revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will maintain our streets and roads in a "good" condition; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide; and
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND APPROVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The 2025-26 list of projects planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues include:
Project Name: Traffic Signal Fiber Improvements
Description: Install approximately 10,750 linear feet of new underground conduit and fiber optic cable along Farrell Drive, El Cielo Road, and Baristo Road to enhance traffic signal
communications. Remove existing wireless radio equipment at signalized intersections and transition these locations to a fiber-based network. Upgrade traffic signal infrastructure as necessary and reconfigure traffic equipment to ensure
integration with the City’s fiber communications system, improving reliability, operational efficiency, and roadway safety.
Estimated Useful Life: 25 Years
Est. Construction Year: End of 2026
ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF June 2025.
SCOTT C. STILES, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
_____
BRENDA PREE, CITY CLERK
Item 1Q - Page 6
Resolution No. _____
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, BRENDA PREE, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. _____ is a full, true and correct copy as was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on June 11, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____
BRENDA PREE, CITY CLERK
City of Palm Springs, California
Item 1Q - Page 7
Attachment B
Item 1Q - Page 8
TRAFFIC SIGNAL FIBER IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED CITY FIBER & CONDUIT
PROPOSED CITY FIBER
(per separate project)
TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO BE CONNECTED
TO PROPOSED FIBER NETWORK
EXISTING CVAG FIBER
LEGEND
Item 1Q - Page 9
111
De rt
Hghbnd
Fark
W San Raia I Rd
~
~
.. ..
~
' f
I
I
E Racque , Club Rd
c I
I
I
I
E ~ hia Rd
E Paseo El Mirado '
I
E Tachevah Dr I
c
"' ~
E .;
E Amado Rd i
I
•
E Via Escuela
"' n
(/)
., ..
!;
w
ti)
Polm Spnrgs
lntermllorul
Airport
E Sunny Dunes Rd
E Me quite Ave
Demuth ParJ..
c
Verona
QuijoR
Peineta
Ctn
'o ... C
Cl f
~ , ..
a: .,
'5
.:.J
C ..
(/)
E Rill
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
06/11/2025
SUBJECT:
AN APPLICATION BY JULI SAVITT-CAVNAR AND ADAM CAVNAR FOR HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION OF “THE RICHARD AND SIGNE HOLECHEK RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE (APN 681-242-008), CASE HSPB #163 (SY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Open the public hearing and receive public testimony. 1.
Close the public hearing and adopt Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
DESIGNATING THE RICHARD AND SIGNE HOLECHEK RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, AS A CLASS 1 (LANDMARK) HISTORIC RESOURCE HSPB #163, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (APN 681-242-008).”
2. Attachments
Item 2A
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 11 , 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION BY JULI SAVITT-CAVNAR AND ADAM CAVNAR FOR HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION OF “THE RICHARD AND SIGNE
HOLECHEK RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE
(APN 681-242-008), CASE HSPB #163 (SY)
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY:
2395 Pebble Beach Drive is a single-family residence located in the Green Fairway Estates designed by architect Donald Wexler and constructed by the Alexander Construction Company. This residential tract from the post-World War II period consists of 35 homes that abut the public golf course. The home was built in 1965 as a full-time residence marketed to the middle-class as “golf-course living” with affordable green fees.
The home is an exceptional representation of Mid-century Modern residential design. It emphasizes functional design qualities needed for full-time residency yet fully embraces the leisure lifestyle o f Palm Springs as a golf course single- family residential development. It is also the last residential tract development by the Alexanders before their fatal plane crash in 1965.
If designated as a historic resource, the property would be subject to the regulations outlined in Section 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (PSMC).
The HSPB and staff evaluated the application in accordance with the historic designation ordinance and applicable state/federal regulations, and determined it qualifies as a Class 1 (Landmark) historic site.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2. Close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No . _____, “A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
DESIGNATING THE RICHARD AND SIGNE HOLECHEK RESIDENCE
Item 2A - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025 – Page 2
Historic Designation – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, AS A CLASS 1 ( LANDMARK) HISTORIC RESOURCE HSPB #163, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (APN 681-242- 008).”
BACKGROUND AND SETTING:
The attached historic resources report, prepared by Juli Savitt-Cavnar and Adam Cavnar (“the report”) and site visits are the basis of this staff report.
Related Relevant City Actions by HSPB, Planning, Fire, Building, etc.
February, 2025 Site inspection by members of the HSPB and City Staff.
March, 2025 HSPB considered the application for designation at a public hearing recommending Class 1 designation.
Ownership Status
May, 2019 Purchased by current owners.
EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION FROM PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, 2025.
The historic designation request was initiated by the homeowners and the historic resources report supports the reclassification of the site as a Class 1 landmark. HSPB made the staff-recommended findings in support of Class 1 designation.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
The analysis of the application relative to the criteria for the designation of historic resources is detailed in the attached HSPB resolution and staff report dated March 4, 2025. To be designated a historic landmark, a resource must exhibit exceptional historic significance and meet one or more of the criteria listed in PSMC Section 8.05.070.C.1.a.
The Board made findings in support of Class 1 ( Landmark) designation based on the following criteria:
Item 2A - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025 – Page 3
Historic Designation – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
PSMC 8.05.070, (C,1,Part a). The site, structure, building, or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:
(Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state, or local history;
(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;
The Board also made findings pursuant to PSMC 8.05.070, (5,C,1,Part b); “Historic Integrity” that the Richard and Signe Holechek Residence possesses sufficient historic integrity to qualify as a Class 1 (Landmark) historic site.
During the March 4, 2025 HSPB meeting, the Board discussed the application and made findings that support Class 1 historic site designation. Member Hansen suggested the 1966 swimming pool and Roman tub be added as contributing features and the outdoor pavers be added as non-contributing features to the HSPB resolution. She also requested for more details about the development history from the report be added under Criterion iii.
CONCLUSION:
The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence meets the definition of a historic resource based on Criteria 3 and 5 of the Palm Springs Historic Preservation Ordinance. The property possesses integrity to qualify as a Class 1 ( Landmark) site . The HSPB recommendation to the City Council reflects these findings which are outlined in the attached draft City Council resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Section 94.09.00 (Public Hearing) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, notice has been mailed to all property owners and residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property and notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation.
Item 2A - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025 – Page 4
Historic Designation – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
REVIEWED BY:
Department Director: Christopher Hadwin
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Teresa Gallavan for Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map.
B. Draft Resolution.
C. Application, related background materials, photos.
D. HSPB resolution, staff report, minute excerpt.
Item 2A - Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
Item 2A - Page 5
Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
HSPB #163 – Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
2395 Pebble Beach Drive
Item 2A - Page 6
Legend
D 500 ft Radius
~ Site
~ Parce ls
•
. .
W E . .
.
s
ATTACHMENT B
Item 2A - Page 7
RESOLUTION NO._____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE RICHARD AND
SIGNE HOLECHEK RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE
BEACH DRIVE, AS A CLASS 1 ( LANDMARK) HISTORIC
RESOURCE HSPB #1 63, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (APN 681 -
242-008).
THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. WHEREAS, Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code allows for the designation of historic sites and districts; and
B. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs initiated an application, Case HSPB #163, seeking historic site designation of The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence located at 2395 Pebble Beach Drive; and
C. WHEREAS, on February 25 and 27, 2025, members of the Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB) and City staff conducted site inspections of the proposed historic resource; and
D. WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025, a noticed public hearing of the Palm Springs Historic Site Preservation Board to consider Case HSPB #163 was held in accordance with applicable law; and
E. WHEREAS, at said hearing, the HSPB carefully reviewed and considered all the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report and all written and oral testimony and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council designate The Dr. Harry and Betty Garber Residence a Class 1 ( Landmark) historic resource; and
F. WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, a noticed public hearing of the Palm Springs City Council to consider Case HSPB #163 was held in accordance with applicable law; and
G. WHEREAS, at the said hearing, the City Council carefully reviewed and considered all the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to the staff report and all written and oral testimony.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS – PART “A”, CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES.
Evaluation of the Application. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.070 (C,1,a), the City Council shall evaluate the application and make findings in conformance with the following criteria:
Criteria for the Designation of Class 1 Historic Resources. A site, structure, building or object may be designated as a Class 1 historic resource, provided both of the following findings (“a” and “b”) are met:
Item 2A - Page 8
Resolution No.____
June 11, 2025
a. The site, structure, building, or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:
2395 Pebble Beach Drive is a single-family home constructed in the Mid-century Modern style.
The H -shaped floor plan appears to be the basic layout for all of the models and the site placement of the homes abut s the golf course. Many character -defining elements on the front façade of the home have been restored and the new addition completed in 2022 has no adverse impact to the original design. The following is an analysis of the criterion and integrity findings for historic designation.
(Criterion i) The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state, or community;
No meaningful event is associated with this site, thus does not qualify under Criterion i.
(Criterion ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state or local history;
Richard and Signe Holechek are the first owners of the home in November of 1965. Deed records show at least 6 different entities owning the property since its construction. Based on the information provided in the historic resources report, the site is not associated with individuals that meet this criterion.
(Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state, or local history;
Palms Springs during the postwar period reflects growth, prosperity and leisure. Housing for full- time residents meant the design now incorporates functional qualities to address the harsh summer conditions of the desert by creating more space for storage and garages instead of carports to protect cars and golf carts from the elements year -round. The aesthetic qualities of the home include post-and-beam construction, deep overhangs, stacked stone walls, and floor- to-ceiling fenestration. The home is a simple low -slung gabled roof structure with stone walls creating articulation along the front façade. The integrated placement of the home to the public golf course is a reflection of “golf course single- family residential development” during this period. The home is an exemplary representation of Mid- century Modern architecture but more importantly, it is an example of a new residential typology that highlights the importance of golf as a leisure activity and its impact on urban design.
As a residential home built in the post -World War II context, the home was one of five “Wentworth” models in the Green Fairway Estate tract built by the Alexanders. By this time, the Alexanders had completed more than 2,000 homes in the Coachella Valley and helped define postwar residential construction in Palm Springs. Green Fairway Estates is also the last tract development by the Alexanders. The City Council finds Criterion iii is met.
(Criterion iv) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction;
Item 2A - Page 9
Resolution No.____
June 11, 2025
Unlike the National Register criterion concerning construction, the Palm Springs evaluation of construction addresses the type (of construction), the period (of construction) and the method (of construction). The home was constructed using conventional met hods and no new building materials or technology was specifically identified. Criterion iv is not met.
(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;
By 1965, Alexander Construction had already solidified their reputation as one of the most influential developers in the region with over a dozen residential tract developments completed.
When developing the Green Fairway Estates, the Alexanders approached architect Donald Wexler to design the models for the development. Considered one of t he main architects representing Desert Modernism and the Palm Springs School of Architecture, Wexler’s genius and influence is captured in his projects throughout the valley including the Palm Springs International Airport, which was completed the following year in 1966. Although 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is not a custom-designed home, the architectural features and versatility of the plan demonstrates the architect’s knowledge of materials and tract home development. A tragic plane crash in 1965 took the liv es of George and Robert Alexander making Green Fairway Estates their last tract development. The home embodies the collaboration between Wexler and the Alexanders, thus Criterion v for historic significance is met.
(Criterion vi) The resource represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, as used in evaluating applications for designation of historic districts, for parcels on which more than one entity exists; or
The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi.
(Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.
No information has been provided on any pre-historic significance of the site.
SECTION 2: PART “B” ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY.
Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C,1,b). The site, structure, building, or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.
The report provides an evaluation of the site relative to the seven aspects or qualities of historic integrity, as recognized by the National Register of Historic Places. The seven aspects or qualities include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The report concludes that the site retains a high degree of integrity and is further analyzed below:
Item 2A - Page 10
Resolution No.____
June 11, 2025
1. Location:
The home is in its original location on the lot; therefore, the integrity of location is met.
2. Design:
Wexler designed 9 floor plans for this residential development to have the versatility to be rotated or mirrored on any given lot. Various roof forms, including those inspired by Polynesian/Southeast Asian architecture, exist; however, this home has a low -slung gable roof form that focuses on the stacked stone walls as the key architectural feature. The floor plan for 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is known as the “Wentworth.” The H -shaped floor plan organizes the interior spaces in two separate wings that effectively separate the public spaces from the private spaces. As one enters the home, the entry is oriented towards an unobstructed view of the mountains beyond the adjacent golf course, and the view of the landscape is framed through the open courtyard. The am ount of glazing on the front elevation is limited, giving the home a feeling of monumentality but light is directed into the living space through the 9- bay floor-to- ceiling window configuration behind the trapezoidal rock wall. The deep eaves and enclosed garage enhance the livability of the home by taking the summer conditions into account. The surrounding landscape features are minimal and do not obscure the home from view. Insensitive alterations to the front façade were removed and the 2022 attached addition, which enclosed a smaller courtyard, has a subordinate roofline that does not create a negative visual impact to the existing design. The City Council finds the restored resource meets the integrity of the original design by Wexler.
3. Setting:
The original setting of the home is integral to its relationship to the golf course, which is effectively a large open green space. The home retains its location and the surrounding setting of the golf course remains intact, thus the integrity of setting is met.
4. Materials:
The home was built with materials that were commonly used during this period and the restored fenestration remains true to the original design. The stacked stone walls remain a prominent feature and are well maintained. The overall integrity of material is met.
5. Workmanship:
The home was constructed using conventional methods of construction and commonly used materials; however, the stone walls found both inside and outside the home reveal a high level of workmanship and attention to detail. The City Council finds the integrity of workmanship remains intact.
6. Feeling:
The simple design of the home and its strong connection to the original setting of the golf course preserves the original feeling of the site design.
Item 2A - Page 11
Resolution No.____
June 11, 2025
7. Association:
The property is associated with architect Donald Wexler and the Alexander Construction Company, as well as the Mid-century Modern Movement of the post-World War II period.
SECTION 3: DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS
In considering a recommendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that contribute to the resource’s historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character-defining features from non-original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.
The following is a list of character-defining features identified by the City Council:
Character-defining features of the resource are as follows:
• Site design and placement of the home abutting the open and unobstructed views of the open green space
• An emphasis on horizontality with low slung, asymmetrically pitched roof • Trapezoidal stacked stone walls on the east (front) elevation • 9- bay floor to ceiling windows behind the stone walls on the east elevation • Minimal window to wall ratio on the front elevation
• Vertical wood siding
• H- shaped floor plan that divides the private and public spaces • Deep overhangs and recessed entry with solid double doors • Post- and-beam construction with exposed beams along the exterior eaves of the building • Extensive use of glazing in the form of aluminum-framed windows and doors • Open courtyard to the rear of the home beyond the front entry with beams that expand across the space
• Stacked stone mailbox column that matches the main house • The original 1966 Prestige swimming pool
• “Champagne glass” fireplace in front of a stone wall (interior feature) • Roman tub with original tiles (interior feature)
Non-contributing elements:
• The 2022 attached casita addition to the southwest corner of the home • Non-original hardscaping
• Spa and tanning shelf
• Concrete block perimeter walls
• Rooftop photovoltaic system
• Brise soleil at front façade
• Concrete paving materials
Item 2A - Page 12
Resolution No.____
June 11, 2025
SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly.
SECTION 5: CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO HISTORIC SITES:
According to Section 8.05 of the Municipal Code, the following shall apply to a Class 1 Historic Resource:
1. It shall meet the definition of a Class 1 historic site as outlined in Municipal Code Section
8.05.020.
2. An archival file on the property shall be maintained by the City.
3. It may be qualified as ‘historic’ at the federal, state, and/or county level.
4. The structure/site may not be modified, nor objects removed without following the procedures outlined in Municipal Code Section 8.05.110 “Demolition or Alteration of Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Resources – Certificate of Appropriateness”.
5. A marker explaining the historic nature of the site may be installed at the site in a location viewable from the public way.
6. Compliance with all rules and regulations for Historic Sites and Historic Districts under Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code shall be required.
7. The site shall not be further subdivided.
8. The City Clerk shall submit the Council Resolution to the County recorder for recordation within 90 days of the effective date of the Council’s resolution.
Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby designates The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence located at 2395 Pebble Beach Drive, a Class 1 (Landmark) Historic Resource (Case HSPB #163).
ADOPTED THIS ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, 2025.
SCOTT STILES
CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
BRENDA PREE, MMC
CITY CLERK
Item 2A - Page 13
Resolution No.____
June 11, 2025
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, BRENDA PREE, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. ____ is a full, true, and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on _______________________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
BRENDA PREE, MMC
CITY CLERK
Item 2A - Page 14
ATTACHMENT C
Item 2A - Page 15
Nomination Application for
City Of Palm Springs Class 1
Historic Resource
Donald Wexler, F.A.I.A.
1965
Juli Savitt-Cavnar and Adam Cavnar
Applicants/homeowners
12/3/2024 Final Draft Revised
2395 Pebble Beach Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Item 2A - Page 16
1 Acknowledgements
The applicants gratefully wish to thank
the following individuals/organizations for
their professional expertise and/or assistance:
Gary Johns
Steve Vaught
Frank Lopez of the Palm Springs Architecture and Design Museum AMROCK Title Co.
Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.
Item 2A - Page 17
2 2395 Pebble Beach Drive
Class 1 Historic Resource Nomination
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION: PAGE 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: PAGE 3
CLASS 1 HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGNATION APPLICATION FORM: PAGE 5 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: PAGE 8
BACKGROUND/HISTORIC CONTEXT: PAGE 30
EVALUATION FOR CLASS 1 RESOURCE DESIGNATION: PAGE 31
INTEGRITY ANALYSIS: PAGE 32
APPENDICES
I Owner’s Notarized Letter of Support: Page 39
II Assessor Map: Page 41
III Google Earth Image Page 42
IV Chain of Title: Page 43
V Building Permits: Page 44
VI Biography of Original Owners: Page 45
VII Chain of Ownership Page 48
VIII Donald Wexler Biography: Page 49
IX George Alexander Biography: Page 53
X Current Imagery/Details: Page 58
IX Grant Deed: Page 63
Item 2A - Page 18
3 Introduction
The purpose of the Class 1 and Class 2 designation is to recognize community resources such as buildings, structures and sites within the City of Palm Springs which may be protected, enhanced, and perpetuated to promote public awareness, education, and enj oyment of historic resources within the City of Palm Springs. Identification of historically significant places and the reasons why they are important helps inform the City Council, the Planning Commission and City staff in evaluating new development propo sals and opportunities for enhancing the beauty and livability of Palm Springs through adaptive reuse, preservation, and integration of historic resources. In April 2024, t he Property Owners, Juli-Savitt Cavnar and Adam Cavnar , began writing the subject property’s Class 1 nomination with the assistance of Steve Vaught, an advisory board member of the Palm Springs Preservation Foundation.
Item 2A - Page 19
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SIGNIFICANCE:
2395 Pebble Beach Drive is a single -story residence designed by modernist master Donald Wexler for the Alexander Construction Co. in 1965. The home is a fine example of the modern style and exhibits numerous character-defining features that place it within the historic context of the Palm Springs Modern period (1945-1969) as defined in the Citywide Historic Context & Survey Findings created by Historic Resources Group. The period of significance for the house has been established as 1965, the year of its completion.
The home was built as a component of the Green Fairway Estates tract, which, despite the major names with which it associated, has remained a relatively unknown work in the careers of both Wexler and the Alexanders. Built along the fairways of the Palm Springs Municipal Golf Course (today known as the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course), Green Fairway Estates was planned on a more intimate scale than typical Alexander developments, with just 35 homes completed in total.
Despite the small scale, Wexler designed a group of 9 different model choices, creating the illusion of a custom rather than tract development. 2395 Pebble Bech Drive was one of only 5 models in the “Wentworth” design plan. While ostensibly a tract house, the home has the look and feel of a custom home owing to the high quality of materials used in its construction and the artistic design work of Donald Wexler.
2395 Pebble Beach Drive represents an excellent and largely intact example of how, in the hands of masters, an otherwise standard tract house can be transformed beyond basic housing into an architectural statement with its own sense of uniqueness despite being part of a larger group.
DESIGNATION CRITERIA:
2395 Pebble Beach Drive has not previously been evaluated for Class 1 historic resource eligibility as part of the Citywide Historic Context Statement & Survey Findings created by Historic Resources Group.
Criteria for the Designation of a Class 1 Historic Resource: Pursuant to the Palm Springs Municipal Code (PSMC) Section 8.05.070.C.1.: A site, structure, building or object may be designated as a Class 1 historic resource, provided one or more of the criteria in subsections “a” and “b” are met. Refer to the U.S. Department of the Interior Natio nal Register Bulletin “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” of potentially historic resources for further information.
Based on the analysis outlined in this Historic Resources Report beginning on page 30, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive meets two of the seven eligibility criteria for designation as a Class 1 Palm Springs Historic Resource. The relevant criteria are outlined in Municipal Code Section
8.05.070.C.1.a: (iii) Exemplifies a particular period in local history; and (v) Presents the work of master architects, each whose individual genius influenced their age (i.e. peers, profession), and possess high artistic value.
Additionally, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive retains a “high degree” of historic integrity as outlined in Municipal Code Section 8.05.070.C.1.b in terms of Design, Materials, Workmanship, Location, Setting, Feeling, and Association (see Section 7, “Integrity Analysis”).
Item 2A - Page 20
5 Item 2A - Page 21
6 Item 2A - Page 22
7 Item 2A - Page 23
8 Statement of Significance
____________________________________________________________________________
Summary
Completed in 1965, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is located on Lot 45 of Tract 2808 Fairway Garden Estates, which appears to have been the original name of the tract before it became known as Green Fairway Estates. The Riverside County Assessor lists the home as having a total floor space of 1,704 sq. ft with a 375 sq. ft addition on a 0.26-acre lot. The APN # is 681-242-008. The home is located along the 7 th fairway of the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course formerly known as the Palm Springs Municipal Golf Course.
A portion of the tract map of Green Fairway Estates showing the location of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive. Note that the street was known as San Jose Way at the time of the map’s production.
Item 2A - Page 24
9 Green Fairway Estates Pre-History
If plans had gone through, the site of Green Fairway Estates would have been a major thoroughbred horse racing complex.
(Via Desert Sun 6/11/1953)
The site of t he Green Fairway Estates tract was originally part of a tract of approximately 332 acres owned by Palm Springs pioneers Pearl and Austin McManus. In 1953, this property became the proposed site of the multimillion-dollar Palm Springs Turf Club, a thoroughbred horse racing venue that would include a 5,000-seat grandstand, clubhouse with a capacity of 2,000 guests, and terraces that could hold an additional 15,000. The plans resulted in a fierce debate within Palm Springs that lasted nearly 5 years before the State Horse Racing Board’s decision to deny the application was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In 1958, the old race track site was purchased by the Westview Development Corporation which announced plans to turn the site into a $15,000,000 luxury golf resort to be known as the Palm Springs Golf Club . The plans included an 18 -hole championship golf course designed by Lawrence Hughes, 240 garden cottages, 300 fairway homesites, a “major” resort hotel, shopping center and club house. “This is unquestionably the biggest project ever undertaken in the Palm Springs area,” declared Westview’s vice president and prominent Palm Springs resident Frank Bogert. “Nothing this size has ever been planned before.”
By midway 1958, the ambitious plans were proving to be too ambitious for Westview, which was struggling to continue financing the project as they worked to complete the golf course. At this time a solution appeared in the form of the City of Palm Springs, which had long desired to have Item 2A - Page 25
10 a public golf course but no suitable site had ever been found. The Palm Springs Golf Club site proved to be the right option at the right time for both Palm Springs and Westview and in February 1959, a lease with option to purchase agreement was signed b etween the parties. Ultimately, Palm Springs did exercise its option to purchase the course, which today is known as the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course, and continues to be open to the public.
While the city had taken control of the course itself, the surrounding land remained in the hands of Westview Development Corporation, which continued with their plans to subdivide the property into different homesites. The tract, known as the Palm Spring s Golf Club tract (Units 101-103), was developed along the western side of the property and included Broadmoor Drive, Brentwood Drive, Bob O Link Drive, Cherry Hills Drive, Menlo Circle and Oswego Circle. This tract was developed between 1959-1965, with original homes designed by prominent Los Angeles architect William M. Bray.
Green Fairway Estates
George and Bob Alexander taken from the Green Fairway Estates sales brochure.
In November 1964, attention finally turned to the east side of the golf course property with the announcement of plans for a new subdivision to be called Green Fairway Estates. Officially designated as Tract 2808, t his subdivision would be developed not by Westview, but rather the Alexander Construction Company, a virtual guarantee of high quality.
After decades of development experience in the San Fernando Valley and other parts of the Los Angeles area, George Alexander shifted his focus on the rapidly developing Coachella Valley. In 1955, his company, the Alexander Construction Company which he ran with his son Robert , began building homes in Palm Springs. The Alexanders had arrived in Palm Springs at a time when it was on the cusp of its greatest popularity with demand for homes far exceeding availability. And while Palm Springs had originally been the playground of the wealthy, by the 1950s it was drawing the middle class who were seeking their own place in the sun.
The Alexanders started out with a series of relatively modest sized homes in South Palm Springs, but continued to upgrade with each new development. The Alexanders had plenty of competition Item 2A - Page 26
11 from such prolific builders as Jack Meiselman and Roy and, in order to set their homes apart, they invested in the services of architects, most often Palmer & Krisel, to create the model designs of their various tracts.
The success of the Alexanders hinged on a rare balance between architectural artistry and an assembly-line efficiency with materials standardized, pre-cut, labeled, and transported to the site as a kit. In his book, The Alexanders: A Desert Legacy (Palm Springs Preservation Foundation. 2011), author James R. Harlan writes, “The techniques that the Alexanders used to build their projects set the Alexander Construction Company apart from other Palm Springs builders.” The results spoke for themselves with Alexander homes being so well rece ived they began being referred to as “Alexanders,” a mark of distinction which has carried through to this day.
By the time they embarked on Green Fairway Estates, the Alexanders had completed more than 2,000 homes in the Coachella Valley, with their tracts literally doubling the size of Palm Springs.
The prospects for continuing their prolific development actives seemed exceedingly bright.
However, it ended suddenly and tragically with the deaths of both George and Robert Alexander in a plane crash on November 14, 1965. Green Fairway Estates would prove to be their last tract development. While modest in scope and c omparatively little known to other Alexander developments, Green Fairway Estates remains as a hidden gem encapsulating the legacy of high- quality architecture and construction found in every Alexander tract.
The cover of the original Green Fairways Estates sales brochure. Note how the Palm Springs Municipal Golf Course has been glamourized into “championship.” Item 2A - Page 27
12 Planning for Green Fairway Estates began with the division of the land into lots, the laying out of roads, and the installation of utilities, which were all placed underground to avoid unsightly wires and poles. The tract was relatively small, with 55 lots , but the lot sizes were generous and each of the sites would abut directly onto the golf course. Essentially, there is only one street, which makes its way through the tract in a reverse L fashion. However, the east-west portion was named Lakeside Drive, with the north -south portion designated as Pebble Beach Drive. These streets were named after famous golf courses, a continuation of theme started in the adjacent Palm Springs Golf Club tract.
With the tract laid out, attention was now devoted to the homes to be built upon it. The Alexanders were interested in creating homes that would be geared towards full -time rather than seasonal residents and wanted the homes designed accordingly. While tod ay this is the norm, in 1965 it was an unusual and far-sighted decision. The homes would therefore be more generous in size, larger rooms, bigger closets, more storage space, and be comfortable even in the hot summer months.
The Model Designs
To design the Green Fairway Estates homes, the Alexanders turned not to Palmer & Krisel or Charles E. DuBois who had done Vista Las Palmas, but rather to Donald Wexler. Wexler proved to be the right architect for the commission, creating a group of homes that went beyond that of a standardized tract with the look and feel of a custom design.
The architect created a total of 9 separate model designs for Green Fairway Estates, a high figure especially considering the relatively modest tract size. The 9 different designs, which could be flipped, gave an overall total of 18, providing Green Fairwa y Estates with a high degree of individuality as only a few of each model type would appear in the entire development.
Like the tract’s streets, the 9 model plans were named after famous golf clubs from around the world - St. Andrews; Gleneagles; Capilano; Royal Melbourne; Hague; Belhi; St. Cloud; Maracaibo; Wentworth; and Royal Singapore (4-bedroom model).
Architecturally, the homes ranged from conventional Midcentury Modern design to verging on the exotic with Polynesian/Southeast Asian references on the Royal Singapore and Belhi; and an almost pueblo feel for the Capilano. Decades later, Wexler denied being responsible for the more exotic aspects on several of the models, believing they likely came at the request of the Alexanders. The diversity of the plans has greatly helped to enhance the allure of Green Fairway Estates, separating apart from much of what was being done at other developments.
While Wexler would give each design its own unique look, the interiors on all plans would largely be duplicate in both the 3 - and 4-bedroom versions. The floorplan was divided roughly into the form of the letter H with a distinct separation between public and private spaces. Connecting the spaces was a central entry, which also serves as the gateway to the atrium and rear grounds.
The use of glass was extensive, particularly on the golf course facing facades. The architect also made generous use of stonework in all the models both in the exterior and continuing into the interior.
Item 2A - Page 28
13 This plan of a “St. Andrews” model shows the basic layout for all 9 model plans with clear and logical division of spaces and ease of circulation.
