City of Indian Wells
Bank Reconciliation Report - City Held Cash
Finance Department
MONTH: November 30, 2024
Investment N Invmernent Type
Bank Checking. & 5Wy
1 2
3 6
7 8
9 10
19 Managed Peal Accounts
Investment Description
Pack Western Bank - Symeo "-•" 1117
Pacific Western Bank - Accts. Payable **-**3411
Pacific Western Bank - Payroll **-**1752
Pacific Western Bank - Ambulance **-****7937
Pacific Western Bank - Public Funds MMA **-****5064
US Bank Money Market - Investment
US Bank Money Market - 4590
US Bank Money Market - 4591
Petty Cash
21 Local Agency Investment Fund - City 98.33-385
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
522
525
548
550
557
558
561
562
573
574
575
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
597
598
599
607
609
612
524
526
533
538
549
556
576
611
542
544
546
551
559
560
563
564
566
567
571
572
605
531
603
604
606
608
593
594
610
Certificates of Deposit
Medium Term Corporate Notes
Federal. Agency Issues
14unlclaal Bonds
Certificate of Oeposlt-BMW Bank North Armenia 85580AVX9 Certificate of Deposit -Nola Nation Bank 654062322
Certificate of Deo65it-Live Oak Banking Company 538036LD1 Certificate of Deposit -Alma Bank 0206808X4
Certificate of Deposit -State Bank of India 85628$TF8
Certificate of Deposit -First Natl Bank of MCGreagr TX 32112UDR9 Certificate of Deposit-Centerstate Bank 15201ODE4
Certificate of Deposit -Northwest Bank 66736ABV0
Certificate of Deposit -Pacific Western Bank 69506YRL5
Certificate of Deposit -Bank of Baroda 06063HMS9
Certificate of Deposit -Toyota Financial Sas Bank 89235MKY6 Certificate of Deposit-Greenstate Credit Union 39573LBL1 Certificate of Deposit -Pentagon Federal Credit Union 70962LAS1 Certificate of Deposit-Nelnet Bank, Inc 64034KAG6
Certificate of Deposit -Beal Bank 07371AYE7
Certificate of Deposit -Beal Bank USA 073710E88
Certificate of Deposit -Capital One NA 14042RUJ8
Certificate of Deposit -Austin Telco Fed Credit Union 052392BT3 Certificate of Deposit -Synchrony Bank 87164XR65
Certificate of Deposit -Liberty First Credit Union 530520AK1 Certificate of Deposit -First Guaranty Bank Harrrnond LA Certificate of Deposit -Medallion Bank Utah 58404DSW2
Certificate of Deposit -Pitney Bowes Bank 724468AG8
Certificate of Deposit -Bank Five Nine 062119CD2
Certificate of Deposit -First Foundation Bank 32026UW51 Certificate of Deposit -Summit National Bank 86616RAG0
Certificate of Deposit -Peg. National Bank of America 31110Y093 Certificate of Deposit -Morgan Stanley Private Bank 61768ET29 Certificate of Deposit -Cross River Bank 227563EX7
Certificate of Deposit -Universal Bank and Trust Co 91527PCF2 Certificate of Deposit -Sallie Mae 795451DM2
Certificate of Deposit -Leaders Credit Union 52171MAN5
Certificate of Deposit -Pacific Premier Bank 4800121693 Bank or New York Mellon Corp 0&106RAN7
Montebello CA Pens Obliq M 612285AE6
JP Morgan Chase Bank NA 46632FRU1
JP Morgan Chase 48128G202
Bank of America MTN 06048WM31
Bank of America MTN 06048WM72
John Deere Capital Corp 24422EWR6
Toyota Motor Credit Corp 89236TMK8
Fed. Farm Credit Bank 3130AU62
Fed. Farm Credit Bank 3130ALMM3
Fed. Farm Credit Bank 3130ALW67
Fed. Farm Credit Bank 3130AMW57
Fed Home Loan Bank 3130AOWF6
Fed. Home Loan Bank 3130A0WJ8
Fed. Home Loan Bank 3130AOZ55
Fed. Home Loan Mtq Coro 3134GXMX9
Fed. Home Loan Bank 3130ARGE5
Fed- Home Loan Mtq Corp 3134GX0P2
Fed. Home Loan Bank 3130A5S67
Fed. Home Loan Bank 3130ASS91
Fed.Home Loan Bank 3130B1UH8
Book value
2.488.951..30
0.00 0.00
0.00 16.168.36
0.00 3,766,919.23
4,581,212,11
2,000.00
1,130,498.01
50,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
250.000.08
248,000.00
249,000.00
248,000.00
249,000.00
248,000.00
249,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
249,000.00
250.000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
250,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
249.000.00
244,000.00
249,000.00
244,000.00
249,000.00
249,000.00
244,000.00
244,000.00
249,000.00
244,000.00
249,000.00
250,870.49
1,061,517.75
1,008,181.07
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,017,183.35
997,339.40
1.000.000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000,00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000..00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000 00
2,000,000.00
10,855,251.00
L130.498.01
8,202,870.49
9.024, 216.57
Treasury Discounts-Amortlzlno
Treasury Securitl#s
Outstandin0 items
Natomas CA School District 63877NMM6
United States Treasury Bill 912797LF2
United States Treasury Bill 912797LF2
United States Treasury Bill 912797LY1
United States Treasury Bill 912797JR9
United States Treasury BIII 91282CFL10
United States Treasury Bill 912810FF0
United States Treasury Bill 91282CLK5
Total Pooled Cash and Investments
Fair Value Increase (over cost)
Warrants/Wire Transfers Oustandinq (Bank)
Outgoing ACH Payments Outstanding (GL)
Credit Card in Transit
300.000.OB
1.023,432.63
251,860.94
1,987,655.12
1,985,817.01
9,939,076.81.
13,482,684.65
2,012,121.68
16,000,000.00
(354,429.31)
263,240.26
4,189.42
300,000.00
5.248,765,70
25,433,e83,14
$ 76,195,484.91
(1,706,183.59
Total Outstanding Items (86,999..6
Reconciled Bank Balance
S 74,400,30L69
1/242025. 237 PM
General Ledger Balance
74,440.301.69
0.00 �v an
T\Common\bank\bank reconciliation ry25\5-Nov 24120241 RWT 1 _ kRec\Nov2 pooeed30
INDIAN WELLS
CALIFORNIA
Investments
Managed Pool Accounts - LAIF
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
Negotiable CD's
Medium Term Corporate Notes
Federal Agency Issues - Callables
Treasury Securities
Miscellaneous Securities - Coupon
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
Componding Certificates of Deposit
Investments
Par
Value
1,130,498.01
10,855,251.00
7,952,000.00
9,000,000.00
16,000,000.00
25,000,000 00
300,000.00
5,276,000.00
250,870.49
The City of Indian Wells
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2024
Market
Value
1,130,498.01
10,855,251.00
7,885,393.27
8,706,540.00
15, 557,110.00
25,509,410.00
293,511.00
5,251, 507.88
250,87049
75,764,619.50 75,440,091.65
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
(760)346-2489
Book % of Days to YTM YTM
Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
1,130, 498.01 1.48 1 1 4.416 4.477
10 , 855, 251.00 14.25 1 1 3.521 3.570
7,952,000.00 10.44 1,825 858 2.376 2409
9,024,216.57 11.84 1,796 624 1.695 1.718
16,000,000.00 21.00 1,734 750 2.406 2.439
25,433,883.14 33.38 1,651 1,319 4.146 4.203
300,000.00 0.39 1,765 243 1.085 1.100
5,248,765.70 6.89 176 38 5.039 5.109
250,870.49 0.33 181 93 4.813 4.880
76,195,484.91 100.00% 1,338 765 3.272 3.318
Total Earnings
November 30 Month Ending
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
The above
crit�
208,909.01
74,264,407.39
3.42%
stments are consistant with the City's investment policy and allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments were purchased using safety, liquidity, and yield as tion, cash flow from revenue and maturing investments will be sufficient to cover expenditures for the next six months. All securities are "Marked -to -Market" on a monthly basis.
Kevi cCa , Fi -nce Dir or
Reporting period 11/01/2024-11/30/2024
Run Date: 01/13/2025 - 21:28
No fiscal year history available
Portfolio CITY
AP
PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.11
Report V2981
Page of 530
CUSIP Investment #
Issuer
The City of Indian Wells
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Average Purchase
Balance Date
Par Value Market Value
Stated
Book Value Rate
YTM Days to Maturity
Fitch 360 Maturity Date
Managed Pool Accounts - LAIF
SYS21 21
SYS23 23
LAIF - City
LAIF - Redevelopment
Subtotal and Average 2,387,164.68
1,130,498.01 1,130,498.01 1,130,498.01
0.00 0.00 0.00
1,130,498.01 1,130,498.01 1,130,498.01
4.477
0.233
4.416
0.230 1
4.416
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
SYS1 1 Pacific Western Bank
SYS6 6 Pacific Western Bank -Ambulance
SYS7 7 Pacific Westem-PublicFundsMMA
SYS8 8 US Bank Money Market
SYS10 1.0 US Bank Money Market -4591
SYS9 9 US Bank Money Market -4590
SYS2 2 Pacific Westem - Acct Payable
SYS3 3 Pacific Western -Payroll
SYS4 4 Union Bank -Checking
SYS19 19 Petty Cash
SYS5 5 WestAmerica Bank
Subtotal and Average 6,422,223.52
2,488,951.30 2,488,951.30 2,488,951.30 0.250
07/01/2023 0.00 0.00 0.00
16,168.36 16,168.36 16,168.36 4.680
07/01/2023 0.00 0.00 0.00
4,581,212.11 4,581,212.11 4,581,212.11 4.540
3,766,919.23 3,766,919.23 3,766,919.23 4.580
07/01/2023 0.00 0.00 0.00
07/01/2023 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.200
07/01/2023 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
07/01/2023 0.00 0.00 0.00
10,855,251.00 10, 855,251.00 10,855,251.00
0.247 1
0.000 1
4.616 1
0.000 1
4.478 1
4.517 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.197
0.000 1
0.000 1
3.521 1
Negotiable CD's
020080BX4
052392BT3
06063HMS9
062119CD2
07371AYE7
07371 CE88
05580AVX9
14042RUJ8
15201QDE4
227563EX7
320437AD8
32110YD93
32026UW51
32112UDR9
39573LBL1
52171 MAN5
530520AK1
538036LD4
58404DSW2
Run Date: 01/13/2025 - 21:28
515 Alma Bank
574 Austin Telco Fed Credit Union
525 Bank of Baroda
589 Bank Five Nine
561 Beal Bank - Plano TX
562 Beal Bank USA
512 BMW BANK NORTH AMERICA
573 Capital One NA
518 Centerstate Bank NA
598 Cross River Bank
586 First Guaranty Bank Hammond LA
592 First National Bank of America
590 First Foundation Bank
517 First Natl Bank of McGregor TX
550 Greenstate Credit Union
609 Leaders Credit Union
585 Liberty First Credit Union
514 Live Oak Banking Company
587 Medallion Bank Utah
03/31/2020 250,000.00 247,470.00 250,000.00 1.400 1.380 117 03/28/2025 09/21/2022 250,000.00 247,887.50 250,000.00 3.800 3.748 1,024 09/21/2027 07/22/2020 249,000.00 243,121.11 249,000.00 0.700 0.690 233 07/22/2025 07/31/2023 249,000.00 252,665.28 249,000.00 4.500 4.438 1,335 07/28/2028 02/23/2022 250,000.00 238,020.00 250,000.00 1.900 1.874 808 02/17/2027 02/23/2022 250,000.00 238,020.00 250,000.00 1.900 1.874 808 02/17/2027 03/31/2020 250,000.00 247,542.50 250,000.00 1.550 1.529 120 03/31/2025 09/21/2022 250,000.00 248,522.50 250,000.00 3.900 0.000 1,024 09/21/2027 04/30/2020 248,000.00 244,696.64 248,000.00 1.250 1.233 150 04/30/2025 03/07/2024 244,000.00 245,854.40 244,000.00 4.250 4.192 1,557 03/07/2029 08/11/2023 249,000.00 252,690.18 249,000.00 4.500 4.438 1,342 08/04/2028 08/16/2023 249,000.00 257,622.87 249,000.00 4.450 4.394 1,353 08/15/2028 08/16/2023 244,000.00 247,062.20 244,000.00 4.450 0.000 1,347 08/09/2028 04/28/2020 249,000 00 245,837.70 249,000.00 1.350 1.332 148 04/28/2025 06/16/2021 250,000.00 237,465.00 250,000.00 0.900 0.888 562 06/16/2026 08/30/2024 249,000.00 248,484.57 249,000.00 4.000 3.945 1,733 08/30/2029 08/11/2023 249,000.00 256,138.83 249,000.00 4.700 4.641 1,345 08/07/2028 03/31/2020 250,000.00 247,450.00 250,000.00 1.400 1.382 120 03/31/2025 07/31/2023 249,000.00 251,826.15 249,000.00 4.400 4.406 1,338 07/31/2028 Portfolio CITY
AP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
Pape 299 of 530
Pape
Ver. 7 3 11
CUSIP
Negotiable CD's
61768ET29
64034KAG6
654062JZ2
66736ABV0
69506YRL5
70962LAS1
724468AG8
795451DM2
856285TF8
86616RAG0
87164XR65
89235MKY6
91527PCF2
Investment #
Issuer
597 Morgan Stanley Private Bank
558 Nelnet Bank, Inc.
513 Nicolet National Bank
519 Northwest Bank
522 Pacific Western Bank CA CD
557 Pentagon Federal Credit Union
588 Pitney Bowes Bank Inc.
607 Sallie Mae
516 State Bank of India NY, NY CD
591 Summit National Bank
575 Synchrony Bank
548 Toyota Financial Sgs Bk
599 Universal Bank and Trust Co.
Subtotal and Average
Average
Balance
7,952,000.00
The City of Indian Wells
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Purchase Stated
Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate
03/06/2024 244,000.00 246,801.12 244,000.00 4.350
02/02/2022 250,000.00 236,117.50 250,000.00 1.500
03/31/2020 250,000.00 247,440.00 250,000.00 1.400
04/30/2020 249,000.00 245,633.52 249,000.00 1.200
04/30/2020 248,000.00 244,696.64 248,000.00 1.250
09/29/2021 249,000.00 234,440.97 249,000.00 0.900
07/31/2023 244,000.00 246,620.56 244,000.00 4.400
07/26/2024 244,000.00 246,437.56 244,000.00 4.300
04/29/2020 248,000.00 245,066.16 248,000.00 1.600
08/16/2023 249,000.00 255,307.17 249,000.00 4.500
09/23/2022 250,000.00 248,852.50 250,000.00 3.950
04/22/2021 250,000.00 238,645.00 250,000.00 0.900
03/13/2024 249,000.00 250,957.14 249,000.00 4.250
7,952,000.00 7,885,393.27 7,952,000.00
YTM Days to Maturity
Fitch 360 Maturity Date
4.290
1.479
1.382
1.184
1.233
0.888
0.000
4.241
1578
4.443
3.896
0.888
4.192
1,556
793
120
150
150
667
1,338
1,696
149
1,348
1,026
507
1,563
2.376 858
03/06/2029
02/02/2027
03/31/2025
04/30/2025
04/30/2025
09/29/2026
07/31/2028
07/24/2029
04/29/2025
08/10/2028
09/23/2027
04/22/2026
03/13/2029
Medium Term Corporate Notes
06048WM31
06048WM72
06406RAN7
24422EWR6
48128G2Q2
46632FRU1
612285AE6
89236TMK8
549 Bank of America MTN A
556 Bank of America MTN A
524 Bank of New York Mellon Corp
576 John Deere Capital Corp
538 JPMorgan Chase & Co
533 JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
526 Montebello CA Pens Oblig AA
611 Toyota Motor Credit Corp
Subtotal and Average 8,859,010.69
05/28/2021 1, 000, 000.00 947, 620.00 1, 000, 000.00 1.250 07/30/2021 1,000,000.00 938,850.00 1,000,000.00 1.200
05/14/2020 1,000,000.00 988,040.00 1,001,512.75 1.600
05/18/2023 1,000,000.00 1,010,620.00 1,017,183.35 4.750 02/26/2021 1,000,000.00 943,100.00 1,000,000.00 0.800
01/22/2021 2,000,000.00 1,888,720.00 2,000,000.00 0.700 07/17/2020 1,000,000.00 990,280.00 1,008,181.07 2.503
11/06/2024 1,000,000.00 999,310.00 997,339.40 4.550
9,000,000.00 8,706,540.00
9,024,216.57
1.233
1,184
1.190
4.083
0.789
0.690
0.819
4549
543 05/28/2026
606 07/30/2026
144 04/24/2025
1,145 01/20/2028
452 02/26/2026
417 01/22/2026
182 06/01/2025
1,712 08/09/2029
1.695 624
Federal Agency Issues - Callables
3130ALJ62 542 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130ALMM3 544 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130ALW67 546 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130AMW57 551 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130AQWF6 559 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130AQWJ8 560 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130AQZ55 563 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130ARGE5 566 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130ASS67 571 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130ASS91 572 Fed. Home Loan Bank
3130B1UH8 605 Fed. Home Loan Bank
Run Date: 01/13/2025 - 21:28
03/24/2021
03/30/2021
04/22/2021
06/30/2021
02/25/2022
02/24/2022
03/10/2022
04/21/2022
08/16/2022
08/10/2022
07/03/2024
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1, 000, 000.00
2,000,000.00
955,580.00
1,913,060.00
955,880.00
1,917,040.00
954,330.00
954,090.00
961,300.00
970,750.00
999,890.00
989,170.00
1,999,600.00
1,000,000.00 0.875
2,000,000.00 1.000
1,000,000.00 1.100
2,000,000.00 1.000
1,000,000.00 2.150
1,000,000.00 2.050
1,000,000.00 2.500
1,000,000.00 3.000
1,000,000.00 4.500
1,000,000.00 4.000
2,000,000.00 5.000
0.863 478 03/24/2026
0.986 484 03/30/2026
1.085 507 04/22/2026
0.799 576 06/30/2026
2.121 816 02/25/2027
2.022 815 02/24/2027
2.466 829 03/10/2027
2.959 871 04/21/2027
4.438 988 08/16/2027
3.945 982 08/10/2027
4.932 1,668 06/26/2029
Portfolio CITY
AP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3 11
CUSIP Investment #
Issuer
The City of Indian Wells
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Average Purchase
Balance Date
Par Value Market Value
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Book Value Rate
Fitch 360 Maturity Date
Federal Agency Issues - Callables
3134GXMX9 564 Fed. Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXQP2 567 Fed. Home Loan Mtg Corp
Subtotal and Average 17,416,666.67
03/25/2022 1,000,000.00 991,950,00 1,000,000.00 2.200 2.170 114 03/25/2025 04/28/2022 1,000,000.00 994,470.00 1,000,000.00 3.030 2.988 148 04/28/2025 16,000,000.00 15,557,110.00 16,000,000.00 2.406 750
Treasury Securities
91282CFU0 593 U.S. Treasury
912810FF0 594 U.S. Treasury
91282CLK5 610 U.S. Treasury
Subtotal and Average 25,437,997.80
12/12/2023 10,000,000.00 10,003,900.00 9,939,076.81 4.125 4.294 1,064 10/31/2027 12/14/2023 13,000,000.00 13,545,350.00 13,482,684.65 5.250 4.143 1,445 11/15/2028 09/20/2024 2,000,000.00 1,960,160.00 2,012,121.68 3.625 3.437 1,734 08/31/2029 25,000,000.00 25,509,410.00 25,433,883.14 4.146 1,319
Miscellaneous Securities - Coupon
63877NMM6
531 Natomas CA Sch Dist AA Insured
Subtotal and Average 300,000.00
10/01/2020 300,000.00 293,511.00 300,000.00 1.100 1.085 243 08/01/2025 300,000.00 293,511.00 300,000.00 1.085 243
Treasury Discounts -Amortizing
912797LF2 603
912797LF2 604
912797LY1 606
912797JR9 608
U.S. Treasury
U.S. Treasury
U.S. Treasury
U.S. Treasury
Subtotal and Average 5,238,473.55
06/13/2024 1,024,000.00 1,023,621.12 1,023,432.63 4.944 5.136 4 12/05/2024 06/21/2024 252,000.00 251,906.76 251,860.94 4.929 5.115 4 12/05/2024 07/22/2024 2,000,000.00 1,988,780.00 1,987,655.12 4.828 5.015 46 01/16/2025 08/01/2024 2,000,000.00 1,987,200.00 1,985,817.01 4.806 5.003 53 01/23/2025 5,276,000.00
5,251,507.88 5,248,765.70
5.039 38
Componding Certificates of Deposit
4800121693
612 Pacific Premier Bank
Subtotal and Average
09/04/2024 250,870.49 250,870.49 250,870.49 4.880 4.813 93 03/04/2025 250,870.49 250,870.49 250,870.49 250,870.49
4.813 93
Total and Average 74,264,407.39
Run Date: 01/13/2025 - 21:28
75,764,619.50 75,440,091.65
76,195,484.91 3.272 765
Portfolio CITY
AP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3 11
INDIAN WELLS
LI FORN1;
Investments
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
Investments
Par
Value
4,530.54
2014, 2015, 2016, 2020 Series
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2024
Market
Value
4,530.54
4,530.54 4,530.54
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
(760)346-2489
Book % of Days to YTM YTM
Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
4,530.54 100.00 1 1 0.000 0.000
4,530.54 100.00°/0 1
1 0.000 0.000
Total Earnings
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Ra t Return
rp
November 30 Month Ending
0.00 4,512.86
0.00%
Reporting period 11/01/2024-11/30/2024
Run Date: 01/20/2025 - 22:27
No fiscal year history available
Portfolio 14A
CP
PM (PRF_PM1) 7 3.11
Page e37d of 530
CUSIP
Investment # Issuer
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
SYS28 28 2014A Bonds Reserve
SYS26 26 All Bond Series Principal
SYS25 25 All Bond Series Interest
SYS27 27 All Bond Series Debt Svc
SYS24 1 Cost Of Issuance Escrow
Subtotal and Average
2014, 2015, 2016, 2020 Series
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Average Purchase
Balan a Date
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Fitch 365 Maturity Date
0.00 3,093.18
1,436.91
0.45 0.00
4,512.86 4,530.54
0.00 3,093.18
1,436.91
0.45 0.00
0.00 3,093.18
1,436.91
0.45 0.00
4,530.54 4,530.54
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
Total and Average 4,512.86
Run Date: 01/20/2025 - 22:27
4,530.54 4,530.54
4,530.54 0.000
Portfolio 14A
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3 11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
INDIAN WELLS
CALIFORNIA
Investments
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
Investments
Par
Value
1.00 2015 A Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2024
Market
Value
1.00 1.00 1.00
Book % of
Value Portfolio
1.00 100.00
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
(760)346-2489
Days to YTM YTM
Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
1 1 0.000 0.000
1.00 100.00% 1 1 0.000 0.000
Total Earnings
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective R - of Return
Kevin McCa
November 30 Month Ending
0.00 1.00
0.00%
y, Agency T - surer
Reporting period 11/01/2024-11/30/2024
Run Date: 0112112025 - 14:39
No fiscal year history available
Portfolio 15A
CP
PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.11
P676\43[34 of 530
CUSIP Investment #
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
SYS27
SYS22
Issuer
27 2015 A Reserve
22 UBC Cost Of Issuance Escrow
Subtotal and Average
2015 A Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Average Purchase
Balance Date
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Fitch 365 Maturity Date
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.000 1
0.000
0.000 1
Total and Average
Run Date: 01/21/2025 - 14:39
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.000 1
Portfolio 15A
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7..3.11
Pape 305 of 530
Pape
Ver 7.3.11
INDIAN WELLS
CALIFORNIA
Investments
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
Investments
Par
Value
1-00
2016 A Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2024
Market
Value
1.00 City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
(760)346-2489
Book % of Days to YTM YTM
Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
1.00 100.00 1 1 0.000 0.000
1.00 1.00 1.00 100.00%
1 1 0.000 0.000
Total Earnings November 30 Month Ending
Current Year 0.00
Average Daily Balance 1.00
Effective ' e of Return 0.00%
Kevin c . rthy, Agency Treas
rer
Reporting period 11/01/2024-11/30/2024
Run Date: 01/21/2025 - 14:51
No fiscal year history available
Portfolio 16A
CP
PM (PRF_PM1) 7 3 11
Page vIffof 530
CUSIP Investment #
Issuer
2016 A Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Average Purchase
Balance Date
Stated
Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate
YTM Days to Maturity
Fitch 365 Maturity Date
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
SYS28 1 UBC Cost Of Issuance Escrow 07/01/2023
SYS33 2 Union Bank Reserve Account 07/01/2023
Subtotal and Average
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.000
0.000
0.000 1
Total and Average
Run Date: 01/21/2025 - 14:51
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.000 1
Portfolio 16A
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 73.11
Pape 307 of 530
Pape
Ver 7,3.11
INDIAN WELLS
CALIFORNIA
Investments
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
Investments
Par
Value
1.00 2020 A Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2024
Market
Value
1.00 Book % of
Value Portfolio
1.00 100.00
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
(760)346-2489
Days to YTM YTM
Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
1 1 0.000 0.000
1.00 1.00 1.00 100.00% 1
1 0.000 0.000
Total Earnings
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective R of Return
Kevi
C4thy, Agency Trea er
November 30 Month Ending
0.00 1.00
0.00%
Reporting period 11/01/2024-11/30/2024
Run Date: 01/21/2025 - 15:12
No fiscal year history available
Portfolio 20A
CP
PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.11
ParevS $1 of 530
CUSIP Investment #
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
SYS1 1
SYS2 2
Issuer
2020 A Bonds COI
2020 A Bonds Reserve
Subtotal and Average
2020 A Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Average Purchase
Balance Date
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Fitch 365 Maturity Date
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
Total and Average
Run Date: 01/21/2025 - 15:12
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.000 1
Portfolio 20A
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7 3.11
Pape 309 of 530
eportVer 7 3.11
INDIAN WELLS
CALIFORNIA
Investments
Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
Investments
Par
Value
4,839,563.10
2022 Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2024
Market
Value
4,839,563.10
4,839,563.10 4,839,563.10
Book % of
Value Portfolio
4,839,563,10 100.00
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells CA 92210
(760)346-2489
Days to YTM YTM
Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
1 1 0.000 0.000
4,839,563.10 100.00% 1 1 0.000 0.000
Total Earnings November 30 Month Ending
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rat o Return
Kevin
y. Agency reasuer
0.00 6,333,514.75
0.00%
Reporting period 11/01/2024-11/30/2024
Run Date: 01121 12025 - 17:24
No fiscal year history available
Portfolio 22
CP
PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.11
Pae 3f i'of 530
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
2022 Bonds
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2024
Average Purchase
Balance Date
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Fitch 365 Maturity Date Money Market Sweep/Checking Account
SYS2
SYS4
SYS1
SYS5
SYS3
2 2022 Bonds COI
4 2022 Bonds Interest
1 2022 Bonds Project Fund
5 2022 Bonds Redemption Fund
3 2022 Bonds Payment Fund
Subtotal and Average 6,333,514.75
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
07/01/2023
0.00 220.00
4,839,331.09
12.00 0.01
0.00 220.00
4,839,331.09
12.00 0.01
0.00 220.00
4,839,331.09
12.00 0.01
4,839,563.10
4,839,563.10 4,839,563.10
o.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 1
Total and Average 6,333,514.75
Run Date: 01/21/2025 - 17:24
4,839,563.10
4,839,563.10 4,839,563.10
0.000 1
Portfolio 22
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
Report Ver 7 3.11
INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
January 30, 2025
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Prepared by: Kevin McCarthy, City Finance Director
Subject: Adoption of an Addendum to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments' Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) And Adopt the TUMF Inflation
Adjustment and Revised Fee Schedule for Calendar Year
2025
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Council HOLDS a notice consolidated public hearing and receive public testimony; and ADOPTS Resolution approving an Addendum to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Report and Adopting the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Executive Committee's TUMF inflation Adjustment and Revised Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2025 Applicable to all Developments in the City of Indian Wells; and FINDS the project to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060.
