2011 06 13 CSC'.,.
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITY HALL STUDY SESSION ROOM
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 13, 2011 - 5:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on any matter
not listed on the agenda. Please complete a Request to Speak form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
PRESENTATIONS — None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. May 9, 2011 Minutes
CONSENT CALENDAR — None.
NOTE: Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine in nature and will be
approved by one motion.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Consideration of Adding Dog Park Rules and Regulations to the La Quinta
Municipal Code
2. Consideration of Cancelling the August 8, 2011 Community Services
Commission Meeting
Community Services Commission Agenda
STUDY SESSION
1. Discussion of the Lighting and Landscape Assessment District, Park
Assessment District, Utility Tax and User Fees as Possible Strategies for
Cost Recovery for Parks and Landscape Maintenance
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
1. Monthly Department Report for April 2011
2. Monthly Department Report for May 2011
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
1. Report from Commissioners Regarding Meetings Attended
2. Calendar of Monthly Events
PUBLIC HEARING — None.
ADJOURNMENT
A Regular meeting of the Community Services Commission will be held on July 11,
2011, commencing at 5:30 p.m. at the La Quinta Study Session Room, 78-495
Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
PUBLIC NOTICES
The La Quinta Study Session Room is handicapped accessible. If special equipment
is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the Community Services Department
at 777-7156, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and
accommodations will be made.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Community Services
Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public
inspection at the City Clerk counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico,
La Quinta, CA 92253, during normal business hours.
Community Services Commission Agenda 2
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 9, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Community Services Commission was called to order at
5:32 p.m. by Chairperson Fitzpatrick.
Commissioner Lawrence led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Commissioners Blakeley, Engel, Fitzpatrick, Lawrence, and Leidner
STAFF PRESENT: Edie Hylton, Community Services Director; Steve Howlett, Golf
& Parks Manager; Angela Guereque, Senior Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Motion - It was moved by Commissioners Leidner/Blakeley to confirm the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
PRESENTATIONS - None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of April 11, 2011 Minutes
Chairperson Fitzpatrick noted a change on page 2, Item No. 2, Motion paragraph.
Chairperson Lawrence should read Chairperson Fitzpatrick.
Motion - It was moved by Commissioners Lawrence/Leidner to approve the
minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Consideration of Expansion to the Small Dog Area at Seasons Dog Park
Commissioner Leidner recused himself for a conflict of interest on this item.
3
Community Services Commission Minutes May 9, 2011
-2-
Director Hylton presented the staff report.
Commissioner Blakeley asked staff what the square footage of Fritz Burns Dog Park
is. Director Hylton stated the Fritz Burns Dog Park is 2,600 sq. ft. for small dogs
and 2,900 sq. ft. for large dogs.
Peggy Goza, 79199 Cetrino, La Quinta, spoke as a large dog owner who used to
go to Pioneer Park and is delighted with the large dog area at Seasons; however
the small dog area is too small. In favor of Scenario 1.
Kathy Gottberg, 78290 Desert Fall Way, La Quinta, thanked the City for the
beautiful dog park. Small dog owner. Stated the small dog area is perfect the way
it is. Feels that lots of traffic has been brought to the neighborhood since the dog
park opened. Stated that there is more traffic than noted in the staff report and if
the park is expanded there will be even more traffic. In favor of renovating Fritz
Burns Park.
Thom Gottberg, 78290 Desert Fall Way, La Quinta, stated that the neighborhood is
still getting more traffic as more people find out about the new dog park. Feels
that if an expansion were done it would create more traffic. Many of the dog park
visitors are parking in front of neighbors houses. In favor of renovating Fritz Burns
Park.
Sarah Winch, 78295 Desert Fall Way, La Quinta, small dog owner with a young
child who is worried about the traffic. In favor of leaving the dog park as it is.
Sherry Halperin, 50115 Malaga Court, La Quinta, small dog owner, stated she
cannot use Seasons because there is not enough room for her dog and therefore
has to use Pioneer Park. Does not feel the traffic would increase if the small dog
area were expanded. There needs to be a place where small dogs can run. In
favor of Scenario 2 or 3.
Joan Kleban-Raupah, 55069 Oak Hill, La Quinta, small dog owner, stated there is
not enough grass for small dogs at Seasons. In favor of Scenario 2, Scenario 3,
and renovating Fritz Burns.
Marilyn Ginsberg, 55142 Southern Hills, La Quinta, small dog owner, stated there
is no room to throw a ball in the small dog area. Sees no reason to spend money
on Fritz Burns Dog Park. In favor of Scenario 2 or 3.
Gwen Gonzalez, 78525 Avenida Ultimo, La Quinta, stated how we are blessed to
be speaking about dog parks. It is interesting how much time is being spent on
this issue, which she feels is pulling the community apart. Ten years ago we
weren't talking about dog parks because they did not exist. Stated that these
issues are individual concerns and not a concern for the overall community.
4
Community Services Commission Minutes May 9, 2011
-3-
Betty Phelps, 79000 River Rock Road, La Quinta, large dog owner, stated the small
dog area needs to be expanded. Feels that the traffic issue could be handled with
direction. In favor of expanding the small dog area at Seasons if it does not
impede with the large dog area.
Commissioner Engel asked where the money would come from. Director Hylton
stated that an improvement to Fritz Burns could come out of the Parks Operation
Budget for additional improvements or come from Quimby funds.
Chairperson Fitzpatrick stated she was concerned about the neighborhood and the
impacts on the neighbors. Feels that in order to be fiscally responsible, Fritz Burns
should be upgraded.
Commissioner Engel stated she feels expanding Fritz Burns would create more
problems with people who have small and large dogs and would still be relatively
small. Feels there is a large disparity at Seasons Park. In favor of Scenario 2 or 3
and improving Fritz Burns Park.
Chairperson Fitzpatrick stated that from a design perspective, Scenario 3 would still
provide a long run area for large dogs.
Commissioner Engel stated she feels for the residents and would like the City to
look into the traffic issues. Director Hylton stated that she would speak to the
Public Works Department about signage; however the streets in that area are public
streets.
Commissioner Lawrence stated the original intention was for a large dog area at
Seasons. The decision should be based on the people living in that area. In favor
of not changing anything at Seasons.
Motion — It was moved by Commissioner Lawrence to recommend none of the
scenarios at Season and have staff explore renovations and improvements at Fritz
Burns. Motion failed.
Commissioner Blakeley stated she feels that Fritz Burns has to be improved. Golf &
Parks Manager Howlett explained that the $10,000 for the Fritz Burns renovations
includes concrete (ADA upgrades), removal of the middle fence, new drinking
fountain, additional seating, and lighting.
Chairperson Fitzpatrick stated that Scenario 3 still meets the purpose of Seasons,
but is having a hard time with impacting the neighbors.
Fi
Community Services Commission Minutes May 9, 2011
-4-
Motion - It was moved by Commissioners Fitzpatrick/Lawrence to recommend
doing nothing at either of the dog parks. Motion failed with Commissioners
Engel/Blakeley opposed and Commissioner Leidner recused.
Motion - It was moved by Commissioners Blakeley/Fitzpatrick to recommend not
expanding Seasons Park and recommend renovation of the Fritz Burns dog park to
a small dog park. Motion carried with Engel opposed and Commissioner Leidner
recused.
STUDY SESSION - None.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
1. Monthly Department Report for March 2011
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
1. Report from Commissioners Regarding Meetings Attended.
2. Calendar of Monthly Events
PUBLIC HEARING - None.
OPEN DISCUSSION
Commissioner Lawrence commended the staff for all the work put into the Dog
Park report.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioners Lawrence/Blakeley to adjourn the Community
Services Commission meeting at 6:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
NEXT MEETING INFORMATION:
A Regular Meeting of the Community Services Commission to be held on June 13,
2011 commencing at 5:30 p.m. in the City of La Quinta Study Session Room, 78-
495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
WP*49
Angela Guereque
Community Services Senior Secretary
Cy
COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 13, 201
ITEMTITLE: Consideration to Recommend
of Dog Park Rules and Regulations to th
Municipal Code
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend the addition of Dog Park
Code.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None. New Dog Park Rules and Regulal
Operations Account as part of the need
City parks.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
40"
e Addition
La Quinta
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION: 1
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
and Regulations to the La Quinta Municipal
s signs will be purchased through the Parks
new and replacement signs throughout the
The increasing popularity of the dog parksin La Quinta has created issues that require
the City to clarify responsibilities and possible grounds for enforcement within the dog
park areas. The proposed Dog Park rules will provide additional regulations for
situations regarding dog conduct, spectators, unsupervised children, food, and special
events within the City's' dog parks.
Staff has conducted research with assis
to determine the need for enhancing the
The following rules are suggested:
• Dog parks are to be used
activities are prohibited.
• Dog owners using the dog
• The City is not responsible
dogs may contract.
from the Joint Powers Insurance Agency
and proper conduct in all City dog parks.
dog owners and their dogs only. All other
are using it at their own risk.
injuries to people and dogs or illnesses
►/
e The City reserves the right to eject anyone from the dog park at any
time for any reason.
• Adults must accompany children under the age of 12.
• Dog Park hours are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
• Dogs must never be left unattended.
• All dogs must have current vaccinations and a current City of La
Quinta dog license.
• Unruly dogs are not allowed.
• Female dogs in heat are not allowed.
• Dogs are not allowed in the area that is not designated for their weight
and size.
• Dogs in small dog areas are to be 25 lbs. or less
• Dog owners must clean up after their dog(s).
• Owners must stop their dog(s) from digging. Any holes created must
be filled by the owner of the dog(s).
• No alcohol or drug use is permitted.
• No spectators are permitted in the designated dog park.
• Unauthorized pieces of equipment, obstacles, or apparatus are not
allowed in the designated dog park (skateboards, scooters, bicycles,
etc.).
• No food allowed in the park.
• Glass containers are not allowed in the dog park.
• Special events or contests are not allowed in the dog park without first
obtaining written authorization from the City.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Commission include:
1. Recommend the addition of Dog Park Rules and Regulations to the La Quinta
Municipal Code; or
8
2. Do not recommend the addition of Dog Park Rules and Regulations to the La
Quinta Municipal Code; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
11JOY--I
Edie Hylton
Community Services Director
0
COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 13, 2011
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Cancelling the August
8, 2011 Community Services Commission Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:
ICef I oweltia
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
As deemed appropriate by the Community Services Commission.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The Community Services Commission has historically gone dark in August due to
vacation schedules.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Commission are:
1. Elect to cancel the August 8, 2011 Community Services Commission Meeting;
or
2. Do not elect to cancel the August 8, 2011 Community Services Commission
Meeting; or
3. Provide staff with alternate direction.
Respectfully Submitted
Edie Hylton
Community Services Director
10
b
MEETINGDATE: June 13, 2011
ITEM TITLE: Discussion of the Lighting and Landscape
Assessment District, Park Assessment District, Utility
Tax, and User Fees as Possible Strategies for Cost
Recovery of Parks Maintenance
RECOMMENDATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION: I
PUBLIC HEARING:
In 1989, the City Council formed a Citywide Landscape and Lighting Assessment
District to fund the costs associated with the maintenance, construction, and
servicing of landscape areas, street lights and traffic signals.
At this time, the estimated Fiscal Year 2011-2012 district exempt cost (City
landscape maintenance cost within the right-of-way) is $1,578,009. Based on this
estimate, the citywide benefit assessment would be $58.27/EDU. The current
assessment is $35.60.
The Parks Maintenance Budget, which includes costs such as the park maintenance
contract, utilities, and the park equipment replacement funding, is $1,508,363. All
costs for park maintenance are funded by the General Fund. The City is
investigating methods to reduce the expenses in the General Fund.
Alternative Cost Recovery Strategies
On November 6, 2007, City Council held a Study Session at which time alternative
cost recovery strategies for the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District 89-1
were discussed. The staff report included discussion of a special tax, an
assessment district and user fees.
On May 6, 2008, City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA)
with Willdan Financial Services to complete a feasibility study and benefit analysis
of forming a citywide park district to support parks and recreation improvements
and ongoing maintenance of existing parks under the provisions of the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972.
11
On July 21, 2009, City Council held a Study Session to review the "Summary
Technical Memorandum" (STM) prepared by Willdan Financial Services, which
outlined the preliminary analysis of the City's park, open space and trail
improvements and an evaluation of the feasibility of establishing a district to
provide a revenue source to support the maintenance and enhancement of the
City's recreational improvements. City Council directed staff to bring this matter
back for discussion in early 2010.
On February 16, 2010, City Council held a second Study Session in which the
options of a special tax vs. formation of an assessment district were discussed.
