DOCSLIB.ORG

2017A Fixed-Rate Revenue Bonds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017A Fixed-Rate Revenue Bonds NEW ISSUES – BOOK-ENTRY ONLY Ratings: S&P: “AAA” Fitch: “AAA” See “Ratings” herein. In the opinion of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, California (“Bond Counsel”), under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, and assuming the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants and requirements described herein, the interest (and original issue discount) on the Series of 2017A Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, the interest (and original issue discount) on the Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income tax. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. $41,170,000 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY $38,725,000 $2,445,000 Tax-Exempt Fixed Rate Taxable Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017A Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017B Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As shown on the inside cover The Rancho California Water District Financing Authority (the “Authority”) is issuing its $38,725,000 Tax-Exempt Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017A (the “Series of 2017A Bonds”) and $2,445,000 Taxable Fixed Rate Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017B (the “Series of 2017B Bonds” and, together with the Series of 2017A Bonds, the “Bonds,” and individually, a “Series”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 2017 (the “Indenture”), by and between the Authority and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”). A portion of the proceeds of the Series of 2017A Bonds will be used to provide funds to Rancho California Water District (the “District”) to construct and acquire various capital improvements to its water delivery facilities. A portion of the proceeds of the Series of 2017A Bonds and a portion of the proceeds of the Series of 2017B Bonds, together with amounts held in the reserve fund with respect to the Authority’s Adjustable Rate Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series of 2008B (the “2008B Bonds”) and certain amounts transferred from the District, will be used to refund and redeem the outstanding principal amount of the 2008B Bonds on December 1, 2017. Proceeds of the Bonds will also be used to pay certain costs with respect to the termination of certain swap agreements to which the District is a party and the costs of issuance incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, as more fully described herein. See “PLAN OF FINANCING” herein. The Bonds are special, limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from the Trust Estate (herein defined) and are secured by the Trust Estate, including amounts held in the funds and accounts (other than the Construction Fund, the Cost of Issuance Fund and the Rebate Fund) established pursuant to the Indenture, subject only to the provisions of the Indenture permitting the application thereof for the purposes and on the terms and conditions set forth in the Indenture. The Trust Estate consists primarily of Installment Payments made by the District to the Authority from Net Revenues (herein defined) pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement (herein defined). See “SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS” herein. The District’s obligation to pay Installment Payments under the Installment Purchase Agreement with respect to the Bonds is on parity with the District’s obligation to make payments from Net Revenues under other outstanding Parity Obligations (as defined herein). In addition, the District may incur additional obligations payable from and secured by Net Revenues upon satisfying the requirements provided in the Master Agreement (herein defined). See “SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS” herein. The Bonds will be issued in denominations of $5,000 and any integral multiple thereof. The Bonds will be delivered in fully registered form only, and, when executed and delivered, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”). Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in the Bonds purchased. Payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds will be payable by the Trustee to DTC which is obligated in turn to remit such principal, premium, if any, and interest to the DTC Participants for subsequent disbursement to the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds, as more fully described herein. See “THE BONDS—General Provisions” herein and Appendix E—“BOOK-ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM” attached hereto. The Bonds will bear interest at the rates per annum set forth on the following page until their maturity. Interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing on February 1, 2018. See “THE BONDS” herein. The Bonds are subject to redemption, as described herein. See “THE BONDS—Redemption” herein. THE BONDS ARE SPECIAL, LIMITED OBLIGATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY, PAYABLE FROM, AND SECURED AS TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST THEREON, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TERMS AND THE TERMS OF THE INDENTURE SOLELY BY, THE TRUST ESTATE. THE BONDS SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A CHARGE AGAINST THE GENERAL CREDIT OF THE AUTHORITY OR ITS MEMBERS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE AUTHORITY BE OBLIGATED TO PAY PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS, EXCEPT FROM THE TRUST ESTATE. NEITHER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOR ANY