DISCUSSION:
In 1989, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"), collected a transportation uniform mitigation fee ("TUMF") that is utilized by CVAG to fund regional transportation projects within the Coachella Valley. CVAG member cities, including Indian Wells, collects the TUMF fee from new development and pass on the funds to CVAG. No funds are retained by the City.
Since 1989, CVAG has adopted various nexus fee studies to determine the TUMF to be collected by the City related to development projects approved and constructed within the City. The last nexus fee study prepared by CVAG was the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Report (the "Study").
The CVAG Executive Committee reviews the TUMF rates each year to determine if an annual inflation adjustment to the existing TUMF rates ("Inflation Adjustment") is required. CVAG has proposed an Inflation Adjustment for 2025.
Imposing TUMF, including increases to existing TUMF rates, is governed by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 66000 et seq.) (the "Act"). Pursuant to the Act, anytime the TUMF rates are proposed to be imposed or increased the City is required to hold a noticed public hearing.
Prior to adopting an increase to TUMF the City is required to adopt a nexus impact study meeting certain nexus and proportionality requirements supporting the need for the TUMF increase. CVAG is proposing to impose the Inflation Adjustment. As part of the TUMF increase, CVAG is not proposing to adopt a new nexus study. However, the City is adopting an addendum to the existing Study (the "Addendum") supporting the need for the Inflation Adjustment. Because the Act has been amended since 2018, the year the Study was prepared, the City is proposing to adopt the Addendum to comply with the current Act requirements out of an abundance of caution to ensure compliance with the Act.
On April 24, 2024, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the Inflation Adjustment to be imposed by each of its member agencies. Additionally, on March 21, 2024, the Desert Valleys Builders Association provided its letter in support of the Inflation Adjustment. The actions proposed are the steps required for the City, acting as a member agency of CVAG, to formally implement the Inflation Adjustment.
The Act requires the City to hold a noticed public hearing in order to adopt increases to the TUMF charged by the City. Additionally, the Act requires the City hold a noticed public hearing in order to adopt an impact fee nexus study, or in this case, the Addendum. The City will hold a consolidated public hearing for the adoption of both the Addendum and the Inflation Adjustment.
To adopt the Addendum, the City is required to post the Addendum and supporting documents on its website and to also make the information publicly available at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Additionally, notice is required to be published in the newspaper and mailed to any interested party that has requested written notice be mailed to them in relation to the City adopting a nexus study.
To adopt the Inflation Adjustment, the City is required to post the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule and supporting documents on its website and to also make the information publicly available at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the public hearing.
Additionally, notice is required to be published in the newspaper and mailed to any interested party that has requested written notice be mailed to them in relation to the City adopting new or changes to existing fees.
The City has completed these tasks in compliance with the Act. At this time the City Council shall hold the noticed consolidated public hearing, receive public testimony, and
following the public hearing may approve a resolution adopting the Addendum and Inflation Adjustment as recommended.
CVAG proposed the 2025 TUMF fee schedule to be effective January 2025.
As part of this proceeding, the City Council will authorize future annual Inflation Adjustments, authorized by the CVAG Executive Committee, to be imposed and added to the then current TUMF fee schedule, without future action of the City Council or need for future public hearings, until such time as a new impact fee nexus study and TUMF are adopted, or the authorization is revoked by the City Council.
OPTIONS:
The Council holds consolidated public hearing to recommend or provide alternative direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed Addendum and Inflation Adjustment ensures that the City imposes and collects a developer impact fee that appropriately mitigates the cost of completing improvements to the regional roadway system in the Coachella Valley attributed to new development projects. TUMF is charged and collected by the City but is transmitted and paid to CVAG for its administration of the regional system improvements within the Coachella Valley.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This action has been reviewed per the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental regulations. The City has determined that this resolution is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment as there is no possibility that the action would result in a significant environmental impact, and because it does not constitute a "project" as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
ATTACHMENT #1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN
WELLS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA
VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS' TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
NEXUS REPORT AND ADOPTING THE COACHELLA VALLEY
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE'S TUMF
INFLATION ADJUSTMENT AND REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2025 APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
WHEREAS, the City of Indian Wells (`City") is a Member Agency of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"), a joint powers agency consisting of the County of Riverside, the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the City of Blythe, and the nine cities (the Cities of Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella) situated in the Coachella Valley (collectively, the "Member Agencies"); and WHEREAS, acting in concert, the Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials within CVAG's jurisdiction (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") imposed on new development within the jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned Michael Baker International, Inc., an independent fee consultant firm, to prepare a TUMF study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Report," dated March 2018 (the "Study") to establish updated TUMF funds and program revenue collection targets, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on April 30, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Study and TUMF were adopted in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 66000 et seq.) (the "Act"), which governs the adoption and implementation of development impact fees; and
WHEREAS, as a CVAG Member Agency, the City participated in the preparation of the Study prepared pursuant to the Act and based upon the Study, the City adopted and collects the TUMF; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to adopting the Study, the CVAG Executive Committee adopted a TUMF Handbook (the "Handbook") on June 25, 2018, which is used by the Member Agencies in imposing the TUMF, and the Handbook is updated periodically to accurately reflect the increased rates established for the TUMF as periodically increased; and WHEREAS, the CVAG Executive Committee annually reviews the TUMF and the need to apply inflationary increases (the "Inflation Adjustment") based upon the annual change in the consumer price index for the Coachella Valley area known as the All Urban Consumers ("CPI -U"), All Items for Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA (the "Index") published by the Bureau of Labor Statistic and has proposed such action for the City Council of the City of Indian Wells (the "City Council") to consider from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the CVAG Executive Committee has proposed such Inflation Adjustment to
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2025 -
the existing TUMF rates and has requested each Member Agency adopt increased TUMF rates effective January 1, 2025, which rates are included in the TUMF fee schedule (the "2025 TUMF Fee Schedule"), attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, prior to adopting the Inflation Adjustment the City Council must adopt an addendum to the Study (the "Addendum"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, supporting such increase and taking other actions to ensure compliance with the Act, including holding a notice public hearing for adoption of such Addendum; and WHEREAS, the proposed Addendum, the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule, and other supporting data were posted on the City's website and have been posted in the Office of the City Clerk of the City (the "City Clerk") and have been available for public inspection and made available thirty (30) days prior to the date of this consolidated public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of a consolidated public hearing to consider the adoption of the Addendum and the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule was published in the newspaper and mailed to all interested parties that have submitted written requests for such written notice, as applicable, in compliance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to authorize the City the ability to pass -through all future Inflation Adjustments as part of the CVAG TUMF program by holding a noticed consolidated public hearing seeking such authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to accurately collect TUMF along with the other Member Agencies within the Coachella Valley area as requested by the CVAG General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Inflation Adjustment and 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule modifies a development impact fee that is subject to the Act, and the City in considering such an increase to the TUMF, must adhere to the notice and public hearing provisions of the Act; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the City Council held a noticed consolidated public hearing at which it heard and considered any and all verbal and/or written testimony from the public, reviewed and considered the information for the Addendum, the Inflation Adjustment, and 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule and supporting data, and information provided at the public hearing by staff, and has now determined to adopt the Addendum and the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The forgoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as the factual basis for this Resolution.
Section 2. The City Council has been presented with and has reviewed the information related to the Addendum and the Study, including all supporting data and after being so informed hereby adopts the Addendum and supporting data.
Section 3. The City Council makes the following findings related to the Inflation Adjustment and 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule:
55575.17003\41411811.1
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2025 -
a) The purpose of the TUMF is to pay for the costs of regional transportation -related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new development; b) The TUMF will be used to finance regional transportation improvements, including roadway, intersection, interchange, traffic signal improvements, and other Regional System projects. The specific public facilities are further described in the Study, on file in the Office of the City Clerk and such Study is incorporated herein by this reference. TUMF revenue will not be used for any other purpose than what is defined here;
c) New developments in the CVAG region will increase demands from and travel upon, the Regional System. TUMF revenue will be used to fund the additional transportation system capacity necessary to accommodate new development; d) Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and improvements. The transportation facilities identified in the Study are necessary to support the future transportation needs of the Regional System; and
e) The TUMF is tied to the fair share cost allocations to new development based upon, among other things, traffic studies used to create the Study. The TUMF is generated based upon the rough proportionality to the number of trips generated by new development and assigns the TUMF based upon this basis by land use classification.
Section 4. The City Council further finds that the Inflation Adjustment is a necessary component of the ongoing TUMF fees to ensure the revenue collected keeps pace with the costs of constructing the projects defined in the Study. Keeping pace with inflation ensures projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate new development. Timely completion of projects ensures those who have paid the TUMF receive the benefit of their contributions towards the program while at the same time mitigates the expected impacts to the existing community.
Without the Inflationary Adjustments many projects would become delayed, underfunded, and potentially not able to be completed at all due to insufficient funds available to complete such projects.
Section 5. The City Council hereby adopts the Inflation Adjustment and the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule and such fees shall be effective as authorized by the Act and shall apply to all development projects taking place within the City's boundaries unless otherwise exempt.
Section 6. As part of this Mitigation Fee Act proceeding, the City Council further authorizes future annual Inflation Adjustments, authorized by the CVAG Executive Committee, to be imposed and added to the then current TUMF fee schedule, without future action of the City Council or need for future public hearings, until such time as a new impact fee nexus study and TUMF are adopted, or this authorization is revoked by the City Council.
Section 7. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to incorporate the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule into the City's development fees collected on new development projects and to take all action necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution.
Section 8. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable. 55575.17003\41411811.1
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2025 -
Section 9. This Resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days following its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, at a regular meeting held on this 30th day of January 2025.
BRUCE WHITMAN
MAYOR
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of the members of the City Council is five (5); that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells on the 30th day of January 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ATTEST:
ANGELICA AVILA
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TODD LEISHMAN FOR
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
55575.17003\41411811A
EXHIBIT "A"
ADDENDUM TO THE
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
NEXUS REPORT
ADOPTED BY CVAG IN MARCH 2018
(Following this page)
ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT'S NEXUS REPORT - TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE DATED MARCH 2018
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") previously caused to be prepared and subsequently approved an impact fee nexus study entitled the Nexus Report — Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update (the "Study") dated March 2018. The Study established TUMF applicable to all new development in the Coachella Valley area to be imposed through each of CVAG's member agencies, including the City of Palm Springs ("City"). The Study accounted for the TUMF fee schedule to be increased annually through the application of an annual inflation adjustment ("Inflation Adjustment") to ensure the fee revenue collected keeps pace with current costs of the proposed projects. CVAG's Executive Committee determines the amount of the Inflation Adjustment each year.
The purpose of this addendum to CVAG's Study (the "Addendum") is to allow the City to comply with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 66000 et seq.) (the "Act"), which governs the adoption of fees or charges, or increases to existing fees or charges. Here, the City is seeking approval to increase the existing TUMF with CVAG's proposed Inflation Adjustment.
1. Inflation Adjustment
The Inflation Adjustment defined in the Study referenced a consumer price index ("CPI") for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside Area. However, this index was discontinued at the beginning of 2018. As such, a comparable replacement CPI for the Coachella Valley area was selected. The replacement index selected is the All Urban Consumers ("CPI -U"), All Items for Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA (the "Index") published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics ("BLS"). CVAG has described the method of calculating the year -over -year change in the Index, measured as of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. However, the Index only publishes data every other month starting in January and as such there is no data published for the month of December for which a calculation can be based upon. Therefore, rather than changing the method by which CVAG calculates the percent change each year, it has elected to approximate a December data point based upon guidance from the BLS. To approximate a data point for an unreported month, the BLS has advised taking the square root of the product of the indexes for the preceding and subsequent months, in this case November and January. Therefore, CVAG approximates the year -over -year change using this method.
According to CVAG, the justification for the Inflation Adjustment is to ensure the TUMF revenue collected keeps pace with the costs of constructing the projects defined in the Study.
Keeping pace with inflation ensures projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate new development. Timely completion of projects ensures those who have paid the TUMF receive the benefit of their contributions towards the program while at the same time mitigates the expected impacts to the existing community. Without the Inflationary Adjustments many projects would become delayed, underfunded, and potentially not able to be completed at all due to insufficient funds available to complete such projects. 1 55575.17003\42697392.1
All CVAG documents related to the 2025 Inflation Adjustment are attached to this Addendum for review and inspection. A summary of the documents follows:
1. Attachment 1 — Nexus Report — Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update;
2. Attachment 2 — CVAG Staff Report on TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar Year 2025 dated April 29, 2024 and includes a letter in support of the Inflation Adjustment from the Desert Valleys Builders Association; and
3. Attachment 3 — CVAG Revised Fee Schedule for the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Effective January 1, 2025 dated May 1, 2024.
2. Requirement to Proportionally Calculate the Fee per Square Footage on Housing Projects
Pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(A) of the Act, a nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, "shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development." An exemption to this requirement is authorized pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Act, which states a nexus study need not comply with the requirements of subparagraph (A) if certain findings are made. While, the City is not adopting a nexus study at this time, it is attempting to adopt the Inflation Adjustment which would increase the TUMF. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution the City seeks to provide this missing requirement to the existing Study. By making this finding the City does not concede that such finding is required to impose the Inflation Adjustment and reserves the right to argue any applicable legal defenses available to it should the TUMF and/or the Inflation Adjustment be challenged.
The findings required pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Act include:
i. An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
ii. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. iii. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
Addressing each finding in turn — Finding (i), the City's general plan identifies the use of privately held land, including in some instances, the number of dwelling units authorized per acre. However, there is no similar planning metric for which the City could rely upon to determine what the square footage would be for each dwelling unit. Therefore, the square footage of each dwelling unit is determined by the property owner/developer at the time of development. In the case of a developer, that determination is based upon what they perceive is marketable and subject to change with market conditions. There simply is no way to accurately forecast what type of product mix will be developed. Without the ability to forecast the total number of square feet expected at build out, the City would be guessing at a rate per square foot. 2 55575.17003\42697392.1
This creates the potential for failing to collect enough TUMF to complete projects, or alternatively, collecting too much depending on the final build out. Therefore, using square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
Finding (ii), the TUMF is calculated based upon the demands created by class of property (i.e., traffic trips generated by land use type). In other words, the Study determined the average demands of average land use classes of property. Given, the limitation of the data and inability to forecast market conditions, this approach created a reasonable basis for applying the TUMF in an equitable and proportional manner across all potential classes of land use. Again, the City simply does not have the ability to generate the kind of information needed to meet the residential square footage requirement of the Act. Therefore, this alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
Finding (iii), the metrics in the Study calculate the estimated impacts on a land use basis.
For example, as noted above land uses are evaluated for their increase in traffic trips. The application of this metric does not increase or decrease based upon the size of the development project but rather the individual unit. Therefore, by the very nature of the calculation, smaller developments will have smaller impacts and larger developments will have larger impacts. These impacts drive the fee. Therefore, the fee structure does not charge disproportionate fees on smaller developments.
3 55575.17003\42697392.1
ATTACHMENT 1
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE
UPDATE NEXUS REPORT
A-1
55575.17003\42697392.1
Draft Nexus Report
Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule
Update
Prepared for:
7!ae Ernrrraarri r,j Land ( sr'
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1410
Oakland, CA 94612
510 841 9190 tel
510 740 2080 fax
Oakland
Sacramento
Denver
Los Angeles
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
In Association with:
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
In Association with:
Michael Baker International
Fehr & Peers
Rodriguez Consulting Group
March 2018
EPS #144043
www.epsys.com
Table of Contents
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS 1
Introduction 1
Summary of the TUMF Calculation 3
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND 5
TUMF Boundary 5
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts 6
3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS 8
TUMF Project Selection 8
TUMF Project Costs 9
4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION 11
Application of Transportation Demand Model 11
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects 11
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects 13
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation 13
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS 15
Obligated Funds 15
Other External Funding 16
Developer Funded Improvements 16
State and Federal Transportation Funding 16
Local Match 17
Measure A 17
Summary of Other Funding Sources 18
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION 20
Overview of Nexus Findings 20
The TUMF Calculation 21
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 24
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions 24
Simplification of Land Use Categories 24
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment 25
Appendices
APPENDIX A: TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
APPENDIX B: Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation 3
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories 4 Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 - 2040) 7 Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs 10
Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies 12 Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development 14 Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off -set TUMF Costs 15 Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off -set TUMF Costs 18 Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources 19 Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT) 21 Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary 6
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Introduction
This Nexus Report provides the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its member jurisdictions with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an updated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Impact fees are one-time charges on new development approved and collected by jurisdictions to cover the cost of regional transportation -related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth.1 The fees are typically collected upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy.
Initially established in 1989, the CVAG TUMF is a one-time fee charged on all new development occurring within the CVAG region designed to cover the "fair share" cost of regional serving transportation projects and improvements needed to serve growth. The program relies on local agencies (e.g., cities and the County) to collect TUMF as development occurs. The TUMF Nexus Report establishes a nexus or reasonable relationship between the updated fee amount and the proportion of transportation improvement costs attributable to new development.
This Nexus Report has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) with support from a broader consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, that has been retained by the CVAG to assist in developing key components of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The analysis and methodology incorporate input from CVAG staff, it's member jurisdictions, the TUMF Nexus Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.
Institutional Context
The CVAG TUMF program is a component of Riverside County's Measure A. Measure A is a one- half percent sales tax program that provides funding for a wide variety of transportation projects and services throughout Riverside County. It was originally approved by voters of Riverside County in 1988 and given a 30 -year extension in 2002. Cities and the county in the Coachella Valley must participate in the TUMF program to assist in the financing of the priority regional arterial system in order to receive local Measure A funds.
If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they would otherwise receive from Measure A for local streets and roads is added to the Measure A funds for the Regional Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned to the cities and the county in the Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and road improvements. These funds supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments are typically paid for by the developers.
Other key components of the RTP that have been updated as part of this study process, and used as critical inputs in the TUMF update, include:
1 New development includes any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates additional impacts on a jurisdictions regional transportation infrastructure once completed (e.g., through additional travel demand or "trips").
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN u o0r0c530
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
• Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS): The TPPS identifies and prioritizes the regional arterial transportation projects in the CVAG region. • Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE): The RACE provides costs estimates for the projects included in the TPPS.
• Active Transportation Plan (ATP): The Regional ATP defines the bicycle, pedestrian, and low speed electric vehicle (LSEV) networks designed to provide a multimodal compliment and/or alternative to automobiles. The Regional ATP projects are included in the TPPS.
The TPPS, RACE, and ATP were formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016. Since the TPPS, RACE, and ATP provide the underlying basis for the TUMF program, these updates have necessitated update of the TUMF program to reaffirm the nexus between projected development and needed transportation system improvements. The reevaluation of the TUMF nexus also provides the opportunity to address important policy issues including, fee land use categories, exemptions, cost indexing, and other factors, as described further in Chapter 7.
Legal Context
A Nexus Report provides a legal basis and necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of transportation impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act allows jurisdictions to adopt, by resolution, the Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.
Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the jurisdictions in which it is charged. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the transportation capital improvement network.
In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify how the fee is to be used;
3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used;
4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and
5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.
These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TUMF, as documented in subsequent chapters. If the transportation impact fee is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by CVAG to Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN u po OrOc53O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
ensure accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the TUMF will need to be updated. Further information on the implementation and administration of the TUMF is provided in Chapter 7.
Summary of the TUMF Calculation
Table 1 shows summarizes the TUMF calculation per trip consistent with nexus requirements and the associated analysis contained in this Technical Report. These transportation impact fees are designed to cover the cost of regional transportation improvements required to support new development after existing deficiencies and known other funding sources have been taken into account. The fees apply to all new residential and non-residential projects, except those exempted by State or federal law or other means.
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation
Category
Sour
: rmu a
Amount
Net TUMF Cost
See Table 9
= a
$263,335,000
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040)
See Table 3
= b
1,074,520
Avg. TUMF / ADT
= a / b
$245
While per trip sets the basis for the TUMF, individual land use categories will pay different fees depending on their trip rates per unit. Table 2 provides an illustrative calculation of the fee level for various land use categories. The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN ui7ppo
rOc53O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories Land Use Category Fee Per Unitl
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi -Family
Non -Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail2
$2,310 per dwelling
$1,790 per dwelling
$1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass -through trips.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN.c pgoO oc 30
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND
This chapter documents the land use and travel demand assumptions and forecasts that underlie the TUMF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the CVAG region and, in turn, are critical in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement costs between existing and new development.
TUMF Boundary
The TUMF boundaries define the geography (i.e. cities and unincorporated areas) where new development will be subject to the TUMF. In order to assure accurate and timely implementation of the TUMF program, the applicable boundary should be easily identified and understood by developers and jurisdictions responsible for fee collection. Good boundary devices are easily identified, stay relatively constant over time, and can be related to data collection or analysis zones in order to facilitate future analysis updates.
As part of an update to the TUMF in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005), the CVAG TUMF Boundary Determination established a roughly defined area within which there exists a "reasonable relationship" between new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways.
Formal boundary lines were defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily administered features. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes the CVAG core, as well as outlying areas along the I-10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south, and SR111 south corridors.
The boundary corresponds to several easily defined features:
• The Riverside County line to the north and south,
• Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,
• Township line 10E -11E to the east, and
• The WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN apoO oc 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees must establish a reasonable relationship, or nexus, between the cost of new capital facilities and improvements allocated to future development and the contribution of growth to the need for these facilities. For transportation impact fees, recently updated and adopted traffic models are generally used as a key tool to estimate the allocation of costs of new transportation facilities between existing and future development.
Based on direction from the CVAG Executive Committee, the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) has been used to calculate the TUMF. Specifically, as part of this study process, the RIVTAM model has been updated to reflect the latest 2040 socio-economic forecasts and roadway network assumptions in the CVAG region consistent with SCAG's 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and projects identified in the 2016 RTP, the TPPS projects were also added to the model to estimate the daily trips generated in the CVAG region by Year 2040.2 Table 3 shows the estimated growth in the number of daily vehicle trips ends in the CVAG region between existing (2015) and 2040 based on the updated RIVTAM model. As shown, the 2 For transportation modeling purposes, even projects not included in the TUMF calculation but included as part of the RTP or FTIP are considered to be part of the regional network in 2040.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN po OrOc5 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
existing 2015 vehicle trip ends were estimated to be 3,141,640 and the total growth was estimated to be an additional 1,074,520 trip ends over the next 25 years, or by 2040.3 Based on this projection, the future growth in trip ends will represents about 25 percent of total trips in 2040. In other words, future growth is expected to account for roughly 25 percent of total trips ends within the CVAG region by 2040. This proportion is used to allocate a portion of the cost for TUMF eligible projects to future growth, as described further in subsequent chapters.
Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 - 2040) Avg. Daily Trip (ADT) Ends in Year: 2015 - 2040 Growth in ADT .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Growth as % of Average
2015 2040 (with TPPS) Total 2040 total Annual
Total for CVAG Regional
Network
3,141, 640
4,216,160 1,074, 520
25.5% 1.2%
Source: F&P; RIVTAM
3 Trip ends are those that either start or end in the CVAG region. Through trips (i.e. those that pass through but do not stop in the CVAG region), are excluded from this calculation as described further in Chapter 4.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN oOrOc53O
3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS
This chapter documents the transportation facilities included in the TUMF as well as their estimated cost. Development impact fees are derived from a list of planned regional transportation capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in full to accommodate new growth. Consequently, the capital improvements included in the fee program need to be described in sufficient detail to generate cost estimates.4 TUMF Project Selection
As noted in Chapter 1, the TPPS, as well as the RACE and ATP provide the core elements of the TUMF calculation by providing the list of potentially eligible projects and their corresponding costs. Updates to these documents were prepared by the consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, and formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016.
While the projects included in the TPPS represent the universe of transportation facilities and improvements potentially eligible for funding through TUMF, not all of them need to be included in the program. A key component of the TUMF study process is to identify which of these eligible projects should be included in the TUMF based on both nexus and policy considerations.
Accordingly, as part of this study, CVAG obtained input from member jurisdictions and the TUMF Nexus Committee to consider options for reducing the cost of the TUMF program.
The policy direction resulting from this consultation was to identify and remove projects from TUMF consideration where there was uncertainty in the likelihood of that project moving forward in the next 15-25 years. After meeting with each of the individual jurisdictions, CVAG found that nearly all projects scoring below 7.5 points on the TPPS met the criteria and thus should be "removed" from TUMF consideration. Jurisdictions pointed out that these projects may become more certain in the future, when the TUMF Nexus study is repeated.
CVAG, with concurrence from its members and the TUMF Nexus Committee, determined that the regional priority in the TPPS necessitated the inclusion of projects scoring above 7.5 points. By removing TPPS projects scoring 7.5 points and lower, jurisdictions acknowledge that regional funding will not be available for those projects until or unless the TUMF project list (those TPPS projects scoring above 7.5 points) is amended.
The ATP includes a comprehensive listing of all active transportation projects within the jurisdictions of the CVAG member agencies that were determined to have regional significance.
Specifically, it includes local and regional bike plans as well as pedestrian improvement to transit hubs. In addition, the TPPS includes other regional transportation projects, such as CV Link, that correspond to long-term planning efforts and cannot analyzed in the same way as traditional TPPS projects. These projects were tested for regional significance based on factors that were agreed upon as part of the RTP study process. Based on CVAG committee direction, ATP and 4 Impact fees programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital project (and as such do require clearance through the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverabllees\DrraafN e�oO oc 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
these regional planning projects were not ranked against one another but are simply listed as part of the regional transportation system to be considered for funding.
In addition to this policy -based approach, TPPS projects focused on the resurfacing of existing arterials have been removed from the TUMF calculation based on nexus considerations (i.e., the costs of these projects are excluded from TUMF). These projects are needed to maintain the current regional arterial network rather than help accommodate growth. Based on the requirements of AB 1600, projects focused primarily on the operation and maintenance of existing facilities should be excluded from development impact fee programs. It should be noted that this is a relatively minor adjustment since total cost of these projects is only $940,000.
Based on the process and criteria described above, about 80 TPPS projects were removed from TUMF consideration, or about 30 percent of the total.5 Eliminating these projects removed about $605 million from TUMF consideration. A detailed list of the projects included and removed from the TPPS is provided in Appendix A.
TUMF Project Costs
As described earlier, the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) study provides a uniform methodology to create planning -level cost estimates for transportation projects included in the TPPS. As further described in the RACE, these costs estimates include construction, right-of- way, and impact factors to cover other related project conditions.6 The costs for CV Link and Regional Signal Synchronization were estimated from other planning efforts and added to the overall TPPS cost.
Table 4 provides cost estimates for TPPS projects after removing those that scored at or below
7.5 points. As shown, the total delivery cost for the projects included as part of the TUMF calculations is estimated at approximately $2.809 billion, including the TPPS, ATP, and two other regional projects. The cost estimates for each project are attached to this Report as Appendix B (with further detail available in the RACE).
