HomeMy WebLinkAboutBeginning Process 4 Frmatn of LLD Fairways at PDCC� �.�,,,,,,,a �n�u ,m ��., , oi ,., MIY01 „u�,� „,��, ,,,.aW.�.,,���� �..� ��, �,i n� � ����, „�,�.n,,,.�.�.utic�aG�:,,
� ������ `�-11-�2C�l�
������� � � �
.
��
.. . .
CITY OF PALM DES � PA�E� T� 2�� ���g�s�t�� _�,_�,_,_ .
GTY MANAGER'S OFFI � °" ` � � � �� �.�-�.
�8- ��:�� 8
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF
FORMING A LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT FOR HOMES
LOCATED ON THE FAIRWAYS OF PALM DESERT COUNTRY
CLUB
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst
APPLICANT: PD Golf Operations, LLC, dba: Paim Desert Country Club
Moe Sihota, Managing Director
77200 California Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211
DATE: April 11, 2013
CONTENTS: Willdan Correspondence
Palm Desert Country Club Map
Recommendation
By Minute Motion:
1. Direct staff to begin the process of forming a Landscape and Lighting
District (LLD) for homes located on the fairways of Palm Desert Country
Club (PDCC).
2. Direct staff to prepare the LLD documents with a 55% approval threshold
from the community vote.
3. Direct staff to conduct background checks on PD Golf Operations, LLC
dba: Palm Desert Country Club, including all principles of the Limited
Liability Corporation.
Executive Summary
Approval of staff's recommendation would allow the concept of the LLD on the fairways
of Palm Desert Country Club to go to a vote of the affected property owners at an
approval threshold of 55%. Per the previously approved funding agreement, the City is
being reimbursed for all costs associated with this proposal less staff time.
Staff Report
Palm Desert Country Club LLD
Aprii 11, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Backpround
Below is an update of all events that have occurred to date related to this project and a
timeline of critical dates if the Council wishes to proceed with a vote of the Community.
At its meeting of February 28, 2013, the City Council authorized a funding agreement
with PDCC for the purpose of forming an LLD or CFD to assess homes along the
fairways that receive a benefit from the golf course. The agreement provided a phased
approach teaming with Willdan Financial Services to identify the appropriate financial
tool and hosting a study session with the City Council with recommendations. The
second phase, if approved by the Council, would include the actual legal steps required
to form an LLD.
City Council Study Session: March 14, 2013
At the Study Session of March 14, 2013, Moe Sihota, Managing Partner for PDCC Golf
Course Operations, updated the Council on operations at the club. Mr. Sihota also
discussed the trends of previous ownership and the character of PDCC Golf Course
(large open turf fairways) which leads to an increased maintenance cost over traditional
golf courses. Based on his own surveys with the community, Mr. Sihota expressed that
he would propose a monthly assessment of $20-$25 per dwelling unit on the fairways
(approximately 850 homes). This would yield an approximate annual assessment of
$204,000 -$255,000, less the City's administrative costs in running the district. Mr.
Sihota also indicated that he would be hosting a community meeting to discuss this
proposal.
Staff briefed the City Council on the legal differences befinreen a CFD and LLD and
indicated that we believed that the LLD was the most appropriate option. Staff
discussed the LLD would require an easement be dedicated for the private benefit of
the homeowners along the golf course. The proposed easement would likely be
approximately fifteen feet in width unless that width could not be achieved. Staff also
indicated that voting would be weighted based upon the length of frontage along the golf
course. Staff indicated that we would return to a regular City Council meeting in April
with a recommendation of how to proceed.
PDCC Community Meeting: March 24, 2093
PDCC Staff hosted a community meeting at its clubhouse on Sunday, March 24, at
6 p.m. Staff observed approximately 150-200 community residents in attendance. Mr.
Sihota presented much of the same information to the residents as he did to the City
Council. Focusing on previous ownership issues and increased maintenance costs due
to the large open fairways, Mr. Sihota presented his proposal as being mutually
beneficial to the community.
Staff observations were that the group in attendance was fairly split with a number of
folks in complete opposition and a group who were willing to listen and ask questions.
Staff Report
Paim Desert Country Club LLD
Aprii 11, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Staff was approached by several community members asking various questions ranging
from whether the $20-$25 per month was really necessary, timing of the vote, and
statements that this is a private business and should not be receiving monies through
taxation.
Proposed LLD Structure and Timeline:
As discussed previously, if the Council wishes to proceed, the LLD is the preferred
method. The LLD would require the creation of an easement for private benefit over an
approximate fifteen foot strip of land buffering all fairways. This easement would allow
homeowners use of this strip of land and ensure its maintenance is provided for in the
future. The calculations for determining the maintenance costs and final assessment
amount would be formulated in the engineers report following this process.
In most traditional LLD's, the City collects the funding and is responsible for carrying out
the maintenance. In this case, it would be much less expensive to utilize the golf course
staff for the maintenance of the proposed fifteen foot easement. If the district were
approved, staff would propose an agreement which transfers funding related to the LLD
to PDCC on a reimbursement basis. For example: the costs of utilities associated with
the easement areas would be reimbursed to PDCC after proof of payment was
received. Staff believes adequate oversight could be built into this process to ensure a
transparent process.
Proposition 218 governs the establishment of LLD's and sets forth minimum standards
for their creation. Currently, a simple majority of responding ballots is needed for
creation of an LLD. Since these are minimum standards, the Council has the ability to
set higher standards prior to accepting a district. Due to the controversial nature of this
process, staff is proposing a 55% approval rate, which we feel represents a much firmer
target for community support than a simple majority. Staff arrived at 55% based on
current legislation to reduce the 2/3 voting requirement of many forms of tax districts.
Following is a timeline of the process of formation if approved by the City Council:
April 11;
May 9:
May 23:
May 27:
July 11:
August:
Directive of City Council
Preliminary Engineers Report complete
Intent meeting (City Council)
Ballots mailed
Final public hearing declaring results
Willdan produces information for tax assessor's office.
Staff has heard concerns about balloting taking place in summer months. Ballots will be
mailed out to the legal owner's permanent address however, if concerns continue to
persist Council has the option to direct staff to delay balloting until November of 2013,
which collection would occur beginning in FY14/15.
Staff Report
Palm Desert Country Ciub LLD
April 11, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Fiscal Analvsis
If approved and established, the LLD would reimburse the City for administrative costs
related to its operation. The presence of the LLD would put the City in the position to
take on a higher level of maintenance in the event an owner went out of business, such
as has happened in the past. In theory, the City would have money on hand to maintain
the fifteen foot strip of land along the fairways; however, it is uncertain if the City could
maintain the easement areas as inexpensively as the golf course operations. This does
put the City at potential risk of having to reduce maintenance levels or utilize City
resources on private lands if the course were abandoned.
There are no costs incurred by the City related to the formation of the LLD except for
staff time relating to the project. Additional monies from PDCC will be taken in on an as-
needed basis to complete the project.
Submitted By:
Ryan Stendell
Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed and Concur:
,C�4�
�aul S. Gibson, Director of Finance
i
�
�
M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Memorandum
To: Ryan Stendell, City of Palm Desert
From: Jim McGuire, Willdan Financial Services
Date: April 2, 2013
Re: Palm Desert Country Club Landscape Easement District Feasibility
Summary of Findings
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan"), on behalf of the City of Palm Desert ("City"), has
conducted an analysis of the Palm Desert Country Club area to evaluate the feasibility
of establishing a district to provide a revenue source (funding) to support the
maintenance and operation of a dedicated landscape easement (landscape buffer)
between the golf course which is privately owned and the adjacent properties. Willdan
has worked with City staff and the developer gathering relevant information regarding
the potential improvements and properties in the area to develop the parameters for
establishing a special district to fund the ongoing maintenance of this landscape
easement buffer. In order to fund these improvements through a special district
("DistricY'), whether that district is in the form of an Assessment District under the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 ("1972 Act AD") or a Special
Tax established pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 ("CFD"),
the area containing the improvements will need to be dedicated to the City or an
easement established. (Generally, such districts cannot fund the maintenance of
improvements on private property, except in very specific circumstances, so at a
minimum, the improvement area will require the establishment of a dedicated
easement).
While this memorandum provides a summary of the pros and cons of utilizing both an
assessment district approach (1972 Act AD) and a special tax (CFD), the focus of this
memorandum is primarily on the feasibility of establishing an assessment district, in
part, because of the more stringent benefit nexus issues associated with the imposition
of assessments. Although this memorandum provides a reasonable estimate of the
annual expenses associated with the improvement area to be maintained and the
potential cost allocation and resulting assessments that may be considered, these are
only initial estimates based on an average fifteen foot (15') wide easement area to be
maintained along each parcel that abuts the golf course. Ultimately, the initial findings
and factors that are outlined in this memorandum will require further refinement if the
City decides to move forward with the formation of such a District and the preparation of
an Engineer's Report that is required pursuant to applicable assessment district law,
specifically the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division
15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "1972 Act") and the provisions of
Apri12, 2013
Page 2 of >3
the California Constitution Article XIIID (the "Constitution") which was instituted by
Proposition 218.
While our evaluation concludes that establishing an assessment district is a viable
approach for the City to consider for funding this landscape easement buffer, in order to
address and comply with the findings and determinations outlined in several recent
court decisions regarding assessments, the calculation of proportional special benefit
for each parcel requires a more comprehensive and complex method of apportionment
than what may have been utilized in the past for establishing such assessments. Recent
court decisions (summarized later in this memorandum) have consistently emphasized
the need for the methodology to incorporate into the benefit calculation, specific
property proportionality characteristics and simply assessing each residential parcel
equally in this particular situation would lack that more detailed proportionality.
Therefore the proposed initial method of apportionment and possible assessments
outlined in this analysis incorporates a calculation of each parcel's proportional special
benefit based on each parcel's frontage to the improvements which will ultimately result
in each residential parcel having slightly different assessments. However, even this
initial estimate of the proportionality may be modified to a proportional square footage
apportionment rather than just a front footage apportionment if the final approved
landscape easement area varies significantly from the proposed average fifteen foot
wide easement.
In addition, the provisions of the Constitution requires and recent court cases have
emphasized that for any assessment district, general benefits must be separated from
special benefits to properties, and the courts have further emphasized that identifying
and quantifying these general benefits is as necessary as identifying and
proportionately allocating special benefit costs. The following provides a more detailed
summary of our analysis and findings, which more specifically identifies fhe proposed
budget and assessments that the City may consider pursuing.
