Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/7/2015 - STAFF REPORTS - 4.A.
� �ppLM SA9 iy O Y N r c41IF0 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2015 UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED INDEPENDENT LEGAL REVIEW OF POLICY, PROCEDURES, REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES FOR THE TRANSFER AND/OR SALE OF CITY AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY OWNED REAL PROPERTY AND THE LONG TERM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN. FROM: Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Independent legal review report, from Kane, Ballmer and Berkman, on the former Redevelopment Agency property transactions and the long term property management plan as approved by the Successor Agency, the Oversight Board and the California Department of Finance. STAFF ANALYSIS: On June 3, 2015, the City Council authorized the law firm of Kane, Ballmer, and Berkman to review the transfer and/or sale of City and Successor Agency owned real property, and the long term property management plan. The Independent Law Firm of Kane, Ballmer, and Berkman will present its report and findings to the City Council. With the exception of providing all records and documents to the independent law firm, City Staff has not been involved in the independent review. OA�v� DOUGLAS C. HOLLAND City Attorney ITEM NO. qN KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN PANE, BALLMER a BERKMAN, PA. SASS. F[GUEROA SIREEf G02 WEST BROADWAY 113 S. MONROE STREET, In KOM SUM 79D ATH HAOR TALLAHASSEE, R-MMA 32301 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071 SAN DIEGO,C ORN1A 92101 TELEPHONE(855) 698-B554 TELEPHONE(213) 617-OA80 TELEFHONE(619) 567-3 SO TELEPHONE(850) 201-7225 FACSIMILE(213) 625-D931 FACSIMOE(619) 567-36 FACSIMOE (850) 201-7101 PALM SPRINGS PROPERTY REVIEW AND OPINION TO: Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney FROM: Murray O. Kane, Senior Principal Susan Y. Apy, Principal 0 . Ka-, DATE: September 22, 2015 We hereby submit our property review and opinion. Table of Contents Page I. Kane, Ballmer & Berkman Scope of Work............................................................................. I II. Properties Reviewed................................................................................................................ 1 III. Summary of Review and Opinion........................................................................................... 2 IV. Introduction and Background.................................................................................................. 5 V. Status of Properties.................................................................................................................. 9 VI. Analysis.................................................................................................................................13 A. Receive Finding of Completion (Health and Safety Code Section 34179.7) .................... 14 B. Prepare a Long Range Property Management Plan (Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(b))...................................................................................... 14 C. Submit the Long Range Property Management Plan to the Oversight Board for approval no later than 6 months following the issuance of the Finding of Completion (Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(b))...................................................................................... 14 D. Submit the Long Range Property Management Plan to the DOF for approval no later than 6 months following the issuance of the Finding of Completion (Health and Safety Code Section34191.5(b))........................................................................................................... 15 E. Satisfy Content Requirements of the Long Range Property Management Plan ................ 15 F. Dispose of properties in accordance with the Long Range Property Management Plan (Health and Safety Code Section 341913)....................................................................... 25 APPENDIX A — Long Range Property Management Plan Requirements APPENDIX B - Applicable Statutes — Excerpts from Health and Safety Code APPENDIX C — Long Range Property Management Plan va KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 1 of 34 I. Kane. Ballmer & Berkman Scope of Work Kane, Baller & Berkman was retained by the City of Palm Springs (City) to act as outside special legal counsel to complete the following limited scope of work: Review the actions of the Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency and its staff regarding the preparation and administration of the Long Range Property Management Plan and provide an opinion regarding the Successor Agency's compliance with the legal requirements of the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law (AB 26, as amended by AB 1484) relating to the disposition of real property.' We have also been asked to provide a recommendation as to what the Successor Agency (or City, as applicable) might do prospectively with respect to each property discussed in this review in order to comply with the legal requirements of the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law relating to the disposition of the property. 11. Properties Reviewe& 1. Casa Del Camino Property 2. Desert Hotel Property 3. McKinney Parcel 4. Convention Center North Parking Lot 5. Prairie Schooner Parcel 6. Cork n Bottle 7. Plaza Theater 8. Catholic Church Parking Lot 9. Blue Coyote Parking Lot and Driveway 10. Food Court Parking Lot 11. Henry Frank Arcade Parking Lot 12. Vineyard Parking Lot This review only includes a review of property disposition under the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and not any other law, including, without limitation, conflict of interest law. Other such areas of law are outside the scope of this review. 2 Properties are numbered and listed in this review in the order in which they are numbered and listed in the Long Range Property Management Plan prepared by the Successor Agency and approved by the Department of Finance. vs KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 2 of 34 III. Summary of Review and Opinion We have divided compliance with the legal requirements of the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law relating to property disposition into six (6) components. Subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth herein, we are of the opinion with respect to the Successor Agency's compliance with the six components as follows: A. Receive Finding of Completion — It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. B. Prepare a Long Range Property Management Plan - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. C. Submit the Long Range Property Management Plan to the Oversight Board for approval no later than 6 months following the issuance of the Finding of Completion - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. D. Submit the Long Range Property Management Plan to the Department of Finance (DOF) for approval no later than 6 months following the issuance of the Finding of Completion - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. 3 Assembly Bill No. XI 26, as modified by the California Supreme Court pursuant to California Redevelopment Association v. Matosamos et A (2011) 53 CalAth 23 t, as further amended by Assembly Bill No. 1484, as further amended by Assembly Bill No. 1585, as further amended by Senate Bill No. 341, as further amended by Assembly Bill No. 471, as further amended by Assembly Bill No. 1963, and as further amended by Assembly Bill No. 1793. vs KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion va September 22, 2015 Page 3 of 34 E. Satisfy Content Requirements of the Long Range Property Management Plan. This component has 10 subcomponents as follows: 1) For each property the plan includes the date of acquisition, value of property at time of acquisition, and an estimate of the current value — It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for 10 properties (#1, 92, 93, 46, 97, #S, #9, #10, #11, and #12). It is our opinion that this component was satisfied as to the date of acquisition and value of property at time of acquisition for the remaining two properties (44 and 45). Incomplete information was provided to the Oversight Board and DOF to substantiate the estimate of value requirements to enable us to opine that this component was satisfied for the remaining two properties (#4 and #5) as follows: (i) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided an existing and known appraisal for each of the 2 properties; and (ii) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided information regarding City agreements pertaining to the 2 properties. 2) For each property the plan includes the purpose for which the property was acquired - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. 3) For each property the plan includes the parcel data, including address, lot size, and current zoning in the former agency redevelopment plan or specific, community, or general plan - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. 4) For each property the plan includes an estimate of the current value of the parcel including, if available, any appraisal information — It is our opinion KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 4 of 34 that this component was satisfied for 10 properties (41, #2, 93, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, 911, and 412). Incomplete information was provided to the Oversight Board and DOF to substantiate the estimate of value requirements to enable us to opine that this component was satisfied for the remaining two properties (#d and 95) as follows: (i) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided an existing and known appraisal for each of the 2 properties; and (ii) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided information regarding City agreements pertaining to the 2 properties. 5) For each property the plan includes an estimate of any lease, rental, or any other revenues generated by the property, and a description of the contractual requirements for the disposition of those funds - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. 6) For each property the plan includes the history of environmental contamination, including designation as a brownfield site, any related environmental studies, and history of any remediation efforts - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. 7) For each property the plan includes a description of the property's potential for transit -oriented development and the advancement of the planning objectives of the successor agency - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. 8) For each property the plan includes a brief history of previous development proposals and activity, including the rental or lease of the property - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion v8 September 22, 2015 Page 5 of 34 9) For each property the plan identifies the use or disposition of the property, which could include 1) the retention of the property for governmental use, 2) the retention of the property for future development, 3) the sale of the property, or 4) the use of the property to fulfill an enforceable obligation - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. 10) The plan separately identifies and list properties dedicated to governmental use purposes and properties retained for purposes of fulfilling an enforceable obligation - It is our opinion that this component was satisfied for all 12 properties. F. Dispose of properties in accordance with the Long Range Property Management Plan — We are unable to opine that this component was satisfied as follows: (i) there is no evidence that the required 10-day notice requirement for the applicable Oversight Board meetings was satisfied for 3 of the properties (#4, #5 and 97); (ii) incomplete information was provided to the Oversight Board and DOF to substantiate the estimate of value requirements to enable us to opine that content requirements of the Long Range Property Management Plan as to estimate of value and appraisal information were satisfied for 2 of the properties (#4 and #5); and (iii) disposition is ongoing for properties #1, 92, #3, #4, #6, #8, 99, 410, #11, and #12. IV. Introduction and Backeround The Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law makes certain changes to the Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seg.), including adding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) to Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law, all California redevelopment agencies, including the former Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency, were dissolved on February 1, 2012, and "successor agencies" were designated and vested with the responsibility of paying, KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 6 of 34 performing and enforcing the enforceable obligations of the former redevelopment agencies and expeditiously winding down the business and fiscal affairs of the former redevelopment agencies. The Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law also establishes a seven (7) member local entity with respect to each successor agency and such entity is titled the "Oversight Board." Oversight Boards are tasked with the oversight of successor agencies. Certain successor agency actions require Oversight Board approval. Oversight Boards may direct the staff of a successor agency to perform work in furtherance of the Oversight Board's duties and responsibilities under the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. With the passage of Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law, the State has established the DOF as the lead State Agency to implement the "wind -down" of former redevelopment agencies. Pursuant to Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law, upon the DOF's issuance of a "Finding of Completioni4 to a successor agency, a Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund (Trust) will be established to serve as the repository of certain real properties of the former Redevelopment Agency. Also upon the issuance of a Finding of Completion to a successor agency, the successor agency shall prepare a long range property management plan that addresses the disposition and use of certain real properties of the former redevelopment agency. The long range property management plan must be submitted to the Oversight Board and the DOF for approval no later than 6 months following the issuance of the Finding of Completion to the successor agency. The Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law requires that the long range property management plan (t) include an inventory of all properties in the Trust, which inventory shall consist of specific information relating to each such property including, without limitation, the date of and purpose for acquisition, value of property, applicable zoning, any property revenues and contractual requirements for disposition of same, history of environmental issues and any related studies and remediation efforts, potential for transit - oriented development and advancement of planning objectives of the successor agency, and history of previous development proposals and activity; and (2) address the use or disposition of all properties in the Trust, including (i) the retention of such property for 4 Health and Safety Code Section 34179.7 provides that DOF must issue to each successor agency a finding of completion upon payment in full of certain amounts to be paid by successor agencies under the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. V8 KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion va September 22, 2015 Page 7 of 34 governmental use, (ii) the retention of such property for future development, (iii) the sale of such property, or (iv) the use of such property to fulfill an enforceable obligation. The Successor Agency prepared a long range property management plan (Long Range Property Management Plan) as required by the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. The Long Range Property Management Plan included the twelve (12) properties listed in Section II, above. Kane, Baller & Berkman was retained by the City to act as outside special legal counsel to review the actions of the Successor Agency and its staff regarding the preparation and administration of the Long Range Property Management Plan and provide an opinion regarding the Successor Agency's compliance with the legal requirements of the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law relating to the disposition of real property. We have also been asked to provide a recommendation as to what the Successor Agency (or City, as applicable) might do prospectively with respect to each property discussed in this review in order to comply with the legal requirements of the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law relating to the disposition of the property. This review includes our scope of work (Section 1), a list of the properties reviewed (Section II), a summary of our review and opinion (Section III), an introduction and background information (Section IV), a status of the properties based on documentation and information received as part of our review (Section V), and our analysis of the legal requirements of the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law relating to the disposition of real property broken down into six (6) components (Section VI). We have also included as Appendix A a checklist of Long Range Property Management Plan requirements completed as to each of the twelve (12) properties, as Appendix B a compilation of applicable statute excerpts from the Health and Safety Code, and as Appendix C the Long Range Property Management Plan prepared by the Successor Agency and approved by the Oversight Board and DOF. In conducting our review and providing our opinion, we (a) personally interviewed John Raymond, former City Director of Community and Economic Development; (b) communicated with Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney, to coordinate receipt of pertinent City and Successor Agency documentation and information relating to the twelve (12) subject properties; (c) communicated with Suzanne Harrell, Managing Director, Harrell & Company Advisors, City financial advisor, to obtain additional information relative to KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 8 of 34 several of the twelve (12) subject properties; (d) interviewed by telephone Jim Simon, Principal/President, RSG, City redevelopment consultant, to obtain additional information about the preparation of the Long Range Property Management Plan; (e) reviewed all of the documentation and information provided to us by the City, Successor Agency, and Ms. Harrell and referenced in this review; and (f) reviewed the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. We have assumed, without investigation, that there is no other pertinent or relevant documentation or information other than what has been provided to us. [remainder of page left intentionally blank] KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 9 of 34 V. Status of Properties Status 1. Casa Del Permissible Use: Sale of Property' Camino . Successor Agency and Richard Meaney and Yokang Zhou entered into Property a Purchase Agreement and Escrow Instructions. Purchase price was $195,561. The same value as in the Long Range Property Management Plan. • Successor Agency approved on December 3, 2014 (on the consent calendar). • Oversight Board approved on March 3, 2015 via Oversight Board Resolution No. 34 the sale of the property. • DOF approved Oversight Board Resolution No. 34 on March 10, 2015. • City Council approval of City Purchase and Sale Agreement rescinded by City Council action at May 20, 2015 City Council meeting. • Property valued at $196,561 in the Long Range Property Management Plan based on an estimate of property value prepared by the Successor Agency's independent consultant based on limited amount of analysis. Estimate determined using comparables. 2. Desert Permissible Use: Sale of Property Hotel • No action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan. Property • Currently owned by the Successor Agency. • Property valued at $31,965 in the Long Range Property Management Plan based on an estimate of property value prepared by the Successor Agency's independent consultant based on limited amount of analysis. Estimate determined using comparables. 