HomeMy WebLinkAbout318370 �v
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: RAMON A. DIAZ, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PHILIP DRELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999
SUBJECT: SUN CITY POLICE AND FIRE COSTS
In the first draft of the RSG Sun City Fiscal Impact Study, police and fire costs seemed
excessive. RSG was directed to go back to the sheriff and fire chief and reexamine their
assumptions. As a result, projected costs were lowered significantly (see attached
spreadsheet). Police costs were lowered from $786,470 to $733,824 in 1999 and from
$1 ,889,958 to $1 ,084,192 in 2007. Fire costs were lowered from $1,201 ,500 to
$758,673 in 1999 and from $1 ,596,391 to $1 ,179,267 in 2007.
PHILIP DRELL
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
November 11, 1998 Via Fax and Overnight Mail
l 1998
Mr. Ray Diaz My Of-NiLM DESERT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 Fred Waring Drive.
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
REVISED SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FISCAL FEASIBILITY
REPORT
Dear Mr. Diaz:
Attached is a revised Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report. Pursuant
to my discussions this week with Phil Drell, the previous Fiscal Feasibility Report (transmitted to
you on October 12, 1998) required minor modifications; the Transient Occupancy Tax needed to
be changed from 10% to 9% and there were minor corrections to the Property Transfer Tax
calculations which resulted in higher Property Transfer Taxes from the annexation of both Arras
1 and 2.
Should you have any questions or require any further information, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
Hitta Mosesman
Associate
DTM:Imi
Enclosure
cc: Phil Drell,City of Palm Desert`
dotianta Ana, CA 92705-3914 • Telephone 714.541.4585 • Fax 714.836.1748
San Diego 760.967.6462 • F-Mail Address: RSGINCCACaol.com
�rrr
SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
November, 1998
Prepared for:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
(619) 340-5776
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 541-4585
SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ I
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION...............................................................................I
B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS.................................................................2
C. ASSUMPTIONS.........................................................................................................3
II. REVENUES.................................................................................................... 3
A. GENERAL FUND......................................................................................................3
1. Taxes.....................................................................................................................3
a. Property Taxes.............................................................................................3
b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................4
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief...............................................................5
d. Parcel Tax ....................................................................................................5
e. Sales Taxes...................................................................................................5
f. Transient Occupancy Taxes.........................................................................6
2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees) ..............................................................7
3. Franchise Fees........................................................................................................7
4. Development Related Fees.....................................................................................7
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees.....................................................7
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees...........................................................7
C. Engineering Fees..........................................................................................7
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. i Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
wry
d. Development Fees........................................................................................8
5. Other Revenues ......................................................................................................8
a. Fines and Forfeitures.........................................................................:..........8
b. Miscellaneous Revenues..............................................................................8
6. Fire Protection Fees ..............................................................................................8
a. Structural Fire Protection Tax......................................................................8
b. Proposition A Fire Tax.................................................................................8
7. Business License Tax............................................................................................9
8. Interest...................................................................................................................9
B. ROAD FUND..............................................................................................................9
III. EXPENDITURES .......................................................................................... 9
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES......................................................................9
1. General Government ..............................................................................................9
a. Administration.............................................................................................9
b. Insurance....................................................................................................10
C. Animal Control ..........................................................................................10
d. County Property Tax Collection Charges..................................................10
2. Public Safety ..10
a. Sheriff s Contract.......................................................................................10
b. Jail Booking Fee ........................................................................................I I
C. Fire Protection............................................................................................11
3. Community Development....................................................................................I I
a. Code Compliance Officer..........................................................................12
4. Public Works........................................................................................................12
a. Administration...........................................................................................12
b. Street Sweeping .........................................................................................12
C. Street Lighting ...........................................................................................12
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. ii Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
Fiscal Feasibility Study
November,1998
*.r
5. Parks and Recreation
6. Contingency..........................................................................................................13
7. Roads...........................................................................................................:........13
a. Capital Improvements................................................................................13
8. Road Maintenance................................................................................................13
a. Street Maintenance.....................................................................................13
b. Traffic Signal Maintenance........................................................................13
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................... 14
V. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS - BERMUDA DUNES ANNEXATION . 15
A. OVERVIEW OF BERMUDA DUNES AREA......................................................16
B. ANALYSIS................................................................................................................17
1. General Fund Revenues......................................................................................17
2. General Fund Expenditures.................................................................................17
3. Potential Capital Improvement Requirements....................................................18
C. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................18
MAPS
Map 1 —Areas 1 and 2
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City and Ivey Ranch)
Exhibit 2 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City and Ivey Ranch assuming 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial
development)
Exhibit 3 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City only)
Exhibit 4—Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City only assuming 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial development)
Rosenow Spevaeek Group,Inc. iii Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
I. BACKGROUND
The City of Palm Desert ("City") engaged the Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") to prepare a
fiscal feasibility analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch. This
Report can be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the Cortese-Knox Government
Reorganization Act, if and when, the City desires to pursue annexation of these communities. Prior
to the determination to pursue annexation, the City wishes to ascertain the fiscal standing of the Sun
City and Jack Ivey Ranch communities and surrounding commercial and industrial uses. This
Report will focus on what City services will be provided within these areas, the forecasted cost of
those services, and what revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those
services. This Report will focus on a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the
annexation area for approximately seven years (i.e., the projected date of buildout for the Sun City
area). It should be understood that there will usually be differences between the forecasts and actual
results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences
may be material.
In addition to analyzing the feasibility of annexing the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch areas, this
Report also provides a textual analysis of the feasibility of annexing Bermuda Dunes. Although
previous feasibility studies show that the annexation of the Bermuda Dunes area is not financially
feasible, the economies of scale which may be realized by annexing other areas within the sphere of
influence may counteract this negative fiscal result. The "Summary of Findings" section of this
Report includes this analysis.
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
This Study focuses on two unincorporated areas within Riverside County; the first area is
shown on Map 1 and is generally bounded by the northern most point of Section 30 to the
north, Washington Street and the intersection of Varner Road and 381" Avenue to the east, the
Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the western portions of Sections 6, 30, and 31 to the
west ("Area 1"). Area 1 consists primarily of the Del Webb Sun City development, a golf
course, a recreational facility, freeway-oriented commercial/retail use along Interstate 10, an
overnight lodging facility, a country club (with pro-shop), a recreational vehicle park, seven
developed parcels and 455 acres of vacant land. The Sun City community is in the process of
developing and is scheduled to reach buildout in fiscal year 2006-07. At buildout, the Sun
City community is projected to include 5,288 units, two recreation centers, and a golf course
within the gates, and commercial retail uses adjacent to the development. The second area
(also shown on Map 2) is generally bounded by the southern boundary of Section 21 to the
north, the southeast portion of Section 35 to the west, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south
and the midpoint of Section 28 to the east ("Area 2"). Area 2 contains the Jack Ivey Ranch
community, the Jack Ivey Ranch Country Club, a pro-shop, a restaurant, and approximately
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palm dsddelwebb/sun iveyfeareprt
AREA 2
O
= PRANCES WAY AREA 1
C�
u/ p
Lu Q
cn
Q Q
= 36TH ST.
U
cy
W
z
O o
U
H
38TH AVE. V) I38TH 4VE. N
FRANK SINAT A DR. o
�qR�R 72 N
Z
Ln z
0
Ln Ln
Q LJ
0
a � 40TH AVE.
Z
COUNTRY CLUB OR.
0
I— z u�
W =
W '^
E� 3 W
O
U) 42ND AVE. E�
z
Y O
O �0
U
FRED WARING DRIVE
Map 1
City of Palm Desert
SUN CITY / IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION
J 11
---
ROSEN0W S P E V A C E K GROUP INC.
624 acres of vacant land along the Interstate 10 Freeway. The Jack Ivey Ranch community
contains approximately 318 single-family residential uses and is projected to contain 399
single-family units by fiscal year 2006-07. The 1998 population of Areas 1 and 2 is
estimated at 3,376 and 636, respectively. A population estimate of 2 persons per dwelling
unit was used for the purposes of this analysis. At the present time, the number of structures
or dwelling units in Area 1 include approximately 1,600 residential units and 5,100 square
feet of commercial space. Area 2 consist of approximately 318 single-family residential units
and 5,200 square feet of commercial development.
B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS
The major public agencies currently providing services in Areas 1 and 2 are the County of
Riverside, County Service Areas No. 121 and No. 152, Coachella Valley Water Improvement
District, Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District, and Coachella Valley Improvement
Districts 58 and 81. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for policymaking and
administration, law enforcement, animal control, planning and land use regulation, building
inspection, flood control, and the maintenance and improvement of roads in both areas.
Street lighting services within Areas 1 and 2 are currently provided through CSA No. 121.
Upon annexation, the City would assume services funded by CSA No. 121 and CSA No. 121
would be detached. The County currently collects a parcel tax for CSA No. 152 to fund
street sweeping services County-wide. However, the County does not currently provide
street sweeping services in Areas 1 and 2. Upon annexation, the City will perform all street
sweeping services and this tax will remain in effect, so there is no fiscal impact.
Water is currently supplied in Areas 1 and 2 by the Coachella Valley County Water District.
Upon annexation, the Coachella Valley Water District will continue to supply water to these
areas. Sewer service is currently, and will continue to be, provided by Septic Systems and
the Coachella Valley Water District. Sewer lines currently exist at 38"' Avenue, Del Webb
Boulevard, Varner Road, and Washington Street. The County of Riverside currently
provides fire protection services to all properties within Areas 1 and 2 through three fire
stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35, located at 79-400 Avenue 42, 44-
400 Town Center Way and 72695 La Canada Way, respectively. In addition, a fourth station
(No. 81) is currently under construction at Washington Street and 38th Avenue. Following
annexation, fire protection services would be provided by the City through the Cove
Community Services Commission. The Commission contracts with the County to deliver
fire protection and paramedic services. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for
providing police services within Areas 1 and 2. Two police substations responsible for
servicing this area are located in Palm Desert and Indio. Following annexation, only the
Palm Desert substation will service Areas 1 and 2 and police protection services would
continue to be provided by the County of Riverside through a contract with the County
Sheriff. The roads within these areas, which are currently maintained by the County of
Riverside, would be maintained by the City of Palm Desert following annexation.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 2 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palm dsddelwebb/suniveyfearepri
C. ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions used in this analysis were based primarily on the documentation and data
provided by the land developer and the City. While RSG has taken precautions to assure the
accuracy of the data used in the formulation of this analysis, we cannot ensure that these
projections will in fact be realized because actual development and absorption may be
affected by future events and conditions which cannot be controlled or predicted with
certainty. In addition, this analysis does not consider any potential impacts that Proposition
218 ("Right to Vote on Tax Act") may have on revenue forecasts. The implementation of
Proposition 218 is currently under statewide review as to specific impacts. Additionally, the
Study assumes that proposed changes to the receipt of motor vehicle in-lieu fees, which were
subject to reductions in the State Budget will not have a negative fiscal impact.
Many of the General Fund and Road Fund revenues and expenditures were either calculated
on a per capita basis, a marginal cost basis using actual budget figures from the City of Palm
Desert, or a case study methodology. All other estimated revenues and expenditures were
provided by staff at the City, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, and the Riverside
County Fire Department.
It is important to note that this Study focuses on recurring revenues and expenditures. This
Study does not analyze any future capital improvement projects resulting from the annexation
of Areas 1 and 2, nor does the Study include any development related impact fees that would
be collected on new development. In addition, with the exception of the new development
contained in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, and the new development assumptions
outlined below, this Study does not analyze potential new development in the vacant portions
of Areas 1 or 2.
II. REVENUES
A. GENERAL FUND
The primary sources of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Exhibit 1:
1. Taxes:
a. Property Taxes:
The City property tax revenue is based on the historical property tax ratio of
25/75% to be split between the City and the County as set forth in Resolution No.
81-133, adopted September 24, 1981. An analysis was conducted to determine the
approximate share of the County General Fund's 29.89% of the one percent (1%)
general levy property tax rate within the Study Area that would be transferred to the
City. Because CSA No. 121 will detach following annexation, no other transfer of
property tax revenues has been estimated. Upon annexation, the City will receive
25% of the County's share of the total General Fund property tax revenue (i.e., a
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 3 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdsddelwebb/suniveyfeareprt
total of 7.30% of the general levy property tax rate within the Study Area) and the
County would retain the remaining 75% of General Fund property tax revenue (i.e.,
21.89% of the general levy). The total assessed valuation for the residential units
and commercial development utilized in the calculation of property taxes are
provided below:
Proposed Average Construction
Use Estimated Completed
Assessed Value/Sq. Ft.
(FY 1998-99 dollars)
Residential Units (Area 1) $228,888 FY 2006-07
(400 constructed per year)
Residential Units (Area 2) $124,848 FY 2005-06
(12 units per year until FY
2003-04 and 9 units in FY
2004-05)
Six Fast Food Restaurants $133/sq. ft. FY 2001-02
(Area 1)
Four Gas Stations (Area 1) $45/sq. ft. FY 2001-02
Proposed Recreation Center $85/sq. ft. FY 2003-04
(Area 1)
Commercial Retail (Area 1) $120/sq. ft. FY 2005-06
A conservative 2% annual inflator has been applied to the assessed values in the
Study.
b. Property Transfer Taxes:
Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold or an
existing property is resold. A property transfer tax of$1.10 per $1,000 (0.110%) of
transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided between
Riverside County and the City. The amount of property transfer tax received will
depend upon the sale of land and the level of resale activity within Areas 1 and 2.
These revenues have been estimated using the assumption of a 5% turnover rate
annually at the rate of.55¢ per$1,000 of assessed values.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 4 Fiscal Feasibility Report
pal mdsddelwebb/suniveyfeareprt
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief:
Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief were not
specifically projected because this analysis bases the Property Tax Apportionment
on assessed valuation gross of the Homeowners Exemption. Therefore, revenue
from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax
Apportionment.
d. Parcel Tax:
Upon annexation, the City would assume service responsibilities of County Services
Area ("CSA") No. 121. CSA 121 covers all properties in Area 1 only (as well as
areas outside Areas 1 and 2) and funds street lighting services for all properties
outside the Sun City gated community. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 would be
detached and one hundred percent (100%) of the special district levies would be
transferred to the City (Exhibit 1). CSA No. 152 represents a tax levied against all
properties in Areas 1 and 2 for street sweeping services. However, as mentioned
previously, there will be no impact with respect to CSA No. 152 upon annexation,
due to the fact that the County does not currently provide street sweeping services
in the Study Area.
e. Sales Taxes:
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive a percentage of the sales tax
charged on qualifying retail sales from businesses within the Study Area. The
"Fiscal Impact Report, Sun City Palm Desert," dated August 22, 1997, prepared by
David Taussig and Associates ("FIR"), states that the State Board of Equalization
estimated that the commercial uses within the Del Webb Sun City area are
generating approximately $81,185 in sales tax revenues in calendar year 1996
dollars (Exhibits 1 and 2). RSG has assumed a modest 3% annual increase on these
sales tax revenues. In addition, pursuant to the Amended Specific Plan for Del
Webb's Sun City, dated October 28, 1997 (Resolution No. 97-286), approximately
78 acres in the general proximity of Varney Road and Washington Street are
designated for commercial development. Given current market floor area ratios
(FARS), this development will likely result in approximately 500,000 square feet of
commercial retail development at buildout. Currently, there is one fast food
restaurant open in this area, with one more fast food restaurant and two gas stations
scheduled to open by January 1, 1999. The remainder of the development
(approximately 493,400 square feet) has been estimated to occur in fiscal year
2005-06. Given the absence of specific development information for this area, an
alternative fiscal analysis has been included in this Study which assumes 250,000
square feet of retail development as opposed to 500,000 square feet (Exhibit 2). A
proposed recreation center within the gates is also scheduled for development by
fiscal year 2002-03. Sales tax revenues generated by retail uses at the Jack Ivey
Ranch County Club are estimated at $1,105 in fiscal year 1997-98 dollars. The
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 5 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palm dsddel Webb/sun i vey fearep rt
sales tax figures (per square foot) utilized for all development are listed below and
are reflected in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars, unless otherwise indicated.
FootageI Use Sales Tax Estimated
per Square Feet Square
AREA I
Existing Recreation Center $82,185 N/A
(FY 1996-97 dollars)
Proposed Recreation Center $225 5,000
Retail Uses along Washington/Varner
Fast Food Restaurants(2) $300 4,800
Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800
Remaining Retail $225 493,400
Existing Retail between Varner Road&Il0
Fast Food Restaurants(5) $300 12,000
Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800
Existing Retail on Washington/Varner
Gas Station $1,000 900
Fast Food Restaurant $300 2,400
AREA 2
Jack Ivey Ranch CountryClub S85 1,300
Sales tax revenues were projected according to the phasing of this development and
are reflected in Exhibits 1 and 2. This Study also contains an analysis which
calculates annual sales taxes assuming that only 250,000 square feet of new
commercial retail development will be constructed on the above mentioned 78 acres
of vacant land (Exhibit 2).
L Transient Occupancy Taxes:
Upon annexation, the City would receive the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues.
Currently, the City's Transient Occupancy Tax rate is 9%. Area 2 contains one (1)
commercial lodging establishment; the Motel 6 located at the corner of Washington
Street and Varner Road which has a total of 92 rooms. RSG has estimated the
Transient Occupancy Tax based on an occupancy factor of 60% and average room
rate of $47 in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. Del Webb also provides short-term
housing to prospective home buyers in the form of 54 vacation villas. At project
buildout, the villas will be sold and thus will cease to generate TOT revenues.
According to the FIR, the villas generated approximately $81,000 in TOT revenues
in 1996. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that TOT revenues will
remain constant until fiscal year 2000-01 and will steadily decrease by
approximately 17 percent a year as more units are sold and the Sun City area
becomes builtout.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 6 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/sun iveyfeareprt
2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees):
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes. These
taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to cities on
a per capita basis. Off-Road Vehicle taxes are also allocated to cities by the State on a
per capita basis. Both subventions are estimated at $39.71 per capita in fiscal year 1998-
99 dollars and are based on the estimated combined population of 11,374 for the Study
Area at buildout.
These per capita revenues are held constant over the term of the projections and are based
on information provided by the State Controller's office.
Recent State legislature changes will reduce Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees that cities
receive, however these same legislative changes will fully backfill this revenue reduction
by State General Funds.
3. Franchise Fees:
Upon annexation, the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the County by
Continental Cable Television, the Southern California Gas Company, Waste
Management, and Western Waste. These fees have been estimated at $42.10 per capita
(in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) using budget figures from the City of Palm Desert. An
annual inflation factor was applied to this figure.
4. Development Related Fees:
The fees described below are not included in Exhibit 1 because these fees specifically
offset costs of development related services, only the "net" cost of these services are
indicated under"Expenditures".
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees:
The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use planning and regulation
services. The City would utilize the City's existing fee schedule. These fees should
offset most of the City's cost in providing these services.
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees:
The fees collected for these building and permit inspection services should, in most
cases, totally offset the cost of these services.
C. Engineering Fees:
The City is also authorized to charge fees for plan checking, public works
inspection, permit issuance and review and other engineering services. The fees
collected for these services should, in most cases, offset the cost of these services.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 7 Fiscal Feasibility Report
pal mdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
d. Development Fees:
Under the provisions of State law, the City may collect development fees for the
purpose of construction or improving capital facilities. Fees received must be
segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling. Certain fees
must be spent or committed within five years from the time they are collected.
5. Other Revenues:
a. Fines and Forfeitures:
This represents both Motor Vehicle Code fines, Municipal Code fines, and other
miscellaneous fines and forfeitures. Motor Vehicle and Municipal Code fines were
estimated at $1.63 per capita in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars using budget data from
the City of Palm Desert and inflated 2% annually over the term of the projections.
b. Miscellaneous Revenues
Miscellaneous revenues include map sales, microfilm sales, code/certificate
compliance, special investigation fees, nuisance abatement and other revenues.
This revenue has been estimated at $8.13 per-capita in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars
using the City's budget. A 2% inflator was applied annually over the term of the
projections.
6. Fire Protection Fees
a. Structural Fire Protection Tax:
The structural fire protection tax is levied as part of the 1% property tax within
Areas 1 and 2 and is based on the total assessed valuation within this area. The
current rate within the Study Area is 0.0608. Upon annexation, the City will
receive approximately 70% of these revenues to fund fire protection services
through its contract with the County.
b. Proposition A Fire Tax:
The Proposition A Fire Tax is calculated on a parcel basis. More specifically, this
revenue was estimated by assuming an annual $48 charge per unit (in fiscal year
1998-99 dollars) for each of the existing 2,006 residential units, as well as, the
additional units and the units developed over the term of the projections. A 2%
inflator was applied annually to the per unit charge.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 8 Fiscal Feasibility Report
pal mdst/delwebb/suniveyfearepri
*AM# '
7. Business License Tax:
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to impose the City's current Business License
Tax. The Business License fee for the City of Palm Desert is calculated based upon gross
sales. RSG has estimated the amount of Business License Tax using an average Business
License fee of $80 (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) for the local sales tax generators
identified within Areas 1 and 2 (Exhibit 1). An annual inflator of 2% was applied over
the term of the projections.
8. Interest•
The City's current return on investment of 5.25% has been applied to all excess cash.
B. ROAD FUND
All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per capita basis,
with the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2107.5 is allocated to
the cities based upon total population size. It is estimated that the proposed annexation of the
Study Area would add approximately 11,374 population to the existing 33,701 population of
Palm Desert. According to State data, this added population will not place the City's
population status into the next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is reflected relative to
Section 2107.5. Similar to other state subventions, road fund revenues initially would be
based at the estimated population of 11,374. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter-
approved Measure "A" sales tax distributed by the County Transportation Commission.
Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related maintenance
expenditures.
III. EXPENDITURES
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational structure
and are estimated as follows:
1. General Government:
a. Administration:
The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating costs would
be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal expenditures including legal
costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies were estimated.
Costs associated with the 1999-00 election are shown. Costs for general
administration and election costs (every other year) were estimated at $0.51 and
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 9 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/sun iveyfeareprt
c
$1.54 per capita, respectively, using City budget data. These per capita costs have
been estimated to increase 3% annually.
b. Insurance:
Upon annexation, it is likely that the cost of the City's insurance policy will be
impacted. RSG has estimated these costs at $21,000 annually (in fiscal year 1998-
99 dollars) based on existing infrastructure and other public facilities within the
Study Area in relationship to the City's budgeted expenditure forecasts. A 5%
inflator has been applied to reflect annual increases in costs.
C. Animal Control:
The current City animal control contractor, California Animal Care, will assume
animal control services for this area upon annexation of Areas 1 and 2. Costs were
estimated at $2.23 per capita (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) using the City's
budget. These costs are net of any animal license fee revenues.
d. County Property Tax Collection Charges:
Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor-Controller's Office charged cities and
local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental administrative costs.
These charges are estimated at 2% of all property tax revenues.
2. Public Safety:
a. Sheriffs Contract:
Based on conversations with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department staff, the
annexation of the Study Area will necessitate the establishment of a new "beat" or
one 24-hour patrol. This is due to the fact that the Study Area is on the opposite
side of the freeway from the existing patrol area in Palm Desert and, in order to
assure adequate response times to the Study Area, a patrol must be present on the
same side of the I-10. This would translate into the need for approximately five
additional officers to staff the new "beat" immediately following annexation, or in
fiscal year 1998-99. The cost for the establishment of the new beat was calculated
by assuming the hiring of five Sheriff's deputies at $71 per hour (in fiscal year
1998-99 dollars), with each deputy working 2,080 hours per year. Using these
assumptions, the fiscal year 1998-99 costs total $733,824. Pursuant to Sheriff's
Department staff, the hourly charge has been inflated 5% annually over the term of
the projections to reflect increases in contract costs.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 10 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/sun iveyfearepri
b. Jail Booking Fee:
Riverside County charges a flat fee for jail bookings for the proposed annexation of
approximately $110 to all cities within the County. Jail booking fees were
estimated based on jail bookings in the County incorporated areas in this area and
for the City of Palm Desert.
C. Fire Protection:
The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage have entered into a
Joint Powers Agreement forming the Cove Communities Services Commission in
order to provide fire and paramedic services. Fire protection expenditures were
estimated using current Riverside County Fire Department budget costs for the
Cove Communities Services Commission and the City's share of these costs over
the term of the projections. Pursuant to the contract for the Cove Communities
Services Commission, each City pays a percentage of budget costs according to that
City's share of the combined assessed valuation of all three Cities.
The annexation of the Study Area will result in an increase in the total assessed
value of the City and in the Cove Communities Services Commission annual budget
costs. In fiscal year 1997-98, the City represented approximately 52% of the
assessed valuation of all the cities and the budget for the Cove Communities
Services Commission was approximately $6.4 million. Upon annexation, the City
share of assessed valuation is estimated to increase to 54% and the budget will
increase approximately $1.1 million to include operation costs for Fire Station No.
81 which will service the Study Area. The increase in the City's fire contract cost
after annexation total approximately $700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99. An annual
inflation factor of 5% was applied to the Cove Communities Services Commission
budget to reflect cost increases.
Currently three (3) fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35
service the Study Area. All of these fire stations are located outside of the Study
Area. As mentioned previously, a new fire station (No. 81) is currently under
construction and is schedule to open in March 1999 to primarily service the Study
Area. However, information obtained from the Fire Department indicates that
Stations 33, 31, and 35 will provide assistance where needed.
3. Community Development:
Upon the annexation of Areas 1 and 2, the Community Development Department will
assume the processing of all land use related services. These services will, in most cases,
be off-set by fees. Those services not covered by fees have been estimated at $5,000 per
year in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. These costs have been escalated by 3% per year to
account for inflation.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 I 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palm ds t/del webb/sun i veyfeareprt
a. Code Compliance Officer:
Upon annexation, it is anticipated that an additional Code Compliance Officer will
be required to provide code enforcement services within the Sun City and Jack Ivey
Ranch areas. This expenditure is calculated using the first step in the City's payroll
salary range for Code Compliance Officer which total $27,030 per year in fiscal
year 1998-99 dollars. RSG has included an additional 35% of the annual salary to
reflect benefits and an additional 10% for supplies, minor equipment, and other
overhead costs.
4. Public Works:
For purposes of this Report, it is assumed that the current level of service of maintenance
programs is sufficient to the community's needs. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 and
other County responsibilities will be assumed by the City. The Public Works cost
estimates also include an allowance for contract services to administer these programs.
a. Administration:
A minimal administrative cost impact based on a per capita factor using City budget
data is reflected. This cost represents supplies, meeting and travel costs, equipment,
and other services.
b. Street Sweeping:
CSA No. 152 represents a parcel tax levied by the County for street sweeping
services within Areas 1 and 2. However, the County does not provide street
sweeping services to Areas 1 and 2. Upon annexation, the City will provide street
sweeping services to Areas 1 and 2 and CSA No. 152 will continue to be collected
to cover these costs. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, no fiscal impact
would result from the annexation.
C. Street Lighting:
Street lighting services within the Area 1 only are currently provided through CSA
No. 121. These services are limited to street lighting outside the gated Sun City
community, which includes those commercial and industrial uses between the Sun
City community and the Interstate 10 Freeway. Area 2 properties are not within
CSA 121. It is important to note that CSA No. 121 covers a larger area which
includes not only Areas 1 and 2, but significant surrounding territory. Upon
annexation, CSA No. 121 will be detached and all funds will be transferred to the
City. The forecasted expenditure is based on current CSA No. 121 budget data
(Exhibit 1). Street lighting within the Jack Ivey Ranch and Sun City communities is
funded through the existing homeowners associations.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 12 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palm dst/del web b/sun iveyfeareprt
5. Parks and Recreation:
There is no anticipated financial impact relative to existing landscape maintenance
services due to the fact that all parks and open space areas are private and located within
the gated communities of Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch. All private parks, open space
and recreational facilities, both existing and future, are assumed to be maintained by
homeowners association.
6. Contingency:
A 10% contingency factor has been added to the General Fund expenditure estimate to
meet unforeseen programs or emergency needs.
7. Roads:
a. Capital Improvements:
Upon annexation, it is the City's policy to upgrade existing infrastructure systems
within the annexation area to meet or exceed current City standards. The funding
sources for capital improvements within Areas 1 and 2 are not identified due to the
fact that a capital improvement program (CIP) has not been developed nor
addressed as part of this analysis. The preparation of a CIP plan for the annexation
areas would require the preparation of an extensive and detailed infrastructure
assessment analysis.
8. Road Maintenance:
a. Street Maintenance:
The street maintenance expenditure was estimated based upon estimated curb miles
and area size using budget data from the City of Palm Desert. This cost reflects a
3% increase which includes general street maintenance; City-wide street slurry
sealing, overlaying and resurfacing, new and replaced curbs and gutters, centerline
striping, and safety and sign painting.
b. Traffic Signal Maintenance:
Upon annexation, the City of Palm Desert will be required to maintain additional
traffic signals. The City of Palm Desert currently maintains 50% of the traffic
signals located at Washington Street and Varner Road, along Varner Road, on Cook
Street and Varner Road (2 signals), and all other signals along Varner Road in
Areas 1 and 2. Upon annexation of Areas 1 and 2, the City will be required to
maintain 100% of these four (4) traffic signals. All other traffic signals in Areas 1
and 2 are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch
homeowners associations.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 13 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palm dst/del webbls un iveyfeareprt
i.r
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The fiscal feasibility of annexing the Study Area (comprised of Areas 1 and 2) was evaluated
by assessing the feasibility of Area 1 (Sun City) alone, as well as examining the feasibility of
both Areas 1 and 2 (Jack Ivey Ranch).
Sun City Alone
Two scenarios were prepared for the fiscal analysis of Area 1. Both scenarios assume
residential development, as presented in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, but the first
scenario (Exhibit 3) assumes approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial
development while the second scenario (Exhibit 4) assumes a more conservative 250,000
square feet of new commercial development. Although the annexation of Area 1 would
result in an overall cumulative surplus of approximately $6.0 million over a nine year time
period under the first scenario (Exhibit 3), the City would experience shortfalls in years 1 and
2 of $279,000 and $83,000, respectively and a cumulative shortfall for three of the nine
years. The total cumulative surplus to the City's General Fund would be $3.0 million over
the nine year period, with annual shortfalls ranging from $150,000 to $413,000. The
cumulative General Fund shortfalls would persist in years 1 through 6, and range from
$387,000 to $826,000. The second scenario (Exhibit 4) results in a lower overall cumulative
surplus of$5.1 million and a cumulative General Fund surplus of$2.0 million, with the same
annual and cumulative shortfalls in years 1 through 3 overall, and in years 1 through 6 for the
General Fund.
General Fund expenditures exceed revenues in the first few years following annexation due
to the fact that revenues are growing progressively with new development, but costs, such as
public safety costs, must be incurred upon annexation. In particular, due to the required
provision of adequate response times, a full "beat" must be established upon annexation, at a
cost of over $700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. Police services costs are high beginning
in fiscal year 1998-99, before the increasing value of all development comes on-line. It is
important to note that the annual General Fund shortfall declines significantly each year over
the term of the projections. The additional 500,000 square feet of commercial uses projected
to be developed in fiscal year 2005-06 will greatly reduce the annual deficit in the General
Fund. Finally, if the contingency referenced in this Study are not used by the City, the
projections would show that the shortfall would be eliminated by fiscal year 2002-03. The
reason that the annual and cumulative shortfalls are identical under both scenarios is due to
the fact that commercial development does not occur until years 8 and 9 of the projections.
The forecasted revenues for the Road Fund exceed estimated expenditures under both
scenarios by a range of $133,731 to $559,424 annually, with a cumulative surplus of $3.0
million. It is important to note that the use of these funds is restricted to road-related
expenditures.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 14 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palm dst/delwebb/sun iv eyfeareprt
Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch
In contrast, the two scenarios prepared for the fiscal analysis for Areas 1 and 2 combined
yields a higher surplus and lower deficits. Similar to the two scenarios described above, both
scenarios that assume the annexation of Areas 1 and 2 combined include the residential
development as presented in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan. However, the first
scenario (Exhibit 1) assumes approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial
development while the second scenario (Exhibit 2) assumes a more conservative 250,000
square feet of new commercial development. The fiscal analysis presented in the first
scenario (Exhibit 1) shows an overall cumulative surplus of$7.4 million over the term of the
projections with an annual fiscal deficit of$156,000 in year 1 only and cumulative deficits in
years 1 and 2 of $156,000 and $108,000, respectively. Exhibit 1 also shows a cumulative
General Fund surplus of$4.1 million over the nine year period with annual fiscal deficits in
years 1 through 3, rather than four years of deficits as shown in Exhibit 3 (the annexation of
the Del Webb area alone). The annual deficits range from $71,000 to $311,000 under both of
these scenarios. The second more conservative scenario results in a somewhat lower overall
cumulative and cumulative General Fund surplus of $6.5 million and $3.3 million,
respectively. It is important to note that this surplus resulting from the more conservative
development assumptions is higher than the surplus shown in Exhibit 3 (described above)
that includes twice the amount of commercial square footage (500,000 vs. 250,000 square
feet) to be developed in the Study Area. Road funds exceed estimated expenditures under
both scenarios by a range of $154,634 to $591,347 annually, with a cumulative surplus of
$3.3 million.
Analysis of Factors
The primary reason that the potential annexation of Areas 1 and 2 combined results in a
higher fiscal surplus and a lower fiscal deficit as compared to Area 1 alone is that the
addition of Jack Ivey Ranch would not necessitate any additional police services (or cost),
but would represent property tax and other revenues to the City. According to the Riverside
County Sheriffs Department, the annexation of the Del Webb Sun City area would require
the addition of a full-time police beat (one 24-hour patrol) due to the fact the nearest
substation to service the area is located on the east side of the 1-10 freeway. This distance
between this substation and the Del Webb Sun City area would not allow the existing patrols
out of this substation to meet required response times. Therefore, a new patrol must be
created to service the area. Additionally, if a full time patrol or beat was established and Jack
Ivey Ranch was also annexed into the City, the new patrol could service both areas with no
additional cost to the City.
V. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS — BERMUDA DUNES ANNEXATION
This section presents RSG's initial conclusions regarding the financial impacts of also
including the Bermuda Dunes area within the proposed subject annexation. RSG has limited
this analysis to reviewing the anticipated operating revenues and expenditures. We took this
approach because an annexation proposal must demonstrate that the City can provide at least
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Anne-Yation
November, 1998 15 Fiscal Feasibility Report
pal mdsr/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
the existing levels of service to Bermuda Dunes residents. This report does not address
Bermuda Dunes' capital improvement needs, which may be substantial. Another key
assumption focuses on revenue and expenditure projections at a buildout (population and
businesses) based on the current County General Plan.
The analysis employs the land use designations and densities that are currently permitted by
the Riverside County General Plan; the County General Plan limits a majority of future
development to residential uses. This is an important assumption because residential uses
generally have service costs that exceed the revenue this use generates.
Both today and at buildout, Bermuda Dunes will primarily be a residential community.
Because residential uses do not generate many of the General Fund revenues, the annexation
of Bermuda Dunes is anticipated to have a detrimental impact on the City's General Fund.
Consequently, the City would be required to: (1) absorb these impacts, (2) pursue voter
approval for a tax assessment to offset revenue shortfalls, and/or (3) modify the land use plan
to permit development of more revenue-generating uses.
A. OVERVIEW OF BERMUDA DUNES AREA
The Bermuda Dunes area is bound by the City of Palm Desert along Washington Street to the
west, Interstate 10 to the north, the City of Indio near Jefferson Street to the east, and the City
of La Quinta along Fred Waring Drive to the south. RSG estimates the total acreage of the
Bermuda Dunes area is approximately 2,020. According to a demographic profile prepared
by National Decision Systems, the estimated 1997 population of Bermuda Dunes is
approximately 6,154.
