The URL can be used to link to this page

2013 03 19 CCCity Council agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: www.la-guinta.org CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING on TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013 3:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION 1 4:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION Beginning Resolution No. 2013-012 Ordinance No. 508 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Osborne, Mayor Adolph PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. The City Council values your comments; however in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b). CLOSED SESSION NOTE: Time permitting the City Council may conduct Closed Session discussions during the dinner recess. Persons identified as negotiating parties are not invited into the Closed Session meeting when acquisition of real property is considered. 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY, ANTICIPATED LITIGATION, INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO -GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c) (TWO MATTERS). 2. CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY'S REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, FRANK J. SPEVACEK, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 CONCERNING POTENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR FUTURE SOUTHEAST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 MARCH 19, 2013 001 AREA FIRE STATION LOCATED NEAR'THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 60 AND MONROE STREET (APN 764-240-026). PROPERTY OWNER/NEGOTIATOR: ROBERT SCHUMACHER RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION f:�K6110F<WOI�-iAIZIJ a►I iI PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council 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 PROCLAMATION TO THE PREVENT COUNTY - COACHELLA VALLEY IN PREVENTION MONTH CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, RIVERSIDE HONOR OF APRIL AS CHILD ABUSE 2. PROCLAMATION TO FIND FOOD BANK IN HONOR OF APRIL AS HUNGER ACTION MONTH WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 2013 CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion. 1. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED JANUARY 31, 2013 2. DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY PANNA TEJANI; DATE OF LOSS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 3. LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION, ASSEMBLY BILL 981, TO ALLOW SUCCESSOR AGENCIES TO USE BOND PROCEEDS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 MARCH 19, 2013 002 4. OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK'S ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE IN LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 24-26, 2013 5. DEMAND REGISTER DATED MARCH 19, 2013 6. TREASURER'S REPORT DATED JANUARY 31, 2013 7. APPLICATION TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION IN RESPONSE TO ITS CALL FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS FOR MOVING AHEAD WITH PROGRESS (MAP-21) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS BUSINESS SESSION ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.24.030 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS A. TAKE UP ORDINANCE BY TITLE AND NUMBER ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING B. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 508 ON FIRST READING 2. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BID OF A MODERN ROUNDABOUT AT THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND CALLE SINALOA, PROJECT NO. 2010-11 STUDY SESSION 1 . UPDATE ON THE CITY'S FINANCIAL STATUS 2. FEASIBILITY OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF NORTH LA QUINTA SUBDIVISIONS' ENTRANCES AND PERIMETERS 3. DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 THROUGH 2O16/2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION (FRANKLIN) 2. CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (FRANKLIN) 3. CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFO EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (EVANS) 5. CVAG CONSERVATION COMMISSION (EVANS) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 3 MARCH 19, 2013 003 6. CVAG ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (EVANS) 7. CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (ADOLPH) 8. CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) 9. CVAG TRAILS MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (SMITH) 10. CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) 11. CVAG VALLEY -WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE (OSBORNE) 12. COACHELLA VALLEY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (FRANKLIN) 13. COACHELLA VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (Cox) 14. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (FRANKLIN) 15. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE (ADOLPH) 16. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (EVANS) 17. IID ENERGY CONSUMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE (OSBORNE & WEBER) 18. JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (FRANKLIN) 19. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DELEGATE (HENDERSON) 20. PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION (TEAL) 21. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (HENDERSON) 22. SO. CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS DELEGATE (ADOLPH) 23. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY (ADOLPH) 24. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1. CITY MANAGER 2. CITY ATTORNEY 3. CITY CLERK - CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2013 B. GOLDENVOICE CONCERTS STATUS UPDATE 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2013 6. FINANCE - OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING UPDATE 7. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2013 MAYOR'S AND COUNCIL MEMBER'S ITEMS RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE DISSOLVED LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FOLLOWED BY THE LA QUINTA FINANCING AUTHORITY AND THE LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETINGS RECONVENE AT 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 MARCH 19, 2013 004 4 PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. PRESENTATIONS — None PUBLIC HEARINGS For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to consideration of that item. A person may submit written comments to City Council before a public hearing or appear in support or opposition to a project(s). If you challenge a project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. 1. RESOLUTION UPDATING CITY USER FEES AND REGULATORY FEES [Resolution 2012-0121 2. ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 9 (ZONING) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.60.300 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS) A. TAKE UP ORDINANCE BY TITLE AND NUMBER ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING B. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 509 ON FIRST READING ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on April 2, 2013, commencing with closed session at 3:00 p.m. and open session at 4:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 5 MARCH 19, 2013 005 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Susan Maysels, City Clerk, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting was posted near the entrance to the Council Chambers at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on March 15, 2013. DATED: March 15, 2013 SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Public Notices • The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. • If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the City Council, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1 ) week notice is required. • If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a City Council meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the City Clerk for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting. • Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Planning Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 6 MARCH 19, 2013 006 / T �a�Q•c E`N OF'rKE9 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Susan Maysels, City Clerk DATE: March 15, 2013 SUBJECT: Conflict of Interest The following conflict of interest due to the proximity of residence has been identified by staff on the March 19, 2013 City Council agenda. Council Member Osborne Agenda Item: Study Session item #2 FUNDING LEVELS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF NORTH LA QUINTA SUBDIVISIONS ENTRANCES AND PERIMETERS cc: City Manager City Attorney i. 007 WdY 4 64&i2ar,lEr�, CITY/SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Receive and File Revenues and Expenditures Report dated January 31, 2013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and File, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Monthly and year-to-date revenues and expenditures of the City of La Quinta dated January 31, 2013. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Receive and File Transmittal of the January 31, 2013 Statements of Revenues and Expenditures for the City of La Quinta. ALTERNATIVES: None. Respectfully submitted: Rob�ir , Finan�irector Attachment: 1 . Revenues and Expenditures Report for January 31, 2013 lE CITY OF LA QUINTA REVENUES - ALL FUNDS 07/01/2012 - 01/31/2013 FUNDS ADJUSTED BUDGET RECEIVED REMAINING BUDGET % RECEIVED General $33,156,521,00 $12,304,460.20 $20,852,060.80 37.10% Library 2,049,957.00 380,434.47 1,669,522.53 18.60% Gas Tax Revenue 994,900,00 481,831.60 513,068,40 48.40% Federal Assistance 300,350,00 0.00 300,350,00 0.00% JAG Grant 12,034.00 8,723,14 3,310,86 7250% Slesf(Caps) Revenue - 0.00 48,94 (48,94) 0.00% Indian Gaming 105,844.00 0.00 105,844.00 0.00% Lighting & Landscaping 960,000.00 511,701.83 448,298.17 53.30% RCTC 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00% Development Funding 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00% Crime Violent Task Force 230,347.00 22,399.92 207,947,08 9.70 % Asset Forfeiture 0,00 18,02 (18.02) 0.00% AS 939 4,300,00 1,787.70 2,512.30 41.60% Quimby 20,000.00 16,561.46 3,438.54 82.80% Infrastructure 100.00 435,08 (335,08) 435.10% Proposition 18 287,307.00 105.27 287,201.73 0.00% South Coast Air Quality 417,100.00 23,320.59 393,779.41 5.60% CMAQ/ISTEA 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00% Transportation 523,300.00 286,832.58 236,467.42 54.80% Parks & Recreation 89,200.00 72,737,00 16,463.00 81,50% Civic Center 127,600.00 61,060.33 66,539.67 47.90% Library Development 35,500.00 15,198.00 20,302,00 42.80% Community Center 13,400,00 6,840.63 6,559.37 51.00% Street Facility 20,000,00 13,317.86 6,682.14 66,60% Park Facility 2,200.00 2,063.94 136.06 93.80% Fire Protection Facility 29,800.00 30,715.20 (915.20) 10310% Arts In Public Places 99,800.00 31,656.90 68,143.10 31.70% Interest Allocation 000 34,466.02 (34,46602) 0.00% Capital Improvement 102,569,789.00 29,082,346.99 73,487,44201 28,40% Equipment Replacement 592,124.00 345,482.41 246,641.59 58,30% Information Technology 495,781.00 288,992.95 206,788.05 58.30% Park Equipment & Facility 512,223.00 294,802,89 217,420,11 57,60% SilverRock Golf 4,042,917.00 1,599,171. 18 2,443,745.82 39.60% SilverRock Golf Reserve 69,215.00 870.66 68,344.34 1.30% La Quinta Public Safety Officer 2,100 00 2,058.19 41.81 98.00% Supplemental Pension Savings Plan 900,00 349,99 550.01 38.90 % Measure"A" 412,500.00 0,00 412,500.00 0.00% La Quinta Financing Authority 678,130.00 578,086,25 100,043.75 85.20% Successor Agency 1,063,271,00 6,994,676,14 (5,931,405,14) 657.80% Successor Agency to RDA Project Area No. 1 16,526,862.00 26,659,17 16,500,202,83 0.20% Successor Agency to RDA Project Area No.2 3,627,301,00 12,935.76 3,614,365,24 0,40% La Quints Housing Authority 19,369 954.00 18,744,931.64 625,02,2 36 96.80% Total $189,442,627.00 $72,278.080. go $1 t71fi4,546.10 38.20% '009 CITY OF LA QUINTA EXPENDITURES -ALL FUNDS FUNDS ADJUSTED BUDGET 0710112012 - 0113112013 EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED REMAINING BUDGET PERCENT General $35764,841,00 $14,851,83844 $16,560.80 $20,896,44176 41.5% Library 1.947,27700 1504,64271 0.00 442634,29 17.3% Gas Tax 994,900.00 580,35600 0.00 414,544.00 58.3% Federal Assistance 274,98500 14,91849 000 260,06651 54% JAG Grant 12,033.00 8,723,14 0.00 3,309.86 72.5% Slesf(Cops) Revenue 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.0% Indian Gamine 118,30800 0.00 000 118.30800 0.0% Lighting& Landscaping 960.000.00 560,000.00 0,00 400.000,00 58.3% RCTC 000 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.0% Development Agreement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00% CV Violent Crime Task Forme 68.49000 3070734 0.00 37,782,66 44.8% AS 039 307,999.00 48,777 00 2,000.00 257 222.00 15.8% Quimby 9.198,032.00 3434.25 0.00 9,194,54775 00% Inireduraure 242,074.00 242.76780 0.00 (693.80) 100.3% Proposition IS 28],30]00 287,30700 0.00 0.00 1000% South Coast Air Quality 415700.00 7.030.82 000 408.669.18 1.7% CMAQ 000 coo 0.00 0.00 00% Transportation 2,766,145.00 1,380,293.19 0.00 1385851,81 49.9% Parks B Recreation 6,000.00 2,47372 000 3,52628 41.2% Civic Center 236.93900 133,91783 0.00 103,021,17 56.5% Library Development 9,400.00 4.143,22 0.00 5,25678 ",1% Community Center 000 0.00 0.00 000 0.0% Street Facility 10,000.00 4,500,12 0.00 5,49988 45.0% Park Fachly 2,200.00 1,21901 0.00 980,99 554% Fire Protection 4.70000 2,02441 0,00 267559 43.1% Arts In Public Places 535,200.00 16.031,91 000 520,168.09 3 0% Interest Allocation 0,00 33.142.88 0.00 (33,142.88) 00% Capital Improvement 102.569,789.00 2903234699 0.00 73487442.01 28.4% Equipment Replacement 582,21700 105,72479 000 476,492.21 18.2% Information Technology W M900 212.222.54 000 335,626.46 387% Park Maintenance Facility 552,523,00 000 0.00 552.523.00 0.0% SilverRock Golf 3,888,038.00 2,10176844 0.00 1,706,26956 54.1% SilverRock Reserve 000 0.00 coo 0.00 0.0% LO Public Safety Officer 2,000,00 coo 0,00 2,000,00 00% Supplemental Pension Savings Plan 12,83300 12,832.86 000 0.14 100.0% Measure 'A' 412,500.00 000 0,00 412,500,00 00% La Quinla Financing Authority 678,130,00 563,489.25 000 94,64075 86.0% Le OWnto Housing Authority 26,181,020.00 25,831842. 58 000 349,17742 987% Successor Agency 6,438,13200 399,310.25 0.00 6,038,821.75 fit% Successor Agency to Project Area No 55,937,288.00 15,06206]]3 000 40.875,220.27 26.9% Successor Agency to Project Area No. 2 23,198,806.00 16471,782.20 0.00 6,727.08380 71p% Total $275,16471500 11 $109,58168691 $18.560,80 $165564462.29 010 GENERAL FUND REVENUES DETAIL 07/01/2012 - 01/31/2013 TAXES: Property Tax No Low Property Tax Distribution Non -RDA Property tax Statutory Tax - LQ Statutory Tax - Riverside Cnty Sales Tax Sales Tax Reimbursement Document Transfer Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Transient Occupancy Tax - Mitigation Measures Franchise Tax TOTAL TAXES LICENSE & PERMITS: Business License Animal License Building Permits Plumbing Permits Mechanical Permits Electrical Permits Garage Sale Permits Misc. Permits TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS FEES: Sale of Maps & Publications Community Services Fees Finance Bldg & Safety Fees Bldg & Safety Lease Revenue SMIP Administration Fees Planning Fees Public Works Fees TOTALFEES Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Motor Vehicle Code Fines Parking Violations Misc. Fines Federal Govt Grants County of Riverside Grant State of California Grant Fire Services Credit - Capital (10150003375010) Fire Services Credit- Oper (10150003375000) CVWD CSA152 Assessment TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL INTEREST MISCELLANEOUS Miscellaneous Revenue AB939 Mitigation Measures Rental income Advertising Coop Cash Over/(Short) TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFERIN TOTAL GENERAL FUND ADJUSTED REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED 1,764,800.00 1,656.074.38 108,725,62 93.840% 3,922,500.00 2,201,880.89 1.720,619.11 56.130% 366,000,00 145,606.65 220,393.35 39.780% 190,000,00 0,00 190,000.00 0.000% 80,000.00 0.00 80,000.00 0.000% 5,987,250.00 2,212,804,45 3,774,445,55 36.960% 1,995,750.00 0.00 1,995.750,00 0.000% 441,500.00 225,375,56 216,124.44 51.050% 4,800,000. 00 1,761,687A8 3,038,312.82 36.700% 251,000.00 (89,859.35) 340,859.35 -35.B00% 1,457,730.00 365,385.81 1,092,34419 25070% 21,256,530,00 8,478.955.57 12.777,574,43 39.890% 298,400.00 167,004.30 131,395,70 55,970% 32,300.00 13,386.50 18,913.50 41.440% 188,300,00 127,145.75 61,154.25 67.520% 24,400,00 18,629.25 5,770,75 76,350% 24,800.00 19,309,00 5,491,00 77.860% 25,200.00 18,200.27 6,999,73 72.220% 16,100.00 8,360.00 7,740.00 51.930% 39,900.00 26,01440 13,885.60 65,200% 649,400,00 398,049.47 251.350,53 61,290% 1,885.00 316.20 1,568,80 16,770% 466,894,00 297,778,41 169,115,59 63780% 7,800.00 180.00 7,620,00 2,310% 312,588,00 120,351.41 192,236.59 38.500% 73,100,00 44,717.96 28,382,04 61.170% 250,00 111.81 138.19 44.72D% 89,522,00 33.230.40 56,291.60 37.120% 320,955.00 131 270.00 189 685,00 40 900% 1,272,994,00 627,956.19 645,037.81 49.330% 3,315,000.00 22,771.13 3,292,228.87 0.690% 112,900.00 30,194.44 82,705,56 26.740% 42,900.00 18,891.66 24,008.34 44,040% 152,900.00 46,075.23 106,824.77 30,130% 12,900,00 27,593.00 (14,693,00) 213,900% 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.000% 67,042.00 2,070.16 64,971.84 3,090% 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.000% 5,248,914,00 2,148,875.05 3,100,038.95 40.940% 16,800.00 8,400.00 8,400.00 50,000% 253,000,00 258,859.16 (5859,16) 102.320% 9,222,356,00 2,563,729.83 6,658,626,17 27.800% 444,900.00 173,314,36 271,585.64 38.960% 16,400.00 T1.13109) 27.533.09 -67.880% 92,400.00 24,067,55 68,332.45 26.050% 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,000% 25,000.00 155.00 24,845.00 0.620% 25,000.00 7,450,00 17,550.00 29.800% 0,00 49,30 (49.30) 0.000% 158,800.00 20.588.76 138,211.24 12.970% 151,541,00 41.866.02 109,674,98 27,630% 33,156,521.00 12,304,460.20 20,852,060.80 37,110% Oil CITY OF LA DUINTA GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT 0710MO12-01I31Y2013 GENERAL GOVERNMENT: ADJUSTED 01/31113 REMAINING BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET PERCENTAGE LEGISLATIVE 745,75900 381,668.51 0.00 364,090.49 51.18 % CITY MANAGERS OFFICE 576,536.00 282,751.83 0.00 293,784.17 49.04% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1.149.666. 00 804,446.34 000 345,118.66 69.98% MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1.195.552.00 731942 61 0.00 463709,69 6121% TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 3,667,412.06 2,200,709.09 000 1,466,70291 fi001% CITY CLERK 591,032.00 223.564.55 0.00 367.467.45 37.83% TOTAL CITY CLERK 591,032,00 223.56455 0.00 367.467.45 37.83% COMMUNITY SERVICES FINANCE: BUILDING 8 SAFETY: POLICE: PLANNING: PUBLIC WORKS: PARKS A RECREATION ADMINISTRATI 1,061,162.00 556,022.91 000 505,139.09 5240% SENIOR CENTER 414,564.00 206485.34 0.00 208.078.66 49S1% PARKS 8 RECREATION PROGRAMS 197.734.00 94,735.62 0.00 102,998,38 47.91% LIBRARY 1426,558.00 636218,57 0.00 790,33943 44.60% PARK MAINTENANCE 1,587,298.00 791254.27 0.00 796,04373 49,86% MUSEUM 270,040,00 151,12222 0.00 118.91778 55.96% TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 4,957,356,00 2,435,838,93 0.00 2,521,517.07 49.14% FISCAL SERVICES 968,281.00 586,49551 0.00 381,78549 6057% CENTRAL SERVICES 308.979.00 145,499.22 000 162,47978 47.41% TOTAL FINANCE 1,277,260,00 732,99473 0.00 544,26517 57S9% BUILDING B SAFETY -ADMIN 290,307.00 157,86972 000 132,437,28 5,138% BUILDING 546612.00 371,246.16 0.00 173,365.86 017% CODE COMPLIANCE 104195300 620,205.61 0,00 421,74739 5952% ANIMAL CONTROL 454,210.00 289,789,76 0,00 164,420.22 63.80% FIRE 4,986,90400 2202784.82 0.00 2,784,119.18 44.17% EMERGENCY SERVICES 217,422 00 117.17669 0.00 100,245.31 53.89% CIVIC CENTER BUILDING OPERATION! 1,234,754.00 825.658.76 0.00 409.09524 6687% TOTAL BUILDING B SAFETY 8770,162.00 4,584,731.5,1 000 4,185,430.46 52.28% POLICE SERVICES 12,815,491.00 3.638.18496 0.00 9,177,306,04 28.39% TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 12,815,49100 3,638,184G6 0.00 9,177.300,04 28.39% PLANNING -ADMIN 832,287.00 457,675,37 0,00 374.611.63 54.99% CURRENT PLANNING 666,884.00 415,884,72 0,00 250,999.28 6236% TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,499,171.00 873560.09 000 625.61091 58.27% PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 527,256,00 292.327.34 0.00 234,92866 55,44% DEVELOPMENT B TRAFFIC 627,580,00 329.594.74 000 297.985,25 52.52% MAINTIOPERATIONS. STREETS 1472,68300 767G68S8 8,838,01 60,77641 5209% MAINTIOPERATIONS- LTGIlANDSCAP 1,453,21200 742,723.93 000 710.488,07 51.11% CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1,520,895,00 784,892.60 772279 728,279.61 5161% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 5,601 626,00 2,916.607.19 16.560 80 2,668,458,01 52.07% TRANSFERS OUT 2,094,80700 384,267.17 000 1,710.539.83 18,34% GENERAL FUND REIMBURSEMENTS (5509476.00) (313861981) 0.00 (2370056. 19) 5697% NET GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 35,764,841.00 14,85183844 16,560,80 20.89644176 41.53% 012 CITY OF LA OUINTA 07/01/2012 - 01/31/2013 ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL ADJUSTED REMAINING % BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED LIBRARY: County of Riverside 2,043,357,00 377.911,71 1,665,445.29 18,490% Comnbutions 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.000% Interest 6,60000 2,522.76 4,077,24 38220% TOTAL LIBRARY 2,049,957,00 380,434,47 1,669,522,53 18.560% GAS TAX REVENUE: Section 2105 205,200.00 89,286.62 115,913.38 43,510% Section 2106 128,600.00 62,185.29 66,414.71 48.360% Section 2107 273,100,00 147,279.57 125,820.43 53.930% Section 2107.5 6,000,00 0.00 6,000,00 0.000% Section 2103 381,800.00 183,069S9 198,730.31 47.950% Traffic Congestion Relief 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 200.00 10.43 189.57 5.220% TOTAL GAS TAX 994,900.00 481,831,60 513,068.40 48.430% FEDERAL ASSISTANCE REVENUE: CDBG Grant 300,350.00 0.00 300,350.00 0.000% Federal Stimulus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 300.350.00 0,00 300,350.00 0,000% JAG GRANT Grant Revenue 12,034.00 8,723.14 3,310.86 72,490% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL JAG GRANT 12,034,00 8.723.14 3,310.86 72,490% SLESF(COPS)REVENUE: SLESF (Cops) Funding 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 48,94 (48,94) 0.000% TOTAL SLESF (COPS) 0.00 48.94 (48.94) 0.000% INDIAN GAMING Grant revenue 105,844.00 0,00 105.844,00 0,000% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL INDIAN GAMING 105,844,00 0,00 105,844.00 0.000% LIGHTING S LANDSCAPING REVENUE: Assessment 960,000.00 511,701.83 448,298.17 53.300% Developer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,000% TOTAL LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING 960,000.00 511.701.83 448,298.17 53.300% RCTC RCTC Funding 0.00 0,00 0.00 0000% Transfer in 000 0.00 0.00 0,000% TOTAL RCTC 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.000% DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FUND Mitigation Measures 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,000% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Transfer in 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,000% TOTAL DEV AGREEMENT 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,000% 013 07/0112012 - 01131/2013 CITY OF LA QUINTA ADJUSTED REMAINING % ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE Member Contributions - Carryover 29,952.00 17,968,00 11,984,00 59.990% Grant revenue -JABG 198,595,00 4,158.87 194,436A3 2.090% CLET Line 1,700.00 0.00 1,700.00 0.000% Interest 100.00 27305 (17305) 273050% TOTAL CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE 230,347,00 22,399,92 207,947,08 9.720% ASSET FORFEITURE Interest 0.00 18.02 (18.02) 0.000% State Adjudicated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,000% Federal Adjudicated 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL ASSET FORFEITURE 0,00 18,02 (18.02) 0.000% AS 939 REVENUE: AB 939 Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 4,300,00 1,787.70 2,512.30 41.570% Transfer In 0,00 0.00 0,00 0 000% TOTAL AB 939 4,300.00 1,78770 2,512.36 41,570% QUIMBY REVENUE: Quimby Fees 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.000% Donations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 20,000.00 16,561.46 3,438.54 82.810% TOTAL QUIMBY 20,000,00 16,561.46 3,438.54 82.810% INFRASTRUCTURE REVENUE: Utility refund 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 100.00 435.08 (335.08) 435.080% Transferin 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,000% TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 100,00 435,08 (335.08) 435.080% PROPOSITION 1 B - S81266 Prop 1B Grant 287,307.00 0.00 287,307.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 105.27 (105.27) 0000% TOTAL PROPOSITION 1 B 287,307,00 105,27 287,201,73 0.040% SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY REVENUE: S.0 A.O. Contribution 41,200,00 23.147.67 18,052.33 56.180% MSRC Funding 375.500.00 0.00 375,500.00 0,000% Street Sweeping Grant 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.000% Interest 400,00 172.92 227,08 43.230% TOTAL SCAQ 417,100.00 23,320.59 393,779,41 5.590% CMAQ/ISTEA State Grants 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,000% Interest 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Transfer in 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,000% TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.000% TRANSPORTATION Developer fees 441,500.00 282,090.57 159,409,43 63.890% Interest 1,800,00 4,742.01 (2,942.01) 263,450% Donations 80,000.00 0.00 80,000.00 0.000% Transfer in 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.000% TOTAL TRANSPORTATION - 523,300.00 286,83258 236,467.42 54.810% PARKS & RECREATION Developer fees 89,200.00 72,737.00 16,46300 81.540% Interest 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.000% Transfer in 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.000% TOTAL PARKS 8 RECREATION 89,200,00 72,737,00 16,463.00 81.540% 014 07101/2012 •0113112013 CITY OF LA OUINTA ADJUSTED REMAINING % ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED CIVIC CENTER Developer fees 127,600.00 61,060.33 66,539.67 47.850% Interest 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,000% Transfer in 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL CIVIC CENTER 127,600.00 61,060,33 66,539.67 47.850% LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT Developer fees 35,500.00 15,198.00 20,302,00 42.810% Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Transfer in 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.000% TOTAL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT 35,500.00 15,198.00 20,302.00 42.810% COMMUNITY CENTER Developer fees 7,400.00 6,275.60 1,124.40 84.810% Interest 6.000.00 565.03 5,434,97 9.420% TOTAL COMMUNITY CENTER 13,400.00 6,840.63 6,559,37 51.050% STREET FACILITY Developer fees 17,800,00 12,098.85 5,701.15 67,970% Interest 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Transfer In 2,20000 1,219,01 980,99 55.410% TOTAL STREET FACILITY 20,000.00 13,317.86 6.682,14 66.590% PARK FACILITY Developer fees 2.200.00 2,063.00 137.00 93.770% Interest 0.00 0.94 (0,94) 0.000% TOTAL PARK FACILITY 2,200,00 2,063,94 136.06 93,820% FIRE PROTECTION FACILITY Developer fees 29,800.00 30,715,20 (915.20) 103.070% Interest 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.000% TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION FACILITY 29,800.00 30,715,20 (915.20) 103.070% ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES REVENUE: Arts in Public Places 97,500.00 29,878,33 67,621,67 30.640% Arts in Public Places Credits Applied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Insurance Recoveries 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Donations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Interest 2,30000 1,778.57 521.43 77,330% TOTAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES 99,800.00 31,656,90 68.143,10 31.720% INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND: Pooled Cash Allocated Interest 0,00 34,466.02 (34,466.02) 0 000% Transfer In 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL INTEREST ALLOCATION 0,00 34,466.02 (34.466.02) 0.000% 015 07/01/2012 - 01/31/2013 CITY OF LA QUINTA ADJUSTED REMAINING % ALL OTHER FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL BUDGET RECEIVED BUDGET RECEIVED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: CVAG 2,801,665.00 149,353.88 2,652.311,12 5.330% CVWD 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,000% County of Riverside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Surface Transportation Funding 17.913,052. 00 1,044,651.74 16,868.400.26 5,830% City of Indio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% LOAF 54,000.00 54,000.00 0.00 100.000% IID 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.000% RCTC 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Vista Dunes Housing LLP 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.000% 58821-Bicycle Path Grant 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Stale of California 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% APP Contribution 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.000% Developer Agreement Funding 787,444.00 84,891,41 702.552,59 10,780% Litigation Settlements 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,000% Transfers in From Other Funds 81,013,628.00 27,749,449,96 53,264 178 04 34 250% TOTAL LIP REVENUE 102,569,789.00 29,082,346,99 73,487,442.01 156190% EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND: Equipment Charges 584,824.00 341,146,89 243.677.11 58,330% Capital Contribution 000 0.00 0.00 0.000% Sale of Fixed Asset 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.000% Insurance Recoveries 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.000% Interest 7,300,00 4,335.52 2,964.48 59.390% Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000% TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 592,124.00 345,482.41 246,641.59 58.350% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND: Charges for services 491,581,00 286,755.00 204,826,00 58.330% Capital Contribution 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% Sale of Fixed Asset 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.000% Interest 4,200.00 2,237.95 1,962,05 53.280% Transfers In 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 495,781.00 288,992,95 206,788.05 58.290% PARK EQUIPMENT & FACILITY Charges for seNioes 502,523.00 293,138.44 209,384.56 58.330% Interest 9,700,00 1,664,45 8.035,55 17.160% Capital Contributions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL PARK EQUIPMENT 8 FAC 512.22300 294.802,89 217,420,11 57,550% SILVERROCK GOLF Green fees 3,350,773.00 1,259.580,72 2,091,192,28 37.590% Range fees 159,973.00 45,919.00 114,054.00 28.700% Resident Card 120,000 00 60,415.00 59.585.00 50.350% Merchandise 311,048,00 132.456,89 178.591.11 42,580 % Food 8 Beverage 12,000,00 0.32 11,999.68 0.000% Allocated Interest Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,000% Insurance Recoveries 89,123.00 100,799,25 (11,676.25) 113,100% Transfers In 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,000% TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF 4.042,917.00 1,599,171.18 2,443,745.82 39.550% SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE Interest 2,200,00 870.66 1,329.34 39.580% Transfers In 67,015,00 0.00 67,015.00 0.000% TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF 69,215.00 870,66 68,344,34 1.260% LO PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER FUND Transfer In _ 2,000.00 2,000.00 0,00 100.000% Interest 100.00 58.19 41.81 58.190% TOTAL LQ PUBLIC SAFETY 2,100,00 2,058,19 41.81 98.010% SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SAVINGS PLAN Contributions 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.000% Interest 900,00 349,99 550,01 38890% TOTAL SUPPLE PENSION SAVINGS PLAN 900.00 349.99 550,01 38,890% MEASURE"A" Measure A Sales Tax 412,500,00 0.00 412,500.00 0.000% Interest 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.000% TOTAL MEASURE "A" 412,500.00 0.00 412,500.00 0,000% 016 CITY OF LA OUINTA OTHER CITY FUNDS ADJUSTED 01/31/13 REMAINING EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET PERCENTAGE LIBRARY FUND INTERESTADVANCE 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000% OTHER SERVICES 29400.00 0.00 000 39,4W.00 0.00% REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 11696,598,00 1504,642.71 0.00 191955,29 88.69% TRANSFER OUT 221.27900 000 000 22127900 000% TOTAL LIBRARY FUND 1947,277,00 1,504,64271 000 442 634 29 7127% GAS TAX CONTRACT SERVICES 0.00 0,00 0.00 000 000% REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 994,90000 500,356.00 000 414,544.00 58.33% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 000 0.00 000 000% TOTAL GAS TAX FUND 994,900.00 580,356.00 0.00 41454400 5833% FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND: TRANSFER OUT 274,985.00 14,918.49 26006651 543% TOTAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 2]4,985.00 14,91849 0,00 26006651 543% JAG GRANT TRANSFER OUT TOTAL JAG GRANT 12,03300 8,723.14 000 330986 7249% SLESF (COPS) TRANSFER OUT TOTAL SLESF(COPSI FUND 000 0,00 000 000 000% INDIAN GAMING FUND TRANSFER OUT 118,308.00 000 0.00 118,308.00 000% TOTAL INDIAN GAMING FUND 118,30800 0.00 006 11B 308.00 U00% LIGHTING S LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DIST: REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 960.000.00 560,000.00 0,00 400.000,00 58,33% TRANSFER OUT 000 000 000 0.00 UNIX TOTAL LTG/LANDSCAPING FUND 90.00000 560,000.00 0.00 400,000,00 58.33% RCTC TRANSFER OUT 0.00 000 000 0.00 000% TOTAL RCTC 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 000% DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FUND CONSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 000 000 0.00% REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 000 000 000 0.00 0.00% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 000% TOTAL DEV AGREEMENT FUND 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00% CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE OPERATING EXPENSES 68.49000 30,70T.34 0,00 3],]82.66 44,83% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00% TOTAL CRIME VIOLENT TASK FORCE 68.49000 30,707.34 0.00 3],]82.US 44.83% AB 939 OPERATING EXPENSES 34,884.00 5.82500 2,000.00 27,05900 1670% REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 7362500 42,95200 000 30,673.00 5834% TRANSFER OUT 199,490.00 0.00 0.00 199,490.00 0,00% TOTAL AB 939 307,99900 48,]]7.00 2,00000 257,222.00 15.84% DUIMBY FUND: CONTRACTSERVICES 200,00000 0.00 000 200.000.00 0.00% REIMBURSE DEVELOPER FEES 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00% TRANSFER OUT 8.08,032.00 3,484.25 000 8,994,547]5 0,04% TOTAL OUIMBY 9.198.032.00 3,484.25 000 9,194.547.75 0.04% INFRASTRUCTURE FUND CONSTRUCTION 000 0.00 0,00 000 000% REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 0.00 000 0,00 0.00 0,00% TRANSFER OUT 242,074.00 242.76780 0.00 (59380) 100,29% TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 242.074,00 242,76780 000 (69380) 100.299. 017 CITY OF LA QUINTA OTHER CITY FUNDS ADJUSTED 1I31I2U13 REMAINING EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET PERCENTAGE PROPOSITION 1B-SB 1266 TRANSFER OUT TOTAL PROPOSITION 1 B FUND 287,307.00 287,30700 0.00 000 100 00-A SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY FUND PROJECT EXPENDITURES 40,200.00 703082 0,00 33,169,18 1749% TRANSFER OUT 375,50000 0.00 000 375.50000 000% TOTAL SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 415.700.00 7,03082 0.00 408 66918 1 69% CMAO PROJECT EXPENDITURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% TRANSFER OUT 000 0.00 0.00 000 0.00% TOTAL CMAQ 006 0.00 000 000 000% TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COSTS 0,00 0.00 0,00 000 0.00% INTEREST ON ADVANCE 1950000 17,59710 000 1,902,90 9024% CONTRIBUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0,00% TRANSFER OUT 2,746.64500 136269609 000 1,303.940,91 49.61% TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 2,766,145. 00 1,380,293. 19 0,00 1385,851.81 49.90% PARKS S RECREATION INTEREST ON ADVANCE 6,000.00 2,473,72 0.00 3.526.26 4123% TRANSFER OUT 0,00 0.00 0.00 000 0,00% TOTAL PARKS B RECREATION 6.000,00 2.473,72 - 000 3,526,28 4123% CIVIC CENTER SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00% INTEREST ON ADVANCE 35,000.00 16,121.83 000 18,878.17 46,06% REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 20193900 117.79600 0,00 84,14300 58,33% TRANSFER OUT 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% TOTAL CIVIC CENTER 236.93900 133,91783 0.00 103,021.17 56.52% LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 000 0.00 000 000% INTEREST ON ADVANCE 940000 4,143.22 000 5,256.78 44.08% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 000 0,00 000 000% TOTAL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT 9,40000 4,143,22 000 5,25678 44.00% COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM COSTS 000 000 0.00 0,00 000% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00% TOTAL COMMUNITY CENTER 000 0.00 0.00 000 0.00% STREET FACILITY PROGRAM COSTS 000 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% INTEREST ON ADVANCE 10,00000 4,500.12 000 5,499,88 45.00% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 000% TOTAL STREET FACILITY 10,00000 4,500.12 0,00 5,499.88 45,00% PARK FACILITY PROGRAM COSTS 0.00 000 000 000 0,00% TRANSFER OUT 2.200.00 1,219.01 0.00 980S9 55.41% TOTAL PARK FACILITY 2,200.00 1,219.01 0.00 980.99 55,41% FIRE PROTECTION INTEREST ON ADVANCE 4,70000 202441 000 2,675.59 43,07% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION OF 4,700.00 2,02441 0.00 2S7559 4307% ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES-APP 20,000.00 9.734.60 0.00 10,265,50 4867% OPERATING EXPENSES-APP 4,700.00 26.94 0.00 4.67306 057% ART PURCHASES 111,500.00 6,27047 000 10522953 562% TRANSFER OUT 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 400,00000 000% TOTAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES 536,200.00 16,03191 000 520,168.09 2,99% INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND TRANSFER OUT 000 3314288 0.00 (33,142.88) 000% TOTAL INT ALLOC FUND 0.00 33,142,68 000 (33.142.68) 000% i CITY OF LA QUINTA OTHER CITY FUNDS ADJUSTED 1131/2013 REMAINING EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BUDGET EXPENDITURES ENCUMBERED BUDGET PERCENTAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PROJECT EXPENDITURES 101,858,]]6.00 29,017,167.89 0.00 72,841,608,11 28.49% PROJECT REIMBURSEMENTS TO GEN FUND 711,013,00 65.179.10 0,00 645,833.90 9,17% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 000 000 000% TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 102,569.78900 19,062,346.99 000 ]348]44201 2835% EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND OPERATING EXPENSES 410,51600 105,12479 0.00 304791.21 25,75% DEPRECIATION EXPENSES 171.70100 000 0.00 171701.00 0.00% CAPITAL PURCHASES 000 000 0.00 0.00 0.00% TRANSFER OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 000% TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 582,217.00 105724.79 0.0 447649221 1816% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND OPERATING EXPENSES DEPRECIATION EXPENSES CAPITAL PURCHASES TOTAL INFORMATION 205.608,31 0.00 157,654.69 56.60% 0.00 0,00 78,586,00 0.00% PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY _ OPERATING EXPENSES 50.000.00 000 0.00 50.000,00 0.00% DEPRECIATION EXPENSES 502,523,00 000 000 502,52300 0.00% CAPITAL PURCHASES 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 000% TRANSFER OUT 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00% TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE PAC 552,523.00 000 0.00 552.52300 0.00% SILVERROCK GOLF OPERATING EXPENSES 3,821.023.00 2,101768.44 0.00 171925,156 55.01% TRANSFER OUT 67.01500 0,00 000 6].21500 0.00% TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF 3,888,038.00 2, 101,768.44 0.00 1,186,269. 56 5406% SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE TRANSFER OUT 0,00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00% TOTAL SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00% LA QUINTA PUBLIC SAFETY CONTRIBUTIONS TOTAL LA QUINTA PUBLIC SAFETY 2,00000 000 0.00 2.000,00 0,00% SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SAVINGS PLAN CONTRACTSERVICE PLEMENTAL PENSION SAVINGS PLAN 12,833,00 12832.86 000 0.14 10000% MEASURE"A" REIMBURSE GENERAL FUND 412,500.00 000 0.00 412,500.00 0,00% TOTAL MEASURE" A" 412,50000 0.00 0.00 412,500.00 000% 019 CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Deny Claim for Damages Filed by: Panna Tejani; Date of Loss — February 19, 2013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: L STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Deny the claim for damages of Panna Tejani in its entirety. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A claim was filed by Panna Tejani with a reported date of loss of February 19, 2013. It was forwarded to Carl Warren & Company, the City's claims administrator. Carl Warren reviewed this claim and recommends denial. FISCAL IMPACT: The amount of the claim is approximately $500. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS: The claim is for repairs to the claimant's vehicle tire and rim, which claimant states was damaged by a loose bolt left on the roadway near the Adams Street Bridge construction site. The claim is being tendered to the City's subcontractor, Granite Construction, so that they may contact the claimant with the result of their findings. Respectfully submitted, 1�e?,�- &�cu��v Terry Deleeringer Human Resources/General Services Manager 020 COD— o o 2 \\/\/\ \ 0 )\\g \0 0 $\\\\ ) z> \\( o° < cn \!=& E$ FJCD 2 i±$! \\(\\\ \#k{%E ,tag\\ 0 0 -n CD /CO [30 f 7\ CL \\�}E\ CD CDc E.— =CDa\C/E,/,2, 0 N) I -A $CD Xf0® : -n o m»= cr0=_ CwD \Eo}E § (§\ < /f/ \\\ E ;E/ -&a® 0 _a CD B CD a\CD. ) \\�=/ 7 /2\&m /\{ _.22§& CL mx r7[=C 2\) k;)�\ /E} C\ >M0CD CD CD _�± ; 0CL ma0Ee _0 %Z�\§ CD \\{// \\ -�-g3 2G] m&°&_ Eƒ� ƒ[ mI & ! ( E o ; > CD CL CD co < .-cm f [) M \ \ En &$&ƒ !®7 - CD cn _ .mo -_ // 7\E& »0 3»2 00 e 2!; L C0 /§\ /II »>� -�y 0 0 CD c <;7 f00 0CL 0 CD CD o CD R \ j 981 is intended to clarify that the bonds issued between January 1 and June 28, 2011 will be included and further, that housing bonds issued during the same period of time may also be used by housing successor agencies. The State Department of Finance has taken the position that all bonds sold in 2011 (even if they were sold prior to the legislation that eliminated redevelopment, which was enacted on June 27, 201 1) should be retired. However, the bond indentures prohibit this from taking place. AB 981 would clarify the status of 2011 bonds and would allow successor agencies to use the proceeds pursuant to the bond indentures and covenants. Currently, the Successor Agency to the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency has $27.95 million of 2011 bond proceeds; $25,535,175 are March 2011 taxable bonds sold for affordable housing preservation and development, and $2,421,667 are March 2011 tax exempt bonds sold for Highway 111 median and parkway improvements. Per the respective bond indentures (the contract with the bond holders), all of these bonds cannot be redeemed/retired until September 2020. ALTERNATIVES: As the support of AB 981 would potentially allow both the redevelopment and housing successor agencies to retain monies that may otherwise be lost, staff does not recommend any action other than submitting a letter of support. Respectfully submitted, k Sp6vabbk, City Manager Attachments: 1. Letter from City of West Hollywood 2. Letter of support 022 CITY of WEST ONE Cm HALL 8300 SANTA MomCA BIND. WEST Hou.Ywcm CA 90069-6216 'ftu (323) 848-6460 . FAx: (323) 848-6562 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER PAUL AREVALO CITY MANAGER. February 26; 2013 Frank Spevacek, City Manager City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247 Dear Colleague: FFB ATTACHMENT AB 981- (BLOOM) -LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE USE OF 2011 BOND PROCEEDS POST DISSOLUTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES More than a year after -the dissolution of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) in California, cities continue to wrestle with the future of redevelopment and the use of bond proceeds for specific public works projects from bonds issued between January 1 and June 28, 2011. The previous legislation mandating .dissolution of redevelopment agencies, AB x1 26 and AB 1484, do not provide :clear direction on the issue and include contradictory language .on how the 2011 bonds should be used. This ambiguity has resulted in the bonds being held in limbo, halting many ongoing public works. projectsthroughout the state and potentially eliminating thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of public investment. Recently, there has been ongoing consultation with legal counsel and bond market experts who have concluded that the 2011 bonds can only be used for their originally intended purposes. In addition, they have concluded that failure on the part of cities to adhere to the promissory guidelines by which these bonds were issued could lead to expensive litigation and the potential loss of the bond's tax-exempt status. Defeasal of these bonds, as the DepartmentofFinance has instructed cities, will not occur, in some cases, for ten years. Hence, taxpayers will be paying the debt service for these bonds without any positive impact for our communities. This represents a "lose -lose" for cities and the State, in that cities will not be able to use the bonds for the.purposes for which they were issued, and the State will not receive additional revenue from their defeasance. Fortunately, a group of state legislators — some of whom have served as local government elected officials — understand, as perhaps few others, the need to put these funds to good use. .,.." 023 YfSI V:J - uwYolo CITY dE ;i. � WEST No«YW000 February 26, 2013 Page 2 of 2 They also understand the importance of investing in our communities to invigorate California's economy by creating jobs. One of ,those legislators is Assemblymember.Richard Bloom (D-Santa. Monica), who has agreed to author legislation to address one of the major obstacles preventing some cities from using 2011 bond funds. As proposed, AB 981 provides that bond funds issued between January 1 and June 28, 2011 may be used for the purposes for which they were issued once the successor agency receives a finding of completion from the Department of Finance. It could then use the bonds similar to other pre- 2011 bonds already authorized to be used under the dissolution legislation. AB 981 also provides that housing bonds issued between January 1 and June 28, 2011 are considered housing assets that may be used by housing successor agencies. The Legislature will deliberate AB 981 in the next few weeks. Now is the time to ask your legislator to support AB 981 and to support Assemblymember Bloom's efforts on behalf of our cities. Enclosed, you will find a sample letter of support and resolution, if needed, for your City Council to take an official position in support of AB 981. If you have any questions or would like to these items, please contact Hernan Molina, hmolinana.weho.org or at 323-848-6364. I look forward to you joining this effort. Cordially, �9� Paul Arevalo City Manager Enclosures receive electronic versions of Sr. Management Analyst, at wN� 04 •� ecurr000 CITY COUNCIL APRIL 1, 2013 CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: SUPPORT OF AB 981 (BLOOM) — USE OF 2011 REDEVELOPMENT BOND PROCEEDS INITIATED BY: CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT Paul Arevalo, City Manager DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Hernan Molina, Sr. Management Analyst DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND RENT STABILIZATION John Leonard, Project Development Administrator STATEMENT ON SUBJECT: The City Council will consider approving a resolution in support of AB 981 (Bloom), which is intended to clarify certain aspects of previously adopted legislation designed to dissolve redevelopment agencies (RDAs); specifically, use of 2011 redevelopment bond proceeds. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution 13 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD IN SUPPORT OF AB 981 (BLOOM) - USE OF BOND PROCEEDS ISSUED IN 2011 BY FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES". 2. Direct staff to send copies of the adopted resolution to Assemblymember Richard Bloom, Senator Ted Lieu, other key legislators, the League of California Cities, and other community partners. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On February 1, 2012, pursuant to Assembly Bill x1 26 ("AB x1 26") all redevelopment agencies across the State were dissolved and successor agencies were established to wind -down their operations and obligations. On June 27, 2012, AB 1484 (Chapter 6, Statutes of 2012), a clean-up bill to the redevelopment dissolution legislation (AB x1 26) was enacted by the State Legislature During the first half of 2011, prior to the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies, approximately 50 agencies legally issued bonds, of those cities, 37 are now unable to use their bond funds. 025 APRIL 1, 2013 Page 2 of 3 AB 1484 granted successor agencies the ability to use bond proceeds issued prior to January 1, 2011, that are not needed to satisfy an enforceable obligation. These bond proceeds would need to be spent by the successor agency in a manner consistent with the original bond covenants. While AB 1484 allowed successor agencies the ability to use pre-2011 bond proceeds, it was silent on the use of 2011 bond proceeds (bonds issued between January 1, 2011 and June 28, 2011). The State Department of Finance (DOF) has asserted that the vast majority of the bonds issued in 2011 must be defeased and the proceeds cannot be spent on the projects for which the bonds were issued. However, over 90% of these bonds cannot be defeased for ten years. During this ten year time period nearly $1 billion would be spent on debt service payments for these bonds. It is estimated that approximately $650 million in 2011 bond proceeds cannot be spent due to DOF's interpretation. These bonds were issued to finance a variety of public works projects such as infrastructure construction and repair, new public facilities, and affordable housing. These bond proceeds are held by 37 successor agencies throughout the State. AB 981 would amend the agency dissolution law (AB 1484) and authorize the expenditure of the 2011 redevelopment bond proceeds, in the same manner as pre- 2011 redevelopment bond proceeds. Under the current process, once a successor agency meets certain requirements they can spend unallocated pre-2011 redevelopment bond proceeds. AB 981 would allow agencies to also spend their 2011 redevelopment bond proceeds. Expenditure of the 2011 bond proceeds, by successor agencies, would result in high paying construction jobs which have been halted while the bond funds are sifting idle. If these funds were put to work, it is estimated they could generate approximately 9,300 jobs and, conservatively, about $60 million dollars in new State and local tax revenues, as well as $1.2 billion in statewide economic activity. For the City of West Hollywood, the passage of AB 981 would allow the Successor Agency to the former Community Development Commission ("Successor Agency") to utilize approximately $27 million in 2011 bond proceeds for the Plummer Park project, as well as approximately $5.5 million in 2011 bond proceeds for affordable housing projects, including the Courtyard at La Brea project. During the time period January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013 DOF denied the City's application to use these bond proceeds. CONFORMANCE WITH VISION 2020 AND THE GENERAL PLAN GOALS: This item is consistent with three of City's primary strategic goals of promoting economic development while maintaining business vitality and diversity, moving forward on City parks and enhancing the City's green and public spaces, and affordable housing. 026 APRIL 1, 2013 Page 3 of 3 In addition, this item conforms to the following General Plan Goals LU-7: Seek to expand urban green spaces and sustainable landscapes. ED-3: Provide for continued economic growth through development and public improvements. PR-1: Improve, enhance and expand parks throughout the City. PR-3: Provide high quality, functional, safe and well -maintained parks, open space and recreational facilities. H-1: Provide affordable rental housing. EVALUATION City staff will continue to work with the City's Sacramento lobbyist, Helyne Meshar, as this legislation goes through the proper channels in the State Legislature. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & HEALTH ANALYSIS: Bonds issued by the redevelopment agency were intended for the construction of much needed affordable housing and improvements to local facilities. As such, these funds will have a direct positive impact on the City and the health and wellness of its residents. OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: City Manager's Office and City Lobbyist Helyne Meshar. FISCAL IMPACT: The passage of AB 981 by the State Legislature and Governor would allow the Successor Agency to use approximately $32.5 million in bond proceeds for the Plummer Park project and various affordable housing projects. 021 SAMPLE RESOLUTIONNo. 13 ..................................... . ............ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF.......... IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY.BILL (AB) 981 — BLOOM RELATED TO THE USE OF REDEVELOPMENT BOND PROCEEDS WHEREAS, redevelopment has been an essential tool in the revitalization of communities across California and the City of.....; and WHEREAS, the elimination of Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) has left cities without the necessary tools to continue the important work of reducing blight, creating safer, more livable neighborhoods that can meet residents' expectations; and WHEREAS, the City of..... developed/invested in plans to construct a [state the project's title] since [approx. date]....; and WHEREAS, the City of ...... floated bonds in the amount of $,.. ; and was ready to execute a contract with its general contractor and project manager to construct the above - referenced project; and WHEREAS, the elimination of RDAs, as prescribed by ABx1 26, assumed that funds generated as a result of the floating of bonds would be made available by the successor agency to the state and counties to be used for purposes other than those for which they were originally floated; and WHEREAS, bonds floated under a tax-exempt status can only be used for the originally intended purposes and camrot be defeased for ... years; using bond proceeds for purposes other than the originally stated could trigger a loss of the tax-exempt status and the potential imposition of monetary penalties; and WHEREAS, the successor agency of the City of........ is currently servicing the debt on the floated bonds and has made payments in the amount of $...... ; WHERAS, cities like......... have been prevented from proceeding with the construction of much needed projects at a time when the unemployment rate in California is above 10%; and WHEREAS, AB (.... ) THEREFORE, t � 1 P.O. Box 1504 LA QUIN'1'A, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 78-495 CALLF TAMPICO LA QUIN"LA, CALIFORNIA 92253 March 19, 2013 Re: AB 981 (Bloom) — Legislation to Address Useo# 2011 Dear Assemblyman On behalf of the ( support for AB 98 ATTACHMENT 2 (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 the City of La Quinta, I am writing to request your City in clarifying how 2011 bonds should be used. After redevelopment agencies were eliminated per AB x126, and AB 1484 was enacted to further clarify how they were to be dissolved, it was evident that many "tools were=missing. The bills did not provide clear direction and even included contradictory language on how the 2011 bonds should be used; specifically, bonds thaf were sold inWarch 2011 (well in advance of the June 27, 2011 adoption date for the redevelopment elimination legislation). Currently, the City of La Quinta's Successor Agency (Agency) is holding $25,535,175 in bonds designated for investment in affordable senior and disabled extremely low and very low and low income households, which preserves existing and creates new affordable housing while creating construction jobs. The Agency is also holding $2,421,667 in non -housing bond proceeds for investment in infrastructure improvements. Per the indentures for both bond issues, the Agency cannot be paid off until September 2020, thus the annual bond debt service must continue for at least another 7 years. Taxpayers will be paying the debt service for 029 these bonds without any positive impact on their community. This represents a no - win situation for not only the City of La Quinta, but also the State in that not using the bonds will prevent the State from receiving additional revenue. Please assist us by supporting AB 981to enable these funds to be put to good use in a timely manner. Sincerely, DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta 030 Twyl 44QUMrw ITY SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Overnight Travel for the City Clerk to Attend the Annual California City Clerk's Association Conference in Long Beach, California on April 24 - 26, 2013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: _ CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Authorize overnight travel for the City Clerk to attend the annual California City Clerk's Association conference in Long Beach, California on April 24 through April 26, 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Relevant educational sessions including electronic content management practices, smart phone apps, ADOBE document management program capabilities, and effectively managing workplace change. See Attachment 1 for conference session titles. • Networking opportunities with hundreds of California City Clerks and Deputy City Clerks willing to share experiences and knowledge. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with this conference will be funded through the Clerk's Department accounts for Travel, Training, Meetings and Mileage Reimbursement. The estimated expenditures are as follows: Conference registration $375 Lodging (2 nights x $160) $320 Mileage (135 miles x 56.5C) $ 76 $771 031 The City Clerk has applied for a random -drawing scholarship to partially cover conference costs. Results will be announced March 24`". If selected, expenses are submitted after the conference and reimbursement up to $500 is provided. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The California City Clerk's Association annual conference is an important professional event for California City Clerks to keep abreast of new and pending legislation, professional trends and innovations, best practices, and to share successes and failures. The last time a La Quinta City Clerk attended the annual conference was in 2008. ALTERNATIVES: Do not authorize overnight travel for the City Clerk. Respectfully submitted, 5� N"4�7 Susan Maysels, Cit Clerk Attachment: 1 . CCAC Conference Schedule and Hotel Information 032 :ATTACHMENT 1 EARLY BIRD CCAC Conference member Rate is $375 (Early Bird Deadline is March 28, 2013) -- $425 after 3/28/13 EARLY BIRD CCAC Conference Non -Member Rate is $400 Orly Bird Deadline is March 28, 2013) - $450 after 3/28/13 Wednesday Night Ali -Conference Event (Optional) - $65 Additional lunch tickets (Wed & Thurs) - $35 ea. Additional ticket for Thursday Banquet - $60 Pre -conference Master Municipal Clerk Academy - Tues, April 23rd, Sam — 5pm. MMCA Program: Leading from the Middle, Dr. De Hicks (2 CMC Education or 2 MMC Advanced Education Points) 4 CIVIC Education / MMC Advanced Education points for the Wed - Fri sessions with the exception of the optional concurrent session Adobe - What you Don't Know Wed — Fri Conference Schedule: Wednesday. 4/24/13 Y 8:00 a. m — 8:30 a.m. • 8:30 a.m. —10:00 a.m. • 10:00 a.m. —10:30 a.m. • 10:30 a.m. —12:00 p.m. • 12:00 p.m. —1:30 p.m. Concurrent Sessions • 1:30 p.m. — 3:30 p.m. • 1:30 p.m. — 3:30 p.m. • 3:30 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. Concurrent Sessions • 4:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. • 4:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. Annual Conference Opening Ceremonies The Gift of Constraints, Dr. De Hicks Break with Exhibitors Step up to Change: Walk the Talk!, Ted Gaebler & Tim O'Donnell Region IX Luncheon Trustworthy ECM/EDMS Systems Updates to Industry Best Practices" Robert Blatt and Virginia 10 Dunlap, Esq. There's an app for That, Rumi Portillo & Maxine Gullo Break with Exhibitors Trustworthy ECM/EDMS Systems (cont.) ADOBE: What You Don't Know, Wendy Knock -Johnson ALL CONFERENCE EVENT OR EVENING ON YOUR OWN 033 Thursday, 4/25/13 • 8:00 a.m. —10:00 a.m. Effective Performance Appraisals, Neil Kupchin • 10:00 a.m. — 10:30 a.m. Break with Exhibitors • 10:30 a.m. —11:30 a.m. Records Preservation, Dennis Curran, KoFile • 11:30 a.m. —1:00 p.m. Retirees and Past Presidents Luncheon • 1:00 p.m. — 3:00 p.m. Set Goals & Soar to Success, Gloria Wadsworth • 3:00 p.m. — 3:30 p.m. Break with Exhibitors and Raffle • 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. Set Goals & Soar to Success (cont.) ANNUAL PRESIDENT'S AWARDS BANQUET Friday, 4/26/13 • 8:00 a.m. —11:30 a.m. The Brain on Change, Scott Winters Notes: • For Academy & General Sessions: Dress is Business Attire • For Wednesday (optional) All Conference Event —Promote the organization; wear your CCAC Attire. • For Thursday Annual Banquet: Cocktail Attire (dress to impress)!! • Friday Session: Dress is Business Casual • Don't forget to donate an item to the Silent Auction!! We need Donations! It's for a good cause! All proceeds will benefit the CCAC Education Scholarship Fund: • Volunteer to help out at the Conference. Possible areas of assignment are: moderators, scanners, banquet set-up, silent Auction, CCAC Store, microphone runner-arounders, exhibit set-up, conference registration table, etc. • Don't forget to donate any gentle used clothing you may have. Your donation will support the City of Long Beach Homeless Services Division. Drop off boxes will be available at the registration table. Don't Delay — Register Today — Donate Today — Volunteer Today!! If you have questions about anything or need assistance with anything please feel free to contact any of the 3 Trustee's below: Northern Division Trustee Central Division Trustee Southern Division Trustee Margaret Roberts, MMC, City Clerk Lori Martin, MMC, City Clerk Susan Ramos, MMC, City Clerk City of Menlo Park City of Waterford City of Aliso Viejo 701 Laurel St. 101 E Street I PO Box 199 12 Journey Menlo Park, CA 94026 Waterford, CA 95386 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 mroberts(Wmenlopark.orq cityclerk(Mcitvofwaterford.org sramos(ZDcitvofalisovieio.com DON'T LET ANOTHER DAY GO BY ........ DON'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO NETWORK, LEARN & HAVE FUN!!!! 034 1�7 Mot, 09, A, ITY SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 AGENDA CATEGORY: ITEM TITLE: Receive and File Transmittal of Treasurer's BUSINESS SESSION: Reports as of January 31, 2013 CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with California Government Code Section 53645 as amended 1 /1 /86; and is in conformity with City Code 3.08.010 to 3.08.070 Investment of Money and Funds. I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet next month's estimated expenditures. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/ANAYLSIS: Receive and File Transmittal of Treasurer's Report dated January 31, 2013 for the City of La Quinta. ALTERNATIVES: None. 035 Respectfully submitted: :�, &J Robbeyn Bird, Finance Director Attachment: 1. Treasurer's Report, City of La Quinta 036 MEMORANDUM TO: La Quints City Council FROM: Robbeyn Bird, Finance Director/Treasurer SUBJECT: Treasurer's Report for Janary 31, 2013 DATE: February 28, 2013 Attached is the Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2013. The report is submitted to the City Council each month after a reconciliation of accounts is accomplished by the Finance Department. The following table summarizes the changes in investment types for the month: Investment Beginning Purchased Notes Sold/Matured Other Ending Change LAIF Interest bearing active bank deposit Certificates of Deposit US Treasuries US Gov't Sponsored Enterprises; Commercial Paper Corporate Notes Mutual Funds Subtotal 37,946,825 39,898,494 1,200,000 61,033,380 - 2,462,175 1 $ 142,540.874 1 $ 11,324,669 11,016 - 33 $ 11,335.716 1 1 $ (2,400,000) $ 2,400,000 195 0 2,357 0 0 0 $ 2.552 $ 46,871,689 39,909,510 1,200,000 61,035,737 0 0 0 2,462,208 $ 151,479,144 8,924,864 11.016 0 2,357 0 0 0 33 $ 8,938,270 Cash $ 487,400 1 & 3 $ 2,194,0991 $ 1.706,699 1 $ 2,194,099 Total $ 142,053,474 $ 11,335,718 $ 205,901 $ 2,552 $ 153,185,843 $ 11,132,369 I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code; and is in conformity with the City Investment Policy. As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City of La Quints used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank Monthly Statement and the Bank of New York Monthly Custodian Report to determine the fair market value of investments at month end. P&L,k..0 rid 3-5-13 Robbeyn Bir Date Finance Director/Treasurer Footnote (1) The amount reported represents the net increase (decrease) of deposits and withdrawals from the previous month. (2) The amount reported in the other column represents the amortization of premium/discount for the month on US Treasury, Commercial Paper and Agency investments. (3) The cash account may reflect a negative balance. This negative balance will be offset with transfers from other investments before warrants are presented for payment by the payee at the bank. 031 Treasurer's Commentary For the Month of January 2013 Cash Balances — The portfolio size increased by approximately $1 1.1 million to end the month at $153.19 million. The major reason for the increase was due to the receipt of property tax revenue in the amount of $1.4 million; the County of Riverside reimbursement for the Successor Agency BOPS in the amount of $6.9 million; receipt of $1.1 million for the Fire Service credit from the Riverside County Fire Department; and $905 thousand from the Department of Transportation for reimbursement of expenses for the Adams Street Bridge. Investment Activity — The investment activity resulted in an average maturity decrease of 18 days from the prior month to end the month of January at 119 days. The Treasurer follows a buy and hold investment policy. During the month of January, the LAIF account increased by $8.9 million. The sweep account earned $10 in interest income for the month of January and the bank fees for the month were $1553 which resulted in a net decrease of $1,543 in real savings. Portfolio Performance — The overall portfolio performance decreased from the prior month and ended at .35% for the month, with the pooled cash investments at .44%. The portfolio yield should continue to stay at these levels for the near future. At this time last year, the portfolio was yielding .52% which reflects the current interest rate environment. Looking Ahead In the short term, the Treasurer will be investing in negotiable certificates of deposit, short term commercial paper or GSE paper and rolling over bond proceeds and reserves into U.S. Treasury bills or notes. CITY OF LA OUINTA PERMISSIBLE DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS January 31, 2013 The City Treasurer will be permitted to invest in the following types of Investments subjed to the maximum percentage compliance limits and bid process requirements: All maturities must be less than the maximum allowed. Type of Investments Checkin Savin s and other time accounts Certificate of Deposits, with interest earnings paid monthly. U.S. Treasury Bills, Ships, Notes and Bonds. U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprises and Federal Government Securities ( except any collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO) or structured note which contains embedded - Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) - Federal Farm Credit (FFCB) - Federal Home Loan Bank Notes & Bonds (FHLB) - Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) - Federal Home Lean Mort a e Corporation FHLMC Prime Commercial Paper Medium Term Corporate Notes -TLGP Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Local Agency Bonds/CA Local Agency Bond Obligations Interest bearing alive bank deposit Money market mutual funds regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and whose portfolio consists only of US Agency Securtes maintaining a par value per share of $1, All Funds Maximum All Funtls Actual% All Funds Over (Under) 85% 1.11%-83.89% 60% 0.79% -5921% 100% 39.88% -60,12% 30% 0.00% Va 30.000,000 25.000,000 20,000.000 20,000.000 8 (30,000,000) (25,000,000) (20,000,000) 20,000000 95.000,000 0 95,000.000 15% 0.00% 1500% 5,000,000 5,000000 5,000,000 0 5,000.000 20% 0.00% -20.00% 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000.000 0 10,000,000 30% 30.60% 0.60% 10% 0.00% -10.00% 1 26.05% -33,95% 00 40,0,000 39,909,510 20% 1.61 % -18.39% Annualized Eamings of Pooled Cash Investments 0.441% Annualized Earnings of Fiscal Agent Investments 0.105% Annualized Earnings of All Investments 0.345% W Surplus Maximum Surplus % Surplus Over Untler 85% 1.11%-83.89% 60% 0.00%-60.00% 100% 39.88% -IMA2% 30% 0.00% n/a 30,000,000 25,000.000 20,00 .000 20,000,000 E - - - (30,000.000) (25,000.000) (20,000.000) 20.000,000 95,000,000 $ - E 95.000.000 15% 0,00% 15.00% 10% 0.00%-10.00% 30% 30.60% 0.60% 10% 0.00% -10.00% 10% 0.00% -10.00% 20% 1.61% -1839% Restrictions Maximum Maturity Credit Quality Exceptions c$250,000 per institution 3 years FDIC Insured None <=$250000 per institution 5 yea. FDIC Insuretl None Except no more than $e million may be invesletl over 2 years 10 ears None Restricted to penissuer limits below: 3 years None $30.0 million 525.0 million 520.0 million $20.0 million $95.0 million 16% 90 claim Standard 8 PoonsWootl s None $10.000 000 per Issuer 3 years at least Standard 8 Poors-AA- None $50,000.000 per account 3 years Utilize OVP Unrated None $30,000,000 per account 10 years S40,OO ,000 per bank On demand collateralized 110%of eligible securities None Maintain $1 per share par value Utilize OVP 60 days AAA by two of three rating agencies or assets of $500 million and investor SEC licensed 5 rs None — T,� —_ NI Win, NIA �A =iw :aNIA �aa A::w. ry s,PoNIA Yll Aep,r C, NA — m a �SUL++a _ it-sslT u is —3 Yliid A— — l��.a— , 1 N 1 1 1 1— V _� SeZ Pa j J_, — oNfi b e B, cas r u eeewae �nPaiea Cain tmae eae 5i4T� 1W CYiry Ceen�f�n eermenN y � � f N 3 3 { I oy I P. 2-2 �=171!P 7--c,--lEl 1 e54-d wu t[ 1� oaa��,r �izoa"'• m�..,,o-si.. � c.aso�ry L wlptl �rveasair 117BZ. azr s s �wa�s...c v roem o., —pa vas and A". A_n ra zw s rou..omana �swmr zmam At omo.,,.. w•m•esr �vrou. io'.He o.,v„a "I sL Apt, Ylln.moom+m n�„.. wl, ltr c.,. o mom pA 3 =Y_ A, S i-� emu' ar 3 3 3 tp' 'T �.n, Lx a o. o. o s —s A. �_ a VLo-. ry,�y vl.� 3 s,„ _ s 1.1 A_ _ _ A ioul C11, lmmu 3 4 3 4 N ry C.m�lmn�m.^u MNI• Loll I 3 3 a91 o,�,�rw T O N City of La Quinta Summary of Investment Activities City, Successor Agency and Financing Authority January 31, 2013 Investments Purchased Name Type Principal Date Yield to Maturity LAIF- City State Pool 7,800,000 1 /11 /2013 LAIF- City State Pool 2,500,000 1/28/2013 LAIF- City State Pool 1,000,000 1/29/2013 US Bank Mutual Fund Interest 33 LAIF Reinvested Interest Income - Quarterly 24,669 Rabobank Reinvested Interest Income - Monthly 11016 Total Investments Purchased i 11,335:718 Investments Sold/Matured Name Type Principal Date Yield to Maturity LAIF- City State Pool (1,200,000) 1/7/2013 LAIF- City State Pool (200,000) 1/9/2013 LAIF-City State Pool (1,000,000) 1/16/2013 US Bank Mutual Fund Disbursements Total Investments Sold/Matured i i (2,400,000) Checking & Savings -Net Change 1 1$ 2,194,099 Unamortized Premium/Discount Change $ 2,552 mvescmem Prior Month Ending Balance Plus : Investments Purchased Less: Investments Sold Checking & Savings - Net Change 11,335,718 2,194,099 C, of La Dui. oiMbulon of Cain B lmesbrems a Baial s January 31, M13 OlsuibNun Pl Cash S Imeaprnnb C TM]Is Gereral FuM S ]5,3M.46] Gas Tav 26.196 Ouimby FuM 8,303.254 AS 939 970,861 IMrasauetuns FuM 25,469 paveopr lmp flees 3,287.173 M In Pudic PlaI,s Sam 1. Speual Revenue 519860 In@re9 FUM 3d,468 Cagal PmjW Funs 1,121,870 EpuipmeMReplaareMFuM 2]68.567 Inhorma08n TMIMb9y Funn i 1]S,o]8 P.M EOuigrent B F.114 948,053 L...., 8 LgMlry FuM - (27,196) SiNarft c Remrl (tO?t]) Twst8AgUN,Fulls 528.734 Sulassmarnal Penkn Plan 175504 SuMolal S M.3..167 S... TOW6 Paned Mea 1 PmXtl Alea 2 Ca,xtal lmpmvemeM Fulls $ 9199,041 S 5.269,698 S 14,448,739 pep Service Funds 261 602,131 $ M2,392 Suoxxsor A9anq 12,114.407 4,9P $ 12,119,364 Lew& MWegle lime Funds 28239023 6530 1 26245553 Sub1Wl 5 48,552,)]i s 5,863,]]8 S fi3A18068 H ... In AUM Low B MMerak lime Fu I S IS...1 S 8605BB 26J34]] SuMupl I S 1,SH,Bn I S NBYB s z,ul,an Financi Aunfintufty Pmpp Funds Cell Sa. Fund. 2889.00 2869 Subt.1 S 2,669 T.] S 155.185,N3 Caah Bala. T July 12 A.. Se Inge, omla,r W-Almar pecemtel Januany 13 Febma M." A rvl Ma June CazM1 6lnwsmen6 (524.519) 787.300 Jq.529 (1.030,i61) 10,980$51 (48),4N) 1.]M,899 S. Pool 3],144,M" 17,769.005 26519.OJ5 29.6a6,825 26.246825 3],946825 400)1,889 I.N. beanrq apix Wink BelaUsil 39,975,735 39,94126] 39$59J] 39,9M,a29 39.90],00] Wall 38,839,510 U.S. Treazury, BiI1sNNNs 72p81,331 70,986,318 70,9%,31t 70JM2n 61.031,070 61.033,380 a1,035)37 U.S. Goya.. SPawretl EMerp4es BSOI 8,999,708 0 0 0 0 0 P. Cnmmartlal Paper IlS%'005 4,999035 4,999,721 0 0 0 0 Corpo. NMes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canioks MCereso 724.0M 4M WO 480,000 480,W0 d80,CN 1.200.000 I'm, ow MutuaIFunas 16025085 15404037 2560 M 249]18] 2503903 24621)5 34622ne 0 TWaI 10]323301 51596R]561 ta5828589 $ 14255]9021 $ 14123709 $142W3474 153185843 Tyq,e J 11 Avasuat Savannas 0poger NowmOer CeremM, Janu 12 Fequa Mamll A nl Ma Jute C. A Inrx5Nkms 2815]8 9.06.528 249,]]8 13,715,085 -1,PA.190 9]9,]96 1,05],919 6,838.073 Jd3,0]2 251,]00 2980.800 dS5,40] S.Pool 21 J]0,]l5 1].9]8.]d5 1],2]0.]d5 152C0.98a 26650.981 39,150,AA5 39,W5.65J 31,WS,65J 38,8]5,653 J5510,862 39,910.852 30,010,052 Imere9 Win, atiro bank aepasn 10,001,051 15,M),114 39,514,615 3952].820 39546824 39,563,950 39.SB1.019 39,895.313 3991228] 3992B,]65 39.966.80] 39,959,603 U.S-Treasury BiASMMes 58,942,09 58.W].]22 T2949,195 SO 05.235 60.962A30 43,96],696 4J9]8933 58,3]1,968 58,368,810 n,3.jM ]2960.690 ]2.9]1,913 US. Gow•mmeM SlonmreE EMeRIime 19,094,059 19.99].3]1 14.995325 16,998.096 14,996,842 14,997.613 2J.991920 23,998,990 2J,996,161 6996956 8,99],650 0,898321 PMne Commeleial Paner 19.092,088 6.99]A33 0 0 0 6,993,Q] 14.996,53] 14S98)1] %M6J20 9995,380 99983Q 11,93)202 GUWGta N.W. 19034,373 i902d,536 5015,752 59M,]]8 5,M2,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caft.aks m 8epo58 724.000 726,000 ]2d W3 ]2d„0"0. ]24800 ]24.000 ]2d,[N ]2�0W ]24,W3 ]2d.000 ]2d,W0 14,W3 Mutual Fulls 45287175 45258632 10]87AM 16130 47 16130 47 16132 Mg 15903 W1 3585109 3612363 339]985 3763623 1608l T01a1 t86636428 1029122]9 016]d95018 5 1P8338363 S 16292J 151 163516036 1B02B]WS 180 J809]B 1]294a 050 1R 1)9051 St]9286582 1892N ]t) T Ju 10 A usI Se mbar Od0[L$� m00r Da..' Janu 11 F¢glua MarcM1 A M Ma .June Ca5M1 81nve5tnleMs $(519,852) $ 11$36.]99 S (240.a691 656,616 5 928,811 j 1159.901 JfiL 92,60] S 692.]4 3 (]82.812) 5 2]I,33B Stah Pml $ 47,314613 $ 37,314613 $ {6914,612 1,WA656 $ 31,3]3,G6 S 1]290980 6517M S 31M0,191 $ 375"191 $ 3a,]M,191 US. Treasury BiILVN0k5 $ 8],935,011 $ 97,06.528 $ 87 W6,929 WO21] $ W.8]9.316 S 94890,569 ]311,9M S 84.921Ml f 71930152 $ 5B,936,5B5US. Govemmem SpMoreE EMetpises $ 18,999,298 S - S - - $ - S 2d,99],992 5083,[M $ 19,985818 5 19 all $ 19.991,50] pd. Comneroal Paper $ - S - $ - L$01.879 - $ - f 0,090,19{ L77 .W9],td9 $ 4,990,261 S 19,M4,US? $ 19.992.605 Corp.Nnas $ 1S1W,34o S 15,155,163 S 15,143,378 ,119116 $ 15,107.239 S 15,085W1 .063,M S 10,06G5]t $ 10M3,]32 $ 10.046.211 CergkuOesacepsn $ 989." $ GOP f 989033 988,W0 $ 969.000 $ N91 M OD69,W3 $ 959,W3 $ mo,wo S ]26.000 MutualFUMs 581]W 581)50 581]96581]96 359J955 J59305o390031 1J00031 13M o31 152811091 TMaI 518066]lW 16351349J 1513J5355]290693 Id8819 ]]8 1E6 B95655632I 802 15a 099915 161121805 190 o52 ]5B T Ju 09 A usl Se tuber Gtober perxmMr Janua 10 Febma Marti A Ma Jute CxM1BlnveslnenLs $ (]a0.5161 5 11,d81,9J4 j 848116 $ t]15,5W 53( $ 968.814 $ IB]],238) f 5,940,an f 638261 $ 1.0]].318 $ 215,918 $ (1.329.331( 61ah Fp01 f 53,80],586 $ 55.15),SM S d8.]0],5W S IB,956,1& $ E{8,956.194 $ 56]BOA]5 $ d9,6]0,6I5 f 49,d80A]5 $ d].651.232 $ 518512R 5 50.151.232 U.S. Treasury 801NNo1es S 11],8]],500 $107,911,391 5107,930,520 $ 100,95866] j8 $ 98,829823 $ M.849,63] $ 8856],535 S 0.876.179 $ 98.811 $ 9891S843 5 9],9M.]95 U.S. GovemmeM SpnaareJ ONUUNUes S $ - S - $- $ - $ 18,995,483 $ 18,996946 S 18.930,564 $ 18,9B3,]34 $ 18 M5.N)S $ 10.99]A24 Pnma Comm n al Paper $4.999.668 E $ - f - $- 115.2U.M $ - $ - $ - 3 - $ - 3 - $ COlpmle mays 5 12:=12 $ 12,111]22 $ 15,2%,794 S 15.274,701 S90 $ 15.250.906 $ 15.238.815 S 15,227,442 $ 15,215265 S 15,2m.m S 15191202 $ 15,1]9,51] Ceni0Ca1es 0f 0epen $ 909,W0 1 1.21MD $ 1,2M.000 $ 1.2(m) S0 $ 1,209 MD 5 1,20SOM 5 1,209.CW $ t209803 $ 1.XNJOM S 12M.MA $ Mg," Mutual Fulls $ 521 �1 w,, 18] 904183 $ 41102 $ 411652 {11652 611 C32 HIM Total 189519038 10]8]{633 t)35003d6 1691N 155 1) 180118920 1813L036] 1W 2636]5 $ 1N B89396 18i a41939 1W 590555 1036]242] Cnym La O.. cam Flw AMlnm Fv 1n» Slr Monllr Fen[ael b Innln Caen Oalan[e A[ ietil YiOTnm .l n Ir12 Feprve n-13 nF13 June-t3 JUI 1J 108,200,>ti I5p 5)0100 16I,311513 !006 1N,535A]] 9?SB,9Y IBB 300, 112 PropeRy ty/ian ln[renlenl iranarem O[[upaxy Ta[ Stles Tu[ SevelRocF Goll LlSrary Olner revenues Ap03.562 1]6681 2211.00< T5891]1 300.a3[ 1013].055 7M405 505133 8]0, 391 p ]NI 00] ]])p05 619 pbR .1411 0 6W 351 BB]915 016A1 591,<52 0 )]]108 1,096990 ]5]650 61]0]1 3i25p3 0 51i5866 43]N] 1,15AX2 .1,21, 10216]8 141T 9 p 191.213 p 1.4<1 5900551 d,722,M9 5.8315R< <, 161,Sp6 1,102.1 t3 NN85B0 Revenues 30,Sip.51) 5600.128 3,]N,211) 2,6)e.0]0 B,]86, M0 0,$RB,)09 B)B]10 55?)],]0] EnpeMltuns Salado flFnnBe B—fit, SuccnsSor Pgency btne Repevelop—nt Ayenry Olney erpeMOuns CaplU, 1.1.1s Oenl Service Pnncl a01n1aresl/Pefs Tnnu n 1111.114 005111 15.50I 29002 ]<] t2631511 713.Ill 11171 3,MB ]10 1,]]2.417 p )0]065 12,119 JC,PO 1112N1 I.."' 62, 119 3,3e5.I. 0 0 ]0]005 62]]9 ].36O9N 1013303 0 111111 62011 1509,596 1,0)5.00) 113, 111 1.3G 3, 205811 1,Bp25B0 p 9.161ll9 1.161,529 33601011 36?26,>]1 63251] ialal Ex ntllluna [10.119 5.060,08] 5903,059 1,191,30] 5.930, 091 1 T.411,133 1 5,972.90 0],2]e,013 W10.wanuNlEapMlluree 31,303,008 e02,1G 8.7y (1,512A20) 2,)36, 789 .19.111 5.030,101 IIIpOS,p]]) Cnpnges lu AsselLLlapOM1ks 19126tl0) 1912600J Enpin Caall Balan[e 150,993 N9 15p,5)0260 11].311,51] e31B50ea 146.535$77 9?L,RN e,09) 150390,93] NNCnan9 a In Ceen nelore MalunnB lnvevtmenn I]g216.3051 (x03,1091 13?1A1<91 I1.513 <NI 3.136,]99 10061 11,O1,1411 I]0,91],)501 p (J,R00,0001 IIO,tl00➢00) (1500 OMa-- es In Caan Flon Arel sus hom Prgr 0.eorl Revanuef II LOi npMr roan pWyelaE RrC—y nlmow.emenl l.ee m.n nwyetee Y 3 Recervep tm rom Caun of RlvertNe for Sumssor arynONun(. JI Sttyb55 pek b OGAwNn Torre Nissan a POIke uMeroup et 4J bm. m OZONn_��g imw020ND_c�D;pyOZpND_c �D�oy OmZ �JO D_c`�g�PyOZOND � � �30 U g �. OAN +�mPPAtPON P. o. m. HH- - NOPNN. UN. A pp pp Qr 0 fu VNy to Om X�a�eaea"e e e e e e e g e ��yo� a Omo 000'o$mmmm...�Wi,W„W„.„W,00 oo�000,AOANNNoa0000,m00000��mmmmmmm;NNuym ya �X�a��e ee ; Xa'e 3 m o W00000WWOWa000000,,,,�,N�,v�,q" mpi Q ip�b WfJNO � mm�m+ W 4f yy. �IOiI �. Y�Y Y4t A PWNPPNA P4tPP AWNS i mm$mom'ffm9mmnmNNNnmr:"`B NN�� M. mN vm n a O O o 0 y N SN mpO� a s e e a a a e s a e e se 0 e a e a 9 9 Z9 o e a e 42 e e a e e� ego a o� m a a e e X e e X e e e e e a e 0 N y 0 0 0 00 O,m...... OJ �0 A N N➢ en ➢ W m m� A A (On NON OfJ W 0 N ?` ae XeXXa�a'e`�aX;e eegegeeo ae *gege aaa as aea ae m ooao . 00. 00. O. N��O �o 4t VAPVNWO A OvO O ......... + O O . 4 m J� m6m OeWK e d°e"a`a°a`a`de a`de a`z p O z 3 omo 000000000000000000WomoW000 ooW0000000a0000000000-vNNN?mm 3 .fOON+m�m�PPPNPWPWWO(NJlNJA N. WmWmq.O m� 4Ni 4Ni(NtY of Sa ��. N� �»g�riN UNN 6Wvm N. ae��e a'a°�e a ae Xae�ae a% a ee e, eta' 9 "eeeeae7a ea'e e� egse;ea° a' e"a° e a aaez, CD .A City of La Quinta Chart of Interest Rates August 2012 through January 2013 0.60% it 0.50% 0.40% I i I !, 0.30% .I I Percent: i I 0.20% I 0.10% {i I 0.00% — August'12 September'12 —•—Annualized Eamings of Pooled Cash Investments —Slz Month Treasury Sit Rate ON October it November'12 Months — Annualizes Earnings of Fiscal Agent Investments — Two Year Treasury Note Rate December'12 January'13 • Annualized Earnings of All Investments Ta!t 4 4V a" ITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Demand Register Dated March 19, 2013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Demand Register Dated March 19, 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: None. FISCAL IMPACT: Demand of Cash City $10,104,235.97 Demand of Cash -Successor Agency of RDA $7,373.01 Demand of Cash — HA $5,712.86 Demand of Cash — HA Comm $400.00 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: 6 STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Between City Council meetings, there is a need to pay some routine bills in order to avoid late fees being charged to the City, as well as payroll and related payroll taxes. These items are listed below: Prepaid Warrants: 98842 - 98862} 98863 - 98887} Voids} Wire Transfers} P/R 36824 — 368301 P/R Tax Transfers} $1,462,004.26 $45,456.41 $(37.96) $6,992,734.81 $152,813.41 $40,874.21 047 Payable Warrants Cont'd: 98888 - 98980) $1 423 876.70 $10 117 721.84 In addition, listed below are the most significant expenditures being paid on the regular demand register. Significant Expenditures: Vendor: Account #: Amount: Purpose: Arch Insurance Co. 401-1762-551.45-01 $177,324.17 Adams Bridge Proj. Riverside Co. Sheriff Various Accounts $871,170.85 Dec -Jan Police Svc Burrtec Waste Various Accounts $1,424,281.94 FY13/14 Property Tax Payment ALTERNATIVES: None. Respectfully submitted, . Robbeyn8ird, Finance Director ME O ILI b V O P N O O N N 1I1 O I W f 1 q b b M P O w O b O O W N p' I U F N 1 O M N .1 M r M N Ur W > Q m v v N r V LL Z N on oz V N 1 rl W F IL ILO a W �z Za z z IMWI I p I Q1 bb MMOb aDOVV 00 ..,-INNbVOI NN 000 00 MMMMN NN I/l lil WOW O "1 PP b.. ll. . Il. . . . 00 VV . . . . . MM . . . 00 11. l[11[. .r1 . . .. . . . U W U I U 1 UN 1 rr bV.m rMI-I l bb MM bO.iOP 00 OIll 111 00 .1r-v.y a000 -1b0 Q 1 ZM 1 MM rbrl {Il V Wr1m 00 00 rVM0�1' 00 VeV 00 bbb b� III III PP I mm I Qp 1 r1 r1M b1-1NN .a .r MM Mr1I1 .�1r MM .�.�IN PPPPaO .n ^+ V r 1 HLL I PII1oV VV •+ N .a .1 .i .ir MV 1 E q V 1 W F• 1 K W 1 Z. N P M N 0 0 0 O O rI N N b b 0 0 0 MION 000 O O 00.-I rI O 00 O MMMM N 00 rNM P M OOOrI bbbb I-M 1' If1 V V V O O O m m III M M M M V V V IlI W x Z 1 m MwN M.O P P �+N N .,M NNNN N P P m Z I Ill III 1l1 N N IO M O O q l[I III N N c c N N N N N N O O p p 1 V 1 1 1 N M M N N V V �1 V V V V V �. �1 1 �. 1 V INN Z O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1. U I M III I/IV 000 O O IlI 1111l1111 III rIN 00 Y U 1 0 ooI/I o00 0 o OOOIII III Oo 0 1l1mIIImIlImIII W q Oo Z a1 o Ooo 000 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0000 0 0 00 Q M MMIII O.+.a o o MMM1l1 III 1ll 111 111 111 III I!I o0 m > o 0o0 00o 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0000 o e o0 1' W N U W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M K rl rl rl r1 rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl r1 rl rl O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O N N N N O O O O Y N NNN NNN N N NNNN N. NN N NNNN N N NN 2 1 Q N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U I q \ \\\ \\\ \ \ \\\\ \ \\ \ \\\\ \ \ \\ .i M M M M M M M M 0,0010 M M M M M M M M M M M M w o Noe o00 0 0 000o a o0 0 0000 0 0 00 J m Q > O O r Q •Z r a LL N H Z 1 C b O N M M M M V w b N N N N 0 1 W N wow o aD w a0 rNr o e mWmm w aD me O ee0m w O OO O 12 0 1 N V V V V V V M V V V V V V cc V V V V V V V V V U IUZI rl I -I '1 O I-r I -I rl rl rl "I u In.0 o 00o eeo z o 0000 o ee o 0000 0 0 00 ¢ I o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w L z z z z a w p a J W 1 U U N N U Z W O W 0 W T Q H U O 0 Q U U J U Q Z H ti U W 3 O Z > W IZ-1 K W O W Z W aE W Q W Q m LL N Q W W W J w Q J z z Q K > f 2 Q K 2 Q N Ul 1 O H N H > K U U W Z z O .+ 1 W 1 F hl Q O J M N z 0 h1 1 ❑E 1 N 1' 3 J Q Q Q f b Y 1 Z Q 1 p W J J ❑ o LL Z I W Z 1 U U M 2 J Q z 0 W W W W W R' W H Q 1> W W W H H W O > W J Q r Jfa 1 Q N H W Q 2 K ❑ d O 0 co Y ❑ w a o z z < u o; J F- z J c� a a a r a a 1 ¢ ❑ o a .. o E a w o .. a N 0 N oQal fLL r NJ2 O If1 N M �t m P M N O q O P \bHV Ill 1P .r M r IO b O a0 b o O r V p J 10 P If1 .1 b N N III .1 P III N M O J 10O r q M N V b b \ L W I Z Z I N 9Q3 1 W O J 1 > ❑ .. : WOI M N 1' <O M 1 V V v V V V V V I!I Ir III U1 Q 1' 1 Y Ifl O O a0 O m aD m m a0 In a0 m wo1z 1 U 1 m m O ap 0 0 a0 O m O m ap m W O H Z I W O 1 P P P P P P P P P P P P P 049 (1' um 1 SZ 1 - p 1000 1 U 1 NPv oIn m o b P o v r v P W H .� P M P I21 m r Ill M N b WNW luHl I21 W N .y V V N U W Q m a £ oz o W W ao a caw rz zs z+r Mf oW z £W O r QIi mm mNw bb M0P 00 NN �T m O \ � rr Maim bb Vr Oo NN Pb111 rr �tPM U W U U UN .•rmP MM my Ill lfl mm MMr Illll a 2� 00 P P rr mUIM �t �? �+•� ONN If m Mb � aO � Ill Ul Il1 Ill W W ti VV V V NN N H H O � £ zW z� O MM �f OO O N Il m O NN 0 0o M MM o N NN O o0 r m oo M Ill bb s v MM v vv m v vv v In In W m Z MN £ 2 o .r .1 .1 Ifl N o N o I!1 I[1 > > Z O � U 0 00 o bN o V N.+ O NM Y U O oO o ON o It1 00 O 00 Z a� o 00 0 0o O o ee o 00 Q � O O O O M ILl O Ill �1 rl O M M m NN 0M .1 . T oo0 0 0 00 O o mm m 0 M0 C W r N U W M MM M MM M M MM M MM K rl rl rl rl '1 O 0o O 00 O O 00 O 00 Y I N NN N NN N N NN N NN S r a o 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 M MM M MM M M MM M MM W O 00 0 Oo O O 00 O 00 J m a > oZ. a •z a a m N Z m W W � m mm m mm O m rm m mm O r SO r V VV V VV M V V V V V V U r U Z U r 0 0 0o a oo z o 0o 0 00 a r o 0 00 0 0o a o 00 0 00 Z a a > H U £ H W U � W U ❑ Z w a w a a T U W m W J H Z J O S Z N d a m ❑ f- K N Z 0 1' Q CO W O W W m Q N T Q O W £ 111 0' Z K Ur d' J 1' > O .. z o w� b O Y. Z Q. ❑ K Z z 3 m m O �ZWzti Q I> . Q 3 W ozi 0 O O z a r Jm ❑ m W N N O £ UO . Q £ 3 U I~ -I W z W W a O > > > 3 .. as o HLL NJZ b b N 0 O M O Ill N O \bryN O Ill N N b P Ill �t r 0 o b r N P r N M O J. 0. \ £ W -z Z N UQ3-W q W£LLO . V Ifl b r m P O N KQOo . Ill Ul W N W N b b b a w( W f zZ. W O. P P P P P P P P P rx .Sz aaUc.lw. u r 050 .yPN ON M O V b M M IUQ� WNW UrN M W W � on a m + N P W S N z o W r W Wo W cow rz „z Z.., r or. O IQW. MM oo .+.y bN.� VV mVVN.+ bb OPI�NMPOI�PmP.y .yVmNPf�.+.+NmM o V.m MM mVP.+V NN VVObb.IN M.-I .�O.y .y O.y m.yONPPmP .+ U WU . . U UN PP 00 NN VNM OI NMN NN N.+ MNN+ NNI�OVVMOw f� NMOP Ill Q � 2H � MM I�I� mm bNm bb OMNNN V V NPI�NN NI�N .-IV NPm I�I�NNN� Ir rr O N IS I Wry CWi Zi MMMM N .�.�.y .•In NVbMN.y .y .yM P.ab N.+.r VIA N O O rl Orl m ti.i .y .� b OOOOONNNbbOONNNbbbo000 O O V N NN M rl .l rl r-I M H.1oo000.•Iti000000.1 r1titi b W O V V VM V VVVV M VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV N W m r i N .i .y P.+N .iP.y.a.y.+.+•-�N.+.y N.y .y .y .y .�.y N.i .r .+ P S Z� M N N NM N N.+NN N N.+NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMM .+ NV V VVVV V VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV V Z U� 0 0 0 Ob O NwVm .+ NmVVVNNNNNbNNNNNNNNMVV m Y UI O O O f�0 O OOON O OOONNOOOOOONOOOOOONOOO O Z QI o e o mo o O000 0 0000000000000000000000 0 MNMN M MNMNNMMMMMMNMMMMMMNi�f�l� N m }I jO rl 00 000o a OOOOOoo0e0000000000000 O m .� N N V.a N .r .y .y .i .a .-In.r.y.y.y.i .�.r .r .y .l .y .r .r .y .y .y .y .i .i .y .•� W W r N D W M M M MM M MMMM M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M W r1 rl rl r1 rl rl rl .1 rl rl .1 .i .� .I .•i H ti .-I rl rl rl rl rl .1 .y .� ti .-I r1 .1 .1 O O O 00 O 0000 O 0000000000000000000000 O Y N N N NN N NNNN N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N U W �r m m m mm m mmmm m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m 2 �a O O O oo O 0000 O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo0000 O M M M MM M MMMM M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M w o 0 0 00 0 000o m o0000000000000000e0000 0 J m Q } OOI Q •Z I W �W N r Z W P P I� PP r PPPP P PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPVNb P m W m m P mm P mmmm m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmPPP m O 1. zV V V VV V VVVV V VVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVV V U u i ...... U IO o 0 o me o 0000 0 ooOO0000000000e0000000 0 Q �O O O O 00 O 0000 O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo000000 O I> Y z 3 0 O N r Q r1 W N N r U W O q W O Y r 2 2 Z U Q U r Z W a W 3 Q O > U W S J O U etl W N Z N Q W m z I O J N > N Y W C W I OW m .OSl 3 a Q a ON. ZQ I } r J m W N J Z N LL Z W Z I O U U J 2 O Q it Q i> m Q W W r O m ri m O Jm r r 2 U Q r W U W W U W W w UO N N W Q N m m W O W Q N S O rLL NJZ P N V m \brill . m b O b O M N b M mVOJ.o OMOJ.gOI V \2 W1ZZI M f9Q3 1 W ❑ •• ti WSLLo M V N b h m P o z aoo b b b b b b b r a z wog z w m m m m m m m m m r�O� zzl Sz W Wum,U 051 N P w Ow r N m O o O b e N P P \ 1 YJ 1 r m m O P O m O M N w M U Q 1 o m o .+ O 1 W N K U0 1 m w o N O r N M O w r r I f I C7 W on a x z o M W f W d' ao a UI W Z Z zm 1..1 z o z 1xW1 O 1 Q " 1 M b b M O r N w r m r INN m m o o O o P m P b o o NN P P m P m P O \ I ww.I .1 mm m m 0 o 0 MP 0 0 M O M m 0 0 M M NN W r w w .1 U I W 1 .... ..... U I UNO I rOwMmN.nrrNN ww 00 lvt( P 00 mm 00 Mr Pm Q I ZI-I I �j rl �i rl rl rl rlm wMIA04=, 0 NNN N 00 rr NN N.trM 00 N ww rr vr .+m I r 1 HLL I �v NN "0 I I E I W 1 I yw 1 I 2 1 O m O O m w owow N N b MbMMbMMMM .I O .1 b b bbb �t N M .I .+ .+N W m Z IN .1 N m .+ m m N N x - Z I .a.�Iww.�IM c N N N M N NNN w N wM NN > MI �}�}vOCvvvvv Z 1 0. U 1 N Y I U 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o Z Q I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m .1 m m m I"I m mmm O m mm 00 NN NNN N N w NN 1' W r N W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O o O O o YI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN NN (J I W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ w Ir mmmmmmmmmm m m m m m m mmm m m m mm mm x 1¢ o00000000e o 0 0 0 0 0 oeo 0 0 0 00 oe u 10 \\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \\ \\ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W o e O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J m Q Y 1001 Q •Z I a a N z Z I K PPPPPPo m P P r P P PPP m r P PP PP I W I m m m m m m P P Po m m m P m m m m m P P m m m m m O U U IM Io000000000 0 0 0 o e 0 00O o 0 0 00 00 ¢ o > 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0' 000 I0 0 0 00 00 3 U C O C O Y LL O W LL F Z W LL F Y W z U K U x 2 1' Z Y O > O F H Y m 0 UI Q Y Y N Y U' O z d U N H U1 Q R' Z R' O Q z r Q n a ~ x 0 0F co x UI U U z ^ w UI 2' z M .0w. x Y Z hl N m Q Z Q 1 Ox 1 O O -1H W f F UI O Z w w U .+ OY I ZQ I 2 U UI W O f F m K Z w LL Z I W 2 1 J W W N Z Q W z Z -I e Jm I I y Q I I UO I x x 3 K > a a Q W x 3 U m (p 1 o w w ¢ hl a a F H 1n O Y w M K 1 J Z 2 6. 1' N N N m F f F- > o HLL 1 N J Z I Ir O w In P N IC, w O m m o b O b l 1 K M �t O w �b m w oloN N w wcmJ 1 0 P w m .� w P P b r P M O J I z z 1 I'm W I MU631w I O J 1 > WLLLO 1 r1 N M �1' w b r m P O .r N M z Qoo 1 Ir r r r r r r r r m m m m Q= 1 Y m m m m m m m m m m m m m a wHzY1 U m m m m m m m m m m m m m 1 W 1 P P P P P P P P P P P P P WI xZ ; a 05.2 aumlU M P 1I1 o�I1 n m P v o c� w a m a z ❑z oz zH wz ao a z w Z z M w z w � r ow. z =w. o \ . Ir MOw�tP PP eeemm o U l W U . U luo, N Orr b PM N N o P P m m N m M M n r n o o v in P m m � f �2 lww. sw. z, NNE v N NNwN M NNo.y N ONoo N w w w e M M M M w IL1 Iil 1[11[1 �1 W x Z , NNNN w > >� vvvv v vvvv v z o U i Gov vin N e000 N Y U � eitloo 0 000e o Q MIfIrM �1 OOON �t m .�www w mmmm w y OOOO O .i .1ww O K W r N M U' W M M M M M M M M M M NNNN o NNNN o Y N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M W O O o o O O O o o O J m Q a •z a a N r 0 W m m m m m m m m m m O 2z . �1v vet v �1'v �t �T �1 U O LL Y N N Z Q O H a � N z a 2 Z U O a � a co o z a x J E O a W . Q Q O E 3 K O2 U U U w w z wz O 111 H N LL Z Z Z N w Q i> O O O W N W J w Q w w H w U O w w A W S w > > > 3 3 NQa� rLL NJZ b o m P M m c7J - O P N r r \ 2 W .zz M N Q 3- W O Wxo l M �T Iil b r -CQOol m m m m m QM 053 O lfl If1 M P M o m o r O O P O O N r M UQI P m III o N V I!I M b o WNK IUr1 V N P M M N V P 1I1 b ('J W qO r O Z N sr ws ao a ow Z I Z I „p M< I O I z w I Q 1' MM O M M P M M o 0 0 0 0 o r r 0 0 0 0 b M P o 0 0 0 N N r r m O \ I U. M 1IM O M aDm MM .i .y CO oo bb m III III NN b U W U . . . . . . ..y . . . . . . U I UN I hr hVN mhmV 00 PP oo WW Vet 00 NN V IO ILI MM bb oo N Q l Z� l bVti mhml0 00 bb bb NN NN 1I .y .y P rh 00 PP MM b � aq � .aNV N PP MM MM NNN wvW=� PP 1I11lI bb H � HLL � mE0 rr •+•+ rl .iM MM MM W zW I z1 III e o M eo O m P o III N bb O O O O �t M O O V o O f0 rlJ N 1 b MM �tV�1 UI M N N I11 O M NM N M M M 2' N VV VVV M M V M V o M eo M V V V V W m b N N .y .y .y m m III III .y Il1 Z L � N N N M M M lI1 q III M IIl III M N Ln .i .y O I!I Z O I I I I I r U I b M M M M N N If1 N O N 00 N N O N Y U I O MM O O O r1 O O O b O O o o O O O O O Z Q I O 00 000 m o O O r O O 00 O O O O Q 1I1 1I1 III h r r .y M M M '+ r1 M •+ � P M V O V m rl rl r1 r1 rl rl rl rl r1 Y O 00 000 O O O O O O O 00 V O O O O R' W H Vl HI U' W M MM MMM M M M M M M M MM M M M M M O 00 000 O O O O O O O o0 O O O O O Y N NN NNN N N N N N N N NN N N N N N U I W \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ Y W I f N NN NNN N N N N N N N NN N N N N N M MM MMM M M M M M M M MM M M M M M W O Oo 00o O O o O o O O Oo o O O O O J m Q Y.00. Q Z I a a M r Z I w b om MMM r m m III M M m �t 1I1 aD I!1 m b N O I W O MM N M M III �t b M Oo M If1 M O O 12 O I III 1I11/1 Mv III III M III 1I1 III III III N III 1I1 Ln W N III III 1I1 N U I U Z I U 1 0 O 00 00o O O m O O o O o0 o O O m O Q 1 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 I> u U z N 2 > > H W Y J U J W w 2 U W W N Q Z Y > U m 6 3 U Z Q Z Z O W w U R' N Z J 2 LL U eN J a r a J W „ W f d z J U H W raa Z a w a z z w a u w P C a a a R' Z 0 N Y Z Z N I W z O a Y S W w K W W Q Y z Q Z I Z 1 3 w U o q Z � (J C 3 U a Z I Q I 0 z O J Z K 2 N C W J rr H w NY N LL Z I W Z I d' N 1' U Z U m F LL N > H Q I> Q a 1 W N m Z W W O r J m I x > O Z w S' �'+ F W 0 Z U' .+ a u a z a x w a a o UO W J V! H > W U N 0 2 J Z K w 3 O m Q a Q Q q rn •z I a Q a a Q a a Q m m m u u u u u .. aQ o F LL r b b .i v v v N P III b ti N NJZ N P o N �MJ l O . . 1I1 I11 b 1I1 III b b M M b �t \ x WI Zz I O J > q .. W L LL O I I m P o N M V lIl b r 00 P O .I N M 1'000 I o a0 P P P P P P P P P P O O O O Q Z I Y m a0 m m m m m m m m m m P P P P Y Y I U b t0 00 m m m 00 m m m m m m D m m wo H Z I W O I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P zz..a xz aaum I u 054 N P b 01f1 �? b O O O r r e O v O O b .y I W f O N 1f1 r P r P m e .i O r In b O r w m m W N d' I U f � m o .•I v b P v Ifl N Q m ti m P M a x �I r1 OO oz wm ao a w H Z I z I Z. 1 Mp z or1 z xw1 1¢s1 obv bb o0 00 00 rr me.amr 00 0o vv o0 00000000 .+olnb O \ I MM 0 If1111 00 vv 00 00 PP Oo O00000e0 Q.