Other features touted by the Alexanders included:
• Floor-to-ceiling double entrance doors
• Free-standing fireplaces
• Sunken “Roman” tubs in the master bath
• Garages built wide enough to accommodate golf carts
• Impressive views of Mt. San Jacinto
• You own the land
Item 2A - Page 29
14 The Architecture of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive
A sketch of a “Wentworth,” from the Wexler archives at the Palm Springs Architecture and Design Museum.
2395 Pebble Beach Drive is an essential component of the Green Fairway Estates and is one of only 5 such residences that were completed in the “Wentworth” style. It is one of the most intact examples of the type sustaining only one notable addition in 2021 when an existing patio behind the garage was filled in to create a 375 sq. ft. “casita.” While new, the Casita placement aligns it with the floorplan of the original “Royal Singapore” 4-bedroom model from 1965.
A comparison between the early sketch and a contemporary image shows 2395 Pebble Beach to be virtually unchanged with exception of a slatted Brise Soleil shading the bedroom windows on the right.
Item 2A - Page 30
15 The East (Street) Façade
The residence is a classic example of Midcentury Modern architecture as adapted to the desert environment by Donald Wexler. The architect created a sleek, low -slung structure, thoroughly modern, yet he artfully connected it to the natural environment through the artistic use of rustic stacked stone timelessly mellowed with “desert varnish.” The bold stone wall with its trapezoid shape following the slope of the roof was used to anchor the east end of the living room.
A view facing south showing how Wexler provided
an enormous 9-bay floor-to-ceiling window without sacrificing privacy.
Interestingly, rather than having a large picture window facing the street as might be expected in a more conventional design, Wexler used the wall to hide windows on either side to provide the occupants with bright light while maintaining the maximum of privacy. Only 2 small windows directly face the street giving a design that spiritually turns its back from the outside world and, instead, faces the rear, for both privacy and expansive views onto the golf course and the dramatic mountain backdrop beyond.
Item 2A - Page 31
16 Beams were extended outwards from the ends of the facades providing both visual interest while furthering the perception of low-slung horizontality.
The “H” floorplan created a recessed entry helping to transition from the outside world into the privacy of the interior. Note the step up to the double doors and the pair of narrow strip windows framing the sides.
Item 2A - Page 32
17 The West (Rear) Façade
This view of the rear façade shows how Wexler opened the home up with extensive windows and glass doors. Here the H plan creates a sunny yet sheltered atrium.
The owners’ dog faithfully guards the atrium which can be accessed through either the kitchen, center hall or study. Note the exposed beams connecting the 2 wings and creating a 4th “wall for the atrium.
Item 2A - Page 33
18 A view of the atrium from inside the kitchen looking across the study room. Note the opaque glass door on the right. It leads to the 2nd bathroom. Wexler thoughtfully added this door so one wouldn’t have to go all the way through the house to use the restroom, one of the many small details Wexler included in his design. (Below) The view facing west from the atrium.
Item 2A - Page 34
19 The North Façade
This façade is largely hidden from view by the adjoining property and it is where utility boxes are located. Yet, it holds a surprise in the form of a small alcove filled with plants, that provides the secret garden view for the master bathroom’s “Roman” tub.
Note the glass wall of the Roman tub.
Inside, the Roman tub still retains its colorful vintage tiles.
Item 2A - Page 35
20 The South Façade
This façade is largely unseen owing to the closeness between the adjacent property and it marks the garage side of the house. Yet, it features the deep overhanging eaves as seen elsewhere.
The wall is clad in vertical board. While the dramatic stonework is the homes most notable exterior finish, Wexler used a combination of cladding to add visual interest to the design including the stonework, vertical boards, and stucco finishing.
The vertical board cladding seen here on the home’s south façade was used at different places throughout the exterior.
Item 2A - Page 36
21 The floorplan for 2395 Pebble Beach, which includes the 2022 Casita addition, shows the clear division of space with ease of access between rooms and indoors and out.
The Interior
2395 Pebble Beach Drive’s well thought-out interior layout was intended to provide a flexible living arrangement that blended indoor and outdoor living . The design’s most notable feature was its “H” plan which created a distinct separation between the public and private spaces. The center hall connected both sides and served as a gateway either to the street or into the atrium and the rear of the property. This arrangement made the home excellent for entertaining. Guests arriving for a garden or pool party could go straight from the front door into the rear. If a party was held indoors, the living room was so well separated from the bedrooms, that anyone in that section would not be disturbed.
Wexler made the choice to elevate the center hall so that one had to step up to it or step down into the living room. This furthered the sense of separation between spaces and made the high - ceilinged living room feel even larger.
Item 2A - Page 37
22 The entry hall looking north towards the bedroom wing. Note how one could enter through the front doors and immediately step back outdoors if desired. (Below) Turning south, the entry looks into the living room and its unique “inverted champagne glass” fireplace. It has been reported that a number of these original fireplaces have been removed from other homes, making this a rare survivor.
Item 2A - Page 38
23 Further views showing the floor -to-ceiling window on the north, which brings in a flood of light without sacrificing privacy.
Item 2A - Page 39
24 West of the living room is the open plan dining room/kitchen. In its original configuration, the kitchen was galley style with a solid wall facing the living. Later owners opened the space to create a breakfast bar style counter space rising to waist level, which allows the view to continue uninterrupted north/south. The over-the-sink window looks out across the rear pool/garden to the mountains beyond. The north wall of the kitchen is glazed with a large double-pane window and sliding door offering both views and access into the central atrium.
The kitchen windows/door looks out over the atrium and master bedroom beyond. Note, how these spaces are arranged to allow one to move about from wing to wing without having to use the center hall.
The bedroom wing consists of 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. The master bedroom is large enough to allow a sitting area. A sliding glass door allows direct access to the outdoors. The master bath is ensuite and retains its original 1965 “Roman” tub feature. The 2 other bedrooms share the bath across the hall, which also has direct access to the outdoors. All bedrooms are provided with ample closet space befitting a home intended for “year-round” living.
Item 2A - Page 40
25 Changes and Additions Over Time
While 2395 Pebble Beach Drive retains much of its original integrity, certain changes have taken place over time. Most of these have been relatively minor such as kitchen cabinetry, and certain floor surfaces. However, it appears certain other changes were made that are not reflected in the available building permits, but are evidenced in photographs and news articles. Details are lacking owing to the dearth of documentation; however, it appears that at some point in possibly the 1990s-early 2000s, the original solid front doors were replaced by wooden models that featured fan lights as well as the addition of a hexagonal window on the front façade, opening from Bedroom 2. Further, a metal entry gate was put at the front entry. There may have been others, but this information comes from a single photograph from a real estate advertisement. The changes were highly inappropriate, diminishing the home’s original character, and negatively impacting its classic Midcentury design.
By 2012, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive had been drained of its original Midcentury pizazz.
Fortunately, these changes were cosmetic and reversible. When the home was purchased by Robin Rorex and Jen Gagner, they set about returning the house to its 1965 appearance.
Fortunately, they had several other “Wentworths” to use as examples. The hexagon window and metal gate were removed and the Home Depot style doors were replaced with duplicates of the original 1965 doors. The couple also replaced many, if not all of the aluminum framed windows, but did so to match the originals. They appear to have replaced some of the non-original floors as well. The couple also reworked the green spaces, removing inappropriate plantings for more fitting specimens. They also added a tanning shelf and spa into the 1966 swimming pool and 190 linear feet of concrete block wall around the property.
Item 2A - Page 41
26 By the time of its purchase by Adam and Juli Cavnar in 2019, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive had been returned to its original 1965 aura.
Comparisons with the previous photo reveal a dramatic difference.
Under the current owners, an addition of 28 photovoltaic panels on the home’s roof was put in in 2020. They also made a significant addition to the home in the form of what was dubbed a “Casita,” in 2021-2022. This is an addition of 375 sq. ft that included a flexible living/work space, a bathroom, as well as a laundry room and storage for the house. This addition was carefully planned and designed to seamlessly match the look of the rest of the house, using the same style of windows and exterior cladding as found elsewhere. The Casita addition was created by filling in an existing patio space located by the kitchen and rear of the garage. Because it filled existing space, almost no demolition was required. The addition was designed by architect Robin Abrahams and built by Shields Construction. In her plans, Abrahams sought to make the addition appear indistinguishable from the existing house surrounding it.
In his original plans, Donald Wexler created floorplans for both 3- and 4-bedroom models. On the 3-bedroom model, a space was created for a patio at the rear. On the 4 -bedroom design, the same space was the location of the 4th bedroom. The new addition added in 2020, filled the space in the same way the 4th bedroom model would have done.
Item 2A - Page 42
27 Views of the Casita addition and how it relates to the existing structure.
Item 2A - Page 43
28 Item 2A - Page 44
29 Site Plan of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive
Item 2A - Page 45
30 Character defining features
• An emphasis on horizontality with low slung, pitched roof • Extensive use of natural rock in both exterior and interior spaces • Trapezoid stone wall at front
• Vertical cladding over much of the façade
• An artful blending of indoor-outdoor spaces
• Impressive and uninterrupted views to the west of both the golf course and Mt. San Jacinto
• Recessed entry with solid double doors
• Exposed beams visible across the facades and extending outwards • Deep overhanging eaves
• Extensive use of glazing in the form of aluminum-framed windows and doors • Atrium patio
• Mailbox built to match rock walls of main house
• “Champagne glass” fireplace
• Flexible floorplan with distinct separation of public and private spaces
Contributing Elements:
• Main structure of the home with low-slung asymmetrically pitched roof • Original stacked stone cladding
• Original vertical board siding
• Post-and-beam construction
• Original 1966 Prestige swimming pool
• Exterior atrium
• Extended beams
• Mature palm trees at front and rear of property
• Stone mailbox
Non-Contributing Elements:
• Casita addition
• Non-original hardscaping
• Replacement windows and doors
• Spa and tanning shelf
• Concrete block perimeter walls
• Rooftop photovoltaic system
• Brise soleil at front facade
Item 2A - Page 46
31 BACKGROUND / HISTORIC CONTEXT
The relatively short history of Palm Springs can be organized into several distinct periods, as defined by the Historic Resources Group’s Citywide Historic Context Statement & Survey Findings. These include the following:
• Native American Settlement to 1969
• Early Development (1884-1918)
• Palm Springs between the Wars (1919-1941)
• Palm Springs During World War II (1939-1945)
• Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945-1969)
It is within the context of the period “Post -World War II Palm Springs” that 2395 Pebble Beach Drive will be evaluated. The following context statement is edited from Historic Resource Group’s Citywide Historic Context Statement & Survey Findings: Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945- 1969):
This context explores the post-World War II boom and related development that left Palm Springs with what many consider the most extensive and finest concentration of mid-20th century Modern architecture in the United States. Hollywood film stars and Easte rn industrialists were joined in the postwar decades by ever increasing numbers of tourists. The growing prosperity of the postwar years and the rise of the car culture created a leisured, mobile middle class that sought, in Palm Springs, the “good life” that had previously been available only to the wealthy. This surge of visitors and seasonal residents—by 1951 the city’s winter population swelled to almost 30,000 from a permanent population of 7,660—coincided with the peak of Modernism’s popularity.
The population growth accelerated in the 1950s, bringing a demand for civic necessities such as schools, libraries, museums, a city hall and police headquarters, offices, stores, and housing.
Palm Springs' growth as a tourist destination brought a demand f or inns, resorts, and tourist attractions. Tourism also introduced a demand for affordable second homes for a growing middle class; the construction and financing methods for building such mass -produced housing tracts were already developing in suburban ar eas of larger cities, including nearby Los Angeles, and found a ready market in Palm Springs. Though Palm Springs was a smaller municipality, this economic climate provided many opportunities for locally based architects, as well as several Los Angeles arc hitects, to explore and develop a wide range of architectural types and ideas, sometimes influenced by sophisticated global design trends. These conditions and the architects' talents lead to the development of an exceptional group of Modern buildings which later came to be identified as “Palm Springs Modernism” or “The Palm Springs School.”
The desert climate and casual lifestyle all but demanded unconventional design, and clients were more accepting of, even sought out, a more adventurous style in the resort atmosphere of Palm Springs than they would have in their primary residences. In the two decades after the war, Palm Springs was transformed with new commercial and institutional buildings, custom homes, and a large number of housing tracts.
Item 2A - Page 47
32 EVALUATION:
Criterion 1: Significant Events - The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or community: 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is not affiliated with significant events and does not qualify under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: Significant Persons - The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state, or local history : Although 2395 Pebble Beach Drive was built by George and Robert Alexander and designed by Donald Wexler, all three highly significant figures in Palm Springs and beyond, they were only responsible for its initial construction and had no further association once the home was completed and sold. The home’s first owners, Richard and Signe Holechek were prominent figures in their respective professions but neither individual rise to the level of a significant person. Therefore, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is not affiliated with significant persons and does not qualify under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state, or local history: 2395 Pebble Beach Drive, designed and completed in 1965, exhibits many stylistic markers that place it directly in the historical context of Palm Springs’ “Post -World War II Palm Springs” period. This home was designed as one of 5 “Wentworth” models in the Green Fairway Estates tract. And while it is ostensibly a tract home it nonetheless represents a prime example of significant Postwar architecture for which Palm Springs is internationally known. Palm Springs’ architectural legacy is based, not only on custom work, but tract developments as well. Certain tracts, particularly those of the Alexanders, were built of the highest quality and designed by the finest architects, and they are studied and admired by architecture enthusiasts the same way as custom designs from the same period. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is a notable component of such a high-quality development, built by the Alexander Construction Company and designed by major Midcentury architect Donald Wexler. Green Fairway Estates and 2395 Pebble Beach Drive with its classic Modern styling represent the high -watermark of Midcentury Palm Springs tract development. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive may be viewed as an essential component of the historical trends that have come to define Palm Springs’ image as a center of notable Modern architecture and landscape architecture, i.e., a historical movement that exemplifies a particular period of the na tional, state, or local hist ory. As a remarkably intact example of this period, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive qualifies for listing as a Class 1 Historic Resource on the local registry under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction: 2395 Pebble Beach Drive was built using simple but high -quality materials and conventional building methods. Because this Criterion looks for distinctive, unique, or unusual methods of construction, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive does not qualify for listing as a Class 1 Historic Resource on the local registry under Criterion 4.
Criterion 5 : The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his or her age; or that possesses high artistic value: High artistic values may be expressed in many ways, including areas as diverse as community design or planning, engineering, and sculpture. 2395 Pebble Beach was built by George and Robert Alexander, two of the most prolific and influential developers ever to work in Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley. They brought a high standard of both quality and artistry to their developments, elevating the overall architectural legacy of Palm Springs. The home’s architect, Donald Wexler, is considered among the very top figures in Desert Modern architecture. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive showcases the combined talents of this Master architect in post-and- beam construction, innovative and flexible floor plan, and bold use of stacked stonework.
Item 2A - Page 48
33 Therefore, for its distinctive characteristics representing the Midcentury Modern style, as the work of both master builders and a master architect, and its high artistic values, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive qualifies as a Class 1 Historic Resource under Criterion 5.
Criterion 6: (That represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction). This Criterion was created to address the resources contained within a potential historic district, and as such, it does not apply to this nominat ion. Hence, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive does not qualify under Criterion 6.
Criterion 7: (That has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to the national, state or local history or prehistory.) 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is not likely to yield information important to the national, state or local history or prehistory. Hence, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive does not qualify under Criterion 7.
SUMMARY: This evaluation finds 2395 Pebble Beach Drive eligible for listing as a Palm Springs Historic Resource under 8.05.070 C.1. a., paragraphs 3 and 5 of the local ordinance’s seven criteria. Integrity Analysis (using US Secretary of Interior Standards)
INTEGRITY ANALYSIS
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the local registry, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the criteria, but it also must have integrity.
The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subje ctive judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance.
Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not. The definition of integrity includes seven aspects or qualities. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. The following sections define the seven aspects and explain how they combine to produce integrity.
DESIGN
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property’s design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive ’s essential characteristics of form, plan, space, structure, and style have survived largely intact.
Similarly, the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; and the type, amount, and style of detailing have survived almost entirely intact. While new windows and doors were added at an unspecified date, they followed the same spaces and design of their originals and do not alter the original look of the home. A 2022 Casita addition, which was designed to match and integrate into the home’s original style, was created by the enclosing of an already-extant patio. Therefore, the overall footprint of the structure was not changed. As such, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive continues to reflect the same Midcentury Modern style architecture, design elements such as stacked stone and Item 2A - Page 49
34 board cladding; extensive use of aluminum -framed windows and doors, etc., first introduced by master architect Donald Wexler in 1965.
MATERIALS
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveals the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of types of materials and technologies. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive’s materials represent the best in Midcentury Modern design, with high -quality stacked stonework, vertical board cladding, concrete, stucco, and wooden beams. Even those elements that have been replaced such as aluminum framed doors and windows utilize the same materials as the originals. The type of materials used on 2395 Pebble Beach Drive have remained essentially intact and continue to express the physical elements as designed during the building’s period of significance; the pattern and configuration that today forms the residence survives intact.
WORKMANSHIP
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innov ative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of bot h technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is exemplary in the masterful way native stone was used on both th e exterior and inside as a floor -to-ceiling fireplace surround. The intricate assembly of the stonework into an architectural statement is clear evidence of skilled craftsmanship.
LOCATION
Location is the place where a historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understand why the property was created or why something happened. Th e actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed i f the property is moved. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive remains in its original location and, therefore, qualifies in this aspect.
Item 2A - Page 50
35 SETTING
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It inv olves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the designer’s concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. 2395 was built in the Green Fairway Estates tract, which was developed so homesites would take advantage of their golf course setting and the spectacular views sweeping to the mountains beyond. No new structures have been built on any side of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive, which could impact its original setting. Thus, its setting remains intact.
FEELING
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the nineteenth century. When it was completed in 1965, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive was intended to provide a comfortable and stylish desert home that allowe d its occupants to take full advantage of an 18 -hole championship golf course right at its back door. The golfing leisure lifestyle, an iconic image from Midcentury Palm Springs, was exhibited in the design and location of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive when it was completed in 1965. Today, the home continues to reflect that exact same aesthetic. Accordingly, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive retains its original integrity of feeling.
ASSOCIATION
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and man-made elements have remained intact since the eighteenth century will re tain its quality of association with the battle. Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support the eligibility of a property for the National Register. 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is an important example of a high-quality Midcentury Modern private residence in Palm Springs.
Accordingly, it continues its association with a pattern of events that have made a meaningful contribution to the community. As a prime component of the Green Fairway Estates tract, the last to be developed by the prolific George and Robert Alexander, as well as its design by the famed Donald Wexler, 2395 Pebble Beach Drive helps to tell the history of the Midcentury Modern phase of the development of Palm Springs, especially the critical role tract house development played in that era.
Item 2A - Page 51
36 INTEGRITY SUMMARY
2395 Pebble Beach Drive appears to be in excellent condition partially due to the use of construction materials suitable for the harsh desert environment and its overall design. This analysis confirms that the building and site of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive still possesses all seven aspects of integrity. In summary, the site exhibits sufficient integrity to qualify for designation as a Class 1 Historic Site.
Item 2A - Page 52
37 Bibliography
Attached is a list of books, articles, and other sources cited or consulted in preparing this application and other documentation that may be relevant.
Books
Bricker, Lauren Weiss and Sidney Williams: Steel and Shade: The Architecture of Donald Wexler.
Palm Springs, CA; Palm Springs Art Museum, 2011.
Cygelman, Adele. Palm Springs Modern: Houses in the California Desert.
New York, NY; Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1999.
Harlan, James R.: The Alexanders: A Desert Legacy.
Palm Springs, CA; Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, 2011.
Hess, Alan: The Desert Modernists: The Architects Who Envisioned Midcentury Modern Palm Springs.
Palm Springs, CA; Modernism Weekend Desert Publications, 2015.
Ibid, with Andrew Danish: Palm Springs Weekend: The Architecture and Design of a Midcentury Oasis.
San Francisco, CA; Chronicle Books, 2001.
Keylon, Steven: The Modern Architecture of Hugh Kaptur.
Palm Springs, CA; Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, 2019.
McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses.
New York, NY; Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
McGrew, Patrick: Donald Wexler: Architect
Palm Springs, CA; Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, 2010.
Magazines
Levitan, Jack: “Green Fairway Estates Tract, An Exotic, Quirky Hideaway, this tract recently rediscovered its Alexander roots,” Eichler Network, www.eichlernetwork.com
Nolte, Jolene: “Neighborhood Renewal.” Atomic Ranch, pp. 108-109, Summer 2018. “Green Fairway Estate,” Wikipedia
Newspapers
Various issues of:
Charlotte (NC) Observer
Desert Sun
Los Angeles Times
Orlando (FL) Evening Star
Orlando (FL) Sentinel
Item 2A - Page 53
38 Redland Daily Facts
San Bernardino County Sun
Santa Barbara News Press
Santa Fe New Mexican
Los Angeles Times
Internet Resources
Accessingthepast.org
Ancestry.com
Calisphere
Desertmodernism.com
Eichlernetwork.com
Encyclopedia.com
Findagrave.com
Myheritage.com
Newspapers.com
Palmspringslife.com
Psmodcom.org
Pspreservationfoundation.org
Realtor.com
Social Security Death Index (SSDI)
Other Sources Consulted
Green Fairway Estates Sales Brochure, 1965, Alexander Construction Company.
Green Fairway Estates Tour Guide, Modernism Week, 2017.
Palm Springs Historical Society
City of Palm Springs (Planning and Building Departments) Historic Resources Group. City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement; Survey Findings. Pasadena, 2015 (Final Draft, December 2018).
Riverside County Assessor’s Office
Tahquitz Creek Golf Neighborhood: Home Tour 2024, Modernism Week Tour Guide
Item 2A - Page 54
39 Appendix I
Owner’s Notarized Letter of Support
Item 2A - Page 55
40 Item 2A - Page 56
41 Appendix II
Assessor Map
Item 2A - Page 57
42 Appendix III
Google Earth Image
Item 2A - Page 58
43 Appendix IV
Chain of Title
The subject of the following documentary transfers is the real property in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California, described as Lot 45, Tract 2808, the Fairway Garden Estates Tract, as per map recorded in Book 52, Page 42 of Maps, in the office of the Riverside County Recorder, otherwise known as 2395 Pebble Beach Drive.
11-29-1965 Grant Deed: Fairway Garden Estates, a partnership, grants to Richard R.
Holechek and Signe M. Holechek, husband and wife, as joint tenants
02-15-1971 Quitclaim Deed: Richard Ray Holechek quitclaims to Signe M. Holechek
05-22-1974 Grant Deed: Signe M. Holechek to Barry Bleeck and Dorothy Bleeck, husband and wife, as joint tenants
12-23-1980 Grant Deed: Barry Bleeck and Dorothy Bleeck grants to Richard P. Doane, an unmarried man
01-02-1982 Quitclaim Deed: Richard P. Doane, an unmarried man, quitclaims to Jerome P.
Berenbeim and Phyllis M. Berenbeim, husband and wife, as joint tenants
Note: The above transfer does not appear to have taken effect. Doane went into default on his loan payments on December 10, 1982 and the property was foreclosed upon by T.M.C., Inc., a California Corporation.
05-26-1983 Trustee’s Deed: T.M.C., Inc., a California Corporation grants to Barry Bleeck and Dorothy Bleeck, husband and wife, by way of a Trustee’s Deed. Grantee is stated as being foreclosing beneficiary
06-04-1984 Grant Deed: Barry Bleeck and Dorothy Bleeck, husband and wife, as community property, grants to Laurence J. Smith and Marilyn I. Smith, as community property
05-24-1989 Grant Deed: Laurence J. Smith and Marilyn I. Smith, as community property, grants to Douglas Wayne Blackstock and Mary H. Blackstock, husband and wife as joint tenants
08-06-2012 Affidavit of Death: Douglas Wayne Blackstock, deceased, Mary H. Blackstock, beneficiary
08-06-2012 Quitclaim Deed: Mary H. Blackstock quitclaims to Mary H. Blackstock Trust
11-02-2012 Grant Deed: Mary H. Blackstock Trust grants to Robin L. Rorex
05-30-2019 Grant Deed: Robin L. Rorex grants to Adam Cavnar and Juli Savitt-Cavnar
07-17-2020 Quitclaim Deed: Adam Cavnar to Cavnar Family Trust Item 2A - Page 59
44 Appendix V
Building Permits
Date Permit
No.
Owner Architect/
contractor
Type of work
06/17/1965 B8243 Alexander Construction
Co.
Donald Wexler (not
on permit)
Alexander
Construction Co.
Residence and garage
07/29/1965 A1289 Alexander Construction
Co.
Illegible Electrical
07/29/1965 B5057 Alexander Construction
Co.
Illegible Plumbing
07/29/1965 B5099 Alexander Construction
Co.
Illegible Plumbing
01/17/1966 B8854 Richard R. Holechek Prestige Pools Swimming pool 05/13/1975 A3375 Barry Bleeck Hendrickson Sewer line, 4” clay pipe 12/29/1975 B9519 Barry Bleeck Concrete block wall,
100 linear ft., 30” high,
at rear of property
10/02/1979 B1682 Barry Bleeck H & H Roofing Re-roofing
01/20/1989 B14632 Larry Smith Semans Plumbing Hot water pipe 05/30/1989 B15573 Mr. Blackstock P.S.I. Relocate pool
equipment
05/18/1990 B18152 Blackstone (sic) Phillip Barnes Rooftop evaporative cooler
07/05/1990 B18524 D.E. (sic) Blackstock Bob’s Roofing Re-roofing 09/26/2013 2013-
2822
Robin Rorex Rammell
Construction
Spa and tanning shelf;
new equipment and
gas line; 190 LF of 5’
high block wall
01/22/2020 2020-
214
Juli Cavnar Renova Energy 28 photovoltaic panels
01/29/2020 2020-
310
Juli Cavnar Renova Energy Panel upgrade from
100a to 225a
10/19/2021 2021-
4662
Juli Cavnar Shields Residential Attached casita:
bedroom, bath, and
laundry
02/24/2023 2023-
774
Juli Cavnar Renova Energy Battery (A/C coupled
storage system)
Item 2A - Page 60
45 Appendix VI
First Owners Biography
Richard R. Holechek (1930-2005) and Signe M. Holechek (1937- )
Owners from 1965-1974
The Holecheks bought the famed Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado while living at 2395 Pebble Beach Drive.
(Via Wikipedia)
The first owners of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive were Richard R. and Signe M. Holechek, a couple in their mid -30s, who purchased the newly -built home in 1965. They were also the ones who installed the swimming pool in 1966.
Holechek had been born in Nebraska in 1930. In 1960, he accepted a position with the Los Angeles office of the national brokerage firm of Eastman, Dillman, Union Securities & Co. In 1961, he joined the Redlands office of the firm. However, the following ye ar, he switched over to the Redlands office of William R. Staats & Co. after Eastman, Dillman, Union Securities & Co. closed their California offices. In 1967, Holechek moved again, this time taking a position as resident manager of the Riverside branch of Walston & Co., Inc.
Signe Holechek was not content to be a housewife and was very active in several organizations including the American Association of University Women (AAUW). In 1967, Signe served as chairperson of the 11th Annual Palm Springs Home Tour sponsored by the AAUW. Its theme that year was “Treasures from Around the World”
Signe was also a talented and dedicated artist active in the Palm Springs art community and the Desert Art Center. In 1966, she won a special award at the DAC exhibition for her work, “Barn and Fence.” Signe’s work was shown at various exhibitions includin g the Water Color West exhibition in 1969. There, she came in first place with the abstract painting, “Boats and Birds,” which, according the Redlands Daily Facts, “validates the statement that abstract painting is akin to music.” And, at that same event, she won the “Purchase Award” for “Oregon Pier.”
Item 2A - Page 61
46 In 1968, the Holecheks, along with Charles F. Hanson and Carol Hanson Pick also of Palm Springs, purchased for $1.3 million the historic Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, which would later become the inspiration of Stephen King’s novel, The Shining.
In 1973, Holechek was a principal investor in the $6.8 million Spanish Oaks condominium complex in Titusville, FL. In 1974, he was a partner in the development of the 178-room Spanish Inns Motel in Charlotte, North Carolina. Both the Holecheks had begun bu ying properties in Florida starting in the mid-1960s Florida including 112 acres near Lake Cecile in Kissimmee and 152 acres south of Kissimmee.
It appears the couple divorced around 1974, which is perhaps what precipitated their sale of 2395 Pebble Beach Drive. Richard remarried in 1980 and Signe moved to the art colony at Santa Fe, New Mexico where she opened her own gallery.
Item 2A - Page 62
47 When not painting or buying hotels, Signe proved to be quite the angler. (Via Desert Sun 9-15-1971)
Item 2A - Page 63
48 Appendix VII
Chain of Ownership
1965-1974 Richard R. Holechek and Signe M. Holechek
1974-1980 Barry Bleeck and Dorothy Bleeck
1980-1982 Richard P. Doane
1982-1983 T.M.C., Inc.
1983-1984 Barry Bleeck and Dorothy Bleeck
1984-1989 Laurence J. Smith
1989-2010 Douglas Wayne Blackstock and Mary H. Blackstock
2010-2012 Mary H. Blackstock
2012-2019 Robin L. Rorex and Jennifer Lynn Rorex
2019- Adam Cavnar and Juli Savitt-Cavnar
Item 2A - Page 64
49 Appendix VIII
Biography of Donald Wexler, F.A.I.A
Donald Wexler around the time of his work at Green Fairway Estates.