RSG conducted a cursory land use assessment of Bermuda Dunes based upon the land use
categories in the County General Plan. Presently, approximately 47%, or 964 of the 2,020
acres, of Bermuda Dunes is currently developed. Approximately two-thirds of the 964 acres
of developed uses are residential; the residential area currently contains 2,555 dwelling units.
Nonresidential uses include retail, commercial, manufacturing, a 41-room resort hotel, the
Bermuda Dunes Country Club golf course, a medical center, and Bermuda Dunes Airport.
The retail and manufacturing/industrial land uses total 231,539 square feet.
At buildout, residential uses will account for approximately 79%, or 1,598 of the 2,020 acres
within Bermuda Dunes. Including the 2,555 existing units, a total of 6,726 residential units
are projected to be constructed in Bermuda Dunes. Nonresidential uses will constitute
approximately 422 acres, or 21% of Bermuda Dunes. The retail and manufacturing
components will account for approximately 1,420,753 square feet of the commercial building
space, of which 1,235,514 square feet are planned for manufacturing/industrial use. Only 16
of the 2,020 acres in Bermuda Dunes are planned for retail commercial use; 5 of these 16
acres are currently developed with a retail commercial center located at the corner of
Washington Street and Country Club Drive.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 16 Fiscal Feasibility Report
pa I m dst/d el webb/sun i v ey Feareprt
NOW
B. ANALYSIS
1. General Fund Revenues
RSG conducted a preliminary analysis of potential revenues, including property tax, sales
tax, franchise fees, state subventions, transient occupancy taxes, and other miscellaneous
revenues. Total forecasted General Fund revenues, including the landscaping and
lighting assessment and County Service Area (CSA) Nos. 121 and 152 assessments, are
approximately $1 million.
The County currently operates a Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
(89-1-Consolidated) that maintains the median on 42nd Avenue between Lima Hall Road
and Glass Drive. Median maintenance is funded by property owner assessments that are
currently $178.58 per acre per year. A total of 113 property owners are assessed. Upon
annexation, RSG has assumed that the City would administer this Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District to continue maintenance of this median. The amount of
assessment revenue the City would annually receive would be approximately $15,000.
There are two CSA's that provide municipal services to Bermuda Dunes. CSA No. 121
provides street lighting to portions of Bermuda Dunes, as well as other unincorporated
areas north of Interstate 10. The County currently collects approximately $20,000 in
property taxes each year to fund street lighting operation costs. Upon annexation, the
City may detach the Bermuda Dunes portion of CSA No. 121 and collect these property
taxes directly through the City's general property tax levy. A second CSA in Bermuda
Dunes is CSA No. 152 that funds street sweeping costs throughout the County and in
Bermuda Dunes. Upon annexation, the City would receive this property tax revenue
which would offset approximately 25% of the street sweeping costs in Bermuda Dunes.
The total amount of annual revenue from both CSA's is estimated at $25,000.
2. General Fund Expenditures
The largest General Fund expenditures relate to public safety services. Public safety cost
estimates were compiled by RSG and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.
Annexation of Bermuda Dunes would result in a higher level of service than Bermuda
Dunes residents currently enjoy; this would result from an increased physical presence of
patrol cars and increased patrol resources available to meet peak levels of service. The
total cost is forecasted at $1 million. Other services to be funded include animal control,
a code compliance officer, public works related services, additional insurance costs and
minimal administrative and support service costs. A preliminary forecast of annual
recurring expenditures is approximately $1.4 million.
RSG's analysis of the General Fund indicates a shortfall of approximately $400,000 per
year, not including any additional capital improvement cost requirements. A further
analysis of General Fund recurring expenditures and revenues at a buildout scenario
would indicate a growing shortfall of approximately $600,000 annually.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 17 Fiscal Feasibility Report
pal mdsddelwebb/sunivey(eareprt
3. Potential Capital Improvements Requirements
While the scope of this study excluded a thorough analysis of the capital improvement
needs for Bermuda Dunes, RSG did a cursory investigation of potential infrastructure
improvements. The Bermuda Dunes area would require significant road-related
improvements including street resurfacing, street widening, curbs and gutters, drainage
and runoff improvements, striping and signage.
C. FINDINGS
If the Bermuda Dunes area was also included as part of the annexation proposal for Sun
City and Jack Ivey Ranch, the addition of this area would significantly impact the
forecasted fiscal short fall of providing recurring services to the Bermuda Dunes area.
Because of its location in relation to the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch areas, the sharing
or cost distribution of new incremental services such as law enforcement, would be
limited. Only minimal administrative and processing costs could be reduced by including
all areas within one annexation proposal.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
November, 1998 18 Fiscal Feasibility Report
pal mdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
EXHIBIT I
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL.FUND REVENUES
TAXES
Property Tax 349,182 423,921 501,820 583,665 667,222 754.260 843,850 935,797 1,081.715
Property Transfer Tax 57,584 58,735 57,002 58,142 59,305 60,491 61,469 61,989 61229
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales Tax 135.677 153,115 157.708 223,217 229.914 250.244 257,751 792,848 1,359.819
Existing Commercial 122,699 126,380 130.172 134,077 138,099 142.242 146,509 150,905 155,432
New Commercial 12,978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108,002 111,242 641,944 1,204,387
Transient Occupancy Tax 164,915 166,594 168,306 156,552 144.833 t 1332150 121,503 109,893 98,321
-- -- --- - - --- - oot_ -- - - - _ --- --- -----
Subtotal 708,097 803,104 885,576 1,022.316 1,102,013 1,198,884 1,285,313 1,901,266 2,601822
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 191,941 224,645 257,350 290,055 322.759 355,464 387,930 419,682 451,434
Off-Highway License 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 187
Subtotal 192,020 224,738 257,456 290,174 322,892 355,611 388,090 419,855 451,621
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 203,869 243,632 284,927 327,802 372,303 418,479 466,076 514,491 564.659
- ---
Subtotal 203,869 243,632 284,927 327,802 372,303 418,479 466,076 514,491 564,659
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9,436 11,025 12,675 14,386 16,161 17.990 19,851 21.780
Miscellaneous Revenues 39,338 46,041 52,744 59,447 66.149 72,852 79,506 86,014 92,521
Subtotal 47,242 55,477 63,769 72,122 80,536 89,013 97,496 105,865 114.302
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 203,793 247,413 292,877 340,644 389,410 440,208 492,496 546,158 631,320
Prop A Fire Tax 116,064 158,305 160,284 180,654 201,023 221,392 241,613 261,389 281.165
Subtotal 319,857 405,718 453,161 521,298 590,433 661,600 734,109 807,547 912,486
LICENSES
Business License Tax 3,200 3,271 3,344 3,819 3.904 3,991 4,080 4,171 6,814
Subtotal 3,200 3,271 3,344 3,819 3,904 3,991 4,080 4,171 6,814
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,474,285 1,735,940 1,948,234 2,237,530 2,472.081 2,72T577 2,975,164 3,753,195 4,653,704
Interest Earnings 0 0 0 7,116 14,286 20,688 28,093 61,157 100,482
ROAD FUNDS
Section 2105 29,403 34,413 39,423 44,433 49,443 54.452 59,426 64290 69.154
Section 2106 19,247 22,527 25,806 29,086 32.365 35,645 38,901 42.085 45,269
Section 2107 41,009 47,997 54,984 61,972 68.959 75,947 82,884 89,668 96,452
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Tumback 162,582 195,993 231,262 268,471 307,704 349,050 392,358 437,207 484,393
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252,242 300,929 351,476 403,961 458.471 515,094 573,568 633,249 695.267
Interest Earnings 7,713 10,104 12,586 15,166 17,846 20,632 23,510 26,445 29,497
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,734.240 2,046,973 2,312,296 2,663,774 2,961685 3,283,992 3,600.334 4,474.046 5,478,950
RSG,Inc., 11/10/98 cmbned.xts Budget
r.r EXHIBIT 1
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2,467 11,718 1509 15,703 4,669 19,976 5.953 24,485 7.350
Insurance 21,000 22,050 23,153 24,310 25,526 26.802 28.142 29.549 31.027
Animal Control 10,762 12,596 14,430 16,264 18,097 19,931 21,752 23,532 25,312
County Tax Collection Charge 6,984 8,478 10,036 11,673 13344 15,085 16,877 18.716 21.634
Subtotal 41,213 54,843 51,128 67,950 .06 81.794 72,724 96,282 85.323
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733,824 770,515 809,041 849,493 891,968 936.566 983.394 1,031564 1,084,192
Jail Booking Fees 4,400 4,532 4,668 4,808 4,952 5,101 5,254 5,411 5.574
Fire Protection 769.677 811,961 856,723 904,314 953,274 1,005.839 1,060.723 1,118,441 1,211.003
- --- -- - , - _- -- --- --- ----. - -- - ---- --
Subtotal 1,507,901 1,587,008 1,67Q432 1,758,61� 1,85Q194 1,947.506 2,049,372 2,156,416 2,300,769
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5.628 5.796 5.970 6,149 6.334
Code Compliance Officer 52,703 54,284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62.930 64,818 66.762
Subtotal 571763 59,434 611217 63,053 64,945 66,893 68,900 70,967 73,096
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 7,626 9,104 10,637 12,229 13.880 15.592 17,357 19,153 21.014
Street Lighting 8,281 8,530 8,786 9,049 9,321 9,600 9.888 10,185 10,490
Subtotal 15,907 17,633 19,423 21,278 23,201 25,192 27,245 291338 31,504
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * * Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0_ - 0 0 - 0 0. - 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 162,272 171,892 180,220 191,090 199,998 212,139 221,824 235,300 249,069
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,784,995 1,890,810 1,982,420 2,101,986 2,199,973 2,333,524 2.440,064 2.588.304 2,739.761
ROADS
Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 74,772 77,015 79,325 81,705 84,156 86,681 89,281 91,960 94,719
Street Sweeping 6,142 6,327 6,516 6,712 6.913 7,121 7,334 7.554 7,781
Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenanc 14,832 15,277 15,735 16,207 16,694 17,194 17,710 18.241 18,789
Contingency 9,575 9,862 10,158 10,462 10,776 I i,100 11,433 11,776 12,129
TOTAL ROAD FUND 105,321 108,480 111,735 115,087 118,539 122.096 125,758 129,531 133,417
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1,890,316 1,999,290 2.094,154 2,217,073 2,318,513 2.455,620 1565,823 2,717,835 2.873.178
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (156,076) 47,683 218,142 446,701 644,172 828,372 1,034.512 1,756.211 2.605,772
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT
-------------
(156,076) (108,393) 109,749 556,450 1,20Q622 2,028,994 3,063,505 4,819,717 71425,489
General Fund Sur lus/Shortfall p ( ) (316710) (154,870) (34,186) 142,660 286,394 414,741 563,192 1,226,048 2,014,425
Cumulative General Fund (310,710) (465,580) (499,765) (357,105) (70,711) 344,030 907,222 2,133,270 4,147,695
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154,634 202,553 252,327 304,040 357,778 413,631 471,320 53Q163 591347
Cumulative Road Fund 154,634 357,187 609,514 911555 1,271,333 1,684,964 2,156,284 2,686,447 3,277,794
RSG,Inc_ 11/10/98 cmbnetl As Budget
EXHIBIT 2
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft. comm.)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
TAXES
Property Tax 349,182 423.921 501,820 583,665 667122 754.260 843.850 935,797 1,056,071
Property Transfer Tax 57,584 58,735 57,002 58,142 59,305 60,491 61,469 61,989 63,229
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales Tax 135,677 153,115 157,708 223,217 229,914 250,244 257,751 525,639 809,368
Existing Commercial 122,699 126,380 130,172 134,077 138,099 142.242 146,509 150,905 155,432
New Commercial 12,978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108,002 111,242 374,734 653,936
Transient Occupancy Tax 164,915 166,594 168,306 156,552 144,833 133,150 .503 109, 98,321
-- - --- -- -- ---- -121 -- 634-05893 2,- - ----
Subtotal 708.097 803,104 885,576 1,022,316 1,102,013 1,198,884 1,285.313 1, , 6 2,027,728
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 191,941 224,645 257,350 290,055 322,759 355.464 387.930 419,682 451,434
Off-Highway License 79 93 106 120 133 147 __ 160 173 187
Subtotal 192,020 224,738 257,456 290,174 322,892 355.611 388,090 419,855 451.621
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 203,869 243,632 284,927 327,802 372,303 418,479 466,076 514,491 564,659
Subtotal 203,869 243,632 284,927 327,802 372.303 418.479 466,076 514,491 564,659
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9,436 11,025 12,675 14.386 16,161 17,990 19,851 21,780
Miscellaneous Revenues 39,338 46,041 52,744 59,447 66,149 72,852 79,506 86,014 92,521
Subtotal 47,242 55,477 63,769 72,122 80,536 89,013 97,496 105,865 114,302
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 203,793 247,413 292,877 340,644 389,410 440,208 492,496 546,158 616,354
Prop A Fire Tax 116,064 158,305 160,284 180,654 201,023 221,392 241,613 261,389 281,165
Subtotal 319,857 405,718 453,161 521,298 590.433 661,600 734,109 807,547 897,519
LICENSES
Business License Tax 3,200 3,271 3,344 3,819 3,904. 3,991 4,080 4,171 5_539
_- -
Subtotal 3,200 3,271 31344 3,819 3,904 3,991 4,080 4,171 5,539
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,474,285 1,735,940 1,948,234 2,237,530 2,472,081 2,727,577 2,975,164 3,485,986 4,061,368
Interest Eaminga 0 0 0 7,116 14,286 2008 28,093 47,128 70,322
ROAD FUNDS
69,154
Section 2105 29,403 34,413 39,423 44,433 49,443 54,452 59,426 64,290 45269
Section 2106 19,247 22,527 25,806 29,086 32,365 35,645 38,901 96.45 42,085
Section 2107 41,009 47,997 54,984 61,972 68,959 75,947 82,884 89,668 96,452
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 162,582 195,993 231,262 268,471 307,704 349,050 392,358 437,207 484,393
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252,242 300,929 351,476 4037961 458,471 515,094 573,568 633,249 695,267
Interest Earnings 7,713 10,104 12,586 15,166 17,846 20,632 23,510 26,445 29,497
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,734,240 2,046,973 2,312,296 2,663,774 2,962,685 3,283,992 3,600,334 4,192,808 4,856.454
RSG,Inc., 11/10/98 cmbned As Budget-less Comm
r
**Awl EXHIBIT 2
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft.comm.)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2,467 11,718 3,509 15,703 4,669 19,976 5,953 24.485 7,350
Insurance 21,000 22.050 23.153 24,310 25,526 26,802 28.142 29,549 31.027
Animal Control 10,762 11596 14,430 16,264 18,097 19,931 21,752 23,532 25,312
County Tax Collection Charge 6,984 8,478 10,036 11,673 13,344 15.085 16.877 18,716 21,121
Subtotal 41,213 54,843 51.128 67,950 61,636 81.794 72,724 96,282 84.810
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733,824 770.515 809.041 849,493 891,968 936,566 983.394 1,031564 1,084.192
Jail Booking Fees 4,400 4,532 4,668 4,808 4,952 5.101 5,254 5.411 5,574
Fire Protection 769,677 811,961 856,723 904,314 953,274 1,005,839 1,060,723 1,118.441 1,195.283
Subtotal 1,507,901 1,587,008 1,670,432 1,758,615 1,850,194 1,947.506 2,049,372 2,156,416 2,285,049
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 5,000 5,150 57305 5,464 5,628 5.796 5,970 6.149 6,334
Code Compliance Officer 52,703 54,284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,818 66.762
Subtotal 57,703 59,434 61,217 63,053 64,945 66,893 68,900 70,967 73,096
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 7,626 9,104 10,637 12,229 13,880 15,592 17,357 19,153 21,014
Street Lighting 8,281 8,530 8,786 9,049 9,321 9,600 9,888 10.185 10,490
Subtotal 15,907 17,633 19,423 21,278 21261 25,192 27,245 29,338 31,504
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * * Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 162,272 171,892 180,220 191,090 199,998 212,139 221,824 235,300 247,446
TOTALGENERALFUND 1,784,995 1,890,810 1,982,420 2,101,986 2,199,973 2,333,524 2,440,064 2.588,304 2,721,905
ROADS
Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 74,772 77,015 79,325 8 L705 84,156 86,681 89,281 91,960 94,719
Street Sweeping 6,142 6,327 6,516 6,712 6,913 7,121 7.334 7.554 7,781
Traffic Signal Operation/Maimenanc 14,832 15,277 15,735 16,207 16,694 17,194 171710 18,241 18,789
Contingency 9,575 9,862 10,158 10,462 10,776 11.100 11,433 11,776 12,129
TOTAL ROAD FUND 105,321 108,480 111.735 115,087 118,539 122.096 125,758 129,531 133,417
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1,890,316 1,999,290 2,094.154 2,217,073 2.318.513 2,455,620 2.565,823 2,717,835 2,855,322
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (156,076) 47,683 218.142 446,701 644.172 828,372 1,034,512 1,474,973 2,001.132
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (156,076) (108,393) 109.749 556,450 1,200,622 2,028,994 3,063,505 4,538,479 6,539,610
General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (310,710) (154,870) (34.186) 142,660 286,394 414,741 563,192 944,811 1,409,784
-Cum-u-1-ative General Fund (310,710) (465,580) (499,765) (357,105) (70,711) 344,030 907,222 1 852,032 3,261,817
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154.634 202,553 252,327 304,040 357,778 413,631 471,320 530,163 591,347
Cumulative Road Fund 154,634 357,187 609,514 913,555 1,271,333 1,684,964 2,156,284 2,686,447 3,277,794
RSG,Inc_ 11/10/98 cmbnectAs Budget-less comm
*Mr EXHIBIT 3
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
TAXES
Property Tax 322,897 395,426 471,033 550,497 631,603 716,100 803,374 893,862 L037,803
Property Transfer Tax 55,668 56,781 55,009 56,109 57.232 58.376 59,544 60,735 61,949
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales Tax 134,539 151,943 156,501 221,973 228,633 248,925 256,392 791,449 1.358,377
Existing Commercial 121,561 125.208 128,964 132,833 136,818 140,923 145,150 149,505 153,990
New Commercial 12,978 26.735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108,002 111,242 641.944 1?04,387
Transient Occupancy Tax 164,915 166,594 168,306 156,552 144.833 133,150 121,503 109,893 98,321
Subtotal 678,758 771,482 851,588 985,871 1,063,039 1,157.290 1.241,552 1,856,677 2.557,189
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 165,745 197.497 229,249 261,001 292,753 324,505 356,257 388,009 419,761
Off-Highway License 68 82 95 _]08 121 134 147 160 173
Subtotal 165,814 197,579 229,344 261,109 292.874 324,640 356,405 388,170 419,935
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 175,811 213,681 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425,567 472,767 521,684
Subtotal 175,811 213,681 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425,567 472,767 521,684
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 6,825 8,295 9,822 11,405 13.049 14,753 16,521 18,353 20,252
Miscellaneous Revenues 33,969 40,477 46,985 53,492 60,000 66,507 73,015 79,522 86,030
Subtotal 40,795 48,772 56,806 64,898 73,049 81,261 89,536 97,876 106,282
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 188,453 230,784 274,911 321,289 368,625 417,940 468,876 521,688 605,696
Prop A Fire Tax 100,224 141,396 142,783 162,559 182,335 202.111 221,887 241,663 261,439
Subtotal 288,677 372,180 417,694 483.847 550,959 620,051 690,763 763,350 867,135
LICENSES
Business License Tax 2,960 3,019 3,080 3,541 3,612 3,684 3,758 3,833 6,460
Subtotal 2,960 3,019 3,080 3,541 3,612 3.684 3,758 3.833 6,460
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,352,815 1,606314 1,811,507 2,093,063 2,319.662 2,566,962 2.807,580 3,582,672 4.478,685
Interest Earning$ 0 0 0 762 7,506 13,615 20,633 53,649 92,712
ROAD FUNDS
Section 2105 25,390 30,254 35,118 39,982 44,846 49,710 54,574 59,438 64,302
Section 2106 16,620 19,804 22,988 26,172 29,356 32,540 35,724 38,908 42,092
Section 2107 35,412 42,196 48,980 55,764 62,548 69,332 76,116 82,900 89,684
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 140,394 172,308 206,010 241,580 279,098 318,650 360,324 404,212 450,408
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 217,817 264,563 313,097 363,499 415,849 470,233 526,739 585,459 646,487
Interest Earnines 6,671 8,982 11,383 13,877 16,469 19,164 21,964 24,877 27,905
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,577,302 1,880,258 2,135,987 2,471.201 2,759,487 3,069.974 3.376,917 4,246,656 5.245,788
RSG,Inc., 11/10/98 DELWEB2.xls Budget
EXHIBIT 3
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 - 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2,130 10302 3,126 14,130 4,235 18.236 5.467 21637 6,834
Insurance 19,740 20,727 21,763 22,852 23,994 25,194 26.453 27,776 29,165
Animal Control 9,293 11,074 11854 14,635 16,415 18.195 19.976 21,756 23,536
County Tax Collection Charge 6,458 7.909 9,421 11,010 12,632 14,322 16,067 17,877 20.756
Subtotal 37,622 50,012 47,164 62,626 57,276 75.947 67,964 90,047 80,291
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733,824 770.515 809,041 849,493 891,968 936,566 983.394 1.032,564 17084.192
Jail Booking Fees 3,872 3,988 4,108 4,231 4,358 4A89 4.623 4,762 4,905
Fire Protection 758,673 800.352 844,476 891,395 939,639 991.455 1,045.723 1,103,177 1,195,077
Subtotal 1,496,369 1,574,855 1,657,624 1,745,119 1,835.965 1,932.509 2,033,741 2,140.503 2,284,175
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 3,850 3,966 4,084 4,207 4,333 4.463 4.597 4,735 4,877
Code Compliance Officer 52,703 54,284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,818 66,762
Subtotal 56,553 58,249 59,997 61,797 63,651 65,560 67,527 69.553 71,639
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 6,585 8,003 9,476 11,004 12,590 14,234 15,940 17,708 19,540
Street Lighting 8,281 8,530 8,786 9,049 9,321 9.600 9,888 10,185 10,490
Subtotal 14,866 16,533 18,261 20,053 21,910 23,835 25.828 27,892 30,030
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * Assumed to be Paid by-Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 160,541 169.965 178.305 188,960 197,880 209385 219,506 232,799 246.614
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,765,951 1,869,614 1,961,351 2,078,555 2,176,682 2,307,636 2,414.565 2.560,794 2,712,749
ROADS
Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 69,271 71,350 73,490 75,695 77,966 80,305 82,714 85,195 87,751
Street Sweeping 5,819 5.993 6,173 6,358 6,549 6,745 6,948 7,156 7,371
Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance 7,416 7,638 7,868 8,104 8.347 8,597 8,855 9,121 9,394
Contingency 8,251 8,498 8,753 9,016 9,286 9,565 9,852 10,147 10,452
TOTAL ROAD FUND 90,757 93,479 96,284 99,172 102,147 105.212 108,368 111,619 114,968
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1,856,707 1,963,093 2.057,635 2,177,727 2,278,829 2,411848 2,522.933 2,672.414 2,82T717
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (279A05) - (82,835) 78,352 293,474 480,659 657,126 853,984 1,574 242 2,418,072
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (279,405) (362,240) (283,888) 9,586 490,245 1,147,371 2,001355 3,575,597 5,993,669
General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) - (413,136) -(262,900) (149,845) - 15,270 150,487 272,941 413,649 1,075,526 1,858047
Cumulative General Fund (413,136) (676,036) (825,881) (810,610) (660,123) (387,182) 26,466 1,101 993 2,960,640
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 133,731 180,065 228,196 278,204 330,171 384,185 440,336 498,716 559,424
Cumulative Road Fund 133,731 313,796 541,993 820,196 1,150,368 1,534 553 1,974,888 2,473 604 3,033,029
RSG,Inc., 11/10/98 DELWES2.xls Budget
r + EXHIBIT 4
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq. ft. Comm)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 - 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
TAXES
Property Tax 322,897 395,426 471,033 550,497 631,603 716,100 803,374 893,862 1,012,391
Property Transfer Tax 55,668 56,781 55,009 56,109 57,232 58,376 59,544 W735 61,949
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales Tax 134,539 151,943 156.501 221.973 228,633 248,925 256,392 524.239 807,926
Existing Commercial 121,561 125,208 128,964 132,833 136,818 140,923 145,150 149,505 153,990
New Commercial 12,978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108,002 111,242 374,734 653,936
Transient Occupancy Tax 164,915 166.594 168.306 156,552 144,833 133,150 121,503 109,893 98,321
Subtotal 678,758 771,482 851.588 985,871 1,063,039 1,157,290 1,241,552 1,589,467 1.981,326
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 165,745 197,497 229.249 261,001 292,753 324,505 356,257 388,009 419,761
Off-Highyvay License 68 82 95 108 121 134 147 160 173
Subtotal 165,814 197,579 229,344 261,109 292,874 324,640 356,405 388,170 419,935
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 175,811 213,681 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425,567 472,767 521,684
Subtotal 175,811 213,681 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425,567 472,767 521,684
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 6,825 8,295 9,822 11,405 13,049 14,753 16,521 18,353 20,252
Miscellaneous Revenues 33,969 40,477 46,985 53,492 60,000 66,507 73,015 79,522 86,030
Subtotal 40,795 48,772 56,806 64,898 73,049 81,261 89,536 97,876 106,282
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 188,453 230,784 274,911 321,289 368,625 417,940 468,876 521,688 590,865
Prop A Fire Tax 100,224 141,396 142,783 162,559 182,335 202,111 221,887 241,663 261,439
Subtotal 2188,677 372,180 417,694 483,847 550,959 620,051 690,763 763,350 852,304
LICENSES
Business License Tax 2,960 3.019 3,080 3,541 3,612 3,684 3,758 3,833 -5,185
Subtotal 2,960 3,019 3,080 3,541 3,612 3,684 3,758 3,833 5,185
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,352,815 1,606,714 1,811,507 2,093,063 2,319.662 2,566,962 2,807,580 3,315,463 3,886,715
Interest Earnings 0 0 0 762 7,506 13,615 20,633 39,620 62,576
ROAD FUNDS
Section 2105 25,390 30,254 35,118 397982 44,846 49,710 54,574 59,438 64,302
Section 2106 16,620 19,804 22,988 26,172 29,356 32,540 35,724 38,908 42,092
Section 2107 35,412 42,196 48,980 55,764 62,548 69,332 76,116 82,900 89,684
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 140,394 172,308 206,010 241,580 279.098 318.650 360,324 404,212 450,408
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 217,817 264,563 313,097 363,499 415,849 470,233 526,739 585,459 646,487
InterestEarnines 6,671 8,982 11,383 13,877 16,469 19,164 21,964 24,877 27,905
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,577,302 1,880,258 2,135,987 2,471,201 2,759,487 3,069,974 3,376,917 3.965.418 4,623,683
RSG,Inc., 11/10/98 DELWES2.xls Bdgt-less Comm.
EXHIBIT 4
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq. ft. Comm)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 . 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2,130 10,302 3,126 14.130 4,235 18,236 5,467 22,637 6,834
Insurance 19,740 20,727 21,763 22,852 23.994 25.194 26,453 27,776 29,165
Animal Control 9,293 11,074 12,854 14,635 16.415 18.195 19,976 21,756 23,536
County Tax Collection Charge -- - 6,458 7,909 - _ 9,421 11,010 11632 14,322 16,067 17,877 20,248
Subtotal 37,622 50,012 47,164 61626 57.276 75,947 67,964 90,047 79,783
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733,824 770,515 809,041 849.493 891.968 936,566 983,394 1,032,564 1,084,192
Jail Booking Fees 3,872 3,988 4,108 4.231 4.358 4,489 4,623 4,762 4,905
Fire Protection 758,673 800,352 844,476 891.395 939,639 991,455 1.045,723 1,103,177 1,179,267
Subtotal 1,496,369 1,574,855 1,657,624 1,745.119 1.835,965 1,932,509 2.033,741 2.140,503 2.268,365
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 3,850 3,966 4,084 4.207 4,333 4,463 4,597 4,735 4,877
Code Compliance Officer _52,703 54,284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,818 66,762
Subtotal 56,553 58,249 59,997 61.797 63,651 65,560 67,527 69,553 71,639
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 6,585 8,003 9,476 11,004 12,590 14,234 15,940 17,708 19,540
Street Lighting 8,281 8,530 8,786 9,049 9.321 9,600 9,888 10,185 10,490
Subtotal 14,866 16,533 18,261 20,053 21,910 23,835 25,828 27,892 30,030
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * * Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 160,541 169,965 178,305 188,960 197,880 209,785 219,506 232.799 244,982
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,765,951 1,869,614 1.961,351 2,078,555 2,176,682 2,307,636 2,414,565 2,560,794 2.694,799
ROADS
Capitallmprovements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 69,271 71,350 73,490 75,695 77,966 80,305 82,714 85,195 87,751
Street Sweeping 5,819 5,993 6,173 6,358 6,549 6,745 6,948 7,156 7,371
Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance 7,416 7,638 7,868 8,104 8,347 8,597 8,855 9,121 9,394
Contingency 8,251 8,498 8,753 9,016 9,286 9,565 9,852 10,147 10 452
TOTAL ROAD FUND 90,757 93,479 96,284 99,172 102,147 105,212 108,368 111,619 114,968
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1.856,707 1.963.093 2.057,635 2,177.727 2.278,829 2.412,848 2.522.933 1672,414 1809,766
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) - (279,405) (82,835) 78,352 2.93,474 480,659 657,126 853,984 1,293,005 1,813,916
- ---------
CUMULATIVESURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (279,405) (362,240) (283,888) 9,586 490,245 1,147,371 2,001,355 3,294,359 5,108,276
General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (413,136) (262,900) (149,845) -15,270 150,487 272,941 413,649 794,288 1,254,492
Cumulative General Fund - (413,136) (676,036)- (825,881) (810,610) (660,123)- (387,182) 26,466 820,755 2,075,247
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 133,731 180,065 228,196 278,204 330,171 384,185 440,336 498,716 559,424
Cumulative Road Fund 133,731 313,796 541,993 820,196 1,150.368 1,534 553 1,974,888 2,473,604 3,033,
029
RSG,Inc.. 11/10/98 DELWEB2.xls Bdgt-less comm.