3. McKinney Permissible Use: Sale of Property Parcel No action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan. • Currently owned by the Successor Agency. • Property valued at $36,488 in the Long Range Property Management Plan based on an estimate of property value prepared by the Successor Agency's independent consultant based on limited amount of analysis. Estimate determined using comparables. "Permissible Use" is the use or disposition of the property as identified in the DOF-approved Long Range Property Management Plan as required by the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. vs KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 10 of 34 4. Convention Permissible Use. Sale of Property Center City and CDI Ventures, LLC entered into a Purchase and Sale North Agreement dated March 6, 2013. Purchase price is $2,000,000. Site Parking Lot required to be developed as Dolce brand, upper upscale first class superior hotel. (3 legal o Amendment No. 1 to Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into parcels) as of March 5, 2014. Amendment No. 1 amended performance schedule and designated Praetor Investments, LLC as successor entity to CDI Ventures, LLC. o Amendment No. 2 to Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into as of October 1, 2014. Amendment No. 2 amended performance schedule and designated Selene Palm Springs, LLC as successor entity to Praetor Investments, LLC. o Amendment No. 3 to Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into as of April 21, 2015. Amendment No. 3 amended closing date and benchmark schedule. • City and CDI Ventures, LLC (CDI) entered into a Services Agreement dated March 6, 2013. CDI to pay $675,000 to City for property assembly assistance and $2,000,000 for unamortized parking improvements and existing entitlements. • Oversight Board approved on May 8, 2014 via Oversight Board Resolution No. 25 the sale of the property from the Successor Agency to the City. Purchase price is $2,211,896. The same value as in the Long Range Property Management Plan. • There is no evidence that the required 10-day notice requirement for the Oversight Board May 8, 2014 meeting was satisfied. • DOF approved Oversight Board Resolution No. 25 on May 15, 2014. • Property valued at $2,211,896 in the Long Range Property Management Plan based on an estimate of property value prepared by the Successor Agency's independent consultant based on limited amount of analysis. Estimate determined using comparables. vs KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 11 of 34 5. Prairie Permissible Use: Sale of Property Schooner • City and 0 & M FIR, LLC entered into a Purchase Agreement and Parcel Escrow Instructions dated October 25, 20116. Purchase price was $1,500,000. (3 legal o Amendment No. 1 to Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of parcels) December 1, 2014. Amendment No. 1 designated Nexus Development Corporation/Central Division as successor entity to 0 & M FIR, LLC and appeared to replace the phrase "First Class Hotel" with the phrase "Buyer's contemplated mixed -use residential and commercial project".7 Amendment No. 1 also removed the City's option to repurchase the property if the property was not developed as required under the Purchase and Sale Agreement as a "First Class Hotel". • Oversight Board approved on May 8, 2014 via Oversight Board Resolution No. 24 the sale of the property from the Successor Agency to the City. Purchase price was $1,402,632. The same value as in the Long Range Property Management Plan. • There is no evidence that the required 10-day notice requirement for the Oversight Board May 8, 2014 meeting was satisfied. • DOF approved Oversight Board Resolution No. 24 on May 14, 2015. • Escrow closed under City Purchase and Sale Agreement in January 2015, • Net sale proceeds distributed to taxing entities through ROPs. • Property valued at $1,402,632 in the Long Range Property Management Plan based on an estimate of property value prepared by the Successor Agency's independent consultant based on limited amount of analysis. Estimate determined using comparables. e We were provided an unsigned copy of the Purchase and Sate Agreement. The date of the agreement is taken from the recitals in Amendment No. 1 to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. r Section 5 in Amendment No. 1 to the Purchase and Sale Agreement modifies Section 36(d) of the "Original Agreement" The Original Agreement is defined as the Purchase and Sale Agreement. However, there appears to be no Section 36(d) in the Purchase and Sate Agreement. V8 KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 12 of 34 6. Cork n Permissible Use: Sale of Property Bottle • No reportable action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan. The sale of the property has been discussed in closed session and an appraisal is being prepared. • Property improved with a Class 1 historic structure currently being used as a liquor store. • Former RDA assumed the liquor store lease, which is ongoing. The rental income is recorded by the Successor Agency and it is included in "Other Revenue" on the ROPS8. • Property valued at $339,620 in the Long Range Property Management Plan based on an estimate of property value prepared by the Successor Agency's independent consultant based on limited amount of analysis. Estimate determined using income approach due to the fact property has lease income. 7. Plaza Permissible Use: Sale of Properly, with conditions to maintain performing Theater arts venue and Class 1 historic structure • Property improved with a Class 1 historic structure currently being used as a performing arts venue. • Oversight Board approved on September 23, 2014 via Oversight Board Resolution No. 30 the sale of the property from the Successor Agency to the City. • There is no evidence that the required 10-day notice requirement for the Oversight Board September 23, 2014 meeting was satisfied. • DOF approved Oversight Board Resolution No. 30 on January 9, 2015. DOF approval letter states understanding that the Plaza Theater has a historic designation and cannot be demolished and that the City will secure a new operator with conditions that the property be maintained as a historic structure and performing arts venue. • The City has purchased the Plaza Theater from the Successor Agency pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 30. A Request for Proposals was issued to find an operator/tenant in the building but that process did not result in a viable solution. s Recognized obligation payment schedule (ROPS) prepared by the Successor Agency every 6 months as required by the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. The BOPS sets forth the minimum payment amounts and due dates of payments required by enforceable obligations of the Successor Agency for each six-month fiscal period. V8 KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion 8. Catholic Permissible Use: Sale of Property September 22, 2015 Page 13 of 34 Church • No action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan, Parking Lot • Property being used for public parking. • The zoning is public purposes. • This property is valued in the Long Range Property Management Plan at its carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. 9. Blue Permissible Use: Sale of Property Coyote • No action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan. Parking Lot . Property being used for public parking. and . The zoning is public purposes. Driveway • This property is valued in the Long Range Property Management Plan at its carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. (2 legal parcels) 10. Food Court Permissible Use: Sale of Property Parking Lot • No action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan. • Property being used for public parking. • The zoning is public purposes. • This property is valued in the Long Range Property Management Plan at its carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. 11. Henry Permissible Use: Sale of Property Frank • No action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan. Arcade • Property being used for public parking. Parking Lot . The zoning is public purposes. • This property is valued in the Long Range Property Management Plan at its carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20, 12. Vineyard Permissible Use: Sale of Property Parking Lot • No action since approval of Long Range Property Management Plan. • Property being used for public parking. (3 legal . The zoning is public purposes. parcels) . This property is valued in the Long Range Property Management Plan at its carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. VI. Analvsis We have divided compliance with the legal requirements of the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law relating to property disposition into six (6) components, which will be addressed in subsections A. through F., below. vs KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 14 of 34 A. Receive Finding of Completion (Health and Safety Code Section 34179.7) This component was satisfied. Pursuant to Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law, upon the DOF's issuance of a finding of completion to a successor agency, a Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund (Trust) will be established to serve as the repository of certain real properties of the former Redevelopment Agency. Health and Safety Code Section 34179.7 provides that DOF must issue to each successor agency a finding of completion upon payment in full of certain amounts to be paid by successor agencies under the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. The DOF issued a Finding of Completion to the Successor Agency on January 2, 2014. B. Prepare a Long Range Propertv Management Plan (Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(b)) This component was satisfied. Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5 (b) requires that the Successor Agency prepare a long range property management plan that addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of the former Redevelopment Agency. The Successor Agency prepared the Long Range Property Management Plan attached to this review as Appendix C. C. Submit the Long Ranee Property Management Plan to the Oversight Board for approval no later than 6 months following the issuance of the Finding of Completion (Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(b))9 This component was satisfied. Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(b) requires that the Successor Agency submit the Long Range Property Management Plan to the Oversight Board for approval no later 9 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34179(e), all actions taken by the Oversight Board shall be adopted by resolution. V8 KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 15 of 34 than six months following the issuance to the Successor Agency of the Finding of Completion. The Oversight Board approved the Long Range Property Management Plan on December 16, 2013 by Resolution No. 19. Additionally, the Oversight Board approved carrying values for Long Range Property Management Plan properties #7-12 on February 25, 2014 by Resolution No. 20. The Oversight Board approvals of the Long Range Property Management Plan were within six (6) months of January 2, 2014. D. Submit the Lone Ranee Property Management Plan to the DOF for approval no later than 6 months followine the issuance of the Findine of Completion (Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(b)) This component was satisfied. Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(b) requires that the Successor Agency submit the Long Range Property Management Plan to DOF for approval no later than six months following the issuance to the Successor Agency of the Finding of Completion. DOF approved the Long Range Property Management Plan on March 25, 2014 subject to carrying values for Long Range Property Management Plan properties #7-12 contained in Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. DOF's approval of the Long Range Property Management Plan was within six (6) months of January 2, 2014. E. Satisfv Content Reuuirements of the Lone Ranee Pronertv Management Plan We have divided compliance with this component into 10 subcomponents1Q. Appendix A contains a checklist showing whether for each of the 10 subcomponents the content requirement of the Long Range Property Management Plan was satisfied as to each of the twelve (12) properties listed in the Long Range Property Management Plan. Each of the 10 subcomponents is analyzed separately in the following discussion. 1° The ten (10) subcomponents are based on the Long -Range Property Management Plan Checklist prepared by the State Department of Finance in connection with the preparation of Long Range Property Management Plans prepared by successor agencies statewide. The Checklist lists these ten (10) subcomponents as "Long -Range Property Management Plan Requirements". V8 KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 16 of 34 1) For each property the plan includes the date of acquisition, value of property at time of acquisition, and an estimate of the current value. a) This component was satisfied for 10 properties (#1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #S, 49, #10, 911, and 412). Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. Health and Safety Code Sections 34191.5(c)(1)(A) and (D) require, in part, that the Long Range Property Management Plan contain "an estimate of the current value of the property" and "an estimate of the current value of the parcel including, if available, any appraisal information." In addition, pursuant to Health and Safety 34179, the Oversight Board has "fiduciary responsibilities to holders of enforceable obligations and the taxing entities that benefit from distributions of property tax and other revenues". Regarding property valuation, nothing in the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law requires that an appraisal be prepared to determine the current value of properties for purposes of long range property management plans. In fact, the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law is silent as to how to determine property values. The use of comparables, as contained in the Long Range Property Management Plan, is, therefore, an acceptable method of valuation. However, some might question whether the way comparables were included in the Long Range Property Management Plan accurately estimated property values. A great number of the comparables covered a long period of time without as clear an explanation as could have been provided as to why that was appropriate. The Long Range Property Management Plan was submitted to the DOE in December 2013, but comparables were included from 2010 and 2011. A great number of the comparables were from outside the City of Palm Springs without as clear an explanation as could have been provided as to why that was appropriate. The KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion va September 22, 2015 Page 17 of 34 comparables were not weighted or adjusted. RSG, the City's long-time redevelopment consultant, was asked by the Successor Agency to prepare the Long Range Property Management Plan in less than thirty (30) days. As explained to us by Jim Simon, Principal/President, RSG, in order to determine current estimates of value for properties 41 - 95 for purposes of the Long Range Property Management Plan, RSG used the widely -known Costar property sales database for information relating to sales activity for the properties. Mr. Simon explained that because the real estate market was still soft in Palm Springs in 2012 and 2013, there were not a great number of property comparables for properties #1 - #5. In order to have enough comparables in the Long Range Property Management Plan, RSG expanded the scope of the Costar database search as to timeframe (i.e., 2010 and 2011 sales activity) and as to geographic area (i.e., outside the City Palm Springs). John Raymond, former City Director of Community and Economic Development, and Jim Simon both told us that the City never directed RSG as to how to determine the current estimates of value. As recalled by Jim Simon, the City never provided RSG with existing appraisal information for properties 94 and 95, but the City may have provided RSG with the Purchase and Sale Agreement for property #4 or #5. RSG does not recall having any discussion with City staff about the Purchase and Sale Agreement (or any other of the City agreements) and its(their) possible effect on the estimate(s) of value to be included in the Long Range Property Management Plan. Nor is RSG certain that such information would have changed any estimate of value it determined for purposes of the Long Range Property Management Plan. RSG's task of providing a current estimate of value was to satisfy the requirements for the Long Range Property Management Plan and not to determine a value for purposes of property disposition. This was stated in the Long Range Property Management Plan. For example, the Long Range Property Management Plan states on page 4 that the estimate of value was prepared "based on a limited amount of analysis... Coming out of a real estate recession, it can still be difficult to identify comparable properties in the area because sales volumes of small, infill parcels can be very limited." The Long Range Property Management Plan does not clearly explain or describe that this was the case for properties #1- #5, but that is KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion V8 September 22, 2015 Page 18 of 34 what was explained to us by Mr. Simon. In addition, the Long Range Property Management Plan states on page 4 "the value estimates themselves (or even appraised values) are not necessarily representative of what the properties could be worth when put on the open market for sale". Very minimal development history was provided in the Long Range Property Management Plan or to the Oversight Board even though some of the properties had long histories of development proposals, which histories may have been useful for determining current estimates of value. The Oversight Board and DOF did have an opportunity to review and question the information in the Long Range Property Management Plan. DOF did follow up with the Successor Agency at least once via email on the property values for properties #1 - 46, but that follow up did not result in a request for or a change in any of those property values. DOF's follow up with the Successor Agency on property values for properties 47 - 412 did result in an additional Oversight Board Resolution adjusting those property values to their carrying values. b) This component was satisfied as to the date of acquisition and value of property at time of acquisition for the remaining two properties (94 and #5). Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. c) Incomplete information was provided to the Oversight Board and DOF to substantiate the estimate of value requirements for the remaining two properties (44 and #5) as follows: (i) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided an existing and known appraisal for each of the 2 properties; and KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 19 of 34 (ii) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided information regarding City agreements pertaining to the 2 properties. Appraisals. Propertv #4 - We did not find any evidence that information about a 2007 $4,400,000' ' appraisal was included in the Long Range Property Management Plan or provided to the Oversight Board at any point, as required by health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(c)(1)(D). An argument could be made, however, that the appraisal was stale and outdated and, therefore, did not need to be included in the Long Range Property Management Plan. There is no clear, bright -line rule about when an appraisal becomes outdated. However, because the appraisal was known and available to the City staff responsible for preparation of the Long Range Property Management Plan, we believe it should have been included in the Long Range Property Management Plan. Propertv 45 - We did not find any evidence that information about a 2011 $2,500,000 appraisal was included in the Long Range Property Management Plan or provided to Oversight Board at any point, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(c)(1)(D). While there is no clear, bright -line rule about when an appraisal becomes outdated, we believe, based on our experience, that a 2 year old appraisal would likely not be stale or outdated. Because the appraisal was known and available to the City staff responsible for preparation of the Long Range Property Management Plan and was within a standard date range, we believe it should have been included in the Long Range Property Management Plan. " We do not have a copy of the 2007 appraisal. Information about the appraisal was provided to us by John Raymond, former City Director of Community and Economic Development. V8 KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 20 of 34 Citv Aereements. Pronertv #4 - We did not find any evidence that the 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement or the 2013 City and CDI Ventures, LLC (CDI) Services Agreement information pertaining to property #4 were included in the Long Range Property Management Plan or provided to Oversight Board. (See notes in Section V., Status of Properties, regarding property #4 and 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Services Agreement.) It is unclear whether any of the $675,000 to be paid to the City under the Services Agreement for property assembly assistance or the $2,000,000 to be paid for unamortized parking improvements and existing entitlements is related to the value of property #4. It seems that the purchase price in the 2013 Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Services Agreement might be relevant in determining the estimated value of property #4. However, there is nothing in the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law specifically requiring the inclusion of information regarding the 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement or the Services Agreement. Pronertv 45 - We also did not find any evidence that the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement pertaining to property #5 was included in the Long Range Property Management Plan or provided to Oversight Board. (See notes in Section V., Status of Properties, regarding property #5 and 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement.) Of note is that the staff report dated June 1, 2011 for approval of the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement stated that: The purchase price is fair and reasonable based upon the restricted use of the property by Nexus for the exclusive development of a "first class" hotel and associated retail. Additionally, the Agreement provides that the City may reacquire the property if a "first class" hotel is not developed within five (5) years from the date of the VS KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion v8 September 22, 2015 Page 21 of 34 property sale. The repurchase price would be the exact price of the original sale, $1.5 million. Amendment No. I to the 2011 Purchase and Sale Agreement purportedly replaced the requirement to develop the "first class hotel" with a mixed -use residential and commercial development and removed the City's option to repurchase the property if the property was not developed as a "first class hotel". However, these changes did not result in an adjustment to the purchase price for the property. It seems that the purchase price in the 2011 Purchase and Sale Agreement and the information contained in the 2011 staff report might be relevant in determining the estimated value of property 45. However, there is nothing in the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law specifically requiring the inclusion of information regarding the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement. An argument could be made that the Oversight Board could not comply with its fiduciary duties to the taxing entities if complete and accurate information was not provided to it in terms of property valuation and development and sale information. It is unclear whether the method of comparables contained in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the minimal discussion of development history in the Long Range Property Management Plan, and the lack of advising the Oversight Board as to the appraisals and existing City Agreements provided the Oversight Board with sufficient complete and accurate information so as to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. We note, however, that on December 4, 2012, the Oversight Board adopted Resolution No. 11 which contained as an attachment a spreadsheet entitled "State Controller's Office Asset Transfer Assessment Assembly Bill XI 26" which contained the carrying values for each of the twelve (12) properties as of December 31, 2010. The carrying value for Prairie Schooner was listed as $2,378,893. MIL Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 22 of 34 Comnarables. See discussion in Section VI.E.(1)(a) regarding the use of comparables in the Long Range Property Management Plan. 2) For each property the plan includes the purpose for which the property was acquired. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. 3) For each property the plan includes the parcel data, including address, lot size, and current zoning in the former agency redevelopment plan or specific, community, or general plan. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. 4) For each property the plan includes an estimate of the current value of the parcel including, if available, any appraisal information. a) This component was satisfied for 10 properties (#1, 02, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, and 912). Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. v8 KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 23 of 34 See discussion in Section VI.E.(1)(a) regarding the use of comparables in the Long Range Property Management Plan. b) Incomplete information was provided to the Oversight Board and DOF to substantiate the estimate of value requirements for the remaining two properties (44 and #5) as follows: (i) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided an existing and known appraisal for each of the 2 properties; and (ii) neither the Oversight Board nor the DOF were provided information regarding City agreements pertaining to the 2 properties. See discussion in Section VI.E.(1)(c) above. 5) For each property the plan includes an estimate of any lease, rental, or any other revenues generated by the property, and a description of the contractual requirements for the disposition of those funds. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. 6) For each property the plan includes the history of environmental contamination, including designation as a brownfield site, any related environmental studies, and history of any remediation efforts. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion V8 September 22, 2015 Page 24 of 34 Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. 7) For each property the plan includes a description of the property's potential for transit -oriented development and the advancement of the planning objectives of the successor agency. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. 8) For each property the plan includes a brief history of previous development proposals and activity, including the rental or lease of the property. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. 9) For each property the plan identifies the use or disposition of the property, which could include 1) the retention of the property for governmental use, 2) the retention of the property for future development, 3) the sale of the property, or 4) the use of the property to fulfill an enforceable obligation. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion V8 September 22, 2015 Page 25 of 34 10) The plan separately identifies and list properties dedicated to governmental use purposes and properties retained for purposes of fulfilling an enforceable obligation. This component was satisfied for all 12 properties. Reference is made to the checklist in Appendix A and the Long Range Property Management Plan found at Appendix C showing that the Long Range Property Management Plan contained at least minimum information to satisfy this component. F. Dispose of properties in accordance with the Long Range Property Management Plan (Health and Safety Code Section 34191.3) There is no evidence that the required 10-day notice requirement for the applicable Oversight Board meetings was satisfied for 3 of the properties (44, 45 and 47). Two of these properties have been disposed of (#5 and 47) and one property is in escrow (#4). Incomplete information was provided to the Oversight Board and DOF to substantiate the estimate of value requirements to enable us to opine that content requirements of the Long Range Property Management Plan as to estimate of value and appraisal information were satisfied for 2 of the properties (#4 and 95). Disposition is ongoing for properties 41, 92, #3, #4, #6, #8, 49, #10, #11, and 412. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 34177(e), prior to issuance of a Finding of Completion, disposal of properties of the former redevelopment agency "is to be done expeditiously and in a manner aimed at maximizing value." However, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 34191.3, once the DOF has approved a long range property management plan, the long range property management plan shall govern, and supersede all other provisions relating to, the disposition and use of the real property assets of the former redevelopment agency. The following is an analysis of each of the twelve (12) properties listed in the Long Range Property Management Plan and whether the property has been disposed of in KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 26 of 34 accordance with the Long Range Property Management Plan. Reference is made to Section V, Status of Properties, for additional specific information regarding agreements and status referenced below. 1) Casa Del Camino Property — Approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for this property was rescinded. Due to the rescission of City Council approval of the City Purchase and Sale Agreement, we have not included an analysis of this property disposition. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information: so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the" property could be worth when put on the open market for sale. 2) Desert Hotel Pronertv - There has been no disposition of this property. There are no current plans for disposition of this property. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the " property could be worth when putt on the open market for sale. 3) McKinnev Parcel - There has been no disposition of this property. There are no current plans for disposition of this property. KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion va September 22, 2015 Page 27 of 34 Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the " property could be worth when put on the open market far sale. 4) Convention Center North Parkine Lot - The property is the subject of the existing 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement. Escrow is expected to close in January 2016. The purchase price to be paid to the City by Selene Palm Springs, LLC is $2,000,000. The City is expected to acquire the property from the Successor Agency for $2,211,896 pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 25. The $2,211,896 purchase price is the same value as in the Long Range Property Management Plan. Neither the Oversight Board nor DOF was ever informed of the 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement or the 2013 Services Agreement. Nor were they informed of the 2007 $4,400,000 appraisal. It is unclear how the 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement or the 2013 Services Agreement relate, if at all, to the 2007 appraisal amount. It is unclear whether any of the $675,000 to be paid to the City under the Services Agreement for property assembly assistance or the $2,000,000 to be paid for unamortized parking improvements and existing entitlements is related to the value of the property. It is unknown what the Oversight Board would have done with the information and whether the $2,211,896 value in the Long Range Property Management Plan represents the value of the property that the Oversight Board would have directed the Successor Agency obtain for the property if the Oversight Board had the information. In addition, as discussed previously, some might question whether the property value derived from the comparables included in the Long Range Property Management Plan was the appropriate value to use for sale of the property. KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion v8 September 22, 2015 Page 28 of 34 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34181(1), "[a]ll actions taken pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (c) shall be approved by resolution of the oversight board at a public meeting after at least 10 days' notice to the public of the specific proposed actions." DOF's March 25, 2014 approval letter for the Long Range Property Management Plan also states "Agency actions taken pursuant to a Finance approved LRPMP are subject to oversight board (OB) approval per HSC section 34181(f)." There is no evidenec that the required 10-day notice requirement for the Oversight Board May 8, 2014 meeting was satisfied. Recommendation. We acknowledge and understand that there is the existing 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement pertaining to this property. We recommended that the City investigate its legal rights, given the existing 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement, as to whether the City is able to sell the property under the existing 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with applicable law. We have not completed any such investigation (nor have we been asked to complete any such investigation) and are not opining what the legal effect would be to the City or on the 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement from any such investigation. In addition, we recommend that at the close of any escrow for this property, pursuant to Section 34177(e) of the Health and Safety Code which requires that property disposition proceeds "be transferred to the county auditor -controller for distribution as property tax proceeds" under the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law, the entire amount of the net sales proceeds from the purchase price be transferred to the County Auditor Controller accordingly. 5) Prairie Schooner Parcel — The property was conveyed to O & M HR, LLC in January 2015 in accordance with the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement. The purchase price paid to the City by O & M HR, LLC was $1,500,000. The City acquired the property from the Successor Agency in accordance with Oversight Board Resolution No. 24, which was approved by the DOF on May 14, 2015. The purchase price listed in Oversight Board Resolution No. 24 was $1,402,632. The same value as in the Long KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion September 22, 2015 Page 29 of 34 Range Property Management Plan. Neither the Oversight Board nor DOF was ever informed of the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement or the 2014 amendment to the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement. Nor were they informed of the 2011 $2,500,000 appraisal. The City/O & M HR, LLC and the Successor Agency/City escrows closed concurrently on the same day as back-to-back escrows. Section 34177(e) of the Health and Safety Code requires that property disposition proceeds "be transferred to the county auditor -controller for distribution as property tax proceeds" under the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. Despite that, at the suggestion of DOF, the entire net sale proceeds of the City/ O & M HR, LLC $1,500,000 purchase price (namely, $1,492,407) was listed on the recognized obligation payment schedule12 (15-16A) as 'other income".13 DOF approved the recognized obligation payment schedule (15-16A) on April 13, 2015. Adding the net sale proceeds on the recognized obligation payment schedule as `other income" increases the amount to be distributed to the taxing entities under the "waterfall' payment structure in the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 34183.14 This may affect the taxing entities in the future by potentially increasing future permitted repayments to the City on Oversight Board approved City -former redevelopment agency loan agreements permitted by Health and Safety Code Section 34191.4(b)15. This is because the repayment amount permitted by Section 34191.4(b) is determined based on the amount of 12 Recognized obligation payment schedules are prepared by the Successor Agency every 6 months as required by the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. Each recognized obligation payment schedule sets forth the minimum payment amounts and due dates of payments required by enforceable obligations of the Successor Agency for each six-month fiscal period. The procedures regarding recognized obligation payment schedules are set forth in the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. They are outside the scope of this review and, therefore, are not included. 13 Even though the purchase price listed in Oversight Board Resolution No. 24 was only $1,402,632, the City gave 100% of the net sale proceeds to the Successor Agency for distribution to the taxing entities. 10 The waterfall payment structure provides for the distribution of monies in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (i.e., former tax increment revenues of the former redevelopment agency) to the Successor Agency and the taxing entities in the order listed in Section 34183 of the Health and Safety Code. A discussion of the waterfall structure is outside the scope of this review. " Health and Safety Code Section 34191.4(b) provides that following issuance of a Finding of Completion certain loan agreements between a former redevelopment agency and its establishing city can be deemed to be enforceable obligations, with certain conditions. If that occurs, the loans can be listed on recognized obligations payment schedules permitting repayment to be made to the applicable city. A discussion of these loan repayments is outside the scope of this review. vs Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion V8 September 22, 2015 Page 30 of 34 residual funds distributed to the taxing entities on the recognized obligation payment schedules. If repayment to the City is increased, this, in turn, decreases the amount to be distributed to the taxing entities under the waterfall structure. It is unknown whether there may be any other financial impacts to the taxing entities by listing the net sale proceeds on the recognized obligation payment schedule rather than transferring the money to the County Auditor Controller to distribute immediately to the taxing entities outside of the recognized obligation payment schedule. As discussed previously, the $1,402,632 value in the Long Range Property Management Plan may not have been the value of the property that the Oversight Board would have directed the Successor Agency obtain for the property. The Oversight Board was never made aware of the 2011 $2,500,000 appraisal or the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement or the 2014 amendment to the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement. It is unknown what the Oversight Board would have done with this information. In addition, as discussed previously, some might question whether the property value derived from the comparables included in the Long Range Property Management Plan was the appropriate value to use for sale of the property. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34181(f), "[a]ll actions taken pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (c) shall be approved by resolution of the oversight board at a public meeting after at least 10 days' notice to the public of the specific proposed actions." DOF's March 25, 2014 approval letter for the Long Range Property Management Plan also states "Agency actions taken pursuant to a Finance approved LRPMP are subject to oversight board (OB) approval per HSC section 34181(f)." There is no evidence that the required 10-day notice requirement for the Oversight Board May 8, 2014 meeting was satisfied. Recommendation. We acknowledge and understand that there is the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement pertaining to this property and that the property was conveyed to a third party buyer pursuant to the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement in January 2015. We recommend that the City investigate its ability, given the 2011 City Purchase and Sale KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 31 of 34 Agreement, to lawfully undo the property disposition under the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement and dispose of the property in accordance with applicable law. We have not completed any such investigation (nor have we been asked to complete any such investigation) and are not opining what the legal effect would be to the City or on the 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement from any such investigation. 6) Cork n Bottle - There has been no disposition of this property. There are currently discussions to sell this property in accordance with the Long Range Property Management Plan. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation he reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information so as to enable it to .satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the" property could be worth when put on the open market for sale. 7) Plaza Theater — This property was conveyed to the City in accordance with the DOF-approved Long Range Property Management Plan and Oversight Board Resolution No. 30. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34181(f), "[a]ll actions taken pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (c) shall be approved by resolution of the oversight board at a public meeting after at least 10 days' notice to the public of the specific proposed actions." DOF's March 25, 2014 approval letter for the Long Range Property Management Plan also states "Agency actions taken pursuant to a Finance approved LRPMP are subject to oversight board (OB) approval per HSC section 34181(f)." There is no evidence that the required 10-day notice requirement for the Oversight Board September 23, 2014 meeting was satisfied. BANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 32 of 34 Recommendation. We recommended that the Successor Agency consider resubmitting to the Oversight Board the disposition of this property in order to provide the required 10-day notice. In addition, we recommended that the City own and maintain the property as described in DOF's approval of Oversight Board Resolution No. 30 in order to remain in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law. 8) Catholic Church Parking Lot — There has been no disposition of this property. There are no current plans for disposition of this property. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the " property could be worth when put on the open market for sale. 9) Blue Covote Parking Lot and Drivewav - There has been no disposition of this property. There are no current plans for disposition of this property. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the" property could be worth when put on the open market for sale. Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion va September 22, 2015 Page 33 of 34 10) Food Court Parkine Lot - There has been no disposition of this property. There are no current plans for disposition of this property. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation: be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information: so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary, obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the" property could be worth when put on the open market for sale. 11) Henry Frank Arcade Parkine Lot - There has been no disposition of this property. There are no current plans for disposition of this property. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the " property could be worth when put on the open market for sale. 12) Vinevard Parkine Lot - There has been no disposition of this property. There are no current plans for disposition of this property. Recommendation. We recommended that if and when the property is ever sold, the property valuation be reevaluated so that any disposition is in compliance with the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Law and so that the Oversight Board is provided complete and accurate information so as to enable it to satisfy its fiduciary obligations. As noted in the Long Range Property Management Plan, the value estimate in the Long Range Property Management Plan was prepared based on a limited amount of KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN Palm Springs Property Review and Opinion vs September 22, 2015 Page 34 of 34 analysis and is "not necessarily representative of what the" property could he worth when put on the open market for sale. APPENDIX A Lone Ranee Pronertv Management Plan Reauirements A. For each property the plan includes the date of acquisition, value of property at time of acquisition, and an estimate of the current value. Yes, No, Not Notes Included Included in Plan" in Plan 1. Casa Del Camino Property X 2. Desert Hotel Property X 3. McKinney Parcel X Value of property at time of acquisition unknown 4. Convention Center North X Value of property at time of Parking Lot acquisition unknown 5. Prairie Schooner Parcel X 6. Cork n Bottle X 7. Plaza Theater X Carrying value adjustment pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20 8. Catholic Church Parking Lot X Carrying value adjustment pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20 9. Blue Coyote Parking Lot and X Date of property acquisition of Driveway one parcel of property and value of one parcel of property at time of acquisition unknown and carrying value adjustment pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20 10. Food Court Parking Lot X Carrying value adjustment pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20 16 See Section VIE(l) of this review qualifying this response. Appendix A Page 1 of 9 11. Henry Frank Arcade Parking X Carrying value adjustment Lot pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20 12. Vineyard Parking Lot X Value of two parcels of property at time of acquisition unknown and carrying value adjustment pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20 B. For each property the plan includes the purpose for which the property was acquired. Yes, No, Not Notes Included Included in Plan in Plan 1. Casa Del Camino Property X 2. Desert Hotel Property X 3. McKinney Parcel X 4. Convention Center North X Parking Lot 5. Prairie Schooner Parcel X 6. Cork n Bottle X 7. Plaza Theater X 8. Catholic Church Parking Lot X 9. Blue Coyote Parking Lot and X Driveway 10. Food Court Parking Lot X 11. Henry Frank Arcade Parking X Lot 12. Vineyard Parking Lot X Appendix A Page 2 of 9 1. �2. 3. 4. 5. 6. �7. �8. 9. 2. C. For each property the plan includes the parcel data, including address, lot size, and current zoning in the former agency redevelopment plan or specific, community, or general plan. Yes, No, Not Included Included in Plan in Plan Casa Del Camino Property X Desert Hotel Property X McKinney Parcel X Convention Center North X Parking Lot Prairie Schooner Parcel X Cork n Bottle X Plaza Theater X Catholic Church Parking Lot X Blue Coyote Parking Lot and X Driveway Food Court Parking Lot X Henry Frank Arcade Parking X Lot Vineyard Parking Lot X Notes D. For each property the plan includes an estimate of the current value of the parcel including, if available, any appraisal information. Yes, No, Not Notes Included Included in Plant in Plan Casa Del Camino Property X Based on comparables over a range of years with some being outside of Palm Springs. Desert Hotel Property X Based on comparables over a range of years with some being outside of Palm Springs '7See Section VI.E.(1) of this review qualifying this response. Appendix A Page 3 of 9 3. McKinney Parcel X Based on comparables over a range of years with some being outside of Palm Springs 4. Convention Center North X X Did not find any evidence that Parking Lot 2007 $4,400,000" appraisal information included or provided to Oversight Board. Did not find any evidence that 2013 City Purchase and Sale Agreement information included or provided to Oversight Board. Based on comparables over a range of years with some being outside of Palm Springs 5. Prairie Schooner Parcel X X Did not find any evidence that 2011 $2,500,000 appraisal information included or provided to Oversight Board. Did not find any evidence that 2011 City Purchase and Sale Agreement information included or provided to Oversight Board. Based on comparables over a range of years with some being outside of Palm Springs 6. Cork n Bottle X 7. Plaza Theater X Based on market value estimate as an existing public building for which no revenue is received. Pursuant to request from DOF, property listed at carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. " We do not have a copy of the 2007 appraisal. Information about the appraisal was provided to us by John Raymond, former City Director of Community and Economic Development. Appendix A Page 4 of 9 91 a Catholic Church Parking Lot Blue Coyote Parking Lot and Driveway 10. Food Court Parking Lot 11 Henry Frank Arcade Parking Lot 12. Vineyard Parking Lot X Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Pursuant to request from DOF, property listed at carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. X Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Pursuant to request from DOF, property listed at carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. X Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Pursuant to request from DOF, property listed at carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. X Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Pursuant to request from DOF, property listed at carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No, 20. X Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Pursuant to request from DOF, property listed at carrying value pursuant to Oversight Board Resolution No. 20. Appendix A Page 5 of 9 11. 2. 3. 4. j 5. 6. �7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 E. For each property the plan includes an estimate of any lease, rental, or any other revenues generated by the property, and a description of the contractual requirements for the disposition of those funds. Yes, No, Not Included Included in Plan in Plan Casa Del Camino Property X Desert Hotel Property X McKinney Parcel X Convention Center North X Parking Lot Prairie Schooner Parcel X Cork n Bottle X Plaza Theater X Catholic Church Parking Lot X Blue Coyote Parking Lot and X Driveway Food Corot Parking Lot X Henry Frank Arcade Parking X Lot Vineyard Parking Lot X Notes F. For each property the plan includes the history of environmental contamination, including designation as a brownfield site, any related environmental studies, and history of any remediation efforts. 1. Casa Del Camino Property 2. Desert Hotel Property 3. McKinney Parcel 4. Convention Center North Parking Lot 5. Prairie Schooner Parcel 6. Cork n Bottle Yes, No, Not Included Included in Plan in Plan X X X X X X Appendix A Page 6 of 9 Notes 7. Plaza Theater X 8. Catholic Church Parking Lot X 9. Blue Coyote Parking Lot and X Driveway 10. Food Court Parking Lot X 11. Henry Frank Arcade Parking X Lot 12. Vineyard Parking Lot X G. For each property the plan includes a description of the property's potential for transit - oriented development and the advancement of the planning objectives of the successor agency. 1. Casa Del Camino Property 2. Desert Hotel Property 3. McKinney Parcel 4. Convention Center North Parking Lot 5. Prairie Schooner Parcel 6. Cork n Bottle 7. Plaza Theater 8. Catholic Church Parking Lot 9. Blue Coyote Parking Lot and Driveway 10. Food Court Parking Lot 11, Henry Frank Arcade Parking Lot 12. Vineyard Parking Lot Yes, No, Not Included Included in Plan in Plan X X X X X X X X X X X X Appendix A Page 7 of 9 Notes �2. �3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. to. I1. 12. �1. �2. �3. 4. 5. 6. H. For each property the plan includes a brief history of previous development proposals and activity, including the rental or lease of the property. Yes, Included in Plan Casa Del Camino Property X Desert Hotel Property X McKinney Parcel X Convention Center North X Parking Lot Prairie Schooner Parcel X Cork n Bottle X Plaza Theater X Catholic Church Parking Lot X Blue Coyote Parking Lot and X Driveway Food Court Parking Lot X Henry Frank Arcade Parking X Lot Vineyard Parking Lot X No, Not Notes Included in Plan Minimal description provided Minimal description provided Minimal description provided Minimal description provided Minimal description provided Minimal description provided Minimal description provided I. For each property the plan identifies the use or disposition of the property, which could include 1) the retention of the property for governmental use, 2) the retention of the property for future development, 3) the sale of the property, or 4) the use of the property to fulfill an enforceable obligation. Yes, No, Not Included Included in Plan in Plan Casa Del Camino Property X Desert Hotel Property X McKinney Parcel X Convention Center North X Parking Lot Prairie Schooner Parcel X Cork n Bottle X Appendix A Page 8 of 9 Notes 7. Plaza Theater X 8. Catholic Church Parking Lot X 9. Blue Coyote Parking Lot and X Driveway 10. Food Court Parking Lot X It. Henry Frank Arcade Parking X Lot 12. Vineyard Parking Lot X J. The plan separately identifies and list properties dedicated to governmental use purposes and properties retained for purposes of fulfilling an enforceable obligation. l . Casa Del Camino Property 2. Desert Hotel Property 3. McKinney Parcel 4. Convention Center North Parking Lot 5. Prairie Schooner Parcel 6. Cork n Bottle 7. Plaza Theater 8. Catholic Church Parking Lot 9. Blue Coyote Parking Lot and Driveway 10. Food Court Parking Lot 11. Henry Frank Arcade Parking Lot 12. Vineyard Parking Lot Yes, No, Not Notes Included Included in Plan in Plan - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A Appendix A Page 9 of 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A APPENDIX B Annlicable Statutes — Excernts from Health and Safetv Code 34177. Successor agencies are required to do all of the following: (e) Dispose of assets and properties of the former redevelopment agency as directed by the component; provided, however, that the component may instead direct the successor agency to transfer ownership of certain assets pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 34181. The disposal is to be done expeditiously and in a manner aimed at maximizing value. Proceeds from asset sales and related funds that are no longer needed for approved development projects or to otherwise wind down the affairs of the agency, each as determined by the component, shall be transferred to the county auditor -controller for distribution as property tax proceeds under Section 34188. The requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to a successor agency that has been issued a finding of completion by the Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34179.7. (h) Expeditiously wind down the affairs of the redevelopment agency pursuant to the provisions of this part and in accordance with the direction of the component. 34179. (a) Each successor agency shall have an component composed of seven members. The members shall elect one of their members as the chairperson and shall report the name of the chairperson and other members to the Department of Finance on or before May 1, 2012. (i) Oversight Boards shall have fiduciary responsibilities to holders of enforceable obligations and the taxing entities that benefit from distributions of property tax and other revenues pursuant to Section 34188. 34179.7. Upon full payment of the amounts determined in subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 34179.6 as reported by the county auditor -controller pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 34179.6 and of any amounts due as determined by Section 34183.5, or upon a final judicial determination of the amounts due and confirmation that those amounts have been paid by the county auditor -controller, the department shall issue, within five business days, a finding of completion of the requirements of Section 34179.6 to the successor agency. Appendix B Page 1 of 5 34181. The component shall direct the successor agency to do all of the following: (a) Dispose of all assets and properties of the former redevelopment agency; provided, however, that the component may instead direct the successor agency to transfer ownership of those assets that were constructed and used for a governmental purpose, such as roads, school buildings, parks, police and fire stations, libraries, and local agency administrative buildings, to the appropriate public jurisdiction pursuant to any existing agreements relating to the construction or use of such an asset. Any compensation to be provided to the successor agency for the transfer of the asset shall be governed by the agreements relating to the construction or use of that asset. Disposal shall be done expeditiously and in a manner aimed at maximizing value. Asset disposition may be accomplished by a distribution of income to taxing entities proportionate to their property tax share from one or more properties that may be transferred to a public or private agency for management pursuant to the direction of the component. (f) All actions taken pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (c) shall be approved by resolution of the component at a public meeting after at least 10 days' notice to the public of the specific proposed actions. The actions shall be subject to review by the Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34179 except that the department may extend its review period by up to 60 days. If the department does not object to an action subject to this section, and if no action challenging an action is commenced within 60 days of the approval of the action by the component, the action of the component shall be considered final and can be relied upon as conclusive by any person. If an action is brought to challenge an action involving title to or an interest in real property, a notice of pendency of action shall be recorded by the claimant as provided in Title 4.5 (commencing with Section 405) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure within a 60-day period. SECTIONS 34191.1-34191.5 34191.1. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to a successor agency upon that agency's receipt of a finding of completion by the Department of Finance pursuant to Section 34179.7. 34191.3. Notwithstanding Section 34191.1, the requirements specified in subdivision (e) of Section 34177 and subdivision (a) of Section 34181 shall be suspended, except as those provisions apply to the transfers for governmental use, until the Department of Finance has approved a long-range property management plan pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 34191.5, at which point the plan shall govern, and supersede all other provisions relating to, the Appendix B Page 2 of 5 disposition and use of the real property assets of the former redevelopment agency. If the department has not approved a plan by January 1, 2016, subdivision (c) of Section 34177 and subdivision (a) of Section 34181 shall be operative with respect to that successor agency. 34191.4. The following provisions shall apply to any successor agency that has been issued a finding of completion by the Department of Finance: (a) All real property and interests in real property identified in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 34179.5 shall be transferred to the Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund of the successor agency upon approval by the Department of Finance of the long-range property management plan submitted by the successor agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 34191.5 unless that property is subject to the requirements of any existing enforceable obligation. (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (d) of Section 34171, upon application by the successor agency and approval by the component, loan agreements entered into between the redevelopment agency and the city, county, or city and county that created the redevelopment agency shall be deemed to be enforceable obligations provided that the component makes a finding that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes. (2) If the component finds that the loan is an enforceable obligation, the accumulated interest on the remaining principal amount of the loan shall be recalculated from origination at the interest rate earned by funds deposited into the Local Agency Investment Fund. The loan shall be repaid to the city, county, or city and county in accordance with a defined schedule over a reasonable term of years at an interest rate not to exceed the interest rate earned by funds deposited into the Local Agency Investment Fund. The annual loan repayments provided for in the recognized obligation payment schedules shall be subject to all of the following limitations: (A) Loan repayments shall not be made prior to the 2013-14 fiscal year. Beginning in the 2013- 14 fiscal year, the maximum repayment amount authorized each fiscal year for repayments made pursuant to this subdivision and paragraph (7) of subdivision (e) of Section 34176 combined shall be equal to one-half of the increase between the amount distributed to the taxing entities pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 34183 in that fiscal year and the amount distributed to taxing entities pursuant to that paragraph in the 2012-13 base year, provided, however, that calculation of the amount distributed to taxing entities during the 2012- 13 base year shall not include any amounts distributed to taxing entities pursuant to the due diligence review process established in Sections 34179.5 to 34179.8, inclusive. Loan or deferral repayments made pursuant to this subdivision shall be second in priority to amounts to be repaid Appendix B Page 3 of 5 pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (e) of Section 34176. (B) Repayments received by the city, county, or city and county that formed the redevelopment agency shall first be used to retire any outstanding amounts borrowed and owed to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund of the former redevelopment agency for purposes of the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund and shall be distributed to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund established by subdivision (d) of Section 34176. (C) Twenty percent of any loan repayment shall be deducted from the loan repayment amount and shall be transferred to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund, after all outstanding loans from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for purposes of the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund have been paid. (e) (1) Bond proceeds derived from bonds issued on or before December 31, 2010, shall be used for the purposes for which the bonds were sold. (2) (A) Notwithstanding Section 34177.3 or any other conflicting provision of law, bond proceeds in excess of the amounts needed to satisfy approved enforceable Obligations shall thereafter be expended in a manner consistent with the original bond covenants. Enforceable Obligations may be satisfied by the creation of reserves for projects that are the subject of the enforceable Obligation and that are consistent with the contractual Obligations for those projects, or by expending funds to complete the projects. An expenditure made pursuant to this paragraph shall constitute the creation of excess bond proceeds Obligations to be paid from the excess proceeds. Excess bond proceeds Obligations shall be listed separately on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule submitted by the successor agency. (B) If remaining bond proceeds cannot be spent in a manner consistent with the bond covenants pursuant to subparagraph (A), the proceeds shall be used to defease the bonds or to purchase those same outstanding bonds on the open market for cancellation. 