The URL can be used to link to this page

1999 06 15 CC�a�� •c9 � oz U CF`y Qum& OF fNY v City Council Agenda CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 78-495 Calle Tampico La auinta, California 92253 Regular Meeting June 15, 1999 - 2:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call PUBLIC COMMENT Beginning Res. No. 99-78 Ord. No. 334 This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. CLOSED SESSION NOTE: TIME PERMITTING, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONDUCT CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSIONS DURING THE DINNER RECESS. ADDITIONALLY, PERSONS IDENTIFIED AS NEGOTIATING PARTIES WHERE THE CITY IS CONSIDERING ACQUISITION OF THEIR PROPERTY ARE NOT INVITED INTO THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING. 1. EVALUATION OF COUNCIL -APPOINTED POSITIONS - CITY MANAGER, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.6. 2. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL -APPOINTED POSITION - CITY CLERK, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.6. PUBLIC COMMENT - 3:00 pm This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approval of Minutes of June 1, 1999 ANNOUNCEMENTS PRESENTATIONS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE 1 . LETTER FROM DIANA BROWN RESIGNING FROM THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD. 2. LETTER FROM COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY REQUESTING FUNDING. 3. LETTER FROM AUDREY OSTROWSKY REGARDING A NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE. CONSENT CALENDAR Note: Consent Calendar Items are considered to be routine in nature and will be approved by one motion. 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED JUNE 15, 1999. 2. TRANSMITTAL OF TREASURER'S REPORT DATED APRIL 30, 1999 FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND THE LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY. Page -2- `' '� 3. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH IMPACT SCIENCES TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A REQUEST OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR "THE RANCH" CONSISTING OF TWO GOLF COURSES, HOTELS, COMMERCIAL USES, RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND OFFICES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET, SOUTH OF AVENUE 52, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 54. APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORTION. 4. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR A YEAR WITH HILTON FARNKOPF AND HOBSON, LLC FOR AB939 SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000. 5. APPROVAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE FIRM OF NICKERSON, DIERCKS, AND ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR COUNCIL MEMBER HENDERSON TO ATTEND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING IN SAN JOSE, JUNE 24-25, 1999. 7. ACCEPTANCE OF AN "EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE" (EMA) GRANT, TO BE UTILIZED TO PURCHASE A SATELLITE PHONE. 8. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND THE LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998-1999 AND 1999-2000. 9. APPROVAL OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROJECT LMC 99-01 - LANDSCAPE LIGHTING MAINTENANCE. 10. APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITY FACILITIES. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT 98-09, WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE WIDENING. A) MINUTE ORDER ACTION. 2. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT PROJECT 99-05, JEFFERSON STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AVENUE 54 TO HIGHWAY 111. A) MINUTE ORDER ACTION. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES ORDINANCE NO. 332 - RE: CHG. OF ZONE - RANCHO LA QUINTA ORDINANCE NO. 333 - RE: CHG. OF ZONE - LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO. Page - 3 - STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OF THE DESERT SERVICE FEES RELATING TO THEIR REQUESTED RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, MAY 11 & MAY 25, 1999 B. ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MAY 5, 1999 C. HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 1999 D. CVAG COMMITTEE REPORTS E. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP/INFORMATION EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (PENA) F. C. V. MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (PERKINS) G. C. V. MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (SNIFF) H. DESERT RESORTS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (HENDERSON) I. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES COMMITTEES J. PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESORTS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (HENDERSON) K. PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESORTS AIRLINE SERVICES COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) L. PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION M. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) N. RIVERSIDE COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD 0. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PEIVA) P. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY/SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP (PENA) DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. CITY MANAGER 1 . RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENT B. CITY ATTORNEY C. CITY CLERK 1 . REPORT ON UP -COMING EVENTS D. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIRECTOR 1. MONTHLY REPORT FOR MAY 1999 E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1. MONTHLY REPORT FOR MAY 1999 2. UPDATE ON CIVIC CENTER ARTPIECE BY LOUIS DEMARTINO 3. INFORMATION REGARDING DECISION ON SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651 F. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. MONTHLY REPORT FOR MAY 1999 2. COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT G. FINANCE DIRECTOR 1 . REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES REPORT DATED APRIL 30, 1999 FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND THE LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY 2. YEAR 2000 PROJECT STATUS REPORT H. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1. MONTHLY REPORT FOR MAY 1999 I. POLICE CHIEF - None J. BATTALION CHIEF - None Page -4- MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS DISCUSSION REGARDING ANIMAL CONTROL. (SNIFF) 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE SPONSORSHIP OF KOSOVO REFUGEES. (SNIFF) RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECESS UNTIL 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for a public hearing. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT #5 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-642 - TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE UNIT COUNT TO A PORTION OF LOTS 1 & 2 OF PARCEL MAP 19730, SEPARATE THE SEASONS FROM SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AND ADD A NEW GRADING/UNIT TYPE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 50-FOOT ELEVATION OF THE CHANNEL BERM, WITHIN DUNA LA QUINTA. APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES. Note: To be continued. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147, A REQUEST FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 133 LOTS, A RESIDENTIAL LOT, AND OTHER COMMON LOTS ON 172.88 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 58 IN PGA WEST. APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION. A) RESOLUTION ACTION. Page - 5 - 3. DEVELOPMENT FEES - ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT FEES. A) RESOLUTION ACTION 4. LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1 - ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000. A) RESOLUTION ACTION. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Saundra L. Juhola, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the City Council meeting of June 15, 1999 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and on the bulletin board at the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce and at Albertson's, 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, June 11, 1999. D TE : June 11, 1999 �SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California PUBLIC NOTICE The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's Office at 777-7025, 24-hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. Page - 6 - PGA WEST MASTER ASSOMATtO►N P. 0. Box 1516 La Ownts, Gslftniia 22263 ,tune 10,19M Mr_ Chris A. Vogt, P'.E. ©ir. Public Worm City Of La Quirsa City Hail, to Quints. Ca 92253 Gear Mr. Vagt Mr. Lzrry L:Ktfter Pre& KSL be velopment Corp. 5"20 PGA Blvd, La Quirda, Ca. WM It ryas rowntly Coate to our ertten+jon tOt your rlepartrnwrt is presw* mviewing con budon ply for the portion of Madison Ave. meant to ifie Norman and TournOMW Golf Col "S. We sm led to bellow #W theme plans do riot provide for aems Wnnels te~ VW warlock pardons of the erXtis#ing PGA WeA properties west of Madison nor the 04acerrt residental n fthbvfoads to the South of the Norman Dovetiopme nt- The sU ndwxi of de"lopment for PGA West tom its Ocaeption we$ ane Of separation batwean eutomot Iles said goff cart a=*W by the ltsalailaion of cart tutmels beneath roadways. Four such UrvOs in PGA West am pr+eeet r in use and per brm gWte well. C?tiw Golf Cev9lgx1'w is in our t:ffy hoNe Simi'tw sterxW is of seperawn and in felt, when we met with ynu in Februsly of this year regaMing Traffic Patrol of PGA El".. we were tcod #W the city does not have ardina mes in effed or eaten the abi►ti#y to adept ordinances that would ellaw 9vlf cart traffic can public stets or roads. We wev told that only two golf cart cwsirgs of Mroets in La Quffft exist, and Vh* you 'felt umorrtfostable with tat WWI= We mention tip fbm dog be=uoe it his been m rrared t the developer of PGA West at*#38 es surface CWt crow at a signmMW inter, icccm of Airport and Madison to provide cart acorn to t%t Norman COUMiL As the sbraet inVnwemerd plans am reporWdiy in your department for review, and the Shad intenbon is to t onsfruct th@ *vat Widening at said interseefion du*V Ow ter nwd summer oortwuction seam; cast acem should be a serious oonsiderafion now. As the Mgter Assoc'iefion is mupwulble for on property wxcu *, we are very conscious of the number of peripheral well iftusims and must insist they be minimized. Additonal openings in the wells for go f awt croseinga r are more secxaft and st mMu mae wdh em very reel po tsl to be ass points for unwanted problems, and add sigrtffiroantty to #hey comff mitW ftbillty. The Mir Association as well as Residential Associations 1 and 2, wNch AwocWo is represertt all tha reW ntly melding in PGA Vftjt tfixough W. Chris A. Vcgg P'.E. Jura 10.1999 - Paget Twa each of ttwir owcubive Commiftes hmm adopted resolutions stating that act wass public r oaals (Madison and Airport) rub be surf** crossings for golf cam, but be by tunnel under said roads with each end of said tunnels well inWe the wells of the affected pmject. We reluctantly raise this issue as A is irrrp&tW that the planting for irter-scorn be handled in an orderly and responsible manner. We me no priwmdewtfar wV a other than by kmv*, and would ditett your sstandon to the tether golf oomrrmunities in the area, ail of which have trtirms tc,urvnei access as has PGA West in the pest Examples include the pnmwd Madison crofing at PGA WeK the c5onstructod but riot yeti used Jeffwaon crossing at the CWw Development and of Course the grade sgrra'don amseirgs fir the Dur]n Cc" as well as the: runnel crossing ,at Hwft*p Palms on Fred Waring, to name a few The concept of eurface =swings is fright mg, even at a signal, given the speed at which trait Rows on Madison and the number of future homes to the south that it will serve, the mnacamoy peneVafions of our paripheral welts and that inherent sscurity1ffiWity rtslc as v► R as the unprecedmW irrtroducbw of an accen corcept not before ubl'rzed in a Planned Rasort C muTtin}ty in our city. R is not goad planning, will cause future pmblerrrs for bath the City grid the P"DA West Community, and is not aJlc oed under City Ordinanom aocmrrg ba city staff as of February I M. We urge you to ,address tttie iswe immediately, and requires the developer to install tunnels during his road construction improvement. Thar* you for your won to Ots maW erne! your c on0nued rep asentati+on of the Citizens of La tuirva. V Tnuly Yoto ow Robes W. Foalk, Preeirdarr# PGA V" Water Assoc iniion cc: All Master Asrs=sbon Ex+e& Committee RoWdentiel 1 Board Resider" 2 Board Bill Dodds Dave Peters, Esq 4 e Audrey Ostrowsky June 15, 1999 RECEIVED Mayor Pena, and City Councilmembers: '99 JUN 15 PN 1 35 Thank you Saundra Juhola, City Clerk for your JCO�4 gbtLh qI 6jdr stating that my June 5th letter was to be put on t(HiYaajd�- June 15th. Thank goodness the mail service was excellent, as I received her letter on June 11th. Although I requested that my March 30th letter be put on the agenda, Saundra previously informed me that all letters requesting to be put on the agenda had to be approved, and my previous letter was denied. WHY? Inspite of the short notice, and the rearranging of my hectic schedule, I'm here, and again requesting that there needs to be a study meeting for the downtown commercial property owners, as their concerns and questions have not been answered. They are: 1. What is the correct area for the Phase V Improvement and Assessment District? Does it include residential land, which was on the two lists that I was given? Has the city reviewed and corrected the addresses of property owners whose letters have been returned to the city? In previous experience, the city's records were corrected by Bret with the computer, but buyers of my land were given false information. 2. What about two-way streets for the North Side of Montezuma? Has the plan I gave to the city by an international architect been reviewed? Even Mark Moran said that a one-way street would cause the value of land to go down 50%. When a potential buyer of my Montezuma land went to the City Hall, the city employee rudely replied to my buyer, "That's your problem" when he said that he wouldn't buy any commercial land with a one-way street. 3. Parking - Are we going to have new parking regulations to make the lots economically feasible, so the city doesn't have more buildings like Estado and Desert Club? As per other city's solutions, unless parking lots are supplied by the city, and or lots don't need their own parking, developers will not build in the downtown even with new streets, and sewers. 4. Has the funding of the sewers by the state been investigated as per Governor Davis's comments in the newspaper. 5. How can the downtown have successful development when the Chamber of Commerce doesn't have a list of the downtown commercial owners, and they haven't brought developers to the area? In spite of the $150,000+ yearly they receive from the -2- City and the additional money they received for new downtown plans, their new plans are the same as the economically unfeasible Art Colony which Landmark promoted for the property they didn't own. What experience do they have in developing the downtown without owners, and developers input besides only promoting Highway 111 where their members have financial interests? What right does the Chamber have to include plans by inexperienced college students whose teacher commented that they showed wild imagination? Why hasn't the City of La Quinta thru Marc Weiss promoted the downtown in their economic development plans and at the conventions the city has attended? Isn't it reasonable for people who own the property to control the designs and plans so that landowners and developers will want to build. In the past, people who haven't had any financial investment in the downtown have made the failed decisions. Let's have study meetings for the commercial owners, so that we can arrive at solutions to the problems that have prevented development in the downtown. At least a month's notice must be given to owners for the meetings, and at a day and time that is convenient for business people. Since I am rushing to get this done, I may have forgotten to discuss other problems, but these main issues must be resolved. As a person who has been begging to get streets for years, I am sorry to say that the rushing to complete the streets, and sewers without proper planning is worse than doing nothing. Remember City Council members change but owners of commercial property have their money invested for years without income because large residential developers who don't own property downtown tell the council what they want, which has proven to be a determent to the development of the downtown. In closing, I might add that when I write to the Mayor of Chicago complaining that some employees don't answer letters affecting my property, I shortly receive a reply from those employees. Why don't I receive replies to my letters from employees in La Quinta? Why does a Congressman's office have to tell me that they were forced to phone the Mayor, and ask why they haven't received a reply to their letter? J l (� WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE ITEM: 79 9 LA u f 3vaw�. S u �i� e c�' � ..& vo s�w e w4 AJ yr sa � 13a� vj4 {'Qstyha4r� I l2teGuailk Gr4(0k-r b� Veslyka-�� Ye(�-h�� .Z- IIL'plg rec i�-fP�! —� ��p�r�ilvt� � '�U CaNrVr�uf"e 7D � Sv�GeSS bT La Tiht 4 XP Q" MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 15, 1999 SUBJECT: VACANCY ON INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD Recruitment for the Investment Advisory Board will begin immediately, unless otherwise directed. INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD VACANCY Appointed: Term: Unexp. Expires: 6-30-2001 CYRILLE P. MAHFOUD Appointed: 7-01-98 74-710 Highway 111 Term: 3 Years Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 Expires: 6-30-2001 Res. 360-9592 Bus. 862-4606 TOM LEWIS Appointed: 7-01-97 P.O. Box 2956 Term: 3 Years Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 Expires: 6-30-2000 Bus. 340-3700 Res. 568-0625 DONALD J. MOULIN Appointed: 7-01-98 78-863 Via Carmel Term: 3 Years La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Expires: 6-30-2001 Res. 564-1081 JOSEPH A. IRWIN Appointed: 7-01-97 44-065 Camino La Cresta Term: 3 Years La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Expires: 6-30-2000 Res. 360-9851 LEE M. OSBORNE Appointed: 7-01-97 54-325 Avenida Ramirez Term: 3 Years La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Expires: 6-30-2000 Res. 564-4266 Bus. 347-3462 JAMES BULGRIN Appointed: 12-2-97 54-051 Southern Hills Term: 3 Years La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Expires: 6-30-2000 Res. 771-2550 Updated: 6/ 10/99 1 „ 13 FROH : COACHELLA VALLEY MOU1 ]Tr:i I HS CON PHO lE 110 76(J 776 9690 li_u CIO 10: Z=Hkl P2/2 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE ITEM: COACHELL A VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSEFW,'-\NCY State of California in pattriersi-tipto protect ourmoumain Iwritoge Via Facsimile .+till US, Mail Gooeming Board June 4, 1999 Cfry of Lorwalf citu Clip of Lescn Ha Springs Honorable hfayor John Pena CKyc-f1aQtAnta city Cj Pnbn De -'en Members of the. City Council UryOfPo"sprhW Citv of La Quinta oryofROrKA?M1100C P-U" 13ox 1504 Caxmoe's Appointee 78-4)5 CaUe Tampico state smatc Appofntcc SIatC .>,t`�anGly .�ppolnrcc La Quitlla, CA 92253 Rkersl& Camay StgxruLscv D19161't 1N [We,sidt covuySupe-L" Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Digna N A�ce Culla+tc �v+U ofG 2410110 6ulKtnE We are grateful for the past support from the City of Li Quinta to the Coachella Valley State Deportment Of Mountains Conservancy. We have recelirly been contacted by tntnnbcts of your staff regarding Pinks and kecreallon Burma of LanO MNlaacmenl T out interest In sullnlitting a tcqucst for a Conlnlunity Services Grant for Fiscal S' ear 99-00 by US, Porcs+Scrvlcc way of tlls letter, 1 would Wee to express our interest in a funding request of $5 S)00 tot the 441Q1tte Conservadan Board cotnin} }'eat. Thew funds will assist us in contintnng out efforts to secure natural open space, S1p14 iment pf Girnc scenic ateas, And recreational values, Ill Arid around the mountains, of the C-•oacbrUa VallCv- IINvffslly of coluomla Dlutsioa of Apticulaire and Nrnural Rcsr ruccs 1t 1S Cttlt nil tereSf t0 C"QntlnllL• the provision of Services agreement ItIltlated In our COlninuntl}� Services grant last year. The $5,000 funding level will assist us in continuing to provicic biological resource data to city staff and ptoject applicants within the City littllts. It will also assist us -with contirnwi; efforts to provide open space, recreation, and interpretive infornlalion ;and planning" For example, the Conscrvancyw togethet with state and fedetal %vildlife agencjcs and the Buteau of I -and lviarlagelnent, is initiating a trails platitling ptocess to Identify conflicts to ttul use in Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat. and opportunities with regard The funds provided by the City in FX 98/99 have been applied to the cicsif tl of an "ecotourism" brochure that we are currently developing, with funds Prorided by LA nuinta, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage- It may be necessary to utilize some portion of the $5,000 requested for JZY 99/00 for printing of this brochure, which would then be availablc to chambers of cormnette and other outlets. We woulcl also welcome input from City staff and councjl inelnbcrs Oil thjs ploject. Thank you for gout consideration of this request. Please let me knot' if you need additional information. Sinccrcl}', I•:aur llarru�s Associate Lhrcctol 4S-480 Portolti Ave. • Pall)) t)eSerl. C\ 92260 • 760-7 i 6-o1026 • f'dx 7 t V 'i "i 6-9698 OG-©O-`35I 1 1 : 2Ei REGE I VEI> FROM : 7CiR 771> rlh(M P . N? WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE ITEM: Audrey Ostrowsky RECEIVED 10501 Wilshire Blvd. #1409 Los Angeles, Ca. 90SS43UN 9 PM June 5, 1999 La Quinta Mayor Pena and City Council, CITY OF LA QUINTA POBOx 1504 CITY CLERK La Quinta, Ca. 92253 REF: March 3rd, and May 27th Notice of Public Nuisance letters to Imperial Irrigation and Ed Steiner Dear Mayor Pena and City Council Members: Enclosed is a copy of my June 5th letter to the Imperial Irrigation District on the removal of tree branches on their wires. Action needs to be taken before this causes a fire. Unfortunately, I had a virus which refuses to go away, so I have been unable to return to La Quinta sooner, and I have to rely on phone calls and letters to resolve this nuisance problem. It was my understanding from conversations before I left La Quinta in April, that I had completed the work that was needed to be done. Later I was told that I had to remove the green vine growing on the fence. Although it was not listed on the Notice, I planned to remove the branches on the roof of my home. In the first place, according to the Notice, "The City is concerned about preservation of natural desert growth -------- ----------------- I don't believe that the City is following its own regulations, as the work that has been done by your contractor strips the land bare, is causing blow sand throughout the cove, and lastly, makes the bare lots look awful. Years ago, when my contractor stripped the land bare on Barcelona, I was told it was wrong. Therefore, I can't understand how green trees, and shrubs are overgrown, and unsightly in appearance,is a fire hazard only on the middle of bare lots, not where there are homes. As long as these natural desert growth are growing and green, why do they have to be removed ONLY from bare lots? I have had the green plants growing along and on the fence removed under protest. Yesterday, when I parked my car in Beverly Hills and was walking to my Doctor, I noticed that trees, and shrubs are lining the fences of these properties. It is important for me to do the work that protects my property, even when the Code Enforcement doesn't deem it necessary. But I feel harassed by the city now demanding that I strip my land, even though I had previously been told that only the green vines on a neighbor's fence had to be removed. Opm For years, Landmark, or who ever owns acres east of Desert Club never cleared their dried weeds, which has caused the tumble weeds that blows on my bare property. Nor has Lauren Louis had to clear his downtown commercial property while I have, but after all he is in a different category and was allowed to use a lot for parking for Bank of the Desert employee's cars, because he was illegally able to build his bank without the necessary parking requirement. Now VIB Bank is still allowed to park there, while I was not allowed to rent my land to Mrs. Miele for her parking needs so she could enlarge her building, which caused her building to go into foreclosure. As I have a large investment in my properties, I do want to do whatever I can to protect it, but the stripping of bare land in the Cove looks bad, and the blow sand is to the determent of the people who are living there. Could the removal of broken cars, and loose dogs be a priority for the city, so that land, and houses in the Cove don't continue to go down in prices from years ago in spite of the roads, and sewers? Maybe the newspapers should be informed that part of La Quinta is lowering not rising in prices as the other areas of the city, so my friends don't think that I've mode a fortune on my land. I have just reviewed some papers from the Council Meetings, and despite the comments from the Councilwoman, the Downtown Commercial Property owners have not been treated fairly, as why has the City and the Chamber of Commerce spent money advertising only Highway 111, including their trips to Las Vegas Conventions, while no promotion is done for the Downtown. Regarding the May 11th letter from Congressman Waxman to Mayor Pena, why hasn't the City had the courtesy to answer it? Would appreciate the same for my letters to the City Employees. Although, I may differ on many issues, I believe that the City should teach their employees to conduct themselves fairly, and not allow personal vendettas to interfere with their work. As I told the City Manager, I felt it unprofessional for Tom Hartung to telephone me, and rudely say, "Why don't you try to get along with the city, and allow the Arts Foundation to park on your land." I don't believe employees of the city should. try to get even with me. This must stop! As I have been told, there have been many untrue things said about me, but when these rumors were checked, they were false. Honestly is important in my in my differences, the city speak up, and write letters woman have been abused in La return to La Quinta, we can Since eQl�y Audrey 0 trowsky Encl: \J family, and while I may be outspoken has created this by forcing me to to protect my investment because Quinta. Hopefully, when I soon work to resolve our differences. 7. , 1 3 io I --.cri a t 4 ,-)C! ;-,i S L I,: � C :L P03ox 937 Lliperial, C7a. 92251-0937 "'Yaneral -'ianag,�r: on 13t) i i-;I-J--,- D'i it i, n -nlcas.2 Lqac t7l-,-, � ..L1 L.1,141 -, V'jl I � � , I I �, Ostro%vskz rC.C:1-La-Quinta City Council Audrey Ostrowsky RECEIVED 10501 Wilshire Blvd. #1409 Los Angeles, Ca. 90024 '99 M4 9 flM 1133 June 5, 1999 CITY OF LA QUIWTA City of La Quinta CITY CLERK ATT: Saundra L Juhola, City Clerk Dear Saundra: Enclosed is a letter to the City Council. I would appreciate it if you would make a separate copy for each Councilperson. Also, I would like to have the letter put on the City Council Agenda so that there could be discussion on it. Please let me know the date of the Council meeting when it will be on the agenda. Sincerely, A re wsky P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 June 10, 1999 Audrey Ostrowsky 10501 Wilshire Boulevard #1409 Los Angeles, California 90024 Dear Audrey: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 (TDD) (760) 777-1227 I am in receipt of your letter to the City Council dated June 5, 1999. It will be placed on the June 15, 1999 Council Agenda. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. SinWrely, $AUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California E're r f tea, �r CF'y OF COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: JUNE 15, 1999 ITEM TITLE: Demand Register Dated June 15, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Demand Register Dated June 15, 1999 BACKGROUND: Prepaid Warrants: 37230 - 37233 } 37234 - 37244} 37245 - 37267} 37268-37272,' 37273 - 37275} Wire Transfers} P/R 3124 - 3200 P/R Tax Transfers,' Payable Warrants. 37276-37410 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS. - Demand of Cash -City .loi n M Falconer, Finance Director 1,628.00 52,162.26 11,831.83 18,359.41 384.00 22,040.62 87,319,81 23,523.69 1,007,630.78 $1,224,880.40 $1,196,297.24 CITY DEMANDS RDA DEMANDS AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION CONSENT CALENDAR STUDY SESSION i PUBLIC HEARING $1,196,297.24 28,583.16 $1,224,880A0 A . - 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK TRANSACTIONS 5/22/99 - 6/9/99 5/27/99 WIRE TRANSFER - DEFERRED COMP 5/27/99 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS $5,563.49 $16,477.13 TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS OUT $22,040.62 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CITY OF LA QUINTA CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE CHECK REGISTER BANK ID: DEF VENDOR NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 37276 06/09/99 &00786 COLLEEN DULLECK 37277 06/09/99 &00787 LINA LALANI 37278 06/09/99 &00788 ROOF TILE SPECIALTY 37279 06/09/99 &00789 JAIME WILLIAMSON 37280 06/09/99 &00790 BARBARA WOLLAN 37281 06/09/99 &00791 MARILYN RAGGHIANTI 37282 06/09/99 &00792 FEDDERLY & ASSOC 37283 06/09/99 &00793 G H POOL CONSTRUCTION 37284 06/09/99 &00794 STARLIGHT ESTATES INC 37285 06/09/99 AIR001 A-1 RENTS 37286 06/09/99 ABLO01 ABLE RIBBON TECH 37287 06/09/99 ACE010 ACE HARDWARE 37288 06/09/99 AD0010 DON ADOLPH 37289 06/09/99 ADV050 ADVANCED INSTALLATIONS 37290 06/09/99 ALB005 ALBERTSONS FOOD CENTER 37291 06/09/99 AME200 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS 37292 06/09/99 ARRO10 ARROW PRINTING COMPANY 37293 06/09/99 ASCO01 A & S COFFEE SERVICE 37294 06/09/99 ATT030 AT&T WIRELESS LONG-DIST 37295 06/09/99 ATT100 AT&T WIRELESS SVC 37296 06/09/99 AUT030 AUTOMATED TELECOM 37297 06/09/99 BAR050 RENEE BARIBEAU 37298 06/09/99 BEI050 R BEIN, W FROST & ASSOC 37299 ** AP CHECK RUN VOID ** 37300 06/09/99 BER150 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC 37301 06/09/99 BUR090 BURNS INT'L SECURITY SVCS 37302 06/09/99 CAD010 CADET UNIFORM SUPPLY 37303 06/09/99 CAL275 CAL -WESTERN FOODSERVICE 37304 06/09/99 CAP050 ROSMARY CAPUTO 37305 06/09/99 CAR100 CARDINAL PROMOTIONS 37306 06/09/99 CAT100 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL 37307 06/09/99 COA030 COACHELLA VALLEY INSURANC 37308 06/09/99 COA080 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 37309 06/09/99 COM015 COMPUTER U LEARNING CENTR 37310 06/09/99 COM040 COMMERCIAL LIGHTING IND 37311 06/09/99 COS050 COSTCO BUSINESS DELIVERY 37312 06/09/99 COU010 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC 37313 06/09/99 CVA010 C V A G 37314 06/09/99 DES015 DESERT CASH REGISTER 37315 06/09/99 DES060 DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CO 37316 06/09/99 DES061 DESERT SUN COMMUNITY 37317 06/09/99 DES065 DESERT TEMPS INC 37318 06/09/99 DIE020 D HERNANDEZ DBA DIEGO'S 37319 06/09/99 DMG100 DMG MAXIMUS 37320 06/09/99 DOU010 DOUBLE PRINTS 1 HR PHOTO 37321 06/09/99 DRE050 DREAM ENGINEERING INC 37322 06/09/99 EAG100 EAGLE/HOUSEHOLD BANK FSB 2:iiPM Ueiuyi,� PAGE 1 PAYMENT AMOUNT 12.00 35.00 5.00 467.50 299.83 65.00 1700.00 266.88 180.00 426.69 68.90 679.23 685.27 144.00 11.97 95.56 6144.72 172.00 1.30 785.42 215.37 105.00 16646.61 6276.00 120.00 550.58 92.85 112.00 78.75 142958.60 188.00 131.35 637.50 499.43 916.84 475.00 1680.45 119.26 270.88 2795.00 1120.00 750.00 2522.93 23.46 6.10 38.49 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER 2:11PM Ub/U7i� CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 2 CHECK CHECK VENDOR PAYMENT NUMBER DATE NO. NAME AMOUNT 37323 06/09/99 ECO100 ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCT 499.64 37324 06/09/99 FED010 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 292.25 37325 06/09/99 GAR005 GARNER IMPLEMENT CO 227.82 37326 06/09/99 GTE010 GTE CALIFORNIA 3319.88 37327 06/09/99 HEN050 TERRY HENDERSON 260.00 37328 06/09/99 HER050 RACHEL HERMANSON 10.00 37329 06/09/99 HER075 RUDY HERNANDEZ DBA FIRE 338.36 37330 06/09/99 HIC100 JERRY HICKS 84.00 37331 06/09/99 HIG010 HIGH TECH IRRIGATION INC 139.03 37332 06/09/99 HIL150 HILTON FARNKOPF & 9103.01 37333 06/09/99 HOA010 HUGH HOARD INC 5749.00 37334 06/09/99 HOL030 HOLMES & NARVER INC 14169.95 37335 06/09/99 HOM030 HOME DEPOT 69.87 37336 ** AP CHECK RUN VOID ** 37337 06/09/99 HON050 DAWN C HONEYWELL 15519.99 37338 06/09/99 H00050 FAYE HOOPER 100.00 37339 06/09/99 IMPO10 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 4003.00 37340 06/09/99 IND030 INDIO SHOE STORE INC 188.56 37341 06/09/99 JET100 JET CORP 734.12 37342 ** AP CHECK RUN VOID ** 37343 06/09/99 JPRO10 JP REPROGRAPHICS 6452.54 37344 06/09/99 KEL010 KELLY SERVICES INC 1474.96 37345 06/09/99 KOR050 KORVE ENGINEERING, INC 174101.74 37346 06/09/99 KRI100 KRIBBS CONSTRUCTION 1341.00 37347 06/09/99 L00010 LOCK SHOP INC 103.44 37348 06/09/99 LOP050 RAY LOPEZ ASSOCIATES 4368.57 37349 06/09/99 LOS050 LOS ANGELES TIMES 33.12 37350 06/09/99 LRP100 L & R PRECISION CONT INC 2500.00 37351 06/09/99 LUC050 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 625.47 37352 06/09/99 LUM100 LUMPY'S DISCOUNT GOLF 391.14 37353 06/09/99 LUN050 LUNDEEN PACIFIC CORP 35144.28 37354 06/09/99 MAC010 MACKENZIE, WAGNER & ASSOC 5800.00 37355 06/09/99 MAR010 MARTIN & CHAPMAN CO 373.51 37356 06/09/99 MCK010 MCKESSON WATER PRODUCTS 269.00 37357 06/09/99 MIR010 MIRASOFT INC 2000.00 37358 06/09/99 MIT200 MITY-LITE INC 283.82 37359 06/09/99 MMA050 MMASC 80.00 37360 06/09/99 MUN010 MUNI FINANCIAL SERV INC 3113.00 37361 06/09/99 NAW010 RON NAWROCKI 1.125.00 37362 06/09/99 NET100 NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 35.00 37363 06/09/99 OFF005 OFFICE DEPOT INC 107.74 37364 06/09/99 OLI100 OLINN MESSAGE CENTER 76.59 37365 06/09/99 OUT100 OUTDOOR SERVICES INC 100.00 37366 06/09/99 PAG100 PAGING NETWORK SAN DIEGO 26.67 37367 06/09/99 PIT010 PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORP 616.10 37368 06/09/99 PR1020 THE PRINTING PLACE 1170.17 37369 06/09/99 PROO10 PROTECTON SERVICE IND 248.04 37370 06/09/99 RAL050 RALPHS GROCERY CO 315.00 37371 06/09/99 RAN040 RANDAL'S PLUMBING 257.07 0 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER 2:11PM Ob/u7/y:- CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 3 CHECK CHECK VENDOR PAYMENT NUMBER DATE NO. NAME AMOUNT 37372 06/09/99 RAS020 RASA - ERIC NELSON 1570.00 37373 06/09/99 RECO20 RECY-CAL SUPPLY CO 370.36 37374 06/09/99 RIV020 RIV CNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLR 468.00 37375 06/09/99 RIV083 RIV CNTY INFORMATION 540.00 37376 06/09/99 RIV100 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFFS 438200.08 37377 06/09/99 RIV130 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPPLY 121.50 37378 06/09/99 ROS010 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP 13192.43 37379 ** AP CHECK RUN VOID ** 37380 06/09/99 RUT050 RUTAN & TUCKER 10137.06 37381 06/09/99 SAX100 SAXON ENGINEERING SERVICE 5915.00 37382 06/09/99 SHAO05 SHADE STRUCTURES 50.00 37383 06/09/99 SHAO10 SHADOW PALMS GARDENING 150.00 37384 06/09/99 SIE020 SIERRA DIGITAL INC 1000.00 37385 06/09/99 SIM025 SIMON MOTORS INC 133.11 37386 06/09/99 SKI050 SKILLPATH SEMINARS 27.91 37387 06/09/99 SMA010 SMART & FINAL 424.20 37388 06/09/99 SMI010 MARILYN SMITH 26.59 37389 06/09/99 SM0010 DONNALDA SMOLENS 100.00 37390 06/09/99 SOCO10 THE SOCO GROUP INC 24.24 37391 06/09/99 SOU007 SOUTHWEST NETWORKS, INC 4733.35 37392 06/09/99 SOU010 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CO 272.63 37393 06/09/99 SPE010 STEVE SPEER 28.80 37394 06/09/99 SPRO10 SPRINT 825.26 37395 06/09/99 STA045 STAN'S AUTO TECH 53.32 37396 06/09/99 STA050 STAPLES 762.18 37397 06/09/99 TKDO10 T.K.D. ASSOCIATES INC 5549.75 37398 06/09/99 TOP010 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 107.00 37399 06/09/99 TRI010 TRI LAKE CONSULTANTS INC 24171.00 37400 06/09/99 USF100 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION 59.70 37401 06/09/99 USO100 US OFFICE PRODUCTS 103.84 37402 06/09/99 USPO10 U S POSTMASTER 100.00 37403 06/09/99 VID050 VIDEO DEPOT 11.25 37404 06/09/99 VON010 VON'S C/O SAFEWAY INC 4.99 37405 06/09/99 WAL010 WAL MART STORES INC 410.97 37406 06/09/99 WES020 WEST GROUP 121.76 37407 06/09/99 WIL010 WILLDAN ASSOCIATED 3192.37 37408 06/09/99 WIS020 WISE MAINTENANCE & CONST 800.00 37409 06/09/99 XER010 XEROX CORPORATION 4358.96 37410 06/09/99 YOU100 YOUNG ENGINEERING SERVICE 595.00 CHECK TOTAL 1,007,630.78 5 .� N r'1 d' ltl In rl r ri N t'1 d' �fl lD N m of Ei z 0 'Ow oID .TJ n� n, o H 0 O F 0 F 0 O F 0 F 0 O F 0 H 0 H 0 F 0 F 0 F 0 F 0 F 0 H 0 F o p o o n o o m o 0 0 0 o v zry in ifl � O Ol ID aO a sry, O oIDm N N N o o m o 0 IL ry a 0 O rn �p o O w U W U W UU W w �D U ID W ❑ o m U z ❑ U H a In z Hoo ci z a a d a ❑ F ❑❑ z a z d ❑ F a s d m o CD a z d H f d a U d w a w a w a w a w� w F a H prn p Z ) w�Uoi Fa❑ W(Z i�❑'i f0❑i a Mm W WO a H❑ F ON O Ua CLI Eff aa wwwwmO OppE+ 0 a 0 > 0.Fai ov] W O O o ❑ W W O 0 c w 0 W 0 W 0 W Z W ❑ ❑ z [+1 w ❑ izi w w> a> 14 w> a w o w> o w> a Ww > w> a wW z w a a a z n a o cz z] d' � � o 0 0 0 r o m H❑ z m � rn �n rn m rn m rn v rn a� rn rn m m d' d' ❑ H a a w z d w w w a 0 O Z ID 2 p p 0 o O O o O O O O O O CD O U O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o v O O O O O O z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z o u z H Fi El Fi El El U E U U] u O O In H H a H H i d m w a n z O z O z O z O z O W w H o W - w ` F+ a ' a 3 � Z w > a u a O u a O u a 00 u a 00 u a O x O E' H W a w .] a Z � z H a w W a w w tr a w j [ d ❑ O p-, C7 u u V C7 V7 Z U p or) o O C, o o O o O O O O O O O O O O O o O IZ f) O N 2 m rn rn 0 � N x n r n r r O W EF O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O O o O O 0 O O o O O O o 0 U O O H El El F, E, E, F, E, El �L C2 m H H H N H H p H H N H H N F H N H F H F H H m O n ,Il 1D �D N V' rn m i0 N O rn N O [y z ID M m lD lP r I O d' m ID �n `S r O a a l0 a w z a, t o � Z a a F z E H H H F El x o F a z a z o N m o F 0 N z o F e o o ff 0 F 0 u H z w w a w a cc o a x o �n w w m w w m w w w m w cn w m w cn w w w 0 w x o t7 m 0 w 0 w 0 0 a ❑ w❑ ti ti ti ti ti❑ a❑ z❑ ❑ as r, w z w w w a, a, a a, a P, a a, a a, w a, w P. Z w W 2 ti 2 .7 Z z [i W 5 > H > w CL R+ GL P. CL w P. w a. a , CL > S > w '> £ U] 0 0, w a W a W m rn o N a❑❑ 0 In V] M m M F Ul a U] 5❑ M M G F w 5 U] i 5 U1 PA w u w ❑ a v ri i, m m Q1 rn O n N m rn Cif N d iP T r 0 O 0 O 0 N N O O rn a 01 ,fl �fl O H ❑ Z `? -s -T -+ m o 1D �n l0 in iD �f, lD uJ iD �n �0 ,n l0 lP l0 lP 'D m cn m m rn + x z w t w w a 0 F c� o o 10 o, r I n r r- o w (p O O O O o O �D ID V lD N m CD W I m cT m m w m M w m N m m w O O O O O O O r1 l0 LP 0 O z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O <1' H 10 0 O O in in ul in in ,(1 ,n O O O O ,n 0 ifs. ift U c.) U z (? G w N z U U > > cn cn c a u o � V a a ❑ o 0 W w a H H g r z z a x m w w W N 11) In m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 w z ❑ ❑ w z z a �a �d a s o w a s a`,, < o a N w u w u w u w u w u w w u u w u w u w u w u w u z o m n z a d d ¢ ¢ FC FC ti <L 6 ❑ �t El O > o 0 0 0 - 0 I 0 0 I 0 N 0 — 0 I 0 M 0 0 0 O Y U E, a O C4 O O [G a Pj O W U O W U O W U O w U O W U O O w w U U O w U O w U O w U O W U O w U O O O N N Oz I-1 N m m r'1 V ifl m r m O� O� O rl 0 rn rn H O� G o W < f: a a a H FC Cp o iD F 0 El H 0 10 F 0 tD H 0 El F 0 F p 0 H H 0 F p 0 tD F 0 F 0 El H 0 tD F 0 El F 0 El H 0 El F 0 lD H 0 m H 0 El F 0 m H 0 iD H N fEg1,El L N H V m N ID .'t m O In O r � m r O O O r1 1p D` O o O o O m O N N N a H r m O m z W FL a: Z d z x O U a qW E, H O u2 w Ile, Fa a a Elz H O O 0 w 0 o x w z O x W O 0 x w z O x w z O x w a z �d O F x a FC E+ o a o RC u F w w W a o x p U w .a w o o w w a z H a a a m F a H m a z a x s a a a, a a a a s a a, a o❑ u > x n O ❑ m a U O a❑ w h z w h z❑ a O C4 u u �`L u a Y, u a d4 u a P4 u w P4 u z a° U f] m e wp o V] '- `w aO w W w o .'i o z J z w a w > o a a O a a 5 a m z a w a z w w 0> a z H w u> > C_'1 H C� H z w � z Z 7 z z z If) •`j n u u wwWwww u uuuuu a H W ❑❑ W waa a a a a w w u W p 7 ty p > z ti R: m Rl I-.� _ in O vt O �fl m o .� N O� m I rt 1D O m I rt O iD in m r to rt 1D m r I ^t \D rn o In ri O � vi O rl O r'1 O O N Ol H vl .-1 lD H ❑ H :4 C Z a < w m m W U 0 O O w F o o o o N N N r r r r r r a W o O 0 m 0 lD o �O o m o I m vt ID vt m vt m ui m m N N vt LLl N in z F ,n n o M o u� n n m u, m m n m N n ID o 0 0 o 0 ID o o lo 0 o 1D 0 o In o 0 ID o o lo O V � � O O O O O O O O O z ti El U cl U 00 6 U Vj z H Z H z H uuu z H H z H O o Eliai o U Pi O U > mO z u > m U > o U > V] U > m U > m U > m i O u w El 'a El o H u o H u H H H z H Z H W W Ul W Ul Ul m m Ul n m m Ul ul O vl a W < W O x O z w x w x w x w x w x w x E Z F Z w w w w w w w W w W w w w W w W F ❑ m a w 3 w 3 w E+ a z < a w O w O u rn F a F a F a F a H a F a H gp N m Z rQ cQ a Rt "I¢ , a O p H El F ¢ H < H H o W w W w O a U H o 0 H O 0 rt 0 O 0 O o o o O o O 0 0 6 o ad W 0 H W W 0 H W Q7 o a W V7 0 a W W 0 x W R7 0 a W CA o a W U] 0 v a W W 8 2 rW>; l01-1rN QJ1-1N - o ^1 M M N MM d' t�l �l 1 �D r M M OJ -1 o d' •-+ -- rJ (P O ri N I d' I l0 I r-i d' I rn o, H O z r�l V N .-1 rl 1' d' V •S N N N a` 0 r o w _ C7 � a a p H FZ cA o P H 0 H 0 O H H H 0 F0 H 0 P H 0 H P o EO H 0 1p F 0 E0 F 0 P H 0 l0 H 0 1O F 0 P H 0 i0 F 0 EO H 0 El H m 0 F0 H H 0 FD H 0 F p 0 p H 0 p H 0 H p M 0 iD H M 0 ip H 0 E0 F 0 F p m 0 H p m m 0 0 El lD F F .� F z�7 <' El z 0 o .A 0 0 1D 0 0 CJ 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 O 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N o 0 N c 0 Q o 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 1D 0 0 N 0 0 ifl 0 0 1p 0 0 1 0 o O 0 rn 0 o v lD rn 1 N r ifl rn m in d' o rn d' 0 0 o 0 O O 5 Z I) w m m O N O O ti 0 x a W H a <<¢ a 0+ a H H m Q H❑❑❑❑ rn 0 W a 0 x a 0 x a 0�, x a a a r H z X F d m W U o W r W H WIq H > FC a � a , O O H O O ❑ Z O FC O ,� [4 H W E+ W U O H w U rn Z a 5 U w U w V w W w R'i w cU a R7 a W a m a z H a z H Oo E m Z O [+ O > H [4 .4 U A4 U t4 U J4 U x U :4 U x U u U u U U � u p4 u J4 u C4 U x U a4 U O H ❑ H O ❑ £ fk �' H CJ In W ❑ z 4 a z Ft 1a Z 4 a z ti a Z FC a Z a a Z 6 a Z 4 a Z. 2 a Z FC .-a Z 4 a z 5C s z S .-a Z a a z s a Z FC a" z <¢> z a Z a W W u> W Z W O w H z O W H z O W z O W H z O w z O W H z O w H Z O w H z O w z O 0 W w H H z z U) w w a a a a a W a a a a a a a a a a a a z n 5 7 n n O O �D O U W H ❑ o z Z H ❑ Z z H K w R7 O H O O N O O H O N a M Q to O in N rJ d' d� of o H a; z P, 'C W .� O N M M lD M M d' �1' M M M M M r1 M W m a c0 w H o 0 O O O o O O 0 0 O W W W zo ul in �n ifl to ul rn U` m �n O� in rn in to ift ul ul ul I ut in ift 1 In M Q m O r O r 0 O r 0 O r O O r 0 O r O O r O O r 0 O r 0 0 O O r r �. H Z 0 In N 0 0 In o 0 In 0 0 �o N 0 io 0 `o N 0 �o N 0 io 0 0 �o o 0 lo N 0 0 10 0 0 �o N 0 0 io N 0 0 � 0 0 �o N 0 0 10 N 0 0 ID N 0 �o N �r o � io �o M H � V iHo Q r r 5 o U in u� �fl in �n ifl �n in O n In�n U Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O O O H O O H O O H O O CJ V U CJ U U) U > U Z Z U Z U Z V Z U Z U Z U Z U Z U Z U Z U Z U Z U Z U7 H a a a a a a a a a a a C 0 CD O 0 C7 u u C7 u a C7 V O O z w W w n a a a W a O a O a Z a O w u w w O 5 Ul FC H x H x H 5 H H 5 H H x H x H H x' H H H H H H H H U m m 0 m m w m w m w w 0 � a. •n x 5 5 S 5 x T x x x x a 0 0 0 0 O W 0 0 0 0 O O 0 w Iq w .z, �a �a w w �a w w w w �a w w w F >+ a o N 22N•• :+ N :� �• �d '.�+ N >+ N N N ?+ >+ >+ N >+ >+ cn H EH H H H H H H H H E+ a m w w w w w w w w m w w w w w w w m ua u a U ❑r u a u a¢ u u u a u a u 9a u u z 0 WF'z > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 Y� o H u ,r u �n a; W w �n a w m a w m r+ a W m a W m x w m a W m a W w �n H r4 W w ti rx W ca a W w �n a W w �n ci W m a w m rz W w in .-� c4 W w rz W w a W w o a 5 w 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 u H 0 u 0 u 0 u H 0 u 0 0 u u In V �D IN IN In In � O z rn m rn 0 1D o w 5 U El0 m o rl 0 0 0 rl 0 r't 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 m 0 m 0 t1 0 N 0 1 0 0 0 V' RC El E D ID 10 ID lD lD tD iD lD 10 lD lD ED �D E E H E H H H H F H E F E H H F a a N O in O u1 O rn O O rn 1D O ti E uNi Z H �+ 0 a D C N a N O m ul m p O in r O lD O O in r+t O �n r't d' rn rn In rn c9 z a o r in a rn (� o m D t d z w w v z z z z m < 4 w 0 m z z z El a El E El o Q; 4 O a H Vl vl vl 4 a H w 4 ElH aa a sa a N O U E El O a ElO N O H m m m U H u w n a w m a 0 0 0 a s a a a cn � m o- 0 0 u 0 0 a a a o 0 0 0 a o u o o w w w > m o 0 o w w w Q z z n u u o o Q m n z u o z z z u z z z w z o w a z Elw z w a a a a a a m w w z w rn w > a w > w o > o > _o w r > wcl w rn O z m w w r r r V w a O O N N N w 01 0) 0) Cl) W rn Q,, r rn rn rn N N N j H c Grp �p iD .-1 l[1 O I N 1 N N Z r G N O O rn N N N ❑ -r ti ra �D m m m .n r m m m 2 7 a a m w m a o0 w H a O O N O m r r N N r O O w o o o r `0 rn r 0 o m m o m o w o o �n In o �D `D In �, 5 m rn rn m m m m rn rn n M .� y N O O O O 'D �D �D 'D r ID m lD V d' iD ID iD r r r r E z N O O O O IN 5 1, O O O m m m O O in O lD O 0 ID 10 V ti ti ti Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O lz H 5 5 a w s w W u z a a as H a p¢ cv � H a s n a 3 3 Z H O O O 0 W m 0 H H H O w w w w w w w m Ul U1 a vI _ O O O H O fa O r 0 w w W a 5 O m m m C i RC 7 a z z z 0 z a a w w w >> >>1. w a ¢ a a a a z v m m w H a z z w Elm u m w Fc a fc 1-1a lic a s s a w 0 w w ca CQ � cn > o a z a s 00 0 0 a< 0 �a H Ela s a< cn vH In am �a o x F4 a 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 v u u a u u u u u u u u u u u u u z 0 Wz > o Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in 0 0 0 0 a .-i r 0 0 o M 1 m m I - O U pOp,� [r, + -El O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IHi rC u u u O u 6 u 4 u 6 u O u O u O u O u u u u u u o m rn rn H n z 0 ioU o w 0 a a. m H m m o H 0 F 0 E,� H 0 H 0 H 0 F 0 F 0 El El 0 � H o F 0 F 0 P F 0 � H 0 H 0 H 0 El H 0 El F 0 El F N El z r H ,n n O p in O p o O N O) m N O m O �n O O O O O ,n O in O in o in N r Eq �, m d' N rn 10 O N N N U1 N N N W cf' m ip O O \ i[1 O 1D rn W O O ifl O O O O O rl N � rn Z N O N O lD O O O O N N 7 EE z O a H ID a [L H a F Z H m a H .0 F H a a; O V. F m a O O a m Et 0 H o O d' .� O o O d' N O d' rn El F m H W O H O O OF ID F ,� H H O a O w F O Z O a F a 4 4 .4 O F r iD p IUi W m V] w m O u `' ai cNc�� O rC zo O a a w O ,qq a 2 O H m a H O U H U r a. O Z r \ Z r Z r \ Z r \ Z W a W O a O O z w u a a z w rU+ z q z U z u W .� z po> a z z u u z u z m H w a 5> > �+ > H w> oU) O z Eu) O O Hu O O Eu--�� O > 0 m m m E, H m H z m a t u u a a a a a H w U W �D iD r O z z W rn rn � o m u� H o r o m r 0 m a w � m w m a c0 w F w O O O m O O 0 O 0 O v to O O O O O �n O to in iO lD lD i0 �D O ID O 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID z o r 0 r 0 ID o lD 0 ID 0 r w �D o ID 0 ID �t"t � lD w O o lD ID Z U 1p H H H H H O O O 0 O >> > U c, U 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 O x s u u a z z w w w w w w a n o z z H w m m cn z o 0 0 0 o z n n EHP 0 o 0 0 0 o m z z H a, w u m m m F 2 5 k7 � w W la W O W C] W q W O [G 7 7 m m 7G O U m m U) H H z y v W q U U O U _ U F "n H.W H F El E+ H -7 CG E, H Z Z W W W W W m W m 5 5 x x O C, < m O Z U)m ) u O u o (D U O U > U m m o m C] m O 0 O n o m c) m zU > O o o ,.a 0 H O H ift O ID o 10 1D ,n lD if1 1D O N O N o N O N o N 0 O 0 o O U H H O �^ O U) O O > O O a O O .,C O m W O m W O m W O m W O U) W O U) W O W H O W H O W H O W H O W H !7 O O 2 U U U U U U 2 w O O n C] O O Cl O C] C rn rn a: m Ems+ E. F H a � a Z N c 2 a w Z s ti M v] W ❑ JD � a Eo-� O 7 O • W El O ❑ O 1� CZ p El w > W Q' 7 m a E' W O H p a z w > :D T 0 Qi �C iE+ z OwOa U ° z > d N n N 1�1 p ❑ z O 7 w a w a m r N w w aW'�o a Z > > s u >> W �7 x 5 w a,w O❑ o � c7 (L W 5 w W 2 a m m rn o >O❑a w z 5 o O 1 Jp a N ° w 0 o � 8 ['� z J H o O O ww s ° n a w i ID m m U n El m OZ E z ° w p w z ~ w mxU FC W ❑ w U ❑ w Q ❑ :� V �D u� m rn rn 10 d' iO �p o rn o r 10d' iO o m m rn� 10 m 10 r 10r-� m ID x a a m w Q O 0 0 w c� O m8 O o o M D �0 O O O O o O O o O O 'D o O m O o z F' o D 'D � ro r' '� to io `�' o � n � 10 � u o o o IDr r O N E-� Q7 DI w 2 o u U Fc z o a O F f-a u q H pi z w a q ❑ w w a w a W e a o a � W ID ° w a n w a w W C, �, O W w a � w � ,n 8� rL O w a °��. a ,n a 8a ? u o o a a w w F H u o 0 w W F F O C7 za w a w E� u 0 W F -� zd o a w U 0 W F C� �d 0 a w El 0 0 W F CD zw 0 a w El UE, 0 41 F C z w pi 0 z W m In W c' 0 W w a 5 ❑ a �n r W m x r o o m C:. rn m O z m 13 CD U' � <C a a U F Q w n 0 lD H CD 0 JD F m 0 10 El m 0 lD H 0 0 10 F r1 0 lD F m 0 �D F to 0 ID H .-J 0 �D H ti 0 ED ti 0 iD F 10 ID H 0 1D H 0 iD F 0 o H 0 lD F 0 �D H 0 iD F 0 Jo F 0 iD F 0 iD F 0 iD H N ti F p rn rn V N d' r l0 ti r') r'1 N lD lD /'1 N d' N rl rn r-1 O O �O l0 r'1 m N �(1 V t1 rn d' aa � p 0 0 r•1 ifl 0 o o in m N r m � v D� z 0 z 0 rn rn ❑ w 0 rn U d a U H s >1 rn z El p 2 H H El El a < E a H 0 a F a m m z . z E,o F o 1 z 0 0 z z z a z W a z a z W a z a z W a z a z w 0 a z 0 a o u fn a w o H o a z z a o n ❑ w❑ a a o w c� z❑ x a m o w ��❑ w a m w w a w o z w z w z w w z w w z w w z w w z w w¢ z w z z c¢ p H a¢ H p v) w w w > ❑ o a V a> O v) rn W < rn> PQ w <, O > m> FC a b s D a V a C9 I a 0 a C9 Iq a 0 a u a C9 a C9 a C9 a U a C9 a CJ a U' a U u w O❑ J H ❑ ❑ 9 H a w Rl z° m �n in r_ D � n .� O rn m N O ar r r N r-) o 0) O ID rn X rn rn rn rn rn a rn m rn rn a rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn wa rn rn °i rn rn rn rn o+ rn wa rn m �x z a � m w R a o0 w H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^1 �fl �Il rl ttl r l0 10 r iD N O 1D O O tD O O �D O ri O l0 G rl O �D O 0 O lD O O 0 iD O 0 O ID O 0 O l0 O 0 O �D O ti O iD O 0 O lD O 0 O ID O N O lD U G p �n ul in ifl 0 O Q 0 � �'f O �D .-I O O 0 0 O � O � r ,y ,y �i ,� 'y �} ti .1 rl 0 O d' 0 •S � �-Y N �'I' N C N r d' N 0 ti 0 cl' O V N N N N U z z O U z z O V 2 O p (� a H a H a F ti a a w O u z a a a a z w w 0 W 0 W `o w 0 W 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 a z ¢1 ,, Na a �C 0 u w H CD U w H. 0 w 0 a w 0 s t O x 0 w w a W ❑ s W ❑ x u 3 x u 3 x u x u � x u 3 x u 3 x u 3 x u 3 x u 3 x u 3 x u 3 x v 3 x u 3 x u 3 a � ❑ z 5 x x 5 x x 0 x 00 x x s ❑ a¢ ❑ ❑ o ❑ a ❑ a¢ ❑ c� ❑ ❑ a o a ❑ a ❑ a ❑ o O U E+ S V 0 0 x 0 O x 0 a x 0 ifl .a x 0 .-1 O < O x 0 t1 O a O x 0 !'1 O i O x 0 r'1 O i O x 0 N O z O x 0 Ifl 0 z O x 0 I O z O x 0 if1 O z O x 0 � O z O x 0 Ifl O z O x 0 O z 0 x 0 0 z O x 0 0 z O x 0 0 z O x 0 0 z O x 0 0 z O x 0 0 z O x 0 0 z 0 x a, a, F O z 0 � m 0 w U E C n. w rJ x C) FJ m CQ H o LD F H 0 1D H 0 0 10 H H 0 H H H 0 El N 0 0 El H 0 0 1p H 0 0 1p H 0 iD F 0 0 10 H m 0 El H m 0 H P T 0 ID H m 0 H F M 0 lD F 0 H p 0 � F H 0 F H 0 p H T 0 1D F m 0 LD H 0 0 l0 N T 0 0 F m o F H �+ O 0 N o O in m in ifl o N 0 O O o m N f� o 10 H m m N o ri in t'1 in D1 r Ifl rn N lD 1fl o t'1 M1 ifl D\ m O 0 O O O D m m N d W O H < z O m - U z H m Q❑ O U Z H cn O I m U E-H O H U; H H O H UUUUUUUUEI >>> to v7 cl� cn > u1 J>> vl V� U� O T [m H O FF H r off H O z a i U w w lcc �C a u 3 00 a 30 a o u x U ❑ a z aa x O ❑ z u H % H u H m EJ u ,-, m EJ u a EE u � H u .� m FF u a H u H m H x m O p �- z EF a �J z 0 z H z w � S c� z H F� Z W U FC H a bJ z W m H�+ w m m w H ", w H m m m El> w m n w ¢. H m W C) ra u a rl c7 a a U a a c� a .-7 i� a W E J z H W > U W a w u W a w U W s w U W a w U W a w U W a w u W .] w U W a w w W J c., m W > H m w H m O w H m a m o a > ❑ H m PJ O u W O u ❑ H m ❑ H w 0 w O c ua rn rn rn rn o, rn o N N 0 H 00 H N r d' o o r'1 o o n r 1D N at N O ri m ri D\ ri H m O in - r H H p 4 z 4 6 4 2 d > H m m T O O O O 1D d' V 1D 1p < z a, ¢ m w w a C o o w H O O O O O O �Il O 0 O 0 �'1 Ifl W Z N O O O O O O O N O O O r T N O ID N 1D T N - �n O - ui O - in m O In in Q1 O N m O O R O O d' O O r'1 d' O �]' ul Q, O O M1 V O nl O to Ol O O 7 O U U lD O .-J .J lD O H .� lD 10 O 1D N ,D I - N 1D .-1 O H •-1 10 N O N .-i �D r'1 O 01 N 10 d' itt v H lD cl' ift d' '-1 1D V d' H lD N 1D 0 V 10 N /'1 lO 0 d' 1D N C' lD 0 � ID O ti t 10 0 d' M1 to 0 H 10 O 0 N ID in 0 H 'D O 0 H to in 0 .-1 0 1D m 0 d' ID N I 0 H h 1D - 0 H m 10 m 0 V 1D to I 0 d' H m H m H m H m H m H n H m H m o H Q z 0 H Q z 0 H ❑ Z 0 H ❑ Z 0 H H ❑ Z 0 H FJ a z 0 H Q Z 0 H ❑ Z 0 H C) z o C a a 3 a a a H H H H H N H H (,� O 0 m U H m U J m U H m U H m U H ¢ W z W z i3 W z w z W ` w H H w w El 0 u 0 u 0 U o U w x H a H a H H H o o 0 0 0 CL a P, a iL a C1 a Q, 1 O+ w a a o ❑ ¢ a R Z3 x z3 a s m w a w a w a w a w a a m w x w o Q z u H w u F w u H w u Ncr w a w c� ww m El o z ❑❑❑❑❑ 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 h 0 h 0 0 n 0 ti 0 ti 0 0 0 0 5 O >J U IH+ 2 U o 0 x in 0 0 x in 0 0 x 0 0 x ui 0 0 x in 0p 8 x .-J CoCyy i H (0(yy i H H p0J £ H (0(.�� i H (0(�� i H 0 H H (0(�� i H 0 (0(�� i H 0qq 2 H o w 0 `+ w h 0 w h 0 w h ,� 0 a h 0 W h H 0 W h H 0 W h .-+ 0 W %J m O P O z 0 0 \p C4 O W (D a`, a x U H r{ w T O tJ F T o \D H m O \O H m O tC H m O \O H m O 0 H m O \D H m O 0 H m O l'J H m O l0 H O l0 H O lO H O lD H m O tD H m O l0 H m O lO H m O l0 F m O l0 H m O \D H m O l0 H m O tO H m O 10 H m O 0 H m O tO H m O l0 H m O 1D H m O 10 F N cr r+t OJ O� t0 O O O O O O � Z �i H z O N ifl N \0 O O Ol m �Il m N � m 01 ti N N r'1 � m m N m O d' 1p r'1 v 10 d O N v d v H O —� w d ] ^� a o U z O H O m o < 0m a 0m < E, 0 +n v1 rn rn In H O z �w7 H H d H H a H 4 H RC m El a o p El a u H H H F o a a a H u >>>>> u u u O H 3 w FC a a a RC a a a a g o° H v1 P [cu u� u o (n w w w p p H W q H Rl p H CV a O u a 0 u H a a H m a a a H a a H a a > z O U z 0 u z O U > v] W V] W V] W (n W (n W > W H H H H H H H W V W O O > Z > Z a W (p \O N H \o V H \o m H I m T H N H \0 O N .--I 0 d' N m m 0 O� \o O v m r'1 rn N O N m N ri O r'1 r lD m 1p m lD m \D m lD m o� rn rn rn rn m rn rn n 0 .-+ p H a Z a � CQ z l0 \O 10 w w a 0 o o w H a W 1 1 �n in N N N N N N r't d r'1 r't V O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ¢� F ,n rn I rn ,n m in rn 0 in in ui u� 0 rn 0 m 0 0 0 0 .� z 0 \o 0 \fl 0 \o 0 \o 0 \o 0 \o Q 0 \o 0 \n 0 \o 0 \o 0 0 0 0 \o 0 \o 0 \o 0 0 \o 0 0 \o 0 0 \o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \o 0 0 �D Q 0 \o \o yn H m m N N r ul rn '1' m d' I r- � r u1 O o o r r r n r o r m r ifl v �fl v ifl r(l r ifl v �n v rfl r r(1 �[t O 0 U \O l0 lD \p l0 l0 \O \p \O 10 y U z U z U z U z U z u U u H U H U H O H 0 H 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 . z o H z O H z o z 0 H z 0 H o rn u H x rn U H x rn u H x v� U H x v� U H x m U H x cn u H x rn U H x rn U H x rn U H x H m W H n W H n W H a W H a W H a Ww H a W H a Ww U x a U x a u x a U x a u x a U x a u x a H U a a U Wdd U u U W z W z H rn z F m z H U] z H rn z F � z H to z H (� z H rn z Z H w Ei .a z w H O a O a O a O a c7 O a c7 O a c� O a c� O a O a c� O a m w m m w (n a W m 1 u z w c7 z w H c� z w H c� z w H c7 z w O u O U O U O U O u O u O U O V a 0 x .0 a >- o+ ¢ a w w a a w a w w a a w a a w a a w a a w a a w a a w a a w a r» a a a w >>>>> w w w w m m w w w w w n w w n w w n w w n w w n w w N a4 a rn o z h ti h h h h h h n ti a a a a OO a OO a O a O a 0 H H H H H H U H w z o 5 0 >+ U H U < U"), 0 O a a 0 O a a h 0 O a a h 0 O a a ri 0 O a a h 0 ,� O a a h 0 O a a IN)h 0 O a a 0 O a a h 0 .� O a w h 0 H O i-7 w x 0 O 1-7 w z 0 .-a O ,l w J4 0 0 O g o a 0 0 O a 0 J4 0 0 O m 0 X 0 0 m 0 x 0 0 a 0 a 0 O ~ 0 O 0 O H~ a� 0 O a a 0 O H 0 O ~ a X 0 O 0 O H m J4 0 .� O U o .4 d' ill lD rn m O z m o r+ x 0 0 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 o a w c9 a a E a a] o 0 H 0 0 H 0 0 H 0 H 0 m H �D E H iD E+ iD E+ E H lD H io H E D rl O N n ID O N 0 O r m N tD O a h � N N � z � a M H OO 14 pO o a � p O O104 O O 3 3 p 3 o w FU-+ jw a a Q OO H w c� U O H F H O a c] F a O W c) [ a s w 0 C] E+ m a w O I -I L] w 2 u w S u F w a O u m F w a H O F al a w 0 zz 0 z c�c� z F a z 0 z Ix 5 z u z m w w > w z o w �a > u z U) w w > u z w w > w z z w o > a z a w a > o �a n 0 m z o w > a� z w a > w z > a z w > a m ,a a m W O r a o Vl a a a o o u ? Q1 m 10 l0 O m m O� of �1' ifl m 01 H � a �G z ¢ w w m o0 H a w a w O O O O O O m O O O O O O O O O O O r O N N N pq 5 O p ID O 10 O rvl vi m iD O t't O r Q) O ID a, O �Q 0) O ul O ID M O r r'1 O r O O r r'i O r O 1D 0 0 � U U O mH [mom [N0 o W Z O u V1 W O C� a O fZ O [L O a O u w 0 a 0 w 0 U1 H o n n F o ri °u O 7- O v H H H H w � 3 w w F a w ElF a w U w N .w-1 , w w 2 u W u a U W H u w 3 z 3 z 3 z z El r z a w a ° w c �a m a a E, El w m z Q z o z o N awc El o x co 0 WmW x 0 vW0W x 0 v a< rn a O Q z r m o N w a u a a a z 5 a z z a z 5 a m z E2� r� zp `�`�' O o 0 0 0 O U H O p O p�a, CG 5 z z z «7 z r7 f E ` �,� 16 r r m (r O m N m r"t m O' m ift m m m l0 m r m O) m m m Q O ol m m z m r r r m m O N o w L� F w [U Elp FC a7 E-F t7 LD H O 10 H O H O m H O 0 F O 10 H O H O i0 H O iD F O i0 H O I0 H O lO H O I0 E O i0 F O �D E+ O i0 H [z[� _H o O ro 0 N N N 0 lD 10 d' 0 O 0 0 0 in 0 0 O o v rD o O r lD a a 0 a p N m O o 0 0 o 0 0 o r 0 G m © � z H qa z H qa z H a z H Ala z a u > m E ,u m H U a F w N y z o H E m o r � 0 o a IV, z El a El w � a a F rC v7 El � H m H ❑ F V] H ❑ H m ❑ H n H ❑ F H �. c9 S F r � a w U) z H S F FC El w El � � x co o s t O t Elz H � �z �+ H z H � a < El E H j ai m a o m w w m H un w t a w w❑ a F. •• w H H �+ •• y p❑, F. •, zWW 7 o Z (G o o z H W �w[,.77 3 x U U w r7 C�.� lG !� x o Z o z H z W W [a�7] F 5 (L a ou a o a o z z W z O vi C] z a m w w w ' ❑ ❑ U E W �, U O a U O a U O a U O s U O a U O a a w n 14 > w o 7 a E+ O m a J � 7 O ❑ � u H' 7 Z FL O w C7 RC w 10 H Q Z ❑ z a O m O m O m o m O m O N .-� 1D m �O � O1 m m m m � ,� to r0 m m r r f' a z w � w w w a o o w H a O O O O O O o O O O O O 0 O o O O O O O 0 O ID iD ul O 0 O l) n m r o ID w f p z O in O O rn d' O r �D O r l0 O r tD O r 10 O r i0 O r �0 r i0 r �D rn H O i0 O 10 O r rn O m O ID O �D N U N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 H O m d 10 N to '� O N o Io 10 O O O O V U CJ U U U U U ow w H w H w z w H w w w H W z H m H ❑ m p `l CJ n 6 H uuZ,, �S n 4 H zu t m H yu i m H zu rZ m H zu FC n H _u i m a; u m H Zu rt H x O H x O z O E n a 11) O u Z H o W w U (D Lail W a ul O EEEY Z a z m H j o w H a Er -I U z w z z w Z z H z z Z a, z w H Z a� z w 2 z w H z a w H Z a z z o Z Z o x o w u w z a 8 ❑ z FC E+ o .-� o 0 0 0 0 U,� c F, o N H u, ,-, O z z .� G z ., O z E .-, O z .� O z .� O z O z .-, O z .-, O 3 O 3 z H z 0 w o '-� H 0 0 a )( 17 N lO I N 0) 9l C7� 1 Cn V H N rl V in iD CP i0 D` r 0) m O Z lD Cn Q\ O n H OJ m m 10 O w U' E < a. a u H < m 0 �D H 1 l0 E+ o 1D H 0 iD F 0 lD H 0 lD H 0 lD H 0 iD F 0 lD H o �D H O 0 iD F o 0 ID H 0 0 �D H 0 0 1D H 0 0 �D F 0 0 H 0 O H 0 O EE O H iD r r O O ul o O O 0 O 0 O O 0In O O r'1 O O a ti i0 iD �D O O R> N O O ti N m m O rn O O D H V E+ In w a C] a H m m E Q 0 m � In H a In a m a In w mIn a a m El Ea a El m > a w H 0 o w 0" O � a o a H u H z oH FC z 0 H FC W z 0 o H m o W F HE, 0 t o a H w 5 a a a a m o o F'' H w m °a m oa m x a 4F W 8 El u E-4 u 0 a a 0 u a u o H a a o a s m o u z m u Z m o? z m m Z <. a u a o z o ❑ H ❑ x U x U U x U U a m a o a o ❑ 3 ❑ z 0a z H O In w p z W .� ❑ G1 Z W H r a ❑ WE) Z H w a e,, z H w H 7 W H H W H F w .4 H H w F w H H w Z ((p Z W i W > '.� > ZZZZZ < '. S 5C < z z w 5 z > H m w .� C0 E z n W W a w a a w w �. w a u o O 7 a W m O N N ifl rl in m R) m u� m N N) 2m H lD O r'1 N mH O lfl CO O) 01 01 Z H `� O �+1 CT Cn ID O O ID O O O d N rl [� CP r C �D N �D 10 r1 �D N �0 5 a U ❑ 7. h ❑ P+ m W m a O O W H a N G O O O O O O O O O t� u� r in r �n r in r �n N O O O O k7 m j y O lD o iD O O a 'D d' lD o O O G O T ID O O N O O M O O O O 0 O N ift o ul 0 ul 0 in 0 �n o D in O iD O o �D O 0 ID x O itt O O O G «l O Ifl �n ifl ifl in lfl ifl to O �n in c( O O O H O H O O ti O o H G O O O O O o O O o a a o H ❑ ? Z0 z v o u o G w a w u o u 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 u o u a ? 0 a 0 a 0 a a 0 a N o 0 u w z a a a a a a e. w z w z w z w z w z a P+ w HE, H ca H n w c� z w m w u w u °a. w u a° w u w u a w u °a x a ° u m u a u m u m u a � ¢ w H w y o m H y z a z ¢ x O, o O r zwz F a a M7 u HwEE�� O m x m x2 m x m x 114 as m x m xCa ¢ W a u a z u a In w F+ w d Z O ] [z] '] O O N O ,..� O I O � O � O � O � O I O d' O o N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N O O N OW O N O O N O CJ iHi O iHi O O W O O O O Oaa O a a ut V IL a ad 18 y m 01 O �fl 1D t� 1D m 1P 01 1D O r r-I r I o N 0 I 0 d' 0 I 0 ID o N r r'1 r d' r �Il n lO n h r m r m r O m m rn m Cady! z m m o 1D 1D m O � 0 w 0 F a w a y E+ a rD 0 1D H 0 �D EE+ 0 lD H 0 iD H 0 10 H 0 ID E+ 0 21D H 0 El 0 2 0 �D H 0 iD H 0 10 H 0 �D H 0 ID H 0 0 H 0 �D H 0 lD H 0 lD F 0 �D H 0 m H 0 iD F 0 1D H 0 1D H 0 10 F+ 0 0 1D tD H F+ H [y i H O if1 O C O u� O C 1 r1 m �D m r'1 l0 m h ED if1 O m m m h u n m N O r1 N r1 m rl O in N O O 1 N O O O O to O O O m O -+ O r't O �+ w p � m n m � m m O O O c Q O O o O o N O z m:: a w s w of z H C7 Z K m z c z z a7 a a 0 0 o r, U, z z z� z z z z z z H z z a H a w z > w pa pa lq , 4 w n z O a H a H H F o H oo w W r w W w w W w w W w W /y E El W fyH E W 'n M H w w w W w > W q > W m o Z x H 'x w u H H u H u u w m q U am a 0 U 0 U a 0 U am 0 U 0 U am 0 u 0 U a 0 U am 0 u O U a 0 U a 0 a m m m z w a \ a 1)H u a El o z, H w m 0 u 0 p w U 0 P. z w W w z w w z w w z w w z w w z w w z w w z w w z w w z w w z W w z w o w 0 z .7 w w o 0 q a z w w w qq FC m fy1J w w H W w H W w O z i O z 7 m o w w q a 1 a a - > 3 '' T 3 a T S 3 a 3 a 3 a 3 a 3 a 3 a 3 an > P+ > H a F m m cn q 0 O U O u a a E m w P. P. P. w E+ .7 17 .] .] .7 Iq 17 1; 1; 14 �-7 a m U d' a CU m W W Iq O > > riI of m m m m rn a m m aw O !'l n rn t'1 r1 rn rat r1 rn N1 rn t't rl rn rl n rn v1 N rn �n N rn �n N rn ir1 N m v1 N m m in N in r o 0 m m aw� 6 m m ay �^ m m aw� 6 m m aw� 6 m m awy a rn m paw a m m naw a m m m m RaR� paw a a a z w a m w w a o w H a O O O O rn n N m m N m O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 w O o O 0 O 0 O o n r D 0 D r ¢ r D D D n O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pq 7 m 0 rn 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 H Z H H H H 0 H O H O �D lD .-+ m i0 r'1 H rn iD 0 m �D N O m �D 0 m �D N O m i0 0 m 1D �D 0 0 m rn 0 r1 rn 0 N m a a m m m co co m m m m m w m w m w a 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 w w a w w a w w a P. w a P. w a w w a w w a w w a P. w a ? w a w a 5 w a > w ° a m° m m pa °a pw 0 u u u m m mm+ m m m m m m c� c9 c� c� cDED O o 0 a 0 a 0 Z z ,�mH+ z �mE+ �mH+ �Hm+ H u u u u u u u w u El El Z Z Z Z 0 z o w o w o U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 0 U 0 U W Eld 14 H a F a ��++ H �-• H W q m W q H m W q H m W o H m W m H m W q H m W q H m W q H m W q H m W q H m W C] H m W q H m W q H �a w m 3 0 w m 3 0 w m 3 0 w m 3 O w m 3 O w m 3 0 w m 3 0 w w m m 3 3 0 0 > a w a u u u u a a a a a a a a a a a a w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w w m m a 2 >>> > a a a w a O O O a O O a O z p 0 N 0 N 0 r.l m 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ,`-i ou H O 1 O H O H O ti `"'� '"� H '"i O m O 0 m O O m O O m O O m O O m O O m O O O m m O O a w a a w a a w 19 G, 0 Z ' dH' itl l0 m O, O .y MN- HVN uN-1 r�NO H[N� - H rn O � �p O W U rL w a M U H m O l0 H O 0 l0 El H O i0 El H O l0 H m O F m O H m O 0 E m O H m O 10 F m O E0 El m O 10 F m O 0 F W O H m O l0 E m O H m O 0 F m O H m O H m O i0 H m O 0 E m O E0 El m O H m O H m O l0 F m O H m O 0 F m O 10 m O m m O O p p H [-a z N ElM O 1f M C , N �0 i0 JO JO M O, O O N O m O V O O O O O O O O < a M � F x v rn o r- M 0 0 e 0 o a 0 z a w 0 u 0 a w a H H H H H H F H H U z w w 3 E z � u a 0 cn o z o x m o zz 6 o u > u > u u > > W U OH E Z 2 H H O :> ofo aF, �a( rye a, w p m O w, W W (i� z W E E ul u v] U vl m U O 0 > Z w ti m U n o x m 0 m x a <C H u E O a w O z c w z U w \ w Z w C7 \ w z w U \ w z w U \ w z w U w z w C7 \ w z w 0 \ w z w U \ w z w u w z w U \ w z w C9 \ w z w U \ w z w U \ w z w U \ m a w P. \ a 0 w a w C7 o U \ w C1 o U \ a\ �a V \ a x \ F a au - c� \ a O o z w w x u z w x u w w x x u u w N G1 Ea z W 0` U > a U a U a C9 a U a U a U a U a U a a U a a U a a U a a U a a u a a U a a U a a U a a U a a u a a U a a 0 a a U a a> C7 a C a a � a z z a a w � c� w H O > a W (� O, ED O, m O, tf1 lf1 0 N N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 d` 0 Q, CO 0 I 0 m r 0 M [� 0 l0 r` 0 (7) 0 N rn 0 mO d' N to H z 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 M 0 M 0 0 M 0_ 0 M 0 0 .-, 0 0_ M M M 0 0 o rn m m m Za Z w FC G w C) O O W H w W O O O O O O N N M N N M N M N N M N M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O M N 0 O 4p _i n O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O u, O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O z [F�I io IC) ti C, O ID E O 0 O O 0) io O O O O O O O O ul if, O O U O rn rn m O + O � rn O a, O rn rn O 0)rn .� 0 0)rn rn ED m m rn .-+ if, in N N N rl .� -S tl' N N N N H �1' 10 d' itl N d' N ID N N .-+ H .-� H .� r-1 H •--� .-/ H .y rl a' [G a 0 04 04 CG W U H a U7 W V H a [0 W W U U H H a a x U] w u x w u > w u w u a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ` a a a a a z H a z z H a a W H w n w u u u F u H u ? u H u u El u H u H u u H u ] u u H u El u u �W4z u u u v o a FC a 0 z w z m z m z m F a F d F F H �a F ¢ H a F a E H ¢ H F za H z2 F za H �a H a H H H a F �a H F z 0 z 00 z z 0 0 a w El 2 z O a O c O a O a :D a > a a o a a a 5 a 0 a a a 7 a a a 5 a 0 a a 5 a 5 a 5 a a a a 0 a a m x m u) o O >. u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 in 0 5 0 I 0 0 i 0 5 0 I 0 0 in 0 �a 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 in 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 u, 0 0 � 0 0 , 0 0 �n 0 0 i 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 o .� 0 0 .� 0 0 0 0 •� m O) rn O o m n n ro o o m rn rn H OZ rn 1p w 0 W U E 4 a a x U [l a Rl m O o F m O H rl o o F m O 0 H N1 O 0 El rl o ID ElH m 0 10 H 0 0 H m O 0 H m p F m o H m O F p H m o H rn O H .ti o o El r' ti [ti z[v] 0 H O 0 0 1n v m o 10 i 0 0 �D 0 ul 0 0 O �'1 r N 1n In O) a a � H 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O 01 �'1 [� N d' Ifl 10 (n O N 0 N U' Z w U b Cl) H Ix U > a > EC a 2 H a 7-a FC w Et . a 2 a t El'�' '� Np 0 W W Z v7 m Hp U Hp U pH (y� pH 2 a,E-� oEl ff rn pH O F P. N pH H pH H 4Z pH F W H r�i1 W x x H (!(Gpp H v>i H H H G: W x iU+ W w w u o o z w 0 a 0 w (X F GG o � o u [n w w w H m w H m w H fk 0 w n 0 P'i o Q ❑❑ o 0 a a u H o 12) a❑ u❑ z H �❑7 H Zzwa ❑ W = > C w a a a a > a > vHi w > < Q > > > 0 w 5 x n a H F z Z. ❑ o U rn w w w n� cn m cn > a m m m m U W O a d' V' d' d' d' O) r O w d, ID Q1 O) l0 m H z' � rn N 1p ,f't N N N N N a �+ r O ❑ ❑ H rn rn o r r'1 �J' d' d' d' �i S ,n O� fA W w a o0 w H w W �F h' O H Q� d' 1O m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn �[1 10 10 O ID 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O w U H [� U a u U z a w w z H In m z z u � El H N C7 CCD a H ovao H x W W L. 1, W In w W w z w w w cw ❑ 0 Hx cw w w w w w z ¢ ❑ o u w r a � a z 0 z 0 w �a o �a �a w z E H Ela w o xx w v) vxi W, m m w v) m H 'y w0 0 0 ltl 0 0 ,n 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o r O o H u H O rxi RC O }r�i S CD O IN O O H N O H ,n o a4 m O m O In O m O m O U) O N O i U) O O m O O m rn 0 O ra r m m rr o v i w r � rn rn H z H H H or o w t7 [� a � x N a m o l0 H 0 0 0 l0 H 0 m H 0 9 H 0 1D H 0 \D H 0 'D H 0 lD H 0 D H 0 �D H 0 1D H 0 lD N 0 iD H 0 lD N 0 iD H 0 iD H 0 �0 E� 0 l0 N 0 �D H 0 iD H 0 iD N 0 iD E1 0 �D H rJ Z H m O O O N ui ul O rTJ 1D N n r .'1 m m 7' m N t0 H N d' l0 iD Q� a rl H a r1 C O N m ry N 1 N a a z a 0 a a a 0 a a a 0 a a z H m 0 as a a 0 a a a 0 a a m 0 a a m 0 a a a o a a 2 a H a s H [ a H a s '-' Ho El HH > H a a m m .7 H a m a H w m .]�t�k].1 H w h m m H a m N m H a m H w m H w m H ❑ w w > m > m ❑ C� w > ❑ m w > m w Cr a ❑ a w "- w H a rz a ❑ w W a m H w m H w m H w cn H w m % H ❑ w z z m m w w 0 0 u 0 u o u a x o u r 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 u > o u rn S CD O J H i 0 a 0 a 7 w > w .- a �+ m 114 m m m m w ❑ U w 0 H ❑ z H � 7 o ifl O rn ti rl d' O rn r H ifl O rn CD t11 O O� �n .-1 ifl O rn � tIl O rn �n H l(1 O D� in .-i lfl O rn � H �fl O rn d lIl O rn r N N d' .('� rn N D� �D N H O t1 "� m N r ^'1 C r'1 m r� d' !' n r"1 N r M •� tll N rfl O r H Ill rl �[t r r1 lfl H rn 01 r iD ul r-1 O r O r m N O H p H � a z a t m Z rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o O w m a o o w w m o 0 O 0 0 O 0 iD 0 iD 0 �D 0 �D 0 ID 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O� �D rn rn v iD rn O o O •+ O 0 O '� m 0 O 0 O O 0 O •� O 0 O •� N m icl � Z 7 O U rn O �D rn O �D in rn O rD rn rfl in rn O in rn O rn rn O in 0 in 0 10 0 in rn (V ID o rn N ID rn '+ V ID in n ID u-, N io H 10 o ID io o O r in O O r 0 O r in O 0 r �n O O r O O r �n O O ID m O O U z U z U z U z U z? U U U H U U z o u 0 U u Hz p� 0 0 y� 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 , 0+ Pi (+7 W H a z Z E+ m z N m Z H m Z H m Z N m Z H m Z H m Z H m Z N m Z H m U z ti U w a W w a O ¢ o m m m H a''' a S a O w H O w H n w H O w H O w H O w N O w H 5 w H > w H Z w N Z a 5 N 5 x H O m w > W z H a z H M m Zy S m a pp� RC m a p�.y FC m a p�y t m a �.yy t m a CCyy r.0 a pp� 2 o J4 a n o O n O m O m 0 m O m O m O m O m O m O m O COM O N In a m a m H m E+ rn H m H m H m H m EH m EN m H H w z o pz' r 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 r O r O r o r 0 r 0 o 0 H 0 H 0 o Id' in u� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-' 0 >. u N u 1 u o 5 0 m 0 5 0 m 0 a 0 m 0 o 0 m 0 a 0 m 0 5 0 m 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 m 0 5 0 m 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 m 0 o 0 m 0 w a m 0 a a m 0 a a m 0 ¢ H m 0 �C H m 0 0 ¢ H m 0 0 a H m 0 0 N m 0 0 •C H m 0 0 RC H rn 0 0 �C H m 0 H 22 m rn F � rn o m �4 U a a w M x El a m lD F 0 lD El 0 LD 0 O El 0 10 ElF 0 O 0 O ElF 0 0 tD El 0 LD El r 0 ElF r 0 LD r 0 lD ElF 0 r 0 l0 F r 0 O F r 0 F N O 7 :J O� O r• O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 m d' r W rn r O� a r• z w H * N n w F F w > V O � w Z u j E+ z pFp U F > rn z > m z > �n z > m z > a rn pF z F a pFp F ofo H c� H H c o a pFp ofo F a H F N H aua z u 0 n a o �p z w w `w o H W a 0 UU W a W w 0 Uuo W n o W z a w wQ a z a w HHo a a a s w `w � ac n o oa z O z w w j� Wo a z w w O H m —In0> a a m a a m0 z o w H w m> o w Q w 4w > ElH z z H z �-. z H z' �. 01> cn 5 a> rn m > o > > 0 a 5CL4 ¢ u w O w O r m �1 m ri r1 r� lfl r n LD O n 10 N O� CP O N �D io N �D ID 10 10 O CD 1D M 10 lD n i V H x s z w s m w m a o0 w F a N O l0 O O O O 0 O iD r d' O O O O O O O O O O N O wO m in O io O �o O O 10 O O w O O io ul O 2 r O r O r r r r r r z o U ry N O N O d' ti H N N N O N O N �n H O p H ti H H H O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O u u U z H U z H U z H U U z z o u ¢ rJ zFz,, U) V) yHZ In rq zHz x n ZHZ ElZ F H F V1 U Q O U Q O a W H w w O In U m U `n N o O H z O u z O u z O u - O u zz C u H Q a cc O, w a CL w H n F a If) w m n w O O °a o w o F Q cn o F n a0 F a H H a F H a F a E+ a F to o m 7 ul 5 n 0 Q > z O > a 3 3 a 3 m p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O H i u x F O F a F a H a a F m F N z H O N 5 O m 0 O CL a 0 Q > O z O > O 3 OO] 3 S 3 e 4 i 23 . Q O O ti H zz rn rn rn 0 0� � 5 o w F a O O o O O O o 0 El $ a Lp H H H H F H F W a o o r O O O O) CL � r_ o rn o N rn O m � r1 rn a �, •-, v pHp F� H H z z a U a a o a M UP wn H M M a O OHO OHO a F 4 vw� a pHp F x a4 pHO F w a H a :� w F z w a a s a w w u o a o °n U U C on j rz o a a a z v z w z z w w u z w w H w H. w z w z z z w , w 0 0 O O a (y W U U U W W n W W r V Cw] a, rn V O W N O N y 2. if1 rl N itl OJ Q� W a z W a m w m a. o0 w H a w r o 0 0ID a n m y O a 0 O 0 G O nD p rn u O W W H V U H a H a o u w � w m o w z Z z C9 C7 o Ha O O O z p� u U z F El El w "+ w o o z z w0 0 w H a Fz, -u 0 z z a� O u o u o u w z w o o x x x u u a v aw aW aW� � w a o m W O O ' OW > o 0 0 0 0 •'-� o O G O O O 0 0 O w 0 0 a x x x r r ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 37273 06/03/99 ANDO10 ANDERSON TRAVEL SVC INC 37274 06/03/99 EQU010 DALE EQUITZ 37275 06/03/99 NIX100 E SIAH NIX CHECK TOTAL 2:56PM 06/03/99 PAGE 1 PAYMENT AMOUNT 169.00 15.00 200.00 384.00 25 Q, rn ,{ m [l H H 0 0 0 J .n .1; CL n O i7 Cl CJ n rn � a Vy O a o H ¢ O m O W O O H m H H W E H w x z a z a z ° H o z a u H z H- x z a > > F > w o E, z n U W H � a W < z s z a 04 a w w m a o0 F G. a W o O 0 O 0 O cp o 0 0 O � U U •i � � V U CJ a N H H a z O O' a W N C ki DA H w � a u� E' w o 0 U C] H U w W Z 6 W m 26 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 37268 06/01/99 BU1040 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOC 37269 06/01/99 GEN200 BURT C GENTLE CO INC 37270 06/01/99 PER010 RONALD A PERKINS 37271 06/01/99 SAF150 SAFETY STRIPING SVC INC 37272 06/01/99 UN1005 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT CHECK TOTAL 09:42AM 06/01/99 PAGE 1 PAYMENT AMOUNT 29.00 15000.00 54.55 3273.86 2.00 18,359.41 27 Ems+ H F1 Fi rn rn H ri N �D ro o o rn Z a 5 P [fZ H z o a o w W w a m fL w o n fA s E+ H o o w � a W u N yOZ d a Ei H o w ti a � Z w m N a H O H w ra 3 a Z Ems+ H � a 0 O =D h 0 0 0 0 rn ID O [Ti AD AD n rt i I. i 8 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER 2:23PM 05/27/99 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** PAYMENT AMOUNT 37245 05/27/99 &00784 JEANETTE DE LA ROSA 60.00 37246 05/27/99 &00785 COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING 4535.44 37247 05/27/99 BEN050 SUSAN BENAY 50.00 37248 05/27/99 BROO10 DIANA BROWN 50.00 37249 05/27/99 BUL100 JAMES BULGRIN 50.00 37250 05/27/99 CAL020 CAL DEPT OF CONSERVATION 5515.07 37251 05/27/99 CHAP02 CHARRIE CHAPPIE 50.00 37252 05/27/99 DAV010 MIKE DAVIS 50.00 37253 05/27/99 HUL010 KATHRYN HULL 50.00 37254 05/27/99 IRWO10 JOSEPH IRWIN 50.00 37255 05/27/99 LEW010 TOM LEWIS 50.00 37256 05/27/99 MAH100 CYRILLE P MAHFOUD 50.00 37257 05/27/99 MOU100 DONALD J MOULIN 50.00 37258 05/27/99 OSBO50 LEE M OSBORNE CPA 50.00 37259 05/27/99 PED010 KATHRYN PEDERSEN 50.00 37260 05/27/99 PET005 CASH/PETTY CASH 388.71 37261 05/27/99 PET010 PETTY CASH/CITY LA QUINTA 432.61 37262 05/27/99 REB050 JOAN REBICH 50.00 37263 05/27/99 REY050 ELAINE REYNOLDS 50.00 37264 05/27/99 SHA040 ROSITA SHAMIS 50.00 37265 05/27/99 STJO10 VICTORIA ST JOHNS 50.00 37266 05/27/99 WEL100 PATRICK WELCH 50.00 37267 05/27/99 WOL010 KAY WOLFF 50.00 CHECK TOTAL 11,831.83 29 O, m m U z r i j ~ $. < W C4 Cxj El C9 H 0 H U' H 0 H u H 0 H 0 H 0 H U' H U' H C9 H 0 H 0 H C9 H C9 H U' H U H u H 7. O E-' O 0 p m d' •-r 10 rt O O N ID rn m 0 O O � O O O in O O O �n O O O N nr O r N a,, O O O O O O O O O � W D O W 1D m m ti m O N O O O T N r0 O O ❑ Di O o r m rn r m rn m a, r- m a, r m a, r m m r m a, r m o, � r m �n a, a O o Z a O to O O o cG o O CQ z o CD z 0CD Z ; i w u az m H a m H m H 5 w m H 'dw In H m H m H w m H r-� m H a C, �po O u a Om H > qa a a a �Hpo m m rn rn a u u a > O u a Hpp W U r0, FC H a a u H Q a a w C0] a w O a w O a w Q a w O a m a w O a w E a w x o {Han pHo 2 H a s �w o H z w pHo H H E z rx w a o �❑ m w w pHo F m w a cw Q (F� RC pHo H m rx H z (Cm-Y�, H FC x z a Q u z m w w> o ❑ z z e w ❑ z 5 w ❑ z w ❑ w ❑ z m w ❑ z 5 w ❑ z w ❑ w ❑ z z 5 w w> z W a> m W z m z w W > > a z a w > €� 5 z a z w > } w w o w w w w w w w w w w N m u U u C, w ❑ C) . • G WW m rn m m N r�� m CY) m m m O, 4 z a z a ¢ In w w a o0 w H ai W 5 o O 0 O 0 o m m m m 0 0 o 1 0 0 0 o O 0 0 m 0 0 0 O 0 0 N ,f1 O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 o r N r n ('1 O O 0 m O O 0 0 m O O o 0 rn C) E1 5 V U O O O O O O O O O INd' O O O O O O N O O V O O d' C, O ,ti V1 ti u1 �--� ID 0 O 0 O O N N N O O O O O ul If) o O In O C)O In o V) D O m 0 O In a O m � O In a m 5 O El El W O H El El W w> 1 a a a 7 a a W14 a » z z z H Z O v o Z O u o W w P, u m a a E pi H is x a w 5 a a w x a w 5 a a w x x a w x a a w x 6 a w x a a w x a a w x a w z o X w z�z a 7 w m H a, �o H w a w > Q z a ii; s O au: u IV,, O u 4 0 u 4 O u 4 U u 0 u << O u 0 u O u m H ❑ U u u i O O O u .1' 0 in 0 �n O 0 �n 0 0 ul 0 0 if, 0 0 ifl 0 0 O 0 ul 0 0 �fl 0 o O Z w m O 0 O o; m O a m m O O u O O u N O ❑ jx 4 ../ t) z rD m o r rn M M � in rp r m rn O •-+ N n •a M ni O 'L. r \J cn N o w 6 U HW-7 O iJ H u U iJ H CJ H !7 E (7 F U' H U' a F C7 H C7 E U' H u H U' H C� E C7 F u H a a m H F H H M ,--� E+ 0 o 0 0 0 0 o m r N ,Z o 0 m o m M o o .+ r a O O O 0 O 0 O O O O �n m 0 O O m in S O O O in a .>r O O O a in 0 O O in a 0 O O to O O � r m m x W 14 O O N x m [q [q nq z El >q RC ,� >> EHFC a H q> i >> S E >q rt H > El[X LZ LG (Z IG [.Z IG [G L.Z GG cZ a4 w H W � H W F El W OH El ppH F H W El E+ W OH � H OF pF a S CD- a a O (a � H a CD " C] H a O ❑ Lq CG O g O H m O m O �-+ z Z a O ❑ 2 U FC u RC u FC u U FC U FC U FC u K u RC u FC U FC u O ❑ U � I r� w z W > n IA 4 m W > KL z W m 2 W m W W > z z W P zn m W >> z WF > O z W > Hp H H H H H E H F H F H F F F H w 7 El H w w C� i z u W a W a W a W a W a W a W a W a W a W a W a W a W a u w O a w rn rn rn rn rn rn a; a .Y W W Rl a O O U H a: w o o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 O 0 0� rn rn 'r ro o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w L _ rn O rn ul rn O rn O rn O rn O O in O r n �+ N m r+ d' r M r M r M f n M O r M 0 E� �r l(1 in Ott ill r r lD rO iD LD 10 �D lD LD r lD r U O O O in O ifl ift O cn O �(1 O O u ry' O O O O O O O O O O O O O ti O O O O O O Z Z H G o (maLyy ❑ a µO, < a U z wv7 a, x Vx x Vx x Vmr� rlxu�� Vxvj� flxr�� Ux7 nx[� mv� rO+ >4 r-+ rC H T i-7 00 W 2. Ww +C U S U FC U FC U U RC U fC U S U fC U FC U S U FC U \ W Eal a m a m a F �+ F H H H H H H H H H U) .7 z cQ H 3 W h m O z H W H W E+ W H W H pl W W W W W H W H W < u R; a a x a w w a a a z ❑ a t r a xx a \ x s \ x as \ x aw \ x a x a \ x a \ x a \ x a \ x a \ x a \ a > a¢ a m O ❑ m o a r u z o ❑ W w a H m a u m u m a u m a< u m u m u u m a u m a u m a u m a � m u m u E+ w m zO [z� > O o 0 0 0 0 �n �n u� in in in in in �n in cn ui o a O >. U H U ¢ u o 3 a 0 ,G3 7 a o o 5 O E n 0 PQ m o 0 ❑ W a o 0 H W a 0 0 H W a 0 0 H w a 0 0 H W w 0 0 H W as 0 0 E+ W o, 0 0 H W a 0 0 E+ W a 0 0 F W a o 0 El W Cl O 0 W a o O E+ W a o E+ W a 31 O z rn rn r IF,,, 7: ¢ w N w a m ra 0 m 0 r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 Z E~ >+ O w 0 0 0 O 0 00 i9 O O O O O p O O O E F H H F H > H z E+ > t+ F F u w H x x cn n x ul x m x m x m x cn r n, a' v a; U FS u RS u FC U FC U u u [z u O u p Q q O p Z ❑ 7 w q Z H Z Z Z w W z H u u If) E E[ P H N w w w a w E+ H E+ F F H El H D O ❑ p; w w w w w w w U U U u U W w a Fif ❑ P. p� O� O� rn rn o' O rn m m rn rn rn CQ q H z ¢ w z PQ w w w a o0 E-+ w m o 0 0 0 0 0 �o rn o o O o 00 00 w p rn U FC O O O O O ri O H O H O H O fi H H .-1 r-1 H H O 5 O 5 7 5 O a (D+ a o+ o+ o+ o+ a F H H H ❑ m � x a U U H U U U H U H U H U O ri V H `CSJ U U U U U U 4 a V a C4 W H H a 3 a ❑ w w w w w w w w o a O �,, v) F O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O H U O O O O O O O O O O a � EHa H H H F H H H El� H p u w w w w w w w w w w 3 ,r, u w w w w w w w w m m I 32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 37234 05/24/99 CAL040 CALIFORNIA VISION SERVICE 37235 05/24/99 CAL050 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 37236 05/24/99 CAN050 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO 37237 05/24/99 LAQ050 LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES 37238 05/24/99 PRI050 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL 37239 05/24/99 RIV040 RIV CNTY DISTRICT ATTORNY 37240 05/24/99 RIV070 RIVERSIDE COUNTY EMPLOYEE 37241 05/24/99 SUP100 SUPPORT PAYMENT CLEARING- 37242 05/24/99 TRA030 TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE 37243 05/24/99 UNIO05 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT 37244 05/24/99 UNU050 UNUM LIFE INS CHECK TOTAL 4:06PM 05/24/99 PAGE 1 PAYMENT AMOUNT 1134.00 25.00 516.93 319.00 39897.63 361.50 8138.92 150.00 53.48 157.00 1408.80 52,162.26 33 0 r .� ol o o, rn E� z -r o w a w H FC rn ElF °� m E rn E m rn El ElH rn H F O N El O El[7 O N itt ''LL 7 O O in M m O O N N w o o N � o N � o CDo 0 O m ^ NN rl ❑ � ¢ OJ > a m � z o O m � 3 "� z z O El v a 4 EHa � a p O z El E U Hp H pH E H z O � a w H a z a E x Q o u a Q z s . z N o z a u z 7 u S ❑ z ,N, a N S ❑ z j m ao ❑❑ ❑ z �o ul a En S x S N U) w> c) N w ? PO a> �'' H a zQ w z w w E ❑ a a a. a a a w .J; O o > z L a m r 0J o w m ID 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 w c� Z 4 � w w m 0 O W F a. 0 O O O 0 0 U O 0 0 0 O o 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 w o 0 N 0 0 N N N O N Z z J N o V 0 (V 0 0 p N 0 O O O 0 0 O O O 0 o O 00 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 u o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 U > w U w � W o >y Rpp F w W o a a w U F W EO W ❑ 0 u v o IH a a 0 z a pea w r a El Cr w El z a w z W x El W F U EH z 2 < a w ❑ ❑ I a a ❑ W a a °' a a ❑ 0 H U H E' q a U n a Q a U o z a a a s v > r+ a a ra a p0, p• n � El H z o cn El 0 r U U z7 > o `r a 0 o Ha 0 za U Ol ¢ a O O a a L P4 > z o r > a 0 o U) 0 00 Elo 0 z 0 z U U 34 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 37230 05/21/99 GEN100 THOMAS P GENOVESE 37231 05/21/99 RIV030 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK 37232 05/21/99 RIV031 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK 37233 05/21/99 UNI065 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CA CHECK TOTAL 3:17PM 05/21/99 PAGE 1 PAYMENT AMOUNT 200.00 1250.00 78.00 100.00 1,628.00 35 E 0 o m o N N ri O O O O 7 O O 0 0 V U U El o Z E Hpp �"� H pEo OH W H W OE E W a a z z z E{ w W r a a I 3 A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 08:59AM 06/07/�j9 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER ID DATE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME 36746 DEF 03/25/99 98.50 REL100 RELIANT FUND-RAISING TOTAL VOIDED 98.50 INVOICE DESCRIPTION GREETING CARDS TO SALE/SNR C o7 A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 09:17AM 06/04/99 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER ID DATE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME 37230 DEF 05/21/99 200.00 GEN100 THOMAS P GENOVESE TOTAL VOIDED 200.00 INVOICE DESCRIPTION TRAVEL ADVANCE A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 08:45AM 06/03/99 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER ID DATE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME 37139 DEF 05/18/99 455.00 HEN050 TERRY HENDERSON TOTAL VOIDED 455.00 INVOICE DESCRIPTION TRAVEL ADVANCE/ICSC CONF 39 A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 1:30PM OS/25/99 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE NUMBER ID DATE 37093 DEF 05/11/99 TOTAL VOIDED VENDOR VENDOR INVOICE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 35.00 RIV350 RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO INST TRAFFIC ENG SEMINAR 35.00 ED T4ty,,, 4 atP Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: ,June 15, 1999 20 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Transmittal of Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Transmittal of Treasurer's Report dated April 30, 1999 for the City of La Quinta. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with California Government Code Section 53645 as amended 1 /1 /86; and is in conformity with City Code 3.08.010 to 3.08.070 Investment of Money and Funds. I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are availole to mepVne4 month's estimated expenditures. ohn M. Falconer, Finance Director Aov d for Ssio by: Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachment: Treasurer's Report, City of La Quinta T4ht 4 4 Q" MEMORANDUM TO: La Quinta City Council FROM: John Falconer, Finance Director/Treasurer SUBJECT: Treasurer's Report for April 30, 1999 DATE: June 3, 1999 Attached is the Treasurer's Report for the month ending April 30, 1999. This report is submitted to the City Council each month after a reconciliation of accounts is accomplished by the Finance Department. Cash and Investments: Decrease of $444,026. due to the net effect of expenditures in excess revenues. State Pool: Increase of $83,360. due to the net effect of transfers to and from the cash and investment accounts. U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes, Government Agency Securities and Commercial Paper: Decrease of $2,938,187. due to the sale two Securities, one T-Note, the purchase of one Security and monthly adjustment in the amortized value of the investments. Mutual Funds: Increase of $2,949,412. due to the sale of one T-Note and interest earned. Total decrease in cash balances $349,441. I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code; and is in conformity with the City Investment policy. As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City of La Quinta used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank Monthly Statement and Bank of New York Monthly Custodian Re ort to determine the fair market value of investments at month end. G >hn M. Falconer nance Director[ '13ate g 61 z Iz z z z z . zILLJ I�zl CC '3. c E III y ! ! a �I ° c U 0 U oU ILL of Ib Qi v h m w cc NI LL I 29 m m m a cca o 0 E'Y .Q o o� o N N� N pps O_ I In N �I O m c c O m O U ¢ c $E I o a B c a > CD Cl LL �EEf, CD Vi V Z(x N ! a j m 8 N po 8 op m O ¢ Z fnJR 7l O 8, I, O I 8 O I N 8 O g � (n lei CI I N N 8 i Iu> IooCO r,r ill I N m y cc u' I R I I O i I � O I I LLtp0 ¢ Q �pI �p O O JaR Iar i1w It�i, NI1 N N N W �p 8 I m N O 10 IN 10 8 p 8 5 E LL_ W Q 2! ej e 2 n II I I I I1 I I jEi 0 0`o ,00 II' IIE `o' o. U 0 (9 Q_ 2 ',I > c IW py C I G �Z C IN o g Bpop�� LL o aa c o 0.n aI W LL E o d! o m U U J r6 c ce¢ vvmL cc �° g 00, zo Z mF�x omW cEC kmo c Ijs1om0llll mooO co pWg E woC -15 uEr _IICpp�Ioioeoo II1 mo m3 ICoS WE.a3 m' i; E I- EEE E ozmlag ¢E oc> EEom! U 1 <TgU coo o ii $ 8 �LLLLLLLLU.LL E ?4 oro of m U. ULLLL LLLLLL 2S lac w O0 o S 0 0 0 = m m m m m m c m W W W N N N N c C O c c c z ccc.x ¢¢¢u� 04 00000 _ olio _�z �U)o im prxx�x _rx or yR rr rr rr it O o O g O o C .8. CO� CO ��NC Co ��G. � ❑ —c c Gr§ 5�q h o `j>N `2>MpiOm.pn� >1cxq m> �mlpp mJnm`�'�e : 2 Z z e a a c N - < cN m rn 19 m m c m �I� m E>:o gm o�i t>zz QjN w i a N- a iNi a - opp°xxx O O x opxp c IU g H. i Z O iU O LL O m �'n v o u r vcv o'',c - rEEE E.y ar, E: t n2`EN a cQl0000E z oat �a:oE p Y "xm o Ep �!3,o U q _ o m'z z z z� C7 n o o'm o'I Z.� el o'i o U a'z'� pi o'y F _ 4c t 0 05 a o 0� It O ,-E— LL-;ZZZZZZNZ M Cl 4) 7 d ; O V �'QQQQQQC) Kr-',ZZZZZZoZ W Lo cc 0 C) O O O O O a r- C4 O G1 00 19T mO VCO-t 'oM N r,,0)oNN �D m00� r- N N to 6 miF? 0 0 0 0 0 0 rnrnrnrnrnrn rn rn rn O 0) 0) d J., ¢ a 4 rn � Q Q 0- 0- CL m1 m1 a ' Q:ZQQQQQQZ CN r- m1 O'ZZcQZ N 00 mn 00 Cn M O O O O co O O N eh O_ NNCM Q- 0IT�a) c0 CDO OOO N'' G.INO Ql N 0000CD O 00 �,Crj OO OOM - O 00C) O �OOOOOOe! �', B O O O C � �I!ti L"T O0 O O O O LL MO�MC Clcl, M d� m M to N M N C U) C C to (n U) Q c Q Q p > — — — — — a)m n mO O O O O > — — O O Z U) Ocj) O O � _O� ��aaa aa� � _O_m �06 LL t� ZS — — to >, C) Ca M CD M CU Z m Z Z YCnC/)U) A— YCACD --F O a) a) a)O (n � U U Q LL LL LL rn c U C mB _C LL a mn -m7 jfa a d +�+ m _0 .. >> N N d mn mn mp a) N O v (L) a) C U mn O QS O N ` N C . 0) CQ N U 7 U U o L) mn ma a) V Cl) N p) W Cn a) U) m N En E m cn >a N d ��C�'m � �0) a m aoi cn EmnE 41 'mn w 4))aa))Z E��mnE N a wEE Ci O >� _ 06>->->->-Q = E L-0 06>-< N� a s i cn a _ a) c lL O -� a) O c U U U U O LL C _ U [� 0 0 N C C N. W 0 f �— E a)LLLLLLL� � w QE� �LCinCi O O 0�UL-iQm �0<z� z» n6 N I'$ m c0 N N V 01 cc (D �j ^ A O to Nh0Iq �N O"NMN� O) Go �Go "NN ;(A N N 0) U C I I 19 M m I N c N E II E L C a) C C LL > C ca LL d LL �a a cc ci v v o Ey f U O U U d M LL (i 2 rnLL_ .� LL a J c Of ILi 0 0 I�._ O 3 T j O r r X E".?aLLa �Ill oacn c~u1CL EEmmyEL 5� O 7 .� -_ « t6 0 t7 t0 21 zI'' fA 00¢ 0 UC (D(.5a E5 EUQ W JHI IO to � 1N. isIC'J •a r OItD' mI�I i Ia m I v��l R L, Q rj�tONIN o z Cli O is 01NC, j ! I I `I 10 f+l j ' III i N im III .I M 7I ILLI I I m ff Q�y c c°3i_ a c •- do m WI: y1 0 LL16.1 U �R m0zI aO ICI O OD to (D N O ftif t(') `') 7 co pp00 N C O W to 0) MI 0 (h 2 'O. 010)� Oln N IN S � GoCY) :ICI' O 1 01 O P7 N.K ^' N' O� tb Ip ("1 r cn _ Lq v �,en t(pNOOOaDI� Q�(D M !p,(.j to O V Q U.) N N f` i�cli � I�iln'�, I I/f' �N aD tN'. . N jtn N C*' rn to t` t l � C m mg Nto 0: mi�l!I Cq It, vIO I �I^N C1 I -III a4 t; OI 7M �I A c' O)f� 06 NI�aOp LA LL u7 O N i O u O NN �(D: W O W(0 M to ItoJ� vj �G) n1, �pNIOD ,. to Lc)c0 co MR) �NO�p (� RM tnl1A� N (('1 E cD ` ttfoAn OjC'i 1n1-!�I IV�N: Epmppop{pp��ppppo 0 t0 ttt IN Cl)�N� ZNOt0� O� O �D7i (+1 O � N LQ rj�l 6 N O OI'. CID O m to '�I 0 co I to _ t('1 ^O CV d CI 8t0��O 1 ano_ -10 rn m "I L to e! O Go O 7 I Q, (h'�.' R< r N 100 IN Or (O Ool N OOto Moi1 'tN cn cpp1 ri o tri w g n ao -S LL 7 I i i I d , I' I oum c N�o_ II I l6 , E m ,` ih ZEmy EEcI c aj o o; g d � L) �Io �Ucn»D_�ir m �vico I O'' N 2 N `IN p O j IYi n co O N h N Go 00 R I- M m. r rn fh p ILnl(i. LLL CM N O ITU7 U7 IIIW N co Oo CI) ^ O. M O cn N,! �., In l tl),I cq O w 01 NI{p �N fO:914 p� a to EyyI� O M 01; CN44I U (•1 CO O L N'.. OIN (h O- M fh, 4; 45 01 0) Opo (D � N.J Noc nQIpr-NO'. Q � lb N c (Q n. K O O U)Igl ^ 00 M cIN ILOI c 0�1 IT cn 7 coN�co co (D (D - � O N I � II E W �0) c E-8 E c' Ou { m vi vi c 01 07 II II � I I I i i ' � I II 3 p!000C � ppo y I ; pI I $g p Cop N I j Is 1.9 wl}�0 J „i J „r �Ih 7 Im �t�ln ] wf�YOim�M 6 OiO O NON 01107m Y 0 m C w Yn f N i m OCI O�n 17 N m >>i0I0 >>IO C8_0 _ >, J>Oa s >IC NOS« ]> mamIA N �NN'in mp a o p wc ?yMO�a J>OO >m_O {O�♦P♦ J>«N J}OYmm�� >OO sLLJ I� J>�mNN��i,t7 m ^1Np j OO op m�S o `"' �IIO N �10� If I Y �I 4 �i QQQ� Z O, t FIO LY nI „ „ N J O a I m8,„ 18) = W!E m — II Z Y „'ls 3, I O < n N P N OD OI O,O n G _ O 1% O O Im N O O v` ` c] m LL C T m a c Iz oa rn r < c m , `o ] Ee mY o0� c �!2u U K U< „m m m o o 03 was o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 a H e m' 1 e"f' r Cl) M M <'�i rn W rn.r', CO co r_ IO WIN. tCp CD � :<. M ' Go < cmn r'O i GO I W l fh' ICI CO . IH C� r� N Iw W O N �IW, M CO O:M N O O M'M IU) n rU) :M O !N rM Oco� -do �0) N OCOIh ,,o b N � M N 04 V, W M- m O,iC v n C n m ;O n)i0)IN, 'm ccoo O O CD 16 ;- O m coI co N CO v In. Cf :In 'W Q) U) Ia101 W) sf N,O. "I — H7 O OICf IC) W 'M Cl �IOIn 10 W, MO CID a) t0 N Oc+O)CMO ,N V N V � 0 ILL i .. n,� M r IM '� 4 N CD W O O (gyp M m N M 0 W' N c n O ' N 'N M 0)iO:e- V I�I►r v C) N In Co O O) CO N O O 1-1w W (O M ,� Ia0 U1 W LOIN O MI,�.. CO CD _ - LN VZ r o�' m co M 7 m CnD W ILL � IC'7 Iv N ml III. a IU)I n00 c) N O O MIO O mla0 WN0)�t r�- M N O O y,r� I.M. IS O I� r m CO O d:01�' VIA n' m, I N' Q) O O WI00� W O If') m n CIW N Cl) � 'N W i O: IC I O N U).�. ;:: I U) M r m N cr)jw Iv. U) ILL` IW ml IWI N O O WILD W in— m ml101 co ICO '�1 �. W 9) OIn U Q)ICh''. C0 O W U),M O � �Ic Cl) n v NI'D W n n 11n �� In r min lt�0 N M NIO: O N M M 00 V ICi IM 'C% OI M ILL. ice: N CID �. M r coN W �. Iv W) C7 Co U) IC) OONn'O O mco Go W W N �'^ cm N m lOIW'. N O 0) �'W woI� O W CO m M C+j 'a m �CO;W r., W O CO - O m �,� M (0 n n_i�. N p IW- :�. :W � U) :In N M N M .- m N MIM., I �- ILL `. .-IOD :n 00 m, IOM CDIn w W Cc ICO -OON)ON Cp��MOD ^ 'W n Uyiln �, U,) If) W CD n M a)) F-ito M U) M C A,CD O M� A, ,� M CO O:O 'a N V LL W n C) '- m] w Cl) W M QIM 0) Cl) M CW) CD O CO n �,^ N N A W 10 V:cl IO (7) M ci`�''W O N IO n w i In m U't IO O'R non CN O O,M CD V'O(0 V.N N O of � O�CV '.1. '� ;z n CO co — N n Q,a)'M InmRa IONO)e-Olaa CO m n M P, O N �,.'C4 M M W v �;N M N. V C m E O) d 0 > C L ~ � U) C W m ? EL U) C d [ to d N V m [ m y m m U >, C U C C C d d , 0 m O) 0 m G J N U C l0 L d la, m T L a C' (D Q- C Q x W N A IUI .0 C 0Q INa U ~ U m 'c ,C .� U a.:Z U)cn ¢ w C: cXa V 00))LI E c m �[ m. M0 O C TO x a)> m .�. C� O X d Z X m U) 'U C: JLL C CN>mf9 fniW ,mCD C s N O a) Fa u L: t .8 'Iz 'O >` O CCO > m .�' d' G - CL.0 x m a) .