CC Resolution 1995-012^ G RESOLUTION NO.95-12
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA A*FIlNG WRlTl*N FINDINGS AND
WRI'rIEN RESPONSES TO WRITIEN OBJECTIONS
RECEIVED IN REGARD TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO.1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California the City Council")
did duly pass and adopt Ordinance No.43 on November 29, 1983, and did. thereby adopt and
approve the Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment l'r(*ect t.'Ie Redevelopment
Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council did duly pass and adopt Ordinance No.258 on December
20, 1994 and did thereby revise certain time limitations set forth in the Redevelopment Plan in
compliance with Section 33333.6 of the Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and
Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. the Community Redevelopment Law"); and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency the Agency") has undertaken the
required steps for the consideration of the adoption of a proposed amendment the Amendment
No.1") to the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, a draft Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project as
amended by Amendment No.1 the Amended Redevelopment Plan") has been prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 1995, a duly noticed joint public hearing at a joint meeting
of the City Council and the Agency on the proposed Amendment No.1 was conducted by the
City Council and the Agency, and said joint meeting was continued to March 7, 1995. and
WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Amendment
No.1, or the regularity of the proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written
comments prior to the commencement of or at the joint public hearing, or to give oral testimony
at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Amendment No.1 should not be
adopted; and
WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Community Redevelopment Law, requires that before
adopting the Amended Redevelopment Plan, the City Council must make written findings in
response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity, addressing such
objections in detail and giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the Agency staff to respond to written
objections received from affected property owners and taxing entities, giving reasons for not
accepting specified objections and suggestions, and the City Council has reviewed such
responses; and
pusL:23615*l I424l*33S.42
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G * 5.L ii I
RESOLUTION NO. 95-12
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both written and
oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of Amendment No.1.
NOW, ThEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that the City Council and the Agency have
duly complied with all the provisions, requirements and procedures of the Community
Redevelopment Law, relating to the preparation and adoption of Amendment No.1.
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that all persons have had the opportunity to be
heard or to file a written objection to the proposed Amendment No.1.
Section 3. Having heard and carefully reviewed all oral objections presented at the joint
public hearing on Amendment No.1, the City Council hereby finds and determines that sound
reasons exist in the record of the joint public hearing including, without limitation, testimony
presented by Agency staff in response to such oral objections) to justify adoption of Amendment
No.1 as proposed, notwithstanding such oral objections, and such oral objections are,
accordingly, overruled.
Section 4. Having heard and carefully reviewed all written objections presented by each
affected property owner or taxing entity, the City Council hereby makes the required written
findings and responses to such written objections, as set forth in Exhibit A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, and determines that i) the responses to written objections
are supported by substantial evidence, and ii) there are sound reasons to justify adoption of
Amendment No.1 as proposed, notwithstanding such written objections.
PUEL:23615_II424I*3S.42 2
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G ii * II I
RESOLUTION NO.95-12
Section 5. The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and all objections to the
adoption of Amendment No.1.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of La Quinta held the 7th day of March 1995, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Mend*ers Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTMN: Council Members Bangerter, Cathcart
JOHN PENA, Mayo,City of La Quinta
S UNDRA JU OLA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
* /1 /*f
DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney
PUBL:23615_1I424I*38.42 3
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G I,.
EXHIBIT A"
RESPONSES TO WRI'n1*N ORTECIlONS
To be inserted]
PUBL:23615*1 14241B2338.42 4
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G IL * * I I
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJE*ONS
SUBMITTED AT THE
FEBRUARY 21, 1995 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ONTHE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO.1 AND THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RELATED THERETO
March 1, 1995
Intr*di[*ti*
On Febru** 21, 1995, the City Council of the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency held a joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
La Quinta Redevelopment Project No.1 as amended by Amendment No.1 Plan") and Final
Environmental Impact Report Final EIR"). The purpose of the hearing was to receive both oral
and written testimony for and against the proposed Plan and Final EIR. During the hearing, no
written or oral objections were expressed regarding the Final EIR; but the following written
objections were filed regarding the Plan:
* Mr. Nial Morgan, a resident of the City of La Quinta
* Mr. Irvin C. Chapman, an owner of property in the City of La Quinta
* Mr. & Mrs. Fred Olds, owners of property in the City of La Quinta
* Mr. & Mrs. Richard Earl Bean, residents of the City of La Quinta
* Mr. Tom Levy, General Manager-Chief Engineer of the Coachella Valley Water
District, an affected taxing entity.