PUBLIC AGENCY (OTHER THAN THE AUTHORITY) NOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUTHORITY IS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS. NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ANY PUBLIC AGENCY THEREOF OR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUTHORITY IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, OR INTEREST ON, THE BONDS. THE BONDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A DEBT OF THE AUTHORITY, THE DISTRICT, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF IN CONTRAVENTION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY DEBT LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION. THE AUTHORITY HAS NO TAXING POWER. THE OBLIGATION OF THE DISTRICT TO PAY THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS UNDER THE INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE DISTRICT, PAYABLE SOLELY FROM NET REVENUES, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DEBT OF THE DISTRICT OR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, IN CONTRAVENTION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY DEBT LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION. NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE DISTRICT OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO THE INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT. This cover page contains certain information for general reference only. It is not a summary of this issue. Investors are advised to read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision. The Bonds are offered when, as and if issued by the Authority, and accepted by the Underwriter, subject to the approval of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, California, Bond Counsel, and certain other conditions. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the Authority and the District by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, California, Disclosure Counsel, for the Underwriter by its counsel, Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP, Los Angeles, California, and for the Authority and the District by Best, Best & Krieger LLP, San Diego, California. It is anticipated that the Bonds in book-entry form will be available for delivery through the facilities of DTC in New York, New York, on or about December 1, 2017. BofA Merrill Lynch Dated: November 16, 2017 MATURITY SCHEDULES RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY Tax-Exempt Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds Series of 2017A Base CUSIP†: 752111 Maturity Date Principal Interest CUSIP† (February 1) Amount Rate Price Yield Suffix 2018 $440,000 5.00% 100.661% 1.010% MG6 Maturity Date Principal Interest CUSIP† (August 1) Amount Rate Price Yield Suffix 2018 $ 85,000 5.00% 102.595% 1.080% MH4 2019 85,000 5.00 106.250 1.200 MJ0 2020 90,000 5.00 109.720 1.280 MK7 2021 95,000 5.00 112.974 1.360 ML5 2022 100,000 5.00 115.862 1.470 MM3 2023 1,825,000 5.00 118.764 1.530 MN1 2024 2,370,000 5.00 121.416 1.600 MP6 2025 2,530,000 5.00 123.705 1.690 MQ4 2026 2,725,000 5.00 125.661 1.790 MR2 2027 3,035,000 5.00 127.356 1.890 MS0 2028 3,175,000 5.00 126.247C 2.000 MT8 2029 3,320,000 5.00 125.050C 2.120 MU5 2030 9,015,000 5.00 124.161C 2.210 MV3 2031 9,325,000 5.00 123.572C 2.270 MW1 2032 165,000 3.00 100.583C 2.930 MX9 2033 170,000 3.00 100.000 3.000 MY7 2034 175,000 3.00 99.218 3.060 MZ4 Taxable Fixed Rate Refunding Revenue Bonds Series of 2017B Base CUSIP†: 752111 Maturity Date Principal Interest CUSIP† (August 1) Amount Rate Price Yield Suffix 2022 $1,930,000 2.313% 100.000% 2.313% NA8 2023 515,000 2.440 100.000 2.440 NB6 C Priced to the optional redemption date of August 1, 2027, at par. † CUSIP® is a registered trademark of the American Bankers Association. CUSIP Global Services (CGS) is managed on behalf of American Bankers Association by S&P Capital IQ. Copyright© 2017 CUSIP Global Services. All rights reserved. This data is not intended to create a database and does not serve in any way a substitute for the CUSIP Service Bureau.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1917 Gossip Column & News Articles
    TEMECULA VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1917 Gossip Column & News Articles January 5, 1917 After spending a few days in Los Angeles, Paul Clark of the Pauba Ranch returned home the first of the week. Eila Kolb, who is attending the Riverside business college, spent the holidays at home. After spending a very pleasant visit with his parents Frank Ramos returned to Riverside last Saturday to continue his studies. Dr. L. L. Roripaugh of Auld was in town the other day treating his friends to cigars. The doctor being newly wed his many friends wish him and his bride a very happy future. Curtis Stevenson and wife of Pechanga were first of the week visitors at the Ventura Arviso home. Francis McCarrell drove over here after freight for the Aguanga store. E. C. Tripp of Aguanga was in town the last of the week hauling lumber. Mrs. John B. Kelly returned home Saturday from Los Angeles where she had a pleasant two weeks' visit with her sister, Mrs. John N. Carr. Charles Swain and Juan Munoa have moved to the Harvey place, where they will plant barley this winter. The dance given at the Bank hall Saturday night was attended by several from the surrounding country. D. S. Woosley of Escondido was in town the first of the week doing some missionary work. A large number of the young people from town attended the dance at the Murrieta Hot Springs. George Studley has succeeded J. S. Felix as foreman of the cowboys at the Pauba Ranch. Mr. Studley has been a steady hand at the ranch for four years.