34191.5. (a) There is hereby established a Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund, administered by the successor agency, to serve as the repository of the former redevelopment agency's real properties identified in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 34179.5. (b) The successor agency shall prepare a long-range property management plan that addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of the former redevelopment agency. The report shall be submitted to the component and the Department of Finance for approval no later than six months following the issuance to the successor agency of the finding of completion. (c) The long-range property management plan shall do all of the following: Appendix B Page 4 of 5 (1) Include an inventory of all properties in the trust. The inventory shall consist of all of the following information: (A) The date of the acquisition of the property and the value of the property at that time, and an estimate of the current value of the property. (B) The purpose for which the property was acquired. (C) Parcel data, including address, lot size, and current zoning in the former agency redevelopment plan or specific, community, or general plan. (D) An estimate of the current value of the parcel including, if available, any appraisal information. (E) An estimate of any lease, rental, or any other revenues generated by the property, and a description of the contractual requirements for the disposition of those funds. (F) The history of environmental contamination, including designation as a brownfield site, any related environmental studies, and history of any remediation efforts. (G) A description of the property's potential for transit -oriented development and the advancement of the planning objectives of the successor agency. (H) A brief history of previous development proposals and activity, including the rental or lease of property. (2) Address the use or disposition of all of the properties in the trust. Permissible uses include the retention of the property for governmental use pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 34181, the retention of the property for future development, the sale of the property, or the use of the property to fulfill an enforceable Obligation. The plan shall separately identify and list properties in the trust dedicated to governmental use purposes and properties retained for purposes of fulfilling an enforceable Obligation. With respect to the use or disposition of all other properties, all of the following shall apply: (A) (i) If the plan directs the use or liquidation of the property for a project identified in an approved redevelopment plan, the property shall transfer to the city, county, or city and county. (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "identified in an approved redevelopment plan" includes properties listed in a community plan or a five-year implementation plan. (B) If the plan directs the liquidation of the property or the use of revenues generated from the property, such as lease or parking revenues, for any purpose other than to fulfill an enforceable Obligation or other than that specified in subparagraph (A), the proceeds from the sale shall be distributed as property tax to the taxing entities. (C) Property shall not be transferred to a successor agency, city, county, or city and county, unless the long-range property management plan has been approved by the component and the Department of Finance. Appendix B Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX C Lone -Ranee Pronertv Manaeement Plan [behind this page] LONG-RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency December 12, 2013 BETTER COMMUNITIES. BOLDER FUTURES. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................... i STATEMENT OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................2 PROPERTY VALUATION ESTIMATES AND LIMITATIONS.........................................................................4 PROPERTY INVENTORY - FORMER AGENCY PROPERTIES... ....... ..... I .... I ... I... ............ ... ....... I ..... .... 5 Properties to by Sold by Successor Agency........ CASA DEL CAMINO PROPERTY (PROPERTY 1) 6 DESERT HOTEL PROPERTY (PROPERTY 2).....................................................................................................9 MCKINNEY PARCEL (PROPERTY 3)..................................................................................................................11 CONVENTION CENTER NORTH PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 4)............................................... PRAIRIE SCHOONER PARCEL (PROPERTY 5)................................................................................................15 CORKN BOTTLE (PROPERTY 6)..........................................................................................................................17 PLAZATHEATER (PROPERTY 7).........................................................................................................................19 CATHOLIC CHURCH PARKING LOT (PROPERTY S)...... ............... ................ ....................................... ...... 20 BLUE COYOTE PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY (PROPERTY 9)............................................................21 FOOD COURT PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 10)...............................................................................................22 HENRY FRANK ARCADE PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 11)...........................................................................23 VINEYARD PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 12).....................................................................................................24 ATTACHMENTS................................................................................. 25 INTRODUCTION Assembly Bill ("AB") 1484, enacted in June 2012, requires all successor agencies to former redevelopment agencies that owned property as of the time of redevelopment dissolution in 2011 to prepare a Long Range Property Management Plan ("PMP"). The PMP governs the disposition and use of property held by the former redevelopment agency pursuant to legal requirements, as detailed in the "Statement of Legal Requirements" section on the next page. This is the Long Range Property Management Plan for the Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency"). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The former Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is the owner of record on the title for 12 properties (comprised of 19 parcels) in Palm Springs. All 12 properties are proposed to be sold by the Successor Agency, with the proceeds of the sale to be distributed by the Riverside County Auditor -Controller in accordance with the Dissolution Act. The following chart outlines the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) and proposed disposition for each of the 12 properties. # Site Name Assessor's Parcel Number(s) Disposition 1 Casa del Camino Property 505-182-004 Sell property 2 Desert Hotel Property 513-091-003 Sell property 3 McKinney Parcel 513-290-013 Sell property 508-034-012, 4 Convention Center North Parking Lot 508-034-013, and Sell property 508-034-014 508-055-007, 5 Prairie Schooner Parcel 508-055-008, and Sell property 508-055-009 6 Cork n Bottle 513-081-017 Sell property 7 Plaza Theater 513-144-010 Sell property 8 Catholic Church Parking Lot 505-324-002 Sell property 9 Blue Coyote Parking Lot and Driveway 513-082-023 and 513-082-040 Sell property 10 Food Court Parking Lot 513-082-043 Sell property 11 Henry Frank Arcade Parking Lot 513-091-004 Sell property 513-153-015, 12 Vineyard Parking Lot 513-153-016, and Sell property 513-153-029 Page 1 STATEMENT OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34191.5 (part of AB 1484), each successor agency that holds property from a former redevelopment agency is required to submit a PMP to the State Department of Finance ("DOF") within six months after receiving a "Finding of Completion' from DOF. Prior to the submittal of the PMP to DOF, the successor agency's oversight board must approve the PMP. In general, the PMP addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of the former redevelopment agency. AB 1484 requires that the PMP include all of the following components: 1. Inventory of all properties in the Community Redevelopment Property Trust Fund ("Trust Fund"), established to serve as the repository of the former redevelopment agency's real properties. This inventory shall consist of all of the following information: a. Date of acquisition of the property and the value of the property at that time, and an estimate of the current value of the property. b. Purpose for which the property was acquired. c. Parcel data, including address, lot size, and current zoning in the former redevelopment agency redevelopment plan or specific, community, or general plan. d. Estimate of the current value of the parcel including, if available, any appraisal information. e. Estimate of any lease, rental, or any other revenues generated by the property, and a description of the contractual requirements for the disposition of those funds. History of environmental contamination, including designation as a brownfield site, and related environmental studies, and history of any remediation efforts. g. Description of the property's potential for transit oriented development and the advancement of the planning objectives of the successor agency. h. Brief history of previous development proposals and activity, including the rental or lease of property. 2. Address the use or disposition of all the properties in the Trust Fund. Permissible uses include: a. Retention for governmental use pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 34161; b. Retention for future development; c. Sale of the property; or d. Use of property to fulfill an enforceable obligation. Page 2 3. Separately identify and list properties in the Trust Fund dedicated to governmental use purposes and properties retained for purposes of fulfilling an enforceable obligation. With respect to the use or disposition of all other properties, all the following shall apply: a. If the plan directs the use or liquidation of the property for a project identified in an approved redevelopment plan, the property shall transfer to the city, county, or city and county. b. If the plan directs the liquidation of the property or the use of revenues generated from the property, such as lease or parking revenues, for any purpose other than to fulfill an enforceable obligation or other than that specified in subsection 3(a) above, the proceeds from the sale shall be distributed as property tax to the taxing entities. c. Property shall not be transferred to a successor agency, city, county, or city and county, unless the PMP has been approved by the oversight board and DOF. Page 3 PROPERTY VALUATION ESTIMATES AND LIMITATIONS The Dissolution Act requires that a property management plan include an estimate of the value of property, as well as recent appraisal information, to provide the oversight board, DOF, and other interested parties information on the properties involved. DOF has officially stated that they do not expect successor agencies to obtain appraisals on properties if none currently exist, so no such appraisals have been prepared for this PMP. Instead, an estimate of property value was prepared by the Successor Agency's independent consultant based on a limited amount of analysis, well short of what would normally be conducted for an appraisal — but at least useful for providing some information on what is often difficult to assess property values given the unique deficiencies (size, contamination, location, etc.) of former redevelopment properties. Coming out of a real estate recession, it still can be difficult to identify comparable properties in the area because sales volumes of small, infill parcels can be very limited. The limitations of this methodology aside, the value estimates themselves (or even appraised values) are not necessarily representative of what the properties could be worth when put on the open market for sale by the Successor Agency. As necessary, following DOF approval of this PMP, the Successor Agency will seek buyers to purchase the properties, based on the conditions outlined in this document. Once these offers are provided, these may ultimately be a much more precise determination of value than what is included in this PMP. As such, the reader is encouraged to understand this context when reviewing the estimated values contained herein. Page 4 PROPERTY INVENTORY - FORMER AGENCY PROPERTIES The former Agency owned 12 properties (consisting of 19 parcels) at dissolution. The properties are grouped into property sites with specific property numbers shown in the Property Inventory Data table attached. A detailed description of the properties is provided below. The Property Inventory Data table (Attachment 1) utilizes the DOF-created database that provides a matrix of all of the information required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(c) (part of AB 1484). It is important to note the following in reviewing the PMP: Estimates of current value of property were provided by RSG based on the individual methodologies described under each property profiled in this PMP. As the DOF has officially stated, the DOF does not require a new appraisal report to be prepared for the purposes of a PMP, even if a recent appraisal does not exist. The ultimate value of the properties sold will be determined based on what the market bears and not what an appraisal estimates. More details for each value estimate are provided in the individual property profiles. Data contained in the "Value at Time of Purchase" column in the Property Inventory Data table includes all available information obtained resulting from comprehensive title research and staff's best efforts to locate the information. In many cases, this information was not available and is noted accordingly. Page 6 Properties to by Sold by Successor Agency All 12 Agency -owned properties are proposed to be for sale. A description of the properties, including the legally required information, aerial maps, and photographs of each property, are presented in this section. Pursuant to the requirements of 34191.5(c) of the Health and Safety Code, the following characteristics apply to each of the 12 Agency -owned properties: Proposed Sale Value: Market to determine. • Proposed Sale Date: Following DOF approval of PMP. • History of Environmental Contamination. Studies. and/or Remediation. and Desianation as a Brownfield Site: No record of past environmental contamination, studies, and/or remediation, and designation as a brownfield site. This does not necessarily preclude potential environmental contamination, studies, and/or remediation, and designation as a brownfeld site of which the Successor Agency is not aware. The remainder of the information required by Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(c) is provided below and in Attachment 1. Page 6 CASA DEL CAMINO PROPERTY (PROPERTY 1) Address: APN: Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcel: Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: 1479 N. Palm Canyon Dr. 505-182-004 29,185 sq. ff.' 1 April 1, 1987 $575,000 Vacant Lot/Land Sale of Property C1— Retail Business Zone $195,561 Based on RSG's comparable sales analysis. The results of the analysis are shown below. Comparable Sales Analysis and Estimated Value: 1479 N. Palm Canyon Dr. Commercial Land, 20,000-40, OOO SF Address City Property7ype Sale Date SgFt Price Price/SgFt 1 84765 Avenue 50 Coachella Commercial Land 5/14/2012 25,700 $ 297,000 $ 11.56 2 82933 Avenue 48 Indio Commercial Land 7/16/2010 36,154 $ 318,000 $ 8.80 3 81088 Us Highway Ill Indio Commercial Land 12/3/2010 35,727 $ 275,000 $ 7.70 444061 Acacia Dr Palm Desert Commercial Land 7/12/2013 20,447 $ 118,000 $ 5.77 5 19160 McLane St North Palm Springs Commercial Land 8/27/2013 20,717 $ 92,500 $ 4.46 6 8176501eander Ave Indio Commercial Land 4/27/2012 32,234 $ 82,500 $ 2,56 Subject: 1479 N. Palm Canyon Dr. Vacant Commercial Land Not Listed 29,185 $ 196,561 $ 6.74 Source: CoStar, December 2013 Note: Estimated value Is based on the unwelghted and unadjusted median price per square foot for comparable properties. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Sell for future development. The former Agency acquired this vacant parcel for the purpose of future development. The Agency intended to assemble this parcel in conjunction with those adjacent to it in order to develop a mixed - use project. However, this project never came to fruition. ' For all parcels described in this document, the source for data regarding lot sizes, acquisition dates, and available values at the time of purchase is First American Corel-ogic, Inc., except where otherwise noted. Page 7 Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency Long -Range Property Management Plan T _ _ tea:. - DESERT HOTEL PROPERTY (PROPERTY 2) Address: APN. Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcel: Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: 285 N. Indian Canyon Dr. 513-091-003 6,106 sq. ft. 2 January 21, 2005, according to City records $160,000, according to City records Vacant Lot/Land Sale of property CU - Civics Uses District Zone $31,965 Based on RSG's comparable sales analysis. The results of the analysts are shown below. Comparable Sal es Analysis and Estimated Value: 285 N. Indian Canyon Dr. Commercial Land, 5,000- 30,0005F Address city Property Type Sale Date SgFt Price Pdce/SgFt 1 N Palm Canyon Or Palm Springs Commercial Land 4/5/2011 6,403 $ 98,000 $ 15.31 2 29 Pal ms Hwy @ Sunset Ave Josh uaTree Commercial Land 6/13/2022 9,583 $ 60,000 $ 6.26 312329Palm Or Desert Hot Springs Commercial Land 9/16/2011 7,126 $ 30,000 $ 4.21 4 45698 Fargo St Indio Commercial Land 9/11/2013 6,490 $ 15,000 $ 2.31 Subject: 285 N. Indlan Canyon Dr. Vacant Commercial Land NotUsted 6,106 $ 31,965 $ 5.24 Source: Costar, December 2013 Note: Estimated value is based on the unweighted and unadjusted median price per square foot for comparable properties. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Sell for future development. The former Agency acquired this parcel in order to tear down the blighted property on the land, which was successfully completed. Previously, the Agency intended to assemble this parcel along with adjacent parcels In order to develop a hotel, but this development did not occur. Because the parcel is adjacent to a City fire station, the City may be interested in purchasing the property to expand the fire station. Page 9 Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency Long -Range Property Management Plan MCKINNEY PARCEL (PROPERTY 3) Address: APM Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcel: Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: 190 W. Sunny Dunes Rd. 513-290-013 6,970 sq. h. 3 January 1, 2006 Unknown, according to City and public record research VacantLot/Land Sale of Property CU - Civics Uses District Zone $36,488 Based on RSG's comparable sales analysis. The results of the analysis are shown below. The results are identical to those for Property 2, due to the similarity between Property 2 and 3. Comparable Sales Analysis and Estimated Value: 190 W. Sunny Dunes Rd. Commercial Land, 5,000.10,0005E Address city Property Type Sale Date SgFt Price Price/SgPt 1 N Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs Commercial Land 4/5/2011 6,403 $ 98,000 $ 15.31 2 29 Palms Hwy @ Sunset Ave Joshua Tree Commercial Land 6/11/2012 9,583 $ 60,000 $ 6.26 312329Palm Dr Desert Hot Springs Commercial Land 9/16/2011 7,126 $ 30,000 $ 4.21 4 45698 Fargo St Indio Commercial Land . 