Section 33363 of the California Communitv Redevelopment Law the Law*') requires that
before adopting a redevelopment plan, the City Council shall evaluate all evidence and
testimony, both for and against the adoption of the plan, arid shall make written findings in
response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. The Law
further states that the City Council shall respond in writing to the written objections received
before or at the noticed public hearing and that these responses shall describe the disposition of
the issues raised and address in detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and
suggestions.
Staff has responded to each of these written objections with a separate letter which was
transmitted to the respective authors. This document presents the oij*ctions and the
corresponding written responses for objections submitted on the Plan.
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G%i3
* p&
frA*-6(*- 777-7/OJ o**fln
uuLLjg*;9*iw
PLANNING OEPARTMEMT*
fl*: L*.
f* * *
V'
i*
/a&Ap*#*
* *
* *(1c*i * *
*
* Jk
hf42, * &A
4
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G I L l* II * E4 II I
ThA95 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 819) 777-7000
FAX 619) 777-7101
Tebruary 17, 1995
Mr. Nial Morgan
*252 Oaktrue
LI QuintL CA 92253
SUBJECT: IZ'l'r* REGARDING OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Dear Mr. Morgan.
I have received your letter regarding your objections to the proposed Plan Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No.1. In your letter, you
expressed concern regarding the inclusion of your property within the boudarie5 of the
Redevelopment Project Area No.1 and the costs in counectlon with the infrastructnre projects
pro posed under the Amended Redevelopment Plan. I would like to take this opporttmity to
explain wny your neighborhood Is in the Project Area boundaries and explain how the Agency
will go about financing the projects llsted in the Amended Plan.
In 1983, the Agency created Redevelopment Project No.1. which incorporated the southern
area of the City, from Avenue 50 to the southern City limits. thus your property his been
included within the boundaries of Project Area No.1 since its inception. and is not being added
pursuant to the proposed Amendmen* In 1983, the property later known as PGA West was
uLdeveloped. The objectives of the Agency upon the adoption of Project Area No.1 were to
improve the streets, sewers, and flood control Systems in the Project AreL Au many residents
will recall, this area of the city was particularly vulnerable to flood danage during seasons
of heavy rainfall. Tri*flc congestion also was a recurring probleIL U adilUon, the Project
Area needed various improvements to promote the downtown Village) areL
In response to your concern regaiidlng payment of the costs of the proposed infrastructure
projects, it should be noted that a common misperception of redevelopment 15 that it c-lu
an increase in property taxeL However, the California Constitution prohibits any pubic
agency from increasing property taxes. Thus, the Agency has no authority to raise property
taxes. Money for redevelopment activities comes from tIX Increment revenue", which is
based on the reallocation of a portion of the property tax revenue from the Couty1 schools
and sped" districts to the Agency. You will not be charged or incur any additional costs as
a result of the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
MAILING AODRESS P.O. BOX 1504. LA OUINTA. CALIFORNIA g**3 u(
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ GIL II * EL II I
These tax Increment revenues collected by the Agency from Project Area No.1 to date bale
been used by the Agency to Issue bondu to tEnd many redevelopment projec*s. WIth
redevelopment. the Agency has improved the flood control facilities In and around the areas
mast susceptible to storm water damage. The Agency has also sponsored a program to
upgrade sewers from deteriorating septic tanks to modern sewage treatment facIlities. Other
activities Include the reconstruction of a new Washington Street bridge crossing over the
Whltewater Storm Channel. the construction of the first grocery store in southern La qifinti,
and improvements to various public parki.
