthcare-email 0 CALTRANS-(DISTRICT DIRECTOR) Palm Springs Cemetery-email 0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 0 Colorado River Basin Region ❑San Diego Region 0 SCHOOL DISTRICT(S): ❑Santa Ana Region Desert Community College-email ❑AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Desert Sands Unified-email ❑Mojave Desert(for Blythe/Palo Verde Valley Area Palm Springs Unified 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 0 SOUTHERN CA.ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS-email 0 CITY(IES): 0 TLMA REGIONAL OFFICE-MANAGER,INDIO-email City of Indio-email 0 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC.OF GOVERNMENTS-email City of Palm Desert-email ❑WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS-email 0 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 0 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 0 Palm Desert-email ❑Riverside-email 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON-LOUIS DAVIS-email 0 COUNTY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION (PATTI CRAWFORD,COORDINATOR ADMIN SVCS.)-email ❑DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION-DIRECTOR 0 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL-(STUART MCKIBBIN)-email 0 COUNTY REGIONAL PARK&OPEN SPACE-email 0 COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT-email 0 EDAI CSA-(AMBER JACOBSON,CSA PROJECT MGR)-email ❑RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES-(GARY NOLFF)-Riv.Only ❑THE VISTA SANTA ROSA ASSOC.-(ELLEN TROVER)-email RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIO •3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951)369-0631 •www.lafc,o.org 9 Fax(951)369-8479 I I Y 0 [ VT1 [ M 0 1 S I R 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 July 29, 2009 Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4277 Subject: LAFCO 2009-04-4 Reorganization to Include Annexation 89 (Indio Trails) to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District To Whom It Concerns; The City of Palm Desert voted to remove Sun City from the sphere of influence at the April 12,2007 City Council meeting. On December 11, 2008, after public testimony in support of reintroducing this area into the sphere of influence,the City Manager wrote Mr. George J. Spiliotis a letter of interest regarding this concept. On May 8, 2009 the Palm Desert City Manager again expressed clear interest in another letter to Mr. Spiliotis to reaccept the delineated area previously known as Del Webb Palm Desert into Palm Desert's sphere of influence. On June 18, 2009, the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert received notice of the above mentioned project. Staff contacted the City of Indio for a copy of the complete specific plan and reviewed the plan content. On July 9, 2009, staff requested that the Palm Desert City Council give direction to prepare a letter either in support or opposition to the proposed project.The City Council expressed concern forthe Sun City Palm Desert development and requested staff to obtain comments from the Sun City Board of Directors and issue those comments as City of Palm Desert's concerns. I have attached the concerns of the Sun City Board of Directors for your review and consideration as was discussed with the President of the Board, Bill Murphy. The Sun City Palm Desert Community Association has expressed interest in annexing to the City of Palm Desert, and would like to keep that option viable. The following page of comments is issued to LAFCO at the request of the Palm Desert City Council on the behalf of the City of Palm Desert. Please contact me with any additional questions at 760-346-0611 ext. 384. Since ely J M. Wohlmuth i Manager G\Planning\Missy Grisa\Indio Trails\Letter 07 29.09.doc �,PNINflo ON IE(YRIO IAPIN 0%0 yqw C I T Y 0 P H M OESERI 'I 73-5 t 0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 TEL: 760 346—o6zi FAX: 76o 340-0574 info@palm-desert.org OFFICEOrTHP CrrYMANAGER May 6, 2009 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Subject. Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Thank you for your past support concerning the City of Palm Desert's sphere of influence (SOI) discussions. I am sending you this correspondence to clarify the City's position related to the area commonly referred as the Sun City SOL The City sent LAFCO correspondence in response to your letter dated October 7, 2008, requesting us to inform you of any planned changes to the City's spheres of influence over the next five years. The City of Palm Desert is interested in reintroducing the formerly detached Sun City SOL I wish to clarify that although the Council may initiate a fiscal impact feasibly study on this region in the future, the decision to reaccept this area into Palm Desert's SOI is not contingent upon such a study. This request constitutes the only anticipated changes to Palm Desert's spheres of influence during the next five years. Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, at (760) 346-0611. Again, thank you for your ongoing support and assistance. Si er ,, hn M. Wohlmuth ity Manager Attachment: Palm Desert Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments Map cc: City Council Justin McCarthy, Assistant City Manager for Redevelopment Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager cj r"Donaamma Valk f � Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCO 2006-89-4 Exhibit A 9 . " 1, 4-�,.r= k:� •fir..;. . - City of } ♦♦ .'- Rancho Mirage City Of � f K Indio 'Lt' ti r t k1YW 111 � r City of ' � . . ••'� City of Indian ... .�.� � }; s WellsLa LY,f Quinta 1MM City of Palm Desert r :, Y Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10/25/07 1 ,y1,f' Jl • '._ rl, f Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) l�^ �r�adR.¢f'ny�'�•1` 7��i�11 i<�f� =0. j{,)ir ; X-of � •r11' r4 rr x' sr .tr t ,x{tl�v 1ti.•' tf} .w . ,� _i-t . C,f x.................. 1•. y�J.:7'1 T'..(r� + �}r.�f."1`'" y ,i t ,5 a.. " � M#1 Sum City Pahm Dese"ra." RECEIVED Ig3.�ee"� 'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Preliminary Feasibility Study Proposed Incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert January 8, 2008 Prepared for: The Sun City Palm Desert Community Association Prepared by: Winzler & Kelly 3531 E. Miraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 714.854.1890 Projection Scenarios for each Option There are four scenarios included in this preliminary study, attached as Exhibits 3 through 6. Two scenarios are included for each boundary option. Each option includes a scenario assuming the extension of the AB 1602 Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF) backfill, and one assuming the loss of this revenue. Discussions related to each of these scenarios follow further below. ASSUMPTIONS This preliminary feasibility study and fiscal projections have been prepared under the general requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines for Incorporations, and LAFCO's locally adopted Policies and Procedures for Incorporations. Reference documents utilized for this study include: • Local area information provided by the SCPDCA including assessed valuation, and hotel/motel and retail/business park information. • Future development and planning information for the Mirasera and Avanterra Planned Communities. • Retail sales and marketing information from InfoUSA. • Preliminary data and reference information from the HDL Companies, the League of California Cities, California City Finance, the State Department of Finance, the State Controller's Office, and the County of Riverside. • Recent Comprehensive Fiscal Analyses for the communities of Wildomar and Menifee Valley. • Budget information for the cities of In than Wells, Canyon Lake and Palm Desert. • Interviews with city engineering and public works directors, and contractors servicing contract cities. With all municipal incorporations comes a transfer of certain service responsibilities for the new city. These responsibilities include general government, law enforcement, traffic control and accident investigation, fire protection, construction and maintenance of local streets, street lighting, code enforcement, land use planning and regulation, building inspection, animal control, and parks and recreation services. This study analyzes the forecasted ability of the proposed city to provide these municipal services over an extended period of time. An Effective Date of Incorporation of July 1, 2009 is assum ed for the fiscal projections. This date was selected developing the preliminary projections, and to depict the maximum amount of Transition Service requirement the county would be obligated to provide to the new city. Timing of further studies and proceedings as part of an incorporation application process may effect the actual Effective Date of Incorporation, and the Transition Service period. The fiscal projections include a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the proposed new city for the first ten years of operation. Projections of revenues and expenditures for a period of 10 years forward are forecasted in order to gauge long term sustainability. The analysis is limited to a presentation of information in the form of a forecast based on estimated base year costs/revenues, using the best information available for this level of study. There may be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences can be material. A 2 The forecast includes projections of new development for the Mirasera and Avanterra projects based on the best information currently available concerning their status. Additionally, there is one residential project included that is located between these two master planned developments. The forecast projects development over a 10 year period. Our forecasts include a reduction in the projected residential, retail and commercial development by 20%. The reduction factor is included to ensure a conservative level of sensitivity in the future forecast. Total planned development for the three projects combined is approximately 4,600 residential units, 1.1 million square feet of retail use, 1.4 million square feet of other office/light industrial use, and over 500 hotel rooms. General Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources available to each boundary option are Property Tax, Sales Tax, Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). These four revenue sources comprise the bulk of the unrestricted General Fund revenues. A portion of the Property Tax included in the General fund is dedicated to Fire Protection services. Primary expense categories include General Government (Administrative Services), Law Enforcement and Fire Protection. Community Development and Engineering/Building & Safety revenues and expenses are forecast based on future development projections, generally will fluctuate with development, and are mostly 100% offset by fees. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, the General Fund revenue to expense ratio is greatly enhanced for boundary Option Two over boundary Option One. As indicated in the Exhibits, insufficient General Fund revenues accrue to support the projected expenses in Option One. Although the four key revenue sources are relatively strong in relation to the area, the cost of law enforcement and fire protection are too substantial to overcome. For Option Two, the additional revenues associated with the planned future development of the Avanterra project overcome this issue. Road Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources for road maintenance are state fuel taxes, sales tax on fuel products (Prop 42), and Measure A sales tax allocations. Projected road maintenance costs include all regular/routine maintenance requirements anticipated to be conducted including, repairs, storm drain catch basin maintenance, curb and gutter maintenance, road and median landscape maintenance services and street sweeping. It should be noted that as the majority of the current residential street infrastructure is privately maintained, the overall cost of road maintenance to the city is reduced. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, each boundary option scenario indicates substantial capacity to fund all city responsible road related maintenance, and accrue significant reserves for future long term capital maintenance projects. Coupled with the ability to acquire project specific grant funds for road improvements, the study indicates that there are no road related funding issues for the foreseeable future. Transition Year & County Repayment The Transition Year is the time period from the Effective Date of Incorporation until the end of the Fiscal Year in which the incorporation occurs. During this period of time, the County continues to provide municipal services for the new city while the city establishes its service provision plan, and engages the necessary resources for beginning service responsibility at the 4 implemented what was termed the "VLF Swap" in which the valuation fee was lowered to .65%, and the resultant loss of city revenue was "swapped" with an augmentation of Property Tax. However, the new legislation failed to include provisions for newly incorporating cities to receive the Property Tax backfill that existing cites were now receiving. In order to correct this situation, AB 1602 was signed into law in 2006, providing a formula that restores most of the previous VLF funding, and provides a sliding scale population based subvention increase for the first 5 years after incorporation. Two Types of MVLF revenues are now available to newly incorporating cities. The Basic Subvention is based on the statutory formula that allocates a portion of the .65% valuation fee to each city based on population. The proposed city will receive this subvention as do existing cities today, however will not receive the property tax swap revenue. The AB 1602 Subvention allocates to new cities on a continuous basis, an additional FY 2004 Base Year allocation of$50 per capita, adjusted annually based on statewide population and VLF revenue growth. In addition, for the first 5 years after incorporation, population for purposes of this revenue allocation is calculated based on a downward annual sliding scale starting at 150% of the city's population, fixed annually by the State Department of Finance for each year. In the 61n and subsequent years, the actual city population is utilized. As a component of AB 1602, a provision was inserted into the legislation that provides that the additional subvention to new cities "sunsets", or expires, on July 1, 2009. Essentially, any new city that does not incorporate prior to July 1, 2009, will only receive the minimal basic subvention, but wil I not receive the additional adjusted per capita allowance. For Option One the preliminary study indicates that the loss of the AB 1602 revenue subvention will render the option fiscally infeasible. For Option Two the preliminary study indicates that the loss of the AB 1602 revenue subvention would require the city to secure supplemental revenues for the first four years to be fiscally feasible. Unless the provisions of AB 1602 are extended, incorporation prior to July 1, 2009 must occur. Potential Future Fire Station Not included in the preliminary study is the potential for an additional fire station that could be located within either of the Option boundaries. Currently, the county does not include a new fire station in their future planning, however, based on the level of anticipated development, and the county's criteria for service delivery, a future fire station may be required. Based on the projections, it is not likely that an additional fire station would be included in the Option One boundary area, however, there is a likelihood that one could be included in the Option Two boundary. The cost of construction of a future fire station is normally funded through development impact fees, however, operational costs become the responsibility of the city. For Option Two sufficient revenue surpluses exist to absorb the cost of operating a future fire station, dependent upon timing. 6 Option 2 — This option is fiscally viable. If AB 1602 is extended, or the incorporation occurs prior to July 1, 2009, and revenue neutrality can be mitigated sufficiently, this option is fiscally viable within the forecast period. With the inclusion of the AB 1602 MVLF backfill the forecast indicates a moderate to strong finding of fiscal feasibility. Projections of General Fund annual revenue surpluses exceed the minimally accepted standards in the first three years of the projection, growing at a significantly higher rate in later years. With the exclusion of the AB1602 MVLF backfill the forecast is not fiscally viable unless supplemental funding is secured. After the first year of positive General Fund surplus, significant annual deficit spending is projected to occur until Year 5, when positive annual surpluses begin to accrue. Preliminary analysis of the projected base year revenues and expenses indicate that a revenue neutrality mitigation requirement will require negotiation. This impact cannot be quantified at this level of study, and thus is not included. Recommendation: It is recommended that the SCPDCA seriously consider proceeding toward potential incorporation, and that Option 2 be considered for further study in consultation with LAFCO and the county with respect to timing of the process. Key considerations include: • Setting goals and schedules to achieve an "Effective Date of Incorporation" no later than June 30, 2009. • The County of Riverside will sponsor the application for incorporation as an "affected agency"vice a time consuming petition process. • Conceptual agreement by LAFCO and the County, that the formal Initial Feasibility Study, the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, and the procedural process, can be streamlined to meet the June 30, 2009 timeline constraint. • The County will support providing transition services for one full year, regardless of the end of fiscal year requirement, subject to reimbursement. • Negotiations will be successful with regard to potential revenue neutrality mitigation issues. An incorporation date of June 30, 2009 is feasible subject to the above. This approach provides for the greatest opportunity to achieve self governance now, versus the inherent risk of the loss of the MVLF revenue, which would delay any prospect of incorporation for several years. 8 d y » ,5p �c w� '� � r�i •Jf ��.� —€z? r'�a=^�'vA, k e:� � �ry � ', P „_a �Wv Olp, VY � p rf s 3 14 'AlS§� s .ate, st24 _ vo W & A kw Yll < s r k E .. 1, s �i iF f s z .«.§,n a •� f4^'. y ay✓5 .d o- •�,a� €4 's j'ty �' g �'�'" s+ `ku. s ^'* '((�` d�gZM�s;��l�� kiPi 3f f T � o b 5 o tt gy ggh�� fin+-sF dP" rr F �i L' mow. G w Y d 4 e t z ,z 9u� ,` ;%- �,w...i» 4��a '�y Qk, €KY•� .. �0�5��. aa`.� cRi O� W W JI W M O=P O ar0�p W O M n N r o OMOJII N T �V' N V y� w W 3 W a 0 W JI P O W W J N n O O O R O b1 P rJ m M w A A V = vbi C N N N N V1 O �J O n Pqp�. O N O r M N M VOI 4 N O T vri n N O b N V W w r � w 0 0 PI m N m p O r� ��pO rn �O m m �o m O �en� '•"_ �n 7 a 3 v P :fl e w d A la gPLF wr UV F a� a W ` 7 0 0 o� _ W } W 4 � N r R W ;;I � YS W IK W N u } } W 0 W 11 JII } W JI a} N O.C-O O Q O O P OPO W rJJ N O O �Y�O 00. P O A W W w ^ fV o p o N z a c � 3 a � e m 7J W Fi a 9 b e W `6 y c A n - � �°` q O C n R^ 19 .ap a a�C .0. N'Na a W y 'c ;$ 00 " oG r W e 1� P�P O O? O 00 w) N d•7 W 1 t J JI Sq P'C °• Gia "c � r M r W ° G d m S R r� W �� P 1� VI M �D O W'd I R h N t�M I N O S ro � V r O d ti C On b � MI N .Ni d d �° W y M W R Q ��pp JII 11I w r O� u' 0 0 N w � r u 0 v�i O M O N r TJ m tM•11 � ~ PV' O V� V b �D N } W lV�D O�D ^ m 0 d N r n �w e � 0 O � 3 k 9 v z d 0 0 r 9 S a X UV wW a a a c a 9 k,.lun City Patin Desert •.. ✓�s �ytta:YApAl64h-kJ'u' RECEIVED ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Preliminary Feasibility Study Proposed Incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert January 8, 2008 Prepared for: The Sun City Palm Desert Community Association Prepared by: Winzler & Kelly 3531 E. M iraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 714.854.1890 t INTRODUCTION This Preliminary Feasibility Study for the proposed incorporation of Sun City Palm Desert has been prepared at the request of the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association (SCPDCA). Recent decisions by the City of Palm Desert to remove the community from that city's sphere of influence, coupled with recent and planned future retail and business development activity adjacent to the community, has provided an opportunity for self governance that heretofore did not exist. The Board of Directors of the SCPDCA has expressed an interest in studying the feasibility for the community to incorporate into a city as the most desired self governance option. The purpose of this preliminary study is to provide a general "snapshot" of the anticipated revenues and expenditures that would be applicable to the proposed city, and to provide a basis for the SCPDCA to determine whether it is warranted proceeding further with a more formal analysis and application process. It should be noted that all findings reached with regard to this study are predicated on the information made available to Winzler & Kelly by the SCPDCA, and other sources, utilizing basic forecasting assumptions for formulating current and future projections. The data utilized for the review, should be considered very preliminary and subject to moderate to significant variation. In order to fully assess the viability of the proposed incorporation at a much greater level of detail, a formal Initial Feasibility Study, suitable for submittal with an incorporation application will need to be developed. BOUNDARY OPTIONS AND SCENARIOS Two boundary alternatives were identified by the SCPDCA for study. The analysis of each boundary alternative will provide a basis for the SCDPCA to make determinations of desired boundaries that