5 This total excludes ATP and other Regional Projects such as CV Link. 6 Impact factors are multipliers applied to the project's construction cost to account for special conditions likely add to its complexity in the construction process. These include project conditions like the existence of utilities structures, nearby drainage facilities, and medians that add complexity and costs.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN.c �o 5 oc 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 4
Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs
Buildable Projects
- - Capacity Improvement Projects
- - Widening or Updating Cross -Sections
- - Other Operational Improvements
-- Resurface or Reconstruction Only
ATP Regional Projects
-- Regional Bicycle Projects
-- Regional Pedestrian Improvements
Other Regional Transportation Projects
-- CVLink
- - Valley -wide Signal Synchronization
$ 2,506,140,000
$2,143,490,000
$69,910,000
$292,570,000
$170,000
$157,700,000
$149,700,000
$8,000,000
$146,100,000
$99,400,000
$46,700,000
89.2%
76.3%
2.5%
10.4%
0.01%
5.6%
5.3%
0.3%
5.2%
3.5%
1.7%
Regional Traffic System Costs
$2,809,940,000 100%
The bulk of the TUMF project costs, or approximately 76.3 percent, are identified as "Capacity Improvement Projects." These projects are so -named because they expand the capacity of the regional transportation network by adding lanes or entirely new arterials and connections, allowing the network to better accommodate growth. The projects referred to as "Widening or Updating of Cross -Sections" and "Other Operational Improvements", which combine for about 13 percent of costs, provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, but do not expand the network capacity in a measurable way. ATP and other regional projects such as CV Link and valley -wide signal synchronization, combine for slightly less than 11 percent of total costs.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN apoO oc 30
4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION
This Chapter describes how the cost of TUMF eligible projects (described in Chapter 3) are allocated to new development. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees cannot include the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to address "existing deficiencies". In other words, the cost of new capital facilities and improvements needed solely to address the needs of existing users must be excluded from the TUMF calculation.
Application of Transportation Demand Model
As noted in Chapter 2, the nexus calculations provided in this Report utilize RIVTAM projections to allocate the cost of the TUMF eligible projects between new and existing development. The RIVTAM model is a mathematical representation of travel demand in the CVAG region between Base Year 2008 and Future Year 2040, updated by Fehr & Peers as part of this study effort. The model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households to estimate the expected travel in, between, and through CVAG. Existing 2015 origin -destination (O -D) trip table and daily volumes were developed using the interpolation between the Base Year 2008 Model and Future Year 2040 Model.
The traffic growth in CVAG was estimated using the change in origin -destination (O -D) trip tables between existing 2015 Model and Future Year 2040 Model. In order to capture the trips only associated with the Coachella Valley region, the external -to -external trips (meaning trips starting from and ending at areas outside of the Coachella Valley) were excluded from traffic growth. For external -to -internal or internal -to -external trips (meaning trips having one end in CVAG and the other end outside of CVAG), only half of those trips were included in the traffic growth calculation.
For the purpose of the TUMF, the number of trip ends was used to calculate the fee which is consistent with the 2005 TUMF study. Any internal -to -internal trip (meaning trips traveling inside CVAG) is considered as two trip ends and any external -to -internal or internal -to -external trip is considered to have one trip end in Coachella Valley.
The results from the traffic demand model are applied differently depending on the type of TUMF project under consideration. Specifically, this nexus analysis employs different cost allocation methodologies depending on whether the project is primarily designed to increases the overall travel capacity within the CVAG region versus those that are primarily designed for other purposes, such as safety or bicycle / pedestrian access. The cost allocation methodology for each category of TUMF improvement is described separately below.
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects
As described in Chapter 3, the TPPS identified a number of projects as "capacity improvements." These projects are so -named because they expand the capacity of the regional transportation network by adding lanes to existing facilities or adding entirely new arterials and connections, allowing the network to accommodate growth. For these projects the RIVTAM model was used to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. Specifically, the existing 2015 daily volumes were compared to capacity to develop the existing volume/capacity (v/c) Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN.c po OrOc53O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
ratio to determine whether the project is experiencing an existing deficiency based on level of service (LOS) criteria. Consistent with the 2005 TUMF study, LOS D or worse is considered to be unacceptable LOS for arterial roadway network.
Any project's roadway segment with a v/c ratio exceeding 0.62 (LOS D or worse) were considered to operate with existing deficiency, and a fair share calculation was then performed to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth for the project. The fair share percentage was calculated by subtracting the existing volumes from future demand and then divided by the future demand, and the percentage was applied to the project's total cost to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. For projects with roadway segments operating at LOS C or better (or v/c ratio of 0.62 or less), it is assumed 100 percent of the project's cost is attributable to growth.
Table 5 shows the list of TUMF projects experiencing a v/c ratio above 0.62 and how the cost of these projects has been allocated between new and existing development. Overall, out of the 190 TUMF projects (excluding ATP) 13 are estimated to operate with an existing deficiency. As shown in Table 5, out of the $121.7 million in total cost estimated for these projects, approximately $54.4 million is allocated to the TUMF. The remaining $67 million, or about 55 percent, is attributable to existing deficiencies.
Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies Segment
Street Name #
Segment Description
Cost
Considered
in TUMF
Existing Year Future Year
20151 2040 w/ TPPS1
ADT V/C ADT
a b c
Fair
Share
Factor
V/C d = (c - b)
/c
Cost
Contributed
to Future
Growth
e=a"d
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy
111/SPRR
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR -86S IC
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR -86S (Incl.
Br. at Whitewater Chnl)
Dillon Rd. DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to
Hwy 111
Hwy. 74 Hwy.74A Highway 111 to El Paseo
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111 F Cook St to Eldorado Dr
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111H Miles Ave to Washington St
(incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl)
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN13 Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)
Palm Dr. PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd
Total
$22,011,480 21,120 0.85 49,420 0.48 0.57 $12,604,712
$55,222,500 20,260 0.82 37,930 0.35 0.47 $25,725,852
$3,356,880 20,150 0.72 38,870 0.37 0.48 $1,616,691
$4,062,858 19,440 0.71 46,870 0.43
$450,240 38,960 0.63 39,080 0.34
$3,537,600 47,240 0.72 67,580 0.58
$4,924,800 53,240 0.81 73,300 0.64
0.59 0.00
0.30 0.27
$2,377,730
$1,383
$1,064,735
$1,347,769
$7,573,400 46,430 0.70 62,300 0.43 0.25 $1,929,211
$165,000 20,370 0.68 37,920 0.56 0.46 $0
$1,722,800 24,960 0.85 45,050 0.31 0.45 $768,281
$7,379,840 21,780 0.78 39,410 0.26 0.45 $3,301,360
$6,945,600 16,460 0.62 27,730 0.40 0.41 $2,822,824
$4,024,416 28,340 0.85 35,290 0.24 0.20 $792,567
$121,377,414 $54,353,115
[1] Data provided by Fehr & Peers based on updated RIVTAM.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN.c o OrOc5 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
As noted, the bulk of the capacity improvement projects, in terms of both number and costs, currently operate with a v/c ratio below 0.62. Consequently, these projects are assumed to be entirely attributable to new development.
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects
In addition to "capacity improvement projects", other regional projects are included in the TUMF calculation because they improve the regional network for both existing and new users. While these projects provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, they do not expand the network capacity in a measurable way. The TUMF projects that fall into this category include operational improvements such as reconfiguring intersections, adding turn lanes at intersections, adding traffic signals, and ATP projects (e.g. bike / pedestrian facility and transit station improvements, and CV Link).
Since these improvements and facilities associated with the project categories above are designed to serve and benefit both existing and new development, the costs are allocated in proportion to growth. Specifically, 25 percent of the cost of these projects are allocated to growth reflecting the estimated share of new trip ends to total trip ends in 2040 (see Table 3 in Chapter 2).
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation
Table 6 summarizes the allocation of TUMF eligible project costs between new and existing development based on the methodology described above. As shown, overall, about 80 percent of the TUMF eligible project costs are allocated to new development. This amount includes 97 percent of the cost of "Capacity Improvement Projects" since the majority of these projects are not currently needed given level of service standards assumed for this analysis (i.e. v/c ratios of
0.62 or less).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN uiRppo
rOc53O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development lir
Buildable Projects
otal Costs
Ilocated
Growth
$2,505,970,000
$2,169,010,747
-- Capacity Improvement Projects'
$2,143,490,000
96.9%
$2,076,630,000
-- Widening or Updating Cross-Sections2
$69,910,000
25.5%
$17,817,088
-- Other Operational Improvements2
$292,570,000
25.5%
$74,563,659
ATP Regional Projects
$157,700,000
$40,191,028
-- Regional Bicycle Projects2
$149,700,000
25.5%
$38,152,168
-- Regional Pedestrian ImprovementsZ
$8,000,000
25.5%
$2,038,860
Other Regional Transportation Projects
$146,100,000
$37,234,681
-- CV Link2
$99,400,000
25.5%
$25,332,836
-- Valley -wide Signal Synchronization2
$46,700,000
25.5%
$11,901,845.28
Total
$2,809,770,000
80%
$2,246,436,456
[1] Cost allocation based on RIVTAM analysis. For projects with no existing deficiencies, 100 percent of costs are allocated to growth.
[2] Cost allocation based on new trips from 2015 - 2040 divided by total trips in 2040, as shown in Table 3.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14
P;\144000s\144043CVAG\DeliverablleesgDreahN.cuiRuuo OrOcy- 30
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS
It is a common practice in calculation of a development impact fee to deduct any obligated or projected revenue from other funding sources from the total cost of planned capital facilities and improvements. Accordingly, this section identifies and quantifies the separate external revenue or funding sources (other than the TUMF itself) and deducts these amounts from the TUMF calculation.
CVAG has programming authority for Measure A, State and Federal formula funds. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the regional transportation planning agency responsible for administration of funds throughout Riverside County. Due to the diverse needs of sub -regions throughout the County, programming decisions within Coachella Valley are typically delegated to CVAG. Competitive grant funding and programming is typically managed directly by RCTC or State and Federal sponsoring agencies.
Obligated Funds
TUMF project costs should exclude funding that has already been secured or is obligated from other external sources. As of November, 2016, CVAG has approximately $232 million allocated to TPPS projects from available sources. Programming decisions are made periodically and obligation values are updated as needed. A list of current projects and funding commitments is summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off -set TUMF Costs • e of Projects
Pro'ect Cos
Obligate
•• • i
undin'
Buildable Projects
$2,505,970,000
89.2%
$145,886,000
-- Capacity Improvement Projects
$2,143,490,000
76.3%
$102,956,000
-- Widening or Updating Cross -Sections
$69,910,000
2.5%
$1,972,000
-- Other Operational Improvements
$292,570,000
10.4%
$40,958,000
ATP Regional Projects
$157,700,000
5.6%
$8,300,000
-- Regional Bicycle Projects
$149,700,000
5.3%
$8,300,000
-- Regional Pedestrian Improvements
$8,000,000
0.3%
$0
Other Regional Transportation Projects
$146,100,000
5.2%
$77,767,625
-- CV Link
$99,400,000
3.5%
$75,000,000
-- Valley -wide Signal Synchronization
$46,700,000
1.7%
$2,767,625
Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,770,000 100%
$231,953,625
[1] Only includes portion of obligated funding applicable to TUMF related costs.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverabllees\DrraafN usRapo O Oc 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Although a significant portion of obligated funds are under CVAG's control, competitive funding from State and/or federal sources, such as Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, is determined by others. ATP projects in the CVAG region, including major infrastructure projects such as CV Link, have received approximately $75 million in grants and funding allocations from CMAQ and various other sources. The values are deducted from the TPPS and ATP gross network.
Other External Funding
As part of the TUMF study effort, CVAG staff identified and estimated the level of non-TUMF external funding assumptions inherent in each jurisdiction's ability to move specific TPPS projects forward. These external funding assumptions have been removed from the TUMF obligation.
Specifically, CVAG staff have worked with member jurisdictions to identify and estimate the additional, external (i.e. non-TUMF) funding assumptions associated with the all TPPS projects rated above 7.5 points. The total external funding estimate from all the jurisdictions was $328,032,689. Consequently, this amount has been removed from the TUMF calculation.
Developer Funded Improvements
Section 6 (d) (2) of the CVAG TUMF model ordinance indicates that CVAG will "establish an estimate of the value of customary developer dedications to the extent they have been included in the total cost of the regional system." Dedications are right of way and/or completed roadway segments that are required to be completed by developers as part of their development approvals. In previous TUMF Nexus Studies, the estimated value of developer dedications has been used to offset or reduce the TUMF collection target.
This reduction of the TUMF collection target provides an appropriate program 'credit' to developers for completing actual improvements to the arterial system. While the value of developer contributions is difficult to quantify, they are real and should be accounted for in the TUMF. As part of the initial TUMF calculation in 1988 it was estimated that such dedications represented 25 percent of the value of total TPPS (regional system) costs. This estimate was affirmed in 2005. It is recommended that we retain the 25 percent estimate for the value of developer dedications for the 2018 Nexus Study, excluding CV Link.
State and Federal Transportation Funding
CVAG receives transportation funding from a variety of State and federal sources, much of which is allocated by formula or agreement through RCTC. This includes funding through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding (CMAQ), the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), and other sources. While the funding levels from State and Federal sources can vary significantly from year to year, for the purposes of the TUMF analysis, CVAG projects that the region will receive about $172 million from these sources over the next 25 years, or an average of about $6.86 million per year.? 7 Based on the last call for projects in 2013 for federal grant funds STP, CVAG received $21,458,175, or about 33 percent of the total pot for Riverside County. For CMAQ funds, CVAG is averaging about Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN u4P7OrOc53O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Local Match
The CVAG share of regional road system project costs has been set by the Executive Committee at 75 percent of qualified project costs, has been applied after any external funding comes off the top. Local jurisdictions are required to provide the remaining 25 percent of project costs, as well as 100 percent of unqualified project costs. For the purposes of the TUMF, CVAG has indicated that projects on the TPPS will be funded with 75 percent regional funds with a 25 percent local match requirement. Accordingly, this analysis assumes that the TUMF costs are reduced by 25 percent to account for this local match.
Measure A
In accordance with RCTC Ordinance No.02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax (Measure A), 50 percent of the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG for use on the Regional Arterial System. This sales tax was approved through 2038. CVAG uses this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. CVAG intends to continue to utilize this revenue for projects included in the TPPS
For the purpose of determining the share of Measure A revenues that will likely be available for completing future TPPS projects, an average of actual revenues between 2007 and 2016 (adjusted for inflation) and projected growth in trips through 2040 was used. In addition, it is assumed that 80 percent of the Measure A revenue would be used to off -set TUMF costs, with the remaining available to cover future project costs not covered by TUMF (e.g., the amount allocated to "existing deficiencies"). This methodology yields average annual Measure A revenues available to off -set TUMF costs of about $22.8 million per year or $461 million over 25 years, as shown in Table 8.
$6 million per year. These two sources would combine for about $171,458,175 over a 25 -year period ($21,458,175 + $6 million times 25 years).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN u4P oOrOc53O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off -set TUMF Costs Type of Projection
Average Annual Total Projected
Amount Through 2040
Based on 2007-16 Growth Rate In Measure A $s
Based on 2010-16 Growth Rate in Measure A $s
Based on SCAG Trip Growth (2017 - 2040)
Average of All Projections
25 Year Total
Allocation to TUMF Eligible Projects @ 80% [1]
$20,308,586 $487,406,064
$26,270,481 $630,491,536
S21,934,342 $526,424,215
$22,837,803 $548,107,272
$570,945,075
$456,475,736
[1] Equals to proportion of total TUMF costs allocated to growh, as shown in Table 6.
Summary of Other Funding Sources
Table 9 summarizes the assumptions above to estimate the total revenue that is likely to be available to off -set TUMF project costs over the next 25 years. As shown, the total TUMF Costs of $2.176 billion (i.e., the TPPS costs attributable to growth) are reduced by an additional $1.934 billion to account for other funding sources, leaving a net TUMF cost of about $242.7 million.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverabllees\DrraafN uiRepoO oc 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources Cate o
Sourc
Formu'
Amo
nplliat
TUMF Cost Allocation
See Table 6
= a
$2,246,436,000
Obligated Funding
External Funding
CV Link Costs Allocated to Growth
Developer Funded Improvements
State and Federal Funding
See Table 7
CVAG Jurisdiction data
See Table 6
CVAG Estimate
CVAG Estimate
= b
= c
= d
e = 25% * (a - d)
= f
$231,953,625
$328,000,000
$25,332,836
$555,276,000
$171,458,000
Subtotal
g= a- b- c- e- f
$959,748,000
$239,937,000
$456,476,000
25% Local Match
Measure A Funding to TUMF
CVAG Policy
See Table 8
h = g * 25%
= i
Net TUMF Costs
j = g - h - i
$263,335,000
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverabllees\DrraafN uiR�oO Oc 30
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION
This chapter summarizes the nexus findings presents in the previous chapters and calculates and presents the final TUMF calculations.
Overview of Nexus Findings
A "nexus" or relationship between new development in the CVAG region and transportation improvements and their costs must be established before incorporating transportation improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. To determine the appropriate costs to include in the new transportation fee calculation, it is necessary to conduct a series of steps:
• Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs is the first step (see Chapter 3).
• Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is an existing deficiency at any of the project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency.
Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the Fee Program with funding required from other sources (see Chapter 4) • Determine Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Once existing deficiencies are identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that is attributable to new development in Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee program (see Chapter 4).
• Account for Known Funding. To the extent there is dedicated funding for any of the transportation improvements, this portion of costs should not be included in the transportation fee calculation. For this TIF calculation, funding from external sources has been excluded (see Chapter 5).
The technical calculations described above and further detailed in subsequent sections establish the following nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Purpose
The TUMF will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in the CVAG region. It is levied on all new development throughout the Coachella Valley to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts on the transportation system.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund regional transportation improvements, including roadway, intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, ATP facilities and other regional serving projects. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Chapter 3 and further detailed in the Appendix B and the TPPS.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delive bllees\DrraafN uiRgpoO Oc 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Relationship
New development in the CVAG region will increase demands for, and travel on, the region's transportation network. Transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional transportation capacity necessary to accommodate this growth. New development will benefit from the increased transportation capacity.
Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and improvements. The transportation improvements considered in this Study have been identified and are necessary to support the future transportation needs in the CVAG region.
Proportionality
The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new development based on the RIVTAM transportation model and adapted for this study purpose. Recognizing that some improvements within the Coachella Valley will be completed by developer dedications or using alternate funding sources, the TUMF program establishes the share of unfunded improvement costs in rough proportionality to the number of trips generated by new development and assigns the fair -share fee to new developments on this basis.
The TUMF Calculation
The data and analysis described above provide the core components of the TUMF calculation.
The final step in the TUMF calculation is to estimate the fee per trip and by land use category (i.e. different types of residential and non-residential development). These calculations are described below.
TUMF per Trip
The TUMF rate per trip is calculated by dividing the net TUMF cost above by the projected growth in average daily trips (ADT) over from 2015 - 2040. Specifically, the fee per trip is calculated by dividing the aggregate fee program cost of $263.3 million by the total number of trips generated by new development, or 1.074,520, as shown in Table 10. The results in a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT) Category
Sour
ormula_
Amount
Net TUMF Cost
See Table 9
= a
$263,335,000
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040)
See Table 3
= b
1,074,520
Avg. TUMF / ADT
= a / b
$245
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
21 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN u4Re o OrOc5 30
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
TUMF by Land Use
This average TUMF per trip amount will be used as the basis for calculating the actual TUMF obligation for particular types of development based on ADT generation factors for specific land use categories. Table 11 provides the ADT rates for generalized land use categories based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition released in 2017). The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7. In addition, CVAG may update these rates and land use categories over time as conditions change and new data becomes available.
Table 11 Trip Rate Assumptions for illustrative Land Use Categories Land Use Category
ITE Daily Trip Rate / Unit ITE Code ITE Land Use Description Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi -Family
Non -Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail
9.44 dwelling 210 Single -Family Detached Housing
7.32 dwelling 220 Multifamily Housing Low Rise
4.96 1000 sq. ft. 110 General Light Industrial
9.74 1000 sq. ft. 710 General Office Building
37.75 1000 sq. ft. 820 Shopping Center
Table 12 calculates the TUMF for each land use categories defined above based on the fee per trip. It should be noted that, the TUMF per trip rate for retail is reduced by 35 percent to account "linked" and pass -through trips, or trips that are part of multi -purpose commute (e.g., stopping at a retail store on the way to or from work). Typically, retail -based trips often involve multiple stops. To recognize this traffic pattern, an adjustment for pass -through trips, or percentage of new trip adjustment, takes into account vehicle trips using the adjacent roadway that enter a site as an intermediate stop on the way to another destination. For example, some drivers will stop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass -by adjustment reduces total number of vehicle trips to account for the sharing of the one trip for two destinations (fuel and then home).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN u4RgoOrOc53O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 12 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories Land Use Category Fee Per Unitl
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi -Family
Non -Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail2
$2,310 per dwelling
$1,790 per dwelling
$1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass -through trips.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN u4P oOrOc53O
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
This chapter summarizes the implementation and administrative issues and procedures associated with the TUMF program. Implementation and administrative elements of this Updated TUMF are specified in the CVAG TUMF Handbook as well as the CVAG TUMF model ordinance.
This TUMF update incorporates a number of modifications requested by CVAG's member jurisdictions and other stakeholders. The key elements of these documents that are expected to be modified as part of this update are described below.
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions
The 2012 TUMF policy handbook exempts a number of land use categories from paying the fee (examples include affordable housing, public buildings, and some religious structures). It is proposed that the new TUMF update will eliminate any TUMF land use exemptions except those required by State or federal law (for example, public schools are statutorily exempt from AB 1600 impact fees). In other words, all new development that increases trips in the CVAG region will be subject to the TUMF unless otherwise exempt due to State and / or federal law.
While the goal is to eliminate all exemptions, consistent with State or federal law, CVAG has also proposed a TUMF discount for Transit Oriented Residential Development projects. With the new Handbook, CVAG is also considering an exemption for Affordable housing (below 80% of the ACI).
Regional fee programs approach affordable housing fees in a variety of ways; charge a full fee, allow fee reductions of a stated percentage, and completely exempting fees. These are evenly implemented throughout programs in California. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. Programs that charge a fee often simply define a reduction of 20% or 50% of the fee for affordable housing but don't provide a methodology on how it was arrived at other than it was a policy decision.
Simplification of Land Use Categories
The current TUMF Manual defines over 35 separate land use categories, and numerous sub- categories, each with different fee rates based upon trip generation. Concerns have been raised by developers and CVAG member agencies that this structure is overly complicated and confusing. Consequently, CVAG has simplified the land use categories which eliminate factors that override the basic fee rate of a land use.
For example, under the current TUMF Program, the highest TUMF rates are for convenience markets and fast food restaurants. When convenience stores are located within shopping centers it can create confusion because under the current TUMF Manual, shopping centers are defined as having at least three business establishments which may be housed in one or more buildings; have a total building floor area of at least 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and that the largest establishment not contain more than 50 percent of the floor area.
Under the new TUMF Program, it proposed that the land use categories be simplified and consolidated. For example, convenience stores, restaurants and shopping centers are proposed Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DelivePbllees\DrraafN.c pgoO oc 3O
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
to be charged strictly as "retail" and charged one flat rate. Therefore, TUMF would apply to each new building based on square footage without any additional factors.
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment
It is common practice to include an annual adjustment factor so that the fee revenues keep pace with inflation. By way of example, the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee is revised annually by means of an adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside Area. Accordingly, it is proposed that an inflation adjustment for TUMF be reviewed by CVAG's Executive Committee on an annual basis.
Such inflation adjustment shall be the same as the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Delivepbllees\DrraafN apo 5 oc 30
APPENDIX A:
TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
20TH AVE 20A Worsley Rd to N Indian Canyon Dr
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) Yes 20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) Yes 20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing Yes
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing Yes
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd Yes
AVE 48 48B1 Jefferson St to Madison St
AVE 48 48B Madison St to W side of All -Amer. Canal (Excl. Br. At All -Amer. Canal)
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR -86 Yes
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR -86S IC Yes
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at Yes Evac. Chnl)
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All -Amer. Canal) Yes AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St Yes
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR -86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50K SR -86S to I-10 IC Yes
AVE 50 50L Br. at All -Amer. Canal (in 50K) Yes
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC Yes
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All -Amer. Yes Canal)
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St Yes
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St Yes
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 52 52H Intersection of Ave 52 and SR -86
AVE 52 521A Harrison St to Shady Ln Yes
AVE 52 521B Shady Ln to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR -86S IC Yes
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR -86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes AVE 52 52M SR -86S to Pierce St Yes
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St Yes
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56B Monroe St to Jackson St
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56C Jackson St to 0.25 miles W of Van Buren St AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56D 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St to Harrison St AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56E Harrison St to Tyler St
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56F Tyler St to Polk St
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) Yes AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 561 SPRR to SR -86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
58TH AVE
58TH AVE
58TH AVE
58TH AVE
58TH AVE
66TH AVE
66TH AVE
66TH AVE
BOB HOPE DR
BOB HOPE DR
BOB HOPE DR
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
COOK ST (formerly CHASE
SCHOOL RD)
COOK ST
COOK ST
COOK ST
COOK ST
COUNTRY CLUB DR
COUNTRY CLUB DR
COUNTRY CLUB DR
COUNTRY CLUB DR
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR
DA VALL DR
DA VALL DR
DA VALL DR
DA VALL DR
DA VALL DR
DA VALL DR
DATE PALM DR
DATE PALM DR
DATE PALM DR
DATE PALM DR
DATE PALM DR
DATE PALM DR
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
58A
58B
58C
58D
58E
66A
66B
66C
BH1-6
BH2-6
BH3-6
CTHCN1
CTHCN2
CTHCN4
CTHCN5
CHSC1
Jefferson St to Madison St
Madison St to Monroe St
Monroe St to Jackson St
Jackson St to Van Buren St
Van Buren St to Harrison St
Future 66th Ave SR -86 IC
66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing
Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge)
Frank Sinatra Dr to Gerald Ford Dr
Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Dr
Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd (southbound only)
Terrace Rd to E Palm Canyon Dr
E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl.
Cath Cyn Br.)
N side of Whitewater Br. to Dinah Shore Dr
Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd
1-10 IC to Ramon Rd
CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr
CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br.
CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr
CK7 Br. at Whitewater Chnl
CC4 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave
CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St
CC6 Cook St to Eldorado Dr
CC7 Eldorado Dr to Oasis Club Dr
CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St
CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr
CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave
CROSLY3A Br. at Palm Cyn Chnl
DVALL1 Dinah Shore to Ramon Rd
DVALL2 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way
DVALL3 McCallum Way to 30th Ave
DVALL4 30th Ave to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)
DVALL5 Future Da Valli -10 IC
DVALL6 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) DPLMOA Hwy 111 (E Palm Cyn Dr) to Gerald Ford Dr (Incl. at Cath. Cyn Br., excludes WW Br.)
DPLMOB Gerald Ford Dr to Dinah Shore Dr
DPLMOC Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd
DPLM1 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way
DPLM2 McCallum Way to 30th Ave
DPLM3 30th Ave to Vista Chino
DLN1 SR -62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr
DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.)
DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr
DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
DILLON RD DLN6
DILLON RD DLN7
DILLON RD DLN8
DILLON RD DLN9
DILLON RD DLN10
DILLON RD DLN11
DILLON RD DLN12
DILLON RD DLN13
DILLON RD DLN14
DILLON RD DLN15
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP1
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP2
E PALM CYN DR PLCN7
E PALM CYN DR PLCN8
E PALM CYN DR PLCN9
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B
FRANK SINATRA DR FS6
FRANK SINATRA DR FS7
FRANK SINATRA DR FS8
FRANK SINATRA DR FS9
FRED WARING DR FW1
GENE AUTRY TR GAT1A
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2C
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2D
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2F
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2G
GENE AUTRY TR GAT3
GERALD FORD DR GFD4
GERALD FORD DR GFD5
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF4
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY DR & I HACOA
HACIENDA AVE (currently 13TH AV HACOB
HACIENDA AVE HAC1A
HACIENDA AVE HAC1B
HACIENDA AVE HAC2
Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd
Bennett Rd to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd (Incl. Br. At
Wide Cyn Chnl)
Thousand Palms Cyn Rd to Sunny Rock Rd
Sunny Rock Rd to Ave 44 (Incl. Br. over All -Amer.
Canal)
Ave 44 to I-10 IC
I-10 IC to N side of Whitewater Br.
Br. at Whitewater Chnl
S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111
Dillon Rd I-10 IC
Dillon Rd SR -86S IC
Br. at Whitewater Chnl
Highway 111 to Blackhawk Way (formerly Westward
Ho)
Palm Cyn Dr to Sunrise Way
Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn
Wash)
Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits
Monterey Ave to Portola Ave
Portola Ave to Cook St
Cook St to Eldorado Dr
Eldorado Dr to Tamarisk Row Dr
Bridge at Whitewater River
Intersection of Gene Autry Trl and Mesquite Ave /
Dinah Shore Dr
E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way
Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash
N of Palm Canyon Wash Bridge to 0.18 mi south of
Mesquite Ave
0.18 mi S of Mesquite Ave to Mesquite Ave
Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd
Ramon to Escena Way
Escena Way to Vista Chino
Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
Cook St to Frank Sinatra Dr
Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr
Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC
Ave 45 to Hwy 111
Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 52 to Ave 54
Ave 54 to Ave 56
SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr
Cholla Dr to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
HACIENDA AVE HAC3 Mountain View Rd to Dillon Rd (Long Cyn Rd) HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52
HARRISON ST HARSN2 Ave 52 to Ave 54
HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd)
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to EI Paseo
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74B EI Paseo to Mesa View Dr
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74C Mesa View Dr to S Palm Desert City Limits HIGHWAY 111 HWY111 F Cook St to Eldorado Dr
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl)
INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way
INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd
INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino
INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd
INDIAN CYN DR INCN6 Racquet Club Rd to Sunrise Pkwy
INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue
INDIAN CYN DR INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave
INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd
INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.)
INDIAN CYN DR INCN14 Mission Lakes Blvd to SR -62
INDIO BLVD INDIO0 I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges)
INDIO BLVD INDIO1 Jefferson St to Madison St (over All -Amer. Canal) JACKSON ST JAC2A1 I-10 IC to 43rd Ave
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50
JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St I-10 IC
JEFFERSON ST JEF1A Intersection of Jefferson St and Dunbar Dr JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39
JEFFERSON ST JEF9B Ave 39 to Ave 38
KEY LARGO AVE KL1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and RR)
LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing Zink) LANDAU BLVD LAN4 1-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link)
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM1 Mission Lakes Blvd to Pierson Blvd LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.)
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave
MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48
MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl and All -Amer. Canal, missing link)
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLKO SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK3 Palm Dr to Eastern Terminus at Verbena Dr MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42
MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC
MONROE ST MON7 Ave 54 to 58th Ave
MONROE ST MON8A 58th Ave to Ave 60
MONROE ST MON8B Ave 60 to 62nd Ave
MONROE ST MON9 I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr
MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River)
MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTVO Pierson Blvd at E Terminus of Desert View Ave to Hacienda Ave
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1 B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV2 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV3 20th Ave to Varner Rd
N PALM CYN DR PLCN1 Vista Chino to Tachevah Dr
N PALM CYN DR PLCN2 Tachevah Dr to Alejo Rd
N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd
N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd
N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Crk.) N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr
PALM DR PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd
PALM DR PD2 Varner Rd to 20th Ave
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl
PALM DR PD5 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Hacienda Ave
PALM DR PD6 Hacienda Ave to Pierson Blvd
PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd
PIERSON BLVD PRS1 SR -62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
PIERSON BLVD PRS2 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (Incl. Br. at Mission Cr.)
PIERSON BLVD PRS3A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr
PIERSON BLVD PRS3B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr
PIERSON BLVD PRS4A Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd
PIERSON BLVD PRS4B Miracle Hill Rd to Eastern Terminus of Desert View Av.
POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr
PORTOLA AVE POR2 Magnesia Falls Dr to Country Club Dr (Excl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl)
PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr
PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
THOUSAND PALMS CYN RD
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR / 14TH
AVE
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TYLER ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
POR5B
POR6
RAM1
RAM2
RAM3
RAM3A
RAM4
RAM4A
RAM5
RAM5A
RAM7
RAM15
SV1
SV2
SV3
SV4
SV5
SV6
SV7
SV8
SV9
THPL1
TBP1
TBP2
TBP3
TYL1
VANB2
VANB3
VANB4
VANB5
VRNRO
VRNR1
VRNR2
VRNR3
VRNR6
VRNR7B
VRNR9
VRNR10A
VRNR1OB
VRNR11
VC1
VC1A
VC2
VC2AA
VC2AB
VC2A
VC3
Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)
Future Portola Ave I-10 IC
S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr
S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl
Xing)
Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way
Farrell Dr to EI Cielo Rd
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive
EI Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd
Br. at Whitewater Rvr
Monterey Ave to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd
Monroe St to Jackson St
Jackson St to Van Buren St
Van Buren St to Harrison St
Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link)
Tyler St to Polk St (missing link)
Polk St to Fillmore St
Fillmore St to Pierce St (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Pierce St to SR -86
Future Ave 62 SR -86 IC
Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd
Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road
Ave 48 to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 52 to Ave 54
Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd
20th Ave to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd
Monterey Ave to Cook St
Ave 38 to Washington St
Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All -Amer.
Canal)
Madison St to Clinton St
Clinton St to Monroe St
Monroe St to Gore St
N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr
Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive
Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl
Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
WASHINGTON ST
WASHINGTON ST
WASHINGTON ST
WORSLEY RD
WORSLEY RD
WORSLEY RD
WORSLEY RD
VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
VC5 E side of Whitewater Rvr to Landau Blvd
VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr
WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38
WSH10A Ave 38 to Coyote Song Way
WSH10B Coyote Song Way to Ramon Rd
WORS1 20th Ave to Dillon Rd
WORS2 Dillon Rd to 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd
WORS3 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd to Pierson Blvd
WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Total 188 94
APPENDIX B:
Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Project Costs
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing Zink) 20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) 20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR -86
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR -86S IC
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at Evac. Chnl)
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All -Amer. Canal) AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR -86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR
AVE 50 50K SR -86S to 1-10 IC
AVE 50 50L Br. at All -Amer. Canal (in 50K)
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 1-10 IC
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All -Amer. Canal) AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St
AVE 52 521A Harrison St to Shady Ln
AVE 52 521B Shady Ln to Hwy 111
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR -86S IC
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR -86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) AVE 52 52M SR -86S to Pierce St
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 561 SPRR to SR -86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) 58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR -86 IC
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge)
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Cath Cyn Br.)
COOK ST (formerly CHASE CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd
SCHOOL RD)
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr
COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. $11,208,000
$15,974,400
$7,036,800
$14,313,000
$7,411,950
$12,083,250
$5,315,970
$2,275,088
$22,011,480
$55,222,500
$8,799,480
$7,131,405
$4,977,480
$2,304,030
$12,084,000
$14,301,582
$3,356,880
$21,687,600
$45,177,600
$3,952,320
$62,687,500
$2,075,940
$4,195,800
$2,660,400
$2,699,400
$4,689,300
$6,190,104
$13,286,328
$1,629,900
$53,782,500
$22,536,194
$20,556,880
$4,794,900
$4,560,300
$6,380,750
$1,155,714
$13,329,000
$4,583,040
$4,583,040
$46,934,500
$2,826,960
$48,044,000
$4,815,850
$25,501,600
$3,997,488
$6,228,320
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Project Costs
COOK ST
COUNTRY CLUB DR
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR
DA VALL DR
DA VALL DR
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GERALD FORD DR
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY
DR and ESTRADA AVE)
HACIENDA AVE (now 13TH
AVE)
HACIENDA AVE
HACIENDA AVE
HARRISON ST
HARRISON ST
HIGHWAY 74
HIGHWAY 111
HIGHWAY 111
HIGHWAY 111
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
CK6
CC5
CC8
CROSLY1
CROSLY2
DVALL5
DVALL6
DLN1
DLN2
DLN3
DLN4
DLN5
DLN6
DLN10
DLN12
DLN13
DLN14
DLN15
PLCN8
PLCN9
PLCN11A
PLCN11B
FS6
GAT2A
GAT2B
GAT2E
GAT3
GFD5
GPKWY1
GPKWY4
GRPF1
GRPF2
GRPF3
HACOA
HACOB
HAC1A
HAC1B
HARSN1
HARSN3
H W Y74A
HWY111F
HWY111G
HWY111H
INCN1
INCN2
INCN3
S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr
Portola Ave to Cook St
Oasis Club Dr to Washington St
Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr
Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave
Future Da Vall I-10 IC
I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl)
SR -62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr
N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.)
Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd
Ave 44 to I-10 IC
Br. at Whitewater Chnl
S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111
Dillon Rd I-10 IC
Dillon Rd SR -86S IC
Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash) Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits
Monterey Ave to Portola Ave
E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way
Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash
Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd
Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr
Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC
Ave 45 to Hwy 111
Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 52 to Ave 54
SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr
Cholla Dr to Palm Dr
Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52
Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd)
Highway 111 to El Paseo
Cook St to Eldorado Dr
Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave
Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl) Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way
Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd
Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr
$1,212,030
$3,714,480
$3,812,300
$2,283,600
$2,928,100
$71,647,500
$24,753,600
$29,522,800
$956,500
$12,887,680
$956,500
$5,353,920
$11,495,760
$9,427,480
$1,487,125
$4,062,858
$18,150,000
$15,360,000
$1,531,200
$7,725,600
$2,166,000
$2,483,800
$4,750,434
$631,450
$6,655,700
$957,600
$233,900,000
$1,099,332
$19,481,100
$2,725,800
$4,978,000
$12,157,200
$12,772,500
$34,336,000
$12,503,040
$7,793,280
$2,653,200
$3,677,200
$9,694,080
$450,240
$3,537,600
$4,924,800
$7,573,400
$5,847,600
$2,123,550
$2,383,200
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Project Costs
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIO BLVD
INDIO BLVD
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JEFFERSON ST
JEFFERSON ST
KEY LARGO AVE
LANDAU BLVD
LANDAU BLVD
LANDAU BLVD
LANDAU BLVD
LITTLE MORONGO RD
LITTLE MORONGO RD
LITTLE MORONGO RD
MADISON ST
MADISON ST
MADISON ST
MADISON ST
MISSION LAKES BLVD
MONROE ST
MONROE ST
MONROE ST
MONTEREY AVE
MONTEREY AVE
MONTEREY AVE
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
N PALM CYN DR
N PALM CYN DR
N PALM CYN DR
N PALM CYN DR
PALM DR
PALM DR
PALM DR
INCN4
INCN5
INCN7
INCN9
INCN10
INCN11
INCN12
INCN13
INDIO0
INDIO1
JAC2A1
JAC2A2
JAC4
JAC5
JAC6
JEF2A
JEF9A1
KL1
LAN1
LAN2
LAN3
LAN4
LM2
LM3
LM4
MAD5
MAD7A
MAD7B
MAD9
MSLKO
MON1
MONO
MON9
MNT1-6
MNT2-6
MNT3-6
MTV1A
MTV1B
PLCN3
PLCN4
PLCN5
PLCN6
PD1
PD3
PD4
Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino
Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd
Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue
20th Ave to 19th Ave
19th Ave to Dillon Rd
Dillon Rd to 14th Ave
14th Ave to Pierson Blvd
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.)
I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges) Jefferson St to Madison St (over All -Amer. Canal)
I-10 IC to 43rd Ave
43rd Ave to Ave 44
Ave 48 to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Jackson St I-10 IC
58th Ave to 62th Ave
40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39
Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and RR) Vista Chino to Verona Rd
Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link)
Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing link)
I-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link)
Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl
Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.)
Dillon Rd to 20th Ave
Ave 52 to Ave 50
0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48
Ave 48 to Hwy 111
Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl and AII- Amer. Canal, missing link)
SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr
0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42
Monroe St I-10 IC
I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander
Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr
Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River) Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr
Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln
Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd
Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd
Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd
Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Creek)
Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr
I-10 IC to Varner Rd
20th Ave to Dillon Rd
Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl
$1,463,550
$1,440,900
$204,099,790
$1,722,800
$7,379,840
$5,510,000
$4,903,440
$6,945,600
$21,888,720
$2,920,195
$17,915,106
$10,967,500
$5,615,280
$2,047,650
$19,826,100
$13,518,000
$1,011,840
$23,868,000
$832,000
$19,280,000
$71,647,500
$22,614,400
$4,506,240
$14,539,120
$19,768,320
$6,608,460
$898,920
$1,450,140
$18,607,200
$29,315,840
$1,754,280
$2,400,000
$15,467,750
$1,240,800
$13,247,266
$3,557,376
$4,016,160
$3,315,840
$1,182,150
$1,310,850
$6,437,440
$1,436,200
$4,024,416
$7,736,256
$5,359,464
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Project Costs
PALM DR
POLK ST
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE
THOUSAND PALMS CYN
RD
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR /
14TH AVE
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TYLER ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
PD7
PLK1
POR1
POR3
POR4A
POR5B
POR6
RAM1
RAM2
RAM3
RAM3A
RAM4
RAM4A
RAM5
RAM5A
RAM7
SV1
SV2
SV3
SV4
SV5
SV8
SV9
THPL1
TBP1
TBP2
TBP3
TYL1
VANB2
VANB3
VANB5
VRNR0
VRNR1
VRNR2
VRNR3
VRNR7B
VRNR9
VRNR10B
VRNR11
VC1
VC1A
VC2
VC2AA
VC2AB
VC2A
VC3
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd
Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48
Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr
Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr
Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln
Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)
Future Portola Ave I-10 IC
S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr
S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing) Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way
Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive
El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd
Br. at Whitewater Rvr
Monroe St to Jackson St
Jackson St to Van Buren St
Van Buren St to Harrison St
Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link)
Tyler St to Polk St (missing link)
Pierce St to SR -86
Future Ave 62 SR -86 IC
Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd
Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road
Ave 48 to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd
20th Ave to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd
Ave 38 to Washington St
Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All -Amer. Canal) Clinton St to Monroe St
Monroe St to Gore St
N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr
Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive
Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl
Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr
$4,241,952
$19,754,280
$5,638,410
$4,180,000
$2,606,400
$23,026,500
$71,647,500
$372,240
$4,279,950
$2,574,880
$1,051,947
$1,717,600
$957,177
$8,367,900
$1,051,947
$24,864,323
$4,494,240
$4,741,440
$5,269,440
$9,583,600
$10,562,080
$3,892,200
$46,550,500
$17,252,840
$12,522,240
$5,422,560
$4,278,787
$11,854,020
$3,519,200
$4,690,800
$5,332,536
$20,249,600
$6,295,000
$12,505,200
$47,489,880
$11,293,450
$9,872,400
$4,952,640
$2,327,424
$5,288,420
$984,150
$5,668,080
$1,073,547
$967,677
$1,014,039
$1,185,600
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Project Costs
VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vali Dr
WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38
WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr
$94,701,810
$20,625,000
$3,055,200
$11,646,600
Total $2,505,969,566
ATTACHMENT 2
CVAG STAFF REPORT ON TUMF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025
A-2
55575.17003\42697392.1
ITEM 7H
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Executive Committee
April 29, 2023
STAFF REPORT
Subject: TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar Year 2025 Contact: Peter Satin, Conservation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Adopt a 3.6 -percent increase in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) rates to take effect January 1, 2025, and update the TUMF Handbook to reflect the revised fee upon its effective date
Transportation Committee: Concurred (Meeting of April 1) Background: The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) was established in 1989 as a one-time impact fee charged on all new development occurring within the CVAG region. Monies collected through the TUMF program are applied to transportation -related capital facilities and infrastructure required to serve new growth within the Coachella Valley and are intended to compliment revenue generated through Riverside County's Measure A sales tax. To date, TUMF has provided less than the intended share of match toward Measure A funding.
The current TUMF rates were adopted in 2018 upon the completion of a revised Nexus Study, Transportation Project Prioritization Study, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate, and Active Transportation Plan. Prior to their adoption, the fee had remained unchanged at $192/trip for over a decade. The 2018 Nexus Study originally proposed a revised fee of $751/trip; however, this fee was reduced to the current $245/trip after re-evaluating which regional transportation projects would likely be built in the near -term. This rate equates to $2,313 for a single-family dwelling, as compared to the $10,104 currently charged by Western Riverside Council of Governments for similar development.
The 2018 TUMF Handbook allows for the consideration of an annual inflation adjustment:
The inflation factor shall be the same one utilized by the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee, based on the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Consumer Price Index (CPI). Such CPI will be reviewed annually by the Executive Committee which will determine whether or not to apply the inflation factor.
The Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) inflation factor is calculated on the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U), All items, as the over -the -year percent change, measured as of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. The Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario CPI is measured every other month, and does not include data for the month of December. To approximate a data point for an unrecorded month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recommends taking the square root of the product of the indexes for the preceding and subsequent months, in this case November and January. This approximated December data point can then be used to calculate the over -the -year percent change.
Applying regular increases due to inflation is a preferred approach to infrequent increases to catch up over time. An inflation factor of 7.4 -percent was applied across each of CVAG's TUMF categories by the Executive Committee at its April 2023 meeting. In accordance with California's Mitigation Fee Act, and to allow member jurisdictions time to update their local TUMF ordinances as needed, implementation of the inflation factor did not go into effect until January 1, 2024.
The CPI -U, All items for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario metropolitan area rose by 3.58 - percent for calendar year 2023. BLS notes that some entities choose to calculate "core" inflation on the CPI -U, less food and energy (the latter of which includes motor fuel), as these items tend to be more volatile in their pricing. Removing these volatile items from the regional CPI results in an inflation factor of 4.72 -percent, largely due to reductions in the price of fuel and other energy sources. CVAG staff recommend applying the CPI -U, All items inflation factor of 3.58 -percent to the current fee assessments, as described in the below table.
TUMF Category Current Rate Proposed Rate Difference
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single family detached $2,740 $2,840 $100
Multi -family attached $1,580 $1,635 $55
Nursing/congregate care $585 $605 $20
Transit oriented single family $2,330 $2,415 $85
Transit oriented multi -family $1,345 $1,395 $50
Non -Residential (per 1,000 sq. ft)
Retail $7,130 $7,385 $255
Office $2,835 $2,935 $100
Industrial $1,440 $1,490 $50
Fuel - gas (per dispensing unit) $10,220 $10,585 $365
Fuel - electric (per dispensing unit) $105 $110 $5
Hotel (per room) $4,165 $4,315 $150
Golf course (per acre) $1,090 $1,130 $40
The revised rates would be implemented January 1, 2025 so that member jurisdictions will have sufficient time to amend local ordinances. The rates listed in the TUMF Handbook will also be updated at that time to reflect the adjustment.
This information was provided to the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) for comment on March 8, 2024. They have submitted a letter (attached) indicating support for a "periodic, systematic, and standard increase."
Fiscal Analysis: Based on TUMF revenues generated in fiscal year 2022-2023, adjusting current TUMF rates based on the CPI -U, All items inflation rate of 3.56 -percent would result in additional revenue of $275,774.
Revising the TUMF Handbook will have no fiscal impact.
Attachments: DVBA comment letter dated March 21, 2023
�A
desert valleys builders association
2024 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT
Paul Mahoney,
PMA Advertising
Immediate Past President
Todd Hooks
Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians
P' VICE PRESIDENT
Tom Dubose
Dubose Design Group, Inc.
SECRETARY/TREASURER
Pedro Rincon
Osborne Rincon CPAs
VICE PRESIDENT
OF ASSOCIATES
Allan Levin
Allan Levin & Associates
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Gretchen Gutierrez
DIRECTORS
Fred Bell/2024 PAC Chairman
Nobell Energy Solutions
Brian Benedetti
Brian Benedetti Construction
Mark Benedetti
Mario Gonzales — Presidents Council
GHA Companies
Joe Hayes — Presidents Council
Jeremy Roos
Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians
Dave Lippert
Lippert Construction, Inc
Bruce Maize
Orr Builders
Russ Martin
Mission Springs Water
District
Deborah McGarrey
Southern California Gas Company
Dan Olivier
Nethery Mueller Olivier
Alan Pace
Petra GcoSciences
Kevin Pillow
PS Air Museum
Jolui Powell, Jr.
Coachella Valley Water District
Phil Smith — Presidents Council
Sunrise Company
Alissa Vatter
Fidelity National Title
Jeff Wattenbarger — Presidents Council
Wattenbarger Construction
Michelle Witherspoon
MSA Consulting
March 21, 2024
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Tom Kirk, Executive Director
c/o Peter Satin, Conservation Program Manager
74-199 El Paseo, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Annual TUMF Report TUMF
Dear Mr. Kirk:
Thank you for providing the Desert Valleys Builders Association the opportunity to review the Coachella Valley Association of Government's "Annual Inflation Adjustment to the TUMF Fee." The DVBA supports our local agencies' periodic, systematic, and standard increase of costs based on recognized traditional methods such as Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.
The Desert Valleys Builders Association is satisfied that CVAG has met its obligations in its noticing and adherence to the Mitigation Fee Act in calculating a reasonable fee increase.
Respectfully,
en Gutierrez
xecutive Officer
34360 Gateway Drive • Palm Desert • CA 9221 1
(760) 776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax
www.TheDVBA.org
ATTACHMENT 3
CVAG REVISED TUMF FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025
A-3
55575.17003\42697392.1
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
74-199 El Paseo Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 • 760 346-1127 • cvag.org CVAG
May 1, 2024
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE EFFECTIVE JAUARY 1, 2025
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) is a development impact fee designed to offset the effects of population growth on transportation infrastructure within the Coachella Valley. It is charged on any construction that will result in an increase in vehicular trips.
The TUMF is collected by the permitting jurisdiction in accordance with an adopted local ordinance, which further allows for an annual adjustment for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario metropolitan area. This inflation factor has been applied to the current fee schedule and results in the revised rates that will be assessed on new development starting January 1, 2025.
TUMF Cate
Assessment
ory Unit
Single family detached
Multi -family attached
Nursing/congregate care
Retail
Office
Industrial
Fuel - gas
Fuel - electric
Hotel
Golf course
Dwelling unit
Dwelling unit
Dwelling unit
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
Dispensing unit
Dispensing unit
Room
Acre
Rate as of
January 1, 2025
$2,840
$1,635
$605
$7,385
$2,935
$1,490
$10,585
$110
$4,315
$1,130
For any question regarding the application of TUMF, please contact the Coachella Valley Association of Governments at (760) 346-1127 or by emailing [email protected].
EXHIBIT "B"
2025 TUMF FEE SCHEDULE
(Following this page)
55575.17003\41411811.1
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
74-199 El Paseo Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 • 760 346-1127 • cvag.org CVAG
May 1, 2024
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE EFFECTIVE JAUARY 1, 2025
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) is a development impact fee designed to offset the effects of population growth on transportation infrastructure within the Coachella Valley. It is charged on any construction that will result in an increase in vehicular trips.
The TUMF is collected by the permitting jurisdiction in accordance with an adopted local ordinance, which further allows for an annual adjustment for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario metropolitan area. This inflation factor has been applied to the current fee schedule and results in the revised rates that will be assessed on new development starting January 1, 2025.
TUMF Cate
Assessment
ory Unit
Single family detached
Multi -family attached
Nursing/congregate care
Retail
Office
Industrial
Fuel - gas
Fuel - electric
Hotel
Golf course
Dwelling unit
Dwelling unit
Dwelling unit
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
Dispensing unit
Dispensing unit
Room
Acre
Rate as of
January 1, 2025
$2,840
$1,635
$605
$7,385
$2,935
$1,490
$10,585
$110
$4,315
$1,130
For any question regarding the application of TUMF, please contact the Coachella Valley Association of Governments at (760) 346-1127 or by emailing [email protected].
INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
January 30, 2025
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Prepared by: Kevin McCarthy, Finance Director
Subject: Finance Committee Recommendation on Sponsorship for the Living Desert
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Council REVIEWS AND PROVIDES DIRECTION regarding the Finance Committee's recommendation for a funding request to the Living Desert Zoo in the amount of $2,000,000, to be disbursed in two equal annual payments; and, RECOMMENDS the Finance Committee evaluate and propose revisions to the City's Extraordinary Policy in light of this funding process; and, FINDS the project to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060.
SUMMARY:
The Finance Committee convened on January 14, 2025, to conduct a thorough review of a potential sponsorship opportunity for the Living Desert. During the meeting, the Committee evaluated the materials included in this Staff Report and engaged in detailed discussions with senior management and directors of the Living Desert regarding proposed funding levels and timing considerations.
Following its review, the Finance Committee recommends that the City Council consider a potential sponsorship totaling $2,000,000 for the Living Desert. At this funding level, the Living Desert has agreed to extend specific benefits to Indian Wells residents, including:
• An exclusive "Indian Wells Night at WildLights" for 500 residents, each receiving a $10 food voucher redeemable at any Living Desert cafe.
o The retail value is $16,475, based on a $22.95 ticket price and a $10 food coupon
• Contribution of 500 complimentary general admission tickets, valid for one year, which the City may distribute at its discretion.
o The retail value is $19,975, based on a $39.95 ticket price. • Naming rights for the patio at the Bighorn Cafe, to be designated as "The Indian Wells Patio at the Bighorn Cafe."
o Naming rights value "not determined" because of no direct retail value. o However, the Living Desert considers the value at $2,000,000. By comparison, the Oasis Splash Pad naming sold for $2,000,000, and the Events Center sold for $6,000,000.
• Two annual complimentary uses of the Bighorn Cafe patio space for special resident events over the next five years (with the City responsible for food, beverages, and audio-visual costs).
o The retail value is $50,000, based on a Rental fee of $5,000 for the patio per event multiplied by two (2) events per year calculated over a five (5) year period.
The total estimated direct benefit to residents is calculated at $86,450. When factoring in the value of naming rights, the total benefit increases significantly to $2,086,450.
Funding Term Strategy
The Finance Committee carefully deliberated the terms of the funding. While various payment options were discussed, the Living Desert emphasized that funding disbursed over an extended period would necessitate the use of short-term financing, resulting in additional interest costs to the project. The Committee expressed its intent to avoid burdening the Living Desert with these unnecessary costs while ensuring the City maintains prudent fiscal management.
To address these considerations, the Committee has asked City Staff to develop a funding strategy that minimizes the need for short-term financing by the Living Desert while safeguarding the City's financial stability. As a result, City Staff recommends dividing the sponsorship into two equal payments:
• The first payment in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024-25. • The second payment in the first quarter of fiscal year 2025-26.
This bifurcated funding approach represents a fiscally prudent strategy, underpinned by updated City's General Fund projections, which forecast an anticipated $5,000,000 surplus in both fiscal years 2024-25 and 2025-26. This biennial structure enables the City to validate the actual surplus for fiscal year 2024-25 and provides sufficient time to collaborate with tourism partners to refine fiscal year 2025-26 projections. Aligning the
sponsorship payments with the City's financial position thoughtfully balances the Living Desert's needs with the City's steadfast commitment to responsible fiscal management.
