The URL can be used to link to this page

2020 02 12 FACFINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA 1 FEBRUARY 12, 2020 REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA CITY HALL STUDY SESSION ROOM 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, February 12, 2020 AT 4:00 P.M. Roll Call: Commissioners Batavick, Hoffner, Hunter, Rosen, Twohey and Chairperson Mills PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT At this time members of the public may address the Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a “Request to Speak” form and limit your comments to three minutes. The Financial Advisory Commission 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 ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS-None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Minutes Dated November 13, 2019 2. Receive and File Revenue and Expenditure Report Dated September 30, 2019 3. Receive and File Revenue and Expenditure Report Dated October 31, 2019 4. Receive and File Revenue and Expenditure Report Dated November 30, 2019 5. Receive and File the Second Quarter 2019/20 Treasury Reports for October, November, and December 2019 BUSINESS SESSION 1. Receive and File Fiscal Year 2019/20 Mid-Year Budget Report STUDY SESSION 1. Highway 111 Corridor Area Plan 2. Community Workshop Re-cap Financial Advisory Commission agendas and staff reports are now available on the City’s web page: www.laquintaca.gov FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA 2 FEBRUARY 12, 2020 REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 1. Third Quarter 2019 (July – September) Sales Tax Update for the City of La Quinta 2. Update on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ending June 30, 2019 3. Update on the Adopted Development Impact Fees Pursuant to the 2019 Development Impact Fee Study 4. Finance Department Current and Future Initiatives COMMISSIONERS’ ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The La Quinta Financial Advisory Commission (Commission) will hold a special meeting on March 18, 2020 and the next regular quarterly meeting of the Commission will be held on May 13, 2020. Both meetings will be held at the La Quinta Study Session Room, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 and commencing at 4:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Jessica Delgado, Management Assistant, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Financial Advisory Commission regular quarterly meeting was posted on the City’s website, near the entrance to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on February 6, 2020. DATED: February 6, 2020 Jessica Delgado, Management Assistant City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Study Session Room 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 Financial Advisory Commission (FAC), 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 FAC during an FAC meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Management Assistant 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 FAC regarding any item(s) on the agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Community Development counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2019 REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 CALL TO ORDER A regular quarterly meeting of the Financial Advisory Commission (Commission) was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Mills. PRESENT: Commissioners Batavick, Hoffner, Hunter, Rosen, and Chairperson Mills ABSENT: Commissioner Twohey (joined meeting at 4:19 p.m.) VACANCY: One PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Rosen led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA – None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA – Confirmed ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None CONSENT CALENDAR 1.APPROVE MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 9, 2019 2.RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED JULY 31, 2019 3.RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED AUGUST 31, 2019 4.RECEIVE AND FILE THE FIRST QUARTER 2019/20 TREASURY REPORTS FOR JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER 2019 MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Rosen/Hunter to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended. Motion passed: ayes 5, noes 0, absent 1 (Twohey), vacancy 1. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2019 REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING BUSINESS SESSION 1.RECEIVE AND FILE THE ANNUAL MEASURE G SALES TAX OVERSIGHT COMPLIANCE REPORT Finance Director Romero presented the staff report, which is on file in the Finance Department. The Commission discussed the City’s ten-year fiscal projections; the City’s current fiscal stability due to the passing of Measure G transactions and use tax increase in 2016; the City’s efforts to secure grant funding; community projects funded with Measure G revenues, such as the skate park, the SilverRock Event Site, etc.; regional collaborative efforts between cities to evaluate public safety service level needs, anticipated cost increases, and ability to mutually mitigate costs while maintaining the current level of services; public safety costs constitute the largest percentage of the City’s annual budget, thus when savings are realized, they are substantive. The Commission further discussed whether there is a benefit to establish a cap on the Measure G reserves; the City’s prudent spending practices; healthy reserves will secure the City’s future fiscal stability; and importance to exercise caution in restricting funds or allocating them to capital improvement projects, as it can affect the City’s ability to respond to unanticipated occurrences. COMMISSIONER TWOHEY JOINED THE MEETING AT 4:19 P.M. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Batavick/Rosen to receive and file fiscal year 2018/19 Measure G Sales Tax Compliance Report. Motion passed: ayes 6, noes 0, vacancy 1. STUDY SESSION 1.DISCUSS THE FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 YEAR-END BUDGET REPORT AND AMENDED BUDGET CARRYOVERS Finance Director Romero presented the staff report, which is on file in the Finance Department. The Commission discussed fiscal years 2017/18 and 2018/19 Measure G revenues, allocations for SilverRock Event Space and X-Park, and current available fund balance; public safety service cost savings, related grant funding secured by Riverside County, and maintaining the same level of services; and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department change in leadership, and collaborative efforts to establish a cohesive and united front throughout all areas they service. Commission discussion followed regarding non-spendable balances, including the write-off of four uncollectible interfund loans for the Civic Center, SilverRock, Fire Protection, and Street Facility; disposal of portions of land held for resale on FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2019 REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING Highway 111 and SilverRock; ability to use reserves to make a lump sum payment towards the City’s CalPERS pension trust to reduce the unfunded liability; fiscal year 2018/19 carryovers; current reserve balances; and Council’s ability to allocate unassigned funds to the City’s not-fully-funded Pension Trust Fund and Capital Replacement reserve targets; the reserve study is reviewed every five years and amended as needed; and applicability of Transient Occupancy Tax mitigation fees to certain parcels originally intended for commercial use that were subsequently built out for residential uses instead. 2. DISCUSS THE FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REPORT Financial Services Analyst Hallick presented the staff report, which is on file in the Finance Department. The Commission discussed the City reviews its budget comprehensively every quarter. 3. DISCUSS ACTIVE ECONOMIC SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS Finance Director Romero presented the staff report which is on file in the Finance Department. The Commission discussed the terms and financial obligations under the two economic subsidy agreements; and developer incentives offered by other cities in the Coachella Valley. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 1. SECOND QUARTER 2019 (APRIL – JUNE) SALES TAX UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA Financial Services Analyst Hallick presented the staff report, which is on file in the Finance Department. The Commission discussed the different allocations of sales tax revenues based on brick-and-mortar, online, delivery, furniture, and automobile sales. 2. 2019 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE Financial Director Romero and Financial Services Analyst Hallick presented the staff report, which is on file in the Finance Department. The Commission discussed the current Transportation DIF has been discounted by 22% for quite some time; methodology used to adopt fees based on a DIF study conducted every five-years and the City’s intent to stimulate growth and FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2019 REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING development; increase in fees has not negatively impacted development; and comparison of La Quinta’s fees to other Coachella Valley cities indicate that La Quinta’s fees are on the lower end of the spectrum. 3.VERBAL UPDATE ON 2018/19 AUDITS Financial Director Romero presented a timeline of the completed and upcoming City audits; and due dates for completing the City’s annual financial reports. 4.VERBAL UPDATE ON BANK OF THE WEST BANKING SERVICES IMPLEMENATION Financial Services Analyst Hallick provided an update on the transitioning of City’s banking services from Wells Fargo to Bank of the West; Staff has completely transitioned signature cards for checks, cash vault management services, accepting deposits, and credit card terminals; and currently underway are accounts payables, testing checks, armored service deposits, payroll, and City credit cards for Directors. COMMISSIONERS’ ITEMS Commissioner Batavick inquired if the City anticipates conducting new studies in 2020. Staff said general policy updates are continuous, and a transient occupancy tax (TOT) study may be conducted in the spring of 2020, which would compare La Quinta’s TOT rates to other local agencies. Scheduled for review are also the City’s 457 Deferred Compensation Plans account contract fees. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Rosen/Hoffner to adjourn at 6:09 p.m. Motion passed: ayes 6, noes 0, vacancy 1. Respectfully submitted, JESSICA DELGADO, Management Assistant City of La Quinta, California City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: February 12, 2020 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 City Council. 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. 2 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. 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 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. City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: February 12, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED OCTOBER 31, 2019 RECOMMENDATION Receive and file revenue and expenditure report dated October 31, 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The report summarizes the City’s year-to-date (YTD) revenues and period expenditures for October 2019 (Attachment 1). •These reports are also reviewed by the City Council. 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. 3 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 October 31, 2019 MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 2,954,257$ 7,814,733$ 13.54% All Funds 4,547,296$ 12,961,106$ 10.28% MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 3,375,128$ 9,742,717$ 17.17% Payroll - General Fund 986,227$ 3,724,982$ 33.36% All Funds 6,731,927$ 30,863,497$ 27.70% October Expenditures October Revenues General Fund Non-General Fund Measure G Sales Tax 939,720$ Hwy. Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant 390,735$ Sales Tax 813,675$ CVAG Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding(2)294,664$ Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Tax 510,568$ Gas Tax 272,654$ CSA 152 Assessments(1)187,291$ Interest Earnings 167,052$ Public Works Plan Check Fees 64,263$ SilverRock Greens Fees 76,043$ General Fund Non-General Fund Sheriff Contract (July/August)1,811,288$ CIP-Construction(4)2,376,302$ Community Experiences(3)94,763$ SilverRock Maintenance 139,831$ Marketing and Tourism Promotions 67,373$ CIP-Design(5)89,189$ Greater Palm Springs Convention Bureau 63,375$ Lighting & Landscape Maintenance 67,658$ Contract Legal Services 45,121$ CIP-Technical(6)52,204$ (6) CIP Technical: Cultural and archeological monitoring services, materials testing, planning, and engineering costs primarily associated with Eisenhower Driveretention basin and Dune Palms Road widening projects. (2) CVAG: Coachella Valley Association of Governments. This revenue represents funding for the Dune Palms bridge project. (4) CIP Construction: Village Complete Streets, Dune Palms Road widening, Cove trailhead restroom, Eisenhower Drive drainage, LaQuinta Highlands landscape project, and HSIP intersection improvements. (5) CIP Design: SilverRock infrastructure and event space, Washington/Fred Waring triple left lanes, X-park, Dune Palms Road bridge and widening, and Eisenhower Drive drainage. (3) Community Experiences: Expenses associated with Ironman, Street Food Cinema, and Brew in LQ. (1) CSA 152 Assessments: County Service Area 152 funds collected through property tax assessments and held by County; eligible expenditures such as street sweeping are reimbursed to City. Top Five Revenue/Income Sources for October Top Five Expenditures/Outlays for October For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 10/31/2019 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 7,814,7332,954,25757,847,200 57,737,200 -49,922,467 13.54 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 483,531272,6542,360,900 2,357,400 -1,873,869 20.51 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND -15,9011352,752,000 2,752,000 -2,767,901 0.58 % 203 - PUBLIC SAFETY FUND (MEASURE G)-3,24403,200 3,200 -6,444 101.37 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 2,1042,104123,200 123,200 -121,096 1.71 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 63,85164,281100,500 100,500 -36,649 63.53 % 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 3,3292,79470,000 70,000 -66,671 4.76 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 129,36201,311,300 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 7,0272,40021,200 21,200 -14,173 33.15 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 16,55684820,539,264 20,539,264 -20,522,708 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 129,88625,707448,000 1,688,256 -1,558,370 7.69 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND -5,807022,000 40,000 -45,807 14.52 % 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)100,3180270,000 350,000 -249,682 28.66 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 135,26039,788395,000 395,000 -259,740 34.24 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 98,89128,672306,000 306,000 -207,109 32.32 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 46,72813,188110,000 110,000 -63,272 42.48 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 17,2004,81645,000 45,000 -27,800 38.22 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 6,0041,80622,000 22,000 -15,996 27.29 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 5,5341,62423,000 23,000 -17,466 24.06 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 2,0005607,000 7,000 -5,000 28.57 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 21,4816,06255,000 55,000 -33,519 39.06 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 35,9952,247160,500 160,500 -124,505 22.43 % 275 - LQ PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER -12102,600 2,600 -2,721 4.67 % 299 - INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND 1,234,124167,05200 1,234,124 0.00 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 -1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 962,229803,60721,222,000 24,350,201 -23,387,972 3.95 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND -17,4240100,000 100,000 -117,424 17.42 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 208,3830900,200 900,200 -691,817 23.15 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 345,7572,5151,394,400 1,394,400 -1,048,643 24.80 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 158,7370719,000 719,000 -560,264 22.08 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 233,3460929,500 929,500 -696,154 25.10 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 390,07787,3414,105,600 4,105,600 -3,715,523 9.50 % 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 31,816040,000 40,000 -8,184 79.54 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 71,76462,838200,000 200,000 -128,236 35.88 % Report Total:4,547,296 12,691,106119,100,564 123,465,526 -110,774,420 10.28 % ATTACHMENT 1 Accounts are subject to adjusting entries and audit. The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), published annually, is the best resource for all final audited numbers. For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 10/31/2019 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 9,742,7173,375,12855,638,500 56,755,789 47,013,072 17.17 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 384,98097,0762,360,900 2,400,500 2,015,520 16.04 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 69,95015,6832,419,100 2,529,100 2,459,150 2.77 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 00123,200 123,200 123,200 0.00 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 4,0302,637100,000 100,000 95,970 4.03 % 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 552,957174,2572,274,200 2,443,200 1,890,243 22.63 % 220 - QUIMBY FUND 18,3280263,000 263,000 244,672 6.97 % 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 5,4643,04050,000 130,000 124,536 4.20 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 44,58501,298,300 1,298,300 1,253,715 3.43 % 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 98531700 -985 0.00 % 226 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG)0012,000 12,000 12,000 0.00 % 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 1,19004,600 4,600 3,410 25.86 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 13,120,36108,394,963 8,405,468 -4,714,893 156.09 % 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 55330791,500 111,500 110,947 0.50 % 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN 1,650012,005 13,505 11,855 12.22 % 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 172,05855,470609,300 888,957 716,899 19.36 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND 00250,000 351,000 351,000 0.00 % 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014)1,70300390,500 388,797 0.44 % 249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)0020,000 60,000 60,000 0.00 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 400,985317483,700 483,700 82,715 82.90 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 98531700 -985 0.00 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 986318130,000 0 -986 0.00 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 9,54631732,000 32,000 22,454 29.83 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 98531700 -985 0.00 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 98531730,000 0 -985 0.00 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 9853176,000 0 -985 0.00 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 9853177,500 0 -985 0.00 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 1,5000160,000 160,000 158,500 0.94 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 3,679,0502,590,44321,222,000 24,705,690 21,026,640 14.89 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND 7,73300520,679 512,947 1.49 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 175,99932,725898,200 1,374,200 1,198,201 12.81 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 549,87847,3981,390,400 1,880,600 1,330,722 29.24 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 75,47939,360700,000 940,036 864,557 8.03 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 769,0466,887870,500 870,500 101,454 88.35 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 1,048,933285,2844,185,700 4,153,200 3,104,267 25.26 % 760 - SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN 12,833012,850 12,850 17 99.87 % 761 - CERBT OPEB TRUST 351000 -351 0.00 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 4,7413,37700 -4,741 0.00 % Report Total:6,731,927 30,863,497104,051,418 111,415,074 80,551,577 27.70 % Accounts are subject to adjusting entries and audit. The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), published annually, is the best resource for all final audited numbers. City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: February 12, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2019 RECOMMENDATION Receive and file revenue and expenditure report dated November 30, 2019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The report summarizes the City’s year-to-date (YTD) revenues and period expenditures for November 2019 (Attachment 1). •These reports are also reviewed by the City Council. 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. 4 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 November 30, 2019 MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 2,225,379$ 10,040,111$ 17.39% All Funds 2,948,261$ 15,639,367$ 12.67% MTD YTD YTD Percent of Budget General Fund 3,441,355$ 13,184,072$ 23.23% Payroll - General Fund 607,662$ 4,332,643$ 38.80% All Funds 5,724,748$ 36,588,245$ 32.84% November Expenditures November Revenues General Fund Non-General Fund Measure G Sales Tax 477,188$ SilverRock Greens Fees 288,085$ Sales Tax 413,023$ Interest Earnings 89,932$ Property Tax 396,874$ Gas Tax 69,461$ Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Tax 259,972$ Pension Trust Earnings 56,749$ Cable TV Franchise Fees 160,455$ Parks & Recreation Developer Impact Fees 26,624$ General Fund Non-General Fund Sheriff Contract (August/Sept)2,265,470$ CIP-Construction(1)1,006,993$ Contract Legal Services 56,785$ SilverRock Maintenance 311,590$ Marketing and Tourism Promotions 50,111$ Contributions to Other Agencies 115,833$ Parks Landscape Maintenance 41,890$ CIP-Design (2)75,725$ Utilities-Electric 32,053$ Lighting & Landscape Maintenance 67,658$ Top Five Revenue/Income Sources for November Top Five Expenditures/Outlays for November (1) CIP Construction: Hwy 111 auto dealer signs, Village Complete Streets, SilverRock event space, Eisenhower Drive drainage, and LaQuinta Highlands landscape project. (2) CIP Design: Village Complete Streets, SilverRock infrastructure and event space, Washington/Fred Waring triple left lanes, X-park, and Dune Palms Road bridge and widening. For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 11/30/2019 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 10,040,1112,225,37957,847,200 57,737,200 -47,697,089 17.39 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 552,99169,4612,360,900 2,357,400 -1,804,409 23.46 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND -15,5823192,752,000 2,752,000 -2,767,582 0.57 % 203 - PUBLIC SAFETY FUND (MEASURE G)-3,24403,200 3,200 -6,444 101.37 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 2,1040123,200 123,200 -121,096 1.71 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 72,1858,333100,500 100,500 -28,315 71.83 % 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 15,18416,7672,274,200 2,274,200 -2,259,016 0.67 % 220 - QUIMBY FUND -9,5170140,000 140,000 -149,517 6.80 % 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 6,1142,78470,000 70,000 -63,886 8.73 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 129,36201,311,300 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 8,4211,39421,200 21,200 -12,779 39.72 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 16,564920,539,264 20,539,264 -20,522,700 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 155,39225,506448,000 1,688,256 -1,532,864 9.20 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND -5,807022,000 40,000 -45,807 14.52 % 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)100,3180270,000 350,000 -249,682 28.66 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 172,75637,496395,000 395,000 -222,244 43.74 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 125,51526,624306,000 306,000 -180,485 41.02 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 58,82812,100110,000 110,000 -51,172 53.48 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 21,6724,47245,000 45,000 -23,328 48.16 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 7,6811,67722,000 22,000 -14,319 34.91 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 7,0421,50823,000 23,000 -15,958 30.62 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 2,5205207,000 7,000 -4,480 36.00 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 27,0435,56255,000 55,000 -27,957 49.17 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 36,733738160,500 160,500 -123,767 22.89 % 275 - LQ PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER -12102,600 2,600 -2,721 4.67 % 299 - INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND 1,324,05589,93200 1,324,055 0.00 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 -1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 986,18523,95621,222,000 24,350,201 -23,364,016 4.05 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND -17,4240100,000 100,000 -117,424 17.42 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 208,3830900,200 900,200 -691,817 23.15 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 347,0571,3001,394,400 1,394,400 -1,047,343 24.89 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 158,7370719,000 719,000 -560,264 22.08 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 233,3460929,500 929,500 -696,154 25.10 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 725,753335,6764,105,600 4,105,600 -3,379,848 17.68 % 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 31,816040,000 40,000 -8,184 79.54 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 128,51356,749200,000 200,000 -71,487 64.26 % Report Total:2,948,261 15,639,367119,100,564 123,465,526 -107,826,159 12.67 % 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 For Fiscal: 2019/20 Period Ending: 11/30/2019 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 13,184,0723,441,35555,638,500 56,755,789 43,571,717 23.23 % 201 - GAS TAX FUND 446,23761,2582,360,900 2,400,500 1,954,263 18.59 % 202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 118,90748,9572,419,100 2,529,100 2,410,193 4.70 % 210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 00123,200 123,200 123,200 0.00 % 212 - SLESA (COPS) FUND 4,981951100,000 100,000 95,019 4.98 % 215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 713,175160,2182,274,200 2,443,200 1,730,025 29.19 % 220 - QUIMBY FUND 18,3280263,000 263,000 244,672 6.97 % 221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 17,08811,62450,000 130,000 112,912 13.14 % 223 - MEASURE A FUND 44,58501,298,300 1,298,300 1,253,715 3.43 % 225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 1,32333800 -1,323 0.00 % 226 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG)0012,000 12,000 12,000 0.00 % 230 - CASp FUND, AB 1379 1,19004,600 4,600 3,410 25.86 % 231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 13,120,36108,394,963 8,405,468 -4,714,893 156.09 % 235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 1,05450191,500 111,500 110,446 0.94 % 237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN 1,95030012,005 13,505 11,555 14.44 % 241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 219,00346,945609,300 888,957 669,954 24.64 % 243 - RDA LOW-MOD HOUSING FUND 00250,000 351,000 351,000 0.00 % 248 - SA 2004 LO/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2014)1,739360390,500 388,761 0.45 % 249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)0020,000 60,000 60,000 0.00 % 250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 401,323338483,700 483,700 82,377 82.97 % 251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 1,32333800 -1,323 0.00 % 252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 1,324338130,000 0 -1,324 0.00 % 253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 9,88433832,000 32,000 22,116 30.89 % 254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 1,32333800 -1,323 0.00 % 255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 1,32333830,000 0 -1,323 0.00 % 256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 1,3233386,000 0 -1,323 0.00 % 257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 1,3233387,500 0 -1,323 0.00 % 270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 3,8002,300160,000 160,000 156,200 2.38 % 310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 001,000 1,000 1,000 0.00 % 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 4,901,8731,222,82321,222,000 24,705,690 19,803,817 19.84 % 405 - SA PA 1 CAPITAL IMPRV FUND 7,73300520,679 512,947 1.49 % 501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 288,124112,126898,200 1,374,200 1,086,076 20.97 % 502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 616,90767,0291,390,400 1,880,600 1,263,693 32.80 % 503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FUND 125,46149,982700,000 940,036 814,575 13.35 % 504 - INSURANCE FUND 772,8103,764870,500 870,500 97,690 88.78 % 601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 1,537,359488,4264,185,700 4,153,200 2,615,841 37.02 % 760 - SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN 12,833012,850 12,850 17 99.87 % 761 - CERBT OPEB TRUST 351000 -351 0.00 % 762 - PARS PENSION TRUST 7,8573,11600 -7,857 0.00 % Report Total:5,724,748 36,588,245104,051,418 111,415,074 74,826,829 32.84 % 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. Fund #Name Notes 101 General Fund The primary fund of the City used to account for all revenue and expenditures of the City; a broad range of municipal activities are provided through this fund. 201 Gas Tax Fund Gasoline sales tax allocations received from the State which are restricted to street-related expenditures. 202 Library and Museum Fund Revenues from property taxes and related expenditures for library and museum services. 203 Public Safety Fund General Fund Measure G sales tax revenue set aside for public safety expenditures. 210 Federal Assistance Fund Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) received from the federal government and the expenditures of those resources. 212 SLESF (COPS) Fund Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF) received from the State for law enforcement activities. Also known as Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS). 215 Lighting & Landscaping Fund Special assessments levied on real property for city-wide lighting and landscape maintenance/improvements and the expenditures of those resources. 217 Development Agreement Revenue and Expenditures related to development agreement for Village. 220 Quimby Fund Developer fees received under the provisions of the Quimby Act for park development and improvements. 221 AB939 Fund/Cal Recycle Franchise fees collected from the city waste hauler that are used to reduce waste sent to landfills through recycling efforts. Assembly Bill (AB) 939. 223 Measure A Fund County sales tax allocations which are restricted to street-related expenditures. 224 TUMF Fund Developer-paid Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) utilized for traffic projects in Riverside County. 225 Infrastructure Fund Developer fees for the acquisition, construction or improvement of the City’s infrastructure as defined by Resolution 226 Emergency Mgmt. Performance Grant (EMPG)Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant for emergency preparedness. 227 State Homeland Security Programs (SHSP)Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant for emergency preparedness. 230 CASP Fund, AB1379 / SB1186 Certified Access Specialist (CASp) program fees for ADA Accessibility Improvements; derived from Business License renewals. Assembly Bill (AB) 1379 and Senate Bill (SB) 1186. 231 Successor Agency PA 1 RORF Fund Successor Agency (SA) Project Area (PA) 1 Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund (RORF) for Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) taxes received for debt service payments on recognized obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA). 235 SO Coast Air Quality Fund (AB2766, PM10)Contributions from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Uses are limited to the reduction and control of airborne pollutants. Assembly Bill (AB) 2766. 237 Successor Agency PA 1 Admin Fund Successor Agency (SA) Project Area (PA) 1 for administration of the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) associated with the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA). 241 Housing Authority Activities of the Housing Authority which is to promote and provide quality affordable housing. 243 RDA Low-Moderate Housing Fund Activities of the Housing Authority which is to promote and provide quality affordable housing. Accounts for RDA loan repayments (20% for Housing) and housing programs,. 247 Economic Development Fund Proceeds from sale of City-owned land; transferred from General Fund for future economic development. 248 SA 2004 LO/MOD Bond Fund Successor Agency (SA) low/moderate housing fund; 2004 bonds refinanced in 2014; for Washington Street Apartment rehabilitation only. 249 SA 2011 Low/Mod Bond Fund Successor Agency (SA) low/moderate housing fund; 2011 bonds refinanced in 2016. 250 Transportation DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - transportation related. 251 Parks & Rec. DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - parks and recreation. 252 Civic Center DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - Civic Center. 253 Library Development DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - library. 254 Community Center DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - community center. 255 Street Facility DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - streets. 256 Park Facility DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - parks. 257 Fire Protection DIF Fund Developer impact fees collected for specific public improvements - fire protection. 270 Art In Public Places Fund Developer fees collected in lieu of art placement; utilized for acquisition, installation and maintenance of public artworks. 275 LQ Public Safety Officer Fund Annual transfer in from General Fund; distributed to public safety officers disabled or killed in the line of duty. 299 Interest Allocation Fund Interest earned on investments. 310 LQ Finance Authority Debt Service Fund Accounted for the debt service the Financing Authority’s outstanding debt and any related reporting requirements. This bond was fully paid in October 2018. 401 Capital Improvement Program Fund Planning, design, and construction of various capital projects throughout the City. 405 SA PA 1 Capital Improvement Fund Successor Agency (SA) Project Area (PA) 1 bond proceeds restricted by the bond indenture covenants. Used for SilverRock infrastructure improvements. 501 Equipment Replacement Fund Internal Service Fund for vehicles, heavy equipment, and related facilities. 502 Information Technology Fund Internal Service Fund for computer hardware and software and phone systems. 503 Park Equipment & Facility Fund Internal Service Fund for park equipment and facilities. 504 Insurance Fund Internal Service Fund for city-wide insurance coverages. 601 SilverRock Resort Fund Enterprise Fund for activities of the city-owned golf course. 602 SilverRock Golf Reserve Fund Enterprise Fund for golf course reserves for capital improvements. 735 97-1 Agency Redemption Fund To account for sewer improvement assessments. 760 Supplemental Pension Plan (PARS Account)Supplemental pension savings plan for excess retiree benefits to general employees of the City. 761 Other Post Benefit Obligation Trust (OPEB)For retiree medical benefits and unfunded liabilities. 762 Pension Trust Benefit (PARS Account)For all pension-related benefits and unfunded liabilities. Fund Descriptions City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: February 12, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE SECOND QUARTER 2019/20 TREASURY REPORTS FOR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 2019 RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the second quarter 2019/20 Treasury Reports for October, November, and December 2019. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Commentary and Summary of Significant Activity The total book value of the portfolio decreased $1.97 million, from $148.23 million at the end of September to $146.26 million at the end of December. The decrease reflects operations and capital projects expenditure activities during the quarter. The portfolio is within policy limits for investment types and total allocation by type (see chart below) and is also within policy guidelines for investment ratings. Investment Type October November December Max Allowed Bank Accounts 2.60% 3.44% 6.86% 100% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) City 22.11% 20.91% 20.59% (1) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Housing 11.41% 11.50% 11.33% (1)(2) Money Market Pool Accounts-CAMP 14.24% 13.00% 12.82% 20% Federal Agency Coupons 12.52% 13.32% 11.75% 100% Treasury Coupons 10.58% 10.67% 9.48% 100% Certificates of Deposit (CD's)18.21% 18.72% 18.77% 30% Corporate Notes 2.64% 2.67% 2.62% 30% Money Market with Fiscal Agent 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% (2) CERBT- OPEB Trust 1.14% 1.15% 1.18% (3) PARS Pension Trust 4.55% 4.62% 4.59% (3) Total 100% 100% 100% (3) OPEB and pension trusts are fiduciary accounts and not subject to City Investment Policy (1) LAIF is subject to maximum dollar amount not a percentage of the portfolio (2) Funds held by fiscal agent and the LAIF Housing funds are governed by bond indentures and not subject to City Investment Policy Portfolio Allocations CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5 The market continued to react to the political climate and economic news, with continued pressure on bond yields. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the third time in October, lowering the target federal funds rate to a range of 1.50-1.75%. This rate has an impact on funds held in pooled money accounts such as the California Asset Management Program (CAMP) and the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The fiscal year annual effective rate of return is 2.02% as of December, which may decline in the coming quarters as a result of the current rate environment. Throughout the quarter, three CDs, one corporate bond, and one treasury bond matured, three agency bonds were called, and 12 new investments were purchased. Details of each transaction are listed in the attached reports. Other Notes Money market funds with the fiscal agent are bond proceeds subject to bond indentures, not the City’s investment policy. Successor Agency (SA) funds cannot be invested long-term; therefore SA funds are only invested in LAIF. Looking Ahead The Treasurer follows a “buy and hold” Investment Policy, unless it is fiscally advantageous to actively trade outside of maturity dates. In the short term, the Treasurer will invest in CAMP and LAIF as needed. Longer term investments may include Government Sponsored Enterprise (agencies) securities, U.S. Treasuries, Corporate Notes, and Negotiable Certificates of Deposits. All investments recognize both immediate and long-term cash flow needs, and there is sufficient liquidity in the portfolio to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months. ALTERNATIVES - None Prepared by: Rosemary Hallick, Financial Services Analyst Approved by: Karla Romero, Finance Director/City Treasurer Attachment: 1. Treasurer’s Report for September 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 Total Earnings Average Days to Maturity Effective Rate of Return YTD October 238,785$ 358 2.05% November 222,740$ 373 2.02% December 244,115$ 365 2.02% Quarter 2 705,640$ 365 2.03% ---GEM oftht: DESERT --- Investments Par Value Bank Acco unts 3,778 ,667 .89 Local Agency Investment Fund-C ity 32 ,112 ,948 .14 Local Agency lnvstmnt Fund-Hous ing 16 ,569 ,858.45 Money Market Accounts -CAMP 20 ,687 ,024 .79 Federal Agency Coupon Securit ies 18 ,250 ,000 .00 Treasury Coupon Securities 15 ,500 ,000 .00 Ce rtificate of Depos its 26,455 ,000 .00 Corporate Notes 3,900 ,000 .00 Money Market with Fiscal Agent 7,991 .99 CERBT -OPEB Trust 1,658 ,975.8 1 PARS Pension Trust 6 ,607 ,022 .56 145,527 ,489 .63 Investments Total Earnings October 31 Month Ending Current Year 23 8 ,785 .20 Average Daily Balance 146, 719 ,328 .17 City of La Quinta Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary October 31 , 2019 Market Book Value Value 3 ,778 ,667 .89 3 ,778,667 .89 32 ,211 ,385 .37 32 ,112,948 .14 16,597 ,869 .93 16 ,569 ,858.45 20 ,687 ,024 .79 20 ,687 ,024 .79 18 ,279 ,362 .50 18 , 184 ,625 .00 15 ,447,455 .00 15 ,370 ,097 .50 26 ,896 ,849 .85 26,455,000 .00 3,926 ,726 .00 3 ,838 ,7 10.00 7 ,99 1.99 7 ,991 .99 1,658 ,975 .8 1 1,658 ,975.81 6 ,60 7,022 .56 6 ,607 ,022 .56 146 ,099 ,331 .69 145,270 ,922 .13 Fi scal Year To Date 1,07 4 ,946 .04 155,506,872 .69 Effective Rate of Return 1.92% 2.05 % % of Portfol io Te rm 2.60 22 .11 11 .41 14 .24 1 12.52 1,496 10.58 1,372 18 .21 1,5 16 2.64 1,293 0 .01 1.14 4 .55 100.00% 643 Days to Maturity 1 1 747 474 1,038 937 358 City of La Qu inta YTM 365 Equ iv. 0 .000 2 .190 2 .190 0 .000 1.803 1.573 2.433 2.443 0.000 0 .000 0.000 1.634 I certi fy th at this report accurately reflects all po oled investments and is i n compl iance with the Californ ia G overnment Code and the City Investment Pol icy. As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta , I hereby certify th at sufficient investmen t liqui dity and an tici pated re venues are ava il abl e to meet the City's expend iture req uirements fo r t he next six mo nths . The City of La Quinta used the mo nthly account statements issued b our fin ancial in stitution s to determine the fa ir market value of in vestments at month end . Report in g period 10/01/20 19-1 0/3 1/20 19 Run Date: 02/0312020 -17:43 Portfoli o CITY CP PM (PRF _PM 1) 7 .3.0 Report Ver. 7.3 .6 .1 ATTACHMENT 1 Days to Maturity Page 1 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value October 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Bank Accounts 1Bank of the West1228 1,467,768.98 1,467,768.9808/20/2019 1,467,768.98 1059731851 0.000 1City Petty Cash1059 3,300.00 3,300.0007/01/2016 3,300.00 1SYS1059 0.000 1La Quinta Palms Realty1062 227,484.87 227,484.8707/01/2016 227,484.87 1SYS1062 0.000 1Stifel, Nicolaus & Company1183 15,788.19 15,788.1903/18/2019 15,788.19 1SYS1183 0.000 1Wells Fargo1057 2,064,325.85 2,064,325.8507/01/2016 2,064,325.85 14159282482 0.000 3,778,667.89 13,778,667.893,778,667.893,774,146.77Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 Local Agency Investment Fund-City 1Local Agency Inv Fund1055 32,112,948.14 32,112,948.14 2.19032,211,385.37 198-33-434 2.190 32,112,948.14 132,211,385.3732,112,948.1432,504,881.65Subtotal and Average 1 2.190 Local Agency Invstmnt Fund-Housing 1Local Agency Inv Fund1113 16,569,858.45 16,569,858.45 2.19016,597,869.93 125-33-005 2.190 16,569,858.45 116,597,869.9316,569,858.4516,524,046.57Subtotal and Average 1 2.190 Money Market Accounts - CAMP 1California Asset Management Pr1153 20,687,024.79 20,687,024.7909/26/2018 20,687,024.79 1SYS1153 0.000 20,687,024.79 120,687,024.7920,687,024.7920,652,196.23Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 Federal Agency Coupon Securities 670Federal Farm Credit Bank1105 1,000,000.00 992,200.00 09/01/20211.70011/09/2017 1,001,630.00 1,3923133EHWM1 1.913 189Federal Farm Credit Bank1142 500,000.00 491,750.00 05/08/20201.55005/31/2018 499,750.00 7083133EHJA2 2.427 1,404Federal Farm Credit Bank1158 250,000.00 247,275.00 09/05/20232.80010/15/2018 261,907.50 1,7863133EJYL7 3.041 1,096Federal Farm Credit Bank1191 500,000.00 492,100.00 11/01/20221.70005/28/2019 498,935.00 1,2533133EGD28 2.181 1,137Federal Farm Credit Bank1198 500,000.00 499,500.00 12/12/20221.87506/20/2019 505,765.00 1,2713133EKQP4 1.905 1,729Federal Farm Credit Bank1212 500,000.00 499,500.00 07/26/20241.85008/02/2019 506,475.00 1,8203133EKWV4 1.871 1,382Federal Farm Credit Bank1223 500,000.00 499,400.00 08/14/20231.60009/12/2019 501,530.00 1,4323133EKZK5 1.632 1,782Federal Farm Credit Bank1224 500,000.00 498,750.00 09/17/20241.60009/17/2019 500,640.00 1,8273133EKP75 1.652 544Federal Home Loan Bank1053 2,500,000.00 2,491,250.00 04/28/20211.35004/28/2016 2,487,875.00 1,8263130A7QZ1 1.423 360Federal Home Loan Bank1064 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 10/26/20201.37510/26/2016 2,494,550.00 1,4613130A9UQ2 1.375 315Federal Home Loan Bank1104 1,000,000.00 996,800.00 09/11/20201.62511/09/2017 1,000,530.00 1,0373130A66T9 1.741 1,565Federal Home Loan Bank1177 500,000.00 498,550.00 02/13/20242.50003/01/2019 518,875.00 1,8103130AFW94 2.563 879Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1073 2,000,000.00 1,990,000.00 03/29/20222.00003/29/2017 2,001,120.00 1,8263134GBAE2 2.106 789Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1084 1,000,000.00 999,500.00 12/29/20212.00007/06/2017 1,000,430.00 1,6373134GBXF4 2.012 999Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1090 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/27/20222.15007/27/2017 1,001,070.00 1,8263134GBWG3 2.150 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Days to Maturity Page 2 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value October 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Federal Agency Coupon Securities 87Federal National Mtg Assn1072 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 01/27/20201.70003/27/2017 1,999,980.00 1,0363135G0S53 1.700 1,705Federal National Mtg Assn1206 500,000.00 495,950.00 07/02/20241.75007/15/2019 503,800.00 1,8143135G0V75 1.922 1,040Federal National Mtg Assn1233 1,000,000.00 992,100.00 09/06/20221.37510/29/2019 994,500.00 1,0433135G0W33 1.659 18,184,625.00 1,49618,279,362.5018,250,000.0019,465,954.03Subtotal and Average 747 1.803 Treasury Coupon Securities 607U.S. Treasury1045 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/30/20211.12507/18/2016 4,962,300.00 1,808912828S27 1.125 151U.S. Treasury1068 2,500,000.00 2,483,250.00 03/31/20201.37503/20/2017 2,497,450.00 1,107912828J84 1.602 44U.S. Treasury1069 2,500,000.00 2,490,750.00 12/15/20191.37503/20/2017 2,498,675.00 1,000912828U73 1.513 730U.S. Treasury1070 2,000,000.00 1,942,800.00 10/31/20211.25003/27/2017 1,987,660.00 1,679912828T67 1.903 288U.S. Treasury1117 1,000,000.00 985,800.00 08/15/20201.50001/22/2018 999,100.00 9369128282Q2 2.071 181U.S. Treasury1138 500,000.00 488,250.00 04/30/20201.12505/31/2018 498,810.00 700912828VA5 2.387 1,064U.S. Treasury1178 500,000.00 489,687.50 09/30/20221.87503/01/2019 505,175.00 1,3099128282W9 2.480 926U.S. Treasury1192 500,000.00 496,650.00 05/15/20221.75005/31/2019 502,815.00 1,080912828SV3 1.984 577U.S. Treasury1193 500,000.00 493,610.00 05/31/20211.37505/31/2019 498,280.00 731912828R77 2.030 1,429U.S. Treasury1217 500,000.00 499,300.00 09/30/20231.37508/21/2019 497,190.00 1,501912828T26 1.410 15,370,097.50 1,37215,447,455.0015,500,000.0015,370,097.50Subtotal and Average 474 1.573 Certificate of Deposits 1,764First State Bk DeQueen1222 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/30/20241.80008/30/2019 246,383.04 1,827336460CX6 1.802 20First Farmers Bank &Trust Co.1091 240,000.00 240,000.00 11/21/20191.65007/21/2017 240,014.40 853320165HX4 1.653 1,757FirsTier Bank1216 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/23/20241.95008/23/2019 249,107.07 1,82733766LAJ7 1.952 1,357First National Bank of America1147 245,000.00 245,000.00 07/20/20233.15007/20/2018 255,998.05 1,82632110YLK9 3.152 1,281First National Bank1179 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/05/20232.80003/05/2019 255,581.36 1,52232117BCX4 2.802 1,764First Natl Bk of Syracuse1221 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/30/20241.85008/30/2019 247,949.22 1,827334342CD2 1.852 1,733First Security Bank of WA1209 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/30/20242.00007/30/2019 248,704.32 1,82733625CCP2 2.002 747First Source Bank1168 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/17/20213.15012/17/2018 251,764.45 1,06633646CKP8 3.153 353First Tech Federal Credit Unio1124 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/19/20202.70004/18/2018 247,383.85 91533715LBJ8 2.623 822Third Federal Savings and Loan1112 245,000.00 245,000.00 01/31/20222.50001/30/2018 248,755.85 1,46288413QBY3 2.502 1,729Abacus Federal Savings1207 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/26/20241.95007/26/2019 248,148.80 1,82700257TBD7 1.952 955Allegiance Bank1143 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/13/20223.10006/13/2018 252,791.00 1,46101748DBE5 3.102 1,077Alliance Credit Union1095 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/13/20222.25010/13/2017 247,499.00 1,82601859BAA3 2.251 493Ally Bank Midvale1176 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/08/20212.50003/07/2019 247,538.20 73202007GHX4 2.016 970America's Credit Union1200 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/28/20222.30006/28/2019 248,954.80 1,09603065AAL7 2.302 535Amex Centurion1077 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/19/20212.25004/19/2017 241,555.20 1,46102587DP85 2.252 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 3 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value October 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 1,032American Express Fed Savings B1096 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/29/20222.40008/29/2017 242,452.80 1,82602587CFU9 2.402 1,356American National Bank1205 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/19/20232.00007/19/2019 248,890.32 1,46102772JBD1 2.001 1,237Aneca Federal Credit Union1119 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/22/20232.80003/22/2018 252,217.70 1,826034577AH9 2.802 1,089Barclays Bank1097 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/25/20222.30010/25/2017 242,793.60 1,82606740KLJ4 2.291 1,519Bar Harbor Bank and Trust1172 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/29/20233.35012/31/2018 262,302.16 1,824066851WJ1 3.352 752Belmont Savings Bank1102 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/22/20212.10011/21/2017 246,597.40 1,462080515CD9 2.101 846BMW Bank1067 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/24/20222.20002/24/2017 242,109.60 1,82605580AGK4 2.201 440Bankers Bank1086 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/14/20211.80007/14/2017 240,244.80 1,28006610RAP4 1.804 1,792BankWest Inc1227 248,000.00 248,000.00 09/27/20241.70009/27/2019 245,152.96 1,82706652CHB0 1.702 584Capital One Natl Assn FDIC42971082 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/07/20212.25006/07/2017 241,917.60 1,46114042RGD7 2.252 222Capital One USA FDIC339541006 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/10/20201.90006/10/2015 245,516.95 1,827140420RX0 1.902 479Comenity Capital Bank1009 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/22/20211.70002/22/2016 239,932.80 1,82720033APG5 1.702 1,764Celtic Bank1220 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/30/20241.85008/30/2019 246,953.44 1,82715118RRH2 1.852 1,658Century Next Bank1184 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/16/20242.50005/29/2019 254,204.96 1,814156634AK3 2.503 1,026CIT Bank NA1219 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/23/20221.90008/23/2019 245,161.70 1,09612556LBA3 1.902 1,257Citibank NA1123 245,000.00 245,000.00 04/11/20232.90004/11/2018 253,148.70 1,82617312QJ26 2.902 621Central State Bank1085 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/14/20211.85007/14/2017 240,405.60 1,46115523RBJ4 1.851 1,475Commercial Bank1162 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/15/20233.40011/15/2018 262,441.04 1,82620143PDV9 3.402 1,701Communitywide FCU1202 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/28/20242.25006/28/2019 251,494.32 1,82720416TAQ5 2.253 1,274Congressional Bank1189 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/28/20232.50004/30/2019 253,026.96 1,45920726ABA5 2.502 1,113CrossFirst Bank1106 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/18/20222.20011/20/2017 247,178.05 1,82422766ACB9 2.201 1,694Citizens State Bank1199 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/21/20242.40006/21/2019 253,148.48 1,827176688CP2 2.403 823Discover Bank Greenwood DE CF1066 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/01/20222.25002/01/2017 242,359.20 1,8262546722U1 2.251 81Douglas National Bank1093 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/21/20201.65007/19/2017 240,050.40 916259744DS6 1.655 446Eagle Bank1146 245,000.00 245,000.00 01/20/20212.85007/20/2018 248,358.95 91527002YDV5 2.858 1,274EnerBank USA1125 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/28/20232.95004/30/2018 248,512.80 1,82429278TAY6 2.952 1,123Enterprise Bank, NA1107 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/28/20222.15011/28/2017 246,830.15 1,82629367QCP1 2.151 1,685Evansville Teachers Credit FCU1196 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20242.60006/12/2019 255,325.92 1,827299547AQ2 2.603 217EverBank1017248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20201.70006/05/2015 248,146.32 1,82729976DXX3 1.702 444Farm Bureau Bank1165 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/18/20213.00012/17/2018 251,834.08 763307660LC2 2.898 910Farmers Insurance Group FCU1126 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/29/20222.80004/30/2018 245,654.40 1,46030960QAG2 2.802 417Freedom Credit Union1111 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/22/20202.05012/22/2017 245,938.35 1,09635638BAA9 2.052 654General Electric Credit Union1150 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/16/20213.10008/15/2018 245,697.60 1,097369674AV8 3.100 907Goldman Sachs1078 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/26/20222.40004/26/2017 243,302.40 1,82638148PJK4 2.401 255First Bank of Highland1094 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/13/20201.75007/13/2017 240,249.60 1,096319141GT8 1.752 986HSBC Bank USA, National Associ1088 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/14/20222.30007/14/2017 240,314.40 1,82640434YLE5 2.301 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 4 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value October 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 1,665Iowa State Bank1186 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/23/20242.40005/23/2019 250,027.40 1,82746256YAZ2 2.403 1,448Jefferson Financial CU1154 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/19/20233.35010/19/2018 258,538.70 1,826474067AQ8 3.352 193Jefferson Bank & Trust1100 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/12/20201.75011/09/2017 245,193.55 915472376AC6 1.751 1,658JP Morgan Chase1185 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/16/20243.25005/16/2019 240,933.00 1,82748128HXU7 3.254 928Kansas State Bank1101 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/17/20222.10011/17/2017 246,580.25 1,64250116CBE8 2.099 1,154Knoxville TVA Credit Union1110 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/29/20222.40012/29/2017 248,758.30 1,826499724AB8 2.401 1,692Legacy Bank1197 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/19/20242.40006/19/2019 253,146.00 1,827524661CB9 2.403 1,550Lakeside Bank1208 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/29/20242.00007/30/2019 248,885.36 1,64451210SQU4 2.003 868Luana Savings Bank1225 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/18/20221.60009/18/2019 243,750.50 912549104JN8 1.599 850Maine Savings FCU1171 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/28/20223.30012/28/2018 256,402.24 1,158560507AK1 3.306 1,638Main Street Bank1188 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/26/20242.60004/26/2019 255,201.92 1,82756065GAG3 2.603 1,446Marlin Business Bank1155 248,000.00 248,000.00 10/17/20233.30010/17/2018 261,248.16 1,82657116ARV2 3.302 1,132Medallion Bank1169 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/07/20223.40012/07/2018 259,199.68 1,46158404DCX7 3.402 249Mercantile Bank of Michigan1087 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/07/20201.75007/07/2017 240,244.80 1,09658740XZL7 1.752 224Bank Midwest1002 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20201.65006/12/2015 248,076.88 1,827063615AVO 1.652 17Morgan Stanley Bank1109 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/18/20191.80011/16/2017 245,029.40 73261747MA92 1.800 1,327Morton Community1173 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/20/20232.75003/20/2019 255,405.28 1,553619165JD6 2.753 1,092Merrick Bank1163 248,000.00 248,000.00 10/28/20223.25010/30/2018 257,746.40 1,45959013J4K2 3.252 17Morgan Stanley Private Bk, NA1108 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/18/20191.75011/16/2017 245,024.50 73261760AEP0 1.750 1,103Mountain America Federal CU1099 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/08/20222.30011/08/2017 247,876.30 1,82662384RAC0 2.301 1,446Municipal Trust and Savings1160 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/17/20233.20010/17/2018 257,152.00 1,826625925AR3 3.202 781Neighbors FCU1167 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/21/20213.20012/21/2018 252,232.40 1,09664017AAQ7 3.203 458Infinty FCU1211 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/01/20212.10007/31/2019 249,173.04 55145667EDY1 2.110 1,511National Cooperative Bank, N.A1170 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/21/20233.40012/21/2018 259,496.65 1,826635573AL2 3.402 1,488Numerica Credit Union1164 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/28/20233.55011/28/2018 264,005.92 1,82667054NAN3 3.552 725Northpointe Bank1127 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/26/20212.70004/26/2018 244,363.20 1,279666613GV0 2.703 1,565Northwest Bank1181 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/13/20242.95002/13/2019 258,559.84 1,82666736ABP3 2.951 1,368Bank of New England1151 249,000.00 249,000.00 07/31/20233.25007/31/2018 261,158.67 1,82606426KAN8 3.252 696New York Community Bank1226 245,000.00 245,000.00 09/27/20211.80009/27/2019 245,166.60 731649447TC3 1.802 810The Ohio Valley Bank1089 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/19/20221.90007/19/2017 