Provisions of Assessment Law
1972 Act Assessment Requirements
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the
purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include but are not limited to
the construction, maintenance, operation, and servicing of park and recreational
improvements. The 1972 Act requires that the cost of these improvements be levied
according to benefit rather than assessed value:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formu/a or method which fair/y distributes the net amount
among all assessab/e /ots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements."
April2, 2013
Page 3 of >3
Key Provisions of the California Constitution
In conjunction with the provisions of the 1972 Act, the California Constitution Article
XIIID addresses several key criteria for the levy of assessments, notably:
Article XIIID Section 2d defines District as:
"District means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will
receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related
service';
Article XIIID Section 2i defines Special Benefit as:
"Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general
benefits conferred on rea/ property /ocated in the district or to the public at large.
General enhancement of property va/ue does not constitute "special benefit."
Article XIIID Section 4a defines proportional special benefit assessments as:
"An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which
will have a specia/ benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment
will be imposed. The proportionate specia/ benefit derived by each identified
parcel sha/l be determined in re/ationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a
public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public
improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No
assessment shall be imposed on any parce/ which exceeds the reasonab/e cost
of the proportiona! special benefit conferred on that parcel."
"Only specia/ benefits are assessab/e, and an agency shal/ separafe fhe general
bene�ts from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parce/s within a district
that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United
States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate
by c/ear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parce/s in fact
receive no special benefit."
Recent Court Cases Regarding Assessments
While Article XIIID of the Constitution certainly changed how assessments are imposed,
subsequent court cases dealing with such assessments have also molded the approach
and determinations of benefits going forward. As background, the following identifies
and summarizes the recent court cases regarding assessments and the key findings in
those cases that have further defined the provisions of the Constitution and application
of assessments:
Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
(California Supreme Court; July 2008)
➢"Special Benefit" must be particular and distinct:
• Must affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from its
effect on other parcels.
April2, 2013
Page 4 af 13
➢ Measured proportional special benefit:
The assessment engineer's report must measure and reflect the special benefits
that accrue to each parcel within the assessment district.
➢ Constitutional Issue for the Court's independent judgment:
• Courts should exercise their independent judgment in reviewing local agency
decisions for determining whether benefits are special and whether assessments
are proportional to special benefits.
Robert Dahms vs. Downtown Pomona Property et al.
(California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District; May 2009)
➢ Individual assessment discounts:
• Nothing in Article XIIID prohibits discounted assessments, and nothing in the
article requires that discounts be uniformly granted across all parcels in an
assessment district. Rather, what the article requires is that the assessment on a
particular parcel not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special
benefit conferred on that parcel.
Town of Tiburon et al., vs. Jimmie D. Bonander et al.
(California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District; December 2009)
➢ Proportional special benefit based on entirety of the capital cost:
• Article XIIID expressly contemplates that proportionate special benefit is a
function of the total cost of a project, not costs determined on a property-by-
property or a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
• Proportional special benefit is the "equitable, nondiscriminatory basis" upon
which a project's assessable costs are spread among benefited properties. Thus,
the "reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit," which an assessment
may not exceed, simply reflects an assessed property's proportionate share of
total assessable costs as measured by relative special benefits.
➢ Enhancement of property values is not necessarily general benefit
• The Court noted that Article XIIID's prohibition against basing assessments on
general property value enhancements does not mean any benefit that enhances
property values is a general benefit. The court recognized that every assessment
that confers a particular and distinct advantage on a specific parcel will also
enhance the overall value of that property in some respect. Such an effect does
not transform a special benefit into a general benefit.
➢ Other notable findings:
• Shared or similar benefits does not render such benefit to be general
• Establishment of Zones must be based on benefit differences not cost
differences
• Parcels that receive special benefits cannot be excluded from the district
April2, 20>3
Page S of 13
Steven Beutz vs. County of Riverside
(California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District; May 2010)
➢ Analysis of general benefit is essential (quantify)
• Recognizing that the general public may benefit from City parks, the assessment
methodology must show how often or to what extent persons who live inside and
outside the district may reasonably be expected to use the parks. Persons from
surrounding communities may be attracted to the parks in large numbers and on
a regular basis if similar park facilities are unavailable in those communities.
➢ Proximity to the improvements should be considered and evaluated
➢ In any challenge the agency has the burden of proof
• The validity of an assessment and the burden of demonstrating special benefit
and proportionality is always on the agency.
Golden Hill Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. City of San Diego
(California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appelfate District; September 2011)
➢ Supports Beutz court's finding that an engineer's report must evaluate the amount of
special benefit landowners receive, as well as the amount of general benefit:
• The engineer's report must not include unfounded conclusions that services
and/or improvements funded by the assessment district are exclusively of distinct
and special benefit to parcels within the district.
• Certain services andlor improvements—including public lighting— inherently
provide a benefit to the general public, which must be reflected in the engineer's
report.
➢ Ballot materials must disclose how assessments for property owned by a local
agency are calculated; necessary for fair and transparent ballot proceedings, and to
avoid disproportionate vote weighting.
Benefit Analysis
It is important to note that the improvements that would be funded by a proposed
assessment and for which properties would be assessed is only for the landscape buffer
area along the properties that abut the golf course and not the entire golf course area.
This district and the assessments would help ensure that the area immediately adjacent
to those properties are maintained at an appropriate level of maintenance of this
landscaped area which affects the appearance and use of those properties and will
directly benefit the parcels to be assessed.
The improvements and the associated costs described in this memorandum have been
developed based on a benefit rationale and calculations that allocate the net cost of
only those improvements determined to be of special benefit to properties and those
costs are proportionately allocated to only those properties within the Palm Desert
Country Club that receive a particular and distinct benefit from those improvements. The
April2, 20>3
Page 6 of 13
following benefit analysis and method of apportionment (method of assessment) is
based on the premise that each property to be assessed, receives special benefits from
the local landscape improvements and the assessment obligation calculated for each
parcel reflects that parcel's proportional special benefits as compared to other
properties that receive special benefits.
Special Benefits
The proposed landscape easement area buffer ("improvements") proposed to be included
within a proposed assessment district will provide a visual and virtual extension of each
private property's existing frontage along the golf course ensuring an aesthetic continuity
and cohesion befinreen the various properties that could not be accomplished individually
and will enhance the overall appearance and use of those properties. This landscape
buffer area and the maintenance of these improvements will help ensure both a visual and
physical local beautification and unification of the properties that will directly and
proportionately benefit the properties to be assessed. The location and extent of the
improvements in relationship to each of the properties clearly makes these proposed
improvements a direct and special benefit to these parcels. It has therefore been
determined that the improvements and the related cost and expenses to maintain these
landscape improvements (excluding those general benefit costs noted below) are entirely
special benefits to the properties adjacent to those improvements and the net annual cost
to fund such improvements should be proportionately shared by those properties receiving
such special benefits.
General Benefits
Assessments are established on the basis of calculated proportional special benefit to
properties within a district. Because general benefits are not assessable, the
improvements and/or associated costs that are considered general benefit must be
excluded from the assessment calculation. With respect to this potential District, although
the landscape easement area buffer to be maintained is located on the perimeter of the
golf course and certainly visible to the general public and may even be in proximity to and
occasionally accessed by properties other than those abutting the improvement area
(outside the boundaries of the proposed district), the establishment and maintenance of
this buffer is specifically and solely for the benefit of the adjacent properties. The general
benefit to properties in the Palm Desert Country Club area (both those adjacent to the golf
course and those not adjacent to the golf course) as well as to the public at large is clearly
associated with the overall maintenance of the golf course itself, which is not part of the
costs to be funded by the proposed assessments. Furthermore, it has been determined
that the establishment of this landscape easement buffer and the maintenance of this area
would provide no measurable advantage or impact to any properties other than those
directly adjacent to those improvements and it is reasonable to conclude that the
maintenance of such improvements are entirely a special benefit to only those properties.
April2, 2013
Page 7 of >3
Assessment Methodology
In order to calculate and identify the proportional special benefit received by each parcel
and their proportionate share of the improvement costs, it is necessary to consider not
only the improvements and services to be provided, but the relationship each parcel has
to those improvements as compared to other parcels in the District.
Article XIIID Section 4a reads in part:
". .. The proportionate specia/ benefit derived by each identified parcel shaN
be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public
improvement or the maintenance and operation expenses of a public
improvement or for the cost of the property re/ated service being provided.
No assessment shal/ be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the
reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel."
Most landscape improvements provide varying degrees of benefit (whether they be
general or special) based largely on the extent of such improvements, the location of
the improvements in relationship to the properties, and the reason or need for such
improvements as it relates to individual properties. Clearly, the proposed landscape
easement area proposed within the Palm Desert Country Club is a very specific and
localized improvement area that has a direct and particular special benefit to only those
properties adjacent to the improvements. This direct proximity to the improvements also
suggests that the proportional special benefit to each parcel is also specific and is
reasonably equated to each parcel's proportional square footage of the overall
landscaped area as compared to other parcels.
The following provides a summary of the method of apportionment used to calculate
each parcels particular and distinct proportional special benefit:
Equivalent Benefit Units
The method of apportionment established for any assessment district should reflect the
proportional special benefit of each parcel utilizing a weighted methodology of
apportionment. For purposes of determining an appropriate cost allocation, in this
analysis we have utilized a weighted methodology typically referred to as an Equivalent
Benefit Unit (EBU) methodology and for this district each parcel's proportional
equivalent benefit unit will be based on its proportional share of the total landscape
square footage.
Because the actual easement area to be maintained has not yet been fully defined at
this time, for this analysis and an estimation of potential assessments, it has been
assumed that the width of the landscape easement to be maintained along each parcel
will be fifteen feet (15') wide. Ultimately, the easement area width may be slightly less
along some parcels and greater for others, but unless significant variations are identified
when the easement area is finalized, (prior to the preparation of the Engineer's Report),
the method of apportionment will assume each parcel has consistent fifteen foot wide
easement and the only variation in each parcels proportional Equivalent Benefit Unit
calculation will be the parcel's assigned frontage.
April2, 20>3
PageBof>3
Summary of the EBU Calculation for each Parcel
The proportional special benefit calculation for each parcel is summarized by the
following formula:
Parcel's Assigned Frontage x Easement Width = Parcel's EBU
The following is a summary of the overall Equivalent Benefit Units calculated for the
various property types that are located along the proposed landscape easement area.
Developed Residential *
Developed Non-Residential
OtherVacant
TOTAL
841 53,236.68
� . .
1 267.22
K?
856
137.19
798,550.20
: .:
4,008.30
� .�
2,057.85
54,896.32 � 823,444.80
* The average landscape frontage for a Residential lot (both Developed
Residential and Vacant Residential parcels) is 63.32 feet. Based on an easement
width of 15 feet, this results in 949.74 EBU.
