Loading...
2019 12 17 Council CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1 DECEMBER 17, 2019 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2019 3:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION | 4:00 P.M. OPEN SESSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Fitzpatrick, Peña, Radi, Sanchez, Mayor Evans PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA 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). CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (d) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CASES: 1) 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (d) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CASES: 1) 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6; CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CHRIS City Council agendas and staff reports are available on the City’s web page: www.LaQuintaCA.gov CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2 DECEMBER 17, 2019 ESCOBEDO, DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY RESOURCES; AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE AT 4:00 P.M. REPORT ON ACTIONS(S) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA 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). ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS, AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. PRESENTATION BY THE LIVING DESERT ON “PRIDE OF THE DESERT” CAMPAIGN BY PRESIDENT/CEO ALLEN MONROE AND DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT JAN HAWKINS CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and can be approved by one motion. PAGE 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2019 7 2. APPROVE MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 17 3. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ANALYST TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL TREASURERS ASSOCIATION ADVANCED PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTING TRAINING IN CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 15-16, 2020 21 4. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR MARKETING MANAGER TO ATTEND THE 2020 CAL TRAVEL SUMMIT IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SEPTEMBER 8-11, 2020 23 5. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR ONE COUNCILMEMBER AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYST TO ATTEND CITY LAUNCH CONFERENCE IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, MARCH 22-24, 2020 25 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 3 DECEMBER 17, 2019 27 53 57 95 103 109 119 133 155 6.ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 582 ON SECOND READING TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS APNs 770-020-015 THROUGH 770-020-021 (LA QUINTA VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER) FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (ZONE CHANGE 2019-0002) 7.APPROVE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE, AND ADVERTISE FOR BID THE AVENIDA BERMUDAS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 2019-09) 8.APPROPRIATE $95,965 FROM THE GENERAL FUND, AND APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES WITH BENGAL ENGINEERING, INC FOR WHITEWATER RIVER CHANNEL REGIONAL SCOUR ANALYSIS BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND WASHINGTON STREET GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES (PROJECT NO. 2019-19) 9.APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES FROM AMERON POLE PRODUCTS, LLC FOR THE WASHINGTON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE TRIPLE LEFT TURN PROJECT NO. 2017-01 10.ADOPT RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT’S ANNUAL INSPECTION REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 13146.4 [RESOLUTION NO. 2019-051] 11.APPROVE ADDENDUM TO THIRD AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TO RE-ADMIT THE TORRES MARTINEZ TRIBE AS A MEMBER 12.RECEIVE AND FILE FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FEE REPORT 13.APPROVE DEMAND REGISTERS DATED NOVEMBER 22 AND DECEMBER 6, 2019 14.RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 15.RECEIVE AND FILE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES ANNUAL REPORT 159 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4 DECEMBER 17, 2019 BUSINESS SESSION PAGE 1. INTERVIEW AND APPOINT RESIDENTS TO SERVE ON THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AND IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT ENERGY CONSUMERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 163 2. SELECT MAYOR PRO TEMPORE TO SERVE FOR ONE YEAR 165 3. ANNUAL COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO SERVE ON VARIOUS OUTSIDE AGENCIES FOR 2020 167 4. APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LA QUINTA, INDIAN WELLS, PALM DESERT AND RANCHO MIRAGE; AND APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LA QUINTA, INDIAN WELLS AND PALM DESERT 171 STUDY SESSION PAGE 1. DISCUSS 2019 UPDATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY 215 PUBLIC HEARINGS – None DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 1. CITY MANAGER – FIRE SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY BY MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP – DECEMBER 3, 2019 STAFF REPORT MODIFICATION 343 2. CITY ATTORNEY – VERBAL UPDATE RE: MEETING WITH CITY STAFF ON HOUSING LEGISLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 3. CITY CLERK 4. COMMUNITY RESOURCES 5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 6. PUBLIC WORKS – FACILITIES MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT NOVEMBER 2019 347 7. FINANCE 8. POLICE 9. FIRE MAYOR’S AND COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ITEMS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 5 DECEMBER 17, 2019 REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. CVAG COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION (Evans) 2. CVAG ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Evans) 3. CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Evans) 4. GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (Evans) 5. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DELEGATE (Evans) 6. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE (Evans) 7. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (Evans) 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (Evans & Radi) 9. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (Fitzpatrick) 10. DESERT RECREATION DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Fitzpatrick and Radi) 11. COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Fitzpatrick & Peña) 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (Fitzpatrick) 13. SILVERROCK EVENT SITE AD HOC COMMITTEE (Fitzpatrick) 14. CANNABIS AD HOC COMMITTEE (Peña and Sanchez) 15. CVAG PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (Peña) 16. EAST VALLEY COALITION (Peña) 17. CVAG VALLEY-WIDE HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE (Peña) 18. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES – PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE (Peña) 19. CVAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (Radi) 20. GREATER CV CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INFORMATION EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (Radi) 21. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY (Radi) 22. CITYWIDE SECURITY CAMERAS AD HOC COMMITTEE (Radi) 23. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Radi and Sanchez) 24. ANIMAL CAMPUS COMMISSION (Sanchez) 25. COACHELLA VALLEY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (Sanchez) 26. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES – GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY AND LABOR POLICY COMMITTEE (Sanchez) 27. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (Sanchez) ADJOURNMENT ********************************* The regular meeting of the City Council scheduled for January 7, 2020, has been cancelled. The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on January 21, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 6 DECEMBER 17, 2019 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Monika Radeva, City Clerk, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting was posted on the City’s website, near the entrance to the Council Chambers at 78495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at the Stater Brothers Supermarket at 78630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51321 Avenida Bermudas, on December 13, 2019. DATED: December 13, 2019 MONIKA RADEVA, 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 (760) 777-7092, 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 (760) 777-7092. A one (1) week notice is required.  If background material is to be presented to the Councilmembers 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 Community Development counter at City Hall located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 1 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2019 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Mayor Evans. PRESENT: Councilmembers Fitzpatrick, Peña, Radi, Sanchez, Mayor Evans ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA – None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Mayor Evans said she would like to introduce Kathleen Miller-Prunty, Deputy Mayor for the City of Cranford, New Jersey, under Announcements, Presentations, and Written Communications section of the agenda, who was visiting La Quinta. Council concurred. CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (d) of GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH, THE CITY OF LA QUINTA V. BOZEK, RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. INM1802766 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (d) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CASES: 1) 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (d) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CASES: 1) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 COUNCIL RECESSED THE OPEN SESSION PORTION OF THE MEETING AND MOVED INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 3:02 P.M. MAYOR EVANS RECONVENED THE OPEN SESSION PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 4:00 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT REPORT ON ACTION(S) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Ihrke reported no actions were taken in Closed Session that require reporting pursuant to Government Code section 54957.1 (Brown Act). Mayor Evans asked the public to join the Council for a moment of silence to honor long-time City of Palm Desert Councilmember Jean Benson, who passed away over the weekend, for her dedicated public service; she was 95 years- old. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA PUBLIC SPEAKERS: Site Supervisor Kelli Murphy and Assistant Site Supervisor Stephany Lopez with Family YMCA of the Desert La Quinta Child Development Center – presented Council with a “Thank You” card signed by YMCA staff, and thanked Council for the City-donated generator providing back-up power to the center in the event of a power outage, like the one experienced in June, during which the center had to close down as there was no alternative power source available; and said the YMCA provides many affordable child care options for families, including their School Age Care program serving Truman and Ben Franklin Elementary schools providing before and after school care for children in Transition Kindergarten through the 5th grade; Early Childhood Education Preschool Program for ages 2 to 5 years-old; and effective January 6, 2020, the center will launch a new Infant Program, for ages from 3 to 24 months-old; quality meals are provided as part of the programs and the center is open daily from 7 am to 6 pm, including holidays and during the summer when schools are closed. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Beverly Green, CEO with Neuro Vitality Center, Palm Springs – said the organization was the former Stroke Recovery Center, spoke of the services the organization offers, it’s recent natural evolution of care and expansion of services into neuro vitality, including neurology, dementia, and Alzheimer’s, focusing on providing patients with the best overall quality of life, and to better meet the demands and needs of the Coachella Valley. 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Added by Mayor Evans >>> INTRODUCE KATHLEEN MILLER- PRUNTY, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR CITY OF CRANFORD, NEW JERSEY Mayor Evans introduced Kathleen Miller-Prunty, Deputy Mayor for City of Cranford, New Jersey, visiting relatives in La Quinta. Council welcomed Ms. Miller-Prunty and presented her with a La Quinta lapel pin. 2. Renumbered from Agenda order >>> SILVERROCK RESORT UPDATE BY PROJECT MANAGER JOHN GAMLIN WITH SILVERROCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Project Executive John Gamlin with SilverRock Development Company gave a presentation on the development progress of the SilverRock Resort, including mass and rough grading, temporary Clubhouse, permit submittals, design, and construction timeline. 3. Renumbered from Agenda order >>> LA QUINTA ART CELEBRATION EVENT UPDATE BY PAUL ANDERSON Art Event Producer Paul Anderson said the event name is “La Quinta Art Celebration;” it will be held March 5-9, 2020; introduced Event Director Kathleen Hughes, Volunteer Coordinator Debbie Nelson, and CFO of Scope Services Anil Pisharody; and spoke of the event organization efforts, marketing and promotional campaigns, artist juried process, featured art types, including a digital experience, site event lay-out. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2019 2. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2019 3. ADOPT RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2020, AND AMEND THE CITY’S FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 SALARY SCHEDULE [RESOLUTION NO. 2019-049] 4. AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 2020 RISK MANAGEMENT ACADEMY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 21-23, 2020 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 5. APPROVE DEMAND REGISTER DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2019 6. APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH RASA FOR ON-CALL MAP CHECKING SERVICES MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Fitzpatrick to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended, with Item No. 3 adopting Resolution No. 2019-049. Motion passed unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION MAYOR EVANS SAID ALTHOUGH SHE SERVES AS A BOARD MEMBER ON THE MICKELSON FOUNDATION, A NON-PROFIT ENTITY, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 1091.5, THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS IT IS A NON-STIPEND VOLUNTEER POSITION 1. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH THE MICKELSON FOUNDATION, INC. FOR THE AMERICAN EXPRESS GOLF TOURNAMENT FROM 2020 THROUGH 2024 FOR IN-KIND PUBLIC SAFETY, RECYCLING SERVICES, AND MARKETING COLLABORATION TO HOST THE EVENT Marketing Manager Graham presented the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s Office. Council discussed that the City’s agreement with the Mickelson Foundation, Inc. offers the same services in lieu of monetary compensation as compared to the City’s past agreement with Desert Classic Charities for the same event. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Pat McCabe, Tournament Director with Mickelson Foundation, Inc. – said generally the lay-out for the 2020 American Express PGA Tour golf event is very similar to events held in the past, including event access points; the agreement does include a timeline to obtaining the required City permits; the concert series has been upgraded featuring country music star Luke Bryan and rock and roll legend Stevie Nicks; attendance is anticipated to double due to the featured artists; increased security presence is being coordinated with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department; traffic control and path of travel will be similar to prior events; ticket costs range from $35 to $50 depending on the day of attendance; and ticket sales are caped. 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 Council commended the event producers and sponsors for elevating the quality of the event MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Sanchez to approve an Agreement for Contract Services with Michelson Foundation, Inc. for The American Express Golf Tournament for 2020 through 2024 for in-kind services to host the event; and authorize the City manager to execute the agreement. Motion passed unanimously. 2. APPROVE CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP TO CONDUCT A FIRE SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY Public Safety Manager Mendez presented the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s Office. Council discussed the agreement calls for the Fire Service Delivery Study to be completed by the end of March 2020; the City’s agreement for contract services with Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) is in effect until June 2021, which will allow Staff a year to negotiate the terms of the new agreement with the RCFD; Matrix Consulting Group has conducted approximately 350 fire studies for agencies located throughout California and the United States, and has extensive experience with Cal Fire and RCFD; the annual fire property tax revenue the City receives, and the continuing rising costs for fire services delivery; importance to conduct the study and have data to guide the decision-making process, implement adequate checks and balances, and be fiscally responsible; collaboration is imperative in this process; and the metrics will help the City mitigate future cost increases. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Fitzpatrick/Sanchez to approve Contract Services Agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a fire service delivery study, for a total not to exceed amount of $39,900 dollars; and authorize the City manager to execute the agreement. Motion passed unanimously. STUDY SESSION – None CITY HALL ANNUAL OPEN HOUSE MAYOR EVANS RECESSED THE MEETING FOR THE CITY’S ANNUAL OPEN HOUSE MEET AND GREET AT 5:05 P.M. MAYOR EVANS RECONVENED THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 6:01 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT 11 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 PUBLIC HEARINGS – After 6:00 P.M. 1. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AT FIRST READING TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 2019-0002, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE 2019-0001 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2019-0002 FOR A 2,790 SQUARE-FOOT DRIVE- THROUGH FACILITY; CEQA: FIND THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-187 (2019-0002); PROJECT: STARBUCKS; LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLE TAMPICO [ORDINANCE NO. 582 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2019-050] Senior Planner Flores presented the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s Office. Council discussed the height of the light fixtures; lighting will be LED; pedestrian path of travel; drive-through stacking capacity, and exiting into an interior street traffic circulation; Planning Commission’s recommendation to add plants or a low-bearing wall as barrier between the parking lot and the proposed outside patio; this project will reduce the total number of parking spaces in the center; and traffic signal timing at the Washington Street and Village Shopping Center intersection, and ability to increase the turning left- lane to two dependent on the vehicle count. MAYOR EVANS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 6:20 P.M. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Kayman Wong, representing the property owner, LQ Investments – said they were excited to open a new Starbucks in La Quinta; and answered Council’s questions with regards to average wait time for drive- through customers; designated parking for mobile order pay (MOP) orders; comprehensive demographic studies allow Starbucks to custom select the products it offers to best match the demands of the community, in this case a reserve bar for MOPs; the new building will allow Starbucks to better construct the space and get more ‘usable’ space for its customers; no additional lease restrictions will be imposed on the commercial center due to Starbucks’ relocation; the zone change increases the allowed types of uses; owner’s plans and efforts to revitalize the center; the center’s leases are not sustainable based on the market’s economic state; and will communicate to the owner the City’s and the community’s desire to revive the center. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Elisa Guerrero, La Quinta – said she is not in support or opposition of the project; she is a frequent Starbucks patron; the existing traffic leaving the center via La Quinta Village shopping center at time creates 12 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 a traffic congestion and should be taken under consideration; importance to note that the new building will increase the rate of vacancy in the center; Council must exercise caution and not set a precedent that drive-through facilities are allowed in the Cove; and the property owner has not shown interest in improving the state of the center. Council discussed this center abuts Washington Street which makes the zone change viable, thus not setting a precedent that drive-through facilities will be allowed in the Cove; other commercial centers in the Cove abut interior streets, such as Calle Tampico, which is going through major renovations to slow down traffic, increase pedestrian connectivity, and encourage the use of alternative transportation options. MAYOR EVANS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:35 P.M. Council directed Staff to explore options to widen the turning lane capacity at the Washington Street and Village Shopping Center intersection, perhaps through striping; bring this matter for Planning Commission review after six months of operations to evaluate if revisions are necessary; and ensure adequate pedestrian path of travel north-bound from the center into the adjacent housing development. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Fitzpatrick/Radi to take up Ordinance No. 582 by title and number only and waive further reading. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Radeva read the following title of Ordinance No. 551 into the record: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NOS. 770-020-015 THROUGH 770-020-021 CASE NUMBER: ZONE CHANGE 2019-0002 APPLICANT: KAIDENCE GROUP MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Fitzpatrick/Radi to introduce at first reading Ordinance No. 582 as recommended. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Fitzpatrick/Radi to adopt Resolution No. 2019-050 approving Variance 2019- 0001 and Site Development Permit 2019-0002, and find the project consistent with Environmental Assessment 91-187, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval: 13 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A VARIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, FOR A NEW 2,790 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THROUGH STARBUCKS AND FIND THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CASE NUMBERS: VARIANCE 2019-0001, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2019-0002, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0002 APPLICANT: KAIDENCE GROUP Motion passed unanimously. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS All reports are on file in the City Clerk’s Office. 9. POLICE – QUARTERLY REPORT JULY – SEPTEMBER 2019 Council discussed the average response time for Priority 1 incidents, and how one incident can greatly affect the average. MAYOR’S AND COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ITEMS Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez reported on his attendance at the Rancho La Quinta Thanksgiving welcoming luncheon for marines from 29 Palms marine base, and there was a great turnout. Councilmember Peña reported he, Mayor Evans, Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez, and Councilmember Radi attended the Citizens on Patrol annual appreciation dinner, held on November 22, 2019, at the Trilogy Santa Rosa Clubhouse Ballroom. Councilmember Peña said he and Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez attended the annual tree lighting ceremony at the La Quinta Resort & Club, held on November 30, 2019, at 5 pm, at the Plaza. Councilmember Fitzpatrick said when residents pull permits to hold fireworks, the City will post the permit information on its website and advertise it in the Gem to create awareness for neighboring residents, so they may take precaution for their animals. Councilmember Radi said he attended the kick-off event for the formation of SSG James Perez athletic scholarship for the La Quinta High School athletic club. 14 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 of 9 DECEMBER 3, 2019 REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS La Quinta’s representative for 2019, Mayor Evans reported on her participation in the following organizations’ meetings: CVAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE GREATER PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Fitzpatrick to adjourn at 6:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California 15 16 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2019 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 4 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2019 CALL TO ORDER – City Council and Planning Commission A Special Joint Meeting of the La Quinta City Council and La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Evans. PRESENT: Councilmembers Fitzpatrick, Peña, Radi, Sanchez, Mayor Evans ABSENT: None PRESENT: Commissioners Bettencourt, Currie, Libolt Varner, McCune, Nieto, and Vice Chair Proctor ABSENT: Chairperson Caldwell PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission Vice Chair Proctor led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA – None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA – Confirmed BUSINESS SESSION 1. RECEIVE AND FILE HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR (CORRIDOR) PLAN (PLAN) AND DISCUSS IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS Design and Development Director Castro, Planning Manager Flores, and City Consultant Kaizer Rangwala with Rangwala Associates presented the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s Office. Discussion followed regarding form-based code, which is defined as a means of regulating land development to achieve a specific urban form or vision; it is a step further from conventional zoning, by comprehensively taking into consideration the building form and its relationship to the street, public realm, character form, street scale, etc. to realize a sense of place; form-based code has been in place for quite some time, and was predominantly used prior to CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 17 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2019 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 4 the automobile age; any code is comprised of three components – 1) Use – the type and number of uses allowed for a specific land, 2) Managing the performance of the use – by establishing standards for landscaping, screening, parking, etc., and 3) Form – establishing standards for setbacks, height, etc.; conventional zoning code regulations are primarily focused on the use (or private realm), versus form-based code focuses on the public realm and regulates the use more broadly through precise standards that “define the realm” instead of “setting minimum requirements,” this provides flexibility in that it does not regulate the “form,” but rather the “place” where the form exists to create a sense of place; historically, specific plans (SPs) were used to provide developers with flexibility. Further discussion followed regarding whether or not the Plan would become required development standards or suggested design guidelines; potential funding sources to help the City fund the ambitious tasks identified in the implementation plan based on the Corridor’s vision; ability to implement gradually through a phased-in incremental approach as opportunities present themselves, or comprehensively throughout the entire Corridor; mirror the development code tune-up project action team approach for the Corridor’s vision implementation; the Plan does not override the existing 11 SPs; form- based code can be incorporated into the City’s Municipal Code; transforming the look of the Corridor with a continuous tree line; feasibility of overhead pedestrian walkways across the Corridor; the Plan is a living document and can be amended to include elements not foreseen today, but demanded by the future; the Plan’s implementation will require a variety of funding sources and a substantial amount of funds not only to implement, but to maintain as well; having a business improvement district and securing tax bond increments should be part of the discussion to ensure the City has funding sources for the necessary infrastructure improvements; and establish a process to ensure all Departments continuously contribute to the internal and external analysis of the Plan to keep it up-to-date. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Dale Tyerman, La Quinta – said the Plan’s development has been a well-run process, has involved all stakeholders, and he has had the opportunity to participate at every stage; and commended Staff for their hard work. Mr. Tyerman expressed his enthusiasm about the Plan’s vision of the Corridor aiming to address the changing face of retail, and new emerging demands for a sense of place versus transaction. He said many of the proposed design elements outlined in the Plan and the greening of the Corridor will provide shade, encourage walkability, create a sense of community, and enhance the sense of experience; it is a bold Plan and a long-term vision for the community; execution will require strong leadership and open and proactive cross-community communication. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 18 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2019 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 4 Mayor Evans said Desert Health Care District’s prior allocation of $10 million dollars to fund the regional CV Link project headed by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is still under discussion; CVAG anticipates securing all easements, over the next few months, for the CV Link portion within La Quinta’s boundary, and could potentially start building it in 2020; and City of Indian Wells City Council will consider La Quinta’s proposed boundary adjustment, intended to accommodate the CV Link project, during their regular meeting of January 16, 2020. Staff said the Corridor Plan aims to ensure the Corridor’s business viability based on changes in shopping trends, as well as provide the community with a sense of place and experiences; and it is important to note that although the CV Link project will complement the Plan, the Corridor enhancement is not dependent on it. Further discussion followed regarding compliance with the existing 11 SPs has been challenging; importance to have a mechanism that engages business and property owners to collaborate and work cohesively; events held at centers along the Corridor promote residents integration from south and north La Quinta; explore anticipated technological improvements, such as expanding broadband and other smart-city components; the City can lead the way by developing city-owned land in the Corridor’s vision; available grant- based funding mechanisms are listed in the Plan; keeping the community engaged in the Corridor’s vision as it progresses is key to ensure that future Councils will continue to carry it forward; a comprehensive marketing and branding campaign for the Corridor is critical in carrying out the vision; Staff’s institutional knowledge is critical to the vitality of the Plan; form-based codes do not take rights away from developers and business owners, instead it provides more options and flexibility, and creates a larger framework where each participant contributes for the collective benefit of all. Council directed Staff to include the Corridor Plan as a discussion topic during the City’s annual Community Workshop scheduled for January 11, 2020. Council directed Staff to create a visual guide of the Corridor Plan projecting out the anticipated objectives for 30 years from now, in order to identify the implementation objectives and milestones needed to be accomplished in the next 5 years to stay on track, help guide the community on what is to come, ascertain the estimated costs, and provide an overall concept of how the Plan will be implemented long-term; and to apply for available grant funding opportunities. Staff provided an update on the landscaping, sidewalk, and sign improvements in front of the La Quinta auto dealerships along the Corridor. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 19 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 2019 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 4 Council commended the community, Consultant, and Staff for their efforts in creating the Corridor Plan and vision. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Sanchez to receive and file the Highway 111 Corridor Plan and discuss implementation actions to carry out the vision as recommended. Motion passed: City Council – unanimously; Planning Commission – ayes 6, noes 0, absent 1 (Caldwell). COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION – None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Radi/Fitzpatrick to adjourn at 7:22 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2 20 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ANALYST TO ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL TREASURERS ASSOCIATION ADVANCED PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTING TRAINING IN CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 15-16, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for the Financial Services Analyst to attend the California Municipal Treasurers Association Advanced Public Funds Investing training in Claremont, California, January 15-16, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •California Municipal Treasurers Association (CMTA) training focuses on topics directly related to portfolio management and analysis, investment principles, and California Government Code §53601. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses are $575 which includes registration, travel, lodging, and meals. Funds are budgeted in Finance Travel and Training (101-1006-60320). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CMTA is a statewide organization serving all California municipal treasury professionals. The organization promotes financial management through continuing education, with a focus on key issues related to treasury, public funds investment, and debt issuance. C MTA partners with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission to offer specialized training . This advanced class is a continuation of the Fundamentals of Public Funds Investing class which was attended by the Financial Services Analyst in January 2019. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect not to authorize this request. Prepared by: Rosemary Hallick, Financial Services Analyst Approved by: Karla Romero, Finance Director CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3 21 22 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR MARKETING MANAGER TO ATTEND THE 2020 CAL TRAVEL SUMMIT IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SEPTEMBER 8-11, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for Marketing Manager to attend the 2020 Cal Travel Summit in Huntington Beach, California, September 8-11, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The Cal Travel Summit brings together the most compelling voices of travel and tourism for three days of insights, issues, discussion and strategies. •Registering for this event before December 31, 2019 would provide an Early Bird Discount of $500. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses would be $2,500, which includes registration, travel, lodging, parking, and meals. Funds are currently available in the 2019/20 Marketing Travel and Training budget (101-3007-60320) and would be carried over to 2020/21. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Cal Travel Association is the unified voice of the travel and tourism industry in California. Through collaboration, advocacy and education it’s mission is to protect and advance the industry’s interests and investments. By attending this summit, the Marketing Manager would collaborate with the Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau as well as learn strategies to reinforce the value of tourism to local businesses, media, and residents. This would continue to enable the City to be more innovative and in the forefront of tourism within the Coachella Valley. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect to deny this request. Prepared by: Marcie Graham, Marketing Manager Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 4 23 24 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: AUTHORIZE OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR ONE COUNCILMEMBER AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYST TO ATTEND CITY LAUNCH 2020 CONFERENCE IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, MARCH 22-24, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Authorize overnight travel for Councilmember Peña and Traffic Operations Analyst to attend City Launch 2020 Conference in San Diego, California, March 22-24, 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The City Launch conference offers technology sessions and strategic programs dedicated to transforming local government services with technology and data analytics. •Participants will also be educated on big data, small cell technology, citizen engagement, autonomous vehicles, expanding broadband, and incorporating economic development with technology. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated expenses are $1,195 per person, or a total of $2,390, which includes registration, travel, lodging, and meals. Funds are available in the 2019/20 City Council and Streets Travel and Training budgets (101-1001- 60320 & 101-7003-60320). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Connected Communities Collaborative (CCC) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping local governments strategically integrate and leverage technological innovation to enhance economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and quality of life. CCC works to give local governments the strategies they need to take advantage of smart city technologies. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5 25 CCC’s signature production is City Launch, held annually in San Diego. City Launch is the kickoff to a year-long series of educational and networking meetings, seminars and online trainings for local government officials, vendors and smart city researchers and practitioners. CCC programming is designed to bring together novice and veteran smart city leaders in working groups to share best practices and build relationships that provide ongoing support to achieve local goals. ALTERNATIVES Council may choose not to approve this request. However, this alternative is not recommended as staff would not be allowed to take advantage of this professional development opportunity, which would benefit City service delivery. Prepared by: Gil Villalpando, Assistant to the City Manager Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager 26 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 582 ON SECOND READING TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS APNs 770- 020-015 THROUGH 770-020-021 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (ZONE CHANGE 2019-0002) RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 582 on second reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 3, 2019, Council introduced Ordinance No. 582 for first reading to approve Zone Change 2019-0002 amending the Zoning Map for the La Quinta Village commercial center (Center), more specifically identified as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 770-020-015 through 770-020-021, from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Community Commercial (CC). FISCAL IMPACT – None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Center was approved in April 1991 for an approximate 116,660 sq. ft. shopping center on the site via Plot Plan 91-456 and Environmental Assessment (EA) 91-187. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (ZC) were also approved to allow for commercial uses. Two amendments were approved in November 1992 and April 1994, respectively reducing the project size to 85,645 sq. ft., and 79,333 sq. ft and revise building and circulation configuration. The Center exists today under the configuration approved in the second amendment (Attachment 1). This Ordinance will amend the Zoning Map for the Center from CN to CC, to allow drive-through facilities and better meet the needs of a multi- neighborhood area. The Center’s location serves multiple neighborhoods as it abuts existing apartment complexes and is in close proximity to the Cove, residential homes directly east of Washington Street, residential communities at the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and residential communities north and south of Avenue 52, including SilverRock. The ZC allows more uses than would be permitted by right or by use permit for the Center, and does not create nonconformities for any existing structures CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6 27 or uses. This provides more options for activity within the Center, including the former Ralphs building, which has been vacant since 2014. Attachment 2 highlights the changes to uses that would occur through the ZC. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Design and Development Department has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the mitigated negative declaration approved for Plot Plan 91-456 and EA 91-187, approved on April 16, 1991. This proposal increases the shopping center to 82,823 sq. ft., which is still well under the original 116,600 sq. ft. analyzed by the original EA. The applicant prepared a traffic memo, on file with the Design and Development Department, that demonstrates no significant impacts from the drive-through facility. ALTERNATIVES As Council approved this ordinance at first reading, staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Tania Flores, Management Assistant Approved by: Monika Radeva, City Clerk Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Table of Permitted Uses 28 ORDINANCE NO. 582 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NOS. 770-020-015 THROUGH 770-020-021 CASE NUMBER: ZONE CHANGE 2019-0002 APPLICANT: KAIDENCE GROUP WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 3rd day of December, 2019, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider a request by Kaidence Group to amend the Zoning Map to Community Commercial for Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 770-020-015 through 770-020-021; and WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on November 22, 2019 as prescribed by the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, held a duly notice Public Hearing on the 12th day of November, 2019, and after hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be hear, said Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2019-011 to recommend to the City Council adoption of said Zone Change; and WHEREAS, said Zone Change has complied with the requirements of “The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Design and Development department has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the mitigated negative declaration approved on April 16, 1991, for Plot Plan 91- 456 and Environmental Assessment 91-187; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.220.010 of the LQMC to justify approval of said Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial: 29 Ordinance No. 582 Zone Change 2019-0002; Project: Starbucks; La Quinta Village Commercial Center Adopted: December 17, 2019 Page 2 of 8 1.Consistency with General Plan The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The City’s General Plan policies relating to General Commercial encourage a full range of commercial uses within the City, and the proposed use maintains those policies. The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals, Programs, and Policies: Goal LU-6 and ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and provide a broad range of goods and services to its residents and region. The Zone Change will allow for more options for the subject site to provide broader range of goods and services. Program CIR-1.12.a: Locate land uses that provide jobs and housing near each other to allow the use of alternative modes of travel and produce shorter work commutes. The project will have access to existing adjacent Villa Cortina Apartments and Seasons residential development, providing an opportunity for jobs and housing near each other. Housing developments are also to the south, west and east of the project site. Policy ED-1.2 as it will support and assist in the retention of existing businesses and the recruitment of new businesses. This proposal is for the retention of an existing Starbucks to construct a new building within the same shopping center. The Zone Change will allow for more uses within the center, opening up new opportunities for recruitment of new businesses. Drive- throughs are an attractive use in facilitating the recruitment of new businesses. Policy ED-1.3 as it will encourage the expansion of the Village as a specialty retail, dining and residential destination. The project site is located within the Village Build Out Plan, and the zone change allows the subject site to have more uses consistent with Village Commercial district, enhancing the Village area as a specialty retail, dining and residential destination. Policy ED-1.5 which states projects proposed on commercial land shall be evaluated for their job creating and revenue generating potential. This project will allow for more options for the subject site to allow for more job and revenue opportunities. 30 Ordinance No. 582 Zone Change 2019-0002; Project: Starbucks; La Quinta Village Commercial Center Adopted: December 17, 2019 Page 3 of 8 2.Public Welfare Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. 3.Land Use Compatibility The new zoning is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties. The project site is located within the Village Build Out Plan, and the zone change allows the subject site to have more uses consistent with the surrounding Village Commercial district. The new zoning district is intended to meet the needs of a multi-neighborhood area. The project site is located in an area that does serve multiple neighborhoods as it abuts existing apartment developments, is in close proximity to the Cove, residential homes east of Washington Street, residential communities on the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and residential communities north and south of Avenue 52, including future residential community at SilverRock. The property would be similar in purpose and size to other Community Commercial sites throughout the City. 4.Property Suitability The new zoning is suitable and appropriate for the subject property. The project site is located within the Village Build Out Plan, and the zone change allows the subject site to have more uses consistent with the surrounding Village Commercial district. The new zoning district is intended to meet the needs of a multi-neighborhood area. The project site is located in an area that does serve multiple neighborhoods as it abuts existing apartment developments, is in close proximity to the Cove, residential homes east of Washington Street, residential communities on the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and residential communities north and south of Avenue 52, including future residential community at SilverRock. The property would be similar in purpose and size to other Community Commercial sites throughout the City. 5.Change in Circumstances. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because the situation and the general conditions of the property have substantially changed since the existing zoning was imposed. The existing zoning was imposed in 1991. Since that time, the areas surrounding the subject site have developed into multiple residential neighborhoods and the nearby Village Commercial district has developed. The project site is located within the Village Build Out Plan, and the zone change allows the subject site to 31 Ordinance No. 582 Zone Change 2019-0002; Project: Starbucks; La Quinta Village Commercial Center Adopted: December 17, 2019 Page 4 of 8 have more uses consistent with the surrounding Village Commercial district. The new zoning district is intended to meet the needs of a multi- neighborhood area, whereas the current zoning district is intended to serve a singular neighborhood area. The project site is located in an area that does serve multiple neighborhoods as it is in close proximity to the Cove, residential homes east of Washington Street, residential communities on the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and residential communities north and south of Avenue 52, including future residential community at SilverRock. The property would be similar in purpose and size to other Community Commercial sites throughout the City. NOW, THEREFORE, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct, constitute the Findings of the City Council for this project, and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. That City Council finds this project consistent with Environmental Assessment 91-187. SECTION 3. That it does hereby approve Zone Change 2019-0002, as depicted in Exhibit “A,” incorporated herewith by this reference, for the reasons set forth in this Ordinance. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. 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 permanent record of Ordinances of the City of La Quinta. SECTION 6. That the City Council does hereby grant the City Clerk the ability to make minor amendments to Exhibit “A” to ensure consistency of zone change prior to publication. 32 Ordinance No. 582 Zone Change 2019-0002; Project: Starbucks; La Quinta Village Commercial Center Adopted: December 17, 2019 Page 5 of 8 SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta City Council, held on this the 17th day of December, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: _________________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: 33 Ordinance No. 582 Zone Change 2019-0002; Project: Starbucks; La Quinta Village Commercial Center Adopted: December 17, 2019 Page 6 of 8 ___________________________ WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 34 Ordinance No. 582 Zone Change 2019-0002; Project: Starbucks; La Quinta Village Commercial Center Adopted: December 17, 2019 Page 7 of 8 ZONE CHANGE 2019-0002 Current zoning designation: Proposed zoning designation: Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial EXHIBIT A 35 Ordinance No. 582 Zone Change 2019-0002; Project: Starbucks; La Quinta Village Commercial Center Adopted: December 17, 2019 Page 8 of 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LA QUINTA ) I, MONIKA RADEVA, 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. 582 which was introduced at a regular meeting on the 3rd day of December, 2019, and was adopted at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of December, 2019, 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 the Rules of Procedure adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2015-023. _______________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California DECLARATION OF POSTING I, MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was posted on December 18th, 2019, pursuant to Council Resolution 2015-023. _______________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California 36 CALLE TAMPICOWASHINGTON STRW770020015770020010RWRW770020017770020020770020014770020016770020018770020013RW770020021770020019RW770105001770096005770104006770104011RW770105002770031015770096006770031001770031002770031016770104007770104001$77$&+0(171 43161 37 38 9.80.020 Table of permitted uses. A.Uses and Structures Permitted. Table 9-5, Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts, following, specifies those uses and structures which are permitted within each nonresidential district. The letters in the columns beneath the district designations mean the following: 1. “P”: Permitted as a principal use within the district. 2. “A”: Permitted only if accessory to the principal use on the site. 3. “C”: Permitted as a principal or accessory use if a conditional use permit is approved. 4. “M”: Permitted if a minor use permit is approved. 5. “T”: Permitted as a temporary use only. 6. “X”: Prohibited in the district. 7. “S”: Permitted under a specific plan. B. Uses Not Listed in Table. Land uses which are not listed in Table 9-5 are not permitted unless the planning or the planning commission determines that such use is within one of the permitted use categories listed (e.g., principal use, conditional use, etc.) in accordance with Section 9.20.040. Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Retail Uses Retail stores under 10,000 sq. ft. floor area per business PPPPPPXP Retail stores1, 10,000—50,000 sq. ft. floor area PPPPXXXP Retail stores1, over 50,000 sq. ft. floor area PCM XXXXX Food, liquor and convenience PAP PAAXP $77$&+0(172 163 39 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC stores under 10,000 sq. ft. floor area, open less than 18 hours/day2 Food, liquor and convenience stores under 10,000 sq. ft. floor area, open 18 or more hours/day2 MXMMMXXM Plant nurseries and garden supply stores, with no propagation of plants on the premises, subject to Section 9.100.120 (Outdoor storage and display) PXP PXXXP Showroom/catal og stores, without substantial on- site inventory PPP XXXXX General Services Barbershops, beauty, nail and tanning salons and similar uses PAP P PAXP Miscellaneous services such as travel services, photo and video services, shoe repair, appliance repair, and similar uses PAP P PAXP 164 40 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Laundromats and dry cleaners, except central cleaning plants PXP P PXXM Printing, blueprinting and copy services PPPPPPXP Pet grooming— without overnight boarding PXP P PXXP Office and Health Services Banks P X P P P P X P General and professional offices PPPPPPPP Medical offices— physicians, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors and similar practitioners, 3 or fewer offices in one building PPPPPPXP Medical centers/clinics —four or more offices in one building PXP CXPXP Surgicenters/me dical clinics PPP CXPXX Hospitals C X X X X X C X Convalescent hospitals CXC XXXCX Veterinary clinics/animal hospitals and pet boarding (indoor only) MMMM XXXM Dining, Drinking and Entertainment Uses 165 41 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Restaurants, other than drive-through PAP P PXAP Restaurants, drive-through PAP XPXXX Restaurants, counter take-out with ancillary seating, such as yogurt, ice cream, pastry shops and similar PPPPPXAP Bars and cocktail lounges MMMMMXXM Dance clubs and nightclubs CCC XCXXC Dancing or live entertainment as an accessory use AAAAAXXA Theaters, live or motion picture PXMMMXAM Tobacco shops without onsite smoking, as per the provisions of the Heath and Sanitation Code PXP PAXXP Cigar lounges, hookah bars, and similar uses with onsite smoking, as per the provisions of the Health and Sanitation Code MXMMAXXM Recreation Uses Bowling alleysP X P XPXXC Pool or billiard centers as a principal use CCC XCXXC 166 42 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Pool or billiard tables as accessory use (3 tables or less) AAAAAAXA Game machines as an accessory use AAAAAAXA Golf courses and country clubs (see GC district permitted uses, Chapter 9.120) XXXXAXXX Driving range unlighted PAC XPAPX Tennis clubs or complexes CAC XXACX Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance studios, 5,000 sq. ft. floor area or less PPPPPPPP Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance studios, over 5,000 sq. ft. floor area MMMMMMMM Libraries P P P P P P P P Museum PPPPPPPP Arts and crafts studios, including classes PPPPPPPP Parks, unlighted playfields and open space PPPPPPPP Lighted playfields XXXXXXCC Bicycle, equestrian and PPPPPPPP 167 43 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC hiking trails Indoor pistol or rifle ranges XCXXXXXX Miniature golf/recreation centers MXX XMXXX Ice skating rinks M M M XMXMX Assembly Uses Lodges, union halls, social clubs and community centers PPPPXXPP Churches, temples and other places of worship MMMM XMXM Mortuaries and funeral homes MMM XXXXX Public and Semipublic Uses Fire stations P P P P P P P P Government offices and police stations PPPPPPPP Communication towers and equipment (freestanding, new towers) subject to Chapter 9.170 CCCCCCCC Communication towers and equipment (co- location, mounted to existing facility) subject to Chapter 9.170 MMMMMMMM Electrical substations XMX X XXMX Water wells and pumping PPPPPPPP 168 44 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC stations Reservoirs and water tanks XXXXXXPX Public flood control facilities and devices PPPPPPPP Colleges and universities CMX X XMCC Vocational schools, e.g., barber, beauty and similar MC C XXCCC Private elementary, intermediate and high schools CCCCCCCC Helicopter pads X X X X C X C X Public or private kennels and animal shelters (with indoor or outdoor pet boarding) XCXXXXCX Residential, Lodging and Child Daycare Uses Existing single family home XXXXXXXP Townhome and multifamily dwelling as a primary use3,4 C3 C4 CCCCXC Residential as an accessory use, e.g., caretaker residences per Section 9.100.160 MMMMMMMM Child daycare facilities, centers and preschools as a MMMM XMMM 169 45 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC principal use, subject to Section 9.100.240 (also see Accessory Uses) Senior group housing XXXXXXXM Rooming and boarding houses XXXXXXXM Single room occupancy (SRO) hotels, subject to Section 9.100.250 CXXXXXXX Emergency shelters PPPPPPPX Transitional shelters for homeless persons or victims of domestic abuse CXXXXXCX Single-family residential XXXXXXXX Mixed-use projects subject to Section 9.110.130 PPPPPPXP RV rental parks and ownership/mem bership parks XXXXMXXX Resort residential SXC XCXX Hotels and motels PXP XPXXP Timeshare facilities, fractional ownership, subject to PXP XPXXP 170 46 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Section 9.60.290 Automotive, Automobile Uses5 Golf cart, neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV), and electric scooter sales PPP MXXXM Automobile service stations, with or without minimart subject to Section 9.100.230 CCCCXXXC Car washes M M M XXXXX Auto body repair and painting; transmission repair XCXXXXXX Auto repair specialty shops, providing minor auto maintenance: tire sales/service, muffler, brake, lube and tune- up services CCC XXXXX Auto and motorcycle sales and rentals MMX X XXXX Used vehicle sales, not associated with a new vehicle sales facility, as per Section 9.100.260 CCXXXXXX Truck, C C X X X X X 171 47 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC recreation vehicle and boat sales Auto parts stores, with no repair or parts installation on the premises PPPPXXXP Auto or truck storage yards, not including dismantling XCXXXXXX Private parking lots/garages as a principal use subject to Chapter 9.150, Parking CCC XCCXC Warehousing and Heavy Commercial Uses5 Wholesaling/dis tribution centers, general warehouses with no sales to consumers CPXXXXXX Mini-storageXX6 XXXXXX Lumber yards, outdoor (see retail stores for indoor lumber sales) XMX X XXXX Pest control services MPXXXXXX Contractor offices, public utility and similar equipment/stora ge yards XMX X XXPX Central cleaning or laundry plants XXXXAXXX Industrial and Research Uses 172 48 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Indoor manufacture and assembly of components or finished products XPXXXXXX Research and development PPXXXXXX Recording studios MPXXXXXM Bottling plants X P X X X X X X Recycling centers as a primary use, collection and sorting only, subject to Section 9.100.190 XCXXXXCX Off-site hazardous waste facilities XCXXXXXX Accessory Uses and Structures Construction and guard offices, subject to Section 9.100.170 PPPPPPPP Portable outdoor vendor uses subject to Section 9.100.100 MMMMMMMM Swimming pools as an accessory use AAAAAAAA Indoor golf or tennis facilities as an accessory use AAAAAAAA Outdoor golf or tennis facilities as an accessory MMMMMMMM 173 49 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC use Antennas and satellite dishes, subject to Section 9.100.070 AAAAAAAA Reverse vending machines and recycling dropoff bins, subject to Section 9.100.190 AAAAXXAM Incidental on- site products or services for employees or businesses, such as child day care, cafeterias and business support uses AAAAAAAA Other accessory uses and structures which are customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use on the premises and are consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district, as determined by the director AAAAAAAA Temporary Uses Christmas tree sales, subject to Section 9.100.080 TTTTXXTT 174 50 P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Region al Comm ercial Comm ercial Park Comm unity Comm ercial Neighbo rhood Comme rcial Touris t Comm ercial Office Comm ercial Major Comm unity Faciliti es Village Comm ercial Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC VC Halloween pumpkin sales, subject to Section 9.100.080 TTTTXXTT Stands selling fresh produce in season, subject to Section 9.100.090 TTTTXXTT Sidewalk sales, subject to Section 9.100.120 TTTTTTXT Temporary outdoor events, subject to Section 9.100.130 TTTTTTTT Use of relocatable building, subject to Section 9.100.180 TTTTTTTT Holiday period storage subject to Section 9.100.145 MMMMMMMM Other Uses Sexually oriented businesses, subject to Section 9.110.0807 CXXXXXXX Medical marijuana dispensaries XXXXXXXX Other uses not listed in this table: per Section 9.20.040, director or planning commission to determine whether use is permitted 175 51 Notes: 1 Unless use is specifically listed elsewhere in this table. 2 With no consumption of alcohol on the premises. 3 If part of a mixed-use project per Section 9.140.090. 4 Subject to Section 9.30.070 (RH, High Density Residential District) for density, Section 9.60.270. 5 Subject to Section 9.100.110, Outdoor storage and display. 6 Mini-storage warehousing operating on December 17, 2008 (the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section), are considered legal, conforming land uses. Existing facilities may be reconstructed if damaged, and may be modified or expanded within the boundaries of the lot on which they occur as of December 17, 2008 with approval of a site development permit. Any modification or expansion shall conform to the development standards for the commercial park zoning district contained in Chapter 9.90, Nonresidential Development Standards. 7 Property must also be located within the SOB (sexually oriented business) overlay district. (Ord. 562 § 1, 2017; Ord. 550 § 1, 2016) 176 52 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE, AND ADVERTISE FOR BID THE AVENIDA BERMUDAS AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 2019-09) RECOMMENDATION Approve plans, specifications, engineer’s estimate, and authorize Staff to bid the Avenida Bermudas Americans with Disabilities Act Miscellaneous Improvements Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •This project is located on Avenida Bermudas between Main Street and Calle Cadiz in Old Town (Attachment 1). •The project is a continuation of last fiscal year’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Ramp Improvements Project on Avenida Bermudas. •The ADA miscellaneous improvements will include reconstructing curb ramps, sidewalk, and driveways to bring them up to current code. •Construction is funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which must be expended by March 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT The updated projected budget is $180,000, of which $58,110 will be allocated from the Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Project (Project No. 1920STI) and $121,890 from CDBG funds for construction costs as follows: CDBG Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Project Total Budget Professional/Design: $ 0 $ 23,000 $ 23,000 Inspection/Testing/Survey: $ 0 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 Construction: $ 121,890 $ 5,110 $ 127,000 Contingency: $ 0 $ 17,000 $ 17,000 Total Budget: $ 121,890 $ 58,110 $ 180,000 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 7 53 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In 2011, the City conducted an (ADA accessibility survey of all public facilities. To date, the City has addressed ADA deficiencies at City Hall, La Quinta Park, Civic Center Campus, La Quinta Library, SilverRock parking lot, Museum, YMCA, Sports Complex, Velasco Park, Eisenhower Park, Adams Park, Desert Pride Park, Saguaro Park, Fritz Burns Park, Seasons Park, and the southern limits of Avenida Bermudas. Avenida Bermudas ADA Miscellaneous Improvements will be located near the following locations within the Public Right of Way on Avenida Bermudas: Angel View Resale Store (driveway and sidewalk) Pedestrian Refuges (curb ramps and truncated domes) Avenida Montezuma (curb ramps) Tower Market (driveway) Post Office (curb ramps and sidewalk) Contingent upon approval to advertise the project for bid on December 17, 2019, the following is the project schedule: Council Bid Authorization December 17, 2019 Bid Period December 18, 2019 to January 23, 2020 Council Considers Project Award February 4, 2020 Execute Contract and Mobilize February 4 to March 2, 2020 Construction (20 working days) March 2020 Accept Improvements April 2020 ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend an alternative due to the funding and timing constraints. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Attachment: 1. Vicinity Map 54 *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS Feet Legend Notes Avenida Bermudas ADA Miscellaneous Improvements 0 REPORT PRINTED ON...12/6/2018 9:36:04 AM Project Map 6,019 12,037 Blueline Streams City Areas World Street Map ATTACHMENT 1 55 56 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROPRIATE $95,965 OF UNASSIGNED GENERAL FUND RESERVES AND APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES WITH BENGAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR WHITEWATER RIVER CHANNEL REGIONAL SCOUR ANALYSIS BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND WASHINGTON STREET GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES (PROJECT NO. 2019-19) RECOMMENDATION Appropriate $95,965 of unassigned General Fund reserves and approve an Agreement for Contract Services with Bengal Engineering, Inc in the amount of $49,965, to perform a Whitewater River Channel Regional Scour Analysis Between Jefferson Street and Washington Street Grade Control Structures and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City prepared and submitted a hydraulics report to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for the Dune Palms Road Bridge Project (Bridge Project). CVWD has required the City to perform a Regional Scour Analysis of the Whitewater River Channel between the Jefferson Street and Washington Street Grade Control Structures (Regional Scour Analysis) to obtain final construction and permanent encroachment permits for the Project. The Regional Scour Analysis is outside of the Bridge Project limits and must be completed as a separate City project due to funding and environmental restrictions. Bengal Engineering (Bengal) completed the original hydraulics report and has the expertise and historical knowledge to efficiently complete the analysis. FISCAL IMPACT An appropriation of $95,965 from unassigned General Fund reserves is needed to fund the Regional Scour Analysis. There is currently $16 million in unassigned reserves. The following represents the proposed project budget: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 8 57 Project Budget Professional Services: $ 10,000 CVWD Review Fees: $ 20,000 Regional Scour Analysis: $ 49,965 Contingency: $ 16,000 Total Budget: $ 95,965 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS As part of the processing of the Hydraulics Report required for the Bridge Project, CVWD’s consultant and staff engineers had concerns that as a consequence of removing the existing low-flow crossing, the sandy channel bottom profile will change over time due to the natural sediment transport processes. For the City to obtain the final construction and permanent encroachment permits for work within the channel right-of-way, CVWD has required the City to perform a Regional Scour Analysis of the channel between the Jefferson Street and the Washington Street Grade Control Structures using the CVWD defined channel equilibrium slope of 0.22%. Without this study, CVWD has informed the City that they will not be able to approve our plans within the channel and thus provide the City with the necessary permits to construct the bridge project. CVWD also requires the City pay for CVWD’s consultant review of the Regional Scour Analysis, anticipated to be up to $20,000 in review fees. The Regional Scour Analysis must be performed as a separate project due to the Bridge Project’s federal funding restrictions and environmental constraints. Bengal has completed the hydraulics analysis and reporting for the Bridge Project and utilizing their expertise and historical knowledge would provide the most cost effective and efficient process for the Regional Scour Analysis. The proposed agreement with Bengal will provide the City with the required Regional Scour Analysis report along with the associated CVWD/City coordination and exhibits. City staff will work with CVWD to identify existing deficiencies and deficiencies attributable to the removal of the Dune Palms low water crossing. Staff is preparing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with CVWD outlining roles and responsibilities for improvements that may be identified as necessary by the Regional Scour Analysis. ALTERNATIVES Staff does not recommend an alternative. The Regional Scour Analysis is required to move forward with the Bridge Project improvements. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Attachment: 1. Bengal Engineering Agreement for Contract Services 58 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, (“City”), a California municipal corporation, and Bengal Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (“Contracting Party”). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.SERVICES OF CONTRACTING PARTY. 