240,530.40 1,645677721CN0 1.903 950PCSB Bank1149 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/08/20223.00006/08/2018 252,171.15 1,46169324MAD7 3.002 1,734People's Bank1210 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/31/20242.00007/31/2019 248,704.32 1,827710571DS6 2.002 1,314Pittsfield Cooperative Bank1194 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/07/20232.50006/07/2019 250,093.55 1,461725404AB3 2.502 1,680Plains Commerce Bank1195 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/07/20242.55006/07/2019 251,656.65 1,82772651LCL6 2.553 1,750Preferred Bank1213 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/16/20242.00008/16/2019 249,687.24 1,827740367HP5 2.002 572PrivateBank & Trust1032 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/26/20211.50005/26/2016 239,481.60 1,82674267GVG9 1.501 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 5 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value October 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 1,391Raymond James Bank1218 244,000.00 244,000.00 08/23/20231.95008/23/2019 244,444.08 1,46175472RAD3 1.951 1,327RCB Bank1144 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/20/20233.15006/20/2018 255,760.40 1,82674934YAH4 3.152 1,132Red Rocks Credit Union1166 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/07/20223.35012/07/2018 258,827.68 1,46175701LAB3 3.352 1,701Revere Bank1203 247,000.00 247,000.00 06/28/20242.30006/28/2019 251,018.69 1,827761402BY1 2.303 388First Bank Richmond1081 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/23/20201.80006/21/2017 245,247.45 1,251319267GC8 1.802 963Sallie Mae Bank Salt Lake CIty1083 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/21/20222.35006/21/2017 243,057.60 1,826795450A70 2.351 1,032Sterling Bank1201 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/29/20222.15006/28/2019 246,832.60 1,15885916VDC6 2.153 172Stearnes Bank, N.A.1076 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/21/20201.60004/21/2017 240,004.80 1,096857894TC3 1.588 944Synchrony Bank Retail1080 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/02/20222.40006/02/2017 243,343.20 1,82687164XQV1 2.401 546Towne Bank1128 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20212.80004/30/2018 243,782.40 1,09689214PBL2 2.803 1,011Traditions Bank1148 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/08/20223.00006/08/2018 252,472.50 1,52289269CBX9 3.002 752TNB Bank1187 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/22/20212.40005/22/2019 251,119.84 91587266AAA1 2.407 1,446UBS Bank USA1161 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/17/20233.35010/17/2018 258,553.40 1,82690348JEJ5 3.352 501Unity Bank1120 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/16/20212.55003/16/2018 247,746.45 1,09691330ABN6 2.552 782United Credit Union1214 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/22/20212.00008/22/2019 249,103.60 853910160AH3 2.003 1,291University of Iowa Comm. CU1134 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/15/20233.05005/14/2018 249,446.40 1,82791435LAG2 3.052 1,215Verus Bank of Commerce1180 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/28/20232.70002/28/2019 254,393.44 1,46192535LCD4 2.700 1,579Wells Fargo1174 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/27/20243.00002/27/2019 257,379.36 1,826949763XY7 3.001 227Wex Bank1145 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/15/20202.75006/13/2018 246,741.95 73392937CHG6 2.754 1,757Washington Federal1215 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/23/20242.00008/23/2019 248,677.04 1,827938828BH2 2.002 26,455,000.00 1,51626,896,849.8526,455,000.0026,455,000.00Subtotal and Average 1,038 2.433 Corporate Notes 642Apple Inc1079 500,000.00 493,050.00 08/04/20211.55006/12/2017 498,675.00 1,514037833CC2 1.900 1,188Colgate-Palmolive1175 500,000.00 485,250.00 02/01/20231.95003/04/2019 506,490.00 1,43019416QEA4 2.751 97Microsoft Corporation1118 500,000.00 497,700.00 02/06/20201.85001/22/2018 500,125.00 745594918BV5 2.081 1,376Microsoft Corporation1157 400,000.00 378,360.00 08/08/20232.00010/15/2018 403,996.00 1,758594918BQ6 3.222 828Proctor and Gamble1159 500,000.00 487,950.00 02/06/20222.30010/15/2018 506,970.00 1,210742718DY2 3.071 524Toyota Motor Credit Corp1204 500,000.00 499,750.00 04/08/20211.90006/24/2019 501,105.00 65489236TCZ6 1.928 1,802Toyota Motor Credit Corp1232 500,000.00 500,000.00 10/07/20242.00010/23/2019 500,935.00 1,81189236TGL3 2.000 1,140Wal-Mart Stores, Inc1190 500,000.00 496,650.00 12/15/20222.35004/16/2019 508,430.00 1,339931142DU4 2.799 3,838,710.00 1,2933,926,726.003,900,000.003,757,379.35Subtotal and Average 937 2.443 Money Market with Fiscal Agent 1US Bank1058 7,991.99 7,991.9907/01/2016 7,991.99 1SYS1058 0.000 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 6 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value October 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date 7,991.99 17,991.997,991.997,171.24Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 CERBT - OPEB Trust 1CalPERS CERBT Plan1114 1,658,975.81 1,658,975.8107/01/2019 1,658,975.81 1SYS1114 0.000 1,658,975.81 11,658,975.811,658,975.811,658,975.81Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 PARS Pension Trust 1Pblc Agncy Rtrmnt Serv1230 6,607,022.56 6,607,022.5608/01/2019 6,607,022.56 1SYS1230 0.000 6,607,022.56 16,607,022.566,607,022.566,549,479.02Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 643146,719,328.17 145,527,489.63 358 1.634146,099,331.69 145,270,922.13Total and Average Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 City of La Quinta Total Earnings City of La Quinta - Sorted by Fund - Fund October 1, 2019 - October 31, 2019 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted InterestAnnualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 992,100.0012331,000,000.00 1.375FNMA 76.38 0.00 76.380.9371010.003135G0W33 0.00 495,950.001206500,000.00 1.750FNMA 729.17 0.00 729.171.731101495,950.003135G0V75 0.00 2,000,000.0010722,000,000.00 1.700FNMA 2,833.34 0.00 2,833.341.6681012,000,000.003135G0S53 0.00 999,500.0010841,000,000.00 2.000FHLMC 1,666.67 0.00 1,666.671.963101999,500.003134GBXF4 0.00 1,000,000.0010901,000,000.00 2.150FHLMC 1,791.67 0.00 1,791.672.1101011,000,000.003134GBWG3 0.00 1,990,000.0010732,000,000.00 2.000FHLMC 3,333.34 0.00 3,333.341.9721011,990,000.003134GBAE2 0.00 0.0010540.00 2.000FHLMC 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.501.5211012,500,000.003134G8Y37 0.00 499,400.001223500,000.00 1.600FFCB 666.67 0.00 666.671.572101499,400.003133EKZK5 0.00 499,500.001212500,000.00 1.850FFCB 770.83 0.00 770.831.817101499,500.003133EKWV4 0.00 247,275.001158250,000.00 2.800FFCB 583.33 0.00 583.332.778101247,275.003133EJYL7 0.00 491,750.001142500,000.00 1.550FFCB 645.84 0.00 645.841.546101491,750.003133EHJA2 0.00 992,200.0011051,000,000.00 1.700FFCB 1,416.66 0.00 1,416.661.681101992,200.003133EHWM1 0.00 499,500.001198500,000.00 1.875FFCB 781.25 0.00 781.251.842101499,500.003133EKQP4 0.00 492,100.001191500,000.00 1.700FFCB 708.33 0.00 708.331.695101492,100.003133EGD28 0.00 498,750.001224500,000.00 1.600FFCB 666.67 0.00 666.671.574101498,750.003133EKP75 0.00 498,550.001177500,000.00 2.500FHLB 1,041.66 0.00 1,041.662.460101498,550.003130AFW94 0.00 2,491,250.0010532,500,000.00 1.350FHLB 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.501.3291012,491,250.003130A7QZ1 0.00 2,500,000.0010642,500,000.00 1.375FHLB 2,864.58 0.00 2,864.581.3491012,500,000.003130A9UQ2 0.00 996,800.0011041,000,000.00 1.625FHLB 1,354.16 0.00 1,354.161.600101996,800.003130A66T9 0.00 2,490,750.0010692,500,000.00 1.375USTR 2,911.55 0.00 2,911.551.3761012,490,750.00912828U73 0.00 2,483,250.0010682,500,000.00 1.375USTR 2,911.54 0.00 2,911.541.3801012,483,250.00912828J84 0.00 499,300.001217500,000.00 1.375USTR 582.31 0.00 582.311.373101499,300.00912828T26 0.00 493,610.001193500,000.00 1.375USTR 582.31 0.00 582.311.389101493,610.00912828R77 0.00 5,000,000.0010455,000,000.00 1.125USTR 4,738.45 0.00 4,738.451.1161015,000,000.00912828S27 0.00 488,250.001138500,000.00 1.125USTR 474.01 0.00 474.011.143101488,250.00912828VA5 0.00 985,800.0011171,000,000.00 1.500USTR 1,263.59 0.00 1,263.591.509101985,800.009128282Q2 0.00 496,650.001192500,000.00 1.750USTR 737.09 0.00 737.091.747101496,650.00912828SV3 0.00 1,942,800.0010702,000,000.00 1.250USTR 2,106.72 0.00 2,106.721.2771011,942,800.00912828T67 0.00 489,687.501178500,000.00 1.875USTR 794.06 0.00 794.061.909101489,687.509128282W9 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:32 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 2 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest October 1, 2019 - October 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 2,064,325.8510572,064,325.85WELLS 0.01 0.00 0.011011,844,589.444159282482 0.00 248,000.001174248,000.00 3.000WELLS 631.89 0.00 631.893.000101248,000.00949763XY7 0.00 240,000.001078240,000.00 2.400GLDMAN 489.20 0.00 489.202.400101240,000.0038148PJK4 0.00 240,000.001077240,000.00 2.250AMEX 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101240,000.0002587DP85 0.00 240,000.001067240,000.00 2.200BMW 448.44 0.00 448.442.200101240,000.0005580AGK4 0.00 248,000.001169248,000.00 3.400MEDBA 716.14 0.00 716.143.400101248,000.0058404DCX7 0.00 240,000.001097240,000.00 2.300BARCLY 468.82 0.00 468.822.300101240,000.0006740KLJ4 0.00 245,000.001112245,000.00 2.5003RD 520.21 0.00 520.212.500101245,000.0088413QBY3 0.00 248,000.001163248,000.00 3.250MRRCK 684.55 0.00 684.553.250101248,000.0059013J4K2 0.00 240,000.001128240,000.00 2.800TOWNE 570.74 0.00 570.742.800101240,000.0089214PBL2 0.00 248,000.001173248,000.00 2.750MORTN 579.23 0.00 579.232.750101248,000.00619165JD6 0.00 248,000.001017248,000.00 1.700EVRBA 358.08 0.00 358.081.700101248,000.0029976DXX3 0.00 245,000.001006245,000.00 1.900CAPONE 395.36 0.00 395.361.900101245,000.00140420RX0 0.00 248,000.001002248,000.00 1.650MIDWES 347.54 0.00 347.541.650101248,000.00063615AVO 0.00 245,000.001176245,000.00 2.500ALLY 520.21 0.00 520.212.500101245,000.0002007GHX4 0.00 240,000.001009240,000.00 1.700CCBA 346.52 0.00 346.521.700101240,000.0020033APG5 0.00 240,000.001032240,000.00 1.500PRVTBA 305.76 0.00 305.761.500101240,000.0074267GVG9 0.00 32,112,948.14105532,112,948.14 2.190LAIF 62,979.07 0.00 62,979.072.19110133,837,943.7898-33-434 0.00 240,000.001066240,000.00 2.250DISCOV 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101240,000.002546722U1 0.00 240,000.001076240,000.00 1.600STRNS 326.14 0.00 326.141.600101240,000.00857894TC3 0.00 493,050.001079500,000.00 1.550APPL 645.84 0.00 645.841.542101493,050.00037833CC2 0.00 240,000.001080240,000.00 2.400SYNCHR 489.20 0.00 489.202.400101240,000.0087164XQV1 0.00 245,000.001081245,000.00 1.800RICHMN 374.55 0.00 374.551.800101245,000.00319267GC8 0.00 240,000.001082240,000.00 2.250CAP1NA 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101240,000.0014042RGD7 0.00 240,000.001083240,000.00 2.350SALMAE 479.02 0.00 479.022.350101240,000.00795450A70 0.00 240,000.001085240,000.00 1.850CNTRL 377.10 0.00 377.101.850101240,000.0015523RBJ4 0.00 240,000.001086240,000.00 1.800BNKRS 366.90 0.00 366.901.800101240,000.0006610RAP4 0.00 240,000.001087240,000.00 1.750MERCTL 356.71 0.00 356.711.750101240,000.0058740XZL7 0.00 240,000.001088240,000.00 2.300HSBC 468.82 0.00 468.822.300101240,000.0040434YLE5 0.00 240,000.001089240,000.00 1.900OHVAL 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.00677721CN0 0.00 240,000.001091240,000.00 1.6501STFRM 336.33 0.00 336.331.650101240,000.00320165HX4 0.00 240,000.001093240,000.00 1.650DOUGLS 336.33 0.00 336.331.650101240,000.00259744DS6 0.00 240,000.001094240,000.00 1.750HIGHLD 356.71 0.00 356.711.750101240,000.00319141GT8 0.00 245,000.001095245,000.00 2.250ALLIAN 468.18 0.00 468.182.250101245,000.0001859BAA3 0.00 240,000.001096240,000.00 2.400AMFSB 489.21 0.00 489.212.400101240,000.0002587CFU9 0.00 500,000.001232500,000.00 2.000TOYOTA 222.23 0.00 222.231.8031010.0089236TGL3 0.00 0.0010980.00 1.550TOYOTA 365.97 0.00 1,615.976.957101498,750.0089236TDH5 1,250.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:32 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 3 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest October 1, 2019 - October 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 499,750.001204500,000.00 1.900TOYOTA 791.66 0.00 791.661.865101499,750.0089236TCZ6 0.00 245,000.001099245,000.00 2.300MTNAMR 478.59 0.00 478.592.300101245,000.0062384RAC0 0.00 245,000.001100245,000.00 1.750JFFRSN 364.14 0.00 364.141.750101245,000.00472376AC6 0.00 245,000.001101245,000.00 2.100KANSAS 436.97 0.00 436.972.100101245,000.0050116CBE8 0.00 245,000.001102245,000.00 2.100BELMNT 436.98 0.00 436.982.100101245,000.00080515CD9 0.00 245,000.001106245,000.00 2.200CRS1ST 457.78 0.00 457.782.200101245,000.0022766ACB9 0.00 245,000.001107245,000.00 2.150ENTRPR 447.38 0.00 447.382.150101245,000.0029367QCP1 0.00 245,000.001108245,000.00 1.750MSPRIV 364.14 0.00 364.141.750101245,000.0061760AEP0 0.00 245,000.001109245,000.00 1.800MORGST 374.55 0.00 374.551.800101245,000.0061747MA92 0.00 245,000.001110245,000.00 2.400KNOX 499.40 0.00 499.402.400101245,000.00499724AB8 0.00 245,000.001111245,000.00 2.050FREECU 426.57 0.00 426.572.050101245,000.0035638BAA9 0.00 3,300.0010593,300.00CITYPC 0.00 0.00 0.001013,300.00SYS1059 0.00 1,658,975.8111141,658,975.81CALPRS 0.00 0.00 0.001011,658,975.81SYS1114 0.00 497,700.001118500,000.00 1.850MCRSFT 770.84 0.00 770.841.824101497,700.00594918BV5 0.00 378,360.001157400,000.00 2.000MCRSFT 666.66 0.00 666.662.075101378,360.00594918BQ6 0.00 245,000.001119245,000.00 2.800ANECA 582.63 0.00 582.632.800101245,000.00034577AH9 0.00 245,000.001120245,000.00 2.550UNITY 530.61 0.00 530.612.550101245,000.0091330ABN6 0.00 245,000.001123245,000.00 2.900CITINA 603.44 0.00 603.442.900101245,000.0017312QJ26 0.00 245,000.001124245,000.00 2.7001STTCH 561.82 0.00 561.822.700101245,000.0033715LBJ8 0.00 240,000.001125240,000.00 2.950ENER 601.32 0.00 601.322.950101240,000.0029278TAY6 0.00 240,000.001126240,000.00 2.800FARMIG 570.74 0.00 570.742.800101240,000.0030960QAG2 0.00 240,000.001127240,000.00 2.700NORPNT 550.36 0.00 550.362.700101240,000.00666613GV0 0.00 240,000.001134240,000.00 3.050UOFICU 621.70 0.00 621.703.050101240,000.0091435LAG2 0.00 245,000.001226245,000.00 1.800NYCMBK 374.55 0.00 374.551.800101245,000.00649447TC3 0.00 245,000.001143245,000.00 3.100ALLGNC 645.06 0.00 645.063.100101245,000.0001748DBE5 0.00 245,000.001144245,000.00 3.150RCB 655.46 0.00 655.463.150101245,000.0074934YAH4 0.00 245,000.001145245,000.00 2.750WEX 572.23 0.00 572.232.750101245,000.0092937CHG6 0.00 245,000.001146245,000.00 2.850EAGLE 593.03 0.00 593.032.850101245,000.0027002YDV5 0.00 245,000.001147245,000.00 3.1501STNBA 655.46 0.00 655.463.150101245,000.0032110YLK9 0.00 245,000.001148245,000.00 3.000TRAD 624.25 0.00 624.253.000101245,000.0089269CBX9 0.00 245,000.001149245,000.00 3.000PCSB 624.25 0.00 624.253.000101245,000.0069324MAD7 0.00 240,000.001150240,000.00 3.100GECRUN 631.89 0.00 631.893.100101240,000.00369674AV8 0.00 249,000.001151249,000.00 3.250NWENGL 687.31 0.00 687.313.250101249,000.0006426KAN8 0.00 20,687,024.79115320,687,024.79CAMP 35,989.51 0.00 35,989.512.05210120,651,035.28SYS1153 0.00 245,000.001154245,000.00 3.350JEFF 697.07 0.00 697.073.350101245,000.00474067AQ8 0.00 248,000.001155248,000.00 3.300MARBUS 695.08 0.00 695.083.300101248,000.0057116ARV2 0.00 487,950.001159500,000.00 2.300P&G 958.34 0.00 958.342.312101487,950.00742718DY2 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:32 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 4 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest October 1, 2019 - October 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 245,000.001160245,000.00 3.200MUNTRS 665.86 0.00 665.863.200101245,000.00625925AR3 0.00 245,000.001161245,000.00 3.350UBS 697.08 0.00 697.083.350101245,000.0090348JEJ5 0.00 248,000.001162248,000.00 3.400COMMBK 716.14 0.00 716.143.400101248,000.0020143PDV9 0.00 248,000.001164248,000.00 3.550NMRCA 747.74 0.00 747.743.550101248,000.0067054NAN3 0.00 248,000.001165248,000.00 3.000FARMBU 631.89 0.00 631.893.000101248,000.00307660LC2 0.00 248,000.001166248,000.00 3.350REDRCK 705.61 0.00 705.613.350101248,000.0075701LAB3 0.00 245,000.001167245,000.00 3.200NEIGH 665.87 0.00 665.873.200101245,000.0064017AAQ7 0.00 245,000.001168245,000.00 3.1501STSRC 655.45 0.00 655.453.150101245,000.0033646CKP8 0.00 245,000.001170245,000.00 3.400NLCOOP 707.47 0.00 707.473.400101245,000.00635573AL2 0.00 248,000.001171248,000.00 3.300MAINE 695.09 0.00 695.093.300101248,000.00560507AK1 0.00 248,000.001172248,000.00 3.350BARHAR 705.61 0.00 705.613.350101248,000.00066851WJ1 0.00 485,250.001175500,000.00 1.950COLGTE 812.50 0.00 812.501.971101485,250.0019416QEA4 0.00 15,788.19118315,788.19STIFEL 76.72 0.00 76.72231.816101389.67SYS1183 0.00 248,000.001179248,000.00 2.8001STNBK 589.76 0.00 589.762.800101248,000.0032117BCX4 0.00 248,000.001180248,000.00 2.700VERUS 568.71 0.00 568.712.700101248,000.0092535LCD4 0.00 248,000.001181248,000.00 2.950NRTHWS 621.36 0.00 621.362.950101248,000.0066736ABP3 0.00 248,000.001184248,000.00 2.500CENTNX 526.57 0.00 526.572.500101248,000.00156634AK3 0.00 245,000.001185245,000.00 3.250JPMORG 676.27 0.00 676.273.250101245,000.0048128HXU7 0.00 245,000.001186245,000.00 2.400IOWAST 499.40 0.00 499.402.400101245,000.0046256YAZ2 0.00 248,000.001187248,000.00 2.400TSCOLA 505.51 0.00 505.512.400101248,000.0087266AAA1 0.00 248,000.001188248,000.00 2.600MAINST 547.64 0.00 547.642.600101248,000.0056065GAG3 0.00 248,000.001189248,000.00 2.500CONGRS 526.58 0.00 526.582.500101248,000.0020726ABA5 0.00 496,650.001190500,000.00 2.350WALMRT 979.17 0.00 979.172.321101496,650.00931142DU4 0.00 245,000.001194245,000.00 2.500PITTS 520.20 0.00 520.202.500101245,000.00725404AB3 0.00 245,000.001195245,000.00 2.550PLAINS 530.61 0.00 530.612.550101245,000.0072651LCL6 0.00 248,000.001196248,000.00 2.600EVNSCU 547.64 0.00 547.642.600101248,000.00299547AQ2 0.00 248,000.001197248,000.00 2.400LEGCY 505.51 0.00 505.512.400101248,000.00524661CB9 0.00 248,000.001199248,000.00 2.400CTZNST 505.52 0.00 505.522.400101248,000.00176688CP2 0.00 248,000.001200248,000.00 2.300AMERCU 484.45 0.00 484.452.300101248,000.0003065AAL7 0.00 245,000.001201245,000.00 2.150STRLNG 447.37 0.00 447.372.150101245,000.0085916VDC6 0.00 248,000.001202248,000.00 2.250COMMW 473.92 0.00 473.922.250101248,000.0020416TAQ5 0.00 247,000.001203247,000.00 2.300REVER 482.49 0.00 482.492.300101247,000.00761402BY1 0.00 248,000.001205248,000.00 2.000AMRNTL 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.0002772JBD1 0.00 248,000.001207248,000.00 1.950ABACUS 410.73 0.00 410.731.950101248,000.0000257TBD7 0.00 248,000.001208248,000.00 2.000LKSIDE 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.0051210SQU4 0.00 248,000.001209248,000.00 2.0001STSEC 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.0033625CCP2 0.00 248,000.001210248,000.00 2.000PEOPLE 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.00710571DS6 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:32 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 5 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest October 1, 2019 - October 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 248,000.001211248,000.00 2.100NFNITY 442.32 0.00 442.322.100101248,000.0045667EDY1 0.00 249,000.001213249,000.00 2.000PREFRD 422.96 0.00 422.962.000101249,000.00740367HP5 0.00 248,000.001214248,000.00 2.000UNTDCU 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.00910160AH3 0.00 248,000.001215248,000.00 2.000WSHFED 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.00938828BH2 0.00 249,000.001216249,000.00 1.9501STIER 412.38 0.00 412.381.950101249,000.0033766LAJ7 0.00 244,000.001218244,000.00 1.950RAYJAM 404.10 0.00 404.101.950101244,000.0075472RAD3 0.00 245,000.001219245,000.00 1.900CITBNK 395.36 0.00 395.361.900101245,000.0012556LBA3 0.00 248,000.001220248,000.00 1.850CELTIC 389.67 0.00 389.671.850101248,000.0015118RRH2 0.00 249,000.001221249,000.00 1.8501STNBS 391.24 0.00 391.241.850101249,000.00334342CD2 0.00 248,000.001222248,000.00 1.8001STDQN 379.13 0.00 379.131.800101248,000.00336460CX6 0.00 245,000.001225245,000.00 1.600LUANA 332.93 0.00 332.931.600101245,000.00549104JN8 0.00 1,467,768.9812281,467,768.98BOTW 0.01 0.00 0.011011,634,538.12059731851 0.00 248,000.001227248,000.00 1.700BNKWST 358.07 0.00 358.071.700101248,000.0006652CHB0 0.00 6,607,022.5612306,607,022.56PARS 0.00 0.00 0.001016,547,560.90SYS1230 0.00 128,722,154.32Subtotal 128,465,586.82 1.848 205,921.310.00204,671.31131,533,415.50 1,250.00 Fund: Fiscal Agent 7,991.9910587,991.99USBANK 848.11 0.00 848.11139.7812317,143.88SYS1058 0.00 7,991.99Subtotal 7,991.99 139.781 848.110.00848.117,143.88 0.00 Fund: Housing Authority : WSA and LQ 227,484.871062227,484.87LQPR 0.00 0.00 0.00241223,494.34SYS1062 0.00 227,484.87Subtotal 227,484.87 0.000.000.00223,494.34 0.00 Fund: SA Low/Mod Bond Fund 16,569,858.45111316,569,858.45 2.190LAIF 32,015.78 0.00 32,015.782.28924916,468,417.8525-33-005 0.00 16,569,858.45Subtotal 16,569,858.45 2.289 32,015.780.0032,015.7816,468,417.85 0.00 145,527,489.63Total 145,270,922.13 1.901 238,785.200.00237,535.20148,232,471.57 1,250.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:32 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 ---GEM of the D ESERT --- I nvestments Pa r Value BankA=unts 4 ,9 54 ,043 .63 Local Agency Investment Fund-C ity 30 ,112 ,948 .14 Local Agency lnvstmnt Fund-Housing 16 ,569 ,858.45 Money Market Accounts -CAMP 18,718 ,032 .77 Federal Agency Coupon Securit ies 19 ,250 ,000 .00 Treasury Coupon Securities 15 ,500 ,000 .00 Certifica te of Deposits 26,959 ,000 .00 Corporate Notes 3 ,900 ,000 .00 Money Market with Fiscal Agent 8 ,000 .58 CERBT -OPEB Trust 1,658 ,975 .81 PARS Pension Trust 6 ,660 ,656.39 144,291 ,515 .77 Investments Total Earni ngs November 30 Month Endi ng Current Year 222 ,739 .76 Average Da ily Balance 144,229 , 746 .83 City of La Quinta Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary November 30 , 2019 Market Book Val ue Value 4 ,954 ,043 .63 4 ,954 ,043.63 30 ,211 ,385 .37 30 , 112,948.14 16,597,869 .93 16 ,569 ,858.45 18 ,718 ,032 .77 18 ,71 8 ,032.77 19 ,255 ,050 .00 19 ,181 ,525.00 15,436,270 .00 15 ,370,097.50 27 ,432 ,598 .91 26 ,959,000 .00 3 ,915 ,637 .00 3 ,838,710.00 8 ,000 .58 8 ,000.58 1,658 ,975 .81 1,658,975 .81 6 ,660 ,656 .39 6 ,660,656 .39 144,848 ,520 .39 144,031 ,848 .27 F iscal Yea r To Date 1,297,685.80 153,295 ,671 .54 Effective Rate of Return 1.88% 2.02% % o f Portfolio 3.44 20 .91 11 .50 13 .00 13 .32 10 .67 18 .72 2 .67 0 .01 1.15 4 .62 100 .00% Te nm 1,494 1 ,372 1,547 1 ,293 670 City of La Quinta Days t o YTM Maturity 365 Equ iv . 1 0 .000 1 2 .103 2 .103 1 0 .000 755 1.797 444 1.573 1,069 2.423 907 2.443 1 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 37 3 1.607 I certify t hat this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code and the City Investment Policy. As Treasurer of the City of La Quin ta , I here by certify th at sufficient investment li q ui d ity a nd anticip ated revenu es are avail able to meet the City's expend iture requirements for the next six m onths . The City of La Quinta used the monthly account statements issued by our financial in stitution s to determine the fair market value of in vestments at month end . Karla Romero , Finah~~~J~v /y?vY Reporting period 1 1/01 12019 -11 /30/2019 Run Date: 02/03/2020 -17:45 Pi (p },'ZJWO Portfoli o CITY CP PM (PRF _PM1 ) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6 .1 Days to Maturity Page 1 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value November 30, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Bank Accounts 1Bank of the West1228 963,039.98 963,039.9808/20/2019 963,039.98 1059731851 0.000 1City Petty Cash1059 3,300.00 3,300.0007/01/2016 3,300.00 1SYS1059 0.000 1La Quinta Palms Realty1062 232,420.62 232,420.6207/01/2016 232,420.62 1SYS1062 0.000 1Stifel, Nicolaus & Company1183 66,711.97 66,711.9703/18/2019 66,711.97 1SYS1183 0.000 1Wells Fargo1057 3,688,571.06 3,688,571.0607/01/2016 3,688,571.06 14159282482 0.000 4,954,043.63 14,954,043.634,954,043.633,842,016.18Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 Local Agency Investment Fund-City 1Local Agency Inv Fund1055 30,112,948.14 30,112,948.14 2.10330,211,385.37 198-33-434 2.103 30,112,948.14 130,211,385.3730,112,948.1430,446,281.47Subtotal and Average 1 2.103 Local Agency Invstmnt Fund-Housing 1Local Agency Inv Fund1113 16,569,858.45 16,569,858.45 2.10316,597,869.93 125-33-005 2.103 16,569,858.45 116,597,869.9316,569,858.4516,569,858.45Subtotal and Average 1 2.103 Money Market Accounts - CAMP 1California Asset Management Pr1153 18,718,032.77 18,718,032.7709/26/2018 18,718,032.77 1SYS1153 0.000 18,718,032.77 118,718,032.7718,718,032.7720,022,425.32Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 Federal Agency Coupon Securities 640Federal Farm Credit Bank1105 1,000,000.00 992,200.00 09/01/20211.70011/09/2017 1,000,640.00 1,3923133EHWM1 1.913 159Federal Farm Credit Bank1142 500,000.00 491,750.00 05/08/20201.55005/31/2018 499,625.00 7083133EHJA2 2.427 1,374Federal Farm Credit Bank1158 250,000.00 247,275.00 09/05/20232.80010/15/2018 260,725.00 1,7863133EJYL7 3.041 1,066Federal Farm Credit Bank1191 500,000.00 492,100.00 11/01/20221.70005/28/2019 497,660.00 1,2533133EGD28 2.181 1,107Federal Farm Credit Bank1198 500,000.00 499,500.00 12/12/20221.87506/20/2019 503,180.00 1,2713133EKQP4 1.905 1,699Federal Farm Credit Bank1212 500,000.00 499,500.00 07/26/20241.85008/02/2019 504,815.00 1,8203133EKWV4 1.871 1,352Federal Farm Credit Bank1223 500,000.00 499,400.00 08/14/20231.60009/12/2019 499,685.00 1,4323133EKZK5 1.632 1,752Federal Farm Credit Bank1224 500,000.00 498,750.00 09/17/20241.60009/17/2019 499,160.00 1,8273133EKP75 1.652 1,431Federal Farm Credit Bank1234 1,000,000.00 996,900.00 11/01/20231.60011/01/2019 999,200.00 1,4613133EK4X1 1.680 514Federal Home Loan Bank1053 2,500,000.00 2,491,250.00 04/28/20211.35004/28/2016 2,485,375.00 1,8263130A7QZ1 1.423 330Federal Home Loan Bank1064 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 10/26/20201.37510/26/2016 2,493,725.00 1,4613130A9UQ2 1.375 285Federal Home Loan Bank1104 1,000,000.00 996,800.00 09/11/20201.62511/09/2017 999,190.00 1,0373130A66T9 1.741 1,535Federal Home Loan Bank1177 500,000.00 498,550.00 02/13/20242.50003/01/2019 516,600.00 1,8103130AFW94 2.563 849Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1073 2,000,000.00 1,990,000.00 03/29/20222.00003/29/2017 2,000,380.00 1,8263134GBAE2 2.106 759Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1084 1,000,000.00 999,500.00 12/29/20212.00007/06/2017 1,000,130.00 1,6373134GBXF4 2.012 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:45 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Days to Maturity Page 2 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value November 30, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Federal Agency Coupon Securities 969Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1090 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/27/20222.15007/27/2017 1,000,550.00 1,8263134GBWG3 2.150 57Federal National Mtg Assn1072 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 01/27/20201.70003/27/2017 1,999,900.00 1,0363135G0S53 1.700 1,675Federal National Mtg Assn1206 500,000.00 495,950.00 07/02/20241.75007/15/2019 501,540.00 1,8143135G0V75 1.922 1,010Federal National Mtg Assn1233 1,000,000.00 992,100.00 09/06/20221.37510/29/2019 992,970.00 1,0433135G0W33 1.659 19,181,525.00 1,49419,255,050.0019,250,000.0019,181,525.00Subtotal and Average 755 1.797 Treasury Coupon Securities 577U.S. Treasury1045 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/30/20211.12507/18/2016 4,957,600.00 1,808912828S27 1.125 121U.S. Treasury1068 2,500,000.00 2,483,250.00 03/31/20201.37503/20/2017 2,497,450.00 1,107912828J84 1.602 14U.S. Treasury1069 2,500,000.00 2,490,750.00 12/15/20191.37503/20/2017 2,499,675.00 1,000912828U73 1.513 700U.S. Treasury1070 2,000,000.00 1,942,800.00 10/31/20211.25003/27/2017 1,984,920.00 1,679912828T67 1.903 258U.S. Treasury1117 1,000,000.00 985,800.00 08/15/20201.50001/22/2018 998,830.00 9369128282Q2 2.071 151U.S. Treasury1138 500,000.00 488,250.00 04/30/20201.12505/31/2018 498,925.00 700912828VA5 2.387 1,034U.S. Treasury1178 500,000.00 489,687.50 09/30/20221.87503/01/2019 503,770.00 1,3099128282W9 2.480 896U.S. Treasury1192 500,000.00 496,650.00 05/15/20221.75005/31/2019 501,780.00 1,080912828SV3 1.984 547U.S. Treasury1193 500,000.00 493,610.00 05/31/20211.37505/31/2019 497,775.00 731912828R77 2.030 1,399U.S. Treasury1217 500,000.00 499,300.00 09/30/20231.37508/21/2019 495,545.00 1,501912828T26 1.410 15,370,097.50 1,37215,436,270.0015,500,000.0015,370,097.50Subtotal and Average 444 1.573 Certificate of Deposits 1,734First State Bk DeQueen1222 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/30/20241.80008/30/2019 246,638.48 1,827336460CX6 1.802 1,727FirsTier Bank1216 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/23/20241.95008/23/2019 249,361.05 1,82733766LAJ7 1.952 1,327First National Bank of America1147 245,000.00 245,000.00 07/20/20233.15007/20/2018 256,588.50 1,82632110YLK9 3.152 1,251First National Bank1179 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/05/20232.80003/05/2019 256,159.20 1,52232117BCX4 2.802 1,734First Natl Bk of Syracuse1221 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/30/20241.85008/30/2019 248,198.22 1,827334342CD2 1.852 1,703First Security Bank of WA1209 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/30/20242.00007/30/2019 249,026.72 1,82733625CCP2 2.002 1,627First Service Bank1231 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/15/20241.70011/15/2019 246,154.88 1,64333640VDD7 1.701 717First Source Bank1168 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/17/20213.15012/17/2018 251,923.70 1,06633646CKP8 3.153 323First Tech Federal Credit Unio1124 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/19/20202.70004/18/2018 247,418.15 91533715LBJ8 2.623 792Third Federal Savings and Loan1112 245,000.00 245,000.00 01/31/20222.50001/30/2018 249,086.60 1,46288413QBY3 2.502 1,699Abacus Federal Savings1207 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/26/20241.95007/26/2019 248,491.04 1,82700257TBD7 1.952 925Allegiance Bank1143 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/13/20223.10006/13/2018 253,111.95 1,46101748DBE5 3.102 1,047Alliance Credit Union1095 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/13/20222.25010/13/2017 248,057.60 1,82601859BAA3 2.251 463Ally Bank Midvale1176 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/08/20212.50003/07/2019 247,744.00 73202007GHX4 2.016 940America's Credit Union1200 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/28/20222.30006/28/2019 250,505.29 1,09603065AAL7 2.302 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:45 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 3 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value November 30, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 505Amex Centurion1077 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/19/20212.25004/19/2017 241,872.00 1,46102587DP85 2.252 1,002American Express Fed Savings B1096 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/29/20222.40008/29/2017 242,968.80 1,82602587CFU9 2.402 1,326American National Bank1205 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/19/20232.00007/19/2019 249,686.40 1,46102772JBD1 2.001 1,207Aneca Federal Credit Union1119 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/22/20232.80003/22/2018 252,744.45 1,826034577AH9 2.802 1,059Barclays Bank1097 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/25/20222.30010/25/2017 243,338.40 1,82606740KLJ4 2.291 1,489Bar Harbor Bank and Trust1172 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/29/20233.35012/31/2018 262,989.12 1,824066851WJ1 3.352 722Belmont Savings Bank1102 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/22/20212.10011/21/2017 246,950.20 1,462080515CD9 2.101 816BMW Bank1067 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/24/20222.20002/24/2017 242,503.20 1,82605580AGK4 2.201 410Bankers Bank1086 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/14/20211.80007/14/2017 240,552.00 1,28006610RAP4 1.804 1,762BankWest Inc1227 248,000.00 248,000.00 09/27/20241.70009/27/2019 245,336.48 1,82706652CHB0 1.702 554Capital One Natl Assn FDIC42971082 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/07/20212.25006/07/2017 242,198.40 1,46114042RGD7 2.252 192Capital One USA FDIC339541006 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/10/20201.90006/10/2015 245,443.45 1,827140420RX0 1.902 449Comenity Capital Bank1009 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/22/20211.70002/22/2016 240,276.00 1,82720033APG5 1.702 1,734Celtic Bank1220 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/30/20241.85008/30/2019 247,201.44 1,82715118RRH2 1.852 1,628Century Next Bank1184 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/16/20242.50005/29/2019 254,629.04 1,814156634AK3 2.503 996CIT Bank NA1219 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/23/20221.90008/23/2019 245,747.25 1,09612556LBA3 1.902 1,227Citibank NA1123 245,000.00 245,000.00 04/11/20232.90004/11/2018 253,677.90 1,82617312QJ26 2.902 591Central State Bank1085 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/14/20211.85007/14/2017 240,770.40 1,46115523RBJ4 1.851 1,445Commercial Bank1162 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/15/20233.40011/15/2018 263,152.80 1,82620143PDV9 3.402 1,671Communitywide FCU1202 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/28/20242.25006/28/2019 251,868.80 1,82720416TAQ5 2.253 1,244Congressional Bank1189 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/28/20232.50004/30/2019 253,651.92 1,45920726ABA5 2.502 1,083CrossFirst Bank1106 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/18/20222.20011/20/2017 247,726.85 1,82422766ACB9 2.201 1,664Citizens State Bank1199 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/21/20242.40006/21/2019 253,520.48 1,827176688CP2 2.403 793Discover Bank Greenwood DE CF1066 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/01/20222.25002/01/2017 242,731.20 1,8262546722U1 2.251 51Douglas National Bank1093 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/21/20201.65007/19/2017 240,031.20 916259744DS6 1.655 416Eagle Bank1146 245,000.00 245,000.00 01/20/20212.85007/20/2018 248,476.55 91527002YDV5 2.858 1,244EnerBank USA1125 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/28/20232.95004/30/2018 249,040.80 1,82429278TAY6 2.952 1,093Enterprise Bank, NA1107 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/28/20222.15011/28/2017 247,366.70 1,82629367QCP1 2.151 1,655Evansville Teachers Credit FCU1196 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20242.60006/12/2019 255,690.48 1,827299547AQ2 2.603 187EverBank1017248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20201.70006/05/2015 248,119.04 1,82729976DXX3 1.702 414Farm Bureau Bank1165 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/18/20213.00012/17/2018 251,920.88 763307660LC2 2.898 880Farmers Insurance Group FCU1126 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/29/20222.80004/30/2018 245,988.00 1,46030960QAG2 2.802 387Freedom Credit Union1111 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/22/20202.05012/22/2017 246,193.15 1,09635638BAA9 2.052 624General Electric Credit Union1150 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/16/20213.10008/15/2018 245,834.40 1,097369674AV8 3.100 877Goldman Sachs1078 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/26/20222.40004/26/2017 243,703.20 1,82638148PJK4 2.401 225First Bank of Highland1094 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/13/20201.75007/13/2017 240,228.00 1,096319141GT8 1.752 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:45 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 4 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value November 30, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 956HSBC Bank USA, National Associ1088 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/14/20222.30007/14/2017 240,170.40 1,82640434YLE5 2.301 1,635Iowa State Bank1186 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/23/20242.40005/23/2019 250,485.55 1,82746256YAZ2 2.403 1,418Jefferson Financial CU1154 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/19/20233.35010/19/2018 259,197.75 1,826474067AQ8 3.352 163Jefferson Bank & Trust1100 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/12/20201.75011/09/2017 245,159.25 915472376AC6 1.751 1,628JP Morgan Chase1185 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/16/20243.25005/16/2019 238,875.00 1,82748128HXU7 3.254 898Kansas State Bank1101 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/17/20222.10011/17/2017 247,060.45 1,64250116CBE8 2.099 1,124Knoxville TVA Credit Union1110 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/29/20222.40012/29/2017 249,277.70 1,826499724AB8 2.401 1,662Legacy Bank1197 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/19/20242.40006/19/2019 253,525.44 1,827524661CB9 2.403 1,640Live Oak Bank1238 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/28/20241.80011/27/2019 247,149.36 1,644538036GV0 1.802 1,520Lakeside Bank1208 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/29/20242.00007/30/2019 249,721.12 1,64451210SQU4 2.003 838Luana Savings Bank1225 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/18/20221.60009/18/2019 244,277.25 912549104JN8 1.599 820Maine Savings FCU1171 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/28/20223.30012/28/2018 256,608.08 1,158560507AK1 3.306 1,608Main Street Bank1188 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/26/20242.60004/26/2019 255,702.88 1,82756065GAG3 2.603 1,416Marlin Business Bank1155 248,000.00 248,000.00 10/17/20233.30010/17/2018 261,920.24 1,82657116ARV2 3.302 1,102Medallion Bank1169 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/07/20223.40012/07/2018 259,524.56 1,46158404DCX7 3.402 219Mercantile Bank of Michigan1087 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/07/20201.75007/07/2017 240,218.40 1,09658740XZL7 1.752 194Bank Midwest1002 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20201.65006/12/2015 248,059.52 1,827063615AVO 1.652 1,816Morgan Stanley Bank1237 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/20/20241.95011/20/2019 244,919.15 1,82761690UNX4 1.952 1,297Morton Community1173 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/20/20232.75003/20/2019 256,042.64 1,553619165JD6 2.753 1,062Merrick Bank1163 248,000.00 248,000.00 10/28/20223.25010/30/2018 258,143.20 1,45959013J4K2 3.252 1,816Morgan Stanley Private Bk, NA1236 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/20/20241.90011/20/2019 244,338.50 1,82761760A3B3 1.902 1,073Mountain America Federal CU1099 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/08/20222.30011/08/2017 248,425.10 1,82662384RAC0 2.301 1,416Municipal Trust and Savings1160 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/17/20233.20010/17/2018 257,835.55 1,826625925AR3 3.202 751Neighbors FCU1167 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/21/20213.20012/21/2018 252,408.80 1,09664017AAQ7 3.203 428Infinty FCU1211 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/01/20212.10007/31/2019 249,443.36 55145667EDY1 2.110 1,481National Cooperative Bank, N.A1170 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/21/20233.40012/21/2018 260,187.55 1,826635573AL2 3.402 1,458Numerica Credit Union1164 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/28/20233.55011/28/2018 264,725.12 1,82667054NAN3 3.552 695Northpointe Bank1127 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/26/20212.70004/26/2018 244,584.00 1,279666613GV0 2.703 1,535Northwest Bank1181 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/13/20242.95002/13/2019 259,199.68 1,82666736ABP3 2.951 1,338Bank of New England1151 249,000.00 249,000.00 07/31/20233.25007/31/2018 261,753.78 1,82606426KAN8 3.252 666New York Community Bank1226 245,000.00 245,000.00 09/27/20211.80009/27/2019 245,556.15 731649447TC3 1.802 780The Ohio Valley Bank1089 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/19/20221.90007/19/2017 240,955.20 1,645677721CN0 1.903 920PCSB Bank1149 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/08/20223.00006/08/2018 252,504.35 1,46169324MAD7 3.002 1,704People's Bank1210 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/31/20242.00007/31/2019 249,021.76 1,827710571DS6 2.002 1,284Pittsfield Cooperative Bank1194 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/07/20232.50006/07/2019 250,750.15 1,461725404AB3 2.502 1,650Plains Commerce Bank1195 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/07/20242.55006/07/2019 252,041.30 1,82772651LCL6 2.553 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:45 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 5 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value November 30, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 1,720Preferred Bank1213 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/16/20242.00008/16/2019 249,956.16 1,827740367HP5 2.002 542PrivateBank & Trust1032 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/26/20211.50005/26/2016 239,877.60 1,82674267GVG9 1.501 1,361Raymond James Bank1218 244,000.00 244,000.00 08/23/20231.95008/23/2019 245,268.80 1,46175472RAD3 1.951 1,297RCB Bank1144 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/20/20233.15006/20/2018 256,319.00 1,82674934YAH4 3.152 1,102Red Rocks Credit Union1166 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/07/20223.35012/07/2018 259,160.00 1,46175701LAB3 3.352 1,671Revere Bank1203 247,000.00 247,000.00 06/28/20242.30006/28/2019 251,386.72 1,827761402BY1 2.303 358First Bank Richmond1081 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/23/20201.80006/21/2017 245,529.20 1,251319267GC8 1.802 933Sallie Mae Bank Salt Lake CIty1083 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/21/20222.35006/21/2017 243,508.80 1,826795450A70 2.351 1,803Sauk Valley B&T Co1235 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/07/20241.70011/07/2019 245,068.64 1,827804375DL4 1.702 1,002Sterling Bank1201 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/29/20222.15006/28/2019 247,378.95 1,15885916VDC6 2.153 142Stearnes Bank, N.A.1076 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/21/20201.60004/21/2017 239,997.60 1,096857894TC3 1.588 914Synchrony Bank Retail1080 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/02/20222.40006/02/2017 243,770.40 1,82687164XQV1 2.401 516Towne Bank1128 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20212.80004/30/2018 243,950.40 1,09689214PBL2 2.803 981Traditions Bank1148 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/08/20223.00006/08/2018 252,849.80 1,52289269CBX9 3.002 722TNB Bank1187 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/22/20212.40005/22/2019 251,422.40 91587266AAA1 2.407 1,416UBS Bank USA1161 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/17/20233.35010/17/2018 259,212.45 1,82690348JEJ5 3.352 471Unity Bank1120 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/16/20212.55003/16/2018 247,947.35 1,09691330ABN6 2.552 752United Credit Union1214 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/22/20212.00008/22/2019 249,502.88 853910160AH3 2.003 1,261University of Iowa Comm. CU1134 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/15/20233.05005/14/2018 249,974.40 1,82791435LAG2 3.052 1,185Verus Bank of Commerce1180 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/28/20232.70002/28/2019 254,921.68 1,46192535LCD4 2.700 1,549Wells Fargo1174 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/27/20243.00002/27/2019 257,796.00 1,826949763XY7 3.001 197Wex Bank1145 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/15/20202.75006/13/2018 246,516.55 73392937CHG6 2.754 1,727Washington Federal1215 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/23/20242.00008/23/2019 248,920.08 1,827938828BH2 2.002 26,959,000.00 1,54727,432,598.9126,959,000.0026,681,266.67Subtotal and Average 1,069 2.423 Corporate Notes 612Apple Inc1079 500,000.00 493,050.00 08/04/20211.55006/12/2017 498,025.00 1,514037833CC2 1.900 1,158Colgate-Palmolive1175 500,000.00 485,250.00 02/01/20231.95003/04/2019 501,710.00 1,43019416QEA4 2.751 67Microsoft Corporation1118 500,000.00 497,700.00 02/06/20201.85001/22/2018 500,060.00 745594918BV5 2.081 1,346Microsoft Corporation1157 400,000.00 378,360.00 08/08/20232.00010/15/2018 402,192.00 1,758594918BQ6 3.222 798Proctor and Gamble1159 500,000.00 487,950.00 02/06/20222.30010/15/2018 506,860.00 1,210742718DY2 3.071 494Toyota Motor Credit Corp1204 500,000.00 499,750.00 04/08/20211.90006/24/2019 500,480.00 65489236TCZ6 1.928 1,772Toyota Motor Credit Corp1232 500,000.00 500,000.00 10/07/20242.00010/23/2019 499,420.00 1,81189236TGL3 2.000 1,110Wal-Mart Stores, Inc1190 500,000.00 496,650.00 12/15/20222.35004/16/2019 506,890.00 1,339931142DU4 2.799 3,838,710.00 1,2933,915,637.003,900,000.003,838,710.00Subtotal and Average 907 2.443 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:45 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 6 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value November 30, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Money Market with Fiscal Agent 1US Bank1058 8,000.58 8,000.5807/01/2016 8,000.58 1SYS1058 0.000 8,000.58 18,000.588,000.587,992.28Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 CERBT - OPEB Trust 1CalPERS CERBT Plan1114 1,658,975.81 1,658,975.8107/01/2019 1,658,975.81 1SYS1114 0.000 1,658,975.81 11,658,975.811,658,975.811,658,975.81Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 PARS Pension Trust 1Pblc Agncy Rtrmnt Serv1230 6,660,656.39 6,660,656.3908/01/2019 6,660,656.39 1SYS1230 0.000 6,660,656.39 16,660,656.396,660,656.396,610,598.15Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 670144,229,746.83 144,291,515.77 373 1.607144,848,520.39 144,031,848.27Total and Average Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/03/2020 - 17:45 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 City of La Quinta Total Earnings City of La Quinta - Sorted by Fund - Fund November 1, 2019 - November 30, 2019 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted InterestAnnualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 992,100.0012331,000,000.00 1.375FNMA 1,145.84 0.00 1,145.841.405101992,100.003135G0W33 0.00 495,950.001206500,000.00 1.750FNMA 729.16 0.00 729.161.789101495,950.003135G0V75 0.00 2,000,000.0010722,000,000.00 1.700FNMA 2,833.33 0.00 2,833.331.7241012,000,000.003135G0S53 0.00 999,500.0010841,000,000.00 2.000FHLMC 1,666.66 0.00 1,666.662.029101999,500.003134GBXF4 0.00 1,000,000.0010901,000,000.00 2.150FHLMC 1,791.67 0.00 1,791.672.1801011,000,000.003134GBWG3 0.00 1,990,000.0010732,000,000.00 2.000FHLMC 3,333.33 0.00 3,333.332.0381011,990,000.003134GBAE2 0.00 499,400.001223500,000.00 1.600FFCB 666.67 0.00 666.671.624101499,400.003133EKZK5 0.00 499,500.001212500,000.00 1.850FFCB 770.84 0.00 770.841.878101499,500.003133EKWV4 0.00 247,275.001158250,000.00 2.800FFCB 583.33 0.00 583.332.870101247,275.003133EJYL7 0.00 491,750.001142500,000.00 1.550FFCB 645.83 0.00 645.831.598101491,750.003133EHJA2 0.00 992,200.0011051,000,000.00 1.700FFCB 1,416.67 0.00 1,416.671.737101992,200.003133EHWM1 0.00 499,500.001198500,000.00 1.875FFCB 781.25 0.00 781.251.903101499,500.003133EKQP4 0.00 492,100.001191500,000.00 1.700FFCB 708.33 0.00 708.331.751101492,100.003133EGD28 0.00 996,900.0012341,000,000.00 1.600FFCB 1,333.33 0.00 1,333.331.6271010.003133EK4X1 0.00 498,750.001224500,000.00 1.600FFCB 666.66 0.00 666.661.626101498,750.003133EKP75 0.00 498,550.001177500,000.00 2.500FHLB 1,041.67 0.00 1,041.672.542101498,550.003130AFW94 0.00 2,491,250.0010532,500,000.00 1.350FHLB 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.501.3741012,491,250.003130A7QZ1 0.00 2,500,000.0010642,500,000.00 1.375FHLB 2,864.58 0.00 2,864.581.3941012,500,000.003130A9UQ2 0.00 996,800.0011041,000,000.00 1.625FHLB 1,354.17 0.00 1,354.171.653101996,800.003130A66T9 0.00 2,490,750.0010692,500,000.00 1.375USTR 2,817.62 0.00 2,817.621.3761012,490,750.00912828U73 0.00 2,483,250.0010682,500,000.00 1.375USTR 2,817.63 0.00 2,817.631.3801012,483,250.00912828J84 0.00 499,300.001217500,000.00 1.375USTR 563.53 0.00 563.531.373101499,300.00912828T26 0.00 493,610.001193500,000.00 1.375USTR 563.52 0.00 563.521.389101493,610.00912828R77 0.00 5,000,000.0010455,000,000.00 1.125USTR 4,585.60 0.00 4,585.601.1161015,000,000.00912828S27 0.00 488,250.001138500,000.00 1.125USTR 463.60 0.00 463.601.155101488,250.00912828VA5 0.00 985,800.0011171,000,000.00 1.500USTR 1,222.82 0.00 1,222.821.509101985,800.009128282Q2 0.00 496,650.001192500,000.00 1.750USTR 717.50 0.00 717.501.758101496,650.00912828SV3 0.00 1,942,800.0010702,000,000.00 1.250USTR 2,060.44 0.00 2,060.441.2901011,942,800.00912828T67 0.00 489,687.501178500,000.00 1.875USTR 768.44 0.00 768.441.909101489,687.509128282W9 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:38 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 2 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest November 1, 2019 - November 30, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 3,688,571.0610573,688,571.06WELLS 0.01 0.00 0.011012,064,325.854159282482 0.00 248,000.001174248,000.00 3.000WELLS 611.51 0.00 611.513.000101248,000.00949763XY7 0.00 240,000.001078240,000.00 2.400GLDMAN 473.43 0.00 473.432.400101240,000.0038148PJK4 0.00 240,000.001077240,000.00 2.250AMEX 443.84 0.00 443.842.250101240,000.0002587DP85 0.00 240,000.001067240,000.00 2.200BMW 433.97 0.00 433.972.200101240,000.0005580AGK4 0.00 248,000.001169248,000.00 3.400MEDBA 693.04 0.00 693.043.400101248,000.0058404DCX7 0.00 240,000.001097240,000.00 2.300BARCLY 453.70 0.00 453.702.300101240,000.0006740KLJ4 0.00 245,000.001112245,000.00 2.5003RD 503.42 0.00 503.422.500101245,000.0088413QBY3 0.00 248,000.001163248,000.00 3.250MRRCK 662.47 0.00 662.473.250101248,000.0059013J4K2 0.00 240,000.001128240,000.00 2.800TOWNE 552.33 0.00 552.332.800101240,000.0089214PBL2 0.00 248,000.001173248,000.00 2.750MORTN 560.55 0.00 560.552.750101248,000.00619165JD6 0.00 248,000.001017248,000.00 1.700EVRBA 346.52 0.00 346.521.700101248,000.0029976DXX3 0.00 245,000.001006245,000.00 1.900CAPONE 382.60 0.00 382.601.900101245,000.00140420RX0 0.00 248,000.001002248,000.00 1.650MIDWES 336.33 0.00 336.331.650101248,000.00063615AVO 0.00 245,000.001176245,000.00 2.500ALLY 503.42 0.00 503.422.500101245,000.0002007GHX4 0.00 240,000.001009240,000.00 1.700CCBA 335.34 0.00 335.341.700101240,000.0020033APG5 0.00 240,000.001032240,000.00 1.500PRVTBA 295.89 0.00 295.891.500101240,000.0074267GVG9 0.00 30,112,948.14105530,112,948.14 2.103LAIF 57,087.56 0.00 57,087.562.16310132,112,948.1498-33-434 0.00 240,000.001066240,000.00 2.250DISCOV 443.83 0.00 443.832.250101240,000.002546722U1 0.00 240,000.001076240,000.00 1.600STRNS 315.62 0.00 315.621.600101240,000.00857894TC3 0.00 493,050.001079500,000.00 1.550APPL 645.83 0.00 645.831.594101493,050.00037833CC2 0.00 240,000.001080240,000.00 2.400SYNCHR 473.43 0.00 473.432.400101240,000.0087164XQV1 0.00 245,000.001081245,000.00 1.800RICHMN 362.47 0.00 362.471.800101245,000.00319267GC8 0.00 240,000.001082240,000.00 2.250CAP1NA 443.83 0.00 443.832.250101240,000.0014042RGD7 0.00 240,000.001083240,000.00 2.350SALMAE 463.56 0.00 463.562.350101240,000.00795450A70 0.00 240,000.001085240,000.00 1.850CNTRL 364.93 0.00 364.931.850101240,000.0015523RBJ4 0.00 240,000.001086240,000.00 1.800BNKRS 355.07 0.00 355.071.800101240,000.0006610RAP4 0.00 240,000.001087240,000.00 1.750MERCTL 345.21 0.00 345.211.750101240,000.0058740XZL7 0.00 240,000.001088240,000.00 2.300HSBC 453.70 0.00 453.702.300101240,000.0040434YLE5 0.00 240,000.001089240,000.00 1.900OHVAL 374.79 0.00 374.791.900101240,000.00677721CN0 0.00 0.0010910.00 1.6501STFRM 216.99 0.00 216.991.650101240,000.00320165HX4 0.00 240,000.001093240,000.00 1.650DOUGLS 325.48 0.00 325.481.650101240,000.00259744DS6 0.00 240,000.001094240,000.00 1.750HIGHLD 345.21 0.00 345.211.750101240,000.00319141GT8 0.00 245,000.001095245,000.00 2.250ALLIAN 453.08 0.00 453.082.250101245,000.0001859BAA3 0.00 240,000.001096240,000.00 2.400AMFSB 473.43 0.00 473.432.400101240,000.0002587CFU9 0.00 500,000.001232500,000.00 2.000TOYOTA 833.33 0.00 833.332.028101500,000.0089236TGL3 0.00 499,750.001204500,000.00 1.900TOYOTA 791.67 0.00 791.671.927101499,750.0089236TCZ6 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:38 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 3 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest November 1, 2019 - November 30, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 245,000.001099245,000.00 2.300MTNAMR 463.15 0.00 463.152.300101245,000.0062384RAC0 0.00 245,000.001100245,000.00 1.750JFFRSN 352.40 0.00 352.401.750101245,000.00472376AC6 0.00 245,000.001101245,000.00 2.100KANSAS 422.88 0.00 422.882.100101245,000.0050116CBE8 0.00 245,000.001102245,000.00 2.100BELMNT 422.87 0.00 422.872.100101245,000.00080515CD9 0.00 245,000.001106245,000.00 2.200CRS1ST 443.01 0.00 443.012.200101245,000.0022766ACB9 0.00 245,000.001107245,000.00 2.150ENTRPR 432.95 0.00 432.952.150101245,000.0029367QCP1 0.00 0.0011080.00 1.750MSPRIV 199.69 0.00 199.691.750101245,000.0061760AEP0 0.00 245,000.001236245,000.00 1.900MSPRIV 140.29 0.00 140.291.9001010.0061760A3B3 0.00 245,000.001237245,000.00 1.950MORGST 143.98 0.00 143.981.9501010.0061690UNX4 0.00 0.0011090.00 1.800MORGST 205.39 0.00 205.391.800101245,000.0061747MA92 0.00 245,000.001110245,000.00 2.400KNOX 483.29 0.00 483.292.400101245,000.00499724AB8 0.00 245,000.001111245,000.00 2.050FREECU 412.80 0.00 412.802.050101245,000.0035638BAA9 0.00 3,300.0010593,300.00CITYPC 0.00 0.00 0.001013,300.00SYS1059 0.00 1,658,975.8111141,658,975.81CALPRS 0.00 0.00 0.001011,658,975.81SYS1114 0.00 497,700.001118500,000.00 1.850MCRSFT 770.83 0.00 770.831.884101497,700.00594918BV5 0.00 378,360.001157400,000.00 2.000MCRSFT 666.67 0.00 666.672.144101378,360.00594918BQ6 0.00 245,000.001119245,000.00 2.800ANECA 563.84 0.00 563.842.800101245,000.00034577AH9 0.00 245,000.001120245,000.00 2.550UNITY 513.49 0.00 513.492.550101245,000.0091330ABN6 0.00 245,000.001123245,000.00 2.900CITINA 583.97 0.00 583.972.900101245,000.0017312QJ26 0.00 245,000.001124245,000.00 2.7001STTCH 543.70 0.00 543.702.700101245,000.0033715LBJ8 0.00 240,000.001125240,000.00 2.950ENER 581.92 0.00 581.922.950101240,000.0029278TAY6 0.00 240,000.001126240,000.00 2.800FARMIG 552.33 0.00 552.332.800101240,000.0030960QAG2 0.00 240,000.001127240,000.00 2.700NORPNT 532.60 0.00 532.602.700101240,000.00666613GV0 0.00 240,000.001134240,000.00 3.050UOFICU 601.64 0.00 601.643.050101240,000.0091435LAG2 0.00 245,000.001226245,000.00 1.800NYCMBK 362.46 0.00 362.461.800101245,000.00649447TC3 0.00 245,000.001143245,000.00 3.100ALLGNC 624.24 0.00 624.243.100101245,000.0001748DBE5 0.00 245,000.001144245,000.00 3.150RCB 634.32 0.00 634.323.150101245,000.0074934YAH4 0.00 245,000.001145245,000.00 2.750WEX 553.76 0.00 553.762.750101245,000.0092937CHG6 0.00 245,000.001146245,000.00 2.850EAGLE 573.90 0.00 573.902.850101245,000.0027002YDV5 0.00 245,000.001147245,000.00 3.1501STNBA 634.32 0.00 634.323.150101245,000.0032110YLK9 0.00 245,000.001148245,000.00 3.000TRAD 604.11 0.00 604.113.000101245,000.0089269CBX9 0.00 245,000.001149245,000.00 3.000PCSB 604.11 0.00 604.113.000101245,000.0069324MAD7 0.00 240,000.001150240,000.00 3.100GECRUN 611.51 0.00 611.513.100101240,000.00369674AV8 0.00 249,000.001151249,000.00 3.250NWENGL 665.14 0.00 665.143.250101249,000.0006426KAN8 0.00 18,718,032.77115318,718,032.77CAMP 31,007.98 0.00 31,007.981.82410120,687,024.79SYS1153 0.00 245,000.001154245,000.00 3.350JEFF 674.59 0.00 674.593.350101245,000.00474067AQ8 0.00 248,000.001155248,000.00 3.300MARBUS 672.66 0.00 672.663.300101248,000.0057116ARV2 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:38 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 4 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest November 1, 2019 - November 30, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 487,950.001159500,000.00 2.300P&G 958.33 0.00 958.332.390101487,950.00742718DY2 0.00 245,000.001160245,000.00 3.200MUNTRS 644.38 0.00 644.383.200101245,000.00625925AR3 0.00 245,000.001161245,000.00 3.350UBS 674.59 0.00 674.593.350101245,000.0090348JEJ5 0.00 248,000.001162248,000.00 3.400COMMBK 693.04 0.00 693.043.400101248,000.0020143PDV9 0.00 248,000.001164248,000.00 3.550NMRCA 723.62 0.00 723.623.550101248,000.0067054NAN3 0.00 248,000.001165248,000.00 3.000FARMBU 611.51 0.00 611.513.000101248,000.00307660LC2 0.00 248,000.001166248,000.00 3.350REDRCK 682.85 0.00 682.853.350101248,000.0075701LAB3 0.00 245,000.001167245,000.00 3.200NEIGH 644.38 0.00 644.383.200101245,000.0064017AAQ7 0.00 245,000.001168245,000.00 3.1501STSRC 634.32 0.00 634.323.150101245,000.0033646CKP8 0.00 245,000.001170245,000.00 3.400NLCOOP 684.66 0.00 684.663.400101245,000.00635573AL2 0.00 248,000.001171248,000.00 3.300MAINE 672.65 0.00 672.653.300101248,000.00560507AK1 0.00 248,000.001172248,000.00 3.350BARHAR 682.85 0.00 682.853.350101248,000.00066851WJ1 0.00 485,250.001175500,000.00 1.950COLGTE 812.50 0.00 812.502.037101485,250.0019416QEA4 0.00 66,711.97118366,711.97STIFEL 50.98 0.00 50.983.92910115,788.19SYS1183 0.00 248,000.001179248,000.00 2.8001STNBK 570.74 0.00 570.742.800101248,000.0032117BCX4 0.00 248,000.001180248,000.00 2.700VERUS 550.35 0.00 550.352.700101248,000.0092535LCD4 0.00 248,000.001181248,000.00 2.950NRTHWS 601.32 0.00 601.322.950101248,000.0066736ABP3 0.00 248,000.001184248,000.00 2.500CENTNX 509.60 0.00 509.602.500101248,000.00156634AK3 0.00 245,000.001185245,000.00 3.250JPMORG 654.45 0.00 654.453.250101245,000.0048128HXU7 0.00 245,000.001186245,000.00 2.400IOWAST 483.29 0.00 483.292.400101245,000.0046256YAZ2 0.00 248,000.001187248,000.00 2.400TSCOLA 489.21 0.00 489.212.400101248,000.0087266AAA1 0.00 248,000.001188248,000.00 2.600MAINST 529.97 0.00 529.972.600101248,000.0056065GAG3 0.00 248,000.001189248,000.00 2.500CONGRS 509.59 0.00 509.592.500101248,000.0020726ABA5 0.00 496,650.001190500,000.00 2.350WALMRT 979.17 0.00 979.172.399101496,650.00931142DU4 0.00 245,000.001194245,000.00 2.500PITTS 503.43 0.00 503.432.500101245,000.00725404AB3 0.00 245,000.001195245,000.00 2.550PLAINS 513.49 0.00 513.492.550101245,000.0072651LCL6 0.00 248,000.001196248,000.00 2.600EVNSCU 529.97 0.00 529.972.600101248,000.00299547AQ2 0.00 248,000.001197248,000.00 2.400LEGCY 489.21 0.00 489.212.400101248,000.00524661CB9 0.00 248,000.001199248,000.00 2.400CTZNST 489.20 0.00 489.202.400101248,000.00176688CP2 0.00 248,000.001200248,000.00 2.300AMERCU 468.82 0.00 468.822.300101248,000.0003065AAL7 0.00 245,000.001201245,000.00 2.150STRLNG 432.95 0.00 432.952.150101245,000.0085916VDC6 0.00 248,000.001202248,000.00 2.250COMMW 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101248,000.0020416TAQ5 0.00 247,000.001203247,000.00 2.300REVER 466.93 0.00 466.932.300101247,000.00761402BY1 0.00 248,000.001205248,000.00 2.000AMRNTL 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101248,000.0002772JBD1 0.00 248,000.001207248,000.00 1.950ABACUS 397.48 0.00 397.481.950101248,000.0000257TBD7 0.00 248,000.001208248,000.00 2.000LKSIDE 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101248,000.0051210SQU4 0.00 248,000.001209248,000.00 2.0001STSEC 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101248,000.0033625CCP2 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:38 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 5 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest November 1, 2019 - November 30, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 248,000.001210248,000.00 2.000PEOPLE 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101248,000.00710571DS6 0.00 248,000.001211248,000.00 2.100NFNITY 428.05 0.00 428.052.100101248,000.0045667EDY1 0.00 249,000.001213249,000.00 2.000PREFRD 409.32 0.00 409.322.000101249,000.00740367HP5 0.00 248,000.001214248,000.00 2.000UNTDCU 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101248,000.00910160AH3 0.00 248,000.001215248,000.00 2.000WSHFED 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101248,000.00938828BH2 0.00 249,000.001216249,000.00 1.9501STIER 399.08 0.00 399.081.950101249,000.0033766LAJ7 0.00 244,000.001218244,000.00 1.950RAYJAM 391.07 0.00 391.071.950101244,000.0075472RAD3 0.00 245,000.001219245,000.00 1.900CITBNK 382.60 0.00 382.601.900101245,000.0012556LBA3 0.00 248,000.001220248,000.00 1.850CELTIC 377.10 0.00 377.101.850101248,000.0015118RRH2 0.00 249,000.001221249,000.00 1.8501STNBS 378.62 0.00 378.621.850101249,000.00334342CD2 0.00 248,000.001222248,000.00 1.8001STDQN 366.90 0.00 366.901.800101248,000.00336460CX6 0.00 245,000.001225245,000.00 1.600LUANA 322.19 0.00 322.191.600101245,000.00549104JN8 0.00 963,039.981228963,039.98BOTW 0.01 0.00 0.011011,467,768.98059731851 0.00 248,000.001227248,000.00 1.700BNKWST 346.52 0.00 346.521.700101248,000.0006652CHB0 0.00 6,660,656.3912306,660,656.39PARS 0.00 0.00 0.001016,607,022.56SYS1230 0.00 248,000.001231248,000.00 1.7001STSER 173.26 0.00 173.261.7001010.0033640VDD7 0.00 248,000.001235248,000.00 1.700SAUKVL 265.67 0.00 265.671.7001010.00804375DL4 0.00 248,000.001238248,000.00 1.800LIVEOK 36.69 0.00 36.691.8001010.00538036GV0 0.00 127,481,236.12Subtotal 127,221,568.62 1.798 191,662.260.00191,662.26128,465,586.82 0.00 Fund: Fiscal Agent 8,000.5810588,000.58USBANK 8.59 0.00 8.591.3082317,991.99SYS1058 0.00 8,000.58Subtotal 8,000.58 1.308 8.590.008.597,991.99 0.00 Fund: Housing Authority : WSA and LQ 232,420.621062232,420.62LQPR 0.00 0.00 0.00241227,484.87SYS1062 0.00 232,420.62Subtotal 232,420.62 0.000.000.00227,484.87 0.00 Fund: SA Low/Mod Bond Fund 16,569,858.45111316,569,858.45 2.103LAIF 31,068.91 0.00 31,068.912.28124916,569,858.4525-33-005 0.00 16,569,858.45Subtotal 16,569,858.45 2.281 31,068.910.0031,068.9116,569,858.45 0.00 144,291,515.77Total 144,031,848.27 1.850 222,739.760.00222,739.76145,270,922.13 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:38 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 ---G EM oftheDES ERT -- Investments Par Value Bank Accounts 10,032 ,174.31 Local Agency Investment Fund-City 30 , 112,948 .14 Local Agency lnvstmnt Fund-Housing 16,569 ,858.45 Money Market Accounts -CAMP 18,746 ,656 .05 Federa l Agency Coupon Securities 17 ,250 ,000 .00 Treasury Coupon Securities 14 ,000 ,000 .00 Certificate of De pos its 27 ,455 ,000 .00 Corporate Notes 3,900 ,000 .00 Money Market with Fiscal Agent 8 ,007 .69 CERBT -OPEB Trust 1,722 ,812 .97 PARS Pension Trust 6 ,7 18 , 159 .0 1 146,515 ,616.62 I nvestments Total Earnings December 31 Month End i ng Current Ye ar 244 , 114 .82 Average Daily Balance 143,909 ,097 .53 City of La Quinta Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary December 31 , 2019 Ma r ket Book Va l ue Value 10,032 ,174 .31 10 ,032,174 .31 30 ,211 ,385 .37 30 , 112,948 .14 16,597 ,869 .93 16 ,569 ,858.45 18,746 ,656 .05 18 ,746 ,656 .05 17 ,252 ,507 .50 17 ,190,625 .00 13,940 ,770 .00 13 ,869 ,035 .00 27 ,908 ,819 .74 27 ,455 ,000 .00 3,9 19,48 1.00 3 ,838 ,7 10 .00 8,007 .69 8 ,00 7 .69 1,722 ,8 12 .97 1 ,722 ,8 12 .97 6 ,71 8,159.01 6 ,7 18 ,159 .01 147,058 ,643 .57 146,263 ,986 .62 Fiscal Year To Date 1,541 ,800 .62 151 ,714 ,237 .87 Effective Rate of Return 2.00% 2.02 % % o f Portfolio 6 .86 20 .59 11.33 12 .82 11.75 9.48 18 .77 2.62 0.01 1.18 4 .59 100.00 % Te nn 1,46 1 1,47 1 1,539 1,293 635 Days t o Maturity 1 77 0 589 1,039 876 365 City of La Quinta YTM 365 Equ iv. 0 .000 2 .043 2 .043 0 .000 1.745 1.595 2.4 13 2.443 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1.525 I certify that this rep ort accurately reflects all pooled inve stments and is in compliance with the Californ ia Go vernment Code and the City Investment Policy . As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta , I hereby certify that sufficient investment liq uidity and anticipated rev enue s are avai lable to meet t he City's ex pen diture requirements for the next six month s . The City of La Quinta used the monthly account statements issued by our fin ancial institutions to determine the fa ir market value of investments at month end . K•rl• R om•rn~;:/!