The Marketing Committee and Hotel Partners
The City Council has also directed the Marketing Committee to review the proposed sponsorship. The Marketing Committee expressed its support for funding the Living Desert, contingent upon a recommendation from the Finance Committee and the City Council's final approval. The Committee emphasized the significance of the Living Desert's seasonal activities, which attract local families and enhance the overall experience for tourists staying at Indian Wells hotels.
The Living Desert has partnered with Hyatt to offer "Stay and Visit" packages, including discounted admission to the Living Desert and promotional advertising within the Hyatt.
During the summer of 2024, the Hyatt launched a special seasonal campaign, "Too Cool to Be Hot," featuring a promotional package that included accommodations, access to the waterpark, and tickets to the Living Desert. This initiative generated $34,000 in additional room revenue and contributed to a strong average daily rate (ADR).
BACKGROUND:
Background from the City Council March 2024 Staff Report The community is evaluating a $2,000,000 funding request from the Living Desert to support educational and programmatic initiatives. In return, the Living Desert offers naming opportunities for the new Marketplace Restaurant & Patio and Splash Pad, both situated on Indian Wells land.
This proposed funding level activates the Council's Extraordinary Funding Policy, which includes a robust community involvement component. The process involves multiple public meetings, surveys, and a town hall meeting, ensuring comprehensive engagement with the community.
The primary goal of the Extraordinary Funding Policy is to solicit community input through a public engagement process, allowing sufficient time for residents to discuss matters with neighbors and respond to the City Council. The policy requires the applicant to oversee and direct the Community Involvement component at their own expense. This is just one of the public meetings to discuss their request.
To facilitate this community involvement, the City and the Living Desert have organized a series of public meetings (outlined below) to provide the community the ability to share their opinions, ask questions, and facilitate a public discussion on the funding request.
Noteworthy among the specific comments received are:
1. Advocacy for the commitment of the entire funding amount.
2. Advocacy for abstaining from any financial contribution.
3. Advocacy for a contribution totaling $140,550, calculated on a per capita basis.
4. Advocacy for a contribution of $500,000.
5. Proposal to contribute an as -yet -undetermined lesser amount in lieu of the requested $2,000,000.
6. Advocacy for a contribution aligned with resident benefits on a proportional basis.
7. Suggestion to enhance resident benefits as a mandatory condition for any financial contribution.
DISCUSSION:
Chronology of Key Developments:
This timeline encapsulates pivotal moments and decisions that have unfolded in the deliberations surrounding Living Desert's funding request. Spanning from the initial proposal in November 2023 to future City Council meetings, these events mark significant junctures where the community, City Council, and Finance Committee have engaged in public discussions and evaluations to shape the trajectory of this funding initiative.
November 2023: In November 2023, the Living Desert submitted a funding request seeking $5,000,000 to enhance educational and programmatic initiatives.
December 2023: During the public meeting on December 7, 2023, the Council deliberated the funding proposal, received a presentation from Living Desert Staff, and considered public comments. After a thorough discussion, the Council expressed a positive inclination towards supporting the Living Desert.
Subsequently, the City Council directed the Finance Committee to convene and determine an optimal funding amount and a specific term aligning with the City's best interests. The Finance Committee presented these recommendations to the Council and the community during the January 18, 2024 Council Meeting.
January 2024: On January 10, 2024, the Finance Committee convened to receive public comments and deliberate on diverse funding alternatives and propositions, considering factors such as projected General Fund surplus in the current and future fiscal years, prospective future sales tax, existing General Fund funding sources, financial implications of a potential economic downturn, anticipated Public Safety costs, and possible 2024 State Ballot Measures.
The outcome was a recommendation to the City Council to examine the proposed $2,000,000 funding allocation thoroughly. Considering a comprehensive assessment, the Finance Committee suggested a phased disbursement plan, distributing funds in equal installments over the next four fiscal years, commencing in 2023-24.
On January 18, 2024, the City Council held a public meeting to receive community input, preliminarily approving an initial funding contribution of $2,000,000, disbursed in equal installments over four consecutive fiscal years, starting in 2024-25. This approval is preliminary, triggering the City's extraordinary contributions policy, requiring the applicant to lead the Community Engagement component at its own expense. The Council's preliminary approval established a funding level as a discussion point for the community and was not a commitment to fund the request at that level.
The City Council asked the Finance Committee to find spending cuts in the mid -cycle budget review to offset the extra $500,000 in annual funding. The Finance Committee acknowledged the request and will begin meetings in mid -March with this goal in mind.
Specific spending cuts will be recommended to the City Council during the Council's Mid - Cycle Budget Review, tentatively scheduled for April or May 2024.
February 2024: On February 20, 2024, the Living Desert conducted a Town HaII meeting at City Hall to present their funding request to the community and respond to questions. Ninety-six (96) residents attended the ninety -minute meeting, recorded by the Living Desert for reference. The Living Desert is compiling resident queries and opinions.
Additionally, a mailer was sent out urging residents to complete an online survey. The online poll experienced a brief closure but is now accessible at LivingDesert.org /IndianWells. This was done to ensure any Indian Wells resident was afforded the opportunity to provide their thoughts.
March 2024: On March 7, 2024, the City Council scheduled an additional public meeting for community input on the proposed funding request. This meeting was for discussion only, with no decisions to be made. Staff updated the Council on the public comments received, and the Living Desert addressed questions from Council Members.
Funding Commitments from Other Desert Cities
The Living Desert has received financial commitments from two Coachella Valley cities as follows:
City of Rancho Mirage: The City of Rancho Mirage has committed $500,000 to the Living Desert. This contribution does not include any associated benefits or sponsorship rights for the City. Rancho Mirage also purchases a table sponsorship at the Living Desert annual Gala for $15,000.
City of Palm Desert: The City of Palm Desert has committed $1,250,000 to the Living Desert. In return for this contribution, the City of Palm Desert will receive specific sponsorship benefits, which have been outlined separately. • Presenting Sponsorship of Glow in the Park 2025. This is a nonexclusive sponsorship. No tickets are included.
• Palm Desert Night at WildLights at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens. o The Living Desert will provide 500 tickets annually in 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028 for Palm Desert Night at WildLights. The non -transferable tickets are good only for Palm Desert Night at WildLights, which will be held on a scheduled WildLights night and not exclusive to the City of Palm Desert. o Palm Desert will produce a social media campaign to give away all or a portion of the 500 tickets annually.
o The City of Palm Desert will explore issuing a Proclamation designating Palm Desert Night at WildLights and sending an elected official to celebrate their special night.
• In response to receiving the presenting sponsorship and the Palm Desert Night, the City of Palm Desert offered to reciprocate with the following marketing and branding efforts:
o The City of Palm Desert will promote zoo events in its newsletters, both print and digital, and on its various social media channels. o Explore utilizing Palm Desert's co-op tourism advertising to promote Glow in the Park.
o Explore public lantern installations in El Paseo and facilitate conversations with the JW Marriott Desert Springs about installing lanterns on their property to promote Glow in the Park.
o Authorize the Living Desert installation of banners on El Paseo promoting Glow in the Park.
o The City of Palm Desert will give The Living Desert access to Palm Desert's hospitality partners for partnership presentations. o These contributions demonstrate regional financial support for the Living Desert's operations and initiatives.
Examination of the Extraordinary Funding Process
Extraordinary funding requests exceeding $200,000 necessitate a thorough and structured community engagement process, which includes public hearings, stakeholder meetings, surveys, and at least one town hall session. In this instance, the City received notice of the funding request in November 2023 and initiated the public engagement process in December 2023.
However, as detailed in the accompanying chronology above, the process was marked by inefficiencies and a lack of cohesion. Delays in completing the prescribed steps resulted in communication breakdowns with key stakeholders and noticeable gaps in public engagement. These shortcomings have underscored the need to reassess and improve the process to ensure that future requests are handled with the necessary rigor and transparency.
Given these circumstances, the Council may wish to consider directing the Finance Committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the City's Extraordinary Funding Policy. This review would focus on identifying procedural deficiencies and recommending revisions that enhance communication with residents and stakeholders, strengthen public engagement, and establish a more efficient and reliable timeline for addressing extraordinary funding requests.
OPTIONS:
The City Council may consider the following options:
1. Approve the Finance Committee's Recommendation: Authorize consideration of sponsorship for the Living Desert in the amount of $2,000,000.
2. Deny the Finance Committee's Recommendation: Decline to authorize consideration of the proposed sponsorship.
3. Provide Alternative Direction: Offer revised guidance or propose alternative actions regarding the sponsorship request.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Should the Council approve funding for the Living Desert, the required financial resources will be sourced from the City's General Fund. This unplanned expenditure will necessitate a supplemental appropriation during the Fiscal Year 2024-25. For the subsequent fiscal year, the necessary allocation will be incorporated into the City's annual budgetary appropriations process.
Projected Sales Tax Revenues from the Living Desert's Marketplace Restaurant In addition to the estimated $86,450 in direct benefits to residents, as outlined in the Summary section, the City of Indian Wells is projected to receive additional revenue from sales tax generated by the Marketplace Restaurant, which is located within the City's jurisdiction. The retail sales at the restaurant will directly contribute to the City's General Fund through sales tax collections.
According to projections by the Living Desert, the Marketplace Restaurant is expected to achieve annual retail sales ranging between $4,000,000 and $6,000,000. At the current sales tax rate of 7.75%, the City of Indian Wells retains 1% of all taxable sales within its limits. This means the Marketplace Restaurant is anticipated to generate between $40,000 and $60,000 in annual sales tax revenue for the City.
Over a ten-year period, the Living Desert's sales tax analysis estimates the City could collect approximately $560,000 in cumulative sales tax revenue from the restaurant's operations. This additional revenue will strengthen the City's financial position and contribute to funding vital services and initiatives.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This action has been reviewed per the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental regulations. The City, acting as the Lead Agency, determined that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment as there is no possibility that the action would result in a significant environmental impact, and because it does not constitute a "project" as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Indian Wells Proposal December 2024
2. IW Research Letter and Summary
3. Indian Wells Economic Driver
4. City Zoo Support - SD, LA, and SAC
5. Indian Wells Survey Monkey Responses
City Council Meeting- January 30, 2025
Provided at the Dais Public Comments
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS
PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
$2,000,000 Grant
Naming of the patio at the Bighorn Cafe, "The Indian
Wells Patio at the Bighorn Cafe"
o Value: $2,000,000
Use of the Indian Wells Patio twice yearly for five years with no facility charge.
o Rental. fee ($5,000 space rental) x 2 x 5 = $50,000
o Total Estimated Value: $50,000
Indian Wells night at WildLights for 500 residents with a $10 food coupon good for use at our cafes.
o 500 x WildLights ticket price (average $22.95) =
$11,475
o 500 x a $10 food coupon = $5,000
o Total:Value: $16,475
• 500 general admission tickets good for one year for the City of Indian Wells to use however they choose.
• 500 x General Admission ticket price ($39.95) =
$19,975
• Total Value: $19,975
TOTAL VALUE TO INDIAN WELLS: $2,086,450
$2 million grant payable in two fiscal year installments beginning February 2025 and July 2025.
City Council Meeting- January 30, 2025: Public Comment
GB Item I.1- Living Desert Funding Request
Angelica Avila
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jim kent
Wednesday, January 29, 2025 4:25 PM
City Clerk; Angelica Avila
Fwd: Gift of public funds to the Living Desert
CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization. Be cautious with any links or attachments.
Hi Angelica,
Would you please enter this into the public record for tomorrow's meeting.
Thanks very much,
Jim Kent
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: jim kent
Date: January 29, 2025 at 4:19:55 PM PST
To: [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected], Greg Sanders , Chris Freeland
Subject: Gift of public funds to the Living Desert
Dear Mayor, City Council and City Manager
I would like to comment on the proposed gift of public funds to the Living Desert. While I understand the desire to be helpful to the local zoo, I believe it is inappropriate to use public funds for this purpose.
In light of the Living Desert $2m donation proposal, it appears that Indian Wells has a "spare" $2m to spend during 2025/2026. What other options are available to be funded? Here are a few suggestions for the extra money:
1. Improve driving safety on hwy 111. Hire a full time sheriff deputy to patrol 111.
2. Add red light cameras on 111
3. Provide $200k -$300k for more water on the players course. This will enhance its attractiveness making it of more interest for tournaments, and will foster greater Interest among prospects like the Epson tour, the LPGA, and the PGA.
4. Increase resident invites at IW events
5. Increase funds for the Grants and Aid Committee
6. Provide funding for disabled veteran programs in the valley
7. Living Desert should give back to IW residents with discounted entry tickets I recommend that a resident committee be convened to address the "spare money" availability and its application toward enhancing the Indian Wells Quality of Life. 1 I urge the council to vote no on the current Living Desert donation proposal.
Kind regards,
Jim Kent
Sent from my iPad
City Council Meeting: 1/30/2025
Public Comment
General Business Item 1.1
January 29, 2025
To: Indian Wells City Council
Re: Living Desert Extraordinary Funding Request
While the Greater Palm Springs has long been recognized as a sought-after leisure destination, Indian Wells is emerging as a premier, elevated alternative for discerning travelers seeking a blend of luxury, relaxation, and unique experiences. At Tommy Bahama Miramonte Resort & Spa, we recognize the invaluable role that The Living Desert Zoo & Gardens plays in attracting visitors who seek immersive, nature -focused leisure travel. We support the City of Indian Wells proposed partnership with the Living Desert Zoo & Gardens to enhance awareness on Indian Wells as a premier travel destination.
Our partnership at Tommy Bahama Miramonte Resort & Spa with The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens has already demonstrated significant success, generating $54,000 in room revenue from group bookings for the property, and we see even greater potential in expanding our collaboration. To further leverage this partnership and drive increase awareness and visitation, we are committed to the following cross - marketing initiatives:
• Exclusive Travel packages —tailored Stay & Explore package featuring VIP zoo experiences and resort benefits to encourage extended stays.
• Social Media Campaigns — collaborate on content showcasing the synergy between relaxation at our resort and adventure at The Living Desert.
• Co -branded Promotional Offers — Feature exclusive discounts for zoo members at the resort, reinforcing the value of experiencing both destinations.
By deepening this partnership, we can continue to drive incremental room nights, enhance guest experiences, and position Indian Wells as the premier choice for leisure travelers seeking both relaxation and adventure.
Sincerely,
D -4-P
Dean Griffin
General Manager
TommyBahamaMiramonte.com
45000 Indian Wells Lane
Indian Wells, CA 92210
(442) 305-4500
OF THE DESERT
ATTACHMENT #1
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
ift
/Ate,:
• *44 'V' 41. girik *lip* 410j
4:40 **Sic.
•Sf‘ .%
WE ENSURE
THE FUTURE OF
OUR CHERISHED
DESERT ANIMALS
AND PLAITS FOR
GENERATIONS
TO CONE
ff
O
Cx:nard
OVER
100,
I
Thousan
Oaks
0 II
Santa Clarita
0 CHILDREN
each year lear
natural world
-and-
OVER 17,000
INDIVIDUALS & FAMILIES
with a SNAP/EBT card h
TLD admissions discounts
Pasadena
0 Los Angeles
0 _ong Beach:
Anaheir
0 Huntin.t•
ach
San Bernardinoo
0 Ontar
Riversideo
Moreno V
ndsdo
San Diego
0 „cifO �.
Forest
Palm Springs
0 Indic
Palm Dese
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Anza-Borrego
Desert
State Park
v
Amboy
Sheephole
Valley
Wilderness
Brawley
age 385 of 530
Our Global Field Conservation Reach
80+ projects, 12 countries, 60+ global conservation or anwzations Coachella Valley
• Casey's June Beetle
• Desert Pupfish
• Desert Tortoise
• Desert Willow
• Smoketree
• Sonoran Pronghorn
• Western Pond Turtle
Baja California
• Peninsular Pronghorn
• Vaquita
Southwest
• Mexican Wolf
Is
Chad
• Black Rhino
• Scimitar -Horned
Oryx
Namibia
• Cheetah
Botswana
• Cheetah
South Africa
• Greater Kudu
• White Rhino
• Black Rhino
Mongolia
• Argali Sheep
• Siberian Ibex
India
• Giant Endangered Trees
Somaliland
Tanzania
• Black Rhino N Kenya
• Elephant
• Giraffe • Black Rhino
• Cheetah
Zimbabwe • Grevy's Zebra
• Lion
• African Painted Dog
• White Rhino
• Cheetah
CONSERVATION
California Keystone Projects
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Economic Impact of
the Living Desert Zoo
and Gardens
::•* TO
711 E C
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: INDIAN WELLS
VISITOR SPENDING ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
lho TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Indian Wells as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Indian Wells
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $5.5 million in Indian
Wells, as outlined below.
S) $5.5 MILLION
`11U
Zoo Patron Spending ] Zoo Patron Spending In Indian Wells (FY 22/23) ""1) $2.7M LODGING
tf, $1.8M ENTERTAINMENT
$O.7M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
$O.ZM FOOD & BEVERAGE
ain �0.1 M RETAIL
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' patron spending impact of $5.5 million generated a total economic impact of $7.9 million in the Indian Wells economy, which supported 74 part-time and full-time jobs and generated $1.2 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
0 $7.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN INDIAN WELLS (FY 22/23)
0 $7.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
74 Total
Jobs
Generated
$1.2M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: INDIAN WELLS
DIRECT TAX REVENUE IMPACT
----_---
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Cafe/Marketplace
Revenue Estimates
_
FYE 23
FYE 24
FYE 25
FYE 26
FYE 27
FYE 28
FYE 29
FYE 30
FYE 31
FYE 32
FYE 33
FYE 34
Yearly Attendance 6%
Growth Rate
600,000
636,000
674,160
714,610
757,486
802,935
&51,111
902,178
956,369
1,613,687
1,074,509
1,138,979
Capture Rate
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
14.16%
Average Transaction (Net
AfterTaxes}
4%
Inflation
$26.69
$27.76
$28.87
$30.02
$31.22
$32.47
$33.77
$35.12
$36.53
$37.99
Potential F&B Revenue
(Net After Taxes)
$2,547,856
$2,808,756
$3,096,373
$3,413,441
$3,762,978
$4,148,306
$4,573,093
$5,041,378
$5,557,615
$6,126,715
Evening Rental Events
(Weddings, Corporate,
Social, Gala)
150
Guests
$4350,000
$1,404,060
$1,460,160
$1,518,566
$1,579,309
$4642,481
$1,708,181
$1,776,508
$1,847,568
$1,921,471
Facility Rental
$250
per Guests
Catering
4%
Inflation
Equipment& Decor Rental
36 Events /year
Total Revenue Projection
$3,897,856
$4,212,756
$4,556,533
$4,932,008
$5,342,287
$5,790,788
$6,281,274
$6,817,886
$7,405,183
$8,048,186
Tax Revenue Projection
$38,978.56
$42,127.56
$45,565.33
$49,320.08
$53,422.87
$57,907.88
$62,812.74
$68,178.86
$74,051.83
$86,481.86
Estimated Revenue
over first 10 years
$57,284,754
Estimated Tax Revenue
over first 10 years
$572,848
The Living Desert Coc Phase 2.75
Construction Sales Tax Estimation
Trade/Division
Est Tax
Mechanical
$40,289
Glazing
$21,014
Electrical
$79,873
Kitchen Equipment
$82,305
Framing
$20,175
Roofing
$11,000
General Conditions
$19,597
Utilities
$13,256
Landscape
$10,909
Concrete
$29,003
Masonry
$17,358
Insulation
$3,756
Drywall
$7,534
Paint
$6,986
Flooring/Tile
$8,502
Accessories
$3,421
Cemrock
$7,487
Total Estimate of Sales Tax - Yr. 1
(382,46
YEAR ONE ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE IMPACT: $421,443
TEN YEAR TOTAL: $955,313
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
e 390 of 530
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: INDIAN WELLS
DIRECT COMMUNITY IMPACT
The Living Desert supports Indian Wells based hotels and businesses through direct partnerships and participation in our Membership Benefits Program.
THE LIVING oEsE RT
zoo t GARDENS
mem er
ineMber
• Tommy Bahamas Miramonte Resort and Spa
• The Preferred Hotel of The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens. • Zoo members receive 20% off their stay and a $15 reduced resort fee. Members also receive 20% off at Grapefruit
Basil.
• Hyatt Regency Indian Wells
• The Living Desert is the exclusive partner of Hyatt's Kids Cups program. TLD provides all the Kids Cups for use at Hyatt, which are printed with zoo facts and information. • TLD Members enjoy a $25 amenity card upon check -in.
• Indian Wells Golf Resort
• TLD Members receive a 12.5% discount on standard golf tee times and programs like the Toptracer Glow Range and Laser Putting.
*All partners are promoted in TLD social media campaigns.
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS
PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
$1,000,000 Grant
• Indian Wells night at Wild Lights for 250 residents
with a $10 food coupon good for use at our cafes.
• 250 general admission tickets good for one year for
the City of Indian Wells to use however they
choose.
$2,000,000 Grant
• Indian Wells night at Wild Lights for 500 residents
with a $10 food coupon good for use at our cafes.
• 500 general admission tickets good for one year for
the City of Indian Wells to use however they
choose.
• Naming of the patio at the Bighorn Cafe, "The Indian
c40,vPr/rigiz -iE Wells Patio at the Bighorn Cafe"
Arl�7
r %n41
\t
\699:!
a I.,rl
$1 million grant payable in two annual installments beginning February 2025 and Jp≥ gc of 530 $2 million grant payable in four annual installments beginning February 2025, July 2025, July 2026, July 2027.
OF THE DESERT
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
ripot Zoe
THE LIVING DESERT ATTACHMENT #2
ZOO I GARDENS
Chairman:
Bill Appel *
Treasurer:
Craig McCollam *
Secretary:
Sandra Cooper Woodson *
President/CEO &
Assistant Secretary:
Allen Monroe *
Jon -Marc Blalock *
Deborah Chapman *
Marylynn Gladstein
Jim Gould
Candace Holzgrafe *
H. Earl Hoover II
Suz Hunt
Michael Kiner
Jaishri Mehta
Jneil Nelson
Peter Scheer
Michael M. Schreter
Sally Simonds
Bill Simpkins
BJ Skilling
Phillip K. Smith, Jr. *
Mary Lou Solomon
Larry Spicer
Sam Spinello
Nancy L. Stegehuis *
Judy Vossler
* Board of Directors
PRESIDENT EMERITA
Karen Sausman
TRUSTEE EMERITUS
Curt Ealy
LEGAL COUNSEL
Brian S. Harnik
Roemer & Harnik, LLP
Tax ID
95-3385354
Our Mission:
Desert Conservation
Through Preservation,
Education, and
Appreciation.
August 27, 2024
Mr. Kevin McCarthy
City of Indian Wells
44950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Thank you for your time on August 14, 2024, to discuss potential funding from the City of Indian Wells for The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens. We appreciate your guidance through this process. Our official request with the City of Indian Wells is for $2 million to support the mission and programs of The Living Desert. The $2 million can be paid in annual installments of $500,000 over four years. To recognize the gift, The Living Desert is offering name recognition on one of the following features to the City of Indian Wells:
• Marketplace Restaurant and Patio
• Rhino Encounter Pavilion
• **Lion Ridge Habitat 2 has been selected by members of Eldorado Country Club for $3 Million and is no longer available for naming.
I compiled the research you requested about various other California cities, their financial support for their local zoos, and the resulting economic impact. Please see the attached documents for detailed information. To summarize:
1) Funding and Economic Impact comparisons for San Diego, Los Angeles, and Indian Wells:
a. San Diego:
i. FY2022 Budget: $16.5 Million (non -personnel expenditures) ii . FY2022 Revenue: $407 Million
iii . FY2023 Annual Impact: $2.4 Billion
b. Los Angeles:
i. FY2022/23 Budget: $23.7 Million
ii . FY2022/23 Revenue: $25.6 Million
iii . FY2018/19 Annual Impact: $80.3 Million (most recent data available)
c. Coachella Valley and Indian Wells:
i. FY 2022/23 Economic Impact in the Coachella Valley is $148 Million ii . FY 2022/23 Economic Impact in the City of Indian Wells is $7.9 Million
2) Case for Support for the Los Angeles Zoo renovation and the Sacramento Zoo's relocation to Elk Grove:
a. "Los Angeles City Council backs controversial L.A. Zoo renovation plan" 47900 Portola Avenue, Palm Dpec39zpvf 530
LivingDesert.org I (760) 346-5694 I ( 0) 568-9685 fax
i. Estimated Investment: $650 Million
b. Elk Grove Case for Support to move the Sacramento Zoo:
i. Estimated Investment: $225 Million
ii . Estimated Economic Impact: Economic impacts totaling more than $249 million and $425 million in one-time construction activity.
In closing, we are excited about the potential partnership between the City of Indian Wells and The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens. Your support will significantly enhance our ability to continue providing world -class conservation efforts, educational programs, and unique experiences that benefit the residents of Indian Wells and the broader community. We look forward to working together to make a lasting impact. Please feel free to reach out with any further questions or if additional information is needed.
Thank you once again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff Petrovic
Chief Development Officer
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens
[email protected]
760-346-9584
ATTACHMENT #3
AT
TA
CH
ME
NTTHE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Economic Impact of
the Living Desert Zoo
ana Uaraens
Table of Contents
1. Research overview
2. Key findings
3. Direct impacts
4. Economic impacts summary
5. Economic impacts (FY 22/23)
6. Economic impacts (stabilized year)
7. Capital expenditure impacts
8. City key findings (FY 22/23)
Section 1
RESEARCH OVERVIEW
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Introduction
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens ("Zoo") is a nonprofit, accredited member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
The Zoo has been a top attraction in the Palm Springs area for more than 50 years - welcoming 616,900 visitors in the most recent fiscal year (FY 22/23) - and serves as an important economic anchor in Greater Palm Springs.
The Zoo is currently in a three-phase capital improvement project that includes new animal habitat space, a state-of-the-art event center, and new ways for guests to observe, interact with and learn about desert species. In 2021, the Zoo opened a new four -acre Rhino Savanna and is currently developing a lion's exhibit.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' annual operations, along with spending by Zoo patrons at local, off -site establishments and businesses, generates significant economic and fiscal (tax) impacts in Riverside County. This study analyzes the impacts attributable to the annual operations of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens for FY 18/19 through FY 22/23 and for a stabilized year of operations post expansion, as well as the one-time impacts for capital expenditures.
Tourism Economics prepared a comprehensive model to quantify the impacts arising from annual operational spending and capital expenditures at the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, as well as patron spending at off -site establishments throughout the local economy.
Impact modeling is based on an IMPLAN input-output (I -O) model for the Riverside County economy.
The results of this study show the scope of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' impacts in terms of direct operational spending, capital expenditures, and off -site visitor spending, as well as total economic impacts, including total business sales, employment, labor income, and fiscal (tax) impacts.
Section 2
KEY FINDINGS
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Summary Findings
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated a total
economic impact of $148.1 million in FY 22/23,
excluding capital expenditure impacts.
FY 22/23 Operations & Visitor Spending Impacts: In FY
22/23, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated a total economic impact of $148.1 million, which included $54.9 million in total labor income, supported 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs, and generated $17.9 million in state and local tax revenues.
Stabilized Year Operations & Visitor Spending Impacts: In a stabilized year of operations post expansion, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens is expected to generate a total
economic impact of $215.1 million, which is expected to include $83.0 million in total labor income, support 2,150 part-time and full-time jobs, and generate $25.3 million in state and local tax revenues.