•I O.v U W U . ... . . . . . . U vM0 NN ltl l[1 rr PP rr NmPmP mm 00 rl rl WN 00000000 NIP Q I I-11 Z. mtib MM .MM OO oO O rr mm 000booNm N-Ivw .yNN v PP vet Ill lfloelllP tiU1 -I-I N mm PP �t M.i N.iM 1 x W I Kw I Z � I(1N O v O r �CN.i M O `O ti rrrrrrr rrr N O O O O O O v v ml M 1I1 b e 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N .yb b O c O MMbM P b M Illm m 111M 111m bbb O Ill Iflmm Wlllll m IIIIIIIII W m F- 1(1 �+ IIl .1 �t .a b •+ .'I N .� M N M M M M M M M Il m m x Z N N N N M m Ill N Ill v N N .+ . .y .1 .1 .i .i O O. vcv Z O IlIIIIWW M O c Ill MMMMMMM NNN Y U I 00 O O O e O 0 o O W Oeoee0O OOo Z 61 00 0 0 0 0 0 0ID0ID0O o e o 0 0 00oe000 000 v v v m y o0 0 0 o e o 0000 o e o o O====eo 0== K w H N N A W MM M M M M M MMMM M M M M MMMMMMM MMM K M 00 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0000000 ooe Y NN N N N N N NNNN N N N N NNNNNNN NNN U W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W I r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .1 U p \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ MM M M M M M MMMM M M M M MMMMMMM MMM W 00 O O e O O 0000 O O O O OOOOOOO 000 J m } I 00. Q Z I I a a N r Z I KI NN m M m m m NNNNNNN m.+N Mmm O 12 O N UI I!1 Ill Ill IIl Ill 1Il Ill Ill ILl Ill 1I1 Ifl N Il1 Ill III Ill Il11Il W Ill UIIll U I U Z I .y ID .� .� M 1Y .y .y .i M .1 .a .1 U 1m OO 0 0 0 IM 0 0 = M C 0000 0 0 0 0 0 = = = = M 0000000 Oo0 Q 10 1 CID 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 UI Z > J R O z w a c z w r r w Z J m Z N N U J R W O W K m W Z a d N Z W U U d W p I'tl p Ix -I N fa9 UI LL > rZ Z Z Z U W Q Z N Z J Q > LL C Q x H Q W Q LL W O F H N W P I K > K J U Z x p W INz Z I O W. z Z H f W O J Z H sUi d' I Ox I K Q N LL ✓� Z J O Q Q N O W' OY I ZQ I W J Q O Q W W LL t1 N O F 2 N LLZIWZI > J U x a U .. a 1> o w w 2' f Z h' .a Q U Z 3 Q W W W W K U N UO 13 Q z 2 M ^K I U U U U U p p O p O p LL LL aa1 o LL I N J Z I N O M III b \bm t IN v m N IN r N b m M1 o 0 b Ill b P -W I p0 1 IoaJ b b b b .I b Ill v \ = Z W I Z Z I M U Q 3 I W O J I > •• w x o 1 1 M z QoO I I Qy� 1 Y P P P P P P P P P P P P P dU' YY I U m m m m m m m m m m m m m W O F 2 1 W O I P P P P P P P P P P P P P K KrIQ I SZ I LL tLUm I U I 055 M P V 0111 0 o P N �1 N f� o 0 o I11 o O o 0 0 W N K U 1 F r N I11 H H H Ifl M UI 1I1 lD W ^ Q m rl d £ H o O z H w W W o. o a w z z Zz IH1 z 0W1 z xw1 QY. 0m PP NN NN f�f� 00 00 00 4(11(1 Wt0 om 00 m O \ I mo O O Om NN m m mm O O r r �t v 0 0 P P �t �t r r =mo�om O O O �?V O O mco m O O O O m u W U 1 U UN r 00 rr MM I�1� NN P� NM HH mm NN 1I10N PP Q ZH 1 mm 00 �D �O 00 PP PP HH HH MM MM NN mPl� Ill 111 NN NN M0 V NN NN .�.� �t �t H.�. IIIM HH HH HH I21 Ifl 1�Ob rr MM III IfI mm I111II mm I f � fLL r O H H O 1 H H I W r R w W 1 Z r v1 N N N O N m N �? O 1l1 O Ifl III O O 1l1 O �0 m Ifl H O O O O C �t N III M Ill v ILl O N M �t �t Ill M M M M UI W m x 2 1 Z H N M M M 1[l N N M H N II N M N N O O I[I M �T V' v v v M �t �t �t vc v v N N v Z O I � 1 1 I I I r I O M J Ifl N O O Y U I O O O O O m m If1 O O O Ill O o m lIl w O O O z Q I o 0 0 o e o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o v r r r M In r .. In M M In r o o v m 0 0 > o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z w H N W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O o 0 o O o O o O O o O o O o Y N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N U I W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ W I r N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J m Q > .001 a •z I a a a Z 1 K b' v M m N O Ul P M �1 m 1I11I1 m III m m O 1 W V V V M H M Ul V �t �D M III 1I1 III 1l1 M M M O I 2 O I M 1l1 1I1 W Ifl I[1 l[1 W N 111 Ill 1[1 1I1 W UI M W I11 Q 1 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 > i O U Z U U N U O U Z Z ❑ K H O H H Z m H N Q z N Q 1 Z J W £ J u O O O £ W Z z Q z z a 'o z z w z a Iu. F U Q > > F H z LL C d f.9 2 LL O' 0 U Q O N m Z H fA O Y W O Vl d N f P H 1 J F N H 2 Q W 3 Z 2 a 2 Q N Z I 0 ow I W N W Q W 3 O z U d 1' I O£ I > LL H p 2 U £ K O R O H Q 6 Q OY I ZQ I O U Z 6 d U N N Y N N LL Z I W Z W W ^ Z W H Y N U Z Z z z Z HQ I> Ul Z Z H N O 2 O N £ W H H H n Jm F- W W O Q O Q W Z H m O K > > I H Q W f £ 2 d' O 1' Q z m f d O O K U O W 0 J U' Q Z J U 2 H N N � W W O O x Z K O M •R' � LL LL LL 2 2 2 2 H H H � Y Y J J J J O fLL I NJZ P M N m b' 1l1 H N N o 1I1 IIl b P Ifl H N m c NH N J 1 0 I HM O J I 1 y �O �0 lIl b V rD M N N \£ W 1 ZZ 1 M A Q 3 I W O J I > O •• W£ LL O I H 1'QOo I H H N N N N N N N N N N M M M Qy I Y P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P mP mP mP OP mP mP OP mP mP mP mP mP mP II WU OI o, F z w P PO PcD Pm zzz aaUwluIm vPb m 1f1 m O N o 0 0 o N O IN v N b M U Q r W O I� o i� o Ifl m ID P m o tf1 r 2b b W P O O M .1 M W N C Ur W R Z M Oz 0 K f W 0 ao a coW Zz zz.,r z oWr z .=Wr 1 Q r m O O N N Co. o O O O MC P N O O O O m v O O O O O O O O N O O O ti O M m M v o PP 1�1� 00 00 00 00 OOe Of. . . .4f. . . . . . . . . . . . . lf. Lf. lf. . O u INwu. m U O UN f� OO � OO l[l ltl 1I1 I[1 00 lflNNOf�b111111 f�N O1IIWOP vvm NI�O NO Nlf1 V Q 21-I b OM b 1I11p PP MIDNNPOMbNNNOOMN00 WPM Mf�.y .I .+•+M N I/1 lfl .y .� .�.i .+.a OO b.+PIII I�O.�b N.yN Mkt lllb �t l/lO .y f � E I W I 1 W W Z � N .y Of�Of�f�f�000000f� MM +� I�r11� 1I1 111 M M O O b OrIO r1000rl rl rl rlti rl0 vv 00 000 v b b .I O N M ONUI N III Il11f1NNNNNNN MM bb N1I1N M C' M lfl v O v M MMMMMMMMMMMMMM vv 1ll 111 MVM M W m H IN m Z Z N Ill .I N N 1I1 I[1111NWNIf1 NIfl Ill III 111 l[l II1M c cMM Ill > > �? V �t M v v Ill 1I1 Ill 111 1[11[1 Ill to Ill 1f1 W 1I1 Ifl v Ifl 1I1 c mIII v v Z 0. r U � �1 Ifl m O v .� �f b.a bl"+IIImPOnvm'.y oo .y m.1 M Y U Ill O O O O O 00�?�1 bf�mf�I�MMmbO 00 00 Ob0 0 Z Q r O O O O O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m O O O O O O m O O N N N .r t` M m rl r1 .1 n rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl ^1 r1 r1 rl Y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 111111 1' W H N C9 W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M K rl O O CI r'1 r1 rl r1 rl rl rl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U W I\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N N N N N N N N 2 I Q it 'r r1 rl .y '1 rl rl 'Y r1 rl rl rl .� -1 ti rr n rl rl r1 ti rY rl rl rl .y U IQ I\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\\ \ M M M IM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M w I Im M o 0 0 0 00000000mmemoo 0o eo 000 0 J m Q Y I O O I a Iz a a m F Z I S' Im O M v m m Mvlll b l�mPO.+NMv1l1b mlll MM �?vv 111 1 W IM O M b M M .yNNNNNNN MINI 00 vvv I11 O . S O III 1I1 Ill Ifl III 111 III 111 Ill III III Ill Ill Ill I/l III W IIl 1I1 1I1 1I1 W III W Itl III N l[l U PUZI U IO IO o 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 00 00 00o O Q O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M o o m o M I > m M W > l m U 6' Q 7C Y m W U m W (p W W Z W W q Z Z U O H W m Z Q U J O H S O a o > o o a z m J w z Q s O Q J S 2 u K Z f O H P I Q U H U W 1' LL W N O Z r W I 1' r qZ I v O Y r Z Q. Y O U m K O K d N LL Z W Z Z U S J + O Z ti Q i> O N J W Z m O W H e8 .fir Jm r, J W Z Q U O U h1 3 O h1 H 2 U' UO m LL U X U 0 Z W LL Q (p 1 Q M O Q U W N Q LL J J E Z Z O d d .. as o FLL N J Z I I N In O .1 m \bHm I 1' I m M m o m m M III b v b N .y N P N P . OJ I OO I N llt �t b 1I1 Ill \xWIZZI M U Q 3 r W O J > q .. WZLLO I IN M v UI b h m P o ti N M K QOO I I 1'1'NQ 1 SZ 1 1[I P b o 111 o 0 0 0 0 o n Ill o M I U Q I .1 I W f 1 o b o m b 1f1 e o b O 1 20 1 N 0 O n m .I N n N WNW 1 OF 1 1I1 N b .1 .+ W Q m rn rn ao a 2 n Z Cm zr W K ao a z w H Z „p' I =M I F I Q F I Z 1 E W 1 1 Qy I O oO 00 00000 m0 nn bMOOPr100PP mlf1 0o rl .itibb001•r00 O \ 1 o NN Oe �t �t o000o Ilm. . . nn . . . . .mr N.Ir aim oo Mm+�im0000 . U I W U 1 U I UN I O bb oo mm MI1 min oo .a �t �T �tmb�1'M Nl/lvo bb vbvnroob�lN Q 121-I I N Ill I21 00 rr brMww 1 m.-1 NN PMbbnnlll �tMbbr NN NNIII IIIMNmbMr I QO I W W NN v�N�b P-I'+^1 mbPlll blllM N.+b �t .a .y .i NMNbn.. m�?n F 1 fLL 1 MM •+ .+M b.im N�bPnrbPMN MNIIlM.11I1 N.r 12 v .1 m Z I v1 M O �} MMMM 00 N OONNO.�.d �iO Nlfl v ooe0000000 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 MMMM WP bbbbbbbbbbb M NNNNNNNNILIN M M M M M M �t M MMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M W ZI Z 1 N N r[I MMMM N NNNNNNNNNNN Ill .+.11r .+o.+o O1Il .I >1 O 1 �1 1 �t �t �t �t �t mIll m I!1 �t Z r 01 I I I I I r I I U 1 O N NNNN nn a vvvvvvvvvv� M .�.•I .y .+.r .1 .i .1 M.I YI U1 W n O OOOO bb W WWW1f1 W Ifl 1[1 lil lflNW o OOO0000 o.ro 2 Q 1 O m o 0 0 0 o m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O e o 0 0 0 0 0 o r1 0 0 o m o Q N M r r r r .� .1 1I1 1f11t11111[1 W N If1 Ifl Ifl rfl W M .1 .1 .. .1 1I1 .8 LD K W F N N W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M- K O O O O O O O O O O o o e O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O O O O Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U I W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W 1 F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M MMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M ' W O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J m Q Y 1 0 0 1 a •z 1 a .a m z Z I� m m m M�1'V'�t rm m 1/1brmPOnNM�tm m PPPPPPPPPP I W M M M 1(1 M IA MM NM M �1'�f �t v�i l[l l[1 Wrf11f11f1 M bbbbbbbbbb O 1 2 O I 1[1 N N rfl W Ifl W N Ln rf1 rt1 W N t(11[1 Ift N Ifl III N O W M N N rt1 W 1[1 N t[1 Ill U U I� o 0 0 0000 00 0 0000000e000 0 om0000000m Q 10 0 0 0 0000 00 0 0000000eeoo 0 0000000000 .r H Q LL m 2 LL w K o W UI LL W I O Z 2 J U nr m O Z Z Z H Y Y x o z r U N U Z Z C W J 2 O 7 W Q f U O W O O Y P N 1 2 Z Z H U U U N Z I O W I Y H U 2 J K I OS I Q Z O U O W W O F v OY 1 ZQ I d 1r O m q rOi Y N LL Z I W Z I W W WZ H Q I> W atl O N W O N M ri Q m I W K Z O Q U W W Q Q U o 1 O O m m LL > > m HLL I NJZ I N b v r b M b \bN I c N r N .1 1[1 N m m v N1 o rl .+ M m N M O Ill N • mMO J I n I 0 b b v v b \x J W I ZZ I M 9a3 I W O J I > O .. W SLLOI M �t m b n m P o .I N K QOO I v v v v v v v W W IIl g I U wom m m m m m m m m m W Hz I W O I P P P P P P P P P P K Ch+Q 1 SZ I p a aUm I cl 05a b P b O ILI M o O O o o N M U Q I N P �1 O N 1l1 0 o r 20 � N M n o III ^I WNK r Uf I v b m IIl P U W Q m O P M a z v ❑z oz M CY f W 1' LLo a caw Zi z Ix1 z WI QR' OOOr-IOOOOObM 00000000 1f11f10 00 0000 00 nmbO M�1P NI[ImN nN O\ OOOnN000 1I . . 0 1 W U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. U luwl ObnP III kt m vNPIl1 I/IN �1NbPOmPUIN.•10 Nn Q � 21-I I n�tONO Nit �1'b NN NNOmI-I MMM mmn mI o NNIfI .+n b�1 P'11IIMMn•+ nN I QO 1 W b.rmo Nm b�1' mMb'b Nlllnb Maim III III N .y ^I P �t ••� F- fLL M MNm N .a .yN P MM I N O IV 1 = W I CW r Z I V 1 OOOOO00000 ti.y ti.a .a r-r r-i m OMOJ 0000000000 �1 �1 NNNNIl1N NNON NNNNNNN MM M b.y �t M bbbbbbbbbb MM K MMM M�tMM M.yM q'�t �t q'�i �t �S MM IIIM= M 1IlMWOMWMNmW vv W m 1 nr1N.y .i m.y PNmmmmm Z 1 Z •+W O.a .1 N.y Ill ILl MMM Mmo If1 NU1.y.rMM111Nwm N.yMMbb.1 NIII Ifl m O O 1 V 1. �. N �. cNMIIIIIIIll �. �1 �1' �1 �$ �1 c111 �1 �t V �1 �t N �t �t �t �T �t �t �t �t �t �t �t t1 IIl mm Z O I . I I I r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r U I mVMNo� b .�.� N MMO N NH.r.y 00 Y U mmmmI =OmON OOOO.n00000 Ol1100000 00 o moo m mmmom. III000000000 00 Z Q I O O O O m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O Q .1 .1 .y .�.�P.+•+O.n III IIInMMMM MM M MMO M IIl �tnnbb�l lllMM Oo m ... n... ........ .... .. ...... ...... .... .. y O O O O O M O ooO O O O ==MO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Nll1 C W r N C9 I K rl rl rl rl rl rl .1 .y .y N rl rl rl rl rl rl rl oOm0000000 0000000 om o NNN m NNNNNNommm NN Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U 1 W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W I F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W O O O O O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O J m Q Y O O 1 Q •Z . a a N 1 Z 1 K PPPPP00000 .aNMl11llbn mm Ifl bnm m MMMMMMMMMM MM I W b b b b b n n n n n M M M M M M M M M N b b b M O O O O O m 0 O IZ IfI UIWmMM1I1NMN IIImMMMNM Nlll Ill M1I1N M MNMWONMMM m mm U I UI 'r rl rl rl rl .1 rl .y .1 i-r �Y rl '1 .r rr rl 'r rl r1 rl u Io 0000000moo 0000000 0o m o0o m 000000mOom o0 Q 10 0000000000 0000000 0o m o0o m 0000oomomo 00 Z N rr W W z z > o• � a z z H o 0 U ❑ Z W F W W O z z LL U O O Q y ❑ z R N Q F Q W J h L W Z Q Y K Q Q L P I U O N W > Q z N 2 Io W I O m J K Y m ❑ U yI qg I f- O U W Q O Y 1 Z Q 1 W O LL O ❑ ` N LL Z 1 W Z I N aC LL G K N N n Jm1 I z Q Y w a J w .1 a a C N > N d Z uo� n z z a a o f F M •K I K N N N N N N M .. as m LL 1 N JzI 111 P m N P .a m P \ b U 1 N 0 M 0 J 1 o 0 . M O J 1 q O I b I11 M �1 �1 Ill \7 W 1 ZZ 1 M U a 3 1 W O J I > O •• W Z LL o I N M �1 III b n m P 1' Q O m I III III w III M M M M Q(D I Y P P P P P P P P 1 U m m m m m m m m woF z1 WOI P P P P P P P P K mI-I412Z I 1 1 U m I U 1 059 nPb o III m o o m o V UI o m b o \ 1 YJ 1 n O o o V n o III O O M 1 u Q 1 1 W H 1 b P 10 O b m M e b V r O 1 20 1 .I b b N O M b e n N Ir W N K 1 U H 1 M V M N M e V V M N U1 W a n b on oz sIX ws ao a Ow � �z ry� 1z..1 z P W O 1QW1 OPm 000 00 mm IIIm,=, OOVV MIA oo mom bb o0o OOOOmbm000 o 1 N. Hmr o0o Oo Om oo.a If mIf rr oe mom 00 QmQ 000o o.+.rroo U I W U . . . . .. U I U0. m m b II .. M M b V V P m 100 0 0 m m b V m O b r r r O Q 1 ZI-1 I MIA. W.I m.Ib bb w NN OOe aPNM bb 00 mmn NN N w m bmlll = O `N N ObONbbr.Mo I QO � bM bNV MM bbN .i .�IM oo V V M V MM .+N NIIIP V.r V.�I IfIM r 1 �-LL I •+ N N .+.1M MM N N N r N 1 S I W N 1 I K W 1 21 0o Oo 0 o VV Obb m o Pm V VV VbVVNNnnII1N VV 00 00 rIVV O rl MOM M MM OPOolftmml mO M M III O N N V V b b b N N M M b b b V o V V b b b b N b K VV OM M M MM MILL III M M VV M MM MMM MI/I III III IIIM III W m r Mti M M .1 M Z Z 1 O V b M M N M M M b III III N N N M 111 If1 Ifl III III I!I III 1[1 m Ommmmmmmm > 0 1 I1 IfI NM V V VV VVV V V V V V VV VVVVVVVVVV 1 Z O 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U 1 OO OO V VV VMM b IIIN V VV V Vlflb Ifl lfl III Ifl III III YI U 1 MID00 O O 00 1[100 O 0 00 Ifl 1[I III oe0e000000 Z Q 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q 00 OV b rr Inrr n b MM Ifl I/I lfl nMMMMMMMMM m I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rl rl M rl 14 14 rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl r1 rl rl rl r-I ti y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o e O O m III N ICI M .1 .1 .� .� .1 .� .� .•1 .r M .1 .� .r .i .-1 .r .r .r .r .1 .1 .� .1 .� 1'. W H N H U W M M M M M M M M 101010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M K I rl 'I rl r-I rl '1 M rl rl rl rl rl r-11••I r•1 N .•i rl O O MID O Q O O O = M= O 0 O Om O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U 1 W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W 1 F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .X U 1 O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ N \ N \ \ \ \ 'IN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W O O o m O o O O O O O O O O O O O O o O o O e O O O O O J m Q Y 1 0 0 1 Q •Z 1 a a N H 2 I C MM Po M m V V NNN V V mm V IIIm O I W V V b V M VV V V MIII b e0e.a .n .y 'a .y r1 r1 O 1 2 O 1 W II1 m III N m m MIA m N III m III Ift m III m m N Ifl I11 to m Itt W III Itl fr II1 III U I n Z 1 U I] 1 00 O O O O o o O o O O O O O o O O o e o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o Q .0 1 .. O O O O O O o 0 o O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 O O I > ti N U W Z w z a > Y H U e8 U U J U z z z a z o w 0 Z U1 Z O N O Q w m N U m W F Z O W J U1 W 6 Q ry Q Q W Q 2 H H N J U Z F ti U LL P rai I (r Q Q U W u' W L L m N Z I O W 1 u W 2 Q W Z W O N W I oZ 1 H rr > Q W J U 6 m 1 N ¢ Z I W z r 0 W N Z Q X N S W . Q 1> I . Z m 1' Z W Y O U1 Jm 1 I W M Q Q K LL H W U O Q Q 1 1 Z U0. O Z f;J W N R Q U J K W Z oaa1 LL 1 NJZI N n m n III n P .a \bV I y I O W W IC)lfl W W III M m V M N Vm J 1 0 IV M Ifl n M P N V OJ 1 OO I III M b b III N \ x W 1 Z Z 1 M D Q 3 I W O J I > Q.. WT'LLO 1 P O N M V III b r m P o 1'000 I III b b b b b b b b b b n Q K I Y P P P P P P P P P P P P 1 U m m m m m m m m m m m m I W 1 wozl W P P P P P P P P P P P P Z K K1rQ 1 22 1 " aaUm 1 u 1 060 m P b O W r r O O N \ I YJ I b M = b N P N = e III m M I U Q I o I xO I b IN o III P m N m M o WNW I Uf I P N N IN b m m U W Q m d x v ❑ Oz » W W W 0 ao a Ow i Z zs I»I » I m¢ z W z IxI O I Q y I == =Moon n n .. O o b b r m o o m mQQ m v v O \ I DOOM . MM Oo bb NN PP MN . . . . . lf. l[. mm U W U I ....... .... U I U0. N» b» m» M N N N O M M b b mm N b b W o= _= Q I Z» I m1t1»n�Nb bb NO mmPP mm »mNN mm MM o0 I Q❑ I N» N N » P N N M M v v »» � b» N N N Wm b b m m r I r LL I » v N N b r •� » N N »o v Wr sZ zI I NNNNNN IN o P N m NNNNNN o b N O m 000 b O N o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I bbbbbb b M b b M NOO M M M b K III III N lf1 W t(1 N Q O W W m � N NV S Z I IfIMMMMM M III » M III MMM N » N N ❑ ❑ I v v v v v v �t �t �t �1 v �N N �t If1 v c z 0. 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I mvvvvv b = N b N o Y U I =o N=oN N o e = o o=m Ill e N III 2 Q I o00000 o N = N o 000 0 o N o Q Mnnnnn n O �1 n M n00 111 O 1f1 1f1 m .r » NNNNNo .1 .1 .1 » .•I o III .1 N .� Y C' W F N » U W MMMMMM M M M M M MMM M M M M K I rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl » .•1 oo= rl r•I rl NNNNNN o 0 0 0 o = o 0 0 Y NNNNNN N N N N N NNN N N N N U I W \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ W r H NNNNNN N N N N N NNN N N N N 2 I Q rl rl rl ^I "I U I ❑ I\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ MMMMMM M M M M M MMM M M M M W OOOOOo o O O O O Oo0 O O O O J m Q > I O O I Q •Z I a a N f Z I K »»»»»» v m N v III Pbn O m m m O I W »»»»»» O I x O I W m M b b III NIIIIII M = M M I[t l21 If11/1 It1 W III W III If1 N I[I III W III III III U I Uz I U 10 =o N000 N O o o = NOO O N o O Q .0 NNNNNN O o O O O OOo O O O O » W Z J W K U » J U U F > » U > W J J > 1 W W U Q 0. d' H III U J W Z Z 0. W U o > W N Q (9 N W c m N Z » N J r F- J x LL N ¢ W Z Z Q Q U H ❑ O » » N 1 Q 0 U 6' W U W N LL Z Z Q r W Q O J m » O Q x ¢ W P » I K N O U U z U W Z N Z low. m 2 J U Q » » O » y I ❑x I Q 3 J » 0. d LL K K UI v O Y I Z¢ I W 0 Q O Z H N LL Z I W Z I W 0 3 O Z U Z U W Z » Q I> (g W J W ¢ Z n Jm I Q W 1' 1' W W O O x f9 W » Q H f W W f H J N O Z d UO I Z J H 1- 0 » J J W Z a ¢ a W x » W o » M +K I > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 x Y �t QQI N fLL I NJZ m P » » » N III » M Nv❑J I O �i 1I1 m P P v �t III N m » M O J I❑ O I N b b b b v v b \ Z W I Z Z I M 9¢3 I > O J I > ❑ .. W SLLO I O a¢o0 I n r r n n n n n r n m Q[Y I Y P P P P P P P P P P P o wC = I U m m m m m m m m m m m W I WO I P P P P P P P P P P P ss"lxzl aaUm I U I 061 1 W P U N z a P Z Z O a M W U w S Ww i Q Qm R' az \ ❑ U Z N 1- p K O a w s z w m 2 z Z P W z m 2 0 a or > z ZH o F+ N X a J U W Z a .. r F N W K W W O M z� r a Q 00 Z O N f \ 0Y 4N U N Q O W 2 \ Z S J zf wU ¢o 2'N > 3 0. LLJ OTC oM W Y O.r JW NU ¢r w m U Q 2 P p S'U o0 .a O Po Q z P H Z N Z W W o M J > O O m O O O a W O 1 f O as oa \ Ja •❑ o a o LLN W \ or o z Y ❑ ro 0 U K N UU 0 W Q H i LL w J N W M O O m U 1' 2 U ❑ LL Z Y U 1 OF [ W I ZNm. t 2m O U OZ i M U O o ❑ UN o O QQa 1W > M O D U U N oNZZZI Y W Y, o WOW, o o .rWxxL 0. o O N N N w 3 O Ifl M ❑ � o K M W W M o Q o N Y Y. ❑ N \ m z m m . \ 2 rM H N rN Nwz"ww. . Z Np: \ M Q Z \ 6. NE fH - R'O N MO - oU Uwwo fr oLL z . H O w •• Z<MUM . d OJ WS a❑UOj ow oU' <W m N 1 Qu ❑ =Mm . ZU ~U WO 6' www, 6'W H 1'R' U' 0. c�0 Hp p as m z z Z O ❑ 00 U Q 062 CITY SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Application to Riverside County Transportation Commission in Response to its Call for Rehabilitation Projects for Moving Ahead with Progress (MAP-21) Surface Transportation Program Funds RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION:_] CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Authorize staff to submit an application to the Riverside County Transportation Commission nominating the Washington Street Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements for funding via the 2013 Surface Transportation Program Call for Rehabilitation Projects; and authorize the City Manager to commit the mandatory local funding match. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Washington Street Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements, between Calle Tampico and Avenue 52 (Attachment 1), is estimated to cost $386,747. It was one of six roadway segments identified for funding in the City's FY 2012/2013 Capital Improvement Program as part of the Pavement Management Program (PMP). • Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) 2013 Surface Transportation Program (STP) Call for Rehabilitation Projects identifies up to $249,507 in funding for rehabilitation projects within the City. These funds are federal dollars available through the Moving Ahead with Progress (MAP- 21) program. • Use of STP funding is limited to the construction phase of a project and requires an 11.47% mandatory match. In addition, the City is required to commit 100% of the funding for all soft costs (administration, environmental, design, etc.). 063 FISCAL IMPACT: The PMP is programmed to receive $1,453,651 from the City's General Fund this fiscal year, of which $386,747 is designated to rehabilitate Washington Street between Calle Tampico and Avenue 52. If. the City is successful in obtaining $249,507 from RCTC, the General Fund expenditure would be reduced to approximately $137,240. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: RCTC will release its Call for Rehabilitation Projects on March 13, 2013, with proposals due on April 1, 2013. RCTC has estimated that $13.8 million of MAP- 21 STP funding is available for rehabilitation projects countywide. An allocation amount has been identified for each local agency, which is based on a combination of population and road miles. Using this formula, RCTC has determined that up to $249,507 would be available for the City of La Quinta. RCTC will use its discretion in scheduling projects over three fiscal years according to project readiness and programming capacity within the Federal Transportation Improvement Program. While there are several segments in the City's PMP that fit the grant requirements, staff recommends the City nominate the Washington Street Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements project as the City's priority for this funding. The PMP identifies this segment as needing repair over the next two fiscal years with an estimated construction cost very close to the STP funding allocation available to the City. This should allow funding to be programmed as early as possible since generally RCTC prefers the grant amount to be as close to the construction amount as possible. ALTERNATIVES: In order to receive these funds, the City is required to nominate a project or the funds would be made available to other local agencies within the County of Riverside. Staff recommends nominating Washington Street between Calle Tampico and Avenue 52 because it best matches the programming requirements and therefore does not recommend any other alternative. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS STP are federal funds and subject to prevailing wage requirements. 064 Respectfully submitted, 4�* Timothy . J n son, P.E. Public Works erector/City Engineer Attachment: 1. Vicinity Map 065 ATTACHMENT � N o� �N �O O CAL LE TAMPICO CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY HALL CIVIC d PARK • V AVENIDA LA FONDA Q a � o W 0 J 2 O a AVEN/DA W TORRES W d V Z W J J J V Q V rJ V V AVE N NUESTRA J 00 �' DEACON DR E DEACON DR W Z O TRADITION GOLF COURSE � ®PROPOSED PEERLESS PL IMPROVEMENTS \ VICINITY MAP Not to Scale CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Submittal of Application to Riverside County Transportation Commission in Response to its Call for Rehabilitation Projects for Moving Ahead with Progress (MAP-21) Surface Transportation Program Funds DEPT. DIRECTOR: Timothy R. Jonasson, RE., Public Works Director/City Engineer STAFF CONTACT: Bryan McKinney, P.E., Principal Engineer RLL CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Amending the La Quinta CONSENT CALENDAR: Municipal Code Section 13.24.030 Improvement Standards STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to take up Ordinance No. amending Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code pertaining to Improvement Standards, by title and number only and waive further reading; and move to introduce Ordinance No. amending Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code as set forth in said ordinance, on first reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Currently, the Municipal Code does not provide a mechanism to record notification on previously subdivided lands to put potential purchasers on notice that the subdivider defaulted on its obligation to install on -site or off - site improvements and that improvements must be installed as the development or project is completed. • The proposed Municipal Code language addresses this situation by authorizing the City to record a notice of inadequate or incomplete improvements with the County Recorder's Office. FISCAL IMPACT: None. 067 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Due to the economic downturn, development has halted on certain projects in La Quinta. Some of these distressed properties have subsequently changed hands several times. In some cases, the failure to complete the required improvements could have adverse impacts on public health or public safety. Staff is proposing this ordinance language to enable the City to put future owners of divided land on notice regarding the subdivider's default and potential requirements that improvements will have to be installed prior to development. ALTERNATIVE: Considering the City's interest in protecting public health and safety and making sure that property purchasers are aware of the required improvements, staff does not recommend an alternative to the proposed action. Respectfully submitted, Ti othy on ublic W s Di ctor/City Engineer ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 13.24.030 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS WHEREAS, improvements installed in, or associated with, land divisions are required to be constructed in conformance with standards and specifications of the city; and WHEREAS, the City is required to protect the public health and public safety in and around the proposed land divisions; and WHEREAS, When a subdivider fails to timely complete required improvements and the City finds that such failure creates a potential risk to the public health or public safety in and around the proposed land divisions, the City desires to put future owners of the divided land on notice of potential restrictions on future use of the subdivided land that may result from the condition of inadequate or incomplete improvements. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ADOPT SECTION 13.24.030 "Improvement Standards" The La Quinta Municipal Code Section 13.24.030, "Improvement Standards" is hereby amended to read as follows: CITY OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE: 13.24.030 Improvement Standards A. Improvements installed in, or associated with, land divisions shall be constructed in conformance with standards and specifications of the City. In the absence of standards for an improvement, the City Engineer may prescribe standards in keeping with good construction and engineering practice. B. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. C. Where a subdivider fails to timely complete required improvements meeting the standards and specifications required herein, and the City finds that such M failure creates a potential risk to the public health or public safety in and around the proposed land divisions, then City staff may, where deemed appropriate, in the City's sole discretion, to protect the public health or safety, record an appropriate notice with the County Recorder putting future owners of divided land on notice of potential restrictions on future use of the subdivided land that may result from the condition of inadequate or incomplete improvements. If record, such notice shall remain on record until such time as required improvements meeting this section are completed. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its adoption. SECTION 4. POSTING: The City Clerk shall, within 15 days after passage of this Ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council, shall certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City of La Quinta. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held this _day of , 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 070 ATTEST: SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California oil STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1 ss. CITY OF LA QUINTA I, SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of Ordinance No. which was introduced at a regular meeting on the day of 2013, and was adopted at a regular meeting held on the day of 2013, not being less than 5 days after the date of introduction thereof. I further certify that the foregoing Ordinance was posted in three places within the City of La Quinta as specified in City Council Resolution No. 2006-115. SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California DECLARATION OF POSTING I, SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was posted on pursuant to Council Resolution. SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Olt CITY / SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate and Advertisement for Bid of a Modern Roundabout at the Intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Sinaloa, Project No. 2010-11 RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve the plans, specifications and engineer's estimate of probable construction costs and authorize staff to advertise for bid the modern roundabout at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Sinaloa, Project No. 2010-1 1; and authorize the expenditure of $30,208.79 for the purchase of four decorative lights. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Sinaloa (Avenue 52) is currently a four-way stop. • The volume of traffic and the accident history exceed the warrants required for construction of either a traffic signal or modern roundabout. • This action will result in construction bids for a modern roundabout at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Sinaloa An award recommendation will be presented to the City Council in May 2013. • The four decorative light poles identified for this project require a long lead time to fabricate; therefore, staff recommends the City preor der them prior to award of the project to avoid delay during construction. FISCAL IMPACT: At the July 17, 2012 study session, the City Council was presented .two landscape design options for the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive 073 and Calle Sinaloa. At this study session, Council chose the concept featuring enhanced landscaping with artwork in the center median over the City's standard landscape and hardscape palates. This concept had a total cost estimate of $630,000 based on 85 percent plans. After public comment was received, staff was directed to include widening sidewalks and crosswalks and improving lighting wherever possible for safer pedestrian and bicycle access through the intersection, which have now been incorporated into the design. The plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate for this project are now complete and the estimated cost of construction is $589,000. However, additional costs must be added to this amount based upon the direction staff received during the aforementioned study session. These include adjustments to the storm drain system, lighting enhancements, access and pedestrian improvements as well as the replacement of deficient pavement and handicap ramps as follows: Storm Drain Improvements: $ 10,000 Lighting Enhancements (with City furnished lights): $ 51,808 Private property access improvements: $ 70,000 Installation of 8' sidewalks: $ 50,000 Correct Deficient Pavement: $ 65,130 Correct Deficient Handicap Ramps: $ 18,206 Estimated Additional Cost: $265,144 The pavement and handicap ramp corrections are necessary regardless of the type of traffic control system installed at this intersection. The access and lighting improvements along with the future artwork in the center median are significant in identifying this intersection as the gateway into the Cove neighborhood. Additional gateway enhancements (pavers, boulders, etc.) are included in the bid documents as additive alternates and will be included as the budget allows. Considering the engineer's estimate in the amount of $589,000, the following represents the total anticipated project budget: Construction: Design: Inspection/Testing/Survey Administration: Contingency: Decorative Lights (4): Total Anticipated Budget: $589,000 $128,910 $ 57,500 $ 29,500 $ 58,900 $ 30,209 A funding shortfall in the amount of $464,019 exists between the amount of approved funding for the signal option of $430,000, and the total anticipated cost of $894,019. However, considering the anticipated project budget is based on the 014 engineer's estimate and not on actual construction bids, staff is not recommending the appropriation of additional funds at this time. Staff will prepare the appropriate funding recommendation for Council's consideration once actual bids are received. Sources of additional funds include Transportation DIF which was recently updated to include the cost for a roundabout at this intersection, Pavement Management Plan, Art in Public Places, and Measure A. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The intersection of Calle Sinaloa (Avenue 52) and Eisenhower Drive is the gateway into the La Quinta Cove (Attachment 1). As such, consideration was given to improve traffic control with a modern roundabout instead of a traffic signal. Roundabouts significantly reduce serious collisions, reduce traffic noise (from starting and stopping vehicles) and provide for a more aesthetic intersection treatment. To that end, the City Council authorized the design of this intersection as a modern roundabout and directed staff to work with the adjacent homeowners to address safety, access and other concerns. Staff has met several times with the affected property owners, and now believes the project is ready to bid. Staff first considered the use of a modern roundabout at this intersection due to the high speeds and accident history. The advantages of a modern roundabout include: • Greater safety including lower fatal accidents due to the virtual elimination of broadside collisions; • Reduces vehicular speed which enhances pedestrian and bicyclist safety; • Functions as a traffic control device even during power outages; • Continuous traffic flow improves emergency response times, and reduces emissions and noise; • Offers opportunities for additional landscaping and aesthetic treatments in the center island and parkways, including space for public art; and • Reduces long-term maintenance costs. Project Value Analysis A value analysis was conducted by both the City staff and a consultant to verify that the proposed improvements are as efficient as possible without sacrificing the functionality or intent of the overall project. This analysis identified the following bid additive alternates for the Council's consideration. Budget permitting, using additive alternates instead of the base bid items, will allow staff to enhance the roundabout while achieving cost effective results: 015 • Additive Alternate: Interlocking pavers for the truck pad Base Bid: Colored concrete for the truck pad • Additive Alternate: Cobble, 2" to 6" diameter, included in the medians and parkway Base Bid: Cobble, 2" to 6" diameter, included in the roundabout • Additive Alternate: Boulders included in the landscaping pallet Base Bid: No boulders included in the landscaping pallet • Additive Alternate: Entry monument wall with brass lettering Base Bid: No entry monument wall with brass lettering Project Bid Documents and Schedule The project specifications and bid documents are now complete and available for review in the City's Public Works Department. Contingent upon Council's approval and authorization to advertise this project for bid, the following is the anticipated bid and construction schedule: Project Advertisement Project Award Recommendations Sign Contract/Mobilize Construction (90 working days) Accept Improvements CHARTER CITY: March 20 — April 19, 2013 May 7, 2013 May 8 — May 31, 2013 June 2013 — October 2013 November 2013 The project is 100% funded with locally generated Transportation Development Impact Funds. As such, the project is not subject to prevailing wage requirements. ALTERNATIVES: Due to the fact that the intersection will have to be taken out of operation for several weeks during the construction of the center median, it is highly recommended that the project be constructed when traffic is minimal. Therefore, no alternative is recommended to advertising the project for bids now and adhering to the proposed schedule in order for construction to begin in June 2013. Respectfully submitted, imothy R J na Public Works Di for/City Engineer Attachment: 1 . Roundabout Improvements Exhibit 076 CITY SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: ITEM TITLE: Update on Clty's Financial Status CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: I PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • When the FY 2012/13 Operating Budget was adopted, it was projected that $2,187,759 in Reserves would be needed to fund the difference between $37,939,322 of projected revenues and $40,126,081 of anticipated expenses. In February 2012, the City Council adopted a Mid -Year Budget update that revised the FY 2012/13 revenues and expenditures. The revised Mid -Year Operating Budget anticipates $37,918,322 in revenue and $40,003,581 in expenditures, with the deficit reduced to $2,085,259. • Staff is initiating the FY 2013/14 budget process and has been preparing new revenue and expenditure forecasts. Assuming that all operating budgets except for police services (which are contract services) remain at FY 2012/13 levels, and assuming conservative revenue increases, staff projects that the FY 2013/14 Operating Budget would be based upon $39,342,322 in revenue, $38,313,733 in expenses, resulting in an operating surplus of $1,028,589. • It should be emphasized that these are preliminary projections and are subject to change. 018 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: City staff is initiating the FY 2013/14 budget process. The first step will involve the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which is being presented as a Study Session item at today's meeting. The proposed FY 2013/14 CIP anticipates funding $26,657,912 in infrastructure and capital projects. This compares to the FY 2012/13 CIP budget of $106,606,042. The CIP expenditures are primarily funded through funds accumulated during prior fiscal years and grant monies. With the elimination of redevelopment, the City's ability to underwrite new future CIP's is severely reduced. The second step in the FY 2013/14 budget process is to prepare the Operating Budget. This process is set to begin this month and staff will be scheduling a Study Session for May 21, 2013 to present the proposed FY 2013/14 Operating Budget. The rationale for waiting until May to present the preliminary Operating Budget is twofold. First, the City Departments are going through a process to identify how they can craft budgets that do not increase costs from the FY 2012/13 budget, and to perhaps further reduce costs. The exception is the police services budget. The City contracts with Riverside County for police services. The current year (FY 2012/13) police services budget did not increase; however, the Sheriff's Department did forewarn contract city agencies that there would be an increase in FY 2013/14 due to patrol officer contract increases. The second reason for waiting until May is that the major City revenues accrue on a delayed basis as follows: • Sales tax revenue — is reported and paid on a quarterly basis. The City is first receiving sales tax revenue from the final quarter of 2012 (October to December). City staff will not know what the sales tax revenue is for the high season (January to March) until late June or July 2013. As such, staff is assuming flat sales tax increases for the FY 2013/14 Operating Budget. • Property tax revenue — the County provides coming year revenue estimates in May or June of each year. For the FY 2013/14 Operating Budget, staff is projecting FY 2012/13 revenue plus the Supplemental Property Tax Revenue ($684,000) the City received in February 2012. This Supplemental Revenue was the result of the elimination of the City's and Riverside County's Redevelopment Agencies. • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue — has a 30-day lag period. For example, TOT revenue accrued in one month is not due to the City until the end of the following month (January 2013 TOT revenue is not paid until February 28, 2013). Staff is projecting that total TOT revenue will increase in FY 2013/14 by $300,000 due to better enforcement of the short-term rental program. • Permit Fee Income — is difficult to project because this income is based upon building activity. Anticipating that the City Council will adopt the proposed new permit fee schedule combined with an anticipated increase in building activity leads staff to project a $440,000 increase in permit fee income for F•Y 2013/14. FY 2012/13 Operating Budget When the FY 2012/13 Operating Budget was adopted, the City Council acknowledged that $2,187,759 in Reserves would be needed to balance this budget. The Council elected to do so in order to maintain the service level La Quinta residents enjoy. The Council did direct staff to pursue measures to reduce expenses and increase revenue. In February 2013, staff presented the Mid -Year (FY 2012/13) Operating Budget that reduced expenses more than revenues (due to cost reductions and actual versus projected revenues) and reduced the deficit by 4.7% to $2,085,259. FY 2013/14 Projected Operating Budget As the City starts the FY 2013/14 budget process, the Finance Department is preparing new revenue projections and Department Directors are preparing the draft operating budgets. The City Manager has directed all non-public safety departments to keep their budgets flat, and to seek opportunities to further reduce costs. The fire service has indicated that their budget will remain at the same level next fiscal year as this fiscal year, and the police services contract will increase by approximately 2.5% or $333,450 (from $12,712,089 to $13,045,539) due to labor contract adjustments for patrol officers. Assuming flat operating budgets, except for police services and some minor utility and fuel inflationary adjustments, staff projects the FY 2013/14 Operating Budget will total $38,313,733. Staff is being conservative when preparing revenue projections due to the lag time in receiving major revenue source information and the still -uncertain world economic forecast. While economic conditions are improving world-wide, staff is still endeavoring to craft a clear and credible picture of how these improvements will affect City revenue. Staff is anticipating that City revenue will increase by 3.8% in FY 2013/14 to $39,342,322. lil The Bottom Line If these expenditure and revenue projections hold true, the City will experience an Operating Budget surplus at the end of FY 2013-14 of $1,028,589. The largest factor that would contribute to this positive forecast is the fact that the City was able to reduce non-public safety salaries and benefits by 20% or $2,023,262. It should also be noted that if the expenditure and revenue projections hold true, the City's FY 2013/14 Operating Budget will show an improved fiscal position of $3,113,848. This would be the result of eliminating the $2,085,258 FY 2012/13 Operating Budget deficit in combination with generating a $1,028,589 FY 2013/14 Operating Budget surplus. A Note of Caution! Staff is presenting this information to apprise the Council of the assumptions staff will use when preparing the FY 2013/14 Operating Budget, and the potential outcomes these assumptions MAY generate. While the forecast indicates that the City may obtain an Operating Budget surplus, the following factors are still in play: • The State is giving all indications that it will endeavor to claw back and seize up to $41.0 million in Reserves; this represents the repaid loans the General Fund made to the former Redevelopment Agency. • Without redevelopment, the City has no significant funding source to underwrite the CIP. Going forward, the most significant source of CIP funding will be General Fund Operating Budget surpluses. Federal and State grant funds are diminishing, and the Development Impact Fee revenue growth is dependent on healthy development activity. While the City is experiencing more development, La Quinta is a built -out community and has diminishing vacant land to accommodate large new development proposals. • While the world economy is improving thus increasing City revenues, changing retail, recreation and vacation trends indicate that the traditional consumer activities that lead to increased revenue growth will not be the norm in the future. Respectfully submitted, J.4q74yaTfek, City Manager Twy� 4 4 a" CITY SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Feasibility of Assessment Districts for the Maintenance of North La Quinta Subdivisions Entrances and Perimeters RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: Z^ PUBLIC HEARING: Discuss the technical memorandum prepared by Willdan on the feasibility of creating assessment districts for the maintenance of north La Quinta subdivision entrances and perimeters in order to offset costs for the City's Lighting and Landscape District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • In conjunction with the review of the 2012 Landscape and Lighting District's ("District's") budget, Willdan Financial analyzed several north La Quinta subdivisions that are receiving funds from the District for the special benefit of perimeter and entrance landscaping maintenance. • Willdan estimated the additional maintenance and administration of these subdivisions to be $140,282 annually. City Council authorized Willdan to prepare a special benefit study to determine the feasibility of an assessment district or districts to recoup these costs, which are presently being paid by the General Fund. • The attached study prepared by Willdan recommends different assessment levels based on the affected property owners' request for improvements to the existing landscaping and irrigation (Attachment 1). • Staff requires direction on whether or not to proceed with public outreach to the affected homeowners in order to discuss formation of assessment districts for these subdivisions. 082 FISCAL IMPACT: The 2012 Engineer's Report for the City's Lighting and Landscape District shows a shortfall of $140,282 for the maintenance of the north La Quinta subdivision's perimeter and entrance landscaping. The report also mentions that this deficit could be offset by the creation of landscape assessment district(s) for the north La Quinta subdivisions currently receiving special benefit by having their perimeters and entrances maintained by the City's District. To that end, Willdan has prepared a draft study of potential funding levels that could be assessed based on the service level and desired improvements of the affected homeowners. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As part of the discussion of the City's District Engineer's Report for 2012, the City's District consultant, Willdan Financial, identified certain north La Quinta subdivisions that receive additional benefits from the District (Attachment 2 presents these subdivisions). These subdivisions do not have homeowners' associations that maintain their perimeter landscaping and entries. Instead, their parkway and entries are maintained by the City and this maintenance is funded by the District. Typical maintenance services include providing flowers at each of the entrances twice per year, adding decomposed granite to the flower beds as needed, and tree trimming. A majority of other subdivisions in the City provide this maintenance through homeowners' associations. While recently these services have been pared back in order to reduce impacts to the General Fund, these subdivisions still have this special benefit. If the City desired to change this circumstance, a new assessment district or districts involving only these subdivisions would need to be formed. In August 2012, the City Council directed staff to review the cost associated with assessing these subdivisions for this maintenance. Wildan Financial was retained to perform this work, and staff requested they review two options. The first option was to identify the annual assessment cost per parcel if the existing landscaping were maintained at today's maintenance level (Minimum). The second option entailed replacing the existing landscaping with the City's desert landscape palette in order to improve the appearance of these parkways, replace landscaping that is beyond its typical life span, and to reduce water consumption and maintenance costs (Maximum). Willdan's report divides the 14 affected subdivisions into three benefit zones ("Zones") and recommends three different assessment levels based on the request of the homeowners within each zone. The following is a summary of these levels by subdivision zone: 083' Minimum Maximum Zone 1 — La Quinta Del Oro $79/year $200/year Zone 2 — Acacia, La Quinta Highlands Rancho Ocotillo, Quinterra, Desert Flower, Cactus Flower $214/year $490/year Zone 3 — Reunion, Marbella, Sierra Del Rey, Topaz $145/year $350/year The minimum annual assessment includes only normal maintenance of existing improvements without enhancements as well as any administrative cost of the new assessment district. However, if a district or districts were approved at this level it would free up funding for better landscape maintenance of the City's medians. The maximum estimate includes conversion of current landscaping and irrigation to drought tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation. For financing purposes it is assumed that the improvements would be amortized over a 25-year period. Retention basin rehabilitation was not considered in either estimate. If the City elected to pursue further work on forming assessment districts, the City Council would need to initiate proceedings, through resolution, to form a landscaping district under the 1972 Act, and ultimately send out ballots to the affected property owners in conformance with Proposition 218. In 2012, Council approved a contract with Willdan to provide a special benefit study of north La Quinta subdivisions in addition to an update to their report for the possible formation of an assessment or special tax for parks maintenance (the parks assessment district/special tax study will be discussed separately at an upcoming City Council meeting). Once this study is approved by Council, the following steps would be necessary in order to establish assessment district(s) for these subdivisions: 1 . Approve Willdan's proposal for public outreach in the amount of $5,750. 2. Meet with homeowners in each zone to determine optimum level of assessment based on their request for improved landscaping and irrigation. 3. Approve Willdan's proposal to complete the engineer's report(s) in the amount of $5,130 for the proposed district(s). 4. Conduct a public hearing declaring the City's intent to form the assessment district(s). 5. Approve Willdan's proposal to conduct balloting in the amount of $3,140 and mailing ballots to the affected property owners. 6. Receive ballots and form districts as approved by at least 50% (plus one) of the affected property owners. Jim McGuire, Willdan Financial Services Senior Project Manager, will be present to answer any questions regarding their proposals and/or the formation of assessment districts. ALTERNATIVES: The City could elect to discontinue the additional maintenance of these areas and thereby reduce expenses to the District by $140,282. This would relieve the immediate burden to the General Fund. However, staff would recommend public meetings even for this alternative in order to explain to homeowners funding options including how to form an assessment district on their own. Respectfully submitted, Ti thy tRaPublicWor/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Memorandum of North La Quinta Landscape Assessment Feasibility Evaluation dated March 12, 2013 2. Maps of affected subdivisions Manb 12, 2013 Page 1 of 18 ATTACHMENT 1 Memorandum To: Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta From: Jim McGuire, Willdan Financial Services Date: March 12, 2013 Re: North La Quinta Landscape Assessment Feasibility Evaluation Summary of Findings Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan"), on behalf of the City of La Quinta ("City"), has conducted an analysis of landscape improvements and amenities associated with residential developments in the North La Quinta area and to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a local assessment district to provide a revenue source (funding) to support the maintenance and operation of local landscape improvements that benefit those properties. Willdan has worked with. City staff gathering relevant information regarding the improvements and cost of providing those improvements to develop the parameters for establishing a possible local landscape maintenance district ("District") to fund the ongoing operational and maintenance costs of the landscaped perimeter parkways, entryways, internal development greenbelts and basins (collectively referred to as "improvements"). While this memorandum identifies the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the assessments that may be considered for such a District, these assessments are a preliminary estimates based on some basic assumptions regarding the overall cost of providing the improvements, the proportional general benefit associated with the improvements and the method of apportionment (special benefit cost allocation). Ultimately, the findings and factors that are outlined in this memorandum may require further refinement if the City decides to move forward with the formation of such a District and the preparation of an Engineer's Report that is required pursuant to applicable assessment district law, specifically the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "1972 Act") and the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID (the "Constitution") which was instituted by Proposition 218. While our evaluation concludes that establishing an assessment district is an appropriate consideration for funding in part these local landscape improvements, in order to address and comply with the provisions of the 1972 Act, the Constitution and findings and determinations outlined in several recent court decisions regarding assessments, the calculation of proportional special benefit will require the establishment of benefit zones to quantify differences in proportional benefit based on proximity to the various improvements. Specifically, in addition to identifying and quantifying the general benefits associated with such improvements (costs that are not assessed), recent court decisions have consistently emphasized the need for the li• ,lard) 12, 2013 Page 2 of 18 methodology to incorporate into the benefit calculation, property proportionality characteristics such as proximity. Therefore, while the benefiting properties are all identified as single-family residential parcels, the proposed method of apportionment and possible assessments outlined in this analysis incorporates a calculation of each parcel's proportional special benefit based on each parcel's development and proximity to the specific improvements being funded, which will ultimately result in different assessments based on differences in their proximity to the improvements. The provisions of the Constitution requires and recent court cases have emphasized that for any assessment district, general benefits must be separated from special benefits to properties, and the courts have further emphasized that identifying and quantifying these general benefits is as necessary as identifying and proportionately allocating special benefit costs. However, this does not mean that the City is required to levy assessments for all special benefits, in fact it is common practice and prudent to consider levying assessments that may be less than the calculated proportional special benefit costs that may reasonably be assessed. Provisions of Assessment Law 1972 Act Assessment Requirements The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include but are not limited to the construction, maintenance, operation, and servicing of park and recreational improvements. The 1972 Act requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any 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." Key Provisions of the California Constitution In conjunction with the provisions of the 1972 Act, the California Constitution Article XIIID addresses several key criteria for the levy of assessments, notably: Article MID Section 2d defines District as: °District means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property -related service"; Article MID Section 2i defines Special Benefit as: "Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit " Man/) 12% 2013 Page 3 of 18 Article XIIID Section 4a defines proportional special benefit assessments as: "An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. 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, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." "Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit." Recent Court Cases Regarding Assessments While Article XIIID of the Constitution certainly changed how assessments are imposed, subsequent court cases dealing with such assessments have also molded the approach and determinations of benefits going forward. These recent court cases regarding assessments include: Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (California Supreme Court; July 2008) Robert Dahms vs. Downtown Pomona Property et al. (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District; May 2009) Town of Tiburon et al., vs. Jimmie D. Bonander et al. (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District; December 2009) Steven Beutz vs. County of Riverside (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District; May 2010) Golden Hill Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District; September 2011) e Ahab 12, 2013 P� ye d o118 Benefit Findings It is important to note that the improvements that would be funded in part by assessments and for which properties in the North La Quinta area could be assessed are a direct result of developing those properties. This funding source would help support an appropriate level of maintenance and operation of these local landscape improvements which affects the appearance and use of those properties and will directly benefit the parcels to be assessed. The improvements and the associated costs described in this memorandum have been developed and allocated based on a benefit rationale and calculations that proportionally allocate the net cost of only those improvements determined to be of special benefit to the residential developments and properties within the North La Quinta area. The various landscape improvement costs identified in this memorandum have been identified as either "general benefit" (not assessed) or "special benefit". The following benefit analysis and method of apportionment (method of assessment) is based on the premise that each property to be assessed, receives special benefits from the local landscape improvements and the assessment obligation calculated for each parcel reflects that parcel's proportional special benefits as compared to other properties that receive special benefits. Special Benefits The landscape improvements associated with the North La Quinta residential developments proposed to be included within a proposed assessment district provide a physical extension of each private property's front yard and use by creating an aesthetic continuity and cohesion between the various residential properties and in some cases, recreational opportunities that could not be accomplished individually. These landscape improvements create both a visual and physical local beautification and unification of the properties that will directly and proportionately benefit the properties to be assessed. The location and extent of the improvements in relationship to each of the properties (zones of benefit based on proximity) clearly makes these improvements a direct and special benefit to these parcels. It has therefore been determined that the improvements and the related cost and expenses to maintain these landscape improvements (excluding those general benefit costs noted below) are entirely special benefits to the properties within the boundaries of the residential developments associated with the potential assessment district and the net annual cost to fund such improvements shall be proportionately shared by those properties receiving such special benefits. Manb 1$ 201) Page 5 of / 8 General Benefits Assessments are established on the basis of calculated proportional special benefit to properties within a district. Because general benefits are not assessable, the general benefit costs must be excluded from the assessment calculation. With respect to this potential District, although the majority of the improvements to be maintained are located within the street right-of-way that serve as the primary access and entryway to the properties within the various, it is also recognized that these improvements are certainly visible to the general public and some of the improvements such as the drainage basins may even be in proximity to and occasionally accessed by properties outside the boundaries of these developments. These facts suggest that at least a portion of the overall cost to maintain the improvements is of "General Benefit' and the proportional costs associated with that "general benefit" shall be funded by other revenue sources available to the City and not included as part of the special benefit assessments. While the improvements clearly provide special benefits to the properties within these residential developments and these improvements have a direct impact on only those properties, it may be reasonable to conclude that the maintenance of such improvements would be considered entirely special benefits to those properties. However it is also recognized that a base level of maintenance and servicing is necessary for the majority of these landscaped areas (minimal tree maintenance, weed abatement and pest control) to ensure overall public safety and health and protection of property in and around these improvements. It is estimated that this base level of service collectively represents a cost that is approximately 9% of the annual landscape maintenance expenses. Zones of Benefit In an effort to ensure an appropriate allocation of the estimated annual cost to provide the improvements based on proportional special benefits, the a proposed District would require the establishment of benefit zones ("Zones") as authorized pursuant to Chapter 1 Article 4, Section 22574 of the 1972 Act: "The diagram and assessment may classify various areas within an assessment district into different zones 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 substantially the same degree of benefit 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 public improvement..."; it is reasonable to conclude that specific landscape improvements were installed for specific developments and properties or would otherwise be necessary for the development of such properties to their full and best use; however, these improvements are not mutually exclusive or typically isolated to a particular parcel but are rather shared and directly affect entire neighborhoods or groups of parcels. The location and extent of the specific local improvements in relationship to those ME an/) 12, 2013 Pnge 6 of 18 neighborhoods or groups of parcels immediately adjacent or in close proximity to those improvements must be considered. Based on our review of the location and extent of the improvements in the area and their direct proximity and relationship to surrounding properties, it has been determined that there are clear and definable differences in the location and extent of the landscape improvements associated with the various developments in the North La Quinta area. In order to address these differences the various residential developments in the North La Quinta area can be clearly grouped into one of three (3) benefit zones (Zones) based on the improvements associated with those developments which reflect the proportional special benefits that various properties receive from those specific improvements. The following is a listing of the developments within these three Zones: Zone 01: Includes those parcels within the developments identified as La Quinta Del Oro (Tract 23971 & Portion of Tract 30521) Zone 02: Includes those parcels within the developments identified as Acacia (Tract 23268); La Quinta Highlands (Tract 23269); Rancho Ocotillo (Tracts 24517 & 25290); Quinterra (Tract 23913); Desert Flower (Tract 29624); and Cactus Flower (Tracts 22982 & 24208) Zone 03: Includes those parcels within the developments identified as Reunion (Tract 23995); Marabella (Tracts 25363 & 27899); Sierra Del Rey (Tract 26188); and Topaz (Tract 23935) Landscape Improvements: While the majority of the landscape improvements associated with the parcels and residential developments in the North La Quinta area are located within street right-of- ways (streetscape landscaping), for some of the residential developments in this area, the landscape improvements may include internal greenbelt areas and/or landscaped drainage areas (basins) that may serve as quasi park or open space. These landscape areas may include combinations of landscape amenities such as turf ground cover, plants, shrubs, trees and associated appurtenant facilities including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage systems, sidewalk areas, retaining walls, ornamental lights, and entry monuments (signage). The following tables provide a summary of the improvements within the various Zones described above: 091 Mardi 12. 2013 PLSe 7 ql' 18 Zone 01: La Quinta Del Oro (Tract 23971 & Portion of Tract 30521) Zone 02: Acacia (Tract 23268); La Quinta Highlands (Tract 23269); Rancho Ocotillo (Tracts 24517 & 25290); Quinterra (Tract 23913); Desert Flower (Tract 29624); and Cactus Flower (Tracts 22982 & 24208) 11 Improvement Descriptions h all p an A a 59F1M �� T.JA 59Flot) SMub58 Busies SIR(:n O UII A � 59fl (1) Non-LanJ p P Netainin9 T UI Area Walls Landscaping1 S9FI() 59F1(t) Teal L9bls Signs 602,400II 4W,400I1 148,190II 2,46011 601,05011 1,440 �',., ],d55 605I''1 260 10 Zone 03: Reunion (Tract 23995); Marabella (Tracts 25363 & 27899); Sierra Del Rey (Tract 26188); and Topaz (Tract 23935) :1 092 Alarzb 12, 2013 Page 8 of 18 Assessment Methodology As previously noted, 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 XI I ID 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 cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Landscape improvements, 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 our analysis of a possible local assessment district for the North La Quinta residential developments these issues are each considered to establish each property's proportional special benefit and assessment obligation as compared to other properties that benefit from those improvements. In reviewing the location and extent of the various improvements and the relationship these improvements have to properties in this local area, it has been determined that these improvements are local amenities that are directly associated with or desired for the development of such properties to their full and best use. As such, these local improvements have a direct and particular special benefit to 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, although there is clearly some general benefits associated with the improvements. Equivalent Benefit Units The method of apportionment established for any assessment district should reflect the proportional special benefit of each parcel utilizing a weighted methodology of apportionment. For purposes of determining an appropriate cost allocation, in this analysis we have utilized a weighted methodology typically referred to as an Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) methodology. This proportional special benefit calculation is reasonably determined by three basic property characteristics: ➢ 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 Agricultural Property and 093 Alonh 12, 2013 Page 9 of 18 Vacant Land (undeveloped properties that may be zoned for either residential or non-residential use). ➢ Property Size — Acreage for non-residential and vacant 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. ➢ Location — as previously noted, each parcel within the proposed District shall be grouped into one of three benefit zones based on each parcel's proximity and relationship to the various improvements. While the specific application of proportionality outlined in this memorandum may be refined further before finalizing the proposed assessments, the method of apportionment herein, establishes the typically single-family home site as the basic unit of assessment similar to the City's existing landscape and lighting assessment district. A single-family residential unit is assigned one (1.0) Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) and other property types (land uses) are proportionately weighted based on a benefit formula that equates each property's specific characteristics and proportional property benefits to that of the single-family residential. This proportional weighting is often 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), densities or other property related factors including any development restrictions or limitations. However, for this district, all benefiting parcels have been identified as single-family residential parcels and each has been assigned one (1.0) Equivalent Benefit Unit. 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: The estimated annual cost to provide the improvements within each Zone (or portion thereof) 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 and these costs are deducted from the total Zone budget to establish the improvement costs determined to be of special benefit. Total Budget — General Benefit Costs = Total Special Benefit Costs 0-9 4 Admrb 1 Z, 2013 Page 10 of 18 Step 2: The Total Special Benefit Costs minus any additional contributions from the City or other revenue sources establishes the "Balance to Levy" for the Zone. Total Special Benefit Costs — Additional Contribution = Balance to Levy Step 3: The sum total number of Equivalent Benefit Units is determined by the sum of all individual EBU(s) applied to parcels that receive a special benefit from the Zone improvements. An assessment amount per EBU (Assessment Rate) is established for each Zone by taking the Balance to Levy and dividing that amount by the total number of EBU(s) in that Zone. Balance to Levy/Total EBU = Assessment Rate Step 4: This Assessment Rate is then applied back to each parcel's individual EBU (In this case 1.0 EBU per assessed parcel) to establish that parcel's proportionate benefit and assessment obligation. Rate per EBU x Parcel EBU = Parcel Levy Amount Budget Options In this evaluation, Willdan has utilized budget modeling software that establishes a consistent cost per square foot or per unit cost based on a combination of industry standards and historical City expenditures to establish the annual cost of maintenance for the various improvements at an appropriate and desirable service level. The following budget tables summarize the overall anticipated annual budget for the District and each respective Zone based on varying service parameters. Each budget table identifies the City's proportional obligation for general benefit costs and the resulting expenses and possible assessments (assessment rates) for each Zone: 095 Option 1A: LIVID WITH BASINS (Full Cost Recovery) A ... I.M.) LOli N .jnF Y Rav n12399sk TaYI BUDGET ITEMS Tctll Bu19.1 E.P-a BM A-d R." LD.1.. Pa d3M21) M,clu CvdYb 12a51x.x .x GiMBnn1 o."..". 12B52a1. M-.. Us.d270Ak SNm ml Rv/ Ix61B91 8gc1.1 Bolero Gdu F. (2M028 2,12001 1Wa]12 M) ANNUAL MAINTENANCE p.nm..,Pa,a.ayl...a.aaa�a rs,ea e.en +BB3 a:al 31.r6a nAe. EnT-gy Pe,Fa'nyLannaopiM - S3]5 .9 S:x 15B5 1983 eHl Ent„val'aRSlan LanE.wprna 2.001 tl a] IJa 1A23 n a.n4en Baam LenY.wCn3 10F910 2hW1 a10a1 x512x T,adsPeola Lannawpma 4.20 xa 7,1,]Bo 200.027 31,076 2,.20 106276 Soo 160XI Lmd5c.g MFlnunmcaSewln asuaTot.D Tn. MMnbn.ncs 14,456 1,617 465 7,574 4,801 12,680 F-InONAIIs 1,557 779 t6 382 381 no SIOnaOel Monu"nft 360 no Im 350 Rcp..I LIBh. 4,430 368 3822 250 4.00 L.d.. . W.., 44,067 6,876 00 0.402 13.159 3711" W6scp EbrMGry 8,962 550 500 6552 1,359 8.111 GraHI0aluisanc. Matngnt 1,500 78 7B5 07 1.No Mnutl Tod Ovars..d(P.M ,, Enlry , Medians) 7,530 453 6,436 as, 7,W0 MnmI TUR Ov..... d(0.1n.) 16,770 11.619 5.151 16,770 $ 300,568 f 40,898 b 5.420 $ 167.038 b 87.202 f 259,670 TOTAL ANNU AL MAINTENANCE FUNDING REHABILITATIONIREPLACEMENT COLLECTION P. dnwNr P. yR.haloli bon a Raptin 3,553 355 84 - 1.30 1218 3,198 En9 Par9w.y RahaMllWon B R.PMM 222 21 23 Ila 65 "I Enep,.y M.dl.n Rahabilllabm&Repabs 84 8 20 56 ]6 R.Mnfl- B.N. Rah.h111YRon& R.p.h 3,989 Ms 2.03 SO 3.171 Tact Speol6c RehabllltaSon B Ropaln 73 8 65 65 UN.n F-1 R.hWIIMV*n& Reptln 6206 7" 143 3,023 3297 5.463 Rol. dFclllfl*WM MUMS RehaoillWlon B RepWs 3A70 3" 258 2836 3W S,imI S 17,997 S 2A32 $ 528 5 10.132 S 5,004 S 16,684 TOTAL ANNUAL REHABILITATIONf2EP LACEMENT $ 318,564 S 43,230 $ 5,958 $ 177,170 $ 92,206 $ 275,334 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES P.rm.k, P.,n .y nianm.n 1M.eW men 4277 Boaz Ins il0]N E n,rya'aYPaA. aynMu,E.anmeni 10.16p PoB IAJa 51,7 3026 B,l]1 Enb/anVllWran 9.IUNi.nmonl J,400 32 17 xxBa 3A13 nae, spxMaemNnnm.m 4,M 1.e Jas JaaB 6, a,n Naz Felu,.anm.n, 2Mt020 7is7 t42s Q725 1.113 Lsnd "Rarurhlsh, al (Loan lntlallmnLL) 439,760 92R23 BOW 213.955 1VAK 347,537 OgrWontl fteurvas 13.757 295 8859 4,110 13,767 Wrnrnnmiion Pm.w.0111 Fea 3Sml 101 x1505 Ix111 31111 CourTy 7mnen Faav 0W 3 315 E50 t u.wil.n.o„a ..e..rmmerw_roaza, zm a7 2e. 36,014 1am 21984 12,971 36.014 Dwell MnUY MMnIsIr46on Eaq,ws S 499,541 f 92,223 b 7.446 5 244.799 b 145,072 $ 397,317 TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FUNDING EXPENSES $ 908.105 S 135,454 S 13.404 $ 421,969 S 237.278 $ 672,651 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTRIBUTIONSIFUNDING ADJUSTMENTS G.n.rtl 0... MConhlbW.n (72,776) (72,776) R.v.nun&.. Odr.7 Seum.e (52,617) (62,077) { (135,454) S (135,464) 3 - $ S S TOTAL CONTROL RWNIFUNDING ADJUSTMENTS $ 672,651 $ - $ 13,404 S 421,969 $ 237,278 S 672,651 BALANCE TO LEVY DISTRICT STATISTICS Totl P...Is 09 923 728 1,740 Panels L4vied 97 877 712 1,675 T.NIS.n.ft Unit 9L0000 877o00o 712.0000 1,676.0000 Claculated Levy per EBU b 15407 $ 481.15 S 333.26 Proposed Ma[IMURI Levy per EBU (Balloted Rate) $ 155.00 $ 482.00 $ 334.00 096 Option 1B: LIVID WITH BASINS, but No Basin refurbishment Pcxv 1..) LO H0WMa1zJID91', NeuN➢n 2JW51'. T., Mr 24511 oo.e1o1 4z5M91. NmaMM.Ix6'+m0 nm9r. sP.al.r BUDGET ITEMS Bu29.1 Net Arad Za0Z16 ➢wal4Jx11 LLirim.(P0131. °+.en Eb'rnvlZ9Jzak warm prRq l2nIBB1. e.n.nl Coot. V. 1x29B21 E.1 rW"E I230351 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Ge.maYr➢e�xwcy to o-Il 9 IIIA21 a.951 IEll 44. 11 31. 199 111.1 EmY.vayPoTvey Lenurapmp SJ75 a4 .1 2995 19B1 apol Envinay4rw.en Lana[:e➢ina 2,001 I to 4I I'll All PeMlmn Be[�n 1an1-lot 1NME 2,ON E1.1.1 248 SI,9d1 Z1i22 NMI I,ae..➢wfc Llll-I'll L.ndscV. Malniwmn. S.rvlms(Ss}Total) 200.027 31,076 2.920 106278 80,655 168051 T.. mw.wo .. 14,456 1,617 465 7,94 4.601 RArO F".In9M'Na 1557 P9 16 382 381 770 Slpna9.I Monvr[mn4 360 200 1. 360 Attu. U,hU, 4.439 368 3.822 250 4,139 L.ndac.ln W.Nl - 44,067 AB76 630 23.02 13,159 37,19D Landxaq ElacMly 8,962 5% 500 6.552 1.359 8.411 OnMttMYlunn Abal.manl 1$00 70 785 637 1.`AO M..AI TYROv...d(PV ,Entryxap 6 M.M.ns) 7,530 153 X426 551 7,90 M-Al Tut(Ovocod lRulns) 16,770 11.819 5,15, 1..". $ 300,568 $ 40,098 $ 5,429 S 167.038 S 87, 202 f 259,670 TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING RENABILITATIONIREPLACEMENT COLLECTION PaINNow P.IX ROI,WIMUM 6 R.PJn 3,553 J55 04 I.N5 1.218 3,198 Enbyafy PalRvny R.M1WII1 nA R.Pa1r. 222 zl 23 116 80 MI Enbyvay M.dlan R0M1aM0Won 6 R.PWs 54 8 20 50 76 R.4n11on B". R.h.HNAN-A Rapaln 3,989 .18 2203 See 3,171 Tract SlncNN Rohr 'INakon A R.ryln 73 6 85 65 Urhm Pont R.FW111Won Is R.PYn 6,206 70 143 3,023 2.297 4K3 Rolwwod I11WsIMwnNNa RMaMIIINon 6 Ra9aln 3,670 380 258 2.00 30 3.480 $ 17,297 $ 2.332 $ 528 S 10.132 S 5,004 9 15,664 TOTAL ANNUAL NENAe1LRATION.REPLACEMENT $ 318,564 $ 43,230 $ S,958 $ 177,170 $ 92,206 $ 275,334 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES n.Z] 9132^ 1175 I10)L ca.imeMr➢arxaay Rai„rpamm�nl .nrryavYPa .vnVReFv"nnmwr 180.Btl IO.IW 1.,.0 BY 7,l3 5113 ]nx9 B.II En4yraYAYien.ielurpi,rymenl J,M A.N JZl .M ]I Z29: 3AIJ JAM Landup RNurIthhMIX(Low lnsUOmn%) 207A40 20,755 8090 102,332 78,763 187,184 OparWmd Rawrvas 13,707 298 a851) 4,810 13.767 .VmrnuvNiu.➢,ekssmna i.ea ]4t0 1.n9 2Lse' ¢919 ssla caw,yimaclr Faea WJ ] ]I x56 r.laaalienwua bm,nalrnen E�➢emoa 3W B 91 255 30.014 1058 21,984 12VI 36,014 O-atl Ml.4 Molnlstratlon Eal»r,ua $ 257,721 9 20,756 S 7,448 S 133.174 S 98,344 S 236.965 TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FUNDING EXPENSES $ 576,285 $ 63,986 $ 13.404 $ 310,345 $ 188,550 S 512.299 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTRIBUTIONSIFUNDNG ADJUSTMENTS a .... N 9... at COnMhutlon (49,594) (49,59.) R... ... /rom OU.r Soun.s (14,392) (14,392) S (63,986) 6 (63,086) $ S 9 TOTAL CONTRISUITIONIFUNDING ADJUSTMENTS $ 512,299 $ - $ 13.404 $ 310,345 $ 188,550 $ 5121299 BALANCE TO LEVY DISTRICT STATISTICS B9 923 728 1,740 TOMIPnceb P... 1a Levied 87 877 712 I've 870000 B77.0000 712,0000 1,876.0000 TOUT DaneMUnka CIaCUlated Levy per EBU 5 154.07 S 353.87 $ 284S2 Proposed Maximum Levy per EBU(Balloted Rate) $ 155.00 $ 354.00 S 265.00 09l Option 1C: LIVID WITH BASINS, but No Basin refurbishment or Basin over - seeding Beetle (..Y LD 10. . (..Y ILwml:]095) T., BUDGET ITEMS T.I.I Bud9e1 eot- .. Not Atl am IZA118 LODna,o Po, o1]05111 oaaulo P4sl 7 a 2., O,---f1Al]k C--Fbn,119]1aY M.reb.u. I... V., Slum Cn1,IMIMI span B.-t Gcba Flea, 122A28 z.Iol T,p 2]9]51 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Enc/.vaVRarxnay Lantlacapn9 5,375 .p1 50 29e5 , aa] ue1 Envyn'a/I.btlivn tenpscepng 2..1 1] ad 1]Bd 1.2 R.Ien4on Same l... a ooa IM910 11.Sw ii,901 11112 .5..03 ina 5p.vfieb11-111 2020 2401, 139 1}00 200,921 31,076 2920 106,270 50555 MIAMI Landsoepe MNntenanu S.rvlces(SubToW) Tw. WIN...... 14.556 1.617 165 7.574 IN, 12,940 Fvnnn.lWwt. 1,557 PB IB 362 38, 77B elpns9vl Monum.nls 360 2N 1a. No Acnnl Ll9ltb 4.439 358 3eU 250 A639 Lmdscp. WMar 44,067 6,876 630 23,402 13,159 37AN Laad..W. EleclXcll 8.962 550 50D 6.552 1,359 8,411 GnMtLMubanu M.W.rit 1.500 75 785 637 1.500 Nmaal T.60..-.d(PnbgA EnV A, M.dl-) 7,530 453 etl8 NI 1.53. TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING $ 283,798 $ 40,896 $ 5A29 $ 155.419 $ 82052 $ 242AOD REHABILITATIONR9EPLACEMENT COLLECTION Psdmvbrlo 9 VR.hsblliWl &RapAb 3,553 355 84 l'se, 1,218 3.190 EntisvyPadmsy R.h.EI1HWon&Repaln 222 21 23 118 60 Mt Enbyry Nitta- R.ItWlNatim&R.pMn 84 8 N 56 76 RabntloneWnRehablllMon A, R.pYrs 3189 818 2M3 08 3,171 T,a SM.IO. R.bab111Wlon & R.paln 73 0 85 65 Urlow Fobsl Rah.NObtiOn&Rapers 6,200 743 143 3,023 2,297 5.0. Related FulflUe✓MwnBMa RalaMlllbtion&Ropen 3,870 300 258 2.836 398 3'. $ 17,997 $ 2,332 $ 528 S 10.132 $ 5,D04 $ 16,004 TOTAL ANNUAL REM ABILITATION80EP LACEMENT $ 301,794 $ 43,230 $ 5,958 $ 165,551 $ 87,056 $ 258,564 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES pamapr pa,avn/Fu �reisnmen, t69,95p lv.p un 111. n 71, nOAw EnF.,rpa,xxq PaN,Nanm.n, 10.100 Its I snz ]ozd a.n Ean.ar�.m,,.an..bmm.m p.olcRM,psnm eel s.90 .AN m ua /r x291 a9]2 San 3aa2 Lmdwp R.( Nloonnl(LosJn.Wltlanb) 207.940 20.158 bow 102332 78.763 M7,184 Gpantlone Rawrv.a 12,923 2N 8.278 4353 12.928 ♦3mni.veuac P,xvaa.00s svry 31. ,c. 2034 lvo �.an ea,Rai Fooa w3 2. al 3. ,ss z53 DS a thanbo lol.-VYaoo Emvov.a owrtll Mnual MMnbb.Oon E.p.n.va 34,324 to;a 20814 12452 34,324 $ 255,192 $ 20.156 $ 7,446 5 131423 E 95,567 $ 234,436 TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FUNDING E XPENSE S $ 556,987 $ 63,986 $ 13,404 $ 296,974 S 182.623 $ 493,000 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTRIBUTIONSIFUNDING ADJUSTMENTS G.m..I a.n.m cOnMNmlon (4959,) (49,594) Ration.. hom Olhor Sounes (14,302) (14.392) $ (63,986) $ (63,288) S $ S $ TOTAL DONTRIBUITIONTU NDING ADJUSTME NTS $493,000 $ - $ 13,404 $ 296,974 $ 182,623 $ 493,000 BALANCE TO LEVY DISTRICT STATISTICS TObl P.rcala 89 923 728 1.740 Pameh Lavbd 87 877 712 1,676 T.418anafitUnlh 87.OD00 877.0000 712.0000 1,676.0000 Claculated Levy per EBU 5 154.07 3 338,62 $ 25649 Proposed Maximum Levy per EBU (Balloted Rate) $ 155,00 $ 339.00 It 257.00 • e Option 1D: LMD WITH BASINS, but No Basin refurbishment or any turf over - seeding Acenle 11tt89Y Lp KpNMe(..): Rermon 12bo31: Tom, BNDGET ITEMS Butlpal EaPume. NotA--E Not La Gel um 11]pTI BPwoIb5111 VaeMo[op➢o lznsn B 1uee' GuMene llbl]k aaen Fbxm (1B9NY MYeGio lisp➢ B 1]aWY ...— Del R%I.,.), spe[IM Senate GGW Fbwrl]10818 111M) Tmem,(2)9)5) ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Penmvrx Pm YL ="Plr e8.831 e..el I. oa)1 >r:19 ]I.N EnrryraVPaMvay Lenatoon9 We 41e -11 3535 Enlm'a1tNtl,en LaMs[aVinA LMI Ilp all 1]Be IA1) Peunnm Baem andv V 106B1p 31,50] 11. 15 a13 v).eCI nansnemn[uNaPlnp z03p 34o 1.-30 1.110 200,927 31.076 2,920 106270 60.855 169.851 Lamloo,e Maintenance Services(SutrToW) Tree Mtlmle...e 14,456 1,617 <.s 7,5N 4,801 II1810 Fea,dnpMrella 1,S57 779 16 382 381 no SlOnapel Monumnla 360 200 160 M MonILI9L4 4,439 368 3822 250 A439 Landecaq Web, 44.067 6,876 M 23,402 13.159 37.190 Landscape Eleco clry 8,962 550 500 6552 1.359 8,41, GrafIIYMYWn[e Ann.... 1500 7B 785 .37 "me TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING $ 276,268 { 40,898 E 4976 S 148,993 S 81.401 $ 235,370 REHABILITATIONIREPLACEMENT COLLECTION PerneMr ParFxyRollebllHedon A RepNn 3$53 355 84 1,895 1,218 3J9B EnirywyPVNway ReM1aE1111at1ona Reptlra 222 21 M 118 So IDt Entrryay Medlen Rehebintmen a RepNn 64 B 20 SB 78 RN.time BWn R.h.bMY0on 6 R.PYn 3.989 B18 - 2,M3 OSB 3.171 Trect Spesnlc R.habnitNon 6 Reptln 73 8 65 6S Urban Fonot RrM1WnYBon A Repaln 8208 10 143 3023 2,297 5.M Related pclNWel,Mnka. RabablllWon A Beret. 3.870 380 259 2836 30 Sw $ 17,997 $ 2p32 $ 528 $ 10,132 $ 5,004 $ 16.694 TOTAL ANNUAL REHILBILITATIONMEPLACEME NIT - $ 294,264 $ 43,230 $ 5,505 $ 159,125 $ 86,405 $ 251,034 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES PenmvYrPar..wPMurei,nmsn, IBB,pSp ,e➢ei -3 B4 B1 IL)55 1]OAN EnrmvryPPrnvav PetRlvnmanl Ip,1A0 oM ,oJ S11 3.021 Fnlryn'eYLYoan Rarvrerennen, 3A30 12 ]] tIt 1.11 -me ReNIdthl m 4U0 ➢a1 ]AM Lendwpa Refnblehment Rom lnsWl,r-nN) 207.240 M,738 6.090 102,332 78.763 187.184 O'....w Be--.. Prclaraieeal Fee. 12,552 33,10 275 9]! 7,956 1B.]af 4]M 1.0] 12.552 11.11, Nmmnv£..n Cnvnrylm PaX Gres not 1. LLanlFneoue hlmrrvanmivn..m—ea 250 d 15> 02 210 33.566 1.013 20,166 12,387 33.566 Overall Mnual]dMnlsValm. EaMnss $ 254,057 $ 20.756 $ 7,378 $ 130.454 5 95.469 It 233,301 TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FUNDING EXPENSES $ 548,322 $ 63,986 $ 12,882 5 289.579 S 181,874 S 484,335 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTRIBUTIONS/FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS O.noml Benefit convinmen (0,594) 10,59.) - Roe.nuesfromOtbMSoumes (14,302) (14,3.21 - $ (63,986) 11 (63,9861 $ 8 $ $ TOTAL CONTRIBUITION,FU NDING ADJU STMENTS $484,335 $ S 12,082 S 289,579 $ 181,674 S 484,335 SALANCETOLEW DISTRICT STATISTICS Total P.n.b 89 923 728 1740 remelt Levied 37 877 712 1,676 TOMIB.IMfa U.ft 67.0000 877,0000 712,0000 1,676.0000 Claculated Levy per ESU $ 14807 S 330.19 S 255,44 Proposed MaXlmum Levy per EBU(Balloted Rate) $ 149.00 $ 331.00 $ 256,00 Option 1 E: LIVID WITH BASINS, but without any over -seeding or refurbishment Raxhlnz4BZ LQ Nlaara.l]3N01 RxnmIZf095i Teal BUDGET ITEMS Taal Butl9.1 E.penne xMe-.ma LO CeIGm (ZA]IBPBra3]5211 oaa.m Pn,ely oaavlpl2as17 a 2529B) lz]91]r. weer Flp.a, l20az41, Na.Mlb(2noo. ne99k slb,. PalRw lzOfaB) A.a.1 eemm 4x1,. 11wu,(22%1 V20m Tea R.,I) ANNUAL MAINTENANCE .wm.1., w,�,.m LtnaaonnB exeol BAv fae) +:m ]vBB nAM Envµ�aYparAna/Lnnaawpin9 4T/5 .B 51, I'll ,tBJ .ABI E,NWnvlbWan!�ner.wpinp 2001 Il .1 .,]93 IA1) Rpbnpan 6a[in Lan]awWrp )04810 ]1,50 17511 .ntl5pacfm lanhmrynB 2,B20 Is, I"M 200,92? 31,028 2,920 105Us 60,055 168,851 LwMSOepe MMnanulu S.nlcas(Sub`ToaB) Tn. Malnanmu 14,456 11611 G65 7.574 4.801 Izea Fa,adn01Wtl4 1,557 no 18 382 381 AO S16ne6elMonumana 360 200 160 360 R mJoha 4,09 308 3.822 2. 4.4" LA„ascep W.I., 44,067 6,876 no 23.402 1].159 VOW LeMacepe ENdticM 8,962 no no 6.552 1,359 8,414 GreTUMula.nu MMm.nl 1,500 78 795 637 1.500 TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING E 276,268 $ 40,898 S 148.993 S 81401 6 235j10 S 4976 REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT COLLECTION P.rlwarPM R hNbfl NIon 6R.1Mn 3,553 355 84 1895 1218 3.198 E1 yP&lv%y ReFWII1Won4RepMn 222 21 a 115 W 201 Enuyrwy M.aan RehlmeffiM6R.PMn 84 a 20 58 76 ReanOm Bnb Rehabilitation L Repete 3AB9 ale 2203 BW 3,171 T,w S".IIk R.neWm•Ion B R.". 73 a as 65 UAanF.R.haNllaaan&R.PMn 6.206 70 143 3023 2297 5.40 ReINaTaclllUeJIN.nItia. R.baMllaeon 6 R*"M 3A70 360 258 2.a39 308 3.490 $ 171997 E 2,332 S 528 S 10,132 S 5.004 S 15,664 TOTAL ANNUAL RENABILITATIONRtEPLACEMENT $ 294,264 $ 43,230 $ 5.505 S 159.125 S 86,405 E 251,034 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES OperaUml R.sarvo IU52 275 7,90 4320 IL552 .Vmm.BaeonGroM1.rimY Hef ]111] d)a 13 )J1 13C]8 )2.11> <aunNiavRW f,n aB3 J ]15 2n aM .aa,aiun.e�, vr.m.eppBnEwm... 2n 33,560 1,0]] 20.156 12387 33.566 Gvnas Annul klm. br fi.. E.,*.. $ 46,117 $ - $ 1.288 $ 20, 123 S 16,707 $ 46,W TOTAL ANNUAL INODENTAL FUNDING EXPENSES $ 340,382 E 43,230 S 6,793 S 187,247 S 103,111 $ 297,151 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTRIBUTIONSIFUNDING ADJUSTMENTS GaurM Bane al c—mb.11on (28.839) (20,630) ' Revm,rs A— OM., Sourcn (14j92) (14,3921 ' $ (43,230) E (43,230) E E 5 - $ TOTAL CONTRIBUITN)NIFU NO ING ADJUSTMENTS $297,151 $ $ 6,793 S 197,247 $ 103,111 $ 297,151 BALANCE TO LEVY DISTRICT STATISTICS TBIal PAr.1s 89 923 728 1,740 P.m.Is Levied 01 877 712 1,676 ToalS..e UnBA 87.G000 077.0000 7IDOo00 1,076.0000 Claeulated Levy par EBU 3 78.08 E 213.51 $ 144.82 Proposed Maximum Levy per EBU (Balloted Rate) $ 79.00 $ 214.00 $ 145.00 Option 2A: LIVID WITHOUT BASINS (Full Cost Recovery) A- l x]x661' L014pNerLL, Ulz69t Raman jDeex, Tell BUDGET ITEMS Dow audyr .-w eenm LO Del Om tn9118 Pwa nszl) o-"o"...(E5116 x., o,imam lJ6nF 0aaen Eaw lx96xal. Mo.olle(TEoE1 slam DelRw (z6leep ,wl Be-., Cocas Flonerjx 2 B 24M6) To{w (2]J35) ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Ganmeur FanraYza 4supn9 86.6x1 I'll .3 4:xrl 11 aB IIAe Enln,ay a�vaYLaMaue p 5,375 "1 Sox ZneS :e6] IAeI EnnavvaYrhomnlrriyaapinl - RalanL+n Haan L.1111-1lla 2.001 1i ap6 !]d .13 irad 11.t Le.a-1 2,020 96,017 SME, 2920 ea,ns 35,233 66,41,18 Lmda[Ve Role.... 1. Sorel... xub-TOtd) Tne 14Jn4mnn 12,726 1,273 455 5Im 4,195 11,R3 F logArAla 1.557 779 16 382 381 776 SlOvpel N....... 360 - 200 160 360 MCenl Lights 1,438 386 3.H21 250 4.00 Lwdacepe Wool 20,573 20. no 10428 7.457 18,512 Lendacpe ElowiciN 71082 165 500 5,514 903 SBt7 GreiNN.H.. Mebment 1,500 78 755 $3I 1,500 Mnuel TurtOvoeud(Farhwye, EnOyrwye L MedW.) 7,530 453 6A25 .51 7.00 Maud red Over xed (Beelm) $ 151,784 S 13,846 5 5,429 S 82.643 S 40,068 f 137,033 TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTE NANCE FUNDING REHAOILITATIONREPLACEMENT COLLECTION Pwr,atsr Pe&wy Rehablliluel&Ropdn 3563 355 04 1,095 1,216 3,196 EnIrwo,PN.way RshwillWon I Repdn 222 21 23 118 60 201 Entrpyllodlrr RoloNiletlon& Rapios 64 0 20 56 76 Rehnnan Sell Rehweltatlon & R&Pw. Tnd SwdRC RebORRA1bn& NepWo 73 6 65 65 UAlao Font RehwIftwon&RePJn 4A70 497 143 2465 1S.5 4.473 Relaxed FeJUOeJMwnitlw Rehe61111Won&Repave, 3.1170 380 250 2,838 3" 1490 $ 12,772 8 11269 $ 528 s 7,371 S 3,604 f 11,503 TOTAL ANNUAL REHAB ILITATIONrREPLACEMENT COLLIE CTION S IKS56 $15,115 $ 5.958 $ 90.014 $ 53.470 $ 149,441 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES a.nm... e.aaw R4rcla.m..l 1ee,aM ,e 3a loll sa>z6 .Ilse noAm EmSuarv,Maav R.ma,rm.nl 10,16o se l a,a lo] 4.n Ervrr•ar Ataw RaNraenm.nl 3.o nl !r zz]a 1a13 Rel'snaea R,w,d,,-, 4,aw +a 39zz Sam Haz.n Neeolellanm,rt Landwspe Refnt1 !rom(Low inwellnxnts) 207,040 20.755 6,00 102332 78.763 197.10. OgrNI6nM Reaame 7,172 na 4,501 2,673 7,472 Vm,nuvneonpro:.zz�oval Fa.a 2R070 IC13 IS:d6 ddd" xx.m0 .,o.mv a,Rw Fw. 603 SI I:a xs fim :.1,,.Ianewe:ammaa,6w Em.neee 1n 23.749 1, M 13482 9.209 23.70 0-.11 Mnud Mowelor won El[,.... $ 239.161 $ 20,756 $ 7.446 8 120.314 $ 90,045 f 218,405 TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FUNDING EXPENSES $ 403.717 $ 35,871 $ 13,404 $ 210,327 $ 144.115 $ 367,646 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTRIBUTIONS/FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS Gwnd Beoalt Oontribuboo ` (35.871) (35,671) Navanues Emin ONar 00umo $ (35,871) $ (35,871) S 4 $ f TOTAL CONTRIS U ITION6U NO ING ADJUSTME NTS $367,846 S $ 13,404 $ 210,327 $ 144,115 $ 367,946 BALANCE TO LEVY DISTRICT STATISTICS TotslP-oh 09 923 728 1,740 P..N Levied B7 877 712 1,876 Totsl Benefit Unile 870000 8770000 7120000 1,678.0000 Claculated Levy per EBU f 15407 S 23903 5 20241 Proposed Maximum Levy per EBU(0alloted Rate) $ 155.00 $ 240.00 -$ 203.00 101 Option 26: LIVID WITHOUT BASINS, but no turf over -seeding ReueIERWF. LG NOHnde 13)xEBY RmMnIx5N51 T.1 BUDGET ITEMS Tel ..d11 Gverel Barefil LG Dx Die Ix]9)16 PoecIT5311 2xrcnaGwllrolx4sn azsxma O,iNem 13]91]A peeep Eb'nr1393x4', 24ameeaelzsv]a nee9a $Iota lRlRry1MIWY spell Paeea, CBCIre Flmreal2EfM$a 34.Y1a1 ]oq[RJllJ51 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Pennaler PartweYln aaupmq M,a21 1117 i1e1 +:$II dt.)5o 1]pa4 ErerywaYPaavaYLe.oe vpmg 5,376 +9+ So3 leis 15aP .ptl Enva.eY 4canten..zapmg aelsncpn aeain laneacnp 2,001 I, I3 t.30 1/EJ ne .wo, SpeuA[Laneswpm4 2AN >31 I}a0 96,017 9569 292D J8.295 35233 66.M6 Lmdsop Mainbnmce Owlcea(Sub.To ) Tm Melnbnmoa 12,720 1.273 465 S70 4190 11,MJ Fend.%Wtlls IX67 779 16 302 381 779 Slplra9d Monulnnb 360 - 200 1W 360 A[cmt1_xhN 4A39 368 3822 250 s.M9 Lwlft. p Wabr 20,573 2,060 630 10,4T 7457 10,512 Lmd.c"EM[blclry 7,082 105 500 5.5A 903 k917 Gra1f11iMulsmce MM&M,x 1,500 - 76 785 637 I,WO TW aeed E6byapaYedima MnuN TudO- -ad leaalnal $ 144,254 $ 13846 S 4,976 S 76217 $ 49,215 S 130,/09 TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING REHABILITATIONIREPLACEMENT COLLECTION Pedm NrPxMyReha&UUaUOn&RapNn 3,553 355 84 1.895 1,218 3,198 EntryxayPukwyflehadllWlOn A R.,Wre 222 21 23 Ila a. gal EM Medlm RahMlllWon& RePMA 84 0 20 56 76 Rabntlm 9-N RehNbRita6on & RepYn Tr-1 SpacNlc ReheblllY6m& Rapaha 73 B 95 6S Urbm Fonat Rehab1111aon&Repelrs 4,970 497 143 2.485 1,%5 4A]J Rebbd FmOleIIA-niG Rehd,11kabon A Reptln 3,570 0M 258 2,836 30 AMo $ 12,772 $ 1,269 S 528 S 7.371 8 3,604 S 11,503 TOTAL ANNUAL RENARILITATIONMEPLACEMENT COLLECTION S 157,026 $15,115 $ 5.505 $ 83,588 S 52,819 $ 141'911 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES P.r,mx., P,,...aYn.mra�...maal EeI'eaavPa,k.+r 9.wa.emom 1ex9sv 16.1W Iane vae +zn 19a4 .+2z ..uz n7s ]:na v4.v e.n SnVpaH.Yew FerV,W nmvil J.e00 m r 1.39+ tan ]val 3p- fiaam a.. a.n,re;:mmam Lmdscapa Refu iahrleent(Lom lnSMlllmn%) 207.940 NISS 8,090 1a2.332 78,761 167,184 OMraOonN Re-rvea 1,096 275 4,179 2.641 7,M ymims.rabnP,eeeaene�Fear 22,217 ea+ 11"1 33M 2E.E 11 ..oumY]o"R OIi Fses Wa J 115 21 e0 Cryauianews.V minaVelen E.peneea 171 >5 5a 22ASI 1013 12R34 9.1. 22.991 Overtll MnuN Mnbristra6on Eepens9a $ 238,026 S 2D,756 $ 7.378 $ 119,345 S 90,547 S 217.270 TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FU NDING EXPENSES $ 395,052 $35,871 $ 12,882 $ 202,933 $ 143,366 $ 359,181 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTR83UTIONSIFUNDING ADJUSTMENTS Guurw H.-fit ConbWUUOn (35AT1) (35,871) RevanuM from DtMr 9aurtaa - $ (35,871) S (35,871) $ $ S S TOTAL CONTRISWTIONiFU NDING ADJUSTMENTS $359,181 $ $ 12,882 $ 202,933 S 143,366 $ 359,181 BALANCE TO LEVY DISTRICT STATISTICS ToYl Oarceb 89 923 72B 1,740 Parceh Levbd 87 877 712 1,676 Total Benefd U nib 87.0000 8770000 7120000 1,676.0000 Claculated Levy per EBU s 148.07 S 231.39 $ 201.36 Proposed Maximum Levy per EBU(Balloted Rate( $ 149.00 S 232,00 $ 202.00 102 Option 2C: LIVID WITHOUT BASINS, refurbishment but without turf over -seeding or .- 1.,.). 1. .pl.. WW Ra,nwn(2]9>51. TWl BUDGET ITEMS T., BUEpeI Gmmol B—A (2.11B wwl an Fm o1a0531) Parch Ondllb 121111125294 0:4N .1JI Ne. I.—(.W., laamEelln(290] A I.., S1.-.1.1(AIBBJ sP..la Ben.11 ,rs Fpua, P.. 8 N2n01 Tgw (2NM151 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE .n..l......wmu a.aawna ae.621 151] 63gr 491 I>zJ 502 44211 ?Si 3a v11 1082 nae. I,a11 Envx:ny Pe:xnayla+arwpinq E M1✓P'nYL44an Lnnaa[na,na 2.001 4J5 I..IBa IA2J P.LLWn vM1[M^n 1,ad5 L xapna 2.0M 249 i30 1Ja0 96,017 9569 2R20 .8.2.5 35233 Soon Lwdscsoo Malnlonmc. O.rvlws(SuMTolal) Tro. Mall.—ce 12.726 1,273 485 6,793 410 t1.A53 F.ndn9lWaa 1,657 77. IS 382 381 "1 310nM.IMonulwn4 360 200 1B0 no kc.ni LI,h. 4,439 388 3.B22 2W 4.Q9 Laoda Wolof 20,573 3.060 830 10.426 7457 01512 L-dlac"Elocok1W 7,052 185 Soo 5.514 W3 B.9N GrslllliMuloanca Msl.—M 1,500 ]B 785 07 1,SCe TMOwms BAhy EMIIIIIIIIIII lolnu.l Tun 0..lu.d 01aNm) $ 144,254 S 13848 S 4,976 S 76217 S 49.215 f 130,t06 TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING REHABILITATIONIREPLACEMENT COLLECTION PeM for PaFxry RaM1W01NDn 6 R.Paln 3,553 355 84 1895 131E 3,10. Enhyxy Pook ay RoLWIINWoo& R.PW. 222 21 23 118 80 M Enhyxy Modlm 119 b111bon&R.PN 64 8 20 So 76 R.9,ntod Bwln R.hoballWan & R.Psl- T—d SpoclM RahWlllaHon I Rog 73 B 65 65 Ua F... I R.hWIBIWan&R.,W. 4,970 497 143 Z485 1165 4,473 Rooted FMCIdoWA nlB.s RehAlllYtloo&Repalm 3.970 Mo 258 2.038 390 3.490 $ 12,772 $ 1.269 S 52B S 7.371 $ 3,604 S 11,503 TOTAL ANNU AL REHASILITATIONAEPLACEMENT COLLECTION $ 157,026 $15,115 $ 5,505 S 83.588 $ 52,819 S 141,911 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FUNDING INCIDENTAL & OTHER ANNUAL FUNDING EXPENSES iL Op.ralland R.. .. 7,096 275 4.179 2.641 7.080 ym:nlaanLw,.vvl.aaonm:... 22.217 aH 12.z e1. xuv wunry*zv Poli.aa. W3 a1 a1 251 e0 Ia.Pnanao., wn,.n:,e.[,neroan,., 1n as 1v1 22f91 f013 12.