§:Pvv 2/ /.JJ Jilo Xl Reporting period 12/01 /2019 -12131/2019 Run Date : 02/0512020 • 08 :43 Portfoli o CITY CP PM (PRF _PM1 ) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Days to Maturity Page 1 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value December 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Bank Accounts 1Bank of the West1228 4,321,831.35 4,321,831.3508/20/2019 4,321,831.35 1059731851 0.000 1City Petty Cash1059 3,300.00 3,300.0007/01/2016 3,300.00 1SYS1059 0.000 1La Quinta Palms Realty1062 222,868.29 222,868.2907/01/2016 222,868.29 1SYS1062 0.000 1Stifel, Nicolaus & Company1183 0.00 0.0003/18/2019 0.00 1SYS1183 0.000 1Wells Fargo1057 5,484,174.67 5,484,174.6707/01/2016 5,484,174.67 14159282482 0.000 10,032,174.31 110,032,174.3110,032,174.315,407,463.21Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 Local Agency Investment Fund-City 1Local Agency Inv Fund1055 30,112,948.14 30,112,948.14 2.04330,211,385.37 198-33-434 2.043 30,112,948.14 130,211,385.3730,112,948.1430,112,948.14Subtotal and Average 1 2.043 Local Agency Invstmnt Fund-Housing 1Local Agency Inv Fund1113 16,569,858.45 16,569,858.45 2.04316,597,869.93 125-33-005 2.043 16,569,858.45 116,597,869.9316,569,858.4516,569,858.45Subtotal and Average 1 2.043 Money Market Accounts - CAMP 1California Asset Management Pr1153 18,746,656.05 18,746,656.0509/26/2018 18,746,656.05 1SYS1153 0.000 18,746,656.05 118,746,656.0518,746,656.0518,718,956.10Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 Federal Agency Coupon Securities 609Federal Farm Credit Bank1105 1,000,000.00 992,200.00 09/01/20211.70011/09/2017 1,002,280.00 1,3923133EHWM1 1.913 128Federal Farm Credit Bank1142 500,000.00 491,750.00 05/08/20201.55005/31/2018 499,835.00 7083133EHJA2 2.427 1,343Federal Farm Credit Bank1158 250,000.00 247,275.00 09/05/20232.80010/15/2018 260,332.50 1,7863133EJYL7 3.041 1,035Federal Farm Credit Bank1191 500,000.00 492,100.00 11/01/20221.70005/28/2019 497,775.00 1,2533133EGD28 2.181 1,076Federal Farm Credit Bank1198 500,000.00 499,500.00 12/12/20221.87506/20/2019 503,745.00 1,2713133EKQP4 1.905 1,668Federal Farm Credit Bank1212 500,000.00 499,500.00 07/26/20241.85008/02/2019 502,060.00 1,8203133EKWV4 1.871 1,321Federal Farm Credit Bank1223 500,000.00 499,400.00 08/14/20231.60009/12/2019 499,375.00 1,4323133EKZK5 1.632 1,721Federal Farm Credit Bank1224 500,000.00 498,750.00 09/17/20241.60009/17/2019 496,250.00 1,8273133EKP75 1.652 1,400Federal Farm Credit Bank1234 1,000,000.00 996,900.00 11/01/20231.60011/01/2019 998,570.00 1,4613133EK4X1 1.680 1,721Federal Farm Credit Bank1242 1,000,000.00 998,600.00 09/17/20241.70012/17/2019 998,670.00 1,7363133ELEA8 1.731 483Federal Home Loan Bank1053 2,500,000.00 2,491,250.00 04/28/20211.35004/28/2016 2,487,575.00 1,8263130A7QZ1 1.423 299Federal Home Loan Bank1064 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 10/26/20201.37510/26/2016 2,496,400.00 1,4613130A9UQ2 1.375 254Federal Home Loan Bank1104 1,000,000.00 996,800.00 09/11/20201.62511/09/2017 999,780.00 1,0373130A66T9 1.741 1,504Federal Home Loan Bank1177 500,000.00 498,550.00 02/13/20242.50003/01/2019 515,550.00 1,8103130AFW94 2.563 938Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1090 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 07/27/20222.15007/27/2017 1,000,260.00 1,8263134GBWG3 2.150 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Days to Maturity Page 2 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value December 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Federal Agency Coupon Securities 26Federal National Mtg Assn1072 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 01/27/20201.70003/27/2017 2,000,060.00 1,0363135G0S53 1.700 1,644Federal National Mtg Assn1206 500,000.00 495,950.00 07/02/20241.75007/15/2019 500,570.00 1,8143135G0V75 1.922 979Federal National Mtg Assn1233 1,000,000.00 992,100.00 09/06/20221.37510/29/2019 993,420.00 1,0433135G0W33 1.659 17,190,625.00 1,46117,252,507.5017,250,000.0019,439,605.65Subtotal and Average 770 1.745 Treasury Coupon Securities 546U.S. Treasury1045 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/30/20211.12507/18/2016 4,965,050.00 1,808912828S27 1.125 90U.S. Treasury1068 2,500,000.00 2,483,250.00 03/31/20201.37503/20/2017 2,498,350.00 1,107912828J84 1.602 669U.S. Treasury1070 2,000,000.00 1,942,800.00 10/31/20211.25003/27/2017 1,987,960.00 1,679912828T67 1.903 227U.S. Treasury1117 1,000,000.00 985,800.00 08/15/20201.50001/22/2018 999,220.00 9369128282Q2 2.071 120U.S. Treasury1138 500,000.00 488,250.00 04/30/20201.12505/31/2018 499,140.00 700912828VA5 2.387 1,003U.S. Treasury1178 500,000.00 489,687.50 09/30/20221.87503/01/2019 503,810.00 1,3099128282W9 2.480 865U.S. Treasury1192 500,000.00 496,650.00 05/15/20221.75005/31/2019 501,835.00 1,080912828SV3 1.984 516U.S. Treasury1193 500,000.00 493,610.00 05/31/20211.37505/31/2019 498,475.00 731912828R77 2.030 1,368U.S. Treasury1217 500,000.00 499,300.00 09/30/20231.37508/21/2019 495,020.00 1,501912828T26 1.410 1,795U.S. Treasury1241 1,000,000.00 989,687.50 11/30/20241.50012/16/2019 991,910.00 1,811912828YV6 1.718 13,869,035.00 1,47113,940,770.0014,000,000.0014,515,008.79Subtotal and Average 589 1.595 Certificate of Deposits 1,703First State Bk DeQueen1222 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/30/20241.80008/30/2019 246,752.56 1,827336460CX6 1.802 1,696FirsTier Bank1216 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/23/20241.95008/23/2019 249,435.75 1,82733766LAJ7 1.952 1,296First National Bank of America1147 245,000.00 245,000.00 07/20/20233.15007/20/2018 256,093.60 1,82632110YLK9 3.152 1,220First National Bank1179 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/05/20232.80003/05/2019 255,794.64 1,52232117BCX4 2.802 1,703First Natl Bk of Syracuse1221 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/30/20241.85008/30/2019 248,302.80 1,827334342CD2 1.852 1,672First Security Bank of WA1209 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/30/20242.00007/30/2019 249,051.52 1,82733625CCP2 2.002 1,596First Service Bank1231 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/15/20241.70011/15/2019 246,125.12 1,64333640VDD7 1.701 686First Source Bank1168 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/17/20213.15012/17/2018 251,573.35 1,06633646CKP8 3.153 292First Tech Federal Credit Unio1124 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/19/20202.70004/18/2018 247,050.65 91533715LBJ8 2.623 761Third Federal Savings and Loan1112 245,000.00 245,000.00 01/31/20222.50001/30/2018 248,893.05 1,46288413QBY3 2.502 1,668Abacus Federal Savings1207 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/26/20241.95007/26/2019 248,520.80 1,82700257TBD7 1.952 894Allegiance Bank1143 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/13/20223.10006/13/2018 252,844.90 1,46101748DBE5 3.102 1,016Alliance Credit Union1095 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/13/20222.25010/13/2017 247,969.40 1,82601859BAA3 2.251 432Ally Bank Midvale1176 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/08/20212.50003/07/2019 247,381.40 73202007GHX4 2.016 909America's Credit Union1200 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/28/20222.30006/28/2019 250,126.35 1,09603065AAL7 2.302 474Amex Centurion1077 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/19/20212.25004/19/2017 241,629.60 1,46102587DP85 2.252 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 3 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value December 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 971American Express Fed Savings B1096 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/29/20222.40008/29/2017 242,872.80 1,82602587CFU9 2.402 1,295American National Bank1205 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/19/20232.00007/19/2019 249,418.56 1,46102772JBD1 2.001 1,176Aneca Federal Credit Union1119 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/22/20232.80003/22/2018 252,413.70 1,826034577AH9 2.802 1,028Barclays Bank1097 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/25/20222.30010/25/2017 243,247.20 1,82606740KLJ4 2.291 1,458Bar Harbor Bank and Trust1172 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/29/20233.35012/31/2018 262,441.04 1,824066851WJ1 3.352 691Belmont Savings Bank1102 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/22/20212.10011/21/2017 246,800.75 1,462080515CD9 2.101 785BMW Bank1067 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/24/20222.20002/24/2017 242,378.40 1,82605580AGK4 2.201 379Bankers Bank1086 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/14/20211.80007/14/2017 240,338.40 1,28006610RAP4 1.804 1,731BankWest Inc1227 248,000.00 248,000.00 09/27/20241.70009/27/2019 245,515.04 1,82706652CHB0 1.702 523Capital One Natl Assn FDIC42971082 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/07/20212.25006/07/2017 241,929.60 1,46114042RGD7 2.252 161Capital One USA FDIC339541006 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/10/20201.90006/10/2015 245,316.05 1,827140420RX0 1.902 418Comenity Capital Bank1009 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/22/20211.70002/22/2016 240,086.40 1,82720033APG5 1.702 1,703Celtic Bank1220 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/30/20241.85008/30/2019 247,305.60 1,82715118RRH2 1.852 1,597Century Next Bank1184 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/16/20242.50005/29/2019 254,460.40 1,814156634AK3 2.503 965CIT Bank NA1219 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/23/20221.90008/23/2019 245,720.30 1,09612556LBA3 1.902 1,196Citibank NA1123 245,000.00 245,000.00 04/11/20232.90004/11/2018 253,310.40 1,82617312QJ26 2.902 560Central State Bank1085 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/14/20211.85007/14/2017 240,590.40 1,46115523RBJ4 1.851 1,414Commercial Bank1162 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/15/20233.40011/15/2018 262,483.20 1,82620143PDV9 3.402 1,640Communitywide FCU1202 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/28/20242.25006/28/2019 251,794.40 1,82720416TAQ5 2.253 1,213Congressional Bank1189 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/28/20232.50004/30/2019 253,356.80 1,45920726ABA5 2.502 1,052CrossFirst Bank1106 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/18/20222.20011/20/2017 247,660.70 1,82422766ACB9 2.201 1,633Citizens State Bank1199 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/21/20242.40006/21/2019 253,406.40 1,827176688CP2 2.403 762Discover Bank Greenwood DE CF1066 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/01/20222.25002/01/2017 242,592.00 1,8262546722U1 2.251 20Douglas National Bank1093 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/21/20201.65007/19/2017 240,004.80 916259744DS6 1.655 385Eagle Bank1146 245,000.00 245,000.00 01/20/20212.85007/20/2018 248,038.00 91527002YDV5 2.858 1,213EnerBank USA1125 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/28/20232.95004/30/2018 248,671.20 1,82429278TAY6 2.952 1,062Enterprise Bank, NA1107 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/28/20222.15011/28/2017 247,315.25 1,82629367QCP1 2.151 1,624Evansville Teachers Credit FCU1196 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20242.60006/12/2019 255,524.32 1,827299547AQ2 2.603 156EverBank1017248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20201.70006/05/2015 248,042.16 1,82729976DXX3 1.702 383Farm Bureau Bank1165 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/18/20213.00012/17/2018 251,447.20 763307660LC2 2.898 849Farmers Insurance Group FCU1126 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/29/20222.80004/30/2018 245,764.80 1,46030960QAG2 2.802 356Freedom Credit Union1111 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/22/20202.05012/22/2017 245,928.55 1,09635638BAA9 2.052 593General Electric Credit Union1150 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/16/20213.10008/15/2018 245,421.60 1,097369674AV8 3.100 846Goldman Sachs1078 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/26/20222.40004/26/2017 243,547.20 1,82638148PJK4 2.401 194First Bank of Highland1094 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/13/20201.75007/13/2017 240,117.60 1,096319141GT8 1.752 925HSBC Bank USA, National Associ1088 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/14/20222.30007/14/2017 240,825.60 1,82640434YLE5 2.301 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 4 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value December 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 1,604Iowa State Bank1186 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/23/20242.40005/23/2019 250,326.30 1,82746256YAZ2 2.403 1,387Jefferson Financial CU1154 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/19/20233.35010/19/2018 258,563.20 1,826474067AQ8 3.352 132Jefferson Bank & Trust1100 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/12/20201.75011/09/2017 245,083.30 915472376AC6 1.751 1,597JP Morgan Chase1185 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/16/20243.25005/16/2019 240,908.50 1,82748128HXU7 3.254 867Kansas State Bank1101 245,000.00 245,000.00 05/17/20222.10011/17/2017 246,972.25 1,64250116CBE8 2.099 1,094Kern FCU1239 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/30/20221.90012/30/2019 248,530.72 1,09649228XAK6 1.902 1,093Knoxville TVA Credit Union1110 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/29/20222.40012/29/2017 249,096.40 1,826499724AB8 2.401 1,631Legacy Bank1197 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/19/20242.40006/19/2019 253,406.40 1,827524661CB9 2.403 1,609Live Oak Bank1238 248,000.00 248,000.00 05/28/20241.80011/27/2019 247,117.12 1,644538036GV0 1.802 1,489Lakeside Bank1208 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/29/20242.00007/30/2019 249,483.04 1,64451210SQU4 2.003 807Luana Savings Bank1225 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/18/20221.60009/18/2019 244,279.70 912549104JN8 1.599 789Maine Savings FCU1171 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/28/20223.30012/28/2018 256,255.92 1,158560507AK1 3.306 1,577Main Street Bank1188 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/26/20242.60004/26/2019 255,464.80 1,82756065GAG3 2.603 1,385Marlin Business Bank1155 248,000.00 248,000.00 10/17/20233.30010/17/2018 261,302.72 1,82657116ARV2 3.302 1,071Medallion Bank1169 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/07/20223.40012/07/2018 259,199.68 1,46158404DCX7 3.402 188Mercantile Bank of Michigan1087 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/07/20201.75007/07/2017 240,112.80 1,09658740XZL7 1.752 163Bank Midwest1002 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20201.65006/12/2015 247,990.08 1,827063615AVO 1.652 1,785Morgan Stanley Bank1237 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/20/20241.95011/20/2019 245,139.65 1,82761690UNX4 1.952 1,266Morton Community1173 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/20/20232.75003/20/2019 255,648.32 1,553619165JD6 2.753 1,031Merrick Bank1163 248,000.00 248,000.00 10/28/20223.25010/30/2018 257,870.40 1,45959013J4K2 3.252 1,785Morgan Stanley Private Bk, NA1236 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/20/20241.90011/20/2019 244,571.25 1,82761760A3B3 1.902 1,042Mountain America Federal CU1099 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/08/20222.30011/08/2017 248,336.90 1,82662384RAC0 2.301 1,385Municipal Trust and Savings1160 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/17/20233.20010/17/2018 257,242.65 1,826625925AR3 3.202 720Neighbors FCU1167 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/21/20213.20012/21/2018 252,080.50 1,09664017AAQ7 3.203 397Infinty FCU1211 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/01/20212.10007/31/2019 249,160.64 55145667EDY1 2.110 1,450National Cooperative Bank, N.A1170 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/21/20233.40012/21/2018 259,616.70 1,826635573AL2 3.402 1,427Numerica Credit Union1164 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/28/20233.55011/28/2018 264,010.88 1,82667054NAN3 3.552 664Northpointe Bank1127 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/26/20212.70004/26/2018 244,296.00 1,279666613GV0 2.703 1,504Northwest Bank1181 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/13/20242.95002/13/2019 258,788.00 1,82666736ABP3 2.951 1,307Bank of New England1151 249,000.00 249,000.00 07/31/20233.25007/31/2018 261,228.39 1,82606426KAN8 3.252 635New York Community Bank1226 245,000.00 245,000.00 09/27/20211.80009/27/2019 245,423.85 731649447TC3 1.802 749The Ohio Valley Bank1089 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/19/20221.90007/19/2017 240,885.60 1,645677721CN0 1.903 889PCSB Bank1149 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/08/20223.00006/08/2018 252,237.30 1,46169324MAD7 3.002 1,673People's Bank1210 248,000.00 248,000.00 07/31/20242.00007/31/2019 249,049.04 1,827710571DS6 2.002 1,253Pittsfield Cooperative Bank1194 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/07/20232.50006/07/2019 250,431.65 1,461725404AB3 2.502 1,619Plains Commerce Bank1195 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/07/20242.55006/07/2019 251,884.50 1,82772651LCL6 2.553 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 5 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value December 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date Certificate of Deposits 1,689Preferred Bank1213 249,000.00 249,000.00 08/16/20242.00008/16/2019 250,008.45 1,827740367HP5 2.002 511PrivateBank & Trust1032 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/26/20211.50005/26/2016 239,728.80 1,82674267GVG9 1.501 1,330Raymond James Bank1218 244,000.00 244,000.00 08/23/20231.95008/23/2019 244,985.76 1,46175472RAD3 1.951 1,266RCB Bank1144 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/20/20233.15006/20/2018 255,848.60 1,82674934YAH4 3.152 1,071Red Rocks Credit Union1166 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/07/20223.35012/07/2018 258,845.04 1,46175701LAB3 3.352 1,640Revere Bank1203 247,000.00 247,000.00 06/28/20242.30006/28/2019 251,310.15 1,827761402BY1 2.303 327First Bank Richmond1081 245,000.00 245,000.00 11/23/20201.80006/21/2017 245,318.50 1,251319267GC8 1.802 902Sallie Mae Bank Salt Lake CIty1083 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/21/20222.35006/21/2017 243,388.80 1,826795450A70 2.351 1,772Sauk Valley B&T Co1235 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/07/20241.70011/07/2019 245,319.12 1,827804375DL4 1.702 1,094San Francisco FCU1240 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/30/20221.85012/30/2019 248,000.00 1,09679772FAC0 1.852 971Sterling Bank1201 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/29/20222.15006/28/2019 247,307.90 1,15885916VDC6 2.153 111Stearnes Bank, N.A.1076 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/21/20201.60004/21/2017 239,956.80 1,096857894TC3 1.588 883Synchrony Bank Retail1080 240,000.00 240,000.00 06/02/20222.40006/02/2017 243,636.00 1,82687164XQV1 2.401 485Towne Bank1128 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20212.80004/30/2018 243,542.40 1,09689214PBL2 2.803 950Traditions Bank1148 245,000.00 245,000.00 08/08/20223.00006/08/2018 252,599.90 1,52289269CBX9 3.002 691TNB Bank1187 248,000.00 248,000.00 11/22/20212.40005/22/2019 251,206.64 91587266AAA1 2.407 1,385UBS Bank USA1161 245,000.00 245,000.00 10/17/20233.35010/17/2018 258,590.15 1,82690348JEJ5 3.352 440Unity Bank1120 245,000.00 245,000.00 03/16/20212.55003/16/2018 247,579.85 1,09691330ABN6 2.552 721United Credit Union1214 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/22/20212.00008/22/2019 249,398.72 853910160AH3 2.003 1,230University of Iowa Comm. CU1134 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/15/20233.05005/14/2018 249,564.00 1,82791435LAG2 3.052 1,154Verus Bank of Commerce1180 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/28/20232.70002/28/2019 254,629.04 1,46192535LCD4 2.700 1,518Wells Fargo1174 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/27/20243.00002/27/2019 257,213.20 1,826949763XY7 3.001 166Wex Bank1145 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/15/20202.75006/13/2018 246,229.90 73392937CHG6 2.754 1,696Washington Federal1215 248,000.00 248,000.00 08/23/20242.00008/23/2019 248,984.56 1,827938828BH2 2.002 27,455,000.00 1,53927,908,819.7427,455,000.0026,975,000.00Subtotal and Average 1,039 2.413 Corporate Notes 581Apple Inc1079 500,000.00 493,050.00 08/04/20211.55006/12/2017 498,125.00 1,514037833CC2 1.900 1,127Colgate-Palmolive1175 500,000.00 485,250.00 02/01/20231.95003/04/2019 502,235.00 1,43019416QEA4 2.751 36Microsoft Corporation1118 500,000.00 497,700.00 02/06/20201.85001/22/2018 499,980.00 745594918BV5 2.081 1,315Microsoft Corporation1157 400,000.00 378,360.00 08/08/20232.00010/15/2018 402,856.00 1,758594918BQ6 3.222 767Proctor and Gamble1159 500,000.00 487,950.00 02/06/20222.30010/15/2018 506,775.00 1,210742718DY2 3.071 463Toyota Motor Credit Corp1204 500,000.00 499,750.00 04/08/20211.90006/24/2019 500,690.00 65489236TCZ6 1.928 1,741Toyota Motor Credit Corp1232 500,000.00 500,000.00 10/07/20242.00010/23/2019 500,070.00 1,81189236TGL3 2.000 1,079Wal-Mart Stores, Inc1190 500,000.00 496,650.00 12/15/20222.35004/16/2019 508,750.00 1,339931142DU4 2.799 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Days to Maturity Page 6 Par Value Book Value Maturity Date Stated RateMarket Value December 31, 2019 Portfolio Details - Investments Average BalanceIssuer Portfolio Management City of La Quinta YTM 365TermCUSIPInvestment # Purchase Date 3,838,710.00 1,2933,919,481.003,900,000.003,838,710.00Subtotal and Average 876 2.443 Money Market with Fiscal Agent 1US Bank1058 8,007.69 8,007.6907/01/2016 8,007.69 1SYS1058 0.000 8,007.69 18,007.698,007.698,000.81Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 CERBT - OPEB Trust 1CalPERS CERBT Plan1114 1,722,812.97 1,722,812.9707/01/2019 1,722,812.97 1SYS1114 0.000 1,722,812.97 11,722,812.971,722,812.971,661,035.07Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 PARS Pension Trust 1Pblc Agncy Rtrmnt Serv1230 6,718,159.01 6,718,159.0108/01/2019 6,718,159.01 1SYS1230 0.000 6,718,159.01 16,718,159.016,718,159.016,662,511.31Subtotal and Average 1 0.000 635143,909,097.53 146,515,616.62 365 1.525147,058,643.57 146,263,986.62Total and Average Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:43 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 City of La Quinta Total Earnings City of La Quinta - Sorted by Fund - Fund December 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted InterestAnnualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 992,100.0012331,000,000.00 1.375FNMA 1,145.83 0.00 1,145.831.360101992,100.003135G0W33 0.00 495,950.001206500,000.00 1.750FNMA 729.17 0.00 729.171.731101495,950.003135G0V75 0.00 2,000,000.0010722,000,000.00 1.700FNMA 2,833.33 0.00 2,833.331.6681012,000,000.003135G0S53 0.00 0.0010840.00 2.000FHLMC 1,555.56 0.00 1,555.562.029101999,500.003134GBXF4 0.00 1,000,000.0010901,000,000.00 2.150FHLMC 1,791.66 0.00 1,791.662.1101011,000,000.003134GBWG3 0.00 0.0010730.00 2.000FHLMC 3,111.11 0.00 13,111.118.2921011,990,000.003134GBAE2 10,000.00 499,400.001223500,000.00 1.600FFCB 666.66 0.00 666.661.572101499,400.003133EKZK5 0.00 499,500.001212500,000.00 1.850FFCB 770.83 0.00 770.831.817101499,500.003133EKWV4 0.00 247,275.001158250,000.00 2.800FFCB 583.34 0.00 583.342.778101247,275.003133EJYL7 0.00 491,750.001142500,000.00 1.550FFCB 645.83 0.00 645.831.546101491,750.003133EHJA2 0.00 992,200.0011051,000,000.00 1.700FFCB 1,416.67 0.00 1,416.671.681101992,200.003133EHWM1 0.00 499,500.001198500,000.00 1.875FFCB 781.25 0.00 781.251.842101499,500.003133EKQP4 0.00 492,100.001191500,000.00 1.700FFCB 708.34 0.00 708.341.695101492,100.003133EGD28 0.00 996,900.0012341,000,000.00 1.600FFCB 1,333.34 0.00 1,333.341.575101996,900.003133EK4X1 0.00 498,750.001224500,000.00 1.600FFCB 666.67 0.00 666.671.574101498,750.003133EKP75 0.00 998,600.0012421,000,000.00 1.700FFCB 661.11 0.00 661.111.6111010.003133ELEA8 0.00 498,550.001177500,000.00 2.500FHLB 1,041.67 0.00 1,041.672.460101498,550.003130AFW94 0.00 2,491,250.0010532,500,000.00 1.350FHLB 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.501.3291012,491,250.003130A7QZ1 0.00 2,500,000.0010642,500,000.00 1.375FHLB 2,864.59 0.00 2,864.591.3491012,500,000.003130A9UQ2 0.00 996,800.0011041,000,000.00 1.625FHLB 1,354.17 0.00 1,354.171.600101996,800.003130A66T9 0.00 0.0010690.00 1.375USTR 1,314.89 0.00 10,564.8911.0591012,490,750.00912828U73 9,250.00 2,483,250.0010682,500,000.00 1.375USTR 2,911.54 0.00 2,911.541.3801012,483,250.00912828J84 0.00 499,300.001217500,000.00 1.375USTR 582.31 0.00 582.311.373101499,300.00912828T26 0.00 493,610.001193500,000.00 1.375USTR 582.31 0.00 582.311.389101493,610.00912828R77 0.00 989,687.5012411,000,000.00 1.500USTR 655.74 0.00 655.741.5111010.00912828YV6 0.00 5,000,000.0010455,000,000.00 1.125USTR 4,740.13 0.00 4,740.131.1161015,000,000.00912828S27 0.00 488,250.001138500,000.00 1.125USTR 479.05 0.00 479.051.155101488,250.00912828VA5 0.00 985,800.0011171,000,000.00 1.500USTR 1,263.59 0.00 1,263.591.509101985,800.009128282Q2 0.00 496,650.001192500,000.00 1.750USTR 745.19 0.00 745.191.767101496,650.00912828SV3 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:45 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 2 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest December 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 1,942,800.0010702,000,000.00 1.250USTR 2,129.12 0.00 2,129.121.2901011,942,800.00912828T67 0.00 489,687.501178500,000.00 1.875USTR 794.06 0.00 794.061.909101489,687.509128282W9 0.00 5,484,174.6710575,484,174.67WELLS 0.01 0.00 0.011013,688,571.064159282482 0.00 248,000.001174248,000.00 3.000WELLS 631.89 0.00 631.893.000101248,000.00949763XY7 0.00 240,000.001078240,000.00 2.400GLDMAN 489.20 0.00 489.202.400101240,000.0038148PJK4 0.00 240,000.001077240,000.00 2.250AMEX 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101240,000.0002587DP85 0.00 240,000.001067240,000.00 2.200BMW 448.44 0.00 448.442.200101240,000.0005580AGK4 0.00 248,000.001169248,000.00 3.400MEDBA 716.14 0.00 716.143.400101248,000.0058404DCX7 0.00 240,000.001097240,000.00 2.300BARCLY 468.82 0.00 468.822.300101240,000.0006740KLJ4 0.00 245,000.001112245,000.00 2.5003RD 520.21 0.00 520.212.500101245,000.0088413QBY3 0.00 248,000.001163248,000.00 3.250MRRCK 684.55 0.00 684.553.250101248,000.0059013J4K2 0.00 240,000.001128240,000.00 2.800TOWNE 570.74 0.00 570.742.800101240,000.0089214PBL2 0.00 248,000.001173248,000.00 2.750MORTN 579.23 0.00 579.232.750101248,000.00619165JD6 0.00 248,000.001017248,000.00 1.700EVRBA 358.07 0.00 358.071.700101248,000.0029976DXX3 0.00 245,000.001006245,000.00 1.900CAPONE 395.36 0.00 395.361.900101245,000.00140420RX0 0.00 248,000.001002248,000.00 1.650MIDWES 347.54 0.00 347.541.650101248,000.00063615AVO 0.00 245,000.001176245,000.00 2.500ALLY 520.21 0.00 520.212.500101245,000.0002007GHX4 0.00 240,000.001009240,000.00 1.700CCBA 346.52 0.00 346.521.700101240,000.0020033APG5 0.00 240,000.001032240,000.00 1.500PRVTBA 305.75 0.00 305.751.500101240,000.0074267GVG9 0.00 30,112,948.14105530,112,948.14 2.043LAIF 58,344.64 0.00 58,344.642.28110130,112,948.1498-33-434 0.00 240,000.001066240,000.00 2.250DISCOV 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101240,000.002546722U1 0.00 240,000.001076240,000.00 1.600STRNS 326.14 0.00 326.141.600101240,000.00857894TC3 0.00 493,050.001079500,000.00 1.550APPL 645.83 0.00 645.831.542101493,050.00037833CC2 0.00 240,000.001080240,000.00 2.400SYNCHR 489.20 0.00 489.202.400101240,000.0087164XQV1 0.00 245,000.001081245,000.00 1.800RICHMN 374.54 0.00 374.541.800101245,000.00319267GC8 0.00 240,000.001082240,000.00 2.250CAP1NA 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101240,000.0014042RGD7 0.00 240,000.001083240,000.00 2.350SALMAE 479.01 0.00 479.012.350101240,000.00795450A70 0.00 240,000.001085240,000.00 1.850CNTRL 377.10 0.00 377.101.850101240,000.0015523RBJ4 0.00 240,000.001086240,000.00 1.800BNKRS 366.90 0.00 366.901.800101240,000.0006610RAP4 0.00 240,000.001087240,000.00 1.750MERCTL 356.71 0.00 356.711.750101240,000.0058740XZL7 0.00 240,000.001088240,000.00 2.300HSBC 468.82 0.00 468.822.300101240,000.0040434YLE5 0.00 240,000.001089240,000.00 1.900OHVAL 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.00677721CN0 0.00 240,000.001093240,000.00 1.650DOUGLS 336.33 0.00 336.331.650101240,000.00259744DS6 0.00 240,000.001094240,000.00 1.750HIGHLD 356.71 0.00 356.711.750101240,000.00319141GT8 0.00 245,000.001095245,000.00 2.250ALLIAN 468.19 0.00 468.192.250101245,000.0001859BAA3 0.00 240,000.001096240,000.00 2.400AMFSB 489.20 0.00 489.202.400101240,000.0002587CFU9 0.00 500,000.001232500,000.00 2.000TOYOTA 833.33 0.00 833.331.962101500,000.0089236TGL3 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:45 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 3 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest December 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 499,750.001204500,000.00 1.900TOYOTA 791.67 0.00 791.671.865101499,750.0089236TCZ6 0.00 245,000.001099245,000.00 2.300MTNAMR 478.59 0.00 478.592.300101245,000.0062384RAC0 0.00 245,000.001100245,000.00 1.750JFFRSN 364.14 0.00 364.141.750101245,000.00472376AC6 0.00 245,000.001101245,000.00 2.100KANSAS 436.97 0.00 436.972.100101245,000.0050116CBE8 0.00 245,000.001102245,000.00 2.100BELMNT 436.98 0.00 436.982.100101245,000.00080515CD9 0.00 245,000.001106245,000.00 2.200CRS1ST 457.78 0.00 457.782.200101245,000.0022766ACB9 0.00 245,000.001107245,000.00 2.150ENTRPR 447.38 0.00 447.382.150101245,000.0029367QCP1 0.00 245,000.001236245,000.00 1.900MSPRIV 395.35 0.00 395.351.900101245,000.0061760A3B3 0.00 245,000.001237245,000.00 1.950MORGST 405.76 0.00 405.761.950101245,000.0061690UNX4 0.00 245,000.001110245,000.00 2.400KNOX 499.40 0.00 499.402.400101245,000.00499724AB8 0.00 245,000.001111245,000.00 2.050FREECU 426.57 0.00 426.572.050101245,000.0035638BAA9 0.00 3,300.0010593,300.00CITYPC 0.00 0.00 0.001013,300.00SYS1059 0.00 1,722,812.9711141,722,812.97CALPRS 0.00 0.00 0.001011,658,975.81SYS1114 0.00 497,700.001118500,000.00 1.850MCRSFT 770.83 0.00 770.831.824101497,700.00594918BV5 0.00 378,360.001157400,000.00 2.000MCRSFT 666.67 0.00 666.672.075101378,360.00594918BQ6 0.00 245,000.001119245,000.00 2.800ANECA 582.63 0.00 582.632.800101245,000.00034577AH9 0.00 245,000.001120245,000.00 2.550UNITY 530.61 0.00 530.612.550101245,000.0091330ABN6 0.00 245,000.001123245,000.00 2.900CITINA 603.44 0.00 603.442.900101245,000.0017312QJ26 0.00 245,000.001124245,000.00 2.7001STTCH 561.82 0.00 561.822.700101245,000.0033715LBJ8 0.00 240,000.001125240,000.00 2.950ENER 601.32 0.00 601.322.950101240,000.0029278TAY6 0.00 240,000.001126240,000.00 2.800FARMIG 570.74 0.00 570.742.800101240,000.0030960QAG2 0.00 240,000.001127240,000.00 2.700NORPNT 550.36 0.00 550.362.700101240,000.00666613GV0 0.00 240,000.001134240,000.00 3.050UOFICU 621.70 0.00 621.703.050101240,000.0091435LAG2 0.00 245,000.001226245,000.00 1.800NYCMBK 374.55 0.00 374.551.800101245,000.00649447TC3 0.00 245,000.001143245,000.00 3.100ALLGNC 645.06 0.00 645.063.100101245,000.0001748DBE5 0.00 245,000.001144245,000.00 3.150RCB 655.46 0.00 655.463.150101245,000.0074934YAH4 0.00 245,000.001145245,000.00 2.750WEX 572.23 0.00 572.232.750101245,000.0092937CHG6 0.00 245,000.001146245,000.00 2.850EAGLE 593.03 0.00 593.032.850101245,000.0027002YDV5 0.00 245,000.001147245,000.00 3.1501STNBA 655.46 0.00 655.463.150101245,000.0032110YLK9 0.00 245,000.001148245,000.00 3.000TRAD 624.25 0.00 624.253.000101245,000.0089269CBX9 0.00 245,000.001149245,000.00 3.000PCSB 624.25 0.00 624.253.000101245,000.0069324MAD7 0.00 240,000.001150240,000.00 3.100GECRUN 631.89 0.00 631.893.100101240,000.00369674AV8 0.00 249,000.001151249,000.00 3.250NWENGL 687.31 0.00 687.313.250101249,000.0006426KAN8 0.00 18,746,656.05115318,746,656.05CAMP 28,623.28 0.00 28,623.281.80010118,718,032.77SYS1153 0.00 245,000.001154245,000.00 3.350JEFF 697.08 0.00 697.083.350101245,000.00474067AQ8 0.00 248,000.001155248,000.00 3.300MARBUS 695.08 0.00 695.083.300101248,000.0057116ARV2 0.00 487,950.001159500,000.00 2.300P&G 958.33 0.00 958.332.312101487,950.00742718DY2 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:45 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 4 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest December 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 245,000.001160245,000.00 3.200MUNTRS 665.86 0.00 665.863.200101245,000.00625925AR3 0.00 245,000.001161245,000.00 3.350UBS 697.08 0.00 697.083.350101245,000.0090348JEJ5 0.00 248,000.001162248,000.00 3.400COMMBK 716.14 0.00 716.143.400101248,000.0020143PDV9 0.00 248,000.001164248,000.00 3.550NMRCA 747.74 0.00 747.743.550101248,000.0067054NAN3 0.00 248,000.001165248,000.00 3.000FARMBU 631.89 0.00 631.893.000101248,000.00307660LC2 0.00 248,000.001166248,000.00 3.350REDRCK 705.61 0.00 705.613.350101248,000.0075701LAB3 0.00 245,000.001167245,000.00 3.200NEIGH 665.86 0.00 665.863.200101245,000.0064017AAQ7 0.00 245,000.001168245,000.00 3.1501STSRC 655.46 0.00 655.463.150101245,000.0033646CKP8 0.00 245,000.001170245,000.00 3.400NLCOOP 707.48 0.00 707.483.400101245,000.00635573AL2 0.00 248,000.001171248,000.00 3.300MAINE 695.09 0.00 695.093.300101248,000.00560507AK1 0.00 248,000.001172248,000.00 3.350BARHAR 705.61 0.00 705.613.350101248,000.00066851WJ1 0.00 485,250.001175500,000.00 1.950COLGTE 812.50 0.00 812.501.971101485,250.0019416QEA4 0.00 0.0011830.00STIFEL 52.91 0.00 52.910.93410166,711.97SYS1183 0.00 248,000.001179248,000.00 2.8001STNBK 589.76 0.00 589.762.800101248,000.0032117BCX4 0.00 248,000.001180248,000.00 2.700VERUS 568.71 0.00 568.712.700101248,000.0092535LCD4 0.00 248,000.001181248,000.00 2.950NRTHWS 621.36 0.00 621.362.950101248,000.0066736ABP3 0.00 248,000.001184248,000.00 2.500CENTNX 526.57 0.00 526.572.500101248,000.00156634AK3 0.00 245,000.001185245,000.00 3.250JPMORG 676.27 0.00 676.273.250101245,000.0048128HXU7 0.00 245,000.001186245,000.00 2.400IOWAST 499.40 0.00 499.402.400101245,000.0046256YAZ2 0.00 248,000.001187248,000.00 2.400TSCOLA 505.51 0.00 505.512.400101248,000.0087266AAA1 0.00 248,000.001188248,000.00 2.600MAINST 547.64 0.00 547.642.600101248,000.0056065GAG3 0.00 248,000.001189248,000.00 2.500CONGRS 526.58 0.00 526.582.500101248,000.0020726ABA5 0.00 496,650.001190500,000.00 2.350WALMRT 979.16 0.00 979.162.321101496,650.00931142DU4 0.00 245,000.001194245,000.00 2.500PITTS 520.20 0.00 520.202.500101245,000.00725404AB3 0.00 245,000.001195245,000.00 2.550PLAINS 530.61 0.00 530.612.550101245,000.0072651LCL6 0.00 248,000.001196248,000.00 2.600EVNSCU 547.64 0.00 547.642.600101248,000.00299547AQ2 0.00 248,000.001197248,000.00 2.400LEGCY 505.51 0.00 505.512.400101248,000.00524661CB9 0.00 248,000.001199248,000.00 2.400CTZNST 505.52 0.00 505.522.400101248,000.00176688CP2 0.00 248,000.001200248,000.00 2.300AMERCU 484.45 0.00 484.452.300101248,000.0003065AAL7 0.00 245,000.001201245,000.00 2.150STRLNG 447.38 0.00 447.382.150101245,000.0085916VDC6 0.00 248,000.001202248,000.00 2.250COMMW 473.92 0.00 473.922.250101248,000.0020416TAQ5 0.00 247,000.001203247,000.00 2.300REVER 482.50 0.00 482.502.300101247,000.00761402BY1 0.00 248,000.001205248,000.00 2.000AMRNTL 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.0002772JBD1 0.00 248,000.001207248,000.00 1.950ABACUS 410.73 0.00 410.731.950101248,000.0000257TBD7 0.00 248,000.001208248,000.00 2.000LKSIDE 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.0051210SQU4 0.00 248,000.001209248,000.00 2.0001STSEC 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.0033625CCP2 0.00 248,000.001210248,000.00 2.000PEOPLE 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.00710571DS6 0.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:45 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Current Rate Ending Par Value Ending Fund Page 5 Book Value Beginning Book Value Adjusted Interest Earnings Accretion Amortization/ Earnings Adjusted Interest December 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Total Earnings City of La Quinta Annualized YieldCUSIPInvestment # Interest EarnedIssuer Realized Gainl/Loss Fund: General Fund 248,000.001211248,000.00 2.100NFNITY 442.32 0.00 442.322.100101248,000.0045667EDY1 0.00 249,000.001213249,000.00 2.000PREFRD 422.96 0.00 422.962.000101249,000.00740367HP5 0.00 248,000.001214248,000.00 2.000UNTDCU 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.00910160AH3 0.00 248,000.001215248,000.00 2.000WSHFED 421.26 0.00 421.262.000101248,000.00938828BH2 0.00 249,000.001216249,000.00 1.9501STIER 412.38 0.00 412.381.950101249,000.0033766LAJ7 0.00 244,000.001218244,000.00 1.950RAYJAM 404.10 0.00 404.101.950101244,000.0075472RAD3 0.00 245,000.001219245,000.00 1.900CITBNK 395.36 0.00 395.361.900101245,000.0012556LBA3 0.00 248,000.001220248,000.00 1.850CELTIC 389.67 0.00 389.671.850101248,000.0015118RRH2 0.00 249,000.001221249,000.00 1.8501STNBS 391.24 0.00 391.241.850101249,000.00334342CD2 0.00 248,000.001222248,000.00 1.8001STDQN 379.13 0.00 379.131.800101248,000.00336460CX6 0.00 245,000.001225245,000.00 1.600LUANA 332.93 0.00 332.931.600101245,000.00549104JN8 0.00 4,321,831.3512284,321,831.35BOTW 0.01 0.00 0.01101963,039.98059731851 0.00 248,000.001227248,000.00 1.700BNKWST 358.07 0.00 358.071.700101248,000.0006652CHB0 0.00 6,718,159.0112306,718,159.01PARS 0.00 0.00 0.001016,660,656.39SYS1230 0.00 248,000.001231248,000.00 1.7001STSER 358.07 0.00 358.071.700101248,000.0033640VDD7 0.00 248,000.001235248,000.00 1.700SAUKVL 358.07 0.00 358.071.700101248,000.00804375DL4 0.00 248,000.001238248,000.00 1.800LIVEOK 379.13 0.00 379.131.800101248,000.00538036GV0 0.00 248,000.001239248,000.00 1.900KERNCU 12.91 0.00 12.911.9001010.0049228XAK6 0.00 248,000.001240248,000.00 1.850SF FCU 12.57 0.00 12.571.8501010.0079772FAC0 0.00 129,714,882.19Subtotal 129,463,252.19 1.971 212,003.170.00192,753.17127,221,568.62 19,250.00 Fund: Fiscal Agent 8,007.6910588,007.69USBANK 7.11 0.00 7.111.0462318,000.58SYS1058 0.00 8,007.69Subtotal 8,007.69 1.046 7.110.007.118,000.58 0.00 Fund: Housing Authority : WSA and LQ 222,868.291062222,868.29LQPR 0.00 0.00 0.00241232,420.62SYS1062 0.00 222,868.29Subtotal 222,868.29 0.000.000.00232,420.62 0.00 Fund: SA Low/Mod Bond Fund 16,569,858.45111316,569,858.45 2.043LAIF 32,104.54 0.00 32,104.542.28124916,569,858.4525-33-005 0.00 16,569,858.45Subtotal 16,569,858.45 2.281 32,104.540.0032,104.5416,569,858.45 0.00 146,515,616.62Total 146,263,986.62 2.004 244,114.820.00224,864.82144,031,848.27 19,250.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 08:45 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 City of La Quinta -City of La Quinta Maturity Report Sorted by Maturity Date Amounts due during October 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Rate at MaturityPar Value Sec. TypeFund Maturity Date Maturity ProceedsInterest Income Net CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value at Maturity 500,000.00 1.550 503,875.003,875.0011/07/2017TOYOTA109889236TDH5MC210110/18/2019 5,125.00498,750.00 245,000.00 1.800 245,024.1724.1711/16/2017MORGST110961747MA92MC110111/18/2019 24.17245,000.00 245,000.00 1.750 245,023.4923.4911/16/2017MSPRIV110861760AEP0MC110111/18/2019 23.49245,000.00 240,000.00 1.650 240,336.33336.3307/21/20171STFRM1091320165HX4MC110111/21/2019 336.33240,000.00 2,500,000.00 1.375 2,517,187.5017,187.5003/20/2017USTR1069912828U73TRC10112/15/2019 26,437.502,490,750.00 3,751,446.49Total Maturities 3,730,000.00 21,446.493,719,500.00 31,946.49 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 10:54 MA (PRF_MA) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 City of La Quinta -City of La Quinta Sales/Call Report Sorted by Maturity Date - Fund October 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Redem. Date Redemption Principal Redemption Interest Book Value at Redem. Total Amount Net IncomeFundMatur. Date Rate at Redem. Par ValueSec. TypeCUSIPInvestment # Issuer Purchase Date 04/28/2021 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 18,750.0010543134G8Y3710/28/2019 2,518,750.00 18,750.00101FHLMC FAC 04/28/2021 04/28/2016 1.500 V Call Subtotal 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 18,750.002,500,000.00 2,518,750.00 18,750.00 03/29/2022 2,000,000.00 1,990,000.00 2,000,000.00 10,000.0010733134GBAE212/30/2019 2,010,000.00 20,000.00101FHLMC FAC 03/29/2022 03/29/2017 2.000 Call Subtotal 1,990,000.00 2,000,000.00 10,000.002,000,000.00 2,010,000.00 20,000.00 4,500,000.00Total Sales 4,500,000.00 28,750.004,490,000.00 4,528,750.00 38,750.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 10:57 SA (PRF_SA) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 V - Security with variable rate change. City of La Quinta -City of La Quinta Purchases Report Sorted by Fund - Fund October 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 Original Par Value Ending Book Value Sec. TypeFund Maturity YTM Accrued Interest at PurchasePayment Periods DateCUSIPInvestment #Issuer Purchase Date Principal Purchased Rate at Purchase General Fund 500,000.00 2.000 10/07/2024 500,000.00500,000.00 Received10/23/2019 2.00004/07 - 10/07TOYOTA123289236TGL3MC2101 1,000,000.00 1.375 09/06/2022 992,100.00992,100.00 Received10/29/2019 1.65903/06 - 09/06FNMA12333135G0W33FAC101 1,000,000.00 1.600 11/01/2023 996,900.00996,900.0011/01/2019 1.68005/01 - 11/01FFCB12343133EK4X1FAC101 248,000.00 1.700 11/07/2024 248,000.00248,000.0011/07/2019 1.70212/07 - MonthlySAUKVL1235804375DL4MC1101 248,000.00 1.700 05/15/2024 248,000.00248,000.0011/15/2019 1.70112/15 - Monthly1STSER123133640VDD7MC1101 245,000.00 1.950 11/20/2024 245,000.00245,000.0011/20/2019 1.95205/20 - 11/20MORGST123761690UNX4MC1101 245,000.00 1.900 11/20/2024 245,000.00245,000.0011/20/2019 1.90205/20 - 11/20MSPRIV123661760A3B3MC1101 248,000.00 1.800 05/28/2024 248,000.00248,000.0011/27/2019 1.80201/01 - MonthlyLIVEOK1238538036GV0MC1101 1,000,000.00 1.500 11/30/2024 989,687.50989,687.50 Received12/16/2019 1.71805/31 - 11/30USTR1241912828YV6TRC101 1,000,000.00 1.700 09/17/2024 998,600.00998,600.0012/17/2019 1.73103/17 - 09/17FFCB12423133ELEA8FAC101 248,000.00 1.900 12/30/2022 248,000.00248,000.0012/30/2019 1.90201/30 - MonthlyKERNCU123949228XAK6MC1101 248,000.00 1.850 12/30/2022 248,000.00248,000.0012/30/2019 1.85201/30 - MonthlySF FCU124079772FAC0MC1101 Subtotal 6,207,287.506,207,287.50 0.006,230,000.00 6,207,287.50Total Purchases 6,230,000.00 0.00 6,207,287.50 Received = Accrued Interest at Purchase was received by report ending date. Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 02/05/2020 - 10:53 PU (PRF_PU) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 US Treasury Rates https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2019  Rates for the 5-year and 10-year rose slightly throughout our second quarter after steady declines in the Spring of 2019, followed by a sudden dip in August  Rates for the 10-year treasury dipped below the 2-year in August, an inversion of the yield curve between 2’s and 10’s not seen since June 2007  These increases in rates were mostly erased in January 2020, which will have an effect on reinvestment in our third quarter City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: February 12, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file fiscal year 2019/20 Mid-Year Budget Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •The 2019/20 Mid-Year Budget Report (Attachment 1) provides an update of the City’s fiscal activities from July to December 2019. •The Mid-Year Budget Report includes revenue and expenditure adjustments. •On January 21, 2020, Staff recommended, and City Council approved allocating $5,000,000 of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to Committed Reserves. FISCAL IMPACT Staff recommended and Council approved adjustments to funds as follows: BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Throughout the fiscal year each Department monitors their budget and proposes adjustments to reflect current conditions and ongoing operational needs. Requests are reviewed and discussed by the City Manager and Directors before recommendations are presented in the Budget Report (Attachment 1). Funds with no adjustments have been excluded. The Report was presented to City Council on January 21, 2020. At that time Council approved the allocation of $5 million from Unassigned Fund Balance to the following reserves: Capital Replacement Reserves $1,540,000 Pension Trust Benefits $3,460,000 ALTERNATIVES The Report has been approved therefore no alternatives are recommended. Prepared by: Karla Romero, Finance Director Attachment: 1. 2019/20 Mid-Year Budget Report 2019/20 Mid-Year Budget Report The annual budget is a living document, which allows for flexibility and adjustments to accommodate current business needs and updated projections. Quarterly budget reports are presented to provide ongoing reporting and oversight of public funds, relate current and upcoming activities, request funding (Exhibits 1 and 2). All funds are continuously monitored; this report discusses funds with budgetary adjustments. Funds with no adjustments have been excluded. During the first six months of the fiscal year the City has reorganized the Facilities Division, conducted several internal audits of system and processes, and onboarded new professional services which have resulted in updated budgetary requests. GENERAL FUND REVENUES General Fund revenue adjustments summarized below total $2,177,000. Adjustments reflect updated projections based on last fiscal year actuals and year-to-date activity. Budget adjustments to increase Hotel ($130,000) and Short-Term Vacation Rental (STVR) ($705,000) Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT), and STVR registration fee ($27,000) are recommended. These adjustments would result in budgets of two percent over last year’s actual revenues. Active STVR’s have not declined, a new compliance vendor has been onboarded, and year-to-date TOT is on track to exceed last year’s revenue. Updated interest earnings are based on cash balances for the General Fund and current investment portfolio interest rate returns. An $11,000 adjustment for insurance recoveries and a $4,000 increase to grading permit revenue reflect updated projections based on year-to-date activity. An $800,000 allocation from Measure G sales tax reserves (currently at $9.6 million) and match expenditure is requested for engineering, sitework, and Revenue Description Adjustment TOT - Hotels 130,000$ TOT - Short-Term Vacation Rentals 705,000 Short-Term Vacation Rental Registrations 27,000 Allocated Interest Earnings 500,000 Insurance Recoveries 11,000 Grading Permits 4,000 Measure G Sales Tax Reserves 800,000 TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS 2,177,000$ ATTACHMENT 1 modifications required to meet current building codes, accessibility requirements, and the installation of the Alongi building, which will be located at the SilverRock Event Site. The 2,800 square foot building was purchased for $400,000 and will provide office and meeting space for future events. EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS Expenditure adjustments are recommended for unanticipated expenses, the replacement of equipment, unallocated carryovers, and to avoid budget overruns based on updated operational needs. A summary by fund is provided below and itemized in Exhibits 1 and 2. GENERAL FUND EXPENSES Unanticipated legal services for code enforcement cases and appeals, personnel and property matters have resulted in the request for a $60,000 budget increase. In addition to the SilverRock Event Site building, three capital projects require additional funding of $65,768 to reimburse CalTrans for disallowed project consultant grant reimbursements. An internal parks audit conducted in the Fall of 2019 identified deficient lighting, infield maintenance, landscape improvements including plant replacements, and required electrical repairs. A budget adjustment to increase Fund Expenses General Fund (101) $1,362,468 Facility & Fleet Fund (501)20,000 Information Technology Fund (502)100,000 Park Equipment & Facility Fund (503)35,000 Library & Museum Fund (202)12,000 Lighting & Landscape Fund (215)22,000 Cal Recycle Fund (221)50,000 Measure A Fund (Fund 223)6,000 Infrastructure Fund, DIF (225)1,500 CASP Fund (230)1,000 Transportation DIF Fund (250)1,500 Parks & Recreation DIF Fund (251)1,500 Civic Center DIF Fund (252)1,500 Library Development DIF Fund (253)1,500 Community Center DIF Fund (254)1,500 Street Facility DIF Fund (255)1,500 Park Facility DIF Fund (256)1,500 Fire Protection DIF Fund (257)1,500 Capital Improvement Fund (401)65,768 TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS ALL FUNDS 1,687,736$ Park Materials and Supplies by $50,000 and Parks Maintenance Services by $82,000 are needed to complete repairs. The combination of additional water usage required to restore turf conditions at parks and a 3.5% water rate increase have resulted in the need for a combined $40,000 budget increase to water utility accounts. Water pump and sand filter replacements are needed at Fritz Burns Pool. With the installation of a heating system, a pool blanket and reel are recommended to reduce water evaporation, chemical loss, energy costs, and to help keep the pool cleaner. Total costs for these purchases and the installation of equipment is anticipated to be $35,000. In addition, Staff recommends increasing the pool operations budget by $52,000 for this fiscal year to match the approved contract service agreement. Public Buildings air conditioning and heating systems require additional preventative maintenance, a $20,000 budget increase is recommended. Electrical and water budgets would reflect last fiscal year’s actual expenses by increasing the budgets by $8,000 and $7,200 respectively. A $2,500 increase for printing with the Marketing budget would be utilized to order new business cards, name badges, and other identifying materials for the newly formed Public Works Division. A General Plan Housing Element update is required by October 2021. A consultant will be selected in the Spring of 2020. Total anticipated costs are $80,000 and will be equally shared between the General Fund and Housing Authority Fund. Staff has applied for SB2 grant funding; however, these funds have not been secured. If external funding is awarded an updated budget allocation will be presented in a future budget report. INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS This fiscal year the City will be adding two new pooled fleet vehicles previously approved for the Emergency Operations Coordinator (formally with County of Riverside Fire Services) and a new Code Enforcement Officer, for a total of 35 vehicles. A $20,000 increase to Fuel and Oil for citywide vehicles is recommended. The adjusted fuel budget would be 5% over last year’s actuals and could be funded with Facility and Fleet Fund reserves of $3 million. In the Fall of 2019, the City’s information technology consultant completed a vulnerability study and initial assessment of operating systems. As a result, upgrades to equipment, increased redundancy, and security infrastructure upgrades are recommended and have been prioritized over a two-year period. An adjustment of $100,000 is required for higher priority components of the plan. A transfer out from the General Fund to the Information Technology Fund is recommended to avoid reducing the Information Technology fund balance below an adequate level (currently at $700,000). The Parks Equipment and Facility Fund requests a $35,000 adjustment from fund balance (currently at $3.5 million) to complete the replacement and installation of several shade canopies, benches, and drinking fountains at identified parks. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The library has multiple air conditioning and heating system units which require specialized maintenance, often at prevailing wage rates. Anticipated expenses were not fully budgeted and therefore a $12,000 adjustment is requested. Landscape improvements along Lighting and Landscape medians have required the use of additional water. To avoid exposure to work injuries a minor increase to safety gear is recommended. These adjustments of $20,000 for water and $2,000 for safety gear are recommended in the Lighting and Landscape Fund (from fund balance, currently at $300,000). A budget adjustment of $50,000 is requested for organic waste reduction recycling solutions as mandated by Senate Bill 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016). This adjustment would be funded from Cal Recycle fund balance of $800,000. Unanticipated traffic control signal repairs require a budget increase of $6,000 based on year-to-date activity. This expense will be funded with Measure A revenues. Business licenses are assessed a state mandated $4 accessibility fee, which is recognized in the CASP Fund. Quarterly the City remits a 10% of fees collected to the Division of State Architect. Two payments from the prior fiscal year were remitted in 2019/2020, therefore a $1,000 budget adjustment is recommended. A total budgetary adjustment of $13,500 among nine Development Impact Fee Funds (each for $1,500) recognizes fee study contractual expenses which were not previously carried over from fiscal year 2018/19 to 2019/20. A $65,768 revenue and expenditure adjustment in the Capital Improvement Fund recognizes transfers in from the General Fund and the reimbursement to CalTrans. GENERAL FUND RESERVES General Fund reserve balances were discussed during the 2018/19 General Fund Fiscal Year-End Budget Report. The Reserve Policy requires an annual review of reserves and funding levels during the mid-year budget process. Reserve funding generally comes from excess revenues over expenditures including one-time revenue and may be allocated to reserves as directed by Council until target levels are reached. Once all targets are funded, funds will remain in unassigned fund balance. The following is a summary of committed reserves as of June 30, 2019. Staff has prepared three reserve funding options for Council discussion and consideration. Each option allocates $5,000,000 from unassigned fund balance to committed reserves. Summary of Committed Reserves and Funding Options Funding Options Options 1 and 2 partially fund the two deficit balance reserve categories. Option 3 fully funds the Pension Trust reserve, leaving one partially unfunded reserve category (Capital Replacement). The following illustrate how each option would impact the reserve balances. Reserve Category Current Target Deficit Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Cash Flow Reserve 5,000,000 5,000,000 - Natural Disaster Reserve 10,000,000 10,000,000 - - - - Economic Disaster 11,000,000 11,000,000 - - - - Capital Replacement Reserve 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 2,950,000 1,540,000 Pension Trust Benefits 6,540,000 10,000,000 3,460,000 2,500,000 2,050,000 3,460,000 37,540,000 46,000,000 8,460,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 Unassigned Fund Balanceᵅ 15,989,726 (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (5,000,000) ᵅ Adjusted to reflect balance as of 12/30/19. Option One: Evenly distribute an allocation to each deficit reserve balance. Option Two: Distribute an allocation to each category on a weighted basis, with the largest unfunded category receiving the largest amount. Option Three: Fully fund Pension Trust and partially fund Capital Replacement Reserves. Reserve Category Option 1 Target Deficit Cash Flow Reserve 5,000,000 5,000,000 - Natural Disaster Reserve 10,000,000 10,000,000 - Economic Disaster 11,000,000 11,000,000 - Capital Replacement Reserve 7,500,000 10,000,000 2,500,000 Pension Trust Benefits 9,040,000 10,000,000 960,000 42,540,000 46,000,000 3,460,000 Council may choose a funding option presented, alter the amount allocated but use an allocation method presented, request additional alternatives, or not allocate additional funds to reserves. Reserve Category Option 2 Target Deficit Cash Flow Reserve 5,000,000 5,000,000 - Natural Disaster Reserve 10,000,000 10,000,000 - Economic Disaster 11,000,000 11,000,000 - Capital Replacement Reserve 7,950,000 10,000,000 2,050,000 Pension Trust Benefits 8,590,000 10,000,000 1,410,000 42,540,000 46,000,000 3,460,000 Reserve Category Option 3 Target Deficit Cash Flow Reserve 5,000,000 5,000,000 - Natural Disaster Reserve 10,000,000 10,000,000 - Economic Disaster 11,000,000 11,000,000 - Capital Replacement Reserve 6,540,000 10,000,000 3,460,000 Pension Trust Benefits 10,000,000 10,000,000 - 42,540,000 46,000,000 3,460,000 City of La Quinta FY 2019/20 Recommended Second Quarter Budget Adjustments Exhibit 1 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses Finance 101-0000-41400 TOT - Hotels 130,000 101-0000-41401 TOT - Short-Term Vacation Rentals 705,000 101-0000-41415 Short-Term Vacation Rental Registration 27,000 101-0000-41900 Allocated Interest Earnings 500,000 101-0000-42000 Insurance Recoveries 11,000 101-0000-42408 Grading Permits 4,000 101-0000-29000 Measure G Sales Tax Reserves 800,000 City Attorney 101-1003-60153 Professional Legal Services 60,000 Centralized Services, Capital Projects 101-1007-71050 Buildings at SilverRock Event Site 800,000 101-1007-99900 Transfer Out to CIP, Project #111205 (Dune Palms Bridge Improvements)47,962 101-1007-99900 Transfer Out to CIP, Project #201601 (Intersection Improvements)10,483 101-1007-99900 Transfer Out to CIP, Project #201602 (Traffic Signal Interconnection)7,323 101-1007-99900 Transfers Out to Information Technology Fund 100,000 Park Facilities 101-3005-60431 Park Maintenance, Materials & Supplies 50,000 101-3005-60691 Park Maintenance Services 82,000 101-3005-61201 Monticello Park, Water Utilities 10,000 101-3005-61202 Civic Center Park, Water Utilities 8,000 101-3005-61209 Community Park, Water Utilities 22,000 101-3005-60184 Fritz Burns Pool, Maintenance/Equipment 35,000 101-3005-60184 Fritz Burns Pool, Pool Operations 52,000 Marketing 101-3007-60410 Printing, new Public Works Division 2,500 Public Buildings 101-3008-60667 HVAC 20,000 101-3008-61101 Electricity Utilities 8,000 101-3008-61200 Water Utilities 7,200 Planning 101-6002-60103 Professional Services, Housing Element 40,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2,177,000 1,362,468 General Fund (101) City of La Quinta FY 2019/20 Recommended Second Quarter Budget Adjustments Exhibit 2 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 501-0000-60674 Fuel & Oil, Citywide Fleet 20,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 502-0000-49500 Transfers In from the General Fund 100,000 502-0000-80100 Machinery & Equipment 100,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 503-0000-71060 Parks 35,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 202-3004-60667 Library, HVAC Replacement 12,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 215-7004-61211 Water - Medians, Utilities 20,000 215-7004-60427 Safety Gear 2,000 22,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 221-0000-60127 Recycling Solutions, Organic Waste 50,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 223-0000-60510 Signal Knockdowns 6,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 225-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 230-0000-60480 Contributions to State Agency 1,000 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 250-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 251-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 252-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 253-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Facility & Fleet Fund (501) Park Equipment & Facility Fund (503) Cal Recycle Fund (221) Transportation DIF Fund (250) Parks & Recreation DIF Fund (251) Civic Center DIF Fund (252) Library Development DIF Fund (253) Measure A Fund (Fund 223) Infrastructure Fund, DIF (225) CASP Fund (230) INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Information Technology Fund (502) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Library & Museum Fund (202) Lighting & Landscape Fund (215) City of La Quinta FY 2019/20 Recommended Second Quarter Budget Adjustments Exhibit 2 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 254-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 255-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 256-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 257-0000-60104 Consultants, Fee Study 1,500 Account No. Description Revenues Expenses 401-0000-49500 Transfers In from General Fund for Dune Palms Bridge Improvements 47,962 401-0000-49500 Transfers In from General Fund for Intersection Improvement Project 10,483 401-0000-49500 Transfers In from General Fund for Traffic Signal Interconnect Project 7,323 401-0000-60480 State Repayment for Dune Palms Bridge Improvements 47,962 401-0000-60480 State Repayment for Intersection Improvement Project 10,483 401-0000-60480 State Repayment for Traffic Signal Interconnect Project 7,323 65,768 65,768 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 165,768 323,768 Capital Improvement Fund (401) Community Center DIF Fund (254) Street Facility DIF Fund (255) Park Facility DIF Fund (256) Fire Protection DIF Fund (257) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (Continued) City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: February 12, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the Highway 111 Corridor Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Highway 111 Corridor Plan (Plan) was initiated January 2019 to define the vision for the Highway 111 Corridor (Attachment 1). • The draft Plan was presented to Council and Planning Commission at a joint meeting on October 28, 2019. • Subsequently, Staff identified implementation actions to carry out the vision of the Plan and presented this update to Council and Planning Commission at a joint meeting on November 21, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT The adopted five-year Capital Improvement Program (from 19/20 through 23/24) budgeted $1,000,000 of Measure G sales tax revenue in 19/20 for the Highway 111 Corridor and forecasted the same amount for the remaining four years. The Plan identifies other potential funding sources to assist in the implementation of the Plan. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In January 2019 the City contracted with Rangwala Associates (Rangwala), a team of multi-disciplinary experts, to prepare the Plan. Since January, the Plan has progressed through several project phases including community outreach and Special Joint Study Session Meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission. The Plan is an assemblage of the design concepts introduced and discussed over the span of this vision study, incorporating the input and feedback collected from a survey about Highway 111, design charrette workshops, and joint meetings. The Plan includes an assessment of current codes/Specific Plans and provides recommendations for future development of the Corridor. The Plan accomplishes STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1 this by including goals and policies as guidance in achieving the community vision and an implementation plan to outline the actions to be taken to develop projects and partnerships. The implementation plan (Chapter 4) contains a list of 67 actions with timeframes for initiation, responsible parties, costs and funding sources for each (Attachment 1). Of the 67 actions, Staff identified 17 as priority actions representing common discussions and feedback heard from the community, Council and Planning Commission throughout the visioning process. The actions are organized into four categories: Open Space/Trails, Branding/Marketing, Zoning and Design, and Economic Development. Action Items Open Space/Trails A1.2 Support infrastructure improvements such as the Cultural Trail and CV Link linear park. A2.3a Support the CV-Link regional trail system. A2.3c Redesign the sidewalk along the northern edge of Highway 111 as a Cultural Trail that integrates biking, pedestrian activity with local and regional arts and culture features. A2.4a Phase the parks and open space improvements to be in sync with private development (new zoning/place-based codes). A2.15a Develop the Cultural Trail and CV Link with various parks and open spaces in the Corridor area. Branding/Marketing A1.4 Implement district-wide retail branding and tenanting strategy that builds upon the cluster of tourism, health, and wellness, while adding other retail desired by the community, such as experience-based retail and retail for a wider demographic. A1.6b Brand and market the Highway 111 Corridor. A2.10a Identify simple ways to improve existing signage in the near term, such as by identifying the location of confusing or missing signage. Make such improvements and continue to evaluate signage needs. A2.11a Develop a consistent, legible, and logical palette of directional signs and icons to provide ways to find major destinations more easily. Zoning and Design A1.3b Support catalytic infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels. A1.5b Remove regulatory and procedural barriers to good design (new zoning/place-based codes). A2.2b Update the development codes (zoning and/or Specific Plans) to include design standards for a range of street types for different contexts, consistent with the Highway 111 Corridor vision. A2.7 Adopt form-based (place-based) codes that provide clear and precise direction on the landscape design of the public and private realm. A3.4c Revise zoning code to better support walkable, mixed use development on the corridor. A3.5c Create development standards to encourage bike-friendly retail and cafes and eating establishments along the CV Link (new zoning/place- based code). Economic Development A1.8 Engage with property owners to gauge appetite for a Business Improvement District. A2.9 Explore creating a Business Improvement District (BID) and/or partnering with existing City Staff, La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau, Coachella Valley Economic Partnership. The implementation plan is a living document that can be revisited periodically, and actions can be reprioritized based on future conditions. Many actions have not been marked as priorities since they are ongoing or are already being implemented in some way and do not require special direction from the Planning Commission and Council (Attachment 2). Other actions involve revising the zoning code and development standards to remove potential barriers for developing the vision and creating a more holistic, distinct place. Staff proposes to begin this process by having study sessions with the Planning Commission regarding form/place-based codes, how it can be applied to existing and new development in the Corridor, and choose a strategy for revising the Code that suits the needs of the area. Staff will present identified priority actions at the meeting with the steps to initiate them. The adopted Highway 111 Corridor Plan is provided as Attachment 3. Prepared by: Cheri Flores, Planning Manager Approved by: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director Attachments: 1. Implementation Matrix of Highway 111 Corridor Plan 2. List of Ongoing Actions 3. Highway 111 Corridor Plan Policy/ActionTimeframeResponsiblePartyCostFunding SourceTOURISM, HEALTH & WELLNESS, MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL,EXPERIENCE-BASED RETAILP1.1A1.1aContinue to strengthen Highway 111's retail base. Ongoing CM $-$$Economic Development FundA1.1bAttract and retain high-value and high-wage jobs in leisure and hospitality industry (food services; arts; entertainment and recreation; hotels and other accommodations) and diversify the local economy. Ongoing CM $$ General FundA1.1cEnsure that new development is not a fiscal burden to the City. Ongoing DD, CM $Economic Development FundP1.2A1.2Support infrastructure improvements such as the Cultural Trail and CV Link linear park.Ongoing - Long Term CM, PW, DD $$$$Measure G, ATP; CalTrans Planning Grant; AB2766; CIP; Measure G, Property BID; DIF; SCAGP1.3A1.3aProtect and enhance stable areas along the Highway 111 Corridor. Ongoing CM $-$$Economic Development FundA1.3bSupport catalytic infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels. Ongoing CM, DD $-$$Economic Development Fund; General Fund (regular staff duties)P1.4A1.4Implement district-wide retail branding and tenanting strategy that builds upon the cluster of tourism, health, and wellness, while adding other retail desired by the community, such as experience-based retail and retail for a wider demographic.Near Term - Ongoing CM $$$ General Fund1) SUSTAINED PROSPERITYHighway 111 Corridor Implementation PlanMaintain and enhance the Highway 111 current tax base.Coordinate investment in public infrastructure with new growth to harness the power of placemaking.Preserve, enhance, and build on existing Highway 111 Corridor assets.Attract a greater variety of experience-based retail and office tenants by building upon existing strengths and market opportunities.ATTACHMENT 1ATTACHMENT 1 P1.5A1.5aSupport high-quality multi-family housing for a diverse range of income levels. Ongoing CM, DD $$$General Fund (regular staff duties); CIPA1.5bRemove regulatory and procedural barriers to good design (new zoning/place-based codes). Near Term DD $$CIP; General Fund; SCAG Sustainable Planning Grant; P1.6Support local businesses.A1.6aProvide incentives to encourage businesses and land owners to renovate and strengthen their businesses. OngoingCM, Business and Property Owners $Economic Development FundA1.6bBrand and market the Highway 111 Corridor.Near Term - Ongoing CM $$$ General FundP1.7Promote higher levels of foot traffic with activities and events.A1.7Encourage property owners to collaborate on new “pop-up” events to make use of vacant or underutilized storefronts or parcels or parking lots.Near Term - OngoingCR, CM, Business and Property Owners $General Fund and Grant FundsP1.8Enhance economic development delivery capacity.A1.8Engage with property owners to gauge appetite for a Business Improvement District.Near Term - Ongoing CM $Economic Development FundSTREETS AS PLACESP2.1A2.1Coordinate infrastructure improvements to be in sync with private development. Ongoing PW, DD $General Fund (regular staff duties)P2.2A2.2aDesign the street network, its dimensions, speeds (where possible), and building placement that yield a balance with including pedestrian scale and mobility, appropriate to the context of the area. Long Term PW, DD $$$$General Fund, Measure A, CIP; General Fund; SCAG Sustainable Planning Grant; ATP; CalTrans Trans Planning Grant; Measure GRedesign Highway 111 as a signature place.Street design will contribute to the social, economic, and environmental aspects of the Highway 111 area.Create a diversity of housing options.2) PLACEMAKING A2.2bUpdate the development codes (zoning and/or Specific Plans) to include design standards for a range of street types for different contexts, consistent with the Highway 111 Corridor vision.Immediate - Near Term DD$$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantPARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILSP2.3A2.3aSupport the CV-Link regional trail system. Near - Mid Term DD, PW, CR $$Measure G; Grant funding; Prop 68 GrantA2.3bSubdivide large vacant and underutilized tracts into walkable block, streets, and public open spaces.Immediate; Near, Mid, or Long Term DD$-$$$$Developer funded (entitlements)A2.3cRedesign the sidewalk along the northern edge of Highway 111 as a Cultural Trail that integrates biking, pedestrian activity with local and regional arts and culture features. Long Term DD, PW, CR $$$$Measure G; ATP; CalTrans Planning Grant; AB2766; SB 821; CIP; Property BID; DIF; SCAG Sustainability Planning GrantA2.3dDevelop an integrated open space loop connecting the Cultural trail on Highway 111 to the CV Link. Mid - Long Term DD, PW $$$$Measure G; ATP; CalTrans Planning Grant; AB2766; SB 821; CIP; Property BID; DIF; SCAG Sustainability Planning GrantP2.4A2.4aPhase the parks and open space improvements to be in sync with private development (new zoning/place-based codes). Long Term DD, PW $$$$Measure G; Park Dedication Fees (Quimby); CIP; EIFD; BID; Prop 68A2.4bEncourage small parks and other tactical use of parking lots for short-term events/festivals. Near - Mid Term DD, PW, CR $$Measure G; General Fund; BID; CIPLANDSCAPINGP2.5Monitor and require compliance with approved landscape plans.Encourage the dynamic and flexible use of existing open spaces and promote a variety of new open spaces.Encourage development and events that activate the parks and open spaces. A2.5Identify parcels that are not in compliance with approved landscape plans and require plant material to be installed per approved plans. OngoingDD, CR (Code Compliance) $General Fund and Lien propertiesP2.6A2.6Identify parking lots with deficient landscaping and collaborate with property owners to install landscaping to break the monotony of the parking surface and provide shade. Near - Mid Term DD $$$ Measure G; CIP; BIDP2.7A2.7Adopt place-based codes that provide clear and precise direction on the landscape design of the public and private realm.Immediate - Near Term DD, PW $$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantP2.8A2.8aSupport improvements to infrastructure and landscape.Near - Long Term PW, DD $$$$Measure G; Grants; CIP; BID; EIFDA2.8bActivate the place with cultural and entertainment events.Near - Long Term CR $General Fund and Non-ProfitsA2.8cSupport permanent and temporary public art installments along the Cultural Trail and CV Link.Near - Long Term CR $$General Fund; Non-Profits and NEA Grants; Art in Public Places FundP2.9A2.9Explore creating a Business Improvement District (BID) and/or partnering with existing City Staff, La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau, Coachella Valley Economic Partnership.Near Term - Ongoing CM $General Fund; Economic Development FundWAY-FINDINGP2.10A2.10aIdentify simple ways to improve existing signage in the near term, such as by identifying the location of confusing or missing signage. Make such improvements and continue to evaluate signage needs. Near - Mid TermPW, DD, CM, Business and Property Owners $$General Fund; Measure G; CIP; BIDLandscape parking lots for human use no less than for cars.Modify development codes (zoning and/or Specific Plans) to require landscaping consistent with the vision of the Highway 111 Corridor Reimagine Highway 111 as an iconic place.Develop capacity for creating, communicating, and monitoring the Highway 111 brand.Signs will guide pedestrians, bicyclists, motorist, and transit users to major destinations, parking areas, nodes, and points of interest. A2.10bIdentify destinations and places of interest.Near Term - Ongoing CM, CR $$ General FundA2.10cProvide Corridor maps at transit stops, paths, and nodes where pedestrians need to make decisions on routes to destinations.Near Term - Ongoing CM, DD $$ Measure G; CIP; BIDP2.11A2.11aDevelop a consistent, legible, and logical palette of directional signs and icons to provide ways to find major destinations more easily.Near Term CM $$ General FundA2.11bSigns should be well-lighted, but not illuminated so that they are overly visual intensive or distracting. Near Term PW, DD $$$Operations Funds; General Fund; Measure G; BIDA2.11cMaterial and paint selections should be durable and graffiti resistant. Regulatory and other traffic signs shall be high intensity reflective sheeting.Near - Long Term PW, CM $-$$Gas Tax; Measure A; Measure G; BIDA2.11dProvide adequate resources for the on-going management and maintenance of signs.Near - Long Term PW $-$$$Gas Tax; Measure A; Measure G; BIDPUBLIC ARTP2.12A2.12Encourage permanent and temporary art installations in parks, open spaces, and streets.Near - Long Term CR $ General FundP2.13A2.13aEvaluate requiring 2% of eligible capital project costs to be directed for public art.Near - Long Term PW, CR $CIP; Grant funding; Art in Public PlacesA2.13bEvaluate requiring 2% of all private development construction cost to be directed for public art.Near - Long Term DD, CR $ DIFA2.13cCollaborate with other community groups and non-profit organizations to maximize resources.Near - Long Term CR $General Fund and Non ProfitsA2.13dExplore naming rights, sponsorships and asset management opportunities to create ongoing revenue for maintenance and operations of existing public art.Near - Long Term CM, CR $$ Art in Public Places FundP2.14Integrate public art into the development review and capital improvement program.Wayfinding signs will be aesthetically consistent, easy to see, positioned to promote safety, and be made of durable materials that are Provide creative expressions in the Highway 111 Corridor Area.Strive for financial resiliency to provide and maintain public art in the Corridor Area. A2.14arequirement for large development projects, and develop City initiatives for the provision of public art as part of the Design and Development and Community Resources Near - Long Term CR, DD $ General FundA2.14bWork cooperatively with City Boards, Commissions and committees, and other public and private organizations promoting art and cultural activities throughout the City.Near - Long Term CR $ General FundCOMMUNITY EVENTSP2.15A2.15aDevelop the Cultural Trail and CV Link with various parks and open spaces in the Corridor area. Long Term DD, PW, CR $$$$ATP; CalTrans Planning Grant; AB2766; CIP; Measure G; BID; DIF; SCAG Sustainability Planning GrantA2.15bExamine current zoning and permitting requirements with the objective of supporting and facilitating community events and festivals.Immediate - Near Term DD, CR$$-$$$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantP2.16A2.16aWork with owners and the developers of empty tenant spaces and parking lots to encourage a variety of pop-up events, exhibits, performances, and temporary retail activities.Near - Long Term CR, DD $ General FundA2.16bWork with owners to allow artists' temporary and opportunistic use of spaces and venues such as vacant walls, storefronts, empty buildings, underutilized parking lots, and open spaces to visually activate and enliven the area.Near - Long Term CR $ General FundP2.17A2.17aIdentify and partner with regional agencies hosting international events.Near - Long Term CR, CM $-$$General Fund; Hotel Rebate ProgramA2.17bHost Highway 111 events in conjunction with the international events. Near - Long Term CR, CM $-$$General Fund; Hotel Rebate ProgramPEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS, INTERSECTION DESIGN, & STREET TYPESExpand places and spaces where community events and festivals can occur.Facilitate use of vacant or underutilized space by arts and cultural groups.Attract visitors from popular international events within the region.3) MOBILITY P3.1A3.1aWhere feasible, at urban intersections reduce lane widths from 12 and 14 feet to 11 to 12 feet per lane and add bulb-outs at intersection to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. Mid - Long Term PW $$$-$$$$Measure A; CIP; Transportation Grants; Measure GA3.1bDesign tighter corner radii for urban intersections to facilitate safer and shorter crossing distance, yet still allow for larger vehicles to access. Mid - Long Term PW $$$-$$$$Measure A; CIP; Transportation Grants; Measure GA3.1cAdd signalized pedestrian crossing between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. Long Term PW $$$Measure A; CIP; Transportation Grants; Measure GP3.2A3.2Establish a street network that will provide a variety of street types which differ in terms of their network continuity, cross-section design, and adjoining land use. The individual streets themselves will change in character depending on their immediate land use context. Long Term PW, DD $$$$Measure A; CIP; Transportation GrantsTRANSIT SERVICEP3.3A3.3aSupport urban pattern of development that makes transit use feasible (new zoning/place-based codes).Immediate - Near Term DD $$$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantA3.3bExplore feasibility for a circulator shuttle providing connections every 30 minutes or more often to major destinations.Immediate - Near Term DD, SunLine $$$-$$$$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantPARKINGP3.4A3.4aUse surface parking as a land-banking tool. Near - Mid Term DD $CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantA3.4bPhase in paid parking in core mixed-use areas. Long Term DD $$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantA3.4cRevise zoning code to better support walkable, mixed use development on the corridor.Immediate - Near Term DD $$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantTransit use will be convenient, reliable, safe, and comfortable.Proactively manage public and private parking supply within a common area as a shared resource, and focus on measures to ensure Crossing a street should be easy, safe, convenient, and comfortable.The street network will provide a pattern of multimodal streets that serves all land uses and facilitates easy access to local, city, and A3.4dRequire unbundled parking for rental and for-sale residential, commercial space, and other uses. Long Term DD $CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantA3.4eRequire provision of spaces for car-sharing and bicycle parking, and require provision that commercial and/or residential development provide free transit passes to their employees or residents. Near - Mid TermDD, CM, SunLine, Business and Property Owners $CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning Grant; Economic Developent Fund; BIDA3.4fPlace on-street parking on as many of the newly created streets as possible. Long Term DD, PW $CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantCV LINK ACCESSIBILITYP3.5A3.5aProvide multiple points of access to CV Link trail. Near - Mid Term DD, PW $$$Grant; AB2766; CIP; Measure G; BID; DIF; SCAG Sustainability A3.5bRequire new private developments and encourage existing developments that front the wash to provide access directly on to the CV Link. Near - Mid Term DD $$$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantA3.5cCreate development standards to encourage bike-friendly retail and cafes and eating establishments along the CV Link (new zoning/place-based code).Immediate - Near Term DD $$CIP; SCAG Grant; CalTrans Planning GrantLA QUINTA CULTURAL TRAILP3.6A3.6aBuild the Cultural Trail as a continuous safe and spacious pathway for bicyclists and pedestrians to utilize for access, recreation, and as a way to enjoy the Corridor. Mid - Long Term DD, PW $$$$ATP; CalTrans Planning Grant; AB2766; CIP; Measure G; BID; DIF; SCAG Sustainability Planning GrantA3.6bMake the trail environmentally and aesthetically pleasing with landscaping governed by water conservation, desert ecology and maintainable plant material. Mid - Long Term DD, PW $$$$ATP; CalTrans Planning Grant; AB2766; CIP; Measure G; BID; DIF; SCAG Sustainability Planning GrantCreate an inviting public and private realm that attracts people from the CV Link to the Highway Corridor area.Support a safe, comfortable, and continuous bike and pedestrian pathway on the north side of Highway 111. A3.6cProgram activities and feature permanent and rotating public art along the Cultural Trail. Mid - Long Term CR $$ATP; CalTrans Planning Grant; AB2766; CIP; Measure G; BID; DIF; SCAG Sustainability Planning GrantPoliciesPriority ActionsActions CM ‐ City ManagerCostFin ‐Finance$PW ‐Public Works$$$100,000‐250,000DD ‐Design and Development$$$ $250,000‐1 millionCR ‐Community Resources$$$$ over $1 millionunder $100,000 A1.1a Continue to strengthen Highway 111's retail base. A1.1b Attract and retain high-value and high-wage jobs in leisure and hospitality industry (food services; arts; entertainment and recreation; hotels and other accommodations) and diversify the local economy. A1.1c Ensure that new development is not a fiscal burden to the City. A1.2 Support infrastructure improvements such as the Cultural Trail and CV Link linear park. A1.3a Protect and enhance stable areas along the Highway 111 Corridor. A1.3b Support catalytic infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels. A1.4 Implement district-wide retail branding and tenanting strategy that builds upon the cluster of tourism, health, and wellness, while adding other retail desired by the community, such as experience-based retail and retail for a wider demographic. A1.5a Support high-quality multi-family housing for a diverse range of income levels. A1.6a Provide incentives to encourage businesses and land owners to renovate and strengthen their businesses. A2.1 Coordinate infrastructure improvements to be in sync with private development. A2.5 Identify parcels that are not in compliance with approved landscape plans and require plant material to be installed per approved plans. ONGOING ACTIONS ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 HIGHWAYCORRIDOR PLANATTACHMENT 3ATTACHMENT 3 40POLICESContext & rationale of desired outcomes. 06INTRODUCTIONHistory, community profile, and planning process.18VISIONA shared future for preservation and growth.030201 56IMPLEMENTATIONPartners, timeframes, funding sources.04 4 South Pasadena General PlanCity CouncilMayorLinda EvansMayor Pro TemSteve SanchezKathleen FitzpatrickJohn PenaRobert RadiCity ManagerJon McMillenPlanning CommissionChairpersonMary CaldwellVice-chairMichael ProctorKevin McCuneLoretta CurriePhillip BettencourtStephen T. NietoTaylor Libolt VarnerDesign & Development StaffDirectorDanny CastroCity EngineerBryan McKinneyPlanning ManagerCheri L. FloresConsultantsRangwala Associatesin association with Moule & PolyzoidesNelson NygaardAHBE/MIGFong Hart Schneider PartnersIan Espinoza Associates... and thanks to numerous members of City Staff and La Quinta residents Introduction 5 6 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan Part 2: Vision 701IntroductionContextThe Highway 111 Corridor is a two-mile long, 400-acre region-al commercial hub at the center of the City, extending from the western city boundary, just east of Washington Street, to the eastern city boundary at Jefferson Street. The Corridor is a crit-ical, centrally located component of intraregional travel through the Coachella Valley that accommodates about 40,000 vehicles per day. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street in La Quinta is one of the highest volume intersections in the Coachella Valley, carrying over 70,000 vehicles per day.The retail, services and restaurants along the Corridor generate over 3/4th of the City’s sales tax revenues. Ensuring the Corridor’s economic resilience is essential to the City’s future.The La Quinta 2035 General Plan anticipates the Corridor may evolve with mixed use development opportunities as the highest and best use. The Plan’s goals and policies call for innovative land uses and mixed use development for the Corri-dor. CV Link, a 49-mile long regional, multimodal pathway is planned that will link Palm Springs to Thermal. The CV Link is is projected to attract 13,500-16,000 pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users annually.PurposeThe Corridor Plan will guide Highway 111 in a direction that improves the quality of life for residents, employees, and visitors. The Plan includes a clear and compelling vision that reimagines Highway 111 as an iconic place offering a range of memorable experiences. To implement the vision, the Plan features policies and actions to preserve stable assets, encourage contextual infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels, create jobs, maintain and support existing compatible businesses, and ac-commodate housing for a variety of income levels. The Corridor Plan will provide a vision for the future as well as predictability for new retail, office, and development. The Corridor Plan offers: • A community supported vision and guiding principles that encourages a vibrant and walkable area; • Goals and policies to guide decision-makers in achieving the community’s vision for the Highway 111 area; • Actions to be taken by the City to develop projects and partnerships that implement the goals and policies; • Phased catalytic projects to spur economic investment and residential and commercial development along Highway 111; • Assessment of current codes and recommendations for clear and precise standards that produce predictable outcomes; and • Streetscape improvements to activate the public realm, providing an inviting and engaging place. The Corridor Plan also fulfills the goals, policies and actions of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan by promoting orderly growth, and efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure and services. 8 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanThe Bradshaw TrailThe Cahuilla, native people of the valley were the only residents in the area for hundreds of years. The first encounter with Europeans was in 1774. Living inland within the desert the contact with Spanish and Mexican explorers, soldiers, and missionaries was limited. The land was valuable to the Cahuilla people as they could walk down the slope of the wash and fill their jugs with water from the wells below.By 1862, the Civil War was raging, and gold was needed to finance guns and ammo for both the north and south. In Arizona, along the Colorado River, a frontiersman on a trapping expedition stumbled upon a gold deposit. Once the word got out about the strike, a safe and direct route from the California Coast to the Colorado River was in great demand.William Bradshaw, an experi-enced guide, soldier, and miner left San Bernardino looking for a route to the Colorado River. When he reached the Cahuilla Settlement of Toro Village, located southeast of present-day La Quinta, the tribal elder Chief Cabazon showed Bradshaw the trail they used to get to the Colorado River. He called it the Bradshaw trail and the Bradshaw Stage Line was formed. The Stage Line traveled from one water hole to the next and the well at Point Happy became a major stop along the route.As gold ran out and railroad lines were laid in 1876, the Bradshaw Stage Line ceased to exist. How-ever, the railroad needed water for steam engines. The Artesian Spring water just beneath the surface in an otherwise inhospitable desert proved immensely valuable to railroads and cultivated a three crop per year growing season with the railroad to take the crops to market. Railroad and agriculture began to draw non-Native Americans to the Coachella Valley to stay.HistoryCahuilla Village settled around the wells in the desert.The water wells in the area became a major stop for the Bradshaw Stage Line. Part 1: Introduction 9Point Happyin 1906, Norman (Happy) Lundbeck was an early home-steader to build near the well on the east side of the rocky hill-side to shield the strong desert winds. His home, a store, and farm were located on this site that became know as Point Happy. In 1922, the homestead was sold to wealthy oil man and philanthropist Chauncey Clarke and he turned the tract into the Point Happy Date Garden and Ranch. This tract would later become Highway 111.The Point Happy Date Gardens ranch eventually grew to 135 acres ideally suited to Mr. Clark’s two passions, pure bred Arabian horses and date cultivation. The Clarks were world travelers and believed that the Point Happy most closely resembled the Arabian climate where the horses and dates thrived. In addition to dates, the Clarks grew citrus and row crops.After Mr. Clark’s death in 1926, Mrs. Clarke stayed on at Point Happy. When she passed away in 1948, she left Point Happy to Claremont College.The property was subsequently sold to William DuPont Jr., an heir to the DuPont Chemical fortune. He lived there until his death in 1965.The ranch was sold off to developers and the Highland Palms neighborhood was built in 1965. In the early 1980’s a shopping center with La Quinta’s first supermarket was built on the southwest corner of Washington and Highway 111. Top Left Image: Sketch of entrance gate to Point Happy Ranch.Top Middle Image: Actor Rudolph Valentino riding a white Arabian horse at Point Happy Ranch.Top Image: Mrs Clarke and guest gather poolside on the lawn. Navajo rugs are spread around the pool.Left Image: A young lady picks dates at Point Happy Ranch. 10 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanDevelopment PatternOver the past two decades, Highway 111 has been transformed from a rural road into a commercial corridor to support nearby residential development. The streets, blocks, lots, buildings, and landscapes were designed primarily around automobile access. As a result of this auto-centric pattern of development the corridor lacks walkable, compact, neighborhood structure. This pattern also precludes the efficient use of transit which works best when stops are proposed in walkable envi-ronments. The corridor is highly succesful in generating sales tax revenue for the City. However, the wide travel lanes when combined with deep setbacks, and large parking lots fail to create a sense of enclosure that makes walking, biking, sitting, or spending time on the corri-dor a desirable activity. The escalating destabilization of large-format retail comes at a time of not only shifts in online shopping, demographics and associated consumer preferences, but also growing concerns about inefficient use of natural resources and the costs and environmental impacts of sprawling development patterns.1997 2007 2019 Part 1: Introduction 11Ave 47Dune Palms RdJefferson StAdams StWashington StPoint Happy Shopping Center(SP-2000-043)One Eleven La Quinta(SP-1989-014)Washington Park(SP-1987-011)La Quinta Court(SP-2000-047)La Quinta Corporate Center(SP-1999-036)Center @ La Quinta(SP-1997-029)Dune Palms Center(SP-1996-028)Hwy 111 & Dune Palms Road(SP-2000-005)Komar Desert Center(SP-2005-075)Pavillion @ La Quinta(SP-2003-066)OSOSCCCRCRCPCPCRCCRegional Commercial (CR)Community Commercial (CC)Commercial Park (CP)Open Space (OS)Specific PlansZoning DistrictsJefferson Plaza(SP-1996-027)Code Audit Observations1. The standards have enhanced the tax base by facilitating commercial development that draws from customers within the City and the larger regional trade area.2. The standards and guidelines are not tied to a specific physical vision. 3. The Specific Plans have been used to get around existing zoning standards. Rather than amending the existing zoning standards based on an overall vision for the Corridor, the Specific Plans have allowed individual sets of regulations for each parcel that collectively have failed to produce a cohesive built or natural environment for the Corridor area.4. Some Specific Plan have no development standards. For these sites staff typically has required compliance with the zoning standards that existed prior to the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan have vague emphasis on public realm.5. Over the years, the circulation improvements have primarily been made to facil-itate automobile access to the detriment of pedestrians, bike or transit mode. For example: dedicated turn lanes widen the intersections making street crossing more difficult. The token gesture of providing sidewalks, paths, sitting areas, or public art has failed to extend an invitation for people to gather and linger. Nothing in these shopping centers is designed to inspire people to spend more time. 6. The Specific Plans and their numerous amendments are difficult to enforce at the front counter or in the field. Historically, Highway 111 has had three major Zoning Districts: Regional Commercial, Commercial Park and Community Commercial. Over the past two decades, Highway 111 properties have developed with 12 Specific Plan that have replaced majority of the three zoning districts. Besides Zoning Standards, the 1997 Highway 111 Design Guidelines provide explanatory and interpretive recommendations. Good judgment is needed in deciding where and how to apply design guidelines in a consistent manner. Design Guidelines require oversight by discretionary review bodies, leading to a protracted and politicized planning process. The application of the design guidelines is skin deep and fails to breathe life and soul into a place. In the past two decades, the guidelines have not conceptualized a public realm by pulling together individual elements such as diverse street types, variety of public and private open spaces, and contextual building types into a complete, cohesive, and memorable place. When reviewing a project that does not meet the existing development regulations the City can either choose to revise the underlying zoning district or to replace the regulations with specific set of regulations tailored for the intended development project. Revising the underlying zoning district allows its reuse and promotes consistency and equity in its application. A Specific Plan, on the other hand, allows more flexibility and expediency to develop one-off set of standards. Since the adoption of the first Specific Plan in 1987 for Washington Park, majority of the parcels along Highway 111 corridor have been developed under individual Specific Plans. Over the years, many of these specific plans have been amended multiple times.Design guidelines within many of the Specific Plans seek to create the ambience of a contemporary “Mediterranean, California Mission, Colonial Spanish, and Spanish Mediterranean Tuscan Village.” The built outcomes show few random elements from these styles on the building facades. Collectively, the individual projects have not coalesced to create the context of a walkable and human-scale public realm found in Mediterranean villages.In 2016, to encourage multi-family residential development in a mixed-use format along Highway 111, the City created a Mixed Use Overlay district.Collectively all of the existing devel-opment standards and design guidelines are vague in that they are not tied to a place-based vision for the corridor and the individual buildings fail to create a unique place. The standards are based primarily on the control of uses, with minimal direction over the forms or sequence of urbanization. The design guidelines have been less effective in promoting human scale, massing, and detailing. The resulting overall architecture fails to create cohesive and unique desert identity or a rich public realm.Development Codes and Guidelines MarketCV LinkDune Palms RdJefferson StAdams StWashington St11111135,000 - 45,000 vehicles per day along Hwy 111 Corridor3.5 millionsquare feet located in the 111 Corridor11111111111111111111111000000000000000000000000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa10 mile Trade Area CharacteristicsPopulation298,600 peopleAverage household size2.6Median home value$377,450Median household income$58,500Housing tenure49%Owner22%Renter29%VacantAverage commute time23minsSeasonal homes make up 20.5% of the dwelling units, with other housing constituting 8.9%. Average apartment occupancy across Coachella Valley is 97.9%, with average rents of $1.16 per square foot per month.Highway 111 businesses generate 78 % of City’s total Sales TaxThe three auto dealerships on Hwy 111 are in the top 25 sales tax producing businesses every quarter.2 miles78%400 acres75 retail, service, and restaurant facilities in 21 developments 12 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan Part 1: Introduction 13RetailHousingHospitalityAmong 12 apartment developments in La Quinta, the 1,696 units showed an average occupancy of 98%, with average rents of $0.73 per square foot per month for affordable units and $1.41 for market rate.Over 60% of retail space on Highway 111 is in power centers. A power center is a large shopping area that typically includes three or more “big box” stores. Power centers on Highway 111 contain 1.6 million square feet of rentable area, equal to 40% of the total La Quinta retail space inventory. Of the 465 businesses and 5,651 employees along Highway 111 Corridor area, retail trade accounts for 19% of busi-nesses and 44% of employees, while food services are 14% of businesses and 25% of employees.$730,000 Average price for new home in La Quinta ($251 per square foot). $4.9 billionResidents within the Trade Area will spend an es-timated $4.9 billion in retail sales, equal to about two thirds of all Coachella Valley retail sales.• 1,095 hotel rooms in La Quinta.• Weekend occupancy rates average 76% annually, while weekday rates average 51%. • Average Daily Rate within La Quinta facilities is $218 ($209 weekday, $233 weekend).• Number of active short term vacation rentals – 1,200. 40% 60%1.6 msquare feetof all retailin La Quintaof all retail on Highway 111in La QuintaPower Cen te r s 14 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanGetting Around Highway 111As in other Coachella Valley cities, most travel on Highway 111 is by private vehicle.Roads and TrafficHighway 111 is designed and operated as a high-speed pass-through and regional travel route for motorists travelling to and from locations further afield of La Quinta. As such, most of the traffic on the La Quinta segment of the corridor consists of motorists from other cities passing through La Quinta without stopping. Some local commuters avoid Highway 111 during peak hours, if possible, due to congestion.The corridor is a critical, centrally located component of intraregional travel through the Coachella Valley that accommodates 35,000-40,000 vehicles per day. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street in La Quinta is one of the highest volume intersections in the Coachella Valley, carrying over 70,000 vehicles per day. The La Quinta segment of the corridor generally features three travel lanes in each direction, various in-termittent turning lanes, and a median down the center. The posted speeds along the segment are 45-50mph, and vehicles regularly travel much faster than this, especially during off-peak periods. Traffic signals for the corridor in La Quinta are also synchronized with the nearby cities of Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Palm Desert to facilitate continuous traffic flow through each of these areas.The design and operation of Highway 111’s traffic system detract from the corridor’s function as the City’s primary revenue generator. To generate revenue, the City needs motorists to stop, but the design and operation of the corridor essentially prevents them from doing so, or even slowing down. This is exacerbated by the design of the development along the corridor, which is set far back from the road, making destinations difficult to identify for motorists who cannot safely see what is available around them while maintaining prevailing traffic speeds.SafetyBetween 2012 and 2017 there were 11 traffic incidents (3 of which involved pedestrians) that resulted in fatalities in La Quinta. In 2017, one of the three fatal traffic incidents in the city occurred on Highway 111 near the Dune Palms Road intersection, and in 2016, the only fatal traffic incident in the city occurred at the same intersection.TransitThe Highway 111 corridor is served by two SunLine Transit bus routes (Line 111 and Line 70). Additionally, while La Quinta has no passenger rail services, an Am-trak connector bus makes stops on Highway 111 near the La Quinta Center Drive intersection. While there are no express services running along the corridor presently, the current roadway design characteristics of the corridor make it a candidate for potential exclusive bus lanes, bus rapid transit (BRT) light services, or full BRT services.Washington Street intersection is one of the busiest intersection in Coachella Valley.SunLine Transit Line 111 travels east-west almost exclusively along Highway 111 between Palm Springs and Coachella, makes six stops in each direction along the La Quinta segment of the route, mainly near major intersections. Line 70 travels north-south between residential areas in La Quinta and Bermuda Dunes, mostly along Washington Street, and makes one stop in each direction at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection. Aside from Line 70, Line 111 connects to several additional SunLine routes, while Line 70 connects to only one additional route.The quality of bus stop facilities varies along the segment. Some stop locations are attractively designed and well maintained, while others are bench only, leav-ing their users exposed to the sun and weather. All stops, however, are located far from most actual destinations, due to the suburban big-box design of the development.Ave 47Dune Palms RdJefferson StAdams StWashington StLine 111Line 70SunLine Routes Serving Highway 111 Corridor in La Quinta Part 1: Introduction 15Meandering sidewalks along Highway 111Active TransportationWalking ConditionsThe segment of Highway 111 that passes through La Quinta was designed, and is operated, exclusively as a high-speed pass-through. Further, development and eco-nomic activity along the segment is distinctly suburban, characterized by big box retail and corporate fast-food and casual dining with deep setbacks from the sidewalk and/or buildings set back behind large surface parking lots. These conditions are not conducive to a walkable environment. The walking facilities along Highway 111, and throughout the city as a whole, are abundant, appropri-ately sized, and well maintained. However, the sidewalks also meander and cross between private properties and the public parkways. While this indirectness may not be inherently problematic, it is not ideal in this context where the walkability is already generally poor.Pedestrian crossing conditions could also be improved. At intersections, pedestrian crossings consist mostly of basic painted crosswalks. Some intersections have no crossing facilities at all. Signalized intersections feature pedestrian signals, but these must be activated by push button. Crossings are also very long (about 160 feet typically, but some are much longer), and there are no pedestrian islands or refuges to break up the crossing. Bicycling ConditionsOverall, Highway 111 is likely only usable for the most confident and experienced bicycle riders. There are no dedicated bicycling facilities on the corridor, nor any that access the corridor, in La Quinta. However, many of the sidewalks along the corridor are wide and smooth enough to accommodate casual bicycle riders. Many in-tersections also feature bicycle signal detection, allowing riders to trigger a green light when cars are not around.Several major shopping locations along the corridor have some form of bicycle parking such as bike racks or dedicated bike parking areas available. Further, every bus in the SunLine Transit system features bike racks.SunLine Bicycle ParkingSunLine plans to add bicycle racks and lockers at certain locations along the corridor (see table below).Line Street Cross StreetStop IDDirection Position Facility Type70 Adams St Hwy 111 84 Southbound Farside Locker70 Adams St Hwy 111 891 Northbound Nearside Rack111 Hwy 111 Washing-ton547 Eastbound Farside Rack111 Hwy 111 Adams St 561 Westbound Farside Locker111 Hwy 111 Adams St 571 Eastbound Farside LockerPlanned Active Mobility ProjectsCV LinkCV Link is a planned 49-mile regional, multimodal, mixed-use trail that would link Palm Springs to Ther-mal. While the La Quinta segment of CV Link is not planned to travel on or along Highway 111, it does travel across (and connect to) the northern extent of the study area behind the commercial development along the northern side of the corridor in the Whitewater River Channel. Further, the entire Highway 111 corridor itself is undergoing a $3m signal optimization throughout the CV Link area.The construction of the La Quinta segment of CV Link is anticipated to begin in 2019-20, and is expected to be a catalytic multimodal project for the region, attracting 13,500-16,000 pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users annually.Walmart EntranceWendy’sBus StopHwy 111Example of Walking Conditions: A transit user who gets off at Bus Stop #548 (Hwy 111/Dune Palms) must walk about one-third of a mile, nearly all of which is through unshaded surface parking lots, to get to the front door of the Walmart Supercenter. Similarly, a worker in that same Walmart Supercenter would have to walk about one-quarter of a mile each way through parking lots to eat lunch at the nearby Wendy’s. 16 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanPlanning ProcessProject Coordination&RCHě4GĂNG%ORRKFOR2ĚCNAdoptionDiscoveryVisioningJ/19O/19FMAMJJASAve 47CV LinkDune Palms RdJefferson StAdams StWashington StCVnkCommunity WorkshopActivity One Composite MapGood Places along Hwy 111Places with a big opportunityPlaces that need improvementThe planning process for the Highway 111 Corridor Plan began in January 2019, and was designed around extensive and thoughtful public input. The five-step process started with a joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission to review the scope and schedule, finalize the civic engagement strategies, and identify ongoing or current issues and opportunities on the corridor.The quantitative and qualitative feedback gathered at the discovery stage allowed the community to es-tablish a common understanding of the existing place, market, people, and mobility options. The City hosted a Community Workshop to discuss growth patterns, land uses, and transportation options for Highway 111 corridor. The participants engaged in planning activities that provided qualitative feedback on community issues, preferences, and opportunities for the Highway 111 corridor.The heart of the Planning Process was the three-day Charrette in April 2019. A charrette is a collaborative and rigorous planning process that harnessed the talents and energies of individuals to create and support an overall vision for the Highway 111 Corridor Plan area. The compressed time facilitated creative problem-solving by accelerating decision-making and reducing non-con-structive negotiation tactics, and encouraged people to abandon their usual working patterns and “think outside of the box.”Two additional interim joint meetings allowed the City Council and Planning Commission to review progress and offer feedback and direction on key items.Community Workshop participants engaged in two activities: Activity 1 (two images above): Participants were asked to identify on an map with a green dot good places; with a blue dot places with a big opportunity; and with a red dot places that needed improve-ment.Activity Two (three images to the right): Participants took a visual preference survey. They reviewed and rated a range of street images from -5 (bad) to +5 (excellent). For each street image they discussed and presented the elements of street design that were desirable and those elemensts that were less than desirable. Part 1: Introduction 17Community EngagementOnline EngagementInfo-graphics Interviews VisioningCharrettePop-upWorkshopProjectTourPublicSurveyCommunityWorkshopSpeakerSeriesJoint Council &Planning CommissionMeetingsCivic Engagement StrategiesNoontime educational presentations included three speakers who are experts on the topics of corridor planning, mobility, and retail trends. The presentations are intended to provide context, to inspire and spark ideas for the future development of Highway 111. The community engagement approach was designed around five goals:1. Inform — to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understand-ing the challenges, alternatives, opportunities, and/or solutions;2. Consult — to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions;3. Involve — to work directly with the public through-out the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and consid-ered; 4. Collaborate — to partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution; and5. Empower — to place final decision- making in the hands of the public.The extensive public engagement process combined new and trusted techniques to encourage a diverse group of citizens to contribute to the Corridor Plan, including three-day visioning charrette, community workshop, an on-line public survey, pop-up workshop, and a robust online presence to help guide the process. The noontime presentations at the charrette brought three national experts to provide perspective, present alternatives, and stimulate community dialogue. Opportunities to participate included large public meetings to small stakeholder roundtables, surveys, proj-ect web page updates, email notifications, and Facebook posts. Each method encouraged the public to learn and convey their opinions on what was important for the City to consider over the next 20 years. The charrette took place onsite at a vacant commercial space on Highway 111. 