9/11/2013 6,490 $ 15,000 $ 2.31 Subject: 190W. Sunny Dunes Rd. Vacant Commercial Land Not Listed 6,970 $ 36,488 $ 5.24 Source: Costar, December 2013 Note: Estimated value Is based on the unweighted and unadjusted median price per square foot for comparable properties. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Sell for future development. This vacant parcel was acquired for the purpose of future development. Page 11 Photo source: Google Maps Page 12 CONVENTION CENTER NORTH PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 4) Address: Northeast of N. Calle Alvarado and E. Amado Rd. APN: 508-034-012, 508-034-013, and 508-034-014 Lot Size: 339,769 sq. ft. Attachment 9 Parcels: 4-6 Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: May 1, 1991 Unknown, according to City and public record research Parking Lot/Structure Sale of Property CU - Civics Uses District Zone $2, 211,696 Based on RSG's comparable sales analysis. The results of the analysis are shown below. Comparable Sales Analysis and Estimated Value: Northeast of N. Cal le Alvarado and E. Amado Rd. Commercial Land, 250,000-450,000SF Address city Property Type Sale Date SgFt Price Price/SgFt 1 Hwy 111 &Dune Palms Rd La Quinta Commercial Land 5/17/2010 396,396 $7,737,239 $ 19.52 2 40060 Bob Hope or Rancho Mirage Commercial Land 10/29/2010 447,361 $7,650,0D0 $ 17.10 3 Seeley Dr& Washington St La Quinta Commercial Land 7/1/2011 411,641 $3,800,000 $ 9,23 4 Avenue 48 Indio Commercial Land 9/16/2010 350,222 $2,600, 000 $ 7.42 5 Washington St Palm Desert Commercial Land 6/15/2010 267,894 $1,500,000 $ 5.60 6 75500Varner Rd Palm Desert Commercial Land 9/21/2011 333,234 $1,300,000 $ 3.90 7 Avenue 42 @ Spectrun St Indio Commercial Land 10/25/2010 283,140 $ 999,484 $ 3.53 8 Portola Ave Palm Desert Commercial Land 3/7/2013 385,506 $1,100,000 $ 2.85 Subject: NE of N. Calle Alvarado and E. Amado Rd. Parking Lot Not Listed 339,769 $2,211,896 $ 6.51 Source: CoStar, December2013 Note: Estimated value is based on the unweighted and unadjusted median price per square foot for comparable properties. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Sell for future development. This parking lot was acquired for the purpose of future development. The Successor Agency proposes to sell this lot to an interested hotel developer, who will then replace the public parking off - site. Page 13 Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency Long -Range Property Management Plan PRAIRIE SCHOONER PARCEL (PROPERTY 5) Address: Southeast of EAndreas Rd. & N. Celle El Segundo APN: 508-055-007, 508-055-008, and 508-055-009 Lot Size: 250,470 sq. ft. Attachment 1 Parcels: 7-9 Acquisition Date: August 10, 1994, according to City records Value at Time of Purchase: $2, 275,000, according to City records Property Type (DOF Category) Parking Lot(Structure Permissab/e Use (City Proposed) Sale of Property Current Zoning: CU - Civics Uses District Zone Estimated Current Value: $1,402,632 Based on RSG's comparable sales analysis. The results of the analysis are shown below. Comparable Sales Analysis and Estimated Value: Southeast of E. Andreas Rd. & N. Celle El Segundo Commercial Land, 150,000- 350,000 SF Address . I city Property Type Sale Date SgFt Price. Price/SgFt 1 82451 Highway 111 Indio Commercial Land 10/2/2012 157,687 $2,500,000 $ 15.85 2815SOJFKCt Indio Commercial Land 10/28/2013 166,399 $2,050,000 $ 12.32 3 47800 Washington St LaQuinta Commercial Land 5/27/2011 169,012 $1,300,000 $ 7.69 4 Washington St Palm Desert Commercial Land 6/15/2010 267,894 $1,500,0D0 $ 5.60 5 81695 US Hwy 111 Indio Commercial Land 2/23/2010 170,755 $ 755,892 $ 4.43 6 MM Varner Rd Palm Desert Commercial Land 9/21/2011 333,234 $1,300,000 $ 3.90 7 Avenue 42@ Spectrun St Indio Commercial Land 10/25/2010 283,140 $ 999,484 $ 3.53 Subject: SE of E. Andreas Rd. & N. Calle El Segundo Parking Lot Not Usted 250,470 $1,402,632 $ 5.60 Source: Costar, December 2013 Note: Estimated value is based on the unwelghted and unadjusted median price per square footfor comparable properties. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Sell for future development. This property was acquired for the purpose of selling to a developer, with whom the Agency had been working to construct a 500-room Hard Rock Hotel. However, the project was abandoned and the Hard Rock Hotel eventually opened elsewhere in the City. A hotel developer has recently sought to purchase this property from the Successor Agency. Page 15 Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency Long -Range Property Management Plan CORK N BOTTLE (PROPERTY 6) Address: APN; Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcel: Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning; 342 N. Palm Canyon Dr. 513-061-017 2,080 sq. ft. 10 November 17, 2006 $620,000, according to City records Commercial Sale of Property CBD - Central Business District Zone Estimated Current Value: $339,620 Based on RSG's analysis, which utilizes an Income - based approach. The details of the analysis are shown below. Estimated Value Utilizing Income Based Approach:342N. Palm Canyon Dr. Monthly Gross Income: Annual Gross Income: Less 2,750 33,000 Annual Property Tax': $ 2,728 Operating Expenses as Share of Gross Income': 20% Annual Operating Expenses: $ 6,600 Annual Property Taxes and Operating Expenses: $ 9,328 Annual Net Operating Income: $ 23,672 Cap Rate a: 6.97% Estimated Value $ 339,620 'Source: Riverside County Office of the Treasurer -Tax Collector 'Based on median operating expense amount per square foot for comparable properties {$3.12) and average rent amount for properties in the Inland Empire retail market during the third quarter of 2013 ($15.73) (Source: Costar COMPS, CoStar Property) ' Average cap rate for bul Idings under 25,000 sq. ft. In the Inland Empire retail market from July 2012 -June 2013 (Source: Costar COMPS) Advancement of Planning Objectives: None. Page 17 The former Agency acquired this parcel with the intention of assembling several properties in the area to develop a boutique hotel to support the nearby Convention Center. However, the adjacent properties were never acquired by the Agency. The building on the parcel is a Class 1 historic structure. Therefore, reuse and any interior changes must be approved by the City's Historic Site Preservation Board. A commercial building is currently on the parcel. The current tenant is a retail store called "Cork n Bottle." The tenant began occupancy of the building in 2004. When the Agency purchased the building in 2006, the Agency assumed Cork n Bottle's lease with the previous owner. The original lease began in 2004 and ended in 2009. However, the lease provides the tenant the right to extend the lease for a period of five additional years up to three times, upon the end of the original lease in 2009. In 2009, the tenant opted to extend the lease until November 2014, at which point the tenant still has two more options to extend the lease for five additional years. Thus, the tenant has the right to occupy the building until the year 2024. The City receives $2,750 in monthly lease revenue from Cork n Bottle. Pursuant to the original lease that the tenant agreed upon with the prior owner, receipt of lease revenue obligates the owner to pay possessory interest property taxes for the property. Thus, the City currently pays the property's possessory interest property taxes, which amounts to $2,728 per year. Additionally, the City pays management fees for the building, as well as some maintenance fees. The City also includes the building in its insurance policy for City -owned buildings. Photo source: Google Maps Page i6 PLAZA THEATER (PROPERTY 7) Address: APN: Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcel: Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: Advancement of Planning Objectives: 128 S. Palm Canyon Dr. 513-144-010 10,454 sq. ft. 11 September 28, 1998, according to City records $1, 925,498, according to City records Public Building Sale of Property, with conditions to maintain performing arts venue and Class 1 historic structure CU - Civics Uses District Zone $0 Based on market value estimate as an existing public building for which no revenue is received. Maintain performing arts venue and Class f historic structure. The former Agency acquired this parcel to maintain the 800-seat performing arts venue and the building's Class 1 historic structure. The Agency proposes to sell the property to a private owner with conditions in order to ensure that the performing arts venue and Class 1 historic structure are maintained. Currently, the building is not compliant with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) code. Additionally, the building, which Is landlocked, does not comply with fire safety codes. An architect is currently in the process of estimating the cost of implementing the necessary upgrades. The alley behind the property is leased for set storage. Photo sources: Google Maps, Wikipedia Page 19 CATHOLIC CHURCH PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 8) Address: APN: Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcel: Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: Northeast of Belardo Rd. & W. Alejo Rd. 505-324-002 39,440 sq. ft. 12 October 1, 1983 $610,000 Parking Lot/Structure Sale of Property CU - Civics Uses District Zone $0 Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Provide public parking. The Agency purchased this property in 1983 from Our Lady of Solitude Church in order to provide public parking. The Purchase and Sale Agreement with the church obligates the City to provide the church 45 parking spaces. The City provides these spaces, along with public parking spaces, on this lot. The Agency proposes to sell the property to an owner who will continue to use the parcel to provide public parking. i t , Photo source: Google Maps Page 20 BLUE COYOTE PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY (PROPERTY 9) Address: APN: Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcels: Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: Advancement of Planning Objectives: Southeast of N. Belardo Rd & W. Alejo Rd 513-082-023 and 513-062-040 26,423 sq. ft. 13 - 14 Parcel 513-082-023 was acquired on August 1, 1981; the acquisition date for parcel 513-082-040 is unknown, according to City and public record research $400, 000 for parcel 513-082-023; Value at the time of purchase for parcel 513-062-040 is unknown, according to City and public record research Parking Lot/Structure Sale of Property CU - Civics Uses District Zone $0 Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Provide public parking. The Agency purchased this property to provide public parking and proposes to sell the property to an owner who will continue to use the parcel to provide public parking. Photo source: Google Maps Page 21 FOOD COURT PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 10) Address: APN: Lot Size: Attachment 1 Parcel; Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: Southeast of N. Belardo Rd & W. Alejo Rd 513-082-043 26,136 sq. ft. 15 June 12, 1997, according to City records $212,438, according to City records Parking Lot/Structure Sate of Property CU - Civics Uses District Zone $0 Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Provide public parking. The Agency purchased this property to provide public parking and proposes to sell the property to an owner who will continue to use the parcel to provide public parking. Photo source: Google Maps Page 22 HENRY FRANK ARCADE PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 11) Address: Southwest of E. Amado Rd, and N. Indian Canyon Dr. APN: 513-091-004 Lot Size: 7,260 sq. ft. Attachment 1 Parcel: 16 Acquisition Date: Value at Time of Purchase: Property Type (DOF Category) Permissable Use (City Proposed) Current Zoning: Estimated Current Value: Advancement of Planning Objectives: October 1, 1989 $267,000 Parking Lot/Structure Sate of Property CU - Civics Uses District Zone $0 Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Provide public parking. The Agency purchased this property to provide public parking and proposes to sell the property to an owner who will continue to use the parcel to provide public parking. Photo source: Google Maps Page 23 VINEYARD PARKING LOT (PROPERTY 12) Address: Northeast of S. Belardo Rd $ W Baristo Rd. APN: 513-153-015, 613-153-016, and 513-153-029 Lot Size: 53,816 sq. ft., according to City records. Attachment 1 Parcels: 17 - 19 Acquisition Date: June 1, 1977; July 1, 1977; and May 17, 1979; according to City and public records Value at Time of Purchase: According to City and public record research, value at the time of purchase for parcels 513-153-015 and 513- 153-016 is unknown; according to City records, value at the time of purchase for parcel 513-153-029 was $198,215 Property Type (DOF Category) Parking LoUStructure Permissable Use (City Proposed) Sale of Property Current Zoning: CU - Civics Uses District Zone Estimated Current Value: $0 Based on market value estimate as an existing public parking lot for which no income is received. Advancement of Planning Objectives: Provide public parking. The Agency purchased this property to provide public parking and proposes to sell the property to an owner who will continue to use the parcel to provide public parking. Photo source: Google Maps Pace 24 ATTACHMENTS 1 - Property Inventory Data (DOF Form) Page 25 Bucceesa Agency: PALM SPRINGS ATTACHMENT 1 County: RIVERSIDE LONG _ iORw " NSC34191.SaH1ZAl SALE OF PROPERTY HSC 34191.5 MI N131 Data of Acquisition Veltmet Tlme Estmated Estimated Proposed Sale Proposed Sale Purpose for which property ma No. Pto.."v Type PamlwaeMe U.. Panllaaebre use Datell Data of Purchea4 Current Value VeluaBh,a Curent Valu. Value Data occurred -Co. dal Cermm Properly': Sell far future Merkel la Ftlbwhg DOF 1 Vacant LotRand Saw of Property dev.lopmuee V111987 It 57S.000 $198,581 Make) 1=2108 Determine aopravelof PMP Future rwvoapnranl -Darr."IbtelProperty- Sell forfuhme Meeket to Forng DOF 2 V..M LoVeM Sete of Preoaty development 121f2005 $ 180,000 $31,05.5 Market 1=103 Detemlh. epprovalaf PMP To roar down blighted Mparry 'MclOnney Pacer: SM Meekatto FollarM, DOF 3 Vetere LauLab Sale or P,oaoIV fa fup+a devabonent 1112008 Unknown $3eAee Market 12 103 DebrmlRe approvalof PMP Future development 'Carventwn Carrier I4orN Pawrrg Lai Sal or hotet devebpor. Developer wet $2.211,898 replace Wblkpedrhg along Wth Slte5 M.*Stto FoIlbMng DOF 4 Pord. L.Idmelure Sale or Prooedv off-aw Sr AN1 Unknown and8 Market 12 103 Delermhte appravel of PMP Fulda devobpmenl -Ccx v obn Center Na"h PwGV La 3010 howl tlevegper. Devolopre win $2,211,896 mprocaWbea pa"ctg 9"w111, Sao M9fof. Folwwing 130F 5 PeMlna LOV91,achre Sew of PropeM Nbele. NlAwi Unknown and Markel 1202103 Dewtmine em.,,ru of PMP Future development 'CotrveMwn Gerrit, North Pa"Mg Loe:Sell to hotel developer. Developer at $2,211,B95 replacer publlo panting eknl wlUt Slle4 Market to FMowing DDF 8 Pmklro Lollsluchae Sale of Pmce"v oV-olio. 51111991 Union. arras Markel 1=2103 Orrartnlne approval of PMP Fulura davelopmanl _ 'PreMe ScMonef PlVicel'. $2.275,030 S1,402,832 Sell for fulu a .IorxI wth Slle alorg with Slte a Merkel to Foeowug DOF To sal to Yrol.l devewya, The T Parkdfg L.Murratue Saw of Pmperty dcorebapant &10/ltltl4 Barba emg Matkot 12rM103 Delarmine approval of PMP properly la aubleM to no terms of the -' Repayment Agreahoot Win gte Ague Denote Bab of Cahuew "Prairie Sckpargr Parcel": $3,275,000 51,402,832 wdwna fa the conabualwn de Sol fa Mute alongrmn Sea awngw11h S8el Market to FO rrg DOF parking at a Dwpoetion ab 5 Parurvtol(souclure Sew ofP=.rty devewofrwnt N1N199M1 Tand 9 oral9 Markel 12 103 Dmemdne spprpval of PMP Development Agreement vNh O$M Pale 1 are Successor : PAtM SPRINGS ATTACHMENT I County: RIVERSIDE 3�&�ip7,5ag1( IG,.,,� HSC 34191.5 ROMI0l HSC 34191.5 1.111(E) HSC 34191.500MI(F) HSC 34191.5(a1114G) HSC34191.5moutil LDNG%kM'P �_- History of environmental Deecrlptlon of Advavopmenl of odnlamlounw, studlea, propertyre planning CwtMOMel en&or remetllsdon, and p.t.dal for obleo0vds of the History of previous Lot Slre cumoit PsImdte of Conant EsOmdte of redulroments for use of deal9ne6on ass transit orlenled sesaor development No. Address APO IMF) Zonlna Paellfelue rc IncomelRevenue )ncdmeld~ue brownflom an. development auenrw vreposeN and dddv9y Located 511est C1-RAMP from eSUNlna Assemble sdbcoM 1479 N. Palm 0uaklees Transit Agenry Sell for fplura perrelstodavniop f Cammn Or. 5091924M14 29185 Zone 51955al i0 NYA None bus olon deveopmenI mNebuse oyn'>�)a�c�t - - — Locaktl 351 teal Pdsemde aymnl I Cu-Civka fromaSalYna portelslo 6ouaIoptgld,` 2MN. Iricen Uses Dlsldcl Trens0 A0a1Ny SeNfw future evprinu dlxdnt pre 2 Canvan tr. simill-003 OADa Zone 331,0e5 so WA N. bus atop tlevebpmeM atedMn It Located a6ou1 cu -Clvke 2o01eet Irom a 180 W. Sunny Uses 01suM 5UNIM Tansit Seaforlumre 3 Durres Rd. 61e-200-D13 8,910 Zone $36.488 M WA N. Agency bus Oop development Nona Located 0.3 WIde Nattheeslof N. CU-CMOs from a Suollne Ca%ANemdo and Uses0hudet 52,211,898abrgwNh Tansll Agency Sea for future 4 E. Memo Rd. 5 054.012 116.741 Zare Sue Sams $O N/A None busstop development Sell to holeldevebper . L.tad 0.3 Mlas Norne.lMN. Cu -CWIca from a 5umbe CaIle Ahamdp end Uses DlMdct 32,211,89Daw;jwllh Transit Agerlry Sel for Mere 5 E. Moro Rtl. Spa-03Y013 111,514 Zone Ste 4 end6 $0 WA None Waaloe develpdirlenl Sell to Mlel devabpe! toddled 0.3 Maas Northeast of N. Cu - CNks from s SurAhe Cd'e Aherado dnd Uses01suM 32,211.13Mabngwllh TMrt.4l Allency Self rdr future 6 E. Aradd Rd, 50 10 014 111,514 ZOM Slte4 aod5 _ so N/A None bu,Mv devabgnenl Solid hotel developer Located 01 an. CRA had been OMIN Southeast of E, CU-Gelb. from a GiVera wM de✓abpm to Andrade Rd &N Usm Disbbl 52,378,003 ¢long with Tmnall Apwa Sell to, future mns0uUa 500 mom Z Call. El Socado 509-055.00Z 82728 Zone silo a and0 30 WA No. buseloo devebpment Hard Rock Hotel on this - silo, Out the pro" Was LocatcN 0.1 Whas pbanOwedand Somiroesl ofE CU -CNI. from a SunlMe evenuallytha Hard Andreas Rd. &N. UsesD U!C1 S2,378,803abng Witi Transit Agency Safifor Mures Rocs Mlel warred 8 ca. El 5emerdo SOti-OSSOOB MIX31 Zone Sol and $D WA Nrmo bu.u.P development - ebewMre In the Gly.A Papa 2 of 5 Successor Agenry: PALM SPRINGS ATTACHMENTI County: RIVERSIDE ........... ..,:.......,�.. A. .i1S&;Wh ri,21.... H:C34191.5 (c)III Al I SALE OF ROPERTY HSG 341915(cN11IB) LONG P..o.=e.........�..:,PSR :Re:f, _ . Data of ACgdalUnh V.We at Time Eatireatod Estimated Proposed Selo Proposed Sale Petposefereanchpropertywas No, Property Tec. Pemisseble Use Panel... We Use Detail net. of Purchase Current Value VaWoeesls Curren4Velue We. Data ecqukd -dev.k - - - HR, LLC for the n di nt of a 500+own hotel. Tome Sensor, Perch: 52,27SOM $1,402,M2 5911forfut.re along Mlh Site along Win Sher Markel to Folowing COF a P.Mln.Lotniruclure Safe Precere, deaekmmenl W1011944 yand 8 and Market 1212/2103 DelDnnlne .,Proved of PMP 'Cads n I1od1W: Seen b sell to or of adjacent 10 Cammarctel Sete d Property 91-w!y 11f lr2 $ 320.000 5339.020 Merkel -Pkua Tlreeler : Set, but with condkbne to nrclydadn certonning arcs Verge ark Close 1 it Puhe.Buldlrw Sale d Presently hiserk: structure. 923Hgg3 $ lon"I9a 5o Market 'Gamete Church Parkin LOP: Retain for pule Perking. The Pureness ark Sat. Agreement between the Agency and Our Ladyof SORude Church, from whore the Agency ,urchened the property In 1953, obggstes the Cly to Wwke Let church 45 12 Paltry LO Uuclure SaledPmoerly r ddrg epacts, 10110933 $ $1010W s0 Market "SWe Coyle Paddrq Lot are DdvewaY: Retain for 13 Perkin LOVStncWre Sea d Pomedy Wde carkim 9l111991 $ 400.W0 $0 Maket •Blue Coyote Par" Let and fMVaway": Retain fur 14 Peklnq LogSlrectere Sale of Procarly While WrMm Unknown Unknnwn s0 Markel 'Food Court ParkM9 Lot". 