&34 9,144 22.911 OvnaO Annuo111dmMlatsOon Eopown $ 30,086 $ $ 1.286 S 17,014 $ 11.785 S 30,086 TOTAL ANNUAL INCIDENTAL FUNDING EXPENSES $ 187,112 $15,115 $ 6,793 $ 100,601 S 64,604 S 171,997 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES CONTRIBUTIONSIFUNDING ADJUSTMENTS Gmertl B.o.R1 Cantdbu0on Us,145) 115.1151 R.venwa komOMo Source $ )15,115) 5 (15,115) $ $ S S TOTAL CONTRIOU91OMFUNDING ADJUSTME NTS $ 171,997 S $ 6,793 $ 1001601 S 64,604 $ 171,997 BALANCE TO LEVY DISTRICT STATISTICS - Thal P.meN 69 923 728 11740 Parcels L.vled 87 877 712 1,676 TOM]8an.rdUmb V000p 8770000 712.0000 1,670,0000 Claculated Levy Per EBU $ 78,08 s 114.71 $ 90.74 PrOPOSed M aximurd Levy per ESU)Balloted Rate) $ 79.00 S 115.00 $ 91.00 103 01 II* ',`' 3��= ` n: ��ir� '.. '''�'; T'df 4 4 a" CITY SA/HA/FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Draft Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Through 2017/2018 Capital Improvement Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: _ STUDY SESSION: 3 PUBLIC HEARING: Direct staff to make appropriate revisions to the draft Fiscal Year 2013/2014 through 2017/2018 Capital Improvement Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) provides the City a long-range program for major municipal capital construction projects. • The first year is titled the "Capital Budget' and is based on existing fund balances and projected revenues. The current year capital budget only is incorporated into the annual City operating budget, which appropriates funds for specific facilities, equipment and improvements. • Projects slated for subsequent years are approved on a planning basis only and do not receive expenditure authority until they are incorporated into the capital budget. • Those projects designated as "additional projects" do not have identified funding sources through the term of the five-year program or, in the case of Development Impact Fee funded projects, a long-term collection period is required to develop the specified project. • A total of 14 projects are identified for Fiscal Year 2013/2014 costing $25,657,912. 107 • A revised CIP will be submitted for consideration and approval in May 2013 after the March Study Session. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. This is an informational report only. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Attached for the Council's consideration is a Project Revenue and Expenditure Summary from the draft CIP for Fiscal Year 2013/2014 through 2017/2018 (Attachment 1). A full copy of the draft CIP is available for review at the Public Works Department counter. This document is a statement of the City's goals, objectives, and priorities for a five-year. CIP and the financial commitments required to accomplish those objectives. The preparation of this document has been a joint effort of the City Manager's Office, Public Works, Finance, Community Services, Community Development, and City Clerk departments. The CIP for Fiscal Years 2013/2014 through 2017/2018 includes a listing of projects prioritized by fiscal year and type of improvement (e.g., bridge, street, traffic signal, drainage, landscaping and lighting, park, City facility). What year a particular project is programmed depends on available funding, efficiency and safety needs, and Council policy for prioritization. Once the CIP is adopted, the Fiscal Year 2013/2014 projects will be incorporated into the annual budget. The CIP is updated annually and can be amended at any time based on revenue availability and changes in project priorities. All project costs are at current year project estimates. No inflation factors have been utilized in determining costs for projects in Fiscal Years 2013/2014 through 2017/2018. New Projects Fiscal Year 2013/2014 proposes $25,657,912 in capital improvement projects. A total of 14 projects are identified. Two projects are recurring as part of a long-term plan to fill missing sidewalk links and correct ADA deficiencies (Project No. 199702-Sidewalks-Various Locations), and to install new or upgrade existing handicap access ramps (Project No. 199703-Handicap Access Ramp -Various Locations) to comply with the ever evolving ADA standards. One project is recurring as part of implementing the pavement management plan (Project No. 201207-Pavement Management Plan Street Improvements). There are eleven new projects proposed to complete the 2013/2014 CIP. These projects include: 201301 - La Quinta Museum ADA Improvements 201302 - Miscellaneous Parks ADA Improvements 108 201303 - Fritz Burns Park Pool Enhancements and ADA Improvements 201306 - SilverRock Canal Relocation 201307 - Citywide Traffic Signal Re -wire Projects 201308 - Jefferson Street at 1-10 Interchange Improvements 201309 - Highway 111 Landscape Enhancements (City Entrance Monuments) 201310 - Highway 111 Landscape Enhancements and Auto Display Pads 201311 - Community Center (Expansion of Senior Center) 201312 - La Quinta Park Portable Restroom 201313 - Citywide Preventative Maintenance Plan Improvements Funding for Project No. 201403-Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street Roundabout Improvements and Project No. 201 404-Road runner Street and Dune Palms Road Traffic Circle is undetermined at this time. Preliminary studies are currently being performed to determine the scope of improvements needed. Funding for the Quimby funded ADA improvement projects is proposed to be transferred from existing Project No. 200712 - Community Park Acquisition. The remaining four years of the five-year CIP are discussed in depth in the full draft CIP document. Add Projects and Project Changes There are 80 projects identified under the current CIP Additional Projects (Add Projects) list that are not scheduled for funding within the next five years. The costs associated with the implementation of these projects are estimated at $190,375,929. Two traffic signal projects, Avenue 50 at Orchard Lane and Jefferson Street at Avenue 53, were placed back on the Add Project list until such time as signals are warranted at these locations. In addition, there are six developer completed projects currently identified with City Council approved developer reimbursement agreements. The cost associated with these projects is estimated at $3,546,952. More information on these Add Projects available in the Public Works Department. located under the "Additional Projects" completed projects presented at the to Request." s presented in the full CIP document The document includes detail sheets tab as well as detail on developer ) labeled "Developer Reimbursement According to the current cash flow model for Fiscal Year 2012/2013, transportation Development Impact Fee funding is not available at this time to 109 reimburse the developers for eligible improvements. When funding does become available, staff will return with funding level recommendations for the list of prioritized projects. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council's review of the draft Fiscal Year 2013/2014 CIP will enable City staff to complete the final CIP for public review. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council is required to schedule a public hearing on the CIP and consider its adoption at a subsequent regular meeting. Upon its adoption, the 2013/2014 CIP will be incorporated into the City's Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Budget. Respectfully submitted, qimothy . J sson, P.E. Public orks irector/City Engineer Attachment: 1. Project Revenue and Expenditure Summary from Draft Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Through 2017/2018 CIP 110 M1 mff.Rofe Bu[i0iu' .............._....... �m;mv o 4oie 555 ami,fai o f,ma,f if e o --a flex nz-�—'�'---if.m%afi lv'.51 :31 CPe. Goa 131 s�un,m.ury n fum ...OauNfu.uoiryd 'ry my iwuae !211111 �. rveu 1=!Cav^h.nuy nifiltwv+e avmnom n� u�u Htiy.mn furviv „n1=ry I'll, f.nf IU� CITY OF LA OUIWA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Project M Protect Description Administmfion Engineering Constmetion Inspection Profeasional Contingency Other Total 04084 169767 1697670 165523 84854 126901 2,329629 118656 237312 2373122 231379 47462 300193 3.300725 6750 13500 135000 13163 2700 17111 188,224 1793 3586 35861 34W 717 4546 50,000 FY 2011/2012 SUBTOTAL: 376,740 802,492 14,404,536 959,930 314,711 899,503 0 19,OO7,912 FY 20122013 SUBTOTAL: 135,662 255,480 2,934,303 309,594 128,336 359,288 0 4,122,664 FY 2013I2014 SUBTOTAL: 37,500 70,407 1,003,661 129,146 35,958 110,238 0 1,466,610 FY 201G20153UBTOTAL 28,052 0,877 868,2T0 108,155 2Q008 84,837 0 1,165,000 FY 20IW2016 SUBTOTAL: 28,852 48,877 868,270 108,155 26,008 84,031 0 1.165,000 SUBTOTAL FISCAL YEARS 201112012 THROUGH 201413015 607,607 1,226,132 20,158,940 1.614,981 531.022 1,538,704 0 26.927,386 W CITY OF LA GUINTA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Protect A P ' lD - b Ad n n stration Engineering Construction Inspection Professional Contingency other Total CITY OF LA OUINTA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY SUBTOTAL ADD PROJECTS 4,205,686 12,653,175 144,626,795 11,418,220 1,143,335 14,603,218 1,T25,500 190,325,929 DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS IORA) ORAL -Tall Brothers Tract 3035] (Ave 50112 Metlian antl Metlian LS - JeRerapn b Matlison - PaR 01 OTHER EXPENSE CATEGORIES (1) CVAG Reimbursement (2) Developer Reimbursement SUBTOTAL DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 3,548,952 3,548,952 GRAND TOTAL(11112-16116, ADD PROJECTS AND DRA) 4,813,293 13,1579,307 164,785,T35 13,033,201 1,674,357 16,141,922 5,272,452 (3) FFSE Ownefs Items (5) Loan Payoff (4) Lead Ac uisition (6) Non -Profit Oevebper Fee 220,850,267 Reports/Informational Items: Z6 Report to La Quinta City Council Palm Springs International Airport Commission Meeting February 20, 2013 General Comments: 2012 was the safest year, globally, for commercial air travel since 1945. It has been 4 years since the last commercial air fatality in the USA. The industry has done an excellent job of learning from its mistakes, and incorporating all of the governmental regulations into its business model. The relative security may be a major reason for the increased passenger activity that we've seen. Budget: Budget performance continues to be as planned, with about $6 million in unrestricted cash expected at year-end. The first meeting of the Commission Budget Committee is on March 12, so the planning process for the 2014 Budget is underway. Passenger Activity: January passenger activity set another record, and it became the 6 consecutive month of growth, at a 4.9% increase from last year. Enhanced Wireless Internet Capacity: The Palm Springs International Airport is experiencing record passenger traffic growth, and subsequently the demand for the free Wi-Fi Internet service to passengers and tenants is growing. In order to adequately maintain this free service for Airport passengers, additional wireless bandwidth must be installed and maintained by the cable provider, Time Warner. Our basic Wi-Fi was installed 4 years ago, and has been used by tens of thousands of passengers since then. With 1,700,000 passengers a year, our current system provides unsatisfactory service, and we are concerned that it may impact our ability to attract business meetings and conferences. The Staff has negotiated a new agreement with Time Warner, providing speed increases of up to 50 times the current transfer rates. The new agreement will cost about $20,000 per year, and funds are available in the budget. The Commission voted to recommend approval by the City Council of this 3-year agreement with Time Warner. Plan to Improve Car Rental Facilities: Our Master Plan includes a car rental facility improvement program that will enable the Palm Springs International Airport to sufficiently address longer term and short-term growth demands. In anticipation of the eventual need to expand car rental facilities, the City Council authorized the collection of a $10 per transaction Customer Facility Charge collected on each car rental transaction. Car rentals continue to be our major source of revenue, and last year we had over 180,000 transactions. 116 Today that fund has a balance of $9 million to fund these upcoming improvements. Parsons Brinkerhoff Professional Consultants is the Airport's aviation consulting firm, under a 5-year agreement. Staff has requested an amendment to the consulting agreement to include conceptual design services for the car rental facilities. The scope of the work will include: 1. A functional program report summarizing the operational requirements of the area. 2. Analyze pedestrian, passenger and vehicle flow to determine optimum flow. 3. Develop functional concept alternatives, which could include a maintenance area. 4. Develop an order of magnitude cost estimate of each alternative. 5. Create a schematic (concept) of the preferred alternatives. Some of these concepts may require extending the terminal area. The Commission voted to recommend the amendment of the consulting agreement as requested, with costs not -to -exceed $48,000. Palm Springs City Council Actions: 1. The Council approved the purchase and installation of new carpeting for the Bono Concourse and Security Checkpoint in the amount of $157,017. 2. The Council ratified the emergency expenditure of $34,984 for the repair of the Airport's Security Access System The next Commission meeting will be March 20, 2013. Submitted: Robert G. Teal, Commissioner Palm Springs International Airport Email: bob(a)_teal.us.com Phone: 760-899 4171 117 REPORTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: 2, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Wright. PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright. ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Wally Nesbit, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. Commissioner Wilkinson led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA — Confirmed APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion — A motion was made by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2012, as submitted. It was noted that the amendment to the September 25, 2012, minutes did not include the application and case number information. Staff clarified that this was an amendment to a specific application. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 118 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continued - Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 2012-143 submitted by Crown Castle — Susan Makinson — for a Single Distributed Antenna System (DAS) within the Public Right -Of -Way at the Southeast Corner of Avenue 50 and Park Avenue. Assistant Planner Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Wright asked if the applicant would like to speak and opened the public hearing. Susan Makinson, representative of Crown Castle, 5350 N. 48`h Street, Suite 308, Chandler, AZ 85226, introduced herself and gave background on the new location. Commissioner Weber commented on: • The applicant's cooperation in finding an alternate location as directed by the Commission. Vice Chairman Wright concurred and asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There being none he asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Ronald Slegg, 50-045 Mountain Shadows Road, La Quinta, CA 92253, owner of the house adjacent to the site, stated he was strongly opposed to the project due to his belief there were long-term detrimental health effects from microwaves coming off of these towers. He added there would be a degradation of property values with a tower located next to his house. Commissioner Alderson asked Mr. Slegg if he was aware the equipment was being mounted on an existing pole. Mr. Slegg said yes and stated his kitchen sink was 21 feet from his wall and the pole was another 30 feet from that wall on the outside. Commissioner Alderson commented that the previous request involved a stand- alone pole. Mr. Slegg asked why the applicants chose a residential area instead of locating this on a commercial site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 119 Vice Chairman Wright said the applicant could address his specific questions. Ms. Alexis Walker Skeoch — 79-145 Quail Crossing, La Quinta, CA 92253, expressed concern that she seemed to be the only property owner that received the hearing notice. She contacted her homeowners' association board, property management company, the school and the Boys and Girls Club and none of them were aware of the proposal. The Boys and Girls Club told her their concerns would run equal to any school concerns and they would be interested in having someone hear the proposal. She said there have been a lot of neighbors in the area with health issues and wanted that issue addressed. Vice Chairman Wright asked staff to respond to the method of notification. Assistant Planner Ceja said the notice of the public hearing went out on November 14, 2012, to all property owners within 500 feet of the site, as well as being published in The Desert Sun and no notices were returned by the Post Office. Ms. Esther Gelineau — 79-120 Coyote Creek, La Quinta, CA 92253, said she was unaware of the project and the hearing until she received a call from her neighbor. She commented on previous health issues with the two nearby schools and the addition of the location of this tower being 21 feet over Mr. Slegg's wall. She added there were several empty lots at the other end of Washington Street as well as a vacant lot across the street from this location where the tower could be placed. There were also signal lights that it could be attached to. She did not see why it had to be located immediately outside of a residential development and said the Planning Commission needed to seriously review this. Commissioner Alderson asked the applicant to comment on: • The unsafe microwave question • The process for site selection • Whether the first and second sites were noticed. Vice Chairman Wright called the applicant up to respond to comments. Ms. Makinson responded: • The notices were sent out to all residents within 625 feet of the site. The City only required a 500 foot notification. • Notices were sent to all residents for the first and second sites, as well as the neighborhood associations, via U.S. Mail. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 120 Ms. Makinson gave a brief summary of the difference between the proposed DAS System (which is a repeater system) versus a traditional macrocell; and noted there were no microwaves involved. The antenna itself would not even be 23 inches tall, with a diameter of 10 inches and minimal ground equipment. She offered to provide a comprehensive report done by a specialist in health and medical physics to those who were interested. General discussion followed on how far away the previous site had been proposed, the noticing policy, and the possibility of double -noticing. Planning Director Johnson commented the Boys and Girls Club had not been noticed as the City was the owner of their leased property. There being no further questions of the applicant, Vice Chairman Wright called up Mary Walker. Mary Walker, CCAM, Rancho La Quinta Master Association, 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Drive, La Quinta, CA 92253, commented that several homeowners did receive notices and that was why she was in attendance. So, notices were received. Commissioner Weber asked Ms. Walker for her location; which she noted. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there were any other questions of Ms. Walker. There being none, she stepped down. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there was any further public comment. Ms. Alexis Walker Skeoch listed the following concerns: • At what stage of hearings was this project at? • After contacting the perimeter property owners, and the Board members, none of which received any information on this issue. They commented they did not want this antenna at this location. • It is a functional issue of property value and health concerns. Vice Chairman Wright explained the steps the project had gone through and said this was an action item to be voted on at this meeting. He added that Ms. Skeoch's concerns had been addressed and reiterated that this was a 21-inch tall antenna on an existing light pole. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 121 Ms. Walker Skeoch also expressed the following concerns: • Were the previous hearings attended by Estancias, or Painted Cove residents. • The Painted Cove community was not represented at this meeting. • Their Board and management company knew nothing about this proposal. • It appeared not everyone received a notice of the hearing. • How many calls were being processed through this equipment and what kind of emissions were they looking at; now and in the future. In response to her concerns, Planning Director Johnson explained the hearing notice mailing procedures, which involved all parcels within 500 feet of the site. He added that staff did try to notify their management company, but according to the most recent tax records, they were listed with an out-of-state address. Vice Chairman Wright re -called the applicant to the podium to address Ms. Skeoch's additional concerns. Ms. Makinson responses were: • The Riverside County Assessor's records showed the Painted Cove property managers were located in Mount Clemons, Michigan, and they had been notified. • Regarding emissions and RF — the DAS is actually non -ionizing. The power used is the equivalent of house power and is basically like a 110- volt or any regular home outlet. • Regarding coverage and location - they would be increasing the existing capacity, but there were certain constraints in where, and how far apart, the antennas could be placed. • When completed, all that would be visible was a traffic signal with a light attached and a very small apparatus to the side, which would be the antenna. • Studies were done in various cities by Tarantello & Associates to show the effect on property values due to these installations, and it turned out to be very negligible; less than 1 % either way. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there was additional public comment. Ms. Esther Gelineau expressed the following: • What is this antenna enhancing in the community? • What company is being represented and what do they do? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 122 • What is the radius of this enhancement and why can't it be put on one end or another of Avenue 50, or in a nearby vacant lot? • Commented on local carriers working in the area and suggested input be encouraged, from current carriers, before approving another carrier coming in. Ms. Makinson responded: • There is more and more demand on the wireless networks. • There is more strain on the networks due to the increase in data -intensive devices, and the applicant was trying to enhance the capacity and coverage. • The applicant was Crown Castle, which is a large DAS and tower manufacturer. • The DAS system was like a hub -and -spoke system, all interdependent on one another, but there were some very specific constraints on how far apart these antennas can be placed. Mrs. Walker Skeoch expressed the following: • The address for the Painted Cove property management company was — Desert Management, P 0 Box 799, Rancho Mirage, and they had no knowledge of these proceedings. • She sells real estate and none of her clients would even look at a property that had any type of electromagnetic or radio frequency device anywhere near it. Whether it was an aesthetic, environmental, or health issue, it would not sell. • Mr. Slegg has pretty vast experience with some pretty serious cancers and anything that can be done to prevent any additional health issues should be taken into consideration for his sake as well as the children attending school and those at the Boys and Girls Club. • She asked the Commission to please consider the homeowners, for both the health and resale issues. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there was any further public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Alderson commented on: • The Commission having reviewed this type of application before, with the same issues being brought up, and the fact he was convinced they are not severe enough to be an issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 1-2 3 • The Commission had asked this company to relocate their equipment from the previous request, which they have done. • Notification was done within the scope of the law. • The Public Hearing allowed everyone to be heard in a democratic and proper way. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on: • He was also previously skeptical on these types of towers, but had the opportunity to do research on a macro tower that was near his personal property, but far enough away to allow his vote. • A macro tower has a bit more power than the DAS system. • Applicant cannot relocate from this site due to the "circle of coverage." • He was not a fan of this system until he did his own research and concluded there aren't any health -related issues to this type of system. • He personally understood Mr. Slegg's position and did the research to satisfy his curiosity. Commissioner Weber commented on: • The fact the Commission has reviewed towers and their aesthetics more than once. • Visual landscapes (aesthetics) are important and the applicant has complied with the Commission's requests on aesthetics and location. • The utility needs to go in at that location to make an effective coverage area. • An electric clock on a nightstand has more radio frequency than this device. • A low frequency device like this, on a public right-of-way, is one of the best solutions. • Pointed out high voltage power lines on the north side of Avenue 50 and the fact that this was not in that league. • Previously had a real estate license and did not believe this was going to degrade real estate values; as this was so minor. Vice Chairman Wright echoed his fellow Commissioners' comments and thanked all residents for attending. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2012-029 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2012-143 as submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 124 AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None 2. Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 — Certain Amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code: Chapter 9.160, Signs, and Certain Sections Related Thereto. Location: City-wide. Principal Planner Nesbit presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Planning Manager Sawyer pointed out the memo distributed with additional information with regard to two items: clarification of the short term rental signage provisions and the Chamber of Commerce comments. He recommended the language in the memo be included in the approval of this application. Vice Chairman Wright asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no further questions of staff, and the City being the applicant, Vice Chairman Wright asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Vice Chairman Wright closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. General discussion followed on: • Previous Commission meeting sign discussions. • Whether security signs were covered, to which staff stated they were currently not regulated. • The Chamber of Commerce letter and the Chamber's responsiveness. • Political sign deposits and their continuing need as encouragement for candidates to remove their signs in a timely manner. There being no further questions of staff, and the City being the applicant, Vice Chairman Wright asked if there was any public comment. There being no public comment, Vice Chairman Wright closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Weber to adopt Resolution 2012-030 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2012-111 as submitted and including the language in the memo provided to the Commission at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 125 AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None BUSINESS SESSION - None CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Report on City Council meetings of November 6 and 20, 2012. 2. Upcoming Council meeting attendance: Commissioner Alderson — December 4, 2012, Chairwoman Barrows — December 18, 2012, Commissioner Weber — Re- scheduled meeting date, January 2, 2013, and Commissioner Wilkinson — January 15, 2013 3. Commissioner Weber: Thanked the City again for payment of a portion of the APA Conference Registration fees, as well as kudos to Planning Director Les Johnson, who was the Co -Chair of the Conference, held at Rancho Las Palmas in Rancho Mirage. • Distributed materials regarding roundabouts. • Discussion of articles in The Desert Sun regarding SilverRock and a San Antonio -like theme approach. 4. Commissioner Alderson: • Commented on the "Request to Speak" form and the procedure for allowing public comment. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS 1. Joint Council Meeting: Discussion of new format change, which will include an update on the status of the City. The meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2013. If unable to attend please advise staff. 2. Discussion of Holiday Schedule — December 25, 2012 meeting will be cancelled. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 1`2 6 There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinson to adjourn this meeting at 8:46 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairman Wright NOES: None ABSENT: Chairwoman Barrows ABSTAIN: None Transcribed by Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. Respectfully submitted, A*W MONIKA RADEVA, Secretary City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 127 MARCH 19 MARCH 20 MARCH 30 APRIL 2 APRIL 3 APRIL 12 - 14 APRIL 16 APRIL 17 APRIL 19- 21 APRIL 26 - 28 APRIL 27 MAY 4 MAY 7 MAY 8 MAY 21 MAY 22 MAY 27 DEPARTMENT REPORT: 3 CITY COUNCIL'S UPCOMING EVENTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING COACHELLA MUSIC FESTIVAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING COACHELLA MUSIC FESTIVAL STAGECOACH COUNTRY MUSIC FESTIVAL COMMUNITY PICNIC AND BIRTHDAY BASH DOCUMENT SHRED DAY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING MEMORIAL DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED j:28" MARCH 2O13 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday ThUrsday Friday Saturday 2 Feb 2013 Apr2013 + S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9:30AMCVAG City Council 10:OOAMALRC Transportation - Meeting 2:00 PM Oversight Evans Board - CANCELLED a Quints Arts Festiva 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Daylight SwAngs 10o0Mi%b.9fe1r- 7:00 PM 9:OOAMRiv. Ct. 1100 AM CVAG 9:00AM Time Begins Henderson Planning Transportation- Converstation- Convention 8 300 PM Mtla. Commission Henderson Evans visdors Bureau -Evans Conumnry-FranMin 2:00 PM Special 12:00 PM Energy I Oversight Board Emimnental- 5.30PMCommrnily Meeting Evans Serrioes La Quinta Arts , 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 j„ City Council Meeting MICV E—cP 9:W-r,, a 3:00 PM Historic MWAMCVAcrw.— o.eo� Preservation �'it 2WPMW.il fl. 01 St Patricks " Day 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 4:30 PM Exec. 7:00 PM 12:00 PM Sunine - 9:00 AM Cmte. -Adoph Planning Adolph Household Commission Hazardous Waste Collection 31 129 A PRIL 2013 Sunday Mond�y Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 9:30AMCVAG City Council 10:00AMALRC Transportation- Evans Meeting 2:W PM Oversight Board - 4:00 PM Investment Advisory Board 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10:00AMPub. 7:00 PM 9:00 AM Riv. Ct. 11:OOAMCVAG Safety- Henderson Planning Commission Transportation- Henderson Comerstation- Evans 3:00 PM Mtns. Conservancy- 12:00 PM Energy Envtmnental- Franidin Evans 530 PM Community Services Coachella sic Festival 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 City Council Meeting "Omcvr»namc Bnr-Frangin to.DO Ml cvr; Homeba-OWome 3:00 PM Historic Preservation 9:OOAM Conventions visitors Bureau -Evans 2'00 PIA Omraight Board- Coachella Music 400 PIA Imeatrmnt Maisoryaoard Coachella N asic Festival 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4:30 PM Exec. Cmle. -Adoph 7:00 PM Planning Commission 12:00 PM Sunkne - Adolph 10:00 AM Community Picnic and Birthday Bash Coachella Music Stagecoach Gou try Music Festival 28 29 30 May 2013 Mar 2013 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 Stagecoach 13 0" MAY 2013 Sunday Monday 1 2 3 4 Apr 2013 Jun 2013 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 10:OOAMALRC 7:00 AM-11:00 AM Document 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 4:00 PM Shred Day 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Investment Advisory Board 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9:30 AM CVAG City Council 9:00AMRiv. Ct. 11:00 AM CVAG Transportation- Meeting Transportation- Converstation- Evans Henderson Evans 2:00 PM Oversight 12:00 PM Energy I Board- Envimnental- Evans 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Mothers Day 10:00AMPub. 7:00 PM 8:OOAMCV 3:00 PM 9:OOAM Safety- Planning Economic Ptnr- Historic Convention Henderson Commission Franklin Preservation Visitors Bureau -Evans 3:00 PM Mtns. 10:OOAM CVAG Conservancy- Homeless - Frani in Osbome 5:30 PM 4:00 PM Community Investment Services Advisory Board 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City Council 12:00 PM Sunine - Meeting Adolph 2:00 PM Oversight Board - 26 27 28 29 30 31 4:30 PM Exec 7:00 PM Care.-Adoph Planning Commission CITY HALL CLOSED - MEMORIAL DAY 131:; : Department Report: �— 11 WI TA 4 N C NOFT TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Les Johnson, Community Development Di DATE: March 19, 2013 RE: Community Development Department Rep 2013 Attached please find the following data for the Planning, Building, and Code Compliance Divisions for the month of February 2013: • Exhibit A — Planning Division monthly report outlining 29 new cases in process. • Exhibit B — Planning Commission activity report identifying 290,408 square feet of commercial space approved during the current fiscal year. • Exhibit C — Building permit statistics showing year-to-date building permit valuation of $7,643,248, which includes the issuance of 199 building permits. • Exhibit D — Code Compliance statistical report showing 86 initiated cases, 103 completed cases, and $940 generated revenue by garage sale permits. • Exhibit E — Animal Control statistical report identifying 161 cases. 132 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT REPORT FEBRUARY 2013 PROJECT TYPE DESCRIPTION Appeal 0 submitted Conditional Use Permits 0 submitted Development Agreements 0 submitted Environmental Assessments 1 submitted Final Landscaping Plans 0 submitted General Plan Amendment 0 submitted Minor Adjustments 0 submitted Minor Use Permits 1 submitted Modification By Applicant 1 submitted Preliminary Review 1 submitted Sign Permits — Temporary Signs 0 submitted Sign Permits 9 submitted Site Development Permits 2 submitted Specific Plans 1 submitted Street Name Change 0 submitted Tentative Parcel Maps 0 submitted Tentative Tract Maps 1 submitted Temporary Use Permits 9 -submitted Village Use Permits 0 submitted Zone Change 0 submitted Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1 submitted TOTAL 29 NEW CASES SUBMITTED INSPECTIONS AND PLAN CHECKS Subdivision/SDP, etc. Plan checks Cove Checks 7 performed 4 performed M X LV!J 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIVITY JULY 1, 2012 TO FEBRUARY 28, 2013** PROJECT TYPE DESCRIPTION Architectural Design Review 0 submitted Appeal 2 submitted Conditional Use Permits 5 submitted Development Agreements 1 submitted Environmental Assessments 2 submitted Final Landscaping Plans 0 submitted General Plan Amendment 2 submitted Modification by Applicant 0 submitted Right -of -Way Vacation 0 submitted Sign Permits 0 submitted Site Development Permits 2 submitted Specific Plans 1 submitted Street Name Change 0 submitted Tentative Parcel Maps 1 submitted Tentative Tract Maps 0 submitted Village Use Permits 1 submitted Zone Change 1 submitted Zoning Ordinance Amendments 3 submitted TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS APPROVED 0 TOTAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE APPROVED 290,408 **No Planning Commission Meetings were held in August or December. m x 3 CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS 2013 2012 2011 Permits Issued Total Valuation (dollars) Permits Issued Total Valuation (dollars) Permits Issued Total Valuation (dollars) Month SFD Total SFD Total SFD Total January 17 101 4,930,327 2 80 1,679,690 3 109 4,132,179 February 6 98 2,712,921 4 94 3,011,690 3 95 2,690,022 March 0 0 0 2 1401 15,333,211 5 101 2,377,069 April 0 0 0 5 119 3,711,806 3 104 3,315,293 May 0 0 0 7 129 4,625,150 5 128 4,131,790 June 0 0 0 5 119 4,456,327 7 141 4,106,444 July 0 0 0 2 119 2,242,503 2 106 3,622,237 August 0 0 0 10 162 7,705,759 1 112 2,124,649 September 0 0 0 8 95 1,897,661 5 107 3,842,435 October 0 0 0 8 183 6,513,434 0 127 2,204,746 November 0 0 0 8 89 3,170,354 5 104 2,004,095 December 0 0 0 0 69 1,802,130 2 81 3,311,055 Total 23 199 7,643,248 61 1,398 56,149,715 411,324 37,862,014 PERMIT STATISTICS BY APPLICATION TYPE FOR THE PERIOD 2/01/13 THRU 2/26/13 CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR ISSUED PERMITS OF ALL PERMIT TYPES DEPARTMENT - BUILDING & SAFETY -- ----- THIS PERIOD - --- -- --'--- SAME PERIOD PREV YEAR -- - - APPLICATION TYPE APPLS PERMITS APPL VALUATN FEES APPLS PERMITS APPL VALUATN FEES AC ADDITION COMMERCIAL 1 3 45000 704.25 0 0 0 .00 AR ADDITION - RESIDENTIAL 1 3 45000 734.68 5 20 122639 2609.78 BLCK WALL/FENCE 16 18 127891 1589.50 10 12 33137 776.82 DEMO DEMO - COMML/OTHER 1 1 0 45.00 1 1 20000 45.00 D34 DEMO - 3& 4 FAMILY 0 0 0 .00 1 1 12500 .00 DS DEMO - 5 OR MORE FAMILY 0 0 0 .00 2 2 29780 .00 ELEC ELECTRICAL 5 5 2025 164.31 8 B 26500 273.00 MECH MECHANICAL 13 13 130413 656.90 14 14 166061 894. 90 PAT PATIO COVER - RESIDENTIAL 7 7 24320 691.50 6 6 24285 635.25 PLBG PLUMBING 12 13 19016 346.34 7 7 13629 204.40 RER REMODEL - RESIDENTIAL 10 31 57900 1861.84 11 20 143460 3062.11 RPL POOL - RESIDENTIAL - 8 32 238411 4755.46 12 49 289100 6169.98 RR RE -ROOF 4 4 26317 120.00 1 1 17915 30.00 SFD DWELLING - SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 6 29 1830128 17164.21 5 21 2850618 15764.37 SIGN SIGN 4 5 16500 218-10 1 1 0 33.00 SOL SOLAR 0 0 0 .00 3 6 187443 168.78 SOTS STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDINGS 6 12 82000 1689.57 1 2 2262 111.60 SPIN SPECIAL INSPECTION 4 4 68000 400.00 1 1 1500 100.00 TT TEMPORARY TRAILER 0 0 0 .00 1 1 500 200.00 TOTALS: 98 180 2712921 31141.66 90 173 3941329 31078.99 Q% 2013 Code Compliance Statistical Report ABATEMENTS Jan I Feb Mar Apr May Jun I Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year To Date NUISANCE ABATEMENTS Property Maintenance Started 29 66 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 Completed 104 71 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 175 Zoning Code Violations Started 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Completed 16 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 WEED ABATEMENTS Started 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Completed 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 VEHICLE ABATEMENTS Started 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Completed 12 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS Started 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Completed 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Total Started 48 86 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 134 Total Completed 143 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 246 Case Follow -Ups 199 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 BUSINESS LICENSE INSPEC Started 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Completed 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 GARAGE SALE PERMITS 67 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 GOLF CART PERMITS 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 HOME OCCUPATION INSPEC 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 MASSAGE PERMITS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 POOL DRAINING PERMITS 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 w J 2013 Animal Control Statistical Report ANIMAL PICK-UPS Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year To Date Dogs Alive 22 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Dead 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Owner Turn In (OTI) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Cats Alive 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Dead 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Owner Turn In (OTI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Animals Alive 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Dead 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Owner Turn In (OTI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Animal Pick -Ups Alive 32 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 Dead 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Owner Turn In (OTI) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Animals Removed 41 31 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 INCIDENTS HANDLED Bite Reports 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 " Animal Trap Set Ups 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Cruelty to Animals 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Vicious Animal Restraining 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Zoning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lost/Found 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Outside Agency 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other 94 1 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 Total Incidents Handled 95 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 VIOLATIONS Dogs at Large 10 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Noise Disturbance 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Animal Welfare 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 License Violation 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Other 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Total Violations 36 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 Total Monthly Incidents 172 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 333 h—' w co Department Report: It T3 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Les Johnson, Community Development Director DATE: March 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Department Report - Indio Polo Fields Goldenvoice Concerts — Status Update In preparation for this year's concerts, general operations meetings as well as meeting with neighboring homeowners associations continue. Over the past month, Goldenvoice, Indio and La Quinta staff have attended meetings with representatives from the Codorniz, Carmela, The Hideaway and Polo Estates homeowners associations. Most neighboring communities have now met with the Goldenvoice, Indio and La Quinta staff. Consistent with last year, the Media Plan for the three April concerts is scheduled to be released the third week of March and will intensify leading up to and during the three concert weekends. The Plan calls for utilizing local TV stations, The Desert Sun, The Indio/La Quinta Sun, local radio stations, as well as other La Quinta resources (Chamber of Commerce, LQYSA, Community Services e- newsletter, Facebook, Tourism website, etc.). The media blast will focus upon ingress/egress routes and times, alternate routes, road closures, taxi and parent drop off and pick-up locations, and the concert hotline. Representatives from Goldenvoice (Darren Carroll), Indio (Jim Curtis) and La Quinta (Les Johnson) will be the public points of contact for all three concerts, available to respond to and assist with resident concerns and issues relevant to the music festivals. La Quinta police presence is anticipated to be similar to last year during all three music festivals. In addition to the concerts, on March 11, 2013, staff received the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Indio Music Festivals Plan. The report provides a written response to each comment received, including the letter submitted by the City of La Quinta. A copy of the response to the City of La Quinta comment letter is attached. 130 Letter No. 5 P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 78-495 CALLe TAMPICO (760) 777-7000 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101 February 11, 2013 City of Indio Planning Department 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 Attn: Joseph Lim, Planning Manager RE: Music Festivals Plan, City of Indio — Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2012081085) Dear Mr. Lim, Thank you for providing the City of La Quints ("La Quints") the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Music Festivals Plan (the "Project' or "project' herein). La Quints greatly appreciates the City of Indio and the applicant, Goldenvoice, LLC, for conducting the extensive review and consideration given to fully address the impacts associated with the existing and future music festivals. La Quints believes that the DEIR needs additional information in order to fully understand and clearly assess all applicable impacts associated with the Project. Comments according to sections of the DEIR are provided as follows: 2.0 Public Services It is understood that in order to achieve a level of non -significance for police services, the City of Indio would contract with other public agencies to utilize off -duty police officers with costs to be reimbursed by Goldenvoice. The Project identifies the relationship and coordination with City of Indio Police but does not make reference to La Quints. Although La Quinta has been included in operations and closely worked 1 with the City of Indio and Goldenvoice representatives the past two concert seasons, this has not always been the case. Due to adjacency of the event site to La Quints, there is a need to ensure that La Quinta will continue to be a part of the coordinated effort in the future, including reimbursement for expense of additional services necessary during the music festivals. On a case by case basis, Goldenvoice has historically provided additional private security for residential communities adjacent to or within close proximity to the event grounds. What mechanisms are and will continue to be in place (i.e. inclusion into the Project Description, Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures, 2 contracts/agreements, etc.) to ensure that these necessary services will continue to be provided in the future? Meridian consultants 002 001-13 2.0-42 Music FeANals Plon Final FIR March 2013 140 3.0 Protect Description La Quints noted in its letter of Sept 28, 2012 regarding the Notice of Preparation (copy attached) that the DEIR should address the holding of other special events on the site and their cumulative impacts. Mitigation should include consideration of the cumulative impacts associated with all annual events held or contemplated for the entire 600 acre o site. It appears that the project description does not include an inventory of other major events, though other year-round events are referred to in the Land Use section of the DEIR. La Quints questions whether the baseline analysis considers other ongoing special events as part of cumulative impact analysis. No statements in the Project Objectives address any other events that could be held on the Festival Site. The proposed Major Music Festival Event Permit Ordinance (Ordinance) is assumed to also facilitate other events meeting its criteria. However, it appears the Ordinance is tailored specifically to the thresholds of the project itself; the applicability of the Ordinance to other potential festivals is unclear. There is no draft of FAI the Ordinance provided in the DEIR, and La Quints requests that the City of Indio respond with the status of this Ordinance and, if available, that a copy of a preliminary review draft be provided. • Approximate timing for the Fall music events have not been identified and should be included in the DEIR. • Several festival operational plans are identified in Section 3.0, beginning on page 3.0-9. It should be noted that the operational plans have historically been shared with La Quints and are expected to be in the future as well. • While not a direct CEQA issue, it is requested that La Quints be consulted on terms of ❑ the Project Development Agreement as noted in the DEIR in order to determine the potential impact upon neighboring La Quints residents and property owners. 