Biography by Adam Cavnar
Donald Allen Wexler was a pioneering architect who made significant contributions to mid-century modern architecture, particularly in Palm Springs, California. His innovative designs and use of materials helped shape the distinctive Desert Modern style that Palm Springs is known for.
Early Life and Education
Donald Wexler was born on January 23, 1926, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota He grew up in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he developed an early interest in architecture and design. After serving in the U.S. Navy from 1944 to 1946 during World War II, Wexler returned home and enrolled at the University of Minnesota on the G.I. Bill. He graduated in 1950 with a bachelor's degree in architecture, laying the foundation for his future career. (Donald Wexler: Modernist- Midcentury Britannica)
Item 2A - Page 65
50 Early Career and Move to Palm Springs
Following his graduation, Wexler moved to Los Angeles, where he was hired by renowned modernist architect Richard Neutra. This experience exposed him to cutting-edge architectural concepts and techniques. In 1952, Wexler relocated to Palm Springs, a decision that would shape the rest of his career and leave an indelible mark on the city's architectural landscape.In Palm Springs, Wexler initially worked for William Cody, who introduced him to the Desert Modern aesthetic. This regional adaptation of the International style focused on designs suited to the dry, sunny climate of California and the Southwest. The principles Wexler learned during this period would influence his work throughout his career. (Donald Wexler: Modernist-Midcentury Britannica)
Partnership with Richard Harrison
In 1952, Wexler formed a partnership with Richard Harrison, establishing the architectural firm Wexler & Harrison. This collaboration, which lasted until 1961, produced numerous significant projects and innovations. One of their most notable achievements was the development of the Steel Development Homes. (Donald Wexler: Modernist-Midcentury Britannica Steel Development Homes
The Steel Development Homes project, initiated in 1960, was a groundbreaking venture that showcased Wexler's innovative approach to architecture. Contracted by the George Alexander Construction Company, Wexler and Harrison designed a neighborhood of all-steel homes at the northern edge of Palm Springs. These homes were revolutionary in their use of prefabricated components combined with standard construction methods. The Steel Development Homes were designed to be affordable, quick to build, and well-suited to the desert climate. They featured a streamlined, one-level design with floor-to-ceiling windows and sliding doors that seamlessly integrated indoor and outdoor spaces. Unfortunately, rising steel costs halted the project after only seven homes were built. Despite this, the Steel Development Homes have become internationally acclaimed, with one (No. 2) being recognized by the National Register of Historic Places in 2012. (Donald Wexler-Palm Springs Modern Committee) Donald A. Wexler Associates
In 1963, Wexler established his own firm, Donald A. Wexler Associates. This marked the beginning of a prolific period in his career, during which he designed numerous notable buildings in Palm Springs. Some of his most significant works from this period include:
1. Royal Hawaiian Estates (1960)
2. Canyon Country Club (1963)
3. Custom home for singer Dinah Shore (1964)
4. Palm Springs International Airport (1965)
5. Raymond Cree Junior High School (1966)
6. Standard Oil Service Station (1966)
(Donald Wexler: Modernist-Midcentury Britannica
Item 2A - Page 66
51 Architectural Philosophy and Style
Wexler's architectural philosophy was deeply rooted in functionalism and sustainability. He believed in creating buildings that were not only aesthetically pleasing but also practical and well- suited to their environment. His designs often incorporated elements that addressed the extreme desert climate, demonstrating a keen understanding of sustainable architecture long before it became a widespread concern. Key hallmarks of Wexler's style include:
1. Use of steel and glass as primary materials
2. Integration of indoor and outdoor spaces
3. Emphasis on horizontal lines and clean, geometric forms
4. Incorporation of large windows and sliding glass doors
5. Attention to climate control through design elements like deep overhangs and strategic orientation
6. Minimalist aesthetic with a focus on functionality
(Donald Wexler-Wikipedia)
Later Career and Recognition
Wexler continued to practice architecture in Palm Springs for almost six decades, retiring in 2002. Throughout his career and even after retirement, he received numerous accolades for his contributions to architecture:
1. Named a fellow of the American Institute of Architects in 2004
2. Subject of the documentary "Journeyman Architect: The Life and Work of Donald Wexler" in 2009
3. Honored with a retrospective exhibition, "Steel and Shade: The Architecture of Donald Wexler," at the Palm Springs Art Museum in 2011
4. Awarded a Golden Palm Star on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars in 2008 (Donald Wexler: Modernist-Midcentury Britannica
Legacy and Influence
Donald Wexler's impact on Palm Springs architecture and mid-century modern design is immeasurable. His innovative use of steel in residential design and his sensitive approach to desert architecture have influenced generations of architects. The enduring popularity of his designs is evidenced by the continued interest in his work, including the purchase of his Dinah Shore residence by actor Leonardo DiCaprio in 2014 for $5,230,000. (Donald Wexler-Wikipedia)
Wexler's legacy is also preserved through the Donald Wexler Collection, housed in the ENV Archives-Special Collections at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. This collection includes original presentation drawings, working drawings, photographs, and models, providing a valuable resource for researchers and architecture enthusiasts.
Item 2A - Page 67
52 Donald Wexler passed away on June 26, 2015, in Palm Desert, California, at the age of 89. His contributions to architecture, particularly in Palm Springs, continue to be celebrated and studied, cementing his place as one of the most influential architects of the mid-century modern movement. (Palm Springs Art Museum-Architectural Exhibition Features Work of Donald) Other Notable Wexler Projects
Custom Homes
Leeds-Howard House
Alan Ladd Estate
Tract Developments
El Rancho Vista Estates (1960s)
Green Fairway Estates (1960s)
Condominium and Apartment Complexes
Royal Hawaiian Estates
Sagewood Condominiums
Twin Springs Condominiums
The Rose Garden
Transportation
Palm Springs International Airport main terminal (1966)
Civic Structures
Desert Water Agency building (1978)
Larson Justice Center in Indio (1996)
Palm Springs Police Department and jail
Educational Facilities
Wexler designed numerous schools throughout the Coachella Valley, many utilizing steel- frame construction.
Original Spa Hotel Bath House (1959) - Designed in collaboration with Richard Harrison, William Cody, and Pierre Koenig
Merrill Lynch Building in Palm Springs
Item 2A - Page 68
53 Appendix IX
George Alexander and
the Alexander Construction Company
Biographical research by Adam Cavnar
Alexander Construction Company was a Palm Springs, California , residential development company that built over 2,200 houses in the Coachella Valley of Riverside County, California , between 1955 and 1965.
The construction of these homes doubled the size of Palm Springs and caused the city to take on a new shape, direction, and character as an enclave of modern architecture in the Mid-century modern style. These houses, collectively known as "Alexanders," have come to be appreciated for their rational designs, modernist style, and innovative construction and are now highly sought after, selling for a premium over their more conventional contemporaries
George Alexander had begun investing in Palm Springs in 1930, as one of the original developers of the Smoke Tree Guest Ranch, among others. The Alexanders were also active in Palm Springs society, civically engaged and known for their philanthropic work.
Through the Alexander Construction Company, George Alexander (1898 - 1965) and his son Robert “Bob” W. Alexander (1925 -1965) were prolific Southern California developers of tract homes. Their company was responsible for thousands of homes in the San Fernando Valley and over 1,200 homes in Palm Springs. Before becoming a developer, George Alexander was an accountant who saw firsthand the profits made by his construction company clients. Over time, the Alexanders earned a reputation for building quality homes of architectural merit, engaging licensed professional architects to produce the designs. George actually began investing in Palm Springs in 1930, as one of the original developers of the Smoke Tree Guest Ranch along with L. Mac Blankenhorn, C.F. Doyle, Nicholas Harrison, and architect Garrett Van Pelt, Jr. The Alexanders were also active in Palm Springs society, civically engaged and known for their Item 2A - Page 69
54 philanthropic work. Tragically, their lives were cut short by a plane crash that killed George, Robert, and their wives in 1965.
George and Robert Alexander Developments (1955-1965)
George's vision for his construction company changed in 1956 when his health took a turn for the worse and, under his doctor's advice to seek a warmer, drier climate, he decided to relocate his George Alexander Company base of operations to Palm Springs. The Alexanders had already been enamored of the desert where they had been spending many weekends each winter. The timing couldn't have been better for the firm as the popularity of the desert resort was ready to explode.
It would be there where he and his son Bob, and Bill Krisel would form the desert team that would go down in Palm Springs Modernism history.560 Through the Alexander Construction Company, George Alexander (1898-1965) and his son Robert “Bob” W. Alexander (1925-1965) were prolific Southern California developers of tract homes. Their company was responsible for thousands of homes in the San Fernando Valley and over 1,200 homes in Palm Springs. Before becoming a developer, George Alexander was an accountant who saw firsthand the profits made by his construction company clients.561 Over time, the Alexanders earned a reputation for building quality homes of architectural merit, engaging licensed professional architects to produce the designs. George actually began investing in Palm Springs in 1930, as one of the original developers of the Smoke Tree Guest Ranch along with L. Mac Blankenhorn, C.F. Doyle, Nicholas Harrison, and architect Garrett Van Pelt, Jr.562 The Alexanders were also active in Palm Springs society, civically engaged and known for their philanthropic work. Tragically, their lives were cut short by a plane crash that killed George, Robert, and their wives in 1965.
Since the days of Prescott T. Stevens and El Mirador, and Pearl McManus and the Oasis Hotel and Smoke Tree Ranch, the Palm Springs recipe for real estate and housing development focused on the building of a resort where people could experience the Palm Springs lifestyle before making the transition to home ownership. Recognizing this, George and Robert Alexander applied the same formula to the south end of the city and built the Ocotillo Lodge (1957-58, Palmer & Krisel).563 The main building or “clubhouse” featured recreational and fine dining amenities for the more remote south end of Palm Springs, surrounded by the “individual villas” that were stepping stones to home ownership. As described in the Los Angeles Times, “the Boy Wonder Builders from Los Angeles,” George Item 2A - Page 70
55 Alexander and Joseph C. Dunas, rented half the villas as hotel rooms and leased half to executives for entertainment purposes.564
560 John Crosse, Southern California Architectural History Blog, January 13, 2011 (accessed January 2015).
561 James R. Harlan, The Alexanders: A Desert Legacy, Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, 2011, 8.
562 “Company Buys Property for Development,” Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1930, D2.
563 In a Desert Sun article from July 1957, it notes that “Mr. and Mrs. Robert Alexander will spend the summer months here while construction of their Ocotillo Lodge is underway.” It is announced as recently opened in a January 1958 Desert Sun article.
564 “Joan Winchell: Co-Ops Catch On in Palm Springs,” Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1958, D8.
As author James R. Harlan notes, “The techniques that the Alexanders used to build their projects set the Alexander Construction Company apart from other Palm Springs builders.”570 Materials for Alexander homes were all standardized, pre- cut, labeled, and transported to the site as a kit, not to be customized. This enabled quick assembly by the Alexanders’ crew of tradesmen. Standardization and efficiency were as much a part of the Palmer & Krisel design as was the artistry.
As William Krisel remembered, “...every line I drew cost money.”571 Yet the designer’s philosophy was that “the good tract house is not assembly line living, it improves both the physical shelter and the way of life of the people.”572 The square floor plan was also key to Palmer & Krisel’s economical work for the Alexanders in Palm Springs. After visiting a concrete tradesman, Krisel learned that a flat slab with only four corners would be the least expensive to construct.
Although his Los Angeles designs were rectangles, Krisel remembers, “When I went to Palm Springs they became squares. Square was more efficient than a rectangle because it encompassed more square footage with the least amount of perimeter with four corners.”573
568 FHA and VA-insured loans were not the only types of loans available. Lenders offered buyers “conventional financing” with less favorable terms on down payment, interest rate, and fee waivers. Conventional financing also typically required borrowers to have excellent credit, job stability with sufficient income, a sizable down payment, and low debt to income ratios. Some developers (including Item 2A - Page 71
56 the Alexanders) kept their own loans for deferred profits. As such they were not beholden to FHA Minimum Property Standards that also favored construction methods that added to the construction cost of single-family residences. 569 These standards prohibited houses with a flat roof, a butterfly roof, or slab on grade construction without a double slab pour and a waterproof membrane between the pours. The latter requirement eased over the years, partially through the lobbying efforts of builders’ organizations such as the NAHB. 570 James R. Harlan, The Alexanders: A Desert Legacy, Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, 2011, 14.
571 Sian Winship, “Quality and Quantity: Architects Working for Developers in Southern California, 1960-1973 (MHP Thesis, University of Southern California, 2011), 193.
572 Esther McCoy, “What I Believe,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1956, Q4, http://proquest.com (accessed May 24, 2011).
573 “William Krisel Oral History, Interview and Transcription by John Crosse,” 2009, 69. 646 “50 Dwellings at Spa Planned,” Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1963, O11.
647 Green Fairway Estates was one of the last subdivisions built by the Alexanders before their tragic death in a plane crash in November of 1965. 648 “Display Ad 18,” Los Angeles Times, November 13, 1965, I9. 649 “Green Fairways Estates Sales Brochure,” Private Collection. 650 Jack Levitan, “Green Fairway
Estates,” https://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/green-fairway-estates-palm- springs (accessed November 19, 2014).
Item 2A - Page 72
57 George Alexander: Contributions to the greater Palm springs area.
Ocotillo Lodge – 1957 – 1958
Farrell Canyon Estates – 1963
Twin Palms Estates – 1957 – 1958
Green Fairway Estates – 1964 – 1965
Ramon Rise – 1956
Sunrise Estates – 1964
Enchanted Homes – 1957
Araby Estates – 1964
Racquet Club Road Estates – 1958 – 1960
Desert Lanai – 1963
Vista Las Palmas – 1956 – 1959
Las Palmas Summit – 1962
Golden Vista Estates – 1960
Alexander Home – Ladera Circle
Racquet Club Estates – 1959 – 1960
Riviera Gardens – 1961
Golf Club Estates – 1961
Steel Houses – 1961 – 1962
Palm Springs Architects & Developers. Sat, August 29, 2020 Art & Architecture
Item 2A - Page 73
58 Appendix X
Current Imagery/Architectural Details
Item 2A - Page 74
59 Item 2A - Page 75
60 Item 2A - Page 76
61 Item 2A - Page 77
62 Item 2A - Page 78
63 Appendix XI
Grant Deed
Item 2A - Page 79
64 Item 2A - Page 80
65 Item 2A - Page 81
ATT
ACHMENT D
Item 2A - Page 82
RESOLUTION NO. HSPB #163
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION
BOARD OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATE
THE RICHARD AND SIGNE HOLECHEK RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, A CLASS 1
HISTORIC SITE (HSPB #163), APN #681-242-008.
THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD (“HSPB”) FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. WHEREAS, Chapter 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code allows for the designation of historic sites and districts; and
B. WHEREAS, The City of Palm Springs filed an application pursuant to Article III, Section 8.05.070 (Procedure and Criteria for Designation of Historic Resources ) of the Palm Springs Municipal Code requesting historic resources designation for “The Richard and Signe Residence” located at 2395 Pebble Beach Drive. The application included a historic resources report (“the report”).
C. WHEREAS, on February 25 and 2 7, 2025 , members of the Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB) conducted site inspections of the proposed historic resource, accompanied by City staff; and
D. WHEREAS, o n March 4 , 20 25, a noticed public he aring of the Palm Springs Historic Site Preservation Board (“HSPB”) to consider Case HSPB #163 was held in accordance with applicable law; and
E. WHEREAS, the HSPB carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS – PART “1”, CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES.
Evaluation of the Application. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.070 (C,1,a), the HSPB shall evaluate the application and make findings in conformance with the following criteria:
1. Criteria for the Designation of Class 1 Historic Resources. A site, structure, building or object may be designated as a Class 1 historic resource, provided both of the following findings (“a” and “b”) are met:
Item 2A - Page 83
Resolution No. HSPB #163 – The Richard and Signe Residence
March 4, 2025
a. The site, structure, building, or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:
2395 Pebble Beach Drive is a single-family home constructed in the Mid-century Modern style. The H -shaped floor plan appears to be the basic layout for all of the models and the site placement of the homes abut the golf course. Many character-defining elements on the front façade of the home have been restored and the new addition completed in 2022 has no adverse impact to the original design. The following is an analysis of the criterion and integrity findings for historic designation.
(Criterion i) The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or community;
No meaningful event is associated with this site, thus does not qualify under Criterion i.
(Criterion ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state or local history;
Richard and Signe Holechek are the first owners of the home in November of 1965. Deed records show at least 6 different entities owning the property since its construction. Based on the information provided in the historic resources report, the site is not associated with individuals that meet this criterion.
(Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local history;
Palms Springs during the postwar period reflects growth, prosperity and leisure. Housing for full-time residents meant the design now incorporates functional qualities to address the harsh summer conditions of the desert by creating more space for storage and garages instead of carports to protect cars and golf carts from the elements year -round.
The aesthetic qualities of the home include post-and-beam construction, deep overhangs, stacked stone walls, and floor -to-ceiling fenestration. The home is a simple low -slung gabled roof structure with stone walls creating articulation along the front façade. The integrated placement of the home to the public golf course is a reflection of “golf course single-family residential development” during this period. The home is an exemplary representation of Mid-century Modern architecture but more importantly, it is an example of a new residential typology that highlights the importance of golf as a leisure activity and its impact on urban design.
As a residential home built in the post -World War II context, the home was one of five “Wentworth” models in the Green Fairway Estate tract built by the Alexanders . By this time, the Alexanders had completed more than 2,000 homes in the Coachella Valley and helped define postwar residential construction in Palm Springs. Green Fairway Estates is also the last tract development by the Alexanders. Staff finds Criterion iii is met.
(Criterion iv) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;
Item 2A - Page 84
Resolution No. HSPB #163 – The Richard and Signe Residence
March 4, 2025
Unlike the National Register criterion concerning construction, the Palm Springs evaluation of construction addresses the type (of construction), the period (of construction) and the method (of construction). The home was constructed using conventional methods and no new building materials or technology was specifically identified. Criterion iv is not met.
(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;
By 1965, Alexander Construction had already solidified their reputation as one of the most influential developers in the region with over a dozen residential tract developments completed. When developing the Green Fairway Estates, the Alexanders approached architect Donald Wexler to design the models for the development. Considered one of the main architects representing Desert Modernism and the Palm Springs School of Architecture, Wexler’s genius and influence is captured in his projects throughout the valley including the Palm Springs International Airport, which was completed the following year in 1966. Although 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is not a custom -designed home, the architectural features and versatility of the plan demonstrates the architect’s knowledge of materials and tract home development. A t ragic plane crash in 1965 took the lives of George and Robert Alexander making Green Fairway Estates their last tract development. The home embodies the collaboration between Wexler and the Alexanders, thus Criterion v for historic significance is met.
(Criterion vi) The resource represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, as used in evaluating applications for designation of historic districts, for parcels on which more than one entity exists; or
The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi.
(Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.
No information is available on any pre-historic significance of the site.
SECTION 2: PART “B” ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY.
Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C,1,b). The site, structure, building or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.
The Richard and Signe Residence is evaluated based on the following topics of integrity based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:
Item 2A - Page 85
Resolution No. HSPB #163 – The Richard and Signe Residence
March 4, 2025
Location.
The home is in its original location on the lot; therefore, the integrity of location is met.
Design.
Wexler designed 9 floor plans for this residential development to have the versatility to be rotated or mirrored on any given lot. Various roof forms, including those inspired by Polynesian/Southeast Asian architecture, exist; however, this home has a low -slung gable roof form that focuses on the stacked stone walls as the key architectural feature.
The floor plan for 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is known as the “Wentworth.” The H-shaped floor plan organizes the interior spaces in two separate wings that effectively separate the public spaces from the private spaces. As one enters the home, the entry is oriented towards an unobstructed view of the mountains beyond the adjacent golf course, and the view of the landscape is framed through the open courtyard. The am ount of glazing on the front elevation is limited, giving the home a feeling of monumentality but light is directed into the living space through the 9- bay floor -to-ceiling window configuration behind the trapezoidal rock wall. The deep eaves and enclosed garage enhance the livability of the home by taking the summer conditions into account. The surrounding landscape features are minimal and do not obscure the home from view. Insensitive alterations to the front façade were removed and the 2022 attached addition, which enclosed a smaller courtyard, has a subordinate roofline that does not create a negative visual impact to the existing design. Staff finds the restored resource meets the integrity of the original design by Wexler.
Setting.
The original setting of the home is integral to its relationship to the golf course, which is effectively a large open green space. The home retains its location and the surrounding setting of the golf course remains intact, thus the integrity of setting is met.
Materials.
The home was built with materials that were commonly used during this period and the restored fenestration remains true to the original design. The stacked stone walls remain a prominent feature and are well maintained. The overall integrity of material is met.
Workmanship.
The home was constructed using conventional methods of construction and commonly used materials; however, the stone walls found both inside and outside the home reveal a high level of workmanship and attention to detail. Staff finds the integrity of workmanship remains intact.
Feeling.
The simple design of the home and its strong connection to the original setting of the golf course preserves the original feeling of the site design.
Association.
The property is associated with architect Donald Wexler and the Alexander Construction Company, as well as the Mid-century Modern Movement of the post-World War II period.
Item 2A - Page 86
Resolution No. HSPB #163 – The Richard and Signe Residence
March 4, 2025
The neighborhood continues to be a golf course community as originally intended. The integrity of association remains unchanged.
SECTION 3: DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS
In considering a recom mendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that contribute to the resource’s historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character -defining features from non- original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.
Character-defining features of the resource are as follows:
• Site design and placement of the home abutting the open and unobstructed views of the open green space
• An emphasis on horizontality with low slung, asymmetrically pitched roof • Trapezoidal stacked stone walls on the east (front) elevation • 9- bay floor to ceiling windows behind the stone walls on the east elevation • Minimal window to wall ratio on the front elevation
• Vertical wood siding
• H- shaped floor plan that divides the private and public spaces • Deep overhangs and recessed entry with solid double doors • Post- and-beam construction with exposed beams along the exterior eaves of the building
• Extensive use of glazing in the form of aluminum-framed windows and doors • Open courtyard to the rear of the home beyond the front entry with beams that expand across the space
• Stacked stone mailbox column that matches the main house • The original 1966 Prestige swimming pool
• “Champagne glass” fireplace in front of a stone wall (interior feature) • Roman tub with original tiles (interior feature)
Non-contributing elements:
• The 2022 attached casita addition to the southwest corner of the home • Non-original hardscaping
• Spa and tanning shelf
• Concrete block perimeter walls
• Rooftop photovoltaic system
• Brise soleil at front façade
• C oncrete paving materials
SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Item 2A - Page 87
Item 2A - Page 88
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 4, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: APPLICATION BY JULI SAVITT -CAVNAR AND ADAM CAVNAR FOR HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION OF “ THE RICHARD AND SIGNE
HOLECHEK RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, (APN 681-242-008) CASE: HSPB #163 (SY)
FROM: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
This request for Class 1 historic designation was submitted by the current owners of the property. This single-family home is located along the fairways of the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course was designed by architect Donald Wexler during the post-World War II period.
The period of significance for this site is 1965.
If designated as a historic resource, the property would be subject to the regulations outlined in Section 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2. Close the public hearing and adopt Resolution HSPB #163, “A RESOLUTION OF
THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATE “THE RICHARD AND SIGNE HOLECHEK RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, AS A CLASS 1 (LANDMARK) HISTORIC RESOURCE, HSPB #163, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (APN #681-242-008).”
BACKGROUND AND SETTING:
The Green Fairway Estates is a residential tract that contains 35 homes designed by architect Donald Wexler. The Alexanders subdivided this area into 55 lots that abutted the public golf course and the 9 model plans are named after famous gold courses around the world.
1 Unlike the earlier residential tract homes built in Palm Springs, these homes were intended for full-time residential use, hence the larger rooms and design features that accounted for the summer heat.
1 McGrew, Patrick. Donald Wexler: Architect. (Palm Springs Preservation Foundation), 32.
Item 2A - Page 89
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report March 4, 2025 HSPB-163 – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION FROM PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, 2025.
Related Relevant City Actions by HSPB, Planning, Fire, Building, etc.
February, 2025 Site inspection by members of the HSPB and City Staff.
Ownership Status
May, 2019 Purchased by the current owner.
Item 2A - Page 90
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report March 4, 2025 HSPB-163 – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
Historic Context Statement “Post-World War II (1945-1969)”
During the postwar period, the demand for full-time residential housing resulted in the city’s expansion east ward and southward. R esort-style living attracted the growing middle-class to the area and golf became a major attraction. The sport was popularized across the United States and fairway living emerged throughout the desert region. 2 This
model of integrating residential development into the design of the golf course was a distinct and innovative urban pattern. While many communities were built around private clubs and golf courses, Green Fairway Estates targeted the middle -class and marketed homes around the public golf course as “golf-course living” with affordable green fees. 3 Context: Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945-1969)
Theme: Post World War II Single-Family Residential Development (1945-1969) Sub-theme: Golf Course Single-family Residential Development (1960- 1969)
Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme, a property must:
Date from the period of significance; and
Represent an excellent example of an architectural style or method of construction; or be associated with a significant architect or designer; and Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and
Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.
Context: Architectural Styles & Local Practitioners
Theme: Modern Styles of the Post-World War II Era
Sub-theme: Mid-century Modern
Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme as an excellent example of its architectural style, a property must:
Retain most – though not necessarily all – of the character-defining features of the style, and continue to exhibit its historic appearance If important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique, must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.
ANALYSIS:
A historic resources report (“the report”), site visit, and city documents and forms are the basis of this staff report. Designed by Wexler, the Holechek Residence was designed in the Mid-century Modern style of architecture. The report clarifies that various alterations were reversed by the owners between 2012 – 2019.
Historic Preservation activities in Palm Springs are regulated under Municipal Code Section 8.05 (“ Historic Preservation” ). The purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is:
2 City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement “Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945-1969)”, 237. 3 City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement “Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945-1969)”, 242.
Item 2A - Page 91
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report March 4, 2025 HSPB-163 – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
“…to stabilize and improve buildings, structures or areas which are considered to be of historical, architectural, archaeological or ecological
value, to foster civic beauty, to strengthen the local economy and to promote the use of historic resources for the education and welfare of the citizens.”
Conditions that apply to Class 1 historic sites or resources:
1. It shall meet the definition of a historic site as outlined in Municipal Code Section
8.05.020.
2. An archival file shall be maintained on the property by the City.
3. It may be qualified as ‘historic’ at the federal, state, and/or county level.
4. A marker explaining the historic nature of the site may be installed in a location viewable from the public way.
5. Compliance with all rules and regulations for Historic Resources and Historic Districts under Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code.
6. If designated, the findings in support of designation shall be stated in a resolution of the City Council that shall be recorded with the County Recorders’ office within 90 days of the effective date of the Council’s resolution.
Evaluation of the Application. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.070 (C,1,a), the HSPB shall evaluate the application and make findings in conformance with the following criteria:
Criteria for the Designation of Class 1 Historic Resources. A site, structure, building or object may be designated as a Class 1 historic resource, provided both of the following findings (“a” and “b”) are met:
a. The site, structure, building or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:
2395 Pebble Beach Drive is a single-family home constructed in the Mid-century Modern style. The H-shaped floor plan appears to be the basic layout for all of the models and the site placement of the homes abut the golf course. Many character-defining elements on the front façade of the home have been restored and the new addition completed in 2022 has no adverse impact to the original design. The following is an analysis of the criterion and integrity findings for historic designation.
(Criterion i) The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or community;
No meaningful event is associated with this site, thus does not qualify under Criterion i.
(Criterion ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state or local history;
Item 2A - Page 92
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report March 4, 2025 HSPB-163 – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
Richard and Signe Holechek are the first owners of the home in November of 1965. Deed records show at least 6 different entities owning the property since its construction. Based on the information provided in the historic resources report, the site is not associated with individuals that meet this criterion.
(Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local history;
Palms Springs during the postwar period reflects growth, prosperity and leisure. Housing for full-time residents meant the design now incorporates functional qualities to address the harsh summer conditions of the desert by creating more space for st orage and garages instead of carports to protect cars and golf carts from the elements year-round.
The aesthetic qualities of the home include post-and-beam construction, deep overhangs, stacked stone walls, and floor -to-ceiling fenestration. The home is a simple low- slung gabled roof structure with stone walls creating articulation along the front façade. The integrated placement of the home to the public golf course is a reflection of “golf course single-family residential development” during this period. The home is an example of Mid- century Modern architecture but more importantly, it is an example of a new residential typology that highlights the importance of golf as a leisure activity and its impact on urban design. Staff finds Criterion iii is met.
(Criterion iv) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;
Unlike the National Register criterion concerning construction, the Palm Springs evaluation of construction addresses the type (of construction), the period (of construction) and the method (of construction). The home was constructed using conventional methods and no new building materials or technology was specifically identified. Criterion iv is not met.
(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;
By 1965, Alexander Construction had already solidified their reputation as one of the most influential developers in the region with over a dozen residential tract developments completed. When developing the Green Fairway Estates, the Alexanders approached architect Donald Wexler to design the models for the development. Considered one of the main architects representing Desert Modernism and the Palm Springs School of Architecture, Wexler’s genius and influence is captured in his projects throughout the valley including the Palm Springs International Airport, which was completed the following year in 1966. Although 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is not a custom -designed home, the architectural features and versatility of the plan demonstrates the architect’s knowledge of materials and tract home development. Green Fairway Estates is also the last tract development by the Alexanders. The home embodies the collaboration between Wexler and the Alexanders, thus Criterion v for historic significance is met.