    [Show full text]
  • FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT (F70) 37600 Sky Canyon Dr
    FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT (F70) 37600 Sky Canyon Dr. Murrieta, CA Phone: 951-600-7297 Riverside FAA FSDO Complaint Line: (951) 276-6701 Visit the F70 website for additional information regarding the airport and procedures at www.rcfva.org Federal Aviation Administration FAA Headquarters 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 www.faa.gov/contact Feedback is always appreciated at [email protected] INTRODUCTION In response to community interest, this booklet was developed to provide an overview of Airport operations and the complaint process. It will explain how and what aircraft operate in vicinity of F70, their interaction with our neighbors, and how complaints are handled. (F70 is the identifier selected by Federal Aviation Administration for the French Valley Airport. All airports have a three- character identifier; local examples are ONT for Ontario International Airport and LAX for Los Angeles Airport.) AIRPORT HISTORY In the late 1970s, discussion and planning began on relocating the existing Rancho California Airport due, in part, to safety deficiencies. In addition, the airport was leased to the County with the owner not wanting to renew the lease. An evaluation leading to the identification and selection of potential new sites was undertaken in June 1983. In June 1985 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution designating the French Valley site as the replacement site for the existing Rancho California Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration approved the French Valley Airport Layout plan in 1985 and funded four grants for land acquisition. Initial construction of French Valley Airport began in October 1987 and was completed in April 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Cfd 05-8 2018
    NEW ISSUE NOT RATED In the opinion of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, California (“Bond Counsel”), under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, and assuming the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants and requirements described herein, interest (and original issue discount) on the 2018 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest (and original issue discount) on the 2018 Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income tax. See the caption “LEGAL MATTERS — Tax Matters” with respect to tax consequences concerning the 2018 Bonds. $5,120,000 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 05-8 (SCOTT ROAD) OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL TAX BONDS, SERIES 2018 Dated: Date of Delivery Due: September 1, as shown on the inside cover page The Community Facilities District No. 05-8 (Scott Road) of the County of Riverside Special Tax Bonds, Series 2018 (the “2018 Bonds”) are being issued and delivered by Community Facilities District No. 05-8 (Scott Road) of the County of Riverside (the “District”) to (i) provide additional financing for certain public infrastructure improvements along a section of Scott Road, (ii) increase the balance in the reserve fund to equal the Reserve Requirement as of the date of issuance of the 2018 Bonds and (iii) pay the costs of issuance with respect to the 2018 Bonds. See “SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS” herein.
    [Show full text]
  • FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT Murrieta, California Draft Final
    DRAFT FINAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN for FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT Riverside County, California Draft Final Technical Report Prepared by Coffman Associates, Inc. April 2009 “The preparation of this document may have been supported, in part, through the Airport Improvement Program financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration as provided under Title 49, United States Code, Section 47104. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with appropriate public laws.” FRENCH VALLEY TABLE OF CONTENTS A•I•R•P•O•R•T FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT Murrieta, California Draft Final Airport Master Plan INTRODUCTION MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... ii MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS ................................................. ii COORDINATION .............................................................................................. iv Chapter One INVENTORY REGIONAL SETTING..................................................................................... 1-1 Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 1-2 Climate .................................................................................................. 1-2 Utilities .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs
    Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2Seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs Angela Fan Claire Gardent Chloe´ Braud Antoine Bordes FAIR / LORIA CNRS / LORIA CNRS / LORIA FAIR angelafan,[email protected] claire.gardent,[email protected] Abstract Query-based open-domain NLP tasks require information synthesis from long and diverse web results. Current approaches extrac- tively select portions of web text as input to Sequence-to-Sequence models using meth- ods such as TF-IDF ranking. We propose constructing a local graph structured knowl- edge base for each query, which compresses the web search information and reduces re- dundancy. We show that by linearizing the graph into a structured input sequence, models can encode the graph representations within a standard Sequence-to-Sequence setting. For two generative tasks with very long text in- put, long-form question answering and multi- document summarization, feeding graph rep- resentations as input can achieve better perfor- mance than using retrieved text portions. 1 Introduction Effective information synthesis is at the core of many Natural Language Processing applica- Figure 1: Multi-Document Input to Linearized Graph tions, such as open-domain question answering Multi-document input resulting from web search queries are converted to a graph structured knowledge base using coref- and multi-document summarization. In such tasks, erence resolution and information extraction, then linearized a fundamental challenge is the ability to distill rel- into a sequence for Seq2Seq models. Color indicates coref- evant knowledge from hundreds of thousands of erence resolution. Node weight is indicated by circle radius and edge weight by line thickness.