� m dl O ' m m L C ice'. m cU U L m CL U) m w Cn (t C.) z CU w I z lu] Q) 6.0 CD Z' IO O !CD O :a 10 SO C) CD `r n m CI,W, 10 O 'O W ''W M 10 C O) I CT O OIO (3) Lf) CID O iW �'R' iW 10 10 M 'm N v O.L6 'N v Iv m � O n In On A O O O IIO n CO O C' ci p.M O C) C) C, CID N M C) Cl) IM Cl, ( IO O 'O co m Iq '� M CN 04 ' � v . � N C) m fp m O.1 M .COD IM O CS) IO coO ;� OI-s O O; Qj m CDC)Ip iC) IC) W In M N iNI r� N m IO to OIM, O IC) Cl) n I� CO 1C O OI 10', 10 �O 10 IO� CO O M v a r,- IC) O 01p n C) i� C') I W cn I C:) 0 U) I OD Lei' Lci m OIN C) IF10CD N !,M V CO LOO Ot.VI IO O !a!''(q i� IO OiM; IO O C:)OBI in Go M O ICO OIM' IW O n v -I IN', m '� ICV �I �. N 1n IO) :O. O !C) O n ;� CO IN O'N1 O 0 O O 0!C, N N Cl) Ir- C6 CD co W 1Ln, 7 CIO n co;n Im'I nI n In' o i o ra v m O O C) IO 0 n :m O n Im' O O i0 n Cl) m O :.� M �U) 'n LC)R to V7 v 'Ir n m M LC) m 0 m M co �2n E C 0 y d rn c'I E o Q mI E , o _ CL �+• m > C a E U y U_ c 0 [ O (j w U �mj w 71 a7 v cc c Q U) m mI Im c y Och H) O a `. 0 N' $'': L O m LL IL, m C U) [ m m C> IL; yl H Im U y a) N. IU, C)t m U E �',m E o m U v o o c �z o oil �N' cl tr a (' z m c v�' a>i c U � : J C� c a I rn d O III c m y L d �d O) MmI O) d 16 m l0 O 0 ml mlm��, O O d ia:g o, acid d Xn a;g �IrI .20. I z: m o' �, m w 09, CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY CITY RDA RDA rA BALANCE SHEET 04MMII, FD(ED LONG TERM FD(ED LONG TERM FINANCING LONG TERM GRAND CITY ASSETS DEBT RDA ASSETS DEBT AUTHORITY DEBT TOTAL ASSETS: POOLED CASH 6,585,137.17 6,497,068.58 (8,486,43) 13.073.719.32 LORP INVESTMENT IN POOLED CASH 680,000.00 680,D00.00 INVESTMENT T-BILLINOTES 6 OTHER 22,000,000.00 22.000.000.00 LQRP CASH 64231.25 64,23125 BOND REDEMPTION CASH 166,854.30 1.86 166,856.16 BOND RESERVE CASH BOND PROJECT CASH 15,161,643.73 581.776.54 15,743,420.27 BOND ESCROW CASH PETTY CASH 1,000.00 1.000.00 CASH & INVESTMENT TOTAL 28,586,137.17 22,569,797.86 573,291.97 51,729,227,00 INVESTMENT IN LAND HELD FOR RESALE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 54,991.38 79,157.68 8,260,000.00 8,394,149.06 PREMIUMIDISCOUNT ON INVESTMENT 52,764.12 (62,685.46) (1,036.00) (10.957,34) LQRP-ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 39,436.48 39,436.48 INTEREST RECEIVABLE 142,955.80 142,955.80 LOAN/NOTES RECEIVABLE 129,362.49 2,528,967.76 2,658,330.25 DUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS 13,025.34 551,038.04 564,063.38 DUE FROM RDA 6,890,277.20 6,890,277.20 INTEREST ADVANCE -DUE FROM RDA 951,558.60 951.558.60 NSF CHECKS RECEIVABLE 1.755.63 1,755.63 ACCRUED REVENUE 833.40 833.40 TRAVEL ADVANCES 3,534.00 3.534.00 EMPLOYEE ADVANCES PREPAID EXPENSES - RECEIVABLE TOTAL 8,097,268.76 3,279,703.70 8,258,964.00 19.635,936A6 WORKER COMPENSATION DEPOSIT 37,637.00 37,637.00 RENT DEPOSITS UTILITY DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 MISC. DEPOSITS 2,100.00 2,100.00 DEPOSITS TOTAL 39,812.00 39,812.00 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS 1,098,865.00 15,008,708.00 11,438,745.05 27,546,318.05 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION (728,192.83) (726,192.83) AMOUNT AVAILABLE TO RETIRE UT DEBT 3,395,117.03 3,395,117.03 AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED FOR LIT DEBT 1,944,070.34 96,331,460.63 8,260,000.00 106,535,530.97 TOTAL OTHER ASSETS 372,672.17 15,008,708.00 1,944,070.34 11,438,745.05 99,726,577.66 8,260,000.00 136.750.773.72 TOTAL ASSETS 37 095 890.10 15 006 708.00 1,944,070.34 25.849.501.56 11,438,745.05 99 726 577.66 8,832,255.97 8,260.000.00 208 155 748.68 LIABILITY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE (0.02) 22,139.53 22,139.51 DUE TO OTHER AGENCIES 656,166.35 656166.35 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS (638.06) 551,038.04 13,159.32 563,559.30 INTEREST ADVANCE -DUE TO CITY ACCRUED EXPENSES PAYROLL LIABILITIES 52,915.61 52,915.61 STRONG MOTION INSTRUMENTS 6,980.18 6,980.18 FRINGE TOED LIZARD FEES 38,300.00 38,300.00 SUSPENSE (6,106.33) (6,106.33) DUE TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PAYABLES TOTAL 747,617.73 22,139.53 551,038.04 13,159.32 1,333,954.62 ENGINEERING TRUST DEPOSITS 58,224.09 58.224.09 SO. COAST AIR QUALITY DEPOSITS ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES DEPOSITS 448,267.01 448.267.01 LQRP DEPOSITS 15,395.99 15,395.99 DEVELOPER DEPOSITS 920,726.58 920,726.58 MISC. DEPOSITS 153,366.55 153.366.55 AGENCY FUND DEPOSITS 1,219,041 99 1,219,041.99 TOTAL DEPOSITS 2,799,626.22 15,395.99 2,815,022.21 DEFERRED REVENUE 11,250.23 8,260,000.00 8,271,250.23 OTHER LIABILITIES TOTAL 11,250.23 8,260,D00.00 8,271,250.23 COMPENSATED ABSENCES PAYABLE 313,619.81 313,619.81 DUE TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 1,608,311.00 9,641,837.01 11,250,148.01 DUE TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 12,601,591.90 12,601,591.90 DUE TO C.V. UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. 10,068,148.75 10,068,148.75 DUE TO DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DIST. BONDS PAYABLE 67,415,000.00 8,260,000.00 75,675,000.00 TOTAL LONG TERM DEBT 1,921,930.81 99,726,577.66 8,260,000.00 109,908,508.47 TOTAL LIABILITY 3,558,494.18 1,944,070.34 566,434.03 99,726,577.66 8,273,159.32 8,260,000.00 122,328,735.53 EOUITY-FUND BALANCE 33,537,395.92 15,008,708.00 25,283,067.53 11,438,745,05 559,096.65 85.827,013,15 TOTAL LIABILITY 6 EQUITY 37 D95 890.10 15,008,708.00 1 944 070 34 25,849,501.56 11 438 745.05 99 726 577.66 8,832,255.97 8,260,000.00 208 155 748.68 T4'!t 4 a4P Q" June 15, 1999 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: ITEM TITLE: Transmittal of Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: z Transmittal of Treasurer's Report dated April 30, 1999 for the La Quinta Financing Authority. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with California Government Code Section 53645 as amended 1 /1 /86; and is in conformity with City Code 3.08.010 to 3.08.070 Investment of Money and Funds. I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet next month's estimated expenditures. Jdhn M. Falcondr, Finance Director Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachment: Treasurer's Report, La Quinta Financing Authority 6- J TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM La Quinta City Council John Falconer, Finance Director/Treasurer Treasurer's Report for April 30, 1999 June 3, 1999 Attached is the Treasurer's Report for the month ending April 30, 1999. This report is submitted to the City Council each month after a reconciliation of accounts is accomplished by the Finance Department. Cash and Investments: Decrease of $444,026. due to the net effect of expenditures in excess revenues. State Pool: Increase of $83,360. due to the net effect of transfers to and from the cash and investment accounts. U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes, Government Agency Securities and Commercial Paper: Decrease of $2,938,187. due to the sale two Securities, one T-Note, the purchase of one Security and monthly adjustment in the amortized value of the investments. Mutual Funds: Increase of $2,949,412. due to the sale of one T-Note and interest earned. Total decrease in cash balances $349,441. I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code; and is in conformity with the City Investment policy. As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City of La Quinta used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank Monthly Statement and Bank of New York Monthly Custodian Report to determine the fair market value of investments at month end. :)hn M. Falconer inance Director/' �141? ate f 03 ZI Iz: ZI 1z IZ Z 'Z W I I^ o col o � ° I O m c tLL cI is all E p U U o II o LLI I l i CIS `d IN tl 'I I L li I d i I i pv I I o 'I T E c E'° r NNI r N Ill o Ca c'�� IN l0 y o Doll ^ E "N a $O o i$ I ME 1 l f E--$ i I GO!,N VI V $ Z.9 0 x M N a Im gg NN J C? C? S cqi CID m in Z �� •' Ip' S O l0 rl N N� $ O S I IN Q ci �--! IZ O S 777' E r! A �J IO N IIGO C lO� �I 11�O` IIC I Q li ISI ISI O S lb Z <� gI OI, C � I IHI I I I I 3 041 18II co Cl! �,8R 10 LLO1QQ N ci $ $ IiN ° E LL' R N �' L IZ � 8 Ire 8 a Iml 8 r`I n ( l I I C ? E, moo.. o v n��' j c 2 L'I E U o m '. o O u o h Q S '.., O I LL lV € ! c n U 3 C W 5 z I C q � O I I I , C767�-$ lti S a o !� QQQ I.I p o ) 01 'g Ma ¢ m-C 0 D a m LL$°Eo °M cU g Q z m-LL m mhc �a o Cox° 2 In-� to i S � ZR Z E �cv c C li .8 m ao I o c o q 2I-'li�U C o a ll C� EOM � o ql to O.0CY� N Uo-p_0 c m�� mll �Z�omUoo g c °0iE EEp E m o IS ��' E$ D o m€ o 1 �I �N� o o �' o E YU g lu mi 'LL o E� �� i� U cm ii o ¢ F �� E �ln oho o I 21 E LLLL'C I mV%o a x a:j i w r- 29ZR�Ro co co < W N LinQQQ d d C C q L c aci a a, E U¢� y� C aa8 c o aiiQ� 6 o O q q q m q www� ddd� N N N � C C c ccc.x Q¢¢cn a tw o 0 o o twFlo - `.Z o t' 00 'im m m m Im m _raex�x or.' ar o pl mm� 008 w s,m a m^ a sal m `a Qg q Q o�?� r e 0 iCn_�o� 3 2`a �Q E ol!. OIm E O _0000 ,000O �jj O (A LL,O 00 iq q'I I s § 0 gl8 a >�I a >�25 a >011o Vlo oI. 88 h - oo O'. : e'f YI'- I113 � LLio ell ' I � Q 1 G o lio o' e� a.- YngblOmi Tomb THY, �'N o g'-- z > > 8 $,` 2, ^ r -bb W''. O� >'O T t° >�IOLO M >N a,o >z z.i n J'a a a. m m JN �'zzz Zz— u'z z z. c..� �'! O�Y p0,,0 z <-` <-.Nn� cmN.� <- C,N� <- C,Z a- Y zN m,� a h a - - �aa. z c ^ c ^ U Ot Bm Om SZ.. TLL 05 r.> z L 5.z ... o m m E. 16 LL U D LL V 0 0 LL LL m �zzi y in w ui ui v rm pc o v v E al fEEEy Q. o am,Q. v c a,EE q 0 3 ,000 N y ca zwlY N2',E E�$ uo ��Y <¢ me o1c o o E E "»>Y'o �a�o, o ,T'ui a: E E li,o i19 cQ,ralVl E cm 3 3 3 3. o >a'z`z"I1(9 C qll 3� 'olz`I� a'Iz- �-.�I'o'Ic o m'. 3' U =E o 'o l -.°o`o ? E o'u ¢i''.gg, F � � Q LL c o i0 w 10 Q IY 2 iv •-b� N, Malmo' Malmo. .o mSs �cz Ism o m m: IU�2mw w 0 olio n m �1'� O a � Z. Y � N 0 ola a a a ao -I,Z Z Z Z Z., b a c. H ♦ o a� mINn�N o. m o 9tee os�sssss, o1N N `33333 > LLi EooEc c EcE t. 0 Mid Q d at. Tom..... . cjiY T Y Y >' m'. e v Ico a' c c c C - IE E E E EIS y� E aCIO 01i c c c c M. �a'iNmmm� o 3 » >Im a a C �aaaao � <<oQQ U a LL m 8. 'sam'm o m 05 a O L ¢ rn C L) c Cu c LL a) c M U U ¢ Q) m ¢ E c > a C�o ) 0) CO —0Edo >+ E >,'L �c,=a U cn U ¢ > O — Z Z Z Z Z Z N Z Lt M O d 7 dccO ClSzzzZZZpZ x O LL c L rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn �',� QII.aQat2� p�Z¢Q¢Q¢QZ N00LOc0LOM O O r N r r M O N N M O coV.M � z:C)C (3)OM�c)i►� CEAOOCC)cNj ti .c OONOOOO,e- Q. MMrM LnNv- Ef! C cn N O N C_ ¢ O O O O O O a� (q O O O O O O M 06 d d LL .. CMM cd C m m m m m Z O U U) C/) U) L _0 U () LL a m � N a) � w.. t C) U) N a > aa)) m U) Eu)E E c000/o��LL- c N a) Y t./ 1 1 1 1 1 fa d E �LLLI.LLLLLL =� C N cu coOo OOo Lr J f—(DO d O O O } aovVn v (D v 0) 0) rn a) m 0) _D a)� F �l¢N¢~r o-¢ p,ZrZOr¢Z O OOc1r) CD OOO N Q.NO O O O O O Oi =�00C)C-)C .`.�ti ipl d'� OOO Ni N �. M M N M �' En m C C � co cn ¢ ¢ —0 O _ > — c0 O — a) (L) Z m O a Ca'o2Saa�� _O_m O11. 0) w (0 (0 f0 c —(U U(DU) CU Z Z � — 7 a) (0 cu N NU)� L U "O 'O a) a) LL LL a () a) tC U L) � !4 (n N U)' a) a Z Cl) m U) aci aci E E a=i u) E N _ ¢ c ai N m � U) cn (o Ma) r M co I� � C) C,4 N 0 LN r N N L O 0 o a) C N � � V 0 (0 L U) a) m O OCf) 0 U �_ ma E co cw0 -a c 'E'm a) c c a) a) a L 0)L L E E a � N O > > C c N.LU a2 O E .. c V O to N O c a)'c � E O Q WaC�¢� IIt) Cu W N N Q W W (O nn �n(•)cNi GoON)f7N�� I L6 o '- N Cl) CY coW� (*, N C m m 4] I o5 y N C m I I cu E E m c > > = O L C LL C C C C m z N w LL v vco-Ec c m m C Uco 0)m c) =LL �ti mLLL L�. 2 O- _U 7 0p C - U- O) J iC 'coa CJCO O «7� OO d MLLLL a mm ' h �E`��o y m p 7 l0 y a p C y' 7 C)oa o IU!C9(9UCi5j 0<w_3 � , OIR Nla Ci f24 Q N co Qln co v! C C LL I (i E �y8 d C > (i E•Z'g— �CaIo d� Cal 7i So d 9ICO) I I I OI ICI �I yLLyi W QICUI I C c (i Z (� m d IC a),V)Ia ICc --ia: �Id:N ' t y � Isla o: , FO- m 0 CII O III � I Igl iw Q O Q M lA 0) IC6 C'i r- nur. LI_ N )b On1 M nln� SIN Olncp1 mIO (O OWi U) O aOl0li �10 N M) W IIW C6 Ld rn- Qi WII r—• N W I O Ilnll n, I m IC.)�l�pf M N p a l �Ic �D O O)INi c�TThii a Q,. 1L O' N a� Epp CD co � ml'.�5 f7 N (NO I(O'I C �j Ep�pp �j n n NIODW' m (010NWN�1�1 'I ;' C.)Il•) I to II I i y)Nit I(ONO V � �I�' E (V U, co Cj Riv .- W::�I!. W pp W 0 n N � n N OO, N.1ICOOD �I �2000 Go IN �Q C � W O CT m 7IW N N 1� W 0) (7 071 (7 C. W O �I�', .7 W v v n QI� O N N M cq pn r) 8 W CN- .�- eN•- )A ! I II I y I � I d .` I 4) h m I E ED in �E�y EEv c _ U) W E ? I.5 L) d Im C ', OI U(n��a2zOlF- 0) < Z I �g' yN N(o N O'W c coN c Q co I m yN(ON n O) WQ (07O fh M m O> (0 ao LO ri cl0)rn 0) - rn —0 C',(`•)N Q W rn �cO 0Q� oO. =uvi�v_� '4p U7 p N O Q N O n Q w n W �2 W O'' NOS Imo; L If7 Q N n `'N stO n cofl- W' I (h IO Z$ Q n N M rn !7Q MM co LL. N.6 W� NVi N W � aOM 'pe N 1 W Q C' U W',.. a1 N (p IN n N (OIl0 (O (O C-4, W 0), Nonou,01' N�n�00 �pN. I I II O ! I E(o(o�-jC-p� QvQ_IQ� >0CM4 0l'70 INn o all Z V (n�(� 10)) lilGo V) r- CO lnl) � (Qp71i III P)I(h1 10� .5IcgaL n R N O n. W.. r- 0 CD 0 V O rll I 149 l y04 IW L'Z yIQ(p 04 N C) �I QNp�O� I a{tOjU O) �0I G.I NIGoi Q N iNi 71W N O pQ to 0Wn cv a'a Wvov (on w CO nirn c 0) co, a p (nD(O AIM N is rn NIS11 l `� x I I xx w to Ir �M iv < < 10 �Zg$Olo 2l i I !Saga! 9 is w j I glggoj ,�la ��ISi5tY5i ,�ISi -149 ^ •, o All ^I$I$ pp >OOOPm o N>O m,Y>i010 'Yi ��wi»ix�^ IIII YID J;N Q 1 » 'I 'A Q NON lig J� I c'' w � IU U MINI =)I �Z Z m� vvE !n E E 8' Jm88p' < < P ^ c c c.LL U m E ^ U m Z'i o am 3ah u 3. 0 G N mcS b s I I 0 n m rn o m a � LL m c ^ LL PD a 'n r 9 � O - sP 0 0 PP -N < N O a I c i U e ; � in Ito', M A M M <1m M fir. CD � CA CO T:V' CO 13014 ; CV r b m,, '4a) N Ai�i � N COO (DIM ;M' .t0. �10'! '�a co O N ��. N O 0) V �O r) 0) 't0 CD ,C.) O O m r IOD coo 0Lo N O oDIA ;� CO N r it M N N',O, CO M CO Ct)iN v r ,V A CID O 'N N IOIN N r•IA, CD O CO U-1- co N C"r• �N CO N CD 'A 'A to .� A N CQ & W) U'OIA O n=IC. i0 r l0 C) OICf ICf ',,M C) m RICO r O M a�0'ev- m C)) N O COO ccc 1'N "MC N < tLI i� Air Cl) ten '.N._.. N '� 1W a0 O �1N �,A ON MO�:O CO O N t0 C00%Or Cep O � O CNO CO') CA ^ICO M �� a 'N oD 1m- COIN p C) C3) to CD A .r. tn 'O r 1- �CDr p1 N M CID M .- tO RSV) r iv ;� N ILLrlr' IOf' Lm+, 1A. h O O OI'IN. O N M O�� IiCO CO 'r r. CO N O O CO p, Cl) N O) p �Ir' CD O m.CO N' (n I'�. ' 01.I 1 U.) � C01p N r- r CO CVCD M OICO M .- CO N M I CO I L6 N I0 ILLY) A m co N O O oOZ CO CO r O colC14, I, O) A co IM' O OV "I CO A A � LO �W UIa) yiA 94 CO C9 �'p 0) CO O p CO I.A 'Co Ito ',A Cp l- ItO SILL. CV O r N O:r Nr MCO COie M r CO CV CO'.. 'M 'N ',N M M ICA 10 Of r l0) OOc) cm" r aD n0 Aa, O) ,CO . A O) r II, co co mKD;� co O CD p a M CD � AIN � 0 :. ICC1'� N COO fD �,r r CV M .- CO O R ICO N ILL, W) m A Cl) O O CD ,A M CO <t MN. r r c I,O IN Cp O m O N O M'V MIOR A A U.�'CD `,COIn. COLei '6 N CO In W) C'i Cil OIM a�D N CO O OIO IA '� r A l0 r COr OD Of Rr0 MICO M W M O)'CO 0)'CO N CA'A 0) I- CA M'CT) _ h IT Cl) CO Q O A N N r A M A,:4 CD CO a)M 01 cc 0) IN CO r M N v 7 CO U,oO CC) CA R r,A CA m'.� CO --i O CO N C) 'AtC CO 'N 'r O ^ CV A .M co CO IN r OND CO Cn r M C4 �.� M M CO I N.. I,,N M N Q .0 y 7 =3 m > o c L ~ � y C 'L LL :. is CU y m m C CD X m t m U >. C U C C C CD 0, .d U) O U It U)m Cp N x m Q N C'Q. m C 7 y d _+ X H N ID m ci C 7 Q m 0 N X U 7 m yc a) LL O C N C a Q y gym. 0 30 0 IU N N 0` V m O a t C m J �W CILL >, C m N '.' d X O_�� W > CtD'I p L Cn C m N N y m N r C -0 Z� w co -0 >' y m� d O C` L > m- m . a x m a). m a).o a+ m L t �+ m cU0LL m a�<n0Ix wCna:OUaf- z 0 w Iz, NCO O'i i2 'O O ',O� 0�co �, :01 C '.C' CO c CD at m M ICT Iu1i OOCOO t00 CID COOmI AnAn ct'R Iu) CO IO)' a0O M 'aD N O. Lri N V v op m r L Lri 'p 00� O C00 O lO CY)O'O co N CO O 'CD M M O C`7 ,M IO O :(A t0 CC) 'fit M N 'N W) 'v N CO OC) CID O OaD OC:)08 O 1�OI , O C) O 0 LOMCO n v :N 'IN', r 'r N CO CDOM 'O O (D', !C) M co r 'RCO 'Lq 10 O .0 O,O. O O O c) r C) o. '.ef IO Im O IT, 10 '0 'at M 'CO CO I CO Lei1. C7 tt l ap CC) OODON' OO I,O N cm ''O GGo CO O :' IO CD,C) cl O IOI ICD CO ',op O ICI ILc) I� C) ICO OIM COO O IA v IN; C�!CO N �I2' N , a) la) 10 I O A co O A NONI C) N N co io '.(D ICD ICO ICO! ADO co Lei ItD co C)O i^ ''O 10 On O O��O, C5 O ;O i0 1C0 1C01 ap O, ',CO CD O 'Q f` O co U" Cb O M co c2 n CD ID E m m c c E o 0 a C) E m N m C U ii c o C N H 0 IM C w U) m U m U CD U �' y d m o y m O o N )C 1° > N N m y a. U) -)Cm. = l0 O Y N y y N, ..• T L, UM) U) m U T IL) N y E 3Eo V1 a0 O fn y > O�� N �. T > O CI m' Q 2 '_J U r0 O c c'U O t !1 113 0 aU I m m C7f c 01 07 CU VIM � it 0 m N iu CJ CO O'LL 71 (D O Cccq, 0I� > fD', Cco4 I U, a+ a) m C d fU LE 4 Glr' O a`'m i 0 � z. O Ia.J m 0 0 0 n m d E 0 N 21 m Q O'. 0 ILL y G) N M m O m U C U 0 N z N d C m y > U m C C O CO �w 09 CITY OF LA QUINTA BALANCE SHEET 04/30/99 -Tto ASSETS: POOLED CASH 6,555,137.17 LQRP INVESTMENT IN POOLED CASH INVESTMENT T-BILL NOTES d OTHER 22,000,000.00 LORP CASH BOND REDEMPTION CASH BOND RESERVE CASH BOND PROJECT CASH BOND ESCROW CASH PETTY CASH 1,000.00 CASH # INVESTMENT TOTAL 28,586,137.17 INVESTMENT IN LAND HELD FOR RESALE CITY CITY RDA RDA rA FOILED LONG TERM FD(ED LONG TERM FINANCING LONG TERM GRAND ASSETS DEBT RDA ASSETS DEBT AUTHORITY DEBT TOTAL 6,497,068.58 (8.486 43) 13,073.719 32 680,OD0.00 680,000,00 22.000.DOO 00 6423125 64,231.25 166,854.30 1.86 166.856.16 15,161,643.73 681,776.54 15.743 420.27 1.000.00 22,569,797.86 573,291.97 51.729.227.00 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 54,991.38 79,157.68 8,260,000.00 8.394.149.06 PREMIUMIDISCOUNT ON INVESTMENT 52,764.12 (62,685.46) (1,036.00) (10.957.34) LQRP-ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 39,436.48 39,436 48 INTEREST RECEIVABLE 142,955.80 142,955.80 LOAN/NOTES RECEIVABLE 129,362.49 2,528,967.76 2,658,330.25 DUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS 13,025.34 551,038.04 564,063.38 DUE FROM RDA 6,890,277.20 6,890,277.20 INTEREST ADVANCE -DUE FROM RDA 951,558.60 951.558.60 NSF CHECKS RECEIVABLE 1,755.63 1,755.63 ACCRUED REVENUE 833.40 833.40 TRAVEL ADVANCES 3,534.00 3.53400 EMPLOYEE ADVANCES PREPAID EXPENSES RECEIVABLE TOTAL 8,097,268.76 3,279,703.70 8,258,964.00 19.635436. 66 WORKER COMPENSATION DEPOSIT 37,637.00 37,63Z00 RENT DEPOSITS UTILITY DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 MISC. DEPOSITS 2,100.00 2,100.00 DEPOSITS TOTAL 39,812.00 39,812.00 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS 1,098,865.00 15,008,708.00 11,438,745.05 27.546.318.05 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION (726,192.83) (726,192.83) AMOUNT AVAILABLE TO RETIRE L!T DEBT 3,395,117.03 3,395,117.03 AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED FOR LIT DEBT 1,944,070.34 96,331,460.63 8,260,000.00 106,535,530.97 TOTAL OTHER ASSETS 372,672.17 15,008,708.00 1,944,070.34 11,438,745.05 99,726,577.66 8,260,000.00 136,750,773.22 TOTAL ASSETS 37,095,890.10 15 008 708.00 1,944,070.34 25,849,501.56 11 438 745,05 99,726,577.66 8,832,255.97 8,260,000.00 208 155.748.68 LIABILITY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE (0.02) 22,139.53 22,139,51 DUE TO OTHER AGENCIES 656,166.35 656,166.35 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS (638.06) 551,038.04 13,159.32 563,559.30 INTEREST ADVANCE -DUE TO CITY ACCRUED EXPENSES PAYROLL LIABILITIES 52,915.61 52,915.61 STRONG MOTION INSTRUMENTS 6,980.18 6.980.18 FRINGE TOED LIZARD FEES 38,300.00 38,300.00 SUSPENSE (6,106.33) (6,106.33) DUE TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PAYABLES TOTAL 747,617.73 22,139.53 551,038.04 13,159.32 1,333,954.62 ENGINEERING TRUST DEPOSITS 58,224.09 58,224.09 SO. COAST AIR QUALITY DEPOSITS ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES DEPOSITS 448,267.01 448,267.01 LQRP DEPOSITS 15,395.99 15,395,99 DEVELOPER DEPOSITS 920,726.58 920,726.58 MISC. DEPOSITS 153,366.55 153,366.55 AGENCY FUND DEPOSITS 1,219,041.99 __ 1,219,041.99 TOTAL DEPOSITS 2,799,626.22 15,395.99 2,815,022.21 DEFERRED REVENUE 11,250.23 8,260,000.00 _ _ 8,271,250.23 OTHER LIABILITIES TOTAL 11.250.23 8,260,000.00 8,271,250.23 COMPENSATED ABSENCES PAYABLE 313,619.81 313,619.81 DUE TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 1,608,311.00 9.641.837.01 11,250,148.01 DUE TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 12,601,591.90 12,601,591.90 DUE TO C.V. UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. 10,068,148.75 10,068,148.75 DUE TO DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DIST. BONDS PAYABLE 67,415,000.00 8,260,000.00 75,675,000.00- TOTAL LONG TERM DEBT 1,921,930.81 99,726,577.66 8,260,000.00 109,908,508.47 TOTAL LIABILITY 3,558,494.18 1,944,070.34 566,434.03 99,726,577.66 8,273,159.32 8,260.000 00 122,328,735.53 EQUITY -FUND BALANCE 33,537,395.92 15,008,708.00 25,283,067.53 11,438,745.05 559,096.65 85,827,013 15 TOTAL LIABILITY 3 EQUITY 37,095,890.10 15,008,708.00 1,944,070.34 25 849 501.56 11,438,745.05 99,726,577.66 8,832,255.97 8,260,000.00 208.15 7748.68 Titit 4 4Q" COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 ITEM TITLE: Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Contract With Impact Sciences to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report for a Request of a General Plan and Zone Change for "The Ranch" Consisting of Two Golf Courses Hotels, Commercial Uses, Residential Units, and Offices for the Property Located West of Jefferson Street, South of Avenue 52, and North of Avenue 54. Applicant: KSL Land Corporation RECOMMENDATIONS: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Contract Services Agreement for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) with Impact Sciences in an amount not to exceed $81,000. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. The project developer will deposit the contract amount for the cost of the E.I.R. with the City who will then pay the consultant based upon the contract. The contract will be executed upon the developer's deposit of said amount. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The City contacted Impact Sciences, one of the firms listed on the City's Environmental Services eligibility list, to prepare a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report for KSL's proposed project, "The Ranch" (Attachment 1). City staff has attached the Contract Services Agreement executed by the consultant, in an amount not to exceed $81,000 for City Council approval (Attachment 2). FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Contract Services Agreement for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) with Impact Sciences in an amount not to exceed $81,000; or, CAW Documents\WPDOCS\cccd-OOI.wpd 2. Do not approve the request to enter into a Service Contract with Impact Sciences; or, 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. E�r Her an munity Development Director Approved for submission by: J �I d _ y cw G ,� �r .K . ' Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Contract Services Agreement 00to-, C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\eced-OO1.wpd 6150' -- T-Tnr fiMENT #1 7.7 10.2-- Ion ATTACHMENT #2 1 CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (the "Agreement"), is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, (the "City"), a California municipal corporation, and IMPACT SCIENCES, INCORPORATED (the "Contractor"). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.0 SERVICES OF CONTRACTOR 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide those services related to Environmental Documentation for the project known as "The Ranch" proposed for 830 acres located south of Avenue 52, west of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 54, as specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services" or "work"). Contractor warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services. 1.2 Contractor's Proposal. The Scope of Services shall include the Contractor's proposal or bid, if any, which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 1.3 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of the City of La Quinta and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.4 Licenses, Permits. Fees and Assessments. Contractor shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 1.5 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Contractor warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site of the work and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should the Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by the City, it shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof). 1.6 Care of Work. The Contractor shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such t 001) C:AMv Documents\WPDOCS\Conti--Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd Impact Sciences 2 KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. The performance of services by Contractor shall not relieve Contractor from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective work at no further cost to the City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Contractor. 1.7 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Contractor shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services (Exhibit "A") when directed in writing to do so by the Contract Officer, provided that Contractor shall not be required to perform any additional services without compensation. Any addition in compensation not exceeding five percent (5 %) of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increase must be approved by the City Council. 1.8 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern. 2.0 COMPENSATION 2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the Contractor shall be compensated in accordance with the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference, but not exceeding the maximum contract amount of One Hundred Thousand no/100 dollars ($100,000) (the "Contract Sum"), except as provided in Section 1.7. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon the Contractor's rates as specified in Exhibit "C", but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C"). Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, premiums for bonds and insurance, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C"). 2.2 Method of Payment. Any month in which Contractor wishes to receive payment, Contractor shall submit to the City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by the City's Finance Director, an invoice for services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the services provided, including time and materials, (2) specify each staff member who has provided services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member, and (3) indicate the total expenditures to date. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Contractor specifying that the payment requested is for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City will pay Contractor for all expenses stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than the last working day of the month. ON") ti C:AMv Documents\WPDOCS\Conti--Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wnd Impact Sciences KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR 3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "W) for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargos, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if the Contractor shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contracting Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his judgment such delay is justified, and the Contracting Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 7.8 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D"). 4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representative of Contractor. The following principals of Contractor are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: Tony Locacciato It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into his Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The foregoing principals may not be changed by Contractor and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the service required hereunder without the express written approval of City. 4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be the Community Development Director or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager of City. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Contractor shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Contr-Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd �' J Impact Sciences 4 KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Contractor, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Contractor shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Contractor, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Contractor shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. 4.5 City Cooperation. The City shall provide Contractor with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records or other data or Information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to the City. The City shall additionally provide Contractor staff assistance and shall take prompt and appropriate action when it will assist in ensuring and timely performance by Contractor hereunder. 5.0 INSURANCE. INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDS. 5.1 Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, public liability and property damage insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Contractor's acts or omissions rising out of or related to Contractor's performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Contractor's performance hereunder and neither the City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming the City and its officers and employees as additional insureds shall be delivered to and approved by the City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. The amount of insurance required hereunder shall be determined by the Contract Sum in accordance with the following table: Coverage (personal injury/ Contract Sum property damage) Less than $50,000 $100,000 per individual; $300,000 per occurrence $50,000 - $300,000 $250,000 per individual; $500,000 per occurrence Over $300,000 $500,000 per individual; $1,000,000 per occurrence 008 C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Conti--Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd Impact Sciences 5 KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR The Contractor shall also carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by the Contractor, its officers, any directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor, any subcontractor, and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Contractor's performance under this Agreement. The term "automobile" includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Contractor's performance hereunder and neither the City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming the City and its officers and employees as additional insureds shall be delivered to and approved by the City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. Contractor shall also carry Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with State Workers' Compensation laws. The Contractor shall procure professional errors and omissions liability insurance in the amount acceptable to the City. All insurance required by this Section shall be kept in effect during the term of this Agreement and shall not be cancelable without thirty (30) days' written notice of proposed cancellation to City. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor's obligation to indemnify the City, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents. 5.2 Indemnification. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, representatives and agents, from and against any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by the City) and for errors and omissions committed by Contractor, its officers, anyone directly or indirectly employed by Contractor, any subcontractor, and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Contractor's performance under this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City's own active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct, or that of its officers or employees. 5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies the City may have if Contractor fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, the City may, at its sole option: Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. b. Order the Contractor to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to Contractor hereunder until Contractor demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. 009 C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Contr-Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd Impact Sciences KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR C. Terminate this Agreement. M Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies the City may have and are not the exclusive remedies for Contractor's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Contractor may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Contractor's or its subcontractors' performance of work under this Agreement. 6.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS. 6.1 Reports. Contractor shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. 6.2 Records. Contractor shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. 6.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon the termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, and Contractor shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. Contractor may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Contractor shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied herein. Contractor shall cause all subcontractors to assign to City any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Contractor fails to secure such assignment, Contractor shall indemnify City for all damages suffered thereby. 6.4 Release of Documents. The drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials prepared by Contractor in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Contractor shall not disclose to any other private entity or person any information regarding the activities of the City, except as required by law or as authorized by the City. 7.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT. 7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be n , 01.0 C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Conti--Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd Impact Sciences 7 KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Contractor covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 7.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefor. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party cominences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, the City may take such immediate action as the City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City's right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 7.8. 7.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to Contractor sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Contractor in the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 7.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a nondefaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City's consent or approval of any act by Contractor requiring City's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Contractor. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 7.7 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section 7.9 for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Contractor shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be L' O 1 l C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Contr-Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd Impact sciences 8 KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Contractor shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C") or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. 7.8 Termination For Default Of Contractor. If termination is due to the failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Contractor shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated in Section 7.3. 7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party. 8.0 CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, NON-DISCRIMINATION. 8.1 Non-liabilityof f City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Contractor, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Contractor or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which effects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Contractor warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Contractor covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, disability or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, age or ancestry. 9.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Conti--Impact sciences - The Ranch.wpd Impact Sciences 9 KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section 9.1. To City: CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: Jerry Herman To Contractor: Impact Sciences, Inc. 30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Attention: Tony Locacciato 9.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understandings, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement. 9.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. 9.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not effect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 9.5 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. stated below. Dated: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation THOMAS P. GENOVESE, City Manager "CITY" � U 13 C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Contr-Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd Impact Sciences KSL Land Corporation - The Ranch EIR ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney Dated: IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. RA Name: Title: "CONTRACTOR" .) 0 IN 014 C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\Contr-Impact Sciences - The Ranch.wpd PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch EIR Impact Sciences, Inc. The Citv of La Quinta has received an application from KSL Land Corporation for a project known as "The Ranch", proposed for an 830 acre site in the Citv. This site is located south of Avenue 52, west of Jefferson Street and north of PGA West. The site for this project is located immediately east of the site of the proposed Country Club of the Desert Specific Plan Project, which consists of three proposed golf courses and 1,000 residential units on approximately 1,000 acres. The western portion of the site for The Ranch project, approximately 300 acres in size, consists of the rocky slopes of the Coral Reef Mountains. The applicant is proposing to leave this portion of the site as open space and develop the remaining 540 acres of the site. The majority of the development area, approximately 400 acres, will be used to construct two new golf courses. Residential, hotel and retail commercial uses are planned for the other 140 acres of the development area. The City of La Quinta will need to approve a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow these proposed land uses. In addition, the City will need to approve the Specific Plan for the project. The City wishes to have a complete and thorough environmental review of the project completed in a time and cost efficient manner. To accomplish this, this Scope of Services provides for completing technical studies and compiling the environmental setting (existing conditions) portion of the EIR as Phase I of our work program. Any important information gathered during this phase that suggests a possible constraint to development of any part of the site for the proposed uses will be identified as early as possible for the City so that the Specific Plan can reflect this information. When the draft Specific Plan is submitted to the Citv, the impact analysis will be completed and mitigation measures identified. Impact Sciences will manage the environmental review process for The Ranch project in a manner that that ensures the EIR is prepared in a thorough and efficient manner. To meet this objective, Impact Sciences proposes to participate fully in the EIR process, from preparation of the Notice of Preparation to drafting the required environmental findings. Impact Sciences will prepare an EIR that clearly discusses how the technical content and procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been met. The CEQA Guidelines were comprehensively updated in October 1998. Our staff is very familiar with the revised 1 } Impact Sciences 1 Mau 27, 1999 013 13 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR guidelines and will manage the environmental review process and produce an EIR that meets the requirements of the revised guidelines. In addition, the EIR will be written and illustrated in a manner that is easily understood by the public and City of La Quinta decision -makers. Non -technical "qualitative" issues will be addressed to the same degree as more quantitative issues to ensure that the EIR is viewed as a balanced and complete document. The services and products to be provided by Impact Sciences are defined below. Phase I: Initiation of the Environmental Review Process and Preparation of the Environmental Setting Report The first phase of work will involve beginning the formal CEQA review process by preparing and distributing the Notice of Distribution for the required 30 day review period. During this review period, information on the existing environmental setting will be collected. This information will be compiled in an Environmental Setting Report, which will be in the format of the "existing conditions" sub -sections ready for incorporation into the EIR. During this phase our scope of work provides for attendance at an initial project initiation meeting with City staff and attendance at a public scoping meeting, if one is held by the City. Task 1: Project Scoping Preparation of Initial Study The City's standard Initial Study checklist will be completed for the proposed project. If desired, Impact Sciences will update the City's checklist form to reflect the changes in the standard checklist provided as an appendix to the CEQA Guidelines as amended in October 1998. Succinct responses will be provided for all checklist questions that will clearly explain why the conclusion is a Potentially Significant Impact, Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated, Less than Significant Impact, or No Impact. The City's General Plan Master Environmental Assessment/EIR and any available information provided by the applicant will be the primary sources of information for the Initial Study. Reference sources for all responses will be indicated and a complete bibliography of references will be included at the end of the document. Notice of Preparation After completion and staff approval of the Initial Study, we will prepare and circulate 50 copies of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR, with the Initial Study attached, to public agencies as well as special interest groups and concerned citizens identified by the City. This will initiate a 30-day public review and comment period intended to solicit comments concerning the scope and content of the EIR. 2 Impact Sciences r May ?7. 1999 0l6 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR Public Scoping Meeting As requested by the City, we will assist the City in setting up and conducting a public scoping meeting during the Notice of Preparation review period to solicit comments from public agencies, interest groups and concerned citizens to identify any other issues that should be included in the EIR. Finalize Scope of EIR Written responses to the NOP and oral comments received at the public scoping meeting will be evaluated, in consultation with City staff. Based on this evaluation, the scope of the EIR and the scope of work for the EIR will be adjusted, if needed, and finalized. Task 2: Preparation of Environmental Setting Report This task will involve preparation of technical background studies and the environmental setting sections of the EIR. In response to the size of the project and the general nature of the information in the City's General Plan and General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, this scope of work assumes that most environmental topics will need to be assessed to some degree in order to produce an adequate EIR for this project. During the project scoping process, however, we will carefully review all Notice of Preparation responses along with the available site -specific information to focus the EIR as appropriate. A description of the information to be gathered as part of this task is presented below. Ten (10) copies of the environmental setting report will be delivered to the City for review. Land Use & Planning As discussed above, an amendment to the General Plan will be required to implement the project. Due to the size of the project, it will be considered regionally significant by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). For these reasons, a Land Use & Planning section will be needed in the EIR. As part of this first phase, the existing conditions portion of this section will be prepared. The existing goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan that apply to this project, will be described and the land use designations on the Land Use Policy Map will be identified and described. Currently, the eastern portion of the site is designated Low Density Residential and the western hillside portion is designated Open Space. Relevant policies contained in the SLAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) will also be identified and described. To support analysis of land use compatibility impacts, a description of existing and planned surrounding land uses, such as the existing PGA West community and the proposed Country Club of the Desert project, will be presented. 3 Impact Sciences May 2, 1999 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR Earth & Geology Ninyo & Moore will compile and analyze information on the existing geology and soils conditions of the site. The City's Master Environmental Assessment shows a portion of the site as having the potential for wind erosion. Ninyo & Moore will review available background data such as existing geotechnical reports, geologic maps and reports, historical aerial photographs, topographic maps, etc. In addition, field reconnaissance and geologic mapping of the site will be completed. The environmental setting report will identify potential geotechnical issues such as soft ground conditions, shallow groundwater, and faulting and seismicity. Water Resources In order to provide a thorough and up-to-date baseline of information on water resource and quality issues, Ninyo & Moore will request and review readily available data regarding surface and groundwater quality for the site. Requests will be made to the United States Geological Survey, the State of California Department of Water Resources, the State of California Water Quality Information System, the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Coachella Valley Water District for current information. Air Quality Existing air quality conditions will be identified, using the most currently available data from the nearest air quality monitoring stations, located in Palm Springs and Indio, and information regarding key climatological and meteorological conditions influencing local air quality that is included in the Air Quality Element of the La Quinta General Plan. The environmental setting section will also present the background information on the Salton Sea Air basin and the regulatory setting for the consideration of air quality impacts. Transportation & Circulation Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates (RKJK) will provide a map and brief written description of the existing roadway network. The number of lanes on principal arterials and other impacted roadways will be identified. Signalized intersections and the existing number of lanes at key intersections will be clearly identified in conjunction with the level of service analysis output. The relevant portions of the future network as contained in the general plan within the study area will be presented. Existing average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) and peak hour traffic will be identified for the links and intersections in the study area. Historic volume growth trends in the study area will be examined. The relationship to the General Plan will be identified, including plans for the ultimate number of lanes, new roadways planned for the future, and other information that provides a context for how the 4 Impact Sciences U 18 May 27, 1999 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR proposed project interrelates with the future planned transportation system. The existing Level of Service (LOS) at up to seven (7) intersections will be calculated by RKJK and presented in this section. Biological Resources The Biological Resources section will characterize the biological resources of the site, based cn the biology surveys of the site currently being conducted by another consultant under separate contract to the City. Particular emphasis will be placed on the ability of on -site habitats to support special -status plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities, and wildlife movement corridors. Based on our knowledge of the area, the more naturalized areas of the site could possibly support a number of wildlife species common to the region and potentially support several special -status plant and wildlife species, i.e., those species that have been afforded special recognition by state or federal resource agencies, or recognized conservation organizations. In particular, the following species are known to occur in the region and potentially occur within portions of the project site: Plants • glandula ditaxis (Ditaxis clariana); California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 2 species • California ditaxis (Ditaxis californica); CNPS List 1B; Federal Species of Concern • ribbed cryptantha (Cryptantha costata); CNPS List 4 • flat -seeded spurge (Cliamaesyce platyspernta); Federal Species of Concern • slender wooly -heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis); CNPS List 2 • Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus coacliellae): Federally Proposed Endangered • California marina (Marina orcuttii var. orcuttii); CNPS List 1B; Federal Species of Concern • Deep Canyon snapdragon (Antirrhinum Cyatliiferuni); CNPS List 2 • Cover's cassia (Serma coaesii); CNPS List 2 • Santa Rosa Mountains linanthus (Linanthus floribundus ssp. hallii); CNPS List 1B Animals • Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensiscremnobates); State Threatened, Federally Endangered • Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermopi lus tereticaudus chlorus); Federal and State Species of Concern • Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longirnembris bangsi); Federal and State Species of Concern • desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii); State Threatened, Federally Threatened • Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata); State Endangered, Federally Threatened • flat -tailed horned lizard (Phyrynosoma mcalli); State Species of Concern, Federal Species of Concern • loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); State Species of Concern • burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia); State Species of Concern • Crissale thrasher (Toxostoma crissale); State Species of Concern � 5 - Impuct Sciences Mau 27, 1999 019 19 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR • Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei); State Species of Concern • Coachella giant sand treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum); Federal Species of Concern • Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket (Stenopelmatus cahuilaetisis); Federal Species of Concern •� 10401tiall a • desert fan palm oasis woodland • mesquite hummocks/dunes The potential for any of these species and communities to occur on the site depends upon a number of factors such as extent and quality of suitable habitat, proximity to urban or rural development, level of on -site habitat disturbance, and the location of the site with respect to the range of the particular species. This scope of services assumes that the biology survey of the site currently being conducted by the City will include all information required to address potential impacts to biological resources in an EIR including: (1) a complete description of all field survey methodologies; (2) a complete written description of the vegetation communities an the site; (3) lists of common plant and animal species observed on the site; (4) preliminary identification of all wetland and/or riparian areas potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game; (5) the results of focused surveys for sensitive plant and animal species that may be present on the site; and (6) a biological resources map showing the locations of on -site vegetation communities, jurisdictional and other sensitive habitat areas, and locations of any special -status plant or animal species observed on the site. Impact Sciences will conduct a one (1) day reconnaissance survey to confirm the information contained in the site biology survey to be submitted by the applicant. The purpose of this survey will be to determine if the biological resources on the site have been properly identified, characterized and mapped. The potential presence of amphibians and reptiles will be evaluated by lifting, overturning, and carefully replacing rocks and debris. Birds will be identified by use of standard visual and auditory recognition for each species. The presence of nests, or other evidence of breeding activity, will be noted during these surveys. Evidence of mammal activity on the site will be verified by searching for and identifying diagnostic sign, including scat, footprints, scratch -outs, dusting bowls, burrows, and trails. Incidental observations of special -status plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals during this field survey effort will be documented and mapped. ry .� IJ 6 Impact Sciences U o May 27, 1999 F PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR Noise The existing noise environment of the site will be characterized briefly in the environmental setting section along with a presentation of the applicable noise standards used by the City of La Quinta. Existing noise levels along the roadways surrounding the site will be calculated based on existing roadway configurations and traffic volumes and presented in the report. Public Services Local public service providers will be contacted to obtain up-to-date information an available services and capacities. Agencies to be contacted will include the Riverside County Fire and Sheriff's Departments and the Coachella Valley Unified School District. The City's existing requirements and planning for recreation facilities will also be discussed in this section, including the planning criteria for the community park shown on this site in the General Plan. Utilities & Service Systems As with the public service providers, those agencies responsible for providing utility services will be contacted to determine the location and capacity of existing utilities in the area. Impact Sciences will contact and coordinate with the City Engineer and the Coachella Valley Water District to collect current information an water supplies and conveyance facilities, sewage collection and treatment, and storm water drainage. Solid waste collection and disposal information will also be collected and presented in this section. Any information provided by the applicant's civil engineer will also be reviewed and incorporated into the environmental setting section. Aesthetics The section will describe the existing visual characteristics of the site as visible from the major surrounding roadways and present a summary of the relevant community design policies of the General Plan. The key issue for this project is the location of the site against the Coral Reef Mountains, recognized as a scenic resource in the La Quinta General Plan. In addition, Jefferson Street and Avenue are designated as "Image Corridors" in the General Plan. The design character called for by the General Plan for each of these designations will be described to provide the urban design framework for the Specific Plan. Cultural Resources McKenna et al. will complete a standard Phase I cultural resources investigation of the 830 acre property with a focus on the 540 acres proposed for development. This investigation will involve completion of the tasks defined on the next page: 7 Impact Sciences May 27, 1999 U PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR • Archaeological Records Check: A standard archaeological records check will be completed through the University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center. Information compiled through the records check will be used to identify areas within the project area that have been subjected to cultural resource review, areas of cultural resource sensitivity, etc. Known sites will be identified and, if within the project area, emphasized for relocation and site update. • Historic Land Use History: McKenna et al. will conduct a limited amount of historic land use history to ascertain the dates of construction for structures located within the project area and, if possible, identify the land owners and extent of improvements. If historic resources are identified within the project area, these will be correlated with the historic documentation for preliminary evaluation for significance. • Native American Consultation: McKenna et al. will contact local Native American representatives, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, and invite comments and/or participation in the studies. If a Native American representative is available, McKenna et al. will include the representative as part of the survey crew and incorporate the participation into the schedule. • Archaeological Field Survey: McKenna et al. will complete an intensive survey of the 540-acre portion of the site proposed for development, including the existing structures on the site. The project area is readily accessible, relatively flat (located near sea level), and delineated by roads, etc., that will permit subdivision of areas within the property for accurate and adequate coverage. McKenna et al. will supplement the field studies with field notes and a complete photographic record. A complete set of photographs will be provided to the proponent through the preparation of the technical report. This report will be summarized by Impact Sciences in the environmental setting section. Phase II: Prepare the EIR Task 3• Preparation of Administrative Draft EIR After the draft Specific Plan has been submitted by the applicant, the Administrative Draft EIR will be prepared. During this phase our scope of work provides for attendance at two (2) meetings with City staff during the preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR. Ten (10) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR will be provided for review by the City. Following is a description of the approach to be used for each topic and the contents of the EIR. Introduction This section will be provided as a courtesy to the reader who may have little or no experience in reading an EIR. The purpose of an EIR will be defined, with references to the CEQA Guidelines and statutes as appropriate. The type, format and content of this EIR will be explained. Standards for EIR 8 Impact Sciences May 27, 1999 f 0:�' �. PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR adequacy will be briefly discussed. The City's environmental review process, as it is being administered for this project, will be explained. Summary A concise summary of the information contained in the main chapters of the EIR will be presented in this section, in accordance with Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines. Project and cumulative impacts will be briefly summarized, by topic, in a matrix format that will state the impact, list abbreviated versions of recommended mitigation measures and identify the residual level of impact significance, following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Alternatives evaluated, areas of known controversy and issues remaining to be resolved will also be identified. Project Description A complete description of the proposed Specific Plan will be developed and presented. The project description will identify the project applicant, and describe the site location, land use and operational characteristics, major engineering and infrastructure components, construction and development phasing schedule, grading concept and key project objectives. This section of the EIR will provide a complete and illustrated project description that includes all of these necessary elements. This will be based an maps, other exhibits and information included in the Specific Plan. Approvals required from the City or other regulatory agencies will also be identified, along with a list of those agencies expected to use the EIR in their decision -making process. Community Environmental Setting The existing environmental character of the City of La Quinta will be described along with the important environmental features that occur on and in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, relevant regional and local planning policies and programs that pertain to development of this site will be identified. Other planned, pending or proposed development projects on file with the City's Community Development Department will be identified, as an indicator of planned and potential environmental changes that could occur during the life of the proposed project and thus combine to produce cumulative impacts. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures This main part of the EIR will discuss potential project -level and cumulative impacts with respect to each environmental topic. Each topic will be evaluated separately, with each section incorporating environmental setting sub -sections prepared in Phase I, defining the threshold of significance being used for that topic, the environmental impacts that would result from project development, and the significance of the impacts. Identification of significant project or cumulative impacts that could result 9 Impact Sciences :i Mau 27, 1999 0 'l 2 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR and measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant will be provided, if possible. Any significant effect which cannot be avoided, even after proper implementation of recommended measures, will be identified as required by the CEQA. Specific analytical approaches for key topics are described below. Land Use & Planning Based on the content of the proposed Specific Plan, the consistency of the project with the La Quinta General Plan and the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide will be analyzed and presented. The overall compatibility of the project with existing and planned surrounding land uses will be discussed based on the design of the edges of the projects and the location and intensity of the proposed residential, golf course and hospitality uses. Earth & Geology Potential impacts to the proposed land uses resulting from the existing geology and soils conditions will be identified along with recommendations mitigating these impacts, including any necessary detailed geotechnical evaluations which need to be completed at subsequent stages of planning, such as the review of tentative tract maps. Water Resources Potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality will be identified and discussed based on the existing conditions and the features of the Specific Plan. Ninyo & Moore will review the Specific Plan and suggest mitigation measures if needed to augment the Specific Plan. Air Quality Construction -period emissions will be quantified, based on types and number of estimated equipment to be used during grading, the length of the grading phase and the estimated volume of earth movement, all of which would be provided by the project applicant. These totals will be compared to the SCAQMD's standards of significance and any significant impacts will be identified. Dust and other emission -control techniques that would substantially reduce construction emissions will be identified and the amount of emissions reductions for each technique and overall will be estimated. Total net construction emissions will then be calculated and compared with significance standards to determine whether these emissions would remain significant after mitigation. Long-term air emissions from both stationary sources (associated with use of electrical and natural gas systems) and mobile sources (project traffic) will be calculated and compared to SCAQMD significance 10 Impact Sciences May 27, 1999 0 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR standards. Traffic emission calculations will be based on projected traffic volumes and average trip lengths that are specified in the traffic study. It is particularly important that average trip lengths are reasonable and based on credible, empirical data, or the traffic emissions could be either over- or under -estimated, and thus provide the basis for a challenge of EIR inadequacy. The proposed land use and traffic management characteristics of the project will be evaluated with respect to relevant air quality management policies identified in the Air Quality Element of the City's General Plan. Anv significant long-term air quality impacts will be identified and mitigation measures will be developed to reduce such impacts to less than significant, if possible. These measures would include traffic improvements recommended by the traffic study, and trip reduction and traffic management methods already encouraged or enforced by the City such as a voluntary, employer -operated transportation management association, preferential parking for car and van pools, convenient bus access and bus stop facilities, etc. Traffic and Circulation This section will summarize the results of a traffic impact analysis (TIA) to be prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates (RKJK). The methodology for forecasting project traffic is to generate project trips using rates from the ITE Trip Generation report or other sources accepted by the local jurisdiction. RKJK will distribute and assign the trips based on the location of the project relative to the remainder of the urban area and on the type of land use. The percentage distribution will be reasonably related to the location of and the number of trips generated by zones surrounding the project. Assumed reductions in trip generation rates, such as pass -by trips, internal trips, and transit/TDM reductions will be documented. Reductions for transit or TDM will be accompanied by an explanation of how the strategies will actually be implemented and may require a monitoring program. Project trips (inbound and outbound) will be identified on a graphic map for both the peak hour or hours being studied. RKJK will provide a comparison of traffic volumes with and without the project for the AM and PM peak hours at up to seven (7) intersections. RKJK will compute levels of service for intersections based on the procedures in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual and subsequent modifications, where applicable. Copies of the volumes, intersection geometry-, capacity analysis worksheets (not just a summary), and all relevant assumptions will be included as appendices to the TIA report. RKJK will identify resulting levels of service for intersections and segments, as appropriate. RKJK will also describe any other impacts that the project may also have on the roadway network, particularly access requirements. x 1 1 Impact Sciences May 27,-1999 (t, PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR The mitigation of project impacts is designed to identify potential level of service problems and to address them before they actually occur. This will also provide a framework for negotiations between the local jurisdiction and the project developer. If a level of service problem cannot be mitigated due to. physical or other environmental constraints, funds may be allocated to improvements on parallel facilities or to transit, TDM or other system -wide improvements in accordance with the approved list developed by the air district. The level of service with improvements will be computed and documented, and will be shown on a map or table along with the traffic level of service without improvements. Delay values, volume/capacity ratios, or other measures of level of service will be included in the results (could be in an appendix) along with the letter designation. The proposed Specific Plan will be reviewed and analyzed to determine project -specific impacts to biological resources. In particular, Impact Sciences will identify and quantify potential habitat loss or disturbance that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. This evaluation will also include potential direct and indirect impacts to both common and special -status plant and animal species, jurisdictional or other sensitive habitats, wildlife movement corridors, and other significant biological resources. All adverse impacts on biological resources will be identified and measures to mitigate significant impacts will be developed to minimize these impacts. Noise The Noise section will consider and address temporary construction impacts and long-term changes to the noise environment in the area. Noise sensitive uses close enough to be affected by construction noise include the residential uses located in the PGA West development south of Avenue 54 and in the La Quinta Country Club area north of Avenue 52. In addition, these existing residential areas and other future development could be affected by changes in roadway noise associated with the increase in project traffic. Noise levels at the nearest residential areas during project construction will be estimated on the basis of a list of construction equipment and vehicles and the construction phasing concept to be provided by the project applicant. These levels will be compared with construction noise limits identified in the City's Noise Ordinance to determine whether significant noise impacts could occur. Long-term noise levels associated with project traffic will be calculated on the basis of the daily traffic volume projections to be provided by RKJK. This evaluation will focus only on those roadways that 12 �? Impact Sciences Ntay 27, 1990 42 O PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR will carry substantial volumes of project traffic and which pass by existing noise sensitive development, such as residential, hospitals, libraries and schools. Projected noise contours near such affected sensitive uses will be developed and compared with applicable standards set forth in the La Quinta General Plan or the appropriate standards of other jurisdictions, depending on location. Projected traffic noise levels along the surrounding roadways will be calculated and overlaid onto the project land use plan to determine whether any of the planned land uses would be exposed to levels considered unacceptable, as defined in Table 4.9-1 (Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments) in the La Quinta General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures will be developed for any significant noise impacts that may identified during the construction period or as a result of long-term project operations. Public Services Based on the information provided by service agencies, impacts to fire services, police services, and schools will be identified, and recommended mitigation measures will be presented in this section of the EIR. Impacts on recreation facilities will be assessed based on the recreation facilities provided in the proposed Specific Plan and the City's requirements. Utility & Service SSy5tem5 Planned improvements to water and sewer conveyance systems included in the proposed Specific Plan will be identified and discussed. The overall water demand of the project and the amount of sewage to be generated will be calculated to determine the impacts of the project on water supplies and sewage treatment capacity. The proposed drainage improvements will be described and impacts to the site and surrounding land from the changes in the drainage patterns on the site will be identified. A projection of the amount of solid waste that would be generated by the project will be presented and analysis of the impact of this waste stream, collection service and landfill capacity will be provided. Aesthetics Impact Sciences will evaluate the proposed Specific Plan for consistency with the applicable design standards contained in the General Plan for the project site and the adjacent roadways. This section will discuss the consistency of the planned preservation of the slopes of the Coral Reef Mountains located on the site with the policies of the General Plan. Jefferson Street is designated as a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan and Avenue 52 is designated as a Secondary Image Corridor. The consistency of the Specific Plan with the design standards for these image corridor roadways will be discussed. This evaluation will be reviewed with the City's project manager to determine if any changes should be recommended to the Specific Plan as proposed to mitigate any inconsistency with these design standards. 13 Impact Sciences �� May 27, 19 r) ►y PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR Cultural Resources McKenna et al. will analyze the data compiled in the Phase I study and prepare an evaluation of the potential impacts to the identified resources based an the level of sensitivity of these resources. As appropriate and required by CEQA, mitigation measures will be suggested including avoidance of impacts to the resources, or requirements for Phase II studies at a subsequent level of planning. Alternatives The purpose and scope of an adequate alternatives analysis will be defined, in accordance with the recently revised CEQA Guidelines. Alternatives to be evaluated in this section will then be described, including a rationale for why each was selected. Suitable alternatives could consist of different land use configurations and/or intensities, as well as different locations for the same project. It is proposed that the specific alternatives be selected in consultation with City staff when the evaluation of project impacts reaches a point where the significant project effects are well understood. Each alternative selected for analysis must be capable of achieving at least some of the proposed project's main objectives, or it would not be considered a "reasonable" alternative. Furthermore, it must be capable of avoiding or reducing one or more of the project's significant impacts, or it will be meaningless with respect to the purpose of an alternatives analysis. Environmental effects for each alternative will be briefly discussed and compared to the effects of the proposed project, to answer the question "Would the alternative result in impacts of greater or lesser magnitude and significance?" In addition, mitigation measure requirements will be briefly compared, i.e., "Would the mitigation measures needed for the alternatives be reduced, about the same, or more extensive?" Comparison of effects and mitigation measures will be presented in a matrix format, with summary -style text. This scope of services includes budget for discussion of up to four (4) alternatives, including the No -Project alternative. Impacts Found to be Not Significant Potential environmental impacts found to be not significant as part of the Initial Study evaluation will be listed. The reader will be referred to the Initial Study for explanations supporting the conclusions of not significant. Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action should it be Implemented. This section will summarize those unavoidable significant impacts that were identified in the evaluation of project and cumulative impacts for the various technical topics described earlier. In addition, pursuant to Section 15126.6 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section will discuss: 14 -- - lriipnct Sciences May ?,, 1999 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR a. Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. If this is determined to be significant, an evaluation will be presented as to whether such commitment of resources is justified at this time. b. Primary and secondary impacts that would commit future generations to similar uses of this land. c. Any irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Growth Inducing Impacts Ways in which this project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, will be discussed. Criteria to evaluate the project's growth inducing effects will include: Removal of regulatory barriers, provision of essential infrastructure or removal of other development constraints, creation of a substantial number of jobs, creation of a substantial increase in demand for goods and services. EIR Preparers This section will identify the members of the consultant team that prepared the EIR, including their professional title, years of experience and role in preparing the EIR. Organizations and Persons Contacted All persons contacted to obtain information during preparation of the EIR will be identified, including the organization they represent. Bibliography All information sources and reference materials used or reviewed in preparation of the EIR will be listed. Instructions that explain where these materials can be reviewed by the public will also be provided. Task 4: Prepare, Produce and Circulate Draft EIR The Administrative Draft EIR will be revised in accordance with City staff comments. Thereafter, 50 copies of the public review Draft EIR and a Notice of Completion will be produced and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, all responsible agencies, all neighboring cities, and all federal, state, county or regional agencies which may be affected by the project. Any other interested groups or concerned citizens identified by the City will also be included in the Draft EIR distribution. This will initiate a 45-day public review and comment period, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. 15 R Impact Sciences May 27, 1999 0iwl3 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR As part of this task, Impact Sciences will prepare and place appropriate public notices and newspaper display ads of the availability of the Draft EIR and public hearings concerning the Draft EIR, as directed by City staff. The Impact Sciences Project Manager will attend up to two (2) public hearings concerning the Draft FIR and present the findings of the Draft EIR. Other appropriate members of the EIR preparation team would also attend selected hearings, if requested by City staff, at an additional cost. This proposal assumes that the City will be responsible for taking succinct minutes of these meetings, which identify each person who comments on the Draft EIR and briefly summarizes their comments concerning the document. Task 5: Preparation of Final EIR Written responses to all comments received during the 45-day public review period will be prepared. The focus of the responses will be on the CEQA issues inherent in the comments and on demonstrating how the environmental review process and/or the Initial Study and Draft EIR properly addressed the concerns stated in the comments. A preliminary Final EIR will be prepared and submitted for City staff review and comment. This will consist of copies of all letters received concerning the Draft EIR, written responses to all comments in each letter, minutes of the public hearings concerning the Draft EIR and written responses to oral comments received at those hearings, and errata pages. Errata pages would include revisions to EIR text and illustrations, if needed to clarify or make minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR, or to add useful information that may be included in one or more comments on the Draft EIR. A mitigation and monitoring program will also be prepared for City Staff review and comment, in the City's standard format. The Final EIR and Mitigation and Monitoring Program will be revised in accordance with City staff comments and public review versions of these final documents will be produced and distributed, as directed by City staff. As part of this task, Impact Sciences will prepare written findings for each environmental effect evaluated in the Draft and Final EIR, pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, and if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Consideration. 4 16 Impact Sciences Mau 27, 1999 PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES The Ranch Project EIR The Impact Sciences Project Manager will attend up to two (2) public hearings concerning the Final EIR and will be prepared to present a summary of the contents of the Final EIR and answer questions. Other appropriate members of the EIR preparation team would also attend selected hearings, if requested by City staff, at an additional cost. 17 Impact Sciences May 27, 1999 031 Impact Sciences Project Budget for Preparation of the EIR for the Ranch Specific Plan Project Cit}' of La Quinta STAFF Prnj. Sen. Em. Staff Biolog-v Senior Staff Sub Word i TOTAL \lee. Planner Planner Director "'log.. Biologist Consultant Graphics Pr . i LABOR) BILLINGR.A1L s150 S%5 $65 5t 10 .. 396 µ $70 Sys 41s EXPENSES PHASE[ Task 1 EIR Scoping Project t)nentatlton Meeting 6 Prepare Adnnn. [),air Iniral Study % a Rrvttil Imual Smdv. prcparc NOR end distribute 50 olo" :VtcnJ I4olca Sniping Mrcling 6 (lvaluate NOil and Scoping Mlg, Comments M unaeemKm and Co'ndmai it SL'BIOI AL S171M1 S1.;N) 11 o S'U G) I Sit 50 S_ 0 S---711 S4.820 Task 2 - Preparation of Environmental Setting Report Land Use & planning % F:anh & (icolugc 6 SI,IAA) %Pater Resources 6 SI.IAA) Air Quality % Ffaft le Und l.ncuiati on 6 S1.SW Bto a cal Resources Literature Review _ A Field Reconn—.sarce Survey 17 5t" I Noise % Public Sernces 16 Cully & Semce Systems 16 j Aesthetics % Cuhural Resources6 Rcconls Check 52511 j Hisionc Research S%fA) S%5 Natter Anlancan Consuharon 7A) Field Survey 5_.JIXJ S251i Analysts $750 Repro Preparation S75U'� 5'sU Graphics and Text Production 16 12 Suborn ten I IUI copes al the EnvuumnenWl taring i I 51_- �0 Munn emeni and Coordntntwm % % SUB FOIAI SI.Nrt) Sz'lo S7770 S2^_0 SI.ow SO S%.9(A) SH80 SS u) S22.I45 PHASE ❑ Task 3 - Preparation of Administrative Draft EIR Introduction 4 Surnmairy 8 P",nect Description 1'_ Impart Analysis Land Use & Planning % Earth & Geology Water AIr Quality % I ralltc and Circulation Biological Resources Impact Analysis 8 16 R Prepare FIR Section % 23 Noise % I Public Sen ices _ 16 Utility & Servrvice Systems 2 16 Aesthetics 8 Cultural Resources 6 S500 Alwrnan,es N 16 Growth Inducing Impacts - Effects Found Not to be Sieniticant - Irreversible Environmental Changes Bibliography & Relercnces Document Production Submit ten I IW copies of the Administmlive Draft EIR SSfA) Pro)ect Meetings I'_) i_ M19anacenk•nt and Coordination % % 12 I_ SUB101AI_ St.i1iA) S8.160 SV7Q SL760 S;.%tA) $560 561Ak) $660 J S140 $28.9M i Task 4 - Preparation of Draft EIR Revisions in Response to City Continents % 16 I 4 3 4 _ Prepare and Distribute fifty 150) copses of Drill EIR _ 6 S3iIA) Prepare and Place Public Notice Advertisemtenis _ - a Artrnd two 121 2ubiic hearings 12 S2(X) SUBTOTAL SIM) S1.7(A) S_(d) $"o S180 SU S0 5220 S9(X) S10.f(R) Task 5 - Preparation of Final EIR Response rU Cotmnents on Drab EIR and Ptel Final EIR % 16 6 6 - Mitigation and Monitoring Program % '- Finalize in Response to City Comments 4 % - 6 Prepare and Distribute fifty (io) copies of Final FIR _' 6 S2.8(A) CEQA Findings- % Attend Iwo (2) public hranngs 1' $_'IA) Vlanatement and Coordination A SUB 101AL SSI(A) 5t..; SO S%%0 S570 50 SU 5110 59uo $11220 TOTAL COST ` S80,73; T4tyl 4 4 Q" COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 ITEM TITLE: Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Contract Extension for a Year with Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, for AB 939 Services for Fiscal Year 199-2000 and Appropriation of Funds in an Amount Not to Exceed $40,000 RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract extension for services with Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC for AB939 services for Fiscal Year 1999/2000 in an amount not to exceed $40,000, and appropriation of funds in an amount not to exceed $40,000. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The Community Development Department will be budgeting $135,000 for Contract Services Account (101-402-605-542) for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. Of this amount, $54,550 is designated for consultant services and for the implementation of AB939 to assure the City's compliance with the State's AB939 mandate. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: On May 5, 1998, the City Council approved a recommendation of staff to hire Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC as the City's AB939 consultant. The Scope of Services provided for monitoring of current programs, implementation of a few selected programs (such as an organic waste and community outreach programs), as well as monitoring the City's Waste Contract. The contract was for the Fiscal Year 1998/99. Pursuant to City Council Resolution 96-80, "...Prescribing the Procedures, Rules and Regulations Governing the Solicitation and Selection of Firms and Award of Contracts for the Furnishing of Personal Services, Professional or Consulting Services, or other Contractual Services Which are not Subject to the Formal Bidding Procedures..." Section 9, "Exceptions - Renewal of Contracts", the City Council is permitted to authorize the City Manager to bypass the competitive selection process in the renewal of a renegotiation of CCJH.00a 0 ! an existing contract for continuing services. Based on this Resolution, staff is recommending the contract with Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC be extended for the next fiscal year rather than preparing a Request for Proposals and going through the selection process once again. Staff has established a good working relationship with the consultants and the Scope of Services will be identical to the 1998-99 contract. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives available to the City Council include: Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract extension for services with Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC for AB939 services for Fiscal Year 1999/2000 in an amount not to exceed $40,000, and appropriation of funds in an amount not to exceed $40,000; or, 2. Deny staffs recommendation to extend Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC's contract, and direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals and go through the selection process; or, 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, ' Jerry He, an community Development Director Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachment: 1. Contract for Professional Services CCJH.00a CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (the "Agreement"), is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, (the "City"), a California municipal corporation, and HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC., (the "Contractor"). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.0 SERVICES OF CONTRACTOR 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall provide those services related to assistance with AB 939 implementation, as specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services"). CONTRACTOR agrees that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services. 1.2 CONTRACTOR's Proposal. The Scope of Services shall include the CONTRACTOR's proposal or bid, if any, which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 1.3 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of THE CITY of La Quinta and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.4 Licenses, Permits. Fees and Assessments. CONTRACTOR shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required- by this Agreement. 1.5 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site of the work and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should the CONTRACTOR discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work, or as represented by THE CITY, it shall immediately inform THE CITY of such fact and shall not proceed except at CONTRACTOR's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof). CONT-Hi[ton Farnkopf&Hopson. 1 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 1.6 Care of Work. The CONTRACTOR shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by THE CITY, except such losses or damages as may be caused by THE CITY's own negligence. The performance of services by CONTRACTOR shall not relieve CONTRACTOR from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or detective work at no further cost to THE CITY, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of CONTRACTOR. 1.7 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services (Exhibit "A") when directed to do so by the Contract Officer, provided that CONTRACTOR shall not be required to perform any additional services without compensation. Any addition in compensation not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increase must be approved by THE CITY Council. 1.8 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern. 2.0 COMPENSATION. 2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall be compensated in accordance with the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference, but not exceeding the maximum contract amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) (the "Contract Sum"), except as provided in Section 1.7. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon the CONTRACTOR's rates as specified in Exhibit "C", but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C"). 3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 2- 0 5 CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 2 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D") for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargos, acts of any governmental agency other than THE CITY, and unusually severe weather, if the CONTRACTOR shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contracting Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his judgment such delay is justified, and the Contracting Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 7.8 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D"). 4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representative of CONTRACTOR. The following principals of CONTRACTOR are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of CONTRACTOR authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: a. Laith B. Ezzet, CIVIC b. David L. Davis, CMA C. Susan V. Collins It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for THE CITY to enter into his Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of CONTRACTOR and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The foregoing principals may not be changed by CONTRACTOR and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the service required hereunder without the express written approval of City. CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 3 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be the Community Development Director or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager of THE CITY. It shall be the CONTRACTOR's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the CONTRACTOR shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assi nq_ment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of CONTRACTOR, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for THE CITY to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, CONTRACTOR shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of THE CITY. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. 4.4 Independent CONTRACTOR. Neither THE CITY nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which CONTRACTOR, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. CONTRACTOR shall perform all services required herein as an independent CONTRACTOR of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent CONTRACTOR with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. 4.5 City Cooperation. THE CITY shall provide CONTRACTOR with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records or other data or Information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to THE CITY. THE CITY shall additionally provide CONTRACTOR staff assistance and shall take prompt and appropriate action when it will assist in ensuring and timely performance by CONTRACTOR hereunder. 5.0 INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDS. 5.1 Insurance. The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, public liability and property damage insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from CONTRACTOR's negligent acts or omissions rising out of or related to CONTRACTOR's performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of CONTRACTOR's performance hereunder and neither THE CITY nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming THE CITY and its officers and employees as additional insureds shall be delivered to and approved by THE CITY prior to commencement of the services hereunder. The amount of insurance required hereunder shall be determined by the Contract Sum in accordance with the following table: CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 4 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Coverage (personal injury/ Contract Sum property damage) Less than $50,000 $100,000 per individual; $300,000 per occurrence $50,000 - $300,000 $250,000 per individual; $500,000 per occurrence Over $300,000 $500,000 per individual; $1,000,000 per occurrence The CONTRACTOR shall also carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by the CONTRACTOR, its officers, any directly or indirectly employed by the CONTRACTOR, any subcontractor, and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to CONTRACTOR's performance under this Agreement. The term "automobile" includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of CONTRACTOR's performance hereunder and neither THE CITY nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming THE CITY and its officers and employees as additional insureds shall be delivered to and approved by THE CITY prior to commencement of the services hereunder. CONTRACTOR shall also carry Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with State Workers' Compensation laws. The CONTRACTOR shall procure professional errors and omissions liability insurance in the amount acceptable to THE CITY. All insurance required by this Section shall be kept in effect during the term of this Agreement and shall not be cancelable without thirty (30) days' written notice of proposed cancellation to City. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of CONTRACTOR's obligation to indemnify THE CITY, its officers, employees, CONTRACTOR's, subcontractors or agents. 5.2 Indemnification. The CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless THE CITY, its officers, officials, employees, representatives and agents, from and against any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by THE CITY) and for negligent errors and omissions committed by CONTRACTOR, its officers, anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONTRACTOR, any subcontractor, and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them CONT-Hilton Farnkopf&Hopson. 5 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to CONTRACTOR's negligent performance under this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City's own active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct, or that of its officers or employees. 5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies THE CITY may have if CONTRACTOR fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, THE CITY may, at its sole option: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. b. Order the CONTRACTOR to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to CONTRACTOR hereunder until CONTRACTOR demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. C. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies THE CITY may have and are not the exclusive remedies for CONTRACTOR's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which CONTRACTOR may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from CONTRACTOR's or its subcontractors' performance of work under this Agreement. 6.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS. 6.1 Reports. CONTRACTOR shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. 6.2 Records. CONTRACTOR shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. 6.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by CONTRACTOR, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of THE CITY and shall be delivered to THE CITY upon the termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 6 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC and CONTRACTOR shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by THE CITY of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. CONTRACTOR may retain copies of such documents for its own use. CONTRACTOR shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied herein. CONTRACTOR shall cause all subcontractors to assign to THE CITY any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event CONTRACTOR fails to secure such assignment, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify THE CITY for all damages suffered thereby. 6.4 Release of Documents. The drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials prepared by CONTRACTOR in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. CONTRACTOR shall not disclose to any other private entity or person any information regarding the activities of THE CITY, except as required by law or as authorized by THE CITY. 7.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT. 7.1. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 7.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefor. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, THE CITY may take such immediate action as THE CITY deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit THE CITY's right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 7.8. 7.3 Retention of Funds. THE CITY may withhold from any monies payable to CONTRACTOR sufficient funds to compensate THE CITY for any losses, costs, liabilities or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by THE CITY due to the default of CONTRACTOR in the performance of the services required by this Agreement. L; T 0 CONT-Hilton Farnkopf&Hopson. 7 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLc 7.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a nondefaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. THE CITY's consent or approval of any act by CONTRACTOR requiring THE CITY's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary THE CITY's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of CONTRACTOR. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 7.7 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section 7.8 for termination for cause. THE CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to CONTRACTOR. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C") or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. 7.8 Termination For Default Of CONTRACTOR. If termination is due to the failure of the CONTRACTOR to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, THE CITY may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the CONTRACTOR shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that THE CITY shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and THE CITY may withhold any payments to the CONTRACTOR for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed THE CITY as previously stated in Section 7.3. CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 8 d ;, Oil Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLc 7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party. 8.0 CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION. 8.1 Non -liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of THE CITY shall be personally liable to the CONTRACTOR, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by THE CITY or for any amount which may become due to the CONTRACTOR or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of THE CITY shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which effects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The CONTRACTOR warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant against Discrimination. CONTRACTOR covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, disability or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, age or ancestry. 9.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section 9.1. To City: CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: City Manager 0i"- CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 9 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC To Contractor: HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC 3990 Westerly Plaza, Suite 195 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2311 Attention: Laith Ezzet 9.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understandings, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement. 9.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. 9.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not effect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 9.5 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below. CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation Dated: By: THOMAS P. GENOVESE, City Manager "CITY" ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk 1,1 CONT-HiltonFarnkopMHopson. 10 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney Dated: Dated: HILTON FARNKOPF & HOPSON, LLC By: _ Name: Title: By: _ Name: Title: "CONTRACTOR" CONT-Hilton Farnkopf&Hopson. 11 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposed Tasks for AB 939 Implementation for 1999-2000 Task 1 - On -going Maintenance Activities HF&H will track solid waste legislation, regulations, CIVTNIB policy decisions, and issues such as facility closures and start-ups in the Coachella Valley. On -going maintenance also includes monitoring CVAG meetings and initiatives. Monitoring of CVAG Solid Waste Technical Working Group meetings and initiatives is an important way to participate in solid waste and diversion programs that are conducted collectively by the members of CVAG. Technical assistance and follow-up with waste generators is also included in this task, and will become more important as commercial waste becomes a larger portion of La Quinta.'s waste stream, Task 2 - Reporting and Other Compliance Activities HF&H will prepare the City's AB 939 Annual Report to the CIWN413 which will. include documentation of all diversion activities conducted throughout the previous calendar year, as well as calculation of numerical compliance with AB 939 diversion mandates. We will also develop and discuss with the City a strategy to meet both the numerical and programmatic goals of AB 939 in order to achieve compliance with the law. Task 3 - Community Outreach We will coordinate recycling activities at special events, such as the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, the annual telephone book recycling program and other special events. Coordination requires contacting event managers and the City's waste hauler to coordinate diversion activities. Task 4 - Public Education Coordination HF&l3 will coordinate the preparation of flyers, advertising, and other public education materials throughout the year. Coordination of advertising includes contacting the County's Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Round -up coordinator and the County's HH1V Round -up contractor, the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, and newspapers such as the Desert Sun to place ads in newsletters or newspapers. We propose to coordinate preparation of three flyers: a Holiday Tree flyer, a Spring Clean-up brochure, and a Fall clean-up postcard. Coordination includes contacting participating entities for event information and telephone numbers, transmitting this information to content copywriters/ designers, and ensuring timely delivery of final 1 2-4 015 CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 12 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC artwork and copy to the printer and mailing house. Actual costs for printing, design, mailing, and advertising costs are not included in the budget for this task. Task 5 - Green Waste Diversion We propose to investigate measures to increase green waste diversion in both the residential and commercial sectors. We will monitor green waste facility development in the Coachella Valley and work with major commercial generators (e.g., golf courses.) We will investigate strategies to increase residential green waste diversion, such as increased public education and development of a "Master Composter" program, if needed. Task 6. franchise Administration/Negotiation Assistance • Disposal Tonnage Reconciliation • Franchise Agreement Re -Negotiation Assistance • Review of Proposed Rate Adjustment • Transfer Agreement Negotiation Assistance • Review of Franchise Agreement Compliance Task 7 - Meetings and Management We will attend a total of ten meetings (roughly one per month) with City staff. Each month, we will prepare a status report, meeting agendas, and conduct overall project management. CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 13 11-3 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC CITY OF LA QUINTA AS 9391mplementatlon F.M Estimate TASK 1. tin -going Maintenance A. Monitor k-gixlation, regulations, etc. Task 1: Hours Task 1: Fees 2. Reporting and AB 939 Compliance A. Prepare AB 939 Annual Report B. Rnapimd to CIWMB inquiries Task 2: Hours Task 2: Fees 3, Community Outreach A. Coordination of special events Taak 3: Hours Task 3: Fees 4. Public Education Coordination A. Coordinate preparation of pubiic education materials Task 4: Hours Tadk 4: Fexm B. Greenwaste Diversion A. Analyze potential new grecnwasto diversion programs Task 5: Hours Task 5: Foes 6. Franchise Adminiotratlon/NeSotlatlon AatW6tance A. DiepcxW tonnage recorsclliation B. Review of propersed rate adjustmont C. Monitor franchise agreement compliance D. Franchise agreement renegotiators assistance E. Transfer agreement negotiation assistance Task 6: Hourx Task 6: Fees 7. Meetings and Project Management A. Monthly meetings B. Prk*Ct management TaKk 7: Hours Task 7: Fees Total Hours Average Hourly Rato Total Fe4m Ewtimated Etpense5 Tnf.l F w and &.poneoe E-et I Davis I Collins j Morris I TOTAL 1 48 49 1 0 a8 0 49 $185 50 W%0 50 $7,145 2 36 38 0 2 0 36 0 36 S370 $0 $5,220 SO $515% 1 16 17 1 0 16 0 17 $185 5o 52,320 50 $2,505 2 32 34 2 0 32 0 34 $370 60 $4,640 $0 $.5,010 1 24 25 1 0 24 0 25 S18.5 $0 $3,480 $0 $.9,665 2 32 34 1 4 5 B 8 To be determined 3 44 0 0 47 $555 56,380 $o $0 $6,935 60 60 0 0 0 60 0 60 $0 $0 $8,700 50 S8,700 10 44 216 0 270 $146 Ti39,550 6450 �40,000 CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 14 111 0 17 Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC EXHIBIT "B" SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS A. Generally. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for preparation of work products or deliverables as specified in the Scope of Services, attached hereto and herein incorporated by reference. All deliverables shall be in an 8.5 inch by 11.0 inch camera ready reproducible format, printed on one side only. B. Monthly Progress Reports. CONTRACTOR shall submit to THE CITY a written monthly progress prior to or at the monthly coordinating meeting. These reports are considered a deliverable and, as such, a condition of this Agreement. Each progress report shall include, at a minimum, the following: • For each Task, a brief statement of the work performed since the last monthly progress report; • For each Task, a comparison of actual accomplishments to established objectives, milestones and/or deadlines; • Identification of reason(s) for "slippage" or "delay" if deadlines were not met or for failure to meet objectives or milestones. • Discussion of any issues that may have arisen or are expected to arise, problems encountered, changes in personnel, etc., that could affect or are affecting the work. • Discussion of any proposed changes in or amendments to the Scope of Services. • Work planned for the next reporting period and anticipated accomplishments. C. Each monthly progress report shall be updated to reflect an entire calendar month and subsequently submitted as a required attachment to any request for payment submitted by CONTRACTOR. Receipt and approval of monthly progress reports by THE CITY is mandatory prior to any issuance of payment to CONTRACTOR. D. CONTRACTOR shall prepare a "checklist" of milestones, such as meetings, and/or deliverables or other readily identifiable achievements, together with the percent of work represented by that milestone, deliverable, and/or achievement of the total work to be completed to fulfill the terms and conditions of this Agreement. A corresponding entry for each milestone, deliverable, and/or achievement shall be included on a "Calendar of Activities", which shall be prepared by the CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 15- / O Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC CONTRACTOR. Subsequent to THE CITY'S approval of this checklist, payment up to and including fifty percent (50%) of the maximum allowable cost for each task shall be made to CONTRACTOR in accordance with the checklist. By way of example, for a month in which CONTRACTOR prepares and submits to THE CITY a draft ordinance which is identified on the checklist as representing ten percent (10%) of the total work to complete that Task, CONTRACTOR may request payment in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the maximum allowable cost for that task. THE CITY shall make payment to CONTRACTOR for all such requests for payment up to but not exceeding an amount greater than fifty percent (50%) of the maximum allowable cost for that task. The checklist and Calendar of Activities are incorporated herein by reference to the contract. E. THE CITY shall withhold and retain fifty percent (50%) of the maximum allowable cost for each of the aforementioned tasks subject to this method of compensation. Upon completion of work in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the checklist as approved by THE CITY. THE CITY shall release an amount up to but not exceeding this remainder fifty percent (50%) as a lump sum payment to CONTRACTOR, upon receipt, review and approval of CONTRACTOR'S final payment request. CONTRACTOR'S obligations under the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be deemed discharged upon issuance of this final lump sum payment. F. Responsibilities of CONTRACTOR. In any month for which CONTRACTOR is entitled to payment, CONTRACTOR shall submit to THE CITY'S Contract Officer a written request for payment that conforms to the following: • Submitted by or on the tenth day of the following month; • Submitted in a format prescribed by THE CITY; • Submitted together with a monthly progress report; • Submitted together with supporting documentation (bids, receipts, cancelled checks, invoices, etc.). G. Responsibilities of THE CITY. THE CITY'S Contract Officer shall review all requests for payment to determine whether services performed and deliverable(s) submitted are consistent with this Agreement. Upon approval by the Contract Officer, payment to CONTRACTOR shall be made as promptly as fiscal procedures permit, generally within 30 days. 116 CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 16 1 � 0 1 it Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC H. Disputes. In the event of a disputed or contested request for payment, only that portion so disputed or contested shall be withheld from payment and the undisputed portion shall be paid. CONTRACTOR'S failure to provide legible receipts shall be grounds for non -reimbursement of related charges. THE CITY shall notify CONTRACTOR in writing of the basis of the dispute or contest. Records. THE CITY shall have the right to review all books and records kept by CONTRACTOR and any subcontractors in connection with the operation and services performed under this Agreement. THE CITY shall withhold payment for any expenditure not substantiated by CONTRACTOR'S or subcontractors' books or records. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that such books and records are retained for a period of three (3) years after satisfaction of the terms of this Agreement and that THE CITY shall have reasonable access to said books and records. J. Task Budget Amendments; Obligation of CONTRACTOR. It shall be the responsibility of CONTRACTOR to notify THE CITY that there is a need to consider shifting funds from task to task in order to increase or decrease the maximum allowable cost. Notice shall be given to THE CITY within a reasonable amount of time of discovering the need for revision such that THE CITY may duly consider the need and subsequent impacts upon the work to be completed and the calendar of scheduled activities. a CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 17 ( ; - Agreement for Consulting Services -Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC EXHIBIT "D" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE This contract is for the time period between August 18, 1999 and June 30, 2000. All work shall be performed within this time frame. CONT-HiltonFarnkopf&Hopson. 18 Tiht 4 XP Q" COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 ITEM TITLE: Approval to Negotiate with the Firm of Nickerson, Diercks and Associates to Provide Contract Management and Administrative Support Services for Capital Improvement Projects and Private Development Projects RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Authorize the City Manager to bypass the competitive selection procedures in the renegotiation and renewal of the existing contract for continuing services, pursuant to Resolution 96-80, with the firm of Nickerson, Diercks and Associates for contract management and administrative support services. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: In the Fiscal Year 1 998/1 999 Public Works Capital Project Budget, there is *301,592 (Account 101-456-603-000) for Project Management Administration. Therefore, sufficient funding is available to continue contract management and administrative support services. In subsequent years, authorization will be subject to the number and amount of capital improvement projects planned. 0fZ91TAM1►v/Ia"A On February 17, 1997, the City Council approved an agreement with NDA to provide contract administration and project management support to the Public Works Department, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Division. This agreement covered the period from March 1997 through June 1997. This was an interim contract to complete the required work through the end of the 1996/1997 fiscal year. On July 1, 1997, the City Council authorized staff to seek professional services for contract management and administrative support and to begin the formal "Request for Proposals" process. This action allowed staff to receive proposals from qualified firms and authorized staff to negotiate terms of a Professional Services Agreement with the most qualified firm, as determined by the Consultant Selection Committee. During the City Council meeting of September 16, 1997, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for professional services to provide contract r� management and administrative support for capital improvement projects to the firm , 1 of Nickerson, Diercks and Associates for Fiscal Year 1997/1998 with an option to renew for an additional year. During the City Council meeting of September 15, 1998, the City Council approved a contract extension with NDA to provide professional services through June 30, 1999. Typical services provided by NDA include, but are not limited to: • Prepare and submit necessary documents to, and coordinate with various regional, county, state and federal funding agencies to acquire and maintain funding approval. • Preparation and tracking of project schedules. • Preparation of necessary correspondence, reports, and memorandums necessary to administer various City capital improvement projects. • Assist with bidding procedures, prepare bid summary comparisons in a table format, and make recommendations for City Council consideration to award Public Works contracts for construction. • Prepare and conduct informal request for proposals to construction support sub consultants, summarize proposals received and make recommendations for an award of Professional Services Agreements. • Monitor and report on projects status, budget vs. actual expenditures, and contract time vs. actual time. • As necessary, prepare staff reports for City Council and/or Planning Commission consideration. • Provide clerical support for the Capital Improvement Division of the Public Works Department The addition of this administrative support has proven to be very productive; therefore, staff is requesting authorization to renegotiate a contract with NDA to provide professional services and clerical support. The contract would be renewable on a yearly basis for a period not to exceed three years. The contract would be based on hourly fees, not -to -exceed $75.00/hour for professional services and $30.00/hour for clerical services. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: Authorize the City Manager to bypass the competitive selection procedures in the renegotiation and renewal of the existing contract for continuing services, pursuant to Resolution 96-80, with the firm of Nickerson, Diercks and Associates for contract management and administrative support services: or 2. Do not authorize the City Manager to bypass the competitive selection procedures; acknowledge the need for professional services; and direct staff to begin the formal RFP process. 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Chris V�V</o Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for Submission by: r / Thomas P. Genovese City Manager 41 4 i 003 T4- ht 4 w*fP 4 " June 15, 1999 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: ITEM TITLE: Authorization for Overnight Travel for Council Member Henderson to attend the League of California Cities' Administrative Services Committee Meeting in San Jose, June 24-25, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve the request for overnight travel for Council Member Henderson to attend the League of California Cities' Administrative Services Committee meeting in San Jose, June 24-25, 1999. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Estimated Costs: $450 Funds are budgeted in Account 101-101-637-000 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Council Member Henderson is a member of the League of California Cities' Administrative Services Committee which meets alternately in the south/north portion of the State. For the month of June, it is meeting in San Jose, California. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Approve overnight travel for Council Member Henderson to attend the League of California Cities' Administrative Services Committee meeting in San Jose, June 24-25, 1999; or 2. Provide alternative direction. ;AUN"DRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California T4-h. 4 4 Q" COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 ITEM TITLE: Acceptance of an "Emergency Management Assistance" (EMA) Grant, to be Utilized to Purchase a Satellite Phone RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Accept the "Emergency Management Assistance" (EMA) grant in the amount of $5,157.88. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: This grant requires a 50% match. In fiscal year 1998-1999 the City purchased one satellite phone. That purchase is considered to be the City's 50% match. The purchase of the additional satellite phone will not require the utilization of additional City funds. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The City has applied for and been awarded an "Emergency Management Assistance" grant in the amount of $5,157.88. These funds come from the "Federal Emergency Management Agency" (FEMA). The funds must be used to support emergency management programs. The Building and Safety Department requested funds to expand its disaster communications capability by purchasing an additional satellite phone. Satellite phones provide a direct link to a satellite and require no land based lines to operate. The County of Riverside is moving to the use of satellite phones as is Sunline Transit, (one of the County's back-up Emergency Operations Centers). With the County Emergency Operations Centers and the City of La Quinta utilizing satellite telephones, the City will be able to communicate our needs during a disaster, even if our local telephonic systems are down. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Accept the Emergency Management Assistance grant in the amount of $5,157.88; or 2. Do not accept the Emergency Management Assistance grant; or 3. Provide alternative direction to staff. Respectfully submitted, 9 (A). 4g4,j FoR %ate► H4 P 7�)N6- Tom Hartung, Building and Safety Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager J Ti-ht 4 4 Q" COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 ITEM TITLE: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta City Employees' Association for Fiscal Years 1998/99 and 1999/00 RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: it STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta City Employees' Association for Fiscal Years 1998/99 and 1999/00. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: A 1 % cost of living adjustment retroactive to July 1, 1998 will be given to members of the La Quinta City Employees' Association for Fiscal Year 1998/99. An additional 1.9% cost of living adjustment will be given to members effective July 1, 1999. Non -represented employees will also receive the same cost of living adjustments. Estimated annual fiscal impact for the 1 % adjustment is $40,000 for Fiscal Year 1998/99. Estimated annual fiscal impact for the 1.9% adjustment is $77,000 for Fiscal Year 1999/00. Standby pay has been increased from $15 to $25 per day and to $35 for holidays. Estimated annual fiscal impact is $3,760. The City has also agreed to continue to fund an employee computer purchase loan program in an amount not to exceed $29,750 for each year of the two year agreement. Loans made through this program will be a maximum of two years in duration and will be reimbursed through payroll deductions with 5% interest. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The City and the Association, in a series of meetings beginning in March of 1998, have met and conferred in good faith pursuant to the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act on matters relating to employment conditions and employer/employee relations including wages, hours, and other terms of employment. The attached Memorandum of Understanding ( Exhibit "A" of the Resolution) is the result of their meetings and discussions. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta City Employees' Association for Fiscal Years 1998/99 and 1 999/00; or 2. Deny the adoption of a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta City Employees' Association; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, -r" �_..'` �I'y' '�..•ir'v a .�.,'r'"-'� Hartung, Director of Building and Safety n Falconer, Finance Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND THE LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (LQCEA), COMMENCING ON JULY 1, 1998, AND TERMINATING ON JUNE 30, 2000 WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta, hereinafter referred to as "City", and the La Quinta City Employees' Association, the recognized organization representing its members, hereinafter referred to as "Association", have met and conferred over wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment pursuant to Government Code Section 3500, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City and the Association have signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the period commencing on July 1, 1998, and terminating June 30, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI1 i OF LA QUINTA AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1.The City does hereby approve, ratify, and authorize implementation of each economic and non -economic benefit and right set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Association, attached hereto and exc outed on June 15, 1999, and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", and said to the extent the City may legally do so in accordance with the time constraints of said Memorandum of Understanding. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California this 15th day of June, 1999 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum) is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA (City) and the LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (Association). WHEREAS, the City and the Association have met and conferred in good faith with respect to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of City employees and all other subjects within the scope of bargaining under the Meyers-Milias -Brown Act (Government Code Section 3500, et seq.), and have reached an agreement that they wish to set forth in writing in the form of this Memorandum; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Association agree as follows: SECTION 1: TERM. This Memorandum shall take effect on July 1, 1998, and shall remain in effect through and including June 30, 2000. SECTION 2: SALARY. The Schedule of Salary Ranges (Schedule), which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and by this reference made a part hereof, shall be in effect during the first year (July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999) of this Memorandum. The Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and by this reference made a part hereof shall be in effect during the second year of this Memorandum (July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000). The Schedule set forth on Exhibit 1 provides a 1.00% cost -of -living increase (based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers in the Los Angeles- 397/015610-W)5/3261401. a06/02/99 - 1 - Riverside -Orange County area (her2.naftar CPI) as measured from April 1997 to April 1998, and rounded ap) retr3actrive to July 1, 1998 zo all salary rances for those employees am;p dyed as of the date cf approval of this Mo'J by both parties; the Scnedale set forth on Exhibit 2 provides an additional =.'aOt cost-cf-living increase (based on the YPi measured from February 1998 to February :999) to all salary ranges, SECTION 3: HEALTH CARE AND DISABILITY COVERAGE. During the first year ;July 1, 1998 through _une 30, 1999) of this Memorandum, the City and its employees shall contribute the following amounts per month toward health Care insurance: City Employee 4ontilaution Contribution Croup Medical; Dental, Vision, and Life las:irdnce Employee only $308,63 -0- Employee plus Dependent(s) $698.22 $45.30 During the second year (July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000) of -his Memorandum, the City and its employees shall contribute the following amounts per month toward health care _4nsurance: City Employee Contribution Contribution Group Medical, Dental, Vision, and Lifc Insurance Employee only $301.63 -0- Employee plus Dependents) $664.98 $44.30 The employee contribution shall be paid by payroll deduction as a condition of enrollmen= and continuous insurance coverage. The 39710156:0-0005l3261401 ,a)6143r9Sj - 2 - benefits, terms and conditions of coverage shall be governed by the formal plan documents. Infertility benefits will no longer be included in the coverage. City and Association agree to meet and confer in good faith in April of 2000 in order to evaluate future costs and the allocation of costs for medical, dental, vision, and life insurance. SECTION 4: EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM. All employees, with prior approval of the City Manager, will be reimbursed for the cost of books, tuition and lab fees in connection with classes or instruction which have been determined by the City Manager as related to the employee's assigned duties with the City. The total of such reimbursement for all employees shall not exceed $5,000 during the term of this Memorandum. Reimbursement will be made only after employee's submission to City Manager of proof of satisfactory completion of the class or instruction with a grade of C or better, or equivalent, and City Manager's approval of such reimbursement. SECTION 5: MANAGEMENT RIGHTS. Except as limited by the terms of this Memorandum, the City retains sole and exclusive right to manage its operations and direct its work force using any or all of the powers and authority previously exercised or possessed by the City or traditionally reserved to management, including but not limited to the right to determine its organization and the kinds and levels of services to be provided; to direct the work of its employees; to assign work from one classification of employees to another, including work 397/015610-0005/3261401. a06/02/99 - 3 - currently performed by employees in the classifications covered by this Memorandum; to establish work standards and levels of required performance; to utilize part-time or temporary employees; to pay wages and benefits in excess of those required by this Memorandum; to select, modify, alter, abandon, or modernize methods of conduct- ing its operations; to build, move, modify, close, or modernize facilities, machinery, processes, and equipment; to establish bud- getary procedures and allocations; to determine methods of raising revenues; to sublet and subcontract work except work currently per- formed by City employees; to take all necessary action in the event of an emergency; to establish and amend rules of conduct and to impose discipline and discharge; to establish and amend rules for safety and health; to select, hire, classify, reclassify, assign, evaluate, transfer, promote, demote, upgrade, downgrade, reprimand, discipline, suspend, discharge, lay off, and rehire employees; to determine job content and to create, combine or modify job classi- fications and rates or classes of pay; and to exercise all other customary powers and authority of management, regardless of whether the City has exercised such power previously. Nothing in this provision. shall be construed to restrict grievances concerning any part of this Memorandum. In the event of an emergency, the City may amend, modify or rescind any provision of the Memorandum. Such amendment, modification or rescission shall remain in force only for the period of the emergency. The City shall have the sole and complete discretion to declare that an emergency exists for the purposes of this Section. 397/015610�)05/3261401. a06/02/99 - 4 — SECTION 6: NON-DISCRIMINATION. All personnel decisions and actions, including but not limited to appointments, promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs, and discharges, shall be made without regard to race, color, creed, sex, marital status, age, national origin or ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, sexual orientation, or any other unlawful consideration. Further, the City shall not discriminate against any employee based upon his/her activity on behalf of his/her membership in any employee association or group. SECTION 7: HOURS. Employee hours of work shall be as stated in the City's Personnel Policies unless superseded as provided herein. SECTION 8: HOLIDAYS. City -paid holidays shall be as provided in the City's Personnel Policies unless superseded as provided herein. SECTION 9: VACATION. 9.1 Accrual. Vacation accrual shall be as provided in the City's Personnel Policies unless superseded as provided herein. 9.2 Buy-back. Vacation buy-back shall be as provided in the City's Personnel Policies unless superseded as provided herein. SECTION 10: SICK LEAVE. Sick leave shall be accrued as provided in the City's Personnel Policies unless superseded as provided herein. SECTION 11: PERSONNEL POLICY AND JOB DESCRIPTION AMENDMENTS. The City and Association have agreed to modify certain portions of the City's Personnel Policies as set forth on Exhibit 397/015610-0005/3261401 a06/02/99 - S - T 3 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, to become effective upon the date of execution of this Agreement by the last party to ratify it. Additionally, the parties have agreed to the job descriptions attached hereto as part of Exhibit 3 for the positions of Building Inspector II and Deputy City Clerk. SECTION 12: COMPUTER PURCHASE PROGRAM. The City agrees to continue the Computer Purchase Program (Program) as set forth on Exhibit 4 and by this reference made a part hereof, and to fund the Program in the amount of $29,750 for Fiscal Year 1998-99, and again in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Any employee who has participated in the Program and has paid his/her loan in full may participate again if there is money available after those employees who have not previously participated have been funded. SECTION 13: SOLE AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT. It is the intent of the parties hereto that the provisions of this Agreement shall supersede all prior agreements, memoranda of agreement or memoranda of understanding, or contrary salary and/or personnel rules and regulations, administrative codes, provisions of the City, whether oral or written, expressed or implied, between the parties, and shall govern the entire relationship and be the sole source of any and all rights which may be asserted hereunder. This Agreement is not intended to conflict with federal or state law, The Association and the City agree that all personnel rules not specifically included herein shall be incorporated herein by this reference. The City reserves the right to add to, modify or 3971015670-00O5/3261401. a06/02/99 - 6 - delete from its Personnel Rules, subject to its obligations under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. SECTION 14: WAIVER OF BARGAINING DURING TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. During the term of this Memorandum, the Association agrees that it will not seek to negotiate or bargain with respect to wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, whether or not covered by this Memorandum or in the negotiations preceding execution of this Memorandum, unless required by specific provisions of this Memorandum. Despite the terms of this waiver, the parties may, by mutual agreement, agree in writing to meet and confer concerning any matter during the term of this Memorandum. This Memorandum is hereby executed by the parties hereto as set forth below. DATED: , 1999 DATED: 4 z 1999 397/015610-0005/3261401. a06/02/99 — % — CITY OF LA QUINTA 0 John J. Pena, Mayor LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION 1.60 VEHICLE AND SEATBELT POLICY: City and Association agree that the three (3) individuals employed by City as Building Inspectors shall continue receiving the car allowance they are currently receiving in the amount of $320 per months so long as they remain continuously employed in that position. Any individual hired as a replacement for one of the three current Building Inspectors shall not receive a car allowance but will be eligible to use a City pool vehicle. If required to use a personal vehicle, such employee shall be reimbursed at the rate of $.32 per mile. All employees who are currently assigned a City vehicle for their job duties will continue to be provided access to a vehicle for Fiscal Years 1998/99 and 1999/2000. In addition, a vehicle pool will be established in Fiscal Year 1998/99 for use by employees to conduct City business. Pool vehicles will be made available on a first -come, first -served basis. The pool will be administered by the Finance Department. An employee must check with the Finance Department prior to using his/her own vehicle on City business. If there is no pool vehicle available, and the employee cannot wait for one to become available, the employee may use his/her personal vehicle and be reimbursed at the current rate. City shall make City pool vehicles available on a priority basis for those employees who are required to travel off paved roads on City business. If a pool vehicle is not available, and the employee must use his/her personal vehicle to travel off paved roads, the employee shall not be required to travel off paved roads if he/she reasonably believes that to do so would cause damage (other than normal wear and tear) to the vehicle. The employee shall inform his/her supervisor of such concerns, and the supervisor shall give alternate instructions. Employees required to use their own vehicle for City business and who receive either a monthly allowance or mileage reimbursement therefor are required to provide proof of a valid California drivers' license and of vehicle insurance for both liability and property damage. The City requires a copy of the drivers' license at the time of hire and at the time of each required renewal. The Personnel Office maintains these records and is responsible for notifying employees when their license needs to be renewed. An employee who loses his/her license or has his/her license restricted so as to prevent driving on City 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 business is responsible for notifying the Employee Relations Officer immediately. The City has an agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) wherein the DMV notifies the City when an employee's license is restricted or revoked. If the DMV notifies the City prior to receiving notification by the employee, disciplinary action may result. Proof of insurance must be shown at the time of hire and annually by those employees who drive their own vehicles on City business. Policy limits are determined by the employee, but must meet minimum state standards. If an employee has an automobile accident while on City business, the employee's insurance policy shall be provide primary coverage for both liability and property damage. If there is no insurance policy in place, the employee shall be personally responsible. The car allowance or mileage reimbursement paid by the City is calculated to cover the cost of insurance purchased by the employee. No employee who has not been required to use his/her vehicle for City business shall be required to provide proof of insurance. Employees must wear seatbelts at all times when in a vehicle on City business. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 ._40 3.40 PROMOTION: When it has been determined by the City that a vacant position will be filled by promotional appointment, the Employee Relations Officer shall authorize a competitive promotional examination in order to fill the position, as set forth in these policies. When an employee is appointed to a promotional position, that employee shall be paid at the step in the higher salary range which is at least a five percent (5%) increase over the salary he/she received in the lower step, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.15. Any employee who is promoted within City service shall be required to complete a six-month probationary period in the new position successfully. If the employee's former position is still vacant, the department director may recommend that the employee be reinstated to the former position. This reinstatement must be approved by the Employee Relations Officer. If the employee's former position is not vacant, the employee may be appointed to a position of the same classification in a different department with the recommendation of the department director and approval by the Employee Relations Officer. If no vacancy exists, the employee will be laid off from City employment. In the event a Level I position is eliminated and replaced with a Level II position, the City agrees to first consider employees in the Level I position, and to make every reasonable effort to promote an existing employee to the new Level II position. However, if after due consideration of existing employees, the City determines that no employee is qualified for promotion, the City retains the right to conduct outside recruitment. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 t i 3.50 RECLASSIFICATION: where the duties of an existing position have changed so as to necessitate reclassification, such position shall be reclassified by the Employee Relations Officer to a more appropriate classification, whether existing or newly created. The Employee Relations Officer must approve all new classifications, and the City Manager is responsible for reclassifications for all department directors and executive positions. Regardless of the circumstances, the Employee Relations Officer may require a competitive examination, and no incumbent shall have a right to be appointed to a reclassified position. No person shall be appointed or employed to fill a reclassified post unless the position has been approved by the City Council and incorporated into the Classification Plan, as provided herein. 397/015610-0(k15/3261779. a05/07/99 3.55 LAYOFFS/REDUCTION IN FORCE/RECALL: Subject to City Council approval, the Employee Relations Officer may lay off permanent and probationary workers at any time based upon; 1) lack of work; 2) budgetary reasons; 3) elimination of programs; or 4) elimination of services. At least two (2) weeks written notice shall be given to any employee who is to be laid off. If less than two weeks notice is provided, the employee will be paid for the difference between the date of layoff and two weeks. [Remainder of policy remains the same except for the third paragraph, which reads as follows:] Reduction in Force (RIF): When it becomes necessary to reduce the work force in the City, the Employee Relations Officer shall designate the job classification, division, department, or other organizational unit in order to effect a reduction in the work force. Contract, temporary, part-time, seasonal, or probationary employees in the same Job classification as ones proposed to be reduced within the City shall be laid off first. Although the Employee Relations Officer may elect to do so, he/she is not required to allow laid off employees to "bump" employees in other classifications unless the employee has previously successfully held a position another classification, in which case the laid off employee would be considered for layoff, if any, from the previously held classification, along with others in that classification, in accordance with the "Order of Layoff" set forth below. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 r41 1 4. 1Jv , i 4.45 NEPOTISM POLICY: Except as specified below, an applicant for employment by the City who has a relative employed by the City may not be denied the right to apply for employment and compete in the examination process. Following the examination, if the applicant is successfully certified as eligible for employment, the applicant may be denied employment if the Employee Relations Officer and the City Manager determine that such employment would create a prohibited relationship. A prohibited relationship may result under the following circumstances: 1. One employee would have a supervisor -subordinate relationship with another member of his/her immediate family (as defined in Section 1.25.51). 2. Two members of the same immediate family would be under the jurisdiction of the same immediate supervisor. 3. One employee would have access financial information concerning another immediate family. 4. One employee would have the power recommendations or decisions about another immediate family which could or would have impact upon the employee's relative. to confidential or member of his/her or authority to make member of his/her a financial or other 5. One employee would have the authority to discipline a member of his/her immediate family. The City Manager reserves the right to identify additional circumstances in which a prohibited relationship may occur. Any immediate family member of the City Manager, Finance Director or Employee Relations Officer will not be considered for employment in any capacity by the City. For the purposes of this paragraph, immediate family member is defined as: grandparent, parent, spouse, child, aunt, uncle, or first cousin by marriage, adoption or blood. When the eligible candidate is this section, the name of the eligibilitiy list for openings otherwise provided in these relationship may occur. refused appointment by virtue of candidate shall remain on the in the same classification as policies, where no prohibited In no case may an employee participate directly or indirectly in the recruitment or selection process for a position for which the employee's relative has filed an employment application. Where two relates are working in the same department, division or office at the time these policies are adopted, or if an event 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 L o v 6, occurs in which a familial relationship is established between two employees who work in the same division or office (i.e., if a marriage results in a spousal or in-law relationship), the relationship shall not be deemed as "prohibited relationship" unless the employees' mutual employment creates a legal conflict of interest. As stated above, if a familial relationship exists or is established, the employees may continue in their positions so long as the conditions of a prohibited relationship are not met. If, in the determination of the Department Director, such a prohibited relationship does or would exist, the Department Director shall submit the reasons for his/her determination to the Employee Relations Officer for review. The Employee Relations Officer shall have one (1) week to investigate the Department Director's findings and determine if a prohibited relationship does exist. If the Employee Relations Officer's review confirms the existence of a prohibited relationship, he/she shall submit his/her findings to the City Manager who will make the final determination as to the existence of a prohibited relationship and inform the Employee Relations Officer. At this time, the Employee Relations Officer and Department Director shall proptly inform the employees of the City's intention to transfer one of the employees to a vacant position of comparable pay and duties in another City division or office, provided that the transferee is qualified therefore and that no offer of employment to fill the vacant position has been made to any other eligible candidate. If a position of comparable pay and duties is not open but one in a lower classification is vacant, either of the employees may elect to voluntarily demote to the lower position, provided that the vacant position is in another department, division or office; that the employee is qualified to fill the position; and that the position has not been offered to another candidate. Any voluntary demotion which occurs as a result of this section shall be in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 3.45.2. In the event that a transfer or voluntary demotion is not feasible within the time limit set herein, the affected employees shall decide which of them will resign from City employment. If a transfer or voluntary demotion is not feasible and neither employee has submitted a letter of resignation within three week following determination that a prohibited relationship exists, the Employee Relations Officer and Department Director, with approval of the City Mmanager, shall determine which of the employees shall be terminated in good standing. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 Regardless of which procedure is utilized (transfer, voluntary demotion, resignation, or termination in good standing) it shall become effective one month aftger the City Manager has concurred with the Employee Relations Officer's determination that a prohibited relationship has been established. This one -month limit may be extended up to an additional two months with written approval of the Employee Relations Officer, provided that personal or organizational considerations mandate such an extension. Except as hereinafter provided, an employee who has been terminated in good standing because of the operation of this section may be reinstated to the position which he/she held at the time of termination, or to a position of equal seniority, status and pay. In order to be eligible for reinstatement, he/she must be reinstated to a position in a department, division or office where a prohibited relationship would not be established (or reestablished); the position must be open; and the employee must meet the qualifications for the position. This right of reinstatement shall be effective only through the 90-day period immediately following the effective date of termination, and the terminated employee shall have the same right to reinstatement as employees who have voluntarily resigned in good standing, up to an additional nine months. The decision of the City Manager, based upon his/her review and recommendations of the Department Director and Employee Relations Office to transfer, voluntarily demote, resign, or terminate an employee in good standing (pursuant to this section), is not subject to any appeal or grievance procedure. 397/015610-0005/3261779 a05/07/99 5.25 BILINGUAL COMPENSATION 5.25.1 Bilingual Pay: Each full-time employee who has qualified for bilingual compensation under Section 5.25.2 shall receive additional compensation of $.25 per hour. Upon verification of the employee's qualification by the Employee Relations Officer (E.R.O.), the employee shall receive bilingual compensation to commence as of the next pay period. 5.25.2 Eligibility: The E.R.O. will designate at least one full- time employee to perform bilingual services for the public to all City departments. Selection of the designated employee(s) will be based upon: 1) bilingual ability as determined by scores on a recognized standardized test selected by the E.R.O. and administrated through a testing process determined by the E.R.O.; and 2) accessibility to the public. The designated employee(s) shall provide both verbal and written translation services to the public in addition to their normal work duties. Additional employee(s) will receive bilingual compensation if, as part of their job function and duties, they provide verbal bilingual translation for the public within their department on a regular basis. A Department Director who determines that an employee is providing bilingual translation services on a regular basis will certify the same to the E.R.O. who shall then schedule the employee to take a standardized test. 5.25.3 Retesting: Each employee who is authorized to receive bilingual compensation shall be retested every other year in the month of July, beginning in July 2000, and must successfully pass the retest to continue receiving the additional compensation. 5.25.4 Discontinuing Compensation: If the bilingual skill is no longer needed or the employee is no longer required to use it or ceases to possess it, the Department Director shall terminate the bilingual compensation by written notice to the E.R.O. The E.R.O. may also terminate the bilingual compensation if he/she makes a like determination, and shall notify the Department Director. In either case, the Department Director shall notify the employee. An employee not receiving bilingual compensation shall not be required to perform bilingual services. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 6.05 WORK WEEK AND OVERTIME: The work week for City employees shall begin at 12:01 A.M. on Monday, and end at 12:00 P.M. (midnight) on Sunday. The basic work week for full-time employees shall be forty (40) hours, rendered in units of eight (8) hours per day. The City may assign a different work week when it is deemed to be beneficial to the City. Except in cases of emergencies, the City will provide a two -week advance notice of schedule changes. For any illness or emergency absence from work, the employee must notify his/her supervisor within the first half-hour of normal reporting time unless extraordinary circumstances prevent such notification. Each Department Director is responsible for establishing a specific department call -in policy and procedure, and for insuring that each employee is advised of the policy and procedure. General non-exempt positions: For general non-exempt positions which do not meet one of the FLSA exemption categories, overtime shall consist of time actually worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a work week. Floating holidays, sick leave, vacation or compensatory time will not be included as time worked for purposes of calculating FLSA overtime. Legal holidays, for which City offices are closed, will be recognized as time worked for purposes of calculating overtime. If state law should change to mandate that public employees be paid overtime after eight hours work in one day, the City agrees to amend Section 6.05 to reflect such change. Overtime for general non-exempt employees shall be compensated in one of the following two ways: A. As paid time at one and one-half the regular rate of pay; or B. As compensatory time accrued at one and one-half the regular rate of pay. Prior to authorization of overtime, the employee and his/her supervisor shall agree as to how the employee shall be compensated (paid time or compensatory time). If the employee and supervisor cannot agree on the method of compensation, the supervisor may ask another employee to perform the overtime work. If the supervisor requires that a particular employee perform the overtime, but they are unable to agree on the method of compensation, the employee shall be given his/her choice of compensation (paid time or compensatory time). Compensatory time is vested time, and must be used or paid upon termination of employment. 397/015610-((X)5/3261779 a05/07/99 �� 7.20 LEAVE OF ABSENT WITHOUT PAY: Any regular or probationary employee who is absent from work and not on leave of absence with pay shall be considered on leave of absence without pay. Leave of absence without pay shall be approved in advance and in writing. Any employee requesting a leave of absence without pay shall utilize all of his/her accrued compensatory time off, administrative leave, vacation time, and sick leave, if appropriate, prior to the start of the leave without pay. Determination of the granting of leave of absence without pay is not grievable. An employee who does not receive prior written approval for leave of absence without pay may be disciplined for such period of absence. [Remainder of policy 7.20 remains unchanged.] 397/015610-0005/3261779 a05/07/99 9.25 DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION: An employee may be temporarily removed from his/her duties without pay for a period up to sixty (60) working days based upon serious misconduct or repetition of past problems for which the employee has been reprimanded. The nature of the offense, its severity and the circumstances dictate the length of the suspension. Recurrence of the same or similar offenses may result in a second or third disciplinary suspension of progressively increased duration or in dismissal from employment by City. A disciplinary suspension is given when formal warnings or written reprimands have not been effective, or when the misconduct warrants more than a reprimand. Employees may be immediately suspended where there is a clear threat to the safety of other employees of the public. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 �/ ►w 'l a. 11.70 DISPOSITION OF APPEAL: Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and recommendation, the City Manager shall adopt, reject or modify in whole or in part the recommendation of the Hearing Officer, and shall so notify the employee, respondent and the Hearing Officer. The City Manager's decision will be final and binding. The City manager shall not be involved in the disciplinary process at any point (other than simply being made aware that disciplinary action is proposed, or in the event that the discipline involves a department director) until receiving the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and recommendation, and shall make his/her decision based upon an independent review of the record from the appeal hearing and the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and recommendations. The City manager shall modify or reject the Hearing Officer's recommended decision only for just cause, supported by substantial evidence in the record, as set forth in the City Manager's written final decision. 397/015610-0005/3261779, a05/07/99 12.55 FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: Step I: If the employee is not in agreement with the decision rendered in the informal grievance procedure, he/she shall have the right to present a formal grievance to the Department Director within fifteen (15) working days after the occurrence of the incident causing the grievance, if applicable. Otherwise, the right to file a grievance petition shall be waived. All grievances shall be submitted in the format prescribed by the Employee Relations Officer, and no grievance petition shall be accepted until the form is complete. The written grievance shall contain a clear, concise statement of the grievance and the facts upon which it is based; rule, regulation or policy allegedly violated; and the specific remedies sought. The Department Director will render a written decision within five (5) working days after receipt of the written grievance. Step II: If the grievance is not satisfactorily resolved in Step I, the employee shall have the right to submit the written grievance to the Employee Relations Officer within five (5) working days after the Department Director's decision is received by the employee. The Employee Relations Officer will render a written decision within five (5) working days after receipt of the written grievance. Step III: If the grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved at Step II, the employee may appeal within five (5) working days, and the City and Association shall mutually select a mediator from the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to consider the grievance. The mediator may consider written documents and/or oral statements, and shall render a written advisory decision to the City Manager within ten (10) days. The City Manager may accept or reject the advisory decision of the mediator, and will render a written final decision within five (5) days of receiving the mediator's advisory decision. The decision of the City manager shall be final and conclusive. If mutually agreeable, a meeting may be conducted involving all affected parties at any step in the grievance procedure prior to the rendering of a decision. 397/015610-0005i3261779_ a05/07/99 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES Step Contact File Decision Informal Supervisor N/A Immediate Step I Formal Department Director 15 working days 5 working days from Informal from filing Decision Step II Formal Employee Relations 5 working days 5 working days Officer from Step I from filing Decision Step III Formal State Mediator/ 5 working days 5 working days City Manager from Step II from receipt of Decision M e d i a t o r' s advisory decision 397/015610-(X)0513261779. a06/02199 14.10 HOLIDAYS: Days which are designated as paid holidays by the City Council shall be legal holidays for City employees unless otherwise specified. A holiday falling on Sunday will be observed the following Monday. A holiday falling on Saturday will be observed the previous Friday. 14.10.1 Regular full-time employees are entitled to the following ten (10) paid holidays each year: New Year's Day January 1 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 3rd Monday in January Presidents' Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day July 4 Labor Day 1st Monday in September Veterans' Day November 11 Thanksgiving Day 4th Thursday in November Day after Thanksgiving Friday after Thanksgiving Christmas Day December 25 In the event an employee is required to work on a holiday, he/she shall be entitled to: (1) a minimum of four (4) hours straight time (either paid or in compensatory time); (2) eight (8) hours Holiday Pay; and (3) if the minimum four hours takes the employee over forty (40) hours for the week, he/she shall be paid at time and one-half for all hours worked over 40. In the event of a conflict between any provision of this section and Section 14.35.5 (Call-back), the affected employee shall be given the greatest benefit provided under the two sections. Floating holidays: Regular full-time employees are also entitled to two (2) floating holidays each calendaryear, to be selected by the employee provided the employee's supervisor deems the selected day(s) compatible with work schedules. Both floating holidays must be taken within the calendar year in which they are earned. In the event of the employee's failure for any reason to take such floating holiday(s) during any calendar year or prior to his/her termination of employment with the City, he/she shall be entitled to compensation for the floating holiday(s) not used. Probationary employees may use their floating holiday(s) if necessary. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 V►y�i 14.15.2 LIMITATIONS: A. Vacation is earned annually and is computed on the basis of number of months, or major portion of a month, actually worked within a calendar year. B. Additional days of vacation are earned on the anniversary date of the regular employee. C. No vacation shall be credited for time during which a regular employee is absent from duty without pay in excess of thirty (30) days. D. All vacations shall be requested in writing in advance, and taken at such time as approved by the Department Director. The Department Director shall either approve or deny a vacation request within three (3) work days after receiving the request. Failure to obtain prior written approval may result in loss of apy for unapproved time off. E. Each vacation day shall be considered eight (8) hours. F. Vacation leave may be taken in increments of one (1) hour or more, approved by management. G. Illness during a vacation period shall not be considered as sick leave. H. Employees absent due to sick leave or other approved leave of absence shall continue to accrue vacation leave unless such absence exceeds thirty (30) consecutive days, in which case there shall be no accrual of vacation leave during the period of absence. 397/015610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 14.35 OVERTIME COMPENSATION: Overtime compensation shall be provided to City employees as follows: 14.35.2 General Non-exempt and Part-time Employees may receive overtime compensation in the form of paid time or compensatory time off, at a pay rate of time and one- half, for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in one work week. For purposes of calculating overtime, floating holidays, sick leave, compensatory time used, and vacation will not be counted toward the 40-hour work week. All overtime must be approved by the Department Director prior to any accumulation of hours. Cash payment of overtime shall be limited to fiscal budgetary restrictions, and employees are encouraged to receive overtime compensation as compensatory time off in lieu of cash payment. Employees in these categories may accrue compensatory time up to a maximum of forty (40) hours. The Employee Relations Officer may allow accrual beyond the maximum if circumstances warrant. All compensatory time shall be requested three (3) days in advance, and shall be granted by the department director unless the time off adversely impacts the organization and/or work load. [The remainder of policy 14.35 is unchanged.] 397/015610-0005/3261779 a05/07/99 14.35.6 STANDBY: Employees occupying a position designated by the Department Director and approved by the Employee Relations Officer as appropriate for standby pay are required to be subject to call by telephone or other approved methods. Standby assignments shall be scheduled in advance by the appropriate Department Director, and shall be automatically forfeited if the employee is unavailable or unfit when called for duty. Employees working standby assignments shall be paid twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per work day, and thirty-five dollars ($35.00) per holiday. In addition to the standby pay, an employee called for standby work shall be compensated at time and one-half, either with pay or compensatory time at the employee's discretion, from the time the employee enters the City limits until he/she leaves the City limits. All employees placed on standby must be able to reach the City limits within twenty (20) minutes under normal driving conditions. 397/OI5610-0005/3261779. a05/07/99 EDITORIAL CHANGES V n time covered employees begin to work or are required to be in readiness for work until the time they are relieved of work responsibilities. "On -duty" time includes the following safety -sensitive functions: 1. driving the vehicle; 2. performing maintenance on the vehicle; 3. inspecting the vehicle; 4. loading or unloading the vehicle; 5. supervising or assisting the loading or unloading of a vehicle; and 6. waiting to load or unload the vehicle or to be dispatched. C. Prohibited Acts: Covered employees shall not engage in any of the following behaviors while performing or waiting to perform a safety -sensitive function: 1. Drugs a. report to duty or remain on duty in a safety -sensitive capacity when using any drug; b. possess while on duty; C. consume at any time; and d. test positive. Note: Prescription drugs may be allowed, as needed, pursuant to advance notification to the appropriate supervisor, along with the doctor's recommendation regarding instructions and possible side effects as they relate to the employee's job duties. 2. Alcohol a. report for duty or remain on duty in a safety -sensitive capacity while having a blood alcohol level of 0.02 or greater; b. use or possess alcohol while performing safety -sensitive functions; C. perform safety -sensitive functions within four hours after using alcohol; and d. use alcohol for eight hours after an accident or until tested, whichever occurs first. Drug and Alcohol a. refuse refusal to submit to drug and/or alcohol testing as required by the Omnibus Act; is deemed as a positive test; b. report to duty or remain on duty to perform a safety -sensitive function after refusing to submit to drug and/or alcohol testing required under the regulations; and C. fail to advise the immediate supervisor when other employees have actual knowledge that an employee is in violation of these rules. D. Drug Testing: Pursuant to FHWA regulations, urine specimens shall be screened for the W] is ?.% + k- 0 A appointment. Promotional appointments shall be considered probationary for six (6) months from the effective date of the promotional appointment. As necessary, the probationary period can be extended an additional six (6) months if the Department Director or designee determines that the probationary period shall be extended. The probationary employee shall be given notice in writing prior to the expiration of the original probationary period. Initial probationary employees are eligible for use of accrued paid leave (sick leave, vacation and bereavement leave) after the first (3) months. A promotional probation does not impact an employee's eligibility for leave. The probationary period shall be regarded as part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work to determine the employee's fitness for the position. A probationary employee must demonstrate satisfactory performance in order to achieve permanent status. Periods of time on paid or unpaid leave exceeding thirty (30) days (consecutive or not) shall automatically. extend the probationary period by that number of days the employee is on leave. If the probationary period is interrupted by military leave for a period which extends beyond half of the probationary period, then the employee shall serve a new probationary period upon return. An employee on probationary status may be suspended without pay, demoted or dismissed by the City at any time, without or without cause, and without right of appeal. A probationary employee has no property interest in continuing employment. 3.15 FULL TIME APPOINTMENT: Employees who successfully complete their probationary period and who regularly work a minimum of forty (40) hours per week shall become full-time regular employees and shall be entitled to all of the benefits provided herein. 3.20 EMERGENCY APPOINTMENTS: To meet immediate requirements of an emergency condition which threatens life or property, the Employee Relations Officer may create positions and employ such persons as temporary employees as may be needed for the duration of the emergency. If not determined otherwise by an applicable provision or by an Emergency Operations Plan approved by the City Council as soon as possible, and shall be compensated at an appropriate hourly rate as approved by the Employee Relations Officer. 3.25 INTERIM APPOINTMENTS: If deemed to be in the best interests of the City, the Employee Relations Officer may authorize and approve an interim appointment in order to fill either a temporary (i.e. a maternity or military leave) or regular (i.e. an employee's resignation or termination) vacancy. If the position being filled on an interim basis would normally require City Council approval (i.e. City Manager), the City Council shall authorize the interim appointment. An interim appointment may be authorized for a period not to exceed six (6) months from the date 30 U l) A submit a written request for an out -of -class pay adjustment to the Department Director within ten (10) working days after the employee has allegedly qualified for the out -of -class pay adjustment. The Department Director shall review the request and forward a recommendation thereon to the Employee Relations Officer within five (5) working days after completing a job audit. The Employee Relations Officer shall render a decision thereon within five (5) working days after receipt of the Department Director's recommendation. If the Employee Relations Officer determines that the employee has been working out -of -class for more than twenty-five (25) consecutive working days, the employee will be paid out -of -class pay, effective on the 26th day and for each successive day the employee works out -of -class. If the Employee Relations Officer determines that the employee has been working out -of -class for more than fifty (50) working days within any twelve (12) month period, the employee will be paid out -of -class pay effective on the 51 st day and for each successive day during the twelve (12) month period in which the employee works out -of -class. In determining the appropriate step for purposes of calculating out -of -class pay, the employee shall be compensated at the Step in the appropriate salary range which comes nearest to but not less than five (5%) per cent higher than the Step the employee held in the previous salary range. If the employee is subsequently appointed to the higher -level position, the employee may apply time accumulated while working out -of -class towards fulfilling any required probationary period. If and when the employee returns to the employee's former position, the employee shall also return to the lower base pay. A regular employee working out -of -class shall continue to accrue seniority in his/her regular classification and shall be eligible to receive merit increases in the regular position. Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting management's authority to assign City employees temporarily to different or additional work duties and responsibilities for the purpose of responding to emergencies. Temporary assignment, while responding to an emergency, will be for no more than three (3) months duration, but may be extended for an additional three (3) months with Employee Relations Officer approval. Nothing herein shall prevent an employee from receiving an interim promotion to fill a position temporarily as a result of a vacancy, leave of absence, or industrial injury. Such an employee shall be compensated in accordance with Section 3.15. 3.35 TRANSFER: An employee may transfer from their present position to a vacant position, in the same classification, within the same department or to another department. For purposes of this Section, a comparable classification is defined as one with the same salary range which involves the performance of similar duties that require substantially the same general qualification. A transferred employee shall retain their rate of pay and their anniversary date for purposes of merit pay increases. 32 4 67 V employee may be required by their department director to obtain a jury calendar or assignment sheet weekly during such service. The jury calendar or assignment sheet shall be signed by the jury clerk or commissioner and delivered to the employee's Supervisor at the end of each week to verify jury duty or witness service. If a regular employee on an alternative work schedule is summoned for jury duty, the Department Director or designee shall convert the employee's usual work shift to a regular five (5) day, Monday through Friday shift basis. An employee required to serve on jury duty shall be entitled to the employee's regular rate of pay, provided the employee deposits any fees for service, excluding mileage, with the City. A temporary, seasonal, or emergency employee called for jury duty will not be compensated for time lost while on jury duty,.but shall be entitled to retain the employee's jury fees. Any employee required to be absent from work on behalf of the City by proper subpoena issued by a court or other legally empowered agency, shall be entitled to be absent ' from work at the employee's regular rate of pay, provided that any fees, except mileage, are deposited with the City. An employee required to be present as a witness in any other matter shall not be entitled to be paid during such absence. An employee who is released by the court from jury duty on any regularly scheduled work day shall contact his or her Supervisor to find out whether he or she is required to return to work. An employee who is scheduled for stand-by duty while serving on jury duty shall be rescheduled for stand-by duty after the conclusion of jury duty, unless the employee agrees to serve both. 7.10 PREGNANCY DISABILITY LEAVE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 12945, a pregnant employee shall be entitled to a leave of absence without pay for up to four (4) months so long as the employee's attending physicians certifies that she is physically unable to work due to pregnancy or pregnancy -related conditions. At the commencement of a pregnancy leave of absence, employees have the option of using accrued sick leave, vacation, compensatory time -off, or administrative leave allowances, as well as disability pay, and thus, continuing to receive pay. City pay will cease when all accrued allowances have been used, and the employee shall receive leave without pay and be subject to all policies except as modified herein. The use of accrued time -off shall not extend the length of the leave. When an employee is on pregnancy disability leave, the City shall continue its share of payment of for insurance benefit premiums (i.e., health, life, AD&D, vision, disability, dental) for the employee and her dependents. The City's continuation of payment of PERS retirement contributions is dependent upon the disability plan in effect at the time the disability leave is requested. Vacation time, sick leave, administrative leave, and holidays shall not accrue during a pregnancy leave of absence unless the employee is continuing to receive their full customary pay by utilizing accrued sick leave, vacation, compensatory time -off or administrative leave allowances. If an employee elects to receive pay for less than their full customary pay, all employee benefits (other than the insurance benefits listed above) will be pro -rated. Employees on pregnancy disability leave may also be eligible for benefits under the State Disability Insurance Plan (SDI) or the City's Long -Term 51 yirr e � '- J , (6) months after the end of the war or national emergency. (Reference Government Codes § 395, 146 and 395.05.) Exceptions to this policy will occur whenever necessary to comply with applicable laws. 7.20 LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY: Any regular or probationary employee who is absent from work and who is not on leave of absence with pay shall be considered to be on leave of absence without pay. Leave of absence without pay shall be approved in advance and in writing. Any employee requesting a leave of absence without pay shall utilize all of the employee's accrued compensatory time -off, administrative leave, vacation time (and sick leave if appropriate) prior to the start of the leave without pay. Determination regarding the granting of leave of absence without pay is not grievable. An employee who does not receme.priof written appmval :fofleave of absence without pay may be disciplined for such absence. Department Directors may grant an employee leave of absence without pay for not to exceed forty (40) consecutive hours. Such leaves shall be reported, in writing, to the Employee Relations Officer. A leave of absence without pay in excess of forty (40) hours must be recommended by the Department Ddirector and approved by the Employee Relations Officer. No single leave of absence without pay may exceed three months, without approval of the Department Director, Employee Relations Officer and City Manager. Any leave of absence without pay of eight (8) hours or more shall result in a pro -rats accrual of vacation, sick leave or holiday credits. A leave of absence without pay of forty (40) hours or more shall also result in a pro-rata reduction of employer paid health benefit payments and extend the employee's probationary period (if applicable) for the same length of time as the leave. After thirty (30) consecutive working days on a leave of absence without pay, contributions to retirement, life insurance, medical, dental or other designated benefit plans shall be suspended until the employee is reinstated. Upon expiration of an approved leave of absence without pay the employee shall be reinstated in the classification held at the time the leave was granted. Failure on the part of the employee to report to work promptly at the expiration of the leave shall result in the employee being deemed to have resigned from employment. 7.25 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: 7.25.1 STATEMENT OF POLICY To the extent not already provided for under current leave policies and provisions, the City will 54 CITY OF LA QUINTA SCHEDULE OF SALARY RANGES FY 98/99 EXHIBIT 1 MONTHLY BASE STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP RANGE A B C D E 30 1,740 1,827 1,918 2,014 21115 31 1,783 1,873 1,966 2,065 2,168 32 1,827 1,918 2,014 2,115 2,221 33 1,873 1,966 2,065 2,168 2,276 34 1,918 2,014 2,115 2,221 2,332 35 1,966 2,065 2,168 2,276 2,390 36 2,014 2,115 2,221 2,332 2,448 37 2,065 2,168 2,276 2,390 2,510 38 2,115 2,221 2,332 2,448 2,571 39 2,168 2,276 2,390 2,510 2,635 40 2,221 2,332 2,448 2,571 2,699 41 2,276 2,390 2,510 2,635 2,767 42 2,332 2,448 2,571 2,699 2,834 43 2,390 2,510 2,635 2,767 2,905 44 2,448 2,571 2,699 2,834 2,976 45 2,510 2,635 2,767 2,905 3,050 46 2,571 2,699 2,834 2,976 3,125 47 2,635 2,767 2,905 3,050 3,203 48 2,699 2,834 2,976 3,125 3,281 49 2,767 2,905 3,050 3,203 3,363 50 2,834 2,976 3,125 3,281 3,445 51 2,905 3,050 3,203 3,363 3,531 52 2,976 3,125 3,281 3,445 3,617 53 3,050 3,203 3,363 3,531 3,708 54 3,125 3,281 3,445 3,617 3,798 55 3,203 3,363 3,531 3,708 3,893 56 3,281 3,445 3,617 3,798 3,988 57 3,363 3,531 3,708 3,893 4,088 58 3,445 3,617 3,798 3,988 4,187 59 3,531 3,708 3,893 4,088 4,292 60 3,617 3,798 3,988 4,187 4,397 61 3,708 3,893 4,088 4,292 4,507 62 3,798 3,988 4,187 4,397 4,617 63 3,893 4,088 4,292 4,507 4,732 64 3,988 4,187 4,397 4,617 4,847 65 4,088 4,292 4,507 4,732 4,969 66 4,187 4,397 4,617 4,847 5,090 67 4,292 4,507 4,732 4,969 5,217 68 4,397 4,617 4,847 5,090 5,344 69 4,507 4,732 4,969 5,217 5,478 70 4,617 4,847 5,090 5,344 5,612 71 4,732 4,969 5,217 5,478 5,752 72 4,847 5,090 5,344 5,612 5,892 73 4,969 5,217 5,478 5,752 6,039 74 5,090 5,344 5,612 5,892 6,187 75 5,217 5,478 5,752 6,039 6,341 76 5,344 5,612 5,892 6,187 6,496 77 5,478 5,752 6,039 6,341 6,658 78 5,612 5,892 6,187 6,496 6,821 79 5,752 6,039 6,341 6,658 6,991 80 5,892 6,187 6,496 6,821 7,162 CITY OF LA QUINTA SCHEDULE OF SALARY RANGES FY 99/00 EXHIBIT 2 MONTHLY -_ _ BASE STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP RANGE A B C D E 30 1,773 1,861 1,954 2,052 2,155 31 1,817 1,908 2,003 2,103 2,209 32 1,861 1,954 2,052 2,155 2,262 33 1,908 2,003 2,103 2,209 2,319 34 1,954 2,052 2,155 2,262 2,376 35 2,003 2,103 2,209 2,319 2,435 36 2,052 2,155 2,262 2,376 2,494 37 2,103 2,209 2,319 2,435 2,557 38 2,155 2,262 2,376 2,494 2,619 39 2,209 2,319 2,435 2,557 2,685 40 2,262 2,376 2,494 2,619 2,750 41 2,319 2,435 2,557 2,685 2,819 42 2,376 2,494 2,619 2,750 2,888 43 2,435 2,557 2,685 2,819 2,960 44 2,494 2,619 2,750 2,888 3,032 45 2,557 2,685 2,819 2,960 3,108 46 2,619 2,750 2,888 3,032 3,184 47 2,685 2,819 2,960 3,108 3,263 48 2,750 2,888 3,032 3,184 3,343 49 2,819 2,960 3,108 3,263 3,426 50 2,888 3,032 3,184 3,343 3,510 51 2,960 3,108 3,263 3,426 3,598 52 3,032 3,184 3,343 3,510 3,685 53 3,108 3,263 3,426 3,598 3,777 54 3,184 3,343 3,510 3,685 3,870 55 3,263 3,426 3,598 3,777 3,966 56 3,343 3,510 3,685 3,870 4,063 57 3,426 3,598 3,777 3,966 4,165 58 3,510 3,685 3,870 4,063 4,266 59 3,598 3,777 3,966 4,165 4,373 60 3,685 3,870 4,063 4,266 4,480 61 3,777 3,966 4,165 4,373 4,592 62 3,870 4,063 4,266 4,480 4,703 63 3,966 4,165 4,373 4,592 4,821 64 4,063 4,266 4,480 4,703 4,939 65 4,165 4,373 4,592 4,821 5,062 66 4,266 4,480 4,703 4,939 5,186 67 4,373 4,592 4,821 5,062 5,315 68 4,480 4,703 4,939 5,186 5,445 69 4,592 4,821 5,062 5,315 5,581 70 4,703 4,939 5,186 5,445 5,717 71 4,821 5,062 5,315 5,581 5,860 72 4,939 5,186 5,445 5,717 6,003 73 5,062 5,315 5,581 5,860 6,153 74 5,186 5,445 5,717 6,003 6,303 75 5,315 5,581 5,860 6,153 6,461 76 5,445 5,717 6,003 6,303 6,618 77 5,581 5,860 6,153 6,461 6,784 78 -5,717 6,003 6,303 6,618 6,949 79 5,860 6,153 6,461 6,784 7,123 80 6,003 6,303 6,618 6,949 7,297 rj UJ 1 EXHIBIT 3 THE CITY OF LA QUINTA P°SFA S'D BUILDING INSPECTOR H ;$ 2 706 _ 3 V11 GENERAL STATEMENT OF JOB Under general supervision, conducts field inspections of buildings, structures and installations in various stages of construction, alteration and repair for conformance to codes and laws; enforces building, plumbing, electrical, occupancy and zoning ordinances and codes. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS Tlffi� J�s _t _e` till o rney e�rel�classrwiihit the:ti_w'""ldi_nt�cnsne-cft _ Rio ee's nMt�is C lf_1Cattoll 'iii ;m��ich `KM' W —M-9- I '�} 1C rIDaIICC'O a u� -� e f .duties as}assoyees at thus leyeTreceiveiccasionaTic on:or>assistanceas new�or .unusu�'.sifgz�onsrazise �n3 are�ufllyl- aware ofo,�gera i :an�-Ticies =of Q*Jw t REPORTS TO: Senior Building Inspector ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS The following duties are normal for this position. These are not to be construed as exclusive or all-inclusive. Other duties may be required and assigned. ► Performs daily inspections of foundations, framing, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and other related construction; approves construction which conforms to City building and zoning codes and requires corrections to be made when deficiencies are discovered; ► Inspects a variety of standard and complex building system elements including foundations, cement and plaster work, framing, electrical and mechanical installations, and plumbing on new construction and alterations; ► Reviews building and construction plans for proper design and compliance with applicable codes and ordinances; issues permits for work to be performed; ► Checks trenches, pier footings and forms for dimensions for compliance with approved plans; ► Coordinates with other City departments as necessary to obtain final approvals, clarifications, status of the job, or requirements relating to construction in progress; ► Approves and certifies final inspections; ► Investigates complaints and potential violations of building codes and/or hazards; issues notices of non-compliance regarding code requirements ► Performs various related essential duties as required. MUM" TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE High school graduation or equivalent; 2,years of experience in the construction industry and the building trades involving work performed in conformance with standard building codes; or any equivalent combination of training and experience which provides the required skills, knowledge and abilities. - City of La Quinta; Building Inspector II Required Licenses and Certification Requires a valid Class C California Drivers License and a safe driving record. Requires certification;as a Biiildirig Ins�peetoi n#iie n"ternaho,�. Conference o Buildin Officials :49M/ I _ ; �I� 1 Knowledge of.- ► all types of building construction materials and methods; ► accepted safety standards; ► City building and zoning codes and related laws and ordinances; technical .report writing techniques Physical Requirements: • Ability to operate a variety of office equipment and tools related to the job; • Ability to coordinate eyes, hands and fingers in performing skilled tasks including driving; • Ability to exert moderate physical effort in medium work involving stooping, crouching, climbing and lifting; • Ability to exert a negligible amount of force frequently to lift, carry, push, pull, or otherwise move objects. Mathematical Ability: • Ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide; • Ability to compute and use fractions and decimals and geometric equations. Judgement and Situational Reasoning Ability: • Ability to apply concepts of rational thinking in interpretation of building code; • Ability to use independent judgement in fairly routine situations, such as in inspecting properties and in checking plans for compliance; 0 Ability to work with minimal supervision ! Ability to respond to difficult and. sensitive public, inquiries. Language Ability and Interpersonal Communication: • Ability to comprehend and correctly use a variety of informational documents including reports, complaint letters, constriction plans, diagrams and specifications; • Ability to prepare citations, logs, records and reports using prescribed format and conforming to all rules of punctuation, grammar, diction and style; • Ability to comprehend a variety of reference books and manuals including municipal, codes, the Health and Safety Code and state building codes; • Ability to communicate and maintain effective working relationships with local residents, contractors, developers, coworkers, supervisor, and other City personnel verbally and in writing. Environmental Adaptability: • Ability to work in an outdoor environment in performing inspections and in an office environment. THE CITY OF LA QUINT-4 DEPUTY CITY CLERK H GFNF.RAL STATEMENT OF JOB Under.general supervision, performs a wide variety of complex clerical tasks and related work in support of the City Clerk's Department. DISTINGUi_SHING CHARACTERISTICS This job class performs at a journey level; . employees in this class primarily perform more complex clerical support functions such as taking meeting minutes and performing follow-up tasks for the City Council. This job class requires accuracy and attention to detail in performance of clerical work and ability to perform a variety of tasks in an independent manner. REPORTS TO: City Clerk F.SSEIMA_L. FUNCTIONS The following duties are normal for this position. These are not to be construed as exclusive or all-inclusive. Other duties may be required and assigned. ► Attends City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings in order to take minutes; ► Performs the duplication and distribution of Council Agenda packets; ► Acts as joint Manager of the City's Telecommunications system, ie; ► Making changes to voice terminals including P.C. modems; Establishing hunt groups, pick-up groups, and intercom -groups; Run call -accounting reports; Run back-up process for audix voice power monthly; Run back-up process for switch and call accounting system bi-monthly; Perform trouble -shooting functions; ► Assists with Council follow-up by recording Notices of Completion, Street Vacations, Nuisance Abatements, Deeds, Denial of Claims, etc.; ► Acts as a Notary Public; ► Performs back-up for switchboard/receptionist, Deputy City Clerk I and City Clerk; attends City Council meetings in the absence of the City Clerk and records minutes; ► Interviews callers, both in person and on the phone; provides information or refers them to appropriate staff, ► Provides information access to City records to the public and staff; ► Prepares documents and inputs into the Questys test & imaging system; ► Obtains and sends information on the "City Link;" ► Assists with and -maintains logs for Political Reform Act filings; ► Maintains updates on Subdivision Agreement Bonds; ► Maintains -the Ciry_'s central filesF�including contracts, agreements; deeds; Provides assistance to all departments;with research of records and utilization of Cit}+=Link to sendfreceive_ messages,;,print-out': current -'legislation and'. access : State/City",bulletin boards; ► Assist iothe- coordination of public relations programs; M ► Acts as Deputy Registrar of Voters; ► Performs various related essential duties as required; MARGINAL FUNCTIONS ► Prepares the Council Chambers for meetings; ► Mails agenda and agenda reports as directed; ►Retrievestecords, Send faxes; ► Posts the City Council and Redevelopment Agency agendas; ► Records and mails meter cards for billing purposes; ► Oversees maintenance of the copier and postage machine; ► Responsible for posting citywide mail; ► Distributesmail to. -supervisor and City Council; ► Mainta ns' law.library; ► Maintains _Department Policy Manual; ► Plans and organizes- dinner for -Council on -meeting -days. MINDIUM TRAINING AND EXPERIEENCE High school graduation or equivalent; at least 4 years of increasingly responsible clerical, reception and secretarial experience, including at least one year in municipal government; experience in a city clerk's office is desirable; or any equivalent combination of training and experience which provides the required skills, knowledge and abilities. Required Licenses and Certification Must be able to obtain Notary Public certification within six months of appointment. Knowledge of.• ► word processing methods and techniques; ► principles and practices of office administration, with an emphasis on records management; ► standard secretarial practices and procedures including business letter writing; ► operation of standard office equipment; ► municipal election process; ► correct English .usage, including spelling, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary. Physical Requirements: • Ability to operate a variety of automated office machines including an adding machine, copier, personal computer, typewriter and fax machine; • Ability to coordinate eyes, hands and fingers in performing semi -skilled tasks including typing at least 55 wpm, word processing and transcribing meeting minutes; • Ability to exert light physical effort in sedentary to light work involving sitting most of the time, but may involve walking or moving from one area of the office to another, and standing for brief periods of time; • Ability to exert a negligible amount of force frequently to lift, carry, push, pull, or otherwise move objects. 4 c Mathematical Ability: • Ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Judgement and Situational Reasoning Ability: • Ability to apply common sense understanding to perform semi -repetitive tasks such as typing; • Ability to use independent judgement in fairly routine situations, such as examining documents to be notarized. Language Ability and Interpersonal Communication: • Ability to comprehend and correctly use a variety of informational documents including agenda reports, Dictaphone tapes and meeting minutes; 0 Ability to prepare call accounting reports and switch reports using prescribed format and conforming to all rules of punctuation, grammar, diction and style; • Ability to comprehend a variety of reference books and manuals including dictionary, operations manuals for office equipment, computer software manuals and phone directory; • Ability to communicate effectively with coworkers, supervisor, members of the public, and other City personnel verbally and in writing. Environmental Adaptability: Ability to work in an office environment. The City of La Quinta is an Equal Opportunity Employer. In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, La Quinta will provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities and encourages both prospective employees and incumbents to discuss potential accommodations with the employer. October, 1996 March 1998 TW�t 4 XP Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Approval of an Award of Contract for STUDY SESSION: Project LMC 99-01, Landscape Lighting Maintenance PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Award a contract to Kribbs Construction for Landscape Maintenance Contract (LMC) 99-01, Citywide Landscape Lighting Maintenance, not to exceed the estimated amount of $30,832.00 per year. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Based upon the bid submitted by Kribbs Construction, the annual cost for this Project will be $30,832.00. The breakdown is as follows: Bi-weekly citywide landscape lighting inspection. $10,032.00 Emergency system repairs estimated @ 20 hours per $20,800.00 cycle (26 cycles per year) @ $40 per hour. Total estimated annual cost. $30,832.00 This Project will be funded from the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance, Contract Services Account No. 101-454-603-000. Adequate funds have been budgeted in the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 budget. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: During the January 5, 1999 City Council meeting, Council authorized staff to solicit bids for Project LMC 99-01, Citywide Landscape Lighting Maintenance. This project provides for bi-weekly inspection of all landscape lighting systems located within the City's medians, parks, perimeter landscapes and parking facilities, as well as any and all repairs to the referenced systems as needed at the set hourly rate quoted by the bidder as part of the bid package. On May 26, 1999, sealed bids were publicly opened and read. Two bids were received for this project. The following table illustrates the results of the bids received. T: AP W DEPTVCOUNCILA 1999A990615a_wpd BIDDER Per Month Per Year * Hourly Rate Kribbs Construction $836.00 $10,032.00 $40.00/$40.0 0 Neptune Electric $3,600.00 $43,200.00 $45.00/$65.0 0 Engineer's Estimate $865.00 $10,400.00 $50.00/$50.0 0 *Hourly rates are based on emergency call out during normal working hours (7:00 am to 6:00 pm) and emergency call outs during evening hours. Staff has contacted references listed by Kribbs Construction as part of the bid package. Additionally, Kribbs Construction has satisfactorily completed various projects, including landscape lighting maintenance and repair for the City in the past. Therefore, based upon the submitted bid and past experience in this field, Kribbs Construction meets all of the qualifications as described in the Bid Specifications. Assuming an award date of June 15, 1999, the following schedule represents how the project would proceed: Award of Contract 06/15/1999 Notice to Proceed 06/16/1999 Contract Begins 07/01 /1999 The Contract Specifications provide for yearly extensions of the Contract, not to exceed four years, at the City's discretion. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Award a contract to Kribbs Construction for Landscape Maintenance Contract (LMC) 99-01, Citywide Landscape Lighting Maintenance, not to exceed the estimated amount of $30,832.00 per year; or 2. Do not award a contract to Kribbs Construction; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. 0041 UP W DE P'11COUNCI LA 1999A990615a. wpd Respectfully submitted, Chris A. Vogt Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager a .. T_T W U EPTVCOUNCI LAI999A990615a wpd 003 c&t,, 4 stP Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: O ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Approval to Award a Contract for Janitorial Services PUBLIC HEARING: for City Facilities RECOMMENDATION: Award the contract for janitorial services for City facilities to Desert Janitor Company for one year in the amount of $48,342. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds in the amount of $58,600 have been proposed in the 1999/2000 Fiscal Year Budget to provide for the cost of janitorial services. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Since 1993, the City has contracted for janitorial services for its buildings. The facilities to be cleaned under the proposed contract include: the City Hall, the Senior Center, the corporation yard offices and restrooms, the Fritz Burns Park pool restrooms, the triple wide trailer at Fritz Burns Park near the tennis courts, and the Sports Complex snack bar and restrooms. Attachment 1 details the level of service requested by the City. All prospective bidders participated in a walk through of the above facilities prior to submitting a proposal to the City. The current contract for janitorial service expires on June 30, 1999. The contract under consideration will be for one year with the option to extend for two additional years. Staff received responsive bids from the following contractors: Contractor Bid Amount Desert Janitor Company $48,342 Moore Maintenance $48,612 ServiceMaster $61,236 FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Award the contract for janitorial services for City facilities to Desert Janitor Company for one year in the amount of $48,342; or 2. Reject all bids and direct staff to re -advertise for janitorial services; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Tom Hartung, Director of Building and Safety Approved for submission by: r Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Detailed Specifications for Custodial Services ATTACHMENT 1 DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES The'City of La Quinta, Riverside County California, wishes to retain the services of a firm to provide custodial services for its Civic Center located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, its Senior Center located at 78-450 Avenida La Fonda, and several miscellaneous buildings. The structures consist of approximately 42,475 square feet. The City is looking to contract for five nights a week (7 nights per week at Fritz Burns Park Restrooms and Sports Complex Restrooms) janitorial service with a qualified firm. SPECIFICATIONS The following is an itemized list by area of cleaning activities and the frequency at which each should occur. NIGHTLY SERVICE GENERAL - Offices, conference rooms, council chambers 1 . All waste containers shall be emptied and contents disposed of in designated area. Return containers to original locations. 2. Liners to be used in all waste containers 3. S:^ieep and damp mop all hard flooring 4. Vacuum all carpeted areas 5. Dust desks, chairs, tables and other office furniture and equipment (paperwork must be cleared by City staff). 6. Clean and polish all drinking fountains 7. Spot clean to remove fingerprints from glass entry doors and glass partitions 8. Replace any burned out light bulbs (city will provide bulbs) GYM AREA (Civic Center) 1. Sweep and damp mop flooring 2. Vacuum carpeted areas 3. Empty all waste containers and replace liners LUNC_HROO-�&ICLLCHEN-AND COEFEEIAREAS 1 . Damp wipe all table tops and chair seats 2. Clean microwave inside and out 3. Outside of refrigerator to be cleaned 4. Sweep and damp mop or vacuum all floor areas r:1 v �, Request For Quotes Page 25 ► .:••u W-11 ►WO• •� • 5. Clean and disinfect all sinks and counter tops (dishes cleaned by City staff) 6. Empty trash and replace liners in containers 1 . Clean and sanitize all urinals and commodes and wash basins including all chrome fittings, bright work and counter tops. 2. Clean tile behind urinals 3. Sweep floors and damp mop with germicidal cleaner 4. Empty waste containers and replace linen 5. Empty and sanitize all feminine napkin disposal units 6. Clean all mirrors 7. Restock all supplies as necessary (soap, tissue, towels, linens, seat covers, napkins, etc.) RECEIVING (Civic Center) 1. Sweep or dust mop floor 2. Empty trash containers JANITOR CLOSET (Civic Center & Senior Center) Sweep or dust mop floor 2. Remove all trash to designated area 3. Maintain neat and orderly storage These items must be performed at least once a week in addition to the nightly service. Offices, conference rooms and council chambers 1 . Spray and buff all tile floors 2. Dust all ledges and other flat surfaces below 6 feet from floor 3. Dust all picture frames and art work 4. Remove chairs and vacuum under desks Request For Quotes Page 26 1 . Deep clean and polish sinks and counter tops (dishes will be cleared by City staff). 1 . Dust all ledges and partitions 1. Wash sink basin 2. Mop floors 3. Restock supplies 1. Sweep and damp mop floors These items must be completed at least once a month in addition to all nightly and weekly services. GENERAL.- Offices, conference rooms and council chambers 1 . Clean base molding and vacuum edge of carpeted areas 2. High dust all areas 6 feet and above (contractor must provide an approved lift to perform this service) 3. Remove fingerprints from doors and frames 4. Spot clean minor stains in carpet 5. Spot clean wall surfaces in hallways 6. Spot clean minor stains in seats in the council chambers 1. Remove lime buildup from faucets 1 . Thoroughly wash partitions and doors 2. Spot clean wall surfaces 3. Thoroughly wash all floors and detail corners t tj Request For Quotes Page 27 4. Strip and rewax floors 5. Remove lime buildup from all fixtures 6. Clean showers and remove mildew General - Offices, conference rooms, council chambers 1 . Spin pad shampoo hallways and high traffic areas 2 .Strip and rewax the floors 3. Wash and wipe trash containers 1. Wash and wipe trash containers 2. Strip and rewax the floors 1. Vacuum heating and air conditioning vents 2. Wash all windows inside and out 1. Wash all wall surfaces 1 . Steam clean all carpeted areas T-iht 4 4a Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Approval to Award a Contract to STUDY SESSION: Construct Capital Improvement Project 98-09, Washington Street Bridge Widening PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Declare Banshee Construction Company's bid for Project 98-09, non -responsive; and, Award a contract to the second lowest responsible bidder, E. L. Yeager Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,428,700.05 to construct Capital Improvement Project 98-09, the Washington Street Bridge Widening; and, Approve the execution of a reimbursement agreement between the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the City for costs of certain improvements requested by IID. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Adequate funding is available in the current project budget to support the recommendation to award a contract to E. L. Yeager Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,428,700.05 to construct Capital Improvement Project 98-09, the Washington Street Bridge Widening. The Engineer's estimate to construct the improvements proposed by the project plans was $2,460,000. The following table identifies the proposed total project budget. Category FY1997/98 FY 1998199 FY 19991OW Total Design: $213,367 $0 $55,000 $268,367 Technical: $0 $58,975 $141,025 $200,000 Construction: $54,499 $842,491 $1,563,010 $2,460,000 Admin.: $8,500 $45,000 $66,500 $120,000 TOTAL: $276,366 $946,466 $1,825,535 $3,048,367 f Changes in the 1999/2000 Capital Improvement Project budget are proposed to compensate for increases in the current construction estimate over the original budgeted amounts. T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615f. Pd The proposed increase in the project budget is due to improvements included in the final project plans and Engineer's estimate which were not anticipated in the project's conceptual scope of work, such as: storm drain improvements, domestic water line improvements, power conduit improvements, median and parkway landscaping, and traffic signal modifications at Avenue 50. Although an increase in the Infrastructure Fund allocation for this project is necessary, other potential funding sources are available to offset the increase. The following table summarizes the revenue sources available for this project: Art in Public Places (A.P.P.): $54,499 CVWD/IID Reimbursement: $187,209 State Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP): $239,343 Infrastructure (FY 1997/98): $276,366 Infrastructure (FY 1998/99): $946,466 Infrastructure (FY 1999/00): $1,825,535 TOTAL: $3,529,418 Previous Council action has allocated $54,499 from the Art in Public Places (A.P.P.) Fund toward construction of aesthetic enhancements to the bridge (decorative bridge barriers and railings). Based on the bid from Yeager Construction, the costs from the "Art in Public Places" Fund are $23,000. Only this amount will be expended from the total ($54,499) budgeted from A.P.P. Also, $187,209 consists of improvements requested by CVWD and IID, which will be funded by those agencies. Furthermore, the project is included in the State Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) which will provide construction funding in the amount of $239,343. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: This project provides for the widening of Washington Street from 500 feet south of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel to Avenue 50, including the widening of the existing bridge across the Channel from 40-feet to 96-feet wide. Ultimate right-of-way improvements are planned which will result in an arterial roadway with six lanes separated by a landscaped median. On January 20, 1998, the City Council authorized staff to begin the consultant selection process for preparation of plans, specifications and Engineer's estimates for this project. Subsequently, Council authorized award of a professional services agreement to Holmes & Narver, Inc. to prepare the necessary plans, specifications, and Engineer's estimates at the April 21, 1998 City Council meeting. T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5f. wPd On January 19, 1999, a Public Hearing was held to review the conceptual landscaping plans and geometric layout of the proposed improvements, and to certify a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. Final aesthetic issues related to the bridge and retaining wall construction were decided by the City Council at its February 2, 1999 meeting. These final project plans are the completion of the engineering drawings with the layout and content as approved by the Council at its previous meetings. On April 20, 1999, the City Council approved the plans, specifications and Engineer's estimate for Capital Improvement Project 98-09, the Washington Street Bridge Widening; authorized staff to advertise for bids to construct the Washington Street Bridge Widening improvements, Capital Improvement Project 98-09; and authorized the extension of the Professional Services Agreement with Holmes & Narver, Inc. in the amount of $170,263 to include construction management and inspection services; On May 18, 1999, the City Council approved a Reimbursement Agreement with CVWD, which will reimburse the City for costs above and beyond the base cost to relocate the existing waterline ($175,144). Also, on May 18, 1999, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a reimbursement agreement with CVWD for additional improvements associated with Capital Improvement Project 98-09, Washington Street Bridge Widening. After a review of the project's Bid Summary, CVWD decided that the existing 12-inch domestic water line should be upgraded to a 24-inch water line from Avenue 50 to the District's well site on Avenida Ultimo. CVWD will be responsible for reimbursement to the City for costs associated with the design and construction of those domestic water line improvements considered an upgrade to the project, including inspection and administration of the upgraded water line system. However, the City will continue to be responsible for incurring the cost associated with those domestic water line improvements not considered an upgrade and which are required as a result of impact to CVWD facilities from this project. The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) will be responsible for reimbursement ($12,056) to the City for costs associated with IID's conduit installation items, including inspection and administration. The following table illustrates the results of the bids received (a detailed Bid Summary Comparison is provided as Attachment 1): BIDDERS Banshee Construction Company E. L. Yeager Construction Company Griffith Company Granite Construction Company Riverside Construction Company BID AMOUNT $2,293,451.30 (Non -Responsive) $2,428,700.05 $2,566,347.15 $2,617,617.00 $2,667,687.65 T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5f. wpd Bid Review After a review of the bid documents by staff, it was determined that the apparent low bidder, Banshee Construction Co., did not properly complete the bid documents. Specifically, the contractor did not list the percentages of subcontract work, as required by the specifications and the California Public Contract Code. Based upon the City Attorney's review of the documents, staff believes that Banshee Construction Company's bid is "non -responsive", making E. L. Yeager Construction Company the lowest responsible bidder. Considering an award date of June 15, 1999, the following schedule represents how the project would proceed: Bid Period: Contract Award: Notice to Proceed Construction Period: Project Acceptance: FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: April 21 - June 1, 1999 June 15, 1999 September 15, 1999 September 1999 - March 2000 April 2000 The alternatives available to the City Council include: Declare Banshee Construction Company's bid for Project 98-09, non -responsive; award a contract to E. L. Yeager Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,428,700.05 to construct Capital Improvement Project 98-09, the Washington Street Bridge Widening; and, approve the execution of a reimbursement agreement between the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the City for costs of certain improvements requested by IID; or 2. Award a contract to Banshee Construction Company in the amount of $2,293,451 to construct Capital Improvement Project 98-09, the Washington Street Bridge Widening; and, approve the execution of an agreement with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to reimburse the City for costs of certain improvements; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. T:\PWDEPT\COUNC1L\1 999\99061 5f.wpd Respectfully submitted, C ris A. Vogt Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachments: 1 . Bid Summary Comparison 2. IID Reimbursement Agreement 005 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\1 999\99061 5f—pd ATTACHMENT O Z Z 0 Cwrn zp� OMO a -Z LLw� w O�LU i U z O 0 z_ >Q fd... N rn 9 r o g o v a o m$ v o N O' � t o�lo 0 o c e o oZ b V W 15 00 O O O 00 O O O O O O 6 p O 6 N 00 h 6 6 6 6 6 O O O O O O O O 6 6 h O N N O O �O u � -5 o - f o f o f N F+ F o F+ 4 � y wlw w wow w ww w v wlw N c C1 c.ry NN N NI" ig en mlen wrvory rvl"V to l U w w ram, w — 4 ".C_8 gm {pyre ti � o ti M J J w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w �P o O G Q - " �w w w wjw wi wjw wjw�w w wiw w w� � wow w wlw�w w� W w uw J a a � z c� :a a" H a y N W o C) m a www w w w w www w o - �ww - - o o 0 o e o e a — r u u P iuu�� wjww o ry o ry F [[yy o m o m$ N W w .: u So 1 o ff o ff S H oIS .. i m 0. It c p.° o ti 3 u a u n o ti t4 a, v �� V u 5, i�ci n C 0 Z Z W Q W a F-CD O Z ❑ .0 O co O Q W z LL W ~ OUP O U z a O U z co Q a,r r� o� v �ao w a C i I NINIr o o o o N j o o ryry v a y f .7 NH I HH NN HH H Iwm ww�w m F � 0 � O g O C, Q - - i ao n u elo Hlw w of JJ Igo wl w NIN N o oo ......000,.,00 m$r v N N U m H w o = o 0 0 H.H g o 1m a o r r_ — c. ePIN „ —I w N�w. 1,31N INo lI i l l r b U olo oo 0 00*. 0 g to o m o� elm � g eiolol�ol�o oo oleo g Fy o N kl � '� � I-o I M y e I eo i W H F OFli 14 14 oNNNHI wIHI�wIeINIHHi Wm m a o mew ol� o9i w a � � I 'a ggg e OC4 ., E 0 O W � k _ m � w N N N H H w H N N N H H H H H H N N N N N H H H H H H N N N N N N N N N H H H N H H H H r U w w H w w w w H W ml ml� N N m .Yi c UYY �A RIP� 3 p' a Ev E J a'a 'b 'b o c—k,.� .. t t L G ,L v s sZ q.'b uw w"w" _ ��_,� eaa�m `2 g w .2 b� `o �`2 ta 11 N O CJ zr eke aim 0 0 Fx FP0P1: f IC? COACHELLA ENGR 23 24 25 H M E N T 2 City of La Quinta and Imperial Irrigation District i FANS NO.: 759 391 �99; Cooperative Agreement for the F`undi.ng and Convitruction of an Electric Conduit Sestem as part of the Washington Street Bridge /La Quinta Elv uation Charmel Improvement Proyeat This agreement is ncleby entered on this day of ___. , by and batween the Imperial Irrigat on Diatri.ct, hereinafter rcEerr`c to as "IID", and the City of. La Quinta, b reinafter referred to as f CITAL5 WHEF.EAS, `:I:X has invited bi for construction of a pxcposed project at the Washir.rtort Street crossing of tk,e La Quinta Evacuation Channei, i hereinafter referred to as "WASHTN ON BRICOE, °RO,JECT"; and WHERFAL, I=D has requested that ttbe ci,ry construct ar. electric conduit system, hereinafter .c?£erred to as 'I:D FACII,7TIE5" as part of the WASHINGTON BRIDGE PROJECT; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to ant'sfy IID's request to constr?a,::t IID FACILITIES as a I a1_t of the-- idASHIN 'iJN BRIDGE PRGJECT; and WHEREAS, 11D has prCvidecJ pl ns and specifications fcr tz>e ITT) FACILITIES attached hereto as Exhi it "A", and WNtiP,FAS, CITY has made the I D FACILITIES plans and a part of the WASHINGTON BRIDGT ?ROJ CT bid package; and. WHEREAS, the CITY has receiv d a bid from _ for i•.-onstructinn of the WASN7,PJGT��N HRI GE PROJECT, including the IIE FACILITIES; (arid WHEREP. , the b-d subir,i-tted b for the construction of IID .FACILITIES is _ _ ($ and IID accepts this bid. 00,`I h h' Lim ; I ILI -111PL HtLLP tNUK H �L t4 L' -j j 0 : 2 t. H L! 11 2 1 4 25 I 12 NOW THEREFORR BEI IT RESOLVFX AS FOLLOWS: SCOPE The CITY wi-l' Advert --se- Awa, and Administer the construc:tjQTX of the WASHINGTON BRIDGE PROJECT incl�id'ang the IID FACILITIES, In carrying out the constr,.z7tion of said facilities, CITY will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and ordinances, ana the Tin FACILITIES will, be constructed in acccr<;-ince w) Lt.1-i the specifi-cations and plans as contained n the T4ASHINCT01; fRIDGE PROJECT Bid Package and attached hrerpto as CONTRIBUTION 117) -hall =ontribute an el-ltl ata,.i amount of tr)walds the C:)-nst :uCtion cc5ts of the IID FACILITIES as identified in the 11D FACILI IES t-,lans and sper:�-ficatior-5- 119 total ubligaticn shall be based on af:tual cost of the IID FACILITIE5, It any change order should Jb. wtl:orized for the :Elr FACILI--ES by ClrS and III, then IID shall bear tFe related costs. Provided, however, that IID shall be re5pcn5ik--!e for adriltiunal- costs which arise an z ccnsecImence of c-tianges, tr., t.e WASHINGrON BRIDGE PROJECT not pt:-Pptred b) changes -related to the IID lk('1LITIES. 1117) skull be rCLp(Da5ible teir additional zoatt, which may celays, against, the WASHINGTON BRIDGE PPOJECT 0 the 11D F.TiCILITIES aS a result of III' requested changes cr errors or :;missions 7f !-h.e plane 3rid specifi7atL<-,ns provided by I,) fDr the LID FACILITIES. Once a section of the IID CILITIES, has been inspected and aca-cvted, IID shall pay for that port -1,.)n of the systf.-n. A710rithly hillinl Cycle I M, f FF.';ht: IID G0ACHELLA ENGR FPX H0. 760 391 5999 05-25-99 10:2E•H r".04 1 f� i 3 a 5 r,1 7 8 c 10 11 j `2 13 ,a 1.5 16 j 17 is 19 ?0 24 2 3 24 %5 3. 4, S. shall be acceptable to IID. ID shall pay applicable invoices wlt.h;c 30 days of receipt. TIME OF COMPLETION The IID FACILITIES shall be ;TFleted a11d available for use by IIII upon rompleticn of the proposed WA3HINC,TQN FBR:DSE _RDJECT. INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE IID shall provide inspection f the IID FACILITIES during its Cvltstruction at no expense to the CITY. This inspection can be done on a daily basis i.f 1ID shall (provide maintenance once the 11D FACILITIES is inspected and accepted. ITY hereby grants to 110 access to the !ID FACILITIES for thq purpose of maintenance and operations within CITY right-of-way. T is covenant is not intended ~o grant any rights to facilities outside CITY right -of --way, specifically, no rights are granted for facilities w thin Coachella Valley Wat_r Dietri_ct right-of-way or private prop rty. INDENNIFICATIOU IID shall indemnify and hold CITY, its offLcers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any .L ability, claims, judgernents cr demands for property damage, bodily or death a;_ any other element of damage of any kind or nature, arisi,g directly out of t.3te acts or Weti ssions of I i 1ID, it-5 officers, agents, enployees or independent contractors, or )ut', I i I of the hereunder undertake-r oL by the operations conducted by CITY wi.*-h regar-i tc the de5iqzi and onstruction of IID FAIL-ITIES pursuant to IiW s plans anti specifi,.ations and its a:.sista,c.E in the admin'-s-ration of the ca�,nst facti save and e:%cept claims c.r Iq5 011 FRiiM: I`IID CCIACHELLP EN5R FHX NO.: WE,O 3-, ': 5999 Ot-25-99 1M:2,'R F'.c)5 1 4 1 t-'gat..ior. ari;;ing thLouziln tJz sole active negij.�ence or willful miar_ona_;�*_ cf i:ha CITY, Further, I:D shea,il Defend, at its including attc-rneys' fees, CITY, its offi.-ers, agerits, anci e^^ployees in any claim o1 legal a-7ti;n based or assertc:J upon such iglleqed acts nr Dmis5i,7ns and will make good to .eLmburse ITf for a expenditures, including reascnablw attorneys' tees CITY make by reason of uch matters. CI-Y shall 1_ndeirnify an,l ho ( 1::_, its 'ff =er=, akjents and ernplc,ycca 'reE and harmless from ary 1 �Lili_ty what.5c�w�'cr based or asserted xpon any apt er cwi.ssior, of C17Y, its officers, acgw:nts , and 11dependent. of any i, _ ;.ci or n tuLe relating to or arisinq froirt.Le ar.:Cions of CITY, its offi-_er , agents and eznplo; 3es, F',,.rther, CITY .:hall defend, it it- expc-nse, incl,.Airnq attor ey ' feesr lIi), its officers, agents an employees in any Maim or legal art_ar, bared Gx a_n5ertc6 upon Su,_tt li`c<_-d acts or omissions and wi _', makes goof tv ,r,�ir�iirse IlC for an Er.pend.iturr, including Ic<.sonabie att' irley's' fees IID ?tay make b}, reason of : acci ma.ttcru. f Kl_I f'7: I III I Dui w � I i. �..i i_�• 1 3 F, 7 8 9 1U 11 1Z 13 14 L5 161 17 19 -' 3 4 <5 F . 0 F. oll�') F - TWT 4 4v " u � CFI OF TNT O AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: 42 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 1 5,1 999 ITEM TITLE: Approval to Award a Contract for Construction of Jefferson Street Improvements from Avenue 54 to State Route 1 1 1, Project No. 99-05 RECOMMENDATION: As directed by the City Council. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Based on a construction award amount of $6,876,876.00, the following represents the project budget: Construction: Inspection/Testing: Administration: Contingency: TOTAL: $6,876,876.00 $532,957.89 $343,843.80 $775,367.77 $8,529,045.46 The engineer's estimated cost for this project is $8,731,709. In accordance with the proposed "Amendment Number Two to the City of La Quinta - City of Indio - County of Riverside - CVAG Reimbursement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding" (Attachment 1), the following represents the estimated funding contributions by each Agency: CVAG (75%) City of La Quinta City of Indio County of Riverside TOTAL: $450,000.00 $90,000.00 $ 57,000.00 $3,000.00 Final Design/ Construction $1 1,296,245.00 $2,472,145.00 $1 ,293,270.00 $0.00 $1 1,746,245.00 $ 2, 562,145.00 $1,350,270.00 $3,000.00 $600,000.00 $15,061,660.00 $15,661,660.00 T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5e. W pd The following revenue will be available to cover the City of La Quinta's funding share upon adoption of the City's Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Operating Budget: Infrastructure $2,882,008.00 SLTPP $1,299,992.00 TOTAL: $4,182,000.00 The Cities of La Quinta and Indio have obtained State Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) Cycle 9 funding for these improvements. The City of La Quinta's maximum share of SLTPP funding is $1,299,992.57 for Jefferson Street between Avenue 48 and Avenue 54. The City of Indio's maximum share of SLTPP funding is $298,620.00 for the bridge improvements south of State Route 1 1 1 . It is important to note that the project must be awarded on or before June 30, 1999 in order to qualify for SLTPP reimbursement. Based on the bids, the City's estimated portion for consideration is $1,155,315. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: On March 18, 1997, the City Council approved the original Reimbursement Agreement and MOU between CVAG, La Quinta, Indio, and the County of Riverside for Jefferson Street Ultimate Improvements from Indio Boulevard to Avenue 54. The MOU identifies the City of La Quinta as the lead agency and the City of Indio and County of Riverside as the cooperating agencies. On April 29, 1997, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the original Reimbursement Agreement and MOU between the City of La Quinta, City of Indio, County of Riverside, and CVAG. On March 16, 1999, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the CVAG MOU. Amendment No. 1 provides a 75% (CVAG) and 25% (Local) split between CVAG and the affected jurisdictions for the funding of this project. This amendment was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on February 22, 1999. The proposed Jefferson Street Improvements will be constructed in two phases. Phase I improvements begin at State Highway 1 1 1 and end at Avenue 54. Phase II improvements begin at Indio Boulevard and end at State Highway 1 1 1 . This project has been on an accelerated pace in order to capture nearly $1 .6 million dollars of additional SLTPP funding. UJ T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5e.wpd On April 28, 1999, the City of La Quinta formally requested that CVAG issue Amendment No. 2 to the CVAG MOU. Amendment No. 2 addresses reimbursement for final engineering ($665,178), City administration costs ($33,259) totaling $698,437 and includes reimbursement for estimated construction costs for Phase 1 Jefferson Street Improvements from Avenue 54 to State Route 111 . On May 14, 1999, the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) approved Amendment No. 2 to the CVAG MOU, and Amendment No. 1 to the consultant contract for final design. On May 18, 1999, the City Council took the following actions in relation to this project: 1. Adopted a Resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-378; 2. Approved Amendment No. 2 in concept and authorized the City Manager to execute the amendment to the CVAG Reimbursement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for project final design and construction of Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to State Highway 1 1 1 when it becomes available from CVAG to the City of La Quinta, City of Indio, and County of Riverside; 3. Approved Amendment No. 1 amending the Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) contract in the Amount of $665,178 to prepare Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) for Project 99-05, Jefferson Street Improvements, Avenue 54 to State Highway 1 1 1; and 4. Approved the PS&E and authorized staff to advertise and receive bids for Project 99-05, Jefferson Street Improvements, Avenue 54 to State Highway 1 1 1 . The PS&E approval stipulated that the potential roundabout proposed for the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 be bid as an additive alternate and that a traditional signalized intersection be designed and included within the base bid project. On Tuesday, June 1, 1999, the City Council discussed the advantages and disadvantages of constructing a roundabout in -lieu of a signalized intersection and were provided additional information regarding the possibility of landscaping the median islands. On Monday, June 7, 1999, the Executive Committee of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) approved Amendment No 2 to the Reimbursement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for project final design and construction of Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to State Highway 1 1 1 between the City of La Quinta, City of Indio, County of Riverside, and CVAG. Although the Executive Committee approved Amendment No. 2 in concept, they directed CVAG staff to complete the details of the amendment. T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5e.wpd During the Executive Committee meeting, CVAG staff stated their concerns regarding the design and funding of the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. The Executive Committee deferred any action regarding the roundabout at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street until its June 28, 1999 meeting. The matter was forwarded to the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Transportation Committee for their discussions and recommendations. The TAC met on June 1 1 , 1999 and the Transportation Committee will meet on June 14, 1999. On June 9, 1999, the City's Attorney informed City staff that the details of Amendment No. 2 have been negotiated with CVAG. Amendment No. 2 now insures that the City of La Quinta will continue to have a positive cash flow throughout the duration of this project. It is anticipated that all parties to the Memorandum of Understanding (CVAG, City of La Quinta, City of Indio, and the County of Riverside) will have all approved Amendment No. 2 to the original Memorandum of Understanding and Reimbursement Agreement by June 28, 1999. On Friday, June 1 1 , 1999, CVAG's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) addressed intersection control devices, as these devices may relate to reimbursement from CVAG's Regional Arterial Program. After discussion, the CVAG TAC recommended to the Executive Committee that the Regional Arterial Program provide funding up to the amount of a traditional signalized intersection for the proposed roundabout and any costs over and above that amount shall be funded by the local jurisdiction. City staff will provide a verbal update to the City Council on the results of the June 14, 1999 Transportation Committee Meeting. On Friday, June 11, 1999, sealed bids were received for construction of this project. The following table illustrates the results of the bids received (a detailed Bid Summary is provided as Attachment 2). Please note that the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street is $10,310.00 less than the costs associated with the construction of a traditional signalized intersection at this location. Therefore, if the City Council selects installation of the roundabout, there would not be an additional cost to the City above the agreed to level of participation, except for right-of-way and landscaping. BIDDER Granite Construction Company E.L. Yeager Construction Company Matich Corporation Riverside Construction Company Engineer's Estimate TOTAL AMOUNT (All Bid Areas) $6,876,876.00 $8,638,583.50 $9,169,702.00 $9,327,327.00 $8,731,709.00 TAPW DEPT\COUNCIL\ 1 999\99061 5e. wpd Assuming project award on June 15, 1999, the following represents a tentative schedule: Award of Contract Notice to Proceed Construction (10 Months) Project Acceptance June 15, 1999 December 1999 December 1999 to October 2000 November 2000 It is staff's understanding that the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors will address the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at its June 22, 1999 meeting. As of the writing of this report, staff was unable to determine when the City of Indio will consider Amendment No. 2 to the MOU. It may be advantageous for the City Council to continue a decision to award the contract until the June 29, 1999 City Council Special Meeting. The CVAG Executive Committee will render their decision regarding their support of a roundabout at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street on June 28, 1999, based on input provided by CVAG staff and the recommendations of the TAC and Transportation Committees. With this information, the City Council may make a more informed decision regarding the intersection control at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street prior to awarding the Jefferson Street contract. If the CVAG Executive Committee does not support a roundabout at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, and the City proceeds with the installation of a roundabout, CVAG will not support the cost participation (75%) funding of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 and the length of Jefferson Street from Avenue 52 to Avenue 54. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES• The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Award a contract in the amount of $6,876,876.00 to Granite Construction Company for construction of Jefferson Street Improvements from Avenue 54 to State Route 1 1 1 with a Signalized Intersection at Avenue 52, Project No. 99- 05; or 2. Award a contract in the amount of $6,866,566.00 to Granite Construction Company for construction of Jefferson Street Improvements from Avenue 54 to State Route 1 1 1 with a Roundabout at Avenue 52, Project No. 99-05; or 3. Defer Project Award to a Special Meeting of the City Council on June 29, 1999. This alternative will allow the City Council to be advised of any additional CVAG Executive Committee Actions; or fI T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5e. wpd 4. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, //'_ //� ;X_ C is A. Vogt Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachments: 1 . CVAG MOU, Amendment No. 2 2. Bid Comparison Summary V06 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\1 999\99061 5e—pd ATTACHMENT 1 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO CITY OF LA QUINTA - CITY OF INDIO - COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CVAG REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PROJECT FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES, RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION "JEFFERSON STREET FROM AVENUE 54 TO HIGHWAY 111" THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO is made and entered into this day of , 1999, by and between the City of La Quinta ("La Quinta"), the City of Indio ("Indio"), the County of Riverside ("County"), and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, a California joint powers agency ("CVAG"). This amendment provides for the funding and reimbursement of expenditures in addition to those previously authorized under the terms of the existing Reimbursement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding, executed April 29, 1997 ("MOU"). All other provisions in the MOU and Amendment Number One thereto shall remain in force. Under the terms of the MOU, $600,000 was authorized for Preliminary Engineering of "Jefferson Street, from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard". This amendment amends the prior authorization for funding and reimbursement to include the final engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction project cost for "Jefferson Street. from Avenue 54 to Highway III", which is currently estimated to cost $15,061,660 ($698,437 for Final Design Engineering Services and $14,363,223 for Construction). The revised Scope of Services, Estimate of Cost, and updated Project Schedule are attached hereto as Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" , which are incorporated into herein by this reference. The parties recognize that the estimated costs outlined on Exhibit "A" are estimates only, and that the actual costs may exceed those costs. The parties agree that the reimbursement formula outlined below applies to the total allowable project costs for the final engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction project cost for "Jefferson Street, from Avenue 54 to Highway 111". CVAG agrees to pay 75% of allowable project costs for the La Quinta portion of the project. La Quinta agrees to pay the balance of the project costs for the La Quinta portion of the project as costs are incurred. CVAG agrees to pay 100% of all allowable project costs for the Indio portion of the project. Indio agrees to pay any disallowed project costs for the Indio portion of the project costs. If La 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 ,06/08/99 1 003 Quinta has incurred the disallowed project costs for the Indio portion of the project, Indio shall pay the disallowed amount to La Quinta within ten (10) business days of receipt of La Quinta's written request for payment of said amount. Indio agrees to repay up to 25 % of any funds advanced by CVAG over five (5) years beginning with an initial payment on July 1st, 2000. This estimated first year repayment is $270,054, which is 20% of the Preliminary Engineering and Final Design, Construction of Jefferson Street (Avenue 54 to Hwy 111) cost. A CVAG-City of Indio repayment agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. CVAG agrees to process the requests for payment or reimbursement of La Quinta and Indio within seven (7) days of receipt. CVAG agrees to make all required payments of allowable project costs within twenty-one (21) days of receiving the requests. It is the responsibility of La Quinta and Indio to take all actions necessary to acquire the right -of --way needed for the project within their respective jurisdictions. Nothing herein constitutes a commitment by any party hereto to exercise or utilize any powers of eminent domain for any acquisition of any property or property interest necessary or appropriate for implementation of the construction project, or for any purpose. All parties hereto understand and acknowledge that the exercise of eminent domain is dependent upon a consideration and passage of a resolution of necessity, which constitutes a legislative determination by the governing body of the condemning agency, and such determination cannot be made prior to the conduct of a noticed hearing at which affected property owners have an opportunity to appear and be heard regarding the findings required to initiate eminent domain proceedings. All such findings lie within the legislative discretion of the governing body of the agency considering condemnation. Neither agency hereto has by any representation or agreement herein, nor by any action undertaken pursuant hereto regarding preliminary project planning, investigation of potential right of way acquisition, appraisal, or extension of offers to purchase any property or property interest, acquisition of such interests committed herein to proceed with eminent domain proceedings regarding any particular property, or at all. In the event acquisition of all property interests necessary or appropriate for construction of the project as currently contemplated is impossible or otherwise does not go forward, the parties agree to cooperate reasonably in any redesign, modification, or termination of the project, as the parties may at that time deem appropriate. The parties agree that all costs associated with the acquisition of right-of-way related to the final approved project design, including, but not limited to, filing fees, service of process, attorneys' fees, deposits of just compensation, appraisal fees, expert witness fees, escrow costs, costs of clearing title, deposition costs, exhibit costs, jury fees, litigation costs, and funds for settlements and just compensation awards and judgments shall be allowable project costs subject to payment or reimbursement as set forth above. The other allowable project costs are as outlined in Attachment 1 to the MOU, CVAG's Regional Arterial Program, Project Cost Determination and Expense Eligibility. La Quinta agrees to defend and indemnify Indio and CVAG for any claim or action arising out of or relating to La Quinta's failure to timely acquire the necessary right-of-way for the project. 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 a06/08/99 2 001") Indio agrees to defend and indemnify La Quinta and CVAG for any claim or action arising out of or relating to Indio's failure to timely acquire the necessary right-of-way for the project. CVAG agrees to defend and indemnify La Quinta and Indio for any claim or action arising out of or relating to CVAG's failure to timely provide the funding of any allowable project cost as set forth in this amendment. Inasmuch as this phase of the project is not located in the unincorporated portion of the County, the County has no financial obligation with regard to the additional work authorized in this amendment. The parties hereto have caused this Amendment number two to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on this date. ATTEST: By: Saundra Juhola, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Dawn C. Honeywell, City Attorney ATTEST: By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 a06/08/99 3 CITY OF LA QUINTA John J. Pena, Mayor CITY OF INDIO LOU Chris Silva, Mayor ATTEST: By: By Gerald A. Maloney, Clerk Board of Supervisors County of Riverside APPROVED AS TO FORM: IC 0 Riverside County Counsel CVAG Patricia A. Larson, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: 91 Toni Eggebraaten, General Counsel 119/015610-0006/3267995.3 a06/08/99 5 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Supervisor John Tavaglione Chairmain, Board of Supervisors Marilyn Glassman, Chair Olt" EXHIBIT "A" - AMENDMENT TWO SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION "JEFFERSON STREET FROM AVENUE 54 TO HIGHWAY I I I" FINAL ENGINEERING SERVICES - PHASE I The City of La Quinta shall serve as "Lead Agency" for the Final Engineering Services. Based on the Preliminary Engineering Report, prepare roadway plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to Highway 111. Professional Engineering services include all necessary survey, legal description, and associated right-of-way maps and plats to undertake right-of-way acquisition. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION Subject to the limitations set forth in the Second Amendment to the MOU, the City of La Quinta and the City of Indio shall each be the "Lead Agency" as to the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way within their respective jurisdictions. CONSTRUCTION - PHASE I The City of La Quinta shall continue to serve as "Lead Agency" with regard to the construction of Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to Highway I t I. 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 a06/08/99 6 EXHIBIT "B" - AMENDMENT TWO ESTIMATE OF COST PROJECT FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION "JEFFERSON STREET FROM AVENUE 54 TO HIGHWAY I I I " Design Engineering and Construction estimates, for the Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to Hwy 111, are provided by the City of La Quinta as follows: ITEM BUDGET ($1 Final Engineering Services: Design Engineering Services 665,178 Administration (5%) 33,259 Final Engineering Subtotal 698,437 Construction: City of La Quinta Jefferson Street (Ave 54 to Ave 52) 3,665,000 Jefferson Street (Ave 52 to Ave 50) 2,712,000 Jefferson Street (Ave 50 to Ave 48) 1,459,000 Jefferson Street (Ave 48 to Hwy 111) 528,000 City of La Quinta Total $8,364,000 City of Indio Jefferson Street (Ave 50 to Ave 48) 1,645,000 Jefferson Street (Ave 48 to Hwy t 11) 2,730,000 City of Indio Total $4,375,000 Administration (@5%) 636,950 Construction Engineering (@8 %) 987.273 Construction Subtotal $14,363,223 TOTAL $15,061,660 CVAG share = 75% of eligible total cost. Any excess property purchased to secure the necessary Right -of -Way will be deemed to belong to the regional Arterial Program. Excess Property will be disposed of in the best interests of the Regional Arterial Program, in order to recapture funds expended. 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 a06/08/99 7 4;Y 0 t 4 JURISDICTIONAL REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE - AMENDMENT TWO PROJECT FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION "JEFFERSON STREET FROM AVENUE 54 TO HIGHWAY I I I" (AGENCIES SHALL HAVE A FUNDING POLICY ACCEPTABLE TO CVAG IN PLACE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION) Below is the estimated reimbursement amounts for the following Phases: - Preliminary Design Cost (Original Agreement): $ 600,000 - Final Design Engineering and Construction Cost: $15,061,660 (This Amendment number 2) JURISDICTION ESTIMATED REIMBURSEMENT TOTAL REPAYMENT AMOUNT (25 % Project Cost)* SCHEDULE Preliminary Final Design/ Design Construction City of La Quinta $ 90,000 City of Indio $ 57,000 $2,472,145 $2,562,145 ** $1,293,270 $1,350,270 *** Total Agencies Share $150,000 3,765,415 $3,912,415 * This estimated reimbursement amount is for the Preliminary Engineering of Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard, and for the Final Design and Construction of Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to Hwy 111. The County of Riverside is not part of this amendment, therefore, their reimbursement share of preliminary engineering will appear in the Final Design and Construction of Jefferson Street from hwy I I I to Indio Boulevard agreement. ** CVAG agrees to pay up to 75% of allowable project costs for the La Quinta portion of the project. La Quinta agrees to pay the balance of all project costs for the La Quinta portion of the project. *** CVAG agrees to pay 100% of allowable project costs for the Indio portion of the project. The City of Indio agrees to pay any disallowed project costs for the Indio portion of the project cost. The City of Indio agrees to repay up to 25% of any funds so advanced by CVAG over five (5) years beginning with an initial payment on July 1st, 2000. The estimated first year repayment is $270,054, which is 20% of the Preliminary Engineering and Final Design, Construction of 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 a06/08/99 8 ; 5 0 1) Jefferson Street (Avenue 54 to Hwy I11) cost. A CVAG - City of Indio repayment agreement is attached as Exhibit "D" - Amendment Two. 4 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 a06/08/99 9 Ot t) EXHIBIT "C" - AMENDMENT TWO UPDATED PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION "JEFFERSON STREET FROM AVENUE 54 TO HIGHWAY 111 " (FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY OF LA QUINTA) Final Plans, Specifications and Estimates Bid Period Contract Award Notice to Proceed Project Completion 119/015610-0008/3267995.3 a06/08/99 10 May 14, 1999 May 19, 1999 - June 11, 1999 June 15, 1999 December 1999 October 31, 2000 0 ti EXHIBIT "D" - AMENDMENT TWO CITY OF INDIO - CVAG REPAYMENT SCHEDULE The following is the estimated five (5) year City of Indio repayment to CVAG. The repayment amounts below are 20% of the total cost of the Preliminary Engineering and Final Design, Construction of Jefferson Street for the segment from "Avenue 54 to Hwy 111" only. The Final Design, Construction of Jefferson Street (from Hwy 111 to Indio Boulevard) will be administered at a future agreement. City of Indio Repayment Amount* City of Indio Repayment Schedule $ 270,054 FY 2000/2001 $ 270,054 FY 2001/2002 $ 270,054 FY 2002/2003 $ 270,054 FY 2003/2004 $ 270,054 FY 2004/2005 Total $1,350,270 * These amounts are for the Preliminary Engineering and Final Design, Construction of Jefferson Street (Avenue 54 to Hwy 111) cost. 119/015610-0008/3261995.3 a06/08/99 1 1 01 JUN-14-99 09:32 FROM- 9I m - H V/ 8$ S 8 S S � 4l ap � � � y� ry � H Vf � N N H N✓+ N � m � ss��a$sas�yfsas$ospsa$.sog�E-{O�CgsFg�sss$s$�y " N N /w,fi N H H N ..�G++ N T„S M N H H N N N Vf M H N JS u H N YN] MT N N N y M N N N M N N N M K N a s�sss�$ssss�ssassas.sasaa�q�4sassb� h rJ tJ N fJ .-7 N 4st W Vi V1 .d .-1 J I .1 9 11 .12 111 n !1 .q I n n n t �3 ppQ 8 M Vl r�l �`I � �'I{• P N1 z a a 4 2 N i $g g w t rcJ5flhfs .ems a X : C7 O t F7 G C�C Li P O pp� i U — fl M V VY W F I. ,p., N n 1 h 1 14 1 m O M M eV A h N N Q � T-037 P.02/05 F-066 IEWAM RIIMENT 2 I�l�i�1�1�1�1i G O H � � $FR�i, eS vOvyy N qry N N a0©0ME JUN-14-99 09:33 FROM- 8�NSCM gSN_S 8'�NSN g��Q S��, qN�,$AY�•( SM roM$ 5 H��SONNj� F�c f y 12 e E S ^e S$ 8 E$ 8$ H N N d q � , N P N 4 N N U M H G I o y � i a p- � c3 y 4 Q � V OO Y f P Y Y� Q L T-037 P.03/05 F-066 m P G O o0 amyl'• Op �O„ u N I^w N� N 'G�j N 4Y Yl rwld Vf N � N H u N N N p9 $ 3 3 8 S$ 8 8 S, 8 3S N N N S� 2 S s ry5d ae � N N H i 8 8 S S $ rS � a f^o�Q�j yS� pE .eA e8 pp8 p8 4 Vi a � da 0 4 4 V .-1 U t . t Y - s N 6 e 5 8 R7 Cq N Yl ✓1 S. h h +rl N ", a d oN6 JUN-14-99 09:34 FROM— T-037 P.04/05 F-066 .1 � N h � H N N� � N N � N N ^ N N » � µ M ✓� � M MY iN c3 E$ E e P �e N w » N M N N ✓1 n a— N N H s a 2 0 o q r N pp �n � E9W 3 7 $ 8$ 8S [8 pQ8 �8dy n' S F Sg 33 Z $$ 8S a E F g pN fV & pep pS pS O a^ d H M Q WE"� y 1 a Igloo I I I 121, x 14 .a m 00 ao ^� eo w 00 M ed O] In JUN-14-99 09:34 FROM- T-037 P.05/05 F-066 ct $ 8 E$ 8 3 E$ s 8 oti G S µ N G is o ,{ Epp 11��QQ3pQ3pq{{'' (y 3S �_ T Ya V ;may^ 25 qp O M yi M e w 4] assas� sass �� aa�s=assess ~ N ,C rs5��sQQ�o�+�s{s o�5sR� ysQ�gsasssf{{saaa its y t^ � � � a rd- � e' m •� .T tad <y - � 9� $ ,�"a VJ rH1 � p 'K w VF y y ✓� ✓� v� } y. {y p, (� ry� y p� a U -3 w� n � w �• �3 �� a .r r ri q a BUSINESS SESSION ITEM: J ORDINANCE NO. 332 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE TO REMOVE A TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONE, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON AND AVENUE 48 AND TO REPLACE IT WITH THE GOLF COURSE AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE CHANGE OF ZONE 99-090 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 ST day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a Zone Change to remove a Tourist Commercial zone, at the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 48 and to replace it with the golf course and residential zone as shown on Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 1 to day of May, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the same Zone Change as identified above and recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1 . This Zone Change is consistent the General Plan being amended, in that the zone change categories proposed are consistent with the with those goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. 3. The zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties in that adjacent uses are residential/resort and Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in other areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: .� .L '3 Ordinance No. 332 ZC 99-090/Rancho La Quinta Adopted: 6/15/99 Page 2 SECTION 1. The official Zoning Map for the City of La Quinta is hereby amended for those areas shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of the this ordinance. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL. Said Zoning Change request has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 of the Guidelines for Implementation. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 4: POSTING. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on this 1 5th day of June, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California Ordinance No. 332 ZC 99-090/Rancho La Quinta Adopted: 6/15/99 Page 3 ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California tr I RL GC ' RL RL GC • \ m RL goo� O RL �• � RL EXHIBIT A Avenue 48 RL GC �PPI RL SOME= 0 y/J RL Low Deosiry Residmdal TC RL G •' TC TartigCommacial 0 GC . 3 GC GC O/ Golf course p Avenue 49 GC FP Flood Plain �/ GC RL RL '- 1 RL �O GC RL O O N.A.P. Avenue 50 RANCHO LA QUINTA BUSINESS SESSION ITEM: .3 ORDINANCE NO. 333 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET AND 50TH AVENUE CASE NO. ZC 98-089 - LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY The City Council of the City of La Quinta does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The La Quinta Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning 33 ± acres located northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and 501n Avenue from Community Commercial (CC) to Low Density Residential (RL). The property shown and depicted for such rezoning on the map is attached to, and made a part of this Ordinance, and labeled Exhibit "A", Zone Change 98-089. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL. The Zone Change has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended and adopted in City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department conducted an Initial Study and has determined that the proposed Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, the City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on May 18, 1999. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 4. POSTING. The City Clerk shall, within 15 days after passage of this Ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council; shall certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council this 151h day of June, 1999, by the following vote: Ordinance No. 333 CZ 98-089/1-undin Development Adopted: 6/15/99 Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California r... o.. z� c&t,, 4 4 Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Discussion of Waste Management of the Desert Service PUBLIC HEARING: Fees Relating to Their Requested Rates for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 RECOMMENDATION: As deemed appropriate by the City Council. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The City has received correspondence from Waste Management requesting a rate adjustment for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 (See Attachment 1). Consideration of this request will give cause to consider other disposal issues. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Funds The City's current solid waste programs are supported by the following funds: Service, Dump Fee, $8.50 (recycling), AB 939, and Transportation and Disposal Reconciliation. These funds contain revenues collected from monthly service rates for solid waste collection and disposal. The Service Fund is used to compensate Waste Management for providing the City's collection services. The Dump Fee Fund pays for disposing the waste and restoration costs associated with landfill closings. The $8.50 Fund was originally created to fund a regional transfer and recovery station. Recent City Council policy authorizes use of this fund, however, for regional waste programs, local recycling programs, and franchise implementation of the City's collection and recycling programs. The AB 939 Fund is used to implement the waste reduction programs mandated by the State. The Transportation Fund is used for additional haul cost from Coachella to the Edom Hill landfill. The Disposal Reconciliation Fund is the cost difference from disposal and collection. All of these funds together determine the monthly service fee paid by residences and commercial establishments in the City. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ccjh-waste.wpd The current balance of the $8.50 Fund is $153,184. The Council may chose to reserve these funds and develop or participate in a local or regional transfer station. The Edom Hill Landfill will close in four to five years. Once Edom Hill closes the options available to the City of La Quinta are a transfer station or long haul disposal. The City is currently reviewing the option of joining Coachella and Indio in their transfer station. The $8.50 Fund is currently used, pursuant to City Council authorization of February 2, 1999, to supplement the cost of transportation and reconciliation costs (See Attachment 2). The Transportation Fund receives approximately $28,000 a year, but has an obligation for $79,677 pursuant to the Franchise Agreement. The Reconciliation Fund receives approximately $15,000 per year. The City paid Waste Management approximately $150,000 for Fiscal Year 1995-96 reconciliation and could be obligated to pay from $25,000 to $79,000 for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 and 1997-98 reconciliations. The City's AB 939 consultant is currently working with Waste Management to further define this dollar amount. The $8.50 Fund used to meet the Transportation and Reconciliation Fund shortfalls. This year the combined shortfall from these two accounts could be from $64,000 to $117,000. Staff is recommending utilizing a portion of $8.50 Fund to cover the aforementioned deficiencies and pay for Waste Management's requested CPI increase (the franchise allows for up to 50% of the CPI which equates to a 1 % increase in this years service costs). This allocation will allow the City to retain existing rates for residential and commercial users. Not using the $8.50 Fund for the CPI, Transportation Fund and Reconciliation Fund would require that the City identify an alternative revenue source (i.e., the General Fund, increased rates). Request for Proposals The City's Franchise Agreement with Waste Management expires on July 30, 2001.The City could consider negotiating with a sole source provider, drafting a Request For Proposals (RFP) to solicit an open competition for services, or attempt to coordinate with other Valley Cities to enhance the City's negotiating position. Drafting a RFP or coordination with the other Cities will require significant lead time to meet the July 30, 2001 deadline. The prior Franchise Agreement had a "good faith" clause which required the City to negotiate with its current hauler. The City removed that clause from the agreement. Accordingly, staff will begin preparation of an RFP unless otherwise directed by the City Council. C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\ccjh- waste. wpd 002 Staff will pursue the changes as noted in the report and any changes the City Council may suggest. Respectfully subm HermgrY munity Development Director Approved for Submission, Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ccjh-waste.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 WASTE MANAGEMENT 41-575 Ectectic Strect Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 340-6445 (760) 340-2732 Fax March 31, 1999 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman, Waste Management of the Desert respectfully requests a review of its service rates per section 15.1 of the Franchise Agreement. The January 1999 Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the U. S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated we experienced an inflation factor of 2.0% during the past year. The contract allows us to seek 50% of this CPI increase or 1.0%. This is the increase in service rates that we are requesting. The contract requires that we provide a statement from an independent certified public accountant, this statement will be forwarded to you by April 2. Due to upcoming billing dates, please advise me of the council meeting date for this item as soon as possible. I will prepare proposed rate sheets for council approval and forward them to your attentions. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue. Sincerely, e Frank Orlett Division President FO/dmb 005 A Division of Waste Management of the Desert, Inc. layunrta\3-30hennan v x 0 I m b � C A � v uroA A C •-a N C -•-+ U ro ro N I � rn V) r-1 c m x .+ v •ova C � ty, O) N d• Q' 1n r-1 N JJ U) U) W JJ C z O) I I 1 I G.1 a c7 C -H rC C) o 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 w z O -O F) E. r1 m M co m .- c O v U xi x M I I • I I I -H U) U] a' x v W m O) O O C)H .-1 5-I '� -ri O U H L7 E �-i I 0) U zM U) a>,a E . M )D r m M N FC H r1 r-I ro x O )4 U k. a .-I ro G.1 Hocs.�'r E wa 44Jorl C4' W ro 'O z x r ri o m C -14 10 W a v C •m \o N m a• W xm I I I I O4Jm a a)U M U Q r O U W m ❑ ri W N z -1 -4 ro q a N A A S4 N z ro 4 O 1 v o Ln .-I .0 N A M --4 m �:. u7 G to N N m •T mot' ro ;-� J ro �• W m Mr lDNr1f-1•-iM N'<'m FIS'.Ti u) z rj ,� lDr1n )p lD 1O 1D to o xH v'Oor r for u)O wm O N r a' r-1 d' r-i v� •-I N f-I N r1 r-I M fi d• .--I JJ 44 4J 4J (3) FC U) O ro 14 w m w z 41 . 41 p W • m r. N D m M m M . X W X V m W E W m 1IMMMN10 ioMr-Ir U' W wm 0mrC•r-I000M Li U1aM O U) SJ a• 3 00 �r Ln ID WW ID wO z r1 F):M IDO N.-iNr V•mN0 I o li ri d' H C r-I N •--� N r-i H x .'-1 R' m r m kD lD u) M lD m 4I v z .c U) D r-I ri V) ro ro ro pj m d' m r-I V' d• C• O r N ro .-i > U ❑ wr O1nOu)rN 1MMd Q N p rn 00r-11nOD* Mm InN Z am ••• -0 w x C r u) in 1n u) )n )o CD N FC m u) r N 0 ri lD M M m a• N N (1) O U Cm -4 d'.--i Tf-I N -1 (N xr-I Q'rr mlD lD u)Mtnr JJ xb -ri H M,�v�r-1�,�c�a• C N v CM 4J D o oro-Hm 10 w vr--------------------------------- .. aai -ivm u V3 ro N o U) < $ .w7 .0 0) • M N c c Ln N O Gu r-1 o A 4-I W f4 Ft w-P Czm I I I E a 7 v 3 rom C X N cn v x 0 C �.� < m C, C) o O C)m FC CO N W N .� c a C 4J OH k J� b Z 0 b r7 ,--i W m x m ro I I I 1 0 H z U W O C x v z M E m O O .. U) 0 4J O )-I O H ❑ N U rl C) x U ro E W U) " In CQ E. M r O .-I v M U a 0 O N 01 U (1) z U) z z m I I 1 I FC a 'O C v L1 H m ri FC D'. W b1 Ft m r-1 N N N H E x w Cu C) -ri H O 0 I0 W Q w a m £a ro �I',--, z a w Q FCrLn kD u m C) ro 0R Q E m m W v -O a) r-I U) m U) a i1 G • m lD d' m ri d• W N m r-1 O ri N N ri .0 N -I z N U m I I I I W Q .-1 1 JJ U .0 O W M H r-1 ri N r-I a N ro ♦✓. b 41 R u w 14 rn a U ❑ 0) O U b a O Elmi < [sm C)MCDO - C)MLOMM w C-H v M MMNO TOmm)D Q aM V -H U) A m UU OD ID a zm . . . . . . . . z FCm r-cq OCD trmv m >, C M .D F m d N V u lomr NM N x d mr r om to lD ID i v U H F7 ri tD M lD m to ID �o r O ri M Ln ri u) H 41 v (D H `. a r-1 v .-1 c r-1 N N rl R U) C -ri U w a M C C 3 u H FC m U)ri U W m MO Ln r-1 m c)U)1n Q' w wm r r0to r-i u)ON �Dr U r-1 v 41 KC XUm X EaM O to C O a W W m M .--) M M In 00 1,D •--1 M w U) F( m �D ri N M to �D 1D H to r` CQ v 0 .A N q Q,� to Mko 00 W Wfor 0 ❑ H xH cMr rhom Wo OWO V) 3 U l4 JJ z ri r1 v� ,� N N •-1 z •� M ri <r ri v ,-1 r-11 S4 U) ro H H S4 v V) o a i5 v w '0 a) 4a O >+ v • m �o N O �o CD N M m CD1f) C r r ri M O -ri -ri l4 N U) z M Q a M b 74 v ro ro �m r-i V'f-1 u)M MMIDN z FCM Lo OD 4Mu)d'M, Ma•CD •0 a)44 � N 1 3 ri m to r lD W W �O CD N x r-1 C• m r r �o m lD 1n l0 C) C; m a y )4 ri T e-i d' ri N •-i N ri r-I m rl R' r-1 d' H to ri 1n ro l4 A v mCav >4 G �o O [N 4J r-I v x U ro o v 10 41 z v x O .0 M CD 0 sa II -ri ro r-I v m m ro -ri O 0) :o :Om C) 0) -0 3 u .� O O r-I II M (M -rl r-I r-I r O O o O 0 .--I JJ U) k 14 a) m FC io C) C.) o C) o C v v b1 4 II II U E m w () U) •O >. • i ro N '1'FC • •� II II II II r1 u O C s4 )4 to lD to �o .0 4-4 W 'j a) CD :rn :rnv a 4-J M •m MGM II 4a C 1n s4 FC •-� I ,-1 ri • .� r->; N U ,� ,--1 O II rn >, r v r z ro" r-i C v v N C 4� Cu 41•� ID U rL U o7 z S4 C 10 -H- • • U) O -H FC H M 0) M (D v FC 0 -4 .� Q JJ U) ro -H -1 N E U r-i 0).-1 Q I Q 1 H ,C 0 -W JJ v 41 r1 4J ,. t4 C ro m N C ro ro �,7 ti q F( JJ W C O N V) r-I O rl ro JJ 0 ro b U) J-) m V) U) FC x a U) U) ro 41 V) ro i 41 ro U > N aO N $ 3 U ro a) V) .-) V) x o a v u v c ro N Cf) El J v z v N C E. 44 F. a ATTACHMENT #2 City Council Minutes 11 February 2, 1999 Mayor Pena noted that Council has already had an opportunity to provide some input. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Freeland advised that the Traffic Calming Study is for the purpose of developing an atmosphere in the design theme that will slow down traffic. He advised that the construction plans for Calle Estado are. for the proto-type street that Council wished to have done in conjunction with the design theme for the downtown commercial district. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to approve the procedure to receive and incorporate public input for the design theme of the Downtown Commercial District, Phase V-A. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 99-12. 6. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A CHANGE TO A CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING THE UTILIZATION OF THE $8.50 PER TON FEE COLLECTED TO FUND NON -REGIONAL AND REGIONAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that on July 2, 1996, Council moved to use the $8.50/ton landfill tipping fee reduction to fund solid waste programs being reduced or eliminated by the Riverside County Waste Management Resources District. The $8.50 funds were allocated for AB939 programs, transfer station development program, prelevelization of haul costs, and household hazardous waste programs, and some of the monies have been spent for reconciliation costs and additional transportation costs due to the closing of the Coachella Landfill. Although a small portion of the transportation costs are collected as part of the refuse rates, the City's Franchise Agreement provides for the City to pay Waste Management of the Desert additional transportation costs, not to exceed $79,677 annually. In order to keep the refuse rates as low as possible, the City has anticipated subsidizing the reconciliation and transportation costs with the $8.50/ton account. Staff is requesting a modification of the policy by creating one account for the $8.50/ton amount to be used for regional waste programs, local recycling programs, and franchise implementation of the City's collection and recycling programs. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that there's approximately $80,000 currently in the account, noting that some of it has been used for reconciliation costs and other things. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman advised that there are no legal limitations on expenditure of those funds. U07 City Council Minutes 12 February 2, 1999 Mayor Pena noted that the transfer station has never materialized, and if there are excess funds in the account, he wished to see them refunded to the residents. Mr. Herman advised that Council will have that option when they consider Waste Management's request for a rate increase this summer. Council Member Adolph noted that he was in favor of _refunding the money in the past, and wasn't aware that it was being used for these expenditures. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Herman advised that the possibility of a transfer station is still out there, and that the funds could be needed for that. In response to Council Member Adolph, Tom Freeman, 54-220 Avenida Obregon, Vice President of Waste Management of the Desert, advised that according to Mr. Nelson of Riverside County Waste Management, the capacity of Edom Hill is easily up to 2004. As for the status on transfer stations, he noted that CVAG's effort failed to materialize, and that if Coachella's transfer station is built, the tipping fee will be $36/ton. Waste Management has collected and returned approximately $304,000 to the City relative to the $8.50 reduction, and he felt there should be a surplus of $281,000 less the reconciliation cost. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that approximately $150,000 has been spent from the account for 1997 reconciliation costs, and the 1998 figures haven't been determined yet. If there's not enough in the account to cover the 1998 costs, we'll have to draw from the General Fund. Mr. Freeman felt a household hazardous waste program is needed, and noted that Riverside County Waste Management is reconsidering it. Mayor Pena advised that he would still like to see any excess funds refunded to the residents. Mr. Herman stated that the rates have already been set, and that that can be addressed when the new rates are proposed. He reiterated that staff is looking for a modification to the policy in order to pay Waste Management for the additional transportation costs. City Council Minutes 13 February 2, 1999 MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to approve the proposed Council Policy modification to utilize the $8.50 per ton Landfill Tip Fund to fund regional waste programs, local recycling programs, and franchise implementation of the City's Collection and Recycling programs; and to establish one revenue and expenditure account to tract the financial activity. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 99-13. Council Member Sniff felt it's imperative for the City to continue working with the other entities in regard to a transfer station or alternate solution because 2004 is not far away and it takes three years to build a transfer station. Mayor Pena wished for staff to come back with the exact balance in the account and to see some consideration given to refunding the excess funds. 7. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES GUIDELINES - APPENDIX B: CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS. APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA. Ms. di lorio, Planning Manager, advised that each public and/or private project application submitted to the City is required to include a cultural resources report as part of the development review process. The Historic Preservation Commission, who has been entrusted by the State Historic Preservation Office to uphold the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, is recommending that the City adopt the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards and guidelines for archaeological principal investigators. They're also recommending that Caltrans' requirements be used for other qualified crew member positions not identified by the Secretary of the Interior's standards. Council Member Perkins asked about some comments on the proposed guidelines that were distributed to Council just prior to the meeting, and stated that he wished to review them before going any further with this. Ms. Mouriquand, Associate Planner, advised that the comments were submitted by Michael Rodarte, who she understood is a senior at Cal -State University San Bernardino. MOTION - It was moved by Council Member Perkins and seconded by Mayor Pena to continue consideration of the Cultural Resources Guidelines to February 16, 1999. 009 i REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: b MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 5, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:08 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. IL PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 7, 1999. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 99-618, Amendment # 1; a request of Catellus Residential Group/La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a pool facility with a 26 acre single family residential lot subdivision. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the colors would tie in with the remainder of the project. Staff stated it would. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the applicant reconsider the use of wrought iron for the fence around the pool as it is a high maintenance. He suggested a vinyl material which would require little or no maintenance. It may cost them more for installation, but would be more attractive and cost C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC 5-5-99.vvpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee May 5, 1999 effective over the long run. In regard to the entrance landscaping, even though it had been previously approved, he noted the plans call for California Pepper and Evergreen Elm and both trees have a highest rate of blowing over in the high winds. He would strongly suggest a different tree; something more compact and upright that would not blow over. They could be a liability and are a very messy tree. The trees proposed for the pool area are laid out well, but are very messy trees and he would prefer they be moved away from the pool. Palms trees would be better around the pool area and move these trees onto the lawn area. Another issue is restroom facility for the workers. It can be a heated issue and if restroom facilities are not provided, workers will find an alternative. 4. Committee Member Cunningham informed the applicant that the shower facility will need to be covered so the drain is not exposed to the sky as it is a requirement of Coachella Valley Water District. 5. Mr. John O'Brien, representing Catellus, stated they would use roof colors from the current palette. In regard to the vinyl fence, he would have difficulty matching the Spanish look as he is not aware of a vinyl fence that would have the Spanish look. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if the fences are cemented in and no sand touches the post and it is raised above the ground surface to keep water from affected the post, the wrought iron may work. Irrigation lines would have to be laid out so the spray does not hit the fence. The landscaping that is to become the responsibility of the homeowners' association should be cost effective. 6. Mr. O'Brien stated the Shoestring and Palo Verde trees can be shifted from the pool. The entry theme trees were selected because they grow quickly, but they will look at alternatives. He also suggested they install heavy supports for the trees to alleviate his concerns for wind damage. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that supporting the tree to withhold the winds is about a 50-50 change they will work. 7. Mr. O'Brien stated that in regard to the restrooms they will look into providing restrooms for the workers. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the requirement is usually one restroom for each ten workers. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated PGA West built a separate restroom on the back of the members restroom for their workers. Committee Member Bobbitt stated this is an important issue. Cal OCEA and others put the responsibility on the developer. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 99-011 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 999-618, Amendment 41, subject to conditions as modified: N�✓� 019 C\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC 5-5-99.wpci 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee May 5, 1999 a. Relocating the Palo Verde and Acacia trees away from the pool area. b. The applicant consider adding an additional restroom for the workers. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 99-650; a request of Valentine Professional Services for Laguna de la Paz for approval of development plans for an expansion of the clubhouse and modifications to the recreational facilities and additional parking spaces for the clubhouse. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he was comfortable with the plans as submitted if they had been approved by homeowners' association (HOA), as the applicant is presenting what the HOA wants. It is behind gates and not a public issue. The clubhouse design is attractive and Laguna de la Paz has always had a good look from the street. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agreed and asked if there was a faction within the HOA that did not want the project to go forward. Mr. Gary Dubois, representing Valentine Professionals stated they had received no negative comments. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the existing homes would be impacted by the new buildings. Staff stated they would not. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the location of the proposed tennis courts was good as well as the parking for the employees. The plant palette is good because lends itself to a desert scheme. The existing landscaping is somewhat lush and this blends in the desert look. Mr. John Krieg, landscape architect, stated the applicant is trying to make the transition between the two. In the streetscape they are trying to present a plant palette that has a low water usage and use color and ground cover. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 99-012, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 99-650, as submitted. Unanimously approved. C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC 5-5-99.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee May 5, 1999 C. Site Development Permit 99-651; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation for approval of landscaping plans for temporary corporate office modular units.. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the existing trailers were being moved to the new location. Ms. Cindy Zamora, representing KSL Recreation Corporation, stated they would move as many as possible. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what color the modular units would be painted. Ms. Zamora stated the same grey and blue as before. 4. Committee Member Cunningham asked if there were any problems with the Fire Department. Ms. Zamora stated no. They have met with them to see that all their concerns are met. 5. Committee Member Cunningham asked if any issues had been raised by the HOA. Ms. Zamora stated none to her knowledge. Staff stated the applicant had been required to add landscaping to address concerns that had been brought to staff. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt informed the applicant that the existing water is a single supply that comes from PGA Boulevard and can go down because of what is happening on the other line. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 99-013, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 99-651 as submitted. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None V. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee to the next regular meeting to be held on June 2, 1999. This meeting was adjourned at 10:54 a.m. on May 5, 1999. Respegfully submitted, TY S YER, Executive Secretary `2 1. City uinta, California REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: co MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 15, 1999 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Wight at 3:30 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Irwin, Mitchell, Puente, Vossler, and Chairman Wright. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. IL PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Commissioner Irwin introduced Louise Neeley, Chairman of Docents for the La Quinta Historical Society who would be leading the Point Happy Ranch tour. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was then moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1999, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Environmental Assessment 98-375, Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Map 29053. l . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mitchell asked if this was the same project he had commented on previously as this report did not identify the type of bone discovered, nor the raw lithic material present. It was his opinion this was not a complete archaeological report. He recommended that his comments from the previous project be included with this report. P:ACAROLYN\I IPC4-25-99.xvpd -I- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 15, 1999 3. Staff stated this was an interim report and staff would include Commissioner Mitchell's comments. 4. Commissioner Mitchell stated his concern was that the report recommended all the sites be found not eligible for National Register, or were not significant in terms of CEQA criteria which he did not disagree with, but any bone found should be identified as to bird, mammal, or fish and noted in the report. 5. Planning Manager di Iorio informed the Commission this report was in reference to the residential site as opposed to Phase I for the commercial site and she would inform Mr. Love, the archaeological consultant, that those points needed to be clarified before the report was submitted to the City Council for the certification of the Environmental Assessment on May 18"- if approved by the Planning Commission. 6. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Vossler to adopt Minute Motion 99-013 accepting staffs recommendations with the inclusion of Commissioner Mitchell's comments. Unanimously approved. B. Certified Local Government Grant Proposal for 1999. Planning Manager di Iorio presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Irwin asked if there were any changes from last year's proposal? Planning Manager di Iorio replied it was the same. 3. Staff informed the Commissioners that if any changes to their resumes was needed they be made and returned to staff as soon as possible. 4. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the proposal would be submitted to the City Council on May 4, 1999, and if approved, sent to the State immediately. 5. There being no further comments, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to approve Minute Motion 99-014 recommending the Grant Proposal be sent to the Council for approval of the application. Unanimously approved. r P:\CAROLYN\FIPC4-25-99.wpd -2- t� Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 15, 1999 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL A. Chairman Wright informed the Commission of a newspaper article written on the Kemper Estate which he understood had been torn down. Discussion followed regarding the City's Historical Survey and the historic sites that would be saved from this type of unnecessary destruction. B. Commissioner Irwin stated she had received a call from a resident who was looking to purchase a house in La Quinta and wanted to know if it had been declared historical as the advertisement for sale of the house stated it was. Commissioner Irwin had contacted staff to see if it was listed on the City's registry and was told it was not. The property encompasses three lots with what appeared to be a stage in the yard. Commissioner Irwin wanted to know what the official procedure was for checking historical sites. Would someone from the City inspect them? Planning Manager di Iorio replied they would, but if the integrity is gone, then the house would not be included in the City's Historical Register. Commissioner Irwin asked who was to be contacted when these calls were received? Planning Manager di Iorio replied she would receive the calls and go out to look at the properties, checking for age, historical integrity and so on. Chairman Wright asked if there was any way that the Commissioners could get packets of the Historical Registry. Planning Manager di lorio stated staff would see that each Commissioner received a copy. VIL COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Planning Manager di Iorio told the Commission she had met with Roberta Dearing, Executive Director of the Preservation Foundation, for the Gala Event. She had been informed that this years' event would be held at the La Quinta Hotel on Saturday night of the Conference. Commissioner Irwin stated she had not received any information and wanted to know if they were planning on having a book store. Planning Manager di Iorio stated she was unsure, but would speak to Ms. Dearing. B. Chairman Wright asked about the Conference fees. Planning Manager di Iorio replied the City had budgeted for the Commission's registration. She also asked the Commissioners to advise staff, as soon as possible, if they would be attending and which events they would be participating in so the City could mail the application forms. C. Chairman Wright recessed the meeting, at 4:00 p.m., as the Commissioners would be taking a tour of the Point Happy Ranch conducted by Louise Neeley. Ms. Neeley then gave the Commissioners background information on the Ranch before departing. y • 7ee J P:ACAR01,YN\HPC4-25-99.Nvpd -3- 003 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 15, 1999 VIII. ADJOURNMENT After, the tour, there being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin /Wright to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on May 20, 1999. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. April 15, 1999. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: ty J��r Executive Secretary 0v`4 PXAROLYN\HPC4-25-99.wpd -4- DEPARTMENT REPORT: 4-1 O4 �OZ • �11Y�� U _ OFTNtiv TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager I DATE: June 15, 1999 RE: Department Report — Response(s) to Public Comment The following is the response to public comments made at the June 1, 1999 City Council meeting: Mr. Peter Urbon, P.O. Box 874, Rancho Mirage; Mr. Ira Grayboff, 156 South La Cerra Drive, Rancho Mirage; and Elaine Reynolds, 49-294 Vista Bonita, La Quinta addressed the City Council regarding artwork for the Civic Center Campus. • No response was necessary as the City Council responded during the City Council meeting. /L 1 DEPARTMENT REPORT: CITY COUNCIL'S UP -COMING EVENTS JUNE 15 CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 16 DESERT BEAUTIFUL AT OASIS DATE GARDENS JUNE 16 CHAMBER'S BUSINESS EXPO JUNE 17 QUARTERLY SUPERVISOR'S BREAKFAST AT HERITAGE PALMS JUNE 22 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23 CHAMBER MIXER AT THE MONTECITO COLLECTION JUNE 24 BIA/COUNCIL MEETING AT PGA RESORT CLUBHOUSE JUNE 26 CHAMBER INSTALLATION DINNER AT LA QUINTA HOTEL JUNE 29 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1 MAYOR'S LUNCH JULY 6 COUNCIL MEETING JULY 20 COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28 CHAMBER MIXER AT THE CLIFFHOUSE JULY 28-30 LEAGUE'S MAYORS & COUNCIL MEMBERS EXECUTIVE FORUM IN MONTEREY AUGUST 26 CHAMBER MIXER SEPTEMBER 13 2ND ANNUAL MAYOR'S CUP GOLF CHALLENGE OCTOBER 9 CITYWIDE CLEAN-UP DAY Updated: June 15, 1999 June 1999 Monthly Planner Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 May 2:00 PM City Council Meeting 9:00 AM RCTC - Pena S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 6 7 8 9 10-------_ 11 12 7:00 PM C.V. 5:30 PM Invest- 12:00 PM CVAG Mosquito Abate- ment Advisory Energy & Envi - Perkins Board Sniff 7:00 PM Planning 7:00 PM Cultural Commission Commission 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7:00 PM Commu- 9:00 AM CVB- 3:30 PM Historic nity Services Henderson Preservation Commission 2:00 PM City Commission Council Meeting 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 FATHERS DAY 9:30 AM CVAG 1:30 PM Special 12:00 PM CVAG 12:00 PM Special Public Safety- Council Meeting Human & Com- Council Meeting Perkins 7:00 PM Planning Adolph - BIA 12:00 PM CVAG Commission 4:00 PM Trans -Perkins DRRAirp- Henderson 27 28 29 30 4:00 PM CVAG 1:30 PM Special 12:00 PM July Exec -Pena Council Meeting SunLine-Pena S M T W T F S 1_ _2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 6/11/99 DEPARTMENT REPORT: U � F`y OF TN�v TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Tom Hartung, Director of Building & Safety✓ DATE: June 15, 1999. RE: Department Monthly Report - May Attached please find the statistical summaries for building permits, Animal Control, Code Compliance, and business licenses for the month of May. The reports depict the following highlights: • Year to date building permit valuation is $89,132,284, which represents an issuance of 1,1 19 building permits through May; • 1,246 animal control cases have been handled through May; • 955 code compliance cases have been initiated through May; • 10 new licenses were issued to La Quinta based businesses in May. �I .r U I 'r M phi � ry aT Lr] �o M �o ,T. F � M 00 c O Cl o a ^ w �I M M z E" — O M O ^tn U nr Q ! N O N 00 O, W� O, CT M O M kn V� to r N �o Cr R Io 00 QI N `D — O ^ C, M Q\ Iz t` 00 N CA M V'i 00 1en M 00 w W� - N Ov ^ 00 k V'i [� ^� 7: k kr, N � � M r CT W' 00 t- of M .� ^ �o t- 00 ^ M O O O j fn p M 00 N r- MGo -r N r trl U ! [—' cr 00 M z F,,, 00 N N r M .. N OA N O Z M V'l N M 01 k C, 00 — N O C� �. L � i N � x z ..� M O �00 W Vi O 00 O M �p M O� O� N O, O M h MCI F. —� U O A O h w 00 0—E'M O W1 �O O A .-. MHO 1!) MOIo r4�O,.�O,�O�M�kn �MZO r�" w z 4 r� ;rk ANIMAL CONTROL REPORT FOR: MAY_,1999 PICKUPS YEAR TO INCIDENTS YEAR TO MONTHLY: DATE: HANDLED: MONTHLY DATE: Digs Alive 43 204 Bite reports 4 32 Dead 17 Cats Alive 15 53 _ Animal trap set ups 3_ 34 Dead 23 Cruelty to Animals Other -Animals Investigations & 3-- 14 Check welfare Alive 9 18 Dead 12 32 Vicious Animal Restraining order _L 3 TOTAL ANIMALS Alive _ 67__ 275 Special hour patrols 28 98 Dead _ 2.0 72 Zoning Violations 0 2 Lost & found reports 34_ 170 TOTAL ANIMALS Animal Rescue 4 _18 REMOVED Outside agency assistance 2 10 City hall reclaims 7 5.0 87 347 Other 3.4_ 171 TOTALS 120 602 VIOLATIONS: No owner Warnings Citations Contact Dogs at large 24 4 2 Noise disturbance 3 4 0 Defecation removal 0 0 0 License violation 0 0 4 Other 2 0 0 Monthly Total 29 8 6 YEAR TO DATE 136 56 105 TOTAL MONTHLY INCIDENTS HANDLED: 250 TOTAL YEAR TO DATE INCIDENTS HANDLED: 1_,246_ CODE COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR: MAY,_1999 ABATEMENTS: YEAR TO DATE: Nuisance Abatements Started 79_ 493 Weei Abatements Started 21 107 Vehicle Abatements Started 68_ 337 Dwelling Abatements Started 5 18 TOTAL STARTED 173 955 TOTAL COMPLETED 192_ 743 Rome -Occupation Inspections 11 __ 29 Business_Licens-e Inspections _ _6 1T Public Service 386 3,242 Garage sale permits Issued 132 _558_ a43 forms\councilceo W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Qm m m m m m m m m m 00 M Un O O V CD m W J� Un if) to u') U') Un if) U') Un to m O O O O O O O O O O J Q f- � a O O O U U W = CULJ Z t U > L W � Q O a Q Q U w U Z U O J U= (n (DQ> w o z= w 0 m=UUz( O�ZF-M ig Z W W O N N M V CD N V Z U( ) N N Un co 0 Un O (n r r M Un I- N V O V- - N V ar r (D to CD r r r r (D mrrto(htnrnrrto �o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (fl (D (D mCCCt�CCt�CCC a CN A A A ch A c%) A A A A U') to to u') to to Uo to m to N N N N N N N N N N J N N N N N N N N N N C�mmmmmmmmmm LLJ H Q H m m JI Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q oODUUUUUUUUU } Q Q Q Q Q F- F Q H Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ Z_ U D D m D D n D n D D m10C100000000 mgg�ggggggg W W °� �w > 000QQ�o0oz z�w�3Zam�� W a W_= > Q a U Q m a Q Q Q o w z 0== o z Q Z U m0 Uo M O N O CD 0 to CD r CD r 'IT r m CD V CDC") (D r (D r N m M r (h cc) Ln (b C:O mmllr Un U(') r- Un z O H 0 W CL _ O ~ W U Uj U_ U > Lij 0 W d W WW2i(n U U w m w a Q O— CD QUm cn0 �_ >>Uwcn J CD Q' J J ofJ m Z U Q m W 0� 0 U Z J 0LU z: �wpoas0p00aw LL UO Z W UW O'(DU) W =Z OmZ =) z W W pzJQO0 CO F— w 0 ��Q 0 0 0 0 0W �� 0 Uzi mQQLL 0m Zotnmmm (DcoOm O to (n r (D v to 00 0 00 �tnrrrrrrrrror J O U-) Uo to (f) N U') U-) NU') m O O CDO O O O O O 0 :'I, � t' v DEPARTMENT REPORT: 6.1 �a� •cy V _ Fr- OF TN TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 15, 1999 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY Attached please find a copy of the Community Development Report. These are the current cases being processed by staff. p.AMonthly Department Report.wpd Z W Q a w Z W a O J W W 0 Z cD C O U C� G 0 H U Q a? a� E O L O N a) o > +� O +, c. c Q _ O U N a-U It a) U) co d co ° >' C o a) '} O -0 U Q) C co O '- -C O i LuU< a)0-U U U)E O Z 'a +' p t� E a) -0 c C: co c c +� o co CO c co c o o E cn C r C: }' N ' O p 0 �E O _ y C U O •+- > l6 m 5 C cn O a) cn En Q p 70 O U Zi • > X a) +- o L } w U -0 coo Q O L cnn♦ TT an) O cl a) CO • L L- UO z rn E `a +� °' L c a O o N cU w c m d co MM o R U v 0 o E� U vi �t cn a) U N c U cn Q +. p Q cn uj nz ,� ca +, co co +- L co 5 Q c) U _ o I— O IL a �cp c o U-1-a co Q U o O U L ((FJ+nO Q" QL Co Q O O .- CD i M+, O acO ca 0 a) cM >C w+ m •= (D — n cn U) cn O • ' -O a a) "C CC "" C L O U U U U > M dcn"a a)U O Z L+Uc0 O O O O O p L LU) 0 > > cn C U +CU- +a) n) adcn a_ a. a_ a. Q. . o p •-O U C •N L C C Q Q C -a Q Cl 0 .37 C Ncn N Ncn rcn- Q- " CO 0 Q a ca a E Q a c a_ �U) 4-- cn a) c c � U oo 00 a) aS .c _o m p76 a_ i L O Q Q �1� U O cn /U Q LLI U) 0 / F" • C 00 00 M J U I0 cv U cn � -p o N a) co Q -O c � C 7 a) O L N O L c0 O� c d O E (j O i- o 4- L Q CCC a U ~ p s *' o LU J a)T N (n cn a) c00 a) L o a) rn o C oo m U J-ILa. cA > +� C a_ N c d J Q0-) 1 Q c`a o cl,O 2U I— (.C) Co co a Cn N Lo c _O Cl-J I-- LL U) U {--(")2 Jcn�le UOJU N N > O O 0 > Q 0\ 0 > n O co N N C N -p Z U C- C)-O Q Q Q Q p Q Q Q It > O > 0 D> 06 Q p7 0 0- cq ClLa QU Q OO� OY O') � O a a Q Q Q L) 00 M N LC) LO N O C N r- (O LO Ln >p Cc) (p CY) Ln O Lr) O Ln O U L '� U U U Q ��LL// (�) -1 L) ["'� U U U U U U U U C) U QoLUa aCLU IL CLU CLU CLU CLU 4p +� U >� " °' co 0) +_ a-' O U 6 W > N C O O 00 a� a c o o: (o cc cn co L) a) C cn co C O a) ca IL O IL cn J O a) U) O � a) i U r- (o � +� Cco LO LO +�• c> 00 (o C M o Q > � G vai O N C `+_- co OL (v co OC O p Q aCi Q CV) an� C CO O d C- co O >> L +- rl N V) N CO > C C L co co >pU) a � +, Q co Q co 0 0) U) C } aQ O }' �- +- 0 (n — co -O O C— () co co C Q +, O W — (� O N p N 0 0 0 D C N co a� L I— � p co U z co D_ > Q c L CD ZO +� o _ U v v > sU L a N co O L O TS > V + O C +� Q� C L O � > � c C N L O s � 0 � .cn c co p N C O 7 0 N OU a C p L Ln O co N p -p 0 N i C O LO cn U p 0 p U 0 O U � p >' "O L O aU (n W U O o C N >o p U a N M O O E CDa 0 +) m L 0 CcUOp p 7 > U O 0p OO C p O Nn _ O UO O OcQ- N co�N U Cc( U CL cc p C O L) C C co Q I Cy) CO coO 0 OnCC � O oC) b�LO O O 0 o O p CD O O OO C COa) OO N '� O O n � U :7 • N C >O p > cv m c0 0 �U pO LUnO p cn UL (0 L• 0 0? O p > 0 " -V ) O 0- a C L(nN C >0-O N Fn a Q tQ C O U Q O U cn O U) (n n (n c (n 0o co 0- a r O a Q , C O� C U �a} W O , a Cj cl O a) `- 0 co O Qc) 00 I" O O O � U (CL i LU a00 C CL co Lo IL o®C U UO o U U) cn0� � U O N 00 N C rn � Oi i LO Cc) CO > O O Y O O � U) O O 1 O rn a) rn o rnN�_ rn rn � rn 00 Q N v C N D- J L Q Cc) J a O Q` J C a O [L C W r�, U) IL 0-) O U)U �z �Y C7 k C7Mv- C'�N.J 4j 0 3 Cl) z a; z _O U Q W -a o > Q 0 Q Q Q Q _ \ O_U a� > o Q a Q N N � Qa- M CY) a-U CY) M d.0 p Q > O O a > Q O Q Q Q CN 1 Q 00 U (6 QIL CY) — M r-� 00 CLU CY) CY) � 00 CLU CY) CY) r� 00 Q_U C— +J O O C L p O N O a-- O O N N U 1 f6 O N +' �— N O c0 Q O 'U N C N fn (6 O O Fn O O O C: O > OU Q O C cn C > . O r U p} O O >� N O > (0 _ U CO C c0 ``� -U L O (B O N CO a— O L O C O C C E-o (D L N C U-C C ,� O C cn m co C w- U N a- Q] O O) L O 0 O z O L C "O N +- 0 0 0 S C C O M p C O F, O a O7 � C N co � M� N �' p LLO Cl) rn cOa n -a C N iU U U co co -} OC cz > M O CL OL 0p UC p L UO O O0 O (n c O� NQ O (n (B U) co co O O C C C O OLU N +-j U)O 00 cn > Q (n co UG OO co m > iO c O 0),- .OcoB � It� O U U c MCO Ui UO 'O Lo O E O 0 +, ( O O>NcB C(0 Nc� co O � O C N. C - O C DO +- Q C +� O 0 O U O O > O a - O co O_ n O — C (/)j L O } O N X co p 0 O p m OpO OZ 00�> N > `~ O > j cn O U O E p >_ p > > 'O > cn N _O 00 �_ CC O U -O O Z "a _O C O C Q C Q 2 > U C i O '1'' C p '�'' 0 > 0 Q L C p 0 Q C Q Q. N L +, O✓ co (n p C p (n w N N U m 0 'p (n Q +Cl (n m 80 U) Q 80 0� D_ Q C/) Q O Q Q. 0- 0 O O O U LU O O mC C co C m O N c- � � O W J J J Q_ U � c m O J J J Q � c0 (o L O (n (n (n cn N +, OC OC~1 CY) U p[ O CY) (O N co I- 00 0')O N ai00 N O m O Ln 0) �t CY) It CY) M Q � OQ m m t LO OM m m m 00 n N N m N N N N (n c0 U (n F-- I— f— U) I— I— I— '- a 004 v, F— CC O W cc Q F— F— U W 0MM I.L Q W CL ° o rn rn a) rn ° O O 0 0) o a) 0)r M D O m d U i a) 00 a) a) co a) a) a) 00 Lr) M N 7 Ln LO m a� y O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO O LO LO LO O U � 00 N a) 0 r c c °' O E � LO o LO LO o U � 0 v LO O c O O N O O r 0 O O +_' O CO +' O +' O C E M O O Li) 00 O 0 y O U Q M O Q. a) Ln C. o a. N I, 0 N m CD r- 0 00 yr yr yr yr -a +n M yr i a3 LU a) a1 as J col V •y O cc Y m CD C.) a7 O 0 y CM r L) J Y V L O J O r O V V CoO cn a) a) c ' O a _ � � y C CL c y w Y N CL m CC O. Q a) mca C v7 r CC O tm O C a) O c a) a ° E o ° ° H a3 a) M m a O ++ r _ co +. m y U _ CD m c m ° d caa ° ac) m CL 0 aE) avi d 0= cc C7 Q cn 0 0 a a Lu w r t i U O N v7 a M a c U U r O C-) Y y N ns c a) c a) y j i J r C) U c O Z aS U- cn . M O a) Cn Cn U coOO O N 7 •C U) y U aS U ai = O f6 O c U E E H m m a U a a. 005 �r- DEPARTMENT REPORT: OF TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 15, 1999 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CIVIC CENTER ART PIECE BY LOUIS DEMARTINO Pursuant to City Council direction, staff has researched the possibility of installing the Louis DeMartino art piece south of La Fonda and east of Washington and relocating it to a permanent site as part of the Civic Center campus landscaping project, at a future date. BACKGROUND: Based on the recommendation of the Art in Public Places Commission, the City Council on June 21, 1994, determined that the art piece should remain in storage until such time as the Civic Center Campus could accommodate the art piece in its proper location and setting. Upon reviewing the Scope of Services contained in the contract and the payments that have been made to the artist, staff found that the remaining funds for the art piece is $6,217. Staff contacted the artist, Louis DeMartino regarding the relocation. Attached is a letter identifying his concerns. He indicates that once the art piece is installed in a temporary location, it will cost roughly $40,000 to relocate it due to engineering, structural and relocation costs. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon Mr. DeMartino's recommendation, staff recommends leaving the art piece in storage until the Civic Center campus is completed. Attachment: Letter from Louis DeMartino 0 FRITI : Lcu i -: Derlart. i no FAX N0. : 9A9 763 2360 Jun. 09 1999 11: 457AH F'2 ATTACHMENT #1 L2ui5 WKK171RTiN2RM June 9, 1999 Mr. Jerry Herman Director of Planning City of La Quinta Dear Mr. Herman: I am writing to express my views concerning the disposition of the sculpture commissioned by the City of La Quinta in 1993 (completed by me in 1994) which will be installed at a future date in the City of La Quinta Park Campus Setting. There are two issues I consider significant: the possibility of installing the sculpture at a temporary site-, and the assorted, accrued and future costs. I ain concerned that installing the sculpture (which was conceived for its specific site and environment) at a temporary location would risk precipitating a negative community reaction. The sculpture might look abandoned. Currently the community is unaware of the Civic Center Park Campus sculpture and therefore expects nothing. Instal islg it precipitously, only for a sense of completion, would risk an unfavorable reaction, I ant afraid. Due to the numerous personnel changes in the City Council and Art in Public Places Commission, I would very much like to review with everyone concerned, prior to any installation, the aesthetic considerations of the piece (its being sensitive to its site and being site specific) along %vith the concomitant issue of community involvement. As to the cost, the sculpture could be installed at a temporary location for the balance owed (approximately $7,000). Due to the anticipated wind loads, however, the piece lnas been engineered for a very permanent installation. To move the piece would require severing the twenty -foot structural shaft permanently installed in an eight - foot -deep concrete footing, and then undergoing extensive restoration for reinstallation. Also there are crane lifting attachments that are designed for permanent removal after installation that would require refitting. I Nvould estimate that reconstruction, transportation and reinstallation would cost roughly around $40,000. Since we have all invested our patience in waiting this long, I believe we should see this through without major compromises, so there will be no question the piece will be the best it can be. Respectfully, Louis DeMartino P_O. BOX 391370 ■ 19"ZR, C11 ■ 92539 003 VHRN`F: (909) 763-1315 ■ FRX= (909) 763-2360 06-09-99 11:43 RECEIVED FROM:909 753 2360 P-02 DEPARTMENT REPORT: G�3 Lar(� C9 V S y OF TNT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR y JJ DATE: JUNE 15, 1999 SUBJECT: INFORMATION REGARDING DECISION ON SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-651 The appeal decision on SDP 99-651 requires, as a condition of approval, that all temporary structures in the vicinity of 55-910 PGA Boulevard be removed within two years of approval. This requirement only pertains to the Site Development Permit. If KSL decides not implement the Site Development Permit, i.e., move the structures from 56-140 PGA Boulevard to 55-910 PGA Boulevard, there would be no requirement to remove the structures currently in the vicinity of 55-910 PGA Boulevard. Only if the Specific Plan itself is amended to require removal of the temporary structures in the vicinity of 55-910 PGA Boulevard by a specified time, will there be any certainty of the removal of these structures within two years. Council has the ability to direct staff to bring the Specific Plan back for consideration of potential amendments because it is a legislative document and there is no Development Agreement pertaining to this Specific Plan. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\memojh-Council appeal.wpd DEPARTMENT REPORT: c&ht 4 Qabttcv MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Marni Kunsman, Recreation Supervisor`' VIA: Dodie Horvitz, Community Services Director DATE: June 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Transmittal of Community Services Department Report for the Month of May 1999 UPCOMING EVENTS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 1999: July 3 La Quinta Summer Golf Tour, Dunes Course, La Quinta Resort & Club July 8 *"Patriot Days" Luncheon July 7 "Reacting to a Changing Stock Market, Evening Seminar, Senior Center July 8 China Town Tour, Family Excursion July 10 La Quinta Summer Golf Tour, Heritage Palms July 10 Standard First Aid & CPR Class, Boys & Girls Club July 10 Mastering Microsoft Word, Saturday Computer Workshop, Boys & Girls Club July 12 *Free Putting Contest July 12 *Avoiding Heat Stroke, Health Seminar July 14 "Alternative Approaches to Health Care" Seminar July 14 "Start Your Own Internet Business," Evening Seminar, Senior Center July 15 *Healthy Cooking Class July 16 Ice Cream Social with Gamby the Quail, Senior Center Multi -use Room July 17 La Quinta Summer Golf Tour, Palm Valley Country Club July 17 "Understanding the Roth IRA" Saturday Financial Seminar, Senior Center July 17 Mastering Microsoft Excel, Saturday Computer Workshop, Boys & Girls Club July 19 Annual Sawdust Festival, Laguna Beach July 19 *CPR Class July 20 *Free Hearing Consultation and Hearing Aid Check July 20 Getting Your Play or Musical Produced Classes, Senior Center July 13 South Coast Plaza & Fashion Island Shopping Excursion July 22 *"Living with Diabetes" Seminar July 23 San Diego Zoo, Family Excursion July 24 La Quinta Summer Golf Tour, Desert Willow Golf Resort July 24 "College Funding 101," Saturday Seminar, Senior Center ,. 5 R July 27 `55 Alive," Mature Driving Course July 28 Legoland California, Youth & Adult Excursion July 31 La Quinta Summer Golf Tour, Mission Hills Resort, Gary Player Course July 31 "Reacting to a Changing Stock Market," Saturday Seminar, Senior Center * Senior Center Program, Class or Event Program T4tyl 4 ^tW 49AM Community Services Department Attendance Report for the Month of May 1999 Summary Sheet 1999 1998 Variance Meetings Per Month Participation Participation 1999 1998 Leisure Classes 108 0 108 12 0 Special Events 750 550 200 1 1 Adult Sports 790 740 50 13 4 Senior Center 2185 1429 756 116 89 Program Totals 3833 2719 1114 142 94 Information/Referrals Community Service 91 91 20 20 Senior Center 1175 1149 26 22 20 Total 1266 1149 117 42 40 Sports Complex AYSO 40 0 40 1 0 LQSYA 5600 5600 0 8 8 La Quinta Wildcats 30 20 10 11 1 Total 5670 5620 50 10 9 Total Programs 1 10769 94881 1281 194 143 Volunteer Hours Senior Center 7651 938 -173 Meals on Wheels 521 411 11 Total Volunteer Hours 8171 979 -162 Revenue Senior Center $ 3,540.00 $ 1,723.50 $ 1,816.50 Community Services $ 3,108.00 $ 4,479.00 $ 1,371.00 Rental Income $ 135.00 $ 1,648.35 $ 1,513.35 Total Revenue $ 6,783.00 $ 7,850.85 $ (1,067.85) "Totals not available }ai 0.09, Community Service Program Attendance May 1999 1998/99 1998/99 1997198 1997/98 1997/98 1998/99 Participants Total Participation Participants Total Participation Variance Meetings Meetings Leisure Classes Low Impact Aerobics 9 72 0 0 72 0 8 Youth Tennis 7 14 0 0 14 0 2 Basic Guitar #3 11 22 0 0 22 0 2 Totals 27 108 0 0 108 0 12 1998199 1998/99 1997/98 1997/98 1997/98 1998/99 Participants Total Participation Participants Total Participation Variance Meetings Meetings Special Events Community Picnic 750 750 550 550 200 1 1 Totals 750 750 550 550 200 1 1 1998/99 1998199 1997198 1997/98 1997/98 1998199 Participants Total Participation Participants Total Participation Variance Meetings 1 Meetings Adult Sports Open Basketball M/T 50 50 0 0 50 0 9 Open Basketball Sat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adult Soccer League 185 740 185 740 0 4 4 Totals 235 790 185 740 50 4 13 Page 2 fj03 Senior Center Attendance 1999 1999 1998 1998 Registered Total Registered Total Meetings Participants Participation Participants Participation Variance 1999 1998 Senior Activities Battin's Mobile Office 4 4 0 0 4 1 0 Bridge, ACBL 180 180 199 199 -19 4 4 Bridge, Duplicate/Social 293 293 294 294 -1 12 11 Computer Dedication Ceremony 32 32 0 0 32 1 0 Fabulous Follies Film 58 58 0 0 58 1 0 Creative Writing Club 23 23 28 28 -5 4 4 Ice Cream Social 68 68 1 1 67 4 1 Marine Corps Band Concert 190 190 0 0 190 1 0 Monthly Birthday Party 31 31 35 35 -4 1 1 Monthly Luncheon 84 84 88 88 -4 1 1 Movie Time 58 58 34 34 24 41 4 Putting Contest 12 12 0 0 12 1 0 Putting Green 14 14 0 0 14 n/a n/a Seminars 98 98 21 21 77 4 2 Step Out for Seniors 89 89 45 45 44 1 1 Television Viewing 44 44 19 19 25 n/a n/a Tennis 37 37 85 85 -48 4 14 Tennis Social/Potluck 30 30 0 0 30 2 0 Senior Activity Total 1345 1345 849 849 496 46 43 Senior Leisure Courses Ballroom Dance 18 41 0 0 41 5 0 Computer 62 80 37 59 21 10 10 Dog Training 4 18 0 0 18 4 0 Exercise 66 409 46 323 86 16 12 Healthy Cooking Class 16 16 18 18 -2 1 1 Senior Leisure Courses Total 166 564 101 400 164 36 23 Senior Leisure Classes Arts and Crafts 18 18 28 28 -10 4 4 Bridge Lessons 135 135 67 67 68 8 8 Ceramics 42 42 45 45 -3 4 4 Painting 14 14 15 15 -1 4 4 Quilting 23 23 0 0 23 4 0 Watercolor 44 44 25 25 19 10 3 Senior Leisure Classes Total 276 276 180 180 96 34 23 TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS 1787 2185 1130 1429 756 116 89 Senior Services A.A.R.P. "55 Alive" 38 38 24 24 14 2 2 Ambassadors 58 58 87 87 -29 n/a n/a Blood Pressure Check 40 40 47 47 -7 4 4 FIND Food Distribution 595 595 646 646 -51 4 5 Friends Meeting 11 11 8 8 3 2 1 Hearing Consultation 4 4 4 4 0 1 1 Information/Referral/Outreach 400 400 300 300 100 n/a n/a PACE Exercise 17 17 23 23 -6 4 5 Peer Counseling Program 10 10 0 0 10 4 0 Share Meetings/Sign-up 2 2 10 10 -8 1 2 TOTAL SENIOR SERVICES 1175 1175 1149 1149 26 22 20 SENIOR CENTER TOTAL 1 2962 3360 2279 2578 782 138 109 Page 3 AA U 1004 a�a� c9G DEPARTMENT REPORT: z v 5 4 cF`y OF TNtiv TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNA FROM: DODIE HORVITZ, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOI4 DATE: JUNE 15, 1999 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Attached are the Community Services Grant Reconciliation Reports from those organizations that received funds from the Community Services Grant program. Please note the following: ♦ La Quinta On Stage has not spent the funds, they are holding the amount to be used for their production in the future ♦ Coachella Valley Community Concerts Association offers programs through Desert Sands Unified School District to all schools in the District ♦ Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby has three grant requests, two for franchise fees and one for in -kind services ♦ Barbara Sinatra's Children Center did not supply a detailed accounting of the expenditure of funds, due to the confidentiality of their clients ♦ Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District presented the reconciliation information in the detailed report submitted in April, 1999 ♦ Friends of the La Quinta Library has been notified to provide a detailed list of expenditures, as required by the Community Services Grant program guidelines ♦ Adams Elementary School did not request funds this fiscal year C:\My Documents\RECONCILIATION REPORT.wpd Community Services Grants Reconciliation Report 1998/99 #101-251-663-538 La Quinta Arts Foundation Total Budget $80,000 July 1, 1998 La Quinta Arts Foundation $32,500 December 1, 1998 La Quinta Arts Foundation $32,500 June 8, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 1) Total Commitments Remaining Budget $65,000 $15,000 #101-251-663-657 Special Projects Contingency -Contract Grants Total Budget $32,000 August 4, 1998 La Quinta On Stage $15,000 May 13, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 2) August 4, 1998 La Quinta Historical Society $15,869 April 16, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 3 ) April 6 McCallum Theatre Institute* $1,000 Total Commitments $31,869 Remaining Budget $ 131 * Added to a School Grant amount of $1,500 for Truman School, for a total of $2,500 as the focus school program for the McCallum Institute. #101-251-663-000 Special Projects Contingency Account Total Budget $25,000 August 4, 1998 Coachella Valley Community Concerts Association $5,000 May 14, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 4) August 4, 1999 Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby $1,200 May 6, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 5) August 18, 1998 La Quinta Volunteer Fire Company $4, 500 May 19, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 6) August 18, 1998 Barbara Sinatra's Children Center $1,000 June 2, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 7) MM August 18, 1998 Riverside County Sheriff's Dive Team $2,000 May 12, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 8) September 4, 1998 Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District $1,500 Annual Report submitted April, 1999 October 20, 1998 Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby Report included in May 6, 1999 $ 400 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 5) November 6, 1998 Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District $1,500 Annual Report submitted April, 1999 November 17, 1998 Friends of the La Quinta Library $3,700 May 18, 1999 Reconciliation Report (Attachment 9) November 17, 1998 Greater Coachella Valley $2,018,79 Soap Box Derby May 5, 1999 Memorandum and Invoice (Attachment 10) Total Commitments $22,818.79 Remaining Balance $ 2,181.21 #101-251-663-657 School Grant Requests La Quinta High School Amount Available $2,500 October 12, 1998 Student Information Boards- $ 500 Administration (Attachment 11) December 8, 1998 Girls Varsity & Junior Varsity Swim Team $ 500 (Attachment 12) December 8, 1998 Interact Club $ 500 (Attachment 13) February 4, 1999 Track Team $ 500 (Attachment 14) February 4, 1999 Volleyball Club $ 500 (Attachment 15) Total Commitments $2,500 Remaining Balance $ -0- i� . La Quinta Middle School Amount Available November 23, 1998 PTO -Student Awards/Recognition (Attachment 16) March 5, 1999 Odessy of the Mind Team (Attachment 17) March 5, 1999 LQMS Testing Committee (Attachment 18) May 14, 1999 Bulldog Marching Band (Attachment 19) Total Commitments Remaining Balance Truman School April 6, 1999 Total Commitments Remaining Balance Adams School Total Commitments Remaining Balance Amount Available McCallum Institute-8 Teachers (Attachment 20) Amount Available $2,500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $2,000 $ 500 $2,125 $1,500 $1,500 $ 625 $2,125 $ -0- $2,125 0 V 1 f June 8, 1999 ____�� r ATTACHMENT 1 1 JON /99g 6(� ; f L A Q U IaN TA Mr. Tom Genovese CITY of A Cit , , ..� CITY u!GEr TA T CityMana er MANA of La Quinta sl?EPz J FOUNDATION P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Tom: In compliance with our Contract Services Agreement 1998/99 with the City of La Quinta, for which the City paid La Quinta Arts Foundation the sum of $65,000 to assist with marketing the 1999 La Quinta Arts Festival ($50,000) and our inaugural Plein Air painting event ($15,000), enclosed is the following: 1. 1999 Art Festival Marketing report 2. 1999 Plein Air Festival Marketing report (Note: copies of corresponding invoices for both reports available upon request) 3. Survey of Businesses Affected by the March 1999 La Quinta Arts Festival The documentation submitted verifies total expenditures for marketing the 1999 La Quinta Arts Festival (March 18-22) in the amount of $102,111 and Plein Air (January 23-29) in the amount of $35,515 for a total of $137,626 paid out in marketing expenses for the two events. On behalf of La Quinta Arts Foundation, I thank the City of La Quinta for their ongoing financial support which has played such an important part in the overall success of our events. The proceeds of these events help fund our education and scholarship programs, thus enabling us to successfully meet the goals of our mission statement to provide innovative cultural arts opportunities for children, youth and adults in the Coachella Valley. Sincerely, ',-Susan Francis Executive Director cc: Mr. Britt Wilson Assistant City Manager a POST OFFICE BOX 777 ♦ LA QUINTA, CA 92253 ♦ 760 564 1244 ♦ FAX 760 564 6884 La Quints Arts Foundation 1999 ART FESTIVAL MARKETING ACTUAL MONEY SPENT �l .. .....................bESCRIP?ION >AMOUNTI FESTIVAL MARKETING PAYROLL $15,000 AIRPORT AD $3,262 BILLBOARDS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $450 30B HOPE CLASSIC PROGRAM AD $12500 ;RAPHIC DESIGNS FOR ADS $4,747 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- MAGAZINE- -ADS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$8,485 ------------------- METRO THEATER AD $250 MISC. MARKETING ITEMS $12345 INEWSPAPE-R-ADS $3,475 PALM SPRINGS LIFE $4,700 PALM SPRINGS FILM FESTIVAL $900 PROCESSING COSTS FOR ADS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------$3,O39 PROGRAMS $17,823 RACK CARDS $2,382 RADIO ADS $7,493 TV ADS $7,835 WEB PAGE $505 I--------- ------- ---- - -----LA QUINTA FESTIVAL POSTERS $7,200 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LA QUINTA FESTIVAL T-SHIRTS $6,956 LA QUINTA MISC RESALE ITEMS $4,763 OTAL MARKETING RESALE ITEMS $18,920 I� Total Marketing S �` 102 111 La Quinta Arts Foundation 1999 PLEIN AIR FESTIVAL MARKETING ACTUAL MONEY SPENT ............................... .......... ......... .................. ...................... I .. . ....... ......... .............. . ............ .... .. .... ........... ........... ....... ... ................ DESCRIPTION AMBUNT PLEIN AIR MARKETING PAYROLL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AL&Z TV PRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GRAPHIC DESIGNS FOR ADS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAGAZINE ADS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MISC. MARKETING ITEMS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEWSPAPER ADS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PHOTOGRAPHY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRINTING & POSTERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROCESSING COSTS FOR ADS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RADIO ADS TV -ADS VOICE OVER Total Marketing $8,000 -------------------------------------------------- $5,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- $762 ---------------------------------------------------------- $552 ---------------------------------------------------------- $1,114 ---------------------------------------------------------- $2,898 ---------------------------------------------------------- $116 ---------------------------------------------------------- $7,313 ---------------------------------------------------------- $200 ---------------------------------------------------------- $1,650 ---------------------------------------------------------- 57,510 $400 ---------------------------------------------------------- _b 3 51 n06 SURVEY OF BUSINESSES IMPACTED BY 1999 LA QUINTA ARTS FESTIVAL These businesses reported the following impact: Cliffhouse Up 5-6% over last year, this time El Ranchito Up 23% Taqueria Up 40% "It was really good" Soul of China Up 10% Adobe Grill Up 25% Montanas Up 15% Morgans Up 25% T-bo's Up 25% La Quinta Grill We had been booked two weeks out Beer Hunter Up 20% Pizza Hut Up 35-40% over the year before Anchovies Up 20% Teddy's Up 75% Ace Hardware Up 30% March is always good for us because the Foundation makes a lot of purchases, a lot more artists and attendees purchased this year, it was a great year for the Festival and for us La Quinta Liquor Store Up 10% Beachside Cafe Up 20% over Festival last year Local Labor $19,800 Performer Lodging $1,150 Local Performers $9,500 Local Vendors/Suppliers $31,549.93 Attendance: 22,752...495 people surveyed 223 were locals, the remainder from out of town. Of the locals, 152 live here permanently, 71 have secondary residences here. Hotels people listed staying at were La Quinta Resort, Marriott's Desert Springs and Villas, Ritz Carlton, Ramada Inn, Hilton, Travel Lodge, Plaza Spa Presidential Inn, Desert Princess, Desert Shadow, Desert Falls, Emerald Resort and the Hyatt. Local participants: 350 volunteers, 250 students toured grounds, 600 kids in children's interactive art center, La Quinta Rotary, La Quinta High School Attendees were from: Los Angeles, Highland, San Diego, Orange County, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Arizona, Washington, Baltimore, Seattle, Ohio, Illinois, Colorado, Texas, Oregon, Stockton, Ukiah, Vancouver, New York, Boston, Santa Rosa, Wyoming, San Diego, Savannah, Australia, Canada, France. Total revenues not including art sales: $490,185.00 Total artist sales: $1,500,000.00 AW' WAYNE S. GURALNICK ROBERT J. GILLILAND, JR. MARIE A. BOCHNEWICH ANNE L. RAUCH ANDREW F. LINEHAN GURALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW 74-399 HIGHWAY 111, SUITE M PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE: (760) 340-1515 FACSIMILE: (760) 568-3053 EMAIL: GG@GGHOALAW.COM May 13, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL (760) 777-7101 CITY OF LA QUINTA Ms. Dodie Horvitz Community Services Dept. P.O. Box i504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: LA QUINTA ON STAGE Dear Ms. Horvitz: ATTACHMENT 2 TEMECULA OFFICE (800)239-7627 SAN DIEGO OFFICE (619)232-1300 PLEASE REFER TO FILE I am the Treasurer of La Quinta On Stage, Inc. As you know, La Quinta On Stage, Inc. was the recipient of a Community Services Grant from the City of La Quinta last fall. Enclosed please find our "Community Services Grant Reconciliation Form". La Quinta On Stage, Inc. is in the process of finding a new creative team to write and choreograph our production. The grant provided by the City will go towards the expenses of the production. However, since receiving the grant we have not yet had the need to make any expenditures while we are in the process of searching for our new artistic team. Therefore, we retain the entire grant at this time. We respectfully request that the City permit La Quinta On Stage, Inc. to Lecain the grarlt fuiidb tO die.L ay expenses -vililC,i: expects to incur this year in furtherance of our exciting project. Please let us know the City's intentions in this regard. Very Truly Yours, GURALNICK & GIL1�1i,AND "A U G� Marie A. Bochnewich /mb D-\WP61\Marie\1gonstag.110 j$PW57/1999 19:1b Ibb5b4Li�ly tCUDGfC I ! r1l.JIYG � r-i i r�i� ti✓ . COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 15' Organization Name: La Quinta On Stage Name of Person Completing Report: Marie A. Bochnewich Mailing Address:"- 0. Box 1999, La ouin53 phone: 340-1515 CA Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr): 8 /9 8 to 9 /9 9 Date Your Organization Received Funds: November 1998 **Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: No expenditures yet made - we are still in process of choosing our production team. Reconciliation: Grant Amount Funds Expended Balance $ 15,000 $ -0- $ 15,000 Retum unspent funds to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form. ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quints, Community Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. S:Ncomm fty wvic&%QTYGRAMAPPPY9".vpd Received Apr-16-99 10:03am from 17607771231 -� JOSEPH A IRWIN page 1 04/16,r 199E 10.17 17607771231. LO COMMUNIT`( SERVICE PAGE 01 ATTACHMENT 3 COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 15`b Organization Name: - Name of Person Completing Report: �C�`'i9�d&,¢ az, J Mailing Address: o ,da x �a3 Phone: JZ I- Ja,?3 Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr): to Date Your Organization Received Funds: *"Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: Reconciliation: Grant Amount Funds Expended Balance $Z4, Return unspent funds to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form. ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quinta, Community Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. $:0vmmuuit7.evio.�01TYGPAXTAPPF'TW D.wpd La Quints Historical Society Cash Reconciliation For the Twelve Months Ended January 31, 1999 Cash Balance Beginning of Year Valley Independent Bank -Checking 11,233 Valley Independent Bank -Savings 21,223 32,456 Receipts: City of La Quinta Grant 15,869 Donations 9,909 Fund Raisers. 14,817 Investment Income 314 Membership Dues 4,820 Merchandise, Garage Sales, etc. 2,322 Misc Income 42 Disbursements Docent Expense 370 Event Expense 7,281 Gamby Cost 1,170 Insurance 2,525 Interest Expense 8,105 Misc 1,478 Museum Repairs 946 Office Expense 3,807 Real Estate Taxes 972 Rent 1,140 Utilities 1,438 Operating Income Principal Payment on Mortgage Note 32,029 Museum Property Acquisition Costs 1,930 Excess of Cash Disbursements over Receipts Cash Balance End of Year Valley Independent Bank -Checking Smith Barney Money Market Fund 48,093 29,232 18,860 33,959 (15,099) 5,212 12,146 17,358 La Quinta Historical Society Comparative Income Statement For the Fiscal Years Ended January 31st Gross Income FY 1998 FY 1999 City of La Quinta Grant 14,500 15,869 Donations 3,066 9,909 Fund Raisers. 2,628 14,817 Investment Income 429 314 Membership Dues 3,635 4,820 Merchandise, Garage Sales, etc. 2,573 2,322 Misc Income 42 26,831 Expenses Docent Expense 264 370 Event Expense 3,307 7,281 Gamby Cost 1,170 Insurance 1,393 2,525 Interest Expense 8,105 Misc 526 1,478 Museum Reconstruction 4,786 Museum Repairs 870 946 Office Expense 892 3,807 Real Estate Taxes 972 Rent 11,627 1,140 Utilities 1,041 1,438 24,706 Net Income 2,125 48,093 29,232 18,860 _i JL i .,. La Quinta Historical Society Balance Sheet January 31, 1999 Cash Checking 5,212 Savings 12,146 17,358 Museum Property 151,930 Total Assets 169,288 Mortgage Note Payable 117,971 General Fund Beginning of Year 32,457 Operating Income 18,860 End of Year 51,317 Liabilities and General Fund Balance 169,288 LQHS-Bank,Cash,CC Accounts 5/12/99 QuickZoom Report 5/1/98 Through 4/30/99 Date Acct Num Description Memo Page 1 Category Cir Amount 5/5/98 Valley Indepe... 1155 GTE monthly pmt Utilities R -30 5/5/98 Valley Indepe... 1156 Imperial Irrigation monthly pmt Utilities R -28 5/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1163 Imperial Irrigation monthly pmt Utilities R -30 5/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1164 GTE monthly pmt Utilities R -38 5/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1165 Coachella Valley Water monthly pmt Utilities R -5 6/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1301 Coachella Valley Water monthly pmt Utilities R -29 6/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1302 Imperial Irrigation monthly pmt Utilities R -65 6/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1303 GTE monthly pmt Utilities R -59 7/20/98 Valley Indepe... 1313 GTE monthly pmt Utilities R -47 7/20/98 Valley Indepe... 1314 Imperial Irrigation monthly pmt Utilities R -83 7/20/98 Valley Indepe... 1315 Coachella Valley Water monthly pmt Utilities R -24 8/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1323 GTE monthly pmt Utilities -45 8/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1324 Coachella Valley Water monthly pmt Utilities -18 8/26/98 Valley Indepe... 1326 Imperial Irrigation monthly pmt Utilities -118 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1337 Imperial Irrigation Utilities -100 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1338 Coachella Valley Water Utilities -21 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1340 GTE Utilities -48 10/22/98 Valley Indepe... 1355 Imperial Irrigation District Utilities -66 10/22/98 Valley Indepe... 1356 Coachella Valley Water Utilities -17 10/22/98 Valley Indepe... 1357 GTE Utilities -51 11/16/98 Valley Indepe... 1368 Imperial Irrigation District Utilities -45 11/16/98 Valley Indepe... 1369 Coachella Valley Water Utilities -26 11/16/98 Valley Indepe... 1373 GTE Utilities -52 12/20/98 Valley Indepe... 1379 Coachella Valley Water Utilities -21 12/20/98 Valley Indepe... 1380 GTE Utilities -50 12/21/98 Valley Indepe... 1383 Imperial Irrigation District Utilities -47 1/15/99 Valley Indepe... 1393 Coachella Valley Water Utilities c -20 1/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1404 GTE Utilities -47 1/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1405 Imperial Irrigation District Utilities -50 2/21/99 Valley Indepe... 1419 Imperial Irrigation District Utilities -74 2/21/99 Valley Indepe... 1420 Coachella Valley Water Utilities -23 2/21/99 Valley Indepe... 1421 GTE Utilities -54 3/12/99 Valley Indepe... 1427 Coachella Valley Water Utilities c -18 3/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1430 GTE Utilities -53 3/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1432 Imperial Irrigation District Utilities -48 4/23/99 Valley Indepe... 1441 GTE Utilities -48 4/23/99 Valley Indepe... 1442 Coachella Valley Water Utilities -20 4/23/99 Valley Indepe... 1443 Imperial Irrigation District Utilities -43 TOTAL 5/1/98 - 4/30/99 -1,663 TOTAL INFLOWS TOTAL OUTFLOWS NET TOTAL 0 -1,663 -1,663 0l' LQHS-Bank,Cash,CC Accounts QuickZoom Report 5/1/98 Through 4/30/99 Date Acct Num Description Memo 11/16/98 Valley Indepe... 1370 Paul McDonnell, Tax C... 11/16/98 Valley Indepe... 1371 Paul McDonnell 11/16/98 Valley Indepe... 1372 Paul McDonnell 3/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1433 Paul McDonnell 2nd Installment 3/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1434 Paul McDonnell 2nd Installment 3/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1435 Paul McDonnell 2nd Installment TOTAL 5/1 /98 - 4/30/99 TOTAL INFLOWS TOTAL OUTFLOWS NET TOTAL 5/12/99 Page 1 Category Clr Amount Real Estate Taxes -371 Real Estate Taxes -301 Real Estate Taxes -301 Real Estate Taxes -301 Real Estate Taxes -301 Real Estate Taxes -371 -1, 944 0 -1, 944 -1,944 LQHS-Bank,Cash,CC Accounts Date Acct Num QuickZoom Report 5/1/98 Through 4/30/99 Description Memo 5/12/99 Page 1 Category Clr Amount 5/6/98 Valley Indepe... 1160 Postmaster stamps Office Expense R -32 6/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1304 Bill Morlong Preparation 97/98 Office Expense R -250 7/14/98 Valley Indepe... 1308 Bill Morlong Preparation 97/98 Office Expense R -500 7/20/98 Valley Indepe... 1311 Franchise Tax Board 97/98 filing Office Expense R -10 7/20/98 Valley Indepe... 1312 Barbara Irwin reimb Office Expense R -30 8/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1322 Xerox Service Contract Office Expense -529 9/3/98 Valley Indepe... 1330 ... Barbara Irwin framing Office Expense -133 9/22/98 Valley Indepe... 1331 Postmaster stamps Office Expense -85 9/22/98 Valley Indepe... 1332 Postmaster Palm Desert Office Expense -50 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1339 ... Louise Neeley Office Expense -32 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1342 Minute Man Press Office Expense -460 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1343 Barbara Irwin Office Expense -75 10/1/98 Valley Indepe... EFT Valley Independant Bank Rubber Stamp Office Expense -18 10/13/98 Valley Indepe... 1345 Barbara Irwin Office Expense -34 10/13/98 Valley Indepe... 1346 Postmaster Postage Office Expense -24 10/13/98 Valley Indepe... 1347 ... Cash Withdrawal Cash Drawer Office Expense -20 10/13/98 Valley Indepe... 1348 Barbara Irwin Office Expense -104 10/13/98 Valley Indepe... 1349 Barbara Irwin Office Expense -17 10/22/98 Valley Indepe... 1354 Sparkletts 3 Gal; Bottle Office Expense -6 11/9/98 Valley Indepe... 1361 Postmaster Stamps Office Expense -32 11/13/98 Valley Indepe... 1364 Postage Office Expense -96 11/16/98 Valley Indepe... 1367 Barbara Irwin Office Expense -68 1/8/99 Valley Indepe... 1385 Wells Office Machines ServiceTypewriter Office Expense c -190 1/15/99 Valley Indepe... 1396 Sparkletts Water Office Expense c -15 1/15/99 Valley Indepe... 1397 Secretary Of State Office Expense -10 1/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1399 Office Depot Easel Office Expense c -75 1/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1406 ... Barbara Irwin Office Expense -9 2/8/99 Valley Indepe... 1407 Postmaster Office Expense -50 2/8/99 Valley Indepe... 1408 Postmaster Office Expense -17 2/19/99 Valley Indepe... 1412 Peterson, Slater & Osb... Prepare FY98 Tax retu... Office Expense -500 3/29/99 Valley Indepe... 1431 Sparkletts Water Office Expense -13 TOTAL 5/1/98 - 4/30/99 -3,483 TOTAL INFLOWS TOTAL OUTFLOWS NET TOTAL 0 -3,483 -3,483 t LQHS-Bank,Cash,CC Accounts 5/12/99 QuickZoom Report 5/1/98 Through 4/30/99 Date Acct Num 5/25/98 Valley Indepe... 1166 6/9/98 Valley Indepe... 1170 7/14/98 Valley Indepe... 1307 8/31/98 Valley Indepe... 1328 9/1/98 Valley Indepe... 1329 3/2/99 Valley Indepe... Adj 4/23/99 Valley Indepe... 1440 4/24/99 Valley Indepe... 1444 TOTAL 5/1 /98 - 4/30/99 TOTAL INFLOWS TOTAL OUTFLOWS NET TOTAL Page 1 Description Memo Category Clr Amount Ace Hardware pmt on account Office Expense -Office ... R -48 Staples Office Expense:Office ... R -259 Barbara Irwin Xerox cartridge Office Expense:Office ... R -423 Ace Hardware pmt on account Office Expense:Office ... -8 Yvonne Sessums note paper & postage Office Expense:Office ... -13 Valley Independant B... close acct Office Expense:Office ... c -18 Postmaster Postage Office Expense:Office ... -64 Postmaster Office Expense:Office ... -33 7q -865 0 -865 -865 4)t..; LQHS-Bank,Cash,CC Accounts Date Acct Num QuickZoom Report 5/1/98 Through 4/30/99 Description Memo Category 5/12/99 Page 1 Clr Amount 7/9/98 Valley Indepe... 1306 Desert Flags & Poles Museum Repairs R -39 8/26/98 Valley Indepe... 1325 Roy Hernandez Museum Repairs -36 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1335 Desert Flags & Poles Museum Repairs -41 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1336 Signs By Mel Museum Repairs -67 10/14/98 Valley Indepe... 1352 Roy Hernandez Museum Repairs -146 10/14/98 Valley Indepe... 1353 Roy Hernandez Museum Repairs -33 11/1/98 Valley Indepe... 1359 Bob Williams Nursery Plants Museum Repairs -81 11/13/98 Valley Indepe... 1362 Ace Hardware Garden Supplies, etc. Museum Repairs -82 12/8/98 Valley Indepe... 1377 Sign By Mail Outdoor Sign Museum Repairs -318 12/18/98 Valley Indepe... Correct error in check ... Museum Repairs 0 1/15/99 Valley Indepe... 1394 Ace Hardware Keys, etc. Museum Repairs c -13 2/10/99 Valley Indepe... 1410 Garrison Tarnow Painti... Paint Exterior of Muse... Museum Repairs -1,000 2/10/99 Valley Indepe... 1411 Mc Dowell Awards Mary Marshall Memori... Museum Repairs c -17 4/14/99 Valley Indepe... 1437 WalMart Capra board photos Museum Repairs -56 4/22/99 Valley Indepe... 1438 Eagle Hardware Plywood(Capra board) ... Museum Repairs -90 TOTAL 5/1 /98 - 4/30/99 -2,019 TOTAL INFLOWS 0 TOTAL OUTFLOWS -2,019 NET TOTAL -2,019 LQHS-Bank,Cash,CC Accounts 5/12/99 QuickZoom Report 5/1/98 Through 4/30/99 Date Acct Num Description Memo 8/14/98 Smith Barney ... FMA Annual Fee Misc 5/5/98 Valley Indepe... 1154 Sparkletts monthly pmt Misc 5/18/98 Valley Indepe... 1161 Desert Beautiful Awards Dinner - Millis Misc 6/11/98 Valley Indepe... 1172 Westec Security Contract rene... Misc 9/3/98 Valley Indepe... 1330 ... Barbara Irwin Board Social/refreshm... Misc 9/24/98 Valley Indepe... 1341 Steve Plone Design Misc 11/3/98 Valley Indepe... 1360 Lundeen Pacific Corp Misc 12/8/98 Valley Indepe... 1375 Tom Cooper Gamby Jewelry Misc 1/7/99 Valley Indepe... 1384 Lucky's Boys & Girls Club Misc 2/19/99 Valley Indepe... 1415 Kiner-Goodsel La Quinta Video Tapes Misc 2/21/99 Valley Indepe... 1422 Corporate Compliance Non Profit Compliance Misc 2/21/99 Valley Indepe... 1424 Franchise Tax Board Filing Fee Misc TOTAL 5/1/98 - 4/30/99 TOTAL INFLOWS TOTAL OUTFLOWS NET TOTAL Page 1 Category Cir Amount Wel R -6 R -74 R -96 -38 -216 -150 -344 c -42 -200 c -80 c -10 -1,306 0 -1,306 -1,306 t�� ATTACHMENT 4 COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 15'' Organization Name: (c),�7 r 12 P /4"i Name of Person Completing Report: / % -k ,/ /�.. Mailing Address:Phone: ; — �� c/i/ ` `i— ► i Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr): t r to Date Your Organization Received Funds: " 47, "Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: , / 1 " c: /, -o Reconciliation: Grant Amount Funds Expended Balance Return unspent funds to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form. I ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quinta, Community Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. S: co =iry service\CITYGRANTAPPFY98-99.wpd ),$ 2- .Am. r Pfl4 i0 iNE 'Z OflDEflOf- ::�_ COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. j 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 11500270411' 1:1222421?31: X2704 L� I Y 90421711222 �$%� HUM a OUTREACH ACCOUNT II' SO 108 S S 711' I1'0000 100000112 COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 N.A. fOfl 11500270611' 1:1222420311: 90-4217/1222 �- OUTREACH ACCOUNT hr 11' SO 108 S 5 ?11' '110000 14000021' COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION.�;'� f 2708 POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 ✓ LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 9p 90-4217/1222 IPA I BDOE ' NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 OUTREACH ACCOUNT LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 II'00270811' 1:1222421731+: -w II■ SO 108 S S ?111 11,0000 100000"' 1:1222421731: i08 5 S 711■ 0'- - ,110000 100000,1' Southland Opera 174 W. Foothill Blvd. #502 Monrovia, CA 91016 BILL TO Coachella Valley Community Concerts P.O. Box 972 La Quinta, CA 92253 QUANTITY DESCRIPTION 1 It Begins with a Story 10/13/98 Carter I 1 It Begins with a Story 10/13/98 Jackson 1 It Begin.- with a Story 10/14/98 Madison It Begins with a Story 10/14/98 Kennedy Thank you Invoice DATE INVOICE # 10/17/98 1 P.O. NO. TERMS Due upon receipt RATE Total 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 PROJECT AMOUNT 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 $1,400.00 COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. 355 SOUTH RAND SV N 4007jITE 100 LOS A, 119002709111 4122242031: 90-4217/1222 l HUMLu OUTREACH ACCOUNT �> wR 11' SO L08 S S 711' '1100000 L0000111 COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST O FICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 i -1�'L•�/X�.! [tea-4217i)�2�. HUM NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 OUTREACH ACCOUNT LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 v 1180027LOII' 411,22242034 //A)-i Il' SO LOBS S 711' 11'000009000011' 11:1222421731: 50108557110 COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 NORTHERN TRUST BANK 4/CA 1F�IA N.A. 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUIT 100 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 1 0 lV 11000271L11' ii:L22242031: 11,000009000011, 904217,1222 HUM a OUTREACH ACCOUNT ,4- 5 Y Il' SO L08 S S 7u' 11100000 2 S000,1' COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 -• /�� 19 90421711222 e�� w HUM NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. 355 SOUTHLOS GRANNGED CA 90071TE 100 OUTREACH ACCOUNT 11600271211' 1:1222421?34 COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 EDD - I1■00271311' i:1 22421?3i: II■ SO 108 S S ?II' 11'00000 20000.1' $ 90-4217/1222 a 104108-2147-120898-012(207) 13-17035-C t4i EACH ACCOUWId 80 4217661223454703 CP CA IN II■ SO 108 S S 7112 11100000 10000,11 COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 t LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 Pfl4i01NE=�� --4 NORTHERN TRUST BANK CALIFORNIA N.A. .1 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 11200271?11 1:1222421731: X11 It A-, -2 ?tom 1 90-4217/1222 OUTREACH ACCOUNT he 11' SO 1013 S S ?11' 1110000 2 40000,1' COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 0 low Nv LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 V. d.��.oT1() 2JI-1�..i 4 4=�-// HE E 90-421711222 HUM NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 OUTREACH ACCOUNT LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 lie 00 2 7 113tI' 1: 12 2 24 2 1? 31: II' SO L08 S S 711' 111100000 L0000,1' COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 L� � � 1flEx ( > 4 NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF AL OR '• w -� 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1 a- LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 fOR N.A. 00027L911' 1:L22242L?31: • //� - 19 90-4217/1222 o OUTREACH ACCOUNT II' SO 108 S S Wo 11'00000 2 S000,1' COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 01� 4 0 .i� LOB -- �/� 0 _ 90-4217i q LIf NORTHERN SOUTH GRABNDNAVEONUCALIFORNIAIEE1N.A. 13-17035-00182 OUTREACH NaOUNT LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 80 4217661223454703 CP CA 1N Ila002720116 1:111222L,21731: II' SO 108 S S ?II' 111000000 20000,1' _•' 1 1: 12 2 2 L, 2 1? 31: SO 1013 S S WI 11100000 20000.11 4 i I L PA4101H��:; OflOEfl 0;f =�: RR4191NE COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 a .,a NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. . , 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 Z 111100272111' i:L22242173i: COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 si LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 N.A. 11100272211' 1:122242173i: • - �'/��Li 1 Q / 51 90-4217/1222 HUM a OUTREACH ACCOUNT II' SO L08 S S 711' 11'0000 2 70000o1' f 9- F 90-4217/1222 $ /A 000M o� m OUTREACH ACCOUNT 11■ SO L013 S S 711' 11'00000 10000.1' COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-0972 U NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA N.A. 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 11200272311' 1:12221,21731: I9 90-421711222 000M e OUTREACH ACCOUNT Ar II■ SO 108 S S 71I' 1000000 S000011' goo 1 '9 IRUEB�Of C� COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 (760) 564-1111 LA OUINTA, CA 92253-0972 r NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA .A. 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES. CA 90071 11900272410 1:1,222421734 0 09910 t3 I Y 90-4217„222 HUM e� m OUTREACH ACCOUNT KV II' SO L08 S S Wo 11'00000 2 S000,1' v ,31 r ALC A HELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY CONCERT ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOX 972 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 (760) 564-1111 FAX: (760) 564-2414 ARTIST SCHEDULE OPERA A LA CARTE RICHARD SHELDON DATE SCHOOL TIME 10-27-98 TRUMAN 9:00 AM 10-27-98 VAN BUREN 11:15 AM i-11-99 KENNEDY 10:30 AM 1-11-99 JACKSON 1:00 PM 1-12-99 HOOVER 8:30 AM 1-12-99 WASHINGTON 11:00 AM 1-12-99 CARTER 1:45 PM 2-24-99 EISENHOWER, 9:00 AM 2-24=99 M:PcHN �.; 441—AM 2-24-99 MONROE 1:30 PM 2-25-99 LINCOLN 8:15 AM 2-25-99 FORD 11:00 AM '=25-99 ROOSEVELT 1:00 PM Idt V l( A NON-PROFIT CULTURAL ORGANIZATION - e5/ 06/ 1999 12: 46 7607769111 E&GCLUE VLLPR0t,1ISE PAGE 03 ATTACHMENT 5 COMMUNITY" SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 15th Organization Name: G2fj2E[EP- C�-Olis Name of Person Completing Report: Lu, 1 0- �p Q A� Mailing Address: P•0 , `� � Phone: 3 q -1 4 1 D,, Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr): to _ Date Your Organization Received Funds:1QOJ��LC I R "Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: Smil- Ch-ccK--, To ToE /ALL-Ai"ERicne,�) S(�)RP C3DX �le�QC-' Fob 2(fscHiSC FEC i=00, T S- ivy O w • 'o N S Reconciliation: (q q q p pCE , 3= / o o PII IF- ��6) c o (Z:) Grant Amount $ �' �DC� B "l- G CLL�_6 FO-:� 'Ft uS(0 6-O l O T H C--. Funds Expended -16-y 9; 3y9a8 Balance Return unspent funds to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form. ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quinta, Community Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. City o�vC a Quinta ALL020 ALL AMERICAN SOAP BOX 35134 Date Invoice Account Description 10/26/98 101 251 663 000 COMMUNITY SVC GRAN Z 51�z�-5�WELLS FARG6 gAkk.4: ,N% a 0(760)!77. .' BOjkj FMo7-Tl V 78. 'C' LLE TAMPlC6'Gk'd0lNTA4,--':.CA 9225� C TE�'w, PAY 13/96 70 THE ORDER OF: Y'. ALL��AMERICAN SOAPtBok ti o DERBY 4 2 -600'COOK'ST SUITE 120 Ir PALM - DESERT, .CA - 111035 L 3 Low 1: 1 21000 2481:4 159 2824820 ,3b 134 11/13/98 Amount 1600.00 1600.00 351k,3 AMOU N 0' AUTli' 17, — JTURF 41 'AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE - INVOICE FROM: International Soap Box Derby, Inc. P.O. Box 7225 Akron, Ohio 44306 TO: Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley 42-600 Cook Street, Suite 120, Palm Desert, California 92211 DATE: January 21, 1999 PURPOSE: Stock, Super Stock and Masters Division(s) License Fee (Insurance Included) $19600.00 LICENSE FEES DUE BY MARCH 1, 1999 PLEASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THE INVOICE TO THE ALL-AMERICAN OFFICE WITH PAYMENT ALL-AMERICAIV SOAPBOX DERBY® P. O. BOX 7225 DERBY DOWNS, AKRON, OHIO 44306 (330) 733-8723 FAX (330) 733-1370 September 17, 1998 Dear Derby Director: Due to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio changing their induction ceremonies from August 14 to August 7 and ABC scheduling the Cleveland Browns inaugural football game to be televised from Canton on Monday, August 9, we have had to change the date of the 1999 race to Saturday, July 31,1999. The important dates for 1999 are: 62nd All -American Soap Box Derby Local champs official welcome Local race deadline date Local race rain date deadline Earliest car arrival in Akron Latest local champ car arrival in Akron Saturday, July 31, 1999 Monday, July 26, 1999 Saturday, July 3, 1999 Sunday, July 4, 1999 8:00 a.m., Saturday, July 10, 1999 11:59 p.m., Sunday, July 18, 1999 We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause your local, but due to lodging, transportation and other logistical problems, we felt it was in the best interest of the All -American to change the date. Also, due to increases in our insurance rates, we have had to increase our license fees for 1999 as follows: One Division $ 950.00 Two Divisions $1,300.00 Three Divisions $1,600.00 We will be mailing the 1999 Race Area Request forms to all Locals in November. If you have changed your address or have a different director, please notify our office. The Race Area Request forms need to be returned as soon as possible �Sincerely, (� Millie Esque Local Operations Coordinator WEBSITE: http:Hwww.aasbd.org Email: soapbox@aasbd.org J x INTERNATIONAL SOAP BOX DERBY, INC. A CHARITABLE, TAX EXEMPT CORPORATION 1 Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby 42-600 COOK ST., STE. 120, PALM DESERT, CA 92211 (760) 347-1412 FAX (760) 347-8771 Honorary Chairman - Gerald R. Ford March 11,1999 Mr. Jeff Iula , All -American Soap Box Derby P.O. Box 7233 Akron, Ohio 44306 Re: License Agreements, Request for Refund & Additional Insured Dear Jeff: Enclosed please find the 2 executed 1999 All -American Soap. Box Derby License Agreements. As we discussed, we are only going to have Stock & Super Stock Divisions due to lack of participants in that Division. We already paid a total of $1,600.00 for all three Divisions, so at this time I am requesting a refund for the Masters Division fee paid. The refund should be payable to: The City of La Quinta and mailed c/o Lucia Moran, P.O. Box 1305, La. Quinta, CA 92253. I need to hand deliver so they post to the correct account. At this time I am also requesting one more Additional Insured, to the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District. If I need to pay the additional $10.00, please let me know and I'll send out a check right away. Please don't deduct this from the City of La Quinta's refund. If you have any questions, please let me know. You may contact meat (760) 347-1412. Sincerely, u a Moran, R cce Director Enclosures 00, RECYCLED PAPER PRINTING DONATED BY LITTLE GIANT PRINTERS ,� Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby 42-600 COOK ST., STE. 120, PALM DESERT, CA 92211 - (760) 347-1412 FAX (760) 347-8771 Honorary Chairman Gerald R. Ford March 30,1999 Mr. Jeff Iula All -American Soap Box Derby P.O. Box 7233 Akron, Ohio 44306 Re: Request For Refund of Masters Division Franchise Fee & Notification Of Local Race Being Held One Day Instead Of Two Dear Jeff: This letter is to confirm a conversation we had in early March. The Greater Coachella Valley Soap Box Derby will not be hosting a Masters Division race and our race will be held on only one day instead of two. The date of the race is Saturday, April 10, 1999. Unfortunately, we did not have sufficient interest'this year to have a sanctioned race in the Masters Division. We will try and have one in our race in 2000. Since we are not able to hold the Masters Division race, I am requesting that the All -American Soap Box Derby refund the Franchise fee we paid for the Masters Division. Please make the check payable to: The City of La Quinta and mail it C/O Lucia Moran, P.O. Box 1305, La Quinta, CA 92253. The reason I'm requesting the check be sent directly to me is so I can hand deliver the check to City Hall and make sure it gets posted to the proper ledger account. Thank you for your cooperation with this request. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (760) 347-1412. Moran, Race Director cc: The City of La Quinta-Finance Department r)v 10 RECYCLED PAPER PRINTING DONATED BY LITTLE GIANT PRINTERS OcoDDD m �0-1 O 0 m zao0D o C) m n DZm 0 o o :0m m m � m z 0 T O D Ci X 0 m m N Om m r D � rn 00 A to U7 n al /J -a n 0 0 O C3 0 x i Q _C co n I`i N co im W i T Organization Name: ATTACHMENT 6 COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 15" La Quinta Volunteer Fire Company Name of Person Completing Report: Bruce Pelletier Mailing Address: 78-136 Fracces Hack Lane Phone: (760) 564-4351 Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr): � � to //?9 Date Your Organization Received Funds: **Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: Reconciliation: Grant Amount $ `i SOCK __- Funds Expended $ y7 9 A Balance $ Return unspent funds to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quinta, Community Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. SA.—iry service\CITYGRANTAPPFY98-99-pd INV ICE INLAND VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 1# 6986 P. O. BOX 720 1470 MILLER DRIVE COLTON, CA 92324 PHONE: (909) 783-8817 FAX. (909) 783-9241 SOLD TO: LA QUINTA VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. P.O. BOX 387 LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 ATTN; MR. BRUCE PELLETIER SHIP TO: PAR. BRUCE PELLETIER FIRE MARSHALL'S OFFICE 70801 HVVY 111 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA. 92270 Service Manager, ALAN R. BARLOW Date: 10/23/98 Attention: MR. MIKE BURTON Service Order: # 6986 Purchase Order Number. 2084399 Terms: NET 30 DAYS TECHNICIAN HOURS DESCRIPTION RATE/HOUR AMOUNT PAT 1 PROGRAMMED 13 PAGERS WITH STATION $62.50 $62.50 32 TONES AND CHECKED FOR PROPER OPERATION. ALL PAGERS MUST BE FULLY CHARGED BEFORE USING. SHIPPING 1 BOX 1, 10/22/98, TRACKING# 0479 $0.00 1 BOX 2, 10/27/98, #0639 $0.00 Total Labor. $62.50 PARTS AND MATERIALS PART NUMBER CITY. DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT SRA58VT 13 SHINWA, CHECKMATE IV, PAGER WITH TWO $304.00 $3,952.00 CHANNEL OPTION, FIXED TONE ALERT, MONITOR SELECT OPTION, NI -CAD BATTERY. TWO-YEAR WARRANTY, PARTS & LABOR. SERIAL NUMBERS: Z 93327, 28, 29, 30, 31 Z93369, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, & 76. S0799 13 PAGER CHARGER $21.00 $273.00 703160 13 BLACK LEATHER PAGER HOLSTER $9.00 $117.00 Total parts and materials: $4, 342.00 $336.51 Tax rate: 7.75 % Tax: Amount due: $4,741.01 TERMS: NET DUE 30 DAYS FROM INVOICE DATE; PAST DUE INVOICES ARE SUBJECT TO A SERVICE CHARGE OF 1 1/2% PER MONTH ON THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE. yti UZAI ATTACHMENT? � COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 15`h Organization Name: BARBARA SINAIRA CHILOREN I C CENTER Name of Person Completing Report: GEORGE F . GAGLINI Mailing Address: 39000 BOB HOPE ORTyF Phone: j7Rn) :14n-23:3R RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr): 9/98 to 5/99 Date Your Organization Received Funds: 919/98 **Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: Reconciliation: Grant Amount Funds Expended Balance $1,boo. 00 $1,240.00 $ 0 Return unspent funds to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quinta, Community Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. SAc—unity servic6CITYGPANTAPPFY98-99.wpd TTACHMENT A The City of LaQuinta grant funds were used to treat at -risk teenage clients who have already experienced their first unwanted pregnancy. The Barbara Sinatra Children's Center Second/Subsequent Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program has helped these children to not have a second or subsequent pregnancy, and to avoid the negative economic, social and psychological consequences it would surely cause. The adverse consequences of teen pregnancy affect not only the individual mothers and their families, but also all of Coachella Valley's taxpayers. The City of LaQuinta has helped us in our therapeutic response to this problem by funding the treatment of teenage mothers according to the protocols detailed in our funding request application dated August 11, 1998. Records for these cases are on file at the Barbara Sinatra Children's Center for audit or review by authorized persons in accordance with standard professional confidentiality requirements. Organization Name: ATTACHMENT 8 COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 15`h 6 Name of Person Completing Report: Mailing Address: ��1 ?. (_:4RRZ�;,V Phone: `76a - Y6 3 - C4, Cf32vi Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr): cif' to isAV �— Date Your Organization Received Funds: "Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: z1.S'E A!;n ,,qS SlX //( �•� L,492:2-- A.'Ar Z —5� f} "4 Reconciliation: Grant Amount Funds Expended Balance 620 $ — 0 $ � 3- a /, 3— Return unspent funds to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quinta, Community Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. S.\c--iry service\CITYGRANTAPPFY98-99—pd RECEI MAY 12 1999 CITY OF LA QUINT; PARKS £� ! Ei,Rc�,Tlp44 UcaT — �. SOLD TO: SHIP TO: ORDER NO, ORDER DATE CUSTOMER NO. SALES REP I PURCHASE ORDER NO. SHIP DATE SHIP VIA ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY ORDERED`'QUANTITY SHIPPED STK UNIT UNIT PRICE PRC UNIT DISCOUNT 0 L f j j SALES AMOUNT MISC. CHARGES FREIGHT SALES TAX (TENDED PRICE C n W � c �o rm • �� z ru �1 X ru 0 Ul r w X r nJ ru 0 � IZ I 0 D m OF' J40 (.- of 0 z U) rn Cf) T- m z 0 m 0 ch --i m 0 rm V m z U m z z 04 -j ATTACHMENT 9 COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANTS GRANT RECONCILIATION REPORT Due Date: 30 days following expenditure of grant funds. Final Date to Submit: May 151h Organization Name: ;�t?IkAID S oL 7-y Z 4 Q U/ d/TA 4.5,oq.412 Name of Person Completing Report: RD 13 EQT gTK1 WS, 7?? EIS. Mailing Address: 7of-Dir0 GA1-4E 6-77P#%Phone 49 <9vi,v7-,4 4C*4. ;F/s Goq L Period of Report (Mo/Yr to Mo/vr): to_ Date Your Organization Received Funds: 1- Z 4 - f1 **Describe Your Expenditure of Grant Funds: USEfo�2 G�QR-�v,�Q�}-�2 ��y',S C�oo� Pf�oG�C�n�► Reconciliation: Grant Amount Funds Expended Balance $ "M Return unspent bands to "City of La Quinta" by check with this form ** Attach supporting documentation (receipts for purchases, canceled checks, payroll records, billing statements) that is in accordance with the original grant request. All questions regarding this form or the grant process should be directed to the Community Services Department at 777-7090. Mailing Address: City of La Quinta, Conununity Services Department, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. S:\,--.ry scr-\CITYGRANTAPPFY98-99. wpd v - 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (760) 777-7000 FAX (760) 777-71 01 TDD (760) 777-1227 May 18, 1999 Friends of the La Quinta Library 78-080 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Robert Atkins Dear Mr. Atkins: I have received the reconciliation report for the Community Services Grant received by the Friends of the La Quinta Library. I have enclosed a copy of the report with the section highlighted that requires documentation of the expenditures. Please submit the documentation to be included with your report by June 1, 1999. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 777-7032. Sincerely, _ f Dodie Horvitz Community Service Director U 44 ? MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 U5/(J5/bH N$l) IU: L4 rA:�. !oU! t it iD i 11.Lk_Y VJ La yui—. Qum& ATTACHMENT 10 MEMORANDUM To Chris A. boat Public Works Director/Cite Engineer From: Danny R. Johnson Maintenance Manag -I% Date, %lay 5, 1999 ge; Man hour costs, 1999 Soap Box Derby Per Hour O.T. Hour "Benefits Hour ?, .4ngulo, Maint. Fore. 8 1d!$18.74=$149.92 7 4$28.11=$196.77 1S e4,$7.50=$112.50 G. Contreras, NWnt. Fore 0 4518.711 14 (n528.1)=$393.54 14 (4$7.50=$105.00 A. Cabrera, Maint. Wk, II ri (4,,$15,42 15 (d;$23,13=$346.95 15 14$6.17-$ 92.55 I. Stai.ght, Maint. "Al. I 8 l6,$i2.46=$ 99,68 7 (0'$18,G9=51 R3 15 $249 60 $1,068.09 $354 75 Reg. Hr. $ 249.60 4,T. Hr. $1,068,09 Benefits 384.75 Total $1,702.44 x Benefit hourly rate is calculated at 40% of regular hourly rate. tilt wy P N P, 8A F" i A r I E s I N c T n v t-) i c, e 4� 92 3 /1 4 .4 — 6 3 1 -' a c,, k ,,- (o) n Tri d i CA 92201 RECEIVED C Li �,, I: o rn,? r if 061 19 / 3 4 7 - 2 111 'r APR 2 11999 lrlv,)i ce Date - 04 /99 NANCE OEPT H J. 1 11 To: .1ob 1. o a ti o ri-- - CITY OF LA QUINTA/FINANCE DEPT. CITY YARD P.O. BOX 1f.04 t.- A ',, U T N -r t-) LA QUINTA. fA 92253 Ordered By : JULIO PUrchase Order: 1654 Terms NET 30 Job Number SOAPBOX (."EPB"f' A c 1 42573 r e e f-p. e Type? From Q U a. n ti t y Dav IR a t e Amount R n t a I F I- A T RATE 1.00 R L I-) r ti 0,1 /:1 "o / 9 0 "1 1, 9 9 1..301 5i0o 0 1, 0 Servi.cr PICK UP 416401 1 0 0 C h a r q I -11 0 Los, I BARRICADE NO LITES L.0) 1.00 i 14 8 5 0 14.85 APJPVOV FOR PAYMENT-- F3 Y I r-,) a BY ACCOUNTNO 101-HEA % L-763 !qL. AY 2 0 1999 DESCRIPTION PAY 3v vo* N(:)n-Tax SubTotal 316. 35 Taxable Sublot.6.1: 0 0 sales tax 00 rib 0 4) I NV 0 T C F TOTAL IL 5 7M TdT U 4Q" ATTACHMENT 17 APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS 1. Name and address of organization: La Quin.ta High school 79-255 Westward Ho Drive La Quihta, CA 92253 2. Contact name and phone number: Janet Seto (760) 772-4150 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated:T,a n,,;r,ra HiSL ScLool 4. Amount of request: $250.00 5. Proposed use of funds: Administration (including Counseling) would like to obtain an outdoor, enclosed, aluminum Bulletin Board with Plexi-glass window to post n,itices, bulletins, announcements, etc. for students and public. 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? Nn 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 S1community semce%schoolprards.wpd 1. Name and address of organization N ATTACHMENT 12 Lim 047A M. 4 � iNx x �,ffl- MI Wo , 2. Contact name and phone number: � PecJe� q 150 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated: 4. Amount of request: $500.00 5. Proposed use of funds: TO V 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? o 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 �ioam�nra.«v�oraiooynna.wpa 166 ATTACHMENT 13 APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS Name and address of organization:rtG� 2. Contact name and phone number: 7 L� P-e(JerS2il -7 72 ' q L50 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated: 4. Amount of request: 1500.0 6 5. Proposed use of funds: h c_ as- M Uri I ,�P.r/ Ices i.,-, I I in rtQ cl,�), h eJ & r(I t n 0.0m nLayul4t4 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? / O (LCUIU6. 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SAcommunity sewice\schoolgrants.wpd r v 5 .. 0 T4ht 4 4 Qum& APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS ATTACHMENT 14 1. Name and address of organization: LA nl I T AIT A uc IR A C K TP: 79255 WESTWARD Ho LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 2. Contact name and phone number: DOLORES "DEE" UR I BE 564-0397 GLEN LACY 772-4150 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated: I QHS 4. Amount of request: $500.00 5. Proposed use of funds: TO HELP PURCHASE TEAM WARM-UPS AND/OR ENTRY FEES 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? No 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SAcommunity service\schoolgrants.wiA RIJCEIVI D t FEB 0 3 1999 t 'j C{ IIl' L)LA QUlNTA PARKS & r y y uy. e, APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS Name and address of organization ATTACHMENT 15 i' I E 3 0 1 1999 CITY 01= LA QUINTIA P,A,RKS && RECRE470N D� PT, 2. Contact name and phone number: U Cr-C(�I 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated: I-C, GQ) 0 IZr f1�5 4. Amount of request:J� b 5. Proposed use of funds: �p min LL12 i P72r rn d ��rnvla cosy . 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? r n 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Q u i nta, CA 92253 i /�1►iT!tr��► i 0t)-I 1E ATTACHMENT 16 way/ " APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS 1. Name and address of organization: LQMS-Parent Teacher Organization 78900 Avenue 50 La Quinta, CA 92253 2. Contact name and phone number: Susan Finch 772-4030 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated: La Quinta Middle school 4. Amount of request: $500 5. Proposed use of funds: 'These funds will be used to pay for student recognition awards for academic and other achievements such as good citizentship etc. 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? No 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 S:Acommuno semcelschoolgrants.wpd RECEEI- J c d 12 19�8 CITY OF LA Q_;pa ;-s PARK ATTACHMENT 17 T4ht 4 e(P " APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS 1. Name and address of organization: "Oddessy of the Mind" Team 78 900 Avenue 50 La Quinta, CA 92253 2. Contact name and phone number: Kathy Lambert 777-4220 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated: La Quinta Middle scho 4. Amount of request: $ 5 0 0 5. Proposed use of funds: These funds will help defray the cost of materials and transportation for the Oddessy of the Mind competition that will be held in March. These funds are now paid by the participating students. 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? No 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quints P.O. Box 1504 La Quints, CA 92253 S:\community semi-Oschoolgrants.wpd o�j T4ht 4 ZP " ATTACHMENT 18 APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS 1. Name and address of organization: LQMs Testing Committee 78 900 Avenue 50 La Quinta, CA 92253 2. Contact name and phone number: Kathy Lambert 777-4220 3. Name of school with which organization is affiliated: T a Quinta M i cirii e 4. Amount of request: $ 5 0 0 5. Proposed use of funds: These funds would help provide a healthy snack for our students during testing week. Many of our students come to school without breakfast, a good snack will help them perform better on their standardized test. 6. Does this request supplant school or school district funds? 7. Please attach an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SAcommunity servickschoolgrants.wpd 1 ub e 1 2 3 4 5 Co 7 T4t�t D 4a QW ATTACHMENT 19 APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL GRANTS Name and address of organization: ��. i I l fi'i �� _� �l n, Contact name and phone number: Name of school with which organization is affiliated: L!4� Ci��a_ n tcl, Amount of request: ,C(f ) Proposed use of funds: LC i Does this request supplant school or school district funds? Please attacn an endorsement from the school's principal attesting to the legitimacy of your organization (brief letter on school letterhead will suffice). 8. Please mail completed application and attachments to: Community Service Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 S.Acommundy serviceAschoolgrants wpd ATTACHMENT 20 CITY OF LA QUINTA APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT FISCAL YEAR 98-99 Friends of the Cultural Center, Inc. dba McCallum Theatre Name of Organization: for McCallum Theatre Institute, educational wing Amount Requested: - 2 400 00 Contact Person: Antonia Graphos, CEO or Kajsa Thuresson-Frary, Education Director Mailing Address:73000 Fred Waring Drive City: Palm Desert State: CA Zip Code: 2260 Phone No.: 760 - 346-6505 501(63 Taxpayer I.D. Number: 95-2834871 Date Submitted: April 6 1999 APPLICATION MC CALLUM THEATRE INSTITUTE 1. What is the overall purpose or goal of your organization? "The McCallum Theatre Institute seeks to enhance the role of the arts in our lives and in our community by inspiring reater awarene: of their educational, cognitive, emotional and spiritual power. By encouraging an active and experiential -study of the arts, the Institute advances the belief that all human beings are inherently creative. The programs develope by the institute are designed to build on that creativity by equipping individuals with he skiAs necessary for an enduring appreciation of the arts and their essential contribution to enlightened citizenzhip" 2. How long has your' organization been in existence? 1 Years 9 Months 3. Describe in general the activities or services of your organization: Six component educational programs, placing a great emphasis on our youth: Imagination Station summer creative arts camp (ages 7-18), Free Student Performances (10,000 students K-12 annually), three -tiered Technical Intern- ship Program, Educational Tours, Community Outreach Projects, and the Institute's most ambitious educational program, Aesthetic Education Program, in affiliation with the Lincoln Center Institute, New York City. 4. How many people does your organization currently serve? 16,000 + No. of Youth 15,000+/-* No. of Adults 300-400+/- * No. of Seniors 300-400+/- * does not include Community Outreach Projects 5. How many people do you intend to serve during this Fiscal Year? No. of Youth SAME No. of Adults SAME No. of Seniors SAME 6. How' many people served this Fiscal Year will be La Quinta residents? Do not have Do not have No. of Youth 1,500+ * No. of Adults specifics No. of Seniors specifics * does not include Community Outreach Projects 7. How many paid employees/volunteers does your organization employ? No. of full time employees 1 No. of part time employees 2 + indepen- dent contractors for specific MTI programs No. of volunteers 2 (appro)dmately 20) 8. Describe how your organization is managed and governed. The McCallum Theatre under which the McCallum Theatre Institute works) is led by a 37 member Board of Trustees; staff leadership is provided through a well-balanced organ national structure consisting of three executive positions affording accountability and control: Director, External Relations (CEO), Director, Programming and Director. Finance and Facilities. 9. Please provide information on your Executive Board members or contact person: Name rdiff Home Address Phone Michael Rembis Chairman 7&255 Monte Sereno, IW (760) 360-1319 Antonia Graphos President 68-854 Saragossa Dr., PS (760) 320-3575 Robert Armstrong Vice Chairman 60 Darthmouth Dr., RM (760) 328-4297 Robert Rishwain Vice Chairman 47-111 Vintage Dr., IW (760) 341-1484 Lantson Eldred Secretary/Parliamentarian 74-900 Hwy. 111, IW (760) 773-4888 Dennis Kem Treasurer 1448 Main St., El Centro (760) 337-3206 Pres. Gerald R. Ford Nominating Comm. Chr. P.O. Box 927, RM (760) 324-1763 Selma Pearl President's Club Co-Chr. 70-979 Tamarisk Rd., RM (760) 328-8202 Terry Green President Club Co-Chr. 48-555 Verbena Dr., P.D. (760) 341-6221 A 10. What is your annual schedule of events, and during what months does your organization operate?. McCallum Theatre runs September through June - performance schedule. McCallum Theatre Institute runs September through July - program schedule. 11. Do you charge admission, membership fee, dues, etc.? XXX Yes AND XXX No If yes, please describe: Minimal tuition is charged for Imagination Station creative arts summer camp and Aesthetic Education Program. Some community outreach programs require an admission charge. See attached 1998/99 MTI budget. 12. What are your other sources of revenue for this funding year? Grants and donations For fiscal year 8/98-7/99 currently: $188,000.00 Total Needed $ 336.723.00 Total Received $ 188,000.00 Balance $ 148,723.00 Joseph Solomon Develop. Comm. Chr. 34 Calle Claire, PD (760) 568-5519 Raymond Kaiser Immed. Past Chr. 76-210 Fairway Dr., IW (760) 346-7165 "* Currently 8 grant proposals are under consideration by private foundations, corporate giving programs, and municipalities totaling $165,000.00 O b 13. Amount of money requested from the City of La Quinta? $ $2,400.00 14. Has your organization been funded by the City of La Quinta previously? Yes N oXXX If yes, when Amount received 15. Need Statement. Clearly and plainly state the reason or need for the requested funds and how these funds will be used, if awarded. These funds will be used for Truman Elementary School's participation in the Aesthetic Education Program (AEP) 199912000. It will pay for full participation for eight teachers. The three components of the AEP are teacher training, artists residencies in the classroom and live performances at the McCallum Theatre. 16. Goal Statement. Indicate who will benefit from the use of these funds, and how they will benefit. Eight teachers and eight classrooms of students at Truman Elementary School in La Quinta will benefit from these funds. Long-term the entire school will benefit form having aesthetic education become part of their school life. The AEP is a way to facilitate a safe and sound structure for students to engage themselves in the performing arts and explore diverse artistic expressions. Through hands-on activities and experiments, teachers and students gain skills of perception and develop multiple intelligence through greater understanding of different works of art. MTI provides a creative playground for students and classroom teachers to come together with local and regional professional artists and touring performance artists to make meaning of what we call a work of art. 17. Attach a copy of your Program Operating Budget, and a separate detailed; concise list of intended Community Services grant expenditures. 1998/99 MTI Budget attached; see section on Aesthetic Education Program 18. Non-profit organizations must attach a copy of the organization's current IRS Form 990. DEPARTMENT REPORT: Q� TWY/ 4 a4& Qu&t AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Transmittal of Revenue and Expenditure Reports dated April 30, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Transmittal of the April 30, 1999 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the City of La Quinta. ohn M. Falconer, Finance Director Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachments: 1 . Revenue and Expenditures Report, April 30, 1999 CITY OF LA QUINTA 07/01/1998-04/30/1999 GENERAL FUND REVENUES DETAIL REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED TAXES: Property Tax 497,000.00 381,123.48 115,876.52 76.68% No Low Property Tax Distribution 462,300.00 440,701.57 21,598.43 95.33% Document Transfer Tax 176,900.00 208,138.92 (31,238.92) 117.66% Sales Tax 1,869,200.00 1,894,392.85 (25,192.85) 101.35% Transient Occupancy Tax 3,000,000.00 2,519,972.82 480,027.18 84.00% Franchise Tax 330,400.00 224,918.39 105,481.61 68.07% TOTAL TAXES 6,335,800 00 5,669,248.03 666,551.97 89.48% LICENSE & PERMITS: Business License 95,100.00 91,622.80 3,477.20 96.34% Animal License 7,400.00 6,748.00 652.00 91.19% Building Permits 412,500.00 976,997.42 (564,497.42) 236.85% Plumbing Permits 86,700.00 166,300.75 (79,600.75) 191.81% Electrical Permits 68,000.00 169,520.76 (101,520.76) 249.30% Mechanical Permits 35,800.00 90,811.45 (55,011.45) 253.66% Misc. Permits 55,200.00 39,568.40 15,631.60 71.68% TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS 760,700.00 1,541,569.58 (780,869.58) 202.65% FEES: General Government Fees 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00% Finance Fees 50.00 3,121.69 (3,071.69) 6243.38% City Clerk Services Fees 1,000.00 371.58 628.42 37.16% Community Services Fees 95,900.00 90,255.83 5,644.17 94.11 % Bldg & Safety Fees 278,400.00 635,240.18 (356,840,18) 228.18% Community Development Fees 107,800.00 300,283.27 (192,483.27) 278.56% Public Works Fees 271,100.00 576,281.13 (305,181.13) 212.57% TOTAL FEES 754,300.00 1,605,553.68 (851,253.68) 212,85% INTERGOVERNMENTAL Motor Vehicle In -Lieu 770,800.00 793,341.35 (22,541.35) 102.92% Off Hwy Vehicle License 250.00 327.31 (77.31) 130,92% Motor Vehicle Code Fines 14,400.00 23,547.11 (9,147.11) 163.52% Parking Violations 22,300.00 22,625.78 (325.78) 101.46% Misc Fines 2,000.00 3,427.74 (1,427.74) 171.39% AB939 84,400.00 75,178.47 9,221.53 89,07% CSA152 Assessment 109,200.00 0.00 109,200.00 0.00% Sunline Transit 9,600.00 16,500.00 (6,900.00) 171,88% County of Riverside Library Funding 77,275.00 77,275.00 0.00 100.00% State of California -Grants 0.00 26,965.00 (26,965.00) N/A TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,090,225.00 1,039,187.76 51,037.24 95.32% INTEREST 1,123,600.00 1,145,671.82 (22,071.82) 101.96% MISCELLANEOUS Miscellaneous Revenue 44,600.00 54,378.51 (9,778.51) 121.92% Cash Over/(Short) 0.00 19.59 (19 59} N/A Litigation Settlement Revenue 0.00 740,984.81 (740,984.81) N/A TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 44,600.00 795,382.91 (750,782.91) 1783,37% TRANSFER IN 222,069.00 25,775.87 196,293.13 11,61% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 10,331,294.00 11,822,389.65 (1,491,095.65) 114.43% CITY OF LA QUINTA 07/01/1998-04/30/1999 ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED GAS TAX REVENUE: Section 2105 116,000.00 101,361.30 14,638.70 87.38% Section 2106 83,100.00 72,790.30 10,309.70 87.59% Section 2107 163,000.00 131,043.23 31,956.77 80.39% Section 2107.5 4,000.00 5,000.00 (1,000.00) 125.00% Interest 2,700.00 3,796.78 (1,096.78) 140.62% TOTAL GAS TAX 368,800.00 313,991.61 54,8_0.8.39 85.14% COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT REVENUE: Interest 0.00 39.52 (39.52) N/A TOTAL COMM SERVICES PROJECT 0.00 39.52 (39.52) N/A CMAQ/ISTEA CMAQ/ISTEA Grant 114,464.73 91,639.41 22,825.32 80 06% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A TOTAL CMAQ/ISTEA 114,464.73 91,639.41 22,825.32 80.06% FEDERAL ASSISTANCE REVENUE: CDBG Grant 228,400.00 15,095.00 213,305.00 6.61 % Interest 1,100.