Cost Allocations
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, the proportionate special
benefit derived by each parcel within an assessment district and its corresponding
assessment obligation shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital
cost of a public improvement or the maintenance and operation expenses of a public
improvement. The following formulas are used to calculate each parcel's Levy Amount
(proportional assessment obligation):
Step 1: Those improvement costs determined to be of general benefit shall not be
assessed to properties within the district and those costs are deducted from the
total budget to establish the improvement costs determined to be of special
benefit.
Total Budget — General Benefit Costs = Total Special Benefit Costs
April2, 2013
Page 9 of 13
Step 2: The Total Special Benefit Costs minus any additional contributions from the
City or other revenue sources establishes the "Balance to Levy" for the District.
Total Special Benefit Costs — Additional Contribution = Balance to Levy
Step 3: The sum total number of Equivalent Benefit Units is determined by the sum of
all individual EBU(s) applied to parcels that receive a special benefit from the
improvements. An assessment amount per EBU (Assessment Rate) is
established by taking the Balance to Lery and dividing that amount by the total
number of EBU(s).
Balance to Levy/Total EBU = Assessment Rate
Step 4: This Assessment Rate is then applied back to each parcel's individual EBU to
determine the parcel's proportionate benefit and assessment obligation.
Rate per EBU x Parcel EBU = Parcel Levy Amount
Budget (Cost) Assumptions
In this evaluation, Willdan has utilized budget modeling software that establishes an
annual maintenance budget utilizing cost per square foot or per unit cost calculations
based on a combination of industry standards and historical City expenditures to
provide an appropriate and desirable service level. The following budget table
summarizes the overall estimated annual budget for the assessment district and the
resulting assessment rate per EBU (rate per square foot of landscaped area):
Apri12, 2013
Page 10 of 13
Landscape Maintenance Services (Total)
Tree Maintenance
Hardscapes
Total Annual Landscape Maintenance Services
Landscape Water
Landscape Electricity
Total Utilities —Water � Electricity (All Landscaped Improvements)
TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING
Easement Buffer Rehabilitation
Urban Forest Rehabilitation
Facilities � Other Improvements Rehabilitation
TOTAL ANNUAL REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT COLLECTION
Total Maintenance Funding
INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES
Operational Reserves
Administration/Professional Fees
CountyTax Roll Fees
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses
TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FUNDING EXPENSES
BALANCE TO LEVY
DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels
Parcels Levied
Total Benefit Units
Claculated Levy per EBU
160,776
13,419
3,121
177,316
30,450
2,436
32,886
$ 210,202
4,594
13,500
1,523
19,616
$ 229,818
11,491
29,877
526
304
42,198
$ 272,016
856
852
823,444.80
$ 0.330340
Based on the estimated Budget and assessment rate outlined above, the average
Residential Lot with an assigned frontage of 63.32 feet resulting in a calculated special
benefit of 949.74 EBU would have an estimated annual assessment of approximately
$313.74 which is roughly $26.15 per month.
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
Apri12, 2013
Page 1 Z af 13
Special Tax vs. Assessment District
While the primary objective of Willdan's efforts and the focus of this memorandum has
been to outline the feasibility and overall structure necessary to .establish an
Assessment District for the Palm Desert Country Club landscape easement buffer
around the existing golf course area, consideration should also be given to the
possibility of establishing a special tax to fund such improvements and costs. Although
a special tax requires a two-thirds (66.7%) approval of registered voters to implement
compared to the simple majority approval of property owners for an assessment
(weighted ballots), the following are some notable distinctions befinreen special taxes
and assessments that the City may consider:
Advantages of a Special Tax
➢ A special tax does not require the detailed support and analysis of special benefit
and general benefit required for an assessment and given the recent State Supreme
Court decision (Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association versus the Santa Clara County
Open Space Authority), judicial review and possible challenges are a greater
concern for an assessment than previously was the case;
➢ A special tax can include costs which an assessment cannot (an assessment district
cannot assess for general benefit while a special tax is only limited by the purposes
specified for the special tax);
➢ The cost allocation structure for a special tax is typically more simplistic than an
assessmenf district. In this case, a special tax could possibly be a simple parcel tax
with each parcel being charged the same amount as compared to that of an
assessment district that because of special benefit and proportionality requirements,
inevitably requires a more complex apportionment of those costs to various
properties;
v Because the cost allocation structure is usually less complicated for a special tax,
public education and informational efforts are usually more focused on the need and
advantages of the revenue source rather than explaining the differences in
assessments which tend to make the ballot measure less controversial;
v Because a special tax does not have the stringent benefit nexus requirements of an
assessment district, the boundaries of the potential CFD (special tax district) could
be expanded to include most if not all of the properties within the Palm Desert
Country Club area thereby reducing the amount charged annually to each property.
However, expanding the number of properties to be charged often times makes it
more difficult to obtain the necessary voter approval.; and
April2, 2013
Page 13 of > 3
Advantages of an Assessment
➢ The most obvious advantage for pursuing an assessment rather than a special tax is
the simple majority approval threshold, and if multi-family residential property owners
(apartments) and non-residential properties are generally supportive of such
assessments, the chances for a successful ballot outcome are much better;
➢ Each property is assessed only for their proportional special benefits and benefits
compared to other properties. Properties owners tend to be more willing to pay for
improvements that are directly associated with their property (a greater sense of
connection to the improvements) that directly benefit their property;
➢ Although an assessment requires a more stringent benefit nexus than is required for
a special tax, in this particular case, the location and extent of the proposed
improvement area in relationship to the properties to be assessed, suggests that a
property owner based vote for an assessment is a more appropriate balloting
method than a special tax voted on by registered voters (not necessarily the owners
of the property that will be obligated to pay);
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Stendell, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:35 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Attention Ryan Stendell; question about PDCC acessment and survay
For CC Packets
From: marcian007Cc�aol.com �mailto:marciap007Cc�aol.com� V 7�^ m. �.
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:53 AM
To: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: Attention Ryan Stendell; question about PDCC acessment and survay
Mr. Stendell,
My name is Marcia Powell and I was referred to you by the PDCC Home Owner's Association as the place to
ask questions and voice opinions. I apologize for being so late with this inquiry, but we just learned of this matter on
March 25 when we returned to Indiana and received the letter from Mr. Wilf Weinkauf about the meeting held on March
24. My sister, myself, and our husbands own a winter home on the golf course at Palm Desert Country Club and this is all
new to us.
1. Who owns the Golf Course? Are they the ones requesting this proposed assessment, and what proof have they
offered showing the need for such an assessment?
2. How many home owners are involved?
3. How many of the polling letters were sent out, and how were those home owners chosen? WE DID NOT GET ONE.
We wondered if only members of the Golf Club were on that mailing list?
4. Will we or the PDCCA have access to the PDCC's financial books? How else will we know if this proposed
assessment is necessary?
5. What kind of auditing will be in place? And by whom and at what regularity?
6. Are there other golf courses in the city that have similar assessments?
7. Does the city own the water rites? It was our belief that the well that was drilled and the water reclamation was going
to help with the city water that was needed for the course.
8. What are the current water and electric bills for the past year?
9. Will all the money collected from home owners be spent on our golf course? As near as I can figure, that would be
some where in the neighborhood of $200,000 annually.
10. If the city is to control and dispense these funds, does the proposed $23 a month include administration fees or are
they in addition to the $23.
11. Could there be a time limit on this assessments, such 1 to 3 years, then be automatically voided.
12. If this is put into place, what is involved and how difficult would it be to repeal it?
Now for my opinion with what little information I have available:
First; let me say that we are very pleased with the condition of the golf course. although many of the
improvements were made by the company that built the new homes along the golf course. I don't know if the present
owners had to assume those expenses or not, but I would like to know. I thought, with my limited knowledge, that
bankruptcy did not pass unpaid bilis on to new owners.
Second; We don't play golf but, I might be willing to help, if necessary, but I don't like having an assessment added to my
taxes. And I object to the amount being nearly as much and possibly more than my association dues.
If this is a private company, and I assume it is,then this seems like a bail-out, and we don't even know if a bail-out is
necessary. IYs sort of like me asking my neighbors to be assessed so that I can make improvements on my house
because that too would preserve their property values.
Pease contact me at: 6269 Dalton Rd. Hagerstown, In 47346 or phone (765)489-5169 or email Marciap007Ca�aol.com.
Thank you
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Stendell, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:38 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Palm Desert Country Club Questions
From: WoodieanineCa�aol.com fmailto:WoodieanineCa�aol.com�
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:28 AM
To: Stendell, Ryan; �hvllisCc�ndcca.com
Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Questions
Mr. Stendell,
This meeting notice was handed to me March 26. We were at our home in PDCC October, November, December and
January and heard nothing of this. You can imagine my surprise since I did not receive a questioner or have any input
pertaining to the figures given. After reading the letter, I hope you will take the time to answer the several questions that
have because I am now in Indiana I cannot attend your meetings.
Where did the information pertaining to the property owners that would pay this amount come from? How many home
owners were notified ? I know we were not the only people that did not receive the first information. Was this list
assembled from the Golf Club owners that belong and play golf? How many people responded that make up these
percentages and how many homes are involved?
Who actually owns this golf course? How much do current club members pay per year to play golf and what does that
cover? Does the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association have access to the Golf Club's financial
books? Do the individual homeowners involved in this payment have access to the Golf Club Books? How do we as
home owners know that all of this is necessary with out this knowledge? Does it take an accountant or a lawyer to get
the figures? What are the actual costs for the (1) Water, and (2)Electricity for the fairways only, that do not include the
Club House and their grounds?
How do you intend to keep these funds ? Will that be in a fund that show the cost for each the water and the Electric each
month, each quarter and then reflect the payment? In the percentage options that you mentioned in your letter, does
that include the cost of processing all of this? What is that charge to be? You mentioned that this percentage figure could
change each year based on the cost of living. Is that based on the national average or on the utilities cost of inflation.
( There is a big difference) Will the owners have any say in these future increases? Will we even be given the notice
before it happens? Will these books be open for the home owners to review? Are there other Golf Courses in this city
using this arrangement?
What about the new well that was drilled recently? We understood that it was to cover the additional water for the PDCC
and that recycled water was to be used for the golf club fairway water.
What other options have been considered? It is very obvious that the first 2 or 3 years have more equipment and start up
costs. Was selling bonds or going public with stock considered? Could this plan to help with the water and electricity be
for a limited time frame of 2 or 3 years? After that time it should be able to stand on its own or be reviewed at that time
and home owners involved make new choices.
Who is Wilf Weinkauf? How many meetings has he attended to explain and answer questions. Why does all of this go
through the city of Palm Desert instead of the people managing the course?