RSG, INC . Ir '714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :36 No .012 P .02
EXHIBIT i
bjinc Xenr„Revenue& EMenditurc 1-9Lm__7mary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY &JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY MYK81NUP)
19 8.99 1 20UJ42 2-03 200 3 200.i 06
(:>:NF.RAL r;jlNl?RK.YF.NIIF (Full Year(RWI Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year) (Bulldout)
.Cy
TAXES
Property Tax 349,182 423,921 501;920 393,665 667.222 754.260 943.950 935.797 1,081,715
Property Transfer Tax 6.404 6,532 3.735 3,830 3.907 3,985 4,065 4.146 4,229
Purcol Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 7.19
Salts fax 134,841 132.2$4 156,821 222,303 228,973 249.275 256,753 791.820 1,358,760
E:sisrinr;Cumnercia/ 121,863 125.519 129.283 133,163 137.158 141.273 143,511 149,876 154.373
NewCrmrmercial 12.978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91,815 1118,002 111,242 641.944 1,204,387
Transient Occupancy Tax 17423.9 176,104 178,006 166,446 134.925 143,444 132,003 120,60; 109,243
Subtutul 665,406 759.551 841,142 976,985 1.055,767 1.151.703 1.237,41U 1,853,1QS 2,554.688
MOTOR VFAICI.N,FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Utu 191,941 224,645 257,350 290,055 322.759 355,464 387,930 419.682 451.434
Off-Highwayl.icensc 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 I87
Subtotal - - 192,020 224,738 257.456 29U,174 32x,M 355,611 388.090 419,855 451,621
TRANCIIISE FEES
CTae,Mectric,Trash,and C:ablo TV 203.869 243,632 294.927 327,802 372303 418.479 466,076 514,491 564.659
Subtotal -- 203.969 243.632 294,927 327,802 3723t)3 418,479 466,076 114,49f-'- 564,6S9
U'171FK REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 7 9p4 9.436 1 I.M5 12,675 14196 16.161 17.990 19.951 21,780
141mvilmievus Rovonuos __..._____ 39.338 46,041 52,744 59,447 66.149 72.852 79,506 $6.014 9ZS21
Subtotal 47,242 55.477 6..1,769 72.122 80,536 49Ab 97A96 105,865 1I4,302
FIRT:TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 203.793 247A13 29ZB77 340,644 389,410 440.208 492.496 546,159 631,320
Prup A Fire Tux _..............__....._._. 116,064 _ 158,305 160,294 190.654 201,023 221,392 241,613 261,389 291.165
Subtotal 319,957 405.719 453,161 521.298 590,433 661,600 7.14,109 807.547 912,4R6
LICENSES
Dusium R Licence Tax. „___ 3.200 3,271 3,344 3.819 3,904 3,991 4,090 4,171 6.814
Suhtatul 3,200 3.271 3,344 3A—S 3,904 3,991 4,080 4,J 1 F
_ 6,814
TMAL GENERAL FUND IA31„394 1.692.386 1.903.801 2,192,199 2.425,934 2,690.396 2.927.261 3.705,034 4,604.570
1ntems1FimminBu 0 0 0 4,736 11.858 18,211 25,578 58,628 97,902
[1AD Fl1N11S
Section 2105 29,403 34,413 39,423 44.433 49.443 54,452 59,426 64,290 69.154
Section 2106 19,247 22,527 25,906 29,086 32,365 35,645 38,901 42.085 45.269
Section 2107 41.009 47,997 54,924 61.972 68.959 75,947 92,984 89,668 96,452
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Meef u="A"ROTC TA"l Tumbnck 162.562 195.993 231,262 26RA71 307,704 349.050 392.358 437,207 484,19.1
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 232,242 300.929 351,476 403,961 459,471 S 15.094 57-1,568 633,249 695,267
Intorest Eaminas 7,713 10,104 12,3R6 15,166 17.846 20,632 23,510 26.443 29A97
TOTAL ALL REVENVES 1,691,549 4003.419 2,267,863 2.06,063 2,914,010 3,234133 3,349,917 4.423,357 5,427.237
nao.ono..MAU Wnbmd.tl,"d
RSG , INC. In :714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :36 No .012 P .03
*%up EXHIBIT 1
Nine Year Revenue &Lxnen&jrC SUMM=
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998.99 0 2001-02 83 2003-04 2004.05 2WS-06 200&07
(Full Year(]Full Year)(Full Year)(Mull Year)(Fall Veer)(Full Your)(Full Year)(Full Year) (Bulldout)
GENERAL FUND EXPIENWTL111_x.S
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Admioirtrutitm 2,467 11.718 3,509 13,703 4,669 19,976 5,953 24.485 7.350
Insurance, 21,000 22,050 23.153 24.310 25.526 26,802 28,142 29.549 31,027
Animal Control 10.762 12,596 14,430 16.264 18,097 19.931 21.752 23,532 25,312
Cs,unly Tax C:ullcclion Gi+arge... 6.984 BA79 10,036 11,673 13,344 15,085 16,877 18,716 21.634
_
Subtotal 41,213 $4,843 51.128 67.950 61.636 81.794 72,724 96,282 85,323
PUDL1C SAFETY
sheriff contract 733.824 770.515 809,041 949,493 891,968 936,566 983,394 1.032,564 1,084.192
.Jail Hooking Fecs 4,400 4,332 4.668 4.909 4.952 5,101 3,254 5,411 5.574
Fire Protection ___.-__..._... .. 769.677 811.961 9*723 904,314 953.274 1,005,939 1,060,723 1.119,441 1,211.003
Subtotal 1,507.901 1.387.008 1.670,432 1.758,613 1,850.194 1,947,506 2,049,372 2,156,416 2,300,769
COMMUNITY DF-VIKLOPMUNT
Net Costs 51000 5,150 3,305 5,464 5,622 5,796 5,970 6.149 6134
Code C:om lianoc 0flieor 52,703 54,284 55,912 37,590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,819 66,762
subtotal 57,703 59.434 61.217 63,053 -64,945 66,893 68,900 70,967 73,096
PUHI.It,WORKS
Administreliun 7.626 9,104 10.037 12,229 13,880 15,592 17.357 19,153 21,014
Street Lighting _.._.._._......_......_. ..-.__.... 9.281 U30 9,786 9,049 _ 9,321 9,6on 9,888 10,1R5 10,490
Subtotal 15,907 17,633 19.423 21,278 23,201 2S.192 27,245 29,138 31„504 s '
PARKS&RECREATION ,
1.Imdscapitlg/Mcdian Muinta14111:e ' ' ' Assumed to be Pdd Master Homeowners'Association ' • '
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 _.- _. 0
CONf1NGI:NCY 162,272 171,992 190,220 191,090 199.998 212.139 221.824 2.15.300 249.069
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.784.995 1.990.810 1.982,420 2,101.986 2,199,973 2,333,524 2,440,064 2,599,304 2,739,761
ROADS
Cnoud lmpn,vcmcots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RUQAD SIN-1.KNANC:E
Street Maintenance 74.772 77.015 79,325 91,703 84,156 86,691 89,28I 91,960 94,719
SUuI$w0cping 6,142 6,327 6,516 6,712 6.913 7,121 7.334 7,554 7.781
Tratlic Signal U oration/Maintananc 14.932 15.277 15,735 16,207 16,694 17,194 17.710 18.241 18.799
Contingency 9,575 9,862 10,158 10.462 10,776 11,100 11,433 I1,7i6 i2,129 '
TOTAL.ROAD FUND 105,321 109,490 111.733 115.087 118.339 122.096 123.738 129,331 133,417
TOTAL ALL EXTLNDITIIKi':5 1.890,316 E.W.290 2.094.154 2,217,073 2,318,513 2,4S5,620 2,565,823 2,717,835 21873,178
REVENUR SURPLUSASHOWITA1.11.) (199,767) 4.129 173,709 399,990. 595,499 779,714 984.094 1,705 S22 2,554.058
CUidULATIVE SCiRPLUS/(DEl IC:17) (198,767) (104.638) (20,930) 37RAM 973,557 1,752,271 2,736,3C5_ 4,441,887 6,995,946
_ General)Fund Surrlps/(Shortfaln (35.1,402) (198,424) (78,619) 94,949--_237,719 365,083 512.775 Ll iW• 1.967,711
Cumulative General Fund (353.402) (551.825) (6,'10,444) (535,495) (197,176) 67,307 580,081 1,755,441 3,718- 52
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154,634' Z02,553 252,3i7 304,040 357,778 413._631 471,320 530,163 _19l.347
Cumulative Road)hind 154,634 357,197 609,514 913,555 1.271,333 1,684,964 2,156,284 2,68G,447 3 Z77,794
MD.tie,.,aa�eerw,a aeon
RSG , INC . In:714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :38 No .012 P .06
`%Me *Now 1✓X I•i II3IT 2
NNj a YeK Revenue&E,nenditum S tUMM=
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ( w, a,cr Tiff- TUr y�
1998-99 19l9.00 2000-01 200142 2A02-03 2003-04 2004-0.5 2005.06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Huildout)
' :N : ♦1.F1 I D RF:YEN 1.R
TAXES
Praperiy Tux 322,897 393,426 471,033 550,497 631.603 716,100 $03,374 993.962 1.037,803
Prpperty Tmnpfcr'I ax 5,312 5.419 2,619 2,672 2,72S 2,780 2.835 2,892 2,950
1'arccl'lax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales 7 ax 133,703 151.081 133,614 221.060 227,692 247,955 255,394 790.420 1,357,31 R
Wsling Commemial 120,725 124.347 128.077 131,919 133,877 139 953 144.152 148.476 1.52,931
NcwCnmmervial l$978 26.735 27,537 09140 91,815 108.002 111,242 641.944 1,204.387
Transicm Occupancy Tax 174.239 176.104 178,006 166,446 134,925 „ 143.444 132.003 120,603 109,245
Subtotal - — -636,991 721,769 909.012 941,415 1,017,694 1,111,01R 1,194,346 1,808,516.. 2,508,055
MOTOR VEH1C12.PW
MMor Vehicle ln4.icu 165,745 197,497 229,249 261,001 292.753 324,505 356,257 399.009 419,761
Off-Highway 1.mnst ____..•_• 68 82 95 108 121 134 147 _ 160_ 173
Subtotal 165,914 197MO 229,344 261.109 292,874 324,640 356.405 388,170 419,935
FRANCHiSF.FF.T!:S
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable 7Y 175.911 213.631 252.995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425.567 472,767 321,684
Bubtolai 173,811 213,691 252,995 293.797 336.129 380.037 425,567 472,767 521.G84
MWER REVENUM,
Fines tC F(wreitums 6,825 8,295 91822 11,405 13.049 14.753 16,521 1 R 153 20.252
MiurollantOa3 ltovonu08 33,969 40,477 46,995 53.492 60,000 66,507 73,015 79.522 86,030
Subtotal 40,795 49.772 56,80E 64,898 73,049 81.261 89.53E 97,876 106,292
FIRE TAX
Stmetural Firc Protcction'tax 188,453 230,784 274,911 321.289 369,625 417,940 469,976 521.689 605.696
1 A Firc'fax _ 100,224 141,396 142,793 162.559 182,335 202.111 221,997 241,663 261.439
Subtotal 298.677 372.180 417,694 483,1147 550,959 620,051 00.763 763.350 867,133
LICENSES
Ausincx.•Hounsc l ax 2,960 3,019 3,090 3,541 3.612 3.694 3,758 3,831 6.460
--
Subtotal 2,96p 3,019 3,080 3.541 3,612 3,694 3,758 3,833 G.460
TOTAL.C)?NFXA1,FUND 1,310,947 1,564,000 1,767,930 2,048,607 2.274 i07 2.520.691 2,760,374 3,534,511 4,429,551
jpkzcmt Earnings 0 0 0 0 5.125 11.185 18.155 51,120 90.132
$OAR FUNjj%
Suction 2105 25,390 30.254 35.118 39.992 44.846 49.710 54,574 59,439 64.302
Sectiat2106 16.620 19,904 22,999 26,172 29,336 32,540 35.724 38.908 42,092
Scmion 2107 35,412 42,196 48.980 55.764 62,548 69,332 76,116 $2.900 89.684
Section 21075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"ROTC Local Turnback 140.394 . 1720308 206,010 241,580 279,098 318,650 360,324 404,212 , 450,408
TOTAL,ROAD FtINOS 217,817 264.563 313,097 363,499 415.1019 470.233 526,739 595.459 646.497
Interest FlI' 1 ings 6,671 8,992 11,W 13.877 16,469 19.164 21,964 24,877 27.905
TOTAL Al-14 UVFNIIE S 1,535.435 1,337,545 2,092,410 2,425,983 2.711,731 3.021,273 3.327.233 4.195.967 5,194,075
No.me..eosin OEl. exlk boom
RSG, INC . In :714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :39 No .012 P .07
Nine Year Revenue&Expenditure Sugo=
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
IM 99 1999.00 2000-01 200142 2002-W 2003.04 2000-05 2W46 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Rulidout)
jjKNF,RAI.FUND EXPLNIDIIII
GENERAL CAVRRNMENT
Administration 2.130 10,302 3.126 14.130 4.235 18.236 5,467 22.637 61834
lnsuranco 19.740 20.727 21,763 22,852 23,994 25.194 26.453 27,776 79,165
Animal Control 9.293 11,074 12.854 14.635 16.415 19,195 19,976 21.756 2.1,536
County Tax Collection Charge 6,459 7.909 _ 9,421 11,010 12.632 14,322 16,067 17,877 20,756
Subtotal 37,622 50,012 47,164 62,626 57,276 75,947 67,964 90,047 80,291
PUDLIC SAFETY
Shcrifl'CAMIrAd 733,824 770.515 $09.041 949,493 991,968 936.566 993,394 1.0.12,564 1,094,192
Jail J1001cing Fees 3.972 3,988 4,108 4,231 4.359 4.499 4,623 4,762 4,905
15rcProtcction _ 758�b73 IM352 844,476 891,395 939,639 991,455 1.045,723 1,103.177 1.195.077
Subtotal 1,496,369 1.574,855 1,657,674 1,745,119 1,935,965 1.932.509 2,033,741 2,140,503 2,294,175
COMMUNITY I*VFLOPMENT
Nct Cons 3,850 3,966 4.094 4.207 4333 4,463 4,597 4.735 4.677
(:a*jCwnpliance Officer 52.701 54.294 35,912 57.590 59.317 61,097 62,930 64,8111 66,762
Subtotal 56.553 58,249 19.997 61,797 63,651 65,560 67.527 6003 71,09
P111111C WORKS
Administration 6.583 8.003 9,476 11,004 12,590 14.234 15.940 17.708 19,540
Strcct Lighting _ 8_291 8,530 8.786 9.049 9,321 9,600 9,BBB 10,1S5 IOA90
Subtotal HAW 16.533 19,261 20,053 21.910 23,835 25,R29 27,R92 30,030
PARKS&RECREATION
LandscOng/Median Maintenance • • ' Assumed to bo Paid by Master l lameow.ner;Association •
Subtotal _—.._.._.. . .... .0 ...._.. 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0
CONTINGENCY 160,541 169.965 178,305 188,960 197,8110 209,795 219,506 232,799 246.614
TOTAL.GENERAL FUND 1.765.951 1.969.614 1.961,351 2,078.555 2,176,682 2,307.636 2.414.565 2.560,794 2.712.749
BOAQ&
Cq,hd hnprt>velaents 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0
RRAll MAIKI'1 NANC.l'E
Street Maintenance 69,271 71.350 7.1,490 75.695 77,966 90,305 82.714 85.195 87.751
Street Swcoping 5,R19 5.993 6,173 6,3S8 6.549 6,743 6,948 71156 7,371
TrxMc Signal O urutionMlalmenance 7.416 7.6.18 7,R6R 9,104 8,347 8.597 9.855 %121 9.394
Contingency 8,251 8,498 8,753 9.016 9.286 91565 9,R52 10,147 10,452
TOTAL ROAD FIIND 90.737 93.479 96,294 99,172 102,147 105,212 108.368 111.619 114.968
TOTAi.A1J•F.%PF.N111TURFS 1,856,707 1,963,093 2.057,635 2,177,727 2,278.929 2,417,848 2,522,933 2,672,414 2,827.717
REVENUE SURPl,U31(SHOli7'KAId.L (321,273) (1ZS,548) 34.775 248,2S6___432,923 609,425 904,299 1,523,553 2,366,355
CIJMIJIA77VE SURPLUSI(DHF1Cl1) (321.273) (446.821) (412,045) (163,799) 269.133 877.559 1,681,858 .1,201,411 5.571.769
General Fund Surplud(Sbortlall) _(4SSL001) (305.613) (193,421) (29,949) 102.751 224,240 363,964 1,024,837 1,806.934
_ 6rnulativc General Fund _ (455,004) (760,617) (954,638) (983,986�881,234) (656,994) (293,U31) 731.907 2.538.740
Rea Fund Sarlluud(Shorifell) 133.731 180.065 229.106 _ 27R.204 330,171 384,195 440.116 498.716 559,47A
(�amulstivo koad Fund 133,731 313,796 541.993 920.196 1,150,368 1.534.553 1,974,888 2,473.604 3.033,029
RW,Inc..WM Vr.LWCIO+Mbr
RSG , INC . IP :714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :41 No .012 P . 10
�.. EXHIBIT 3
Nine Year Revenue fit:,ExMditure SuMM=
JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ( :W1T4vUrDe-L")2'910
1998-99 11999-00 2000-01 211111-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005416 2006-07
(Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Ycar) (Wall Year) (Full Year) (Duildout)
CE'NICRA1,FUND Rj;VQ IM
TAX1"sS
Properly Tax 25,902 27,332 29115 31.159 33,063 35.032 36,726 37,440 39,189
Property Transfer Tax I'M 1,114 1,136 1.159 1,182 1.205 1,230 1,254 1.279
Parcel Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sales Tax 1,138 1,172 1,207 1,244 1.281 1,319 1.359 1,400 1,442
TrAMYR Owupnal0x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 28,038 29,818 31,658 33560 35,526 37,557 39.3I5 40,094 40.910
Mt7t'Olt VEli[IU.E FEES
Motor Vchicic In-Lieu 26.195 27.148 28.101 29,033 30,006 30.958 31.673 31,673 31.673
OF-jTiShway l.itxnso _ 11 11......... . 12 12 12 13 13 13 13
Subtotal 26,206 27,159 29 112 29,06S 30,019 30,971 31,b8b
31,686 31.686
IMANCHISE TGrS
Gas,Wermc.Trash,and Gable IN 28,059 29,951 31,932 34.005 36,174 38,442 40.509 41,724 _ 42.976
Subtotal 28,0.59 29.951 31,932 34,005 36,174 38,442 40.509 41,724 42.976
0711M REVENIII?S
Pines&Forfeitures 1.079 1.140 1,204 1,270 1,337 1,407 1.469 1,499 1.528
Miscellaneous Rewnuas — _ 5,369 5,564 5,7." — _3.954 6.150 6,345 6,491 6,491 6,491
Subtotal 6,447 6.704 6,963 7,M 7,497 7.752 7,9G0 7,989 8,019
FIRE TAX
Structural Tire Pnrt lion Tax 15,061 16,067 17,108 t 8,183 19,295 20,444 21,433 21.849 22,296
Prop A Fire Tax 151840 16,908 17,502 18,095 18,b8R _ 19.Y82 19.727 19.727 19_727
Subtotal 30,901 32.976 34,609 36.278 37.983 39,726 41,159 41,S76� 42,013
1J :NSES
Ilusiaess U me Tux 240 252 265 278 292 306 322 338 _ 355
Subtotal 240 252 265 278 292 306 322 338 355
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 119.891 126.961 133,540 140,411 147.480 154,754 160.950 163,407 163,939
tnln,ne�„ LL. MP 0 0 0 0 4 n 0 0 0
ROAD FIINUS
SeLtiun 2105 4.013 4,159 4,305 4,451 4,S% 4.742 4.852 4,852 4,852
Section 2106 2,627 2.7222 2,819 2.913 3,009 3,104 3,176 .1,176 3.176
SRectam 2107 5,597 5,800 6,004 6,207 6.411 6.614 6,767 6,767 6.767
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mcasuro"A"RUM Local Tumbock 22,189 23.685 25.252 26,991 28,606 30,400 32.034 32,995 33.985
TOTAL ROAD WND.S 34.425 36.367 39,378 40,462 42A22 44.861 46.929 47,790 49,780
)pt MUSA- 12 1.043 1,122 1,204 1,289 1,377 1.469 1.546 1,569 1,592
TO'I'AL ALL REVENUES 153.359 164,349 173,122 182,162 191,479 201,093 209,325 212.766 216,331
ae0.Mo..LIMMS.wcxNvy.auepw
RSG , INC . ID :714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :41 No .012 P . 11
`we F..XHIAI'T'3
Nine You Humye it Lum it c SUMMAM
JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998.99 1999.00 2W"I 200142 2002.03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006407
(Fall Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Fat Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND RXPFNDITIIRLS
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administratitrn 337 1,416 383 1,573 434 1,740 486 1.848 516
lasuranco 1.260 1.323 1,399 1.459 1,532 1,6011 1,6119 1,773 1,962
Animal Cuntnd 1,469 11522 1,576 I,629 1.692 1,736 1.776 1.776 11776
County Tax Collection Charge 516._—351 _ 526_ — 623 661 701 735 749 764
Subtotal 3,592 4,812 3,934 5,294 4.309 5,784 4,685 6,146 4,917
PUBLIC SAIT•.TY
Sheriff(.Pnwa;t 733,924 770,515 909,041 $49,493 891,969 936.566 983,394 1.032.564 1.084.192
Jail Booking Ices 529 344 560 577 $94 612 630 649 669
Dire Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 734.352 771.059 809.601 SK070 $92,562 9.17.179 9R4,025 1,033,213 1,094,861
COMMIINI7Y DEVELOPMENT
Not Costs 1.1$0 1.183 1.220 1,257 1.294 t,333 1,373 1,414 1.457
Code Compliant;Officer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 1,150 1.185 1,220 1.257 1.294 1,333 1.373 1.414 1.457
PUBLIC WORKS
Adminblrathm 1,041 1.100 1.162 1.225 1,290 11359 1,417 1,445 1,474
Street lighting --_._ 0 0_... 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0
Subtotal 1.041 1,100 1,162 1.225 1,290 1,359 1,417 1,445 1,474
PARKS do RECREATION
l.andeca in ediurr Maint"an_ce ' • Assumed to_bo Paid by Matitcr llrnnurwncW Association • • •
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 74,012 77,916 81,592 85,794 89,r.J46 94.565 99.150 104,222 109.271
TOTAL.GENERAL FUND 914.137 953.971 897 509 943,619 999,402 1,040,219 1,090,650 1.146,441 1,201,990
ROADS
Capital Impmvcmcnte_._ _ 0 0._ 0 0 0 0 (I
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Stimt Maimcnanoc 5,Sn0 5,665 5,935 6,010 6.191 6.376 6.568 6,765 6.968
Sheet Sweephg 324 334 344 354 364 375 397 398 410
Tmffic Signal t pwalion/Maimcnartcc _ 7,416 7.639 7,868 8,104 9.347 8.597 8,853 9,121 - _ 9,394
Contingency 1,324 1364 1.403 1.447 1,490 1.53-5 1.591 1.628 1,677
TOTAL ROAD FUND 14.564 151001 15,451 15,915 16,392 16.894 17.390 17,912 18,449
TOTAI.ALL EXPENDITURES 929,701 870.972 912.960 959.533 1,005.794 1,057,103 1.109.040 1.164.353 1.220.430
REVEN Ilk SilKP1. 1M9H0RTFAl.l.)_ (671.342) (706,623) (739,838) (777.371) .(814,315) (856,020) (998,716) (951,597) (1,004,099)
CITMIMATJVTs SIJRPI.US/(DTsF7CM (673,342) (1,379,965) (2,119.803) (2,897,175) (3,711,489) (4,567,509) (5,466,225) (6.417,812) (7.421.910)
General Nuad 5arplw/($horffali) (694.245) (7Z4.1 l 1) (703.969) (903,208) (841.922) (885,465) (929,7nn) (9R3,034) (1,03G,022)
(:amulativo General Fund (694,243) (1,423,356) (2,187.325) (2.99041D {3,1U2«4S5j (4 j)?,920) (5,647,620) (6,630,654) (7,666,676)
__..—mod Fund Furpluo/Mbertfall) 20,904 22.487 24,131 25,837 27,607 29,446 30.994 31,447 3(.
CumulativcMwedFund 20,904-_43,391 67.522 93.3358 120_966 150_411 191396 212,942 244,765
1
i
aao,rw.f0w A,Ct,,,,rj..ddo
RSG , INC . In '714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :40 No .012 P .08
r.JCI 1113IT 4
Mine Year Revenue&Pwpendi= Stl_ m_� (I,tl IYf I w-1Ck-1 V-)L)
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 ss ft. comma tv�►ud 012
�,xlO,otxa
1998-99 1999.00 200"] 2001.02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 200S46 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Yaar) (Mull Year) (Fall Year) (Fall Ycur) (Full Year) (Full Year) (nuildout)
((BJyi;RAl.FUND RFVFNLIIA
TAXES
Property Tax 322,897 395,426 471,033 530.497 631.603 716,100 903,374 893,862 1,012,391
Pn perty Transkr Tax 5,312 5.419 2,619 072 2,72S 2.790 2,835 2.892 2.950
Parcel TAX 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Salty Tax 133,703 151.081 155.614 221,060 227.692 247.955 255.394 523,211 806,967
Exlrling Commercial 120.725 124,347 128,077 131,919 135.877 139.953 144,152 148,476 152,931
NcwCommercial 12.978 26,735 27,537 89.140 91.815 108,002 111,242 374.734 633,936
Transient Occupancy T".... 174,239 . 176.104 179,006 166,446 154,925 143.444 132,003 120,603 — ]U9.245
Subtolul 636,991 72A,769 R0R,012 941.415 1,UI7,684 ],111,018 1,194,346 1,541.3U7 l,932,192
M(Yl'OR VEHICLE r•1':r•_S
Motor VoWole In-Lion 165,745 197.497 229.249 261.001 292,733 324,505 356.257 388,009 419,761
O(T l ill Lway l.tan�c _ 68___ 82 ..•. 95• _ _108 121 134 147_ _ 160 173
Subtotal 1G5,814 197.579 229,344 Z61,109 292,974 324,640 356,405 3A8,170 419.935
FRANCHISE FT[:S
Gels,}slectdc. 1raall,and Cable TV 175,911 213.691 252.995 293,797 _336,129 380.037 425.567 472,767 521,694
Subtotal 175.811 213,681 252,995 293,797 336,124 380.037 425,567 472.767 52I,684
OTHER REVCNUES
Fines11sForkiturcr 6,925 2,293 9,922 1lA05 13.049 14,753 16,521 18,353 20,252
Miacdlancous Revenues 33,969 40.477 46.985 53,492— 60,000 66,507 73,015 79422 A6,030
Subtotal 40.795 48,772 56,806 64,898 73.6 $1.261 89.536 97,976 10G.282
F1RE TAX
Structural Fire PruW,,tion Tax I RIA53 230,794 274,911 321,229 368,62.1 417.940 468.876 521,688 $90,865
P!jT Firc'l'nx . 100,224 141,396 142.793 162.539 182335 202.111 221.997_ 241,663 261.439
Subtotal 299.677 372.180 417.694 493,947 550,959 620,051 690.76-1 763,350 152,304
L)C7:NSES
Husincss Liccnsc Tax 2.960___ 3,019 3,090 3., 1 3,612 3,684 3,758 3,933 5,185
lal Sublu 2,960 3,019 3,OR0 3,541 1,612 3,684 3,759 3,833 5,I85
TOTAL GENEkAl.F11ND 1,310,947 I,S64,000 1,761,930 2,048.607 2,274307 2.520.691 2.760,374 3,267,302 3.837,591
1p P 0 0 0 0 5,12$ 11,185 18.155 37,092 59,996
MAP EUDIDS
Sccikm 210S 25.390 30,254 35,118 39,982 44.846 49.710 54.574 59,4313 64.302
Section 2106 16,620 19,804 22 V88 26.172 29,356 32,540 35,724 38,908 42.092
Section2107 3SA12 4Z I96 49,990 55,764 62.549 69,332 76.116 82.900 89,694
Scction 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mmint"A"ROTC 1au;al Turnback 140.394 172,308 206,010 241,590 279,099 _ 318,650 360.324 404,212 450,408
TOTAL.ROAD FUNDS 217,817 264,563 313,097 363,499 415,849 470.233 526.739 595,459 646.497
101=61 43ti Wee 6.671 8,992 11.393 13,877 16,469 19.164 21,964 24.977 27,905
'IO'1'AI.ALL REVENUM 1.535.435 1,937,54S 2,092.410 2,425,983 2,711,751 3,021.273 3,327,233 3.914,729 4,571,969
RSG , INC . I^1714-836-1748 AUG 2F '98 14 :40 No .012 P .09
Noe
EXI 11B1T 4
Nine Year Revenue&R ymndlttlre Sttmm=
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft. comm)
1998.99 1999-0e 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 200"S 2(IOS U(, 2006-07
(Full Year) (Moll Year) (Full Year) (Full YOgr) (Mull Year) (Felt Year) (Full your) (Full Year) (lluiidnut)
GF,NF.RAI.F11ND EXPE-Nigi-ligES
GENERAL 00VERNMENT
Administration 2,130 10,302 3.126 14,130 4,233 18.236 5,467 22,637 6,834
insuranca 19,740 20,727 21,76.1 22,8$2 23,994 25.194 26,453 27,776 29.163
Animal Control 9.293 11,074 12,854 1035 10.415 18,195 19,976 21,756 21536
County Tax Collodion Charge __�-6.458 _ 7,909 9,42) 11,010 12.632 14,322 16,067 17.877 20,249
Subtotal 37,6Z2 $0,012 47,164 62,626 57.276 75,947 67.9G4 90,047 79,783
PUBLIC SATT.TY
ShcrifFContract 733,824 770,515 909,041 249,493 891.969 936,566 983,394 1,032,564 1.094,192
Jail Booking Tccx 3,972 3,999 4,108 4231 4,359 4,489 4.623 4,762 4,(M
FircPnrtcotinn 759,673 800.352 944,476 991,395 939.639 991,455 1.045,723 1,103_177 1.179.267
Subtotal µ1,496,369 1,574,855 1,657,624 1,745,119 1.935,965 1,932,509 2,M.1,741 7,140,503 2,269,365
MMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 3.950 3,966 4,084 4.207 4,333 4,463 4,597 4,733 4.977
Codc Compliance(fficcr 52,703 S4,284 55.912 57,590 59,317 t11,U97 62.930 64,818 66,762
Subtotal - 56.553 59,2.49 59,997 61.197 G3.651- 65,560 67,127 69,553 71,639
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 6.585 8,003 9,476 11.004 12,390 14,234 15,940 17.708 19.549
Sheet Lighting _81281 8,530 9.786 9,049 - 9,321 __..91600 9,888 10.185 _ 10.490
Subtotal 14.866 16,533 1R,261 20.OS3 21,91U 23,835 25,929 27,892 30,030
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintonanoe.... + +�.+ Araumrd to be Paid by Mastcr Ilomeownera'Assoc:intinn • + •
Suhurtul 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 p
CONTINGENCY 160.541 169,965 179,305 198.960 197.990 209.795 219,506 2.12.799 244.982
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,765.951 1.969.614 1.961,351 2,078,555 2.176.682 2.307,636 2,414,565 2,560.794 2,694,799
li;4AJ)
Capitol l-mprovwncnts 0 0 0 0 _ U U 0 0 U
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Sheet Mainicnanuc 69,271 71,350 73,490 75.695 77.966 80.305 82,714 85,195 87.751
Strcct Swooping 5.819 3.993 6.173 6,358 6,S49 6,745 6.948 7.156 7,371
Tr■tTic Sign■1(lpcnaion/Mpintcnanca 7416 7,639 7,>iti8_... 8.104 _ U47 8,597 8,855 9,121 9394
----...
Contingency _ . ..
8 cy 9,21l 8,498 8.753 9,016 9,296 9 56.S 9,$52 10,147 10,452
TOTAL ROAD FUND 90,757 93.479 96.284 99.172 102,147 105,212 I(l8.361i 111,619 114,96R
TOTAL,ALL F.XPF.NDI I't,)kf;S 1,850,707 1 963 093 2,057.05 2.177.727 2.278,829 2,4)2.848 2,522,933 2,672,414 2,809 766
REVENUE SURPI.IIR FH0R'I'F'At,l,)_.__ (321.273) _i125,548) 34,775 24V56 432,923 608.425 904,299 1.242316 1,7G2.203
CL)MIJI,A'19VI:SUBPLUS/(UEFICi7) (321,273) (446.821) (412,045) (163,789) 269,133 877,558 1,681.958 2.924.5T 4,696,376
General Fund llur FSAShurtl'all -'
PI, _�__ (455.004) (305,613) (193,421) (29,948 102,751 22A,240 3fi3,964 743,599 1,202,778
Cumulative Crencral fund
... _(455.0) (760.617) (954.038) (983,986)....(881,234) (656_994)- �z93.031) --450.569 I.653.347
kogdl'undt+0�►r tu�!(6hortfall) 133,731 180,U63 22R,196 278,204 330,171 384.18S 446,336 498,71'6 559,424
.umulutivv Road Fund 133,731 313.796 "' -"-
541.993 82U.196 ,l.1503G8 1.334,553 1,974,8R8 2,473.604 - 3,033.029
ate.w.1+t6we t+uwea,:,�.aryrw w,ua.
RSG . INC . ?" :714-836-1748 RUG 2q '98 14 :36 No .012 P .02
®.r EXHIBIT 1
bjin_e Ye,ig Revenue&Expenditure Summery DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY &JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY (' M61N�l
�
19 8-99 1 1 b 200 i 200"fi
(Full Year(Fall Year)(Full Year)(lull Year)(Full Year)(Pull Year)(Full Year)(Full Year) (Buildout)
.-NVRAL FJINI)REVENUES
TAXLS
Property Tax 349.182 423,921 501;820 593,66S 667.222 754.260 943,950 935.7147 1.091,715
Property Transfer Tax 6,404 6,532 3,735 3.930 3.907 3,985 4.065 4.146 4,229
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 . 739 739 739
Sa1cs'1'ax 134,941 152,254 156,821 222,303 228,973 240.275 250,753 791,820 1,358,760
&isring Commercial 121,863 125.519 129.285 133,163 137.158 141.273 143,511 149,876 154.37$
NewCnmmercial 12.978 26,733 27,537 89,140 01,815 108,002 111,242 641.944 1,204,387
Transient Occupancy Tax ....174..239 176,104 178,006 166,446 154.925 143,444 132,003 120.603 100,245
Subp+tul 759.551 941,142 976,985 1,055,767 1.151.703 1.237.416 1,853,105 2,554,688
MOTOR VRHICI.F N'JES
Motor Vehicle In•Ucu 191,941 224,645 257,350 290,055 322,759 355.464 397.930 419.682 451,434
Off-Highwayl.iccnsc __.__.._ ...._. 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 197
Subtotal 192,020 224.738 2.57.456 290.174 322,992 355,611 399.090 4I9,855 451,621
FRANCHISE FEES
Gu;,Mc trio,Trash,and Cablo TV 203.969 243,632 294,927 327.802 37W03 419.479 466,076 514,491 564.659
Suhtotat 203.969 243.632 294,927 327.802 372.363 44.479 466,076 514,49f 564,659
0111HR REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9.436 11.025 12,675 14196 16,161 17.990 19,85I 21,780
Mircelltum+usRevanuos 39,338 46,041 52,744 39,447 66.149 72.852 79,506 86,014 92.521
Subtoaa! - --47,242 55.477 63.769 72.122 90,536 89,013 97,496 103.965 114,302
FIRE TAX
Structural Fite Protection Tux 203,793 247.413 29ZB77 340,644 389.410 440.208 492.496 546.158 631.320
Prop A Fire Tax 116,064 1S9,305 160,294 180,654 201.023 221,392 241,613 261,389 281,165
Subtotal - 319,&57 405,719 453,161 521.299 590,433 661,600 734,109 807.547 912,486
1.ICENSTS
Due:inmm Licenm Tax 3,200 3,271 3,344 3.819 3.904 3,991 4,ORO 4.171_ _ 6.814
Subtotal 3.200 3,271 3,344 3.819 3,904 3,991 4,080 4,171 6,814
IWAL GENERAL FUND 1,431 594 1.692.386 1,903.801 2,192,199 2,425,934 2,680 i96 2.927.261 3.705,034 4.604,570
0 0 0 4,736 11.858 18,211 25.578 58,628 97,902
ci anlFUNDS
Section 2105 29,403 34,413 39,423 44.4.13 49.443 54,452 59,426 64,290 69.154
Soction 2106 19,247 22,527 23.906 29,086 32,365 35,645 38.901 42.095 45,269
Section 2107 41.009 47,997 54,91W 61,972 68.959 75.947 82,884 $9,668 06.452
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Memurc"A"RCIV l cwal 7 urnback 162.582 195.993 231,262 268.471 307,704 349.050 392.358 437,207 494.393
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252,242 300.929 351,476 403,961 458,471 11 S.094 573.568 633,249 695,267
fulgrgst haminu 7,713 10,104 12,596 151166 17.846 20,632 23,510 26,443 29,497
T()TAL ALL REVENVIE6 1,691,549 2. 3A19 2.267,863 2.616,063 2,914,010 3,234133 3,549.917 4.423,357 5,427.237
Rao.Wes,Dada mmrrd.rc sugar
• RSG , INC . In '714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :36 No .012 P .03
EXHIBIT 1
J
Nine Year Revenue&L=gndjjUre SUS
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1991699 1"%W )AW411 2001-02 -03 2003-04 2004-05 2UO3-06 2006.07
(Ftdl Year(Full Year)(Full Year)(Vull Vear)(Full Ve■r)(Full Your)(Full Year)(Full Year) (Bulldout)
CFNM RALFUND EXEEN=LIRKS
(iENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2,467 11.718 3,509 15,703 4,669 19,976 5,953 24,485 7,350
lnsuranco 21,000 22,050 23.153 24.310 25,526 26.802 29.142 29,549 31,027
Atlltnel Control 10.762 12,596 14,430 16.264 18,097 19,931 21.757 23,532 25,312
Cstunty Tax Collcctiom Clwlle -. 6.984 9,478 10,036 11,673 13,344 15,095 16,977 111,716 21,634
Subtotal 41,213 54,843 S1,t28 67,95d 61,636 81,794 72,724 9b,282 85,323
PUMAC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733.924 770.515 909,041 949,493 891,%8 936,566 983.394 1.032,564 1,084.192
Jail Hooking Fm 4,400 4,332 4.668 4.809 4.9S2 51101 5X14 3,411 5,574
FireProtcction 769,677 811.961 956,723 904,314 953,274 1,005,839 1,060,723 1,118,441 1,211.003
1,507.901 1.597.008 1.670,432 1.738,615 1,850.194 1,947 506 2.049,372 2,156,416 2,300,769
COMMUNITY DJ4VN.I..0PMkN'I'
Net Costs 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,629 5,796 5,970 0.149 6,t34
C ode Complianoc Uilicor 52.703 54,284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,919 66,762
5uh1otel 57.703 59.434 .61.217 63,053 -64,945 66,893 68,900 70,967 73,096
1,01,11A:WOUS
Administration 7.626 9,104 10,637 12,229 13,880 15,592 17,357 19,153 21.014
Street Lighting 9.281 9.530 8,786 9,049 9,321 9,6t10 9,888 10,1 R5 10,490
Subtotal " "" "'.._......_. .._.__••-15.061 17,633 19.423 21,278• 23.201 25.192 27,245 29.338 31,504
PARKS&RECREA710N
I.unthmaping/Mcdian Muialcnance ' • ' Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowne_rs'Association • •
subtotal 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0
C:UNTINGI NCY 162,272 171,992 1110,220 191,090 199.998 212.139 221,824 235.300 249.069
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.784,995 1.990.810 1;)82,420 2,101.986 2,199,97.1 2,333,524 2,440,064 2,589,304 2,739,761
ROAD
Capital Impntvcmcnts p 0 0.. .. ....._.. 0 - U- -_ U _ U 0 0
8 tICAD 1A4111MI-KNANCK
Street Maintenance 74,772 77.015 79,325 81.703 84,156 96,681 89,281 91,960 94,719
Street Sweeping 6,142 6,327 6,516 6,712 6.913 7,121 7,334 7 554 7.781
1Ya11ic Si nal U orntion/Maintananc 14.932 15.277 15,733 16,207 16,694 17,194 17.710 18.241 18.789
Contingency 9,575 9,962 10.158 10.462 10,776 11,100 11,433 11,776 12,129
TOTAL.ROAD FUND 105,321 108,480 131.735 113.087 118.539 122.(96 125,739 129,531 133,417
TOTAL ALL EXPE NDITURES 1.990.316 , 90 2,094.154 2,217,073 2,318,513 2,453.620 2,565,823 2,717,935 2,973,178
REVENUE SURPL11SASHOR7'FAI,I.) (199,767) 4,129 173,709 399,990. 595,499 779,714 984.094_ 1.705 522 2,554,058
GUMULATNE SU1U'1.IJS/(DE'I 1C:I'1� (198.767) (104.639) (20,930) 379,060 973,557 1,752,271 2,736,365 4,441,887 6,995,946
_ Genera(Fund SvrplutJ(Shortfaln (353,402) (198,424) (79,619) 94.949 _237,719 3G5,083 51'1,775 1,175,359 1.9G2,7I I
Cumulative General Fund (353.402) (551,825) (630,444) (535,495) (297,176) 67,307 580,681 .1,755,441 3,718,152
Ruad Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154,G34 Z02,559• '252,327 304.040 357,778 413.631 471,320 530,163 591.347
Cumlladvc Road fund 154,634 357,187 609,.514 913,555 1.771,333 1,684,964 2,156.294 2.696.447 3.277.794
MO.bm..V2W m4bift WOW
• RSG, INC . IT"714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :38 No .012 P .06
NOW 1%ftw EXt-III3IT 2
NNi a YeU$avenue&Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY W11 Tiff-Ky�
1998-99 109MO 2000-01 2MI-02 2002-03 200344 2004-OS 2Uaf-06 2006417
(Full Ycar) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Kull Year) (Full Year) (Fun Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Handout)
CLNKRAL FUND REM NE 11FA
TAXES
Properly Tux 322,897 393,426 471,033 55OA97 631.603 716,100 $03,374 893.962 1,037,903
Property Transfcr'l ax 5,312 5.419 2.619 2,672 2,725 2,780 2,835 2,892 2,950
Parccl'lax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales 7 ex 133,703 151.081 135,614 221.060 227,692 247,955 255,394 790.420 1,357,31 R
Wsling 4ontmerclpl 120,725 124.347 128.077 131,919 135,877 13y 953 144,152 148.476 152,931
New rommereW 1$978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108.002 111,242 641.944 1.204.387
Transient Occupancy Tax _ 174,239 176.104 178,006 166,446 154,925_ 143,444 132.003 120,603 109,245
Subtotal 636,891 720,769 BOR,012 941.415 1,017.694 1,111,01R 1,194,346 1,808.516 2,508,055
MOTOR VI:HICI.Ii VEES
Motor Vehicle In-i.icu 165,745 197.497 229.249 261.001 292.753 324,505 356,257 388.009 419,761
OIYHighwayLicense 68 82 95 108 121 134 147 — 160_. 173
Subtotal 165,914 197,570 229.344 261.109 292,874 374,640 356,405 3tltl,17U 419.935
FRANC:HISR I'F.T:S
Gas.Electric,Trash,sad Cable TV __— 175.811 213.631 252.995 293,797 _ 336,129 M0.037 425.567 472,767 521,684
Sobtolai 175,911 213,691 252,995 293,797 336.129 390.037 425,S67 472,767 __ 521.G84
U'I'111'.R REVENUES
Pincs&T•crreiturcx 6,92.5 81295 9,922 11,405 13.049 14.753 16,521 1 R,353 20.252
MixWlen_cous Rcvonuos 33,969 40,477 46.985 53.492 60,000 66,507 73,015 79.522 86,030
Subtotal 40,795 49.772 S6.tl06 64,898 73,049 81.261 89,53E 97,876 106,292
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection 1'ax ISSA53 230,784 274.911 321.299 369.625 417,940 46R,976 $21,689 605.6%
100.2M 141,396 142,793 162,559 182,335 202.111 221,987 241,663_ 261,439
Subtotal 298,677 372.180 417,694 483,847 550,959 620,051 690.763 7G3.35U tl67,133
LICENSES
Business I.im-nxc'l ax 2,960 3,019 3,090 3,$41 3,612 3.694 3,758 3,833 __6,460
Subtotal 2,96p _ 3,019 3,080 3,541 3,612 3,6R4 3.758 1.833 G.460
TO'I'Al.Cb•NF.kAI,FUND 1,310,947 1,564,000 1,767,930 2.048,607 2.274107 2.520.691 2.760.374 3,534,511 4,429,551
iniagmtEarnings 0 0 0 0 5.125 11.185 18.155 51,120 90.132
ROAD U NN
Scotian 2105 25,390 30.254 35.119 39.982 44.846 49.710 54,574 19,438 64.302
Section2106 16.620 19,804 22,999 26,172 29,356 32,540 35,724 38.909 42,092
Section 2107 35,412 42,196 48.980 55.764 62,543 69,332 76,116 82,900 89.684
Secticm 21075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 140,304 1721309 206,010 241,590 279,091t 318,650 360.324 404,212 450,408
TOTAL ROAD KIN I)S 217,817 ZW,563 313,097 363.499 415.849 470.233 526,739 595,459 646.487
Iptermt Famings 6,671 8,982 11,383 13.877 16,469 19,164 21,964 24.877 27.905
TOTAL.Al.1.RFVFNIIFS 1.535.435 1,937,545 2,092,410 2,425,983. 2.711,751 3,021,273 3.327.233 4.195.967 5,194,075
MO.Vic..414601 txmat.rr 110401
• RSG , INC . Ir *714-836-1748 AUG 2S '98 14 :39 No .012 P .07
EX111131T 2
Nine Yrz+r Revenue&Expenditure SuIIL=
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
IM-99 199940 2110MI 200142 2002-03 2003-H 2U04-05 200546 2006-07
(Fail Year) (pup Year) (Full Year) wall Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Ycar) (Fail Year) (Bulldout)
FUND EXPENUMMU
GENERAL GOVP.RNMIWT
Administration 2,130 10,302 3.126 14.130 4.233 18,236 5,467 22.637 6,834
Insurance 19.740 20.727 21,763 22,852 23,994 25,194 26.453 27,776 29,165
Animal Control 9,293 11,074 12.854 14,635 16,415 18,195 19,976 21,756 23,536
County Tax Collection Charge 6.08 7.909 _ 9.421 11,010 12.632 14,322 16,067 17.977 20,756
Subtotal 37,622 50,012 4' 164 62,626 57,276 75,947 67,964 90.047 80,291
PUBLIC SAFETY
ShcriffContrac:t 733.924 770.515 809.041 R49,493 991,968 9.16.566 993,394 1.0.12,564 I,OR4,192
Jail Hooking Foos 3.972 3,989 4,108 4,231 4.359 4.489 4,623 4,762 4,905
Fire Protection 758,673 SM352 844,476 891,395 939,639 991,455 1.043,723 1,103.177 1.195.077
Subtotal ......