Item 2A - Page 93
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report March 4, 2025 HSPB-163 – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
(Criterion vi) The resource represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, as used in evaluating applications for designation of historic districts, for parcels on which more than one entity exists; or
The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi.
(Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.
No information is available on any pre-historic significance of the site.
Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C,1,b). The site, structure, building or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.
The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence is evaluated based on the following topics of integrity based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:
Location.
The home is in its original location on the lot; therefore, the integrity of location is met.
Design.
Wexler designed 9 floor plans for this residential development to have the versatility to be rotated or mirrored on any given lot. Various roof forms, including those inspired by Polynesian/Southeast Asian architecture, exist; however, this home has a low -slung gable roof form that focuses on the stacked stone walls as the key architectural feature.
The floor plan for 2395 Pebble Beach Drive is known as the “Wentworth.” The H-shaped floor plan organizes the interior spaces in two separate wings that effectively separate the public spaces from the private spaces . As one enters the home, the entry is oriented towards an unobstructed view of the mountains beyond the adjacent golf course, and the view of the landscape is framed through the open courtyard. The amount of glazing on the front elevation is limited, giving the home a feeling of monumentality but light is directed into the living space through the 9 -bay floor -to-ceiling window configuration behind the trapezoidal rock wall. The deep eaves and enclosed garage enhance the livability of the home by tak ing the summer conditions into account. The surrounding landscape features are minimal and do not obscure the home from view. Insensitive alterations to the front façade were removed and the 2022 attached addition , which enclosed a smaller courtyard, has a subordinate roofline that does not create a negative visual impact to the existing design. Staff finds the restored resource meets the integrity of the original design by Wexler.
Setting.
The original setting of the home is integral to its relationship to the golf course, which is effectively a large open green space. The home retains its location and the surrounding Item 2A - Page 94
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report March 4, 2025 HSPB-163 – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
setting of the golf course remains intact, thus the integrity of setting is met.
Materials.
The home was built with materials that were commonly used during this period and the restored fenestration remains true to the original design. The stacked stone walls remain a prominent feature and are well maintained. The overall integrity of material is met.
Workmanship.
The home was constructed using conventional methods of construction and commonly used materials; however, the stone walls found both inside and outside t he home reveal a high level of workmanship and attention to detail. Staff finds the integrity of workmanship remains intact.
Feeling.
The simple design of the home and its strong connection to the original setting of the golf course preserves the original feeling of the site design.
Association.
The property is associated with architect Donald Wexler and the Alexander Construction Company, as well as the Mid-century Modern Movement of the post-World War II period.
The neighborhood continues to be a golf course community as originally intended. The integrity of association remains unchanged.
DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS:
In considering a recommendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that, contribute to the resource’s historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character - defining features from non- original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.
Character-defining features on page 3 0 of the historic resources report and the staff analysis of important features are listed as follows:
• Site design and placement of the home abutting the open green space • An emphasis on horizontality with low slung, asymmetrically pitched roof • Trapezoidal stacked stone walls on the east (front) elevation • 9- bay floor to ceiling windows behind the stone walls on the east elevation • M inimal window to wall ratio on the front elevation
• Vertical wood siding
• H- shaped floor plan that divides the private and public spaces • Deep overhangs and recessed entry with solid double doors • Post- and-beam construction with exposed beams along the exterior eaves of the building
Item 2A - Page 95
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report March 4, 2025 HSPB-163 – The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence
• Extensive use of glazing in the form of aluminum-framed windows and doors • Open courtyard to the rear of the home beyond the front entry with beams that expand across the space
• Stacked stone mailbox column that matches the main house • “Champagne glass” fireplace in front of a stone wall (interior features)
Non-contributing elements:
• The 2022 attached casita addition to the southwest corner of the home • Non-original hardscaping
• Spa and tanning shelf
• Concrete block perimeter walls
• Rooftop photovoltaic system
• Brise soleil at front facade
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to section 8.05.140 of the Municipal Code of Palm Springs, all residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property have been notified and notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation.
CONCLUSION:
The Richard and Signe Holechek Residence meets the definition of a historic resource based on Criterion 3 and 5 of the Palm Springs Historic Preservation Ordinance and meets the necessary integrity findings to support its historic significance; therefore, staff recommends Class 1 Designation as a historic landmark property.
PREPARED BY: Sarah Yoon, Associate Planner/Historic Preservation Officer REVIEWED BY: Anthony Riederer, Assistant Director of Planning Services REVIEWED BY: Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services
Attachments:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft Resolution
C. A pplication, related background materials, photos.
Item 2A - Page 96
EXCERPTS OF MINUTES
At the Historic Site Preservation Board meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held March 4, 2025, the Historic Site Preservation Board took the following action:
2.A. APPLICATION BY JULI SAVITT-CAVNAR AND ADAM CAVNAR, FOR
HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION OF THE RICHARD AND SIGNE
HOLECHEK RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2395 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE,
(APN 681-242-008) CASE: HSPB #163 (SY).
Associate Planner and Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon presented the staff report and answered questions of the board.
Juli Savitt-Cavnar and Adam Cavnar, applicants, spoke and answered questions of the board.
Public Comments received were in favor of the nomination.
Motion by Chair Nelson, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenow, to adopt Resolution HSPB #163 with revisions to the resolution, and determination pursuant to CEQA that this action is not a project.
AYES:
Nelson, Bachman, Hansen, Herr, Moruzzi, Maschka Hitchcock, Rosenow.
NOES: None.
ABSEBT: None.
Item 2A - Page 97
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
06/11/2025
SUBJECT:
GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL, AND AIRPORT DRAFT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2025-26 AND 2026-27
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff on any changes to the draft fiscal year 2025-26 and draft fiscal year 2026-27 budgets.
Attachments
Item 3A
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 11, 2025 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL, AND AIRPORT DRAFT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2025-26 AND 2026-27
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Department of Finance and Treasury
Department of Engineering
Department of Aviation
SUMMARY:
This item represents a preliminary overview of the fiscal year 2025- 26 and fiscal year 2026-27 General Fund Budget, Capital Plan Update, and Palm Springs International Airport Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff on any changes to the draft fiscal year 2025- 26 and draft fiscal year 2026-27 budgets.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Table 1 on the following page, a forecast of the current fiscal year General Fund revenue and expe nditures, is provided along with a preliminary overview of General Fund budgeted revenue and expenditures for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27.
Following Table 1 , each fiscal year’s revenue and expense highlights are outlined to provide additional detail.
Item 3A - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 2
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
GENERAL FUND
TABLE 1
FY24/25 FY25/26 F Y26/27
Revenue Forecast Draft Budget Draft Budget
Transient Occupancy Tax 48,990,196 49,105,600 49,586,656 Property Taxes 37,651,390 38,261,300 38,643,913
Sales and Use Taxes 29,037,700 29,839,008 30,167,739
Permits, Fines, and Fees 15,353,204 15,285,424 15,407,174 Utility Users Tax 10,986,817 11,904,900 12,023,949
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 6,695,932 7,060,800 7,131,408 Other Taxes 7,406,259 6,998,080 7,067,900
Miscellaneous Income 4,689,038 4,521,205 4,552,595
Franchise Tax 4,769,609 4,362,900 4,406,529
Interest Income 3,751,433 3,833,400 3,871,734
Cannabis Tax 1,127,412 938,100 953,481
Total Revenue $170,458,990 $172,110,717 $173,813,078
Transfers from Other Funds 5,000,000 0 0
Total Revenue & Transfers $175,458,990 $172,110,717 $173,813,078 FY24/25 FY25/26 FY26/27
Expenses Forecast Draft Budget Draft Budget
Admin & Economic Development 9,125,918 8,505,393 8,926,880 Development Services 15,647,809 19,093,836 22,724,249
Fire Department 29,627,721 30,065,233 31,692,244
General Government 21,637,297 21,854,730 22,550,152
Library 3,260,030 3,444,082 3,527,535
Miscellaneous Expense 1,912,858 2,030,617 1,746,907
Parks and Recreation 8,463,681 11,913,544 12,282,441
Police Department 43,786,215 47,232,681 49,217,605
Public Works 14,871,544 12,418,187 12,190,259
Tourism and Community Support 9,167,576 8,168,607 8,596,799 Total Operating Expenses $157,500,650 $164,726,911 $173,455,072 Transfers to Other Funds 15,159,587 8,708,567 8,866,465 Total Expense & Transfers $172,660,237 $173,435,478 $182,321,537 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $2,798,754 ($1,324,761) ($8,508,459) Item 3A - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 3
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
General Fund Budgetary Highlights Fiscal Years 2025-26 & FY 2026-27
Revenue
The City’s method of projecting revenues is a combination of observing historical trend of the City’s revenue data and tracking at a monthly level the current fiscal year. In addition to this, the City works with financial consultants who gather business data on a great number of businesses Citywide and regionally. They issue City -specific forecasts which we incorporate into the revenue projections. Below are budgetary revenue highlights for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27:
• Total revenues are expected to grow 1% or $1.6 million in FY 2025-26 and 1% or $1.7 million in FY 2026-27.
• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) will remain stable in FY 2025-26 at $49.1 million and $49.6 million in FY 2026-27. The hospitality industry in Palm Springs remains robust particularly among the hotel category, which is 72% of total TOT revenue.
• Property Taxes have been stronger than usual growth over the last few years. The City is expecting this trend to slow down slightly and maintain a robust trend in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27.
• Sales and Use Taxes are received mostly during the last six months of the fiscal year. The City is planning for a growth of 3% or $0.8m in FY 2025-26 and continued growth in FY 2026-27 of 1% or $0.3m.
• Utility Users Tax (UUT) has experienced decreases in recent years. The City is expecting this trend to turn into moderate growth in FY 2025- 26 of 8% and to continue to remain robust in FY 2026-27.
Operating Expense
The Finance and Treasury team works to understand the business of each department and their needs where it relates to financial planning and analysis. The team also meets with the Budget Committee comprised of the Assistant and Deputy City Managers, Finance Director, Assistant Director of Finance, and Budget Manager, and is headed by the City Manager. This committee collaboratively works to address the needs of each department to remain highly effective in their areas for the greatest impact on the lives of every resident of the City. The Finance team also works to understand how the expenditure unfolds throughout the course of the current fiscal year and how that will impact the future needs of the department in the coming fiscal years. Expenditure budgetary highlights are detailed below:
Item 3A - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 4
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
• Total Operating Expenses are expected to grow 4.6 % or $7.2 million in FY 2025- 26 and 5.3% or $8.7 million in FY 2026-27 mainly due to increases in salaries and benefits and operational cost of the Navigation Center (only partial funding for FY 2025-26 and currently no funding for FY 2026-27).
CHART 1
• Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions per the recently approved allocated positions plan for non-public safety City staff is planned to increase by 1.5 FTE (2 part time lifeguards for the swim center to extend the opening hours to 7 p.m. from Monday- Thursday). However, due to continued hiring of staff (vacant positions), scheduled salary increases with staff labor unions, and higher premiums for insurances, salaries and benefits are expected to grow 3.8% or $3.7 million in FY 2025-26 and 6% or $6.0 million in FY 2026-27.
• Development Services increases by 22% or $3.4 million in FY2025-26 and 19% or $3.6m in FY 2026- 27 due to increases in Citywide security costs ($0.5m), and Navigation Center operational cost ($1.4 million in FY 2025-26 and $4.95 million in FY 2026-27 due to exhausted HHAP funding). The City continues to pursue additional funding sources to cover the operation cost of the Navigation Center.
• Parks & Recreation increases by 41% or $3.4 million in FY2025-26 mainly due to the transfer in of the Park Maintenance department from Public Works in the amount of $2.4 million.
• Public Works decreases by 16% or $2.4 million in FY 2025-26, due to the transfer out of Park Maintenance.
Item 3A - Page 4
Trend Major General Fund Expenses
in o/o of Total Revenue FY22 - FY27
70% 61%
57% 58%
60%
51%
50% 46%
42%
40% -
30%
20% 13% 14% 13% 15%
8% 9%
10%
8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 0% 5%
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Actuals Act uals Actuals Forecast Budge t ed Budgeted
- Salaries and Benefits - Contractual Services - Repair & Maintenance City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 5
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
• The Salaries and Benefits graph below (Chart 2) depicts the personnel cost from FY 2021-22 Actuals through the FY 2026-27 Budgeted for the General Fund. Costs have increased approximately $35 million, or 50%. Allocated positions for General Fund have increased from 515.5 FTE in FY 2022-23 to 549.5 FTE in the FY 2024- 25 revised budget for the City. There is no planned increase in the FY 2026-27 at this time.
CHART 2
Support from Other Funds for Public Safety and Climate Actions
Safety Augmentation Fund
The Safety Augmentation Fund is a special revenue fund that is funded through the Bradley Burns sales tax collected by the State and then distributed to the Cou nties and Cities. This sales tax generates approximately $1.8 million annually. These funds are restricted for public safety purposes only. Currently, this fund supports 2 police officers and 3 firefighters. This budget includes an additional 2 police offic ers and 1 firefighter in FY 2025-26 for a cost of $561,000 annually for a total public safety personnel support of 4 police officers and 4 firefighters at approximately $1.5 million annually.
Community Facilities District Public Safety #1 (CFD 2005-1)
The CFD 2005- 1 fund is funded through a property tax assessment on various developments with the City of Palm Springs. Additionally, each new development that is constructed is annexed into this CFD. The CFD is restricted for public safety purposes and generates approximately $1.3 million annually. The CFD currently funds 1 police officer. This FY 2025-26 budget includes the addition of 1 police officer and 2 firefighters for a cost of $611,750 annually for a total public safety personnel support of 2 polic e officers and 2 firefighters at approximately $1 million annually.
Item 3A - Page 5
General Fund - Salaries and Benefits
(in USD millions)
120 106
97 100
100 90
81 80 71
60 40
20 0
FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26 FY26-27
Actuals Actuals Actuals Forecast Budgeted Budgeted
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 6
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
Sustainability
The City receives revenue through its solid waste franchise agreement with Palm Springs Disposal Services (PSDS) to support the City’s Sustainability Program. The City established a solid waste diversion and sustainability charge to generate revenue for the Sustainability Program, and pursuant to the franchise with PSDS the City includes a fee in the solid waste charges for this purpose. This generates approximately $500,000 of revenue annually. The initiatives below will be funded using a combination of this recurring revenue and existing fund balance.
• Turf Conversion - Continue the program to match the Desert Water Agency’s Turf Conversion Rebate Program to help residents and businesses remove turf and replace it with low-water landscapes.
• Heat and Shade Grant - The City was awarded a grant from Caltrans to study the impacts of heat on the transportation system and understand how strategic applications of shade can encourage active transportation in the City. The focus will be on maximizing safety, health, and low-carbon mobility for all residents and visitors throughout the City.
• Energy Efficiency for Low -Income Housing - Sustainability and Housing & Community Development Departments will collaborate to launch a new program to improve health, comfort, and climate resilience in homes for low -income residents. The focus is to improve efficiency by maximizing insulation, window, and roof performance to reduce fossil fuel use by incorporating healthy and efficient HVAC, water heating, and cooking equipment. This program will be launched later in the year.
Non-Operating Income and Expenses
TABLE 2
Non-Operating FY24/25 FY25/26 FY26/27
Income/Expenses Forecast Draft Budget Draft Budget
Grant Revenue 10,529,687 11,819,172 2,832,283
Grant Expense (10,529,687) (11,819,172) (2,832,283)
Council Set Aside Expense (6,130,788) (2,900,000)
CalPERS Payment (28,500,000)
Total Non-Operating Surplus/(Deficit) ($34,630,788) ($2,900,000) $0 Surplus/(Deficit) ($31,832,034) ($4,224,761) ($8,508,459) Item 3A - Page 6
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 7
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
Non-Operating Highlights
• Grant Revenue/Expense includes:
o In October 2023, the Palm Springs Police Department was awarded $4.6 million in Retail Theft Grant funding from the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). On April 23, 2025, the Council approved an agreement for the design, installation, and project management for a Real Time Operations Center (RTOC) in an amount not to exceed $518,742, using BSCC grant funding. The Department anticipates that the entirety of funding allocated towards the creation of the RTOC will be expended no later than the end of FY2025-26. The Retail Theft Grant carry forward to FY 2025-26 is approximately $2.1 million, intended to be used for before-mentioned RTOC, City Cameras, Drone Equipment, and Salaries & Benefits for one Police Sergeant as the Grant Administrator at the Police Department.
o For FY 2025- 26 the City of Palm Springs projects carry forward of the Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) in the amount of approximately $4.8 million, to advance its coordinated efforts to address unsheltered homelessness. During the next fiscal year, the Cit y will prioritize maintaining housing stability for ERF -enrolled clients and completing remaining permanent housing placements, with the goal of housing 50 individuals by December 2027. All efforts will align with state mandated performance benchmarks, including the full obligation and expenditure of ERF funds by June 30, 2027, as required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
o The Navigation Center opened in November 2024 to temporarily house some of the City’s unhoused population. The continued operations of the Navigation Center will be funded in FY2025- 26 by the State’s Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program with the remaining funding amount of approximately $3.5 million. This carry forward of the HHAP Grant does not cover the total annual operations cost of $4.9 million. The gap of $1.4 million must be funded by the General Fund in FY 2025-26. The City continues to pursue additional funding sources to cover the operations of the Navigation Center.
• The Council Set Aside annual expense is budgeted for FY 2025- 26 at $2.9 million.
This contains the following programs:
o Affordable Housing (Desert Highland SFR Developments) forecasted at $2.0 million
o Homeless Programs ( Homeless Cool/Warm Centers ) forecasted at $0.4 million
o Climate Action Plan (Turf Conversion) forecasted at $0.5 million All Council Set Aside Expense is projected to be spent in full by the end of fiscal year 2025-26.
Item 3A - Page 7
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 8
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
• The City plans for a large down payment of the CalPERS liability in the amount of $28.5 million in June 2025.
General Fund Balance Development and Reconciliation
The following table depicts a roll forward of the General Fund balance:
TABLE 3
Unassigned Funds – Declining Balance
The Unassigned Fund Balance has a sharp decline from FY 24/25 through FY 26/27. This is largely due to two items: The deficit at the end of each year and the continued funding of the CalPERS pension reserve and affordable housing reserve. In prior years, there has been a surplus that could fund the $6 million annual contribution to the pension reserve and the $3 million contribution to the affordable housing reserve. The budget is projecting a FY24/25 FY25/26 F Y26/27
Fund Balances Forecast Draft Budget Draft Budget
Fund Balance - Beginning of Year $145,926,972 $114,094,937 $109,870,176 Total Revenues 175,458,990 172,110,717 173,813,078
Total Expenses 172,660,237 173,435,478 182,321,537
Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 2,798,753 (1,324,761) (8,508,459) Grant Revenue 10,529,687 11,819,172 2,832,283
Grant Expense (10,529,687) (11,819,172) (2,832,283)
Council Set Aside Expense (6,130,788) (2,900,000)
CalPERS Payment (28,500,000)
Total Non-Operating Surplus/(Deficit) (34,630,788) (2,900,000) 0 Surplus/(Deficit) ($31,832,035) ($4,224,761) ($8,508,459) Fund Balance - End of Year $114,094,937 $109,870,176 $101,361,718 Ending Fund Balance Reconciliation
CalPERS Reserve 17,750,000 23,750,000 29,750,000
Affordable Housing Reserve 9,166,762 12,166,762 15,166,762 Reserve Economic Incentive 166,667 166,667 166,667
Reserve Cannabis Programs 70,917 89,679 108,749
Minimum Fund Balance (20% of OpEx) 32,934,476 32,945,382 34,691,014 Unassigned Funds 54,006,116 40,751,687 21,478,526
TOTAL Year End Balance $114,094,938 $109,870,177 $101,361,718 Item 3A - Page 8
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 9
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
deficit, and thus, no surplus to fund the reserve, the funding has to come via a transfer from the unassigned fund balance to both the pension and affordable housing reserves. The deficit, combined with the transfer of continued support for these other reserves, is causing the unassigned fund balance to be depleted. This sharp decline is not sustainable after FY26/27 into the future years. See below for a reconciliation of this unassigned fund balance.
Description FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Unassigned Funds - Beginning Balance $54,006,116 $40,751,687 Surplus/Deficit (4,224,761) (8,508,459)
CalPERS Pension Transfer (6,000,000) (6,000,000) TOT to Affordable Housing Transfer (3,000,000) (3,000,000) Increase in Reserve for Cannabis (18,762) (19,070) Increase in Minimum Fund Balance (10,906) (1,745,632) Total Unassigned Funds $ 40,751,687 $ 21,478,526
TABLE 4
Updates to the General Fund Budget after Council Presentation May 22, 2025
The following is a list of the updates to the budget after May 22, 2025, with explanations.
TABLE 5
Surplus/(Deficit) Rev.9 Explanation - 33,236,006 -3,988,435 -9,904,296 Property Tax To update to FY25 Actuals Trend - 600,000 0 0 Sales Tax To update to FY25 Actuals Trend 500,000 0 0
Transient Occupancy Tax To update to FY25 Actuals Trend 500,000 0 0 Cannabis Tax To update to FY25 Actuals Trend -230,000 0 0 Other Taxes To update to FY25 Actuals Trend -156,281 0 0 Misc. Income To update to FY25 Actuals Trend & Rev. Adj. FY26&27 52,238 -76,500 -76,500 Permits, Fines & Fees To update to FY25 Actuals Trend & Rev. Adj. FY26&27 1,287,849 285,311 289,415 Subtotal Revenue Changes - Increase or (Decrease) 1,353,806 208,811 212,915 Salaries & Benefits To update FY25 Trend & Cost Savings in FY26&27 500,000 774,174 856,371 Insurance Cost Savings in FY26&27 0 42,418 55,927
Fleet Service Allocation Cost Savings in FY26&27 0 531,164 1,295,532 Vehicle Maintenance Allocation Cost Savings in FY26&27 0 1,209,541 177,025 Facilities Maintenance Allocation To update FY25 Trend & Cost Adjustments in FY26&27 -128,728 -1,492,003 838,189 Contractual Services To update FY25 Trend & Cost Adjustments in FY26&27 -141,097 15,000 41,250 Other Expenses To update FY25 Trend & Cost Adjustments in FY26&27 -280,011 402,100 -25,940 Utilities To update FY25 Trend & Cost Adjustments in FY26&27 100,000 -24,800 5,200 Transfer Out To update Debt Service Payments in FY26&27 0 -1,902,730 -2,060,628 Subtotal Expenses Changes - (Increase) or Decrease 50,164 -445,137 1,182,927 Surplus/(Deficit) Rev12.2 -31,832,034 - 4,224,761 -8,508,459 FY 24-25
FCST
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Item 3A - Page 9
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 10
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
Looking Ahead
• The historic Plaza Theater is expected to reopen in December 2025 after a major restoration initiative.
• Chick-fil-A has completed the entitlement process and should receive all permits by the end of 2025 for planned opening in 2026.
• In-N-Out Burger is working through the entitlement process and should receive all permits in 2026 for planned opening in 2027.
• The 740,000 square-foot fulfillment center in North Palm Springs has been approved for construction and is expected to create over 700 jobs. Scheduled to open at the end of 2026.
• The second fulfillment center with two buildings (1.9 million square- foot) is currently completing environmental review and is expected to receive entitlements this summer and permits by the end of year for planned opening late 2026 or early 2027.
• Convention Center Master Plan Improvements expected to be completed in 2029. • College of the Desert – Palm Springs Campus plans to open in 2028.
CAPITAL BUDGET AND PROJECT UPDATE
Many different revenue sources support the City’s Capital Projects. The City receives an allocation of Gas taxes from the State that supports many transportation projects such as street and traffic signal improvements. Additionally, the City has imposed one local sales tax, Measure J at 1%, and Riverside County has imposed one sales tax, Measure A at ½%, which is managed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The Measure A tax is restricted to street improvements, but Measure J can be used for any general use. It should be noted that while Measure J funds can be used for anything, it has been the City’s practice to use these funds for various Capital needs, including those needs in public safety. The City also will charge impact fees on new developments within the City. These fees are restricted to Drainage construction and Parks and Recreation.
The City also receives funding from the California Department of Transportation and Coachella Valley Association of Governments to assist in large local and regional transportation projects.
Due to the many distinct types of sources, the City’s Capital Revenue can fluctuate significantly from year to year. This is usually due to the types of projects under construction and the amount of reimbursable revenue that is received. In fiscal year 2025- 26, the City expects to receive $71.1 million in Capital funding, but in fiscal year 2026-27, the revenue drops $65.4 million.
Item 3A - Page 10
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 11
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
The Capital plan includes budgeted expenditures in fiscal year 2025- 26 of $80.7 million and in fiscal year 2026-27 of $64.8 million. The expenditures are related to various Capital projects that are managed by the City Engineer and the Engineering Department.
Additional information on some of those projects is provided below, following Table 2.
Table 6 below represents the FY 2025- 26 and FY 2026- 27 budgeted revenues and expenditures for all the funds that support the City’s Capital Projects.
TABLE 6
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Budget
Fund
Beg Fund
Balance Revenue Transfer In Expenditures T ransfer Out
Ending Fund
Balance Use of Funds
Gas Tax 3,035,316 1, 144,400 - 975,000 - 3,204,716 Streets Measure A 16,112,646 8,372,277 - 14,267,489 - 10,217,435 Streets Drainage 245,867 342,300 - 540,000 - 48,167 Drainage RMRA 771,903 1,150,600 - 1,000,000 - 922,503 Transportation Quimby 3,660,550 572,000 - 2,000,000 - 2,232,550 Parks & Rec Measure J 6,997,936 22,572,500 - 19,741,375 3,135,806 6,693,255 General Capital Fund 35,221,942 36,950,000 - 42,250,000 - 29,921,942 Various Total 66,046,160 71,104,077 - 80,773,864 3,135,806 53,240,568 Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget
Fund
Beg Fund
Balance Revenue Transfer In Expenditures T ransfer Out
Ending Fund
Balance Use of Funds
Gas Tax 3,204,716 1, 155,784 - 675,000 - 3,685,500 Streets Measure A 10,217,435 7,892,536 - 8,626,164 - 9,483,806 Streets Drainage 48,167 345,723 - 200,000 - 193,890 Drainage RMRA 922,503 1,162,106 - - - 2,084,609 Transportation Quimby 2,232,550 577,720 - 2,000,000 - 810,270 Parks & Rec Measure J 6,693,255 22,899,838 11,500,000 20,800,000 3,137,913 17,155,180 General Capital Fund 29,921,942 31,400,000 - 32,500,000 - 28,821,942 Various Total 53,240,568 65,433,707 11,500,000 64,801,164 3,137,913 62,235,197
NOTE THAT ANY CAPITAL FOR THE AIRPORT OR WASTEWATER PLANT WILL GET FUNDED OUT OF THEIR OWN FUND Item 3A - Page 11
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 12
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
Updates to the Capital Project Budget after Council Presentation May 22, 2025
TABLE 6.1
• Swim Center – Expenses were removed from Measure J budget and will be absorbed into the library debt service. Project consists of remodel of the existing Swim Center interior, exterior, roof and add ADA accessible ramps to the facility.
• Additional Community Initiated Project – Measure J will fund $250,000 for Dezart Performs to assist in closing the gap in the total costs for the church remodel.
• Highway Safety Improvement Projects (HSIP) Cycle 9 and 11 - The HSIP state program reimburses the project up to 100% of the programmed project cost. If projects exceed the program project costs, the City will fund the remainder of the project costs. Staff added $800,000 for the HSIP Cycle 9 Project and $1,000,000 for the HSIP Cycle 11 Project. Both Projects are anticipated to be under construction in the next two fiscal years.
The comprehensive Capital Projects Schedule can be found as Attachment C.
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
California Government Code Section 65403 and the Administration Element of the City’s General Plan requires that the City Council review and adopt a Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Staff developed the comprehensive Five- Year CIP by evaluating proposed capital projects to determine the estimated cost, funding source, and prioritization within the next 5 years. The objectives of the Five-Year CIP are:
Fund
FY2026
Expenditures
FY2027
Expenditures
Measure J
Swim Center ( 4,000,000) (3,000,000.00)
Additional Community Initiated Project 250,000.00 - Total Measure J Fund Updates (3,750,000.00) (3,000,000.00) Capital Fund
HSIP Cycle 9 800,000.00 -
HSIP Cycle 11 1,000,000.00 -
Total Capital Project Fund Updates 1,800,000.00 -
-
Total (1,950,000.00) (3,000,000.00)
Capital Project Updates after Council Presentation May 22, 2025 Item 3A - Page 12
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 13
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
• Promote sound financial planning in the implementation of capital projects.
• Identify and forecast funding needs and sources to maximize federal, state, regional, and local funding sources.
• Implement projects that meet the community and City Council goals.
• Complete capital improvements in a timely and systematic manner.
The Five-Year CIP will be reviewed annually, during which time the City's needs may be re-prioritized, and the City's financial status may be re-evaluated.
Measure “J” Recommended Projects
In 2011, Palm Springs voters approved Measure J, a dedicated local revenue measure in the form of a one percent (1%) local sales tax increase to maintain local community services and economically revitalize Downtown Palm Springs and generate a revenue stream for local capital projects. Measure J was effective on April 1, 2012, with a sunset on March 31, 2037. On November 5, 2024, Palm Springs voters approved to remove the sunset provision.