Personally, I do not want this to be tacked onto my property tax bill. When our neighbor had his solar equipment tacked
onto his property tax, it made his home harder to sell. I want to pay this directly and have the option to pay it monthly.
quarterly, semi-annually or annually. This property was worth more when it was purchased because of the setting, and
having to pay again for the privilege to be on the course is double dipping....
What is the time frame for this proposal? Is this reversible? Is it transferred with a sale?
Thank you very much for reading this and I will look forward to your answers.
Jeanine Carey
Mailing address is Jeanine and Richard Carey, 6481 North State Road 1, Hagerstown, Indiana 47346
Phone number is 1-765-489-4071 Cell 765-238-1032
E-mail woodieanineCc�aol.com ( Not to be given out)
Al _KA
1
NTRA
1S BR!
•
Taal
0
0
_ VIRGINIA AVE VIRGlry���4a�
ptyVs�F
d�� � cj
TENNESSEE AVE
kiepunog
,;' - _ < -'— I1
o04I00
oo
0▪ 41,44
to
a�
z —_
- Dgp
ruNW utnit aN V L
IOWA ST
0 0
a Fit
CA
C C
O n
C C
tOp N
O 3•
0-u
av
nn
0
C
N
O
co O)
co
cr
r
r
r
n
x
Palm Desert Country Club District Boundary
z*,),
1111.1 ft
t
41,
fj
C1uiunlit
u..u1 -
f
�Il,�t� i
is
4,0
41i *I11I111•111111
*t�iy;t0111111e OMNI
: = r��
n
d
-J
2
a)
a
s
1r
°r
sr
•
At
1111 ,*
♦f.
r
f•� n
+
s - . arm
1111I_111111
1,401111111.
t1r
1 E 11.1111 11.
Win •
y•
ea uuumna
IM
4141jii, in
11
Vt. MI
lirT. In
r*;
.-
�HluutIi
1111111111111111111111111111111
441
MI IIIIIIIIII;
•
•
•
40 Is
LaCross, Mary _ ,�,T„RECEIYED«�� Q
From: Stanley, Jane P A L M D E S E R'", C A
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 3:13 PM ���� A� —8 aM 8� 22
To: LaCross, Mary
Subject: FW: paim desert country club
Hi Mary,
Would you please forward this to the appropriate person?
Thank you,
7ane
-----Original Message-----
From: david galie [mailto:au�ie�alie(�gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:51 PM
To: CityhallMail
Subject: palm desert country club
Hello,
I live at 43505 texas avenue palm desert 92211 on the golf course.
I just heard by chance that a survey had been mailed and meeting set to discuss same.This
survey was allegedly sent to all lot owners on the course using county tax rolls.
I am on the tax rolls for three years and recently received a mailing from them about
automatic reassessments county wide, so I know I am on their mailing list.
I was on the hoa board when this matter came up the last two years and have been vocal in my
opposition to any:-assessment.
I can only speculate why I did not receive the mailing.Another lot owner, I am told, also did
not receive a survey.
Regardless of the positions we take on the ultimate matter,fair play would require a second
survey, done independently of the golf course, whose immense financial interest in the
outcome has oft been stated.
If the city goes forward with a vote, on the assumption that the survey was valid, and had
been properly done, an expensive city sponsored vote might result in an embarrassing
surprise.
I can be reached at 760.895.0294
david galie
1
REGEIVED �
CITY CI.�RK'S OfFiCE
MARCH 17,2013 PALM t�ESE�T CA
�013 l�AR 19 PM 4� 18
RQSfJ►lARY GE'1VOV�'SE
T7295 M�CH�CA�v �
PA[rt DESF.�T, GA 92211
CITY COUNCIl MEMBERS
f.ir� of P.�rtr D�r
73510 fl?E'D W.4RDVG DR!'VE
PAtM D�x7', C.�i 92260
Frvccast.n rs a t.Err�rr I x�cErvFn �a�t rx� PRNATf owlv�res of Pa[.rit D�s�r
C011NTRY CLUB REGARDING A PROtSPECIIVE ASwSESS1NENT �IV PROPER'TY OWNERS WHQSE'
PROPERTY ADJOINS TNE GOLF COl1RSE
I t� TN�'Y ARE ASKING OS ?i'! SUBSIDJZE A PRIVATE FROt7T SEEKIIVG ENTITY.
I QUESTION OF TH£ LEGALLITY If' IT, THE PROPERTY ALL BELONGS 7�D TItEM, NOT THE
ClTY, T�fE'Y ALONE SfIARE I1V ANY PROtTTS fROM PALM D�SERT COI/M�?Y CLIJB�
IN REVIEWIIVG TXlS L£TIER AND DlSCUSSlNG THE 1►IATTER WlTfif OTXERS (Ol17SIDE OF
PZ�CC) I KNOW OF NO OTHER CITIES AND PRlVATE' COIIRSES ALLOWQVG 7�lIS SUBSIDY.
I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RE'VIEW�VG TH£ LEGALITY QF THlS M.lTTER AND f�'ARING
tROM YOU REGARDlNG THlS PROAOlSED ASSES��ENI WHICH SEEMS T�D BE INCLUDING
THE CITY.
S�vc�LY
.,���`�--�
Ras�Y G�rvot�sF
CC CJ'TY MANAGER PAIM DESERT
1
r
�-, r
�
�I-{. ��' ��L�� •1� ''�����
t�iw. �
�-� ,,-, �_� :-� � : �� �� l tr
,�,
J_.— =;�c��ist�ea 1°5�
Dear Patm Desert Country C�ub Resident,
Recentiy,we mailed a sunrey to homeowners along the Palm Desert Cvuntryi�in•�S�ins+e oftoverthree hundred and
� taking the time to cc�mplete and mail-�ia��mments to be both infonnatn►e and e remely helpfui-
fifty replies.We found yourfeedback
in this letter,i would like to sha�e with you the results of the survey and add�ess;i k����to you�c amm'nts and
would aiso like to give yau an indication of the next stePs that we wdl be tak g
feedback.
Survev Results�
Most of you(approximately 9096j feit that golf course conditions had impraved ower the last year and that you were
satisfied with the conditions adjacent ta your property.
We were pleased to receive such an apprec�ative response.We have made it our priority to upgrade course conditions•
We want our golfers to have a positive golfing experience.We want ho e�h nk�ou foryour inpu#�.Wehwiii cont'ein etto
environment.We are giad that we are meeting your expectations and Y
improve golf course landscaping and esthet+cs.
Seventy four percent of our respondents supported a homeowner's assessment to he{p maintain the goif course and
protect properl.Y vatues.Twenty six percent were opposed•This issue generated a number of comments that I wiil
address later in this newsletter•
Of those that supported an assessment,approximately 62%supported an assessment of$20-25.An assessment of$15
was supported by 28%.An assessment of$3035 was supported by the remaining ten percen�.
As for caurse design—two thirds of our respondents preferred that the existing landscape of the course be prese►ved.
Siightiy over thirty per cent favored a change to desert landscape and very few wanted the non-ptaying areas to be left
dormant.
Fre�::�ntiv Asked Questions:
We found your comments to be particularly informative and helpfu!•ManY of you applauded the changes at the Paim
Desert County Club but wondered how an assessment wouid be structured.The most frequeMly asked questions were
as follows:
1. How do we insure that assessmerrt funds wiil aiways be used for landscape,mair�tenanc.e a"d t°urse upkeep
and not applied for any other Purp�s�?
. Ans:The funds will go to rhe City and r►vt the course operator. �'e cunds rwill be farwarded to the Water Distn'ct S
praperly maintained. ff the counre e�Qme of the'nprob ems hut arvse in the past and insure that there witl
ar Electricat CompanY.T�'+!S W�j�P
alwa s be o oo! unds available or bosic maintenance ond wateri� .
77-200 Cal�fornia Dr. Palm Desert, CA 9�2� �
p�ice: 760345.0222 Fax: 760345.3444
,.,,r„�,�ai,Y,r�Acarrn�if�nm
2. How will the decision be made about the assessment,its amount and timing?
Ans:Yvu wil!make thot decisian.A vote will be heid of property owners a/ong the golf course.All Owners wlll be
mailed a bal/at later rhis year and asked ta suppart a»assessmenr Based on the sun+ey results, we ore
canslderfng a mvnthly assessment of$23.Sut we wiil be consulting the community and the Cify and seeking
further feedback Yo�r support and your vate wfll determine whether there Is an assessment.
3, Wn the ass�essmer�t b�paid in one ar two annuat paymet�ts?Will it incr�ase over time?
A�s:Yes,we wiN be working wlth the C+t}+to integrate the payment into your Praperty Tax Notices.Any future
increases cannot exceed the rare of infiation.
4. Why can't this be done through the exisiing Ht?A?
Ans:Not o11 homes along the course belong to rhe HOA.it wou/d be unfoir if some homes a/ong the course had to
pay the fee and others didn'� We want to m�ke sure that ali pmperty owners are treated equplly.
There is a lat of confusian concerning the HOA. The HOA daes not contribute funds to the golf course and is not
_ __.___. __ ____._._.______--- ...__
vsso�iaiea ro rne golf course in any way rvFatsoever. For that reason,we will be seeking your support by way of
a vote.
5. Will homeowners be entitled to a"saciai membership"and some discounts?
Ans:Yes. We wanr you to en/oy our clubhouse facilities and we will be offering a 109b discount on food and non-
alcoholic beverages. There will also be a 209b discount on al!prashop�aurchases. We very much oppreciate your
support and we recognize tf�at the success af our course depends on your continued patronage and support.
Next Steas•
We need ta continue to work together. We sincerely appreciate the many suppartive comments that we
received.We acknowtedge ihat your property values and the image of our community are directiy related to a
successful and weii maintained golf course.We believe that the praposed structure wiil insure that the course
wiil be looked after and that the probiems of the past will be avoided.
We would like to irwite you to an Open House in the Ciubhouse at Spm on Marc.h 24�'.Repres�ntatives of the
City wil{explain the legal and procedural framework far the assessment.We fook forward to your thoughts and
comments. l hope that you wili attend. _ _ _ _ . _ __
Sincerely,
Patm Desert Country Club
L'V �� � �%��
. �
Wilf Weinkaaf,General Manager
RECEI��D �
CtP�l.NlDES�����A �
2gi3 MAR 21 PM 2� 50
March 27, 2013
John M. Wohlmuth, Palm Desert City Manager
David J. Erwin, Palm Desert City Attorney
Palm Desert City Council
Subject: Special Assessment District
Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course
On March 24, 2013 I attended a meeting at Palm Desert Country Club Clubhouse that was called to explain
the recent survey conducted by the current ownership of Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course,regarding
maintenance of the golf course and a proposal of a Special Assessment District to be formed to help support
the maintenance costs of the golf course funded by property owners fronting the golf course.