4.1 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 requires interim Tier 4 level heavy equipment and generators, and is the only proposed mitigation measure. However, this Section identifies several Festival Plan Features to be incorporated into the Operations Plans discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description. It is stated that these features were a "taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts", but are not actually in place, as they are yet to be incorporated into the operational plans. Please clarify if these Festival Plan Features are to be considered as mitigation measures. Dust is potentially significant during peak vehicle and pedestrian flows, especially at the end of shows. In addition to FPF AQ-1 listed on Page S-6, consideration needs to be made to pave or apply an appropriate dust control or soil stabilization agent designed 9 for heavy traffic flow on all main driveways and pathways. This effort should also include measures to address material track -out from unpaved roads and parking areas onto paved roadways. - Music Festivals Plan, City of Indio - Draft Environmental Impact Report Merldlnn Consultants 002-001-12 2.0-43 Page 2 Music Festivals Plan Final EIR March 2013 141 4.4 Noise The Draft EIR correctly cites La Quinta's noise ordinance exterior dBA levels as 55 dBA from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and 45 dBA from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM, for noise consisting of music or speech. Based on the ten-minute average noise period durations cited in the 16 document (pp. 4.4-33 to 4.4-36), the above noise level standards of the La Quints Municipal Code would be violated on a continuing basis during these events. The City's noise standards were established to "prevent excessive sound levels which are detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety or which are contrary to the public interest." ILQMC 9.100.210AI In light of this, of particular concern are the stated impacts from low -frequency noise levels at Madison/Avenue 52 and Monroe/Avenue 52, 11 Residential properties in La Quints located west of Madison and south of Avenue 52 have historically been directly impacted by noise associated with these events. The most impactful noise has been from the event music particularly evident during the late evening and early morning hours, which are most sensitive to occupied residential properties. A Sound Management Program "SMP" is proposed as a noise mitigation measure IMM Noise-11. The DER states that implementation of "the sound system management concepts listed will provide a substantial reduction in offsite noise levels, particularly low frequency sound." However, the level of significance after mitigation will not ensure compliance with La Quinta noise standards. The DEIR also states that "short-term music 12 performance noise impacts will remain significant and unavoidable." The conclusion that noise impacts are significant and unavoidable needs to include supporting evidence that a reduction in sound volumes is infeasible based on reasonable rationale. If the SMP is implemented and allows sound engineers to monitor noise level measurements, it appears feasible for sound levels to be adjusted as necessary in order to achieve nominal limits. The Festival Plan identifies concert end times of 1:00 AM on Friday and Saturday, 12:00 AM on Sunday for higher attendance festivals. Lower attendance festivals are to end at 12:00 AM every evening. In addition, entertainment in camping areas is prohibited after 1:30 AM. What consideration was given to adjusting these times? For example, establishing earlier concert and camping entertainment end times combined with 13 aforementioned SMP could make a substantial difference to. the health, welfare and safety for those residing in close proximity to the event site. It is recommended consideration be given to establishing a noise curfew of 12:00 AM for large festivals, including entertainment in camping areas, and for lower attendance festivals to have a noise curfew of 11:00 PM. La Quinta strongly emphasizes that greater efforts to reduce music performance noise levels, combined with earlier event ending times, would provide realistic mitigation and 14 relief for the residential uses surrounding the event grounds. 4.6 Traffic & Transportation Festival Plan efforts over the past few years have made a significant positive impact upon traffic congestion associated with the festivals. The shuttle operation and improvements 15 to the Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 intersection are both examples of this. Coordination Music Festivals Plan, City of Indio - Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 3 Meddian O rvultants 2.0-44 Musk Festivals Plan Final f/R 002-00] 12 March 2013 it 142 with La Quinta is imperative for the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR, especially with several roads and intersections identified in MM TR2-1 either being within La Quinta 1$ or shared with the City of Indio. The document needs to address the importance of such coordination. Traffic mitigation appears focused on the temporary impacts of the Project. In reality, the impacts are considered long-term as the proposed permit life under the proposed Ordinance is 20 years. While impacts can be characterized as short duration, it is not appropriate to consider them as temporary. It can be argued that the 'buildout' for this Project would be 20 years from the permit inception. Based on the life of the permit, it is not considered 16 appropriate to address the traffic impacts of the Project and formulate associated mitigation based on the 2014 analysis year. Therefore, the La Quinta has concerns related to improvements associated with corridors (street segmental not built to ultimate design, such as Avenue 50, Madison Street, Avenue 52 and Monroe Street. The following comments are specific to the Traffic Study in the Appendix: A. Page 1-4: The key time periods were studied on Friday, Saturday and Monday. However, there is heavy inbound flow on the Thursday prior to these events that 17 creates impacts to critical intersections. This time should also be studied. B. Figures II- 5a to 5e from the Mobility 'Group are dated October 2012 which does not 18 include seasonal traffic. If the counts in these figures are from October 2012, they should be revised to include season traffic which peaks in March of each year. C. Tables VI-1 and VI-3: The mitigation measures in these tables rely on cones and traffic control personnel. The DEIR should address how these mitigation measures will be enforced and ensure that they will always implement these measures during peak festival traffic conditions. There will be significant impacts to several intersections and street segments in the City of La Quinta for a minimum of 20 days a year. The intersections of Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 as well as Jefferson Street and 19 Avenue 50 operate at Level of Service F with event traffic. Temporary traffic control changes are offered as mitigation measures. However, La Quinta residents have already expressed strong concerns about the traffic congestion, caused by the festival events and unavoidable delays experienced accessing their residences during festival events. The DEIR should consider a falrshare contribution to the following improvements: • Constructing a traffic signal or a roundabout at Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 IO • Constructing a permanent additional westbound through lane at Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 which can also be used as a second right -turn lane during festival 21 events • Constructing Improvements to the existing roundabout at Jefferson Street and 22 Avenue 52 D, Page VI-5: There is no discussion about mitigation measures for the heavy outbound 23 traffic flows that have been observed on Jefferson Street on Monday mornings after Music Festivals Plan, City of Indio — Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 4 Meridian consultants 2.0-45 Music Festivals Plan Final OR 002-0 1-12 March 2013 143 the event is over and there is a mass exodus of event traffic northbound towards the I- 10 freeway. One potential mitigation measure that the DEIR should consider would be to implement a 150 second cycle coordination plan that would give at least 60 to 70 23 seconds of green time to Jefferson Street. This would have to be done for all the intersections on Jefferson Street from Avenue 49 to Indio Boulevard. E. Page VI-7: The traffic study identifies the need to widen Avenue 52 from Monroe Street to Clinton Street. The DEIR should consider extending the widening of Avenue 52 to the west to Madison Street. The DEIR should also consider widening Avenue 50 24 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street to four lanes for its entire length to provide better access for the events as well as for La Quinta and City of Indio residents during festival event traffic conditions. F. Various tables in the traffic study use font sizes that are too small to read. They should 25 be reformatted to improve legibility. 5.0 Alternatives The Alternatives section mentions a Noise Reduction Alternative, which considers changes to the design and operation of the sound system used for the main stage to determine if these changes would reduce the noise impacts of the Project to a less than significant — level. Has a reconfiguration of the event grounds been analyzed in terms of noise impact? For instance, what would be the noise impact if the main stage were located near the southwest corner of the performance area, with sound system pointed towards the north north? 6.0 Effects Not Found To Be Significant From the City of La Quinta's perspective, there are some concerns in regard to lighting impacts which should be addressed: • The DEIR does not specifically mention or analyze temporary offsite security lighting located along the event ground perimeter, entrancestexits, and within surrounding 27 street right-of-ways. Impact upon adjacent residential areas needs to be considered and measures identified to minimize impact. • A photometric plan, where site lighting designed and located so as to confine direct light within the event ground boundaries, should be submitted to La Quinta for review 28 as part of the Major Music Festival Permit. One item not fully identified in the EIR is the economic impact associated with the music festivals. It is our understanding that a detailed economic analysis has been conducted and that the results of the analysis will be released shortly. Over the past few years, La Quints, along with several other communities in the Coachella Valley, has seen a 29 substantial economic gain from the existing two music festivals. Taxes generated from hotel occupancy, sales of food and general goods, combined with services provided and the creation of numerous short-term jobs have benefited the City. It is anticipated that Music Festivals Plan, City of India - Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 5 Mendion Consultants 2.0-46 Music Festfvals Plan Pool EIR 002-00141 Morc• 1013 144 two additional music festival events will provide a similar positive economic impact to the La Quinta and the Coachella Valley. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Music Festivals. Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. We request that these clarifications> and 'correctionsbe made in the Final EIR. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office, n as Jo son Community Development Director Attachment cc: Mayor and City Council Frank Spevacek, City Manager Tim Johnasson, Public Works Director Music Festivals Plan, City of Indio - Draft Environmental Impact Report Meridian Consultants 2,0-47 001L01-11 :1 9 Page 6 Music FestNoe Plan Final EIR March 2013 145 2.0 Responses to Comments Comment Letter No. 5 City of La Quinta Leslohnson Community Development Director 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92247 Response to Comment 5-1 As discussed on page 4.5.2-5 of the Draft EIR in Section 4.5.2, Police Services, the City of Indio contracts directly with other public agencies to use off -duty officers to supplement the City of Indio police personnel used at the Music Festival events to avoid any impact to the level of staffing available for regular patrols throughout the rest of the City of Indio. The Police Department Operations Plan identified in Festival Plan Feature Land Use-1 on page 4.3-16 of the Draft EIR, identifies the police personnel resources used by the City of Indio for the Music Festival events. In the past two years, the Applicant has provided funding directly to the City of La Quinta for a four - officer police task force from the la Quinta Police Department to provide law enforcement services within the City of La Quinta during the Coachella and Stagecoach Festivals. The Festival Operator would continue to provide funding to the City of La Quinta for this level of supplemental police service in the future. The following Festival Plan Feature (FPF) has been added in recognition of this commitment by the Festival Operator: FPF Pol 3 The Festival Operator will continue to reimburse the City of La Quinta for the cost of four police officers to provide additional service in residential neighborhoods in La Quinta during the Future Festivals. As with all of the Festival Plan Features, this Festival Plan Feature would be a condition of approval on the Major Music Festival Event Permit. The City of Indio appreciates the past and ongoing involvement of City of La Quinta staff in the operations planning for these Music Festival Events and looks forward to the continued involvement of the City of La Quinta in the operations planning for future events. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council In their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-2 The mechanism in place to continue to provide additional private security is the Private Security Plan (Festival Plan Feature FPF Pol 1), as described in Section 3.0, Project Description on page 3.0-10 and Section 4.5.2, Police Services on pages 4.5.2-4— 4.5.2-5 of the Draft FIR. The Private Security Plan would be prepared by the Festival Operator in coordination with the Police Department for each Festival and McHdbn Conau@onts 2.0-48 Music festwo/s ftn 0.1 OR W23 1 11 March 2013 146 Z.0 Responses to Comments would describe the number of uniformed State -licensed private security guards to be provided by the Festival Operator to supplement the sworn public law enforcement personnel at each Future Festival. The private security services provided would be adjusted as needed through annual updates of the Private Security Plan. FPF Pol 1 has been revised to clarify the Private Security Plan would address the provision of private security for residential neighborhoods adjacent or nearby to the Future Festival Site in the Cities of Indio and La Quinta. Please see Section 3.0 of this Final EIR, Revisions to the Draft EIR for this revision. As with all of the Festival Plan Features, the Private Security Plan Festival Plan Feature would be a condition of approval on the Major Music Festival Event Permit. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-3 Other special events held on the Project site are described in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, and as indicated in this comment, these existing events are part of the environmental baseline. As described on page 2.1-18 of the Draft EIR, the Empire Polo Club is used for polo matches and special events such as the Southwest Arts Festival, the Coachella Valley Cyclefest, and the Palm Springs Dog Show. The Medjhool Lake area is used for special events, such as weddings and private parties. These events are further described on page 2.0-20: "The Empire Polo Club is a 130-acre, multi -use facility that hosts a variety of special events in addition to hosting polo events. The 2012 regular polo season extended from January 6 to April 1, 2012 with games held every Friday night and on Sundays at 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM. Preseason games were also held between November 25 and December 18, 2011. As discussed above, the Empire Polo Club contains a 48,000 square foot event pavilion and 24,000 square feet of additional covered event space and hosts a number of special events. In January 2012, a series of special events were hosted at the Empire Polo Club including the Palm Springs Dog Show, a lacrosse tournament, and the Southwest Arts Festival. The Empire Polo Club also hosted the American Cancer Society Relay for Life in March 2012 and the Coachella Valley Cyclefest In late October 2012. The Empire Polo Club also hosts weddings at three different venues within the Club grounds. The Empire Polo Club also includes the Tack Room Tavern,.a restaurant that is also available for special events." It should be noted that these other special events are authorized through separate permits issued by the City through the Indio Ranchos-Polos Resorts Specific Plan, which allows seasonal and entertainment uses, including concerts, symphonies, festivals, and fairs, subject to the issuance of annual event and special event permits as described on page 4.3-9 of the Draft EIR. No other special events would be held on the Future Festival Site at the same time the Future Festivals would be held, and for this reason, the Project would not contribute to cumulative special event impacts on the Project site. Me'dw Consulmntr 2.0-49 Music Fe U.h Plan Final EIR 002-001-12 March 2013 e 147 2.0 Responses to Comments Appendix 4.0 to the Draft EIR contains a list of annual special events held throughout the Coachella Valley. As to cumulative impact analysis, for those impact areas where additional special events were relevant to the analysis, the cumulative impact analysis considered other special events. See Draft EIR Section 4.2 (Biological Resources, 4.2-11 — 4.2-12) and Section 4.3 (Land Use & Planning, 4.3-25 — 4.3- 27). All other impact analysis areas analyze cumulative impacts based on concurrent events. The list indicates that other special events do not occur concurrently with the Music Festivals or immediately before or after the Music Festivals on the Future Festival Site. In addition, no other events held on the site have the attendance level of the Existing or Future Festivals. For these reasons, no significant cumulative impacts from other special events held on the site and the Future Festivals as proposed are anticipated. In addition, the City of Indio will review the potential cumulative impacts of other events as applications are received for these events. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-4 The Major Music Festival Event Permit, which is required by the proposed Ordinance, is the limiting approval and would only allow the five events as described in Section 3.0, Project Description and as analyzed in the Draft EIR. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Ordinance limits the number of Major Music Festival Events to no more than five events annually (3 events in Spring, 2 events in Fall). If the proposed Major Music Festival Event Permit is approved, no additional Major Music Festival Events could be held, as the Permit would authorize the maximum of five events that the Ordinance would allow. It should be noted that there is currently no limit on the number of special events that could be held on the Future Festival Site and the proposed Ordinance would limit the number of Major Music Festival Events, as defined in the proposed Ordinance, which would be allowed in the Overlay area annually. The proposed Ordinance was on file at the City of Indio, as required by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(c)(5), and was available for public review when the Draft EIR was released. As such, the City complied with the CEQA Guidelines. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-5 The exact timing for the Future Festivals to be held in Fall has not been determined at this time by the Applicant. However, according to the Applicant, there is an approximate end date by which the Fall music events would be held, which is limited by the start of the Polo season in November that requires the fields to be reseeded and stabilized prior to use by horses. In addition, early Fall (mid -September to early October) is traditionally too hot to be able to hold outdoor festivals in the Coachella Valley as daytime temperatures can still be in the low 100s. The polo season typically begins at the end of November and the polo grounds need to be ready for play at this time. The fields are typically reseeded Meridbn rnnsaltonts 2.0-50 Maslc Festhed, Plan Flna) EIR 002-001-12 March 2013 n 148 2.0 Responses to Comments in late October in order to give the new grass time to grow and become established before play begins on the fields. Additionally, polo horses typically begin to arrive in the beginning of November in preparation of Polo tournaments and the Polo season. For these reasons, the approximate timing of the Fall Events is anticipated to occur no later than the end of October or the first weekend in November. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-6 After the City of Indio approves the Operations Plans for the Future Festivals, these plans will be provided to the City of La Quinta. As noted In Response to Comment 5-1 above, the City of Indio appreciates the past and ongoing involvement of City of La Quinta staff in the operations planning for these Music Festival Events and looks forward to the continued involvement of the City of La Quinta in the operations planning for future events. Response to Comment 5-7 The draft Development Agreement was available in the public file at the City of Indio when the Draft EIR was released for public review. The draft Development Agreement is intended to vest the rights granted through the requested proposed Major Music Festival Event Permit. As such, there are no separate proposed Development Agreement "impacts" that required analysis. Further, the benefits that accrue to the City of Indio pursuant to the Development Agreement will be taken into account when balancing the unmitigable impacts against the benefits of the Project when the City contemplates whether a statement of overriding considerations and approval of the Project is appropriate. The City of La Quinta was and is welcome to submit any comments it may have on the proposed Development Agreement at the hearings held before the City of Indio Planning Commission and City Council. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-8 Certain Festival Plan Features (FPFs) are identified in the operational plans and are features that would reduce the potential air quality impacts of the Project. These were taken into account when conducting the air quality analysis. Many of the FPFs are derived from conditions on the Current Agreement which are from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403. These FPFs were implemented during the Existing Festivals and would continue to be implemented as described in the Operational Plans for the Future Festivals. Therefore, they are features of the Project and not considered as mitigation for the Project. The continued implementation of these FPFs, as well as all other FPFs, would be made as conditions of approval on the proposed Major Music Festival Event Permit. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Meddivo Consullant5 2.0-51 Music FestNols Plon Final EIR 002-001-12 - Moth 2013 it 149 2.0 Responses to Comments Response to Comment 5-9 The Project includes features for fugitive dust control. As described in FPF AQ-1, the Festival Operator would apply water along heavy traffic flow areas on all main driveways and pathways prior to the use of these areas, as well as "continuously" during each day of the Future Festivals. It should be noted that the access road along the northern and eastern perimeter of the Performance Area, which was unpaved prior to the release of the Draft EIR, has recently been paved by the property owner, which will reduce the amount of dust generation during the Future Festivals. In addition, the City is currently improving Monroe Street and Madison Street adjacent to the Future Festival Site and these improvements include widening the street to add additional paved lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalks in place of the unpaved shoulders, which will also reduce dust generation. As required by Mitigation Measure TR 3-1, the Avenue 52 between Monroe Street and Clinton Street will also be widened. The improvement would reduce additional fugitive dust emissions along this stretch of Avenue 52. The SCAQMD identifies fugitive dust control measures required for grading and construction activities in Rule 4037 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 403.1 (Supplemental Fugitive Dust Control Requirements for Coachella Valley Sources).g As the SCAQMD is the air district with jurisdiction over the Salton Sea Air Basin, FPF AQ-1, as described above, has been derived from the SCAQMD Rule 403 and Rule 403.1 to minimize dust emissions. The Festival Operator rents the properties used for these events on a short-term basis and does not own the properties that make up the Future Festival Site. Per the rental agreements, the Festival Operator cannot make any permanent improvements to these properties, such as paving areas that are currently unpaved. The individual property owners can, however, make these improvements. For example, as discussed above, the owner of the Empire Polo Club paved the main internal roadway located on the north and east of the Performance Area. This is the main production road used by heavy equipment during the events. This improvement would result in a substantial reduction in fugitive dust generation from the amount estimated in the Draft EIR air quality technical analysis. In addition, a large portion of the unpaved areas included in the Future Festival Site used for parking and camping consists of turf areas In the Eldorado and Empire Polo Clubs. The turf areas are also less likely to result in fugitive dust generation or trackout because of the vegetation. These turf areas cannot be paved as they are used for polo. Paving of heavily trafficked areas would mean that large portions of the turf fields would become permanently impervious thus minimizing use of the Empire and El Dorado Polo Clubs for the polo season and would result in additional Impervious areas within the Future Festival 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Rule 403 Fugitive Dust," http://www.agmd.gov/rules/reg/ reg04/r403.pdf. 8 Ibid., 'Rule 403 Supplemental Fugitive Dust Control Requirements for Coachella Valley Sources," http://www.agmd.gov/rules/reg/rego4/r403-i.pdf. Moidian Cansultann 2.0-52 Music Festivals Plan Final EIR 002-001-12 March 2013 150 2.0 Responses to Comments Site thus limiting penetration of rainfall and increasing "heat island effect" within the Future Festival Site. Dust suppressants are used to minimize fugitive dust emissions and control erosion and maintenance costs on unpaved roads and lots. The mechanisms by which suppressants abate dust vary with product type; some form crusts or protective surfaces on the soil, others act as binding agents causing particles to agglomerate together, and some attract moisture to the soil particles. Many chemical dust suppressants applied to unpaved roads form a hardened surface that binds particles together. Thus, chemical stabilization changes the physical characteristics of the surface. The majority of the heavy traffic areas consist of grass field areas in the Empire and Eldorado Polo Clubs. The use of chemical dust suppressants would not be ideal for these areas because the chemical dust suppressants would alter the surface, thus potentially impacting the grass and future growth of grass within the polo grounds, which would deteriorate the playability of the turf for polo matches. Dust suppressants would likely breakdown quicker within the heavy traffic areas of the Future Festival Site and would result in greater use than typical use on unpaved roads. Continual application would be required to provide adequate dust abatement. As stated in FPF AQ-1, the use of dust suppressants after the Future Festivals within the unpaved parking areas would occur if determined to be necessary by the City of Indio Public Works Director. For these reasons, watering unpaved roads and parking areas is considered the most appropriate and effective dust control measure during the events. With regard to soil track -out from unpaved parking and roads on the site, the Applicant provides for street cleaning after completion of the events under existing conditions and will continue this practice at the end of the Future Festival weekends. With these measures and as indicated in Table 4.1-19 in the Draft EIR, potential local PM10 and PM2.5 impacts are less than significant. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-10 The Draft EIR disclosed that noise levels would be temporarily higher than the standards in the City of La Quinta's noise Ordinance, as indicated in this comment. While the Project is located within the City of Indio, the standards in the City of La Quinta Noise Ordinance were used as a threshold to determine potential noise impacts within the La Quinta residential areas adjacent to the Future Festival Site. As a matter of conservative analysis, the Draft EIR used this standard as one of the thresholds for determining the significance of noise impacts in response to the City of La Quinta's request. Based on this conservative analysis, it was determined that Project noise levels would exceed the City of La Quinta's exterior noise standard, as discussed in the Section 4.4 in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 is designed to reduce the impact to the extent feasible, however, it still remains significant. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. W,Wlan consultants 2.0-53 Music FestArals Plan Final EIR W2 WI-12 March 2013 151 1.0 Responses to Comments Response to Comment 5-11 Please refer to the Noise Topical Response Section 2.0(B) regarding music performance sound, which addresses low frequency noise. Low frequency sound can travel relatively long distances In comparison to higher frequency sound because it has a relatively long wavelength and is absorbed less as it travels through the air. Low frequency noise also has non -directional transmission or propagation characteristics which results in the effect of low frequency sound enveloping the individual without any discernible localized source. As discussed on page 4.4-55 in Section 4.4, Noise of the Draft EIR, implementation of the Sound Management Plan (SMP) would also reduce low frequency noise from the music performance sound system on average 3 dB, which would result in 61.8 dB at Madison Street/Avenue 52 and 59.4 dB at Monroe Street/Avenue 52. Therefore, low frequency noise levels would be below the 65 dB threshold at the major intersections at the edges of the site and impacts would be less than significant. Low frequency noise would likely still be noticeable off the site as the noise levels would be above 45 dB. Please refer to Response to Comment 5-12 below. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-12 Please refer to the Noise Topical Response Section 2.0(B) regarding music performance sound, which discusses the mitigation proposed to reduce sound levels. The proposed SMP would be required for Future Festivals and would result in a substantial reduction in sound energy (75 percent) from the outdoor performance stages that would result in the noise level being perceived as 25 percent lower in the residential neighborhoods around the Future Festival Site. The 25 percent reduction in the average noise levels during the Future Festivals will be from the measured sound levels during the Existing Festivals in 2012, as presented in the Draft EIR. The SMP includes provisions that would allow sound engineers designing and operating the sound system for the primary outdoor stages to implement new technologies and make adjustments based on the sound monitoring data provided during each Future Festival. However, In order to meet the noise requirements identified in the La Quinta Municipal Code, the sound volumes at the noise monitor locations would need to decrease approximately 15 dB. This was analyzed as part of an alternative in Section 5.0, Alternatives in the Draft EIR Noise Reduction Alternative, as discussed in the Noise Topical Response. As determined by the analysis of this Alternative and as explained in the Noise Topical Response, it is not feasible to reduce the sound level from Future Festivals to a level that would meet the City of La Quinta's standards and still meet the basic objectives of the Project to: N!Mdlan CansuRants 2.0-54 Mwk Festiwk PkFinul OR W2I 1-11 match 2013 1.0 Responses to Comments (2) Enhance the reputation and prestige of the City of Indio as a center for the performing arts and continue the City's worldwide association with the Coachella and Stagecoach Festivals and other new festivals at the Future Festival Site; (3) Allow the City of Indio and the Coachella Valley to realize the substantial economic benefits provided by Future Festivals (existing Spring and new Fall festivals) on a long term annual basis; (4) Ensure the long term viability of the Future Festivals and meet the growing demand for these events by permitting new festivals during the Fall to diversify the program content to attract a wider audience and allow for an increase in the attendance level at Future Festivals; and (5) Provide a site with a location and ambience that is suitable for a major music festival by ensuring an outdoor setting of ample space with several stages to allow for multiple performances over multiple days, including several headline performers each evening after sunset to allow for the lighting effects needed for these performances. Please refer to the Noise Topical Response, which discusses different alternatives to the Project considered in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would substantially reduce noise impacts from music performances, but not to a less than significant level, and further steps to reduce noise impacts are limited by technology and the Project objectives and are not feasible. Finally, these impacts are short term and occur only on the limited number of days of the year when Future Festivals are held, which limits the overall impact to neighboring areas. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-13 The Existing Festivals include performances from a large number of artists over a three-day festival event. The Existing Festivals also provide performances from three major headline artists after sunset on each of the three nights of each event. One reason the major artists perform after sunset is that the lighting effects used during their performances would not be effective if viewed in the daylight. These artists are the main attraction for patrons of events and the largest attendance is during the evening for these performances. At the Coachella Festival, up to three major artists perform each evening on each of the two outdoor stages. The Stagecoach Festival has a single stage where three headline artists perform each night. In order to maintain the prestige that has been generated by past festivals and the Existing Festivals, and continue the success of the events to the benefit of the region, the Future Festivals must continue to provide three headline acts after sunset to meet the Project objectives for providing world -class music events. In April, the sun sets between 7:15 and 7:30 PM with twilight occurring approximately 30 minutes later. The first main act of the evening performs at dusk. Sunset would beat a similar time or slightly earlier in Fall. For example, sunset is near 6:30 PM in October. Each performance is generally 1 to 1.5 hours long, with a minimum of one half hour needed between performances to set up the equipment and stage for MEW= Consultants 2.0-55 Musk Festivals Plan Final EIR 002.001-12 March 2013 16 15-3 2.0 Responses to Comments the next performance. At the Coachella Festival, another factor is scheduling the performances on the two primary outdoor stages, which are located next to each other, so that performances are not beginning and ending at the same time at, to avoid pedestrian congestion after performances end. As a result of these scheduling parameters, the first performance in evening generally starts around 7:30 PM, the second performance between 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM and the final performance between 11:00 PM and 11:30 PM on Friday and Saturday nights. A final performance that starts at approximately 11:30 PM concludes near or at 1:00 AM. Sunday performances are scheduled to allow for performances to end at midnight by having one fewer act perform on the main stage. Ending the performances at an earlier time, such as 11:00 PM or midnight on all three nights of each Future Festival would result in fewer major acts being able to perform each evening and this scenario would not meet the Project objectives as stated in Draft EIR Section 3.0. As the number of major acts performing at these events is one of the major attractions for patrons of the events, reducing the number of major acts performing at each Future Festival by 2 or 3 acts would have a substantial impact on attendance levels and affect the long-term viability of these events. The other option would be to reduce the length of the performances by each artist substantially. This would not be acceptable to most major artists, or the patrons attending these performances, and would affect the feasibility of the events by compromising the ability of the Festival Operator to attract major artists to perform at the Future Festivals. For this reason, reducing the duration of noise impacts in the evening by limiting the number of major artists performing or the length of their performances would not meet the basic objectives of the Project as set forth in Response to Comment 5-12, which include ensuring the long-term viability of these events. The Draft EIR analyzed earlier end times under the Shorter Duration Festivals Alternative starting on page 5.0-31 in Section 5.0, Alternatives. This Alterative considered holding five Future Festivals in Spring and Fall, similar to the Project, but with each event being two days, rather than three days in duration, with the events ending at 10:00 PM on each day. As a result of the'earlier end times, the number of headline artists performing after sunset would be reduced. With fewer total artists performing over the event, because it would be reduced by one day in length, and fewer headline artists performing in the evening after sunset, the Future Festivals would not meet the demand and expectations of the patrons created by the Existing Festivals and therefore would not meet the objectives of the Project for the reasons summarized in Response to Comment 5-12. By diminishing the scale of the festival and the pool of headline artists performing, this Alternative also would not achieve the objective to enhance the reputation and prestige of the City as a center for the performing arts to the same degree as the Project, as discussed in page 3.0-1 and 3.0-2 in Draft EIR Section 3.0. These factors would constrain the ability of this Alternative to meet Project objectives to create economic benefits for the City and the region. Meddlon Cm ulfnnN 2.0-56 Mk Fwlwls Pion Final EIR 002-001-12 Moch 2013 154 2.0 Responses to Comments It should be noted that prior to the Existing Festivals, the entertainment curfew in the camping areas was 2:30 AM. The entertainment curfew was moved to an earlier time during the Existing Festivals and the Project would enforce the entertainment curfew as described by FPF NOISE-3 on page 4.4-26 in Section 4.4, Noise of the Draft EIR to 1:30 AM. Therefore, the impacts of Future Festivals would be reduced as compared to the previous festivals with camping area entertainment extending until 2:30 AM. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5.14 Please refer to Noise Topical Response Section 2.0 (B), which discusses a 25 percent reduction in perceived sound to the surrounding residential neighborhoods with implementation of the SMP, and refer to Response to Comment 5-13 above regarding earlier end times. All feasible mitigation to reduce sound levels to the greatest extent possible is being incorporated into the Project, and the other mitigation suggested in this comment is not feasible as explained in the Noise Topical Response, and Responses 5-12 and 5-13. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-15 The comment cites examples of good coordination over the last few years between the Applicant and the Cities of Indio and La Quinta and states that continued coordination between the cities is imperative, particularly with reference to Mitigation Measure MM TR 2-1 (Temporary Transportation Management and Control Measures). Such coordination is implicit in Mitigation Measure MM TR 2-1 as well as Mitigation Measure MM TR 1-1 (Transportation Management Plan); however language had been be added to these measures to require continued coordination with the City of La Quinta. It is agreed that coordination is important for measures wholly or partly in the City of La Quinta, and both the City of Indio and the Applicant are committed to continuing high levels of coordination with the City of La Quinta. The following language has been inserted into Mitigation Measures MM TR 1-1 and MM TR 2-1. "The City of Indio shall coordinate with the City of La Quinta in the implementation of any of these measures that are located within or shared with the City of La Quinta, or that may affect traffic circulation in the City of La Quinta." Please see Section 3.0 of this Final EIR, Revisions to the Draft EIR for this revision. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-16 Please note that the proposed Ordinance would allow the City to issue a Major Music Festival Event Permit for a term up to 20 years in length. The Major Music Festival Event Permit, which is required by WW1.n Cons0Wb 2.0-57 Music FwivWs Plan Final EIR W2-M-12 March 2013 155 2.0 Responses to Comments the Ordinance, is the limiting approval and the proposed Permit is for a 17-year term, as it would authorize the Future Festivals from 2014 through 2030. As a general matter, when uses of unlimited duration are established, the "buildout" year is the year the use commences and not a useful life of the project. In other words, buildout is the first year the project becomes operational. For example, based on physical deterioration and economic value, a hotel may have a useful life of 35 years or a shopping center may have a useful life of 50 years. With those projects, "buildout" Is not determined at the end of the useful life but at the inception of the use. Therefore, it is not appropriate to characterize the proposed 17 year Major Music Festivals Permit period as a buildout period. The Major Music Festivals Permit would allow for 5 festivals a year (two Coachella Festivals and a Stagecoach Festival in Spring and two additional festivals in Fall), each over 3 days. Attendance at the event is prescribed as well as between Higher Attendance Festivals (3 festivals, no more than 99,000 persons per event) and Lower Attendance Festivals (2 festivals, no more than 75,000 persons per event). The festivals that take place each year are the same — temporary use of the Future Festival Site for up to 15 days a year. The events are not being "builtout" over 17 years after which there is an end project or event like a phased residential development. Each year, the Project is the same. Further, the Future Festivals, if approved, would become part of the baseline to be included in the study of any future projects in the area when proposed. It would be speculative to attempt to conduct any sort of meaningful analysis of impacts in 2030. Because the events allowed under the proposed Major Music Festivals Events Permit are identical year to year for the life of the Permit, it is reasonable to use the first year of the proposed Permit — 2014 — as the appropriate baseline year. In other words, 2014 is the year the Project operations commence and the first time the Future Festival capacity could be achieved. Project operational commencement year is an appropriate baseline year under CEOA, particularly when the Project is a use and not phased or long- term construction. Moreover, the baseline is conservative because even though the music festivals are an established existing use and could have been included as part of the existing baseline, that existing use was not factored into the baseline in an effort to ensure full disclosure of how the festivals impact the more typical traffic patterns in the area. (Draft EIR Section 4.6 (Transportation and Traffic), 4.6-49 — 4.6-50). In future years, there may be additional development in the area that would generate traffic, but the roadway system would also be improved as identified in the City of Indio and La Quinta General Plan Circulation Elements to accommodate traffic from the land uses allowed by the General Plans. The temporary traffic impacts of this Project would, therefore, be less significant in future years as the roadways in the area would be improved and have greater capacity as a result of these improvements. The temporary impacts of festival traffic would be expected to be less in the years after 2014 than those Meridian Consultants 2.0-58 Music Festivals Plan Final EIR March 1013 W2.001-11 .,,. 156 2.0 Responses to Comments identified for 2014. This comment correctly notes that the traffic mitigation is focused on the temporary impacts of the Project. The Project is a temporary use of the Future Festival Site — up to 15 days per year. It involves no permanent improvement construction. As such, there are no permanent impacts. In addition, the EIR sets forth Mitigation Measure TR 1-1 (below) which requires the preparation and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP). The TMP will be a dynamic plan, which will be refined and adjusted annually as necessary in response to actual traffic and parking conditions, and so will provide the opportunity to adjust operational transportation management measures in the future as need dictates. Additional revisions to Mitigation Measure TR 1-1 are provided below. TR 1-1: Prior to commencement of each Higher Attendance Festival and Lower Attendance Festival and on an annual basis thereafter, the Festival Operator shall prepare and submit for review and approval by City of Indio Police Department, Traffic Engineer and Community Development Department staff a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to provide for the general management of traffic and pedestrian circulation, parking, and localized circulation issues that may occur during the Future Festivals. MP/ie lon Consultants 001-001-12 The TMP shall include all elements of the various traffic and parking plans that were implemented for the 2012 Coachella and Stagecoach Festivals, including the Traffic Plan, Parking Plan, Shuttle Plan, and Neighborhood Resident Plan, into a consolidated operations management plan. Development and implementation of the TMP shall continue to be coordinated between the Festival Operator and the City of Indio Police Department. The City of Indio shall coordinate with the City of La Quinta in the implementation of any of these measures that are located within or shared with the City of La Quinta, or that may affect traffic circulation in the City of La Quinta. The TMP shall be a dynamic plan and shall be refined and adjusted annually as necessary in response to actual traffic and parking conditions. The TMP shall address the following: Road Closures • Ingress and Egress Routes • Shuttle Bus and Taxi/Parent Drop -Off & Pick Up Routes • Parking Operations and Access/Egress for: Camping Day Parking, and Staff Parking • Traffic Signage • Temporary Traffic Control Procedures and Locations Temporary traffic lane reassignments (with traffic cones) Temporary traffic signal timing, and Deployment of traffic control personnel to direct traffic. • Shuttle Operations Plan 2.0-59 Music Fesdvols Plan FIMI OR Morch 1013 157 20 Responses to Comments • Pedestrian Flow and Control Plan • Bicycle Flow and Control Plan • Neighborhood Resident Plan Many of these categories were already in place for the 2012 Coachella and Stagecoach Festivals and worked successfully. Key additions going forward will be the Pedestrian Flow and Control Plan and the Bicycle Flow and Control Plan, as well as other enhancements listed below. The TMP shall also include the following additional features: 1. Implement Festival Plan Features. • Enlarge and enhance the on -site Shuttle Lot. • Improve traffic control procedures along Hjorth Street between Avenue 50 and Avenue 49. - • Enlarge and enhance the Taxi/Pick-Up & Drop -Off Lot, relocate and improve access/egress and on -site circulation. 