15 Parklrq LOUShuclure Sale of Property Retain for DIASIO peMIKI e/12/1902 $ 212.435 s0 Market Markem FoWMng DOF Toassemhteproperdeald1hate a 12MI03 Determlre approval of PMP for devoloomem d bodkne, hotel Median is :FolaMr2 OOF To maintain par(ortnkg arts venue 121 pip DelermlfM 000r01a1 of PMP ask Class 1 historic sbuctura Market to F.Iw M DDF 12/212t03 Delarnhe apnre,nl of PMP To trovkle nacho perMng I Wrenta Following DOF 1212Y21n3 Determine approval of PMP To Drovd point, Parklrg Market to FdlMrg DOF 12/T/2103 Detertntns, approval or PMP To PrevkB Wine perkln9 Mekelto FoIc ArV GOP 12IL2103 Oelereirre approval of PMP To pr kfl pole Parkhm Successor Agency: PALM SPRINGS AT ACHMENT I County: RIVERSIDE HSC 34191.5(CNIND) HOC Ulf..5WOME) HSC 34191.5 tb(11WI HSC 34191.6(CI(ING) HOC34191.51OHI)H) LONG RAN: PROP _ History of anvlmnmanlel Description of Advancement of contnmtnatbn, efudles, property's planning Contractual ajubor ramededan, and pol0ntla1 for .1eNclivm of the 111et0ry of preNoue Lot Shop Current nfloute of Current EeNmate of agwlromenpt for use of declgnegon sae transit oriented eucees..I devdopmanl No. Address APNk ISM Z.Wnp Parcel Value IncomdRevpmla Incomelrovenue bmwrdmld site dev.I.Opmnt e9encv prepeealy eed ecllvlty - hotet devebper has 1-mated 0.1 made recanted sought to SoatheastifE Cu-Ch1ca 1mm a Suet.. purdiasa this properly Pump.. Rd. &N. Vass DWkt 52,37B,893 sang wMl Trensil AOoncy SON fa future from tun Smcossor 9 Calls El Smurtlo SOB-05SWIp SAS Zone sit.I w8 $0 WA None bus stop development Agerlcl'. ReCelpl DI News fsverue COD- oblfsts9 owner to poy Lpculed 224 feel Canal possessory mlereat from a Suph. AmaMe egocant m 342 N. Pdm Canyon BesMees sppedytaresfor Vie Tmnslt Agency panels to devebp 10 Dr. SM(fil-OV 2,08D Dlsbk3 Zone $339,02(1 $2,750 per month propum. None Weslop No. houeoua hold Lopeled 401 fast Winlem CU-CNka tom a SunBne pedomdng arts 128 S, Pskn C.peui Ueee DlsUkI Trenyl AGancy venom arW Class 11 Or. 513-044-010 1G454 2me f0 $0 WA None bee stop Matbr1c5tmmure Nan. Located DI Mlles CD- CN from a Supine NorNeeet of Belerdo Ussa Dlsldct Transit Agenry Pr Nde pupil. 12 Rd & W. Alelo Rd, SOSUpl. D2 3B 440 Zone $O SO NIA Norm bus stab mMna None Located 0.2 mites Boutpeasi or CU-cf, s frwn a SUM" Beleftb Rd A W. Lees Dldrkt Tmnslt Agency PmvWe public 13 AIak RC 513-CB2-023 19.889 Zone SD $0 WA N. bus stop onrNlrm Nora Located 02 mass SWBlbeel of CU-Cities from a Smina Bete do So A W. Uses D Irkl Tmnslt Agency Pmvlde pubic 14 Akio Rd 513G824040 (ISM Zone SO _ 30 WA fwu bus stop Iwklm None Looaled 0 2 mtle t SouNmsl of N. CU - "Nits from a Sun3ne Bossed. Rd&W. UsesD Wit TmnNl AguiW Pm6da WWIc 15 Aisle Rd 5IWBM43 MASS Zone SO SO WA None bus stop residue No. Pegs 4 of B Successor Agoneyu PALM SPRINGS ATTACHMENT County: RIVERSIDE LONG PANGS PR 1PS"Y MAI'AGE NaiM�4 �i�"' HSC30191.51c1(1) A) I SALE OF PROPERTY HSC 341l 1c1(1)tB) Date of Acquisition Value at Time Estimated Estimated Proposed Sale Proposed Sole Purpose for which property was No. ProperNTm PaMhutebla Dae Parmis5a0la Use Delall Data ei Parcbese Currant Vatpe Value Bests aunant Valua Value Date ncqulred 'Henry Frank Arcade Perking LOP: Retain for Markel to FoOmArg DOF 16 1 Parkin LotlStrett a Sale of ProoeM oululle oaddm 1OMM969 $ 267.000 so Matket 12IM103 Determine aM.1 of PMP To proAda public parWri, 'Vlney.N Parkkg Lon Merkel to FolmIN DDF 17 Parktw LUV6Vuc1Ma Sale a Properly Releln for publc pomm 6/1/1077 Unknown SD Markel 12 103 Delemire approval of MP To pmJG public parking 'Vineyard PerkNg Lor; Merkalto Following DOF 16 ParkHO LoNStmctura Sale of Properly Retain for cubk oarMno 7/111911 Unknown So Market 1=103 Del"Ine apprwelof PMP To pmvlrle pubk DulMry Wre,yord Parkkg LOP- Market io FO I, DOF 19 Parking LoUShuclure I I I I Sekofprooeny Retain for nub& aarN. 5l1 TI= $ 198.215 so Markel I I I 12M/2103 Detarmbre a MVAI of MP Top ids NNIC paddrg 1 I Pegs 5 of 6 Successor Agency: PALM SPRINGS County: RIVER810E l�'d�1��� LONG RAN 3 PRGPERWNWNA9EMEN: 1 iF•[4esi=INYEµ43RSFP_�—• HSC3419151c111)W$ No. Andreae APN4 SoUlven st of E. Amedo Rd. erq N. 15 IMIan Canvwl Or, 513-091-004 Lt. Maer of S. tlo Rd 3 W 17 Rd. 613.153-015 NONMeet of S. Belsrda Rd 3 W 18 8adob Rtl. 513-15$-016 NoM... t of S. Bobrdo Rd 8 W 19 BaBeto Rd. 513-158 I I I I I I I I I Lot 81. Currant Esllmale of Curronl f8F1 Zon919 Parcel Value CU-CNke U. DleWcl I zeo Tana so CU-CIA. Uses DI drkt 6.000 Z. 50 cu-clNn Uses Dlellkl 8.000 Zone $0 CU -Clvks Uses Dblrkt 41,818 Zone so ATTACHMENT HSC 94101.51c1111(E1 I HSC 34191.5 (01111F) HSC 3410 .51c)HIIG) HSC 3a191.5 fc)f1)HI ; History of nvlrommnntel Doscdpllonof Advancelnentof contumlrmtlon,studles, prepnety's planning Contractual andlor remedlatlon, and Pefendel for obj.Nvns afire History of prevloua E.U.M. of mqulmmonts for use of dealgn.U. asa Vanslt oriented epccesnM doeolopment Income R.A.nuo Incomelrevenno b.a n0old BIte d.v.I.pnurt agency prepe50ls and sctivlty Located less Nan 500 feet Own a Swtllno Transit ProvMe punk so WA Nerlo Aoeruw bus Mo. .,Wm None Located less Nan soli feet from a 8.eN.Tnslt Pedlao pudic $o N/A None An. We Mon re flnu None Le(dtad less Mn 500 fesf f, me SuNlne Twrslt Provldo punk s0 N/A Non. Aaerdy We Slap oarkno NSIe Located bzs IMn 5001eairom. SuNlne Tmnst PrmAe public $0 NIA I I I None I Aaerw Nsslaa Carldm None I Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO.20 A RESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJUSTING THE CARRYING VALUES IN THE LONG RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs ("Redevelopment Agency") was a redevelopment agency in the City of Palm Springs ("City"), duly created pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000). of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code) ("Redevelopment Law"); and WHEREAS, AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 were signed by the Governor of California on June 28, 2011, making certain changes to the Redevelopment Law, including adding Part 1,8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) ("Part 1.85') to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code which effectively dissolves the Redevelopment Agency ("Dissolution Act"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34191.5(b), successor agencies are required, to send long-range property management plans to the oversight board and State Department of Finance no later than six months following the issuance of the finding of completion; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency received its finding of completion from the State Department of Finance on January 2, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency submitted a Long Range Property Management Plan to the State on December 10, 2013, in accordance with the provisions of Section 34191.3 of the Dissolution Act, indicating the intended disposition and use of the real property assets of the former Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, the Long -Range Property Management Plan is being reviewed by the State Department of Finance, which has requested that the Successor Agency adjust, by resolution; the values on properties 7 through 12 listed in the Plan to reflect the Carrying Value rather than the estimated market value; and WHEREAS, the Oversight Board reviewed and considered the Board Report dated February 25, 2014, pertaining to adjusting certain values in the Long -Range Property Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AS FOLLOWS: Resolution No, 20 Page 2 SECTION 1, The Oversight • Board hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and incorporates them herein by reference, SECTION 2. The Oversight Board approves the following values for properties 7 through 12 listed in the,Long Range Property Management Plan (as shown in a table submitted hereto as Attachment 1) to reflect the Carrying Values of the properties rather the estimated market value. SECTION 3. Upon a decision to convey any of the properties in the Long Range Property Management Plan to another party or to the City, the Successor Agency retains its right to appraise the property to determine the market value of the property at the time of the transaction, and convey at the'fair market value rather than the Carrying Value. SECTION 4. All other sections of the Long Range Property Management Plan remain unchanged, SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect five days of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014, OMAS FLAVIIN, Chairman ATTEST: ?MES THOMPSON, City Clerk Resolution No. 20 Page 3 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS) 1, James Thompson, Secretary of the Qversight Board of the Successor Agency of the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency hereby certify that Resolution No. 20 was adopted by the Oversight Board at a Special Meeting held on the 25th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Boardmember Foat, Boardmember Marshall, Boardmember Ready, Boardmember Van Horn, and Chairman Flavin. NOES: None. ABSENT: Boardmember Arthur, and Vice Chair Howell. ABSTAIN: None. MES THOMPSON, CLERKISECRETARY Resolution No. 20 Page 4 ATTACHMENT LONG RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN ADJUSTMENTS TO CARRYING VALUE # Site Name Assessors Parcel Original Value Number(s) in the LRPMP 7 Plaza Theater 513-144-010 $0 8 Catholic Church 505-324-002 $0 Parking Lot I 9 Blue Coyote Parking 513-082-023 and $0 Lot and Driveway I 513-082-040 10 Food Court Parking Lot 513-082-043 $0 11 Henry Frank Arcade 513-091-004 $0 Parking Lot 12 Vineyard Parking Lot 513-153-015, $0 513-163-016,and 513-153-029 Carrying Value $1,643,483 f $685,000 $141,500 $341,826 l $266,673 $482,457 City of Palm Springs Redevelopment (RDA) City Review of Independent Legal Analysis of Compliance with RDA State Dissolution Act =TC Al. A /1)•-07-40IS Purpose of RDA Independent Review • City Council Commissioned an independent outside legal review to do the following: — Evaluate City Staff's implementation of the new and ever -changing RDA law — Use final report as a training tool for City Staff and information for City Council — Provide transparency to the public through a public report regarding RDA real property and practices RDA Independent Review • Kane, Ballmer & Berkman was retained to review the 12 RDA properties under the City's Property Management Plan; in accordance with the myriad complex regulatory requirements of: — Assembly Bill 1X 26 — Subsequent California Supreme Court RDA Actions — 6 Senate and Assembly Amended Bills to the RDA Dissolution Act — Various Legislative Budget Trailer Bills which modified the RDA dissolution process further 3 Independent Review Recommendations for 12 RDA Properties Things City Did Well 1. Received State Finding of Completion 2. Preparation of Long Range Management Plan 3. Submission of Plan to Oversight Board 4. Submission of Plan to State 5. Approval from State on Long Term Property Management Plan 6. Purpose for which property was acquired 7. Parcel data requirements 8. Estimate of current value —10 properties 9. Estimates of income 10. Environmental data 11. Description of potential planning objectives 12. History of previous development proposals 13. Identifies use or disposition of properties 14. Properties dedicated to government purposes Things City Can Improve 1. Agenda "notice" requirement changed from 3 to 10 days for sale of properties 2. Previous estimate of values — 2 props 3. Previous City/Developer agreements — 2 props a Things City Can Improve 1. Ten Day Oversight Board Agenda Notice Required for Sale of RDA Properties (changed from 3 day) • City Review/Improvement — Dolce Hotel — Convention Center • Sale has not yet occurred — Oversight Board will re -review with 10 day notice and previous City/Developer Agreements — Plaza Theater (to be transferred to City) • Already remedied with Oversight Board 10 day notice at their meeting of September 15, 2015 — Prairie Schooner — Convention Center • Property sold; City Attorney reviewing Things City Can Improve 2. Previous Estimates of Value — Prairie Schooner — Convention Center • 2011 Appraisal $2,525,000 not provided • City Review — In accordance with what staff understood to be the process at the time - information was provided to the Oversight Board and State with a range of $2,378,000 to $1,402,632 per instructions of: • State Asset Transfer Assessment Value Forms — $2,378,893 - $2,275,000 (Carrying -Value) • Long Range Property Management Plan — $1,402,632 (estimated value per RSG) G Oversight Board and State Information -Submission of Carrying Values - City of Palm Springs o ei Office a dw Gar Ovk I n�awf 0awwa."'Mr•wraap.p.fA 11-1 i.i i .wi _ .F. l+fall1>!1)1`Nr�lrlwlWllil•wX�prb@aarup 4arraanaF DenrMar 12, Al2 Stateof Calitcrola Depeadi of Fine. 916 L Street S.awrweo. CA 95814 - gii$yrsarns RNwaiE. CartyA d0arrGanVolar %dera .nH dpBO Lrron Strew. 1 ter floor iiMialw os, Rlvwsbe, CA 91 Stara of Caidc min Conbdlnra Dora 3W Centel Mdl. Sues 1850 SeoamanM Cwagmed W14 RE: lfplbe of Aclim. by ea OmsgM Bind Pain mnift, Cwmmndr Rseayeb mAaara:v Enclosed are dm Me fallowingapeenle nlarrmalhm, sotona el In. Ovwaghe Bogies b Me Sucasaeor Aganry to Me Palm Send, Cmdrommly RMevelminara Agency fro revbrl puraueM edA8X1 26. RaHulbn No. tot Aerie p Aessl Transfer Aesesament and Questionnaire. Additionally. MH Inbnrelbn has been Ipabd an Me Owshei hoard's warned. N II�IMwwsel�nn.ye awlMeveaovn.eoe•_l iq %.dY Perfect me should yW need additional intarMeti or reel esle at MB ,me Redirected, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ES THOMPSON. CITY LLERX OrwelpM Sad CbrbSNre W y Encbsores �dsdsnghfl C"Cood Braes ReeaM6m 232 5 O City Counol Rewbtbn No. 23265 Cape 7j John Raymond. 11 Dllecmr d torney ry artl Economic Devebpnare Douglas C5. INdIaM. CC.MyIBABMauvnaefy �Rw f111iie AM1rT'� 13 • YJm ]pool, [iWmua 92263-2143 RESOLUTION 140. 011 A RESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AN ASSET TRANSFER ASSESSMENT AND ASSET TRANSFER QUESTIONNAIRE AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, AND RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR CITY GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES TO THE CITY WHEREAS, so aCmrdenom vim has provisions of gar California Hei also Safety Code Section 34123, Has CM Counel M the Coy of Palm Stool a dud.P body, mrppws and PaYk reds hem aeaWabC eM Me accePlea arum dard, 1. of Successor Agarlay CStaccerearri to Ina Co nmrtry Reoevalolunenl Agency of the City M Pillm Slangs to ram of ma purposes of am .minces In. powers Sochi M Succenor Alli o arcomeme arm Aeselndy BIII XI 26 (ABX126). Section 1.85 d Wilson 24 of the Health and Safety Cade bier •Olsaoluton Ad•); and WHEREAS. Me Oversight Board, on eccordanc. win Ma prwams of the California HeeBL and Safety Code SMon 37179 hi), has been formed b carry out far puRooses am ....row the tenons treated In Oacaxght Boards in acoad.rce with A dembly Bill Xt 26 (ABX1 26). 6Mbn 1.85 al DlHauu 24 M Uw Heath and Safety Code, am WHEREAS, on Mama 18, 2011. the CommurlM Retlevelopmanl Agency and the City of Palm Spurge alpreard the transfer M of brown real prupery asswn Men wined by Me Agency to Me CRY. eM WHEREAS. Me Dissolution Ad requires the mremarmlon AM Fudnillal M Me Stele Cooldrat Office of an AUY Transfer AeeaasmeM preparod by Me SuvaesorA ami showirg In. avows that wets paned by the An, eM bamkrred b Me Suaxasor A,edwy upon the dtasdWorr an Fepuery 1. 2D12: AM WHEREAS. Me States Cwroatlar ordaree any immediate of propeNes uMeaaam e8er January 1, Wl1 b M'arMnuM' and ate pmcedbe alumed M the Soodes m A,en,.and WHEREAS, 6 d He CB,'. PovWn and the Successor Agencys poaiton oral all of Me properties deanfbad eboye sa in Me hands w Me City, not the Successor Adenry because of Me MerM 16, 2011 I eri and WHEREAS, AS 1484 vrsparxla Ithe land dispos0or process dasale.d in the Ueedulbn Act, and provOile mnam NexibdM aM renal badm a in nomm,nam, man Warmly dial—dion. it 1ming Section 34181(a). wri allows the Oversight Board W transfer wwrnmenfa' purpose monody to the appropriate IPb1 c early: and 0 0 C6 E L. 0 �J Ln 0 m LONJ n rmi •3�L�4E F�M F F F4iP E!! 1 1 �' �! ��_ S S ! isFFF1F'FFP.Fall eded J.L8i ee3ii_ a b Al NMI n nsnaanx'aaxnaa naaaa ana n •Sii SFSr.S S SAiSa aaa� SST as 8 ^4 a � a.:dedl •dd• see •• vee JIB; F' Oversight Board and State Information -Long Range Management Plan - LONG -RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENTPLAN Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency December 12, 301E nws.a w, S![CUI Agency W" PI SWr,C rnWlty Re o,eebpn,ent AgP y _ _ _ .aeny mm,egemanr 11 AI S IaENNesaw dN cm ElSrylmb APN' SOB�COr 9]9 MSWB.sM SC&Q550]9 1or51re P32Aroeprt A(IvcllmwR r PartYs: 7.9 A,.nInuon Nnn Ayr , 10 !990. Ja—.11 to Crry reccNs Value of el : fI215IXp maweing Rr GYv nx�rrn.� Typ OFCSI PerYuq LWShwlure RlmlaveM Vax (CMy PaopmveJ .I .. G..,GCYenpns Stile ull\lyany cwr«u zonlalr.' cv-cm=a uaaa n.ana �.,,., Fa(ImYen C-1 ,ue. fS c0.i] iM. Rsg, ro,oI.,,m, aaarau rM ,esum ollne axmrar, x,a.,r.r.r: axxx. Mry.YwvnwXYr�aFUMw]vN:Swl.,,nNLAMax1Mx x. (AI[naxryM� [m.a.a.i um1.,mrol. ssgOTsr u wwr, ,m sxXnm s _ uwv, N,M„ ,ew, L,,opem s NWIM�SM1� ,Yn M1un 1'emwrtYl4E V]VIDIO sAr stSgOl S anum, mvs soon® s , xrcmeurtypeep'iny xpe f wI W1 wNaay ID.W $ 9AM 1 )Si SWpa i.ar[apnu q.AX. [Y.X9fgvvde XNaryb No11Ma ]50.� SIeL®i S S® Sw•¢. cvYv. ueinhr Ml IC+YlervndXWMslxJa9 �YR.'IA�.' SaVM INwe Jaek'prosr T11M pt ©ety xn xywlM la Pre OIrtN%c 019¢uy W e eeveloro. r III' W1om V'e Apanry tbtl I!T XdRlrq b wIMrW a `AYroan HvIJ R. Malel Y wojecl v'as eOanMrM and IM HWJ RO Heml a Sffl, elttwMre In M Gary A hX6 0 Yo0[1 res r¢ y spgN w YwaNk w4X1h han me 5lrmnva Pyalry s1P M State is Final Decision Maker on Value of RDA Sales • City Submits Long Range Management Plan to State for Review • State asked City for additional value information on 6 of the 12 properties (including an appraisal for the Plaza Theater) — no requests on Prairie Schooner, or Dolce Hotel site • Oversight Board approved revised Property Management Plan based on additional information requested by the State State Approves Revised RDA Property Values for Sale in Long Term Property Management Plan t DCILPr ewr r M.rpb x5. zola MrJ:M Pgmptl,prr]uM CcnlrwNlYB EsnaMC CaappllwM CIM 91Ptlm SplrgF 9x00 E, TIDuW Ca fty PeYn SgINa. CA Bl]@ ^ �iVVVII Dfar M.. ggmwra N ��' SYLj%1. LapNB/g0 RCpM Ne^perreM Ren ft,s.p14eXb em Salary GNe (NSC)aenYn b11915(b), tlw CX dP SOrra buc Mr Pgery(NR )audnihe]a Lwg W.P. IMangwlat PYn(NPI.1P;b IM CJi1w Cepegnarld Finenw(Finencelon�0npb 12, 2013. Fibre tee ampkleE b reWew 0Ire LPPMP, Mlkn.1 Nw mduCeC Mblmrq c:erlrysM /arenww tlems me Ng"receivM a F✓Am9 M C P! mM January22ow FlalMr. Wa mwu 1a a,e appin2UM.1 llla. we a,Bep... W. A9., a oeo Or dip ,. pr W Ih. goyrl'ee WlWmMOLRPMP p aeprrnalpl111e LRPMPaiwlc klnbacmpnlrlle ,W, Pwtlulon No.= x,a11WIndEsm—bJCurten.V.lueInrprrpa— .4112lt.GInIMLRPMP1 reflW, lb c.r, nW nMer INn Ne..ti OM marble .eaw M ann In weorNrta wp MSC aedion 31191 d,... n ro[eiNrp a Fi19i11 or ComV. ham Fmnm my appmuel M a .11 nreal1.P .1 N verelerreE to Ne Ummwry PeeaveloprierA PmpaM nusl 11M al urs ogan1. preees mel poxM b caged to ub reWbwbmedan.asllrs aMcuabb op'upaiwn. Punuanlm Nsc aernpn 3e191.J IM approveE LPPMP saetl gomm ana supervene an orner IXonsrone Mebp b. llv tlbpnlNn em ue d eu me reel prWeny aexls or ilia Iwmar rapambpmen: agonry. Agency aMana 1Wn purauaril m a Flrenn aWro.e4 LRPMP ere subpcl le own pM MM IC6 L eWpapw NSC oe N1B111). au0squem OP xnwm eWrewvq Ib Iypr y'v hrpM .IMBWn M IM gprorM RFMP eMu :O oo wEmirtM m RnanCB for apwre!. Pbw drMvp mbel4 ClupWK �rM+w4 orbussr�e MCOineJwe n, leW MatyM al (9101MS13M. SMa9y. MD IAi Prymm &.J9eILMaper rY. on IOlpwrq ppbe 7. i Things City Can Improve 3. Dolce Hotel — Convention Center — Agreements with City to replace Convention Center Parking were not provided to Oversight Board City Review/Improvement — This transaction has not yet occurred — and will be resubmitted to Oversight Board • Land appraised for $4,675,000 in 2006 (before the real estate economic crash) • Land appraised for $2,773,000 in 2011 • Land appraised for $3,400,000 in 2014 • Revised Long Range Management Plan value approved by State $2,211,896 — Final proposed sale price of $2,211,896 (proceeds to be remitted to the State) and a $2,675,000 agreement with the City to replace Convention Center parking with a new parking structure - total price $4,886,896 -Background - Why Sell Prairie Schooner Lot? -i RDA Short Term Incentive Value Maximized Public Tax Revenue $1,000,000 RDA Dissolution Act — Sell/Maximize Value Request for Proposal Process 2005 Existing Development Agreements 2008 & 20 ➢ Current Annual Revenue $0 Annual Revenue After Project $820,000 Long Term Gains - 20 Year Revenue Projection $16,400,000 (Tax Revenue for City/School District/College of the Desert/County/etc.) Irl -Background - Why Sell Convention Center Parking Lot? RDA Short Term Incentive Value $2,000,000 RDA Dissolution Act Requires — Sell/Maximize Value Existing City Agreements and Entitlements — 200712008120091201112013 Maximized Public Tax Value New Parking Structure r Current Annual Revenue $0 r Annual Revenue After Hotel Project $1,450,000 ➢ Long Term Gains - 20 Year Revenue Projection $29,0001000 (Tax Revenue for City/School District/College of the Desert/County/etc.) 14 State is RDA Property Sale Decision Maker 2nd Approval for Both Properties Prairie Schooner M!d'n Fe d. Olr 0prrwu14 vd Ewn LMWa Wt nya vnq spneq. ]pJ FwITaV�:m Gpn Wry Ptln BP'rrW.0 Bipl oru lroPrwq &L{e¢ µmew dOrym Pr.l ..um ll'a BYd pun 5p-rp 9rm<ww pprt.Y(lVnYlrIXMMGfyrb pl.4 plgela rlF.w�wiaro Wrl, Ml. OwngY Buq (JBI•.�..mmMry 1, b rwr.,.r amr ram mxl..son rl ry mL lb.