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.00% TOTAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 229,500.00 15,095.00 214,405.00 6.58% PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Assessment Bond Proceeds 2,806,700.00 0.00 2,806,700.00 0.00% TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2,806,700.00 0.00 2,806,700.00 0.00% SLESF(COPS)REVENUE: SLESF (Cops) Funding 46,246.00 46,245.57 0.43 100.00% Interest 0.00 1,729.93 (1,729.93) N/A TOTAL SLESF (COPS) 46,246.00 47,975.50 (1,729.50) 103.74% LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT REVENUE: LLEBG Funding 27,958.00 27,958.00 0.00 100.00% Interest 0.00 378.95 (378.95) N/A TOTAL LLEBG 27,958.00 28,336.95 (378.95) 101.36% LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING REVENUE: Assessment 796,600.00 425,835.22 370,764.78 53.46% Interest 5,100.00 1,038.67 4,061.33 20.37% Developer Contribution 0.00 7,000.00 (7,000.00) N/A TOTAL LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING 801-,700.00 433,873.89 367,826.11 541.2%0 QUIMBY REVENUE: Quimby Fees 20,000.00 5,520.00 14,480.00 27.60% Interest 1,800.00 7,936.47 (6,136.47) 440.92% TOTAL QUIMBY 21,800.00 13,456.47 8,343.53 61.73% C CITY OF LA QUINTA ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL (continued) INFRASTRUCTURE REVENUE: Infrastructure Fee Interest TOTALINFRASTRUCTURE VILLAGE PARKING REVENUE: Interest TOTAL VILLAGE PARKING SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY REVENUE: S.C.A.Q. Contribution Interest TOTAL SCAQ LQ PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER FUND Transfer In Interest TOTAL CMAQ/ISTEA INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND: Pooled Cash Allocated Interest Transfer In TOTAL INTEREST ALLOCATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: CVAG Funding CVWD County of Riverside State of Ca- Office Emer, Services RCTC Funding SB300 Funding Surface Transportation SB821-Bicycle Path Grant APP Contribution Developer Agreement Funding Transfers in From Other Funds TOTAL CIP REVENUE LQ NORTE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: Prepayment Bond Proceeds Interest TOTAL LQ NORTE CIP 07/01/1998-04/30/1999 REMAINING BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED 1,066,500.00 3,478,875.00 (2,412,375.00) 326.20% 187,200.00 304,247.28 (117,047.28) 162.53% 1,253,700.00 3,783,122.28 (2,529,422.28) 30136% 1,100.00 1,151.12 (51.12) 104,65% 1,100.00_ 1,151.12 (51.12) 104.65% 48,993.00 10,483.45 38,509.55 21.40% 2,100.00 2,890.85 (790.85) 137.66% 51,093.00 13,374.30 37,71.8.70 26.18%v 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 100.00% 200.00 228.79 (28.79) 114.40% 2,200.00 2,228.79 (28.79)_ 101.31 % 0.00 506,603.97 (506,603.97) N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 50.6,603.97 (506,603.97) N/A 296,086.83 725,920.91 (429,834.08) 245.17% 1,603,171.00 0.00 1,603,171.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 53,213.00 (53,213.00) N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 209,701.00 208,518.00 1,183.00 99.44% 141,401.83 65,401.77 76,000.06 46.25% 53,734.00 15,396.00 38,338.00 28.65% 376,612.00 16,502.00 360,110.00 4.38% 1,010,389.00 110,475.45 899,913.55 10,93% 24,086,971.22 3,086,926.04 21,000,045.18 12,82% 27,778,066.88 4,282,353.17 23,495,713.71 15.42% 38,500.00 38,492.74 7.26 99.98% 745,000.00 748,486.56 (3,486.56) 100.47% 1,500,00 3,377.33 (1,877.33) 225.16% 785,000.00_ 790,356.63 _ (5,356.63) 100.68% CITY OF LA QUINTA (continued) URBAN FORESTRY Grant Revenue Interest TOTAL URBAN FORESTRY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND: FMP Equipment Charges Interest TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 07/01/1998-04/30/1999 REMAINING BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A _0.00_ 0.00 0.00 _ N/A 338,646.00 282,220.51 56,425.49 83.34% 22,100.00 30,802.64 (8,702.64) 139.38% 360,746.00 313,023.15 47,722.85 86.77% ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES REVENUE: • Arts in Public Places Deposits 87,000.00 235,897.75 (148,897.75) 271.15% • Arts in Public Places Credits Applied 0.00 93,000.00 (93,000.00) N/A Interest 12,300.00 20,407.43 (8,107A3) 165.91% TOTAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES 99,300.00 349,305.18 (250,005.18) 35.1.77% " These amounts are deposits and are treated as liabilities and not as revenues. CITY OF LA QUINTA 07/01/1998 - 04/30/1999 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REMAINING BY DEPARTMENT BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET EXPENDED GENERAL GOVERNMENT: LEGISLATIVE 475,800.00 393,751.48 0.00 82,048.52 82.76% CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 619,425.00 397,881.53 0.00 221,543.47 64.23% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 743,165.00 566,358.30 0.00 176,806.70 76.21% PERSONNEL/RISK MGT 37,965,00 500.00 0.00 37,465.00 1.32°% TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,876,355.00 1,358,491.31 0,00 517,863.69 72.40% FINANCE: FISCAL SERVICES 488,865.00 387,589.23 0.00 101,275.77 79.28% CENTRAL SERVICES 788,263.00 563,367.23 10,704.60 214,191.17 71.47% TOTAL FINANCE 1,277,128.00 950,956.46 10,704.60 315,466.94 74.46% CITY CLERK 327,565.00 244,734.91 0.00 82,830.09 74.71% COMMUNITY SERVICES SENIOR CENTER 222,200.00 157,738.85 0.00 64,461.15 70.99 % PARKS & RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 511,400.00 404,281.10 7,008.00 100,110.90 79.05% PARKS & RECREATION PROGRAMS 53,150.00 42,965.18 0.00 10,184.82 80.84% TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 786,750.00 604,985.13 7,008.00 174,756.87 76.90% POLICE 3,095,828.00 1,451,072.13 10.000.00 1,634,755.87 46.87°% BUILDING & SAFETY: BUILDING & SAFETY - ADMIN 203,250.00 151,914.45 0.00 51,335.55 74.74% CODE COMPLIANCE 394,440.00 273,818.97 0.00 120,621.03 69,42% ANIMAL CONTROL 155,137.00 131,048.73 0.00 24,088.27 84.47% BUILDING 462,938.00 361,375.40 0.00 101,562.60 78.06% EMERGENCY SERVICES 71,540.00 55.130.89 0.00 16.409.11 77.06% FIRE 19,000.00 9,099.54 0.00 9,900.46 47.89% CIVIC CENTER BUILDING -OPERATIONS 994,100.00 909,410.93 0.00 84,689.07 91.48% TOTAL BUILDING & SAFETY 2,300,405.00 1,891,798.91 0.00 408,606.09 82.24% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - ADMIN 493,050.00 287,850.72 0.00 205,199.28 58.38% CURRENT PLANNING 667,550.00 354,732.99 0.00 312,817.01 53.14% SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 5,700.00 5,429.85 0.00 270.15 95.26% TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,166,300.00 648,013.56 0.00 518,286.44 55.56% PUBLIC WORKS: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 191,940.00 138,941.12 0.00 52,998.88 72.39% DEVELOPMENT & TRAFFIC 767,575.00 559,970.30 0.00 207,604.70 72.95% MAINT/OPERATIONS - STREETS 1,155,703.00 755,456.35 10,124.29 390,122.36 65.37% MAINT/OPERATIONS - LTG/LANDSCAPING 994,124.00 805,852.67 5,300.00 182.971.33 81.06°% CAPITAL PROJECTS 517,182.00 152,376.11 0.00 364,805.89 29.46°% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 3,626,524.00 2,412,596.55 15,424.29 1,198,503 16 66,53% TRANSFERS OUT 1,405,943.27 73,351.22 0.00 1.332,592.05 5,22% GENERAL FUND REIMBURSEMENTS (3,703,919.32) (2,447,676,99) 0.00 (1,256,242.33) 66 08% NET GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 12,158,878.95 7,188,323.19 43,136.89 4,927,418.87 59.12 % CITY OF LA QUINTA 07/01/1998 - 04/30/1999 OTHER CITY FUNDS REMAINING % EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET EXPENDED GAS TAX FUND: REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 36.8,800.00 307,333.44 0.00 61,466.56 83.33% COMMUNITY PROJECT FUND: TRANSFER OUT 5,809.00_ 3,236.46_ _ 0.00 2,572.54 55.71% FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND: TRANSFER OUT 130,000.00 0.00 0.00 130,000.00 0.00% SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY FUND REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 13,797.16 0.00 0.00 13,797.16 0.00% TRANSFER OUT 92,433.00 8,097.16 0.00 84,335.84 8.76% TOTAL SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 106,230.16 8,097.16 0.00 98,133.00 7.62% CMAQ/ISTEA TRANSFER OUT 114,464.73 0.00 0.00 114,464.73 0.00% URBAN FORESTRY TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A LLEBG FUND TRANSFER OUT 40,699.00 17,678.71 0.00 23,020.29 43.44% SLEF (COPS) TRANSFER OUT 58,937.00 0.00 0.00 58,937.00 0.00% LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DIST: REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 801,700.00 668,083.30 0.00 133.616.70 83 33% TRANSFER OUT 144,038.00 129,504.96 0.00 14,533.04 89.91 % TOTAL LTG/LANDSCAPING FUND 945,738.00 797,588.26 0.00 148,149.74 84.34% INFRASTRUCTURE: REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 205,395.00 171,162.50 0.00 34.232.50 83.33% TRANSFER OUT 3,422,286.22 409,712.16 0.00 3,012,574.06 11.97% TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 3,627,681.22 580,874.66 0.00 3,046,806.56 16.01% PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TRANSFER OUT 2,806,689.00 0.00 0.00 2,806,689.00 0.00% CITY OF LA QUINTA 07/01/1998 - 04/30/1999 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REMAINING % BY DEPARTMENT BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET EXPENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PROJECT EXPENDITURES 26,896,054.72 4,146,141.22 3,000.00 22,746,913.50 15.42% PROJECT REIMBURSEMENTS TO GEN FUN 882,012.16 136,211.95 0.00 745,800.21 15.44% TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 27,778,066.88 4,282,353.17 3,000.00 23,492,713.71 15.42% ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND PROJECT EXPENSES 99,300.00 114,279.68 0.00 (14,979.68) 115.09% CIP EXPENSES 83,499.00 16,502.00 0.00 66,997.00 19.76% TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 182,799.00 13.0_,781.68 0.00 52,017.32 71.54% LQ NORTE (97-1) CIP FUND PROJECT EXPENSES 0.00 611,498.86 0.00 (611,498.86) N/A EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND OPERATING EXPENSES 400,646.00 31.8,416.91 0.00 82,229.09 79.48% DEPARTMENT REPORT: G T41vI COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: ITEM TITLE: Transmittal of Revenue and Expenditure Reports dated April 30, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Transmittal of the April 30, 1999 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the La Quinta Financing Authority. �4 - ohn M Falconer, Finance Director Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachments: 1 . Revenue and Expenditures Report, April 30, 1999 LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY 07/01/1998-04/30/1999 REVENUE DETAIL REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED DEBT SERVICE REVENUE: Contractual Services Fees Non Allocated Interest Rental Income Transfer In TOTAL DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE: Pooled Cash Allocated Interest Non Allocated Interest TOTAL CIP REVENUE TOTAL FINANCING AUTHORITY 5,600.00 0.00 5,600.00 12,400.00 (151.96) 12,551.96 672,173.00 467,175.50 204, 997.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 690,173.00 467,023.54 223,149,46 0.00 27.74 (27.74) 0.00 27,655.24 (27,655.24) 0.00 27,682.98 (27,682.98) 690,173.00 494,706.52 195,466.48 0.00% -1.23% 69.50% N/A 67.67% N/A N/A N/A 71.68% LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY EXPENDITURE SUMMARY DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES SERVICES BOND PRINCIPAL BONDINTEREST TRANSFER OUT TOTAL DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES TRANSFER OUT TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TOTAL FINANCING AUTHORITY 07/01/1998 - 04/30/1999 REMAINING BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET EXPENDED 5,600.00 245,000.00 439,573.00 0.00 690.173.00 567,376.00 567,376.00 1,257,549.00 9,036.50 0.00 (3,436.50) 161.37% 245,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.00% 222,175.50 0.00 217,397.50 50.54% 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 476,212.00 0.00 213,961.00 69.00 % 48,770.00 0.00 518,606.00 8.60% 48,770.00 0.00 518,606.00 8.60% 524,982.00 0.00 732,567.00 41,75% �JJ T4ht 4 4aQum& AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Year 2000 Project Status Report BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Wiv-4 No I men. . The City of La Quinta continues to move forward with the Year 2000 (Y2K) Project. This monthly Y2K report reflects the progress achieved since May 18, 1999. Year 2000 Project Progress Table % Complete Through This Month % Complete Through Last Month Estimated Completion Date Estimated Costs To Achieve Y2K Compliance DP & Non DP Systems DP Non DP DP Non DP DP Non DP DP Non DP Awareness 100% 100% 100% 100% 12/98 12/98 $500 $500 Assessment 100% 90% 100% 90% 02/99 06/99 $1,500 $1,500 Remediation 100% 80% 100% 80% 02199 06/99 $0 $0 Validation/Testing 90% 65% 80% 0% 05/99 07/99 $2,500 $2,500 Implementation 95% 15% 95% 0% 07/99 9/99 $9,000 $31,000 Re-Validation/Retesting 0% 0% 0% 0% 07/99 9/99 $1,500 $1,500 Total Costs $15,000 $37,000 On Monday, May 24, 1999, City staff held a meeting at the Senior Center to present the City of La Quinta's Y2K Readiness Review. The presentation team was made up of Mike Bizier of Southwest Networks, Inc., John Hardcastle from Building and Safety, and Juan Herrera and John Falconer from Finance. The Y21K presentation lasted over an hour, and included a 25-slide Power Point presentation (Attachment 1) that was projected onto the screen at the Senior Center multi -purpose room. The purpose/goal of the meeting was to inform the public about what the City is doing to prepare its own computer systems for the Year 2000. Also, John Hardcastle informed citizens about what they can do to prepare for most disruptions in essential services. A list of home and family preparedness items were discussed during the presentation and are included as part of Attachment 1. The turnout for the meeting was low, with only five members of the public being present. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Wolff, James Deboer and guest, and Megan Butler were present for the Y2K meeting. Members of the City Council were also present for the discussion. One of the objectives of the meeting was to receive input from the public on their concerns regarding the Y2K issue. Mr. and Mrs. Wolff voiced concern about what La Quinta businesses are doing to prepare for Y2K-related problems. Mr. Wolff commended City staff on their progress in meeting the Y2K challenge. He also stated that the City should let the public know how far ahead the City of La Quinta is on addressing Y2K issues. Mrs. Wolff asked Mike Bizier about what citizens can do to make their PC's at home Y2K compliant. Mayor Pena stated that Y2K is not just a computer problem but an emergency - preparedness issue as well. Councilman Perkins stated that the Council should also meet with other agencies on the Y2K issue. Mr. Deboer, who stated he is an expert on the Y2K problem, made several comments regarding his concerns about Y2K. He felt the public should be concerned about global issues (i.e., the power grid, fuel availability, etc.) He also felt that government is too optimistic and is not doing enough to prepare the public for what could happen if computers fail when the new year arrives. Mayor Pena stated that there is a need to get the word out. He stated that public information needs to be provided now. SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED FOR Y2K COMPLIANCE The inventory conducted during the first half of the fiscal year evaluated the City's computer systems, software and related systems which may be affected by the Year 2000. The City's computer systems being evaluated are classified as DP or Non DP as follows: Data Processing_ Systems Various Software Applications Accounting Software Computer Operating Software File Server Systems Non Data Processing Systems Heating and A/C Phone Systems Mobile Phones Street Lights Traffic Signals Irrigation Software Stadium Lights Drainage Pumps Civic Center Alarm System THE Y2K TIME LINE The Y2K time line is divided into five stages; each stage serving to address the Y2K problem. As shown in the Progress Table above, the City is generally in the Validation/Testing and Implementation Stages of this time line. The actions taken and planned by the City for each stage relating to this project are as follows: Awareness Stage: The inventory audit portion of this stage was completed on November 11, 1998. On December 31, 1998, a Y2K survey letter was mailed to 34 organizations and vendors that do business with the City. The goal of the survey is to gather information from those entities that staff believes may impact the City if they do not comply with Y2K. Of the 34 surveys sent out, 21 organizations have responded to the survey. All 21 of the organizations that responded to the survey have made disclosures that they are complying with the Y2K problem (Attachment 2). Responses reflect that awareness of the Y2K problem is growing daily. As directed by the City Council on April 6th, Y2K surveys were also sent to JFK Hospital and AMR Ambulance Company. Also, staff sent a second survey to the vendors that have not yet responded to the original survey sent out in December. As stated above, a meeting was held on May 24th at the Senior Center to disseminate information to the public on Y2K. Tables were set up with copies of Y2K literature and reports from the City and other government agencies, including a list of eight Y2K websites. Also, four Internet -ready computers were available at the meeting to allow citizens to visit the Y2K websites. The City's Y2K website continues to be updated monthly, following staff's monthly status agenda report to the Council. Assessment Stage: Assessment of DP systems has largely been completed. Non DP systems that still to be assessed for Y2K compliance include mobile phones, traffic signals and the Civic Center alarm system. Assessment of non DP systems will continue through June 1999. Remediation Stage: Remediation is an on -going process that works together with the Implementation stage. Remediation involves identifying options for replacing systems or locating new vendors to correct non compliant systems. The City's purchasing policy has been revised to require that all new computer systems have a Y2K compliance disclosure before they are purchased. Validation/Testing Stage: This stage was started the weekend of April 17th, and 90% of DP hardware and software systems have now been tested for Y2K compliance. The methodology used to test computer systems was developed by Southwest Networks, Inc. The testing environment was created by changing all system dates to January 1, 2000 and then processing numerous transactions within all mission -critical software systems. Testing of all DP systems for Y2K compliance was highly successful. All of the DP hardware system (i.e., file servers, workstations, etc.) functioned properly when the dates were rolled over to January 1, 2000. DP software processed all transactions properly and sorted them correctly by date. The testing carried out on April 17th has proved that mission -critical DP systems will work on January 1, 2000. The following mission -critical DP systems were tested for Y2K compliance: Building & Safety Department Builders Square Program City Clerk's Department Questys City Clerk Program Code Compliance Office ► Code Track Program Finance Department ► ForFUND Accounts Payable ► ForFUND Business Licenses ► ForFUND Cash Receipts ► ForFUND General Ledger Accounting ► ForFUND Payroll ► ForFUND Project Management ► Lotus Approach Animal License ► Applications Software: Microsoft Office, Corel/WordPerfect Suite and Lotus Smart Suite. See Attachment 3 detailed comments and results on the Y2K testing conducted by Southwest Networks. The problems that were encountered during the testing process were mainly in some of the reporting features. For example, some of the inquiry reports within ForFUND do not show Year 2000 activity when viewing them on the computer screen. However, printed reports do show the information. The underlying data in the accounting registers are recording transactions correctly. During the testing process, the Builders Square permit program encountered some problems with the numbering scheme in the year 2000 simulation. The program has a numbering problem which limits the number of permits the Builders Square program can issue. These problems are being worked out with the software vendors and are expected to be corrected within the next five months. As of this report date, traffic signals, mobile phones and the Civic Center alarm system have yet to be tested. Staff and Southwest Networks is working with system vendors to coordinate the testing process. Implementation Stage: Implementation has involved replacing, patching or upgrading all non compliant DP systems. Roughly 95% of upgrades have been implemented for DP systems, with the remaining 5% to be completed by June 1999. Non DP systems will be upgraded during the next six months. Funds have been requested for upgrading Non DP systems (i.e., heating and air conditioning, phone systems, etc.) in the 1999/2000 Fiscal Year Budget. Upgrades may also need to be implemented for other Non DP systems still being assessed. Southwest Networks will continue to assist the City in coordinating with vendors of phone systems and traffic signals to ensure adherence to the implementation schedule. Re-Validation/Retesting: All non -compliant systems that are replaced, patched or upgraded will be re -tested and re -validated for Y2K compliance after installation. This stage will begin in July 1999. Staff will continue to keep the City Council current on Y2K issues as information becomes available. The next monthly Year 2000 Project status report will be provided to the City Council on July 20, 1999. John M. Falconer Finance Director Attachment 1 - City of La Quinta Y21K Readiness Review Slide Presentation Attachment 2 - List of organizations responding to Year 2000 Survey Attachment 3 - Letter from Southwest Networks, Inc. on Y21K Testing Results ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Background and Overview ✓ Year 2000 problem=Y2K=Millennium Bug .f Y2K problem stems from two main issues: - Two -digit date storage - Leap vear date calculation: 1900 not leap year s. /Most organizations are now aware of the Y2K computer problem :'. ✓City of La Qwnta identified and began preparing for the Y2K problem over a vear aQ� J J Background and Overview Con't ./There are diverse opinions on Y2K v, .(The Cite of La Quinta will likely experience relatively minor disruptions in services (The Y2K problem needs to be dealt with from two standpoints: - Fixing the Cit. s own computer systems - Assessing other organizations that do business with the City for Y2K compliance Svstems Identified for Y2K (An inventory was conducted during 1998 to evaluate systems affected by Y2K ✓The systems were classified as either Data Processing "DP" or "Non DP" ✓DP systems are computer software and hardware used in processing financial and administrative services for City operations (Non DP systems include Heating & A/C traffic signals and other embedded systems Data Processing Systems (DP systems include the following - Accounting software General ledger Pavroll Business licenses Animal licenses • Budgeting - Operating system software Windows 95-Workstations Novell NetWare-File servers Data Processing Systems Con't - City department software Building permits Code compliance tracking City clerk text and image management system Property information database - Computer file servers/workstation hardware - Applications software Microsoft Office Suite Corel WordPerfect Suite • Lotus Smart Suite Non Data Processing Systems (Non DP systems include the following: - Heating and A/C - Phone systems - Traffic signals - Alarm system - Irrigation systems - Drainage pumps - Stadium lights - Other embedded systems Surveys Sent to 36 Organizations ✓36 Y2K surveys were sent out to organizations and businesses that could impact City operations `? /Of the 20 that have responded, all have disclosed significant progress towards fixing their own Y2K computer problems Y2K Surveys Received ✓ CDF/County Fire J Lucent Technologies ./ CVAG ✓ Muni Financial w ✓ CVWD ✓ Pitnev Bowes ' ✓ Conrad & Associates ✓ Principal Financial .l ✓ Count}of Riverside J PERS :;. ✓ GTE ✓ R.C.F.C.U. ✓ ICMA Retirement ✓ RSG ✓ IID ✓ Sun Line Transit >. ✓ IRS J So Cal Gas ✓ L.A. Cellular ✓ Waste Management x—P— %—PNte E.tw YeC E.t"IM TNeuIN TM. Msr�t� T�mwpn TM. Gmplpen G.4 To T3N Cem 1 DP L Nen DP Sy.tmn.'. DP Nen DP DP Nen DP DP Nen DP DP Nan DP rvena. 100x t00Y t00% 100x De.Yp De.Yp'i {pW t000 .pox..,:.I D—i'0. -�teoa Rw Mlwen tOPA eo% tooxj pOx P— 1—! W td wa,t1.NT..tinE eox apx eox', ox MaT-w JWYp pz.Eoo px.wp MY Ox OY W.000 L1t,000 RW+NlepeNiLtMM 0% lWJp 4. D'.49 OY 0% Dcip $1.S00 pt A00 Tent G.n 510.000 p).000 Public Outreach and Awareness Key Y2K Dates (April 1, 1999: Three countries and one state changed to Fiscal year 2000 - Canada - Japan f - united Kingdom - State of New York Y Key Y2K Dates, Con't v " ./April 9, 1999: Dav 99 of Year 99 (9999) on Julian calendar (April 9, 1999: Edison tested the North American grid system (April 9, 1999: FAA tested Denver airport September 9, 1999: 9/9/99 or 9999, recognized as End File or Infinity in some computer programs Key Y2K Dates, Con't .(October 1, 1999: Federal government/others begin Fiscal Year 2000 (January 1, 2000: Rollover may halt, confuse, or disrupt some automated and computer chip embedded systems Home and Family Preparedness ✓Avoiding an identity crisis ✓Drinking water ✓ Stockpiling food and household goods ✓Protecting your financial assets (Emergency medical supplies ✓Clothing for protection ✓Heating and lighting with alternative energy sources Home and Family Preparedness (Compiling an emergency preparedness library (Disposing of waste Summary IQ Qu� Qlw..w) -There will be isolated problems related to Y2K -Asia, Europe, and Russia may experience problems' -Corporate America is doing a good job with the Y2K problem! -Federal, State and local government will be ready! -Power, communications, water and sewer will be available' o I (I ATTACHMENT NO. 2 List of Organizations Responding to Year 2000 Survey Complying with Y21K? 1 California Department of Forestry/County Fire Yes 2. Coachella Valley Association of Governments Yes 3. Coachella Valley Water District Yes 4. Conrad & Associates, CPA's Yes 5. County of Riverside Yes 6. GTE Yes 7. ICMA Retirement Corporation Yes 8. Imperial Irrigation District Yes 9. Internal Revenue Service Yes 10. L.A. Cellular Yes 11. Lucent Technologies Yes 12. Muni Financial Yes 13. Pitney Bowes Yes 14. Principal Financial Group Yes 15. Public Employees Retirement System Yes 16. Riverside County Employees Federal Cr. Union Yes 17. Rosenow, Spevacek Group, Inc. Yes 18. Sun Line Transit Yes 19. Southern California Gas Company Yes 20. Transamerica Intellitech (Metroscan Software) Yes 21. Waste Management of the Desert Yes These organizations have disclosed significant progress towards complying with the Year 2000 problem. Organizations that have not responded to the second request will be sent yet another survey letter in June 1999. 4 3 SOUTHWEST NETWORKS I N C 0 R P 0 R A T E 0 Business Computer Networks 4/30/99 TO: Juan Herrera From: Mike Bizier Subject: Y2K Special Project Y2K Testing 4/17/99 - File Server Rollover ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Both fileservers rolled over to 2000 with no problems. Workstations logging into the system then changed dates fine. There was a slight problem with LQ2 when it was rebooted. It lost the login directory. This is a documented problem by Novell and is not related to Y2K. It is an issue that can occur anytime a server is shutdown and brought back up on line. City Clerk's Office NEC computer rolled over to year 2000 properly. Questys software reconized year 2000 date and time stamped correctly. Building and Safety - Builders Square Software System logged into saw date change and adjusted time correctly. Permit numbering scheme is incorrect. Displays 0-001 but should display 0001-001. 0e: 9901-001) Contractor info seemed to display correctly and the system correctly noted the expiration of Worker's comp insurance for contractors. Displays Date code correctly in inspections. The date field needs to be expanded to see all of 2000. The date field currently displays 200. This is a current visual display issue with Builders Square. Search for permits works, but code is incorrect. (See above) c. * * * Builder's Square is aware of Y2K issues and is working on an update 77-848 Wolf Road Suite 200, Palm Desert, California 92211 0 PNoNE(760) 360-4900 0 EAx(760) 360-1166 0 E-NuaSWNet@ix.netcom.com Code Compliance - Codetrack software System logged in and saw date change and time change. Code Track software defaulted to year 99 when creating new incident. Need to click special button and input "00" as the year. After manual change of year the system still displays the wrong incident code. The system displays 00101-001 and the correct display should be 000101-001. The first two digits are the year, next two: month, next two: day, with the three digit after the hyphen being the case number for that day. Date reported field is correct, but should be four digits, not two. Finds case during search, but with incorrect format. (00101-001) Finance - Forfund System logged in and saw date change and time correctly. When closing the current year, the system saw the year 2000 correctly. G/L Software has a problem when reporting data. G/L batches will post to correct period. Problem with reporting for periods after year 2000. Does not display account for period 7, Year 2000. Project Management /budget / GL figures and transactions record properly. Payroll Input date for paychecks, checks and printed local. * * • Check printer will be tested in May 15th. Check printer is a separate proprietary system. Post Payroll shows date of 2/29/20. Field needs to be expanded. Visual display problem. Date posts correctly to registers Accts Payable Displays date 01 /01 /20 - not 01 /01 /00. Batch posting was done with no problems and date for posting was in correct format 01 /01 /2000. Business License Account Master Mainentance files gives error. Business License certificates displays on screen properly but does not print properly. All systems and software In general all hardware systems functions with no problems. The main problems were with software programs and particularly, the display of dates in these software packages. Each software vendor should be contacted for Y2K compliance and fixes. Standard packages such as Windows 95/98, Lotus, Word Perfect, Excel and Novell client did not have any Y2K problems. This is consistent with other testing we have performed for agencies similar to the City of La Quinta. DEPARTMENT REPORT: T-Wvl 4 V � cz U �•C�� y V t,v�� OFT TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Chris A. Vogt, Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: June 15, 1999 RE: Public Works/Engineering Department Report for the Month of May 1999 Attached please find the following: 1. Plan Check Applications received; 2. List of Capital Improvement Project status; 3. Maintenance Report. f , Chris A. Vogt Public Works Director/City Engineer J T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\ 1 999\99061 5Dept.wpd a) a) L� 0 LU LU U w Z O a U_ J a a Q Y U LU U Z a J a O O O O O O 0 O 00 O O O O O O O LO N Lo CD O O O O O 00 O O 6 m LO - N 00 0) LO LO N LU th {h Li M co N tL </> </> t/r -C� N cn C E C E CC M a) > C C C > J a O M � :6 "a Q O a Q cc n3 p co co co a E ~ iD co a) m (D Q) C *' O C *"' O) O) J a) Q) + O co O O p + to M cn F x F X X J M LU G a) a Z cn a) Q) > 0 m ns v_� + E O + + „ O O p W co _N i i >p > _ >N > >N > O� ca O Q Q Q Lu J Y cc:T a) a) 0 m C7 (D (n co a in m m a m m m J Y CL 00 O Z r, cM C') a) 0 M 0 E' U Ln 00 00 00 00 C: N m O) O 0 a) LO LO co Cl) a) N N Cl) 00 00 00 N a J F- N N N N N N E C C n n 0 E E E E O U_ a n. O p O a a 2 = a a _p 0 U 0 U co cc 0 U 0 U 7 7 aW v -o a) a m _0 _0 d d a O >. - p U c M c (0 cc J (Z J c (0 c (o ,J LU � � c co .J J J J C > > J J [n M J J U Y Y O Q Q rn rn rn 0) 0') 0 Cn a) 0) a) O) a) W (7) 0 0 Ln Ln L—C) LP) LO LO LO LO LO MONTHLY PROJECT STATUS SUMMARY Capital Improvement Projects F/Y 1997/98, 1998/99 May 1999 Project Name/No. Contract Complete Complete Scheduled Amount last to Date Construction Month Start/Completion PM1 JO Imprvemnts / 97-01, Calle $720,375 0% 100% Sep 5, 1997 Jan 27, 1998 Tampico Bicycle Path / 97-04 complete NTP Washington St./Ave. 48 Signal / $97,379 0% 100% Nov 1, 1997 Dec 1, 1997 97-02 complete Dune Palms/WWR Crossing / $449,449 0% 100% Jan 5, 1998 Apr 6, 1998 97-06 complete Fritz Burns Park Imprvmnts. / $169,400 0% 100% Nov 12, 1997 Jan 5, 1998 97-07 complete Fritz Burns Park Pool $523,000 0% 100% Feb. 1998 May 1998 Eisenhower Median Landscape $315,730 0% 100% April 1998 July 1998 98-01 Award 4/7/98 Hwy 111 Median Landscape $49,000 Award 0% 100% July 1998 Sept 1998 Rehab. 98-04 6/16/98 City Entrance Monuments 98-05 $257,100 0% 0% June, 1999 Aug, 1999 Award 5/18/99 Miles Ave/Washington St. $1,310,649 2% 100% Sept 21, `98 Mar 12, 1999 Imprvmts / 98-07 NTP Hwy 111/Plaza La Quinta Signal $247,178 0% 100% Sept 1998 Oct 1998 & Sidewalk Improvements 98-08 Award 8/18/98 Washington St. Widening/ Ave 50 $2,100,000 0% 0% June, 1999 Dec, 1999 to Village Ctn. 98-09 Estimate Various Citywide Sidewalks, $121,727 0% 100% Nov 2, 1998 Dec, 1998 Ramps & Bus Turnouts 98-13 Award 9/15/98 NTP Parc La Quinta Electrical Under $126,430 0% 95% Jan 1999 July 1999 grounding 98-14 Fritz Burns Park/ Bear Creek Bike $219,807 0% 0% April 1999 Aug 1999 Path Retrofit/rest stops 98-16 Jefferson Street Improvements $13,000,000+ 0% 0% July, 1999 Jun 23, 1905 Estimate Ave 50 Median Landscape /99-01 $210,000 Award 5/18/99 0% 0% June, 1999 July 1999 TAIWI)EPTTIPllNVMI'SSMST REP0RT\9905%Ipsms1.wpd Revised 019199 003 lill moll moll mill loll loll moll X, X X, xxx: x -X X, XX X. X. :R IIIIII MINION IN MIMI NINO 1111111111 IN 11 mill NINO IIIIIIII IN MINION :X �XXXX:: x x x X. X... XR: X.. X x. x :i:i x xx x X x X: x X. X Xx. XX. I XX no I MIMI Ill IN loll 111111111111 X... .. .... ... . I X I X .... .... X I X X.X . . . ...... .... .... . . . . ... .... .. N x . .... .... .... . . .. . ... .... ... . I I ... . ........ ... . . . ... . . ... . .. .. x ... . I ... Noll IIIIIIII ilia 1111111111111111 IN loll 11 WIN 111111 ill mill mill IIIIIIII MINION MINION P �j X: x: X X X x .. ... . .. .. 1. X: . ..... x X. . .... x 11111 NINO 16 = -6 < = 16 Z5 < < 'E -6 -6 < < -6 '5 < -ia -6 'D b N b b < < < < < b U = b U Q 0 1E a) ia cr m 2i CO 0 2i cLm: C: -2 a) a) a) 3: c Lo 0 0 -m a) E E E -E (n > 0 m a_ a_ > m IL a) 0 C/) U) w a) 0 1 P-- c I P I Fn a) 0- E I ]VU I I - C) I tf) 1< „ION NINE MINION m Tit,, 4 ZP Qum& COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15,1999 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5 and Site Development Permit 99-642 to Allow an Increase in the Unit Count to a Portion of Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 19730, Separate the Seasons from Specific Plan 83-001, and Add a New Grading/Unit Type Along the North Side of the 50-Foot Elevation of the Channel Berm, within Duna La Quinta. Applicant: Century -Crowell Communities RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: T Continue the Public Hearing for Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5 until September 7, 1999. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: At the May 25, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, this item was continued to June 22, 1999 in order to allow the applicant additional time to resolve design issues for the proposed amendments, and to submit a new Site Development Permit for units along the north side of the Channel berm. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Continue the Public Hearing for Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5 until September 7, 1999 in order to allow the Planning Commission to reach a recommendation for this item; or, 2. Provide staff with alternative direction. P:\LESLIE\ccrptSP83-001#5andSDP99-642Duna.wpd Respectfully submitt d, t JpTi-y Merman, Community Development Director f i Approved for Submission by: VThomas P. Genovese, City Manager PALES LIE\ccrptSP83-001#5andSDP99-642Duna.wpd c&tT44Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Public Hearing on Tentative Tract Map 29147, a OL Request for a Residential Subdivision of 133 Lots and PUBLIC HEARING: Other Common Lots on 172.88 Acres Located at the Northeast Corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 in PGA West (Applicant: KSL Land Corporation) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving Tentative Tract Map 29147, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND -AND OVERVIEW: The vacant site is rough graded and is located at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 (Attachment 1). To the north and west of the proposed tract is the Rielly Homes development of 200 single family houses, currently under construction. This proposed tract is within PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (i.e., EIR State Clearinghouse #83062922), consisting of a country club community of approximately 1,800 residences (5,000 houses are allowed) and multiple championship golf courses, and Specific Plan 90-017 (i.e., EIR State Clearinghouse #90020727), an approved master planned community of 880 units on 200 acres south of the PGA West abutting portions of the Tom Weiskopf Signature Golf Course (Attachment 2). The planned communities share private streets and common open space. Other planned residential developments within the boundaries of SP 90-017 are Tract 28603 (Steven Walker Homes) and portions of Tracts 28522 (Peninsula) and 28838 (Rielly Homes). A STCCTr29147 - 34 Project Request This map proposes to create 133 single family and various other nonresidential lots on 172.88 acres (0.77 dwellings per acre)abutting portions of the Weiskopf golf course (Attachment 3). Lots 1 through 12 and the adjoining private street and golf course fairway at the northeast corner of the project encroaches into Specific Plan 83-002. Tract access is proposed on Madison Street via Street Lot "A" and on Avenue 58 via Street Lot "J" while Street Lots "B" and "F" connect to future streets in Tract 28838 to the north. The proposed single family lots vary in size but are generally 85 feet in width by 143 feet in depth, with an average size of 14,536 square feet. All residential lots will front onto private streets and generally back up to golf course fairways. The proposed private streets are linked to future streets in Tract 28838. Lots 137 through 139, at the southeast corner of the site, provide sites for future residential development (3.25 acres), a well site, and sewer lift station. Common open space amenity lots are identified as Lots "K" through "X". Golf course fairways make up approximately 59 percent of the site area (i.e., Lots 134 through 136). Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert --Sun newspaper on June 2, 1999, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the Tract boundaries. No written correspondence has been received. Any comments received will be distributed at the meeting. Public Agency Review: On April 23, 1999, the applicant's request was sent to public agencies for comment. All pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission considered this request at its meeting of May 25, 1999, and by a 5-0 vote recommended approval of the residential subdivision by adoption of Resolution 99-047, subject to Conditions of Approval. A copy of the minutes is attached (Attachment 4). FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. o 1_ A STCCTr29147 - 34 The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving Tentative Tract Map 29147, subject to Conditions of Approval; or 2. Do not approve the subdivision map request; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, er y Herm n, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. PGA West Location Map 3. Tract Map Exhibit 4. May 25, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt) 5. Large Tract Map Exhibit (City Council only) A STCCTr29147 - 34 003 RESOLUTION 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 133 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOT, AND OTHER COMMON LOT SUBDIVISION ON 172.88 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 58 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147 APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Land Corporation for development of 133 single family residential lots, a future development lot and other common lot subdivision on 172.88 acres in Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, generally located at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, more particularly described as: Parcels 4 and 5 of Lot Line Adjustments 95-208 and 98-286; SW 1 /4 of Section 22, T6S, R7E, SBBM (APN: 761-140-015, 761- 170-036 thru -039); WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 25' day of May, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Land Corporation for development of 133 single family residential lots, a future development lot and other common lot subdivision on 172.88 acres in Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017 and recommended approval to the City Council by adoption of Resolution 99- 047; and WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that TTM 29147 is within Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017 and is exempt from the CEQA of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457(a). Environmental Impact Reports (State Clearinghouse Numbers 83062922 and 90020727) for the Specific Plans were certified by the City Council in 1984 and 1991 , respectively. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report pursuant to Public Resources Code 21 166; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said RESOCcTTM 29147 - 34 004 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 KSL Land Corporation June 15, 1999 City Council did make the following mandatory findings for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 29147: Finding Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan: A. The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use Element of the General Plan allows residential land uses. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because residential lots are proposed and the density is less than allowed. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. Finding Number 2 - Consistency with Specific Plans 83-002 (Amendment #3) and 90- 017 and City Zoning Ordinance: A. The proposed single family lots exceed the minimum size requirement of 6,500 square feet. Specific Plan 83-002 allows 5,000 houses and SP 90-017 allows 880 houses oriented around golf courses and other resort commercial land uses. The proposed 133 residential lots are consistent with and will not negatively impact the overall growth and development of PGA West. B. The proposed single family lots are consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the PGA West Specific Plans supplement and/or replace those in the City's Zoning Code. Detached (or attached) single family houses will be built as required. Conditions are recommended ensuring compliance with both the PGA West Specific Plans and Zoning Code. Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act: A. Tentative Tract Map 29147 is within Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Public Resources Code Section 65457(a). Environmental Impact Reports (State Clearinghouse Numbers 83062922 and 90020727) were certified by the City Council in 1984 and 1991 for each specific plan, RESOCcTTM 29147 - 34 005 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 KSL Land Corporation June 15, 1999 respectively. No changed circumstances, or conditions, exist which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resources Code 21 166. Finding Number 4 - Site and Landscape Design: A. The proposed site design conforms with the design guidelines identified in SP 83-002 and 90-017 and provides a harmonious transition between other approved residential houses in PGA West. B. The proposed common landscaping will be privately maintained. The landscape design complements the surrounding residential areas in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements: A. Stormwater runoff will be diverted to the existing golf course to ensure off -site properties are not impacted from seasonal storms. B. The proposed private street serves all proposed lots and connects to other existing streets in the PGA West development. Internal access is provided as required ensuring public safety vehicles proper access to this residential area. C. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will be extended to service the site in underground facilities as planned under the Specific Plans. No adverse impacts have been identified based on letters of response from affected public agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required for Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended; RESOCcTTM 29147 - 34 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Impact Reports for the Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended, assessed the environmental concerns of this tentative tract map; and 4. That it does approve Tentative Tract Map 29147 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on the 15th day of June, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 1.) 007 RESOCcTTM 29147 - 34 RESOLUTION 99- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147 KSL LAND CORPORATION JUNE 15, 1999 GENERAL Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting that the City Conditions of Approval for development exist and are available for review at City Hall shall be recorded against the property with Riverside County. 2. This approval shall expire and become null and void on June 15, 2001, unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. The tentative map and all final maps pursuant thereto shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 1 of 13 009 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 received from the CWQCB prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 6. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. PROPERTY RIGHTS 7. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 8. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 9. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. Madison Street - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way. B. Avenue 58 - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant interim easements to those areas within 60 days of written request by the City. 10. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 11 . The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Madison Street - 20 feet B. Avenue 58 - 20 feet CONDccTTM29147 - 34 • � Page 2 of 13 `4i 009 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 12. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 13. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along those streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map. 14. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 15. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 16. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 3 of 13 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, equestrian paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 18. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 19. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 20. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City prior to approval of any final map pursuant to this tentative map, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of the final map, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 21. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. CONDcc,rTM29147 - 34 ' Page 4 of 13 Oil Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 22. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 23. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., a Site Development Permit), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 24. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 25. The applicant's obligations for portions of the required improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. GRADING 26. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is located within or immediately adjacent to a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100- year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall receive Conditional Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR/F) from FEMA. Prior to CONDecTTM29147 - 34 Page 5 of 13 012 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 final acceptance by the City of subdivision improvements, the applicant shall have received final LOMR/Fs for all such lots. 27. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. The plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 28. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 30. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 31. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by a civil engineer or surveyor. The certifications shall list approved pad elevations, actual elevations, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 33. Stormwater water and nuisance water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plans for Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017. CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 6 of 13 013 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 UTILITIES 34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for aesthetic as well as practical purposes. 35. Existing and proposed wire and cable utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 36. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC _IMPROVEMENTS 37. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. Any property within this development which has not been subdivided in accordance with this tentative map 60 days after the program is in effect shall be subject to the program as determined by the City. 38. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - Construct the east half of a 76-foot street (between curb faces including an 18-foot raised landscape median) and six-foot meandering sidewalk. 2) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - Construct the north half of a 76-foot street (between curb faces including an 18-foot raised landscape median) and a six-foot meandering sidewalk. 3) Traffic Signals - 100% of the cost to design and install traffic signals at the secondary residential access drives on Madison Street and Avenue 58. If the applicant's side of the arterial streets is improved prior to the opposite side, the applicant's construction shall include a 16-foot lane on the opposite side of the median. 014 CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 7 of 13 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 B. PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC 1) Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 39. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Secondary Residential Access on Madison Street approximately 1,490 feet north of the centerline of Avenue 58 - full turning movements (with traffic signal). B. Secondary Residential Access on Avenue 58 approximately 1,490 feet east of the centerline of Madison Street - full turning movements (with traffic signal). 40. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 41. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 42. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 43. Street right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 44. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 015 CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 8 of 13 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 45. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 46. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 47. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING/PERIMETER_ WALLS 48. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins and common lots. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect and comply with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. The applicant shall submit off -site landscaping plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. .3-75 CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 9 of 13 018 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 50. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 51. Perimeter walls and required landscaping for the entire perimeter to be enclosed shall be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract unless a phasing plan, or construction schedule, is approved by the City Engineer. 52. The landscape improvements for Madison Street shall be designed to comply with Policy 3-4.1 .6 of the General Plan (i.e., Agrarian Image Corridor). 53. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 54. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section 9.60.240 (E3) of the Zoning Ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES 55. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City. QUALITY ASSURANCE 56. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 57. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 58. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans and specifications. Where retention basins are installed, testing shall include a sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 59. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As- ( l► CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 10 of 13 017 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 61. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program, but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 62. The applicant shall employ, or retain, California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as - constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 64. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City. This shall include formation of a homeowner's association or other arrangement acceptable to the City for maintenance of retention basins, common areas and perimeter walls and landscaping. FIRE DEPARTMENT 65. Fire hydrants in accordance with Coachella Valley Water District Standard W-33 shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants. CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 11 of 13 018 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 66. Applicant/developer will provide written certification for the appropriate water company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 67. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "/ certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 68. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. 69. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. 70. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key operated switches, series KS- 2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval prior to installation. 71. Gate entrance openings shall be not less than 16 feet in width. All gates shall be located at least 40 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Gates shall have either a secondary power supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate in the event of loss of primary power. FEES AND DEPOSITS 72. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 73. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. CONDecTTM29147 - 34 Page 12 of 13 019 Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 29147 June 15, 1999 74. Plan check fees required by the Riverside Country Fire Department shall be paid when plans are submitted for review and approval. 75. Prior to final map approval, parkland mitigation fees for houses within SP 90-017 shall be paid to the Community Development Department. MISCELLANEOUS 76. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking purposes. 77. Applicable conditions of Specific Plans 83-002 (Amendment #3) and 90-017 as amended shall be met prior to building permit issuance. 78. The layout and design of the permanent tract access gates shall be approved by the Community Development Department after review and approval by the Fire Department. 79. The project's Homeowners' Association (HOA) will be organized to administer and maintain common open space, perimeter landscaping, private roads, security, and architectural consistency pursuant Section 12.0 (Phasing and Implementation) of SP 90-017 and as required by SP 83-002. 80. Prior to building permit issuance, housing plans for the tract shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 81. The applicant shall construct an equestrian trail along the Madison Street frontage. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. A split rail fence shall be constructed to separate the equestrian trail from the pedestrian sidewalk and perimeter wall in accordance with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning Ordinance. The equestrian facilities shall match the improvements being installed for Tract 28838 and be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first residence. Bonding for the equestrian facilities shall be posted prior to final map approval. CONDccTTM29147 - 34 Page 13 of 13 02-0 ATTACHMENT 1 52nd I AVENUE rn m 53rd AVENUE 0 z 54th AVENUE TRACT NO. 29147 o c z� z AIRPORT BLVD. 1 "N -an-cotoaml 58th AVENUE vm TY MAP NOT TO SCALE i ,:.,4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29147 ATTACHMENT 3 ,� AaaN � 3JN AVW1 h Eg e,2wIL ¢ unvn TRACT NO. 29147 Jsln .wmc VIGf1Y AAAP NOT TO SCAIF aid' rc: V/ ►� Ci T Y r L JiNTA e• {'r y `=`I' PLANNING DEPARTMENT tir 4°fp d V li r Tr toe ,. a t yg d a , rE 1 124 -in I In 139 � im. '1f9" � \ ri ANY � " Ise- f srx�mx s�iE a I.v •- e e ,.i t � - `{'°B a o t.. ✓+131, / � ue caoss secna. a Y Avenue 58 -LEGAL DeSGWI . slmalw a PMCF3S . Alo e a Im LrM AaysLcm as-. I¢colmtn wYcuxn Is�lasc A9 Msr. %.Jena. s vLx a nA .rasa LOT lalc ransluon ra w ne. nii n x/a 11. w 1, age AS nasr. a➢nrnr G LA wNtA camlr a arn:asoc srx,E a GLliau1v. ms ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS le 1c1-la-Ols. ulo 1e1-Iro-ox laacuce om ACREAGE LOT AND LAND USE SUMMARY Inx9 , nxrouca Iv - uavE aEsloElnw Lars ao sacs I -cur twos Lo = 9 _ �oeztoa�M - ... ie - TYACAL o9oea a cTfof. IDi IJ9 - 9Mn uxi SiAign - eOAEe PFWVATE BTfEFf5 LOI9 A 1H90001 J - PRIVATE SIREFT9 - 1216 A;RES inrt x 1NpUGl Y -OPEN SPA[F/VNDSCME 11I15 - 11.W IfJYS NIS IARGESt lLO - 2f.eOe SE 9wLi£el LOT Il.ese A ♦giILE lol LOT COUNT ors I INRpIGa Iv - RE,siocaaa Lms UTLJTE w.rzR -cat .Lu vraLn .urza n mc� SEwEF - COxGEiLA vNIF' vetlEn aelPoCi - Sauramx axtamu O.Ae muwwr xpEPMN(- GErF1UL 1F1MgrxE �ECRTCRI' - WPLAv1 IRRIC.tIIOp p9fRiCl 1F�L�61Or1 - xFINMdrE ENGhEER U79' - f1 OUxtA G 912U aR6 �. eERtm arz PREPARED FOR: ® LAND CORPORATION 55-920 PGA Baul—d (760) 564-1066 1 Quints, CA 92253 FAX (760) 564-7131 PREPARED BY: MDS roa .,c oasut r/ra 004 Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1999 C. Tentative Tract Map 29147; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval of 133 single family lots, a future development lot and other common lot subdivision on 172.88 acres within Specific Plan 90-017 and a portion of Specific Plan 83-002 located at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street abutting the existing Tom Weiskopf Golf Course in PGA West. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if this tract had a condition about having an equestrian trail on Madison Street. Staff stated a condition should be provided similar to the tract to the north. 3. Chairman Tyler asked staff to define the meaning of "secondary access". Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in Condition #39 the primary entrance is to the north on another tract on Madison Street and the entrances identified as "secondary access" are those in this tract. 4. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting Engineers, stated he agreed with the conditions as recommended including the addition of the equestrian trail requirement. 5. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no further public comment, Chairman Tyler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-047 approving Tentative Tract Map 29147, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended: a. Add to Condition 479 "perimeter landscaping". b. New Condition #81: The applicant shall construct an equestrian trail along the Madison Street frontage. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. A split rail fence shall be constructed to separate the equestrian trail from the pedestrian sidewalk and perimeter wall in accordance with Section 9.140.060 (Item E.3.a.) of the Zoning Ordinance. The equestrian facilities shall match the C:\My Documents\WPD0CS\PC5-25-99.Wpd 6 Vw Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1999 improvements being installed for Tract 28838 and be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first residence. Bonding for the equestrian facilities shall be posted prior to final map approval ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Master Design Guidelines 99-00; a request of Coachella Valley Housing Authority Vfor approval of prototype plans for different lots in the Cove area. Chairman Tyler asked for the ff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information containe ' the staff report, a copy of which is on We in the Community Development artment. 2. Co Sion Kirk asked why there was no e 9 and 11 in the Guidelines. Staff ed it was a misnumbering on applicant's submittal. Commissi r Kirk asked if they were required to s it a minimum number of window e tions. Staff stated there was no min Commissioner Kirk stated the d not appear to be a lot of variation i windows. 3. Chairman Tyler statNliere was a lot of information, but no t to show what goes with what. F elevations and four plans, but the Gut nes do not state which plan goes what elevation. 4. Commissioner Kirk stated the dow elevation appears to be exactly the same. The first elevation labele 80, if that is an elevation the entire ade has no articulation above the o ings. Staff stated the drawings show th fference in the elevations. The ph show existing homes to illustrate what have built. Commissioner Kirk ed he is not in favor of this and would n ant to approve it as submitted. 5. There being n rther questions of staff, Cha an Tyler asked if the applicant would to address the Commission. Mr. Bill Standafer, construction manage r Coachella Valley Housing alition, stated the elevations will fit on ei Plan. The difference is whe it is a three or four bedroom house. Th are three elevations. Disc 'on followed regarding the difference bet n the elevations. 6. Commissioner Robbins stated the photos do not match the plans s itted. They do, however, show the type of houses built by the Coalition he believes they are a great looking house and fit in with the community. 11 -, C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PCS-25-99.wpd 7 b' l? T-mt 4 ZP Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: ,June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Development Impact Fees STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: 3 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta amending Resolution No.'s 85-26, 87-39, and 97-70 relative to the Development Impact Fee Policy pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Study dated May 1999. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of the recommendation outlined in this report will generate approximately $47,641,562 in projected revenue, assuming that all development anticipated in the City General Plan actually occurs. The following is a breakdown according to the Development Impact Fee Study: Transportation Park Civic Center Library Community Centers Streets/Park Maintenance TOTAL: $18,802,498 $ 8,247,054 $12,797,375 $ 4,850,994 $ 2,184,389 $ 759,252 $47,641,562 The Development Impact Fees calculated in the Development Impact Fee Report are intended to represent the maximum Impact Fee amount justified by the analysis. The City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. In that event, it is important that the City Council identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced Impact Fees and the share of total costs and funding sources required to recover the shortfall in the Development Impact Fee Program. It should be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: On March 19, 1985, the City Council passed Resolution No. 85-26 "Infrastructure Fee Policy" in order to ensure that adequate funding was available for the construction of infrastructure required by the development of the City. n.. T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\1 999\99061 5d.wpd On August 4, 1987, the City Council passed Resolution No. 87-39 which amended Resolution No. 85-26. This Resolution updated the Community Infrastructure Fee based on projects identified as part of the Infrastructure Fee Policy. The Infrastructure Fee Policy established a fee upon development which equated to 1 .5% of the home valuation for residential development and $6,000 per acre for commercial/industrial development. In 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to this development project." Public facilities are defined in this statute to include "public improvements, public services, and community amenities." These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB1600" requirements after the 1987 assembly bill in which they originated. The US Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such an exaction and the government's legitimate interests. The court made clear that an agency must also show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. For this reason, the City Council retained DMG in order to identify all required infrastructure at "buildout" and Development Impact Fees per land use identifying the proper nexus in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600). To satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or opposing impact fees must make findings to: 1 . Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. The Development Impact Fee Study satisfies all requirements for establishing a legally defensible Development Impact Fee per the City's identified "buildout" infrastructure in accordance with the City's General Plan. The Development Impact Fee Study brings the City into compliance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) including Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The broad purpose of the Impact Fees is to protect the public's health, safety, and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities required by the growth and development of the City. The specific purpose of the Fees, as recommen(j(ed in the �t,,)�� T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\1999\99061 5d.wpd Development Impact Fee Study, is to fund the construction of certain Capital Improvements which are identified in the Study. The improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in La Quinta and to prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional development if Impact Fee revenues were not available to fund those improvements. Public Facilities DMG staff completed this report in collaboration with all of the City departments and representatives of Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (RSG). The types of public facilities included in the Development Impact Fee Study include the following: 1. Transportation Improvements 2. Parks and Recreation Facilities 3. Civic Center Expansion 4. Library 5. Community Centers 6. Maintenance Facilities Included with this report as Attachment 1 is the Development Impact Fee Study dated May 1999. For purposes of clarification, each type of public facility will be explained separately. Transportation Improvements City staff completed windshield surveys of all the existing infrastructure within the City of La Quinta. This information was compared to the City's General Plan Circulation Element to determine what infrastructure would be required at "buildout." Streets in the General Plan have been designed in accordance with policy 3-2.1 .3 of the Circulation Element which establishes a level of service of D (LOS D) as the minimum standard for streets in La Quinta. It further provides that no development projects shall be approved without adequate mitigation if it will create conditions that violate that standard. The detailed cost estimate for the transportation section is included in the Development Impact Fee Study as Appendix A. The development related improvement costs to be funded by Impact Fees calculated in this Study include street (widening and extension) projects (including right-of-way acquisition), bridge construction, new traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls. Collector and local streets needed to serve new development are assumed to be constructed by developers as project improvements. The list of the projects on which the Impact Fee analysis is based assumes that developers will be directly responsible for constructing the outside travel lane plus curb, gutter, and sidewalks on arterial streets fronting their project. In residential areas, this requirement also includes a TAPWDEPT\C0UNCIL\1999\990615d.wpd parking lane. As a result, the Impact Fees associated with street widening for arterial streets will cover only the costs of additional travel lanes (e.g., the two inside lanes on a four lane arterial), as well as median improvements on those arterials where they do not already exist. These construction costs and right-of-way costs for all major arterials and primary arterials are included in the Study. Bridge improvements have been identified in the Study by location, as have the traffic signals. Possible future sound attenuation walls have been identified in the Study for Avenue 50, Washington Street, Fred Waring Drive, Jefferson Street, and Avenue 52. The cost for sound walls along vacant land has been compiled for informational purposes only and is not included as part of the Impact Fees. The reason that vacant land was not included was the developer may be conditioned to construct a sound attenuation wall as part of their development for sound mitigation. The only areas that have been included are locations where existing development is in place and no sound walls are present. The justification for including costs for existing development sound walls in the Development Impact Fees is that new development causes an increase in traffic which may raise the level of noise in front of existing development to the point in which sound walls are required as offsite mitigation. The inclusion of these sound walls into the Development Impact Fees will provide a funding source supported by all future development for sound attenuation on existing development along major arterials. The total cost estimate for transportation improvements included in the Development Impact Fees is estimated at $18,802,498. This comprises 39.47% of the projected impact fee revenue. The nexus utilized for the transportation improvements is peak hour trip miles generated by development. Both the number of trips generated by development and the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour capacity needed to serve development. For a description of the basis of the number of trips generated, please refer to the Development Impact Fee Study, dated May 1999, Section 3. Park and Recreation Facilities The recommended portion of the Impact Fees relative to park and recreation improvements is based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of service defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The Impact Fee analysis addresses neighborhood and community parks only. Land (or fees in lieu of land) for future parks will be required by the City from subdividers under the provisions of the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). The park portion of the Impact Fees calculated in the report are intended to cover only the cost of park improvements and will be levied in addition to any land dedication or "fee - in -lieu" requirements proposed pursuant to the Quimby Act. T:\PWDEPT\COUNC1L\1 999\99061 5d.wpd The projected impact fee revenue from future development for parks is estimated at $8,247,054. The City presently has 32.7 acres of existing parks for an existing population estimated at 29,385. This equates to a level of service of 1 .11 park acres per 1 ,000 population. The estimated cost of $120,000 an acre for park improvements was utilized for calculating the estimated cost of future construction. This amount is based on the actual costs for improvements of the Fritz Burns Park and Adams Park. It should be noted that the estimated cost used in this analysis covers only basic park improvements such as landscaping and irrigation, picnic facilities and playgrounds. It does not include the cost of facilities such as tennis courts or swimming pools. Since the need for park acres is defined in terms of population, the portion of the Impact Fees for park improvements will apply only to residential development. The Impact Fees for each type of residential development is based on the estimated population per EDU for each type of development. Civic Center Impact Fees The existing Civic Center (City Hall) was completed in 1993. It has adequate space to serve a portion of the City's anticipated growth, but expansion will be required prior to buildout. The Civic Center has a citywide service area so the portion of the Impact Fees relative to the Civic Center has been calculated on a citywide basis. The Impact Fee analysis for the Civic Center assumes that the existing facility and a planned expansion will be adequate to serve existing and future development in La Quinta. The Civic Center portion of the Impact Fees was calculated by allocating total costs for the Civic Center Facility on the same basis to all existing and future development, allowing Civic Center costs to be shared proportionately by all users. The Development Impact Fee Study uses developed acreage to represent the demand for the Civic Center. Acreage is the most general measure of development and is applicable to all types of development. Acreage devoted to parks, schools, and other public facilities is excluded from the cost allocation, because those public uses do not create a demand for the services supported by the Civic Center. Only the portion of golf course acreage devoted to the clubhouse and maintenance facilities has been included. The Study estimates that portion to be 5% of the total acreage of a golf course. The existing La Quinta Civic Center contains 33,000 square feet of gross floor area, and is adequate to serve the City's current needs. The original building plans called for the addition of 15,000 square feet in the future. The resulting 48,000 square foot building is expected to serve the City's needs well into the future. Although additional facilities may be needed prior to buildout, this Study makes the conservative assumption that the existing Civic Center and the proposed expansion will serve the City's need at buildout. Because the Civic Center serves both existing and future T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615d.wpd development, the cost of the entire facility will be allocated on the same basis to both existing and future development. The projected Impact Fee revenue is estimated at $12,797,375. All development, except for public facilities, schools, and parks, will pay for this portion of the fees. Library This study assumes that a library will be constructed to service residents, and that any library constructed in La Quinta will have to be funded by the City. The portion of the Impact Fees for libraries was based on the cost to serve new development at a level of service somewhat lower than the standard specified in the La Quinta General Plan. The adopted standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita. The Impact Fee analysis is based on 0.22 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita, and assumes the City will ultimately construct a 20,000 square foot library to serve both existing and future development. Even after allowing the credit for the value of the collection of the existing store front library and the collection there is a deficiency in existing library facilities, relative to the standard used in the Study; therefore, the City will have to contribute approximately $1,760,000 from nonimpact fee sources to justify Impact Fees at the recommended level. The projected impact fee revenue from future development for a library is estimated at $4,850,994. Because library facility needs are defined in terms of population, Impact Fees for library facilities would apply only to residential development. Community Center Impact Fees The portion of the Impact Fees in this Study related to Community Center Facilities are estimated on those facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The City presently has one existing community center facility. This is the multipurpose room at the La Quinta Senior Center. The City has not adopted a level of service standard for Community Center Facilities; therefore, in order to complete this calculation, the Study utilizes the current level of service for existing development. The existing level of service is 0.18 square feet per capita based on the estimated population and the square footage of the multipurpose room in the Senior Center. The cost utilized was the actual cost that the City incurred while building the multipurpose room section of the Senior Center. The projected impact fee revenue for future development for a Community Center is $2,184,389. Because the Community Center Facility needs are defined in terms of population, Impact Fees for those facilities would apply only to residential development. Maintenance Facilities The portion of the Impact Fees to fund capital costs for development related street and park maintenance facilities and equipment is based on the City's current level of investment relative to existing development. T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\l 999\99061 5d.wpd Costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated on the same basis as the cost of street improvements using peak hour trip miles to represent demand. Costs for park maintenance facilities and equipment are allocated on the same basis as the cost of park improvements, using population to represent demand. Therefore, street maintenance facilities are applied to all types of development while park maintenance facilities apply only to residential development. The projected impact fee revenue from future development is estimated at $759,252. Public facilities, schools, and parks were not utilized as contributing to the revenue for the street and park maintenance facilities. Development Impact Fees Table S-1 on Page S-5 of the Development Impact Fee Study dated May 1999 identifies the total fee for each type of land use per unit of development that is proposed as part of this Study. An adjustment to each fee has been made to recover the cost of the Study and future studies. The adjustment assumes that it will be necessary to update the study every five years. In the past, the City has collected an average of $2,000,000 per year in Impact Fees. At an estimated cost of $53,000 to update the study, divided by the $10,000,000 that would have been collected in a five-year period, it is assumed that a percentage of 0.53% would need to be added as a multiplier to the fees in order to fund the study updates. These percentage increases have been included in Table S-1 . In developing this Study, City staff worked directly with Ed Kibbey of the Building Industry Association (BIA) in order to assure a full understanding between the Building Industry and the City in regard to the Development Impact Fee Study prior to the City Council taking action. Included with this report as Attachment 3 is the Development Impact Fee Comparison Spreadsheet. In this spreadsheet, the proposed La Quinta Development Impact Fee is compared with the existing La Quinta Infrastructure Fee for a number of different development scenarios. There is also a comparison with the development fees of the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Indio. These Cities were chosen because they most closely relate to the type of development occurring in the City of La Quinta. Compared to the existing infrastructure fee, residential fees decreased significantly and are stabilized since they are based on peak hour trip miles as opposed to house valuation. Office, golf course, hotel, townhouse, and apartment building fees have also decreased. The General Commercial infrastructure fee has almost doubled. This is due to the utilization of peak hour trip miles as opposed to the $6,000 per, acre in the existing infrastructure fee. The La Quinta proposed Development Impact Fee is the second lowest residential fee when compared with Palm Desert, Rancho ',Mirage, Indian Wells, and Indio. It's the lowest commercial fee and also the lowest for golf course development and apartment buildings. It's the second lowest fee for hotel development and townhouses. I T:\PW DEPT\C0U NCIL\ 1999\990615d. wpd Fire Protection Facilities Absent from the Development Impact Fees, is an Impact Fee for fire protection facilities. An analysis for fire protection facility Impact Fees is included in Appendix B of the Development Impact Fee Study. Fire protection in La Quinta is the responsibility of the Riverside County Fire Department which in turn is contracted by the County through the California Department of Forestry. Two fire stations exist in La Quinta; another station will be required in the future to serve development in the northern portion of the City. One of the existing stations (Francis Hack Lane) requires expansion as it is too small to meet future urban fire protection needs. Since the fire district is considered a separate district, it may establish an assessment district or Impact Fee under the Office of the Fire District in order to build new fire facilities. This is still under analysis by City staff. For this reason, fire protection facilities are not recommended to be part of the proposed Development Impact Fees. If the City Council so desires to include fire protection facilities as part of the Development Impact Fees, the total projected revenue for providing a new fire station in the north La Quinta area and expand the fire station in the Village/Cove area is estimated at $2,414,256. Table B-5 on Page B-6 of Appendix B revises the summary of calculated Impact Fees per unit of development if fire protection facilities are added. Since all types of development require fire protection, the fire protection fee is spread among all development except for parks, schools, and public facilities. Table B-6 on Page B-6 of Appendix B indicates a total projected revenue for the Development Impact Fee Program of $50,055,818 if fire protection facilities are included. Included with this report as Attachment 4 is the Development Impact Fee comparison spreadsheet that includes fire protection facilities. TUMF In September 1984, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) began development of the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) to identify the Coachella Valley's street and highway needs through the year 2010. Based on the CVATS completed in December 1987, $800,000,000 in State, Regional, and Local improvements were identified. Approximately $590,000,000 of that amount was earmarked for new improvements to the Regional Arterial System. Proposed facilities include improved freeway interchanges, railroad crossings, bridges across the Whitewater River and other channels, and major arterials. Through this Coachella Valley Sub Regional Planning Effort, it was determined that approximately 50% of the projects on the future streets and highway system which are needed to accommodate growth would be built using existing transportation revenues (developer contributions and local streets and road funding). The remaining 50% of the needed funding would be provided by alternative funding mechanisms. CVAG staff concluded that two funding mechanisms may be appropriate as alternative T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615d.wpd LJ'J 0 funding mechanisms in implementation of the system. One funding mechanism would be 25% from the 1 /2% sales tax (Measure "A" program), and the other 25% would be funded by implementing a Valley wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley, only two are not directly participating in the TUMF Program. These are the Cities of La Quinta and Coachella. In addition to TUMF Fees, the effective local agencies are encouraged to provide additional funding for regional projects through the City's Gas Tax Subvention, Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program Funds Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), developer dedications and the local share of the Measure "A" 1 /2% Sales Tax. Staff has analyzed the City's position regarding the TUMF Program. Staff is not recommending changing the City's position at this time. A detailed analysis is provided as Attachment 5. Charter Implications The proposed Development Impact Fee Policy follows the requirements set out in Government Code Section 66000 et seq, with the exception that the time for payment of the fees will remain at the time of the issuance of Building Permit rather than the time of issuing the Occupancy Permit. The City's Charter gives the City authority to implement the City's own procedures for matters of local concern and by continuing the prior timing requirement, the City is more able to insure the timely construction of the public infrastructure as needed by the new development. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta amending Resolution No.'s 85-26, 87-39, and 97-70 relative to the Development Impact Fee Policy pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Study dated May 1 999; or 2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta with amendment to include fire protection facilities, amending Resolutions No. 85-26, 87-39, and 97-70 relative to the Development Impact Fee Policy pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Study dated May 1999; or 3. Direct staff to negotiate an agreement with CVAG to enter into the TUMF/Measure "A" Program, adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta with amendment to include TUMF Fees as part of the Development Impact Fee Policy, continue the Public Hearing to July 6, 1999 at which time the amended Resolution and the impacts of the amendment will be submitted to the City Council for review and approval; or et►13 T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\ 1999\990615d. wpd 4. Direct staff to negotiate an agreement with CVAG to enter into the TUMF/Measure "A" Program, adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta with amendment to include TUMF Fees and fire protection facilities as part of the Development Impact Fee Policy, continue the Public Hearing to July 6, 1999 at which time the amended Resolution and the impacts of the amendment will be submitted to the City Council for review and approval; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Chris A. Voeft, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Development Impact Fee Study, May 1999 2. Basis for Number of Trips Generated 3. Development Impact Fee Comparison Spreadsheet 4. Development Impact Fee Comparison Spreadsheet including Fire Protection Facilities 5. TUMF Analysis Exhibit A- Developer Fee & TUMF Spreadsheet Exhibit B - Spreadsheet identifying the proposed Development Impact Fee with the TUMF fees Exhibit C - Spreadsheet indicating Development Impact Fee Comparison with the TUMF fees included including Fire Station Improvement 6 T:\PWDEPT\COUNC1L\1 999\99061 5d.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBERS 85-26, 87-39, AND 97-70, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FEE POLICY TO A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE POLICY WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982; and WHEREAS, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues to experience significant development pressure in the form of applications and proposals for new residential and commercial land development within the City; and WHEREAS, there is a lack of public improvements and facilities, including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the present and future citizens of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, the City's existing circulation system is inadequate to handle current and future traffic patterns and it is essential to widen City streets which have inadequate width, improve the circulation system to accommodate an anticipated increase in traffic, and improve and develop bridges and traffic signals suitable for traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City, with the consequent increase in population and demand for the use of public facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities, including but not limited to park and recreation facilities, major thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety facilities and other public buildings; directly from new development and the need cannot be met and financed from ordinary City revenues; and WHEREAS, the most practicable and equitable method of paying for such needed facilities is to impose a fee upon new development within the City and the payment of such a fee enable the City to fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as they are required and demanded; that when a development pays the Development Impact Fee established by this policy, the City Council will be able to find that all necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the need and, in the event such finding cannot be made, the City Council will be required to disapprove the development as being inconsistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 1985, the City Council deemed it necessary and desirable to establish a policy regarding the requirements which must be met before the City Council will find that the Public Building and Facilities Element has been satisfied and to establish a policy that will allow development to proceed in an orderly T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5d.wpd manner while insuring that the requirements of the Public Building and Facilities Element will be satisfied by establishing a fee to fund the cost of the above stated City provided facilities which will insure the availability of said facilities concurrent with need. Said policy was the subject of Resolution No. 85-26 and was entitled the "Community Infrastructure Fee Policy"; and WHEREAS, the City Council established the fee in an amount reduced from the recommended fee amount in order to reduce the cost of housing in La Quinta and to make housing more affordable, and the City Council contemplated that said Infrastructure Fee, as established, would be reviewed periodically to determine whether amendments were necessary to provide sufficient funds for needed capital improvements; and WHEREAS, Resolution 87-39 was adopted by the City Council on August 4, 1987; and WHEREAS, Resolution 87-39 was based upon an Infrastructure Fee Report dated June 1, 1987 and June 18, 1987, which at that time accurately stated the need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities, and services to serve new development; and WHEREAS, Resolution 87-39 became effective on October 5, 1987 and remained in effect for a period of ten years, at which time it was to be repealed, provided; however, that such period of time shall be extended by any period of time during which a residential development moratorium was in existence within the City; and WHEREAS, Resolution 97-70 was adopted by the City Council on August 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, Resolution 97-70 extended the Community Infrastructure Fee Program beyond October 4, 1997 until the program is replaced by the proposed updated Development Impact Fee Program; and WHEREAS, in 1989 the California Statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase, and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project"; and WHEREAS, public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public improvements, public services, and community amenities"; and WHEREAS, these requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB1600" requirements after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated; and T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615d.wpd WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees must make findings to: 1 . Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of a fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and type of development on which the fee is imposed; C. The amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides authority to the City to regulate all Municipal affairs under Article 1 Section 100; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this fee program and procedures as set out in this Resolution is formed to be a matter of local concern to implement in a timely manner public infrastructures; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted further studies relative to future community infrastructure needs; the funds necessary to meet said capital improvement needs; and the relationship between those needs and future development; and based upon said studies and reports, the City Council hereby amends said Resolution No. 85-26, 87- 39, and 97-70 to be replaced in their entirety as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DOES HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City Council further finds that: a. The report entitled "Development Impact Fee Study," dated May 1999 (the "Fee Study"), accurately states the City's need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities and services to serve new development. The Fee Study sets forth a necessary and reasonable method of funding said buildings and facilities. The Fee Study shows that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the projected types of development; the need for the various public facilities by the projected types of development pursuant to the City's General Plan; and the amount of the fee and the proportionate facility cost related to the development. The Fee Study is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. b. The categories of community infrastructure and the percent of said infrastructure fee attributed to each category of infrastructure in the Fee Study are as follows: T:\PWDEPT\C0UNCIL\1 999\99061 5d. W pd Transportation 39.47 % Parks 1 7.31 % Civic Center 26.86% Library 10.1 8% Community Centers 4.59% Street/Park Maintenance 1 .59% C. In order to allow residential and commercial land development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring that all new development is consistent with the General Plan, including the Public Building and Facilities Element, it is necessary and appropriate to establish the following Development Impact Fee to be imposed upon new development. Said fee will assist the City in funding a construction program to provide such needed public buildings and facilities as they are required and needed. 2. Development Impact Fee Policy Amount. Prior to approval of any zoning, re zoning, subdivision, or development proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Development Impact Fee in the following amount for the following type development: a. Residential Single Family Detached - $1 ,907 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) b. Residential Single Family Attached - $1,569 per EDU C. Residential Multi Family Other - $1,201 per EDU d. Office/Hospital - $1 ,475 per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area (KSF) e. General Commercial - $1,1 17 per KSF f. Tourist Commercial - $543 per room g. Golf Courses - $204 per acre The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building permit. 3. Use of Funds Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Policy shall be paid into special capital outlay funds to be established by the City. Said fund or funds shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property and public improvements and facilities described as community infrastructure in this Resolution, as the City Council may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures of funds available from the special capital outlay fund(s) shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual operating and capital improvements budget or at E T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615d.wpd V )� such other time as the City Council may direct. 4. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluding from the fees imposed by policy, the following: a. Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States or the State of California. b. The construction of any building by the City of La Quinta, the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. 5. Credits Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Development Impact Fee shall be in addition to and not in lieu of other valid exactions imposed upon new development through the subdivision or other approval processes. Provided; however, that payment of the Development Impact Fee shall be in lieu of payment of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signalization funds pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code, 3.17.020. Provided further that in the event developer is required to directly provide infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee structure developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against the fee. The City hereby determines that the infrastructure fee is not intended to be the exclusive method of installation of needed public buildings and facilities and the City will consider alternative proposals to provide needed infrastructure to particular development and, to the extent such alternative proposal is discretionary approved by the City Council, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against payment of the Development Impact Fee. Any developer seeking alternative methods of installation shall submit such proposal to the City at the time of submittal of an application for development. 6. Validity. Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. In determining the amount of Development Impact Fee, the City Council has been guided by the Fee Study mentioned in paragraph one hereof. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other category. The City Council further finds, 15 T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615d. wpd declares and determines that the Development Impact Fee on all remaining valid fee categories shall be increased by the amounts of the fee categories declared invalid. Provided; however, that the amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so increased over and above the amount recommended by said report for each category. 7. Administration and Enforcement. Effective Date.Re e�aler. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this policy. His decision may be appealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute necessary agreements for the administration of this policy. This Resolution shall become effective August 16, 1999. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15" Day of June 1999 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: John J. Pena, Mayor City of La Quinta, California /_r09439 SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\1999\99061 5d—pd (7 uIG' AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEVELOPER -OWNER AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR THE PAYMENT OF A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this by and between (name of developer -owner) a (corporation, partnership, etc.) "Developer" whose address is day of hereinafter referred to as , 19 , (Street) (City, State, and Zip Code) and the CITY of LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part of this agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Property lies within the boundaries of City or is proposed to be annexed to City; and WHEREAS, Developer proposes a development project as follows: on said Property, which development carries the proposed name of: and is hereafter referred to as "Development"; and WHEREAS, Developer filed on the the City a request for day of 19 , with T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5d.wpd Hereinafter referred to as "Request"; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Public Buildings and Facilities Element of the City General Plan which requires that the City Council find that all public facilities necessary to serve a development will be available concurrent with need or such development shall not be approved; and WHEREAS, Developer and City recognize the need and validity of Council Resolution No. 99- dated June 15, 1999, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference, and that the City's public facilities and services are at capacity and will not be available to accommodate the additional need for public facilities and services resulting from the proposed Development; and WHEREAS, Developer has asked the City to find that public facilities and services will be available to meet the future needs of the Development as it is presently proposed; but the Developer is aware that the City cannot and will not be able to make any such finding without financial assistance to pay for such services and facilities; and therefore, Developer proposes to pay its pro-rata share of the cost of said facilities by payment of the Development Impact Fee as required by Resolution No. 99- . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1 . Developer shall pay to City a Development Impact Fee for the purpose of funding the cost of increasing the level of public facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate the increased needs resulting from the cumulative impact of new development. The amount of said fee and the terms and conditions relative to payment thereof shall be as set forth in said Resolution No. 99- issuance of a building or other construction permit for the development. 2. This agreement and the fee paid pursuant hereto are required to ensure the consistency of the Development with the City's General Plan. If the fee is not paid as provided herein, the City will not have the funds to provide the public facilities and services, and the development will not be consistent with the General Plan and any approval or permit for the Development shall be void. 3. City agrees to deposit the fees paid pursuant to this agreement into one or more public facilities capital outlay funds for the financing of public facilities to be constructed when the City Council determines the need exists to provide the facilities and sufficient funds from the payment of this and similar Development Impact Fees are available. 01 T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5d.wpd 4. City agrees to provide upon request reasonable assurances to enable Developer to comply with any requirements of other public agencies as evidence of adequate public facilities and services sufficient to accommodate the needs of the Development herein described. 5. All obligations hereunder shall terminate in the event the Requests made by Developer are disapproved. 6. This agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of, and shall apply to, the respective successors and assigns of Developer and the City, and references to Developer or City herein shall be deemed to be reference to and include their respective successors and assigns without specific mention of such successors and assigns. If Developer should cease to have any interest in the Property, all obligations of Developer hereunder shall terminate; provided, however, that any successor of Developer's interest in the property shall have first assumed in writing the Developer's obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed in Riverside County, California, as of the date first written above. DEVELOPER -OWNER �-"v M. (Name) (Title) (Title) CITY OF LA QUINTA, a municipal corporation of the State of California BY: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk 01 i TAPWDEPT\C0UNCIL\1 999\990615d.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY MAY, 1999 Prepared by: DMG-MAXIMUS 4320 Auburn Blvd. Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 May, 1999 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL John Pena, Mayor Terry Henderson, Mayor Pro Tern Don Adolph, Council Member Ron Perkins, Council Member Stanley Sniff, Council Member CITY MANAGER Thomas P. Genovese CITY STAFF Building and Safety Department Thomas Hartung, Building and Safety Director City Attorney's Office Dawn C. Honeywell, City Attorney City Manager's Office Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager Community Development Department Jerry Herman, Community Development Director Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Community Services Department Dodie Horvitz, Community Services Director Finance Department John Falconer, Finance Director John Risley, Accounting Supervisor Public Works Department Chris A. Vogt, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer OTHER ASSISTANCE Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Dan Miller DMG-MAXIMUS STAFF Joseph Colgan, AICP, Project Manager DMG-MAXIMUS May, 1999 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary A. Organization of the Report S-1 B. Facilities Addressed in this Report S-1 C. Development Projections S-2 D. Impact Fee Analysis S-2 E. Recovery of Study Cost S-5 F. Summary of Impact Fees S-5 G. Projected Revenue S-6 F. Implementation S-6 Section 1 - Introduction A. Legal Background 1-1 B. Purpose of the Fees 1-3 C. Use of the Fees 1-3 D. Reasonable Relationship Requirement 1-4 E. Impact Fee Methodology 1-5 F. Facilities to be Addressed 1-8 G. Relationship to the General Plan 1-8 Section 2 - Land Use and Development Potential A. Background and Setting 2-1 B. Study Area and Time Frame 2-2 C. Residential Development and Population 2-2 D. Non -Residential Development 2-4 E. Measures of Development 2-4 F. Existing and Forecasted Development 2-6 Section 3 - Transportation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 3-1 B. Level of Service 3-1 C. Demand Variable 3-2 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 3-2 E. Impact Fees 3-7 Section 4 - Parks and Recreation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 4-1 B. Level of Service 4-1 C. Demand Variable 4-3 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 4-3 E. Impact Fees 4-3 DMG-MAXIMUS Page May, 1999 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section 5 - Civic Center Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 5-1 B. Level of Service 5-1 C. Demand Variable 5-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 5-3 E. Impact Fees 5-4 Section 6 - Library Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 6-1 B. Level of Service 6-1 C. Demand Variable 6-2 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 6-2 E. Impact Fees 6-3 Section 7 - Community Center Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 7-1 B. Level of Service 7-1 C. Demand Variable 7-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 7-2 E. Impact Fees 7-2 Section 8 - Maintenance Facility Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 8-1 B. Level of Service 8-1 C. Demand Variable 8-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 8-2 E. Impact Fees 8-3 Section 9 - Implementation A. Adoption 9-1 B Administration 9-1 C. Training and Public Information 9-7 Appendix A - Detailed Cost Estimates for Street Improvements Appendix B - Fire Protection Impact Fees DMG-MAXIMUS Page ii 0 R �.! �� r1r City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the City of La Quinta by DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. (formerly David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.) It is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) which is commonly known as "AB 1600", and to support findings necessary to satisfy both statutory and constitutional standards for the establish- ment and imposition of development impact fees. A. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Section 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees as well as methods used in this study to calculate the fees. Section 2 contains information on existing and planned land uses and development in La Quinta, and organizes that data in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Sections 3 through 8 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify fa- cilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 9 discusses procedures and legal requirements for implementing an impact fee program under California law. It addresses adoption, administration, and training. B. FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT The types of public facilities covered by this report are listed below, along with the report sec- tions in which they are addressed. Transportation Improvements (Section 3) Parks and Recreation Facilities (Section 4) Civic Center (Section 5) Libraries (Section 6) Community Centers (Section 7) Maintenance Facilities (Section 8) May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-I c'. U2%5 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development expected to occur in La Quinta from 1998 to buildout of the City under the current General Plan. It is not necessary for purposes of this study to forecast the time at which buildout will occur. Estimated development potential of the study area was evaluated by the La Quinta Community Development Department and is based on the current La Quinta General Plan. Other data on de- velopment and demographics were taken from the 1990 Census, Department of Finance Popula- tion estimates, and the Residential and Commercial Development Status Reports prepared periodically by the Community Development Department. As shown in Section 2 of this report, La Quinta's population and developed acreage at buildout are expected to reach more than three times their current levels. The number of vehicle trips gen- erated in the City is projected to increase to more than three times the current level. The extent of that growth potential has important implications for future City facility needs. D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS Each type of facility addressed in this report was analyzed individually. In each case, the rela- tionship between development and the need for additional facilities was quantified in a way that allows impact fees to be calculated for various categories of development. For each type of facil- ity, a specific, measurable attribute of development was used to represent the demand for addi- tional capital facilities. Recommended impact fees for all types of facilities are summarized in Table S-l. The impact fees calculated in this report cover only capital costs. They do not in- clude any ongoing costs for maintenance or operations. The following paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in the analysis of each type of facility Transportation Improvements. The recommended impact fees for street system improve- ments are based on the cost of improvements to major and primary arterial streets, bridges and interchanges, traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls required to serve future development in La Quinta. Those fees assume that developers would continue to be directly responsible for May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS ,Page S-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study internal streets, and for certain arterial street improvements in cases where a project fronts on an arterial. Specific improvements to be funded by the impact fee are listed in the report. The rela- tionship between development and the need for additional street capacity is defined in the study as a function of additional peak hour trip -miles generated by development (See Section 2 for a discussion of peak hour trip -miles). Park and Recreation Improvements. The recommended impact fee for park and recreation im- provements is based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of serv- ice, defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The impact fee analysis addresses neighborhood and community parks only. The proposed impact fees do not include the cost of land acquisition, and are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee -in -lieu re- quirements under the Quimby Act. Since the need for park acreage is defined in terms of popula- tion, the impact fee for park improvements will apply only to residential development. Civic Center. The impact fee analysis for the civic center assumes that the existing facility and a planned expansion will be adequate to serve existing and future development in La Quinta. Im- pact fees were calculated by allocating total costs for the civic center facility on the same basis to all existing and future development. That method allows civic center costs to be shared propor- tionately by all users. As it turned out, the share of cost initially attributed to future development in the study is somewhat greater than future funding needs, so the impact fees were reduced to correspond to the lesser amount. The relationship between development and the need for addi- tional space in the civic center is complex and indirect. For reasons explained in the body of the report, this study uses developed acreage to represent the demand for facilities civic center. Libraries. The impact fee for libraries was based on the cost of facilities needed to serve new development at a level of service somewhat lower than the standard specified in the La Quinta General Plan. The adopted standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita. The impact fee analysis is based on 0.22 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita, and assumes that the City will ultimately construct a 20,000 square foot library to serve May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study both existing and future development. Because of the deficiency in existing facilities relative to the standard used in the study, the City will have to contribute approximately $1.76 million from non -impact fee sources to justify impact fees at the recommended level --even after allowing a credit for the value of the collection in the existing storefront library. Because library facility needs are defined in terms of population, impact fees for library facilities would apply only to residential development. Community Center Facilities. Impact fees for community center facilities are based on the cost of maintaining the City's current level of service in terms of square feet per capita. The only ex- isting community center facility identified in the study is the multi -purpose room at the Senior Center. Because community center facility needs are defined in terms of population, impact fees for those facilities would apply only to residential development. Maintenance Facilities. Impact fees to fund capital costs for development -related street and park maintenance facilities and equipment are based on the City's current level of investment relative to existing development. Costs for street and park maintenance facilities are allocated separately, in a manner that reflects differences in their relationship to development. Costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated on the same basis as the cost of street improvements, using peak hour trip -miles to represent demand. Costs for park maintenance facilities and equip- ment are allocated on the same basis as the cost of park improvements, using population to repre- sent demand. As a result, impact fees for street maintenance facilities apply to all types of development while impact fees for park maintenance facilities apply only to residential development. Table S-1 summarizes the impact fees calculated in later sections of this report. Fees are shown for one unit of development, by facility type and land use category. As discussed below, the fees shown in table S-1 have been adjusted to incorporate the cost of preparing this study. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-4 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study E. RECOVERY OF STUDY COST As with other types of analysis needed to obtain funding for capital facilities, the cost of prepar- ing this study may be recovered through impact fees. The fee summary shown in Table S-1 on the next page is based on the fees calculated in Sections 3-8, but the fees have been adjusted to incorporate the cost of this study. That adjustment assumes it will be necessary to update the study in five years, and that the City will collect an average of $2 million per year in impact fees. Thus, the $53,000 cost of the study is divided by $10 million (the projected five year total of all impact fees to be collected by the City) to determine the percentage increase needed to recoup the cost of the study. That percentage is 0.53%, so the fees have been increased by just over one- half percentage point to account for the cost of the study. To make that adjustment, fees calcu- lated in subsequent sections of this report have been multiplied by 1.0053 to arrive at the fees shown in Table S-1, below. F. SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES Table S-1 summarizes the recommended impact fees by development category and facility type. The amounts shown in that table based on the analysis in subsequent sections of this report. Table S-1 Summary of Calculated Impact Fees per Unit of Development ?i?i::::;:::; ':5<•>. i:i' '.^ :'<>;Y:%>:%.��A:�#�::%:;�>:::t :•..: ��.� :•.��I.�.::::.�:::.;•.�i:+iii �::ii 'riiii:'iji: ::•:ii:�:•::«�::::i;�: ;i:;:5 •:: is ;!ii �::{iip:i4 .:: 3.+.YfF.4:::i� .�:•:+i!3:4:i:� ...AA:i"a. �:v; .....•tF....#.�.............. ^:•ii;•i;•}}::: iii:L:4i: .....:.. ...:.................:..............:::.::..::.:.::......:::..:axt....................... `.I:::»:::;::;>.... ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .1.... # c.........r.........rl......... ent. ....: l4? ...........P.::::....'tI.:::. Res (SFD) DU 4 $ 568 $ 402 $ 569 $ 236 $ 107 $ 19 $ 6 $1,907 Res (SFA) z DU $ 568 $ 281 $ 457 $ 166 $ 74 $ 19 $ 4 $1,569 Res (MFO)' DU $ 332 $ 368 $ 169 $ 217 $ 98 $ 11 $ 6 $1,201 Office/Hosp KSF' $1,092 - $ 346 - - $ 37 - $1,475 General Com KSF $ 890 - $ 197 - - $ 30 - $1,117 Tourist Corn Room $ 288 - $ 245 - - $ 10 - $ 543 Golf Courses Acre $ 106 - $ 94 - - $ 4 - $ 204 1 Residential - single family detached. 4 DU = dwelling unit 2 Residential - single family attached 5 KSF = 1000 square feet of gross building area. 3 Residential - multi -family and other d 4 _1 May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-5 r' ' ��2;� City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study As indicated above, the fees shown in Table S-1 have been adjusted slightly to include the cost of preparing this study. That adjustment increases the total recommended impact fee for a single family dwelling by $10.00--from $1897 to $1,907. For other land use categories, the increase ranges from $3.00 to $8.00 per unit of development. G. PROJECTED REVENUE Table S-2 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now to buildout, assuming that the fees are adopted as recommended and that all development anticipated in this report actually occurs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars. Table S-2 Projected Impact Fee Revenue Transportation $18,802,498 Parks $ 8,247,054 Civic Center $12,797,375 Libraries $ 4,850,994 Community Centers $ 2,184,389 Street/Park Maintenance $ 759,252 Total $47,641,562 I Projected Revenue in current dollars. H. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues. Section 9 of this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding require- ments, updating of fees, and staff training. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-6 �:itl1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made regarding the share of facility costs to be funded by impact fees, and other sources of funding to be used for those facilities not funded by the fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report are intended to represent the maximum impact fee amount justified by the analysis. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. In that event, it is impor- tant that the Council identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and the share of total cost to be recovered through the fees. It should also be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars. To the extent that costs for capital improvements escalate over time, the impact fees should be adjusted to keep pace with that inflation. We recommend annual adjustments based on changes in the Engineer- ing News Record Building Cost Index. If the fees are not escalated for inflation, the City could experience a significant shortfall in anticipated funding over several years. A 14 May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page S-7 03i City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The City of La Quinta retained DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. (formerly David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.) to analyze the fiscal impacts of anticipated development on certain public facilities, and to prepare a schedule of development impact fees based on that analysis. This study is intended to satisfy the legal requirements governing such fees, including but not limited to those portions of the California Government Code known as The Mitigation Fee Act (Sections 66000 et seq.) which govern the establishment and imposition of fees levied as a condition of development project approval. Development impact fees are one-time charges imposed on development projects to recover capital costs for public facilities needed to serve those new developments and the additional residents, employees, and visitors they bring to the community. The use of impact fees has become widespread in California in the last decade as a response to local government budget strains brought on by tax limitations, reallocation of revenues, and a loss of federal and state financial assistance. Many communities have increased their reliance on developers for funding of development -related public facilities. California law does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees can be charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the use of impact fees for ongoing maintenance or operating costs (see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently, the fees recommended in this report are based on capital costs only. A. LEGAL BACKGROUND The legal authority to impose fees on development may be specifically granted by statute, or it may be found in general grants of authority to local governments under most state constitutions. California's impact fee statutes do not contain specific enabling language, so cities and counties in this state depend on their police power or home rule powers for the authority to levy such fees. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-1 ' 03" City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Constitutional Considerations. Like all exactions on development, impact fees are subject to constitutional limitations. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of development impact fees as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided they meet certain standards. Those standards are intended to insure, among other things, that impact fees do not violate Fifth Amendment limitations on the taking of private property. To be constitutionally valid, development regulations must advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the provision of adequate public facilities so that development does not cause deterioration in the quality of essential public services. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such an exaction and the government's legitimate interest. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994), the Court made clear that an agency also must show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. It should be noted that Dolan is less significant for impact fees than for other types of exactions (e.g. mandatory dedication of land) because proportionality is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees, and legal scholars are debating the application of Dolan to fee payments. California Law. In 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project...." Public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act, (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB 1600" requirements, after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated. The statute establishes procedures for adopting and justifying impact fees. It also includes restrictions on the collection and expenditure of fees, and a provision requiring the refunding of fees under certain conditions. Annual reporting of activity in impact fee accounts is also required, May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study as is a more complete reconciliation every five years. Reporting requirements were revised by the Legislature in 1996 as part of AB 1693, and are discussed in more detail in the Implementation Section of this report. To satisfy the requirements of Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: l . Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Those requirements are discussed in detail below. B. PURPOSE OF THE FEES The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees recommended in this study is to fund the construction of certain capital improvements which are identified in this report. Those improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in La Quinta, and to prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were not available to fund those improvements. C. USE OF THE FEES If a fee subject to Government Code Section 66001 is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-3 R 034 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study mandatory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. This report is intended to fulfill that requirement. Specific facilities used to calculate impact fees in this study are identified in subsequent sections of the report. D. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT As discussed above, Government Code Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between: [ 1 ] the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; [2] the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, [3] the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements closely resemble the "benefit," "impact," and "proportionality" elements, respectively, of the nexus standard which has evolved in the courts to test the validity of development exactions. In our opinion, "reasonable relationship" as defined by these requirements is identical to "nexus" as a practical matter. We will use the nexus terminology in this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy either formulation. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. Impact Relationship. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality of public services for the entire community deteriorates. The improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in La Quinta are identified in subsequent sections of this report. The need for those improvements is analyzed May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-4 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study in terms of quantifiable relationships between development and the demand for various type of facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. Benefit Relationship. A reasonable benefit relationship requires that fee revenues are expended to provide the facilities for which they are collected, and that those facilities are available to serve the development on which the fees are imposed. Nothing in the law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees. However, the proximity of facilities to the developments paying impact fees to construct them has been an issue in some cases. Procedurally, statutory provisions governing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues, and the requirement for refunding of fees not expended in a timely fashion, are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Proportionality Relationship. A reasonable proportionality relationship must be established through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. As a practical matter, compliance with both statute and case law requires an agency to show that impact fees will be used to pay for capital facilities needed to serve new development, and that the amount charged to different types of development is fairly related to the demands imposed on public facilities. It is well -established that impact fees may not be used to mitigate pre-existing deficiencies in public facilities, to subsidize level -of -service improvements for the existing community or to solve problems not created by the development paying the fee. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions, including impact fees, may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. Methods of allocating facility costs and calculating fees to meet the proportionality requirement are discussed below. E. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY In general, any one of several approaches may be used in calculating impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends on the service characteristics of the facility being addressed and the May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-5 U3E► City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study availability of information on facility plans and future development. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable Reduced to its simplest elements, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of improvements needed to serve development, and allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees is complicated by complex relationships between development and facility needs, and by limited information about future conditions. Below we discuss three approaches to calculating impact fees, and their applicability to certain situations. Plan -based Impact Fees. This method is used in this study to calculate impact fees for streets and certain community facilities. It is most appropriate where the estimated costs for a specified set of improvements (facility plan) are being allocated to all development represented by a specified land use plan. Costs are allocated in proportion to the relative intensity of demand represented by each type of development. This method assumes that the entire service capacity of the planned facilities will be absorbed by projected development, or that excess capacity is necessarily related to serving future development. For example, it may be necessary to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but some capacity may remain unused after that development occurs. The plan -based method is often the most workable approach where it is difficult to measure the actual service consumed by development --for example, with respect to administrative and law enforcement facilities. It is also useful for facilities such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. Capacity -based Impact Fees. The capacity -based method was not applied in this study and is discussed here to only provide additional background. It is most appropriate where the cost and capacity of a facility or system are known, and the amount of capacity used by a particular quantity of development can be measured or estimated. The total amount of development to be served need not be known to calculate the fee, so this method is not dependent on a specific land use plan or a specific set of development projections. This type of fee is established as a rate, or May, 1999. DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-6 La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study cost per unit of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development --provided that adequate capacity remains uncommitted in the facilities on which the fee is based. Capacity -based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems. To calculate a capacity -based impact fee rate per unit of demand, facility cost is divided by facility capacity. To apply the rate to a development project, or to produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of capacity needed to serve a particular quantity and type of development. Standard -based Impact Fees. The standard -based method was used in this study to calculate impact fees for parks, libraries, and community and senior centers. The standard -based method is related to the capacity -based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit of demand. With the standard -based approach, costs are initially determined on a generic unit -cost basis, and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the amount of capacity to be made available per unit of development. This approach differs from the capacity -based approach which typically determines unit cost by dividing the cost of a planned or actual facility by its capacity. The standard -based method is useful where facility need is defined in terms of a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description. It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. Also, the cost per acre for a certain type of park can usually be estimated without knowing the location of a particular park or the total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for buildings such as libraries or administrative offices, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One advantage of this approach is that a fee can be established without committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can then be adjusted based on the amount of development that actually occurs, avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 1-7 v 0 3 "- City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study this method may not be well -suited to specialized recreation facilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements. F. FACILITIES TO BE ADDRESSED Public facilities, equipment and infrastructure improvements relating to the following functions will be addressed in this study: • Transportation Improvements • Parks and Recreation Facilities • Civic Center • Fire Protection Facilities • Libraries • Community Centers • Maintenance Facilities G. RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN Much of the analysis in this report is based on information contained in the City of La Quinta 1992 General Plan, with particular emphasis on the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Park and Recreation Element, and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element. However, data on existing development has been updated to April, 1998 by the La Quinta Community Development Department. Projections of future development used in this study are intended to reflect the development potential of all undeveloped land covered by the City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element. Except for specific applications noted in subsequent sections, no growth rate or buildout date is assumed. May, 1999 DMG-MAMMUS Page 1-8 i � � City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 2 LAND USE, DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Land use, demographics and development potential, both existing and projected, must be ana- lyzed in preparing the City's impact fee program. This section of the report organizes and corre- lates information on existing land use, population and employment, as well as projected development, to form a basis for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent sections of the report. The information in this section provides a framework for defining levels of service, for projecting public facilities needs, and for allocating the cost of new capital facilities between ex- isting and future development, and among various types of new development. Information on land use and demographics for this study was prepared with the assistance of the La Quinta Community Development Department. Sources of data include the 1992 La Quinta General Plan, the 1990 U.S. Census, California Department of Finance population estimates, and the Residential and Commercial Development Status Reports prepared periodically by the Community Development Department. Data on existing land use, demographics and develop- ment used in this report have been updated to April, 1998. A. BACKGROUND AND SETTING La Quinta is located in the desert resort area of the Coachella Valley in south-central Riverside County. The City is located along State Route 111, just east of Indian Wells, and just west of In- dio. In places, La Quinta is contiguous with both of those communities. Existing development in the City is primarily residential, and includes both conventional residential development and gated residential and resort communities, some of which contain one or more golf courses. Although a relatively small portion of the land in La Quinta is designated for commercial use, major regional commercial development is occurring along Highway 111, and more is planned. A significant portion of the City's total land area lies on the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains, and much of that land is reserved as open space. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study B. STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME The analysis in this study addresses all development expected from the present time to buildout of the area encompassed by the 1992 La Quinta General Plan as amended. The impact fee analy- sis in this report does not depend on the rate or timing of development, so development projec- tions in this section do not make assumptions about when buildout will occur. C. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION In this study, residential development is classified in one of three categories: Single -Family De- tached, Single -Family Attached, which include condominiums and townhouses, and Multi- Family/Other which includes apartments and mobile homes. That breakdown is consistent with existing and anticipated patterns of residential development in La Quinta. Dwelling units are used as the basic measure of the amount of residential development in each category. According to the City's Residential Status Report, single-family detached units accounted for about 67% of all residential units at the end of 1996, with single-family attached units making up about 27%. Thus, together, the two categories make up approximately 94% of La Quinta's existing residential units. Forecasts of future residential development indicate the percentage of single-family de- tached units at buildout will increase to 72%, with single-family attached and multi-family/other units accounting for 19% and 9% respectively. Population. Estimates of existing population and projections of future population in La Quinta are used this study. Those estimates and projections are based on existing and forecasted dwell- ing units, and the average number of persons per dwelling unit. Demographic data from the 1990 Census and Department of Finance population estimates have been used in developing population estimates and forecasts. Population in group quarters makes up an insignificant percentage of the existing population, and is not addressed in population the forecasts. La Quinta's January, 1998 population, as estimated by the state Department of Finance, was 20,445. That number represents permanent residents. However, as is the case for other desert re- sort communities, La Quinta's population increases considerably during the winter months, owing May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-2 4 C4. City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study to an influx of seasonal residents. The 1990 Census, taken on April 1, showed that 39% of all residential units in La Quinta were vacant, including 26% which were for "seasonal, occasional, or recreational" use. The Community Development Department estimates that the City's total population may exceed the permanent population by as much as 50% during peak periods. Figure 2-A illustrates the growth of La Quinta's permanent population, which has doubled since the City's incorporation in 1989--an average growth rate of 8.1 % per year. The population figures shown in Fig- ure 2-A are Department of Finance esti- mates for January 1 of each year, except for the U.S. Census population in 1990. Permanent Population 24000 c 18000-........._._.._.._........._..._.._..._._._.........._._............. 0 12000 ............................. _a O a 6000 0 1989 19901991 19921M 1994199519H 1997 1998 Year, Figure 2-A Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is not especially useful as a measure of the demand for public services. Because of seasonal fluctuations in the population of La Quinta, the number of permanent residents of the City seriously understates the actual service demand represented by residential development in the City. Once a dwelling unit has been approved and constructed, the City is committed to serve the demand created by that unit. It has no control over whether, or when, such units are occupied. Thus, to better represent the City's service commitments, this study uses "potential population" as the basic measure of de- mand for population -related public services and the facilities that support them. As used in this report, "potential population" means the number of people who would reside in the City if all dwelling units existing at a particular time were occupied. The potential population is estimated for each category of residential development by multiplying the number of dwelling units in that category (existing or future) by the average number of persons per occupied unit for that type of development. Potential population for the City as a whole is the sum of the potential populations for all categories of residential development. This study employs 1990 Census data May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-3 0 4 c City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study to establish the average number of persons per occupied dwelling unit for each category of resi- dential development. Those factors are used in estimating potential population as of April 1998, and at buildout. Henceforth, unless otherwise indicated, when the term "population" is used in this report it will mean "potential population." D. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In this study, private, non-residential development will be classified in three categories: Office, General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial. The office and tourist commercial categories are equivalent to classifications used in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The General Commercial category used in this study encompasses all other types of commercial development addressed by the Land Use Element (Mixed/Regional, Community, Neighborhood, Commercial Park, and Village). La Quinta has no existing industrial development, and none is planned. For purposes of impact fee analysis, commercial development can be measured in a number of ways. In this report, the basic measure of development for office and general commercial uses is gross building area, in thousands of square feet (KSF). Tourist commercial development, which consists of hotels and associated uses, is measured in terms of guest rooms. Data on existing non- residential development are taken from the Commercial Development Status Report. Forecasts of future non-residential development to buildout were prepared with the cooperation of the City's Community Development Department. E. MEASURES OF DEMAND Certain attributes of development, including acreage, population, trip generation, and trip length will be used in the impact fee analysis to represent demand for certain public services, and to pro- vide a yardstick for determining service levels for various types of facilities. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 later in this section present estimates of existing development and forecasts of future de- velopment in La Quinta, as measured by various relevant attributes. The numerical values of those factors used to measure those attributes for various types of development are shown in the May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-4 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study footnotes to Table 2-1. Population and potential population were discussed above. The following paragraphs discuss other measures of demand used in this report. Acreage. Acreage is a basic attribute of all development. In this report, gross acreage is used as a measure of demand for fire protection facilities and -general government facilities. Trip Generation. The number of trips generated by various types of development is commonly used as a basis for allocating the cost of road improvements to various types of development. In this study, we have used peak hour trips, rather than average daily trips, in allocating improve- ment costs. Peak hour trips relate more directly than 24-hour trip generation to the need for addi- tional street capacity. The number of peak hour trips related to a particular development is estimated by applying standard trip generation factors to units of development, such as acres, dwelling units, or square feet of building area. The trip generation rates used in this study are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual Trip Generation. (The 6th edi- tion was used as the primary source, supplemented by data from the 4th edition). Trip Length and Peak Hour Trip -Miles. Both the number of trips generated by development and the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour roadway capacity needed to serve de- velopment. Peak hour trip -miles (the product of peak hour trips and average trip length, by devel- opment type) will be used in this study as an index of demand for roadway capacity. The best available information on average trip lengths by land use type are published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication, Traffic Generators. Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta, we believe they reasonably represent the relative relationship of trip lengths for various types of develop- ment. Because the cost of street improvements is allocated to development projects in proportion to their relative share of total demand, it is the relative relationship, rather than actual trip length, that is important here. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-5 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study It should be noted here that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has devel- oped trip length data for the Coachella Valley. However, those trip lengths are calculated by trip purpose rather than by land use type. In addition, they are intended to reflect travel on regional facilities, and do not include the portion of trips on local street networks. Consequently, the CVAG trip length information is not useful for purposes of this analysis. F. EXISTING AND FORECASTED DEVELOPMENT Summaries of existing and forecasted development in La Quinta, by land use type, are presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-3, beginning on the following page. Charts on this page illustrate graphi- Residential WAdded Figure 2-B cally the relationship of existing development (from Table 2-1) to future development (from Table 2-2). Figure 2-13, at left, shows residential development in terms of dwelling units by type. As that chart illustrates quite clearly, the number of dwelling units anticipated in the future is signifi- cantly greater than the number of units currently existing, for all types of residential development in La Quinta. Figure 2-C shows existing and future non-residential devel- opment in terms of square feet. That chart makes it clear that the magnitude of anticipated future commercial development in La Quinta is very large relative to the amount of existing development in the City. Consequently, the impacts of fu- ture development on the demand for City services and public facilities will also be proportionately large. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Residential NDCISTING ®ADD® Figure 2-C Page 2-6 L 04 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-1 Existing Development - As of April 1998 ;;:>::.:::;:.::: ....... ..... .... . . ... .... ............... ... X9 �. Residential (SF Detached) 1,927 DU' 7,453 22,359 7,528 59,467 Residential (SF Attached) 526 DU 2,847 5,979 2,875 22,71.6 Residential (Multi/Other) 72 DU 381 1,048 225 1,776 Office (Incl Hospitals) 12 KSF' 140 256 2,178 General Commercial 97 KSF 999 3,167 12,667 Tourist Commercial 65 Rooms 641 346 2,631 Public Facilities 70 KSF 246 1,953 11,719 Schools 82 Acres 82 107 426 Developed Parks 33 Acres 33 ill 597 Golf Courses 1,954 Acres 1,954 586 2,931 TOTALS 4,838 1 1 29,385 1 17,154 1 117,109 Note: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. I Existing and future development estimates provided by the City of La Quinta Comm. Dev. Dept. 2 Potential population figures assume 100% occupancy of dwelling units. Persons/DU factors based on 1990 census: SFD = 3.0; SFA = 2.1; Multi/Other = 2.75 3 Peak hour trip rates: SFD = 1.0l/DU; SFA = 1.0l/DU; Multi/Other = 0.59/DU; Office = 1.83/KSF; Gen Comm. = 3.17/KSF; Tourist Comm = 0.54/Room; Public Facilities = 7.94/KSF; Schools = 1.3/Ac; Parks = 3.35/Ac; Golf = 0.30/Ac. 4 Peak hour trip -miles = pk hr trips x avg trip miles (from SANDAG Traffic Generators). Average trip length and [peak hour trip miles]: Res SFD/SFA = 7.9mi [7.98]; Res MFO = 7.9 [4.66]; Office = 8.5 mi [15.56]; Gen. Comm = 4.0 mi [12.681; Tourist Comm. = 7.6 mi [4.10]; Public Facilities = 6.0 mi [47.64]; Schools = 4.0 mi [5.20]; Parks = 5.4 mi [18.09]; Golf Courses = 5.0 mi [1.50]. 5 DU = Dwelling Units. KSF = 1,000 Square Feet Gross Area. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 tabulate existing, future, and ultimate buildout development, respec- tively. In those tables, residential development is shown in three categories: single-family de- tached, single-family attached, and mobile home/other. Private non-residential development is broken down in to several categories: offices, general commercial, and tourist commercial. Exist- ing and forecasted acreage of public facilities, schools, parks and golf courses are also tabulated to provide a more complete picture of traffic generation. This study assumes those land uses do not impact City services addressed in this study, except for the street system. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2- ' 46 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-2 Forecasted New Development - April 1998 to Buildout .. ....... .... ....... . x" . ... ....... X - X Residential (SF Detached) 4,158 DU s13,845 41,535 13,983 110,469 Residential (SF Attached) 1,342 DU 5,559 11,674 5,615 44,355 Residential (Multi/Other) 281 DU 3,149 8,660 1,858 14,677 Office (Incl Hospitals) 29 KSF' 159 291 2,473 General Commercial 708 KSF 6,822 21,626 86,503 Tourist Commercial 185 Rooms 1,429 772 5,865 Public Facilities 24 KSF 187 1,485 8,909 Schools 143 Acres 143 186 744 Developed Parks 92 Acres 92 308 1,664 Golf Courses 1,726 Acres 1,726 518 2,589 TOTALS 8,688 1 1 61,869 1 46,642 278,248 Note: For footnotes, see Table 2- 1. Table 2-3 Ultimate Development at Buildout X X x xxxxxxxxx: -x. i.i;N iU:X;x X J: ....... ... Residential (SF Detached) 6,085 DU' 21,298 63,894 21,511 169,937 Residential (SF Attached) 1,868 DU 8,406 17,653 8,490 67,071 Residential (Multi/Other) 353 DU 3,530 9,708 2,083 16,453 Office (Incl Hospitals) 41 KSF' 299 547 4,651 General Commercial 805 KSF 7,821 24,793 99,170 Tourist Commercial 250 Rooms 2,070 1,118 8,495 Public Facilities 94 KSF 433 3,438 20,628 Schools 225 Acres 225 293 1,170 Developed Parks 125 Acres 125 419 2,261 Golf Courses 3,680 Acres 3,680 1,104 5,520 TOTALS 13,526 91,254 63,795 395,357 Notes: For footnotes, see Table 2- 1. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-8 0 T/ City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-3 on the previous page shows the forecasted ultimate development in La Quinta at buildout, as contemplated in the City of La Quinta General Plan. It represents the sum of existing development from Table 2-1 and forecasted future development from Table 2-2. Totals shown in Table 2-3 may differ slightly from the sum of figures in the other two tables due to the effects of rounding. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 2-9 `' 040 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for street system improvements needed to handle traffic that will be generated by future development in La Quinta. The capital projects covered by the recommended impact fees involve only the arterial street system, and include street improve- ments, bridges, traffic signals, sound attentuation walls, and right-of-way purchases. Improve- ments to collector and local streets are not included in the impact fee analysis. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME This study addresses only improvements to the arterial street system, which serves the entire City. Consequently, the City will be treated as a single service area for purposes of calculating traffic impact fees. The time frame covered by this analysis is not defined as a certain number of years, but rather as the span of time required for build out of the undeveloped land designated for devel- opment in the La Quinta General Plan, as amended. That time frame depends on the rate at which development occurs, and the timing of development fluctuates according to economic conditions and other factors. Since the rate of development does not affect the calculation of impact fees ad- dressed in this section of the report, assumptions about that rate are unnecessary here. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service on the components of a circulation system is evaluated by transportation planners in terms of traffic flow on streets and operational conditions at intersections. As stated in the Cir- culation Element of the La Quinta General Plan, level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic flow and driver satisfaction. Level of service (LOS) is graded on a scale from "A" to "F." LOS A is characterized by free flowing traffic and no delay at intersections. LOS F represents over- saturated conditions resulting in serious congestion and significant intersection delays. Policy 3-2.1.3 of the Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the minimum standard for streets in La Quinta, and provides that, no development project shall be approved, without adequate miti- gation, if it will create conditions that violate that standard. The Circulation System Policy May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Diagram, which is part of the Circulation Element, identifies the street improvements that will be needed to serve anticipated development at the adopted minimum level of service standard. The Diagram is based on traffic modeling done in conjunction with preparation of the Circulation Ele- ment. The capital projects to be funded by traffic impact fees recommended in this section are consistent with the Policy Diagram, and do not include improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies in La Quinta's circulation system. C. DEMAND VARIABLE The demand variable used to represent the impact of development on La Quinta's circulation sys- tem is peak hour trip -miles. That variable, which is discussed in Section 2 of this report, is the product of the number of peak hour trips per unit of development and average trip length by devel- opment type. The use of peak hour trip -miles as a demand variable is intended to reflect the need for additional street system capacity resulting from new development. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The development -related improvement costs to be funded by impact fees calculated in this study include street widening and extension projects (including right-of-way acquisition), bridge con- struction, new traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls. Collector and local streets needed to serve new development are assumed to be constructed by developers as project improvements. The list of street projects on which the impact fee analysis is based assumes that developers will be directly responsible for constructing the outside travel lane, plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk on arte- rial streets fronting their projects. In residential areas this requirement will also include a parking lane. As a result, the impact fees for arterial streets will cover only the cost of additional travel lanes (e.g. the two inside lanes on a four -lane arterial), as well as median improvements, on those arterials where they do not already exist. Impact fees for street improvements are intended to cover only the cost of improvements that do not currently exist and will not be constructed by de- velopers as a condition of project approval. Estimates of costs for bridges and traffic signals to be covered by impact fees assume that a portion of the cost of some improvements will be contrib- uted by other agencies, such as the City of Indio or Riverside County. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Tables 3-1 through 3-5 identify the street system capital improvements attributable to future devel- opment. Total costs for development -related street -system improvements are shown in Table 3-6. A detailed breakdown of cost estimates is included in Appendix A. Table 3-1 Estimated Street System Improvement Costs - Major Arterials ........... ;;:.:;.;:.; ....-...1. .................................................... .............. .............................. ::._::'�.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: t!......::::::......::::.......:::... Highway 111 $492,500 $0 $492,500 Washington Street $1,296,340 $133,650 $1,429,990 Jefferson Street $184,800 $87,120 $271,920 Avenue 52 $490,000 $0 $4,90,000 Total $2,463,640 $220,770 $2,684,410 I See Appendix A for detailed cost estimates. Table 3-2 Estimated Street System Improvement Costs - Primary Arterials M # ::r::;:;:::�:[•:�'fia ' ' :::::::'•i?C:i.�'�L'::::ii::i::::i:::::::: :::i::;i::::i::i?�..t{i<��.. .......... ....... Miles Avenue $155,100 $0 $155,100 Avenue 50 $712,780 $0 $712,780 Avenue 52 $705,410 $0 $705,410 Avenue 54 $654,720 $0 $654,720 Avenue 58 $966,620 $0 $966,620 Eisenhower Drive $500,080 $0 $500,080 Adams Street $282,000 $0 $282,000 Dune Palms Road $249,100 $0 $249,100 Madison Street $1,874,400 $0 $1,874,400 Monroe Street $372,240 $0 $372,240 Total $6,472,550 $0 $6,472,550 I See Appendix A for detailed cost estimates For entirely new bridges, 27% of the City's cost is attributed to existing development and 73% is attributed to future development. That split is based on the shares of total buildout trip generation May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-3 3 ` City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study contributed by existing and future development. For bridge widening projects, the entire cost is attributed to future development because all bridge widenings covered by this analysis are required only to serve future development. Table 3-3 Street System Improvements - Bridge Improvements Avenue 50 at Evacuation Channel $2,940,000 73% $2,146,200 Eisenhower Drive at Evac Channel 630,000 100% $630,000 Avenue 52 at All -American Canal $680,000 100% $680,000 Avenue 50 at All -American Canal $315'0002 100% $315,000 Jefferson Street at WwR Channel' $3,564,000 73% $2,601,720 Totals $8,129,000 $6,372,920 I New Bridge. 2 Half of total cost to be paid by the City of Indio. 3 73% of City cost for new bridges attributed to new development based on shares of total buildout traffic volume (See Tables 2-2 and 2-3). Table 3-4, on the following page, shows the cost of traffic signals needed to serve future develop- ment. As noted in the table, costs for some of those signals will be shared with other jurisdictions. With the exception of the citywide central control system, all of the signals on the list will be needed entirely as a result of future development. As indicated in the Table 3-4, 73% of the cost of the citywide central control system is attributed to future development, based on shares of total buildout trip generation contributed by existing and future development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-4 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-4 Street System Improvements - Traffic Signals M. la Washington Street and Sage Brush $120,000 100% $120,000 Washington Street and La Fonda $120,000 100% $120,000 Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue z $30,000 100% $30,000 Jefferson Street and Westward Ho z $60,000 100% $60,000 Jefferson Street and Avenue 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Adams Street and Fred Waring $120,000 100% $120,000 Dune Palms Road and Fred Waring ' $60,000 100% $60,000 Dune Palms Road and Westward Ho z $90,000 100% $90,000 Eisenhower and Calle Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower and Montezuma $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower and Avenue 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Avenida Bermudas and Calle Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Calle Tampico and Civic Center Way $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Avenue 50 2 $30,000 100% $30,000 Madison Street and Avenue 52 Z $90,000 100% $90,000 Madison Street and Avenue 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Avenue 54 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Airport Blvd $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison Street and Avenue 58 ' $60,000 100% $60,000 Madison Street and Avenue 62 ' $60,000 100% $60,000 Monroe Street and Avenue 53 2 $30,000 100% $30,000 Monroe Street and Avenue 54 ' $60,000 100% $60,000 Monroe Street and Airport Blvd ' $30,000 100% $30,000 Citywide Central Control $500,000 73% $365,000 Development -Related Costs $2,660,000 $2,525,000 I Cost to be shared with Riverside County. 2 Cost to be shared with City of Indio Table 3-5, on the following page, shows the cost of sound attenuation walls expected to be re- quired as a result of future development. The cost of sound walls adjacent to developed property will be included in the impact fee calculations because the City has determined that future devel- opment will increase traffic noise levels to a point where sound attenuation will be required. The cost of sound walls for undeveloped property will be handled case -by -case, as part of the develop- ment approval process. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-5 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-5 Street System Improvements - Sound Attenuation Walls North Avenue 50 at Montero Estates $108,000 $0 East Washington Street at La Quinta Del Oro - Vacant $0 $135,000 East Washington Street - Vacant $0 $117,000 West Washington Street opposite Lake LQ - Vacant $0 $234,000 West Washington Street at Laguna de La Paz $139,500 $0 West Washington Street at Montero Estates $180,000 $0 East Washington Street at Sagebrush, Bottlebrush, Saguaro $58,500 $0 East Washington Street North of Avenue 50 - Vacant $0 $54,000 West Washington Street at Jacumba, Iloilo Area $54,000 $0 South Fred Waring Drive at Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $58,500 North Fred Waring Drive at Dutch Parant - Vacant $0 $180,000 West Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $180,000 West Jefferson Street - Westward Ho to S. of Vista Grande $108,000 $0 East Jefferson Street - Westward Ho to S. of Vista Grande $72,000 $0 East Jefferson Street - Westward Ho to S. of Vista Grande $22,500 $0 East Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $418,500 East Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $337,500 West Jefferson Street at Heritage - Vacant $0 $117,000 West Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $346,500 South Avenue 52 at Heritage - Vacant $0 $720,000 South Avenue 52 at Heritage - Vacant $0 $189,000 South Avenue 52 at Heritage - Vacant $0 $729,000 Totals $742,500 $3,816,000 ' Costs of walls adjacent to developed property will be included in impact fees. Studies indicate projected development will increase traffic noise to a level requiring attenuation. Table 3-6 shows the total cost of development -related capital improvement from Tables 3-1 through 3-5. The overall total in that table will be used as the basis for the impact fee calculation. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMIIS Page 3-6 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-6 Street System Improvements for Future Development - Summary by Type .::.:::.::::..........:::.:.....::.::.:.:...:::::..:::::::::::.:::::::::::::.:: Major Arterials $2,684,410 Primary Arterials $6,472,550 Bridges $6,372,920 Traffic Signals $2,525,000 Sound Attenuation Walls $742,500 Total $18,797,380 E. IMPACT FEES Table 3-7 shows the calculation of a unit cost per peak hour trip -mile. To establish that unit cost, the total cost of development related improvements from Table 3-6 is divided by the projected vol- ume of peak hour trip -miles to be added by new development, from in Table 2-2, Section 2. Table 3-7 Street System Improvements - Cost per Peak Hour Trip -Mile a# >;>::>; >.....►sit.l!ek.lai:::::: $18,797,380 278,248 67.56 1 See Table 3-6 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Improvement cost per peak hour trip = total eligible improvement cost / added peak hour trip miles. Table 3-8, on the next page, shows the conversion of the cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-7 into standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for each category of development. This con- version is based on the estimated number of peak hour trip -miles per unit of development for each land use category. As discussed in Section 9, Implementation, we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per trip, as shown in Table 3-7. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-7 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-8 Standardized Impact Fees - Street Improvements ::.>:::•ii:�?ti`:•�:��a t7I:'..>:.>::::::.>:::»:.>:•:;.�r:T;:>:::.::::.:>�i�i,.>�;�;lYt�>:.s:.>:.: :::i }: � :i:.:.n �:::::::::::::::: �: ::: �..: 'i'i ..: �p.'�.•:S .y �� :::.3.#.l.��M:.:,:s: i:::::'y..y ::.;F7�:;:�4.i:::.>:.:.::.:: Residential SFD DU 7.98 $67.56 $539 Residential SFA DU 7.98 $67.56 $539 Residential MFO DU 4.66 $67.56 $315 Office/Hospital KSF 15.56 $67.56 $1,051 General Commercial KSF 12.68 $67.56 $857 Tourist Commercial Room 4.10 $67.56 $277 Public Facilities Acre 47.64 $67.56 $3,219 Schools Acre 5.20 $67.56 $351 Parks Acre 18.09 $67.56 $1,222 Golf Courses Acre 1.50 $67.56 $101 I See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4. 2 See Table 3-7. 3 Fee per unit of development = peak hour trip -miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees rounded to the nearest dollar. The standardized fees shown in Table 3-8 allocate a portion of the cost of future street improve- ments to future public facilities, schools, and parks, reflecting the fact that those land uses do gen- erate traffic. However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, the traffic they generate is also attributable, indirectly, to future private develop- ment. To reflect that reality, the costs allocated to public facilities in table 3-9 will be reallocated to private development. All of the costs attributed to schools and parks will be reallocated to resi- dential development, because those facilities serve only residential development. Costs attributed to other public facilities will be reallocated to all development. The method used to redistribute the costs attributed to public facilities is quite simple. First we calculate the total cost allocated to each public facility category. To do that, we multiply the fee per unit of development from Table 3-8 by the number of units of development shown in Table 2-2. Next, we divide that amount by the sum of all peak hour trip -miles generated by the receiving group of private land use categories. In the case of parks, for example, that would be only the resi- dential categories. The resulting cost per peak hour trip mile is then added to the fees shown in May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-8 �J,j .J C I City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-8 for each of the receiving categories. Table 3-9 summarizes the adjustments to allocated cost per trip mile. Table 3-9 Adjusted Cost Allocations :•i: iiiiii::iii;;^;•}i: i::.:•ii::::::::::::: •i:•i:•i'.::};•};4:Jii'4i:•i; .............................. ...... `.;:::':'if:•::::i::::(:::$i;:j•:jii%:iiii:4X�::ii:isiii?i$iiiy;Y.:iF;:;isiiii:!:i:::::i:.RJt��:.+7N........�71R�.��.......�1�. :{vi:•;;i4:•ii:•Y`r:Ji:•::•iii;•i}ii:.i:�iii;•i:• :^:•ii:i ::i': �� 'i��'i: Mi::.j:i:; 'jj+:,'.ji$t':>F:::f♦•:: } jj � :F::::'::.,:;: {ji::::::i:ai:j;:;?: }:i {{ :... ?i: �:: :: ;ii' �:<v::::j:::::4ii:;.:::.:i±:'y'>; �#TM...:::::::::(: "r..'•'%i::y::� :'{'�s::;::•,:;:!i:::::: :;: •i:;:;:.; +'. �y.: :. .. �?:y is>::::•::ii::i:�yy.{{:��:��.��.;jj':jj :jj•:��:::: :•::. �.:��iFii��11'��iii:•i: . ,/� +,=:%�S':;� :::::::::::�::::iiF:1•f.<47�•::i�1J'{Y.:i':'v.. ��..�'•� ��iA?.:::..:�.>:y:y::�,?;%;:::>':'.{:'.:;i::<:;:::::i;r.'':� ....��...��......�{C�M..u{j:�............ ��jjjj.�y[ f (� jj�� j?::...>:::::i.:::..:,:}:f::: �''% yy��ii,,¢{{)i Y";:..��.r:..'"...�..��>'.J'::: �.`•>'.�'f;��':::.�.�'`•�•+.�5}>'.�r{:::::<:';r`:;�.::2.. 7vUh7�j✓................'i►iF�...........::.��1i......... ,/�Q. �::3:3::`::•�:;::i:::<f::::;.•';;,:::::;:::'•�: {�i �Vr .........C�/7.. ,.?;,,;: ■�^','fy� /��v i:::::::i::::ii::i ::ii::::i:�Y:::ii::i::i ::::::::� }$:i::i::.'?. •.,'::::} ': ::. '..yj' #y�.:...... ::i:::?::::::::; ::? .�,j�{ ::}'::ii:,}:.:::i:::::i:%,:i'?�K+•:i:;:': �.. '.....':::::f+:�':::i.:':ti:i•:•,+:• .::::::::::::i:::<'i:<'!:t:j;:' :i' ':� � .. ... y� }':::::::j}: �y;Y�.;. ,/{�. R. �y{ :': ;:� ii:C i:;:y is ?:i::;:;:yii ; ?:•i ]::}:i i:i ii:Ji: j:.... ::::yj}:{:}:{(:ii: Residential SFD DU $67.56 $2.26 $0.30 $0.66 $70./6 Residential SFA DU $67.56 $2.26 $0.30 $0.66 $70.78 Residential MFO DU $67.56 $2.26 $0.30 $0.66 $70.78 Office/Hospital KSF $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 General Commercial KSF $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 Tourist Commercial Room $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 Public Facilities KSF Reallocated $0.00 Schools Acre Reallocated $0.00 Parks Acre Reallocated $0.00 Golf Courses Acre $67.56 $2.26 $69.82 I See Table 3-9. 2 Reallocated Public Facilities cost = 187 KSF of Future Public Facilities x 47.64 Pk Hr Trip -Miles per KSF x Initial Allocation of $67.56 per Pk Hr Trip -Miles / 266,931 Pk Hr. Trip -Miles generated by all receiving development = an increase of $2.26 per Pk Hr Trip -Mile for receiving development. 3 Reallocated Schools cost = 143 Acres of Future Schools x 5.2 Pk Hr Trip -Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $67.56 per Pk Hr Trip -Mile / 169,501 Pk Hr Trip -Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development = an increase of $0.30 per Pk Hour Trip Mile for receiving development. 4 Reallocated Parks cost = 92 Acres of Future Parks x 18.09 Pk Hr Trip -Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $67.56 per Pk Hr Trip -Miles / 169,501 Pk Hr Trip -Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development = an increase of $0.66 per Pk Hr Trip -Mile for receiving development. 5 Adjusted cost per Pk Hr Trip -Mile = the sum of initial cost per Pk Hr Trip -Mile plus the reallocated public facility, school and park costs for each land use category. Finally, the adjusted cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-9 can be substituted for the initial cost per peak hour trip -mile in Table 3-8 to arrive at the final adjusted impact fee per unit of devel- opment. The adjusted fees are shown in Table 3-10 on the following page. The difference be- tween the initial fees, and adjusted fees can be seen by comparing the impact fees in Tables 3-8 and 3-10. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-9 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-10 Adjusted Standardized Impact Fees - Street Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Residential SFD DU 7.98 $70.78 $565 Residential SFA DU 7.98 $70.78 $565 Residential MFO DU 4.66 $70.78 $330 Office/Hospital KSF 15.56 $69.82 $1,086 General Commercial KSF 12.68 $69.82 $885 Tourist Commercial Room 4.10 $69.82 $286 Public Facilities Acre 47.64 $0.00 $0 Schools Acre 5.20 $0.00 $0 Parks Acre 18.09 $0.00 $0 Golf Courses Acre 1.50 $69.82 $105 I See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4. 2 See Table 3-9. 3 Fee per unit of development = peak hour trip -miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees rounded to the nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study. (See Executive Summary). Table 3-11, below projects the impact fee revenue that would be realized from future development, if these fees were applied to all development projected in Table 2-2. Table 3-11 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development ............ . .. . . ..... ........................ .... . . . . . . . . .. .. Residential SFD DU $565 13,845 $7,822,425 Residential SFA DU $565 5,559 $3,140,835 Residential MFO DU $330 3,149 $1,039,170 Office/Hospital KSF $1,086 159 $172,674 General Commercial KSF $885 6,822 $6,037,470 Tourist Commercial Room $286 1,429 $408,694 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $105 1,726 $181,230 j $18,802,498j I See Table 3-10. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue = adjusted fee per unit of development x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 3-10 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 4 PARKS & RECREA TION IMPA CT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for parks required to serve future development in La Quinta. Land (or fees in lieu of land) for future parks, will be acquired by the City from subdividers under the provisions of the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). Park impact fees calculated in this section of the report are intended to cover only the cost of park improvements, and will be levied in addition to any land dedication or fee -in -lieu requirements imposed pursuant to the Quimby Act. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section include both neighborhood and community parks. Functionally, neighborhood parks are intended to serve a specific part of the City while community parks serve the entire City. However, some parks in La Quinta serve both functions. As a result, the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a combined level of service standard for neighborhood and community parks. Those fees will be calculated on a citywide basis, and applied to new development in all parts of the City. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate park impact fees does not depend on the timing of development or the total amount of development to be served. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE At present, parks and recreation facilities in La Quinta are provided both by the City, and by the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District (CVRPD). Because parks owned by both entities were funded by residents of La Quinta, all existing facilities will be considered in establishing the existing level of service. This study does not distinguish between neighborhood and community parks because only basic park improvements are covered by the impact fees. The City's existing parks include a community sports complex, two developed neighborhood parks, and a mini -park. Fritz Burns Park, which is currently under development, will be treated as a developed park in this analysis because the City has committed funds to complete improvements well beyond the basic park improvements used as the basis for the fees calculated here. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-1 4 r-- City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-1 lists La Quinta's existing parks. Not included is 845-acre Lake Cahuilla Regional Park, which is located in La Quinta, but owned by Riverside County. The regional park will not be considered in calculating park impact fees. Table 4-1 Existing Parks Cove Mini -park Neighborhood 0.3 Village Park' Neighborhood 6.5 Fritz Burns Park 2 Neighborhood/Community 4.0 Adams Park Neighborhood 3.7 Avenue 50 Sports Complex' Community 18.2 Total 32.7 ' Owned by Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District 2 Land owned by City. Partly developed. Funds budgeted for completion. 3 Land owned jointly with the Desert Sands Unified School District. Development costs funded by the City The existing level of service for parks in La Quinta will be defined in terms of acres of existing developed park land per 1,000 population. Table 4-2 computes the existing level of service. Policy 5-1.1.2 in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan establishes a standard of 3.0 acres of improved neighborhood and community park acreage per thousand residents. However, the existing level of service, as shown in Table 4-2, will be used to calculate the impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. Table 4-2 Existing Level of Service - Improved Park Acreage €.....11'" r.A5r.. 32.7 29,385 1.11 ' See Table 4-1. 2 See Table 2-1. Population figures used in this study are based on 100% occupancy of all existing dwelling units. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-2 s_I City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study C. DEMAND VARIABLE As indicated above, population is used here as the variable representing the need for parks in La Quinta. Population is almost universally accepted as the proper basis for establishing level -of - service standards for parks, and is used in the Quimby Act, in the City's General Plan, and by the National Recreation and Parks Association. As used in this section, population is defined as the potential population of the City, if all dwelling units were occupied. (See Section 2). D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION In this study, the need for park improvements is defined in terms of park acreage per capita as discussed above. The cost for required park facilities is established on a per capita basis, and park impact fees per dwelling unit are based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit for each category of residential development. No park impact fees will be charged to non- residential development. The average cost of basic park improvements for Fritz Burns Park and Adams Park was $123,333 per acre. An estimated cost of $120,000 per acre will be used to calculate the park development impact fee. It should be noted that the estimated cost used in this analysis covers only basic park improvements such as landscaping and irrigation, picnic facilities and playgrounds. It does not include the cost of facilities such as tennis courts or swimming pools, which would have to be funded from other sources. E. IMPACT FEES Table 4-3 shows the calculation of the cost per capita for park improvements described above, using the level of service standard previously described. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page t is •d ��b.l City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-3 Park Improvements - Cost per Capita ....... .......... $120,000 1.11 $133.20 61,869 3 $8,240,951 I Cost estimate by City of La Quinta Public Works Department for improvements only 2 See Table 4-2. 3 See Table 2-2. Table 4-4 shows the conversion of the cost per capita from Table 4-3 into standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for the three categories of residential development. This conversion is provided for administrative convenience. However, for reasons explained in Section 9 (Implementation) we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per capita shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Park Improvements .. ... . .......... ...... Residential SFD DU 3.00 $133.20 $400 Residential SFA DU 2.10 $133.20 $280 Residential MFO DU 2.75 $133.20 $366 I See Table 2- 1, Note 3. 2 See Table 4-3. 3 Fee per Unit of Development = Demand per Unit of Development x Cost per Unit of Demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study (See Executive Summary). Table 4-5, on the following page, projects total revenue from the park impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for park improvements. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-4 4,) �J b �- May, 1999 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development ........... .. t X n Residential SFD DU $400 13,845 $5,538,000 Residential SFA DU $280 5,559 $1,556,520 Residential MFO DU $366 3,149 $1,152,534 Office/Hospital KSF 159 $0 General Commercial KSF 6,822 $0 Tourist Commercial Room 1,429 $0 Public Facilities Acre 187 $0 Schools Acre 143 $0 Parks Acre 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre 1,726 $0 1 $8,247,054 I See Table 4-4 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. DMG-MAXIMUS Page 4-5 ,41) City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 5 CIVIC CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for the La Quinta civic center. The existing civic center was completed in 1993. It has adequate space to serve a portion of the City's anticipated growth, but expansion will be required prior to buildout. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The civic center has a citywide service area, so the impact fees for that facility will be calculated on a citywide basis. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE For facilities of the type addressed in this section, level of service standards are generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build required facilities without for- mally adopting a standard. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based on specific existing and proposed facilities, and will be discussed in more detail later in this section. C. DEMAND VARIABLE In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facil- ity. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or at least correlate with, the need for additional capital improvements. For facilities such as water and sewer systems, service usage can be physically measured and at- tributed to specific types of development. However, the relationship between development and the need for civic center facilities is complex and, in some cases, indirect. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study It is self-evident that the need for administrative facilities in any city generally increases as the city grows. Nevertheless, the relationship between specific types of development and the need for administrative facilities is difficult to quantify. In La Quinta, the civic center houses staff from all City departments. Given the multiplicity of services supported by the civic center, and the indirect relationship between development and the demand for some of those services, no sin- gle attribute of development neatly represents the effect of development on space needs in that facility. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to use a generalized measure of development to approximate service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees. Table 5-1 Developed Acreage (Excluding Public Facilities) »:.>:.»:.::.>::.>:::.:>:i:::::::;::::tG�:::;ti;:::i;is�5i:::»a;>y,>ri:::<;:>.:;;:;•>:.:.>:.:::.s>:.>:.;;>:.: :........................yj-•yr......... ... ....... .........................:... .....t/...........Rk..: � ....... Residential, Single Family Detached 1,927 4,158 6,085 Residential, Single Family Attached 526 1,342 1,868 Residential, Multi-family/Other 72 281 353 Office (Including Hospitals) 12 29 41 General Commercial 97 708 805 Tourist Commercial 65 185 250 Golf Courses (5% of total acreage) 98 86 184 Total 2,797 6,789 9,586 % of Total 29.2% 70.8% 100.0% 1 See Table 2-1. 2 See Table 2-2 3 See Table 2-3. Acreage is the most general measure of development, and is applicable to all types of develop- ment, and developed acreage will be used here as the demand variable in analyzing impact fees for the Civic Center. If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for Civic Center facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. In Table 5-1, acreage devoted to those uses is excluded from the cost allocation in this section, because those public uses do not create a demand for the services supported by the Civic Center facilities. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-2 4 'R� City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study to the clubhouse and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The existing La Quinta civic center, which was completed in 1993, contains 33,000 square feet of gross floor area. That existing space is adequate to serve the City's current needs. The origi- nal building plans call for the addition of 15,000 square feet in the future. The resulting 48,000 square foot building is expected to serve the City's needs well into the future. Although addi- tional facilities may be needed prior to buildout, this study makes the conservative assumption that the existing civic center and the proposed expansion will serve the City's needs to buildout. Because the civic center serves both existing and future development, the costs of the entire facil- ity will be allocated on the same basis to both existing and future development. Credit will be given in the analysis for non -impact fee contributions to the cost of the facility. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating civic center costs is devel- oped acreage. Table 5-1 tabulates developed acreage for existing and future development, using data from Section 2. As indicated in Table 5-1, future development accounts for 70.8% of total developed acreage at buildout. Consequently, 70.8% of eligible civic center costs will be as- signed to future development in this analysis. Table 5-2, on the next page, shows the total cost of the existing civic center, which is defined in this analysis as the sum of past and future cash outlays, plus the present value of future debt serv- ice payments on bonds used to finance construction. The present value calculation discounts all expenditures for inflation at an assumed 3.5% annual rate, resulting in an effective real interest rate of approximately 3% per year on outstanding debt. The share of civic center costs, including debt service, paid by the redevelopment agency (RDA) and by future general fund contributions is not included in the cost basis for impact fee calculations. The cost of a future civic center ex- pansion is estimated on a square footage basis in current dollars. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-3 �41 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-2 Civic Center Costs Civic Center (Revenue Bonds) ' 14,499,312 9,950,281 Civic Center (Infrastructure Fund cash outlays) 4,856,788 Civic Center (General Fund cash outlays) 1,407,182 Future Civic Center Expansion Z 2,850,000 2,850,000 Total 23,613,282 12,800,281 Future Development Share 16,718,204 3 12,800,281 ' Based on 1999 present value of debt service payments, discounted for inflation at 3.5% per year. 2 Assumes a total project cost of $190 per square foot. 3 Based on 70.8% share of total eligible cost. See Table 5-1. Table 5-2 summarizes civic center costs, and the portion of that cost to be funded in the future. Typically, costs eligible to be recovered through impact fees would be based on the percentage of total cost attributable to future development, based on the percentage of total demand created by that development. That amount is also shown in Table 5-2. However, since the equitable share of costs attributable to future development exceeds the amount remaining to be funded in the fu- ture, the City has chosen to use the lesser amount as the basis for calculating impact fees. E. IMPACT FEES Table 5-3 shows the civic center future funding needs, from Table 5-2, divided by the developed acreage of future development to establish the average cost per developed acre. Table 5-3 Civic Center Cost Allocation 3.�;..� ..� $12,800,281 6,789 2 $1,885.44 I See Table 5-2. 2 See Table 5-1. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-4 4 5 ' City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-4, on the next page, shows the conversion of cost per developed acre from Table 5-3 into standardized impact fees per unit of development for various land use categories. Table 5-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Civic Center <.:.:::..: <�: • : ::>::::>:::>:•::>: <:;:: <:: �>l►�'� �?�<:><:' _>:<.ciit� ...... < � • ` �<��iE''><:>' t:.;:.;.: ..Ftll . n ��..............��.�t .:��':::� :::>� � :� �v y} �.i �yy. ..y+; �:> <�`^r+t: g��y<::r::;::;:V�lliJ%:5'�1,�;��1"w,'.%t:i :?:::?;:?i<:a��:::::::r;:.;>;;� ••; � . ....xx .... Residential SFD 4,158 $1,885.44 $7,839,660 13,845 DU $566 Residential SFA 1,342 $1,885.44 $2,530,260 5,559 DU $455 Residential MFO 281 $1,885.44 $529,809 3,149 DU $168 Office/Hospital 29 $1,885.44 $54,678 159 KSF $344 General Commercial 708 $1,885.44 $1,334,892 6,822 KSF $196 Tourist Commercial 185 $1,885.44 $348,806 1,429 Room $244 Golf Course 86 $1,885.44 $162,148 1,726 Acre $94 1 See Table 2-2. For Golf Courses, developed acreage is assumed to = 5% of total acreage. 2 See Table 5-3. 3 Cost for Category = Future Developed Acres x Cost per Developed Acre. This column represents the total cost allocated to each land use category. 4 See Table 2-2. 5 Fee per Unit of development = Cost for Category / Future Units of Development Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study (See Executive Summary). Table 5-5, on the next page, projects total revenue from the impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for Civic Center im- provements, and equals, within 0.022%, the cost allocated to future development (See Table 5-2). May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-5 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development .... .. .... ..... ..... ....... ..... ........ . ...... Residential SFD DU $566 13,845 $7,836,270 Residential SFA DU $455 5,559 $2,529,345 Residential MFO DU $168 3,149 $529,032 Office/Hospital KSF $344 159 $54,696 General Commercial KSF $196 6,822 $1,337,112 Tourist Commercial Room $244 1,429 $348,676 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $94 1,726 $162,244 $11,797,375 J I See Table 5-4. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 5-6 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 6 LIBRARYIMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future devel- opment in La Quinta. Library service in the City is currently provided by the Riverside City - County Library System. Existing libraries serving La Quinta include a leased storefront facility in the City and branch libraries in adjacent communities. The City -County Library System has no plans to construct a library in La Quinta. This study assumes that the City will construct a library to serve its residents, and that any library constructed in La Quinta will have to be funded by the City. It is not clear at this time whether La Quinta will ultimately choose to operate its own li- brary, or make arrangements with the Riverside City -County Library System to operate a library owned by the City, but that decision does not affect the capital costs or the impact fee calculations. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be calcu- lated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The Public Facilities element of the La Quinta General Plan includes the following planning stan- dard for libraries: 0.5 square feet of library space per capita and 1.2 volumes, per capita. However, for purposes of establishing impact fees, the City has chosen to use a lower standard of 0.22 square feet of library space per capita, which equates to a 20,000 square foot library to serve the popula- tion projected at buildout. That standard will be used to establish an impact fee for library build- ings in La Quinta. The adopted standard of 1.2 volumes per capita will be used for library materials. It is important to note that the City's existing level of service is lower than the standard used in this analysis. That existing deficiency will be addressed later in this section. May; 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 6-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study C. DEMAND VARIABLES In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Population is the universally accepted basis for defining library facility needs, and will be used as the demand variable in allocating the cost of those facilities. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Table 6-1 shows costs for library facilities needed to meet the planning standard defined above for the projected City of La Quinta population at buildout. Table 6-1 Library Costs :: !fit! ► aotaltr ......; :..::.:::.:.:.:: :.::::::::.:::'.:::::::::::::.:::::::'lw.�►stl::;;:;:.;;;: ' >;: : t :I t .>::::.::;::> . »:; Design/Construction 20,000'GSF $4,700,000 1 91,254 4 $51.50' Land 2.0 Acres $261,360 2 91,254 $2.86 Materials 110,008 Volumes $2,200,160 3 91,254 $24.11 Total $7,161,250 91,254 $78.47 1 Based on total project cost of $235 per Sq. Ft 2 Based on a cost of $3.00 per square foot. 3 Based on average cost of $20.00 per volume. 4 See Table 2-2. As discussed above, the City does not now have a permanent library facility, and does not, at pre- sent, meet the level of service standard used in this analysis. However, the City does have certain capital assets which will be contributed to development of a branch library in the future. By virtue of its contributions to funding of the library system, and by agreement with the Riverside City - County Library System, the City has rights to the collection currently housed in the storefront li- brary in La Quinta. That collection amounts to 27,500 volumes with a replacement value of $550,000. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 6-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study It is generally accepted that a City may not legally charge impact fees to new development to sup- port a level of service higher than the level of service provided to the existing community. Other- wise, fees charged to new development could result in a subsidy to existing development. Since the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a level of service standard higher than the existing level of service, they can be justified only if the City were to eliminate the existing defi- ciency relative to the proposed service standard. The cost of doing so would have to be paid with funds other than impact fees. The total cost to bring the current level of service up to the proposed standard would be approxi- mately $2,306,000, based on the per capita costs in Table 6-1 and the existing population shown in Table 2-1. Against that cost, the City can claim credit for the aforementioned library materials with a value of $550,000. The remaining unfunded cost of $1,756,000 in current dollars would have to be paid from non -impact fee sources. The impact fees calculated in this section assume that the City will contribute, from non -development -related fund sources, the additional capital necessary to raise the current level of service to the proposed service standard. E. IMPACT FEES Table 6-2 converts the per capita costs in Table 6-1 to impact fees per unit of development. Be- cause population is used as the demand variable in this case, library impact fees apply only to resi- dential development. Table 6-2 Standardized Impact Fees - Libraries Residential SFD Dwelling Unit 3.00 $78.47 $235.00 Residential SFA Dwelling Unit 2.10 $78.47 $165.00 Residential MFO Dwelling Unit 2.75 $78.47 $216.00 1 See Table 2-1, Note 2. z See Table 6-1. 3 Fee per unit of development = population per unit of development x cost per capita. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study (See Exec. Summary), May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 6-3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 6-3 projects total revenue from the library impact fees. That is the amount, in current dol- lars, that would be collected from future development to pay for library improvements through buildout, at the recommended fee levels. Table 6-3 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Residential SFD DU $235 13,845 $3,253,575 Residential SFA DU $165 5,559 $917,235 Residential MFO DU $216 3,149 $680,184 Office/Hospital KSF $0 159 $0 General Commercial KSF $0 6,822 $0 Tourist Commercial Room $0 1,429 $0 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $0 1,726 $0 1 $4,850,994 I See Table 6-2. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 6-4 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 7 COMMUNITY CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for community center facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The City has one existing community center facility, the multi- purpose room at the La Quinta Senior Center. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be calcu- lated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The City has not adopted a level of service standard for community center facilities. In this analy- sis, the current ratio of community center building area to population will be used as the level of service standard. In other words, the level of service used in computing impact fees for future de- velopment will be identical to the current level of service for existing development. The existing ratio of facilities to population is shown in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Existing Level of Service - Community Center Facilities :::::»::::::;:::::! et ......................5,300. ...,.....................................29,3 .t:;4ct>.7r::::.tl:::>:: 1 85..Z.... 0.18 Based on multi -purpose room of La Quinta Senior Center. See Table 2-1. C. DEMAND VARIABLE Population is used here to define the relationship between development and facility needs, and will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for community center facilities. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 7-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Table 7-2 shows the cost per capita for community center facilities needed to meet the level of service defined in Table 7-1. All amounts are in current dollars. Table 7-2 Community Center Facilities - Cost per Capita .... $195.850.18 z $35.25 Cost provided by Department of Building and Safety. 2 See Table 7-1. 3 See Table 2-2. E. IMPACT FEES Table 7-3 converts the per capita costs in Table 7-2 to impact fees per unit of development. Be- cause population is used as the demand variable in this case, impact fees apply only to residential development. Table 7-3 Standardized Impact Fees - Community Center Facilities ><ll .�tII itrl? l .......... p......................::..:...............1.................:.....:::::::::::::::::::::::::. .......4C.� ......... x . Residential SFD Dwelling Unit 3.00 $35.25 $106 Residential SFA Dwelling Unit 2.10 $35.25 $74 Residential MFO Dwelling Unit 2.75 $35.25 $97 ' See Table 2-1, Note 2. 2 See Table 7-2. 3 Fee per unit of development = population per unit of development x cost per capita. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study (See Exec. Summary). May, 1999 DMG-MAXIM(US Page 7-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 7-4 projects total revenue from the community center impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for community center improvements. Table 7-4 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development X. X ts . . . .................. ... ... -M .. .......... ......... ........... Residential SFD DU $106 13,845 $1,467,570 Residential SFA DU $74 5,559 $11,366 Residential MFO DU $97 3,149 $305,453 Office/Hospital KSF $0 159 $0 General Commercial KSF $0 6,822 $0 Tourist Commercial Room $0 1,429 $0 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $0 1,726 $0 1 $2,184,389 I See Table 7-3. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 7-3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 8 MAINTENANCE FACILITY IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for maintenance facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. At present, the City's corporation yard is at capacity. It is meeting ex- isting needs, but will require expansion in stages as the City grows. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so La Quinta will be consid- ered a single benefit area in assessing impact fees for those facilities. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE For the types of facilities addressed in this section, level of service standards are generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build required facilities without for- mally adopting a standard. Because existing facilities are just adequate to meet the City's current needs, the existing level of service, that is, the relationship between existing development and the City's investment in current facilities, will be used as the basis for calculating impact fees for maintenance facilities. C. DEMAND VARIABLES In calculating impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship be- tween development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. The City corporation yard includes facilities for parking and maintaining vehicles and equipment employed in street and park maintenance operations. The Public Works Department estimates that street maintenance accounts for 80% of those facility needs. Facility costs related to street mainte- nance will be allocated using the same variable applied to street improvements --that is, peak hour May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 8-1 U f '�' City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study trip -miles. The remaining 20% of facility costs, which support park maintenance, will be allocated in the same manner as park facility costs, using population as the demand variable. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The Replacement cost for existing corporation yard facilities, vehicles, and maintenance equip- ment, as estimated by the Public Works department is shown in Table 8-1. Costs are broken down to distinguish street maintenance facilities and equipment from park maintenance facilities and equipment. All costs are given in current dollars. Table 8-1 Corporation Yard Existing Facility Costs ........... . ........... . :.:`...1........................................................................#................................................... ............ ....... Site 65,340 SF $0.44 $28,750 Paving 21,800 SF $2.50 $54,500 Outdoor Storage 10,000 SF $5.31 $53,100 Office 500 SF $100.00 $50,000 Garage 500 SF $80.00 $40,000 Long Term Storage 1,000 SF $75.00 $75,000 Vehicle Wash 300 SF $20.00 $6,000 Total $307,350 I Public Works Department estimate. The City's current investment per unit of demand for street and park maintenance facilities will be applied to future development to calculate impact fees for those facilities. That is, the costs from Table 8-1 will be divided by the existing demand and the resulting unit cost will be used as the ba- sis for the impact fees. The current cost per unit of demand, for each facility type is calculated in Table 8-2. All amounts are current dollars. May, 1999 i1MUS Page 8-2 i '1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-2 Costs per Unit of Demand - Street and Park Maintenance Facilities ............ ............... ............. Street Maintenance 1 104367 2 $245,880 $2.36 Park Maintenance 1 29:385 3 $61,470 $2.09 Totals T $307,350 I Based on Public Works Department estimate that 80% of facilities are used for street maintenance and 20% for park maintenance. 2 See Table 2-1. Demand for street improvements is stated in terms of peak hour trip -miles. Parks, schools and other public facilities are not included in this analysis because demand created by those uses is ultimately attributable to the private development served by those uses. 3 See Table 2-1. Demand for parks is stated in term of population. E. IMPACT FEES Tables 8-3 and 8-4 convert the costs per unit of demand from Table 8-2 into impact fees per unit of development for street and park maintenance facilities, respectively. Table 8-3 Standardized Impact Fees - Street Maintenance Facilities ... ... ..... 'A C' ................... Residential SFD DU 7.98 $2.36 $19 Residential SFA DU 7.98 $2.36 $19 Residential MFO DU 4.66 $2.36 $11 Office/Hospital KSF 15.56 $2.36 $37 General Commercial KSF 12.68 $2.36 $30 Tourist Commercial Room 4.10 $2.36 $10 Public Facilities Acre 47.64 N/A N/A Schools Acre 5.20 N/A N/A Parks Acre 18.09 N/A N/A Golf Courses Acre 1.50 $2.36 $4 I Demand is measured by peak hour trip -miles. See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4. 2 See Table 8-2 3 Fee per unit of development = demand units per unit of development x cost per unit of demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study (See Executive Summary). May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 8-3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Park Maintenance Facilities .. .... .... X -:-X :i:*: ................. Residential SFD . DU 3.00 $2.09 ..... $6 Residential SFA DU 2.10 $2.09 $4 Residential MFO DU 1 2.75 $2.09 1 $6 1 I Demand is measured by population per unit of development. See Table 2- 1, Note 2. 2 See Table 8-2 3 Fee per unit of development = demand units per unit of development x cost per unit of demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study (See Executive Summary). Table 8-5 projects total revenue from the street and park maintenance impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for mainte- nance facilities. Table 8-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Ga. 4 ... ............... .... ............ ................. ... ..... . Residential SFD DU $25 13,845 $346,125 Residential SFA DU $23 5,559 $127,857 Residential MFO DU $17 3,149 $53,533 Office/Hospital KSF $37 159 $5,883 General Commercial KSF $30 6,822 $204,660 Tourist Commercial Room $10 1,429 $14,290 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $4 1,726 $6,904 $759,252 -L--i I I Combined fee per unit of development = sum of street and park maintenance fees per unit of development from Tables 8-3 and 8-4. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 impact fee revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 8-4 r City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 9 IMPLEMENTATION This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a devel- opment impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of im- pact fees recommended herein. A. ADOPTION The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Typically, it is desirable that specific fee schedules be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. For reasons discussed below, we also recommend that each impact fee be adopted as a charge per unit of service, rather than as schedule of fees per unit of development. Thus, an impact fee for street improvements would be adopted as a charge per peak hour trip -mile, rather than as a flat fee per dwelling unit or other unit of development. Additional discussion of this point is pre- sented under Administration, below. B. ADMINISTRATION Several requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) ad- dress the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the Government Code. Application of Impact Fee Rates. In general, impact fees recommended in this report are calcu- lated initially in terms of a cost per unit of service, and then converted into fees per unit of devel- opment. Service units are attributes of development, such as population and trip generation, which are used to represent demand for various types of public facilities. To apply impact fees to a development project, it is necessary to estimate how many units of service are required by May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study that project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and to facilitate cost estimating by builders and developers, it is useful to convert impact fee rates into standardized fees for com- mon units of development--e.g., dwelling units for residential development, or building area for commercial development. All impact fee rates calculated in this study have been converted to standardized fees per unit of development for the land use categories defined in this study. However, as indicated above, we recommend that the ordinance or resolution adopting the im- pact fees state the amount of the fees in terms of service units (e.g. dollars per peak hour trip - mile) instead of, or in addition to, adopting a schedule of fees per unit of development (e.g., dol- lars per Single Family Dwelling Unit). Adopting fees in terms of service units provides a basis for adjusting fees in cases where a development project has demand characteristics that vary sig- nificantly from the norms used to characterize the land use categories in this report. It should be also noted that some commercial and industrial buildings are not designed for a spe- cific type of tenant and their use can change over time. For such uses, we believe that the City is justified in applying fees based on reasonable average demand characteristics for the appropriate categories of development. The fact that the initial user of a new building may have below aver- age demand for certain services does not ensure that future users will have similarly low demand. Imposition of Fees. Under Section 66001, when the City imposes establishes, increases, or im- poses a mitigation fee it must make findings relative to items 1 through 3b, below. When impos- ing such a fee on a specific project, the City must also make a finding relative to item 3c. 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Most of those findings would normally be based on an impact fee study, and this study is in- tended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public document. This study is intended to be used as a public document to satisfy that requirement. In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated in this report, the specific improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified. Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute. Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of oc- cupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwell- ing unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reim- burse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. These restrictions do not apply to non-residential development. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facili- ties at the time building permits are issued, and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study that time. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Section 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a con- dition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged to that project, the impact fee imposed on that development project for that type of facility should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or im- provements. If the credit would exceed the amount of the fee imposed on the development for that type of facility, the City may choose to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the devel- oper under which the excess credit would be repaid from future impact fees charged to other de- velopers for the same type of facility. Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensi- fication of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development. Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. In- terest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. We recommend that fees be deposited in accounts established for each type of facility addressed in this report. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-4 'bi,+ City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues: • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund • The amount of the fees collected and interest earned • Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvment, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees • Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended • The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f) That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public. Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of amendments contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit the fee revenue within five years, or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in material ways. Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five years May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-5 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that re- mains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: • Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put • Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged • Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used • Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency must refund the moneys in the account or fund. Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that deter- mination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee reve- nue in the account according to procedures specified in the statute. Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not in- cluded in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in ap- plying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees, and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing de- velopment applications. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-6 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Annual Update of Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The al- ternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities not covered by the City's CIP, we recommend that this report serve as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. If that practice is followed, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to sat- isfy Section 66002. Annual Update of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in cur- rent dollars, and the fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. The Engineering News Record Los Angeles Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation. C. TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We recommend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and be made responsible for training all staff who are involved in fee -related activities. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employ- ees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to give close attention to handouts which provide information to the public re- garding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as applica- tion and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fee should be made clear. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-7 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgeting and project management be must fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recom- mended in this report are tied to specific project lists and related cost estimates. Fees must be ex- pended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page 9-8 APPENDIX A DETAILED COST ESTIMATES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS c, MAJOR ARTERIALS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS April 20,1999 HIGHWAY 111 Adams St. to 600' East of Depot Dr. 4 $100 4,500 $450,000 600' East of Depot Dr. to Jefferson St. 6 $50 850 $42,500 TOTAL HIGHWAY 111 $492,500 WASHINGTON ST. North City Limits to Fred Waring Dr. 7 $84 2,640 $221,760 Fred Waring Dr. to 1100' South 6 $50 3,500 $175,000 4-Iighway I I I to Ave. 47 5 $132 2,650 $349,800 Ave. 48 to Sagebrush 4 $100 3,880 $388,000 Sagebrush to Ave. 50 4 $100 1,400 $140,000 Sagebrush to 100' South of Saguaro 8 $33 660 $21,780 TOTAL WASHINGTON ST. $1,296,340 JEFFERSON ST. North City Limits to Miles Ave. 7 $84 2,650 $222,600 Funding 50% CVAG Miles Ave. To Westward Ho N/A $0 In the City of Indio Westward Ho to Whitewater 3 $70 2,100 $147,000 Funded 50% CVAG TOTAL JEFFERSON ST. $369,600 (.50) = 184,800 LOCATION OPTION SS/FT i_F.NGTH �Q�T COMMENTS AVE. 52 Calle Rondo to Jefferson St 3 $70 7000 $490,000 TOTAL AVE. 52 $490,000 TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS $2,463,640 OPTIONS: $/FOOT 1 ALL IMPROVEMENTS, BOTH SIDES $230 2 REMAINING 2 LANES & LANDSCAPING $170 3 REMAINING 2 LANES $70 4 MEDIAN AND LANDSCAPING $100 5 REMAINING 1 LANE & LANDSCAPING $132 6 HALF MEDIAN & LANDSCAPING $50 7 REMAINING 1 LANE, LANDSCAPING, & $84 HALF MEDIAN 8 REMAINING 1 LANE $33 Page 1 of 5 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 1 (ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PUT IN) Clear and Grub S.F. 66.00 0.25 $16.50 Landscaping S.F. 18.00 2.50 $45.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 A.B. C.Y. 1.19 20.00 $23.80 A.C. Tons 1.26 35.00 $44.10 Fabric S.Y. 1.78 1.00 $1.78 Striping S.F. 48.00 0.10 $4.80 SUBTOTAL $155.98 Engineering 155.98 10% $15.60 Inspection, Testing, Survey 155.98 7% $10.92 SUB TOTAL $182.50 Administration 182.50 5% $9.13 SUB TOTAL $191.62 Contingency 191.62 20% $38.32 TOTAL COST/FT $229.95 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 2 (REMAINING 2 LANES AND LANDSCAPING) Clear and Grub S.F. 42.00 0.25 $10.50 Landscaping S.F. 18.00 2.50 $45.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.59 20.00 $11.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 35.00 $22.05 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 24.00 0.10 $2.40 SUB TOTAL $112.64 Engineering 112.64 10% $11.26 Inspection, Testing, Survey 112.64 7% $7.88 SUB TOTAL $131.79 Administration 131.79 5% $6.59 SUB TOTAL $138.38 Contingency 138.38 20% $27.68 TOTAL COST/FT $166.05 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VOGT\DevcloMFee98\MajorArterials.wpd Pap 2 of 5 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 3 (REMAINING 2 LANES ONLY) Clear and Grub S.F. 42.00 0.25 $10.50 A.B. C.Y. 0.59 20.00 $11.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 35.00 $22.05 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 24.00 0.10 $2.40 SUBTOTAL $47.64 Engineering 47.64 10% $4.76 Inspection, Testing, Survey 47.64 7% $3.33 SUBTOTAL $55.74 Administration 55.74 5% $2.79 SUB TOTAL $58.53 Contingency 58.53 20% $11.71 TOTAL COST/FT $70.23 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 4 (MEDIAN AND LANDSCAPING) Clear and Grub S.F. 18.00 0.25 $4.50 Landscaping S.F. 18.00 2.50 $45.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 SUB TOTAL $69.50 Engineering 69.50 10% $6.95 Inspection, Testing, Survey 69.50 7% $4.87 SUB TOTAL $81.32 Administration 81.32 5% $4.07 SUB TOTAL $85.38 Contingency 85.38 20% $17.08 TOTAL COST/FT $102.46 ;! 7 Pagc 3 or 5 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 5 (REMAINING 1 LANE & LANDSCAPING) Clear and Grub S.F. 21.00 0.25 $5.25 Landscaping S.F. 18.00 2.50 $45.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.30 20.00 $6.00 A.C. Tons 0.32 35.00 $11.20 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 12.00 0.10 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $89.54 Engineering 89.54 10% $8.95 Inspection, Testing, Survey 89.54 7% $6.27 SUB TOTAL $104.76 Administration ]04.76 5% $5.24 SUB TOTAL $110.00 Contingency 110.00 20% $22.00 TOTAL COST/FT $132.00 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 6 (1/2 MEDIAN & LANDSCAPING) Clear and Grub S.F. 9.00 0.25 $2.25 Landscaping S.F. 9.00 2.50 $22.50 Median Curb L.F. 1.00 10.00 $10.00 SUB TOTAL $34.75 Engineering 34.75 10% $3.48 Inspection, Testing, Survey 34.75 7% $2.43 SUB TOTAL $40.66 Administration 40.66 5% $2.03 SUB TOTAL $42.69 Contingency 42.69 20% $8.54 TOTAL COST/FT $51.23 T:TWDEPT\STAFF\VOGI'DeveloperFee98\MajorArterials.wpd Page 4 of 5 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 7 (1 LANE, 1/2 LANDSCAPING & MEDIAN) Clear and Grub S.F. 21.00 0.25 $5.25 Landscaping S.F. 9.00 2.50 $22.50 Median Curb L.F. 1.00 10.00 $10.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.30 20.00 $6.00 A.C. Tons 0.32 35.00 $11.20 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 12.00 0.10 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $57.04 Engineering 57.04 10% $5.70 Inspection, Testing, Survey 57.04 7% $3.99 SUB TOTAL $66.74 Administration 66.74 5% $3.34 SUB TOTAL $70.07 Contingency 70.07 20% $14.01 TOTAL COST/FT $84.09 MAJOR ARTERIALS OPTION 8 (REMAINING 1 LANE) Clear and Grub S.F. 12.00 0.25 $3.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.30 20.00 $6.00 A.C. Tons 0.32 35.00 $11.20 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 12.00 0.10 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $22.29 Engineering 22.09 10% $2.21 Inspection, Testing, Survey 22.09 7% $1.55 SUB TOTAL $26.05 Administration 26.05 5% $1.30 SUB TOTAL $27.35 Contingency 27.35 20% $5.47 TOTAL COST/FT $32.82 " 4 T:\PWDEPTISTAFFlVOGTOeveloperFee98\MajorAnerials.wpd Page 5 of 5 PRIMARY ARTERIALS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS March 4, 1999 LOCATION OPTION $$/FT LENGTH COST COMMENTS MILES AVE. Seeley to 660' West of Adams St. $0 $0 Have bonds Trailer Park & Church 15 $47 660 $31,020 Have bonds for south half Adams St. to Dune Palms Rd. N/A $0 2,640 $0 Have bonds Dune Palms Rd. To Jefferson St. 15 1 $47 2640 $124,080 Half in Indio TOTAL MILES AVE. $155,100 AVE. 50 Washington St. to Evacuation Channel 13 $94 1,000 $94,000 Park Ave. To Orchard 15 $47 2,100 $98,700 Have bonds for south side Orchard to Jefferson St. 13 $94 2,640 $248,160 Jefferson St. to Madison 15 $47 5,280 $248,160 North half in Indio 1320' West of Madison to Madison 14A $18 1,320 $23,760 South side already developed TOTAL AVE. 50 $712,780 AVE. 52 Eisenhower Dr. to Desert Club 13A $65 1,450 $94,250 Jefferson St. to Madison 13 $94 5,280 $496,320 1320' West of Madson to 660' West of Madison 14 $33 660 I $21,780 I North half is already developed 660' West of Madison to 1320' East of Madison 15 $47 1,980 $93,060 TOTAL AVE. 52 $705,410 AVE. 54 Jefferson St. to Madison $0 $0 Completed Madison to Monroe 10A $124 5,280 $654,720 TOTAL AVE. 54 $654,720 AVE. 58 Jefferson St. to Madison 10A $124 5,280 $654,720 Madison to Monroe 14A/l5 $65 4,800 $312,000 North side only TOTAL AVE. 58 $966,720 ,l3 T:\PWDEPTISTAFMVOGTOD eloMFee98\Pl ryArterials.wpd Page I of 7 LOCATION OPTION /FT LENGTH COST COMMENTS EISENHOWER DR. Coachella Dr. to Washington St. 13 $94 4,000 $376,000 Tampico to Evac Channel 13 1 $94 1,320 1 $124,080 TOTAL EISENHOWER DR. $500,080 ADAMS ST. Highway 111 to Ave. 48 13 $94 3,000 $282,000 TOTAL ADAMS ST. $282,000 DUNE PALMS RD. Highway I I I to Ave. 48 13 $94 2,650 $249,100 TOTAL DUNE PALMS RD. $249,100 MADISON Ave. 50 to Ave. 52 11A $107 5,280 $564,960 Ave. 52 to Ave. 54 10 $154 5,280 $813,120 Half mile north of Ave. 58 to Ave. 58 13 $94 2,640 $248,160 Ave. 60 to Ave. 62 15 $47 5,280 $248,160 TOTAL MADISON $1,874,400 MONROE Half mile north of Ave. 54 to Ave. 54 15 $47 2,640 $124,080 Ave. 54 to Airport Blvd. 15 $47 5,280 $248,160 TOTAL MONROE $372,240 TOTAL ALL PRIMARY ARTERIALS $6,472,550 OPTIONS: $/FOOT 9 ALL IMPROVEMENTS, BOTH SIDES $213 10 REMAINING 2 LANES & LANDSCAPING $154 10A 2 LANES & LANDSCAPING MINUS 2" AC & '/2 CLEAR & GRUB $124 11 REMAINING 1 LANE & LANDSCAPING $122 11A I LANE & LANDSCAPING MINUS 2" AC & 'Y2 CLEAR & GRUB $107 12 REMAINING 2 LANES $65 13 LANDSCAPING ONLY $94 13A LANDSCAPING WITHOUT CURB $65 14 REMAINING 1 LANE $33 14A REMAINING 1 LANE MINUS 2" AC & 'V2 CLEAR & GRUB $18 15 HALF LANDSCAPING MEDIAN $47 T-\PWDEP7ISTAFFVOGTDeve1operFee98TrimaryMerialswpd Page 2 of 7 PRIMARY ARTERIALS OPTION 9 (ALL IMPROVEMENTS BOTH SIDES) Clear and Grub S.F. 64.00 0.25 $16.00 Landscaping S.F. 16.00 2.50 $40.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.89 20.00 $17.80 A.C. Tons 1.26 . 35.00 $44.10 Fabric S.Y. 1.78 1.00 $1.78 Striping S.F. 48.00 0.10 $4.80 SUB TOTAL $144.48 Engineering 144.48 10% $14.45 Inspection, Testing, Survey 144.48 7% $10.11 SUB TOTAL $169.04 Administration 169.04 5% $8.45 SUB TOTAL $177.49 Contingency 177.49 20% $35.50 TOTAL COST/FT $212.99 PRIMARY ARTERI_AI.S OPTION 10 (2 LANES AND LANDSCAPING) *OPTION I OA (2 LANES AND LANDSCAPING MINUS 2" AC AND %2 CLEAR AND GRUB) III • !111 • 1 111111111111111111111111111111�. • w �- -8 : i s Clear and Grub S.F. 40.00 0.25 $10.00 $5.00 Landscaping S.F. 16.00 2.50 $40.00 $40.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 $20.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.44 20.00 $8.80 $8.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 35.00 $22.05 $7.35 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 $0.89 Striping S.F. 24,00 0.10 $2.40 $2.40 SUBTOTAL $104.14 $84.44 Engineering 104.14 10% $10.41 $8.44 Inspection, Testing, Survey 104.14 7% $7.29 $5.91 SUBTOTAL $121.84 $98.79 Administration 121.84 5% $6.09 $4.94 SUBTOTAL $127.94 $103.73 Contingency 127.94 20% $25.59 $20.75 TOTAL COST/FT $153.52 $124.49 Page 3 of 7 PRIMARY ARTFRIALS OPTION 11 (1 LANE & LANDSCAPING) *OPTION I IA (1 LANE & LANDSCAPING MINUS 2" AC AND %Z CLEAR AND GRUB) Clear and Grub S.F. 20.00 0.25 $5.00 $2.50 Landscaping S.F. 16.00 2.50 $40.00 $40.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 $20.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.22 20.00 $4.40 $4.40 A.C. Tons 0.32 35.00 $11.20 $3.74 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 $0.89 Striping S.F. 12.00 0.10 $1.20 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $82.69 $72.73 Engineering 82.69 10% $8.27 $7.27 Inspection, Testing, Survey 82.69 7% $5.79 $5.09 SUB TOTAL $96.75 $85.09, Administration 96.75 5% $4.84 $4.25 SUB TOTAL $101.58 $89.34 Contingency 101.58 20% $20.32 $17.87, TOTAL COST/FT $121.90 $107:2,1 PRIMARY ARTERIALS OPTION 12 (REMAINING 2 LANES) Clear and Grub S.F. 40.00 0.25 $10.00 A.B. C.Y. 0.44 20.00 $8.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 35.00 $22.05 Fabric S.Y. 0.89 1.00 $0.89 Striping S.F. 24.00 0.10 $2.40 SUB TOTAL $44.14 Engineering 44.14 10% $4.41 Inspection, Testing, Survey 44.14 7% $3.09 SUB TOTAL $51.64 Administration 51.64 5% $2.58 SUB TOTAL $54.23 Contingency 54.23 20% $10.85 TOTAL COST/FT $65.07 T:\P WDEPMTAFF\VOGT\DeveloperFee98\PrimaryArterials.wpd Page 5 of 7 PRIMARY ARTF IALS OPTION 13 (LANDSCAPING ONLY) Clear and Grub S.F. 16.00 0.25 $4.00 Landscaping S.F. 16.00 2.50 $40.00 Median Curb L.F. 2.00 10.00 $20.00 SUB TOTAL $64.00 Engineering 64.00 10% $6.40 Inspection, Testing, Survey 64.00 7% $4.48 SUB TOTAL $74.88 Administration 74.88 5% $3.74 SUB TOTAL $78.62 Contingency 78.62 20% $15.72 TOTAL COST/FT $94.35 PRIMARY ARTERIALS OPTION 13A (LANDSCAPING ONLY WITHOUT CURB) Clear and Grub S.F. 16.00 0.25 $4.00 Landscaping 'S.F. 16.00 2.50 $40.00 SUB TOTAL $44.00 Engineering 44.00 10% $4.40 Inspection, Testing, Survey 44.00 7% $3.08 SUBTOTAL $51.48 Administration 51.48 5% $2.57 SUBTOTAL $54.05 Contingency 54.05 20% $10.81 TOTAL COST/FT $64.86 J Page 6 of 7 PRIMARY TERIALS OPTION 14 (REMAINING 1 LANE) *OPTION 14A (REMAINING I LANE MINUS 2" AC AND % CLEAR AND GRUB) DFSCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY ITNIT COST TOTAL, j}A Clear and Grub S.F. 20.00 0.25 $5.00 $2.50 A.B. C.Y. 0.22 20.00 $4.40 $4.40 A.C. Tons 0.32 35.00 $11.20 $3.73 Fabric S.Y. 0.45 1.00 $0.45 $0.45 Striping S.F. 12.00 0.10 $1.20 $1.20 SUB TOTAL $22.25 $12.28 Engineering 22.25 10% $2.23 $1.23 Inspection, Testing, Survey 22.25 7% $1.56 $0.86 SUB TOTAL $26.03 $14.37 Administration 26.03 5% $1.30 $0.72 SUB TOTAL $27.33 $15.09 Contingency 27.33 20% $5.47 $3.02 TOTAL COST/FT $32.80 $18.11 PRIMARY ARTERIALS OPTION 15 (1/2 MEDIAN & LANDSCAPING) Clear and Grub S.F. 8.00 0.25 $2.00 Landscaping S.F. 8.00 2.50 $20.00 Median Curb L.F. 1.00 10.00 $10.00 SUB TOTAL $32.00 Engineering 32.00 10% $3.20 Inspection, Testing, Survey 32.00 7% $2.24 SUB TOTAL $37.44 Administration 37.44 5% $1.87 SUB TOTAL $39.31 Contingency 39.31 20% $7.86 TOTAL COST/FT $47.17 00 T \PWnPP n4ZTAFRVOGT1DevclooerFee9giPnmaryArtefials.WDd Page 7 of 7 Major Arterial' -127 11n.1 w 117 Min. i c Primary Arterial 100-11 a + Secondary Arterial w +lr O� iwl D[llwt GENERAL PLAN TYPICAL MIDIBLOCK ROADWAY CROSS -SECTIONS ..�.v.LA0�a•.w_,., F 0 + - • State Highway 11 , constitutes a specdal Collector class of Major Arterial %ith a right-ot-way d4-74' .a.av 12 requirements of 172 feet established by i Caltrans. Local Street �so 10-17 3610' 10-1? 1 Cul-De-Sac SC 13 GEM 40FTHE DESERT 491 GENERAL PLAN CFICUATION SYSTEM POLICY DIAGRAM .• swop Nrreselu ©. r1ouRY uKmwL 8 seccso y rurtt<wu ® COLLECTOR .. rA" MtERui wrtm sncuL GLLTRAms R C*ff- w COY REOUPUME s C � i4Md �K 1 I •�— -I1I S. WKAEE I .7-t 2 ' sw,p, 4 i ®RnN-0 111.IQ/plVigM fM.4lA.Q UwM OE�OM - -�. K. i.00 M �MIMI a,i l000 woMl, Y noo. 1 RIGHT OF WAY MAJOR ARTERIALS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS April 20, 1999 WASHINGTON ST. Washington St. Interchange N/A N/A 0 $ 0 N/A North City Limits to Fred Waring Dr. 12 400 4,800 $ 2.75 $ 13,200 East side only/portion in LQ - 3 parcels Ave. 50 to Evacuation Channel 12 1,000 12,000 $ 2.75 $ 33,000 East side only Evacuation Channel to Ave. 52 (w/o bridge) 0 0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0 Existing Hwy 111 to Ave. 47 12 1 2,650 1 31,800 $ 2.75 $ 87,450 East side only TOTAL WASHINGTON ST. $133,650 JEFFERSON ST. North City Limits to Miles Ave. 12 2,640 31,680 $2.75 $87,120 TOTAL JEFFERSON ST. $87,120 TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS RIGHT OF WAY $220,770 T \PWDEPT\STAFF\VOGT\DeveloperFee98\MajorAttcrialsROW.wpd Page I of I BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS April 20,1999 Ave. 50 Evacuation Channel $2,940,000 100% $2,940,000 Eisenhower Dr. Evacuation Channel $630,000 100% $630,000 Ave. 52 All American Canal $680,000 100% $680,000 Ave. 50 All American Canal $630,000 50% $315,000 (share with Indio) Jefferson St. WWR Channel $3,564,000 100% $3,564,000 TOTAL = $8,129,000 a � 1 T:\PWDEPT\STAFFVOGT,DevcloMFee98\Bridgelmpvma.wpd Page I of I FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNALS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS March 4, 1999 LOCATION TOTAL CITY'S CITY'S COST COST SHARE Washington St. & Sagebrush $120,000 100% $120,000 Washington St. & La Fonda $120,000 100% $120,000 Jefferson St. & Miles Ave. $120,000 25% $30,000 (share with Indio Jefferson St. & Westward Ho $120,000 50% $60,000 (share with Indio) Jefferson St. & Ave. 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Adams St. & Westward Ho $120,000 100% $120,000 Dune Palms Rd. & Fred Waring Dr. $120,000 50% $60,000 (share with County) Dune Palms Rd. & Westward Ho $120,000 75% $90,000 (share with Indio) Eisenhower Dr. & Calle Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower Dr. & Montezuma $120,000 100% $120,000 Eisenhower Dr. & Ave. 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Ave. Bermudas & Calle Tampico $120,000 100% $120,000 Ave. Bermudas & Ave. 52 $120,000 100% $120,000 Calle Tampico Civic Center Way $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Ave. 50 $120,000 25% $36,000 (share with Indio) Madison St. & Ave. 52 $120,000 75% $90,000 (share with Indio Madison St. & Ave. 53 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Ave. 54 $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. $120,000 100% $120,000 Madison St. & Ave. 58 $120,000 50% $60,000 (share with County) Madison St. & Ave. 62 $120,000 50% $60,000 (share with County) Monroe St. & Ave. 53 $120,000 25% $30,000 (share with Indio) Monroe St. & Ave. 54 $120,000 50% $60,000 (share with County) Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. $120,000 25% $30,000 (share with County) Citywide Central Control $500,000 73% $365,000 TOTAL = $2,525,000 i0 i T:\PWDEPIISTAFF\VOGT\DeveloMFee98\TrafficSignals.wpd Page I of I FUTURE SOUND WALL INVENTORY March 4,1999 LOCATION DISTANCE ZONING FUTIJRE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MAJOR ARTERIALS: North Ave. 50 at Montero Estates 1,200 HDR 60,100 East Washington St. at La Quinta Del Oro (Vacant) 1,500 HDR 60,100 East Washington St. (Vacant) 1,300 HDR 60,100 West Washington St. across from Lake La Quinta (Vacant) 2,600 LDR 78,200 West Washington St. at Laguna de la Paz 1,550 LDR 78,200 West Washington St. at Montero Estates 2,000 LDR 65,100 East Washington St. at Sagebrush, Bottlebrush & Saguaro 650 MDR 65,100 East Washington St. North of Ave. 50 (Vacant) 600 LDR 65,100 West Washington St. at Jacumba, Iloilo Area 600 MDR 52,600 South Fred Waring Dr. at Jefferson St. (Vacant) 650 LDR 35,700 North Fred Waring Dr. at Dutch Parent (Vacant) 2,000 LDR 50,600 West Jefferson St. (Vacant) 2,000 LDR 36,700 West Jefferson (Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 1,200 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson (Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 800 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson (Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 250 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson St. (Vacant) 4,650 LDR 47,600 East Jefferson St. (Vacant) 3,750 LDR 42,600 West Jefferson St. at Heritage (Vacant) 1,300 LDR 42,600 West Jefferson St. (Vacant) 3,850 LDR 42,600 South Ave. 52 at Heritage (Vacant) 8,000 LDR 34,100 PRIMARY ARTERIALS: South Ave. 52 at Heritage (Vacant) 2,100 LDR 34,100 South Ave. 52 at Heritage (Vacant) 8,100 LDR 34,100 Estimated Total Linear Feet of Proposed Sound Wall in La Quinta Estimated Total Linear Feet of Undeveloped (Vacant) Land Proposed Sound Wall 50,650 42,400 Estimated Total Linear Feet of Developed Land Proposed Sound Wall Estimated Cost ($90.00) per Linear Foot 8,250 $90.00 Total Estimated Cost of Proposed Future Sound Wall in Developed Areas $742,500 Note: All development of vacant land will be conditioned to complete a sound attenuation study. If sound attenuation is required, it will be a condition of the new development to provide the sound attenuation at the developers sole cost. Palle 1 of 1 APPENDIX B FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study APPENDIX B FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES IMPACT FEES This appendix addresses impact fees for fire protection facilities required to serve future develop- ment in La Quinta, Fire protection in La Quinta is the responsibility of the Riverside County Fire Department, and is contracted to the California Department of Forestry. Two fire stations exist in La Quinta at present. Another station will be required to serve development in the north- ern portion of the City, and one existing station needs to be expanded because it is too small to meet future urban fire protection needs. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide the first response to emergency calls, all fire protection facilities operate as part of an integrated citywide system. The resources of the entire system are needed to provide adequate fire protec- tion in any part of the City. Thus, it makes sense to treat the entire City as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees. That approach is further supported by the fact that calculating separate impact fees for individual fire station service areas may well impose significantly different charges on similar development projects in different parts of the City for essentially the same level of service. This analysis will allocate costs for fire protection facilities city-wide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be the same, regardless of its location in the study area. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through buildout of all development contem- plated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service for fire protection is typically defined in terms of maximum response times. Re- sponse times, in turn, depend largely on the maximum distance that must be traveled in respond- ing to an emergency call, and that distance is determined by the size of the area covered by a particular fire station. For purposes of this analysis, level of service must be translated into May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study facility needs. The number of fire stations needed to serve an area with acceptable response times is typically determined by an analysis of specific conditions within the area served. The number of fire stations needed to serve La Quinta at buildout has been detemined by the City, and will be used as the basis for the impact fee analysis. C. DEMAND VARIABLE In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facil- ity. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or correlate with, the need for facilities. As indicated in the level -of -service discussion, above, the most important factor in determining how many fire stations are required to serve an area, given a certain re- sponse time standard, is the size of the area served. For that reason, developed acreage will be used as the demand variable for allocating fire station costs. Table B-1 Developed Acreage (Excluding Public Facilities) Xx •::>:>:>:>:::::;:.:;: <•::.:::>::. ere;� e................ �.. red �.:::::::. Residential, Single Family Detached 1,927 4,158 6,085 Residential, Single Family Attached 526 1,342 1,868 Residential, Multi-family/Other 72 281 353 Office (Including Hospitals) 12 29 41 General Commercial 97 708 805 Tourist Commercial 65 185 250 Golf Courses (5% of total acreage) 98 86 184 Total 2,797 6,789 9,586 I See Table 2-1. 2 See Table 2-2 3 See Table 2-3. If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for fire station facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, their fire protection needs are also attributable, though indirectly, to future private development. To reflect that reality, the future acreage devoted to those uses will not be included in the cost al- location, which means that none of the costs for added fire station facilities will be allocated to those uses. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted to the club- house and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. See Table B-1 on the previous page for a break- down of developed acreages used in this section. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Two fire stations operate in the City of La Quinta, at present. One city -owned station was paid for by a major developer. The other station, owned by Riverside County, is functionally inade- quate to serve the added development expected in La Quinta, and will need to be expanded or re- placed in the future. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume the stations will be expanded. Based on running distance and projected response times, the City also plans for one additional fire station to serve the northern portion of the City. Thus, one additional fire station and an ex- pansion of the existing County -owned fire station, will be required to provide adequate coverage for the City at buildout. The existing County -owned station is 5,000 square feet in size. Accord- ing to Riverside County Fire Department standards, it should be 8,500 square feet. The costs used in calculating impact fees will include the cost of a 3,500 square foot expansion. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating civic center costs is devel- oped acreage, excluding acreage devoted to schools, parks, and other public facilities. Table B-1 tabulates developed acreage for future development, using data from Section 2. In this analysis, the cost of future fire protection facilities are being allocated to future development. Typically, we would prefer to allocate the cost of all existing and future facilities to all existing and future development to ensure that both existing and future development are being treated equitably. In May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study this case however, that method would result in 22% higher impact fees, and ultimately could bring in more revenue than is needed to construct the needed future facilities. Table B-2 Future Fire Station Costs Estimated cost includes land, site development, construction and design. Costs in current dollars. 2 Estimated cost of addition = 3,500 sq. ft. x $195.00 per sq.ft. for design, construction and site development. Costs in current dollars. 3 See Table 2-2. E. IMPACT FEES In Table B-2, the estimated cost for future fire stations is divided by the total acreage available for future development. The resulting cost per developed acre is the basis for establishing impact fees for fire protection facilities. Table B-3 converts the cost per acre into a fee per unit of development. Table B-3 Standardized Impact Fees - Fire Protection Facilities >:::> v' <:;:<:D "Residential DU 0.30 $358.30 $107 A DU 0.24 $358.30 $86 Residential MFO DU 0.09 $358.30 $32 Office/Hospital KSF 0.18 $358.30 $64 General Commercial KSF 0.10 $358.30 $36 Tourist Commercial Room 0.13 $358.30 $47 Golf Courses Acre 0.05 $358.30 $18 I DU = dwelling unit. KSF = 1000 square feet of gross building area. 2 See Table 2-2. Average acres per unit = total acres / total units for each land use type. 3 See Table B-1. 4 Fee per Unit of Development = Acres per Unit of Development x Cost per Acre. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost this study (See Exec. Summary). May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-4 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table B-4 projects total revenue from the fire impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for fire protection improvements. The total revenue projected in Table B-4 is slightly (0.75%) less than the total cost of future fire sta- tions improvements, as estimated in Table B-2. Table B-4 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development �:::•�� an'd>:X;l:s��>:.>::<:<�::::2 �:�U: �}5<� �� : ::::�::.;... .:.:; : . a..;:#i;: ::;3 ;: ,:(.� :... :.." � t :: i :: � � � :..;, .:.� :5:• .:....::.::. �} ��•yy 7.l ..............:...: .p. .. //��pc �y}��,p}}�7•� 7�.:. ::i:%:•::::\7A;•::�.... •:+•i'r'riii$i?i ��pp rt ::: .\+. :{R Residential SFD DU $107 13,845 $1,481,415 Residential SFA DU $86 5,559 $478,074 Residential MFO DU $32 3,149 $100,768 Office/Hospital KSF $64 159 $10,176 General Commercial KSF $36 6,822 $245,592 Tourist Commercial Room $47 1,429 $67,163 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $18 1,726 $31,068 $2,414,256 I See Table B-3. 2 See Table 2-2. 3 Impact fee revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development. F. SUMMARY OF ALL IMPACT FEES INCLUDING FIRE IMPACT FEE Table B-5, on the next page summarizes the all recommended impact fees by development cate- gory and facility type, including the fire impact fee. Compare this table with Table S-1, in the Executive Summary, which does not include impact fees for fire protection facilities. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-5 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table B-5 Summary of Calculated Impact Fees per Unit of Development ....at..:.::.: .............::::.::... .....:::::::::::::::........::............:..:.........:.�:..........:::::::e0ter.:.:::::;�cr�:::::.:.::: ........ : : Res(SFD) DU $ 568 $402 $569 $108 $236 $107 $ 19 $6 $2,015 Res (SFA) 2 DU $ 568 $281 $457 $86 $166 $ 74 $ 19 $4 $1,655 Res (MFO)' DU $ 332 $368 $169 $32 $217 $ 98 $ 11 $6 $1,233 Office/Hosp KSF 5 $1,092 - $346 $64 - - $ 37 - $1,539 General Corn KSF $ 890 - $197 $36 - - $ 30 - $1,153 Tourist Com Room $ 288 - $245 $47 - - $ 10 - $ 590 Golf Courses Acre $106 - $ 94 $18 - - $ 4 - $ 222 I Residential - single family detached. Z Residential - single family attached 3 Residential - multi -family and other G. PROJECTED REVENUE 4 DU = dwelling unit 5 KSF = 1000 square feet of gross building area. Table B-6 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now through buildout, including the fire impact fees. Table B-6 shows the total projected revenue if all fees, including fire impact fees are adopted as recommended and if all development anticipated in this report actually oc- curs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars. Table B-6 can be compared with Table S-2, in the Executive Summary, which does not include impact fees for fire protection. Table B-6 Projected Impact Fee Revenue Transportation $18,802,498 Parks $ 8,247,054 Civic Center $12,797,375 Fire Stations $ 2,414,256 Libraries $ 4,850,994 Community Centers $ 2,184,389 Streetand Park Maintenance $ 759,252 Total $50,055,818 I Projected Revenue in current dollars. May, 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS Page B-6 rivolff on►MA41wj BASIS FOR NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED The trip generation rates used in this Study were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual "Trip Generation." The sixth edition was used as the primary source and was supplemented by data from the fourth edition. Peak hour trips are identified in the manual in a number of different modes. One mode is known as the average daily trip (ADT) in which each type of land use generates an average daily amount of trips in a 24-hour period. Another mode is peak hour trips in which analysis has been completed for the morning peak hours (A.M. Peak) which are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the evening peak hours (P.M. Peak) which are 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. A complete analysis indicated that the maximum load of traffic occurs during the P.M. peak housr. For this reason the trip generation rates for the P.M. peak hour were utilized so a nexus could be established based on the time of the highest load on the City's circulation system. In order to provide a more accurate nexus, average trip lengths for each type of land use was utilized in the calculation. The best available information on average trip lengths by land use type is published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication "Traffic Generators." Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta, it is believed they reasonably represent trip lengths for various types of development. CVAG has completed trip length information for regional facilities; however, they indicate the trip lengths on the regional facility equate to an approximate 1:1 proportionality between residential use and commercial use. Although this may be accurate for the traffic trip lengths on the regional system, a City system with its local street network reacts in a different way. The basis of City development usually includes separate core "village" areas with different levels of commercial to support each separate village. The study completed by SANDAG was established by surveying 1,700 commuters to determine their destination and average trip length. This provided a proportional trip length of commercial to residential at approximately one mile for commercial for every 1.975 miles for residential (1 :1 .975). The CVAG trip length study indicated a one mile commercial to one mile residential ratio (1 :1). In order to estimate the ratio for trip lengths in the City of La Quinta, a City map was prepared with one mile radii permeating out from the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1 as the origin. The percent of development remaining was identified in each one mile radius circle radiating out from the origin. Trip lengths for each destination were then scaled. These included destinations of leaving town, food shopping, trips to school, and cross town trips. The estimate for the ratios in La Quinta was one mile for commercial for every 1.667 miles for residential (1 :1 .667). These numbers are closer to the SANDAG calculations. Therefore, the published SANDAG numbers were utilized for average trip lengths. T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5d.wpd ATTACHMENT 3 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISQN 6`h Edition PM Peak CONSTR EXIST LQ PROP. LQ PALM RANCHO INDIAN INDIO TYPE IMP. FEE DEV FEE DESERT* MIRAGE WELLS *** ** $100K house $2,250 $1,907 $2,042.30 to $2,736.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 1300 sf $2,792.30 $150K house $3,375 $1,907 $2,042.30 to $3,320.3 $4,302.30 $1,863 1700 sf $2,792.30 $200K house $4,500 $1,907 $2,042.30 to $4,050.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 2200 sf $2,792.30 $300K house $6,000 $1,907 $2,042.30 to $5,218.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 3000 sf $2,792.30 $500K house $6,000 $1,907 $2,042.30 to $6,678.30 $4,312.30 $1,863 4000 sf $2,792.30 500,000 sf $300,000 $558,500 $1,398,030 $1,358,030. $628,030.00 $868,525 Gen.Corn To 50 Acres $1,458,030 20,000 sf $6,000 $29,500 $64,940 $73,142.80 $43,942.80 $49,167 Office To I Acre $67,940 200 Acre $60,000 $40,800 $152,624 $124,556 $109,956 $136,206 Golf Course To 10,000 sf bld $182,624 10 Acre site 100 Rm $60,000 $54,300 $142,482 $113,682 $47,982 $89,732 Hotel To 45,000 sf $172,482 10 Acres 20 unit $40,500 $31,380 $43,806 $45,166 $86,046 $30251 townhouse To 1200 sf ea $58,806 $90k/unit 20 unit $45,000 $24,020 $42,206 $39,326 $86,046 $30,251 Apt Bldg To 1000 sf ea $57,206 $2,000,000 * Includes TUMF,1/4 Ac lot, Park Imp., Signals, Drainage. (Difference due to drainage fee) ** Includes TUMF, City Yard, Street Widening, Signals, Bridges & Crossings, Bus Shelters, Median Islands, Bike Paths, Utility Under grounding, Parks, Public Art, Fire Station, City Hall Expansion. *** Includes TUMF, Citywide Public Improvement Fee, Hwy I I I Circulation Improvement Fee. i1 4 v ATTACHMENT 4 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON With Fire Stations 6tn Edition PM Peak CONSTR EXIST LQ PROP. LQ PALM RANCHO INDIAN INDAO TYPE IMP. FEE DEV FEE DESERT* MIRAGE WELLS *** ** $100K house $2,250 $2,015 $2,042.30 to $2,736.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 1300 sf $2,792.30 $150K house $3,375 $2,015 $2,042.30 to $3,320.3 $4,302.30 $1,863 1700 sf $2,792.30 S200K house $4,500 $2,015 $2,042.30 to $4,050.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 2200 sf $2,792.30 S300K house $6,000 $2,015 S2,042.30 to $5,218.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 3000 sf $2,792.30 $500K house $6,000 $2,015 $2,042.30 to $6,678.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 4000 sf S2,792.30 500,000 sf $300,000 $576,500 $1,398,030 $1,358,030. $628,030.00 $868,525 Gen. Corn To 50 Acres $1,458,030 20,000 sf $6,000 $30,780 $64,940 $73,142.80 $43,942.80 $49,167 Office To 1 Acre $67,940 200 Acre $60,000 $44,400 $152,624 $124,556 $109,956 $136,206 Golf Course To 10,000 sf bld $182,624 10 Acre site lull Rm $60,000 $59,000 $142,482 $113,682 $47,982 $89,732 Hotel To 45,000 sf $172,482 10 Acres 20 unit $40,500 $33,100 $43,806 $45,166 $86,046 $30251 townhouse To 1200 sf ea $58,806 $90k/unit 20 unit $45,000 $24,660 $42,206 $39,326 $86,046 $30,251 Apt Bldg To 1000 sf ea $57,206 S2,000,000 * Includes TUMF,1/4 Ac lot, Park Imp., Signals, Drainage. (Difference due to drainage fee) ** Includes TUMF, City Yard, Street Widening, Signals, Bridges & Crossings, Bus Shelters, Median Islands, Bike Paths, Utility Under grounding, Parks, Public Art, Fire Station, City Hall Expansion. *** Includes TUMF, Citywide Public Improvement Fee, Hwy I I I Circulation Improvement Fee. ATTACHMENT 5 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Analysis On November 8, 1988, the voters of Riverside County approved Measure "A," which provided for an increase in sales tax by 1 /2% to be used County wide for transportation purposes through the year 2009. Currently, the Coachella Valley receives approximately 27.6% of the Riverside County Measure "A" Funds. The Measure "A" Ordinance adopted by the voters in Riverside County divides the funds into four programs: 1) 15% is dedicated to State highways; 2) not less than 35% or more than 40% is returned to local jurisdictions for local road improvements; 3) between 5% and 10% is dedicated to public transportation projects; and 4) 40% is dedicated to the Regional Arterial Program. The 40% dedicated to the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program is estimated to generate approximately $121,000,000 by Fiscal Year 2008/09. It should be noted that the voter adopted Measure "A" expenditure plan specifically links implementation of the TUMF Program to the Measure "A" Regional Arterial Program. It also stipulates that TUMF Funds must generate an amount equal to Measure "A" Sales Tax allocated for the Regional Arterial System. To comply with this requirement, the Cities in Riverside County must participate in CVAG's TUMF Program or forfeit their share of the Measure "A" Sales Tax proceeds to CVAG's Regional Arterial Program. These proceeds are referred to as "in -lieu of TUMF" fees. Currently, the Cities of Coachella and La Quinta are assessed "in -lieu of TUMF" fees from the Measure "A" local streets and roads program. Section 65089 (b)(4) of the Government Code adopted as part of the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires that a program be developed and implemented that analyzes the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems including an estimate of the cost associated with mitigating those impacts. The Riverside County CMP provides two options to Coachella Valley jurisdictions regarding participation in the TUMF Program. These options are as follows: 1 . Directly participate in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments TUMF by adopting -the TUMF Model Ordinance and collecting TUMF funds from new or expanded developments; or 2. Agree to provide "indieu" funding (indirectly participate in the TUMF program) for the Regional Arterial Program that would otherwise have been collected if the TUMF Program were in place. TAPW DEPT\COUNCIL\1 999\99061 5d.wpd If La Quinta continues to indirectly participate in the TUMF Program by forfeiting its Measure "A" local streets and road funds, and those funds continue to equal less than what would have been collected if TUMF Fees were assessed, the City may eventually be found in noncompliance with the CMP if the deficit is not paid within a reasonable period of time. A finding of noncompliance by RCTC could trigger action by the State Controller to withhold Proposition 111 Gas Tax increment funds. In addition, according to SB 1435 (KOPT) a jurisdiction found and proven to be in noncompliance with the CMP could also face loss of Federal Surface Transportation Funds allocated through the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for projects not on the Regional system. According to the CVAG staff, from the implementation of the TUMF program to date, TUMF that would have been collected in the City of La Quinta totals approximately $5,300,000. The Measure "A" "in -lieu" that has been withheld from the City totals approximately $1,900,000. In accordance with CVAG's current policies, the difference of approximately $3,400,000 is a shortfall amount that the City may have to contribute to CVAG in order to make the Regional Arterial Program "whole." With the increase of commercial development within the City, the amount of sales tax withheld as the City's "in -lieu" fee would increase and thus possibly offset this deficit in the future. To date, the City has not been found in noncompliance since the City is participating with the "in -lieu" fees. The yearly amount of Measure "A" that is withheld for the City's participation is up to approximately $300,000 per year. There are two options for the City Council to consider in regard to the TUMF Program. Option 1 would be not to adopt a Resolution entering into the Regional TUMF Program at this time. The advantages are as follows: 1 . The City Council will maintain full discretion in administering the total transportation related Infrastructure Fees collected within the City of La Quinta. 2. The City's proposed development fee will decrease from the existing Infrastructure Fee for all residential development, golf course development, and hotel development. The disadvantage is that the City will continue to forfeit its local share of the Measure "A" Sales Tax proceeds. There is also a possibility that the City may be found in noncompliance in the future. However, with the increase in commercial development and sales tax generation for the City of La Quinta, there may come a time when the Measure A proceeds ("in -lieu" funding) will make up the difference and actually become larger than the amount to be generated by the TUMF fee. When this condition occurs, the City Council may wish to revisit the possibility of adopting the TUMF Ordinance. J TAPW DEPT\COUNCIL\1 999\99061 5d.wpd Option 2 is to adopt and implement the Regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. The advantages are as follows: 1 . The City will begin receiving its proportionate share of the local 1 /2% sales tax. Presently, this is equating to approximately $300,000 per year and will increase with more commercial development within the City. If this occurs, the City must prepare a five-year CIP outlining the intended uses of the Measure "A" funds. Once the five-year CIP for Measure "A" is adopted, the City will begin receiving the Measure "A" funding for use on the five year identified transportation improvements. 2. The City will not be at risk of being found in noncompliance with the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan. 3. The City will be considered a direct participant in the CVAG's Regional Arterial Program. Disadvantages include the following: The City's developers will begin paying a regional developer fee in addition to the proposed Development Impact Fee. 2. The City will be required to make up any shortfall between the amount of local Measure "A" funds forfeited and the amount of TUMF that would have been collected from the inception of the program. As stated earlier, the shortfall is approximately $3,400,000. CVAG recently allowed the City of Desert Hot Springs to make up its shortfall from the TUMF/Measure "A" program over a period of years using 50% of its local Measure "A" sales tax collected per year. This may be a possibility for making up the shortfall without immediate impact to the City. The City is also negotiating reimbursements from CVAG for a number of projects identified in the TUMF/Measure "A" program that the City has "up fronted." However, it does not appear the reimbursement would occur in the near future. It is a possibility that credit may able to be given to the City's shortfall in exchange for the TUMF/Measure "A" identified projects completed by the City. 3. The City Council will lose a substantial amount of its current discretionary authority as it relates to Transportation Infrastructure related to the TUMF/Measure "A" fees within it jurisdictions. T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\ 1999\990615d. wpd Included with this report as Exhibit A is a spreadsheet which indicates the proposed Development Impact Fee and TUMF Fee for each different land use identified in the Development Impact Fee Study. These numbers are combined to indicate the new proposed fee for the Development Community. Please note that TUMF fees for Retail/Commercial range from $2,137 per 1,000 square feet of floor area for commercial establishments from 0 - 75 square feet to $1 ,256 per 1 ,000 square feet for commercial floor area of 300,000 square feet and over. There is also a calculation showing the proposed Development Impact Fee and TUMF fee including Fire Protection Facilities within the City of La Quinta. Included as Exhibit B is a spreadsheet identifying the proposed Development Impact Fee with the TUMF fees. These proposed fees are compared to the existing La Quinta Infrastructure Fee and the Development Fees from the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Indio for different development scenarios. Included as Exhibit C is a spreadsheet indicating Development Impact Fee Comparisons with the TUMF fees including Fire Station Improvement within the City of La Quinta. These fees are also compared with the existing La Quinta Infrastructure Fees and Development Fees from the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Indio for different development scenarios. T:\PWDEPT\COUNC1L\1 999\99061 5d. Wpd EXHIBIT A Developer Fee & TUMF Land Use Dev. Fee TUMF Total Res. SFD $1,907 $838 $2,745 Res. SFA $1,569 $506 $2,075 Res. MFO $1,201 $506 $1,707 Office $1,475 $2,197__ $3,672__ Hospital $1,475 $1,102 $2,577 Gen. Com. $1,1 17 $1,256 $2,373 Tourist Com. $543 $480 $1,023 Golf Course $204 $550 $754 NOTE: TUMF Fees for Retail Com. (Gen.) range from: $2,137/ksf 0 SF - 75 SF to: $1,256/ksf 300,000 SF and over Developer Fee & TUMF with Fire Stations Land Use Dev. Fee TUMF Total Res. SFD _ $2,015 $838 $2,853 Res. SFA $1,655 $506 $2,16.1__ Res. MFO $1 233 $506 $1,739 Office $1,539 $2,197 $3,736 Hospital $1,539 $1 102 $2,641 Gen. Com. $1,153 $1,256 $2,409 Tourist Coma $590 $480 $1,070 Golf Course _ $222 $550 $772 NOTE: TUMF Fees for Retail Com. (Gen.) range from: $2,137/ksf 0 SF - 75 SF to: $1,256/ksf 300,000 SF and over DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON With TUMF 6" Edition PM Peak CONSTR EXIST LQ PROP. LQ PALM RANCHO INDIAN INDIO TYPE IMP. FEE DEV FEE DESERT* MIRAGE WELLS *** ** S100K house S2,250 S2,745 $2,042.30 to $2,736.30 S4,302.30 $1,863 1300 sf $2,792.30 S150K house $3,375 $2,745 $2,042.30 to $3,320.3 $4,302.30 $1,863 1700 sf $2,792.30 S200K house $4,500 $2,745 $2,042.30 to $4,050.30 $4,302.30 S1,863 2200 sf $2,792.30 S300K house $6,000 $2,745 $2,042.30 to $5,218.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 3000 sf $2,792.30 S500K house $6,000 $2,745 $2,042.30 to S6,678.30 S4,302.30 $1,863 4000 sf $2,792.30 500,000 sf $300,000 $1,186,500 $1,398,030 $1,358,030. $628,030.00 S868,525 Gen.Corn To 50 Acres $1,458,030 20,000 sf S6,000 $73,440 $64,940 $73,142.80 S43,942.80 $49,167 Office To 1 Acre $67,940 200 Acre S60,000 $150,800 S152,624 $124,556 S109,956 $136,206 Golf Course To 10,000 sf bld $182,624 10 Acre site 100 Rm $60,000 $102,300 $142,482 S1139682 $47,982 $89,732 Hotel To 45,000 sf $172,482 10 Acres 20 unit $40,500 S41,500 $43,806 S45,166 $86,046 S30251 townhouse To 1200 sf ea $58,806 S90k/unit 20 unit S45,000 $34,140 S42,206 $39,326 $86,046 $30,251 Apt Bldg To 1000 sf ea S57,206 $2,000,000 * Includes TUMF,1/4 Ac lot, Park Imp., Signals, Drainage. (Difference due to drainage fee) ** Includes TUMF, City Yard, Street Widening, Signals, Bridges & Crossings, Bus Shelters, Median Islands, Bike Paths, Utility Under grounding, Parks, Public Art, Fire Station, City Hall Expansion. *** Includes TUMF, Citywide Public Improvement Fee, Hwy I I Circulation Improvement Fee. EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON With TUMF With Fire Stations 61' Edition PM Peak CONSTR EXIST LQ PROP. LQ PALM RANCHO INDIAN INDIO TYPE IMP. FEE DEV FEE DESERT* MIRAGE ** WELLS *** $100K house $2,250 $2,853 S2,042.30 to $2,736.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 1300 sf $2,792.30 $150K house $3,375 $2,853 $2,042.30 to $3,320.3 $4,302.30 $1,863 1700 sf $2,792.30 $200K house $4,500 S2,853 $2,042.30 to $4,050.30 S4,302.30 S1,863 2200 sf $2,792.30 S300K house S6,000 $2,853 S2,042.30 to S5,218.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 3000 sf S2,792.30 S500K house $6,000 $2,853 S2,042.30 to $6,678.30 $4,302.30 S1,863 4000 sf $2,792.30 500,000 sf $300,000 $1,204,500 S1,398,030 S1,358,030. $628,030.00 S868,525 Gen. Corn To 50 Acres $1,458,030 20,000 sf $6,000 $74,720 $64,940 $73,142.80 $43,942.80 S49,167 Office To 1 Acre $67,940 200 Acre S60,000 $154,400 $152,624 $124,556 S109,956 S136,206 Golf Course To 10,000 sf bid $182,624 10 Acre site 100 Rm S60,000 $107,000 S142,482 $113,682 $47,982 S89,732 Hotel To 45,000 sf $172,482 10 Acres 20 unit $40,500 $43,220 S43,806 S45,166 S86,046 S30251 townhouse To 1200 sf ea $58,806 $90k/unit 20 unit S45,000 S34,780 S42,206 S39,326 S86,046 $30,251 Apt Bldg To 1000 sf ea $57,206 $2,000,000 * Includes TUMF,1/4 Ac lot, Park Imp., Signals, Drainage. (Difference due to drainage fee) ** Includes TUMF, City Yard, Street Widening, Signals, Bridges & Crossings, Bus Shelters, Median Islands, Bike Paths, Utility Under grounding, Parks, Public Art, Fire Station, City Hall Expansion. *** Includes TUMF, Citywide Public Improvement Fee, Hwy I I I Circulation Improvement Fee. T4ht 4 4a4" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: .June 15, 1999 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Landscape and Lighting STUDY SESSION: Assessment District 89-1, Fiscal Year 1999/2000 PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta confirming the diagram and assessment for Landscape and Lighting District 89-1, Fiscal Year 1999/2000, pursuant to the Engineer's Report. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of the recommendation outlined in this report will generate approximately $764,225 in revenue from Landscape and Lighting District assessments for Fiscal Year 1999/2000, offsetting estimated Landscape and Lighting District expenditures of approximately $1 ,041 ,586 for the same period of time. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: On May 18, 1999, the City Council adopted the following two (2) resolutions: ► Resolution No. 99-59 (Attachment 1), approving the Preliminary Engineer's Report for Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89-1, Fiscal Year 1999/2000; ► Resolution No. 99-60 (Attachment 2), declaring intention to levy annual assessments for maintenance and servicing landscape and lighting improvements within the boundaries of the territory included in the Citywide Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89-1 , and giving notice thereof. The Engineer's Report is required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and must include the following information: 1 . A description of the services to be provided throughout the District. 2. Total costs necessary to provide all services described in the Engineer's Report. J J, i T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5c—pd 3. A diagram showing the boundaries of the District, including special benefit zones. 4. An assessment schedule. The May 1999 Engineer's Report, prepared by City staff with the parcel reconciliation completed by MBIA MuniFinancial, provides the required information for the Landscape and Lighting District 89-1 for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. A copy of the report is on file in the City Clerk's office. The Engineer's Report projects the following for Fiscal Year 1999/2000 in comparison to the Fiscal Year 1998/99 Engineer's Report: Citywide benefit zone Number of local benefit zones Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) EDU Rate District Revenue FY 1998/99 Yes 6 22,376 $35.60/EDU $796,586 FY 1999/2000 Yes 6 21,467 $35.60/EDU $764,225 The decrease in the assessment is due to an updated parcel reconciliation completed by MBIA MuniFinancial. The actual assessment per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) has not changed from the previous year. The Engineer's Report was completed in accordance with provisions set forth by Proposition 218, which was passed by the voting public during the November 1996 election. The total proposed Landscape & Lighting Budget for 1999/2000 is $1,290,464. The total cost for exempt projects as indicated in the Preliminary Engineer's Report is $1 ,041 ,586. Last year the total estimate for exempt projects in the District was $884,488. The increase in cost for exempt projects is due to the addition of the following medians in the Engineer's Report: 1. Washington Street Median from Highway 1 1 1 to Avenue 48 2. Washington Median from Avenue 50 to Avenue 52 3. Avenue 50 Median from Washington Street to Eisenhower Drive 4. Miles Avenue Median from Washington Street to 1,000' east of Washington Street 5. Washington Street Median from the Whitewater Channel to the north City limit 6. Avenue 48 Median from Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street 7. Eisenhower Drive Median from Avenue 50 to Coachella Drive J '3 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615C. Pd The proposed 1999/2000 budget of $1 ,041,586 for exempt projects includes $965,276 for the total citywide benefit zone, $71 ,000 in capital equipment, and $5,310 for the North La Quinta Sub Zone expenses. As was the case in Fiscal Year 1995/96, Fiscal Year 1996/97, Fiscal Year 1 997/98, and Fiscal Year 1998/99, it is proposed that the North La Quinta Sub Zones continue to be identified in the Engineer's Report and the expenses be funded from sources outside of the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District. In accordance with Proposition 218, assessments cannot be increased without a vote of the public during an election year in which City Officials are running for election. Therefore, last year's assessment of $35.60 per EDU is proposed for the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 assessment. With the new parcel reconciliation, the estimated total revenue for the District is $764,225. The difference ($277,361) will be funded through the General Fund. On June 1, 1999, the City Council conducted a Public Meeting in order to provide the affected property owners an opportunity to ask the City Council and staff questions pertaining to the proposed changes to the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 89-1 for Fiscal Year 1999/2000, as outlined in the Preliminary Engineer's Report, dated May 1999. No one chose to speak regarding the proposed changes. Should the City Council receive testimony from the public through the end of the Public Hearing that warrants a change to the assessment level, the City Council can adjust the assessment levels. However, the assessment can either stay the same or be reduced in comparison to the assessment from Fiscal Year 1 998/99. A reduction in the assessment level will impact the revenues necessary to fund the proposed Landscape and Lighting operational budget for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. If service levels are not adjusted accordingly, the General Fund would need to be utilized to make up the difference between the reduced revenue level and the proposed Landscape and Lighting operational budget. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Quinta confirming the diagram and assessment for Landscape and Lighting District 89-1, Fiscal Year 1999/2000, pursuant to the Engineer's Report. T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\1999\990615c. W pd 2. Direct staff to adjust the Engineer's Report to reflect any changes approved by the City Council upon the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Should the City Council direct amendments to the Engineer's Report, dated May 1999, an amended Engineer's Report and the impacts of the amendments will be submitted to the City Council for approval at the July 6, 1999 City Council Meeting. Upon approval, the City Council will adopt a resolution confirming the assessment diagram and assessments for Fiscal Year 1999/2000, pursuant to the modified Engineer's Report. Any reduction in the assessment will result in a reduction of Landscape and Lighting District revenues available for Fiscal Year 1999/2000, requiring one or a combination of the following: ► Supplement Fiscal Year 1999/2000 revenues with other funds, such as General Fund; ► Reduce services to reflect the reduced revenue levels. 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, X�� Chris A. Vog P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for Submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\1999\99061 5c.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 (Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972) The City Council of the City of La Quinta Resolves: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Council directed the City Engineer to prepare and file an annual report for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. SECTION 2. The City Engineer filed an annual report on May 18, 1999, and the City Council adopted its Resolution of Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments within Assessment District 89-1 for Fiscal Year 1999/2000 and set a Public Meeting date of June 1, 1999 and a Public Hearing date of June 5, 1999 at the La Quinta City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. Notice of the Public Meeting and Public Hearing was given in the time and manner required by law. SECTION 3. On June 1, 1999, a Public Meeting for which notice was given was conducted at which every interested person was given an opportunity to object to the proposed assessment. SECTION 4. On June 15, 1999, a Public Hearing for which notice was given was conducted at which every interested person was given an opportunity to object to the proposed assessment in writing or orally, and the City Council has considered each protest. SECTION 5. On June 15, 1999, the City Council found that written protests against the proposed assessment had not been made by owners representing more than one-half of the area of the land to be assessed. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby confirms the diagram and assessment as set forth in the annual report of the Engineer of Work and hereby levies the assessment set forth for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5c. Wpd Resolution 99 - Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th Day of June 1999 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: John J. Pena, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California T:\PWDEPT\C0UNC1L\1 999\99061 5c.wpd