2. Improve On -Site Transportation Access and Circulation Features • Develop and implement an improved on -site pedestrian control plan with clear routes and wayflnding for control of pedestrians, to focus on including improved measures for pedestrian controls on roadways immediately adjacent to the Future Festival Site. • Use two on -site lanes simultaneously to load Day Parking Lots 14 and 15 at Clinton Street, to facilitate loading of these day parking lots. 3. Improve On -Site Parking Management and Site Access Traffic Control • Enhance staffing coordination and on -site control methods to provide improved and more effective parking access management. 4. Improve Off -Site Directional Signage • Develop improved coordinated off -site directional signage program for incoming vehicles, to better inform patrons of parking locations. S. Temporary Intersection Configurations & Controls, and Street Closures • Implement temporary intersection lane configurations (with traffic cones and/or barricades). • Add off -site traffic control personnel. • Review existing post -event traffic control procedures at intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 52, and modify temporary street closures south of the intersection as feasible to minimize impacts on residents of Rancho Santana. The following measures shall be considered, as appropriate. 6. Enhance Traffic Control Procedures. Ma (than Canm@an6 2.0-60 Ma lc FezUra6 Plan Final rIR 002-001-13 March 2013 2.0 Responses to Comments • Use by the Cities of Indio and La Quinta of manual signal control devices at traffic signals, rather than flashing red signals and manual traffic direction. • Where manual traffic direction is necessary all personnel should be encouraged to use reflective vests and light wands to maximize visibility. • Potential installation by the Cities of Indio and La Quinta of temporary traffic signal devices during events. 7. Implement Event Signal Timing Plans, as necessary. • This shall include the potential development and implementation of signal timing plans for post -event periods, for example along northbound Monroe Street to increase northbound green time for vehicles leaving the Future Festival Site, along northbound Jefferson Street between Avenue 49 and Indio Boulevard, and at other intersections as may be considered appropriate. 8. Meter Outbound Traffic Flows During Camping Load -out on Mondays. • This includes metering the flow of camping traffic leaving the site on Monday mornings to reduce peak traffic volumes. This would, however, also increase the length of time it would take to empty the Future Festival Site of camping vehicles, so festival traffic would be on the roadways for a longer period of time. This mitigation would ensure that traffic measures are updated as warranted by circumstances at the time. This is superior to an assumed analysis of conditions at future dates. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-17 The key study time periods were determined from a comprehensive review of traffic data collected for' Thursday through Monday for each festival (and discussed and shown in the Draft EIR in Section 4.6 — Transportation and Traffic on pages 4.6-6 and 4.6-14 and in Figures 4.6-3a to 4.6-3e). As described in the Draft EIR (page 4.6-14), the study hours were selected as representative of the main peak hours of traffic that occurred during the Existing Festivals, as well as being representative of key different time periods (as further explained on page 4.6-14 of the Draft EIR). Other hours or days were not analyzed as traffic levels were lower than for the hours selected for analysis. For example, the data showed that traffic volumes on Thursday were no higher than for the hours/days analyzed in the Draft EIR. Direct field observations also identified that inbound festival traffic was spread over a greater number of hours throughout the day on Thursday than during the festival days (Friday thru Sunday) with no greater traffic queues or traffic congestion on City of La Quinta streets, than were addressed in the traffic analysis for the three hours analyzed in the Draft EIR. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Meridian Consuin nns 2.0-61 Music festivals Plan Final EIR 002-001-12 March 2013 159 2.0 Responses to Comments Response to Comment 5.18 There is no date on Figures II-5a to 5e in the Traffic Study (Appendix 4.6 of the Draft EIR). The date on Figures 4.6-3a to 4.6-3e in the Draft EIR Section 4.6 —Transportation and Traffic, represents the date the information was provided to the EIR preparer. The traffic counts were conducted on an hourly basis for five days (Thursday through Monday) for each of the three festival weekends and a non-event weekend in 2012 at 38 locations in the Study Area. The traffic counts during non-event weekend were collected Thursday March 29, 2012 to Monday April 2, 2012. The last paragraph of page 4.6-6 in the Draft EIR has been amended to reflect these data collection dates, as shown in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR below on page 3.0-3. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-19 The mitigation measures are enforceable through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which would be made enforceable through a Condition of Approval for the Project (see Appendix 1.0 of the Final EIR). They are thus enforceable for the life of the Project. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures at the intersections of Jefferson Street &Avenue 54 and at Jefferson Street & Avenue 50 that would fully mitigate the impacts and allow the intersections to operate at Level of Service C and D respectively (see Draft EIR Section 4.6 Transportation and Traffic, Tables 4.6-25a to 4.6-25c). Regarding the comment requesting a fair share contribution to specific improvements generally (the specific improvements are addressed in Response to Comments 5-20 thru 5-22), the Draft EIR evaluated potential feasible mitigation measures and concluded the following (see Draft EIR Section 4.6 — Transportation and Traffic, pages 4-6-107 and 4.6-108), which applies to roadways and intersections in the City of Indio and the City of La Quinta: "Unlike many land use developments projects which function on a regular daily basis, the Project is a special event that occurs only a few times a year each over a three day period (five days including camping arrivals and departures). Traffic characteristics of the Future Festivals are therefore temporary conditions with highly variable traffic loads, and the higher than normal peak traffic loads on the street system occur for only a few hours during the year. Traffic impacts are temporary, rather than occurring on a day-to-day basis with regular land use development projects. As is typical for special events, transportation mitigation is more appropriately focused on operational measures that would address the short-term and temporary nature of impacts by managing and maximizing the capacity of the existing roadway infrastructure on a temporary basis during events, rather than on physical infrastructure improvements. Such physical Mahlon Can .bats 2.0-62 Music FesWals Plan Final OR Mach 2013 002-001-12 160 1.0 Responses to Comments improvements would not be necessary on a regular day-to-day basis to handle normal everyday traffic volumes. In addition, because the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative transportation impact, a fair share contribution towards the implementation of such permanent physical infrastructure improvements is not appropriate. Physical infrastructure improvements also generally would not be any more effective at mitigating the temporary impacts of the Project than temporary traffic management and control measures. Accordingly, in consultation with the City of Indio Traffic Engineer and Community Development Department staff, the conclusion is that mitigating the Project's temporary significant transportation impacts through permanent physical improvements would be infeasible based on a combination of factors, including a lack of greater effectiveness than temporary traffic management measures in most cases, such as coning, and the high cost of and additional environmental impacts associated with the construction of physical improvements, such as widening and traffic signal installations, relative to the temporary nature of the events" The Draft EIR identified effective traffic management and operational mitigation measures that would mitigate all significant intersection impacts to less than significant (see Section 4.6.13 of the Draft EIR on page 4.6-107). The Draft EIR also identified that most residential developments in the area has alternate points of access/egress that would enable residents to avoid festival traffic queues (page 4.6-90 of the Draft EIR). The Draft EIR did identify significant unavoidable impacts to a few residential locations which have only one point of access, including three developments in La Quinta (the La Quinta Polo Estates, with driveway on Avenue 50 west of Madison Street; La Cantera, with driveway on Avenue 52 between Madison Street and Jefferson Street; and La Quinta Polo Estates south of the Coachella Canal) that could be significantly impacted by traffic queues. The Draft EIR proposed mitigation for these potential temporary impacts that the Applicant would continue to work with these residents to minimize the impacts through design and implementation of effective TMP measures, such as advance information, traffic control officers, and allowing residents to access their homes with minimal inconvenience, although these measures would not fully mitigate the impacts (see Mitigation Measure TR 2-2, on page 4.6-117 of the Draft EIR). The Draft EIR (see page 4.6-89) did however conclude that the eastbound queues of inbound festival traffic on Avenue 50 and on Avenue 52 west of Madison would not be expected to materially increase over current festival conditions. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Me,idlon Cons.1tants 2.0-63 Music Festivals Plan Final EIR 002-001-12 March 2013 161 2.0 Responses to Comments Response to Comment 5-20 The Draft EIR identifies a specific mitigation measure at this location (TR 2-1) — a temporary traffic management measure (see Draft EIR page 4.6-113 and Tables 4.6-25a to 4.6-25c) — which would mitigate the temporary significant impact to less than significant to LOS C. During both the Lower and Higher Attendance Future Festivals, the proposed mitigation at this intersection is to temporarily cone the westbound right turn lane to create a free right turn lane and add traffic control personnel during peak periods on Friday and Saturday. The improvement suggested in the comment would not be necessary, as discussed in Response to Comment 5-19 above. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-21 The Draft EIR identifies a specific mitigation measure (TR 2-1) at this location — a temporary traffic management measure (see Draft EIR page 4.6-113 and Tables 4.6-25a to 4.6-25c) — which would mitigate the temporary significant impact to less than significant. During the Higher Attendance Future Festivals, the proposed mitigation at this intersection is to temporarily cone the westbound approach to provide a second westbound right turn lane. This same Mitigation Measure has been deployed for many years and the traffic cones effectively open up an existing paved area that is within a striped out gore. The measure also effectively reduces westbound through traffic on Avenue 50 into La Quinta. This measure would not be required during the Lower Attendance Events. The improvement suggested in the comment would not be necessary, as discussed in Response to Comment 5-19 above. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-22 The Draft EIR does not identify any significant impact at this location and in fact, the roundabout on Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 operates at LOS "A" without and with the Festival traffic. Therefore, no mitigation is required and the suggested improvement is not necessary. See also Response to Comment 5-19 above. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-23 The Draft EIR identifies mitigation for the intersection of Jefferson Street and Indio Boulevard (see page 4.6-113 of the Draft EIR) that addresses the northbound traffic flows on Jefferson Street identified in the comment. The suggestion in the comment to modify the signal timing plans on northbound Jefferson Street on Monday mornings for outbound Festival traffic, is already addressed in Mitigation Measure TR Meridian Wnsultants 2.0-64 Music Festivals Plan Final EIR 002-0O]-lI March 2013 162 2.0 Responses to Comments 1-1— Transportation Management Plan, under Item ##7 — Implement Signal Timings Plans as Necessary, although Jefferson Street is not identified specifically. Mitigation Measure TR-1 requires the preparation and submittal of a Traffic Management Plan on an annual basis. One of the required components of this plan is to implement modified signal timing or manual traffic signal control at intersections as necessary during post -event periods. Mitigation Measure TR 1-1 has been clarified to include the following in the last sentence under Item N7: .and along northbound Jefferson Street at critical intersections where queuing occurs between Avenue 49 and Indio Boulevard". Please see Section 3.0 of this Final EIR, Revisions to the Draft EIR for this revision. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-24 The comment suggests the Draft EIR should consider extending the proposed widening of Avenue 52 from Monroe Street to Clinton Street further west to Madison Street. This, however, was not identified as necessary to mitigate any significant temporary traffic impacts associated with the Future Festivals in the Draft EIR. The majority of festival traffic using Avenue 52 westbound does so to access Parking Lots 14 and 15 via Clinton Street. The widening of Avenue 52 between Monroe Street and Clinton Street is proposed to facilitate these traffic flows in conjunction with Mitigation Measure TR-1 N2 (to use two on - site lanes simultaneously to load Day Parking Lots 14 and 15 at Clinton Street to facilitate loading of these day parking lots, see page 4.6-111 of the Draft EIR), and the widening of Monroe Street between Avenue 49 and Avenue 52 being implemented by the City of Indio. Mitigation Measure TR 2-1 includes a specific temporary operational measure at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 52, identified on page 4.6-114 of the traffic section of the Draft EIR, that would mitigate the significant temporary impact at that location and reduce it to a less than significant level. The widening of Avenue 52 west of Madison Street is not necessary as only one lane of Future Festival traffic is directed westerly on Avenue 52. The comment also suggests the Draft EIR should consider widening Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street to four lanes for its entire length. This also was not identified as necessary to mitigate any significant temporary traffic impacts associated with the Future Festivals in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure TR 2-1 includes specific temporary operational measures at the intersections of Madison Street and Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street and Avenue 50, identified on pages 4.6-114 and 4.6-115 of the Draft EIR that would mitigate the significant temporary impacts at those locations and reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Meddlon Consulronfs 2.0-65 Musk Festlools Pion Final EIR W2-OM-12 M.'M W13 L.... 163 2.0 Responses to Comments Response to Comment 5.25 The Draft EIR was provided on disk, which allowed readers to view the document on screen or print a hard copy at any specified resolution. All tables in the hard copy prepared for the Draft EIR were readable as the original source document on the CD as clear and legible. It is possible that issues as to readability, likely font size, resulted from the recipient's print specifications. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-26 Please refer to the Noise Topical Response Section 2.0 (B), regarding music performance sound, which describes the impacts of reorientation of the performance stages. As discussed on page 5.0-10 in Section 5.0, Alternatives of the Draft EIR, the Site Design Alternative was considered initially but it was determined that changes to the location and orientation of the stages would not result In any substantial reduction in noise impacts so this alternative not analyzed in detail in the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 5.0-11 of the Draft EIR, options to reduce off -site noise levels initially considered included changing the location and orientation of the main outdoor stages in the Performance Area. The main outdoor stages are oriented towards the south, southwest, and west in the two proposed layouts in the Performance Area as shown in Figure 3.0-4 for Conceptual Performance Area Layout 1 (Coachella), Figure 3.0-5, Conceptual Performance Area Layout 2 (Stagecoach) in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The sound system for the main stage uses the highest number of speakers and produces the highest amount of sound energy. This stage is oriented to the south and west in the two proposed Performance Area layouts. The second outdoor stage included in Performance Area Layout 1 would use a sound system with one fifth of the power of the main stage system. The smaller performance areas located in tents also use much smaller sound systems than the main stage. Due to the size of the main stage sound system, the majority of sound generated during music performances travels in a southerly arc, which widens to the west and east the further south the sound travels, as shown in Figure 4.4-8 in the Draft EIR. The low frequency sound generated by these sound systems is less -directional than the higher frequency sound. Overall noise levels around the site, particularly low frequency noise levels, would not be substantially reduced by reorienting the stages within the Performance Area to the north as suggested in this comment because of the sound characteristics described here and as discussed in the Noise Topical Response. For these reasons, this Alternative was determined to not reduce noise impacts and was not selected for further evaluation. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-27 Security lighting was included in the discussion and analysis of general site lighting provided on page 6.0- Meridian ransulmntt 2.0-66 Musk Festhals Plan Final EIR OO -Ml-12 Mon hW13 164 2.0 Responses to Comments 3 and 6.0-4, in Section 6.0, Effects Not Found To Be Significant. General site lighting, including security lighting, would be provided by lights on 30-foot tall portable temporary light towers. Each tower contains a single directional light fixture with a 575-watt bulb lighting an area of approximately 10 to 20 square feet depending on the type of lens used in the fixture. These fixtures would be aimed downward and colored bulbs would also be used in appropriate locations to reduce the visible spectrum of light produced by 50 percent, which reduces light glare and glow. Due to the highly directional and focused lighting characteristics of these fixtures, multiple fixtures would be used throughout the site to provide adequate lighting. The directionality of the lighting fixtures would minimize lighting impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Security lighting would be provided at the entrances/exits, within the parking lots, and along the perimeter of Future Festival Site for safety purposes for patrons and the adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, the Indio Police Department also requires that light towers be installed at about 20 various intersections near the Future Festival Site for additional security lighting. The FPF identified on page 6.0-5, in Draft EIR Section 6.0, would also regulate the use of security lighting. The lighting plan provided in Figure 6.0-1 below indicates that offsite security lighting does result in a significant impact on adjacent properties. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-28 All lighting towers along the perimeter of the Future Festival Site are portable. The lighting plan provided on the following page as Figure 6.0-1, Conceptual Lighting Locations/Directions, illustrates the locations of portable lighting towers and the direction of extent of lighting from each. As shown on this figure, these lights are positioned to provide lighting on the site and to minimize offsite spillage. The length of the lines projected from the light towers indicates the light spill area. As indicated on the figure, the portable light towers around the perimeter of the Future Festival Site would light a portion of the adjacent streets and intersections in order to provide adequate lighting for security and safety purposes. As shown, along Avenue 52 and Madison Street no lighting would extend across these streets to reach residential use in the City of La Quinta. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council In their consideration of approval of the Project. Mefi&m ConrW[mrts 2.0-67 Music Fes tivals fto FMOI EIN WM0142 March 2013 165 Legend Future Festival Site Areas Not in 111 Festival Site , Light Tower -p- Solar Light Tower fn t Lines Indicate o Length of Light Spill Not to Scale Goy k; E F Ave 49 r� r 9 3 i ,9. c J rn N C 7 J ,w AVe 50 ff w. n • � @ 4 °Abbfbbbbb°e°4°� )4Y44°4°4.4°e°e'.4°... .4e44O°.e0eiR44°O4P ){444P°bbe41°4444�. <4444e4e♦. ♦ee Y°10H. �4°JOie�004�4� ',be�b'•��Af. -fseeeeoe♦ yeeeYYese. oeooeo ee ;eobeoe404. 'a°P°44P°40°Oe°s� 144644414°O°.4fP49 4eObebfee04444°O. +ebbeeebbbOb�bebe°O r, rbbeoobobbbboebbbbr fe°eeeeleeeee0YYf1 °0444444P°O40Pe4. •e444�4Ye> ♦eoesaefY 5 'e°4P4°s°a0oibb�bP: ta.. .te�e4e9eieP49ei M "fir�4�J. f°e4Y�41°4 a•,l.,w,b,. _ e r'nnnhella Music Festival. LLC/Goldenvoice. LLC rn N 0 C 0 ►_ FIGUKt r4orldiam Conceptual Lighting Locations/Directions consultants 002-eei-12 e 166 1.0 Responses to Comments Response to Comment 5-29 Although economic impacts are not within the scope of the CEQA analysis for this project, Appendix 5.0 of this Final EIR contains the Economic Impact Analysis prepared for Goldenvoice by Development Management Group, Inc. The statement in this comment is correct that the Economic Impact Analysis indicated the Project would generate a substantial amount of economic activity, estimated at approximately $505 million in the Coachella Valley, with approximately $177 million in the City of Indio on an annual basis. The types of facilities that are utilized by concert patrons, the majority of whom would travel from out of the area to attend the Future Festivals include hotels/motels, restaurants, gas stations, airport facilities and similar that support tourism and visitors. In addition, the Festival Operator also uses local vendors for equipment and facilities used at the events. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Response to Comment 5-30 The Final EIR will be provided to the City of La Quinta as soon as it is published. Please Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR for revisions made in response to these comments. The comment will be reviewed by the Indio City Council in their consideration of approval of the Project. Meridian Eonsullan6 2.0-69 Musk FestNals Plan Final EIR 001-001-12 Minch 2013 161 DEPARTMENT REPORT: 5 ^� OF TKF TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Edie Hylton, Community Services Director DATE: March 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Community Services Department Report for February 2013 Upcoming events of the Community Services Department for April 2013: Computers *Computer Lab Dance *Social Dance Fusion Exercise & Fitness *Morning Workout *Mat Pilates *Zumba Gold *Chair Yoga *Yoga for Health Pilates Meditation, Library Yoga AM & PM, Library Zumba, Senior Center Nature Walks, Adults, Bear Creek Trail Guided Cove Hikes Cove Bear Creek Wash, Free Programs *Quitters *Woodcarvers *Tai Chi Chuan Top of the Cove Gymnastics Introductory Gymnastics (4-7 yrs.), Fitness Classroom Introductory Gymnastics (8-10 yrs.), Fitness Classroom Martial Arts Karate/Taekwondo, Senior Center Special Events *Volunteer Recognition Luncheon Special Interest *AARP Safe Driver *Creative Drawing *Dog Training *Hooked on Loops *Expressive Landscapes in Acrylic *Intermediate Bridge II *Let's Make Jewelry *Ukulele Beginning *Senior Center class or activity 169 Community Services Department Attendance Report for February 2013 Summary Sheet Variance Sessions Per Month Program 2013 2012 2013 2012 Leisure Classes 114 167 -53 49 6r, Special Events 65 60 5 2 1 Sports 742 658 84 26 28 Senior Center 1 188 1388 -200 179 111 Total 2,109 2,273 -164 256 205 Senior Services Senior Center 439 352 87 33 17 Total 439 352 87 33 17 Sports User Groups La Quints Park AYSO 400 500 -100 16 25 La Quinta Youth & Sports 100 150 -50 8 21 Desert Boot Camp 50 50 0 9 11 L.Q. Blackhawk Rugby Club 40 30 10 8 15 Sports Complex LQ Youth & Sports Assoc. 700 850 -150 17 25 Colonel Mitchell Paige Coachella FC United 20 0 20 3 0 L.Q. Blackhawk Rugby Club 40 30 10 12 2 Y Football (League Practices) 50 30 20 16 17 Facility/Park Rentals Senior Center (Private Party) 100 200 -100 1 1 (Sunday Church) 300 300 0 4 4 Museum Meeting Room/Courtyard 0 150 -150 0 1 Library Classroom 240 360 -120 4 6 Civic Center Campus (Private Party) 0 0 0 0 0 Park Rentals La Quinta Park 100 300 -200 2 5 Fritz Burns Park 100 0 100 2 0 Total 2,240 2,950 -710 102 133 Total Programs 1 4,7881 5,575 -7871 3911 355 Volunteer Hours Senior Center 284 277 7 Total Volunteer Hours 1 2841 2771 7 170 Community Services Department Program Report for February 2013 2013 2012 2013 2012 Participants Participants Variance Meetings Meetings Leisure Classes •i Zumba 16 25 -9 8 8 Yoga - Morning 6 5 1 4 4 Yoga - Evening 7 9 -2 4 4 Open Guitar Jam 5 0 5 1 0 Karate/Taekwondo 4 - 8 (Beg.) 151 16 -11 81 8 Karate/Taekwondo 4 - 8 (Inter.) 41 42 -1 8 8 Karate/Taekwondo 9 & up 15 31 -16 8 8 Dance, Play & Pretend 9 01 9 8 0 Totals 114 128 -14 49 40 2013 2012 2013 2012 Participants Participants Variance Meetings I Meetings Special Events Tails on Trails 30 50 -20 1 1 Distinguished Artists 35 0 35 1 0 Totals 65 50 15 2 1 2013 2012 2013 2012 Participants Participants Variance Meetings Meetings Sports Open Gym Basketball 191 277 -86 8 12 Open Gym Volleyball 93 161 -68 4 4 Guided Cove Hike 18 0 18 1 0 Guided National Monument Hikes 45 0 45 2 0 Nature Walks 1 331 43 -101 2 2 Desert Youth Olympics 1501 1251 251 1 1 Y' Rookies Football 121 121 01 4 4 Youth Flag Football (League Games) 2001 1101 901 4 4 Totals 7421 7281 141 26 27 Community Services Totals 9211 9061 151 77 68 -i Leisure classes: No classes in the following areas - Beginning Guitar, Rock Solo Guitar, Jazzercise. 171 Community Services Department Monthly Revenue Report for February 2013 Monthly Revenue - Facility Rentals 2013 2012 Variance Library $ $ $ Museum $ - $ - $ - Senior Center $ 1,262.50 $ 1,162.50 $ 100.00 Parks $ 325.00 $ 270.00 $ 55.00 Sports Fields $ 1,368.00 $ 1,370.00 $ (2.00) Monthly Facility Revenue $ 2,955.50 $ 2,802.50 $ 153.00 Monthly Revenue Senior Center $ 4,620.00 $ 2,063.00 $ 2,557.00 Community Services •1 $ 3,288.00 $ 8,382.00 $ (5,094.00) Total Revenue 1 $ 7,908.001 $ 10,445.00 $ (2,537.00) Revenue Year to Date Facility Revenue $ 22,162.50 $ 21,602.00 S 560.50 Senior Center $ 30,031.50 $ 24,318.50 S 5,713.00 Community Services $ 42,959.00 $ 47,830.50 $ (4,871.50) Total Revenue to Date $ 95,153.00 $ 93,751.00 $ 1,402.00 1 Decrease in 2013 revenue due to 2 excursions and more leisure enrichment classes offered in February 2012. 112 Senior Center Attendance Senior Center Program Report for February 2013 Participation Participation Variance Meetings Meetings 2013 2012 2013 2012 Senior Activities Craft Time w/ DRD Tiny Tot Program 24 0 24 1 0 Computer Lab 11 0 11 7 0 Golden Tones 38 48 -10 4 4 Mah Jongg 37 47 -10 4 4 Monthly Birthday Party 40 50 -10 40 1 Movie Time 38 78 -40 4 4 Putting Action & Wii Bowling 33 12 21 7 5 Quilters 45 37 8 4 4 Tai Chi Chuan (Free) 15 0 15 8 0 Tennis 128 102 26 8 8 Ukulele Players 66 56 10 7 6 Woodcarvers 37 33 4 4 4 Senior Activity Total 512 463 49 98 40 Senior Leisure Classes/Programs Acrylic Landscape Painting 11 19 -8 4 2 Basic Computer 4 0 4 4 0 Beginning/Refresher Bridge Lessons 6 11 -5 3 2 Bridge: Duplicate, Social & Party 372 362 10 14 13 Chair Yoga 8 5 3 4 4 Creative Drawing 9 0 9 2 0 Digital Camera 2 6 4 2 3 4 Exercise 61 61 0 11 12 Hooked on Loops 6 8 -2 1 2 Jewelry Making 11 0 11 4 0 Mat Pilates 21 27 -6 11 12 Monthly Luncheon (valentine's) 100 101 -1 1 1 Social Dance Fusion 8 8 0 4 4 Yoga for Health 14 5 9 4 4 Zumba Gold 39 0 39 11 0 Senior Leisure Classes Total 1 676 611 65 81 60 TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS 1188 1074 114 179 100 Senior Social Services AARP Safe Driver 17 0 17 1 0 AARP Taxes 104 94 10 7 7 FIND 217 188 29 8 7 HICAP/ICLS 9 4 5 4 1 Lobby/Presentations/DRMC Mad Experts 35 10 25 6 1 Notary/Legal/Bereavement & Alzheimer's Groups 17 10 7 7 7 Volunteers 40 34 6 n/a n/a TOTAL SENIOR SERVICES 439 340 99 33 23 SENIOR CENTER TOTAL 1627 14141 212 123 ' Senior Leisure Classes/Programs: No classes in the following areas - ACBL bridge group, dance workshop, evening dance, intermediate internet/email, LQHS Culinary Arts Dessert Demo. 173 Parks Activities Updates February 2013 Eight containers for the Community School Garden at Benjamin Franklin Elementary School arrived. The containers will be used by the students and community volunteers to grow vegetables at the school. City staff will be working with the school to coordinate the installation of the containers. Work has started at Eisenhower Park for the installation of a cellular antenna. The cell antenna will have park lighting to replace the current light pole that is in the play area. A small section of the park is closed for the construction. The contractor is working with staff to ensure little to no impact for service at the park for.the community. Staff and the La Quinta Arts Foundation are preparing for the annual La Quinta Arts Festival at the Civic Center Campus. The Campus will be closed to the public starting on March 5, 2013. The event is being held March 7 through March 10, 2013. �VMI La Quinta Community Fitness Center Counts for February 2013 Day Memberships Sold Rubys Sold Sapphires Sold Diamonds Sold Walk-ins Sold Daily Counts Daily Totals 1 5 5 168 178 2 1 1 53 55 3 0 4 13 1 213 227 5 6 2 182 190 6 9 5 196 210 7 4 2 154 160 8 5 5 154 164 9 2 3 58 63 10 0 11 9 9 218 236 12 11 8 84 103 13 16 7 198 221 14 8 6 140 154 15 9 5 138 152 16 5 3 75 83 17 0 18 0 19 17 191 208 20 14 6 169 189 21 6 5 173 184 22 3 4 171 178 23 3 7 71 81 24 0 25 11 1 5 218 235 26 1 3 66 70 27 4 2 182 188 P8 0 29 0 30 0 31 0 AVG 7.36 1 0 0 4.48 148.73 152.9 TTL 162 1 0 0 94 3272 3529 The Gems symbolize the Wellness System Fees Ruby Level = $50.00 Self -Directed Program; One Year -Key Use Sapphire Level = $175.00 All Ruby Level Benefits; Pre -Fitness Assessment Test; Custom Designed Program by Personal Training Staff; Post -Fitness Assessment Test Diamond Level = $295.00 All Ruby and Sapphire Level Benefits; Three Additional Personal Training Sessions o Members Sold is the # of memberships sold that day. o Walk-ins are people without membership cards that are paying a daily $5 fee. o Daily counts are the # of Members coming into the center that have had their membership cards scanned by us. a The totals at the end of each row is the total of all of the above transactions for the day. 175 Department Report: �0 Tit4t 4 4 Q" MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robbeyn Bird, Finance Director Phi DATE: March 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Oversight Board Meeting Update Report The Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to La Quinta Redevelopment Agency held a regular meeting on February 20, 2013. Five Board Members were present; two absent: Board Members Wade Ellis, Community College District, and Cindy McDaniel, Assistant Superintendent, Riverside County Office of Education. A Public Comment Session was held by the Oversight Board. No public comment was received. Items considered and approved unanimously by the Oversight Board include: • Resolution Approving the Successor Agency Administrative Budget for the Period of July 2013 through December 2013; and • Resolution Approving a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule of the Former La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for the Period of July 2013 through December 2013. Attachment: 1 1. Oversight Board Action Minutes of February 20, 2013 176 H 1 1 H1.r71VIC1V 1 1 OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2013 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to La Quinta Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 2:02 p.m. by Chairperson Pena. PRESENT: Board Members Marshall, Maysels, Nelson (2:10 p.m.), Osborne and Chairperson Pena ABSENT: Board Members Ellis and McDaniel STAFF PRESENT: Frank J. Spevacek, Executive Director of -the Successor Agency, Kathy Jenson, City Attorney and Robbeyn Bird, Finance Director PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed as Submitted APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion - A motion was made by Board Members Maysels/Osborne to approve the Oversight Board Minutes of December 5, 2012, as submitted. Motion passed 4 ayes, 0 abstain, 3 absent. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Successor Agency Budget for July 2013 through December 2013 MOTION - A motion was made by Board Members Osborne/Marshall to adopt Resolution No. OB 2013-001. Motion passed 4 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. 177 Note: Board Member Nelson arrived and joined the meeting at this point. RESOLUTION NO. OB 2013-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 2013 2. Resolution Approving a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule of the Former La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for the Period of July 2013 through December 2013 MOTION — A motion was made by Board Members Maysels/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. OB 2013-002. Motion passed 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. RESOLUTION NO. OB 2013-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENGY TO LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) ADOPTING A RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 2013; 2) APPROVING THE CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS REHABILITATION PROJECT, 3) APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF $3,006,360 IN 2004 TAX-EXEMPT HOUSING BOND PROCEEDS AND $15,523,220 OVER THE COURSE OF IMPLEMENTATION, AND $1,718,831 IN 2004 TAX- EXEMPT HOUSING BOND PROCEEDS DURING THE JULY — DECEMBER 2013 ROPS PERIOD, 41 CONFIRMING THAT THE HOUSING BOND PROCEEDS ARE HOUSING ASSETS THAT ARE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 34176(b) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ROPS SCHEDULE REPORTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Update on D.O.F. & State Controller's Activities OVERSIGHT BOARD 2 February 20, 2013 178 FUTURE MEETING DATE Staff indicated that the next Oversight Board meeting is scheduled for March 6, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Board Members Osborne/Nelson to adjourn this meeting at 2:28 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Oversight Board Secretary City of La Quinta, California OVERSIGHT BOARD 3 February 20, 2013 1l9 Department Report: D C .rcy otiy TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Almothy R. Jonasson, Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: March 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Report for February 2013 1. To date, the City has received over 1,000 requests from the public via the City's new GORequest reporting system. The majority have come to the Public Works Department as requests for service, with some requests coming in for Community Services and Community Development (Building & Safety Division). The most common Public Works requests involve: debris removal, graffiti removal, street sign repair, street sweeping, and issues with irrigation and landscaping. With regard to promotional efforts, staff will be making GORequest informational business cards available at City Hall counters, City facilities, and the Chamber of Commerce. 2. The Maintenance Division is also using GORequest as their work order system, which has eliminated paperwork and tracks costs/materials for the daily tasks of City crews. Crews continue to repair potholes, concrete sidewalks, trip hazards, street and landscape lights, as well as replace missing or damaged signs and remove graffiti in parks and commercial areas, as needed. 3. Granite Construction, the contractor for the Adams Street Bridge Improvement Project, has completed construction of the west half of the bridge and has moved traffic onto the new bridge while constructing the eastern half. Granite is currently preparing to drill the holes for the bridge columns and fabricating the steel cages. Progress on the project is being tracked on the Adams Street Bridge Project Facebook page. The completion date for the bridge is September 2013. 4. The City Council approved an amendment to the cooperative agreement for the Madison Street Improvements on September 18, 2012. The City of Indio advertised the Phase I project for bid on October 16, 2012, and awarded a construction contract to Granite Construction on December 5, 2012. Work has started and is being constructed in two phases. Phase I work between Avenue 51 and Avenue 52 has been completed and base paved. The contractor is currently working on Phase II between Avenue 50 and Avenue 51. Access is being maintained for residents. The project is scheduled to be complete by the end of March 2013. 5. Construction for the Fred Waring Median Landscape Improvement Project is nearly complete. The contractor is currently placing the final areas of decomposed granite and is scheduled to complete the project the week of March 12, 2013. 6. The City opened bids for the Calle Sinaloa and Avenue 52 Sidewalk Infill Project on March 7, 2013. Staff is currently evaluating the bids to ensure compliance with all Federal and City requirements. 7. The City's 2013 National Point Discharge Elimination System Permit is being negotiated with Regional Water Quality Control Board staff. Regional Board staff has revised the schedule to allow for their board to adopt the new permit at their meeting of June 20, 2013. City staff is doing everything possible to ensure that the new permit requirements are "desert appropriate." 181 Twit 44Q" CITY SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: _ ITEM TITLE: Resolution Updating City User Fees and Regulatory Fees CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: J- RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council amending Resolution No. 96-95 relative to User and Regulatory Fees pursuant to the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study dated March 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • User and regulatory fees for private development projects have not been adjusted since 1996. Per the Consumer Price Index (CPII, general costs have increased by 50 percent since 1996. • ClearSource Financial Consulting completed the "Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study," which is. the foundation for the proposed fees (the study in its entirety is available for review in the Public Works Department). • ClearSource and staff propose a uniform targeted hourly rate of $143, which is the lowest of the three rates calculated for Planning, Building, and Public Works. • Stakeholder groups including the Southern California Gas Company, the Building Industry Association — Riverside County Chapter (BIA), and the Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) were engaged. The BIA and DVBA have reviewed the study and their comments have been addressed by staff. Staff is currently working with Southern California Gas Company on a separate letter agreement clarifying how the new fees will be applied to their future permit costs. 182 • ClearSource recommends including annual fee adjustments based on the all - urban CPI for Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange Counties. • Because these are user fees for City -provided services, they are not subject to voter approval. The City may only collect up to 100 percent of the cost of the service. • Additional fees for 1) software and technology upgrades applicable to permits; and 2) the next General Plan Update are being considered and may be brought back to Council at a future date. FISCAL IMPACT: If the recommended fees are adopted, the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study forecasts a revenue increase of approximately $862,949. This amount was based on the level of development in 2008, which staff considers to be an average year for development activity in the City. Although forecasting revenue impacts from proposed fee changes is challenging and subjective, particularly when significant modifications to fee calculation methodologies are proposed, staff has attempted to forecast anticipated requests for service based on historical trends. The table below lists the forecasted revenue increases by fee type. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City provides many services to ensure safe, orderly, and aesthetically pleasing development in La Quinta. These services include, but are not limited to, project entitlement review, improvement plan check, map check, permits (building, grading, encroachment and driveway), and land action review (i.e. dedications, parcel mergers, and lot line adjustments). User fees and regulatory fees are the mechanism by which the City may recoup a portion or all of the costs associated with these services. 18^ Planning flat fees for projects that may have highly variable service times Public Works fee based on project valuation Building fee based on project valuation minimum fee plus deposit for additional hours required fee based on sheets reviewed, acreage inspected, etc fee based on type of work being reviewed/inspected Comparison of 'Before and After" Fees and Fees Imposed by Neighboring Agencies — The tables below compare "before and after" fees for service along with a comparison to fees imposed by neighboring agencies. Note Intaddrdon to buridrng permrtafees, thrsitable`mdudes developmentfi p ctfees awi� and taxes Thr`s ^c a is ntended�to W�R* y� provide the Gty Councrwdh a dearer�cturelof total�developmenttfees�"andita, xeF , ata �ti 3 Qulnta x ,La 4ulnta Indio Feed ndlolfee Palm�Dese t Fee fi:r� < xt Curente?P�aposede ri; �:IJu12013j (Jann201��1 (20T . .t 60 New Custom Home [b] 0:0 [a] -Assumes production phase tract home, roughly 2,000 SF home with 250 SF casita and 25 SF box bay and 90 SF garage extension. [b] -Assumes custom home, roughly 1,900 livable SF home with 450 SF ga rage and 140 SF patio. *Fees for the City of Indio were recently adopted. The City has not updated fees in its permit tracking software. Fee estimates shown are based on consultant interpretation of the City's fee schedule. hCi it w? Si,9oG Adrnn S2bQJ +,cintin-c ,508 8dl Locry wi;h 52,fi9-' Cm'sltiol al sc Perrot! 52,009 PC $3,5� -c SS 00 ?C CUD. 53,968 deposit +in:enl a-$3,QQ0 al-cnnaS3S0Q Bill hourly with$10,000 Bill hourly with $10,00Q specificPlan S4,Q00 bill heurly�xith 56,292 deposit for conceptual depositforconceptual Bill hca�rlr vritliSi,894 mmimu±�.ide specific plan spedric plan ceposiitorprecise plans bill hourly rith$5,57 >Stots 55,500 > rots _<a.000 e II focrl;ra0, 53,308 Tewnw, TrncEMap 53;X) m1ulmlm fee <: lots-$3,250 <Stots. Sc,Q00 ceposic `Fees"or .heCrroflid o were recentyadcpted.7, Cq'rmnotu„da!edfeesinispernattrac,aigsoftware. Fee es:vraies5nm%+flare oased01 CCIU tan n :rTetaion at ne Ci tys fee scned,re 1 184 The City conducted the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study (Study) in order to better recoup the cost associated with providing these services. The applicable fees and rates were last updated in 1996. The Study reviewed the following: • The full cost of providing development services • The fully -burdened hourly rates for fee -related service providers • The current cost recovery levels at the departmental and individual permit or service fee level • The existing fee calculation methodologies and modified them, if necessary, to more closely align their calculation methodology to the cost of services being provided • The targeted fee and cost recovery levels for each service examined • The current and proposed fees to those imposed by neighboring communities • The anticipated revenue impacts of proposed fees • An updated schedule of fees Key Findings Fully -burdened and targeted hourly rates for service — The table below identifies the fully -burdened hourly rates identified by this Study, and staff -recommended targeted hourly rates for service. An identical rate for services may be beneficial to City staff and the development community for administering deposit -based fees that involve the review of multiple departments. Furthermore, this will allow developers to better anticipate their budget for City permits since the rate will be the same regardless of which of the three departments is reviewing their project. Also, since the targeted hourly rate is the lowest of the three fully -burdened rates, staff believes using the lowest rate is a "developer friendly" approach while still allowing the City to recoup most of its development review costs. Fee calculation methodologies — In an attempt to more closely align fees to the services requested and encourage complete and organized project applications, numerous changes have been made to the methods used to determine fees. Examples of proposed changes to fee calculation methodologies are shown in the table below. 185 Public notice requirements were met for this public hearing. It was published in The Desert Sun newspaper on March 1 and March 7, 2013. City staff provided the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study to the Desert Valleys Builders Association and the Building Industry Association — Riverside County Chapter for review. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives to the recommended action include .not adjusting current fees or adopting a lower fee schedule. These alternatives would reduce the amount of fee income received to cover the cost of providing these services. A greater share of other General Fund revenue (tax revenue) would continue to be needed to underwrite these service costs. Respectfully submitted, imothy . on s n, P.E. Public Wo s Di ctor/City Engineer EI RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-95, RELATING TO USER AND REGULATORY FEES WHEREAS, this action is exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, Section 15273 (a) Rates Tolls Fares and Charges and; WHEREAS, this hearing to set fees was duly noticed pursuant to Government Code Section 66016, Local agency fees; new fees and increases; procedures. WHEREAS, the City commissioned ClearSource Financial Consulting to prepare the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study presented in the staff report, incorporated herein, and available for public review. WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the study provides adequate evidence to conclude that the amount of the fees is less than the cost to provide the service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. 2. Resolution No. 96-95 is hereby amended and revised fees as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted. 3. This Resolution shall become effective March 19, 2013. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall go into effect 60 days following the effective date of this Resolution. in 181 Resolution No. 2013- User and Regulatory Fees Adopted: March 19, 2013 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 19`" Day of March 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Susan Maysels, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Don Adolph, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ,_;r 188 Master Fee Schedule Exhibit "A" Citv'of La Quinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Building Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Permit Issuance 1 Permit Issuance (Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical) $ 90.57 $ $ 90.57 Mechanical 2 Installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or $ 35.75 $ 23.83. $ 59.58 burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance 3 Installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall $ 23.83 $ 11.92 $ 35.75 heater, or floor -mounted unit heater 4 Repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, $ 11.92 $ 4.77 $ 16.68 refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the UMC 5 Installation or relocation of each boiler, compressor, or each $ 35.75 $ 23.83 $ 59.58 absorption system 6 Air -handling unit, including attached ducts $ 35.75 $ 11.92 $ 47.67 7 Evaporative cooler, other than portable -type $ 11.92 $ 11.92 $ 23:83 8 Ventilation fan connected to a single -duct $ 11.92 $ 4.77 $ 16.68 9 Installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, $ 11.92 $ 4.77 $ 16.68 including the ducts for such hood 10 Each appliance or piece of equipment not classified in other $ 35.75 $ 35.75 $ 71.50 appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed Plumbing 11 Each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including $ 11.92 $ 11.92 $ 23.83 water, drainage piping, and backflow protection) 12 Building sewer $ 11.92 $ 11.92 $ 23.83 13 Rainwater systems, per drain (inside building) $ 11.92 $ 11.92 $ 23.83 14 Cesspool / private sewage disposal system $ 11.92 $ 4.77 $ 16.68 15 Water heater and/or vent $ 11.92 $ 7.15 $ 19.07 16 Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, $ 35.75 $ 11.92 $ 47.67 excepting kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as fixture Mrs - Bldg MPE Cit of La uinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Building Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical rInstallatiMMEM on, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or water- 1.92 $ 11.92 $ 23.83 equipment, drainage or vent piping, each fixture protective device other than atmospheric -type vacuum .92 $ 4.77 $ 16.68 breakers 19 Gas piping system - 1 to 4 outlets $ 11.92 $ 23.83 $ 35.75 20 Gas piping system - 5 or more outlets $ 35.75 $ 23.83 $ 59.58 Electrical New Construction 21 Residential - First 1,000 Livable 5F $143.00 $ 47.19 $190.19 (Includes livable and non -livable SF) 22 Residential - Each Additional 1,000 Livable SF $ 12.16 $ 5.01 $ 17.16 (Includes livable and non -livable SF) 23 Non -Residential - First 2,000 5F $107.25 $ 82.94 $190.19 24 Non -Residential - Each Additional 2,000 SF $ 35.75 $ 9.53 $ 45.28 Receptacle, Switch, and Lighting Outlets 25 Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used $ 23.83 $ 23.83 $ 47.67 or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters - first 20 26 Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used $ 2.38 $ 0.60 $ 2.98 or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters - each additional Lighting Fixtures 27 Lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp -holding devices - first 20 $ 23.83 $ 23.83 $ 47.67 28 Lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp -holding devices - each $ 2.38 $ 0.60 $ 2.98 additional 29 Pole or platform -mounted lighting fixtures, each $ 23.83 $ 23.83 $ 47.67 Residential Appliances 30 Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including $ 11.92 $ 11.92 $ 23.83 wall -mounted electric ovens; counter -mounted cooking tops; electric ranges; self-contained room, console, or through -wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor - operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP) in rating, each Mrs- BIdgMPE r 191 Clty of La Quinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Building Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Non -Residential Appliances 31 Residential appliances and self-contained, factory -wired, non- $ 23.83 $ 23.83 $ 47.67 residential appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW) , or kilovolt ampere (KVA) in rating, including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each Power Apparatus 32 Motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, $ 23.83 $ 23.83 $ 47.67 capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment, and other apparatus, each Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees 33 Signs, outline lighting systems, or marquees, each $ 35.75 $ 47.67 $ 83.42 Services 34 Services, each $ 23.83 $ 11.92 $ 35.75 Temporary Power Services 35 Temporary service power pole or pedestal, including all pole or $ 23.83 $ 16.68 $ 40.52 pedestal -mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors 36 Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is $ 23.83 $ 23.83 $ 47.67 required, but for which no fee is identified ' In addition to the fees identified in this schedule, the City will pass -through to the applicant any fees imposed by other agencies and any discrete costs incurred from the use of outside service providers required to process the specific application. MFS- BIdgMPE e ` n 2 Master Schedule of Development Services Fees 1 Dish >2Ft $ 35.75 $131.56 $167.31 2 Cellular/Mobile Phone $143.00 $203.06 $346.06 3 Equipment Shelter $ 35.75 $ 95.81 $131.56 4 Appeal Bill Hourly Awning/Canopy (Supported by Building) 5 Awning/Canopy $ 14.30 $203.06 $217.36 Balcony Addition 6 Balcony Addition $143.00 $167.31 $310.31 7 Carport - First $ 71.50 $ 95.81 $167.31 8 Carport - Each Additional $ 71.50 $ 38.13 $109.63 Compliance Survey/Special Inspection 9 Compliance Survey/Special Inspection $ 71.50 $178.75 $250.25 Demolition 10 Demolition $ 24.31 $ 85.80 $110.11 11 Demolition - Interior $ 35.75 $ 95.81 $131.56 12 Demolition - Exterior $ 35.75 $107.25 $143.00 Fence or Freestanding Wall 13 Fence or Freestanding Wall - First 100 LF $ 47.19 $ 60.06 $107.25 14 Fence or Freestanding Wall - Each Additional 50 LF $ 14.30 $ - $ 14.30 Fireplace 15 Fireplace $143.00 $214.50 $357.50 Flag/Lighting Pole 16 Flag/Lighting Pole - First $ 35.75 $ 95.81 $131.56 17 Flag/Lighting Pole - Each Additional $ 14.30 $ 4.29 $ 18.59 MFS- BldgMisc 193 Citv of La Ouinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Building Fees - Miscellaneous Items rResidential nish Grading (Precise Grading Process) $ $ 443.00 $143.00 artition $ 71.50 $131.56 $203.06 Patio Cover / Covered Porch / Lattice 20 Standard, Open, Pre -Engineered $ 95.81 $ 94.38 $190.19 21 Standard, Enclosed, Pre -Engineered $ 95.81 $130.13 $225.94 22 Special Design $131.56 $165.88 $297.44 Pool / Spa 23 Swimming Pool / Spa $178.75 $ 97.24 $ 275.99 Remodel 24 Residential - Up to 100 SF $ 48.62 $132.99 $181.61 25 Residential - Each Additional 500 SF $ 21.45 $ 17.16 $ 38.61 Replacement of Plans/Job Card 26 Replacement of Job Copy of Approved Plans $ - $203.06 $203.06 27 Replacement of Inspection Record Card $ - $ 35.75 $ 35.75 Re -Roof 28 Re -Roof - Up to 2,000 SF $ 48.62 $ 97.24 $145.86 29 Re -Roof - Each Additional 1,000 SF $ 11.44 $ - $ 11.44 Retaining Wall 30 Retaining Wall - Up to 12 Feet - First 100 LF $ 47.19 $ 60.06 $107.25 31 Retaining Wall - Up to 12 Feet - Each Additional 50 LF $ 14.30 $ - $ 14.30 32 Retaining Wall -> 12 Ft Tall -'First 100 LF $ 71.50 $ 59.58 $131.08 33 Retaining Wall - > 12 Ft Tall - Each Add'] 50 LF $ 28.60 $ - $ 28.60 Room Addition 34 Room Addition - Up to 100 SF $120.12 $168.74 $ 288.86 35 Room Addition - Each Additional500 SF $ 61.49 $ 17.16 $ 78.65 MFS - BldgMlsc 194 Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Building, Fees - Miscellaneous Items 737nument ent Sign - First $ 71.50 $131.56 $ 203.06 Sign - Each Additional $ 24.31 $ $ 24.31 38 Wall/Awning Sign - First $ 24.31 $ 85.80 $110.11 39 Wall/Awning Sign - Each Additional $ 24.31 $ 24.31 $ 48.62 Storage Racks 40 Storage Racks - First 100 LF $ 24.31 $ 94.38 $118.69 41 Storage Racks - Each Additional 100 LF $ 11.44 $ - $ 11.44 Stucco Application 42 Stucco Application - First 500 5F $ 24.31 $ 72.93 $ 97.24 43 Stucco Application - Each Additional 500 SF $ 7.15 $ - $ 7.15 Window / Sliding Glass Door / Other Fenestration 44 Fenestration - Repair/Replace - Up to 7 $ 60.06 $108.68 $168.74 45 Fenestration - Repair/Replace - Each Additional 5 $ 10.01 $ 11.44 $ 21.45 46 Fenestration - New - First $ 60.06 $ 58.63 $118.69 47 Fenestration - New - Each Additional $ 10.01 $ - $ 10.01 Administrative 48 Plan Check / Permit Extension Processing $ - $ 95.81 $ 95.81 49 Change of Contractor, Architect, Owner Processing $ - $ 95.81 $ 95.81 50 Request/Research for Alternative Methods/Product Review $ - $143.00 $143.00 51 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $ - $131.56 $131.56 52 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection $ - $143.00 $143.00 * In addition to the fees identified in this schedule, the City will pass -through to the applicant any fees imposed by other agencies and any discrete costs incurred from the use of outside service providers required to process the specific application, including the cost of structural engineering review services. MF5 - BldgMisc Master New (Project Valuation) 1 $1-$500 $ 25.00 2 $501-$2,000 $ 50.00 3 $2,001 - $10,000 $ 101.53 for the first $2,000, plus $25.74 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $10,000 4 $10,001 - $25,000 $ 307.45 forthe first $10,000, plus $ 8.29 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 5 $25,001- $200,000 $ 431.86 for the first $25,000, plus $ 0,81 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $200,000 6 $200,000-$1,000,000 $ 573.43 for the first $200,000, plus $ 0.56 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 7 $1,000,000 and up $ 1,018.16 forthe first $1,000,000, plus $ 0.38 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof (Project Valuation) 8 $1-$500 1 $ 35.00 9 1$501- $2,000 1 $ 70.00 10 $2,001 - $10,000 $ 132.99 for the first $2,000, plus $45.94 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $10,000 11 $10,001 - $25,000 $ 500.50 for the first $10,000, plus $16.68 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 12 $25,001 - $200,000 $ 750.75 for the first $25,000, plus $ 2.66 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $200,000 13 $200,000-$1,000,000 $1,215.50 for the first $200,000, plus $ 1.27 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 14 $1,000,000 and up $2,227.94 for the first $1,000,000, plus $ 0.60 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof (Project Valuation) 15 All Valuations 1 $ 47.67 The new construction fees identified in this fee schedule include the cost of structural engineering review services currently inducted by outside service providers. No additional fees will be collected for the provision of structural engineering review ** Fee applies when multiple identical units are submitted for review and permitted at the same time. MFS - NewCon5t 196 Schedule of Building, Fees - Other Fees Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation 1 Residential $0.50 or valuation x.0001 2 Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00021 Art In Public Places (AIPP) Fee Calculation [a] 3 Residential $20.00 or 1/4 of 1%of value exceeding $200,000 4 Commercial $20.00 or 1/2 of 1% of value Building Standards Administration Special [b] Revolving Fund (SB 1473) Fee Calculation 5 Valuation: a) $1-$25,000 $1 b) $25,001- $50,000 $2 c) $50,001- $75,000 $3 d) $75,001- $100,000 $4 e) Every $25,000 or fraction thereof above Add $1 $100,000 [a] Source: La Quinta Municipal Code 2.65.060. [b] Source: California Health and Safety Code Section 18931.6 MFS- Bldg Other 191 Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Planning Fees .. Temporary Use 1 Temporary Use Permit - Minor $ 200 2 Temporary Use Permit- Major $1,716 3 Minor Use Permit $ 200 Conditional Use / Variance 4 Conditional Use Permit - Administrative bill per hour, with $1,966 minimum fee 5 Conditional Use Permit- Planning Commission bill per hour, with $3,968 minimum fee 6 Conditional Use Permit -Amendment bill per hour, with $1,859 minimum fee 7 Conditional Use Permit - Time Extension $1,359 8 Variance bill per hour, with $1,359 minimum fee Site Development 9 Development Agreement bill per hour, with $1,859 minimum fee [a] 10 Site Development Permit bill per hour, with $5,577 minimum fee 11 Site Development Permit - Amendment bill per hour, with $ 2,860 minimum fee 12 Site Development Permit - Time Extension $1,359 13 Modification by Applicant bill per hour, with $ 286 minimum fee 14 Minor Adjustment bill per hour, with $ 286 minimum fee Village Area 15 Village Use Permit/Village Site Dev Permit bill per hour, with $5,577 minimum fee 16 VUP- Amendment bill per hour, with $2,145 minimum fee 17 VUP - Time Extension $1,359 Landscape Plan 18 Final Landscape Plan - Minor $ 572 19 Final Landscape Plan - Major $1,430 Mrs Planning HE Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Planning Fees Signs 20 Sign Permit $ 200 21 Sign Program bill per hour, with $2,181 minimum fee Zoning 22 Zone Change bill per hour, with $6,149 minimum fee 23 Certificate of Compliance/Zoning Letter $ 572 24 Zoning Text Amendment bill per hour, with $6,149 minimum fee Street Name Change 25 Street Name Change $1,502 Historical Structures 26 Landmark Designation/Cert of Appropriateness $1,000 Environmental Review 27 Environmental Assessment $ 286 28 Recordation of Exemption $ 72 29 Initial Study (MD/MND) bill per hour, with $1,430 minimum fee 30 Environmental Impact Report bill per hour, with $5,000 initial deposit General/Specific Plan 31 Specific Plan bill per hour, with $6,292 minimum fee 32 Specific Plan - Amendment bill per hour, with $ 2,360 minimum fee 33 General Plan Amendment bill per hour, with $6,149 minimum fee Map 34 Tentative Parcel Map bill per hour, with $3,432 minimum fee 35 Tentative Parcel Map - Waiver $1,216 36 Tentative Parcel Map - Amendment bill per hour, with $2,038 minimum fee 37 Tentative Parcel Map - Revision bill per hour, with $2,038 minimum fee MF5 Planning 199 Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Planning Fees 38 Tentative Parcel Map -Time Extension $ 715 39 Tentative Tract Map bill per hour, with $5,577 minimum fee 40 Tentative Tract Map - Amendment bill per hour, with $2,681 minimum fee 41 Tentative Tract Map - Revision bill per hour, with $ 2,681 minimum fee 42 Tentative Tract Map -Time Extension (Council) $1,502 43 Tentative Tract Map -Time Extension (Admin) $ 787 44 Tentative Condominium Map bill per hour, with $3,861 minimum fee Appeal 45 Appeal $1,573 * Fee for combination application is 100% of the highest estimated fee, plus 75%of the fee for the other applicable hourly rate items. Exception for initial study. Initial study billed at 100% fee even when part of a combination application. * In addition to the fees identified in this schedule, the City will pass -through to the applicant any fees imposed by other agencies and any discrete costs incurred from the use of outside service providers required to process the specific application. For service requests, which have no fees listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or his/her designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the 461Planning Department Staff 4710utside Service Providers rates for staff time involved in the service or 143 perhour pass -through of 100% of actual costs [a] Inaddition to the fee shown for Development Agreement, the City shall collect a $2,000 initial deposit to offset City Attorney costs. MF5 Planning - �e 200 CitV of La Quinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Public Works Fees 1 Land Subdivision A) Parcel Map i) Final Parcel Map a) Initial Sheet $ 1,645 per sheet b) Each Additional Sheet $ 501 per sheet ii) Final Parcel Map - Amendment a) Initial Sheet $ 1,645 per sheet b) Each Additional Sheet $ 501 per sheet iii) Substantial Conformance Review a) Initial Sheet $ 2,538 per sheet b) Each Additional Sheet $ 1,144 per sheet B) Tract Map i) Final Tract Map a) Initial Sheet $ 1,788 per sheet b) Each Additional Sheet $ 572 per sheet ii) Final Tract Map - Amendment a) Initial Sheet $ 1,788 per sheet b) Each Additional Sheet $ 572 per sheet iii) Substantial Conformance Review a) Initial Sheet $ 2,467 per sheet b) Each Additional Sheet $ 1,144 per sheet C) Reversion to Acreage a) Initial Sheet $ 1,931 per sheet b) Each Additional Sheet $ 429 per sheet 2 Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger a) Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,430 per request b) Parcel Merger $ 1,430 per request 3 Street Dedication/Vacation a) Land Action Documents $ 1,609 per request (ROW/Easements/Grant Deeds) b) Vacation of Street/Public ROW $ 2,002 per request 4 Land Survey a) Record of Survey $ 465 per request b) Certificate of Correction $ 608 per request MF$ PW 201 City.of La Quinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Public Works Fees ' 5 Grading/ Project Improvements A) Plan Review (First 3 Reviews) a) Rough Grading i) Initial Sheet $ 1,323 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 715 per sheet b) Precise Grading i) Initial Sheet $ 1,609 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 1,001 per sheet c) PM10 i) Initial Sheet $ 500 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ - per sheet d) Street Improvements i) Initial Sheet $ 1,466 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 858 per sheet e) Storm Drain i) Initial Sheet $ 1,466 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 858 per sheet f) Signing and Striping I) Initial Sheet $ 1,323 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 715 per sheet g) Traffic Signal i) Initial Sheet $ 1,180 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 572 per sheet h) Sidewalk I) Initial Sheet $ 1,037 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 429 per sheet i) Traffic Control Plan $ 72 per sheet j) Revisions i) Initial Sheet $ 1,323 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 715 per sheet k) Record Drawings Review i) Initial Sheet $ 751 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 143 per sheet 1) Expired Plan Review i) Initial Sheet $ 1,466 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 858 per sheet m) Hydrology Report $ 1,537 per report n) Traffic Study $ 1,180 per study MFS P W 202 Citv of La Quinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees Schedule of Public Works Fees o) WQMP Report i) With Prior Entitlement $ 1,394 per report ii) Without Prior Entitlement $ 1,680 per report p) SWPPP $ 1,609 per plan q) Sewer and Water i) Initial Sheet $ 1,001 per sheet ii) Each Additional Sheet $ 429 per sheet B) Plan Review (More Than 3 Reviews) $ 143 per hour 6 Permit Inspection a) Rough Grading i) First 3 Acres $ 2,860 ii) Each Additional Acre $ 358 b) Precise Grading i) First 3 Acres $ 2,860 ii) Each Additional Acre $ 358 c) PM10 bill hourly < 10 AC - $1,500 deposit 10-50 AC - $5,000 deposit > SO AC - $15,000 deposit d) Street Improvements - Off -Site i) First 1,000 LF $ 4,576 ii) Each Additional 1,000 LF $ 2,574 e) Street Improvements - On -Site i) First 1,000 LF $ 3,146 ii) Each Additional 1,000 LF $ 1,716 f) Storm Drain i) First 1,000 LF $ 1,716 ii) Each Additional 1,000 LF $ 858 g) Signing and Striping i) First 1,000 LF $ 1,430 ii) Each Additional 1,000 LF $ 429 h) Traffic Signal $ 3,146 i) NPDES $ 1,716 j) Band Reduction Request $ 1,931 k) Final Inspection/Acceptance $ 2,574 MFS PW 203 City of La Quinta Master Schedule of Development Services Fees -77 Schedule of Public Works Fees 1) Traffic Control Only i) One Day $ 286 ii) All Others $ 2,646 m)Cut/Bore $ 1,359 n) Driveway i) Residential $ 143 ii) Commercial $ 930 o) Excavation i) First 100 Lineal Feet $ 644 ii) Each Additional 100 Lineal Feet $ 143 p) Sidewalk i) First 100 Lineal Feet $ 930 ii) Each Additional 100 Lineal Feet $ 286 q) Sewer and Water $ 1,144 r) Night Work $ 358 7 Research/Administrative a) Subdiv'n Improvement Agreem't (SIA) $ 1,716 per request b) SIA - Time Extension $ 1,001 per request c) Assignment & Assumptions Agreem't $ 1,859 per request d) Flood Plain Research/FEMA App $ 858 per request 8 Reactivation of Permit a) Reactivation of an Expired Permit $ 429 each 9 Transportation Permits a) Annual $ 90 each b)Single Event $ 15 each * In addition to the fees identified in this schedule, the City will pass -through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of outside service providers required to process the specific application. Exception for contract traffic engineering and plan review consulting costs, which are included in the fees listed above. For service requests, which have no fees listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or his/her designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service or activity. 10 Public Works Personnel $ 143 per hour 11 Outside Service Providers 100% pass -through of actual cost MFS PW 204 Schedule of Administrative Fees 1 Black and White Copy - up to 8.5 x 14 $ 0.10 per single -sided page 2 Black and White Copy -11 x 17 $ 0.20 per single -sided page 3 Color Copy - up to 8.5 x 14 $ 0.25 per single -sided page 4 Color Copy - 11 x 17 $ 0.50 per single -sided page 5 Oversized Sheets (Plans/Maps) $ 3.00 per sheet [a] 6 CD or DVD $ 5.00 per CD or DVD 7 Certified Document $ 1.75 per document * In addition to the fees identified in this schedule, the City will pass -through to the applicant any fees imposed by other agencies and any discrete costs incurred from the use of outside service providers required to process the specific request for information/service. * In addition to the fees identified in this schedule, the requester shall bearthe cost of producing a copy of the record, including the cost to construct a record, and the cost of programming and computer services necessary to produce a copy of the record when either of the following applies: (a) The public agency is required to produce a copy of an electronic record and the record is one that is produced only at otherwise regularly scheduled intervals. (b) The request requires data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record. Ia] If more than two sheets are requested, the City will typically process the request using an outside vendor service. MFSAdmin 205 M► 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Mark Benedetti - BMC Select Build Ise VICE PRESIDENT Joe Hayes First Bank SECRETARYITREASURER Eileen Eske Pacific Premier Bank VICE PRESIDENT OFASSOCIATES Allan Levin Allan Levin & Associates PAST PRESIDENT Mario Gonzales GHA Companies CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Gretchen Gutierrez builders association March 19, 2013 Frank J. Spevacek, City Manager P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247 Re: Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study Dear Mr. Spevacek: The Desert Valleys Builders Association greatly appreciates the efforts made by staff and ClearSource Financial Consulting in assuring an DIRECTORS appropriate fee schedule based on the 2013 CoLLW . ensive Fee and Wesley Ahlgren Rate Stu After meetings, emails and several phone calls, we The Hemmingway Group understand that our comments and questions have been taken into Fred Bell study t th t d i t consideration and adopted e latest version of the suand rate Nobel) Energy Solutions LLCP Y Brian Benedetti schedule. Therefore, the DVBA believes that the City of La Quinta has B A B Contracting met its obligations in appropriately justifying the proposed fees and Andy Brakebill Coachella Valley Printing rates. Tom DuBose Development Design & Engineering Thank you for your continued professionalism and transparency. Margaret Drury Margaret Drury Construction Tommy Fowlkes Coachella Valley Water District n-retciceo Todd HooksAguaCaliente utie z Band ofCahnillalndians Dave Lippert Chief Executive Officer Lippert Construction. Inc Heather Loutsenhizer Penta Building Group Bruce Maize Fidelity Title Insurance Tom Noble Noble & Company, LLC Dan Olivier Mueller/Olivier/Whittaker LLP Alan Pace Petra Geotechnical Marvin Roos MSA Consulting Inc Greg Smith Smith-Kandal Insurance[Real Estate Phil Smith Sunrise Company Patrick Swarthout Imperial Irrigation District Jeff Wattenbarger Wattenbarger Construction 75100 Mediterranean • Palm Desert • CA 92211 (760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax www.thedvba.org 206 CITY SA / HA / FA MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance to Amend Title 9 (Zoning) of the La Quinta Municipal Code Chapter 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review for Partially Developed Subdivisions) RECOMMENDED ACTION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Z' Move to take up Ordinance No. approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112, thereby amending the La Quinta Municipal Code, as set forth in Exhibit A of said Ordinance, by title and number only and waive further reading; and Move to introduce Ordinance No. _ amending the La Quinta Municipal Code as set forth in said Ordinance, on first reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed amendments to Chapter 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code are intended to: • Clarify what development proposals are subject to compatibility review for partially -developed subdivisions. Provide for staff review and Director approval of Minor Design Deviation development proposals (less than 10 percent change in floor area). • Provide for Planning Commission review and approval of Major Design Deviation development proposals (10 percent or greater change in floor area.) FISCAL IMPACT: 0reyn 2'c BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Community Development Department recently received a proposal regarding completion of the eight remaining unfinished lots within the Westward Shadows development (Tract No. 31816). Although the subdivision previously received site development approval for the homes constructed to date, the applicant proposed completion of the subdivision with a home design smaller in size than the existing homes. Since the proposed new homes differed in size by greater than 10 percent, in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code 9.60.300(I) Development Standards for Compatibility Review, staff informed the applicant the new design could not be approved. The applicant subsequently requested staff consider amending the municipal code to allow consideration of a broader deviation than the currently allowed 10 percent. Upon review, the Community Development Director determined the request warranted consideration of a code amendment. Exhibit "A" summarizes the proposed changes to Section 9.60.300, which provides greater flexibility for compatibility review of partiallydeveloped subdivisions. These revisions are briefly discussed below: • In order to clarify which proposals are and are not subject to compatibility review, staff has proposed moving 9.60.300(L) Major and Minor Deviations to a subsection of 9.60.300(C) Applicability. The current code language defines the difference between a minor and a major design deviation as a change of more than five percent in floor area. Staff has proposed adjusting this threshold from five to ten percent. This amendment provides a simplified administrative review process for minor deviations and consideration of proposals of 10 percent or greater on a case - by -case basis by the Planning Commission (through a site development permit). Currently, a proposed home floor area deviating 10 percent or greater in area is simply prohibited. How the proposed amendment would affect an existing partially developed subdivision is illustrated in the following "what if" scenario. As an example, in 2005, a 100 lot subdivision was approved with a site development permit for five home designs ranging in size from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet (sf) in floor area. By 2007, 75 homes had been built, however, construction then stopped and no more homes were built leaving 25 undeveloped lots. The owner of the undeveloped lots now wants to 2i�$ resume construction but feels the market has changed and proposes to build a new home design with 2,500 sf of floor area. Under the current Zoning Ordinance, the proposed 2,500 sf design is prohibited which leaves the owner with two options; build out the remaining lots with the original home designs; or apply for Planning Commission review of a new design with between 2,700 to 4,400 sf of floor area. Under the proposed amendment, the owner has three options; build out the remaining lots with the original home designs; apply for staff review of a new design with between 2,700 to 4,400 sf of floor. area; or apply for Planning Commission review of the 2,500 sf design. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative actions available to the City Council include denying the amendment request, referring the proposed amendment back to the Planning Commission for further. consideration, or discussion and incorporation of any adjustments deemed appropriate in order to approve the proposed amendment request. AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW This request was published in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 22, 2013. To date, no comments have been received. Comments were not requested from any public agencies or City Departments due to the scope of the amendment and perceived unlikelihood that these changes will affect any other departments or agencies. On February 21, 2013, staff received a letter from the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission expressing concerns regarding their review of the proposed amendment for compatibility with the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Staff responded with a letter explaining the proposed amendment is procedural in nature and does not change the type or density of any land use within the City. Clarification of this point has been included in the recommended ordinance provided to the City Council. Mr. James E. Thompson, President of La Quinta North Partners, L.P., and developer of the Westward Shadows development, Tract No. 31816, submitted a letter expressing his support of the proposed amendment. The letter, dated March 11, 2013, is attached (Attachment 1). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their regular meeting of February 12, 2013, the La Quinta Planning Commission, on a 4-0 vote (Chairman Wright absent), recommended to the City Council 209 adoption of the proposed amendments (Attachment 2). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act Statutes, and Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions,of the CEQA Guidelines. submitted, Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Letter from Mr. Thompson dated March 11, 2013 2. Draft Minutes of February 12, 2013 Planning Commission meeting 210 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 9 (ZONING) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, SPECIFICALLY: CHAPTER 9.60.300 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS) TO ALLOW GREATER FLEXIBILITY REGARDING THE REVIEW PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE FOR COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR PARTIALLY -DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2013-112 WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of accommodating changes in residential building and design practices; and WHEREAS, the City has, from time to time, made amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to address changes in circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 121h day of February, 2013, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend certain Sections of the La Quinta Municipal Code; and, after hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2013-001, recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 22, 2013 as prescribed by the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Finding A The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, particularly Goal 2 of the Residential Goals, Policies and Programs, in that the proposed code revision will facilitate a broader range of housing types, through greater flexibility in siting units on residential lots and design options for individual homes. 211 Ordinance No. _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112 March 19, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Finding B Approval of the amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community or surrounding natural environment in that the proposed change is procedural in nature and will not result in a change of type or density of land use allowed by the existing Zoning Ordinance. It will not result in any change to an existing recreational area or the loss of existing wildlife habitat, nor will it have an effect on the conditions of the existing surrounding neighborhood or have an impact inconsistent with the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Title 9, the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code, is amended as identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL. The Community Development Director has determined said Zoning Ordinance Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83- 63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has reviewed the Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this Ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption. 212 Ordinance No. _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112 March 19, 2013 Page 3 of 3 SECTION 5. POSTING. The City Clerk shall, within 15 days after passage of this Ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council, shall certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance; and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City of La Quinta. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta California Susan Maysels, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 213 EXHIBIT "A": ORDINANCE NO. Amend 9.60.300 Compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions as follows: A. Purpose. Residential subdivisions are often developed in phases, either by the same or different developers or by individual owner -builders. This section imposes requirements to ensure that units in later phases of such projects are compatible in design and appearance with those already constructed. B. Definition. For purposes of this section, the term "compatible" means residential buildings which are similar in floor area and harmonious in architectural style, mass, scale, materials, colors, and overall appearance. C. Applicability. This section applies to all second story additions, aad proposed major design deviations, and new residential units which are different from those originally constructed and/or approved and which are proposed for construction within a partially developed subdivision, except for a custom home subdivision, project or phase. Proposed minor design deviations are not subject to this section. These requirements are in addition to other applicable regulations in this code. 1. Minor Design Deviation. A minor design deviation can be approved by the Community Development Department without a public hearing. Minor design deviation means a modification of an approved architectural unit within a subdivision that involves items such as, but not limited to, less than ten' percent change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; columns, dormer vents, window size changes, plant -on locations, color, and stucco texture changes. The Community Development Director may refer the minor design deviation to the planning commission as a business item under the site development permit process. 2. Major Design Deviation. A major design deviation is subject to the compatibility review for partially developed subdivisions. A major design deviation means a ten percent or more change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; any exterior architectural modification not defined as a minor design deviation. D. Site Development Permit Required. Residential units subject to this section are subject to approval of a site development permit by the planning commission per Section 9.210.010. Applications for such permits shall be filed with the pig Community Development Department on forms prescribed by the director together with: (1) all maps, plans, documents and other materials required by the director, and (2) all required fees per Chapter 9.260. The director shall provide the necessary forms plus written filing instructions specifying all materials and fees required to any requesting person at no charge. PAReports - CC\2013\3-19-13\ZOA 13-112 COMPATIBILITY REVIEW\PH1_(3) ZOA 13-112 CC EXH A.docx Page 1 of 4 4, 214 EXHIBIT "A": ORDINANCE NO. E. Acceptance of Applications as Complete. Within thirty days of receipt of a permit application, the director shall determine whether the application is complete and shall transmit such determination to the applicant. If the application is determined not to be complete, the director shall specify in writing those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete. No application shall be processed until all required materials have been submitted and the application deemed complete. F. Public Hearing Required. A public hearing shall be noticed and held per Section 9.200.110 prior to planning commission approval or denial of any site development permit consisting of the construction of a total of five houses within a tract under the compatibility review provisions of this section. Construction of a total of five or less units shall require review and approval of the planning commission as a business item. The planning Community Development Director may require that additional notice be given by enlarging the notification radius or by other means determined by the director. G. Precise Development Plan. A site development permit approved under the compatibility review provisions of this section constitutes a precise development plan. Therefore, the residential development authorized under the site development shall be in compliance with the plans, specifications and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. H. Required Findings. In addition to the findings required for approval of a site development permit, the following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of any site development permit under the compatibility review provisions of this section: 1. The development standards of subsection I of this section have been satisfied. 2. The architectural and other design elements of the new residential unit(s) will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in the project. I. Development Standards for Compatibility Review. No residential unit shall be approved under compatibility review unless the planning commission determines that it complies with the following development standards: 1. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in the same subdivision. 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same or better type of fencing for the new dwelling(s), as P:\Reports - CC\2013\3-19-13\ZOA 13-112 COMPATIBILITY REVIEW\PH1_(3) ZOA 13-112 CC EXH A.docx Page 2 of 4 it 215 EXHIBIT "A": ORDINANCE NO. determined by the planning commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the planning commission, with respect to the following design elements: a. Architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; b. Colors; C. Roof lines; d. Lot area; and e. Building mass and scale. 4. At least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum of a 24-inch box size (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper) and minimum ten -foot tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard and street side yard with the total number of trees on each lot to be the same as that provided for on the original units. 6. Residential units with identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another. J. Commission Discretion on Unit Types. The planning commission, in reviewing dwelling units under this section, may limit the type and the number of a particular unit to be constructed within a subdivision. K. Appeals. The applicant or another aggrieved party may appeal decisions of the planning commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.200.120. without a public heaFing. MinDIF design deviation Fneans a FnedifieatiOn Of an bUt 198t limited te, less than five peFeent ehaRge in square Ye P:\Reports - CC\2013\3-19-13\ZOA 13-112 COMPATIBILITY REVIEW\PH1_(3) ZOA 13-112 CC EXH A.docx Page 3 of 4 216 EXHIBIT "A": ORDINANCE NO. P:\Reports - CC\2013\3-19-13\ZOA 13-112 COMPATIBILITY REVIEW\PH1_(3) ZOA 13-112 CC EXH A.docx Page 4 of 4 r 217 1 ATTACHMENT # 1 La Quinta North Partners, L.P. 3o6 Colony Plaza Newport Beach,; CA 92660 949-533-9403 Fax`949-7o6-1419 March 11, 2013 Deliver by email: MRadeva@la-quinta.org Hard copy to follow in mail City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta,,CA 92247 RE: ZOA 2013-112 Compatibility Review Westward Shadows, Tract 31816 Dear Mayor and members of the City Council - Accompanying this letter is my original letter requesting a change to City of La Quinta Ordinance 9.6o.300 which the Planning Commission approved 2/12/13. It is important to point out that most Subdivisions contain several floor plans and a variety of square footages. Buyers have the opportunity to purchase based on their personal requirements. For this reason, downsizing from existing; square footages is no different than what would have been had different size homes been introduced in the beginning. Due to a prior commitment:I am unableto attend the meeting scheduled for March 19, 2013. This letter is in support of the Proposed ZOA 2013-112, and I recommend your approval. Thank you. Sincerely, James E. Thompson 218 January 6, 2013 Mr. Les Johnson, Planning Director City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247 Dear Mr. Johnson: La Quinta North Partners, L.P. 3o6 Colony Plaza Newport Beach, CA 9266o 949-533.9408 Fax 949-7o6-1419 REF: Tract 31816 Deliver via email & hard copy to follow This is a request by La Quinta North Partners, L.P. for the City to amend the Compatibility Ordinance by deleting Section 1.5 of Residential Regulations 9.60.300. La Quinta North Partners, L.P. acquired Tract 31816 in 2005, processed a Final Map, constructed Offsite Improvements and 18 Homes. Due to economic conditions the remaining 8 Lots (#19-26)' have set vacant for over 4 years. La Quinta North Partners, L.P. has maintained the lots, paid the Taxes and other carry costs, but has been unable to build -out or sell due to lack of demand. At this time we have received an Offer to Purchase;, however for Homes to compete in today's Market they must be downsized. The potential Buyers have submitted plans to the City which we believe meet the requirements of the Compatibility Ordinance except for size. Construction of new homes would be beneficial as the homes would replace the vacant fenced property, the City and School District would receive new,Fees, and there would be an increase in Taxes to the City. We also believe the existing Homeowners in the Subdivision would be better served having new homes versus the PM10 fenced lots which are a continuing problem due to wind damage and graffiti. We are available to discuss any questions you may have. Please contact Jim Thompson at 949-533-9408 or email: %imtPsurterrepronerties com Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, La Quinta North Partners, L.P. By: Urban Habitat, A California Corporation, its GeneralPartner fames E. Thompson, President 219 ATTACHMENT # 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Co 7:01 p.m. by Chairperson Barrows. PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Wright STAFF PRESENT: Community Developmen Manager David Sawyer, Secretary MonoRadeva. Chairperson Barrows led the Co PUBLIC COMMENT - called to order at and Chairperson Les John on;' Planning Planner Jay Wuu, and iance. \'>mofi"op�was`made and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Alderson to e PlanningLCommis'.sion Minutes of November 27, 2012, as submitted. AYES:- Commissioners,=Aidersdn"'' Weber, Wilkinson, and Chairperson Barrows NOES: None, ABSENTVice Chairman Wright ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration o'f`�' Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112 - Certain Amendments to the La Quinta Municipal Code; Chapter 9.60.300, Compatibility Review for Partially Developed Subdivision. Location: City-wide. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 FEBRUARY 12, 2013 220 Commissioner Weber asked staff to clarify why the proposed threshold of 10% for the code amendment was appropriate and how it compared to the neighboring cities. Associate Planner Wuu answered the question. Commissioner Wilkinson asked how the 10% deviation in plans would affect the final product aesthetically. Associate Planner Wuu said the deviation only affected the square footage of the proposed development plans, not the architectural style. r' Chairperson Barrows declared the PUBLIC HEARING EN at 7:14 a.m. Public Speaker: Mr. Jim Thompson, Newport`B,each — Mr.��Thompson spoke of his past experiences as a developer withirltfie City of La`Quinta, the recent changes in the housing market and the,, ' ct on unfinished developments; he spoke about the proposed code amendment, and expressed his support for it. General discussion followed regarding located at the southwest corner= of.Wes Community Development Din amendment was not site spec code amendment w661&;mer compatibility review for"Whic explained that'if a developerIv site development permit 44a1 Department and 'go through%th General"discussion followed 0 Z9 rd Shadows development Roudel Lane. ti )n not '}that the proposed code ✓edbythe City Council, this zoning developers with a mechanism for the code did not allow for. He d, they would still need to submit a ith the Community Development approval process. regarding the proposed amendment and the There being no further;, questions or discussion, Chairperson Barrows declared the PUBLIC HEARINGl'CLOSED at 7:32 p.m. '` ti /` f Motion — VAS. /motibn was made and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Wilkinso�n�to adopt Resolution 2013-001 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2013-112 as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Weber, Wilkinson, and Chairperson Barrows NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Wright ABSTAIN: None BUSINESS SESSION - None CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 12, 2013 .1 221