The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSupplemental Packet 06-08-2023 CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: June 8, 2023 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk Subject: City Council Meeting of June 8, 2023 Below you will find questions received from the Mayor or Councilmembers and answers provided by City staff regarding tonight’s City Council meeting: ITEM 1C: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 PROJECT LIST TO BE FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT Q1: How soon will the resurfacing project begin? A1: Award of the resurfacing project is scheduled for the meeting of July 13, 2023, and work is scheduled to commence in August 2023. The project is concentrated on resurfacing Fred Waring Drive. Q2: How soon can the project site schedule be announced? A2: The project site will be announced once the project is awarded by City Council. ITEM 1D: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF 160,000 POUNDS OF GRASS SEED FROM THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 (PROJECT NO. MLS00021) Q1: How is “lowest responsible bidder” determined? Are these different criteria than deciding from bids submitted for other projects? A1: This bid review criteria are used widely for all City projects. The lowest responsible bidder is determined based on the quoted prices submitted by the vendor for the seed varieties requested by City. If the low bidder submits a bid with a variety that is not on the approved list, or is not of the purity and low weed seed content required, the bid will be rejected and the next low bid will be reviewed. ITEM 1E: RATIFY CONTRACTS FOR MARKETING SERVICES WITH FG CREATIVE IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $62,500 Q1: Monthly visits have the goal of determining “mood and attitudes.” How was it measured, and is the data available? A1: The consultant provides a monthly Merchant Relations Report to staff listing In-Stores Visits, Business Overview, City Resources, and more. This report includes a section for general comments and observations made by merchants but does not specifically measure merchants “mood and attitudes”. This monthly report is included in the Administrative Update to the City Council, with the most recent report available for view the week ending May 26. Staff can provide a copy of the report upon request. 06/08/2023 Question & Answer Memo Page 2 of 3 ITEM 1F: APPROVE USA TODAY’S WINE & FOOD EXPERIENCE AT CIVIC CENTER PARK Q1: Did the City apply to USA Today as a site for the Wine & Food Experience, or were we selected? A1: USA Today contacted the City with a request to hold the event in the Civic Center Park. ITEM 1I: APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT JOINT RECIPIENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR FISCAL YEARS 2024-25, 2025-26, AND 2026-27 Q1: Does participation as Metro or Cooperating City mean that we could not reconsider and be eligible for ESG/HOME until 2027-28? A1: The County’s designation as an Urban County is for FYE 2024, 2025, and 2026. During that time, electing to participate as a Cooperating City with Joint Metro status means we will not be included in the County’s HOME and ESG programs during those years. To continue to participate in County’s CDBG Urban Program the City would have to elect to participate every 3 years in the Urban County program. Q2: Is there a down-side to maintaining eligibility for HOME, ESG, or the Micro-Enterprise Loan Program? A2: There is no downside to maintaining eligibility to the other programs by selecting to be a Cooperating City, but it does come at a cost. Based on the County’s requirements, the comparison provided in the staff report estimates the CDBG funds available for community projects between the two options (Metro City - $316k, Cooperating City - $241k). The Cooperating City participants retain eligibility for the other programs, if qualified. ITEM 2B: REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING REDISTRICTING OPTIONS Q1: Are there alternatives to the California Department of Finance population estimates? DOF may not capture part-time residents if they are not generating a record with vital statistics, obtain a CA driver’s license or register to vote. A1: The two primary sources for population estimates are the U.S. Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance, and neither source includes part-time residents in the population counts. Furthermore, staff recommends against using any City-generated measurements or less reliable sources as they may be subject to accusations of data manipulation. Q2: Of the multi-family projects listed, have all of them secured funding? Do any of them only have funding that is contingent upon funding from the state or federal government contributions that could be delayed? A2: The multi-family projects which are under construction have secured funding. The multi-family projects which are approved are in varying stages, with some seeking public funding for the development of affordable units: • Site A (Urban Crossing) is approved and under review for building permits and has received public funding for the development of affordable units. • Site C (Palm Villas) is approved, however, is negotiating the land transaction with the City, and must still seek funding from state sources to develop the affordable units. The remaining approved multi-family project sites, including sites J, M, and R as shown on the map are privately funded and do not require state funding for affordable units, at this time. 06/08/2023 Question & Answer Memo Page 3 of 3 Q3: If further conversations are needed that impact the potential milestone schedule beyond July 2023, does it impact the nomination period? Is that set by the city, county registrar or state? A3: City staff indicated that it would be ideal to receive direction regarding redistricting by July 2023, as it would provide time during the summer recess to develop a community outreach plan for City Council consideration in August. It would also set up the City Council to potentially adopt a new map in January 2024. If adopted, this would provide potential candidates with certainty about where the district lines are drawn as many candidates open their campaign committees at the start of the new year. However, state law requires newly adopted maps to be transmitted to the County Registrar of Voters a minimum of 205 days before the election. Therefore, the City Council must adopt a new district map by April 2024 for implementation at the November 2024 General Municipal Election. If