In addition to the annual impacts, the one-time capital expenditure impacts due to Zoo expansion is expected to generate a total economic impact of $62.8 million.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Summary Economic Impacts
($ millions and number of jobs)
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Stabilized Year
Business Sales $96.1 $68.8 $86.0 $135.3 $148.1 $215.1
Personal Income $34.8 $26.2 $30.9 $47.2 $54.9 $83.0
Employment 1,007 761 901 1,342 1,484 2,150
Taxes $18.1 $12.3 $16.2 $26.6 $28.8 $41.3
State & local taxes $11.1 $7.2 $10.0 $16.6 $17.9 $25.3
Federal taxes $7.0 $5.1 $6.2 $9.9 $10.9 $15.9
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, Tourism Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS
OPERATIONS & VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23) lb TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts as the Zoo spent money in the local
economy in the form of annual operational expenditures.
In addition to spending money during their visit to the Zoo, patrons also spent money at businesses and
establishments in the local economy during their stay in Greater Palm Springs, including local restaurants,
retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, the Zoo generated $98.2 million in direct
spending in the local economy, as outlined below.
Cli) $98.2 MILLION
Direct Spending Impact Direct Impact of the Zoo (FY 22/23) $20.2 MILLION
Zoo Operating Expenditures
$77.9 MILLION
Off -Site Spending by Zoo Patrons
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' direct spending impact of $98.2 million generated a total economic impact of $148.1 million in the local economy, which supported 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs and generated $17.9 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23. $148.1 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS (FY 22/23)
$148.1M
Total
Economic
Impact
t
1,484
Total
Jobs
Generated
$17.9M
Total
State & Local
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS
OPERATIONS & VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (STABILIZED YEAR) 46 TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(STABILIZED YEAR)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens is expected to
generate significant economic impacts as the Zoo spends money in the local economy in the form of annual
operational expenditures.
In addition to spending money during their visit to the Zoo, patrons also will spend money at businesses and
establishments in the local economy during their stay in Greater Palm Springs, including local restaurants,
retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In a stabilized year of operations post expansion, the Zoo is expected to generate $141.9 million in direct spending in the local economy, as outlined below.
$141.9 MILLION
Direct Spending Impact of the Zoo
(Stabilized Year)
O $32.4 MILLION
Zoo Operating Expenditures
1 $109.5 MILLION
Off -Site Spending by Zoo Patrons
N
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' expected direct spending impact of $141.9 million is expected to generate a total economic impact of $215.1 million in the local economy, which is expected to support 2,150 part- time and full-time jobs and generate $25.3 million in state and local taxes in a stabilized year of operations post expansion. $215.1 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (Stabilized Year)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS (STABILIZED YEAR)
$215.1M
Total
Economic
Impact
2,15 0
Total
Jobs
Generated
$25.3M
Total
State & Local
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS
ONE-TIME CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IMPACTS
460 TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
ONE-TIME IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens already invested and
has plans to further invest in significant capital to expand the Zoo's footprint and operation.
The expansion is expected to cost $40.9 million.
S$40.9 MILLION
Living Desert Zoo and Ga
rdens Desert Zoo and Gardens Capital
Expenditure Direct Spending Impact
ONE-TIME CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' capital expenditure direct spending impact of $40.9 million is expected to generate a total economic impact of $62.8 million, which is expected to support 509 part-time and full-time jobs and generate $3.0 million in state and local taxes.
$62.8 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Capital Expenditure
ONE-TIME IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
$62.8M 509 $3.OM
Total Total
Economic Jobs
Impact Generated
Total
State & Local
Section 3
DIRECT IMPACTS
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Direct Impact Approach
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated an
estimated $98.2 million in direct spending in FY 22/23.
The accompanying table outlines the direct spending impacts attributable to the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens. These direct impacts ultimately serve as the inputs for the
economic impact model.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' direct spending is
comprised of the following categories:
1. Approximately $20.2 million in operating expenditures in FY 22/23.
2. Approximately $77.9 million in off -site spending by non -local patrons in FY 22/23, including spending at
local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
Direct spending impacts attributable to the Zoo
($ millions)
FY FY FY FY FY Stabilized
18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Year
Total annual direct spending $63.6 $45.1 $57.0 $89.7 $98.2 $141.9 Operating expenditures $13.2 $12.8 $10.1 $17.1 $20.2 $32.4 Visitor off -site spending $50.3 $32.3 $46.8 $72.7 $77.9 $109.5 Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, Tourism Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Zoo Operational Spending
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens employed 252
part-time and full-time employees and incurred $20.2
million in operating expenses in FY 22/23.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens spent $20.2 million in operational expenditures in FY 22/23, which included
spending on employee salaries and wages, professional
fees and contracts, park supplies, repairs and maintenance, marketing, and utilities, among others.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens employed a total of 67 part-time and 185 full-time employees that earned a total of $11.1 million in FY 22/23.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens operational spending
($ millions and number of employees)
Operating expenses
Salaries & wages
Employees
Full-time
Part-time
FY FY FY FY FY Stabilized
18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Year
$13.2 $12.8 $10.1 $17.1 $20.2 $32.4
$7.0 $7.3 $5.7 $7.7 $11.1 $16.1
194 197 157 211 252 400
134 139 127 162 185 307
60 58 30 49 67 93
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens
Zoo Visitor Count and Origin
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens welcomed 616,900
total visitors in FY 22/23 and is expected to welcome
850,000 visitors in a stabilized year of operations post expansion.
In FY 22/23, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens welcomed 616,900 visitors, which excludes school tours.
Approximately 77% or 473,800 of the 616,900 visitors
originated from outside Greater Palm Springs - including 63% that stayed overnight and 14% that visited for the day.
These visitors spent money while at the Zoo and at off -site establishments in the local economy, including local
restaurants, hotels, retailers, and recreation / entertainment venues.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens visitor count by origin
(number of visitors)
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Stabilized Year
Total visitors 508,900 345,500 469,200 634,100 616,900 850,000 Locals 126,200 97,100 116,400 178,800 143,100 225,000
Day-trippers 81,900 49,900 75,900 87,900 84,800 128,700 Overnighters 300,800 198,500 277,000 367,400 389,000 496,300 Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens
Note: total patrons excludes school tours.
Zoo Visitor Spending by Industry
The 473,800 visitors that originated from outside
Greater Palm Springs spent $77.9 million at off -site
establishments in the local economy in FY 22/23.
In FY 22/23, the 473,800 visitors to the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens spent $77.9 million at off -site establishments in the local economy, including local restaurants, hotels, retailers, and recreation / entertainment venues.
The 850,000 visitors that are expected to go to the Zoo in a stabilized year of operations post expansion are expected to spend $109.5 million at off -site establishments in the local economy.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens visitor spending
($ millions)
FY FY FY FY FY Stabilized
18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Year
Total visitor spending $50.3 $32.3 $46.8 $72.7 $77.9 $109.5 Lodging $17.9 $10.8 $15.2 $30.1 $32.2 $45.2
Food & beverage $14.5 $9.6 $14.2 $19.0 $20.5 $28.8
Entertainment $7.0 $4.6 $6.9 $9.2 $9.9 $13.9
Retail $6.4 $4.3 $6.3 $8.4 $9.1 $12.8
Local transportation $4.5 $3.0 $4.4 $5.9 $6.3 $8.9
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
Direct Spending (FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' direct spending
impacts of $98.2 million (including visitor spending
and operational spending) was spread across a wide
range of sectors within the local economy.
In addition to the $77.9 million in visitor spending, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens spent $20.2 million in
operating expenditures. In total, the Zoo generated $98.2 million in direct spending impact.
The direct spending impact of $98.2 million in the local economy was spread across a number of industries,
including $32.2 million in lodging expenditures, $20.5 million in food and beverage expenditures, $20.2 million in
operating expenditures, $9.9 million in
entertainment/recreation spending, $9.1 million in retail purchases, and $6.3 million in local transportation.
r
0 0
$98.2 MILLION
Zoo Direct Spending Impact
(FY 22/23)
$32.2M LODGING
Hotels, motels, short-term rentals,
B&Bs
$20.5M FOOD & BEVERAGE
Full -service restaurants, fast food,
convenience stores
$20.2M OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Zoo salaries/wages, animal care expenses, repairs
and maintenance, advertising and promotion
$9.9M ENTERTAINMENT
Amusements, theaters, entertainment,
and other recreation
$9.1M RETAIL
Souvenirs, general merchandise, malls,
local retailers
$6.3M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
Taxis, buses, parking, public transportation,
ride share, gas
Df 53.
Source: Tourism Economics
Section 4
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
SUMMARY
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Economic Impact Approach
The economic impacts of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' direct spending were estimated using regional Input -Output (I -O) models based on customized IMPLAN ( www.implan.com) models for the Riverside County economy. IMPLAN is recognized as an industry standard in local -level I -O models. An I -O model represents a profile of an economy by measuring the relationships among industries and consumers to track the flow of industry revenue to wages, profits, capital, taxes and suppliers. The supply chain is traced as dollars flow through the economy, representing indirect impacts. The model also calculates the induced impacts of spending. Induced impacts represent benefits to the economy as incomes earned as a result of direct spending are spent in the local economy, generating additional sales, jobs, taxes, and income.
The modeling process begins with aligning the direct expenditure measurements with the related sectors in the model (e.g. hotels, restaurants, retail, and recreation). The model is then run to trace the flow of these expenditures through the economy. In this process, the inter -relationships between consumers and industries generate each level of impact.
IMPLAN calculates three levels of impact — direct, indirect, and induced — for a broad set of indicators. These include the following:
• Business sales (also called gross output)
• Household income (including wages and benefits)
• Employment
• Federal taxes
• State and local taxes
DIRECT IMPACTS
Zoo/Industry
contribution measured
by expenditures & visitor
spending
RETAIL
ENTERTAIN MENTIREC
FOOD & BEVERAGE
>
TRANSPORTATION
LODGING
LOCAL OPERATIONAL &
CAPITAL SPENDING
INDIRECT IMPACTS,
Purchases of inputs from suppliers
Suppliers' own supply chains
SUPPLY B2B GOODS
CHAIN & SEPVIC ES
EFFECTS PURCHASED
INDUCED IMPACTS
Consumer spending out of
employees' wages:
INCOME HOUSEHOLD
EFFECT CONSUMPTION
TOTAL
IMPACTS
SALES
GDP
A
JOBS
/i[
INCOME
TAXES
Economic Impact Summary
The Zoo generated a total economic impact of $148.1
million, which supported 1,484 part-time and full-
time jobs and generated $17.9 million in state and
local taxes in FY 22/23.
The accompanying table outlines the economic impacts in Riverside County attributable to the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens in FY 18/19 through FY 22/23 and in a stabilized year of operations post expansion.
Details for FY 22/23, the stabilized year of operations post expansion, and the capital expenditures are provided in the following three sections.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens economic impact summary
($ millions and number of employees)
FY FY FY FY FY Stabilized
18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Year
Total business sales $96.1 $68.8 $86.0 $135.3 $148.1 $215.1 Direct business sales
Total personal income
$63.6 $45.1 $57.0 $89.7 $98.2 $141.9
$34.8 $26.2 $30.9 $47.2 $54.9 $83.0
Direct personal income $24.4 $18.4 $21.7 $33.2 $38.5 $58.4 Total employment
Direct employment
Total taxes
Total state & local taxes
Total federal taxes
1,007 761 901 1,342 1,484 2,150
719 534 647 963 1,059 1,534
$16.2
$10.0
$6.2
$26.6
$16.6
$9.9
$28.8
$17.9
$10.9
$41.3
$25.3
$15.9
Direct taxes $13.1 $8.8 $11.7 $19.4 $21.0 $30.1
Direct state & local taxes $8.3 $5.3 $7.4 $12.5 $13.4 $19.0 Direct federal taxes $4.9 $3.5 $4.3 $6.9 $7.6 $11.1
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
Section 5
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
(FY 22/23)
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Business Sales by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total economic impact of
$148.1 million in FY 22/22.
The $98.2 million in Zoo operational spending and off -site spending by visitors generated $25.6 million in indirect expenditures and $24.3 million in induced expenditures, resulting in a total economic impact of $148.1 million in the local economy in FY 22/23.
Business sales impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
$98.2
$25.6
Direct sales Indirect sales
$148.1
Induced sales Total sales
Business sales impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Total, all industries
By industry
Lodging
Food & Beverage
Recreation and Entertainment
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Business Services
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Gasoline Stations
Wholesale Trade
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Direct
Business
Sales
$98.2
$32.3
$20.6
S21.7
$0.4
$7.1
$9.1
$3.5
$2.6
$0.8
Indirect Induced Total
Business Business Business
Sales Sales Sales
$25.6 $24.3 $148.1
$0.0
$1.5
$0.9
$7.7
$6.9
$0.5
$1.6
$0.1
$0.0
$1.3
$0.8
$1.5
$1.0
$1.4
$0.4
$0.0
$0.0
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
$0.0
$2.4
50.3 $7.9
$1.7
$2.3
$0.6
S3.8
50.2 $1.2
$1.6
$0.9
So.5
SO.7
$0.1
$0.0
$0.0
$32.3
$24.5
S22.9
$16.0
$15.8
$11.8
$5.6
S3.9
52.8 $2.5
$2.4
$2.4
52.3 $2.1
$0.5
$0.1
50.0 of 5304
Business Sales by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total economic impact of
$148.1 million in FY 22/23.
The lodging industry was the most impacted industry with $32.3 million in total output in FY 22/23. The food &
beverage industry and recreation and entertainment
industry followed with $24.5 million and $22.9 million in total business sales, respectively.
Business sales impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Lodging
Food & Beverage
Recreation and Entertainment
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Business Services
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Gasoline Stations
Wholesale Trade
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Source: Tourism Economics
■
■ Direct Indirect ■ Induced
$ millions
$0 $Wage 416 0`S3
Employment by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total employment
impact of 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs in FY
22/23.
The Zoo operations and visitor spending directly supported 1,059 full-time and part-time jobs. Indirect and induced impacts generated 227 indirect jobs and 197 induced jobs.
Employment impacts by industry, FY 22/23
(part-time and full-time jobs)
1,059
197
227
Direct jobs Indirect jobs
1,484
Induced jobs Total jobs
Employment impacts by industry, FY 22/23
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Total, all industries
By industry
Recreation and Entertainment
Lodging
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Other Transport
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Construction and Utilities
Government
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Employment Employment Employment Employment
1,059 227 197 1,484
322
313
254
61 61
38 2
6 2
15 0
23 82
20 5
49 2
10 4
8 5
3 0
1 0
0 Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
6 0
34 19
9 27
18 44
25 2
4 4
2 1
0 0
343
313
311
162
90 71
69 45
36 12
12 9
5 3
2 0
Employment by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total employment
impact of 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs in FY
22/23.
The recreation and entertainment ranked first with 343
total jobs in FY 22/23. The lodging industry sector followed with 313 total jobs.
Employment impacts by industry, FY 22/23
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Recreation and Entertainment
Lodging
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Other Transport
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Construction and Utilities
Government
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Source: Tourism Economics
I
=I■
■
■ Direct Indirect ■ Induced
0 Labor Income by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated $54.9 million in total labor income in FY 22/23.
The Zoo generated $38.5 million in direct personal income, $8.6 million in indirect labor income, and $7.8 million in induced personal income, resulting in $54.9 million in total labor income in FY 22/23.
Labor income impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
$38.5
$7.8
$8.6
$54.9
Direct Indirect Induced Total
personal income personal income personal income labor income Labor income impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Total, all industries
By industry
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Direct
Personal
Income
Indirect Induced Total
Personal Personal Personal
Income Income Income
$38.5 $8.6 $7.8 $54.9
$13.4
$12.2
s7.3
$2.4
$1.6
51.1 $0.1
$0.3
$0.1
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
$0.0 $0.0 $13.4
50.3 $0.1 $12.6
$0.7 $1.0 $9.0
$3.2 $0.8 $6.4
$0.8 $0.3 $2.7
$0.0 $2.2 $2.2
50.2 $0.8 S2.1
$1.1 $0.5 $1.7
$0.6 $1.1 $1.6
$0.7 $0.3 $1.1
$0.2 $0.1 $0.7
50.3 $0.3 $0.7
$0.3 $0.1 $0.4
$0.0 $0.1 $0.2
$0.1 $0.0 $0.1
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
50.0 $0.0 $0.0
Labor Income by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated $54.9 million in total labor income in FY 22/23.
In FY 22/23, the lodging industry was the most impacted industry with $13.4 million in total labor income. The
recreation and entertainment industry followed with $12.6 million in total labor income, including $12.2 million in direct labor income and $0.4 million in indirect and induced labor income.
Labor income impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Source: Tourism Economics
■
■ Direct Indirect ■ Induced
$ millions
Tax Generation
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated $28.8 million in
governmental revenue in FY 22/23.
The Zoo's operations and visitor spending generated a total fiscal (tax) impact of $28.8 million in FY 22/23.
The State of California government collected $9.6 million, and the local government collected $8.3 million as a result of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens.
State and local tax revenue, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Total taxes
Sales
Bed Tax
Personal Income
Corporate
Social Insurance
Excise and Fees
Property
State Local Total
$9.6 $8.3 $17.9
$7.0 $1.5 $8.5
$0.1 $4.2 $4.3
$1.6 $0.0 $1.6
$0.3 $0.0 $0.3
$0.2 $0.0 $0.2
$0.3 $0.4 $0.7
$0.1 $2.2 $2.3
Total tax revenue, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Total Tax Revenues
Federal
Personal Income
Corporate
Indirect Business
Social Insurance
State and Local
Sales
Bed Tax
Personal Income
Corporate
Social Insurance
Excise and Fees
Property
Indirect /
Direct Induced Total
$21.0 $7.8 $28.8
$7.6 $3.3 $10.9
$2.8 $1.3 $4.1
$0.4 $0.3 $0.6
$0.3 $0.2 $0.5
$4.1 $1.6 $5.7
$13.4 $4.5 $17.9
$5.7 $2.8 $8.5
$4.3 $0.0 $4.3
$1.1 $0.5 $1.6
$0.2 $0.1 $0.3
$0.2 $0.1 $0.2
$0.5 $0.3 $0.7
$1.6 $0.7 $2.3
Source: Tourism Economics
Section 6
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
(STABILIZED YEAR)
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Business Sales by Industry
Business sales impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Total, all industries
By industry
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Business Services
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Gasoline Stations
Wholesale Trade
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Business Business Business Business
Sales Sales Sales Sales
$141.9 $37.4 $35.8 $215.1
$45.3 $0.0 $0.0 $45.3
$35.0 $1.3 $0.5 $36.8
$29.0 $2.1 $3.5 $34.6
SO.7 $11.5 $11.6 $23.8
S9.3 $9.9 $2 5 $21.8
S12.8 $0.7 $3.3 $16.8
$4.9 $2.3 $0.9 $8.1
SO.2 $5.6 $5.7
$3.7 $0.0 $0.2 $4.0
$1.9 $1.8 $3.6
$1.2 $2.4 $3.6
$2.3 $1.3 $3.5
$1.3 $1.4 $0.8 $3.5
$2.0 $1.1 $3.0
50.5 $0.2 $0.8
$0.0 $0.1 $0.1
$0.0 $o.o $0.1
Source: Tourism Economics
Business sales impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Business Services
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Gasoline Stations
Wholesale Trade
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Source: Tourism Economics
I llllllllllll�
lllllllllll� �
• Direct Indirect • Induced
$ millions
$O $1O
$ZO Pao 4233 dfcs3
Employment by Industry
Employment impacts by industry, stabilized year
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Total, all industries
By industry
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Lodging
Business Services
Other Transport
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Construction and Utilities
Government
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Employment Employment Employment Employment
1,534 327 289 2,150
504
357
439
79 85
3 54
9 3
21 32
0 116
29 73
7 2
15 6
12 7
4 0
2 0
0 9
51 0
28 13
26 40
64 37
3 5
6 3
2 1
0 0
535
439
439
223
128
102
101
67 52
18 17
13 7
5 3
1 Source: Tourism Economics
Employment impacts by industry, stabilized year
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Lodging
Business Services
Other Transport
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Construction and Utilities
Government
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Source: Tourism Economics
I
•
• Direct Indirect • Induced
jobs
0 100 200
3Pad6°42Q orS3
ig
Labor Income by Industry
Labor income impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Total, all industries
By industry
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Government
Personal Services
Wholesale Trade
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Direct Indirect Induced
Personal Personal Personal
Income Income Income
Total
Personal
Income
$58.4 $12.8 $11.8 $83.0
$21.0 $0.1 $0.0 $21.1
$18.6 $0.3 $0.4 $19.2
$12.0 $1.3 $1.5 $14.7
$2.8 54.3 51.4 S8.5
$0.0 $0.5 $3.3 $3.8
$1.8 $0.6 $1.3 $3.6
$1.5 $1.3 $0.5 $3.3
$0.2 $1.2 $0.7 $2.1
$1.3 $0.7 $2.0
$0.1 $0.5 $1.2 $1.8
$0.1 $0.5 50.5 $1.1
$0.3 $0.4 $0.2 $0.9
$0.0 $0.3 $0.2 $0.4
$0.1 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2
50.1 $0.0 $0.1
$o.o $o.o $o.o
$0.0 $o.o $0.0
Source: Tourism Economics
Labor income impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Government
Personal Services
Wholesale Trade
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Source: Tourism Economics
•
I
II
I
1 I
• Direct Indirect • Induced
$ millions A0��3
$0 $5 $10 Pam 42a5
Tax Generation
Total tax revenue, stabilized year State and local tax revenue, stabilized year ($ millions) ($ millions)
Total Tax Revenues
Federal
Personal Income
Corporate
Indirect Business
Social Insurance
State and Local
Sales
Bed Tax
Personal Income
Corporate
Social Insurance
Excise and Fees
Property
Indirect /
Direct Induced Total
$30.1 $11.1 $41.3
$11.1 $4.8 $15.9
$4.2 $1.8 $6.0
$0.5 $0.4 $0.9
$0.4 $0.2 $0.6
$6.0 $2.3 $8.4
$19.0
$8.0
$6.0
$1.6
$0.2
$0.3
$0.7
$2.3
$6.3
$4.0
$0.0
$0.7
$0.2
$0.0
$0.4
$1.0
$25.3
$12.0
$6.0
$2.3
$0.4
$0.4
$1.0
$3.2
Source: Tourism Economics
Total taxes
Sales
Bed Tax
Personal Income
Corporate
Social Insurance
Excise and Fees
Property
State Local Total
$13.7 $11.6 $25.3
$9.9 $2.1 $12.0
$0.1 $5.9 $6.0
$2.3 $0.0 $2.3
$0.4 $0.0 $0.4
$0.4 $0.0 $0.4
$0.5 $0.6 $1.0
S0.2 $3.1 $3.2
Source: Tourism Economics
Section 7
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
IMPACTS
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
Business Sales by Industry
Business sales impacts by industry, capital expenditures Business sales impacts by industry, capital expenditures ($ millions) ($ millions)
Total, all industries
By industry
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Wholesale Trade
Education and Health Care
Food & Beverage
Retail Trade
Personal Services
Other Transport
Communications
Government
Manufacturing
Recreation and Entertainment
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Direct
Business
Sales
Indirect Induced
Business Business
Sales Sales
$40.9
$8.6 $13.3
Total
Business
Sales
$62.8
$32.7 $0.1 $0.3 $33.1
$8.2 $2.4 $0.9 $11.5
$2.0 $4.3 $6.3
51.7 SO.7 $2.3
SO.O S2.1 $2.1
$0.2 $1.3 $1.5
$0.2 $1.2 $1.4
SO.2 $0.9 $1.1
$0.7 $0.3 $1.0
$0.3 $0.4 $0.7
$0.2 50.5 $0.7
$0.6 $0.1 $0.6
$0.0 $0.2 $0.2
$0.0 $0.1 $0.1
So.O $0.0 $0.1
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$o.o $o.o $o.o
Source: Tourism Economics
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Wholesale Trade
Education and Health Care
Food & Beverage
Retail Trade
Personal Services
Other Transport
Communications
Government
Manufacturing
Recreation and Entertainment
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Source: Tourism Economics
I
1 1
I
■ Direct Indirect ■ Induced
$ millions
$0 $Page 428 i1053A
Employment by Industry
Employment impacts by industry, capital expenditures Employment impacts by industry, capital expenditures (part-time and full-time jobs) (part-time and full-time jobs) Total, all industries
By industry
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Food & Beverage
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Personal Services
Other Transport
Wholesale Trade
Recreation and Entertainment
Government
Manufacturing
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Employment Employment Employment Employment
359 56 94 509
299 0 1 300
60 24 9 93
0 21 21
2 16 19
10 9 18
1 13 14
2 12 14
6 4 10
6 2 8
1 3 4
1 2 3
2 0 2
1 1 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Food & Beverage
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Personal Services
Other Transport
Wholesale Trade
Recreation and Entertainment
Government
Manufacturing
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Source: Tourism Economics Source: Tourism Economics
■ Direct -Indirect ■ Induced
0 jobs
20Page 42946f 53
444gil
Labor Income by Industry
Labor income impacts by industry, capital expenditures
($ millions)
Total, all industries
By industry
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Food & Beverage
Wholesale Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Government
Manufacturing
Communications
Recreation and Entertainment
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Direct
Personal
Income
Indirect Induced Total
Personal Personal Personal
Income Income Income
$21.0
$17.8
$3.3
$2.7
$0.0
$1.1
$O.o
$0.1
SO.1
$0.4
$0.3
$0.1
$0.3
$0.1
$0.1
$0.1
$o.o
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4.o S27.7
$0.1
$0.4
$1.1
$0.6
$0.5
$0.2
SO.3
$0.4
$0.2
$0.2
$0.0
$0.1
S0.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$o.o
S17.9
$4.7
S1.1
$0.7
$0.6
$0.6
$0.6
$0.5
$0.5
$0.3
$0.1
$0.1
$0.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Source: Tourism Economics
Labor income impacts by industry, capital expenditures
($ millions)
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Food & Beverage
Wholesale Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Government
Manufacturing
Communications
Recreation and Entertainment
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Source: Tourism Economics
■ Direct Indirect ■ Induced
$ millions
$0 $gage 430 6x053,
Tax Generation
Total tax revenue, capital expenditures State and local tax revenue, capital expenditures ($ millions) ($ millions)
Total Tax Revenues
Federal
Personal Income
Corporate
Indirect Business
Social Insurance
State and Local
Sales
Personal Income
Corporate
Social Insurance
Excise and Fees
Property
Indirect /
Direct Induced Total
$5.3 $3.1 $8.4
$4.0 $1.5 $5.4
$1.8 $0.5 $2.3
$0.0 $0.1 $0.2
$0.0 $0.1 $0.1
$2.1 $0.7 $2.8
$1.3
$0.3
$0.7
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$1.7
$0.7
$0.2
$0.1
$0.0
$0.2
$0.5
$3.0
$1.0
$0.9
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$0.7
Source: Tourism Economics
Total taxes
Sales
Personal Income
Corporate
Social Insurance
Excise and Fees
Property
State Local Total
$1.9 $1.1
$O.8 $O.2
$0.9 $0.0
$0.1 $0.0
$0.1 $0.0
$0.1 $0.1
$0.0 $0.7
$3.0
$1.0
$0.9
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$0.7
Source: Tourism Economics
Section 8
CITY KEY FINDINGS
(FY 22/23)
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO I GARDENS
City Summary Findings (FY 22/23)
The following section presents the economic impacts
generated by Living Desert Zoo and Garden patrons off -site spending in five cities within Greater Palm Springs in FY 22/23.