A representative,Moe Shihota,the golf course owner(one of many unnamed)gave an overview of the re-
sults of the recent survey in which he stated that 62%of those responding to the survey were in favor of an
assessment on their property to help cover the costs of maintaining the golf course. His statement was that
850 survey questionnaires were mailed to property owners who face the fairways of the course. I have sev-
eral friends living south of California Dr. and east of Warner Trail who have absolutely no association to
the golf course,but received the above mentioned survey and responded to it. I question how many of the
reported 400 responses were not actually from properties that did not face the course resulting in a fictitious
62%favorable response.
The letter announcing the March 24, 2013 meeting stated that a representative of the City of Palm Desert
would be in attendance to explain the legal and procedural frame work for the assessment district. A City
Representative was in attendance but did not speak or answer questions,therefor I request information re-
garding Assessment Districts as follows:
1. Where in the California Legislation does it authorize formation of a district that taxes
private properties to support a private for profit business enterprise? If such legislation
authorizes this type of Assessment District,where is the District and what functions of
business enterprise does it cover?
2. Can the authorizing legislation be written to:
A. Limit the assessment to the eXisting owners/operators of the golf course and any
change in owners/operator(I.E. sale, lease, subordination,transfer)terminate
authorizing legislation? No Grandfathering!
_
B. Can the authorizing legislation be written to specifically state what maintenance costs
will be included in the assessment(I.E. utility bills only)?
G Limit any increase in the amount of the annual assessment to 1% ?
D. Require the re-authorization of the Assessment District every 3-5 years?
3. How many votes will be required to approve the formation of the District? 2/3's of all properties
involved or 50%of the properties? New taxes requires 2/3's vote of the electorate!
4. What does the City charge for administrating this District? My understanding, City currently
charges 26%of the gross annual assessment for administration.
Pending your timely response, I remain a concemed property owner seeking answers.
�
Jack L. Forney
76831 Kentucky Ave.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92211
760-345-8598
� r
RECEIYEp �
Cli'Y CLEr�K`5 �FFlCE
Apri12, 2013 P'��"� p����� ': ��
��13 APR -2 Pr 3� 04
�� �
TO: Jan Harnik, Mayor �
Jean Benson, Mayor Pro-Tem
Robert Spiegel, Council Member
Van Tanner, Council Member
Susan Marie Weber, Council Member
City Attorney
City Manager �
SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT AREA FOR PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB FOR
MAINTENANCE, by private business.
First of all we are against any ASSESSMENT AREA BEING FORMED FOR THE
PURPOSE of maintaining a golf course that is a private business. We do not want
it put on our t�bill. We like what the owner has done with the golf course and we
support PDCC at every chance we can. We have never seen the golf course and
restaurant so busy. (We have lived here since 1984). We would not be opposed
to some other type of support, such as forming a GOLF COURSE HOME OWNER'S
ASSOCIATION. NO NEW TAXES ON OUR TAX BILL
REASONS TO SAY `NO".
1. I contacted the legal section of the State of California Tax Assessments.
They said they could not find any Assessment Area's in the state where
A private business would benefit from it. They suggested we fight it at
The local area, City of Palm Desert.
Please research "WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT SPECIAL DISTRICTS",
A Citizen's Guide to Special Districts in California, Fourth Edition, October
2010.
This can be obtained on the Committee's webpage : www.sen.ca.gov/locgov"
Please refer to page 7 (attached a copy of this page)
`WHO VOTES/? REFER TO: US SUPREME COURT CASE:
"Salyer Land Company v.Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 410 U.S. 719
(1973)
Why am I quoting this case, because at a meeting at PDCC ,the owner Moe
Sihota expressed the opinion that the assessment would be made by the amount
of land that the owner had that backed to the golf course. Some may be small,
50' , other parcels could be large 100' . The small lot would have one vote , the
larger would have
two votes. I think the US SUPREME COURT CASE covers this "Equal votes
for each parcel. "
Mr. Sihota further stated that the city would mail out the ballots to vote on this
matter and that what ever amount was returned it would take 50% of that vote
to pass to form an ASSESSMENT AREA. After reading the complete report
on the State's web site , I gathered that it would take 2/3 vote to pass.
2. SECOND REASON: What will this do to many seniors that live here that
can hardly pay their t�es now? It will push some over the edges. I know
at least three near my street. I think there must be many more out there on the
edge.
When Moe Sihota was asked about this , he said he felt sorry for them but there
was nothing he would do to help them.
3. My third point and one that many people feel strong about is :
If a certain amount is chosen, such as $25.00 per month put on your tax bill
every year . How much does the city charge on top of that to manage the
assessment? Mr. Sihota was talking about cost of living raise each year.
NOW THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM. Does any one
remember the Jimmy Carter era. Cost of living went from 5% to 18% within
one year. NO COST OF LIVING SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
3A. While we are on the subject of the city over seeing an Assessment area,
Where is the trust.? There are only two members of the city council that will
remember this. "The city was suppose to audit the previous owner to make
sure everything was going well. THEY DID NOT DO SO AND THE PREVIOUS
OWNER WALKED AWAY FROM BANKRUPTCY OWING $18,000,000.
3. If you want mare background on Mr. Moe Sihota just go to "Google" and
put his name in. You will find 100's of articles that I think you should read
before you make any decisions on a vote to send out a ASSESSMENT VOTE
TO ALL HOME OWNERS.
4. Notification: We received a notice from the PDCC that there was going
To be a meeting to discuss an Assessment On Our Property (March 25�')
It was represented that an official from the City would be there to discuss
This. NOT TRUE. Mr. Sihota ran the meeting although a question was
asked , "Who is there to represent the city"? Some young man held up
his hand and said he was only there to listen. Now we found out through
the PDCCA that on April 11�'there will be a meeting at City Hall.
This came in PDCCA's newsletter. Not everyone receives this. If you are
Snowbird or weekender or don't receive mail at PDCC you would have not
Received this bulletin. HOW ARE THE OTHER 900 homes notified that there is
A meeting on the l lth. Not on the agenda yet, no notice in the paper . HOW???
Is this FAIR to the other homeowners?
The final reason : WE BOUGHT AT PDCC IN 1984 because there were no
Home owner fees. When you retire, you look to what your costs are going
to be in the future.
WE URGE YOU NOT TO FORM ANY ASSESSMENT AREA FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING THE GOLF COURSE, WATER OR ELECTRICY.
Sinc ly,
__._ �vz.�.�,c.�
Barbara Powers
76918 Kentucky Ave
Palm Desert, CA 92211
760-345-7203
Email, �ourdpower(a�msn.com
CC: Page 7 OF Citizen's Guide to Special Districts in California
Copy of Inflation Chart From Jimmy Carter Era
Table of Contents
Introducti on...............................................................................................................................••-....1
What's a Special District?..........................•.....................................................................................2
Whata Special District is Not-•................................................................••-.....................................3
A Short History of California's Special Districts............................................................................4
Special Districts' Statutory Authority .............................................................................................5
Typesof Special Districts................................................................................................................5
FundingSpecial Districts.................................................................................................................8
Advantages &Disadvantages..............................................................•--.......................................11
FrequentlyAsked Questions..................•-----...............................-•-................................................12
Current Topics&Emerging Trends ..................................................••---.........-•-...........................15
Appendix A: Types of Special Districts.......................................................................................19
Appendix B: Special District Information Sources ......................................................................20
Appendix C: Sources for Questions&Answers ..........................................................................23
Sources&Credits..........................................................................................................................26
Copving this report. What's So Special About Special Districts?is not copyrighted.
The contents of this report are in the public domain. Although anyone may reproduce
this report,but Senate Local Government Committee would appreciate receiving credit.
This report also appears on the Committee's webpage: w�v�v.sen.ca.�ov/locgov.
What's So Special About Special Districts? (Fourth Edition)
Senate Local Govemment Committee,October 2010
�
of supervisors appoint the residents who serve on the districts' boards of trustees to fixed four-
year terms. Independent special districts include library districts,memorial districts,mosquito
abatement districts,and resource conservation districts.
Dependent districts are governed by other,existing legislative bodies (either a city council or a
county board of supervisors). All County Service Areas,for example,are dependent districts
because their county boards of supervisors govem them. The San Bemardino County Board of
Supervisors is the ex o�cio governing board for the Yucca Valley Recrearion and Park District,
making it a dependent district. Because the Oceanside City Council also serves as the board of
directors for the Oceanside Small Craft Harbor District(San Diego County),the District is a de-
pendent special district.
A community's registered voters usually choose an independent district's board of directors. But
in some water districts,political power rests with the landowners. Where the districts' services
primarily benefit land a.nd not people,the courts have upheld the use of landowner-voter dis-
tricts.
Who votes?
The Califomia Constitution says that"The right to vote or hold office may not be conditioned by
a property qualification." But state laws provide for some"landowner-voter districts"where the
district directors or the voters (or both)must own land within the district. How is that possible?
The United States Supreme Court tackled this question in a case called Salyer Land Company v.
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719(1973).
Some landowners and resident registered voters within the District claimed that it was unconsti-
tutional to restrict voting rights to landowners. Further,they argued that it was inequitable that
smaller landowners received fewer votes than larger landowners. The plaintiffs urged the crea-
tion of a new policy so that all residents in the District would be permitted only one vote regard-
less of land ownership.
The District argued that its irrigation services only benefited the land. Thus,any effects on non-
landowner residents were indirect and did not entitle them to vote. Also, the number of votes
allotted to landowners was proportional to the assessed value of the land,and therefore relative
to each landowner's benefits and burdens. 'The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant and
upheld landowner-voting because the District"provides no service to the general public."
Special districts' goveming boards can vary with the size and type of the district. Most districts
have five-member governing boards. Other goveming boards vary from three to 11 or more
members. Because of its special legislation, the Metropolitan Water District of Southem Cali-
fornia has 37 board members. Many larger districts have professional general managers, similar
to city managers or county administrators,who run the daily operations. The governing boards
adopt the broad policies that the general managers carry out.
What's So Special About Special Districts? (Fourth Edition)
Senate Local Government Committee, October 2010
Page 1 of 1
Chart I: Inflation Is the Biggest
���.