At the May 15, 2025, Measure “J” Commission meeting, Staff presented a draft of the current projects funded by Measure “J” within the Five-Year CIP. Staff recommended five new projects as follows:
- Swim Center Renovations – removed from Measure J budget. S ee Table 6.1 for update from May 22, 2025, meeting.
- In ground pedestrian system replacement for new students - Convention Center Design
- Convention Center Design – Connectors
- Fire Station #1 Design
- 21 new Community Initiated Projects were approved by the Measure J Commission. See Table 6.1 for update from May 22, 2025, meeting.
Current Projects in FY 2024-25 Thru FY 2025-26
Staff actively work ed on over 40 Capital Projects. Over the five years of the CIP the estimated value of the projects is over $450,000,000.
The following is a list of projects completed and of projects that are currently under construction or in design for FY 2024-25 Thru FY 2025-26:
Item 3A - Page 13
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 14
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
Completed Projects in FY 2024-25 through FY 2025-26:
• WWTP Sludge Drying Beds
• Airport Shared Use Podiums Bono Concourse
• Pavement Rehab 2024
• Airport Advance Ped Xing
• Navigation Center
• Storm Drain Line 20
• Recreation Fields Lighting LED Upgrades
• Bogert Trail Lift Station
• HSIP Cycle 8 – Traffic Signal Improvements
• Airport Taxiway Rehabilitation
• Street Slurry 2024
Major Projects in Design and Construction FY 2024-25 through FY 2025-26:
• Main Library Remodel
• Swim Center Locker Rooms
• City-Wide Slurry Seal
• Citywide Pavement Rehab
• Traffic Operations Center Communications Upgrades
• Traffic Signal at Indian Canyon x Via Escuela
• Indian Canyon Sewer from Tram Station Road to Tram View Road • Indian Canyon Bridge over UPRR
• South Palm Canyon Bridge at Tahquitz Creek
• Pickleball Courts at Demuth Park
• Gene Autry Wind Wall
• Ramon Road Bridge
• Plaza Theatre
• Demuth Dog Parks and Parking Lot Drainage
The City’s Capital funds facilitate the funding of critical projects, that both increase the quality of life for the residents, ensure for the critical safety of C ity infrastructure, as well as ensuring the public can carry out their day-to-day functions. A listing of major ongoing projects is shown in detail below in Table 7.
Item 3A - Page 14
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 15
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
TABLE 7
Indian Union Pacific Railroad Bridge – Widening of the bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad track on Indian Canyon Drive from Train Station Road to Garnet Road. This will match the 6- lane roadway constructed by Caltrans for the Indian Canyon/I -10 interchange.
Ramon Road Bridge – Widen the Ramon Road bridge over the Whitewater River located about 1 mile east of Gene Autry Trail. The bridge will be widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes, the same size as the road on either side of the bridge.
S. Palm Canyon Tahquitz Creek Bridge – South Palm Canyon Bridge widening over the Tahquitz Creek Channel. A new, wider, 4 lane bridge to be built and the existing bridge demolished.
EPC Palm Canyon Wash Bridge – Structurally retrofit and widen the bridge on East Palm Canyon over the Palm Canyon Wash to include shoulders and sidewalks.
Main Library Renovation – Complete restoration of the Main Library and the JC Frey building located in Sunrise Park. The library will be located to a temporary location while construction is taking place.
Gene Autry Wind Wall – Construct an approximately 14-foot-high block wall just south of the bridge over the railroad road approximately 500 feet south, to assist with the maintenance of sand build up in the street.
Demuth Dog Park – Construct a small and large dog park, including adding additional drinking stations, new restrooms, and drainage improvement to the existing parking lots.
Pickleball Courts – Construct 24 new pickle ball courts at Demuth Park with lighting, shade structures, and other amenities.
Annual Paving Rehabilitation – Pave local and arterial roads yearly.
Project Name Expense
Total
Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Budget Funding Source Status
Indian Union Pacific RR Bridge 15,932,883 60,773,214 14,000,000 14,000,000 Capital/Measure A/WWTP Under Construction, expected completion late 2027 Ramon Road Bridge 660,359 52,236,315 1,000,000 10,000,000 Capital/Measure A Completing Right of Way Phase, expect bid mid 2026 S Palm Canyon Tahquitz Creek Bridge 266,817 15,088,386 7,000,000 7,000,000 Capital/Measure A Under Construction, expected completion late 2027 EPC Palm Canyon Wash Bridge 476,529 12,113,936 500,000 5,000,000 Capital/Measure A Right of Way Design 2026, construction early 2027 Main Library Renovations 2,175,203 42,500,000 17,200,000 23,300,000 Capital/Measure J/Bond Construction to begin 2026, completion late 2027 Gene Autry Wind Wall 143,803 3,280,694 2,600,000 - Measure A Construction to begin 2026, completion late 2026 Demuth Dog Park 506,520 7,413,131 3,000,000 5,000,000 Capital/Quimby/Measure J Expect bid 2026, expected completion late 2027 Pickleball Courts 253,495 6,050,000 3,000,000 2,796,505 Quimby/Measure J Expect bid 2026, expected completion late 2027 Annual Paving Rehabilitation 7,903,650 18,000,000 8,500,000 9,500,000 Measure J Ongoing annual project Top Projects
Item 3A - Page 15
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 16
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
The City is anticipating beginning construction on three new projects in the next two- year budget pertaining to the Wastewater Treatment Plant detailed in Table 8.
TABLE 8
WWTP SCADA Improvements – SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) is used for collecting real -time data from field devices and transmit to a central server for analysis and control. At the WWTP, it is used to monitor the process and adjust remotely and to collect water quality. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is requesting more monitoring at the WWTP. The current SCADA system is operable but has been in service for the last 20 years. The existing. system programming needs to be updated. This evaluation will provide the City the next steps to improve the current system WWTP Upgrade Lift Stations – Upgrade Electrical, structural and meter flows systems to four of the City sewers lift stations. As part of the City’s Sewer Master Plan Update, the consultant recommended upgrades to the City’s existing lift stations. The City’s lift stations have seen little upgrades or improvements to the facilities since they have been put into service.
WWTP Digestor No. 1 Replacement - Demolish existing Digester No. 1 and replace it with a new covered concrete structure that is compliant with current seismic and building codes. It will connect to the new membrane gas holder. Digester No. 1 was installed and placed into service in 1982. Digester No. 1 is over 40- years old and needs seismic, electrical, and piping upgrades. Replacing Digester No. 1 will provide additional storage capacity at WWTP.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND VEHICLE REPLACEMENT BUDGET
Deferred Maintenance
City Staff have identified over 25 deferred maintenance projects with an estimated total value of approximately $10 million over the two- year budget cycle. These projects span multiple city facilities, departments, and operational areas, focusing on infras tructure improvements, equipment upgrades, and facility modernization. The deferred maintenance plan includes total budgeted expenditures in fiscal year 2025- 26 of $15.7 million and in fiscal year 2026-27 of $13.9 million. The expenditures are related to various Project Name Total Budget
FY 2026
Budget
FY 2027
Budget Status
WWTP Scada Improvements 8,700,000 4,350,000 4,350,000 Under design 2026, expected construction to begin 2027 WWTP Upgrade Lift Stations 11,600,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 Under design 2026, expected construction to begin 2027 WWTP Digester No. 1 Replacement 14,500,000 7,250,000 7,250,000 Under design 2026, expected construction to begin 2027 WasteWater
Item 3A - Page 16
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 17
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
deferred maintenance projects and operational costs that are managed by the Public Works Department.
Vehicle Replacement
City Staff have identified a significant need for vehicle replacements across several departments. Notable replacements and additions in this two-year budget include:
- Police Department – Replacement of both patrol and administrative vehicles. - Fire Department – Acquisition of two new pumper trucks. - Public Works – Replacement of heavy-duty work trucks and equipment. - Engineering, Human Resources, Fleet Operations, Code Enforcement, and Building & Safety – Procurement of support and utility vehicles for various divisions.
The vehicle replacement plan includes total budgeted expenditures in fiscal year 2025- 26 of $11.5 million and in fiscal year 2026- 27 of $12 million, of which $4.2 million will be spent each fiscal year for vehicle purchases. The expenditure is related to v ehicle replacement and operational costs that are managed by the Public Works Department.
Table 9 below represents the FY 2025- 26 and FY 2026- 27 budgeted revenues and expenditures for the funds that support the City’s Deferred Maintenance and vehicle replacement projects.
TABLE 9
Key highlighted deferred maintenance and vehicle replacements are summarized in Table 10 on the next page.
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Fleet & Deferred Maintenance Funds
Fund
Beg Fund
Balance Revenue Transfer In Expenditures Transfer Out
Ending Fund
Balance
Facilities Maintenance 17,425,843 9, 903,446 - 15,723,049 - 11,606,240 Motor Vehicle 11,163,734 7,707,217 - 11,508,884 - 7,362,067 Total 28,589,577 17,610,663 - 27,231,933 - 18,968,307 Fiscal Year 2026-27 Fleet & Deferred Maintenance Funds
Fund
Beg Fund
Balance Revenue Transfer In Expenditures Transfer Out
Ending Fund
Balance
Facilities Maintenance 11,606,240 10, 128,376 - 13,933,491 - 7,801,125 Motor Vehicle 7,362,067 7,156,496 - 12,022,584 - 2,495,979 Total 18,968,307 17,284,872 - 25,956,075 - 10,297,103 Item 3A - Page 17
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 18
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
TABLE 10
Fire Station #3 (Schematic Design Only) – Schematic design, site survey, and as-built documentation in preparation for the renovation and expansion of the historic fire station.
The project aims to support increased and more diverse staffing requirements.
Firearms Training Facility – Renovation of the Palm Springs firing range, which has surpassed its useful life. The project will modernize the facility and enhance safety features to support continued interagency use.
Belardo/Baristo Parking Structure Safety Study – Comprehensive assessment of two aging parking structures with a focus on infrastructure integrity, lighting, and general safety. Structural analysis will begin with the Belardo parking structure.
Fire Station 5 – Space Planning Renovation – Design/build renovation of interior spaces at Fire Station #5 to address deferred maintenance and support the needs of a modern fire service workforce.
Realtime Crime Center Buildout Preparation – Renovation of existing interior space to prepare for the installation of Real-Time Crime Center equipment, ensuring the facility is updated and appropriately modernized.
Playground at Desert Highland Park – Removal and replacement of outdated playground equipment at Desert Highland Park.
22 Police Vehicles – Purchase and outfitting of 22 police vehicles during the 2- year budget cycle.
2 Fire Trucks (Pumpers) – Purchase and outfitting of two Pumper Fire Trucks. Both Pumper Fire Trucks will be received in fiscal year 2026.
Total FY26 FY27
Project Name Budget Budget Budget Funding Source Status Fire Station #3 (Schematic Design Only) 100,000 100,000 - Deferred Maintenance Expect to complete 2026 F
irearms Training Facility 3,000,000 1,200,000 1,800,000 Deferred Maintenance/Safety Aug Expect complete 2027 Belardo/Baristo Parking Structure Safety Study 1,218,000 1,218,000 - Deferred Maintenance Expect to complete 2026 Fire Station 5 - Space Planning Renovation 750,000 750,000 - Deferred Maintenance Expect to complete 2026 Playground (Desert Highland Park) 800,000 800,000 - Deferred Maintenance Expect to complete 2026 Realtime Crime Center Buildout Prep 200,000 200,000 Deferred Maintenance Expect complete 2027 22 Police Vehicles 1,590,000 795,000 795,000 Fleet Service Expect complete 2027 1 Fire Truck (Pumper) 1,200,000 1,200,000 - Fleet Service/CFD Public Safety Expected delivery 2026 1 Fire Truck (Pumper) 1,200,000 1,200,000 - Fleet Service Expected delivery 2026 Top Deferred Maintenance Projects and Vehicle Replacements Item 3A - Page 18
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 19
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The Palm Springs International Airport (PSP) is owned and operated by the City of Palm Springs, distinguishing it from other regional airports typically managed by separate governmental entities. As the sole operator, the City bears full responsibility for all revenues and expenditures associated with PSP, which functions as a self -sustaining enterprise fund.
The Airport budget has been revised from the preliminary version presented at the May 22, 2025, City Council Study Session to reflect updated expense projections and operational adjustments. The revenues were not revised.
The following analysis, summarized in Table 11 below, details the key changes between the current budget proposal and the previously presented version:
TABLE 11
The revised Airport budget reflects adjustments made following departmental review and operational analysis. The budget maintains the Airport's commitment to self -sustaining operations while addressing evolving operational requirements and capital investment priorities. Key revisions address debt service obligations, personnel requirements, and capital project timing to ensure fiscal responsibility and operational effectiveness.
Following review of debt service requirements and operational obligations, total Airport expenses for the forecasted FY 2024- 25 have been adjusted upward by $1.9 million to $57.9 million. This adjustment primarily reflects:
Category Explanation
FY 24-25
FCST
Change
FY 25-26
Budgeted
Change
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Change
EXPENSES
Advertising & Design Additional regional advertising efforts - (451,888) (437,395) Airline Incentives Adjusted to reflect marketing efforts - 50,000 50,000 Computer Software Alignment with trends and industry standards - (65,570) 37,530 Contractual Services Alignment with strategic goals - 287,860 1,473,311 Employee Benefits & Taxes Cost savings in FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 - 324,292 350,250 Employee Development & Travel Alignment with strategic goals - (67,136) (71,839) Employee Salaries Additions of staffing - (1,243,622) (1,318,106) Fleet Maintenance Cost savings in FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 - 206,845 174,981 Improvements, Furniture & Equipment Alignment with trends and strategic goals - (1,456,500) 4,248,500 Insurance Expense Cost savings in FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 - 6,764 8,918 Loan Principal & Interest Adjusted to reflect principal payment (2,010,297) - - Maintenance Expense Cost savings in FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 - 34,981 98,082 Materials and Supplies Alignment with strategic goals - (121,628) (192,324) Special Programs One time expense 82,094 - - Uniforms Cost savings in FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 - 1,500 2,000 Utilities Expense Adjusted to FY 24-25 Trend - (56,113) (105,474) TOTAL EXPENSE CHANGES - (Increase) or Decrease (1,928,203) (2,550,215) 4,318,434 Item 3A - Page 19
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 20
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
• Loan Principal & Interest payments increased to $2,499,147, representing a 411.2% increase from preliminary projections to properly account for existing debt service obligations
• Removal of Special Programs allocation of $82,094 based on revised operational requirements
• Net impact reduces projected operating surplus from $24.8 million to $22.9 million while maintaining strong financial position
The FY 2025-26 Airport budget has been adjusted to $108.1 million in total expenses, an increase of $2.6 million from preliminary projections. These adjustments reflect operational requirements and strategic investments:
• Advertising & Design increased by $451,888 (36.2%) to support enhanced marketing initiatives and passenger attraction efforts
• Employee Salaries increased by $1.2 million (9.6%) reflecting authorized position additions and compensation adjustments necessary for airport operations • Improvements, Furniture and Equipment increased by $1.5 million (109.9%) to accelerate critical infrastructure improvements
• Fleet Maintenance reduced by $206 ,845 (28.0%) through operational efficiency measures
• Contractual Services reduced by $287,860 (2.3%) through service optimization
The net impact reduces the operating surplus to $188,509.
Total expenses for FY 2026- 27 have been reduced by $4. 3 million to $129.0 million, improving the operating position through strategic project timing and cost management:
• Improvements, Furniture and Equipment reduced by $4.2 million (67.5%) through optimized project scheduling and timing adjustments
• Contractual Services reduced by $1.5 million (11.0%) while maintaining essential service levels
• Employee Salaries increased by $1.3 million (9.6%) supporting continued workforce development requirements
• Advertising & Design increased by $437,395 (34.6%) for strategic marketing initiatives
These adjustments improve the operating deficit from $20.0 million to $15.7 million while maintaining capital investment programs like the Baggage Handling Replacement, Escalator Replacement, and Terminal Restroom Reconstruction. It is important to note that the operating deficit reflects the funding methodology for capital projects rather than operational performance. Airport operating revenues actually exceed operating expenses, demonstrating the Airport's strong operational financial health. However, the substantial capital improvement program outlined in the Airport Master Plan requires funding from accumulated fund balance reserves.
Item 3A - Page 20
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 21
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
The Airport's fund balance includes significant restricted funds that limit operational flexibility and must be considered in long-term financial planning:
Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) funds are federally restricted under 49 U.S.C. § 40117 and can only be used for FAA-approved projects that enhance safety, security, capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition. These funds cannot be redirec ted to general airport operations or non- qualifying capital projects. The current PFC fund balance represents accumulated charges collected from passengers specifically designated for eligible infrastructure improvements. The FY 2025- 26 and FY 2026- 27 fund balance totals $7.2 million and $11.5 million, respectively.
Customer Facility Charges (CFC) funds are restricted by California state law and can only be used for the planning, design, construction, and debt service of rental car facilities.
These restrictions ensure that charges collected from rental car customers directly benefit rental car facility infrastructure and operations, preventing cross -subsidization of other airport activities. The FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 fund balance totals $66.9 million and $74.6 million, respectively.
For the Airport to maintain financial stability and support future debt issuance for major capital projects outlined in the Master Plan, the negotiated Airport Use and Lease Agreement effective July 1, 2023, states the airport is to maintain unrestricted reserves of at least $60 million. This reserve level provides:
• Adequate liquidity for operational contingencies and economic downturns • Enhanced credit rating potential for future bond issuances • Financial flexibility for matching funds requirements for federal grant programs • Capacity to support major infrastructure investments without compromising operational stability
The Airport's current fund balance projections of $64.1 million and $62.6 million in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026- 27, respectively, maintain sufficient reserves to support these requirements while funding planned capital improvements.
The Airport has significantly modernized its concession operations following two decades with the same food and beverage and retail operators. On December 5, 2022, the City Council awarded two new 10- year contracts that have transformed the passenger experience and revenue generation: Paradies Lagardère - Awarded contract for seven new food and beverage operations and WHSmith - Awarded contract for five new retail operations, including vending machines and duty-free operations.
As of June 2025, all new concession locations have been opened and are fully operational, with the exception of the Movie Colony Canteen and Duty -Free Operations, which are anticipated to open in FY 2025- 26. The successful implementation of these new operations provides a full-year revenue impact for the upcoming fiscal years.
Item 3A - Page 21
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 22
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
The modernization of concession (F&B) operations has resulted in substantial revenue growth, as demonstrated in the sales data below, Chart 3:
CHART 3
The data demonstrates remarkable revenue growth, with total concession revenue increasing from $1.4 million in FY 2021- 22 to a projected $4.3 million in FY 2026- 27, representing a 214% increase over the five- year period. This growth reflects both increased passenger activity and the enhanced concession offerings provided by the new operators.
Table 12 has been revised to correct the baseline passenger data for FY 2018- 19. The corrected passenger traffic data is shown below:
Item 3A - Page 22
F&B
Retail
TOTAL
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Airport - Revenue F&B vs. Retail
FY22
Act.
524,112
854,441
1,378,553
FY22
Act.
FY23 FY24 FY25
Act. Act. FCSl
821,389 1,294,775 1,281,732
990,002 1,088,979 1,561,197
1,811,391 2,383,754 2,842,929
PSP Revenue F&B vs. Reta il
(inUSD )
I
FY23
Act.
I I
FY24
Act.
F&B
FY25
FCST
Retail
FY26
Bud.
1,769,472
2,394,660
4,164,132
FY26
Bud
FY27
Bud.
1,857,946
2,470,426
4,328,372
FYT7
Bud.
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025-- Page 23
FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Draft Budget
TABLE 12
The revised budget maintains the Airport's self -sustaining financial model while supporting operational growth and infrastructure development priorities identified in the Airport Master Plan.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:
This item aligns with the City Council’s Broad Goal Foundation of Financial and Organizational Well-Being.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Provide direction to Staff on any changes to the Preliminary FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 budgets.
REVIEWED BY:
Budget Manager: Christian Bayer
Director of Finance and Treasury: Kristopher J. Mooney
City Engineer: Joel Montalvo
Executive Director of Aviation: Harry Barrett Jr., A.A.E.
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Budget in Brief for General Funds, All Funds Summary, and Airport B. Draft Budget Book for FY2025-26 and FY2026-27
C. Capital Projects Schedule
Fiscal Year Total Passengers Year-over-Year Change
FY 18-19 2,547,260 15.1%
FY 19-20 1,816,588 -28.7%
FY 20-21 1,332,655 -26.6%
FY 21-22 2,826,028 112.1%
FY 22-23 3,244,011 14.8%
FY 23-24 3,260,435 0.5%
FY 24-25 (Est.) 3,298,020 1.2%
FY 25-26 (Proj.) 3,331,000 1.0%
FY 26-27 (Proj.) 3,364,310 1.0%
Item 3A - Page 23
ATTACHMENT A
Item 3A - Page 24
FUND BUDGETS
Palm Springs
Navigation Center
- General Fund
- Airport
- All Fund Summaries
For Fiscal Years 25-26 & 26-27
Draft 12.2
for Council Meeting 6/11/2025
Item 3A - Page 25
Fund Budgets
General Fund
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
2 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Revenue
Transient Occupancy T ax $ 53,900,745 $ 53,002,407 $ 50,377,986 $ 48,990,196 $ 49,105,600 $ 49,586,656 Property T axes 28,831,512 32,492,905 36,089,876 37,651,390 38,261,300 38,643,913 Sales and Use T axes 31,818,760 33,170,143 29,905,257 29,037,700 29,839,008 30,167,739 Permits, Fines, and Fees 13,441,848 14,221,192 14,669,467 15,353,204 15,285,424 15,407,174 Utility Users T ax 15,627,960 14,988,973 13,688,713 10,986,817 11,904,900 12,023,949 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu T ax 6,141,974 6,739,528 7,382,166 6,695,932 7,060,800 7,131,408 Other T axes 7,039,905 7,168,911 7,746,812 7,406,259 6,998,080 7,067,900 Miscellaneous Income 1,915,329 2,741,211 6,726,271 4,689,038 4,521,205 4,552,595 Franchise T ax 4,138,935 4,571,990 4,153,894 4,769,609 4,362,900 4,406,529 Interest Income 419,295 2,095,940 3,870,964 3,751,433 3,833,400 3,871,734 Cannabis T ax 4,232,099 3,188,249 2,434,504 1,127,412 938,100 953,481 T otal Revenue $ 167,508,362 $ 174,381,449 $ 177,045,909 $ 170,458,990 $ 172,110,717 $ 173,813,078 Transfers from Other Funds — 1,000,000 — 5,000,000 — —
T otal Revenue & Transfers $ 167,508,362 $ 175,381,449 $ 177,045,909 $ 175,458,990 $ 172,110,717 $ 173,813,078 Expenses
Admin & Economic Development $ 4,881,929 $ 5,964,302 $ 7,805,983 $ 9,125,918 $ 8,505,393 $ 8,926,880 Development Services 16,273,561 12,293,298 23,100,050 15,647,809 19,093,836 22,724,249 Fire Department 21,981,456 24,732,998 28,083,846 29,627,721 30,065,233 31,692,244 General Government 14,159,147 17,248,814 19,919,645 21,637,297 21,854,730 22,550,152 Library 2,838,701 2,947,669 3,099,794 3,260,030 3,444,082 3,527,535 Miscellaneous Expense 1,641,692 1,662,906 1,641,692 1,912,858 2,030,617 1,746,907 Parks and Recreation 4,968,782 6,182,388 7,384,132 8,463,681 11,913,544 12,282,441 Police Department 35,636,347 41,271,130 42,932,652 43,786,215 47,232,681 49,217,605 Public Works 8,649,811 10,314,482 11,956,016 14,871,544 12,418,187 12,190,259 T ourism and Community Support 7,572,319 8,515,675 8,005,178 9,167,576 8,168,607 8,596,799 To t a l E x pe n s e s$ 118,603,744 $ 131,133,660 $ 153,928,986 $ 157,500,650 $ 164,726,911 $ 173,455,072 Transfers to Other Funds 17,151,909 30,506,359 33,261,523 15,159,587 8,708,567 8,866,465 To ta l E xp e n s e & Tra n s f er s$ 135,755,653 $ 161,640,019 $ 187,190,509 $ 172,660,237 $ 173,435,478 $ 182,321,537 T otal Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ 31,752,709 $ 13,741,429 $ (10,144,599) $ 2,798,754 $ (1,324,761) $ (8,508,459) Non-Operating
Grant Revenue $ 12,102,934 $ 17,913,516 $ 17,929,542 $ 10,529,687 $ 11,819,172 $ 2,832,283 Grants Expense (1,163,506) (6,563,625) (14,942,182) (10,529,687) (11,819,172) (2,832,283) Council Set Aside Expense (100,000) (4,029,415) (3,176,617) (6,130,788) (2,900,000) — CalPERS Payment — — — (28,500,000) — —
Debt Issuance 5,740,000 425,787 4,636,182 — — —
Non-operating T otal $ 16,579,428 $ 7,746,263 $ 4,446,925 $ (34,630,788) $ (2,900,000) $— T otal Surplus/(Deficit) $ 48,332,137 $ 21,487,692 $ (5,697,674) $ (31,832,034) $ (4,224,761) $ (8,508,459) Fund Balances
Beginning of year $ 81,804,817 $ 130,136,954 $ 151,624,646 $ 145,926,972 $ 114,094,938 $ 109,870,177 End of Year Fund Balance $ 130,136,954 $ 151,624,646 $ 145,926,972 $ 114,094,938 $ 109,870,177 $ 101,361,718 End of Year Fund Balance Reconciliation
Assigned
Reserve for Plaza Theater $9 1 2 $— $— $— $— $—
Reserve for Cannabis Programs — — 48,538 70,917 89,679 108,749 Reserve for Economic Incentive 166,667 166,667 166,667 166,667 166,667 166,667 Reserve for Affordable Housing — — 6,166,762 9,166,762 12,166,762 15,166,762 Reserve for CalPERS 28,250,000 34,250,000 40,250,000 17,750,000 23,750,000 29,750,000 To ta l A s s i g n e d$ 28,417,579 $ 34,416,667 $ 46,631,967 $ 27,154,346 $ 36,173,108 $ 45,192,178 Unassigned
Minimum Fund Balance (20%) $— $— $ 32,589,131 $ 32,934,476 $ 32,945,382 $ 34,691,014 Unreserved - Remaining 101,719,375 117,207,979 66,705,874 54,006,116 40,751,687 21,478,526 To ta l U n as s i g n e d$ 101,719,375 $ 117,207,979 $ 99,295,005 $ 86,940,592 $ 73,697,069 $ 56,169,540 T otal End of Year Fund Balance $ 130,136,954 $ 151,624,646 $ 145,926,972 $ 114,094,938 $ 109,870,177 $ 101,361,718
GENERAL FUND
Item 3A - Page 26
Fund Budgets
General Fund
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
3 General Fund Revenues by General Ledger Account
The foll
owing is a tabl e summarizing the revenue detail by account (excluding transfers and grants) housed in the City’s finance system. Budgeted amounts may encompass multiple accounts.