While not every redevelopment ud*ty the Agency has undertaken iruotly benefits your
property, the improvements on major streets like Washington and Jefferson Streets will
certainly benefit the accesslbillty to and from PSA WesL IR addition, the uew Ralph's OR
Washington Street provides shopping much closer than other markets In the city. The
proposed Nan Amendment will provide improvements to local public parks and the Like
Cahidfla Regional Park In your areL
I hope this letter helps you understand the reasons for the inclusion of PGA West wlthln the
boundaries of Project Area No.1 and the nature of the financing mechanlsm uwized by the
Agency to construct the projects being proposed. For your information, your letter will be
submitted to the city Council during the public hearing. if you have any further question:,
please do not hesltate to contact me at G1* 777*7125.
Very truly yours
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JU:1s.bjs
1,.1.**9
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G IL *.I I I
IRVIN C. CIiAPMAN
2962 AIrway Avenue
Costa Mesa, Cal ifornia 92626
714) 54*158B * *
ttM 1995*DDJ
January 16, 1995
City of La Qiiinta
76-495 Call. *ampico
La Quinta, CA. 92253
Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman
Community Development Director
Dear *. Herman,
We own a condo in Santa Rosa Cove and are responding to your
notice of a Joint Public Hearing on Feb. 21, 1995 to consider
plans to amend your Redevelopment Plan. I have a question.
If the amended plan is approved, your point #2 states it
would increase the amount of tax increment which the Agency may
receive.'.
How would an increase be made available if the area in the
District is not expanded?
As Chairman of one of the redevelopment Districts in
Fullerton, I am basically familiar with the rules of
redevelopment and am puzzled by your statement and would
appreciate a response.
Incidentally, your map identifies several key east/west
avenuesg but no key north/south streets are clarified. This
would be helpful.
Thank you.
sincerely,
*
Irvin C. Chapman
sfs
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G I E*L II I
*95 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 922S3 819) m-7*
FAX 619) 777.7
February 21, 1995
Mr. Irvin C. Chapman
2962 Airway Avenue
Costa MUa, CA 92626
SUBJECT: KITTER RE*ARDING OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED NAN AMENDMENT TO THE
LA QUINTA RDEVELOP** PROJECT NO.1
Dear Mr. Chapman,
I have received your letter regarding your questions in connection with the proposed Nazi
Amendment to the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No.1. your letter. you have asked how
the Agency could increase the amount of tax increment revenue it could receive without
Increulig the *e of the Project AreL
As Chairman of one of the Redevelopment Districts in Fullerton, you may be aware that under
the Community Redevelopment law, redevelopment plans IHIwt contain a dollar limitation on
the amount of tax increment revenue which can be collected by an agency. Once this limit is
reached, the Agency is not permitted to collect any additional tax increment revenue from the
project areL The existing Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No.
1 has a cumulative $300 million tax increment revenue limit.
The proposed Plan Amendment will increase the tax increment limit in order to provide the
Agency with the ability to continue to collect tax increment revenue necessary to complete the
f."ding of its proposed redevelopment programs. this manner, no change to the boundaries
of Project Area No.1 will be necessary.
While the existing tax increment limit may seem high at first glance, it is Important to
understand that only 3o.OS for every dollar of tax increment revenue collected is available to
tile Agency to fund nonhousing project:. Tb. remailider of this amount 1. paid to the County,
suho oil. special districts and the Agency's affordable housing fund required by law. If the
$000 million limit is not increased, the Agency will run out of money in about 13 years, while
many redevelopment projects would go unfunded.
Also, you mentioned that the map enclosed with the notice you received did not Indicate key
northsou*k streets. Tllis map did highlight Jefferson Street, bnt no other north*south streets
OOuOi be labeled due to the small scale of the map. Tb. proposed Am*uded Plan, on file wilIL
the City clerk. narratively describes other p!imary arterial:. luiudlng *eflhi*er,
Washington. and Madison Streets.
MAIUNG AOORESS P.O. BOX 1504- LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
I-An
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G IL * * Ii II I
I hop. that this letter clarifies your questions regarding the propo3ed increase in the tax
Increment revenue limit. Far your information, your letter will be submitted to the city Council
liming the public hearing. if you hive any further questions. please do not hesitate to contact
me at 619)777.7125.
Very truly yours.