- 1,496,369 1.574,855 1,657,6244 1,745,119 1,835,96-5 1.932,509 2.0.13,741 2,140„503 2,2R4,175
COMMUNITY t)PVFWPMFiNT
Net Cogtg 3,950 3,966 4.094 4.207 4133 4,463 4,597 4.735 4,877
AC CrnnpliaWe 011ltxr 52.70.1 $4,284 55,912 57.590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64,91R 66,762
Subtotal 56.553 58.249 19.997 61,797 63.651 65.560 67,527 69,553 71,6,19
PI1F{I.1C WORKS
Administration 6.583 8.003 9.476 11,004 12,590 14,234 15,940 17.708 19,540
Street Lighting 8,281 81530 8.786 9.049 9,321 9,600 9,8BB 10,185 10.490
Subtotal _ --_—_ 14,866 16,533 18,261 20,053 21.910 23,833 25,R211 27,1192 30,030
PARKS&RECREATION
Lnndswing/Mcdinn Maintenance 9 • • Assumed to bo Paid Maaier 1ltmteowneri'Auwiation
Subtotal 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 160,541 169,965 178,305 1111060 197,980 209,795 219,506 232,799 246,614
TOTAI.GF.NERAI,FUND 1.765.953 1.969.614 1.961,331 2,078,555 2,176,682 2,307.636 2.414.565 2.560.794 2.712.749
ROADS
Cupilul ltnpruvencents 0---0 . . _............... . .. 0 0 0 U 0 0
ROAR MAINIJbIANCE
Street Maintenance 69.271 71.350 73,490 75.695 77,966 80,305 82.714 85.195 87.751
StrectSwcoping 5,Ri9 5,993 6,173 6.359 6.549 0.745 6,948 7,156 7,371
Traffic Signal OLrrulion/Maiato_nonce 7.416 7.6.18 7,R6R 9,104 —. 8,347 9397 8,955 0,121 9,394
Contingency 8,251 8.499 8,753 9.016 4.296 91565 9,R52 10,147 10,452
TOTAL ROAD F1IND 90.737 93,479 96,284 99,172 IO2,147 105,212 108.368 111,619 114.968
1'0'1'A1,A1.1.F.XPFNDITURES 1,1156,707 1903,093 2.057,635 2,177,727 2.278,929 2,412,948 2,522933 2672414 2827.717
REVENUE 5UF1Yl,t13/(8y047'KAl,1,L (321,2731231548) 34.775 248.256___4.32,923_ 609,425 904,299 1,523,553 2,366,359
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DD-ICI'I) (321,273) (446.921) (412,045) (163,799) 269,133 877.558 1.(i81,859 3,205,411 5,571,769
_ General Fend Surpluji(Sbortl'x11) _(4SSA04) (305.613) (193,421) (29,949) 102.751- 224,240 303,964 1,024.837 t,806,934
(656,994) {293,U31) 7
C umulativc Central Fund (455,004) (760,617) (954,U38) (983,986�881,234) 31,607 2,538.740
Road Fund Curplusf(1CItoAfall) 133.731 190.061 2Z8,19ti 440.336
27R,204 330,1?1 384,185 498.716 SS9,424
(:bmulativokondFund_ _.•,._,_,._._...-._.. . . .. . ..133,731...__•.313,796 541,993 920,196 1.150,368_.1.534.553 1,974,868 2,473.604 3,033,029
asa,IM.VnW MLVWtor,MMw
• RSG , INC . In '714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :41 No .012 P . 10
EXHIBIT 3
ti
Nine Year Revenue&Ej=diture SuMM
JACK 1VEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDYlT pLB�
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 211111-0 2002-03 Z003-04 2004.05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (FWl Year) (Full Year) (Nall Year) (Full Year) (lluildout)
C>;", Al.FUND R VKNM
TAXrsS
PEUFMIy Tax 25,909 27,532 29,315 31.158 33,063 35,032 36,726 37,440 39,1119
Property Transfer Tax I'm 1,114 1,136 1,159 1,182 1.205 1,230 1,254 1,279
Parcel Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sales Tax 1,138 1.172 1,207 1,244 1,291 1.319 1.359 1,400 1.442
Trpncient Occupan _Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---0 0 0
Subtotal 28,038 29.818 31,658 33,560 35.526 37.557 39.315 40,094 40.910
M Y1'UK VE111GLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 26.195 27.149 28.101 29.053 30,006 30,958 31.673 31,673 31.673
OIT14hwayl_iccnse. _ 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 _ 13
Subtotal 26,206 27,159 28,112 29,065 30,019 30,971 31,686 31,686 31,G86
FRANCHISE FEES
On%,lilex:tric,'I*ash,and Gable 1V 28,059 29,951 31,932 34.005 36,174 39,442 40.509 41,724 _ 42.976
.Subtotal 29,059 29.951 31.932 34,005 36,174 3$,44z 40.509 41.724 42,976
O711GR REVI-M S
Fincs&Forfciturcs 11079 1.140 1,204 1,270 1337 1,407 1.469 1,499 1.528
Mircellamous Revenues _ - 5,369 5,564 5,719 — _5,9% 6.150 6,345 6,491 6.491 6,491
Sublotul 6,447 6.704 6.963 7,224 7,487 7,752 7,960 7,919 9.019
ME,TAX
Structural Fire Pmwdion Tax 15,061 16,067 17,108 19,183 19.295 20,444 21,433 21,849 22,296
Prop A Fire Tax 15.840 169M 17.502 18,095 1 R,6R8 _ 19,282 19.727 19,727 _I_727
Subtotal 30,901 32,976 34,609 36.278 37.983 v39,726 41,l59 41.376� 42,013
I.ICFNSM
Dusims Ucensc Tax 240 252 265 278 292 306 322 338 355
Subtotal 240 252 265 278 292 306 322 338 355
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 119.891 12 961 133,540 140.411 147.480 154.754 160.950 163,407 165,938
h99=e�„ e 0 0 0 0 0 1) 0 0 0
HOAX)FUNDS
Section 2105 4.013 4,159 4305 4,451 4.596 4.742 4.852. 4,852 4,852
Section 2106 2,627 2,722 2,818 2.913 3,009 3,104 3,176 3,176 3,176
Focutken 2107 5,597 5,800 6,004 6.207 6A 11 6.614 6,767 6.767 6.767
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RC"1'G 14W Tura1mck 22,189 23,685 2$.252 26,991 28,606 30,400 32,0.14 32,995 33.985
'!UFAL ROAD F11NW% 34.425 36.367 3.8,378 40,462 42,622 44.861 46.929 47.790 48,780
buclS31JA1111tt a 1.043 1,122 1,204 1,229 1177 1.469 1.546 1,569 1,592
TO'i'AL ALL REVENUES 133,359 164,349 17.4,122 182,162 191,479 201,0R3 209,325 212.766 216,331
Rein,Im.,MUM ACKtW..es 8mftW
• RSG , INC . In '714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :41 No .012 P . 11
EXHIBIT 3
Nine XCU HIUM112.&LMMA= Summary
JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
199&99 1999.00 200o-01 2MI42 200" 2003-04 20M-05 2005-06 200G-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (jr,rrit Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buiidout)
Gi NERAI.Fl1ND RXPFNDITIIRFA
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 337 1,416 393 1,573 434 1.740 486 1,849 516
Insurance 1.260 1.123 1,389 1,459 1,.532 1,609 1,699 1,773 1,962
Animal Contnrl 1,469 1,522 1,576 1,629 1.682 1,736 1.776 1,776 1,776
County'rax Collection Charge 516._—551 _ 596_ _ 623 _661 701 735 749 764
$uhtotal 3,512 4,812 3.934 5.294 4,309 3,794 4,685 6,146 4,917
ninuC SAFT•.TY
Sheriff Contract 733,924 770,513 1109,041 849,493 891,968 936.566 983.394 1.032.564 1.094.192
)ail Booking Fees 529 344 $60 S77 394 612 630 649 669
Pire Protection 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 734352 771.059 809.601 850,076 $92.562 937,179 9R4,025 1,033,213 1.094.861
COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT
Not Costs 1,1M0 1,183 1.220 1.257 1.294 1.333 1,373 1.414 1.457
C odc Compliance Of oar - _--- 0 0 --_0 _ 0 0 0 U 0 0
Subtotal 1,150 1.185 1.220 1.257 1.294 1,333 1.373 1,414 IA57
PUBLIC WORKS
Adminbdruliun 1,041 11100 1.162 1.2.25 1,290 11358 1,417 1,445 1,474
Street lighting --- —-- —_0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0
Subtotal 1.041 1,IU0 1,162 1,225 1,290 1,3S8 1,417 1,445 1,474
PARKS&RECREATION
l.undwa in alias Maintenance • • • Assumcd to bo Paid by Master IlnmawneW Association • • •
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CUNIINGENC'Y 74,012 77,916 91,592 95,784 89y46 94.565 99,150 104,222 109,271
TOTAI.GENERAL FUND 914.137 853,971 997,5109 943.619 989,402 1,040,219 1,090,650 1.146,441 1,201,990
ROADS
capitallmproycmq!!_.— _ 0 0._............ 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Suwt Mainlcnanoc 5,500 5,663 5,935 6,010 6.191 6.376 6.568 6.765 6.968
Street Sweeping 324 334 .144 354 364 375 387 398 410
TraPfic Signal_t puTalkin/Maintawncc _ 7.416 7.638 7,968 81104 9.347 8.597 8,R55 9,121 _ 9,394
Contingency 1,324 1364 1.405 1.447 1,490 1.535 1.581 -- - 1.628 — 1.677
TOTAL ROAD FUND 14.564 131M1 15,451 15,915 16,392 16,894 17.390 17.912 18,449
TOTAL ALI.EXI'MI)ITURLS_ _ 929,701 970.972 912.960 959.533 1,005,794 1,057,103 1.109.040 1.164.353 1.220.430
REVXNIIESIIRP1.11SI(SHORTFAI.I.) _ _34.2) (706,6Z3) (739,838) (777.371) .(814,315) (836,020) (11 g 16) (951,597) (1,004,099)
C'UMIJI.ATIVr,CIIRPI.1)S/(DTiFICIT) (673,342) (1,379,965) (2,119.803) (2,897,175) (3,711,499) (4,567,509) (5,466,225) (6.417.812) (7.421.910)
General Fund Surpiud(Shortfall) _.(694.245) (729.111) (763.969) (8U3,208) (841.922) (885,465) (5129,700) (9113,034) (1,036,0Z2)
C:umulafiw General Fund- - (694,244) (1,423,356) (2,)87,325) (2,990,533) (3.832«4S5) (4,717,920) (5,647,620) (6,630,654) (7.666,676)
_....Road Fund Surplur/(Fht►ntaU) 20,904 22,487 z4,i31 25,837 27,607 29,446 30,984 - 31,447 31,923
Cumulati W Wood Fund 20.904 43,391 67.522 93,358 120,966 150,411 191,396 212,942 - 244,765
i
1
Raa.In_&RNR.NCK1WA BuftM
RSG, INC . 1" !714-836-1748 AUG 2s '98 14 :40 No .012 P .08
EX 111131T 4
Nine Year Rcyenj1e-&-"x eadi= Stimmalz
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq._ft. Comm) ke�of
c 6,ac.o
1998.99 1999-00 2000-01 2001.02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-0 20654 ; 2UU6-07
GB;p]j;A!1,FUND RFYFNULC (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Fall Year) (Full Year) (Full War) (Full Year) (Duildout)
TAXFS
Pmperty Tax 322.897 395,426 471,033 530.497 631.603 716,100 903,374 893.862 1,012,391
Pnq"Transfer Tax 5,312 5.419 2,619 2,672 2,725 2.790 2,835 2.992 2.950
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Salver Tax 133,703 151.081 155.614 221,060 227,692 247.955 255.394 523,211 806,967
Existing commercial 120,725 124.347 128.077 131,919 135.877 139,953 144.152 148,476 152.931
New Commercial 12.978 26,735 27537 89140 91,815 114002 111,242 374.734 633,936
yanslent Occupancy Tax..... 174,239 176.104 179,006 166,446 154,925 143,444 132,003 120.603 1U9.245
Subtotal 636,991 729,769 R09,012 94i.,55 1,U17.684 1,111,018 1,194,346 1,5A1,167 —1.932,192
MU7'OR VEI11CLE FRES
Motor Vehicle In-Lion 165.745 197.497 229.249 261.001 292,753 324,505 356.257 398,009 419,761
UIT li�,way l.iwnrC _ 68 _ 92 _ 95.._._._.__108 121 134 147 160 173
SubtDtal 1G5,814---197.579 229,344 261.109 292,1174 32040 356,405 38R,170 419.935
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,file r c.Trash,and Cable TV 175,811 213.681 252,995 293,797 _336,129 380,037 _ 423,567 472,767 521,694
Subtotal 175.811 213ARI 252,995 293,797 33b,129 380,U37 425,567 472.767 52I.684
OTHER REVENUES
Finca&Forfeitures 6,325 3,295 9,822 11,405 13.049 14,753 16,521 18,353 20X2
Miscellaneous Revenuec 33,9bV 40,477 46.985 53,492_ 60,000 _ 66,507 _ 73,015 79,522 86,030
Subtotal 40.795 49,772 56,906 64,898 73,049 81,261 R9.536 97,276 106.282
FIRE?TAX
Structural Fire Prulathm Tax 188.453 230.794 274.911 321,299 368,625 417.940 468,876 521,688 590,965
PnTA Firc"1_ax 100,224 141,396 142,793 162.SS9 192.335 202,111 221,297_ 241,663 261.439
Subtotal 288.677 372.180 417.694 493,847 550,959 620.051 b90,763 763,350 152,304
UMNSES
Business Liccnsc Tax 2.960 __ 3,019 3,080 3,541 _3,612 _ 3,iS84 3,758 3,833 5,l RS
Suhtnlal 2,960 3,019 3,0R0 3,541 3,612 3,G84 3,758 3,833 5.185
__
TOTAL GENERAL FIIND 1,310,947 1,564,000 1,767,9..M 2,048.607 2,274 307 2.520.691 2.760,374 3,267,302 3.837.591
)1111xil:51T-Mma 0 0 0 0 5.12$ 11,185 16.155 37,092 39,996
x[2An M INDS
SccliPn 2105 25,390 30,254 35,119 39,992 44,846 49.710 54.574 59,439 64.302
Section2106 16,620 19,904 22.988 26,172 29.356 32,540 35,724 38.908 42.092
Sectiun 2107 35.412 42.196 49,990 55,764 62,549 69332 76.116 SZ900 99,694
Soction 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mmure"A'ROTC la,cul Turnhack 140.394 172,308 206.010 241,530 279,098 318,65(t 360,324 404,212 450,408
TOTAL.ROAD FUNDS 217,817 264.563 313,097 363,499 415,849 470.233 526,739 595,459 646,497
14IRM10garII11Cs 6.671 8.992 11,383 13,877 16,469 19,164 21,964 24.877 27,905
'1'O'I'A L ALL REVENUES 1.5MA35 1.837,545 2,092,410 2,425,993
Z711,751 3,021,273 3,327.233 3.V14.729 4,571,969
aeo,Inc..W40 MVVM.*040-Mu aonrn
i RSG, INC . I'' -714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :40 No .012 P .09
NXl 11BIT 4
uinc Ycar Revenue&F=gnditure SU =
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft. Gomm)
19911.99 19"40 2000.01 Zutll-02 20t12-03 2003-U4 2w"s 20,5.U6 2006.07
WWI Ycar) (Foil Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (lluildnut)
EXPENI)ITURFS
GENERAL 00VERNMCNT
Administration 2,130 10,302 3,126 14,130 4,235 15.236 5,467 22,637 6,934
Insurance 19,740 20,727 21,763 22,8$2 23,994 25.194 26.453 27,776 29.161
Animal Control 9.293 11,074 12,854 14.635 16.415 18,195 19,976 21,756 23,536
County Tax CAlicction Chargc -__-_6,459 _ 7,909 9,421 11,010 12.632 14,322 16,067 17.877 20,249
Subtotal 37,6Z2 $0,012 47.164 62,626 57,276 75,947 G7.y64 90,047 79,783
PUBLIC SAiTTY
ShcriffContract 733.824 770,515 909,041 949,493 891.969 936,566 983.394 1,032,564 1.094,192
Jail Booking f"M 3,972 3,988 4,108 4231 4,359 4.489 4,673 4,762 4,4US
FiroPnrtcctitm _ 759,673 900.352 844,476 991,395 939,09 991.455 1.045,723 1,103,177 1.179.267
Subtotal 1.496.369 1,574,855 1,657,624 1,745,119 1.935,965 1,932,509 2,M.1,741 2,140.SU3 2,269,365
CAMMUNITY L)EVELOPMFNT
Net Costs 3.850 3,966 4,084 4.207 4,333 4.46.1 4,597 4,735 4,877
Gods LvTj lianq t)tliccr .... 52,703 34,284 55.912 57,590 $9,317. .61.097 62.930 64.818 66.762
Subtotal $6.553 59,2.49 59,997 61,797 G3.G51 65,560 67,527 G9,553 71,639
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 6.585 8,003 9.476 11.004 12.590 14,234 15,940 17.708 19,540
Street LiuMinB . .. . _BA I V30 8.786 9,049 _ 9,321 �_ 91600 9,888 10,185 10,490
Subtotel 14.866 16,533 18,261 20.OS3 21,910 23,835 25,928 27.892 30,030
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Mcdian Mainu;nanoa..... • • .• A-aumcd to be Paid by Mastcr Ilomeownerk'Assac:iation • + •
SuhhAul 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 p
CONTINGENCY 160,541 169,965 179,305 188,960 197,980 209.785 219,506 Z32,799 244.992
TMAL GENERAL FUND 1,765,951 1.869.614 1.961,351 2,078,555 2,176,682 2,307,636 2.414.565 2,560,794 2,694,799
1JOA11S
Capital l_mprow;mcros 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 U
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Malnlcnanw 69,271 71,350 73,490 75.695 77.966 8U.305 BZ714 85,195 87.751
Strcct Sweeping 5.919 3.993 6.173 6,358 6,549 6.745 6.948 7.156 7,371
Tra(tic Sisnal OPaati WMaiowaance 7,416 7,639 7,868_ 8.104 _ 8.47 8,597 8,8s5 9,121 9.394
--•- ,
Contingency 8.251 8,498 8.753 9,016 9,296 9.565 9.852 10,147 10,452
TOTAL ROAD FUND 90,757 93.479 96.294 99.172 102,147 105,212 1p8,361i 111.619 114,96A
TOTAL ALI,F.XPF.NDI'1'tIRF$ 1,950,707 1,903,093 2,057.63.5 2,177.727 2.279.829 2,412,949 2,522 933 2,672,414 2 809 766
REVENUE RiJRPI,IIf+J(RHff>f'I'FAI.I.) (321.273)_ i125,549) 34,775 248.256 432,423 608.425 804,299 1,24_2 3_t6 I.?G2,2U3
C 110111 AIM,SURPLUS/(D'LF'ICrn (321.273) (446.821) (412.045) (163,789) 2M.133 $77,539 1,691.858 2.924.173 4,696,376
General Fti in*d Sur us/(Rhorlfall •pl.._ _�__ (455,004) (305,613) (193,421) (29,948 102,751 224.240 363 964 743,599 1,202,778
Cumulative Cwncral Fund 455,004 760,617 954,019 —L- _• ' "- "—7
• .. _�._..__��_.. ) (• ) (983,9$6� (881,234)• (65b,994) �293.03� AS0,569 1,G53,347
ttogd i'und tspr�lwr/(bbprtbll) 133,731 _190,065 229,196 279,204 330,171 384.185 440.336 498,716 559.424
Cumulutivo licwd Fund 133,731 313_796 541,993 82U.196 1,150.368 1.534,553 1,974.A88 2,473.604•• 3,033,029
080,w..P200 L%.LVRMja 800ftp cave.
' RSG, INC. IT' 714-836-1748 AUG 2F '98 14 :37 No .012 P .04
EXHIBIT 5
Nine Year Revenue&E3i:nenditure numAry ( om g I N-�-O
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY&JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,00o sq.R.cnmm.)
�1/iCI-Cap(O(' �.C1JUs�.FE.
1 98 y9 199940 200"1 2001-02 -93 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2
(Full Year(Full Year)(Full Your)(Full Your)(Full Your)(Full Year)(fr ull Year)(Vull Year) (Rulldoat)
GENERAL—FUND IiItVENII _[:
TAXES
PMpefty Tax 349,192 423.921 501,820 593,663 667.222 754,260 843,950 935.797 1.056,071
PropaW'IYansfcr Tax 6,404 6.532 3.755 3.830 3.907 3.985 4,065 4.146 4,229
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales Tax 134,941 152.254 136,92 t 222,303 228,973 249,271 2-*753 $24,611 908.309
&isting Commercial 121,863 125.519 129,285 133,163 137,158 141.27.1 145.511 149.876 154,373
New C m,ne►+r.+ial 12,978 26,735 27,537 89,1417 0013 108,007 111,242 374,734 653,936
Transient Occupancy Tax _ 174.239 176,104 178.006 166.446 154.925 143,444 142.003 120.603 109,245
Subtotal 665,406 759,551 941,142 976,995 1,055,767 1,151,70-1 1,237,410 1,585,896 1.978.593
MOTOR V1d110EG M-MS
Motor Vehicle In-1 aeu 191.941 224,645 257,350 290,055 322.759 355,464 387.930 419.682 451,434
Off-Ilighway Licauc 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 197
Subtotal 192,020 224,738 257,456 290 , 322,892 355,611 389,090 419,955 451,621
FRAWHISH VEIN
Gas,F.leetric,'ITesh,end Coblo TV 203,869 243.632 294.927 327,802 372.303 419.479 466.076 514.491 564,659
Subtotal 203.90 243.632— 284,927 327.802 372.303 418.479 466.076 514.491 564,659
OTHER Rl:vEm11:S
Tines&rnrleituras 7,904 9.436 11,025 12,675 14,386 16,161 17.990 19,831 21,780
Miscellaneous Revenues 39139 46,041 32.744 39.447 66.149 72,852 79.506 86.014 92,521
SuhfnlN 47,242 55,477 63,769 72,122 80,536 99,013 97,4% 105,R65 114,302
rlItB TAX
Structural Tire Protection Tax 203,793 247.413 292,977 340,644 399,410 440,208 492.496 546.158 616.354
Prop A Fire Tax _ _ 116.064 158,305 160,284 180.654 201.023 221.392 241.613 261.389 291,165
Subtotal 319,957 405,719 453,161 521,298 590,433 661,600 734,109 907,547 R97,519
I.1Cd:NSf:S
flu'Rinow I.icen5e I'm .1.200 3.271 3.344 3.819 3,904 3.991 4.080 4.171 5.539
Subtotal 3.200 3,271 3.344 3.819 3,904 3.991 4.080 4,171 5,539
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,431,594 1,692,386 1,903,01 2,192,199 2,425,R34 2,690,396 2,927,261 3.437,825 4,012,213
Ialo:paL1 smangm 0 0 0 4,736 11,858 18.211 25.579 44.600 67,742
ROAD RIND
Suction2105 29.403 34A13 39,.423 44A33 49.443 54.452 59.426 64,290 69.154
Section 2106 19,247 22.527 25,806 29,086 32,365 35,645 38.901 42.085 45,269
Section2107 41,009 47.997 54.984 61,972 69.959 75,947 82.994 89,668 96,452
Sedum 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RMV Local lbrnbock 162.582 19S.993 _231.262 268.471 307.704-- 349,050—_392,358 437,207 494.393
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252.242 300.929 351,476 403,961 458,471 515,094 573,569 633,249 695,267
1wasax'3mim 7.713 10.104 12.586 15,166 17.946 20.632 23.510 20.445 29.497
TOTAL ALI-REVENUES 1,691,549 2,003A19 2,267,963 2,616,063 Z.914,010 3,234,333 3,549,917 4,142,119 4,804,740
Rt+:.Yr-.A/[HN w.in�l d.eri�wiw a.an
L RSG , INC . Ir '714-836-1748 AUG 25 '98 14 :38 No .012 P .05
EXHIBIT 5
Nine Year Revenue&PUcnditure SUMMM
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY&JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(msmvs 25o,000 sq.ft.Comm.)
1998-99 19"40 300"ll 2001.02 2002-43 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 0647
(mull Year(Pon Year)(Fall Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Full Year)(Null Year) (Buildout)
61.-NERAL GOVERNMI&M
Adminktrathm 2,467 11.718 3.509 15,703 4.669 19.976 5.953 24.495 7,35D
lnsuranco 21,000 22,050 23,153 24,310 25,526 26,802 28,142 29.549 31,027
Animal Control 30,762 1Z,596 14,430 16.264 18.097 19,931 21,752 23.532 25,312
Qmnly Tax Collection Charge 6,984 8,478 10,036 11,673 13,344 15,085 16,R77 18,716 21,121
Subtotal 41.213 54.943 51,128 67.950 61,636 81.794 72,724 96.282 84,810
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sherilfcantract 733,824 770,$15 809,041 849,493 891,968 936,566 983,394 1,032,564 1,094,192
Jail Rcmking Fm 4.400 4,532 4,668 4.808 4.952 5.101 5.254 5,411 5.574
FircProtcction 769.677 _811,961 856,723 904,314 953,274 I,D05,839 1,060,77.3 1,119,441 1,195,283
Subtotal 1,507,901 1.597,009 1,670.432 1,758,615 1,850,194 1,947.506 2,049.372 2,156.06 2,285,049
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 5.000 51150 5,305 5,464 5,629 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334
Code Compliance OMM 52,703 . 54.284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62,930 64.818 66.762
Subtotal 57,703 59,434 61,217 63,053 64.945 66,893 68.900 70.967 73,096
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 7.626 9,104 10.637 12.229 13,890 15,592 17.357 19,153 21,014
Strtet Lighting 9,291 81530 9,796 9,049 9,321 9,600 9,88R 10,185 10.490
Subtotal 15,907 17.633 19,423 21.278 23.201 25,192 27.245 29.338 31.504
PARKS&RECREATION
1.andscaping/Mmlian Mnintcrumcc - • • • Assumed to ba Paid by Mastcr Flm ocownrW Association • • •
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 _D_._.. ._._0 0 0 D
MN17NGENC:Y 162.272 171.992 180.220 191.090 199,998 21ZI39 221.824 235.300 247,446
TOTAL.GENERAL FUND 1,794,995 1,990,810 1,992,420 2,101,996 2,199,973 2,333,524 2,440,064 2,599,304 2,721,905
110AMg
Capital improvements 0 0 U 0 0 0 U U 0
WAD MAINTMANCE
Sbut Maintenance 74,772 77,015 79,325 81,705 84,156 96,691 99,291 91,960 94,719
SircotSwceping 6.142 6.327 6,516 6,712 6.913 7,121 7.334 7,554 7.781
Tialtic Signal Oporatiott/Maintonanc 14,832 15,277 15,735 16.207 16,694 17,194 17,710 18,241 18,789
Contingcnty 9,575 9AQ 10,158 10,462 10.776 11,100 11.433 11.776 12,129
TOTAL.ROAD FUND 105,321 108,490 111,735 115.087 118,539 122.096 125,758 129,531 133.417
TOTAL.ALL EXPENDITURES 1,R90,316 1,999.290 2,094,154 2,217,073 2,318,513 2,455,620 2,S65,823 2,717,R35 2.855,322
REVENUE SURPLI1S/(S110RTFALL) (198.767) 4,129 173.709 398,990 595,498 778,714 994,094 1,424,284 1,949,418
CITMIJI.ATIVrs SiJRPI iJS/(I)EFICIT) (198,767) (i94,63R) (20,930) 379.060 973,557 1,752,271 2,736161 4,160,65D 6,110,068
_„General Fund t ur lvv/(ShorffpN) y_ (353,4U2). (199,424) (78.619) 94.%9 237.719 .365,083 512.775 894,122 059,071
Cttmulntivt Gcncral Fund (353,4U2) (551,8Z5) (li3U,444) (535,495) (Z97,776) 67,307 580,081 1,474,203 2.R32,27q
Mead Fund Surpluxl(Shartfall) 154,634 202,553 252,327 304,M6 357,778 41.1,631 471,320 530,163 s91,347
Ctmtulativc Road Nund 154,634 357,187 609,514 913,555 1,271,333 1,694,964 2,156,294 2,696,447 3,277,794
asv,UK,vHM a ex .05 SudawHM coon,
lftvp
The
F-C-EIVEID
GROUP ;`3Rs1 , - 3 1998
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
October 26, 1998
Phillip Drell
City of Palm Desert
73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Annexation
Dear Mr. Drell:
The Welk Group, Inc. owns some 57 lots in the Jack Ivey Ranch development and some 125
acres of unimproved land adjacent to Jack Ivey Ranch. The APN's comprising the unimproved
land are as follows:
1. 653-270-023-8 2. 653-290-002-1
3. 653-290-015-3 4. 653-300-030-6
5. 653-300-031-1
The Welk Group, Inc. wishes to be included on the petition for annexation which you have
received from the Jack Ivey Ranch Homeowners Association with respect to the 57 lots and the
unimproved land described above.