Account Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Current Year T axes Secured $ 28,438,345 $ 31,265,451 $ 33,463,210 $ 35,724,331 $ 36,334,300 $ 36,697,643 Current Year T axes Unsecured 393,167 1,227,454 2,626,665 1,927,060 1,927,000 1,946,270 In Lieu Prop T ax - Mvil 6,141,974 6,739,528 7,382,166 6,695,932 7,060,800 7,131,408 Net Ab 1 X 26 3,366,802 3,084,956 3,279,891 4,120,601 3,182,400 3,214,224 Cra Pass Thru City Of PS 936,159 2,096,451 2,410,928 1,169,844 2,253,600 2,276,136 Sales and Use T axes 31,818,760 33,170,143 29,905,257 29,037,700 29,839,008 30,167,739 Cannabis T ax 4,215,353 3,158,837 2,434,504 1,118,938 938,100 953,481 Cannabis T ax - Meas E 320,016 301,737 55,507 17,652 16,080 16,080 M Cannabis Audit Recovery 16,746 29,412 — 8,474 — —
Parking T ax 48,640 53,482 57,545 57,504 55,500 56,055 Franchises 4,138,935 4,571,990 4,153,894 4,769,609 4,362,900 4,406,529 Transient Occupancy T ax 53,900,745 53,002,407 50,377,986 48,990,196 49,105,600 49,586,656 T ot Audit Recovery 425,349 436,725 789,690 489,579 337,200 340,572 Documentary Transfer T ax 1,421,338 1,044,427 958,795 1,372,698 1,001,600 1,011,616 New Development T ax 510,319 144,092 193,092 177,532 151,700 153,217 Utility Users T ax 15,627,960 14,988,973 13,688,713 10,986,817 11,904,900 12,023,949 Cannabis Odor Recovery 11,283 7,043 1,365 850 — — Business License 949,225 1,010,524 878,845 1,074,655 1,015,557 1,025,713 Building Permits 2,897,393 1,958,531 2,176,375 2,769,894 2,339,606 2,363,002 Building OT Reimbursements — — 409 — — —
Sewer Permits Ins Fee 10,143 3,220 22,521 6,419 14,485 14,630 Construction Permits 302,279 228,565 227,800 247,536 258,133 260,714 Permit Issuance 284,466 230,505 11,281 7,569 7,143 7,894 Sign Permits 28,237 18,728 33,907 19,396 29,763 30,060 Transportation Permit 10,482 8,560 9,708 9,458 10,298 10,401 Pool Drain Permits 1,462 1,425 1,114 1,602 1,358 1,372 Code Compliance Inspections 19,096 16,167 341,029 718,668 402,002 404,022 Renewals/Misc Permits 12,781 15,736 5,532 19,211 11,996 12,116 Zoning Fees 548,456 398,347 460,392 528,610 485,824 490,682 Subdivision Fees 88,133 141,645 151,496 126,778 165,789 167,447 Vacation Rental Permit 2,248,334 3,090,533 2,947,962 2,567,072 3,055,200 3,055,200 Vacant Building Registration 2,019 81 — — — —
Sb1473 Building Stand Admin 1,500 1,391 4,217 3,868 3,169 3,200 Rent Control Registration 37,620 37,200 36,930 38,703 41,872 42,290 Cannabis Permit Fee 258,001 388,194 271,323 313,450 205,171 207,223 State District Access Fee 1186 21,681 21,709 19,374 23,015 23,199 23,431 Admin Fee - Engineering 80,230 129,320 86,384 147,735 121,994 123,214 Covenant - Engineering 31,396 30,579 30,127 40,502 34,289 34,632 State Homeowners T ax Rel 118,062 197,021 239,339 204,191 246,816 249,285 Peace Off Training Funds 16,732 89,029 25,872 75,246 64,958 65,607 Mutual Aid Overtime 137,441 158,492 177,199 164,895 189,894 191,792 Local Dev Mitigation Fee 3,358 3,687 1,706 1,309 2,942 2,972 Concessions 927 875 145 108 566 571
Other Charges Current Services 44,785 48,152 48,717 49,782 54,773 55,320 Insurance 4,153 5,475 6,825 2,445 4,635 4,735
T owing Fees 102,745 102,410 106,408 103,540 118,146 119,327 Multi Unit Fire Insp Fee 263,167 232,448 301,218 288,576 301,928 304,948 Shooting Range 5,546 3,925 5,014 3,963 4,979 5,029
Fingerprint Fees (52) — — — — —
Police Contract Ot 141,607 545,776 472,779 253,949 316,980 320,149 Fire Inspection Fee 193 5,496 54,700 38,422 38,950 39,289 Fire Plan Check Fee 148,979 114,574 74,004 145,926 106,603 107,669 Fire Commercial Insp Fee 30,775 23,449 36,630 29,045 33,950 34,289 Fire Cert Program 1,550 — — — — —
Fire Fees Misc 5,629 4,485 2,708 4,610 3,961 4,000 Dui Program 38,824 17,490 14,524 22,812 18,107 18,288
Building Plan Check Fees 743,379 569,736 446,871 721,519 575,226 580,978 Engineering Plan Check Fees 185,879 197,815 142,147 243,316 192,270 194,193 Miscellaneous Filing Fee 296,028 231,776 244,158 251,121 269,223 271,916 Misc Engineering Fees 8,084 8,552 3,636 4,357 6,790 6,858 SWPPP Fee — — 6,202 5,082 5,508 5,543
Real Property Fees 22,256 13,930 17,241 17,012 17,541 17,716 Gen Plan Maintenance Surcharge 126,190 98,940 95,187 145,383 109,772 110,869 Planning Admin Services 6,568 — — 1,020 — —
GENERAL FUND
Item 3A - Page 27
Fund Budgets
General Fund
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
4 Administrative Service Charges 2,282,952 2,469,016 2,581,718 2,402,558 2,520,000 2,545,200 Parklet Fees 83,152 91,686 96,333 101,803 106,377 107,440 Nuisance Abatement — 7,665 66,214 7,974 7,758 8,176 Nuisance Abatement Admin — 404 25,295 420 485 630
PS USD Officer 87,674 194,745 199,581 231,926 233,051 235,282 Rent A Cell 46,028 47,025 46,042 50,591 52,622 53,149 Issuance Fee 20,254 24,224 29,311 23,128 30,215 30,518 Tlc/Psvu Site Fees — 4,577 1,852 3,342 3,621 3,658
Friends Of The Library 28,987 26,647 31,469 34,895 32,818 33,147 Library Fees 6,084 5,906 6,386 7,189 6,903 6,972
Camp 93,148 53,310 122,938 118,801 99,700 100,697
Fitness 314 10 1,995 955 1,132 1,143
Youth Programs 53,173 66,638 58,022 52,045 60,503 61,208 Facilites Rent 143,510 206,011 273,152 220,374 271,034 273,744 Building/Facilities Rent 200,960 253,029 264,506 260,188 292,762 295,690 Special Activities 951,810 1,050,906 782,488 800,336 1,037,285 1,047,658 Location Permits 27,202 19,201 17,909 15,487 20,936 21,145 Village Green Rental 24,233 25,690 24,692 27,119 28,405 28,689 Leisure Center Classes 50,709 61,906 84,701 68,717 72,951 73,781 Membership 16,277 12,178 14,855 10,797 15,277 15,430 Baseball Stadium Rent 151,329 125,692 210,994 139,228 139,459 140,364 Microfilming Fees 43,794 37,026 11,009 216 360 432 Rancho Park Ii Landscape 9,348 — — — — —
Desert Dorado Landscape — 9,348 9,348 9,725 10,524 10,630 Daily Admissions 58,991 45,828 60,913 40,326 60,318 60,921 Group Lessons 1,323 1,590 — 1,378 792 800
Private Lessons — — 212 636 713 814
Pool Rental Group 19,987 32,529 21,944 30,375 30,781 31,089 Pool Passes 92,227 74,269 115,696 86,521 107,395 108,469 Banner Hanging 9,711 9,906 7,136 4,133 4,619 4,715
Tract — 3,270 16,878 13,808 11,317 11,430
Henry Frank Parking 3,264 4,002 4,033 4,441 4,527 4,572 Villagefest 182,235 290,553 446,958 340,550 359,502 361,797 Walk of Stars 99,300 161,000 127,434 132,566 135,000 140,000 Plaza Theatre Donations 15,825 — — — — —
False Alarm Fee 164,456 161,066 159,499 163,903 171,293 173,106 Alarm Permits 114,930 126,812 122,844 135,883 141,232 142,644 Vehicle Code Fines 75,860 75,591 99,739 84,922 99,134 100,125 Criminal Code Fines 34,889 2,835 8,155 2,951 6,111 6,172 Parking Violations 112,016 135,885 151,155 230,340 262,394 264,018 Library Fines and Fees 6,175 7,152 6,750 6,897 7,809 7,887 Administrative Citations 196,863 327,181 662,506 407,732 407,926 411,006 Parking Violation Admin (95) — — — — —
Interest Income 419,295 2,095,940 3,870,964 3,751,433 3,833,400 3,871,734 Unrealized Gain Or Loss (2,481,964) (1,196,342) 2,590,196 — — — Realized Gain or Loss — — (422,451) — — —
Penalty/Interest Deliq T axes — — 1 — — —
Waste Disposal Clearing (73,026) 20,279 36,716 36,949 37,139 37,461 Audit Recovery 685 7,351 4,788 28 — —
Contrib Non-Govt Sources 5,039 10,619 47,691 3,647 4,100 4,391 Legal Fee Reimbursement 22,000 92,839 85,314 223,714 89,000 89,890 Smip 1,721 5,098 (3,447) 1,714 1,750 1,850
Smip II 788 679 510 125 126 127
Miscellaneous Revenue 71,643 161,665 (125,209) 117,242 18,200 18,382 Cashier Over (112) (1) (24) — — —
Damage Recovery 1,834 11,513 41,195 19,650 26,300 26,563 Settlement Revenue 53,671 10,000 10,000 10,404 10,000 10,100 Restricted Donations 375,466 275,859 283,515 340,595 279,600 282,396 Rent - Master Lease 895,565 896,184 904,649 1,458,705 1,458,705 1,458,705 Sale Real Or Personal Property 651,800 9,470 124,201 4,989 6,800 7,468 Reimbursement 37,436 388 605,474 107,534 108,500 109,500 To t a l $ 167,508,362 $ 174,381,449 $ 177,045,909 $ 170,458,990 $ 172,110,717 $ 173,813,078 (Continued)
Account Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Item 3A - Page 28
Fund Budgets
General Fund
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
5 General Fund Expenses by General Ledger Account
The following is a table summarizing the expense detail by account (excluding transfers and grants) housed in the City’s finance system. Th e t able is included for informational purposes only as budgeted amounts may encompass multiple accounts.
Account Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Salaries Full Time $ 31,955,944 $ 36,878,864 $ 41,189,785 $ 43,501,900 $ 52,925,823 $ 55,520,269 Vacancy Savings — — — — (4,187,476) (4,457,928)
Salaries Overtime 4,524,646 5,108,411 6,076,809 6,534,182 6,534,182 7,187,600 Salaries Overtime-Mutual Aid 62,424 95,032 86,520 226,218 248,840 273,724 Salaries Redistributed 164,333 214,527 273,082 272,265 299,492 329,441 Council Compensation 161,201 191,661 216,336 211,343 216,336 216,336 Commissions 407 3,931 1,384 110 900 1,000
Leave Payoffs 1,205,547 1,463,406 1,425,147 1,872,457 1,786,133 1,786,133 Holiday Allowance 617,342 710,277 857,895 913,594 854,803 854,803 Fringe Benefits 6,427,316 6,843,690 7,883,312 8,695,514 9,608,509 10,761,530 Medical Insurance Withdrawal 69,975 73,875 97,275 95,355 104,891 115,380 RHS Health Benefit 333,225 369,754 458,440 512,232 569,700 569,700 PERS Retirement Cost 16,121,195 19,263,035 21,736,913 24,291,454 22,082,245 23,283,360 Pers - Pob 1,257,926 1,305,428 — — — —
Workers' Compensation 3,432,940 3,579,496 4,239,324 4,246,538 4,878,507 5,463,927 Unallocated 845,550 940,700 1,326,250 1,565,234 1,350,000 1,350,000 Medicare Insurance 566,596 660,936 745,722 821,695 788,114 828,249 Fica 1,112 663 614 — — —
Retiree Health Benefit 2,978,871 3,332,585 2,925,238 2,849,320 2,217,543 2,217,543 Contractual Services 13,062,722 15,317,969 23,800,650 23,729,875 22,033,772 25,916,930 Contractual Legal Services 1,366,798 1,679,768 2,066,290 2,128,442 2,030,614 2,055,583 Outside Counsel - COD 65,410 86,877 153,761 4,756 — — Costshift 911 (634,000) (634,000) (449,877) (634,000) (700,000) (700,000) Uniforms and Laundry 285,153 322,925 305,030 326,519 370,788 366,391 Staff Development 83 30,019 45,439 14,158 12,250 12,450 Training Travel and Dues 409,908 616,670 649,054 719,319 1,084,532 1,111,231 Recruiting 180,306 191,212 159,130 175,144 125,000 115,000 Salary Survey — — — — 33,900 33,900
Education / Grants 24,654 23,486 23,297 21,199 24,000 24,000 Plaques and Presentations — 2,711 587 2,467 3,181 3,181 Electricity 583,110 1,084,243 921,732 913,025 1,022,288 1,142,754 Electricity COGEN 169,551 188,695 177,776 193,347 203,778 204,192 Water 1,000,962 849,824 931,850 906,641 884,192 905,647 T elephone 1,095 5,675 2,781 4,265 2,000 2,000
Utilities 424,765 481,557 381,507 599,205 435,000 455,000 Gas and Lubrications 160,411 242,845 118,553 142,170 156,000 174,900 Communications 676,508 646,538 603,248 683,389 726,843 744,881 Computer Software — 1,257 740,900 1,417,950 2,124,973 2,188,723 Materials and Supplies 1,428,154 1,655,502 1,808,111 1,676,758 1,727,097 1,778,835 Elections 81,069 4,712 62,879 105,229 14,000 120,000 Welwood Operations 21,202 10,079 16,022 14,166 24,025 24,025 Leases 35,367 11,863 12,575 13,329 14,129 14,977
Insurance 4,444,285 4,372,440 4,140,465 4,747,717 5,904,742 6,158,875 PEG Fee 26,931 113,344 10,084 6,912 7,150 8,350
Repairs and Maint General 832,701 539,926 122,687 409,998 472,345 492,151 PS Art Museum Spec Events — — — 233,333 250,000 250,000 Repairs and Maint Vehicle 3,634,987 7,241,521 5,002,603 5,173,975 4,472,700 4,414,859 IT Replacement — — 442,370 442,105 221,053 221,053 Facilities Maintenance Service 4,615,124 5,994,656 7,760,371 8,250,459 10,171,045 8,294,716 Parks Maintenance Service 41,033 129,966 93,640 34,563 117,500 121,025 Desert Dorado Landscape 5,546 6,314 6,245 9,600 9,888 10,185 Rancho Park 2 Landscape 8,192 5,491 5,430 9,600 10,506 10,821 Community Events 200,691 298,536 196,585 402,618 280,000 280,000 Administrative Services 213 54,155 120 — — —
Administrative Benefits 306,481 321,071 — — — —
Printing 128,422 119,200 110,651 87,121 202,774 215,639 Advertising 6,916 5,167 13,927 18,312 91,000 91,250
GENERAL FUND
Item 3A - Page 29
Fund Budgets
General Fund
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
6 Loan Principal 1,377,141 1,121,747 1,945,575 1,227,633 1,372,323 1,079,224 Loan Interest 375,500 799,549 778,989 859,695 843,505 827,016 Subscription - Capital Outlay — 425,787 1,728,897 — — — Leases - Capital Outlay — — 2,907,285 — — —
City Council Community Support 1,232 2,333 4,247 3,048 3,100 3,100 CC Community Support - Dist. 3 750 7,111 5,044 25,257 15,000 15,000 CC Community Support - Dist. 4 11,183 18,303 11,008 19,293 15,000 15,000 CC Community Support - Dist. 5 1,501 9,001 2,292 28,009 15,000 15,000 CC Community Support - Dist. 1 5,745 2,440 2,777 27,524 15,000 15,000 LAFCO Funding 23,996 25,484 27,599 42,301 33,000 35,000 CC Community Support - Dist. 2 464 10,465 5,856 7,774 15,000 15,000 TOT Hotel Incentives 3,711,531 2,917,045 2,373,258 2,500,000 2,700,000 2,800,000 Friends of the Library 29,160 24,724 31,270 34,871 — — Office Furniture and Equipment 21,035 19,156 23,472 11,904 25,000 25,600 Other Equipment 681,792 48,055 904,620 364,991 1,149,760 1,175,376 Unscheduled Capital Project 5,938,797 — — — 424,333 424,333 Special Programs 1,798,350 1,381,372 2,498,996 1,635,330 2,246,361 2,397,417 Small Business Relief Program 133,000 — — — — —
Walk of Stars 71,348 100,850 97,181 109,786 124,500 124,500 Plaza Theatre 98,252 793,522 50,000 200,207 50,000 50,000 Special Events — 326,960 552,735 676,000 709,800 745,290 Special Events In-Kind — — — 129,537 — —
Walk Of Stars Maintenance — — — — 65,000 65,000
Drug Prevention Costs 539 — — — 4,381 4,381
Citizens on Patrol 100 — — — — —
Police Explorers — 1,448 1,366 4,411 32,905 32,905 Police Reserve Unit — 22,234 — — 22,902 22,902
Search and Rescue 1,030 12,627 — — 121 121
Project Lifesaver — 4,965 — — 3,315 3,315
To t a l $ 118,603,744 $ 131,133,660 $ 153,928,986 $ 157,500,650 $ 164,726,911 $ 173,455,072 (Continued)
Account Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Item 3A - Page 30
Fund Budgets
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
7 Historical Activity & Proposed Budget
Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
Revenues / Inflows
Airline T erminal/Joint Use Fee $ 2,180,132 $ 2,187,696 $ 5,661,953 $ 6,817,158 $ 6,851,243 6,919,756 Charges for Services 3,929,248 4,208,767 5,311,108 5,356,310 5,522,562 5,553,541 COVID Relief: CRRSAA & CARES
Act — 9,647,601 1,408,292 — — —
Customs Fees 449,179 435,115 448,095 446,003 448,233 452,715 Gate Fees 1,374,922 1,472,314 1,748,041 2,254,405 2,265,677 2,288,334 Grant Revenue 7,072,362 13,533,202 2,061,446 3,952,869 28,152,776 32,148,145 Interest Revenue 234,968 1,704,873 3,231,917 4,112,888 4,113,172 4,154,306 Landing Fees 5,470,737 5,990,047 5,750,086 6,960,158 6,994,958 7,064,908 License & Permit Revenue 172,152 160,625 204,020 273,712 275,676 277,831 Loading Bridge Fee — — 657,807 577,205 580,091 585,892
Miscellaneous Revenue 436,242 191,875 196,978 230,029 230,420 233,080 Non-Airline T erminal Rent 1,717,091 2,602,014 3,435,946 4,458,976 5,231,248 5,395,707 Other Transportation Fees 1,098,328 1,273,591 1,900,228 2,171,052 2,811,277 2,955,303 Parking Fee 5,349,941 6,193,403 6,416,507 6,301,392 6,332,898 6,396,228 Passenger Facility Charges 5,480,477 6,232,032 6,143,087 6,098,189 6,128,680 6,189,966 Realized/Unrealized Gain Or Loss (1,117,196) (1,021,124) 1,094,292 (313,763) — — Rental Car Fees 15,396,594 21,477,920 21,405,931 23,185,403 23,341,328 23,574,342 Transfer In From Other Funds 8,229,415 2,371,710 615,000 7,859,000 8,898,295 8,977,278 T otal Revenues / Inflows $ 57,474,592 $ 78,661,660 $ 67,690,735 $ 80,740,986 $ 108,178,535 113,167,332 Expenses / Outflows
Administrative Services $ 2,071,500 $ 2,207,421 $ 2,227,195 $ 1,690,556 $ 2,219,015 2,219,015 Advertising & Design 403,116 802,447 1,239,268 1,442,002 1,701,100 1,701,100 Airline Incentives 102,822 722,805 51,250 171,352 400,000 500,000 Capital Improvement Projects 9,770,174 4,410,824 6,514,542 4,958,576 12,712,000 29,041,176 CIP Offset (9,177,752) (1,985,514) (1,115,892) (1,098,107) — — Computer Software — — 114,764 266,555 467,857 421,802
Contra Asset (788,788) (1,431,876) (7,884,211) (7,884,211) — — Contractual Services 2,345,943 3,462,108 6,934,848 10,603,430 12,275,744 11,929,788 Customer Facility Charge Planning 29,496 — — — 1,000,000 1,000,000 Depreciation 5,211,774 4,888,103 5,008,626 5,008,626 106,560 107,575 Employee Benefits & T axes (187,552) 1,438,932 6,197,675 7,061,568 9,215,118 9,809,779 Employee Development & Travel 102,943 152,363 261,502 252,036 267,245 272,745 Employee Salaries 8,009,515 8,885,224 10,747,211 12,680,761 14,254,549 15,014,147 Fleet Maintenance 366,700 860,485 594,436 455,826 531,483 524,610 Grants Expense — — 2,523,294 5,991,130 28,152,776 32,148,145 Improvements, Furniture and
Equipment
199,835 299,261 382,438 752,090 2,781,500 2,046,500
Insurance Expense 701,100 692,053 656,385 540,697 941,499 982,020 Loan Principal & Interest 680,078 604,782 522,521 2,499,147 2,498,750 2,495,500 Maintenance Expense 720,487 447,158 614,440 420,663 545,116 470,124 Materials and Supplies 646,191 933,954 1,146,668 1,358,938 1,500,647 1,608,731 Motor Vehicle Purchases — 359,437 1,282,063 9,484 4,300,000 4,300,000 Police & Fire Services 918,100 956,000 717,000 492,341 760,288 764,791 Special Programs — — 59,601 — — —
Transfers to Other Funds 8,229,415 2,371,710 615,000 7,859,000 8,898,295 8,977,278 Uniforms 42,349 54,667 62,897 85,692 96,879 91,176
Utilities Expense 1,680,659 1,725,563 1,739,888 1,909,143 1,861,312 1,883,160 Workers Compensation 354,463 371,674 436,407 332,283 502,293 562,568 T otal Expenses / Outflows $ 32,432,568 $ 33,229,582 $ 41,649,815 $ 57,859,578 $ 107,990,026 128,871,729 T otal Surplus / (Deficit) $ 25,042,024 $ 45,432,079 $ 26,040,921 $ 22,881,407 $ 188,509 (15,704,397) Fund Balances
Beginning of year $ 86,536,123 $ 111,578,146 $ 157,010,225 $ 183,051,146 $ 205,932,553 206,121,062 End of Year Fund Balance $ 111,578,146 $ 157,010,225 $ 183,051,146 $ 205,932,553 $ 206,121,062 190,416,665 Fund Balance Reconciliation
Reserve for CALPERS $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,250,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 6,750,000 $ 7,500,000 Unreserved Fund Balance 108,578,146 154,010,225 177,801,146 199,932,553 199,371,062 182,916,665 T otal Fund Balance Reconciliation $ 111,578,146 $ 157,010,225 $ 183,051,146 $ 205,932,553 $ 206,121,062 $ 190,416,665
AIRPORT
Item 3A - Page 31
Fund Budgets
Introduction to Fund Budgets
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
8 REVENUES/INFLOWS BY FUND
The following is a table summarizing the revenues/inflows by fund housed in the City’s finance system.
Detailed budgeted amounts are included in the individual fund sections.
Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
General Fund
General Fund $ 185,351,296 $ 193,720,751 $ 199,611,633 $ 185,988,677 $ 183,929,889 $ 176,645,361 General Fund Subtotal $ 185,351,296 $ 193,720,751 $ 199,611,633 $ 185,988,677 $ 183,929,889 $ 176,645,361 Capital Funds
Gas T ax $ 1,078,726 $ 1,050,250 $ 1,213,165 $ 1,308,520 $ 1,144,400 $ 1,155,784 Measure A Improvements 8,162,910 4,066,037 6,324,247 6,513,396 8,372,277 7,892,536 Senate Bill1 RMRA Road Maint. Rehab. 919,658 1,007,067 1,299,460 1,026,486 1,150,600 1,162,106 Quimby Act Fees 1,202,412 426,003 547,229 652,401 572,000 577,720 Measure J 21,770,458 22,290,717 23,863,148 24,373,002 22,572,500 34,399,838 Capital Projects 6,067,777 10,678,714 40,920,657 23,985,044 36,950,000 31,400,000 Capital Funds Subtotal $ 39,201,942 $ 39,518,789 $ 74,167,907 $ 57,858,849 $ 70,761,777 $ 76,587,984 Enterprise Funds
Airport $ 57,474,592 $ 78,661,660 $ 67,690,735 $ 80,740,986 $ 108,178,535 $ 113,167,332 Wastewater 11,379,106 12,554,709 13,907,849 12,505,212 11,889,024 12,007,914 Golf Course 6,417,996 6,165,957 7,023,595 6,583,534 5,647,761 5,760,425 Enterprise Funds Subtotal $ 75,271,694 $ 97,382,327 $ 88,622,179 $ 99,829,732 $ 125,715,320 $ 130,935,671 Special Revenue Funds
Small Hotel TBID $ 775,245 $ 796,245 $ 872,604 $ 807,498 $ 834,500 $ 842,845 Forfeiture (2,590) 50,724 39,918 1,000 29,500 29,795
Safety Augmentation 1,383,376 1,720,301 2,025,994 1,472,940 1,847,000 1,865,470 Special Development 2,071,315 6,497 — 157,255 120,000 121,201 County Service Area 152 250,548 189,914 355,370 300,000 191,500 193,415 Recycling AB 929 234,370 192,289 738,076 410,566 399,500 282,295 Parking Projects 2,699 22,901 14,031 8,800 13,800 13,938 Drainage Construction 593,747 487,326 314,850 520,000 342,300 345,723 Emergency Response 894,887 1,052,069 1,301,619 1,022,618 1,235,100 1,247,451 Community Dev. Block Grant 745,749 275,265 874,227 872,193 780,245 — Sustainability 361,133 636,823 1,089,777 746,938 883,300 789,270 Community Facilities District Public
Safety #1 1,062,201 1,225,831 1,389,903 1,030,000 1,307,500 1,320,575 Park Maintenance District 188,765 241,593 380,098 199,000 306,000 309,060 CFD Canyon View (280) 297 689 200 300 303
Air Quality Management 58,453 76,961 51,274 60,718 61,900 62,519 Public Arts 631,695 570,108 293,169 509,211 172,600 174,326 Library (4,003) 33,261 75,597 43,000 27,500 27,775
Special Projects 23,197 61,007 104,564 391,028 55,000 55,000 Opioid Settlement — (3,464) 6,857 12,590 8,000 8,080
Housing 353,073 7,768,385 1,491,061 71,224 325,829 329,329 Special Revenue Funds Subtotal $ 9,623,579 $ 15,404,330 $ 11,419,679 $ 8,636,779 $ 8,941,374 $ 8,018,370 Internal Service Funds
Motor Vehicle Replacement $ 5,247,876 $ 14,149,381 $ 11,840,255 $ 11,662,678 $ 5,695,802 $ 5,454,929 Facility Maintenance 9,846,530 13,222,123 13,060,348 13,405,181 11,501,200 9,230,777 Employee Retirement Benefits 25,625,745 29,099,059 32,881,919 31,340,554 29,901,914 31,469,189 Risk Management 18,967,160 21,002,740 22,642,461 26,769,179 27,463,377 30,085,308 Retiree Health Insurance 4,030,012 4,556,084 4,170,324 4,090,504 3,004,000 3,004,500 Cogeneration Plant 2,067,839 2,209,231 1,986,227 4,289,998 4,289,998 4,289,998 Equipment Replacement — 1,484,056 510,116 500,000 250,000 250,000 Internal Service Funds Subtotal $ 65,785,162 $ 85,722,674 $ 87,091,651 $ 92,058,093 $ 82,106,291 $ 83,784,701 Debt Service Funds
General Debt Service $ 66,103,876 $ 11,546,209 $ 10,023,663 $ 10,024,596 $ 13,001,370 $ 13,161,731 Special Assessments 570,406 583,915 571,689 582,598 564,515 570,186 Debt Service Funds Subtotal $ 66,674,282 $ 12,130,124 $ 10,595,352 $ 10,607,194 $ 13,565,885 $ 13,731,917 Private Purpose Trust Fund
Successor Agency Fund $ 2,918,801 $ 3,255,616 $ 2,931,018 $ 2,184,822 $ 2,743,574 $ 2,789,424 Private Purpose Trust Fund Subtotal $ 2,918,801 $ 3,255,616 $ 2,931,018 $ 2,184,822 $ 2,743,574 $ 2,789,424 To t a l $ 444,826,757 $ 447,134,611 $ 474,439,419 $ 457,164,147 $ 487,764,110 $ 492,493,428
ALL FUND SUMMARIES
Item 3A - Page 32
Fund Budgets
Introduction to Fund Budgets
City of Palm Springs FY 25-26 & FY 26-27 Budget Book
Page
9 EXPENSES/OUTFLOWS BY FUND
The following is a table summarizing the expenses/outflows by fund housed in the City’s finance system.
Detailed budgeted amounts are included in the individual fund sections.