The Council agreed that the City needed to utilize a public education process and
begin its efforts in order to deliver a positive message to the community and gain
support for either a future special tax or assessment that would support the
growing expenses of maintaining City parks, open space, and recreational facilities.
Willdan Financial Services has provided updated cost information and suggested
timelines for both special tax and park assessment district formation consulting
services. The major advantages and disadvantages of each of the possible cost
recovery strategies including user fees are discussed below.
Cost Recovery Strategy - Special Tax
The advantages of a special tax include that:
1) it does not require the preparation of detailed technical data (i.e. preparing an
Annual Engineers Report) or analysis of special and general benefit that is required
for an assessment district;
2) it can include overhead and other general costs as long as they are for the
stated purpose of the agency;
3) the cost allocation structure for a special tax is typically more simplistic since its
one size fits all;
4) because the allocation structure is more simplistic, it is normally easier to explain
to the public during outreach;
5) although it has a greater threshold for passage (i.e. requires a two-thirds
approval), voters, as opposed to land owners, normally are more likely to support
funding for park and recreational improvements; and
6) it can be drafted to include recreational services and programs as well as right-
of-way landscaping. The City's existing Landscape & Lighting District does not
currently fund parks and recreational improvements.
12
The disadvantages of a special tax include that:
1) it requires a two-thirds vote (66.7%) approval of registered voters voting in the
election;
2) all properties would pay the same amount regardless of how much they use the
facilities or how close they are to the facilities;
3) there are restrictions on the use of City funds for public outreach and education;
and
4) the vote must be conducted during an election, which is typically more
expensive compared to a mailed ballot with an assessment.
Willdan Financial provided an updated scope of services and fee proposal estimate
to provide special tax consulting services to the City in regard to a possible special
tax ballot effort to support park, open space, and trail systems in time for the June
2012 municipal elections. It is important to note that public outreach efforts are
crucial to a special tax measure, and Willdan Financial strongly recommends that
the City hire a public relations firm, as well as an opinion polling firm, to assist in
the outreach effort. The cost that the County of Riverside will charge for placing
the special tax ballot measure on the June 2012 consolidated election is not known
at this time.
According to the special election timeline for placement of a special tax measure on
the Riverside County Ballot, the City would need to file resolutions with the
Register of Voters calling the election and requesting consolidation services by
March 9, 2012 in order to be on the June 2012 ballot.
Cost Recovery Strategy - Parks Assessment District
The advantages of a park assessment district include:
1) assessments only require a simple majority approval of property owners;
2) properties are assessed only for their proportional special benefits and benefits
compared to other properties;
31 there are fewer restrictions on the use of City funds for public outreach and
education;
4) balloting can be done at any time during the year; and
5) balloting may be conducted by a mailed ballot which is typically less expensive
than balloting during an election.
13
The disadvantages of a park assessment district include:
1) assessment districts require detailed support and analysis through an annual
engineer's report in order to determine special vs. general benefit;
2) since assessment districts cannot assess for costs that are of general benefit
they usually result in a lower overall assessment compared to a special tax;
3) assessment districts require more than a single assessment rate and a more
detailed or complex apportionment than a special tax;
4) public outreach and education can be more challenging to communicate and
explain with an assessment district due to the more complex nature of an
assessment;
5) out of town and commercial property owners may be less likely to support an
assessment and can negatively impact voting results since votes are in
proportionate to land ownership; and
6) expansion of existing improvements would likely facilitate modifications to the
existing zones (areas of benefit) and increases to assessments for the affected
areas; therefore, building in a cost of living increase to the assessment district is
highly recommended.
The STM outlines in detail the method of apportionment (i.e. benefit analysis,
assessment methodology, and cost allocations) and the budget/cost assumptions
(i.e. total cost allocations and allocations by zone). In the STM prepared by Willdan
Financial, a proposed assessment district structure is outlined that includes three
zones based on proximity to the City's recreational facilities. The majority of the
City would fall into Zone 1 with a proposed assessment of $46.30 per year. A
portion at the southeastern part of the City would be in Zone 2 with a proposed
assessment of $15.30 per year. The very southeast part of the City would fall into
Zone 3 and would have no assessment. In addition, the STM discusses the
advantages of developing a special tax versus the creation of a citywide
assessment district.
Cost Recovery Strategy - User Fees
The City may also want to consider user fees as a means for recapturing costs
from individuals who are directly benefiting from the City's recreational facilities.
These fees can include player fees for sports associations. Sports associations
utilize the sports parks on an ongoing basis and use these facilities to a far greater
degree than the public at large. The cost of utilities for lighting, irrigation, and field
maintenance is an ongoing expense that continues to increase. Since user fees
must tie directly to City's cost for providing the service or facility the City would
only be able to recoup a portion of the overall cost of City parks with this strategy.
14
Should the City Council want to pursue this option, staff would prepare a
comprehensive report specifically addressing this issue.
0
Cost Recovery Strategy — Utility User, Sales and General Taxes
Not included in Willdan's Analysis but worth mentioning are utility user, sales and
general taxes. These types of taxes have been used by other Coachella Valley
Cities as well as the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to fund general
or specific projects within their jurisdictions. Utility user taxes can either be special
taxes or general taxes, depending on their purpose. They are collected by utility
providers as part of its regular billing and then remitted to the taxing entity. The
City of Coachella recently adopted a 5% utility user tax as a general tax measure.
The funds collected can be used for any City purpose. The measure was only
required to be adopted by a majority vote. If a tax measure specifies that the
revenues collected will only be used for designated purposes, such as park
maintenance, then it would be a special tax and would have had to have been
adopted by a two-thirds vote.
On April 19, 2011, City staff provided the City Council with information related to
the current Landscape & Lighting Assessment District and formation of a special
tax, formation of a park assessment district, user fees, and utility use tax. At that
meeting the City Council recommended that staff provide this information to the
Community Services Commission regarding these options.
The City Manager, Tom Genovese, and Public Works Director, Tim Jonasson, will
be providing information and answer questions of the Community Services
Commission regarding this topic.
submitted,
Edie Hylton
Community Services Director
Attachments: 1. 201 1 /2012 Engineer's Annual Levy Report
2. Proposed Park Maintenance District Preliminary Rate
Structure
3. Comparison of Special Tax Park Assessment User Fees
15
a ATTACHMENT 1
o ` � � ram' ° '9'. �. eF' `�+� °h x { <' �f'! 'a k p F ♦ r.� %a, � _
t/
City ®f La Quintal
Street Lighting and Landscape
District No. 89-1
\NII. MAN
f-lfle gnat }gn`Ic^
ENGINEER'S REPORT AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Street Lighting and Landscape District No. 69-1
Riverside County, State of California
This Report and the enclosed diagrams show the exterior boundaries of the District as
they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention. Reference is
hereby made to the Riverside County Assessor's maps for a detailed description of the
lines and dimensions of parcels within the District. The undersigned respectfully submits
the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council.
Dated this day of 2011.
Willdan Financial Services
Assessment Engineer
On Behalf of the City of La Quinta
By:
Adina Vazquez
Senior Project Manager, District Administration Services
0
Richard Kopecky
R. C. E. # 16742
17
WILLUAN
Ftna!irlai i�q(ViGSS
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY QP LA QUINTA
STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE
[DISTRICT NO. 99-1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment
Roll thereto attached was filed with me on the day of
2011.
BY: Veronica J. Montecino, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment
Roll thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, on the day of 2011.
BY: Veronica J. Montecino, CMG, City Clerk
City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Assessment Roll was filed with the County
Auditor of the County of Riverside, on the day of 2011.
BY: Veronica J. Montecino, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
Wl
�VWILLDAN I.
F�inaF?c_ia� zMyirr w
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L OV RVIEW 1
A. INTRODUCTION 1
B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATION 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT 2
A. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SPECIFIC AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT 2
B. IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT 2
III. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT 3
A. GENERAL 3
B. BENEFIT ANALYSIS 3
C. METHODOLOGY 5
IV. DISTRICT BUDGETS 8
A. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS
B. 2011/2012 DISTRICT BUDGET
m
APPENDIX A DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 12
APPENDIX B - 2011/2012 COLLECTION ROLL 13
19
WILLQAN
F�in�lt�iili S@MI�6q
/. OVERVIEW
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of La Quinta (the 'City") annually levies and collects special
assessments in order to provide and maintain the facilities, improvements and
services within Street Lighting and Landscape District No. 89-1 (the "District").
The District was formed in 1989 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 (the "1972 Act°), Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code
and authorizes the Agency to annually levy and collect assessments to maintain
the services and improvements related thereto.
This Engineer's Annual Levy Report (the "Report°) describes the District, any
changes to the District, and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year
2011/2012. The proposed assessments are based on the estimated cost to
maintain improvements that provide special benefit to properties assessed within
the District. The various improvements within the District and the costs of those
improvements are identified and budgeted separately, including expenditures,
deficits, surpluses, revenues, and reserves. The word "parcel,' for the purposes
of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessor Parcel
Number ("APN°) by the Riverside County Assessor's Office. The Riverside
County Auditor/Controller uses Assessor Parcel Numbers and specific fund
numbers on the tax roll to identify properties assessed for special district benefit
assessments. Each parcel within the District is assessed proportionately for
those improvements provided by the District and from which the parcel receives
special benefit.
Following consideration of public comments, written protests at a noticed public
hearing and review of the Report, the City Council may order amendments to the
Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report,
and confirmation of the assessments, the Council may order the levy and
collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 pursuant to the 1972 Act. In
such case, the assessment information will be submitted to the County
Auditor/Controller, and included on the property tax roll for each benefiting parcel
for Fiscal Year 201112012.
B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATION
The assessments for the District provide a special benefit to the parcels
assessed, and the City utilizes General Fund Revenues to fund improvements
and services that are considered general benefit.
2011/2012 LLD 89-1 Page 1 of 13
20
�lnane, i:ti �erVle_y.
This District was formed pursuant to the 1972 Act, which permits the
establishment of assessment districts by cities for the purpose of providing for
the maintenance of certain public improvements, which include the facilities
existing within the District, as those improvements provide a special benefit to
parcels.
The City Council reviews the current and projected years' costs for the
construction, operation, maintenance, and servicing of the District facilities and
sets the assessment for the ensuing fiscal year, which runs between July 1 and
June 30.
A DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT
A. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SPECIFIC AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT
The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City.
The Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries has been submitted
to the City Clerk at the City and is included by reference.
B. IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT
The District improvements are the operation, servicing and maintenance of
landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities, including, but not limited to,
personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other
items necessary for the satisfactory operation of these. services described as
follows:
2011/2012
• Landscaping and Appurtenant Facilities include, but are not limited to,
landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, irrigation systems, hardscapes,
fixtures, sidewalk maintenance and appurtenant facilities, located within
the public street rights -of -way, parkways, medians, trails, and dedicated
street, drainage or sidewalk easements within the boundary of the District.
• Lighting and Appurtenant Facilities include, but are not limited to,
poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts
and pedestals, metering devices, controllers and appurtenant facilities as
required to provide safety lighting and traffic signals within public street
rights -of -way and easements within the boundaries of the District.
LLD 89-1
Page 2 of 13
21
V�/WII; LDAN
FIn2Il!:U 5rar¢Irb:
Maintenance is defined as the furnishing of services and materials for the
operation and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the
landscaping, public lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities, including
repair, removal or replacement of landscaping, public lighting facilities, or
appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of
the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying,
fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; and the removal of trimmings,
rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
Servicing is defined as the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the
landscaping and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other
illuminating agent for the public lighting facilities, or for the lighting or
operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities.
The plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the office of the
City Engineer and are by reference made a part of this report.
///. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
A. GENERAL
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for
the purpose of providing certain public improvements that include the
construction, maintenance and servicing of public lights, landscaping and
appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act further requires that the cost of these
improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an
assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or
method which fairly distributes the net amount among all
assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the
improvements."
The formula used for calculating assessments in this District therefore reflects
the composition of the parcels, and the improvements and services provided, to
apportion the costs based on benefit to each parcel.
B. BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Properties within the District boundary are found to derive a special benefit from
the improvements provided by the District. These properties include single family
residential, non-residential, vacant residential and non-residential, golf courses,
2011/2012 LLD 89-1 Page 3 of 13
"WILLDAN
Finc:ncjml 5er0cca
agricultural and hillside conservation properties, vacant and remote non-
residential and rural and estate residential properties.
Special Benefits
The method of apportionment (method of assessment) is based on the premise
that each assessed parcel receives special benefit from the improvements
maintained and funded by the assessments, specifically, landscaping and lighting
improvements installed in cdnnection.with the development of these parcels. The
desirability of properties within the District is enhanced by the presence of well -
maintained parks, landscaping and lighting improvements in close proximity to
those properties.