Driver of Interest Rates
---3-MonthTreasury Bil! —CP'I a+snua!<ha�►ge
9(is
E43,
rl� .. . ... . . . . . . s . .. ... � 3.. ... ,
:�-
r�,-„ �
i
�:a.. . . �� �
f s' �
,�k,
-,., 19iA 1459 1464 19b9 1974 1474 19�4 1984 1994 1499 2Q04 2009
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5566787 f520;jpg 3/18/2013
Klassen, Rachelle
��x�s o��ic�
From: Stendeil, Ryan P A L H D���� �, G�
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 8:15 AM
To: K�assen, Rachelie �Q�� �PR -8 AM 8: 2�
Subject: FW: PDCC Special Assessment
From: JAS. R OLSEN [mailto:jolsen9081Cc�verizon.net] y R%� , Nµ*y„»~WMR~�„Y Y �* ..�m�
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 8:08 AM
To: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: PDCC Special Assessment
As one of the affected homeowners, my main concern is that this process is moving too fast and I don't believe
all of the homeowners have sufficient information to evaluate the pros and cons and make an
intelligent decision. I believe authorizing a vote at this time is not in the best interest of the homeowners. If I
understand the proposal correctly, it only assures a 15 ft buffer will be maintained and not the entire golf course
in the event of closure. This has never been brought out and I am certain that a large majority of homeowners
are not aware of this if my understanding is correct. Thank you for your time.
James Olsen
77275 Minnesota Ave
Palm Desert, CA 92211
i
Klassen, Rachelle RECEiY�D Q
From: Stendell, Ryan P A L N 3�E 5 E r�7�. G A
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 8:15 AM
To: K�assen, Rachelle ��i3 APR —8 AM 8� 22
Subject: FW: FW: Golf Course wants funds
More PDCC correspondence.
From: Jane Malynn [mailto:jfmal2@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 6:15 PM
To: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: RE: FW: Golf Course wants funds
Dear Mr. Stendell,
Thank you for your quick response. Unfortunately, we live in northern California and are not
available to attend the April 11 meeting. However, I may have neighbors who wish to attend so
please send us the time and address for this Council meeting. It is interesting that you state
that the golf course owners are concerned about the costs of maintaining the "buffer areas"
between the golf course and the property owner's property line. We would have thought that
the new golf course owners would have been aware of all costs in maintaining the grounds prior
to their purchase. They have only been in operations for 1 �/2 seasons and we feel they should
allow more time to really understand their cost measures and prove themselves. They should be
thinking of new incentives that help bring more golfers to their course and people to their
facilities (i.e. restaurant, bar, banquet/events rooms) that will help to alleviate their cost
factors. Obviously, the golfers like the appearance of this newly refurbished golf course.
Should the bufFer zones become a public access area, how will this be properly supervised?
While golfers are playing, will children be able to play on the buffer zone? Will dog owners be
able to walk their dogs and who will be responsible for their clean-up? Unsupervised teenagers
presently walk in groups while wondering the grounds and smoking. Presently, there are no
Marshalls. What is the homeowner to do when there is no policing of this buffer zone when the
community and outside groups have total access to it?
Best regards,
The Malynns
From: rstendellCa�cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:rstendellCa�cityofpalmdesert.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 2:23 PM
To: jfmal2Cc�verizon.net
Subject: FW: FW: Golf Course wants funds
Good Afternoon Mr. & Mrs. Malynn,
Thank you for your email about the proposed golf course assessment, I will do my best to explain where we are with this
proposal by the owners of the golf course.
PDCC Golf Course ownership has approached the City with a proposal for an assessment district for the homes along the
fairways of the golf course to help contribute to the buffer areas of the course (generally the 15' buffer lining all
fairways). They state that one of the biggest reasons the golf course hasn't been successful is due to the wide open
fairways which never see a golf ball that also leads to an increase in maintenance costs.Their proposal centers around
1
them dedicating and easement for private benefit of the golf course owners, meaning homeowners would be able to
utilize these buffer areas for walking etc.This can be accomplished through the use of a Prop 218 Landscape and
Lighting District.
The golf course management did present this same information to the City Council in a study session but has not
formally acted on whether or not they wish to take on this process.This is what is on the agenda on April 11t''. The vote
by the Council is only the very first step in the process and is by no means a vote to form the assessment. Council would
be approving staff to put the issue out to a vote of the affected property owners (i.e.fairway homes onlyj. If the City
Council approves the item there is a formal process we have to go through with all of the legal noticing and balloting,
which do go out to all affected property owners via the address where they receive tax information. I do encourage you
to attend the meeting of April 11t"as I believe community input is needed and will ultimately be required through the
formal process if the Council wishes to proceed.
Please let me know if you have any other questions. I will pass along your email to the City Council for the April 11tn
meeting on this matter.
Ryan Stendell
Senior Management Analyst
City of Palm Desert
(760) 346-061 1 ext. 386
rstendell@cit�ofpalmdesert.or�
-----Original Message-----
From: district4(«�rcbos.or� [mailto:district4Cc�rcbos.or�]
Sent:Tuesday,April 02, 2013 4:48 PM
To: District4 SupervisorJohn J Benoit
Subject: From the District 4 Website
WEB FORM SUBMISSION:
NAME: Frank&Jane Malynn
PHONE:
EMAIL: jfmal2@verizon.net
SUBJECT: Golf Course wants funds
M ESSAG E----
Mr. Benoit,
We are a resident of Palm Desert County Club living on Texas Avenue. We would like to inquire as to the legality of a
mandatory assessment of homeowners by a private corporation? Can these funds be established and be distributed to a
private corporation for their operating costs? Please contact the City Attorney and advise us if this assessment would be
legal? We do not wish to participate in such a mandatory agreement.
Thank you.
----------------------------------
2
RECEIYED �
CITY CLERK'S O�FICE
PALM QESERT. CA
April 5, 2013
2Q13 APR -8 PM 2� 08
Jan Harnik, Mayor
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 922fi0
Dear Mayor Harnik,
As a Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) resident/homeowner for over 35 years, I find it
very unsettling to hear that the Palm Desert Country Club Golf Ops LLC (PDCC Golf
Ops LLC) is proposing an assessment district for our golf course frontage homes to
assist their riu vate corporation with the maintenance of their business investment. 1
afso am interested in the legality of this proposed assessment district on only a portion
of the homes. I hope the City's attorney, David Erwin, is looking into the legal details.
The PDCC Golf Ops owners knew going into this purchase the cost of maintenance and
utilities, especially since we were told they had operated courses in Canada. If they did
not realize the costs associated with this venture prior to close of sale, then they did not
due their "due diligence" in researching the area, the operations and the reality of
utilities in our Coachella Valtey. If this is the case, they should not be in business and
the City should decline any requests for financial assistance, regardless of source.
Propasing an assessment against�Ci golf course frontage homes presents several
questions
1. What about golfers living in non-course frontage homes or outside PDCC who
pay to play? How much will they be charged?
2. What percentage of increase will golf inembers pay since they in fact enjoy the
course and may not reside in these homes?
3. Vacation/year-round rentals - they may have to increase their rents to cover
added costs, thereby losing potentiaf income. Will the City assist them?
4. Residents on fixed incomes. - an extra fee added to the tax bill may seem like
nothing, but may put an added strain on an already tight budget. Will the City
assist these homeowners so they don't face liens or foreclosure?
I understand when the initial survey was mailed, it was not mailed to only golf-course
owners. Envelopes were addressed to the owner or current resident (includes renters)
as well as homes east of Warner Trail, south of California and north of Delaware Place
(none of which are fronting the course). Many of the responses from these mailings
may reflect what they would like to have, without actually paying for the assessment
since they are not on the course. These votes skew the results and should be omitted.
If PDCC Golf Ops is such a viable operation, then let the owners find another avenue ta
maintain the "open to the public" course which they purchased. Put the onus on them.
Suggestions for raising their own funds:
= Raise the membershi�p fee by 5-10%. Still a good deal
" Raise the green fees for pubtic piay by 5-10%. Still low in comparison to other public
courses in the vaf�ey.
" Develop a better marketing plan to attract convention groups and visitors throughout
the year. Golf play is possible in summer am or twilight.
Offering a discount in the dining room or pro shop does not offset what they want to
charge, especially if you don't use the club anyway. Then, after another full season/
year, review the financials and make adjustments for continueci success.
For a private corporation to go before o�r City Co�ncil and ask to assess public
citizens to cover their costs of business is no better than the businesses who ask the
federal government for a bailout. We, the residents of PDCC, fought to have our area
annexed to the City in order to receive increased services. These services did not
include "bailing ouf' a private owner of the public course.
The City Council should due its "due diligence" into the corporation's background before
making any decision resulting in an additional assessment to property tax on
homeowners already stretched by higher fees on utilities and property values which
have still not bounced back to assessment levels.
I agree it is nice to look out the window and see well-maintained fairways, and
management has done a good job at reviving a failing course and club. But I also feel
the group of investors who formed PDCC Golf Ops failed to research the operational
costs for the business. Now they want us to bail them out. At almost 95 years of age, I
along with many others in the area would like a bail out for a richer quality of life.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, ,
�-�'y1c�-�- D�e.r�
Marian Rogerson
Utah Circle, Palm Desert
REc��v�a �
CIT Y GLERK'S OF�ICE
PAl�Pi UES��T, �A
April 9, 2013 �Ot3 ��(� _9 pM �: 23
TO: Jan Harnik, Mayor
)ean Benson, Mayor Pro-Tem
Robert Spiegel, Council Member
Van Tanner, Council Member
Susan Marie Weber, Council Member
City Attorney
City Manager
SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT AREA FOR PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB
I wanted to state my opposition to creating an ASSESSMENT AREA for PDCC.
Frankly, I have been unable to find any precedent for such an ASSESSMENT AREA
being created in order to benefit a private party or private business.
The fact that the City would administer/audit the Assessment Area, should there be
one, does not inspire confidence. We went down that road once before when the
City was to monitor an "account" of the former owner of PDCC to assure the owner
maintained funds for repairs, maintenance, etc. The City did not monitor that
account and the result was bankruptcy and several years of living with a dead golf
course. If for some reason this Area is created and the City administers it, what
would be the additional cost for this oversight? Is there any upper limit on that cost?
Another basic question, why should we subsidize a private party, business or
enterprise? The new owners were aware of the costs to maintain the golf course
when they purchased PDCC. The size of the course hasn't changed, it hasn't
increased in size since they bought it, so why should we pay their operating costs?
For these reasons I would ask you to vote against forming any type of Assessment
Area at PDCC.
Regards,
John & Patricia Peterson
76-915 Kentucky Ave.
Palm Desert, CA 92211
jsp�a gregerpeterson.com
Klassen, Rachelle RECEIYEl7 �
From: Stendell, Ryan P A L M D E S fi�1 . C A
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 3:29 PM
To: K�assen, Rachelle 2fl�3 APR —9 PM 3� 3 I
Subject: FW: Proposed Palm Desert Country Club assessment
More correspondence.