18 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan Part 2: Vision 1902VisionThe Corridor Area Plan offers a vision for a vibrant and walkable mixed use corridor along Highway 111. The broad strategy is to concentrate development in parcels on the north side of Highway 111 and at the edge of the CV link for a number of reasons: • There are two significant vacant parcels of land (privately owned) along the north side. These parcels face both the Highway 111 and the CV Link creating potent sites for demonstrating how responsible development could create positive frontages along both Highway 111 and the CV link. They could become the seeds of incremental development to follow; • Many of the uses to the south of Highway 111, such as the Century Theaters to the west, the car deal-erships between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road, and the Costco to the east, are important current economic engines for the City, and are anticipated to remain this way in the foreseeable future; and• The large parcel at the southwest corner of Avenue 47 and Adams Street has been approved for residen-tial development of 200 units. The vision is consistent with recent revi-sions to the design and zoning standards that reduce the current 50 feet building setback and allow building frontages to be closer to the street, creating a greater rela-tionship between the street, its activities, and the buildings.Key Concepts1. Redesigning Highway 111 as an Iconic Arterial: This is the princi-pal catalytic project of this vision. Highway 111 will be re-designed as a pedestrian-friendly corridor. Specifically, it will retain three travel lanes in each direction. When the parcels are developed with urban frontages, the width of the lanes will be reduced, and parallel parking can be added on both sides. The existing median, which is approximately 28 feet wide, will also be reduced to 18 Ave 47CV LinkDune Palms RdJefferson StAdams StWashington St111111 20 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Planfeet. In summary, the total existing distance from curb to curb which is 125 feet will change to 115 feet. There will be intermittent bulb outs between the parallel parking, with ample trees and rich landscaping. The visual and experiential quality of Highway 111 will be significantly different than what it is today.2. A Cultural Trail along the northern edge of High-way 111: The sidewalk along the northern edge of Highway 111 will be redesigned as a Cultural Trail. The intent is to create a linear space that integrates biking, pedestrian activity, landscape and public art into a unique place that can become a signature for the City.3. Integrating the Highway and the CV Link as an Open Space Loop: The CV Link is a project that has been approved for construction by the City. The vision is to connect the CV Link to the Highway through new streets thereby creating a continuous pedestrian and bicycle loop.Natural Rock Formation GatewayPPPPPCV LinkHwy 1115 min. walk4. Creating a rich frontage of Buildings, Parks and Greens along the CV Link: The CV Link along the Whitewater River is a unique place in its own right. It is however, currently faced by buildings that turn their backs to this open space. Our vision calls for the incremental reversing of this, by having buildings front this wash. Additionally, the length of this wash is enriched by a number of parks and greens that offer various recreational opportunities along the CV Link.5. Use of Existing Parking Lots for Community Events: The study area has many expansive parking lots that while providing space for cars do little else. This vision calls for the tactical use of some of the spaces in these lots for community fairs and other gatherings. Guiding Principles:• Preserve and enhance the successful reve-nue generating assets;• Create memorable experiences by orches-trating great streets and public spaces; • Leverage walkable and mixed-use develop-ment on vacant infill parcels;• Combine tactical small-scale interventions with larger scale catalytic projects;• Eliminate legal barriers to developing great places.6. Regulating Incremental Urban Infill in the “Island” between Highway 111 and the CV Link: This vision calls for seeding a pedestrian-friendly block-street pattern within the vacant parcels to the north of Highway 111, as precedents for incremental development to follow. An urbanism of blocks and streets is the antithesis of the large suburban tracts that currently occupy this place. The details of this idea are shown in the pages that follow.7. Creating Mixed-Use Districts along Highway 111: The long-term urban form of this place will be sequential mixed-use districts, each clearly demar-cated by Highway 111 and the side streets. Through their specific form, use, and character, the districts can create a series of unique places and destinations along the highway.Highway 111 Corridor Concept Plan Part 2: Vision 21Landscape Program VisionThe City of La Quinta will create a 21st century landscape resort style that embraces its community and celebrates the desert ecology. Through the middle of the 20th century, destination resort and recreation landscape design, characterized by turf, palm and tropical plantings, has defined Coachella Valley. Palm Springs popularized this post-war aesthetic by showing the public their favorite celebrity frolicking in a pool or playing golf in the middle of a desert. The idealized image of the oasis perfectly fitted our mid-century optimism. Today, this landscape motif still exists especially in cities with golf resorts like Indian Wells. However, with dwindling resources and a growing population, many communities of the Coachella Valley are doing what they can to conserve water and be more sustainable. The City of La Quinta can differentiate itself from its neighboring cities by embracing the desert landscape and ecology.Landscaping Guidelines• Bring trees and plantings closer to the street to visually narrow the corridor and help to calm traffic.• Reduce turf grasses to active and passive recre-ation areas only.• Use adaptive and native desert plantings to create an active, living ecosystem.• Improve human comfort by providing shade, filter the dust and sand, create beauty and a sense of place.• Embrace the CV Link connections with open spaces that are inviting and welcoming.• Provide a gateway into the City that announces the community to the visitor.• Create policy that maintains the living desert. ecosystem and provides landscape resilience.Catalytic ProjectsThe following is a menu of individual projects that form the components of this plan. The strategic investment in these projects and their specific order of implementation will depend on numerous market and economic forces. However, they could broadly be divided into three categories:1. Public Improvement Projects – Projects that are either within the public right-of-way or on land owned by the City:a. Highway 111 Streetscape; b. CV-Link; c. Washington & Jefferson Street Enhancement;d. Dune Palms & Adams Street Enhancement; ande. A new network of pedes-trian-friendly streets.2. Private Development Projectsa. A new Town Center between Highway 111 & The CV Link in the vacant parcel between Dune Palms & Adams; b. A new mixed-use project on the vacant parcel at Dune Palms & Highway 111; andc. Other potential infill projects.3. Public-Private Partnershipsa. Development within the City-owned vacant parcelb. New Access Streets con-necting Highway 111 & the CV LinkThe Highway 111 Corridor Plan area is composed of two major transportation corridors - the highway itself and the CV Link. The highway is a 20th Century transportation archetype that represents the automobile as the most important method of mobility. The CV Link represents a 21st Century idea to return to human powered and small electric powered vehicles as a mode of transportation. Both corridors will need to be addressed and be optimized to bring growth and prosperity to the City of La Quinta. 22 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanAn Incremental Master PlanThe phasing diagrams show a possible scenario of how the area could develop over time:Phase 1:a. Town Center along Highway 111: The vacant parcel north of Highway 111 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road is a great site to seed new urbanism. This is the largest of the privately owned vacant parcels, and also faces both the highway and the CV Link. The vision calls for a north-south connecting street to link the Highway and the CV Link. This street terminates into a park facing the CV Link. A series of blocks and streets break the parcel into a finely grained urban network. b. New mixed-use development: New infill development on the vacant corner parcel at Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road. This also has a network of intimate blocks and streets with parks facing the CV Link. Parking is within mid-block parking lots and along the streets. c. New mixed-use development on City owned parcel: New infill development on the vacant western portion of the City owned parcel south of Highway 111. In summary, the first phase leverages the presence of the City and privately owned vacant parcels without intruding into the other existing sites and businesses.Existing Coachella Valley Wash Part 2: Vision 23 24 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanSEATING(TYP.)SEATINGDESERT PLANTING- Agave shawii subsp. shawii- Calliandra californica -Caesalpinia mexicana- Buddleia marrubifolia - desert milkweed - Red Bird of Paradise SMALL TREES- Acacia aneura- Acacia stenophylla- Cercidium floridum- Cercidium praecoxCOACHELLA VALLEY WASHOPEN SPACEPLANTINGSHADE TREES- Acacia salicina- Prosopis chilensis- Dalbergia sissoo- Cercidium floridumLAWN AREAACCENT TREES- Chilopsis linearis- Sophora secundiflora- Chitalpa tashkentensisCOFFEE BAR ANDSHADED SEATING BIKE PARKINGBOLLARDS AT ENTRANCEPEDESTRIAN LANEPERMEABLE PAVERSBIKE AND GOLF LANECONCRETE PAVINGBIKE PARKINGGOLF CART PARKINGGOLF CART PARKINGPLANTINGABABBUILDINGARCADECOFSHADHSSHSSSSHSSHSSSHHSSSSSSSSSSSHSSSSSSSHSSSSSSSHSSSSSSSSSHHSSSSSSSSSSSSSED EEOPEEAccent TreesSmall TreesShade TreesChitalpa Tashkentensis (Pink Dawn and Morning CloudSophora Secundiflora (Texas Mountain Laurel)Chilopsis Linearis (Texas Mountain Laurel)Prosopis Chilensis (Chilean Mesquite) Dalbergia sissoo (Indian Rosewood)Acacia Salicina (Weeping Acacia) Acacia Aneura (Mulga) Acacia Stenophylla (Shoestring Acacia) Cercidium Floridum (Palo Verde)CV Link Part 2: Vision 25DESERT PLANTING- Agave shawii subsp. shawii- Calliandra californica -Caesalpinia mexicana- Buddleia marrubifolia - desert milkweed - Red Bird of Paradise LAWN 1% SLOPEBIKE PARKINGBIKE AND GOLF CART PATHPEDESTRIAN PATHPERMEABLE PAVERSCOACHELLA VALLEY WASHCOFFEE BAR ANDSHADED SEATING SHADE TREES- Acacia salicina- Prosopis chilensis- Dalbergia sissoo- Cercidium floridumACCENT TREES- Chilopsis linearis- Sophora secundiflora- Chitalpa tashkentensisSECTION A15’10’15’35’10’20’20’20’ 15’15’SECTION BCOACHELLA VALLEY WASHPEDESTRIAN TRAILBIKE AND GOLF CART PARKINGBIKE AND GOLF CART TRAILSEATINGDESERT PLANTING- Agave shawii subsp. shawii- Calliandra californica -Caesalpinia mexicana- Buddleia marrubifolia - desert milkweed - Red Bird of Paradise SMALL TREES- Acacia aneura- Acacia stenophylla- Cercidium floridum- Cercidium praecox1% SLOPE15’ 10’ 15’25’Desert PlantingShaded areas for rest along CV LinkCommunity events on central greenCafe along CV LinkThe CV Link is designed to be bright and festive. Pe-destrians, bike and electric vehicles are meant to be able to travel from desert city to city with comfort and ease. The CV Link’s landscape and open space design within this corridor in La Quinta will be open and welcoming to travelers. Stops along the CV Link will have a cool grassy open space for users to rest and lie down. Shade from structures and trees will be ample and inviting. The City will encourage vendors and developers to open their businesses to this corridor and provide goods and services to support travelers who choose this alternate mode of transportation.Understory plantings for the streetscapes will be adaptive and native desert plantings that will conserve water, naturalize and reduce maintenance as it matures. Areas near the CV Link will create a filter that will keep sand and dust from inundating the bluffs above the wash. Along Highway 111, areas between the Palo Verde street trees can be used for bio-filtration or infiltration. The plantings for these areas will aid in filtering the water and slow the water down to allow for ground water recharge of the aquifer. 26 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanTypical plan of Highway 111: The active urban frontage, wide sidewalk and cultural trail, streetscape, context based lighting, public art, landscaping that spatially divides the large expanse of Highway 111 while providing shade and visual delight contribute to create a signature corridor for the Coachella Valley region. Highway 111Art HistoryOpportunityRammed earth wallor mosaic tile art/seat walls4 ft. walk adjacentto parkingHighway lightCholla light@ 26 ft. on centerBioswale with existing curb/gutterbehind bioswale zoneBench for seatingCanopy shade treeChinese Pistache or JacarandaPhoenix Dactylifera Palm(group of two) Tall trees on mountain side,lower trees on valleyside to reinforce ground plane geometry Palo Verde Part 2: Vision 27SOUTH R.O.W.33’11’46’ 7’NORTH R.O.W.Example of rammed earth wall. The wall along the Cultural Trail would only be 18" high and no more than 36" for dining area demarcation.Example of benches.Cholla light standard eleva-tions, between interface of ped walk and Cultural Trail.Selux highway light with dual heads. One for highway 25 ft tall, One for pedestrians 15ft tall, with banner street side.Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistache) Parkinsonia Florida (Palo Verde) Phoenix Dactylifera (Date Palm) Understory desert plantsTypical section of Highway 111: The proposed landscape will create a distinctive aesthetic, spatial, and experiential impression of place.CornerPlazaLower level treePalo Verde broughtclose to corner for shadeZero curb cornerwith bollards 28 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan Part 2: Vision 29The spatial organization of landscaping is carefully integrated into the design of the streets, open spaces, and architecture to create an iconic street for the Coachella Valley.Highway 111 will be redesigned as a pedestri-an-friendly corridor. The near term development opportunities are the greatest on vacant tracts located north of Highway 111. These tracts also allow connections with the CV Link. Therefore, the vision calls for a different design for the north and south frontages. The southern frontages along Highway 111 will continue to serve the stable revenue generating uses with enhanced landscaping to provide shade, human scale to the corridor, and color. The northern frontage along Highway 111 will be transformed incrementally, starting with the vacant lots and gradually spreading to other adjacent frontages as they redevelop. Embrace the sidewalk with building fronts — Pedestrian comfort is principally a function of spatial definition — how places are shaped. Streets need good edges to succeed. Active building front-ages closer to the sidewalk edge with storefront windows make walking more interesting, safe, and comfortable.Use lighting to support urbanism —The design, height, and frequency of the light poles are adjusted for the different context. Along the curb’s edge, a dual head light pole will consist of Selux light head at 25 feet height for the highway lanes and another head at 15 feet height tall, with banner street side for the sidewalk. A unique Cholla Cactus skeletal inspired light pole will light up the cultural trail and sidewalk.A Cultural Trail along the northern edge – The sidewalk along the northern edge of Highway 111 will be redesigned as a Cultural Trail. The Cultural Trail will be a buffered, beautifully paved, richly landscaped and artfully lighted pedestrian and bicycle path through Highway 111. The trail will integrate biking and pedestrian activity that feature local ecology through landscaping and public art and help create a “one-of-a-kind” memorable place for the City. The Cultural Trail will connect the various uses along the northern side of Highway 111.Integrating the Highway and the CV Link as an Open Space Loop – The CV Link is a project that has been approved for construction by the City. The community vision is to connect it to the Highway through new streets thereby creating a continuous pedestrian and bicycle loop.Put wasted pavement to better use – The redesign will retain three travel lanes in each direction. As urban development occurs along Highway 111, the width of the lanes will be reduced, creating parallel parking on both sides. The existing median, which is approximately 28 feet wide will also be reduced to 18 feet. There will be intermittent bulb outs between the parallel parking, with ample trees and rich landscaping. The visual and experiential qual-ity of Highway 111 will be significantly different than what it is today. Enhance human comfort – Rows of shade trees of consistent size and alignment bring order to the street, visually subdivide the large corridor space, define the pedestrian space, calm the traffic, protect the pedestrian from cars, and provide a consistent canopy for shade. The accent trees provide color, human scale, and more shade. The palm trees accentuate the iconic image of the corridor. Understory landscaping visually softens the streetscape. 30 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanPhase 2:a. The Town Center first phase could expand east and create a complete Town Center with more than 200,000 sf of retail, and 200 units of housing. This would create a new street face towards Dune Palms Road, completing the northwest corner of the Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road intersection.b. The new mixed-use development on the vacant corner parcel at Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road could also expand along a network of blocks and streets east creating a positive and urban street face for a significant length along Highway 111 along both sides of the Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road intersection.c. The series of parcels along the west side of Dune Palms Road and south of Highway 111 could develop into a mixed-use development, with commercial uses facing the highway.Phase 2Phase 3Phase 3:a. On the north side of Highway 111, the Town Center development could expand west.b. On the south side, the development on the City owned parcel could expand west towards the Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road intersection. In short, by concentrating development around the Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road intersection, this vision hopes to achieve a fully built four-sided urban junction that can mark a clear place type in contrast to the rest of the sprawling condition. The north-south streets within all these developments will ensure access and connectivity to Highway 111 and further north to the CV Link. These streets along with the enhanced Highway 111 sidewalks will create a pedestrian network to allow a new and different lifestyle to its residents.Dune Palms RdDune Palms Rd3a3b Part 2: Vision 31Possible development in the north-west and south-west precinct: The diagram shows how incremental development could occur in other areas beyond the Highway 111-Dune Palms intersection, along similar lines. This diagram is drawn to suggest that while this vision advocates concentrating development with and around the vacant parcels to enable the creation of a 100% intersection, it also acknowledges that this may not necessarily be the case depending on market conditions. Wherever new development begins, it should be regulated to ensure the creation of a block street network, with guidelines informing the massing and character of the streets, open spaces and buildings.Dune Palms Rd 32 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanThe existing pattern of development has paved two-thirds of the project area for automobile parking and circulation.Any of the large existing parking lots can be tactically transformed to host temporary festivals and events. Part 2: Vision 33 34 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan Part 2: Vision 35The Signature of PlaceThe following is a broad list of design elements that will root this vision to the climate and geography of La Quinta. Taken together, they will help create and expand a distinct signature of place that is specific to the La Quinta region, and its culture:1. Arcades – One story arcades will form the street frontage of several buildings in this plan. These arcades will be deep enough to allow people to both walk and sit within. They will offer much needed shade from the harsh desert sun. Their specific character and design variety will bring both continuity and diversity to the architecture of the place.2. Awnings – The transition between the commercial building face and the sidewalk will be accented by deep awnings. They will offer shade as well as a softer visual element along the sidewalk.3. Covered Streets – Certain streets within the plan could be covered with canvas recalling the beautiful shaded desert streets found across the world. Such streets could be unique destinations in that they may be open only to select vehicles, with a heavy priority on pedestrian activity, compared to other multi-modal streets.4. Parking Groves – Parking lots behind the buildings and within the blocks will be designed as tree groves. This will help mitigate heat island effect and also create a more comfortable and visually pleasing place within the center of each block.5. Shaded Courtyards – Within and between buildings, vertically proportioned courtyards will create shaded places for gathering and interaction. The vertical proportions of these spaces is a conscious gesture to create shaded environments within the hot sun.6. Trellises and Arbors – Building terraces and open spaces will be shaded using trellises and planted arbors. This will add additional texture to the buildings and streetscapes.7. Building faces with minimal openings – As an architectural response to the desert climate, buildings will be designed with minimal openings rather than large glass walls. 8. Local Trees – The variety of trees selected for the streets, parking lots and landscaped areas will all be part of the local and regional geography, rendering a familiar sense of place. The specific location and arrangement of these trees will in turn add specificity and uniqueness to the Highway and its surrounds. 36 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanMobilityLa Quinta has articulated a desire for a safer, more complete, multi-modal transportation system that maximizes the economic potential of the Highway 111 corridor as a great place to live, work and visit. The Highway 111 Corridor Plan features streets that are more pedestri-an-scaled, increases the availability of on-street parking, and creates a com-prehensive town center bicycle network. The proposed changes will lower driving speeds, shorten average crossing distanc-es, provide a comfortable bicycle facility approximately every five blocks, and create a walkable downtown that supports commercial activity. The changes will only result in a modest increase in travel times to commuters who are traversing the entire Highway 111 corridor.Street TypesConnectivity increases the ability of pedestrians to connect to intended destinations. One indicator of pedestrian connectivity is intersection density, which is one of the most important aspects on peoples’ choice to walk. Intersection density is the number of intersections in an area. Where intersection density is high, there are multiple options and paths for pedestrians. Where there is low inter-section density, there are fewer opportu-nities for pedestrians to connect to other streets. Low intersection density requires pedestrians to walk farther to reach a cross street or major connection where there may be transit connections or access more of the network destinations. The vision for the mixed-use areas along the corridor illustrates the densely connected network that is common to most every place people value highly. That network should be made up of several types of streets that perform different mobility and accessibility objectives.Major Thoroughfares – These larger streets have a primary function of moving cars and buses, but within the study area they should be designed to do so at no more than 30 miles per hour.Access Streets – These streets are focused on getting travelers to their destinations. They will likely have left turn lanes to help get cars to parking areas and many have bike lanes to allow cyclists from the east-west paths get to their parking spots.Main Streets – These streets in the center of commercial nodes should be slow and narrow. Their function is access for all modes of travel with pedestrians taking priority.Local Streets – The streets that will connect the rest of the districts, these streets should also be small and safe for all users. Driving LanesThe traffic volumes along Highway 111 between Washington Street and Jefferson Street range from 32,000 to 36,000 ve-hicles per day. Currently, there are three travel lanes in each direction plus a center Highway 111 (Major Thorughfare, Urban)Highway 111 (Major Thorughfare, Standard) Part 2: Vision 37North-South StreetsAccess StreetsLocal StreetsShared StreetsHwy 111 UrbanHwy 111 Standardleft turn lane and additional left and right turn lanes at a number of intersections. This is more lanes than would be physi-cally required to carry the traffic volumes. A narrow street section, however, comes with more traffic congestion – particularly in the peak hours.Each community must make its own decisions about how much congestion makes sense for them. Chasing zero congestion comes with a price tag as wide roads with fast driving present a barrier to pedestrians. La Quinta residents during the charrette provided feedback about where they fall on this spectrum. There was no real support for the higher levels of congestion, but support for trading off a bit of congestion if the rewards could help meet their overall community goals. As such, the “middleground” approach discussed for La Quinta was to maintain the general six-lane cross-section along the Highway 111 corridor, but to recon-sider some of the right turn and dual left turn lanes.Street Types MapNorth-South Streets (Dune Palms Road as Main Street) Access StreetsLocal Streets Shared Streets 38 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanPedestrian Crossing ImprovementsThe plan sets the most ambitious stan-dards for Highway 111 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. Within this section, a consistent cross-section with three travel lanes in each direction, single left turn lanes and no right turn lanes in the westbound direction (the north side of the street that fronts the planned mixed-use areas) is recommend-ed. Lane widths within this section would be narrowed from the current wide conditions, to a more standard 11-12 feet per lane. This narrowing will create space along the curb for other uses (parking, greenspace, vehicle pickups) that may change and evolve as the land redevelops and transportation technology evolves. This cross-section will create a small amount of additional congestion in the peak commuting hours. However, this core area has the most potential for transformation and is the place where the tradeoff sweet spot can best be met. For example, narrowing the lanes and adding bulbouts at the intesections could potentially reduce the pedestrian crossing distance from 140 feet to 88 feet – a reduction of 40%. That degree of improvement to the pedestrian environ-ment is precisely the type of intervention needed to convince potential investors that this corridor is a place that is serious about a walkable environment.At the other end of the spectrum, the intersections of Highway 111 with Washington Street on the west and Jefferson Street on the east are proposed to retain the same basic lane arrangement as is currently in place. There are small improvements recommended to the intersections on each end – for example, adding crosswalks to the fourth leg at Washington Street/111 and at Depot Drive/111. By and large, however, given that north-south traffic is highest at these end intersections, it is recommended that automobile traffic be accommodated and accompanied by some pedestrian safety improvements.This balancing of the tradeoffs that turns the dial toward urbanism in the core with the most development poten-tial, and accommodates reasonable traffic movement on the ends that are less likely to see radical change was an approach that resonated with community members during the charrette.Intersection DesignA number of additional intersection interventions are recommended:Crosswalks - Crosswalks should be added on all four legs of each signalized intersection. Adding the fourth leg crosswalks to intersections such as Washington Street and Depot Drive will send a welcoming signal to those wishing to or needing to walk.Corner Radii – The wide intersection corner radii present at intersections and driveways along the corridor foster high speed right turns, endangering pedestri-ans walking along the corridor. A new, tighter, standard should be adopted in the core area and applied whenever a new construction project is undertaken.Crossing Spacing – Some new, signal-ized, pedestrian crossings should be added, particularly between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. The spacing of crossings in this area should eventually be no more than 600 feet apart. Transit ServiceWhile the service along Highway 111 is good for a community of its size, the bus stops are far from the end destinations due to the large parking lots and setbacks. There is little transit itself can do to remedy this shortfall. The question is commonly asked whether the buses can drop off in the shopping center parking lots rather than along the street, but that sort of pattern costs a lot of time and is not fair to other riders on the route who are not destined for the shopping centers. In the end, the solution will be to bring the land uses closer to the transit service as the area redevelops over time.As the mixed-use nodes do begin to de-velop, it may be worth considering some type of self-taxing option to supplement the operating costs to build even better service. This could take the form of a small area circulator (like a small shuttle or trolley), or could be used to boost the frequency and hours of operation of the current SunLine service.Technology is also making transit faster and easier to use. SunLine has been an innovator in the past (piloting alternative fuels technology) and may be receptive to implementing many of the technological advances being used around the country. The SunLine bus fleet uses Global Positioning System to monitor bus locations and provide realtime arrival updates to users, via the SubBus Tracker app. Signal prioritization is being considered in some communities to add to the overall speed of the lines. Improved payment systems will someday allow quicker boarding and potentially could incorporate access to other services such as bikeshare, scooters or other personal mobility devices.ParkingPerhaps the most important aspect of the park-once environment, however, is how much cost is saved and land freed up from supplying parking. • Use surface parking as a land-bank-ing tool. In the early phases of the redevelopment, well-placed surface parking can keep development costs low. The placement of that parking, however, should accommodate more dense future development that would utilize structured parking. Parking, deployed strategically, can allow the density of the site to develop over time.• Phase in paid parking in core mixed-use areas. Market-priced parking is the best tool available to incentivize people to sort themselves to various parking locations rather than com-peting for the closest spot. Before the need for paid parking is present, however, setting well-conceived time restrictions on street parking in the mixed use areas can keep spaces free for potential customers.• Revise zoning code to better support walkable, mixed-use development on the corridor. Require unbundled parking for rental and for-sale residential, commercial space, and other uses. Unbundled parking is the Part 2: Vision 39The diagram illustrates how uses whose parking demand peaks at different times of day can utilize the same spaces if the uses are mixed closely together. practice of selling or leasing parking spaces separate from the purchase or lease of the commercial or residential use. Require provision of spaces for car-sharing and bicycle parking, and require provision of free transit passes. Establish policies requiring builders of commercial properties to include parking costs as a separate line in leases. Substantially reduce parking requirements in the mixed-use zones along the corridor.• Consider the need for loading zones on retail streets, typically 60 feet in length, during the detailed design phase of the roadway reconfiguration projects.• Place on-street parking on as many of the new streets as possible. Not only does this lower the parking burden for each project, but it provides a natural buffer from traffic for pedestrians on the sidewalks.Curb Evolution and New MobilityAs technology in transportation continues to rapidly evolve, major benefits such as improved safety, increased mobility and ease of use are on the horizon. While self-driving cars may be the norm someday, several technologies are already providing, or poised to provide, signifi-cant transportation improvements.Initial gradations of vehicle automa-tion are already appearing in vehicles. Driver assisted technologies, such as lane departure warnings and adaptive cruise control, have continued to improve safety. As vehicle to vehicle (v2v) and vehicle to infrastructure (v2i) communication become common, an 81% reduction in crashes could be achieved among unim-paired drivers.Technologies have the potential to increase the capacity of existing roadways and intersections, through more efficient signal timing and tighter vehicle spacing. As these technologies begin to emerge, La Quinta should update infrastructure technologies to maximize capacity and safety of the network.A range of new users have emerged in recent years, including operators of bike-share bikes, electric scooters and Trans-portation Network Company (TNC) vehicles (Lyft/Uber). Design needs may include reserved zones for shared mobility parking and pick-up/drop-off areas for TNCs. In the coming years, autonomous vehicles (AVs) are anticipated to have significant impacts on street design needs. It is anticipated that automation will have a significant impact on the efficiency of parking, as well as the use of curb space for passenger loading/drop-offs.Tactical ImplementationThe idea of tactical introduction of food trucks and pop up space has been discussed for many areas of the site. The spaces behind the current shopping cen-ters could be quickly repurposed to invite in users of the CV Link. Likewise, space along Highway 111 that will someday be on-street parking, could be used for food trucks or even parklets to help change the use and character along the corridor quickly.Even the fundamental changes to the Highway 111 corridor itself need not wait for streetscape reconstruction funds to emerge. Many communities have used paint to reposition the corridor to its eventual width and operations, both to test out the consequences at a lower cost (with the ability to reverse if needed). This can be a way to start reaping the benefits of things like safer driving speeds and shorter crosswalks earlier in the change process.Pilot to Permanent ApproachElements such as curb extensions or pedestrian safety islands can be piloted with lower-cost materials including pavement markings and delineator posts. The pilot to permanent approach allows for quick implementation and the opportunity to observe project impacts prior to permanent installation. However, project elements should take into account existing streetscape plans for different roadway users to ensure long-term com-patibility. For example, the design of curb extensions at intersections should not extend into the space needed for planned bikeways.Opportunities will arise over time to implement some projects in a shorter timeframe, including as streets come up for regularly scheduled resurfacing.Where possible, these projects should also be included in previously planned city improvements, including those in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Several long-term projects that could complete the corridor’s transportation network could be implemented at any time. 40 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan Part 3: Policy 4103Policy1. SUSTAINED PROSPERITYThe City has historically had three dominant economic sectors: tourism, golf, and retail commercial. While the resort hotels and golf courses are located off of the Highway 111 Corridor, the retail commercial is mostly along Highway 111 Corridor.A. Tourism: Hotels, Resorts, and Second HomesBesides resort hotels, tourism in La Quinta also includes a growing demand for second homes and vacation homes. Over a quarter of the City’s housing stock is seasonal residences which increases the City’s population by almost 50% in the winter. Fractional ownership and timeshare projects attract tourists for shorter periods from a week to a month. Hotel residences have a strong appeal for high-end buyers desiring a second home in the desert. Sited on an 18-hole Arnold Palmer Classic golf course and set against the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Montage and Pendry hotels will reinforce the City’s growing reputation as a premier destination resort community in Coachella Valley. In addition to the hotels, the Montage will offer 30 luxury "Golf Villas” and The Pendry will offer 66 fully furnished, multistory residential condos. This development is projected to secure the City’s finan-cial future, through hotel property and sales taxes. B. Health and WellnessLa Quinta is a Healthy Eating and Active Living (HEAL) certified city. The City is a natural destination for peace, tranquility, and spiritual renewal, that offers a variety of physical activities such as biking, hiking, and walking combined with social, intellectual, nutritional, as well as artistic and cultural wellness. Art is an integral part of the brand and lifestyle in La Quinta. The popular Art on Main Street event features over 100 artists each season showing and selling their paintings, jewelry, mixed media, photography, ceramics, glass, woodwork, textiles, sculptures and more. Over 120 works of public art throughout the community can be enjoyed year-round. The proposed Cultural Trail on Highway 111 combines active living and art with mobil-ity. The long-awaited CV Link could bring an influx of visitors from the region to stop along Highway 111 in La Quinta to eat, shop, and be entertained.C. Mixed-Use Residential The workforce supporting the growth in tourism and health and wellness industry will fuel an interest to live, work, and shop in walkable mixed use centers along Highway 111. Increasingly, mixed use developers are focusing on more “experiential” ways to attract people and hold on to them long enough that they’ll browse and buy instead of stay home and click. 42 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan“Customer experience is...the future of how physical retailers will generate revenue. Experiences won’t just sell products. Experiences will be the products.” Doug Stephens, Retail Industry Futurist D. Experience-based RetailingThe regional retail development along the Highway 111 Corridor generates the lion’s share of the sales tax in the City. Development along Highway 111 has been dominated by big-box shopping cen-ters. The old retail store model of stacking standard goods in large format buildings is no longer sustainable — these goods can be conveniently delivered to the doorstep for cheaper prices online. The long term challenge is to make existing and future retail resilient to the shifts in shopper behaviors, generational prefer-ences, and rise in e-commerce. Retail needs to offer something local and fresh with engaging customer experiences. To compete with the internet, both the store and the place around the store needs to be memorable. The auto dealerships, stable retail and entertainment uses on the south side of Highway 111 contribute significantly to the City’s revenue. Their continued success and expansion will continue to contribute to the City’s long-term fiscal health. Large vacant parcels are mostly located north of Highway 111. Mixed use developments on these parcels will need to focus on “experience” to create foot traffic and active public spaces. The changes in customer preference and infrastructure improvements along High-way 111 and CV Link may encourage existing retail parcels to be redeveloped as walkable mixed use development.P1.1 Maintain and enhance the Highway 111 current tax base.Great public amenities, transformative public investments, walkable mixed use neighborhoods, and ability to support high quality development are key objectives to maintain and enhance the revenue contribution from Highway 111 properties.A1.1a Continue to strengthen the Highway 111’s retail base.A1.1bAttract and retain high-value and high-wage jobs in leisure and hospital-ity industry (food services; arts; entertainment and recreation; hotels and other accommodations) and diversify the local economy.A1.1c Ensure that new development is not a fiscal burden to the City.The City should adopt a clear set of policies to ensure that new development does not impose any fiscal burdens to the City and does not take away resources from providing the current level of services. This is typically achieved by requiring proponents of new developments to provide a fiscal impact analysis of proposed projects, and have it peer reviewed by an independent consultant (compensated by the project proponents), prior to approving final entitlements. While it is not suggested that all projects be fiscally positive as a requirement for approval, as there may be projects considered by the City for their strategic importance or catalytic potential, it is important that the fiscal impacts of new projects are publicly circulated and reviewed as part of the City’s decision-making process.P1.2 Coordinate investment in public infrastructure with new growth to harness the power of placemaking.A1.2 Support infrastructure improvements such as the Cultural Trail and CV Link linear park.La Quinta should capitalize on developer interest in Highway 111, with targeted improvements that will encourage further improvements.Policies and Actions Part 3: Policy 43P1.3 Preserve, enhance, and build on existing Highway 111 Corridor assets.A1.3a Protect and enhance stable areas along the Highway 111 Corridor.A1.3bSupport catalytic infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels.Leverage the vacant parcels, to create a pulse of development intensity and commercial activity at Dune Palms Road intersection. Vacant and small underutilized sites contribute little to the City’s tax base, and also diminish the character of the Highway 111 Corridor. These are prime opportunities for redevelopment and new growth that conforms with the City’s Highway 111 vision and context, and bolsters the City’s tax base. The City can encourage development on these sites by engaging with property owners and developers to facilitate transactions and development activity. Such sites offer an excellent opportunity to begin transforming Highway 111 into a veritable mixed-use corridor. Early “proof of concept” projects will demonstrate feasibility and will likely convince others to follow suit.P1.4 Attract a greater variety of experience-based retail and office tenants by building upon existing strengths and market opportunities.A1.4 Implement district-wide retail branding and tenanting strategy that builds upon the cluster of tourism, health, and wellness, while adding other retail desired by the community, such as experience-based retail and retail for a wider demographic.The City should implement a Highway 111 district-wide branding strategy that emphasizes building upon the City’s existing market opportunities and strengths, including tourism, health and wellness clusters as well as other retail and office uses that the community has expressed interest in, like ex-perience-based retail and tech/creative offices. Such a strategy would best be organized by a Business Improvement District, or similar entity, with the capacity to engage property owners, the broker community, and other relevant stakeholders. A cohesive branding and tenanting strategy will provide a platform for local businesses to reach a wider audience as well as attracting new retail and office tenants to the area. It will also enhance the image of the area as a cohesive regional destination offering unique retail, dining, and enter-tainment experiences. This will help to attract more visitors from surrounding communities, bolstering retail sales and strengthening Highway 111 Corridor Area’s retail tax base.P1.5 Create a diversity of housing options..Younger demographics are increasingly drawn toward urban-style, walkable living, as are baby boomers who value their independence, but anticipating limited mobility, are moving to multifamily homes in close proximity to transit, retail, food and dining and entertainment choices.A1.5a Support high-quality multi-family housing for a diverse range of income levels.A1.5bRemove regulatory and procedural barriers to good design.Encourage multifamily projects that are urban in design and facilitate a pedestrian oriented environment by utilizing ground-floor retail, and active and vibrant streetscapes.P1.6 Support local businesses.As the Highway 111 Corridor works to increase its appeal and attract new businesses and development, it will be important to similarly ensure that existing businesses are able to thrive and grow as well.A1.6a Provide incentives to encourage businesses and land owners to renovate and strengthen their businesses.Provide grants and low-cost loans for façade and landscaping improvements, business development training and support to local businesses through periods of transition.A1.6bBrand and market the Highway 111 Corridor.Local character is increasingly important to both younger and older demo-graphics. Enhancing Highway 111’s image will ultimately need to be rooted in a sense of authenticity, and promoting existing “local gems” will help attract new businesses, visitors and residents, while supporting existing businesses by increasing awareness and drawing new visitors. The “Shop LQ” campaign sup-ports local businesses by creating more ads, social media pushes and encouraging not just local residents, but the entire Coachella Valley to shop La Quinta. 44 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanP1.7 Promote higher levels of foot traffic with activities and events.A1.7 Encourage property owners to collaborate on new “pop-up” events to make use of vacant or underutilized storefronts or parcels or parking lots.Pop-up events will bring more activity in the area while demonstrating the viability of the area for additional retail and businesses. The strategy should include food trucks and seasonal festivals or other temporary uses in vacant spaces such as temporary art exhibitions or eating and drinking experiences.P1.8 Enhance economic development delivery capacity.A1.8 Engage with property owners to gauge appetite for a Business Improve-ment District (BID).Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), which have been implemented throughout Los Angeles County and other US cities, collect a special levy from property owners within a geographically defined area to support agreed-upon special services and programs that enhance the desirability and performance of the district. BID activities include district-wide marketing support, public realm maintenance, organizing special events, and providing private security patrols. BIDs have been shown to have a large, positive impact on the value of commercial property while improving the quality of life for community members. In the Highway 111 context, a BID could provide much needed organizational capacity and a more steady, long-term commitment of financial resources. In addition, it could be instrumental in managing many of the ini-tiatives proposed in this plan, including the district branding and marketing, retail tenanting strategy, and shared parking agreements. Formation of a BID will require an individual or group of individuals to form a proponent group to gather community support.2. PLACEMAKINGHwyw111PlaceArchitectureUrban DesignLandscape DesignHealth &WellnessArt &CultureStreets & MobilityResilienceInnovationPlacemaking is a people-centered approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces so that it presents engaging and rewarding experiences. At the vision-ing charrette, the community came together to collectively reimagine the intertwined physical, social, cultural, and ecological qualities of the Highway 111 Corridor to create a great place. Highway 111 placemaking efforts examined streets, trails, parks and open spaces, landscaping, public art, branding place, and way-finding. Part 3: Policy 45P2.1 Redesign Highway 111 as a signature place.A2.1 Coordinate infrastructure improvements to be in sync with private development.P2.2 Street design will contribute to the social, economic, and environmental aspects of the Highway 111 area.A2.2a Design the street network, its dimensions, speeds (where possible), and building placement that yield a balance with including pedestrian scale mobility, appropriate to the context of the area.A2.2b Update the development codes (zoning and/or Specific Plans) to include design standards for a range of street types for different contexts, consis-tent with the Highway 111 Corridor vision.P2.3 Encourage the dynamic and flexible use of existing open spaces and promote a variety of new open spaces.A2.3a Support the CV-Link regional trail system.A2.3b Subdivide large vacant and underutilized tracts into walkable block, streets, and public open spaces.A2.3c Redesign the sidewalk along the northern edge as a Cultural Trail that integrates biking, pedestrian activity with local and regional arts and culture features.A2.3d Develop an integrated open space loop connecting the Cultural trail on Highway 111 to the CV Link.P2.4 Encourage development and events that activate the parks and open spaces.A2.4a Phase the parks and open space improvements to be in sync with private development.A2.4b Encourage small parks and other tactical use of parking lots for short-term events/festivals.Policies and Actions Policies and ActionsA. Streets As PlacesMost La Quinta streets have been designed with the needs of drivers and automobile traffic put first. This traf-fic-centered conception of streets has led to the creation of dysfunctional places. The needs of people who want to use streets in other ways – such as for walk-ing, shopping, cycling, using wheelchairs, or sitting and watching the world go by – have been given relatively little consid-eration. The social and economic value of streets as places of community inter-action, as well as conduits for traffic – is being rediscovered. New ways of design-ing complete streets that ensure that all users benefit, and that better places result are being implemented in the La Quinta Village with intersection roundabouts, pedestrian and bikeway, mid-block crossings, and landscape improvements. Along similar lines, the vision for Highway 111 calls for a balanced allo-cation of area for protected bikes and a safe, comfortable, and engaging place for people to walk, sit, and shop, while maintaining the same number of vehic-ular through lanes carrying traffic on Highway 111. B. Parks, Open Spaces, and TrailsParks, open spaces, and trails provide an opportunity to exercise, access sunshine, nature and fresh air, and encourage people to walk or bike. They can have a significant impact on people’s stress levels and overall mental health, particularly in busy areas like Highway 111. Public open spaces, whether playgrounds, picnic fields, trails or even just engaging streets, can help build community by giving neighbors a realm in which to get to know each other.The greatest opportunity for public space exists in reimagining the streets and trails as linear public space corridors that connect a range of new smaller parks and open spaces that provide safe, comfort-able, and inviting walking and biking experiences.The vision for the Highway 111 Corri-dor Area identifies a range of public and private open spaces connected through trails and walkable streets. 46 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanC. LandscapingThe Corridor Plan Area features two major east-west transportation corridors - Highway 111 and CV Link. Highway 111 serves an important func-tion of accommodating the movement of regional and local automobile traffic. Besides the mobility function, Highway 111 is also a place — arguably the most visible place in the City. The quality of this public place can improve quality of life and increase our desire to spend time in this place. Rows of street trees along sidewalks and medians, quality furniture, and coordinated lighting add human scale, comfort, interest, safety and delight. Street trees also improve property values, retail viability, and public health; absorb UV rays, pollutants, stormwater; and reduce urban heat island effect by providing valuable shade for area users.The present width of Highway 111 in addition to the adjacent large parking lots creates a less than desirable environment for people outside of their cars. Street trees visually subdivide the large street-space into more pedestrian scaled areas. Large trees will provide shade and the tree canopy add human scale to Highway 111. Accent trees add color and enhance corridor identity. The Highway 111 medians and major north/south streets crossing the Highway will be defined with Mexican Fan Palms. These trees already exist in corridors and will serve as a way-finding device to guide visitors to the area. On the north side of Highway 111, pedestrians and bicyclists will have the opportunity to traverse the corridor using the Cultural Trail. This multi-modal trail will feature a double row of shade and accent trees. Pedestrian level pole lamps will light the way and provide safe night time passage while still keeping levels below the dark sky thresholds.The CV Link is designed to be bright and festive. Pedestrians, bikes and electric vehicles are meant to be able to travel from desert city to desert city with comfort and ease. The CV Link’s landscape and open space design within this corridor in La Quinta will be open and welcoming to travelers. Stops along the CV Link will have a cool grassy open space for users to rest. Shade from structures and trees will be ample and inviting. The City can encourage vendors and developers to open their businesses to this corridor and provide goods and services to support travelers who choose this alternate mode of transportation.Understory plantings for the streets-capes will be adaptive and native desert plantings that will conserve water, naturalize and reduce maintenance as it matures. Areas near the CV Link will create a filter that will keep sand and dust from inundating the bluffs above the wash.Plant Palettes: Overall, planting in the Highway 111 Corridor should be governed by a combination of water conservation, desert ecology and plant material that is maintained. For all on- and off-street landscaping, the State of California’s Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) is the recommended regulatory standard (see https://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS/). The recommended palette specifically for La Quinta lists 733 trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines that are rated “very low” to “moderate/medium” in water use in this area. Locally, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens in Palm Desert publishes a recommended plant palette (Attachment 2) that expands the WUCOLS list to include local varieties that have been proven resilient in the low desert.P2.5 Monitor and require compliance with approved landscape plans.Ensuring enforcement. Landscape plans should be built as designed and approved, and maintained in perpetuity – not a diluted version or variation from the plan as approved. There should be a greater probability of enforcement and stricter sanctions.A2.5 Identify parcels that are not in compliance with approved landscape plans and require plant material to be installed per approved plans.P2.6 Landscape parking lots for human use no less than for cars.A2.6 Identify parking lots with deficient landscaping and collaborate with property owners to install landscaping to break the monotony of the parking surface and provide shade.P2.7 Modify development codes (zoning and/or Specific Plans) to require landscaping consistent with the vision of the Highway 111 Corridor Plan.A2.7 Adopt place-based codes that provide clear and precise direction on the landscape design of the public and private realm.Policies and Actions Part 3: Policy 47La QuintaTourism, Health/Wellness, Reta ilVisitorsIncrease civic prideAddress out of date & inaccurate perceptionsPlace La Quinta on mapOne look, one voice, & one message Focused marketing &investment on competitive advantageProvide higher returnon investment (ROI)Present a distinctive,compelling & attractive place to visitMake it easier to visit La QuintaP2.8 Reimagine Highway 111 as an iconic place.A2.8a Support improvements to infrastructure and landscape.A2.8b Activate the place with cultural and entertainment events.A2.8c Support permanent and temporary public art installments along the Cultural Trail and CV Link.P2.9 Develop capacity for creating, communicating, and monitoring the Highway 111 brand.An organizational structure is necessary to orchestrate, manage, promote, and monitor Highway 111 as an attractive travel destination and to enhance its public image as a dynamic place to shop, entertain, live and work. The exact structure is flexible and may involve collaboration between existing and/or new entities.A2.9 Explore creating a Business Improvement District (BID) and/or part-nering with existing City Staff, La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau, Coachella Valley Economic Partnership.Policies and ActionsD. Place BrandingE. Way-FindingPlace-branding benefits quality of life of residents, enhance the businesses climate, and attracts more tourists and visitors.Place-branding is integrated strategic ac-tions for shaping distinctive, compelling, and rewarding place and experiences; and managing and communicating Highway 111 Corridor’s competitive identity message. The integrated brand is based on the community’s vision for Highway 111 and assists decision makers in setting priorities for capital investments, budget-ing, and guiding development of the place for long-term success. Reimagining Highway 111 as a place will involve efforts and investments in infrastructure, landscape, and buildings (hardware); events, arts, culture, and entertainment (software), and organiza-tional structure like a Business Improve-ment District.