The annual assessments outlined in this Report are based on the estimated
costs to provide necessary services, operation, administration, and maintenance
required to ensure the satisfactory condition and quality of each improvement.
The special benefits associated with the parks and landscaping improvements
are specifically:
• Enhanced desirability of properties through association with the
improvements.
• Improved aesthetic appeal of properties within the District providing a
positive representation of the area.
• Enhanced adaptation of the urban environment within the natural
environment from adequate green space and landscaping.
• Environmental enhancement through improved erosion resistance, and
dust and debris control.
• Increased sense of pride in ownership of property within the District
resulting from well -maintained improvements associated with the
properties.
• Reduced criminal activity and property -related crimes (especially
vandalism) against properties in the District through well -maintained
surroundings and amenities.
• Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels by moderating
temperatures, providing oxygenation and attenuating noise.
The special benefits of street lighting are the convenience, safety, and security of
property, improvements, and goods, specifically:
Enhanced deterrence of crime— an aid to police protection.
2011/2012
• Increased nighttime safety on roads and highways.
• Improved visibility of pedestrians and motorists.
LLD 89-1
Page 4 of 13
23
M(WI LLICIAN
r1mandal smicv3
• Improved ingress and egress to and from property.
• Reduced vandalism, damage to improvements or property, and other
criminal acts.
• Improved traffic circulation and reduced nighttime accidents and personal
property loss.
t Increased promotion of business during nighttime hours in the case of
commercial properties.
The preceding special benefits contribute to a specific enhancement and
desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District.
C. METHODOLOGY
Pursuant to the 1972 Act, the costs of the District may be apportioned by any
formula or method that distributes the net amount to be assessed among the
assessable parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received
by each such parcel from the improvements. The special benefit formula used
within the District should reflect the composition of the parcels - and the
improvements and services provided therein - to apportion the costs based on
estimated special benefit to each parcel.
The cost to provide maintenance and service of the improvements within the
District shall be equitably distributed among each assessable parcel based on
the estimated special benefit received by each parcel.
Equivalent Dwelling Units
To equitably spread special benefit to each parcel, it is necessary to establish a
relationship between the various types of properties within the District and the
improvements that benefit those properties. Each parcel within the District is
assigned an Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") factor that reflects its land use,
size and development, or development potential. Parcels that receive special
benefit from the various District improvements are proportionately assessed for
the cost of those improvements based on their calculated EDU. The EDU method
assessment for this District uses the Single Family Residential parcel as the
basic unit of assessment. A Single Family Residential ("SFR°) parcel equals one
EDU. Every other land -use is assigned an EDU factor based on an assessment
formula that equates the property's specific land -use and relative special benefits
compared to the Single Family Residential parcel.
The EDU method of apportioning special benefits is typically seen as the most
appropriate and equitable assessment methodology for districts formed under the
1972 Act, as the benefits to each parcel from the improvements are apportioned
as a function of land use type, size, and development. The following table
2011/2012 LLD 89-1 Page 5 of 13
24
rirtaneial :3erric@,
provides a listing of land use types, the EDU factors applied to that land use and
the multiplying factor used to calculate each parcel's individual EDU for each
improvement provided in the District.
During the formation of the District, a methodology was developed to calculate
the EDUs for other residential and non-residential land use parcels, which are
outlined below for reference. Every land use is assigned EDUs based on the
assessment formula approved for the District. Parcels which have been
determined to receive greater benefit than the SFR parcel are assigned more
than 1 EDU and parcels that are determined to receive lesser benefit than SFR
parcels are assigned less than 1 EDU as reflected in the Assessment
Methodology.
ME
Exempt Parcels.
r.
0.0
Single Family Residential Parcels
1.0 per unit
Non -Residential Parcels
5.0 per acre; 1.0 minimum
Vacant Residential Parcels
0.33 per unit
Vacant Non -Residential Parcels
1.65 per acre for first 20 acres only
Golf Course Parcels
0.50 per acre; 1.0 minimum
gricullural Parcels
0.25 per acre; 1.0 minimum
Hillside Conservative Zone Parcels
0.10 per acre
Vacant & Remote Parcels
0.825 per acre for first 20 acres only
Rural/Estate Residential
1.0 + 0.33 per acre in excess 1 acre
Single -Family Residential
The City's General Plan allows up to one acre of area for subdivided residential
lots. The subdivided single family lot equal to or less than one acre in size is the
basic unit for calculation of the benefit assessments. Parcels less than one acre
in size zoned for single-family residential use are assessed one (1) EDU.
Non -Residential
The factor used for converting nonresidential is based on the average number of
typical single-family residential lots of five per acre. Therefore, non-residential
parcels will be assessed five (5) EDUs per acre with a minimum number per
parcel of one (1) EDU.
Vacant Residential
Parcels defined as single family residential parcels less than one acre and having
no structure will be assessed 33 percent (33%) of a single-family dwelling, or
0.33 EDU per parcel.
2011/2012 LLD 89-1 Page 6 of 13
25
Finandai $crvicca
Vacant Non -Residential
Parcels not considered single family residential parcels less than one acre, and
having no structure will be assessed based on acreage. The typical development
in La Quinta occurs in increments of twenty (20) acres or less. The first twenty
(20) acres of a Vacant Non -Residential parcel will be assessed at a rate of 33
percent (33%) of developed nonresidential properties, or 1.65 EDU per acre or
any portion of an acre. The minimum number of EDUs per parcel is one (1) EDU.
Any parcel of land greater than twenty (20) acres is considered open space and
exempt from assessment until such time as parcel subdivision or development
occurs.
Golf Courses
Properties identified as golf courses will be assessed a rate of 10 percent (10%)
of the developed nonresidential properties, or 0.50 EDU per acre or any portion
of an acre. The minimum number per parcel is one (1) EDU.
Agricultural
Properties identified as agricultural will be assessed a rate of 5 percent (5%) of
developed nonresidential properties, or 0.25 EDU per acre or any portion of an
acre. The minimum number per parcel is one (1) EDU.
Hillside Conservation
Parcels located in areas zoned Hillside Conservation per the City's Official
Zoning Map will be assessed on the basis of allowable development within the
Hillside Conservation Zone. The parcel will be assessed as one dwelling unit per
ten (10) acres or 0.10 EDU per acre or any portion of an acre.
Vacant and Remote Non -Residential Parcels (Annexation No. 9)
Parcels not considered single family residential parcels less than one (1) acre
and do not contain structures, will be assessed based on acreage. The City
defines Vacant and Remote Non -Residential as parcels physically separated
from City services and not readily able to develop due to difficult access and
utility limitations. The land values are typically one half the value of other Vacant
Non -Residential parcels because of the high cost of constructing appropriate
access and utility infrastructures necessary. The Vacant and Remote Non -
Residential parcels are assessed a rate of 0.825 EDUs per acre or portion
thereof, for the first twenty (20) acres, with a minimum of one (1) EDU per parcel.
Rural/Estate Residential
Parcels of one acre or more in size, but having only one residential unit are
identified as Rural/Estate Residential. These parcels will be assessed a rate of
one (1) EDU for the first acre and 0.33 EDUs for each additional acre or portion
of an acre.
2011/2012 LLD 89-1 Page 7 of 13
26
WILLDAN
Exempt Property
Publicly owned property and utility rights -of -way are exempt from assessment, as
well as parcels of land shown on the County Assessor's records as Vacant
Desert Land, Vacant Mountain Land, Agricultural Preserve and Public Utility
owned land.
This Report does not propose an increase in the District assessment rates for
Fiscal Year 2011/2012 over or above the maximum rate established. The
proposed rate per EDU for Fiscal Year 2011/20/2 is the same rate assessed for
Fiscal Year 2010/2011. The base assessment rate to be approved for Fiscal
Year 2011/2012 is $35,60.
The maximum assessment rate per EDU may not increase without a vote of the
property owners in the District. Therefore, the assessment is proposed to remain at
the maximum amount of $35.60 per EDU. This equates to total projected
assessment revenue of $964,219. The City proposes the remaining $2,177,734 be
funded through a General Fund contribution of $1,924,734 and $253,000 of revenue
from CSA 152.
IV. DISTRICT BUDGETS
A. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be established and maintained for the
revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by assessment shall be
used only for the purposes as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the
City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems
appropriate. The following describes the services and costs that are funded
through the District, shown in the District Budgets.
District Costs
2011/2012
Personnel — Reflects relevant City. Staff salaries, wages and benefits, and
also includes Worker's Comp insurance, Stand -By, and Overtime labor.
Contract Services — Includes contracted labor, such as the Riverside County
Tax Roil Administration Fees, maintenance and repair of traffic signals, tree
trimming, and security service.
Rental Services — Reflects funds used for the purpose of uniform rental.
Vehicle Operations — Includes the maintenance of fleet vehicles.
Utilities — Includes the electric, telephone, and water services.
LLD 89-1
Page 8 of 13
27
A/WILI-DAN l
FinatlCla� �GM.`.ke
Travel Training & Meetings — Reflects the funds used for the purposes of
training and meetings.
Information Technology — Includes computers, printers, and other related
items and services.
Operating Supplies — This item includes plant replacement, safety gear, field
materials, and the materials used for the purposes of removing graffiti.
small Tools/Equipment — Includes non -capital small tools and equipment
(district Administration — The cost for providing the coordination of District
services and operations, response to public concerns and education, as well
as procedures associated with the levy and collection of assessments. This
item also includes the costs of contracting with professionals to provide any
additional administrative, legal or engineering services specific to the District
including any required notices, mailings or property owner protest ballot
proceedings.
B. 201112012 DISTRICT BUDGET
For the purpose of estimating costs for the maintenance and servicing, actual
costs are used where possible. However, where the improvements are new, or
where actual maintenance experience is lacking, cost estimates will be used to
determine costs. The Budget of estimated cost of operation, servicing, and
maintenance for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 is summarized on the next page in Table
1.
2011/2012
LLD 89-1
Page 9 of 13
28
WI LLDAN
! Fr!�!+GI3�, cur3MSp!�
Table 1
Fiscal Year 201 V2012 Budget
$202,400
$80,500{
$121,900
53.780
Personnel
Salaries -Permanent Full Time
Other Benefits & Deductions
90,550
36,770
Stand By
Stand By Overtime
Overtime
Total Personnel
$292,950
$117.270
$175,680
Contract
Annual Lighting -& Landscape Report-
$15,000
- $15,000
4,000
Services
Civic Center Campus Lake Maintenance
4,000
150.000
39,000
Landscape Lighting Maintenance
- 189,000
Riverside County Tax Roll Admin Fee
15,000
15,000
Citywide Maintenance Contract
1,017,840
639,360
378,480
Undeveloped Parks PM10 Services
80,000
80,000
Maintenance & Repair
15,000
15,000
CVWD Lease -Pioneer bog Park
I 1
1
Tree Trimming
36,000
30,000
6,000
Janitorial Services
28,000
1.350
28,000
1,000
Securi Service - Corporation Yard
Total Contract Services
2.350
$1,402.191
$8507710 j
$551,481
Rental Services
Uniforms
$1 320
$1.320
$1,320
$0
$0
Total Rental Services
$1 320
Vehicle
Facilities Charges
$1,098
$1,098
Operations
Fleet Maintenance
4.524
4,524
432,234
Facili & E ui ment Depreciation
432,234
$4 524
$433,332
Total Vehicle O rations
$437,856
Utilities
Electric
$295,000
$149,000
$146,000
400
Phone
800
362 000
400
240 000
122'000
Water
Total Utilities
$657 800
$389 400
$268 400
$1.130
$530
$600
Travel Training &
Meetin s Total Travel Training & Meetings
$1 130
$530
$600
$4 742
Information Com uters Printers and Services
$9,053
$4,311
$4 311
$4 742
TechnologyTotal Information Technology$9,053
Operating Plant Replacement
$61,000
$55,000
$6,000
15,000
Supplies Graffiti Removal
25,000
10,000
Safety Gear
400
110.000
400
60 000
50,000
Field Materials -
Total operating Su lies
$196 400
$125 400
$71 000
Small Tools I Non -Ca ital
$250
$250
$250
$0
$0
Equipment Total Small Tools/E ui Mel
-
$250
$2 998 950
$1 493.715
$1 605 235
Total Landscape & Lighting budget
$44,956
$44,956
$0
District Public Works Administration
98.047
39 338
58709.