the City Council needs a few more months to contemplate redistricting, this would not impact the official nomination period which opens in July 2024, provided the City adopts a final map prior to April 2024. Lastly, the official nomination period is set in the California Elections Code. Q4: If there are no permitted/certified options for software-based system in the state, can the city initiate conversations with other cities using RCV to identify software fro m other states and obtain clearance from the state? A4: For clarification, the City does utilize ranked choice voting software which is certified by the California Secretary of State. Staff previously indicated there is another version of ranked choice voting called “whole ballot transfer” which is only used in Cambridge, MA. This form of ranked choice voting does not have a software-based tabulation system which is available in California. Q5: If the City Council chooses to trigger redistricting based upon reaching a certain population in the future, how would including the Bravo Garden Apartments impact the projected population growth? A5: The Development Services Department provided a residential project map depicting projects which are under construction or approved, north of Country Club Drive. In summary, 1,683 new units are under construction and 2,517 units are approved, with an estimate of 2.12 persons per unit, for a projected population increase of 8,904, based on 100% occupancy. Adding the Bravo Garden Apartments would increase the total residential unit projection to 4,588 (388 more units) bringing the total projected population increase to 9,727, of which, 60% equates to a population increase of 5,836. The City Council could choose to include the Bravo Garden Apartments in the calculation and trigger the redistricting process when the City reaches an estimated population of 57,003 (or round down to 57,000). INVEST PD & DE MINIMIS PROVISIONS Study Session DeMinimis-1 INVEST PD •RE-ESTABLISHED IN 2022 •$660,000 AVAILABLE FOR 6 PROGRAMS 1.Rebate of Development and plan check fees 2.Grants for Capital Improvements 3.High -Wage Move -In Assistance 4.Site Specific Revenue Sharing 5.New Development Project Assistance 6.Ongoing and Other Incentives 2Study Session DeMinimis-2 CURRENT CONSTRAINTS -Prevailing Wage concerns -Timing concerns -Limited Funding Availability F I T N E S S P R E S E N TA TI O N 3Study Session DeMinimis-3 “DE MINIMIS” A public subsidy is “de minimis” if it is both less than $600,000 and less than 2% of total project costs (Labor Code § 1720(c)(3)(b)(i) Projects which do not exceed BOTH thresholds are considered “de minimis” and are not subject to prevailing wages F I T N E S S P R E S E N TA TI O N 4Study Session DeMinimis-4 INVEST PD 1.Site Specific Revenue Sharing -TOT Sharing/Reimbursement -Sale Tax Sharing/Reimbursements for automotive sales 2.Ongoing and Other Incentives -Should De Minimis be included here? Requirements -Submit application -Demonstrate Public Purpose (jobs, taxes) -Demonstrate Financing Gap -Demonstrate Return -Enter into agreement with City for reporting and use of funds 5 Benefit here is that no monies are committed upfront, and they are dispersed through a sharing agreementStudy Session DeMinimis-5 POTENTIAL USE •HOTELS: 3 -4 INTEREST BETWEEN MONTEREY AND COOK ST. •3+ star •96-130 rooms each) •DEVELOPERS (MONTEREY CROSSINGS – BOTH HOTEL AND AUTOMOTIVE SALES •TOT SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH HOTELS •INVEST PD WITH MONTEREY CROSSING 6Study Session DeMinimis-6 INVEST PD •APPLY THROUGH INVEST PD •CITY COUNCIL HEARING AND CONSIDERATION 7Study Session DeMinimis-7 C i t y C o u n c i l S t u d y S e s s i o n J u n e 8 , 2 0 2 3 Fred Waring Rehabilitation FW Pavement Rehab-1 Project Overview Why: The pavement on Fred Waring between Monterey and Highway 111 must be replaced, or it will soon develop potholes and other failures. What: The project will rehabilitate the street, repair storm drain lines, and bring curb ramps and sidewalks into compliance with ADA requirements. FW Pavement Rehab-2 Timeline Communication Plan created and set into motion. Early May Establish lines of communication with key stakeholders. Send out direct mail to affected parties. June Begin Construction – 2 ½ month project duration. August Late May Drafted Engage Palm Desert page for the Fred Waring rehabilitation project. July Schedule a community meeting to present the expected impacts to adjacent business owners.Present contract to the City Council for award. November Project completion. FW Pavement Rehab-3 Communication Channels •Press release/media engagement •BrightSide newsletter (print & digital) •EngagePalmDesert .com •www.PalmDesert.gov •Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, Next Door •Mailed postcards •In-person meetings •Weekly Administrative Update FW Pavement Rehab-4 Thank You FW Pavement Rehab-5 Homeless Coordination Update Jason Austin, MA, LMFT Social Services Coordinator Social Services Coordinator Presentation-1 Three Month Update •Homeless Providers and System Assessment •Develop City Website for Unhoused Resources and Information for the Community •Conduct Homeless Outreach and Care Team Engagements for Community Response 5/1/23 HTF Update 2Social Services Coordinator Presentation-2 Homeless Services Assessment Meetings and Tours •County Behavioral Health and Animal Services Departments •Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) •Telecare •Marthas Village and Kitchen •Coachella Valley Rescue Mission (CVRM) •Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) •El Paseo Business District •City Homeless Task Force •County Continuum of Care (CoC) •City Housing Department •City Departments •Find Food Bank •Sheriff and Code Department Ride Alongs •Joslyn Senior Center •Mama’s House 5/1/23 HTF Update 3Social Services Coordinator Presentation-3 City of Palm Desert Homeless Task Force Strategic Priorities and Work Plan Components include: 1) Identifying Mental Health, Substance Use and Medical Services 2) Promoting Affordable Housing Opportunities 3)Identify Housing Programs and Services Social Services Coordinator Presentation-4 City Homeless and Health Web Site Supportive Services and Resources Business and Resident Information Learning About Homelessness Public Safety 5/1/23 HTF Update 5Social Services Coordinator Presentation-5 City System of Care through Outreach Response CARE TEAMS City Hall Walk-Ins Homeless Support Calls and Email Response Street Response Increased response to those experiencing homelessness or at- risk of homelessness, business- owners