COMMUNITY! DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JH:iL*bjs
I-A::
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G IL I 5*t AL I
*
I-
* *
*s * * I*
Tw*P***E(T * *
*
*
*
*
*
* * * * *
*
*
* * OF *E
* IN *I;v** o*
* *
* * *ot)*
**3&7 c*er** *t
Cs
* * * *
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G
II e.* ii i
ThA95 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 819) 777-7000
FAX 819) 777.7101
February 17, 1995
Mr. and Mm. Prod filds
253Z7 Cypre. Street
lomita, c&9U717
SUBJECT: lITTER REGARDING OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE
LA *UINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Olds,
I have received your letter dated January 16.1995 regarding your objections to the proposed
Plan Amendment to the La QIlinta Redevelopment Project No.1. U your letter. you expressed
concern regarding the Redevelopment Agency'. Intentions for the Redevelopment Project No.
1. I would like to clarify the reasons why the Agency needs to continue redevelopment In
Project Area No.1.
The La QUINTA Redevelopment Project No.1 was created In 1983 to permit the Agency to
improve the streets, sewers, and flood control Systems In the Project AreL As many resldents
will recall. URIs area of the City was particularly vulnerable to flood damage during seasons
of heavy rainfall. Traffic congestion was also a recurring problem. hi addluon. the Project
Area needed various improvements to promote the downtown village) areL
with redevelopment, the Agency has improved the flood control faclilties In and aroud the
areas most susceptible to storm water damage. The Agency has also sponsored a program
to upgrade sewers from deterlorating septic tanas to modern sewage treatment faculties.
Other actiylties Include the reconstruction of a new Wasldiigton Street brldge crossing over
the whitewater Storm Channel, the construction of the first grocery store In southern La
Oninta, and improvements to various public parirs.
Despite the Agency's best efforts to date, the Project Area continues to need redevelopmmt
uslstance. Properties In the northern area of the Cove and Village are gull susceptible to
flooding. Major roads such as WasilInglon and Jefferson Streets need to be widened. Miges.
traffic signals anti street llghts are also needed to improve public safety and traffic
clrculatioL In aihlltlon, the Project Area gull laciw 5ufficlent par* 8*8CO to meet the neUlE of
the residents.
IMMUNG AODRESS P.O. BOX 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G II * E.L II I
You also expressed concern about how the proposed Plan Amendment could cause retirees to
lose their homes by eminent domlin. However, the Agency does not have any specific plans
at this time to a-re any property by eminent domain. Since 1983' the Agency has only used
eminent domain in three instances in order to a-re right.of.way for the improvements to
Avenue 5t, Washington Street and Calle Tamuico. It should also be noted in this regard. as
required by Slate law. the Agency is to use 20* of the revenue it receives from Project No.1 to
fund affordable housing programs. Using some of this money, the Agency has lunded the
eonstrnction of the Cityps flrst senior cW*n housiDg compleL This 91.UDit rental project will
be located adjacent to the city's new Senior Center.
Although the Agency has seldom used eminent domain. the inclusion of this element in the
Amended Redevelopment Nan is critical to the Agency's overall redevelopment program.
Eminent domain is useftil in land ac*I1on projects such as street widening or storm drain
improvements. in which land assembly is esseutlal to the success of the projeCL In other
cases, eminent domain can be useful during property negotiations with nuifiple owners of a
small area of property.
At this point. the Agency does not have any specific plans for acquisition of property by
eminent domain. Moreover, it is important to uderatand that, like all public agencies, the
Agency is bound by State Acquistlon law and ca-ct use eminent domain withont first
seeking the property owners interest in participating in the potential projeCL Generaily.
acqoisition by eminent domain is a four to 15 month process. Iflwther or not the Agency uses
eminent domain. any property acquired by the Agency must be based on an opinion by an
independent appraiser to determine the fair maitet value of the property. The Agency also
is obligated to ailsist in relocation of the occupants of acquired property.
I hope tills letter helps you uderatand the reasons for the Nan Amendment process that the
Agency needs to follow to acquire property. For your infortsation, your letter will be submitted
to the city Council during the public hearing. If you have any further questions. pie ase do not
hesitate to contact me at 619) 777*7125.