Administration Ci 'de Administration
Total District Administration
$143 003
$84 294
$58 709
$3141 953
$1 578,009
$1 563 944
Total Landscape & Lighting Expenditures
$253,000
Less CSA 152 Revenue
Less General Fund Contribution
1924,734
Balance to Levy
$964,219
Total EDU
27,085
-Levy Per EDU
$35.60
2011/2012
LLD 891
Page 10 of 13
29
A�/1V I LLDAN
rinan@ial $Qrvimc
The following information was obtained from the Riverside County Assessor's Secured
Roll, Assessor's Parcel Maps, and the City's Planning Department. The land use
categories were developed to classify the different land use types in the City.
a
10
93.31
$3,321.80
93.31
$3,321.80
Agricultural
19.00
371.80
Exempt
2,257.00
9,734.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Golf Course
300.00
3,552.75
1,837.67
65,419.32
1,804.56
65,522.20
Hillside Conservation
12.00
319.03
31.90
1,135.62
31.90
1,135.62
Multi -Family Residential .
38.00
93.05
643.00
22,890.80
643.00
22,890.80
Non -Residential
245.00
530.22
2,660.25
94,704.90
2,679.65
95,395.54
Rural/ Estate
57.00
116.50
90.70
3,228.34
95.45
3,397.38
Single Family Residential
19,930.00
2,061.38
19,929.00
709,472.40
19,930.00
709,508.00
Vacant/ Remote
23.00
379.97
180.96
6,441.90
214.78
7,646.04
Vacant Non -Residential
279.00
706.36
685.86
24,414.62
767.78
1 27,330.80
Vacant Residential
2,389.00
1,139.00
778.46
27,694.66
788.37
28,046.86
Total
25,549.00
19,004.15
26,931.11
$958,724.36
27,084.80
$964,195.04
(1) The difference in the "Balance to Levy" figure in the previous_ table and the land use classification proposed levy in this table is due to the Riverside
County even penny requirement for each charged parcel
At the time of the Report there was an increase in EDU assessed of 153.69 over the
prior year estimates. Actual changes will be based on the final County Secured Roll for
Fiscal Year 2011/2012. The difference is due to changes in County Land Use
Classifications and development.
2011/2012
LLD 89-1
Page 11 of 13
30
Mf/VIEI LLDAN
APPENDIX A — DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The Boundary Diagrams for the original districts have previously been submitted to the
Clerk of the City in the format required under the 1972 Act and are made part of this
Report by reference.
The parcel identification, lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are
those lines and dimensions shown on the Assessor Maps of Riverside County for the
year in which this Report was prepared and is incorporated by reference and made part
of this Report.
2011/2012
LLD 89-1
Page 12 of 13
31
IVWIL_LDANI
Fin:ln�iai `y`crvi,y^,
APPENDIX B — 2011/2012 COLLECTION ROLL
Parcel identification, for each lot or parcel within the District, shall be the parcel as
shown on the Riverside County Assessor Parcel Maps and/or the Riverside County
Secured Tax Roll for the year in which this Report is prepared.
Non -assessable lots or parcels may include government owned land; public utility
owned property, land principally encumbered with public right-of-ways or easements
and dedicated common areas. These parcels will not be assessed.
A listing of parcels within the District, along with the proposed assessment amounts,
has been submitted to the City Clerk and, by reference, is made part of this Report.
Upon approval of the Report and confirmation of the assessments, the assessment
information will be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller, and included on the
property tax roll in Fiscal Year 2011/2012. If the parcels or APNs within the District and
referenced in this Report, are re -numbered, re -apportioned or changed by the County
Assessors Office after approval of the Report, the new parcel or APNs with the
appropriate assessment amount will be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller. If
the parcel change made by the County includes a parcel split, parcel merger or tax
status change, the assessment amount submitted on the new parcels or APNs will be
based on the method of apportionment and levy amount approved in this Report by the
City Council.
2011/2012
LLD 89-1
Page 13 of 13
32
May 12, 2009
Page 1 of 19
ATTACHMENT 2
Memorandum
To: Tim Jonasson and Ann Weaver, City of La Quinta
From: Jim McGuire, Jennie Carter, Willdan Financial Services
Date: May 12, 2009
Re: La Quinta Proposed Park Maintenance District Preliminary Rate Structure
Summary of Findings
On behalf of the City of La Quinta ('City' , Willdan Financial Services ('Willdan'� has conducted a
preliminary analysis of the City's park, open space and tail improvements to evaluate the feasibility
of establishing a district to provide a revenue source (funding) to support the maintenance and
enhancement of the City s recreational improvements for the properties within the City. Over the
recent months, Willdan has worked closely with City staff gathering relevant information regarding
the City's park and recreational improvements and developing the parameters for establishing a
possible Citywide Assessment District ('District's to fund the ongoing operational and maintenance
costs of the parks, trails and open spaces (collectively referred to as "maintenance', as well as the
long term repairs, renovations and rehabilitation costs associated with those improvements and
facilities (collectively referred to as "capital costs'. While this memo identifies an estimate of the
possible assessments that may be associated with this District, these assessments are only a
preliminary estimate of those possible assessments based on some basic assumptions regarding the
overall cost of providing the improvements, cost allocations and the method of apportionment.
Ultimately, the various preliminary findings and factors that are outlined in this memo will require
further analysis and refinement (particularly the budgeted costs and method of apportionment) if the
City decides to move forward with the possible formation of the District This additional analysis
and refinement of the costs and assessments would be addressed in the development of an
Engineer's Report that is required pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and the
California Constitution (Proposition 218).
As part of this evaluation, Willdan has reviewed the improvements and budget information provided
by the City and has researched parcel data and factors that support the formation of an assessment
district within the boundaries of the City. Secured roll data, including parcel numbers, acreage,
ownership, and land use codes were analyzed against and united with current geographic
information system data in an effort to determine a basic method of apportionment and rate
structure for an assessment district.
While our evaluation concludes that an assessment district is a feasible approach for the City to
consider, such a district would require the establishment of benefit zones which would reflect
differences in special benefits and assessments within the City (Zones of Benefit). Although
approximately 83% of the parcels within the City could be assessed for special benefits received
from all park and recreational improvements, approximately 15% would be subject to special benefit
assessments for trail maintenance and capital costs only and the remaining properties (less than 2%)
33
Moy 12, 2009
Page 2 of 19
have been identified as receiving no measurable special benefits and would not be assessed for
existing improvements.
Although our evaluation has determined that an assessment district with zones of benefit is a viable
approach to creating a revenue source to support the City's recreational improvements, such an
assessment district requires that general benefits be separated from special benefits and the District
may only assess for special benefit. Our analysis of the improvements and associated costs suggests
that approximately fifty-five percent (559/6) of the regular annual maintenance costs would be
considered special benefit, but capital costs, such as enhancement, renovation and rehabilitation of
the improvements would be largely considered special benefits and recovered through the
assessments, but such projects and costs need to be clearly identified and evaluated further as part of
developing an Engineer's Report for the District.
As outlined in this memo, we estimate that the City could recover approximately $1,268,500 of the
$2,190,200 estimated to fully fund the maintenance and long term needs of the City's current park,
open space and trail system infrastructure. The following provides a more detailed analysis of our
findings and identifies key elements for the City to consider.
Method of Apportionment
Based on the provisions of the 1972 Act and the California Constitution, this section of the memo
summarize an analysis of the benefits associated with the City's existing park, open space and trail
improvements that may be incorporated into a citywide special benefit assessment district (both
general and special); the resulting district structure (zones of benefit); and the formulas used to
calculate potential proportional special benefit assessments based on the entirety of the cost to
provide the improvements (method of assessment).
Benefit Analysis
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of
providing certain public improvements, which include but are not limited to the construction,
maintenance, operation, and servicing of park and recreational improvements. The 1972 Act
requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed
value:
"Tbe net amount to be assessed upon lands witbin an assessment district may be apportioned by any
formula or method which fairly &stributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in
proportion to the estimated ben fu to be received by each such lot orpanvl from the improvements. "
In conjunction with the provisions of the 1972 Act, the California Constitution Article XIIID
addresses several key criteria for the levy of assessments, notably:
Article XIIID Section 2d defines District as:
"District means an area determined by an agency to contain allpanzls which =11 receive a special
benefit from a pmposed public improvement orproperty-related service';•
34
May 12, 2009
Page 3 of 19
Article XIIID Section 2i defines Special Benefit as:
"Special benfit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on
real property located in the district or to the pubk'c at large. General enhancement of propen p value
does not constitute "special benefit. "
Article XIIID Section 4a defines proportional special benefit assessments as:
An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all panels which will have a special
benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed The proportionate Special
benefit derived by each identified parrel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital
cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the
cost of the property related service being provided No assessment shall be imposed an any parcel which
exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special ben ft conferred on that parcel. "
The method of apportionment (cost allocation) established for an assessment district requires that
each assessed property receives special benefits from the improvements and services that are funded
by such assessments, and the assessment obligation for each parcel reflects that parcel's proportional
special benefits as compared to other properties that receive special benefits as outlined in the
preceding definitions of the 1972 Act and the California Constitution.
In reviewing the location and extent of the City s parks, open spaces and trail system (Please refer to
Diagram I — Improvement Details for an overview of the City s park, open spaces and trails) and
the relationship these improvements have to properties within the City, it has been determined that all
properties in the City (with the exception of the small area east of Monroe Street) are within one and a
half miles (1 1/2 miles) of an existing park and/or open space area, which is well within what would
typically be considered the average service area for local parks and open spaces. (Please refer to.
Diagram 2 — LSAMe Patti and Open Space Radius for an overview of the sphere of influence of
the City's park based on a VA mile radius). Furthermore, these parks and open spaces can be easily
accessed by the City's interconnecting trail system that is immediately adjacent to all but approximately
two percent (2%) of the City s properties and/or developments. While this would suggest that
collectively, the City's parks, open spaces and hails provide a direct and local benefit to the properties
within the City, it is also reasonable to conclude that the use and accessibility to these improvements is
not limited to the properties and the owners of such properties and therefore provide some identifiable
general benefit
In our evaluation of the City's trail system it was determined that the City has an extensive trail
system that extends throughout most of the City and these various trail segments provide direct
access to the City s parks and open spaces as well as other mails, of which approximately twenty
percent (20%) of these trail segments provide access points to and from areas outside the City. This
accessibility from outside the City suggests potential use by the general public and a measurable
degree of general benefit. '
Similarly, consideration must be given to the likely or potential use of the City's parks by the general
public to establish a level of general benefit for those improvements. Although actual park usage is
often times difficult to quantify, in our research, the City's Community Services Department
provided policy guidelines that the City has followed for a number of years that has limited non-
resident participation in various recreational leagues to be no, more than 25%. Clearly this indicates
that the City (at least from a policy perspective) has limited or attempted to limit the general public's
35
May 12, 2009
Page 4of19
use of the City's recreational improvements which in turn enhances a special benefit nexus to
properties within the City. Collectively, trail accessibility from outside the City and limits on non-
resident league participation strongly suggests that less than twenty-five percent (approximately
22.5%) of these combined improvements and their associated maintenance costs would be
quantified as general benefit to the public at large.
In conjunction with the measure of general benefit to the public at large, it is also recognized that
because these improvements are collectively associated with the entire City and are not necessarily
specific to a particular development or developments (which is often times the case with assessment
districts), clearly there is some measure of general benefit to the properties within the City as well as
the general public. Therefore, in addition to those costs attributable as general benefit to the public
at large, it is reasonable to conclude that an additional percentage of the annual maintenance costs
for parks, open spaces and trails should be considered general benefit to properties within the City
(District). For purposes of this preliminary evaluation, the general benefit to properties within the
City has been estimated to be approximately twenty percent (20%) based on two considerations:
1.) If such improvements (park and recreation improvements) provide a certain degree of
general benefit to the public at large, {properties within the district and the owners of those
properties should reasonably have a similar level of general benefit from those
improvements (22.5% based on the previous discussion);
2.) Although it is certainly reasonable to conclude that parcels within 1 '/z miles of the City's
various parks and open spaces each benefit from such improvements and the trail system
clearly enhances that benefit nexus, it is also reasonable to assume that a measure of
special benefit requires a more direct local nexus. Therefore, utilizing a reduced park radius
of between '/z of a mile and 3/4 of a mile (which would be considered reasonable walking
distance and clearly a direct local association between the various park sites and the
surrounding developments and subdivisions), it has been determined that only about
seventeen percent (179/6) of the developments, subdivisions and properties within the City
would be outside this more closely defined park radius. (Please refer to Diagram 3 —
Spedal Bene&t Path Radius for an overview of the sphere of influence of the City's parks
based on a radius of less than'/4 of a mile).
Together these two considerations would suggest an average general benefit percentage of 20% to
properties within the District.