From: Bruce Crytser [mailto:tahoecees@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 3:13 PM
To: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: Proposed Palm Desert Country Club assessment
Dear Mr Stendell.
I recently received a forwarded email (with your response attached thereto) from a neighbor, and am taking this
opportunity to address to you my concerns regarding the proposed PDCC "buffer zone assessment".
I have owned a property at the southeast corner of the PDCC Golf Course's 18th fairway since January, 2000,
and recently received a survey from the current owners of this golf course. This survey addressed only the
overall condition of the golf course and made no mention of"a 15' buffer zone easement for the private benefit
of the homeowners along the golf course"*.
I am one who responded in a uali aed favorable way to the survey letter sent out to affected home owners. At
the time, I indicated that I would consider supporting this plan at the $25/month level,provided that a meeting
would be held by the Golf Course management and the affected homeowners so that my concerns could be
satisfactorily addressed. I was anticipating a meeting between the Golf Course Management and affected
homeowners, but now see that this has moved much more quickly than I expected.
It would seem that the survey was produced not so much as a starting point for direct discussion with the
affected home owners, but was intended to be used by the Golf Course Management as evidence of community
support for their plan. In this respect, I feel the intended purpose of the survey was intentionally deceptive, and
that my initial uali aed support is now being used against me as part of a sales pitch to the PD City Council.
According to a "Staff Report(o� Palm Desert Country Club LLD", they "hosted a community meeting at its
clubhouse on Sunday, March 24, at 6PM"*. I can assure you and PDCC Management that I received
NO advance notice of this meeting. Since I had specifically requested such a meeting as a Comment on my
original Survey form, I most certainly would have attended this meeting, of which I was made aware only after
the fact, via an email from a neighbor. I have no explanation as to why I should have received the survey, but
not the notice of the meeting.
So now this issue has bypassed at least this recipient of the original "survey" and already has reached the level
of the PD City Council.
While I would have been able to attend the above-referenced PDCC-LLD March 24th meeting, I have an
unavoidable schedule conflict for the PD City Council meeting of April 18th and will be unable to attend.
I very much hope that, by taking this opportunity to contact you in regard to the proposed Palm Desert Country
Club LLD, my concerns can be added to those which will be brought before the city council in this matter.
i
As noted above,my original support was conditional. However, I no longer am supportive of the proposed
PDCC "Buffer Zone" assessment plan. Should this issue eventually be put to a vote of the affected
homeowners, I intend to vote in the negative. As more information (City of PD communications with my
neighbors; PDCC LLD Formation.pd fl has become available, I wish I could rescind my prior "yes" vote.
In the first place, I must question how it can be assured that this 15' easement will be "for the private benefit of
the homeowners along the golf course"*.
Secondly, I find it difficult to imagine that the cost of maintaining-and now policing- a 15'-wide "buffer zone"
would be adequately offset by the PDCC-LLD not having to maintain this same 15' as part of the existing golf
course fairway. I see this "assessment district" as nothing more than a homeowner-subsidized revenue stream
for a private business.
However, my primary concern is that of security. There are numerous points at which the PDCC Golf Course
can be accessed by persons other than golfers and adjacent homeowners. For the 13 years I've owned my home,
use of the golf course by anyone other than golfers has been discouraged. I admit that, while this has,
unfortunately,not been universally adhered to, at least it legitimized the argument for affected homeowners to
discourage such use by non-golfers.
At one point, we did have a problem with increasing use of the fairways by non-golfers. This then led to groups
of middle or high school-age students using the fairways as shortcuts through the community. We actually had
several groups repeatedly passing through my back yard and using my gate to access or exit the golf course -
even as my wife and I sat in plain sight on our patio. Upon occasion, we even found our chairs moved from the
patio out to the tree-shaded grass, with accompanying "snack litter". I'm certain this was not done by my
neighbors. At one point, I suggested to a group that they at least exit the course, upon which they were
trespassing, at a nearby part of the golf cart path that opened directly on to Wyoming Ave. A few days later,
my newly re-stuccoed house was "tagged", and I needed to call the City of PD to have graffiti painted over.
I don't want to encourage public pedestrian use of the golf course "buffer zone", and I also don't want to have to
consider putting up a block wall to protect my property. It seems to me that I'm facing the prospect of being
assessed in order to "purchase" a potential problem of security-in perpetuity.
Thank you for your attention to this email, and for your help in bringing my concerns to the Palm Desert City
Council.
Robert B. Crytser
* Quote source: "Palm_Desert_Country_Club_LLD_Formation.pdf' (page 2 of 22)".
z
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Stendell, Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:48 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Letter to City Council opposing Landscape/Lighting District formation
Attachments: Letter to PD City Council re LLD 4-11-2013.doc
From: BILL GURZI [mailto:wrgurzi@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:07 PM
To: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: Letter to City Council opposing Landscape/Lighting District formation
Ryan, many thanks for the return call today. I did get your message.
Attached is our letter opposing the golf course's attempt to form an assessment district among Palm Desert County Club
HOA property owners. A copy of this letter is being sent by mail to the HOA, also. My fervent hope is that the issue will
die in Council Thursday, and that the message to the golf course owners will be resounding "no way."
If I ever get to Palm Desert on a weekday, I shall stop at City Hall to meet you in person. Until then, you have my gratitude
for your support of my queries and sincerest wishes for continued success in your work on behalf of the City's citizens.
Sincerely,
Bill Gurzi
(562) 938-9597 (home)
(714) 564-2733 (office)
N n
� ��
��
� �n�
�'i '�r P*t
t�tnn
0 ��t av rn
cn�e,.._
_ �""m
���C3
� n�
p D�
� ��
1
April 11, 2013
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert Civic Center
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
RE: Opposition to the Proposed Palm Desert Country Club Landscape and Lighting District
Dear Councilmembers:
The Palm Desert County Club (Club) is showing the City of Palm Desert(City) and the Palm Desert
Country Club Homeowners Association(HOA) a rosy picture of the future if an assessment district is
approved and funded to defray the Club's operating costs. We ask you to take a look at that same picture
without the Club's colorful deceptions.
1. A TAX WINDFALL FOR CLUB OWNERS
In a letter dated Apri12 to the HOA(copy attached), the Club confessed that(1)their course is 170 acres
while "courses in the Valley average 110 acres," and(2)that 60 acres of easement will preserve the
"viewscapes, beauty and value for both golfers and homeowners." Translation: their proposed
assessment will shift more than 33 percent of their landscaping and maintenance costs to HOA
members, and subsidize walk-in green fees and their members' dues by forming a de facto partnership
comprising the Club,the City, the HOA, and other adjacent property owners. We do not wish to be
part of any partnership that subsidizes private enterprise with our property tax revenues.
2. NO QUID PRO QUO
The Club's members and walk-in golfers benefit through subsidized green fees, but what does the City
and the HOA get in return? For everyone to benefit, there must be quid pro quo. To date, however, the
Club has yet to offer anything of near-equal value to offset the tax revenue windfall they propose. They
claim the City and HOA members will benefit from increased property values, and that any gain in such
values since the Club's owners took possession are due to their improvements, but that claim cannot be
supported. We bought our home while their fairways were brown, which coincided with the bottom of
the housing market in November 2010, before the course was sold. Since the Club owners took
possession, real estate values statewide have risen. In fact, the statewide average gain, according to
KNX Radio in Los Angeles, is 16 percent for 2012 and 2013 (combined) vs. 2011. We would argue
that any gain in HOA property values is a mix of the courses' greening coupled with a return to
confidence in California real estate. Which of the two is the greater contributor would be
conjecture.
3. A PLANNED GAMBIT
In the same letter, the Club's general manager whines that he pays prevailing wages to his employees
and pays the same costs as competitors for"seed, fertilizer, gas, etc.," while having to maintain 60
additional acres. In reality, that is the business decision Club owners consciously made by buying the
course for, if they choose to remember, a sum far less than the prevailing rate for developed Coachella
Valley land. If those 60 acres weren't an issue then, why are they of such great concern now? The
answer has already been given by the Club's management at a previous gathering: Club owners planned
this gambit all along. It has been their plan from the beginning to woo the HOA and others into a
costly golf-course partnership by playing against some residents' fears of returning to "the
problerns of the past."
4. AN UNLAWFUL PROPOSAL
In the same letter, he says our"feedback"has led the Club to reconsider the City's involvement by
making the HOA or a"residents' committee"responsible for disbursing the funds. What he proposes is
unlawful at best. At a.time when municipalities across the country are filing for bankruptcy in
unprecedented numbers, the City may not have sufficient human resources to adequately staff the
accounts receivable, accounts payable, and annual audit functions that must be processed and monitored
diligently to ensure the public's funds are not misappropriated. If the City is not prepared to shoulder
this responsibility, especially the regular auditing of the Club's operating financial records, any
discussions of an assessment district should not go forward for reasonable concern that the funds
may not be used as intended.
5. QUESTIONABLE CLAIMS OF SUPPORT
The letter brags that"72% of homeowners expressed support for a modest assessment." We have been
told by HOA staff that they are receiving many calls from members claiming no knowledge of the
previous ballot that the Club distributed, and others say they misunderstood that the Club's proposed
$15 to $35 assessments were intended to be monthly, not annually. An assessment of$26.25 per
month, as a mid-range example,would double the current HOA fees of$315 annually. By no
reasonable definition is a 100 percent increase, or any amount approaching it, "modest."
6. THE CITY MAY SET A DISAGREEABLE PRECEDENT
If the City Council agrees to establish an assessment district, you will be providing a blueprint for other
courses in the Valley and elsewhere to copy and propagate. Water prices too high? Create an assessment
district?Revenues declining? Create an assessment district! No one can deny that interest in the sport
is waning.The percentage of the overall population in the U.S. that plays golf is down over the past 10
years, from 11.1 percent in 2000 to 9.2 percent in 2010, according to the National Golf Foundation.
Other courses in the Valley are surely aware of this and are weighing alternatives to consider should the
trend bode ominously for them. Is financial support of multiple private golf courses and the
monitoring of their use of public funds a responsibility the City wishes to assume in perpetuity?
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We know your time is limited, but trust you will fold
these six points into your deliberations and, ultimately, decline to support the Club's request to proceed
further with an assessment district.
Sincerely,
William Gurzi and Rodney Honeycutt
43675 Louisiana Street
Palm Desert, California 92211
Klassen, Rachelle R f GEI t�f D �
From: Stendell, Ryan
PALM D��E�r� CA
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:49 AM ���� �P� + ' pM 9. �2
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: April 11 meeting re: PDCC goif course assessment
More correspondence.