Very troly ye
CO-UNIT! DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JLJiLbjs
1ZIJL431
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G IL *.i' R.L II t
e(-,
To: La Quinta City Council and
La Quihta Redevelopment Agency the Agency)
P.O. Box 1504 RECE*V*D
7S-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253 6
Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman C ITYOFIAn
Comunity Development Director *
From: Richard Earl Bean and Nan Glennon Bean
P.O. Box 243
51-401 Guatemala Corner Cadiz)
La Quinta CA 92253
Date: January 26, 1995
Subject: Objection to Proposed Right of Eminent Dom*in
for Presentation in Joint Public Hearing on
Tuesday, February 21, 1995
Gentlemen and Ladies:
We are writing this letter to ask that it be Presented to those
in attendance at the subject Joint PUblic Hearing on Tuesday,
February 21, 1995. This letter documents our objection to the
proposed provision which would allow the Agency to use eminent
domain.
We own and have resided at 51-401 Calle Guatemala corner
Avenida Cadiz), otherwise known as Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block
6, Map Book 020/006 Desert Club Tract Unit 2, for approximately
thirty 30) years, and we object violently to any proposed
provision which would allow the Agency to take away our residentia
home and adjacent residential land.
e **ve discussed t;he proposed right of eminent domain with
*there neighboring) home owners and all expressed the following
beiiefs:
1) It is totally unjustifiable to propose providing for
the Agency's acquisition of, and I quote, any and
all real property within the Project Area", when,
and I quote, the Agency has no specific plans for
such acquisitionj for any of the properties within
the Project Area." Such provisions should be su*bmitte
for public consideration and approval only if and wher.
an actual need has arisen and is specifically defined.
2) If any such need should arise, then the right of
acquisition by condemnation or eminent domain should
not be applied to residential property or property
zoned as residential property at the time of purchase
by the then current owner.
We will appreciate your providing copies of this letter to member*
of the City Council and of the Redevelopment Agency, and we wLll
appreciate your reading this letter at the subject Public Hearing
for consideration those We thank you in advance
for this favor. */Ic*
C-.
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G I I I
78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 819) 777.7OI*
FAX 819) 777-71
February 17, 1995
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Bean
P.O. Box*
51*1 CalleGutamala
La QDjita, CA 92253
SUBJECT: IZTTEK REGARDING OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT TO
THE La QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Dear Mr. and Mr.. Bean,
I have received your letter dated January 26, 1995 regarding your objections to the proposed
Nan Amendment to the La quinta Redevelopment Project No.1. In your letter, you expremed
concern regariling the Redevelopment Agency's need to use eminent domain to acquire
residential real property. I would like to clarrfy a few points regarding the reasons for the
inclusion of eminent domain in the proposed Amended Redevelopment Plan,
since the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No.1 was created in 1983, the Agency has bad the
ability to employ eminent domain in projects involving land acquisition. Over the subsequent
11 years, the Agency bas only elercised this authority in 3 instances in order to acquire right
of.way for the improvements to Avenue 52, Wubington Street and Calle Tampico.
Although the Agency has seldom used eminent domain, the inclusion of tids element in the
Amended Redevelopment Plan is critical to the Agency's overall redevelopment program.
Eminent domain is usefid in land acqaisition projects such as Street widenlng or storm drain
Improvements, in wbich land assembly is euential to the succm of the project. In other
cases, eminent domain can be usefid dunlng property negodatious with multiple owners of a
small area of property.
At this point, the Agency does not have any specific plans for acquisition of property by
eminent domain. Moreover, it is important to understand that, like all public agenclea, the
Agency is bound by State Acquisition Law and cannot use eminent domain without first
seeking the property owners interest in participating in the potential project. Generally,
acqul51tlon by eminent domain is a four to 15 mouth procus. whether or not the AgencyUmB
eminent domain, any property acquired by the Agency imist be based on an opinion by an
LIR3L430
LAMUNG ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1504 LA QUINTA. CALIFORNIA g*3
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G I. I * UL ii I
Imlependent appraiser to determine the fair market valUe of the property. The Agency 1: also
obligated to assist In reloaatlou of the occupants of acquhed property.
I hope this letter helps you understand the reasons for the need to Include the power of
eminent domain and the process that the Agency needi to follow to accuire. property. For your
Iliformadozi, your letter will be submitted to the city Council dudig the public hearing. U you
hive any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 619)777.7125.