Based on the preceding discussion, collectively it is reasonable to conclude that approximately forty-
three percent (42.5 %) of the City's annual maintenance cost for the existing parks, open spaces and
trails should be considered general benefit (22.5 % to the public at large and 20% to properties
within the City). However for purposes of this preliminary evaluation, the following discussion
regarding budgets and assessments assumes a more conservative estimate of general benefit (Forty-
five percent [45%]). This general benefit allocation would be applicable to the regular annual
maintenance costs and incidental expenses associated with the improvements. Conversely, the costs
to maintain various quasi -park improvements such as City Hall and the Civic Center Campus are
considered to be entirely general benefit costs, while capital costs (excluding City Hall and the Civic
Center Campus) are considered to be entirely special benefit because such efforts are for
enhancement or expansion of the existing improvements which is entirely for the special benefit of
properties in the City.
36
May 12, 2009
Page 5 of 19
Assessment Methodology
In order to calculate and identify the proportional special benefit received by each parcel and their
proportionate share of the improvement costs, it is necessary to consider not only the improvements
and services to be provided, but the relationship each parcel has to those improvements as
compared to other parcels in the District.
Article XIIID Section 4a reads in part:
"...The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in
relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement or the maintenance and operation
expenses of a public improvement or for the cost of the property related service being provided No
assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cast of the proportional special
benefit conferred on thatparreL"
Parks, open spaces and trails, like most public improvements, provide varying degrees of benefit
(whether they be general or special) based largely on the extent of such improvements, the location
of the improvements in relationship to the properties, and the reason or need for such
improvements as it relates to individual properties. In this analysis of a possible citywide district
these issues are each considered in determining the proportional special benefit to each parcel by the
use of benefit zones that reflect the extent and location of the improvements in relationship to the
properties, as well as the specific use and size of each property which reflects each parcel's need for
such improvements and its reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit as compared to other
properties that benefit from those improvements.
Zones ofBenefit
In an effort to ensure an appropriate allocation of the estimated annual cost to provide the
improvements based on proportional special benefits, this potential citywide assessment district
would likely be established with benefit zones ("Zones' as authorized pursuant to Chapter 1 Article
4, Section 22574 of the 1972 Act
be diagram and assessment may classify various areas within an assessment district into different
hones where, by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the
various areas will receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements. A Zone shall consist of all
territory which will receive subsiantaLythe same degree of ben f t from the improvements. "
While the California Constitution requires that "the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified
parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement or the maintenance
and operation expenses of a pubk'c improvement... ", it is reasonable to conclude that the location and extent
of the specific improvements in relationship to those neighborhoods or groups of parcels
immediately adjacent or in close proximity to those improvements must be considered.
In reviewing the location and extent of the various park, open space and trail improvements and the
relationship these improvements have to properties within the City, it has been determined that
these improvements are clearly local amenities that are directly associated with or desired for the
development of such properties to their hill and best use. As such, these local improvements have a
direct and particular special benefit to the properties within close proximity to such improvements,
which enhance their access or use of such improvements and provide a level of service and
amenities that are not directly associated with other properties.
37
May 12, 2009
Page 6of19
As previously noted, with the exception of a small percentage of the parcels along the eastern
boundary of the City, generally parcels within the City are located within a 11/2- mile radius of an
existing park or open space, and have direct and/or easy access to a park or open space via the
City's existing trail system. In narrowing this radius to 3/4 mile, each parcels proportional special
benefit from the parks and trails is further clarified. In recognition of these differences, the District
would initially be established with three (3) Zones to reflect the proportional special benefits that
various properties receive from the various improvements and associated costs. The following
provides a description of the three Zones:
Zone 01
Zone 01 incorporates and includes those developments and properties in the City that are within'/a
of a mile (radius) of a park and/or open space, and is adjacent to or in close proximity to one of the
City's trail segments that provide direct and easy access to those parks and open spaces. Accordingly,
parcels within this Zone would be assessed for their proportional share of the costs to maintain
these parks, trails and open spaces, as well as their proportionate share to fund related capital
improvements, replacements, expansion and renovation of these improvements.
Zone 02
Zone 02 incorporates and includes those developments and properties in the City that are more than
'/< of a mile (radius) from an existing park and/or open space, but is adjacent to or in close
proximity to one of the City's trail segments that provide direct and easy access to those parks and
open spaces. Accordingly, parcels within this Zone would be assessed for their proportional share of
the annual costs to maintain the trails but not the parks and open spaces. However, because of their
easy access to the parks and open space areas via the trail system it has been determined that these
properties should be assessed for their proportionate share to fund related capital improvements,
replacements, expansion and renovation of not only the trails, but the park and open space
improvements.
Zone 03
Zone 03 incorporates and includes those parcels within the City that are not included in Zones 01 or
02. These developments and properties are more than '/< of a mile (radius) from an existing park
and/or open space, and are not currently adjacent to or in close proximity to one of the City's
existing trail segments. Accordingly, parcels within this Zone would not be assessed for the annual
costs to maintain the trails, parks or open spaces. While a case could be made that these parcels
would receive special benefits from various capital improvement, replacement, expansion and
renovation projects associated with the City's parks, trails and open spaces, those special benefits
would likely depend on the specific projects. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary analysis, it
is assumed that properties within Zone 03 would have limited or no special benefit from these
projects and would be exempt from special benefit assessments until such time that trails and/or
parks are expanded so that these properties have a direct local presence from those improvements.
Although our analysis suggests that three Zones of benefit would be initially established for a
citywide assessment district based on the current improvement infrastructure, these Zones could
potentially be consolidated into two Zones and possibly a single Zone if the City were to add
additional trails within Zone 03 and/or construct one or more parks in the eastern area of the City.
38
May 12, 2009
Page 7of19
Please refer to Diagram 4-2one and impmvementDetad for an overview of the three Zones and
the relationship to the various improvements. For clarity purposes, Diagram 5 — Zone Detail
provides an overview of the Zones without the improvement overlay.
Egwvaient Bene&t Units
In addition to the use of Zones, the method of apportionment established for an assessment district
should reflect the proportional special benefit of each parcel utilizing a weighted methodology of
apportionment. For purposes of determining an appropriate cost allocation, in this preliminary
analysis we have utilized a weighted methodology typically referred to as an Equivalent Benefit Unit
(EBU) methodology. This method of apportionment establishes the typically detached single-family
home site as the basic unit of assessment. A single-family residential unit is assigned one (1.0)
Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) and other property types (land uses) are proportionately weighted
(weighted EBU) based on a benefit formula that equates each property's specific characteristics and
special benefits to that of the single-family residential property. This proportional weighting may be
based on several considerations that may include, but are not limited to: the type of development
(land use), development -status (developed versus undeveloped), size of the property (acreage or
units), population densities or other property related factors including any development restrictions
or limitations; as well as the property's location and proximity to the improvements (which is
addressed by its Zone designation).
For the improvements and assessments outlined in this memo, it has been determined that the most
appropriate proportional special benefit calculation for each parcel is reasonably determined by three
basic property characteristics:
• Location — as previously noted, each parcel in the District shall be identified and
grouped into one of three Zones based on each parcel's proximity and relationship to
the District improvements.
• Land use — for purposes of this analysis, we have classified and grouped various land
uses into a few basic categories including. Developed Non -Residential Properties.
(various commercial, industrial, institutional and other non-residential properties
including government owned properties); Residential Properties (Single-family, Multi-
family, condominiums and timeshares); and Vacant land (undeveloped properties that
may be zoned for either residential or non-residential use).
• Property Size — Acreage for non-residential properties; Units for residential properties.
Property size (acreage or units) provides a definable and comparative representation of
each parcel's proportional special benefit not only to similar types of properties but to
other properties as well.
The following is a summary of the property types and Equivalent Benefit Unit assignments utilized
for this preliminary analysis. The method of special benefit allocation to each parcel type shown
below is based on typical industry standards, but adjusted to reflect the City's overall development
characteristics including comparable residential density statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau from
the years 2005-2007, and other documentation provided by the City. If the City chooses to move
forward with the formation of an assessment district, it is likely that this basic allocation by land use
39
May 12, 2009
Page 8 of 19
may be expanded or modified to more accurately reflect the proportional special benefits to various
property types..
Developed Sinte Famiy
1.00
per Parcel
No Umits
'".R.
—:(ytisiNhtti
I I (ktgtix�wg
Developed Condo
0.75
per Unit
No Limits
AC 7 7i irC
jsao
%xa
u Gii9.I.udlrasRLfjD(XrPOW
Vacant
0.50
per Acre
Minimum of 1 EBU, Maximum of 5 EBUs per Parcel
RDCaM
aao)zxl
4l
A
Based on the preceding method of special benefit allocation to each parcel type shown above and
the parcel land use information from the most recent County secured roll data and the County's
geographic information system ("GIS'�, the following provides a summary of the number of parcels
and Equivalent Benefit Units for each land use classification applied in this assessment analysis.
Developed Single Family
15.818
15,818.00
o ,, . uL11ii1aGQ7fl'
Developed Condo
1,279
959.25
C ti�Y3"K
1M
A7jj @q
Vacant
5,223
7,014.98
W
6z
Cost Allocations
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, the proportionate special benefit derived
by each parcel within an assessment district and its corresponding assessment obligation shall be
determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement or the
maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement.
The following formulas are used to calculate each parcel's Levy Amount (proportional assessment
obligation):
Step 1: Based collectively on the preceding discussion and findings, the estimated annual cost
to provide the various District improvements have been identified as either general
benefit or special benefit. Those improvement costs determined to be of general
benefit shall not be assessed to properties within the District and these costs are
deducted from the total budget to establish the improvement costs determined to be
of special benefit.
Total Budget — General Benefit Costs = Total Special Benefit Costs
Step 2: Those improvement costs determined to be of special benefit are apportioned to each
of the three Zones established, in proportion to the cost of providing the
improvements for that Zone. As previously noted, it has been determined that
m
May 12, 2009
Page 9 of 19
properties within Zone 03 do not receive identifiable local special benefits from the
City's existing improvements and receive only general benefit from those
improvements and facilities. Therefore, no costs are budgeted as special benefit in this
Zone and the properties therein are not assessed.
Zone Specific Special Benefit Costs = Total Zone Budget
Step 3: The Total Zone Budget minus any additional contributions from the City or other
revenue sources establishes the `Balance to Levy" for that Zone. This Balance to Levy
amount is proportionately allocated to each 'parcel within the Zone based on their
calculated EBU.
Total Zone Budget —Additional City Contribution = Balance to Levy (Zone)
Step 4: Each parcel's proportional special benefit is calculated based on the Equivalent Benefit
Unit rationale previously discussed:
Parcel's Land Use Benefit x (Acreage or Units) = Parcel's EBU
Step 5: The total number of Equivalent Benefit Units for each Zone is determined by the sum
of all individual EBU(s) applied to parcels that receive a special benefit from the
improvements. An assessment amount per EBU (Assessment Rate) for each Zone is
established by taking the Balance to Levy in that Zone, and dividing that amount by
the total number of EBU(s) for that Zone.
Total Balance to Levy/Total EBU = Assessment Rate (Calculated per Zone)
Step 6: This Assessment Rate is then applied back to each parcel's individual EBU to .
determine the parcel's proportionate benefit and assessment obligation.
Rate per EBU x Parcel EBU = Parcel Levy Amount
The potential costs (budgets) that would be used to establish the assessment rate for each Zone are
outlined in the following section.
Budget (Cost) Assumptions
In this analysis, Willdan has utilized budget details provided by the City for fiscal year 2008/2009, as
displayed in the following table, to establish an estimate of expenses to properly maintain the
improvements:
41
1
I.
1
I
1 1
g
N
I
1
I$g
1
�
I
Ip
1$
19g
Flh
?i
Y
hill
rr
bI
I`y
L
"SI
TI
�I.
b13
lrr+
1
1
I~
P I
I
S
IC
I
MIR
V
I'
I�V
I
�
O
¢
s
El Pi
May 12, 2009
Page 11 of 19
Based on the cost assumptions and calculations described in the preceding table, it is estimated that
approximately 2.19 million dollars ($2,190,200) is required to maintain the City's current park, open
space and trail system infrastructure of which approximately $542,600 is budgeted for the City's long
term repairs, renovations and capital improvement projects. However, only about $1,268,500 of
these costs have been identified as special benefit costs, with approximately $1,194,100 being
associated with Zone 01 properties; approximately $74,400 associated with Zone 02 properties; and
no costs being associated with Zone 03 properties.
Utilizing these cost estimates, a preliminary estimate of proposed assessments for properties within
the City has been developed based on the equivalent benefit units referenced in the preceding
discussions. The following tables provide a summary of the special benefit cost allocations to the
various Zones and land use types within those Zones.