These figures exclude the economic impact generated by the Living Desert Zoo and Garden's operational expenditures, which were included in the aggregated Zoo impacts for all Greater Palm Springs presented in the prior sections.
The accompanying table outlines the economic impacts
generated by off -site visitor spending in each city: Palm Springs accounted for the largest portion ($30.9 million), followed by Palm Desert ($24.9 million), La Quinta ($14.9 million), Rancho Mirage ($14.0 million), and Indian Wells ($7.9 million).
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Summary Economic Impacts
($ millions and number of jobs)
Indian Palm Palm
Business Sales
Personal Income
Employment
Taxes
State & local taxes
Federal taxes
Wells Desert Springs
La Quinta
Rancho
Mirage
$7.9 $24.9 $30.9 $14.9 $14.0
$2.7 $8.5 $10.5 $5.1 $4.7
74 235 292 140 132
$1.8 $5.4 $7.2 $3.3 $3.0
$1.2 $3.6 $5.0 $2.2 $2.0
$0.6 $1.8 $2.2 $1.1 $1.0
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, Tourism Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: INDIAN WELLS
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
4110 TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Indian Wells as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Indian Wells
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $5.5 million in Indian
Wells, as outlined below.
G,/ $5.5 MILLION
Zoo Patron Spending ] Zoo Patron Spending In Indian Wells (FY 22/23) $2.7M LODGING
$1.8M ENTERTAINMENT
$O.7M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
$O.2M FOOD & BEVERAGE
CQLD $0.1M RETAIL
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' patron spending impact of $5.5 million generated a total economic impact of $7.9 million in the Indian Wells economy, which supported 74 part-time and full-time jobs and generated $1.2 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
0 $7.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN INDIAN WELLS (FY 22/23)
$7.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
74 $1.2M
Total
Jobs
Generated
Total
State & Local
Page or iO
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: PALM DESERT
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
lb TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Palm Desert as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Palm Desert
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $17.2 million in Palm
Desert, as outlined below.
{Qs, $17.2 MILLION
\W/
Zoo Patron Spending In Zoo Patron Spending In Palm Desert (FY 22/23) $6.2M LODGING
$4.7M FOOD & BEVERAGE
$3.OM RETAIL
$2.OM ENTERTAINMENT
$1.4M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' patron spending impact of $17.2 million generated a total economic impact of $24.9 million in the Palm Desert economy, which supported 235 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $3.6 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
0 $24.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN PALM DESERT (FY 22/23)
$24.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
t
235
Total
Jobs
Generated
$3.6M
Total
State & Local
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: PALM SPRINGS
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
lb TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Palm Springs as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Palm Springs
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $21.1 million in Palm
Springs, as outlined below.
{Qs, $21.1 MILLION
\W/
Zoo Patron Spending In Zoo Patron Spending In Palm Springs (FY 22/23) Imo, $11.7M LODGING
$5.4M
3 $1.3M
$1.7M
$1.1M
FOOD & BEVERAGE
RETAIL
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
ENTERTAINMENT
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' patron spending impact of $21.1 million generated a total economic impact of $30.9 million in the Palm Springs economy, which supported 292 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $5.0 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
0 $30.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN PALM SPRINGS (FY 22/23)
$30.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
t
292
Total
Jobs
Generated
$5.OM
Total
State & Local
Page t or iO
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: LA QUINTA
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in La Quinta as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in La Quinta
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $10.3 million in La
Quinta, as outlined below.
{Q, $10.3 MILLION
VU/
Zoo Patron Spending In Zoo Patron Spending In La Quinta (FY 22/23) $3.8M
$3.8M
WM $1.2M
$0.9M
$0.5M
FOOD & BEVERAGE
LODGING
RETAIL
ENTERTAINMENT
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' patron spending impact of $10.3 million generated a total economic impact of $14.9 million in the La Quinta economy, which supported 140 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $2.2 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
0 $ 14.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN LA QUINTA (FY 22/23)
$14.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
t
140
Total
Jobs
Generated
$2.2M
Total
State & Local
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: RANCHO MIRAGE
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
lb TOURISM ECONOMICS
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant \ economic impacts in Rancho Mirage as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Rancho
Mirage during their trip to the Zoo, including local
restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment
venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $9.7 million in Rancho
Mirage, as outlined below.
{Qs, $9.7 MILLION
\W/
Zoo Patron Spending ] Zoo Patron Spending In Rancho Mirage (FY 22/23) Imo, $3.5M
r $2.4M
$2.4M
$0.8M
0103
$0.5M
LODGING
FOOD & BEVERAGE
ENTERTAINMENT
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
RETAIL
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' patron spending impact of $9.7 million generated a total economic impact of $14.0 million in the Rancho Mirage economy, which supported 132 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $2.0 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
0 $ 14.0 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN RANCHO MIRAGE (FY 22/23)
$14.OM
Total
Economic
Impact
t
132
Total
Jobs
Generated
$2.OM
Total
State & Local
About Tourism Economics
Tourism Economics is an Oxford Economics company with a singular objective: combine an understanding of the travel sector with proven economic tools to answer the most important questions facing our clients. More than 500 companies, associations, and destination work with Tourism Economics every year as a research partner. We bring decades of experience to every engagement to help our clients make better marketing, investment, and policy decisions. Our team of highly -specialized economists deliver:
Global travel data -sets with the broadest set of country, city, and state coverage available Travel forecasts that are directly linked to the economic and demographic outlook for origins and destinations Economic impact analysis that highlights the value of visitors, events, developments, and industry segments Policy analysis that informs critical funding, taxation, and travel facilitation decisions • Market assessments that define market allocation and investment decisions Tourism Economics operates out of regional headquarters in Philadelphia and Oxford, with offices in Belfast, Buenos Aires, Dubai, Frankfurt, and Ontario.
Oxford Economics is one of the world's foremost independent global advisory firms, providing reports, forecasts and analytical tools on 200 countries, 100 industrial sectors and over 3,000 cities. Our best -of -class global economic and industry models and analytical tools give us an unparalleled ability to forecast external market trends and assess their economic, social and business impact. Headquartered in Oxford, England, with regional centers in London, New York, and Singapore, Oxford Economics has offices across the globe in Belfast, Chicago, Dubai, Miami, Milan, Paris, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington DC, we employ over 250 full-time staff, including 150 professional economists, industry experts and business editors —one of the largest teams of macroeconomists and thought leadership specialists.
For more information:
[email protected]
THE LIVING DESERT
ZOO IGARDENS
ATTACHMENT #4
San Diego Zoo Support from The City of San Diego
Zoological Exhibits Maintenance
Description
The City's budget reflects funds utilized for the maintenance of zoological exhibits in Balboa Park which are financed from a fixed property tax levy ($0.005 per $100 of assessed valuation) as authorized by Section 77a of the City Charter. This fund is administered by the Department of Finance.
San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Zoological Exhibits Maintenance Fund From page 704 of the City of San Diego 2024 Adopted Budget https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/fy24ab full.odf Zoological Exhibits Maintenance Fund
De Fartment Summar
PTE Positions
Personnel Expersiltuires
Non -Personnel Expenditures
FY202z FY2023 FY2024 - FY2023-2024
Actual Budget Adopted Change
0.DD O.DD 0 -co
- 5 - S - 5
15,54&223 17,730,202 19,490,501
0.010
1,760, 294
Total Department Expenditures S 1G,548,223 5 17,730,2112 $ 19,490,501 $ 1,7G0,299 Total Department Revenue
S 10,821,373 5 17,7302202 $ 19,4810,501 $ 1,760,299
Zoological Exhibits Maintenance Fund
Department Expenditures
FY20 2 FY2023 FY2024 FY2023-2024
Actual Budget Adapted Change
Zoological Exhibits Maintenance I urci S 15k4A,223 3
Total S 16,548223 5 17,730 2272 5
17,730,202 g
Si fi{ant Bud etAduustments
Zoological Exhibits Malntenan€e Tax
Adjustment to reflect reused revenue and non -personnel expenditures related to the fixed property -tax levy
support of the Zoological Exhibits Maintenance Fund.
rif
0.00 $
19,490,501 5
19,490,5091 5
1,760,299
1,7gF0,299
Expenditures Revenue
1,760,299 $
1,750,291
Total
Exwenditures b Cate.
1,760,299 $ 1,760,299
Dr 2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2023-2024
Actual Budget Adapted Change
NON -PERSONNEL
Contracts & Services
Exrerrrad Contracts & Services
NON-PER5ONNEL SUBTOTAL
5 16,548,223 S 17.730,202 $ 19,440,501 $ 1,750299
5548,223 17,73t7„2YF2 ]9,490,507 :,760,299
16,548,223 17,730,202 19,490,501 1,750299
S 10,54szni S 13,730,202 $ 19,490,501 $ 1,70,299
Total
Revenues b Cateo
ropertyTax Revenue
FYZOZ2 FY2023 FY2024 FY2023-2024
Actual Budget Adapted Change
5 16&21,973 5
S 16*$21973 $
17,
mrxe-2812
202
19;490,501 5
19,40Mt541 1 1,769299
1,760,299
Total
City of San Diego
Fiscal Year 21124 .Adopted Budget
- 704 -
San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance 2022 Financials and 2023 Economic Impact Report From page 90 of the San Diego Wildlife Alliance 2022 Annual Report (most recent) https://sand iegozoowildlifealliance.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/2022-SDZWA-Annual- Report-FINAL.pdf
Financials
2022
REVENUE
$407
MILLION
■ Food. Merchandise,
Catering. Tours,
and Education
San Diego Zoo
Wildlife Alliance's
economic impac
I* and activity in th San Diego region.
Admission
IMembership
Animal and Flaunt Care,
Conseraation Projects,
Education Programs. Facilities
Maintenance. and Zoo and
Safari Park Operating Costs
MORE TOWARD
OUR MISSION
As a nonprofit organization,
all revenue supports our
mission. Revenue above
expenses is reinvested
to pursue conservation
priorities, capital projects.
and operational needs.
2022
EXPENSES
5375
MILLION
**Please note: These are unaudited numbers for 2022.
Audited financials and IRS Form 990 will be available
on sdzwa.org once they are completed. Economic
impact study prepared in 2023 by San Diego Taxpayers
Educational Foundation.
Los Angeles Zoo 2024/25 Budget Summary
Exhibit A from the 2024/25 Adopted Budget from the City of Los Angeles https://cao.lacity.gov/budget24-25/2024-25Budget Summary.pdf
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS
Classified by Object of Expenditure
Salaries Expanses Equipment Special Total
Aging
Animal Services
Building and Safety
Cannabis Regulation
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Planning
City Tourism
Civil, Human Rights and Equity
Community Investment for Families
Controller
Council
Cultural Affairs
Disability
Economic and Workforce Development
El Pueblo de Los Angeles
Emergency Management
Employee Relations Board
Ethics Commission
Finance
Fire
General Services
Housing
Information TechnrylegyAgency
Mayor
Neighborhood Empowerment
Personnel
Police
Public Accountability
Board of Public Works
Bureau of Contract Administration
Bureau of Engineering
Bureau of Sanitation
Bureau of Street Lighting
Bureau of Street Services
Transportation
You Development
zoo
Total -Budgetary Departments
Appropriations to City Employees' Retirement
Appropriations to Library Fund
Appropriations to Recreation and Parks Fund
Total -Appropriations
Total -D parinmenlal
5,201.645 5,307,327
27,805,259 2,854,150
152,803,386 2,831,0174
7,147,229 1,378,132
26,681,967 2,794,232
158,245,201 6,404,198
14,728,001 4,848,825
53,418:098 6,009,100
1,741,175 322,000
4,590.541 550,737
11,157,423 23,995,919
19,899,536 957,607
36,243,442 918,869
9,338,2163 1,068,991
3,431,460 1,571,138
15,103,067 7,057,215
1,544.780 514,345
4,157.567 5'9,931
430.659 85,988
5,753,908 454,471
39,670,732 8,587,248
772,957,494 41,324,458
134, 914,075 119,657,546
8Z251,545 12 ,507 ,454
44,717,105 34,168+6,817
9,729,785 399,906
3,424.485 491.580
72,391,874 8,815,665
1,870,354,2819 96,5810,379
984.821 1,758,539
12,038,330 20,205,089
47,255,670 2.900,94+4
115,950,830 3,917,519
368,256,732 45,931,101
40,758,520 5,250,398
117,499,891 81,440,411
186,858,058 26,008,783
1.944.927 145 998
25,742.645 5,245,758
11.509,172
34,560,409
155,634,390
8,525,361
31,456,199
174,549,399
19,575,826
292,040 71,719,238
2.063,175
5.141,278
35,154,342
20.687,243
37.1162,311
7,573.594 1&.080,948
92,521 5.095,119
23,190,282
2.059,125
4227,798
495,847
6,225,377
4&.283,980
814.281,952
120,000 3,494,814 258,186,395
94,659,009
60,000 16,180,071 100,643,993
10.129,691
- 14.000 3.930,065
1,265,091 62.72,63
24,932,173 - 1,993.846,820
2,721,38 J
32243,419
50.166,614
145712 120.019,861
415.197,833
1,000 5,347,000 51,366,918
377,070 - 199.317,372
214,676,841
- 90.000 2.180,915
ZA055,5113
4,535,148,192 593,968,732 23,927,995 34,157,191 5,1B9,2G2,11l 148282.949
256,501,930
284.550.348
148,282,949
256,501.930
254.550,346
659.315,227
659,315,2227
4.535,148,1.92 593,968,732 25.927,995 723,472,418 5,878,517,337
Los Angeles Zoo 2022/23 Budget Summary
From page 22 of the Los Angels Zoo 2022/23 Annual Report (most recent) https://lazoo.org/join-our-community/donors/annual-report/ CTY Of SOS A\GELES, ATTE
DEPART VENT Of THE 100
REVENUE
General Fund
Zoo Enterprise Trust Fund
Admissions receipts
Nighttime titbeted evenly'
Concessions'
Member -Pup'
Other receipts
TOTAL REVENUE
• T..nrbn lawn Guk
3.361,766
476,823
15,523,390
1.281,347
2,201,312
1.301,214
1.439,415
25,585,261
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
Animal care, wellness 8 conservation
Facility maintenance & operations
Learning 6 engagement
Public relations
Admuu stmt ion
'TOTAL EXPENDITURES
10,684,591
6,395,262
1,032.654
140.743
5,494,374
23,747.625
2,000,000
1,800.000
1,600.000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800.000
600.000
DANCE HISTORY
05609
2011-19 2019-20' 2020-21" 2021-22 2022-23
•'Tare ".000, 1/11,70 O...1.‘10/70‘16. (OVID 19p.Mwn.t
••tne,Nrrd t0 VW pa011t TN1/70 Alder 06'M/ID wW 1307/.4 eeo rr 07;11/71 a,.. b MAO ct yMww,
4.-
EXPE\ITURES
'YPROGRAU
• a5wrraralcwt. wturassacoNsuramorr
• 7IMVKILRY WJNrtKAMCE &O/S*ATKINS
• 2T. rOYwIS18ATr0N
• Mt LENAMGa ENGAfi NE NT
• I% PV6lK RI IATIONS
Los Angeles Zoo 2018/29 Economic Impact Report
From page 2 of the May 18, 2018, Board of Zoo Commissioners Virtual Meeting https://www.lazoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021 /06/Zoo-Commission-minutes-May- 2021. pdf
LOS ANGELES
ZOO
MINUTES
BOARD OF ZOO COMMISSIONERS
OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
VIRTUAL MEETING'
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021 - 10:00 AM
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 (MARCH 17, 202D) AND DUE TO CONCERNS OVER COVID-19, THIS BOARD MEETING WAS HELD ENTIRELY TELEPHONICALLY VIA ZOOM.
AGENDA ITEM 4
ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT PRESENTATION
Zoo Director Denise Verret introduced Adam Fowler and Mazen Bou Zeineddine from Beacon Economics to discuss the Los Angeles Zoo's Economic Impact Report. Beacon Economics was commissioned in 2019 to complete an Economic Impact Report utilizing data from fiscal year 2018/19_ The report was completed in 2020, but due to the pandemic and economic recovery it was decided to hold the report until now as it highlights the Zoo's impact on regional economics.
Mr. Fowler discussed the Zoo's regional impact on economics as well as social impacts.
Highlights of this report include:
• Review of Key External drivers
• The Zoo's support of suppliers and buyers
• Expenditures — Zoo operations, Capital expenditures, Employee compensation.
Concessions and Visitor spending_
- FY 18/19 visitor spending totaled $53 million
• Direct/Indirect Economic Impacts, Induced Impacts. and Social Spillover • Region reviewed Included Southern California, LA County, and LA City Zoo contribution to LA City - $80.3 million Output Impact, 752 Employment Impact. $33.4 million Labor Income, and, $1.6 million in tax revenue Zoo contribution to LA County - $144 million, 1,273, $58.3 million, and $4 million in tax revenue
Zoo contribution to So Cal - $199.1 million, 1,741, $76.9 million, and $5.5 million in tax revenue
• The Zoo plays a major role in Learning and Community Engagement not just locally, but globally
Both Mr. Fowler and Mr. Zeineddine expressed the importance of this report and the need for the Zoo to share and inform a wider audience of it's impacts. President 'Minnick asked how the Zoo plans to utilize the report_ Director Verret noted it will be shared with all local and state elected officials_ GLAZA President Tom Jacobson noted they are utilizing the report to assist in grant writing.
City of Indian Wells and Coachella Valley Economic Impact Coachella Valley and Indian Wells Economic Impact Report From pages 7 and 39 of the Tourism Economics Economic Impact Report detailing the 2022/23 Fiscal Year
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS
OPERATIONS & VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts as the Zoo spent money in the local
economy in the form of annual operational expenditures.
In addition to spending money during their visit to the Zoo, patrons also spent money at businesses and
establishments in the local economy during their stay in Greater Palm Springs, including local restaurants,
retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, the Zoo generated $98.2 million in direct
spending in the local economy, as outlined below.
$98.2 MILLION
Direct Spending Impact of the Zoo (FY 22/23)
O
$20.2 MILLION
Zoo Operating Expenditures
$77.9 MILLION
Off -Site Spending by Zoo Patrons
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
go TOURISM ECONOMICS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' direct spending impact of $98.2 million generated a total economic impact of 8148.1 million in the local economy, which supported 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs and generated $17.9 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23. .O $148.1 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS (FY 22/23)
$148.1M
Total
Economic
Impact
1,484
Total
Jobs
Generated
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: INDIAN WELLS
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Indian Wells as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Indian Wells
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $5.5 million in Indian
Wells, as outlined below.
® $5.5 MILLION
�I��/ Zoo Patron Spending In Indian Wells (FY 22/23)
• $2.7M LODGING
• $1.8M ENTERTAINMENT
$0.7M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
• $0.2M FOOD & BEVERAGE
EOM $0.1M RETAIL
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
$17.9M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
Ile TOURISM ECONOMICS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' patron spending impact of $5.5 million generated a total economic impact of $7.9 million in the Indian Wells economy, which supported 74 part-time and full-time jobs and generated $1.0 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
00 $7.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN INDIAN WELLS (FY 22/23)
$7.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
74 Total
Jobs
Generated
$1.0M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
Los Angeles Zoo Renovation Plan and Support
Los Angeles Times Article, August 2, 2023
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-02/controversial-la-zoo-renovation- city-council
L.A. City Council backs controversial L.A. Zoo renovation plan By Dakota Smith
Staff Writer
Aug. 2, 2023 Updated 12:19 PM FT
Share
The Los Angeles City Council on W Tednesdav backed a major renovation for the Los Angeles Zoo, a controversial proposal that's been criticized by hillside neighborhood and environmental groups as harmful to Griffith Park.
The City Council voted 13 to o to certify the environmental impact report for the city - owned facility. Zoo officials want to upgrade the 1960s -era facilities, expand conservation efforts and add more space for animals.
Key details of the makeover remain unknown after zoo officials said in June then would explore other options in the face of the opposition over construction that would cut into the hills..
\ Tithout final designs, the renovation's cost — which would be paid for with private and public funding — is unknown. An earlier estimate put the initial phase of construction over the. next few years at 8650 million.
The plan the council signed off on Wednesday also estimated that nearly 300 employees will need to be hired at the zoo over the next 18 years because of the additional facilities.
Councilrnembe:r Nithya Raman said in a statement before Wednesday's vote that she expects the zoo, which is in her district, to continueto work with local groups on the plans. Her office also provided a fact sheet from the zoo that said a controversial planned visitor center wouldn't bebuilt on a ridgeline on the zoo property. "Given the zoo's willingness to respond to community feedback, I feel confident that as they develop detailed project designs, that any additional concerns can and will be addressed," Raman said. "My staff and I are committed to continuing to work with them, and elevating community concerns, as we have throughout the process so far." The environmental analysis for the zoo's renovations started several years ago as zoo leaders sought to transform the facility and get ready for tourists expected during the 2028 Summer Oat aupics. Earlier, flashy proposals, including ar_,cling an aerial tram, a Yosemite National Park -style lodge and a parking structure, were scrapped. however.
The first phase of the most recent proposal would include an expanded elephant exhibition, programs around California's wildlife, the new visitor center and an entry building. An additional 300 parking spaces and a parking program are also in the proposal.
Denise Verret, director of the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens, said in a letter in June to council members that the plans represent a "significant milestone in the zoo's history to innovate and transform the physical campus into a modern zoological facility for future generations of Angelenos" and noted other zoo goals around accessibility and conservation.
Verret's letter also said the zoo is committed to making changes to its plans, including scaling down the visitor center — at one point, it was more than 15,000 square feet. according to opponents — and reworking a proposal to cut 6o feet into the hills for a condor-themed "canyon."
###
Sacramento Zoo Move and Support from The City of Elk Grove "Our commitment today is a force for good and will be a catalyst for new economic growth and collaborations that will support conservation and education efforts for generations to come," Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh -Allen
https://www . c bs news. co m/sac ra me nto/n ews/e lk-grove-gives-official-go-ahead-for-n ew- zoo/
"The city of Elk Grove would foot much of the rest of the bill. The largest share would come from a $114.5 million bond issue. $14.8 million would come from the city's development impact fee programs for roadways, water and sewers. Elk Grove would also use $93 million in discretionary funds, which include the entirety of the city's discretionary reserves," Elk Grove Citizen, May 16, 2024
https://www.egcitizen.com/2024/05/16/491639/sac-zoo-heads-to-elk-grove A Catalyst for Civic Amenities
The park activities and amenities at the New Zoo would provide Elk Grove and the surrounding region with exceptional family -focused amenities. The New Zoo would bring a flagship park, including unique wildlife encounters and Safari experiences.
A Driver of Economic Growth
Short -and -long term economic impacts totaling more than $249 million and $425 million in one-time construction activity, 58% would be captured onsite or within the City of Elk Grove limits.
E
l°40 svwd°
New Zoo
Location
8iby Road
Kammerer Road
Sacramento Zoo at Elk Grove Estimated Economic Impact Report https://www.elkgrovecity.org/sites/default/files/city-
files/Departments/strategic planning/Zoo/zoo-facts-and-figures-sheet.pdf r
The New Zoo at EIk Grove
Facts and Figures
ELf`Gi 11 1.
For more information about the proposed New Zoo at EIk Grove, visit elkgrovecity.org/zoo.
Bringing a world -class zoo to the City of Elk Grove would be o transtormatrve opportunity for the City and the region. The proposed project would serve as a catalyst for greater recreational and civic amenities. economic growth. sustoinability, and would create new opportunities to forge innovative partnerships with private and public sector entities that support conservation and education.
Plans to build the New Zoo are backed by sound and sustainable financing. The New Loo financing plan preserves all local funding for critical ongoing priorities, including road and park maintenance, police and fire response, traffic congestion. homelessness and affordable housing The Zoo F inoncing Plon is feasible and realistic with safeguards in place to protect community resources and priorities, ensure accountability, and maintain transparency throughout the process.
. Commitment to Conservation and Sustainability
• • Maintain the
existence of a
%he nationally accredited
zoological park in the
Sacramento region_
* r 100%
1. renewable education,
conservation.
recreation, and
wildlife center.
100%
electric project —
the first of its kind.
A Catalyst for Civic Amenities A Driver of Economic Growth The pork activities and amenities at the New Zoo
would provide E k Grove and the surrounding region
with exceptional family -focused amenities
of opt ra ' )Itk\
The New Zoo would bring a flagship parts, including
unique wildlife encounbrs and Safari experiences.
Short -and -long term
economic impacts
totaling more than
425
No MILLION
249
MILLION
in one-time construction
activity. 58% would be
captured onsite or within
the City of EIk Grove limits.
An Unrivaled
Opportunity for
Innovative
Partnerships
the New Zoo would create
opportunities to deepen the existing
partnership with the top -ranked
veterinary science program at the
University of California, Davis shaping
research to inform conservation
strategies and inspire action toward
wildlife preservation and habitat
restoration.
The proposed protect would also offer
opportunities to take learning outside the
classroom and provide students in the
region with a unique educational
experience It would help students develop
greater awareness and appreciation of the
natural world and the opportunities to
make a difference and reduce the threats
faced by wildlife around the world
Illbt-r,
•
al•. .i a r. �..
IOW
A virtual community meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 17 at 6 p.m. to answer additional questions about the project. Scan the QR code to register.
ATTACHMENT #5
Innovation & Improvement at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Q1 Are you currently a member at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens? Answered: 145 Skipped: i
Yes
No
Not currently,
but I have been
previously
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
RESPONSES
No
Not currently, but I have been previously
TOTAL
57.93%
26.21%
15.86%
84 38
23 145
1/5
Innovation & Improvement at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Q2 Would the addition of upscale dining and retail opportunities increase how often you visit the Zoo?
Answered: 145 Skipped: 1
Yes
No
Unsure
__AELM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
RESPONSES
No
Unsure
37.93%
46.90%
15.17%
55 68
22 TOTAL 145
2/5
Innovation & Improvement at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Q3 Do you think the improvement of the The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens will increase the value of your home?
Answered: 146 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Unsure
i
I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
RESPONSES
No
Unsure
23.29%
58.90%
17.81%
34 86
26 TOTAL 146
3/5
Innovation & Improvement at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Q4 Are you aware that the improvement of the The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens will provide annual tax revenue to the City of Indian Wells? Answered: 146 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Unsure
I J
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
RESPONSES
No
Unsure
TOTAL
52.74%
29.45%
17.81%
77 43
26 146
4/5
Innovation & Improvement at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Q5 Do you support the City of Indian Wells making an investment of $500,000 per year over a four-year period, beginning in the current fiscal year, to support The Living Desert's mission of desert conservation and education?
Answered: 145 Skipped: 1
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Unsure
TOTAL
Yes
Plo
Unsure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
48.28%
42.76%
8.97%
70 62
13 145
5/5
INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
January 30, 2025
To: City Council
From: Public Works Department
Prepared by: Ken Seumalo, Public Works Director
Subject: Review Design Recommendations for the Completion of Safer Streets Along Fairway and Eldorado Drive (Phase I)
RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS:
Council EVALUATES and ADOPTS the recommended improvements for Fairway Drive and Eldorado Drive recommended by the Planning Commission; and FINDS the project to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 BACKGROUND:
Both Fairway and Eldorado Drive are streets that have been identified to need re -paving as part of the City's commitment to maintaining quality streets in the community. Prior to re -paving these streets, the Council determined it to be fiscally responsible to first examine infrastructure improvements for Safer Streets prior to re -paving Fairway and Eldorado Drive.