and operators, and residents County HOPE, CVAG, CVRM, Sheriff and Code Depts with Social Services Coordinator Mental Health and/or Homeless Response Requests for help via phone, email and city app Support for those at street locations Social Services Coordinator Presentation-6 Service Data March –May 2023 Street Outreach Engagements 140 Requests for Service by Phone 26 Requests for Service by Email/City App 49 Number linked to shelter/housing 13 Social Services Coordinator Presentation-7 Questions?Jason Austin, MA, LMFT Social Services Coordinator Jaustin@palmdesert.gov 5/1/23 HTF Update 8Social Services Coordinator Presentation-8 Family YMCA of the Desert June 8, 2023: State of the Y: City of Palm Desert Council Presentation Presentation - YMCA-1 Presentation - YMCA-2 Presentation - YMCA-3 Family YMCA of the Desert History in Palm Desert 1990: Y Palm Desert facility opened on San Pablo Avenue, creating a central location to better serve families and children 1997: Jean Benson Child Development Center opens 1999: Carter Elementary Licensed Childcare program opens 2006: Reagan Elementary Licensed Childcare program opens 2011: Palm Desert Aquatic Center opens: Family YMCA of the Desert awarded Operations Contract Presentation - YMCA-4 Family YMCA of the Desert Programs Y Rookies - Flag Football – Basketball Street Hockey – Family Fun Nights- Parents Night Out Day Camps- Youth & Government- Senior Movement Creative Movement – Aquatics – Resident Camps Early Childhood and School Age Licensed Childcare Presentation - YMCA-5 Palm Desert Aquatic Center Currently 108 Team Members 5/26/23 DIVE IN MOVIE had 314 Attendees…best first DIVE IN MOVIE EVER! 3 -day Memorial Swim Weekend: 1,995 for Rec. Swim On track to have 70-80 Lifeguards hired for this summer! 6/5/23: Swim Classes total: 286 THANK YOU CITY OF PALM DESERT COUNCIL, STAFF AND RESIDENTS FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR OUR FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT FAMILIES AND STAFF! Presentation - YMCA-6 5.26.23 Dive In Movie Night Presentation - YMCA-7 Family YMCA of the Desert Fun Facts We have 227 team members at 10 various program locations in La Quinta, Indio and Palm Desert. We have wonderful collaborative partnerships with Old Town Artisan Studio, Friends of Desert Mountains, Hidden Harvest, Acrisure Arena | CV Firebirds Armed Services YMCA Twentynine Palms, Desert Sands Unified School District, College of the Desert and more! 33 - YMCA’s in California - 3 - Armed Services Y’s 2,700 YMCA’s; 10,000 branches serving 21 million men, women and children as largest nonprofit in America. Presentation - YMCA-8 Family YMCA of the Desert Presentation - YMCA-9 Testimonials Every day my children attended the YMCA, I knew they felt cared for, listened to, and appreciated. The kind staff always modeled what a good human should be like, and my children learned from them daily. I am grateful for the patient teachers and directors who take the time to guide, laugh, teach, and play with my kids. Thank you, thank you, thank you for all that the YMCA does to keep kids safe and cared for. Presentation - YMCA-10 Presentation - YMCA-11 We have 207 team members at 10 various program locations in La Quinta, Indio and Palm Desert. This past year, our programs have had over 12,000 unduplicated program participants. We have wonderful collaborative partnerships with Old Town Artisan Studio, Acrisure Arena | Firebirds, Friends of Desert Mountains, Hidden Harvest, Armed Services YMCA Twentynine Palms, Desert Sands Unified School District, College of the Desert and more! 33 - YMCA’s in California - 3 - Armed Services Y’s 2,700 YMCA’s; 10,000 branches serving 21 million men, women and children as largest nonprofit in America. THANK YOU CITY OF PALM DESERT COUNCIL, STAFF AND RESIDENTS FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR OUR FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT FAMILIES AND STAFF! Presentation - YMCA-12 2B Public Comment-1 2B Public Comment-2 2B Public Comment-3 2B Public Comment-4 2B Public Comment-5 2B Public Comment-6 2B Public Comment-7 2B Public Comment-8 2B Public Comment-9 2B Public Comment-10 2B Public Comment-11 Rate this item 1 2 3 4 5 (0 votes)font size From:Linda Joy Salas To:CouncilMeeting Comments Subject:Five Districts Date:Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:25:06 PM Board of Supervisors, which was politically difficult, and cost union in personnel costs, union law group time and union lobbyist time. The BOS had legal staff, assigned to the BOS, from the City Attorney's Office to draft a proposition. Later I was told the legal costs alone for BOS was $50k, plus another $30k-$50k in review by other departments lawyers. To get to this point the union also spent about $25k in voter survey/opinion polls, the BOS, really each party wanted a good chance of passing the proposition before spending money. Ongoing costs are based on an 18-month campaign, with three months of wind down for ongoinglegal/compliance/accounting costs. Is based on the assumption that a lawsuit is not filed before avote or after passage by the voters. Attorneys and other professionals will require a retainer, likelybeyond the estimated total cost of service, refunded at close of campaign. 1991 dollars Legal (Proposition) $ 50,000.00 Legal (CFPPC) $ 42,000.00 Accounting Compliance $ 21,000.00 Survey/Polling (3k x 2) $ 30,000.00 Outreach @ $5 Voter $ 115,000.00 Lobbyist/Attorney $ 50,000.00 Webpage/App $ 25,000.00 Media/Publicist $ 36,000.00 Internet Advertising $ 69,000.00 Phone/Internet $ 2,250.00 Office Supply - Shipping - Mailing $ 1,800.00 Banking $ 1,200.00 TOTAL LOW ESTIMATE $ 443,250.00 Outreach @ $15 $ 345,000.00 TOTAL HIGH ESTIMATE $ 788,250.00 Not a Done Deal: Despite Misleading Statements by the City, Palm Desert's New Two-District Voting System Is Still Up for Discussion Written by Kevin Fitzgerald 2B Public Comment-12 Palm Desert election-lawsuit plaintiff Karina Quintanilla: “It was our intent to make this first step and to open the door to this conversation. Now, it’s up to the rest of the city’s residents to come forward and say, ‘We don’t like this.’” The settlement that would resolve a lawsuit accusing the city Palm Desert of not complying with the 2001 California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) is not so settled after all. The first public forum—held by the city to explain the two-district settlement, proposed in December to plaintiffs Lorraine Salas and Karina Quintanilla—gave attendees the impression that breaking the city into two voting districts was a done deal. However, after a conversation with Palm Desert City Attorney Robert Hargreaves, I now understand that it’s not a done deal: If a resident believes that a total of three, or four, or five districts would provide a better solution to the lawsuit, then it is still possible for a resident to push for those changes. In other words … everything is still on the negotiating table—and that negotiating table seems to be standing on wobbly legs. “We were very displeased with the city’s offer to do one (new) district,” said Quintanilla, a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit driving the city’s attempts to transition to a district-based election system before the November election. “It almost seemed kind of patronizing (for the city) to say, ‘All right, fine, we know we’re not in compliance, and if we go to court, they’re going to make us do it anyway. So how about if we do just one district?’ That seemed very odd to us. … It seemed that the City Council was failing to understand that we’re a series of communities with different needs. We were not at all pleased with the settlement offer, but we felt it was best to let the public know what the city’s intentions were. It would be best to just save the tax-paying residents more (potential legal) fees by settling instead of continuing this in court. (Agreeing to settle) was done knowing that no matter what we did, it would still need to be presented in public meetings. So, we felt that this was just the very first step.” Enjoy this story? Consider supporting honest, ethical, local journalism by putting something in the Independent's tip jar! click on jar --> What are the next steps from here? For example, if a more-diverse City Council is the goal, should the city consider perhaps adding a district in the northwest area of Palm Desert? According to the demographic map distributed by the city, Latino residents make up some 25 to 65 percent of the total population in several neighborhoods in that area. After all, if the plaintiffs or other residents resist the current, two-district direction, then the whole matter could wind up back in court—and ultimately, in the worst-case scenario, the court could decide to draw the map itself. 2B Public Comment-13 Mayor Pro-Tem Kathleen Kelly said she feels that the two-district plan puts the city on a path to a short-term resolution without litigation, and a longer-term future marked by flexibility and accommodation. “As a resident, I would tend to favor an ‘at-large’ system, acknowledging that there could be some advantages to a ‘district’ system,” Kelly said, adding that she was speaking only for herself and not the entire council. “In response to the lawsuit, there was certainly a need to try to be accommodating, to hear the plaintiff’s concerns, and try to structure a system that would be responsive to that. What resulted was really a hybrid system, which will give us in Palm Desert the opportunity to experience, perhaps, the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. Once everyone has had some shared experience, and some basis for comparison, there’ll be further discussions that will be informed by that experience.” Why, then, did the city seemingly create confusion and misconceptions by leading residents to believe a two-district future was a done deal? For instance, an early January postcard from the city requested residents’ attendance at the first public open house on Jan. 15. It stated, in part: “Starting in November 2020, Palm Desert will move to a two-district City Council system. … The Open House on Jan. 15 offers an opportunity for you to tell us what’s important in the transition.” Sounds like a done deal, right? During her introductory remarks at that open house, Palm Desert City Manager Lauri Aylaian told the audience: “Our immediate fear was that we’d divide ourselves up into five districts, because we have five council members. We would have individual portions of Palm Desert fighting against one another to get the same money, to get the same resources, to be able to do the projects that they want to do in their areas. We thought we’ve been so well-served by working together, we don’t want to lose that.” Later in her remarks, Aylaian said: “We were able to reach the terms for a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs who had filed the suit. Now, we’re on to the next part, which is how do we make the settlement work, and the CVRA work, and represent the best interests of Palm Desert? So what we came up with was completely different from what other cities have done. We have proposed a two-district solution, rather than dividing the city up into five—which is what most of the other cities in California have done. … We’ve been working on it for a long time, and we were able to implement a two-district solution.” Again … sounds like a done deal, right? This was furthered by a slide in the onscreen presentation made by the city that read: “Today’s meeting— purpose—inform the community about the City’s New Election Process and learn from community members what’s important for them as we undergo this change.” There’s yet another element of the city’s plans that plaintiff Quintanilla is not so sure about: a desire to move to a “ranked choice” voting system: According to Ballotpedia, “A ranked-choice voting system is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second- preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. This system is sometimes referred to as an instant runoff voting system.” Quintanilla said now was the time for Palm Desert residents to speak out if they don’t like these proposed changes. “Like I said, when we received the settlement (agreement from the city), we were very displeased. Very displeased,” Quintanilla said, “But I finally came to the understanding with myself that this was a settlement. It’s not meant to be (a situation) where both parties are delighted with the process. It’s supposed to be a middle ground—not as far to the middle as we might have hoped, but again, it was our intent to make this first step and to open the door to this conversation. Now, it’s up to the rest of the city’s residents to come forward and say, ‘We don’t like this,’ and then they can speak up against that ranked-choice voting (proposal) and decide that’s not what they want.” The city’s second open house is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 12, at a venue yet to be determined. “It’s about taking action when it needs to be (taken), because there are greater goals to focus on,” Quintanilla said. “That’s what Lorraine and I were doing. Our city is right