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, Contracting Party shall provide those services related Whitewater River Channel Regional Scour Analysis between Jefferson Street and Washington Street Grade Control Structures. (GCS) as specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Services”). Contracting Party represents and warrants that Contracting Party is a provider of first-class work and/or services and Contracting Party is experienced in performing the Services contemplated herein and, in light of such status and experience, Contracting Party covenants that it shall follow industry standards in performing the Services required hereunder, and that all materials, if any, will be of good quality, fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “industry standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar services under similar circumstances. 1.2 Compliance with Law. All Services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations, and laws of the City and any Federal, State, or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.3 Wage and Hour Compliance, Contracting Party shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local wage and hour laws. 1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Except as otherwise specified herein, Contracting Party shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits, and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the Services required by this Agreement, including a City of La Quinta business license. Contracting Party and its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required for the performance of the Services required by this Agreement. Contracting Party shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments, and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the Services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold City, its elected officials, officers, ATTACHMENT 1 59 -2- employees, and agents, free and harmless against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties, or interest levied, assessed, or imposed against City hereunder. Contracting Party shall be responsible for all subcontractors’ compliance with this Section. 1.5 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Contracting Party warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the Services to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site where the Services are to be performed, if any, and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. Should Contracting Party discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the Services or as represented by City, Contracting Party shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contracting Party’s risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer, or assigned designee (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof). 1.6 Standard of Care. Contracting Party acknowledges and understands that the Services contracted for under this Agreement require specialized skills and abilities and that, consistent with this understanding, Contracting Party’s work will be held to an industry standard of quality and workmanship. Consistent with Section 1.5 hereinabove, Contracting Party represents to City that it holds the necessary skills and abilities to satisfy the industry standard of quality as set forth in this Agreement. Contracting Party shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of this Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the Services performed by Contracting Party, and the equipment, materials, papers, and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the Services by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence. The performance of Services by Contracting Party shall not relieve Contracting Party from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate, or defective work at no further cost to City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Contracting Party. 1.7 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Contracting Party shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services (“Additional Services”) only when directed to do so by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, provided that Contracting Party shall not be required to perform any Additional Services without compensation. Contracting Party shall not perform any Additional Services until receiving prior written authorization (in the form of a written 60 -3- change order if Contracting Party is a contractor performing the Services) from the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of Contracting Party. It is expressly understood by Contracting Party that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to the Services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services or reasonably contemplated therein. It is specifically understood and agreed that oral requests and/or approvals of Additional Services shall be barred and are unenforceable. Failure of Contracting Party to secure the Contract Officer’s, or assigned designee’s written authorization for Additional Services shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment of the Contract Sum or time to perform this Agreement, whether by way of compensation, restitution, quantum meruit, or the like, for Additional Services provided without the appropriate authorization from the Contract Officer, or assigned designee. Compensation for properly authorized Additional Services shall be made in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement. 1.8 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in “Exhibit D” (the “Special Requirements”), which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a part hereof. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Special Requirements and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of the Special Requirements shall govern. 2. COMPENSATION. 2.1 Contract Sum. For the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Contracting Party shall be compensated in accordance with “Exhibit B” (the “Schedule of Compensation”) in a fixed fee total amount not to exceed Forty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Five Dollars ($49,965.00). (the “Contract Sum”), except as provided in Section 1.7. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the Services, payment for time and materials based upon Contracting Party’s rate schedule, but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other reasonable methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Contracting Party at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by City; Contracting Party shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. Regardless of the method of 61 -4- compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation, Contracting Party’s overall compensation shall not exceed the Contract Sum, except as provided in Section 1.7 of this Agreement. 2.2 Method of Billing & Payment. Any month in which Contracting Party wishes to receive payment, Contracting Party shall submit to City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by City’s Finance Director, an invoice for Services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the Services provided, and (2) specify each staff member who has provided Services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Contracting Party specifying that the payment requested is for Services performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Upon approval in writing by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, and subject to retention pursuant to Section 8.3, City will pay Contracting Party for all items stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than thirty (30) days after invoices are received by the City’s Finance Department. 2.3 Compensation for Additional Services. Additional Services approved in advance by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, pursuant to Section 1.7 of this Agreement shall be paid for in an amount agreed to in writing by both City and Contracting Party in advance of the Additional Services being rendered by Contracting Party. Any compensation for Additional Services amounting to five percent (5%) or less of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee. Any greater amount of compensation for Additional Services must be approved by the La Quinta City Council, the City Manager, or Department Director, depending upon City laws, regulations, rules and procedures concerning public contracting. Under no circumstances shall Contracting Party receive compensation for any Additional Services unless prior written approval for the Additional Services is obtained from the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, pursuant to Section 1.7 of this Agreement. 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE. 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. If the Services not completed in accordance with the Schedule of Performance, as set forth in Section 3.2 and “Exhibit C”, it is understood that the City will suffer damage. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in “Exhibit C” (the “Schedule of Performance”). Extensions to the 62 -5- time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Contracting Party, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if Contracting Party shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer, or assigned designee, shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the Services for the period of the forced delay when and if in the Contract Officer’s judgment such delay is justified, and the Contract Officer’s determination, or assigned designee, shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. Extensions to time period in the Schedule of Performance which are determined by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, to be justified pursuant to this Section shall not entitle the Contracting Party to additional compensation in excess of the Contract Sum. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions in Article 8.0 of this Agreement, the term of this agreement shall commence on December 4, 2019 and terminate on June 30, 2020 (“Initial Term”). This Agreement may be extended upon mutual agreement by both parties (“Extended Term”). 4. COORDINATION OF WORK. 4.1 Representative of Contracting Party. The following principals of Contracting Party (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Contracting Party authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the Services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: (a) Scott Onishuk, Director, Principal Engineer Tel No. (805)563-0788 E-mail: Scott@BengalEngineering.com It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of the foregoing Principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing Principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contracting Party and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the 63 -6- Services hereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be changed by Contracting Party and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the Services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. 4.2 Contract Officer. The “Contract Officer”, otherwise known as the Bryan McKinney, Public Works Director/City Engineer or assigned designee may be designated in writing by the City Manager of the City. It shall be Contracting Party’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the Services, and Contracting Party shall refer any decisions, that must be made by City to the Contract Officer, or assigned designee. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer, or assigned designee. The Contract Officer, or assigned designee, shall have authority to sign all documents on behalf of City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of Contracting Party, its principals, and its employees were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Except as set forth in this Agreement, Contracting Party shall not contract or subcontract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the Services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated, or encumbered, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Contracting Party, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. Any attempted or purported assignment or contracting or subcontracting by Contracting Party without City’s express written approval shall be null, void, and of no effect. No approved transfer shall release Contracting Party of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode, or means by which Contracting Party, its agents, or its employees, perform the Services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision, or control of Contracting Party’s employees, servants, representatives, or agents, or in fixing their number or hours of service. Contracting Party shall perform all Services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. 64 -7- Contracting Party shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Contracting Party in its business or otherwise or a joint venture or a member of any joint enterprise with Contracting Party. Contracting Party shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City. Contracting Party shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. Except for the Contract Sum paid to Contracting Party as provided in this Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contracting Party for performing the Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contracting Party for injury or sickness arising out of performing the Services hereunder. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Contracting Party and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. Contracting Party agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contracting Party under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Contracting Party shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation laws regarding Contracting Party and Contracting Party’s employees. Contracting Party further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Contracting Party to comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any payment due to Contracting Party under this Agreement any amount due to City from Contracting Party as a result of Contracting Party’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. 4.5 Identity of Persons Performing Work. Contracting Party represents that it employs or will employ at its own expense all personnel required for the satisfactory performance of any and all of the Services set forth herein. Contracting Party represents that the Services required herein will be performed by Contracting Party or under its direct supervision, and that all personnel engaged in such work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized and permitted under applicable State and local law to perform such tasks and services. 65 -8- 4.6 City Cooperation. City shall provide Contracting Party with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records, or other data or information pertinent to the Services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to Contracting Party only from or through action by City. 5. INSURANCE. 5.1 Insurance. Prior to the beginning of any Services under this Agreement and throughout the duration of the term of this Agreement, Contracting Party shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, policies of insurance as set forth in “Exhibit E” (the “Insurance Requirements”) which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a part hereof. 5.2 Proof of Insurance. Contracting Party shall provide Certificate of Insurance to Agency along with all required endorsements. Certificate of Insurance and endorsements must be approved by Agency’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. 6. INDEMNIFICATION. 6.1 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contracting Party shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as set forth in “Exhibit F” (“Indemnification”) which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a part hereof. 7. RECORDS AND REPORTS. 7.1 Reports. Contracting Party shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, such reports concerning Contracting Party’s performance of the Services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, shall require. Contracting Party hereby acknowledges that City is greatly concerned about the cost of the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Contracting Party agrees that if Contracting Party becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the Services contemplated herein or, if Contracting Party is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Contracting Party shall promptly notify the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, of said fact, circumstance, technique, or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Contracting Party is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed. 66 -9- 7.2 Records. Contracting Party shall keep, and require any subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports (including but not limited to payroll reports), studies, or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and the Services performed hereunder (the “Books and Records”), as shall be necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, to evaluate the performance of such Services. Any and all such Books and Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer, or assigned designee, shall have full and free access to such Books and Records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make records and transcripts from such Books and Records. Such Books and Records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the Services hereunder, and City shall have access to such Books and Records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Contracting Party’s business, custody of the Books and Records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Contracting Party’s successor in interest. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement. 7.3 Ownership of Documents. All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents, and other materials plans, drawings, estimates, test data, survey results, models, renderings, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings, digital renderings, or data stored digitally, magnetically, or in any other medium prepared or caused to be prepared by Contracting Party, its employees, subcontractors, and agents in the performance of this Agreement (the “Documents and Materials”) shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, or upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, and Contracting Party shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the Documents and Materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed Documents and Materials for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by Contracting Party will be at City’s sole risk and without liability to Contracting Party, and Contracting Party’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, revise, or assignment. 67 -10- Contracting Party may retain copies of such Documents and Materials for its own use. Contracting Party shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any Documents and Materials prepared by them, and in the event Contracting Party fails to secure such assignment, Contracting Party shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. 7.4 In the event City or any person, firm, or corporation authorized by City reuses said Documents and Materials without written verification or adaptation by Contracting Party for the specific purpose intended and causes to be made or makes any changes or alterations in said Documents and Materials, City hereby releases, discharges, and exonerates Contracting Party from liability resulting from said change. The provisions of this clause shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement and shall thereafter remain in full force and effect. 7.5 Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non- exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, rights of reproduction, and other intellectual property embodied in the Documents and Materials. Contracting Party shall require all subcontractors, if any, to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for the Documents and Materials the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Contracting Party represents and warrants that Contracting Party has the legal right to license any and all of the Documents and Materials. Contracting Party makes no such representation and warranty in regard to the Documents and Materials which were prepared by design professionals other than Contracting Party or provided to Contracting Party by City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Materials at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk. 7.6 Release of Documents. The Documents and Materials shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, or as required by law. Contracting Party shall not disclose to any other entity or person any information regarding the activities of City, except as required by law or as authorized by City. 7.7 Confidential or Personal Identifying Information. Contracting Party covenants that all City data, data lists, trade secrets, documents with personal identifying information, documents that are not public records, draft documents, discussion notes, or other information, if any, developed or received by Contracting Party or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Contracting Party to any person or entity without prior written authorization by City or unless required 68 -11- by law. City shall grant authorization for disclosure if required by any lawful administrative or legal proceeding, court order, or similar directive with the force of law. All City data, data lists, trade secrets, documents with personal identifying information, documents that are not public records, draft documents, discussions, or other information shall be returned to City upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Contracting Party’s covenant under this section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 8. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT. 8.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim, or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Contracting Party covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 8.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety, or general welfare, City may take such immediate action as City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party’s right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City’s right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to this Article 8.0. During the period of time that Contracting Party is in default, City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during any period of default. 8.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to Contracting Party sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Contracting Party in the performance of the Services required by this Agreement. 69 -12- 8.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City’s consent or approval of any act by Contracting Party requiring City’s consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City’s consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Contracting Party. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 8.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 8.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 8.7 Termination Prior To Expiration of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Contracting Party. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Contracting Party shall immediately cease all Services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee. Contracting Party shall be entitled to compensation for all Services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any Services authorized by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, or assigned designee, except amounts held as a retention pursuant to this Agreement. 8.8 Termination for Default of Contracting Party. If termination is due to the failure of Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, Contracting Party shall vacate any City-owned property which Contracting Party is permitted to occupy hereunder and City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 8.2, take over the Services and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and Contracting Party shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the Services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold 70 -13- any payments to Contracting Party for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed City. 8.9 Attorneys’ Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees; provided, however, that the attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to this Section shall not exceed the hourly rate paid by City for legal services multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent by the prevailing party in the conduct of the litigation. Attorneys’ fees shall include attorneys’ fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorneys’ fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery, and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 9. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NONDISCRIMINATION. 9.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer, official, employee, agent, representative, or volunteer of City shall be personally liable to Contracting Party, or any successor in interest, in the event or any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Contracting Party or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 9.2 Conflict of Interest. Contracting Party covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of it, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Contracting Party’s performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contracting Party further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer, or assigned designee. Contracting Party agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which effects his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association 71 -14- in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. Contracting Party warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 9.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Contracting Party covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of any impermissible classification including, but not limited to, race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Contracting Party shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section. To City: CITY OF LA QUINTA Attention: Bryan McKinney, PE 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 To Contracting Party: Bengal Engineering, Inc. Scott Onishuk, Director, PE 360 S. Hope Avenue, Suite C-110 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 10.2 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 10.3 Section Headings and Subheadings. The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement. 72 -15- 10.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument 10.5 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement including the exhibits hereto is the entire, complete, and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. 10.6 Amendment. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by Contracting Party and by the City Council of City. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void. 10.7 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the articles, phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining articles, phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless. 10.8 Unfair Business Practices Claims. In entering into this Agreement, Contracting Party offers and agrees to assign to City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2, (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services, or materials related to this Agreement. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City renders final payment to Contracting Party without further acknowledgment of the parties. 10.9 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. With the exception of the specific provisions set forth in this Agreement, there are no intended third-party beneficiaries under this Agreement and no such other third parties shall have any rights or obligations hereunder. 10.10 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each of the parties hereto represent and warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver 73 -16- this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 74 -17- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below. CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California Municipal Corporation JON McMILLEN, City Manager City of La Quinta, California Dated: CONTRACTING PARTY: By: Name: Title: ATTEST: MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk La Quinta, California By: Name: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 75 Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Regional Scour Analysis between Jefferson St. and Washington St. Grade Control Structures (GCS). 4 December, 2019 Bengal Engineering, Inc. Scope of Services, “Exhibit A” Task 1: Project Management i. Consultant will manage and coordinate the preparation of the Regional Scour Analysis and Hydraulic Technical Memorandum with both the City and CVWD. Consultant has assumed this task will be completed within four (4) months following an authorization to proceed. Consultant will provide regular updates to the City on the status of the report preparation as well as all communications with CVWD and/or their Consultant on this item. Consultant will participate in up to three (3) City/CVWD coordination meetings, either in person or via phone. Consultant will prepare minutes and action log for each of the coordination meetings. Attend meetings ii. Prepare meeting minutes and action logs iii. Regular City status updates iv.Coordinate with CVWD Task 2: Establishing Hydraulic Analysis Criteria Consultant will coordinate with CVWD to develop the analysis criteria for a post Dune Palms Road low water crossing removal. Some of the analysis criteria are: i. Analysis Reach Limits: Jefferson Street Grade Control Structure (GCS) to Washington Street GCS ii. Equilibrium Channel Slope = 0.22% iii. Adjusting the existing channel cross section elevations to conform to the equilibrium channel slope. iv. The Equilibrium Channel Slope will start at the crest of Jefferson Street GCS as requested. v. Design/Analysis flow: 43,000 cfs Task 3: Perform Hydraulic HEC-RAS Analysis Consultant shall update the existing HEC-RAS (version 5.0.7) computer model developed for the Dune Palms Bridge Project H&H Study and Report to the agreed upon Hydraulic Criteria and methods. Consultant will run two models; 1) existing condition without a Dune Palms Road Bridge project; and 2) post low water crossing removal at Dune Palms Road for a given equilibrium slope provided by CVWD. Following the draft completion of the HEC-RAS analysis, Consultant will submit the results to the City and CVWD for review and concurrence prior to initiation of the Regional Scour Analysis and Hydraulic Technical Memorandum. Task 4: Perform Regional Scour Analysis Following CVWD concurrence of the updated model results, Consultant will proceed with the Scour Analysis for both of the above noted scenarios for the channel reach between Washington and Jefferson Street. Consultant will calculate the minimum scour depth and elevations within the general channel section and at all bridge structures for the equilibrium slope in accordance with the draft CVWD Guideline K-3. Exhibit A Page 1 of 6 76 Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Regional Scour Analysis between Jefferson St. and Washington St. Grade Control Structures (GCS). 4 December, 2019 Bengal Engineering, Inc. The results of the scour analysis will be placed on the profile exhibit sheets that will depict the following profiles, one set of sheets for each of the analysis scenarios noted above: Existing channel profile; Equilibrium channel profile; 100-year event water surface profile; 100-year event scour at channel banks; 200-year event scour at bridges; Top of the existing and proposed concrete slope protection; and Cutoff of the existing and proposed concrete slope protection. Task 5: Prepare Hydraulic Technical Memorandum Consultant will prepare a Hydraulic Technical Memorandum which will present the above analysis and findings of the study. The Memo will also include, in tabular form, a listing of the pre-existing slope protection deficiencies along with those deficiencies following the removal of the low water crossing at Dune Palms Road. Assumptions/ Exclusions i. Effort for coordination with CVWD is unknown and may vary. Consultant assumes study preparation and CVWD acceptance will take no more than four (4) months. ii. Channel Sediment transport analysis is not part of the proposal. iii. Findings of the analysis is specific for the project reach. iv. Equilibrium channel slope will be provided by the CVWD. v. This Scope of Services excludes any meetings, coordination and discussions with the City and CVWD following the acceptance of the Regional Report by CVWD. Upon request, Consultant will provide a proposal for any future services associated follow-up and/or continued consultant services to the City on this regional stormwater issue. Exhibit A Page 2 of 6 77 Exhibit A Page 3 of 6 ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT Re: Scope of Services If the Scope of Services include construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair, or maintenance affecting real property or structures or improvements of any kind appurtenant to real property, the following apply: 1.Prevailing Wage Compliance. If Contracting Party is a contractor performing public works and maintenance projects, as described in this Section 1.3, Contracting Party shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws. Contracting Party is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 16000, et seq., (collectively, the “Prevailing Wage Laws”), and La Quinta Municipal Code Section 3.12.040, which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on “Public works” and “Maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “Public works” or “Maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if construction work over twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) and/or alterations, demolition, repair or maintenance work over fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) is entered into or extended on or after January 1, 2015 by this Agreement, Contracting Party agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws including, but not limited to, requirements related to the maintenance of payroll records and the employment of apprentices. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1725.5, no contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a “Public works” project unless registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) at the time the contract is awarded. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “Public works” or “Maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contracting Party will maintain and will require all subcontractors to maintain valid and current DIR Public Works contractor registration during the term of this Agreement. Contracting Party shall notify City in writing immediately, and in no case more than twenty-four (24) hours, after receiving any information that Contracting Party’s or any of its subcontractor’s DIR registration status has been suspended, revoked, expired, or otherwise changed. It is understood that it is the responsibility of Contracting Party to determine the correct salary scale. Contracting Party shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at Contracting Party’s principal place of business and at the project site, if any. The statutory penalties for failure to pay prevailing wage or to comply with State wage and hour laws will be enforced. Contracting Party must forfeit to City TWENTY- 78 Exhibit A Page 4 of 6 FIVE DOLLARS ($25.00) per day for each worker who works in excess of the minimum working hours when Contracting Party does not pay overtime. In accordance with the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1810 et seq., eight (8) hours is the legal working day. Contracting Party also shall comply with State law requirements to maintain payroll records and shall provide for certified records and inspection of records as required by California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq., including Section 1776. In addition to the other indemnities provided under this Agreement, Contracting Party shall defend (with counsel selected by City), indemnify, and hold City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It is agreed by the parties that, in connection with performance of the Services, including, without limitation, any and all “Public works” (as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws), Contracting Party shall bear all risks of payment or non-payment of prevailing wages under California law and/or the implementation of Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, and/or any other similar law. Contracting Party acknowledges and agrees that it shall be independently responsible for reviewing the applicable laws and regulations and effectuating compliance with such laws. Contracting Party shall require the same of all subcontractors. 2.Retention. Payments shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 2.0 of the Agreement. In accordance with said Sections, City shall pay Contracting Party a sum based upon ninety-five percent (95%) of the Contract Sum apportionment of the labor and materials incorporated into the Services under this Agreement during the month covered by said invoice. The remaining five percent (5%) thereof shall be retained as performance security to be paid to Contracting Party within sixty (60) days after final acceptance of the Services by the City Council of City, after Contracting Party has furnished City with a full release of all undisputed payments under this Agreement, if required by City. In the event there are any claims specifically excluded by Contracting Party from the operation of the release, City may retain proceeds (per Public Contract Code § 7107) of up to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the amount in dispute. City’s failure to deduct or withhold shall not affect Contracting Party’s obligations under the Agreement. 3.Utility Relocation. City is responsible for removal, relocation, or protection of existing main or trunk-line utilities to the extent such utilities were not identified in the invitation for bids or specifications. City shall reimburse Contracting Party for any costs incurred in locating, repairing damage not caused by Contracting Party, and removing or relocating such unidentified utility facilities. Contracting Party shall not be assessed liquidated 79 Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 damages for delay arising from the removal or relocation of such unidentified utility facilities. 4.Trenches or Excavations. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 7104, in the event the work included in this Agreement requires excavations more than four (4) feet in depth, the following shall apply: (a) Contracting Party shall promptly, and before the following conditions are disturbed, notify City, in writing, of any: (1) material that Contracting Party believes may be material that is hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code, that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal site in accordance with provisions of existing law; (2) subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site different from those indicated by information about the site made available to bidders prior to the deadline for submitting bids; or (3) unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the Agreement. (b) City shall promptly investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially so differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in Contracting Party’s cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work shall issue a change order per Section 1.8 of the Agreement. (c) in the event that a dispute arises between City and Contracting Party whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in Contracting Party’s cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, Contracting Party shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date provided for by this Agreement, but shall proceed with all work to be performed under this Agreement. Contracting Party shall retain any and all rights provided either by contract or by law which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the contracting Parties. 5.Safety. Contracting Party shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out the Services, Contracting Party shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and lifesaving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, 80 Exhibit A Page 6 of 6 bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 6.Liquidated Damages. Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of the Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of this Agreement, Contracting Party shall be liable for and shall pay to City the sum of One Thousand dollars ($1,000.00) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of any of the Services required hereunder, as specified in the Schedule of Performance. In addition, liquidated damages may be assessed for failure to comply with the emergency call out requirements, if any, described in the Scope of Services. City may withhold from any moneys payable on account of the Services performed by Contracting Party any accrued liquidated damages. 81 Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B Schedule of Compensation With the exception of compensation for Additional Services, provided for in Section 2.3 of this Agreement, the maximum total compensation to be paid to Contracting Party under this Agreement is a fixed fee not to exceed Forty- Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Five Dollars ($ 49,965.00) (“Contract Sum”). The Contract Sum shall be paid to Contracting Party in installment payments made on a monthly percent of completion basis and in an amount identified in Contracting Party’s schedule of compensation attached hereto for the work tasks performed and properly invoiced by Contracting Party in conformance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement. 82 Estimated Hrs & Fee for Whitewater River Channel Regional Scour Analysis between Jefferson & Washington GCS'sBengal EngineeringProject No.: 2011-05360 S. Hope Ave., Suite C-110Title:Dune Palms Road Low-Water Crossing Replacement at Coachella Valley Water ChannelSanta Barbara, CA 93105Client: City of La Quinta Prepared by: MD EIN = (805) 563-0788Date: December 4, 2019 Billing Type: T&M MSA CONTRACT NO.: HOURSSPEC. PROJECT BRIDGE STRUCT. CIVIL TECH / GEOTECH ENG CLERICALTOTAL LABORCONSULT. MANAGER ENG Design ENG DRAFTER ENG GEOLOGISTHOURS COSTTask 1: Project ManagementAttend Meetings (Three assumed) 18 18 18 3 57 8265Coordination with CVWD 8 2432 4800Task 2: Establish Hydraulic Analysis CriteriaCoordination with CVWD and their Hydraulic Consultant 8 8 2440 6000Task 3: Perform Hydraulic HEC-RAS AnalysisDevelop RAS Model and Perform Analysis4 402064 9600Task 4: Perform Regional Scour AnalysisPerform Scour Analysis343064 9600Task 5: Prepare Hydraulic Technical MemorandumPrepare Hydraulic Technical Memorandum4 344078 11700=Heptagon Seven EffortTOTALS - 34 142 - 156 - - - 3 - - - - - - - - 335 49965ClassificationRate/Hr. Expenses Units Unit Cost Billing Reimbursables ConsultantSpecial Consultant175.00 FactorProject Manager150.00 Geotech Exploration (Budget figure)1.15 Bridge Engineer150.00 Laboratory Testing (Budget figure)1.15 Senior Engineer150.00 01.15 Structural Design150.00 1.15 Civil Engineer150.00 Surveyor01.15 Engineering Geologist150.00 BW - Size D01.15 Drafter/Technician85.00 Color - Size D01.15 Geotech Engr150.00 Mylar - Size D0 0 1.15 Eng. Geologist150.00 Color Photocopies -Budget0 25 1.15 Clerical55.00 BW Photocopies Budget0 25 1.15 Mail-Budget0251.15 Average Rate:149.15 Grand Total = $49,965.00Item DescriptionsExhibit BPage 2 of 283 Exhibit C Page 1 of 1 Exhibit C Schedule of Performance Contracting Party shall complete all services identified in the Scope of Services, Exhibit A of this Agreement, by June 30, 2020. A draft report shall be submitted to the City on or before January 31, 2020. 84 Exhibit D Page 1 of 1 Exhibit D Special Requirements None 85 Exhibit E Page 1 of 6 Exhibit E Insurance Requirements E.1 Insurance. Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of this Agreement, the following policies shall be maintained and kept in full force and effect providing insurance with minimum limits as indicated below and issued by insurers with A.M. Best ratings of no less than A-VI: Commercial General Liability (at least as broad as ISO CG 0001) $1,000,000 (per occurrence) $2,000,000 (general aggregate) Must include the following endorsements: General Liability Additional Insured General Liability Primary and Non-contributory Commercial Auto Liability (at least as broad as ISO CA 0001) $1,000,000 (per accident) Personal Auto Declaration Page if applicable Errors and Omissions Liability $1,000,000 (per claim and aggregate) Workers’ Compensation (per statutory requirements) Must include the following endorsements: Workers Compensation with Waiver of Subrogation Workers Compensation Declaration of Sole Proprietor if applicable Contracting Party shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, Commercial General Liability insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Contracting Party’s acts or omissions rising out of or related to Contracting Party’s performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Contracting Party’s performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. An endorsement evidencing the foregoing and naming the City and its officers and employees as additional insured (on the Commercial General Liability policy only) must be submitted concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and approved by City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. Contracting Party shall carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or 86 Exhibit E Page 2 of 6 damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by Contracting Party, its officers, any person directly or indirectly employed by Contracting Party, any subcontractor or agent, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Contracting Party’s performance under this Agreement. If Contracting Party or Contracting Party’s employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Contracting Party shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. The term “automobile” includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Contracting Party’s performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Contracting Party and “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer’s duty to defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement. Contracting Party shall carry Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with State Worker’s Compensation laws with employer’s liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or disease. If coverage is maintained on a claims-made basis, Contracting Party shall maintain such coverage for an additional period of three (3) years following termination of the contract. Contracting Party shall provide written notice to City within ten (10) working days if: (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, Contracting Party shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Exhibit to the Contract Officer. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Contracting Party’s obligation to indemnify City, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or agents. E.2 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Contracting Party fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy 87 Exhibit E Page 3 of 6 endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. b. Order Contracting Party to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to Contracting Party hereunder until Contracting Party demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. c. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies City may have. The above remedies are not the exclusive remedies for Contracting Party’s failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Contracting Party may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Contracting Party’s or its subcontractors’ performance of work under this Agreement. E.3 General Conditions Pertaining to Provisions of Insurance Coverage by Contracting Party. Contracting Party and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Contracting Party: 1. Contracting Party agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials, employees, and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Contracting Party also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do likewise. 2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit Contracting Party, or Contracting Party’s employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Contracting Party agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise. 3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contracting Party and available or applicable to this Agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage. 88 Exhibit E Page 4 of 6 4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate so-called “third party action over” claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor. 6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Contracting Party shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City’s protection without City’s prior written consent. 7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Contracting Party’s general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Contracting Party or deducted from sums due Contracting Party, at City option. 8. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage required to be provided by Contracting Party or any subcontractor, is intended to apply first and on a primary, non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self-insurance available to City. 9. Contracting Party agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project that is brought onto or involved in the project by Contracting Party, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contracting Party. Contracting Party agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Contracting Party agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. 10. Contracting Party agrees not to self-insure or to use any self- insured retentions or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein (with the exception of professional liability coverage, if required) and 89 Exhibit E Page 5 of 6 further agrees that it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Contracting Party’s existing coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review options with the Contracting Party, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions. 11. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of this Agreement to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Contracting Party ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Contracting Party, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increased benefit to City. 12. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement. 13. Contracting Party acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Contracting Party of non- compliance with any insurance requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard. 14. Contracting Party will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect. 15. Contracting Party shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Contracting Party’s insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and an additional insured endorsement is required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five (5) days of the expiration of coverages. 90 Exhibit E Page 6 of 6 16. The provisions of any workers’ compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations of Contracting Party under this agreement. Contracting Party expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials, and agents. 17. Requirements of specific coverage features, or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive. 18. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this Agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such. 19. The requirements in this Exhibit supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Exhibit. 20. Contracting Party agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Contracting Party for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto. 21. Contracting Party agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Contracting Party arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City. 91 Exhibit F Page 1 of 3 Exhibit F Indemnification F.1 Indemnity for the Benefit of City. a. Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Contracting Party’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Contracting Party shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities of every kind, nature, and description, damages, injury (including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee of Contracting Party or of any subcontractor), costs and expenses of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Contracting Party, its officers, agents, employees or subcontractors (or any entity or individual that Contracting Party shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this agreement. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Contracting Party shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Contracting Party. b. Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Contracting Party shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses) incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Contracting Party or by any individual or entity for which Contracting Party is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees, or subcontractors of Contracting Party. c. Indemnity Provisions for Contracts Related to Construction (Limitation on Indemnity). Without affecting the rights of City under any 92 Exhibit F Page 2 of 3 provision of this agreement, Contracting Party shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City’s active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Contracting Party will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City. d. Indemnification Provision for Design Professionals. 1. Applicability of this Section F.1(d). Notwithstanding Section F.1(a) hereinabove, the following indemnification provision shall apply to a Contracting Party who constitutes a “design professional” as the term is defined in paragraph 3 below. 2. Scope of Indemnification. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Contracting Party’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Contracting Party shall indemnify and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities of every kind, nature, and description, damages, injury (including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee of Contracting Party or of any subcontractor), costs and expenses, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, reimbursement of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, to the extent same are caused by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Contracting Party, its officers, agents, employees or subcontractors (or any entity or individual that Contracting Party shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this agreement. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Contracting Party shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Contracting Party. 3. Design Professional Defined. As used in this Section F.1(d), the term “design professional” shall be limited to licensed architects, registered professional engineers, licensed professional land surveyors and landscape architects, all as defined under current law, and as may be amended from time to time by Civil Code § 2782.8. F.2 Obligation to Secure Indemnification Provisions. Contracting Party agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions 93 Exhibit F Page 3 of 3 identical to those set forth herein this Exhibit F, as applicable to the Contracting Party, from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contracting Party in the performance of this Agreement. In the event Contracting Party fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, Contracting Party agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this Exhibit. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth in this Agreement are binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Contracting Party and shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 94 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES FROM AMERON POLE PRODUCTS, LLC, FOR THE WASHINGTON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE TRIPLE LEFT TURN PROJECT NO. 2017-01 RECOMMENDATION Approve the purchase of traffic signal poles from Ameron Pole Products, Inc., for the Washington Street and Fred Waring Triple Left Turn Project; and authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase order. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •This multijurisdictional project entails constructing triple left turn lanes on all four approaches to the Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive intersection (Attachment 1). •The traffic signal poles are a long lead item and must be ordered in advance. •The City received two proposals for the traffic signal pole equipment. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of the poles is $121,849 (Attachment 2). There is sufficient funding in the project budget (201701) for this purchase. The estimated total project cost is $1,860,744. When this project was first conceived, the estimated cost was $2,180,134 and the 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program allocates $551,985 of Measure A Funds for the City’s local share. Further design refinement indicates that the total cost may be less, which would reduce the City’s local share to $232,595. Staff does not recommend a budget adjustment until the final design and construction bids have occurred. The following is the current project budget: Total Budget Professional: $ 85,420 Design: $ 163,326 Inspection/Testing/Survey: $ 114,875 Construction: $ 1,178,210 Land Acquisition/ROW: $ 75,000 Contingency: $ 563,303 Total Budget: $ 2,180,134 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 9 95 The following is the anticipated agency cost share for the project: Agency Percentage Share Cost Share CVAG 75% $1,395,555 La Quinta (from Measure A) 12.5% $232,595 Palm Desert 6.25% $116,297 Indian Wells 6.25% $116,297 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Washington Street and Fred Waring Triple Left Turn Project is included in the 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The project will create triple left turn lanes on all four approaches to the Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive intersection. The work will include modifying the median curbs and reconstructing the curbs, gutters and sidewalks at the intersection corners. In April 2018, Council approved an agreement with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to fund 75% of the project as part of its regional share. The 2013 update to the City’s General Plan acknowledged that Washington Street has operational deficiencies. Staff determined that installing triple left turn lanes at critical intersections would help traffic flow; the triple lefts constructed at the intersections of Calle Tampico at Washington Street, Eisenhower Drive at Washington Street, and Washington Street at Highway 111 have improved traffic flows. The traffic signal poles are a long lead item and must be ordered in advance. The City received two proposals for the equipment, from Ameron Pole Products, LLC (Ameron), and McCain, Inc. (McCain) (Attachment 3). The City also requested a third proposal from Hapco, but they declined to submit. The cost proposal from McCain was lower, however, the lead time for the equipment is up to 24 weeks. The equipment from McCain would not be available for delivery within the project’s anticipated construction timeline by May 2020. The lead time is 18 weeks for the Ameron equipment. ALTERNATIVES Council could direct staff to select McCain, Inc., however this would delay the project. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, P.E., City Engineer Attachment: 1. Project Vicinity Map 2.Ameron Pole Products, LLC, Cost Proposal 3. McCain, Inc., Cost Proposal 96 Vicinity Map Washington Street Intersection with Fred Waring Drive Triple Left Turn Lanes Fred Waring Drive Miles Avenue Highway 111 Hovely Lane Washington Street Adams Street Project Location 97ATTACHMENT 1 9898 Ameron Pole Products, LLC 2333 South Yukon Tulsa, OK 74107 Phone: (800) 282 6376 Fax: (918) 587 9540 Email:PD-USA-RFQSteel@nov.com Quotation Acknowledgment Page: 1 of 3 Quote Number: 67622 - 2 Quote Date: 12/04/2019 This quotation is valid for thirty days and subject to Ameron's terms and conditions CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING This document contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. The information is private. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Customer Name: 999-IN HOUSE ACCOUNT Contact:Terms: Net 30 Project Name: Caltrans Items for City of La Quinta Email: Location: Southern California Line Product / Description UOM Qty Unit Freight Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Price 1 Galvanized CT 2018 RSP, Type 21TS-15, Fixed Base, Less AB EA 4.0 0.00 2,980.00 2,980.00 11,920.00 2 Anchor Bolt Assembly For Caltrans 2018 RSP 21TS Pole, (4) 1-1/2"x42" On 14"BC EA 4.0 0.00 360.00 360.00 1,440.00 3 Galvanized CT 2018 RSP, 61A-5-100-65-15, Less AB EA 4.0 0.00 20,915.00 20,915.00 83,660.00 4 Anchor Bolt Assembly For Caltrans 2018 RSP 61A-5 Pole, (4) 3"x60" On 33"BC EA 4.0 0.00 2,285.00 2,285.00 9,140.00 5 Lot Price For Freight - Line #1 thru Line #4 All Offloading By Others EA 1.0 6,400.00 0.00 6,400.00 6,400.00 6 Estimated Tax Line for Lines 1-4 Only Estimated Tax Line @ 8.75%, rate provided by ERSC 12/4/19 EA 1.0 0.00 9,289.00 9,289.00 9,289.00 Sub Total (w/o Freight):115,449.00 Freight:6,400.00 Total:121,849.00 Any change to item or quantity will require a new quotation. All Offloading to be performed by others. Please consult factory for additional crane service and storage solution options. All hold for release orders are limited to a (45) day validity from the receipt of purchase order (excluding engineering time from Ameron). After said time the purchase order will be deemed invalid requiring a new quotation and acceptance prior to release of order without prior validity extension approval from management. All quotes are valid for 30 days unless extension provided with management approval. Please send all purchase orders to: PD-USA-SteelOrdersTulsa@nov.com Freight: FCA Tulsa Per Ameron Standard Terms & Conditions #11 Note: Per Ameron, Galvanized Finish Only - please consult factory for special paint or powder coating finish. Commission: No commission paid on freight. Drawing / Weeks: 2 ATTACHMENT 2 99 100 ____________________________________________ QUOTATION Estimator:Dave Weir Quote #:DW102519B (760)734-5019 Agency:La Quinta City of dweir@mccain-inc.com Job Name:Poles Bid Date:10/25/19 Bid Item Qnty Description Price Extension 4 65' SIGNAL MAST ARM FOR 60/61-5-100 4 61A-5-100 POLE 8 15' LUMINAIRE MAST ARM 4 TYPE 21TS 16 ANCHOR BOLT, GRD 55, 1.5X42 16 ANCHOR BOLT, GRD 55, 3X60 4 ANCHOR PLATE, FOR 1-1/2" BOLTS 4 ANCHOR PLATE, FOR 3" BOLTS Lot Price $92,855.00 8.75% Sales Tax $8,124.81 All material complies with Buy America requirements per Caltrans latest revised Standard Specifications. Reference Total $100,979.81 Prices firm for 30 days. Freight included. Sale is subject to McCain's standard terms and conditions. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited., If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ATTACHMENT 3 101 102 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT’S ANNUAL INSPECTION REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 13146.4 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of the Riverside County Fire Department’s Annual Inspection Report pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •State law requires all fire departments to perform annual inspections for compliance with building standards. •Effective January 1, 2019, state law requires all fire departments to submit an Annual Inspection Report (Attachment 1) to its City, and for the municipality to adopt a resolution to acknowledge receipt of the report. •All state mandated inspections were performed, and all corrections have been satisfied. FISCAL IMPACT – None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In compliance with the state law, the Riverside County Fire Department is providing the Annual Inspection Report to the City, which includes completed inspections of public and private school facilities, hotels, motels, apartment units and some residential care facilities for fiscal year 2018/19. ALTERNATIVES As this is a state mandated requirement, there are no alternatives. Prepared by: Martha Mendez, Public Safety Manager Approved by: Chris Escobedo, Community Resources Director Attachments: 1. 2018/19 Annual Inspection Report CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 10 103 104 RESOLUTION NO. 2019 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT’S ANNUAL INSPECTION REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, SECTION 13146.4 WHEREAS, The City of La Quinta contracts with County of Riverside Fire Department for Fire Services; and WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code (CA H&S) Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments, including the Riverside County Fire Department, that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with CA H&S, sections 13146.2 and 13146.3; and WHEREAS, CA H&S Section 13146.2 and 13146.3 requires all fire departments that provide fire protection services to perform annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities for compliance with building standards, as provided; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of La Quinta intends this Resolution to fulfill the requirements of the CA H&S, Section 13146.4 regarding acknowledgment of the Riverside County Fire Department’s compliance with CA H&S, sections 13146.2 and 13146.3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California expressly acknowledges the measure of compliance of the Riverside County Fire Department with CA H&S, sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 in the City of La Quinta for the time period of July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, as follows: SECTION 1. Educational Group E occupancies, for the purposes of this Resolution, are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade. The Riverside County Fire Department completed 100% of the annual inspections of the identified Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities in the City of La Quinta. SECTION 2. Residential Group R occupancies, for the purposes of this Resolution, are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), etc. as well as other 105 Resolution No. 2019 - XXX 2019 Riverside County Fire Department’s Annual Inspection Report Adopted: Page 2 of 2 residential occupancies (including a number of residential care facilities). These residential care facilities have a number of different sub-classifications, and they may contain residents or clients that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc. The residents may also be non-ambulatory or bedridden. The Riverside County Fire Department completed 100% of the annual inspections of the identified Group R occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities in the City of La Quinta. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 17th day of December 2019, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: _______________________ MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 106 Case Property Status Occupant Name Status Address Num Street Property Alert Property APN 17-2023 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED VILLA TAMPICO (4 PLEX)Completed 77855 CALLE TAMPICO R-2 773-075-013 17-2024 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED VILLA TAMPICO (4 PLEX)Completed 77835 CALLE TAMPICO R-2 773-075-014 17-2043 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON Completed 45200 WASHINGTON ST R-1 604-630-017 17-2280 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED La Quinta High School Completed 79255 BLACKHAWK WAY E 600-010-004 18-1316 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED THE PALMS AT LA QUINTA - ASSISTED LIVING Completed 45160 SEELEY DR R-2.1 604-630-056 18-1787 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED SILVERHAWK APARTMENTS Completed 50660 EISENHOWER DR R-2 773-370-028 18-1871 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED SEASONS @ LA QUINTA Completed 40915 RAINBOW CT R-2 770-020-013 18-1872 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED LA QUINTA DESERT VILLAS Completed 45245 SEELEY DR R-2 604-631-045 18-1873 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED EMBASSY SUITES Completed 50777 SANTA ROSA PLAZA R-1 770-020-031 18-1874 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED HADLEY VILLAS Completed 78875 AVENUE 47 R-2 643-090-014 18-1879 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED BUNGALOW - LQ RESORT Completed 49499 EISENHOWER DR R-1 658-190-011 18-2023 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED AVENTINE APARTMENTS Completed 47750 ADAMS ST R-2 600-020-015 18-2024 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED LEGACY VILLAS (RESIDENTIAL) Completed 48800 LEGACY DR R-2 658-420-001 18-2091 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED WOLFE WATERS PLACE APTS. Completed 47795 DUNE PALMS RD R-2 600-020-041 18-2102 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED VILLA CORTINA APARTMENTS Completed 50701 WASHINGTON ST R-2 770-020-010 18-2103 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED VILLAGGIO APARTMENTS Completed 80175 AVENUE 52 R-2 777-070-047 18-2206 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED CORAL MOUNTAIN APARTMENTS Completed 79625 VISTA CORALINA LN R-2 600-020-055 18-2248 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED LA QUINTA COTTAGES Completed 51049 EISENHOWER DR R-2 773-065-013 18-2253 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED MEDITERRA Completed 43100 PALM ROYALE DR R-2 609-051-010 18-2254 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED LA QUINTA COURTYARD Completed 51020 EISENHOWER DR R-2 773-071-017 LA QUINTA - 2018/2019 FISCAL YEAR - STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED ANNUAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED ATTACHMENT 1 107 18-2590 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED TRIPLEX Completed 51165 EISENHOWER DR R-2 773-065-022 19-0142 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED HARRY S TRUMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Completed 78870 AVENUE 50 E 646-070-001 19-0143 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED CHILDCARE CENTER Completed 47795 DUNE PALMS RD E 600-020-041 19-0145 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED LA QUINTA MIDDLE SCHOOL Completed 78900 AVENUE 50 E 646-070-002 19-0207 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED JOHN ADAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Completed 50800 DESERT CLUB E 770-020-008 19-0208 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Completed 47950 DUNE PALMS RD E 600-020-040 19-0302 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED COLONEL MITCHELL PAIGE MIDDLE SCHOOL Completed 43495 PALM ROYALE E 609-070-036 19-0304 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED HORIZON/SUMMIT SCHOOL Completed 43330 PALM ROYALE E 609-052-017 19-0305 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY Completed 77800 CALLE TAMPICO E 773-370-026 19-0469 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED VISTA DUNES APARTMENTS Completed 44950 VISTA DUNES R-2 604-032-022 19-0577 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED Caleo Bay Alzheimers Completed 47805 CALEO BAY R-2.1 643-200-049 19-1141 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED FIRST SCHOOL Completed 44996 ADAMS ST E 604-271-024 19-1235 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED THE PALMS - GRACIOUS LIVING Completed 45190 SEELEY DR R-2 SENIOR APARTMENTS 604-630-057 19-1794 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED CASITAS LAS ROJAS Completed 50777 SANTA ROSA PLAZA R-2 770-020-031 19-1964 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED YMCA OF THE DESERT - PRESCHOOL Completed 49955 MOON RIVER DR E 602-020-003 19-2015 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED THE CHATEAU @ LAKE LA QUINTA Completed 78120 CALEO BAY R-1 643-200-008 19-2018 STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED PALM ROYALE - RESIDENTIAL Completed 78259 EMERALD DR R-2 604-020-042 108 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE ADDENDUM TO THIRD AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TO RE-ADMIT THE TORRES MARTINEZ TRIBE AS A MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Approve an Addendum to the Third Amendment and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to re-admit the Torres Martinez Tribe as a member; and authorize the City Manager to execute the Addendum. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The City of La Quinta has been a member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) since 1989. •Through CVAG, the City has participated in regional-oriented transportation, air quality, homeless shelter, and environmental planning, funding and project implementation activities. •In October of 2000, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Tribe (Tribe) became a member of CVAG’s JPA. •Due to the Tribe’s lack of participation and non-payment of dues, on February 23, 2009 CVAG’s Executive Committee elected to discontinue their membership. •On November 26, 2019, the Tribe made a request to re-join CVAG (Attachment 1). •On December 2, 2019, the CVAG Executive Committee considered the request and voted unanimously to allow the Tribe to rejoin CVAG via the Addendum to the Third Amendment and Restatement of the CVAG JPA (Addendum) (Attachment 2). FISCAL IMPACT – None. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 11 109 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CVAG was created in 1973 with the approval of the first JPA. The City has been a member of CVAG JPA since 1989. The JPA requires each member jurisdiction to approve changes to the JPA. The Addendum was reviewed and approved by CVAG’s Executive Committee on December 2, 2019 (Attachment 3). CVAG is circulating the Addendum for members’ approval. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect not to approve this Addendum; or provide alternative direction to staff. Prepared by: Monika Radeva, Deputy City Clerk Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager Attachments: 1.Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians request to re-join CVAG dated November 26, 2019 2.Addendum to Third Amendment and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement of the Coachella Valley Association of Government Admitting the Torres Martinez Tribe as a Member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments 3.CVAG staff report dated December 2, 2019 110 ATTACHMENT 1 111 112 ADDENDUM TO THIRD AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ADMITTING THE TORRES MARTINEZ TRIBE AS A MEMBER OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS This Addendum to the Third Amendment and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“Addendum”) is entered into as of the date of the last signature appended to this Addendum, by and between the Torres Martinez Tribe (“Admittee”), on the one hand, and the County of Riverside, City of Coachella, City of Indio, City of La Quinta, City if Indian Wells, City of Palm Desert, City of Rancho Mirage, City of Cathedral City, City of Palm Springs, City of Desert Hot Springs, City of Blythe, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (“Current Parties”), on the other hand. RECITALS A. Current Parties constitute the total membership of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“CVAG”) and are parties to the Third Amendment and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“Third Restatement”). B. Admittee is a federally recognized tribe and public agency, as that term is defined in Government Code section 6500, and formerly a member of CVAG. C. Admittee desires to rejoin CVAG as a member and Current Parties are willing to admit Admittee as a member under the terms and conditions set forth in this Addendum. D. Section 6.1 of the Third Restatement allows for the admission of additional public agencies to membership in CVAG subject to consent of two -thirds of the Current Parties and execution of an addendum to the Third Restatement signed by all Current Parties and Admittee. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, Current Parties and Admittee agree as follows: Admission of Admittee Admittee is hereby admitted as a member of CVAG, subject to all of the rights , obligations and responsibilities set forth in the Third Restatement. Execution of this Addendum by Admittee shall be the legal equivalent of Admittee’s execution of the Third Restatement as a party thereto. ATTACHMENT 2 113 The parties to this Addendum have caused it to be executed on their behalf as of the date specified below, respectively, as follows: City of Blythe City of Cathedral City By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: ____________ Date: ____________ City of Coachella City of Desert Hot Springs By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: ____________ Date: ____________ City of Indian Wells City of Indio By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: ____________ Date: ____________ City of La Quinta City of Palm Desert By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: ____________ Date: ____________ City of Palm Springs City of Rancho Mirage By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: ____________ Date: ____________ County of Riverside Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: ____________ Date: ____________ 114 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Date: ____________ Date: ____________ 115 116 ITEM 7D Staff Report Subject: Torres Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians Request to Rejoin CVAG Contact: Tom Kirk, Executive Committee (tkirk@cvag.org) Recommendation: Approve the addendum to the Third Amendment and Restatement of the CVAG Joint Powers Agreement, which establishes the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians as formal members, and direct the Executive Director to distribute to member jurisdictions for approval. Background: CVAG was formed in November 1973 with the approval of the first Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). In 1989 – after voters passed Measure A – CVAG amended and restated the JPA to specify its role as the regional transportation authority. In 1998, the JPA was amended again to include the City of Blythe as a member. CVAG’s members have since authorized separate JPA agreements for the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission and for Desert Community Energy. In April 2018, the Executive Committee approved the Third Amendment to the Joint Powers Authority, which better reflected CVAG’s mission and organizational structure and included the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. The governments in the Coachella Valley have long benefited from a unique relationship with the local tribal nations, whose reservations span across several local cities. Prior to becoming full members of the JPA, the Agua Caliente and Cabazon tribes joined CVAG through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved by the Executive Committee in October of 1998. The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Tribe’s joined CVAG in October 2000. After years of successful participation, the Torres Martinez Tribe underwent internal changes that caused their participation to wane. The Torres Martinez also went two years without paying dues. In February 23, 2009, the Executive Committee elected to discontinue the Tribe’s membership with CVAG. In a letter sent to then Tribal Chair Mary Resvaloso, then-Interim Executive Director Larry Parrish indicated that if the Tribe chooses to re-join CVAG in the future, CVAG would welcome the discussion. As mentioned at the September 30, 2019 Executive Committee meeting, CVAG staff was approached by current Torres Martinez Councilmembers about the process of re-joining CVAG. A letter is attached. CVAG Legal Counsel has drafted an addendum to the JPA to add this membership however Section 2 would be deleted if no conditions are added. Once approved by the Executive Committee, CVAG staff will re-circulate the JPA addendum to all its member jurisdictions for their approval and signature. Fiscal Analysis: There is no fiscal impact to the JPA addendum. The costs involved in recirculating the JPA will be covered under existing staff time. Upon membership, representatives of the Torres Martinez will receive per diems for attending meetings. ATTACHMENT 3 117 The Torres Martinez will also be required to pay dues. These assessments are based on the lowest dues paid by jurisdictions. In fiscal year 2019/20, the assessment was $8,863 for both the Agua Caliente and the Cabazon tribes. As previously noted, under their previous involvement with CVAG, there were two years in which Torres Martinez did not pay membership dues. The amounts for fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09 totaled $14,865. Attachments:Letter from Torres Martinez Tribal Council Draft Addendum to the CVAG JPA 118 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the fiscal year 2018/19 Development Project Fee Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •Development Impact Fees (DIF) are imposed on new construction to help offset impacts created by new development on City facilities and infrastructure. •The State Mitigation Fee Act requires the City to annually report on the receipts and expenditures of DIF Funds for the last five years within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year. •The City must use, or pledge to use, the developer fees on City facilities and infrastructure within five years of receipt; or present findings if that was not the case. •Staff has completed the required analysis (Attachments 1 and 2) and in all cases the City has complied with the time limit to expend or commit fees for future projects. FISCAL IMPACT - None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City has three development project category fees subject to State requirements: Infrastructure, Quimby, and DIF. Annually, the City reports on the following: •Brief description on the type of fee in the account or fund; •Amount of the fee; •Beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; •Amount of fees collected and interest earned; •Each public improvement on which fees were expended, the amount of expenditures, and total percentage of the project completed and costs funded with the fee; •Description of each interfund transfer, loan, and the public improvement funded. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 12 119 The City must also report payments received pursuant to development agreements entered into after January 1, 2004. A schedule of development agreement payments received, and expenditures are noted in Attachment 2. Most projects were reported in the prior fiscal year, except for the following: Fund Project Committed Amount Quimby Fund 201903 Skate Park Conversion $263,000 Transportation DIF 201902 Avenue 50 Bridge Spanning the Evacuation Channel $83,745 Parks & Rec. DIF 201608 SilverRock Event Space $2,400,000 During 2018/19, the City wrote-off three DIF interfund loans as follows: Fund Loan Write-Off Unspent Balance Civic Center DIF $7,058,068 $78,330 Street Maint. DIF $1,890,705 $8,879 Fire Protection DIF $455,197 $33,663 As of April 1, 2019, these funds no longer repaid loans owed to the General Fund. Unspent balances will be evaluated for appropriation during the 2020/21 budget cycle. ALTERNATIVES This report is required by State, staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Karla Romero, Finance Director Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager Attachment: 1. FY 2018/19 Development Project Fee Financial Report 2. FY 2018/19 Development Agreement Payment Report 120 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report ATTACHMENT 1 Quimby Fees (Fund 220) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees - Interest Income 129,832 Contributions from Property Owners - Transfers In - Total Revenue Sources 129,832 Expenditures & Other Uses - Transfers out Capital Projects 1,296,611 Total Uses 1,296,611 Total Available 4,595,916$(1,166,779)$ 3,429,137$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 8,134,965 263,193 2,738,126 5,122,234 537,798 Revenues Collected from 2016 5,660,033 80,364 305,730 5,979,239 (544,572) Revenues Collected from 2017 5,434,667 128,218 557,338 3,985,916 1,019,631 Revenues Collected from 2018 5,005,547 53,307 462,938 7,298,488 (2,702,572) Revenues Collected from 2019 4,595,916 129,832 1,296,611 4,714,876 (1,285,740) Total Revenue For Last Five Years 654,914$ 5,360,743$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete* % funded with fee 151609 North La Quinta Regional Skate and BMX 795,460 2,551,337 20%78% 201608 SilverRock Event Space Park 445,309 1,500,382 14% 33% 201801 Cove Trail Public Restrooms 55,843 400,158 23% 88% 201903 Skate Park Conversion -263,000 0%100% Total 1,296,611$4,714,876$ * Percentage completed as of 12/1/19. The City's Quimby Special Revenue Fund is used to account for the accumulation of developer fees received under the provisions of the Quimby Act for park development and improvements. 121 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Infrastructure Fee (Fund 225) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees - Interest Income 733 Reimbursements - Total Revenue Sources 733$ Expenditures & Other Uses 4,543 Capital Projects - Project Administration/Internal Engineering - Total Uses 4,543 Total Available 23,914$ (3,810)$ 20,104$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 23,208 132 - - 23,339 Revenues Collected from 2016 22,339 279 - 22,618 0 Revenues Collected from 2017 23,618 114 - 22,618 1,114 Revenues Collected from 2018 23,732 182 - 22,618 1,296 Revenues Collected from 2019 23,914 733 4,543 24,028 (3,924) Total Revenue For Last Five Years 1,439$ 4,543$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete* % funded with fee 151603 La Quinta Village Complete Streets - Road Diet - 22,618 22%0.20% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,543 1,410 76%11% Total 4,543 24,028$ * Percentage completed as of 12/1/19. The Infrastructure fee fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources, provided through developer fees for the acquisition, construction or improvement of the City's infrastructure as defined in Resolution 2013-006. 122 2016 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Transportation DIF (Fund 250) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 2,842$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 2,842$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 1,745$ Office/Hospital Unit 4,645$ General Commercial 1,000 sq ft 5,679$ Tourist Commercial 1,000 sq ft 1,590$ Golf Course Acre 669$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 639,345 Interest Income 91,636 Miscellaneous 0 Transfers In 25,242 Total Revenue Sources 756,223 Expenditures & Other Uses 404,543 Transfers out Capital Projects 987,337 Total Uses 1,391,880 Total Available 3,098,380$ (635,657)$ 2,462,724$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 1,519,482 4,031,623 1,787,715 1,787,715 1,975,675 Revenues Collected from 2016 3,763,390 487,907 779,896 6,745,168 (3,273,767) Revenues Collected from 2017 3,471,401 388,472 203,047 3,595,274 61,552 Revenues Collected from 2018 3,656,826 539,365 1,097,811 2,551,507 546,873 Revenues Collected from 2019 3,098,380 756,223 1,391,880 4,971,752 (2,509,028) Total Revenue For Last Five Years 6,203,590$ 5,260,349$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete* % funded with fee 091002 Madison Street Ave. 50 to Ave. 52 977,180 557,036 78%67% 091004 Dune Palms Road Street Improvements - 2,407 90%1% 111205 Dune Palms Bridge Improvement - 73,755 11%2% 151603 La Quinta Village Complete Streets - Road Diet - 343,055 22%4% 201702 Developer Reimbursements 400,000 3,739,723 18%100% 201709 Avenue 53 Jefferson Street Roundabout 10,157 170,621 6%11% 201902 Avenue 50 Bridge Spanning the Evacuation Channel - 83,745 0%3% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,543 1,409 76%11% Total 1,391,880$ 4,971,752$ * Percentage completed as of 12/1/19. The Transportation Impact Fee developer fee fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources, provided through developer fees for street system improvements needed to handle traffic that will be generated by future development. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 123 2016 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Parks & Rec DIF (Fund 251) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 2,048$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 2,048$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 2,048$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 344,064 Interest Income 35,346.54 Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenue Sources 379,411 Expenditures & Other Uses 4,542 Transfers Out Capital Projects - Total Uses 4,542 Total Available 887,905$ 374,869$ 1,262,773$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 (469,486) 610,919 908 2,592 137,933 Revenues Collected from 2016 140,525 218,177 - 358,702 0 Revenues Collected from 2017 358,702 200,093 - - 558,795 Revenues Collected from 2018 558,795 329,110 - - 887,905 Revenues Collected from 2019 887,905 379,411 4,542 2,401,410 (1,138,637) Total Revenue For Last Five Years 1,737,710$ 5,450$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete* % funded with fee 201608 SilverRock Event Space -$ 2,400,000 14% 40% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,542 1,410 76% 11% Total 4,542$ 2,401,410$ * Percentage completed as of 12/1/19. The Parks & Recreation Impact Fee fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources, provided through developer fees for parks required to serve future development. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 124 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Civic Center DIF (Fund 252) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 942$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 796$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 447$ Office/Hospital Unit 373$ General Commercial 1,000 sq ft 373$ Tourist Commercial 1,000 sq ft 363$ Golf Course Acre 179$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 176,934 Interest Income 866 Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenue Sources 177,800 Expenditures & Other Uses 4,542 Advance Interest Expense 48,533 Interfund Loan Write-Off (7,058,068) Total Uses (7,004,993) Total Available (7,103,053)$ 7,182,793$ 79,740$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 (7,312,490) 290,145 237,123 55,277 (7,314,745) Revenues Collected from 2016 (7,259,468) 109,007 61,546 - (7,212,007) Revenues Collected from 2017 (7,212,007) 98,740 55,994 - (7,169,261) Revenues Collected from 2018 (7,169,261) 145,494 79,286 - (7,103,053) Revenues Collected from 2019 (7,103,053) 177,800 (7,004,993) 1,410 78,330 Total Revenue For Last Five Years 821,186$ (6,571,044)$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete % funded with fee General Fund loan repayment (City Hall expansion)*48,533 - 100% 100% General Fund Loan Write-off*(7,058,068) - 100%100% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,542 1,410 76%11% Total (7,004,993)$ 1,410$ * Loan repayment interest rate was based on the average quartery investment yield of the City's investment portfolio. During FY 2018/19, this loan was written-off. Projects are being evaluated for the unspent balance of $78,330 and will be included in the FY 20/21 budget. The Civic Center Impact Fee fund was used to fund the expansion of the La Quinta Civic Center completed in 2008 to support the City's needs through build out. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 125 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Library DIF (Fund 253) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 344$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 344$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 344$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 57,792 Interest Income Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenue Sources 57,792 Expenditures & Other Uses 4,542 Advance Interest Expense 30,939 Total Uses 35,480 Total Available (1,572,557)$ 22,312$ (1,550,245)$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 (1,750,152) 103,949 8,577 1,654,779 (3,309,558) Revenues Collected from 2016 (1,654,779) 36,464 12,686 1,631,001 (3,262,001) Revenues Collected from 2017 (1,631,001) 34,056 12,890 1,609,835 (3,219,670) Revenues Collected from 2018 (1,609,835) 56,416 19,138 1,572,557 (3,145,114) Revenues Collected from 2019 (1,572,557) 57,792 35,480 1,549,846 (3,100,091) Total Revenue For Last Five Years 288,677$ 88,771$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete** % funded with fee Successor Agency loan repayment (construction of public library facility)*30,939 1,548,436 38%100% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,542 1,410 76%11% Total 35,480$ 1,549,846$ * Loan repayment interest rate is based on the average quartery investment yield of the City's investment portfolio. As of 6/30/19 the outstanding loan balance was: Principal 1,547,195 Interest 1,241 Total Due 1,548,436 This loan remains active and is being evaluated in FY 2019/20. ** Percentage completed as of 9/30/19. The Library Impact Fee fund is used for library facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 126 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Community Center DIF (Fund 254) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 129$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 129$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 129$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 21,672 Interest Income 4,805 Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenue Sources 26,477 Expenditures & Other Uses 4,542 Total Uses 4,542 Total Available 136,956$ 21,935$ 158,891$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 47,350 39,430 - - 86,780 Revenues Collected from 2016 86,780 14,859 - 101,639 0 Revenues Collected from 2017 101,639 13,325 - 101,600 13,364 Revenues Collected from 2018 114,964 21,993 - 101,639 35,318 Revenues Collected from 2019 114,964 21,993 4,542 103,049 29,366 Total Revenue For Last Five Years 111,600$ 4,542$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete % funded with fee 151609 La Quinta X Park Youth Center -$ 101,639 20%2% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,542 1,410 76%11% Total 4,542$ 103,049$ Projects are being evaluated for the unspent balance of $29,366 and will be included in the FY 20/21 budget. The Community Center Fee fund is used for community center facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 127 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Street Maintenance DIF (Fund 255) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 116$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 116$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 71$ Office/Hospital Unit 190$ General Commercial 1000 sq ft 232$ Tourist Commercial 1000 sq ft 65$ Golf Course Acre 27$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 26,099 Interest Income 129 Miscellaneous Transfers In 3,966 Total Revenue Sources 30,194 Expenditures & Other Uses 4,542 Advance Interest Expense 14,474 Interfund Loan Write-Off (1,890,705) Total Uses (1,871,689) Total Available (1,891,594)$ 1,901,883$10,289$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 (1,966,991) 69,453 9,757 243 (1,907,538) Revenues Collected from 2016 (1,907,295) 22,325 16,581 - (1,901,551) Revenues Collected from 2017 (1,901,551) 19,095 15,191 - (1,897,647) Revenues Collected from 2018 (1,897,647) 27,349 21,296 - (1,891,594) Revenues Collected from 2019 (1,891,594)$ 30,194 (1,871,689)1,410 8,879 Total Revenue For Last Five Years 168,416$ (1,808,864)$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete % funded with fee General Fund loan repayment (Phase 1 Corporate Yard)*14,474 - 100%50% General Fund Loan Write-off*(1,890,705) - 100%100% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,542 1,410 76%11% Total (1,871,689)$ 1,410$ * Loan repayment interest rate was based on the average quartery investment yield of the City's investment portfolio. During FY 2018/19, this loan was written-off. Projects are being evaluated for the unspent balance of $8,879 and will be included in the FY 20/21 budget. The Street Maintenance Fee fund is used for street maintenance required to serve future development in La Quinta. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 128 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Park Maintenance DIF (Fund 256) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 40$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 40$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 40$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 6,720 Interest Income 2 Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenue Sources 6,722 Expenditures & Other Uses 4,542 Transfers Out 3,966 Total Uses 8,508 Total Available 5$ (1,786)$ (1,782)$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 1 11,904 11,902 - 2 Revenues Collected from 2016 2 4,243 4,244 - 2 Revenues Collected from 2017 2 3,969 3,969 - 2 Revenues Collected from 2018 2 6,570 6,567 - 5 Revenues Collected from 2019 5 6,722 8,508 1,410 (3,192) Total Revenue For Last Five Years 33,408$ 35,190$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete % funded with fee General Fund loan repayment (Transfer Out to Fund 255, Street Maintenace Fund - Phase 1 Corporate Yard)* 3,966 - 100%50% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,542 1,410 76%11% Total 8,508$ 1,410$ * Loan repayment interest rate was based on the average quartery investment yield of the City's investment portfolio. During FY 2018/19, this loan was written-off. Expenses from this Fund will resume in FY 20/21 or as adjusted in FY 19/20. The Park Maintenance Fee fund is used for park maintenance required to serve future development in La Quinta. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 129 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report Fire Protection DIF (Fund 257) Government Code 66000 Calculation FYE 6/30/2019 Activity Unit of Measure Transportation Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 433$ Residential - Single Family Attached Unit 366$ Residential - Multi Family and Other Unit 206$ Office/Hospital Unit 171$ General Commercial 1000 sq ft 172$ Tourist Commercial 1000 sq ft 167$ Golf Course Acre 82$ Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance FY 18/19 Fund Balance Developer Fees 81,370 Interest Income 392 Miscellaneous Transfers In Total Revenue Sources 81,761 Expenditures & Other Uses 4,542 Advance Interest Expense 6,501 Interfund Loan Write-Off (455,197) Total Uses (444,154) Total Available (490,843)$ 525,916$ 35,073$ Five Year Test Using First In First Out Method Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent Revenues Collected from 2015 (766,639) 131,990 3,570 -(638,219) Revenues Collected from 2016 (638,219) 50,120 5,385 -(593,484) Revenues Collected from 2017 (593,484) 45,399 4,581 -(552,666) Revenues Collected from 2018 (552,665) 66,456 4,634 -(490,843) Revenues Collected from 2019 (490,843) 81,761 (444,154) 1,410 33,663 Total Revenue For Last Five Years 375,726$ (425,985)$ Result : Five Year Spent Test Met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Facilities FY 18/19 Committed % Complete % funded with fee General Fund loan repayment (Development of northern fire station)*6,501 - 100%100% General Fund Loan Write-Off (455,197) -100%100% 2019 DIF Study Update 4,542 1,410 76%11% Total (444,154)$ 1,410$ * Loan repayment interest rate is based on the average quartery investment yield of the City's investment portfolio. During FY 2018/19, this loan was written-off. Projects are being evaluated for the unspent balance of $33,663 and will be included in the FY 20/21 budget. The Fire Protection Facilities Fee fund is used for fire protection facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The fee is based upon the table below and varies from project to project. 130 2017 AB1600 Report La Quinta Development Project Fee Report ATTACHMENT 2 Developer Agreement Activity (Fund 217) FYE 6/30/2019 Date Project/Purpose Balance Revenues Expenses Total 10/9/2006 (Plaza Estado) Fee in lieu of Old Town Parking Requirement 56,829.61$ 20,911.54$ 77,741.15 -$ Original deposit amount was $136,215 Uses during FY 2018/19: The City's General Fund contributed $20,229.27 to this fund for parking lot site improvements. During FY 2018/19 the Fund earned $682.27 of interest for total revenues of $20,911.54 The following development agreement payment was received for development agreements entered into after January 1, 2004 in accordance with Government Code Section 65865 In 2017/18 the City purchased vacant land between the Frontier (formally Verizon) building and City Library for additional parking in Old Town. Parking lot site preparation work completed in FY 2018/19. 131 132 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE DEMAND REGISTERS DATED NOVEMBER 22 AND DECEMBER 6, 2019 RECOMMENDATION Approve demand registers dated November 22 and December 6, 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – None FISCAL IMPACT Demand of Cash: City 3,462,300.88$ Successor Agency of RDA 36.00$ Housing Authority 6,519.54$ 3,468,856.42$ BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Routine bills and payroll must be paid between Council meetings. Attachment 1 details the weekly demand registers for November 22 and December 6, 2019. Warrants Issued: 200082-200182 1,601,646.23$ 200183-200277 1,031,497.34$ Wire Transfers 528,596.57$ AP Void (1,015.00)$ Payroll Tax Transfers 90,955.29$ Payroll Direct Dep & Chk 37458-37459 217,175.99$ 3,468,856.42$ In the amounts listed above, one check was voided and reissued as two separate checks per vendor’s request. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 13 133 The most significant expenditures on the demand register are: Account Name Amount Riverside County Various 1,112,683.99$ Sept - Oct 2019 Sheriff Dept Police Services Jacobsson Various 228,837.90$ October 2019 Dune Engineering & Construction Palms Rd Widening Hardy & Harper Construction 227,006.00$ October 2019 Hwy 111 Inc Sidewalk Improvements Urban Habitat Various 219,134.55$ Nov 2019 La Quinta Landscape Impr-Highlands Southstar Construction 105,766.87$ October 2019 La Quinta Engineering & Construction Village Complete Streets PurposeVendor Wire Transfers: Ten transfers totaled $528,597. Of this amount, $443,602 was for Landmark, $43,398 for PERS, and $30,000 for the Wells Fargo credit cards. (See Attachment 2 for a full listing). Investment Transactions: Full details of investment transactions as well as total holdings are reported quarterly in the Treasurer’s Report. Transaction Issuer Type Par Value Settle Date Coupon Rate Maturity Morgan Stanley Bank, NA CD 245,000$ 11/18/19 1.80% Maturity Morgan Stanley Private Bank CD 245,000$ 11/18/19 1.75% Purchase Morgan Stanley Bank, NA CD 245,000$ 11/20/19 1.95% Purchase Morgan Stanley Private Bank CD 245,000$ 11/20/19 1.90% Maturity First Farmers Bank & Trust CD 240,000$ 11/21/19 1.65% Purchase Live Oak Bank CD 248,000$ 11/27/19 1.80% ALTERNATIVES Council may approve, partially approve, or reject the demand registers. Prepared by: Bernice Choo, Account Technician Approved by: Rosemary Hallick, Financial Services Analyst Attachments:1. Demand Registers 2. Wire Transfers 134 11/22/2019 5:52:40 PM Page 1 of 7 Demand Register City of La Quinta Packet: APPKT02195 - BC 11/22/19 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND -26.53Sales Taxes Payable11/07/19 - WC GYM WIPES SALES TAX2000822XL CORPORATION 101-0000-20304 438.45Operating Supplies11/07/19 - WC GYM WIPES2000822XL CORPORATION 101-3002-60420 81.00Rental Expense07/01-09/30/19 - INSURANCE FOR EVENTS200083ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES …101-3003-60157 495.00Blood/Alcohol Testing10/15/19 - BLOOD/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS200084AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES …101-2001-60174 85.00Blood/Alcohol Testing10/15/19 - BLOOD/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS200084AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES …101-2001-60174 200.00Membership Dues01/01-06/30/20 - MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL200085AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS 101-3003-60351 203.73Operating Supplies10/25-11/07/19 - WC JANITORIAL SUPPLIES200086AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC 101-3002-60420 129.40Uniforms11/21/19 - REIMB WORK BOOTS200087ANAYA, JULIO C.101-6003-60690 72.88Operating Supplies11/13/19 - ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES200088AUTOZONE 101-7003-60420 50.00Cash Over/Short11/12/19 - LIC-0103924 REF OVERPYMT BL200089BECERRA BROTHERS ROOFING 101-0000-42300 2,040.00Blood/Alcohol Testing11/11/19 - BLOOD ALCOHOL ANALYSIS200090BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 101-2001-60174 100.00Miscellaneous Deposits11/12/19 - FAC RENTAL/DEPOSIT REFUND200091BROWN, SAVANNAH 101-0000-22830 95.00Membership Dues11/01/19 - MEMBERSHIP - E ESCATEL200093CACEO 101-6004-60351 95.00Membership Dues11/01/19 - MEMBERSHIP - K MEREDITH200093CACEO 101-6004-60351 95.00Membership Dues11/01/19 - MEMBERSHIP - M RODARTE200093CACEO 101-6004-60351 95.00Membership Dues11/01/19 - MEMBERSHIP - W CAMPBELL200093CACEO 101-6004-60351 95.00Membership Dues11/01/19 - MEMBERSHIP - G DUCHENE200093CACEO 101-6004-60351 300.00Community Experiences12/06/19 - TREE LIGHTING CHAR DEPOSIT200094CARMONA, ITZELLE 101-3003-60149 18.00Cash Over/Short11/14/19 - LIC-764736 REF OVERPYMT ST…200095CHRISTIANSON, BRIAN AND GA…101-0000-42300 170.00Sheriff - Other11/04/19 - POLICE TOW LA193080028200096CLASSIC AUTO TRANSPORT 101-2001-60176 14,972.00MSHCP Mitigation Fee10/2019 - MSHCP FEES200098COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERV…101-0000-20310 -149.72CVMSHCP Admin Fee10/2019 - MSHCP FEES200098COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERV…101-0000-43631 404.93Water - Utilities11/14/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-2002-61200 1,411.18Water -Monticello Park - Utiliti…11/14/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61201 104.59Water - Utilities11/18/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-2002-61200 40.65Water -Community Park - Utilit…11/18/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61209 3,903.34Water -Monticello Park - Utiliti…11/19/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61201 424.12Water - Utilities11/18/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-2002-61200 538.46Water -Eisenhower Park - Utilit…11/18/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61203 202.18Water -Velasco Park - Utilities11/18/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61205 726.60Instructors11/14/19 - CARDIO & SUN STYLE TAI CHI200100COHEN, ANN MARIE 101-3002-60107 157.72Operating Supplies11/21/19 - REIMB NOTARY BOND & SUPPL…200101COUSINS, NATASHA 101-1005-60420 100.00Miscellaneous Deposits11/12/19 - FAC RENTAL/DEPOSIT REFUND200103CRITTENDEN, TRAVIS 101-0000-22830 25.31Community Experiences11/02/19 - ART SERVICES BREW200104CUEVAS, JOHN 101-3003-60149 69.67Citywide Conf Room Supplies11/21/19 - CITY WIDE COFFEE200105DAIOHS FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 101-1007-60403 511.70Administrative Citation Services10/2019 - POLICE CITATION PROCESSING200106DATA TICKET, INC.101-6004-60111 764.00Administrative Citation Services10/2019 - CODE CITATION PROCESSING200106DATA TICKET, INC.101-6004-60111 63.52Subscriptions & Publications12/2019 - CITY HALL NEWSPAPER200109DESERT SUN, THE 101-6001-60352 48.93Subscriptions & Publications12/2019 - NEWSPAPER WC200109DESERT SUN, THE 101-3002-60352 800.00Sexual Assault Exam Fees10/25/19 - LA192980045200111EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER 101-2001-60193 415.00Community Experiences11/11/19 - VETERAN'S DAY CHAIRS200112ESPINOZA, DAVID C.101-3003-60149 80.00Instructors11/14/19 - PERSONAL TRAINER200113FARKAS, LORETTA ANN ROSE 101-3002-60107 43.77Postage11/08/19 - OVERNIGHT MAIL200114FEDEX 101-1007-60470 46.90Telephone - Utilities11/2019 - LQ PARK PHONE200116FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…101-3005-61300 3,465.00Professional Services11/12/19 FY 19/20 EMPLOYEE CULTURE …200118GALLUP, INCORPORATED 101-1004-60103 661.32Community Experiences11/02/19 - LIGHTING TOWER BREW200120HERC RENTALS INC 101-3003-60149 416.32Community Experiences11/02/19 - LIGHTING TOWERS BREW200120HERC RENTALS INC 101-3003-60149 1,275.65Electricity - Utilities11/19/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-2002-61101 525.86Electricity - Utilities11/19/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3008-61101 1,062.79Electricity - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-2002-61101 5,301.81Electric - Civic Center Park - Uti…11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61103 2,254.72Electric - Fritz Burns Park - Utili…11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61105 6,854.17Electric - Sports Complex - Utili…11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61106 Attachment 1 135 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02195 - BC 11/22/19 11/22/2019 5:52:40 PM Page 2 of 7 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 20,083.65Electricity - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3008-61101 13.39Electric - Velasco Park - Utilities11/22/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61111 44.91Electric - Eisenhower Park - Util…11/22/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61113 54.50Recruiting/Pre-Employment10/2019 - PRE EMPLOYMENT BACKGROU…200123IRC CORPORATION 101-1004-60129 200.00Instructors11/15/19 - STRETCH & RESTORE200124JOHNSON, KAREN T. PAYNE 101-3002-60107 210.00Instructors11/18/19 - SCULPT FIT CORE200124JOHNSON, KAREN T. PAYNE 101-3002-60107 28.50Motor Officer11/01/19 - MOTORCOP TICKET GUNS200125KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 101-2001-60169 450.00Advertising11/06/19 - CDBG AD CC PHN 11/19/19 M…200126LA PRENSA HISPANA 101-6001-60450 500.00Community Experiences12/06/19 - PAN DULCE TREE LIGHTING EV…200127LA QUINTA BAKERY 101-3003-60149 815.00Volunteers - Fire11/22/19 - CERT/COP DINNER200128LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL CUL…101-2002-60110 200.00Volunteers - Fire11/21/19 - CERT/COP DINNER TIP200128LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL CUL…101-2002-60110 2,500.00Community Experiences11/05/19 - BREW IN LQ ROTARY SVC200129LA QUINTA ROTARY CLUB 101-3003-60149 200.00Travel & Training10/16/19 - RIVCO DIVISION MTG200131LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 101-1001-60320 50.00Travel & Training10/16/19 - RIVCO DIVISION MTG200131LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 101-1002-60320 50.00Travel & Training10/16/19 - RIVCO DIVISION MTG200131LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 101-3001-60320 822.58Operating Supplies11/06/19 - MICROPHONES (2)200132LH PRODUCTIONS 101-3003-60420 2,973.88Community Experiences11/11/19 AV SVCS FOR FY1920 EVENT - V…200132LH PRODUCTIONS 101-3003-60149 8,033.28Community Experiences11/02/19 AV SVCS FOR FY1920 EVENT - B…200132LH PRODUCTIONS 101-3003-60149 70.25Materials/Supplies11/14/19 - KEYS200133LOCK SHOP INC, THE 101-3005-60431 277.20Instructors11/14/19 - TAI CHI CHUAN200134MEDEIROS, JOYCELEEN 101-3002-60107 80.00Instructors11/18/19 - LA QUINTA VOICES200135MEEDS, WAYNE 101-3002-60107 11,091.38Janitorial11/2019 JANITORIAL SERVICES CH WC PA…200136MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINT…101-3008-60115 77.37Mobile/Cell Phones/Satellites10/2019 - SATELLITE PHONES200139NI GOVERNMENT SERVICES INC 101-2002-61304 29.03Office Supplies11/04/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200140OFFICE DEPOT 101-1005-60400 39.98Office Supplies11/13/19 - COFFEE FIRE200140OFFICE DEPOT 101-2002-60400 13.91Supplies - Field11/15/19 - CODE FIELD SUPPLIES200140OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60425 34.97Postage11/02/19 - OVERNIGHT MAIL200141ONTRAC 101-1007-60470 2,125.00Community Experiences12/06/19 EVENT EQUIP RENTALS TREE LI…200144PARTY PALS 101-3003-60149 275.00Operating Supplies11/2019 FY1920 REPAIRS SVCS FOR WC G…200145PAX FITNESS REPAIR 101-3002-60420 16.16Office Supplies11/05/19 - FIRE NAME PLATE200147POWERS AWARDS INC 101-2002-60400 87.70Travel & Training11/07/19 - MILEAGE CCAC LEADERSHIP W…200149RADEVA, MONIKA 101-1005-60320 10,137.00Professional ServicesSEPT 2019 HWY 111 AREA PLANNING200150RANGWALA ASSOCIATES 101-6002-60103 1,050.00Map/Plan Checking11/06/19 LLA 2019-0006200151RASA/ERIC NELSON 101-7002-60183 42.50Subscriptions & Publications09/26/19 - PROPERTY DATA200152RIVERSIDE ASSESSOR 101-1002-60352 675,607.61Sheriff Patrol09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60161 19,479.80Police Overtime09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60162 194,200.32Target Team09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60163 56,520.29Community Services Officer09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60164 11,919.60Gang Task Force09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60166 13,622.40Narcotics Task Force09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60167 36,294.72Motor Officer09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60169 40,278.92Dedicated Sargeants09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60170 21,363.20Dedicated Lieutenant09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60171 38,043.20Sheriff - Mileage09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60172 3,010.06Special Enforcement Funds09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…101-2001-60175 1,182.73Temporary Agency Services11/08/19 - HUB TEMP SVCS M GONZALEZ200154ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 101-6006-60125 -53.38Sales Taxes Payable11/12/19 - ICE FOR BREW LQ SALES TAX200155RODARTE ICE COMPANY 101-0000-20304 663.38Community Experiences11/12/19 - ICE FOR BREW LQ200155RODARTE ICE COMPANY 101-3003-60149 1,229.38Instructors11/14/19 - TAEKWONDO200156ROJAS, MIGUEL ANGEL 101-3002-60107 750.00Maintenance/Services11/04/19 - WC PLUMBING SERVICE200157ROTO ROOTER PLUMBERS INC 101-3008-60691 526.14Printing11/18/19 - CHECK STOCK 19001-21000200158SAFECHECKS 101-1006-60410 2,500.00Community Experiences11/01/19 FY1920 BREW IN LQ EVENT SERV…200159SCRAP GALLERY 101-3003-60149 42.52Office Supplies11/05/19 - DAILY CASH DEPOSIT BAGS200160SECURE PRODUCTS 101-1006-60400 100.00Rental Expense10/18-10/24/19 - SECURITY FOR FACILITY …200161SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES…101-3003-60157 1,662.50Community Experiences11/01-11/02/19 - SECURITY FOR BREW LQ200162SERNA & ASSOCIATES 101-3003-60149 318.50Instructors11/14/19 - BALLROOM DANCING200163SHIRY, TERESA 101-3002-60107 126.00Operating Supplies10/22/19 - OPERATING SUPPLIES200164SOURCE ORTHO 101-1005-60420 1,500.00Veterinary Service11/13/19 LOW COST SPAY / NEUTER SERV…200166SPAY NEUTER IMPERATIVE PR…101-6004-60194 71.97Citywide Conf Room Supplies11/07/19 - CITY WIDE COFFEE200168STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-1007-60403 111.15Office Supplies11/08/19 - OPERATING SUPPLIES200168STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-3005-60400 136 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02195 - BC 11/22/19 11/22/2019 5:52:40 PM Page 3 of 7 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 7.59LQ Police Volunteers11/14/19 - POLICE VOLUNTEER DINNER 11…200168STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-2001-60109 194.13Office Supplies11/16/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200168STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6001-60400 117.41Office Supplies11/17/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200168STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6001-60400 2,071.50Due to SunLine10/2019 - SUNLINE BUS PASSES200169SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 101-0000-20305 -175.50Miscellaneous Revenue10/2019 - SUNLINE BUS PASSES200169SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 101-0000-42301 65.00Consultants11/13/19 - RANDOM DOT TESTING200170TAG/AMS INC 101-1004-60104 668.10Special Enforcement Funds10/31/19 - FALSE ALARM NOTICES200171THE PRINTING PLACE 101-2001-60175 80.81LQ Police Volunteers11/12/19 - POLICE BANNER200173TOP OF THE LINE SIGNS 101-2001-60109 440.00Community Experiences11/06/19 - BARRICADES BREW200174TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 101-3003-60149 1,085.11Cash Over/Short11/13/19 - LIC-0100139 REF OVERPYMT T…200175TORINA, KATHERINE 101-0000-42300 19.74Cash Over/Short11/13/19 - LIC-0100139 REF OVERPYMT L…200175TORINA, KATHERINE 101-0000-42300 357.00Instructors11/14/19 - SUNSET YOGA200177TRUE, ARTHUR ALLEN 101-3002-60107 857.50Instructors11/14/19 - GENTLE YOGA200178VIELHARBER, KAREN 101-3002-60107 41,890.00Landscape Contract11/2019 PARKS MAINT200179VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 101-3005-60112 336.00Maintenance/Services10/29/19 - MAINT SERVICES/REMOVE EM…200179VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 101-3005-60691 19,740.00Contract Traffic Engineer09/29-10/25/19 ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGIN…200181WILLDAN 101-7006-60144 184.80Instructors11/14/19 - EVENING YOGA200182WILSON, ALBA 101-3002-60107 Fund 101 - GENERAL FUND Total:1,304,041.76 Fund: 201 - GAS TAX FUND 514.76Electricity - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 201-7003-61101 Fund 201 - GAS TAX FUND Total:514.76 Fund: 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 202.27Water - Utilities11/18/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…202-3006-61200 6,946.23Electricity - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 202-3004-61101 1,848.61Electricity - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 202-3006-61101 2,644.42Janitorial11/2019 JANITORIAL SERVICES LIBRARY200136MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINT…202-3004-60115 698.50Janitorial11/2019 JANITORIAL SERVICES MUSEUM200136MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINT…202-3006-60115 745.00HVAC10/25/19 - LIBRARY AH3200143PACIFIC WEST AIR CONDITION…202-3004-60667 910.00Landscape Contract11/2019 LIBRARY MAINT200179VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 202-3004-60112 190.00Landscape Contract11/2019 MUSEUM MAINT200179VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 202-3006-60112 Fund 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND Total:14,185.03 Fund: 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 2,343.87COPS Robbery Prevention09/12-10/09/19 - BP4 POLICE SERVICE200153RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF D…212-0000-60178 Fund 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND Total:2,343.87 Fund: 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 895.01Materials/Supplies11/12/19 - MATERIALS200092C.V CACTUS NURSERY 215-7004-60431 1,706.76Materials/Supplies11/14/19 - MATERIALS200092C.V CACTUS NURSERY 215-7004-60431 1,301.97Water - Medians - Utilities11/14/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…215-7004-61211 3,723.16Water - Medians - Utilities11/18/19 - WATER SERVICE200099COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…215-7004-61211 6,349.83Consultants11/2019 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE SERVICE200102CREATIVE LIGHTING & ELECTR…215-7004-60104 2,500.00Palm Trees11/13/19 - DEAD PALM TREE REMOVAL200107DESERT CONCEPTS CONSTRUC…215-7004-60673 1,093.97Materials/Supplies11/06/19 - MATERIALS200108DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 215-7004-60431 1,296.18Materials/Supplies11/06/19 - MATERIALS200108DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 215-7004-60431 461.92Electric - Utilities11/18/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61116 37.37Electric - Medians - Utilities11/18/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61117 209.60Electric - Medians - Utilities11/19/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61117 1,930.74Electric - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61116 1,080.26Electric - Medians - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61117 64.15Electric - Utilities11/22/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61116 249.55Electric - Medians - Utilities11/22/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61117 11,865.00Landscape Contract11/2019 LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING MAINT200179VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 215-7004-60112 Fund 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND Total:34,765.47 Fund: 224 - TUMF FUND 30,030.00TUMF Payable to CVAG10/2019 - TUMF FEE200097COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC OF…224-0000-20320 Fund 224 - TUMF FUND Total:30,030.00 Fund: 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 225-0000-60104 Fund 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND Total:337.59 137 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02195 - BC 11/22/19 11/22/2019 5:52:40 PM Page 4 of 7 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number Fund: 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 242.36Electricity - Utilities11/21/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200122IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 235-0000-61101 Fund 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND Total:242.36 Fund: 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014) 36.00Relocation Benefits11/21/19 - WSA CHANGE ADDR REIMB200148PRINCE, CORNELL LAMONT 248-9102-60159 Fund 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014) Total:36.00 Fund: 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 250-0000-60104 Fund 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND Total:337.59 Fund: 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 251-0000-60104 Fund 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND Total:337.59 Fund: 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 337.86Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 252-0000-60104 Fund 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND Total:337.86 Fund: 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 253-0000-60104 Fund 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF Total:337.59 Fund: 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 254-0000-60104 Fund 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF Total:337.59 Fund: 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 255-0000-60104 Fund 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND Total:337.59 Fund: 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 256-0000-60104 Fund 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND Total:337.59 Fund: 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 337.59Consultants, Fee Study10/31/19 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ST…200137NBS 257-0000-60104 Fund 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF Total:337.59 Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 2,248.48Technical2016-08 PALEONTOLOGICAL MONITORING…200110DUDEK & ASSOCIATES INC 401-0000-60108 1,650.00Construction11/04/19 - SIGNAL TIMING & COORD CON…200115FORBES TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS I…401-0000-60188 6,453.27Design10/19/19 GHD VILLAGE COMPLETE STREE…200119GHD INC.401-0000-60185 694.00Technical10/17-10/30/19 DUNE PALMS WIDENING…200130LANDMARK GEO-ENGINEERS &…401-0000-60108 441.14Construction11/07/19 - 2018-01 & 2019-13 BID DOCS200146PLANIT REPROGRAPHICS SYST…401-0000-60188 105,766.87Construction10/2019 LQ VILLAGE COMPLETE STREETS …200165SOUTHSTAR ENGINEERING & …401-0000-60188 9,731.34Construction10/2019 TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR SVCS CO…200167ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, LLC 401-0000-60188 Fund 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS Total:126,985.10 Fund: 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 1,362.92Fuel & Oil10/2019 - FUEL CHARGES200117FUELMAN 501-0000-60674 53,363.66Building Leases10/17/19 PW TRAILER200142PACIFIC MOBILE STRUCTURES, …501-0000-71032 3,088.51Building Leases12/2019 RENTAL RAMPS200142PACIFIC MOBILE STRUCTURES, …501-0000-71032 188.56Parts & Maintenance Supplies07/25/19 - MOTORCYCLE LOGO200173TOP OF THE LINE SIGNS 501-0000-60675 3,339.22Fuel & Oil10/16-10/31/19 - VEHICLE FUEL200176TOWER ENERGY GROUP 501-0000-60674 23,705.50City Bldg Repl/Repair11/05/19 YMCA GENERATOR 50% PROGR…200180VINTAGE E & S INC 501-0000-71103 Fund 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT Total:85,048.37 Fund: 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 79.18Machinery & Equipment11/18/19 MUSEUM HARD-DRIVE200138NEWEGG BUSINESS INC.502-0000-80100 141.75Cable - Utilities10/15-11/14/19 - WC CABLE (8105)200172TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 Fund 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total:220.93 Fund: 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 194.00Repair & Maintenance11/06/19 - SRR HVAC SERVICE200121HYDE'S AC 601-0000-60660 Fund 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT Total:194.00 Grand Total:1,601,646.23 138 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02195 - BC 11/22/19 11/22/2019 5:52:40 PM Page 5 of 7 Fund Summary Fund Expense Amount 101 - GENERAL FUND 1,304,041.76 201 - GAS TAX FUND 514.76 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 14,185.03 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 2,343.87 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 34,765.47 224 - TUMF FUND 30,030.00 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 337.59 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 242.36 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014)36.00 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 337.59 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 337.59 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 337.86 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 337.59 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 337.59 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 337.59 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 337.59 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 337.59 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 126,985.10 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 85,048.37 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 220.93 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 194.00 Grand Total:1,601,646.23 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-0000-20304 Sales Taxes Payable -79.91 101-0000-20305 Due to SunLine 2,071.50 101-0000-20310 MSHCP Mitigation Fee 14,972.00 101-0000-22830 Miscellaneous Deposits 200.00 101-0000-42300 Cash Over/Short 1,172.85 101-0000-42301 Miscellaneous Revenue -175.50 101-0000-43631 CVMSHCP Admin Fee -149.72 101-1001-60320 Travel & Training 200.00 101-1002-60320 Travel & Training 50.00 101-1002-60352 Subscriptions & Publicati…42.50 101-1004-60103 Professional Services 3,465.00 101-1004-60104 Consultants 65.00 101-1004-60129 Recruiting/Pre-Employme…54.50 101-1005-60320 Travel & Training 87.70 101-1005-60400 Office Supplies 29.03 101-1005-60420 Operating Supplies 283.72 101-1006-60400 Office Supplies 42.52 101-1006-60410 Printing 526.14 101-1007-60403 Citywide Conf Room Suppl…141.64 101-1007-60470 Postage 78.74 101-2001-60109 LQ Police Volunteers 88.40 101-2001-60161 Sheriff Patrol 675,607.61 101-2001-60162 Police Overtime 19,479.80 101-2001-60163 Target Team 194,200.32 101-2001-60164 Community Services Offic…56,520.29 101-2001-60166 Gang Task Force 11,919.60 101-2001-60167 Narcotics Task Force 13,622.40 101-2001-60169 Motor Officer 36,323.22 101-2001-60170 Dedicated Sargeants 40,278.92 101-2001-60171 Dedicated Lieutenant 21,363.20 101-2001-60172 Sheriff - Mileage 38,043.20 101-2001-60174 Blood/Alcohol Testing 2,620.00 101-2001-60175 Special Enforcement Funds 3,678.16 101-2001-60176 Sheriff - Other 170.00 139 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02195 - BC 11/22/19 11/22/2019 5:52:40 PM Page 6 of 7 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-2001-60193 Sexual Assault Exam Fees 800.00 101-2002-60110 Volunteers - Fire 1,015.00 101-2002-60400 Office Supplies 56.14 101-2002-61101 Electricity - Utilities 2,338.44 101-2002-61200 Water - Utilities 933.64 101-2002-61304 Mobile/Cell Phones/Satell…77.37 101-3001-60320 Travel & Training 50.00 101-3002-60107 Instructors 4,520.98 101-3002-60352 Subscriptions & Publicati…48.93 101-3002-60420 Operating Supplies 917.18 101-3003-60149 Community Experiences 23,215.99 101-3003-60157 Rental Expense 181.00 101-3003-60351 Membership Dues 200.00 101-3003-60420 Operating Supplies 822.58 101-3005-60112 Landscape Contract 41,890.00 101-3005-60400 Office Supplies 111.15 101-3005-60431 Materials/Supplies 70.25 101-3005-60691 Maintenance/Services 336.00 101-3005-61103 Electric - Civic Center Park…5,301.81 101-3005-61105 Electric - Fritz Burns Park -…2,254.72 101-3005-61106 Electric - Sports Complex -…6,854.17 101-3005-61111 Electric - Velasco Park - Uti…13.39 101-3005-61113 Electric - Eisenhower Park …44.91 101-3005-61201 Water -Monticello Park - …5,314.52 101-3005-61203 Water -Eisenhower Park -…538.46 101-3005-61205 Water -Velasco Park - Utili…202.18 101-3005-61209 Water -Community Park -…40.65 101-3005-61300 Telephone - Utilities 46.90 101-3008-60115 Janitorial 11,091.38 101-3008-60691 Maintenance/Services 750.00 101-3008-61101 Electricity - Utilities 20,609.51 101-6001-60352 Subscriptions & Publicati…63.52 101-6001-60400 Office Supplies 311.54 101-6001-60450 Advertising 450.00 101-6002-60103 Professional Services 10,137.00 101-6003-60690 Uniforms 129.40 101-6004-60111 Administrative Citation Se…1,275.70 101-6004-60194 Veterinary Service 1,500.00 101-6004-60351 Membership Dues 475.00 101-6004-60425 Supplies - Field 13.91 101-6006-60125 Temporary Agency Servic…1,182.73 101-7002-60183 Map/Plan Checking 1,050.00 101-7003-60420 Operating Supplies 72.88 101-7006-60144 Contract Traffic Engineer 19,740.00 201-7003-61101 Electricity - Utilities 514.76 202-3004-60112 Landscape Contract 910.00 202-3004-60115 Janitorial 2,644.42 202-3004-60667 HVAC 745.00 202-3004-61101 Electricity - Utilities 6,946.23 202-3006-60112 Landscape Contract 190.00 202-3006-60115 Janitorial 698.50 202-3006-61101 Electricity - Utilities 1,848.61 202-3006-61200 Water - Utilities 202.27 212-0000-60178 COPS Robbery Prevention 2,343.87 215-7004-60104 Consultants 6,349.83 215-7004-60112 Landscape Contract 11,865.00 215-7004-60431 Materials/Supplies 4,991.92 215-7004-60673 Palm Trees 2,500.00 140 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02195 - BC 11/22/19 11/22/2019 5:52:40 PM Page 7 of 7 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 215-7004-61116 Electric - Utilities 2,456.81 215-7004-61117 Electric - Medians - Utiliti…1,576.78 215-7004-61211 Water - Medians - Utilities 5,025.13 224-0000-20320 TUMF Payable to CVAG 30,030.00 225-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 235-0000-61101 Electricity - Utilities 242.36 248-9102-60159 Relocation Benefits 36.00 250-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 251-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 252-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.86 253-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 254-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 255-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 256-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 257-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 337.59 401-0000-60108 Technical 2,942.48 401-0000-60185 Design 6,453.27 401-0000-60188 Construction 117,589.35 501-0000-60674 Fuel & Oil 4,702.14 501-0000-60675 Parts & Maintenance Supp…188.56 501-0000-71032 Building Leases 56,452.17 501-0000-71103 City Bldg Repl/Repair 23,705.50 502-0000-61400 Cable - Utilities 141.75 502-0000-80100 Machinery & Equipment 79.18 601-0000-60660 Repair & Maintenance 194.00 Grand Total:1,601,646.23 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense AmountProject Account Name **None**1,437,264.61**None** 091004T 694.00Technical Expense 151603CT 105,766.87Construction Expense 151603D 6,453.27Design Expense 1920TMICT 11,381.34Construction Expense 201608T 2,248.48Technical Expense 201801CT 441.14Construction Expense 201804E 4,096.91Landscape & Lighting Median Isla… 201823E 10,137.00Highway 111 Corridor Area Expen… BREWE 16,848.73Brew in LQ Expense TREEE 2,925.00Tree Lighting Ceremony Expense VETSE 3,388.88Veterans Day Ceremony Expense Grand Total:1,601,646.23 141 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 1 of 9 Demand Register City of La Quinta Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND 2,423.00Community Experiences11/02/19 - INSURANCE BREW IN LQ200184ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES …101-3003-60149 592.00Community Experiences11/26/19 - INSURANCE TREE LIGHTING200184ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES …101-3003-60149 1,162.00Community Experiences11/01-11/30/19 93.7 KCLB IRONMAN OU…200185ALPHA MEDIA LLC 101-3003-60149 1,328.00Community Experiences11/01-11/30/19 THE BULL 98.5 IRONMAN…200185ALPHA MEDIA LLC 101-3003-60149 415.00Community Experiences11/01-11/30/19 ESPN 103.9 IRONMAN O…200185ALPHA MEDIA LLC 101-3003-60149 1,660.00Community Experiences11/01-11/30/19 MIX 100.5 IRONMAN OU…200185ALPHA MEDIA LLC 101-3003-60149 1,620.00Community Experiences11/01-11/30/19 U 92.7 IRONMAN OUTRE…200185ALPHA MEDIA LLC 101-3003-60149 203.73Operating Supplies11/08-11/21/19 - WC JANITORIAL SUPPLIES200186AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC 101-3002-60420 58.58Travel & Training11/04-11/07/19 - REIMB IMSA TRAINING200187ARELLANO, AGUSTIN 101-7003-60320 46.00Blood/Alcohol Testing11/11/19 - BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING200189BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 101-2001-60174 95.00Membership Dues11/01/19 - MEMBERSHIP - M SALAS200190CACEO 101-6004-60351 196.05LT Care Insurance PayLONG TERM CARE200191CALPERS LONG-TERM CARE P…101-0000-20949 300.00Community Experiences12/006/19 - TREE LIGHTING CHAR BAL200193CARMONA, ITZELLE 101-3003-60149 127.74PM 10 - Dust Control11/25/19 - WATER SERVICE200195COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-7006-60146 3,217.20Water -Fritz Burns Park - Utiliti…11/25/19 - WATER SERVICE200195COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3005-61204 631.13Water - Utilities11/25/19 - WATER SERVICE200195COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…101-3008-61200 66.50Instructors12/02/19 - CARDIO & SUN STYLE TAI CHI200196COHEN, ANN MARIE 101-3002-60107 71.50Travel & Training11/26/19 - NOTARY & BOND REGISTRATI…200197COUSINS, NATASHA 101-1005-60320 18.00Cash Over/Short11/25/19 - LIC-0004206 REFUND OVERPY…200198CROWN CASTLE USA INC 101-0000-42300 185.29Citywide Conf Room Supplies11/21/19 - WC COFFEE SUPPLIES200199DAIOHS FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 101-1007-60403 204.60Citywide Conf Room Supplies11/26/19 - CITY WIDE COFFEE200199DAIOHS FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 101-1007-60403 140.00Blood/Alcohol Testing11/06/19 - BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING200200DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 101-2001-60174 70.00Blood/Alcohol Testing11/06/19 - BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING200200DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 101-2001-60174 2,385.