Description
FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Actuals
FY 23-24
Actuals
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Budgeted
FY 26-27
Budgeted
General Fund
General Fund $ 137,019,159 $ 172,233,059 $ 205,309,307 $ 217,820,712 $ 188,154,650 $ 185,153,820 General Fund Subtotal $ 137,019,159 $ 172,233,059 $ 205,309,307 $ 217,820,712 $ 188,154,650 $ 185,153,820 Capital Funds
Gas T ax $ 522,315 $ 682,251 $ 124,945 $ 1,704,819 $ 975,000 $ 675,000 Measure A Improvements 1,733,784 2,320,253 3,332,780 2,824,510 14,267,489 8,626,164 Senate Bill1 RMRA Road Maint. Rehab. 28,281 885,640 851,786 1,659,158 1,000,000 — Quimby Act Fees 475,902 68,616 634,985 511,424 — —
Measure J 10,168,226 15,965,193 19,427,851 10,322,575 22,877,181 23,937,913 Capital Projects 3,524,655 7,943,824 32,583,154 38,939,230 42,250,000 32,500,000 Capital Funds Subtotal $ 16,453,163 $ 27,865,777 $ 56,955,500 $ 55,961,717 $ 81,369,670 $ 65,739,077 Enterprise Funds
Airport $ 32,432,568 $ 33,229,582 $ 41,649,815 $ 57,859,578 $ 107,990,026 $ 128,871,729 Wastewater 9,567,034 8,927,518 8,965,237 76,894,040 11,844,091 12,088,776 Golf Course 5,373,751 5,536,029 5,845,043 6,563,005 6,477,274 6,681,891 Enterprise Funds Subtotal $ 47,373,353 $ 47,693,129 $ 56,460,094 $ 141,316,623 $ 126,311,391 $ 147,642,396 Special Revenue Funds
Small Hotel TBID $ 754,481 $ 815,722 $ 872,157 $ 807,498 $ 833,200 $ 841,532 Forfeiture 8,207 17,436 3,000 3,000 236,315 236,315
Safety Augmentation 1,043,392 975,279 1,143,574 1,803,115 2,892,278 2,990,240 Special Development 16,691 — — — — —
County Service Area 152 276,948 292,324 249,704 430,764 106,964 103,292 Recycling AB 929 457,792 320,959 281,551 438,329 511,299 405,632 Drainage Construction 72,602 45,674 913,191 2,167,410 740,000 — Emergency Response 1,045,479 1,044,701 679,252 900,954 1,048,100 1,051,581 Community Dev. Block Grant 745,749 324,128 728,254 1,046,158 948,298 168,054 Sustainability 307,888 174,158 268,735 672,448 834,058 734,565 Community Facilities District Public
Safety #1 618,642 705,798 732,043 649,442 1,536,270 1,045,007 Park Maintenance District 228,187 235,180 256,176 585,627 348,034 348,034 Air Quality Management 66,172 55,426 36,800 63,788 100,000 100,650 Public Arts 79,885 248,447 910,399 632,751 282,039 22,253 Library 88,738 18,019 172,972 369,009 1,222,000 222,000 Special Projects 254,408 456,214 783,613 765,308 785,000 485,000 Housing 403,922 556,736 (139,615) 143,452 329,501 137,636 Special Revenue Funds Subtotal $ 6,469,181 $ 6,286,199 $ 7,891,807 $ 11,479,054 $ 12,753,356 $ 8,891,790 Internal Service Funds
Motor Vehicle Replacement $ 5,350,205 $ 5,804,492 $ 6,492,935 $ 12,262,129 $ 11,545,426 $ 11,978,026 Facility Maintenance 1,458,836 5,642,807 7,388,417 10,559,299 15,749,961 13,970,013 Employee Retirement Benefits 24,489,450 26,357,678 28,936,304 35,107,815 32,776,914 34,344,189 Risk Management 18,475,596 19,833,531 27,560,064 30,421,715 26,917,922 29,536,819 Retiree Health Insurance 3,335,131 3,475,238 3,602,345 4,089,351 3,936,463 3,936,463 Cogeneration Plant 2,532,345 3,155,881 3,684,956 5,275,111 4,597,645 4,676,657 Equipment Replacement — 227,822 391,002 500,000 500,000 500,000 Internal Service Funds Subtotal $ 55,641,563 $ 64,497,449 $ 78,056,024 $ 98,215,420 $ 96,024,330 $ 98,942,166 Debt Service Funds
General Debt Service $ 64,402,633 $ 10,675,390 $ 10,764,303 $ 11,726,443 $ 11,855,568 $ 12,013,474 Special Assessments 554,147 557,947 562,412 562,831 529,967 527,238 Debt Service Funds Subtotal $ 64,956,779 $ 11,233,337 $ 11,326,715 $ 12,289,274 $ 12,385,535 $ 12,540,712 Private Purpose Trust Fund
Successor Agency Fund $ 1,554,979 $ 2,293,384 $ 1,148,308 $ 2,442,956 $ 2,022,426 $ 2,618,894 Private Purpose Trust Fund Subtotal $ 1,554,979 $ 2,293,384 $ 1,148,308 $ 2,442,956 $ 2,022,426 $ 2,618,894 To t a l $ 329,468,176 $ 332,102,334 $ 417,147,755 $ 539,525,756 $ 519,021,357 $ 521,528,855
ALL FUND SUMMARIES
Item 3A - Page 33
ATTACHMENT B
Draft Budget Book for FY2025-26 and FY2026-27
ATTACHMENT C
Item 3A - Page 35
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Department of Finance
Capital Projects Schedule
Project # Fund STRING NAME TOTAL BUDGET Carryforward + FY25 Budget
REMAINING
BALANCE (NET OF
ENC.)
2026 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2027 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2028 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2029 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2030 DETAIL
AMOUNT
TOTAL UNENC.
FUNDING
01-11 261 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 0.01$ 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 01-11 261 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 01-11 261 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 35,519,050.37 35,519,050.37 3,481,461.23 - - - - - 3,481,461.23 01-11 261 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 01-11 261 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 51,006.70 51,006.70 (18,217.58) - - - - - (18,217.58) 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 7,477,720.65 7,477,720.65 511,195.39 - - - - - 511,195.39 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 27,331.92 27,331.92 5,290.85 - - - - - 5,290.85 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 11,141.71 11,141.71 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 4,686,962.98 3,686,962.98 3,188,492.68 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - - 4,188,492.68 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE - - (6,260.89) - - - - - (6,260.89) 01-11 134 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 11,141.70 11,141.70 7,427.79 - - - - - 7,427.79 05-09 261 DEMUTH PARKING LOT STABALIZATION - - - - - - - - - 05-09 261 DEMUTH PARKING LOT STABALIZATION - - - - - - - - - 01-11 420 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 13,000,000.00 13,000,000.00 4,855,148.20 - - - - - 4,855,148.20 01-11 420 INDIAN UNION PAC RR BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 06-18 261 SOUTH PALM CANYON BRIDGE 8,597,085.09 6,597,085.09 6,482,518.09 2,000,000.00 - - - - 8,482,518.09 06-18 134 SOUTH PALM CANYON BRIDGE 1,368,914.96 868,914.96 866,833.68 500,000.00 - - - - 1,366,833.68 06-18 133 SOUTH PALM CANYON BRIDGE 201,122.69 201,122.69 198,297.26 - - - - - 198,297.26 07-03 134 BOGERT TRAIL POST-CONSTRUCTION 74,903.80 74,903.80 2,160.00 - - - - - 2,160.00 08-25 134 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 172,209.87 172,209.87 119,349.20 - - - - - 119,349.20 08-25 134 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 1,772,154.01 872,154.01 857,737.47 500,000.00 400,000.00 - - - 1,757,737.47 08-25 134 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 11,721.14 11,721.14 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 08-25 134 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 404,093.01 404,093.01 238,515.13 - - - - - 238,515.13 08-25 134 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 5,791,150.01 5,791,150.01 5,756,810.38 - - - - - 5,756,810.38 08-25 134 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 (30,432.26) - - - - - (30,432.26) 08-25 261 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 19,192.00 19,192.00 14,222.58 - - - - - 14,222.58 08-25 261 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 43,687,692.51 25,687,692.51 25,334,296.76 10,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 - - - 43,334,296.76 08-25 261 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 08-25 261 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 277,949.90 277,949.90 37,169.32 - - - - - 37,169.32 08-25 261 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 08-25 261 RAMON ROAD BRIDGE 111,874.01 111,874.01 (62,922.60) - - - - - (62,922.60) 08-26 261 TAHQUITZ CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 34,214.06 34,214.06 25,964.06 - - - - - 25,964.06 08-26 134 TAHQUITZ CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 8,231.00 8,231.00 8,231.00 - - - - - 8,231.00 08-26 420 TAHQUITZ CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 155,352.91 155,352.91 155,099.52 - - - - - 155,099.52 10-10 134 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 1,329,388.06 429,388.06 133,925.44 - 500,000.00 400,000.00 - - 1,033,925.44 10-10 134 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 11,046,451.01 1,046,451.01 1,034,222.47 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 11,034,222.47 10-10 134 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 5,029,161.95 29,161.95 21,213.14 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 5,021,213.14 10-10 134 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 254,634.01 254,634.01 250,382.68 - - - - - 250,382.68 10-10 134 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 3,301.65 3,301.65 998.53 - - - - - 998.53 Item 3A - Page 36
Project # Fund STRING NAME TOTAL BUDGET Carryforward + FY25 Budget
REMAINING
BALANCE (NET OF
ENC.)
2026 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2027 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2028 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2029 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2030 DETAIL
AMOUNT
TOTAL UNENC.
FUNDING
10-10 134 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 542,418.46 442,418.46 343,869.23 100,000.00 - - - - 443,869.23 10-10 261 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 7,771,273.00 771,273.00 689,495.30 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - - 7,689,495.30 10-10 261 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 2,681,854.39 2,681,854.39 (358,808.70) - - - - - (358,808.70) 10-10 261 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 107,028,396.67 14,528,396.67 14,402,550.39 18,500,000.00 18,500,000.00 18,500,000.00 18,500,000.00 18,500,000.00 106,902,550.39 10-10 261 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 21,211.00 21,211.00 21,211.00 - - - - - 21,211.00 10-10 261 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 10-10 261 VISTA CHINO BRIDGE WW WASH 27,572.00 27,572.00 27,572.00 - - - - - 27,572.00 12-02 261 S PALM CYN TAHQUITZ CREEK BRIDGE 12,899,076.88 12,699,076.88 1,067,017.83 200,000.00 - - - - 1,267,017.83 12-02 134 S PALM CYN TAHQUITZ CREEK BRIDGE 359,910.91 359,910.91 349,377.37 - - - - - 349,377.37 12-02 134 S PALM CYN TAHQUITZ CREEK BRIDGE 766,664.01 766,664.01 395,189.86 - - - - - 395,189.86 12-02 134 S PALM CYN TAHQUITZ CREEK BRIDGE 1,062,734.51 1,062,734.51 (68,473.55) - - - - - (68,473.55) 12-04 134 EPC PALM CYN WASH BRIDGE 1,369,209.64 869,209.64 753,910.90 500,000.00 - - - - 1,253,910.90 12-04 134 EPC PALM CYN WASH BRIDGE 41,953.00 41,953.00 36,943.66 - - - - - 36,943.66 12-04 134 EPC PALM CYN WASH BRIDGE 629,768.24 329,768.24 299,271.68 150,000.00 150,000.00 - - - 599,271.68 12-04 261 EPC PALM CYN WASH BRIDGE 10,073,004.72 8,573,004.72 8,198,958.16 1,500,000.00 - - - - 9,698,958.16 14-20 260 ELECTR UNDERGRND LIGHT UPGRADE 8,582.13 8,582.13 8,582.13 - - - - - 8,582.13 15-07 152 DOWNTOWN PARK PROJECT 1,076,461.73 1,076,461.73 445,570.31 - - - - - 445,570.31 15-07 260 DOWNTOWN PARK PROJECT 83,615.99 83,615.99 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 15-07 260 DOWNTOWN PARK PROJECT 1,512,829.79 1,512,829.79 461,010.48 - - - - - 461,010.48 15-21 134 Tahquitz Canyon/Civic Drive Signal (2,460.44) (2,460.44) - - - - - - - 15-21 261 Tahquitz Canyon/Civic Drive Signal 5,320.52 5,320.52 - - - - - - - 15-26 420 BIOGAS TO ENERGY WWTP 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - - - - 1,000,000.00 15-32 134 HSIP CYCLE 7 306,169.00 306,169.00 52,984.28 - - - - - 52,984.28 15-32 261 HSIP CYCLE 7 3,260,442.68 3,260,442.68 50,649.45 - - - - - 50,649.45 16-02 261 WELWOOD LIBRARY LANDSCAPE PATIO 101.02 101.02 - - - - - - - 16-04 261 EVALUATION OF CITY FACILITIES 143,167.00 143,167.00 143,167.00 - - - - - 143,167.00 16-08 261 MAIN LIBRARY RENOVATIONS 7,060,050.00 7,060,050.00 5,220,652.00 - - - - - 5,220,652.00 17-03 133 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS - - - - - - - - - 16-08 260 MAIN LIBRARY RENOVATIONS 8,060,050.00 8,060,050.00 6,731,134.77 - - - - - 6,731,134.77 17-05 134 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS - - - - - - - - - 16-18 133 CYCLE 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPRV 270,000.00 270,000.00 110,003.21 - - - - - 110,003.21 16-18 261 CYCLE 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPRV 97,216.91 97,216.91 (9,071.37) - - - - - (9,071.37) 16-18 261 CYCLE 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPRV 2,749,341.24 2,749,341.24 38,246.06 - - - - - 38,246.06 16-18 142 CYCLE 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPRV 1,206,407.00 1,206,407.00 (117,871.00) - - - - - (117,871.00) 17-08 134 INDIAN CANYON TWO-WAY CONVERSION - - - - - - - - - 17-08 134 INDIAN CANYON TWO-WAY CONVERSION - - - - - - - - - 17-08 134 INDIAN CANYON TWO-WAY CONVERSION - - - - - - - - - 16-19 261 FLASHING BEACONS CYCLE 8 660,867.21 660,867.21 612,710.00 - - - - - 612,710.00 17-09 134 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS - - - - - - - - - 17-09 134 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS - - - - - - - - - 17-09 134 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS - - - - - - - - - 17-10 261 FIRE STATION 1 AND 3 SECURITY GATE - - - - - - - - - 16-19 261 FLASHING BEACONS CYCLE 8 396,262.22 396,262.22 (6,545.66) - - - - - (6,545.66) 17-03 261 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS 601.99 601.99 0.00 - - - - - 0.00 17-05 261 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS 602.01 602.01 0.00 - - - - - 0.00 17-07 134 NPC Pedestrian Enhancements 2,006,531.16 2,006,531.16 - - - - - - - 18-09 261 FIRE TRAINING FACILITY - - - - - - - - - 17-07 134 NPC Pedestrian Enhancements 7,328.96 7,328.96 7,328.96 - - - - - 7,328.96 17-07 134 NPC Pedestrian Enhancements 1,140,001.55 1,140,001.55 33,401.39 - - - - - 33,401.39 Item 3A - Page 37
Project # Fund STRING NAME TOTAL BUDGET Carryforward + FY25 Budget
REMAINING
BALANCE (NET OF
ENC.)
2026 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2027 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2028 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2029 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2030 DETAIL
AMOUNT
TOTAL UNENC.
FUNDING
17-07 134 NPC Pedestrian Enhancements 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 17-07 260 NPC Pedestrian Enhancements 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 876,938.04 - - - - - 876,938.04 17-07 260 NPC Pedestrian Enhancements 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 17-08 261 INDIAN CANYON TWO-WAY CONVERSION 602.00 602.00 0.00 - - - - - 0.00 17-08 260 INDIAN CANYON TWO-WAY CONVERSION 188.37 188.37 - - - - - - - 17-09 260 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS 705.94 705.94 - - - - - - - 17-12 420 WWTP WDR TECHNICAL STUDIES 28,217.11 28,217.11 - - - - - - - 18-04 261 PLAZA THEATER IMPROVEMENTS 4,524.23 4,524.23 4,524.23 - - - - - 4,524.23 18-04 261 PLAZA THEATER IMPROVEMENTS 25,599,000.00 25,599,000.00 (3,423,073.31) - - - - - (3,423,073.31) 18-04 261 PLAZA THEATER IMPROVEMENTS 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 - - - - - - - 18-04 260 PLAZA THEATER IMPROVEMENTS 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 887,599.74 - - - - - 887,599.74 18-04 260 PLAZA THEATER IMPROVEMENTS 7,500,000.00 7,500,000.00 1,515,782.38 - - - - - 1,515,782.38 18-05 261 CYCLE 9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPRV 2,502,700.56 1,702,700.56 1,567,781.34 800,000.00 - - - - 2,367,781.34 18-06 260 VICTORIA RTHHRDY RESTROOMS 1,586,000.00 1,586,000.00 1,547,438.53 - - - - - 1,547,438.53 18-10 260 DOWNTOWN SFTY BOLLARD PH2 650,000.01 650,000.01 650,000.01 - - - - - 650,000.01 20-03 133 PALM CYN INDIAN ROUNDABOUT - - - - - - - - - 18-14 134 GENE AUTRY WIND WALL 3,226,000.01 2,626,000.01 2,434,965.12 600,000.00 - - - - 3,034,965.12 18-14 134 GENE AUTRY WIND WALL 54,694.42 54,694.42 (48,073.76) - - - - - (48,073.76) 18-17 261 POLICE DEPT IMPOUND BLDG 754,000.00 754,000.00 754,000.00 - - - - - 754,000.00 18-18 420 BOGERT SEWER LIFT STATION 2,922,133.00 2,922,133.00 195,550.94 - - - - - 195,550.94 18-19 420 WWTP CIP AND RATE STUDY 285,333.28 285,333.28 229,432.02 - - - - - 229,432.02 18-20 261 SKYLIGHT RAILINGS 1,262,125.56 1,262,125.56 285,143.80 - - - - - 285,143.80 18-26 134 TAHQUITZ CREEK LEVEE 364.32 364.32 - - - - - - - 19-06 261 PICKLEBALL COURTS AT SUNRISE PARK 26,796.00 26,796.00 26,796.00 - - - - - 26,796.00 19-13 260 SUNRISE PARK RESTROOM REMODEL 85,900.43 85,900.43 - - - - - - - 19-14 261 DEMUTH CC Air Conditioner 619,458.92 619,458.92 22,452.98 - - - - - 22,452.98 19-15 261 STORM DRAIN LINE 20 11,575,236.00 11,575,236.00 506,020.66 - - - - - 506,020.66 19-16 260 PD 911 CAD RMS 0.01 0.01 (270,702.99) - - - - - (270,702.99) 20-28 261 SHADE STRUCTURES AT PARKS - - - - - - - - - 20-30 152 DEMUTH PARK RESTROOMS - - - - - - - - - 19-16 260 PD 911 CAD RMS 2,853,682.62 2,853,682.62 1,991,228.43 - - - - - 1,991,228.43 19-17 133 2019 CITYWIDE SPEED SURVEY 14,726.59 14,726.59 - - - - - - - 19-18 260 JC FREY BUILDING REHAB 1,131,000.00 1,131,000.00 1,131,000.00 - - - - - 1,131,000.00 19-19 261 CITY YARD ROOF REPLACEMENT 211,081.41 211,081.41 - - - - - - - 19-23 261 KEYLESSS ENTRY PHASE 2 42,649.41 42,649.41 42,649.41 - - - - - 42,649.41 19-23 260 KEYLESSS ENTRY PHASE 2 812,723.48 812,723.48 812,723.48 - - - - - 812,723.48 21-01 261 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - - - - - - - - - 21-01 134 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - - - - - - - - - 21-02 134 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL - - - - - - - - - 19-24 260 DEMUTH PARK ADA ACCESS PH2 1,900,000.00 1,900,000.00 1,892,847.76 - - - - - 1,892,847.76 21-02 133 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL - - - - - - - - - 21-03 133 CITYWIDE SIGN INVENTORY REPLACE - - - - - - - - - 19-25 260 LIFE SAFETY IMPRV FIRE SPRKLR 2,200,000.01 2,200,000.01 2,200,000.01 - - - - - 2,200,000.01 19-26 260 EMERGENCY GENERATORS CITYFAC 1,977,500.00 1,977,500.00 1,977,500.00 - - - - - 1,977,500.00 19-27 260 HVAC CITY WATER TREATMENT PRGM 789,750.00 789,750.00 789,750.00 - - - - - 789,750.00 19-28 260 RECREATIONAL LED LIGHTING UPGR 6,194,219.35 6,194,219.35 519,748.55 - - - - - 519,748.55 19-30 261 ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNER SYSTEM 2,921,927.89 2,921,927.89 1,562,866.32 - - - - - 1,562,866.32 19-36 260 TMC & SIGNAL TIMING OPTIMIZATION 59,423.75 59,423.75 - - - - - - - 20-02 133 2020-2021 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 124,585.13 124,585.13 - - - - - - - Item 3A - Page 38
Project # Fund STRING NAME TOTAL BUDGET Carryforward + FY25 Budget
REMAINING
BALANCE (NET OF
ENC.)
2026 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2027 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2028 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2029 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2030 DETAIL
AMOUNT
TOTAL UNENC.
FUNDING
21-16 261 DEMUTH DOG PARK - - - - - - - - - 20-02 133 2020-2021 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 4,231.48 4,231.48 - - - - - - - 20-02 134 2020-2021 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 70,356.25 70,356.25 - - - - - - - 20-02 134 2020-2021 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 21,719.72 21,719.72 - - - - - - - 20-03 261 PALM CYN INDIAN ROUNDABOUT 720,000.00 720,000.00 719,500.00 - - - - - 719,500.00 21-34-1 134 INTERCHANGE PROJECTS, LOC MEAS A - - - - - - - - - 20-03 260 PALM CYN INDIAN ROUNDABOUT 1,750,300.25 1,750,300.25 1,399,814.64 - - - - - 1,399,814.64 20-04 261 SUNRISE PLAZA HVAC IMPROVEMENTS 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - - - - 100,000.00 20-04 260 SUNRISE PLAZA HVAC IMPROVEMENTS 1,955,450.00 1,955,450.00 1,955,450.00 - - - - - 1,955,450.00 20-06 261 CITY HALL PD ELECTRICAL UPGRADES 247,318.00 247,318.00 247,318.00 - - - - - 247,318.00 20-06 261 CITY HALL PD ELECTRICAL UPGRADES 536,500.00 536,500.00 535,592.91 - - - - - 535,592.91 20-07 261 SUNRISE PLAZA DOMESTIC WATER SEPARA 329,875.00 329,875.00 238,275.00 - - - - - 238,275.00 22-09-2 261 IT WIRELESS NETWORK - - - - - - - - - 20-08 261 FLEET OPS HVAC ELECTRICAL IMPRV 946,750.00 946,750.00 946,750.00 - - - - - 946,750.00 20-10 261 SUNRISE PLAZA DOOR WINDOW REPLACE 981,395.00 981,395.00 981,395.00 - - - - - 981,395.00 20-14 420 WWTP FIRE SPRINKLER/ALARM UPGRADES 5,255.09 5,255.09 5,255.09 - - - - - 5,255.09 20-15 420 WWTP BIOSOLIDS HANDLING AREA UPGRAD 1,090,493.76 1,090,493.76 - - - - - - - 20-19 142 DHUC TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPRVMTS 675,753.00 675,753.00 (9,451.90) - - - - - (9,451.90) 20-19 134 DHUC TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPRVMTS 22,051.61 22,051.61 0.00 - - - - - 0.00 20-21 261 LOCAL SAFETY PLAN 4,811,644.40 4,811,644.40 4,756,968.92 - - - - - 4,756,968.92 2022 134 UNSCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 2022 134 UNSCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 194,930.74 194,930.74 194,930.74 - - - - - 194,930.74 2022 261 UNSCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1,292,705.35 1,292,705.35 1,292,705.35 - - - - - 1,292,705.35 2022 133 UNSCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 573,278.00 573,278.00 573,278.00 - - - - - 573,278.00 2022 420 UNSCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 4,375.00 4,375.00 4,375.00 - - - - - 4,375.00 20-22 261 CITY HALL & PD COOLING TOWERS 234,407.09 234,407.09 14,702.10 - - - - - 14,702.10 20-22 260 CITY HALL & PD COOLING TOWERS 7,963.00 7,963.00 - - - - - - - 20-24 133 TRAFFIC CALMING FY20-21 80,721.22 80,721.22 - - - - - - - 20-25 420 DIGESTER 2 AND GAS FLARE 20,415,802.45 20,415,802.45 86,931.66 - - - - - 86,931.66 20-26 261 GYM FLOOR REPLACEMENT AT JOJDHUC 575.58 575.58 - - - - - - - 24-06 133 CITY-WIDE SIGN INVENTORY - - (7,478.47) - - - - - (7,478.47) 20-27 260 Pavilion Acoustic Curtains 124,947.79 124,947.79 11,614.56 - - - - - 11,614.56 20-28 260 SHADE STRUCTURES AT PARKS 1,965.15 1,965.15 - - - - - - - 20-29 260 PLAYGROUND SURFACING 736,003.22 736,003.22 - - - - - - - 20-30 260 DEMUTH PARK RESTROOMS 192,491.22 192,491.22 1,532.96 - - - - - 1,532.96 25-51 261 FY23 EMPG - - - - - - - - - 25-52 261 SHSP23 - - - - - - - - - 99-99 134 SUSPENSE HOLDING - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - GAS TAX 133 GAS TAX - - - - - - - - - 20-31 152 DESERT HIGHLAND PARK RESTROOMS 240,897.15 240,897.15 4,012.95 - - - - - 4,012.95 20-31 260 DESERT HIGHLAND PARK RESTROOMS 213,303.95 213,303.95 4,249.55 - - - - - 4,249.55 Item 3A - Page 39
Project # Fund STRING NAME TOTAL BUDGET Carryforward + FY25 Budget
REMAINING
BALANCE (NET OF
ENC.)
2026 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2027 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2028 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2029 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2030 DETAIL
AMOUNT
TOTAL UNENC.
FUNDING
20-33 142 SAN RAFAEL AVE CAB TRAF SIGNAL 628,447.89 628,447.89 110,177.07 - - - - - 110,177.07 21-01 260 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION 5,984,483.00 5,984,483.00 271,107.01 - - - - - 271,107.01 21-02 133 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 929,198.43 929,198.43 - - - - - - - 21-05 420 WWTP SLUDGE DRYING BEDS 3,839,628.67 3,839,628.67 5,279.57 - - - - - 5,279.57 21-07 420 WWTP FILTRATE PUMP STATION UPGRADES 754,549.37 754,549.37 555.17 - - - - - 555.17 21-08 420 WWTP BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING FACILITY 20,999,959.29 20,999,959.29 18,029,867.43 - - - - - 18,029,867.43 21-10 134 TRAFFIC CENTER COMM UPGRADE 17,025.91 17,025.91 - - - - - - - 21-10 134 TRAFFIC CENTER COMM UPGRADE 650,000.00 650,000.00 386,864.42 - - - - - 386,864.42 0111B 420 INDIAN CANYON DRIVE SEWER - - - - - - - - - 21-12 261 BICYCLE PED - SB 821 HAWK SYSTEM 213,500.00 213,500.00 (14,391.01) - - - - - (14,391.01) 21-12 261 BICYCLE PED - SB 821 HAWK SYSTEM 300,000.01 300,000.01 110,208.43 - - - - - 110,208.43 21-15 420 WWTP FIBER OPTIC LINE 36,619.00 36,619.00 - - - - - - - 21-16 152 DEMUTH DOG PARK 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 21-16 152 DEMUTH DOG PARK 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 21-16 152 DEMUTH DOG PARK 1,710,825.00 1,710,825.00 992,715.55 - - - - - 992,715.55 21-16 261 DEMUTH DOG PARK 4,800,306.00 1,300,306.00 1,256,538.00 3,500,000.00 - - - - 4,756,538.00 20-17 420 SEWER MANHOLE REHABILITATION PROJ - - - - - - - - - 21-16 260 DEMUTH DOG PARK 1,747,828.00 202,000.00 202,000.00 1,545,828.00 - - - - 1,747,828.00 21-17 420 ARNICO TRACT SEWER PHASE 4 100,336.86 100,336.86 (15,841.48) - - - - - (15,841.48) 21-17 260 ARNICO TRACT SEWER PHASE 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 21-17 260 ARNICO TRACT SEWER PHASE 4 785,000.00 785,000.00 49,734.06 - - - - - 49,734.06 21-17 260 ARNICO TRACT SEWER PHASE 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 21-17 260 ARNICO TRACT SEWER PHASE 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 21-18 420 2021 SEWER REPAIRS 741,990.92 741,990.92 163,194.03 - - - - - 163,194.03 21-22 261 DHUC BALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS 34,115.65 34,115.65 - - - - - - - 21-25 261 TRAFFIC PLAN REVIEW 122,000.00 122,000.00 73,923.51 - - - - - 73,923.51 22-24-1 420 WWTP OPS&MAINT. SOLAR PV - - - - - - - - - 21-32 261 SWIM CENTER SHADE STRUCTURES 105,119.49 105,119.49 - - - - - - - 21-34-1 134 INTERCHANGE PROJECTS, LOC MEAS A 159,760.35 159,760.35 0.01 - - - - - 0.01 21-34-1 134 INTERCHANGE PROJECTS, LOC MEAS A 22,000.00 22,000.00 (9,263.78) - - - - - (9,263.78) 22-01-2 261 ACBCI TECHNOLOGY DONATION - PD 132,100.00 132,100.00 107,351.64 - - - - - 107,351.64 22-04 261 RIM ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 400,000.00 400,000.00 391,980.82 - - - - - 391,980.82 22-05 261 NAVIGATION CENTER 9,760,000.00 9,760,000.00 (0.00) - - - - - (0.00) 22-09-1 261 TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT 918,015.06 918,015.06 400,757.72 - - - - - 400,757.72 22-09-3 261 CITY WIDE CAMERA REPAIRS 20,000.00 20,000.00 19,800.50 - - - - - 19,800.50 22-10 260 PD WATCHGUARD BODY CAMERAS 116,270.21 116,270.21 - - - - - - - 14-21 260 ELECTR UNDERGRND LIGHT UPGRADE - - - - - - - - - 22-11-2 260 PARK BENCHES 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 - - - - - 10,000.00 22-11-3 260 PAVILION LANDSCAPING 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 - - - - - 10,000.00 22-14 260 CONVENTION CTR CARPET REPLACEMENT 650,000.00 650,000.00 - - - - - - - 22-16 260 CONVENTIONCTR HOUSTON PLAZA UPGRADE 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - - - - - - 22-18 260 CONVENTION CENTER RETROFIT LIGHTING 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - - - - - - 22-18-1 260 DOWNTOWN PROJECT ELEVATOR EASEMENTS 5,627.55 5,627.55 - - - - - - - 22-19 260 RELOCATE FIRE STATION 1 9,845,000.00 9,845,000.00 9,380,990.46 - - - - - 9,380,990.46 22-19-1 260 DOWNTOWN PROJECT RESTROOMS 33,560.95 33,560.95 - - - - - - - 22-19-1 260 DOWNTOWN PROJECT RESTROOMS 4,432.60 4,432.60 - - - - - - - 22-20 260 COMMUNITY INITIATED PROJECTS 14,400,000.00 9,400,000.00 8,358,252.02 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 13,358,252.02 18-09 260 FIRE TRAINING FACILITY - - - - - - - - - 22-21 261 PEDESTRIAN STREETS MASTER PLAN 4,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,258,213.06 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 3,758,213.06 Item 3A - Page 40
Project # Fund STRING NAME TOTAL BUDGET Carryforward + FY25 Budget
REMAINING
BALANCE (NET OF
ENC.)