� m..zrpbbv ro..... abMmwaMw.q.ppuBwea eww. aOa.oYmv ro. a �aarpwbJwuaa tlnP.MleMpplYM1.plo',.Vrv. 5;nl15f M15rM05!.IIM, SJ9L55f[V roM cm a pun, smaa b ba uo„n aitweJx p,.rar.,.. b n..z•owe Logpuq. P:asfY MwpnM Pb. ILRPMpI, a Mpma]. Pu: sNurl W X0C wtlwr urv'.], v. p.cY a .RPMp xu ary..ma] EY Fnwm an WYIJ.3p4 iM dpcaiW.nd Vn prepnY.MtluPregnr 5ln lgeq•I IAPMP. ra mrMleq WM Pe epproW du. Pbu! mw9Egrl4blem Clgµb. Syawm. ve 4rwrw WeirlsUra, luJ RnMHI Mrylaln.slJb. e+rorah. Xowun rwma PaM•wr nr.b.l Wepv M M. Baq+Y lewL. u.marWlo enYap.m Bpe.w W.pwrpm.c+M ream PMs.BY n. wMnw W.weree crown W E.munOmubc MUQ+I.1od Oawemwu MrBuwe.GMon.lw [rcngV.gb GVbrw gale Cab[M.pla Dolce — Convention Center WY 10,.1. M bN PrymW. dome aCemmrnM h0 Fmwme 4wY,tm.q Gr m PYT spmMa JMJEW ielgwl[Gmpr W!Y Pnbn BJMO.. U 9}p] M M B.P�wq. sabre µpun aOwapl(M Bpwe 1pL>, la maPun sp•Yp SuamopveY MynaylrWM u.GW+gpemrn+a IlRb� Mb WY 8. py Qsf(!1 Bad ICB)ruoNm on MryA pin a•own b 1Wn vtl yalY Cx'e1N6Cl neaa. NIlB10l rYnnlMmey41d brwvx er oB ma. Bw.awa.wX.0 rc yalwweanb.. ae PwMaan W o».nq..p e. w.a MGn.amcwMMrMbpllMOlbL!➢W: eaoualy smoJwn. w sBeavau. b Or. Pry a Pwn Spnrba b N! ImMO d i2Y1 tAN p1.YUY Ip pre .q.us1 lugb.y. prtptrW fmwn Pm ILRPWAb.ppvaf. Purwml Io HJC saM�n:Me915. M Ipeey. LPPMPvv.pgeN eY flrMeppr Wy IJ. p.Y. ltrn aopnl6vi d Ina Pr4MY MeJ !! R pnvn n sylnN. LISMv, n mrru.MN Wnlle sapmvtl plm li.r bran vq.xW b Bely Gaapub. SµeMwe, w 9ueeere Mo]ine Adrm. Wa aulrl u (BIl�ilS1010 J![w•ry. JUSTYN IKK4MO bMwn Peo>•m Bnv.l La+upe ... uGargr r�q. rlam,d BEbeq..cgaP.M BwJca .a�w.aa,M�n.,lw naP.M1Tu wwMLrw.la.t my P [. BuweOW.lm'fnwrmwl MgABemu. 6lM'a SPb W. GncWa gM1a CYRwna Ta's Cm^ Y'a dlie 15 Greater City Transparency: Exceeding State Requirements • Public Hearing for all City Council property sale transactions will be required • Although State does not require land appraisals, City will now obtain appraisals for RDA parcels • Convention Center Lot purchase proposal (Dolce Hotel) will be resubmitted to Oversight Board for reconsideration with parking agreements Palm Springs Economic Redevelopment Progress Base Year Last Year Palm Springs Coachella Valley Riverside County Inland Empire Southern California State of California 2008-2015 Prop Tax 2008-2009 vs. 2014-2015 $191633,722 $21,294,978 +8.5% Measure J 2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015 $11,046,045 $12, 854, 984 +16.4% Sales Tax 2007-2008 vs. 2013-2014 $91138, 355 $10,996,552 +20.3% +1.7% +7.2% +5.8% +4.9% +6.3% Hotel Tax 2008-2009 vs. 2014-2015 $121751,478 $24,4871248 +92.0% City of Palm Springs Redevelopment (RDA) City Review of Independent Legal Analysis of Compliance with RDA State Dissolution Act i �m 7/ // /0 - c, 7 z oiS Council Initiated Redevelopment (RDA) Property Review • Presentation Contents — Purpose of Redevelopment (RDA) • Local Examples — Council Initiated RDA Independent Report • Recommendations — Review of Report Recommendations • Staff Process on RDA Properties — Greater Transparency Policy • Exceeding State Requirements Redevelopment Authority (RDA) What is its purpose? • Under State of California Law, the City established the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in 1972 • Purpose of RDA is to address conditions of physical and economic blight — encouraging investment by the private sector to strengthen the physical, social, and economic ties between various land uses. • Main RDA tools are short-term incentives such as land, tax rebates or other incentives to maximize long-term taxes and revenue streams for cities, counties, schools, and colleges. RDA Value to Cities: Underlying Principle • The City does not earn money on land until it is sold to a private owner. When it sells land, it then becomes the "landlord" by way of collecting taxes. • "Maximizing value" from land requires that the City look to buyers who propose projects that will produce long-term tax benefits (e.g. adjacent property owners, or developers who can assemble multiple parcels of land). p 0 71 1.6 12014 D IF cam. �i. .x- aF1T Tf y rr r Ri r VIK s; .dM;t`��, S. } .,: :.,1 asc 'G '. yr �.,. �. �� :': a."" r J t .? f � � � �.� yii Creating Economic Development: Proposed Dolce/Hotel Resort Examples of Local RDA Projects • V. I . R Motors — BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Infiniti • The Springs Shopping Center — Home Depot, other retail & restaurants • The River — Theater, restaurants, retail V.I.P. Motors Return on Investment to Taxpayers RDA Short -Term Incentive Value $2,900,000 • Land Swap Maximized Public Tax Value Prior Annual $0 Revenue ➢ Annual Revenue After Project $1,900,000 ng-Term Gain — 20 year Projection $39,0001000 (Tax Revenue for City of Palm Springs, College of the Desert, Schools, County, etc.) The Springs Shopping Center Return on Investment to Taxpayers RDA Short -Term Incentive Value Free land $2,785,000 Maximized Public Tax Value Prior Annual Revenue SO r Annual Revenue After Project $3,400,000 y Long -Term Gain — 20 year projection $68,000,000 (Tax Revenue for City of Palm Springs, College of the Desert, Schools, County, etc.) The Desert Sun Sunday, October 3, 2015 • "Palm Springs has been riding high on waves of great economic news" • "The city's downtown, which languished for years with the mostly empty Desert Fashion Plaza complex as an eyesore at its epicenter, is undergoing vast change as the steel girders that will frame its new look stretch to the sky" • "Tourists — who are visiting the city's airport, hotels, restaurants and shops in record numbers..." The River (Rancho Mirage) RDA Incentive Value Sale of land $4.5 million less than original acquisition cost Provided adjacent 5.3 acres of property, including relocation of tenants, etc., at a cost of approx. $6 million Annual Tax Revenue Value ➢ Ongoing sales and property taxes y Expected 6 years payback net out of pocket investment Dissolution of RDA AB 1X 26/June 2011 • City Becomes RDA Successor Agency — Mandate from State • Dispose of 12 RDA properties ASAP • Maximize values • Obtain State "Finding of Completion" • Prepare a Long Term Property Management Plan for State approval — Oversight Board is Created • Members include representatives from — City/County/School District/College of Desert State has final decision making authority on RDA values and sale approvals Complexities of RDA Dissolution Law • Assembly Bill 1X 26 (6/28/11) • Modified by CA Supreme Court legal action (12/29/11) • Amended by Assembly Bill 1484 (6/27/12) • Further Amended by Assembly Bill 1585 (9/29/12) • Further Amended by Senate Bill 341 (1o/13/13) • Further Amended by Assembly Bill 471 (2/18/14) • Further Amended by Assembly Bill 1963 (7/18/14) • Further Amended by Assembly Bill 1793 (9/27/14) • Modified Further by Annual Budget Trailer Bills RDA Dissolution Regulation Flowchart Complexity Exhibit A - ABX1 26 RDA Dissolution - Flow of Funds Gou,rty Audlm, 355 i5 WItW. Iv' muO� F � O IyNmrom'yb � P yl�li�s Nlegbl a�NIW,11 £ C\ Yt OoNo,,..,w..r seer �- �1 O !I �IusNwc.rn I 3JIB O N I.o>s.l,�sbbmar s—�,��Ia�, NNI� AthRed Aileded Succeefa Recognlzed Debt State Colrodbn County AIIMed CM. Syed.l S sf Disetct. CEOICC A9eMy Itdders Most IJ.HiI Wl Ii1f M .Iw C�D ti �r INyfl m wl ,iempexM Oeil, -ayrtMMaAmeuns- I rnsa �ceasor ABenry AdminlY2eve Cost Alk xance— , I - LosK d Ad 6 Owsg:.. ResI 8annc0 d RP F � �C�) W � 0 4-J :3 0 � � 0 I � 4-J .� � � E 0 u 4-J � � .C: U � 0 LL c 0 � � � � ne �g \f Pi) §l�� �,� � / Local Governments Who Tried to Clarify RDA Dissolution Rules Through Court Actions (Sample of over 200 Lawsuits Filed) City of Bakersfield • City of Pasadena City of Bellflower • City of Petaluma City of Brentwood City of Riverside City of Emeryville • San Diego Housing Comm. City of Foster • City of San Jose City of Fresno • City of Santa Ana City of Galt City of Union City City of Goleta • City of West Covina City of Huntington Beach • County of San Bernardino City of La Quinta • League of Ca. Cities City of Murrieta • Sonoma County City of Orange Types of Local Government RDA Lawsuits Against the State Loan payments to cities • Dispute of denial of Long Rejection of transfer of Range Property funds Management Plan Withholding of city funds Dispute over $35 million Oversight board city loan to former RDA appointment challenge True up payment dispute Dispute over land sales • Constitutional challenge Determine legitimate • Impairment of contract redevelopment purposes Council Initiated RDA Independent Property Review - Purpose • City Council Commissioned an independent outside legal review to do the following: — Evaluate City Staff's implementation of the new and ever -changing RDA law — Use final report as a training tool for City Staff and information for City Council — Provide transparency to the public through a public report regarding RDA real property and practices Council Initiated RDA Independent Property Review • Kane, Ballmer & Berkman was retained to review the 12 RDA properties under the City's Property Management Plan; in accordance with the myriad complex regulatory requirements of: — Assembly Bill 1X 26 — Subsequent California Supreme Court RDA Actions — 6 Senate and Assembly Amended Bills to the RDA Dissolution Act — Various legislative Budget Trailer Bills which modified the RDA dissolution process further Independent Review Recommendations for 12 RDA Property Dissolutions Things City Did Well 1. Received State Finding of Completion 2. Preparation of Long Range Management Plan 3. Submission of Plan to Oversight Board 4. Submission of Plan to State 5. Approval from State on Long Term Property Management Plan 6. Purpose for which property was acquired 7. Parcel data requirements 8. Estimate of current value — 10 properties 9. Estimates of income 10. Environmental data 11. Description of potential planning objectives 12. History of previous development proposals 13. Identifies use or disposition of properties 14. Properties dedicated to government purposes Things City Can Improve 1. Agenda "notice" requirement changed from 3 to 10 days for sale of properties 2. Previous estimate of values — 2 props 3. Previous City/Developer agreements — 2 props Independent Review Recommendations 1. Ten Day Oversight Board Agenda Notice Required for Sale of RDA Properties (changed from 3 day) • City Review/Improvement — Dolce Hotel — Convention Center • Sale has not yet occurred — Oversight Board will re -review with 10 day notice and previous City/Developer Agreements — Plaza Theater (to be transferred to Citv) • Already remedied with Oversight Board 10 day notice at their meeting of September 15, 2015 — Prairie Schooner — Convention Center • Property sold; City Attorney reviewing Independent Review Recommendations 2. Previous Estimates of Value — Prairie Schooner — Convention Center • 2011 Appraisal 2,525,000 of provided • City Review/Improvement — In accordance with what staff understood to be the process at the time - information was provid e Oversight Board and State with a range of 2.378.000 to 51.402.632 per instructions of: .. • State Asset Transfer Assessment Value Forms — $21378,893 - $2,275,000 (Carrying -Value) • Long Range Property Management Plan — $1,402,632 (estimated value per RSG) Oversight Board and State Information -Submission of Carrying Values- vamxa asow City of Palm Springs _ e O v. o(rM Ciry Ckh < ihe.r•Gnw wr•r.w srv+usxxw '� er h-mhly+aw•N. rNn 1u»M•yub Pwu4 mn•m...IwP..e.. P. 4rPoePtH Dt4wOer 12. W12 State of Caldfu . Dapemnenl of Thence L ant Sac Sacramento, CA 95014 - A RnersideCountyAWMr{;d►olbr 4080 Lemon Steel, 1lth now t RnmesiteCA 92502 State of Wlinrnie Cmitmller, Office 300 Caplldl Mall. Suite 18W Siessurento Cabfuma 95814 RE'. Notkeof Actim try"Cadrsght HoaN Palm Sons rhtvj4edgselopshwn Aaed Enclosed are Me Ussedrg docurn. memorlsba g actions of to Oversight Beard for the Successor Agency to the Palm Sprehgs Community Redavadermant Agency for review pursuant to AHXt 2e. Retaul/an Nc. 011 Apgovig Aset Trennbr Aaeeavnmt arhd Oueaennaire AddNonally, me information has them, ,oabd m the Uer9gM Smed'a websits at mp 1M oalnhso!MaOpW/Mce aspalea]e=111B. Please cooled me Mlouk you need Aditiinal MbmheBon dr aquests at his Met. ReepaMnly, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ES THOMPSCN. CITY CLERK DV eshlBpak GbM1J lzm—y Ovserghl Board Resolution No. 011 City Council ReaoNAion No. 23265 O Copy 3 John Rameord, Director try and Ewramk Development CougbCHohsntl.CiyAttorney CyRis,"ecft"MM. sp nju. a lhfwrho 92263-2743 RESOLUTION NO.011 A RESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AN ASSET TRANSFER ASSESSMENT AND ASSET TRANSFER QUESTIONNAIRE AND AUTHORIZING ITS SIRAMTTAL TO THE STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE. AND RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR CRY GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES TO THE CRY. WHEREAS, in eaadarcn loth Me p di .dons of the Calilomiz Healtn arhd Safety Code Section 34173. Me CM Cwircil of Me CM of Pam Spires, a wolic body, mrwrade eM Fauns, has been designated and has accelted such designam of Successor Agent,, ("Successor) to Me Communtyy Rndevenpmenl Agency of Me City o( Palm Springs M tarry out the Purweea of add examine the pDWen granted 10 SuTseater Agemoes in acwrdance vnM Assembly Sit Xl N (ABX1 28), Section 1.85 df Civisbn 24 of to Health and Sa rty Cos (te'OI6e01ulde AdE): add WHEREAS, Me Camel Beaty, in accodlence wiM Me panakns of the Calkrnb Health and Safety Code SeUon 37179 (a), has them famed to carry out the Itaw+ea and .... Me posters granted W rNaeght Board. in ancond nce Arm Assembly Btll XI 26 (ARAI 26). Section 1,85 of Ornstein 24 of the Health and Safety Cede; and WHEREAS, on Me" 18. XI 1, the Community Redewlrryment Agency add Me City of Peln Sprigs NWrovad Me thundered all Wewn real Moberly assets then Pfeil by the Ape y b the Cpy, and WHEREAS. the Diswlund n Act requires Me prepaaton arg aubmeal to Me Stara Conbelbya Office of an Asset Thansser Assessment phapamd byte So.. Agency. ahPslrg Me dreams Met were owned by Me Agency and maintained to Me Successor Aemcy upon In. distended on Fethmary 1, WI2, and! WHEREAS, Me Sine Conboller oNead any hamsters of papwte. undertaken after January 1. 2011 to be-ureasond- and the properties reMmed he Me Successor Agency: and WHEREAS, n is Me Chys Feeder, whd the Successor Agenc/e pceh'vr that al of the propenbs dessime l .hove them Me harks of the City, not Me So.., Agency thecause of Me March 16. 2011 transfer, ark WHEREAS. AS 1464 su lwhWe has land disposHed process described in Me Dissentient As, aM proo-AEe; certain hexiMRy and local Portable In wamAbPn with presents deposition. ntludine Section 34181(a). etch albs Me Ovadi Roard as govemmermil Mammas pmwrly to the appe,hate ohlie Andy, ail 24 c 0 _ m lE Y 0 0 W CAA Q) `71j .C: L U i R 9 wad _ _EPePaePaPe jo=w I ���EP PIE EPPPPP PIP 69 11 °e°aeao�000� a q5 Ntl6 ��=eee�:iSS $8 $� a °YBae&$�b a :a aae d -p—ggg33pyyCCC � q �N YryAC�� ___-1— ,__74_-1ce.___;__________ en N Oversight Board and State Information -Long Range Management Plan - LONG -RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN Successor Agency to the Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency December 12. 2012 6 ftft I SCHOONER PAKEL(RROMRW 5) 1 AO : Satlssll&EN F 6N Cale 0Am 506 7.. SMMSCM, eM.SOB0550 Lalsln: 2W..470 W..0. At1..enl l Yw[Ya: )-Y AcIdeitlm UaN: A1Q/ IQ 1Y&,e¢vLLhgb GYy remM1 V 011 .a%ee._ 11.27Q0.tl.aaartVgb Giyn Pr^w^Y TY f"Ge neal pte"�_ Pbmlauert W. ICILY A.e(bee0) saedr,gvrfy ,,"Z—N w-L uewt QMX[1 Z. E.Em.NJCun.rrtnau.: st'ictm O,e .b N.nNR .eN+ntlt fa�wW anlnul .m f1ia4®: 6 fa�nwA.l.tl W1�ID11 ImA SimL® t SiL 1 e101wbnTanz �ryiw. fmRnu/latl �11/IIr1l I�AI] SI]YRa 5 rimo..ew [m.�uAW ytVm.o arRe 51.foobo 5 19aM1.npmir eBiu wn �i� frww.a/uM s ]SS.N s lA (Amw�OYl.tl MM, Mee wlvlb. s sLvmoo xn r ...,waes%�,n �mhe wavaon M. s sv..e1 s as xde...xmaNOvpw a GUO m ee u.n�p... wewwryuNa nwain.nu pngre leeetvmmnr.ele pogrlNc AW.ncannfof %.mJnp OOjstltw: SM b/Wa b.el[plvN iT5 yopary was t ©uilm for the Punpoee a WON b a MYopt, qE wEGn Uq Anpsy had Here bH" a ty6 eRak HCW. M Cft A htel drgee ho, ab ma Nstl rbQ Natth creMueiiY .the ekwiwe b nn cb. A IMtl inalT.s is.s iKW V) coupm m w,Wse Nis V WMY M1wn Me sikrnaro' Anpcy. .s. 26 State is Final Decision Maker on Value of RDA Sales • City Submits Long Range Management Plan to State for Review • State asked City for additional value information on 6 of the 12 properties (including an appraisal for the Plaza Theater) — no requests on Prairie Schooner, or Dolce Hotel site • Oversight Board approved revised Property Management Plan based on additional information requested by the State State Approves Revised RDA Property Values for Sale in Long Term Property Management Plan . •DEP• v .•v .,,r FINN ANCE—............._......,........,,,.. ___. __. 0 6 Mr. Jdn wymme.ormrwdcanm�n�Ns emiwrc oewbprom C QNMP.Im SMMe �f�o Ia �LC�p��� N. sa`a.. cn w:ax �I A oee, r. R....wa: �W. L M.R.M. Pmp.ny M.nMvw. Pbn M1g fttWs Wen Wmwtb.FMurceappmro]LPPMP.MwbjdNo QML loafeppowive. Rsc eecaan s �0. dm..a..x o� imoFi enem a.M nM �q.iwya pM�enletlon N..(go�eJ LRPMP.M1wM W Ee.uNnI1M Flnenp fa epporel. Pbw EYM MquIM b PM�E CMpW M, wp�M.^,, or5uvu 1.M'wJMcn.laM rLWytl el (B1B)N6i316. IXNAfID RMnm B�Mpet Wnp.r rc an klbMq py. Independent Review Recommendations 3. Dolce Hotel — Convention Center — Agreements with City to replace Convention Center Parking were not provided to Oversight Board • City Review/Improvement — This transaction has not vet occurred — and will be resubmitted to Oversight Board • Land appraised for $4,675,000 in 2006 (before the real estate economic crash) • Land appraised for $2,773,000 in 2011 • Land appraised for $3,400,000 in 2014 • Revised Long Range Management Plan value approved by State $2,211,896 Final proposed sale price of 52,211.896 (proceeds to be remitted to the State) and a $2.675.000 agreement with the City to replace Con ntion Center parking with a new parking structure - total price $4,886,896 [7 I I Why Sell Convention Center Lot? Dolce Hotel Development i RDA Short -Term Incentive Value Maximized Public Tax Value $2,000,000 RDA Dissolution Act — Sell/Maximize Value Existing City Agreements and Entitlements — 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 ➢ New Parking Structure ➢ Current Annual Revenue $0 Annual Revenue After Project $1,450,000 ➢ Long -Term Gains - 20 Year Revenue Projection $291000,000 (Tax Revenue for City/School District/College of the Desert/County/etc.) 30 Why Sell Prairie Schooner Lot? RDA Short -Term Incentive Value $1,000,000 RDA Dissolution Act — Sell/Maximize Value Request for Proposal Process 2005 Existing Development Agreements 2008 & 2011 Maximized Public Tax Revenue ➢ Current Annual Revenue $0 ➢ Annual Revenue After Project $820,000 ➢ Long -Term Gains - 20 Year Revenue Projection $16,400,000 (Tax Revenue for City/School District/College of the Desert/County/etc.) State is RDA Property Sale Decision Maker 2nd Approval Prairie Schooner �—.FINANCE ......_.. ._.e............,r..�._.._. WY 16. "1. N. xm wrnma. NrbdcmMMrev MM emmmb a'.bPmMn ardn.e s9rba 62b FxxTMYYufirpmw•r P•In &M1OF. G YLMt p�N WPvx 9rt�[ Rva+db..+a+eNn ram. fWWT Iof ft YO. MI4 YIM^cY)m0)-Oe--WI9M14 pr FWAx' fF4MMG1alY WY6. Xrrl Qeral9M &aN OB raxi�MFlm WY6, A1. PUMMM b rl••M1e •� mn Yltl b r•aw aw m o.,,e....�e.pa�•,p. a v. M+. oe ro.weo-� w. m. woarva. YMa d RaSc'mr Pe,.ry L«. Aol.a. i2D`bN). 5MO15.O]II vtl SOIKdO% W CN Pre 1[y"i' M ono �'. a SI �Q.0.ttpnwM•b 6e a{perel Lv¢Wrp ` PrpJxryVxro�emma 9jen��LNPy�M�PI, n ep«a.W Wyrl.101d. lTe 1• nrpxy LPPMP,n mnFN«I MM Ne appmetl pim x lm6�Ysu•6 6noeF/, aovAvo n...MM Mm9rvn M.p.r Wpm« rc N.Ga4•ypMi.PrecpxgF.bea.pb.PFYn 6php W.E EIW. GYMrmuM ggMrIYTY grYW.PowYL (bury W. JLM OmYW, Nor Oix.lml00'MWMX Mtlr BMr4 CYhTM 6Mb CMMNY•Cxu C fFirii. BlrbffMbM'F 0.4 J Dolce — Convention Center Mry l6. A1. M• o.. of Cm..um•m E«.r«rr[ 0.wlrymxn r �L'OEW fA T•GGn)m Wry Poen 9(.4ge. G 9}l62 Ulv N. PMmtl. s<i•d w««x dOwryM•BaNIAm Tn• aqd P.•n PoWP ®r®/�GnwlWmw)mmee r. rww uro•m.nd FxM+.IF•rel.lbxry E. ]O1. GwNpM BexA 1091 rNd+Cm m WY0.101.. Rnuuvb tY•p Iw wnMbW beeNxx eYtlmwm..'ere.m•oumdwb.. ae Rrp•bnW Qs x«Yv9n MNd n. t«Nn•m rrw M«M PMNp La rw.w sosavolz 6auuan, w'AI06{OY. b M Uy a 0.Y SPYp b M mnxl d Q.tl t A16 pour• b tlM.pporE IapllMp Flryxb WryMrr• I�1 ••Y•M P«Mvlb • µpawE gfbMom Ny u.QY. TN aIrM••ma•Mprmrr. btNr RpglyrblMMghlMi.M mMMIM6M tlw Wxvl Vrx_ PWN 6••b9TMl••b BN[CM1•PW.9µwK«. w As.n MbeJxlem. ta1MxY•I xlYqusl6n. `e•/vJM. / �sr•�Moarno M•IM PxOMndWM WrMiM m. •r a.m.r x+t o•.n«arWm aMaPYn s«Yb• W. Pxn EL. cMxAcmpm•M PrppMyTY omaa. wY«w. cmy I.M. EmM6Omarx. Buwu CMM.I[ol GpwmYYMM Guru. 41Nvn4 9•b fOeY¢I.ryOC4 fiNprYSYb FONu•ry CM 32 Greater City Transparency: Exceeding State Requirements • Public Hearing for all City Council property sale transactions • Although State does not require land appraisals — City will now acquire appraisals for State RDA parcels • Oversight Board to reconsider Convention Center Lot (Dolce Hotel) sale Palm Springs Economic Redevelopment Progress Base Year Last Year Palm Springs Coachella Valley Riverside County Inland Empire Southern California State of California 2008-2015 Prop Tax Measure J Sales Tax 2008-2009 vs. 2012-2013 vs. 2007-2008 vs. 2014.2015 $1 %633,722 $21,294,978 +8.5% 2014-2015 $1190465045 $12,8545984 +16.4% 2013-2014 $951385355 $10,996,552 +20.3% +1.7% +7.2% +5.8% +4.9% +6.3% Hotel Tax 2008-2009 vs. 2014-2015 $12,7515478 $24,4875248 +92.0%