“Way-finding refers to information systems that guide people through a physical environment and enhance their understanding and experience of the space.” The Society of Experiential Graphic DesignDistrict GatewayWay-finding locationsPathsEdgesNodesThere is a symbiotic relationship between Highway 111 Corridor’s brand and way-finding system. The goal of Highway 111 way-finding design system is to aid the user in orienting themselves in the place and then in navigating to a specific destination.The entrances to the Highway 111 District, significant edges around public spaces, paths (Cultural Trail and CV Link); and nodes (Dune Palms Road intersection) are potential locations for way-finding signs. These elements control and facilitate all movement throughout the Corridor for both people and vehicles.Architecture, landscaping, lighting, art, and technology all play a significant role in the vision for the Highway 111 wayfin-ding system. The framework for visibility and access begins when a developer eval-uates and selects the project site based on proximity to the CV Link, Cultural Trail, adjacent retail, parks and transit services. The architecture then responds to the context. For example, exposing the retail while striving for privacy for residential uses. Landscape and lighting elements define paths, identify nodes, and collec-tively these elements give character to the Highway 111 District. The landscape design will show the way by channeling traffic and the presence and type of light will reinforce the message after the sun goes down. 48 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanShopCV LinkCulturalTrailBlackhawk WayAve 48Ave 47CV LinkDune Palms RdDune Palms RdJefferson StAdams StAdams StWashington St111111Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, enim ad minim veniam.PHIGHWAYHIGHWAYP2.10 Signs will guide pedestrians, bicyclists, motorist, and transit users to major destinations, parking areas, nodes, and points of interest.Wayfinding signs should be synced with development of destinations with flexibility to add more destinations on signs when necessary. Architecture, landscaping, lighting, art, and technology should facilitate orientation and guide people to the various destinations of interest.A2.10a Identify simple ways to improve existing signage in the near term, such as by identifying the location of confusing or missing signage. Make such improvements and continue to evaluate signage needs.A2.10b Identify destinations and places of interest.A2.10c Provide Corridor maps at transit stops, paths, and nodes where pedestri-ans need to make decisions on routes to destinations.P2.11 Wayfinding signs will be aesthetically consistent, easy to see, positioned to promote safety, and be made of durable materials that are easy to maintain.A2.11a Develop a consistent, legible, and logical palette of directional signs and icons to provide ways to find major destinations more easily.A2.11b Signs should be well-lighted, but not illuminated so that they are overly visual intensive or distracting.A2.11c Material and paint selections should be durable and graffiti resistant. Regulatory and other traffic signs shall be high intensity reflective sheeting.A2.11d Provide adequate resources for the on-going management and mainte-nance of signs.Policies and ActionsSignage will provide direction, infor-mation, identification. In addition, regulatory signs such as “no parking” and “no exit” will establish rules and order. Smartphone and the Global Positioning System (GPS) have put powerful wayfin-ding tools into the hands of almost every person. In the future, digital solutions for wayfinding could become more ubiqui-tous and offer another platform to guide people and enhance their experience along the Corridor. Part 3: Policy 49P2.12 Provide creative expressions in the Highway 111 Corridor Area.A2.12 Encourage permanent and temporary art installations in parks, open spaces, and streets.P2.13 Strive for financial resiliency to provide and maintain public art in the Corridor Area.A2.13a Evaluate requiring 2% of eligible capital project costs to be directed for public art.A2.13b Evaluate requiring 2% of all private development construction cost to be directed for public art.A2.13c Collaborate with other community groups and non-profit organizations to maximize resources.A2.13d Explore naming rights, sponsorships and asset management opportuni-ties to create ongoing revenue for maintenance and operations of existing public art.P2.14 Integrate public art into the development review and capital improve-ment program.A2.14a Embed a provision for public art as a requirement for large development projects, and develop City initiatives for the provision of public art as part of the Design and Development and Community Services Depart-ments goals and objectives.A2.14b Work cooperatively with City Boards, Commissions and committees, and other public and private organizations promoting art and cultural activities throughout the City.Policies and ActionsF. Public ArtPublic art instills a greater sense of identi-ty and understanding of the Highway 111 place, the ideas and values of its people, and creates a memorable experience for all. Public art comes in many forms, sizes, and media. Art can be participatory and interactive or passive and contemplative. Public art can be permanent, or tem-porary installations that enliven public spaces for a limited period of time, often during events and festivals.La Quinta’s Art in Public Places program has been hugely successful in acquiring a large inventory of permanent public artwork placed throughout the City. The Cultural Trail and CV Link pro-vide a unique opportunity for temporary and interactive public art installations. Temporary art installations can be more experimental because they are gone after a short time. Rotating public art instal-lations can become visitor and tourist attractions for the Highway 111 Corridor.Entry Monument at Jefferson Street and Highway 111. 50 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanG. Community EventsCommunity events and festivals are fun activities for locals and visitors that reinforces the identity of Highway 111 Corridor, stimulates the growth of tourism and businesses, and provides free marketing and advertising.La Quinta hosts a variety of year-round events and festivals throughout the City. In November 2019, a Brew in LQ Craft Beer Festival will be hosted in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center parking lot to demonstrate the activation of parking lots on Highway 111. Brew in LQ will feature craft breweries, food vendors, live music, games, and art installations from local artists. Other Highway 111 property owners have expressed interest to host pop-up events in their parking lots.The proposed Cultural Trail and CV Link to be designed with connecting parks and open spaces provides an ideal venue to promote attractions and events along the Highway 111 Corridor area. Throughout the year, the region hosts many international events such as Coach-ella Valley Music and Arts Festival, BNP Paribas Open, Fashion Week, Inter-national Film Festival, and Stagecoach Music Festival. Highway 111 should coordinate their events and festivals in conjunction with these international festivals to attract the many visitors from the region.P2.15 Expand places and spaces where community events and festivals can occur.A2.15a Develop the Cultural Trail and CV Link with various parks and open spaces in the Corridor area.A2.15b Examine current zoning and permitting requirements with the objective of supporting and facilitating community events and festivals.P2.16 Facilitate use of vacant or underutilized space by arts and cultural groups.A2.16a Work with owners and the developers of empty tenant spaces and park-ing lots to encourage a variety of pop-up events, exhibits, performances, and temporary retail activities.A2.16b Work with owners to allow artists’ temporary and opportunistic use of spaces and venues such as vacant walls, storefronts, empty buildings, underutilized parking lots, and open spaces to visually activate and enliven the area.P2.17 Attract visitors from popular international events within the region.A2.17a Identify and partner with regional agencies hosting international events.A2.17b Host Highway 111 in conjunction with the international events.Policies and Actions3. MobilityIssues• High-Speed Driving Along Highway 111 – The wide expanses of asphalt along Highway 111 encourage high speed driving. Not only are there many lanes, but the lanes are 12 and 14 feet wide – too wide according to recent studies on traffic safety. • Long Pedestrian Crossings on Highway 111 – All of the width on Highway 111 makes the crossing distances for pedestrians very long and uninviting.• Long Spacing Between Crosswalks – The safe pedestrian crossings at all signalized intersections along the corridor are inconveniently far apart.• Distance of Transit Stops from Land Uses – While transit frequency is good for a community of La Quinta’s size, the bus stops on Highway 111 are far from the actual destinations due to the parking lots and setbacks.• Lack of Bicycling Facilities – There is limited opportunity for bicyclists.• Lack of Shade for Walking Com-fort – In hot weather environments such as La Quinta, the exposure to sunlight and the lack of shade add to pedestrian discomfort.Opportunities• High Visibility Properties – The large volumes of traffic passing along the corridor continue to make the land viable for development. As long as the speed of these cars is appropriate to the context, the people going though can be convinced to stop for uses along the study corridor.• Planned Bike Trail Along the Wash – The CV Link will provide a new mobility option for current corridor users and bring new people by the corridor, presenting a growth opportunity.• Good Transit Frequency for a Lower Density Community – Uses and an urban form more oriented to the transit service could better capitalize on this asset.AspirationsSome of the current obstacles could be tackled to address the issues raised above. Below are some of the physical character-istics that exemplify the challenges and approaches to addressing those gaps:AnalysisDriving Lanes: The team undertook an analysis of the traffic volumes relative to the available street capacity along Highway 111 between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. The traffic volumes along this section range from 32,000 to 36,000 vehicles per day. Currently, there are three travel lanes in each direction plus a center left turn lane and additional left and right turn lanes at a number of intersections. This is more lanes that would be physically required to carry the traffic volumes. A more constrained Part 3: Policy 51section, however, comes with more traffic congestion – particularly in the peak hours.Each community must make its own decisions about how much congestion makes sense for them. A desire to achieve zero congestion comes with a high price tag and wide roads with fast driving that present a barrier to pedes-trians. Few communities, however, are satisfied with severe traffic congestion. The team undertook a discussion with La Quinta residents during the community workshop about where they fall on this spectrum. There was no real support for the levels of congestion present in West Hollywood, but support for trading off a bit of congestion if the rewards could help meet their overall community goals. As such, the “middle-ground” approach discussed for La Quinta was to maintain the general seven-lane cross-section, but to reconsider some of the right turn and dual left turn lanes that contribute to the current overall width of Highway 111.RecommendationsThe community has articulated a clear de-sire for a safer, more complete, multimod-al transportation system that maximizes the economic potential of the Highway 111 corridor as a great place to live, work and visit. The Vision in whole represent streets that are more pedestrian-scaled, with the potential for on-street parking provided when urban development occurs, and a comprehensive urban center bicycle network. The proposed changes will lower driving speeds, shorten average crossing distances, provide a comfortable bicycle facility approximately every five blocks, and create a walkable corridor that supports commercial activity and makes the corridor a great place to live, work and visit. Despite the significant changes to the circulation and number of turn lanes, we expect only a modest increase in travel times to commuters who are traversing the entire Highway 111 corridor.A. Pedestrian Crossing ImprovementsThe plan sets the most ambitious stan-dards for Highway 111 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. Within this section, a consistent cross-section with three travel lanes in each direction, single left turn lanes and no right turn Measure Current Status Better Standard OptionsPed Crossing Spacing 1200 feet <600 feet New CrossingsPed Crossing Width 150 feet 75-100 feet Tighter IntersectionsVolume/Capacity• 0.75 <0.8 in suburban environmentKeep Thru LanesDriving Speeds 45 mph limit <35 mph Introduce Design ElementsTransit Service 20/45 minute frequency >30 minute frequency Re-orient BuildingsBike Connectivity None Serve walkable district Connect to CV Link• Volume/Capacity Ratio is a measurement of the operating capacity of a roadway or intersection where the number of vehicles passing through is divided by the number of vehicles that could theoretically pass through when at capacity. If vehicles (v) divided by capacity (c) is less than one the facility has additional capacity. If (v)/(c) is greater than one it is likely that the peak hour will elongate into a peak period.lanes in the westbound direction (the north side of the street that fronts the planned mixed-use areas) is recommend-ed. Lane widths within this section would be reduced from the current 12 and 14 feet (outer lanes next to sidewalk on both sides) feet to a more standard 11-12 feet per lane. This narrowing will create space along the curb for other uses (park-ing, bike lanes, trails, greenspace, vehicle pickups) that may change and evolve as the land redevelops and transportation technology evolves (see Curb Evolution and New Mobility in a later section). This consistent cross-section will create a small amount of additional congestion in the peak hours. However, this core area has the most potential for transfor-mation and is the place where the tradeoff sweet spot can best be met. For example, narrowing the lanes and adding bulbouts at the intersections could potentially reduce the pedestrian crossing distance from 140 feet to 110 feet – a reduction of 21%. That degree of improvement to the pedestrian environment is precisely the type of intervention needed to convince potential investors that this corridor is a place that is serious about a walkable environment.At the other end of the spectrum, the intersections of Highway 111 with Washington Street on the west and Jefferson Street on the east are proposed to retain the same basic lane arrangement as is currently in place. There are small improvements recommended to the intersections on each end – for example, adding crosswalks to the fourth leg at Washington Street/111 and at Depot Drive/111. By and large, however, given that north-south traffic is highest at these end intersections, it is recommended that automobile traffic be accommodated and accompanied by some pedestrian safety improvements.This balancing of the tradeoffs that turns the dial toward urbanism in the core with the most development poten-tial, and accommodates reasonable traffic movement on the ends that are less likely to see radical change was an approach that resonated with community members during the workshop.B. Intersection DesignIn addition to the cross-section changes outlined above, which will shorten pedestrian crossing distances, a number of additional intersection interventions are recommended:• Crosswalks - Crosswalks should be added on all four legs of each signalized intersection. It is common in suburban environments to give a few extra seconds of traffic signal time to cars by significantly inconve-niencing pedestrians. The Highway 111 corridor does not want to be that type of place. Adding the fourth leg crosswalks to intersections such as Washington Street and Depot Drive will send a welcoming signal to those wishing to or needing to walk.• Corner Radii – The wide intersection corner radii present at intersections and driveways along the corridor foster high speed right turns, endangering pedestrians walking along the corridor. A new, tighter, standard should be adopted in the core area and applied whenever a new construction project is undertaken. 52 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan• Crossing Spacing – Some new, sig-nalized, pedestrian crossings should be added, particularly between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. The spacing of crossings in this area should eventually be no more than 600 feet apart.C. Street TypesConnectivity increases the ability of pedestrians to connect to intended destinations. One indicator of pedestrian connectivity is intersection density, which is one of the most important aspects on peoples’ choice to walk. Intersection density is the number of intersections within an area. Where intersection density is high, there are multiple options and paths for pedestrians. Where there is low intersection density, there are fewer opportunities for pedestrians to connect to other streets. Low intersection density requires pedestrians to walk farther to reach a cross street or major connection where there may be transit connections or access more of the network destinations. The plan for the mixed-use areas along the corridor illustrates the densely con-nected network that is common to most every place people value highly. That net-work should be made up of several types of streets that are performing different mobility and accessibility jobs.• Major Thoroughfares – These larger streets have a primary function of moving cars and buses, but within the study area they should be designed to do so at no more than 30 miles per hour.• Access Streets – These streets are focused on getting travelers to their destinations. The streets will likely have left turn lanes to help get cars to parking and many have bike lanes to allow cyclists from the east-west paths get to their parking spots.• Main Streets – These streets in the center of commercial nodes should be slow and narrow. Their function is access for all modes of travel with pedestrians taking priority.• Local Streets – The busy streets that will connect the rest of the districts. These streets should also be small and safe for all users.P3.1 Crossing a street should be easy, safe, convenient, and comfortable.A3.1a Where feasible, at urban intersections reduce lane widths from 12 and 14 feet to 11 to 12 feet per lane and add bulb-outs at intersection to reduce pedestrian crossing distance.A3.1b Design tighter corner radii for urban intersections to facilitate safer and shorter crossing distance, yet still allow for larger vehicles to access.A3.1c Add signalized pedestrian crossing between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road.P3.2 The street network will provide a pattern of multimodal streets that serves all land uses and facilitates easy access to local, city, and regional destinations. Street network offers many route choices that connect origins with their destinations. A3.2a The street network will provides a variety of street types.A3.2b The street types differ in terms of their network continuity, cross-section design, and adjoining land use. The individual streets themselves will change in character depending on their immediate land use context.Policies and Actions Part 3: Policy 53P3.4 Proactively manage public and private parking supply within a common area as a shared resource, and focus on measures to ensure availability and access rather than simply increasing supply.A3.4a Use surface parking as a land-banking tool.In the early phases of the redevelopment, well-placed surface parking can keep development costs low. The placement of that parking, however, should accom-modate more dense future development that would utilize structured parking. Parking, deployed strategically, can allow the density of the site to develop over time.A3.4b Phase in paid parking in core mixed-use areas.Market-priced parking is the best tool available to incentivize people to sort themselves to various parking locations rather than competing for the closest spot. Before the need for paid parking is present, however, setting well-con-ceived time restrictions on street parking in the mixed use areas can keep spaces free for potential customers.A3.4c Revise zoning code to better support walkable, mixed use development on the corridor.A3.4d Require unbundled parking for rental and for-sale residential, commer-cial space, and other uses.Unbundled parking is the practice of selling or leasing parking spaces separate from the purchase or lease of the commercial or residential use. A3.4e Require provision of spaces for car-sharing and bicycle parking, and require provision that commercial and/or residential development provide free transit passes to their employees or residents.A3.4f Place on-street parking on as many of the newly created streets as possible.Not only does this lower the parking burden for each project, but it provides a natural buffer from traffic for pedestrians on the sidewalks.P3.3 Transit use will be convenient, reliable, safe, and comfortable.A3.3a Support urban pattern of development that makes transit use feasible.A3.3b Explore feasibility for a circulator shuttle providing connections every 30 minutes or more often to major destinations.Policies and ActionsPolicies and ActionsD. Transit ServiceWhile the service along Highway 111 is good for a community of its size, the bus stops are far from the end destinations due to the large parking lots and setbacks. There is little transit itself can do to remedy this shortfall. The question is commonly asked whether the buses can drop off in the shopping center parking lots rather than along the street, but that sort of pattern costs a lot of time and is not fair to other riders on the route who are not destined for the shopping centers. In the end, the solution will be to bring the land uses closer to the transit service as the area redevelops over time.As the mixed-use nodes do begin to de-velop, it may be worth considering some type of self-taxing option to supplement the operating costs to build even better service. This could take the form of a small area circulator, such as a shuttle or trolley service, or to be used to boost the frequency and hours of operation of the current Sunline service.Tech is also making transit faster and easier to use. SunLine has been an innovator in the past (piloting alternative fuels technology) and may be receptive to implementing many of the technological advances bubbling up around the coun-try. The bus fleet uses GPS to monitor bus locations and provide real time arrival updates to users, via the SubBus Tracker app. Signal prioritization is being considered in some communities add to the overall speed of the lines. Improved payment systems will someday allow quicker boarding and potentially could incorporate access to other services such as bikeshare, scooters or other personal mobility devices. Other considerations to improve the waiting areas for tran-sit should be a priority, for example, landscaping, misters, kiosks, shade, and possibly water fountains.E. ParkingPerhaps the most important aspect of the park-once environment is how much cost is saved and land freed up from supplying parking. 54 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanP3.5 Create an inviting public and private realm that attracts people from the CV Link to the Highway Corridor area.A3.5a Provide multiple points of access to CV Link trail.The Highway 111 Corridor vision calls for access to the trail at the termination of each of the north-south streets. A3.5b Require new private developments and encourage existing developments that front the wash to provide access directly on to the CV Link.A3.5c Create development standards to encourage bike-friendly retail and cafes and eating establishments along the CV Link.Tactical Catalysts: Active uses along the CV Link frontage need not require full redevelopment or rebuild — a pop-up food truck out in the back area of the store could be a quick way to reset expectations for the property as a whole.P3.6 Support a safe, comfortable, and continuous bike and pedestrian pathway on the north side of Highway 111.A3.6a Build the Cultural Trail as a continuous safe and spacious pathway for bicyclists and pedestrians to utilize for access, recreation, and as a way to enjoy the Corridor.A3.6b Make the trail environmentally and aesthetically pleasing with land-scaping governed by water conservation, desert ecology and maintainable plant material.A3.6c Program activities and feature permanent and rotating public art along the Cultural Trail.Policies and ActionsPolicies and ActionsF. CV Link AccessibilityThe coming introduction of the CV link regional multi-use path represents a tremen-dous opportunity for the Highway 111 Corridor. Lots of potential new users will be moving past the corridor, and serve as a valuable new customer base.G. La Quinta Cultural TrailWhile the CV Link represents a unique trail spine opportunity, spreading this energy throughout the study area will multiply the benefits. A key idea that emerged from the visioning charrette was to repurpose some of the setback space along the north side of Highway 111 as a local cultural trail – the La Quinta Cultural Trail. This trail would bring bikes into the center of the community in a form that is comfortable to all users. The Cultural Trail can introduce public art and display signs that include local historic/cultural information and highlight places of interest. This type of buffered trail is much more palatable to most people than a 5 foot bike lane next to moving traffic. The La Quinta Cultural Trail has the potential to be a signature element around which the identity and energy of the corridor and its future development can build. Part 3: Policy 55H. Curb Evolution and New MobilityAs technology in transportation continues to rapidly evolve, major benefits such as improved safety, increased mobility and ease of use are on the horizon. While self-driving cars may be the norm someday, several technologies are already providing, or poised to provide, signifi-cant transportation improvements.Initial gradations of vehicle automa-tion are already appearing in vehicles. Driver assisted technologies, such as lane departure warnings and adaptive cruise control, have continued to improve safety. As vehicle to vehicle (v2v) and vehicle to infrastructure (v2i) communication become common, an 81% reduction in crashes could be achieved among unim-paired drivers.Technologies have the potential to increase the capacity of existing roadways and intersections, through more efficient signal timing and tighter vehicle spacing. As these technologies begin to emerge La Quinta should update infrastructure technologies to maximize capacity and safety of the network.A range of new users have emerged in recent years, including operators of bikeshare bikes, electric scooters and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) vehicles such as Lyft/Uber. Design needs may include reserved zones for shared mobility parking and pick-up/drop-off areas for TNCs. In the coming years, autonomous vehicles (AVs) are anticipated to have significant impacts on street design needs. It is anticipated that automation will have a significant impact on the efficiency of parking, as well as the use of curb space for passenger loading/drop-offs.I. Tactical ImplementationThe idea of tactical introduction of food trucks and pop up space has been discussed for many areas of the site. The spaces behind the current shopping cen-ters could be quickly repurposed to invite in users of the CV Link. Likewise, space along Highway 111 that will someday be on-street parking, could be used for food trucks or even parklets to help change the use and character along the corridor quickly.Even the fundamental changes to the Highway 111 corridor itself need not wait for streetscape reconstruction funds to emerge. Many communities have used paint to reposition the corridor to its eventual width and operations to test out the consequences at a lower cost (with the ability to reverse if needed). This can be a way to start reaping the benefits of things like safer driving speeds and shorter crosswalks earlier in the change process.J. Pilot to Permanent ApproachElements such as curb extensions or pedestrian safety islands can be piloted with lower-cost materials including pavement markings and delineator posts. The pilot to permanent approach allows for quick implementation and the opportunity to observe project impacts prior to permanent installation. However, project elements should take into account existing streetscape plans for different roadway users to ensure long-term com-patibility. For example, the design of curb extensions at intersections should not extend into the space needed for planned bikeways.K. Taking Advantage of OpportunitiesOpportunities will arise over time to implement some projects in a shorter timeframe, including as streets come up for regularly scheduled re-surfacing (funds to cover other project costs such as signal modifications could be required). Where possible, these projects should also be included in previously planned city improvements, including those in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Several long-term projects that could complete the corridor’s transportation network could be implemented at any time. 56 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor Plan Part 4: Implementation 5704ImplementationThis Section describes the steps and actions to imple-ment the Highway 111 Corridor Plan based on collabo-ration with community members, City decision makers, and City Staff.The Highway 111 Corridor Plan is designed to be implemented over the next 20 years (2020 —2040) by residents, business and property owners, non-profit orga-nizations, community groups, city and county agencies, and elected and appointed officials. Some actions are straightforward and relatively easy to achieve, others will demand significant investment of time and resources and will require steadfast commitment on numerous levels. The City will need to develop robust partnerships with local businesses, residents and other public agencies to fully implement the vision outlined for the Highway 111 Corridor. These partnerships will be crucial to ensuring the most important strategies are being implemented, and the most pressing community needs are being addressed. Time frames: Each action includes a time frame, within which the action is recommended to be carried out. These are intended to provide a general sense of how long it will take to implement the action. • Ongoing: Some actions require continuous monitor-ing or effort. These are identified as ongoing actions. • Immediate: Begin work immediately. • Near term: Begin work within 1 to 3 years. • Mid term: Begin work within 4 to 7 years. • Long term: Begin work within 7 to 10 years. Implementers: Agencies and partners most likely to carry out the action. Most actions include one or more City Departments. In some cases, however, the action is entirely within the private or non-profit sector. Funding Sources: Potential funding sources are identi-fied for each action item. 58 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanRegulatory FrameworkThis Plan represents the community’s vision for the Highway 111 Corridor area. This vision includes a physi-cal masterplan and broad land use policies to implement the vision. One of the most important implementation tools is the development code that is intended to regulate and direct land development to create the place imagined by the community’s vision. For this to happen, the devel-opment code must be based on the community vision.In the absence of a coordinated vision, for a long time, individual sets of regulations contained within 11 Specific Plans, Zoning Codes, and Design Guidelines have attempted to shape the pattern and character of development that we see on Highway 111 today.The standards in the various Specific Plans and remnant zoning districts are not based on a community supported physical vision for the Highway 111 corridor. The Specific Plans fail to address design of complete streets and range of interconnected public and private open spaces. Therefore, the existing standards will not be effective in implementing the Highway 111 Corridor Plan vision. The Highway 111 Corridor Plan recommends a Place-Based Code (aka form-based codes) be adopted. These Place-based standards would be closely calibrated to the community supported physical vision for the Highway 111 corridor. Place-based Codes (PBC) emphasize standards that shape the collective public realm and offer a great deal of flexibility in the individual private realm. Standards for the public realm are based on a vision. Conversely, existing development codes control the use of the private realm with vague standards that have been unable to conceptualize a cohesive public realm. PBCs are clear and precise standards that offer predict-ability. Like the vision, the PBCs are also developed with citizen input. The citizens have a higher comfort level with the end result that the standards are likely to pro-duce. City staff gets a streamlined and easy to administer review process. PBCs also create more choices, more opportunities and more options for the property owner. In place-based coding, it is much easier to align the form, uses, building types, and infrastructure with market potential. This is because PBCs are an end-to-end integrated product that brings together the various disciplines of planning, design, economic development, Blackhawk WayAve 48Ave 47CV LinkDune Palms RdDune Palms RdJefferson StAdams StAdams StWashington St111111engineering, and public safety early on to perform in unison. It becomes possible to analyze the communi-ty-supported vision from every point of view, to figure out the cost, and understand how various public and private partners can implement that vision. The results are therefore more predictable. At the same time, a lighter focus on use allows buildings to be nimble to the market.Example of Highway 111 Corridor Regulating Plan: The regulating plan, unlike typical use-based zoning codes, is based on development intensity and character, on a block-to-block, lot-to-lot basis. The different zone colors represent a great deal of physical determination and legal implication, and provide a very high level of context sensitivity and detail. Part 4: Implementation 59Components of the Highway 111 Corridor PBC should include:Section 1 Purpose and ApplicabilityPurpose, use, and applicability of the code.Section 2 Zones and Regulting PlanMap with zones that assign the code’s various stan-dards to physical locations.Section 3 Land Use StandardsAllowed, prohibited, and restricted land uses.Section 4 Development Standards by ZoneSetbacks, height, and parking standards aimed at generating the individual buildings on a block that collectively with other buildings will shape the form of the public realm.Section 5 Building StandardsDesign standards for individual buildings.Section 6 Frontage StandardsStandards for private frontages that provide a transi-tion and interface between the street and the building.Section 7 Street and Block StandardsDesign standards for streets and blocks.Section 8 Civic Space StandardsStandards for parks and open spaces.Section 9 Landscape StandardsLandscape standards for streets and open spaces.Section 10 Signs and Other Design StandardsDesign standards for signs and streetscape elements.Section 11 AdministrationResponsibility and authority to review and make final decision.Section 12 DefinitionsGeneral and land use terms defined.There are a couple of options on how the PBC can be deployed: Option 1: The Place-Based Code can be adopted for the entire Corridor all at once; or Option 2: Proceed incrementally in a phased ap-proach. Begin with re-coding those areas where (re)development pressures are the greatest. Such sites could include City-owned parcels, vacant sites, or sites with underutilized assets. Over time, as other parcels are ready for redevelop-ment, the Place-Based Code could be expanded to other areas of the Corridor.LotPrivate FrontageR.O.WPublic FrontageLotPrivate FrontageR.O.WPublic FrontageFrontages generate street level facades that support active and continuous pedestrian friendly environment. Frontages range in design and character depending on the context. 60 La Quinta Highway 111 Corridor PlanFunding SourcesTo carry out the actions recommended in this Plan, a variety of Federal, State, regional, local, and private funding sources have been identified:FederalCommunity Development Block Grant This fund accounts for activities of the Community Development Block Grant received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in-cluding monies received from this agency as part of the federal stimulus program. National Endowment for the Arts Grants for Arts ProjectsThe NEA Grants fund institutions whose projects are vehicles for any of the following: the portfolio of American Art is expanded, Americans throughout the nation experience art, and Americans of all ages acquire knowledge or skills in the arts, and American communities are strengthened through the arts.StateEnhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) An EIFD is a governmental entity established by a city that carries out a plan within a defined area (boundaries of which do not need to be contiguous) to construct, improve and rehabilitate in-frastructure; construct housing, libraries, and parks; remediate brownfields, etc. Active Transportation Program (ATP) ATP taps both state and federal funds for bike and pedestrian projects across California. The program allows cities to compete for grants to build bicycle/pedestrian paths, install bike racks, and other projects or programs that make walking or biking easier, safer and more convenient. Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant The Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants seeks to fund projects that ensure consideration of sustainability, preservation, mobility, safety, innovation, economy, health, and equity in transpor-tation planning. California Strategic Growth Council (CSGC) The CSGC provides grants to cities to promote sustainable community planning and natural resource conservation. The grant program supports development, adoption, and implementation of various planning elements in three focus areas: Local Sustainable Planning, Regional SB 375 Plus, and Regional Planning Activi-ties with Multiple Partners.California Arts Council (CAC)CAC offers grants as well as provides a great resource to search for other grants by applicant type and field.Proposition 68Authorizes $4 billion in general obliga-tion bonds for: creation and rehabilitation of state and local parks, natural resources protection projects, climate adaptation projects, water quality and supply projects, and flood protection.Proposition 41Authorizes $600 million in general obligation bonds for affordable multifam-ily supportive housing to relieve home-lessness, affordable transitional housing, affordable rental housing, or related facilities for veterans and their families.RegionalAQMD Program The AB 2766 Motor Vehicle Subvention Program is a funding source for cities to encourage the development of measures or projects that result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions. Projects include alternate fuels/electric vehicles, vehicle emissions abatement, land use strategies that encourage people to walk, bike or use public transit, traffic management, transportation demand management, effective bike expenditures, PM reduction strategies, and public education. SCAG Sustainable Planning Grant The Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) offers direct funding of innovative planning initiatives for member cities through the Sustain-ability Planning Grants program. The Sustainability Planning Grants Program provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts that enable implementation of the regional SCS. Grants are available in the following three categories: • Integrated Land Use – Sustainable Land Use Planning, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Land Use & Transportation Integration; • Active Transportation – Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Plans; • Green Region – Natural Resource Plans, Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs. Measure AIn 1988, voters approved Measure A, Riverside County’s half-cent sales tax for transportation as a proactive response to growing congestion. In addition to major highway and transit projects, funding is also provided to improve local streets and roads.LocalCapital Improvement Program (CIP)The CIP identifies all of the major proj-ects to be undertaken to improve facilities and infrastructure within the city. During the fiscal year, a separate CIP document that reflects the current year program and proposes a program of prioritized projects for the next four to five years is prepared. City Departments submit all proposed projects in the foreseeable future, along with their best cost-estimate. The request includes the year a project will commence, any funding sources that may be available with either future sources or ones which might have been previously designated, justification for the project, and on-going costs expected to occur Part 4: Implementation 61after the project has been completed. The CIP budget team then compiles the information and presents a draft CIP program to the City Council. Projects are prioritized, based on City Council and staff input. General FundThe General Fund is the City’s largest single fund type used to account for basic City services such as police, fire, design and development, community resources, and general administration. The three major sources of revenue are property, sales, and transient occupancy taxes. For the 19-20 budget, the breakdown is as follows: Total Revenue 57,847,200Property Tax 9,344,200 or 16.2% of the totalTOT 9,860,000 or 17%Sales Tax (all) 19,782,400 or 34.2%, of which 9,535,900 (16.5%) is the City’s Bradley-Burns 1% allocation of sales tax and 10,246,500 (17.7%) is the Measure G 1% transaction tax. Property Business Improvement District A Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) is a mechanism of fund-ing improvements through assessments to businesses and real property within the established PBID boundaries. Under the Property and Business Improvement Dis-trict Law of 1994, revenues from PBID assessments may be used to fund capital improvements and maintenance costs for projects such as parking facilities, street furniture, public restrooms, art, parks, street and streetscape enhancements, and plazas. A PBID formation petition, which is initiated by property owners, requires the signature of more than 50 percent of the property owners, weighted by assessment liability. Park Dedication Fees The City receives fees from developers to fund recreation facilities. These funds are used for qualified recreational purposes throughout the city. Art in Public Places Fund To account for development fees paid in lieu of acquisition and installation of approved artworks in a development with expenditures restricted to acquisition, installation, maintenance and repair of artworks at approved sites.Measure GA One Percent (1%) sales tax measure, approved by voters in 2016, increased the sales tax from 8% to 9%. All revenue generated by this Measure goes to the City’s general fund and is available for expenditure for any and all services, programs and projects funded by the City, including: police protection; projects such as parks, streets, landscaping and flood control; programs attracting businesses; youth/senior services, sports/recreation programs; and preserving property values and quality of life.Various Grant FundsVarious Federal, State, and regional grant programs distribute funding for public improvements. Because grant programs are typically competitive, grant funds are an unpredictable funding source.Developer ContributionsDevelopment Impact Fee The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities to accommodate the project. Impact fees are used to help fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improve-ments. Development Agreements Development agreements are contracts negotiated between project proponents and public agencies that govern the land uses that may be allowed in a particular project. Development agreements provide a developer with assurances for a specified length of time that the proposed project may proceed as originally approved, and not be affected by future changes in land use regulations. In exchange for this assurance, the landowner/developer may agree to public improvements, land dedi-cations, or in-lieu fees, as negotiated with the City, as a condition of the agreement. City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: February 12, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE THE 2020 COMMUNITY WORSHOP REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the 2020 Community Workshop Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •Annually the City hosts a community workshop to garner input on City priorities from interested parties. •This workshop marks the beginning of the fiscal year (FY) 2020/21 budget cycle, which includes expenses from Measure G sales tax revenue. FISCAL IMPACT - None BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The 2020 Community Workshop was held on Saturday, January 11, 2020 and attended by 85 active participants. The workshop included a recap of major initiatives and accomplishments for FY 2018/19, projects underway for 2019/20, an update on 10-year financial projections, a confirmation of sacred community values, and ended with a presentation and prioritization of upcoming City initiatives and “big rocks” (obstacles). In accordance with the Measure G ballot measure, the FAC provides oversight of Measure G funds. Some priorities identified during the community workshop may be funded with current or future Measure G revenues. A summary of the workshop is provided for review and discussion (Attachment 1). Ten-year financial projections for the General Fund were presented and discussed at the workshop. Projections have been updated to incorporate year-to-date adjustment for FY 2019/20 and are provided as Attachment 2. ALTERNATIVES The FAC may request additional information. Prepared by: Karla Romero, Finance Director Attachment: 1. 2020 Community Workshop Report 2. 10-Year Financial Projections as of 2/5/2020 STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 2020 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ATTACHMENT 1 D a t e : S a t u r d a y , J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 2 0 T i m e : 9 a .m . - 1 2 p .m . L o c a t i o n : L a Q u i n t a W e l l n e s s C e n t e r 7 8 4 5 0 A v e n i d a L a F o n d a , L a Q u i n t a A p p r o x i m a t e N u m b e r o f P a r t i c i p a n t s : 8 1 C o u n c i l M e m b e r s 4 (1 %) C i t y S t a f f 2 5 (3 0 %) R e s i d e n t s 5 6 (6 9 %) T h e m e : V i s i o n i n g f o r T o m o r r o w V I S I O N I N G F O R T O M O R R O W T a b l e E x e r c i s e P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e t e a m e d u p b y t a b l e a n d a s k e d t o i d e n t i f y a n d d i s c u s s t h e m e a n i n g f u l c h a n g e s t h e y h a v e s e e n i n t h e C i t y o v e r t h e p a s t 1 0 y e a r s . E a c h t a b l e s e l e c t e d a s p o k e s p e r s o n w h o t h e n a n n o u n c e d t h e t o p 3 . L a Q u i n t a 's S a c r e d V a l u e s C o n t i n u i n g t h e T r a d i t i o n s ... H e a l t h & W e l l n e s s H i g h Q u a l i t y A e s t h e t i c s V i b r a n t & S a f e C o m m u n i t y V i s u a l l y B e a u t i f u l C i t y C u l t u r a l D i v e r s i t y F i s c a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y & S t a b i l i t y 2 0 1 9 /2 0 C o m p l e t e d P r o j e c t s & A c c o m p l i s h m e n t s H i g h w a y 1 1 1 C o r r i d o r A r e a P l a n T e c h n o l o g y I m p r o v e m e n t s t o H u b /P e r m i t S e r v i c e s F a c i l i t a t e S i l v e r R o c k D e v e l o p m e n t H i g h w a y 1 1 1 C o r r i d o r P l a n I m p l e m e n t a t i o n C i t y w i d e H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e s S u r v e y U p d a t e S h o r t -T e r m V a c a t i o n R e n t a l P r o g r a m H i g h w a y 1 1 1 L a n d s c a p e a n d S t r e e t D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s H i g h w a y 1 1 1 C u l t u r a l T r a i l Fritz Burns Park Revitalization W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t S i d e w a l k C o n n e c t i v i t y A r t i n P u b l i c P l a c e s F u n d i n g C u l t u r a l C a m p u s N e w S i g n a t u r e E v e n t s R e c y c l i n g e d u c a t i o n e f f o r t s , c o m p o s t i n g , a n d r e l a t e d l e g i s l a t u r e H o u s i n g - a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g e f f o r t s a n d e x p a n s i o n o f h o m e l e s s n e s s p r o g r a m s M a r k e t i n g - e n h a n c e t h e C i t y 's m a r k e t i n g s t r a t e g i e s t h r o u g h a d v a n c e t e c h n o l o g y , d i g i t i z a t i o n , a n d e x p a n d r e a c h a n d f r e q u e n c y D e s i g n & D e v e l o p m e n t P u b l i c W o r k s C o m m u n i t y R e s o u r c e s C i t y M a n a g e r 's O f f i c e C i t y 's I n i t i a t i v e s & B i g R o c k s V o t e d - T o p 3 P r i o r i t i e s f o r L a Q u i n t a P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d t o r a n k t h e t o p t h r e e B i g R o c k p r o j e c t s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e y w e r e a l l o w e d t o w r i t e i n o p t i o n s t h a t w e r e o t h e r w i s e n o t m e n t i o n e d . 1 . H i g h w a y 1 1 1 C o r r i d o r P l a n I m p l e m e n t a t i o n - 5 3 p o i n t s 2 . E n a h a n c e S h o r t T e r m V a c a t i o n R e n t a l P r o g r a m - 2 7 p o i n t s 2 . F a c i l i t a t e S i l v e r R o c k D e v e l o p m e n t - 2 7 p o i n t s 3 . C u l t u r a l C a m p u s - 2 4 p o i n t s City of La Quinta As of February 5, 2020 Actual Growth Current Budget 2020/21 to 2029/30 2018/19 Projections 2019/20 *2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 TOTAL 1. Cash Receipts Sales Tax - Measure G ᵃ 10,958,118$ 10,246,500$ ######################################################11,246,153$ 11,358,615$ 11,472,201$ 11,586,923$ 110,840,707$ Sales Tax - Bradley Burns 9,947,125 1%9,535,900 9,631,259 9,727,572 9,824,847 9,923,096 10,022,327 10,122,550 10,223,776 10,326,013 10,429,273 10,533,566 100,764,279 Transient Occupancy Tax 10,682,877 2%10,695,000 10,908,900 11,127,078 11,349,620 11,576,612 11,808,144 12,044,307 12,285,193 12,530,897 12,781,515 13,037,145 119,449,411 Property Tax 9,352,681 2%9,344,200 9,531,084 9,721,706 9,916,140 10,114,463 10,316,752 10,523,087 10,733,549 10,948,220 11,167,184 11,390,528 104,362,711 Fire Service Property Tax 7,071,162 2%7,127,700 7,270,254 7,415,659 7,563,972 7,715,252 7,869,557 8,026,948 8,187,487 8,351,237 8,518,261 8,688,627 79,607,253 Fire Property Tax Reserves ᵇ - 975,900 100,431 323,560 562,208 817,238 1,089,557 1,380,121 1,689,936 936,511 936,511 936,511 8,772,584 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 4,086,536 2%4,165,000 4,248,300 4,333,266 4,419,931 4,508,330 4,598,497 4,690,466 4,784,276 4,879,961 4,977,561 5,077,112 46,517,700 Other Revenue/Intergovernmental 5,470,127 1%2,011,969 2,032,089 2,052,410 2,072,934 2,093,663 2,114,600 2,135,746 2,157,103 2,178,674 2,200,461 2,222,465 21,260,144 Franchise Fees 1,924,353 1%1,804,000 1,822,040 1,840,260 1,858,663 1,877,250 1,896,022 1,914,982 1,934,132 1,953,473 1,973,008 1,992,738 19,062,570 Charges for Services 1,153,487 1%1,024,800 1,035,048 1,045,398 1,055,852 1,066,411 1,077,075 1,087,846 1,098,724 1,109,712 1,120,809 1,132,017 10,828,892 Development Related Permits 958,038 1%834,200 842,542 850,967 859,477 868,072 876,753 885,520 894,375 903,319 912,352 921,476 8,814,853 Document Transfer Tax 713,237 1%575,000 580,750 586,558 592,423 598,347 604,331 610,374 616,478 622,643 628,869 635,158 6,075,930 Business Licenses/Permits 570,911 1%508,200 513,282 518,415 523,599 528,835 534,123 539,465 544,859 550,308 555,811 561,369 5,370,065 Fines and Assessments 384,308 1%276,500 279,265 282,058 284,878 287,727 290,604 293,510 296,445 299,410 302,404 305,428 2,921,730 SilverRock Resort Net Revenue ᶜ - - - - 531,400 1,260,000 2,500,000 2,960,000 2,842,000 3,222,000 3,540,000 3,575,400 20,430,800 Carryover Funding/Use of Reserves 18,585,688 13,633,266 2. Total Revenue $81,858,648 $72,758,135 $59,389,629 $60,525,235 $62,223,277 $64,150,700 $66,622,900 $68,349,728 $69,534,486 $70,170,992 $71,516,220 $72,596,462 $665,079,628 3. Cash Paid Out Police Services Contract ᵈ 15,590,110 6%16,753,000 17,758,180 18,823,671 19,953,091 21,150,277 22,419,293 23,764,451 25,190,318 26,701,737 28,303,841 30,002,071 234,066,929 Fire Service Contract ᵈ 6,244,441 5%7,019,700 7,370,685 7,739,219 8,126,180 8,532,489 8,959,114 9,407,069 9,877,423 10,371,294 10,889,859 11,434,352 92,707,684 Salaries (Full-Time Employees)5,846,133 3%6,445,805 6,639,179 6,838,355 7,043,505 7,254,810 7,472,455 7,696,628 7,927,527 8,165,353 8,410,314 8,662,623 76,110,749 Maintenance & Operations ᵉ 6,242,086 2%6,612,469 6,744,718 6,879,613 7,017,205 7,157,549 7,300,700 7,446,714 7,595,648 7,747,561 7,902,513 8,060,563 73,852,784 Other Contract Services 3,022,300 2%3,697,700 3,771,654 3,847,087 3,924,029 4,002,509 4,082,560 4,164,211 4,247,495 4,332,445 4,419,094 4,507,476 41,298,559 Transfers Out ᶢ 5,790,562 1%1,832,500 1,850,825 1,869,333 1,888,027 1,906,907 1,925,976 1,945,236 1,964,688 1,984,335 2,004,178 2,024,220 19,363,725 Employee Medical Insurance Costs 1,205,764 3%1,749,300 1,801,779 1,855,832 1,911,507 1,968,853 2,027,918 2,088,756 2,151,418 2,215,961 2,282,440 2,350,913 20,655,377 Other Personnel Costs 700,185 2%1,109,995 1,132,195 1,154,839 1,177,936 1,201,494 1,225,524 1,250,035 1,275,035 1,300,536 1,326,547 1,353,078 12,397,218 PERS Unfunded Pension Liability ͪ7,267,994 860,000 859,277 964,300 1,091,700 1,197,200 1,259,600 1,306,000 1,332,120 1,358,762 1,385,938 1,413,656 12,168,553 PERS Normal Payroll Costs 499,899 2%574,200 585,684 597,397.68 609,346 621,533 633,963 646,642 659,575 672,767 686,222 699,947 6,413,076 Salaries (Part-Time/Temporary)ᶤ 234,545 2%348,000 379,320 413,459 421,728 430,163 438,766 447,541 456,492 465,622 474,934 484,433 4,412,457 Capital Expenses ᶠ 2,200,269 3,851,572 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 2,052,000 20,520,000 Capital Expenses from Measure G 2,346,841 5,580,100 5,881,246 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 50,881,246 Measure G Reserves 3,412,005 2,716,400 1,200,000 1,400,000 900,000 500,000 600,000 - - - - - 4,600,000 Multi-Year Project Carryovers 12,598,462 12,598,462 - - - - - - - - - - - 4. Total Operational Expenses $73,201,596 $71,749,203 $58,026,742 $59,435,105 $61,116,253 $62,975,783 $65,397,868 $67,215,283 $69,729,740 $72,368,373 $75,137,878 $78,045,331 $669,448,358 5. Yearly Operating Cash Position (2 minus 4) 8,657,052 1,008,932 1,362,886 1,090,130 1,107,023 1,174,916 1,225,032 1,134,445 (195,254) (2,197,381) (3,621,658) (5,448,869) (4,368,729) 6. RDA Loan Repayment ᶨ Repayment based on Last & Final ROPS 2,490,453 2,540,262 2,591,066 2,642,888 2,695,746 2,749,661 2,804,654 2,860,747 2,917,962 2,976,321 3,035,847 2,748,258 28,023,150 7. Cash Position After RDA Repayment (6 plus 7)11,147,505$ 3,549,194$ 3,953,952$ 3,733,018$ 3,802,769$ 3,924,577$ 4,029,686$ 3,995,192$ 2,722,708$ 778,940$ (585,811)$ (2,700,611)$ 23,654,421$ OPERATING BUDGET NOTES: a - Measure G transaction and use sales tax effective April 1, 2017 is projected to be 110% of Bradley Burns sales tax collected. b - Fire Property Tax Reserve account balance as of June 30, 2019 is $9,864,840. These funds are held in trust by the County of Riverside and restricted for fire services. c - SilverRock Resort Net Revenue includes revenue derived from sales tax, property tax, and transient occupancy taxes. d - Police and Fire services are provided by the County of Riverside and subject to the County's annual budget and contractual obligations. e - Maintenance and operations includes utilities and internal services charges. f - Ongoing capital expense projections include minimum capital funding required for street and sidewalk improvements to secure Measure A and Gas Tax funding (both restricted for road improvements). g - Transfers Out support the Gas Tax Fund for street improvements, the Lighting and Landscape District, Art in Public Places, and SilverRock golf course. h - PERS unfunded pension liability projections are based on CalPERS actuarial valuations as of June 30, 2018 issued in August 2019. i - Part-time salaries increased by 9% in 2020/21 and 2021/22 to reflect current minimum wage increases governed by California laws, and 2% thereafter. j - Annual RDA loan repayments represent the 80% General Fund portion. The remaining 20% is recognized in a Housing Authority Fund. * The 2019/20 Budget includes capital and operational carryovers from 2018/19 and approved adjustments during the first six months of fiscal year 2019/20. GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS - Stable Economic Outlook OPERATING BUDGET & CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE GENERAL FUNDThe Current Budget for 2019/20 INCLUDES carryovers from 2018/19, approved adjustments through December 31, 2019. Revenue projections are based on current economic conditions and historical trends. All assumptions include stable growth with no economic downturns. Current Fire Service Reserve balance as of June 30, 2019 is $9,864,840. Reserves will NEARLY fully spent by 2029/30; remaining balance of $116,356. Expenditure projections are based on current operations, identified projects and regulatory requirements. RDA loan repayments end in 2029/30 and are allocated 80% to the General Fund and 20% to the Housing Authority Fund. RDA LOANATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 As of June 30, 2019Reserve Category Current Target DeficitCash Flow Reserve 5,000,000 5,000,000 - Natural Disaster Reserve 10,000,000 10,000,000 - Economic Disaster 11,000,000 11,000,000 - Capital Replacement Reserve 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Pension Trust Benefits 6,540,000 10,000,000 3,460,000 37,540,000 46,000,000 8,460,000 The 2019/20 Mid-Year Budget Report will include a review of reserves. 