From: Phyllis Harkins [mailto:Ph�rllis �dcca.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: FW: April 11 meeting re: PDCC golf course assessment
Forwarding to you as she said to do so.
Phyllis
From: Betly Breneman [mailto:betebe777Ca�att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:20 PM
To: Phyllis Harkins
Subject: April 11 meeting re: PDCC golf course assessment
Phyllis -
I can't be there for the meeting. I wanted to pass on some thoughts to you in case you deem anything worthy of
bringing to the meeting and/or passing on to others.
I looked up the word 'extortion' -the definition is "the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through
force or threats".
I find it interesting that a private company (PDCC Golf Operation LLC) wants to get money from private
citizens (homeowners) to cover the expenses of that company. If the private citizens (homeowners) choose not
to give the company the money they're asking for, the company 'threatens' to engage in a practice that would be
harmful to those homeowners (i.e. not maintain the grounds adjacent to the homeowners property and therefore
causing the homeowners property values to be damaged). That seems to fit the description of'extortion', doesn't
it?
In the April 2letter from General Manager Wilf Weinkauf he states "We are determined to thoughtfully
structure an assessment that is fair for both the homeowner and golf course." What's fair about having to pay
someone else's bills? That's what's being asked of the homeowners.
PDCC Golf Course is playing word games and dancing around the legality of it all by drawing in the city of
Palm Desert and the PDCC homeowners association.
The bottom line is no company should expect other people to pay the company's expenses. The way that's done
is by raising prices on the product/service of the company. Their reasoning for wanting the money is that they
maintain 170 acres instead of the average 110 acres is not invalid. It's not as if they suddenly became
responsible for the 170 acres. They knew the size of the property when they bought it-no surprises. They
supposedly are an experienced golf course company - in which case it's expected they would have gone into this
1
with knowledge and preparation to run the company successfully. If they need to raise funds -they should seek
partners or sell stock in the company.
It's a given that if this goes through, the cost will continue to go up - and the assessment is here to stay. It is
simply unfair to demand that people who bought their homes with no obligation or responsibility for the golf
course are now being told they must 'ante up' or their property will suffer. (Sounds again like the definition of
the word 'extortion- which I believe is still illegal!)
For what it's worth.
Thanks,
Betty
2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Stanley, Jane
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:06 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Mendoza, Grace
Subject: FW: Request for delay of vote on proposed Palm desert Country LLD;4;00 PM agenda item
From: david galie [mailto:augiegalieCc�gmail.com] � � ��~ � ��W F µ+ ��rv�T
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:53 PM � ;;'.'�
To: CityhallMail � r'�m
Subject: Request for delay of vote on proposed Palm desert Country LLD;4;00 PM agenda item � ��►'�
_. �m�
— +`�,�3'rn
Council members, � {���
This letter is to urge you to delay your vote today on this matter. � � .�a
�
•• f�7 T
I first heard of this matter by happenstance on March 15th,when I heard of an open house hosted by�e ciu�
management set for Sunday the 23rd. Q
I did not receive previous letters or the infamous survey.Several neighbors with whom I spoke also denied
receiving the survey.
If the numerous letters you have received are even close to accurate about the mailings and survey,then the golf
course/representatives,charitably speaking, has managed it's mailings and outcomes to suit its purposes.
This is the first reason to delay this vote: THE PROCESS IS QUESTIONABLE AND THEREFORE
L7NRELIABLE.**
The second reason to delay this vote is :THE PROCESS HAS MOVED TOO FAST.
You have a letter in the attachments from home owner Jim Olsen.He urges the council to delay a vote as he
feels the homeowners have not been given enough information to cast an informed ballot.He is President of the
HOA ,long time board member(more thanl0 yeaxs ,I believe) and past HOA office holder.
He has the pulse of the community and I urge the council to give great weight to his observations .
The third reason to delay a vote is to examine and parse the reasons the course has given for this proposed self
taxation. Although the reasons have morphed when challenged,the newest one is that the owners bought too
much land, and now want to pawn some of it off,because they don't want the expense of mowing and watering
it.
The owners retained one of the best golf and resort consultancy firms in North America to advise them on this
purchase.They did not just discover the width of the fairways,or the costs of seed,or the prevailing wage.They
got a superior investment.
Why have we not seen the books?Or accounting statements?Must we believe them at face value, or should we
trust but verify?
*** The council ordered staff to proceed with this matter and at the same time ordered staff to do a background
check on all owners and affiliates. There are problems there, but staff did not do this investigation,or if
done,results not made public.
Several owners have expressed concern about the vote being held in May.
I join in that concern.It is a very bad idea. We want inclusion, not exclusion,in this important matter. Nothing is
lost by delaying this vote until after the summer and until the necessary community meetings are held.
i
Several vital matters must be resolved BEFORE the vote,and some have already been raised,such as how
would an assessment be charged to the owner;on the tax bill? There are serious issues with this on resale as one
owner wrote, comparing this assessment with her experience with solar panels.
Perhaps equally important is the question should we divide and separate our community into lots with an
assessment, and lots without an assessment? Based on the say-so of the mysterious Wildan,whose expertise and
qualifications are also not established.
If the Palm Desert Country Club Home Owners Association is to be cleaved in two,then we,the owners,should
be permitted to make that call.
I understand that many calls have been made to the HOA office about this matter.Some complain about not
getting notices,some ask for information about forming a committee to oppose this assessment district.
I have spoken with the manager of our HOA and intend to spear-head such a committee.
Everything so far has been done at the timing and behest of the golf course.
Now we will have a true community meeting(s) to discuss all these issues from our prospective as owners, and
on our turf at the community center, moderated and conducted by us,the owners.
We are not necessarily opposed to any assessment or other charges ,but we want to know why, how,when,how
much,by whom, etc etc.
Then we can go to staff and council and give them our survey,our responses, what we are willing to do and how
we are willing to do it.We may very well agree to some assistance to the course,if truly needed.
Otherwise we must respond to the hard-ball tactics of the owners, and organize all owners to vote NO on the
current proposal,which would be embarrassing to staff and to the council.
david galie
43505 texas avenue
z
RECEtYEp �
CITY CIERK 'S OFF►C�
PAL�1 DES�ht ` �;A
Palm Desert City Council Meeting
April 11, 2013 ��t3 APR 1 I PM 3: �3
My name is Richard Dodson, I am an architect, and I reside at 43470 Illinois Avenue, in
the Palm Desert Country Club, where I enjoy 60 feet of frontage along the fairway of the
17th hole.
I attended the evening meeting held at the PDCC clubhouse on March 24th. At the
beginning of the meeting, we were told by the presenters that the PDCC golf course
comprised 170 acres, and when compared to other local golf courses, averaging 110
acres in area, it was at a competitive disadvantage in terms of required green-space
maintenance. At that time I understood that the problem involved the additional required
maintenance of discrete pockets of green-space which were out of play and as the
presenter said "never saw a ball". It occurred to me, at the time, that it would have been
helpful had the presenters provided a plan graphic indicating exactly those areas they
considered outside of play and therefore unnecessary to the use of the golf course. Had
they done so, rather than waving their arms and speaking in generalities, it would have
also been clear that sandwiched in between the 18 links of the main golf course was a
second nine-hole executive golf course, the area of which should be subtracted from the
170 acres before a comparison with competing golf courses is made. I find it hard to
believe that the presenters didn't consider that option. They probably did think of it, but
ruled it out, preferring to work with the 170 acres rather than a lesser number. I left that
meeting with the impression that the presentation had been more smoke and mirrors
than one of clarity.
Yesterday, while reading a neighbor's copy of the City of Palm Desert Staff Report
regarding this matter, I learned for the first time that a 15-foot wide easement for
"Landscape and Lighting" running along both sides of the fairways, was being
considered as the basis for taxation of the 850 homeowners fronting the golf course. I
ask you how did we get from discrete pockets of unnecessary green-space to the
proposed creation of this taxation easement for partial green-space maintenance? And
why is it 15 feet wide rather than some other dimension? Is it that 15 feet multiplied by
the lengths of the frontages is equivalent in area to that of the unnecessary pockets of
green space? Also the report suggested that the homeowners paying for the partial
grounds maintenance would be able to make use of the easement, but it was not
specific as to what that use would be. For example, would the 850 paying homeowners
be allowed to walk their dogs on the grounds that they are maintaining in this easement
—an activity that we are currently told is not allowed on the private property of the golf
course?
I understand that the golf course owners are pushing for a vote this May—approximately
a month form now, at a time when many homeowners in Palm Desert are out of town. I
submit that, at this point, we have not been provided with enough information to vote
wisely. If the vote were put off until, say, November, more people would be in town, and
hopefully the Owners and the City would have had the time necessary to develop clarity.
�
�G�''� �-�"�->
�
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Stanley, Jane
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:04 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Mendoza, Grace
Cc: Stendell, Ryan
Subject: FW: Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course subsidy
Original Message
From: Bill Cote [mailto:billcoteidc.rr.coml
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:16 AM
To: CityhallMail
Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course subsidy
I was disturbed at the scam the owners are perpetrating on you and us.
The owners said they waited a year to spring this on us, so they could rehabilitate the golf
course and surrounding land so we could see how it could be.
Then he said they are demanding this assessment to help maintain the extra 60 acres of green -
space
Then the shocking part came out when he revealed that whether they get the assessment or not,
they will be converting much of the attractive sod, which they are using to sucker us into
giving them this tax money, into desert scape.
If they intend to convert to desert scape, there is only one reason - Profit.
These guys are crooks and at every turn they are beginning to reveal their true motives and
deceit.
I'm glad you tabled the vote until September, because the more time goes on, the more
revelations they seem to let slip.
Have a wonderful day,
Bill Cote
(760)834-8052
76840 Florida Ave
Palm Desert, CA 92211
billcoteOdc.rr.com
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Stanley, Jane
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:25 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Stendell, Ryan
Subject: FW: Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course subsidy
Original Message
From: Bill Cote fmailto:billcotetladc.rr.coml
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:06 PM
To: CityhallMail
Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Golf Course subsidy
The calculations of subsidy needed were based on the 60 acres of extraneous sod which is
expensive to maintain.
There MUST be a condition in the assessment which substantially reduces or eliminates it if
the amount of sod maintained is reduced, as the cost to them is thereby reduced and the
subsidy would remain the same as presented, so it would become a revenue/profit generator for
their company.
Be careful, they are setting us up for quite a scam here, unles we're careful
Have a wonderful day,
Bill Cote
(760)834-8052
76840 Florida Ave
Palm Desert, CA 92211
billcote(adc.rr.com
1