    [Show full text]
  • Fy2021-2023 Srtp
    SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FY21-FY23 Short Range Transit Plan • FY21 – FY23 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: SYSTEM OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 POPULATION PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS .......................................................................... 8 Population Profile – Rider Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 8 Population Profile ................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 FIXED-ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES ............................................................................................... 10 Fixed-route Services ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Paratransit Services ............................................................................................................................................ 10 1.4 EXISTING FIXED-ROUTE AND DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life
    Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life JUNE 2003 PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Primary (29) Metropolitan (20) Regional (66) Community (102) Limited Use (33) Joint Use — Military/Commercial (2) The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared with funds from a grant provided by the United States Government (80%) and funds from the State of California (20%). Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life FINAL REPORT Prepared for BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS Submitted by Economics Research Associates JUNE 2003 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Benjamin Alan R. Tubbs Study Project Manager District Field Services Manager California Department of Transportation Airborne Express, Mather Field Division of Aeronautics Chuck Oldham R. Austin Wiswell Robert Chung Chief California Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Carl Williams Senior Policy Director Michael Armstrong California Space Authority, Inc. (CSA) Senior Lead Planner Southern California Association of Governments Bonnie Cornwall (SCAG) Program Manager Division
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study from the Temecula Area, Southwestern Riverside County, California
    Land Subsidence (Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Land Subsidence, May 1991). IAHS Publ. no. 200,1991. Earth Fissures, Urbanization and Litigation: A Case Study from the Temecula Area, Southwestern Riverside County, California E. J. CORWIN, S. C. ALHADEFF, S. P. OGGEL Lorenz Alhadeff Lundin & Oggel, 101 West Broadway, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, USA R. J. SHLEMON P.O. Box 3066, Newport Beach, CA 92659 , USA ABSTRACT Ground fissures occurring in 1987 extended discontinuously along a 12-km long zone in the rapidly-urbanizing Temecula-Wolf Valley area of southwestern Riverside County, California. Impacted were new residential and industrial buildings. Litigation has ensued, and damage is now alleged to exceed about 50 million dollars. Defendants include County government, a local Water District, developers, and consulting engineers and geologists. INTRODUCTION In the mid-1980s, urbanization dramatically increased in the Temecula area of southwestern Riverside County, California. From a population of 8,324 in 1980, the previously serene town, about 41 km north of San Diego and 53 km southeast of Los Angeles, jumped to a population of over 29,000 in 1988 (Fig. 1). Developers seized on the increasing popularity of southern California as a desirable place to live, and vast new residential and light industrial complexes ("Business Parks") were built. The rapid urbanization produced the usual plethora of environmental constraints for both the developers and residents of Temecula. The most unexpected problem was the mid-1987 occurrence of earth fissures, the resulting allegations of property damage and general loss of value, and the perhaps inevitable litigation that has since followed.