2016/17 Actual 1,462,650$ 2017/18 Actual 9,967,657 2018/19 Actual 10,958,118 2019/20 Estimated Budget 10,246,500 TOTAL 32,634,925$ Operational Capital Reserves Total by Year2016/17 Eisenhower Dr. Retention Basin 750,000 Measure G Reserves 16/17 (X-Park Funding) 712,650 - 1,462,650 2017/18 Public Safety Fund 300,000 North La Quinta Landscape Improvements 1,802,576 Citywide Drainage Enhancements 2,407,373 La Quinta Village Road Diet Project 1,000,388 Measure G Reserves 17/18 (X-Park Funding) 147,350 Measure G Reserves 17/18 4,309,970 9,967,657 2018/19 Public Safety Fund 850,000 Public Safety Services 2,100,000 Citywide Drainage Enhancements 1,166,500 North La Quinta Landscape Improvements 2,129,613 SilverRock Event Space 1,300,000 Measure G Reserves 18/19 3,412,005 10,958,118 2019/20 Public Safety Services 2,750,000 Corporate Yard Administration/Crew Quarters 411,000 Highway 111 Corridor Improvements 1,000,000 North La Quinta Landscape Improvements 3,859,100 Village Art Plaza Promenade 310,000 Measure G Reserves 19/20 1,916,400 10,246,500 TOTAL 6,000,000$ 16,996,550$ 9,638,375$ 32,634,925$18% 52% 30%In 2018/19, the City allocated $860,000 from Measure G reserves for the XPark. $712,650 from 2016/17 and a portion of 2017/18 ($147,350) reserves. RevenuesExpendituresMEASURE G REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES SUMMARY City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Financial Advisory Commissioners FROM: Rosemary Hallick, Financial Services Analyst DATE: February 12, 2020 SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER 2019 (JULY-SEPTEMBER) SALES TAX UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA The attached report was prepared by consultants HdL Companies as an update of sales tax receipts for third quarter sales from July to September 2019. Sales Tax Update •The City’s sales-per-capita was slightly higher than both the county and state averages. •General consumer goods (such as department stores) and restaurants/hotels made up 55% of sales tax revenue during this quarter, based on the unadjusted numbers. •La Quinta’s overall adjusted sales tax receipts for major industry groups increased 1.9%, which compares to Riverside County at 4.5% and Southern California at 2.8%. •Gross receipts numbers appear down due to the State’s transition to a new reporting system last year. There were payments received in Q3 2018 that were from prior quarters, making last year appear inflated. Excluding report aberrations, actual sales were up. Measure G Update •General consumer goods (such as department stores) and restaurants/hotels made up 55% of transaction tax revenue during this quarter, the same share as sales taxes. •The autos and transportation sector made up 16% of transaction tax revenue as opposed to 11% of sales tax revenue. •Our top 25 transactions tax producers predominately consisted of businesses located in La Quinta, however there were several businesses located outside of City limits that made the top 25. The City continuously monitors local development, economic conditions, impacts on travel and trade, and legislative and judicial news for any potential changes to sales tax collections. Attachment 1: City of La Quinta Sales Tax Update Attachment 2: California Economic Forecast from HdL DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Financial Advisory Commissioners FROM: Karla Romero, Finance Director DATE: February 12, 2020 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2019 The fiscal year (FY) 2018/19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report remains in draft form with an expected completion date of 2/28/2020. Delays have included: • Two required actuarial evaluation reports completed by a third- party used for the reporting requirements under Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements 68 and 75. These reports were received in late December. • In the Summer of 2019, the City’s current auditing firm (Vavrinek, Trine, Day, & Co, LLP) joined EideBailly with the merger implementation occurring in the Fall of 2019 (during audit season). This resulted in additional pressures on the audit team and in turn the City’s audit. • Six drafts have been reviewed from January 3, 2020 to February 5, 2020. During each draft the City provides comments to the auditing firm on reporting requirements, the presentation of information, notes to the financial statements, statistical section, and management letters. Significant progress has been made on the CAFR and a final (seventh) draft is expected by mid-February for final review by the City. The City has been granted an extension until March 2, 2020 to file the report from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. A presentation by the auditing firm and staff to the Commission is programmed for March 18, 2020. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 2 City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Financial Advisory Commissioners FROM: Karla Romero, Finance Director DATE: February 12, 2020 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO THE 2019 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY On February 4, 2020 the City Council held a public hearing to consider adopting the Study and provide direction on the implementation of fees. The staff report as presented to the Council is enclosed as Attachment 1. The Council was presented two options – a two and three year phased in approach of all fees until they reach full implementation with no discount of any fee. After a staff presentation, public comments, and discussion, the Council unanimously voted to adopt the proposed fees with a two-year phased in approach. Current fees would remain in effect until July 1, 2020 (year one of increase) and adjusted a second time on July 1, 2021 (year two of increase). After the second increase, fees would remain in effect until another comprehensive DIF study is completed and adopted. Attachment: 1. City Council Public Hearing Staff Report from 2/4/2020 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 3 City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: February 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO THE 2019 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to adopt Development Impact Fees pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Study, dated September 23, 2019. 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. •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 City must update the DIF periodically in order to comply with state law. •The City Council discussed the Development Impact Fee Study Update (Study) during two Study Sessions on October 1, 2019 and December 17, 2019. Comments received from the City Council, Financial Advisory Commission members and the development community have been addressed and incorporated within the DIF Study. • 2-year and 3-year phased options are proposed to allow for yearly incremental increases to all DIF fees until they are at the Study’s final proposed fee. FISCAL IMPACT The DIF schedule could generate up to $81,492,532, assuming that all development anticipated in the City General Plan occurs. The following presents the possible projected impact fee revenue by facility type: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 Fire Protection $2,957,885 Transportation $42,810,885 TOTAL $81,492,532 The proposed 2-year and 3-year phased options would allow for yearly incremental increases to all DIF fees until they are at the Study’s final proposed fee. The following represents the two proposed phased fee options by land use category: OVERALL DIF FEES with 2-Year Phasing Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 8,132 $ 9,380 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 7,182 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 5,552 $ 6,113 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 6,474 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 7,813 $ 9,191 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,542 $ 2,864 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,127 $ 1,306 OVERALL DIF FEES - with 3-Year Phasing Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Effective July 1, 2022 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 7,707 $ 8,531 $ 9,380 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 6,999 $ 7,354 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 5,361 $ 5,732 $ 6,113 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 6,095 $ 6,831 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 7,344 $ 8,254 $ 9,191 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,432 $ 2,645 $ 2,864 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,065 $ 1,184 $ 1,306 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. 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. The Council reviewed the Study during two Study Sessions on October 1, 2019 and December 17, 2019. During the first Study Session the Council received testimony from the Desert Valley Builder’s Association (DVBA) and the Building Industry Association (BIA). Following discussion, the 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, and the Committee conducted an in- depth review of the 2019 Study and held 4 four-hour meetings with Staff. NBS Consulting (DIF Consultant) participated in two meetings and the DVBA and the BIA attended one meeting. Staff presented the FAC Committee’s findings at a second Study Session and received feedback from Council to prepare both 2-year and 3-year phased incremental options for the implementation of the proposed DIF fees. The phased option is included in the proposed DIF resolution language with identified increases each year (Attachment 1). Presented for the Council’s consideration is the Sixth update of DIF Study, dated September 23, 2019 (Exhibit A to the Resolution). 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 Public notice requirements were met for this public hearing. It was published in The Desert Sun newspaper on January 25 and January 31, 2020. All written comments received through the publishing of this staff report are included in Attachment 2. Any additional comments received will be distributed to the Council during the public hearing. Attachment 3 provides the findings of the Lemoore Court Case, as a point of reference for the comments included in Attachment 2. ALTERNATIVES The Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended or choose an alternative phasing option. Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst Approved by: Bryan McKinney, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Phased Implementation Charts 2. DVBA and BIA comments with City Responses 3. Lemoore Court Case Findings RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – xxx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982; and WHEREAS, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues to experience development activity in the form of applications and proposals for new residential and commercial land development within the City; and WHEREAS, additional development and growth will result in the lack of public improvements and facilities, including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the present and future citizens of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing circulation system is inadequate to handle current and future traffic patterns and it is essential to widen City streets, which have inadequate width, improve the circulation system to accommodate an anticipated increase in traffic, and improve and develop bridges and traffic signals suitable for traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City, with the consequent increase in population and demand for the use of public facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities, including but not limited to fire stations, park and recreation facilities, major thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety facilities and other public buildings directly from new development and the need cannot be met and financed from ordinary City revenues; and WHEREAS, the most practicable and equitable method of paying for such needed facilities is to impose a fee upon new development within the City and the payment of such a fee enables the City to fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as they are required and demanded; that when a development pays the Development Impact Fee established by this policy, the City Council will be able to fund that all necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the need and, in the event such finding cannot be made, the City Council will be required to disapprove the development as being inconsistent with the General Plan; and Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, in 1989 the California Statute took effect, which governs the establishment, increase, and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval “for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project”; and WHEREAS, public facilities are defined in the statute to include “public improvements, public services, and community amenities”; and WHEREAS, these requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as “AB1600" requirements after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of a fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and type of development on which the fee is imposed; c. The amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides authority to the City to regulate all municipal affairs under Article 1 Section 100; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this fee program and procedures as set out in this resolution are found to be a matter of local concern to implement in a timely manner public infrastructures; and WHEREAS, the City in 1999 conducted studies relative to future community infrastructure needs; the funds necessary to meet said capital improvement needs; and the relationship between those needs and future development; and based upon said studies and reports, on June 15, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1999-080; and Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 3 of 7 WHEREAS, the 1999 Development Impact Fee Study report was previously updated in a report titled “2002 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on March 5, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-034; and WHEREAS, the 2002 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2005 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on June 7, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-047; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2006 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on July 5, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-068; and WHEREAS, the 2006 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2008 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on October 7, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-061; and WHEREAS, the 2008 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled “2013 Development Impact Fee Study,” and on February 5, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-006; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, on the 4th day of February, 2020, held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the 2019 Development Impact Fee Study and recommended updates to the City’s DIF. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 2013-006 adopted on February 5, 2013, is hereby repealed, and this Resolution supersedes all prior Development Impact Fee resolutions adopted by the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City Council further finds that: a. The report entitled "Development Impact Fee Study," dated September 23, 2019 (the “Fee Study”), attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herewith by this reference, accurately states the City’s need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities and services to serve new development. The Fee Study sets forth a necessary and reasonable method of funding said buildings and facilities. The Fee Study shows that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 4 of 7 and the projected types of development; the need for the various public facilities by the projected types of development pursuant to the City’s General Plan; and the amount of the fee and the proportionate facility cost related to the development. The Fee Study is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. b. As set forth in detail in the Fee Study, in order to allow residential and commercial land development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring that all new development is consistent with the General Plan, including the Public Infrastructure and Services Element, and the Community Development Element, it is necessary and appropriate to approve the following Development Impact Fees to be imposed upon new development. Said fees will assist the City in funding a construction program to provide such needed public buildings and facilities as they are required and needed. SECTION 3. Development Impact Fee Policy Amount. Prior to approval of any zoning, re zoning, subdivision, or development proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Development Impact Fee for the following development types as listed below in Table 1. The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Table 1: Development Type Dev. Unit Current Fees Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Residential - Single Family Detached DU $ 6,894 $ 8,132 $ 9,380 Residential - Single Family Attached DU $ 6,681 $ 7,182 $ 7,719 Residential - Multi Family/Other DU $ 5,030 $ 5,552 $ 6,113 Office/Medical KSF $ 5,379 $ 6,474 $ 7,589 General Commercial KSF $ 6,456 $ 7,813 $ 9,191 Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room $ 2,185 $ 2,542 $ 2,864 Golf Course Acre $ 957 $ 1,127 $ 1,306 SECTION 4. Use of Funds Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Policy shall be paid into special capital outlay funds to be established by the City. Said fund or funds shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property and public improvements and facilities described as community infrastructure in this Resolution, as the City Council may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures of funds Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 5 of 7 available from the special capital outlay fund(s) shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual operating and capital improvements budget or at such other time as the City Council may direct. SECTION 5. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluding from the fees imposed by policy, the following: a. Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States or the State of California. b. The construction of any facility by the City of La Quinta, the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. SECTION 6. Credits. Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Development Impact Fee shall be in addition to and not in lieu of other valid exactions imposed upon new development through the subdivision or other approval processes. Provided; however, that payment of the Development Impact Fee shall be in lieu of payment of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signalization funds pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code, 3.17.020. Provided further that in the event developer is required to directly provide infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee structure, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against the “Development Impact Fee.” The City hereby determines that the development impact fee is not intended to be the exclusive method of installation of needed public buildings and facilities and the City will consider alternative proposals to provide needed infrastructure to particular development and, to the extent such alternative proposal is discretionary approved by the City Council, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against payment of the Development Impact Fee. Any developer seeking alternative methods of installation shall submit such proposal to the City at the time of submittal of an application for development. SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 6 of 7 In determining the amount of Development Impact Fee, the City Council has been guided by the Fee Study mentioned in SECTION 2 of this Resolution. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other category. The City Council further finds, declares and determines that the Development Impact Fee on all remaining valid fee categories shall be increased by the amounts of the fee categories declared invalid. Provided; however, that the amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so increased over and above the amount recommended by Fee Study for each category. SECTION 8. Administration and Enforcement. Effective Date. Repealer. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this policy. The Public Works Director’s decision may be appealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute necessary agreements for the administration of this policy. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The fees imposed by this Resolution shall go into effect 60 days following the effective date of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 4th Day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ________________________ LINDA EVANS, Mayor City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2020 – xxx Development Impact Fees Adopted: February 4, 2020 Page 7 of 7 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 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XXX EXHIBITS A ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 4, 2020 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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$7,719$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$779$323$628$198$188$2,281$6,113$ 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$2,864$ 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 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 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. 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 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; 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. 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. 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- 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. Current DIF Fees Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Ch.8*Ch.9 Development Dev Park Comm/Civic Maint 2 Trans-Grand Development Type Dev. Unit Current Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Type Unit 1 Imprvmts Cultural Library Center Facilities Fire portation Total Residential - Single Family Detached DU 6,894$ 8,132$ 9,380$ Residential - Single Family Detached DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 942$ 156$ 433$ 2,842$ 6,894$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 6,681$ 7,182$ 7,719$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 796$ 156$ 366$ 2,842$ 6,681$ Residential - Multi Family/Other DU 5,030$ 5,552$ 6,113$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 447$ 111$ 206$ 1,745$ 5,030$ Office/Medical KSF 5,379$ 6,474$ 7,589$ Office/Medical KSF 373$ 190$ 171$ 4,645$ 5,379$ General Commercial KSF 6,456$ 7,813$ 9,191$ General Commercial KSF 373$ 232$ 172$ 5,679$ 6,456$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 2,185$ 2,542$ 2,864$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 363$ 65$ 167$ 1,590$ 2,185$ Golf Course Acre 957$ 1,127$ 1,306$ Golf Course Acre 179$ 27$ 82$ 669$ 957$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2020 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 2,077$ 543$ 397$ 1,086$ 235$ 369$ 3,426$ 8,132$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,921$ 472$ 338$ 956$ 202$ 335$ 2,959$ 7,182$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,882$ 454$ 323$ 538$ 155$ 188$ 2,013$ 5,552$ Office/Medical KSF 448$ 282$ 151$ 5,594$ 6,474$ General Commercial KSF 448$ 347$ 151$ 6,868$ 7,813$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 531$ 86$ 201$ 1,725$ 2,542$ Golf Course Acre 215$ 40$ 72$ 800$ 1,127$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2021 (Final Recommended DIF Fees) 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$ 7,719$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$ 779$ 323$ 628$ 198$ 188$ 2,281$ 6,113$ 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$ 2,864$ Golf Course Acre 251$ 53$ 72$ 930$ 1,306$ OVERALL DIF FEES - with Phasing Option 1 *Recommended DIF fee is lower than current DIF fee, DIF will be adopted at recommended DIF fee with no phasing for Chapter 5 Library and Chapter 8 Fire Fees Current DIF Fees 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 2,048$ 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 - Single Family Detached DU 6,894$ 7,707$ 8,531$ 9,380$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 2,048$ 129$ 344$ 447$ 111$ 206$ 1,745$ 5,030$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 6,681$ 6,999$ 7,354$ 7,719$ Office/Medical KSF 373$ 190$ 171$ 4,645$ 5,379$ Residential - Multi Family/Other DU 5,030$ 5,361$ 5,732$ 6,113$ General Commercial KSF 373$ 232$ 172$ 5,679$ 6,456$ Office/Medical KSF 5,379$ 6,095$ 6,831$ 7,589$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 363$ 65$ 167$ 1,590$ 2,185$ General Commercial KSF 6,456$ 7,344$ 8,254$ 9,191$ Golf Course Acre 179$ 27$ 82$ 669$ 957$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 2,185$ 2,432$ 2,645$ 2,864$ Golf Course Acre 957$ 1,065$ 1,184$ 1,306$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2020 (33% Fee Increase) 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 2,067$ 402$ 397$ 1,037$ 208$ 369$ 3,227$ 7,707$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,964$ 355$ 338$ 901$ 186$ 335$ 2,919$ 6,999$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,938$ 344$ 323$ 507$ 140$ 188$ 1,922$ 5,361$ Office/Medical KSF 422$ 251$ 151$ 5,271$ 6,095$ General Commercial KSF 422$ 308$ 151$ 6,464$ 7,344$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 474$ 79$ 201$ 1,679$ 2,432$ Golf Course Acre 203$ 36$ 72$ 755$ 1,065$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2021 (66% Fee Increase) 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 2,086$ 675$ 397$ 1,132$ 260$ 369$ 3,612$ 8,531$ Residential - Single Family Attached DU 1,880$ 581$ 338$ 1,007$ 216$ 335$ 2,996$ 7,354$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,829$ 558$ 323$ 566$ 168$ 188$ 2,099$ 5,732$ Office/Medical KSF 471$ 311$ 151$ 5,897$ 6,831$ General Commercial KSF 471$ 383$ 151$ 7,248$ 8,254$ Tourist Commercial/Lodging Room 584$ 92$ 201$ 1,768$ 2,645$ Golf Course Acre 227$ 44$ 72$ 841$ 1,184$ DIF Fees Effective July 1, 2022 (Final Recommended DIF Fees) 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$ 7,719$ Residential - Multi-Family/Other DU 1,716$ 779$ 323$ 628$ 198$ 188$ 2,281$ 6,113$ 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$ 2,864$ Golf Course Acre 251$ 53$ 72$ 930$ 1,306$ *Recommended DIF fee is lower than current DIF fee, DIF will be adopted at recommended DIF fee with no phasing for Chapter 5 Library and Chapter 8 Fire Fees OVERALL DIF FEES - with Phasing Option 2 Effective July 1, 2020 Effective July 1, 2021 Effective July 1, 2022Development Type Dev. Unit Current 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 2 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).) 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 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 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. ATTACHMENT 2 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 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 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 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 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 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATEATTACHMENT 2 COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 1, 2019 - WRITTEN COMMENTS & RESPONSESSTUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY UPDATE 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 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 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 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 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Extend by Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda, Cal.App. 1 Dist., May 15, 2019 185 Cal.App.4th 554 Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF TULARE/ KINGS COUNTIES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LEMOORE et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. F057671. | June 9, 2010. | As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 8, 2010. | Review Denied Sept. 22, 2010. Synopsis Background: Developers' association petitioned for writ of mandate challenging city's development impact fees. The Superior Court, Kings County, No. 07C0185, James T. LaPorte, J., upheld the majority of the disputed fees. Association appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Levy, J., held that: [1] city adequately identified facilities to be paid for with community/recreation facility impact fee under city ordinance; [2] city adequately identified facilities to be paid for with community/recreation facility impact fee under Mitigation Fee Act; [3] existence of carryover balance did not render community/ recreation facility impact fee invalid; [4] community/recreation facility impact fee was not preempted by the Quimby Act; [5] park land impact fee resolutions were not preempted by Quimby Act; [6] park land impact fee resolution was not inconsistent with city general plan; [7] there was adequate nexus between police impact fee and burden caused by development; [8] initial capital costs of police vehicles and equipment were properly included in calculating police impact fee; [9] city adequately identified public facilities to be paid for with police impact fee; [10] there was adequate nexus between municipal facilities impact fee and burden caused by development; [11] city adequately identified public facilities to be paid for with municipal facilities impact fee; but [12] there was no nexus between fire protection impact fee and burden caused by development in service area where facilities were already in place; but [13] there was adequate nexus between fire protection impact fee and burden caused by development in service area where new fire station would be required; [14] initial capital costs of vehicles and equipment were properly included in calculating garbage collection impact fee; [15] segregating funds by facility category rather than by project was proper; and [16] city was not required to identify improvements that fees would be used to finance when they were collected. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Ardaiz, P.J., filed opinion concurring in the result. West Headnotes (32) [1] Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals in general ATTACHMENT 3 Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 City's adoption of development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act was reviewed under the narrower standards of ordinary mandate, since the city's action involved a quasi-legislative action. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [2]Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Judicial review of city's adoption of development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act by petition for writ of ordinary mandate was limited to an examination of the proceedings before the city to determine whether its action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [3]Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals If a development impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act is challenged, the local agency has the burden of producing evidence in support of its determination. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 2 Cases that cite this headnote [4]Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments For a local agency to meet its burden of producing evidence in support of its determination imposing a challenged development impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, the local agency must show that a valid method was used for imposing the fee, one that established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [5]Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals A local agency's burden of producing evidence in support of its determination imposing a challenged development impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act is not equivalent to the burden of proof, and does not operate to shift the burden of proof. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [6]Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals A plaintiff challenging a Mitigation Fee Act impact fee has the burden of proof with respect to all facts essential to its claim, and therefore the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to establish in the mind of the trier of fact or the court a requisite degree of belief. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [7]Municipal Corporations Scope of inquiry and powers of court Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals in general In general, the imposition of various monetary exactions, such as special assessments, user fees, and impact fees, is accorded substantial judicial deference. [8]Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments In the absence of a legislative shifting of the burden of proof, a plaintiff challenging a Mitigation Fee Act impact fee has to show that the record before the local agency clearly did not support the underlying determinations regarding the reasonableness of the relationship between the fee and the development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 3 Cases that cite this headnote [9]Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals When a plaintiff challenges a Mitigation Fee Act impact fee, the local agency has the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it used a valid method for imposing the fee in question, one that establishes a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development, and if the local agency does not produce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against it on the validity of the fee, the plaintiff challenging the fee will prevail, but if the local agency's evidence is sufficient, the plaintiff must establish a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact or the court that the fee is invalid, e.g., that the fee's use and the need for the public facility are not reasonably related to the development project on which the fee is imposed or the amount of the fee bears no reasonable relationship to the cost of the public facility attributable to the development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000 et seq. 6 Cases that cite this headnote [10]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by a community/recreation facility impact fee under city ordinances requiring that impact fee resolutions shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act and requiring the city council to “list the specific public improvements to be financed,” in using the standard-based method of dividing the ratio of the value of existing facilities by the current population to arrive at the per capita fee imposed on developers, and identifying examples of future facilities including a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum, even though specific construction plans were not in place. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66001(a)(1, 2). [11]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by a community/recreation facility impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, in using the standard-based method of dividing the ratio of the value of existing facilities by the current population to arrive at the per capita fee imposed on developers, and identifying examples of future facilities including a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum, even though specific construction plans were not in place; city was not required to use a plan-based method to determine the fee. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66001(a)(1, 2). [12]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions The existence of a carryover balance of approximately $1,486,000 in city's recreation capital impact fee fund did not render a community/recreation facility impact fee imposed on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act invalid as in excess of the reasonable cost of the public facilities for which the fees are imposed, as a general revenue fee, or as a violation of the reasonable relationship requirement, where the carryover balance must be used to pay for facilities that served existing development, and if the carryover balance was not expended on the public improvements for which the fees were collected, the unexpended fees were to be refunded pro rata to the owners of the lots of the development project that paid the fees. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66001(a)(1, 2), 66008. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [13]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, or plans; subdivisions Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4 City's Mitigation Fee Act community/recreation facility impact fee imposed on new development was not preempted by the Quimby Act, where the impact fees were to be used to build unique facilities intended to serve the entire population of the city. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66002(c)(7), 66477. 2 Cases that cite this headnote [14]Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments The Mitigation Fee Act authorizes fees for recreation facilities independent of the Quimby Act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000(b), 66002(c)(7), 66477. [15]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, or plans; subdivisions City's park land impact fee resolution, setting fees in lieu of park land dedication under the Quimby Act, was not preempted by the Quimby Act, because it was adopted pursuant to that act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66477. [16]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, or plans; subdivisions City's park land impact fee resolution, setting fees in lieu of park land dedication for residential development not involving a subdivision of land, was not preempted by the Quimby Act, because such development was not subject to the Quimby Act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66477. [17]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City acted within its discretion in finding city's park land impact fee resolution, setting fees at the proportionate amount necessary to provide five acres of park per 1,000 residents of the subdivision as authorized by the Quimby act, was not inconsistent with the city general plan establishing a standard of three acres as the basis for requiring land dedications and/or fees as authorized by the Subdivision Map Act, where city's general plan reflected city's commitment as a matter of policy and priority to parks and recreation for its citizens, and the plan expressly recognized that circumstances could change. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 65030.1, 66477(a) (2). [18]Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals City's conclusion that its park land impact fee resolution, setting fees at the proportionate amount necessary to provide five acres of park per 1,000 residents of the subdivision as authorized by the Quimby act, was consistent with city's general plan, carried a strong presumption of regularity that could only be overcome by a showing of abuse of discretion. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66477(a)(2). [19]Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals An abuse of discretion is established in a city's conclusion that its park land impact fee resolution is consistent with its general plan only if the city council has not proceeded in a manner required by law, its decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. [20]Zoning and Planning Permits, certificates, and approvals in general Appellate review of a city's conclusion that its park land impact fee resolution is consistent with its general plan is highly deferential to the local agency, recognizing that the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5 [21]Zoning and Planning Conformity of regulations to comprehensive or general plan A city's action is consistent with the city's general plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan. [22]Zoning and Planning Conformity of regulations to comprehensive or general plan State law does not require perfect conformity between a city's action and the city's general plan; rather, to be consistent, the action simply must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. [23]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City's police impact fee on new development was supported by an adequate nexus between the development that paid the fee and the burden on the police department caused by that development under Mitigation Fee Act, where increased population due to new development would place additional demands on the police department, the department would need to be expanded to maintain the current level of service, and the fee calculation standard classified the cost of service by development type. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(3, 4). [24]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions The initial capital costs of police vehicles and equipment were properly included in calculating a police impact fee on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act, since vehicles and officer safety equipment were necessary to provide the public service of police protection, which was within the Act's definition of “public facilities.” West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000(d). [25]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by police impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, where city's report relied upon in setting the fees referred to expanding the current police headquarters, constructing a substation, and adding the necessary police vehicles and officer safety equipment. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(1, 2). [26]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City's municipal facilities impact fee on new development was supported by an adequate nexus between the development that paid the fee and the burden on municipal facilities caused by that development under Mitigation Fee Act, where increased population due to new development would place additional demands on the existing complement of municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment, the complement would need to be expanded to maintain the current level of service, and the fee calculation allocated costs between residential and nonresidential development because some city services were impacted only indirectly by residential development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(3, 4). 1 Cases that cite this headnote [27]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City adequately identified the public facilities to be paid for by municipal facilities impact fee on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act, even though city's report acknowledged that specific plans for future municipal facilities and equipment were not currently available, where the report noted that it was likely that some of city's future space needs would be accommodated by finishing additional space in the existing municipal complex, and that other space might be acquired or Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6 developed downtown. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(1, 2). [28]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions There was no nexus between the burden posed by new housing and city's fire protection impact fees for a service area where the facilities and equipment needed to serve future development were already in place, and thus the fees were invalid under the Mitigation Fee Act, where city proposed to use the fees to reimburse the city for its prior general fund money investments to pay for the facilities in the service area; such a fee would constitute general revenue to the city. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66001(a)(3, 4), 66008. See Cal. Jur. 3d, Zoning And Other Land Controls, §§ 120, 250; Cal. Civil Practice (Thomson Reuters 2010) Real Property Litigation, § 14:77; 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25:45. [29]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions City's fire protection impact fees for a service area where a new fire station would be required to serve future development was supported by an adequate nexus between the development that paid the fee and the burden on fire protection facilities caused by that development under Mitigation Fee Act, even though the city's calculation of the cost per capita of the new fire station included the forecasted population of a 476 acre area that might be annexed to the city in the future, where there was no indication that, without the potential annexation, additional fire protection facilities would be unnecessary to serve new development. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66001(a)(3, 4). [30]Zoning and Planning Maps, plats, and plans; subdivisions The initial capital costs of refuse vehicles and containers were properly included in calculating refuse vehicle and container impact fees on new development under the Mitigation Fee Act, since refuse vehicles and containers were necessary to provide the public service of garbage collection, which was within the Act's definition of “public facilities.” West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66000(d). [31]Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments City's act of segregating funds from impact fees imposed on new development by facility category, rather than by a specifically identified project, did not violate the Mitigation Fee Act. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code §§ 66000, 66006(a). [32]Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments Developers' association failed to establish that city violated the Mitigation Fee Act provision requiring that “at the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance,” absent evidence that a development fee had been imposed directly on association or one of its members. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 66006(f). 1 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms **13 Law Offices of Walter P. McNeill and Walter P. McNeill, Redding, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dowling, Aaron & Keeler and Daniel O. Jamison, Fresno, for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7 LEVY, J. *559 In late 2005, respondents, the City of Lemoore and the Lemoore City Council (City), engaged Colgan Consulting Corporation and Joseph Colgan (Colgan) to conduct a development fee impact study and prepare a report (Colgan Report). In late 2006 and early 2007 the City adopted various development impact fees based on the Colgan Report. Appellant, Home Builders Association of Tulare/ Kings Counties, Inc. (HBA), challenged certain of these fees as being invalid under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov.Code 1 , § 66000, et seq.). The trial court upheld the majority of the disputed impact fees. HBA contends the trial court erred in that it applied an incorrect and excessively deferential “quantum of proof.” HBA further argues that the various fees violate certain Mitigation Fee Act requirements. HBA also contends that some of these fees are preempted by the fees imposed for neighborhood and community parks that serve a subdivision under the Quimby Act (§ 66477). As discussed below, the fire protection impact fee for the east side of the City is invalid in that it is not reasonably related to the burden created by the development project. However, the balance of the judgment upholding the remaining disputed fees will be affirmed. BACKGROUND Between October and December 2006, the City received Colgan's findings on the development impact fee study. Based on this report, the City held public hearings on the adoption of various impact fees. In December 2006 and January and February 2007, the City adopted 13 impact fees for new housing in Lemoore. In May 2007, HBA filed and served its first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint. HBA challenged 7 of the impact fees adopted *560 pursuant to the Colgan Report. According to HBA, the Colgan Report incorporated and applied a variety of accounting methods that are unlawful under the Mitigation Fee Act. Specifically, HBA objected to development impact fees for law enforcement, park land acquisition and improvement, refuse vehicles and containers, fire protection, general municipal facilities, and community/ recreational facilities. HBA also challenged the process by which the City accounts for and spends the impact fees collected. The City initially demurred to the first amended petition/ complaint and moved to strike all allegations that the fees were special taxes or proceeds of taxes, were excessive as such, and violated the California Constitution. The trial court overruled the demurrer but granted the motion to strike. HBA did not amend. Accordingly, all constitutional issues were removed and the case proceeded on the statutory claims raised by HBA as to the City's alleged noncompliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Thereafter, the City moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication. The trial court granted summary adjudication in the City's favor on the causes of action **14 regarding the fire protection impact fees, police impact fees, municipal facilities impact fees, and the administration of the impact fees. The court concluded that the City had adequately demonstrated that it complied with the Mitigation Fee Act and that its determination of the amount of these disputed fees was neither arbitrary nor capricious. However, the court found that triable issues of material fact existed with respect to the causes of action regarding the park land acquisition, park land improvement, community/recreation, and refuse vehicles and containers impact fees. Following a trial on the remaining causes of action, the trial court ruled in favor of the City on the validity of those fees with one exception. The court invalidated the park land improvement impact fee as applied to subdivisions subject to the Quimby Act. DISCUSSION 1. The Mitigation Fee Act. At issue in this appeal is whether, in adopting the disputed impact fees, the City complied with the Mitigation Fee Act. This act embodies a statutory standard against which monetary exactions by local governments subject to its provisions are measured. (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 865, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242, 911 P.2d 429.) It was passed by the Legislature “ ‘in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects.’ ” (Id. at p. 864, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242, 911 P.2d 429.) Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.8 *561 The Mitigation Fee Act requires the local agency to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee will be put. (§ 66001, subd. (a)(1) and (2).) The local agency must also determine that both “the fee's use” and “the need for the public facility” are reasonably related to the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§ 66001, subd. (a)(3) and (4).) In addition, the local agency must “determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.” (§ 66001, subd. (b).) “Public facilities” are defined as including “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” (§ 66000, subd. (d).) 2. The standard of review and burden of proof. [1] [2] The City's adoption of the development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act involved a quasi-legislative action. (Cf. Warmington Old Town Associates v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 840, 849, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 744.) Thus, the City's action is reviewed under the narrower standards of ordinary mandate. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 320, 328, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) Accordingly, judicial review is limited to an examination of the proceedings before the City to determine whether its action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 38 Cal.4th 653, 667, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 133 P.3d 1028.) The action will be upheld if the City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of the enabling statute. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) This issue is a question of law. (Id. at p. 233, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) **15 [3] [4] As noted above, before imposing a fee under the Mitigation Fee Act, the local agency is charged with determining that the amount of the fee and the need for the public facility are reasonably related to the burden created by the development project. If such a fee is challenged, the local agency has the burden of producing evidence in support of its determination. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 329, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) The local agency must show that a valid method was used for imposing the fee in question, one that established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 235, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) [5] [6] *562 However, this burden of producing evidence is not equivalent to the burden of proof. “Attorneys, judges, and commentators often have confused these terms and the concepts they represent. As the United States Supreme Court observed, ‘For many years the term “burden of proof” was ambiguous because the term was used to describe two distinct concepts. Burden of proof was frequently used to refer to what we now call the burden of persuasion-the notion that if the evidence is evenly balanced, the party that bears the burden of persuasion must lose. But it was also used to refer to what we now call the burden of production-a party's obligation to come forward with evidence to support its claim.’ [Citations.]” (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1666–1667, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 279.) Thus, the local agency has the obligation to produce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against it on the issue. (Mathis v. Morrissey (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 332, 346, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 819.) However, this burden of producing evidence does not operate to shift the burden of proof. The plaintiff has the burden of proof with respect to all facts essential to its claim for relief and that burden remains. (Ibid.) Therefore, the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to establish in the mind of the trier of fact or the court a requisite degree of belief. (Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1667, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 279.) [7] [8] In general, the imposition of various monetary exactions, such as special assessments, user fees, and impact fees, is accorded substantial judicial deference. (San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643, 671, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 269, 41 P.3d 87.) In the absence of a legislative shifting of the burden of proof, a plaintiff challenging an impact fee has to show that the record before the local agency clearly did not support the underlying determinations regarding the reasonableness of the relationship between the fee and the development. (Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 444, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 312, 187 P.3d 37.) [9] Accordingly, the local agency has the initial burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it used a valid method for imposing the fee in question, one that established a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. If the local agency does not produce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.9 it on the validity of the fee, the plaintiff challenging the fee will prevail. However, if the local agency's evidence is sufficient, the plaintiff must establish a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact or the court that the fee is invalid, e.g., that the fee's use and the need for the public facility are not reasonably related to the development project on which the fee is imposed or the **16 amount of the fee bears no reasonable relationship to the cost of the public facility attributable to the development. (Cf. Sinclair Paint Co. v. *563 State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 881, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 937 P.2d 1350.) There have been occasional comments from courts of appeal that the burden of proof in a fee case falls on the local agency. These cases cite Beaumont Investors v. Beaumont–Cherry Valley Water Dist. (1983) 165 Cal.App.3d 227, 211 Cal.Rptr. 567 as support for this shift. However, in Beaumont Investors, the local agency failed to produce any evidence to support its calculation of the disputed fee. Thus, it was a failure to meet the burden of production, not the burden of proof. In ruling that the facilities fee was invalid because the local agency failed to develop a record from which costs reasonably related to the development could be determined, Beaumont Investors conflated the two concepts. In contrast here, the City produced a record to support the disputed fees. Thus, Beaumont Investors and its progeny are distinguishable. Here, the standard applicable to ordinary mandate applies and there is no basis for shifting the parties' burdens. Thus, the City had the initial burden of producing evidence of the reasonableness of the relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. However, HBA had the burden of proving that the record before the City did not support the City's underlying determinations. 