reflect the community goals and objectives of incorporating logical communities of interest and long term fiscal viability. It should be noted that further boundary alternatives may be required for study by the Riverside County Lo cal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as part of a formal application process. Exhibits One and Two depict each of the two boundary alternatives. Option One The Option One boundary includes all of the Sun City Palm Desert planned community, and the adjacent retail and business park areas north of the 1-10 freeway. This area is generally bounded by the City of Indio to the east, the 1-10 freeway to the south, and unincorporated area to the north and west. This boundary option also encompasses all undeveloped area south of 38th Avenue between Washington Street and the 1-10 freeway. This area includes the recreational vehicle dealership on Varner Road, the future Mirasera planned community residential & retail/business park development, and a smaller future home development near the intersection of 38th Avenue and the 1-10 freeway. (See Exhibit 1) Option Two The Option Two boundary includes all of the Option One territory, and additionally, extends the western border to Cook Street/Chase School Road, and the northern border to Calle Tosca. The Option Two boundary includes the future Avanterra planned community residential & retail/business park development (formerly the NorthStar Ranch development), and the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic Golf Course and Classic Club. (See Exhibit 2) 1 -400 Projection Scenarios for each Option There are four scenarios included in this preliminary study, attached as Exhibits 3 through 6. Two scenarios are included for each boundary option. Each option includes a scenario assuming the extension of the AB 1602 Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF) backfill, and one assuming the loss of this revenue. Discussions related to each of these scenarios follow further below. ASSUMPTIONS This preliminary feasibility study and fiscal projections have been prepared under the general requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines for Incorporations, and LAFCO's locally adopted Policies and Procedures for Incorporations. Reference documents utilized for this study include: • Local area information provided by the SCPDCA including assessed valuation, and hotel/motel and retail/business park information. • Future development and planning information for the Mirasera and Avanterra Planned Communities. • Retail sales and marketing information from InfoUSA. • Preliminary data and reference information from the HDL Companies, the League of California Cities, California City Finance, the State Department of Finance, the State Controller's Office, and the County of Riverside. • Recent Comprehensive Fiscal Analyses for the communities of Wildomar and Menifee Valley. • Budget information for the cities of In than Wells, Canyon Lake and Palm Desert. • Interviews with city engineering and public works directors, and contractors servicing contract cities. With all municipal incorporations comes a transfer of certain service responsibilities for the new city. These responsibilities include general government, law enforcement, traffic control and accident investigation, fire protection, construction and maintenance of local streets, street lighting, code enforcement, land use planning and regulation, building inspection, animal control, and parks and recreation services. This study analyzes the forecasted ability of the proposed city to provide these municipal services over an extended period of time. An Effective Date of Incorpo ration of July 1, 2009 is assumed for the fiscal projections. This date was selected developing the preliminary projections, and to depict the maximum amount of Transition Service requirement the county would be obligated to provide to the new city. Timing of further studies and proceedings as part of an incorporation application process may effect the actual Effective Date of Incorporation, and the Transition Service period. The fiscal projections include a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the proposed new city for the first ten years of operation. Projections of revenues and expenditures for a period of 10 years forward are forecasted in order to gauge long term sustainability. The analysis is limited to a presentation of information in the form of a forecast based on estimated base year costs/revenues, using the best information available for this level of study. There may be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences can be material. A 2 3% general annual inflation rate has been included in the forecast. It should be noted that any future studies required as part of an application for incorporation will require extensively more detailed information to be provided by the County and other servicing agencies, and could result in material changes in the projections. Revenue Neutrality, discussed further below, has not been included in the forecast models, although will need to be addressed in any future studies that would result as part of an incorporation application process. Additionally, assumption scenarios have been made for each boundary option addressing the provisions of the AB 1602 MVLF backfill to new cities. One scenario for each boundary option assumes that MVLF backfill will be available. The other scenario for each boundary option assumes that the backfill will not be available. Further discussion follows below concerning the impact of the M VLF backfill on the boundary scenarios. Proposition 218, approved by California voters in 1996, amended the state Constitution by adding Article XIII C and D to the tax limitation provisions adopted by Proposition 13. The purpose of Proposition 218 was to close existing loopholes in Proposition 13 which was allowing local governments to increase fees, charges and assessments without a public vote, rather than increasing general and specific property taxes which do require a vote. Proposition 218 does not have a direct impact on the conclusions in the preliminary study, as no "revenue enhancements" such as new taxes, fees, charges, or assessments are included. However, as is discussed further in this study, the Option One boundary would require an analysis of potential revenue enhancements in order to achieve fiscal viability. FISCAL ANALYSIS There are two primary categories of revenues and expenses that are presented in the fiscal projections- General Fund, and Road Fund. Additionally, other types of dedicated revenues such as AQMD & COPS grants, and TUMF fees are available to cities. However, dedicated revenue sources are not included in the study since due to their nature they are considered revenue neutral against the overall fiscal complexion of the city. General Fund revenues are all general purpose revenues received that are allowed under state law to be utilized for any purpose, including services normally paid for with restricted revenues. Additionally, some restricted revenues dedicated for certain services are included in the General Fund. General Fund expenditures are all expenditures that are allowed under state law to be funded with unrestricted revenues, and some restricted General Fund revenues dedicated for specific General Fund services. Examples of General Fund revenues and expenses restricted to certain services would be structural fire fund property tax for fire protection, and planning and building/safety fees for development services. Road Fund revenues are all revenues received that are restricted under state law to be utilized for road related purposes only. This includes ordinary maintenance, which involves shoulder maintenance, curb maintenance, signing and striping, pothole repair, traffic signal maintenance and street sweeping. Road Fund expenditures are all expenditures for the road services identified above. The forecast does not include significant long term special maintenance, such as asphalt overlays, major storm drain repairs, and damaged and deteriorated road reconstruction, as these are considered capital improvement projects generally funded by project specific grants. Additionally, site inspection of the existing road infrastructure indicates that the area is well maintained and not subject to any significant repair requ irements in the near future. 3 fir` moo+ The forecast includes projections of new development for the Mirasera and Avanterra projects based on the best information currently available concerning their status. Additionally, there is one residential project included that is located between these two master planned developments. The forecast projects development over a 10 year period. Our forecasts include a reduction in the projected residential, retail and commercial development by 20%. The reduction factor is included to ensure a conservative level of sensitivity in the future forecast. Total planned development for the three projects combined is approximately 4,600 residential units, 1.1 million square feet of retail use, 1.4 million square feet of other office/light industrial use, and over 500 hotel rooms. General Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources available to each boundary option are Property Tax, Sales Tax, Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). These four revenue sources comprise the bulk of the unrestricted General Fund revenues. A portion of the Property Tax included in the General fund is dedicated to Fire Protection services. Primary expense categories include General Government (Administrative Services), Law Enforcement and Fire Protection. Community Development and Engineering/Building & Safety revenues and expenses are forecast based on future development projections, generally will fluctuate with development, and are mostly 100% offset by fees. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, the General Fund revenue to expense ratio is greatly enhanced for boundary Option Two over boundary Option One. As indicated in the Exhibits, insufficient General Fund revenues accrue to support the projected expenses in Option One. Although the four key revenue sources are relatively strong in relation to the area, the cost of law enforcement and fire protection are too substantial to overcome. For Option Two, the additional revenues associated with the planned future development of the Avanterra project overcome this issue. Road Fund Discussion Primary revenue sources for road maintenance are state fuel taxes, sales tax on fuel products (Prop 42), and Measure A sales tax allocations. Projected road maintenance costs include all regular/routine maintenance requirements anticipated to be conducted including, repairs, storm drain catch basin maintenance, curb and gutter maintenance, road and median landscape maintenance services and street sweeping. It should be noted that as the majority of the current residential street infrastructure is privately maintained, the overall cost of road maintenance to the city is reduced. As indicated in Exhibits 3 through 6, each boundary option scenario indicates substantial capacity to fund all city responsible road related maintenance, and accrue significant reserves for future long term capital maintenance projects. Coupled with the ability to acquire project specific grant funds for road improvements, the study indicates that there are no road related funding issues for the foreseeable future. Transition Year & County Repayment The Transition Year is the time period from the Effective Date of Incorporation until the end of the Fiscal Year in which the incorporation occurs. During this period of time, the County continues to provide municipal services for the new city while the city establishes its service provision plan, and engages the necessary resources for beginning service responsibility at the 4 beginning of the next fiscal year. During this same period, the city receives many of the revenues that will accrue to the city on a continuous basis, thus allowing for the ability to be able to absorb the service responsibility. The city may opt at anytime during the transition period to assume service responsibility from the County for any service that it desires to transition early. At the end of the Transition Period, all municipal service responsibility transfers from the county to the new city. The new city will be responsible for repayment of the net costs of services provided by the county during the Transition Period, generally in deferred payments over 5 years with interest. For the purposes of this study, an assumed full fiscal year of Transition Year services has been forecast. The actual length of the Transition Year would ultimately be dependent upon the timing of the Effective Date of Incorporation, established as part of the incorporation application process. For purposes of this study, an "Effective Date" of July 1, 2009 is assumed. This optimizes SCPDCA's options by allowing for the maximum transition period of one year. POTENTIAL ISSUES Revenue Neutrality In the early 1990's, the State of California enacted legislation designed to lessen the negative fiscal impacts incorporations might have on counties and other affected agencies. Revenue neutrality requires the incorporation to result i n a "similar exchange" of both revenue and service responsibility between the proposed city, the county, and any other affected agency. Prior to the passage of the revenue neutrality legislation, the ability of an area to support municipal level services was the prime financial criteria used in evaluating a proposed new city. Limited analysis was conducted to determine the impacts to counties or other affected agencies containing incorporating communities. Counties were losing annual revenue surpluses from these previously unincorporated areas due to the inherent nature of the cost of county services being provided to these areas as being less than the revenues received. However, the revenue neutrality statute was vaguely written and was fairly silent on the method of calculating financial impacts, or the process for determining the impacts of revenue neutrality. The legislation establishing revenue neutrality did not set forth any well defined parameters for what should be included in the calculations for determining the prior year's fiscal data, for the method of repayment to the county, or for the duration of fiscal impacts. Subsequent legislation has since better defined this calculation criteria, and the Governor's Office of Planning & Research has issued guidelines to assist LAFCO's in making determinations concerning revenue neutrality. A provision within the legislation does allow for counties and incorporating communities to negotiate a mutual revenue neutrality mitigation agreement. For both Options One and Two, the preliminary study indicates that there will be revenue neutrality mitigation issues to be resolved with the county. The final revenue neutrality mitigation level is determined through negotiation as part of the incorporation application process, therefore no estimate of revenue neutrality has been included in the preliminary study. The assumption for this study is that a satisfactory level of revenue neutrality can be negotiated with the county that will not materially affect our findings. AB 1602 Sunset Provision Prior to 2004, all cities received Motor Vehicle License Fees on the full 2% valuation of the vehicles, and new cities received an additional population subvention based on 3 times the number of registered voters for the first seven years after incorporation. In 2004, the legislature 5 implemented what was termed the "VLF Swap" in which the valuation fee was lowered to .65%, and the resultant loss of city revenue was "swapped" with an augmentation of Property Tax. However, the new legislation failed to include provisions for newly incorporating cities to receive the Property Tax backfill that existing cites were now receiving. In order to correct this situation, AB 1602 was signed into law in 2006, providing a formula that restores most of the previous VLF funding, and provides a sliding scale population based subvention increase for the first 5 years after incorporation. Two Types of MVLF revenues are now available to newly incorporating cities. The Basic Subvention is based on the statutory formula that allocates a portion of the .65% valuation fee to each city based on population. The proposed city will receive this subvention as do existing cities today, however will not receive the property tax swap revenue. The AB 1602 Subvention allocates to new cities on a continuous basis, an additional FY 2004 Base Year allocation of$50 per capita, adjusted annually based on statewide population and VLF revenue growth. In addition, for the first 5 years after incorporation, population for purposes of this revenue allocation is calculated based on a downward annual sliding scale starting at 150% of the city's population, fixed annually by the State Department of Finance for each year. In the 61n and subsequent years, the actual city population is utilized. As a component of AB 1602, a provision was inserted into the legislation that provides that the additional subvention to new cities "sunsets", or expires, on July 1, 2009. Essentially, any new city that does not incorporate prior to July 1, 2009, will only receive the minimal basic subvention, but wil I not receive the additional adjusted per capita allowance. For Option One the preliminary study indicates that the loss of the AB 1602 revenue subvention will render the option fiscally infeasible For Option Two the preliminary study indicates that the loss of the AB 1602 revenue subvention would require the city to secure supplemental revenues for the first four years to be fiscally feasible. Unless the provisions of AB 1602 are extended, incorporation prior to July 1, 2009 must occur. Potential Future Fire Station Not included in the preliminary study is the potential for an additional fire station that could be located within either of the Option boundaries. Currently, the county does not include a new fire station in their future planning, however, based on the level of anticipated development, and the county's criteria for service delivery, a future fire station may be required. Based on the projections, it is not likely that an additional fire station would be included in the Option One boundary area, however, there is a likelihood that one could be included in the Option Two boundary. The cost of construction of a future fire station is normally funded through development impact fees, however, operational costs become the responsibility of the city. For Option Two sufficient revenue surpluses exist to absorb the cost of operating a future fire station, dependent upon timing. 6 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Based on the preliminary information available and applying reasonable industry standards and assumptions for projection of future revenue and expenditure growth, the following findings are made: • The existing tax base with the recent additions of the retail and business park development adjacent to the Sun City Palm Desert community provide for a greater foundation for potential incorporation than has existed at any time before. • Timing and progress of the future planned community developments are a critical aspect of long term sustainability. Major modifications or delays in these planned projects could have a significant material effect on the forecast projections. • The fiscal projections show a relatively strong diversification of the revenue base between the four major General Fund revenue streams identified above, indicating the ability to better sustain a downturn in any one revenue stream as compared to other cities that are heavily dependent on one revenue such as sales tax. • General Fund revenues to expense ratios, and reserve capacities, are sustained at an acceptable level only under boundary Option Two, with the MVLF backfill. • Road Fund revenues to expense ratios and reserve capacities far exceed accepted standards in all scenarios. Based on the above findings, the following conclusions are d rawn: Option 1 — This option is not fiscally viable. Further, the projections indicate that this option is not viable within the forecast period. Current and future projections for Option One, either with or without the extension of AB 1602, do not support a finding of feasibility at any time within the next ten years. Although the projections indicate a positive General Fund surplus in the first year, the ensuing years experience significant annual General Fund deficit spending. This deficit spending could not be overcome without significant revenue enhancements, such as additional taxes or fees, which can only be imposed subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Additionally, as indicated previous, the impacts of revenue neutrality have not been included. Recommendation: It is recommended that if the SCPDCA desires to proceed toward a potential incorporation application, that Option One be eliminated from future study, unless consideration is given to studying potential revenue enh ancements to offset revenue shortfalls. 