Very truly yours,
COWUNITT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JH:JS:bjs
LIIR4ZO
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G L * * EL II I
mAiua* IN **18 As A PUILIC
COACHELLA V.ALLEY WATER DISTRICT
max im. COACH ELLA. CAUFORNIA 92230.
II W* IIiADOIN ow.'
IL
February 21, 1995
File: l15O.l*
Tom Genovese
ti II])
La Quinta Redeve1o*ent Agency
Past OfficeBox 1504 21 1995
La Quinta, California 92253
OF LA GUINTA
Dear Mr. Genovese: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Subject; La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Prolect Area No. 1 Amendment
Thank you for your letter dated February 17 in response to our letter dated
February 15 concerning the amendment to Redevelopment Project Area Na. 1. We
wish to clarify three issues relative to it:
1. Any excess increments received by the agency above that needed to repay the
bonds for the storniater facilities needs to be used to accelerate the band
repayment or the district should receive its share of this excess increment as it
is available by the agency.
2. Once the increment needed to pay the initial bond. for the stormwater
facilities have been abtained9 the district i5 to receive the remaining funds
without any set aside for low and moderate housing and expenses of the
administration of the agency.
3. Any additional public improvement which the agency believes meet the
description set out in the original cooperation agreement need to be reviewed and
approved by the district.
Thu. CONaWIVATION
U:. WATER WISELY
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G IL I.
Ton Genovele 2- February 21, *gg*
Eased on this understanding and the above correspondence. the district has no
objections to the plans to amend the bdevelopim*t Plan for La Q*dnta
ledeve1ope*t Project N6. 1.
If you have any qiLestions please contact me
jou*rs>r?*trwl*I
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chief Engin
TEL: gfllganoveue
cc: Jerry Herrnn*
City of La Qidnta
Pout Office Boz 1304
La *inta, California 92253
CmEILL VILLI! wavis Iia1a*cv
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G L *. * E..L II I
*
*%*`4KuI*aii
73*95 CALLE TAMFICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 619) 777-7O*
Of FAX 819) 777-71
March 2.1995
Tom levy, General Manager.Chlef Engineer
COACHELLA YALL* WATER DISTRICT
P.O. Box 1058
Coachelia, C&92Z36
SUB*CT: PROJECT AREA NO.1 PLAN AMENDMENT
Dear Mr. Levy:
On February 21, 1995, the La *uinta Redevelopment Agency the *Agency") received your letter on
the behalf of the Coachella Valley Water District the District* with respect to the proposed
Amendment to the Redevelopment Nan for the La quinta Redevelopment Project Area No.1 the
Project Area")* In your letter, you indicated your desire to clarify certain financial provisions of
the November, 1983 Cooperation Agreement between the Agency and the District.
The Cooperation Agreement provides that 20% of the District's total share 6.53% in fiscal year
199495) of the gross tax increment is to be passed through to the District. Of the remaining 80% of
the District's share, Section 8 of the Cooperation Agreement provide. that these funds may be used
by the Agency to fund all of the foflowing: 1) admistrative costs of the Agency, 2) the required
20% set aside to the Low and Moderate Income Housing hind, 3) Improvements to the Coachella
Valley Stormwater Channel, and 4) improvements to the East Dralnage System. West Dralnage
System, the Cove Reservoir, and other supporting facIlities as may be necessary in conjunction
with, or in addition to, these three facIlities.
As you may recall, the Agency has issued tax allocation bonds in 1985, 1989 and 1991 to finance the
cost of Improvements to the Project Area1s flood control system- In total, the Agency issued $36.7
mIllion in bonds, with an original principal and interest cost of 391,496,360. As a result of
subsequent refundiugs of the Series 1985 and 1989 bonds, these costs have been reduced to
388,651,441, by lowering the interest rate on the bonds, without any extension of the term or
increase of the amount of debt issued. In addition, in order to secure the original $20.0 Dillon of
proceeds for the Series 1985 bonds, the Agency pledged both the Distr*ct's share of the 20% housing
set aside and the balance of the District's nonhouning share retained by the Agency.