3. Community/Recreation Facility Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2007–1). The City relied on the Colgan Report in adopting the various development impact fees. Colgan proposed the community/ recreation facility impact fee to fund the cost of adding community and recreation facilities that will be needed to maintain the current level of service as the City grows. Colgan calculated these fees based on the existing ratio of community and recreation facility asset value to population, the rationale being that the need for such facilities is based on the size of the population to be served. Colgan determined that the City had invested $5,477,160 in existing community recreational facilities and then divided that number by the current population to arrive at the per capita cost. That cost was then multiplied times the population per unit of development type to arrive at the fee per unit. This calculation is known as the standard-based method. Regarding future needs, Colgan noted that the existing community and recreation facilities are unique and will not be duplicated. These facilities *564 include the civic auditorium, a youth plaza skate park, a teen center, the train depot complex, and a golf course. Rather, the City intends to expand the range of recreational choices by constructing other types of facilities including a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum. These facilities are expected to cost in excess of $5 million while the impact fee is projected to yield approximately $3.2 million. HBA objects to the community/recreation facility impact fee on two grounds. HBA argues that the fee violates the Mitigation Fee Act's requirement that the public facilities be identified and that the fee is preempted by the Quimby Act. a. The City adequately identified the public facilities. [10] Section 66001, subdivisions (a)(1) and (2), requires the City to “[i]dentify the purpose of the fee” and “[i]dentify the use to which the fee is to be put.” If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities must be identified. However, the statute **17 provides flexibility regarding how that identification may be made. It may, but need not, “be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.” (§ 66001, subd. (a)(2).) Similarly, Lemoore City Code section 8–10–3 requires that impact fee resolutions shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. Regarding the content of such resolutions, Lemoore City Code section 8–10–2 requires the city council to “list the specific public improvements to be financed.” [11] HBA contends the City disregarded these provisions in establishing the community/recreation facility impact fee in that no specific public improvements were identified. Rather, reference was made to examples of future facilities without any actual plan or commitment. The crux of HBA's complaint is the City's use of the standard-based method to calculate the fees to maintain the current level of service, i.e., the ratio of the value of existing facilities divided by the current population to arrive at the per capita cost. HBA argues the Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.10 Mitigation Fee Act requires the identification of a specific improvement plan and its attendant costs, not simply a type or category of future public facilities. In other words, the City must use a plan-based approach. Contrary to HBA's position, section 66001 is not so limiting. Rather, it is acceptable for the local agency to identify the facilities via general plan requirements. In fact, a “fee” may be “established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability.” (§ 66000, subd. (b).) It would *565 be unreasonable to demand the specificity urged by HBA and require local agencies to make a concrete showing of all projected construction when initially adopting a resolution. Such a resolution might be in effect for decades. (Cf. Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 332, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) Moreover, HBA's concern that the standard-based fee “is a spinning turnstile for the collection of money” is unwarranted. Section 66001, subdivisions (c) through (e) require that collected fees be kept segregated from other funds; unexpended funds be accounted for yearly; and if a use for the collected fees cannot be shown, they must be refunded pro rata with interest. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 332, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) Thus, there is a mechanism in place to guard against unjustified fee retention. (Ibid.) Further, the standard-based method of calculating fees does not prevent there being a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. There is no question that increased population due to new development will place additional burdens on the city-wide community and recreation facilities. Thus, to maintain a similar level of service to the population, new facilities will be required. It is logical to not duplicate the existing facilities, but rather, to expand the recreational opportunities. To this end, the City intends to construct an aquatic center, a gymnasium and fitness center, and a naval air museum. Since the facilities are intended for city-wide use, it is reasonable to base the fee on the existing ratio of community and recreation facility asset value to population. The fact that specific construction plans are not in place does not render the fee unreasonable. The public improvements are generally identified. The record, here the Colgan Report, need only **18 provide a reasonable basis overall for the City's action. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 333, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) The community/recreation facility impact fee also meets the identification requirements of the Lemoore City Code. Under section 8–10–3, the Mitigation Fee Act controls the adoption of such fees. [12] HBA additionally argues that the existence of a carryover balance of approximately $1,486,000 in the City's recreation capital impact fee fund invalidates the community/ recreation facility impact fee. According to HBA, the failure of the City to credit that carryover balance to the calculation of the new development impact fee causes the resulting fees to: be in excess of the reasonable cost of the public facilities for which the fees are imposed; causes the fees to be levied, collected and imposed for general revenue purposes; and fails the reasonable relationship requirement. *566 However, as explained by Colgan, the development that paid those fees and created the balance is now existing development and those funds must be used to pay for facilities that serve that existing development. Colgan further noted that if, as suggested by HBA, the City were credited with that account balance as existing facilities, the impact fees would be higher. Moreover, under section 66001, subdivision (e), if the carryover balance is not expended on the public improvements for which the fees were collected, the unexpended fees are to be refunded pro rata to the owners of the lots of the development project that paid the fees. Thus, it would be contrary to the statute to credit refunds that are due to existing development to new development. In sum, the City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors and the community/recreation facility impact fee. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) The City's action was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 667, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 133 P.3d 1028.)2 b. The community/recreation facility impact fee is not preempted by the Quimby Act. [13] Section 66477 (the Quimby Act) permits a city or county to enact an ordinance requiring the dedication of land, or the payment of fees in lieu thereof, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a subdivision so long as certain requirements are met. The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.11 proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof. However, this dedication or payment cannot “exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area ... exceeds that limit, in which case the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard **19 not to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section.” (§ 66477, subd. (a)(2).) Further, “[t]he land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision.” (§ 66477, subd. (a)(3), emphasis added.) Also, *567 “[t]he amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.” (§ 66477, subd. (a)(5), emphasis added.) HBA contends that, because the community/recreation facility impact fee and the Quimby Act both pertain to “recreation,” the Quimby Act preempts the community/ recreation facility impact fee. According to HBA, any impact fee imposed on subdivisions for recreational facilities would overlap and duplicate exactions for recreational facilities imposed under the local Quimby Act ordinance, causing builders to pay twice for such recreational facilities. However, the Quimby Act is designed to maintain and preserve open space for the recreational use of the residents of new subdivisions, not the city at large. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal.3d 633, 637, 94 Cal.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606.) Accordingly, under this scheme, the park must be in sufficient proximity to the subdivision to serve those future residents. (Ibid.) The statute specifically states that the land or fees are to be used for neighborhood or community parks or recreation facilities. Although non subdivision residents are not excluded, the recreation facilities required by the Quimby Act ordinance are for the new residents whose presence creates the need for additional park land near the subdivision, as distinguished from a more general or diffuse need for area wide services. (Id. at p. 642, 94 Cal.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606.) In contrast, the community/recreation facility impact fees are to be used to build unique facilities intended to serve the entire population of the City. Thus, there is no duplication of fees. Rather, the Quimby Act fees and the community/recreation facility impact fees pertain to entirely separate categories of “recreation.” [14] 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 permits fees to be adopted for “[p]arks and recreation facilities.” (§ 66002, subd. (c)(7).) In sum, the community/recreation facility impact fees address needs other than “neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision.” Accordingly, those fees are not preempted by the Quimby Act. 4. Park Land Impact Fee. [15] [16] The City adopted two separate park land impact fee resolutions. Resolution No. 2007–04 set fees in lieu of park land dedication under the Quimby Act. *568 Resolution No. 2006–46 set such fees for residential development not involving a subdivision of land, i.e., development not subject to the Quimby Act. HBA contends the Resolution No. 2007–04 park land impact fee is invalid for three reasons. According to HBA, this impact fee is preempted by the Quimby Act, is calculated using the invalid “standard-based method,” and is inconsistent with the City's general plan. In support of the **20 first two reasons, HBA merely references its arguments regarding the community/recreation facility impact fee. However, this parkland impact fee cannot be preempted by the Quimby Act because it was adopted pursuant to that act. If HBA meant this argument to pertain to Resolution No. 2006–46 parkland fees, it is also without merit because those fees are expressly limited to residential development outside of the Quimby Act. HBA's contention that the fees are invalid due to the use of the standard-based calculation method is also unavailing for the reasons stated above. a. The park land impact fee standard is not inconsistent with the City's general plan. [17] The Quimby Act provides that the dedication of land, or the payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park per 1,000 residents of the subdivision. However, if the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, the legislative body may adopt the calculated Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12 amount as a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. (§ 66477, subd. (a)(2).) The Colgan Report calculated the ratio of existing park acreage to population as exceeding five acres per 1,000 persons. Accordingly, the City adopted the five acre standard as authorized by the Quimby Act. HBA argues that this standard of five acres per 1000 residents is inconsistent with the City's general plan. The 1990 general plan, relied on by HBA, established a standard of three acres as the basis for requiring land dedications and/or fees as authorized by the State Subdivision Map Act. [18] [19] [20] In enacting the parkland fee ordinance and resolutions, the City concluded that the standard of five acres per 1000 residents was consistent with the City's general plan. This conclusion carries a strong presumption of regularity that can only be overcome by a showing of abuse of discretion. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 816, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251.) “ ‘An abuse of discretion is established only if the city council has not proceeded in a manner required by law, its decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Ibid.) Appellate review is highly deferential to the local agency, “ ‘recognizing that “the body which adopted the general plan policies in its *569 legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. [Citations.]” ’ ” (Ibid.) [21] [22] An action is consistent with the general plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan. (Corona–Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 803.) State law does not require perfect conformity between the action and the general plan. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 817, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251.) Rather, to be consistent, the action simply must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. (Ibid.) Here, the City's general plan reflects the City's commitment as a matter of policy and priority to parks and recreation for its citizens. The plan proposes the acreage standards as “policies” and expressly recognizes that circumstances could change. The reference to the acreage standard being as authorized by the Subdivision Map Act indicates that the general plan was intended to be consistent with that act. **21 Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that the City did not abuse its discretion in finding that the five acre standard was not inconsistent with the general plan. The general plan references the Subdivision Map Act, which authorizes the five acre standard in section 66477, i.e., the Quimby Act. This is an officially approved statewide goal that the Legislature intended the City to be guided by in its planning process. (§ 65030.1.) Moreover, this standard furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan to promote access to parks and recreation. In sum, the five acre standard is compatible with the general plan. 5. Police Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2006–46). The City adopted the police impact fee to maintain its current level of service for police facilities, vehicles, and equipment as the City grows. The Colgan Report calculated the impact fees based on the cost of maintaining existing ratios of facilities, vehicles, and officer safety equipment to calls for service. Colgan used a random sample of all calls logged for 2005 classified by development type, i.e., single family residential, multi-family residential, etc., and the number of existing units per development type to arrive at the average police calls per existing unit of development type. Colgan then used the estimated replacement cost of existing facilities and assets divided by the total number of service calls to arrive at an average cost per call. To arrive at the capital cost per unit of development type, Colgan multiplied the calls per unit of development type times the cost per call. The Colgan Report also found that the existing police headquarters building was nearing capacity and additional space would be needed to accommodate the City's growth. *570 HBA again objects to the City's use of a standard- based method to arrive at the impact fee. According to HBA, this standard has no nexus to new housing that pays the fees and fails to identify public facilities required to serve new development. HBA additionally argues that the standard improperly includes operational expenses that are not “public facilities” such as radios, weapons, protective clothing, and vehicles. [23] Contrary to HBA's position, the Colgan Report provides a reasonable basis overall for the police impact fee. There is no question that increased population due to new development will place additional demands on the police department. To maintain the current level of service, the Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.13 department will need to be expanded. Since the fee calculation standard classifies the cost of service by development type, there is a nexus between the development that pays the fee and the burden on the police department caused by that development. [24] HBA's objection to the fee calculation including the capital cost of police vehicles and equipment is also without merit. Section 66000, subdivision (d), defines “public facilities” as including public improvements and public services. Vehicles and officer safety equipment are necessary to provide the public service of police protection. The fees are to be used for the initial capital costs of these items, not for the costs of operation and maintenance. [25] Finally, the public facilities to be financed by the police impact fees are adequately identified. The Colgan Report refers to expanding the current headquarters, constructing a substation, and adding the necessary police vehicles and officer safety equipment. **22 In sum, the police impact fee is valid. The City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors and the fee. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) 6. Municipal Facilities Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2006– 49). The City adopted the municipal facilities impact fee to maintain the City's existing level of service for municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment as the City grows. To calculate this fee, Colgan valued the existing municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment and calculated a per capita cost based on the current relationship between municipal facility costs and functional population. As with the community/recreation facility impact fee and the police impact fee, HBA objects to the City's use of a standard- based method to *571 arrive at this fee. According to HBA, this standard has no nexus to new housing that pays the fees and fails to identify public facilities required to serve new development. [26] Contrary to HBA's position, the Colgan Report provides a reasonable basis overall for the municipal facilities impact fee. Increased population due to new development will place additional demands on the existing complement of municipal facilities, vehicles and equipment. To maintain the current level of service, this complement will inevitably need to be expanded. Colgan noted that some city services are impacted only indirectly by residential development and thus allocated costs between residential and nonresidential development. This specific allocation of costs among different types of development provides a nexus between the development that pays the fee and the burden on municipal facilities posed by that development. [27] The Colgan Report acknowledges that specific plans for future municipal facilities and equipment are not currently available. The report further notes that “[t]he existing municipal complex contains large areas that are currently unfinished and unused. It is likely that some of the City's future space needs will be accommodated by finishing additional space in that building, which currently houses offices, maintenance facilities, and storage. Other space may be acquired or developed downtown.” Nevertheless, as discussed above, it is acceptable for the local agency to identify the facilities via general plan requirements. Moreover, contrary to HBA's position, Colgan considered the capacity of the existing facilities noting that such areas could be finished to provide for future municipal needs. Further, the section 66001, subdivisions (c) through (e) requirements that the collected fees be segregated, accounted for yearly, and refunded if a use cannot be shown guard against unjustified fee retention. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 332, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.) The City adequately considered all relevant factors and demonstrated a rational connection between those factors and the municipal facilities impact fee. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 232, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818.) The City's action was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 667, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 133 P.3d 1028.) Accordingly, this fee is valid. **23 7. Fire Protection Impact Fee (Resolution No. 2006–49). For purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees, the Colgan Report divided the City into two service areas, the older, established east side and the newer west side. Regarding the east side, the Colgan Report states that “the facilities and equipment needed to serve future development are already in place, so impact fees for that area are intended Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.14 to recover new development's *572 proportionate share of the cost of the fire protection assets serving the area. The revenue from those fees will be used to offset a portion of the City's recent investments in facility improvements and new equipment, which were funded in part with general fund money.” In contrast, the west side will need a new fire station and equipment to serve that area as it develops. a. The east side impact fees are invalid. As discussed above, the Mitigation Fee Act requires the local agency to determine that the amount of the fee and the need for the public facility are reasonably related to the burden created by the development project. Further, the local agency must identify the facilities to be financed by the fee. [28] HBA objects to the east side fees on the ground that they are being imposed for general revenue purposes. Since there is no need for additional fire protection facilities in that part of the City to serve new development, HBA contends that no nexus exists between the fees and the burden posed by new housing. HBA is correct. While a fee may be imposed to cover costs attributable to increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project 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 (§ 66001, subd. (g)), the existing east side fire protection facilities are already adequate to continue to provide the same level of service. In other words, the new development will not burden the current facilities. The Colgan Report's proposal to reimburse the City for its prior general fund money investments is not authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act. Rather, such a fee would constitute general revenue to the City in violation of section 66008, and therefore is invalid. b. The west side impact fees are valid. [29] The Colgan Report concludes that, due to the barrier created by Highway 41 between the east side and the west side of the City, a new fire station will be required to serve the west side as it develops. In calculating the cost per capita for the west side, Colgan included the forecasted population of a 476 acre area that may be annexed to the City in the future. This addition resulted in reducing the west side fire protection impact fees by approximately 28 percent. HBA objects to the calculation including this potential annexation area as opposed to using the existing legal boundaries of the City. HBA posits that a new fire station might not be needed if the hypothetical annexation does not occur. Contrary to HBA's position, the Colgan Report provides a reasonable basis for the City's adoption of the west side impact fee. There is no indication *573 that, without the potential annexation, additional fire protection facilities would be unnecessary to serve new development. Rather, it can be inferred from the relatively low percentage of fee reduction, i.e., 28 percent, that fire protection facilities would be required with or without the annexation. The City considered **24 the potential population to be served for the purpose of reducing the fee that would otherwise be charged and spreading the costs more equitably. This action was not arbitrary or capricious. 8. Refuse Vehicle and Container Impact Fees (Resolution No. 2006–46). To calculate the refuse vehicle impact fees for single family residences, Colgan used the existing relationship between the number of side-loading trucks and the number of dwelling units in the City. These fees are intended to provide for additional vehicles as the number of customers increases. The analysis assumes the need for additional vehicles will increase in proportion to the number of additional dwelling units. The impact fee calculated for refuse containers is based on the cost of the three containers provided to each new single family residence. [30] HBA contends this standard improperly includes operational expenses in violation of section 65913.8. According to HBA, the refuse containers and rapidly depreciating refuse vehicles are not public facilities that may be funded by development impact fees. Rather, HBA argues, the containers and replacement vehicles should be paid for by the monthly garbage collection service fees. Section 66000, subdivision (d), defines “public facilities” as including public improvements and public services. Refuse vehicles and containers are necessary to provide the public service of garbage collection. The fees are to be used for the initial capital costs of these items, not for the costs of operation and maintenance. Accordingly, these fees are valid. Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.15 9. City's collection and administration practices comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. Fees collected under the Mitigation Fee Act must be administered pursuant to the Act's statutory requirements. In general, the local agency must deposit the fee collected “with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency....” (§ 66006, subd. (a).) Thereafter, within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the local agency must provide certain information to the public for each *574 separate account or fund. This information includes: a brief description of the type of fee; the amount of the fee; the beginning and ending balance; the amount of the fees collected and interest earned; an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement; and an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected. (§ 66006, subd. (b).) A fee may be established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or be imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis. (§ 66000, subd. (b).) At the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it must identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance (§ 66006, subd. (f)) and must expend the fee solely and exclusively for the purpose or purposes so identified (§ 66008). HBA objects to the City's administration of the development fees on the ground that the City did not adequately identify the public facilities and improvements to be financed as part of enacting the fee resolutions. HBA further argues that the City's annual reporting does not identify each public improvement on which funds were **25 expended and does not show the total percentage of the cost of public improvement that was funded by fees as required by section 66006, subdivision (b)(1)(E). HBA additionally contends that, when the City imposes and collects a fee payment, it does not identify the public improvements that the fee will be used to finance in violation of section 66006, subdivision (f). As discussed above, the City adequately identified the public facilities and improvements when it enacted the development impact fees. [31] Further, the City's annual reporting meets the statutory requirements. HBA objects to the City segregating the funds by facility category, rather than by a specifically identified project. However, fees may be established, as they were here, for a broad class of projects as opposed a specific improvement. (§ 66000, subd. (b).) Moreover, under section 66006, subdivision (a), all that is required is that the fees be deposited into “a separate capital facilities account” to avoid commingling with the local agency's other revenues and funds. Further, contrary to HBA's position, the City's annual accountings for fiscal year 2006–2007 do identify the specific projects on which the fees were expended and the percentage of the cost that was funded by the fees in compliance with section 66006, subdivision (b). [32] HBA's claim that the City violated section 66006, subdivision (f), is also without merit. That section pertains to imposition of “a fee for public *575 improvements on a specific development project.” (Italics added.) As noted by the trial court, HBA has neither alleged nor shown that a development fee has been imposed directly on it or one of its members. Accordingly, section 66006, subdivision (f), cannot provide HBA with a basis for relief. DISPOSITION The portion of the judgment upholding the fire protection impact fee for the east side of the City is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. I CONCUR: DAWSON, J. ARDAIZ, P.J. I concur in the result. I write separately to express my view regarding the assessment of a Community/Recreation Facility Impact Fee. In the instant case, City imposed a fee pursuant to section 66000 et seq., regarding a category of desired potential municipal improvements such as a municipal aquatic center, a municipal gymnasium and fitness center and a naval air museum. Appellant objects that the specific facility is not clearly identified and therefore complains that it must be specifically identified. As noted in the majority opinion “reference was made to examples of future facilities without any actual plan or commitment.” (Maj. opn., p. 17.) I agree with the majority that a class of projects may be identified as opposed to a specific project. However, that resolution does not address my concern regarding the nature Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.16 of the class of projects in terms of relationship to the specific development. Section 66000 specifically provides within its definition of a “fee” that it is a monetary exaction “imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, ....” (§ 66000, subd. (b), italics added.) Section 66001 addresses the duties of the local agency in regard to the fee and provides in pertinent part, “Determine how there is a reasonable relationship **26 between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.” (§ 66001, subd. (a)(3), italics added.) Specifically, my concern is the category of municipal improvements designated as justification for the fee in question. Using general rules of construction, there are two that have bearing here. Noscitur a sociis, it is known from its associates, means that a word may be defined by an accompanying word. Ejusdem generis, of the same kind, means that general words are construed to *576 embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the specific word. (2A Sutherland, Statutes & Statutory (7th ed. 2007) Construction, §§ 47:16–47:17). In the context of this case, I would conclude that the specific facilities identified such as a municipal aquatic center and a naval air museum identify the class of projects referred to. Or, to be specific, the class of projects referred to would be reasonably identified as community wide projects, which is precisely how they were described. This brings me to the specific concern that I raise. Section 66000 and 66001 refer to a fee related to the development project. The term “related” would in its normal usage mean associated with or having a close connection to. (Webster's New World Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) p. 1198.) I would infer from this that the proposed specific project or class of projects must be a consequence of or have a direct relationship to the proposed development. I have no argument that the proposed class of municipal projects herein is not desirable or beneficial. However, I have great difficulty concluding that their desirability or need are a consequence of or have a direct relationship to the proposed project herein. That a community may be desirous of celebrating its military heritage is laudable. However, it is a community benefit that springs from an expression of the nature of the community atmosphere and culture. Likewise, an aquatic center is a desirable and useful thing but it is difficult to infer how its need springs from the project herein. Clearly as population expands or shifts, more and different infrastructure facilities are required. New population centers require building new elementary schools and new roads, etc. However, there is a significant difference between building a new elementary school or a new high school that may service more than just the development and a facility that services the entire community. That a community grows and the nature of the population changes relates to policy decisions that fall upon the entire community as opposed to one aspect of the community. In other words, the fact that a new development may increase traffic on a central roadway does not mean that the new development should be responsible for building a freeway. Such responsibilities should fall equally within the community and, in my view to link it to a specific development is a tenuous thread. Utilizing that type of reasoning justifies a development fee for almost anything and I do not glean that type of result from the words of this statute. Appellant argues, as it did before the trial court, that failure to identify a specific project violates the provision of section 66001, subdivision (a)(2) that the “facilities shall be identified;” likewise the provisions of section 66006, subdivision (b)(1)(E) requiring *577 “[a]n identification of each public improvement” as well as related statutes with similar language. While I do not read the statute so narrowly, I would contend that the failure to identify a specific project could deprive the developer of any reasonable ability to determine if the specific project is reasonably related to **27 the proposed fee. On the other hand, a listing of projects that clearly would relate to the development such as increased sewage, schools, water, et cetera does define projects that on the surface do bear a reasonable relationship to the normal infrastructure facilities generated by a new development. The impact of allowing general community municipal improvements without any realistic showing as to how they bear a direct or reasonable relationship to the proposed development raises serious issues as to whether the statute herein does justify the fees imposed for the proposed improvements. I do not accept that simply concluding a particular general municipal improvement benefits the community as a whole and necessarily a specific development within that community somehow supports the conclusion that it is related to a specific development. Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City..., 185 Cal.App.4th 554... 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.17 The majority concludes by footnote that the specific nature of the facility was not argued as opposed to the contention that the specific identity of the project must be specified, in other words, that the specific issue was not preserved for appeal. (See maj. opn., fn. 2, p. 18.) In my view the issue is at best ambiguous as to whether the general argument subsumes the specific but I do agree that the specific argument directed toward my concern was not raised. I write separately to ensure no implication that inferentially I accept the conclusion that the projects indicated herein are justified under the statute. In my view, absent some showing of a more direct and specific relationship between the municipal improvement and the proposed development, such fees are seriously subject to question. All Citations 185 Cal.App.4th 554, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7 Footnotes 1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code. 2 The concurring opinion questions the validity of this community/recreation facility impact fee on the ground that the proposed city-wide municipal projects are not adequately related to the specific development project. The concurring justice opines that the relationship between the development and the need for the improvement must be direct to be reasonable. However, HBA did not argue, either in the trial court or on appeal, that this reasonable relationship requirement was not met. Rather, HBA limited its argument to the specificity requirement. Accordingly, we express no opinion on this issue. End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. City of La Quinta FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: Financial Advisory Commissioners FROM: Karla Romero, Finance Director DATE: February 12, 2020 SUBJECT: FINANCE DEPARMENT CURRENT AND FUTURE INITIATIVES The Commission requested an update on the implementation of new banking services and Staff would like to present a summary of 2019/20 Finance Department activities performed in addition to required operational responsibilities (Attachment 1). The transition from Wells Fargo to Bank of the West is nearly complete. The following products have been successfully implemented. •Cash vault deposit and ordering services •Payroll •Accounts payables •Credit card terminals and processing •Online payment processing systems In addition to the implementation of new products, the City is also winding down activities with Wells Fargo including: •The transition of outgoing and incoming electronic payments from multiple merchant accounts and government agencies •Voiding and reissuing (when appropriate) all stale dated checks The City Finance Department is now focusing on: •The transition of the Housing Authority account •The transition of the SilverRock Golf Course account •Implementation of City credit card program Full implementation of products is expected by June 2020. These additional services require coordination with external agencies and several city departments to ensure proper oversight and reporting. Both banks have been working closely with City staff and continue to provide services as needed. No services have been removed from Wells Fargo Bank and fees are limited to when activity occurs. In addition, fees have not changed for Wells Fargo. The City monitors bank balances daily and keeps a minimum amount of funding to cover anticipated DEPARTMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 4 monthly fees for both banks. The City will begin to close out services with Wells Fargo in the Spring of 2020 with full closure expected by late 2020. Attachment 1: 2019/20 Finance Department Update 2/5/2020 2:33 PM 2019/20 Finance Department Update  Accomplished July – September 2019 ☒ Established PARS Pension Trust $6.5M☒ Established new banking services with Bank of the West☒ CalPERS Payroll Audit (unanticipated), started in late August☒ State Dept. of Transportation Audit (unanticipated), ongoing since Jan. 2019 ☒ Implemented Tyler Content Mgmt. in Tyler to store records with financial data ☒ Review & selection of investment brokers, request for information, 14 responses ☒ Member of review & selection team for short-term vacation rental compliance vendor  Accomplished October – December 2019 ☒ Complete Budget-at-a-Glance community update for 19/20☒ Complete all annual external audits for 18/19☒ 19/20 First Quarter Budget Report☒ 18/19 Year End Budget Report☒ Go live with all Bank of the West banking services☐ Produce 18/19 Comprehensive Financial Report (Extension, will be done by 2/28/2020) ☒ Approve new Cash Management Policy☒ Update Investment Policy with two additional brokers (Higgins Capital & Great Pacific) ☒ Annual Measure G Compliance Report☒ Update 10-year financial projections for General Fund☒ Complete finance department needs assessment☐ Complete settlement with Codorniz HOA for TOT Mitigation Payments (waiting on membership vote, update to be provided in late February 2020) ☒ Increase communication/start settlement discussions with Centre Pointe for TOT Mitigation payments ☐ Establish new investment trust custody services (in contract negotiations with Bank of New York Mellon). Contract negotiations underway. ☒ 2019 DIF Study evaluation with FAC committee  Current Projects - January – March 2020 ☐ 20/21 Budget preparation☐ Center Point TOT Mitigation complete payment of funds and start discussions on potential amendments to the Development Agreement ☐ Implement Position Budgeting module in Tyler for payroll projections☐ Review Franchise Agreements and FCC guideline changes☒ 19/20 Mid-Year Budget Report ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 ☐ Conclude the evaluation of ESS Tyler module for payroll processing (with HR) ☐ Highway 111 – EID/EIFD’s/LLD evaluation, Issue RFP for consulting services and create an FAC subcommittee ☐ SilverRock and Housing Authority transition to Bank of the West ☐ Annual Finance Policy Reviews and Updates – Investments, Cash Management, Purchasing  Fast approaching for April – June 2020 ☐ 19/20 Third Quarter Budget Report ☐ Implement new accounting standard, GASB 87 for all City leases, new disclosures required as of 12-15-19 ☐ Updated quotes & evaluation for sales tax and property tax analysis ☐ Implement Employment Development Dept. Independent Contractor Reporting (State mandate)  Also want to work on ☐ Internal newsletters for Citywide updates from Finance – purchasing, travel guidelines, surplus, payroll, accounts payables, budget ☐ Re-evaluation of Pension Liability – long-term projections & payment options ☐ Internal training for finance related matters – develop an annual training cycle ☐ Disposition of SilverRock Golf Course ☐ Review and update all inter-agency (Indio and Indian Wells) reimbursement agreements (traffic signals, median landscaping) ☐ 457 ICMA Plan Review, Employee/Employer fees and investment strategies, FAC subcommittee project ☐ TOT analysis and valley-wide comparison ☐ Library DIF loan repayment write-off. Work with Department of Finance and County of Riverside to complete. ☐ Review of Puerta Azul TOT mitigation agreement  Other Department Requests for Finance Staff: ☐ Evaluate and implement a citywide asset management system for public works and streets. ☐ Evaluate and implement a new software platform for D & D (Using TrakIt). ☐ Financial analysis reports for community events such as Ironman, Art Festival, etc. ☐ Analysis of current franchise agreements ☐ Analysis of cell phone tower agreements HAND OUT FOR DEPARMENTAL REPORT ITEM NO. 3 FAC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2020 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 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. 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. POWERPOINT FAC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2020 2/12/2020 1 Financial Advisory Commission Regular Quarterly Meeting 02/12/2020 “Count Everyone Once, Only Once And In The Right Place” Doug Hassett ‐ Partnership Specialist Dept. of Commerce with the U.S. Census Bureau Los Angeles Regional Census Center 2 The Road to 2020 1 2 2/12/2020 2 Community Partnership and Engagement Program (CPEP) Engage organizations & individuals to reach out to hard to count groups and those who aren’t motivated to respond to the national campaign Educate people about the 2020 Census and foster cooperation Encourage community partners to motivate people to self‐respond ENROLLING PARTNERS What Does the Census Bureau Do 4 Largest boots on the ground organization next to the US military 3 4 2/12/2020 3 1790 – FIRST CENSUS •Thomas Jefferson was charged with overseeing the very first Census •He noted that the Southwestern portion of the Country was most important. •Southwest just as important in 2020 •Difference being? 5 6 This section establishes that every 10 years, every adult in the country must answer a survey. Based on the surveys, Congress must determine how many representatives (at least one required) are to come from each state and how federal resources are to be distributed among the states. It’s In The Constitution Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution 5 6 2/12/2020 4 7 How The Data Is Used 8 7 8 2/12/2020 5 Pencils & Potholes 9 •Allocation of dollars back to states and communities (Almost $700 Billion Annually) •Under count = approximately $2000 per person on an annual basis, $20,000 over 10 years •(CDBG) Block Grants New Ability to Self Respond Starting March 23, 2020 •Internet •Phone •Paper Form Or traditional in‐person interview 9 10 2/12/2020 6 11 The census is confidential and required by Law. Results of the census are reported in Statistical format only. We do not share personal information with other government agencies or law enforcement. All census employees swear to a lifetime oath to protect respondent information. Penalties for wrongful disclosure –Up to 5 years imprisonment and or a fine of $250,000. Confidentiality Title 13, U.S. Code 12 Before you answer Question 1, count the people living in this house, apartment, or mobile home using our guidelines. Count all people including babies, who live and sleep here most of the time. If no one lives and sleeps at this address most of the time, go online at survey.census.gov or call the number on page 8. The Census must also include people without a permanent place to live, so: If someone who does not have a permanent place to live is staying here on April 1, 2020, count that person. The Census Bureau also conducts counts in institutions and other places, so: Do not Count anyone living away from here, either at college or in the Armed Forces. Do not count anyone in a Nursing home, jail, prison, detention facility, etc, on April 1, 2020 Leave these people off your questionnaire, even if they will return to live here after they leave college, the nursing home, the military, jail, etc. Otherwise, they may be counted twice. Census Instructions 11 12 2/12/2020 7 Census Questionnaire 14 13 14 2/12/2020 8 (ROAM) Response Outreach Area Mapper 15 (ROAM) Response Outreach Area Mapper 16 15.0% 15 16 2/12/2020 9 17 Identifying hard-to-count populations Racial and ethnic minorities Lower income Persons who do not speak English fluently LGBT Undocumented immigrants Children under 5 People experiencing homelessness Tribal members Rural Communities Supporting Linguistic Diversity •Available in Spanish –Enumerator Instruments (hand‐held) –Paper questionnaire and other mailings –Field enumeration materials •Internet option and Census Questionnaire Assistance (CQAs) will be available in 12 non‐English languages –Spanish, Chinese (simplified), Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Tagalog, Polish, French, Haitian Creole, Portuguese, Japanese •Items available in 59 non‐English languages –Language glossary –Language identification card 18 17 18 2/12/2020 10 How Do I Become a Partner 19 •Include information about the 2020 Census in e‐mails, correspondence, or a web banner. •Provide a link to the 2020 Census on your Web site. •Launch social media campaigns or host Twitter chats or Facebook Live events on 2020 Census job opportunities and the 2020 Census to educate your customers, employees, and members of your org. •Invite a Census Bureau speaker to your organization or event. •Submit online letters to the editor, op‐eds, and commentary on why participating in the Census is so important to you and all. •Provide free online advertising opportunities to promote the 2020 Census and job openings. •Launch text message campaigns to promote the 2020 Census and related job opportunities. •Actively monitor, fact check, and correct misinformation on social networks about the 2020 Census. •Post and distribute 2020 Census materials on privacy and confidentiality to employees, constituents, and customers, both in hard copy and through online channels. •Open your offices for Census Workshops and hold one yourself. Complete Count Committees Background and Structure 20 Schedule CCC Training Today 19 20 2/12/2020 11 21 KEY DATES Los Angeles Regional Census Center•The Census Center is located in downtown Los Angeles •LARCC covers 7 states: CA, NV, ID, OR, WA, Alaska & Hawaii 22 21 22 2/12/2020 12 23 WE’RE HIRING Jobs Hotline: 855‐JOB‐2020 Management Positions www.usajobs.gov Office & Field Positions www.2020census.gov/jobs Contact Information Doug Hassett Partnership Specialist, Los Angeles Region Territory: Riverside County Douglas.d.hassett@2020census.gov 760‐693‐2491 24 23 24 2/12/2020 13 Financial Advisory Commission Meeting 02/12/2020 Consent Calendar Items No. 2-5 Commentary Regarding Revenue and Expenditure Flow Throughout the Fiscal Year, and Impact on Portfolio Revenue and Expenditure Cycles •Revenues and expenditures are not even throughout the fiscal year •The City receives property tax payments twice per year •Hotel and Sales Taxes are higher in the Spring months during “peak season” •Expenditure outflows can include large payments towards CIP projects or debt service payments •A majority of revenue received in the summer months was earned and attributed to the prior year and as such recorded in June’s adjusting period 25 26 2/12/2020 14 Revenue and Expenditure Cycles Revenue and Expenditure CyclesRevenue and Expenditure Cycles Impact on City’s Portfolio 27 28 2/12/2020 15 Portfolio Values December and June Financial Advisory Commission Meeting 02/12/2020 Business Session Item No. 1 Receive and File Fiscal Year 2019/20 Mid-Year Budget Report 29 30 2/12/2020 16 Mid-Year Report Included •Presented to City Council on 1/21/20 •Revenue Adjustments in 3 Funds –Total increase of $2,342,768 •Expenditure Adjustments in 19 Funds –Total increase of $1,687,736 •General Fund Reserves General Fund Revenues •Revenues on target •No decreases anticipated •Total TOT revenue - $10,695,000 budgeted •Investment returns remain stable •Measure G balance at $9.6 million –$8,838,375 reserves Revenue Description Adjustment TOT - Hotels 130,000$ TOT - Short-Term Vacation Rentals 705,000 Short-Term Vacation Rental Registrations 27,000 Allocated Interest Earnings 500,000 Insurance Recoveries 11,000 Grading Permits 4,000 Measure G Sales Tax Reserves 800,000 TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS 2,177,000$ Other Funds Adjustment Information Technology $100,000 Capital Improvements $65,768 31 32 2/12/2020 17 General Fund Expenses •Unanticipated & Fluctuating •Reimbursement Request •Building Improvements •Park Improvements •Required Maintenance •Housing Element Update Expense Description Adjustment Legal Services 60,000$ Capital Projects 965,768 Park Facilities 259,000 Marketing 2,500 Public Buildings 35,200 Planning 40,000 TOTAL OPERATING ADJUSTMENTS 1,362,468$ Other Fund Adjustments •Assessments completed •Implement professional recommendations •Avoid budget shortfalls •Use fund balances when appropriate •Recycling State mandated •Carryover contract (DIF) •State pass-thru payments •Reimbursement request Internal Service Funds (3) 155,000 Library & Museum Fund 12,000 Lighting & Landscape Fund 22,000 Cal Recycle Fund 50,000 Measure A Fund 6,000 Development Impact Fee Funds (9) 13,500 CASP Fund 1,000 Capital Improvement Fund 65,768 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 325,268 Expense Adjustment Fund 33 34 2/12/2020 18 General Fund Reserves Reserve Category Current Target Deficit Cash Flow Reserve 5,000,000 5,000,000 - Natural Disaster Reserve 10,000,000 10,000,000 - Economic Disaster 11,000,000 11,000,000 - Capital Re placement Reserve 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Pension Trust Benefits 6,540,000 10,000,000 3,460,000 TOTAL 37,540,000 46,000,000 8,460,000 Unassigned Fund Balance 15,989,726 Recommended Allocation (5,000,000) Unassigned Balance 10,989,726 Allocation Options Reserve Category Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Deficit Capital Replacement Reserve $2,500,000 $2,950,000 $1,540,000 $5,000,000 Pension Trust 2,500,000 2,050,000 3,460,000 3,460,000 TOTAL $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $8,460,000 35 36 2/12/2020 19 Approved Adjustments •Budget Adjustments –Revenues $2,342,768 –Expenses $1,687,736 •Designated Reserve Funding Allocation –Pension Trust $3,460,000 –Capital Replacement Reserve $1,540,000 Commissioner Comments & Questions 37 38 2/12/2020 20 Financial Advisory Commission Meeting 02/12/2020 Study Session Item No. 1 Highway 111 Corridor Area Plan The Highway 111 Corridor Provides 75% of City’s sales tax revenue Retail is changing Sustain economic future 39 40 2/12/2020 21 The Highway 111 Corridor City hired Rangwala Associates to assist in preparation of the Highway 111 Corridor Plan Highway 111 Corridor identified as priority for study 41 42 2/12/2020 22 Community Input •Community Workshop •Three-Day Design Charrette •Online Survey •Joint Study Sessions with Council and Planning Commission The Highway 111 Corridor Vision… Reimagines Highway 111 As An Iconic Place Encourages Vibrant Walkable Areas To Activate The Public Realm Fosters Economic Growth Supports Mixed-use Development 43 44 2/12/2020 23 The Corridor Plan… Describes current development pattern Identifies vision Contains policies to carry out vision Identifies actions to implement vision Guides staff in discussion with developers The Implementation Section identifies… •Actions to carry out Vision •Timeframes to implement actions •Implementing agencies/ partners •Potential funding sources 45 46 2/12/2020 24 Priority Actions Open Space/Trails Branding/Marketing Zoning and Design Economic Development Implementation Actions •Support CV Link •Develop Cultural Trail –Continuous trail along the north side of 111 –Integrate bikes, pedestrians, gathering spaces with local art and culture •Popup Art and Events 47 48 2/12/2020 25 Implementation Actions •Streetscape and landscape design plans •New design guidelines to focus on the public spaces, building design/form, and streets –Remove barriers to good design –Support development –Support walkable environment Potential Funding Mechanisms •Explore Business Improvement District (BID), Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), and Landscape District 49 50 2/12/2020 26 What’s next? 1st Quarter 2020 • Issue RFPs • Form based code •Design Guidelines •Explore financing options 2nd Quarter 2020 • Form based code workshop to Council and Planning Commission •Award contracts for RFPs 3rd Quarter 2020 •Explore potential pilot project development scenario • Streetscape and landscape design 4th Quarter 2020 • Explore marketing and branding options • Possible implementation of new code More information Danny Castro, Design & Development Director dcastro@laquintaca.gov Cheri Flores, Planning Manager clflores@laquintaca.gov Website: www.hwy111LQ.com 51 52 2/12/2020 27 Financial Advisory Commission Meeting 02/12/2020 Study Session Item No. 2 Community Workshop Re-cap 53 54 2/12/2020 28 Workshop Summary •Held on Saturday, January 11, 2020 •85 people in attendance –2 FAC (Mills and Batavick) •Marks the start of budget preparations Identified Priorities •Highway 111 corridor •Short‐term vacation rental program •SilverRock development •Cultural Campos in Old Town 55 56 2/12/2020 29 10‐Year Projections Provided •Budget is produced by the City Manager with Finance facilitating the production, verification of projections, and ongoing monitoring •Projections are also approved by the City Manager •Used baseline provided to FAC in October –Minor updates for workshop –Additional updates for today Summary of Updates since October •Revenue Assumptions –No changes to revenue growth projections –SilverRock revenue shift out one year •Expense Assumptions –Reduced Police from 7% to 6% •Added for 2/5/2020 FAC update –Actuals for prior fiscal year 2018/19 –All 2019/20 approved adjustments to date 57 58 2/12/2020 30 Commissioner Comments & Questions Financial Advisory Commission Meeting 02/12/2020 Departmental Report Item No. 1 Third Quarter 2019 (July-September) Sales Tax Update for the City of La Quinta 59 60 2/12/2020 31 Top 25 Businesses Sales Tax Measure G Arco AM/PM Marshalls Bed Bath & Beyond McDonald’s Best Buy Ross Circle K Stater Bros Costco Stuft Pizza G&M Oil Target Genesis/Hyundai LQ TJ Maxx Home Depot Torre Nissan In N Out Burger Tower Mart Kohls Ulta Beauty LQ Cadillac Chevrolet Verizon Wireless LQ Resort/PGA West Walmart Lowes Amazon Fulfillment LQ Resort/PGA West Arco AM/PM Lowes Best Buy Marshalls Circle K Mathis Brothers Furniture Costco McDonald’s DMV Allocation Ross Desert European Motorcars Target G&M Oil TJ Maxx Home Depot Tower Mart I-10 Toyota Ulta Beauty In N Out Burger Verizon Wireless Kohls Walmart LQ Cadillac Chevrolet Commissioner Comments & Questions 61 62 2/12/2020 32 Financial Advisory Commission Meeting 02/12/2020 Departmental Item No. 2 Update on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ending June 30, 2019 FAC Presentation Scheduled for 3/18/2020 City Council Presentation Scheduled for 2/18/2020 63 64 2/12/2020 33 Highlights •Strong General Fund reserves •Lower outstanding debt •All new regulatory requirements have been included •Extended and disclosures notes provided –RDA loan repayment, Extraordinary Item –Interfund loans write‐offs, Special Item –Pension and OPEB trusts, new disclosures 65 66 2/12/2020 34 Financial Advisory Commission Meeting 02/12/2020 Departmental Report Item No. 4 Finance Department Current and Future Initiatives Commissioner Comments & Questions 67 68 2/12/2020 35 The Financial Advisory Commission Will be having a Special Meeting on March 18, 2020 Next Regular Quarterly Meeting is on May 13, 2020 69 70