Please contact The Welk Group, Inc.'s asset manager, Charles Schmid, at (619) 259-2624
ext. 102, if you have any questions.
Thank you for your consideration.
+nce
�a�z Pad M
C F0
8860 Lawrence Welk Drive, Escondido, CA 92026 (760) 749-3000 • Fax (760) 749-6182
JACK IVEY RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
74-NO Varner Raad Telephone Mr,143-0
Thousand Palms,CA 92276 Fax 76OG43-0445
October 2, 1998
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Attention: Philip Drell
Dear Mr. Drell:
This letter will serve as our official request to include Ivey Ranch Golf and
Country Club in any annexation proceedings that will be taken on the north side
of Highway 1-10 and Varner Road. Our address is 74-580 Varner Road,
Thousand Palms, CA 92276.
As you are probably aware, our community has shown an interest in becoming
part of Palm Desert since approximately 1990 and we would be very happy to be
a part of your city.
Our Board of Directors has appointed Carl P. Hilgenfeldt to represent Ivey Ranch
Homeowners in this matter. His address for mailing is P. O. Box 38, Thousand
Palms, CA 92276 - Phone Number 760/343-3672.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
JACK IVEY RANCH HOA
BO F DIREC
RA BE K,
President
if
i�coRroRno
NOYEM 21,198o
�j��oF CAU►�a��,P
err
DRAFT
SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
October, 1998
Prepared for:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
(619) 340-5776
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 541-4585
r
NOW,
v
SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION...............................................................................1
B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS.................................................................2
C. ASSUMPTIONS.........................................................................................................3
II. REVENUES.................................................................................................... 3
A. GENERAL FUND......................................................................................................3
1. Taxes.....................................................................................................................3
a. Property Taxes.............................................................................................3
b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................4
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief................................................................5
d. . Parcel Tax ....................................................................................................5
e. Sales Taxes...................................................................................................5
f Transient Occupancy Taxes.........................................................................6
2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees) ..............................................................7
3. Franchise Fees........................................................................................................7
4. Development Related Fees.....................................................................................7
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees.....................................................7
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees...........................................................7
C. Engineering Fees..........................................................................................7
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. i Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
V
d. Development Fees........................................................................................8
5. Other Revenues ......................................................................................................8
a. Fines and Forfeitures....................................................................................8
b. Miscellaneous Revenues..............................................................................8
6. Fire Protection Fees ..............................................................................................8
a. Structural Fire Protection Tax.............................:........................................8
b. Proposition A Fire Tax.................................................................................8
7. Business License Tax............................................................................................9
8. Interest...................................................................................................................9
B. ROAD FUND..............................................................................................................9
III. EXPENDITURES .......................................................................................... 9
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES......................................................................9
1. General Government ..............................................................................................9
a. Administration.............................................................................................9
b. Insurance....................................................................................................10
C. Animal Control ..........................................................................................10
d. County Property Tax Collection Charges..................................................10
2. Public Safety.........................................................................................................10
a. Sheriff's Contract.......................................................................................10
b. Jail Booking Fee ........................................................................................I I
C. Fire Protection............................................................................................I I
3. Community Development....................................................................................I I
a. Code Compliance Officer..........................................................................12
4. Public Works........................................................................................................12
a. Administration...........................................................................................12
b. Street Sweeping .........................................................................................12
C. Street Lighting ...........................................................................................12
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. ii Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
5. Parks and Recreation.............................................................................................13
6. Contingency..........................................................................................................13
7. Roads....................................................................................................................13
a. Capital Improvements................................................................................13
8. Road Maintenance................................................................................................13
a. Street Maintenance.....................................................................................13
b. Traffic Signal Maintenance........................................................................13
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS....................................................................... 14
V. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS—BERMUDA DUNES ANNEXATION . 15
A. OVERVIEW OF BERMUDA DUNES AREA......................................................16
B. ANALYSIS................................................................................................................17
1. General Fund Revenues......................................................................................17
2. General Fund Expenditures.................................................................................17
3. Potential Capital Improvement Requirements....................................................17
C. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................18
MAPS
Map 1 —Areas 1 and 2
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City and Ivey Ranch)
Exhibit 2—Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City and Ivey Ranch assuming 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial
development)
Exhibit 3 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City only)
Exhibit 4—Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
(Del Webb's Sun City only assuming 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial development)
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. iii Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
SUN CITY/JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
I. BACKGROUND
The City of Palm Desert ("City") engaged the Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") to prepare a
fiscal feasibility analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch. This
Report can be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the Cortese-Knox Government
Reorganization Act, if and when, the City desires to pursue annexation of these communities. Prior
to the determination to pursue annexation, the City wishes to ascertain the fiscal standing of the Sun
City and Jack Ivey Ranch communities and surrounding commercial and industrial uses. This
Report will focus on what City services will be provided within these areas, the forecasted cost of
those services, and what revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those
services. This Report will focus on a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the
annexation area for approximately seven years (i.e., the projected date of buildout for the Sun City
area). It should be understood that there will usually be differences between the forecasts and actual
results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences
may be material.
In addition to analyzing the feasibility of annexing the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch areas, this
Report also provides a textual analysis of the feasibility of annexing Bermuda Dunes. Although
previous feasibility studies show that the annexation of the Bermuda Dunes area is not financially
feasible, the economies of scale which may be realized by annexing other areas within the sphere of
influence may counteract this negative fiscal result. The "Summary of Findings" section of this
Report includes this analysis.
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
This Study focuses on two unincorporated areas within Riverside County; the first area is
shown on Map 1 and is generally bounded by the northern most point of Section 30 to the
north, Washington Street and the intersection of Varner Road and 38"' Avenue to the east, the
Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the western portions of Sections 6, 30, and 31 to the
west ("Area 1"). Area 1 consists primarily of the Del Webb Sun City development, a golf
course, a recreational facility, freeway-oriented commercial/retail use along Interstate 10, an
overnight lodging facility, a country club (with pro-shop), a recreational vehicle park, seven
developed parcels and 455 acres of vacant land. The Sun City community is in the process of
developing and is scheduled to reach buildout in fiscal year 2006-07. At buildout, the Sun
City community is projected to include 5,288 units, two recreation centers, and a golf course
within the gates, and commercial retail uses adjacent to the development. The second area
(also shown on Map 2) is generally bounded by the southern boundary of Section 21 to the
north, the southeast portion of Section 35 to the west, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south
and the midpoint of Section 28 to the east ("Area 2"). Area 2 contains the Jack Ivey Ranch
community, the Jack Ivey Ranch Country Club, a pro-shop, a restaurant, and approximately
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdsUdelwebb/suniveyfeareprt
624 acres of vacant land along the Interstate 10 Freeway. The Jack Ivey Ranch community
contains approximately 318 single-family residential uses and is projected to contain 399
single-family units by fiscal year 2006-07. The 1998 population of Areas 1 and 2 is
estimated at 3,376 and 636, respectively. A population estimate of 2 persons per dwelling
unit was used for the purposes of this analysis. At the present time, the number of structures
or dwelling units in Area 1 include approximately 1,600 residential units and 5,100 square
feet of commercial space. Area 2 consist of approximately 318 single-family residential units
and 5,200 square feet of commercial development.
B. STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS
The major public agencies currently providing services in Areas 1 and 2 are the County of
Riverside, County Service Areas No. 121 and No. 152, Coachella Valley Water Improvement
District, Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District, and Coachella Valley Improvement
Districts 58 and 81. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for policymaking and
administration, law enforcement, animal control, planning and land use regulation, building
inspection, flood control, and the maintenance and improvement of roads in both areas.
Street lighting services within Areas 1 and 2 are currently provided through CSA No. 121.
Upon annexation, the City would assume services funded by CSA No. 121 and CSA No. 121
would be detached. The County currently collects a parcel tax for CSA No. 152 to fund
street sweeping services County-wide. However, the County does not currently provide
street sweeping services in Areas 1 and 2. Upon annexation, the City will perform all street
sweeping services and this tax will remain in effect, so there is no fiscal impact.
Water is currently supplied in Areas 1 and 2 by the Coachella Valley County Water District.
Upon annexation, the Coachella Valley Water District will continue to supply water to these
areas. Sewer service is currently, and will continue to be, provided by Septic Systems and
the Coachella Valley Water District. Sewer lines currently exist at 381' Avenue, Del Webb
Boulevard, Varner Road, and Washington Street. The County of Riverside currently
provides fire protection services to all properties within Areas 1 and 2 through three fire
stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35, located at 79-400 Avenue 42, 44-
400 Town Center Way and 72695 La Canada Way, respectively. In addition, a fourth station
(No. 81) is currently under construction at Washington Street and 38th Avenue. Following
annexation, fire protection services would be provided by the City through the Cove
Community Services Commission. The Commission contracts with the County to deliver
fire protection and paramedic services. The County of Riverside is currently responsible for
providing police services within Areas 1 and 2. Two police substations responsible for
servicing this area are located in Palm Desert and Indio. Following annexation, only the
Palm Desert substation will service Areas 1 and 2 and police protection services would
continue to be provided by the County of Riverside through a contract with the County
Sheriff. The roads within these areas, which are currently maintained by the County of
Riverside, would be maintained by the City of Palm Desert following annexation.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 2 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
C. ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions used in this analysis were based primarily on the documentation and data
provided by the land developer and the City. While RSG has taken precautions to assure the
accuracy of the data used in the formulation of this analysis, we cannot ensure that these
projections will in fact be realized because actual development and absorption may be
affected by future events and conditions which cannot be controlled or predicted with
certainty. In addition, this analysis does not consider any potential impacts that Proposition
218 ("Right to Vote on Tax Act") may have on revenue forecasts. The implementation of
Proposition 218 is currently under statewide review as to specific impacts. Additionally, the
Study assumes that proposed changes to the receipt of motor vehicle in-lieu fees, which were
subject to reductions in the State Budget will not have a negative fiscal impact.
Many of the General Fund and Road Fund revenues and expenditures were either calculated
on a per capita basis, a marginal cost basis using actual budget figures from the City of Palm
Desert, or a case study methodology. All other estimated revenues and expenditures were
provided by staff at the City, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, and the Riverside
County Fire Department.
It is important to note that this Study focuses on recurring revenues and expenditures. This
Study does not analyze any future capital improvement projects resulting from the annexation
of Areas 1 and 2, nor does the Study include any development related impact fees that would
be collected on new development. In addition, with the exception of the new development
contained in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, and the new development assumptions
outlined below, this Study does not analyze potential new development in the vacant portions
of Areas 1 or 2.
II. REVENUES
A. GENERAL FUND
The primary sources of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Exhibit 1:
1. Taxes:
a. Property Taxes:
The City property tax revenue is based on the historical property tax ratio of
25/75% to be split between the City and the County as set forth in Resolution No.
81-133, adopted September 24, 1981. An analysis was conducted to determine the
approximate share of the County General Fund's 29.89% of the one percent (1%)
general levy property tax rate within the Study Area that would be transferred to the
City. Because CSA No. 121 will detach following annexation, no other transfer of
property tax revenues has been estimated. Upon annexation, the City will receive
25% of the County's share of the total General Fund property tax revenue (i.e., a
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 3 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
total of 7.30% of the general levy property tax rate within the Study Area) and the
County would retain the remaining 75% of General Fund property tax revenue (i.e.,
21.89% of the general levy). The total assessed valuation for the residential units
and commercial development utilized in the calculation of property taxes are
provided below:
Proposed Average Construction
Use Estimated Completed
Assessed Value/Sq. Ft.
(FY 1998-99 dollars)
Residential Units (Area 1) $228,888 FY 2006-07
(400 constructed per year)
Residential Units (Area 2) $124,848 FY 2005-06
(12 units per year until FY
2003-04 and 9 units in FY
2004-05)
Six Fast Food Restaurants $133/sq. ft. FY 2001-02
(Area 1)
Four Gas Stations (Area 1) $45/sq. ft. FY 2001-02
Proposed Recreation Center $85/sq. ft. FY 2003-04
(Area 1)
Commercial Retail (Area 1) $120/sq. ft. FY 2005-06
A conservative 2% annual inflator has been applied to the assessed values in the
Study.
b. Property Transfer Taxes:
Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold or an
existing property is resold. A property transfer tax of$1.10 per $1,000 (0.110%) of
transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided between
Riverside County and the City. The amount of property transfer tax received,will
depend upon the sale of land and the level of resale activity within Areas 1 and 2.
These revenues have been estimated using the assumption of a 5% turnover rate
annually at the rate of.55¢ per$1,000 of assessed values.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun Clty/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 4 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief:
Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief were not
specifically projected because this analysis bases the Property Tax Apportionment
on assessed valuation gross of the Homeowners Exemption. Therefore, revenue
from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax
Apportionment.
d. Parcel Tax:
Upon annexation,the City would assume service responsibilities of County Services
Area ("CSA") No. 121. CSA 121 covers all properties in Area 1 only (as well as
areas outside Areas 1 and 2) and funds street lighting services for all properties
outside the Sun City gated community. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 would be
detached and one hundred percent (100%) of the special district levies would be
transferred to the City (Exhibit 1). CSA No. 152 represents a tax levied against all
properties in Areas 1 and 2 for street sweeping services. However, as mentioned
previously, there will be no impact with respect to CSA No. 152 upon annexation,
due to the fact that the County does not currently provide street sweeping services
in the Study Area.
e. Sales Taxes:
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive a percentage of the sales tax
charged on qualifying retail sales from businesses within the Study Area. The
"Fiscal Impact Report, Sun City Palm Desert," dated August 22, 1997, prepared by
David Taussig and Associates ("FIR"), states that the State Board of Equalization
estimated that the commercial uses within the Del Webb Sun City area are
generating approximately $81,185 in sales tax revenues in calendar year 1996
dollars (Exhibits 1 and 2). RSG has assumed a modest 3% annual increase on these
sales tax revenues. In addition, pursuant to the Amended Specific Plan for Del
Webb's Sun City, dated October 28, 1997 (Resolution No. 97-286), approximately
78 acres in the general proximity of Varney Road and Washington Street are
designated for commercial development. Given current market floor area ratios
(FARS), this development will likely result in approximately 500,000 square feet of
commercial retail development at buildout. Currently, there is one fast food
restaurant open in this area, with one more fast food restaurant and two gas stations
scheduled to open by January 1, 1999. The remainder of the development
(approximately 493,400 square feet) has been estimated to occur in fiscal year
2005-06. Given the absence of specific development information for this area, an
alternative fiscal analysis has been included in this Study which assumes 250,000
square feet of retail development as opposed to 500,000 square feet (Exhibit 2). A
proposed recreation center within the gates is also scheduled for development by
fiscal year 2002-03. Sales tax revenues generated by retail uses at the Jack Ivey
Ranch County Club are estimated at $1,105 in fiscal year 1997-98 dollars. The
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 5 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdsUdelwebb/suniveyfeareprt
sales tax figures (per square foot) utilized for all development are listed below and
are reflected in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars, unless otherwise indicated.
Use Sales Tax Estiniated
AREA 1 1)cr Squarc Feet Square Footage
Existing Recreation Center $82,185 N/A
(FY 1996-97 dollars)
Proposed Recreation Center $225 5,000
Retail Uses along WashinzionlVarner
Fast Food Restaurants(2) $300 4,800
Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800
Remaining Retail $225 493,400
Existing Retail between Varner Road&HO
Fast Food Restaurants(5) $300 12,000
Gas Stations(2) $1,000 1,800
Existing Retail on WashinrtonlVarner
Gas Station $1,000 900
Fast Food Restaurant $300 2,400
AREA 2
Jack Ivey Ranch CountryClub $85 1,300
Sales tax revenues were projected according to the phasing of this development and
are reflected in Exhibits 1 and 2. This Study also contains an analysis which
calculates annual sales taxes assuming that only 250,000 square feet of new
commercial retail development will be constructed on the above mentioned 78 acres
of vacant land (Exhibit 2).
f. Transient Occupancy Taxes:
Upon annexation, the City would receive the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues.
Currently, the City's Transient Occupancy Tax rate is 10%. Area 2 contains one (1)
commercial lodging establishment; the Motel 6 located at the corner of Washington
Street and Varner Road which has a total of 92 rooms. RSG has estimated the
Transient Occupancy Tax based on an occupancy factor of 60% and average room
rate of $47 in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. Del Webb also provides short-term
housing to prospective home buyers in the form of 54 vacation villas. At project
buildout, the villas will be sold and thus will cease to generate TOT revenues.
According to the FIR, the villas generated approximately $81,000 in TOT revenues
in 1996. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that TOT revenues will
remain constant until fiscal year 2000-01 and will steadily decrease by
approximately 17 percent a year as more units are sold and the Sun City area
becomes builtout.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun CitylJack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 6 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
Y.t+►
NOW
2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees):
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes. These
taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to cities on
a per capita basis. Off-Road Vehicle taxes are also allocated to cities by the State on a
per capita basis. Both subventions are estimated at $39.71 per capita in fiscal year 1998-
99 dollars and are based on the estimated combined population of 11,374 for the Study
Area at buildout.
These per capita revenues are held constant over the term of the projections and are based
on information provided by the State Controller's office.
Recent State legislature changes will reduce Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees that cities
receive, however these same legislative changes will fully backfill this revenue reduction
by State General Funds.
3. Franchise Fees:
Upon annexation, the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the County by
Continental Cable Television, the Southern California Gas Company, Waste
Management, and Western Waste. These fees have been estimated at $42.10 per capita
(in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) using budget figures from the City of Palm Desert. An
annual inflation factor was applied to this figure.
4. Development Related Fees:
The fees described below are not included in Exhibit 1 because these fees specifically
offset costs of development related services, only the "net" cost of these services are
indicated under"Expenditures".
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees:
The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use planning and regulation
services. The City would utilize the City's existing fee schedule. These fees should
offset most of the City's cost in providing these services.
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees:
The fees collected for these building and permit inspection services should, in most
cases,totally offset the cost of these services.
C. Engineering Fees:
The City is also authorized to charge fees for plan checking, public works
inspection, permit issuance and review and other engineering services. The fees
collected for these services should, in most cases, offset the cost of these services.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 7 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
*awl
d. Development Fees:
Under the provisions of State law, the City may collect development fees for the
purpose of construction or improving capital facilities. Fees received must be
segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling. Certain fees
must be spent or committed within five years from the time they are collected.
5. Other Revenues:
a. Fines and Forfeitures:
This represents both Motor Vehicle Code fines, Municipal Code fines, and other
miscellaneous fines and forfeitures. Motor Vehicle and Municipal Code fines were
estimated at $1.63 per capita in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars using budget data from
the City of Palm Desert and inflated 2% annually over the term of the projections.
b. Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous revenues include map sales, microfilm sales, code/certificate
compliance, special investigation fees, nuisance abatement and other revenues.
This revenue has been estimated at $8.13 per-capita in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars
using the City's budget. A 2% inflator was applied annually over the term of the
projections.
6. Fire Protection Fees
a. Structural Fire Protection Tax:
The structural fire protection tax is levied as part of the 1% property tax within
Areas 1 and 2 and is based on the total assessed valuation within this area. The
current rate within the Study Area is 0.0608. Upon annexation, the City will
receive approximately 70% of these revenues to fund fire protection services
through its contract with the County.
b. Proposition A Fire Tax:
The Proposition A Fire Tax is calculated on a parcel basis. More specifically, this
revenue was estimated by assuming an annual $48 charge per unit (in fiscal year
1998-99 dollars) for each of the existing 2,006 residential units, as well as, the
additional units and the units developed over the term of the projections. A 2%
inflator was applied annually to the per unit charge.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 8 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdstldelwebb/suniveyfeareprt
7. Business License Tax:
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to impose the City's current Business License
Tax. The Business License fee for the City of Palm Desert is calculated based upon gross
sales. RSG has estimated the amount of Business License Tax using an average Business
License fee of $80 (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) for the local sales tax generators
identified within Areas 1 and 2 (Exhibit 1). An annual inflator of 2% was applied over
the term of the projections.
8. Interest:
The City's current return on investment of 5.25%has been applied to all excess cash.
B. ROAD FUND
All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per capita basis,
with the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2107.5 is allocated to
the cities based upon total population size. It is estimated that the proposed annexation of the
Study Area would add approximately 11,374 population to the existing 33,701 population of
Palm Desert. According to State data, this added population will not place the City's
population status into the next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is reflected relative to
Section 2107.5. Similar to other state subventions, road fund revenues initially would be
based at the estimated population of 11,374. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter-
approved Measure "A" sales tax distributed by the County Transportation Commission.
Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related maintenance
expenditures.
III. EXPENDITURES
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational structure
and are estimated as follows:
1. General Government:
a. Administration:
The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating costs would
be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal expenditures including legal
costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies were estimated.
Costs associated with the 1999-00 election are shown. Costs for general
administration and election costs (every other year) were estimated at $0.51 and
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 9 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdstldelwebb/suniveyfeareprt
+fir
$1.54 per capita, respectively, using City budget data. These per capita costs have
been estimated to increase 3% annually.
b. Insurance:
Upon annexation, it is likely that the cost of the City's insurance policy will be
impacted. RSG has estimated these costs at $21,000 annually (in fiscal year 1998-
99 dollars) based on existing infrastructure and other public facilities within the
Study Area in relationship to the City's budgeted expenditure forecasts. A 5%
inflator has been applied to reflect annual increases in costs.
C. Animal Control:
The current City animal control contractor, California Animal Care, will assume
animal control services for this area upon annexation of Areas 1 and 2. Costs were
estimated at $2.23 per capita (in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars) using the City's
budget. These costs are net of any animal license fee revenues.
d. County Property Tax Collection Charges:
Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor-Controller's Office charged cities and
local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental administrative costs.
These charges are estimated at 2%of all property tax revenues.
2. Public Safety:
a. Sheriffs Contract:
Based on conversations with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department staff, the
annexation of the Study Area will necessitate the establishment of a new "beat" or
one 24-hour patrol. This is due to the fact that the Study Area is on the opposite
side of the freeway from the existing patrol area in Palm Desert and, in order to
assure adequate response times to the Study Area, a patrol must be present on the
same side of the I-10. This would translate into the need for approximately five
additional officers to staff the new "beat" immediately following annexation, or in
fiscal year 1998-99. The cost for the establishment of the new beat was calculated
by assuming the hiring of five Sheriff's deputies at $71 per hour (in fiscal year
1998-99 dollars), with each deputy working 2,080 hours per year. Using these
assumptions, the fiscal year 1998-99 costs total $733,824. Pursuant to Sheriff's
Department staff, the hourly charge has been inflated 5% annually over the term of
the projections to reflect increases in contract costs.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 10 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
mow+'
Nwe
b. Jail Booking Fee:
Riverside County charges a flat fee for jail bookings for the proposed annexation of
approximately $110 to all cities within the County. Jail booking fees were
estimated based on jail bookings in the County incorporated areas in this area and
for the City of Palm Desert.
C. Fire Protection:
The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage have entered into a
Joint Powers Agreement forming the Cove Communities Services Commission in
order to provide fire and paramedic services. Fire protection expenditures were
estimated using current Riverside County Fire Department budget costs for the
Cove Communities Services Commission and the City's share of these costs over
the term of the projections. Pursuant to the contract for the Cove Communities
Services Commission, each City pays a percentage of budget costs according to that
City's share of the combined assessed valuation of all three Cities.
The annexation of the Study Area will result in an increase in the total assessed
value of the City and in the Cove Communities Services Commission annual budget
costs. In fiscal year 1997-98, the City represented approximately 52% of the
assessed valuation of all the cities and the budget for the Cove Communities
Services Commission was approximately $6.4 million. Upon annexation, the City
share of assessed valuation is estimated to increase to 54% and the budget will
increase approximately $1.1 million to include operation costs for Fire Station No.
81 which will service the Study Area. The increase in the City's fire contract cost
after annexation total approximately $700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99. An annual
inflation factor of 5% was applied to the Cove Communities Services Commission
budget to reflect cost increases.
Currently three (3) fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31, 33, and 35
service the Study Area. All of these fire stations are located outside of the Study
Area. As mentioned previously, a new fire station (No. 81) is currently under
construction and is schedule to open in March 1999 to primarily service the Study
Area. However, information obtained from the Fire Department indicates that
Stations 33, 31, and 35 will provide assistance where needed.
3. Community Development:
Upon the annexation of Areas 1 and 2, the Community Development Department will
assume the processing of all land use related services. These services will, in most cases,
be off-set by fees. Those services not covered by fees have been estimated at $5,000 per
year in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. These costs have been escalated by 3% per year to
account for inflation.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun Clty/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 11 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
wrrr
a. Code Compliance Officer:
Upon annexation, it is anticipated that an additional Code Compliance Officer will
be required to provide code enforcement services within the Sun City and Jack Ivey
Ranch areas. This expenditure is calculated using the first step in the City's payroll
salary range for Code Compliance Officer which total $27,030 per year in fiscal
year 1998-99 dollars. RSG has included an additional 35% of the annual salary to
reflect benefits and an additional 10% for supplies, minor equipment, and other
overhead costs.
4. Public Works:
For purposes of this Report, it is assumed that the current level of service of maintenance
programs is sufficient to the community's needs. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 and
other County responsibilities will be assumed by the City. The Public Works cost
estimates also include an allowance for contract services to administer these programs.
a. Administration:
A minimal administrative cost impact based on a per capita factor using City budget
data is reflected. This cost represents supplies, meeting and travel costs, equipment,
and other services.
b. Street Sweeping:
CSA No. 152 represents a parcel tax levied by the County for street sweeping
services within Areas 1 and 2. However, the County does not provide street
sweeping services to Areas 1 and 2. Upon annexation, the City will provide street
sweeping services to Areas 1 and 2 and CSA No. 152 will continue to be collected
to cover these costs. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, no fiscal impact
would result from the annexation.
C. Street Lighting:
Street lighting services within the Area 1 only are currently provided through CSA
No. 121. These services are limited to street lighting outside the gated Sun City
community, which includes those commercial and industrial uses between the Sun
City community and the Interstate 10 Freeway. Area 2 properties are not within
CSA 121. It is important to note that CSA No. 121 covers a larger area which
includes not only Areas 1 and 2, but significant surrounding territory. Upon
annexation, CSA No. 121 will be detached and all funds will be transferred to the
City. The forecasted expenditure is based on current CSA No. 121 budget data
(Exhibit 1). Street lighting within the Jack Ivey Ranch and Sun City communities is
funded through the existing homeowners associations.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 12 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
5. Parks and Recreation:
There is no anticipated financial impact relative to existing landscape maintenance
services due to the fact that all parks and open space areas are private and located within
the gated communities of Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch. All private parks, open space
and recreational facilities, both existing and future, are assumed to be maintained by
homeowners association.
6. Contingency:
A 10% contingency factor has been added to the General Fund expenditure estimate to
meet unforeseen programs or emergency needs.
7. Roads:
a. Capital Improvements:
Upon annexation, it is the City's policy to upgrade existing infrastructure systems
within the annexation area to meet or exceed current City standards. The funding
sources for capital improvements within Areas 1 and 2 are not identified due to the
fact that a capital improvement program (CIP) has not been developed nor
addressed as part of this analysis. The preparation of a CIP plan for the annexation
areas would require the preparation of an extensive and detailed infrastructure
assessment analysis.
8. Road Maintenance:
a. Street Maintenance:
The street maintenance expenditure was estimated based upon estimated curb miles
and area size using budget data from the City of Palm Desert. This cost reflects a -
3% increase which includes general street maintenance; City-wide street slurry
sealing, overlaying and resurfacing, new and replaced curbs and gutters, centerline
striping, and safety and sign painting.
b. Traffic Signal Maintenance:
Upon annexation, the City of Palm Desert will be required to maintain additional
traffic signals. The City of Palm Desert currently maintains 50% of the traffic
signals located at Washington Street and Varner Road, along Varner Road, on Cook
Street and Varner Road (2 signals), and all other signals along Varner Road in
Areas 1 and 2. Upon annexation of Areas 1 and 2, the City will be required to
maintain 100% of these four (4) traffic signals. All other traffic signals in Areas 1
and 2 are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch
homeowners associations.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 13 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdsUdelwebb/sun iveyfeareprt
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The fiscal feasibility of annexing the Study Area (comprised of Areas 1 and 2) was evaluated
by assessing the feasibility of Area 1 (Sun City) alone, as well as examining the feasibility of
both Areas 1 and 2 (Jack Ivey Ranch).
Sun Cily Alone
Two scenarios were prepared for the fiscal analysis of Area 1. Both scenarios assume
residential development, as presented in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan, but the first
scenario (Exhibit 3) assumes approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial
development while the second scenario (Exhibit 4) assumes a more conservative 250,000
square feet of new commercial development. Although the annexation of Area I would
result in a cumulative General Fund surplus of approximately $2.5 million over a nine year
time period under the first scenario (Exhibit 3), the City would experience shortfalls in years
1 through 4 ranging from $29,000 to $450,000 annually and a cumulative shortfall for the
seven of the nine years. The second scenario results in a lower cumulative General Fund
surplus ($1.7 million over a nine year period), with the same annual and cumulative shortfalls
in years 1 through 7.
General Fund expenditures exceed revenues in the first few years following annexation due
to the fact that revenues are growing progressively with new development, but costs, such as
public safety costs, must be incurred upon annexation. In particular, due to the required
provision of adequate response times, a full "beat" must be established upon annexation, at a
cost of over$700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99 dollars. Police services costs are high beginning
in fiscal year 1998-99, before the increasing value of all development comes on-line. It is
important to note that the annual General Fund shortfall declines significantly each year over
the term of the projections. The additional 500,000 square feet of commercial uses projected
to be developed in fiscal year 2005-06 will greatly reduce the annual deficit in the General
Fund. Finally, if the contingency referenced in this Study are not used by the City, the
projections would show that the shortfall would be eliminated by fiscal year 2002-03. The
_ reason that the annual and cumulative shortfalls are identical under both scenarios is due to
the fact that commercial development does not occur until years 8 and 9 of the projections.
The forecasted revenues for the Road Fund exceed estimated expenditures under both
scenarios by a range of $133,731 to $559,424 annually, with a cumulative surplus of $3.0
million. It is important to note that the use of these funds is restricted to road-related
expenditures.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 14 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/sunivWeareprt
Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch
In contrast, the two scenarios prepared for the fiscal analysis for Areas 1 and 2 combined
yields a higher surplus and lower deficits. Similar to the two scenarios described above, both
scenarios that assume the annexation of Areas I and 2 combined include the residential
development as presented in the Del Webb Sun City Specific Plan. However, the first
scenario (Exhibit 1) assumes approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial
development while the second scenario (Exhibit 2) assumes a more conservative 250,000
square feet of new commercial development. The fiscal analysis presented in the first
scenario (Exhibit 1) shows a cumulative General Fund surplus of$3.7 million over the nine
year period with fiscal deficits in years 1 through 3, rather than four years of deficits as
shown in Exhibit 3 (the annexation of the Del Webb area alone). The annual deficits range
from $77,732 to $352,566 under both of these scenarios. The second more conservative
scenario results in a somewhat lower cumulative General Fund surplus of$2.8 million. It is
important to note that this surplus resulting from the more conservative development
assumptions is higher than the surplus shown in Exhibit 3 (described above) that includes
twice the amount of commercial square footage (500,000 vs. 250,000 square feet) to be
developed in the Study Area. Road funds exceed estimated expenditures under both
scenarios by a range of $154,634 to $591,347 annually, with a cumulative surplus of $3.3
million.
Analysis of Factors
The primary reason that the potential annexation of Areas 1 and 2 combined results in a
higher fiscal surplus and a lower fiscal deficit as compared to Area 1 alone is that the
addition of Jack Ivey Ranch would not necessitate any additional police services (or cost),
but would represent property tax and other revenues to the City. According to the Riverside
County Sheriffs Department, the annexation of the Del Webb Sun City area would require
the addition of a full-time police beat (one 24-hour patrol) due to the fact the nearest
substation to service the area is located on the east side of the I-10 freeway. This distance
between this substation and the Del Webb Sun City area would not allow the existing patrols
out of this substation to meet required response times. Therefore, a new patrol must be
created to service the area. Additionally, if a full time patrol or beat was established and Jack
Ivey Ranch was also annexed into the City, the new patrol could service both areas with no
additional cost to the City.
V. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS —BERMUDA DUNES ANNEXATION
This section presents RSG's initial conclusions regarding the financial impacts of also
including the Bermuda Dunes area within the proposed subject annexation. RSG has limited
this analysis to reviewing the anticipated operating revenues and expenditures. We took this
approach because an annexation proposal must demonstrate that the City can provide at least
the existing levels of service to Bermuda Dunes residents. This report does not address
Bermuda Dunes' capital improvement needs, which may be substantial. Another key
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 15 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
assumption focuses on revenue and expenditure projections at a buildout (population and
businesses) based on the current County General Plan.
The analysis employs the land use designations and densities that are currently permitted by
the Riverside County General Plan; the County General Plan limits a majority of future
development to residential uses. This is an important assumption because residential uses
generally have service costs that exceed the revenue this use generates.
Both today and at buildout, Bermuda Dunes will primarily be a residential community.
Because residential uses do not generate many of the General Fund revenues, the annexation
of Bermuda Dunes is anticipated to have a detrimental impact on the City's General Fund.
Consequently, the City would be required to: (1) absorb these impacts, (2) pursue voter
approval for a tax assessment to offset revenue shortfalls, and/or (3) modify the land use plan
to permit development of more revenue-generating uses.
A. OVERVIEW OF BERMUDA DUNES AREA
The Bermuda Dunes area is bound by the City of Palm Desert along Washington Street to the
west, Interstate 10 to the north,the City of Indio near Jefferson Street to the east, and the City
of La Quinta along Fred Waring Drive to the south. RSG estimates the total acreage of the
Bermuda Dunes area is approximately 2,020. According to a demographic profile prepared
by National Decision Systems, the estimated 1997 population of Bermuda Dunes is
approximately 6,154.
RSG conducted a cursory land use assessment of Bermuda Dunes based upon the land use
categories in the County General Plan. Presently, approximately 47%, or 964 of the 2,020
acres, of Bermuda Dunes is currently developed. Approximately two-thirds of the 964 acres
of developed uses are residential; the residential area currently contains 2,555 dwelling units.
Nonresidential uses include retail, commercial, manufacturing, a 41-room resort hotel, the
Bermuda Dunes Country Club golf course, a medical center, and Bermuda Dunes Airport.
The retail and manufacturing/industrial land uses total 231,539 square feet.
At buildout, residential uses will account for approximately 79%, or 1,598 of the 2,020 acres
within Bermuda Dunes. Including the 2,555 existing units, a total of 6,726 residential units
are projected to be constructed in Bermuda Dunes. Nonresidential uses will constitute
approximately 422 acres, or 21% of Bermuda Dunes. The retail and manufacturing
components will account for approximately 1,420,753 square feet of the commercial building
space, of which 1,235,514 square feet are planned for manufacturing/industrial use. Only 16
of the 2,020 acres in Bermuda Dunes are planned for retail commercial use; 5 of these 16
acres are currently developed with a retail commercial center located at the corner of
Washington Street and Country Club Drive.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 16 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/sun iveyfearepn
B. ANALYSIS
1. General Fund Revenues
RSG conducted a preliminary analysis of potential revenues, including property tax, sales
tax, franchise fees, state subventions, transient occupancy taxes, and other miscellaneous
revenues. Total forecasted General Fund revenues, including the landscaping and
lighting assessment and County Service Area (CSA) Nos. 121 and 152 assessments, are
approximately $1 million.