The flnai debt service payment on the Series 1985 and 1989 bonds, as refunded in 1994, occure in
September, 2012. The Series 1991 bonds are retired in September, 2014.
*
MAIUNG AOORESS P.O. BOX 1504 LA QUINTA. CAUFORNIA 92253
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G I L b. ii II I
I have attached a worksheet which summarizes the disposition of the District's share retained by
the Agency pursuant to the CooperaUon Agreement. This worksheet compares the housing set
aside and flood control project expenditures to the amount of the District's tax increment revenue
retained by the Agency. This analysis commences from November. 1983 through 2014' during
which time the Agency will be funding debt service on the bonds for the floud control projects. The
projections of rilture tax increment revenues and estimated pass throughs used in this analysis
are the same as those included in the Preliminary Report for the Amendment which was
transmlued to you in September. 1994; these projections assumed a 6.25% annual increase in
assessed values in Project Area No.1.
Between 1983 and 2014. the District's total 6.53% share of the tax incrdment amounts to
33,325,203, of which 20%, or 36,665,041. will be passed through to the District under the terms of
the Cooperation Agreement. The amount to be retained by the Agency will be the difference of
these amounts, or $26,660,162. Of the $26,660,162. the Agency will use 20%, or 35.332,032 to fund the
District's share of the housing set aside..
The total flood control project costs or $86,651,441, plus the $5,332,032 of the District's share of the
housIng set aside, constitute the majority of Agency's uses of the District tax increment. As
compared to the 326,660.162 of tax increment revenue to be retained over this same time period,
these total uses of $91,983,474 far exceed the amount of revenue retained by the Agency. For this
reason, given the forecasted growth assumptions. we do not anticipate that any additional
retained revenue will be available to be passed through to the District.
I hope this clarifles our understanding of the Cooperative Agreement with the District. I would be
happy to meet If you wish to further discuss these matters.
Sincerely,
LA *WNTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
*
Thomas P. Genovese
Executive Director
cc: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director
Attachment
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02
^ G ii L. I
Exhibit A
ESTIMATED CVWD SIIARE OF TAX INCREMENT
Total Pa's Thru Amount
CVWD Paid to Retaiued*
Share CVWD By Agen*
Tax Increment Collected Through 1993-94 S 3,654,060 S 730,812 S 2,923*
Forecasted Tax Increment Revenue through 2013-14 S 29,671,143 S 5,934,229 S 23,736,914
Total Tax Increment Revenue S 33,325,203 S 6,665,041 S 26,660,162
DISPOSITION OF AMOUNTS RETMNED
2*% Set Aside
Amounts Used for Honsin: Set Aside of Amonnts
Retained
Tax Increment Collected Through 1993-94 S 5:4,650
Forecasted Tax Increment Revenue through 2013-14 S 4,747,333
Total Tax Increment ReveDue S 5,332,032
Amounts Used for Funding Flood Control Proieds
Principal Prindpa**
Issued or Interest & Interu
Bond Series FiDancing Timeline Refunded Term Rate Incurn
1985 Tax AlIoc*ion Bonds Reflinded in 1990 S 20,000,000 1985-2012 9.5% 5 8,783,363
1989 Tax Allocation Bonds Refiznded in 1994 5 8,000,000 1989-2012 6.2% 8.0% S 4,398,074
1990 Reftinding Bonds Reflinded in 1994 S 19,695,000 1990-2012 5.8% 8.4% 5 8,409,955
1991 Tax Allocation Bonds 5 8,700,000 1991-2014 6.4% S 16,732.321
1994 Reftinding Bonds $ 25,090,000 1994-2012 3.3% 7.3% 5 48,277,728
Total Cost of Flood Control Projects S 86,651,441
SUMMARY OF CVWD SHARE RETMNED BY AGENCY
Amounts Retained 1983 through 2014) S 26,660,162
Amounts Used 1983 through 2014)
Amounts used for Housing Set Aside $ 5,332,032
Amounts used for Flood Controi Projects $ 86,651,441
Total Uses S 91,983,474
Amount Available Excess above Uses) $
*=q in* 2*ILI *A 3*
BIB]
08-19-1998-U01
08:23:06AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
95-U02
12-U02