Total Cost Allocation
Zone I Cost Allocations
Type Zone Zone.14 .;
EBUs,. Total Asmt,
Developed Single Family
13,725.00
$ 635,294
D�J--7%' liFlAlA i
MMI
WOR
Developed Condo
Via_
959.25
- L13W
44.401
LMA
Vacant
5.182.58
239,888
wAA •
'.,-.25,797 06, $1,194,077
Based on the preceding tables, a single-family residential property in Zone 01 would have an annual
assessment of approximately $46.30, which would be the assessment rate per EBU for that Zone.
Zone 2 Cost Allocations
Developed Single Family
2.093.00
$ 31,946
o - ,t- IMO IA C'-I�tiI,M
Developed Condo
-,
_
Gv
2_
Vacant
1,437.29
21,938
ENI
May 12, 2009
Page 12 of 19
Based on the preceding tables, a single-family residential property in Zone 02 would have an annual
assessment of approximately $15.30, which would be the assessment rate per EBU for that Zone.
Zone 3 Costi .. i
Zone 3; Zone 3 =1
TYPe,EBUs' Total Asmt;
�.. ".,
Based on the preceding table, parcels within Zone 03 only receive general benefit from the existing
improvements and therefore this Zone would have an assessment rate that is $0.00 per EBU.
If the City elected to pursue the implementation of a special tax rather than an assessment utilizing a
similar method of apportionment but not the Zone structure, this same revenue amount
(approximately $1,268,500) would equate to an annual tax rate of approximately $40 (amount per a
single-family residential property) but applied to all properties in the City including those in Zone
03. If the City wanted to pursue the full funding of the improvements through a special tax
(approximately $2,190,200), the annual tax rate would be approximately $94 (amount per a single-
family residential property).
Regardless of whether the City selects an assessment district or a special tax to fund the City's parks
and recreational improvements, the measure submitted to the property owners or voters should
include an annual inflationary adjustment to be applied to future assessment/tax rates. Because the
cost of operating, servicing and maintaining park, open space and trail improvements are impacted
by inflation over time, the proposed assessment rates or tax rate and corresponding parcel
assessment/tax should include an annual inflationary adjustment based on either a set percentage
rate, or the annual percentage change in the local Consumer Price Index.
Special Tax vs. Assessment District
While the primary objective of Willdan's efforts and the focus of this memo has been to outline the
feasibility and overall structure necessary to establish a Citywide Assessment District for the City's
park, open space and trail system improvements, consideration should also be given to the
possibility of establishing a special tax to fund such improvements and costs. Although a special tax
requires a two-thirds (66.7%) approval of registered voters to implement compared to the simple
majority approval of property owners for an assessment (weighted ballots), the following are some
notable distinctions between special taxes and assessments that the City should consider:
Advantages of a Special Tax
A special tax does not require the detailed support and analysis of special benefit and general
benefit required for an assessment and given the recent State Supreme Court decision (.Silicon
44
May 12, 2009
Page 13 of 19
Vaffg Taxpayers Association Versus the Santa Clam County Open Space Autbonty), judicial review and
possible challenges are a greater concern for an assessment than previously was the case;
> A special tax can include costs which an assessment cannot (an assessment district cannot assess
for general benefit while a special tax is only limited by the purposes specified for the special
tax);
> The cost allocation structure for a special tax is typically more simplistic than an assessment
district. A special tax usually is based on a single rate for the entire City (a flat rate that may be
applied to various land uses or even a simple per parcel tax) compared to that of an assessment
district that because of special benefit and proportionality requirements (particularly for a
Citywide district), inevitably requires more than a single assessment rate and a more detailed or
complex apportionment to various property types;
> Because the cost allocation structure is usually less complicated for a special tax, public
education and informational efforts are usually more focused on the need and advantages of the
revenue source rather than explaining the differences in assessments which tend to make the
ballot measure less controversial;
> Although a special tax has a greater voter threshold, those that are most likely to support
funding for park and recreational improvements are usually the residents of the City (registered
voters). Conversely for an assessment balloting, out-of-town property owners, multi -family
residential property owners (apartments) and non-residential properties may be less likely to
support such an assessment and could have a significant impact on the voting results;
> For the City of La Quinta, in addition to funding park and recreational improvements, a special
tax could be constructed to also fund recreational services and programs and/or funding of the
City's median landscaping (replacement of the current assessments which has limited revenue
capabilities); and
> For an assessment district, expansion of the existing improvements would likely facilitate
modifications to the existing zones (areas of benefit) and increases to the assessments for the
affected areas, a special tax would not require such modifications ultimately reducing
administrative costs.
Advantages of an Assessment
> The most obvious advantage for pursuing an assessment rather than a special tax is the simple
majority approval threshold, and if multi -family residential property owners (apartments) and
non-residential properties (specifically commercial properties) are generally supportive of such
assessments, the chances for a successful ballot outcome are good;
Each property is assessed only for their proportional special benefits and benefits compared to
other properties. Properties only pay for the local improvements that directly benefit the
property (Example: In the proposed assessment district structure previously discussed,
properties in Zone 3 would not be assessed unless and until local parks, open space or trails are
constructed in their area);
45
May 12, 2009
Page 14 of 19
While the City cannot use City funds to advocate either a special tax or an assessment, because
approval of an assessment is not considered an election, there are fewer restrictions on the use
of City funds for public outreach and education;
Balloting for an assessment can be done any time during the year (although there are some legal
opinions to the contrary), while a special tax requires the election to be scheduled and conducted
at specified dates established by the California Elections Code; and
Balloting for a new assessment may be conducted by a mailed ballot proceeding, while the
balloting for a special tax does not currently provide for a mailed ballot proceeding. (Typically a
mailed ballot proceeding is less expensive to conduct than an election handled through the
County Registrar of Voters).
Additional Considerations
The assumptions and calculations detailed in the preceding discussions reflect a preliminary estimate
of possible assessment rates for the City's parks, open spaces and trails based on existing estimated
maintenance cost data. Although the estimated assessment rate options outlined in this analysis
certainly suggest that an assessment district may be a viable approach to funding the City's parks,
open spaces and trails, there are several issues that must be considered:
• The estimated annual maintenance costs outlined in this memo are based on the City's Fiscal
Year 2008/2009 Park Operations Cost.
• Our analysis relies heavily on County secured roll data for identifying and determining individual
land uses and property characteristics (which is sometimes incomplete or inaccurate) as well as
the County s geographic information system ('GIS'D. Although an assessment rate based on this
data is certainly appropriate, a detailed audit of all City parcels to identify accurate land use
designations for all parcels, acreage for commercial and vacant properties and unit counts for
multi -family residential properties is likely needed before assessment rates can be finalized.
• While we have included Capital costs based on the City's FY O8/09 Budget for Parks, the
estimated costs and subsequent assessment rate estimates presented in this memo do not include
the possible higher costs that will inevitably result from the City�s plans to enhance and renovate
the City's existing parks, open spaces and trail system. Further identification and estimates of the
associated costs for those specific improvements or enhancements will need to be developed
before finalizing an assessment rate that would fund this increased burden.
In the next phases of the project (if authorized by the City) Willdan will continue to refine the
methodology presented here by working on the parcel database as well as collaborating with the City
staff to develop reasonable cost estimates and methodology for the rate structure. We look forward
to our continued collaboration on this project with the entire team as the project progresses.
Please feel free to call or email Jim McGuire to discuss these findings at 951.587.3536 and
jmcguire@willdan.com
ME
May 12, 2009
Page 15 of 19
I- IY O�-Mby
®M�
—ra•r.r
N,t
W+E
S
WILLDAN
V I / Rnancial Services
Diagram 1
Improvement Details
La Quinte Park Maintenance District
(Parka, Open Spaces and Trails)
•• I
•
I
•
I
•
r • �
t
•
I
•
I
am•w snvos
EtA
May 12, 2009
Page 16 of 19
Diagram 2
1.5 Mile Park and Open Space Radius
La Quints Park Maintenance District
(Parks, Open Spaces and Traits)
N
w�E
s
V/
WILLDAN
Ll Financial Services
w,.W snow
MI
May 12, 2009
Page 17 of 19
Diagram 3
Special Benefit Park Radius
La Ouinta Park Maintenance District
(Parks, Open Spaces and Trails)
L�a
C :.�
p— n.,..m.u..,.y...
®wn
NAAB�
W+E
S
4W I LLDAN
Financial Services
Revised 5MMe
m
May 12, 2009
Page 18 of 19
Diagram 4
Zone and Improvement Detail
La Ouinto Park Maintenance District
(Parks, Open Spaces and Trails)
x
W+E
s
VWILLDAN
O i / Financial Services
50
May 12, 2009
Page 19 of 19
Diagram 5
Zone Detail
La Quints Park Maintenance District
(Parks, Open Spaces and Trails)
WWILLDAN
Financial Services
a.wW en=9
51
LJRRr-kl'r 3
Y
C�
C
O
Y
�
E
Y
Y
U
i
C
a7
C
Co
7
17
N
C
a)
fY0
-
0`
0)
C
O
y
p
a
O
CD
9.00
m
a
U
0 N
C
L
0
O
C
CL
C
Q
d
U
a
cc
•
•
•
•
'
N
�
�
N
o
>
ULv
a�
Y
t0
U
O
Y
a1
C
9
a7
a)
47
L
p
0
N
c
O
>
O
O
C
Y
N
co
>.
C
U
C
L
N
7
N
+'
V
—
7
a
al
L
U_
a)
.N
W
C
c
a)
co
C
G
n
c
c
m
E
c
a
tu
rn
a7
C
m
�
L
O
c
.`
O
c
C
`p
C
Y
E
rn
�
O
'O
U
0
N
m
-0
�
CO
3
al
N
'.=
C
'�
>
0
0
0
1O
N
'0
W
m°
3
a)
E
N
o
E
m
..p
. U
0
y
C
C
.,
O
to
a)
°r
a7 m m
y
m
o
a
c
o
c
a
a)
p
a
w
0
0
0
O
m
N>'
L
Y
O
L
•r,
d
CO
a
U
a)
0 (O LO
a
O
X
cc
O@�
a7
�
p
0
<o
Oy
Y
y
n
m
c
O
a)
U
E
ca
n'
V
O
p'
O
C
07
U
�,
E
0
a
E
a
o
C
to
p.
E
i
y'a
a7
�'
a
C
m
c
o
.0
Y
0
•�, N
M
in
CL
0
ro
ca>
�F—
p
U
D
o�
a)
Ycnaoc0U_zu,
a
a)
to
c c
c
0 0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
• N N
N
+O+
L
to
f")
a)
t0
>
O
U
>
U
M
O
CL
0
Y
a)
w
7E5•C
a)
!'
a)
to
ry
to
L)
E
U
a
o
o>
0
a
-0
j�
c
C
a
y
E
O
O
0
U.0
7
i0
3
O
`
U
to
C
•Y
O
aj
U
0
y.0
7
't
W
ry
,-1
N
U
U
O-
rn
W
(p
j
'O
>
a)
0
O
a
C
a)
'U
0
—
'f+
tan
d
Y
�-
N
L
:O
N
NCL
t0
10
•0
p
i
N
C
O>
O
co
O
C
0
O
y
O
C
O
7
C
C
p
>�
M
0
L
Y
0
U
U
p
0
-O
U
N
c
O
a
N
>
p
api
aci
C.