7 Option 2 — This option is fiscally viable. If AB 1602 is extended, or the incorporation occurs prior to July 1, 2009, and revenue neutrality can be mitigated sufficiently, this option is fiscally viable within the forecast period. With the inclusion of the AB 1602 MVLF backfill the forecast indicates a moderate to strong finding of fiscal feasibility. Projections of General Fund annual revenue surpluses exceed the minimally accepted standards in the first three years of the projection, growing at a significantly higher rate in later years. With the exclusion of the AB1602 MVLF backfill the forecast is not fiscally viable unless supplemental funding is secured. After the first year of positive General Fund surplus, significant annual deficit spending is projected to occur until Year 5, when positive annual surpluses begin to accrue. Preliminary analysis of the projected base year revenues and expenses indicate that a revenue neutrality mitigation requirement will require negotiation. This impact cannot be quantified at this level of study, and thus is not included. Recommendation: It is recommended that the SCPDCA seriously consider proceeding toward potential incorporation, and that Option 2 be considered for further study in consultation with LAFCO and the county with respect to timing of the process. Key considerations include: • Setting goals and schedules to achieve an "Effective Date of Incorporation" no later than June 30, 2009. • The County of Riverside will sponsor the application for incorporation as an "affected agency"vice a time consuming petition process. • Conceptual agreement by LAFCO and the County, that the formal Initial Feasibility Study, the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, and the procedural process, can be streamlined to meet the June 30, 2009 timeline constraint. • The County will support providing transition services for one full year, regardless of the end of fiscal year requirement, subject to reimbursement. • Negotiations will be successful with regard to potential revenue neutrality mitigation issues. An incorporation date of June 30, 2009 is feasible subject to the above. This approach provides for the greatest opportunity to achieve self governance now, versus the inherent risk of the loss of the MVLF revenue, which would delay any prospect of incorporation for several years. 8 4� "2- �ff A n�t x .t1 n �°aq $ •�o¢,, - '"s`r^; .r y ,�,Wl r e A, -5 $ z A�b't++ i Mzxrp�4h ,x. �aIN v�PN10—A�F�'' �f s.' -_ �� 7��ia � �,� �M3 j •'�. .'� x a f r g r n o w dx 77 m x got t .'✓ uir'' fr sE ° Easy', 3.+e r s j .h 1p at ' y '� et ,i«INKra3`x d m4r�' EzSYG�' $ ^"ff 9 r �,`M`M BP6�nraWl4yL r "�2 r '(PyY^ t 7,4 14 yk �Y��� � a, s � ,d@g f p aq r,-��✓✓tgg p'7y r 1p vs . � �' �y. - � � x,-•mod. � :.! .�."" ro'• ,r' s ` t i R T yT 1 e any'. tRz ty AK v, , � , MS „P �� y j} { x t 1I w x' £ § i rX, d' ,LC�n �•,r.. O P r m m N h 0 v.O ran V V O P m— n—T N aN0 Qy V T N O V m^m m 0 ��n C m m ppppppppp��I O yyyyyyppp��I b N b b�m�N m Q �O � � m } N N _ m N P M==OM m V P V P� 4 °, O m N V N m Q N.n aMc m O V d M T Q v O t� �G mot'C 6 m N Q Q O V^�i-4 O.n m t� 6N 1D�bp 1�V O(b.I Q P m m m N m M M V N in M m 0 6 m Q� �V O M P P 0 0 n vt�:.•:'C�:..:� Mi Q O ~y O N N T b a M O Q N am0 G — tai P P P eel O N vi N r n�m oM0 yVJ' V O—O.➢Q M�Q m Q n b j V pp N H O r V O m N vmf r M R ry oN0 _I V O n N �. N a F P N n M. �I �N pp r`�my n vbiQ1 o r�M r m M n m Q nr m P� M In N m p�p V m r�C P. m Moh an P m o m o q Np� pp =n Q w Qmm mh Pr v,Q Q M b omoomQ Q PM v ae rv'� r P NI nl O p P m M yNOV� perq.r P W M W N O T b /Nbi r V° rVr N V M P Q V V Vh1 0 V eQf P lrv'f r h r P T N N Vi N b LL .L Y Y O V O M O P vi O O O O O m m p0 VmV b O O O O O O O O O O O O M O M �M Q P v01 O } O q� F 'J � W O O � Ft v0 u <+ o �„ U2> u u O d 3 v 2•c i�,°, v no` � e a._ o°a'< E ���c ...� �,e Z r C � O N w o� uao § � w el a ae LJ wa`haa`F�OwU W Qa�F y 5 F �UUUU iZuw Q.4 H UUaG a s z P O O r W JI J1 P� �m h N V•C ao� � W� v.� COI �O bl N�� 1` b N } W �p W r W M C O O aro �p P p rf r NJII O 0�0JII N T� �'V N �O YC W W JII tl W G W r� .r0 h� r W } W JI JI A Q JII p. p w r a W 0 0 N r O N -P O G O JJ O VIJ b N H1 V O^a a W �p F" � � G V N � C B o uuIm ma��vNn rnooarn .�, o � mm"o�adoa�� ae m o � �� o Y ry N a< } LL r n'i P m P a r O<d m 0 v�N P N P P b P N N P� r �I •^ ' " m �N LL v P - m m�n r�n m• • w O m m C--a P m N r�n eo m 0 bp r O T � O�•n N C�n ry r 0� O• b� �N h m N 3 C n M O T C C N O• ...N o-o T N P N r b O P !r rvo.-nM=-Mmo-ro�n� � V P•/�i N m m�T V T N N m 0 V N Q m N b m m - N �b ry �d- O• r• r} rv- - b r P O W O O mm N P Q d 0 Iz C O N P V NV V N N P M uME N m pQ. r P T e V m O P m M N M M V O r LL € _o .. N=a PPo�rvvminmor�m In� 0 1n� y ooao�e'0 m0 °�� v°: o ry y°\p .a d moN>e mod�o.P-r m>N�v�rv-nrn Mm o oq,r � M o, a i rNoi nova ry mn�Nm � � dy_�n=marcm M vmi aF a ooq,« � o v- ry•n - M_ P •n -m N V �•V --P h O 6 f l N N m r r r � r T P �JII P Q c- N wv� O b a°pq,e v m m} ry Q Q b b v M v 6n P P V N O b�'V�N P V r�-•b+r N V � V O V V vr1 N v M P V�vvi N � U P N� V h C � P m N Q m b d - -r m r r •n - Q aq d � u '�"' d o�omom o0000 �p �OpI o000000c000 o m o M rI d'- W N o $o m •cNmr ry P"JII a aHr ro P1 P o_'JIII � -I _� 0 ti F 4 � T W 'O 9 C 'y Ln U a a O K m d m y LO.1 e` m i W O: 7 .. t.F. � o E 11 cE q v a m e np v d Y u a CC F E F-O z 5 u C.`c.]LL � `°�' o `�n�'� z' a o " R p" o o o a Ec 4 c v a �'i"y.as. o a .2E2 2 o 0 0 > > > c oC V �' W a a`a`F�Oa`V 1il6 ii�F y S F �UUUUiiZ V u1Q.d ii m U UC F W oC tii IN e U' A w w a0 b W O O NQ N t�l w JJI 11 �( w W 11I W C O w Q N o e� Q a� f4.-d a P b w _ b Q O O O O V1 N gJII b h QI Q t� Vll N�JII �n O� e O A iC C b r If N Ni li N o p o y M Y r N S O le mi O � 5 � �w z b d u e a a i W A y v m On U U -Y d N�n�n b 0 m vmi r P W od0 ^ N P m ro n vryi P vmi N m T O O -O P !�1 N a P 0,n Gm o ram= Qd a Y :oa- a ,hn^c- ardi m d- b P o -} M m •-- - - m N P O Nt r - 4• a r m S,n m H M O�n- ���Oppp��I N I V�N ^�n m�N m Qq O. I d_ ��p P. d N -Nd_ V d �� "JIII o. N v�N r V v N ri 2 �n N "JI11 e O N P O O m N P d�n m m^v m d OJJI ; --d P O m �n Vl N O yyypppl yyyP a 0 jO h _ P C- v1 �a P OP N JII "JIII d P P N r �J Vi a a m m 0 ':5 .n.V M .+� N o :.'h N-O k W W i2 d pppOppp��I P N N�n G P N b M-T m V O m 1p O �n a�V O��-�V Um' h N � � NJ �n V V^O�O�� �J �d �J ^� � �'• r COT fr^L � y o u -d M m N M�ry ob0 r O n m N j Om. z Ll d rvom ao h mdOh- ��III c y'��III bm a HM � S M O N N V d-O N P Q n rmi P pl - NI O Q O Sd Pr P r VI m � O pp.. m M yM P v�r P N N�n h ry vdi f`1 O m M P O O V- - N V n^ M V P d VI V< b N y h r OP O O S m b O P ti 0 vmi R b N V O P N rbf-n W O N N -P^b^N �n d v� b� h b� -T�n O O m^ O�� V� - - •:..i�i nmcd,"o M mdNh b d �dhPn o v a L W i 'L V O4 0 O C P C C^O O O O O N m N O Q o O N C5 Ii F 7 � �CC � W V] tj w C) W � Fay m � o ton ° u W w v m am t u u q U. O Z' 'u U pr w s ,� u• ,yy>mJ E c�� e v au�U¢ o wc2E2 Z,U ¢.a Cl N O� N YO b r P p w JII P^ N O O O O r VNI� N a0� r. rl r O r� O w } 111 W JII rn W U } w is 0 JI W W ENO b S.�.Q pQ�JII o0O N W P oQ0 � �Nh O vri h 00 u �w A A pp 1I JII W } I — O� µ' N m w V ry v— N �r +, w b F 7 C � C 3 d O N 0 � c'C •- � m c •«. K E � v t� 9 q � n � n a` - 'n R > A o 0 0 0 o a c E a 9 6 9 p H Pr a E G N G C y = a a = a �0.'F C 'o V � 9 •'o ` C o p c e o rn x •�d ro n m�y Q ry vmi�n P m N R P m V M Yryi P m m m P� m J P r 0 „ P m d m P m,m,m m N v�P m�n r �n O O VOA�ro V N oryo 0 0�n OryII h P A T< "JII' JIII r� M•_ 'n ••N 4. W ry N�_�m •' O vOi° �N�O�G^.�m P b f'� b O b m C oo O� ^�m m h N M,Q a O N O r JJJIIII oe h -m�L oc OJJIII �,v �O N N n O a\r T 14 V x P V N r � rdn h n m O aV0 vQppi N P r O aQ0° h .- P O OPo,vmi v°1i O._•.of r m vyyyGdi O VI N^ R Im , G .L yy >> p O O O .� — 0 .r F- Q � c z � C Vl V W h w G 2 •e`p mE Lz Q' o a o o o t 0 c22 n o 0 0 e e v U �' �y`viaaF-�OaUtu<i..�F- m 5 F �"CJUUV ii.zUwQ.a i=. U U« F �� cCW e c v O u e i . t W JII JII r fl JI W yy W M O r 0 P m Q r v�i �MpJII t� OQO �Qp r � O r w O P N G N M b P a 0 00 M T m h e� N P y� w W � r „ w c 0 JI1 r w r W �{ JII JII P N Y� Q r Vbil C V1J V G A Iz O A Is o A. P oM N .n — o ova o aoN r v� o N � O o N � „"I d 0 0 O M O P P rI lPh O VI r r O y O O �w z 9 b � e y W fi q ccc o 6 c w w c = O C A C 0 0 G v� xJ a a as o 'r Y PALm DESERT' December 10, 2008 City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 In re: Item XV D - Sphere of Influence Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Sun City Palm Desert Home Owners Association to formally request that you reinstate our area to your Sphere of Influence. Sun City Palm Desert was unaware that the City of Palm Desert was considering dropping us from its sphere until the action was reported in the local newspaper. Had we been aware of the pending action, we would have come to any and all hearings on the matter and have registered our concern. While ignorance is no excuse, we hope you will find it understandable and will reinstate our area to your sphere for study purposes. Our area has a great deal to offer to the City in property tax, sales tax, room occupancy tax, motor vehicle tax, and subvention funds. According to the Riverside County Assessor for FY 06/07, the Assessed Valuation within the walls of Sun City Palm Desert alone was $1,759,012,034. That figure of 1.75 billion dollars does not include the substantial commercial and business park area which were part of the former sphere. Last year our Association paid for a financial analysis which shows the area produces significant tax benefit. In short we are an exporter of tax funds. We are happy to share the analysis with the City. As you study Bermuda Dunes, we request that you reinstate the old sphere which is north/east of the I-10 freeway at Washington so that you may study our area as well. We bear the City name and the City zip code. We were stunned to be dropped from the sphere. We would be honored if you would reinstate the former sphere in order to review the area benefits to the City and hereby so request. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Association Patricia A. Larson - President, SCPDCA e'.�� 4w ISO Datestamp:02/01/2008 Community far from eager for cityhood More than 600 residents come out to forum By K Kaufmann The Desert Sun Hundreds of residents packed the Sierra Ballroom at Sun City Palm Desert on Thursday evening for a spirited public forum on whether the 55—plus community should incorporate itself as the Coachella Valley's IOth city. "I'm not thinking very favorably about incorporating," said resident Grace Hoffman in a phone interview after the meeting. "I think we would end up paying a lot more for things." Hoffman's views were echoed by many,if not most,of the more than 600 residents at the event. "When I went in I had an open mind," Barbara Emhoff said. "(But)no one gave a really good reason why we should do it.They didn't have a good argument." The gated community of about 5,000 homes and 9,300 residents is located in an unincorporated part of Riverside County,just north of the intersection of Washington Street and Varner Road. A study commissioned by the homeowners association concluded that incorporation is financially feasible and proposed city boundaries stretching west from Sun City to Cook Street,north of Interstate 10. Speaking earlier this week,Ron Kennedy,a member of the homeowners association board, said incorporation would provide more local control over key services. "When we pay taxes to the county of Riverside,that money comes back to the county largely," Kennedy said. The possibility of incorporation arose after the Palm Desert City Council voted last year to end its sphere of influence over the community—meaning the city would not consider annexing it at a later date. The meeting concluded with no vote or any further action on whether the community will continue to explore becoming a city. Community far from eager for cityhood �rrr' _ CITY OF PALM DESERT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGG INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk From: Carlos Ortega, City Manager Date: July 8, 2008 Subject: Modification of Sphere of Influence Amendment The attached is the official Notice and Resolution from LAFCO that on October 25, 2007, Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert was removed from the City's Sphere of Influence. CARLOS ORT GA City Manager CLO:kr Cc: Homer Croy Justin McCarthy Lauri Aylaian Mark Greenwood LA Fee we 0( t p�. Xj ii I rhk RIVERSIDE I.AFCO Honorable Mayor and City Council Date July 2, 2008 C/o City Clerk LAFCO No. :2006-89-4 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: You are hereby notified that the proposed Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments - City of Palm Desert was reviewed and amended as described in the attached Exhibit A from the City' s SOI by the Local Agency Formation Commission at a public hearing held on October 25, 2007 . A copy of Resolution No. 117-07 is attached. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, E �e�naG. '�Me�dina Executive Assistant Attachments cc: City Manager-City of Palm Desert TLMA-Alex Martinez TLMA-Angel Perez TLMA-Jeff Letterman TLMA-Kathy Gifford Tina Grande, Executive Office Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION •3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110•RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone(951)369-0631 •www.lafco.org•Fax(951)369-8479 1 Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 117-07 5 REVIEWING AND AMENDING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF 6 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 7 LAFCO NO. 2006-89-4 8 BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the Local Agency 9 Formation Commission in regular session assembled on October 10 25, 2007, that the sphere of influence of the City of Palm 11 Desert has been reviewed and amended, as more particularly 12 described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part 13 hereof. 14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that: 15 1. The Commission has initiated this review 16 pursuant to Government Code Section 56425 (f) . 17 2 . The revisions to the sphere of influence 18 amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality 19 Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) , as 20 it can be seen with certainty that the removal of territory to 21 the City of Palm Desert' s SOI will not have a significant 22 effect on the environment . 23 4 . The sphere of influence of the City of Palm 24 Desert is hereby amended as follows: 25 a. Remove the Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert 26 community and all existing sphere of influence areas north of 27 Interstate 10 from the City of Palm Desert' s SOI, as described 28 in .Exhibit "A", and the Commission makes the following RI9ER.iDS ,x....w5:rer_ -- - - ssioN co�aaesxav 50 Yiaa.treat .a1ta 110 aid., Gliiozaia 93507-4777 )51) 369-0631 1 determinations: 2 a. The present and planned land uses in the 3 area, including agricultural and open-space lands: 4 The area in question, includes the Del Webb 5 Palm Desert community and the developed commercial area west of 6 Washington Street and north of Interstate 10. No areas are 7 involved in agricultural lands uses. Palm Desert has requested 8 this area be removed from their existing sphere of influence as 91 the City does not anticipate annexation of this area. 10 b. The present and probable need for public 11 facilities and services in the area: 12 The County of Riverside through CSA 121 13 provides needed services to this areas . Removal from Palm 14 Desert' s sphere of influence will have no effect on service 15 provision. 16 C. The present capacity of publi c facilities 17 and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is 18 authorized to provide: 19 The County of Riverside provides adequate 20 public services to the Del Webb community and the adjacent 21 commercial area. Del Webb is a gated community. 22 d. The existence of any social or economic 23 communities of interest in the areas if the commission 24 determines that they are relevant to the agency: 25 There exist in close proximity to these areas, 26 portions of the City of Indio and the communities of Thousand 27 Palms and Bermuda Dunes. Del Webb is a gated planned 28 community. RIVERSIDE 1TION COWQSSIOM 50 Vi..St—t - 2 - suit.110 .id., C.lif ai. 91507-{977 '51) 369-0631 1 5. The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a 2 certified copy of this resolution to each subject agency. 3 4 r 5 ROBIN WE, Ch r 6 I certify the above resolution was passed and adopted by the 7 Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on 8 October 25, 2007 . ( 1 9 10 GEORG ILIOTIS FORM APPROVED Execu fficer 11 COUNTY COUNSEL 12 DEC 1 2 2007 13 BY 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RIVMIIXDi :(0 -AO32A04 MON comae6I09 3 - SO Vine Btr t suit. 110 side, Calitorais 92507-6277 151) 369-0631 Sphere of 1--+1uence Review & Pot tial Amendments _ City of Palm Desert LAFCO 2006-89-4 Exhibit A ■ Thousar►d ■ Pali, s ■ ■ = 2 • City of _ • ' a! r ■ •.' Rancho aec�ert ,.. . pt . - ----- - 41 Mirage City of 'Bermuda Indio ' Dunes -- - FRED WARING DR HWY 111 • City of Indian ,...-♦' City of La Wells ' R Quinta City of Palm Desert Existing Sphere of Influence prior to 10/25/07 . .. _ Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) •I MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 D. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION THAT NO CHANGES IN THE PALM DESERT SPHERES OF INFLUENCE ARE ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS (Continued from the meeting of November 20, 2008). MS. CORKY LARSON, Sun City, Palm Desert, stated she was present to address the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence, but first expressed her appreciation of Mr.Ortega,stating it was beautiful what he had accomplished for the City of Palm Desert. She recalled when she was serving as Interim City Manager for the City of Desert Hot Springs (DHS), she came to Mr. Ortega for assistance in dealing with DHS financial issues,and he agreed to lend the City's Financial Director to help, but also offered the City's consultant; it was a very common response from him. She went on to say Mr. Ortega made the Costco Regional Access project happened when she, the County, and City were in a fight, it was Mr. Ortega who solved that problem. She characterized him as a Saint of the City and the Coachella Valley, and she couldn't thank him enough. Returning to the matter at hand, she introduced the following Board Members from Sun City: David Novick, Carolyn Einung,Ann Leach, Helen McEnerney, Vice President of the Board Don Hein, and General Manager Sandy Seddon. She noted a letter was dropped off for the Council the previous day and presumed the Council had an opportunity to review it. She said it would be a deal for Palm Desert to take back Sun City under its sphere of influence because of all the commercial development within the walls of Sun City, i.e., housing, three clubhouses,$1.75 billion assessed valuation, private streets,private security, and non-resident expenses. She said the Council really needed to take a favorable look at what the area had to offer. Just outside the walls of Sun City were two hotels with a third one about to be built, a Stater Bros., and mammoth commercial revenue possibilities. She asked the Council to return Sun City to its original sphere, which went over to 38th Avenue to Varner Road. She would understand if the Council decided annexation would not be best for the City, but she wanted the chance to show the Council what Sun City had to offer. Initially when Sun City was dropped from Palm Desert's sphere, she thought it would be okay because they had an agreement with the City of Indio; however, she now thought they wouldn't honor it. A study was done that showed exported taxes exceeded the services they received. The study was done by Ruthler & Kelly (sp?), a reputable outfit recommended by George Spiliotis, which she would be happy to share with the Council. MS. HELEN MCENERNEY, stated she was former Vice-President/General Manager of Del Webb California Corp., the developer of Sun City, Palm Desert, and a current resident of Sun City. She said for the past four years she was in Florida building an active adult community, but since her return to the desert this past summer, much to her dismay and surprise, a few changes had taken place at Sun City. One in particular related to the action 21 MINUTES too REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 taken by the City of Indio to place its sphere east of Washington Street and west of Adams Street (north of Sun City and Francis Way right into the foothills). Back in November of 1996, the City of Indio and Del Webb, of which she was a signatory on that agreement, had a written signed agreement regarding annexation. Basically Del Webb would assist in the annexation of property along Varner Road for purposes of auto mall uses, including a triangular parcel, which was 40 acres a.k.a. Capter Parcel. The written agreement was very clear that except for the Capter property,the City of Indio would annex west of Adams Street. However, the City of Indio approved the Indio Trails project last week; it approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIP), Change of Zone, and Specific Plan Development Agreement. This now paved the way for annexation west of Adams Street, in direct violation of their agreement. What would prevent the City of Indio from annexing the commercial property south of Sun City along Varner Road and Interstate 10, which incorporates a Cocos, fast food restaurants, gas stations, Stater Bros., Walgreens, shops, motels, and other venues. She recalled in past years, Del Webb worked closely with the City of Palm Desert to change the name Sun City Palm Springs to Sun City Palm Desert, and it assisted with a Palm Desert Post Office and the Washington Street interchange. Even thought Sun City disclosed their homes that were built in an unincorporated Riverside County, Sun City residents always felt a strong bond with the City of Palm Desert. She asked the Council to reconsider the return of Sun City under Palm Desert's sphere, and also to protect their commercial property. She said at some future point in time, maybe Palm Desert could annex Sun City into the City of Palm.Desert. Councilman Ferguson stated he represented Indio Trails and wasn't aware it would be part of this discussion. He recused himself and left the Council Chamber. MR. DON HEIN, Vice President of the Board for Sun City Community Association, concurred with all the details expressed by the previous speakers on behalf of Sun City. He said they were sincere about wanting to be part of Palm Desert's sphere of influence, and once this matter was reviewed