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…10/2019 - PS LIFE LQ INSERT200202DESERT PUBLICATIONS INC 101-3007-60461 46.85Subscriptions & Publications12/2019 - NEWSPAPER WC200203DESERT SUN, THE 101-3002-60352 335.00Community Experiences12/06/19 - CHAIRS FOR TREE LIGHTING200208ESPINOZA, DAVID C.101-3003-60149 128.00Instructors12/02/19 - PERSONAL TRAINER200209FARKAS, LORETTA ANN ROSE 101-3002-60107 155.62Professional Services11/2019 - ARMORED SERVICES200211GARDAWORLD 101-1006-60103 238.50Professional Services10/2019 - ARMORED SERVICES200211GARDAWORLD 101-1006-60103 3,500.00Contract Services - Administrat…08/2019 FY 19/20 LOBBYIST SERVICES200212GONSALVES, JOE A & SON 101-1002-60101 3,500.00Contract Services - Administrat…09/2019 FY 19/20 LOBBYIST SERVICES200212GONSALVES, JOE A & SON 101-1002-60101 3,500.00Contract Services - Administrat…10/2019 FY 19/20 LOBBYIST SERVICES200212GONSALVES, JOE A & SON 101-1002-60101 3,500.00Contract Services - Administrat…11/2019 FY 19/20 LOBBYIST SERVICES200212GONSALVES, JOE A & SON 101-1002-60101 3,500.00Contract Services - Administrat…12/2019 FY 19/20 LOBBYIST SERVICES200212GONSALVES, JOE A & SON 101-1002-60101 205.00Cash Over/Short11/21/19 - LIC-766961 REFUND OVERPYM…200215HEFTI, DENISE LEBRE 101-0000-42300 118.34Fire Station09/27-10/25/19 - FS #93 SUPPLIES200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-2002-60670 30.97Maintenance/Services09/27-10/25/19 - FS #93 MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-2002-60691 79.42Operating Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - SUPPLIES EVENT TRUCK200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3003-60420 4.76Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - LQ PARK MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 3.24Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 127.13Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - LQ PARK MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 64.06Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - OLD 32 MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 7.34Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 49.07Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - OLD 32 MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 20.54Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - LQ PARK MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 631.23Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - OLD 32 MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 20.50Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 194.87Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 -94.88Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS RETU…200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 108.80Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 110.01Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 22.69Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - LQ PARK MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 30.43Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 142 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 2 of 9 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 158.62Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CITY HALL MAT'LS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60431 138.56Tools/Equipment09/27-10/25/19 - OLD 32 TOOLS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60432 254.44Tools/Equipment09/27-10/25/19 - TOOLS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60432 54.31Tools/Equipment09/27-10/25/19 - TOOLS200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-3008-60432 5.40Operating Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - SUPPLIES200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-7003-60420 257.70Tools/Equipment09/27-10/25/19 - GRINDER200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 101-7003-60432 85.00Maintenance/Services11/01/19 - FS #70 HVAC SVC200219HYDE'S AC 101-2002-60691 647.00Maintenance/Services11/05/19 - FS #70 REPLACE BLOWER200219HYDE'S AC 101-2002-60691 592.84Electricity - Utilities11/25/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200220IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-2002-61101 866.70Electric - Colonel Paige - Utiliti…11/25/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200220IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61108 39.73Electric - Adams Park - Utilities11/25/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200220IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 101-3005-61110 815.00Volunteers - Fire11/22/19 - CERT/COP DINNER200224LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL CUL…101-2002-60110 935.25Community Experiences11/02/19 - BREW IN LQ ADD'L SVCS200226LH PRODUCTIONS 101-3003-60149 53.82Materials/Supplies11/19/19 - OLD 32200227LOCK SHOP INC, THE 101-3008-60431 106.51Materials/Supplies11/20/19 - OLD 32200227LOCK SHOP INC, THE 101-3008-60431 66.37Materials/Supplies11/13/19 - LQ PARK KEYS200227LOCK SHOP INC, THE 101-3008-60431 44.80Instructors12/02/19 - TAI CHI CHUAN200228MEDEIROS, JOYCELEEN 101-3002-60107 185.00Janitorial10/25/19 - WC EXTRA CLEANING200229MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINT…101-3008-60115 300.00Community Experiences12/06/19 - PHOTOS TREE LIGHTING200231MKO PHOTOGRAPHY 101-3003-60149 5,000.00Community Experiences11/21/19 - COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES200232MODERNISM WEEK 101-3003-60149 1,603.33Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/08-12/05/19 IN-THEATER ADVERTISING200234NATIONAL CINEMEDIA LLC 101-3007-60461 22.00Cash Over/Short11/22/19 - LIC-765462 REFUND OVERPYM…200235NAVARRO, JORGE 101-0000-42300 15.88Office Supplies11/26/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1002-60400 32.72Operating Supplies11/14/19 - OPERATING SUPPLIES200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1005-60420 391.98Forms, Copier Paper11/06/19 - CITYWIDE MANILA ENVELOPES200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1007-60402 57.69Office Supplies11/06/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1006-60400 58.07Citywide Conf Room Supplies11/07/19 - CITYWIDE CUPS200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1007-60403 102.07Office Supplies11/11/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1002-60400 -30.55Office Supplies11/18/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES RETURN200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1002-60400 17.39Office Supplies11/14/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-1005-60400 13.91Supplies - Field11/18/19 - CODE FIELD SUPPLIES200236OFFICE DEPOT 101-6004-60425 958.80Temporary Agency Services11/08/19 - HUB TEMP SVCS E KOLTWEIT200237OFFICE TEAM 101-6006-60125 767.04Temporary Agency Services11/15/19 - HUB TEMP SVCS E KOLTWEIT200237OFFICE TEAM 101-6006-60125 958.80Temporary Agency Services11/22/19 - HUB TEMP SVCS E KOLTWEIT200237OFFICE TEAM 101-6006-60125 1,842.00HVAC11/08/19 - CH REPLACE BOILER GAS VALVE200238PACIFIC WEST AIR CONDITION…101-3008-60667 447.00HVAC11/08/19 - CH AHU 1 ZONE #16200238PACIFIC WEST AIR CONDITION…101-3008-60667 858.97Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/25/19 - CLQ STAFF & COUNCIL ZIP JAC…200239PALMS TO PINES PRINTING 101-3007-60461 878.11Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/25/19 COMPUTER BACKPACKS200239PALMS TO PINES PRINTING 101-3007-60461 521.95Operating Supplies11/25/19 WC SHIRTS200239PALMS TO PINES PRINTING 101-3003-60420 125.00Maintenance/Services11/12/19 - PW GATE REPAIR200240PATTON DOOR & GATE 101-3008-60691 775.19Sheriff - Other11/07/19 - SHERIFF RECEIPTS 25 BKS/1 BOX200241PAUL ASSOCIATES 101-2001-60176 2,500.00Professional Services12/03/19 - ANNUAL DONATION VOLUNTE…200244RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOUNDAT…101-3002-60103 162.00Garnishments PayableGARNISHMENT200245RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S …101-0000-20985 910.58Temporary Agency Services11/15/19 - HUB TEMP SVCS M GONZALEZ200246ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 101-6006-60125 140.00Instructors12/02/19 - TAEKWONDO200247ROJAS, MIGUEL ANGEL 101-3002-60107 793.00Maintenance/Services10/21/19 - WC PLUMBING SERVICE200248ROTO ROOTER PLUMBERS INC 101-3008-60691 250.00Maintenance/Services11/06/19 - CITY HALL PLUMBING SERVICE200248ROTO ROOTER PLUMBERS INC 101-3008-60691 9,561.43Attorney853633 - GENERAL ACCOUNT200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 6,955.14Attorney853636 - CODE ENFORCEMENT200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 8,690.78Attorney853634 - PERSONNEL GENERAL200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 568.76Attorney853651 - RESPONSES FOR PUBLIC RECORD200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 11,000.00Attorney853639 - RETAINER MATTER200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 1,656.00Attorney853652 - LQ POLO ESTATES ASS'N INC200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 744.00Attorney853653 - WASHINGTON PLAZA PATH OF T…200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 608.50Attorney853654,853656 - ART EVENT200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 2,352.00Attorney853657 - STVR HAPNER200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 6,001.50Attorney853647 - DUNEPALMS PROJECT ROW200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 983.00Attorney853640 - SILVERROCK RESORT200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60153 3,792.50Attorney/Litigation853635 - LITIGATION GENERAL200249RUTAN & TUCKER 101-1003-60154 199.50Instructors12/02/19 - BALLROOM DANCING200250SHIRY, TERESA 101-3002-60107 143 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 3 of 9 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 8,033.00Sales Taxes Payable10/2019 SALES/USE TAX200251SILVERROCK RESORT 101-0000-20304 500.00Administrative Citations12/03/19 - LQ160653 REFUND CITATION200252SOTO, MARICELA 101-0000-42700 89.16Office Supplies11/21/19 - BLACK TONER200254STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6001-60400 280.65Office Supplies11/22/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200254STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-3001-60400 221.13Office Supplies11/24/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200254STAPLES ADVANTAGE 101-6001-60400 895.00Marketing & Tourism Promoti…11/06-12/03/19 AIRPORT ADVERTISING200255THE LAMAR COMPANIES 101-3007-60461 900.00Administrative Citations12/4/19 - LQ162066 REFUND CITATION200256THORLAKSON, NORMAN E AN…101-0000-42700 10.50Cable - Utilities11/05-12/04/19 - FS #32 CABLE (1841)200257TIME WARNER CABLE 101-2002-61400 41.69Cable - Utilities11/16-12/15/19 - FS #70 CABLE (1860)200257TIME WARNER CABLE 101-2002-61400 360.00Community Experiences12/06/19 - BARRICADES TREE LIGHTING200258TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 101-3003-60149 100.00Miscellaneous Deposits11/25/19 - FACILITY RENTAL DEPOSIT REF…200260TRENT, VALERIE 101-0000-22830 78.00Pest Control10/04/19 - CITY HALL PEST CONTROL200261TRULY NOLEN INC 101-3008-60116 47.00Pest Control10/04/19 - PW YARD PEST CONTROL200261TRULY NOLEN INC 101-3008-60116 47.00Pest Control11/08/19 - PW YARD PEST CONTROL200261TRULY NOLEN INC 101-3008-60116 225.00Pest Control11/04/19 - WC RODENT MONTHLY200261TRULY NOLEN INC 101-3008-60116 3,000.00Professional Services11/2019 STVRP COMPLIANCE SERVICES200263VACATION RENTAL COMPLIAN…101-6006-60103 63.00Instructors12/02/19 - GENTLE YOGA200266VIELHARBER, KAREN 101-3002-60107 594.50Maintenance/Services09/20/19 - FS #93 ADD OUTLETS (2)200268VINTAGE E & S INC 101-2002-60691 50.00Wellness Center Leisure Enric…12/02/19 - CLASS REFUND200269VIVIAN, JOANNE 101-0000-42214 208.06Operating Supplies10/29-11/08/19 - OPERATING SUPPLIES200270WALMART COMMUNITY 101-3002-60420 107.34Community Experiences10/29-11/08/19 - SUPPLIES BREW IN LQ200270WALMART COMMUNITY 101-3003-60149 77.47Community Experiences10/29-11/08/19 - SUPPLIES VETERAN'S DAY200270WALMART COMMUNITY 101-3003-60149 77.80Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CC MTG 10/1200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 494.90Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LEAGUE CONF J PENA200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 494.90Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LEAGUE CONF K FITZPA…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 -2.56Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LEAGUE CONF CREDITS200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 61.71Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CC MTG 10/15200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60320 228.27Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - CC FRAMES PROCLAMAT…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1001-60420 -0.64Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LEAGUE CONF CREDITS200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1002-60320 494.90Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LEAGUE CONF G VILLAL…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1002-60320 -247.77Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LEAGUE CONF C ESCOB…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3001-60320 494.90Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LEAGUE CONF C ESCOB…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3001-60320 84.99Membership Dues10/03-10/31/19 - MAILCHIMP200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60351 189.10Marketing & Tourism Promoti…10/03-10/31/19 - SOCIAL MEDIA BOOSTS …200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 -15,000.00Operating Supplies11/05/19 - TO REVERSE BANK DRAFT REC…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60420 -21.37Sales Taxes Payable10/03-10/31/19 - BREW PLASTIC SIGNS SA…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-0000-20304 -3.60Sales Taxes Payable10/03-10/31/19 - POLICE VOL DINNER SAL…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-0000-20304 60.00Recruiting/Pre-Employment10/03-10/31/19 - BLDG OFFICIAL JOB POS…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60129 89.68Recruiting/Pre-Employment10/03-10/31/19 - MGMT ANALYST INTERV…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60129 356.88Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - LODGING A ARELLANO200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 53.40Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - FIRE PREP TRAINING200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 53.13Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - TRAINING SNACKS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 40.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - PIHRA MTG C TRIPLETT200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60320 74.64Employee Recognition Events10/03-10/31/19 - BANQUET200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60340 -36.37Employee Recognition Events10/03-10/31/19 - EMP REC DINNER CTRPC…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60340 35.00Employee Recognition Events10/03-10/31/19 - EMPLOYEE EVENT GIFT …200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60340 -96.17Employee Recognition Events10/03-10/31/19 - EMP REC DINNER CTRPC…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1004-60340 50.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - EDUCATION WKSHOP N…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60320 50.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - EDUCATION WKSHOP M…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60320 500.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - NEW LAW & ELECTIONS…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60320 500.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - NEW LAW & ELECTIONS…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60320 12.39Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - BOOK200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1005-60420 430.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - GOV'T TAX SEMINAR S L…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 405.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - GFOA TRAINING C MART…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 365.48Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CAPPO LODGING D AR…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 450.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CAPPO CONF 2020 D A…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 182.74Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CAPPO LODGING D AR…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 425.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CSMFO 2020 R HALLICK200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 430.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - GOV'T TAX SEMINAR C …200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 425.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CSMFO 2020 K ROMERO200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60320 144 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 4 of 9 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 99.12Office Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - OFFICE SUPPLIES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60400 28.66Office Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - 2020 CALENDARS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60400 -14.33Office Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - REFUND OFFICE DEPOT200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60400 -14.33Office Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - REFUND OFFICE DEPOT200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1006-60400 129.41Citywide Conf Room Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - AMAZON PRIME FEES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-1007-60403 425.69LQ Police Volunteers10/03-10/31/19 - POLICE VOL DINNER200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60109 113.78LQ Police Volunteers10/03-10/31/19 - VOLUNTEER APPRECIAT…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60109 38.13LQ Police Volunteers10/03-10/31/19 - POLICE VOL DINNER SU…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60109 625.00LQ Police Volunteers10/03-10/31/19 - PUBLIC SAFETY LUNCH…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2001-60109 355.67Volunteers - Fire10/03-10/31/19 - CERTS VOL APPRECIATI…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60110 79.28Volunteers - Fire10/03-10/31/19 - RACES VOL APPRECIATI…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60110 146.08Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CERT & EOC REFRESHM…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60320 76.95Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CERT TRAINING BREAKF…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60320 37.20Fire Station10/03-10/31/19 - FS #93 MAINT SUPPLIES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-2002-60670 50.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CSFMO MTG200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3001-60320 20.16Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - DOMAIN NAME200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3001-60420 63.96Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - WC LUNCHEON 10/31/19200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3002-60420 404.55Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - WC LUNCHEON 10/31/19200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3002-60420 76.95Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - WC HEALTH & WELLNES…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3002-60420 62.43Community Experiences10/03-10/31/19 - BREW LQ TICKETS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 566.11Community Experiences10/03-10/31/19 - BREW EVENT PERMIT200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 37.62Community Experiences10/03-10/31/19 - BREW HAND WASH STA…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 265.64Community Experiences10/03-10/31/19 - BREW PLASTIC SIGNS (1…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 16.28Community Experiences10/03-10/31/19 - BREW GROMMET KIT S…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 16.35Community Experiences10/03-10/31/19 - BREW WINE TKTS SINGL…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 25.62Community Experiences10/03-10/31/19 - BREW WINE TKTS SINGL…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60149 97.95Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - IRONMAN OPEN HOUSE200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60420 358.00Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - MUSIC RIGHTS EVENTS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3003-60420 1,211.45Materials/Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - FLOWERS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3005-60431 19.55Marketing & Tourism Promoti…10/03-10/31/19 - CRAFT ADHESIVE200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 115.31Marketing & Tourism Promoti…10/03-10/31/19 - BREW ART SUPPLIES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 14.99Marketing & Tourism Promoti…10/03-10/31/19 - APPLE MUSIC 10/2019200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-3007-60461 29.34Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - NOV APWA LUNCHEON …200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 29.34Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - APWA OCT LUNCH J MI…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 52.51Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - HWY 111 CORRIDOR M…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6001-60320 225.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - CEQA TRAINING S FERN…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-6002-60320 29.34Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - APWA OCT LUNCH B M…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7006-60320 88.02Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - NOV APWA LUNCHEON …200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 101-7006-60320 200.00Volunteers - Fire12/06/19 - CERT/COP DINNER TIP200275WOOD, DAVID 101-2002-60110 250.00Administrative Citations12/04/19 - LQ160611 REFUND CITATION200276WU, LAI ZHENKE AND JIANPING 101-0000-42700 5,173.02Community Experiences09/25/19 - POLE BANNERS FOR IRONMAN200277XPRESS GRAPHICS 101-3003-60149 250.96Community Experiences11/18/19 - COMM BROCHURES LQ POLO …200277XPRESS GRAPHICS 101-3003-60149 Fund 101 - GENERAL FUND Total:136,253.49 Fund: 201 - GAS TAX FUND 14.57Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CONCRETE MIX200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 201-7003-60431 10.93Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - CONCRETE MIX200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 201-7003-60431 25.12Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - SIDEWALK REPAIR200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 201-7003-60431 169.13Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - EPOXY PAVEMENT MAR…200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 201-7003-60431 30.35Materials/Supplies09/20-10/20/19 - CYLINDER RENTAL200242PRAXAIR INC 201-7003-60431 Fund 201 - GAS TAX FUND Total:250.10 Fund: 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 133.95Telephone - Utilities11/13-12/12/19 - MUSEUM PHONE200210FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…202-3006-61300 4,182.50Maintenance/Services11/26/19 - MAKERSPACE DRYWALL200213H&G HOME IMPROVEMENTS I…202-3009-60691 220.00Maintenance/Services11/26/19 - MAKERSPACE ELECTRICAL200213H&G HOME IMPROVEMENTS I…202-3009-60691 134.43Maintenance/Services11/15/19 - MUSEUM200227LOCK SHOP INC, THE 202-3006-60691 250.00HVAC11/2019 - LIBRARY WATER TREATMENT200238PACIFIC WEST AIR CONDITION…202-3004-60667 74.00Pest Control10/04/19 - LIBRARY PEST CONTROL200261TRULY NOLEN INC 202-3004-60116 49.00Pest Control10/04/19 - MUSEUM PEST CONTROL200261TRULY NOLEN INC 202-3006-60116 74.00Pest Control11/08/19 - LIBRARY PEST CONTROL200261TRULY NOLEN INC 202-3004-60116 49.00Pest Control11/08/19 - MUSEUM PEST CONTROL200261TRULY NOLEN INC 202-3006-60116 145 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 5 of 9 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 21.59Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - SEWING SUPPLIES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 202-3009-60420 33.48Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - SEWING SUPPLIES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 202-3009-60420 51.27Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - SEWING SUPPLIES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 202-3009-60420 Fund 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND Total:5,273.22 Fund: 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 11,656.95Water - Medians - Utilities11/25/19 - WATER SERVICE200195COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DI…215-7004-61211 25.96Supplies-Graffiti and Vandalism09/27-10/25/19 - SUPPLIES GRAFFITI200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60423 28.17Supplies-Graffiti and Vandalism09/27-10/25/19 - SUPPLIES GRAFFITI200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60423 40.37Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - LANDSCAPING EISENH…200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60431 99.14Materials/Supplies09/27-10/25/19 - EISENHOWER PARK200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 215-7004-60431 824.12Electric - Utilities11/25/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200220IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61116 616.10Electric - Medians - Utilities11/25/19 - ELECTRICITY SERVICE200220IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 215-7004-61117 4,255.00Maintenance/Services11/25/19 - MAINT EISENHOWER CALLE N…200243PWLC II, INC 215-7004-60691 834.95Materials/Supplies11/20/19 - DESERT GOLD DG200253SOUTHWEST BOULDER & STO…215-7004-60431 2,229.38Materials/Supplies11/20/19 - BAJA CRESTA RUBBLE200253SOUTHWEST BOULDER & STO…215-7004-60431 129.61Operating Supplies11/21/19 - OPERATING SUPPLIES200254STAPLES ADVANTAGE 215-7004-60420 1,211.11Materials/Supplies11/19/19 - MATERIALS200267VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 215-7004-60431 1,212.19Materials/Supplies11/19/19 - MATERIALS200267VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 215-7004-60431 646.50Materials/Supplies11/19/19 - MATERIALS200267VINTAGE ASSOCIATES 215-7004-60431 -440.00Materials/Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - ROTARY MIXER DEPOSIT…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 215-7004-60431 609.52Materials/Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - ROTARY MIXER & MAT'LS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 215-7004-60431 Fund 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND Total:23,979.07 Fund: 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 1,480.00AB 939 Recycling Solutions11/01-11/24/19 MIX 100.5 LOCAL FM RAD…200185ALPHA MEDIA LLC 221-0000-60127 Fund 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND Total:1,480.00 Fund: 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 1,810.70Attorney853638 - HOUSING AUTHORITY200249RUTAN & TUCKER 241-9101-60153 Fund 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY Total:1,810.70 Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 2,991.50Technical10/28-11/01/19 EISENHOWER RET BASIN …200183AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CA…401-0000-60108 5,811.58DesignOCT 2019 DUNE PALMS BRIDGE LOW WA…200188BENGAL ENGINEERING INC 401-0000-60185 2,607.30Technical10/09-10/24/19 MAT'LS TEST ADAMS & F…200205EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 401-0000-60108 41,410.70Retention Payable11/30/19 - RETENTION PAYMENT200206ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC 401-0000-20600 227,006.00Construction10/01/19 2018-03 HWY 111 SIDEWALK IM…200214HARDY & HARPER, INC.401-0000-60188 10,750.00Design10/31/19 EISENHOWER RETENTION BASIN200216HERMANN DESIGN GROUP INC 401-0000-60185 310.00Design10/31/19 ON-CALL SVC NO LQ PKWY TURF…200216HERMANN DESIGN GROUP INC 401-0000-60185 3,320.00Design10/31/19 SRR EVENT SITE DESIGN SVCS P…200216HERMANN DESIGN GROUP INC 401-0000-60185 79.28Construction09/27-10/25/19 - CONDUIT200217HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 401-0000-60188 69,234.31Construction11/19/19 - 2016-08 IID CONSTR FEES200221IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DIST 401-0000-60188 -12,044.10Retention PayablePO 1819-0145-R1 RETENTION #5200223JACOBSSON ENGINEERING CO…401-0000-20600 240,882.00Construction10/31/19 PROG PMT 5 2009-04 DUNE PA…200223JACOBSSON ENGINEERING CO…401-0000-60188 1,267.25Technical10/31-11/13/19 EISENHOWER BASIN MAT…200225LANDMARK GEO-ENGINEERS &…401-0000-60108 2,377.75Design09/2019 EISENHOWER DRAINAGE PRJ 201…200230MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIO…401-0000-60185 2,280.00Technical11/14/19 EISENHOWER RETENTION BASIN…200233MSA CONSULTING INC 401-0000-60108 -11,533.40Retention PayablePO 1920-0125 RETENTION #3200262URBAN HABITAT 401-0000-20600 230,667.95Construction11/01-11/21/19 LQ LANDSCAPE IMPR - HI…200262URBAN HABITAT 401-0000-60188 1,268.52Construction10/03-10/31/19 - SWRCB APP FEES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 401-0000-60188 624.03Construction10/03-10/31/19 - SWRCB APP FEES200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 401-0000-60188 1,780.35Construction11/18/19 - COMPLETE STREETS METAL SI…200277XPRESS GRAPHICS 401-0000-60188 Fund 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS Total:821,091.02 Fund: 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 273.13Vehicle Repair & Maintenance11/13/19 - TRUCK #12 MIRROR200222IZZY MOTORS, INC.501-0000-60676 225.09Building Leases11/24/19 - OFFICE CORK BOARD200254STAPLES ADVANTAGE 501-0000-71032 2,566.59Fuel & Oil11/01-11/15/19 - VEHICLE FUEL200259TOWER ENERGY GROUP 501-0000-60674 3,784.24Furniture10/03-10/31/19 - TABLES & CHAIRS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 501-0000-71020 Fund 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT Total:6,849.05 Fund: 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5,385.95Copiers11/2019 CITY PRINTERS200192CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, …502-0000-60662 146 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 6 of 9 AmountVendor Name Payment Number Description (Item)Account Name Account Number 729.80Machinery & Equipment11/07/19 WELLNESS CENTER LAB MACHI…200194CDW GOVERNMENT INC 502-0000-80100 200.00Consultants11/19/19 - COUNCIL MTG VIDEO200201DESERT C.A.M INC 502-0000-60104 784.00Software Licenses12/03/19 - AUTOCAD SUPPORT/MAINT200204DLT SOLUTIONS LLC 502-0000-60301 4,120.00Maintenance Agreements07/01/19-06/30/20 SYMPRO INVEST POR…200207EMPHASYS 502-0000-60300 85.98Cable - Utilities11/25-12/24/19 - CITY HALL INTERNET200210FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 50.98Cable - Utilities11/27-12/26/19 - BLACKHAWK/LQ PARK D…200210FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 55.98Cable - Utilities11/26-12/25/19 - CITY HALL DSL200210FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 105.01Cable - Utilities11/10-12/09/19 - CITY HALL INTERNET200210FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 224.26Cable - Utilities11/04-12/03/19 - DSL SERVICE200210FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS…502-0000-61400 162.86Cable - Utilities11/2019 - CITY HALL CABLE (4625)200257TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 2,079.00Cable - Utilities11/10-12/09/19 - CITY HALL FIBER (2546)200257TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 76.86Cable - Utilities11/12-12/11/19 - CITY YARD CABLE (4080)200257TIME WARNER CABLE 502-0000-61400 190.85Machinery & Equipment11/15/19 - DUAL MONITOR ARM LAQWR…200264VARI SALES CORPORATION 502-0000-80100 66.52Cable - Utilities10/02-11/01/19 - BACKUP SERVER (2183)200265VERIZON WIRELESS 502-0000-61400 1,498.23Cell/Mobile Phones10/02-11/01/19 - CITY CELL SVC IPADS (55…200265VERIZON WIRELESS 502-0000-61301 1,873.08Cell/Mobile Phones10/02-11/01/19 - CITY CELL SVC (5496)200265VERIZON WIRELESS 502-0000-61301 499.95Software Licenses10/03-10/31/19 - PARALLELS RENEWAL200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 39.99Software Licenses10/03-10/31/19 - PIKTOCHART 10/2019-1…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 3,800.81Machinery & EquipmentNEWEGG 1302433825 NETWK STOR 6 CO…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 478.36Machinery & Equipment10/03-10/31/19 - NEWEGG INV 13024281…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 -3,805.15Machinery & Equipment10/03-10/31/19 - NEWEGG INV 12377165…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 3,805.15Machinery & Equipment10/03-10/31/19 - NEWEGG INV 12377165…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 107.11Machinery & Equipment10/03-10/31/19 - NEWEGG INV 13024301…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 2,867.00Machinery & EquipmentNEWEGG 1302435423 STOR SERVER (12)200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 3,914.87Machinery & EquipmentNEWEGG 1302428585 NTWK STOR 12 HD…200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80100 966.65ComputersDELL 2007117385206 DESKTOP COMPUTER200271WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-80103 50.00Software Licenses10/03-10/31/19 - BASECAMP 10/13-11/13…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60301 1,583.84Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - RING CAMS (2) & TV200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 54.36Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - OTTERBOX IPHONE CASE200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 44.60Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - WC USB HUBS200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 52.19Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - NEST CAMS FOR RING C…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 86.98Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - KEYBOARD/MOUSE200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 502-0000-60420 Fund 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total:32,236.07 Fund: 504 - INSURANCE FUND 386.61Operating Supplies11/15/19 - STANDING DESK T FLORES200264VARI SALES CORPORATION 504-1010-60420 159.00Travel & Training10/03-10/31/19 - TRAINING P NIETO200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 504-1010-60320 656.85Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - SIT STAND DESK200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 504-1010-60420 46.75Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - ERGO STANDING MAT200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 504-1010-60420 198.43Operating Supplies10/03-10/31/19 - BLEEDING CONTROL KIT…200272WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CARD 504-1010-60420 Fund 504 - INSURANCE FUND Total:1,447.64 Fund: 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 648.65Bank Fees11/2019 - SRR ARMORED SERVICES200211GARDAWORLD 601-0000-60455 31.33Bank Fees10/2019 - SRR ARMORED SERVICES200211GARDAWORLD 601-0000-60455 147.00Repair & Maintenance11/05/19 - SRR HVAC SERVICE200219HYDE'S AC 601-0000-60660 Fund 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT Total:826.98 Grand Total:1,031,497.34 147 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 7 of 9 Fund Summary Fund Expense Amount 101 - GENERAL FUND 136,253.49 201 - GAS TAX FUND 250.10 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 5,273.22 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 23,979.07 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 1,480.00 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 1,810.70 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 821,091.02 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 6,849.05 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 32,236.07 504 - INSURANCE FUND 1,447.64 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 826.98 Grand Total:1,031,497.34 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-0000-20304 Sales Taxes Payable 8,008.03 101-0000-20949 LT Care Insurance Pay 196.05 101-0000-20985 Garnishments Payable 162.00 101-0000-22830 Miscellaneous Deposits 100.00 101-0000-42214 Wellness Center Leisure E…50.00 101-0000-42300 Cash Over/Short 245.00 101-0000-42700 Administrative Citations 1,650.00 101-1001-60320 Travel & Training 1,126.75 101-1001-60420 Operating Supplies 228.27 101-1002-60101 Contract Services - Admini…17,500.00 101-1002-60320 Travel & Training 494.26 101-1002-60400 Office Supplies 87.40 101-1003-60153 Attorney 49,121.11 101-1003-60154 Attorney/Litigation 3,792.50 101-1004-60129 Recruiting/Pre-Employme…149.68 101-1004-60320 Travel & Training 503.41 101-1004-60340 Employee Recognition Ev…-22.90 101-1005-60320 Travel & Training 1,171.50 101-1005-60400 Office Supplies 17.39 101-1005-60420 Operating Supplies 45.11 101-1006-60103 Professional Services 394.12 101-1006-60320 Travel & Training 3,113.22 101-1006-60400 Office Supplies 156.81 101-1006-60420 Operating Supplies -15,000.00 101-1007-60402 Forms, Copier Paper 391.98 101-1007-60403 Citywide Conf Room Suppl…577.37 101-2001-60109 LQ Police Volunteers 1,202.60 101-2001-60174 Blood/Alcohol Testing 256.00 101-2001-60176 Sheriff - Other 775.19 101-2002-60110 Volunteers - Fire 1,449.95 101-2002-60320 Travel & Training 223.03 101-2002-60670 Fire Station 155.54 101-2002-60691 Maintenance/Services 1,357.47 101-2002-61101 Electricity - Utilities 592.84 101-2002-61400 Cable - Utilities 52.19 101-3001-60320 Travel & Training 297.13 101-3001-60400 Office Supplies 280.65 101-3001-60420 Operating Supplies 20.16 101-3002-60103 Professional Services 2,500.00 101-3002-60107 Instructors 641.80 101-3002-60352 Subscriptions & Publicati…46.85 101-3002-60420 Operating Supplies 957.25 101-3003-60149 Community Experiences 23,029.09 101-3003-60420 Operating Supplies 1,057.32 148 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 8 of 9 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 101-3005-60431 Materials/Supplies 1,211.45 101-3005-61108 Electric - Colonel Paige - U…866.70 101-3005-61110 Electric - Adams Park - Util…39.73 101-3005-61204 Water -Fritz Burns Park - …3,217.20 101-3007-60351 Membership Dues 84.99 101-3007-60461 Marketing & Tourism Pro…6,959.36 101-3008-60115 Janitorial 185.00 101-3008-60116 Pest Control 397.00 101-3008-60431 Materials/Supplies 1,685.11 101-3008-60432 Tools/Equipment 447.31 101-3008-60667 HVAC 2,289.00 101-3008-60691 Maintenance/Services 1,168.00 101-3008-61200 Water - Utilities 631.13 101-6001-60320 Travel & Training 111.19 101-6001-60400 Office Supplies 310.29 101-6002-60320 Travel & Training 225.00 101-6004-60351 Membership Dues 95.00 101-6004-60425 Supplies - Field 13.91 101-6006-60103 Professional Services 3,000.00 101-6006-60125 Temporary Agency Servic…3,595.22 101-7003-60320 Travel & Training 58.58 101-7003-60420 Operating Supplies 5.40 101-7003-60432 Tools/Equipment 257.70 101-7006-60146 PM 10 - Dust Control 127.74 101-7006-60320 Travel & Training 117.36 201-7003-60431 Materials/Supplies 250.10 202-3004-60116 Pest Control 148.00 202-3004-60667 HVAC 250.00 202-3006-60116 Pest Control 98.00 202-3006-60691 Maintenance/Services 134.43 202-3006-61300 Telephone - Utilities 133.95 202-3009-60420 Operating Supplies 106.34 202-3009-60691 Maintenance/Services 4,402.50 215-7004-60420 Operating Supplies 129.61 215-7004-60423 Supplies-Graffiti and Van…54.13 215-7004-60431 Materials/Supplies 6,443.16 215-7004-60691 Maintenance/Services 4,255.00 215-7004-61116 Electric - Utilities 824.12 215-7004-61117 Electric - Medians - Utiliti…616.10 215-7004-61211 Water - Medians - Utilities 11,656.95 221-0000-60127 AB 939 Recycling Solutions 1,480.00 241-9101-60153 Attorney 1,810.70 401-0000-20600 Retention Payable 17,833.20 401-0000-60108 Technical 9,146.05 401-0000-60185 Design 22,569.33 401-0000-60188 Construction 771,542.44 501-0000-60674 Fuel & Oil 2,566.59 501-0000-60676 Vehicle Repair & Mainte…273.13 501-0000-71020 Furniture 3,784.24 501-0000-71032 Building Leases 225.09 502-0000-60104 Consultants 200.00 502-0000-60300 Maintenance Agreements 4,120.00 502-0000-60301 Software Licenses 1,373.94 502-0000-60420 Operating Supplies 1,821.97 502-0000-60662 Copiers 5,385.95 502-0000-61301 Cell/Mobile Phones 3,371.31 502-0000-61400 Cable - Utilities 2,907.45 502-0000-80100 Machinery & Equipment 12,088.80 149 Demand Register Packet: APPKT02206 - BC 12/06/19 12/6/2019 4:25:58 PM Page 9 of 9 Account Summary Account Number Account Name Expense Amount 502-0000-80103 Computers 966.65 504-1010-60320 Travel & Training 159.00 504-1010-60420 Operating Supplies 1,288.64 601-0000-60455 Bank Fees 679.98 601-0000-60660 Repair & Maintenance 147.00 Grand Total:1,031,497.34 Project Account Summary Project Account Key Expense AmountProject Account Name **None**177,398.82**None** 091004CT 240,882.00Construction Expense 091004RP -12,044.10Retention Payable 111205D 5,811.58Design Expense 151603CT 2,404.38Construction Expense 151612CT 79.28Construction Expense 151612D 2,377.75Design Expense 151612T 6,538.75Technical Expense 201601RP 41,410.70Retention Payable 201603CT 230,667.95Construction Expense 201603D 310.00Design Expense 201603RP -11,533.40Retention Payable 201603T 2,607.30Technical Expense 201608CT 70,502.83Construction Expense 201608D 3,320.00Design Expense 201704D 10,750.00Design Expense 201803CT 227,006.00Construction Expense 201804E 10,528.64Landscape & Lighting Median Isla… BREWE 4,549.58Brew in LQ Expense IRONE 11,455.97Ironman Expense MAKERE 4,508.84Makerspace Expense TREEE 1,887.00Tree Lighting Ceremony Expense VETSE 77.47Veterans Day Ceremony Expense Grand Total:1,031,497.34 150 12/2/2019 2:10:26 PM Page 1 of 2 Payment Reversal Register City of La Quinta APPKT02198 - BC 11/25/19 Canceled Payables Vendor Set:01 - Vendor Set 01 Bank:APBNKBOW - APBNK- BOW 05359 Vendor Number LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL CULINARY ARTS Total Vendor Amount -1,015.00 Vendor Name Check 200128 11/25/2019 -1,015.0011/22/2019 11/25/2019 Payment Type Payment Number Original Payment Date Reversal Date Cancel Date Payment Amount Payable Number:Description Payable AmountDue DatePayable Date 310-2019 11/22/201911/22/19 - CERT/COP DINNER 815.0011/12/2019 311-2019 11/22/201911/22/19 - CERT/COP DINNER TIP 200.0011/15/2019 151 Payment Reversal Register Packet: APPKT02198 - BC 11/25/19 12/2/2019 2:10:26 PM Page 2 of 2 Bank Code Summary Canceled Payables Payables Left To Pay AgainBank Code Total APBNKBOW -1,015.00 0.00 -1,015.00 -1,015.00 0.00Report Total:-1,015.00 152 City of La Quinta Bank Transactions 11/16/19 – 12/06/19 Wire Transaction Listed below are the wire transfers from 11/16/19 – 12/06/19 Wire Transfers: 11/18/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - TASC 1,782.97$ 11/18/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - WELLS FARGO 15,000.00$ 11/18/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - WELLS FARGO 15,000.00$ 11/20/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - ICMA 4,740.29$ 11/20/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - LQCEA 441.00$ 11/22/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK 246,396.20$ 11/27/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 43,397.34$ 11/27/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - PERS 0.96$ 11/27/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - ICMA 4,631.96$ 12/06/2019 - WIRE TRANSFER - LANDMARK 197,205.85$ TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS OUT 528,596.57$ Attachment 2 153 154 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 RECOMMENDATION Receive and file revenue and expenditure report dated September 30, 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The report summarizes the City’s year-to-date (YTD) revenues and period expenditures for September 2019 (Attachment 1). •These reports are also reviewed by the Finance Advisory Commission. FISCAL IMPACT – None BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Below is a summary of the column headers used on the Revenue and Expenditure Summary Reports: Original Total Budget – represents revenue and expenditure budgets the Council adopted in June 2019 for fiscal year 2019/20. Current Total Budget – represents original adopted budgets plus any Council approved budget amendments from throughout the year. The 2018/19 operating and Capital Improvement Project carryovers to 2019/20 will be processed after the year-end audit is completed. Period Activity – represents actual revenues received and expenditures outlaid in the reporting month. Fiscal Activity – represents actual revenues received and expenditures outlaid YTD. Variance Favorable/(Unfavorable) - represents the dollar difference between YTD collections/expenditures and the current budgeted amount. Percent Used – represents the percentage activity as compared to budget YTD. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 14 155 The revenue report includes revenues and transfers into funds from other funds (income items). Revenues are not received uniformly throughout the year, resulting in peaks and valleys. For example, large property tax payments are usually received in December and May. Similarly, Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund payments are typically received in January and June. Any timing imbalance of revenue receipts versus expenditures is funded from the City’s cash flow reserve. The expenditure report includes expenditures and transfers out to other funds. Unlike revenues, expenditures are more likely to be consistent from month to month. However, large debt service payments or CIP expenditures can cause swings. Prepared by: Rosemary Hallick, Financial Services Analyst Approved by: Karla Romero, Finance Director Attachment 1: Revenue and Expenditure Report for September 30, 2019 MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 4,175,890$ 4,859,282$ 8.42% All Funds 6,678,925$ 8,142,601$ 6.70% MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 3,850,396$ 6,367,589$ 11.30% Payroll - General Fund 706,952$ 2,738,755$ 24.52% All Funds 18,301,903$ 24,131,570$ 22.10% September Expenditures September Revenues General Fund Non-General Fund Fire Service Credit from County (Quarter 1)1,967,369$ Transfers In - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)(1)514,971$ Measure G Sales Tax 784,992$ Allocated Interest 436,235$ Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Tax 784,743$ Technology Support Internal Service Fund(2)341,125$ Sales Tax 674,006$ Insurance Internal Service Fund(2)233,350$ Business Licenses 93,896$ Facility & Fleet Internal Service Fund(2)217,300$ General Fund Non-General Fund Fire Service and Ladder Truck (Quarter 1)1,570,399$ Successor Agency Debt Service(4)13,120,361$ Transfers Out (for CIP)384,768$ CIP-Construction(5)210,582$ Park Equipment Maintenance (3) 168,500$ SilverRock Maintenance 131,023$ Liability Insurance & Claims (3)110,000$ CIP-Design(6)97,907$ Marketing and Tourism Promotions 65,939$ Facility & Fleet Maintenance 77,350$ Top Five Revenue/Income Sources for September Top Five Expenditures/Outlays for September (4)Interest and principal payments for redevelopment bonds, funded by dedicated Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenue. (2) Internal Service Funds are used to account for activites involved in rendering services to departments within the City; quarterly journal entries move revenue into these funds. (3) These charges in the General Fund represent quarterly contributions to the Internal Service Funds. (1) Transfers in to the Capital Improvement Fund are from General Fund, Quimby, and transportation sources including Gas Tax and Measure A. (5)CIP Construction: Village Complete Streets, La Quinta Highlands landscape project, City Hall entry doors. (6)CIP Design: Village Complete Streets, Washington/Fred Waring triple left lanes, Corporate Yard. 156 For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 09/30/2019 Page 1 of 2 Revenue Summary Fiscal Activity Variance Favorable (Unfavorable)Fund Period Activity Current Total Budget Original Total Budget Percent Used 101 - GENERAL FUND 4,859,2824,175,89057,847,200 57,737,200 -52,877,918 8.42 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 210,87766,0972,360,900 2,357,400 -2,146,523 8.95 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND -16,0362262,752,000 2,752,000 -2,768,036 0.58 % 203 - PUBLIC SAFETY FUND (MEASURE G)-3,24403,200 3,200 -6,444 101.37 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 00123,200 123,200 -123,200 0.00 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND -4300100,500 100,500 -100,930 0.43 % 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND -1,58302,274,200 2,274,200 -2,275,783 0.07 % 220 - QUIMBY FUND -9,5170140,000 140,000 -149,517 6.80 % 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 535070,000 70,000 -69,465 0.76 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 129,362133,1691,311,300 1,311,300 -1,181,938 9.87 % 224 - TUMF FUND -1,249000 -1,249 0.00 % 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND -610300300 -361 20.27 % 226 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG)-19012,000 12,000 -12,019 0.16 % 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 4,6271,59221,200 21,200 -16,573 21.82 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 15,70715,70320,539,264 20,539,264 -20,523,557 0.08 % 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND -278053,500 53,500 -53,778 0.52 % 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN -50401,500 13,505 -14,009 3.74 % 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 104,17925,831448,000 448,000 -343,821 23.25 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND -5,807022,000 22,000 -27,807 26.39 % 247 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND -8,346000 -8,346 0.00 % 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014)724000 724 0.00 % 249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)100,318101,441270,000 270,000 -169,682 37.15 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 95,47236,946395,000 395,000 -299,528 24.17 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 70,21926,624306,000 306,000 -235,781 22.95 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 33,54012,246110,000 110,000 -76,460 30.49 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 12,3844,47245,000 45,000 -32,616 27.52 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 4,1981,67722,000 22,000 -17,802 19.08 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 3,9101,50823,000 23,000 -19,090 17.00 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 1,4405207,000 7,000 -5,560 20.57 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 15,4195,62955,000 55,000 -39,581 28.03 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 33,7483,360160,500 160,500 -126,752 21.03 % 275 - LQ PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER -12102,600 2,600 -2,721 4.67 % 299 - INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND 1,067,072436,23500 1,067,072 0.00 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 -1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 158,622514,97121,222,000 23,690,864 -23,532,242 0.67 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND -17,4240100,000 100,000 -117,424 17.42 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 208,383217,300900,200 900,200 -691,817 23.15 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 343,227343,1901,394,400 1,394,400 -1,051,173 24.61 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 158,737168,500719,000 719,000 -560,264 22.08 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 233,346233,350929,500 929,500 -696,154 25.10 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 302,736122,7464,105,600 4,105,600 -3,802,864 7.37 % 602 - SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE -1,20705,500 5,500 -6,707 21.94 % 735 - 97-1 AGENCY REDEMPTION FUND -82000 -82 0.00 % 760 - SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN -29707,000 7,000 -7,297 4.24 % 761 - CERBT OPEB TRUST 31,81631,81640,000 40,000 -8,184 79.54 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 8,926-2,112200,000 200,000 -191,074 4.46 % Report Total:6,678,925 8,142,601119,100,564 121,467,933 -113,325,332 6.70 % Accounts are subject to adjusting entries and audit. The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), published annually in December, is the best resource for all final audited numbers. ATTACHMENT 1 157 For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 09/30/2019 Page 2 of 2 Expenditure Summary Fiscal Activity Variance Favorable (Unfavorable)Fund Period Activity Current Total Budget Original Total Budget Percent Used 101 - GENERAL FUND 6,367,5893,850,39655,638,500 56,374,514 50,006,925 11.30 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 287,903172,3122,360,900 2,400,500 2,112,597 11.99 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 54,26727,6952,419,100 2,529,100 2,474,833 2.15 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 00123,200 123,200 123,200 0.00 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 1,3930100,000 100,000 98,607 1.39 % 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 378,700139,8382,274,200 2,443,200 2,064,500 15.50 % 220 - QUIMBY FUND 18,32818,328263,000 263,000 244,672 6.97 % 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 2,42422450,000 130,000 127,576 1.86 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 44,58544,5851,298,300 1,298,300 1,253,715 3.43 % 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 668000 -668 0.00 % 226 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG)0012,000 12,000 12,000 0.00 % 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 1,1901,1904,600 4,600 3,410 25.86 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 13,120,36113,120,3618,394,963 8,405,468 -4,714,893 156.09 % 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 246091,500 111,500 111,254 0.22 % 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN 1,650012,005 13,505 11,855 12.22 % 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 116,58842,232609,300 610,895 494,307 19.08 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND 00250,000 250,000 250,000 0.00 % 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014)1,70343200 -1,703 0.00 % 249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)0020,000 20,000 20,000 0.00 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 400,6680483,700 483,700 83,032 82.83 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 668000 -668 0.00 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 6680130,000 0 -668 0.00 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 9,2298,56132,000 32,000 22,771 28.84 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 668000 -668 0.00 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 668030,000 0 -668 0.00 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 66806,000 0 -668 0.00 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 66807,500 0 -668 0.00 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 1,5001,400160,000 160,000 158,500 0.94 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 1,088,607369,63021,222,000 23,690,864 22,602,257 4.60 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND 7,7337,7330520,679 512,947 1.49 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 143,274113,091898,200 1,374,200 1,230,926 10.43 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 502,48057,8971,390,400 1,880,600 1,378,120 26.72 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 36,1207,119700,000 940,036 903,916 3.84 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 762,1594,875870,500 870,500 108,341 87.55 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 763,649312,2884,185,700 4,153,200 3,389,551 18.39 % 760 - SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN 12,833012,850 12,850 17 99.87 % 761 - CERBT OPEB TRUST 35135100 -351 0.00 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 1,3651,36500 -1,365 0.00 % Report Total:18,301,903 24,131,570104,051,418 109,209,411 85,077,841 22.10 % Accounts are subject to adjusting entries and audit. The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), published annually in December, is the best resource for all final audited numbers. 158 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES ANNUAL REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2018/19 Art in Public Places Annual Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •Per the Municipal Code, the City must expend or commit fees from the Art in Public Places (APP) program within two years of receipt and monies collected must be accounted for in a separate fund. •An annual review of administrative expenses is required. There were no administrative expenses for 2018/19. •Attachment 1 presents the required analysis; the City has complied with the time limit for expenditure of fees and there are no findings to report. FISCAL IMPACT – None BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City’s APP fund is governed by the Municipal Code. Annually, the City must demonstrate that it has complied with the following: •A determination whether or not the fees have been committed for use within two years of collection. Fees may be used for: The cost of public art and its installation; The cost to purchase or lease art sites; Waterworks, landscaping, lighting and other objects, which are an integral part of the artwork; Frames, mats, pedestals and other objects necessary for the proper presentation and installation of the artwork; Walls, pools, landscaping or other architectural or landscape architectural elements necessary for the proper aesthetic and structural placement of the artwork; Maintaining and repairing artwork; Administrative expenses to otherwise implement the APP program; Endowments; and Art replacement. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 15 159 •Review administrative expenses to ensure they were reasonably assessed to implement this program and that they do not exceed five percent of the total funds in the account on July 1 of any year or $25,000 in any fiscal year. If fees collected are not committed for the aforementioned uses, they are returned to the contributor. Staff analyzed APP fund revenues and expenditures, and no reimbursements are due to contributors. There were no administrative costs. During 2018/19, APP funds were used to purchase art pieces, paint art wall murals, install, maintain, or preserve art pieces, and inventory artwork as detailed in Attachment 1. All capital projects were reported in the prior fiscal year. ALTERNATIVES As this report is a requirement of the Municipal Code, staff does not recommend an alternative. Prepared by: Karla Romero, Finance Director Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager Attachment: 1. Art in Public Places FY 2018/19 Annual Financial Report 160 City of La Quinta ATTACHMENT 1 Art in Public Places (Fund 270) FY 2018/19 Beginning Ending Account Description Fund Balance at 7/1/2018 FY 18/19 Fund Balance at 6/30/2019 Revenues & Other Sources: Developer fees 103,172 Interest income 16,561 Reimbursements - Total Sources 119,733$ Expenditures & Other Uses Art Purchases 69,590 Maintenance of Public Art 22,922 Project Administration - Transfers Out for Construction Art Project - Total Uses 92,512 Total Available 509,027$ 27,221$ 536,248$ Two Year Test Using First In First Out Method Summary of Funds Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Collected Expenditures Committed Unspent June 30, 2015 682,810 115,356 110,432 253,768 433,966 June 30, 2016 682,810 47,187 163,012 529,000 37,985 June 30, 2017 566,985 47,660 64,312 522,000 28,333 June 30, 2018 550,334 43,391 84,699 522,000 (12,974) June 30, 2019 509,026 119,733 92,512 760,000 (223,753) Total Revenue For Last Five Years 373,327$ 514,967$ Result : Two Year Spent or Committed Test Met. Future commitments for unspent funds are detailed below. Art in Public Places Expenses and Future Commitments Capital Projects and Expenses FY 18/19 Committed % Complete* % funded with fee Sculpture Restorations and Maintenance 16,468 - 100%100% Acknowledgement Plaques and Signs 4,519 - 100%100% Veterans Monument Upgrades/Expansion 2,675 - 100%100% Art Inventory, Maintenance & Preservation (LeBasse)12,400 - 100%100% Thetford & Shavin Art Enterprise LLC - MakerSpace Art Mural 3,750 - 100%100% Thetford & Shavin Art Enterprise LLC - La Quinta Night 2,500 - 100%100% Gard, Michael - Grace & Milo, Wire Cooper Scultures (2) 6,700 - 100%100% Lisa Kristine Fine Art - The Guardian, Framed Photo 5,000 - 100%100% DKLA Design - True Blue, Welded & Forged Steel 12,500 - 100%100% DKLA Design - Colibri, Welded & Forged Steel 6,500 - 100%100% John Cuevas - Volta, Library Art Mural, N. Wall on Calle Tampico 5,000 - 100%100% John Cuevas - Hydra, Frontier Wall Art Mural, City Lot 5,000 - 100%100% Chistopher Sanchez - Chromaplex, Library Art Murals and Makerspace Outdoor Patio Walls 6,500 - 100%100% Structural Drawings, La Fonda Art Installations (2)3,000 - 100%100% 111205 Dune Palms Bridge Improvements -200,000 11%1% 151603 La Quinta Village Complete Streets -95,000 22%1% 201608 SilverRock Event Space -300,000 14%5% 201709 Jefferson/Avenue 53 Roundabout -5,000 6%0.24% FY 2019/20 Budget for Art Purchases and Maintenance -160,000 2%100% Total 92,512 760,000 * Percentage completed as of December 1, 2019. The Art in Public Places fund is used to account for fees paid in lieu of acquisition, installation, replacement, maintenance and repair of approved art works at approved sites. The fees are refundable if not expended or committed within two years. 161 162 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: INTERVIEW AND APPOINT RESIDENTS TO SERVE ON THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AND IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT ENERGY CONSUMERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Make appointments to fill vacancies on the Financial Advisory Commission and Imperial Irrigation District Energy Consumers Advisory Committee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has established several commissions, which require public participation and membership. The City also has two-member representation on the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Energy Consumer Advisory Committee (ECAC); historically, Council has appointed one Councilmember and one resident. FISCAL IMPACT Each member of the Financial Advisory Commission receives a $75 stipend per meeting attended. The cost is included in the 2019/20 Budget (Account No. 101- 1006-50110). The IID ECAC voluntary position does not receive a stipend. Expenses incurred by members in connection with their service, such as mileage, may be reimbursed only if pre-approved by IID in accordance with IID policy. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Council established boards and commissions to facilitate broader participation in City governance, to solicit a broad range of opinions on City issues, and to introduce citizens to the municipal government process. The City received resignations from IID ECAC resident member George Christopher and FAC Commissioner Javier Lopez on November 5 and 8, 2019, respectively. The City advertised the vacancies on the City’s website and via social media platforms. Applications are accepted throughout the year and applicants, including previously unsuccessful applicants, are notified of vacancies. BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 163 Applications were received from the following residents: FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION (open: 1 unexpired term ending June 30, 2022) Stella Church IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT ENERGY CONSUMERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (open: 1 unexpired term ending December 31, 2020) Mark Gart Matthew McPherson Lee Osborne Stella Church ALTERNATIVES Fill all, one or none of the current vacancies, re-advertise, and set another date for Council interviews and appointments. Prepared by: Tania Flores, Management Assistant Approved by: Monika Radeva, City Clerk Attachments: 1. Applications 2. Ballots 164 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: SELECT MAYOR PRO TEMPORE TO SERVE FOR ONE YEAR RECOMMENDATION Select a member of the City Council to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore for one year. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The mayor pro tempore is the presiding officer at all City Council meetings and related functions and activities when the Mayor is absent. The selection of Mayor Pro Tempore is governed by State law and City’s Rules of Procedure (Resolution No. 2015-023). FISCAL IMPACT – None. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City’s Rules of Procedure prescribes that the selection of a Mayor Pro Tempore shall occur in odd-numbered years at a regular meeting in the last calendar quarter, and shall be by three or more affirmative votes, and a failure to achieve such total of affirmative votes, shall be deemed a selection of the incumbent to remain in office. The Resolution also stipulates that a successor or replacement Mayor Pro Tempore may be chosen at any time by three or more affirmative votes. The office has been held by the following officials in recent years. 2016 – Mayor Pro Tem Peña 2017 – Mayor Pro Tem Radi 2018 – Mayor Pro Tem Fitzpatrick 2019 – Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez ALTERNATIVES There are no alternatives to the recommended action. Prepared by: Monika Radeva, City Clerk Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 2 165 166 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ANNUAL COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO SERVE ON VARIOUS OUTSIDE AGENCIES FOR 2020 RECOMMENDATION Select Councilmembers as City representatives to serve on various local, regional, and state committees for calendar year 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Each year, the Council selects Councilmembers to serve on various local, regional, and state committees. Attachment 1 is the list of committees, their meeting schedules, and the 2019 representatives and alternates. Committees that offer stipends are identified with an asterisk (*). FISCAL IMPACT Attendance at some meetings requires Councilmembers to incur reimbursable travel costs that could include mileage, airfare, meals, and/or overnight hotel stays. Travel costs for the first half of 2020 are included in the 2019/20 budget (Account No. 101-1001-60320). For meetings scheduled in the latter half of 2020, the costs will be included in the 2020/21 budget. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City is involved in various government committees relating to local, regional, and state affairs. The City Council may appoint one or more of its members to these committees or may appoint a citizen to represent the City. When appointing a Councilmember, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) [FPPC Regulation 18702.5] allows an elected official to vote on his/her own appointment to another public agency’s board, committee or commission if the appropriate form [Form 806 – Agency Report of: Public Official Appointments] is posted disclosing any compensation received. This form is posted on the City’s website and will be immediately updated following this meeting. If Council opts to select a citizen representative, the City Clerk will seek applicants for that position. BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 3 167 ALTERNATIVES The Council may opt to make new appointments to some or all positions; discontinue membership in one or more committees; and/or change membership on one or more committees to a citizen representative. Prepared by: Monika Radeva, City Clerk Approved by: Jon McMillen, City Manager Attachment: 1. 2019 Committee Appointment List 168 2019 Assignments APPOINTED DECEMBER 18, 2018 * Note: receives stipendAGENCY MEETING SCHEDULE 2019 REPRESENTATIVES Animal Campus Commission 2nd Thursday, quarterly at 9:30 a.m. (2019: Feb 7, May 9, Aug 8, Nov 7) Member: Mayor Pro Tem Steve Sanchez Alternate: Kathleen Fitzpatrick California Joint Powers Insurance Authority* Annual meeting in July Member: Robert Radi Alternate: Chris Escobedo / Angela Scott Greater CV Chamber of Commerce Information Exchange Committee Councilmembers rotate 1st quarter – Kathleen Fitzpatrick 2nd quarter – Steve Sanchez 3rd quarter – John Peña 4th quarter – Robert Radi Civic Center Art Purchase Committee Yearly, meet during the March art festival (March 2019) Members: Councilmembers Fitzpatrick & Radi; CS Commission Members: 2 CVAG General Assembly Annual banquet – last Monday in June in Chair’s city (June 24, 2019 at 6 p.m.)Delegate: Mayor Evans Alternate: Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez Members: All CouncilmembersCVAG Conservation Commission* 2nd Thursday of each month at 11 a.m. (dark March, July, Aug, Oct, Dec) Member: Mayor Evans Alternate: Kathleen Fitzpatrick CVAG Energy & Environmental Resources Committee*2nd Thursday of each month at 12 p.m. (dark March, July, Aug, Oct, Dec) Member: Mayor Evans Alternate: Kathleen Fitzpatrick CVAG Executive Committee* Last Monday of each month at 4:30 p.m. (dark March, July, Aug, Oct, Dec, & Jan) Member: Mayor Evans Alternate: Kathleen Fitzpatrick CVAG Public Safety Committee* 2nd Monday of each month at 3 a.m. (2018/19: Sept 10, Nov 19, Jan 14, Feb 11, May 13, June 10; dark Jul, Aug, Oct, Dec, Mar, & Apr)Member: John Peña Alternate: Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez CVAG Transportation Committee* 2nd Monday of each month at 10:00 a.m. (dark March, July, Aug, Oct, Dec) Member: Robert Radi Alternate: Kathleen Fitzpatrick CVAG Homelessness Committee* 3rd Wednesday of each month at 10 a.m. (2018/19: Sept 19, Nov 21, Jan 16, Feb 20, Apr 17, May 15, & Jun 19; dark Mar, July, Aug, Oct, & Dec) Member: John Peña Alternate: Kathleen Fitzpatrick Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy (CVMC)* 2nd Monday, every other month at 3 p.m. (2019: Jan 14, Mar 11, May 13, Jul 8, Sept 9, Nov 4) Member: Kathleen Fitzpatrick Alternate: John Peña Coachella Valley Unified School District 2x2 Committee [established 11/3/2015] Two to three meetings per year Members: Kathleen Fitzpatrick & John Peña Community Service Grant Review Committee Three per year: January, May and September January Members: Peña / Fitzpatrick May Members: Radi / Sanchez September Members: Mayor Evans / Peña ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1169 2019 Assignments APPOINTED DECEMBER 18, 2018 * Note: receives stipendCoachella Valley Water District Joint Policy Committee As needed – TBD Member: Mayor Evans Alternate: Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez Desert Classic Charities Fund Distribution Committee [continues through 2019] Annual meeting [date TBD] Member: Mayor Evans Member: Assign if Needed Desert Sands Unified School District 2x2 Committee [established 6/2013] Three to four meetings per year Members: Mayor Pro Tem Steve Sanchez & Robert Radi Desert Recreation District 2x2 Committee [established 1/2017] TBD Members: Kathleen Fitzpatrick & Robert Radi Economic Development Subcommittee [established May 20, 2014] Every 2 weeks on Wednesdays at 4 p.m. Members: Mayor Evans & Robert Radi Alternate: John Peña Greater Palm Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau* Meeting schedule set by Executive Committee (2019: Jan, Mar, April, June, Sept, Dec) Members: Mayor Evans Alternate: Robert Radi IID Energy Consumers’ Advisory Committee (ECAC) 1st Monday of every month at 6 p.m. Member: Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez (exp 12/31/18) Member: VACANT as of 11/05/2019 (exp 12/31/20) Alternate: None (IID does not recognize alternates) League of California Cities - Delegate for annual conference Annual conference(s) & General AssemblyDates TBD Member: Mayor Evans Alternate: Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez League of California Cities - Governance, Transparency, and Labor Policy Committee Three meetings per year (2019: Jan 18 & Jun 14 in Sacramento, CA; Mar 28 in Costa Mesa, CA) Member: Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez League of California Cities - Public Safety Committee Three meetings per year (2019: Jan 17 & Jun 13 in Sacramento, CA; Mar 28 in Costa Mesa, CA) Member: John Peña Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)* [one rep appointed by every city]2nd Wednesday of each month at 9:30 a.m. Member: Kathleen Fitzpatrick Alternate: Robert Radi Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 4th Thursday of each month (dark Aug & Nov 2019) Member: Mayor Pro Tem Sanchez So. Calif. Association of Governments (SGAC) Annual Regional Conference & General Assembly (2019: May 2-3, 9 a.m., at JW Marriott Resort & Spa, Palm Desert)Delegate: Mayor Evans Alternate: Kathleen Fitzpatrick Sunline Transit Agency* 4th Wednesday of each month at noon (dark Aug & Nov 2019) Member: Robert Radi Alternate: John Peña 170 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE CITIES OF LA QUINTA, INDIAN WELLS, PALM DESERT AND RANCHO MIRAGE; AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LA QUINTA, INDIAN WELLS AND PALM DESERT RECOMMENDATION Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding between the cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage; and approve a Services Agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a comprehensive regional police service delivery study between the cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells and Palm Desert; and authorize City Manager to execute the agreements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The City has utilized Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) to conduct annual police services reviews with the purpose of increasing efficiencies and identifying saving measures to reduce costs. •Based on the valuable impacts of La Quinta studies, the Cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage entered into a Memorandum of Understading (MOU) to request a Feasibility Study of Developing a Shared Police Service Contract between these four cities. •Indian Wells and Palm Desert have agreed to move onto the next step, which is a comprehensive study to determine police needs and costs of a joint contract. •Rancho Mirage has decided not to participate in this phase, but should Council approve this Amendment No. 1 and Agreement, a joint contract with the cities of Indian Wells and Palm Desert would still yield savings and efficiencies in police services. FISCAL IMPACT The contract amount is set not to exceed $59,000. The three participating cities will share the cost, Palm Desert and Indian Wells each paying $19,666.67 and La Quinta 19,666.68. La Quinta’s portion will be paid from the Police Budget account number 101-2001-60103, Professional Services. BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 4 171 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS City of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage contract Police services from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD), while the RCSD staff provides excellent service to all four cities, service costs continue to increase, while services and staffing levels remaining the same. In an effort to control cost and increase efficiencies, all four cities agreed to enter into a MOU to request an initial assessment to study the possibility of developing a shared police service contract. On June 6, 2019, the initial assessment conducted by Matrix concluded that a regional police contract was possible and that there are cost savings to be accomplished by combining police services without affecting services levels. The Matrix study identified possible savings in the following areas: •Overhead costs •Overall reduction of Daily Patrol Hours, without affecting service levels •Shared management positions The next phase, comprised by the comprehesive study will determine police service needs, costs, and develop a joint contract model. Matrix provided a proposal to conduct a joint police contract feasibility study, which will focus on: •Identification of advantages and disadvantages of creating a joint contract as compared to current services; •Review existing police management, operations and services provided to each of the three cities; •Recommendation of an organizational structure for a joint contract; •Define services and method of service delivery; •Identify potential areas of financial savings compared to current costs. The study will be completed in approximately 20 weeks, which includes meetings with the Sheriff’s Department, City staff and community stakeholders. ALTERNATIVES Council may elect to not approve this agreement or make modifications. Prepared by: Martha Mendez, Public Safety Manager Approved by: Chris Escobedo, Community Resources Director Attachment: 1.Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding Among the Cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage 172 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, CITY OF PALM DESERT AND CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment 1”) to Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into as of the ____ day of December, 2019 by and between the City of La Quinta, a California municipal corporation (“La Quinta”), City of Indian Wells, a California municipal corporation (“Indian Wells”), and City of Palm Desert, a California municipal corporation (“Palm Desert”), City of Rancho Mirage, California municipal corporation ("Rancho Mirage"), hereinafter individually or collectively referred to as the “PARTY” or “PARTIES”. RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about April 23, 2019, the Parties, including the City of Rancho Mirage, a California municipal corporation (“Rancho Mirage”) and Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd., a California Limited Liability Corporation, (“Consultant”) entered into an Agreement to provide a high-level patrol workload comparison of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage; and WHEREAS, Amendment 1 to the MOU removes Rancho Mirage as a participating member to the MOU; and WHEREAS, the Parties are experiencing a continued cost increase of Police Services, and are considering alternatives for long-term sustainability; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to contract with Consultant to conduct a Joint Police Contract Feasibility Study for Regional Police Services among the Parties and identify whether Police Services efficiencies and cost savings can be attained through a collective regional policing approach; and WHEREAS, the Parties remaining pursuant to this Amendment 1, intend to enter into another Short-Form Services Agreement with Consultant, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by this reference, for the Scope of Work, as modified and more thoroughly illustrated in Exhibit “B” of the Short-Form Services Agreement, for a total not to exceed amount of Fifty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($59,000); and WHEREAS, Section 1.2 of the MOU, listing each Party’s financial obligation under this Amendment 1 is amended committing all Parties to contribute an equal percentage of 33-1/3% of the total not to exceed cost of $59,000 dollars, listed in further detail below; and Page 1 of 17 ATTACHMENT 1 173 Page 2 of 17 WHEREAS, the Contract Sum paid to Consultant, also listed in Exhibit “C” to the Short-Form Services Agreement, is amended for a total not to exceed amount of Fifty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($59,000), listing in detail each Party’s individual contribution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.2 of the MOU, the Term of the MOU can be extended by written amendment to the MOU executed by all Parties, and all Parties wish to extend the MOU. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenant herein contained, the parties agree as follows: AMENDMENT In consideration of the foregoing Recitals and the covenants and promises hereinafter contained, and for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.Page 1, Paragraph 1 of the MOU is amended to remove Rancho Mirage from the Parties. 2. Amendment 1 to the MOU entirely removes any reference to Rancho Mirage in the MOU. 3. Section I – PURPOSE AND GOALS, Subsection 1.2 is amended to read as follows: In undertaking the Activities set forth in the MOU, the Parties agree to pay costs as follows (“ANALYTICAL COSTS”) for, review, evaluation, and professional recommendations, of regional police services as follows: a. INDIAN WELLS 33-1/3% Part 2 $19,666.66 b. PALM DESERT 33-1/3% Part 2 $19,666.66 c. LA QUINTA 33-1/3% Part 2 $19,666.68 d. GRAND TOTAL 100% Part 2 $59,000.00 4. Section II – EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM, Subsection 2.3 is added to read as follows: Section 2.3 This Amendment 1 to MOU will commence on the Effective Date of this Amendment 1, and continue until the completion of the Activities and payment of all amount due, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 6.2 of the MOU, subject to allocation of funds pursuant to a duly adopted budget by each Party. The Term will automatically terminate upon 174 Page 3 of 17 completion of the Activities unless otherwise extended by written amendment to this Amendment 1 executed by all of the Parties. In all other respects, the original MOU shall remain in full force and effect. 175 Page 4 of 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below: CITY OF LA QUINTA a California municipal corporation ____ JON MCMILLEN, City Manager City of La Quinta, California Dated: ATTEST: MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___ WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Dated: 176 Page 5 of 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below: INDIAN WELLS a California municipal corporation ____ CHRISTOPHER FREELAND, City Manager City of Indian Wells, California Dated: ATTEST: ANNA GRANDYS, City Clerk City of Indian Wells, California Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___ JEFF BALLINGER, City Attorney City of Indian Wells, California Dated: 177 Page 6 of 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below: PALM DESERT a California municipal corporation ____ LAURI AYLAIAN, City Manager City of Palm Desert, California Dated: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___ ROBERT HARGREAVES, City Attorney City of Palm Desert, California Dated: 178 Page 7 of 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below: RANCHO MIRAGE a California municipal corporation ____ ISAIAH HAGERMAN, City Manager City of Rancho Mirage, California Dated: ATTEST: KRISTIE RAMOS, City Clerk City of Rancho Mirage, California Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___ STEVEN B. QUINTANILLA, City Attorney City of Rancho Mirage, California Dated: 179 180 Page 8 of 17 CITY OF LA QUINTA SHORT-FORM SERVICES AGREEMENT ($25,000 OR LESS) 1.PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 20 , (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of La Quinta, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA (“City”), the City of Indian Wells, a California Municipal Corporation (“Indian Wells”), City of Palm Desert, a California Municipal Corporation (“Palm Desert”), hereinafter collectively referred to as “Cities,” and Matrix Consulting Group, a California Limited Liability Corporation with its principal place of business at 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148, Mountain View, California 94040 (“Consultant”). Cities and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement. 2.TERMS AND CONDITIONS. The Parties shall comply with the terms and conditions in the attached Exhibit “A.” 3.SCOPE AND SCHEDULE OF SERVICES. Consultant shall provide to City the services pursuant to the date(s) and schedule(s) described in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B.” 4.TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from December 2019 to June 30, 2020, unless earlier terminated as set forth in the attached Terms and Conditions. This Agreement may not extend beyond a period of five (5) years, unless under the City’s Fiscal Policies and Procedures this Agreement is exempt from the five (5) year limitation. 5.COMPENSATION. Consultant shall receive compensation for services rendered under this Agreement at the rates and schedule set forth in the attached Exhibit “C” but in no event shall Consultant’s compensation exceed Fifty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($59,000) per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) without written amendment. 6.F ORCE MAJEURE. The time period specified for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the City in writing of the causes of the delay. The City shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay and extend the time for performing the EXHIBIT 1 181 Page 9 of 17 Services for the period of the forced delay when and if in their judgment such delay is justified, and the City’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. Extensions to time periods for performance of services, which are determined by the City to be justified pursuant to this Section, shall not entitle the Consultant to additional compensation unless City expressly agrees to an increase in writing. 7. INSURANCE. In accordance with Section 4 of Exhibit “A,” Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement such insurance policies as checked below and provide proof of such insurance policies to the City. Consultant shall obtain policy endorsements on Commercial General Liability Insurance that name Additional Insureds as follows: The City of La Quinta, City of Indian Wells, City of Palm Desert, its officers, officials, employees and agents. Commercial General Liability Insurance: XX $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate OR $2,000,000 per occurrence/$4,000,000 aggregate XX Additional Insured Endorsement naming City of La Quinta (above) XX Primary and Non-Contributory Endorsement Automobile Liability: XX $1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage. Workers’ Compensation: XX Statutory Limits / Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident or disease XX Workers’ Compensation Endorsement with Waiver of Subrogation Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions): XX Errors and Omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per claim 182 Page 10 of 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF LA QUINTA MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP, LTD a California Municipal Corporation, and Charter City JON MCMILLEN RICHARD P. BRADY City Manager President Date: _____________________ Date: ____________________ ATTEST: MONIKA RADEVA COURTNEY RAMOS City Clerk Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ WILLIAM H. IHRKE City Attorney 183 Page 11 of 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF INDIAN WELLS a California Municipal Corporation CHRISTOPHER FREELAND City Manager Date: ____________________ ATTEST: ANNA GRANDYS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ JEFF BALLINGER City Attorney 184 Page 12 of 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF PALM DESERT a California Municipal Corporation LAURI AYLAIAN City Manager Date: ____________________ ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ ROBERT HARGREAVES City Attorney 185 A-1 EXHIBIT “A” TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid on a time and materials or lump sum basis, as may be set forth in Exhibit “C”, within 30 days of completion of the Work and approval by the City. 2. Compliance with Law. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state and local government. Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by Federal, State and local regulatory agencies. Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her Work. 3. Standard of Care. The Consultant shall perform the Work in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing under similar conditions. 4. Insurance. The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance in the amounts specified in Section 7 of the Agreement for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001), and if no amount is selected in Section 7 of the Agreement, the amounts shall be $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate; B. Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, of at least $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage, at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 (ed. 6/92) covering automobile liability, Code 1 (any auto); C. Workers’ Compensation in compliance with applicable statutory requirements and Employer's Liability Coverage of at least $1,000,000 per accident or disease. Consultant shall also submit to City a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of city, and D. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) coverage, if checked in section 6 of the Agreement, with a limit not less than $1,000,000 per claim and which shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. Insurance carriers shall be authorized by the Department of Insurance, State of California, to do business in California and maintain an agent for process within the state. Such insurance carrier shall have not less than an "A"; "Class VII" according to the latest Best Key Rating unless otherwise approved by the City. 5. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its Council, members of the Council, agents and employees of the City, against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses or damages, including responsible attorneys’ fees, for injury or death of any person, or damage to property, or interference with use of property, or any claim of the Consultant or subcontractor for wages or benefits which arise in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except to the extent caused or resulting from the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its Council, members of the Council, agents and employees of the City. The foregoing indemnity includes, but is not limited to, the cost of prosecuting or defending such action with legal counsel acceptable to the City and the City’s attorneys’ fees incurred in such an action. 6. Laws and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Riverside, State of California. 7. Termination. The City may terminate the services procured under this Agreement by giving 10 calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, the City shall be immediately given title and possession to any original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for the services. The City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services completed prior to termination. The City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide services under this Agreement upon 30 calendar days' written 186 A-2 notice to the City only in the event of City’s failure to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant. 8. Agreement Terms. Nothing herein shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. Notice may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties to the addresses set forth in the Agreement. Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of the City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of the City. The individuals signing this Agreement represent that they have the authority to sign on behalf of the parties and bind the parties to this Agreement. This is an integrated Agreement representing the entire understanding of the parties as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior oral or written understanding or representations with respect to matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both parties hereto. 187 Rev. 7/28/2017 EXHIBIT “B” SCOPE AND SCHEDULE OF SERVICES The Scope of Services being contracted between the Parties and Consultant is fully covered in the attached “Proposal to Conduct a Joint Police Contract Feasibility Study”. 188 Proposal to Conduct a Joint Police Contract Feasibility Study INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AN D PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA matrix consulting group EXHIBIT B 189 Table of Contents 1 Letter of Transmittal 1 2 Executive Summary 3 3 Proposed Task Plan 7 4 Project Cost 15 5 Consultant Team 16 6 Experience and References 20 190 1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 213 • San Mateo, CA 94402 • 650.858.0507 SF Bay Area (Headquarters), Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Irvine, Phoenix, Portland, St. Louis September 27, 2019 Chris Escobedo Director, Community Resources City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Escobedo: The Matrix Consulting Group is pleased to submit our proposal to conduct an Evaluation of Police Service Alternatives. Our proposal is based on our various conversations in the past few months. The Matrix Consulting Group is comprised of highly experienced management consultants who specialize in the analysis of law enforcement services. We have conducted police studies for over 350 communities across the country, including many feasibility studies. The firm and project team assigned to this study have significant experience analyzing law enforcement service alternatives for communities wishing to evaluate other approaches to providing these services. The table, below, summarizes this experience, which includes many service delivery alternative studies. Police Contract Evaluations Police Feasibility Studies Police Consolidation Analysis Cooper City, FL Kenmore, WA Laguna Hills, CA La Quinta, CA Rancho Cordova, CA San Clemente, CA Citrus Heights, CA College Park, MD Cupertino, CA Danville/Lafayette/Orinda, CA Laguna Hills & Woods, CA Riverside County, CA Augusta / Richmond County, GA Bergen County, NJ Boston Area Agencies, MA Endicott / Vestal, NY Glendale / Pasadena, CA Truro & Provincetown, MA We are currently evaluating police services alternatives for the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District (CA) and have developed a RFP for police services for the District. And, the firm and this project team recently completed a previous police regionalization study for La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. We have worked extensively with a wide range of police agencies – in all, over 350 police studies in 41 states, including over 100 agencies in California. Our service focus is varied and critical for this project – it includes organizational, operational and staffing matrix consulting group 191 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 assessments; community policing and community engagement; as well as alternative service delivery feasibility studies. Our experience includes the following illustrative agencies: Austin, Texas Berkeley, California Beverly, Massachusetts Brattleboro, Vermont Briarcliff Manor, New York Carlisle, Pennsylvania Clearwater, Florida Columbia, Missouri Coral Gables, Florida Franklin Township, NJ Hayward, California Kyle, Texas Mahwah, New Jersey Mendham, New Jersey Milwaukee, Wisconsin Montpelier, Vermont Newburgh, New York Omaha, Nebraska Onondaga County, New York Ontario, California Peoria, Arizona Portland, Oregon Raleigh. North Carolina Redding, California Richmond, Virginia Sacramento, California San Antonio, Texas San Jose, California Seaside, California Southlake, Texas St. Petersburg, Florida Watertown, Massachusetts West Sacramento, California In addition, our California experience is extensive; we are currently completing law enforcement staffing studies for San Francisco and Los Angeles. Our approach to conducting studies is based on an extremely experienced team, detailed analysis and interaction with our clients. This approach is characterized by: •The President of the firm would be directly involved in the project. I have personally worked on and directed over 250 police studies during my 35+ year career, including all of the feasibility analyses listed in the table above. •We staff our projects with functional specialists, not generalists. In addition to myself, our experienced law enforcement analytical team includes: – Byron Pipkin, a Senior Manager, who has been a police consultant for 10 years. He was previously a Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale (CA). – Ian Brady, Vice President, who leads our data analytics, which includes the analysis of resource needs. – Greg Mathews, a Senior Manager with extensive experience evaluating police services in general and alternative service delivery specifically. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal. Richard P. Brady Matrix Consulting Group Richard P. Brady President 192 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 2.Executive Summary This section provides a brief, but comprehensive overview of our proposal to conduct this Joint Contract Feasibility Study for police services from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. 1.Scope of Work This study is designed to evaluate the feasibility of creating a joint contract for the cities of Indian Wells, La Quinta and Palm Desert with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department to provide police services. The initial analysis, the first of three phases, is designed to be a comprehensive feasibility study of the police services needs and costs of the contract and will include: • Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of creating a joint contract as compared to the current services. • A review of existing police management, operations and current services provided to each of the three cities. • Establishing a recommended organizational structure for the joint contract as compared to the existing organization and staffing levels of each participating agency. • Defining the services and method of service delivery for all necessary functions of the police organization. • Potential areas of financial savings compared to current costs. The communities are satisfied with the Sheriff’s Department’s handling of and response to crime and service needs but wish to examine the possible benefits of developing a joint service arrangement and contract with the Sheriff’s Department. The focus of much of the analysis – is the joint contract cost effective yet still provides proper police services for all entities involved as compared to current levels of service. 2.Work Approach and Project Timeline This study to be defensible and usable needs to be based on a number of principles: • Input from local managers and current police services staff. • Extensively and thoroughly fact based. 193 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 • Be subject to extensive reviews with a project committee. • The final report needs not only to recap this but to provide a framework for implementation. The table below graphically displays the steps and tentative schedule to conduct the Police Services joint contract Feasibility Study. As can be seen from the chart, we are proposing that the study be completed in five months (20 weeks) from project initiation. Task 1 2 3 4 5 Project Initiation Police Profile Analysis of Current Services Resource Needs Transitional Issues Final Report As described in the work plan earlier in this proposal, there would be a deliverable associated with each 3.The Proposed Project Team The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to utilize a senior project team, including our President and other experienced personnel with direct law enforcement experience. Members of the team have between 8 and over 30 years of professional experience as consultants and/or law enforcement professionals. All of our team members are Matrix Consulting Group staff who have worked together regularly on law enforcement projects. Richard Brady is the President of the Matrix Consulting Group. He is the leader of our management studies and law enforcement analytical practices. He has been a consultant to local governments for over thirty-nine years. During that period, he has specialized in the analysis of police services, having conducted studies involving over 250 law enforcement agencies. Mr. Brady has managed and/or significantly participated in every law enforcement study cited as experience in this proposal. Mr. Brady has conducted over 200 policing studies in California and in 38 other states across the country. Mr. Brady has a BA from California State University, Hayward; and a doctorate from Oxford University, U.K. Ian Brady is a Vice President with the Matrix Consulting Group as part of our Management Services Division with over 7 years of experience. He is based in our Portland office as a full-time law enforcement consultant. He has created and leads our 194 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 law enforcement modeling practice for study of deployments and staffing allocations. He received his BA in Political Science from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. Byron Pipkin is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. He has over 30 years of experience in law enforcement and retired as Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Byron has extensive consulting experience which includes analysis of law enforcement operations of over 50 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and Canada. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy; received California POST Management, Supervisory and Advanced certificates; and he received his BA from San Jose State University in their Justice Administration program. David Pitts is a Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group as part of our Management Services Division, and is based in our San Mateo office. He has a strong background of 33 years in law enforcement and fire services, including service with the San Carlos Police Department and recently retiring as a Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (CA). He is a graduate of the Los Angeles Police Department Executive Leadership program and has received the California POST Executive and Management Certificates; and he earned a Bachelor’s degree from San Jose State University in their Justice Administration program. 4.Experience The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience conducting police services analyses of all types. We have worked extensively with law enforcement agencies of all sizes and diverse operating environments and communities – in all, over 350 departments. A partial list of our police management, staffing and operations study experience in the past 10 years is provided below (with projects in California bolded): Austin, Texas Berkeley, California Beverly, Massachusetts Brattleboro, Vermont Briarcliff Manor, New York Carlisle, Pennsylvania Clearwater, Florida Columbia, Missouri Coral Gables, Florida Franklin Township, NJ Hayward, California Kyle, Texas Mahwah, New Jersey Mendham, New Jersey Milwaukee, Wisconsin Montpelier, Vermont Newburgh, New York Omaha, Nebraska Onondaga County, New York Ontario, California Peoria, Arizona Portland, Oregon Raleigh. North Carolina Redding, California Richmond, Virginia Sacramento, California San Antonio, Texas San Jose, California Seaside, California Southlake, Texas St. Petersburg, Florida Watertown, Massachusetts West Sacramento, California In addition, our California experience is extensive; we are currently completing law enforcement staffing studies for San Francisco and Los Angeles. The firm and this proposed project team has extensive prior experience conducting new agency feasibility studies and evaluations of contracting for law enforcement services. 195 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 The following table provides a summary of the feasibility and related studies conducted by the firm. Contract Service Evaluation Feasibility Studies Consolidation Analysis Cooper City, FL Kenmore, WA Laguna Hills, CA La Quinta, CA Rancho Cordova, CA San Clemente, CA Citrus Heights, CA College Park, MD Cupertino, CA Danville/Lafayette/Orinda, CA Laguna Hills & Woods, CA Riverside County, CA Augusta / Richmond County, GA Bergen County, NJ Boston Area Agencies, MA Endicott / Vestal, NY Glendale / Pasadena, CA Truro & Provincetown, MA We are currently evaluating police services alternatives for the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District (CA) and have developed a RFP for police services for the District. And, the firm and this project team recently completed a previous police regionalization study for La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. 5.Project Cost The cost of this engagement, as described in detail in our work plan, would be $59,000 for all professional time and reimbursable expenses. 196 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 3.Proposed Task Plan The section presents a detailed description of the analytical tasks we will complete to achieve the study objectives of this Police Services joint contract Feasibility Study. This study encompasses fact finding, current contract administration/management, issues identification, detailed analysis and recommendations. The task plan, which follows, describes how this study would be conducted. Task 1 Initiate the Project and Document Law Enforcement Trends and Issues Which Led to This Study. The purpose of this task is to develop a thorough understanding of issues and expectations of all parties to the study. Completion of this task will include: • Interview the City Managers and, if desired, representative elected officials from each of the participating agencies. During the course of these interviews, the project team will explore the following: – Attitudes toward current service levels and service responsiveness of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. –The level of satisfaction with the current service level and views toward any unmet law enforcement related needs. –An understanding of cost of service trends and issues. –Identification and views toward any viable alternatives. –Identification of issues regarding regional service delivery issues. • Interview key representatives of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD), including each local contract police chief. These interviews would review and discuss such issues as the following: – Understanding how the RCSD currently serves each agency and surrounding areas; their understanding of service levels to be provided. – Methods by which the RCSD communicates with officials and citizens and what information is routinely provided. – Trends and issues that have arisen over the past few years. 197 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 –Budget and resource allocation issues facing the RCSD that could further impact contract service operations. The project team would also collect budgets, recent service and performance reports provided and demographic information for each agency. Task Result: The result of this task would be a final project work plan reflecting the project team’s improved understanding of the issues regarding provision of policing services in each community. Task 2 Document and Compare Law Enforcement Services, Staffing, Workloads and Service Levels in Each Jurisdiction. To establish a basis for comprehensively evaluating the current provision of services and possible gaps in services in each community we will develop a portrait of staffing, workloads and service levels. We will gather and analyze detailed information about staffing, deployment, crime and service workloads from the RCSD. In order to understand the system of law enforcement service delivery and the basis for organizational alternatives, we will document the following: • Contract service requirements. • Community-generated calls for service (CFS) workloads by time of day and day of week; similarly, document deputy-initiated workloads. Develop long term trend data on calls for service and deputy-initiated activities. • Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Part I crimes reported to law enforcement in each jurisdiction over the last five years. • Field deployment levels by the RCSD in each jurisdiction and surrounding areas. • Response times by priority or urgency of call. • Document the types of self-initiated activities currently accomplished by field patrol personnel (sworn and civilian). Develop an understanding of the ways in which these activities are planned and staff help accountable. • Other workloads of patrol (as well as other personnel) such as court appearances, public education, special events, etc. • Number of cases forwarded to investigative staff for follow-up as well as results of these cases (cleared, closed, etc.). 198 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 • Traffic enforcement workloads and traffic enforcement activities (including commercial traffic enforcement tasks). • Nature and scope of other programs provided – such as crime prevention, burglary suppression, narcotics enforcement, etc. • The centralized services provided by RCSD to each community, such as specialized criminal investigations, search & rescue, air support, major injury traffic accident investigation. • Document how the contract ‘works’ from the perspective of generating base and supplemental costs to each of the participating agencies. In developing this database of information the project team would document workloads and service levels in each jurisdiction and across jurisdictions, deployments of staff in the jurisdiction and in surrounding areas, and costs. Task Result: A summary of the contract and how it compares to actual service delivery would also be developed. The project team would summarize this information in an interim “profile report” that documents the information developed from these tasks. This document would be reviewed with the project committee as well as with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Task 3 Develop Assumptions for Use in the Analysis of Joint Contract Alternatives. The project team will evaluate the feasibility of consolidation of the three separate law enforcement contracts into one joint contract. The feasibility of this alternative will be compared, in terms of service and cost effectiveness, with the existing individual contracts approach. The project team will review the results of these first tasks and develop an issues list and the desired service level objectives for each community. Issue areas could include: • Field deployment levels. • Use of civilian personnel such as Community Service Officers. • Response time targets. • Scope of prevention and community programming. • Level of investigative services in each jurisdiction and shared services. 199 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 • How support services should be handled and the degree to which communities could cooperatively provide some or all of these services. • Spans of control for managers and supervisors. • Which services best lend themselves to functional consolidation or increased shared services? • Which services make sense to continue to be provided through the County (e.g., communications or detention system facilities and systems). • How shared service alternatives would be organized and deployed. Task Result: Once these issues have been formulated, we will review them with the project committee at a progress meeting. Based on the guidance provided by the committee, these objectives would be adjusted as appropriate. Task 4 Identify the Resources Needed and Practical Logistics of Shared Contract Service Area. In this task, the project team will evaluate the feasibility of consolidating law enforcement services or increasingly sharing services involving the participating agencies. In developing the analysis in this task, we will explore: • The number of full time and part time sworn staff required to handle each function based on workloads, service level targets and geography. – Patrol – Investigations – Administrative services – Support services – Command staffing • The project team would analyze deployments for the participating agencies. This is critical for contiguous agencies because of the potential to share resources in a regional effort rather than assuming that each agency stands alone in field services. The Matrix Consulting Group has an innovative approach to evaluating deployments as evidenced by the sample map on the next page. Additional information can be found on our web site at www.matrixcg.net/beats 200 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 201 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 • Deployment and other logistics relating to provision of field services and other contract services. • What is the best use of civilians in the agency, including in core service areas currently provided by sworn personnel (for example in the response to low priority / risk crime and service calls). • Opportunities to share staff and/or programs among the agencies. These could include: – Management and administrative services – Investigations of crime – Crime prevention – Special services (such as K9, traffic enforcement) • What approaches should be included to provide flexibility for communities to serve their needs. Task Result: The product of this work task will be a detailed analysis of the staffing and organizational needs for policing public safety in consolidated service delivery alternative(s). This analysis will be reviewed with the project steering committee. Task 5 Identify an Approach for Organizing a Joint Contract Service to the Three Cities and Analyze Costs. We feel it is important to develop and evaluate the joint contract alternatives at a level of detail sufficient for the communities to pursue consolidation with a level of confidence. As a result, we will structure and estimate the cost and allocation of costs as follows: • The total sworn field staffing level based on the workload demand analysis and also the overall level of service desired will be used. • Summarize the number of line staff required, by position types. • Additionally, each city desired field staffing level and the staffing necessary to provide other desired ng for additional services sing plans of administrative, command, and support staffing necessary for joint service provision. • Develop the methodology to determine allocation of costs to each city, make recommendations for implementation. • Alternative appropriate cost allocation approaches would be identified and evaluated. 202 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 • Identify and cost any start up requirements as well as how such an alternative would be implemented. • Develop an approach which accommodates municipally owned assets. Task Result: The results of the above would be specific recommendation for allocation of costs to each city. The results of these analyses of operating costs would be reviewed with the project committee. Task 6 Provide the Results of the Joint Contract Feasibility Analysis. With the completion of the previous tasks the project team will develop draft and final reports for the project committee and the communities to review. The final report will be comprised of the following: • A summary and comparison of current law enforcement services provided by the RCSD. • Summarize the number of line staff required, by position type; evaluate overall staff needed based on the current service level in each community. • A summary of the analysis of the feasibility of shared law enforcement services in a joint contract or other shared services environment, including: – Organizational and service needs – Operating costs – Transition strategies – Oversight of the joint contract – The advantages and disadvantages of each approach – Implementation strategies • Cost allocation recommendations. We are prepared to present the final report to each city in individual meetings with each city if desired. Task Result: The results of this task will be presented the final report. Project Schedule The table below graphically displays the steps and tentative schedule to conduct the Police Services joint contract Feasibility Study. As can be seen from the chart, we are proposing that the study be completed in five months (20 weeks) from project initiation. 203 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 Task 1 2 3 4 5 Project Initiation Police Profile Analysis of Current Services Resource Needs Transitional Issues Final Report 204 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 4. Project Cost The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to conduct the Evaluation of the Feasibility of a Joint Police Contract for a fixed price of $59,000. The detailed calculations of our pricing structure are provided below. Project Manager Senior Analysts Project Analysts Hours / Cost Project Initiation 8 16 16 40 Police Profiles 4 24 48 76 Current / Desired Services 4 28 32 64 Resource Needs 4 32 32 68 Creating a Joint Contract 4 24 28 56 Final Report 8 24 24 56 Total Hours 32 148 180 360 Hourly Rate $200 $175 $125 Total Professional Fees $6,400 $25,900 $22,500 $54,800 Travel Related Expenses $4,200 Total Project Cost $59,000 We typically contract on a fixed price basis with monthly billings representing our progress on the project. We are, however, open to other approaches for payment. 205 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 5. Consultant Team This section of the proposal provides a comprehensive portrait of both the firm’s and the project team’s qualifications and experience. 1. Introduction to the Matrix Consulting Group The Matrix Consulting Group was formed by senior consultants who created it in order to pursue a service in which the senior people actually do the work in a low overhead environment. Our only business focus is the provision of organization and management analytical services to local government. Our firm’s history and composition are summarized below: • We were founded in 2002. However, the principals and senior staff of our firm have worked together in this and other consulting organizations as one team for between 10 and 30 years. • Our only market and service focus is management, staffing and operations analysis of local government. • While we provide a variety of services to local government our most significant service area is public safety. The Matrix Consulting Group project team has conducted studies of more than 350 police and sheriff’s departments in California and throughout the United States. This experience includes both operational studies and alternative service delivery studies. • Our firm maintains offices in California (where we are incorporated domestically), Oregon, Illinois, Washington and Texas. We currently have 20 full-time and 4 part- time staff. • Our proposed project team would be led and largely staffed from our California Headquarters office. We are proud of our track record in providing analytical assistance to local governments in general, and to police departments specifically. This track record is bolstered by our rate of successful implementation, which exceeds 80% of recommendations made. 2. Personnel The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to utilize a senior project team, including our President and other experienced personnel with direct law enforcement experience. The most senior members of the team have between 10 and 30 years of professional 206 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 17 experience as consultants and/or law enforcement professionals. The organization chart, which follows, depicts the project team: It should be reiterated that our team includes no subcontractors. All of our experienced team members are Matrix Consulting Group staff who have worked together regularly on law enforcement projects. Summary descriptions of each team member are provided below beginning with our proposed project manager, with more detailed resumes following these biographies: • RICHARD BRADY is the President of the Matrix Consulting Group. He is the leader of our management studies and law enforcement analytical practices. He has been a consultant to local governments for over thirty-nine years. During that period, he has specialized in the analysis of police services, having conducted studies involving over 250 law enforcement agencies. Mr. Brady has managed and/or significantly participated in every law enforcement study cited as experience in this proposal. Mr. Brady has conducted over 200 policing studies in California and in 38 other states across the country (a listing since 1990 can be found in the more detailed resume which follows this section of the proposal). His recent police contracting and feasibility studies include La Quinta and Laguna Hills as well as Patterson (CA) and Park Ridge, Montvale and Woodcliff Lake (NJ). Mr. Brady has a BA from California State University, Hayward; and a doctorate from Oxford University, U.K. Mr. Brady would function as project manager and primary contact for the City on this project but would include participation in every phase of the project. • BYRON PIPKIN is a Senior Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group. He has over 32 years of experience as a public safety officer through the rank of Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Byron Pipkin has extensive consulting experience which includes analysis of law enforcement operations for Sunnyvale’s Department of Public Safety as a client project coordinator. Richard Brady President Project Manager Byron Pipkin Senior Manager Project Analyst David Pitts Manager Project Analyst Greg Mathews Senior Manager Project Analyst Ian Brady Vice President Project Analyst 207 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 His recent public safety analytical experience includes studies for Fort Worth and Austin (TX), DeKalb County (GA), Portland (OR), Birmingham (AL) and Newburgh (NY). He led our police feasibility study efforts in La Quinta and worked on studies for Orange County, CA (Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo and Laguna Woods) and Bergen County, NJ (Woodcliff Lake, Montvale, Park Ridge). His consulting experience also includes analysis of the police departments in Arlington (WA), Aurora (CO), Pacifica and Berkeley (CA), Peachtree City (GA), Springdale (AR), and Rio Rancho (NM), Spokane (WA), Goodyear (AZ), Galt (CA), Gilroy (CA) and Omaha (NE), Onondaga County Sheriff’s Office (NY). He also completed a study of the Winnipeg Police Service (Manitoba, Canada). Byron Pipkin is a graduate of the FBI National Academy; received California POST Management, Supervisory and Advanced certificates; and he received his Bachelor’s degree from San Jose State University in their Justice Administration program. Byron would be the lead analyst in charge of evaluating the service feasibility. • DAVID PITTS is a Manager with the Matrix Consulting Group as part of our Management Services Division, and is based in our San Mateo office. He has a strong background of 33 years in law enforcement and fire services, including service with the San Carlos Police Department and recently retiring as a Deputy Chief in the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (CA). During his career, he spent nine years in management positions in which he managed operational and administrative functions of police services, fire services, and special operations (investigations, crime prevention, animal control, school resource officers, neighborhood preservation, and emergency management). While fairly new to consulting, David brings with him the law enforcement manager’s perspective to these projects. David would be the lead analyst in charge of evaluating field services and related issues. • GREG MATHEWS is a Senior Manager, has over 27 years of private sector and government experience, performing as both a senior management consultant and executive manager. He concluded his public sector career in 2005 as Deputy Director of Auditing for the Los Angeles City Controller’s Office where he managed the day-to-day functions of the Performance Auditing, Follow-up, and Management Assessment sections in the Performance Audit Division for a city-wide elected official. He began his formal career with the Pasadena Police Department, supervising the Crime Analysis Unit and became a POST-certified Level 1 Reserve Police Officer. 208 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 For fourteen years he has provided government consulting services to states, cities, counties, and special districts throughout the U.S., emphasizing public safety engagements that include, most recently, Goleta and Chula Vista (CA), Grand Rapids (MI), Springfield (MO) and Albuquerque (NM). He holds a B.A. degree from UC Davis and M.P.A. from the University of Southern California. Greg would be the lead analyst in charge of evaluating the financial feasibility. • IAN BRADY is a Vice President with the Matrix Consulting Group as part of our Management Services Division, and is based in our Portland office. Ian Brady has developed our firm’s GIS and statistical analytical approaches for evaluating existing and alternative beat structures Mr. Brady has worked on police management studies for San Francisco PD, Los Angeles PD, Fort Worth PD, Winnipeg (Canada), Hanford (CA), Berkeley (CA), Laguna Hills (CA). His experience also includes studies of the Rockingham County (NH) Department of Corrections and the Orange County (FL) Pretrial Release Program. He received his BA in Political Science from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. Ian would assist with data analysis and would be responsible for the comparative and GIS analysis as well as general data support. 209 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 6. Experience and References In this section of the proposal is provided a summary of the police study experience of the firm together with reference information. 1. Police Studies Conducted The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience conducting police services analyses of all types. These assignments have included management studies, staffing studies, feasibility studies and master plan studies such as this one. We have worked extensively with law enforcement agencies of all sizes and diverse operating environments and communities – in all, over 350 departments. A list of our police management, staffing and operations study experience in the past 10 years is provided below (with projects in California bolded): Austin, Texas Berkeley, California Beverly, Massachusetts Brattleboro, Vermont Briarcliff Manor, New York Carlisle, Pennsylvania Clearwater, Florida Columbia, Missouri Coral Gables, Florida Franklin Township, NJ Hayward, California Kyle, Texas Mahwah, New Jersey Mendham, New Jersey Milwaukee, Wisconsin Montpelier, Vermont Newburgh, New York Omaha, Nebraska Onondaga County, New York Ontario, California Peoria, Arizona Portland, Oregon Raleigh. North Carolina Redding, California Richmond, Virginia Sacramento, California San Antonio, Texas San Jose, California Seaside, California Southlake, Texas St. Petersburg, Florida Watertown, Massachusetts West Sacramento, California In addition, our California experience is extensive; we are currently completing law enforcement staffing studies for San Francisco and Los Angeles. The firm and this proposed project team has extensive prior experience conducting new agency feasibility studies and evaluations of contracting for law enforcement services. The following table provides a summary of the feasibility and related studies conducted by the firm. Contract Service Evaluation Feasibility Studies Consolidation Analysis Cooper City, FL Kenmore, WA Laguna Hills, CA La Quinta, CA Rancho Cordova, CA San Clemente, CA Citrus Heights, CA College Park, MD Cupertino, CA Danville/Lafayette/Orinda, CA Laguna Hills & Woods, CA Riverside County, CA Augusta / Richmond County, GA Bergen County, NJ Boston Area Agencies, MA Endicott / Vestal, NY Glendale / Pasadena, CA Truro & Provincetown, MA 210 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 \We are currently evaluating police services alternatives for the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District (CA) and have developed a RFP for police services for the District. And, the firm and this project team recently completed a previous police regionalization study for La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. 2.References We are providing in this section of the proposal, references for selected analytical projects that have been performed by the firm in the past 5 years. The references provided projects include law enforcement feasibility studies as well as police management studies. Client Project Description Contact Information La Quinta, California Police Services Studies Based in extensive public input and support to the process this project evaluated the contract for service from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office. Principal recommendations included – modify the contract to allow the Chief the discretion to allow patrol staffing levels to fall below the contracted level up to 15%; the City should work with the Sheriff’s Office and management from gated communities to evaluate the options available to facilitate quick entry of police officers; Expand the regular duty hours of the Traffic Unit to provide coverage from 0600 – 1900 or 2000 hours on weekdays but increase their productivity; reduce the number of daily Patrol Officer hours from 150 daily to 140 hours daily with annual savings of $581,965. We have also just completed a third follow up study to update our original analyses and first follow-up. We also developed a “high level assessment” of the feasibility of developing a joint contract with Indian Wells, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. Chris Escobedo Assistant to the City Manager 760-777-7010 211 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 Client Project Description Contact Information Laguna Hills, California Police Services Study In 2014 Matrix Consulting Group completed a study for the City of Laguna Hills and in 2016 the adjacent cities of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Woods partnered with Laguna Hills to conduct a feasibility study for developing a joint contract with the Orange County Sherriff’s Department to provide law enforcement services. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department provides police services to all cities. In spite of demonstrated high service levels and support from the community problems surfaced – contract costs had escalated primarily due to personnel costs (especially pension costs) and rose faster than inflation. The study for Laguna Hills in 2014 gave key recommendations included changing policies to restrict out of City responses, additional compensation from a neighboring city for the provision of all late night services, and sharing the cost of the Administrative Sergeant with another contract city (savings of $122,000). The 2017 three city contract consolidation study focused on the feasibility of sharing field and administrative services and cost allocation. Don White City Manager 949-707-2610 Rancho Cordova, California Police Services Assessment and Alternatives Study Matrix Consulting just completed a comprehensive assessment of service delivery for this Sacramento area city which included the feasibility of creating a municipal department and a contract with a neighboring city. The study of existing services identified opportunities to improve the relationship with the Sheriff’s Office – including working with the community to develop a strategic plan and better ongoing partnerships, deployment changes to better utilize County patrol units in the integrated service delivery approach in east county, improved case management for detectives and focus for special enforcement units. The study of the feasibility of a municipal department and a contract alternatives demonstrated potential or cost saving on an operating basis. However, the initial and transitional costs of such options together with the potential for disruption in service partnerships with the community led the City to improve existing services rather than further explore a new service relationship. Cyrus Abhar City Manager 916-851-8800 212 CITIES OF INDIAN WELLS, LA QUINTA AND PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Proposal to Conduct a Joint Contract Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 213 Rev. 7/28/2017 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES The Compensation to be paid to the Consultant under this Agreement in Fiscal Year 2019/20 is not to exceed Fifty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($59,000) to be paid in as close to equal parts by the Parties, at 33 1/3% by each Party; calculated to be Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Six cents $19,666.66 to participating cities of Indian Wells and Palm Desert each, and Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Eight cents ($19,666.68) to La Quinta. The Contract Sum shall be paid to Consultant on a monthly or progress basis based on invoices provided by consultant reflecting the progress on the project. Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive payment, Consultant shall submit to City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by City's Finance Director, an invoice for Services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the Services provided, including time, and (2) specify each staff member who has provided Services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for Services performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City will pay Consultant for all items stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than thirty (30) days after invoices are received by the City’s Finance Department. 214 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: DISCUSS 2019 UPDATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY RECOMMENDATION Discuss 2019 update of the Development Impact Fee study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The City Council referred the 2019 Development Impact Fee Study (Study) to the City’s Financial Advisory Commission (FAC) for review and recommendation. •The FAC has completed its review and provides a summary of findings and recommendations in Attachment 1. •Council may consider an alternative 5-year phased implementation of the Transportation and Community/Cultural Center Development Impact Fees. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended Development Impact Fee (DIF) schedule will generate approximately $81,492,532, assuming that all development anticipated in the City General Plan occurs. A 5-year phased implementation of the Transportation and Community Cultural Center DIF fees would decrease the fees generated depending on actual building activity. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City Council reviewed the 2019 Update of the City’s Development Impact Fee Study (Study) during a Study Session on October 1, 2019. During the Study Session the City Council received testimony from the Desert Valley Builder’s Association (DVBA) and the Building Industry Association (BIA). Following discussion, the City Council referred the Study to the City’s Financial Advisory Commission (FAC) for its review and implementation recommendations. The City’s FAC appointed a Committee, consisting of Commissioners Hoffner, Mills, and Twohey. The Committee conducted an in-depth review of the 2019 Study and held 4 four-hour meetings with Staff. NBS Consulting (DIF STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1 215 Consultant) participated in two meetings and the DVBA and the BIA attended one meeting. The Committee has completed its review and has provided its findings and recommendations (Attachment 1) for the City Council’s consideration. The October 1, 2019 Staff Report is provided in Attachment 2, with revisions to percentage increase calculations. The Development Impact Fee Study, dated September 23, 2019, is provided in Attachment 3. Attachment 4 entails all comments from the DVBA and BIA and the City’s response to comments. Council may also consider a 5-year or shorter phased implementation approach for the Transportation DIF and Community and Cultural Center DIF. The Transportation DIF has historically been collected at 78% of the total proposed fee, and the Community and Cultural Center DIF has a significant proposed fee increase due to new facilities being built since the last update in 2013. The 5-year or shorter phased approach would allow for yearly incremental increases to both DIF fees until they are at the Study’s final proposed fee (Attachment 5). This phased option could be included in the proposed DIF resolution language with identified increases each year. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, PE, City Engineer Attachments: 1. FAC Findings and Recommendations 2. October 1, 2019 Development Impact Fee Staff Report 3. Development Impact Fee Study 4. DVBA and BIA comments with City Responses 5. Phased Implementation Chart 216 PURPOSE Every five years the City is required to update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study (Study), which imposes one-time charges on development projects, and are a major funding source for capital improvements. On October 1, the City Council requested the Financial Advisory Commission (FAC) to review the NBS Development Fee Study dated September 23, 2019. Subsequently, the FAC established a committee to review the Study and provide implementation recommendations. Commissioners Hoffner, Mills, and Twohey volunteered to serve on this committee and joined Staff Mignogna, McKinney, Radeva, Hallick, Blondell, and Romero. ANALYIS AND DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS The committee held four 3-4 hour in-person meetings as follows: October 11 - Reviewed the NBS Consulting Study, October 1 Council staff report, and Council meeting video and minutes. Reviewed 2018/19 write-offs of interfund loans, 2017/18 development project fee report, transportation improvement developer reimbursement repayment schedule, most current 10-year General Fund financial projections, and Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) and Building Industry Association (BIA) comment letters. October 24 - Met with NBS and NAI Consulting to understand Study methodology, reviewed the 2019-2024 capital improvement plan and identified unfunded projects, and thoroughly analyzed the Study-proposed fees in comparison to the development fees of other Coachella Valley (CV) cities. October 29 - Met with DVBA and BIA representatives to understand their perspectives and positions, and receive additional written comments on the Study. Reviewed La Quinta’s recent and historical building permit trends. November 14 - Reviewed DVBA’s 2017 Residential Development Fee Study, NBS Consulting’s written responses to DVBA’s additional comments, CV building permit trends, and the development fees and building permit activity in cities outside the CV. Met with NBS, NAI, and City Manager to receive final input, and discussed committee findings. MAJOR DUE DILIGENCE FINDINGS 1. The Consultant (NBS) which La Quinta retained to perform the Study has significant Study experience with multiple municipalities inside and outside California. In thirty years of practice, the consultant who authored the Study has faced only one legal challenge, and successfully defended and defeated that challenge. 2. The Study methodology was fact-based, reasonable, performed within generally accepted industry standards and practices, has been applied in other municipalities, and is legally defensible. 3. NBS responses to all DVBA and BIA written comments and challenges were ATTACHMENT 1 217 reasonable, rational, based on application of similar methodology in other municipalities, and satisfactorily supported the Study fee recommendations. 4. While the committee recognizes and acknowledges that the Study proposes a large percentage increase in DIF fees over the fees currently charged by the City, the committee found that: A. La Quinta’s historical development fee structure has placed the city in the lower third to lower half of all other cities in the CV. B. The Study proposed DIF Fees Without Discount place La Quinta’s DIF fees across all five residential development types an average of 12% BELOW the fees currently being charged by four other CV cities on a like-comparison basis. Other CV cities’ DIF fees are not comparable, but their development fees in total are equal to or greater than La Quinta’s. C. The Study proposed DIF Fees Without Discount place La Quinta’s DIF fees across six commercial development types an average of 12% BELOW the fees currently being charged by four other CV cities on a like-comparison basis. Only two commercial development types were higher. Other CV cities’ DIF fees are not comparable, but their development fees in total are equal to or greater than La Quinta’s. 5. A review of CV total development fees and residential building permit activity by city from 1/19-9/19 showed that the City of Coachella’s development fees at $47,400 were the highest and Cathedral City’s fees at $34,600 were the lowest. La Quinta at $39,000 was below the average. 6. From 1/19-9/19, Indio’s building permit activity at 169 was the highest, and Desert Hot Springs at 11 was the lowest. La Quinta at 122 building permits was 50% above the numeric average for all 9 CV cities. 7. The committee also observed that high-fee cities outside the CV, such as cities in the Moreno and Temecula Valleys, also had high building permit activity. 8. The committee could find no credible evidence to support the hypothesis that the higher DIF fees have an adverse effect upon residential and/or commercial construction activity. 9. DIF fees are a small component of the total cost of development and, while important, are not the major or primary factors used to make decisions on where and how much to develop. 10. The City, at its own expense, has already invested in and built much of the infrastructure which attracts development and provides significant built-in cost savings for developers. 11. DIF fees can be leveraged as matching grant funds to help augment City revenues. 12. Lost DIF revenue is not recoverable, and without it, projects can be delayed or not built to City standards or levels of service expected and needed by the City’s residents. 13. The committee’s research indicated economic activity in California is likely to decline within the next five years, and because the Study sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed DIF fees are reasonable and competitive, it would be prudent for the City to maintain and protect its revenue streams in the likelihood of that decline. 218 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Based on its due diligence process and its findings above, the committee recommends that the City accept and implement as presented the Study and its proposed fee structure without discount and without phase-in. 2. The committee recommends that the City not implement any other DIF fee structure alternatives. 3. To assist in future analysis, the committee further recommends that the city obtain comparisons of DIF fees as a percentage of property values by development type. Property values vary greatly city to city, and a comparison of development fees city to city is not complete unless such fees are also related to their relevant average property values. 219 220 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: October 1, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: DISCUSS 2019 UPDATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY RECOMMENDATION Discuss 2019 update of the Development Impact Fee study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •Development impact fees (DIF) are one-time charges imposed on development projects to recover capital costs for public facilities needed to serve those new developments and the additional residents, employees, and visitors they bring to the community. •In the past, these fees have been one of the major funding sources for the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). •The City must update the DIF periodically in order to comply with state law. •The 2019 update is the sixth update to the 1999 DIF and is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000 et seq.) commonly known as “AB1600”. •The DIF draft report was provided to the Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) and Building Industry Association (BIA) on August 27, 2019 for review and comment. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended DIF schedule will generate approximately $81,492,532, assuming that all development anticipated in the City General Plan occurs. The following presents the projected impact fee revenue by facility type: FACILITY TYPE PROJECTED REVENUE Parks $13,878,869 Community and Cultural Centers $6,299,893 Library $2,615,154 Civic Center $9,932,414 Maintenance Facilities $2,997,432 ATTACHMENT 2 221 Fire Protection $2,957,885 Transportation $42,810,885 TOTAL $81,492,532 The DIF represents the maximum Impact Fee amount justified by the analysis. The Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended; however alternative funding sources would eventually need to be identified in order to complete these facilities. It should be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars. In the past, the Council discounted transportation impact fees by 22%. The Fees presented within the September 2019 update do not automatically include this discount. The following represents the proposed fees by land use category: The following compares the proposed fees to the existing fees: BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In 1989, a California statute took effect, which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval “for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to this development project.” Public facilities are defined in this statute to include “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as “AB1600" requirements after the 1987 assembly bill in which they originated. Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8 Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detache DU 2,106$ 956$ 397$ 1,230$ 313$ 369$ 4,009$ 9,380$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,794$ 814$ 338$ 1,115$ 247$ 335$ 3,076$ 7,719$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$ 779$ 323$ 628$ 198$ 188$ 2,281$ 6,114$ Office/Medical KSF 522$ 374$ 151$ 6,542$ 7,589$ General Commercial KSF 522$ 461$ 151$ 8,057$ 9,190$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 698$ 106$ 201$ 1,859$ 2,865$ Golf Course Acre 251$ 53$ 72$ 930$ 1,306$ Development Dev Proposed C urrent Increase Percent Revised Type Unit Fees Fees Amount Change Percent Change Residential - Single Family Detached DU 9,380$ 6,894$ 2,486$ 27%36% Residential - Single Family Attached DU 7,719$ 6,681$ 1,038$ 13%16% Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 6,114$ 5,030$ 1,084$ 18%22% Office/Medical KSF 7,589$ 5,379$ 2,210$ 29%41% General Commercial KSF 9,190$ 6,456$ 2,734$ 30%42% Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 2,865$ 2,185$ 680$ 24%31% Golf Course Acre 1,306$ 957$ 349$ 27%36% 222 The US Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between such an exaction and the government’s legitimate interest. The court made clear that an agency must also show that an exaction is “roughly proportional” to the burden created by development. California law does not limit the type of capital improvements for which impact fees can be charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the use of impact fees for ongoing maintenance or operation costs (see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently, the fees recommended on this report are based on capital costs only. City staff provided the updated DIF draft report to Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) and Building Industry Association (BIA) on August 27, 2019. Staff met with both the DVBA and BIA to review comments. Any additional comments may be presented to the Council during its Study Session on October 1, 2019. Presented for the Council’s consideration is the Sixth update of DIF Study, dated September 23, 2019 (Attachment 1). Attachment 2 provides a brief overview of the changes presented within the 2019 DIF Update. As with the previous report, Section 1 provides an overview of impact fees. It sets forth legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees as well as methods used in this study to calculate the fees. Section 2 contains information on existing and planned uses and development in La Quinta and organizes that data in a form that can be used in the DIF analysis. Sections 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify facilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 10 discusses procedures and legal requirements for implementing an impact free program under California law. Section 10 also addresses adoption, administration, and training. The types of public facilities covered by the DIF are: Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Chapter 4. Community and Cultural Centers Chapter 5. Library Facilities and Materials Chapter 6. Civic Center Facilities Chapter 7. Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Chapter 8. Fire Protection Facilities Chapter 9. Transportation Facilities Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, PE, City Engineer Attachments: 1. Draft 2019 Development Impact Fee Study 2. 2019 DIF Study Overview 223 224 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 CITY OF LA QUINTA Revised Final DRAFT Report Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 nbsgov.com Prepared by: Corporate Headquarters 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 Toll free: 800.676.7516 ATTACHMENT 3 225 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table of Contents Chapter 0. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................S-1 Organization of the Report ....................................................................................................................S-1 Development Projections ......................................................................................................................S-1 Impact Fee Analysis................................................................................................................................S-2 Recovery of Study Costs .........................................................................................................................S-5 Impact Fee Summary .............................................................................................................................S-5 Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1-1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................1-1 Legal Framework for Developer Fees ....................................................................................................1-1 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ....................................................................................................1-6 Facilities Addressed in this Study ...........................................................................................................1-8 Chapter 2. Development Data .........................................................................................................2-1 Background and Setting .........................................................................................................................2-1 Study Area and Development Scenario .................................................................................................2-1 Time Frame ............................................