2026 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2027 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2028 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2029 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2030 DETAIL
AMOUNT
TOTAL UNENC.
FUNDING
18-17 260 POLICE DEPT IMPOUND BLDG - - - - - - - - - 22-21 134 PEDESTRIAN STREETS MASTER PLAN 5,250,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,297,452.49 750,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 5,047,452.49 22-21 260 PEDESTRIAN STREETS MASTER PLAN 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,297,452.49 - - - - - 1,297,452.49 22-22-1 420 SOLAR PERF.GUARNT WWTP 219,510.00 219,510.00 219,510.00 - - - - - 219,510.00 22-24 152 PICKLEBALL COURTS 3,275,000.00 3,275,000.00 3,049,479.10 - - - - - 3,049,479.10 22-24 260 PICKLEBALL COURTS 2,775,000.00 2,775,000.00 2,570,902.50 - - - - - 2,570,902.50 22-25-1 260 DOWNTOWN PROJECT-DSRTFASHIONPLAZA 8,862.54 8,862.54 8,862.54 - - - - - 8,862.54 22-26 260 SAN RAFAEL DRIVE TURF CONVERSION 150,000.00 150,000.00 121,000.00 - - - - - 121,000.00 22-30 260 CULTURAL CENTER SEWER LATERAL 199,735.00 199,735.00 - - - - - - - 22-30-1 261 FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/GRANTS 371,159.49 371,159.49 - - - - - - - 22-32-1 260 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE/LANDSCAPE 95,121.20 95,121.20 95,121.20 - - - - - 95,121.20 22-34 134 TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT 1,532,845.25 282,845.25 282,845.25 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 1,532,845.25 22-35 134 PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX 170,057.00 170,057.00 1,470.59 . - - - - 1,470.59 22-36 261 Improvements to Lot G Downtown 300,000.00 300,000.00 289,678.20 - - - - - 289,678.20 22-37 261 Soccer Fields at Demuth Park 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - - - 200,000.00 20-26 260 GYM FLOOR REPLACEMENT AT JOJDHUC - - - - - - - - - 22-37-1 260 AIRP RES-FUEL FAA 1,495,000.00 1,495,000.00 1,495,000.00 - - - - - 1,495,000.00 22-38 261 Palm Tree Up Lighting 90,000.00 90,000.00 38,517.67 - - - - - 38,517.67 22-38-1 420 WWTP MOTOR VEHICLES 775,790.26 775,790.26 775,790.26 - - - - - 775,790.26 22-39 261 Shade at Bus Stops 300,000.00 300,000.00 297,426.74 - - - - - 297,426.74 20-30 260 DEMUTH PARK RESTROOMS - - - - - - - - - 22-41 420 BARISTO RD SEWER PIPE SEGMENT 187,704.09 187,704.09 - - - - - - - 2022 260 UNSCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - - - - - - - - - 22-42 420 LIFT STATION ONE ASSESSMENT 44,600.00 44,600.00 (0.00) - - - - - (0.00) 21-10 260 TRAFFIC CENTER COMM UPGRADE - - - - - - - - - 22-43 420 LIFT STATION ONE IMPROVEMENTS 598,828.00 598,828.00 - - - - - - - 23-12 261 HSIP CYCLE 11 1,420,000.00 420,000.00 72,098.70 1,000,000.00 - - - - 1,072,098.70 23-13 420 SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 350,000.00 350,000.00 - - - - - - - 23-15 420 BARISTO SEWER LINE REHABILITATION 1,028,813.00 1,028,813.00 - - - - - - - 23-16 420 WWTP ODOR CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS 7,137,371.00 637,371.00 - 6,500,000.00 - - - - 6,500,000.00 23-51 260 Mizell Center 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - - - - - - 23-63 261 SHSP22 204,000.00 204,000.00 204,000.00 - - - - - 204,000.00 23-64 261 SHSP21 284,560.00 284,560.00 - - - - - - - 23-66 261 EMPG FY22 13,062.00 13,062.00 - - - - - - - 23-67 261 Shade Str and Playground Eqp 2,552,252.94 2,552,252.94 283,184.32 - - - - - 283,184.32 24-01 420 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION 347,380.00 347,380.00 347,380.00 - - - - - 347,380.00 24-05 142 INDIAN CANYON & VIA ESCUELA TSI 1,144,916.00 1,144,916.00 1,020,970.34 - - - - - 1,020,970.34 24-51 133 CONTRACTED STREET MAINTENANCE 113,690.00 113,690.00 15,550.00 - - - - - 15,550.00 24-51 134 CONTRACTED STREET MAINTENANCE 500,000.00 500,000.00 256,164.69 - - - - - 256,164.69 24-52 260 DOWNTOWN PARK AMPITHEATER IMPRVMNTS 754,000.00 754,000.00 754,000.00 - - - - - 754,000.00 24-53 261 SUNRISE PARK RECYCLED WATER PROJECT 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 - - - - - 1,500,000.00 24-53 261 SUNRISE PARK RECYCLED WATER PROJECT 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - - - - 500,000.00 99-99 260 SUSPENSE HOLDING 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 - - - - - 250,000.00 ARPT-SCP 260 Airport Special Capital Projects 50,000.00 50,000.00 33,232.04 - - - - - 33,232.04 PARKSIMP 261 Parks Improvement CIP 1,680,821.68 1,680,821.68 1,680,821.68 - - - - - 1,680,821.68 22-27 260 RACQUET CLUB ROAD DIET - - - - - - - - - 22-28 260 VICTORIA PARK GAZEBO - - - - - - - - - 22-29 260 SONORA ENHANCED LIIGHTED CROSSWALK - - - - - - - - - PAVING 260 ANNUAL PAVING REHABILITATION 69,000,000.00 24,000,000.00 8,544,982.47 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 53,544,982.47 Item 3A - Page 41
Project # Fund STRING NAME TOTAL BUDGET Carryforward + FY25 Budget
REMAINING
BALANCE (NET OF
ENC.)
2026 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2027 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2028 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2029 DETAIL
AMOUNT
2030 DETAIL
AMOUNT
TOTAL UNENC.
FUNDING
PD Radios 261 PD Radios 3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00 903,054.06 - - - - - 903,054.06 22-33-1 260 COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENTS - - - - - - - - - SIGNINVTRY 133 BIANNUAL SIGN INVENTORY 1,200,000.00 600,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 - 300,000.00 - - 900,000.00 SLURRY 133 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 5,400,000.00 2,025,000.00 658,305.29 675,000.00 675,000.00 675,000.00 675,000.00 675,000.00 4,033,305.29 SLURRY 134 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 9,525,000.00 2,025,000.00 684,905.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 8,184,905.00 SLURRY 142 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL 1,097,504.00 1,097,504.00 - - - - - - - 99-99 260 SUSPENSE HOLDING - - - - - - - - - TRAFCALM 134 ANNUAL TRAFFIC CALMING 750,000.00 750,000.00 255,350.24 - - - - - 255,350.24 ARPT-SCP 260 Airport Special Capital Projects - - (23,100.00) - - - - - (23,100.00) ARPT-SCP 260 Airport Special Capital Projects - - (49,260.82) - - - - - (49,260.82) TRAFCALM 133 ANNUAL TRAFFIC CALMING 750,000.00 750,000.00 252,205.99 - - - - - 252,205.99 25-06 NEW Library Debt SWIM CENTER UPGRADES 7,000,000.00 - - 4,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - - - 7,000,000.00 25-04 NEW 260 LIGHTED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING UPGRADES 3,500,000.00 - - 2,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 - - - 3,500,000.00 25-05 NEW 261 STORM DRAIN LINE 21 & DEMUTH DRAINAGE 4,250,000.00 - - 250,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 - - 4,250,000.00 25-05 NEW 135 STORM DRAIN LINE 21 & DEMUTH DRAINAGE 350,000.00 - - 350,000.00 - - - - 350,000.00 25-03 NEW 261 STORM DRAIN LINE 06 7,000,000.00 - - 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - 7,000,000.00 25-03 NEW 135 STORM DRAIN LINE 06 390,000.00 - - 390,000.00 - - - - 390,000.00 25-07 NEW 124 SD TRASH CAPTURE RETROFIT 1,800,000.00 - - 1,000,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1,800,000.00 25-08 NEW 134 TS BACKBONE FIBER OPTIC INSTALLATION 800,000.00 - - 400,000.00 400,000.00 - - - 800,000.00 25-08 NEW 142 TS BACKBONE FIBER OPTIC INSTALLATION 1,000,000.00 - - 1,000,000.00 - - - - 1,000,000.00 25-09 NEW 420 WWTP SCADA IMPROVEMENTS 8,700,000.00 - - 4,350,000.00 4,350,000.00 - - - 8,700,000.00 25-10 NEW 420 WWTP UPGRADE LIFT STATIONS 11,600,000.00 - - 5,800,000.00 5,800,000.00 - - - 11,600,000.00 25-11 NEW 420 WWTP DIGESTER NO. 1 REPLACEMENT 14,500,000.00 - - 7,250,000.00 7,250,000.00 - - - 14,500,000.00 Total $719,030,684.90 $434,819,856.90 $201,184,145.85 $96,160,828.00 $72,725,000.00 $42,575,000.00 $37,375,000.00 $35,375,000.00 $485,394,973.85 Item 3A - Page 42
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
06/11/2025
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCE AND CONDUCT FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.92 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE, STRICTLY
REGULATING CO-OWNED HOUSING UNITS, AND DETERMINING SUCH ACTION
TO EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT”
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce and conduct a first reading by title only, of an ordinance entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.92 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE, STRICTLY
REGULATING CO-OWNED HOUSING UNITS, AND DETERMINING SUCH ACTION
TO BE EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT."
Attachments
Item 3B
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 11, 2025 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AND CONDUCT FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED, “ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.92 OF THE PALM SPRINGS
MUNICIPAL CODE , STRICTLY REGULATING CO -OWNED HOUSING
UNITS, AND DETERMINING SUCH ACTION TO EXEMPT FROM
FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT”
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Jeffrey Ballinger, City Attorney
Veronica Goedhart, Director, Department of Special Program Compliance
SUMMARY:
On July 9, 2024, the City Council considered and introduced an ordinance to strictly regulate certain co-owned managed housing uses, and directed the Planning Department and Planning Commission to study a proposed update to the City’s current definitions regarding “time-share” uses. On July 25, 2024, a second reading was conducted, thereby resulting in the adoption of the ordinance. At that July 25, 2024 second reading, the Council requested that staff bring back several additional modifications to the adopted ordinance.
This agenda item provides the City Council with the opportunity to consider those changes requested by the City Council, as well as one additional issue that has been identified as part of implementing the ordinance, should the Council wish to consider that as well.
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce and conduct a first reading by title only, of an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 5.92 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL
CODE, STRICTLY REGULATING CO -OWNED HOUSING UNITS, AND
DETERMINING SUCH ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM FURTHER
Item 3B - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025 -- Page 2
Co-Owned Managed Housing Ordinance (First Reading)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
BACKGROUND:
On July 9, 2024, Ordinance No. 2100 was introduced for first reading. On July 25, 2024, the City Council conducted a second reading of the ordinance, resulting in its adoption.
As part of that second reading, the ordinance was pulled from the consent calendar portion of the agenda for discussion, and several revisions were requested by Council , which are outlined herein. Rather than incorporating those changes into the ordinance that was set for second reading, which incorporation would have required another first and second reading, the Council adopted the ordinance, and directed City staff to bring back another ordinance, amending the provisions discussed below. The Co-Owned Managed Housing ordinance is codified in the City’s Municipal Code as Chapter 5.92.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Council Requested Changes
At the July 25, 2024, Council meeting, the Council discussed the modifications made to the ordinance. Council also suggested incorporating the following modifications to the ordinance in the future:
• Removal of the automatic three-year termination date for the thirty -home cap on fractional owned homes and replace with termination to be determined by Council action. Thus, affirmative action by the Council will be required in order for this cap to be modified, and it will not go away automatically.
• Addition of daytime guest occupancy limits consistent with vacation rental daytime guest occupancy limits. So, t he maximum number of occupants will be no more than two per bedroom within the co- owned housing unit, plus any minor children (age 12 or under), plus up to four (4) additional occupants during the daytime. • Acknowledgement by all owners of the terms of the Co-Owned Managed Housing Ordinance (Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 5.92) , and agreement to not challenge, in any judicial or administrative proceeding, the validity or enforceability of any provision of this Chapter 5.92.
Subsequently Identified Issue -- “Median House Price”
As frequently happens when regulating a new type of property use, City staff has identified at least one issue that, should Council wish to provide clarity, City staff would recommend adoption.
Section 5.92.020(c) of the City’s Co -Owned Managed Housing Ordinance provides that the City will not issue a co-owned housing unit permit for a property unless the purchase price is more than two times the median housing price. This was done in order to Item 3B - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025 -- Page 3
Co-Owned Managed Housing Ordinance (First Reading)
preserve housing stock. Presumably, the referenced “median housing price” would include single family residences, but arguably could include other residential housing units, such as residential condominiums.
City staff recommends clarifying that the median sales price utilized by fractional ownership companies to be the City -wide median price of single-family residential properties, but not other housing units, such as residential condominiums . This position is supported by the purpose of this median house price provision, as well as the legislative record of Chapter 5.92
Including residential condominiums result s in a lower median housing price, thereby increasing the number of housing units that can be put into co-owned managed housing use. This seems contrary to the purpose of the 2X median house price requirement, which is to preserve affordable housing stock. In addition, at the July 25, 2024 City Council meeting, Councilmember Middleton states (at 2:49:18) that the home must be two times the price of “a single-family home.” Thus, City staff believes that this was the intent of the City Council, and that the ordinance should clearly reflect this intention.
Subsequently Identified Issue -- “Permitting Process”
City staff created a permitting process for fractional ownership and identified that the Ordinance did not include specific requirements for supporting application documentation. To ensure that the supporting documentation is included for each application, staff recommends that the requirements are outlined in the ordinance. The items include:
• Copy of Driver’s License for each Owner
• Documentation such as Articles of Organization
• Operating Agreement
• A Trust Certificate is required if there is an owner that is a Trust • File Stamped Grant Deed
• Good Neighbor Affidavit
• Operational Standards Affidavits
Therefore, City staff recommends that the City Council incorporate the changes that were requested at the July 25, 2024 meeting, as well as clarify the median house price issue, and permitting process by way of the proposed ordinance. As with other ordinances, it would require two readings by City Council and would be effective thirty (30) days thereafter.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State Item 3B - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
June 11, 2025 -- Page 4
Co-Owned Managed Housing Ordinance (First Reading)
Guidelines, because this Ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project” as that term is defined in Section 15378 of the State Guidelines. In addition, this Ordinance consi sts of regulations intended to ensure that co- managed owned property use of residential property, with the strict regulations implemented by the subject ordinance, remains consistent with other residential uses of property within the City and thereby preserves the residential character of the City’s residential neighborhoods as identified in the City’s adopted General Plan, and its concomitant Environmental Impact Report. Thus, to the extent there is any environmental impact for the adoption of this Ordinance, the Environmental Impact Report for the adopted General Plan is the controlling environmental document.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:
This agenda item aligns with the City Council’s goal of focusing on items that impact quality of life, by ensuring that residential properties that are co-owned by multiple owners do not become a nuisance to neighbors or unduly impact affordability of homes within the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Any regulatory approach would be accompanied by a regulatory fee that would be collected by the City to appropriately offset the costs of administering the regulatory program.
REVIEWED BY:
Department Director: Veronica Goedhart
City Attorney: Ryan Guiboa
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance No. ______
Item 3B - Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
Item 3B - Page 5
55575.18195\43416139.1
Chapter 5.92 CO-OWNED MANAGED HOUSING
§ 5.92.010 Definitions.
§ 5.92.020 Co-owned housing unit permit required.
§ 5.92.030 Operational standards.
§ 5.92.040 Administrative regulations.
§ 5.92.050 Violations.
§ 5.92.060 Application to pre-existing co-owned housing units. § 5.92.010 Definitions.
"Co-owned housing unit" means a residential dwelling unit, managed by a co-owned property manager, and utilized for occupancy for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes by up to 10 owners or 10 members of a limited- liability company that owns the dwelling unit, along with guests. The term "co-owned housing unit" is not a time-share project, as defined in Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.23.11(A), and usage of a co- owned housing unit is not a time-share use.
Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, if the property is not managed by a co- owned property manager or is being managed without a co-owned housing unity permit, and the use of a property otherwise meets the definition of a time -share pursuant to Section 93.23.11(A), the use of that property shall be deemed a time-share use, subject to the regulation and prohibition of such by the city of Palm Springs.
"Co-ow
ned housing unit citywide cap" means the maximum number of co-owned housing units within the city, as such cap may be established and amended from time to time by city council resolution. The co-owned housing unit citywide cap is hereby set at thirty (30) co-owned housing units for the period starting on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section and ending three years after the effective date of said ordinance. The city shall study the impact of co- owned housing units in the city and council and may adjust the co- owned housing unit citywide cap by ordinance or resolution.
"Co-ow
ned housing unit neighborhood cap" means the maximum number of co-owned housing units allowed by the city council in each neighborhood. The co- owned housing unit neighborhood cap is hereby set at two per neighborhood. The city shall study the impact of co- owned housing units in the city council and may adjust the co- owned housing unit citywide cap by ordinance or resolution.
"Co-owned housing unit permit" means a permit granted to a co-owned property manager for each co-owned housing unit under management.
"Co-owned property manager" means a person, corporation, trust, or entity that manages a co-owned housing unit, including providing cleaning services and maintenance of the co-owned housing unit, on behalf of the owners of the co-owned housing unit. The term co-owned property manager does not include software used by the owners of a co-owned housing unit to self-manage the co-owned housing unit.
Item 3B - Page 6
55575.18195\43416139.1
"Director" means the city of Palm Springs director of special programs, or his or her designee.
"Good neighbor policy" is a policy that governs the operation of a co- owned housing unit that summarizes general rules of conduct, occupancy limits, consideration, and respect, including, without limitation, provisions of Section 5.25.030 of the Municipal Code applicable to, or expected of, owners and guests.
"Guests" means any guests of an owner of a co-owned housing unit who have not provided compensation to an owner for dwelling, lodging, and sleeping purposes and are present in the co- owned housing unit while an owner is on site and in the home.
"Local contact person" means a property management company, real estate broker, or agent, lawyer, or other individual that resides within 25 miles of the co- owned housing unit. The local contact person must be: (1) available by telephone, or otherwise, 24 hours per day; (2) able to respond to telephone inquiries within one hour of the receipt of inquiry; (3) authorized by the owner to take remedial action when responding to any violation of this code or the good neighbor policy; and (4) designated as the owner's agent for receiving all official communications from the city.
"Neighborhood" means a city- recognized neighborhood, as set forth in Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 2.55 (Office of Neighborhoods). For those areas within the city that are not located within a city -recognized neighborhood, the city council may, by or dinance or resolution, determine that, for purposes of this chapter only, such area is contained in a particular city-recognized neighborhood, or the city council may recognize, for purposes of this chapter only, a new neighborhood.
"Operating agreement" an agreement that determines how the co -owned housing unit is used, how to divide shares, and how the costs are shared.
"Owner" means the limited -liability company, natural person or persons who is/are the owner of record of the co- owned housing unit. The term "owner" also includes members of the property specific limited-liability company, tenancy in common, or real estate trust.
§ 5.92.020 Co-owned housing unit permit required.
(a) The occupancy of a co-owned housing unit without a co-owned housing unit permit is prohibited.
(b) Prior to the dwelling's occupancy as a co-owned housing unit, and annually thereafter, a co-owned property manager shall obtain a permit for each co-owned housing unit in the city. (c) The city shall not issue a new co -owned housing unit permit for a property unless the property has a recorded purchase price greater than two times of the then median housing price within the City of single family residences (but not including other residential housing units, such as residential condominiums), measured at the date that the application for the co-owned housing unit is deemed complete.
Item 3B - Page 7
55575.18195\43416139.1
(d) The city shall not issue a new co -owned housing unit permit for a property in any neighborhood in which the VR neighborhood percentage cap, as outlined in Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 5.25 has been exceeded.
(e) Prior to, and as a condition precedent to, the city's issuance of a co-owned housing unit permit, a co-owned property manager shall submit an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, declaring that all owners of the co-owned housing unit have adopted a good neighbor policy, which shall be binding on the owner(s) of the co- owned housing unit for so long as the property is used as a co-owned housing unit, and which must contain the following requirements:
(1) Noise. Occupants of the co-owned housing unit shall comply with all provisions of the city's noise ordinance, Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 11.74. (2) Parking. Occupants of the co- owned housing unit shall comply with all provisions of the city's parking regulations applicable to residential units. In addition, all owners and guests of co- owned housing units shall park their vehicles on the property of the co-owned housing unit whenever sufficient parking space is available at the property. (3) Trash. Trash and refuse shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection by the authorized collectors and between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on scheduled trash collection days. The owner of th e co-owned unit shall use reasonably prudent property ownership/management practices to ensure compliance with all the provisions of Chapter 6.04 of this code (Waste Disposal and Diversion), and shall provide "walk-in service."
(4) Occupancy Limits. The maximum number of occupants shall be no more than two persons per bedroom within the co- owned housing unit, plus any minor children (defined for purposes of this chapter as age 12 or under). The owner may also allow up to four (4) daytime occupants in addition to the total number of guests allowed for overnight occupancy pursuant to this subsection. For purposes of this subsection, “daytime” shall be the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. of the same day. (5) Home Repairs and Maintenance. Property repairs and maintenance (external and internal), garden and yard maintenance, and pool cleaning and maintenance shall be prohibited between the hours of 5:00 pm on Friday through 8:00 am on Monday, except in the case of an emergency or the occurrence of an unexpected event that reasonably warrants a more timely or immediate response.
(6) Legal Compliance. All owners must comply with the provisions of this Chapter
5.92 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. All owners must acknowledge, as part of the affidavit required by subparagraph (e), the terms of this Chapter 5.92, and agree on behalf of the owner, and the owner’s successors and assigns, to not challenge, in any judicial or administrative proceeding, the validity or enforceability of any provision of this Chapter
5.92. (f) A co -owned property manager applying for a co- owned housing unit permit must provide evidence of a valid business license issued by the city for the separate business of operating co-owned housing units or submission of a certificate indicating that the owner is exempt or otherwise not covered by the city's business tax ordinance (Palm Springs Municipal Code, Title 3, Division II) for such activity. The co-owned property manager shall maintain such license in good standing, including timely payment of the applicable business license tax, for so long as the co- owned property manager provides management services within the city. (g) The city shall not issue a co-owned housing unit permit for a property that is within 500 feet of the outer property line of any other co-owned housing unit.
Item 3B - Page 8
55575.18195\43416139.1
(h) The city shall not issue any new co- owned housing unit permit for any property that previously had a vacation rental permit revoked in the 24-month period prior to the acquisition of that property by the owner.
(i) The city shall not issue a co-owned housing unit permit for a property unless the owner obtains the following insurance coverage: (1) a policy of fire and casualty insurance covering the property and personal property in the co -owned housing unit in an amount equal to the full replacement value of the property and the estimated value of the personal property in the co-owned housing unit; and (2) a policy of general liability insurance that include liabilities arising from usage of the co-owned housing unit by all owners and guests, with limits of liability not less than $2,000,000. The owner shall maintain such policy for so long as the property is used as a co-owned housing unit.
(j) The co -owned housing unit permit shall be subject to renewal annually pursuant to procedures provided by the director. Unless so renewed, the co- owned housing unit permit shall expire one year following the date of its last issuance. (k) The director shall process applications for co-owned housing unit permits in the order in which complete applications therefore are received by the Sspecial Pprograms Ddepartment. (l) Fees for a co -owned housing unit permit will be established by resolution of the city council and shall not exceed $5,000.
(m) A co-owned property manager shall at all times comply with the following minimum requirements and management regulations:
(1) A co-owned property manager must identify a local contact person. The name, physical address, email address, and telephone number associated with any co-owned property manager and local contact person shall be provided to the city in writing, and written notice of any change to the foregoing shall be provided to the city within three calendar days following any change.
(2) All co-owned property managers and each individual owner shall be required to sign a sworn affidavit agreeing and acknowledging that short-term rentals are prohibited in the co-owned housing unit.
(3) A co-owned property manager must ensure that each co- owned housing unit managed by the manager is governed by an operating agreement. (4) A co-owned property manager must provide the director, at the written request of the director, with a copy of the operating agreement. Such copy shall be provided to the director within three calendar days following the director's written request. (5) Within three calendar days after a request by the director, the co-owned property manager must provide the name and contact information of any owner that was residing at the co-owned housing unit during a time period when the director alleges a violation of this chapter has occurred.
(6) A co-owned property manager must provide or contract for the provision of yard maintenance services, including landscaping, weed control, and irrigation to a level that is consistent with the level of landscaping and maintenance on adjoining and nearby properties.
(7) A co-owned property manager must provide or contract for the provision of structural maintenance of any buildings on the property. (8) A co-owned property manager must provide or contract for the provision of routine upkeep, including painting and repair, to a level that is consistent with the level of maintenance on adjoining or nearby properties.
Item 3B - Page 9
- - -
55575.18195\43416139.1
(9) A co-owned property manager must require the co- owners and guests of any co-owned housing unit adopt and adhere to the good neighbor policy described in Section
5.92.020(e).
(10) Within three calendar days after a written request by the director, the co-owned property manager must provide documentation demonstrating that the co- owned property manager has complied with the requirements of this subsection.
§ 5.92.030 Operational standards.
(a) No co-owned housing unit shall be used as vacation rental or for homesharing. (b) No weddings or commercial events shall be conducted at a co-owned housing unit. (c) Any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or any machine or device for the producing or reproducing of any sound shall be conducted within a fully enclosed co-owned housing unit and shall not be audible at the property line of the co-owned housing unit.
(d) No co-owned housing unit shall be used by any guest(s) without a co-owner present.
§ 5.92.040 Administrative regulations.
The city manager shall have the authority to establish administrative rules and regulations, which may include, but are not limited to, registration conditions, property valuation determinations, reporting requirements, inspection frequencies, enforcement procedure s, disclosure requirements, or insurance requirements, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, for the purpose of implementing, interpreting, clarifying, carrying out, furthering, and enforcing the requirements and the provisions of this chapter. No person shall fail to comply with any such regulation. A copy of such administrative rules and regulations shall be maintained on file in the office of the city clerk.
§ 5.92.050 Violations.
(a) Any person who violates a provision of this chapter is subject to criminal sanctions and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.06 of this code and the specific penalties as provided in this chapter. Any person who uses, or allows, or causes, the use of property in violation of the provisions in this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each day in which such property is used, caused to be used, or allowed to be used, in violation of this chapter. Except as specifically set forth differently b elow, an administrative citation issued pursuant to Chapter 1.06 for a first violation shall be $500 and each subsequent violation shall be $1,000. Each administrative citation for a violation of any provision of this chapter may be levied or assessed against the co-owner(s), the co-owned property manager, or guest, or all of them, depending on who is responsible for committing, causing, or permitting such violation to occur. Upon the issuance of a third administrative citation for any violation of this cha pter, the city manager may suspend or revoke the co-owned managed housing permit.
(b) Any co -owned property manager who manages a co- owned housing unit without obtaining a co- owned property management permit is subject to criminal sanctions and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.06 of this code. An administrative citation issued Item 3B - Page 10
55575.18195\43416139.1
pursuant to Chapter 1.06 for a first violation shall be $5,000 and each subsequent violation shall be $10,000.
(c) Any co-owned property manager or any other person that uses, causes to be used, or allows to be used, a co- owned housing unit as a vacation rental or for homesharing is subject to criminal sanctions and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.06 of this code. An administrative citation issued pursuant to Chapter 1.06 for a first violation of this subsection (c) shall be $5,000 and each subsequent violation shall be $10,000. (d) Any owner of a co- owned housing unit who violates, causes to violate, or allows a violation, of any ordinance related to noise, nuisance, parking, trash, occupancy limits, or the prohibition of weddings or commercial events, shall be punishable by administrative fines and/or remedies as specified in the provisions of the municipal code. An administrative citation issued pursuant to Chapter 1.06 for a first violation under this subsection (d) shall be $2,500, $5,000 for a second violation in any 12-month period, and $10,000 for a third, and any subsequent violation in any 12-month period.
(e) Any person who fails to pay any fine, fee or charge provided in this chapter within the time required, shall pay a penalty in the amounts established by the city council by resolution.
Such penalty may also include interest, at the rate of 10 percent per annum, from the date on which the fine, fee or charge became due and payable to the city until the date of payment. (f) The filing of knowingly false claims against a co -owned property manager and/or co- owned housing unit is prohibited. An administrative citation issued pursuant to Chapter 1.06 for a first violation of this subsection (f) shall be $5,000 and each subsequent violation shall be $10,000. (g) Notwithstanding any provision contained in Chapter 1.06 to the contrary, no pre - citation or courtesy notice shall be required prior to the issuance of any citation or administrative penalty pursuant to this chapter.
§ 5.92.060 Application to pre-existing co-owned housing units.
Any co-owned housing unit in which in which
an interest was sold prior to March 10, 2022
shall be subject to the regulatory provisions of this chapter.
Item 3B - Page 11