    [Show full text]
  • Application Record
    Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF PAYLESS SHOESOURCE CANADA INC. AND PAYLESS SHOESOURCE CANADA GP INC. (the “Applicants”) APPLICATION RECORD February 19, 2019 Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP 2100 Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, ON M5H 3C2 Ryan Jacobs LSO#: 59510J Tel: 416. 860.6465 Fax: 416. 640.3189 [email protected] Jane Dietrich LSO#: 49302U Tel : 416. 860.5223 Fax : 416. 640.3144 [email protected] Natalie E. Levine LSO#: 64980K Tel : 416. 860.6568 Fax : 416. 640.3207 [email protected] Lawyers for Payless ShoeSource Canada Inc., Payless ShoeSource Canada GP Inc. and Payless ShoeSource Canada LP TO: SERVICE LIST ATTACHED LEGAL*47453748.1 SERVICE LIST TO: Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West, Suite 2100 Toronto, ON M5H 3C2 Ryan Jacobs Tel: 416.860.6465 Fax: 416.640.3189 [email protected] Jane Dietrich Tel: 416.860.5223 Fax: 416.640.3144 [email protected] Natalie E. Levine Tel: 416.860.6568 Fax: 416.640.3207 [email protected] Monique Sassi Tel: 416.860.6572 Fax: 416.642.7150 [email protected] Lawyers for Payless ShoeSource Canada Inc., Payless ShoeSource Canada GP Inc. and Payless ShoeSource Canada LP, (collectively, the “Payless Canada Entities”) LEGAL*47453748.1 AND TO: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036-6745 Ira Dizengoff Tel: 212.872.1096 Fax: 212.872.1002 [email protected] Meredith Lahaie Tel: 212.872.8032 Fax: 212.872.1002 [email protected] Kevin Zuzolo Tel: 212.872.7471 Fax: 212.872.1002 [email protected] Julie Thompson Tel: 202.887.4516 Fax: 202.887.4288 [email protected] Lawyers for Payless Holdings LLC and its debtor affiliates AND TO: FTI Consulting Canada Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225
    Prepared for: Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Prepared by: 1650 Spruce Street Suite 240 Riverside, California 92507 Contact: Wayne Fowler DRAFT – MARCH 2009 City of Temecula Municipal Services Review TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1 1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Statutory Requirements ...........................................................................................1 1.3 Service Review Process & Methodology………………………………………....2 1.4 Determinations from Prior MSR…………………………………………….…….3 2.0 CITY OF TEMECULA.....................................................................................................4 2.1 Overview................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Planning Boundaries and Growth ........................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Sphere of Influence……………………………………..…………………6 2.2.2 Planning Boundaries................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Growth Projections..................................................................................... 8 2.3 Administration and Operations............................................................................. 12 2.3.1 City Governance......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Activities of the Water Resources Division, California District, Fiscal Year 1993 U
    ACTIVITIES OF THE WATER RESOURCES DIVISION CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 1993 Compiled by Myrna L. DeBortoli U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 94-67 Sacramento, California 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Robert M. Hirsch, Acting Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For sale by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center Open-File Reports Section Box 25286, MS 517 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building, Room W-2233 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 MESSAGE FROM THE DISTRICT CHIEF The U.S. Geological Survey has been describing the water resources of California for more than 100 years. The California District consists of 250 staff members at nine locations, all of whom have contributed in some way to the studies described in this report. To accomplish the mission of describing the water resources of the State, the Survey staff works with more than 130 cooperating local, State, and Federal agencies with common interests in this most valuable resource. Climate extremes, such as the recent drought which is still fresh in people's minds, serve to focus our attention on the need for timely, high-quality water information. The flooding that occurred in southern California during the winter of 1992-93 is a reminder that climate extremes can change quickly. The studies described in this report cover a wide range of water issues in California that are important to water managers and scientists.
    [Show full text]
  • 9.3 PISGAH 1 2 3 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 4 5 6 9.3
    1 9.3 PISGAH 2 3 4 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 9.3.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed Pisgah SEZ has a total area of 23,950 acres (97 km2) and is located in 10 San Bernardino County in southeastern California, about 100 mi (160 km) northeast of Los 11 Angeles (Figure 9.3.1.1-1). In 2008, the county population was 2,086,465. The nearest 12 population center to the SEZ is the City of Barstow, which is located about 25 mi (40 km) to 13 the west of the SEZ and had a 2008 population of 24,596. Interstate 40 (I-40) runs east–west 14 through the proposed Pisgah SEZ, bisecting it into a northern portion that contains about two- 15 thirds of the SEZ acreage and a southern portion with the remainder of the acreage. Access to the 16 SEZ from I-40 is available from exits at Fort Cady Road (to the west of the SEZ), Hector Road 17 (midway through the SEZ), and Pisgah Crater Road (at the eastern end of the SEZ). Hector Road 18 runs north–south through the middle of the SEZ, and a number of other local dirt roads cross the 19 SEZ. The National Trails Highway (historic U.S. 66) also passes through the SEZ as it runs 20 south of and parallel to I-40. The BNSF Railroad serves the area and traverses the SEZ from the 21 northwest to the southeast, running approximately parallel to and about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north of 22 I-40.
    [Show full text]