m
e
p_
p
m
U`
0
p
X
a7
to
(n
O
to
a)
a
X
E
7
a
O
Y
o
7
n
�_
N
O
L
-
O
U
O)
•U
to
"O
to
O
U
C
a)
>'
a7
a7
C
7 N
•tm
Y
y
C
N
.0
+`
N
-yp
a
C
(D
.L
to
O
U
Q
N
N2
0
7
U
0
EJ'O
ca
LLw
I
IL
E
i—W
0
z0
mfn
Q 0
E
LL
AT I M%O
52
DEPARTMENT REPORT: 1
a,
B�OFT�
TO: Community Services Commission
FROM: Edie Hylton, Community Services Directmox
DATE: June 13,.2011
SUBJECT: Community Services Department Report for April 2011
Upcoming events of the Community Services Department for June 201 1:
Aquatics Adult Lap Swim, Pool
Adult Water Aerobics, Pool
Family Fun Night, Pool
Swim Meets, Pool,
Open/Recreational Swim, Pool
Morning/Evening Swim, Pool
Computers *Master MS Word
Photoshop Elements, Senior Center
Photos to Artwork, Senior Center
Dance *Line Dancing
*.Swing/Latin Fusion
Dance, Play & Pretend, La Quints High School
Beginning Ballet (5-10 yrs.), La Quinta High School
Dance and Cheer (6-9 yrs.), La Quinta High School
Ballet/Tap (4-6 yrs. / 7-10 yrs.), La Quinta High School
Ballet/Jazz (4-6 yrs. / 7-10 yrs.), La Quinta High School
Excursions LA Dodgers vs. LA Angels of Anaheim
Exercise & Fitness *Morning Workout
*Mat Pilates
*Core Stability Ball
*Yoga for Health
*Yoga for Seniors
*Tai Chi Chuan/Qi Gong
W.E.L.L. Morning Walks, Civic Center Campus
Outdoor Interval Training, Civic Center Campus
Body Challenge Sculpt & Tone, Senior Center
Tai Chi Chuan/Qi Gong, Fitness Center
Yoga AM, Library
Yoga PM, Museum 53
Jazzercise, Senior Center
Zumba, Senior Center
Free Programs *Quilters
*Woodcarvers
Leisure Enrichment Hawaiian Culture & Hula (9-13 yrs; 14 & up), Senior Center
Acrylic Landscape Painting (18 & up), Senior Center
Martial Arts Karate/ Taekwondo, Senior Center
Special Events *Hawaiian Luau Luncheon
Moonlight Movies, Old Town
Special Interest *Mature Driver
*Acrylic Landscape Painting
Sports
Summer Golf Tour Golf Club @ La Quinta
Rancho Mirage Country Club
Escena Golf Club
Shadow Hills Golf Club
*Senior Center class or activity
54
Community Services Department
Attendance Report for the Month of April 2011
Summary Sheet
Program 2011 2010 Variance Sessions Per Month
2011 2010
Leisure Classes
178
142
36
81
91
Special Events
4425
2300
2125
4
3
Sports
547
349
198
18
21
Fitness Center
550
578
-28
26
26
Senior Center
1515
1680
-165
134
128
Total
7,215
5,049
2,166
263
269
Senior Services
Senior Center
318
405
-87
18
21
Total
318
405
-87
18
21
Sports User Groups
La.Quinta Park Use
AYSO
200
400
-200
23
26
LQ Sports & Youth
150
150
0
21
20
Desert Boot Camp
50
50
0
10
9
C.V. Revolution
25
0
25
6
0
Sports Complex
LQ Sports & Youth
800
900
-100
16
19
Facility/Park Rentals
Senior Center
Private Part
400
600
-200
3
3
(Sunday Church
300
600
-300
4
8
Museum
Meeting Room
0
60
-60
0
1
Osher Classes
50
70
-20
6
4
Library
Classroom
300
420
-120
5
8
Civic Center Campus
Private Part
500
200
300
1
1
Park Rentals
La Quinta Park
350
250
100
6
3
Fritz Burns Park
50
0
50
1
0
Total
3,175
3,700
-525
102
102
Total Pro rams
10,708
9,1541
11554
383
392
Vnhmfaor Mnum
Senior Center
3221
332
-10
Total Volunteer Hours
1 3221
332
-10
55
Community Services Program Report for April 2011
2011 2010 2011 2010
Participants
Participants
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
Leisure Classes
Acrylic Painting
10
6
4
31
3
Relaxing Movements
7
0
7
8
0
Ballet/ Tap 4- 6
26
8
18
4
4
Ballet/ Tap 7 -10
12
6
6
4
4
Dance And Cheer
7
0
7
4
0
Adobe Photo Basic
91
3
6
4
1
Computers - Beg.
5
7
-2
4
4
Microsoft Word
3
0
3
4
0
Guitar - Beg.
8
20
-12
2
3
Guitar - 2nd Level
10
6
4
2
1
Rock Solo
3
0
3
1
0
Italian For Everyone
11
0
11
1
0
Tai Chi Chuan
3
6
-3
8
8
Zumba
231
21
2
8
9
Yoga - Morning
8
0
8
4
0
Yoga - Evening
11
0
11
4
0
Jazzercise
13
13
0
8
13
!Body Sculpting/ Core Workout
9
7
2
81
9
Totals
178
103
75
811
59
20ii 2n1n 2011 2010
Participants I
Participants
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
Special Events
Moonlight Movie @ Old Town
175
0
175
1
0
Sports Complex Dedication
50
0
50
1
0
Youth Egg Hunt
1200
700
500
1
1
City Picnic & Birthday Party
3000
1600
1400
1
1
Totals
4425
2300
2125
4
2
20ii 2n1n 2011 2010
Participants I
Participants
Variance
I Meetings
Meetings
Sports & Fitness
Fitness Center
550
578
-28
26
26
Open Gym Basketball
403
263
140
12
12
Open Gym Volleyball
102
70
32
4
5
W.E.L.L. Walking Club
20
0
20
1
0
Nature Walk
22
0
22
1
0
Totals
1097
911
186
"1
43
Community Services Totals 5,7001 3,3141 2,3861 1291 104
56
Monthly Revenue Report for April 2011
1111....�Ml.. oavan„a _ Farilifv Rantala 2011 2010 Variance
Libra
$
$
-
$
Museum
$
$
1,350.00
$
1,350.00
Senior Center
$
2,200.00
$
5,215.00
$
3,015.00
Parks
$
775.00
$
375.00
$
400.00
Sports Fields
$
890.50
$
1,060.00
$
169.50
Monthly Facility Revenue
$
3,865.50
$
8,000.00
$
4,134.50
RA1 .H.lv Rnvani is
Senior Center
$
6,233.00
$
5,826.00
$
407.00
Community Services
$
4,770.00
$
4,178.50
$
591.50
La Quinta Resident Cards
$
8,400.00
$
4,035.00
$
4,365.00
Fitness Cards
$
620.00
$
595.00
$
25.00
Total Revenue
$
20,023.00
$
14,634.50
$
5,388.50
Da an,.a Va.r }n nnta
Facility Revenue
$
44,481.00
$
52,778.00
$
8,297.00
Senior Center'
$
47,685.50
$
68,459.50
$
20,774.00
Community Services
$
46,518.00
$
41,020.00
$
5,498.00
La Quinta Resident Cards
$
78,665.00
$
31,650.00
$
47,015.00
Fitness Cards .
$
6,170.00
$
6,235.00
$
65.00
Total Revenue to Date
$ 223,519.60
$ 200,142.50
$
23,377.00
In 2010, the City received a $10,000 donation from David Orme's Trust which was
used to update the Senior Center computer lab. In 2011, revenue decreased due to a
reduction in classes offered and reduction of fees.
57
Senior Center Attendance
Senior Center Program Report for April 2011
Partic pation
Participation
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
2011
2010
2011
20 0
Senior Activities
ACBL 2 99ers'*
172
322
-150
5
4
Bridge, Social/Pa
409
439
-30
17
16
Evening Dance
46
24
22
1
1
Monthly Birthday Party
50
48
2
1
1
Monthly Luncheon Volunteer Recognition)
681
81
-131
1
1
Movie Time
58
75
-171
4
5
Multigenerational Talent Show
80
96
-161
1
1
Putting Action
11
16
-51
4
4
Tennis
141
125
16
8
9
Wii Bowling
6
12
-6
4
4
Senior Activity Total
1041
1238
-197
46
46
Senior Leisure Classes
Acrylic Landscape Painting
5
0
5
3
0
Brid a Intermediate
15
0
15
1
0
Ceramics
5
0
51
3
0
Computers
5
11
-61
2
6
Creative Photograph
6
16
-10
3
3
Dance Workshop
.7
15
-8
1
1
Dog Training
7
4
3
2
1
Exercise
56
35
21
13
13
Golden Tones
40
57
-17
4
4
Hooked on Loos
11
5
6
4
1
Mat Pilates
27
11
16
13
13
Politics & Prose (discussion group)
16
0
161
2
0
Quilters
52
46
6
5
i4
Sketch/Draw
32
27
5
4
4
Swing/Latin Fusion
7
11
-4
2
3
Tai Chi Chuan/Qi Gon
4
0
4
1
0
Ukulele Players
90
77
13
7
9
Watercolor
29
42
-13
5
4
Woodcarvers
49
46
3
5
5
Yoga for Health
7
0
7
4
0
Yoga for Seniors
4
0
4
4
0
Senior Leisure Classes Total
474
403
71
88
71
TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS
1515
1641
-126
134
117
Senior Services
AARP Tax Assistance
23
26
-31
4
3
FIND
192
241
-49
5
5
HICAP
4
4
0
1
2
LIHEAP
11
0
11
1
0
FREE Seminars/Presentations/Screenings (7'
41
71
-30
11
5
Volunteers
47
55
-8
n/a
n/a
TOTAL SENIOR SERVICES
318
397
-76
18
12
SENIOR CENTER TOTAL
18331
2038
-2021
152
.129
*Included; Memory Assessment Screening; DRMC Parkinson's Awareness; Stroke Awareness
Financial presentation; Who Dunnit Book Club presentation; Riv. Co. Asthma Program; LIHEAP
New ACBL Bridge group - This group is smaller than the original ACBL group.
Parks Activities Updates
For April 2011
The shade canopies over the playground area at La Quinta Park were
removed and reinstalled. A large area of the canopy seam had torn and the
manufacturer was contacted. The repairs were made by the manufacturer
under their product warrantee.
During the Easter weekend, all the of the Cove park playgrounds located at
Velasco, Eisenhower, and Fritz Burs Park were targeted with malicious
vandalism. The damage at all three facilities included; 4 swings, 2 sand
diggers, 1 standing swing, and 1 slide. These parks also received extensive
graffiti, damage to the drinking fountains, and damage to the irrigation
systems. Most items were cleaned and repaired but some of the play
equipment needed to be removed while the replacement parts are on order.
The interactive water feature located at La Quinta Park resumed daily
operation on Saturday, April 30`". This facility only operates during the
spring and summer months because it is a self contained unit with an
underground water storage tank. During the fall and winter months, the
water in the tank is too cold for public use.
The City's Golf and Parks Manager attended three days of training with an
exam to be qualified as a Certified Playground Safety Inspector (CPSO. This
certification and exam are done every three years and is conducted by the
National Playground Safety Institute. The purpose of a CPSI is to be capable
of establishing the basics of a sound risk reduction program, is able to audit
a playground, establish a system of repair, retrofit and removal of hazardous
equipment, and establish a routine inspection system. California is the only
state that has mandated routine playground safety inspections. The City of
La Quinta currently has a playground safety policy and provides routine
playground safety inspections.
59
DEPARTMENT REPORT: 2
L^
c �
Fy OF T
TO: Community Services Commission
FROM: Edie Hylton, Community Services Director
DATE: June 13, 2011
SUBJECT: Community Services Department Report for May 2011
Upcoming events of the Community Services Department for July 2011:
Aquatics Adult Lap Swim, Pool
Adult Water Aerobics, Pool
Family Fun Night, Pool
Swim Meets, Pool
Free Swim Night, Pool
Open/Recreational Swim, Pool
Morning/Evening Swim, Pool
Dance *Swing/Latin Fusion
Dance, Play & Pretend, La Quinta High School
Beginning Ballet (5-10 yrs.), La Quinta High School
Excursions San Diego Padres vs. San Francisco Giants
Exercise & Fitness *Morning Workout
*Mat Pilates
*Core Stability Ball
*Tai Chi Chuan/Qi Gong
W.E.L.L. Morning Walks, Civic Center Campus
Relaxing Movement, Library
Tai Chi Chuan/Qi Gong, Fitness Center
Yoga AM, Library
Yoga PM, Museum
Jazzercise, Senior Center
Zumba, Senior Center
Free Programs *Quilters
*Woodcarvers
Leisure Enrichment Hawaiian Culture & Hula (9-13 yrs; 14 & up), Senior Center
Martial Arts Karate/ Taekwondo, Senior Center 60
Music Beginning Guitar, Senior Center
Second Level Guitar, Senior Center
Special Events *Patriot's Luncheon
Moonlight Movies, Old Town
Special Interest *Mature Driver
Sports
Summer Golf Tour Westin Mission Hills, Gary Player
Indian Wells Golf Resort, Celebrity Course
Heritage Palms
Indian Springs Golf Club
SilverRock Resort
*Senior Center class or activity
17V
Community Services Department
Attendance Report for the Month of May 2011
Summary Sheet
Program 2011 2010 Variance Sessions Per Month
2011 2010
Leisure Classes
128
124
4
81
91
Special Events
345
436
-91
2
4
Sports
885
356
529
22
22
Fitness Center
604
732
-128
26
25
Senior Center
1189
1345
-156
127
109
Total
3,151
2,993
158
258
251
Senior Services
Senior Center
264
313
-49
18
20
Total
264
313
-49
18
20
Sports User Groups
La Quinta Park Use
AYSO
200
200
01
26
20
LQ Sports & Youth
100
100
0
221
16
Desert Boot Camp
50
50
0
6
8
C.V. Revolution
25
0
25
9
0
S orts Complex
LQ S orts & Youth
700
900
-200
21
21
Facility/Park Rentals
Senior Center
Private Pa
200
400
-2001
1
2
(Sunday Church
375
750
-375
51
10
Museum
Meeting Room
0
120
-120
0
2
Library
Classroom
400
250
150
8
5
Civic Center Campus
Private Pa
50
50
0
1
1
Park Rentals
La Quinta Park
350
300
50
71
6
Fritz Burns Park *
200
0
200
1
0
Total
2,650
3,120
-470
107
91
Total Programs
6,065
6,426
-361
383
362
• U1 ..M
Senior Center^
2001
273
-73
Total Volunteer Hours
I 2001
273
-73
- Christopher's Clubhouse rental - National Missing Children event
62
Community Services Program Report for May 2011
gn11 2010 2011 2010
Participants
Participants
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
Leisure Classes
Relaxing Movements
4
0
4
9
0
Ballet/ Tap 4- 6
13
0
13
4
0
Ballet/ Tap 7- 10
5
0
5
4
0
Adobe Photo Basic
3
3
0
1
3
Guitar - 2nd Level
10
6
4
3
4
Acrylic Painting
6
7
-1
41
4
Tai Chi Chuan
3
8
-5
8
16
Zumba
20
26
-6
9
8
Yoga - Morning
6
0
6
4
0
Yoga - Evening
8
0
8
4
0
Dance And Cheer
5
0
5
5
0
Microsoft Excel
10
0
10
4
0
Computers - Inter.