The County currently operates a Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
(89-1-Consolidated) that maintains the median on 42nd Avenue between Lima Hall Road
and Glass Drive. Median maintenance is funded by property owner assessments that are
currently $178.58 per acre per year. A total of 113 property owners are assessed. Upon
annexation, RSG has assumed that the City would administer this Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District to continue maintenance of this median. The amount of
assessment revenue the City would annually receive would be approximately $15,000.
There are two CSA's that provide municipal services to Bermuda Dunes. CSA No. 121
provides street lighting to portions of Bermuda Dunes, as well as other unincorporated
areas north of Interstate 10. The County currently collects approximately $20,000 in
property taxes each year to fund street lighting operation costs. Upon annexation, the
City may detach the Bermuda Dunes portion of CSA No. 121 and collect these property
taxes directly through the City's general property tax levy. A second CSA in Bermuda
Dunes is CSA No. 152 that funds street sweeping costs throughout the County and in
Bermuda Dunes. Upon annexation, the City would receive this property tax revenue
which would offset approximately 25% of the street sweeping costs in Bermuda Dunes.
The total amount of annual revenue from both CSA's is estimated at $25,000.
2. General Fund Expenditures
The largest General Fund expenditures relate to public safety services. Public safety cost
estimates were compiled by RSG and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.
Annexation of Bermuda Dunes would result in a higher level of service than Bermuda
Dunes residents currently enjoy; this would result from an increased physical presence of
patrol cars and increased patrol resources available to meet peak levels of service. The
total cost is forecasted at $1 million. Other services to be funded include animal control,
a code compliance officer, public works related services, additional insurance costs and
minimal administrative and support service costs. A preliminary forecast of annual
recurring expenditures is approximately $1.4 million.
RSG's analysis of the General Fund indicates a shortfall of approximately $400,000 per
year, not including any additional capital improvement cost requirements. A further
analysis of General Fund recurring expenditures and revenues at a buildout scenario
would indicate a growing shortfall of approximately $600,000 annually.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October,1998 17 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdst/delwebb/suniveyfeareprt
3. Potential Capital Improvements Requirements
While the scope of this study excluded a thorough analysis of the capital improvement
needs for Bermuda Dunes, RSG did a cursory investigation of potential infrastructure
improvements. The Bermuda Dunes area would require significant road-related
improvements including street resurfacing, street widening, curbs and gutters, drainage
and runoff improvements, striping and signage.
C. FINDINGS
If the Bermuda Dunes area was also included as part of the annexation proposal for Sun
City and Jack Ivey Ranch, the addition of this area would significantly impact the
forecasted fiscal short fall of providing recurring services to the Bermuda Dunes area.
Because of its location in relation to the Sun City and Jack Ivey Ranch areas, the sharing
or cost distribution of new incremental services such as law enforcement, would be
limited. Only minimal administrative and processing costs could be reduced by including
all areas within one annexation proposal.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Jack Ivey Ranch Annexation
October, 1998 18 Fiscal Feasibility Report
palmdstldelwebb/suniveyfeareprt
EXHIBIT I
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-055 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year(Full Year)(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
TAXES
Property Tax 349,182 423,921 501.820 583,665 667.222 754.260 843.850 935,797 L08L715
Property Transfer Tax 6,404 6,532 1755 3.830 3.907 3.985 4.065 4.146 4.229
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales Tax 135.677 153,115 157,708 223.217 229.914 250.244 257.751 791848 1359.819
Existing Commercial 122,699 126,380 130,172 134,077 138,099 142.242 146.509 150.905 155.432
New Commercial 12.978 26,735 27,537 89.140 91,815 108,002 111.242 641,944 1.204.38- -
Transient Occupancy Tax 174,239 176,104 178.006 166.446 154,925 143.444 132.003 120.603 109.245
Subtotal 666,242 760,412 842.030 977.899 1.056.708 1.152,672 1.238.409 1.854.134 2.555,748
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 191,941 224,645 257,350 290,055 322.759 355,464 387,930 419.682 451,434
Off-Highway License 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 1187
Subtotal 192.020 224,738 257,456 290.174 322,892 355,611 388,090 419,855 451,621
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 203,869 243,632 284.927 327.802 372.303 418.479 466.076 514,491 564.659
Subtotal 203,869 243,632 284.927 327,802 372,303 418A79 466,076 514.491 564.659
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9,436 11.025 12.675 14,386 16,161 17.990 19,851 21.780
Miscellaneous Revenues 39.338 46,041 52.744 59.447 66,149 72,852 79.506 86.014 91521
Subtotal 47.242 55.477 63.769 72,122 80.536 89,013 97.496 105.865 114.302
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 203,793 247,413 292,877 340.644 389,410 440,208 492.496 546.158 631,320
Prop A Fire Tax 116.064 158.305 160.284 180,654 201,023 221,392 241,613 261.389 281.165
Subtotal 319,857 405.718 453.161 521,298 590.433 661.600 734,109 807,547 912,486
LICENSES
Business_License Tax 3.200 3.271 3.344 3,819 3.904 3,991 4,080 4,171 &814
Subtotal 3.200 3.271 3,344 3,819 3.904 3.991 4.080 4,171 6.814
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.432,430 1,693,247 1,904.688 2,191113 2,426,776 2.681.366 2.928,260 3.706,063 4.605,629
Interest Earnines 0 0 0 4.784 11,907 18,262 25,630 58.682 97.958
ROAD FUNDS
Section 2105 29,403 34.413 39.423 44.433 49.443 54,452 59.426 64.290 69,154
Section 2106 19,247 22.527 25,806 29.086 32.365 35.645 38.901 42,085 45,269
Section 2107 41.009 47,997 54,984 61,972 68,959 75.947 82,884 89.668 96,452
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 162.582 195.993 231,262 268,471 307,704 349,050 392,358 437.207 484.393
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252.242 300,929 351,476 403,961 458.471 515.094 573,568 633,249 695,267
Interest Earnines 7.713 10,104 12.586 15,166 17.846 20.632 23.510 26,445 29,497
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1.692,385 2.004.280 2.268,750 2.617,024 2.915.001 3,235,354 3,550.968 4.424.439 5,428,352
RSG,Inc- 10/7198 cmbned.xts Budget
.EXHIBIT 1
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
( FNERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2.467 11,718 3.509 15.703 4,669 19.976 5.953 24.485 7,350
Insurance 21.000 22,050 23.153 24,310 25,526 26.802 28.142 29.549 31.027
Animal Control 10.762 12,596 14.430 16.264 18.097 19.931 21.752 23,532 25,312
County Tax_ Collection Charge 6,984 8.478 10,036 11.673 13,344 15.085 16,877 18.716 21.634
Subtotal 41,213 54.843 5LI28 67,950 61.636 81,794 72.724 _96282 85.323
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733,824 770,515 809.041 849.493 891,968 936.566 983.394 1.032.564 1.084.192
Jail Booking Fees 4A00 4,532 4,668 4.808 4,952 5.101 5,254 5AI I 5.574
Fire Protection 769,677 811,961 856.723 904,314 953,274 1,005.839 1,060.723 1.118,441 1.211,003
Subtotal 1,507,901 1,587,008 1,670,432 1.759.615 1,850,194 1,947,506 2,049.372 2,156.416 2,300,769
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 5,000 5,150 5,305 5.464 5,628 5.796 5.970 6.149 6,334
Code Compliance Officer 52,703 54.284. 55,912 57,590 59.317 61,097 62,930 64,818 66,762
Subtotal 57,703 59.434 61,217 63.053 64,945 66.893 68.900 70,967 73.096
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 7,626 9,104 10,637 12,229 13,880 15.592 17.357 19.153 21,014
Street Lighting 8.281 8.530 8.786 9,049 9,321 9.600 9.888 10,185 10,490
Subtotal 15,907 17,63- 19,423 2L278 23,201 25.192 27,245 29338 31.504
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * * Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 162.272 17L892 180,220 191,090 199,998 212,139 221.824 235300 249,069
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.784.995 1,890.810 1,982,420 2.101,986 2.199.973 2,333.524 2,440.064 2.588.304 2.739.761
ROADS
Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 74,772 77,015 79325 81.705 84,156 86,681 89,281 91.960 94.719
Street Sweeping 6,142 6.327 6.516 6.712 6,913 7,121 7.334 7,554 7,781
Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenanc 14.832 15,277 15,735 16,207 16,694 17,194 17,710 18,241 18,789
Contingency 9,575 9,862 10.158 10,462 10,776 11,100 11,433 11,716 11129
TOTAL ROAD FUND 105.321 108,480 111,735 115.087 118,539 122,096 125,758 129,531 133,417
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1,890.316 1.999.290 2.094,154 2.217.073 2.318,513 2,455.620 2.565,823 2,717,835 2,873.178
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (197,931) 4.990 174.595 399,952 596,488 779,734 985,145 1,706,605 2,555,173
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (197,931) (192,941) (18,345) 38L606 978.094 1,757,828 2,742.973 4,449,578 7,004,751
General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (352.566) (197,562) (77,732) 95.911 238,710 366,103 513,825 1.176,442 1,963 826
Cumulative General Fund (352.566) (550,128) (627.860) (531,949) (293.239) 72,864 586,689 1,763,131 3,726,957
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 154.634 202.553 252,327 304.040 357,778 413,631 471,320 530,163 591,347
Cumulative Road Fund 154.634 357,187 609.514 913,555 1,271,333 1,684.964 2,156,284 2.686,447 3.277.794
RSG,Inc., 10/7198 cmDned.xts Budget
EXHIBIT 2
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft.comm.)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
TAXES
Property Tax 349,182 423.921 501.820 583,665 667,222 754,260 843.850 935,797 1.056.071
Property Transfer Tax 6.404 6.532 3.755 3.830 3.907 3.985 4,065 4.146 4,229
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 -739 739
Sales Tax 135,677 153,115 157,708 223.217 229.914. 250,244 - 257.751 525.639 809,368
Existing Commercial 122.699 126,380 130.172 134.077 138,099 142.242 146,509 150.905 155,432
New Commercial 12,978 26,735 27.537 89.140 91.815 108,002 111.242 374.734 653.936
Transient Occupancy Tax 174,239 176,104 178.006 166,446 154.925 143.444 132.003 120,603 109.245
Subtotal 666.242 760.412 842.030 977,899 1.056,708 1.152.672 1,238.409 1,586.924 1,979.653
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 191,941 224,645 257.350 290.055 322,759 355.464 387.930 419.682 451,434
Off-Highway License- - - - - 79 93 106 120 133 147 160 173 187
Subtotal 192,020 224,738 257,456 290,174 322,892 355.611 388.090 419,855 451.621
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 203,869 243,632 284,927 327,802 372,303 418.479 466,076 514A91 564,659
Subtotal 203.869 243,632 284.927 327,802 372.303 418.479 466.076 514.491 564,659
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 7,904 9.436 11,025 12,675 14,386 16,161 17,990 19,851 21,780
Miscellaneous Revenues 39.338 46.041 52,744 59,447 66,149 72,852 79,506 86,014 92.521
Subtotal 47,242 55.477 63.769 72.122 80.536 89.013 97.496 105.865 114,302
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 203,793 247,413 292,877 340,644 389AI0 440,208 492.496 546.158 616.354
Prop A Fire Tax 116.064 158305 160,284 180.654 201.023 221,392 241.613 261.389 281.165
Subtotal 319,857 405,718 453,161 521,298 590,433 661,600 734,109 807,547 897,519
LICENSES
Business License Tax 3,200 3.271 3,344 3,819 3,904 3.991 4.080 4.171 5.539
_- --- -
Subtotal 3,200 3,271 3,344 3,819 3.904 3,991 4.080 4,171 5,539
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,431430 1.693,247 1.904,688 2.193.113 2,426,776 2,681.366 2.928,260 3,438.854 4.013.293
Interest Eamines 0 0 0 4.784 11.907 18.262 25.630 44,654 67,798
ROAD FUNDS
Section 2105 29,403 34.413 39.423 44,433 49.443 54,452 59.426 64,290 69,154
Section 2106 19.247 22.527 25,806 29,086 32.365 35.645 38,901 42,085 45.269
Section 2107 41.009 47.997 54.984 61,972 68,959 75.947 82,884 89,668 96,452
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 162.582 195.993 231.262 _268,471 307,704 349 050 392,358 437.207 484,393
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 252.242 300,929 35 L476 403.961 458,471 515.094 573.568 633,249 695,267
InterestEamings 7,713 10.104 12,586 15,166 17,846 20,632 23,510 26,445 29,497
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1.692,385 2.004,280 2.268.750 2.617.024 2,915,001 3,235,354 3.550.968 4.143,201 4.805,855
RSG,Inc., 10n/98 cmbned.xls Budget-less comm
EXHIBIT 2
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY & JACK IVEY RANCH ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq.ft.comm.)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year)(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2.467 11.718 3.509 15,703 4,669 19.976 5.953 24.485 7.350
Insurance 21,000 22,050 23.153 24.310 25.526 26.802 28.142 29.549 31027
Animal Control 10.762 12,596 14.430 16,264 1&097 19,931 21,752 23.532 25.312
County Tax Collection Charge 6,984 8.478 10.036 11.673 13.344 - 15.085 16.877 1&716 21.121
— --
Subtotal 41,213 54.843 51,128 67,950 61.636 81.794 72.724 96.282 84.810,
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733.824 770,515 809,041 849,493 891,968 936,566 983.394 L032.564 1.084,192
Jail Booking Fees 4.400 4.532 4.668 4.808 4.952 5.101 5.254 5.411 5.574
Fire Protection 769.677 811,961 856.723 904,314 953,274 1.005.839 1.060,723 L 118.441 1.195.283
Subtotal 1,507,901 1,587,008 1,670.432 1,758,615 1,850,194 1.947.506 2,049.372 2.156.416 2.285,049
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5.796 5,970 6.149 6.334
Code Compliance Officer 52,703 54,284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61A97 62,930 64.818 66.762
Subtotal 57,703 59,434 61.217 63,053 64,945 66,893 68.900 70,967 73.096
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 7.626 9.104 10.637 12,229 13,880 15,592 17,357 19.153 21,014
Street Lighting 8.281 8,530 8,786 9 049 9321 9.600 9.888 10,185 10,490
Subtotal 15,907 17,633 19,423 21.278 23,201 25,192 27.245 29.338 31.504
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * * Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTINGENCY 162,272 171.892 180.220 191.090 199.998 212.139 221,824 235,300 247.446
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,784,995 1,890.810 1.982.420 2,101,986 2.199,973 2.333.524 2.440,064 2,588.304 2.721.905
ROADS
Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 74,772 77.015 79,325 81.705 84.156 86,681 89,281 91,960 94,719
Street Sweeping 6,142 6,327 6.516 6.712 6,913 7,121 7.334 7,554 7,781
Traffic Signal Operation/Nlaintenanc 14.832 15.277 15,735 16.207 16,694 17,194 17,710 18.241 18.789
1,1
Contingency 9.575 9,862 10,158 10,462 10.776 100 IIA33 11,776 12,129
TOTAL ROAD FUND 105,321 108,480 111,735 115.087 118,539 122,096 125,758 129.531 131417
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1,890.316 1,999.290 2.094.154 2.217.073 2.318,513 2,455,620 2,565,823 2.717,835 2.855.322
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (197,931) 4,990 174,595 399,952 596,488 779,734 985.145 1,425.367 1,950.533
----------
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (197,931) (192,941) (18.345) 38L606 978,094 1,757,828 2,742.973 4,168,340 6.118,873
General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) (352,566) (197.562) (77,732) 95.911 238,710 366,103 513,825 895.204 1,359,186
-- -
93
Cumulative General Fund (352,566) (550,128) (627,860) (531,949)—(- 239) 72,864 586,689 1,481--- 2,841,079-
- - -
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfal1) 154 634 202.553 2521.327 304.040 357,778 413,631 471,320 530,163 591.347
Cumulative Road Fund 154.634 357,187 609.514 913,555 1,271,333 1,684 964 2.156.284 2,686A47 3.277,794-
RSG,Inc., 1017198 cmbned.As Budget less comm
EXHIBIT 3
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
GENERAL FUND REVEN 1E (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
TAXES
Property Tax 322.897 395.426 471.033 550A97 631.603 716.100 803.374 893.862 1.037.803
Property Transfer Tax 5,312 5.419 2.619 2,672 2.725 2.780 2,835 _ 2,892 2.950
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739. 739
Sales Tax 134.539 151.943 156.501 221,973 228.633 248,925 256.392 791.449 1.358377
Existing Commercial 121,561 125,208 128,964 132,833 136,818 140,923 145,150 149,505 153,990
New Commercial 12,978 26.735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108,002 111,242 641,944 1,204.387
Transient Occupancy Tax 174,239 176.104 178.006 166,446 154,925 143,444 132.003 120.603 109.245
Subtotal 637.727 729,630 808.899 942.328 1.018,625 1.1 11.988 1.195.344 1.809.544 2.509,1 14
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 165,745 197,497 229,249 261,001 292,753 324,505 356,257 388.009 419.761
Off-Highway License 68 82 95 108 121 134 147 160 173
Subtotal 165.814 197.579 229.344 261,109 292.874 324.640 356,405 388.170 419,935
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric.Trash,and Cable TV 175,811 213.681 252,995 293,797 336,129 380.037 425,567 472,767 521.684
Subtotal 175,811 213,681 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425.567 472.767 521.684
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 6,825 8.295 9,822 11.405 13,049 14,753 16.521 18.353 20,252
Miscellaneous Revenues 33.969 40.477 46.985 53.492 60.000 66.507 73.015 79,522 86.030
Subtotal 40.795 48,772 5&806 64,898 73,049 81261 89,536 97.876 106,282
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 188.453 230,784 274,911 321,289 368.625 417,940 468,876 521.688 605.696
Prop A Fire Tax 100,224 141,396 142,783 162,559 182.335 202.111 221,887 241.663 261,439
Subtotal 288.677 372.180 417,694 483,847 550,959 620,051 690.763 763,350 867.135
LICENSES
Business License Tax 2.960 3.019 3.080 3,541 3.612 3.684 3,758 3.833 6.460
Subtotal 2,960 3.019 3,080 3,541 3,612 3,684 3,758 3,833 6.460
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.311.783 1,564.862 1.768,818 2.049,520 1275.249 2.521,660 2.761,372 3,535.540 4.430.610
Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0 5.175 11,236 18.207 51,174 90,188
ROAD FUNDS
Section 2105 25,390 30,254 35.118 39.982 44,846 49,710 54,574 59,438 64.302
Section 2106 16,620 19.804 21988 26,172 29,356 32,540 35,724 38,908 42,092
Section 2107 35,412 42,196 48,980 55.764 62,548 69,332 76.116 82,900 89.684
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 140.394 ]72,308 206,010 241.580 279.098 318,650 360,324 404,212 450,408
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 217.817 264.563 313.097 363,499 415,849 470,233 526,739 585,459 646,487
Interest Earnings 6,671 8.982 11,383 13,877 16A69 19,164 21,964 24,877 27.905
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,536.271 1,838.406 2,093.298 2.426,896 2.712.742 3,022,293 3.328,283 4,197,049 5.195,190
RSG,Inc., 10f7/98 DELWES2.ks Budget
EXHIBIT 3
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2,130 10,302 3.126 14,130 4,235 18,236 5.467 22.637 6.834
Insurance 19.740 20,727 21,763 22,852 23,994 25,194 26.453 .27,776 29.165
Animal Control 9.293 11.074 12.854 14,635 16.415 18.195 19.976 21,756 21536
County Tax Collection Charge---- - 6,458 7,909 9,421 11.010 12,632 14.322 16,067 17.877 20,756
Subtotal 37,622 50,012 47.164 62,626 57,276 - 75,947 67.964 90.047 . 80,291
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733,824 770.515 809.041 849A93 891,968 936.566 983.394 1,032.564 1,084,192
Jail Booking Fees 3,872 3,988 4,108 4,231 4,358 4.489 4,623 4.762 4.905
Fire Protection 758,673 800.352 844.476 891,395 939.639 99L455 1.045,723 L103,177 1,195,077
Subtotal 1,496,369 1,574,855 1,657,624 1,745,119 1,835,965 1,932.509 2,031741 2.140.503 2,284,175
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 3,850 3,966 4,084 4,207 4,333 4,463 4,597 4.735 4,877
Code Compliance Officer 51703 54,284 55,912 57,590 59,317 61,097 62.930 64.818 66,762
Subtotal 56,553 58,249 59,997 61,797 63,651 65,560 67,527 69,553 71,639
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 6,585 8,003 9,476 11,004 12,590 14,234 15,940 17,708 19,540
Street Lighting 8.281 8,530 8,786 9,049 9,321 9,600 9,888 10,185 10.490
Subtotal 14,866 16,533 18,261 20,053 21,910 23,835 25,828 27,892 30,030
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * * Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 - 0 -0 - -0
CONTINGENCY 160.541 169,965 178,305 188,960 197.880 209.785 219.506 232,799 246,614
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.765.951 1,869,614 1,961,351 2,078,555 2.176.682 2.307.636 2.414.565 2,560.794 2.712.749
ROADS
Capital-Improvements; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 69,271 71,350 73,490 75,695 77,966 80,305 81714 85,195 87,751
Street Sweeping 5,819 5,993 6,173 6,358 6,549 6,745 6,948 7,156 7,371
Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance 7.416 7,638 7,868 8.104 8347 8,597 8,855 9,121 9,394
Contingency 8,251 8,498 8,753 9,016 9,286 9,565 9,852 10,147 10,452
TOTAL ROAD FUND 90,757 93,479 96,284 99,172 102,147 105.212 108,368 111.619 114.968
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1.856.707 1.963.093 2,057.635 2.177,727 2,278.829 1412,848 2.522.933 2,672A 14 2.827,717
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) - (320.437) (124,687) 35.663 249,170 433,913 609,445 805,350 1,524,636 2,367,473
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (320,437 (445,123) (409,461) (160.291) 273,622 883,068 1,688,418 3,213,054 5,580,527
General Fund Sur lus/Shortfall
_ - p ) (454,167) -(304,752) (192,534) (29034) 103,742 225,260 365,015 1,025,920 1,808,049
Cumulative General Fund (454,167) (758,919) (951,453) (980,487) -(876,745) _ (651,485) (286.470) 739.449 2,547,498
u Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall)-_ _ - 133,731 180.065 228,196 278,204 330 171 384,185 440,336 498.716 559,424
Cumulative Road Fund 133,731 313.796 541,993 820,196 1,150,368 1,534,553 1,974,888 2,473.604 3,033,029
RSG,Inc., 10/7/98 DELWEB2.)ds Budget
EXHIBIT 4
r
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq. ft. comm)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-01; 2005-06 2006-07
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (Full Year) (Full Fear) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Vear) (Full Year) (Full fear) (Buildout)
TAXES
Property Tax 322.897 395.426 471.033 550,497 631.603 716,100 803.374 893,862 1.012391
Property Transfer Tax 5.312 5.419 2.619 2,672 2.725 1780 2.835 2.892 2.950
Parcel Tax 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739 739
Sales Tax 134.539 151.943 156,501 221,973 228,633 248,925 256,392 524.239 807,926
Existing Commercial 121.561 125,208 128,964 132,833 136,818 140,923 145.150 149,505 153,990
New Commercial 12,978 26,735 27,537 89,140 91,815 108.002 111,242 3-4.734 653,936
Transient Occupancy Tax - 174,239 176,104 178.006 166,446 154.925 143.444 132.003 120.603 109.245
Subtotal 637,727 729,630 808,899 942,328 1,018.625 1.111,988 1.195.344 1.542.335 L933.251
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 165.745 197.497 229.249 261.001 292.753 324,505 356.257 388,009 419.761
Off-Highway License -- - _68 -- 82 95 108 121 134 147 160 173
Subtotal 165.814 197,579 229,344 261,109 292,874 324,640 356.405 388.170 419.935
FRANCHISE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 175.811 213,681 252,995 293,797 336,129 380,037 425.567 472,767 521.684
_ -- - -- - -
Subtotal 175,811 213.681 252.995 293.797 336,129 380,037 425,567 472.767 521.684
OTHER REVENUES
Fines&Forfeitures 6.825 8.295 9.822 11.405 13.049 14.753 16.521 18.353 20.252
Miscellaneous Revenues 33,969 _40A77 46.985 53.492 60.000 66.507 73,015 79.522 86.030
Subtotal 40,795 48.772 56,806 64,898 73,049 81.261 89.536 97.876 106.282
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 188,453 230.784 274.911 321.289 368.625 417.940 468.876 521,688 590,865
Prop A Fire Tax - 100,224 141396 142.783 162,559 182,335 202.111 221.887 241.663 261.439
Subtotal 288.677 372,180 417.694 483.847 550.959 620.051 690,763 763.350 852.304
LICENSES
Business License Tax 1960 3.019 3.080 3.541 3,612 1684 3.758 3.833 5.185
Subtotal 1960 3.019 3.080 3.541 3.612 3.684 3.758 3.833 5,185
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.31 1,783 1.564.862 1,768,818 2,049,520 2.275.249 2,521,660 2.761.372 3.268.331 3.838.640
Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0 5,175 11.236 18,207 37,146 W052
ROAD FUNDS
Section 2105 25.390 30,254 35.118 39,982 44,846 49,710 54.574 59A38 64,302
Section 2106 16.620 19,804 22.988 26.172 29.356 32.540 35.724 38,908 42,092
Section 2107 35.412 42.196 48.980 55.764 62,548 69,332 76,116 82,900 89.684
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Tumback 140,394 172.308 206.010 241.580 279.098 318,650 360.324 404,212 450,408
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 217,817 264,563 313,097 363,499 415,849 470,233 526,739 585,459 646,487
Interest Earnines 6,671 8.982 11.383 13.877 16.469 19,164 21,964 24.877 27.905
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,536.271 L838.406 2.093.298 2.426.896 2.712.742 3.022.293 3.328.283 3.915,811 4.573.084
RSG,Inc.. 1017W DELWEB2.zls Bdgt•less comm.
EXHIBIT 4
Nine Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY(Assumes 250,000 sq. ft. Comm)
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration 2.130 10.302 3,126 14.130 4,235 18.236 5.467 22.637 6.834
Insurance 19,740 20.727 21,763 22.852 23.994 25,194 26A53 27.776 29.165
Animal Control 9,293 11.074 12,854 14.635 16.415 18.195 19.976 21.756 23,536
County Tax Collection Charge 6.458 7.909 9,421 11.010 12.632 14,322 16,067 17.877 20.248
Subtotal 37,622 50.012 47,164 62.626 57,276 75.947 67.964 - 90.047 79.783
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sheriff Contract 733.824 770.515 809.041 849,493 891,968 936.566 983.394 1.032.564 1,084.192
Jail Booking Fees 3.872 3.988 4,108 4.231 4.358 4.489 4.623 4.762 4.905
Fire Protection 758,673 800 352 844,476 891,395 939,639 991,455 L045,723 1.103.177 L 179,267
Subtotal 1,496,369 1,574.855 1,657.624 1,745,119 1,835.965 1,932,509 2.031741 2.140.503 1268.365
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 3.850 3,966 4,084 4,207 4.333 4A63 4.597 4,735 4.877
Code Compliance Officer 52.703 54,284• 55.912 57,590 59.317 61.097 62.930 64.818 66.762
Subtotal 56,553 58.249 59,997 61.797 63,651 65,560 67,527 69.553 71.639
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration 6,585 8.003 9,476 11.004 12,590 14.234 15.940 17.708 19,540
Street Lighting 8,281 8.530 8,786 9,049 9.321 9,600 9,888 10.185 10A90
Subtotal 14,866 16,533 18261 20.053 21.910 23.835 25.828 27,892 30.030
PARKS&RECREATION
Landscaping/Median Maintenance * * * Assumed to be Paid by Master Homeowners'Association
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
uJNTINGENCY 160,541 169.965 178,305 188,960 197,880 209,785 219,506 231799 244,982
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1.765.951 1.869.614 1.961,351 2.078.555 2.176.682 2.307.636 2.414.565 2.560,794 1694,799
AD
Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance 69,271 71350 73,490 75,695 77,966 80.305 82.714 85,195 87.751
Street Sweeping 5.819 5.993 6,173 6.358 6,549 6.745 6.948 7.156 7.371
Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance 7.416 7.638 7.868 8.104 8347 8,597 8.855 9,121 9,394
Contingency 8,251 8.498 8.753 9,016 9,286 9.565 9,852 10,147 10,452
TOTAL ROAD FUND 90.757 93,479 96.284 99,172 102.147 105.212 108.368 111.619 114,968
TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1.856,707 1,963,093 2.05T635 2.177,727 2.278.829 2,412,848 2,521933 2.672.414 2.809.766
REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (320,437) (124.687) 35,663 249.170 433,913 609,445 805350 1.243,398 1,763,318
CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (320,437) (445,123) (409,461) (160.291) 273.622 883,068 1,688,418 2,931,816 4,695,133
General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) - (454.167) (304,752) (192.534) (29,034)- 103,742 225.260 365,015 744,682 1,203,893
Cumulative General Fund (454.167) (758.919) (951.453) (980,487) (876,745) (651,485) (286.470) 458.211 1.662,105
Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 133,731 180.065 228.196 278,204 330,171 384,185 440.336 498.716 559.424
Cumulative Road Fund 133.731 313,796 541,993 820.196 1.150,368 1,534,553 1.974,888 2.473,604 3,033,029
RSG,Inc., 10f7198 DELWEB2.xLs Bdgbless comm.
09/23/98 WED 09:51 FAX 619 342 6556 CITY OF INDIO Z001
N11W yr
Mr. Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA92260
September 22, 1 E88
Dear Mr. Drell:
The City of Indio wishes to comment on General Plan 98-5, Change of Zone 98-
6 and Development Agreement 98-2, related to the recent annexation of Sun
City (Del Webb) into the City of Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence, The City of
Indio wishes to mote the importance of Avenue 36 as a major east-west corridor
in the Coachella 'Valley. The corridor is of great importance in that it is the only
east-wet corridor serving the northern Shadow Hills area of Indio. Avenue 36 will
serve a unique public safety function and thus is necessary to ensure adequate
circulation to future development which will occur in the area.
The City of Indio has followed the status of this corridor as projects have been
proposed along its length. In the past, the County of Riverside required that
Avenue 36 be included as major corridor in the Specific Plans approved for the
area. The City of Indio would hope that the City of Palm Desert would cooperate
to ensure that this important circulation link is maintained by including it in future
General Plans, and General Plan Circulation Elements. Furthermore, the corridor
should be included in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments' (CVAG)
Regional Arterial Program. We look forward to cooperating with you to ensure
future access to the Shadow Hills area through the use of Avenue 36.
Sincerely,
'--�4v--Aw-*a` Z
Kenneth Feenstra
Interim Director of Development Services
JAiser/devdept/alexneiters/pda36.doc
CITY OF INDIO.100 CIVIC CENTER MALL&P.O.DRAWER 1788*INDIO.-CA 92202
r EPARTMENT TELEPHONE NUMBERS,ALL IN 760 AREA CODE
CITY CLERK 3424570*CrIY MANAGER 342-65M*ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT 342-6500
FINANCE 342-6560*FIRE 347-0756 a HUMAN RESOURCES 342-6640-P CITY HALL FAX 342-6556-POLICE 347-8522 FAX 3474317
PUBLIC SERVICESIENGWEERING 342-66.30 a CITY YARD 347-1058
SENIOR CENTER 347-5111
f
Del Webbs
Sun City Palm Desert'
0 2 8 1998
HELEN McENERNEY
Vice President and General Manager CFFY O�PALM 6ESERT
September 23, 1998
Councilman Jim Ferguson
Councilman Bob Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Subject: Repeat Plan Check Fee -- City of Palm Desert
Dear Messrs. Ferguson and Spiegel:
As we have discussed previously with Ray Diaz and Phil Drell, at present in the County of
Riverside,we pay a repeat plan check fee of approximately $75.00 for every house that we
permit under the County's present building code. The $75.00 is a deposit-based system that
is sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower,but it is for the repeat plan check fees.
It does not deal with the initial plan check of a house or a new model.
Field construction inspection of each home is covered by the balance of the permit fees.
The intention of the plan check fee is to throughly review the building plans and
specifications for adherence to adopted codes and ordinances. For example, the technician
or building official in the office reviews the blueprints,checks the structural engineering,and
seismic calculations, reviews the dimensions,reviews title 24 calculations to ensure that our
energy efficiency uses are within the codes. They look at the air conditioning, insulation,
t„ 7,, electrical !1 n tAh t r� nv+c are om-pliance tx'ith the building code_
rltulll llill�, and el�.�.uiCui uiiu Se.. �iiu�the rluai,� a v lia�...,.t.. b
In the City of Palm Desert,this is done with each model in a tract and these plans and specs
are on file for review. After the initial model plan is checked and permitted,the only thing
that the technician does or building official does in the office is check the plot plan, the
front, rear and side set backs over the counter for subsequent permits for the same model
type. This is done in a very short period of time.
39755 Berkey Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211
(760) 772-5300 • Fax(760) 772-5303
E-mail: mcenernh@delwebb.com
Page -2-
It is based on the repetitive use of the same model plans that Del Webb is challenged with
the fees Palm Desert charges. The average plan check fee on a Sun City home based on
square footage of the home and valuation is an approximate average of$400.00.
Quite frankly in discussing these fees with our corporate executives, their jaws just about
hit the floor when they learned of the high repeat plan check fees as this is the only
community in our Sun Cities nationwide endeavors where fees are so high for repeat plan
review.
We are requesting that the City of Palm Desert reduce our repeat plan check fees for Sun City
Palm Desert to $100.00 (or 25%) for each unit that is repeat after the original plan check of
the model set. The purpose of this reduction is to off set other fees within the City that we
would incur that would drive up our cost of permitting in the City. One of these mitigation
fees being art in public places. In the City of Palm Desert there is a net difference of
approximately $400.00 per house based on a 2,000 sq. ft. house, $165,000.00 evaluation.
If we can reduce the plan check fees by$300,we are essentially same/same with the County's
permit fees.
As you are aware Sun City Palm Desert contemplates closing in excess of 2,500 homes,
providing the City with over $7,400,00.00 in permit expenses exclusive of planning and
other mitigation fees. We anticipate building more homes of the same type than any other
builder. At present we have 15 separate models within the community and no other single
builder will build as many homes in Palm Desert as Del Webb. No other builder will build
as many of the same models as Del Webb.
We would appreciate your review of these repeat plan check fees for equity sake and reduce
them to approximately $100 (25% of the plan check fee as presently calculated). We feel
that we are unique in this request by our shear volume. By including this in our
Development Agreement as a negotiated point, we do not feel that the City need offer this
to all developers.
Si c ely,
Helen McEnemey
HM.jt
cc: Jean Benson, Mayor
Ray Diaz, City Manager
Buford Crites, Councilmember
Phil Drell, Dir. Community Development
Dick Kelly, Councilmember
DRAFT
SUN CITY/IVY RANCHANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
BRAFT
April, 1998
Prepared for:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
(619) 340-5776
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 541-4585
Now vr✓
SUN CITYANY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1
H. REVENUES..............................:..................................................................... 2
A. GENERAL FUND.......................................................................................................2
1. Taxes.............................:.......................................................................................2
a. Property and Parcel Taxes............................................................................2
b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................3
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief.................................................................3
d. Parcel Tax....................................................................................................3
e. Sales Taxes...................................................................................................4
f. Transient Occupancy Taxes......................:..................................................4
2. State Subventions(Motor Vehicle Fees)
3. Franchise Fees.......................................................................................................4
4. Development Related Fees ...................................................................................5
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees.....................................................5
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees......................