in the middle of Coachella Valley. We’ve got College of the Desert. We’ve got Cal State (San Bernardino). We’ve got UCR (the University of California at Riverside). We’ve got many opportunities here, and we need to be able to respond to the needs of the growing valley. So our decision was that, instead of having this tied up behind legal back and forth, and closed-door sessions and private conversations, it was time to let this (proposal) come to a community forum.” Tagged under palm desert city of palm desert palm desert city council palm desert elections lorraine salas karina quintanilla robert hargreaves kathleen kelly lauri aylaian california voting rights act district elections ranked choice voting The interview is on the web and I sent a link to everyone. I just watched it. Harnik is making the case that dividing into two districts was a terrible thing to happen to PD and totally unnecessary as everyone was equally represented in the first place, and that 5 districts would just divide us more and PD would no longer be a wonderful city. The next vote on the ballot measure is the 4th Thursday of February (the 24th, I think). We need to contact Jake and get equal time (7 minutes 50 seconds). I think Harnik made our most salient point for us when she repeatedly said residents in District 2 have 4 representatives on the council, or 4 votes, 2B Public Comment-14 while residents in District 1 only have one vote. This is unconstitutional. I think we need to make the point that U S government is based on representation, as demonstrated by the Senate and the House at the Federal level; the Senate and the Assembly at the state level; and the Board of Supervisors at the county level. Equal representation does not mean all members of a body cannot sit down and work together for the common good. Furthermore, the present two districts in Palm Desert, by allotting one voter to one district and four votes to another district on the City Council, appears to be unconstitutional. Putting this issue on the ballot is a needless expense. The City Council can do their legal and fiduciary duty to the citizens of Palm Desert by passing an ordinance establishing five districts now, as defined by maps drawn by a Citizens Redistricting Commission. Our spokesman should be ready for questions about why 5 districts (answered above, I think) and how would a Citizens Commission be chosen. I have ideas on that as well, but I'll save those for later. In the meantime, I think we need to act quickly to get someone with good presence and voice to go on air and make our case. I think we need to make the point that U S government is based on representation, as demonstrated by the Senate and the House at the Federal level; the Senate and the Assembly at the state level; and the Board of Supervisors at the county level. Equal representation does not mean all members of a body cannot sit down and work together for the common good. Furthermore, the present two districts in Palm Desert, by allotting one voter to one district and four votes to another district on the City Council, appears to be unconstitutional. From: kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org <kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:15 AM To: vangtanner@gmail.com Cc: Robert Hargreaves <Robert.Hargreaves@bbklaw.com>; grocha@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: Costs CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER. Hi Van, 2B Public Comment-15 Here's what I have to share in response to your questions: 1. The costs of the CVRA litigation to date, which include the consultants who helped with the public engagement sessions are right around $350,000. The claim of the plaintiffs' attorney for fees is pending in arbitration. 2. The initial implementation cost for ranked choice voting is expected to be $350,000. This is on top of $100,000 expected basic cost for the election. The software would require updating for later elections at an expected cost of $70,000. Bob and Grace will correct me if I got any of that wrong. Kathleen John Siegel Mon, May 29, 11:57 AM (9 days ago) to ralph, charlesara7, Carlos, Gary, Nancy, Roberta, Joan, Gregg, Charlie, Dori, me, Shirley, Vick Charlie you should do what we used to call "working the refs." Write a letter to Tom and the new editor complaining about that terrible sentence. Ralph, you're right. At that exact moment, Kathleen and I locked eyes as she heard me saying that the City has high legal risk. It was a moment when we both knew we saw things identically. She is in a tough situation because she was the only one of the four who understood what the lawyers were saying, and that Megan wrote that she is planning to sue. By now, Jan's husband, an bright atty, has brought her up to speed anout the City's bad legal position, so watch Jan for new subtext when she talks again. Evan and Gina are the two Kathleen hopes will understand that the wrong vote will cost $1M-$2M in a time when the city is also asking to raise taxes. John Like last time, the current majority would probably spend millions in attorney's fees if we let them. They'll snub the community if they can. (An FYI in case you hadn't heard, No on B's first financial report showed that Katleen Kelly spent nearly $1,000 of her own money against Yes, Sabby and Gina spent almost $1,000 each from their campaign accounts. The last we knew, Jan's campaign consultant who ran No on B was still owed $3,000, which looks like Jan financed most of No's budget). We'll win this from the high ground sticking to the facts. Siegel https://riversiderecord.org/palm-desert-city-council-seeks-information-about-delaying-districting-effort/ 2B Public Comment-16 A timeline of the districting conversation in Palm Desert. 