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types ...............................................................................................................................2-2 Residential Development and Population .............................................................................................2-2 Non-Residential Development ...............................................................................................................2-3 Demand Variables ..................................................................................................................................2-3 Demand Factors .....................................................................................................................................2-5 Existing and Forecasted Development ..................................................................................................2-5 Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fees ...................................................................................3-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................3-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................3-1 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................3-1 Quimby Act Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication .................................................................................3-2 Methodology and Level of Service Standard –Quimby Act ..................................................................3-3 Fees In-Lieu of Park Land Dedication –Quimby Act ..............................................................................3-3 Park Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................................3-5 Methodology-Park Impact Fees ............................................................................................................3-5 226 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Level of Service Standard –Park Impact Fees........................................................................................3-5 Cost Per Capita –Park Impact Fees .......................................................................................................3-5 Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees per Unit ..........................................................................................3-6 Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit ...............................................................................................3-7 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................3-7 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................3-8 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................3-8 Chapter 4. Community and Cultural Centers ....................................................................................4-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................4-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................4-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................4-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................4-1 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................4-2 Cost per Capita .......................................................................................................................................4-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................4-3 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................4-3 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................4-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................4-4 Chapter 5. Library ...........................................................................................................................5-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................5-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................5-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................5-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................5-1 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................5-1 Cost per Capita .......................................................................................................................................5-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................5-2 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................5-3 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................5-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................5-4 Chapter 6. Civic Center ....................................................................................................................6-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................6-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................6-1 227 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................6-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................6-2 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................6-2 Cost per Developed Acre .......................................................................................................................6-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................6-3 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................6-3 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................6-4 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................6-4 Chapter 7. Maintenance Facilities ....................................................................................................7-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................7-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................7-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................7-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................7-1 Facility Needs .........................................................................................................................................7-2 Park Maintenance Facilities Cost per Capita.........................................................................................7-3 Street Maintenance Facilities Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip........................................................7-3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Park Maintenance Facilities...................................................7-4 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Street Maintenance Facilities ................................................7-5 Park Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue .............................................................7-7 Street Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue ..........................................................7-7 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................7-8 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................7-8 Chapter 8. Fire Protection ...............................................................................................................8-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................8-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................8-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................8-2 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................8-2 Facility Needs .........................................................................................................................................8-2 Cost per Developed Acre .......................................................................................................................8-3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................8-4 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................8-6 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................8-7 228 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................8-7 Chapter 9. Transportation ...............................................................................................................9-1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................9-1 Service Area ...........................................................................................................................................9-1 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................................9-1 Demand Variable ...................................................................................................................................9-1 Improvement Needs ..............................................................................................................................9-2 Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip ........................................................................................................9-2 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ...................................................................................................9-3 Projected Revenue .................................................................................................................................9-5 Updating the Fees ..................................................................................................................................9-6 Nexus Summary .....................................................................................................................................9-6 Chapter 10. Implementation .........................................................................................................10-1 Adoption ..............................................................................................................................................10-1 Administration .....................................................................................................................................10-2 Training and Public Information ..........................................................................................................10-7 Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs .............................................................................10-7 229 City of La Quinta Page S-1 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Chapter 0.Executive Summary The City of La Quinta has retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on the City’s capital facilities and infrastructure and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis.The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution,the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Gov ernment Code Sections 66000 et seq.)and The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) where it applies. Organization of the Report Chapter 1 of this report provide s an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees,and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development that is used in this report . Chapters 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities.The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below: Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Chapter 4.Community and Cultural Centers Chapter 5.Library Facilities and Materials Chapter 6.Civic Center Facilities Chapter 7.Maintenance Facilities Chapter 8.Fire Protection Facilities Chapter 9.Transportation Facilities Chapter 10 contains recommendations for adopting and implement ing impact fees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Development Projections Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in La Quinta and projections of future development through buildout of the area with the existing corporate boundaries of the City.Because the City’s population fluctuates seasonally, this study uses “potential population” in the impact fee analysis. Potential popul ation is based on full- occupancy of all dwelling units in the City as any given time. Future development projected in Chapter 2 indicates that the City’s potential population could increase by about 28% to 82,300, as undeveloped residential land within the City’s existing boundaries is built out. The impact fees calculated in this report are in current dollars and do not require assumptions about the rate or timing of future development. However, based on the City’s population 230 City of La Quinta Page S-2 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 growth rate over the last several years, it could take 25 years to absorb the land available for residential development within the existing boundaries of the City. Impact Fee Analysis The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter. In each case, the relationship between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified. The impact fees are based on the cost of facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development . All of the fees calculated in this report are based on capital costs and may be spent only for capital facilities and other capital assets identified in this report. The following paragraphs briefly discuss the approach used to calculate impact fees for each type of facility addressed in this study. Tables summarizing the impact fees calculated in this report and comparing them with the City’s existing impact fees are presented later in this chapter. Park and Recreation Impact Fees.Chapter 3 of this report calculates three types of fees for park land acquisition and park improvements: Quimby Act fees in lieu of park land dedication for residential subdivisions Park land acquisition impact fees for residential d evelopment not involving a subdivision Park improvement impact fees for all residential developme nt The City currently has an ordinance requiring residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication . Those requirements are authorized by the Quimby Act.At present, when the City collects fees in lieu of park land dedication, the amount of the fee is based on the value of the land under the subdivision.An alternative employed by many cities is to base in-lieu fees on the estimated average cost-per-acre for park land purchased on the open market. Chapter 3 shows the amount of in-lieu fees calculated in that manner. Chapter 3 also calculates park land impact fees for residential development that does not involve a subdivision.Those fees are based on the City’s existing ratio of park acres to population and the estimated cost-per-acre for park land In addition, Chapter 3 calculates impact fees for park and recreation improvements. Those fees are based on La Quinta’s existing rat io of improved park acreage to population and the estimated cost per acre for park improvements. All of the in-lieu and impact fees in Chapter 3 are calculated as a cost per capita and then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average 231 City of La Quinta Page S-3 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 population per unit for the three types of residential devel opment defined in this report (Single Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, and Multi -Family-Other). Because parks and recreation facilities are intended to serve resident s of the City,the park and recreation in-lieu and impact fees apply only to residential development. Community and Cultural Centers Impact Fee.Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for community and cultural centers.Up to now, this fee has been called the Community Centers Impact Fee and was based on only portions of certain City-owned facilities such as the La Quinta Museum and the Boys and Girls Club, in addition to the Wellness Center. In this study, the basis for this fee has been broadened to include the Wellness Center,the entire Museum and the Boys and Girls Club building,as well as land acquired for the Village Art Plaza and Promenade . The amount of the fee is based on the value of the City’s current per-capita investment in the relevant facilities,including land and furniture, fixtures and equipment.The community and cultural centers impact fees are calculated as a cost per capita and then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average population per unit fo r the three types of residential development defined in this report. Because community and cultural center facilities are intended to serve residents of the City,this fee applies only to residential development . Library Impact Fee. Chapter 5 calculates impact fees for the library.The calculation of this fee assumes that the existing La Quinta Branch Library has adequate capacity to serve all existing and future residential development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. This fee is calculated by allocating the cost of the Library building,land,library materials and furniture fixtures and equipment to the projected buildout population of the area within the existing City limits.The building cost is defined as the original cost of the b uilding plus nominal interest to date on the outstanding loan originally issued by the Redevelopment Agency to fund construction of the library. The impact fees are calculated as a cost per capita and then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average population per unit for the three types of residential development defined in this report. Because the library is intended primarily to serve residents of the City, this fee applies only to residential development. Civic Center Impact Fee.Chapter 6 calculates impact fees for the civic center. The calculation of this fee is based on the relationship between the cost of the existing Civic Center and existing developed acreage within the City. This fee is calculated by allocating the cost of the Civic Center building, land,and furniture fixtures and equipment to existing development within the existing City limits based on developed acreage.The building cost is defined as the original cost of the building. 232 City of La Quinta Page S-4 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 The civic center impact fees are calculated as a cost per developed acre and then converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average acres per unit for each type of development defined in this report. The Civic Center impact fees apply to all t ypes of private development in the City. Public facilities, schools, and parks are excluded from the impact fee analysis because they do not create a demand for services supported by the Civic Center.The Civic Center impact fee applies to golf courses, but only 5% of golf course acreage is assumed to impact services supported by the Civic Center. Maintenance Facilities Impact Fee.Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for corporate yard maintenance facilities, including some major equipment .The calculation of this fee allocates costs for both existing and future maintenance facilities to all existing and future development within the existing corporate bounda ries of the City at buildout.Costs for future improvements to the City’s maintenance facilitie s are based on estimates for Phase II and Phase III of the planned Corporate Yard improvements. To calculate this fee, the City’s maintenance facilities are broken into two components —park maintenance facilities and street maintenance facilities. Costs fo r park maintenance facilities are allocated to development in the same manners as parks, based on population. Costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated to development in the same manner as transportation improvements, based on weighted peak hou r trips. In the initial impact fee analysis for street maintenance facilities, impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks because they do generate some traffic. However, because the traffic created by those public uses is a seconda ry impact of private development, the costs initially allocated to those uses are re -allocated to private development, resulting in a small increase in the fees for all types of private development. The maintenance facilities impact fees apply to all types of private development in the City. Fire Protection Impact Fee.Chapter 8 calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities. The calculation of this fee allocates the cost of both existing and future fire protection facilities to all existing and future development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City at buildout. This study assumes that the City of La Quinta will be responsible for one -half of the cost of a fourth fire station in the Southeastern quadrant of the City. To calculate this fee,costs for fire protection facilities are allocated to development based on developed acreage.In the initial impact fee analysis for fire protection facilities, impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks based on the acreage they occupy. However, because the need for those public uses is created by private development, the costs initially allocated to those uses are re-allocated to private development, resulting in a small increase in the fees for all types of private development. The fire protection facilities impact fees apply to all types of private development in the City. 233 City of La Quinta Page S-5 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Transportation Impact Fee.Chapter 9 of this report calculates impact fees for transportation improvements.For purposes of the impact fee analysis, transpor tation improvements are divided into two groups: those that increase capacity for vehicular traffic and others such as sidewalks and bike lanes.Costs for capacity-capacity-enhancing improvements are allocated only to future development. Costs for non -capacity-enhancing improvements are allocated to both existing and future development.Both groups include costs to repay remaining balance s on reimbursement agreements. To calculate this fee, costs for all types of transportation improvements are allocated to development based on the number of weighted peak hour trips generated by various types of development. Weighted peak hour trips reflect both the number of trips generated and trip length for various types of development. In the initial impact fee analysis for transportation facilities, impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks based on the number of weighted pea k hour trips they generate. However, because the need for those public uses is created by private development, the costs initially allocated to those uses are re-allocated to private development, resulting in a small increase in the fees for all types of p rivate development. The transportation facilities impact fees apply to all types of private development in the City. Recovery of Study Costs In this report, the impact fee calculations include a small administrative charge designed to recover the cost of this study. That charge amounts to about 1/3 of 1% of the impact fees. Impact Fee Summary Impact fees per unit calculated in this report are summarized in Table S.1, below. Table S.1: Summary of Impact Fees Calculated in This Study Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8 Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,106$956$397$1,230$313$369$4,009$9,380$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,794$814$338$1,115$247$335$3,076$7,718$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$779$323$628$198$188$2,281$6,114$ Office/Medical KSF 522$374$151$6,542$7,589$ General Commercial KSF 522$461$151$8,057$9,191$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 698$106$201$1,859$2,865$ Golf Course Acre 251$53$72$930$1,306$ Note: Rows may not total precisely due to rounding 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building floor area; Room = hotel/motel guest room or suite acre = net acre 2 Fee for maintenance facilities includes both park maintenance and street maintenance 234 City of La Quinta Page S-6 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Table S.2 shows the City’s existing impact fees.It is important to note that the existing impact fees for transportation improvements were reduced 22%from the amounts that were supported by improvement costs in the City’s 2013 impact fee study. Table S.3 shows the difference between the proposed fees in Table S.1 and the existing fees in Table S.2. Table S.2 Summary of Existing Impact Fees Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Transpor-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire tation 3 Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,048$129$344$942$156$433$2,842$6,894$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 2,048$129$344$796$156$366$2,842$6,681$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,048$129$344$447$111$206$1,745$5,030$ Office/Medical KSF 373$190$171$4,645$5,379$ General Commercial KSF 373$232$172$5,679$6,456$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 363$65$167$1,590$2,185$ Golf Course Acre 179$27$82$669$957$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building floor area; Room = hotel/motel guest room or suite acre = net acre 2 Impact fees for maintenance facilities include both park maintenance and street maintenance 3 Existing impact fees for transportation improvements were discounted 22% from actual costs Table S.3 Difference Between Existing and Proposed Impact Fees Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Transpor-Grand Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire tation 3 Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 58$827$53$288$157$(64)$1,167$2,486$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU (254)$685$(6)$319$91$(31)$234$1,037$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU (332)$650$(21)$181$87$(18)$536$1,084$ Office/Medical KSF 149$184$(20)$1,897$2,210$ General Commercial KSF 149$229$(21)$2,378$2,735$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 335$41$34$269$680$ Golf Course Acre 72$26$(10)$261$349$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building floor area; Room = hotel/motel guest room or suite acre = net acre 2 Impact fees for maintenance facilities include both park maintenance and street maintenance 3 Existing impact fees for transportation improvements were discounted 22% from actual costs 235 City of La Quinta Page 1-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 1.Introduction Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for types of public facilities provided by the City of La Quinta. This report documents the approach, data and methodology used in the analysis of impact fees and Quimby Act park land dedication requirements and in lieu fees. The methods used to calculate impact fees and in-lieu fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section s 66000- 66025), and, where applicable,the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477). Legal Framework for Developer Fees This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview.It was not prepared by an attorney,and should not be treated as legal advice. U. S. Constitution.Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation . Both state and federal courts have recognized the impo sition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution. In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in la nd as a condition of development approval, or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden c reated by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994). Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively -enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Su preme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District (2013),state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue. In light of that uncertainty, any agency enacting or im posing impact fees would be wise to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calculation of those fees. 236 City of La Quinta Page 1-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Defining the “Nexus.”While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees,that term can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard.The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings requir ed by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees. Need or Impact.Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community wil l deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development -related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information ne eded to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus. Benefit.Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Con stitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees. Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expedi tiously or refunded.Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substant ive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus. Proportionality.Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes metho ds used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard. California Constitution.The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and deve lopment. That police power 237 City of La Quinta Page 1-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impac t fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Ar ticle XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of pr oviding facilities needed to serve the project. In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.” The Mitigation Fee Act.California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time ,the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code. The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only. The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessm ent…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development projec t for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely -accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, incre asing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the c ollection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re -evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements ar e discussed in the implementation chapter of this report. Required Findings.Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 238 City of La Quinta Page 1-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 2.Identify the use of the fee;and, 3.Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development typ e on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project .) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below. Identifying the Purpose of the Fees.The broad purpose of impact fees is to pro tect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of certain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of pla nned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City g rows. This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development. Identifying the Use of the Fees.According to Section 66001,if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement pl an may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents.In this case, we recommend that the City Council adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees. Reasonable Relationship Requirement.As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that , for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between: 1.the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; 2.the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, 3.the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in cou rt decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees. 239 City of La Quinta Page 1-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case,and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus. Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements.The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000)or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477). Existing Deficiencies.In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991). That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies. However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development pr oject in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Impact Fees for Existing Facilities.Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. The Quimby Act.The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), which pre -dates the Mitigation Fee Act, authorizes a city or county to require dedication of land, payment of fees in - lieu of dedication, or a combin ation of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a residential subdivision. The city or county must adopt an ordinance that includes definite standards for determining the proportion of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the in-lieu fees to be paid. Under the Quimby Act, land dedication and in -lieu fee requirements are based on the ratio of park acres to population in the jurisdiction. That ratio may not exceed three acres per thousand residents unless the existing ratio is higher, but is limited to five acres per thousand. The population added by the subdivision is determined by the number of dwelling units and the average number of persons per household. The population and the average number of persons per hou sehold in the city or county are to be based on the most recent federal census. Park acreage is to be based on the area of neighborhood and community parks in the city or county at the time of that census. 240 City of La Quinta Page 1-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be u sed only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. A 2013 amendment to the Quimby Act added a provision that in -lieu fees may be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities in a neighborhood other than the neighborhood in which the subdivision paying the fees is located, if certain conditions are met (see paragraph (a)(3)(B) of Section 66477). “Neighborhood” is not defined in the statute. The Quimby Act requires that the legislative body adopt a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, and that the amount and location of land to be dedicated o r the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by future inhabitants of the subdivision. The Quimby Act provides that if park and recreational services and facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city or county, the amount and location of park land to be dedicated or fees to be paid shall be jointly determined by that other public agency and the city or county having jurisdiction. The land or fees shall be conveyed directly to th e public agency that provides park and recreational services on a communitywide level if that agency elects to accept the land or fee. Only payment of fees may be required for subdivisions containing 50 units or less, or for condominium, stock cooperative or community apartment projects. Impact Fee Calculation Methodology Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development. Plan-Based or Improvements-Driven Method.Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development.The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity. Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development. To calculate plan- 241 City of La Quinta Page 1-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 based impact fees, it is necessary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development. With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by the total units of additional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g.a cost per capita for parks). Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing demand per unit of development (e.g. population per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development. This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specific facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significant ly the fees will have to be recalculated. Capacity-Based or Consumption-Driven Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated and the fa cility has adequate capacity available to serve the development. Since the cost per unit of demand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans. In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capacity -based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to derive a unit cost. H owever, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of facilities. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non - residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories. Standard-Based or Incremental Expansion Method.Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard th at determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be established as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area. Using the standard-based method, costs are defined on a generic unit -cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. Park in-lieu and impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in terms of acres of parks per thousand residents. A cost -per-acre for park land or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks is used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of development based on the average population per dwelli ng unit for various types of residential development. 242 City of La Quinta Page 1-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Facilities Addressed in this Study Impact/in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report: Park Land and Improvements Community and Cultural Centers Library Facilities Civic Center Facilities Maintenance Facilities Fire Protection Facilities Transportation Facilities Each of those facilities is addressed in s separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter 3.Chapter 2 contains data on existing and fut ure development used in th e impact fee analysis. 243 City of La Quinta Page 2-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 2.Development Data This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this chapter may be used to establis h levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development. Background and Setting La Quinta is located along Highway 111 in the desert res ort area of the Coachella Valley in south-central Riverside County, adjacent to the City of Indian Wells to the west and the City of Indio to the east. Existing development in the City is primarily residential and includes both conventional residential development and gated residential and resort communities, some of which contain one or more golf courses. Major regional commercial development in La Quinta exists along Highway 111 in La Quinta and more is planned. A significant portion of the land within th e City lies on the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef mountains. Much of that area is preserved as open space. Study Area and Development Scenario The study area for this impact fee study is the existing City, meaning the area within the exist ing corporate boundaries of La Quinta.The future development scenario used in this study assumes buildout of all developable land within those corporate boundaries. La Quinta’s population fluctuates seasonally. Projections in this chapter indicate that undeveloped residential land in the study area has the capacity to accommodate approximately 18,000 additional residents when all of the projected new residential units in the City are occupied. That would be an increase of about 28% from the City’s estimat ed 2019 full- occupancy population of 64, 531, and would bring the total population within the existing corporate boundaries of La Quinta to just over 82,000 when all residential units are occupied. As explained below, the term “potential population” is use d elsewhere in this study to mean the population of the City when all residential units are occupied. Time Frame No time frame is assumed for the buildout of future development projected in this study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this stud y do not require assumptions regarding the rate or timing of development. 244 City of La Quinta Page 2-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Development Types The development types defined in this study are intended to reflect actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. The following breakd own of development types is used throughout this study: Residential -Single Family Detached Residential –Single-Family Attached Residential –Multi-Family/Other Office General Commercial Tourist Commercial Public Facilities Public Schools Parks Golf Courses Residential Development and Population As indicated in the list above, this study classifies residential development into three categories: Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, which includes condominiums and townhouses, and Multi-Family/Other which includes ap artments and mobile homes. Dwelling units are used as the basic measure of the amount of the amount of existing and future development in each residential category. The graph at right shows the California Department of Finance (DOF) official January 1 population estimates for the City of La Quinta for the years from 2010 through 2018. DOF’s population estimate for La Quinta has grown at an average rate of 1.2% per year since 2010. The City’s estimated January 1, 2018 population of 41,204 is an increase of 3,737 or 10% from a population of 37,467 at the time of the 2010 Census. The figures shown above reflect the City’s total population, including both household population and population in group quarters such as nursing homes. Th e group quarters population in La Quinta is very small, amounting to only 57 people in 2018. It is important to note that the official Census Bureau and Department of Finance population estimates reflect only the City’s permanent population. A substantial percentage of the 245 City of La Quinta Page 2-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 dwellings in La Quinta are occupied seasonally, so the official population estimat es substantially understate the service demand represented by residential development in La Quinta. Once a dwelling unit has been approved and constructed , the City is committed to serve the demand created by that unit, even if that demand is seasonal. Th e City has no control over whether or when such units are occupied. Thus, to better represent the City’s service commitments, this study uses “potential population” to gauge the de mand for population-related public services and the facilities that support them. As used in this study, “potential population” means the number of people who would reside in the City when all dwelling units existing at a particula r time are occupied. Unless otherwise indicated, when the term “population” is used in subsequent cha pters of this report, it will mean potential population. The potential population is estimated for each category of residential development by multiplying the number of units (existing or future) in that category by the average population per unit for that type of development. This study uses data from the U. S. Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates to calculate the population per d welling unit factors for each category of residential development defined in this study. Those factor s are shown in Table 2.1. Non-Residential Development In this study, private, non -residential development is classified into three categories : Office, General Commercial and Tourist Commercial. The Office category is equivalent to the Office Commercial (CO) classification in the General Plan Land Use Element. Tourist Commercial is equivalent to the Tourist Commercial (CT) classification in the Land Use Eleme nt. And the General Commercial category used in this study encompasses all other types of commercial development defined in the Land Use Element. La Quinta has no existing industrial development and none is planned within the existing City. For purposes of impact fee analysis, commercial development can be measured in a number of ways. In this report, the basic measure of office and general commercial development is gross building area in thousands of square feet, which is abbreviated “KSF.” Tourist commerc ial development, which consists of hotels and associated uses, is measured in terms of “rooms,” meaning guest rooms or suites. Several other categories of non-residential development are also used in this study. Those categories are Public Facilities, Schools, Parks and Golf Courses. The amount of existing and future development in the Public Facilities c ategory is measured in terms of building area in KSF. Schools, Parks and Golf Courses are measured in terms of acreage. Demand Variables To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocati on formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development (for 246 City of La Quinta Page 2-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 example, added population or added vehicle trips) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities. Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonabl y correlated with that demand. For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain that relationship. Logically,then, the increase in population related to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick,or demand variable, for use in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks. Each demand variable has a specific value for each t ype of development defined in this study. Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.”So, if the demand variable used to calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand factor for single-family residential d evelopment would be the p opulation per dwelling unit for that specific type of development. Demand variables used in this study are discussed below, and specific demand factors can be found in Table 2.1. Acreage.Acreage is a basic attribute of all development. In this report, net developed acreage is used as a demand variable for some types of facilities. Population.Resident population is used in this study to represent the need for facilities such as parks and community centers that are intended to se rve residents of the City and are not impacted substantially by non-residential development. As discussed above, because of seasonality in La Quinta’s population, the population used to calculate impact fees in thi s study is “potential population” Weighted Peak Hour Trips.Both the number of peak hour trips generated by development and the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour roadway capacity needed to serve development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for transportation facilities in this report is weighted peak hour trips, which is the product of the number of peak hour trips per unit per day and a trip length factor representing the relationship between the average trip length fo r a particular development type and the system-wide average trip length. The best available information on trip lengths by development type are those published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in the publication Traffic Generators.Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not specifically apply to La Quinta, we believe they reasonably represent the proportional relationship of trip lengths for various types of development in the City. Because the cost of street improvements is allocated to development projects in proportion to their relative share of total demand, it is the relative relationship, rather than the actual trip length that is important in the impact fee calculations. 247 City of La Quinta Page 2-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 It should be noted that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has developed trip length data for the Coachella Valley. However, those trip lengths are calculated by trip purpose not by development type. In addition, they are intended to reflect travel on regional facilities and do not include the portion of trips on local street networks. Consequently, the CVAG trip length information is not useful for purposes of impact fee analysis. Peak hour trips-per-unit-per-day, trip length factors and weighted peak hour trips for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.1. Demand Factors Table 2.1 on the next page shows the values of demand factors used in this study, by development type. Existing and Forecasted Development Summaries of existing and forecasted development within the corporate boundarie s of La Quinta, by development type, are presented in Tables 2.2 through 2.4 later in this section. At present, La Quinta is about 78% built out in terms of the total residential units and potential population forecasted for buildout within the existing co rporate boundaries of the City. Commercial and Office development are approximately 63% built out based on square footage, and Tourist Commercial is about 45% built out based on existing and forecasted h otel rooms. Table 2.1 Demand Factors Land Use Category Unit Type Acres per Unit 1 Population per Unit 2 Pk Hr Trips per Unit 3 Trip Length Factor 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips per Unit 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 0.245 2.70 1.01 1.14 1.16 Residential - Single Family Attached DU 0.222 2.30 0.78 1.14 0.89 Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 0.125 2.20 0.58 1.14 0.66 Office/Medical KSF 0.104 1.49 1.28 1.90 General Commercial KSF 0.104 3.75 0.62 2.34 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Rooms 0.139 0.49 1.10 0.54 Public Facilities KSF 0.270 2.85 0.87 2.48 Schools Acres 1.000 1.30 0.61 0.79 Parks Acres 1.000 1.59 0.32 0.51 Golf Courses Acres 1.000 0.30 0.91 0.27 1 Acres per unit based on projected buildout conditions 2 Average population per unit based on analysis of data from U. S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey (2017, 5-Year Estimate), Tables B25032 and B25033 3 Peak hour trips per unit per day from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition 4 Trip length factor = average trip length for each development type / a system-wide average of 6.9 miles; trip lengths based on data from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publication,Traffic Generators (see discussion in text) 5 Weighted peak hour trips per unit = peak hour trips per unit X trip length factor 248 City of La Quinta Page 2-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 As of 2019, single family residential un its make up approximately 80% of all residential units in the City, with the other two categories of residential development comprising about 10% each. That mix is projected to change very little as a re sult of future development forecasted for this study. Table 2.2 on the next p age shows estimated existing development in the City as of January 1, 2018, in terms of acres, units, potential population, and weighted peak hour trips. Table 2.3 on the next page shows forecasted future development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City of La Quinta through buildout. Table 2.2 Existing Development as of January 1, 2019 Land Use Category Developed Acres 1 Unit Type 2 No. of Units 3 Potential Population 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family Detached 4,824 DU 19,780 53,406 22,945 Residential - Single Family Attached 532 DU 2,417 5,559 2,151 Residential - Multi-Family/Other 317 DU 2,530 5,566 1,670 Office/Medical 78 KSF 753 1,431 General Commercial 423 KSF 3,692 8,639 Tourist Commercial/Lodging 207 Room 1,130 610 Public Facilities 88 KSF 360 893 Schools 115 Acre 115 91 Parks 242 Acre 242 123 Golf Courses 4,317 Acre 4,317 1,166 Totals 11,143 64,531 39,719 1 Existing developed acres estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 3 Number of existing units estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 4 Potential population = number of residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Existing weighted peak hour trips = number of units X weighted peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 249 City of La Quinta Page 2-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 2.4 on the next page shows total development at buildout of the existing City. Table 2.3 Additional Development to Buildout of the Existing City Land Use Category Developed Acres 1 Unit Type 2 No. of Units 3 Potential Population 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family Detached 1,294 DU 5,186 14,002 6,016 Residential - Single Family Attached 170 DU 743 1,709 661 Residential - Multi-Family/Other 118 DU 946 2,081 624 Office/Medical 54 KSF 512 973 General Commercial 104 KSF 1,358 3,178 Tourist Commercial/Lodging 138 Room 1,360 735 Public Facilities 32 KSF 84 208 Schools 0 Acre 0 0 Parks 54 Acre 54 28 Golf Courses 817 Acre 817 220 Totals 2,781 17,792 12,643 1 Increase in developed acres estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Dept. 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 3 Increase in the number of units estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Dept. 4 Increase in potential population = increase in residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Increase in weighted peak hour trips = increase in number of units X weighted peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 250 City of La Quinta Page 2-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 2.4 Total Development at Buildout of the Existing City Land Use Category Developed Acres 1 Unit Type 2 No. of Units 3 Potential Population 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family Detached 6,118 DU 24,966 67,408 28,961 Residential - Single Family Attached 702 DU 3,160 7,268 2,812 Residential - Multi-Family/Other 435 DU 3,476 7,647 2,294 Office/Medical 132 KSF 1,265 2,404 General Commercial 527 KSF 5,050 11,817 Tourist Commercial/Lodging 345 Room 2,490 1,345 Public Facilities 120 KSF 444 1,101 Schools 115 Acre 115 91 Parks 296 Acre 296 151 Golf Courses 5,134 Acre 5,134 1,386 Totals 13,924 82,323 52,362 1 Developed acres at buildout estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 3 Number of units at buildout estimated by the City of La Quinta Design and Development Department 4 Potential population at buildout = residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Weighted peak hour trips at buildout = number of units X wieghted peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 251 City of La Quinta Page 3-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 3.Parks and Recreation Impact Fees This chapter updates two different types of fees available for funding parks tha t serve the added population associated with new residential development in La Quinta. 1.Quimby Act In-Lieu Fees -The Quimby Act (Government Code 66477) authorizes the City to require that residential subdivisions dedicat e land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication. This chapter calculates the in -lieu fees, which apply only to residential projects that involve a subdivision. 2.Development Impact Fees –Impact fees for parkland acquisition that apply to residential projects not involving a subdivision,and impact fees for construction of park improvements that apply to all residential development projects. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of de velopment that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facilit y. The need for parks is almost universally defined in terms of the population to be served, so the demand variable used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is added population. Because the impact of development on the need for parks is created by an increase in population associated with new residential development, the fees calculated in this chapter will apply only to new residential development. Service Area La Quinta’s park facilities serve the entire City, so impact fees for those facilities w ill apply to all new residential development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Existing Facilities Both Quimby Act and park impact fee calculations in this chapter reference a list of the City’s existing parks as part of their basis.Table 3.1 lists La Quinta’s existing parks and breaks down the acreage of each park into city-owned and city-improved acres. 252 City of La Quinta Page 3-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 All acreage of existing parkland shown in Table 3.1 is improved with the exception of two nature preserve areas, Fred Wolff Bear Creek Nature Preserve and Cove Oasis. This analysis estimates that 10 percent of the total acreage of those preserve areas, or 14 acres, is improved as nature trails and public access points. Those 14 acres are treated as developed community park acreage in this analysis. The land under the sports fields at Paige Middle School is owned by the Desert Sands Unified School District, but the City has paid for the impr ovements to that land.Similarly,the land under the Sports Complex is also owned by the Scho ol District, but the City has paid for the improvements to that park. The City is currently developing two new parks not listed in Table 3.1: the 14 -acre Silver Rock Event Venue which is out to bid, and the two -acre X Park skate park which is nearing construction. Quimby Act Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication The calculation of fees subject to the stipulations of the Quimby Act differs in a number of ways from park impact fees, which are discussed later in this chapter. Table 3.1: Existing Parks Park Park City-Owned City-Improved Name Type Acres Acres Adams Park Neighborhood Park 3.50 3.50 Civic Center Campus Community Park 7.90 7.90 Desert Pride Park Neighborhood Park 1.00 1.00 Eisenhower Park Mini Park 0.50 0.50 Fritz Burns Park Community Park 12.00 12.00 La Quinta Park Community Park 18.00 18.00 La Quinta Community Park (Frances Hack) Community Park 6.50 6.50 Monticello Park Neighborhood Park 4.00 4.00 Pioneer Park Neighborhood Park 3.20 3.20 Paige Middle School Sports Fields Community Park 0.00 7.00 Saguaro Park Mini Park 0.75 0.75 Sports Complex Community Park 0.00 16.75 Seasons Park Neighborhood Park 5.00 5.00 Velasco Park Mini Park 0.25 0.25 Fred Wolff Bear Creek Nature Preserve Open Space 26.00 2.60 Cove Oasis Open Space 114.00 11.40 Total 202.60 100.35 Source: City of La Quinta 253 City of La Quinta Page 3-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Methodology and Level of Service Standard –Quimby Act The level of service standard used to calculate Quimby Act fees in lieu of parkland dedication is based on the relationship between population and park acreage, but it must conform to rules specified in the statute. The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) requires use of population data as shown in the most recent available federal census, which at the time of this study is the 2010 Census population. The statute authorizes municipalities to im pose a requirement on residential subdivisions (including parcel maps) that they dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of park land dedication. Those requirements may not exceed the 2010 ratio of park acreage to population if that ratio is between 3.0 acres per thousand and 5.0 acres per thousand. If the 2010 ratio is lower than 3.0 acres per thousand, land dedication and/or in lieu fees may be based on 3.0 acres per thousand. As shown in Table 3.2, La Quinta’s ratio is below the Quimby Act’s minimum standard. Consequently, the park land in-lieu fees calculated later in this chapter are based on the minimum of 3.0 acres per thousand. Fees In-Lieu of Park Land Dedication –Quimby Act Per Chapter 13.48.060 of the City’s Municipal Code, Quimby Act pa rkland acquisition in -lieu fees “…shall be based on the fair market value of land within a subdivision.” As such, the City calculates these fees on a case by case basis, depending on the market value of land under each subdivision at the time the project i s approved using the following formula to determine the fee: Table 3.2: Level of Service - Quimby Act Facility Acres1 Population2 Acres per Capita 3 Acres per 1000 4 Total Park Acres - 2010 (Quimby) 100.35 58,610 0.00171 1.71 1 All parks shown in Table 3.1 were in existence in 2010 2 Reflects 2010 potential population based on 100% occupancy of 2010 dwelling units 3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000 254 City of La Quinta Page 3-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In-lieu fee = Number of dwelling units x Population per dwelling unit by development type x .003 acres per capita x market value of land per acre A review of the in-lieu fees charged by the City since 2010 shows that per-acre in-lieu fees have varied widely from project-to-project.As an alternative, the City Council could choose to establish a standardized schedule of in-lieu fees based on the estimated average Citywide cost- per-acre for park land used in this chapter.Table 3.3 shows what those in-lieu fees would be if the City Council chooses this alternative. Table 3.3: Park Land In-Lieu Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $1,306.80 2.70 $3,528.36 $11.43 $3,539.79 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $1,306.80 2.30 $3,005.64 $9.74 $3,015.38 Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $1,306.80 2.20 $2,874.96 $9.31 $2,884.27 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 Cost per capita = 0.003 acres per capita X $435,600 per acre 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 255 City of La Quinta Page 3-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Park Impact Fees This chapter calculates two types of impact fees for parks: 1.Park land acquisition impact fees, which apply to residential projects that do not involve a subdivision. 2.Park improvement impact fees, which apply to all residential development in addition to any park land dedication,park land in-lieu (Quimby Act) fees, or park land acquisition impact fees. Park improvement impact fees would be used to construct park improvements to serve the added population associated with new residential development. Methodology-Park Impact Fees The method used to calculate development impact fees in this chapter is the standar d-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees using a level -of-service standard and the estimated cost of new facil ities needed to maintain that standard. The level of service standard used in this chapter is discussed below. Level of Service Standard –Park Impact Fees The level of service standard used to calculate the park impact fees in this chapter is the City’s existing level of service, defined as the relationship between existing park acreage and existing population.Table 3.4 shows the ratio of park acreage to population based on the estimated potential population as of January 1, 2019. See Chapter 2 for a disc ussion of potential population. Cost Per Capita –Park Impact Fees The following tables convert the acres-per-capita factor from Table 3.4 into costs per capita. Table 3.5 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition impact fees, which can be applied to residential projects that do not involve a subdivision. Table 3.4: Existing Level of Service - Impact Fees Facility Acres1 Existing Population2 Acres per Capita Acres per 1000 Existing Park Acres 100.35 64,531 0.00156 1.56 1 See Table 3.1 2 The City's 2019 potential population based on 100% occupancy of all existing dwelling units; see Table 2.2 3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000 256 City of La Quinta Page 3-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 3.6 calculates the cost per capita for park improvement impact fees. Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees per Unit Table 3.7 calculates park land acquisition impact fees per dwelling unit based on the cost per capita from Table 3.5 and the population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1 and then adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjuste d impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Table 3.5: Cost per Capita - Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees Cost Cost per Acres per Cost per Component Acre 1 Capita 2 Capita 3 Park Land Acquisition $435,600 0.00156 $677.39 1 Cost per acre estimated by the City of La Quinta 2 See Table 3.4 3 Cost per capita = cost per acre X acres per capita Table 3.6: Cost per Capita - Park Improvements Cost Cost per Acres per Cost per Component Acre 1 Capita 2 Capita 3 Park Improvements $500,000 0.00156 $777.53 1 Cost per acre estimated by the City of La Quinta 2 See Table 3.4 3 Cost per capita = cost per acre X acres per capita Table 3.7: Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $677.39 2.70 $1,828.95 $5.93 $1,834.88 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $677.39 2.30 $1,558.00 $5.05 $1,563.04 Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $677.39 2.20 $1,490.26 $4.83 $1,495.09 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.5 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 257 City of La Quinta Page 3-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit Table 3.8 calculates park improvement impact fees per dwelli ng unit based on the cost per capita from Table 3.6 and the population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1 and then adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjuste d impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of thi s study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this stud y (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 3.9 shows projected revenue from the in-lieu fees and impact fees for park land acquisition calculated in this chapter.Because the fees are different for subdivisions and non- subdivision projects, the only way to project revenue from those fees is to make assumptions about how many future units will be in subdivisions. For purposes of projecting revenue, we are assuming that all new units in the Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached c ategories will involve a subdivision, and that no future units in the Multi-Family/Other category will involve a subdivision.Potential revenue from future residential development is projected by applying the appropriate in-lieu fees or impact fees per unit from Tables 3.3 and 3.7 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Table 3.8: Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $777.53 2.70 $2,099.33 $6.80 $2,106.13 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $777.53 2.30 $1,788.32 $5.79 $1,794.11 Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $777.53 2.20 $1,710.57 $5.54 $1,716.11 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.6 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 258 City of La Quinta Page 3-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 3.10 shows projected revenue from the impact fees for park improvements calculated in this chapter.Potential revenue from future residential development is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Ta ble 3.8 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Updating the Fees The in-lieu fees and impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of park land and improvements.We recommend that the fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposin g impact fees, must make findings to : Table 3.9: Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Park Land In-Lieu and Impact Fees Development Fee per Future Projected Type Units 1 Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $3,539.79 5,186 18,357,361$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $3,015.38 743 2,240,426$ Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $1,495.09 946 1,414,352$ Total 22,012,139$ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 Fee per unit for Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached from Table 3.3; Fee for Multi-Family/Other from Table 3.7 3 See Table 2.3 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 3.10: Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Park Improvement Impact Fees Development Fee/Unit of Future Projected Type Units 1 Development Units Revenue Residential - Single Family Detached DU $2,106.13 5,186 10,922,405$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $1,794.11 743 1,333,026$ Residential Multi-Family/Other DU $1,716.11 946 1,623,438$ Total 13,878,869$ 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.8 3 See Table 2.3 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit 259 City of La Quinta Page 3-9 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for parks in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used t o provide additional parks to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may al so be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks to serve the needs of additional population associated with new residential development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.New residential development increases the need for parks to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this cha pter. Without additional parks, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project.The amount of the Parks and Recreation impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City. 260 City of La Quinta Page 4-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 4.Community and Cultural Centers This chapter calculates impact fees for community and cultural centers needed to serve future development in La Quinta. This fee was formerly known as the Community Centers impact fe e. The scope of the fee has been broadened in t his study to include cultural facilities such as the La Quinta Museum. Previously, only portions o f the museum and Boys and Girls Club used as meeting rooms were covered by the Community Centers impact fee. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are ba sed on the City’s existing investment per capita in community and cultural center facilities, and will be used to provide additional facilities to maintain the current level of service as the City continues to grow. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the standard -based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees using a level-of-service standard and the estimated cost of new facilities needed to maintai n that standard.The level of service standard used in this chapter is discussed below. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of de velopment that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 f or a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. Community and cultural center facilities are intended to serve residents of the C ity, so, population will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for those facilities. Since the fees are based on the added population asso ciated with new residential development, these impact fees will apply only to residential developm ent. Service Area La Quinta’s community and cultural centers serve the entire City, so impact fees for those facilities will apply to all new residential development within the existing corporate boundaries of the La Quinta. Level of Service The level of service standard used to calculate impact fees for community and cultural centers in this chapter is the existing level of service, defined as the City’s current capital investment in those facilities per capita of population. The fees calculat ed in this chapter are designed to maintain that existing level of service as the City grows. 