by the Council, they will find that it's probably beneficial to both the City and Sun City residents. MS. MCENERNEY clarified the reinstatement of Sun City into Palm Desert's sphere of influence would not include Indio Trails, which was one-half mile away. Councilmember Benson recalled Sun City was taken out of Palm Desert's sphere of influence because La Quinta was cherry-picking all the way up Washington Street and Sun City was included in that sphere. She said that 22 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 decision was being reconsidered because another hearing had been scheduled. Councilman Kelly stated when Sun City was taken out of Palm Desert's -sphere of influence,the Council didn't hear much concern from its residents. He said it was important to protect Palm Desert's sphere and the people that lived out in Sun City, so he was in favor of applying to have Sun City in Palm Desert's sphere of influence. Responding to question about notifying Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), Mr. Ortega reminded Council that a couple of years ago when the issue came up, Palm Desert did a study, and Council decided it was not financially feasible to include Sun City under its sphere because eventually annexation would have been the next step. The commercial area had not been built at that time, so he didn't know if all the potential revenue was included in the study. He suggested Council review the matter again, given the new commercial growth, and see if it's financially feasible. Councilman Kelly requested staff prepare a map that outlined exactly what was being considered, appoint two Councilmembers to review it, and continue this item to the next City Council Meeting. However, the final decision should not be based solely on the City making money, because it made sense to him that Sun City be under Palm Desert's sphere of influence. He said there was a lot of development on the west side of Sun City, and he thought that area needed to be included with the City's proposal. He had heard the comment that LAFCO thought Palm Desert was vacillating in and out, but it was a poor excuse for not doing what needed to be done. Councilman Kelly moved to continue this item to the next City Council meeting, and direct staff to provide a map that delineated the exact area with street names. Ms. Aylaian noted the Council had two different choices. She said LAFCO needed a letter from the City prior to January 2, 2009, indicating what Palm Desert's intentions were for its sphere of influence for the next five years. If the Council voted this evening to notify LAFCO about wanting to reintroduce Sun City to its sphere of influence, staff could do that. Councilman Kelly modified his motion to send a letter to LAFCO and notify them that Palm Desert was proposing keeping Sun City under its sphere of influence, and the City will follow-up at a later time. Ms.Aylaian stated the letter to LAFCO would need to include the area it was considering or just the area that was previously detached from Palm Desert's sphere of influence. Further responding, she confirmed the previously 23 - MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 detached area included the area to the west. She offered a recommendation for Council to consider, and Councilman Kelly agreed with her suggestion. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, directed staff to send a letter to LAFCO, indicating the City of Palm Desert's interest in reintroducing formerly detached area from its Sphere of Influence(Sun City), subject to staffs verification of the lines drawn on the map, such that they include the related commercial area. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Ferguson and Finerty ABSENT. Mayor Spiegel stated he hoped representation from Sun City would be present when this matter went to LAFCO. Ms. Larson agreed. E. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH WELLS FARGO BANK REGARDING ITS PROPOSAL TO ASSIST THE CITY WITH STRUCTURING A VARIABLE RATE BOND ISSUE TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR THE CITY'S ENERGY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM (Continued from the meetings of November 20, 2008 and November 24, 2008). Mr. Ortega noted the Audit, Investment & Financing Committee recommendation. He said Council had a proposal on the table from Wells Fargo, and City Consultant Ken Dieker would explain the changes Wells Fargo was willing to make in order address Council's concerns. At the last meeting, Wells Fargo was offering a variable with no cap. He said the Council previously authorized the private placement of$5 million directly with the Redevelopment Agency, so the program had money to work with. He said staff wanted to continue with Wells Fargo's proposal because it provided long-term financing and they were willing to lower the amount the City would have to borrow; however, the initial$10 million proposal was still on the table. He said a representative from Wells Fargo was present to answer questions. MR. KEN DIEKER, Del Rio Advisors, Financial Advisor to the City, stated since the last City Council meeting, Wells Fargo had agreed to finance $5 million versus $10 million; $5 million being the initial amount of loans currently waiting to be funded. In addition, they were willing to work with the City to provide a cap to the interest rate, and that cap would be approximately 5.57% in today's market. When you add the letter of credit, fees, and re-marketing fees, it was approximately the 7% rate, which would match the underlying City's loan rate. In summary, Wells Fargo was willing to finance the$5 million or$10 million and also provide an interest rate cap, which addressed Mayor Pro Tern Finerty's concern. Councilman Ferguson apologized for not being present at the last City Council meeting, but he was meeting with the President of the Public Utilities Commission who had expressed reservations about private placement 24 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 TEL: 760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-desert.org OFFICE OF THE 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 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. PPIIIiEO 041 RECYCLED PAPER -f1 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 MY Of PEE W191 e4 PRINTED ON WYELED PAPER r f Sphere of Influence Review & Potential Amendments City of Palm Desert LAFCO 2006-89-4 Exhibit A A. ! ! K ' Thoctsand ■ ! ■ Palms, ■ ! ■ Y ! s � ._; City of s ` $ •11( '�� Rancho �� x ,��� •� �� a Mirage �.. ' City " = of Indio Y • 5 ;n' � FRED WARING DR 1 ' HWY111 Y ! City of Indian �' City of u �� ® La Wells ' ! Quinta w� ! 5 M x; t City of Palm Desert 3 Existing Sphere of Influence prior to a 10/25/07 -a- Commission Approved on 10/25/07 (Removal) % ' 3 A Y a a ! 0 ! Y ! ■ a OW 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o611 FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-desert.org March 5, 2008 Ms. Sandy Sosnowski, General Manager Sun City Palm Desert Community Association 38180 Del Webb Boulevard Palm Desert, CA 92211 Dear Ms. Sosnowski: Subject: City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence On behalf of the Palm Desert City Council, I am forwarding you this correspondence to provide your residents with a history of the City's recent decision to detach the Del- Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The Council has received numerous requests from Sun City residents inquiring about this matter, so please share this letter with your community in an effort to educate all those who are interested. A Sphere of Influence (SOI) is identified by Government Code as a, "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency." Spheres of Influence are used by cities as a planning tool to ascertain the levels of service for any future incorporation. The City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence originally included three separate areas: the Southern Sphere, the Bermuda Dunes Sphere, and the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere. The Southern Sphere is the largest of the three at approximately 34.5 square miles. Much of this southern sphere is within the Bighorn Sheep Preserve and habitat. In 1998, the City's sphere was expanded north of Interstate 10, which included the Del- Webb community. This SOI was the City's second major one and is commonly referred to as the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere, but it also includes a commercial district west of Washington Street. This whole area comprises approximately 3.7 square miles. The third and final sphere was introduced in 2000 and includes the Bermuda Dunes community, east of Washington Street and South of Interstate 10. This area comprises approximately 3.2 square miles. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER New City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence March 5, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The Spheres of Influence for California cities are regulated by Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO), with each county in California having its own LAFCO. The Riverside County LAFCO initiated Sphere of Influence reviews for all cities and special districts in 2007. A City Council Annexation Subcommittee was formed and met with Riverside County LAFCO representatives in 2007 concerning this issue. LAFCO wanted to ascertain if the City would retain the Bermuda Dunes and Del-Webb Palm Desert Spheres of Influence before their formal SOI review period. This matter went before the Palm Desert City Council at its April 12, 2007, meeting. The majority of the members of the City Council indicated that they found it more important to provide excellent services to the area already incorporated than to expand the city limits and potentially dilute the quality of those services. Staff was subsequently directed to inform LAFCO that the City no longer desired to retain the Del-Webb Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. On October 25, 2007, Riverside County LAFCO held its hearing on this matter and affirmed Palm Desert's recommendation to remove the Del-Webb Palm Desert Community and all other existing SOI areas north of Interstate 10. I am confident that this correspondence adequately addresses the various questions your residents may have on the history and current status of the Del Webb Sphere of Influence. If you or your residents have additional questions, please contact either Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or me at (760) 346-0611. Thank you. Sincerely, CARL S L. ORTEGA City Manager CLO:SA cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services L_AW4 #Y ,;DitQr.ofautyvn .. Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager lily Of PRA OHM Q*PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER g w ter"4 y Y g i u RECEIVED CI�YERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, CA j�5 AN I 9 �, �'F NOTSCE OF PROTEST HEARING " BEFORE-, , UTIVE OFFICER OF THE LOCAL AGENCYFORMATION COMMISSION `° i OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,that a Protest Hearing will be held by the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation'Commission ofRlverside County a0850 Vine Street,'Suite 110,Riverside,California,on Wednesday, April 4,2007 at9:00 a.rirSao receive written protest on the following proposal: 1. LAFCO 2006-114-4 Reorganization to Include Annexation$4 to the City of Indio and Concurrent Detachment from Riverside Waste Resources Management District. Located as follows:. Generally located south of Francis Way,east of Adams St.,north of Interstate 10 and west of Tarr Rd. See Thomas Bros.Riverside County 2005 map book,pages 789,819 and 5410. tR yet I kNR �k >n )� � � Z ya�,j4 F z d < 'Del nv � Webb Palm Desert 1.70 ` a � Q �� Clty OI Palm _,w ; City Desert Bermuda Dunes! a`r Comausston proceedings sve;e commenced by resolution of the City of Indio. -The reorganization is proposed to provide municipal services by the City of Indio. The annexation was approved subject to the terms and conditions outlined in LAFCO Resolution No.07-07 which is available upon request through the LAFCO office. Any owner of land or registered voter within the territory may file a written protest against the proposal with the Executive Officer of the Commission at.any time between the date of this notice and the conclusion of the protest hearing on this proposal. Written protest must be submitted on theofficial protest form available from LAFCO. Protests must be delivered to the following address prior to the conclusion of the hearing: George J.Spiliotis,Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street,Suite 110 Riverside,CA 92507 (951)369-0631 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATI N COMMISSION OF RIVERSIDE CO t Geos Exe,4(er March 13,2007 Local Agency Formation Commission•3850 Vine Street,Suite 110•Riverside,CA 92507 Phone(951)369-0631•Fax(951)369-8479 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2007 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. Mayor Kelly convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Pro Tern Jean M. Benson Councilman Jim Ferguson arrived at 3:45 p.m. Councilmember Cindy Finerty Councilman Robert A. Spiegel Mayor Richard S. Kelly Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Lauri Aylaian, Acting ACM for Development Services Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety Patrick Conlon, Director of the Office of Energy Management Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Doug Van Gelder, Director of Information Systems Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs Travis Witten, Battalion Chief, Palm Desert Fire/Riverside Co. Fire Dept./CDF Frank Taylor, Asst. Chief, Palm Desert Police/Riverside Co. Sheriffs Dept. Grace L. Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -A (CLOSED SESSION ITEMS) None MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 said the life of the system was approximately 25 years and required no maintenance. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize: 1) Award of the subject contract to Carlson Solar, Hemet, California, in the amount of $464,157.68; 2) a 10% contingency for the project in the amount of$46,415.70; 3) $800 for Interconnection Application fee for net-metering to Southern California Edison; 4) Director of Finance to allocate$510,373.38 for this work—no appropriation is necessary for the project,funds are available in Account No.400-4511-422-3911. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 5-0 vote. F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE 2007 CITYWIDE PALM TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL PROGRAM (CONTRACT NO. C26220, PROJECT NO. 931-07)(JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY). Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to Tree Rite, Bermuda Dunes, California, in the total amount of $78,421.50 (City: $68,336.75; Housing Authority: $10,084.75); 2) authorize the Director of Finance to set aside an additional 10% Contingency totaling $7,842.15 (City: $6,833.67; Housing Authority: $1,008.48); 3)authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate$10,084.75 of the total contract amount to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance Budget line items plus set aside $1,008.48 of the total contingency to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance Budget; 4) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement — funds for the City portion of the contract are available in General Fund and Assessment District Fund 200 accounts. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 5-0 vote. G. CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION'S(LAFCO)REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SPHERES OF INFLUENCE. Mr. Ortega stated LAFCO asked the City of Palm Desert to make known its future plans for retaining or removing the Bermuda Dunes and Del Webb Spheres of Influence. He said the City of La Quinta recently submitted an application to annex land in Bermuda Dunes, in Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence (SOI). Staff recommended that specific authority be given to conduct a feasibility study if Council decided to retain Bermuda Dunes. Responding to question, he clarified that LAFCO's request included three things, a decision on the two spheres of influence and to comment on La Quinta's application to enter Palm Desert's SOI at Bermuda Dunes, involving approximately 15 acres. Upon further question, Mr. Ortega replied he was seeking Council direction on LAFCO's request and that specifically with regards to Bermuda Dunes, staff recommended Council grant authority to 16 - MINUTES ` ` Ifto REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 staff to hire a consultant to see if the City was still interested in annexing Bermuda Dunes. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Officially inform LAFCO the City no longer desired to keep Sun City Del Webb within the City's Sphere of Influence; 2) retain Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence and conduct a Fiscal Impact Feasibility Study on Annexation of Bermuda Dunes SOI; 3) hold off on responding to the City of La Quinta's application and direct City Manager to meet with the La Quinta City Manager and return to Council with a specific recommendation. Motion was seconded by Finerty. Mayor Pro Tern Benson stated she wasn't interested in jumping over Washington Street or 1-10 Freeway, and it wouldn't do any good to do a study with regards to La Quinta's application. She felt the City had enough on its plate within its boundaries and preferred informing LAFCO the City wasn't interested in either SOI. Councilman Spiegel stated six or seven years ago, the residents of Bermuda Dunes requested Palm Desert annex their area, a survey was conducted and found that it would be very expensive financially, because Bermuda Dunes did not have curbs, gutters, or sewer. At that time, the City Council did not want to annex Bermuda Dunes. The matter came up again, and Mr. Ortega said he was interested in revisiting to see if it was still the case. He recalled stating at the time that if any other area was annexed within the City of Palm Desert, it should be by the vote of the people with their recommendation. His personal opinion was to not annex additional land unless the people wanted it, but figures and facts needed to be gathered before that could happen. Mayor Kelly stated his position coincided with Mayor Pro Tern Benson in that the City had the Rancho Mirage boundarys to the west, the mountains to the south, a clear-cut boundary with 1-10 Freeway, and a logical boundary with Washington Street. He said a study was not necessary to show it would cost Palm Desert a lot of money, with no benefit or asset to the residents of Palm Desert. He said the City of La Quinta had been creeping up toward the 1-10 Freeway for more than 20 years and had taken up all the vacant property; all that remained was developed property with no curbs, gutters, or sewers. However, his basic reason was that Palm Desert already had nice boundaries established and had plenty of projects on the table to deal with. He requested the City Manager communicate with LAFCO that Palm Desert was not interested in any more annexations and was prepared to release the spheres of influence outside the City. Councilman Ferguson agreed with Councilman Spiegel that any annexation should be by the vote of the people and not only by five Councilmembers. He believed a Palm Desert address had a premium value, and it troubled him 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 that people with basic middle income wages could not afford to live in Palm Desert. He said homes built in the north sphere were promised to be affordable by developers, but they end up costing $700,000 to$800,000. He suspected that even a large portion of the City's staff could not afford to live in Palm Desert. His point was that he did not want to preclude it forever by saying he didn't want them in Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. Councilman Spiegel said La Quinta wants the Bermuda Dunes property that's adjacent to their City to build low-income housing. He said La Quinta was not asking the residents of Bermuda Dunes if they wanted low-income housing, they were just telling them that's what they intended to do. He thought it was unfair the City of La Quinta had been cherry-picking parts of Bermuda Dunes and believed they should take the whole thing or nothing at all. However, in the mean time, he didn't want it costing the City of Palm Desert anything. Mayor Kelly requested the motion be repeated for the record. Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize: 1)Official notification to LAFCO that the City of Palm Desert has no interest in maintaining the Del Webb - Sun City- Palm Desert Sphere of Influence north of 1-10; 2) maintaining Bermuda Dunes within Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence for the time being and instructing the City Manager to have an updated cost assessment done for the City's potential annexation in the future; 3) no answer to the City of La Quinta question but instructing City Manager to meet with the La Quinta City Manager and return with a specific recommendation. Motion was seconded by Finerty and carried by a 3-2 vote, with Benson and Kelly voting NO. H. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES, EXTENDING THE TERM FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2006, TO JUNE 30, 2007 (CONTRACT NO. C24200). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Approve the One-year Extension to the subject agreement with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services, Riverside, California, in an amount not to exceed $88,328 unless otherwise approved; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute same — funds are available in Account No. 110-4230-442-3090. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote. 18