2B Public Comment-17 A timeline of the districting conversation in Palm Desert. -- Linda Joy Salas (CalBRE: 01192416) 760-625-5129 ljoysalas@gmail.com 2B Public Comment-18 2B Public Comment-19 2B Public Comment-20 2B Public Comment-21 2B Public Comment-22 2B Public Comment-23 2B Public Comment-24 2B Public Comment-25 2B Public Comment-26 2B Public Comment-27 2B Public Comment-28 2B Public Comment-29 2B Public Comment-30 2B Public Comment-31 From:Anthony Mejia To:Níamh Ortega Subject:FW: Thursday June 8th city council meeting Date:Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:04:26 AM Attachments:50yearsresized_32178492-0560-4444-b657-c0c208d02055.png . . Anthony Mejia City Clerk 760.776.6304 amejia@palmdesert.gov | www.palmdesert.gov 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA, 92260 . From: Paul Murphy <deswel3539@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:42 PM To: Kathleen Kelly <kmkelly27@hotmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Thursday June 8th city council meeting Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Murphy <deswel3539@icloud.com> Subject: Thursday June 8th city council meeting Date: June 7, 2023 at 4:41:01 PM PDT To: CouncilMeetingsComments@palmdesert.gov My wife and I have been residents of Palm Desert since 1984, and we’ve been very pleased at how smoothly and efficiently the city has been run. When you look at the valley over the last fifty years it’s obvious that Palm Desert has been managed better than any of the nine desert cities, no scandals, no financial disasters, no calamities since it’s inception. By having two districts is a little different, but the basic structure is close to the same. The city has elected very capable people over the years to the city council. If the city would split into five districts we would over the next few years lose two council members because four of the present council members live in what obviously would be the same two districts. In our opinion all we would be doing by making a change would be most likely eliminating some very qualified people who are doing an excellent job. Lets keep Palm Desert the same outstanding city it is and has been for fifty years. 2B Public Comment-32 Please leave well enough alone. Thank you for your consideration, Mary Lee and Paul Murphy 73064 Skyward Way 2B Public Comment-33 2B Public Comment-34 2B Public Comment-35 2B Public Comment-36 2B Public Comment-37 2B Public Comment-38 2B Public Comment-39 2B Public Comment-40 2B Public Comment-41 2B Public Comment-42 2B Public Comment-43 2B Public Comment-44 2B Public Comment-45 2B Public Comment-46 2B Public Comment-47 2B Public Comment-48 From:oilbz@aol.com To:CouncilMeeting Comments Subject:Implementing Districts Date:Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:12:28 AM June 8, 2023 11:09 AM I am sending this email in support of Mayor Kelly's suggestion to implement transitioning to districts for fair and balanced representation. I am a full time citizen of City of Palm Desert -- have lived here 22 years. I am opposed to rank-choice voting. Bette Yee 449 Desert Holly Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92211 I live in Indian Ridge Country Club Full time resident of the city. 2B Public Comment-49 From:Jo Anne Grunow To:CouncilMeeting Comments Subject:Council Meeting June 8, 2023- Palm Desert Citizen Comments Date:Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:53:00 AM Dear Mayor Kelly and Honorable City Council, I write in favor of Mayor Kelly's suggestion to transition to districts in a thoughtful way. Her proposal will help the City move to districts as the north part of the City builds out. This will give the City time to implement districts well and not in a rushed way. It will also ensure that the districts provide fair and balanced representation. I strongly oppose ranked choice voting. It is terribly confusing and unfair to voters. I trust the council will use logic and fairness in their decisions on behalf of Palm Desert citizens. Dr. Jo Anne Grunow 73395 Cabazon Peak Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Joagru@msn.com Cell: 760-799-4258 Sent from Mail for Windows 2B Public Comment-50 Redistricting Options City of Palm Desert June 8, 2023 City Council Follow-Up Can the City Council submit a ballot measure to authorize the City to conduct mid-cycle redistricting Can the City Council submit a ballot measure to require the City to transition to more numerous smaller districts upon completion of 60% of new residential projects, north of Country Club Drive On May 25, 2023, the City Council requested a feasibility analysis regarding: First-Time Districting Court Order Charter Amendment A council may adopt districts between federal censuses if adopting districts for the first time A court orders the council to redistrict A charter city has adopted different rules for mid-cycle redistricting in the charter Legal Analysis Under the FAIR Maps Act, a City is prohibited from adjusting district boundaries until the 2030 Census, except under the following circumstances: Mid-Cycle Redistricting: Charter Amendment Charter Amendment Yes, the City Council may submit a ballot measure asking voters to authorize mid-cycle redistricting. If approved, this would allow the City to transition to more numerous districts and ensures compliance with Elections Code § 21625. May be submitted at any statewide election: March 2024, Presidential Primary November 2024, Presidential/General Municipal Election Future Statewide Election Date Future Residential Development in North Palm Desert North Palm Desert - Residential Development Development Services Department provided a residential project map depicting projects which are under construction or approved, north of Country Club Drive. 1,683 new units under construction 2,517 units approved 4,200 Units Total (60% = 2,520 units) 8,904 population increase (based on 2.12 persons per unit and 100% occupancy) Shall the City Charter be amended to allow City Council redistricting prior to the 2030 Federal Census, in order to adjust the City’s electoral system from the current two districts to more numerous smaller districts, when an additional 2,520 residential units located north of Country Club Drive receive certificates of occupancy? Yes No Triggering Metric to Commence Redistricting Residential Development to Trigger Commencement of Redistricting Sample Ballot Question - For illustrative purposes only: Yes, the City Council may submit a ballot measure asking voters require the City to transition to more numerous smaller districts contingent upon reaching a specific metric such as a certain percentage of completed residential developments, north of Country Club Drive. Shall the City Charter be amended to allow City Council redistricting prior to the 2030 Federal Census, in order to adjust the City’s electoral system from the current two districts to more numerous smaller districts, when the City reaches an estimated population of 56,510 as reported by the California Department of Finance? Yes No Triggering Metric to Commence Redistricting Population Growth to Trigger Commencement of Redistricting Sample Ballot Question - For illustrative purposes only: If the City Council desires to use 60% of projected residential units, that equates to a population growth of 5,343. 2020 Census Population Estimate: 51,167 Target Population: 56,510 (as reported by the CA Dept. of Finance) Alternatively, the City Council may submit a ballot measure which triggers the commencement of redistricting based on future population growth. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Federal and state Law do not require the use of RCV. However, arguably for the duration of the settlement agreement, which is enforceable through 2030, the City has obligated itself to keep RCV even if it transitions to more numerous smaller districts. If the City Council desires to eliminate RCV before 2030, it will require agreement from the plaintiffs. Similarly, if the plaintiffs want to ensure the extended use of RCV beyond 2030, that will require some provision in the outcomes under discussion, such as a Charter amendment. The Number of Smaller Districts The City Council indicated that the potential ballot questions should be phrased in a manner that leaves the number of "smaller districts" to a future City Council to decide whether to transition to some other confirguration, such as: Five districts, six districts w/ at-large mayor; or seven districts However, the settlement agreement only envisioned the City Council consisting of five members. Therefore, if the triggering metric is reached during the term of the settlement agreement, the City must renegotiate with the plaintiffs and the court must approve any transition to smaller districts, other than five single member districts. Charter Amendment Triggering Metric Ranked Choice Voting Yes, the City Council may submit a ballot measure as a means to allow mid-cycle redistricting Yes, the City Council may submit a ballot measure to trigger redistricting based on a specific metric Elimination of RCV prior to 2030, requires agreement from the plaintiffs In Summary The City Council may submit ballot measure(s) to allow mid-cycle redistricting and to trigger redistricting based on a specific metric. However, the City is obligated to transition to five districts and retain RCV, unless agreed upon by the plaintiffs and court. For Consideration: Maintain Existing Two (2) District System Four (4) Districts + At-Large Mayor Five (5) Districts Rely on existing judgment as authority to go to 5 districts; or Seek a Charter Amendment to allow mid-cycle districting; or Seek an amended judgment/court order If PD should be divided into smaller districts, what is the path forward: Retain or seek elimination of Ranked Choice Voting? Demographer Selection Recommendation: National Demographic Corporation Should Palm Desert be divided into smaller districts? What is the preferred path forward for mid-cycle districting? Ranked Choice Voting Demographer Selection Attachment 1 City of Palm Desert Residential Project Status – May 2023 For the purpose of information displayed in the table: • Only projects which have begun construction/grading, and or have an active entitlement have been included in this map. These totals are subject to change if and when new residential projects are approved, or if existing approved entitlements lapse (expire). • Population projections are based on the total unit count multiplied by the average household size located in the City of Palm Desert per the US Census Bureau's data complied under the 2021 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. These totals are based on 100% occupancy rate. Regarding estimated unit completion: We estimate that the 1,683 dwelling units currently under construction, which represent 40% of the total unit count, will be completed within the next 24 months. The remaining 2,517 dwellings, representing 60% of the total, are at varying stages in the post-entitlement process and it is anticipated that construction of those sites would begin within 24 to 36 months, and achieve buildout within 60 months. The ultimate unit count may change as new projects are approved, or lapse. Map ID Project Name Residential Type Status Unit Count Population A Urban Crossings Multi-family Approved 176 373 B Sage Single-family Under Construction 111 235 C Palm Villas Multi-family Approved 241 511 D Millennium Apartments Multi-family Under Construction 330 700 E Vitalia Apartments Multi-family Under Construction 269 570 F Santa Barbara Condominiums Single-family Approved 32 68 G Montage Single-family Under Construction 63 134 H University Park Lennar Single-family Under Construction 196 416 I Gerald Ford Apartments Multi-family Under Construction 150 318 J Frank Sinta Drive/ Portola Avenue Apartments Multi-family Approved 394 835 K Dolce Single-family Under Construction 159 337 L Refuge Specific Plan Single-family Approved 700 1484 M University Park Apartments Multi-family Approved 336 712 N University Park Phase Four Multi-family Approved 183 388 O University Park Phase Two Single-family Under Construction 169 358 P University Park Phase One Single-family Under Construction 236 500 Q University Park Phase Three Single-family Approved 145 307 R Monterey Ridge Multi-family Approved 227 481 S Desert Surf Villas Single-family Approved 83 176 Total Units 4,200 Projected Population (2.12 persons per unit) 8,904 I VICINITY MAP Dina h S h o re D r Va r ne r R dMonterey Marketplace ShepherdLnDi nah S hore DrGateway Dr 35t h Ave Frank S inatra Dr Ger ald F ord D r Portola AveVa rn e r Rd MontereyAveMonterey AveSuncrest Country Club Marriott's Shadow Ridge Desert Willow C o unt r y C l u b D r Ivey Ranch Country Club Sweetwater DrCow boy D r CookStVa r ner R d F r an k S inat ra D r Gerald F o rd D r Ivey Ranch Country Club Classic Club Golf Course Avondale Country Club Desert Falls Country Club CSU San Bernardino-Palm Desert UCR Palm Desert Campus Country C lub D r A - 176 B - 111 C - 241 D - 330E - 269 F - 32 G - 63 H - 196 I - 150 J - 394 K - 159 L - 700 M - 336 N - 183 O - 169 P - 236 Q - 145 R - 227 S - 83 Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Copyright nearmap 2015 Residential Project Status - May 2023 Approved Under Construction Units: 2,517 / Projected Pop. 5,336 Units: 1,683 / Projected Pop. 3,568 Map ID Project Name Residential Type Status Unit Count Population A Urban Crossings Multi-family Approved 176 373 B Sage Single-family Under Construction 111 235 C Palm Villas Multi-family Approved 241 511 D Millennium Apartments Multi-family Under Construction 330 700 E Vitalia Apartments Multi-family Under Construction 269 570 F Santa Barbara Condominiums Single-family Approved 32 68 G Montage Single-family Under Construction 63 134 H University Park Lennar Single-family Under Construction 196 416 I Gerald Ford Apartments Multi-family Under Construction 150 318 J Frank Sinta Drive/Portola Avenue Apartments Multi-family Approved 394 835 K Dolce