261 City of La Quinta Page 4-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Existing Facilities Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing community and cultural center facilities and the estimated value of the existing assets associated with those fac ilities, including land, buildings, and furniture, fixtures and equipment . Costs for site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping are included in th e building cost. The City has acquired two sites adjacent to the La Quinta Museum for a Village Ar t Plaza and Promenade, which are programmed for development in the 2020 -21 City budget. The cost of those two sites is included in Table 4.1, but an estimated $3.3 million in future costs for improvements on those sites is not included. The current balance in the Community Center Impact Fee Fund is shown as an existing asset in Table 4.1 and represents additional f acilities that will be constructed with funds t hat have previously been collected from development projects in the City through impact fees. Cost per Capita Table 4.2 calculates an average replacement cost per capita for Community and Cultural Center facilities based on the total impact fee cost bas is from Table 4.1 and the 2019 potential population of the City. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of potential population. Table 4.1: Existing Community and Cultural Center Facilities Cost Building Est Building Est FF&E Site Est Site Impact Fee Component Sq Ft 1 Value 2 Value 3 Acres 4 Value 5 Cost Basis 6 La Quinta Wellness Center 21,900 10,750,000$800,000$2.10 1,372,140$12,922,140$ La Quinta Museum/Historical Society 9,551 4,150,000$1,124,567$0.30 196,020$5,470,587$ Boys and Girls Club Building 5,000 2,200,320$16,018$1.50 980,100$3,196,438$ Village Art Plaza Site (Lumberyard)Actual Purchase Price 526,825$ Promenade Site on Ave Montezuma Actual Purchase Price 509,655$ Community Center Impact Fee Fund Balance 7 149,681$ Total 17,100,320$1,940,585$2,548,260$22,775,326$ 1 Existing square feet from the City of La Quinta Asset Report 2 Estimated building value from City property insurance cost analysis 3 Estimated value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the City property insurance cost analysis and the City asset report 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Estimated site value based on $653,400 per acre ($15.00 per square foot) 6 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the amounts for the building, FF&E, and site value. 7 Community Center impact fee fund balance as of 12/31/18 262 City of La Quinta Page 4-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 4.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for community and cultural center facilities. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per capita from Table 4.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1. A small administrative charge is then added to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study b y estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this stu dy (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 4.4 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added residential development shown in Tabl e 2.3 is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 4.3 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Table 4.2: Community and Cultural Center Facilities - Cost per Capita Total Impact Fee 2019 Potential Impact Fee Cost Cost Basis 1 Population 2 per Capita 3 $22,775,326 64,531 $352.94 1 See Table 4.1 2 See Table 2.2 3 Cost per capita = total impact fee cost basis / 2019 potential population Table 4.3: Community and Cultural Center Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 352.94$2.70 952.93$$3.09 $956.02 Residential - Single Family Attached DU 352.94$2.30 811.75$$2.63 $814.38 Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 352.94$2.20 776.46$$2.52 $778.98 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 4.2 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 263 City of La Quinta Page 4-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Updating the Fees The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the current value of Community and Cultural Center facilities. We recommend that the costs used i n this chapter be reviewed periodically and adjusted in the event that updated costs become available. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or impo sing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship b etween: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact F ees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs expla in how the impact fees calculated in this chapt er satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for community and cultural center facilitie s in La Quinta. Table 4.4: Community and Cultural Center Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $956.02 5,186 4,957,895$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $814.38 743 605,087$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $778.98 946 736,911$ Total 6,299,893$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 4.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 264 City of La Quinta Page 4-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and cultural center facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional community and cultural cente r facilities to serve the needs of additional population associated with new residential development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.New development increase s the need for community and cultural center facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional community and cultural center facilities, the increas e in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project.The amount of the community and cu ltural center facilities impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project.The fees per unit of development calculated in this ch apter for each type of residential development are based on the population per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for community and cultural center facilities in the City. 265 City of La Quinta Page 5-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 5.Library This chapter calculates impact fees for the La Quinta Library, which is owned by the City of La Quinta and operated by the Riverside County Library System. The existing Library was designe d to serve the projected buildout population of the area within the existing cor porate boundaries of the City. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impa ct fees by allocating the cost of specific facilities to the development served by those facilities.In this case, since the Library is designed to serve a buildout population, new development is effectively buying -in to the existing Library through impact fees. The Library impact fees calculated in this chapter represent new developm ent’s proportionate share of the cost of the existing Library facilities and materials. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to repre sent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 f or a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. The La Quinta Library is intended to serve residents of the City, so, population will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for that facility. Since population increase is associated with new residential development, these impact fees will apply only to residential development. Service Area La Quinta’s library serves the entire City, so the library impact fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new residential development within the existing corporate limits of the City. Level of Service The level of service used in calculating the Library impact fees is the relationship between the cost of existing Library facilities and materials and the projected potential po pulation at buildout of existing and future residential development in the area within La Quinta’s existing corporate boundaries. That relationship is defined by th e cost per capita shown in Table 5.2 on the next page. Existing Facilities Table 5.1 shows the original cost of the existing La Quinta Library building, the building site, the facility’s furniture, fixtures and equipment, and the books and other materials in the library’s 266 City of La Quinta Page 5-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 collection.Costs for site improvements such as parking lots and landscapin g are included in the building cost. Actual interest on the Redevelopment Agency loan used to fund a portion of the cost of the La Quinta Library is also shown in Table 5.1. That interest cost has not been adjusted for inflation, which would have increased the amount. Cost per Capita Table 5.2 calculates an average cost per capita for Library facilities based on the total impact fee cost basis from Table 5.1 and the buildout potential population o f the area within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 5.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for Library facilities and materials. Impact fees per unit ar e calculated using the impact fee cost per capita from Table 5.2 and population per unit factors from Table 2.1 and then adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculate d by dividing Table 5.1: Existing Library Facility and Materials Cost Building Original Est FF&E Site Original Impact Fee Component Sq Ft 1 Bldg Cost 2 Value 3 Acres 4 Site Cost 5 Cost Basis 6 La Quinta Library Building 20,517 8,500,000$1,025,000 2.40 313,632$9,838,632$ Library Materials (71, 480 volume @ $25.00 each)1,787,000$ Nominal Interest on RDA Library Loan since 2005 435,319$ Total 12,060,951$ 1 Existing square feet from the City of La Quinta Asset Report 2 Building value from City property insurance cost analysis 3 Estimated value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the City property insurance cost analysis and the City asset report 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Original site cost based on $130,680 per acre ($3.00 per square foot) 6 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the amounts for the building, FF&E, and site value. Table 5.2: Library Facility and Materials - Cost per Capita Total Impact Fee Buildout Potential Impact Fee Cost Cost Basis 1 Population 2 per Capita 3 $12,060,951 82,323 $146.51 1 See Table 5.1 2 See Table 2.2; see discusion of potential population in Chapter 2 3 Cost per capita = total impact fee cost basis / 2019 potential population 267 City of La Quinta Page 5-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 the cost of the st udy by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 5.4 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added residential development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the adjusted impact fees per unit from Table 5.3 to added units of residential de velopment from Table 2.3. Construction of the La Quinta Library was funded, in part, by a loan from the City’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA) before the State of California eliminated redevelopment agencies in 2012. That loan is now in the portfolio of the Successor Agency that is responsible for winding down the business of the now-dissolved La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. Impact fees collected for the Library will be used primarily to repay principal and interest on the outstanding debt to the Successor Agency. The impact fees may also be used to pay for library materials. Table 5.3: Library Facility and Materials - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 146.51$2.70 395.57$$1.28 $396.85 Residential - Single Family Attached DU 146.51$2.30 336.97$$1.09 $338.06 Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 146.51$2.20 322.32$$1.04 $323.36 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 5.2 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge Table 5.4: Library Facility and Materials Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 396.85$5,186 2,058,076$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 338.06$743 251,178$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 323.36$946 305,900$ Total 2,615,154$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 5.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 268 City of La Quinta Page 5-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 There is no set repayment schedule or interest rate for that loan, so it is not possible to estimate the ultimate cost of retiring that debt. The Successor Agency charges interest at th e rate earned by the City’s investment pool, and repayment is based on the availability of impact fee revenue. The current balance on that loan is approximately $1.552 million. The total cost of the facility continues to increases over time because of int erest on the balance of the RDA loan. However, the interest rate being charged on that loan is quite low, and the revenue projected in Table 5.4 appears adequate to cover principal and interest payments until that loan is retired. Based on the rate at whic h Library impact fees have been collected since 2008, full repayment of the RDA loan is likely to take many years. Updating the Fees The impact fees calcu lated in this chapter are based on the original cost of the library facility and those costs are fixed . However, interest on the outstanding loan continues to a ccumulate, so we recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted if necessary to reflect actual costs. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees,must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexu s” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculate d in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providi ng library facilities to the residents of La Quinta. 269 City of La Quinta Page 5-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to repay the Redevelopment Agency loan that was used to fund a portion of the cost of the La Quinta Library and to acquire additional materials for the Library’s collection. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to retire debt that was used to pay for future development’s share of the cost of the La Quinta Library. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.The La Quinta Library was constructed with adequate capacity to serve the anticipated buildout population of the area within the existing City Limits of La Quinta. Those impact fees are imposed on residential development because added residential development drives the growth of the City’s population. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the library impact fe es charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the population per un it for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of library facilities in the City. 270 City of La Quinta Page 6-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 6.Civic Center This chapter calculates impact fees for the La Quinta Civic Center.When the most recent Civic Center expansion was constructed, the City expected that the expanded facility would have adequate capacity to serve all planned development within the corporate boundaries of the existing City through buildout.However, that expectation has changed as the City began to bring in-house more services that were formerly contracted out. So now, space in the Civic Center is at a premium and additional space will be required as the City continues to grow. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees using a level-of-service standard and the estimated cost of new facilities needed to maintain that standar d.The level of service standard used in this chapter is discussed be low. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 for a general d iscussion of demand variables and demand factors. The City departments housed in the Civic Center provide services of one kind or another to all private development in the City, but most of them are not line departments providing services directly to City residents and businesses. In a number of cases, those departments are responsible for management, administrative and support functions essential to City government. It is self-evident that the need for those functions in any city generally increases as th e City grows. But given the variety of functions located in the Civic Center, and the indirect relationship between development and the demand for some of those services, no single attribute of development neatly represents the impact of development on spa ce needs in that facility. Thus, it is reasonable to use a generalize d measure of development to represent service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees for the Civic Center. Acreage is the most common attribute of all types of development, and d eveloped acreage will be used here as the demand variable representin g the impact of development on the need for Civic Center facilities. Service Area La Quinta’s Civic Center serves the entire City, so the Civic Center impact fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new private development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. 271 City of La Quinta Page 6-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Level of Service The level of service standard used to calculate Civic Center impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service, defined as th e City’s current capital investment in those facilities per developed acre. The fees calculated in this chapter are designed to maintain that existing level of service as the City grows. Existing Facilities Table 6.1 shows the original cost of the existing La Quinta Civic Center building, the building site, and the facility’s furniture, fixtures and equipment.Costs for site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping are included in the building cost. Cost per Developed Acre Table 6.2 on the next page calculates an average cost per developed acre f or the Civic Center using the impact fee cost basis from Table 6.1 and the acreage of existing private development within the corporate boundaries of the City. The developed acreage shown in Table 6.2 excludes public facilities, schools and parks which do not impact the n eed for Civic Center facilities, and includes only 5% of golf course acreage. Golf courses have a very limited impact on the demand for City services housed in the Civic Center. Table 6.1: Existing Civic Center Facility Cost Building Building Est FF&E Site Site Impact Fee Component Sq Ft 1 Cost 2 Value 3 Acres 4 Cost 5 Cost Basis 6 Civic Center 54,553 30,297,716$2,000,000 5.50 718,740$33,016,456$ Total 33,016,456$ 1 Existing square feet from the City of La Quinta Asset Report 2 Original building cost by the City of La Quinta 3 Estimated value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment from the City property insurance cost analysis and the City asset report 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Estimated site value based on original costs of $130,680 per acre ($3.00 per square foot) 6 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the amounts for the building, FF&E, and site value. Table 6.2: Civic Center - Cost per Developed Acre Impact Fee Adjusted Existing Cost per Cost Basis 1 Dev Acreage 2 per Acre 3 $33,016,456 6,597 $5,004.88 1 See Table 6.1 2 Adjusted existsing developed acreage excludes public facilities, schools, parks and includes 5% of golf course acreage; see Table 2.2 3 Cost per acre = impact fee cost basis / adjusted existing developed acreage 272 City of La Quinta Page 6-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 6.3 shows the calculation of impac t fees per unit of development by development type for the Civic Center. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impac t fee cost per acre from Table 6.2 and acres-per-unit factors from Table 2.1, except for golf courses which are included at a rate of 0.05 acres per acre of golf course. No impact fees are calculated for public facilities, schools and parks which do not im pact the Civic Center. Table 6.3 also adds a small administrati ve charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Projected Revenue Table 6.4 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potentia l revenue for the added private development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 6.3 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 6.3: Civic Center - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Acres Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 5,004.88$0.245 1,226.20$$3.97 1,230.17$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 5,004.88$0.222 1,111.08$$3.60 1,114.68$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 5,004.88$0.125 625.61$$2.03 627.64$ Office/Medical KSF 5,004.88$0.104 520.51$$1.69 522.19$ General Commercial KSF 5,004.88$0.104 520.51$$1.69 522.19$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 5,004.88$0.139 695.68$$2.25 697.93$ Public Facilities Acre 0.00$0.270 0.00$$0.00 0.00$ Public Schools Acre 0.00$1.000 0.00$$0.00 0.00$ Parks Acre 0.00$1.000 0.00$$0.00 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre 5,004.88$0.050 250.24$$0.81 251.05$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 6.2 3 Acres per unit; see Table 2.1; for golf courses, the share of acreage impacting the Civic Center is estimated at 5%, so 0.05 acres per acre of golf course is used to calculate the impact fee for golf courses 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 273 City of La Quinta Page 6-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Updating the Fees The impact fees calcu lated in this chapter are based largely on the original cost of the Civic Center, and those costs are fixed, so there is no need to review this fee until the City’s next impact fee update. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees,must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) Table 6.4: Civic Center Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 1,230.17$5,186 6,379,656$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,114.68$743 828,210$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 627.64$946 593,745$ Office/Medical KSF 522.19$512 267,363$ General Commercial KSF 522.19$1,358 709,140$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 697.93$1,360 949,188$ Golf Courses Acre 251.05$817 205,112$ Total 9,932,414$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 6.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 274 City of La Quinta Page 6-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calcu lated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providing Civic Cente r facilities to serve residents and businesses in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for future expansion of the Civic Center. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used for future expansion of the La Quinta Civic Center to meet the needs of additional development in the Ci ty. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.The La Quinta Civic Center serves all private development in the City and the need for space in the Civic Center increases as the City grows. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project.The amount of the Civic Center impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added developed acreage a ssociated with that project. The fees per unit of development calcul ated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated a cres per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project refle cts that project’s proportionate share of the cost of Civic Center facilities in the City. 275 City of La Quinta Page 7-1 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Chapter 7.Maintenance Facilities This chapter calculates impact fees for the corporate yard maintenance facilities and equipment needed to serve future development in La Quinta. The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the new development’s share of the total cost of existing and planned maintenance facilities including equipment .The City has developed a master plan for future improvements to the m aintenance facilities at the City’s corporate yard. Those improvements are to be added in two phases. The existing facilities are considered Phase I. Future improvements are designated Phase II and Phase III. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1.That method calculates impact fees by allocating the cost of specific facilities to the development served by those facilities. In this chapter, separate impact fees will be calculated for the portions of the facilities devoted to its two primary functions:street maintenance and park maintenance. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type o f facility. See Chapter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. Because separate impact fees are being calculated for street maintenance facilities and park maintenance facilities, two demand variables are used in this chapter. C osts for park maintenance facilities are allocated using potential population, t he same demand variable used for parks. And costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated using weighted peak hour trips, the same demand variable used for transportati on facilities. Service Area La Quinta’s maintenance facilities serve the entire City, so the impact fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new development within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Level of Service For the types of facilities covered in this chapter, level-of-service standards are generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build required facilities without formally adopting a standard.The level of service used here to calculate impact fees for maintenance facilities is the level service implied by the relationship of facilities and development at buildout of the area within the existing corporate boundaries of La Quinta. 276 City of La Quinta Page 7-2 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Facility Needs Table 7.1 shows the estimated value of the City’s existing corporate yard maintenance facilities, and the estimated cost of future improvements in Phases II and III. The value of existing site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping are included in the value of the existing facilities. Table 7.2 shows a partial list of the City’s existing maintenance equipment . The impact fee cost basis shown in Table 7.2 is the original cost of the equipment, all of which has been purchased in the last two years. City staff estimate that approximately 20% of the City’s maintenance facilities are used for park maintenance and 80% are used for street maintenance. Consequently, in the impact fee Table 7.1: Maintenance Facility Cost Facility Site Est Site Impact Fee Component Value/Cost 1 Acres 2 Value 3 Cost Basis 4 Existing Maintenance Facilities 3,768,443$2.8 1,219,680$4,988,123$ Future Improvements (Phase 2) 3,183,903$3,183,903$ Future Improvements (Phase 3) 4,018,794$4,018,794$ Total 12,190,820$ 1 The value of existing maintenance facilities based on original cost; cost for Phase II improvements from the 2019/20 and 2020/21 CIP; cost for Phase III improvements estimated by the City of La Quinta 2 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 3 Estimated site value based on $10.00 per square foot ($435,600 per acre) 4 Impact fee cost basis = the sum of the facility value/cost and site value Table 7.2: Existing Maintenance Equipment Equipment Impact Fee Year Type Make Model Cost Basis 1 2018 Dump Truck Ford F650 88,416$ 2017 Boom Truck Dodge Ram 5500 109,500$ 2018 Backhoe John Deere 310HL 131,640$ 2018 Skid Steer Quinn Cat 232D 44,149$ 2017 Wood Chipper Vermeer 23,000$ 2017 Gator Utility Veh.John Deere 8,600$ 2018 Stump Grinder Vermeer 22,500$ 2018 Dump Trailer (Single Axle)10 Foot 5,700$ 2019 Dump Trailer (Double Axle)10 Foot 7,600$ 2018 Trailer Butler 3,200$ 2019 Trailer Big Tex 16 Foot 3,600$ Total 447,905$ Source: City of La Quinta Facilities Department 1 Impact fee cost basis = original cost 277 City of La Quinta Page 7-3 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 calculations that follow, 20% of the impa ct fee cost basis for the facilities and equipment will be attributed to park maintenance and 80% will be attributed to street maintenance. Park Maintenance Facilities Cost per Capita Table 7.3 calculates an average cost per capita for the park maintenance share of the City’s maintenance facilities and equipment,based on 20% of the total impact fee cost basis from Tables 7.1 and 7.2,and the City’s projected buildout potential population from Table 2.4. As explained earlier, potential population is the same demand variable used to calculate impact fees for parks in Chapter 3. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of potential population. Street Maintenance Facilities Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip Table 7.4 calculates an average cost per weighted peak hour vehicle trip for the street maintenance share of the City’s main tenance facilities and equipment, based on 80% of the total impact fee cost basi s from Tables 7.1 and 7.2,and the City’s projected buildout weighted peak hour trips from Table 2.4. As explained earlier,weighted peak hour trips are also used as the demand variable in calculating street impact fees in Chapter 9.See Chapter 2 for a discussion of weighted peak hour trips. Table 7.3: Park Maintenance Facilities - Cost per Capita Impact Fee Park Maint Park Maint Buildout Cost per Cost Basis 1 Share 2 Cost Basis 3 Potential Pop 4 per Capita 5 $12,638,725 20% $2,527,745 82,323 $30.71 1 Sum of impact fee cost basis from Tables 7.1 and 7.2 2 Share of facilities devoted to park maintenance estimated by the City of La Quinta 3 Park maintenance cost basis = impact fee cost basis X park maintenance share 4 Buildout potential population; see Table 2.4 5 Cost per capita = park maintenance cost basis / buildout potential population Table 7.4: Street Maintenance Facilities - Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip Impact Fee Street Maint Street Maint Buildout Wtd Cost per Wtd Cost Basis 1 Share 2 Cost Basis 3 Peak Hour Trips 4 Peak Hour Trip 5 $12,638,725 80% $10,110,980 52,362 $193.10 1 Sum of impact fee cost basis from Tables 7.1 and 7.2 2 Share of facilities devoted to street maintenance estimated by the City of La Quinta 3 Street maintenance cost basis = impact fee cost basis X street maintenance share 4 Buildout weighted peak hour trips; see Table 2.4 5 Cost per weighted peak hour trip = street maintenance cost basis / buildout weighted peak hour trips 278 City of La Quinta Page 7-4 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Park Maintenance Facilities Table 7.5 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for park maintenance facilities .Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per capita from Table 7.3 and population-per-unit factors from Table 2.1.This portion of the maintenance facilities impact fees will only apply to residential development because population increase is associated with n ew residential development. Table 7.5 also adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to rec over the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the co st of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Table 7.5: Park Maintenance Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 30.71$2.70 82.90$0.27$83.17$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 30.71$2.30 70.62$0.23$70.85$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 30.71$2.20 67.55$0.22$67.77$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 7.3 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 279 City of La Quinta Page 7-5 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development –Street Maintenance Facilities Table 7.6 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for street maintenance facilities. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per weighted peak hour trip from Table 7.4 and weighted peak hour trips-per-unit factors from Table 2.1. Table 7.6 also adds a small administrative charge o n the same basis as in Table 7.5. Table 7.6 calculates impact fees for public facilities, schools, and parks, even thou gh the City cannot collect impact fees from those types of development. On the n ext page, costs allocated to public facilities and parks are re -allocated to private development. It is not necessary to reallocate costs from schools. No additional schools ar e planned for the service area defined in this study, so no costs were allocated to schools. In Table 7.7 on the next page , the street maintenance facility costs initially allocate d to public facilities and parks are re -allocated to private development by adjusting the cost per weighted peak hour trip for private development. Reallocation is justified by the fact that the demand associated with public facilities and parks is a secon dary impact of private development, because the need for public facilities and parks is created by private development. Table 7.6: Street Maintenance Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (Before Reallocation) Development Cost per Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 193.10$1.16 223.99$0.73$224.72$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 193.10$0.89 171.86$0.56$172.41$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 193.10$0.66 127.44$0.41$127.86$ Office/Medical KSF 193.10$1.90 366.89$1.19$368.07$ General Commercial KSF 193.10$2.34 451.85$1.46$453.31$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 193.10$0.54 104.27$0.34$104.61$ Public Facilities KSF 193.10$2.48 478.88$1.55$480.43$ Schools Acre 193.10$0.79 152.55$0.49$153.04$ Parks Acre 193.10$0.51 98.48$0.32$98.80$ Golf Courses Acre 193.10$0.27 52.14$0.17$52.31$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.4 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per wieghted peak hour trip X weighted peak hour trips per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 280 City of La Quinta Page 7-6 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 In Table 7.7 above,costs attributed to public facilities are re-allocated to all types of private development while costs attributed to parks are re-allocated only to residential development. Table 7.8 on the next page recalculates the street maintenance impact fees per unit of development for private development using the adjusted cost per weighted peak hour trip for street maintenance facilities from Table 7.7 .Table 7.8 also includes the adjustment for an administrative charge on the same basis as in Tables 7.4 and 7.5.The increase in impact fees resulting from the reallocation amounts to 2.1%for residential development and 1.7% for non- residential development. Table 7.7: Street Maintenance Facilities - Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip with Reallocation Initial Cost Reallocated Reallocated Adjusted Development per Weighted Pub Fac Cost per Parks Cost per Cost per Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 3 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $193.10 3.25 0.73 197.08$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $193.10 3.25 0.73 197.08$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $193.10 3.25 0.73 197.08$ Office/Medical KSF $193.10 3.25 196.35$ General Commercial KSF $193.10 3.25 196.35$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $193.10 3.25 196.35$ Public Facilities KSF Reallocated 0.00$ Schools Acre No Allocation 0.00$ Parks Acre Reallocated 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre $193.10 3.25 196.35$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.6 3 Reallocated public facilities cost per weighted peak hour trip = 84 KSF of future Public Facilities X $480.83 per KSF = $40,356.44 / 12,407 weighted peak hour trips for receiving facilities = $3.25 per weighted peak hour trip 4 Reallocated parks cost per weighted peak hour trip = 54 acres of future Parks X $98.80 per acre = $5,335.14 / 7,301 weighted peak hour trips for receiving (residential) development =$0.73 per weighted peak hour trip 281 City of La Quinta Page 7-7 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Park Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue Table 7.9 shows projected revenue from the park maintenance facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 7.5 to added units of residential development from Table 2.3. Street Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees -Projected Revenue Table 7.10 shows projected revenue from the street maintenance facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the adjusted impact fees per unit from Table 7.8 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 7.8: Street Maintenance Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (After Reallocation) Development Cost per Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 197.08$1.16 228.61$0.74 229.35$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 197.08$0.89 175.40$0.57 175.97$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 197.08$0.66 130.07$0.42 130.49$ Office/Medical KSF 196.35$1.90 373.07$1.21 374.27$ General Commercial KSF 196.35$2.34 459.46$1.49 460.95$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 196.35$0.54 106.03$0.34 106.37$ Public Facilities KSF 0.00$2.48 0.00$0.00 0.00$ Schools Acre 0.00$0.79 0.00$0.00 0.00$ Parks Acre 0.00$0.51 0.00$0.00 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre 196.35$0.27 53.01$0.17 53.19$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.7 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per wieghted peak hour trip X weighted peak hour trips per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge Table 7.9: Park Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 83.17$5,186 431,333$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 70.85$743 52,642$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 67.77$946 64,111$ Total 548,086$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 7.5 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 282 City of La Quinta Page 7-8 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 The combined projected revenue of $3 million for the park maintenance and street maintenance facilities impact fees amounts to approximately 42 % of the estimated $7.2 million cost of future improvements to the City’s maintenance facilities shown in Table 7.1.The balance of the cost will have to come from non-impact fee sources. Updating the Fees The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based in part on estimated costs of futu re maintenance facilities improvements. We recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted in the event that up dated costs become available. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Table 7.10: Street Maintenance Facilities Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 229.35$5,186 1,189,434$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 175.97$743 130,746$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 130.49$946 123,448$ Office/Medical KSF 374.27$512 191,629$ General Commercial KSF 460.95$1,358 625,968$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 106.37$1,360 144,667$ Golf Courses Acre 53.19$817 43,453$ Total 2,449,345$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 7.8 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 283 City of La Quinta Page 7-9 Development Impact Fee Study September 23, 2019 Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions beari ng on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providing maintenance facilities to serve the City. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional maintenance facilities needed serve new development in La Quinta . As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for additional maintenance facilities needed to serve new development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.New development increases the need for parks and streets and the facilities supporting their maintenance. The City’s existing maintenance facilities don ’t have the capacity to support future growth in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the maintenance facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added potential population and weighted peak hour vehicle trips generated by that project . The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated increase in potential population and weighted peak hour trips per unit of development . Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of additional maintenance facilities needed to serve new development in the City. 284 City of La Quinta Page 8-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 8.Fire Protection This chapter calculates impact fees for La Quinta’s fire protection facilities. The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department fo r fire protection, fire prevention, rescue, Fire Marshal and medical emergency services. The City builds and owns the fire stations in La Quinta. Those stations are part of an integrated system of fire protection facilities used by the Riverside County Fire Department to provide fire protection to La Quinta and surrounding communities, including unincorporated portions of the County. There are three existing fire stations in the City and preliminary plans call for a fourth fire station to be constructed in or near the southeastern quadrant of La Quinta. That station will be needed to provide an acceptable level of service to development in that part of the City and in portions of unincorporated Riverside County. This study assumes that the cost of the fourt h fire station will be shared equally between La Quinta and Riverside County. Firefighting apparatus assigned to fire stations in La Quinta is owned by the County. Although the City contributes to the cost of some apparatus through its contract payments to the Riverside County Fire Department, costs for apparatus and vehicles are not included in the cost basis for impact fees in this chapter. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees by allocating the cost of specific facilities to the development served by those facilities.In this case, the cost of existing and future fire stations will be allocated to existing and future development so that all development in the City will share proportionately in the cost of those facilities. The fi re protection impact fees calculated in this chapter represent new development’s proportionate share of the cost of La Quinta’s fire protection facilities. Service Area Although individual fire stations are assigned to provide the initial emergency respo nse in a specific area, resources from multiple f ire stations are often needed to provide an adequate response to an emergency call. A first alarm response to a smal l structure fire can require resources from as many as five fire stations. So it makes sens e to treat the entire City as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees. That approach is further supported by the fact that cal culating separate impact fees for individual fire stations could result in substantially di fferent impact fees for development in different parts of the City receiving essentially the same level of service. This analysis will allocate costs for fire protec tion facilities citywide, so the impact fees for a particular type of development will be t he same throughout the City. 285 City of La Quinta Page 8-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Level of Service The critical measure of level of service for fire protection and emergency medical services is emergency response time. The number of fire stations needed to serve a particular area with acceptable response times is determined by specific condition s within the area, and is affected heavily by the size of the area to be served. In La Quinta’s case, the City and the Riversi de County Fire Department have determined the number and location of fire stations needed t o provide an acceptable level of service in the City. The impact fee analysis in this chapter is based on the number of fire stations needed to serve the City at bui ldout. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used t o represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. The cost of capital facilities (i.e., fire stations) needed to provide fire protection and emergency medical response services in the City with acceptable response times depends to a large extent on the size of the area to be served. Acreage is the most common measure o f land area, so developed acreage will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for fire protection. Facility Needs Table 8.1 on the next page lists existing and future fire protection facilities in La Quinta, including costs for buildings , fire station sites and furniture fixtures and equipment (FF&E). The impact fee cost basis shown in the right-hand column of Table 8.1 will be used in the impact fee calculations. As indicated above, costs for apparatus and vehicles are not included in th is analysis. 286 City of La Quinta Page 8-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Cost per Developed Acre Table 8.2 calculates an average cost per developed a cre for fire protection facilities base d on the total impact fee cost basis from Table 8.1 and the projected acreage of development to be served at buildout within t he existing corporate boundaries. The developed acreage shown in Table 8.2 encompasses all development expected within the existing corporate boundaries of the City at buildout, including public facilities, schools, parks and golf courses. However, while parks and golf courses have the potential to create a demand for emergency medical services , they present a very low risk of fires relative to their acreage. Consequently, only 5% of park and golf course acreage is included in the adjusted buildout developed acreage in Table 8.2. Table 8.1: Existing and Future Fire Stations Year Building Est Building Est FF&E Site Est Site Impact Fee Facility Completed Sq Ft 1 Cost/Value 2 Cost/Value 3 Acres 4 Cost/Value 5 Cost Basis 6 Fire Station 32 2009 7,500 3,500,066$100,000$1.2 522,720$4,122,786$ Fire Station 70 1985 5,750 1,298,269$170,000$1.3 566,280$2,034,549$ Fire Station 70 Expansion Future 1,200 480,000$0$0.0 0$480,000$ Fire Station 93 2002 7,690 2,420,350$125,650$1.5 653,400$3,199,400$ Southeast Fire Station 7 Future 7,000 4,550,000$100,000$1.5 653,400$2,651,700$ Total 12,488,435$ 1 Building square feet provided by the City of La Quinta 2 Building value for existing stations from the City property schedule ; building cost for future station based on $650 per square foot including site improvements 3 Value of existing furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the City property schedule; estimated cost of FF&E for the future Southeast fire station based on existing stations 4 Site acres provided by the City of La Quinta 5 Cost or value of site estimated based on $10.00 per sq ft ($435,600 per acre) 6 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building, FF&E and site cost or value 7 Impact fee cost basis for Southeast fire station assumes 50% of the cost will be paid by Riverside County Table 8.2: Fire Protection Facilities - Cost per Developed Acre Impact Fee Adjusted Buildout Cost per Cost Basis 1 Dev Acreage 2 per Acre 3 $12,488,435 8,766 $1,424.73 1 See Table 8.1 2 Adjusted buildout developed acreage includes 100% of developed acreage for all other development types and 5% of acreage for parks and golf courses; see Table 2.4 3 Cost per acre = impact fee cost basis / adjusted buildout developed acreage 287 City of La Quinta Page 8-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 8.3 shows the calculat ion of impact fees per unit of developm ent by development type for the fire protection. Impact fees per unit are calculated using the impact fee cost per acre from Table 8.2 and acres-per-unit factors from Table 2.1, except for parks and golf courses which are included at a rate of 0.05 acres per developed acre. Table 8.3 also adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the adjusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of th e study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Note that Table 8.3 calculates impact fees for public facilities, schools,and parks, even though the City cannot collect impact fees from those types of development. On the next page, costs allocated to public facilities and parks are re -allocated to private development. It is not necessary to reallocate costs from schools. No a dditional schools are planned for the service area defined in this study, so no costs were allocated to schools. In Table 8.4 on the next page, the fire protection facilities costs initially allocated to public facilities and parks are re-allocated to private development by adjusting the cost per acre for private development. That reallocation is justified by the fact that the need for public facilities and parks is created by private development. Table 8.3: Fire Protection Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (Before Reallocation) Development Cost per Acres Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 1,424.73$0.245 349.06$1.13$350.19$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,424.73$0.222 316.29$1.02$317.31$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,424.73$0.125 178.09$0.58$178.67$ Office/Medical KSF 1,424.73$0.104 148.17$0.48$148.65$ General Commercial KSF 1,424.73$0.104 148.17$0.48$148.65$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 1,424.73$0.139 198.04$0.64$198.68$ Public Facilities KSF 1,424.73$0.270 384.68$1.25$385.92$ Public Schools Acre 1,424.73$1.000 1,424.73$4.62$1,429.34$ Parks Acre 1,424.73$0.050 71.24$0.23$71.47$ Golf Courses Acre 1,424.73$0.050 71.24$0.23$71.47$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 8.2 3 Acres per unit; see Table 2.1; for parks and golf courses, the share of acreage impacting fire protection facilities is estimated at 5%, so 0.050 acres per acre is used to calculate impact fees for those development types 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per acre X acres per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 288 City of La Quinta Page 8-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 In Table 8.4 above, costs attributed to public facilitie s are re-allocated to all types of priv ate development while costs attributed to parks are re -allocated only to residential development. Table 8.5 on the next page r ecalculates impact fees per unit of development for private development using the adjusted cost per acre for fire protection facil ities from Table 8.4. Table 8.5 also includes the adjustment for an administrative charge on the same basis as in Table 8.3. The increase in impact fees resulting from reallocation amounts to 5.5% for residential development and 1.4% for non-residential development. Table 8.4: Fire Protection Facilities - Cost per Acre with Reallocation Initial Cost Reallocated Reallocated Adjusted Development per Pub Fac Cost Parks Cost Cost per Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Acre 3 per Acre 4 Acre 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $1,424.73 20.08 58.13 1,502.93$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $1,424.73 20.08 58.13 1,502.93$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $1,424.73 20.08 58.13 1,502.93$ Office/Medical KSF $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ General Commercial KSF $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ Public Facilities KSF Reallocated 0.00$ Schools Acre No Allocation 0.00$ Parks Acre Reallocated 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre $1,424.73 20.08 1,444.80$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 8.3 3 Reallocated public facilities cost per acre = 120 Acres of future Public Facilities X $1,424.73 per acre = = $170.967.60 / 8.516 acres for receiving facilities = $20.08 per acre 4 Reallocated parks cost per acre = 296 acres of future Parks X $1,424.73 per acre = $421,720.08 / 7,255 acres for receiving (residential) development = $58.13 per acre 289 City of La Quinta Page 8-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Projected Revenue Table 8.6 shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added private development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the adjusted impact fees per unit from Table 8.5 to added units of development from Table 2.3 Table 8.5: Fire Protection Facilities - Impact Fees per Unit (After Reallocation) Development Cost per Acres Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Acre 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 1,502.93$0.245 368.22$1.19$369.41$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,502.93$0.222 333.65$1.08$334.73$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,502.93$0.125 187.87$0.61$188.47$ Office/Medical KSF 1,444.80$0.104 150.26$0.49$150.75$ General Commercial KSF 1,444.80$0.104 150.26$0.49$150.75$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 1,444.80$0.139 200.83$0.65$201.48$ Public Facilities KSF 0.00$0.270 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Public Schools Acre 0.00$1.000 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Parks Acre 0.00$0.050 0.00$0.00$0.00$ Golf Courses Acre 1,444.80$0.050 72.24$0.23$72.47$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite 2 See Table 8.4 3 Acres per unit; see Table 2.1; for parks and golf courses, the share of acreage impacting fire protection facilities is estimated at 5%, so 0.050 acres per acre is used to calculate impact fees for those development types 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per acre X acres per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 290 City of La Quinta Page 8-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The total impact fee revenue projected in Table 8.4 is about $280,000 less t han the $3.13 million in future facilities costs shown in Table 8.1. So assuming the impact fee revenue projections are reasonably accurate, about 9% of the cost of future fire station improvements would have to come from non -impact fee sources. Updating the Fees The impact fees calcu lated in this chapter are based in part on the cost of existing facilities and in part on the estimated cost of future facilities. Over time those costs can change, so we recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted if necessary to reflect actual costs. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and Table 8.6: Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 369.41$5,186 1,915,765$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 334.73$743 248,706$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 188.47$946 178,297$ Office/Medical KSF 150.75$512 77,182$ General Commercial KSF 150.75$1,358 204,713$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 201.48$1,360 274,010$ Golf Courses Acre 72.47$817 59,211$ Total 2,957,885$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; acre = net acre 2 See Table 8.5 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 291 City of La Quinta Page 8-8 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the developmen t project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court deci sions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework fo r Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of pr oviding fire protection facilities to serve development in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be use d to pay for future fire protection facilities needed to provide a reasonable level of cove rage for the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to anot her. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for new development’s proportional sh are of the fire protection facilities needed to ser ve all development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for additional fire protection facilities needed serve anticipated development through buildout of the area within the existing corporate boundar ies of La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the fire protection impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added develo ped acreage associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each ty pe of development are based on the estimated acres per unit for that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of fire protection facilities in the City. 292 City of La Quinta Page 9-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Chapter 9.Transportation This chapter calculates impact fees for improvements to La Quinta’s transportation system, including arterial streets, medians, roun dabouts,traffic signals,bridges, bike lanes and sidewalks. Information on transportation infrastructure needs and costs is taken from the City of La Quinta 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting , as revised August 5, 2019. That study assigns shares of the cost of each improvement to impact fees and to various other funding sources. It is important to note that the California Complete Streets Act requires local governments in the state to address the transportation needs of all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees by allocating the cost of specific facilit ies to the development served by those facilities. In this case, costs for improvements that increase the traffi c-carrying capacity of streets and are not funded from other sources are allocated to future development (see Table 9.1). Costs for improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes that do not increase the traffic -carrying capacity of streets and are not fund ed from other sources are allocated propo rtionately to existing and future development (see Table 9.2). Service Area The service area for La Quinta’s transportation system, as defined in the 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis is the area within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. Level of Service The improvement needs identified in the 2018 Transportation Infrastruc ture Needs Analysis are based on level of service standards adopted in the Circulation Element of the La Quinta 2 035 General Plan. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the impact of development on a particular type of facility. See Chapter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. The demand variable used in this analysis is weighted peak hour trips, which is the product of peak hour trips per unit and a trip length factor representing the relationship between the average trip length for a particular development type and the system -wide average trip length . See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of weighted peak hour trips. 293 City of La Quinta Page 9-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Improvement Needs Tables 9.1 and 9.2 summarize the improvement costs identified in the 2018 La Quinta Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by type. Table 9 .1 shows a breakdown of costs by type of improvement and funding source for capacity -enhancing improvements. Table 9.2 shows a similar breakdown for non-capacity-enhancing improvements. Note that in both of those tables, there is an item titled “Remaining Balance on Reimbursement Agreements.”Those items refer to amounts the City has committed to repay developers for improvements those developer s have constructed in excess of the amount for which they were responsible, and for which the City has agreed to reimburse them from impact fees collected from future development that shares responsibility for the improvements in question. The City share of costs from Table 9.1 is allocated in this analysis to future development based on weighted peak hour trips. The City share of costs from Table 9.2 is allocated in this analysis to both existing and future development based on weighted peak hour trips. Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip Table 9.3 calculates an average cost per weighted peak hour trip based on the City share of costs for capacity-enhancing improvements from Table 9.1 and the number of weighted peak hour trips associated with future development in Table 2.3.Weighted peak hour trips are discussed in Chapter 2. Table 9.1: Transportation System Capacity- Enhancing Improvements Improvement City Cost Developer Hwy Bridge Total Category Share Contribution TUMF Program Cost New Roadway Construction 2,376,019$664,160$3,040,179$ Roadway Improvements - Capacity Enhancing) 11,996,238$20,708,470$4,481,320$37,186,028$ Structure Improvements 4,259,250$7,188,750$12,442,000$23,890,000$ New Roundabouts 8,656,500$1,791,000$9,850,500$20,298,000$ New Traffic Signals 1,290,000$967,500$2,257,500$ Remaining Balance on Reimbursement Agreements 2,288,591$2,288,591$ Total 30,866,598$24,131,130$21,520,570$12,442,000$88,960,298$ Source: 2018 La Quinta Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis, Revised 8/5/19 Table 9.2: Transportation System Non Capacity- Enhancing Improvements Improvement City Cost Developer Hwy Bridge Total Category Share Contribution TUMF Program Cost Roadway Improvements - Non-capacity Enhancing) 29,575,145$4,628,855$34,204,000$ Median-Only Improvements 3,346,000$3,346,000$ Sidewalk-Only Improvements 5,882,691$904,309$6,787,000$ Bike Lane-Only Improvements 8,644,000$8,644,000$ Remaining Balance on Reimbursement Agreements 1,451,133$1,451,133$ Total 48,898,969$5,533,164$0$0$54,432,133$ Source: 2018 La Quinta Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis 294 City of La Quinta Page 9-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Table 9.4 calculates an average cost per weighted peak hour trip based on the C ity share of costs for non-capacity-enhancing improvements from Table 9.2 and the number of weighted peak hour trips associated with both existing and future development in Table 2.4. Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 9.5 shows the initial calcu lation of impact fees per unit of development by development type for the transportation improvements.These impact fees per unit are cal culated using the sum of the cost per weighted peak hour trip from Tables 9.3 and 9.4, and the weighted peak hour trips-per-unit factors from Table 2.1. Table 9.5 also adds a small administrative charge to arrive at the a djusted impact fee per unit. The 0.324% administrative charge is intended to recover the cost of this study over five years. It is calculated by dividing the cost of the study by estimated revenue that would be generated over five years by impact fees calculated in this study (50,000 / 15,455,871 = 0.00324). Note that Table 9.5 calculates impact fees for public facilities, schools and parks even though the City cannot collect fees for those types of development. On the next page, costs allocated to public facilities and parks are re-allocated to private development. It is not necessary to reallocate costs from schools. No additional schools are planned for t he service area defined in this study, so no costs were allocated to schools. Table 9.3: Capacity Enhancing Improvements - Cost per Wtd Pk Hr Trip City Cost Added Weighted Cost per Weighted Share 1 Peak Hour Trips 2 Peak Hour Trip 3 $30,866,598 12,643 $2,441.40 1 See Table 9.1 2 See Table 2.3 3 Cost per weighted peak hour trip = impact fee cost basis / added weighted peak hour trips Table 9.4: Non-Capacity-Enhancing Improvements - Cost per Wtd Pk Hr Trip City Cost Buildout Weighted Cost per Weighted Share 1 Peak Hour Trips 2 Peak Hour Trip 3 $48,898,969 52,362 $933.86 1 See Table 9.2 2 See Table 2.4 3 Cost per weighted peak hour trip = impact fee cost basis / buildout weighted peak hour trips 295 City of La Quinta Page 9-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 In Table 9.6, the costs initially allocated to public facilities and parks based on traffic generated by those uses, are reallocated to private development. That reallocation i s justified by the fact that the need for public facilities and parks is created by private developmen t. Table 9.5: Transportation Improvements - Impact Fees per Unit (Before Reallocation) Development Cost per Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 3,375.26$1.16 3,915.30$12.69$3,927.99$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 3,375.26$0.89 3,003.98$9.73$3,013.72$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 3,375.26$0.66 2,227.67$7.22$2,234.89$ Office/Medical KSF 3,375.26$1.90 6,413.00$20.78$6,433.78$ General Commercial KSF 3,375.26$2.34 7,898.11$25.59$7,923.70$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 3,375.26$0.54 1,822.64$5.91$1,828.55$ Public Facilities KSF 3,375.26$2.48 8,370.65$27.12$8,397.77$ Schools Acre 3,375.26$0.79 2,666.46$8.64$2,675.10$ Parks Acre 3,375.26$0.51 1,721.38$5.58$1,726.96$ Golf Courses Acre 3,375.26$0.27 911.32$2.95$914.27$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 Sum of costs per weighted peak hour trip from Table 9.3 and Table 9.4 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per weighted peak hour trip X weighted peak hour trips per unit 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge Table 9.6: Transportation Improvements - Cost per Weighted Peak Hour Trip with Reallocation Initial Cost Reallocated Reallocated Adjusted Development per Weighted Pub Fac Cost per Parks Cost per Cost per Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 3 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 4 Wtd Pk Hr Trip 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $3,375.26 56.67 12.73 3,444.67$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU $3,375.26 56.67 12.73 3,444.67$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $3,375.26 56.67 12.73 3,444.67$ Office/Medical KSF $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ General Commercial KSF $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ Public Facilities KSF Reallocated 0.00$ Schools Acre No Allocation 0.00$ Parks Acre Reallocated 0.00$ Golf Courses Acre $3,375.26 56.67 3,431.93$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 9.5 3 Reallocated public facilities cost per weighted peak hour trip = 84 KSF of future Public Facilities X $8,370.65 per KSF = $703,144.56 / 12,407 weighted peak hour trips for receiving facilities = $56.67 per weighted peak hour trip 4 Reallocated parks cost per weighted peak hour trip = 54 acres of future Parks X $1,721.38 per acre = $92,954.71 / 7,301 weighted peak hour trips for receiving (residential) development =$12.73 per weighted peak hour trip 296 City of La Quinta Page 9-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 In Table 9.6, above, public facilities costs are reallocated to all types of private development while parks costs are reallocated only to residenti al development that creates the need for parks. Table 9.7 recalculates the impact fees per unit of de velopment using the adjusted cost p er weighted peak hour trip for each type of development after reallocation.It is worth noting that the increase in impact fees for private development resulting from reallocation is very small on a percentage basis,about 2.1 % for residential development and 1.7% for non-residential development. Projected Revenue Table 9.8 on the next page shows projected revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue for the added private development shown in Table 2.3 is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 9.7 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 9.7: Transportation Improvements - Impact Fees per Unit (After Reallocation) Development Adj Cost/Wtd Wtd Pk Hr Impact Fee Admin Adj Impact Type Units 1 Pk Hr Trip 2 Trips per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 3,444.67$1.16 3,995.81$12.95 4,008.76$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 3,444.67$0.89 3,065.75$9.93 3,075.69$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 3,444.67$0.66 2,273.48$7.37 2,280.85$ Office/Medical KSF 3,431.93$1.90 6,520.68$21.13 6,541.80$ General Commercial KSF 3,431.93$2.34 8,030.73$26.02 8,056.75$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 3,431.93$0.54 1,853.24$6.00 1,859.25$ Golf Courses Acre 3,431.93$0.27 926.62$3.00 929.62$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 9.6 3 See Table 2.1 5 Administrative charge based on 0.324% of the impact fee per unit; see discussion in text 6 Adjusted impact fee per unit including administrative charge 297 City of La Quinta Page 9-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 The total impact fee revenue projected in Table 9.8 represents approximately 5 4% of the City’s share of the total cost of transpo rtation improvements shown in the 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis. Updating the Fees The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on cost estimates in the 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis. We recommend that these fees be reviewed periodically and adjusted when updated costs become available. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Table 9.8: Transportation Impact Fees - Projected Revenue Development Adj Impact Future Projected Type Units 1 Fee per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family Detached DU 4,008.76$5,186 20,789,425$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 3,075.69$743 2,285,235$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,280.85$946 2,157,680$ Office/Medical KSF 6,541.80$512 3,349,403$ General Commercial KSF 8,056.75$1,358 10,941,061$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 1,859.25$1,360 2,528,579$ Golf Courses Acre 929.62$817 759,503$ Total 42,810,885$ 1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Acre = net developed acre 2 See Table 9.7 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units 298 City of La Quinta Page 9-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8, 2019 Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of p roviding transportation improvements to serve development in La Quinta. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for transportation facilities shown in the City’s 2018 Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis , as revised August 5, 2019,and to reimburse developers for improvement costs expended for the benefit of future development. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for new development’s proportional share of the transportation improvements neede d to serve all development in La Quinta. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.Additional demand created by new development necessitates the construction of improvements to the City’s transportation system. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for a portion of tho se improvements. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost A ttributable to the Development Project.The amount of the transportation impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of peak hour added traffic associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated weighted peak hour trips associated with that type of development in La Quinta. Thus, the fee charge d to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of new transportation facilities in the City. 299 City of La Quinta Page 10-1 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 Chapter 10.Implementation This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of impact fees, and for th e interpretation and application of the development impact fees and in - lieu fees calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed a s a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Requirements for park land dedication and fees in lieu of dedication are governed by the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). Adoption The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the City attorney. The specific requirements are diff erent for impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, and for park land dedication and in -lieu fees under the Quimby Act. The latter requirements must be adopted by ordinance, and are subject to the same noticing and public hearing procedures as any ordinance. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062 a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10 -day notice period. Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by th e governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings , as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report. Establishment of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Section 66001(a), when an agency establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval,it must make findings to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 2.Identify the use of the fee; and 3.Determine how there is a re asonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed 300 City of La Quinta Page 10-2 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below. The specific language of such findings should be reviewed and approved by the agency’s Attorney.A more complete discussion of the nexus for each fee can be found in individual chapters of this report. Sample Finding:Purpose of the Fee.The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of park and recreation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development . Sample Finding: Use of the Fee.The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to provide public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City and identified in the 2019 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study by NBS.1 Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship:Based on analysis presented in the 2019 City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study by NBS, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and, b.The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. Administration The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code. Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act , Section 66001(a), when an agency imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essentially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 2.Identify the use of the fee; and 3.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; 1 According to Gov’t Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that inf ormation. 301 City of La Quinta Page 10-3 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 b.The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed Per Section 66001 (b), at th e time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific development project, the City is also required to make a finding to determine how there i s a reasonable relationship between: c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed. In addition, Section 66006 (f)provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance."The required notification could refer to the improvements identified in this study. Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee ,provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice o f a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge. Section 66022 (a)provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment. Collection of Fees.Section 66007 (a), provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects pr ior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon ap plication for utility service.In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit,Section 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) whe n the local agency determines that the fees “will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy” or (2) the fees are “to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made.” Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non - residential development. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building or grading permits are issued and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at that time. 302 City of La Quinta Page 10-4 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits ( of grading permits for golf courses), Sections 66007 (c) (1)and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien ag ainst the property until the fees are paid. Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue.Section 66006 (a)mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the impro vement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments , and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was colle cted.”Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same pur pose. The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. And, as a practical matter,that approach would be unworkable in any event because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues b y facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual proj ects. Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers . In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged,such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently sma ller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly.Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the developme nt on relevant public facilities. In some cases, the agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or redu ction may not result in increased costs to other development projects,so the effect us such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from other fund sources. Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer,as a condition of project approval,to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged,the City should ensure that the impact fees are ad justed so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development. 303 City of La Quinta Page 10-5 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land,or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers, and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements . Credit for Existing Development.If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fe es should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that particular impact fee. Annual Report.Section 66006 (b) (1)requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make availa ble to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues: 1.A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; 2.The amount of the fee; 3.The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; 4.The amount of the fees collected and interest earned; 5.Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; 6.Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determine s sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; 7.A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improveme nt on which the transfer or loan will be expended; 8.The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Secti on 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f). The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public , per Section 66006 (b) (2). Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996,The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to ex pend or commit impact fee revenue within five years,or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act,changed that requirement in material ways. Now, Section 66001 (d)requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five 304 City of La Quinta Page 10-6 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following find ings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: 1.Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put; 2.Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; 3.Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used; 4.Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above . If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund ,per Section 66001 (d). Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approxim ate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to proc edures specified in Section 66001 (d). Refunds under the Quimby Act.The Quimby Act, Section a.(6)(A) requires that a City, County or other agency to which park land or in-lieu fees are conveyed or paid shall develop a schedule “specifying how, when and where it will use the land or fees or both to develop park or recreational facilities to serve residents of the subdivision…. Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five ye ars after the payment of the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. Any fees not committed within five years must be refunded. Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan . Section 66002 (b) of the Mitigation Fee Act provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvemen t plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the g overning body at a noticed public hearing.The alternative, per Section 66001 (a) (2)is to identify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public documents. In most cases, the CIP identifies projects for a limited number of yea rs and may not include all improvements needed to serve future development covered by the impact fee study.We recommend that the City Council cite this development impact fee study as the public document identifying the use of the fees. Indexing of In-Lieu/Impact Fees. Where impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs, those costs should, if possible,be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by the impact fees.That 305 City of La Quinta Page 10-7 Development Impact Fee Study August 8,2019 adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. We recommend the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index as the primary basis for indexing construction costs .Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices. Training and Public Information Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of t he fee program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirab le if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to pay close attention to ha ndouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear. Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees m ust be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues.Some fees recommended in this report are tied to spe cific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs To recover the cost of periodic impact fee update studies a nd ongoing staff costs for managing those updates and preparing annual reports and five-year updates required by the Mitigation Fee Act, an administrati ve charge may be added to the impact fees calculated in this report. The administrative charges are included in the calculation of impact fees in this report. 306   December 12, 2019 From: City of La Quinta Monika Radeva, City Clerk 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Tel: (760) 777 – 7035 Email: MRadeva@LaQuintaCA.gov VIA EMAIL TO GG@TheDVBA.org and James@TheDVBA.org To: Gretchen Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer Desert Valley Builders Association (DVBA) 75100 Mediterranean Palm Desert, California 92211 SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) STUDY UPDATE RESPONSE TO DVBA’S COMMENT LETTER DATED DECEMBER 10, 2019 Dear Ms. Gutierrez, The City’s consultant, NBS Government Finance Group, has prepared a memorandum with written responses, dated December 11, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 1 to this correspondence, related to the DVBA’s comment letter, dated December 10, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 2, with regards to the City’s update of its DIF Study. Council reviewed this item on October 1, 2019, and directed Staff to facilitate review of the Study by an Ad-hoc Committee comprised of members of the Financial Advisory Commission (FAC), and to provide recommendations on the amount of fee increase; the Ad-hoc Committee has completed its review of the Study. This matter is scheduled for Council review and discussion at the December 17, 2019, regular Council meeting as Study Session Item No. 1, thus Council will not be taking any action on this item during this meeting. The Study will be scheduled again for Council consideration as a public hearing item during a future meeting, and City staff will notify the DVBA of the hearing in accordance with California state law notification requirements. This correspondence will be incorporated into the record for the December 17, 2019, Council meeting, and made available to the public. Any person may submit written comments, and/or speak on this item during this meeting, and any future meetings this item is being contemplated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Monika Radeva, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 4 307 Page 1  Memo  To:  City of La Quinta    Bryan McKinney, Public Works Director/City Engineer    From:  NBS Government Finance Group  Nicole Kissam, Joe Colgan    Date:  December 11, 2019    Re:  City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update – Response to DVBA Letter Dated  December 10, 2019  This memo provides responses to issues raised in the latest DVBA letter, dated December 10, 2019,  regarding the City of La Quinta Draft Impact Fee Report.   To Identify Need, or Continue Charges According to Past Investment (DVBA, pages 2 & 3). DVBA’s  letter concedes that the method used to calculate impact fees for the Civic Center/City Hall is sup‐ ported by California Court of Appeals decision in Homebuilders Association of Tulare and Kings County  v. City of Lemoore.   The letter goes on to argue that the case was wrongly decided, citing procedural protections contained  in the Mitigation Fee Act. We feel confident the Lemoore Court was aware of those provisions of the  Mitigation Fee Act when it decided the case.  Furthermore, DVBA misstates the requirements of the Act, saying, “The Act requires that after 5 years  of collections without construction of the ‘identified’ need, that those funds be refunded to the cur‐ rent property owners….”   What Section 66001(d)(1) of the Act actually requires is that every fifth year after funds are deposited  into an impact fee fund or account, the agency collecting the fees must make a determination as to  whether sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improve‐ ment. if so, the agency must identify an approximate construction date when construction will be  commenced. The refund requirement is triggered only if sufficient funds have been collected, AND the  agency fails to identify a construction date.  The Quimby Act vs. The Mitigation Fee Act (DVBA, pages 3 & 4). DVBA has repeatedly claimed that  the City may not charge park impact fees in addition to Quimby Act in‐lieu fees. However, as we have  pointed out previously, the Court of Appeals in the Lemoore came to the opposite conclusion, stating:   “Moreover, the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities independent  of the Quimby Act. Quimby Act Fees are expressly excluded from the fees authorized to  be collected under the Mitigation Fee Act. (§ 66000 subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the Mitiga‐ tion Fee Act permits fees to be adopted for [p]arks and recreation facilities” (§ 66002  subd. (c)(7).)  ATTACHMENT 1 308 ATTACHMENT 2309 310 311 312   November 19, 2019 Desert Valley Builders Association Gretchen Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer 75100 Mediterranean Palm Desert, California 92211 VIA EMAIL TO GG@TheDVBA.org & James@TheDVBA.org SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA 2019 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE – RESPONSE TO DVBA’S COMMENT LETTER DATED OCTOBER 15, 2019 Dear Ms. Gutierrez, The City’s consultant, NBS Government Finance Group, has prepared a memorandum of written responses dated November 6, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 1 to this correspondence, related the City’s update of it Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. The memorandum is in response to the DVBA’s comments letter dated October 15, 2019, enclosed as Attachment 2. The La Quinta Financial Advisory Commission has completed its review of the DIF Study and is preparing a letter of recommendation for Council consideration on whether or not to adopt fee increases. This matter is scheduled for Council discussion as a Study Session item during the December 17, 2019, regular meeting. This correspondence will be incorporated into the record. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Monika Radeva, City Clerk 313 Page 1 of 2 Memo   To:  City of La Quinta  From:  Nicole Kissam, Joe Colgan  Date:  November 6, 2019  Re:  Response to DVBA Letter Dated October 15, 2019  This memo provides responses to issues raised in the DVBA letter, dated October 15, 2019, regarding  the City of La Quinta Draft Impact Fee Report. Many of the issues raised in the letter were also raised  in DVBA’s September 27, 2019 letter and were addressed in our September 30, 2019 memo.  Failure to Establish a Need. The DVBA reiterates the claim made in its September 27, 2019 letter, that  the City has failed to establish a need for certain types of facilities and proposes its own method for  doing that. The DVBA misinterprets the manner in which “need” must be established.  NBS’s response  provided on September 30, 2019 is reiterated below:  “The ‘need’ for any type of public facility in La Quinta or any other city is determined by City  Council level‐of‐service policies, whether implicit or explicit. The City can choose to provide a  street system that operates at level of service A or level of service E, and that policy decision  determines the need for street system improvements. The City can choose to design a drain‐ age system for a 100‐year storm or a 25‐year storm, and that policy decision determines the  need for drainage system improvements. The City can choose to plan for fire stations that  provide a 5‐minute response time or a 10‐minute response time, and that policy decision  determines the number of fire stations needed to serve the City. The “need” for facilities like  parks, recreation facilities, and libraries is also determined by the level of service the City  Council chooses to provide.   In most cases where the City’s  level‐of‐service policy is not explicitly stated, the current im‐ pact fee study bases impact fees on the cost of maintaining the existing level of service so  that new development will not cause a reduction in the level of service provided to the exist‐ ing community. The City’s level of service policies for those facility types are implied by its  choice to provide a certain level of service to the existing co mmunity. With respect to mainte‐ nance facilities, the desired level of service is implied by the City’s adoption of a plan for future  maintenance facility improvements.”  With respect to establishing a need for community and cultural centers, the California Court of Appeals  addressed that specific issue in Homebuilders Association of Tulare and Kings County v. City of Lem‐ oore. In that case, the Homebuilders made exactly the same claim regarding community recreation  facilities that DVBA makes in its letter, to wit, that “no specific [planned] public improvements were  ATTACHMENT 1 314 Page 2 identified.” The Court of Appeals found that using the existing level of service, defined as a cost per  capita for existing facilities, was adequate justification for the fees.   We submit that the same logic applies with respect to the Civic Center/City Hall.  In the case of the impact fee for maintenance facilities, the impact fees were based on the most recent  master plan and cost estimates for improvements to the corporate yard. The fact that not all of the  funding for those improvements has been identified in the current Capital Improvement Plan is irrel‐ evant to the calculation of impact fees. Capital improvement plans often don’t extend far enough into  the future to be useful for impact fee analysis.  Parks and Recreation. In the October 15 letter, DVBA reiterates the claim made in its September 27,  2019 letter that the City may not charge park impact fees in addition to Quimby Act in‐lieu fees. How‐ ever, the Court of Appeals in the Lemoore case (cited above) came to the opposite conclusion, stating:   “Moreover, the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities independent of the  Quimby Act. Quimby Act Fees are expressly excluded from the fees authorized to be collected  under the Mitigation Fee Act. (§ 66000 subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the Mitigation Fee Act per‐ mits fees to be adopted for [p]arks and recreation facilities” (§ 66002 subd. (c)(7).)  The per‐acre costs used to calculate park improvement impact fees are based on the City’s recent  experience constructing parks. The examples of lower costs cited by DVBA from other studies may  result from differences is park improvement standards among jurisdictions.  Transportation. DVBA argues that “the imposition of road diets, bike lanes and golf cart routes to  existing roadways, whether or not a response to the Complete Streets Act, the General Plan or an  existing long‐term plan to create a ‘Village’… is not going to be the responsibility of new development.  It doesn’t add capacity.”   Aside from the fact that bike lanes and golf cart routes are amenities enjoyed by both existing and  future residents of La Quinta, they encourage environmentally friendly transportation alternatives  which is a major purpose of the Complete Streets Act. Sidewalks improve safety and convenience for  all residents of the City, existing and future.   In the calculation of the proposed transportation impact fees, costs for bike lanes, sidewalks and other  improvements that do not add vehicle capacity to the City’s street system are allocated to both exist‐ ing and future development, so that future development will pay only its fair share of those costs,  about 24%. It is also worth noting that La Quinta has already provided most of the arterial streets  needed to serve new development. In many cities, impact fees would include much more of the cost  of those improvements.  Fire Facilities. The DVBA does not seem to raise any specific objections to the calculation of the fire  impact fees.  Maximum Supportable Fees/Competitive or Incentive. DVBA argues for reducing the impact fees be‐ low the amounts calculated in the NBS impact fee study. That, of course, is a decision to be made by  the City Council, which may choose to adopt impact fees at any level up to the amounts justified in the  impact fee study.  315 ATTACHMENT 2316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 October 1, 2019 From: City of La Quinta Monika Radeva, City Clerk 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Tel: (760) 777 – 7035 Email: MRadeva@LaQuintaCA.gov VIA EMAIL TO GG@TheDVBA.org and James@TheDVBA.org To: Gretchen Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer Desert Valley Builders Association 75100 Mediterranean Palm Desert, California 92211 SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) STUDY UPDATE – RESPONSE TO DVBA’S COMMENT LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 Dear Ms. Gutierrez, The City of La Quinta is updating its DIF Study. City Staff submitted the draft DIF Study, dated August 8, 2019, to the DVBA for review and comments on August 27, 2019; and met with DVBA staff on September 11, 2019 to discuss proposed changes and answer questions. The draft DIF Study is scheduled for City Council review and discussion at the October 1, 2019, regular Council meeting as Study Session Item No. 2, thus Council will not be taking any action on this item during this meeting. The draft DIF Study will be scheduled again for Council review and consideration as a public hearing item during a future meeting, and City Staff will notify the DVBA of the hearing in accordance with California state law notification requirements. Following the publication of the Agenda Packet for the October 1, 2019 Council meeting, the City received the DVBA’s comment letter dated September 27, 2019, enclosed hereto as Attachment 2. The City’s consultant, NBS Government Finance Group, has provided responses to the DVBA’s comments in the enclosed memorandum dated September 30, 2019 as Attachment 1. This correspondence will be incorporated into the record for the October 1, 2019, Council meeting, and made available to the public. Any person may submitted written comments and/or speak on this item during this meeting, and any future meetings this item is being contemplated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Monika Radeva, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 324 Page 1  Memo  To:  City of La Quinta  Bryan McKinney, City Engineer  From:  NBS Government Finance Group  Nicole Kissam, Joe Colgan  Date:  September 30, 2019  Re:  City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Update – Response to DVBA Let‐ ter Dated September 27, 2019  This memo provides responses to issues raised in the DVBA letter, dated September 27,  2019, regarding the City of La Quinta Draft Impact Fee Report. In general, it addresses those  issues in the same order in which they appear in the letter.   Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4: Increasing Level of Service.  Only two of the impact fees calculated in  the La Quinta Impact Fee Study involve an increase in the level of service provided to the  City, so this discussion relates only to the maintenance facilities impact fees and the trans‐ portation Impact fees.  If it were the case that future improvements to the City’s maintenance facilities or transpor‐ tation system were to be funded with a dedicated special tax, we agree that it would be ap‐ propriate for the impact fee calculations to reflect a credit for future development’s contri‐ bution to the revenue generated from that source.  While laws in some states require such a  credit even for general taxes, California does not. As a practical matter once revenue is cred‐ ited to the General Fund, there is no way of tracking what sources of revenue are used for a  particular purpose.  With respect to transportation improvements, the City has already constructed most of the  arterial streets needed to serve future development and is not proposing that the impact  fees recover future development’s share of the cost of those improvements. Furthermore, in  the past the City has discounted the transportation impact fees, so that the existing commu‐ nity has been subsidizing the cost of street improvements needed to serve new develop‐ ment. Overall, it’s unlikely that new development is contributing even its fair share of the  cost of the City’s transportation system.  As for maintenance facilities, the existing community has paid for the existing facilities and  will probably contribute close to 90% of any non‐impact fee funding needed to fund future  maintenance facilities. Future development represents only about 25% of buildout develop‐ ment and it could take 20 years or more for buildout to occur, so new development’s contri‐ bution to the City’s General Fund revenues over that period might average around 12%.  Parks and Recreation Impact Fees.  DVBA asserts that the City may not charge both a  Quimby Act in‐lieu fee for park land and an impact fee for park improvements. That is incor‐ ATTACHMENT 1COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 325 Page 2 rect. It is true that the definition of “fee” in the Mitigation Fee Act excludes in‐lieu fees  charged under the Quimby Act as well as fees for processing applications, fees collected un‐ der development agreements and certain other fees. DVBA interprets that to mean the City  can’t charge both a Quimby Act fee and a park improvement impact fee. But by that logic, if  the City charges Quimby Act in‐lieu fees, it could not charge fees for processing applications  or fees pursuant to development agreements.    DVBA’s claim is also refuted by this statement from the California Court of Appeals decision  in Homebuilders Association of Tulare and Kings County v. City of Lemoore, the case cited by  DVBA in its letter.  “Moreover, the Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities in‐ dependent of the Quimby Act. Quimby Act Fees are expressly excluded from  the fees authorized to be collected under the Mitigation Fee Act (Section  66000, subd. (b).). Nevertheless, the Mitigation Fee Act permits fees to be  adopted for parks and recreation facilities.”  As noted by the court in Lemoore, the Mitigation Fee Act, in Subsection 66002(a)(7) specifi‐ cally lists parks and recreation facilities among the facilities or improvements to which the  Mitigation Act applies.  Establishing Need. Another contention in the DVBA letter regarding park impact fees and  several other types of impact fees is that the City must determine a need for facilities to be  funded by impact fees. While that is true, DVBA misinterprets the manner in which “need”  must be established.  The “need” for any type of public facility in La Quinta or any other city is determined by City  Council level‐of‐service policies, whether implicit or explicit. The City can choose to provide a  street system that operates at level of service A or level of service E, and that policy decision  determines the need for street system improvements. The City can choose to design a drain‐ age system for a 100‐year storm or a 25‐year storm, and that policy decision determines the  need for drainage system improvements. The City can choose to plan for fire stations that  provide a 5‐minute response time or a 10‐minute response time, and that policy decision  determines the number of fire stations needed to serve the City. The “need” for facilities like  parks, recreation facilities, and libraries is also determined by the level of service the City  Council chooses to provide.   In most cases where the City’s  level‐of‐service policy is not explicitly stated, the current im‐ pact fee study bases impact fees on the cost of maintaining the existing level of service so  that new development will not cause a reduction in the level of service provided to the exist‐ ing community. The City’s level of service policies for those facility types are implied by its  choice  to  provide  a  certain  level  of  service  to  the  existing  community.  With  respect  to  maintenance facilities, the desired level of service is implied by the City’s adoption of a plan  for future maintenance facility improvements.  Park Land Cost. Land costs used in the impact fee study range from $10.00 per square foot  to $15.00 per square foot, depending on whether the land in question is likely to be residen‐ tial or non‐residential in nature. While every parcel is a special case, those costs are in line  with what the City has been paying for land in the recent past.  COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 326 Page 3 Park Improvement Cost. While $500,000 per acre certainly sounds expensive for park im‐ provements, we have seen similar cost estimates in other cities ranging from San Diego  County to the middle of the Central Valley. There is no doubt that construction costs have  escalated substantially as the economy recovered from the Great Recession. In spite of that  fact, the park improvements impact fees calculated in the current study are actually lower  than the City’s current fees for two of three types of residential development, and only mar‐ ginally higher for the third.  Community and Cultural Facilities. The discussion above, regarding how need is determined  for purposes of calculation impact fees, applies to these facilities as well.  Use of insurance  appraisals to establish the value of existing facilities is reasonable and appropriate. In our ex‐ perience, those valuations tend to be conservative.  The significant increase in the proposed impact fees for these facilities, compared with the  existing community center impact fees reflects the fact that the existing fees were based on  a very narrow definition of what constitutes community centers.  Library. The calculation of Library impact fees is based on the conservative assumption that  the library has capacity to serve both existing and future residents of the area within the ex‐ isting corporate boundaries of the City. The cost per capita was computed by dividing the  cost of the library plus nominal interest paid to date on the RDA loan used to fund construc‐ tion.   Footnote 2 to Table 5.1 in the report states that the building value was based on the City’s  property insurance cost analysis. That footnote conflicts with the column heading (“Original  Building Cost”) and the footnote is incorrect. The building cost shown in Table 5.1 is the orig‐ inal building cost as shown in the City’s 2013 impact fee study and is slightly less than the in‐ surance valuation. It should be noted that the current study includes only nominal interest  paid to date. It does not include any future interest cost in calculating the impact fees.  Final‐ ly, it should be noted that the library impact fees proposed in the current study are some‐ what lower than the City’s existing Library impact fees.  Civic Center. The issue of establishing “need” has been discussed previously. It is our under‐ standing that the increased utilization of space in City Hall has resulted from decisions to  bring formerly contracted services in‐house.   DVBA’s comment regarding the use of developed acreage as the demand variable in calculat‐ ing the Civic Center impact fees is worth mentioning. A demand variable is used to represent  the impact of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Be‐ cause of the variety of City functions housed in the Civic Center, any demand variable used to  calculate impact fees for that facility must be broad‐based. Developed acreage has been  used to calculate La Quinta’s Civic Center impact fees for at least twenty years.   DVBA contends that acres don’t drive the need for services, but the fact is, development on  those acres does drive demand. Developed acreage is simply a broad‐based way of measur‐ ing development. Population doesn’t work in this case because it doesn’t reflect demand  from non‐residential development, which needs to be accounted‐for in the case of the Civic  Center. Many impact fee studies use a construct called “service population” or “functional  population” to reflect the demand for services created by general government facilities. Ser‐ COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 327 Page 4 vice population is a composite variable consisting of population plus employees of businesses  in the study area. Employees are typically given a lower weight in the service population than  resident population. While using a different demand variable to calculate these impact fees  would undoubtedly have some differential effect on the distribution of costs among devel‐ opment types, there is no definitive way of determining that one method is “better” than  another. The legal standard is reasonableness, and we believe that the use of developed  acreage in calculating these impact fees is eminently reasonable.   Maintenance Facilities. Some of the issues raised by DVBA regarding the impact fee for  maintenance facilities were discussed above. A few others will be addressed here. The City  has developed a master plan for improvements to its maintenance facilities and some fund‐ ing for those improvements is shown in the City’s current Capital Improvement Program.  DVBA’s letter implies that the Mitigation Fee Act requires that facilities to be funded by im‐ pact fees must be identified in a capital improvement program. However, the relevant provi‐ sion states that such identification “may” be made by reference to a capital improvement  plan (Government Code 66001(a)(2)).  Fire Facilities. The issue of establishing “need” has been discussed previously, but with re‐ spect to fire facilities, the DVBA letter states that “the only true ‘nexus’ to ‘need’ is the num‐ ber and frequency of calls based on land use. We disagree. The capital cost of fire protection  facilities is determined almost entirely by the number of fire stations needed to serve a cer‐ tain area. And the need for fire stations is determined by response times. Response time de‐ pends on the distance between a fire station and the location of an emergency call. So, in  essence, the number of fire stations needed to serve an area depends, not on calls, but on  geography, and most importantly, on the size of the area (number of acres) to be served.  That is why developed acreage is a reasonable measure of demand for fire protection facili‐ ties.  Transportation. Some of the issues raised in the DVBA letter regarding the transportation  impact fees have been discussed above. Others deal with matters of opinion which can be  addressed with City staff. We would only note that when we account for the fact that the  City’s existing transportation impact fees were discounted by 22%, the transportation impact  fees calculated in the current impact fee study represent about a 10% increase from the fees  calculated in 2013. In the meantime, the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index  has increased by 15.9%   COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 328 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATEATTACHMENT 2329 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE330 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE331 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE332 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE333 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE334 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE335 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE336 1 Monika Radeva From:Gretchen Gutierrez <gg@thedvba.org> Sent:Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:43 AM To:Monika Radeva; James Brownyard Cc:Jon McMillen; Teresa Thompson; Nichole Romane; Tania Flores; Julie Mignogna; Bryan McKinney; William H. Ihrke (bihrke@rutan.com) Subject:Re: DVBA Written Response to the City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study - Dated August 8th 2019 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **  Good morning Monika,  Thank you for sending over the City of La Quinta's response to our correspondence.  We will review and be in  attendance at  this evening's Council Meeting.  Best regards,  Gretchen Gutierrez  CEO  Desert Valleys Builders Association  75100 Mediterranean  Palm Desert, CA 92211  760‐776‐7001  760‐776‐7002 ‐ fax  email: gg@thedvba.org  website: www.TheDVBA.org  From: Monika Radeva <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>  Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:31 AM  To: Gretchen Gutierrez <gg@thedvba.org>; James Brownyard <james@thedvba.org>  Cc: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Teresa Thompson <Tthompson@laquintaca.gov>; Monika Radeva  <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>; Nichole Romane <nromane@laquintaca.gov>; Tania Flores <tflores@laquintaca.gov>; Julie  Mignogna <jmignogna@laquintaca.gov>; Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>; William H. Ihrke  (bihrke@rutan.com) <bihrke@rutan.com>  Subject: DVBA Written Response to the City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study ‐ Dated August 8th 2019   Good Morning Ms. Gutierrez,  The City’s responses to the DVBA’s comment letter, dated September 27, 2019, regarding the City’s DIF Study update are enclosed in the attached correspondence dated October 1, 2019.  COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 337 2 Please contact me if you have any questions. Have a wonderful day.  Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk  City of La Quinta  78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253  Tel: (760) 777‐7035  MRadeva@laquintaca.gov  From: Gretchen Gutierrez <gg@thedvba.org>   Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 2:38 PM  To: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>; Monika Radeva <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>; Nick Nickerson (Email)  <nnickerson@naiconsulting.com>; Julie Mignogna <jmignogna@laquintaca.gov>; Bryan McKinney  <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>  Cc: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; John Peña <jpenalq@gmail.com>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick  <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <robertdradi@gmail.com>  Subject: DVBA Written Response to the City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study ‐ Dated August 8th 2019  ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **  Good afternoon,  Attached please find the DVBA's written response to the City of La Quinta's DIF Study, dated August 8th,  as a  follow up to a meeting  held earlier this month between DVBA and City Staff.    This correspondence denotes in depth a variety of areas of concern with the Study that should be carefully  reviewed and acknowledged.  Please provide this letter for the Council information packet on this item for the upcoming work  session/council meeting.  Thank you for the opportunity to have DVBA meet and respond to this issue.  We look forward to continuing  the engagement on this   topic to an equitable outcome.  Gretchen Gutierrez  CEO  Desert Valleys Builders Association  75100 Mediterranean  Palm Desert, CA 92211  760‐776‐7001  760‐776‐7002 ‐ fax  email: gg@thedvba.org  website: www.TheDVBA.org  COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 338 October 1, 2019 Mayor Linda Evans La Quinta City Council City Clerk, Monika Radeva 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: La Quinta Development Impact Fee Study Session Dear Mayor Evans, La Quinta City Council, City Clerk Radeva and staff, BIR Riverside caumr ChaPter Building lndusll)' Association ofSouthi?m Calirorni:i 389 / I llh S1n:,,1 Rh·crsidc, Calif om ill 92501 Offico(95I) 781-7310 l'a.x (95 I )781--0509 The Building Industry Association (BIA) is writing in reference to the "2019 Update of the Development Impact Fee Study" scheduled to be heard during a Study Session at the October 1, 2019 City Council meeting. As the lead body in the counties of Riverside and Imperial, that is dedicated to protecting and advocating for the interests of the building industry, we respectfully submit the following comments and questions. 1.The BIA has concerns with the methodology for the cost per acre estimates. The Development Impact Fee Study states four projects that were used on Table 3.6, Footnote 1 on page 3-6 (Park Acquisition). The provided information does not actually supply any information other than the names of the projects. The BIA does not believe that these projects are usable for the Park Land Acquisition due to their intended use. The Study does not explain why or how the projects were purchased. The BIA did find a comparable example purchased by the City on June 3, 2019 as an undeveloped 9.42-acre site for $1,390,000 (document on second page). 2.How did the Study determine a land value of $653,400 per acre and exclude the value of the building or property on the acre? Attachment 4, Table 4.1 page 4-2 in the Study breaks down the replacement value and insurance coverage for the facilities that the City uses. This is not a usable comparison as it is not actually relying on the land value but the building and furniture, fixtures and equipment values. If you have any questions that our staff at the BIA can answer, please call 951-781-7310. The BIA appreciates the working partnership with the City of La Quinta. Thank you, Damian Fussel Deputy Director of Governmental Affairs COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 339 Slit AIX!r­ Parcel ·No, {Af'III) Lani! Use Cal Lanij Use· DaS<. 3uildlngP.rea LotAtea auuoinl}ot.ot Rauo No'.ofVnit,; Year·Built Tctll.Assd Vakle owner·1 OY,ner2 Owner Address LastTr.msfer last M;ir¥.et Sala Addlotisl ,. Location SiteAddrim P/llc.i No. (APN) Lt!Q311nrormaton SU!rltw..lon Leg3ll.Ot LegalBlotk 600-020-053 VACA1tTIAND 'COMMERCIAl 410,770 SF (9,4' -'CRES) CnY OF LA QUINTA PO BOX-15041.A QUINTA, CA 92241 3141\1 6f.11111 lorS1,l!IO,0OO Full ProPErlY Oelail vMora liOIJ-020,USJ 9.43 ACIIES'Mlk IN POR SE 114 OF .SEC 2!I TSS R7E FOR TOTAL DEiiCRlPTION SEE ASSESSORS MAPS �?-��----,·I COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSES STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 340 Phased Implementation Option Transportation DIF and Community Cultural Center DIF TOTAL DIF FEES - with Phased Implementation Option for Transportation DIF and Comm. Cultural Center DIF Proposed Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Residential- Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 7,386 $ 7,885 $ 8,384 $ 8,881 $ 9,380 Residential- Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 6,800 $ 7,030 $ 7,260 $ 7,490 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 4,927 $ 5,224 $ 5,520 $ 5,817 $ 6,114 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 5,692 $ 6,166 $ 6,641 $ 7,133 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 6,813 $ 7,408 $ 8,002 $ 8,597 $ 9,190 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,595 $ 2,662 $ 2,730 $ 2,797 $ 2,865 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,045 $ 1,110 $ 1,176 $ 1,241 $ 1,306 Phased Implementation - Transportation DIF Current Proposed Development Type Dev. Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 2,842 $ 3,134 $ 3,426 $ 3,717 $ 4,009 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 2,842 $ 2,901 $ 2,959 $ 3,018 $ 3,076 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 1,745 $ 1,879 $ 2,013 $ 2,147 $ 2,281 Office/Medical KSF $ 4,645 $ 5,119 $ 5,594 $ 6,068 $ 6,542 General Commercial KSF $ 5,679 $ 6,274 $ 6,868 $ 7,463 $ 8,057 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 1,590 $ 1,657 $ 1,725 $ 1,792 $ 1,859 Golf Course Acre $ 669 $ 734 $ 800 $ 865 $ 930 Phased Implementation - Community and Cultural Center DIF Current Proposed Development Type Dev. Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 129 $ 336 $ 543 $ 749 $ 956 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 129 $ 300 $ 472 $ 643 $ 814 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 129 $ 292 $ 454 $ 617 $ 779 ATTACHMENT 5 341 342 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jon McMillen, City Manager DATE: December 17, 2019 SUBJECT: Modification to December 3, 2019 Business Session Item No. 2 staff report – Approve contract services agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a fire service delivery study On December 3, 2019 the City Council approved a contract services agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a Fire Service Deliver Study for the City. Thereafter, Staff identified there was miscommunicated information in the Background/Analysis section of the staff report. This report lists a summary of the correct information; the original staff report has been revised in tracked changes and is enclosed as Attachment 1. Page 1 – the correct expense account number is 101-2002-60103, Professional Services. Page 2 – In 2019/20, the City will receive fire property tax credit revenue of approximately $7.1 million to cover fire and emergency services. This is less than the budgeted amount of $7.6 million for these services, which means the City’s fire reserve balance of $9.8 million is needed to cover operations. Attachment: Amended staff report from 12/3/19, Business Item No. 2 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 1 343 344 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 3, 2019 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP TO CONDUCT A FIRE SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY RECOMMENDATION Approve a Contract Services Agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a fire service delivery study and authorize City Manager to execute the agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fire costs continue to increase and the City is interested in exploring ways to incorporate best practices and find efficiencies in the delivery of fire services. Staff solicited proposals for a fire service delivery study (study) from qualified firms. Two proposals were received and reviewed; Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) was selected based on their qualifications, experience and clients’ references. FISCAL IMPACT The total not to exceed agreement amount is $39,900. Funds to pay for this report are available in the Fire Budget account number: 101-2002-60103670 (Professional Services). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City contracts fire services from the County of Riverside, which in turn has an agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to provide fire services (CAL FIRE). While CAL FIRE staff provides excellent service to the City, service costs continue to increase, as well as requests to increase staffing, replace equipment and build one additional fire station. List of Fire Department’s short and long-range needs: Replacement of the ladder truck shared by the County, and Cities of Coachella and Indio ($1.3 million, City’s contributuion 25% of cost) Modify staffing to have a Fire Captain seven days a week at each fire station (estimated annual cost $320,000) BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO 12/17/2019 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 345 Build a 4th fire station (construction cost: over $5 million; annual operation budget: $1million) The study will evaluate current and future needs, including staffing levels, service methods, buildings and equipment. In 2019/20, tThe City will receives annual fire property tax credit revenue of approximately $7.14.9 million annually to cover fire and emergency services. This is less than the budgeted $7.6 million annual expense for fire service costs, which means the City’s fire service reserve of $9.87 million is needed to cover annual operations.Once the fire reserve fund is spent, then the General Fund will be used to cover the difference. For this reason, the City is interested in implementing long-term cost saving practices to lessen the impact on the City budget. As part of this effort, in September 2019, staff issued a request for proposals (RFP) to conduct a service study; two proposals were received. Matrix was selected based on their qualifications and experience having conducted more than 350 fire studies across the country, including in the State of California. The study will be completed in approximately 16 weeks, which includes meetings with the Fire Department, City staff and community stakeholders. The work plan is divided into five main tasks: 1.Project Kickoff, Data Collection and Initial Interviews 2.Evaluation of Current Conditions: understanding workloads and service levels 3.Evaluation of Growth and Community Trends: how growth trends will impact service levels and service delivery needs. 4.Opportunities to Improve Service Delivery: a plan on how to provide effective and efficient services in the next five years. 5.Develop the Draft and Final Report: ALTERNATIVES Council may elect not to approve this agreement or make modifications. However, staff does not recommend an alternative due to Matrix’s expertise. Prepared by: Martha Mendez, Public Safety Manager Approved by: Chris Escobedo, Community Resources Director Attachment: 1. Agreement for Contract Services with Matrix Consulting Group 346 PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 2019 The Facilities Department is responsible for maintenance of City buildings, parks and lighting & landscape (L & L), and streets. The Department manages three Divisions; Buildings, Parks and L&L, and Public Works Maintenance. BUILDINGS TASKS 87 HOURS 286 EXPENDITURES $10,686 (Attachment 1) PARKS and L & L TASKS 29 HOURS 152 EXPENDITURES $6,769 (Attachment 2) PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE TASKS 38 HOURS 128 EXPENDITURES $7,853 (Attachment 3) The Department utilizes GORequest to track monthly maintenance requests received from residents and staff for each division, as well as the number of tasks, hours and expenditures. Building division staff focused on placement of the new Public Works trailer, installation of utilities, IT, alarm system and final details to prepare building for occupancy. Preventative maintenance of the HVAC units was performed and filters were replaced City wide. Top Requests in November:  Buildings - Facilities Maintenance  Parks/L&L – Landscape Improvements  Public Works - Street Signs  Buildings - Personnel Requests  Parks/L&L – Landscape Contract Mgt.  Public Works - Debris/Litter Removal Parks: The contractor replaced missing plants and installed flowers at Civic Center Campus. Missing trees were replaced at La Quinta park. Irrigation repair for all City parks continues. L & L: Center medians on Eisenhower at Ensenada and Nogales were replanted, and aged landscape lights were replaced. The contractor responded to resident complaints/requests regarding tree trimming and general maintenance. STREETS: Storm Drain Systems: debris removal, cleaning and flushing pipes and manholes. Sidewalk and ADA Ramps Improvement: removal and replacement of damaged or uplifted concrete sidewalks. Pavement Management Plan Street Improvement: Removal and replacement of damaged asphalt and repair pot holes as needed. Customer Satisfaction Survey (Attachment 4): Residents submit customer satisfaction surveys through the GORequest system. Fourteen surveys were received. Employees were rated on response times; customer expectations; effectiveness; and employee courtesy. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 6 347 348 Painting $685 Meetings $814 Facilities Maint $5,435 Security/Fobs/Alarms $92 General Repairs $563 Training/Classes $293 HVAC $173 Electrical $439 Personnel Requests $2,413 Carpentry/Hardware $211 Uplevel Project $654 Plumbing $352 Preventative Maint $368 Library $720 Fire Stations $433 Buildings Monthly Maintenance for November 2019 ATTACHMENT 1 Total Monthly Expenditures: $10,686 ATTACHMENT 1349 350 BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER BEFORE BEFORE AFTER AFTER BEFORE AFTER 351 352 Playground Insp & Equip Maint $154 Landscape Contract Mgt $1,032 Hardscape Maintenance $319 Drinking Fountain Repair $488 Office Administration $51 Debris/Litter Removal $256 Irrigation Check/Repair $150 Landscape Insp. $483 Lighting Electrical $158 Landscape Improvements $3,367 Sign Maintenance $99 Graffiti $212 Parks and L&L Monthly Maintenance Expenditures for November 2019 ATTACHMENT 2 Total Maintenance Expenditures: $6,769 ATTACHMENT 2353 354 AFTER BEFORE AFTER 355 356 AFTER BEFORE AFTER AFTER AFTER 357 358 AFTER BEFORE AFTER AFTER 359 360 AFTER AFTER BEFORE SEASONS PARK BEFORE PIONEER PARK AFTER 361 362 AFTER BEFORE AFTER AFTER 363 364 AFTER 365 366 Graffiti $356 Street Sweeping $76Debris/Litter Removal $1,832 Seminars/Training $222 Gutter Sand Removal $133 Accident Damage $445 Curb Painting $84 Concrete Sidewalk Repairs $399 Storm Drain Maint $397 Yard Maintenance $154 Street Signs $3,392 Meetings $91 Inspection $272 Public Works Monthly Maintenance Expenditures for November 2019 ATTACHMENT 3 Total Maintenance Expenditures: $7,853 ATTACHMENT 3367 368 Customer Satisfaction Survey Details 11/01/2019 to 11/30/2019 Request: 40517 Survey Entered: 11-07-2019 Request Entered: 10/27/2019 Closed: 10/31/2019 Days Open: 4 Topic: Vandalism Repairs - 1070 Location: 47865 Stillwater Drive La Quinta 92253 Employee: James Lindsey Customer: David Marzane Description: Photo submitted Reason Closed: Work done: Removed and replaced sign How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: Superior In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met Request: 40526 Survey Entered: 11-07-2019 Request Entered: 10/28/2019 Closed: 10/31/2019 Days Open: 3 Topic: Graffiti Removal (Right-of-Way) - 1071 Location: Employee: James Lindsey Customer: Kirk Description: Jefferson at Esplanade Del Oro Reason Closed: We removed graffiti from outside wall facing east. We covered we graffiti paint for now. But we are going to go back a touch up wall cause it has checker patches on it. But the graffiti is covered. Work done How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: Superior In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met How can the City improve?: Easy process Request: 40528 Survey Entered: 11-07-2019 Request Entered: 10/28/2019 Closed: 10/31/2019 Days Open: 3 Topic: Landscape/Irrigation Contract Management - 1050 Location: 78520 Avenida La Fonda La Quinta CA 92253 Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: Kathy Levin Description: Center Islands need to be weeded. Thank you very much! Reason Closed: Weeds have been removed How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: No answer In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Exceeded How can the City improve?: Fast & efficient ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 4369 Request: 40643 Survey Entered: 11-11-2019 Request Entered: 11/02/2019 Closed: 11/04/2019 Days Open: 2 Topic: FM/Electrical Location: La Quinta CA Employee: Alfred Berumen Customer: C Barron Description: Light outside girls bathroom wasn’t on. Maybe burned out. Reason Closed: Work Done. How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: No answer In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Exceeded Request: 40648 Survey Entered: 11-11-2019 Request Entered: 11/03/2019 Closed: 11/04/2019 Days Open: 1 Topic: Graffiti in Parks - 1030 Location: 47865 Stillwater Drive La Quinta 92253 Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: David Marzane Description: Sign defaced Reason Closed: this sign is faded and belongs to the water district. How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Average Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Average Were we courteous and professional?: Average In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met How can the City improve?: Moved to the water department. Request: 40649 Survey Entered: 11-11-2019 Request Entered: 11/03/2019 Closed: 11/04/2019 Days Open: 1 Topic: Graffiti in Parks - 1030 Location: 47865 Stillwater Drive La Quinta 92253 Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: David Marzane Description: Photo submitted Reason Closed: removed graffiti. How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: Superior In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Exceeded 370 Request: 40652 Survey Entered: 11-13-2019 Request Entered: 11/04/2019 Closed: 11/06/2019 Days Open: 2 Topic: Landscape/Irrigation Contract Management - 1050 Location: 78520 Avenida La Fonda La Quinta CA 92253 Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: Kathy Levin Description: Please remove weeds from Calle Paloma center street island. Thank you! Reason Closed: Paloma island has been clean. Work done How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: Superior In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Exceeded How can the City improve?: Love my city! Request: 40676 Survey Entered: 11-15-2019 Request Entered: 11/05/2019 Closed: 11/08/2019 Days Open: 3 Topic: Debris/Litter Removal/Right of Way Maint - 1011 Location: Employee: James Lindsey Customer: Andee Wright Description: Photo submitted Reason Closed: Complete How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: Superior In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met Request: 40687 Survey Entered: 11-13-2019 Request Entered: 11/06/2019 Closed: 11/06/2019 Days Open: 0 Topic: Landscape/Irrigation Contract Management - 1050 Location: 44215 Calico Cir La Quinta CA 92253 Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: Margaret Hoesterey Description: The sprinklers in the park are on so long the ground is mucky & wet. The winter grass is up so not sure why they haven’t been adjusted. Reason Closed: Met with Vintage to inspect the overseeded turf, adjusted irrigation times and treated for fire ants. How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Good Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: Good In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met 371 Request: 40709 Survey Entered: 11-13-2019 Request Entered: 11/07/2019 Closed: 11/13/2019 Days Open: 6 Topic: FM/Misc General Repairs Location: La Quinta CA Employee: Alfred Berumen Customer: C Barron Description: Can’t lock them without a key. Can we get a key please. Thank you. Reason Closed: work done How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: No answer In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Exceeded Request: 40717 Survey Entered: 11-12-2019 Request Entered: 11/10/2019 Closed: 11/12/2019 Days Open: 2 Topic: Landscape/Irrigation Contract Management - 1050 Location: Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: Tokiyo Ochi Description: Miles just west of Dune Palms Reason Closed: Addressed issue with contractor and issue was resolved. How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: No answer Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Good Were we courteous and professional?: No answer In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met Request: 40718 Survey Entered: 11-12-2019 Request Entered: 11/10/2019 Closed: 11/12/2019 Days Open: 2 Topic: Landscape/Irrigation Contract Management - 1050 Location: Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: Tokiyo Ochi Description: Miles Avenue just west of Dune Palms Reason Closed: Addressed issues with contractor and issue was resolved. How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: No answer Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Good Were we courteous and professional?: No answer In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met 372 Request: 40824 Survey Entered: 11-25-2019 Request Entered: 11/22/2019 Closed: 11/25/2019 Days Open: 3 Topic: Graffiti in Parks - 1030 Location: Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: Tokiyo Ochi Description: Wash basin,Desert Stream. Reason Closed: Covers Graffiti with spray paint color, stone gray. How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Good Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Good Were we courteous and professional?: No answer In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Met Request: 40844 Survey Entered: 11-30-2019 Request Entered: 11/24/2019 Closed: 11/26/2019 Days Open: 2 Topic: Landscape/Irrigation Contract Management - 1050 Location: 51245 Rubio La Quinta CA 92253 Employee: Dianne Hansen Customer: Dori Quill Description: The DG on the west side of Washington north of Avenue 47 is very rough and ugly and needs to be smoothed out Reason Closed: Contractor cleaned/raked the DG as part of the general maintenance How pleased were you with the helpfulness of the city employee who initially took your service request?: Superior Rate our knowledge and ability to process your request timely: Superior Were we courteous and professional?: Superior In general, how pleased are you with the city services you received during the past year?: Exceeded How can the City improve?: Fast and looks great! 373 HAND OUTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 1 Nichole Romane From:Monika Radeva Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 5:40 PM To:Jon McMillen; Teresa Thompson; Nichole Romane; Tania Flores; Danny Castro; Cheri Flores Cc: Subject:Pavilion Palms Project - Written Comments for Council's Consideration Good afternoon Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, Please see written comments below submitted by Mr. Philip Spencer regarding the Pavilion Palms project. Have a wonderful evening. Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk City of La Quinta  78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253  Tel: (760) 777‐7035  MRadeva@laquintaca.gov  PLEASE NOTE: City Hall will be closed on December 24th and 25th, 2019 as well as December 31st, 2019 and January 1st, 2020 in observance of the holidays. Please plan accordingly for any business needs that might need to be addressed during this time frame. We thank you for your understanding and look forward to seeing you next year!  From: Philip Spencer  Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 8:56 AM  To: Monika Radeva <mradeva@laquintaca.gov>  Subject: Pavilion Plans / Footnote to Council  ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **  Hi Monika: just wanted to go on record with City Council with some short comments, if you wouldn't mind forwarding ?! 1) Looks like super grocery, gas/electric stations, and stand alone buildings all approved. Well designed with public space, thats a good thing. 2) There was discussion on a 'maintenance agreement' with the developer based on prior history with Target and Food4Less. Also notice that City Attorney mentions this in the Pavilion planning book on the counter. Is this happening ? COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY PHILIP SPENCER PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - PAVILION PALMS PROJECT 2 3) In spite of all the comments (and concessions) made, what on earth is that '111 style' tilt-up building on the northside ?? This property is zoned commercial, not industrial. With a Montage and Pendry hotels coming, we can do better. Enjoyed the Xmas tree lighting, and high energy level. Have a wonderful holiday. Ciao. cc: John Peña Robert Radi Linda Evans Steve Sanchez Kathleen Fitzpatrick COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS BY PHILIP SPENCER PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - PAVILION PALMS PROJECT COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 - HANDOUT BY DVBA STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1 - 2019 DIF STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 - HANDOUT BY DVBA STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1 - 2019 DIF STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 - HANDOUT BY DVBA STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1 - 2019 DIF STUDY UPDATE POWER POINTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 1 City Council Meeting December 17, 2019 Housing Authority Meeting December 17, 2019 P1 – The Living Desert Pride of the Desert CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 7 La Quinta Schools that Visited  2018‐19 •Benjamin Franklin Elementary •Harry S. Truman Elementary 5 Field Trips 500 students + 96 Adults CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 11 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 12 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 13 Things You Might Not Know About The Living Desert •Annual visitation of more than 514,000 exceeds that of the BNP Paribas Open. •The most recent market study showed 67% of The Living Desert’s annual visitors were from out-of-area. •The economic impact of The Living Desert is conservatively estimated at $48.7 million annually. Attendance has grown by 27% over the last 5 years. •A 2018 Economic Impacts Report by Applied Economics showed The Living Desert was responsible for generating $2.7 million in state, local and lodging taxes annually. $10 Million Completed on Time and Under  Budget CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 15 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 16 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 17 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 19 City Council Meeting December 17, 2019 B4 – Approve Agreement to Conduct a Comprehensive Regional Police Service Study CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 20 Background •Initial Matrix study concluded a regional police contract was possible •Identified savings based on: o Reduction of patrol officers o Shared management positions Scenario CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 21 Next Steps •A comprehensive study to determine police  needs and costs of a joint contract •La Quinta, Indian Wells and Palm Desert have  agreed to conduct study Purpose Comprehensive study to determine police service needs, costs, and develop a joint contract model by: –Identifying advantages and disadvantages; –Review existing police management, operations &services; –Recommend an organizational structure; –Define services and method of service delivery; –Identify potential areas of financial savings CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 22 Cost Contract amount: –Indian Wells: $19,666.67 –Palm Desert: $19,666.67 –La Quinta: $19,666.68 Questions? CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 23 City Council Meeting December 17, 2019 S1 – 2019 Development Impact Fee Study Update CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 24 Introduction •6th update since DIF established in 1999 •Complete re-evaluation / re-write •Follow up to DIF Study Session #1 on October 1 •Financial Advisory Commission (FAC) Committee Review FAC DIF Committee •3 Finance Commissioners appointed: –Hoffner, Mills and Twohey •4 DIF Committee meetings: –4 hours each –16 Action items –Included staff, consultants, DVBA, and BIA •Committee prepared recommendation memo CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 25 12 Findings  Fact  Base d Accept & Implement No Discount No Phase‐in Recommendation FAC Percentage Change Revisions •Current Fees vs. Proposed Fees Percentage Change Calculation Error Revision: Development Type Dev Unit Proposed Fees Current Fees Increase Amount Percent Change Revised Percent Change Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 9,380 $6,894 $2,486 27%36% Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 7,719 $6,681 $1,038 13%16% Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU $ 6,114 $5,030 $1,084 18%22% Office/Medical KSF $ 7,589 $5,379 $2,210 29%41% General Commercial KSF $ 9,190 $6,456 $2,734 30%42% Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,865 $2,185 $ 680 24%31% Golf Course Acre $ 1,306 $ 957 $ 349 27%36% CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 26 Fee Comparison Phased Implementation •Transportation DIF *Previous Transportation DIF includes 22% fee discount Proposed Development Type Dev. Unit Current  Fees Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Residentail ‐ Single Family Detached DU 2,842$     2,842$     3,134$     3,426$     3,717$     4,009$     Residential ‐ Single Family Attached DU 2,842$     2,842$     2,901$     2,959$     3,018$     3,076$     Residential ‐ Multi Family/Other DU 1,745$     1,745$     1,879$     2,013$     2,147$     2,281$     Office/Medical KSF 4,645$     4,645$     5,119$     5,594$     6,068$     6,542$     General Commercial KSF 5,679$     5,679$     6,274$     6,868$     7,463$     8,057$     Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 1,590$     1,590$     1,657$     1,725$     1,792$     1,859$     Golf Course Acre 669$        669$         734$         800$         865$         930$         Phased Implementation ‐ Transportation DIF CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 27 Phased Implementation •Community and Cultural Center DIF Proposed Development Type Dev. Unit Current  Fees Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Residentail ‐ Single Family Detached DU 129$        129$         336$         543$         749$         956$         Residential ‐ Single Family Attached DU 129$        129$         300$         472$         643$         814$         Residential ‐ Multi Family/Other DU 129$        129$         292$         454$         617$         779$         Phased Implementation ‐ Community and Cultural Center DIF Phased Implementation •TOTAL DIF Fees with Phased Implementation OVERALL DIF FEES - with Phasing Proposed Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 7,386 $ 7,885 $ 8,383 $ 8,882 $ 9,380 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 6,800 $ 7,030 $ 7,260 $ 7,489 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 4,927 $ 5,224 $ 5,520 $ 5,817 $ 6,113 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 5,692 $ 6,166 $ 6,641 $ 7,115 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 6,813 $ 7,408 $ 8,002 $ 8,597 $ 9,191 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,595 $ 2,662 $ 2,730 $ 2,797 $ 2,864 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,045 $ 1,110 $ 1,176 $ 1,241 $ 1,306 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 28 Questions?