Over the past few years, the City Council has prioritized the completion of Safer Streets as a City Council Goal at its Annual Strategic Planning Sessions and in the Capital Improvement Projects list approved in the City Annual Budget. This project entails the installation of various infrastructure improvements designed to improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, golf carts, and motor vehicles along Eldorado Drive and Fairway Drive (Phase I) and Cook Street and Rancho Palomeras (Phase II). The project is also designed to reduce vehicle speeds along these streets and deter vehicle traffic from diverting from Highway 111 into the residential neighborhoods. Although the outreach received comments supporting the status quo, the recommended improvements resulting from the Safer Streets process is a response to resident concerns about safety for residents and other users of specific corridors of the community and the desire to provide areas for residents to safely walk in the community for health and recreation, and for access to local shopping.
In May of 2023, the Council advanced both Phase I and Phase II of Safer Streets, which are two of the several projects approved in the City's $43.4 million dollar Capital
Improvement Program. The City branded our project Safer Streets to avoid confusion with the terminology commonly found in State and federal projects for Complete Streets projects.
Beginning in October of 2024, Staff held two public engagement meetings conducted by the Planning Commission to address safety concerns expressed by residents along Fairway Drive and Eldorado Drive. Two meetings were held to receive information and to evaluate proposed improvements along each roadway. Based on feedback from these meetings and online comments, there is community support for pedestrian, bicycle, and golf cart safety improvements along Fairway Drive and Eldorado Drive. There is also a desire to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes on both streets. A summary of the second community meeting survey results is attached (Attachment No. 3).
The culmination of the public engagement process for Phase I was at the December 12th Planning Commission meeting where staff presented proposed infrastructure improvements to both Fairway Drive and Eldorado Drive based upon the community engagement process. The Planning Commission evaluated additional community feedback, reviewed and expanded on the proposed mitigation improvements, made a finding of CEQA exemption for the options described in the City -Wide Traffic Safety Study, and made recommendations to the City Council. Below is a summary of the proposed infrastructure improvements and Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council for its consideration.
Fairway Drive (Exhibit 1):
Pedestrian safety: The Planning Commission recommended an eight -foot -wide meandering sidewalk be installed on the south side of Fairway Drive extending from Eldorado Drive to Cook Street. In addition to the sidewalk, landscaping is to be added to soften the sidewalk's appearance along the curb and to beautify the neighborhood. The Planning Commission requested the Council examine alternatives to concrete for the sidewalk. In addition, the exhibits show modified "bulb -outs" at the crosswalk locations to avoid intrusion into resident front/side yards.
Exhibit 1 highlights a meandering sidewalk and landscaping along Fairway Drive. The City has an average of 10 feet of right-of-way available to construct the sidewalk and landscaping along Fairway Drive. Additional right-of-way is desired to provide the meandering sidewalk and a greater level of enhanced landscaping throughout the entirety of the street. This is subject to approval by the Eldorado Country Club and the Vintage Club. Both communities have expressed a willingness to support the City, subject to design review.
Bicycle/golf cart safety: The Planning Commission recommended an eight -foot wide painted, joint -use bicycle/golf cart lane installed on the north and south side of Fairway Drive. A parking lane on the north side of Fairway Drive is to remain.
Traffic mitigation: The Planning Commission recommended stripping Fairway Drive with 10 -foot travel lanes. It was also recommended to install"Stop" signs at the intersections along Fairway Drive where warranted. Staff has initiated studies called "Stop Warrant
Studies" to evaluate and legally justify installing new stop signs, consistent with standards adopted by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans).
Eldorado Drive (Exhibit 2):
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council examine multiple pedestrian safety options for Eldorado Drive.
Sidewalk Options:
The Planning Commission did not recommend to the City Council a sidewalk adjacent to the curb on the east and west side of Eldorado Drive. Residents adjacent to Eldorado Drive expressed concern about privacy and security having a sidewalk behind their properties. Reducing Eldorado Drive from two lanes to one lane in each direction is recommended to provide sufficient space to accommodate the sidewalk and bike/golf cart facilities and create a larger buffer between pedestrians and adjacent homes.
As an alternative, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council evaluate widening the Eldorado Drive median to facilitate a meandering sidewalk down the middle of Eldorado Drive. For clarity, the median does not serve the entire length of Eldorado Drive. Sidewalks will still be needed on a portion of the northern and southern sections of the roadway.
Bicycle/golf cart safety: The Planning Commission recommended an eight -foot wide joint -use bicycle/golf cart lane installed on the east and west side of Eldorado Drive.
Traffic mitigation: The Planning Commission is recommending to stripe Eldorado Drive with 11 -foot travel lanes and providing a painted buffer between vehicles and bicyclists/golf carts. It was also recommended to perform the Stop Warrant study at the intersection of Eldorado Drive and Osage Trail for a potential installation of all -way stop control.
City Council Strategic Goal: This Safer Streets project is consistent with the City Council Strategic Goal to increase pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle safety along these corridors. This effort focuses on multi -modal transportation safety.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options available:
1. Provide staff direction on various design components to be incorporated into the final design for both Fairway and Eldorado Drive, and instruct staff to move forward with the designs of both Fairway and Eldorado Drive;
2. Provide staff direction on design components to be incorporated into the final design for both Fairway and Eldorado Drive and instruct staff to bring back those concepts for further discussion, before moving forward with the designs of both Fairway and Eldorado Drive;
3. Not move forward with the project; or
4. Provide alternative direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact depends on the Council direction and incorporation of the various design elements presented for the streets. The City's Capital Improvement Budget includes $4.5 million in funding for Phase I & II. This includes $1.6 million in grant funding that has been secured for Phase I. Once the specific improvements are identified and incorporated into the final design, staff will report back to the Council on the Engineer's Cost Estimate.
Staff will continue to seek additional grants and other funding for both Phase I and II of Safer Streets, as long as both projects remain on the City's Capital Improvement Project list.
It is important to note that grant funding for this project that has been secured is by reimbursement. If the Council decides not to move forward, the City will notify the grantor that the project is not moving forward so those funds can be allocated to another agency.
There is no penalty to the City for not accepting these grant funds.
In addition, if the project does not move forward, re -pavement projects for both Fairway and Eldorado will be added to the upcoming budget discussion in May 2025.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City acting as Lead Agency, has determined the Safer Streets Phase I project qualifies as being Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Fairway Drive Exhibit
2. Eldorado Drive Exhibit
3. Community Survey Results
Presentation January 30, 2025
City Council Meeting
SAFER STREETS
INDIAN , WELLS
CALIFORNIA
January 30, 2025
phase being consi
considerations alo
Concept Approval Timeline
Community
Meeting 2
NOVEMBER 20, 2024
1:30 PMCITY HALL
Community
Meeting 1
O� CTOBER 29, 2024
3 PM - CITY HALL
Planning
Commission
DECEMBER 12, 2024
1:30 PM - CITY HALL
City
Council
JANUARY 30, 2025
10:00 AM — City Hall
Fairway Drive Existing Condition
k ;;bpi �•�''
Eldorado Drive East/West Sidewalk
PLAN VIEW
m7
SECTION A -A
KEY POINTS
DC RAY
t aa! b:L
WALKWAY
PARKING
SB BIKF IANF
SB DRIVE LANE
NB DRIVE LANE
NBWALKWAY BIKL WNL
ELDORADO DRIVE
Eldorado Drive - Option 3 (south)
NORTHBOUND
- SINGLE 17 TRAVEL LANE
• BIKE LANE W1TH STRIPED BUFFER
SOUTH BOUND
- SINGLE 17 TRAVEL LANE
- BIKE LANE WITH STRIPED BUFFER
• PARKING LANE
• CURB ADJACENT WALKWAY
EXISTING CURB ON EAST SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE, CURB &
GLITTER IMPROVEMENTS ON WEST SIDE AND
AT INTERSECTIONS WHERE BULB -OUTS ARE
PROPOSED
lap mr—
Indian Wells Sale, Street
Concept Plan
Eldorado Drive South. Option 3
e rve auaevaewey-emfumsnana. P.( e-0wuuo-v O as IAMR. SOW. NaNiYe tY A,
Eldorado Sidewalks (both sides)
ELDORADO DRIVE PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS
INDIAN WELLS SAFER STREETS
DECEMBER 3, 2024
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Thank you!
Questions?
- "�jt ''� at .
t .l.
PARKING
LANE
Existing Conditions
EB
DRIVE LANE
Fairway Drive and Rancho Palmeras Drive Traffic Circle
Fairway Drive and Rancho Palmeras Drive Traffic Circle
EX. CURB
r PARXI G LANE
!r WE BWE GOLF CART LANE
10 B DRIVE LANE
PROP. TRAFFIC CIRCLE
EX RAM PROP. BULB OUT
Wf ES DRIVE LANE
•�Y119 BWVQOLF CART LANE
VAR -
D-If7 PROP. IBIS OUT - - -EX RPM
PROP. RAM
FAIRWAY DRIVE
VAR
EX. CURS
0 N
Fairway Drive and Eldorado Drive Roundabout
ROUNDABOUT
4 40- PARKING
LANE
WB
DRIVE LANE DRI
Fairway Drive and
Eldorado Drive
Roundabout
PLAN VIEW
SECTION A -A
KEY POINTS
Michael Baker
Iea*L
EX. R/W
BIKE/
BUFFEWAIMOr
SB DRIVE LANE
NB DRIVE LANE
NB BIK T LANE
ELDORADO DRIVE x cuae
NQRTH.BOl1ND
- SINGLE I P TRAVEL LANE
BIKE LANE WITH STRIPED BUFFER
- EXISTING CURB
SOUTH BOUND
-SINGLE 11 TRAVEL LANE
• BIKE LANE WITH STRIPED BUFFER
-EXISTING CURB
Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Eldorado Drive
Eldorado Drive
PLAN VIEW
EX. CURB
EP
EX. CURB
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
EX RAN -
1S
-
Li„14]:191,74
IN
SECTION B -B
EX A/W
ELDORADO DRIVE I
KEY POINTS
SINGLE 1r TRAVEL LANE IN EACH DIRECTION,
AND DEDICATED LEFT TURN POCKETS AT ALL
INTERSECTIONS
NORTHBOUND
• B BIKE/GOLF CART LANE WITH STRIPED
BUFFER
-EXISTING CURB
SOUTH BOUND
- BIKE/GOLF CART LANE WITH STRIPED
BUFFER
-EXISTING CURB
EXISTING MEDIAN ISLAND TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Indian Wells Saler Street
Concept Plan
Eldorado Drive
Eldorado Drive
PLAN VIEW
16'
I-
EX. CURB
SECTION C -C
KEY POINTS
EX. RIW
EX. CURB
W
EX. CURB -.
EX. RM/
EX. RAN
EX. CURB
SB BIKEIGOLF CART LANE B'
AMMIFAIPFAIP
ELDORADO DRIVE
U
1T
BUFFER
SB DRIVE LANE
EX MEDIAN ISLAND
B DRIVE LANE
`:BUFFER
KE/GOLF CART
1 Eldorado Drive
a
�\ N,- Mik Ni
Made with Streetmix
Michael Baker
SINGLE 11' TRAVEL LANE IN EACH DIRECTION,
DEDICATED LEFT TURN POCKETS AT AU.
INTERSECTIONS
NORTH BOUND
- B' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE WITH STRIPED
BUFFER
EXISTING CURB
SOUTH BOUND
- B' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE WITH STRIPED
BUFFER
EXISTING CURB
EXISTING MEDIAN ISLAND TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Eldorado Drive
Eldorado Drive
PLAN VIEW
c
15'
ELDORADO DRIVE
EX RAN
EX. CURB
« 48 4
_z
EX. RAN -
Ex CURB
CAMINO CIELO
(PRIVATE STREET)
e1!n:RnTT]
VIA MONTELENA
(PRIVATE STREET)
I
PROP. RAN
Ex RIW
ELDORADO DRIVE
DC CURB
a
r 41 4
r rE
13 j ...D
J ID
�►
ISLAND
NB TURN LANE
® r�illLi�d.iL?
S' NB BIKEIGOLF CART LANE
-. m--
EX. CURB
SIDEWALK
LU
Q
0 S
SECTION D -D
Eldorado Drive
'M • II.1 _ \Mk
, I .r
Made with Streetmix
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
KEY POINTS
SINGLE 11' TRAVEL LANE IN EACH DIRECTION,
DEDICATED LEFT TURN POCKETS AT ALL
INTERSECTIONS
NORTHBOUND
- S' BIKDGOLF CART LANE WITH STRIPED
BUFFER
- EXISTING CURB
SOUTH BOUND
- S BIKE/GOLF CART LANE WITH STRIPED
BUFFER
-EXISTING CURB
EXISTING MEDIAN ISLAND TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Eldorado Drive
Eldorado Drive
PLAN VIEW
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
SECTION A -A
KEY POINTS
SINGLE 17 TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
EAST BOUND
- 8' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
-8' MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ON BOTH SIDES
WEST BOUND
- 8' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
• PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
1 Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
Fairway Drive
PLAN VIEW
I
SECTION B -B
KEY POINTS
FAIRWAY DRIVE
PROP. CURB
I
Fairway Drive
n
I
4J
•
OutTEA
Made With Streetmix
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
I
We BIIOUDOLF CART LANE `.
WB DRIVE LANE
EB DRIVE LANE
EB BIKEIDOLF CART LANE
SIDEWALK
SINGLE ID TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
EAST BOUND
- B' BIKE GOLF CART LANE
- A MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ON BOTH SIDES
WEST BOUND
B' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
YAM e-ar
Indian Weft Safer Sweet
Concept Plan
ninny Drive
Fairway Drive
PLAN VIEW
PARKING LAN
WB BIKE/GOLF DATI,ANE
WB DRIVE LANE
EB DRIVE LANK
rEB BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
SECTION C -C
KEY POINTS
I—� U
—7• U
EX CURB VAR
Michael Baker
INTERNAlIDNAL
Fairway Drive Fairway Drive
Y1 AMR •
R -s 1 II v
EX RAN
/ EX. CURB
K
10 10
MEMICEIM
VAR .. —
PROP. CURB
SINGLE 10 TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
EAST BOUND
- B' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- S' MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ON BOTH SIDES
Y�EST BOUND
BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
Fairway Drive
PLAN VIEW
PARKING LANE
WB BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
We DRIVE LANE::
EB DRIVE LANE
EB BIKE/GOLF CART LANE---=.-_,.
SIDEWALK
VAR
VAR
SECTION D -D
EX RAW
PROP. RAN
O
EX CURB — 17
Fairway Drive
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
— /-
PROP CURB
FAIRWAY DRIVE
AR
8'
KEY POINTS
SINGLE 10' TRAVEL LAZES IN EACH DIRECTION
EASTBOUND
- 8' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
8' MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER. ON BOTH SIDES
WEST BOUND
- 8' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Indian Wells Safer Stmt
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
Fairway Drive
PLAN VIEW
FAIRWAY DRIVE
EX CURB
PARKING LAN
WB BIKEGOLF
WB DRIVE
EB DRIVE_WV
EB BIKEGOLF CART LANE ` "-�: 3.8
VAR
_ 8'
PROP. RYJ VAR
SIDEWALK
PROP. CURB -
SECTION E -E
KEY POINTS
Fairway Drive
•
-
Michael Bake
I•T•••ATIO•AL
SINGLE 1V TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
EAST BOUND
- B' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- B' MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ON BOTH SIDES
WEST BOUND
- B' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Inman Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
Fairway Drive
PLAN VIEW
SECTION F -F
KEY POINTS
Al VWEL_
K PROP. RNV - I
PROP. CURB ' +�
FAIRWAY DRIVE 1
�"S ■
Fairway Drive
I llirEgANn n AM n 771
i
itim • Olio W▪ e
.«. - Made with Streetmix
Michael Baker
IIIIIAL
SINGLE 1P TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
EASTBOUND
- B BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
-B MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ON BOTH SIDES
WEST BOUND
- 8' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
c Wa�aYttrtV.Mt+Wa�imrvenn-tnm�-rwa -r1mur 0111121.4 unac1k t iepeaa e.'� Fairway Drive
PLAN VIEW
EX. CURB
EX RN/
T 13'
:deg WB DRIVE LAN
- IiI+ 1!2'; j r EB DRNE LAN
8' SIDEWALK -
PROP. RhY
PROP CURB
FAIRWAY DRIVE
PROP. CURB -
Fairway Drive
Michael Baker
INTERMATIONAL
SECTION G -G
KEY POINTS
SINGLE 1D' TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
EAST BOUND
BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
-B' MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ON BOTH SIDES
WEST BOUND
lr BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
- PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
I.
1 Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
Fairway Drive
SECTION H -H
KEY POINTS
PROP. RAN
PROP. CURB -
FAIRWAY DRIVE
A
Fairway Drive
.—= "M 1
2 Made with Streetmix
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
SINGLE 1 V TRAVEL LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
EAST BOUND
8' BIKEIGOLF CART LANE
- 8' MEANDERING WALKWAY WITH VARIABLE
WIDTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ON BOTH SIDES
WESTBOUND
- 8' BIKE/GOLF CART LANE
PARKING LANE
EXISTING CURB ON NORTH SIDE OF THE
STREET TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Indian Wells Safer Street
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
Fairway Drive
PLAN VIEW
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Indian Wells Seer Street
Concept Plan
Fairway Drive
SPITS` of
Fairway Drive
City Council Meeting- January 30,
2025: Public Comment
GB Item I.2- Safer Street
The Vintage Club's Written Submission Re Safer Streets Project, Agenda Item I.2 1/30/2025 City Council Meeting
Submitted by Vincent Whittaker, Esq.
Buchalter, APC
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for the Vintage Club
• The Vintage Club is committed to protecting its property interests adjacent to Fairway Drive and Cook Street, but is willing to work with the City to understand the extent and scope of the recommended improvements to be made. We believe the concept has not yet been developed enough to support moving forward.
The Agenda identifies this matter as the "review" of "design recommendations" for the completion of the Safer Streets Project along Fairway and Eldorado Drive (Phase I), but the Staff Report recommended action is for the Council to "evaluate" and "adopt" the recommended improvements.
• At this juncture, there are far too many open-ended questions and matters to be resolved before the Council should instruct staff to proceed with these improvements. • First, the scope of the project is not clear. Regarding the existing south curb location, the Staff Report explains that the City has an average of 10 feet of right- of-way available to construct the sidewalk and landscaping, but this assertion has not been verified.
"The "[a]dditional right-of-way is desired to provide the meandering sidewalk and a greater level of enhanced landscaping throughout the entirety of the street." Significantly, the Staff Report continues that "This is subject to approval by the Eldorado Country Club and the Vintage Club.
Both communities have expressed a willingness to support the City, subject to design review." The Vintage Club does not support this until more details are known and verified.
-- How can the City proceed without knowing if it actually has rights to that property AND exactly how much property will be needed to accomplish its goal? For example, have dog waste stations, screened from view, been incorporated into the setback measurement? The City needs to conduct a survey to determine what its actual rights are.
- Does the City intend to pursue eminent domain for the additional right-of- way should negotiations fail?
— What designs have been provided to the Vintage Club for review? Has the Vintage Club been invited to provide their own design ideas for review or modifications to the design?
BN 86862030v1
- The Staff Report does not state, and the Vintage Club has not indicated, that it approves the proposed design. Nor has the City approached the Vintage Club with an offer for the "additional right-of-way" which is odd. Usually the City needs all right-of-way issues resolved before proceeding with design and construction.
• Second, the proposed renderings fail to illustrate what the "improvements" will look like at the corner of Cook Street and Fairway Drive. - This is significant because this is where the Vintage Club's main gate and entrance are located. The Vintage Club has a signature iconic entrance of 50 tree date palm grove surrounding its entrance that it would prefer remain undisturbed.
- City staff has only met once with the Vintage Club HOA. This was last week in a quick and informal introduction regarding the placement of the sidewalk in front of the entrance and main gate...
- Should the City be planning to remove trees or landscaping belonging to the Vintage Club, the Vintage Club needs to be reimbursed accordingly. - What about the existing lighting? How will that be handled? What about dispensers and receptacles for dog waste that will surely increase in this area? Are those planned? Why/not?
• Third, the City has not "made its case" that a sidewalk is needed or appropriate. — No statistics regarding accidents involving pedestrians. Do sidewalks actually slow down traffic? Any studies?
Feedback from the community supported the status quo; meaning no sidewalk necessary.
- Everyone seems to be in agreement that traffic needs to be slowed down or mitigated on Fairway, but a meandering sidewalk and additional golf cart lane is not the obvious —nor the most effective —solution.
The Vintage represents a significant presence in the City —$2B worth of residential property plus the clubhouse and golf courses —they are big taxpayers with a significant interest in this purported improvement. • Fourth, this project should not be divided into phases the way it is —the juncture of Cook and Fairway are such that one cannot be completed without the other. — Nothing proposed for what is being done with this intersection. • In sum, there are far too many unknown elements at this juncture for the City Council to responsibly recommend proceeding with the design. The scope of the project needs to be
BN 86862030v1
more clearly defined, verified and a concrete plan in place for how the design will accommodate existing improvements by the Vintage Club. Further, if the City intends to acquire property from the Vintage Club to expand its right-of-way, such negotiations need to be completed prior to proceeding with the project. Should the City proceed without such negotiations and ultimately impact the Vintage Club's property, it risks the spectre of an inverse condemnation action.
BN 86862030v1
P;
City Council Meeting- January 30, 2025: Public Comment
GB Item I.2- Safer Street
A RESOLUTION OF THE DORADO VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS.
Whereas, Dorado Villas is a 120 -home community located at Fairway Drive and Cook Street in the City of Indian Wells, California.
Whereas, the Dorado Villas Homeowners Association Board of Directors is elected by its members to speak for and make policy and budget decisions for the 120 Dorado Villas homeowners.
Whereas, Dorado Villas homeowners desire to preserve their property values and enhance their quality of life which we believe are also priorities for the City of Indian Wells, and for the majority of homeowners, residents and businesses within our city.
Whereas, Dorado Villas homeowners and residents prioritize outdoor living activities as an important part of the healthy and desirable lifestyle in this warm and dry California desert valley.
Whereas, Dorado Villas homeowners and residents also prioritize personal safety in outdoor activities including walking, walks with pets or children, walks to patronize Indian Wells Village businesses, running or jogging, bicycling, and golf cart use - all activities that are not safe to do in the vehicle lanes of Cook Street and Fairway Drive.
Whereas, Dorado Villas HOA is aware of California's 2023 law, AB 1572, which prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate "non-functional turf" in homeowner's association common areas.
HOA's must certify compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board not later than January 1, 2029. Non-functional turf is defined as grass not used for yard play, recreation, sports, or tree growth (i.e. the grass outside of our community walls).
Whereas, the City Council of Indian Wells previously moved decisions to make public safety and multi -modal investments on Cook Street between Fairway Drive and Highway 111 at least six years ago and has not followed through with that decision.
Whereas, many Dorado Villas homeowners have advocated to the City of Indian Wells for these safety measures and improvements by signing petitions, writing emails, attending meetings, and completing surveys or online comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DORADO VILLAS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT WE STRONGLY URGE THE CITY OF INDIAN
WELLS TO PURSUE, APPROVE, AND IMPLEMENT THESE PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COOK STREET AND ON FAIRWAY DRIVE.
The HOA Board is also interested in discussions and actions to transfer the Dorado Villas Homeowners Association property on Cook Street for the entire length of our community wall for use in completing a public sidewalk and for street calming measures. The Board may also consider transferring its HOA property on Fairway Drive for the entire length of our community wall for use in completing a public sidewalk and for street calming measures.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED unanimously by the Dorado Villas Homeowners Association at a Regular Board Meeting on the 15'h of January 2025 Roger Sfanard, HOA President
Marcie Maxwell, HOA Secretary
City Council Meeting: 1/30/2025
Public Comment
General Business Item I.1
To: The Clerk of Indian Wells
January 30, 2025
Recommendations for Cook Street Safety Improvements
From:
Mary and Mark Ellsworth
Indian Wells, CA 92210
1. Put a 4 way stop sign at the intersection next to the entrances of The Cove at IW and The Province. Prevent U-turns here.
2. Put a lighted digital speed/"slow down" sign on Cook St.
3. Add a sidewalk on the East side (at least) of Cook St. from shopping area to Fairway. A sidewalk in the median would not be best because it would require pedestrians to cross the street to get to it.
4. Prevent left turns out of shopping center (next to IW Coffee —entrance too close to 111; we almost had auto accident with 111/Cook red light running/speeding motorcycle heading South on Cook St. We have seen many near accidents there.
5. To implement #4, extend the median flower garden to alleviate pass -through for left turns on Cook St.
6. Highway 111 - put traffic cameras in operation to deter red light runners and speeders.
Thank you!
Angelica Avila
City Council Meeting: 1/30/2025
Public Comment
General Business Item 1.1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brian Penna
Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:56 AM
Chris Freeland; Angelica Avila
Fwd: Safer Streets
CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization. Be cautious with any links or attachments.
Good morning, please find the forwarded email from resident John Camacho.
Brian Penna
Forwarded message
From: Camacho Family
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Subject: Safer Streets
To: [email protected] ,[email protected]
, [email protected] ,
[email protected] ,[email protected]
, [email protected]
Good afternoon, Mayor, and Council members.
My name is John Camacho and I live at I have been to all the meetings and I have participated in all of the surveys. I don't understand how the Committee came up with no speed humps. In the meetings, I heard more people voicing their opinion on wanting speed humps versus not wanting them.
What I would like to see is a raised crosswalk between the entrance to the Dorado Villas and Azure Hills. We have a lot of people who park on the north side of Fairway and cross to the south to play with and walk their dogs. This would provide a safe crossing. I would also like a stop sign (or something to slow the speed) on Fairway Drive and Azure Hills. That is the corner I live on.
Thank you for hearing me out and I appreciate your efforts in making a safer (and slower) Indian Wells.
John Camacho
1 City Council Meeting- January 30, 2025: Public Comment GB Item I.2- Safer Street
Angelica Avila
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
carol kent
Friday, January 24, 2025 2:12 PM
Angelica Avila
Fw: Proposed changes to Eldorado drive
Flag for follow up
Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization. Be cautious with any links or attachments.
Greetings Angelica,
Would you kindly include this email for public record at the next city council meeting on January 30th, 2025.
Thanks very much,
Carol Kent
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Begin forwarded message:
On Thursday, January 23, 2025, 5:41 PM, carol kent v rote:
Greetings Mr Mayor and city council members!
Let me begin by saying how much my husband and I love living in Indian Wells and the stellar job you do everyday to keep our city running smoothly.
This note will express my concerns about the proposed changes to Eldorado drive in Indian wells.
As a resident, I strongly believe that altering the current configuration of Eldorado drive would be a mistake.
Current layout:
. Provides easy access from Fairway to Hwy 111
.Maintains the unique character and charm of our neighborhood .To my knowledge, current layout has never proved to be dangerous .Many residents agree that spending the city grant and matching funds is not necessary on
Eldorado Drive
1 Changing Eldorado could:
.Increase congestion by reducing lanes causing backups and frustration .Disrupt community's quality of life
.Create less pedestrian safety by crossing street to get to center sidewalk .Will do nothing to address the real safety problems on hwy 111 I urge you to focus on keeping the alterations simple. The first meeting hosted by the consultant never included a "no change " option. Eldorado Drive is not dangerous and I feel, like many others, that reducing lanes, ripping apart our beautiful median and putting a sidewalk in the middle of the street, is not necessary.
Respectfully,
Carol Kent
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
2 City Council Meeting- January 30, 2025: Public Comment GB Item I.2- Safer Street