Single-family Under Construction 159 337 L Refuge Specific Plan Single-family Approved 700 1484 M University Park Apartments Multi-family Approved 336 712 N University Park Phase Four Multi-family Approved 183 388 O University Park Phase Two Single-family Under Construction 169 358 P University Park Phase One Single-family Under Construction 236 500 Q University Park Phase Three Single-family Approved 145 307 R Monterey Ridge Multi-family Approved 227 481 S Desert Surf Villas Single-family Approved 83 176 4,200 8,904 Total Units Projected Population (2.12 persons per unit) Cultural Resources Preservation Committee 2023/2024 Workplan Goals Priority Ranking CITY COUNCIL JUNE 8, 2023 6/8/2023 AGENDA ITEM 2C 12C Presentation-1 Background –Why are we here? •Receive Committee Member Input and Direction Pertaining to Goals and Priorities For the Fiscal Year 2023 –2024 Goal •November 9, 2022 –Meeting to discuss work plan •GIS, Mills Act, Certified Local Government (CLG), Survey •May 5, 2023 –Special Meeting to set the goals •5 goals identified 6/8/2023 AGENDA ITEM 2C 22C Presentation-2 Work Plan 6/8/2023 AGENDA ITEM 2C 3 Priority Next Steps /Resources Cost 1.50th Anniversary events,City events,and Modernism Week to include: •Explore creation of yard signs or similar device for residential properties 50 years or older Assign a subcommittee to work with public affairs regarding modernism week. CRPC will establish a subcommittee to plan for event participation during 2023. None anticipated. 2.Update and maintain inventory of current historical landmarks and make them available on the City’s website. •Convert the existing driving tour document to a searchable document and reformat •Provide a brochure on the website with links to informational resources on how to research a historic structure. Staff will update maps of historic resources and landmark districts to show locations on the City website using existing ESRI software resources. None anticipated. 3.Establish a historic resources survey and a Citywide historic context statement. Staff will seek a consultant to prepare the survey and statement. $40,000 which was previously budgeted and allocated to the preparation of Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing may be re-allocated to the preparation this survey. $40,000 2C Presentation-3 Work Plan 6/8/2023 AGENDA ITEM 2C 4 4.Seek certified local government (CLG)designation Staff will assess the potential to file an application and hire a consultant to prepare the application.Final approval of the application will require City CouncilApproval. $30,000 5.Continue to review Mills Act Contracts and consider requesting the Council modify or remove the application limits established by Resolution No.2011-1. Staff will amend the resolution establishing the application process,and review procedures to implement the Mills Act by increasing the number of preservation agreements the City may enter into per calendar year or removing the requirement altogether. No direct cost at this time. Fiscal impacts will be assessed at time the resolution is modified. Priority Next Steps /Resources Cost 2C Presentation-4 Conclusion 6/8/2023 AGENDA ITEM 2C 5 1.Receive and file the 2023/2024 Annual Work Plan for the Cultural Resource Preservation Committee. 2.Direct staff to amend the Resolution establishing the existing limit on the total number of Mills Act Contracts accepted per year. 2C Presentation-5 Discussion 6/8/2023 AGENDA ITEM 2C 62C Presentation-6 Request for direction on potential use of Recycle Fund monies for FY 2023/2024 residential solid waste and recycling rates. 2F Presentation-1 Background •August 26,2021 –City Council held a Study Session to discuss contract negotiations related to the solid waste and recycling franchise agreement and information related to SB 1383. During this meeting a subcommittee was formed to provide staff guidance on various items related to contract negotiations. •March 10,2022 –City Council approved an amended franchise agreement with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services along with proposed increases to solid waste and recycling service rates through July 1,2025. •At that meeting, it was suggested by the subcommittee that the City Council later consider spending approximately $2 million from the Recycle Fund to create a gradual increase to residential rates. 2F Presentation-2 Approved Residential Rate Increases through July 1, 2025 Effective Date Monthly Increase Per Residence July 1,2023 $4.71 (actual rate w/CPI Adjustment) July 1,2024 $2.43 + CPI Adjustment July 1,2025 $0.63 + CPI Adjustment *Listed rates are without Recycle Fund offset 2F Presentation-3 Options for Consideration July 1, 2023, Residential Rate Increase No Offset Offset by $1.00 per customer Offset by $1.50 per customer Offset by $2.00 per customer Total Increase $4.71 Total Increase $3.71 Total Increase $3.21 Total Increase $2.71 Cost to Recycle Fund $0.00 *Cost to Recycle Fund $360,000 *Cost to Recycle Fund $540,000 *Cost to Recycle Fund $720,000 **$2,030,905 **$1,670,905 **$1,490,905 **$1,310,905 *Estimated annual Recycle Fee paid to the City by Burrtec is $240,000. Difference to be paid by the City to Burrtec from the Recycle Fund. **Ending cash balance (estimated) in FY 2027/2028 from attached Five Year Cash Flow Analysis –Recycle Fund 2F Presentation-4 Recycle Fund •According to the cash flow analysis included with the staff report,the projected annual revenue is less than the projected expenditures anticipated to run the program which includes HHW facility operating costs, various consultant services,and several items related to SB 1383 such as contract administration for edible food recovery organizations, organics waste procurement, enforcement (scheduled to begin in 2024),and consultants to assist with overall compliance. 2F Presentation-5 Recommendation •Given that significant reduction of this fund could result in having to use General Fund monies for these mandated services,along with the fact that Palm Desert’s residential rate is the lowest in the Coachella Valley,staff’s recommendation is to not utilize Recycle Fund monies to offset the rate increase. 2F Presentation-6 Coachella Valley Cities Solid Waste and Recycling Residential Rate Comparison City Monthly Rate Effective Palm Desert $19.84 FY 23/24 (Proposed) La Quinta $21.10 (plus CPI)FY 23/24 Indio $22.43 FY 23/24 Indian Wells $25.37 FY 23/24 Cathedral City $25.69 2023 Calendar Year Palm Springs $25.93 FY 22/23 Rancho Mirage $28.91 FY 23/24 (Proposed) Coachella $29.94 FY 22/23 Desert Hot Springs $42.80 FY 22/23 2F Presentation-7