1 6
51
1
3
2
MS Outlook
1 7
0
71
11
0
Jazzercise
1 12
13
1
9
2Bod
Sculpting/ Core Workout
10
7
3
9
8
Totals
1 128
75
531
811
57
2011 2010 2011 2010
Participants
Participants
Variance
I Meetings
Meetings
Special Events
Moonlight Movie @ Old Town
300
325
-25
1
1
Carlsbad Excursion
45
25
20
1
1
Totals
345
350
-5
2
2
2011 2n1n 2011 2010
Participants
Participants
Variance
Meetings
Meetings
Sports & Fitness
Fitness Center
604
732
-128
26
25
Open Gym Basketball
489
275
214
14
17
Open Gym Volleyball
90
56
34
4
4
W.E.L.L. Walking Club
10
0
10
1
0
Nature Walk
16
0
16
1
0
Disc Golf Tournament
1 301
5
1
1
W.E.L.L. 1K/5K Charity Walk
2501
0
1
0
Totals
1489
1088
401 01
48
47
Community Services Totals 1,9621 1,513 "91 1311 106
63
Monthly Revenue Report for May 2011
U.. f .lw Ruvuma _ Farility Rrantalc 2011 2010 Variance
Libra
$
$
-
$
-
Museum
$
600.00
$
225.00
$
375.00
Senior Center
$
2,217.50
$
5,862.50
$
3,645.00
Parks
$
670.00
$
540.00
$
130.00
Sports Fields
$
1,495.00
$
970.00
$
525.00
Monthly Facility Revenue
$
4,982.60
$
7,597.50
$
2,616.00
Monthly Revenue
Senior Center
$
3,705.00
1 $
3,166.00
1 $
539.00
Community Services
$
11,308.00
$
7,152.50
$
4,155.50
La Quinta Resident Cards
$
6,090.00
$
1
3,720.00
$
2,370.00
Fitness Cards
$
850.00
$
510.00
$
340.00
Total Revenue
$
21.953.00
$
14,548.50
$
7.404.50
Revenue Year to Date
Facility Revenue
$
49,463.50
$
60,375.50
$
10,912.00
Senior Center'
$
51,390.50
$
71,625.50
20,235.00
CommunityServices
$
57,826.00
$
48,172.50
9,653.50
La Quinta Resident Cards
$
84,755.00
$
35,370.00
t$49,385.00
Fitness Cards
$
7,020.00
$
6,745.00
275.00
Total Revenue to Date
$ 250,455.00
$ 222,288.50
28,166.50
' In 2010, the City received a $10,000 donation from David Orme's Trust which was
used to update the Senior Center computer lab. In 2011, revenue decreased due to a
reduction in classes offered and reduction of fees.
64
Senior Center Attendance
Senior Center Program Report for May 2011
Participation
Participation
Variance
Meetin s
eatin s
201
010
201
20 0
Senior Activities
ACBL 2 99ers**
128
227
-99
3
4
Bdd e, Social/Pa
297
402
-105
16
16
Culinary Arts Demo La Quinta High School
22
0
22
1
0
Evening Dance
46
21
25
1
1
Monthly Birthday Party
50
45
51
1
1
Aftemoon Tea
32
49
-17
1
1
Monthly Luncheon Dessert Competiton
90
89
1
1
1
Movie Time
45
62
-17
4
4
Putting Action
11
18
-7
4
4
Tennis
125
91
34
9
8
Wii Bowfin
6
13
-7
4
4
Senior Activity Total
852
1017
-165
45
44
Senior Leisure Classes
Acrylic Landscape Painting
8
0
81
4
0
Dance Workshop
5
8
-31
1
0
Exercise
44
26
18
12
11
Golden Tones
50
47
3
5
4
Hooked on Loops
8
3
5
4
3
Line Dancing
4
0
4
4
0
Mat Pilates
12
15
-3
12
11
Quilters
40
34
6
4
4
Sketch/Draw
18
14
4
4
4
Swing/Latin Fusion
14
5
91
4
4
Tai Chi Chuan/Qi Gong
4
0
41
4
0
Ukulele Players
68
36
321
8
3
Watercolor
19
18
11
4
4
Woodcarvers
33
35
-21
4
4
Yoga for Health
3
10
-71
4
4
Yoga for Seniors
7
0
71
4
0
Senior Leisure Classes Total
337
251
861
82
56
TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS
1189
1268
-79
127
100
Senior Services
FIND
152
185
-33
4
4
HICAP
3
7
-4
1
2
Legal Consultation
6
0
6
2
0
LIHEAP
51
0
5
1
0
FREE Seminars/Presentations/Screenings (10)*
Volunteers
65
68
-3
10
11
33
43
-10
n/a
n/a
TOTAL SENIOR SERVICES
264
303
-391
18
17
SENIOR CENTER TOTAL
1453
1571
-1181
145
117
Included: Skin Cancer, Blood Pressure, Carotid Artery & Hearing Screenings.
Department of Veterans Admin; Medical Expert Series; LIHEAP
** New ACBL Bridge group - This group Is smaller than the original ACBL group.
65
Parks Activities Updates
For May 2011
Staff continues to receive regular comments from dog park users. Most of
the comments are positive and one resident came to City Hall this month to
personally thank staff for the work done at the dog parks. Recently, a
couple of residents complained about landscaper workers in the dog parks.
The workers were repairing broken irrigation and filling holes (dug by the
dogs) during a period when the dog park was busy. This upset some of the
dog park users. Working with the landscape contractor, staff has
established that Pioneer Dog Park will be closed for maintenance on
Mondays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and Seasons Dog Park will be closed for
maintenance on Fridays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. The two hour maintenance
period each week will include mowing, filling holes, repairing irrigation, and
applying seed. Inspecting the park, filling the dog bags, and changing the
trash will continue every day. Signs are posted at each of the dog parks to
inform users about the dog park maintenance hours.
A resident complained to staff that the tot swings at Velasco Park are too
high. It was explained to the resident that all tot swings (for children ages 2-
5) need to be install at a minimum of 24" above the play service according
to the National Playground Safety Institute (NPSI) and American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM). This measurement was established by these
governing bodies in the interest of safety so younger children would not be
able to climb into the swing without adult supervision. Additionally, the
height of the tot swings allows the supervising adult to place the child into
the swing, as well as push the swing, with minimal bending. The City's
Certified Playground Safety Inspector as well as staff from the Public Works
Department took the NPSI and ASTM Standards to the park and verified that
all of the swing measurements are in compliance. These standards are in
place and inspected every month for all City playgrounds.
Two juveniles were caught killing two ducklings and injuring another as well
as vandalizing the irrigation system at the Civic Center Campus. Police and
City Code Enforcement were quick to react after a landscaper working in the
park called to report the activity. Both individuals were caught by the police
and positively identified by the landscaper.
m
COMMISSIONER ITEM: 1
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS & WORK PLAN TASK EVENTS
FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 ATTENDANCE
Date of Appointment
Term Expires
Sharrell Blakeley
Heather Engel
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Michele Lawrence
Bob Leidner
7/1/2010
7/i/2010
1
7/1/2010
6/2/2009
6/2/2009
6/30/2011
6/30/2012
6/30/201:
6/30/2017
6/30/2011
July 12, 2010 M eting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Patriot's Luncheon
San Clemente Ocean Festival Excursion
August 2010 NO MEETING
Safety Fun Fair
Pa eant of the Masters
Back to School Luncheon
Present
Present
September 13, 2010 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
i Present
Evening Dance
Padres v Giants Excursion
Fiesta Luncheon
White Sox vs Angels Excursion
October 11, 2010 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Wellness Connection
Afternoon Tea
Evening Dance
Halloween Luncheon
Annual Health Fair
Present
Halloween Carnival
November 8, 2010 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Dinner & Show
Veteran's Tribute
Present
Present
Present
EveningDance
Thanksgiving Luncheon
Trails Day
Present
Present
Artist Appreciation Day
Present
Present
December 13, 2010 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Arts & Crafts Bazaar
Christmas Tree Lighting
Present
Present
Evening Dance
Breakfast with Santa
Present
Present
Holiday Luncheon
Present
January 10, 2011 Meeting
NO MEETING
Pillars of the Community
Present
I Present
Evening Dance
Chili Cook Off Luncheon
Present
Griffith Observatory Excursion
February 14, 2011 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Evening Dance
Family Nature Walk
Valentines Day Luncheon
Present
Present
Adult Nature Walk
March 14, 2011 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Temecula Valley Tour
67
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS & WORK PLAN TASK EVENTS
FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 ATTENDANCE
Date of Appointment
Term Expires
Distinguished Artists
7/1/2010
6/30/2011
Sharrell BlakeleyffPresent
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
7/1/2010
6/30/2012
Michele Lawrence
6/2/2009
6/30/2011
Bob Leidne
6/2/2009
6/30/2011
-Present
Adult Nature Walk
Kids Nature Walk
St. Patrick's Luncheon
Present
Present
Tails on Trails
Fitness & Wellness Day
Present
April 11, 2011 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Moonlight Movie
Talent Showcase
Adult Nature Walk
Walking Equals Long Life
Youth Egg Hunt
Present
Present
S orts Complex Dedication
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Cit Picnic & Birthday Party
I Present
I Present
I Present
I Present
May 9, 2011 Meeting
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Carlsbad Excursion
Moonlight Movie
Disc Golf Tournament
Evening Dance
Culinary Showcase
Dessert Competition
Nature Walk
Afternoon Tea
June 13, 2011
Moonlight Movie
Hawaiian Luau Luncheon
WELL Walk
Angels @ Dod ers Excursion
m
Cam]
--- N
0
cn�
re) m�
c <, m
m 0 r m
n O F
i
a
�
m
" r
m
....
O
i._..
N O
v
O
w
'
3
F) 3
N
N
y c 3
�
0_
:i
a
c3
fD33
3
° n
3
m'
° n
I
m
<
w I
CD
a
CCD
m
o
m
m
m
<
...
I
N I
N '_.
00
O
N
i
I
C
G
c
CD
H
N
a
p
W
c
CO I
N
S d. 01
S
O m d
C
m
c
oi
c
J
o
re) w
0
i
co
cp
O N
F
?In
O
N
7, O
o <
" m
_... I
X < CO
OD
N d 0)_
3
07
c
0
m D
a
i
N
CD
I
N
�
Z :W311 t13NOISSIWWOO
OL
C
I
7
a
CO
J
3
0 3 a
cD c
V
0
rn
= < a I
C
m
vF- (D
<
r e
I
m
N
°'
°
3
O
..N-�_-
00� Ot
c
c 3
0
�
a
m
�
<
i
m
J
0)
i
a
i
CD
J
A
J V
CD c J
00
7_ 0 =. J
i
i
S 0 (J7
S
c) 0 v 3
m 3
H
c
m
,
N f
....._.
N
J
Q1 I
J
(e) K -n Oo
N
7 F
T
�CDI
z
0 �Dcn
a
i
i
3
5 F
0
CD
O
W
I'1'1�N-'
X N •0 0)
(i0 )(0(0
N N 0
N
o a 3
3
y
m
m rn I I
m m a
i
O J
1
U
N cD 3
C
I
<