C. Engineering Fees.......................... ...........5
.....................................................
d. Development Fees................. ...................................................................5
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. t Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
5. Other Revenues.....................................................................................................5
a. Fines and Forfeitures....................................................................................5
b. Miscellaneous Revenues..............................................................................5
6. Fire Protection Fees..............................................................................................6
a. Structural Fire Protection Tax......................................................................6
b. Proposition A Fire Tax.................................................................................6
7. Business License Tax............................................................................................6
8. Interest...................................................................................................................6
B. ROAD FUND.........................................................................
III. EXPENDITURES .................................................:*...............0....................... 7
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES......................................................................7
1. General Government..............................................................................................7
a. Administration
b. Insurance......................................................................................................7
c. Animal Control.............................. ..........................................................7
d. County Property Tax Collection Charges....................................................7
2. Public Safety...........................................................................................................8
a.. Sheriff's Contract.........................................................................................8
b. Jail Booking Fee ..........................................................................................8
C. Fire Protection..............................................................................................8
3. Community Development......................................................................................9
a. Code Compliance Officer............................................................................9
4. Public Works..........................................................................................................9
a. Administration..........................:..................................................................9
b. Street Sweeping ...........................................................................................9
C. Street Lighting .............................................................................................9
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc 11 Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
5. Parks and Recreation............................................................................................10
6. Contingency..........................................................................................................10
7. Roads....................................................................................................................10
a. Capital Improvements................................................................................10
8. Road Maintenance................................................................................................10
a. Street Maintenance.....................................................................................10
b. Traffic Signal Maintenance........................................................................I I
IV. SU1 EWARY OF FINDINGS....................................................................... 11
MAPS
Map 1 —Area 1 (To Be Inserted)
Map 2—Area 2 (To Be Inserted)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 —Nine Year Revenue and Expenditure Summary
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Iil Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 Fiscal Feasibility Study
Now, DRAFT "we
SUN CITY/IVY RANCH ANNEXATION
FISCAL FEASIBILITY REPORT
I. BACKGROUND
The City of Palm Desert ("City') engaged the Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG') to prepare a
fiscal feasibility analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch. This Report can
be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization
Act if and when the City desires to pursue annexation of these communities. Prior to the
determination to pursue annexation, the City wishes to ascertain the fiscal standing of the Sun City
and Ivy Ranch communities and surrounding commercial and industrial uses. This Report will focus
on what City services will be provided within these areas, the forecasted cost of those services, and
what revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those services. This Report will
focus on a compilation of the forecasted revenues and expenditures of the annexation area for
approximately seven years (i.e., the projected date of buildout for the Sun City area). It should be
understood that there will usually be differences between the forecasts and actual results because
events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected,and those differences may be material.
More specifically, this Study focuses on two unincorporated areas within Riverside County; the first
area is shown on Map 1 (to be inserted) and is generally bounded by the northernmost point of
Section 30 to the north, Washington Street and the intersection of Varner Road and 38" Avenue to
the east, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the western portions of Sections 6, 30, and 31 to
the west ("Area I'). Area 1 consists primarily of the Del Webb Sun City development, a golf
course, a recreational facility, freeway-oriented commercial/retail use along Interstate 10, an
overnight lodging facility, a country club (with pro-shop), a recreational vehicle park, seven
developed parcels and 455 acres of vacant land. The Sun City community is in the process of
developing and is scheduled to reach buildout in fiscal year 2006-07. The second area is shown on
Map 2 (to be inserted) and is generally bounded by the southern boundary of Section 21 to the north,
the south east portion of Section 35 to the west, the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south and the
midpoint of Section 28 to the'east ("Area 2'). Area 2 contains the Ivy Ranch community, a
restaurant, and approximately 624 acres. of vacant land along the Interstate 10 Freeway. The Ivy
Ranch community contains approximately 314 single family residential uses and is currently at
buildout. For the purposes of this analysis, Area 1 and Area 2, collectively, are herein referred to as
the"Study Area". The 1998.population of Areas 1 and 2 is estimated at 3,200 and 628,respectively.
At the present time, the number of structures or dwelling units in the proposed Study Area include
approximately 1,914 single family residential units, 5,200 square feet of commercial space, and
seven industrial parcels.
The major public agencies currently providing services in the Study Area are the County of
Riverside, County .Service Area No. 121 and No. 152, Coachella Valley Water Improvement
District, Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District, and Coachella Valley Improvement
Districts 58 and 81. The County of Riverside. is currently responsible for policymaking and
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April, 1998 1 Fiscal Feasibility Report
Palmdst/funivyfareprt
administration, law enforcement, animal control, planning and land use regulation, building
inspection, flood control, and the maintenance and improvement of roads in both areas. Street
lighting services within the Study Area are currently provided through CSA No. 121. Upon
annexation, the City would assume services funded by CSA No. 121 and CSA No. 121 would be
detached. The County currently collects a parcel tax for CSA No. 152 to fund street sweeping
services County-wide. However, the County does not currently provide street sweeping services in
the Study Area. Upon annexation, the City will perform all street sweeping services and this tax will
remain in effect, so there is no fiscal impact.
Water is currently supplied in the Study Area by the Coachella Valley County Water District. Upon
annexation, the Coachella Valley Water District will continue to supply water to these areas. Sewer
service is currently, and will continue to be, provided by Septic Systems and the Coachella Valley
Water District. Sewer lines currently exist at 38" Avenue, Del Webb Boulevard, Varner Road, and
Washington Street. The 'County of Riverside currently provides fire protection services to all
properties within the Study Area through three fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31,
33, and 35, located at 79-400 Avenue 42, 44-400 Town Center Way and 72695 La Canada Way,
respectively. In addition, a fourth station (No. 81) is currently under construction at Washington
Street and 38th Avenue. Following annexation, fire protection services would be provided by the
City through the Cove Community Services Commission. The Commission contracts with the
County to deliver fire protection and paramedic services. The County of Riverside is currently
responsible for providing police services within the Study Area. Two police substations responsible
for servicing this area are located in Palm Desert and Indio. Following annexation, only the Palm
Desert substation will service the Study Area and police protection services would continue to be
provided by the County of Riverside through a contract with the County Sheriff. The roads within
these areas, which are currently'maintained by the County of Riverside, would be maintained by the
City of Palm Desert following annexation.
Many of the General Fund and Road Fund revenues and expenditures were either calculated on a per
capita basis, a marginal cost basis using actual budget figures from the City of Palm Desert,or a case
study methodology.
It is important to note that this Study focuses on recurring revenues and expenditures. This Study
does not analyze any future capital improvement projects resulting from the annexation of the Study
Area, nor does the Study include any development related impact fees that would be collected on
new development. In addition, with the exception of the new development contained in the Del
Webb Sun City Specific Plan,and the new development assumptions outlined below,this Study does
not analyze all future new development in the vacant portions of Areas 1 or 2.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 2 Fiscal Feasibility Report
Palmdslhunivyfeueprt
H. REVENUES
A. GENERAL FUND
The primary sources of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Exhibit 1:
1. Taxes:
a. Property and Parcel Taxes:
J.� 4,, J.Vgo OZ1"k The City's property tax revenue is based on the historical property tax ratio of
D 250/o/75% to be split between the City and the County as set forth in Resolution
No. 81-133 adopted September 24, 1981. Upon annexation, the City would
receive 25%of the total cu
rrent County General Fund property tax revenue and the
a County would retain the remaining 75%of General Fund property tax revenue.
N �
b. Property Transfer Taxes:
Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold or an
existing property is resold. A property transfer tax of$1.10 per $1,000 (0.1100/0)
of transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided between
Riverside County and the City. The amount of property transfer tax received will
depend upon the sale of land and the level of resale activity within the Study Area.
These revenues have been estimated using the assumption of a 5% turnover rate
annually at the rate of.550 per$1,000 of assessed values.
C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief:
Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief were not
specifically projected because this analysis bases the Property Tax Apportionment
on assessed valuation gross of the Homeowners Exemption. Therefore, revenue
from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax
Apportionment.
d. Parcel Tax
Upon annexation; the City would assume service responsibilities of County
Services Area("CSA')No. 121. CSA 121 covers all properties in Area 1 only(as
well as areas outside the Study Area) and funds street lighting services for all
properties outside the Sun City gated community. Upon annexation, CSA No. 121
would be detached and one hundred percent (100%) of the special district levies
would be transferred to the City (Exhibit 1). CSA No. 152 represents a tax levied
against all properties in the Study Area for street sweeping services. However, as
mentioned previously, there will be no impact with respect to CSA No. 152 upon
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Rands Annexation
April,1998 3 Fiscal Feasibility Report
Palmdstiamivyfeueprc
annexation, due to the fact that the County does not currently provide street
sweeping services in the Study Area.
e. Sales Taxes:
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive a percentage of the sales tax
charged on qualifying retail sales from businesses within the Study Area. The
State Board of Equalization estimated that the commercial areas within the Study
Area are generating approximately $43,080 in sales tax revenues in fiscal year
1997-98 (Exhibit 1). RSG has assumed a modest 3% annual increase on these
sales tax revenues. However, pursuant to the Amended Specific Plan for Del
Webb's Sun City, dated October 28, 1997(Resolution No. 97-286), approximately
500,000 square feet of commercial retail will be,constructed on the 80 acre parcel
located along Varner Road and Washington Street by fiscal year 2006-07. Sales
tax revenues were projected according to the phasing of this development and are
reflected in Exhibit 1.
L Transient Occupancy Taxes:
Upon annexation, the City will receive the Transient,Occupancy Tax revenues.
Currently, the City's Transient Occupancy Tax rate is 9%. The Study Area
contains one (1) lodging establishment; the Motel 6 located at the corner of
Washington Street and Varner Road which has a total of 92 rooms. RSG has
estimated the Transient Occupancy Tax based on an occupancy factor and average
room rate.
2. State Subventions(Motor Vehicle Fees):
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes.
These taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to
cities on a per capita basis. .Off-road Vehicle taxes are also allocated to cities by the
State on a per capita basis. Both subventions are based on the estimated combined
population of 3,828 for the Study Area.
The per capita figures used in the revenue summary have been provided by the State
Controller's office for the 1997-98 fiscal year.
3. - Franchise Fees:
Upon annexation,the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the County by
Continental Cable Television, the Southern California Gas Company, Waste
Management, and Western Waste. These fees have been estimated on a per capita basis
using budget figures from the City of Palm Desert.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Ine Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April, 1998 4 Fiscal Feasibility Report
N1Mdst/UMivyfareprt
4. Development Related Fees:
The fees described below are not included in Exhibit 1 because these fees specially offset
costs of development related services, only the "net" cost of these services are indicated
under"Expenditures".
a. Land Use Planning and Regulation Fees:
The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use planning and regulation
services. The City would utilize the City's existing fee schedule. These fees
should off-set most of the City's cost in providing these services.
b. Building Inspection and Permit Fees:
The fees collected for these building and permit inspection services should, in
most cases,totally offset the cost of these services.
c. Engineering Fees:
The City is also authorized to charge fees for plan checking, public works
inspection, permit issuance and review and other engineering services. The fees
collected for these services should, in most cases, offset the cost of these services.
d. Development Fees:
Under the provisions of State law, the City may collect development fees for the
purpose of construction or improving capital facilities. Fees received must be
segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling. Certain fees
must be spent or committed within five years from the time they are collected.
5. Other Revenues:
a. Fines and Forfeitures:
This represents both Motor Vehicle Code fines, Municipal Code fines, and other
miscellaneous fines and forfeitures. Motor Vehicle and Municipal Code fines
were estimated on a per capita basis using current budget data from the City of
Palm Desert.
b. Miscellaneous Revenues:
Miscellaneous revenues include map sales, microfilm sales, code/certificate
compliance, special investigation fees, nuisance abatement and other revenues.
This revenue has been estimated on a per-capita basis using the City's fiscal year
1997-98 budget.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April, 1998 5 Fiscal Feasibility Report
Palmda'sunivyfearepn
6. Fire Protection Fees
a. Structural Fire Protection Tax:
The structural fire protection tax is levied as part of the 1%property tax within the
Study Area and is based on the total assessed valuation within this area. The
current rate within the Study area is 0.06025. Upon annexation, this rate will be
transferred to the City and the City will fund fire protection services through its
contract with the County. It is important to note that the fire protection costs
(detailed in Section III) have been reduced to reflect the net costs of services (i.e.,
less the 1% of the total assessed valuation of the Study Area multiplied by the
Structural Fire Tax rate of 0.06025). The cost of providing fire protection services
is net of the property tax levy of the County Fire District.
b. Proposition A Fire Tax:
The Proposition A Fire Tax is calculated on a parcel basis. More specifically,this
revenue was estimated by assuming an annual $48 charge per unit for each'of the
existing 1,914 single family residential units, as well as the additional units and
the units developed over the term of the projections.
7. Business License Tax:
Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to impose the City's current Business License
Tax. The Business-License fee for the City of Palm Desert is calculated based upon
gross sales. RSG has estimated the amount of Business License Tax using an average
Business License fee for the local sales tax generators identified within the Study Area
(Exhibit 1).
8. Interest•
Because expenditures exceeded revenues resulting in no excess cash, RSG did not
include interest in this analysis. 1
B. ROAD FUND (N�'
All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per apita basis, wi •fA
the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2107.5 is ocated to the cities
based upon total population size. It is estimated that the proposed xation of the Study
Area would add approximately 3,828 population to the existin 33,701 population of Palm rf.-4,
Deser According to State data, this added population will not 'p ace the City's population
- L[„ status into the,next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is reflected relative to Section
2107.5. Similar to other state subventions, road fund revenues initially would be based at the
estimated population of 3,828. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter-approved Measure
"A"sales tax distributed by the County Transportation Commission.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Mr. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April, 1998 6 Fiscal Feasibility Report
PalmdsdsunivyfeaMn
Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related maintenance
expenditures.
III. EXPENDITURES
A. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational structure
and are estimated as follows:
1. General Government:
a. Administration:
The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating costs would
be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal expenditures including legal
costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies were
estimated. Costs associated with the 1999-00 election are shown. Costs were
estimated based on a case by case analysis or a per capita rate using City budget
data.
b. Insurance:
Upon annexation, it is likely that the cost of the City's insurance policy will be
impacted. RSG has estimated these costs based on existing infrastructure and
other public facilities within the Study Area in relationship to the City's budgeted
expenditure forecasts.
C. Animal Control:
The current City animal control contractor, California Animal Care, will assume
animal control services for this area upon annexation of the Study Area. Costs
were estimated assuming additional personnel and equipment as required by
California Animal Care. These costs are net of any animal license fee revenues.
d. County Property Tax Collection Charges:
Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor-Controller's Office charged cities and
local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental administrative costs.
These charges are estimated at 2%of all property tax revenues.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 7 Fiscal Feasibility Report
Palmdsthunivyfearepn
2. Public Safety•
a. Sheriffs Contract:
The Riverside County Sheriffs Department estimates service costs on a per capita
basis. Based on conversations with Sheriffs Department staff, the City will
maintain a patrol beat to population ratio of 1 Sheriffs deputy per 1,000
population, or approximately five additional officers in fiscal year 1998-99 and
increasing to a total of 12 officers for the Study Area at buildout. RSG believes
this estimated service level may be excessive given.the character of this particular
community. Information obtained from the Riverside County Sheriffs
Department was utilized to calculate a per capita rate of$157 in fiscal year 1997-
y,,,,� 98 dollars. The calculation of Sheriff's contract costs is based on the per capita
rate and generally equals the cost of adding the 12 additional officers over the term
of the projections. An annual inflation factor of-7 5°o was applied to this rate to
sty r reflect increases in costs.
b. Jail Booking Fee: ,
Riverside County charges a flat fee for jail bookings for the proposed annexation
of approximately $110 to all cities within the County. Jail booking fees were
estimated based on jail bookings in the County incorporated areas in this area and
for the City of Palm Desert.
C. Fire Protection:
The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage have entered into a
Joint Powers Agreement forming the Cove Communities Public Safety
Commission in order to provide fire and paramedic services. Fire protection
expenditures were estimated using current Riverside County Fire budget costs.
This expenditure reflects a'percentage of the assessed valuation based upon fiscal
year 1997-98 costs. The annexation of the Study Area will result in an estimated
need for nine (9) new positions needed to.staff the proposed Fire Station No. 81.
More specifically, three(3)Firefighters(II)and six(6)Paramedics/Firefighters(II)
will be required. The estimated cost for services include $630,000 for fire services
staff costs, $441,500 for base level service (including new equipment), and$9,000
for support costs for medic unit in 1998-99 dollars. This estimated budget fi¢ure
does not include optional paramedic services which would h . •+ additional nnP_
2t1 � time cost of$121,090. An annual inflation factor of 5%was applied to reflect cost
increases. Currently three (3) fire stations, Riverside County Fire Stations No. 31,
a,•!- 33, and'35 service the Study Area. All of these fire stations are located outside of
the Study Area. As mentioned previously, a new fire station (No. 81) is currently
under construction and is schedule to open in March 1999 to service the Study
Area. Upon annexation, Station No. 81 would be the primary station servicing the
Study Area. However, information obtained from the Fire Department indicates
that Stations 33, 31, and 35 will provide.assistance where needed.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Rands Annexation
April, 1998 8 Fiscal Feasibility Report
PslmdsNsunivyfeuepn
within CSA 121. It is important to note that CSA No. 121 covers a larger area
which includes not only the Study Area, but significant surrounding territory.
Upon annexation, CSA No. 121 will be detached and all funds will be transferred
to the City. The forecasted expenditure is based on current CSA No. 121 budget
data(Exhibit 1). Street lighting within the Ivy Ranch and Sun City communities is
funded through the existing homeowners associations.
5. Parks and Recreation:
There is no anticipated financial impact relative to existing landscape maintenance
services due to the fact that all parks and open space areas are private and located within
the gated communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch. All private parks, open space .and
recreational facilities, both existing and future, are assumed to be maintained by
homeowners association.
6. ContinErengy:
A 10% contingency factor has been added to the General Fund expenditure estimate to
meet unforeseen programs or emergency needs.
7. Roads:
a. Capital Improvements:
Upon annexation, it is the City's policy to upgrade existing infrastructure systems
within the annexation area to meet or exceed current City standards. The funding
sources for capital improvements within the Study Area are not identified due to
the fact that a capital improvement program (CIP) has not been developed nor
addressed as part of this analysis. The preparation of a CIP plan for the annexation
areas would require the preparation of an extensive and detailed infrastructure
assessment analysis.
8. Road Maintenance:-
a. Street Maintenance:
The street maintenance expenditure was estimated based upon estimated curb
miles and area size using budget data from the City of Palm Desert. This cost
reflects a 3% increase which includes general street maintenance; City-wide street
slung sealing, overlaying and resurfacing, new and replaced curbs and gutters,
centerline striping, and safety and sign painting.
b. Traffic Signal Maintenance:
Upon annexation, the City of Palm Desert will be required to maintain additional
traffic signals. The City of Palm Desert currently maintains 50% of the traffic
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun CitylIvy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 10 Fiscal Feasibility Report
PalmdMunivyfeueprt
signals located at Washington Street and Varner Road, along Varner Road, on
Cook Street and Varner Road (2 signals), and all other signals along Varner Road
in the Study Area. Upon annexation of the Study Area, the City will be required to
maintain 100% of these four (4) traffic signals. All other traffic signals in the
Study Area are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Sun City and Ivy Ranch
homeowners associations.
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based upon this fiscal analysis of annexing the communities of Sun City and Ivy Ranch, as J
well as the commercial and industrial properties located between these areas and the Interstate
10 Freeway, forecasted expenditures for fisc41'year'1998-99 through 2005-06 for the General
Fund exceed the estimated total revenues. However,the projections indicate a surplus in fiscal
;. �..��
year 2006-07 of$155,438. Forecasted expenditures wd revenues have been calculated using
conservative methodologies and modest escalation factors.
AO exp The forecasted enditures exceed the estimated,revenues for fiscal years 1998-99 through
"d3 A�-Q 2 2005-06 by a range of$157,403 to $770,184 atim-lb ly. As shown in Exhibit 1, the cumulative
AO*% e�W " shortfall of General Fund revenues totals $5,639,794. However, the forecasted revenues for
v Road Fund exceed estimated expenditures. In fiscal years 1998-99 through 2006-07, the
forecasted revenues exceed expenditures by a range of $134,253 to $435,373, with a
cumulative surplus of $2,586,923. It is important to note that the use of these funds is
restricted to road-related expenditures. Because of the gated, residential character of both
Areas 1 and 2, the estimated amount of local sales tax generated annually was minimal until
the buildout year of 2006-07.
Due to the fact that State subventions are allocated to cities on a per capita basis, the Sun City
and Ivy Ranch areas (with approximate populations of 3,200 and 628, respectively) will
receive modest motor vehicle and off-highway fees.
RSG has assumed that the addition of 12 Sheriffs deputies would be required to provide
sufficient police services to the Study'Area at buildout. The forecasted expenditure was
calculated using per capita-costs based on existing supported rates for Riverside County Sheriff
and applying an escalation factor of 7.5%. It is important to note that the estimated
expenditure for the Sheriff contract amount for police services in fiscal year 1998-99 totals
approximately 32%of the total General Fund expenditure estimate.
The Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and. Rancho Mirage are part of a Joint Powers
Agreement in order to provide fire and paramedic services. The expenditures reflected in this
analysis are commensurate with the City's desire to maintain a high level of service in terms of
structural fire protection, suppression, and paramedic services. The forecasted expenditure for
structural fire protection services in fiscal year 1998-99 is approximately 49% of the grand
total General Fund expenditure estimate. Thus, the combined expenditures for public safety
services alone constitute 81%of all general fund expenditures.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 11 Fiscal Feasibility Report
PalmdsUsunivyfuMn
It is important to note that the annual shortfall declines each year over the term of the
projections. The additional 500,000 square feet of commercial uses projected to be developed
in fiscal year 2006-07 will greatly reduce the annual deficit in the General Fund. Finally, if the
contingencies referenced in this Study are not used by the City, the projections would show
that the shortfall would be eliminated by fiscal year 2003-04.
I
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Sun City/Ivy Ranch Annexation
April,1998 12 Fiscal Feasibility Report
PdmdsNsunivyfeueprt
• EXHIBIT 1
Nine Year Revenue & EXnenditu_re Summ=
DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1998-99 1999-00 2000.01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Full Year) (Buildout)
TAXES
Property Tax 346,650 418,830 492,453 567,549 644,146 722,275 801,705 881,935 963,76!
Property Transfer Tax 13,068 15,789 18,564 21,395 24,282 27,229 30,222 33,246 36,33:
Parcel Tax 739 813 894 994 1,082 1,190 1,309 1,440 1,584
Sales Tax 44,803 46,595 49,459 135,398 140,813 156,672 161,772 167,041 422,48!
Transient Occupancy Tax 174,911 180159 185563 191,130 196,864 202,770 208,853 215,119 221 57:
Subtotal 590,172 662,185 745,934 916,455 1,007,188 1,110,136 1,203,862 1,299,782 1,645,741
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 185,000 217,700 250,400 293,100 315,800 348,500 380,900 412,700 444,40f
Off-Higbway License 75 90 105 115 130 145 155 170 195
Subtotal 185,075 217,790 250,505 293,215 315,930 348,645 391,055 412,870 444,585
SE FEES
Gas,Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 198,069 233,192 268212 303,232 338,252 373,272 408.096 442,076 476,066
` Subto _�J; _ „ ,e 2198,069 233,192 26 L212 303,232 338,252 373,272 409,086 442.076 476,066
OTHER REVENUES
F'mes&Forfeitures 7,650 9,976 10,302 11,629 12,954 14,382 15,708 17,034 18,258
Miscellaneous Revenues 37,900 44,600 51,300 ' 58,000 64,700 71,400 78,100 84,600 91,100
Subtotal 45,550 53,576 61,b02 69,628 77,654 85,782 93,808 101,634 109,358
FIRE TAX
Structural Fire Protection Tax 288,915 349,073 410.434 473,022 536,862 601,979 668,179 735,046 803,251
Prop A Fire Tax 111,940 135,564 155-934 176,303 1%672 217 042 237.263 257,039 276,915
Subtotal 400,755 494,637 566,367 649,325 733,534 819,020 905,441 992,085 1,080,066
LICENSES
Business License Tax 3,200 3,360 3,530 4,110 4,320 4,540 4,770 5,010 7,810
Subtotal 3,200 3,360 3,530 4,110 4,320 4,540 4,770 51010 7,810
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,412,821 1,654,741 1,8%,150 2,225,965 2,476,878 2,741,395 2,997,022 3,252,457 3,763,628
Interest Famine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROAFUNDS
Section 2105 28,300 33,300 38,400. 43,400 48,400 53,400 58,400 63,200 68,100
Section 2106 18,500 21,800 25,100 28,400 31,700 34,900 38,200 41,400 44,600
Section 2107 . 39,500 46,500 53,500 60,500 67,500 74,500 91,400 88,200 95,000
Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure"A"RCTC Local Turnback 156,663 194,370 212.077 239,784 267,491 295,198 322,699 349,582 376,465
TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 242,963 - 295,970 329,077 37ZO94 415,091 457,998 500,699 542,392 594,165
Interest Famine 12,756 15,013 17,277 19,534 21,792 24,045 26,297 28,475 30,669
TOTAL ALL REVENUES 1,668.539 1,955,724 2,242.504 2,617,583 1913.761 3.223,438 3,524.008 3,823,314 4.378,461
RSO.Inc.,aM!onmdeas Budget
RS6, INC. ID:714-836-1748 APR 17'98 15:17 No.013 P -02
I-AHIBIT 1
Kline Year RgXcnuc& Expenditure Summw
DEL WEBB'S SUN.CITY ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
199d-99 1999.00 2000411 M01.92 2002413 003-" ="&-I nt0546 2006.07
(Fail Year) (Fail Year) (Fun Year) (FUN Year)(Fall fear) (Full Year) (FUN Year) (Full Year) (Daild mt)
(;KNFIUL FUND EXPEVDITURFS
GENERAL GOVE{WMI?W
Administration Z369 7,017 3.193 9.114 4.017 11212 4.9444 13.225 S.665
Insurance 21,000 22,050 23,153 24,310 25,526 26,SU2 21,142 29" 31,027
Animal Control 10.400 12.200 14.000 15.900 17.700 19,500 21,400 23,100 24,900
CouotLr Tax Collcctiat Cht�e_ __ �_ 6,900 1.400 9�t100 11.400_ 12.900 _ 14A00 _ 16r00D 17.66%) 19,300
5ubtotsl 40.6N 49.667 -50,146 %725 60.143 71,913 70,456 13,53S 10.292
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Net Costs 5.000 5.150 5,305 $.464 5.02 5.796 5.970 6.149 6.334
Coda C pplianec 011'w•cr 52.100 34.300 _SS.900 f7.600 _ S9]00 61,)00 62;900_ 64.2W 66,700
Subtotal 57,700 59.450 . 61.205 63.M 64,922 66.B% 68SM 70,949 73.034
PUBLIC SAFFRY
Shrriffam raet 7MA70 925.575 I jM4AW IM.679 1.34X713 1.421.6$8 1.619,918 1.754,938 1,119.951
Jail VookinS Fees 4AW 4.500 4AW 4.700 4.200 4.900 Sim Sim SAW
Mire Arotoction _ 1.201,500 l.l]4.S2S_ 1.191MI 1 14 1.313.3sS 1.31 ,022 1.447i973 IrS�0�372 I�s96.391
SulNoid' 1.992,370 2A64Aw 2.260.S31 2,439.191 200.937 Z,56S.110 397WI 3.210.S10 3.491.745
PUaI.1C WORKS
Administration 7,416 1.755 1004 11330 12.669 14.002 15.244 16,513 17.819
Strecl l.i Mg_InS _ _ _ 11M2 Si164 _ 9.307 _ 9.773 10.261 _10,774 11313 _- 1IP79 M 12473
SW*" W55 17,619 19401 2�1.103 22.930 24.7112, 26.557 211,462 30,292
PARKS A RECREAMON
I.andscapir2/Medin Mslat nmw _ _• !' ' Assumed to bu Paid by Master 1IOmCowneW Association_ • • •
Submtat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CON'{'INGMCY 210."0 219.134 239,122 2WA08 2NA94 3OZ940 323.220 346.346 367,597
T"AL GENERAL FUND 2.317,2f7 2.410,470 2A30.411 2J*4A90 3.029,531 3.332.342 3.562AS4 3,509.801 4.043.562
RnARS
CMS I�promntnts 0 0 _ .0 0__..0 _� .. 0 .. .0 _ _.0
ROAD 61AINT.N N _ .
sunk Maintenance DMO 93.492 90.167 103.07$ 101,229 113,64o 119322 125,215 131.553
strut sweeping 6.2M 6.$77 6.906 Us 1 7.614 7.994 IJ94 1.114 9,254
TroflloS�at iodMaintcaan" , . IS.120 15.276 16.670_ 1" 16_373 19,297 20.262 _ 21.275„ 22.339
Contin2eacy 1IM42 11.5% 12.174 12,713 13.422 14,093 14,792 15.92 1015
TOTAL ROAD FUND 121.466 127,539 133.916 140.612 147.643 153.025 162.776 170.915 .179.461
TOTAL ALL NXPFNDITURES 2 436,723 1!38 009 2.764,327 3 OOS 102 3,237,474 3.467,367 3,72S.A61 3.960,716 4,24,023
REdF..NttSSURP1.lSIIORTFAi.L� (]70,184 562,225) _(S21z623) (J57.S1q) p22.7131(263.929) (201.453) (137.403j 1s3.436
CUMUL/1'CIHESURP4US1(Ui 1dIj (770.IN) (1.352469) (IA74,292) (2.261.511) Wss.s24) (2.549.4s3) (3.050,906) (3.205.306) (3A52,57))
General Fund BarplwnShortr�ll!_.� (904.436) (755.730ZL7]4.26�- Sj~_j61?,953) �5�1►47) Is6�s2) �ss7.�is) . �Z�99
Cumulative
C�cacni Puna _ _ ,436 ((1r660,166) (2.YA.1!7) s2�9s,i) t3s:9os) {4,236.852) �4,_So2slsj s��ti59)_L639.794)
_Rwd Fand 5uryd�u/(SboMraN�_ _ 134,253„_,_173,445 2{2,437 2sl.006 219,24{ 327,01E _364.209 399,942 „435373
-_ Cumulative Road Fund _ 134,253 309r6y7 _ 520,135 771.{4{ I=U60,SBl 1357,400 1.751,609 2.IS1,SS1 2.SR6,923
3.d . e. f.
i;vi4/23/98
TO: Local Agency Formation Commission
FROM: George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: LAFCO 96-11-4--REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 70 TO
CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE
COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT;
LAFCO 97-05-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (REMOVAL) TO
THE CITY OF INDIO;
LAFCO 97-24-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY `
OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
PRIOR AGENDAS/RELATED.ACTIONS: Approval of adjacent Annexation 68 to Indio on 12i l/9-k Review of Sun City Palm Desert COI
Final Report on December 4. 1997.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATION:
This report addresses three related proposals : a) an inhabited
reorganization proposal submitted by the City of Indio which
encompasses anne.:ation of 310 acres including a 28 acre auto mall;
b) another proposal submitted by the City to remove approximately
one square mile of Sun City Palm Desert from the City of Indio
Sphere of Influence (SOI) ; and c) a proposal submitted by one of the
Sun City Palm Desert (SCPD) COI Committee members which duplicates
(b) above as well as places the entirety of the COI plus additional
acreage north of I-10 within the City of Palm Desert SOI .
The two SOI amendment proposals are logical and are supported by
staff. The reorganization proposal has very poor boundaries as
submitted and is not necessary for the development of the auto
mall . However, there is no opposition and there are cooperative
agreements between affected agencies regarding infrastructure
financing and revenue sharing. The staff recommends approval of
this proposal .
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: The City of Indio is the applicant for the
reorganization and the SOI removal . Mr . Sy Kaplan of Sun City Palm
Desert is the applicant for the proposal to e:;pand the City of Palm
Desert SOI .
LOCATION: The reorganization is generally bordered on the north by
the 39th Avenue, on the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad
RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445
PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479
LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 2 APRIL 23 , 1998
LAFCO 97-05-4
LAFCO 97-24-4
right of way, on the west by Adams Street and the Sun City Palm
Desert community, and on the east by western boundary of the City.
POPULATION: The population of the reorganization is estimated by
the applicant to be appro::imately 50 . The population of the SOI
amendment area, which is the SCPD community, is estimated to be
appro::imately 2, 500 .
REGISTERED VOTERS : The Registrar reports 16 registered voters
within the reorganization area, making the proposal legally
inhabited. The number of registered voters within the SOI
proposals is 1, 645 .
ACREAGE: The area of the reorganization is approximately 310
acres . The area proposed for addition to the Palm Desert SOI is
approximately 2, 370 acres, appro::imately 640 of which are being
removed from the Indio SOI .
CEQA DETERMINATION: The City of Indio, as lead agency, certified
a Final EIR in conjunction with the approval of its General Plan.
The EIR constitutes a Program EIR in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines . The
proposed reorganization and its impacts are within the scope of the
Program EIR. Staff recommends the Commission find both SOI
proposals e:tempt from CEQA.
PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE: Master Property Tax Resolutions govern the
reorganization.
EXISTING CONDITIONS : The area subject to the SOI amendments
includes the developed and undeveloped portions of the SCPD
community. The community is approximately 40 developed, and
includes single family dwellings, a golf course and a clubhouse .
An area west of SCPD is also proposed to be added to the Palm
Desert SOI . This triangular shaped area is primarily vacant but
does include a commercial area near Washington Street.
Almost the entire area of the proposed reorganization is vacant .
Three small pockets of residential dwellings, including a trailer
park, are also included within the subject area.
LAND USE PLANS : No changes in land use are associated with the two
SOI applications . Within the reorganization area County zoning
generally calls for commercial uses west of Adams, and agricultural
and residential agricultural uses over the remainder of the site .
The County has approved an Auto Mall for the area west of Adams and
south of Avenue 40 . The City intends to implement the Auto Mall
plans approved by the County. Prezoning approved by the City
RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORNUMON COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. Ca 92507-2445
PHONE (909)369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479
LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 3 APRIL 23 , 1998
LAFCO 97-05-4
LAFCO 97-24-4
includes designations for Business Park uses and Country Estates,
consistent with the City' s General Plan.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES :
COMMISSION POLICIES : The following is a listing of Commission
policies and applicable Government Code sections particularly
relevant to the reorganization proposal . The subject proposal
conflicts with many of' these basic provisions as demonstrated in
the paragraphs which follow.
Agency boundaries should not be drawn so as to create an
island, corridor or strip either within the proposed
territory or immediately adjacent to it . where such an
island, corridor or strip is created, the proponent shall
justify the reasons for non-conformance with this
standard. [56841 ( f) ]
Anne.cation proposals to cities or districts providing
urban services of undeveloped or agricultural parcels
should show that: 1) urban development is imminent for
all or a substantial portion of the proposal area; 2)
urban development will be contiguous with e:�isting or
proposed development; and 3) the proposal will not
result in a leap frog, non-contiguous urban development
pattern. [56301, 56377]
In order to avoid further urban sprawl, LAFCO will
encourage in-fill development in urban areas and
anne:cations of areas inside e.cisting city spheres of
influence. [56841 (d) ]
BOUNDARY ISSUES : The proposed boundaries are poor. The proposal
skirts appro::imately two dozen rural residential lots south of
Avenue 40 . The annexation proposes to bring into the City an
irregularly shaped expanse of primarily vacant land to reach the
only proposed development, an Auto Mall, at the far western edge of
the proposal . Between its point of contiguity with the City on the
east and the Auto Mall site on .the west, the anne.cation territory
narrows to a width of approximately 100 feet, exclusive of rights-
of-way.
INEFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN: During review of previous
anne:cations to Indio, staff e.cpressed concern regarding the
inefficient development pattern which would likely occur as a
result of anne:cation. The development proposed in conjunction with
Anne.cation 68, for example, was at the furthest point from the
City' s core, miles away from e.cisting police and fire services .
RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445
PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479
• LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 4 APRIL 23 , 1998
LAFCO 97-05-4
LAFCO 97-24-4
However, e.-tension of water and sewer lines from the nearby Sun
City Palm Desert area to the west made near term development of
this outlying area a realistic possibility. Development of the
Auto Mall is further evidence that development will proceed from
the west back toward the core of the City. Typically, services
most affected by such development patterns -are police and fire
protection services .
Road maintenance responsibility patterns are also impacted. If the
proposed boundaries are approved there will be a "hopscotch"
jurisdictional pattern along Avenue 40 . Such a pattern can result
in inefficient road maintenance efforts by both the City and the
County. In past proposals where such configurations occurred,
conditions were applied requiring the city to enter into an
agreement to maintain a continuous length of roadway. This was
done to improve the efficiency and consistency of road maintenance .
Such a condition is not being recommended in this case . The County
and the City have entered into an agreement whereby the City will
pay an amount to the County equivalent to a specified portion of
the sales taxes generated within the Auto Mall . Additionally, the
County and the City of Indio are parties to a settlement agreement
concerning the Auto Mall project. This analysis assumes that those
two agreements represent sufficient opportunity to mitigate impacts
on the County.
While there are similarities between the development patterns of
this proposal and previous annexations, two factors mitigate the
concern as it pertains to this annexation. First, since the last
annexation approval the City has entered into a contract with the
County of Riverside for the County/CDF to provide fire protection
within the City. The County has long been in a better position to
serve the areas on the north side of I-10 . Therefore, the issue of
over-extension of the City' s fire protection system is no longer a
concern. Second, since the Auto Mall is receiving its development
approvals through the County, the same development pattern will
occur regardless of which jurisdiction the subject territory is in.
DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (RCWRMD) :
On March 24, 1994, the Commission approved the formation of the
RCWRMD as a separate financial and legal entity to operate and
finance solid waste facilities in Riverside County. The District
became effective on May 2, 1994 . As part of the Commission' s
action, it determined that future annexations to cities should
detach from the RCWRMD unless those cities have annexed to the
District . This is based on an understanding between the county and
the COGS that anne:.ation of cities to RCWRMD will be accomplished
RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FOR.MATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445
PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479
.d
LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 5 APRIL 23 , 1998
LAFCO 97-05-4
LAFCO 97-24-4
in an organized fashion to ensure appropriate representation on the
governing board of the District . Therefore, staff will recommend
concurrent detachment from the RCWRMD.
COMMENTS FROM AFFECTED AGENCIES : The Coachella Valley Water
District indicates it is currently working with the Corps of
Engineers to develop flood control facilities for this area. Until
such facilities are in place, there is a risk of flooding on
portions of the proposed anne::ation, specifically those areas east
of Adams Street.
WAIVER OF AUTOMATIC DETACHMENT FROM CSA 152 : If the Commission
approves the reorganization proposal, it should make specified
findings in order to waive automatic detachment from the CSA, since
the City has opted to anne:> to CSA 152 .
CONCLUSIONS:
The reorganization will add to the City' s large inventory of vacant
developable land and will lead to development away from the City' s
core . However, with the completion of several large annexations
north of I-10 and the e::isting pockets of rural residential
dwellings which were excluded from previous annexcations, the
additional service impacts of this annex-.ation are almost
insignificant . As an inhabited anne::ation, the few registered
voter residing on site will ultimately determine whether the
anne::ation is in ther best interest if the Commission sends the
proposal on to the conducting authority proceedings . Therefore,
with some reluctance, staff will make a recommendation for
approval .
The proposals to remove a portion of SCPD from the Indio SOI and
place that territory and an additional 1700 acres within the Palm
Desert SOI represents a logical, and perhaps minimal, extension of
Palm Desert ' s future service area. Staff will recommend approval
of these proposals .
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS :
Based on the factors outlined above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the
Commission make the following findings and determinations :
A. Concerning the reorganization proposal :
1 . Find and determine that a Final Environmental Impact Report
entitled, "Indio General Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report, " was prepared and certified by the City of Indio .
This Final EIR constitutes a Program EIR under Section 15168
RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FOR:bIATION CONVAISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445
PHONE(909) 369-063I FAX(909) 369-5479
LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 6 APRIL 23 , 1998
LAFCO 97-05-4
LAFCO 97-24-4
of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
in that it is an EIR prepared on a series of actions that can
be characterized as one large project and which are related
geographically, or as logical parts in a chain of contemplated
actions . The proposed action by- LAFCO is within the scope of
the project covered by this Program EIR in that no new
environmental effects will occur and no new mitigation
measures will be required;
2 . Find the proposed reorganization is consistent with the sphere
of influence of the City of Indio and all other affected local
agencies;
3 . Find the proposed reorganization is legally inhabited;
4 . Approve LAFCO 96-11-4--REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 70
TO CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE
COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, subject to the
following terms and conditions :
a. The City of Indio shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation
Commission ("LAFCO") , its agents, officers, and employees
from any claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO, its
agents, officers, and employees to attach, set aside,
void, or annul an approval of LAFCO concerning LAFCO 96-
11-4--Reorganization to Include Annexation 70 to City of
Indio and Concurrent Detachment from Riverside County
Waste Resources Management District . LAFCO will promptly
notify the City of Indio of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against LAFCO and will cooperate fully in the
defense . If LAFCO fails to promptly notify the City of
Indio of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails
to cooperate fully in the defense, City of Indio shall
not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless LAFCO.
b. In accordance with Government Code Section 56844 (t) ,
authorize the e.:tension of any previously authorized
charge, fee, assessment or ta.- by the local agency or the
successor local agency in the affected territory.
C . In accordance with Government Code Section 56375 (p) ,
waive automatic detachment from County Service Area 152
based upon the following findings :
i . County Service Area (CSA) 152 is a funding
mechanism for the implementation of the National
RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION C01VIVIISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445
PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479
LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 7 APRIL 23 , 1998
LAFCO 97-05-4
LAFCO 97-24-4
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
emanating from the Federal 1972 Clean Water Act,
and re-authorized under the Federal 1987 Clean
Water Act.
ii . The City anne::ed into CSA 152 and is included
within the CSA` s service area.
iii . Detachment would deprive the area residents
services needed to ensure their health, safety or
welfare.
iv. Waiving detachment will not affect the ability of
the City to provide any services; and,
5 . Designate the City of Indio as conducting authority.
B. Concerning the sphere of influence amendment proposals :
1 . Find the proposals are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) as it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the sphere of
influence amendment proposals will have a significant effect
on the environment and make the supporting findings included
in Attachment A.
2 . Adopt the Statement of Determinations (Attachment B) for each
of the sphere of influence amendment proposals .
3 . Approve LAFCO 97-05-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT
(REMOVAL) TO THE CITY OF INDIO and LAFCO 97-24-4--SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT as shown on the exhibit labelled STAFF
RECOMMENDATION.
Re pectfully su tted,
Geor Dill
E:;ecuLi Officer
RIVERSIDE LOCAL.AGENCY FORINIATION COMMISSION• 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. Ca 92507-2445
PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479
Attachment A
1 . The proposed sphere of influence amendments do not involve any
changes in land use, zoning, intensity of development,
physical changes to land or specific development proposals,
nor are they an essential part or step of any proposed
development activity for the subject area . No changes are
currently proposed or under consideration. Any potential
change in future land use is purely speculative . (Kaufman &
Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District.
[1992] 9 Cal . App. 4th 464, 472-474. ; Simi Valley Rec. & Park
v. LAFCO [1975] 51 Cal . App. 3d 648, 666)
2 . The establishment or amendment of a sphere of influence is a
policy declaration of the Commission based on e:�isting facts
and circumstances which, although not readily changed, may be
subject to review and change in the event a future significant
change of circumstances so warrants . (City of Agoura Hills v.
LAFCO [1988] 198 Cal . App. 3d 480, 495. )
3 . The territory subject to the sphere of influence amendments
consists primarily of the Sun City Palm Desert Specific Plan
(No . 281) for which EIR No . 367 was certified by the Board of
Supervisors . Additional land to the west of SCPD is also
proposed to be added to the Palm Desert SOI . This area
contains both developed and undeveloped land. Pursuant to
existing County plans, planned uses in this area include
residential, commercial and industrial uses . Future
development will be subject to separate entitlement and
environmental review if and when the owners seek to develop
their property at some currently unknown date .
4 . These factual findings are based upon the files and records
maintained by the Local Agency Formation Commission and the
Riverside County Planning Department with respect to the
subject land encompassed by the sphere amendment proposals .
RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION CONINIISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445
PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-8479
Ito
� IT a •
8.YS
54
Bermuda
Dunes
A >
+
i
a
t
I
FREE/!M
7o..�..Ru�nuu 1 IN"NoNC
r 7 1
■
-
1111 m /■N
:IIIIIIIIIILIII:IIIIIIIIIIII ilill/ /'��...
■■► , . ! Minn
•' : ���i111if11f�:
;�;�Ilglli■,:I
iil ■ _.a�a./! 11119oil
.l
YI ie
■ / �( �m W.-O
momsaR
� s aytii4�t, nf1y., rs�.. yya!'•Iti�l •
F
Attachment B
STATEMENT OF DETERMINATIONS FOR LAFCO 95-16-1
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO
THE CITIES OF INDIO (REMOVAL)
AND PALM DESERT (ADDITION)
1 . THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING
AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN-SPACE LANDS :
The area to be removed from the Indio S0I includes a portion
of the Sun City Palm Desert (SCPD) COI and includes
residential dwellings, commercial establishments, a golf
course and some vacant land zoned for residential and
commercial uses . This area, as well as additional acreage to
the west will be added to the Palm Desert SO! . This
additional acreage includes some commercial establis'i-rnents
near Washington Street and Varner Road but is primarily
vacant . No changes in land use are associated with tie SOI
amendments .
2 . THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES IN THE AREA:
There is enough development in the area currently to require
a fairly wide range of public services . Under currently
approved land uses for the area, significant development is
expected to continue in the area, thereby increasing the
demand for the full range of municipal type services .
3 . THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF
PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH THE AGENCY PROVIDES OR IS AUTHORIZED TO
PROVIDE:
Police and fire services would not change significantly
whether or not the area were to be ultimately anne::ed to the
City of Palm Desert as the City currently contracts with the
County for these services .
4 . THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF
INTEREST IN THE AREA:
_s indicated in previous testimony before the Commission, the
COI Committee concluded residents are generally in favor of
pursuing anne::ation to the City of Palm Desert . Placing the
territory ,iithir. the City' s sphere is a prerequisite .
R1VERSIDE LOCAL AGEN'C`£ FOP.%L-kTION CO�I.%QSSION • 14S5 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92307-2445
PHONE(909) 369-0631 FAX(909) 369-S479
Lf
ADAMS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
N JE 37
U
� f
h
• O
54
F
a
O
v AVENUE 38 o wv
o w
Ct [
w m
a �
w
0
h
a
E
• o
AV
O
• ` U
J
0
-------- CITY OF INDIO'SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
PROPOSM SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
' 1
1c'�1C7TT2YT R
97-05-4 -
FF__
-J
t
i 4
p tout
t LSeiTGii /
x
j + t
Is !° � jo
r /
Cie
r
i
�r EXHIBIT D
(ra��
0 0 �
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
May 28, 1991
Mr. Paul Clark
Riverside County Planning Department
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite E
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Del Webb, Ltd.
Dear Mr. Clark:
This letter is to request that the County of Riverside identify the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ( TUMF) as a traffic mitigation
measure and the Del Webb project should be so conditioned and paid, even
if the area is annexed into a city not having the TUMF.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call .
Very truly yours,
/�RAMON A. DIAZ
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM1!TfT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager through the City Attorney
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development
DATE: February 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Del Webb and Palm Springs Raceway Environmental Impact Reports
We have received copies of draft environmental impact reports for the
Del Webb Sun City Project and the Palm Springs International Raceway.
Staff time being limited we need to have a determination if we are going
to either oppose these projects or let them through. In both cases we
have until the end of March to comment; if we don' t we will not be able
to raise CEQA challenges later if we oppose the project.
You will recall the great amount of staff time used during the Sunterra
review; these projects will probably require even greater staff time
involvement if the city chooses to oppose them.
L
RAMON A. FDIA�
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING
/tm
F.:ni C coun :
t
MAnninc Dr:?a:n:nr:n:
1✓ f Agency Notice of Preparation
of
An Environmental Impact Report
DATE: August 16, 1990 AUG 2 0 199Q
T0: City of Palm Desert
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 73510 Fred Waring Drive clrr',qf.PALM DESERT
Palm Desert,CA 92260
PROJECT CASE NO/TITLE: Specific plan no. 281/Del Webb Sun City Palm Springs ,
zone change no. 5840, Comprehensive General Plan Amendment no. 281.
PROJECT SPONSOR: Del Webb California Corp.
42-600 Cook Street, Suite 110, Palm Desert, CA 92260
PROJECT LOCATION:
North of Highway I-10 and Varner Road; west of Adams Street;
east of Washington Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Specific plan of land use on 1573.8 acres, which proposes
5800 residential units , 32.4 acres for commercial uses ,
357 acres for recreational facilities (including two golf
courses and community facilities) , 12.7 acres for public
facilities. The project will be an age-restricted (55 and
older) residential community.
Pursuant to Riverside County Rules to Implement the California Environmental
Quality Act, notice is given to responsible and interested agencies, that the
Riverside County Planning Department plans to oversee the preparation on an
Environmental Impact Report for the project. The purpose of this notice is to
solicit guidance from your agency as to the scope and content of the
environmental information to be included in the EIR. Information in that regard
should be submitted to this office as soon as possible, but not later than 30
days after receiving this notice.
Attached is a copy of the issues to be included in the draft EIR. If you have
any questions, please contact Uzma Siddique at (714) 275-3290.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director
C k
5/21/90
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201
(714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277
�A
MORONGO I ✓OSHUA
• VALLEY SAN BERNARDINO CO. _
RIVERSIDE CO. $
rREE LOOp
DESERT HOT
SPRINGS^
\
PAINTED � NArIONAL
HILLS ,
a
OTH.-i AVE. SKY . � MoNUMENr
-GARNET* a VALLEY °�<<oti
1° 0 10
9Q
�F� THOUSAND 904
PALM SPRINGS• <� ;AROAD o PROJECT RAMON . ——
R
SITE
_I 0q0 ►
CATHEDRAL CITY •
4 7H. qVe
RANCHO MIRAGE•
Y
PALM DESERT ' o z
47TH-0 11 • INDIO
•INDIAN K AVE.
WELLS
N y 4 10
° 3 •COACHELLA
LA QUIN'( • 54TH ai AVE.N
zz 86
z
—
f o •ARABIA
PINE MEADOWS 62 D. H AVE.
cr
• • a ui
PINYON PINES = 66TH. AV
7 VALERIE 'MEC 70TH. AVE.
w
U
K
n.
ISA L roN
NOT TO SCALE OASIS SEA
86
RI VERSIDE CO.
^SAN DIEGO CO. IMPERIAL CO-
T
`��
'Age
' 26T H. AVE.
\0I a 128TH. I 1AVE•
-�.
' r 30TH. AVE
AMSAND
I RAMON H.
/ND/O H/L L S L32ND. �0
PAL MS %r r AVE.
STATE PARK
sq —.dPROJECT '
'L I SITE ��i� r, (PROPOSED)
10
(� 36TH. AVE. r ,
w L i' ' '
w - _
FRANK SINATRA DR.eF,Q F, 38TH. j AVE. '
No 40TH.I AVE.
COUNTRY CLUB DR. '
w a 42ND. AVE. 42 ND. AVE. r!.
BERMUDA FRS
z 0 DUNES r to
0 0
1 0
44TH. AVE I N DIO
47TH. AVE. c~n z
III 0
a INDIAN • I o AVE'
WELLS 00 47TH.2
Z. Z
~ 0
w
a z _ L 48TH. wo AVE.z
vmi g I --w � m /
3 n w 0 c a l
N
I
NOT TO SCALE
� v
Q zC z
d o V o ,. N j o
T u-
Z d z s s
Z ? y'
W
II rr
rr
�1I
s� 3nd - and
tp
II � II
o
co
.•• ••
IZ
I
Ill ti il� `
III O
1 q5 Qp I-- 1 Ito ;IZ ko
115 120 !i= O (n
w
w
Icn, co
N
,``l/.
10
I Ito
• I I I?PO
Project Summary
Del Webb's Sun City Palm Springs is located on 1573.8 acres in Riverside County,
between Palm Springs and Indio, immediately north of Interstate 10 and west of
Washington Street, as shown on the Regional Vicinity Map. Currently the site is
vacant, except for some limited agricultural use.
When fully developed, Sun City's primary use will be as an age-restricted ( 55 and
older) residential community consisting of approximately 5800 owner-occupied
homes in a mix of single family and multi-family dwelling units on approximately
1065 acres. The project will be built in two phases, and each phase will be centered
around extensive recreational facilities, including golf courses and community
facilities. Limited facilities for overnight accommodations will be provided within
the recreation areas. These recreational uses will occupy approximately 367 acres.
Other uses will include 33 acres of commercial uses, including general
neighborhood retail and professional services, to be located near the freeway, and 13
acres designated for public facilities.
,Y
I%r
Sun City Palm Springs — Land Use Summary
Planned
Gross Planned Density
Land Use Acreage #of d.u. (d.u./ac)
Residential—Med. High 1043.2 5,700 5.46
Model Homes (Residential—Low) 22.4 28 1.25
Vacation Villas (Residential—High) 10.0 100 10.00
Recreation Area& Parking 26.2
Golf Course 330.8
Total Recreation 367.0 100 0.27
Commercial 32.4
Public Facilities 12.7
Major Streets 55.7
Local Streets & Open Space 40.4
Total Streets 96.1
Total Site 1573.8 5,828 3.70
i
ci,
�"''• � I, I� 'I I j _ III
It � i II
Phase It , ` "ti "1
Models I
Arai
If
II it II
I I I I III
' I Lrr■ ��r�rr_r�rr�rr.r�1�F-���"'�-. rrrrrrrrrrr�I
AIi ` I 11 iI
fl
Medals
Area
_ II�
com.,,\� Phase I
II
Ii
d &.
V)
SPECIFIC PLAN NO.281
ATTACHMENT A
Issues to Be Addressed in Draft EIR
The Draft EIR shall address all topics required by Article 9 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In
addition, the concerns listed below shall be thoroughly addressed in the report. Any
additional concerns raised in the responses to the notice of preparation shall also be addressed.
Landform and Topography
Briefly describe the existing characteristics of these elements as they pertain to the project
site. Indicate any proposed modifications to current conditions based on anticipated grading or
other activities required for site improvement or development.
Soils and Agriculture
Determine the amount of acreage currently in agricultural production. Discuss thQ viability of
agriculture on-site and in the vicinity of the project site. Analyze the impact on agriculture of
development of the parcel
Biology
Flora and fauna should be inventoried in the field by qualified professionals. Rare and
endangered species, if any, will be locationally identified with their range and habitat
mapped. Possible impacts on the adjacent Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Preserve will
be analyzed.
Geology and Seismicity
Describe existing conditions,including known fault zones, slopes,and wind erosion. Describe
how these conditions may constrain or modify development of the project. Seismic potential
should be delineated in terms of magnitude, intensity,ground acceleration,duration, frequency,
and recurrence. Address liquefaction potential,provide a geologic mapping of the site,and
discuss any potential for paleontological resources. Discuss potential mitigation measures with
respect to wind erosion.
Hydrology,Flooding, and Drainage
Address impacts the proposed development will have on the project site with respect to
regional hydrologic concerns. Impacts on groundwater resources in terms of overdraft and/or
pollution should be addressed,as well as potential impacts to downstream properties and
possible flood control improvements.
Climate and Air Quality
Quantitatively estimate and evaluate air quality impacts, both immediate and cumulative.
The air quality section should be in accordance with the"Air Quality Handbook for Preparing
Environmental Impact Reports- Revised April 1, 1987," which was prepared by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, CalTrans modeling (CALIN 4
methodology) will be utilized.
Scenic Highways
Discuss any existing or eligible County or State scenic highways that may be in the vicinity of
the project site, including Interstate 10. Discuss possible mitigation measures for potential
impacts resulting from development of the project with respect to viewsheds.
Archaeological Resources
Address impacts the proposed development will have on the project site with respect to
archaeological resources during field and literature searches. Discuss appropriate mitigation
measures.
Water Quality and Water Conservation
Evaluate potential impacts on local water quality which may result from development of the
project. Address availability for all uses, irrigation for open space areas (including golf
courses),and water rights. Potential water-conserving measures should also be discussed.
Energy Resources and Conservation
Assess the energy resource potential and viability of the site potential impacts. Identify
energy conservation techniques in building design.
Circulation and Traffic
Prepare a traffic analysis by a qualified professional. Address available circulation to the site
and identify potential impacts,and possible extension and upgrading of existing roads with
respect to major access corridors,including Interstate 10, Washington Street,and Varner Road.
Public Facilities and Services
Identify existing infrastructure and potential impacts to existing public services. The discussion
should include the possible extension and upgrading of public facilities to service the project
site. The following topics should be addressed by subject: airports; libraries; water facilities;
sewer facilities; flood control facilities; solid waste; fire, police, and emergency services; local
utilities, easements; schools; cost analysis, relating to extension and/or construction of facilities
necessary to serve the project;health services; and parks and recreation.
.f
Land Use Compatibility
Address the issue of compatibility of proposed land uses with established surrounding land
uses.
Noise
Discuss the potential impacts that noise from Interstate 10, the adjacent railroads, and the
nearby Bermuda Dunes Airport may have upon future residents.
Fiscal Impact Anal, sis.
Assess the potential fiscal impacts to Riverside County and other municipalities in the
Coachella Valley, relative to both major revenues and costs associated with the proposed
development of the project site.
Sphere of Influence
The southernmost portion of the site is with City of Indio's sphere of Influence; the remainder is
in not in any city's sphere of influence. Issues surrounding the sphere of influence should be
addressed.
Growth Inducement
Address the growth-inducing aspects of the project, including the potentially beneficial and/or
adverse impacts. Discuss possible mitigation measures.
Cumulative Impacts
Address the cumulative effects that the approved development project will have on a regional
basis.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Any potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts will be discussed.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
The Draft EIR should include a tentative Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP), or should
otherwise discuss proposed compliance with AB 1380, which requires that an MMP be prepared
for all development projects for which an EIR is prepared.
:tiviei3iDE coun%y
? .anninc i)rc?A:mnrcm:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA.) NUMBER: 35244 MODULE NUMBER(s): 40601
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): Specific Plan No. 281, CZ No. 5840, and CGPA No. 281
APPLICANT'S NAME: Del Webb California Corp.
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING EA.: Uzma Si ddi que
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size and uses as applicable): A master planned, age
restricted (55 and older) , community with recreational , residential , resort and
supporting community land uses. Two 13-hole golf courses are al,so included in the
design.
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES 1,573.8 ac ; or SQUARE FEET
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s):
(SEE ATTAWlENT B)
D. EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S, R-T, W-2-10, W-2 IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? No
E. PROPOSED ZONING: S.P. IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? yes
F. STREET REFERENCES: North of Highway I-10 and Varner Road; west_ of Adams Street
east of Washington Street.
G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Section 6, T5S R7E: Sections 30 and 31, T4s R7E: San Bernardino Base and fleridian
H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS:
This site is undeveloped desert land with 400 acres of table-grapes , 80 acres of
date palms and some scattered residences. This site is bounded on the south by
highway I-10 and is surrounded by land similar to that on the project site. To
the east ofthe project site, across Washington Street, is the 11ature Conservancy's
reserve for the Fringe-toed Lizard.
11. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly.
❑ All or part of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community
Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI.
❑ All or part of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV
(A, B and D only),V and VI.
® All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections 111, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI.
295.70 New 12/87) ,
ale
111. ENVIRONMENTAL. HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
A. Indicate the nature of the proposed land use as determined from the descriptions as found in Comprehensive General Plan Figure
VI.3(Circle One). This information is necessary to determine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B.
NA - Not Applicable Critical Essential Normal-High Risk Normal-Low Rlsk
B. Indicate with a yes(Y)or no(N)whether any environmental hazard and/or resource issues may significantly affect or be affected
by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue marked yes(Y)write
additional data sources,agencies consulted,findings of fact and any mitigation measures under Section V. Also,where indicated,
circle the appropriate land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page).
HAZARDS
1.Y Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault 12. N Airport Noise(Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11
Hazard Zones(Fig.VIA) &VI.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
PS U R (Fig. VI.3) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11)
2.Y Liquefaction Potential Zone(Fig.VIA) 13.Y Railroad Noise(Fig. VI.13-VI.16)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VIA) NA A B C D (Fig, VIA 1)
3.Y Groundshaking Zone(Fig VI.1) IV & V 14.Y Highway Noise(Fig.V1.17-VI.29)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) NA A B C D (Fig, VIA 1)
4.Y Slopes (Riv. Co.800 Scale Slope Maps) 15.Y Other Noise
5.Y Landslide Risk Zone(Riv.Co.800 Scale NA A B C D (Fig, VIA 1)
Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16.Y Project Generated Noise Affecting
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6) Noise Sensitive Uses(Fig.VIA 1)
6. N Rockfall Hazard(On-site Inspection) 17. Y Noise Sensitive Project(Fig.V1.11)
7.Y Expansive Soils(U.S.DA.Soil 18.Y Air Quality Impacts From Project
Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19.Y Project Sensitive to Air Quality
8.Y Erosion (U.S.D.A.Soil Conservation 20._Y Water Quality Impacts From Project
Service Soil Surveys) 21. Y Project Sensitive to Water Quality
9.-)L Wind Ersosion &Blowsand(Fig. VI.1, 22.__R__ Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Ord.460,Sec. 14.2&Ord. 484) 23. N Hazardous Fire Area(Fig.VI.30- VI.31)
10.Y Dam Inundation Area(Fig.VI.7) 24._ Other
11.E Floodplains(Fig.VI.7) 25.- Other
NA U R (Fig. V1.8)
RESOURCES
26. Y Agriculture(Fig.VI.34-VI.35) 32.Y Scenic Highways(Fig.VI.45)
27.Y In or Near an Agricultural Preserve 33.Y Historic Resources(Fig.VI.32 -VI.33)
(Riv.Co.Agricultural Land Conversation 34. ) Archaeological Resources CVAG's Arch. E reas
Contract Maps) (Fig.V1.32 -VI.33 &VI.46 - VI.48) (Hi Qh Pro
Y.28 � Wildlife(Fig.VI.36 -VI.37) 35.Y Paleontological Resources
29.Y Vegetation(Fig.VI.38-VI.40) (Paleontological Resources Map)
30.Y Mineral Resources(Fig.VI.41 -VI.42) 36- Other
31. N Energy Resources(Fig.V1.43 -V1.44). 37- Other
Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
395-70(New 12/871
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATIOti,,,�-ontlnued)
O. If all or part of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space",and is not in a Community Plan, complete
questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 if it is in a Community Plan.
1. Land use category(ies) necessary to support the proposed project. Also indicate land use type
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) N11A
2.
Current land use category(ies) for the site based on existing conditions. Also indicate land use type
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) N/A
3. If DA differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the development stage? Explain:
N/A
4. Community Plan designation(s): Agriculture, desert areas , water resources , 2B (2-5
�fi -5 du/s) and 2A-HF (multifamily with 8-14 du/ac)
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan?
If not, explain: Inconsistent with the policies. Need to address the issues in the
Environmental Impact Report.
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses?
If not, explain: Tbp prapasal will impact the reserve for the Coachella Valley Fringe-
toed Lizard and is incompatible with the existing scattered residential development
in the area.
7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues Identifying Inconsistencies: No
Inconsistencies will be resovled by amendment to the General Plan and the
issues have to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report.
E. If all or part of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following:
1. State the designation(s): Agriculture, desert areas , water resources/flooding.
2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain: No the density proposed
cannot be consistent with the 10 acre minimum recommended by the designations.
3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan? -
If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: The proposal
is inconsistent all the issues need to be addressed in the Specific Plan
document and the Environmental Impact Report.
295.70(Now 12/87) 4
IV. LAND USE DETERMINATION
A. Complete this part unless the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP"or"Rancho
Villages Community Policy Areas."
1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): Areas not desianated as Open Space:
Water resources/flooding: Agriculture: Desert Area
2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: Lower Coachella Valley (LUPA)
3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: None
4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY: Coachella Valley Community Pol i r.i es'Arpa
5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IF ANY: Western Coachella Valley Plan (WCVP)
6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: Agrirul ture, dpsert arpae , water re,0urces,
2B (2-5 du/ac) and 2A-MF (multifamily with 8-14 du/ac)
7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL: The WCVP Community policies should be
evaluated with respect to the rn np spd project, snprifirally, the land tisp
designations need to be addressed. Also, the policies discouraging discontin4uous
growth and incompatible development in Western Coachella Valley affprt the prepesa .
Other policies within the communif-y Plan Are also appliGable-W th epas,ai
B. For all projects,inidcate with ayes(Y)or no(N)whether any public facilities and/or services issues may significantly affect
or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any Issue
marked yes(Y),write data sources,agencies consulted, findings of fact,and mitigation measures under Section V.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
1. Y Circulation(Fig. IV.1-IV.1 1.Discuss in 10.Y Equestrian Trails(Fig. IV.19- IV.24/
Sec.V Existing, Planned & Required Roads) Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps)
2.Y Bike Trails(Fig. IV.12- IV.13) 1 1.Y Utilities(Fig. IV.25 - IV.26)
3.Y Water(Agency Letters) 12 Y Libraries(Fig. IV.17- IV.18)
4.Y Sewer(Agency Letters) 13. Y Health Services(Fig. IV.17 - IV.18)
5. Y Fire Services(Fig. IV.16-IV.18) 14.. N Airports(Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4,
6.Y Sheriff Services(Fig IV.17-IV.18) 11.18.8- 11.18.10&IV.27-IV.36)
7.14 Schools(Fig.IV.17- IV.18) 15.Y Disaster Preparedness
8.Y Solid Waste(Fig.IV.17- IV.18) 16.Y City Sphere of Influence ( Indio)
9.Y Parks and Recreation(Fig. IV.19 - IV.20) 17- Other
C. If all or part of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy
Areas", review in detail the specific policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following:
1. State the relevant land use designation(s): --N ZA
2. Based on this initial study,is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document,
and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not,explain: N/A
295-70(New 12/87) v
V. INFORMATION SOURCESDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATIONASURES
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DETERMINATION
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO,DATE)
B. For each issue marked yes(Y) under Sections III.B and IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sources, including agencies consulted.
2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.I.R.)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to
Subsection A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section,check the box at the end of the section and attach
the necessary sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
(SEE ATTACHMENT C)
295-70(New 12/87) 5
V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
ISSUE NO. SOURCES,AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
(SEE ATTACHMEtIT C)
See attached pages.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
❑ The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
❑ The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the
project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared.
(or)
® The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report
is required.
Name: Date: o
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT B
PROPERTY ASSEMBLAGE PS® S
A.P.N.
605-002-001 605-008-005
605-003-003 653-046-014
605-003-004 747-023-002
605-003-005 747-023-005_
605-004-003 747-023-008
605-004-004 747-023-009
605-004-005 74 7-023-010
605-004-006 747-023-012
605-005-005 747-025-001
605-005-006 747-025-008
605-005-007 747-025-009 DEL WEBB'S SUN CITY PALM SPRINGS
605-005-010 747-026-004
605-005-011 747-026-006
605-005-012 747-026-012
605-005-013 747-026-018 Owner/Applicant:
605-006-009 747-026-020 DEL WEBB CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.
605-006-01 0 747-026-023 Attn. ( George Donaldson )
605-006-014 747-027-001 42-600 Cook Street, Suite 110•
605-006-024 747-027-007 0-1— n
605-006-033 747-027-008 �esert, Ca. 92260
605-006-034 747-027-009 el. ( 619 ) 341 - 6300.
605-006-035 747-027-010
605-006-036 747-034-001 Representative/Preparer:
605-006-037 747-034-002 PSOMAS B ASSOCIATES.
605-006-038 747-034-003 Attn. ( Larry Jones )
605-006-039 747-035-002 3901 Lime Street.
605-006-040 747-035-003 Riverside, Ca. 92501.
605-006-041 747-035-004 Tel. ( 714 ) 787-8421.
605-006-042 747-035-005
605-007-005 747-035-006
605-07-010 747-035-008
605-008-003 747-035-009
605-008-004 747-035-010
747-035-011
SPECIFIC PLAN NO.281
ATTACHMENT C
Section/ Sources,Agencies Consulted,Findings of Fact,
Issue No. Mitigation Measures
III B 3 Comprehensive General Plan.: The project site is within the ground-
shaking zone V. Development may increase exposure of people and
property to seismic hazards. The Banning Fault lies approximately one
mile north of the project site.
III B 8 &9 Comprehensive General Plan and Soil Conservation Service: The
project site is within the blowsand area and is subject to erosion. The
site maybe subject to sand accumulation. Abrasion damage can occur. A
wind erosion control plan should be prepared prior to issuance of
grading permits. Grading during the high wind months(March to June)
should be limited to small areas.
III B 11 The project may be in a floodplain. Mitigation measures should be addressed in
the EIR.
III B 13, 14, & 17 The southernmost portion of the project site is within the critical noise
area of the railroad and highway. The residential portion of the site
is noise sensitive. The impact of noise on the residential areas should
be addressed and mitigation measures recommended if necessary.
III B 18 & 19 Combustion emissions from mobile sources may significantly affect the
Coachella Valley and other surrounding areas. Local and regional air
quality will be affected. The residential portion of the site is air
quality sensitive.
III B 20 & 21 The project may have an impact on water quality. Residential portions of the
project are sensitive to water quality. The impact on water quality should be
addressed, and mitigation measures identified if necessary in the EIR.
III B 26 & 27 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will remove 400 ac. of table grapes
from production.This land may be considered primary,unique,and important
state agricultural land. The project may be in or near an agricultural preserve.
III B 28, &29 Construction on the project site will eliminate existing and potential
wildlife habitats. Flora, fauna, and animal life should be inventoried,
with particular attention to the Fringe-Toed Lizard, Flat-Tailed
Horned Lizard, Round-Tailed Ground Squirrel,and the Desert Tortoise.
III B 32 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will impact views from
Interstate 10, and Dillon Road, both eligible County scenic highways.
III B 33,34 &35 The project may contain historic, archaeological or paleontological resources
(CVAG's Archeological Areas: high probability). The presence of such
resources within the project site and mitigation measures,if any, should be
addressed in the EIR.
IV B 1 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for
water supply from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD).
IV B 2 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will impact the existing bike
lane on Washington Street. The project may add bicycles to the County
bikeway network.
IV B 4 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for
sewer capacity from CVWD.
IV B 5 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for
fire protective and preventive services.
IV B 6 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for
police protective services.
IV B 8 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for
solid waste collection and disposal services.
IV B 11 Comprehensive General Plan: The project will increase demand for
electrical and gas services.
IV B 12 Comprehensive General Plan: The project is expected to increase the
demand for library services.
IV B 13 Comprehensive General Plan: The project is expected to increase the
demand for health services.
IV B 3-13 Potential impacts on public facilities and services identified above
will have mitigation measures proposed in the EIR for the project.